Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia 9781575066516

Citation preview

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

General Editor Jerrold S. Cooper, Johns Hopkins University Editorial Board Walter Farber, University of Chicago Jean-Pierre Grégoire, C.N.R.S. Piotr Michalowski, University of Michigan Simo Parpola, University of Helsinki

Jack Sasson, University of North Carolina Piotr Steinkeller, Harvard University Marten Stol, Free University of Amsterdam Irene Winter, Harvard University

1. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur Piotr Michalowski 2. Schlaf, Kindchen, Schlaf! Mesopotamische Baby-Beschwörungen und -Rituale Walter Farber 3. Adoption in Old Babylonian Nippur and the Archive of Mannum-mesu-lißßur Elizabeth C. Stone and David I. Owen 4. Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad Piotr Steinkeller and J. N. Postgate 5. House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia A. R. George 6. Textes culinaires Mésopotamiens / Mesopotamian Culinary Texts Jean Bottéro 7. Legends of the Kings of Akkade: The Texts Joan Goodnick Westenholz 8. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography Wayne Horowitz 9. The Writing on the Wall: Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Assyrian Palace Reliefs John M. Russell 10. Adapa and the South Wind: Language Has the Power of Life and Death Shlomo Izre'el 11. Time at Emar: The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive Daniel E. Fleming 12. Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary Wolfgang Heimpel 13. Babylonian Oracle Questions W. G. Lambert 14. Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mespotamia Gianni Marchesi and Nicolò Marchetti 15. The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur: An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom Piotr Michalowski

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Gianni Marchesi and Nicolò Marchetti

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2011

The translation of this work has been funded in part by SEPS Segretariato Europeo per le Pubblicazioni Scientifiche

Via Val d’Aposa 7 - 40123 Bologna - Italy [email protected] - www.seps.it Translation and revision copyright ç 2011 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Originally published as: Nicolò Marchetti, La statuaria regale nella Mesopotamia protodinastica, con un’Appendice di Gianni Marchesi, copyright ç 2006 by Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Translated from the Italian by Penelope-Jane Watson. This edition is a revised and expanded version of the translation of the Italian edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Marchesi, Gianni. [Statuaria regale nella Mesopotamica protodinastica. English] Royal Statuary of early dynastic Mesopotamia / by Gianni Marchesi and Nicolò Marchetti ; translated by Penelope-Jane Watson. p. cm. — (Mesopotamian civilizations ; 14) Rev. and updated. Originally published: Rome : Bardi editore, 2006. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-57506-173-3 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Sculpture, Ancient—Iraq. 2. Kings and rulers in art. 3. Iraq—Antiquities. I. Marchetti, Nicolò, 1968– II. Watson, Penelope-Jane. III. Title. NB80.M3713 2011 732u.5—dc22 2011015886

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †‘

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 1. Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary . . . . . . . . 11 1.1. The Main Contexts of Stratified Early Dynastic Statues and Other Visual Material 11 1.1.1. Tell Asmar (Esnunak), Khafajah (Tutub), and Tell Agrab (PA.FAR) 11 1.1.2. Nuffar (Nippur) 34 1.1.3. Tello (Firsu) 38 1.1.4. Bismaya (Adab) 44 1.1.5. Tell al-Muqayyar (Ur) 51 1.1.6. Tell al-ºUbaid (Nutur) 65 1.1.7. Tell Hariri (Mari) 67 1.1.8. Qalºat Shergat (Assur) 74 1.1.9. Tell Ingharra (Kis) 75 1.1.10. Shush (Susa) 82 1.1.11. Some Groups of Sculpted Artifacts from Other Mesopotamian Sites 83 1.2. Early Dynastic Chronology and the Development of Visual and Epigraphic Artifacts 87

Chapter 2. Historical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4.

Political Development in Early Dynastic Mesopotamia: An Outline Royal Titles and Ideology of Kingship 103 The Sumerian King List 114 Early Dynastic Rulers 118

97

Chapter 3. Early Dynastic Royal Statuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 3.1. Royal Statues Identified on Epigraphic Grounds 129 3.2. Uninscribed Statues Presumably Commissioned by Rulers 3.3. The Development and Meaning of Royal Statuary 145 3.4. Catalogue of Early Dynastic Royal Statuary 150

140

Chapter 4. The Inscriptions on Royal Statues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 4.1. Preliminary Observations 156 4.2. Definition of the Corpus 162 4.3. Statue Inscriptions (Cat. 1–12) 164

Chapter 5. Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period . . . . . . . . . . 186 5.1. The Protohistoric Era and the Problem of Identifying the “Priest-King” 5.2. The Iconography and Themes of Early Dynastic Art 196 5.3. Ebla and Early Syrian Culture 207

v

186

vi

Contents

Chapter 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 6.1 Iconographic Details and Visual Significance: The Ruler and the Early State Administration 211 6.2. From Participation to Individualism: The Development of Royal Visual Propaganda in Early Dynastic IIIa–b 214

Appendix A. Remarks on Early Dynastic Temples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 A.1. Characteristics of Early Dynastic Sanctuaries A.2. Temple Names and Titular Deities 222

219

Appendix B. Royal Statues in Administrative Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Appendix C. Notes on the Transliteration of Texts and the Transcription of Proper Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 I. Personal Names 240 II. Divine Names 245 III. Geographical and Topographical Names

246

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Philological Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Sources of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Nicolò Marchetti is the author of the Introduction, Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, and Appendix A.1. Gianni Marchesi is the author of Chapters 2, 4, and Appendixes A.2, B, and C.

Preface A survey of published and unpublished Early Dynastic statue inscriptions yielded the identification of hitherto undetected statues of Mesopotamian rulers. At the same time, a number of statues considered to be royal in previous scholarly literature have turned out, upon closer examination of their inscriptions, to belong to lesser officials. These new data and interpretations represented a point of departure for further investigation of royal statuary in the Early Dynastic period and opened new perspectives on the study of royal ideology in these early phases of Mesopotamian history, when the figure of the king as political leader of the human community first emerges and becomes visible both in figurative arts and in written documentation. In order to establish the relative chronology of the inscribed figurative art of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, a reassessment of the information regarding the contexts of provenanced pieces and the stratigraphy of the main excavated Early Dynastic sites was conducted. This work led to the construction of a new chronological and historical framework in which to set the appearance and development of the image of the king within the visual communication system developed by early elites. As a result, a gradual shift can be observed from a stage in which the administration as a whole is celebrated to one in which the figure of the king becomes the main, and then almost the unique, subject of celebration. This shift was achieved partly through the reinterpretation of traditional themes and partly through the creation of new ones. At the very end of the Early Dynastic period, a time of continual political upheavals, some iconographical details were introduced in order to characterize the royal figure more directly, and a royal iconography began to be developed in the statuary. This book, which is the result of a close collaboration over several years between Gianni Marchesi and me, truly represents a joint undertaking, if not in the actual writing of the various chapters, at least in the spirit that guided us through our researches. In the introduction, our research subject is set within the history of the study of Mesopotamian art. Chapter 1 contains a series of original studies, in part also based on some unpublished material, on the relative stratigraphy and chronology of the main stratified contexts in which sculpted objects and other visual artifacts were found. The results obtained converge only in part in chapter 3, where royal statuary is discussed and a number of new identifications for statues of rulers are proposed. The results reached in chapter 1 are, instead, exploited more fully in chapter 5. Here, an analysis of the royal figure in forms of visual communication other than statuary is presented: both protohistoric forerunners (which are not completely relevant, as I suggest in §5.1) and Early Dynastic evidence in Mesopotamia and Syria are examined in some detail. Chapter 2 deals with the history of the Early Dynastic period and the ideology of early state polities in vii

viii

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Mesopotamia and attempts at reconstructing the chronology of all known Early Dynastic rulers. In chapter 4, the epigraphic and textual data concernig royal statues are discussed and new translations of the inscriptions, with detailed commentaries, are offered. Chapter 6 presents the conclusions on the iconography of Early Dynastic rulers and the visual communication promoted by them. In Appendix A, we examine the characteristics of Early Dynastic temples and tackle the problem of identifying their divine owners; in several cases, the titular deities identified are different from those previously identified. Appendixes B and C concern, respectively, the references to royal statues in administrative texts and the transcription criteria used for the transliteration of texts and the transcription of proper names throughout the present book. This work would not have been accomplished without the help of many persons and several institutions. My gratitude and thanks for assistance and support go to numerous colleagues and friends, among whom I would like to mention at least a few. Above all, I thank my teacher, Paolo Matthiae, who has transmitted to me both his method and his passion for the subject. I am grateful to Irene Winter and Piotr Steinkeller for the fruitful discussions we had during my period of research at Harvard University on a Marco Polo grant from the Alma Mater Studiorum—University of Bologna. Jerrold Cooper and Maria Giovanna Biga provided me with further stimulus and encouragement, as did Mario Liverani. My colleagues among museum keepers gave me complete freedom while conducting my research in their institutions, along with an ever-warm welcome, especially Annie Caubet of the Musée du Louvre, Zeynep Kızıltan of the Eski Vark Eserleri Müzesi in Istanbul, Ulla Kasten of the Yale Babylonian Collection, and Richard Zettler of the University Museum in Philadelphia. For their permission to publish a number of photographs and various archival information, my thanks go to John Larson of the Oriental Institute, Chicago; Dominique Collon and Sarah Collins of the British Museum; Helen Whitehouse of the Ashmolean Museum; and Sylviane Messerli and Natalia Granero of the Bodmer Foundation, Geneva. To the late Donald Hansen and to Dominique Beyer, Pascal Butterlin, Abbas al-Hussainy, Carl Lamberg-Karlovsky, Michel al-Maqdissi, Roger Matthews, Nawala al-Mutawalli, Glenn Schwartz, and other colleagues duly mentioned in the text I owe a variety of information regarding unpublished material. I was able to conduct this research thanks to an FIRB 2001 grant from the Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research. For their unceasing support, I wish to thank my colleagues and staff at the Department of Archaeology, as well as many other colleagues at the University of Bologna. Fabio Alberto Roversi Monaco and the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio in Bologna deserve much gratitude for their support throughout my research. My colleague Gianni Marchesi and I are grateful to the members of the Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche of the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei for releasing the copyright of the original Italian version of this book, which has been revised, enlarged, and updated. The present edition also has a new arrangement of chapters, when compared to La statuaria regale nella Mesopotamia protodinastica. Our appreciation also goes to Jerrold Cooper for accepting this work into the series Mesopotamian Civilizations, of which he is the General Editor; to Jim Eisenbraun and his staff at Eisenbrauns for their careful editorial work; to SEPS (Segretariato Europeo per le Pubblicazioni Scientifiche) for funding, in part, the translation of the manuscript into English by PenelopeJane Watson. Federico Poole undertook the task of revising the technicalities of the translation.

