Professional Documents
Culture Documents
M.H.E. Weippert
Editor-in-Chief
Thomas Schneider
Editors
VOLUME 26
xvi
table of contents
Irene J. Winter
Edited by
Jack Cheng
Marian H. Feldman
LEIDEN BOSTON
2007
ISSN: 1566-2055
ISBN: 978 90 04 15702 6
Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints BRILL, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands
table of contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Editors Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
xiii
xv
Introduction
Introduction
Jack Cheng and Marian H. Feldman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Personal Perspective on Irene Winters Scholarly Career
John M. Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Picturing the Past, Teaching the Future
Michelle I. Marcus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
35
3
13
47
69
101
133
vi
table of contents
161
179
205
229
265
295
317
363
369
411
table of contents
Biblical mllot, Akkadian millatum, and Eating Ones Fill
Abraham Winitzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Portraits of Objects
Jack Cheng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From Mesopotamia to Modern Syria: Ethnoarchaeological
Perspectives on Female Adornment during Rites of Passage
Amy Rebecca Gansell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Ninety-Degree Rotation of the Cuneiform Script
Benjamin Studevent-Hickman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vii
423
437
449
485
515
viii
table of contents
list of contributors
ix
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Jlide Aker is a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard Universitys Department
of History of Art and Architecture. Currently, shes finishing her
dissertation on the ideological effects of Assurbanipals monumental
lion hunt reliefs.
Julia Assante (Ph.D. 2000, Columbia University) has written on eroticism, sexuality and magic in the ancient Near East. A number of her
essays are targeted at the widespread distortions in scholarship that
impose over-sexualized interpretations (e.g. prostitution) on women
in Mesopotamian images and texts.
Mehmet-Ali Ata is assistant professor of Classical and Near Eastern
Archaeology at Bryn Mawr College.
Jack Cheng received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 2001 for his thesis
Assyrian Music as Represented and Representations of Assyrian
Music. Based in Boston, he writes for academic and general audiences.
Andrew C. Cohen, Ph.D. (2001) in Near Eastern Archaeology, Bryn
Mawr College, is a Visiting Research Associate in Anthropology at
Brandeis University. He is the author of Death Rituals, Ideology, and the
Development of Early Mesopotamian Kingship: Toward a New Understanding
of Iraqs Royal Cemetery of Ur (Styx/Brill 2005).
Elif Denel received her Ph.D. in 2006 from the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology at Bryn Mawr College with a
dissertation entitled Development of Elite Cultures and Sociopolitical Complexity in Early Iron Age Kingdoms of Northern Syria and
Southeastern Anatolia.
Marian H. Feldman is associate professor of Near Eastern art at the
University of California at Berkeley. She received her Ph.D. in Fine
Arts from Harvard University in 1998 and is the author of Diplomacy
by Design: Luxury Arts and an International Style in the Ancient Near East,
1400-1200 BCE (2006).
list of contributors
list of contributors
xi
Stephanie Reed is a Ph.D. candidate in Mesopotamian Art and Archaeology at the University of Chicago, Near Eastern Languages and
Civilizations Department. Since 2004, she has been a visiting scholar
in the History of Art and Architecture Department at Harvard University. She is writing her dissertation on hospitality and gift-exchange
in the court reliefs of Persepolis.
John Malcolm Russell received his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1985, working under the supervision of Irene Winter. He
teaches the art of the ancient Near East and Egypt at Massachusetts
College of Art in Boston. He has written four books and numerous
articles, primarily on the subject of Neo-Assyrian art.
Ann Shafer is assistant professor in the Performing and Visual Arts
Department and Director of the Art Program at the American University in Cairo. She holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University in the
History of Art & Architecture, an M.A. in Ancient Near Eastern
Languages and Archaeology from the University of Chicago, and
an M.Arch. from the Rhode Island School of Design.
T. M. Sharlach is assistant professor in the History Department at
Oklahoma State University. Her 1999 dissertation was published by
Brill in 2003 as Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State.
Benjamin Studevent-Hickman is a Research Associate at the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago. He received his Ph.D. in Assyriology from Harvard in March 2006.
Claudia E. Suter received her Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1995. Her revised dissertation was published by Styx in 2000 as
Gudeas Temple Building: The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler
in Text and Image. She served four years as coordinator of the Diyala
Project at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and is
currently working on a complete catalogue and study of the ivory
carvings from Samaria, Israel. Her main interest lies in ancient Near
Eastern images and texts as reflections and expressions of philosophy
of life, identity, ideology and power.
xii
list of contributors
table of contents
xiii
EDITORS NOTE
The editors chose not to impose particular rules of transliteration,
spelling or dates, although contributors have been consistent within
their papers. Akkadian and foreign phrases are rendered in italics,
and Sumerian is set in Helvetica bold font. References are listed at
the end of each article, and abbreviations follow the standard forms
found in the Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago (CAD), the American Journal of Archaeology (AJA), and the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI, found on-line at http://cdli.
ucla.edu).
xiv
table of contents
table of contents
xv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This volume owes its existence to many people, just a few of whom
are singled out here.
Kathryn Slanski and John Russell contributed as editors in the
initial stages; although various commitments drew them away, both
of them helped shape the scope of the project, including the list of
contributors.
Jlide Aker compiled Irenes bibliography for this volume, with
assistance from John Russell and Brian Brown.
All the contributors pitched in in numerous different wayscommenting on one anothers papers, fielding questions in their areas of
expertise and offering practical advice.
Michiel Klein Swormink at Brill has been extremely generous with
his time and patient with us throughout the editing process.
Over the course of this project, more than half a dozen babies were
welcomed by contributors, in addition to numerous other life-changing
events; we thank them and all the friends and families for letting their
parents, partners, etc. spend some time reading and writing.
Jack relied on the support, encouragement and good sense of his
wife, Julie M. Crosson. Likewise, Marian is deeply grateful to James
Berger for his constant support. Thank you.
xvi
table of contents
introduction
Introduction
introduction
INTRODUCTION
Jack Cheng and Marian H. Feldman
Irene Winter is widely recognized as the seminal scholar of ancient
Near Eastern art of her generation, in large part due to the limitless
imagination of her scholarship and her insistence on the materials
relevance in art historical and Mesopotamian studies. She began her
career with a magisterial dissertation on North Syrian ivories that
immediately established her commitment to an understanding of Near
Eastern art through a contextualizing lens. She subsequently turned
her attention to Neo-Assyrian arts and in particular the throneroom
of Ashurnasirpal II at Nimrud. Building on the work of Julian Reade,
Mario Liverani and others, Irene broke fresh ground in proposing
the expression of a coherent Assyrian ideological system by means of
a programmatic architectural, visual and textual design. Similarly, in
her work on Gudea of Lagash, she brought text and image together
and forged them through her familiarity with ethnography to reframe
a study of statuary into a consideration of living idols that required
care and maintenance. Again and again, objects that seem to have exhausted their store of historical information become not deconstructed
but re-constructed under Irenes gaze, opening up new possibilities
for understanding them. Fully engaged in the Near Eastern sources
while drawing upon theoretical approaches from numerous disciplines
rarely brought together, Irene arrives at conclusions that had never
before been considered and that irrevocably alter the way we see
the artifacts under study. In addition, she has taken care to publish
her papers in a range of journals and essay collections so that the
material reaches the greatest audience and so that discussions of the
theories and ideas presented enter a diversity of fields and disciplines
where they may be further tested and applied.
At the same time, Irene has always taken her pedagogical responsibilities seriously and has shared her teaching across a wide spectrum of
eager acolytes. For that reason, when several of her students considered
what form of tribute would be fitting for her, they decided that a
volume of essays, written and edited by the younger generation that
introduction
So stories about Irene dont show another side of her, they tend to
reveal her depths, her strengths and her foibles.
As her students, Irenes scholarship impresses us, but it is her character that inspires us. Naturally, she is called upon by many people,
committees and groups for her advice and expertise, and it can sometimes be hard for individual students to find a moment with her. But
when they do, they know that theyll have her to themselves, that shell
have read in detail everything they have written and she will listen
intently to whatever they have to say and respond instantly from her
gut and give them a useful answer. And theyll know if their argument
or idea made an impression because Irene will reference it, always
giving credit, in a lecture or a footnote; Irene is never prouder than
when she can publicly cite the work of a student or young scholar.
She can be intense. She talks faster than most people can think.
A conversation with Irene sometimes feels like a tennis match: youd
do well to warm up first and then as things go along, you might find
that your skill level improves as you try to match her shot for volley.
It can be a surprise for new students to find out that her husband
BobRobert C. Huntcan be more intense than his wife; listening to
them talkabout research or computers or gardeningone sometimes
feels like one can see the ideas flying through the air, growing and
reforming and coming into sharper focus each minute. Bob and Irene
clearly belong together, always taking each other very seriously except
for the times when they dont take each other seriously at all.
Lest this introduction seem too cloying, we need to state that Irene
is hardly perfect. But what makes her example so worthy of emulation is that she recognizes her imperfections and is not afraid to share
her problems with you, to allow herself to be vulnerable. One of the
editors remembers talking with an art history graduate student who
had just decided to leave Harvard. This student did not specialize
in ancient Near Eastern art but had just had a talk with Irene in
Irenes capacity as graduate student advisor. We talked, the student
said, about how hard it is to live the life of a scholar while having a
family. Irene listened respectfully to the student and made the case
for staying in the program, but ultimately she simply let the student
speak her mind and then shared her own thoughts on the complex
balance of life and work. We cried, the student recalled, I think it
was the first time I had been to Irenes office to do anything but get
a signature and we talked and cried for an hour.
introduction
introduction
outside and inside state sponsored sacred sites were critical to the
establishment and perpetuation of an Urartian royal ideology.
10
introduction
11
1
We had to limit the bibliography of Irenes scholarship provided at the end of
this introductory section to works through 2005; however, her corpus continues to
grow as we know of several works in press and others in progress.
12
j.m. russell
a personal perspective
13
14
j.m. russell
Near Eastern specialist to be appointed in the History of Art department, and her appointment probably wouldnt have happened without
lobbying from outside the department. Even so, she was expected to
teach not only the Near East and Egypt, but Greece and Rome as
well. I believe she considered these latter areas to be distractions from
her main area of interest, but I wonder to what extent this obligatory
immersion in the art of Greece and, especially, Rome influenced her
later inquiries on narrative, portraiture, and empire? After years of
teaching all of ancient art, she was able to negotiate the addition of a
classical specialist, at which point the ancient Near Eastern art history
position came into its own and continued as one of Irenes enduring
legacies to the field, even after her departure to accept another position in Near Eastern art history created specially for her, this time at
Harvard University.
Looking through my notes from Ancient Mesopotamia, the first
course I took with Irene in Fall 1976, Im struck by the themes already there that she would develop in her research over the following
years: hierarchy in the Warka vase, landscape elements in the stele
of Naram-Sin, the strong arm of Gudea, the royal presentation scene
on Ur III seals, the relief program of Assurnasirpal IIs throne room.
Apart from the content of the lectures themselves, my notes from that
term remind me of two other remarkable aspects of Irenes teaching.
First, at the beginning of each lecture, she handed out a comprehensive bibliography for the period to be covered. These averaged three
typed pages in length (and in those days they were indeed typed), with
a full six pages devoted to the Neo-Assyrian period, and covered not
only artistic media, but also excavation reports and cultural/historical
studies. The first 2 pages were devoted to method and theory, including studies of style, narrative, semiotics, and reception, a foretaste of
the rich range of methodologies that Irene was drawing upon in her
investigations of ancient Near Eastern art.
Although I didnt think about it at the time, in retrospect I believe
these bibliographies were critical to bringing students into the study of
the field, serving as they did both to summarize the state of knowledge
and to highlight gaps where one might make a contribution. Gaps
there were aplenty. Its stunning to see how much has been added in
the past thirty years, due in no small measure to the work of Irene herselfthe 26 pages of bibliography that Irene distributed to us in 1976
contained exactly one entry by Irene J. Winter! These bibliographies,
a personal perspective
15
16
j.m. russell
a personal perspective
17
she discounts the evidence of her eyes, only that she distrusts it, or at
least thats what this student learned from her.
The third tool that Irene urged her students to develop was a
hands-dirty familiarity with archaeological fieldwork practice. She gave
us two reasons for this. First, you cant critically read an excavation
report unless youve experienced the process that generates one, and
second, you can learn a lot about the way ancient people lived by
living in the same environment yourself. I resisted this expectation at
first, presumably imagining I had better things to do, but gradually
the idea caught on as I discovered what is, for me, the fundamental
difference between art history and archaeology: as an art historian,
you chose the data set for your research; as an archaeologist, you dig
and the data set chooses you. It strikes me that these three tools may
derive from her own scholarly upbringing in three different disciplines:
BA in Anthropology, MA in Oriental Languages and Literature, and
PhD in Art History.
Irenes scholarly career has been characterized by one landmark
study after another. In my ancient Near Eastern art classes, Ive always
assigned a large selection of required articles, and so many of them are
by Irene that students joke that I might as well call the course reading
Irene Winter. Nevertheless, a few points in her career stand out for
me as major watersheds. One such was her receipt of the MacArthur
Prize and ensuing study of Sumerian, which led to a series of startlingly
original articles on Sumerian monuments and culture.
Another was the publication of Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in Neo-Assyrian Reliefs in 1981, which
at the time just overwhelmed me with its richness of new ideas and
methodologies. This was her first article to be written for a nonspecialist theory-sophisticated audience. It simultaneously reframed
a number of major issues for those who work in the field of ancient
Near Eastern art, while bringing the field and its issues to the attention of a new audience. The interdisciplinarity of her approach even
carried over to her unorthodox reference system, which used both
social-science-style author references in the text and lengthy humanities-style notes at the end.
This is the first time I recall her employing a motif that recurs
throughout her work, namely the structuring of her subject in triads of
related elements. Royal Rhetoric begins with a summary of received
opinion on the elements of narrative (contenttellingnarrative),
18
j.m. russell
and then goes on to formulate a new and very powerful theory of political expression (ideologyrhetoricpropaganda). A similar approach
figures in her various discussions of the concept of style (makerobjectperceiver) and aesthetics (makingappearanceaffect). All of
these formulations, it occurs to me, derive from the very human structure ideaexpressionreception, and the even more fundamental
selfcommunicationothers. For Irene, I think, the big question
isnt what is art about? but rather how does art communicate?
Other watersheds were the series of trips she took to India beginning in the mid-1980s, resulting in her development of a rigorous
ethnographic approach to investigating ancient Mesopotamian ritual
practice (Opening the Eyes and Opening the Mouth, 2000), and her
ongoing interest in Mesopotamian aesthetics, triggered by I dont know
what. In all of this work her research defined new areas of inquiry that
have enriched our understanding of the past, and of ourselves. I recall
a recent discussion of her Aesthetics in Ancient Mesopotamian Art
(1995) in one of my classes at Massachusetts College of Art. Irenes
article makes the point that since the Mesopotamians apparently lacked
an explicit concept of art, classical aesthetic approaches to appreciating their artifacts are anachronistic. She therefore proposes that we
consider their handiwork in terms of the categories of quality that they
themselves valued, namely making, appearance, and affect. Several
of my students, artists all, observed that this seemed to them to be a
superior way to evaluate any art, especially their own.
Finally, to conclude, Irenes influence on the field extends far beyond
her scholarship and teaching. Her professional activities by themselves
would seem to constitute a full-time job. Active on numerous committees of the Archaeological Institute of America and the College Art
Association (where for years she has represented ancient Near Eastern
art history pretty much singlehandedly), member of the editorial board
of half a dozen journals, and one of the founders of the International
Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, she represents
the ancient Near East to a wide range of professional audiences and
works tirelessly to promote causes for the well-being of the field.
Foremost among these causes is the issue of the illicit trade in
antiquities and its destructive consequences for us, as humans and
as students of antiquity. I have class lecture notes from 1978 where
Irene digressed from the topic (Achaemenid Art) to educate us on the
difference between provenanced and unprovenanced objects, and to
a personal perspective
19
20
m.i. marcus
21
22
m.i. marcus
labyrinth-like markings framing the facial features. And, like the Greek
Gorgon after him, once disembodied, the head of Humbaba became
a protective amulet. Irene, of course, knew the affective power of visual things. Although open access to the precious cedar wood of the
Lebanon didnt mean to me what it did to the residents of southern
Mesopotamia, that artifact nevertheless carried with it an arsenal of
meaning that still stays with me: about one incredible teacher; about
hope, healing and heroism; and about the relationship between the
context of an object and its meaning.
To fully appreciate this incident one has to realize that it followed a
year of phone conversations about the Gilgamesh Epic between Irene
Winter and myself, a seventeen-year-old undergraduate, temporarily confined to bed. We talked for hours about big intellectual ideas,
about the creation of hybrid monsters in the ancient Near East and
the concomitant rise of the early state. She even had me call Professor
Gregory Johnson in the Anthropology Department at Hunter College
to talk about my notion that the popularity of hybrid human and
animal creatures in the art of the third millennium BCE was related
to new needs to harness the forces of nature for the purposes of city
life. This experience summarizes for me all the qualities that make
Irene Winter such a phenomenal teacher: her humanity, kindness
and spirit; her generosity; her respect for her students; her sense of
collaboration; her ability to see the big picture; her skill at pulling
compelling ideas out of even the most rudimentary visual materials;
her infectious excitement about the power of visual things; her interest in the relationship between texts and images; her insistence on
the importance of context; her ability to pull all the pieces together
in a cohesive, convincing way; and her evolving commitment to the
methods of art history.
Irene Winters approach to teaching the art history of the ancient
Near East is so extraordinary that it has provided her students with
a vast range of ideas to explore. As this volume indicates, her influence has encouraged generations of scholars to pursue broad issues
of gender, sexuality, narrative, aesthetics, power, program, ideology,
kingship, iconography and style, as well as particular and detailed
studies of cylinder seals, sculpture in the round, relief-sculpture, inscriptions and pedagogy. She has us all turning the visual evidence
upside down and inside out, always with an emphasis on the context
of the materialhistorical, social, cultural and archaeological.
23
With the generous permission and support of Robert H. Dyson, Jr., director
of the Hasanlu excavations.
24
m.i. marcus
25
26
m.i. marcus
Including, to date: Tracy Fedochnik, Margaret OConnor, Mary Smeltzer, Barbara Cramer, Jody Seifert, Karen Bass, Scott Lerner, Ben Lesch, Fred White and Laura Haddad.
5
This curriculum, including an archaeology component, has been adapted with a
small budget by Pamela Weinreich and Denise Jordan for a third-grade unit on China at PS 158 in New York City. The Dalton program has been discussed previously at
the annual conference of the New York Association of Independent Schools, New York,
2004, as well as at a conference on the AMICO Library K-12 pilot program at Asia
Society, New York, 2003.
6
This work was supported by grants from the AMICO Library (now CAMIO) and
Artstor.
27
one young girl found a blue and white porcelain vase in a simulated
excavation of Kashgar, she was able to find comparanda among our
gallery of fifteenth-century Chinese ceramics and suggest a similar
date and place of production for her own artifact. She then sorted
through our galleries of Islamic paintings and found similar vessels in
a courtly scene in a Timurid manuscript page. She made the intelligent suggestion that her vessel was imported from eastern China and
traveled along the Silk Road to Kashgar, where it was used in elite
courtly settings by individuals wearing decorated garments in highly
decorated palace settings.
Likewise, when a student uncovered a pearl earring in their simulated site at New Amsterdam, she used paintings by Vermeer to suggest that the earring once belonged to a Dutch woman who may have
worn a blue head scarf and sat at a table with a Chinese-style bowl in
a room with Delft tiles along the floor boards. The students are able
to go from here to quite sophisticated conversations about population movement, commercial exchange, inexpensive copies of Chinese
artifacts, wealth and status. The point is that the imagery allows the
students to reach a level of critical thinking that would not have been
possible from texts (especially third-grade texts) alone.
This past year, we tried organizing a third-grade Silk Road curriculum around the concept of style.7 We devoted one week each to
Renaissance Europe, Timurid Persia, Mughal India and Ming China,
in anticipation of the mix of goods the students would be finding in
their simulated excavations of Kashgar. Through a combination of
classroom work and museum trips, the children generated a list of
stylistic attributes for each cultural group. With that list in mind,
they were able to play a style game that the classroom teacher, Tracy
Fedochnik, and I developed. Each child was given a small laminated
card with a telling detail from a larger work of art. The children were
expected to identify the larger cultural group to which the detail belonged and then, with a partner, articulate their reasons: the bend of a
tree, the netted body of a dragon, the perspective in the background.
Ultimately, of course, the goal of the exercise was for the students to
see how elements of style were able to inform their understanding of
long-distance interaction 500 years ago. The notion that third graders
7
For other curricular ideas on the Silk Road, see UNESCO 1997; The Silk Road Student Activity Package 1997; Along the Silk Road: People, Interaction and Cultural Exchange nd.
28
m.i. marcus
could meet this goal came from two sources: the collaboration with a
wonderful classroom teacher and the legacy of Irene Winter.
By the time the children enter Middle School, we expect them to
be visually equipped to address some of the more theoretical concepts
that arise in the history curriculum, such as imperial program, art
and ideology, power and propaganda, and gender and other aspects
of social identity. In the sixth grade, the students study the Iron Age
in Assyria, Greece, and Rome, using a curriculum centered on a
compelling in-house computer program that simulates the excavations of an archaeological site, one based on the Assyrian outpost at
Til Barsip in northern Syria in the first half of the year, the other a
hypothetical Classical Greek site. This was created before my arrival
by the several other Near Eastern archaeologists that we are so lucky
to have on staff at Dalton.8 Obviously, this curriculum was already
heavily driven by visual culture.
Instead, what needed attention when I first joined the staff was a
unit on Bronze Age Mesopotamia, taught in the fifth grade by classroom teachers with little background in the Near East or in how to
use primary visual sources. The initial idea, conceived in collaboration
with the classroom teachers, 9 was to center the curriculum around
the available literature. We let the literature introduce the related
intellectual issues and material culture; for example, Enmerkar and
the Lord of Aratta (K. P. Foster 1999) to raise issues of geography, the
development of cities and long-distance exchange; The Gilgamesh Epic
(Zeman 1998) to talk about concepts of kingship, militarism, building
programs and cultural values; and The Descent of Ishtar (Moore and
8
This program, called Archaeotype, was written by Mary Kate Brown, Neil Goldberg
and William Waldman, with recent revisions by Craig Bolotin. John Russell helped provide the original architectural data from Til Barsip for the Assyrian simulation. See a
description of the program in Gordon 2000. The software has been shared with a school
in California, as well as with John Russell then at Columbia University and Rita Wright
at New York University. Dalton commissioned Donald Sanders (Institute for the Visualization of History) to create and add a virtual simulation of the palace at Til Barsip to
the Archaeotype software, available from dsanders@vizin.com. Our Near Eastern and
archaeology staff includes Goldberg, Brown, myself, as well as Susan Springer and Paul
Zimmerman.
9
Especially Lisa Gross, in addition to Carole Brighton, Sharon Almog, Susan Jaxheimer, Sage Sevilla-Morillo, Lisa Larsen and, more recently, Maria Arellano and Amy
Terpening. As the fifth-grade teachers have become more comfortable with this material, it is a pleasure to see them revise the original curriculum to suit their own teaching
needs and styles.
29
Balit 1996) to bring in goods from the Royal Cemetery at Ur, as well
as issues of death, burial, social stratification and prestige.10 As part
of this curriculum, the students create their own texts, one of which
was the remarkable incantation with which this essay began.
The fifth grade also uses a set of modern impressions of cylinder
seals in the collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library, which Sidney Babcock created for us. These impressions provide a unique opportunity to practice focused looking, sketching and describing in a
classroom setting, as well as to introduce the function of cylinder seals
in the ancient Near East (figures 2, 3). Best of all, the students have
the rare privilege of handling the actual seals in the Morgan Library,
rolling them across wet clay and keeping their baked impressions.11
In the context of a curriculum about the development of cities and the
concomitant rise of craft specialization, long-distance trade, systems of
administration and emblems of prestige, this experience is a remarkable
one. Even in the fifth grade, the students feel the power of handling
3000-year-old objects, just as I did when Edith Porada allowed her
graduate students to handle these same seals in the Morgan Library
and when Irene let me borrow the clay amulet of Humbaba when I
was an undergraduate. The key at any level is providing the proper
contextual information.
The High School is a different animal in some ways, with too much
to cover in too little time and an agenda tied to college admissions.
Nevertheless, collaboration with some of the English teachers has created lovely opportunities to talk in small groups at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art about the relationship between text and image; for
instance, between the Odyssey and Greek male statuary; the Gospel of
Luke and Spanish Baroque paintings; and Willa Cather and contemporary American portraiture (see Johnson 1994). At this point,
10
For other curricular ideas for Mesopotamia, see Oriental Institute of Chicago
2006; Stix and Hrbek 2001; and Marcus and Gross 2000. See also Sumer and its City
State, issue of Calliope (Summer 2003), with articles by Richard L. Zettler and Elizabeth
E. Payne.
11
I am especially grateful to Sidney Babcock, Curator of Seals and Tablets at the
Morgan Library, for providing students at Dalton with this rare opportunity. In a time
when ancient Near Eastern objects are bought and sold on eBay, it is a pleasure to witness how certain collections can be marvelous tools for teaching purposes without the
notion of buying antiquities coming into the picture. Although this opportunity is not
available at most schools, many museums have study collections that are available for
teaching purposes.
30
m.i. marcus
the students are intellectually ready to talk about the affective properties of art, its ability to evoke an emotional response, as well as to
influence the way people think and behave; for example, the way
Baroque representations of the Passion would have made the intended
audience feel and believe the suffering of Christ on a level that the
text alone could not; or the way the perfect athletic male body in
Greek art would have served as a model of the well-fit citizen, ready
to act on behalf of his city state.
What is so compelling about this K-12 program is that it aims to
provide the students with the skills and content of a cultural history
curriculum in a sequential integrated fashion. It seamlessly incorporates
material culture into whatever the students are doing in the classroom,
rather than segregating the images in a class by themselves.12 Part
of what makes the program work and what makes it so much fun to
teach is that it is a team effort. The cultural anthropologist, archaeologist and myself, who have had similar training in different disciplines,
all speak the same intellectual language. We also make every effort
to bring in outside experts, for instance: a manuscript illuminator
to create Medieval or Aztec manuscripts with the third and seventh
graders; actors to recite Civil War poetry to the eighth grade; a costume designer from the High School to create seventeenth-century
British costume with the third graders; Stephen Murray of Columbia
University to talk to the seventh-grade teachers and students about
Amiens Cathedral; and various upper-school historians to talk to the
lower-school students. Most important, we work with extraordinary
classroom teachers and a great technology team, who are willing to
collaborate and share their ideas as well as their students.
Personally, the joy for me is seeing how visual materials can get
youngsters hooked on history; and how the skills I learned from Irene
can be adapted to younger students, who are just as eager as college students to make visual things talk. More important, there exists
an opportunity for collaboration between art historians and K-12
educators: the former can help classroom teachers integrate visual
materials into their history curriculum; and the latter can share their
strategies for active learning. The point is there is room for art historians (even those with a specialty in the ancient Near East) to join
12
An official art history class is offered by Robert Meredith for advanced highschool students.
31
the mainstream. Irene Winter has done so much more than produce
academic scholars. She has produced a generation of students who
knows the value of visual materials, inside and outside the Near East;
who knows that by keeping people in touch with the world and its
history, visual resources can promote a much-needed understanding
of cultural difference.
References
Alexander, Kay, and Michael Dey, eds. 1991. Discipline-Based Art Education: A Curriculum Sampler. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust.
Along the Silk Road: People, Interaction and Cultural Exchange. nd. USC-UCLA Joint East Asian
Studies Center (at http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/sum-inst/links/silkunit.htm).
Burns, Mary. 2006. A Thousand Words: Promoting Teachers Visual Literacy Skills.
Multimedia and Internet@Schools 13: 16-20.
Bersson, Robert, ed. 2005. Building the Literature of Art Pedagogy. CAA News:
Newsletter of the College Art Association 30 (September).
Dobbs, Stephen Mark. 1998. Learning in and through Art. Los Angeles: The Getty
Education Institute for the Arts.
Elkins, James. 2003. Visual Studies: A Skeptical Introduction. New York: Routledge.
Foster, Benjamin. 1996. Before the Muses. Vol. 1. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Foster, Karen Polinger. 1999. The City of Rainbows: A Tale from Ancient Sumer. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications.
Gardner, Howard, and David Perkins, eds. 1989. Art, Mind, and Education: Research
from Project Zero. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Gordon, David T., ed. 2000. The Digital Classroom: How Technology is Changing the Way
We Teach and Learn. Cambridge: Harvard Education Letter.
Johnson, Warren. 1994. American Literature and Interdisciplinary Study. In A
Resource for Educators, an unpublished teachers guide to the exhibition American
Impressionism and Realism: The Painting of Modern Life, 1885-1915. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, unpaginated.
Klein, Joel I. 2006. A Letter to Parents from Chancellor Joel I. Klein. The New York
City Department of Education (June 1).
Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. The Cultural Biography of Things. In The Social Life of Things:
Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. Arjun Appadurai, 64-91. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lidner, Molly M. 2005. Problem-Based Learning in the Art-History Survey Course.
CAA News 30 (September): 7-9, 41-43.
32
m.i. marcus
Marcus, Michelle I. 1993. Incorporating the Body: Adornment, Gender, and Social
Identity in Ancient Iran. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3: 157-178.
. 1988. Emblems of Status and Prestige: The Seals and Sealings from Hasanlu, Iran.
Philadelphia: University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania.
Marcus, Michelle I., and Lisa Gross. 2000. Southern Mesopotamia During the Bronze Age.
Unpublished curriculum package for the fifth grade, The Dalton School (Summer,
revised edition).
McKay, John P., Bennett D. Hill, John Buckler, and Patricia Buckley Ebrey. 2004.
A History of World Societies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Moore, Christopher, and Christina Balit. 1996. Ishtar and Tammuz: A Babylonian Myth
of the Seasons. New York: Kingfisher Books.
Oriental Institute of Chicago. 2006. Mesopotamia: Ancient History, Our History. Chicago
(at http://mesopotamia.lib.uchicago.edu).
Sandell, Renee. 2005. Inspiring Pedagogy: The Art of Teaching Art. CAA News 30
(September): 6-7, 40.
The Silk Road Student Activity Package. 1997. Vancouver BC: North American Multimedia Corporation.
Smith, Roberta. 2006. Should Museums Always Be Free? The New York Times (Sunday, July 22): 7, 13.
Stix, Andi, and Frank Hrbek, 2001. Ancient Mesopotamia. Westminster, CA: Teacher
Created Materials.
UNESCO. 1997. The Silk Roads: Roads of Encounter.
Winter, Irene J., and Henri Zerner. 1995. Art and Visual Culture. Art Journal 54,
no. 3 (Special issue: Rethinking the Introductory Art History Survey, ed. Bradford R. Collins): 42-43.
Yenawine, Philip. 2003. Jump Starting Visual Literacy. Art Education 56/1 (January
31): 6-12. (HTML, distributed by ProQuest Information and Learning).
. 2005. Thoughts on Visual Literacy. In Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy
through the Communicative and Visual Arts, ed. James Flood, Shirley Brice Heath, and
Diane Lapp, 845-846. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zeman, Ludmila. 1998. Gilgamesh the King (The Gilgamesh Trilogy). Toronto: Tundra
Books.
33
Figure 1. View of the middle level of Daltons simulated excavation at Kashgar, third
grade. Photograph courtesy of Neil Goldberg.
34
m.i. marcus
My seal design shows three people, two women and one man in a presentation scene. The first woman is a goddess with a flounced
skirt and a horned headdress. She has her hands up in front of her face. The second figure is a king, who is wearing a ski cap and
a short robe. He is holding a sword and he has very muscular legs. The third figure is Ishtar wearing a robe or dress. She has arrows
coming out of her shoulders and is holding a mace or something. There is also cuneiform on the side.
35
36
1980. A Decorated Breastplate from Hasanlu, Iran: Type, Style, and Context
of an Equestrian Ornament. Hasanlu Special Studies 1, University Museum Monograph 39. Philadelphia: The University Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania.
1981. Is There a South Syrian Style of Ivory Carving in the Early
First Millennium B.C.? Iraq 43: 101-130.
1981. Review of The Nimrud Ivories, by Max E. L. Mallowan. Journal
of Near Eastern Studies 40, no. 4: 351-354.
1981. Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in
Neo-Assyrian Reliefs. Studies in Visual Communication 7, no. 2: 2-38.
1982. Art as Evidence for Interaction: Relations between the Assyrian
Empire and North Syria. In Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: politische und
kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend
v. Chr. / XXV. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Berlin, 3. bis 7. Juli
1978, edited by Hans-Jrg Nissen and Johannes Renger, 355-382.
Berliner Beitrge zum Vorderen Orient 1. Berlin: D. Reimer.
1983. Carchemish a kiad puratti. Anatolian Studies 33 (Special Number in
Honour of the Seventy-fifth Birthday of Dr. Richard D. Barnett, 23rd January,
1984): 177-197.
1983. The Program of the Throneroom of Assurnasirpal II. In Essays
on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson,
edited by Prudence O. Harper and Holly Pittman, 15-31. New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art.
1984. Review of La statuaire du proche-orient ancien, by Agns Spycket.
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 36, no. 1: 102-114.
1985. After the Battle Is Over: The Stele of the Vultures and the Beginning of Historical Narrative in the Art of the Ancient Near East. In
Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, edited by Herbert L.
Kessler and Marianna Shreve Simpson, 11-32. Studies in the History
of Art 16, Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts Symposium
Series 4. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art.
37
38
39
1992. (editor, with Kathleen Ashley.) Art in Ritual Context. Special issue of the Journal of Ritual Studies 6, no. 1. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh.
1993. Review of Bronze and Iron. Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, by Oscar W. Muscarella. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 113, no. 3: 492-495.
1993. Review of The Return of Cultural Treasures, by Jeanette Greenfield.
Art Journal 52, no. 1: 103-107.
1993. Seat of Kingship / A Wonder to Behold: The Palace as
Construct in the Ancient Near East. Ars Orientalis 23 (Special issue:
Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces, edited by Glru Necipolu): 27-55.
1994. Affective Images. In Review Feature: Talismans and Trojan Horses:
Guardian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and Ritual, by Christopher A.
Faraone. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4, no. 2: 279-282.
1994. Radiance as an Aesthetic Value in the Art of Mesopotamia (with
Some Indian Parallels). In Art, the Integral Vision: A Volume of Essays in
Felicitation of Kapila Vatsyayan, edited by B. N. Saraswati, S. C. Malik
and Madhu Khanna, 123-132. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld.
1995. Aesthetics in Ancient Mesopotamian Art. In Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, Vol. 4, 2569-2580. New
York: Charles Scribners Sons.
1995. (with Henri Zerner.) Art and Visual Culture. Art Journal 54,
no. 3 (Special issue: Rethinking the Introductory Art History Survey, edited
by Bradford R. Collins): 42-43.
1995. Homers Phoenicians: History, Ethnography, or Literary Trope?
[A Perspective on Early Orientalism]. In The Ages of Homer: A Tribute
to Emily Townsend Vermeule, edited by Jane B. Carter and Sarah P.
Morris, 247-271. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1995/1996. Review of Les figurines de Suse [Memoires de la Dlgation
Archologique en Iran LII], by Agns Spycket. Archiv fr Orientforschung
42/43: 285-286.
40
41
42
2000. Opening the Eyes and Opening the Mouth: The Utility of
Comparing Images in Worship in India and the Ancient Near East.
In Ethnography and Personhood: Notes from the Field, edited by Michael W.
Meister, 129-162. Jaipur and New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
2000. Le palais imaginaire: Scale and Meaning in the Iconography of
Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seals. In Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural
History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE),
edited by Christoph Uehlinger, 51-87. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
175. Fribourg: Fribourg University Press; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
2000. Thera Paintings and the Ancient Near East: The Private and
Public Domains of Wall Decoration. In The Wall Paintings of Thera.
Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August-4 September 1997, edited by Susan
Sherratt, Vol. 2, 745-762. Athens: Thera Foundation.
2001. Introduction: Glyptic, History, and Historiography. In Seals and
Seal Impressions. Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Part 2, edited by William W. Hallo and Irene J. Winter, 1-13.
Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press.
2001. (editor, with William W. Hallo.) Seals and Seal Impressions, Proceedings
of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Part 2. Bethesda, Md.:
CDL Press.
2002. Defining Aesthetics for Non-Western Studies: The Case of
Ancient Mesopotamia. In Art History, Aesthetics, Visual Studies, edited
by Michael Ann Holly and Keith Moxey, 3-28. Williamstown, Mass.:
Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute; New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
2002. How Tall was Naram-Sns Victory Stele? Speculation on the
Broken Bottom. In Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near
East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen, edited by Erica Ehrenberg,
301-311. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
43
2002. (with Amy Rebecca Gansell.) Treasures from the Royal Tombs of
Ur. Harvard University Art Museums, Gallery Series 36. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Art Museums.
2003. Ornament and the Rhetoric of Abundance in Assyria. EretzIsrael 27 (Special issue in honour of Hayim and Miriam Tadmor,
edited by Peter Machinist et al.): 252-264.
2003. Review of The Ur-Nammu Stela, by Jeanny Vorys Canby.
Journal of the American Oriental Society 123: 402-406.
2003. Surpassing Work: Mastery of Materials and the Value of
Skilled Production in Ancient Sumer. In Culture through Objects: Ancient
Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P. R. S. Moorey, edited by Timothy Potts,
Michael Roaf and Diana Stein, 403-421. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
2004. The Conquest of Space in Time: Three Suns on the Victory
Stele of Naram-Sn. In Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens
Trolle Larsen, edited by J. G. Dercksen, Uitgaven van het Nederlands
Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 100. Leiden: Nederlands
Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
2005. Establishing Group Boundaries: Toward Methodological Refinement in the Determination of Sets as a Prior Condition to the
Analysis of Cultural Contact and/or Innovation in First Millennium
BCE Ivory Carving. In? Crafts and Images in Contact: Studies on Eastern
Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium BCE, edited by Claudia E. Suter
and Christoph Uehlinger, 23-42. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 210.
Fribourg: Academic Press; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
44
I
Seat of Kingship/A Wonder to Behold:
Architectural Contexts
45
46
i. ziffer
47
1
At a tutorial seminar Eclectic Art given by Pirhiya Beck in Israel, Irene Winters
wide-ranging work served as a textbook. Small wonder, therefore, that all the students
looked forward to a special class given jointly by Irene and Pirhiya. Her participation
was an eye-opener to all of us attending. The following discussion, triggered by her
article on Mesopotamian palaces (1993), is offered to Irene with respect and very best
wishes.
2
For gold and copper objects discovered since, and previous literature within see:
Gopher et al. 1990; Gopher 1996, 114-213; Gal et al. 1997; Levy and Shalev 1989;
Shalev and Northover 1987; Namdar et al. 2004.
3
Tadmor (1989, 252; 2002, 142*) suggested that the treasure was the stock of traders
or smiths who handled the trade of such commodities and who acted as intermediaries
between production centers and the Negev sites. Gates (1992, 131) assumed that the
hoard was a store of metal goods whose piece-meal sale was intended to provide for the
families of nomadic pastoralists who wintered in the cave.
48
i. ziffer
The Crowns
49
see also Merhav 1993, 38). Although no round buildings are known
from the Chalcolithic period, Tadmor (1990, 257) also postulates that
the ornate crowns are architectural models, comparing the Nahal
Mishmar hoard crowns with the only so far known round model of a
house of the Chalcolithic period with a doorway and a hearth found
in Cyprus (Peltenburg 1988, 1989). Amiran proposes that these crowns
were too small and too heavy to be worn on the head and were instead
drums of composite stand-like objects, cult stands or altars. Amiran
(1985) reconstructs these cult objects as superimposed drums, the top
pieces being those with decorative motifs projecting vertically from
the rim (figure 2).
Comparative Material:
Horned Buildings in Ancient Near Eastern Art and Texts
The Nahal Mishmar crowns may well be architectural models of round
buildings, of which crown no. 7 with its horned gate-like projection is
the most articulate, therefore also the most telling. Evidence for horned
buildings seems to come from Iran. Amiet has discussed the subject
of ancient Iranian buildings decorated with horns extensively over
the years (Amiet 1953, 27-29; 1959, 41-42). In an article published in
1987, in view of two other Late Uruk impressions, one reportedly from
Syria (figure 4), the other from Choga Mish in Iran (figure 5), Amiet
dismisses his previous identification of the bovine-horned building on
the Susa impression (figure 3) as a ziggurat-temple on its platform.
The sealings from Syria6 and Choga Mish show a war scene near a
stepped building. However, the stepped building is without horns.7
He compares these Late Uruk representations of a horned building
on a platform with the Median stepped, multi-crenellated fortress of
6
Contrary to Amiets ascription of the sealing to northern Syria, Potts (1999, 67,
fig. 3.12:2) has published it as Susian.
7
Margueron (1986) points out that the Susa impression does not describe sacred
architecture of its time, such as the White Temple at Uruk, or the terrasse of Susa.
Attempting to solve the discrepancy between the depiction and the archaeological
reality, Margueron postulates that if the seal cutter indeed intended to depict an existing
sanctuary of his time, he must have depicted it from angles that would emphasize a
certain feature of the building, thus compatible with the impression. He does, however,
admit that his suggested interpretation of the cutters viewing angles of the real building
still requires a systematic study.
50
i. ziffer
51
10
Carnelian for birds beaks and stags bodies and lapis lazuli for stags hooves for
the Palace of the Stag. Assorted stones and glass for the Palace of the Stag.
11
Ehrenberg (2002, 66) proposes a similar transfer of a symbol for the Kassite cross.
Originally an early Iranian symbol of a supreme celestial power, the cross was assumed
by the chief Babylonian deity in the readily adopted Babylonian culture.
12
See also Kawami (2005, 120-122) regarding proliferation of deer antlers in the
architecture and imagery at Hasanlu BB II, perhaps related to the patron deity of the
citadel.
52
i. ziffer
53
14
This rare type of copper alloy is attested only in the artifacts from Nahal Mishmar
and from several other sites in Israel, but does not occur in any other contemporary site
in the Near East. The mining area of ores is not necessarily identical with the area where
the smelting of the ores took place, nor with the artifact production centers. Metal ingots
were imported into Palestine and the artifacts were produced in local workshops which
so far have not been unearthed. In some of the underground houses in the Beersheba
valley evidence exists for the smelting of copper ores mined in the Arabah (Shalev and
Northover 1987) or the re-smelting of scrap metal, including items manufactured of
composite metals originating in the east (Eldar and Baumgarten 1985).
15
One wonders whether the festive silver stands decorated with lion heads and
stag horns of Akur-Addu, king of Karana, on which silver goblets of many kinds were
placed (ARM XIII 22), also echo an Iranian tradition. Bearing in mind that some of
the animal head cups imported to Syria were made in the Iranian town of Tukri, the
decoration of the kings stand could reflect a Syrian borrowing of an Iranian motif
(ARM VII 239, 12, 18; ARM XXIV 91, 9; ARM XXV 347, 22-23; 449 rev. 5-6; Dalley
1984, 61-62, 93).
16
Imported materials include metals from the Caucasus and Iran, obsidian from
Anatolia, gold and hippopotamus and elephant tusks from Egypt, and semi-precious
stones from the Sinai.
17
The total number of mace heads and standards included: 240 mace heads and
116 standards, 12 elaborate triangular or disk-shaped mace heads, 5 copper scepters,
no two of which were equal in size or identical in decoration. Many standards represent
caprid heads or horns. Caprids horns are found on clay ossuaries and the portable
basalt altars from the Golan (Beck 1989).
54
i. ziffer
Fresco from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan, for example, may depict such
a procession of goat-masked participants headed by a boomerangshaped standard bearer, all portrayed frontally (Cameron 1981, 13
and cover). 18 Baines points out that in Egypt the standards and
attendants defined and circumscribed the kings presence and that
the standards proclaimed the kings power, probably by associating
him with protective deities (1995, 120; Moortgat 1966, pl. 6:33). The
single burial unearthed at Wadi el-Makkukh in the vicinity of Jericho,
which became known as the Warriors Tomb, may furnish the (so
far) only archaeological evidence of a leader in the period (Schick
1998). The deceased, who according to C-14 data lived in the early
fourth millennium BCE, was interred in an enormous linen fringed
wrapping sheet with decorative bands, along with a long stave, bow
and arrows, and other luxury objects. He may be the only surviving
chief of the period (Tadmor 2002, *138), whose likeness was immortalized in the figure wearing a tall headdress and carrying a longstemmed spear-like object, incised on a paving slab from the vicinity
of the earliest temples at Megiddo (figure 8), perhaps from the Late
Chalcolithic period (Beck 2002, 25).
It may well be that crown no. 7, representing a palace with a
decoration of horns, served a function similar to that of the mace
heads and the standardsa means of elite or royal display for society. Instead of visual representation (and writing), architecturea
palace or an enclosureis the chief form of more general display.
An architectural feature dominates the landscape in which it is set, its
location is significant as are its scale and quality. Visible and enduring,
architecture conveys its message to people through exclusion (Baines
1989, 477-478). As Irene Winter so aptly put it,
The palace is thus set up as a mirror of the king. It is a physical manifestation of the rulers power and ability to build; and at the same time,
by having built so impressively, the ruler has further demonstrated his
power and ability to command resources, induce astonishment, and
create a fitting seat of governmentin shortto rule. The rhetorical
function of the palace . . . is as essential as its residential, administrative,
productive, and ceremonial functions. (Winter 1993, 38-39)
18
55
References
Amiet, Pierre. 1951. La Ziggurat daprs les cylindres de lpoque dynastique archaque. RA 45: 80-88.
. 1953. Ziggurats et culte en hauteur des origins a lpoque dAkkad. RA
47: 24-33.
19
M/Ass, j/NB kullu (Black, George, and Postgate 1999, 166) denotes both
crown as a mark of royalty and crenellation of gateway towers.
20
The brazier brings to mind Amirans suggestion that the crowns were altars or
stands.
56
i. ziffer
57
58
i. ziffer
Namdar, Dvori, I. Segal, Y. Goren and S. Shalev. 2004. Chalcolithic Copper Artefacts. In Givat ha-Oranim: A Chalcolithic Site, ed. N. Scheftelowitz and R. Oren,
70-83. Tel Aviv: Salvage Excavation Reports, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of
Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 1.
Oates, Joan, and David Oates. 2001. Nimrud: An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed. London:
British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Peltenburg, Edgar J. 1988. Kissonerga-Mesophilia 1987: Ritual Deposit Unit 1015.
Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, 43-52.
. 1989. Lemba Archaeological Project, Cyprus 1987. Levant 21: 195-197.
Pittman, Holly. 2003. Standing Horned Demons. In Art of the First Cities, ed. J. Aruz,
46-48. New York and New Haven: The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale
University Press.
Porada, Edith. 1967. Battlements in the Military Architecture and the in the Symbolism of the Ancient Near East. In Essays in the History of Architecture Presented to Rudolf
Wittkower, ed. D. Fraser, H. Hibbard and M. J. Lewine, 1-12. London: Phaidon.
. 1990a. Animal Subjects of the Ancient Near Eastern Artist. In Investigating
Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East, ed. A. C. Gunter, 71-79. Washington D.C.:
Arthur M. Sackler Gallery.
. 1990b. Mountain Goat. In Glories of the Past: Ancient Art from the Shelby White
and Leon Levy Collection, ed. D. von Bothmer, 49-52. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
. 1995. Man and Images in the Ancient Near East. Wakefield, Rhode Island and
London: Moyer-Bell.
Potts, Daniel T. 1990. Some Horned Buildings in Iran, Mesopotamia and Arabia.
RA 84: 33-40.
. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Root, Margaret C. 2005. Catalogue of Artifacts, Didactics, and Images in the Exhibition. In This Fertile Land: Signs + Symbols in the Early Arts of Iran and Iraq, ed. M.
C. Root, 139-172. Kelsey Museum Publications 3. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of
Archaeology.
Sassmannhausen, Leonard. 1999. Adaptation of the Kassites to the Babylonian
Civilization. In Languages and Cultures in Contact at the Crossroads of Civilizations in the
Syro-Mesopotamian Realm, Proceedings of the 42nd RAI 1995, ed. K. Van Lerberghe and
G. Voet, 409-424. Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta 96. Leuven: Peeters.
Scheftelowitz, N., and R. Oren, eds. 2004. Givat ha-Oranim: A Chalcolithic Site. Tel
Aviv: Salvage Excavation Reports, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 1.
Schick, Tamar. 1998. The Cave of the Warrior. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 5.
Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Schroer, Sylvia, and Othmar Keel. 2005. Die Ikonographie Palstina/Israels und der alte
Orient. Fribourg: Bibel + Orient Museum and Academic Press Fribourg.
59
Shalev, Sariel, and Jeremy P. Northover. 1987. Chalcolithic Metal and Metalworking from Shiqmim. In Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern
Negev Desert, Israel, ed. T. E. Levy, 357-371. BAR International Series 356, 1-2.
Oxford: BAR.
Sharon, Moshe. 1992. The Praise of Jerusalem as a Source of the Early History
of Islam. BiOr 49: 56-67.
Tadmor, Miriam. 1986. The Judaean Desert Treasure. In Treasures of the Holy Land:
Ancient Art from the Israel Museum, 72-85. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
. 1989. The Judean Desert Treasure from Nahal Mishmar: A Chalcolithic
Traders Hoard? In Essays in Ancient Civilizations Presented to Helene J. Kantor, ed. A.
Leonard, Jr. and B. Beyer Williams, 249-261. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 47. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
. 1990. A Group of Figurines and Miniature Vessels of the Chalcolithic
Period. Eretz Israel 21: 249-258.
. 2002. Notes on the Nature of the Chalcolithic Period in Palestine. In Aharon
Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines, ed. E. D. Oren
and Sh. Ahituv, 132*-150*. Beer Sheva 15. Beer-Sheva: Ben Gurion University of
the Negev Press (in Hebrew).
Tadmor, M., F. Begemann, D. Kedem, A. Hauptmann, E. Pernicka and S. ScmittStrecker. 1995. The Nahal Mishmar Hoard from the Judean Desert: Technology,
Composition, and Provenance. Atiqot 27: 95-148.
Teissier, Beatrice. 1987. Glyptic Evidence for a Connection between Iran, SyroPalestine and Egypt in the Fourth and Third Millennia. Iran 25: 27-53.
Ussishkin, David. 1971. The Ghassulian Temple in Ein Gedi and the Origin of the
Hoard from Nahal Mishmar. BA 34: 23-39.
. 1980. The Ghassulian Shrine at En-Gedi. Tel Aviv 7: 1-44.
Wilburn, Andrew. 2005. Shamans, Seals and Magic. In This Fertile Land: Signs + Symbols
in the Early Arts of Iran and Iraq, ed. M. C. Root, 65-71. Kelsey Museum Publication
3. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum.
Winter, Irene, J. 1993. Seat of Kingship/A Wonder to Behold: The Palace as
Construct in the Ancient Near East. Ars Orientalis 23: 27-55.
60
i. ziffer
61
62
i. ziffer
Figure 3. Late Uruk cylinder seal impression from Susa depicting war scene with
horned building (Amiet 1987, fig. 1)
63
Figure 4. Late Uruk cylinder seal impression showing war scene with stepped building (Amiet 1987, fig. 2)
64
i. ziffer
Figure 5. Late Uruk cylinder seal impression from Choga Mish showing war scene
near a stepped building (Amiet 1987, fig. 3)
65
66
i. ziffer
Figure 7. Elamite edifice adorned with bull horns, Nineveh (Potts 1990, fig. 2)
Figure 8. Figure of a ruler on a paving slab, Megiddo (Beck 2002, fig. 5a)
67
68
i. ziffer
69
70
. harmanah
In two foundational articles, Winter (1981, 1983) explores royal rhetoric and narrativity in the sculptural program in Assurnasirpal (Ar-nsir-apli) IIs Northwest Palace at Kalhu (modern Nimrud). In a later article, Winter (1993, 38) explores this idea in
a broader historical scope and reflects on the entire layout of the Near Eastern palace,
concluding that the palaces had a rhetorical function . . . as embodiment of the state.
2
Especially Winter 1982. The issue was partially taken up again from another perspective in Winter 1998.
3
The bibliography of the art historical scholarship on the Assyrian programs is vast.
For the most up-to-date list of references, see Russell 1999; Winter 1997, 377 n. 1; Pittman 1996, 334-335 nos. 1-4. For an articulate discussion of the recent approaches to
Assyrian relief programs, see Winter 1997, 359f. and esp. 377 n. 2.
71
72
. harmanah
73
74
. harmanah
75
76
. harmanah
77
78
. harmanah
became the hub of a remarkable geography of inter-regional contacts, the Near Eastern supra-regional powers had increasing material
interests in Syria. Only then, the koine of stone masonry gradually
encompassed the Anatolian plateau, the Levantine coast and Cyprus
in particular, but also reached the middle Tigris cities of Assyria. By
the end of the Late Bronze Age, the major entrepreneurial cities of
the eastern Mediterranean, like Ugarit (Ras Shamra) and Ras Ibn
Hani on the Syrian coast, Enkomi and Hala Sultan Tekke on the
eastern coast of Cyprus and the Hittite cities of the Anatolian plateau
like the capital Hattua, its regional centers like apinuwa (Ortaky)
and aria (Kuakl), participated in the inter-regional architectural
practice of using finely dressed ashlar and orthostatic masonry in
large quantities.14 This was carried out on such an extensive and
monumental scale in these urban environments that it is reminiscent
of what William MacDonald (1986, 5) has argued for the Roman
cities of the Mediterranean: an urban armature, in reference to
the complex material manifestation of building technologies forming
the framework for the unmistakable imagery of imperial urbanism. It can be argued that this was possible not only by means of an
operative circulation of architectural knowledge and other artisanal
technologies across these regions (through gift exchange, mobility of
craftsmen, etc.), but also in the form of material manifestoes of the
ruling elite to express royal prestige and cultural interest in the lingua
franca of building practices in stone.15 Andrew and Susan Sherratts
(2001, 20) recent argument that added value was created within
such urbanized technologically more advanced centres of manufacturing can perhaps be applied to the stone-working technologies of
North Syria, where cultural value of the monumental use of stone in
Near Eastern architecture is reconfigured with the introduction of
limestone and basalt orthostats.
The Hittite interest in the North Syrian region, especially directed
at the kingdom of Yamhad, dates back to the military campaigns of
Hattuili I and Murili I in the late seventeenth and early sixteenth
14
Ashlar masonry is most comprehensively studied in Hult 1983, with particular
emphasis on Late Bronze Cyprus and the Levant.
15
The historical problem of the Late Bronze Age political contact zones in the Near
East is addressed from a structuralist point of view by Liverani (1990). For the development of an international style in the craftsmanship of prestige goods, see most recently Feldman 2002, with literature.
79
80
. harmanah
81
19
Ab Assaf dates the sculptural program of the temple based on stylistic criteria and concludes that the first stylistic group that includes the mountain-god relief-orthostats (E1-7) dates to 13th-12th c., while the second group, which covers the lion and
sphinx protomes (C 5-26 and 31-42) and the reliefs D 1-4 of the ante-cella (i.e. the relief
of the mountain-god with upward turned toes, orthostats with guilloche pattern false
window) dates to 10th c. BC. Problems for this art historical dating have been pointed
out already, particularly concerning the Itar-awuka relief (Orthmann 1993; Zimansky 2002). Ab Assaf himself has accepted that at least some of the reliefs found at Ain
Dr should be associated with the imperial Hittite realm, rather than Iron Age SyroHittite styles, and therefore should date to the 13th-12th c. BC.
82
. harmanah
83
When I built the holies of the temple (OR: the Holy (one)s temple)
4.15 wa/i-mu-t-|za-zi (SCALPRUM)ku-ta-sa5+ra/i-zi |POST-n||
5.15 |PES-wa/i-ta
these orthostats came after me,
5.16 a-wa/i za-ia PORTA-na |SCALPRUM-sa5+ra/i-ha
these gates I orthostated
5.17 wa/i-t- |FRONS-la/i/u ARGENTUM.DARE-si-ia sa-t-
they were foremost in(?) cost(?) (very costly?)
5.18 wa/i-t- LIGNUM-wa/i-ia-ti AEDIFICARE+MI-ha
I built them (also) with wood
5.19|za-zi-pa-wa/i (DOMUS)ha + ra/i-s-t-ni-zi a-na-ia BONUS-sa-mi-i
FEMINA-ti-i DOMUS + SCALA(-)t-wa/i-ni-zi i-zi-i-ha
and these upper floors for Anas my beloved wife as TAWANI-apartments
I made...
84
. harmanah
21
85
86
. harmanah
I surrounded it all around with slabs of basalt. Bt labbnu, opposite to
it,
64) i-na GI bu-u-ni i-tu u-e-u a-di gaba-dib-be-u ar-ip i-na a-gr-ri a
NA4.pe-e-li
I constructed of terebinth from foundations to crenellations. With slabs
of limestone
65) pa-e-e a-na si-hr-ti-u al-mi .GAL-la u-a-ti i-na GI e-re-ni
I surrounded it all around. This palace of cedar
66) GI bu-uni ar-sip -k-lil -r-rih -si-im
and terebinth I constructed, completed perfectly and made its appropriate decor splendid.
67) na-hi -ra a ANE.KUR.RA a A.AB.BA i-qa-bi-u--ni pa-ri-an-gi
ep-et qa-ti-ya
a nahiru, which means a sea-horse, with a pariangu (harpoon?) of my
own making
68) i-na siq-ri DINGIR.MA DINGIR.IGI.DU DINGIR.ME GAL.
ME EN.ME-ya i-na A.AB.BA
which by the command of the gods Ninurta and Nergal, great gods,
my lords, in the [Great] Sea
69) [(rabte) a mt a]-mur-ri a-du-ku-ni bur-hi-i ba-al-a a i-tu KUR luma-
[of the land of A]murru, I killed; and a live burhi, which was transported
from the land of Luma
70) [...]-te am-mi-te a KUR hab-hi na-u--ni tam-i-li-u-nu a NA4.AD.BAR
e-pu-u
[...] the other side of the land Habhu. I made their representations in
basalt
71) [ina nrib arr]-ti-ya im-na u-me-la -a-zi-iz
I stationed them on the right and left [at my ro]yal [entrance].
This is a rich text and it is hard to do justice to its historical significance within the limits of my discussion here. Later in the same
text, the king refers to another palace, of boxwood this time, which
he surrounds with slabs of ginugallu stone and deposits his royal inscriptions within. From the variety of stones that are being used
in these monumental buildings and from the implication that they
were conspicuously displayed, the agurru can be understood here as
orthostats.24 Even more interesting is the description of the apotro24
CAD s.v. agurru. Originally kiln-fired brick. When used with a stone determinative followed with a type of stone, it is attested as paving stone, tile (of stone), slab
in inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I, Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The alternative word
87
askuppu was later adapted from the time of Tiglath-pileser III onwards, to be used for
upright slabs in architectural contexts (CAD s.v. askuppu).
25
For a brief description of the inscribed pieces, see Andrae 1905, 52-56. For pictures of these sculptural fragments, see Weidner 1958, 357-358, Abb. 1-5. See discussion on the nahiru and burhi statues in Weidners commentary (1958, 355-359) to his
edition of the text. On this topic, see now Briquel-Chatonnet and Bordreuil 2000.
88
. harmanah
Concluding Remarks
89
90
. harmanah
91
References
Ab Assaf, Al. 1990. Der Tempel von Ain Dr. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von
Zabern.
Andrae, W. 1905. Aus den Berichten W. Andraes aus Assur von Oktober 1904 bis
Mrz 1905. MDOG 26: 19-64.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Originally published as Le sens pratique
(Les ditions de Minuit 1980). Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press.
Briquel-Chatonnet, F and P. Bordreuil. 2000. Tiglath-phalazar Ier a-t-il pch ou
chass la nahiru? Topoi Supplment 2: 117-124.
Bryce, Trevor R. 1998. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Feldman, Marian H. 2002. Luxurious Forms: Redefining a Mediterranean International Style, 1400-1200 B.C.E. Art Bulletin 84: 6-29.
Frampton, Kenneth. 1990. Rappel lordre, the Case for the Tectonic. Architectural
Design 60/3-4: 19-25.
Grayson, A. Kirk. 1991. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B.C. I (1114-859
B.C.). RIMA 2. Toronto : University of Toronto.
Gregori, Barbara. 1986. Three-entrance City Gates of the Middle Bronze Age in
Syria and Palestine. Levant 18: 83-102.
Harmanah, mr. 2005. Spatial Narratives, Commemorative Practices and the
Building Project: New Urban Foundations in Upper Syro-Mesopotamia during the
Early Iron Age. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Hartoonian, Gevork. 1994. Ontology of Construction: On Nihilism of Technology in Theories
of Modern Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, John David. 1982. Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia. In CAH2 3.1:
372-441.
. 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. 3 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Holliday, Peter. 2002. The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the Visual Arts.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horden, Peregrine and Nicholas Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean history. Oxford : Blackwell.
Hult, Gunnel. 1983. Bronze Age Ashlar Masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus, Ugarit
and Neighboring Regions. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology LXVI. Gteborg: Paul
strms Frlag.
Jonker, Gerdien. 1995. The Topography of Remembrance: The Dead, Tradition and Collective
Memory in Mesopotamia. Leiden: Brill.
Khayyata, Wahid and Kay Kohlmeyer. 1998. Die Zitadelle von AleppoVorlufiger
Bericht ber die Untersuchungen 1996 und 1997. DaM 10: 69-95.
92
. harmanah
93
. 1974. Hittite Friezes and Gate Sculptures. In Anatolian Studies presented to Hans
Gustav Gterbock on the Occasion of his 65th birthday, ed. K. Bittel, Ph. H. J. Houwink
ten Cate, and E. Reiner, 201-214. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch
Instituut in het Nabije Oosten.
Moorey, Peter Roger Stuart. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The
Archaeological Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mostafavi, Mohsen and David Leatherbarrow. 1993. On Weathering: The Life of Buildings in Time. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Naumann, Rudolf. 1971. Architektur Kleinasiens von ihren Anfngen bis zum Ende der hethitischen Zeit. Tbingen: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth.
Neve, Peter J. 1993. Hattusa Stadt der Gtter und Tempel: Neue Ausgrabungen in der Hauptstadt der Hethiter. Zaberns Bildbnde zur Archologie 8. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp
von Zabern.
Nora, Pierre. 1989. Between Memory and History: Les lieux de memoire. Representations 26: 7-24.
Orthmann, Winfried. 1993. Zur Datierung des Itar-Reliefs aus Tell Ain Dr.
IstMitt 43: 245-251.
Pinnock, Frances. 2001. The Urban Landscape of Old Syrian Ebla. JCS 53: 1333.
Pittman, Holly. 1996. The White Obelisk and the Problem of Historical Narrative
in the Art of Assyria. Art Bulletin 78: 334-355.
Reade, Julian Edgeworth. 1979. Assyrian Architectural Decoration: Techniques and
Subject-matter. Baghdader Mittelungen 10: 17-49 with plates 1-25.
Russell, John Malcolm. 1991. Sennacheribs Palace without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
. 1999. The Writing on the Wall: Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Assyrian
Palace Inscriptions. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Shafer, Ann Taylor. 1998. The Carving of an Empire: Neo-Assyrian Monuments
on the Periphery. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Sherratt, Andrew and Susan Sherratt. 2001. Technological Change in the East
Mediterranean Bronze Age: Capital, Resources and Marketing. In The Social Context
of Technological Change: Egypt and the Near East, 1650-1550 BC, ed. Andrew J. Shortland,
15-38. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Summers, David. 2003. Real Spaces: World Art History and the Rise of Western Modernism.
London: Phaidon.
Tadmor, Hayim. 1997. Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code
of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. In Assyria 1995, Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary
Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting,
325-338. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
94
. harmanah
95
Figure 1. Tilmen Hyk, Middle Bronze Age palace, system section through northwestern faade orthostats. (Drawing by author with the permission of Refik Duru).
Figure 2. North Syria with sites mentioned in the text. (Base map: MODIS Rapid Response Project, NASA/
GSFC).
96
. harmanah
97
Figure 3. Yamhad (Aleppo), Middle Bronze Age temple orthostats, general view.
(Photo by author, summer 2002, courtesy of Kay Kohlmeyer)
98
. harmanah
Figure 4. Yamhad (Aleppo), Middle Bronze Age temple orthostats, detail (Photo by
author, summer 2002, courtesy of Kay Kohlmeyer)
Figure 5. Yamhad (Aleppo), Middle Bronze Age temple orthostats, detail (Photo by author, summer
2002, courtesy of Kay Kohlmeyer)
100
. harmanah
101
102
s. reed
103
and create subtle associations in the mind of the viewer. Due to the
stylistic conventions of Assyrian art, human faces and bodies were
generally standardized and rendered in traditional Mesopotamian
profiles. Due to the lack of individualized human features, some
scholars have found that Assyrian art lacked emotive expression (see
note 2); but the vignettes utilize postures and gestures, and perceptive,
true-to-life details that contribute to the emotional character of the
episode. The vignette seems to be a particularly appropriate viewing
methodology for our purposes, since one of its definitions is an
image with no definite border, but its edges are gradually faded into
the background (Websters New World Dictionary). I will address this
aspect in more detail in the next section, and suggest that blurred
edges in the vignettes create startling irregularities that add tension
to the narratives, keeping the viewer off-balance and in anticipation
(or perhaps apprehension) of the next act. In my view, the narrative
function of these images is nonetheless subservient to their larger
ideological implications, and within these vignettes lies the underlying
power of the palace reliefs.
104
s. reed
Proust believed that the goal of art was to recapture the errors of
our original vision by the creation of this constant movement between
melded boundaries. In his psychic space between the terms of all
relations (or for example, between events in the narratives), Proust
found that there can also be a detemporalizing essence, or a past
sensation that invades the present, leaving the viewer somewhere in
between.
These arguments point to the power of minor irregularities that
distort the frames of contrasting spaces, marking commonalties where
they might otherwise be obscured, and creating narrative depth. By
blurring the borders of multiple vignettes, the artist can move the
viewers gaze between elements in the narrative that are seemingly
contradictory, producing ambiguous readings and suggesting multiple
outcomes.
In the battle reliefs, the border of a vignette of foreign captives
often seems to be a suggestive marker between the captives and an
alternate fate. A recurring border for instance is the Assyrian solider,
who alternately watches over the civilian captivesexiles who will
be relocated to other Assyrian landsand/or the enemy soldiers
who are being roughly treated, even killed, in the space beyond. The
soldiers purpose then becomes open to question: to which scenario
does he truly belong; and is he guard, or could he be guardian?
In some cases, where we only have a portion of a relief sequence,
the borders of a scene are enforced; creating associations that may
or may not be true to the original narrative (see below, the Minor
Images).
105
106
s. reed
107
108
s. reed
109
and fathers carrying older children upon their shoulders.11 A wellknown, sensitively carved image from Ashurbanipal shows a Chaldaean woman on the march, stopping to give her child water from
an animal skin (figure 4). The vignette makes the procession of captives memorable, but its message is ambiguous: it alerts the audience
to the Chaldaeans misfortune and vulnerability, while at the same
time, its seeming empathy diverts attention from the source of their
plight (that is, Assyrian aggression). Are we to view the Assyrians as
their captors, or liberators?
Another remarkable sequence of vignettes, and one that poses a
similar question, comes from a relief commemorating Ashurbanipals
victory over the Elamites at Hamanu (figure 5). In a small register just
below the main battle scene, two groups of prisoners, or four sets of
couples, are seated in the Assyrian camp around cooking cauldrons.
Their gestures suggest lively conversations in progress: on the left, one
woman raises her arm, palm up, toward the woman sitting across from
her (figure 6). The woman on the right returns the same gesture with
her right hand, while holding a bowl in her left. The man seated next
to her is looking toward the figure opposite him, a man who is perhaps minding the cauldron: his right arm is shown stretched toward
it, with his fingers touching the top of the vessel. The artist may also
be using this gesture to convey directionality: the arm is lifted toward
the man facing him, alerting the viewer that these two individuals are
engaged in a separate conversation from the women.
On the right side of this register is another, similar group of captives
(figure 7). This time, however, the alternating positions of the men
and women enliven the scene. In order to show that the two men are
conversing with one another, the man on the right leans forward, his
right arm stretched across his body and down toward the man on the
opposite side. Another male stands next to the seated figures holding
what looks to be a drinking vessel, perhaps a wineskin, to his lips. The
man is inclined in the direction of a seated woman whose hands are
lifted toward him, as if she is requesting a taste. The two women in
this scene are not speaking with one another: one directs her attention
toward the man with the wineskin, while the woman on the opposite side is turned, gesturing toward an Assyrian guard behind her.
Her arm is held up, palm open, mimicking the same conversational
11
See also Barnett et al., 1998, pl. 213, fig. 285b; pl. 465, fig. 645b.
110
s. reed
111
tension. But while they raise awareness of the captives reduced circumstances, it also suggests that rather than being threatened, they
are being protected by the Assyrians. Both viewpoints serve to
emphasize Assyrian dominance, but the nuances of the scenes leave
the captives status open to interpretation, highlighting a problematic aspect of the vignette: without knowing if an extended scenario
existed, the images can become mentally parsed into vignettes with
ambiguous readings.
A series of illustrations from the Southwest palace of Sennacherib
(but usually attributed to his grandson Ashurbanipal, who occupied
the palace early in his reign) recreates the capture of Chaldaean refugees from southern Babylonia.13 Groups of Assyrian soldiers in reed
boats are systematically apprehending escapees hiding in the marshes
(figure 9). The particular vignette I would like to draw attention to
is a group of three figures huddled together within a bank of marsh
reeds: an older, bearded male in a short tunic, his hair bound by a
fillet, crouches on a reed boat facing two smaller, beardless individuals in long robes, either male or female, and presumably children
(figure 10). The male is presumably their father and is perched upon
the prow of the boat, his posture inclined protectively toward the
younger refugees. His right hand is placed on his lap, while his left
is lifted in a fist. The two children have their left hands fisted upon
their laps, but their right hands are raised, palms up. The gestures of
the Chaldaean family indicate that they are either in the midst of
an activityperhaps a prayer, or a game of distraction.
This small moment captures the Chaldaeans anxiety and the overall precariousness of their situation. Adding tension to the scene is
a headless, naked enemy body floating in the water nearby. Its legs
overlap with the upper portion of the reed bank that camouflages the
group, insinuating danger by blurring the space between their hiding place and the open water, or between safety and death. The
headless body and relentless progression of Assyrian soldiers imply the
ultimate capture of our group of refugees, but the viewer is, at least
momentarily, unsure of their fate.
13
For the full marsh battle sequence, see Barnett et al. (1998, pls. 233-265). The dating of the reliefs to Ashurbanipal seems very likely, according to E. Bleibtreau (Barnett
et al. 1998, 88). No inscriptions survive on these slabs, but the adjacent room, XXXIII,
was redecorated with reliefs after Sennacheribs reign. On stylistic grounds, they have
been attributed to the same period of Ashurbanipals sculptures in the North Palace.
112
s. reed
The Battle of Til Tuba series from the Southwest Palace (also
from the reign of Ashurbanipal), illustrates the merciless (and unambiguous) fate of one of Assyrias most worthy opponents and exemplifies the evolving complexity of Assyrian palace narrative (figure 11).
The horizontal groundlines, or registers, that traditionally divided
narrative sequences were distorted in the reign of Sennacherib, creating sweeping landscapes, and for Til Tuba, Ashurbanipals artists
take full advantage of this innovation: though the registers are not
entirely discarded, they are abbreviated and blurred by continuous
and overlapping action sequences. The directional gestures of the
soldiers, the strategic positioning of weapons, and finally, the head
of the Elamite king Teumman, act as guideposts, moving the viewer
through an intricate battle landscape and a grand chase (Bersani and
Dutoit 1985; Watanabe 2004; see also Bahrani 2004; Bonatz 2004):
the Assyrians capture and kill Teumman and his son, bringing the
head of the Elamite ruler home to hang as a prize in Ashurbanipals
garden (figures 12, 13).
The Battle of Til Tuba relief is a deliberate, ordered chaos: the
space is littered with seemingly jumbled yet carefully orchestrated
vignettes that provide a fuller picture of the action, but the head of
Teumman connects the scenarios to Ashurbanipals ultimate victory.
In the final act, it hangs if we look closely, we find the head hanging
in a tree on the edges of the kings celebratory banquetalmost as an
afterthought. Yet its subtle, almost nonchalant placement, extraneous
to the main event, makes its insertion all the more chilling, and thereby
more powerful. The small, grisly trophy contradicts the complacent
tranquility of Ashurbanipals garden, where the king lounges upon his
royal couch next to the queen. It symbolizes a humiliating defeat for
the Elamites, but this incongruous memento of victory also signals the
thematic tension of the narratives, where life and death are juxtaposed,
creating a pervasive anxiety. The banquet panel is comparatively small,
only about as large as the register of Elamites in the Assyrian camp,
yet like the headless body in the Chaldaean marsh, it encapsulates
the power of suggestion that propels the battle sequences.
113
114
s. reed
115
References
Albenda, Pauline. 1998. Monumental Art of the Assyrian Empire: Dynamics of Composition
Styles. Malibu: Undena Publications.
Bahrani, Zainab. 2004. The Kings Head. Iraq 66: 115-119.
Barnett, Richard David. 1976. Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh
(668-627 BC). London: The British Museum.
Barnett, Richard David, Erica Bleibtreu, and Geoffrey Turner. 1998. Sculptures from
the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh. London: The British Museum.
Bersani, Leo, and Ulysse Dutoit. 1985. The Forms of Violence: Narrative in Assyrian Art
and Modern Culture. New York: Schocken Books.
Bonatz, Dominik. 2004. Ashurbanipals Headhunt: An Anthropological Perspective.
Iraq 66: 93-101.
Bottro, Jean. 2001. Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Foster, Benjamin Read. 2005. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd
ed. Bethesda: Capital Decisions Ltd. Press.
Frankfort, Henri. 1971. Kingship and the Gods. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1977. Mesopotamia. In The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man, ed.
H. Frankfort, H. A. Frankfort, J. A. Wilson, T. Jacobsen, and W. A. Irwin, 125-202.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Livingstone, Alasdair. 1997. New Dimensions in the Study of Assyrian Religion. In
Assyria 1995, Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project Helsinki, September 711, 1995, Helsinki, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting,
165-177. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
116
s. reed
Oded, Bustenay. 1979. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
. 1992. War, Peace, and Empire: Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. 1964. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Parrot, Andr. 1961. The Arts of Assyria. The Arts of Mankind. New York: Golden
Press.
Proust, Marcel. 1924. Remembrance of Things Past. 2 vols. New York: Thomas Seltzer.
Reade, Julian. 1972. The Neo-Assyrian Court and Army: Evidence from the Sculptures. Iraq 34: 87-112.
. 1979. Ideology and Propaganda in Assyrian Art. In Power and Propaganda:
A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. M. T. Larsen, 329-343. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
. 1998. Assyrian Sculpture. 2nd ed. London: The British Museum.
Russell, John M. 1991. Sennacheribs Palace Without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Saggs, H. W. F. 1982. Assyrian Prisoners of War and the Right to Live. AfO19:
85-93.
Strommenger, Eva. 1964. 5000 Years of the Art of Mesopotamia. New York: H. N.
Abrams.
Tadmor, Hayim. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria. Jerusalem:
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
. 1999. World Dominion: The Expanding Horizon of the Assyrian Empire.
In Landscapes: Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East: Papers Presented to
the 44e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Venezia, 711 July 1997, ed. L. Milano, S.
de Martino, F. M. Fales, and G. B. Lancranchi, 55-62. History of the Ancient Near
East 3/1. Padua: Sargon srl.
Watanabe, Chikako E. 2004. The Continuous Style in the Narrative Scheme of
Assurbanipals Reliefs. Iraq 66: 103-114.
Weissert, Elnathan. 1997. Royal Hunt and Royal Triumph in a Prism Fragment of
Ashurbanipal. In Assyria 1995, Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 711, 1995, Helsinki, ed. S. Parpola and
R. M. Whiting, 339-358. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Winter, Irene. 1981. Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative
in Neo-Assyrian Reliefs. Studies in Visual Communications 7: 1-37.
. 1995. Aesthetics in Ancient Mesopotamian Art. In Civilizations of the Ancient
Near East, ed. J. M. Sasson, 25682582. New York: Charles Schribners Sons.
117
118
s. reed
Figure 2. The Assyrian army attacking an Egyptian town (British Museum, WA 124928; Copyright the Trustees of The
British Museum)
Figure 3. Egyptians departing the city with their belongings, detail of figure 2
120
s. reed
121
Figure 4. A Chaldaean group of exiles, featuring a mother giving her child a drink
from a pigskin (British Museum, WA 124954; Copyright the Trustees of The
British Museum)
122
s. reed
Figure 5. The Assyrian battle against Hamanu, Elam (British Museum, WA 124919;
Copyright the Trustees of The British Museum)
Figure 6. Elamite prisoners in an Assyrian camp, detail of figure 5, left side of bottom register
Figure 7. Elamite prisoners in an Assyrian camp, detail of figure 5, right side of bottom register
124
s. reed
Figure 8. Elamite and Chaldaean prisoners in an Assyrian camp, relief fragment from the battle of
Hamanu series (British Museum, WA 124788; Copyright the Trustees of The British Museum)
126
s. reed
Figure 9. The Assyrian army capturing Chaldaeans in the southern marshes (British
Museum, WA 124774; Copyright the Trustees of The British Museum)
Figure 11. A relief panel from the Assyrian battle at Til Tuba (British Museum, WA 124801; Copyright the Trustees of The British Museum)
128
s. reed
Figure 12. Ashurbanipal and his queen banqueting in the royal garden (British Museum, WA 124920; Copyright the Trustees
of The British Museum)
Figure 13. The Elamite king Teummans head hanging in Ashurbanipals garden, detail of figure 12
130
s. reed
II
Idols of the King: Ritual Contexts
131
132
a. shafer
133
134
a. shafer
Geographical Distribution
In order to understand fully the symbolic power of these royal monuments in Assyrias peripheral zones, it is first necessary to discern the
patterns in their spatial distribution and related function. Using both
the extant monuments as well as ancient textual references to others
that did not survive, we are able to plot their original locations, and
in so doing, are able to understand the deliberate ways in which they
were crafted and placed into the landscape.2
When we survey the monuments in chronological order, the nature
and evolution of their purpose becomes clear. In the ninth century,
during the early period of the Assyrian territorial consolidation, the
peripheral monuments assumed their paradigmatic function, steadily
marking outlying territories as they were added to Assyrias borders.
During the reign of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BCE), the monuments
mostly marked endpoints of campaigns or secure zones of political
transition, and as such, together marked the perimeters of the kings
realm as a whole. It is also during his reign that these monuments
began to engage an earlier, apparently established tradition of revisiting sites previously marked by earlier kings.3
Using the conquests of his father as a base, Shalmaneser III (858-824
BCE) effected a much more ambitious military program, extending
Assyrias borders and erecting a record number of monuments
far a field. In tandem with the speed of his territorial expansion,
2
Individual textual sourceswhich include palace historical inscriptions of both
the annalistic and display types as well as the inscriptions on the peripheral monuments
themselvesare far too numerous to list here (see Shafer 1998, Appendix A).
3
Ashurnasirpal II is said to have visited and marked the source of the Subnat River, where his predecessors Tiglath-Pileser I and Tukulti-Ninurta II also erected monuments (Grayson 1991, 200-201).
135
136
a. shafer
Iconography
The patterns in spatial distribution and dynastic continuity are further
reinforced by the singular, very consistent form of the Assyrian monuments themselves. The surviving monuments consist of both rock reliefs
and stelae, and all have several important features: a similar image
of the Assyrian king, divine emblems, and an Akkadian annalistic
inscription (figures 1, 2). For the purposes of this study, I will examine
the monument image that, even for the Assyrians, seems to have been
the monuments most salient characteristic. Long overlooked because
of its deceptively accessible iconography, the monuments standardized image can be shown to reflect a strong cultural investment and
self-consciousness about its message, namely, that the central agent
in Assyrias growth and power is the king himself.
One of the monuments most distinctive characteristics is its deliberate adherence, despite its location on the empires periphery, to the
central palace idiom of royal representation. As a result, we are able
to examine the image in relation to well-established domains of visual
elaboration and convention, which in turn allows us to arrive at a
more precise understanding of the image and its referents. Not just an
image of the Assyrian king, but of the complex notion of kingship,
as the Assyrian term alam arrtija (image of my kingship) implies,
137
138
a. shafer
8
For example, on the so-called Broken Obelisk of Ashur-bel-kala, from Nineveh
(Brker-Klhn 1982, fig. 131).
9
This image also appears in the throneroom of the Northwest Palace on slab B-13.
139
king, and thus framing the entire scene, are two winged male deities
with horned crowns (apkallus) carrying in the left hand a pail, and in
the raised right hand an oval object similar to a pinecone. While the
exact purpose of their gestures cannot be certainly determined, it
seems that they are performing some kind of operation on the tree,
perhaps pollination.
Although placed prominently in Ashurnasirpal IIs throneroom,
since no direct mention of this scene is made in Assyrian texts, the
meaning of the tree scene remains the subject of debate. 10 Specific
interpretations vary, but it seems most likely that the image symbolically
characterizes the kings relationship with the divine world, and that the
stylized tree represents not only the concept of abundance, but more
specifically, the land of Assyria and its potential for territorial growth.11
That the growth of the tree, or Assyria, was thought to be divinely
generated is suggested in glyptic images, wherein the winged disks
long pendant tassels encircle the tree.12 That the king was thought to
be the primary earthly agent in this divine growth, however, is suggested in slab B-23, not only by Ashurs gestural acknowledgement of
the king, but also by the kings position in the composition, whereby
he too becomes the recipient of the apkallus actions.
With this direct relationship in mind, how can B-23 be used to
complement our understanding of the peripheral monument image?
One important parallel is the reduplication of the kings figure in
both right and left profile views. In B-23, the two royal figures alternate on either side of the central tree. Likewise, the royal figures on
peripheral monuments alternate too, from right to left profile. More
specifically, of those monuments still surviving, roughly half depict
the king facing right, and half facing left. That such alternation was
not simply coincidence, but was an integral feature of the monument
type in general, is graphically represented by the monuments of Sennacheribsuch as the rock reliefs at Cudi Dag and the stelae from
Ninevehwhere alternating royal figures were used at the same site
(Brker-Klhn 1982, figs. 180-184, figs. 203-204).
10
For a summary of theories identifying the figures and their actions, see Porter
1993.
11
140
a. shafer
13
141
142
a. shafer
For example, in Shalmaneser IIIs text on the Black Obelisk (Grayson 1996,
65-66).
143
18
144
a. shafer
145
146
a. shafer
settings, although all of our evidence comes from Assyrian rather than
foreign centers. This evidence reveals that, at least in some cases, the
monuments occupied a central position in the temple interior and
confirms that they were themselves important ritual objects. For example, our most securely contextualized monument is from the site of
Tell el-Rimah, where the royal stela stood in the temples inner cella,
right next to the cult platform (Oates 1968, pl. 32a). There, oriented
so that the kings gesture pointed directly toward the cult statue, the
stela may have functioned as a votive offering to the deity, to stand in
perpetual supplication for the king. An equally plausible interpretation
is that because the kings image was visible to the temple visitor, it
may have also received offerings itself.
Although not erected on Assyrias periphery, another example of a
monument that may have functioned in the same manner is the Great
Monolith of Ashurnasirpal II, discovered in the Ninurta Temple at
Nimrud. Two factors suggest that the monument may have served as
a cult object: its presumed original location in the temple, and the
discovery of an altar at its base (Layard 1853, 302-304; Mallowan
1966, I: 87). As its inscription suggests, the monument may have been
erected to be viewed and even read regularly by learned scholars,
temple personnel, or other Assyrian officials. Furthermore, placed
next to a doorway leading into the temple cella, the kings figure is
oriented so that it points toward the cella, and therefore, much like the
Rimah Stela, points toward the cult image itself. Perhaps in this case
the location and orientation of the royal monument reveals notions
of spatial movement and approach, so that the kings image would
receive ritual attention first, as a precursor to the activities inside.
Despite what we learn from the above examples, it is important
to remember that ritual activity associated with the monuments was
not usually performed in formalized settings. Moreover, evidence
suggests that some of the ritual activity was performed by subsequent
rulers who revisited the sites, generation after generation.20 We learn
this from the peripheral monument texts themselves, which contain
conclusions that directly address future visitors to the site, asking that
the monument be treated with care. Addressing an unnamed viewer,
20
See, for example, Ashurnasirpal IIs monument at the Subnat source (Grayson
1991, 200-201). The most dramatic example of royal Assyrian revisitation, however, is
without question the site at the Nahr el-Kelb, where a total of six Assyrian reliefs were
carved in the cliffs overlooking the Mediterranean Sea (Weissbach 1922).
147
the text usually consists of two main parts: a blessing for those who
treat the monument properly, and a curse against those who might
wish to destroy it. Usually, the blessing asks that the monument be
heeded in some way, by reading it and preserving its inscription.
More striking, however, is its emphasis on the performance of ritual.
In several cases the viewer is asked to perform rituals on the monument, including washing the monument with water (m.ME liramik),
anointing it with oil (amna.ME lipu), and performing sacrifices (niq
liqqi). While the exact purpose of the rituals is never made explicit,
clearly they are meant to propitiate the deities in some way, since
the consequences of the proper ritual activity are said to be divine
recognition and favor.
Of course, in some important ways, the monument text conclusions
describe a ritual activity similar in form and function to that represented much earlier on the Balawat Gates (figures 4, 5). On the one
hand, they outline the specific activities such as ritual ablution and
sacrifice. Equally important, however, is what these texts reveal about
monument longevity. More specifically, as an analogue to the way the
Balawat images show the monuments creation, the monument texts
show the way that rituals effected a re-birth or renewal, when former
kings military accomplishments were both acknowledged and relived
by future generations. Ideally, the visitor to the sitethe agent for this
renewal of traditionwould be an immediate dynastic successor. In
this way, the monument would represent and effect communication
from one king to another, thus directly invoking Assyrian tradition
and legacy. In this process of continued communication, the Assyrian
empire, which the monument helped delineate, would be viewed as
perpetually reconstituted.
148
a. shafer
149
150
a. shafer
but through two, until what was once the object of the kings gesture
becomes the divine canopy that frames and protects his rule. Now
our reading of the peripheral monument image (figures 1, 2) also becomes more complex. In particular, especially as we look to the Fort
Shalmaneser brick panel, we begin to understand the importance of
the peripheral monuments raised frame. It is the raised frame that
assumes perhaps the most important visual role in the entire image,
not just because it contains the image, but because it is the mechanism
by which the image is recast, taking elements from several different
monument types and recombining them. Therefore, the peripheral
monument frame acts much like the brick-panels abstracted outer
tree-bands, especially its outermost plain band. Not only is it a mechanism for image reconfiguration, but it also servesas a reference to
the treeto emphasize the king as a manifestation of Assyrias divine
abundance.
When we return to orthostat B-23, we now notice a metaphorical
connection between the figure of the king and the figure of the sacred
tree. It is perhaps easy to overlook the implications of the fact that the
image on B-23 was located in Ashurnasirpal IIs throneroom directly
behind the Assyrian kings throne (Meuszynski 1981, pl. 1, plan 3).
There, when the king assumed his position to receive visitors, his person visually merged with the tree behind, revealing the metaphorical
parallels between king and tree, and thus the kings contribution to
the trees abundance. Moreover, with the king in this position, the
outer edges of the tree behind would have appeared to both emanate
from and envelope the king, functioning as a symbolically eloquent
canopy or frame for his royal person.