Preface

ix

Finally, I would like to express all my love and gratitude to my wife, Francesca, and to my children Sofia, Pier Giorgio, and Rossana, for their patience and understanding. Nicolò Marchetti *

*

*

*

*

My contributions to this book stem, in part, from a research program directed by Carlo Zaccagnini from 2000 to 2008 at the University of Naples “L’Orientale” with the financial support of the Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research. To him go my most sincere thanks for reading a draft of my work and providing constructive criticism and suggestions. Many colleagues deserve due acknowledgment: Piotr Steinkeller, Francesco Pomponio, David Owen, Aage Westenholz, Giuseppe Visicato, Salvatore Monaco, and Antoine Cavigneaux provided me with very useful information about unpublished material; David Owen also allowed me to quote unpublished texts from the tablet collections of Cornell University; Ulla Kasten (Yale University), Raymond Tindel, and Christopher Woods (University of Chicago) were of great help during my visits to the Yale Babylonian Collection and the Oriental Institute Museum; Erle Leichty, Barry Eichler, Steve Tinney, and Grant Frame gave me precious assistance at the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania; Beatrice André-Salvini, Manuel Molina, and Davide Nadali sent photographs of some pieces in the Musée du Louvre, the British Museum, and the National Museum of Damascus; Andrew George, Jean-Jacques Glassner, and Jacob Dahl made collations on my behalf; Glenn Magid checked my English texts and provided valuable feedback. I wish to express my gratitude to all of them. In preparing this work, I have also profited from some important on-line projects, especially the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (University of California at Los Angeles and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin), the Database of Neo-Sumerian Texts (Instituto de Filología, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid), the Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (Babylonian Section of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology, Philadelphia), and the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (Oriental Institute, University of Oxford). This study would not have been possible without a multi-year research grant from the Department of Archaeology of the University of Bologna. I am very grateful to Giuseppe Sassatelli, chair of the Department of Archaeology, and Maurizio Tosi, the former chair, for their help. A special thanks is also due to Maria Luisa Uberti (Department of Ancient History), who made it possible for me to teach Assyriology at the University of Bologna and who constantly offered me her advice. My deep-felt gratitude goes to Fabio Alberto Roversi Monaco, President of the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio in Bologna, for his encouragement and financial support. To his far-sightedness we also owe the acquisition of the library of the late Prof. Dietz Otto Edzard by the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio in Bologna and its donation to the Department of Archaeology. I have greatly benefited by having this library available for my studies and the completion of this book. This work is affectionately dedicated to my wife Elena, and to my mother Mirna. Gianni Marchesi

This page intentionally left blank.

Introduction

In terms of size and material used, royal statuary constitutes a distinctive genre in Mesopotamia at least from the Akkadian period on, in clear contrast with the by then extremely limited production of privately commissioned pieces. It is instead open to question as to whether it already formed a distinct class during the preceding period, and it is no mere coincidence that, as yet, there has been no critical analysis of royal statuary of this earlier phase. A reevaluation of both iconographic and epigraphic elements, however, together with an analysis of the contextual associations (where these are known) and the study of other contemporary forms of visual expression, can provide us with a detailed picture of how Early Dynastic royal statuary became an important medium with increasing ideological importance. This occurred within the context of well-defined visual communication programs whose development went hand in hand with the political and administrative programs of the city-state. Though it is the final phase of the Early Dynastic period that provides the greatest quantity of documentation of all types, significant historical conclusions may also be drawn from the artistic documentation of the earlier phases. Various factors have helped create some enduring inconsistencies in the history of Mesopotamian art, especially with regard to the earliest phases. First and foremost among these is the fact that Mesopotamian archaeology came into its own as a historical science at a relatively late date, having long been considered merely a subsidiary of philological studies. With the exploration of Ur in the 1920s and, especially, excavations carried out in the lower Diyala basin by the Oriental Institute of Chicago in the 1930s, a firm stratigraphic basis was created within which the study of Mesopotamian art could be placed. The Berlin school, which conducted numerous studies of early material and finds between the mid-1950s and the 1970s, leaned strongly toward a critical approach that we could characterize, in a nutshell, as idealistic, and which was largely carried out independent of stratigraphic data. However, though a number of works of pre-classical Near Eastern art may be regarded, in terms of concept and execution, as true masterpieces, the production context of every single specimen is artisanal: we need only consider the fact that we do not know the names of any ancient Near Eastern artist. As a result, stratigraphic criteria can play a significant role in helping us trace the development of Mesopotamian art. The array of art-historical studies produced in the mid-twentieth century, most notably by Henri Frankfort and Anton Moortgat, failed to take into adequate consideration either the archaeological or, to a lesser degree, the visual contexts of the finds studied.1 As a result, our overall perspective needs to be 1. An example of how scholars possessed of extraordinary artistic sensibilities may apply alien aesthetic categories to the materials studied is provided by the preference shown by Frankfort (1939a: 19–25), in pages reflecting great enthusiasm, for “abstract” statuary (in line with criteria deriving from the artistic movements of his own time, especially

1

2

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

updated and revised in terms both of chronological factors and of regional characteristics. This is to a certain extent due to the new material now available but even more to the methodological approach that I shall attempt to outline here. In this study, the context is seen as the basis for all forms of archaeological investigation, since it is only the stratigraphic association of materials that fully defines the chronological and functional relations among them. Of equally fundamental importance in analyzing a find bearing complex symbolic meaning is its visual context, especially for such early periods. By applying a prerelational and precognitive approach, we can take first steps to produce an intelligible identity for an object even when it is composed of symbols pertaining to an unknown and unfamiliar belief system. This identity, however, can only be fully defined through a study of the object’s context.2 More detailed analysis has, to some extent, been precluded by the obscure and incomplete nature of such early visual and textual material. Furthermore, the fact that most pieces are craft products more than works of art has often limited my analysis to the iconographic level.3 The underlying principle I apply here is to give priority to the stratification of artifacts in arthistorical analysis. This is partly required by the above-mentioned intrinsic characteristics of ancient Near Eastern visual material but above all to the great gaps in our knowledge of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia. Only rarely have studies in this field felt the need for a solid relative chronology as a basis for sound art-historical reconstruction.4 Stratification itself is a mechanical chronological criterion, and sequences are specific to each site, while relative stratigraphy must be based on a variety of criteria without, however, ever forgetting that each class of evidence has to be evaluated independently and with specific methods. Seriation and comparison occur within what generally remains an intuitive intellectual process.5 Epigraphy is also a crucial critecubism; cf. Porada 1995: 138–39) over the more “naturalistic” statues of Early Dynastic III, in which, “expressiveness and plastic clarity have been sacrificed for a greater verisimilitude” (Frankfort 1939a: 28; cf. also pp. 29–30). For an attempt to understand ancient Mesopotamian aesthetics, cf. Winter 2000a and 2003. 2. Hausman 1991: 104–5. 3. Although there can be no doubt that a conscious awareness of earlier traditions of craft production existed in Mesopotamia (and, consequently, acceptance, rejection, reuse, or citation of those earlier traditions, etc.), sometimes motivated by precise political directives (cf. Matthiae 1994; for ideological aspects of Mesopotamian society, cf. also Liverani 1988: passim), this process can only occasionally be noted in Early Dynastic art (this is particularly noticeable in certain aspects of the proto-imperial and Akkadian periods; cf. §§3.1 and 5.2). With regard to method and to the stimulating historical readings therein, cf. the observations by Giuliano 2001: 183–98 on portraits of Emperor Honorius. 4. “It is the archaeologist who must build the scaffold from which we can view . . . ancient [Near Eastern] monuments as works of art” (Frankfort 1954: xxv). However, in a publication concerning the seals of the Diyala region (Frankfort 1955), with the materials correctly organized by stratified contexts, pieces are nonetheless dated by applying a priori criteria, sometimes with the result that almost all of the pieces from a given context are dated earlier than the context itself. Moorey (1979: 119) sums up the problem most clearly: “Study of the early historic period in Mesopotamia is increasingly hampered by arid discussions of classificatory systems, which are rapidly becoming barriers rather than gateways to understanding. For if Frankfort’s system is now shown to be too rigid, hampered by its narrow provincial base, Moortgat’s is too flexible, depending as it so often does on insecurely dated and attributed objects, often of secondary or again merely local relevance. Respect for local archaeological sequences in the first instance seems to be the only way out to this confusion. Only when a carefully established and detailed sequence is fully available in print for the major geographical zones of Mesopotamia will it be possible to offer sound correlations for acknowledged local variations in paleography, glyptic, sculpture and pottery.” 5. This process is based on the identification and comparison of cultural types according to the original definition provided by Childe (1956): the “type” is an indicator of specific cultural traits, linked to characteristic social structures in a given time and place and may be recognized by the archaeologist through a process that is largely intuitive, since this is

Introduction

3

rion, to be used jointly with art-historical analysis. However, not much epigraphic evidence is available in connection with sculpture; indeed, sometimes we must rely on analyses of visual material for the chronological classification of attached epigraphs.6 If we accept that no single criterion can be regarded as primary, we must find a compromise solution and introduce necessary criteria as occasion demands. In any case, employing a single consistent terminology has clear advantages, even though this may be unsatisfactory in some specific instances. Thus, from an epistemological perspective, the independence of the various kinds of evidence is a central factor within the stratigraphic criterion but remains subordinate to it, since the latter is the only criterion that can provide objective information on the vertical and horizontal relationships among and between artifacts. I have therefore conducted my research using both archaeological and art-historical methods and perspectives. I have included epigraphic data in my analysis, but only after that data had been independently verified, to respect the specificity of the different disciplines involved.7 A central question is that of the various forms of periodization commonly applied in works on Mesopotamian art and architecture, including some recent noteworthy rearrangements.8 We are not dealing here with a mere question of terminology but with differences that have a significant effect on our reconstruction of Early Dynastic art.9 Frankfort developed the first systematic chronology of the period between the Proto-historic and the Akkadian in the 1930s, on the basis of his excavations in the lower Diyala region, where important sequences were brought to light at Tell Asmar/Esnunak, Khafajah/ Tutub, and Tell Agrab/PA.FAR.10 Frankfort, like other not based on a selection of individual, significant traits but on their entirety (i.e., considered horizontally), even though this involves, at least implicitly, a certain degree of abstraction. 6. With regard to epigraphic criteria, the paleography of the texts has never been studied in a systematic way, in terms of geography (it is in fact likely that there were differences between contemporary scribal schools) and with the necessary distinction being drawn between epigraphs on stone and on clay (cf. §2.3 below). 7. Current archaeological and Assyriological hypotheses, for example, have been confirmed or rejected through a continual process of cross-checking and discussion a posteriori with G. Marchesi. On the relationship between the two disciplines, cf. R. Matthews 2004: 56–64. For factors concerning the relationship between literary and artistic production, which cannot be dealt with here, cf. Cooper 1990; 2008a; and Matthiae 1992. 8. §1.1 is central to this work. Anticipating the conclusions drawn there (cf. also §1.2 for an overview), we can say that the Early Dynastic period in Mesopotamia saw two main phases in the development of the pottery horizon (with, at the most, two subphases each). Generally speaking, the same developmental phases apply to sculpture and architecture (which may be broadly subdivided into two phases, the later one being characterized by monumentality and greater regularity). Glyptic, instead, witnessed various phases with styles that were partially contemporary. The question of absolute chronology is entirely ignored here since it does not serve the purpose of this work and is, moreover, extremely difficult to define (cf. Rowton 1970: 219–29, 235–37; Liverani 1988: 17–27; for a recent proposal on lowering the absolute chronology of the Early Dynastic period, cf. Reade 2001; for synchronisms with Egyptian chronology, cf. below, p. 208 n. 117). The ARCANE project, coordinated by M. Lebeau, seems promising in this respect. 9. The summary of previous research on Early Dynastic art that follows is justified by the need to make clear the underlying starting points of prior research by setting the various approaches within the academic traditions that influenced the manner in which those approaches are formulated, explicitly or implicitly. 10. Frankfort’s invention of the term “Early Dynastic,” while alluding on the one hand to the Sumerian King List (see the following note) and the appearance of the first Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, must also have depended on his training in Egyptology (cf. Frankfort 1943: 1–4 for some telling comparisons with Early Dynastic Egyptian art). His use of the term “Protoliterate” for the phases that are today commonly designated as the Late Uruk and the Jemdet Nasr periods, met with less success. The division of the Early Dynastic period into three phases was proposed for the first time in September 1935 in Rome (Frankfort 1938) and later developed in the last preliminary excavation report of his work in the Diyala region (Frankfort 1936: vii, 35–73 and folder; cf. also Frankfort 1935b: 79–87; 1955: 2–3).