With this moment of visual sophistication in mind, it is helpful to
remember that palace iconography functioned on yet another, spatial
level as well. Irene Winter (1983) has discovered how the imagery of
orthostat B-23 served the crucial role of orienting the visitors approach
and movement through the throneroom. In her reconstruction and
analysis of the throneroom reliefs, Winter was able to suggest that
the throneroom stood as a microcosmic representation of the real
territorial state of Assyria. Moreover, she demonstrated how the tree
scene stood not only as the focal point of the room and culmination
of the surrounding narratives, but also that another version of the
scenelocated directly opposite the throneroom entranceoriented
and guided the palace visitors physically and psychologically toward
151
152
a. shafer
In this sense more than any other, this moment of royal ritual was
the moment when the Assyrian peripheral monument carried its fullest
meaning. It was the moment when the kings central role in Assyrias
growth and abundance very literally transformed a landscape into the
realm called Assyria. It was the moment, therefore, when the king and
the land, when the idea and its materialization, became one.
References
Albenda, Pauline. 1986. The Palace of Sargon, King of Assyria. Paris: Editions Recherche
sur les civilisations.
Brker-Klhn, Jutta. 1982. Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs. Mainz
am Rhein: Verlag P. von Zabern.
Collon, Dominique. 1987. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Curtis, John, and Julian Reade. 1995. Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British
Museum. Exhibition catalogue. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Ellis, Richard. 1968. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Grayson, Kirk. 1991. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859).
RIMA 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Grayson, Kirk. 1996. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858-745 BC).
RIMA 3. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Jacobsen, Thorkild, and Seton Lloyd. 1935. Sennacheribs Aqueduct at Jerwan. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
King, L. W. 1915. The Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser, King of Assyria, B.C.
860-825. London: British Museum.
Layard, Austin Henry. 1853. Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. New
York: Barnes.
Loud, Gordon. 1938. Khorsabad II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Magen, Ursula. 1986. Assyrische KnigsdarstellungenAspekte der Herrschaft. Mainz am
Rhein: Verlag P. von Zabern.
Mallowan, Max. E. L. 1966. Nimrud and its Remains. 3 vols. London: Collins.
Marcus, Michelle. 1987. Geography as an Organizing Principle in the Imperial Art
of Shalmaneser III. Iraq 49: 77-90.
Meuszynski, Janus. 1981. Die Rekonstruktion der Reliefdarstellungen und ihrer Anordnung im
Nordwestpalast von Kalhu (Nimrud). Mainz am Rhein: Verlag P. von Zabern.
153
Oates, David. 1968. The Excavations at Tell al-Rimah, 1967. Iraq 30: 115-138.
Oates, Joan and David Oates. 2001. Nimrud: An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed. London:
British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Parpola, Simo. 1993. The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy. JNES 52: 161-208.
Porter, Barbara. 1993. Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashurnasirpal II. JNES 52: 129-139.
Quaegebeur, J., ed. 1993. Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Leuven:
Peeters.
Reade, Julian. 1963. A Glazed-Brick Panel from Nimrud. Iraq 25: 38-47.
Russell, John. 1991. Sennacheribs Palace Without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Shafer, Ann. 1998. The Carving of an Empire: Neo-Assyrian Monuments on the
Periphery. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Tasyrek, Ozgn A. 1975. Some New Assyrian Rock-Reliefs in Turkey. Anatolian
Studies 25: 169-180.
Watanabe, C. 1992. A Problem in the Libation Scene of Ashurbanipal. In Cult and
Ritual in the Ancient Near East, ed. H. I. H. Mikasa, 91-104. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.
Weissbach, F. H. 1922. Die Denkmler und Inschriften an der Mndung des Nahr-el-Kelb.
Berlin and Leipzig: Vereinigung wissenschaftlicher Verleger.
Winter, Irene. 1983. The Program of the Throneroom of Assurnasirpal II. In Essays
on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson, ed. P. Harper and
H. Pittman. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
. 1989. The Body of the Able Ruler: Toward an Understanding of the Statues
of Gudea. In DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Ake W. Sjberg, ed. H. Behrens,
D. Loding, and M. Roth. Philadelphia: University Museum.
. 1996. Sex, Rhetoric, and the Public Monument: the Alluring Body of NaramSn of Agade. In Sexuality in Ancient Art, ed. N. B. Kampin. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
. 1997. Art in Empire: The Royal Image and the Visual Dimensions of Assyrian
Ideology. In Assyria 1995, Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian
Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 711, 1995, Helsinki, ed. S. Parpola and R. M.
Whiting, 359-381. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
154
a. shafer
Figure 1. Kurkh stela of Shalmaneser III (British Museum; Copyright The Trustees
of the British Museum)
155
Figure 3. Slab B-23, Northwest Palace, Nimrud (British Museum; Copyright The Trustees of the British Museum)
156
a. shafer
157
158
a. shafer
159
Figure 6. Reconstruction drawing of glazed brick panel above the south doorway
of Fort Shalmaneser Room T3 (after Oates and Oates 2001, 183: fig. 112; courtesy
of Julian Reade)
160
a. shafer
161
I am most grateful to Claudia Suter, Joan Westenholz and Irit Ziffer for reading
an earlier draft of this paper and for their comments and insightful remarks.
162
t. ornan
2
A thorough discussion of Sennacheribs steles and rock reliefs depicting the king
worshipping divine symbols is given by Ann Shafer who, however, does not deal with
the reliefs treated here (Shafer 1998, 9, 44 n. 105, 88-89, 97-98, 284-289).
163
3
The detailed report of the Bavian Inscription accords well with other inscriptions
of Sennacherib, who expanded the literary scope of the Assyrian military exploits to include building and technological achievements in a way never previously recorded in
Assyrian royal propaganda (Tadmor 1999, 61). The importance of the building activities carried out during the reign of Sennacherib is also made clear by the construction
works depicted on wall reliefs in the Southwest Palace at Nineveh (Russell 1991, 94
116).
164
t. ornan
with anthropomorphic deities are dealt with here.4 These well preserved reliefs are found on the bank of the Gomel River, some sixty
kilometers northeast of Mosul, opposite the village of Khinis located
on the western bank of the river (Brker-Klhn 1982, 206208, nos.
186188; Ur 2005, figs. 15, 16).
The interest in these particular monuments of Sennacherib lies in
their thematic deviation from other Assyrian rock reliefs and steles.
In contrast to the common pictorial theme depicting Assyrian rulers
worshipping divine symbols on Assyrian monuments, including those
of Sennacherib himself, the above-mentioned rock reliefs show the
king gesturing in front of human-shaped deities (Brker-Klhn 1982,
207; Ornan 2005b, 79-86). The question then is why Sennacherib
discarded the royal veneration of divine symbols more common in Neo
Assyrian art in favor of the adoration of anthropomorphic deities for
these monuments. The iconographic modification reflected on these
rock reliefs deserves a special examination since, as noted above, the
representation of (small) divine emblems with the king on Neo-Assyrian monuments is one of the pictorial means used for the exaltation of
the royal image, and it seems inconceivable that Sennacherib would
have abandoned this kind of propagandistic message.
Winter (1982, 367) offers some explanation for the unique presentations depicted on these works of art, in which she deals with the
impact of the western territories conquered by Assyria on some pictorial
and architectural Assyrian constructs. She suggests that the theme in
question, in particular the display of deities on animals and fantastic
quadrupeds, was one of the motifs the Assyrians borrowed from Syrian iconography. Indeed, it is not only the representation of deities on
animals, but also their very representation in anthropomorphic shape
that can be considered as an inspiration of Syrian imagery, since this
was the common manner prevalent in Syria during the late second
and early first millennium. The representation of deities on animals
reflects artistic traditions already encountered in Syria at least as early
as the Late Bronze Age and in particular in thirteenth century Hatti
(Winter 1982, 367; Ornan 2005b, 75-79; Collins 2005, 15-22,
4
A similar theme was also probably depicted on the so-called Great Rider relief
(Bachmann 1927, 16-21, pl. 20; Brker-Klhn 1982, 206, no. 186) where two large figures of an Assyrian king facing each other can be traced. Above these figures is a small
row of deities mounted on beasts. The positioning of the two probable royal figures recalls the compositions rendered on the other nearby rock reliefs discussed below.
165
38-42). Western influence is not the only possible explanation for these
representations. The tradition of rendering deities in human form
was well rooted, of course, in Mesopotamia from the Old Akkadian
period until the mid-second millennium, and thus the appearance of
anthropomorphic deities on monuments dating to the reign of Sennacherib can be viewed as a reintroduction, in a sense a revival of old
themes generated by the encounter of Assyrian artists with western
models. However, the anthropomorphic form selected for the depiction of the divine on the discussed monuments of Sennacherib should
be regarded as a unique artistic expression when compared to other
monumental Assyrian works of art of the first millennium.
A reexamination of these rock reliefs of Sennacherib reveals that,
in spite of the fact that they diverge from other monumental displays
then current, they nevertheless fit the official Assyrian propaganda
that exalted the king. Moreover, it can be argued that the incentive
for the adoption of the anthropomorphic rendering of deities was to
bring together divine and royal images in order to increase the status
of the king by demonstrating his physical proximity to the gods and,
more importantly, his likeness to the divine. The depiction of a deity
and a ruler side by side was probably intended to evoke the idea
that god and king not only looked the same but also shared similar
characteristics. The intention to elevate the king by visually comparing him to a god is demonstrated by the nuances shown in the four
compositional layouts selected for the monuments in question.
In the first type the king is shown twice, on either side of a row of
deities. This type was selected for the two relief groups of the Northern
System: the reliefs at Faida and Maltai. Of the three ill-preserved reliefs
found at Faida, two depict a procession of six human-shaped deities
(Reade 1978, 161-162; Boehmer 1997, 248). Four almost identical
and much better preserved rock reliefs were found at Maltai (figure
1; Boehmer 1975; Brker-Klhn 1982, 210-211, nos. 207-210). They
present the small figure of Sennacherib as a worshipper facing right
towards a line of five large figures of gods and two goddesses mounted
on animals and fantastic beasts. An identical figure of the king, facing
left, is depicted at the end of the row of deities creating a composition
of divine figures flanked by two identical, antithetically-placed royal
figures; I refer to this format as an antithetical layout.
The message is rather clear here and conveys that the king is the
only human who is shown in the presence of the great gods of Assyria.
166
t. ornan
5
According to Boehmer (1975, 47) a royal image was also depicted within the ring
held by the god on the heavily reconstructed mural from room 12 of Residence K at
Khorsabad (Loud and Altman 1938, 84-85, pls. 31, 88, 89).
167
pl. 33; Brker-Klhn 1982, 206-207, no. 187). Here only the figures
of Aur and Ninlil mounted on beasts and facing each other are
shown and, similar to the longer version of Maltai, two identical
figures of Sennacherib flank the scene. Although the compositional
correspondence to the reliefs of the Northern System is apparent, the
reduced number of major deities here implies the added importance of
the king since his figure is one of only a select few to be represented
and, furthermore, displayed in the company of Aur and Ninlil, the
supreme divine pair.
Another type of the antithetical layout typified, in this case, by an
inverted positioning of the royal and divine figures within the composition, is represented on the side relief of the solid natural block found
partly sunk in the Gomel River, which formed part of the Gate
monument at the canal head of the Khinis System (figure 3; Bachmann
1927, 14-16, pl. 15; Jacobsen and Lloyd 1935, pl. 34A; Brker-Klhn
1982, 207, no. 188). Here it is the worshipping royal figure that occupies the central place whereas the two deities, Aur (on a muhuu
and a lion griffin) and Ninlil (on a lion) are shown flanking the king
on either side. Similar to the above noted compositions, the Gate
side relief also lacks total symmetry since the three participants are
shown in profile and a slight emphasis towards the figure of Aur is
insinuated by the king looking in that gods direction. This pictorial
encounter of Sennachrib with Aur and Ninlil is shown here in the
upper register of two scenes. The lower register shows a huge herolike frontal figure holding a sickle sword in his right hand and a small
lion in his left. At his two sides are two large aladlammus depicted in
profile and looking outward. The entire scene and in particular the
hero grabbing the lion brings a palatial entrance to mind such as
faade n of the palace of Sargon at Khorsabad (Albenda 1986, pls.
16-17). However, it seems that the combination of the two registers
here was not aimed at alluding to Sargons palace but rather, again, at
elevating the king. The scheme of (two) registers one above the other
is a known ancient Near Eastern pictorial means for describing three
dimensional architectural elements in a two-dimensional articulation:
the lower register presents the outer part of the building, at times,
the entrance, while the upper register stands for its inner and most
important architectural component (compare to the Mari wall painting, Barrelet 1950, 19-20). The godly presence in the upper register
of the side relief of the Khinis System Gate hints, then, at a shrine
168
t. ornan
in which the focus of attention is the king who occupies the central
place. This central positioning of the king almost directly above the
hero grabbing the lion on the lower register creates as yet another
visual simile, which grants the king a heroic supernatural quality.
A complete symmetrical layout of the theme of Sennacherib and
the gods is achieved on the front relief of the above-mentioned Gate
block of the Khinis System canal head. The lower right side of this
carved panel of the block Gate is sunk into the river. The head
and front legs of a frontal-looking aladlammu, whose body is engraved
on the lower right part of the Gate side relief, is shown on this
front panel. This protective hybrid is matched with another aladlammu
sculpted on the right side whose body is presumably found on a third
relief, now hardly traceable, carved on a third panel of the Gate
block (figure 4; Bachmann 1927, 16, pl. 17; Jacobsen and Lloyd 1935,
pl. 34B; Brker-Klhn 1982, 207, no.188 right). Similar to the compositions of the Northern System and the Khinis Great Relief, the
double figure of the king is also depicted on both sides of this front
panel of the Gate block. It is worth mentioning that this type of the
antithetical layout is echoed in seventh century Neo-Assyrian royal
correspondence where one finds several references to the positioning
of two royal figures on either side of the images of major deities such
as Bel in the cella at the city of Aur, Itar at Arabela, Sin at Harran
or Tametu at Borsippa (Cole and Machinist 1998, xiv). The siting
of the royal figure on either side of a god or group of gods reflected
through texts and pictures further accentuates the promotion of the
king since it reiterates a known Mesopotamian construct of placing
a pair of minor divinities on either side of a major deity; thus, the
possibility that the king could have been perceived as a minor divinity
is more than plausible (for example, the Well Relief from the city of
Aur; Orthmann 1975, pl. 194).
The layout of this relief of the Gates front panel, however, diverges from all the other compositions of Sennacheribs rock reliefs
of both the Northern and the Khinis Systems, as here only one deity,
most probably Aur, is flanked by two kings, and the three figures
are represented frontally, and thus a total symmetry is achieved. This
symmetrical display not only acts as a pictorial device bringing the
divine and royal figures closer to the spectator but also creates a
sense of balance, which enhances the message that god and king are
as if alike. Moreover, the similarity apparent between king and god
169
is even increased here by the same type and height of the pedestal
selected for the divine and royal figures. While on the previous reliefs
the worshipping king appropriately stands on the ground and the
deities are mounted on beasts, on the front relief of the canal head
Gate the divine and earthly participants stand on similar rectangular shaped pedestals recalling the age-old Mesopotamian sockels on
which godly images were positioned (CAD s.v. n medu; CAD s.v. ubtu;
Seidl 1989, 110-115), and thus the divine-like nature of the king is
again suggested.
The more varied compositional repertoire representing Sennacherib and anthropomorphic deities apparent on the Khinis reliefs fits
the chronological sequence offered for the Northern and the Khinis
Systems. It may be postulated that the unified theme introduced during the construction of the Northern System, dated between 694-691,
was further developed during the later building of the Khinis System
around 688 (Bagg 2000, 208, 210) into three different pictorial layouts
of Sennacherib and his gods, in which the message that the king and
the god resemble one another was more forcefully suggested.
The iconographic manipulation of depictions of Sennacherib and
the god, in physical proximity or with similar gestures that stressed
their likeness, has some forerunners. Although divine human-shaped
deities are usually missing from Assyrian palatial sculpted decoration,
when occasionally they do appear, a conscious parallelism can be traced
between divine and royal representations. This is manifested on the
south wall of throne-room B in the Northwest Palace of Ashurnasirpal
II, where the figures of Aur and the king are rendered with a great
deal of resemblance except for scalethe king is much larger than the
god. For example, on upper slabs 3 and 11 the two are shown in the
same position of shooting an arrow (Westenholz 2000, 116; Layard
1849, pl. 13). This kind of resemblance is also manifested on upper
slab 5 and lower slab 7 of the same room, though with minor differences. While both figures hold the bow in the triumphal gesture in
their left hand and extend their right arms, on slab 5 the king holds
arrows while the god salutes with an open palm. Similarly on slab 7,
where the king faces an official, the god wields a ring in his right arm
while the king carries a bow (Layard 1849, pl. 21). The parallelism
between god and king explicitly equates these two figures but at the
same time implicitly raises the king, as after all, he is the larger of the
two prominent figures in the scene.
170
t. ornan
For the physical likeness of the king and the gods in Middle and Neo-Assyrian
records see Parpola 1993, 168 n. 33 with bibliography.
171
On the Assyrian control over natural water sources and its pictorial and textual
use in royal propaganda, especially under Shalmaneser III, see Shafer 1998, 91-98.
172
t. ornan
173
174
t. ornan
Parpola, S. 1993. The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Philosophy. JNES 52: 161208.
Pongratz-Leisten, B. 1994. Ina ulmi rub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der aktu-Prozession im Babylonien und Assyrien in I. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Baghdader
Forschungen 16. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Reade, J. 1978. Studies in Assyrian Geography. Part 1: Sennacherib and the Waters
of Nineveh and Part 2. RA 72: 47-72; 157-180.
Reade, J. 2002. Shiru Maliktha and the Bandwai Canal System. In Of Pots and Plans:
Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria presented to David Oates in
Honor of his 75th Birthday, ed. L. al-Gailani Werr, J. Curtis, H. Martin, A. McMahon,
J. Oates, and J. Reade, 309-318. London: Nabu Publications.
Russell, J. M. 1991. Sennacheribs Palace Without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University
of Chicago.
Sallaberger, W. 1999. Ur III-Zeit. In Mesopotamien, Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, W. Sallaberger and A. Westenholz, 121-390. OBO 160/3. Freiburg: Universittsverlag.
Seidl, U. 1989. Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs. OBO 87. Freiburg: Universittsverlag.
Shafer, A. T. 1998. The Carving of an Empire: Neo-Assyrian Monuments on the
Periphery. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Tadmor, H. 1999. World Domination: The Expanding Horizon of the Assyrian
Empire. In Landscapes, Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East, ed. L.
Milano, S. de Martino, F. M. Fales, and G. B. Lanfranchi, 5562. History of the
Ancient Near East 3. Padua: Sargon.
Thureau-Dangin, F. 1924. Les sculptures rupestres de Malta. RA 21: 185-197.
Uehlinger, Ch. 2003. Clio in a World of Pictures-Another Look at the Lachish
Reliefs from Sennacheribs Southwest Palace at Nineveh. In Like a Bird in a Cage:
The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, ed. L. L. Grabbe, 221-305. JSOT Supp. 363.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Ur, J. 2005. Sennacheribs Northern Assyrian Canals: New Insights from Satellite
Imagery and Aerial Photography. Papers of the XLIXe Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, London, 7-11 July 2003, ed. D. Collon and A. George, vol. 1. Iraq
64: 317-345.
Van De Mieroop, M. 2003. Revenge, Assyrian Style. Past & Present 179: 3-22.
Westenholz, J. G. 2000. The King, the Emperor, and the Empire: Continuity and
Discontinuity of Royal Representation in Text and Image. In The Heirs of Assyria
(melammu symposia I), ed. S. Aro and R. M. Whiting, 99-125. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Westenholz, J. G. and A. Westenholz. 2006. Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the
Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem: The Old Babylonian Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill.
Weissert, E. 1997. Creating a Political Climate: Literary Allusions to Enma Eli
in Sennacheribs Account of the Battle of Halule. In Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten,
Proceedings of the XXXIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Heidelberg 6.-10. Juli 1992,
175
Figure 1. Rock relief from Maltai, the northern hydraulic system (Thureau-Dangin 1924, 187)
176
t. ornan
177
Figure 2. The Great Relief, the Khinis hydraulic system (after Bachmann 1927, fig.
8, redrawn by P. Arad)
178
t. ornan
Figure 3. Side relief of the Gate head, the Khinis hydraulic system (after Bachmann
1927, fig. 13, middle, redrawn by P. Arad)
Figure 4. Front relief of the Gate head, the Khinis hydraulic system (after Bachmann 1927, fig. 13, left, redrawn by P. Arad)
179
180
e. denel
181
British Museum during the first half of the twentieth century, first
by D. G. Hogarth and later by Leonard Woolley, uncovered a 120hectare area of the settlement (Hogarth 1914; Woolley 1921, 1952).
The inner fortification system, which Woolley (1921, 51) identified as
an earlier city wall, stands on an artificially built earthen mound and
gives access from the Outer Town to the Inner Town through two
entrances, the West Gate and the South Gate. A highly formalized
section of the site called the Lower Palace Area, located in the long
occupied Inner Town, forms the focus of this study (figure 1). A series
of decorated and inscribed buildings, walls and elaborate gateways
highlights the highly monumental and exclusive nature of this sector
of the settlement, which lies directly below the Citadel Mound.2 Although two buildings, the Temple of the Storm God and the Hilani,
were excavated in their entirety, very little evidence of the architectural
plans of other structures has been recovered in this area. As a result,
the excavators have distinguished the architectural units in this area
on the basis of their decorative schemes, identifying them with such
descriptive labels as the Processional Entry, Royal Buttress, Heralds
Wall and Long Wall of Sculpture. These designations suggest that
the excavators relied on artistic representations also to speculate on
the nature of formal events conducted in the architectural spaces of
the Lower Palace Area.
A series of decorated gates further emphasizes the exclusive character of this sector. The Water Gate controls entry into the Lower
Palace Area from the western bank of the Euphrates in the east. The
Kings Gate connects the Lower Palace Area with the Inner Town
in the south. This gate consists of a broad area to its north that
includes imagery of processions on a substantial wall known as the
Processional Entry.
The western extent of the broad area beyond the Temple of the
Storm God remains unexcavated, thus the gate system and its relationship to the surrounding buildings is only partially understood.
The Great Staircase in the north provides a monumental passage
between this area and the higher ground of the Citadel Mound, where
buildings are almost entirely destroyed by erosion and later building
activities (Woolley 1952, 210-214). Another smaller gate immediately
2
Woolley (1952, 158-159) recognized remains of the royal palace on the terraces
covering the slope of the Citadel Mound, where almost all buildings had been greatly
eroded and destroyed.
182
e. denel
to the south of the Royal Buttress within the Kings Gate and in line
with the eastern wall of the Processional Entry leads into what may
have been a wing of the palace or another official structure.3 These
gates set apart the Lower Palace Area as a highly exclusive location
reserved for a distinguished sector of the society during the formal
events of political ceremonies.
Consequently, the aspect of ceremony with which this paper is
concerned is mainly political. It involves the ability of societies to
establish power relations and sociopolitical order through symbolic
acts conducted in the formalized areas of built environments. These
acts operate in societies to construct, display and promote the power
of political institutions (such as king, state, the village elders) or the
political interests of distinct constituencies and subgroups (Bell 1997,
128). They further involve the reorganization of culturally embedded
meanings and values through rites and rituals to meet changing political circumstances (Kertzer 1988, 175). Inherent in the nature of a
ritual act that is relevant to this study is thus its power to transform
social attitudes, habits and beliefs (Bell 1992, 26) in an overarching
framework of tradition and continuity. As such, it is this transformative nature of ritual that enables it to function as an effective social
mechanism for establishing and maintaining political power relations.
Furthermore, ceremonies rely on shared values and goals to articulate
a community as coherent, ordered and legitimate through symbols
and symbolic actions that are embedded in the perceived order of the
cosmos (Bell 1997, 129). Ceremonies, therefore, provide a conventional
platform for powerful members of the elite class to maintain their social
differentiation. The archaeological evidence from the settlement of
Carchemish provides insight into the operation of such a mechanism
in the sociopolitical system of the kingdom of Carchemish.
With its monumental spaces lined with artistic representations and
monumental inscriptions, the Lower Palace Area of the settlement
provided a physical setting for rites and rituals in broad ceremonial
events. These contributed to the production of royal culture at
Carchemish; that is, how the ruling elite controlled this mechanism
3
Separated by the 15-meter wide path that leads west from the Water Gate, the
architectural relationship between the terraces of the Lower Palace and the structure
immediately to the east of the Kings Gate is unclear. See Woolleys description (1952,
192-193), which does not specify how this structure was linked with the Lower Palace
on the ascending ground to its north.
183
of social differentiation. Four types of evidence point to the performance of rituals for political purposes within monumental spaces of
the Lower Palace Area. These are indentations carved in stone that
functioned as receptacles for libations and other offerings, images
on orthostats that depict actual acts of offering, representations of
processions, and inscriptions that refer to the installation of offerings
and dedications.
Perhaps the most obvious archaeological markers of ritual acts at
and around Carchemish are what David Ussishkin (1975) calls hollows
or cup marks. These are a series of circular indentations cut into a
variety of stone objects including statue bases and dedication tables
(or altars). Such circular cuttings are found in a wide range of ritual
contexts in Late Bronze Age Anatolia. The cemetery of Osmankayas
near Boazky (Bittel, et al. 1958), a lion protome at the Lion Gate of
Boazky (Ussihkin 1975, 91-95), rock outcrops within the settlement
of Boazky (Neve 1996) and on the processional way that leads to
Yazlkaya (Neve 1977/1978), the open-air sanctuaries of Yazlkaya
(Ussishkin 1975, 91) and Fraktin (Ussishkin 1975, 85-86), and a relief
of Muwatalli on a rock cropping by the Ceyhan River near the village of Sirkeli (Ussishkin 1975, 86-89) contain a group of hollows or
cup marks that designate an area of libation and dedication in Hittite religious activity.4 Some altars from Carchemish and its vicinity
contain rectangular compartments alongside circular ones; such altars
were common in the nearby Yunus cemetery (Woolley 1939), as well
as in different areas of the settlement of Carchemish (Woolley 1921,
93-93, fig. 27; 1952, 181-182, fig. 69) (figure 2). Two such altars were
discovered in situ in the Lower Palace Area of Carchemish in front of
the images of the Sun and the Moon Gods (Woolley 1952, pls. 31a,
B33; Ussishkin 1975, 102, fig. 20)5 (figure 1). Representations of these
deities are carved on a large orthostat on the Great Staircase overlooking the wide space between the staircase, the Long Wall of Sculpture
and the Heralds Wall. Another stone block with carved indentations
was found disturbed near a lion protome outside the South Gate of
the Inner Town. This block may have been originally associated with
4
See Hoffner (1967) on the widespread utilization of dedication pits in the second
millennium BC as a particularly significant element of Hittite religion.
5
Ussishkin (1975, 101-102) recognized that what Woolley (1952, 159, 171) had
mistakenly called a basalt impost was in fact a second altar or table offering placed in
front of the images of the two gods.
184
e. denel
185
images displaying the iconography of ritual and power, and representations of processions that extend on long stretches of adjoining
orthostats. Of these two, images of procession represent the act of
bringing dedications and thus complement the act of actual dedication in rites and rituals. Therefore, they highlight the overarching
ceremony that consists of several steps including the actual bringing
and display of the offerings. Representation of soldiers, chariots and
deities on the Long Wall of Sculpture (Woolley 1952, pls. B37-B46)
and soldiers, palace attendants, priestesses and animal bearers on the
Processional Entry (Hogarth 1914, pls. B1-B5; Woolley 1921, pls.
B17a, B19-B24) are ordered in a formalized progression typical of
processions (figure 3). Musicians and dancers on the gate next to the
Royal Buttress (Woolley 1921, pls. B17b, B18) refer to incantations
and performances that often form components of rites and rituals
and consequently emphasize the festive and ceremonial nature of the
processions. The self-contained images, on the other hand, highlight
the religious and mythological traditions of the society in which ritual
acts are by nature integral (Bell 1992, 1997). In some distinct cases, such
as the arrangement of the Heralds Wall (Hogarth 1914, pls. B9-B17;
Woolley 1952, pl. 42), images are removed from their original contexts
and reorganized on a new architectural construction (Orthmann 1971,
31-32). The mythological themes on the majority of these orthostats
convey traditional messages of strength that entrench kingly power
and authority in the past. Although they may not have originally
contributed to the formal events of ceremonies, the reuse of these
representations on the southern border of the wide space in the Lower
Palace Area indicates the operation of a pre-calculated procedure to
incorporate them into this area and into the formal events conducted
here. Consequently, emblematic images together with representations
of processions define ceremonial space and complement the formal
acts conducted in the political heart of the city.
The fourth type of evidence that points to ritual activities in monumental spaces of Carchemish consists of actual statements of dedication in monumental inscriptions. Written in Luwian hieroglyphs,
most inscriptions found at the site commemorate building activities,
celebrate military victories, and honor deities, kings and the royal family. Carved on stone stelae and architectural orthostats during the reigns
of different rulers, these inscriptions mention sacrifices and offerings
made during the inauguration of buildings and monuments and the
subsequent installation of regularized celebrations. In his inscription
186
e. denel
187
188
e. denel
7
The king may have carried out additional constructions; yet this decorated and inscribed wall forms the sole surviving archaeological evidence with such elaborate decoration that is securely associated with his building activities.
189
Orthmann (1971, 501) dates the base and the orthostat on stylistic grounds to a
phase slightly before the execution of the Long Wall of Sculpture. It is therefore possible that Suhis II constructed the Long Wall of Sculpture in order to complement these
preexisting structures.
190
e. denel
9
Upon the kings claim that he made and erected a statue of himself (2000, 89 A1a
28-33), Hawkins (1972, 107, fig. 4) has suggested that an image of the king must have
been included on the Long Wall of Sculpture, either as a discrete representation, like
those of the deities, or as a smaller figure introducing the hieroglyphic figures of the inscription carved in the style of the image from the inscriptions of Katuwas (Woolley
1921, A13d) or Yariris (Hogarth 1914, pls. A6, B6).
191
cult of the queen, therefore, stands as a pretense for the kings own
dynastic aspirations to elevate the state of kingship onto the even
higher plane of the gods.
In addition to this strategy to secure the kings power in the social,
political and cosmic order of Carchemish, the emphasis Suhis II placed
on the ancestor cult possibly relates to his ancestors seizure of control
from the previous ruling family. Several sources suggest that Suhis I,
the grandfather of Suhis II, usurped the throne from the Great Kings,
who descended from the Hittite royal family (Hawkins 1995). A major
source on the change of power at Carchemish is an eleventh or tenth
century BC stele with an inscription honoring Ura-Tarhunzas, the
Great King, Hero, King of the land of Karkami (Hawkins 2000,
80 A4b). Another piece of evidence that complements this information is a later reference made by Katuwas, the son of Suhis II, to his
suppression of a rebellion lead by the 20-TATI, the kinsmen of
Ura-Tarhunzas (Hawkins 2000, 95 A11a 5, 103 A11b 4). Located
in the courtyard of the Temple of the Storm God, the stele of UraTarhunzas identifies the dedicator as the priest of the goddess Kubaba
and the son of a ruler, who is named Suhis. On the basis of the
genealogical references made in monumental inscriptions, Hawkins
links this individual with Suhis I, the father of king Atuwatamanzas
and the grandfather of Suhis II (Hawkins 1995, 78). Later references
made by Katuwas to the trouble caused by the grandsons of UraTarhunzas suggests a significant social and political resistance to the
order and authority of his kingship. This probably emerged in response
to a fundamental power transformation that occurred at Carchemish
with the deposition of Ura-Tarhunzas. The family of Ura-Tarhunzas
seems not to have lost all its influence, but retained substantial social
and economic ability to contest the authority of the descendents of the
usurper. Inscriptions further show that the royal title changed at the
same time as when political power was fundamentally altered in the
kingdom. The descendents of Suhis I took the titles of Ruler and
Country Lord instead of continuing the earlier tradition of Great
King (Hawkins 1995). This is an act that reflects a deliberate attempt
to break away from the Hittite roots of kingship. Consequently, the
formalization of the ceremonial space at the settlement of Carchemish
and the elevation of royal status into the realm of the gods are elements of the kingship strategy that Suhis II developed to establish his
legitimacy and maintain his authority as the grandson of a usurper.
Such a calculated act suggests that threats to the legitimacy of the
192
e. denel
Hawkins (2000, 77) considers Suhis II for the identity of the statue next to the
193
194
e. denel
11
A fragmented stele in the vicinity the Heralds Wall supports the association of
this wall with Katuwas construction (Woolley 1952, 176, 187, 273; Hawkins 2000, 113114 A12).
195
the untimely death of Astiruwas until the kings son, Kamanis, came of
age to take possession of kingship. Accordingly, his status was unique
and potentially open to appropriation of power. Yet he remained in
control, as he proclaimed in his monumental inscription, only until
Kamanis was ready to take the seat of kingship. During his reign, he
preserved the ceremonial space of Carchemish and inserted several
monuments to commemorate his own power and to establish his legitimacy. The most significant of these is the composition he placed
on the Royal Buttress to incorporate a row of attendants into the
processional scheme of the Processional Entry (Hogarth 1914, 28,
pls. A6, B6, A7; Woolley 1921, viii, pl. A15b, b*; 1952, 266, 275, pl.
A24; Hawkins 2000, 124-125 A6, 129 A7, 130-131 A15B, 134-135
A24a). All of these figures depict beardless adults, probably intending to represent a group of eunuchs.12 Although eunuchs played an
important role in the administration of numerous Near Eastern societies, the reign of Yariris reflects a period of increased power in the
administration of Carchemish. The archaeological evidence for rites
and rituals at this time is not so prolific; yet visual and textual sources
suggest a continued emphasis on the rites and rituals of important
city gods. Thus, Yariris adopted a strategy to legitimize his status and
authority that emphasized his close association with the deities and
protection of the religious order.
On the Royal Buttress, Yariris presents the principles of his authority at Carchemish; he depicts himself as a proper guardian for
the royal children, a builder, and a protector of the religious and
political orders at Carchemish. Previous rulers, Suhis II and Katuwas,
had established ceremonies to communicate their superior status as
a source of legitimacy. Yariris emphasized his subservient position to
the royal family. Although he clearly occupied the seat of kingship,
the Royal Buttress emphasizes his protective and educational role
in raising the children of the king as a main aspect of his authority.
Because he was not a son of the king, his acquisition of power implies
12
On the basis of artistic representation, Reade (1972) has shown a distinction between bearded and beardless officials in the Assyrian royal court, where the beardless
males constitute almost a formulaic representation of eunuchs. The peculiar appearance
of Yariris that bears a close resemblance to Assyrian eunuchs and the interpretation of
the term wasinasi- in monumental texts as eunuch have lead to the conjecture that
the royal court of Carchemish comprised a substantial group of eunuchs at least in the
8th century BC (Hawkins 1986, 263-265; 2000, 128, 135; 2002, 231-232).
196
e. denel
197
198
e. denel
199
Figure 1. Sketch plan of the Lower Palace Area with the statue bases B25, B53a and B34 (reprinted and adapted, by permission of the
Trustees of the British Museum, from Woolley 1952, pl. 41a)
200
e. denel
201
Figure 3. Processions of soldiers and eunuchs next to the Royal Buttress and the statue base B53a (reprinted, by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum, from Hogarth 1914, pl. B1b)
202
e. denel
Figure 4. Relief of wife of Suhis II, BONUS-tis, on the Long Wall of Sculpture (reprinted and adapted, by
permission of the Trustees of the British Museum, from Woolley 1952, pl. B40b)
204
e. denel
205
206
t. tanyeri-erdemir
207
shrines of the ninth century B.C. that were built in the form of threetiered niches cut into rock outcrops, with an inscription carved into
the flattened surface of the rock3 and commonly located at the foot of
massive outcrops in the countryside; and 2) Urartian standard temples4
that are characterized by a square plan with reinforced corners, thick
walls, and a very small square cella.5 The massive stone walls were
topped with mudbrick walls. The extensive mudbrick wash encountered around all the excavated Urartian temples suggests that they
were significantly tall buildings, although it is hard to guess exactly
how high they were. Standard temples were, without exception, always
located within the walls of the citadels. Their locations were carefully
chosen with a deliberate consideration of the sites topography and
the temples architectural relation to the rest of the edifices in the
citadel. The vantage point from the temple grounds, as well as the
Second, even if one assumes that they are Urartian, we do not have any evidence to
suggest a ritual activity associated with them. They could have fulfilled a different, possibly utilitarian function.
3
Three rock-cut niche monuments have been attested: Meherkaps (Salvini 1994),
Yeilal (Sevin and Belli 1976/77) and Hazinepiri Kaps (Belli and Dinol 1980).
4
Nine standard temples have been excavated to date. These are the temples at the
sites of Yukar Anzaf (Belli 1992a, 1993), Patnos/Anzavurtepe (Balkan 1960), Kayaldere (Burney 1966), Arin-Berd (Forbes 1983, 71), avutepe main citadel, avutepe upper citadel (Erzen 1976/77, 1978b), Altntepe (zg 1966), Toprakkale (Erzen
1967), and Ayanis (ilingirolu 2001). Two others are known from inscriptions at
Krzt (Dinol 1976) and Karmir-Blur (Salvini 1967, 1979a).
5
This temple type is also called a tower temple, a tall temple, a square temple, or a susi in the literature. The standard temple, however, is not the sole temple
form attested in Urartu. Three buildings with significantly different constructions have
been identified as temples in Armavir by the excavator, mainly based on the finds.
There is, however, significant dispute over this identification. Forbes (1983, 74) holds
the position that there is not enough evidence to suggest that these buildings were temples, whereas Smith (1996, 247-248) states that there can be different temple forms other than the standard temple. There is one building excavated in Erebuni that shows a
plan similar to a Mesopotamian bent-axis temple plan. We cannot dismiss the idea that
there might be also other buildings or spaces of cultic significance that cannot be yet
architecturally identified as temples. Nevertheless, the dominant temple type in Urartu is the standard temple. Susi is the Urartian word attested in the dedicatory inscriptions of several standard temples. After the excavation and publication of the temple
inscription from Karmir-Blur, Salvini (1979a) made a convincing argument stating that
the word susi should refer to the Urartian standard temple. This interpretation of the
term is widely accepted and used in literature. While I agree with the identification of
the term, I prefer to use standard temple instead of susi, because susi is not exclusively used for standard temples in the 9th century B.C., as can be seen in the Yeilal inscription. Yeilal is a rock-cut niche monument, the inscription on which refers to it as
a susi (Sevin and Belli 1976/77, 383).
208
t. tanyeri-erdemir
209
210
t. tanyeri-erdemir
211
newly built fortresses of the eighth and seventh centuries suggests that
this sort of ritual architecture might have fallen out of fashion after
the emergence of the first standard temples. With the emergence of
these standard temples, royal rituals appear to have moved inside the
massive fortifications.
The similarity between the open-air shrines of Meherkaps and
Yeilal and the faades of standard square temples is striking and
has been investigated previously by Taner Tarhan and Veli Sevin
(1975). The gates of standard square temples display the same threetiered frames.6 The proportions of threshold widths and depths are
also comparable (Tarhan and Sevin 1975, 408). Additionally I would
like to stress that in both, there seems to be a marked preference for
frontality. Moreover, linguistically, in the Urartian language the words
K (gate) and susi are used interchangeably for the standard temples
and three-tiered rock niches, which further suggests that they might
have represented similar if not identical concepts, and perhaps to
a level that was indistinguishable to the ancient audience.7
This being the case, we need to point out significant differences
between the rock-cut shrines and the temples. The most prominent
difference is that the rock-cut shrines are located in the landscape and
could have accommodated a relatively larger audience for the enactment of rituals, whereas only a limited audience could be hosted in
the courtyards of the temples. Although it is impossible to know who
watched and participated in these rituals, we can assume that access
to them was significantly restricted following the relocation of sacred
spaces inside the fortification walls.
Let us consider possible ceremonial and ritual activities that might
have taken place in the Urartian standard temples. The cellas of the
Urartian temples are relatively small (table 2).8 The cella walls have
6
However, one should also note that the shape of the upper parts of the temple
gates is still unknown. Based on the representations of Urartian citadels in art, some
scholars prefer to reconstruct it as an arched gate. Similar three-tiered door frames have
also been attested in civil architecture and tombs (Tarhan and Sevin 1975, 408).
7
The inscription on Yeilal niche identifies that monument as a susi (Sevin and
Belli 1976/77, 383), while the temple inscription of Krzt states it to be a K (Dinol
1976, 24-25).
8
The cellas of Urartian temples are square rooms usually measuring around 5 x 5
m. The temples at Patnos and Kayaldere are 5 x 5 m (Burney 1966); the upper citadel
temple and the Irmuini temple at avutepe are both 4.5 x 4.5 m (Erzen 1976/77); Altntepe temple is 5.20 x 5.20 m (zg 1966); and the Ayanis temple is 4.58 x 4.62 m
(ilingirolu 2001).
212
t. tanyeri-erdemir
213
evidence related to the find-spot of the altar is unclear, all others are
placed in alignment with the front door of the temple. The presence
of these features in the temple courtyards strongly suggests that the
ritual activities were performed in front of the temples. The temple
courtyards vary in size but they are significantly larger than the temple
cellas and could have hosted several tens of individuals if they were to
be included in the ceremonies, as participants or as audience.
Through time, we can also observe that the temples became more
and more spatially secluded and self-contained (table 1). The temples
at Yukar Anzaf and Kayaldere built in the late ninth and early eighth
centuries B.C. were abutting the fortification walls, and the temple
courtyards could be reached directly by a ramp leading from the city
gates (Belli 1992a, 1993; Burney 1966). The temples built by Argiti
I (786-764 B.C.) and Sarduri II (764-734 B.C.) in the eighth century
are located farther away from the city walls, towards the center of the
citadels. The temples at Arin-Berd and avutepe, built by Argiti
I and Sarduri II respectively, have some indication that they might
have had colonnaded courtyards. The avutepe upper citadel temple
was enclosed in a temenos wall, and three round column bases were
excavated to its west (Erzen 1978b, 3). The Altntepe temple, which
is dated to the late eighth or early seventh century B.C., was located
in a compound with high walls and a colonnaded courtyard (zg
1966). The seventh-century temple of Haldi built by Rusa II recently
excavated at Ayanis, illustrates that the temple was enclosed in a wall
and was surrounded by massive pillars, instead of columns (ilingirolu 2001). The Ayanis temple courtyard had two entrances one of
which was blocked sometime during the lifetime of the temple. Both
of the entrances were fairly small and neither had direct access to the
faade of the temple.
The temple grounds were always located at the highest spot of
the citadels and at secure locations. In the absence of epigraphic
data informing us about the details of possible ceremonial activities,
suring 2.00 x 1.35 m. It is the same size as the temple gate and is in perfect alignment
with it. The excavator called this feature a stele base but in Urartu, stele bases usually have a slot for erecting the inscribed stone. Thus, I believe this feature could best be
identified as an altar. For Toprakkale, see the photo published in Rassam (1897, 377),
which shows a stone-basin in the shape of a key-hole. In the photograph, the feature is
seen to the right of the entrance to the temple, however, there is no indication whether
it had been moved by the excavators. As opposed to the ones discussed above, this altar
is a heavy, but potentially moveable object.
214
t. tanyeri-erdemir
215
The kings are Sarduri I, Ipuini, Menua, Argiti I, Sarduri II, Rusa I, Argiti II,
and Rusa II. The dynasty started in the mid-9th century B.C. and continued up to the
end of the reign of Rusa II in the late 7th century B.C. The dynastic succession is not
clear after the termination of Rusa IIs reign.
15
i-da--ri i- Dhal-di-i-me LUGL-T-hi a-ru-ni na-ha-di LAD-si-ni e-si
LUGL-T-hi-i-ni, here translated by Salvini (2001a, 259: sect. I, l. 4). An almost
identical phrase is attested in a similar susi inscription from Karmir-Blur LUGL-Thi a-ru-ni na-ha-[di LAD-si-ni?] e-si LUGL-T-hi-ni (ll. 3-4, Karmir-Blur inscription, UKN 448, as published in Artunjan 2001, 348: text no. 424, ll. 3-4).
16
Dhal-di-e EN- mru-sa-a-e mar-gi-te-hi-ni-e u-t-ni (as translated by Salvini
2001b, 275). This is the most basic version of the dedicatory inscription, which is found
on a spearhead (AyBr 13), on two bronze foundation discs (AyBr 14 a-b), four bronze
and one iron sikkatu type nails (AyBr 15a-d; AyBr 16). More elaborate versions are
216
t. tanyeri-erdemir
attested on imperial shields (such as AyBr 1, which is followed by a lengthy curse formula) (Salvini 2001b).
17
These bronze bowls were found stacked in a pithos (Piotrovsky 1952, 49-63).
They are inscribed with the names of Urartian kings, Menua, Argiti, Sarduri, and
Rusa. The bowls also have incised decorations on them. A tower with a tree on top is
depicted on almost all of them. Some additionally have a small lions head, bulls head,
or an eagles head. Barnett included these images in his study of Urartian hieroglyphics (1974). For the time being, in light of available evidence, it is hard to argue whether
they are indeed hieroglyphics.
18
The inscription on the candelabrum became visible after conservation. See Friedrich (1961) for the inscription on candelabrum. For the Karmir-Blur bowls, see Piotrovsky 1952, 49-63.
19
The tablets and bullae excavated from Toprakkale, Karmir-Blur, Bastam, Ayanis, and Yukar Anzaf contain names of various individuals. In the tablets from Ayanis
individuals are commonly identified with their town or region of origin. For example,
in CB AY-4, Nulagi is identified as a person from the city of Karmir-Blur, in CB AY5, Zanprina is identified as a person from the city of Qul (Salvini 2001c, 282). In a tablet recently excavated from Yukar Anzaf (YAK 2002 5.C.332), Gulili is identified as a
porter (Belli and Salvini 2003, 147). For more examples see Salvini 1979b, 1979c, 1988,
2001c; Belli and Salvini 2003.
217
218
t. tanyeri-erdemir
I would suggest, as it is the case with official art in Winters formulation, imperial sacred architecture in Urartu was highly instrumental in
the production and reinforcement of social hierarchy. The increased
inaccessibility and seclusion of standard temples, coupled with their
visual grandeur, could have been an effective way of marking the
distinction of the king from the rest of the populace while, at the
same time, dazzling the common folk living in the outer town with
the glorious but unreachable, towering image of the temple.
219
References
Akurgal, Ekrem. 1968. Urartische und altiranische Kunstzentren. Trk Tarih Kurumu
Yaynlarndan VI. Seri No.9. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu Basmevi.
Artunjan, N. V. 2001. Korpus urartskich klinoobraznych nadpisej. Erevan: Izdatelstvo
Gitujun.
Balkan, Kemal. 1960. Patnos Yaknnda Anzavurtepede Bulunan Urartu Tapna
ve Kitabeleri. Anatolia V: 133-131.
. 1964. Patnosta Kefedilen Urartu Tapna ve Urartu Saray. Atatrk Konferanslar 1: 235-243.
Barnett, R.D. 1950. The Excavations of the British Museum at Toprak Kale, near
Van. Iraq 12: 1-43.
. 1974. The Hieroglyphic Writing of Urartu. In Anatolian Studies Presented to
Hans Gustav Gterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. K. Bittel and H. J. Houwink Ten Cate, 43-55. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in
Het Nabije Oosten.
Belli, Oktay. 1992a. Van-Anzaf Urartu Kaleleri Kazs. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 54/55:
13-27.
. 1992b. 1991 Yl Anzaf Urartu Kaleleri Kazs. Kaz Sonular Toplants
14/1: 441-468.
. 1993. Aa ve Yukar Anzaf Urartu Kaleleri Kazs (1991-1992). Arkeoloji
ve Sanat 58: 3-32.
. 1998. Anzaf Kaleleri ve Urartu Tanrlar. stanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynlar.
. 2000. Dou Anadoluda Urartu Krallna Ait Antsal Kaya aretlerinin
Aratrlmas. In Trkiye Arkeolojisi ve stanbul niversitesi (1932-1999), ed. O. Belli,
403-408. Ankara: Baak Matbaaclk.
Belli, Oktay, and Ali M. Dinol. 1980. Hazine Piri Kaps ve Aa Zivistan Ta
Ocaklar. Anadolu Aratrmalar 8: 167-188.
Belli, Oktay, and Mirjo Salvini. 2003. Two Clay Documents from Upper Anzaf
Fortress Near Van. SMEA 45/2: 141-152.
Bourdieu, Pierre. [1991] 1994. In Language and Symbolic Power, ed. John B. Thompson.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Burney, C. A. 1966. A First Season of Excavations at the Urartian Citadel of Kayaldere. Anatolian Studies 16: 55-111.
. 1992. The God Haldi and the Urartian State. In Hittite and Near Eastern
Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, ed. H. Otten, 107-110. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu
Basmevi.
Burney, C. A. and G. R. J. Lawson. 1958. Urartian Reliefs at Adilcevaz, on Lake Van,
and a Rock Relief from the Karasu, near Birecik. Anatolian Studies 8: 211-218.
220
t. tanyeri-erdemir
ilingirolu, Altan A. 2001. Temple Area. In Ayanis I: Ten Years Excavations at Rusahinili Eiduru-kai 1989-1998, ed. A. ilingirolu and M. Salvini, 36-65. Documenta
Asiana VI. Rome: Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici.
Diakonoff, Igor M. 1991. Sacrifices in the City of Teieb (UKN 448) - Lights on
the Social History of Urartu. AMIran n.f. 24: 13-21.
Dinol, Ali Muzaffer. 1976. Die neuen urartischen Inschriften aus Krzt. Istanbuler
Mitteilungen 26: 19-30.
. 1978/80. Urartaische Inschriften aus avutepe-Sardurihinili. Anadolu 21:
95-104.
Erzen, Afif. 1967. 1959-1961 Yllar Arasnda Toprakkale Aratrmalar. In VI Trk
Tarih Kongresi, 53-71. Trk Tarih Kurumu Yaynlar, 9. Seri, No. 6. Ankara: Trk
Tarih Kurumu Basmevi.
. 1976/77. avutepe Yukar Kale ve Toprakkale 1976 Dnemi Kazlar.
Anadolu Aratrmalar 4-5: 1-25.
. 1978a. avutepe I. Trk Tarih Kurumu Yaynlar no. V/37. Ankara: Trk
Tarih Kurumu Basmevi.
. 1978b. avutepe Yukar Kale ve Toprakkale 1977 almalar. Anadolu
Aratrmalar 6: 1-7.
Erzen, Afif, Emin Bilgi, Yusuf Boysal, and Baki n. 1963. Van evresi 1963
almalar. Trk Arkeoloji Dergisi 12/2: 34-36.
Forbes, Thomas B. 1983. Urartian Architecture. BAR International Series 170. Oxford:
BAR.
Friedrich, von Johannes. 1961. Der urartische Kandelaber in Hamburg und seine
Keilinschrift. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morganlndischen Gesellschaft 111: 285-287.
`nalck, Halil. [1973] 2002. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600. London:
Phoenix Press.
Kleiss, Wolfram. 1963/64. Zur Rekonstruktion des urartischen Tempels. IstMitt
13/14: 1-14.
. 1976. Urartischer Architektur. In Urartu: Ein wiederentdeckter Rivale Assyriens,
ed. Hans-Jrg Keller, 28-44. Munich: Pristorischen Staatssammlung.
. 1989. Zur Rekonstruktion des urartischen Tempels. IstMitt 39: 265-271.
Knig, Friedrich W. 1953. Die Gtterwelt Armeniens zur Zeit der Chalder-Dynastie
(9.-7. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). Archiv fr Vlkerkunde 8: 142-171.
. 1955. Handbuch der chaldischen Inscriften I. AfO, Beiheft 8. Graz.
. 1957. Handbuch der chaldischen Inscriften II. AfO, Beiheft 8. Graz.
Lehmann-Haupt, C. F. 1907. Materialen zur Kultur und zur Herkunf der Chalder, vornehmlich
aus den Ausgrabungen auf Toprakkalh bei Van. Berlin: Abhandlungen der Knigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zur Gttingen. Philologish-historische Klasse. N.f. IX, 3.
221
222
t. tanyeri-erdemir
Figure 1. Suggested reconstruction of a 7th century B.C. Urartian standard temple based on the architectural and
archaeological data from Ayanis, showing a possible decorative scheme of the temple grounds
224
t. tanyeri-erdemir
Table 1. Three tiered rock-cut niche shrines and standard temples built by Urartian kings
(temple plans not drawn to scale)
225
226
t. tanyeri-erdemir
III
Legitimization of Authority: Ideological Contexts
227
228
j. aker
229
I am indebted to Jack Cheng, Edward H. Cohen and Marian Feldman for their
careful reading of this paper, which has greatly benefited from their comments.
230
j. aker
231
treatment of the brow and deeply recessed eye of the lioness, in the
nearby softer waves of the planes of her ear and its sharply delineated
edge, and in the incised line that represents the powerful muscles of
the upper foreleg (figure 3). Emphasis on isolated anatomical details
triggers the imagination of the viewer to conjure the rest of the form
in a convincing and emotionally resonant anatomical likeness. For
example, the volumetric treatment of a few forms in contrast to the
flatter carving of the rest of the body draws the viewers eye to the
lioness face, forepaws, and the extremity of her hindquarters. The
combination of these three areas in her body highlights the tense
muscles of her face, the grip of the claws of her forepaws, and the
anatomically nearly incoherent huddle of her lower extremity, thus
expressing the strain of the lioness as she drags her paralyzed hindquarters. The articulation of this strain elevates the passage from the
visual notation of a fact to an expression of pain and suffering.
The second aspect of workmanship for which the Room C reliefs
are celebrated is the way forms are embellished to show a range
of details from their gross mass to their shallowest surface features.
The passage that shows the king spearing a lion from his chariot illustrates the extreme degree to which detail is given to forms while
maintaining their visual coherence as distinct entities. For example,
the tunic of the charioteer is decorated all over with geometric and
floral patterns and figurative scenes executed in light incision (figure
4). The decoration is organized into panels that cover different zones
of the body: the upper arms, the shoulders and the torso. From afar,
the lightly incised patterns organized into distinct panels coalesce
into an impression of texture that helps to identify the tunic as a
decorated garment, while up close the impression of texture resolves
into individual rosettes, leaves, squares and cross-hatches, beads, and
the like. That these visual effects do not interfere with the viewers
perception of the charioteers body in profile is remarkable, because
the underlying forms of the forward mass of the right shoulder, the
hollow of the underarm, and the curve of the chest are indicated
solely by the outline of the right shoulder and the right arm and a
slight concavity along the bottom edge of the arm where its outline
ends across the torso. Such embellishments, the details of forms, are
effected in high relief as well as shallow incision, and it is the strategic
alternation of these techniques that helps maintain the legibility of
such intensely worked passages. For example, the high rounded form
232
j. aker
of the plain arm bands worn by the charioteer calls attention to these
jewels against the shallow relief of the arm and the flat surface of
the garment decoration. A much more complicated passage is the
representation of the kings face and body in profile, where high and
shallow relief alternate to describe an extreme wealth of detail that
ranges from the kings ear to the silky fringe that decorates the ends
of the streamers that hang from his headgear (figures 5, 6). Here the
viewer can see the arm and wrist band of the king in nearly threedimensional form rendered to the smallest detail of the central vein
of each petal of their rosettes. One can examine the decoration of
the kings tunic and his belt, and discern even the ornamentation of
his one-piece armguard and glove. The passage where the king draws
back his bow shows such tiny details as the cuticle of his thumb and
the shallow grooves (or the ridges of wound thread) that provide a
handle grip at the riser of the bow.
The third aspect of workmanship upon which I focus is competence. Here I mean not the mastery of techniques of carving discussed
above but mastery in the rendering of forms and their relationship
to one another, the degree to which forms are represented correctly
and the reliefs are free of various kinds of mistakes. Again, the passage that shows the king spearing a lion from his chariot illustrates
the extraordinary competence of the carvers. Here, four figures, the
charioteer, the king, and his two bodyguardsa beardless man holding the kings bow and a bearded man readying his spear to defend
the king if necessaryare overlapped and tightly compressed into
the cab of the chariot to a degree unprecedented in Neo-Assyrian
monumental reliefs. Until Assurbanipal, figures were hardly overlapped, and when they were they were few and engaged in simpler
activities. In this case, the overlap causes a severe fragmentation of
the body parts of the two bodyguards who stand next to the king.
The skill of the carvers is revealed in the way they manage to keep
the overlapping parts and the gear of all four figures in their correct
anatomical position and within the correct spatial plane in relation
to one another. On a smaller scale, though no less impressive, is the
passage that shows the charioteer holding the reins of the horses. He
holds three straps in each hand and distributes each strap between
the first four digits. In addition, he holds a whip with the thumb and
index finger of his right hand. Here, the carver not only managed
to show correctly the way a charioteer would hold multiple straps of
233
234
j. aker
235
Looking beyond the distracting effect of this later damage, a careful examination reveals differences in the embellishment of forms as
well as differences in the quality and competence of their carving.
A number of passages can be identified where the carving can be
described as indifferent if not downright incompetent. Problems in
workmanship fall into three categories: there are mistakes, both of
omission and commission, in the representation of forms; in some
areas the quality of the carving itself appears shockingly poor; and
some passages appear unfinished.
Some of the mistakes are more obvious than others. Mistakes of
omission, such as missing details and irregularities, are barely noticeable, perhaps because they occur primarily in regularly repeated forms.
For example, one of the attendants holding a temporary screen around
the chariot of the king is missing his belt (Barnett 1976, pl. 5, slab
5, 3rd figure from left), the uppermost pair of the three stacked pairs
of attendants performing the same duty is missing the sticks tucked
under their arms (Barnett 1976, pl. 5, slab 6), two of the helmeted
spear bearers standing to attention on either side of the horses brought
to the chariot are missing their swords (Barnett 1976, pl. 6, slab 7,
lower register, 1st figure from left; slab 8, upper register, 4th figure from
left), and three of the archers from the pairs of soldiers who line the
boundary of the arena are also missing their swords (Barnett 1976, pl.
6, slab 9, 5th, 7th and 9th figures from the top). Equally hard to detect
are the occasional lapses in correspondence between sections that were
meant to mirror each other. For example, among soldiers who stand
to attention as the kings horses are brought, the rosettes that decorate
the inner band of the round shields depicted on the upper register are
missing from their counterparts on the lower register (Barnett 1976,
pl. 6, slab 7). In those same paired lines of soldiers, the number of
helmeted spear bearers depicted on each register does not match;
there are seven of them on the top register and only six of them on
the bottom register (Barnett 1976, pl. 6, slabs 7, 8). Likewise, framing
the beginning of one of the hunt scenes, only nine pairs of archers and
spear bearers are shown to form the boundary of the arena, whereas
there are 10 such pairs to mark the end of the scene (Barnett 1976,
pls. 6, 9, slabs 9, 17). Sections of such repeated forms, especially the
rows of soldiers, seem additionally beset with irregularities in spacing;
some are farther apart and others much closer. The repetition of forms
236
j. aker
237
238
j. aker
239
Michael Roaf (1983) was able to identify different groups of sculptors who carved
the Persepolis reliefs. However, the Persepolis reliefs, in particular the processions that
he examined, consisted of repetitive forms deployed across a fairly wide expanse. By
contrast, the reliefs under study cover a much smaller area and are localized in a single
room. The sculptors working in the North Palace may have belonged to more than one
workshop but when the focus is limited to the material in Room C, there is not enough
comparative data to distinguish the work of hands that belong to different workshop
traditions. Roaf (1983, 27) also demonstrated that in some cases a master carver had
carved the heads of the figures while his assistants executed the rest of the bodies. The
Persepolis reliefs with their uniform ceremonial processions seem particularly suited to
this kind of labour division, but it seems not have been practiced in Room C, where one
craftsman seems to have been responsible for carving the entirety of a figure or groups
of figures.
240
j. aker
241
242
j. aker
appearance to flat surfaces. One area of the reliefs stands out for the
extraordinary indifference with which it seems to have been carved.
This section shows a number of unarmed, bearded and beardless
individuals variously converging upon the hill, climbing it or nearing
its summit. They are executed at the same small scale as the soldiers
who form the boundary of the arena. While not as poorly carved as
the soldiers, the rendering of the spectators beards and hair curls,
some of which are on the verge of devolving into cross-hatching,
shows that the quality of the carving is also not particularly good. But
it is the fact that the carving of this section was left unfinished that
distinguishes it from all others. Here forms were blocked out but, as
noted above, finer details of some of themthe leaves and needles
of the trees, the beard, hair, belt, boot laces and stockings of at least
one figure prominently positioned near the top of the hillwere left
unfinished.
This careful differentiation of groups by regulating the amount of skill
and care devoted to their carving suggests that aspects of workmanship were used by the planners of the reliefs as a visual tool for communicating meaning above and beyond that of representing forms.
More specifically, I would argue that, in the monumental lion hunts
of Assurbanipal, quality of workmanship functioned as a deliberate
ideological tool that articulated and enforced rank and social status
in the same way other formal and iconographic means (such as size,
placement, relative position, gesture, hair, beard, dress, jewelry, weapons, headgear and footwear) were used in Assyrian reliefs to express
hierarchy (for example, Marcus 1981). The ideological nature of the
deployment of workmanship across these reliefs is perhaps best evident in the way some figures were slighted by this means while others
were honored beyond their apparent rank. In particular, the exquisite carving and intricate embellishment of the chariot crew elevated
these middle ranking officers above all others nearly to the level of
the king. Conversely, high ranking officials and officers identifiable
by their long tunics with tasseled hems and fringed shawls (Marcus
1981, 53-57) were marginalized by being placed among the passive
spectators and depicted in a size smaller than the dog handlers and
the nearby foot soldiers standing at attention. This marginalization is
emphasized by the mediocre workmanship given to their forms and
their placement in a section of the reliefs so undervalued as to be
left unfinished. Without the distracting effect of surface erosion, the
243
deliberate neglect of the area would have been all the more glaring
during Assurbanipals times. The denigration of these high ranking
figures was further underscored by their lack of jewelry and weapons
of rank, the paucity of their numbers, and their considerable physical
distance from the king and his activities.8
An explanation for the attention lavished on the chariot crew in
particular may be found in the efforts of late Sargonid kings to deal
with the political instabilities of their times. Following the upheavals of
the deaths of Sargon II and Sennacherib and the assassination attempts
on Esarhaddon, a number of surviving records such as queries to gods
and loyalty oaths document the growing concern of the Sargonid kings
for the safety of their persons and the longevity of their reigns. From
administrative records it appears that the kings employed a number of
strategies designed to foster loyalty. These consisted of incentives in the
form of gifts of tax exemptions, land grants (and sources of income),
and status items such as bracelets and decorated garments, as well as
deterrents such as the withdrawal of royal favor and the attendant loss
of wealth and position in court. These same records suggest that the
kings, Assurbanipal among them, directed a considerable portion of
their patronage toward some of the middle ranking officers in the
kings immediate service, in particular, charioteers and third men,
bodyguards who were physically the closest to the king and charged
with ensuring his safety. These officers are documented to have held
their posts for long periods, amassed immense wealth, and, judging
by their appearance in witness lists, gained considerable status within
the court, possibly at the expense of other, higher ranking officers and
officials and family members who were incidentally likely to pose the
greatest threat to the continuity of the kings reign.9
I have argued elsewhere that the lion hunt reliefs in Room C constituted one of the strategies of patronage by which Assurbanipal
tried to enlist and ensure the loyalty of the middle and low ranking
members of his court and army upon whom he was most dependent.
The expansion of the hunt narrative, to include the kings preparations and multiple scenes from the course of the hunt itself, allowed
8
By contrast, see procession scenes of Assurnasirpal II and Sargon II where such
figures, bejeweled and embellished with gear and weapons, were placed in positions of
prominence across from the king (Marcus 1981).
9
This process is explained and documented in detail in my forthcoming dissertation
on the monumental lion hunt reliefs of Room C in Assurbanipals North Palace.
244
j. aker
245
246
j. aker
are equipped with highly complicated tack for harnessing them to the
chariot. The tack consists of a bridle, bits, frontlet, blinkers, headstall, poll crest, nape strap with bells, thong, neck strap, breast and
girth bands. This tack, in itself thoroughly decorated with floral and
geometric patterns, functions both as ornamentation and as a sign of
the rank for the horses much like the dress and gear of the human
beings shown on the reliefs. An indication of domestication, the tack
transforms the horse from a mere animal into a being that shares the
human realm. Furthermore, the fineness of the tacks ornamentation,
rendered with some relief to make it stand out, indicates that the kings
chariot horses occupy a fairly high rank in the network of animate and
inanimate tools of kingship that extend from the king and serve him.
That the condition of domestication is not just a matter of donning
gear but one that permeates the subjectivity of the horses is indicated
by their precise grooming: the mane is combed and clipped to present
an unbroken sweeping outline against the neck, a shock of hair over
the brows is given a blunt cut, and the tail is combed, crimped into
waves, and plaited at the end into a small loop. Furthermore, each
strand of hair on the horses is indicated in shallow relief precisely to
articulate the artificial patterning that the grooming imposes on the
animals body (figure 13). By contrast, the mane of the lionsunruly,
uneven in length, and therefore ungroomedcurl into small, triangular tufts.
The horses, harnessed to the kings chariot, are embellished to the
same degree and for the same reason that any other gear and accessory
of the king is embellished. Thus, their status is clarified with the use of
ornamentation and embellishment. And like everything that extends
from the king and becomes part of his representation, the horses are
carved to show a considerable range in depth of relief, from high to
shallow. This variation in depth of relief reveals ever finer levels of
detailing as the viewer comes closer to the reliefs. Whatever is part
of the civilized domain and of high status has this kind of elaborate
embellishment that accrues on its form in multiple layers of increasing
complexity. In the lion hunt reliefs of Room C, such embellishment,
the representation of which is only possible with high quality carving, increases as one goes up the chain of hierarchy in the human
domain, and, I would argue, is an aesthetic quality that hints at the
increasing wholesomeness of those occupying upper echelons where
247
248
j. aker
References
Aker, Jlide. Forthcoming. Rhetoric of Transgression: Assurbanipals Babylonian Policy
and Transformations in the Visual Domain. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Albenda, Pauline. 1997. Assyrian Wall Reliefs: A Study of Compositional Styles.
In Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten. XXXIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Heidelberg
6.-10. Juli 1992, ed. H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann, 223-226. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.
Barnett, Richard David. 1976. Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh
(668-627 B.C.). London: The British Museum.
Bersani, Leo, and Ulysse Dutoit. 1985. The Forms of Violence: Narrative in Assyrian Art
and Modern Culture. New York: Schocken Books.
Curtis, John E., and Julian E. Reade, eds. 1995. Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in
the British Museum. Exhibition catalogue. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Frankfort, Henri. 1977. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. 4th rev. ed. London: Penguin Books.
11
See for example, Irene Winters analysis of statues of Assyrian kings (1997).
249
250
j. aker
Figure 1. Assurbanipal in his chariot, spearing lions, Room C, slabs 23, 24, British
Museum (WAA 124853-4) author photo
Figure 2. Dying lioness, Room C, slab 26, British Museum (WAA 124856) author photo
Figure 3. Detail of dying lioness, Room C, slab 26, British Museum (WAA 124856) author photo
252
j. aker
253
Figure 4. Charioteer, Room C, slabs 23, 24, British Museum (WAA 124853-4) author photo
Figure 5. Assurbanipals face, Room C, slab 24, British Museum (WAA 124854) author photo
254
j. aker
255
Figure 6. Assurbanipal in his chariot, Room C, slab 24, British Museum (WAA
1248854) author photo
256
j. aker
Figure 7. Dog handlers, Room C, slab 10, British Museum (WAA 124863) author
drawing
257
Figure 8. Detail of the line of soldiers edging the arena, Room C, slabs 9, 10, British
Museum (WAA 124862-3) author photo
258
j. aker
Figure 9. Unfinished trees and figure on spectators hill, Room C, slabs 8, 9, British
Museum (WAA 124861-2) author photo
259
Figure 10. Detail of attendants fetching gear, Room C, slab 4, British Museum
(WAA 124884) author photo
Figure 11. Charioteers hands, Room C, slabs 23, 24, British Museum (WAA 124853) author photo
260
j. aker
Figure 12. Chariot horse, Room C, slab 5, British Museum (WAA 124858) author photo
262
j. aker
Figure 13. Assurbanipal and bodyguards with weapons, Room C, slab 20, British
Museum (WAA 124850) author photo
263
Figure 14. Tips of weapons, Room C, slab 20, British Museum (WAA 124850)
author photo
264
j. aker
265
266
m.h. feldman
2
The monument measures approximately 7 m high by 18 m wide (sculpted area:
approx. 3 m high by 5.5 m wide); Stronach and Zournatzi (1997, 330-31) for general
references.
267
The relief was carved in several stages that included later additions of the rightmost captive, the Akkadian text and the Old Persian text (Hyuse 1999, 45-66).
268
m.h. feldman
269
270
m.h. feldman
which are quite different from later renderings at Persepolis, have been
compared to those of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. The torso extending
from the winged disc has often been linked to the ninth century reliefs
of Ashurnasirpal II at Nimrud, although examples in Neo-Assyrian
cylinder seals that continue into the seventh century offer perhaps better comparisons (Luschey 1968, 85; Collon 2001, 79-82). Herzfeld is
one of the few to draw on Neo-Babylonian comparisons, for example
the boundary stone of Marduk-apla-iddina II (c. 715 BCE), which he
uses as comparanda for the rounded curls at the back of Darius neck
(Sarre and Herzfeld 1910, 195) (figure 4). As with the rock reliefs and
Naram-Sins stele, no one Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian extant work
provides a precise model; Ashurbanipals hair forms a square bunch
at the nape of his neck that looks altogether different from Darius
softly rounded clump of curls, as noted by Herzfeld.
Probably the most debated and discussed issue regarding precedents,
however, relates to the style of the Bisitun relief, especially the rendering of Darius figure and clothing, and the extent to which Greek
arts of the late sixth century contributed to Achaemenid sculpture.
Two features in particular have occupied the center of this discussion: the execution of the drapery of Darius robe and the profile
shoulder (figure 5). It is important to note that the discussion has been
complicated by issues surrounding the chronology of art production
from Cyrus to Darius, the resulting stylistic development derived from
this chronology, and considerations regarding the role of the Bisitun
relief within the development of Achaemenid sculpture as a whole.
The crux of the problem lies in the dating of the reliefs of Palace P
at Pasargadae, which originally were considered part of Cyrus oeuvre, but now have been placed convincingly well into the reign of
Darius, after the Bisitun relief and just prior to Persepolis (Stronach
1978, 95-99). This chronological sequence rests partly on the redating
of the Cyrus inscription from Pasargardae to the reign of Darius
(Stronach 1978, 100-101; 1997a, 48-49 with n. 11), but principally on
an accepted evolutionary development of the rendering of pleats and
folds in the drapery of the Achaemenid court robe. Attributing the
Palace P reliefs to Darius and consequently assigning the introduction
of the Achaemenid robe to his reign, places the Bisitun rendering at
the very beginning of the sequence. Within this debate is a related
issue, that of comparing Bisitun to Greek examples in contrast to
comparing the Pasargadae Palace P reliefs or Persepolis reliefs to Greek
271
272
m.h. feldman
273
9
Most notably, Nylander (1970, 129), who vis--vis the Achaemenid sculptures
writes, . . . it is enough to consider the stele of Naramsin, which shows a fairly high relief with a careful modelling of volumes and even an interest in the relation between
body and clothes.
274
m.h. feldman
The physical realization of Naram-Sins body can also be understood as a culmination or an extreme example of a trend in Akkadian
art towards concreteness and actuality. Throughout the period, both
large- and small-scale arts display a strongly plastic style of rendering
bodies, particularly musculature, in a very concrete and volumetric
manner. This includes an interest in certain kinds of materiality, most
notably, that of the drapery of textiles in monumental royal statuary,
and an occasional depiction of the anatomy lying beneath. The depiction of materiality is in no way comprehensive, nor does it present a
realistic or illusionistic representation of the whole. Yet, it can be
exquisite in its translation of an exceptionally tactile aspect. On two
statues of Manishtushu, one of diorite the other of limestone and both
excavated at Susa, the conical surface of the royal robe is broken by
soft folds of drapery falling diagonally across the front of the skirt
(Moortgat 1969, pls. 141, 142).10 The statue of an unidentified man,
perhaps a ruler, found at Assur depicts the rounded musculature of
the arm and stylized shoulder blade through a tautly stretched wrap
(Harper, et al. 1995, no. 22). This concrete physicality also occurs
on the small scale, best seen in cylinder seals, such as one belonging
to a scribe of Shar-kali-sharri, the successor of Naram-Sin (Moortgat
1969, pl. F: 1). What this actualization of physical forms means on a
widespread level during the Akkadian period is somewhat difficult to
assess and would require an extensive discussion not possible in this
study. I believe, however, that this visual development may be linked
to what Nissen (1988, 165-97) has described as the establishment of an
ideology of centralized kingship that sought to emphasize the material
world in order to downplay the power of local, city-affiliated temple
institutions. By concretizing the body of the ruler, the Akkadian kings
sought to establish their physical presence and dominance.11
But how then can I argue for a stylistic connection between two
works of art made nearly two thousand years apart? Could Darius
have had first-hand experience of Naram-Sins stele? And might it
(or the Akkadian style in general) have especially resonated with him
because of a long-standing collective memory of the Akkadian empire?
I hope to provide a qualified yes to these questions by following the
10
The limestone statue retains its base, which is decorated with the naked, dead
bodies of defeated peoples, suggesting that this sculpture should be considered, at least
in part, a victory monument similar to Naram-Sins stele.
11
A suggestion also made by Michalowski (1993, 87).
275
Naram-Sin, the powerful, [. . .about 10 lines missing or untranslatable. . .] in the mountains of the Lullubi assembled and a battle. . .[. . .
about 15 lines missing or untranslatable. . .] dedicated to the deity . . .
[about 10 lines missing]. (Gelb and Kienast 1990, 90-92; also Frayne
1993, 144)
It seems likely that the stele was originally erected in the Ebabbar
temple of the sun god Shamash at Sippar. The monument apparently
remained on display at Sippar, probably in the temple courtyard,
for over a thousand years until the Elamite king Shutruk-Nahhunte
carried it off around 1158 BCE.13
Reconstructing what happened to the stele once at Susa is somewhat
problematic. Shutruk-Nahhuntes inscription states that he set it up in
the temple of the chief Elamite god, Inshushinak. How long it remained
on view after that is less clear. Unfortunately, we know little about
the final deposition of Naram-Sins stele at Susa, a situation that has
led to general assumptions and inferences. The stele was discovered,
12
The inscription has suffered damage due to the flaking properties inherent in the
stone (Harper, Aruz, and Tallon 1992, 285-86).
13
We know from texts of the Old Babylonian period that Akkadian monuments
and their inscriptions, accessible in temple courtyards, retained a powerful hold on later
Mesopotamian imagination (Buccellati 1993, 58-71; Michalowski 1980, 236, 239).
276
m.h. feldman
277
278
m.h. feldman
In later traditions, Sargon is the glorified ruler, while Naram-Sin is seen as the
cause of the empires demise.
279
280
m.h. feldman
CT 55: 469; CT 56: 442, 451; CT 57: 59, 117, 242, 256, 307, 312, 617 (Frame
1984, 750-51; Joanns 1992, 162; Bongenaar 1997, 209, 230 with n. 205).
281
282
m.h. feldman
the body and clothing of the ruler would also tap into an older and
prestigious tradition of conquest and expansion, befitting the overall
subject of the Bisitun relief. Indeed, one might understand the Bisitun
relief as providing both spatial and temporal resonance for Darius.
Spatially, it drew upon the wide diversity of the conquered territories
that were incorporated into his empire, a strategy used with yet more
finesse at Persepolis. Temporally, the relief plumbed the great Mesopotamian tradition of empire from Neo-Babylonian times, through
Assyria, back to the legendary and alluring heroes of Akkad.
References
Aynard, J.-M. 1957. Le prisme du Louvre AO 19939. Paris.
Alvarez-Mon, Javier. 2006. The Arjan Tomb: At the Crossroads of the Elamite and
the Persian Empires. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Boardman, John. 2000. Persia and the West: An Archaeological Investigation of the Genesis
of Achaemenid Art. London: Thames and Hudson.
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. 1997. The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and its Prosopography. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut.
Brker-Klhn, Jutta. 1982. Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs. Baghdader Forschungen 4. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
Boucharlat, Rmy. 1997. Susa under Achaemenid Rule. In Mesopotamia and Iran in the
Persian Period: Conquest and Imperialism, 539-331 BC, Proceedings of a Seminar in Memory of
Vladamir G. Lukonin, ed., J. Curtis, 54-67. London: British Museum Press.
. 2001. The Palace and the Royal Achaemenid City: Two Case StudiesPasargadae and Susa. In The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC: Regional
Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West, ed. I. Nielsen, 113-123. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 4. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Buccellati, Giorgio. 1993. Through a Tablet Darkly: A Reconstruction of Old Akkadian Monuments Described in Old Babylonian Copies. In The Tablet and the Scroll:
Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and
D. B. Weisberg, 58-71. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press.
Calmeyer, Peter. 1994. Babylonische und assyrische Elemente in der achaimenidischen
Kunst. In Achaemenid History VIII, Continuity and Change, ed. H. Sancisi-Weerdunburg,
A. Kuhrt, and M. C. Root, 131-147. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten.
Caubet, Annie. 2003. Le temple dInshushinak de Suse et larchitecture monumentale
en faience. In Culture through Objects: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P. R. S.
Moorey, ed. T. Potts, M. Roaf, and D. Stein, 325-332. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
283
284
m.h. feldman
285
Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient
Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richter, Gisela. 1946. Greeks in Persia. AJA 50: 15-30.
Root, Margaret Cool. 1979. The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation
of an Iconography of Empire. Acta Iranica 19. Leiden: Brill.
Sarre, Friedrich and Ernst Herzfeld. 1910. Iranische Felsreliefs. Berlin: E. Wasmuth.
Schmitt, Rdiger. 1991. The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian Text.
Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, pt. I, vol. I, Texts I. London: Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum.
Seidl, Ursula. 1976. Ein Relief Dareios I. in Babylon. AMIran n.s. 9: 125-130.
. 1999a. Ein Monument Darius I. aus Babylon. ZA 89: 101-114.
. 1999b. Eine Triumphstele Darius I. aus Babylon. In Babylon: Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, wiege frher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne, Internationales Colloquium
der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 24.-26. Marz 1998 in Berlin, ed. Johannes Renger. Vol.
2: 297-306. Saarbrcken: Saarbrcker, Drukerei und Verlag.
Streck, Maximilian. 1916. Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Knige bis zum Untergange
Ninivehs. Vol. 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Stronach, David. 1978. Pasargadae: Report on the Excavations conducted by the British Institute
of Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
. 1997a. Anshan and Parsa: Early Achaemenid History, Art and Architecture on the Iranian Plateau. In Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period: Conquest and
Imperialism, 539-331 BC, Proceedings of a Seminar in Memory of Vladamir G. Lukonin, ed.
J. Curtis, 35-53. London: British Museum Press.
. 1997b. Notes on the Fall of Nineveh. In Assyria 1995, Proceedings of the 10th
Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7-11,
1995, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting, 307-324. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian
Text Corpus Project.
Stronach, David and Antigoni Zournatzi. 1997. Bisitun. In The Oxford Encyclopedia
of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. Eric Meyer, 330-331. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Walker, C. B. F. 1995. Mesopotamian Chronology. In Ancient Near Eastern Art, D.
Collon, 230-238. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. 1985. Heroes of Akkad. JAOS 103: 327-336.
. 1997. Legends of the Kings of Akkade, The Texts. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Winter, Irene J. 1996. Sex, Rhetoric, and the Public Monument: The Alluring Body
of Naram-Sin of Agade. In Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy,
ed. N. B. Kampen, 11-26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
286
m.h. feldman
Figure 1. Bisitun Relief (after H. Luschey 1968, pl. 26; courtesy of the German Archaeological Institute)
288
m.h. feldman
Figure 2. Drawing of Sar-i Pul relief of Annubanini (after Potts 1999, fig. 9.3; courtesy of D. T. Potts)
289
Figure 3. Stele of Naram-Sin, Muse du Louvre, Paris (Runion des Muses Nationaux/ Art Resource, NY)
290
m.h. feldman
291
Figure 5. Bisitun Relief, detail of Darius (after H. Luschey 1968, pl. 28; courtesy of
the German Archaeological Institute)
292
m.h. feldman
Figure 6. Siphnian Treasury, detail of Apollo and Artemis from the Gigantomachy,
Archaeological Museum, Delphi (Nimatallah/ Art Resource, NY)
293
294
m.-a. ata
295
296
m.-a. ata
as well as their chapels and temples have all such a melammu (Oppenheim 1943, 31). The melammu can also be thought of as an almost
independent magical object, an accessory that imparts tremendous
cosmic power to its possessor (Cassin 1968, 64). It can sometimes be
manipulated by the principal divinities who may bestow it on someone or something, and/or cause its loss or withdrawal (Oppenheim
1943, 31). Associated with melammu is another concept, pulutu, which
can be literally translated as fear or terror, but should again be
understood as a manifestation of superhuman power (Cassin 1968,
4; Oppenheim 1943, 31). In fact, neither melammu nor pulutu should
be taken in the malevolent sense.
In this essay, I shall argue that in ancient Mesopotamian literature,
there are certain instances in which the one exposed to the sight of
such an awe-inspiring radiance or dazzling manifestation of divine
power undergoes a challenging religious experience that results in a
transformation of ordinary human faculties. I shall further argue that
the mythical instances that entail one divine agents usurping anothers
melammu all allude in one form or another to shifts in cosmic power
structure. While developing my arguments, in order to enrich the
domain of inquiry, I shall appeal to parallels from the mythology and
literature of ancient Greece, whose intellectual and historical connection to the Near East has long been acknowledged (West 1971, 1997;
Burkert 1992, 2004; Penglase 1994; Dalley 1998; Lanfranchi 2000). I
shall hence use these Greek parallels in order to enhance my attempt
to probe the semantics of certain episodes from ancient Mesopotamian
literature and myths relevant to the phenomenon of the melammu.
297
298
m.-a. ata
One can compare this episode with one in the Iliad in which Achilles
is the only one who can withstand the awesome elaborateness of his
new shield commissioned by his mother, the goddess Thetis, from
Hephaistos, the ancient Greek god of fire and the forge:
The goddess spoke so, and set down the armor on the ground
before Achilleus, and all its elaboration clashed loudly.
Trembling took hold of the Myrmidons. None had the courage
to look straight at it. They were afraid of it. Only Achilleus
looked, and as he looked the anger came harder upon him
and his eyes glittered terribly under his lids, like sunflare. (XIX 12-17;
Lattimore 1961, 392)3
Indeed, one could think that Gilgameshs encounter with the Scorpion
Beings is already an initial state of epiphany. The hero has already
come a long way by reaching the entrance to the netherworld, and
the Scorpion Beings themselves allude to the fact that his having made
it to their presence is already a remarkable accomplishment:
The scorpion-man called out,
saying a word [to King Gilgamesh,] flesh of the gods:
[How did you come here,] such a far road?
[How did you get here,] to be in my presence?
3
The extraordinarily radiant nature of the armor of Achilles is clear from passages
that describe its production by Hephaistos: First of all he forged a shield that was huge
and heavy,/ elaborating it about and threw around it a shining/ triple rim that glittered,
and the shield strap was cast of silver (XVIII 478-480; Lattimore 1961, 388; and XVIII
616, where the armor is referred to as shining [marmaironta]). A comparable description
of a weapon can also be found in a bilingual incantation from the ms p series, 4R 1818* (K 4624), no. 3., 29ff, tentatively translated by Kinnier Wilson (1979, 50-51): (This
is the story of) the Weapon which was cast(?) out/ of brilliant light, suited only for (divine) kingship,/ of the lofty Mace worthy only for a Kings hand,/ Which was so surrounded by fiery radiance that no one could come near it.
299
[How did you cross the seas,] whose passage is perilous? (IX 52-59, George
1999: 71-72)
An even more powerful instance of divine epiphany in ancient Mesopotamian literature can be found in the Neo-Assyrian poem known
as the Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince (VAT 10057; Livingstone
1989, 68-76). It describes the night vision of one Kumma, who may
be Ashurbanipal, though this is not certain (Livingstone 1989, xxviii).5 In the vision, the prince comes face to face with the netherworld god Nergal, an episode that should be understood as a unique
instance of divine epiphany in Neo-Assyrian literature.6 It is again
4
The solar nature of the Scorpion Beings is also noted by Wiggermann (1992, 148149), who indicates that the scorpion(-man) is in origin a simple mythological scorpion
fulfilling, like the Egyptian prr, beetle, a cosmic task (watching over the rising and setting of the sun) with its pincers.
5
For a more focused analysis of this text, see Ata 2004, which has certain overlaps in content and approach with the present essay. The text is therefore dealt with
here rather synoptically in order to avoid repeating the analyses carried out in the other publication.
6
Epopteia, seeing, was the highest level of initiation in the ancient Greek Eleusinian
Mysteries as well (Foley 1994, 39). The term visio beatifica (beatific vision) was coined
to designate the supreme goal (telos), of Christian existence. In medieval usage it signifies the immediate sight of God, videre Deum; those who obtain this vision are transported into a state of eternal beatitude. In this case the word vision, visio, must be taken as a
real seeing, not as a subjective illusion (Kernyi 1991, 95).
300
m.-a. ata
301
302
m.-a. ata
On another level, however, this episode can be understood as standing for the epopteia, the sight of the divine, which only a relatively
small group of initiates was thought to have experienced at a later
stage of the Eleusinian Mysteries.11 Indeed, Metaneiras reaction to
the epiphany of Demeter, consisting of speechlessness, fear, and awe,
is precisely symptomatic of this experience (Foley 1994, 52)12 that
ultimately transforms and illuminates: Blessed (olbios) is the mortal
on earth who has seen these rites,/ but the uninitiated who has no
share in them never/ has the same lot once dead in the dreary darkness (Hymn to Demeter 480-482; Foley 1994, 26).
In the Hymn to Demeter, the goddesss epiphany per se is put forward
in very pleasant terms. However, we should keep in mind the fact
10
303
13
The rites were said to take place in darkness until a great light shone at their culmination (Plutarch, Moralia 81e; Inscriptiones Graecae II2 3811; Hippolytos, Refutatio omnium haeresium 5.8.40; Foley 1994, 68).
14
For instance, Foley (1994, 35) sees lines 15-32 of the Hymn to Demeter as emphasizing the august importance of the bridegroom Hades, whose description is augmented with elaborate compound adjectives: And the girl was amazed and reached out with
both hands to take the lovely toy; but the wide-pathed earth yawned there in the plain
of Nysa, and the lord, Host of Many, with his immortal horses sprang out upon her
the Son of Cronos, He who has many names.
304
m.-a. ata
305
the ideogram. The oldest Egyptian texts understood the duat as the
original realm of stars, which, in Egyptian cosmology, was thought to
be placed in the netherworld (Hornung 1977; Wilkinson 1992, 131).