4

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

archaeologists of his time, used the Sumerian King List as an implicit starting point, since its historical validity was not in doubt.11 With regard to the development of statuary, apart from intriguing pages in his history of ancient Near Eastern art, the clearest account of his thought is found in his comments on sculpture in the final reports from the Diyala sites.12 Although we can no longer accept a sharp distinction between an “abstract” archaic series and a more mature “naturalistic” series, accompanied by the corollary of “transitional” works,13 Frankfort’s reconstruction of stylistic traits is still, to a large extent, valid today. Though it is true that the position of the Diyala region, peripheral in comparison with the great urban centers of southern Mesopotamia, means that generalizations based on its artistic and material culture are not always entirely dependable,14 Frankfort’s internal subdivision of the chronology of the Early Dynastic period still furnishes a fundamental point of reference for Mesopotamian archaeology.15 It was the excavations of the sequence at the temple of Inªanak at Nuffar/Nippur (on which cf. §1.1.2), despite the lack of a final publication of the materials and structures uncovered, that provided the most important information, which American scholars would later use to produce a new evaluation of the Early Dynastic chronology, as well as of the art of this period.16 Hansen’s suggestion that Early Dynastic II be renamed late Early Dynastic I does not result in 11. The standard edition is still that by Jacobsen (1939). Cf. most recently Steinkeller 2003b for an earlier (NeoSumerian) version, which differs significantly from the later ones, and for a brief evaluation of this important text, which is more celebratory than historical in nature (celebrating at first the royalty of Akkad and then, in the later recensions, also the royalty of Uruk and Ur; cf. also §2.3 below). 12. Cf. Frankfort 1954: 23–31 (where, however, attribution to subphases is not clearly set out); Frankfort 1939a: 10–42; 1943: 1–16. 13. Frankfort’s (1943: 5–7) comments on the groups of statues found in levels V and VI of the Small Shrine (“Nintu”) and in ‡amus (“Sin”) IX at Tutub lose their meaning once we accept a different interpretation for these finds based on both stratigraphic and stylistic factors (cf. §1.1.1). Cf. also Frankfort 1955: 2–3. For a general discussion of the chronology of the Diyala sites, cf. Porada et al. 1992: 107–8, 112–13. For critical comments on the overly-strict chronological subdivision between abstract (which she describes as geometric) and naturalistic styles, cf. also Winter 1984: 103–4. In her opinion (1984: 105), the “geometric” style derives from the protohistoric tradition, which, in Early Dynastic II, was accompanied by the “naturalistic” that would eventually take its place. In reality, it is the naturalistic style that appears to be more typical of the Late Uruk and Jemdet Nasr phases (for evidence of this at Uruk, for example with regard to anthropomorphic and zoomorphic statuary, high-reliefs and the minor arts, cf. Becker 1993: pls. 36–39, 55–58:937, 60– 68, 94–118; Lindemeyer and Martin 1993: pls. 14:171, 16:188–89, 17:190, 30:237, 34, 38–40, 57), although not exclusively (Porada et al. 1992: 99, 102). 14. The oft-repeated peripheral position of the Diyala sites (Abu al-Soof 1967; Zettler 1989: 385; D. P. Hansen in Porada et al. 1992: 103–13) is merely apparent in cultural terms (we need only think of the almost identical statues from virtually contemporary levels at Esnunak and Nippur; cf. for example Braun-Holzinger 1977: pl. 6). In fact, precisely in the Early Dynastic II levels of Nippur we find sculptures in an expressionist style (cf. §1.1.2) that, were it not for where they were found, could easily have been defined as provincial (cf. also Moortgat 1967b: 36). It is, on the other hand, useful to stress here that the three sites excavated by the American expedition in the Diyala region were, in the third millennium b.c., minor urban centers and, consequently, comparison with the great Mesopotamian sites in the south may be misleading. 15. Although it is now almost certain that certain structural levels (and their associated materials) of the Diyala sites should be assigned a different relative date than that given by the archaeologists of the Oriental Institute (cf. §1.1.1), these adjustments do not affect the general validity of Frankfort’s framework. 16. Cf. Porada et al. 1992: 103–8, 111, figs. 4–5. This proposal is often taken up in American publications (cf., for example, Zettler 1989: 385). Moorey (1979: 118), too, had already claimed that Early Dynastic II did not exist as a truly separate period. Cf. instead the considerations put forward by Hansen (1965: 209), which he subsequently modified. For criticism on the lack of a final publication for the Nippur Inªanak material, cf. already Winter 1984: 103.

Introduction

5

any notable clarification, since this change is based mainly on considerations regarding pottery and is, therefore, epistemologically and methodologically incorrect in terms of the perspective adopted here.17 From the 1950s to the 1970s, the Berlin school under Moortgat adopted a radically different approach from that used by Frankfort, with whom the Berlin school entered into mildly polemical debate.18 Some of the first works produced by that school on Early Dynastic art concentrated on seals or sculptures that were dated epigraphically,19 followed by general studies on sculpture up to the Old Babylonian period, on late Early Dynastic and Akkadian glyptics, and on Early Dynastic sculpted plaques.20 As far as the Early Dynastic period is concerned, Moortgat’s history of Mesopotamian art is marked by an excessive attention to stylistic traits that are often somewhat arbitrarily defined.21 While Frankfort’s division into periods had a solid stratigraphic basis— which, however, did not ultimately prevail in his work—the idealist framework delineated by Moortgat led to a misreading of the evidence whenever it was employed together with paleographic criteria, which were inadequately or erroneously defined.22 These different approaches were repeatedly, if sketchily, correlated by Moortgat’s students with the system developed for the Diyala region.23 The English-speaking world did not, however, demonstrate a similar interest in 17. Cf. the valid criticism by Porada (1991), who, instead, recognized the validity of the traditional chronological divisions within the categories of visual arts and especially of glyptic (cf. Martin 1988: 75–80 and, in general, Karg 1984; cf. also below, p. 34 n. 67). Basing her conclusions again mainly on the Diyala evidence, Evans (2006), on the other hand, argues unconvincingly that the Early Dynastic II period should actually be viewed as belonging in part to the preceding and in part to the following subphases (i.e., Early Dynastic I and IIIa; but cf. also §1.2 below). 18. Cf. for example Moortgat-Correns 1959 or Strommenger 1960: 5–6. 19. Cf. Nagel 1959a, 1963, and Boehmer 1964 for the glyptics; Strommenger 1959 for the sculpture. 20. Cf., respectively, Strommenger 1960 (who was of the opinion that we can speak of royal statuary only from the Akkadian period on; cf. 1960: 46–47); Boehmer 1969, 1965; and Boese 1971. Among the other works produced by this school there is also a monograph on Near Eastern stelae (Börker-Klähn 1982a), which is a useful collection for the period we are interested in here. A different concept underlies Orthmann 1975 and, in fact, Early Dynastic art is there dealt with by Hansen (1975a; 1975b). 21. Moortgat 1967b: 26–50. Cf. also Moortgat 1935 for an early definition of the internal divisions of the Early Dynastic period, which he respectively named the “first transitional, Mesilim, second transitional (Fara), Ur I” periods, in contrast to Frankfort’s use of “I, II, IIIa, IIIb” (in no phase, however, do the two systems coincide perfectly). On the other hand, Moortgat’s (1949) definition of the “Bildgedanke”—that is, figurative concept, claiming that images are autonomous from written texts—introduced an important tool in the art history of the ancient Near East. 22. We need only to recall the case of the statue of Yindinªil (“Ebihil”) from Mari (Pl. 17: 2–4; Parrot 1956: 70–71, fig. 47, pls. XXVII–XXIX), which Moortgat (1967b: 41 n. 140, pl. 66) dated on paleographic grounds to the “Mesilim” period (largely corresponding to Early Dynastic II) when it is, in fact, quite later (cf. also n. 28 below). For similar reasons, the two statuettes from Mari of the singer Urnansêk and his son (Parrot 1967: 89–96, nos. 68–69, figs. 129–33, pls. XLV– XLVII), correctly correlated with Yindinªil on the basis of style, were assigned the same excessively early date (Moortgat 1967b: 42, pls. 68–69). Moortgat’s remarks on Yisqimari (“Lamgi-Mari,” Cat. 12 in chap. 3) are less striking, given the impossibility at that time of placing this ruler precisely within a chronological grid, although the relationship that he noted between certain details of that statue and the “Mesilim” style is telling (1967b: 44–45, pl. 64). Cf. in general BörkerKlähn 1979 on the subject (the paleographic series proposed therein, however, should not be trusted with regard to the earliest documents). 23. Cf. Boehmer 1969: fig. 55; Hrouda 1971: 111, and, more recently, Nagel and Strommenger 1995. Cf. also Braun-Holzinger 1977: 12–14; Dolce 1978a: 22, tables 3–5; and Behm-Blancke 1979: table 3 (with modifications). An excellent piece of rigorous philological work by the Berlin school was produced by Nagel (1964; note table III, which presciently distinguishes between glyptics, paleography, and sculpture and presents a comparison with the framework elaborated by Frankfort).