In short, in both of these ancient traditions of cosmology, there is a
co-extensiveness between a heaven that is under the earth and one
that is beyond the sky, either way invisible.17
Peter Kingsley has also drawn attention to the presence of similar
notions in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, which again has an acknowledged indebtedness to Near Eastern antiquity (Kingsley 1995,
54; West 1971; Burkert 2004, 50). Empedocles, for instance, stated
that the fire that eventually rose up to become the sun had its origins
in the earth, implying that the sources of daylight and illumination are
ultimately derived from the dark depths of the netherworld (Emp. B62;
Kingsley 1995, 51). Kingsley (1995, 55-56) further notes the emphasis
on the same concepts in the Alchemical tradition that preserved and
maintained the basic associations between the sun, earth, and netherworld. Alchemists from the end of antiquity through the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance were so concerned with the paradoxical discovery
of light in the depths of darkness that they abolished all the distinctions between upper and lower, celestial and terrestrial (Kingsley 1995,
55). For them fire was only secondarily a celestial phenomenon, in
origin it came from the center of the earth. They called it the sun in
17
Traces of an idea of an inner heaven beyond the visible sky can be found in
Platos Phaedo (109 B-D) as well, in Socrates speech before his death: For I believe
there are in all directions on the earth many hollows of very various forms and sizes,
into which the water and mist and air have run together; but the earth itself is pure and
is situated in the pure heaven in which the stars are, the heaven which those who discourse about such matters call the other; the water, mist and air are the sediment of this
and flow together into the hollows of the earth. Now we do not perceive that we live in
the hollows, but think we live on the upper surface of the sea, and, seeing the sun and
the stars through the water, should think the sea was the sky, and should, by reason of
sluggishness or feebleness, never have reached the surface of the sea, and should never
have seen, by rising and lifting his head out of the sea into our upper world, and should
never have heard from anyone who had seen, how much purer and fairer it is than the
world he lived in (Fowler [1914] 1995, 374-377). What Plato refers to as this purer
and fairer region may be considered as the equivalent of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian netherworld and inner heaven in their transcendental capacity, as no paradisiacal heaven exists in these ancient Near Eastern religions. What seems to be a paradox,
namely that the netherworld can be co-extensive with Heavens interior, might then
be more easily resolved. Along similar lines, when the Mesopotamian archetypal sage
Adapa ascends to the sky, he encounters there Dumuzi and Ningizida, both in essence gods of the netherworld in Mesopotamian religion, as the keepers of the Gate of
Heaven (Parpola 1993, xix; James 1966, 10; Izreel 2001, 4).
306
m.-a. ata
the earth, the subterranean sun. This earthly or invisible sun was
on the one hand the fire of hell, the black sun, the darkness of
purgatory, and on the other it was the origin not only of the visible
sun but also of the light of the stars (Kingsley 1995, 56).
The Melammu as Usurped Entity
It is perhaps within the foregoing framework that one should also
understand the presence of the melammu in the netherworld, as well as
its attachment to divine beings of a monstrous or demonic character such as Huwawa/Humbaba,18 Imdugud/Anz, Asag/Asakku,
and the Mischwesen generated by Tiamat in her cosmic struggle against
Marduk in the Babylonian poem of creation Enma Eli (I 140-142;
Labat 1935; Heidel 1951; Dalley 2000). All these beings are in essence antagonistic to heroes and hero-gods, Bilgames/Gilgamesh,
Ningirsu/Ninurta, and Marduk respectively.
In each case during these heroic struggles, however, the adversarial
being is in possession of melammu, and in the case of Tiamats army,
both melammu and pulutu.19 For example, when Anz is in possession of
the Tablet of Destinies, he also has melammu.20 Similarly, when Ninurta
defeats the monster Asag, he also deprives him of his melammu (Lugal-e
289-293). In the Sumerian poem Bilgames and Huwawa, the monster
Huwawa has seven radiances that protect him. In the poem, these
radiances are conceptualized as cedar trees that Bilgames and Enkidu
fell one by one and cut into logs in order to conquer the monster
(George 1999, 156-158). When deprived of all of his seven auras,
Huwawa pleads for his life. Even though Bilgames is inclined to spare
him, Enkidu kills the monster lest he might prove too dangerous for
them should he remain alive. The two heroes present the decapitated
18
The work that relates Gilgameshs stripping Huwawa/Humbabas radiances
or auras to defeat him is one of the episodic Sumerian poems that ultimately formed
the plot of the Standard Babylonian Version. This poem is known today as Bilgames
and Huwawa, a favorite copy-text in Old Babylonian scribal schools (George 1999, 149166).
19
Elle vtit dhorreur (pulutu) des dragons terrifiants,/ Quelle chargea dclat surnaturel (melammu) et fit semblables des dieux (Enuma Elish I 136-137; Labat 1935, 9091).
20
Standard Babylonian Anz, Tablet II: 37; Old Babylonian Version, Tablet II: reverse 82, obverse 2.
307
head of Huwawa to the god Enlil who in return reproaches them for
not treating the monster with courtesy (George 1999, 160).
In Enma Eli (I 67-68), Enki/Ea decides to kill Aps on account
of the latters intention to annihilate the young gods owing to their
noisiness. Before Enki/Ea slays Aps, he first unfastens the latters
belt, takes off his crown, and then takes away his radiance, melammu,
and puts it on himself, hence usurping it.21 As already mentioned,
in Enma Eli (I 136-137, II 23-24, III 85-86), upon creating her children, Tiamat dresses them with pulutu and imparts melammu on them,
rendering these beings like gods.22 Perhaps it is precisely on account
of this particular quality that the sight of the Scorpion Beings poses a
primordial challenge to the uninitiated beholder, the Scorpion-Man
being among the very creatures generated by Tiamat in her struggle
against Marduk (Enma Eli II 32).
There are significant clues in the poems centered on these myths
regarding the implicit venerability of all of these monster-like beings, adversarial on the surface, but also enigmatically cognate with
the heroes or gods against whom they struggle. The fact that they
embody this special kind of divine radiance may be taken as further
indication that these are, after all, archaic divinities that perhaps
contain the melammu in its pristine capacity. In all of the myths cited,
the god or the hero in a way usurps a potent cosmic entity, be it
the Tablet of Destinies or the melammu itself, from these adversarial
monsters, depriving the latter of this tremendous cosmic potency
and making it his own whence he derives his new invincible sovereignty. Further, as we have seen, in Enma Eli, one way for Enki/Ea
to depose a god more archaic than he, is to rob him of his melammu.
From this standpoint, both the Tablet of Destinies and the melammu,
as both Cassin and Winter note, are almost accessory-like magical
objects conceptualized as the embodiment of power over the cosmos
(Cassin 1968, 64; Winter 1994, 126). What one sees in these myths
is perhaps a representation of the shift in cosmic power structure
from older numinous entities to later heroes and gods, a theme of
which the ancients were never tired expressing and re-expressing in
different forms and guises. In the case of the Tablet of Destinies, it
is Imdugud/Anz who steals it from Enlil; however, this act can be
21
22
308
m.-a. ata
309
but also the melammu of royalty (Cassin 1968, 71).25 One can see here
how this special kind of radiance is also a quality bestowed on the
king by the gods who hold it in their possession, which in turn places
the king in a privileged position analogous to that of these very gods
who have accomplished victories against monstrous rebel gods.
From this standpoint, the melammu, so long as it is in kings possession,
is also a most potent weapon against the enemy, causing the latters
paralysis even upon the approach of the king toward rebel cities (Cassin 1968, 73-74).26 The fact that Esarhaddons radiance is given to
him by the netherworld god Nergal, however, could not be more
significant in demonstrating that ultimately the origin of this primitive divine radiance might be the netherworld. This fearful radiance
is what characterizes not only the Scorpion Beings at the entrance
of this realm, but also Huwawa and Asag in their lands of Edenic
wilderness penetrated by the hero or the hero-god.27 It is also the
same primordial radiance that shines on the Assyrian crown prince
when he descends to the netherworld and illuminates him with
new knowledge of a fearful sort. This very light is not only the light
of divine epiphany that, when displayed, overwhelms and transforms
25
On the conferral of the melammu on kings, see also Winter 1994, 126.
Yet, the king could also lose this divine support; when his melammu disappears it
becomes known that he is no longer king by the grace of God (Oppenheim 1943, 31).
By the same token, Kinnier Wilson (1979, 5) concludes that all the divine weapons that
were used by many of the hero-gods against their rebellious adversaries were ultimately
given to the kings, who might then go forth against the Rebel Lands of other days and
use them again. Kinnier Wilson (102) further mentions Cassins remark (1968, 74) on
how in texts the royal weapons were sometimes described in the same way as those of
the gods, again concluding that the weapons were in fact the same.
27
A similar defiance of authority can also be seen in the Sumerian poem Inanna and
Ebih. For a recent translation of this poem see Meador 2000, 91-102. Meador (2000, 90)
views the meaning of the poem as the fundamental struggle in the psyche between the
backward pull of the idealized world of paradisiacal bliss and the forward impetus toward states of competence, autonomy, and independence. Furthermore, she thinks of
Ebih as an embodiment of Edenic notions of purity and harmony. Along similar lines,
Wim van Binsbergen and Frans Wiggermann (1999) argue that the structure of the universe prior to the coercive divine rule of deities such as Marduk and Enlil and the realm
outside divine rule, the demonic, share a tendency to rise against the prerogatives
of the gods of order. Although in each case the rebellion is suppressed, its very occurrence shows that such an order is not beyond question, and that order in this sense is
not completely secured. In other words, the way in which the un-captured elements
appear in the symbolic system reveals their continuing existence as a feared anti-social
force and a threat to the hegemonic order (van Binsbergen and Frans Wiggermann
1999, 22). Van Binsbergen and Wiggermann (1999, 21) also distinguish between a later governmental order, which they refer to as theistic, and the previous primordial
phase, which they refer to as holistic.
26
310
m.-a. ata
References
Ata, Mehmet-Ali. 2004. The Underworld Vision of the Ninevite Intellectual Milieu.
Nineveh: Papers of the XLIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London,
7-11 July 2003, ed. D. Collon and A. George. Iraq 66: 67-77.
Black, Jeremy, and Anthony Green. 1997. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Mesopotamia:
An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Borger, Riekele. 1956. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Knigs von Assyrien. Graz: Selbstverlage des Herausgebers.
Burkert, Walter. 1992. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age. Translated by Margaret E. Pinder and Walter Burkert.
Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press.
. 2004. Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Cassin, Elna. 1968. La Splendeur divine: Introduction ltude de la mentalit msopotamienne.
Paris: Mouton & Co.
Clinton, Kevin. 1992. Myth and Cult: The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries. Stockholm: Paul strms frlag.
Corbin, Henry. 1978. The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism. Translated by Nancy Pearson.
Boulder, Colorado: Shambala.
Dalley, Stephanie, ed. 1998. The Legacy of Mesopotamia. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
, trans. 2000. Myths from Mesopotamia: The Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and
Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Donohue, Alice A. 1997. The Greek Images of the Gods: Considerations on Terminology and Methodology. Hephaistos 15: 31-45.
Foley, Helene. 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation, Commentary, and Interpretive Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fowler, Harold North. [1914] 1995. Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus.
The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
George, Andrew. 1999. The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts
in Akkadian and Sumerian. London: Penguin Books.
Goebs, Katja. 1998. Expressing Luminosity in Iconography: Features of the Solar
Bark in the Tomb of Ramesses VI. Gttinger Miszellen 165: 57-67.
311
Graf, Fritz. 2003. Hephaestus. In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. Simon Hornblower
and Antony Spawforth. 3rd rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hanson, J. Arthur, trans. 1989. Apuleius, Metamorphoses. The Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Heidel, Alexander. 1951. The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation. 2nd ed. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Heimpel, Wolfgang. 1987. The Sun at Night and the Doors of Heaven in Babylonian
Texts. JCS 39: 127-151.
Hornung, Erik. 1971. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many. Translated by John Baines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
. 1977. Dat. In Lexikon der gyptologie, ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto.
Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.
. 1999. The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife. Translated by David Lorton.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Horowitz, Wayne. 1998. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Izreel, Shlomo. 2001. Adapa and the South Wind: Language Has the Power of Life and
Death. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
James, E. O. 1966. Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study. Leiden: Brill.
Katz, Dina. 2003. The Image of the Netherworld in the Sumerian Sources. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press.
Kavanaugh, Kieran, ed. and trans. 1987. John of the Cross: Selected Writings. Translated
from the Spanish. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York and Mahwah,
New Jersey: Pauline Press.
Kernyi, Carl. 1994. Eleusis: Archetypal Image of Mother and Daughter. Translated by
Ralph Manheim. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kingsley, Peter. 1995. Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean
Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kinnier Wilson, J. V., with the assistance of Herman Vanstiphout. 1979. The Rebel
Lands: An Investigation into the Origins of Early Mesopotamian Mythology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kramer, Samuel Noah. 1984. Ninurtas Pride and Punishment. Aula Orientalis 2:
231-234.
Kramer, Samuel Noah and John Maier. 1989. Myths of Enki, the Crafty God. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kvanvig, Helge. 1988. Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch
Figure and the Son of Man. Neukirchner Verlag.
Labat, Ren, trans. 1935. Le Pome babylonien de la cration. Paris: Librairie dAmrique
et dOrient.
312
m.-a. ata
Lanfranchi, Giovanni B. 2000. The Ideological and Political Impact of the Assyrian
Imperial Expansion on the Greek World in the 8th and 7th Centuries BC. In The Heirs
of Assyria: Proceedings of the Opening Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual
Heritage Project Held in Tvrminne, Finland, October 8-11, 1998, ed. Sanna Aro and R.
M. Whiting, 7-34. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Lattimore, Richmond, trans. 1961. The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Livingstone, A. 1989. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. SAA 3. Helsinki: The NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project.
Meador, Betty De Shong. 2000. Inanna: Lady of Largest Heart, Poems of the Sumerian High
Priestess Enheduanna. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Mylonas, George E. 1974. Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. 1943. Akkadian pul(u)h(t)u and melammu. JAOS 63: 31-34.
Paley, Samuel P. 1976. King of the World: Ashur-nasir-pal II of Assyria 883-859 B.C. New
York: The Brooklyn Museum.
Parpola, Simo. 1993. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. SAA 10. Helsinki:
The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Penglase, Charles. 1994. Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and Influence in the Homeric
Hymns and Hesiod. London and New York: Routledge.
Pinney, Gloria Ferrari, and Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway. 1981. Herakles at the Ends
of the Earth. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 101: 141-144.
Prvot, Dominique. 1986. Lpope de Gilgamesh: un scnario initiatique? In Homo
Religiosus 13. Les Rites dInitiation. Actes du Colloque de Lige et de Louvain-la-Neuve. 20-21
novembre 1984, ed. Julien Ries, 225-241. Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre dHistoire des
Religions.
Steinkeller, Piotr. 2005. Of Stars and Men: The Conceptual and Mythological Setup
of Babylonian Extispicy. In Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran,
ed. Agustinus Gianto, 11-47. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
van Binsbergen, Wim and Frans Wiggermann. 1999. Magic in History: A Theoretical Perspective, and its application to Ancient Mesopotamia. In Ancient Magic and
Divination I: Mesopotamian Magic, Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives, ed. T.
Abusch and K. van der Toorn, 1-35. Groningen: Styx Publications.
van Dijk, J. 1983. LUGAL UD ME-LM-bi NIR-GL: Le rcit pique et didactique des
Travaux de Ninurta, du Dluge et de la Nouvelle Cration, Texte, Traduction et Introduction. Leiden: Brill.
von Weiher, Egbert. 1971. Der babylonische Gott Nergal. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag
Butzon und Bercker Kevelaer.
West, M. L. 1971. Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
313
314
m.-a. ata
IV
Sex, Rhetoric and the Public Monument:
Gendered Contexts
315
316
c.e. suter
317
318
c.e. suter
esses and court ladies, one can begin to analyze their images. While
texts provide a vital basis for iconographic interpretation, images can
inform us of common knowledge about which texts remain mute.
In the following, I will first outline my understanding of the role
and activities of high priestesses, then scrutinize textually identified
images, discuss their attire and regalia, consider anonymous images
comparable to the identified ones, and finally assess what the images
add to our knowledge.
319
always, of the opposite sex,3 while ere-dingir served both gods and
goddesses of somewhat less importance.4 En had a residence at their
deitys temple called Gipar.5 In contrast to en and gi-zi, ere-dingir
do not seem to have taken on ceremonial names or regalia. Despite
these differences, some ere-dingir were apparently assimilated with
en (Steinkeller 1999, 128-129).6
When looking at daily activities of high priestesses, one must bear
in mind that Mesopotamian temples were not only places of worship,
but also economic enterprises. Not all temple personnel were engaged
in the cult, while rites were also performed by non-clerics such as
king and queen. In fact, there is no general Sumerian or Akkadian
term for priest and the demarcation of clerics is tricky (Sallaberger
and Vulliet 2003-2005, 618-619). Conversely, the term high priestess cannot adequately encompass or do justice to the ancient concept that underlay the differently named offices. This considered, it
may not come as a surprise that the textually attested activities of
high priestesses do not differ much from those of royal wives:
3
Although this principle has generally been accepted, it is hard to ascertain, since
the sources rarely indicate the ens gender (Renger 1967, 133). Aside from the possibility
that the en of Inana was a woman (Sallaberger 1999, 150 with n. 95), there is at least one
case in which the en of a god was definitely male: KA-kugani, en of Enlil, who is mentioned in the inscription of his wifes seal: KA-kug-ga-ni, en-den-ll-l, dinana-ka,
dam-ni (RIME 3/2: 1.2.2025). In contrast to all other translations, Steinkeller (1999,
127 n. 83) inverted gender. However, Inanaka must be a woman, since the seal image
depicts the presentation of a court lady to a goddess (Haines 1956, 269 fig. 18; Richard Zettler personal communication). KA-kuganis tenure may have been unusual (J. G.
Westenholz 1992, 305-306), yet it demonstrates the danger of generalizing.
4
See Steinkeller 1999, 126-127 nn. 79-83 (en-priestesses), 120-121 nn. 54-58, 128
n. 91 (ere-dingir).
5
Only the Gipar of Nannas en at Ur was excavated. Royal inscriptions and the Lament for Sumer and Ur further attest to Gipars of Nannas en at Gae, of Ningublagas en
at Ur, of Inanas en at Uruk, of Nanes en at Ningin, and of Enkis en at Eridu. For
bibliographical references and sources, see Steinkeller 1999, 106-107. The interpretation of a building in Uruk as Gipar rests on a misinterpretation of the title lukur (Sallaberger 1999, 182-183).
6
Although Steinkeller assumed this probably for the wrong reasons (see note 16),
such a general trend seems to have existed. The alleged interchange of nat dEn-ll with
ere-dingir dEn-ll for Tuta-napum does not hold because ntum is the Akkadian
equivalent of ere-dingir and not attested as female form of en (Cooper 1993, 87 with
n. 42). However, while Tuta-napum refers to herself as ere-dingir of Enlil, other
sources document an en of Enlil for this and later times (J. G. Westenholz 1992, 302),
and I find it unlikely that the year names ia and ib of Naramsinone mentioning an
en of Enlil, the other an ere-dingir of Enlilshould refer to different high priestesses (cf. Cooper 1993).
320
c.e. suter
For staff and estate management of high priestesses in general, see Renger 1967,
130; for particular cases, see also Foster 1982, 38 (Akk pd. ere-dingir of Ilaba at Girsu); Charpin 1986, 214-215 (IL pd. en -priestesses of Nanna at Ur). For economic activities of royal wives, see Foster 1987, 53; Van de Mieroop 1989; Sallaberger 1999, 185.
8
For example, m-da-ri-a (Sallaberger 1993, 160-170). Hilgert (see note 1 of this
article) was tempted to postulate a pronounced or even complete economic dependence
of Ur III en-ship on the resources of the royal household.
9
For example, at the major festivals in Ur during the Ur III period (Sallaberger
1993, 176).
10
High priestesses prayed to the gods for the well being and long life of the king
(RIME 4: 1.5.6 ll. 20-22; RIME 4: 2.14.20 ll. 15-25). Royal wives took care of the laments for deceased husbands. In general, the cultic duties of high priestesses centered
on the god to whom they were assigned while those of royal wives centered predominantly on goddesses and womens cult feasts (Sallaberger 1999, 184-185). There was,
however, overlapping: Ur III royal wives also worshipped Nanna, while high priestesses also worshipped Inana.
11
Most images are illustrated in Schmandt-Besserat 1993; for additional seals, see
Rova 1994, nos. 53, 82, 387, 560, 566, 603-607, 782, 786. For EN in texts, see Englund 1998, 70.
12
The claim to divine election of kings from the ED period on can then be explained as an endeavor to legitimize the new form of leadership by integrating the old
principle.
321
royal title but is already contrasted with lugal (Steible 1982, Lukin.
2, 4, Enak. 1, 5). En of Uruk is then a secondary title of Urnamma,
who was from Uruk (Sallaberger 1999, 132), and of Isin kings, who
mimicked Ur III royal ideology.13 In literary texts, en is frequently
used also in reference to gods and heroes.
Under whose reign en was introduced as a clerical title depends
on when Sargons daughter Enheduana took on her ceremonial name
(Steinkeller 1999, 125 n. 77). Her tenure lasted into Naramsins reign.
If Sargon installed her as zirru, traditional title of Nannas high priestess, which Enheduana uses in the one inscription that has survived
from her time (RIME 2: 1.1.16), it may well have been Naramsin who
introduced en for Nannas high priestess and extended this title to high
priestesses of other gods. This would accord with the general picture
showing Sargon still indebted to late ED tradition while Naramsin
created a new image of kingship. A second wave of new en occurred
in the Ur III period, probably under the reign of ulgi, who revived
several features of Naramsins royal ideology. The choice of the title
en may have been intended to revive the earliest form of leadership
based on the principle of divine election, albeit in a new form. It
is indeed intriguing that the standard headdress of high priestesses
looks identical to that worn by the Uruk ruler figure (see section on
attire below).
The rulers who installed high priestesses had hegemonical claims,
or else followed in the footsteps of a powerful predecessor. It has been
suggested that the political agenda of the office was to establish loyal
power bases in the major centers of the realm in order to counterbalance the influence of the local elite (Steinkeller 1999, 124). Perhaps
the underlying reasons were of a pragmatic nature. The temples in
these major centers controlled large parts of the local economy. By
putting them in the hands of high priestesses who were royal children,
their production came de facto under the control of the crown. The
dissemination of high priestesses would then have formed part of
other well known endeavors of Akk and Ur III kings to attain power
by controlling the economy in their realm. Such an agenda would
explain not only the dependence of high priestesses estates on the royal
household, but also the harsh treatment Enheduana experienced when
13
322
c.e. suter
the local ruler liberated himself from Akk rule (ETCSL14 4.07.2), as
well as the abduction of other en by conquering enemies.15
There is an undeniable connection between en and human spouses
of deities. Both kings and en-priests/esses can be called the spouse
(dam) of a deity. The only texts that explicitly describe a sexual union
between a human and a deity are the royal hymns ulgi X and IddinDagan A. In both cases, the king unites with Inana in the guise of
her husband Dumuzi. Based on these texts, a number of references
in other royal hymns and in love lyrics, as well as the royal epithet
beloved spouse of Inana, can be understood as allusions to the kings
union with Inana (Cooper 1993, 85). Had we only these poetic texts,
we could argue that this union was an invention of the Ur III kings
in their endeavor to sanction divine kingship, as the epics around
the mythical kings of Uruk probably were to a large extent (Michalowski 1988, 21). However, there are also royal inscriptions attesting
to ED rulers and Naramsin of Akkad as husbands of Inana (Cooper
1993, 83-84), as well as to high priests/esses as spouses of their deity,
namely an ED priest of Nane at Ningin (Steible 1982, Urnane 24
iii 3-6), and three en-priestesses of Nanna at Ur: Enheduana (RIME
2: 1.1.16), Naramsins daughter Enmenana (RIME 2: 1.4.33), and
Urbabas daughter Enanepada (RIME 3/1: 1.6.12-13).
Marriage entails mutual obligations. That of a human to a deity
established close ties between human and divine spheres. As head of
the human society, kings shared with priests the role of mediating
between these spheres. Cooper (1993, 90) suggests that the main purpose of the kings marriage to Inana was regulations between people
and gods. The marriage of high priestesses to their gods extended this
network of social ties between royal family and pantheon, not unlike
diplomatic marriages of princesses to foreign rulers cemented mutual
obligations with other states (Cooper 1993, 91). The marriage of a
king or high priest/ess to a deity must be understood in symbolic
terms, since sacred marriage rites appear to be a scholarly construct
(Assante 2003, 27-31).
14
323
To sum up, I believe that the primary task of high priestesses was
running their gods estate, at least in representation, not unlike Uruk
period EN were the highest officials in archaic administration, and
Ur III kings chief of state administration. This does not exclude the
performance of cultic duties. Because clerical en were not exclusively assigned to deities of the opposite sex and ere-dingir also
served goddesses, the spousal function vis--vis a deity cannot have
been their main characteristic,16 as little as it was that of kings. The
marriage of some high priestesses to their god is better understood
as an effort in sanctioning the political agenda of their office on an
ideological level. The symbolic elevation of a royalbe it king or
high priestessto the level of a deitys spouse was to convey the close
ties between royals and deities, that is, the divine favor granted to
the ruling power. In essence then, clerical en-ship was an offshoot
of kingship on the local level.17
Identified Images
The first textually attested Mesopotamian high priestess is also the most
famous today, Enheduana. Her image has survived on a fragmentary
16
Douglas Fraynes attempt to link the installation of en and ere-dingir with a
sacred marriage rite of kings was conclusively disproved by Cooper (1993, 87-88) and
Sallaberger (1995, 20-21). Steinkellers hypothesis (1999) that clerical en-ship evolved
out of a convergence of Sumerian and Semitic traditions of male and female priestly consorts is problematic. The evidence is perhaps better explained in terms of particular local traditions. That for Sumerian male priestly consorts consists only of the
mentioned dam of Nane, who seems to live on as ennu and en in the Ur III period
(Steinkeller 1999, 119 n. 48). I am not convinced that Uruk rulers were priest-kings
and that their political and cultic duties were later divided among ruler and en-priests/
esses, respectively. There is textual and visual evidence that kings continued to perform
cultic duties after the Uruk period and the evidence for Ur III kings marriage to Inana
is much more explicit than that of Uruk period rulers which solely rests on the Uruk
Vase. The Semitic origin of female priestly consorts is equally difficult to support.
DAM.DINGIR of Ebla seems more comparable to OB nadtu since there were several holding the same office at the same time (Archi 1998, 52-53). On the other hand, archaeological and textual evidence speak in favor of a continuity of the office of Nannas
high-priestess at Ur from the ED to the IL period (Winter 1987; Zgoll 1997, 99-100)
and this high-priestess is precisely the one who is wife of her god. Her original title,
zirru, continued to be used side by side with en up to the Isin dynasty (RIME 2: 1.1.16;
2: 1.4.33; 3/1: 1.6.12-13; 4: 1.4.3; 4: 2.5.2).
17
This is what Hilgert (see note 1 in this article) suggests.
324
c.e. suter
stone relief from Urs Gipar (figure 1), now heavily restored.18 The
object, which appears to have been vertically pierced, remains enigmatic, whether it was disk-shaped or not. The inscription on its back,
restored with the help of an OB copy, commemorates Enheduanas
construction of a throne-room in Inana-Zazas temple.19 Enheduana
wears a flounced robe that covered both shoulders. Her hair falls loose
down her back with a tress in front of her ear and is crowned by a
circlet.20 She follows a bald-headed, shaven male figure who pours a
libation before what has been restored as a four-stepped ziqqurat but
may equally well have been a deity enthroned on a platform.21 The
libator probably represents lagar/l, the male assistant of en-priestesses (Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005, 628). Behind Enheduana
follow two poorly preserved figures who may have represented the
local ruler and his wife, as seems to be the case in the lower register
of the ED door plaque that depicts a comparable scene (Winter 1987,
fig. 2). If Nannas high priestess was in charge of installing the local
ruler in his office (Zgoll 1997, 102), then this is what the scene on
these reliefs may represent.
An image of Tuta-napum, high priestess of Enlil and daughter of
Naramsin, is preserved on the seal, now lost, of her servant AmanAtar (figure 2).22 Its inscription reads: Tuta-napum, ntum of Enlil:
Aman-Atar, daughter of Uhub of the Zabirum clan (?), (is) her maidservant.23 The image depicts the maidservant in audience before
her superior much like the estate manager Dada stands before his
18
CBS 16665 (Woolley 1955, pl. 41d). For a close-up photo of the unrestored fragment with Enheduana, see Legrain 1927, 240. A good reproduction of the restored
relief is in Orthmann 1975, pl. 101. For descriptions, see Winter 1987, 190-193; BraunHolzinger 1991, varia 5. For its inscription, see RIME 2: 1.1.16.
19
According to Miguel Civils talk at the 51st Rencontre in Chicago in 2005, bra
was not a dais, but designated royal quarters, the place where the throne stood.
20
On reproductions of the unrestored relief, Enheduanas headdress looks more
like a polos, similar to that worn by ED women from Mari, who are generally interpreted as priestesses (Asher-Greve 1985, 81). A polos would fit with the fact that this reliefs
inscription presents the only mention of Inana-Zaza outside of Mari (J. G. Westenholz
1989, 540 n. 6). Her head and the bubble above it are, however, not related.
21
Compare Winter 1987, figs. 3-4. This may have been Nanna or Inana-Zaza.
22
Whereabouts unknown. A. Westenholz and Oelsner 1983, 214-215; Collon 1987,
no. 530; RIME 2: 1.4.2017; Steinkeller 1993; A. Westenholz 1999, 73, 88. On Tutanapum, see also J. Westenholz and A. Westenholz 1983.
23
The interpretation of Aman-Atars characterization in lines 3-4 is controversial.
The most sensible solution to me seemed to emend a DUMU in front of MUNUS and
understand it in terms of her origin.
325
24
Although female musicians entertaining an enthroned audience are depicted in
ED and Akk imagery, I hesitate to interpret this object as a musical instrument (cf. Collon 1987; RIME 2; A. Westenholz 1999, 88), because its shape does not correspond to
any known instrument. Even if it resembles a rope hanging from a hook, the evidence
for an ordination rope (J. G. Westenholz 1992, 303) is not convincing either.
25
It cannot be a prototype of the 1st millennium BCE mural crown (Brker-Klhn
1997, 229) because the latter was invented for neo-Assyrian queens (Ornan 2002, 474477).
26
EEM L.1094 (Boehmer 1965, fig. 725; RIME 2: 1.4.2020).
326
c.e. suter
27
Naramsin was not only the first Mesopotamian king who deified himself but he
went further in the representation of his deification than his successors for which posterity branded him as the calamitous king of Mesopotamian history. He is depicted not
only with a horned helmet, but also with a heroized body (Winter 1996, figs. 1-3), and
enthroned on a par with Itar (Hansen 2002, fig. 1-4).
28
Woolley 1934, pl. 214 no. 338; Steinkeller 1999, 126 n. 81. Neither findspot, laconic inscription, nor iconography and style indicate a date later than the Akk period,
as Steinkeller would have it. For similar banquets in Akk glyptic, see Boehmer 1965,
115-117.
29
Another low quality seal from Ur (Legrain 1951, no. 353), which Joan Westenholz brought to my attention, bears the inscription: SAL.EN topped by what could be
interpreted as two squarish moon crescents. The seal depicts a figure in a fringed robe
and with a single horned crown petitioning before a seated female wearing a flounced
robe and probably a horned crown. Between them is a water bird. One could identify
either the petitioner or the seated female as the mentioned en of Nanna (?). In the first
case, the seated female might represent Ningal, in the second, the petitioner would represent a servant. Neither scenario is satisfactory and it seems inappropriate to draw conclusions from such a low quality seal.
30
AO 4799 (Selz 1983, no. 487; Braun-Holzinger 1991, W 23; RIME 2:
8.1.2001).
327
is banqueting one-on-one with a god suggests that she was his priestess. En-priestesses of Ningublaga existed,31 and her marital status
does not contradict this.32 Her attire further supports this interpretationthe only women who wear flounced robes are high priestesses.
Large shawls are combined with tufted robes, the antecedent of the
flounced robe, on late ED sculptures that in all probability represent
priestesses.33
The last Akk item to consider is the seal of Ninessa, en of Pisangunu, daughter of Lugal-TAR (figure 5).34 It exhibits an unusual
composition and mentions a mysterious king.35 Pisangunu was a minor
god of the Uruk pantheon, and no other high priestesses are attested
for him. Lugal-TAR may have adapted the custom of appointing a
daughter as en to the cult of this local god when Akkads hegemony
over the south disintegrated. The image shows two seated goddesses
facing one another. The inscription added after the image was carved
obscures their hand gestures. Behind the left throne stands a god with
his hands on his waist. Behind the other throne, a human couple
dressed in fringed robes approaches. The man holds his hands to the
waist, while the woman gestures petition.36 This woman, however,
cannot be Ninessa (cf. Selz 1983, 525), because she is dressed and
coiffured like a court lady. Moreover, the doubling of the goddess
would remain obscure. The human presentees are better explained as
a local ruler and his wife, like in the libation scenes described above.
If so, and if the god and the goddess seated before him represented
31
They are first attested under ulgi, but may well have existed before, since Ningublaga was worshipped at Ur since ED times; for the evidence see Richter 2004, 441443, and the Lament for Sumer and Ur (ETCSL 2.2.3 ll. 204-205).
32
The old thesis that high priestesses were submitted to celibacy cannot be sustained: according to Hilgert (see note 1 of this article), children are attested in all periods.
33
Namely statues from Mari: Asher-Greve 1985, nos. 400, 401, 445. While these
women wear their shawl over a polos, Abda, daughter of Urnane of Laga, wears a
shawl directly on her head over a tufted robe (Strommenger and Hirmer 1962, pl. 73).
Because she is taller than her brothers and leading them, Asher-Greve (1985, 90-92)
identified her with the priestess of the god for whom her father built the temple in which
this plaque was installed.
34
AO 22309 (Boehmer 1965, fig. 670; Selz 1983, no. 583; RIME 2: 13.3.1001).
35
Frayne (RIME 2: 13.3.1001) considered reading TAR as ku5 and identifying
lugal ku5 with king Kuda from Uruk mentioned in the Sumerian King List. However,
Lugal-TAR is the name of an ED ensi of Uruk (Steible 1982, Lugal-TAR 1), and one
cannot exclude that a namesake ruled Uruk at the end of the Akk period.
36
For this gesture, see Suter 2000, 260-261.
328
c.e. suter
329
an en of Inana called En-M-ZA-zi.41 The original image rendered Lamas introduction of a male petitioner to an enthroned king
with cup. While Dominique Collon (1982, no. 448) assumed that the
king was transformed into Inana, I see him transformed into a high
priestess. Not only was his beard erased and long hair added onto
the shoulder, but also the brimmed cap was made into a circlet. Like
Aman-Atars seal (figure 2), this seal then depicts the servant of a
high priestess before his superior.42 If my interpretation of text and
image is correct, it lends support to Sallabergers insinuation that en
of Inana were female in the Ur III period (note 3 of this article), and
shows that this en of a goddess wore the same attire and hairstyle
as those of gods.
A similar image is depicted on the seal of Qiptiya, found in level
III of the Kititum Temple at Ichali and dating to the early IL period
(figure 8).43 According to the inscription, Qiptiya was the daughter
of an ere-dingir. Unfortunately, the priestess name and that of
her deity remain obscure. Image and inscription were recut. The left
edge of the inscriptions case is still visible next to the new one. The
original image depicted a subordinate before an Ur III king. The
enthroned figure still sits on the typical stool and holds the cup. The
original neckline of the flounced robe leaving one shoulder bare can
be seen below the newly cut neckline of a flounced robe covering
both shoulders. Face and area of the original beard are damaged. The
brimmed cap was changed to a circlet and a bun was added at the
nape. Again, the king was transformed into a high priestess. In front
of her stands her daughter, the seal owner, dressed in a fringed robe
with her hair tied up and held by a hairband. She exhibits a gesture
characterisic of consorts before Ur III kings.
The only presently known representation of an IL en-priestess
is the restored statue of Enanatuma, en of Nanna and daughter of
Ime-Dagan (figure 9).44 It was found in the Gipar at Ur and is
41
As Markus Hilgert pointed out to me, in administrative texts it was common to
omit the title between name and deity of an en as, for example, in the year name AmarSuen 5: mu En-unu6-gal dInana ba-hug (Hilgert 2003: 491ff.).
42
If I understand the footnote by Fischer (1997, 140 n. 259) correctly, she came to
the same conclusion.
43
IM 27351 (Frankfort 1955, no. 913; see also Fischer 1997, 140).
44
CBS 16229 (Legrain 1927, 223-229; Woolley 1976, 223 (U.6352), pl. 55a; Spycket 1981, 252 n. 135, pl. 176; Braun-Holzinger 1991, st. 170; RIME 4: 1.4.13). The
seal images of a child of Enanatuma (RIME 4: 1.4.14) and of Enanedu, en-priestess of
330
c.e. suter
331
high priestesses and some kings must have been intended to express
their proximity to the gods.
High priestesses usually wear long loose hair (figures 1-3, 5, 7).
Only two ere-dingir wear it tied up (figures 6, 8). Goddesses may
also wear their hair loose but, as with the flounced robe covering
both shoulders, this is a rare hairstyle for them, especially if they are
rendered in profile.48 It seems, therefore, that a rare dress variant
and hairstyle of goddesses was chosen for high priestesses to distinguish them not only from court ladies, but also from most goddesses.
By Ur III times, long loose hair may have come to mark en, since
Urningirsu, en-priest of Nane, is portrayed with the same long loose
hair (Braun-Holzinger 1991, st. 157-158).
In the Ur III and IL periods, the headdress of high priestesses was
a circlet (figures 7-9). This was exclusive to them, and thus the only
part of their attire that set them unambiguously apart from goddesses.
In the Akk period, we encounter various headdresses: while Enheduana (figure 1) wears a circlet, Tuta-napum wears an unique crown
(figure 2), and Geme-Mugsagana a large shawl over her head (figure
4). In the aftermath of Naramsins elevation to divine status, high
priestesses may even have adopted the horned crown when depicted
with their divine spouse (figures 3, 5). This variety is not surprising,
considering that the attire of many figures was not standardized until
the neo-Sumerian period. ED priestesses seem to have worn various
headdresses too, which probably reflected local traditions: the polos,
for example, is found only in the region of Mari (Asher-Greve 1985,
79-82), while the circlet was the headdress of Nannas high priestess
at Ur (Winter 1987, figs. 2, 4).49
leaving one shoulder bare is worn by male and female figures (Strommenger 1971, figs.
23 and 27), while the tufted robe covering both shoulders was reserved for women who
are generally interpreted as priestesses (Strommenger 1971, fig. 20). If this interpretation is correct, our high priestesses inherited their standard garment in a further developed form from ED predecessors.
48
See Collon 1982, 30; Haussperger 1991, 88-89. Itars hairstyle, for example, depended on the view: in profile she is usually rendered with a bun, frontally with loose
hair (Colbow 1991, 117). The explanation must be that a bun at the nape cannot be
seen in frontal view and a female face without hair would look odd.
49
On the door plaque (Winter 1987, fig. 2; see also Asher-Greve 1985, 88-90),
I would make a distinction between the headdress of the frontally seen woman in the
lower register and that of the three women in the upper register. The former is a circlet,
like that of later high priestesses, while the latter is a flat hairband identical to that of the
woman at the left of the lower register, and of later court ladies.
332
c.e. suter
The throne is documented for several en-priestesses and an gi-zi in Ur III and
IL administrative texts (Renger 1967, 128 nn. 110-111; Sallaberger 1993, 147 n. 696;
Sallaberger 1995, 20). The aga is the legitimate headdress of Enheduanas en-ship in
Exaltation of Inana (ETCSL 4.07.2 l. 107; one variant replaces aga with tg, garment)
and also occurs, made of gold, in an Ur III text listing objects to be interred with an enpriestess (Sallaberger 1995, 15).
51
Hilgert (see note 1 in this article) observed that en of Nanna could choose from
an array of nearly twenty different robes, including tgn-lm, and several types of tggu-za (UET 3 1256 and 1717).
52
Several scholars described Enheduanas headdress on the restored relief from Ur
as a brimmed cap by analogy with the headdress of kings (Renger 1967, 126-127; Winter 1987, 192; Sallaberger 1995, 16). Sculptures, however, clearly show that high priestesses wear a circlet on their hair rather than a cap (figures 9-11, 14-15).
333
garment and this coincided with that of deities and some kings. Several robes attested for high priestesses in texts are also attested for
deities and kings.53 There may have been several terms for what
we identify as a flounced robe, referring to variations in cut, fabric
or color.54 Images certainly rendered a simplified or idealized version of the variety of robes that existed in reality, as is the case of
footware: high priestesses are always depicted barefoot, whereas an
administrative text documents red leather boots for an en of Enlil
(Hilgert 2003, no. 497).
Anonymous Images
Thirteen anonymous statues qualify as representations of high priestesses by comparison with the identified images (table 1). They come
from Ur, Uruk, Tello, Nippur, and Adab. Unfortunately, the contexts
of the properly excavated ones were either not accurately recorded
or not original. Only two finds help to date this group: IM 56505
was found in an Ur III context at Nippur with many tablets dating
to the reign of Amarsin, while IM 18659 was found in the IL quarter
of Ur. With the exception of the latter, Agns Spycket (1981, 171)
described them in her chapter on the Akk period, admitting that they
could equally well date to the subsequent period. Based on stylistic
considerations,55 I would attribute them largely to the neo-Sumerian
period without excluding that one or another may date to the Akk
or IL period.
53
334
c.e. suter
Provenience
Condition,
Material &
Height
Attributes
Bibliography
AO 40
Tello: palace:
under pavement of court
A
Tello
Headless,
chlorite 6.1
cm
tablet on lap
AO 13211
Purchased
1908 or
before
vessels on
throne
AO 23995
= Fig. 10
Purchased
1862 in
Baghdad
Headless,
alabaster 15.5
cm; illegible
inscription on
shoulder
Complete,
alabaster 20
cm
CBS 16228
Ur: Tomb
Mound
Tello: tell V
Head, marble
9.5 cm
Headless,
alabaster? 13
cm
Ur: Ninubur
shrine in IL
quarter
Nippur: scribal quarter
Complete,
limestone 48
cm
Headless,
white stone
15.3 cm
Lower body,
limestone
13.3 cm
Headless,
limestone
vessels on
throne
vessels on
throne
AO 12844
EEM 2381
IM 18659
IM 56505
IM
Uruk: nB
houses on
SW edge of
Eanna
UM L-29-214 Nippur (4th
= Fig. 12
expedition)
Unknown
Adab
VA 4854
= Fig. 11
Purchased
1915 or
before
Complete,
8.5 cm
Complete,
alabaster 11.3
cm
YBC
Purchased
1931 or
before
Headless,
limestone 15
cm
vessel in
hands
tablet on lap
tablet on lap
tablet on lap
335
Elizabeth van Burens article from 1931 is the only previous study of
this group of statues. She identifies them as goddesses mainly because
they wear flounced robes. Although Henri Frankfort countered this
interpretation long ago (1939, 53 n. 20), many are still listed as goddesses (for example, Braun-Holzinger 1991, 226 n. 672). By comparison with the images of Enheduana (figure 1) and Enanatuma (figure
9), both Spycket (1981, 174) and Collon (1998, 21) have wondered
whether they represent priestesses. For several reasons, I believe that
indeed they do: their attire and hairstyle conform with identified high
priestesses; those whose head is preserved wear a circlet not a horned
crown; they hold their hands clasped like other statues representing
their donor; together with Enanatuma they are the only statues depicted enthroned from the Akk to the IL period, aside from rulers
(Braun-Holzinger 1991, 234). Moreover, their attributes can be linked
to a high priestess office.
The tablets some have on their lap exhibit several vertical lines
intersected by one or two horizontal lines, apparently representing
the cases or columns in which text was written. Because writing was
invented and most frequently used for book-keeping, the tablet probably implies an administrative function56 and can be associated with
the prime task of high priestesses as head of their deitys estate. The
containers carved on the throne of others are vessels for dairy use
(van Buren 1931, 65-70) and can be expected to represent products
of this estate or utensils used in production. The globular vessel held
by one has the same shape as the so-called overflowing vase (van
Buren 1931, 73). In neo-Sumerian times, deities present this symbol
of prosperity to rulers for their services (Suter 2000, 63, 67, 203-204),
and it is bestowed also on Geme-Lama (figure 6). The globular vessel
must thus signify blessings of prosperity that this high priestess received
from her deity for running his or her estate.
Four more images can be added to the repertory of anonymous
high priestesses: two statues, slightly different from the above,
56
If the tablets were to evoke temple construction, they would exhibit ruler, stylus,
and possibly a plan (Suter 2000, 58). A tablet with propitious stars would probably have
looked different, toothat of Nisaba explicitly had a stylus on it (ETCSL 2.1.7 ll. 134140)and divination was not a prime task of Mesopotamian priests (Sallaberger and
Huber Vulliet 2003-2005, 617). I also doubt that the tablet referred to the composition
of poetry since most literary works were not written down until the OB period and
Enheduanas authorship is disputable (Suter 2000, 151-152).