6

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

the German classification, which they often completely ignored, in spite of the great historical sensitivity occasionally displayed by some followers of the Berlin school.24 Among what we may call “second-generation” studies, in addition to two books by Hrouda’s students—on zoomorphic sculptures down to the Early Dynastic and on the early glyptic of this last period, respectively—and other works,25 a detailed study by Eva Braun-Holzinger, a student of Beran’s, on the stylistic development of Early Dynastic statuary is of particular importance for the present work.26 Notwithstanding the general validity of the three main style groups outlined by Braun-Holzinger’s work—which has remained a landmark study to this day—I believe a degree of methodological caution and certain corrections are required. Braun-Holzinger did not adequately link paleographic criteria, which are important for the chronology she adopted, to philological and textual analysis, nor did she study them carefully enough.27 Moreover, her stylistic sequence is, in several cases, too rigid.28 Most recently, Braun-Holzinger has published a study on the “Herrscherbild” from the Protohistoric to the Old Babylonian periods: her usual careful review of relevant evidence, organized iconographically, is unfortunately not joined to a historical perspective deriving from a thorough analysis of chronological data.29 I could hardly conclude this introduction without anticipating a central issue—that is, the definition of the main phase, in terms of the quantity and quality of figurative objects as well as epi24. An important publication that remained within this perspective, by Dolce, a scholar of the Rome school, dealt with Early Dynastic inlays (Dolce 1978a; 1978b). 25. Behm-Blancke 1979 and Karg 1984. Cf. also the “chrono-stratigraphic” analysis on Ur and Uruk by Sürenhagen (1999) and a very useful work on votive objects, including those of the Early Dynastic period, by BraunHolzinger (1991). 26. Braun-Holzinger 1977. The structure of this work tracks that of Strommenger 1960, which was organized according to the contexts of Early Dynastic statuary (1960: 9–31), inscriptions on stone (pp. 31–35), stylistic development (pp. 36–45, pls. 1–8). 27. Cf. also §2.2 for some criticism. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 16–28, fig. 1 distinguishes three “Schriftstufen” with further, internal divisions (cf. also 1977: table 2). A telling example in the context of our research is the large standing male statue (McCown et al. 1978: 32, 78 no. 1, pls. 67: 3, 68: 1–2) that comes from a votive deposit in the North Temple at Nippur (cf. §1.1.2): the deposit contained material from the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb, but Braun-Holzinger (1977: 38 n. 265) assigned the statue on the basis of stylistic criteria to her “Stilstufe IA” (equated to the beginning of Early Dynastic II); the inscription was later dated to the so-called Fara period (Gelb et al. 1991: 90–92, no. 25, pls. 47– 48), though in fact it can be even later (cf. below, p. 36 n. 77). This case highlights the risks that are taken when stylistic criteria are used without being solidly based on stratigraphic and epigraphic data. 28. For example, Braun-Holzinger’s definition of a northern horizon of statuary—sculptures coming from the temples of Mari and Assur that were destroyed at the end of the Early Dynastic period—posed a problem that she did not confront satisfactorily. In point of fact, Braun-Holzinger did not fully grasp the distinctive character of this sculptural production, which does not allow too close a stylistic correlation with southern Mesopotamia (cf. the discussion in §1.1.1 on the various stylistic statuary groups present in contemporary contexts in the Diyala region). Moreover, her attribution of statues to Early Dynastic IIIa or IIIb in many cases does not seem to be based on consistent and verifiable criteria (Braun-Holzinger 1977: 53–55). She seems to have been inspired by unreliable paleographic criteria and/or relies on artistic elements that do not appear to be particularly significant from a chronological point of view, such as the raised rendering of the tufts on the skirt. Apart from the emblematic case of Yindinªil (cf. n. 22 above)—the inscription of which Braun-Holzinger attributed to her “Schriftstufe II” (1977: 26, 28, 53, 69), corresponding to Early Dynastic IIIa (the statue in question, however, actually dates to Early Dynastic IIIb)—cf. 1977: 51–52, with all the male statues displaying precisely the raised rendering of the tufts on the skirt or being grouped together on the basis of her paleographic analysis of the inscriptions. For additional examples of such dating on the basis of similar, misleading criteria, cf. also Moortgat 1967b: 44–45 and 1968: 230. 29. Braun-Holzinger 2007. She was able to make use there of the 2006 Italian edition of the present work, which has also been reviewed by her (2008).

Introduction

7

graphic data, in the history of Early Dynastic Mesopotamian art, which is the most recent part of this long period. (I will postpone to the next chapter my analysis of the main contexts involved.) The discovery at the beginning of the 20th century of the archives of Fara/Suruppak documented a phase earlier than the final Early Dynastic period. The latter was instead given prominence early on in scholarship due to the abundant inscribed visual material from Firsu (along with the lengthy, structured royal inscriptions of Lagas I, which provide detailed historical accounts). This final Early Dynastic period was subsequently well characterized by its typical seals, often carrying inscriptions, and by the material from the Temple of Estar level G at Assur and the “Royal Cemetery” of Ur, while it was not very well represented in the principal sequences of the Diyala sites.30 The Sumerian King List remained central to the reconstruction of the historical dynastic sequence. Indeed, despite having correctly analyzed the chronological evidence from Ur and Kis, Burrows attributed the royal tombs of Ur to the Fara period or immediately afterward, since the rulers buried there—Ayaªumêdug and Mesªumêdug—are not mentioned in the Sumerian King List as is, instead, Mesªanepadda, who is associated with a level that was believed to have lain above the tombs.31 Although Frankfort had, with his usual acumen, attributed them to Early Dynastic IIIb32 (as Buchanan also maintained as late as 196633), Porada, based on glyptics, proposed a date in Early Dynastic IIIa for the royal tombs of Ur. This is still generally—and, in my opinion, erroneously—accepted.34 Porada actually based her arguments on Amiet’s and, though only partially, Moortgat’s classifications of Early Dynastic glyptic styles. Amiet, in a crucial 1961 work on Early Dynastic glyptics, had assigned the seals from the “Royal Cemetery” to his later Fara period.35 Moortgat had distinguished the “Meskalamdug” (Mesªumêdug) group from the earlier “Imdugud-Sukurru” (also called “Anzusud”) and the later “Mesanepada-Lugalanda” phases, proposing an intermediate date for the tombs, between the Fara period and late Ur I.36 In his subsequent history of Mesopotamian art, Moortgat assigned—in my opinion, correctly—the “Meskalamdug” and “Mesanepada-Lugalanda” groups to his “Ur I” stylistic phase, which followed the “second transitional period” (corresponding to the time of the Fara tablets).37 Strommenger and Nagel had also correctly attributed the glyptics of “Meskalamdug” to the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb.38 Boehmer, instead, arrived at his influential stylistic seriation of seals by relating them to the sequence of the Diyala 30. Cf. respectively Heinrich 1931; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912; Thureau-Dangin 1907; Delaporte 1920; Woolley 1934. 31. E. Burrows in Woolley 1934: 313–14 (cf. Burrows 1935: 23, where the “Royal Cemetery” is said to correspond to the “Fara–First Dynasty” period). Cf. also Woolley 1934: 218 for a clear presentation of such reasoning. The son of Mesªanepadda, Ayaªanepadda, is also attested in nearby Nutur (Hall and Woolley 1927; cf. also §1.1.6). 32. Frankfort 1937b: 336–38 (cf. p. 338: “It is certain that the whole pre-Sargonid section of the cemetery must be placed in the latter half of the Third Early Dynastic Period”). 33. Buchanan 1966: 21. 34. Porada 1965: 162–63, table 3; Porada et al. 1992: 111, fig. 5. Cf. also Mallowan 1971: 283; Moorey 1977: 24. 35. Amiet 1980: 57–60, pls. 76–79 (this is a second, revised edition, with some additional plates not in the original 1961 version). 36. Cf. Moortgat 1940: 14, who assigns the seals from this phase to the beginning of Ur I. 37. Moortgat 1967b: 43, 47. Cf. also Boese 1971: chronological table at the end of the volume. 38. Strommenger 1960: 5, table 3; Nagel 1964: table III. In general, on critical studies by the Berlin school, cf. also Nagel and Strommenger 1995; Boehmer 1987–90; and Karg 1993–97.

8

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

sites, assigning the royal tombs of Ur to the final phase of Early Dynastic IIIa.39 He did not, however, fully take into account the stratigraphic basis underlying Frankfort’s definition of periods (indeed, the few seals from the Diyala region available for comparison with Ur actually come from Early Dynastic IIIb contexts; cf. also p. 65 n. 175). The historical implications of Boese’s important discovery that Mesªanepadda was the son of Mesªumêdug 40 were not, however, fully appreciated. Various influential works over the last twenty years have accepted the dating of the Ur royal tombs to Early Dynastic IIIa,41 and this date has also been accepted as valid in two large recent exhibitions on the tombs themselves and on urban civilization in the 3rd millennium b.c.42 Reade made a brave attempt to reinterpret the chronology of the royal tombs, an attempt that was, however, partly marred by his somewhat arbitrary attribution of the various burials to specific historical figures.43 An exhaustive discussion of the epigraphic data relating to the royal tombs, which has shed light on their historical context, has recently been published.44 As discussed below (§1.1.5), the available parallels indicate an Early Dynastic IIIb date for the royal tombs of Ur. Only in the case of the best workshops is a distinction between different glyptic styles possible within this relatively short period. Even if we grant the probability of a partial chronological overlap between the various glyptic groups, this problem does not greatly affect our understanding of the common glyptic style of the vast majority of seals found at Ur, Kis, and Abu Salabikh.45 When defining a consistent artistic horizon, therefore, priority should be given to general criteria, allowing cross-checking after separate study of each individual class. While this perspective, in the absence of further and more detailed studies, enables us to draw a more complete historical picture of Early Dynastic IIIb, other documentation vital for defining this period has come from the discovery in 1975 of Royal Palace G at Tell Mardikh/Ebla.46 The archives and artistic production from this site have enabled us to reconstruct a highly de39. Cf. Boehmer 1969: 266–73, 276–78, fig. 55 where—in the absence of any epigraphic evidence—the question of whether Mesªanepadda was a contemporary of Urnansêk or of his grandson Eªannâbtum (“Eannatum”) is discussed. After deciding in favor of the latter, and after including as a basis for this conclusion paleographic arguments developed in a work dedicated specifically to the chronology of the “Royal Cemetery” by Nissen (1966: 135–41; cf. also pp. 143–46, pl. 37), Boehmer quotes a peremptory claim by Porada (1965: 163) regarding the fact that Early Dynastic IIIb began with Eªannâbtum, thus “confirming” the dating to late Early Dynastic IIIa of the “Meskalamdug” group. This formulation was then accepted by Braun-Holzinger 1977: table 2 and Dolce 1978a: tables 3–5. 40. Boese 1978. 41. Cf. Gudrun Selz 1983: 243–52; Martin 1988: 79–80; D. Matthews 1997a: 13–14, 20–22. A study by Pollock (1985) provided a typological seriation of pottery assemblages that, although interesting, cannot help identify phases of art history, as was the case instead with the important studies quoted above. 42. Zettler and Horne 1998: passim; Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 97–132. 43. Reade 2001: 15–26. One such groundless hypothesis, for example, is his acceptance of polygamy when he attributes the various tombs (2001: table 1) to specific individuals, without any epigraphical basis; this has since been convincingly refuted (Marchesi 2004: 178 n. 145). It is, however, a paradox that Reade himself (in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 93–96) reiterated his chronological hypotheses in an essay contained in the catalogue of an exhibition where the material from the royal tombs of Ur was fixed by other authors to Early Dynastic IIIa. 44. Marchesi 2004. 45. Cf. Marchetti 1998: 129–34. In many instances, it seems to be impossible to assign a more precise date than Early Dynastic III. Thus, the hope expressed by D. Matthews (1997b: 1) that “pottery should be calibrated by ultimate reference to the glyptic sequence” appears somewhat illusory: different classes should be evaluated separately and by their own methods, without the creation of useless hierarchies (cf. also n. 41 above). 46. Matthiae 1985: pls. 3–47; 1989a: 66–125, pls. 5–71; 2008; Matthiae et al. 1995: nos. 1–235.

Introduction

9

tailed picture of the life and customs of a royal court in this period. The court of Ebla had, on the one hand, a marked ability to elaborate autonomously on themes and visual media derived from Mesopotamia (cf. §3.3); on the other, it was connected to Mesopotamia by a permanent and increasingly complex web of cultural, commercial, and political relations, to the extent that it may be placed at the northwestern end of an artistic continuum of which Ur and Susa constitute the southeastern terminus.

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 1

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

The issue of chronology lies at the foundation of any discussion of the history of art. An evaluation of the main stratigraphic sequences in which artistic material was found is therefore required. Without in any way wishing to deny the intrinsic value of stylistic analysis, we believe that, given our current knowledge—which is especially limited with regard to the formative phases of Mesopotamian civilization are concerned—it must take second place, after archaeological and stratigraphic considerations (cf. Introduction above). Only the latter can allow us to sketch, with any degree of accuracy or objectivity, a historical picture of Early Dynastic art, albeit a limited one, especially with regard to its earliest phases.

1.1. The Main Contexts of Stratified Early Dynastic Statues and Other Visual Material I shall here examine the contexts that are most relevant for the study of the chronology, not only of statuary (although this does receive more attention here), but also of other kinds of artistic documentation (Pl. 1). I devote particular attention to the most important sequences and individual contexts that have provided significant associations of visual materials, be these favissae or other kinds of hoards. In some cases, I propose new stratigraphic interpretations. The resulting chronological reconstruction differs at many points both from the traditional relative chronology and from other, more recent proposals (cf. Tables 12–13).

1.1.1. Tell Asmar (Esnunak), Khafajah (Tutub), and Tell Agrab (PA.FAR) The publication of the excavations conducted in the lower Diyala basin by the Oriental Institute of Chicago constitutes the foundation of modern Mesopotamian archaeology, especially with regard to the Early Dynastic period. This work is especially important because it provides sufficiently detailed excavation data to allow satisfactory analytical reevaluation. The credit goes to the scholars involved in the project that Frankfort led in the field, following a very lucid strategy, from 1930 to 1937. Two papers published in the 1980s had a marked influence in defining 11

12

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

the initial phases of Early Dynastic I and the Akkadian period in the sites of the lower Diyala.1 Here, however, I concentrate mainly on the internal periodization of the Early Dynastic era. I believe that a study of contexts and stratigraphic sequences can lead to a new interpretation of Early Dynastic I and II, especially with regard to the development of archaic Early Dynastic statuary. Most of the finds are from favissae, that is, votive pits. These have not always been so identified. Excavation reports often assign favissae to the floor levels that actually sealed them (as at Nippur; cf. below), whereas they must be earlier (a different reasoning applies, however, to objects found inside walled structures).2 I do not entirely agree with the assumption that the stratification of materials is an insufficient basis for chronological or stylistic reconstruction, especially considering that valuable information can be derived from revised stratigraphic attributions of associated objects.3 In this monograph, apart from sculptures from very early contexts, I mainly consider the cases where a number of statues were found together in stratigraphic association.4 Only in these cases can we actually assess the style of a given phase (Table 1). Finds from contexts that are particularly significant in terms of the stratification, quality, or number of objects discovered, or their intrinsic importance for the purposes of this study, are included in Table 1,5 with the exception of the Small Shrine of Tutub (for which cf. below, Table 2). The Temple of “Abu” at Esnunak. Archaic Shrine IVC, a late Early Dynastic I level within the “Abu” temple sequence,6 has yielded two seated statuettes. One has hair falling forward over the shoulders, crossed legs, a smooth skirt with a fringed hem, and a knot at the back (97; Pl. 2:1, 1. Cf. Wilson 1986 and Gibson 1982, respectively. Their conclusions are, for example, accepted by Porada et al. 1992: 100, 104–6, 114–15. 2. For a list of all of the sculpture material from significant contexts, cf. Tables 1–2. It must be borne in mind that the elevations offer only an approximate point of reference, since these relate to architectonic phases that were still being excavated at the moment when the pieces were found, rather than to the objects themselves. For problems relating to the excavation methods employed, cf. most recently Reichel 2003: 45–46, fig. 1. 3. Cf., in general, Frankfort 1955: 1–6. Frankfort’s architecture-based perspective (which, however, is not yet a stratigraphy-based perspective, as one can deduce from the type of sections published) had already been stated explicitly, if not systematically applied, in relation to the chronological principle: “the architectural framework within which our statues were found . . . determines the age of each of them” (Frankfort 1943: 5). 4. This means that single finds from the same context will usually not be considered here (for example, among the inventory from room Q42:7, only the multiple finds from elevations 38.60 and 39.03 m are examined). However, almost all of the pieces from the Small Shrine and from the “Sara” temple are discussed. 5. The following conventions are used in Table 1: “Abu” = so-called temple of “Abu” at Esnunak (where Archaic, Square and Single stand, respectively, for Archaic Shrine, Square Temple and Single Shrine; the designation “Square I” refers to the uncertain stratigraphic attribution of the favissa in D17:9), ‡amus = temple of ‡amus (formerly called temple of “Sin”) at Tutub; “Sara” = so-called temple of “Sara” at Tell Agrab. There then follows the level (sometimes also with the subphase identified in this study). The pieces are ordered according to stratigraphic criteria (level, elevation, room) and, second, Frankfort’s catalogue (1939a; 1943; a similar convention is also used by Braun-Holzinger 1977). The numbers in italic type cited in the text refer to the catalogue of sculptures in Frankfort 1939a: 56–79 (with the corrections from the attached table of errata and from Frankfort 1943: 23) and 1943: 24–44, integrated with indications given by Delougaz 1940 and Delougaz and Lloyd 1942, as well as, in the case of the Small Shrine, files of the objects kept in Philadelphia. 6. So called on the very tenuous basis of a dedication to the god Abªu (dab-ú) on a copper bowl from a deposit of metal objects found in the early Akkadian Earlier Northern Palace next to the temple (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 156, 159 n. 5; Jacobsen 1942: 298 no. 12, fig. 205:12; Delougaz et al. 1967: 184–85, pls. 36 [sub E16:35], 74; Gibson 1982: 535 nn. 41–42; Müller-Karpe 1993: 109, 238–39, pl. 145: 768; cf. p. 227 n. 64).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

13

Table 1. Main finds of sculptures from significant contexts in the Diyala region Temple

Room, elevation

Bibliography

“Abu” Archaic IVC D17:15, 31.20

Frankfort 1939a: no. 97, pl. 70; 1943: 23 sub no. 97, 43 n. ‡; Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 212 n. 24

“Abu” Archaic IVC D17:15, 31.20

Frankfort 1943: 43 n. ‡, As.33:631; Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 212 n. 24, As.33:631

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Cat. 13; Frankfort 1939a: no. 1, pls. 1–3, 5–6, 25; 1943: pls. 82–83

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 2, pls. 4–5

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 3, pls. 7–8, 12–13; 1943: pl. 84

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 4, pls. 6, 9–10, 12–13; 1943: pls. 85– 86

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 5, pls. 11–12

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 6, pl. 14

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 7, pls. 15, 17

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 8, pls. 15–16

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 9, pls. 18–20, 24; 1943: pls. 87–88

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 10, pls. 21–25; 1943: pls. 89–90

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 11, pl. 43

“Abu” “Square I”

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 16, pls. 26–27; 1943: pl. 91

“Abu” Square I:1

E17:20, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 13, pl. 13

“Abu” Square I:1

D17:6, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 12, pl. 13

“Abu” Square I:1

D17:6, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 33, pl. 44

“Abu” Square I:1

D17:6, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 61, pl. 62

“Abu” Square I:1

D17:6, 31.85 + E17:11, 33.75 (Single I:2)

Frankfort 1939a: no. 14, pl. 42

“Abu” Square I:1

D17:9, 31.85 + D17:9, 32.45 + Frankfort 1939a: no. 194, pl. 110:B D:17:7, 32.30 (Square I:2)

“Abu” Square I:1

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 15, pl. 43

“Abu” Square I:1

D17:9, 31.85

Frankfort 1939a: no. 96, pl. 70

“Abu” Square I

D17:9 (31.50–32.50)

Frankfort 1943: no. 323, pl. 66

“Abu” Square I:2

D17:8, 32.30

Frankfort 1939a: no. 66, pl. 62

“Abu” Square III

D17:8, 32.90

Frankfort 1939a: no. 63, pl. 62

“Abu” Square III

D17:8, 33.00

Frankfort 1939a: no. 93, pl. 69

“Abu” Square III

D17:8, 33.00

Frankfort 1939a: no. 94, pl. 69

“Abu” Square III

D17:8, 33.00

Frankfort 1939a: no. 95, pl. 69

“Abu” Single I:2

E17:11, 33.75

Frankfort 1939a: no. 29, pl. 42

“Abu” Single I:2

E17:11, 33.75

Frankfort 1939a: no. 67, pl. 63

“Abu” Single I:2

E17:11, 33.75

Frankfort 1939a: no. 68, pl. 63

“Abu” Single I:2

E17:11, 33.75

Frankfort 1939a: no. 99, pl. 70

14

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Table 1. Main finds of sculptures from significant contexts in the Diyala region (cont.)

Temple

Room, elevation

Bibliography

“Abu” Single I:2

E17:11, 33.75

Frankfort 1939a: no. 169, pl. 96

“Abu” Single I:2

E17:11, 33.75

Frankfort 1939a: no. 171, pl. 96

“Abu” Single I:2

E17:11, 33.75

Frankfort 1939a: no. 172, pl. 96

“Abu” Single I:2

E17:11, 33.75

Frankfort 1939a: no. 175, pl. 96

“Abu” Single I:2

E17:11 (33.75 ?)

Frankfort 1943: no. 256, pl. 28

“Abu” Single I:3

D17:1, 34.50

Frankfort 1939a: no. 178, pl. 97

“Abu” Single I:3

D17:1, 34.50

Frankfort 1939a: no. 186, pl. 106

“Abu” Single I:3

D17:1, 34.50 + E17:12, 35.00

Frankfort 1939a: no. 199, pl. 112

“Abu” Single I:3

D17:1 (34.50 ?)

Frankfort 1943: no. 257, pl. 28

“Abu” Single I:3

D17:2, 35.00

Frankfort 1939a: no. 177, pl. 97

“Abu” Single I:3

D17:2, 35.00

Frankfort 1939a: no. 180, pl. 97

‡amus IV:1

Q42:24

Frankfort 1943: no. 208, pl. 1; Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 26, fig. 23

‡amus VI–VII

Q42:11, 36.70

Frankfort 1939a: no. 92, pl. 69; 1943: 5

‡amus VIII

Q42:7, 38.60

Frankfort 1939a: no. 60, pl. 46

‡amus VIII

Q42:7, 38.60

Frankfort 1939a: no. 133, pl. 86

‡amus VIII

Q42:7, 38.60

Frankfort 1939a: no. 139, pl. 88

‡amus VIII

Q42:7, 38.60

Frankfort 1939a: no. 140, pl. 88

‡amus VIII

Q42:7, 38.60

Frankfort 1939a: no. 145, pl. 89

‡amus VIII

Q42:7, 38.60

Frankfort 1939a: no. 148, pl. 89

‡amus VIII

Q42:2, 38.75

Frankfort 1939a: no. 87, pl. 68

‡amus VIII

Q42:2, 38.75

Frankfort 1939a: no. 120, pl. 84

‡amus VIII

Q42:2, 38.75

Frankfort 1939a: no. 170, pl. 96

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 86, pl. 68

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 88, pl. 68

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 114, pl. 81

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 115, pl. 81

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 124, pl. 85

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 127, pl. 85

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 130, pls. 86, 90

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 140, pl. 88

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 151a, pl. 91

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 151b, pl. 91

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 190, pl. 109

‡amus VIII

R42:2, 38.77

Frankfort 1939a: no. 191, pl. 109

‡amus VIII

R42:2 (38.77 ?)