336
c.e. suter
and two reliefs. The statues are from Ur, date to the IL period, and
have generally been identified as goddesses, although they lack horned
crowns. Both are dressed in flounced robes covering both arms. One
is from the Gipar (figure 13).57 The top of her head is flat, and a
groove around it with two holes above the ears indicates that a headdress, probably in metal, was attached. Shape and location of this
groove indicate a circlet, not a horned crown. An aga made of gold
is attested for an en-priestess in an Ur III administrative text (Sallaberger 1995, 15). Geese flank the females throne and her foot-stool is
supported by two more water birds. Such a goose-throne is otherwise
attested only for a goddess with the multiple horned crown.58 This
goddess has, at different times, been identified with Baba, Nane,
and Ningal. Because her image was widespread from the Akk to the
IL period, Braun-Holzinger (1998-2001a, 162) argued that she cannot be one and the same in all places and proposed that the images
from Girsu represented Nane.59 I suggest that similar images from
Ur represented Ningal, with whom texts also associate water birds.60
Interestingly, zirru, the traditional title of Nannas en still used in
IL times (see note 16 in this article), was adopted from Ningal, and
can be translated as hen bird (J. G. Westenholz 1989, 541-544).
The statue from Urs Gipar is then best identified with Nannas en
who adopted the goose-throne from Ningal, whom she personified
as Nannas wife.
57
IM 18663 (Legrain 1927, 229-232; Woolley 1976, 225 (U.6779), pl. 54; Orthmann 1975, pl. 164c; Spycket 1981, 234 n. 49, pl. 160).
58
On a door plaque from Nippur and on seals and terracotta plaques from Ur,
Girsu, Uruk, and Nippur (Braun-Holzinger 1998-2001a, 161). Geese or other water
birdsthe representations do not always allow for a precise zoological classification
are associated also with a goddess on post-Akk seals that depict a presentation to a
goddess in the upper register, and a row of water birds in the lower register and on neoSumerian seals that depict a water bird in front of an enthroned goddess (Braun-Holzinger 1998-2001a, 161). These birds, however, need not necessarily characterize the
goddess.
59
For her connection with birds in texts, see Heimpel 1998-2001, 153. Two seals
from Laga depicting a goddess on the goose-throne belonged to priests of Nane
(Fischer 1997, no. 12, p. 122 n. 141 [ITT 5 pl. V: 10075 described]). A bird is also associated with an enthroned goddess on seals from Laga that belonged to servants of an
ere-dingir of Baba (Fischer 1997, 126-127); this goddess, however, is never depicted on the goose-throne.
60
See especially Nanna B (ETCSL 4.13.02). In the Lament for Urim, Ningal cannot be
the bird of her city anymore because her city is being destroyed (ETCSL 2.2.2 l. 339).
See also Steinkeller cited in Zgoll 1998-2001, 353.
337
IM 18658 (Woolley 1976, 239, pl. 55b (U.16425); Spycket 1981, 253 n. 138).
AO 2761. For a good photo, see Strommenger and Hirmer 1962, pl. 129 rechts;
for more bibliography, see Braun-Holzinger 1991, W 30.
63
Since the hand of her right arm is missing, it remains uncertain whether she was
holding a drinking vessel. That she received a subordinate in audience, like royals and
high priestesses on seal images, however, is unlikely on a door plaque, since presentation scenes in sculpture always depict the ruler before a deity.
64
Only ere-dingir are attested for these deities. Visual tradition would speak for
Lugalbanda as the participants of two-person banquets are more often of the opposite
sex than of the same and there would be a precedent in the door plaque of Nigdupae
(figure 4). Textual evidence, on the other hand, would speak for Ninsun: ere-dingir of Ninsun are attested in Ur III and Isin times (Steinkeller 1999, 128 n. 91), whereas an ere-dingir of Lugalbanda occurs only once in an OB inscription (RIME 4:
62
338
c.e. suter
Conclusions
Based on images identified by an associated text, I hope to have
established that one can identify high priestesses in imagery. They
were marked by a garment and a headdress that were insignia of
their office and they wore their hair loose down the back rather than
4.1.9); the OB ere-dingir of Lugalbanda apparently replaced that of Ninsun (Richter 2004, 323).
65
As Joan Westenholz pointed out to me, the offerings for the installation of an
en of Nanna of Karzida under Amarsin conclude with sacrifices for the house of the
mother of all en, Ninsun (PDT II 767 ii 15).
66
AO 5682+6160 (Heuzey in Cros et al. 1910, 287-90 (without fragment of woman); Strommenger and Hirmer 1962, pl. 128; for a detailed description, see Suter 2000,
191).
67
A possible exception is the female on a terracotta plaque from Tello (Barrelet
1968, no. 482) who wears a circlet, too.
339
tied up in a bun. While the various shapes of their headdresses probably reflected local traditions in Akk times, the circlet of Nannas en
became standard from neo-Sumerian times on.
Differences between differently titled high priestesses have been
noted. Significantly, neither ceremonial names nor insignia are attested for ere-dingir. Geme-Lama (figure 6) is probably dressed and
coiffured like court ladies and appears in a context typical for them
because she stood in a tradition of local rulers wives heading Babas
estate. This ere-dingir was neither a kings daughter nor a gods
wife and her tasks apparently coincided with those of a rulers wife.
Other ere-dingir were assimilated with en: Tuta-napum (figure 2)
refers to herself as ere-dingir, whereas other texts document an en
of Enlil in her time (see note 6 in this article), and she is depicted like
an en. There is only one more identified image of an ere-dingir
from the periphery (figure 8): she occurs in a context attested for en
and is distinguished from them only by her bun. Should the woman
on Ninsuns plaque (figure 14) represent an ere-dingir, this one
would be assimilated to en in appearance and occur in a context fit
for high priestesses married to their god. The only possible en of a
goddess (figure 7) looks like en of gods. Although meagre, the evidence suggests that, while all female en were entitled to the attire of
a high priestess, this was not necessarily the case for all ere-dingir.
Perhaps only those of gods were assimilated with en, while those of
goddesses had a similar status as court ladies. In any case, the title
was not consistently used: local traditions and changes over time apparently played a factor in its definition.
High priestesses adopted their garment and hairstyle from goddesses.
Nevertheless, they looked different from most of them, since goddesses
are much more often depicted with a flounced robe differently draped
than that adopted by high priestesses, and with their hair tied up rather
than loose. What distinguished high priestesses unambiguously from
goddesses was their headdress. Even if some may have had a pair of
horns attached (figures 9, 11), it would still have been distinct, not
unlike Naramsins horned helmet differing from horned crowns.68 If
an en of Nanna adopted the goose-throne from Ningal (figure 13),
68
Another possible representation of a deified king with horns on his cap is found
on an IL seal (Collon 1986, no. 68). Whether the Mari governor Puzur-Etar wore
horns or not remains problematic; Blocher (2003, 269) proposed that his cap was remodeled between 750 and 652 BCE.
340
c.e. suter
her headdress set her apart from the goddess. Similarly, the woman on
the vessel (figure 15) exhibits a gesture otherwise reserved for Lama,
yet her circlet set her apart from the goddess. Only in exceptional
cases may the depiction of a high priestess have coincided with that
of the goddess whom she personified: in the case of Enmenana, the
image remains ambiguous (figure 3), while Ninessa might be depicted
in a mirror-image with the divine wife of her god (figure 5).
What do the images of high priestesses tell us about them? Most
of their attributestablet, dairy vessels, and small pot symbolizing
prosperityevoked their aspect as head of their deitys estate, while
the goose-throne evoked this ens aspect as her gods wife. The former
reflect the realist political plane of their office, the latter the ideological
one. In contrast to other humans, high priestesses do not figure in the
role of the presentee. They only chair presentation scenes, receiving
subordinates in audience (figures 2, 7, 8). They share this function
not only with deities, who predominantly preside over presentation
scenes from the late ED through the IL period, but also with an Akk
queen and with Ur III kings, who are frequently depicted as the head
of state bureaucracy. Although high priestesses participate in cult
ceremonies, they do not perform the rite. While other royals, such
as Akk court ladies and Ur III kings, pour libations, Enheduana only
presides over this act performed by her assistant (figure 1). Similarly,
a late Ur III/early IL high priestess intercedes presumably on behalf
of a king in a cult ceremony whose focal act is lost (figure 15). Then
again, high priestesses banquet with their god (figures 3-5, 14).69 The
most likely occasion for this event was their installation in office, so
frequently commemorated in official state records, and publicly celebrated in grand feasts.70 Installation ceremonies of OB priestesses
show analogies with marriage rites (Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet
69
I have not described anonymous high priestesses in glyptic, because I could not
find clear examples of figures whose attire corresponds to that of identified high priestesses in this medium. Banquets of women with gods may qualify, but the seals depicting banquets of a human with a deity (Selz 1983, 526-527) tend to be of low quality,
making it difficult to recognize the figures gender and attire. If, however, a high priestess could appear in the guise of her gods divine spouse when banqueting with him (figs.
3, 5), she may be alluded to in banquets of divine couples (Selz 1983, 523-526) that remain anonymous because the seals lack an inscription and the figures are not given idiosyncratic attributes.
70
Based on administrative texts, Hilgert (see note 1 in this article) showed that this
event could last at least seven days, during which large amounts of food and drink were
consumed.
341
Addendum
To the catalogue of anonymous statues of high priestesses can now
be added the high quality, 14 centimeter-high limestone head that
was recently confiscated in Jordan. Vito Messina presented it at the
ICAANE in Madrid, 2006, and its publication just appeared in
Menegazzi (2005, 5, pls. 1, A, and cover).
342
c.e. suter
References
Amiet, Pierre. 1976. LArt dAgad au Muse du Louvre. Paris: ditions des muses
nationaux.
Archi, Alfonso. 1998. The High Priestess, dam-dingir, at Ebla. In Und Moses schrieb
dieses Lied auf : Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient: Festschrift fr Oswald Loretz,
ed. Manfried Dietrich et al., 43-53. AOAT 250. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Asher-Greve, Julia M. 1985. Frauen in altsumerischer Zeit. BiMes 18. Malibu: Undena.
. 1995/96. Reading the Horned Crown: A Review Article. AfO 42-43: 181-189.
. 2006. The Gaze of Goddesses: On Divinity, Gender, and Frontality in the
Late Early Dynastic, Akkadian, and Neo-Sumerian periods. NIN 4.
Assante, Julia. 2003. From Whores to Hierodules: The Historiographic Invention
of Female Sex Professionals. In Ancient Art and its Historiography, ed. A. A. Donohue
and Mark D. Fullerton, 13-47. Cambridge: University Press.
Banks, E. J. 1912. Bismya. New York/London: Putnams Sons Knickerbocker Press.
Barrelet, Marie-Thrse. 1968. Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Msopotamie antique.
Bibliothque archologique et historique de linstitute franais darchologie de Beyrouth 85. Paris: Geuthner.
Blocher, Felix. 2003. Wann wurde Puzur-Etar zum Gott? In Babylon: Focus Mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege frher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne, ed. Johannes Renger,
253-269. Colloquien der deutschen Orientgesellschaft 2. Saarbrcken: Saarbrcker
Druckerei und Verlag.
Boehmer, Rainer M. 1965. Die Entwicklung der Glyptik whrend der Akkad-Zeit. UAVA
4. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Boese, Johannes. 1971. Altmesopotamische Weihplatten: Eine sumerische Denkmalsgattung des
3.Jt. v.Chr. UAVA 6. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Brker-Klhn, Jutta. 1997. Mauerkronentrgerinnen. In Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten,
ed. Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann, 227-234. HSAO 6. Heidelberg:
Orientverlag.
Braun-Holzinger, Eva. 1991. Mesopotamische Weihgaben der frhdynastischen bis altbabylonischen Zeit. HSAO 3. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
. 1998-2001a. Nane: B: Archologisch. RlA 9: 160-162.
. 1998-2001b. Ningal: B: Archologisch. RlA 9: 359.
Charpin, Dominique. 1986. Le Clerg dUr au sicle dHammurabi. Hartes tudes Orientales 22. Paris/Geneva: Droz.
Colbow, Gudrun. 1991. Die kriegerische Itar: Zu den Erscheinungsformen bewaffneter Gottheiten zwischen der Mitte des 3. und der Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends. MVS 8. Mnchen: Profil
Verlag.
343
Collon, Dominique. 1982. Catalogue of Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Cylinder
Seals II: Akkadian Post AkkadianUruk III Periods. London: British Museum.
. 1986. Catalogue of Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Cylinder Seals III:
Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods. London: British Museum.
. 1987. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London: British
Museum.
. 1998. Depiction of Priests and Priestesses in the Ancient Near East. In
Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East, ed. K. Watanabe, 17-46. Heidelberg: C.
Winter.
Cooper, Jerold S. 1993. Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia.
In Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East, ed. Eiko Matsushima, 8196. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
Cros, Gaston, Lon Heuzey, and Franois Thureau-Dangin. 1910. Mission franaise
de Chalde: Nouvelles fouilles de Tello. Paris: Leroux.
de Sarzec, Ernest, Lon Heuzey, Arthur Amiaud, and Franois Thureau-Dangin.
1884. Dcouvertes en Chalde. Paris: Leroux.
Englund, Robert K. 1998. Texts from the Late Uruk Period. In Mesopotamien: Annherungen 1: Spturuk-Zeit und Frhdynastische Zeit, ed. J. Bauer, R. K. Englund, and
M. Krebernik, 13-233. OBO 160/1. Freiburg: Universittsverlag.
Fischer, Claudia. 1997. Siegelabrollungen im British Museum auf Ur-III-zeitlichen
Texten aus der Provinz von Laga: Untersuchungen zu den Verehrungsszenen.
BaM 28: 97-183.
Foster, Benjamin. 1982. Administration and Use of Institutional Land in Sargonic Sumer.
Mesopotamia 9. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
. 1987. Women in Sargonic Society. In La Femme dans le proche-orient antique,
ed. J.-M. Durand, 53-61. Paris: Editions de Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Foxvog, Daniel, Wolfgang Heimpel, Ann D. Kilmer, and Agns Spycket. 1980-83.
Lama/Lamassu. RlA 6: 446-455.
Frankfort, Henri. 1939. Sculpture of the Third Millennium B.C. from Tell Asmar and Khafajah.
OIP 44. University of Chicago Press.
. 1955. Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region. OIP 72. Chicago: Oriental
Institute.
Haines, Richard C. 1956. Where a Goddess of Love and War was Worshipped 4000
Years ago. ILN 18th August 1956: 266-269.
Hansen, Donald. 2002. Through the Love of Ishtar. In Of Pots and Plans: Papers on
the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria presented to David Oates in Honor of his
75th Birthday, ed. L. al-Gailani Werr, J. Curtis, A. McMahon, H. Martin, J. Oates,
and J. Reade, 91-112. London: Nabu Publications.
Haussperger, Martha. 1991. Die Einfhrungsszene: Entwicklung eines mesopotamischen Motivs
von der altakkadischen bis zum Ende der altbabylonischen Zeit. MVS 11. Mnchen: Profil
Verlag.
344
c.e. suter
345
Sallaberger, Walther. 1993. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit. UAVA 7. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
. 1995. Eine reiche Bestattung im neusumerischen Ur. JCS 47: 15-20.
. 1999. Ur III-Zeit. In Mesopotamien: Annherungen 3: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit,
ed. Pascal Attinger and Markus Wfler, 121-390. OBO 160/3. Freiburg: Universittsverlag.
Sallaberger, Walther, and Fabienne Huber Vulliet. 2003-2005. Priester: A: I: Mesopotamien. RlA 10: 617-640.
Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1993. Images of Enship. In Between the Rivers and over the
Mountains: Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, ed. M. Frangipani, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae, and M. Mellink, 201-219. Rome:
La Sapienza.
Selz, Gudrun. 1983. Die Bankettszene: Entwicklung eines berzeitlichen Bildmotivs in Mesopotamien, Teil 1: Von der frhdynastischen bis zur Akkad-Zeit. FAOS 11. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Spycket, Agns. 1981. La Statuaire du proche-orient ancien. Handbuch der Orientalistik
I/2. Leiden: Brill.
Steible, Horst. 1982. Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. FAOS 5. Wiesbaden:
Steiner.
Steinkeller, Piotr. 1993. Comments on the Seal of Aman-Eshtar. NABU: no. 9.
. 1999. On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of
Early Sumerian Kingship. In Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East, ed. K. Watanabe, 103-137. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
Strommenger, Eva. 1971. Mesopotamische Gewandtypen von der frhsumerischen
bis zur Larsa-Zeit. APA 2: 37-55.
Strommenger, Eva, and Max Hirmer. 1962. Fnf Jahrtausende Mesopotamien. Mnchen:
Hirmer.
Suter, Claudia E. 2000. Gudeas Temple Building: The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler in Text and Image. CM 17. Groningen: Styx.
. Forthcoming. Poetic Imagery and Actual Depiction of Ur III Kings. In Your
Praise is Sweet. A Memorial Volume Presented to Jeremy Allen Black by Colleagues, Students,
and Friends, ed. H. Baker, E. Robson, and G. Zlyomi.
Van Buren, Elizabeth Douglas. 1931. Two Statuettes of an Enthroned Goddess.
Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 18: 63-78.
Van de Mieroop, Marc. 1989. Women in the Economy of Sumer. In Womens Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia, ed. Barbara S. Lesko, 53-66. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Waetzoldt, Hartmut. 1980-83a. Kleidung: Philologisch. RlA 6: 18-31.
. 1980-83b. Kopfbedeckung: Philologisch. RlA 6: 197-203.
346
c.e. suter
Westenholz, Aage. 1999. The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture. In Mesopotamien: Annherungen 3: Akke-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, ed. Pascal Attinger and Markus
Wfler, 17-117. OBO 160/3. Freiburg: Universittsverlag.
Westenholz, Aage, and Joachim Oelsner. 1983. Zu den Weihplattenfragmenten der
Hilprecht-Sammlung. AoF 10: 209-216.
Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. 1989. Eheduanna, En-Priestess, Hen of Nanna, Spouse
of Nanna. In DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of ke W. Sjberg, ed. H. Behrens,
D. Loding, and M. T. Roth, 539-556. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah
Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: University Museum.
. 1992. The Clergy of Nippur: The Priestess of Enlil. In Nippur at the Centennial,
ed. M. de Jong Ellis, 297-310. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer
Fund 14. Philadelphia: University Museum.
Westenholz, Joan, and Aage Westenholz. 1983. Die Prinzessin Tutanapsum. AoF
10: 387-388.
Winter, Irene J. 1986. The King and the Cup: Iconography of the Royal Presentation Scene on Ur III Seals. In Insight Through Images: Studies in Honor of Edith Porada,
ed. M. Kelly-Buccellati, 253-268. BiMes 21. Malibu: Undena.
. 1987. Women in Public: The Disk of Enheduanna, the Beginnings of the
Office of EN-Priestess and the Weight of Visual Evidence. In La Femme dans le procheorient antique, ed. J.-M. Durand, 189-202. Paris: Editions de Recherche sur les Civilisations.
. 1996. Sex, Rhetoric and the Public Monument: The Alluring Body of NaramSn of Agade. In Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy, ed. N. B.
Kampen, 11-26. Cambridge: University Press.
Woolley, Charles Leonard. 1934. Ur Excavations 2: The Royal Cemetery. London: British Museum.
. 1955. Ur Excavations 4: The Early Periods: A Report on the Sites and Objects prior
in date to the Third Dynasty of Ur. London: British Museum.
. 1976. Ur Excavations 7: The Old Babylonian Period. London: British Museum.
Zervos, Christian. 1935. LArt de la Msopotamie de la fin du quatrime millnaire au XVe
sicle avant notre re. Paris: Cahiers dArt.
Zettler, Richard L. 1977. The Sargonic Royal Seal: A Consideration of Sealing in
Mesopotamia. In Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East, ed. McGuire Gibson and
Robert D. Biggs, 33-39. BiMes 6. Malibu: Undenda.
Zgoll, Annette. 1997. Der Rechtsfall der En-hedu-Ana im Lied nin-me-a-ra. AOAT 246.
Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
. 1998-2001. Ningal. RlA 9: 352-356.
347
348
c.e. suter
Figure 3. Seal of Lu-[. . .], h. 2.9 cm (after Boehmer 1965: Figure 725)
350
c.e. suter
352
c.e. suter
Figure 8. Seal of Qiptiya, h. 2.2 cm (courtesy Diyala Project, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago)
354
c.e. suter
355
356
c.e. suter
357
Figure 11. Statue of enthroned woman with tablet on lap, h. 11.3 cm (courtesy
Vorderasiatisches Museum)
Figure 12. Statue of enthroned woman with vessels on throne, h. 15 cm (courtesy Philadelphia Museum of
Art)
358
c.e. suter
359
360
c.e. suter
362
c.e. suter
363
364
t.m. sharlach
Text Two
1 tu-bird, (from) Lu-urub,
58 tugur-birds (from the woman) Tezen-Mama,
2 kaskal-birds (from) Barbaria,
the 6th day having passed from the month,
delivery (to) Shulgi-simti.
(AUCT 1.952, Shulgi 39, month 4)
Text Three
6 ducks (from) Bagum, fowler, the 28th day having passed from the
month,
delivery (to) Shulgi-simti, Shulgi-ili received (the above).
(PDT 1.139, Shulgi 47, month 10)
Texts like these show male and female courtiers providing small quantities of livestocka squab here, a goat there. Occasionally, larger
1
Abbreviations follow the guidelines outlined by the CDLI project, to be found online at http//cdli.ucla.edu.
365
Text Five
1 grass fed sheep(the god) An,
2 grass fed sheepthat of the place of disappearance,
2 grass fed oxen, 2 fattened sheep, 2 sheep that followed oxen, 2 goatsfor
the festival of Nabrium, (for the goddesses) Belet-shuhnir and Belet-terraban.
1 fattened sheep, 1 lamb(the goddess) Allatum,
1 grass fed sheep, 1 goat(the goddess) Ishara and (the goddess) BeletNagar,
1 lamb(the goddess) Annunitum,
1 goat(the goddess) Nannaya,
the 6th day having passed from the month,
expenditure of (the official) Ur-lugal-eden-ka in Ur.
(TRU 282, Shulgi year 46, month 9)
In the first document, fowl were used for consumption by the palace
or royal family; in the second, larger animals were sacrificed. The
sacrificed animals went mainly to goddesses, many of whom were
not the usual high-ranking goddesses of the Sumero-Akkadian pantheon (that is to say, we more usually find here sacrifices to goddesses
like Belet-shuhnir and Belet-terraban or Nannaya than to Ninlil or
Ishtar). Documents like text five record the provisioning of cults under
Shulgi-simtis auspices. It should be noted that, despite her status as
royal wife, the foundation she ran was on a much smaller scale than
366
t.m. sharlach
367
368
t.m. sharlach
References
Asher-Greve, J., and M.-F. Wogec. 2002. Women and Gender in Ancient Near
Eastern Cultures: Bibliography 1885 to 2001 A.D. Nin 3: 33-114.
Sallaberger, W. 1993. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III Zeit. Berlin: de Gruyter.
. 1999. Mesopotamien: Ur III-Zeit. OBO 160/3. Freiburg: Universittsverlag.
Sigrist, M. 1992. Drehem. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Winter, Irene J. 1987. Women in Public: The Disk of Enheduanna, the Beginning
of the Office of En-Priestess, and the Weight of Visual Evidence. In La Femme dans
le proche-orient antique, ed. J.-M. Durand, 189-202. Paris: Editions de Recherche sur
les Civilisations.
Van de Mieroop, M. 1999. Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History. New York:
Routledge.
369
1
Not all reliefs are shown here. Nearly all are badly damaged from a disease caused
by storage in oak boxes. Most are kept in an argon vacuum at the Vorderasiatisches Museum to prevent the disease from advancing. The drawings offered here are my
own, taken from sketches in excavation day books. The sketches were made before storage and the onset of the disease.
2
Evelyn Klengel-Brandt remembers at least one more at the Assur site museum.
3
For a detailed discussion on Old Babylonian erotica, see Assante 2000, 2002. For
comparison between Old Babylonian and Middle Assyrian erotica, see Assante 2000.
370
j. assante
Specifically northwest Syria (Hattina), Bt-Adini on the middle Euphrates and the
Levant. See Wfler 1975. This foreign element was first noted by Jerrold Cooper (19721975, 264). Soft-pointed caps occur again in Assur-bel-kalas broken obelisk (10741057 BCE).
5
Of the excavated lead objects, the Vorderasiatisches Museum houses about 280,
not all identifiable; others were left in Iraq, sent to museums in Turkey, or lost or discarded.
6
The extreme majority of Assur lead, mostly disks, shows highly stylized floral patterns. Although many lead objects from Anatolia and north Syria share the openwork
style, they tend to take certain forms: trinkets, jewelry elements, or schematic human
figurines. See Assante 2000, 262 n. 15.
371
from other periods and places, the lead smiths apparently invented
it. It was an extremely short-lived experiment.
There is a certain consistency of sexual attitudes in coitus scenes that
works partly by the omission of familiar positions. Surprisingly, sex in
which both partners are recumbentso common in erotica from other
times and places in the ancient Near Eastdoes not occur. Instead,
all intercourse involves at least one partner standing. The sometimes
difficult postures prevent construing such scenes as representing normal, that is, Assyrian, behavior. There are, furthermore, no hints of
the domestic or community sphereno beds or local tavern settings as
in Old Babylonian erotica, which contemporary viewers could misread
as Assyrian. Assyrians simply did not show Assyrians having sex. The
specific milieu is staged and theatrical rather than orgiastic or ritual.
Whether or not artisans modeled these scenes on actual live sexual
performances or simply imagined them may never be answered. The
iconography, discussed below, of theatrical postures, sexual props,
musical instruments, and dancers costumes further distances these
scenes from everyday Assyrian reality. By these visual prompts, Assyria effectively disowned its own erotic production.
Because I have already discussed in a number of studies modern
scholarships consistent misinterpretations when it comes to sex and
nudity, only a few most pertinent to the lead reliefs are mentioned
here.7 First, seemingly blinded by their content, scholars missed or
ignored the careful insignia of foreignness in the reliefs8 as well as
the iconography of sexual theater. Furthermore, the artifact class to
which they belong was not investigated, precluding the discovery of
their true function. Finally, their archaeological contexts have been
overlooked or distorted, beginning with the excavator himself. Although Walter Andrae was quite aware than only one female nude
was found in the Ishtar Temple (and that in later fill), he published all
lead erotica in his Ishtar Temple report (Andrae 1935). His decision
was based on his conviction that the reliefs must depict cult prostitution.9 Many have followed Andrae in deploying the reliefs to make
claims about orgiastic cults, fertility rites, and the pervasiveness of
7
See Assante 1998; 2000, 19-73; 2003; 2006. Fortunately, Coopers careful RlA
analysis of the reliefs (1972-1975) eliminated a Sacred Marriage misinterpretation
early on.
8
With the exception of Cooper. See n. 4.
9
See Assante 2000, 46-49; Scurlock 1993, 15; Westenholz 1995, 61.
372
j. assante
She may also have been the custodian of secrets, perhaps having to do with oathtaking (Westenholz 1998, 77). See also KAR 139. Most Assyrian versions of Ishtar are
associated with motherhood or healing in addition to war. Both Ishtar of Nineveh and
Ishtar of Assur had strong connections to kings and state cult (Menzel 1981).
11
Neo-Assyrian records also refer to her as wet nurse and mother (Livingstone
1989, 99).
12
This discussion is drawn from the extensive coverage in Assante 2000, 179-209.
I compiled data from Andraes excavation day books in Berlin, with supplements from
Miglus 1996 and Eickhoff 1985. Reinhard Dittmann, who excavated at Kar-TukultiNinurta with Kartrin Bastert, C. Schmidt and S. Thrwchter in 1986 and 1989, generously shared unpublished material from his excavations.
13
Tellingly, Tukulti-Ninurta named the main gate to the terrace, The Metal
Workers Gate (Miglus 1982, 274).
373
tool, and pieces of gold and copper sheeting often used for plating,
all signs of industrial output. The great amount of raw material and
scrap metal in the form of sheeting, lumps, strips, wire, and so forth,
also points to production rather than consumption. This is the first
archaeological contextwhere they were made.
There are two examples for the second archaeological context
where they were used: Tukulti-Ninurta Is South Palace in Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta and an opulent town house in Assur, whose owner was
almost certainly related to the royal house (Assante 2000, 200-201).
Both date the artifacts to Tukulti-Ninurtas reign and establish the
elite and secular status of the users.
The third archaeological context is secondary use. One object was
found in later fill of the Ishtar Temple in Assur and two in the vicinity. As I have demonstrated, this fill was probably taken from the
adjacent New Palace Terrace to stabilize and pack the temple mount
(ibid, 184-199). Another piece occurred in the fill of the Assur Temple
at Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, which was packed and sealed just after the
kings death. Other objects in the same fill indicate the nearby palace
court as the source.
A great many finds from the New Palace Terrace, whether in lead,
shell, ivory, alabaster, frit, gold, or bone, share similar characteristics
with the erotic reliefsthey are flat, thin, shiny, or lustrous, and have
one figural or decorative surface that may be raised or incised. These
are characteristics ideal for decorative inlays, for furniture and chests,
stone vessels and accessories. As erotica was found together with ivory
inlays and other materials that are textually attested to decorate Tukulti-Ninurtas furniture,14 the archaeological contexts alone point
rather strongly toward the reliefs as inlays.
Significantly, the image that is formally closest to erotic reliefs also
decorated furniture. It comes from a bronze openwork panel found in
the North-West Palace at Nimrud (figure 5), believed to have overlaid
the upper legs of a wooden throne (Layard 1853, 198-199; Finkel
1995, 124-125). Three figures, one facing right and two facing left with
the female form taking center, present a compositional arrangement
that bears a striking resemblance to figure 4. Although not inlays,
14
See the inventory text (VAT 16462; T232/IX) found in the palace at KarTukulti-Ninurta that itemizes the adornments of the kings throne room furniture. For
a new transliteration and translation by Walter Mayer and myself, see Assante 2000,
appendix 4; also Kcher 1957-1958.
374
j. assante
375
376
j. assante
Examples are numerous and consistent; one of the earliest is in the Royal Standard of Ur.
19
See, for instance, Opificius 1961, pl. 13, fig. 489.
377
It is in fact a gratuitous gesture in sexual scenes, suggestive of manhandling, and used to convey control over the womans movements. The
scene creates an atmosphere of dominance and submission, a dualism
favored in battle art. Another visual quotation from imperial art is
the womans upraised palm. This gesture has appeared ubiquitously
in Mesopotamia as a sign of formal supplication (Cifarelli 1998). In
later Assyrian reliefs, the raised open palms of conquered peoples
signified pleas for clemency. In battle art, the sexual implications of
the standing and recumbent configuration become clearer when the
victor holds the bow, arrow, or lance. Such weapons are long-standing similes for an erect penis in ancient Near Eastern arts and texts,
demonstrating a correlation of sexual dominance of penetrator over
penetrated with physical or political dominance.20 Assyrians are never
depicted subjected to this emasculating imagery.
Oddly, coitus a tergo appears in only one motif, the mnage trois of
figure 4. A nude woman stands in the middle penetrated from behind
by her partner at the right. The womans second partner faces her
at left, although only his legs have survived. This scene mimics live
entertainment most obviously because the male at right plays a lute
while engaged in coitus. He also turns up alone in a fragment that
probably came from the same mold (Andrae 1935, pl. 45d). The
woman again wears anklets, bracelets, necklaces and has distinctively
tightly waved hair. She is in a dance step, raising her outside thigh
high above her waist to allow a good view of the mans penis at her
buttocks. At the same time, she twists her upper body to the front,
displaying her breasts. As her outstretched hand is nearly identical
to the womans masturbating hand in figure 3, she is most probably
masturbating her facing partner.
Scenes that feature a couple in standing intercourse present a more
joyful, equitable picture (figures 6-8 and Andrae 1935, pl. 45f).
In two, both partners are clothed. The scenes are also stylistically different; bodies are generally fuller, longer, and less knobby, for instance. There is more physical contact as well. Figure 6, in which the heads survived, shows close face-to-face gazing. Each touches the others chestperhaps the sole example of
20
For examples see Paul 2002 and potency incantations 2, 3, 4, 14, and 15 in Biggs
1967. See also Foster 1993, 141. For discussion of such homoerotic symbolism in Assyrian royal art, see Assante forthcoming.
378
j. assante
379
Single Females
Six erotic reliefs and one mold are of single nude women in various
postures. An eighth, a corroded piece from Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta,
figure 14, shows what might be fringed cuffs above the womans
ankles, suggestive of dancers pantaloons.21 This group could be put
into three categories: frontal spread-legged nude female (figure 9),
sitting female in profile (figures 10, 11, and 13), and standing nude
female bending over (figures 12 and 14). However, as there are no
indications of baselines to orient the sitting and standing females,
some figures that seem to be seated or standing when the relief is
held one way, could just as well be standing or recumbent when the
relief is rotated. Lone females might have been put in sets meant to
parade a variety of sensuous forms. And as lead is a remarkably pliable metal, they may have been joined into more complex scenes.
In the spread-legged motif (figure 9 and Andrae 1935, pl. 45m),
the woman grabs her thighs above the knees from underneath and
pulls them apart, flush with the sides of her body. The artist has
depicted her vulva as a large deltoid in abruptly high relief resembling appliqu. Her wide-open legs and prominent vulva invite the
viewers visual penetration. Six out of eight females are in profile. As
they do not face the viewer and hence seem to be unaware of his (or
her) attention, he is free to peruse their bodies without interaction, a
voyeuristic act. Such visual strategies give more weight to the claim
that the primary viewing audience was male.
380
j. assante
at the bottom. The more extreme the degradation of the other, the
more superior the dominant force appears. The dominant group or
regime typically employs a number of izing devices applied to the
othermarginalizing, barbarizing, criminalizing, exoticizing, feminizing, and so onto give shape to the discourse of alterity. The most
effective way the Assyrian male citizen class, the awlu, could maintain
social borders and its superior position was by using these devices to
manipulate laws, economics, public signs of difference, and art. Lead
erotica is a good example from art, for it deploys all these devices,
feminization in particular. In so doing it works to assert and even
naturalize the inferiority and subordination of foreign men.
Middle Assyrian lawmakers designed a legal system that forced
foreign men into social structures of women and lower class men
that kept them relatively helpless. They subordinated non-awlu men
largely by making them invisible to state recognition. There are no
legal provisions for non-awlu men as there were in the earlier laws
of Babylonia. There is no terminology even for Assyrian males of the
commoner class known from other legal codes. Non-awlu men were
effectively erased. This is surprising in view of the heterogeneity of
Assyria at this time. I understand this legal denial as a tactic to assert
awlu supremacy. The laws were written exclusively for the protection
of awlu men and their property. Hence, women of no matter what
class, Assyrian and non-Assyrian alike, as well as all non-awlu men
were defined against the awlu male as the other. Grouping non-awlu
men, such as those depicted in the reliefs, with women as the other
is one way the state feminized certain classes of men.
The psychology of alterity in which the superior naturally dominates the inferior other was obviously at the root of Assyrias military
mentality. It is apparent in those sex scenes that re-imagine battle
imagery of conqueror and conquered along gendered lines. More generally, since the male figures most probably represent foreign captives,
the inlays refer to a wider, unseen configuration involving territorial
conquest and the military, those who captured and deported them.
From all that we know, Assyria during this period was profoundly
androcentric, nationalistic in promoting attitudes of Assyro-centrism and supremacy, and, finally, hierarchical, three salient traits of
a military society. The reliefs were cut from the same cloth.
Assyrias martial mindset seems to have pervaded even the social
fabric and was projected on the chief deities, Ishtar and Assur, who
381
382
j. assante
26
Middle Assyrian Laws A 40 (v. 42-106) and 41. For discussion, especially concerning the definition of the arimtu as a woman without patriarchal status (and not a
prostitute), see Assante 1998, 32-35 and passim.
383
and awlu men who imposed on women of all classes the figurative
and literal degree of their physical exposure.
Although most women in erotic insets appear anonymous to the
modern eye, their complete nakedness in some is compelling reason
to identify them as non-awlu class females, either arimtus, slaves,
criminals, such as adulteresses who have lost their patriarchal status,
or foreign captives. Those who are clothed most probably depict
entertainers from the same social groups. Of course, the pairing of
these women with westerners greatly favors an interpretation of their
identity as captives. A captive woman separated from her husband
might have been considered as part of the arimtu-class, as marital
status may have had little relevance in exile. The dispossessed positions of most foreign females would have made them fitting subjects
for physical exposure.
The harsh codes of behavior from Middle Assyrian laws and Palace
Decrees leave little doubt that what women do in lead scenes defied
accepted conduct. The impact of images in which women engage
sexually with two men at once on a society where the death penalty
could be enforced for adultery is difficult to appreciate at our remove.
The most policed women in Middle Assyrian society seemed to have
been the sinnitu a ekalli, the women of the kings palace, ironically
the same place that must have housed such examples of pornography.
Middle Assyrian Palace Decrees, edicts concerned primarily with
regulating conduct between the sexes, portray a life for palace women
under vigilant surveillance; the merest proximity to unauthorized men,
including eunuchs, could warrant death.27 The contrast between the
excessive propriety expected of palace women and the behavior of
women in the reliefs underscores the pornographic character of the
images. It is doubtful that palace women were allowed to own or
even ogle erotic pictures of men unless royals expressly wished it. The
intended audience was more likely to have been men, especially in
view of the content: the open, penetrable vaginas, the masturbation
motifs, the objectified female body, as well as the viewers voyeuristic
stance, which all tend to pleasure the male eye.
27
The edicts are an incomplete compilation from nine kings, including TukultiNinurta I, his father, and his grandfather. For a recent editing see Roth 1995; also see
Freydank 1991, 68.
384
j. assante
385
29
E.g., the treaty curse of Assur-nirari V (Parpola and Watanabe 1988, 12 v 9-11).
Similar curses surface in Jeremiah 50.35 and Nahum 3.13.
30
In Assante forthcoming, I discuss public art, where gender hierarchy is almost exclusively described by degrees of masculinities, from the supermasculine, impenetrable
at the top to the feminized, penetrable, and conquerable at the bottom. And see Marcus 1995a; Cifarelli 1998.
31
See TN I A. 0.78. 23 (Grayson 1987, 271) for images of penetrated virgin territory.
32
That muu can also refer to the upper part of an object (here breasts) suggests
an intentional wordplay. See CAD s.v. muu; also the Assur-bel-kala inscription
A.0.89.10 (Grayson 1987, 108).
386
j. assante
387
36
See Lucas 1962, 244; Jankowska 1969; Mller 1982; de Jesus 1980.
The belt of tribute-paying vassals included Rapiqu, Hana and Mari in the southwest, in the north, certain mountain areas, and in the east, Arraphe and the Zagros
mountains (Mayer 1995, 209). Babylonia was another area of strategic concern during
the Middle Assyrian period.
37
388
j. assante
For more on lead in the Middle Assyrian period, see Assante 2000, 256-260.
389
tify with the dominant viewer position. What might have been of the
utmost importance to Tukulti-Ninurta, beyond the pleasure these
images afforded, may not have been a brute, despotic ownership of
eroticized bodies; these images might have worked to conscript court
members as allies. Certainly the king met with intrigue and, potentially,
conspiracy, if the story of his assassination is true.39
A more complex function of the erotica than arousing desire, pleasuring the eye, or conveying messages of royal/imperial might have
been power brokering in much the same vein as call girls are used
today to conscript potential business clients. Assyrians privy to pornographic scenes participated in an act characterized by its exclusivity, its
social illicitness, and the sheer intimacy of sexual response. Thus, the
mutuality of authorized viewers is drawn tighter and their solidarity
confirmed. As the reliefs carry a subtext that feminizes the west, should
they activate sexual aggression in these viewers, arousal would align
them emotionally and physically with the kings imperialistic ambitions.
If this speculation should be the case, we might imagine that at least
for that moment of sustained viewing pleasure while the kings elect
perused these rare, intricate reliefs and assimilated their multivalent
meaning, his plans and his person remained safeguarded.
References
Andrae, Walter. 1935. Die jngeren Itar-Tempel in Assur. WVDOG 58. Leipzig and
Berlin.
Assante, Julia. 1998. The kar.kid/arimtu, Prostitute or Single Woman? A Critical
Review of the Evidence. Ugarit-Forschungen 30: 5-96.
. 2000. The Erotic Reliefs of Ancient Mesopotamia. Ph.D. diss., Columbia
University.
. 2002. Sex, Magic and the Liminal Body in the Erotic Art and Texts of the
Old Babylonian Period. In Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East, Actes de la XLVIIe
39
Opposition may have formed for a number of reasons. Assyria suffered financial collapse after his death, which suggests that he bankrupted the state with his ceaseless war and building campaigns. The drain of power away from the prominent citizens
of Assur with the building of Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta might also have been an antagonizing factor. The removal of the god Assur from his ancient home is perhaps the most
extraordinary demonstration of the kings tendency to flout the traditions of his own
people. Given the guarded rules all other Assyrian kings maintained for image making,
the singular creation of pornography would be consistent with his defiant personality.
390
j. assante
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Helsinki 2-6 July 2001), eds. S. Parpola and R. M.
Whiting, 27-51. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
. 2003. From Whores to Hierodules: The Historiographic Invention of Mesopotamian Female Sex Professionals. In Ancient Art and Its Historiography, eds. A. A.
Donohue and M. D. Fullerton, 13-47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 2006. Undressing the Nude: Problems in Analyzing Nudity in Ancient
Art, with an Old Babylonian Case Study. In Images and Gender: Contributions to the
Hermeneutics of Reading Ancient Art, ed. S. Schroer, 177-207. OBO 218. Freiburg: Universittsverlag.
. Forthcoming. Men Looking at Men: The Homoerotics of Power in the
State Arts of Assyria.
Barrelet, Marie Thrse. 1968. Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Msopotamie antique.
Paris: Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner.
Biggs, Robert D. 1967. .ZI.GA, Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations. Texts from
Cuneiform Sources 2. Locust Valley and New York: J. J. Augustin.
Black, Jeremy. 1983. Babylonian Ballads: A New Genre. JAOS 103: 25-34.
Cifarelli, Megan. 1995. Enmity, Alienation and Assimilation: The Role of Cultural
Difference in the Visual and Verbal Expression of Assyrian Ideology in the Reign of
Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 B.C.). Ph.D. diss., Columbia University.
. 1998. Gesture and Alterity in the Art of Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria. Art
Bulletin 80: 210-228.
Cooper, Jerrold S. 1972-1975. Heilige Hochzeit. B. Archologisch. RlA 4: 259-269.
de Jesus, Prentiss S. 1980. The Development of Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia.
2 vols. BAR International Series 74. Oxford: B.A.R.
Eickhoff, Tilman. 1985. Kr Tukulti Ninurta. Eine mittelassyrische Kult- und Residenzstadt.
Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 21. Berlin: Mann.
Finkel, Irving L. 1995. Furniture and Fittings. In Art and Empire, Treasures from Assyria
in the British Museum, eds. J. E. Curtis and J. E. Reade, 121-132. Exhibition catalogue.
New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Foster, Benjamin. 1993. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 2 vols. Bethesda, Maryland: CDI Press.
Freydank, Helmut. 1974. Zwei Verpflegungstexte aus Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta. AoF 1:
55-89.
. 1980. Zur Lage der deportierten Hurriter in Assyrien. AoF 7: 89-117.
. 1991. Beitrge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 21. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Grayson, A. Kirk. 1987. Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millenium BC (to 1115
B.C.). RIMA 1. Toronto: Univerity of Toronto Press.
Jankowska, N. B. 1969. Some Problems of the Economy of the Assyrian Empire. In
Ancient Mesopotamia, Socio-Economic History: A Collection of Studies by Soviet Scholars, ed.
391
392
j. assante
393
394
j. assante
395
396
j. assante
397
Figure 5a. Neo-Assyrian royal furniture decoration (photo Copyright the Trustees
of The British Museum)
398
j. assante
Copyright
399
400
j. assante
401
402
j. assante
403
404
j. assante
405
406
j. assante
407
Figure 14. Lead inlay (BM WA 1922: 8.12.103) (photo courtesy of the Vorderasiatisches Museum with permission from the British Museum.)
408
j. assante
V
Opening the Eyes and Opening the Mouth:
Interdisciplinary Contexts
409
410
a.c. cohen
411
412
a.c. cohen
413
414
a.c. cohen
415
1
I have previously pointed out the frequency with which the Sumerian word for
these dishes (tu7) occurs and have further identified an associated class of vessel, the lowcapacity necked pot (A. Cohen 2005, 171-173).
416
a.c. cohen
2
Adams (1981) made a similar argument some 25 years ago, and to my mind, the
new evidence presented here confirms it.
3
Note that grain is written dingir.e.tir, a set of signs that includes the sign for
barley.
417
nam-lu2-ulu3 ud re-a-ke4-ne
ninda gu7-u3-bi nu-mu-un-zu-u-am3
tug2-ga mu4-mu4-bi nu-mu-un-zu-u-am3
kalam gi-gen
-na su-bi mu-un-gen
;
;
6
udu-gin7 ka-ba u2 mu-ni-ib-gu7
a mu2-sar-ra-ka i-im-na8-na8-ne
The people of those days
did not know about eating bread.
They did not know about wearing clothes;
they went about with naked limbs in the Land.
Like sheep they ate grass with their mouths
and drank water from the ditches. (ll. 20-25)
The gods then create sheep, grain and agricultural implements. These
are given to humanity so that they might enrich themselves and the
gods.
We then read that during the course of a divine drinking party,
Grain calls out to Sheep, saying, Sister, I am your better; I take
precedence over you (l. 72).4 After this challenge, both Grain and
Sheep take turns, first describing the good they do for humanity and
then trading insults. At last Grain ends the debate with the statement,
ag4-tur3-zu ganba-ka lu2 u3-bi2-in-de6/ tug2 nig; 2-dara2 ni2-za
si-ma-ab lu2
gu2-zu u3-bi2-in-la2/ u8- gu
; 10-e3 e giba-an-e
;
lu2-u3 in-na-ab-e, When your innards are taken away by people
in the market-place, and when your neck is wrapped with your very
own loincloth, one man says to another: fill the measuring cup with
barley for my ewe (ll. 177-179). Grain is then declared the winner
and praised.
Barleys political-economic role, symbolic roles, and the link between
the two are signaled by this exchange. First, note the privileging of
Grain (barley) over Sheep. Both make equally significant contributions to the world of humans and gods. Both also have faults. Grain
(barley) is privileged over sheep because of its use as fodder (thus
confirming the importance of barley over wheat). Second, in the view
of the texts composer, bread and clothes are what separates humanity
from animals. The importance of eating and clothing has long been
recognized in anthropology as being crucial in the creation and main4
Transliteration and translation from Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature = ETCSL (www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk).
418
a.c. cohen
419
population of Girsu, events in the fields surrounding the city constituted markers for temporal reckoning and orientation.
In the Debate between Sheep and Grain barley helps order a
view of the world which elevates bread eating and beer drinking Mesopotamians over naked animals that eat grass and drink from ditches.
Barley also orients actions through time, even for the city-dwellers
of Girsu. It would be fair to say that barley was a key symbol in the
specific historical context of the highly urbanized society of southern
Mesopotamia in the fourth and third millennia BC.
Although Irene does not use the term key symbol as such, in her
discussion of the Gudea statues (Winter 1992), she shows how a visual
trope can become embedded in a culture. There are many ways in
which symbolic objects or substances can come to have meaning and
value. In the present paper, I have tried to show that one of the more
important symbols for Early Mesopotamia, barley, gained symbolic
value based on its manifold political and economic values.
References
Adams, Robert McC. 1981. Heartland of Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bottro, Jean. 1985. The Cuisine of Ancient Mesopotamia. Biblical Archaeologist 48
(March): 36-47.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Briggs, D. E. 1978. Barley. London: Wiley.
Cohen, Andrew C. 2005. Death Rituals, Ideology, and the Development of Early Mesopotamian
Kingship. Leiden: Brill/Styx.
Cohen, Mark E. 1993. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Md.:
CDL Press.
Englund, Robert K. 1998. Texts from the Late Uruk period. In Mesopotamien: SpturukZeit und frhdynastische Zeit, ed. J. Bauer, R. K. Englund, and M. Krebernik, 13-233.
OBO 160/1. Freiburg: Universittsverlag.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1982. Salinity and Irrigation Agriculture in Antiquity: Diyala Basin Archaeological Projects, Report on Essential Results, 1957-58. BiMes 14. Malibu: Undena.
Limet, H. 1987. The Cuisine of Ancient Sumer. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 132-140.
Maekawa, Kazuya. 1984. Cereal Cultivation in the Ur III period. Bulletin on Sumerian
Agriculture 1: 73-96.
420
a.c. cohen
McCorriston, Joy. 2000. Barley Domestication. In Cambridge World History of Food, ed.
K. F. Kiple and K. C. Ornelas, 81-90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCorriston, Joy, and Sanford Weisberg. 2002. Spatial and Temporal Variation in
Mesopotamian Agricultural Practices in the Khabur Basin, Syrian Jazira. Journal of
Archaeological Science 29: 485-498.
Miller, Naomi F. 1996. Seed Eaters of the Ancient Near East: Human or Herbivore?
Current Anthropology 37/3: 521-528.
. 1997. Farming and Herding along the Euphrates: Environmental Constraint
and Cultural Choice (Fourth to Second Millennia B.C.). In Subsistence and Settlement in
a Marginal Environment: Tell es-Sweyhat, 1989-1995 Preliminary Report, ed. R. L. Zettler,
123-132. Philadelphia, PA: Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Ortner, Sherry B. 1973. On Key Symbols. American Anthropologist 75/5: 1338-1346.
OShea, John, and Paul Halstead. 1989. Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk
and Uncertainty. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Powell, Marvin A. 1985. Salt, Seed, and Yields in Sumerian Agriculture: A Critique
of the Theory of Progressive Salinization. ZA 75: 7-38.
Stallknecht, G.F., K.M. Gilbertson, and J.E. Ranney. 1996. Alternative Wheat Cereals as Food Grains: Einkorn, Emmer, Spelt, Kamut, and Triticale. In Progress in New
Crops, ed. J. Janick, 156-170. Alexandria, Virginia: ASHS.
van Zeist, Willem. 1999. Evidence for Agricultural Change in the Balikh Basin,
Northern Syria. In The Prehistory of Food: Appetites for Change, ed. C. Gosden and J.
Hather, 350-373. London: Routledge.
Waetzoldt, Hartmut. 1972. Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie. Vol. 1, Studi
economici e tecnologici. Rome.
. 1987. Compensation of Craft Workers and Officials in the Ur III Period.
In Labor in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. A. Powell, 117-141. New Haven: American
Oriental Society.
Weismantel, Mary J. 1988. Food, Gender, and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Winter, Irene J. 1992. Idols of the King: Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual
Action in Ancient Mesopotamia. Journal of Ritual Studies 6/1: 13-42.
421
Figure 1. Barley, from the USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database (Hitchcock, A.S. (rev.
A. Chase). 1950. Manual of the Grasses of the United States. USDA Misc. Publ. No. 200.
Washington, DC.)
422
a.c. cohen
423
424
a. winitzer
Deut 23: 25-262
25
When you enter a neighbors vineyard, you may eat grapes to your
bellyful; but you must not put any in your vessel. 26When you enter a
neighbors field of standing grain, you may pluck . . . with your hand;
but you must not put a sickle to your neighbors grain.
The first law in this couplet (v. 25) considers a neighbors vineyard; in
the second (v. 26) the setting shifts to a neighboring grainfield. Both
laws appear to allow for consumption and/or gathering of produce
from a foreign field, and both seem to prohibit any further picking for
later use. Accordingly, one may sate oneself on the vines of another
to ones (lit., your) satistfaction (knapk ob #ek), yet take none
along for the road (v. 25). A similar injunction appears concerning
grain (v. 26): the reaping of grain with ones sicklepresumably in
excess of that which could be plucked by handis forbidden.
Exactly what is specified in v. 26 as legally permissible, it is submitted, presents an unrecognized crux interpretum. As a counterpart to
#nbm (grapes) in v. 25 one might expect to find in this verse the
common Biblical term for an ear of wheat, ibbolet, or better its plural
2
Verse numbers follow the Hebrew. Abbreviations generally follow those of CAD
(vol. 12, 2005), but note also the following:
DCH = The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Clines 1993); HALOT = The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Koehler and Baumgartner 1995); OBE = Old Babylonian
Extispicy: Omen Texts in the British Museum (Jeyes 1989).
Thanks are offered to J. Huehnergard, G. Beckmann, and B. Bruning for their help
on an earlier stage of this paper, though the responsibility for any errors herein is mine
alone.
425
3
[
form ibbolm,
though this is not the case.4 Instead one encounters
the Biblical Hebrew substantive mllot, a hapax legomenon, with translations as ears of corn for rubbing5 or the like based in large part on
an assumed derivation from one of the homophonous verbal mll.6
In fact in itself this particular root is a hapax,7 allegedly meaning to
rub, scrape, though this sense is by no means certain.8 Still, most
ancient translations have assumed this etymological connection for
their understanding of mllot,9 as have modern commentaries.10 Another important, indeed seemingly conclusive, datum presented itself
not too long ago from the Dead Sea Scrolls: in the Temple Scroll
(11QT 19:7) mlylwt is paired with "bybwt, fresh, young ears11 both in
apposition to lm d, fresh bread. Understandably, in that context
the texts main editor rendered the pair as fresh ripe ears.12 On
the basis of the evidence from Qumran, therefore, the rendering of
Biblical *mll(h) as an ear of corn (that is, wheat)13 would seem
to be justified.
Upon further thought, however, it becomes increasingly doubtful
that this sense for mllot properly covers the term in its Biblical context.
[
Note, e.g., Isa 17:5, where qm(h) // ibbolm.
Nor does one encounter here i(h)/im, wheat, whether alone or in any of its
stages of ripening ("bb, karmel, ql, i.e., fresh parched), #or(h)/ #orm, barely, or
any other among the common terms for cereals and cereal cultivation.
5
So HALOT, 2: 590; cf. BDB, 576: ear[s] of wheat; Borowski 2002, 58.
6
The root is classified as m-l-l II in BDB, 576; m-l-l III in DCH, 5: 328; and m-l-l IV
in HALOT, 2: 594. Borowski (2002, 58 n. 4) tentatively offers two different possibilities
(in BDBs classification): m-l-l II, to rub, scrape, or m-l-l III, languish, wither, fade.
7
Its occurrence is in Prov 6:13, on which see below.
8
Common translations (e.g., JPS) of shuffling for the activity described concerning ones feet in Prov 6:13 are contextual and rather forced; cf. the meaning of this root
in BDB, 576: rub, scrape; DCH, 5: 328: scrape; HALOT 2: 594: rub away between
the fingers, scrape > to give a sign. For a tentative suggestion as to the meaning of mll
in this verse see n. 51 below.
9
See, e.g., LXX stxus (elsewhere rendering qm(h), standing grain and ibbolet,
ear of grain); Targum Neofiti pyrwkyn (< prk, remove husks by rubbing); Peshitta mlwg (< mlg, to pluck) bl"; but cf. mlyn in Onqelos, for which see n. 14 below. For
the (similar) understanding of the term in Rabbinic texts see Feliks 1990, 158-159, 194195.
10
E.g., Driver 1951, 269; von Rad 1966, 148; Tigay 1996, 220; Borowski 2002,
58.
11
This term, for which see Borowski (2002, 88), is mentioned in the Biblical corpus
in Exod 9:31; Lev 2:14.
12
Yadin 1983, 1:106-8; 2:82; cf. Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar (1998, 2: 1241):
tendrils of barley and corncobs.
13
So, e.g., DCH, 5: 300.
3
4
426
a. winitzer
In fact, it appears that virtually14 no interpretation, ancient or modern, accounts for a basic problem in the understanding of the Biblical
text. After all, if, as indeed it would seem, these verses attempt to
prohibit the (excessive) pilfering of food,15 then the law concerning
the grain (v. 26), especially when considered in light of its counterpart
(v. 25), would be rendered nonsensical. Unlike the first instance, where
the contrast drawn distinguishes between a propersubstantial yet
finiteand unacceptable produce amount, according to its accepted
understanding the second law contrasts two picking methods. A strict
interpretation of v. 26, therefore, would deem permissible the picking of an unlimited amount of graineven with the intent of taking some
alongso long as the act was done manually.16 Conversely, the law
would hold unacceptable the reaping of even a single ear with a sickle,
whether or not any had been previously picked by hand. Surely this
was not the intended meaning!17
14
But note the translation in Targum Onqelos as mlyn, whose basis (< ml"/mly, to
be full [so Jastrow Dict., 789]) seems to intimate an awareness of, and perhaps a solution to, the very problem described below.
15
So, e.g., von Rad 1966, 148; Brueggemann 2001, 233-235, and note the insightful remarks therein likening the issue behind these verses to that of centuries-old legal
debate concerning the enclosure movement and the laws of enclosure in early modern
England (for which see most recently Kain, Chapman, and Oliver 2004).
16
Or, strictly speaking, with the aid of another instrument, e.g., maggl, sickle.
17
To be sure, one could argue that generally speaking the prohibition against the
sickle functions in a manner analogous to that involving baskets in the preceding verse,
since ipso facto the stipulation concerning the plucking by hand establishes limitations
on the amount that an individual can harvest. Yet it is important to realize that one
could reap manually as well, especially where smaller plots were concerned (see Borowski 2002, 58 and n. 5). Thus it is not sufficient to suggest that the laws in vv. 25-26 are
supplementary, and that the prohibition concerning the method of reaping in the latter verse (v. 26) implies a limitation on amount as in the former (v. 25). This point finds
support in Rabbinic interpretations of v. 26 (for which see the discussion in Feliks 1990,
194-195), where further temporal qualifications on the plucking of mllot (e.g., at works
end) were established. It would thus seem that, as it was understood by the Rabbis, the
allowance granted by the Biblical verse was perceived as too lenient and, if left unmodified, potentially deleterious to the agrarian economy.
427
18
AHw, 594.
CAD M/1, 160.
20
CDA, 193, which includes the meaning to eat o.s fill as well.
21
AHw, 652.
22
CAD M/2, 69.
23
A fifth case may be that of Ni 1218, II: 1-4, edited by Kraus (1987, 194-196) as
follows: x x x x atamm ekallam itanarriq. Unfortunately that publication includes neither a copy nor a photograph of the text.
24
Spelled here i-ir-ru-um and noted in CAD /3, 113b.
19
428
a. winitzer
(it forecasts) [loot]ing/[plunder]ing: thieves (lit., liars, criminals) will
k[eep] stealing from the palace. (YOS 10 26 iv 11-12)
4. umma ina libbi bb ekallim pum kupput . . .25 millatum atamm ekallam
itanarri[q]
If in the middle of the Palace Gate a white spot was compacted . . .
(it forecasts) looting/plundering: atammu-officials will keep stea[ling]
from the palace. (YOS 10 26 i 36-37)
25
Inserted here is: ta-da-a[k?] na-ak-ra-Lam?J, possibly an independent initial forecast,
but nonetheless difficult even in the matter of its syntax.
26
Our normalization reflects a composite from both versions. On the basis of the
plural subject of both versions the singular form ikkal in the version from YOS 10 35 is
understood as a collective.
27
This forecast occurs on its own in the following loose parallel of this tradition
from yet a third collection:
[u]mma ina pt ibtim l sebet akn [t]ibt kurusissim
[I]f in the front of the Increase seven holes were situated (it represents) an
[o]nslaught of rodents (lit., rodent). (OBE 10: 64-5)
429
430
a. winitzer
31
431
umma bb e[kallim in-m]a birtunu qm abit rubm irbam ikkal an umu sukkallum irbam ikkal
If the P[alace] Gates [(are) two an]d between them a filament
is seized the prince will consume income (in produce); its
second interpretation: the sukkallu-official will consume income (in produce) (YOS 10 24:5).
And cf. the following parallel tradition, wherein the predicate describing the seizure of
palace income, a most common interpretative association for Palace Gate omens (for
which see Jeyes 1989, 60-61), is rendered less theatrically with marum, to accept:
umma in bb ekallim birunu qm abit ukkallum irbam imaar
432
a. winitzer
433
434
a. winitzer
seems likely that the Hebrew tongue savored the taste of this Semitic
root as well.51 And thus an emended translation of the Deuteronomic
verses with which this discussion began follows:
25
When you enter a neighbors vineyard, you may eat grapes to your
bellyful; but you must not put any in your vessel. 26When you enter a
neighbors field of standing grain, you may pluck (your) fill of edibles with
your hand; but you must not put a sickle to your neighbors grain.
References
Borowski, O. 2002. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Boston: ASOR [originally published,
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987].
Bottro, J. 1973. Le pouvoir royal et ses limitations daprs les textes divinatoires.
In La Voix de lOpposition en Msopotamie: Colloque organis par lInstitut des Hautes Etudes
bread, reflect two additional examples of such substantives. In the case of the latter an
understanding of mll as to crush, squeeze (see following note) certainly would have
facilitated this development. Yet it is not difficult to imagine how a meaning of to eat,
consume for *mlal also could have fostered this semantic analogy: *mll would refer to the (season of the) collection of that which was eatable, that is, ripe and ready to
be plucked for eating, with the actant noun mlylwt to collected eatable (i.e., fresh, ripe)
producea most fitting parallel to, and possibly a template for, "bybwt. (For the latter
suggestion see Swanson 1995, 43.)
51
It is thus certain that the meaning of the participle moll in Prov 6:13, describing
an action performed by a worthless, evil man with his feet, one complementary to the
winking of the eyes and pointing of the finger, cannot be based on this same root. That
there existed an additional mll in Biblical Hebrew meaning to shuffle (ones feet) (<
to scrape) seems unlikely, but see M. Fox (2000, 221), who opts for this sense mainly on the basis of Rabbinic Hebrew (where one finds mlal II to crush, squeeze [Nif.]
be compressed [Jastrow Dict., 792]).
Possibly, however, the root in Rabbinic Hebrew, which at any rate must have drawn
support from the purported understanding of mllot in Deuteronomy, relates rather to
a mll occurring in Ugaritic and meaning to stamp (see Olmo Lete and Sanmartn
2003, 2: 558). The possible connection of the Ugaritic root to Prov 6:13 was discussed
by Pope and Tigay (1971, 127-128) but seems to have been overlooked; note, however,
the proximity of that meaning to Jastrows understanding of the Rabbinic Hebrew root.
And it must be granted that a meaning of to stomp ([with] ones foot/feet) for mll
in Proverbs offers the versewinking his eye(s), stomping (moll) his foot/feet, pointing his fingera most reasonable sense. (If in keeping with the ktb [i.e., written] form
and LXX one opts for the singular eye and footthese singular forms thus matching finger in the versethen it would seem that an even stronger case can be made
against understanding moll as shuffling in a sense akin to scraping, rubbing.) Not
that this makes it right: the possibility that a homophonous Ugaritic root refers to caressing of feet (see Olmo Lete and Sanmartn 2003, 2: 558) means that the matter will not
be resolved without additional evidence, or, at any rate, in the present communication.
435
de Belgique 19 et 20 mars 1973, ed. A. Finet, 119-165. Brussels: Institut des hautes
tudes de Belgique.
. 1992. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Translated by Z. Bahrani
and M. Van De Mieroop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brueggemann, W. 2001. Deuteronomy. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon.
Clines, D., ed. 1993. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 5 vols. to date. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
Dijk, J. J. van. 1976. Cuneiform Texts of Varying Content. TIM 9. Leiden: Brill.
Driver, S. R. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Feliks, Y. 1990. Agriculture in Eretz-Israel in the Period of the Bible and Talmud: Basic Farming Methods and Implements. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass [Hebrew].
Foster, B. 1996. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd ed. 2 vols.
Bethesda, MD: CDL.
Fox, J. 2003. Semitic Noun Patterns. HSS 59. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Fox, M. 2000. Proverbs 1-9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The
Anchor Bible, vol. 18a. New York: Doubleday.
Gallery, M. 1980. The Office of the atammu in the Old Babylonian Period. AfO
27: 1-36.
Garca Martnez, F. and Tigchelaar, E. J. C., eds. 1998. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study
Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.
Gronenberg, B. 1997. Lob der Itar: Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgttin
Groningen: Styx.
Goetze, A. 1947. Old Babylonian Omen Texts. YOS 10. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Hunger, H. 1976. Sptbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Vol. 1. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen
Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 9. Berlin: Mann.
Jeyes, U. 1989. Old Babylonian Extispicy: Omen Texts in the British Museum. Istanbul:
Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul.
Kain, R., J. Chapman, and R. Oliver. 2004. The Enclosure Maps of England and Wales
1595-1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koehler L., and W. Baumgartner. 1995. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Rev. ed. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill.
Kraus F. R. 1987. Verstreute Omentexte aus Nippur im Istanbuler Museum. ZA
77: 194-206.
Lambert, W. 1960. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 1965. Nebuchadnezzar King of Justice. Iraq 27: 1-11.
436
a. winitzer
Leichty, E. 1970. The Omen Series umma Izbu. TCS 4. Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin.
Nougayrol, J. 1941. Textes hpatoscopiques dpoque ancienne conservs au Muse
du Louvre. RA 38: 67-83.
. 1968. Textes sumro-accadiens des archives et bibliothques prives dUgarit.
In Ugaritica 5: Nouveaux Textes Accadiens, Hourrites et Ugaritiques des Archives et Bibliothques
Prives dUgarit, Commentaires des Textes Historiques, ed. J. Nougayrol, E. Laroche, C.
Virolleaud, and C. F. A. Schaffer, 1-446. MRS 12. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
. 1971. Nouveaux textes sur le ziu (II). RA 65: 67-84.
Olmo Lete, G. del., and J. Sanmartn. 2003. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the
Alphabetic Tradition. 2 vols. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill.
Pope, M., and J. Tigay. 1971. A Description of Baal. UF 3: 117-130.
Rad, G. von. 1966. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Translated
by D. Barton. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Schaudig, H. 2001. Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros des Groen samt den
in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe und Grammatik. AOAT 256.
Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Speiser, E. A. 1967. People and Nation of Israel. In Oriental and Biblical Studies:
Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg, 160-170.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press [first published in JBL 79 (1960):
157-163].
Swanson, D. 1995. The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT. Studies
on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 14. Leiden: Brill.
Tigay, J. 1996. The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy
. Philadelphia: JPS.
self-portraits of objects
437
SELF-PORTRAITS OF OBJECTS
Jack Cheng
The Warka vase, the Great Lyre of Ur and the Altar of Tukulti-Ninurta are all included in the canon of Mesopotamian art, if the canon
is defined as those objects that are always taught in an introductory
course on ancient Near Eastern art. These three objects in fact thrust
themselves into that canon through the use of a particular representational characteristic: each has an image of itself on itself. 1 I refer
to these self-referential depictions as self-portraits of the objects for
reasons that will be described below. However, these objects were all
created in different millennia and attempting to draw a meaningful
connection between them suggests either an egregious conflation of
distinct cultures on my part, or a basic cultural trait shared in Late
Uruk, Early Dynastic and Middle Assyrian times. In other words, if this
is a historic phenomenon and not merely an interpretive conflation,
then the motivation for the creation of these self-portraits over such
a long period may be considered a Mesopotamian phenomenon.
This paper will review the objects, previous work on this curious
representational form, and explain the term I am using. The different levels of intentional use and communication will be delineated.
Then, based on the expected audience and finding non-Mesopotamian
examples for analogous works, potential meanings and intentions are
arrived at.
The Objects, Previous Work and Descriptive Term
The Warka vase has a narrow profile that tapers down, curves in and
then flares out again at its base. The alabaster vessel is carved in a
1
There is also a gold leafed copper statue dedicated to the god Martu for the king
Hammurabi which has been excluded here because of its uncertain provenance. This
kneeling figure and its curious self-portrait was the subject of my first paper for Irene
Winter. To return to this phenomenon after fifteen years of her teaching and scholarship have informed my thinking is a pleasure.
Thanks are due to the readers on this paper, Jlide Aker, Marian Feldman and Tonia Sharlach.
438
j. cheng
self-portraits of objects
439
440
j. cheng
self-portraits of objects
441
442
j. cheng
There is a more complex message encoded not in the demonstration of function but in the visual grammar of self-portraiture. There is
meaning in the visual medium. Taking the simple messages of each
representation and then putting them on a version of the objects
themselves creates another level of content. To understand the meaning and purpose of each of these visual statements, and why they
were presented in this way, it would help to know to whom they are
addressed.
The Audience
The possible audiences for these images are the direct participants
who interacted with the objects, the local audience that witnessed
the interaction, and then those who are not present when the object
was used. Another possible audience that is difficult to grapple with
is the divine. On the one hand, if the gods were considered omnipresent, then they would have been present at any rituals involving
these objects. On the other hand, if the gods were considered to be
somewhat distant, then they would have been equally absent from
the rituals.
We should consider the possibility that these objects were never
actually used as depicted and therefore no one viewing the objects
would have seen them in use. The archaeological findspots of these
objects do not suggest definitive use. The Warka vase was found in
a temple, but not on an altar or recognizable place of worship but
rather in a treasury hoard (Heinrich 1936). The lyre was buried in
a mass grave of the Royal Cemetery of Ur and could have been
played for the last time during the burial rite, or possibly constructed
to be played only in the afterlife (Woolley 1934, 249ff). The Altar of
Tukulti-Ninurta, like the vase, was found in a religious building, the
Ishtar Temple of Ashur, but in a room that had been sealed off; the
excavator interpreted the space as storage and possibly a symbolic
burial place for sacred objects (Andrae 1935, 57-76). In other words,
each of these may have been used at one time, but none was found
in a context of regular use.
As objects, all three were made for the direct participants. The goddessor her representativewould use the vase, a musician would
play the instrument, the king would worship at the altar. However,
self-portraits of objects
443
the basic message of functionality presented by the self-representations would not be for the direct participants. Tukulti-Ninurta, for
example, probably did not need to know how to kneel before the
altar. Similarly, anyone present would see how the object was used.
The basic functional explanation would be more useful for anyone
not present when the objects were used. The picture on the lyre, for
example, shows someone how to play the instrument; although it
might seem obvious on which side of the instrument to sit, I would
argue that it is this self-portrait (as well as depictions on the Standard
of Ur and various seals) that makes the arrangement seem obvious
and not merely probable.
The higher level message that is evoked by the visual grammar of
self-portraiture and the iconic figures interacting with the objects in
their self-portraits is clearly intentional. Its effect on the direct participants (priest/priestess, musician, king or otherwise) who handled
the actual artifact is hard to determine but perhaps it reinforced a
ritual mindset. For the local audience to a ritual there would be an
increased resonance. That is, for someone standing in the room with
the altar, to have a third, living king join his carved representations in
worship could only add to the significance of the event. For an audience not-present for the use of the object (or if these objects were not
used at all), the self-portrait gives these objects increased significance
and an iconic status in themselves.
While this discussion of the object self-portraits restates the evocative nature of these representations, it is possible that this method
of representation has a direct meaning and purpose. To that end, a
comparison to a modern example may be helpful.
Indisputably, the most traveled object self-portrait is the image on
the NASA space probe Pioneer F launched in 1972 (figure 1). The
purpose of that image is to communicate the origin of the spacecraft
to alien beings who might come across it. Two abstracted representations of the Pioneer are on the design. A larger one is placed with
drawings of a nude man and woman, as a measure of scale comparing the object to the size of its creators. Below, a smaller Pioneer
shows the trajectory of the mission among the planets of the Solar
System (not to scale). Acknowledging a tongue-in-cheek attitude, Ernst
Gombrich (1972) discussed the image in a popular essay on how the
visual perception of images is a learned skill. He concluded that the
use of contour lines, the blocking of the womans hand by her hip,
444
j. cheng
As goofy as the NASA designers may have been, they did not presume as the Mesopotamians did, that their audience would share their language.
self-portraits of objects
445
446
j. cheng
9
Why, Julide Aker asks, are these three objects like this and no others? For this I
have no direct answer except to point out that other object self-portraits such as the
kneeling copper statuette of Hammurabi do exist, although without proper excavation
records. If, or when, more of these objects are properly excavated, I predict they will be
immediately placed within the canon of Mesopotamian art.
self-portraits of objects
447
Harper, Prudence O., Evelyn Klengel-Brandt, Joan Aruz, and Kim Benzel, eds.
1995. Assyrian Origins: Discoveries at Ashur on the Tigris. Exhibition Catalogue. New
York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Heinrich, Ernst. 1936. Kleinfunde aus den archaischen Tempelschichten in Uruk. Berlin:
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
Miller, Mary Ellen. 2001. The Art of Mesoamerica: From Olmec to Aztec. 3rd ed. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Mitchell, W. J. T. 1994. Metapictures. Picture Theory, 35-82. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Roaf, Michael. 2000. Survivals and Revivals in the Art of Ancient Mesopotamia.
In Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East,
ed. P. Matthiae, A. Enea, L. Peyronel, and F. Pinnock, 1447-1462. Rome: Universit
degli studi di Roma.
Winter, Irene J. 1999. Tree(s) on the Mountain: Landscape and Territory on the
Victory Stele of Naram-Sn of Agade. In Landscapes: Territories, Frontiers and Horizons
in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. de Martino, F. M. Fales, G. B. Lanfranchi, and L.
Milano, 63-76. Padua: Sargon srl.
. 2000. Babylonian Archaeologists of the(ir) Mesopotamian Past. In Proceedings
of the First International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Matthiae,
A. Enea, L. Peyronel, and F. Pinnock, 1785-1798. Rome: Universit degli studi di
Roma.
Woolley, C. Leonard. 1934. The Royal Cemetery. Vol. 2, Ur Excavations. London: Trustees
of the British Museum and of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania.
448
j. cheng
449
1
A similar headband illustrated in Neo-Assyrian art is worn by the ruler and crownprince, and one study compares the female diadem to male phylacteries in the Jewish
tradition (Keel 1981; Reade 1967). This paper, however, focuses on the adornment of
women.
450
a.r. gansell
2
A traveling exhibition of material from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur was shown
at the Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, Mass., May 18-September 1, 2002.
451
3
The Harvard University Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research
determined this project to be exempt from review. Travel research was supported by the
G. Sinopoli Memorial Grant for Research in the Near East (2002) and the Aga Khan
Foundation (2006). Many thanks to my hosts, translators, and field assistants: Tony and
Georgette Khouri (2002), Joseph Malki (2002), Marwan and Hanan Materwani (2006),
Bacel Moqaw (2006), and Ahmad Shadeh (2006). I would also like to thank the following individuals who have offered invaluable assistance in developing and refining this
project and the resulting paper: Kim Benzel, Andrew Cohen, Cynthia Finlayson, Susan
Helft, Bob Hunt, Widad Kawar, Anne McClanan, Alicia Walker and Irit Ziffer.
452
a.r. gansell
453
4
Standard interviews covered background on the informant, history of the local
tradition, and identification and interpretation of adornment elements and ensembles.
5
We conducted survey in Malula and Saidnaya as well, but these more urban populations did not yield much data.
454
a.r. gansell
455
In the city of Suweida, where we began the Hauran survey, interviewees suggested we visit the regions more remote villages and bedouin camps.
456
a.r. gansell
457
grandmother? More likely, the tradition itself has a long history, and
although antique elements may be used, the headdresses are best
understood as composite objects, only parts of which are generations
old.
Presently only about half of the brides in Mshanef and Mosan still
wear a tarbouche, which often are borrowed from a relative for the
wedding. Although these headdresses are by no means rare and some
women continue to wear a tarbouche for daily public activity, fewer
and fewer are being retained. Many families sell their headdress for
the value of its metal to fund the construction of a modern house.
Having a new home, more so than possessing a tarbouche, has come
to symbolize family status and wealth.
Suggestions for Future Study
The data provided through this survey encourages prompt in-depth
study. In the Anti-Lebanon very few informants with firsthand knowledge of floral headdresses survive, and the living tradition in the
Hauran is breaking down. Ideally this appeal would be met by a
longer-term field commitment, reaching an understanding of culture
far beyond what could be assessed through the preliminary survey
interviews represented here.10
A variety of specific research opportunities remains to be explored,
particularly in the Anti-Lebanon. For instance, Reich (1937, x) published the names of many of his informants; their families might have
more extensive memories of the events he documented.11 He also
noted (1937, x-xi) that about two thousand photographs were taken
over the course of his fieldwork; this collection certainly would be useful
if located.12 Furthermore, in the villages studied by Reich, and among
any informant group known to have been the subject of prior study or
not, it would be profitable to ask whether ethnographic photographs,
drawings, or other relevant documentation are preserved.
10
Our limited contact with informant communities may, in part, account for their
reticence regarding any symbolic and apotropaic values of adornment.
11
Due to the short duration of our visits, we did not ask for families by name. However, relatives of the now deceased Bakha bride identified themselves and asked for a
copy of her portrait, which they themselves had never seen.
12
Les Ateliers de Phototypie Duval Paris, which reproduced the plates for his publication, may provide a starting point.
458
a.r. gansell
The surveys conducted in 2002 and 2006 focused on the AntiLebanon and Hauran regions of Syria. Informants strongly encouraged our consideration of bedouin traditions, and it is hoped that
future researchers may do so. In addition, antique travel accounts,
ethnographies, and recent scholarship document related adornment
practices and Westernization among bedouin and settled populations
of present-day Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey (Granqvist
1931-1935; Kalter 1992; Micklewright 1989; Mershen 1987; Paine
1859). Indeed it would be productive to consider this breadth of evidence, keeping in mind that todays political borders do not reflect
hard divisions of culture.
Depending on the scope of ones project, North Africa, the Gulf
region and Central Asia may offer relevant comparative material.
Finally, Near Eastern populations residing in the West might be considered. Often, in an effort to acknowledge and sustain ethnic identity,
migr groups preserve traditions, even after they have fallen out of
use in the homeland (Demaray and Keim-Shenk 2003).
Wherever research is based, a crucial component of ethnoarchaeological study is the actual observation of objects in action. Investigators should endeavor to attend weddings, generally held from May to
October, and possibly witness the preparation of brides.13 Although
informants may insist that no traditional practices survive, evidence
taken for granted within the community may remain. Even if weddings are entirely modern, the documentation of this development
would provide a valuable benchmark.
Requiring substantial time in the field but key to an ethnoarchaeological study of adornment is the typological analysis of formal characteristics. Adornment ensembles should be observed and documented
while worn in context, and individual elements should be examined
on their own as well. Where traditional adornment is no longer practiced, potential heirlooms and documentary records could provide
unexpected evidence. In all cases, it may be informative to consult
artisans who made the jewelry (or their surviving families) in order
to investigate the cognitive process behind the crafting of standard,
culturally recognizable forms.
13
We did not observe any weddings. However, in 2002 we were told that two years
earlier (i.e. 2000) a family in Mshanef actually borrowed horses and conducted a highly traditional ceremony. To observe an accurate spectrum of wedding traditions, then,
multiple wedding seasons may need to be considered, ideally by both male and female
investigators.
459
Ancient Evidence
The tasseled diadem introduced at the beginning of this paper (figures
1-5) demonstrates undisputable continuity in jewelry form and encour-
460
a.r. gansell
461
expressed wealth and represented indigenous Palmyrene culture, individual social identity and matrilineal clan (Finlayson 1998, 120-21).
The circumstances of how this adornment tradition may have passed
from the Levant and Assyria to Palmyra has yet to be rigorously pursued. Nonetheless, the formal link between Assyrian and Palmyrene
jewelry is substantial enough to suppose that the tasseled design could
have remained continuously visible. Moreover, it is not trivial that
this component is worn by women and specifically on the center of
the forehead. These contextual consistencies indicate a shared visual
language, not the mere drifting of a motif. If this language endured
through the likely conduit of bedouin populations, field interviews
and historical documentary sources may contribute significantly to
verification of, at the least, formal continuity.
Within the last half century, women in greater Syria wore a type
of tasseled diadem that is nearly identical to the first millennium BCE
example from Nimrud (Kalter 1992, 87; Kawar and Hackstein 1987,
226, 374-375; Keohane 1994, 144) (figure 4). Ethnographers describe
this attire as expressing wealth and having beautifying and protective
properties, while also reflecting gender and status. Although more
specific symbolism cannot be traced, formal continuity and profusion
is indisputable. Variations of another headdress type portrayed at
Palmyra are documented from the ancient period through the twentieth century CE and may be linked to the tarbouche of the Hauran
(Finlayson 1998, 132-133).
The Ur Burials
The ancient Mesopotamian site of Ur is situated in southern Iraq.
Here, in the 1920s, Sir Leonard Woolley discovered a large cemetery
dating to the mid third millennium BCE. Woolleys report (1934),
published just a few years before Reichs ethnography, documents
over two thousand graves, sixteen of which he called royal tombs on
account of their architecture, wealth and evidence of human sacrifice.
The royal tombs contained unsurpassed quantities of jewelry and
grave goods of precious materials. Jewelry preserved on the bodies
of the deceased has facilitated identification of adornment sets and
reconstruction of personal assemblages as they were worn (Gansell
forthcoming; Keith 1934; Pollock 1991). One set generally associated with women includes a headdress comprised of gold pendant
462
a.r. gansell
leaf wreaths and, atop the head, a spray of gold, silver, lapis lazuli
and shell flowers (figure 8).15 In the exhibition Treasures from the
Royal Tombs of Ur, Winter compared this assemblage, worn with
chokers and multiple necklaces, to the floral bridal attire documented
by Reich in the Anti-Lebanon (figures 6, 7).
An explicit understanding of the function and symbolism of adornment from Ur remains out of reach, however, as the nearly 4500
year old cemetery itself is enigmatic. A dearth of textual resources,
visual narratives and comparative archaeological evidence leaves even
the general circumstances of burial unclear. In each royal tomb a
primary body is accompanied by attendants, who may have been
willingly or unwillingly sacrificed or have committed group suicide.
The identity of these deceased is ambiguous (Marchesi 2004; Moorey
1977; Pollock 1991). Did they represent members of the royal court,
a priestly echelon, and/or a special kin group? Were the attendants
elite themselves? And did the wealth disposed of in these tombs belong
to any or all of the deceased, or was it institutional property?
Archaeological evidence indicates that ritual action was conducted
within the tombs, suggesting that death and burial constituted a rite
of passage (Scurlock 1995; Winter 1999). Although we do not know
who the deceased are, adornment, among other factors, differentiates
group and individual identities. The floral headdress itself defines a
visually identifiable subgroup of women. Their affiliation may be
based on social identity, rank or office within a political or priestly
organization, and/or their ritual roles within the tomb.
The Ur treasures display wealth, although whose assets and the
audience to whom they were presented are unknown. The masterful
crafting of objects, too, demonstrates aesthetic investment and appreciation. Perhaps the tomb occupants themselves, extravagantly bedecked
with finely made, gleaming gold and colored stone jewelry, benefited
from the resources taken with them to the grave and the effects of
their aesthetic appeal. Precious objects may have facilitated entry into
the netherworld, while the aesthetic impact of adornment may have
had metaphysical power (Benzel 2006; Pittman 1998, 88).
15
Sex determined through the physical examination of select skeletons at the time
of excavation corresponds to other gender-suggestive variables such as associated cylinder seals and portable objects. Based on this evidence, the gender of individuals adorned
in floral headdresses may confidently be proposed as female.
463
16
A possible ancient link, however, may be observed in terracottas, probably dating a few centuries later than the Ur cemetery, from the Indus Valley site of Harappa.
These works portray female figures wearing headdresses that incorporate a row of threedimensional flowers along the hairline (Kenoyer 2003, 391-2; Pittman 1998, 106).
17
For example, a third century sculpture from Palmyra (NCG 1102) now in the Ny
Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen portrays a tasseled ornament adorning a cap with
floral decoration.
464
a.r. gansell
465
466
a.r. gansell
467
468
a.r. gansell
References
Benzel, K. 2006. Technologies of Jewelry: Methods and Metaphysics in Mesopotamia. Paper read at the annual meeting of the College Art Association, February
22-25, Boston, Mass.
Charles, H. 1939. Tribus moutonnires du Moyen-Euphrate. Beirut: Institut franais de
Damas.
Dalley, S. 2004. Recent Evidence from Assyrian Sources for Judaean History from
Uzziah to Manasseh. JSOT 28: 387-401.
David, N., and C. Kramer. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Demaray, E., and M. Keim-Shenk. 2003. Always Remembering the Motherland: Tai
Dam Wedding Textiles and Dress. In Wedding Dress Across Cultures, ed. H. B. Foster
and D. C. Johnson, 191-205. New York: Berg.
Eilberg-Schwartz, H. 1995. Introduction: The Spectacle of the Female Head. In Off
with her Head! The Denial of Womens Identity in Myth, Religion, and Culture, ed. H. EilbergSchwartz and W. Doniger, 1-14. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Finlayson, C. S. 1998. Veil, Turban and Headpiece: Funerary Portraits and Female
Status at Palmyra. Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa.
Gansell, A. R. 2007. Identity and Adornment in the Royal Tombs of Ur. Cambridge
Arhaeological Journal (17/1): 29-46.
Granqvist, H. 1931-1935. Marriage Conditions in a Palestinian Village. 2 vols. Helsinki:
Akademische buchhandlung.
Harper, P. O., E. Klengel-Brandt, J. Aruz, and K. Benzel, eds. 1995. Assyrian Origins:
Discoveries at Ashur on the Tigris, Antiquities in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Exhibition catalogue. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Kalter, J. 1992. Syrian Folk Jewelry. In The Arts and Crafts of Syria, ed. J. Kalter, M.
Pavaloi, and M. Zerrnickel, 79-102. London: Thames and Hudson.
Kawar, W., and K. Hackstein. Katalog der Sammlung Widad Kawar. In Pracht und
Geheimnis: Kleidung und Schmuck aus Palstina und Jordanien, ed. G. Vlger, K. V. Welck,
and K. Hackstein, 174-424. Cologne: Rautenstrauch-Joest-Museum.
Keel, O. 1981. Zeichen der Verbundenheit zur Vorgeschichte und Bedeutung der
Forderungen von Deuteronomium 6, 8f. und Par. In Mlanges Dominique Barthlemy,
tudes biblique offertes loccasion de son 60e anniversaire, ed. P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A.
Schenker. Fribourg: ditions universitaires.
Keith, A. 1934. Report on Human Remains. Chap. 23 in C. L. Woolley, Ur Excavations II: The Royal Cemetery, 400-409. London: The British Museum.
469
Kenoyer, J. M. 2003. Female Figures with Headdresses and Jewelry. In Art of the
First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus, ed. J. Aruz
with R. Wallenfels, 391-392. Exhibition catalogue. New York: The Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
Keohane, A. 1994. Bedouin: Nomads of the Desert. London: Kyle Cathie Limited.
Marchesi, G. 2004. Who was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic
and Textual Data. Orientalia 73: 153-197.
Marchetty, F. 1660. La Vie de monsieur de Chasteuil, solitaire du Mont Liban. Paris.
Mershen, B. 1987. Amulette als Komponenten des Volksschmucks im Jordanland.
In Pracht und Geheimnis: Kleidung und Schmuck aus Palstina und Jordanien, ed. G. Vlger,
K. V. Welck, and K. Hackstein, 106-109. Cologne: Rautenstrauch-Joest-Museum.
Micklewright, N. 1989. Late-Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Wedding Costumes as
Indicators of Social Change. Muqarnas 6: 161-174.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1977. What do We Know about the People Buried in the Royal
Cemetery? Expedition 20: 24-40.
Niebuhr, C. 1774. Description de lArabie. Amsterdam: S. J. Baalde.
Oates, J., and D. Oates. 2001. Nimrud: An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed. London:
British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Paine, C. 1859. Tent and Harem: Notes of an Oriental Trip. New York: D. Appleton
and Co.
Pittman, H. 1998. Jewelry. In Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur, ed. R. L. Zettler
and L. Horne, 87-122. Exhibition catalogue. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Pollock, S. 1991. Of Priestesses, Princes, and Poor Relations: The Dead in the Royal
Cemetery of Ur. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1: 71-89.