Frankfort 1943: no. 250, pl. 26

‡amus IX

Q42:3, 38.94

Frankfort 1939a: no. 110, pl. 78

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

15

Table 1. Main finds of sculptures from significant contexts in the Diyala region (cont.) Temple

Room, elevation

Bibliography

‡amus IX

Q42:3, 38.94

Frankfort 1939a: no. 132, pl. 86

‡amus IX

Q42:3, 38.94

Frankfort 1939a: no. 141, pl. 88

‡amus IX

Q42:3, 38.94

Frankfort 1939a: no. 149, pl. 90

‡amus IX

Q42:3 (38.94 ?)

Frankfort 1943: no. 251, pl. 27

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 21, pl. 35

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 22, pls. 36, 40

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 23, pl. 37

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 24, pl. 38

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 25, pls. 39, 45

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 27, pl. 40

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 34, pl. 45

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 35, pl. 46

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 36, pl. 47

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 76, pl. 64

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03 + R42:2, 39.00

Frankfort 1939a: no. 104, pls. 74, 90: J (not no. 151), 95

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 105, pl. 75

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 106, pl. 76

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 107, pl. 77

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 108, pl. 77

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 109, pl. 78

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 111, pl. 79

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 112, pls. 79, 90

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 116, pl. 82

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 117, pls. 83, 90

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 118, pl. 84

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 123, pl. 85

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 125, pls. 85, 90

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 126, pls. 85, 90

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 128, pls. 85, 90

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03 + R42:3

Frankfort 1939a: no. 136, pls. 87, 90

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 150, pl. 90

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 157, pl. 92

‡amus IX:1

Q42:7, 39.03

Frankfort 1939a: no. 189b, pl. 108: B left

‡amus IX:5

Q42:3, 39.67

Frankfort 1939a: no. 18, pls. 29, 30: C–D, 31

‡amus IX:5

Q42:3, 39.67

Frankfort 1939a: no. 20, pls. 33–34

‡amus IX:5

Q42:3, 39.67

Frankfort 1939a: no. 26, pl. 39

16

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Table 1. Main finds of sculptures from significant contexts in the Diyala region (cont.)

Temple

Room, elevation

Bibliography

‡amus IX:5

Q42:3, 39.67

Frankfort 1939a: no. 39, pls. 52–53, 95

‡amus IX:5

Q42:3, 39.67

Frankfort 1939a: no. 113, pl. 80

‡amus IX:5

Q42:3, 39.67

Frankfort 1939a: no. 173, pl. 96

‡amus IX:5

Q42:3, 39.67

Frankfort 1939a: no. 174, pl. 96

‡amus IX:5

Q42:3, 39.67

Frankfort 1939a: no. 176, pl. 96

‡amus IX:5

Q42:3, 39.69

Frankfort 1939a: no. 119, pls. 84, 90

‡amus IX:5

R42:2, 39.00

Cat. 14; Frankfort 1939a: no. 17, pls. 28–30

‡amus IX:5

R42:2, 39.00 + Q42:3, 39.67

Frankfort 1939a: no. 37, pls. 48–50

‡amus IX:5

R42:2, 39.00

Frankfort 1939a: no. 137, pls. 87, 90

‡amus IX:5

R42:2, 39.00

Frankfort 1939a: no. 185, pl. 105

‡amus X (?)

Q42:3 + Q42:4 (head)

Frankfort 1939a: no. 48, pl. 58; 1943: no. 253, pl. 27

‡amus X (?)

Q42:3

Frankfort 1943: no. 252, pl. 27

‡amus X (?)

Q42:3

Frankfort 1943: no. 254, pl. 28

“Sara” Earlier

M13:10, 31.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 299, pl. 51

“Sara” Earlier

M14:8, 31.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 289, pl. 45

“Sara” Earlier

N13:4, 31.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 298, pl. 51

“Sara” Earlier

N13:4, 31.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 306, pl. 55

“Sara” Earlier

M14:12, 31.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 307, pls. 56–57

“Sara” Earlier

M14:12, 31.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 308, pls. 56–57

“Sara” Earlier

M14:12, 31.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 309, pls. 56–57

“Sara” Earlier

M14:12, 31.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 310, pls. 58–60

“Sara” Earlier ?

M14:4, 31.50

Frankfort 1943: no. 265, pl. 31

“Sara” Interm.?

M13:2, 32.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 274, pl. 38

“Sara” Interm.?

M13:2, 32.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 275, pl. 38

“Sara” Main 1?

M14:4, 32.30

Frankfort 1943: no. 261, pl. 29

“Sara” Main 1?

M14:4, 32.30

Cat. 1; Frankfort 1943: no. 263, pl. 30

“Sara” Main 2

L13:4, 32.50+M14:4, 32.50, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 318, pl. 65

“Sara” Main 2

L13:4, 32.50

Frankfort 1943: no. 300, pl. 52

“Sara” Main 2

L13:6, 32.50

Frankfort 1943: no. 266, pl. 31

“Sara” Main 2

L13:6, 32.50

Frankfort 1943: no. 273, pl. 38

“Sara” Main 2

L13:6, 32.50

Frankfort 1943: no. 288, pl. 45

“Sara” Main 2

L13:6, 32.50

Frankfort 1943: no. 301, pl. 52

“Sara” Main 1/2

L13:6, 32.50 + L13:4, 32.30/50 Frankfort 1943: no. 314, pl. 63

“Sara” Main 2

M14:2, 32.50+M14:4, 32.30, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 304, pl. 53

“Sara” Main 2

M14:2, 32.50

Frankfort 1943: no. 291, pl. 45

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

17

Table 1. Main finds of sculptures from significant contexts in the Diyala region (cont.) Temple

Room, elevation

Bibliography

“Sara” Main 3

M14:2, 32.50 (32.65)

Frankfort 1943: no. 327, pl. 67

“Sara” Main 2

M15:2, 32.50

Frankfort 1943: no. 322, pl. 66

“Sara” Main 3

M14:4, 32.00, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 268, pl. 32

“Sara” Main 3

M14:4, 32.00, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 270, pls. 35–36

“Sara” Main 3

M14:4, 32.30, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 272, pl. 37

“Sara” Main 3

M14:4, 32.30, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 279, pl. 40

“Sara” Main 3

M14:4, 32.50, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 264, pl. 31

“Sara” Main 3

M14:4, 32.50, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 267, pl. 32

“Sara” Main 3

M14:4, 32.50, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 269, pls. 33–34

“Sara” Main 3

M14:4, 32.50, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 277, pl. 39

“Sara” Main 3

M14:4, 32.50, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 286, pl. 42

“Sara” Main 3

M14:4, 32.75, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 292, pl. 45

“Sara” Main 3

M14:4, 32.75, pit

Frankfort 1943: no. 302, pl. 52

“Sara” Main 4

M14:4, 33.20

Frankfort 1943: no. 285, pl. 41

“Sara” Main 3?

L14:1, 32.50, pit?

Frankfort 1943: no. 271, pl. 37

“Sara” Main 3?

L14:1, 32.60, pit?

Frankfort 1943: no. 283, pl. 41

“Sara” Main 3?

L14:1, 32.60, pit?

Frankfort 1943: no. 311, pl. 61

“Sara” Main 4

L14:1, 33.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 276, pl. 38

“Sara” Main 4

L14:1, 33.00

Frankfort 1943: no. 282, pl. 41

“Sara” Main 3?

M14:5, 32.50

Frankfort 1943: no. 280, pl. 40

“Sara” Main 4

M14:5, 32.75 (33.00)

Frankfort 1943: no. 278, pl. 39

“Sara” Later

M14:2 (34.15)

Frankfort 1943: no. 287, pls. 43–44

“Sara” Later

M14:4, surface

Frankfort 1943: no. 312, pl. 61

4 top). Pieces such as this provide firm evidence, already in Early Dynastic I, of iconographies and typologies that are also characteristic of the following phase.7 7. The successive excavation numbers of the two statuettes and their provenance, in the same locus (D17:15), show that they were probably associated. Considering that D17:15 is a passageway in the Archaic Shrine IVA–C that no longer existed in the subsequent Square Temple I (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 170, pls. 21–22), and that the elevation at which the pieces were found (31.20) is markedly lower than that of the first floor of the Square Temple (31.80), corresponding instead to that of the Archaic Shrine IVC (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: pls. 21: B, 24: A), there appears to be no doubt about the stratigraphic attribution of the latter architectonic phase, notwithstanding some reservations expressed by the excavators themselves (Frankfort 1939a: 67, no. 97; 1943: 5 n. 17, p. 23 sub no. 97, p. 43 n. ‡ sub As.33:631; Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 212 n. 24). With regard to the chronology of the Archaic Shrine, I need only recall that more than 600 fragments of solid-footed goblets were found in Level III, and this is a pottery type that is typical of the central phases of Early Dynastic I (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 166, fig. 125; Delougaz 1952: 56–57, pl. 148: B.077.700a). On the style of the published statuette (cf. also Spycket 1981: fig. 33), which is similar to those from the deposit below Square Temple I:2, cf. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 36 sub no. 97. The other unpublished statuette, which today cannot be located, is known to us only from a sketch in the excavation records (kindly sent to me by J. Larson). The sketch portrays a seated figure on a base with a smooth skirt, apparently without a fringed hem (cf. Pl. 2:4 center).

18

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Reading through the description of the structures of the later Square Temple, one realizes that the stratigraphic situation was rather complex, and that this was only partially recognized during the excavation. Although numerous floors are shown in the published architectonic section and mentioned in the preliminary description, only four are indicated in the final publication on the architecture of this site. They are labeled I, II, and III (the first and lowermost floor, not numbered by the excavators, is here called I:1, and the floor at elevation 32.30 m is identified as phase I:2) and are associated with more-or-less significant building phases.8 In the plan of Square Temple I, the structures from the first phase (I:1), which are not preserved above a height of 30 cm, are shown lying under those of the second phase almost over the entire area (I:2), except in the northwestern sector, under “Shrine” II (D17:9).9 The deposit containing twelve statues (1–11 and 16; Pl. 2:3) found north of the altar in cella D17:9 is reported to have been found at elevation 31.85. This elevation must refer to the top of the deposit, as can be deduced from photographs of the dig, where the first statues can be seen emerging from below the level of floor I:2, which lay at elevation 32.30 (Pl. 2:2).10 The floor above the deposit was intact, as is clearly and explicitly stated, and no other floors below that shown in the section can be seen in the photographs. It is hence certain that the deposit was buried before phase I:2 was built. (Incidentally, there is nothing to indicate that the deposit cut through phase I:1, which at any rate was not identified in this area of the excavation.) It follows that the deposit predates the building of Square Temple I:2 and may date as far back as Archaic Shrine IV (which can be dated with cer-