Reade, J. 1967. Two Slabs from Sennacheribs Palace. Iraq 29: 42-48.
Reich, S. 1937. tudes sur les villages Aramens de lAnti-Liban. Beirut.
Reiner, E. 1987. Magic Figurines, Amulets, and Talismans. In Monsters and Demons
in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds: Papers Presented to Edith Porada, ed. A. E. Farkas, P.
O. Harper, and E. B. Harrison, 27-36. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Sasson, J. M. 1990. Artisans. . .Artists: Documentary Perspectives from Mari. In
Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East, ed. A. C. Gunter, 21-28. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Scurlock, J. A. 1995. Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Mesopotamian Thought. In
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. J. M. Sasson, vol. 3, 1883-1894. New York:
Scribner.
Suter, C. 1992. Die Frau am Fenster in der orientalischen Elfenbein-Schnitzkunst
des frhen 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Jahrbuch der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen in BadenWrttemberg 29: 7-28.
470
a.r. gansell
Weir, S. 1990. The Bedouin. New ed., first published 1976. London: British Museum
Publications.
Winter, I. J. 1992. Idols of the King: Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual Action
in Ancient Mesopotamia. Journal of Ritual Studies 6: 13-42.
. 1994. Radiance as an Aesthetic Value in the Art of Mesopotamia (and Some
Indian Parallels). In Art: The Integral Vision, ed. B. N. Saraswati, S. C. Malik, and M.
Khanna, 123-132. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
. 1999. Reading Ritual in the Archaeological Record: Deposition Pattern and
Function of Two Artifact-Types from the Royal Cemetery of Ur. In Fluchtpunkt Uruk,
archologische Einheit aus methodischer Vielfalt, Schriften fr Hans Nissen, ed. H. Khne, R.
Bernbeck, and K. Bartl, 229-256. Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf.
. 2000. Opening the Eyes and Opening the Mouth: The Utility of Comparing
Images in Worship in India and the Ancient Near East. In Ethnography and Personhood,
ed. M. W. Meister, 129-162. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
Woolley, C. L. 1934. Ur Excavations II: The Royal Cemetery. London: The British Museum.
471
Figure 1. Gold diadem from Tomb II at Nimrud (Iraq), first millennium BCE,
Baghdad Museum (IM 105696)
472
a.r. gansell
Figure 2. Ivory head of a woman with diadem from Burnt Palace at Nimrud (Iraq),
first millennium BCE, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1954 (54.117.8)
(photo: all rights reserved, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.)
473
474
a.r. gansell
Figure 4. Tasseled folk diadem, Irbid region of northern Jordan, twentieth century
CE, Widad Kawar collection (TRXXIV 7 J)
475
Figure 5. Postcard of woman modeling Kabyle adornment, Algeria, early 20th century
CE (Lvy et Neurdein runis, Paris)
476
a.r. gansell
Figure 6. Portrait of a bride from Bakha, Anti-Lebanon region, Syria, 1936 (Reich
1937, fig. 26)
477
478
a.r. gansell
479
480
a.r. gansell
Figure 10. Druze woman modeling tarbouche, Hauran region, Syria, 2002 (author
photo)
481
Figure 11. Detail of tarbouche showing central pendant, Hauran region, Syria, 2006
(author photo)
482
a.r. gansell
Figure 12. Druze woman wearing tarbouche in public, Hauran region, Syria, 2002
(author photo)
483
Figure 13. Druze women in traditional costume during daily public activity, Hauran
region, Syria, 2002 (author photo)
484
a.r. gansell
485
This article has benefited greatly from conversations with several scholars, including Robert Biggs, Jerry Cooper, William Hallo, Gianni Marchesi, Joachim Marzahn, Karen Radner, Walther Sallaberger, and Christopher Woods. Particular thanks
are due to Jo Ann Hackett, John Huehnergard, Stephanie Reed, Emmanuelle Salgues,
Claudia Suter, and especially Piotr Steinkeller, who read an earlier draft of the manuscript and provided many valuable suggestions and corrections.
For convenience, the following dates (all B.C.E.) are offered for the periods mentioned: Uruk (3200-3000), Jemdet Nasr (3100-2900), Pre-Sargonic/Early Dynastic
(2900-2350), Fara (ca. 2500), Sargonic/Old Akkadian (2334-2154), Ur III (2112-2004),
Old Babylonian (2004-1595), Kassite (1595-1155), Middle Assyrian (1350-1000), NeoAssyrian (1000-610).
486
b. studevent-hickman
Here I adopt the basic distinction between epigraphy and paleography found in
earlier Classical studies: epigraphy refers to inscriptions on stone (and, by extension, on
metal or ivory), paleography refers to those on clay. This differs from what is normally found in ancient Near Eastern studies, where epigraphy refers to inscriptions in general and paleography refers to grapheme shape and formation. It should be noted that
cylinder seals and stamps used for brick inscriptions bridge the two domains since the
inscriptions are carved into epigraphic media (generally in reverse), which are then impressed into moist clay. I consider such objects to be among the epigraphic evidence
since the act of writing takes place there.
3
Paleographic dataabove all tabletsare more difficult to use since, in the absence of any iconography, there is generally no way to determine the orientation of the
script. Without knowing whether the rotation had taken place, the standing position of
the graphemes as pictographs does not help either.
4
Deimels presentation is misleading, for it suggests that the drawing is perpendicular to the direction of the script, which is clearly not the case (for a photo of the tablet,
see http://cdli.ucla.edu/dl/photo/P010653.jpg). This may have led to some misunderstanding in the literature (see, e.g., Gelb, Steinkeller, and Whiting Jr. 1991, 8).
5
Picchioni (1984-1985, 17) also cites a change in the appearance and placement
of the colophon, but his argument is not clear to me. Note that at least two additional
data from the paleographic record support his argument further. The first are the so-
487
in the literature, albeit in less forceful and absolute terms (see, for
example, Englund 1998, 18 n. 1; Postgate 1995, 63; note also figure
2 in this article). As for the reason for the change, he simply sees it
as a Kassite innovation that, once implemented, affected all media
(Picchioni 1984, 48).
The second view locates the change in Babylonia as well, but much
earlier, and here there is some ambiguity concerning the date. Proponents of this view have placed considerably more weight on the
paleographic evidence, where the mechanics of handwriting play a
much greater role. Assuming a right-handed scribe, they have argued
that vertical writing required a cumbersome grip on the stylus and
made it difficult to write wedges in certain directions; moreover, since
the earliest text-fields progressed from right to left, the scribe had to
deal with the added problem of smearing, as many left-handed writers of English do today. To overcome these problems, they maintain,
the scribe rotated the tablet to his or her left, thus introducing the
horizontal component. As the tablets grew larger and more oblong,
they became harder to manipulate. Holding them by their long sides
(that is, with the length of the tablet running more or less perpendicular to the forearm), the scribes wrote horizontally (Falkenstein
1936, 10; Messerschidt 1906, 306; Gelb, Steinkeller, and Whiting,
Jr. 1991, 8; Nissen, Damerow, and Englund 1993, 116-124; and esp.
Powell 1981, 426-431).
For proponents of the earlier date, the internal development of
the graphemes supports this argument. Adam Falkenstein (1936, 9),
for example, noted that wedges b and c (figure 3) were replaced by
wedges f and g already in the Uruk corpus, so the script must have
been written horizontally from practically the beginning.6 Subsequent
called tags used in antiquity to label tablet containers (Sum. pisan-dub-ba). These
clay lumps, generally shaped liked tablets themselves, were wrapped around the two
ends of a string used to seal the container, and inscribed with a description of its contents. In the Ur III and Old Babylonian periods, the tags clearly hung in such a way
that the script was vertical (Goetze 1950; Fitzgerald 2003). The second datum is a tablet from the Old Babylonian period bearing two incantations (van Dijk, Goetze, and
Hussey 1985, pl. 65 no. 66). The tablet is pierced perpendicular to the direction of the
script, presumably to wear it as a necklace (Reiner 1960). With the object worn this
way, the script would have appeared vertical to an observer. I thank Gianni Marchesi for this reference.
6
Falkensteins views were largely supported and supplemented by Margaret Green
and Hans Nissen, whose observations, though not published, were discussed by Gelb,
Steinkeller, and Whiting, Jr. (1991, 8; see also Green 1981).
488
b. studevent-hickman
changes followed this basic trend; Anton Deimel has provided the
most detailed outline (again, with respect to figure 3):
Der Keil a findet sich in der ltesten Schrift nur in wenigen Zeichen...
nach der Zeit Urukaginas verschwindet er vollstndig aus der Keilschrift.
b ist nur eine Ziffer vor gan [a cuneiform sign] und bedeutet 1/4; dies
Zeichen ist bis Urukagina einschliesslich im Gebrauch. In den Texten der
Dynastie Ur wird b durch c ersetzt, zuweilen auch durch d. Im letzteren
Falle wurde d...etwas mehr nach e zu geschrieben [sic]. Von der Dynastie
Ur an sind daher die Keilrichtungen a, b, c gnzlich ungebruchlich, g,
f, e, d bilden einzig die Bestandteile aller Keilschriftzeichen. Der Grund
hierfr ist leicht ersichtlich, es ist das Gesetz der Trgheit: a, b, c kann
man nur sehr schwer mit der rechten Hand eindrcken. Mit der Faust
wren...b und c leicht zu schreiben; dass diese Keilrichtungen trotzdem
so selten vorkommen, spricht auch sehr gegen das Faustschreiben.
Da somit dem Schreiber praktisch nur g, f, e, d handlich zu Gebote
standen, war er von Anfang an gezwungen, das Bild auf die linke Seite
zu legen, da ihm nur hier die Bildungselemente zur Verfgung waren.
(Deimel [1922] 1970, 12-13)7
489
no real evidence for this claim; one gets the impression, however,
that it is based on the larger sizes of some tablets in Fara times and
the growing level of abstraction in the signs, which eliminated their
pictographic component and made them more susceptible to the rotation (Edzard 1980, 546; Nissen, Damerow, and Englund 1993, 119;
Postgate 1995, 63). On similar grounds (namely, the disappearance of
certain wedges and the presumed grip of the stylus), Marvin Powell
(1981, 431) dated the change in reading to the Sargonic period.9
Some proponents of the earlier date have used still other paleographic data to show when the change took place. Ignace Gelb, Piotr
Steinkeller, and Robert Whiting, Jr. (1991, 8-10, 240-241), for example, cited the evidence of sale transactions inscribed on clay pegs,
also called nails or cones. Such pegs, inscribed up the taper as
a rule, were pierced along their axes by wooden stakes used to affix
them to a wall, a ceremony that finalized the transaction and made
it public. According to them, the pegs were positioned below eye
level, in which case they were read horizontally from the left side
or vertically from above. In one case from the late Early Dynastic
period, however, a peg is inscribed down the taper, so its script could
only have been read horizontally (that is, from above, it would have
appeared upside down). For them, this indicates that the script must
have rotated by this time.10 To cite a final example, Christopher
Walker noted that the first texts written in a single column date to
the time of Lugalzagesi, a contemporary of Sargon, the well-known
founder of the Old Akkadian dynasty. For him, this suggests that
the change had taken place shortly before (Walker 1987, 14; cf.
Postgate 1995, 64 with 57 fig. 2: 5). Walker did not elaborate on this
9
See also Postgate 1995, 63-64; Labat 1995, 3-4. Like Deimel, Powell uses Messerschmidts analysis as evidence for the grip of the stylus. For him, however, it was held
between the thumb and fingers.
10
The authors also cite evidence from ancient kudurrus, stone monuments of various shape having inscriptions recording transactions in landed property. In the earliest
kudurrus shaped like tablets, a row of text-fields with the signs oriented vertically traverses the entire object, starting on the obverse, wrapping around the edge, and continuing on the reverse. Beginning in the Fara period, however, the rows are confined to the
obverse or reverse, excepting the last one on the obverse, which continues on the reverse. For them this indicates that the orientation of the script has changed from vertical to horizontal. I must admit that I do not understand their logic here since, as noted
above, there is no point of reference on a tablet for determining horizontal or vertical.
Also, the archaic tablets from Uruk generally follow their later format (see Englund
1998, 58-59).
490
b. studevent-hickman
11
It should be noted that several of these examples were available when Picchioni
wrote his essay. Such oversights are understandable; the point here is to show that such
claims might be stated in less forceful terms. Given the amount of evidence we have and
491
By the same token, several post-Kassite objects clearly have vertical inscriptions, well after the change was purportedly implemented.
They include:
nearly all brick inscriptions (with the exception, for example, of the Sinkashid inscription noted above), which appear vertical until the time
of Marduk-apla-iddina II (721-710 B.C.E.; Walker 1981, 11);
a seal from the Middle Assyrian period (Orthmann 1975, 351-351 with
fig. 271c);
a statue of Napir-asu, dating to the thirteenth century (Orthmann 1975,
384 with fig. 289);
several Neo-Assyrian seals (for example, Orthmann 1975, 355-359,
361-363 with figs. 273a, b, c, f, g, 274 e, f, 275e, see also 362 fig.
108b);13
an Assyrian amulet like the Old Babylonian incantation tablet cited
above (see n. 5 in this article; for the object, see Reiner 1960,
154); and
the fate it has suffered at the hands of the antiquities market, this might be suggested as
a prudent general rule.
12
See Hallo 1982, 115. According to him, the cylinder has a hole along its axis that
starts at the left end of the inscription and only runs halfway through the cylinder...
so that the possibility of using the hole to mount the cylinder on a stick vertically is excluded, since the hole is at the top of the object even from the point of view of the older
[vertical] direction of writing. It is possible that the hole reflects a post used to form the
cylinder, not to mount it. If so, Hallos argument may still be valid (i.e., if the object was
inscribed in this position, the scribe would have had to write upside down).
13
According to Hallo (1982, 114), Assyrian glyptic inscriptions did not become horizontal until the thirteenth century. Note also the seals from Buchanan 1966 cited by
him.
492
b. studevent-hickman
the famous ninth-century statue of Hadad-Yithi, ruler of ancient Guzana
(biblical Gozan, modern Tell Halaf), which contains a bilingual
inscription in Neo-Assyrian and Aramaicthe former oriented
vertically (see Abou-Assaf 1981; Abou-Assaf, Bordeuil, and Millard
1982; for the date, see esp. Kaufman 1982, 139-142).
14
Cuneiform appears horizontal in the overwhelming number of times in this period, but the term may nonetheless refer to the perpendicularity of the two scripts. This is
to say, it may have entered Assyrian during the Aramaean incursions of the thirteenth
and twelfth centuries, precisely when the cuneiform script started to run horizontally on Assyrian seals (see n. 13 in this article). Admittedly, this suggests that there were
Aramaic inscriptions at that time, and our earliest linear alphabetic dates to ca. 1000
B.C.E., some two centuries later. Nonetheless, uses of the stem from which egirtu is derived generally indicate some aspect of crossing in Assyrian, so there may be something to Kaufmans suggestion.
493
may be frozen expressions used well after the rotation had been
implemented.
The problems with arguments for the earlier date concern methodology more than fact. Beginning with the most obvious, in describing the
directions of individual wedges and the development of the graphemes,
Deimel, Falkenstein, and others all assumed that the script had already
been rotated! If we consider the evidence without this assumption,
the most common wedges (figure 3) are those running straight down
(d) and straight to the left (b), not straight to the right (f) and straight
down (d). Even setting this observation aside, the elimination of certain
wedges says nothing about the orientation of the script, it only indicates
its direction or flow (Englund 1998, 72). In other words, the graphemes could have developed in much the same way if the script had
been written in its original, vertical orientation with the stylus held
or manipulated differently. And, while we can determine the angle
at which the stylus met the tablet, there is no evidence whatsoever
for the way it was held from the graphemes themselves (nor can we
assume that all scribes held it the same way); the basic disagreement
between Deimel and Powell is indicative of this point (see n. 9). In
the end, the only sure fact in this context is that the stylus and tablet
had to be rotated with respect to each other since, as noted, the same
surfaces of the stylus formed all of the wedges (see above, note 8).15
More than likely, limiting this movement was the primary reason for
simplifying the graphemes, and, while this forces one to ask how the
scribes were able to write with any efficiency, particularly given the
predominantly administrative context of most tablets and the sizes of
most graphemes, it is clear that this development could have transpired
whether the graphemes had been rotated or not. Unfortunately, nothing in the order in which the wedges were impressed sheds any light
on this problem;16 modern experiments appear to have debunked
the argument based on smearing (Walker 1987, 14).
15
This situation differs from the one found in Ugarit. There, both vertical and horizontal wedges were likely made with a square-headed stylus, perhaps of bronze, held
horizontally in the hand with very little manipulation (Ellison 2002, esp. 72-86).
16
To the best of my knowledge, the only detailed studies of cuneiform grapheme
formation are Sallaberger 1996 and Ellison 2002. In his study of the tablets from Tell
Beydar in northern Syria, which he dates to the late Early Dynastic period, Sallaberger (1996, 63) concluded that there is no real order in which the wedges were impressed
save that 1) they are formed in the direction of the script and 2) there are discrete units
that are written the same wherever they appear. Ellison (2002, 109-110 n. 95) reached
494
b. studevent-hickman
The other two arguments in favor of the earlier date are also equivocal. The Early Dynastic peg cited by Gelb, Steinkeller, and Whiting,
Jr. is inscribed precisely like foundation deposits of the same shape
at this time, and those were invariably presented upright (Ellis 1968,
46-93, esp. 72). The adoption of this typology and presentation would
not be surprising, and, since it remains unclear precisely how transaction pegs were presented with respect to an observer, their argument
leaves some element of reasonable doubt.17 Finally, the single-column
tablets first introduced during the reign of Lugalzagesi (Walker 1987)
may reflect nothing more than text-fields composed of vertical strings
of graphemes. If nothing else, it is a logical progression based solely on
the fact that the orthography of compound logograms and the syntax
of written Sumerian were largely fixed by this time.
495
in the absolute terms in which he stated them. While exceptions appeared well before Kassite times, they remain isolated incidents, and
in many of them the reasons were surely practical or even aesthetic
in nature. But they are precedents nonetheless, and they show that
the use of horizontal cuneiform was alive and well in the epigraphic
record from very early on. The question is whether there is any evidence in the paleographic record that supports the earlier date of the
rotation while eliminating some of the methodological problems that
have undermined arguments for it in the past. There is one possible
datum that, to the best of my knowledge, has gone overlooked in the
literature, at least with respect to the topic at hand.
In cuneiform lexical texts, which consist of lexicons proper, syllabaries, lists, and grammatical texts, individual entries were often
marked with a single, vertical wedge. In the earliest examples, which
come from the Uruk period, this wedge was actually a rounded
impression that appeared vertical with respect to the original orientation of the proto-cuneiform pictographs (figure 4a). The impression
had no semantic value of its own, being used instead as a visual and
memory aid in counting the number of lines inscribed on tablets so
as to be able to collate line totals on original and copies (Englund
1998, 83 n. 179 with literature). For much of the third millennium,
its size could vary, and occasionally it could be replaced by a purely
circular impression, but overall its shape and orientation remained
the same (Englund 1998, 82 n. 175; Krebernik 1998, 314 with n.
746). By the Old Babylonian period, however, this grapheme had
transformed into a true cuneiform wedge. More significantly, it appeared rotated ninety degrees with respect to the other graphemes (figure
4b; see also Englund 1998, 83 n. 179). While there are real differences
between the lexical traditions of the third and second millennia (see,
in general, Cavigneaux 1980-1983; note also Nissen 1981, 99, 105), it
seems reasonable to assume that this grapheme remained vertical to
the reader, particularly given the overall durability and prestige of the
lexical tradition. As a corollary, the rest of the script must have shifted
by this time, the marker serving as a stationary point of rotation. The
question is precisely when this happened, and, unfortunately, there is a
dearth of lexical witnesses between the Fara and early Old Babylonian
periods.18 Fortunately, though, the same phenomenon occurs in a
18
Fragments of lexical texts are attested from the Old Akkadian and Ur III periods
(Englund 1998, 88-89 fig. 24 and Veldhuis 1997, 16-18). To the best of my knowledge,
496
b. studevent-hickman
different context for which there is more than ample evidence, and
that evidence places the change within the timeframe demarcated by
the lexical sources.
The cuneiform legal and administrative records provide the first
real evidence for the phenomenon outlined above. In the earliest
such documents (again, from the Uruk period), discrete objects were
invariably counted with a rounded, vertical impressionprecisely the
same grapheme used to mark entries in the early lexical texts. This
logogram for the integer one, as it were, retained its basic shape and
orientation until the Fara period, when it started to appear as a true
cuneiform wedge, and, as in the lexical texts, this metamorphosis
was accompanied by a ninety-degree rotation of the rest of the script
about this grapheme (figure 5).19 But the change was sporadic, and
the original, rounded impression continued to appear in the majority
of cases into the Sargonic period, disappearing completely from this
context by Ur III times.20 While it cannot be proven, it seems reasonable, again, to assume that the orientation of the grapheme remained
vertical to the reader, particularly given the fact that numbers are
the most consistently written graphemes in the scriptindeed, they
are the progenitors of cuneiform itself. Regardless of whether one accepts the assumption, the Fara to Sargonic periods clearly represent
none of them bear the entry marker, so they offer nothing that would allow us to date
the change more precisely.
19
The texts in figure 5 are probably from Fara (Powell 1973, 100). Other possible
examples of the rotation include Jestin 1937, pl. CXIII no. 465; pl. CXII no. 467; and
pl. CLXXII no. 906. The qualification possible is necessary for two reasons: First,
Jestins copies can be unreliable (Biggs 1974, 36). Second, I have not yet found other texts corresponding to these examples in which the same items are counted with the
original notation. This is an important control for the argument presented here, for it is
well known that different notational systems were used to count different objects in the
Uruk period and that, in Old Akkadian times, certain objects were simply more prone
to being counted with wedges, even when rounded impressions were still the norm (see
Gelb 1970a, xx). Note, incidentally, that this development is generally presented as if
the grapheme for one rotated, not the rest of the script (e.g., Nissen, Damerow, and Englund 1993, 140). This is a direct result of the fact that most introductions to cuneiform
present the earliest tablets with the script in the horizontal position, an error acknowledged but carried out nonetheless.
20
The rounded impression continued to appear as part of a system of notation for
workers in Ur III administrative texts. There, both rounded impressions and cuneiform wedges appear, and in both directions. Unfortunately, this system remains largely undeciphered. According to Nissen, Damerow, and Englund (1993, 25, cf. 120, 140),
rounded numbers were still used in Ur III times, but I know of no evidence for this outside this context.
497
21
Gelb 1955, 178-179. Gelb and others consider the Sargonic period to be the initial stage of the change, but these examples clearly show that it was taking place already
in Fara times.
22
I have intentionally left the so-called Personenkeil, which undergoes a similar development, out of this discussion. In the Fara period, the entry marker from the lexical texts (or the logogram for one, if you prefer) was adopted as a prefix for personal
nameshence the designationappearing specifically in rosters or before the names of
witnesses in legal texts. In the second millennium, the grapheme became, for all intents
and purposes, a determinative for personal names, in which case it appeared, predictably, as a cuneiform wedge rotated ninety degrees with respect to the other graphemes. In the interim, and even in the Fara period itself, the use of this grapheme was
somewhat unpredictable; moreover, it could appear as a rounded impression or cuneiform wedge in either direction (in the case of the latter, it could even appear at an angle). As with the notation used for workers in the Ur III corpus (see n. 20 in this article)
the shape and direction of the Personenkeil involved a host of social and economic factors that are not yet understood. Nonetheless, the Fara and Sargonic periods still represent a transitional stage of the writing of this grapheme, a stage that may reflect the
rotation of the entire script (this observation, originally made by Piotr Steinkeller [personal communication], provided the impetus for this article; for a detailed discussion of
the Personenkeil and its development, see Krecher 1974, 161-165; cf. Edzard 2004 and
Gelb 1955, 324).
23
It could be argued that the simultaneous use of the original, rounded impressions
and rotated cuneiform wedges illustrates that the numerals rotated, not the script. This
may have been true initially, but it was clearly short-lived. In support of this, I know of
no examples where the wedge appears in the original orientation alongside a rounded impression that had rotated. Since it remains almost certain that the end result preserved the original orientation, such cases must represent a period in which the older
system had not yet caught up to the new. It may be noted here that a similar alternation occurs elsewhere in Fara texts: the grapheme for one is also rotated in compound
graphemes of which it is one of two components (note, e.g., ]IxA and ]IxDI;
see Steinkeller and Postgate 1992, 15). Alternations having nothing to do with this
grapheme are attested in other systems at this time as well (see Nissen, Damerow, and
Englund 1993, 59, 64).
498
b. studevent-hickman
Combined with the evidence cited above, these examples place the
onset of the rotation in Fara times, and the fact that there are so few
attestations from this period supports this further still. The Sargonic
period is something altogether different: at that time, the number of
attestations of the rotated wedge increases considerably, with a noticeable spike during the reign of Shar-kali-sharri, the son of Naram-Sin
(Gelb 1970a, xix-xx).24 By the end of the dynasty, the new system
was used almost exclusively (Gelb 1970b, xxii).
Other changes within the paleographic tradition may reflect this
development. In the Fara period some tablets (namely, lexical and
literary texts and some administrative texts) start to become more
oblong (Deimel [1924] 1968, 2*), but by and large the older, more
spheroid and square tablets predominate, and continue to do so
until the time of Naram-Sin (Steinkeller and Postgate 1992, 7 citing
Westenholz 1975, 3-4; cf. Foster 1982, 3). Beginning with his reign,
longer, more pillow-shaped tablets are the general rule, so much
so that the fundamental variable in tablet size is length (Gelb 1955,
169). In addition, the earlier tablets tend to arrange the text in rather
short and broad compartments within narrower columns, whereas in
the later texts the compartments are longer and slimmer and found
in wider columns (Westenholz 1975, 3). This is surely connected to
the development of single-line tablets noted above. Returning to the
graphemes themselves, there are several other changes within them
that may reflect the rotation. The standard examples here are the
signs U and DA. According to Gelb (1955, 170 n. 4),
[t]he tablets dated to Sargon have the first vertical wedge [in these signs]
written with an upward stroke, and they are thus linked epigraphically to
the Pre-Sargonic period. Tablets written after Sargon show this vertical
wedge made with a downward stroke.
499
Conclusions
If one accepts the arguments presented here, there can be no doubt
that the first large-scale implementation of the rotation of the cuneiform script took place in the Sargonic period, specifically during the
reigns of Naram-Sin and Shar-kali-sharri. In the end this should come
as no surprise, for the period as a whole is marked by unparalleled
changes in virtually every aspect of Babylonian society. The effects
of these changes were certainly far-reaching, and, where scribal practices are concerned, they may even have extended to the later lexical
tradition, the other primary datum for the rotation (Cavigneaux 19801983, 616). On a more speculative level, the rotation itself may be an
Akkadian (that is, Semitic) innovation: Semites were clearly present
in Babyloniaincluding in Fara (Krebernik 1998, 261)early in its
history, and there is ample evidence for a distinctive writing tradition
from the Akkadian heartland (namely, northern Babylonia and the
Diyala region),26 the very area that supplies most of the attestations
we have. 27 Indeed, both the Akkadians and their script may be
25
Note also that comparable developments were taking place in other graphemes in
much earlier periods (Falkenstein 1936, 9; cf. Hallo 1957, 24-25 with 25 n. 2).
26
The Akkadian heartland may have been confined more precisely to the Diyala
region; a recent study of Sargonic Akkadian isolates its origin to that area (Hasselbach
2005, esp. 232-235).
27
True, most of the Sargonic tablets in general come from this region, but the larger
body of evidence for a distinctive, northern, writing tradition suggests that this is more
than a coincidence (for additional remarks, see Westenholz 1975, 36).
500
b. studevent-hickman
28
501
The exceptions that appear after both the Sargonic and Kassite periods illustrate that that was not the case. But this, too, should not
be surprising, for cuneiform, like most scripts, always had a certain
malleability about it. This is illustrated not only by the objects, some
of which even have the script running in both directions,30 but also
by the specific descriptions of the graphemes found in lexical sources.31
Both practicality and aesthetics will determine which way a script is
presented; the cover and spine of nearly any book will show this to
be true.
In short, both dates for the rotation of the cuneiform scriptmore
precisely, for its large-scale implementationare essentially correct,
and both can be corroborated by the evidence available. The reasons
for the rotation remain unknown; however, foreign influence should
always be considered when such a drastic change to a script occurs.32
In Mesopotamian history, the Sargonic and Kassite periods were
truly momentous occasions, each marking a point when a non-native
power represented Babylonias literate culture. In both cases major
changes were introduced in the script, and in both cases precedents
had already been set.
In closing, I should stress that analyses of this type illustrate one
fundamental point of which students and scholars of the ancient Near
East are growing increasingly aware: we need to use all of the evidence
available to answer the questions before us. Be it iconography, archaeology, or purely textual data, each of these domains has something
all its own to contribute to our understanding of the past, and it is
only by integrating them that we can fully deal with such questions
as how cuneiform was read. In my experience, this is something Irene
has always taught her students.
30
See the kudurrus in King 1912, pls. XLIII-LII, CIII; Toscanne 1917, 194 fig. 65;
cf. the Neo-Babylonian seal in Orthmann 1975, 362 fig. 108b, where the script runs
vertically, but from both top to bottom and bottom to top.
31
Note in particular the uses of the terms ten, inclined, tilted (e.g., the U2 sign
is the BAR sign tilted); gilim crossed (obliquely); and igigubb inversed. The basic
study of these terms is Gong 2000 (esp. 18-41). For examples showing the manipulation
of proto-cuneiform graphemes, see Englund 1998, 58-59, 68 (note especially the appearance of the signs EN, SANGA, and MU3 on p. 69 fig. 22 and 102 fig. 31).
32
As noted by Edzard (1980, 546), the classic example of foreign influence on the
direction of a script is illustrated by Uighur, which was rotated precisely like the cuneiform script, but from horizontal to vertical.
502
b. studevent-hickman
References
Abou-Assaf, A. 1981. Die Statue des HDYS#Y, Knig von Guzana. MDOG 113:
3-22.
Abou-Assaf, A., P. Bordreuil, and A. F. Millard. 1982. La Statue de Tell Fekherye et son
inscription bilingue assyro-aramenne. Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations 7. Paris:
Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Archi, A. 1988. Position of the Tablets of Ebla. Or n.s. 57: 67-69.
Biggs, R. D. 1973. On Regional Cuneiform Handwritings in Third Millennium
Mesopotamia. Or n.s. 42: 39-46.
. 1974. Inscriptions from Tell Ab albkh. OIP 99. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Buchanan, B. 1966. Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum.
Volume I: Cylinder Seals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cavigneaux, A. 1980-1983. Lexikalische Listen. RlA 5: 609-641.
Daniels, P. 1995. Cuneiform Calligraphy. In Nineveh, 612 BC: The Glory and Fall of the
Assyrian Empire, ed. Raija Matilla, 81-90. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Deimel, A. [1924] 1968. Die Inschriften von Fara III: Wirtschaftstexte aus Fara. WVDOG
45. Osnabrck: Otto Zeller.
. [1923] 1969. Die Inschriften von Fara II: Schultexte aus Fara. WVDOG 43.
Osnabrck: Otto Zeller.
. [1922] 1970. Die Inschriften von Fara I: Liste der archaischen Keilschriftzeichen.
WVDOG 40. Osnabrck: Otto Zeller.
Edzard, D. O. 1976. Fra und Abu albh: Die Wirtschaftstexte. ZA 66: 156-195.
. 1980. Keilschrift. RlA 5: 544-568.
. 2004. Personenkeil. RlA 10: 431-432.
Ellis, R. S. 1968. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
Ellison, J. L. 2002. A Paleographic Study of the Alphabetic Cuneiform Texts from
Ras Shamra/Ugarit. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Englund, R. K. 1998. Texts from the Late Uruk Period. In Mesopotamien: Spturuk-Zeit
und Frhdynastische Zeit, ed. Pascal Attinger and Markus Wfler, 15-233. OBO 160/1.
Freiburg: Universittsverlag.
Englund, R. K. and H. J. Nissen. 1993. Die lexikalischen Listen der Archaischen Texte aus
Uruk. Archaische Texte aus Uruk 3. ADFU 13. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
Falkenstein, A. 1936. Archaische Texte aus Uruk. ADFU 2. Berlin: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
503
Fitzgerald, M. 2003. pisan dub-ba and the Direction of Cuneiform Script. Cuneiform
Digital Library Bulletin 2. <http://cdli.ucla.edu/Pubs/cdlb/2003/002.html>.
Foster, B. R. 1982. Archives and Record-Keeping in Sargonic Mesopotamia. ZA
72: 1-27.
Gelb, I. J. 1955. Old Akkadian Inscriptions in Chicago Natural History Museum: Texts of
Legal and Business Interest. Fieldiana: Anthropology 44/2: 161-338. Chicago: Chicago
Natural History Museum.
. 1970a. Sargonic Texts in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 5. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. 1970b. Sargonic Texts in the Louvre Museum. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gelb, I., P. Steinkeller, and R. M. Whiting, Jr. 1991. Earliest Land Tenure Systems in
the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. 2 vols. OIP 104. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago.
Goetze, A. 1950. Sin-iddinam of Larsa. JCS 4: 83-118.
Gong, Y. 2000. Die Namen der Keilschriftzeichen. AOAT 268. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Green, M. W. 1981. The Construction and Implementation of the Cuneiform Writing System. Visible Language 15.4: 345-372.
Hallo, W. W. 1957. Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles: A Philologic and Historical Analysis.
American Oriental Series 43. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
. 1982. Review of Cuneiform Brick Inscriptions in the British Museum; the Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford; the City of Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery; the City of Bristol Museum
and Art Gallery, by C. Walker. JCS 34: 112-117.
Hasselbach, R. 2005. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic
Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Heinrich, E. and W. Andrae, eds. 1931. Fara. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Fara und Abu Hatab 1902/3. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
Jestin, R. 1937. Tablettes sumriennes de uruppak conserves au Muse de Stamboul. Paris:
E. de Boccard.
Kaufman, S. A. 1977. An Assyro-Aramaic egirtu a ulmu. In Essays on the Ancient Near
East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, ed. M. de Jong Ellis, 119-127. Memoirs of the
Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 19. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.
. 1982. Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh.
Maarav 3: 137-175.
King, L. W. 1912. Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum.
2 vols. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
Krebernik, M. 1998. Die Texte aus Fra und Tell Ab albh. In Mesopotamien:
Spturuk-Zeit und Frhdynastische Zeit, ed., Pascal Attinger and Markus Wfler, 237-427.
OBO 160/1. Freiburg: Universittsverlag.
504
b. studevent-hickman
505
Figure 1. The rotation of the cuneiform script as illustrated by two objects from ancient Mesopotamia
a) Vertical script on a fragment of the Stele of the Vultures from the late Early Dynastic Period, Muse
du Louvre (photo Erich Lessing/ Art Resource, NY)
506
b. studevent-hickman
507
Figure 1. b) Horizontal script on a slab from one of the reliefs found in the Northwest
Palace of Assurnasirpal II, Room Z, British Museum ( copyright The Trustees of
the British Museum)
Figure 2. A sample chart showing the development of several cuneiform graphemes from early pictographs (from
Nissen, Damerow, and Englund 1993, 124 fig. 106; reproduced courtesy Hans Nissen)
508
b. studevent-hickman
509
Figure 3. The possible directions of cuneiform wedges (from Deimel [1922] 1970,
12)
Figure 4. Two examples of cuneiform lexical texts showing the orientation of the original entry marker vis--vis the
other graphemes
a) a composite of the archaic witnesses of the series Lu2 A (after Englund and Nissen 1993, 17 fig. 4; reproduced
courtesy Dietrich Reimer Verlag)
510
b. studevent-hickman
511
512
b. studevent-hickman
Figure 5. Two texts from the Fara period showing the proposed rotation of the script
about the logogram for one ( copyright The Trustees of the British Museum; collations kindly provided by Irving Finkel)
a) Sollberger 1972, pl. 4 no. 6 (BM 15828): see col. i, l. 1 [top right] (5 pounds
of copper)
513
Figure 5. b) Sollberger 1972, pl. 5 no. 9 (BM 26238): see col. iii, l. 1 [top right] and
elsewhere (4? pounds of copper)
514
b. studevent-hickman
index
515
INDEX
Achaemenid 11, 18, 205, 2658, 2702,
273, 277, 2801
Achilles 298, 303
Adad-Nirari I 387
Adad-Nirari II 308
Adad-Nirari III 135
administrative texts 272, 318, 329, 332,
333, 336, 340, 496, 498
aesthetic, aesthetics 7, 10, 11, 18, 22, 71,
80, 101, 102, 246, 295, 452, 455, 456,
460, 462, 4667, 495, 501
Agade (see Akkad)
agency 101, 107, 245, 247, 265, 272
Ahuramazda 267
Ain Dr 801
Akkad 276, 322, 412, 445; Akkadian
Empire, history, period 9, 87, 170,
278282, 325, 3267, 445, 486, 489;
Akkadian art and culture 137, 165,
265, 266, 269, 2735, 308, 317, 365;
Akkadian language 10, 16, 23, 75,
136, 267, 272, 295, 319, 332, 381,
424, 426, 430, 431, 433, 492, 494,
495, 496, 499
Akkadisches Handwrterbuch 16
Alacahyk 79, 81, 184
Alalah (Tell Atchana) 75, 77
Aleppo 757, 79, 801, 97, 98, 99, 460
alien (extra-terrestrial) 4435
ancestor worship or ancestor cult 179,
184, 190, 191, 193, 1967
animal 22, 29, 48, 501, 53, 87, 1089,
1434, 149, 1645, 185, 192, 20910,
22930, 2456, 365, 367, 374, 411,
4147, 419, 438, 441, 451
Annubanini 268, 288
Anshan 275
Anti-Lebanon, The (Syria) 4501, 453,
4556, 4579, 462, 463, 4646, 476,
477, 479
Anzu 306, 307, 308
Apsu 307
Archaeological Institute of America 18
archaizing script 490
Architectonics, architectonic, tectonic 69,
701, 734, 76, 7981, 83, 88, 90
516
index
index
3, 3257, 329, 3302, 33741, 365,
389, 417, 430, 437, 439, 442
goddess (see also deity, god) 34, 75, 191,
214, 298, 302, 303, 319, 320, 323,
325, 3279, 3301, 3357, 33940,
365, 367, 372, 438, 4412
Golan 53
good shepherd, Assyrian king as 102,
114
Great Staircase 181, 183, 18890, 193
Greece, Greek culture 9, 14, 22, 26, 28,
2930, 72, 296, 297, 298, 299, 302,
303, 305, 440; in Persia 266, 2703,
281
Gudea 3, 8, 14, 24, 137, 161, 333, 419
habitus 73
Hades 303
hair or hairstyle 111, 237, 238. 241, 242,
246, 267, 26970, 279, 281, 302, 317,
324, 325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 331,
332, 333, 335, 337, 338, 339, 340,
377, 456, 463, 467
Hala Sultan Tekke 78
Haldi 20810, 213, 214, 215, 217
Halule 171
Hama 82
Hamanu 10910, 122, 125
Hammurabi 437, 446, 491; Code of
2767
arimtu 3823, 385
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 5, 14, 24, 25, 101, 440, 450,
451
Hasanlu 23, 51
Hatti 85, 164, 387
Hattua 75, 789, 180
Hattuili I 75
Hauran, The (Syria) 450, 4556, 4578,
461, 4646, 480, 481, 482, 483
headdress 34, 54, 267, 269, 273, 317,
321, 324, 325, 3302, 336, 33841,
44950, 4557, 4603, 4667
Hephaistos 298, 303
Heralds Wall 181, 183, 185, 194
hierarchy 9, 14, 102, 209, 218, 23940,
242, 2457, 320, 341, 366, 376, 378,
380, 382, 384, 385, 445, 465
high priestess 317341, 441
horse 4, 144, 229, 232, 235, 237, 2401,
2446, 261, 303, 458
517
518
index
nakru 384
Naram Sin 137, 170, 269, 275, 279, 491,
4989; Stele of 9, 14, 137, 2656,
26970, 2738, 2801, 289, 293,
446
narrative 14, 17, 22, 26, 6990, 1019,
1124, 143, 150, 170, 233, 243, 267
8, 367, 376, 441, 453, 462
NASA 96, 443, 444, 448
Nebuchadnezzar I 277
Nebuchadnezzar II 430
Neo-Assyria art and culture of 3, 7, 8, 11,
14, 17, 101115, 13352, 164, 170,
171, 22948, 26970, 273, 295, 299,
3845, 397, 398, 449, 491; history and
language of 105, 114, 133, 161, 163,
168, 279, 372, 374, 485, 492, 494
Nergal 86, 299300, 304, 309
netherworld 296, 297, 298301, 302,
3035, 306, 3089, 462, 464
Nimrud (see also Assurnasirpal II,
Northwest Palace of) 3, 70, 71, 146,
148, 156, 170, 270, 373, 4601, 471,
472
Nineveh (see also Assurbanipal, North
Palace of and Sennacherib, Southwest
Palace of) 50, 66, 101, 138, 139, 162
3, 1712, 270, 279, 372, 439
Ninlil 1667, 365
Ninurta 81, 86, 146, 170, 304, 306,
308
Nippur 15, 333, 334, 336, 498, 500
Northern System 1623, 1659
numerals (graphemes for) 497
Old Babylonian 21, 33, 34, 275, 304,
306, 308, 366, 369, 371, 374, 378,
424, 427, 430, 485, 486, 487, 491,
495, 511
Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
15, 29, 317
orthostat 8, 6990, 95, 97, 98, 99, 148
50, 180, 1836, 1889, 193, 194
ossuaries, clay 48, 53
Paleography/paleographic evidence 486
7, 48990, 4945, 4989
Pasargadae 2701
patronage 80, 2435, 273
pedagogy 2231
Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary 16
index
Persepolis 239, 266, 2701, 272, 282
(p)ilku 381
Porada, Edith 4, 15, 29, 51, 52, 55
presentation scene 14, 34, 319, 328, 336,
337, 340
prestigious architecture (btiment de
prestige) 52, 77, 78, 83, 88, 8990
procession 51, 545, 1060, 1424, 151,
165, 181, 183, 185, 188, 1923, 195
6, 202, 239, 243, 386
Processional Entry 1812, 185, 192,
1956
propaganda 18, 28, 102, 1056, 115, 163,
165, 1701
Proust, Marcel: 1034
provenanced antiquities 18
pulutu 2968, 306, 307
qaditu 382
qarnu 50
radiance 9, 295310
Ras Ibn Hani 78
Rebel Lands 308, 309
reception 14, 18
regalia 304, 3189,330, 332, 333, 341
Reich, Sigismund Sussia 4504, 457,
4613, 464, 4767
rhetoric 7, 9, 178, 54, 70, 72, 87, 889,
114, 265, 297, 301, 423, 440
Rimush 278
robe 34, 111, 137, 2701, 273, 274, 280,
302, 332, 333, 338, 341; flounced 317,
3246, 327, 329, 3303, 3357, 339;
fringed 138, 149, 317, 325, 326, 327,
328, 329, 338; pleated 271, 317; tufted
327, 330, 331
Rome 14, 28
Royal Buttress 181, 182, 185, 192, 193,
1956, 202
Royal ideology 8, 9, 10, 102, 113, 205,
321
u 385
apinuwa (Ortaky) 78
Sargon II (Sargonid Period) 50, 105,
113, 135, 137, 141, 167, 212, 243,
279, 386
Sargon of Akkad (Sargonic Period) 278,
279, 321, 485, 489, 496, 497, 4989,
500, 501
519
520
index
index
6970, 71, 89, 101, 102, 105, 114,
133, 137, 139, 1501, 161, 164, 166,
179, 180, 187, 205, 218, 2334, 248,
265, 266, 271, 273, 281, 295, 307,
309, 317, 323, 324, 326, 330, 331,
332, 363, 367, 369, 411, 419, 423,
438, 444, 445, 446, 450, 462, 463,
467, 485, 501
521
xvi
table of contents