8. The architectonic section published in Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: pl. 24: A is merely an update of the fold-out at the end of the preliminary report (Frankfort 1935b; cf., however, Tunca 1984: figs. 12–15). Cf. also Frankfort 1939a: 3, fig. 1 for a stratigraphic description that was later modified in the final publication on the architecture. The floor of phase I:1, which is not mentioned by Delougaz and Lloyd (1942: 176–77), is the floor at elevation 31.80, which they interpreted as being simply the leveling of the earlier buildings (in the section, 1942: pl. 24: A, two floors appear below elevation 32.00, but it is on the lowermost floor that we can see the offering table referred to on p. 172 relating to the phase which I here call I:1; cf. also Tunca 1984: figs. 12–15). A recent study by Evans (2007), which was published after the Italian edition of the present work (which, therefore, could be taken into account by the author), is interesting insofar as it uses unpublished records housed in Chicago (e.g., the pottery materials from the Square Temple, Evans 2007: table 4 and fig. 10). However, the reconstruction offered by Evans is not based on a systematic evaluation of the data, not even in the case of the “Abu” temple sequence, which is the main focus of her work. Instead, we find there an array of assumptions that are not useful for providing a consistent archaeological framework for sequences that have been documented independently from our chronological labels (needless to say, these labels are only working tools, and too often they become barriers to a deeper understanding; cf. the Introduction above). 9. Phase I:1 is delineated with broken lines on the composite plan of Square I:1–2 (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: pl. 2 [which does not show the numbering for the rooms in the southwest sector]; for a phase plan, cf. Tunca 1984: fig. 25). For this phase, cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 172, 176–77, fig. 130 north wall of D17:8, at the height of the small pick, fig. 131 bottom, fig. 132 “a.” Although the west wall of E16:40 seems to have been present also during the first phase and the external corner formed by the north and west walls of D17:8 does not appear entirely certain from the description given by the excavators, it is explicitly stated that the northern wall of D17:9 had its foundations only a few centimeters below the floor of I:2 (1942: p. 191), and was not, therefore, present in phase I:1. 10. The elevation assigned to the deposit is found in Frankfort 1939a: 56–59. For a photograph of the first statues emerging from the earth, cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: fig. 151 with fig. 148 (where the line of the floor at elevation 32.30 is clearly visible along the altar); for the two larger statues in the background, cf. fig. 150 (one of which is 1/Cat. 13, Pl. 38). The deposit lay in a pit roughly 1.25 m deep; cf. 1942: 189–90, fig. 130 “c” (showing the elevation at which the statues appeared, below floor “b”), fig. 148. In the latter figure, the two clay balls visible on the altar were part of a 30-cmthick layer that, in the excavators’ interpretation, sealed the deposit. For photographs of the intact floor of phase I:2, cf. 1942: figs. 141, 146.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

19

tainty to late Early Dynastic I; cf. above) or, more likely, Square Temple I:1.11 Having thus identified a group of monumental statues that can, in all likelihood, be dated to late Early Dynastic I, it is worth examining their stylistic features: the statues have a beard with wide, horizontal grooves; a cup held in the hands;12 smooth clothing with wide, plain fringes; a thin waist, short torso, and broad shoulders; sharply intersecting planes; and generally massive feet unsupported at the rear. All these features also appear in other specimens from the Diyala region (on which, cf. below). Square Temple I yielded eight more statues and two plaques (194 and probably 323), but only in one case (66) at a depth attributable to phase I:2 (that is, at 32.30), the others all coming from phase I:1 (31.85). Among the latter, three statues from annex D17:6 (12, 33, and 61) stylistically belong to a slightly later phase than the material from the deposit.13 Two heads from cellae E17:20 and D17:8 (13 and 66—respectively, phases I:1 and I:2) are not as easy to date on the basis of style alone; the first came from a large statue, almost twice the size of the statue of the so-called “god Abu” (1; Cat. 13). Two statuettes from cella D17:9 (15 and 96), instead, show different and, at least in the case of the former, earlier characteristics.14 Other stratigraphic data allow more precise chronological considerations. In room D17:8, on the west corner of the altar and immediately below the floor of phase II (in effect, virtually mingled with it), various objects were found, including beads, inlays, five stamp seals, and four cylinder seals (the latter can be dated to late Early Dynastic I).15 These finds appear to belong to phase I:2. Inside the altar in D17:8, but 11. As has already been argued by Hrouda (1971: 112 n. 3) and, less forcefully, by Porada et al. (1992: 105; on the problems entailed by the latter work, which considers Early Dynastic I and II together, cf. Introduction above). BraunHolzinger (1977: 29, 34 n. 228), while presenting the data correctly, follows Strommenger (1960: 10–11) in considering the deposit to be contemporary with Square Temple I(:2) and keeps its date within the so-called Mesilim period, although recognizing that it is stylistically earlier (assigning it to her “Stilstufe Ia”) than the classical production of Early Dynastic II (“Stilstufe Ib”). Frankfort (1943: 5) had, however, already stated that “the abstract style might be thought to have developed during Early Dynastic I” (basing his considerations on pieces such as 92 and 97), thus softening somewhat the evaluation he had given four years earlier. Cf. now also Evans 2007 for a history of scholarship on the subject. 12. The excavators (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 166), like various other scholars later on (cf., for example, Hrouda 1971: 112 n. 3), proposed identifying these vessels with the solid-footed goblets of Early Dynastic I. 13. The excavators’ not entirely consistent use of absolute elevations is demonstrated by these three statues, associated with a deposit found on the western limit of D17:6. This deposit included stone vases and an amulet in the shape of a lion-headed eagle (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 180, fig. 140). Since it cut into the wall, the deposit seems to be later than phase I. It is not possible to ascertain precisely the level from which it was excavated but, since it was also partially located in the doorway between D17:6 and D17:8, we may assume that it relates to phase II. 14. These last two specimens from elevation 31.85 apparently come from a stratigraphic situation similar to that of the deposit, since they were also located outside the phase I:1 building, which, moreover, lacked a floor. From D17:9 also come the feet of a statuette (14) that was found in Single Shrine I:2 (cf. below). 15. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 181–82, fig. 142. For the four cylinder seals from this context, cf. Frankfort 1955: nos. 460–63 (note that nos. 464–65 do not come from the same context, as is sometimes mistakenly asserted; cf., for instance, Karg 1984: 79). A dating to Early Dynastic II might, in fact, be proposed only for Frankfort 1955: no. 463, although this is a transitional case like that of the sealings from Nippur Inªanak IXA (Hansen 1971: pls. 20:a, 21:e–f; cf. also below, p. 34 n. 67), which Martin (1988: 75–76 nn. 32, 36) suggests dating to Early Dynastic II (cf. Table 12). For the inlays from D17:8, cf. Frankfort 1935b: fig. 25; Hansen 1975b: 190, pl. 92:a; Dolce 1978b: 18–19, pl. VI:Es1–5 (Dolce’s publication also includes a head facing left). Note that, for the “many” inlay fragments that were reported to have been found in D17:8 (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 181), only the excavation numbers As.33:255–256c are given in the catalogue of objects found in the “Abu” temple (1942: 209). The style of these inlays is close to that of the pieces from Palace A at Kis (cf. §1.1.9), which date from Early Dynastic IIIa. The inlays from D17:8 seem to indicate that phase I:2 continued up to the beginning of Early Dynastic II (leaving aside, therefore, also the date given in Frankfort 1955: no. 463).

20

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

almost certainly to be associated with phase II on the basis of descriptions given in the excavation reports, were fragments of a stone vase, a stone figurine, a bird-shaped vase, and five cylinder seals, three of which are from Early Dynastic II.16 On the basis of these observations, I suggest that phases I:1 and I:2 date from the end of Early Dynastic I or the transition to Early Dynastic II at the very latest, whereas phase II is already fully within Early Dynastic II. Given its poor state of preservation, it is not possible to determine the plan of Square Temple 17 III, from which we have four fragmentary statues from Early Dynastic III (63, 93, 94, 95), the last of them sculpted in a schematic style. In the light of Gibson’s chronological rereading, the Single Shrine sequence18 becomes problematical. The excavators recorded that the first floor associated with the doors (called Single Shrine I) was at the depth of 34.40/50, roughly 90 cm above the base of the foundations (33.50), but that there were another two floors below this. These additional floors must correspond to earlier, unidentified building levels, here called phases I:1 and I:2 (with I:3 corresponding to phase I of the excavation report).19 Two important groups of sculptures come from D17:1 and E17:11, respectively. The first group (178, 186, 199, and 257) was found scattered on the floor of the cella of Single Shrine I(:3), with two pieces also in the adjacent room D17:2 (177 and 180). This assemblage all dates from Early Dynastic III (probably to IIIb on a stratigraphic basis; cf. below, although plaque 186 must be attributed to Early Dynastic IIIa).20 The second deposit (29, 67–68, 99, 169, 171–172, 175, and possibly also 256, as well as 14) lay above an external paving E17:11 corresponding to phase I:2 of Single Shrine (at elevation 33.75). This is one of the few cases in which the excavators admit that the find could have been from an earlier sanctuary that was ritually buried when the new structure was built. This conclusion is based on their finding, in Square Temple I:2, the feet belonging to a statue found in the later deposit (14), which is, in fact, the only example from Early Dynastic II in the group. Other statues (29, 67–68, and 99) according to Braun-Holzinger belong to her “Stilstufe III,” 21 that is, Early Dynastic IIIb. In any case, if Square Temple III dates from Early Dynastic IIIa and Single Shrine I:3 from Early Dynastic IIIb, then the disposal of Single Shrine I:2 group must date well into Early Dynastic III.22 16. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 183, fig. 143. For the seals, cf. Frankfort 1955: nos. 454–58. 17. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 177, 192. For the context of the statuettes 94 and 95, cf. p. 183. 18. Gibson (1982: 535 n. 44 and table), on the basis of a correlation with the main level of the adjacent Northern Palace, assigns Single Shrine II–IV phases to the late Akkadian period, thus having to propose, though tentatively, a dating to late Early Dynastic IIIb and early Akkadian for level I (= I:3 here; cf. below). In light of the problems raised by Gibson himself (1982: 535–36 n. 44), there is no evidence, let alone stratigraphic evidence, to justify dating Single Shrine I(:3) as late as the early Akkadian period. 19. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 192, 199, pl. 24:A. For Delougaz and Lloyd’s Single Shrine I, cf. 1942: 193–97, figs. 154–59, pl. 23:A. The I:2 floor in E17:11 lay below the level where the worker on the left is standing in the photograph in Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: fig. 154. The height of the foundations appears to be very unusual, but it can be explained if these structures relate to earlier successive building phases. 20. Boese (1971: 170–71, AS3, pl. III:3) dates it to Early Dynastic II. Cf. also Boese 1971: 174, CS1, pl. VII:1, from Tutub ‡amus VIII or IX (Frankfort 1939a: no. 188). 21. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 56. 22. That this is not a deposit in a pit excavated from above is shown both by the fact that the statues were encrusted with the same plaster as the flooring (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 199) and that they were scattered over the floor. This last consideration, however, also prevents us from accepting that the group is a mere deposit of materials from Square Temple III. This phase is found at elevation 33.00 and—although in the published architectonic section (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: pl. 24: A), the foundations of the Single Shrine partially cut through the foundation of Square Temple III—

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

21

The inscribed shoulder of a statue and a plaque in an expressive style come, respectively, from phases II and III of the Single Shrine, which can be dated to the Akkadian period.23 The temple of ‡amus (= “Sin”) at Tutub. The sequence of the so-called temple of “Sin” (Pl. 4), which was actually dedicated to the god ‡amus,24 has yielded significant statuary only from level VIII upward, with one important exception: level IV yielded a standing female figure with hands clasped over the belly (208; Pl. 3:1).25 The excavators assigned level IV to their Protoliterate d phase, which they correlate with the late Jemdet Nasr period. Wilson, instead, dates it to Early Dynastic I on the basis of the pottery assemblage, which is, however, rather limited.26 With regard to the glyptics, though 67 of the 144 cylinder seals from cella Q42:24 are in what is known as the Piedmont style, which fits well with the chronological evidence from other sites, an additional 26 are in the Jemdet Nasr style, testifying to the use of this style in Early Dynastic I (cf. p. 25 n. 40).27 The statuette of ‡amus IV:1 comes from an initial Early Dynastic I context (although it could be slightly earlier) and is the earliest attestation from a temple of a characteristic Early Dynastic statue type.28 A statuette from the cella of ‡amus VII (92; Pl. 3:2) is, instead, quite atypical. It shows a squatting male figure bearing a burden that is balanced on his back with a band that passes around his head.29 The piece is remarkable, considering that it certainly dates to Early Dynastic I, but the subject is too unusual to allow one to draw from it any general conclusions about it is hard to believe that the Single Shrine I:1 and I:2 floors were refurbishings of Square Temple III (the area of E17:11, however, lay outside the Single Shrine, above the Square Temple, corresponding to D17:5 and E17:20 of phases I:2–II; cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: pls. 22, 24:B for spatial relations between the two buildings, and cf. Frankfort 1934: fig. 20, for the location of room E17:11, which, moreover, was not included in the plan of the Northern Palace in Delougaz et al. 1967: pls. 36–37, and was, therefore, presumably interpreted as an annex of the Temple of “Abu”). 23. Frankfort 1943: no. 258, pl. 28, from D17:1 (35.50–36.00), and Frankfort 1939a: no. 200, pl. 112, from D17:1 (36,30). For the inscription on the first piece, cf. Jacobsen 1942: 298 no. 13, fig. 205:13; Steible 1982b: 202 AnEsn. 1. 24. The identification of the deity worshiped in the sanctuary is based on the inscription on statue 37 of Ur-KISAL, priest of the god Suyin/Sîn of Aksâk (cf. p. 226). 25. The smaller figure on the obverse of the contemporary larger Blau Plaque (Gelb et al. 1991: pl. 12) is probably male, notwithstanding its similarity to the Tutub statuette (cf. below, p. 194 n. 41). 26. Wilson 1986: 65–66. Compare, in fact, 1986: fig. 11:4, 8, from Nippur Inªanak X, with Delougaz 1952: pls. 23:l, 24, from ‡amus IV. For the context and typology of the objects from the cella of the first of the four ‡amus IV phases, cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 26–30, figs. 24–26; cf. also 1942: 21–23, pl. 4:A, on the architecture of ‡amus IV:1. 27. For Piedmont seals from ‡amus IV, cf. Frankfort 1955: nos. 76–142; for seals in the Jemdet Nasr style, cf. 1955: nos. 66–75, 193–208 (as well as no. 213 from Q42:19). Protoliterate d is a local phase in the Diyala region that also includes Tell Gubba level VII (from which we have motifs of the Piedmont type; cf. Marchetti 1996a: fig. 1:6a–b) and corresponds with the beginning of Early Dynastic I in central Mesopotamia (as also Moon Killick 1986: 113–14 thinks). The only Piedmont seal of apparently certain stratification in the Jemdet Nasr period is from Kis (Marchetti 1996a: fig. 2:13a). No other Mesopotamian example is earlier than Early Dynastic I, although glazed steatite seals with varying motifs are already attested before this phase. As regards ‡amus III, Wilson (1986: 65) dates it to the transition between Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic I and notes that two seals from this level are stylistically already typical of Early Dynastic I (Frankfort 1955: nos. 35–36). 28. Delougaz and Lloyd (1942: 26) report an inlaid eye from the same context (Kh.VII.65), which suggests that large statues were also present in ‡amus IV. 29. Delougaz and Lloyd (1942: 52) attribute the sculpture to level VII, although on p. 143 sub Kh.V.209, the same statuette is attributed to levels VI–VII (as also in Frankfort 1943: 23 sub no. 92). Various scholars believe that this example belongs to the protohistoric tradition (so Braun-Holzinger 1977: 10 n. 1, who follows Strommenger 1960: 15), though Frankfort (1943: 5), on the basis of stratigraphy, argues that a later date is more likely.

22

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

the style of the period. A lion-headed eagle in shale or slate with an inscription dealing with a transfer of land may also belong to level VII (Pl. 22:7).30 ‡amus VIII, a far more monumental phase than the preceding ones, yielded numerous statues that were concentrated in three areas. Though various fragments found in ante-cella Q42:2 (at 38.75) are not mentioned in the excavation report (87, 120, and 170), there are six Early Dynastic II heads (60, 133, 139, 140, 145, and 148) from annex Q42:7 (at 38.60), only one of which is male (60), that were found scattered over the floor together with stamp seals and amulets. Similarly, numerous statues from the same period (86, 88, 114–115, 124, 127, 130, 140, 151a, 151b, and 250) and two sculpted plaques (190 and 191) from adjacent annex R42:2 (at 38.77) were associated with stone vases, amulets, and a cylinder seal of Early Dynastic II–IIIa.31 Level IX (Pl. 4:2) yielded the greatest quantity of sculpture in the temple of ‡amus, including some of the earliest inscribed statues from the Diyala area. In this case, the excavation report provides precise indications regarding the attribution of the objects to various phases although, here again, the specified elevations, though consistent insofar as the different depths of the various groups is concerned, do not coincide with those shown in the architectonic section. The highest concentration of material is found around elevation 39.00. It includes the finds from rooms R42:2 (39.00), Q42:7 (39.03), and from courtyard Q42:3 (38.94). The excavators attributed the first two contexts to the first phase (‡amus IX:1), while a large group from Q42:3 (39.67) was assigned to the last (‡amus IX:5).32 Although we have no additional information regarding the group found in Q42:3 at elevation 38.94 (110, 132, 141, 149, and 251),33 the statues from Q42:7, assigned to phase IX:1, which 30. Cf. Jacobsen 1942: 290 no. 1, fig. 204; Gelb et al. 1991: 38–39 no. 9, pls. 7–10. The object, which is attributed to ‡amus VIII and, therefore, to Q42:2 (instead of the corresponding Q42:10 of level VII), actually bears an excavation number (Kh.V.68) from a campaign later than the other objects from this context (cf. below, especially the objects from Q42:2) and could, therefore, relate to a context from ‡amus VII (the few objects from ‡amus VII in fact bear excavation numbers close to that of the lion-headed eagle). Regarding the paleography of the inscriptions on stone during this period, cf. p. 91 n. 318. 31. Cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 57–58 and p. 143 for a complete list of the materials from Q42:2. For the seal from R42:2, cf. Frankfort 1955: no. 245 (regarding the style of this seal, cf. the seals from Early Dynastic IIIa contexts on Pls. 19:3–5, 21:3; cf. also below, p. 70 n. 208, p. 85 n. 297, and p. 197 n. 52). The elevations assigned to the materials seem to indicate that they belong to phase VIII:3, on the basis of the architectonic section of the temple of ‡amus (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: pl. 14:A), although they are mentioned in the text together with phase VIII:1. Notwithstanding the accurate excavation methods (which, however, were founded on an architectural rather than a stratigraphic basis), the objects cannot usually be assigned to individual subphases (cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 61, 143–45, for ‡amus VIII), which are often represented only by limited refurbishings of installations or floors, especially since the upper levels of the temple of ‡amus were greatly damaged by illegal digging during the second half of the 1920s. The sequence of excavation numbers provides some indication of their belonging to different phases: the pieces from R42:2 have lower numbers than those from Q42:7 (1942: 144–45), which would fit with the lower elevation assigned to the statues from the latter room (which is, however, still too high for the ‡amus VIII:1 phase). 32. Although in this latter case the elevations coincide with those in Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: pl. 14:A, for the other contexts, the elevations indicated seem to relate, instead, to ‡amus IX:3 in the architectonic section. An inscribed statue from Q42:7, which does not have an elevation, is assigned to the third paving of level IX (Frankfort 1939a: 66– 67, no. 102:b, pl. 71:a; cf. Jacobsen 1942: 295–96 no. 7, fig. 205:7; Steible 1982b: 212 AnHaf. 11; Krebernik 1984a: 297; 1984c: 645 ad AnHaf. 11), although three statues from elevation 39.21 have lower excavation numbers (Frankfort 1939a: nos. 51, 135, 146) than that of the piece in question, which is, instead, close to those of the pieces from elevation 39.03. On ‡amus IX, cf. also Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: pl. 11. Two Early Dynastic IIIa pieces from Q42:4 and Q43:11 come from elevation 39.67 (Pl. 60:5; Frankfort 1939a: nos. 138, 192). 33. These are female statuettes in a style close to that of Early Dynastic II, except for a male head of Early Dynastic IIIa date (251), hypothetically attributed here to the same group on the basis of its excavation number, which belongs to

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

23

form the largest group in the entire temple, were found lying on the floor of the room—as can be seen from the excavation photographs—associated with stamp seals and amulets.34 Stylistically, the statues of the Q42:7 group do not share similar characteristics with those from R42:2, which are assigned to the same architectonic phase. Although the pieces in the former belong, in fact, to the Early Dynastic II tradition, there are numerous minor variations in detail and execution that in terms of typology could be considered characteristic of Early Dynastic IIIa and probably of the beginning of this later period. From R42:2 come a plaque (185; Pl. 59:5) and four statues: the body of the famous statue of the priest Ur-KISAL (37), the statue of a probable ruler (17/Cat. 14), a female head with turban (137), and the head of an earlier female statue (104). Apart from stylistic differences when compared to the pieces from Q42:7, what is striking is that the head of Ur-KISAL comes from a phase IX:5 context and the hairstyle of Cat. 14 is only attested from Early Dynastic IIIb onward (cf. §5.2), as is the female turban (cf. p. 69 n. 202).35 I must therefore conclude that this group was stowed away in a pit dug in the floor of phase IX:5 and that the date for the group must be shifted to the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb. This conclusion also solves the problem of dating the group found in courtyard Q42:3 at elevation 39.67, on a floor that shows traces of burning, as do the statues and the associated stone vases. On the basis of photographs taken with the objects in situ, it appears that this material was stored in a pit below the level of the floor of ‡amus X and hence dates from the previous phase (a stratigraphic situation similar, for example, to that of favissa A in the earlier temple of Inªanak VIIB at Nippur, on which cf. §1.1.2).36 Though four statues show general characteristics that are similar to those of the archaic group from Q42:3 (18, 20, 26 and 119), one male and one female statue must date to a later phase (39 and 113), as may also the three statue bases (173–174 and 176).

the same series as the other specimens. This series differs from the other series with lower excavation numbers from the deposit at elevation 39.67 in the same area. 34. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 66, 69, fig. 62. The description makes one think that the group of statues was deposited intentionally (21–25, 27, 34–36, 76, 104–9, 111–12, 116–18, 123, 125–26, 128, 136, and 150; 157 is a ram and 189b a plaque; cf. also Boese 1971: 176 sub CS6, pl. VIII:3) before the floor was refurbished. The body 107, kept in the Iraq Museum (IM 19653), has been joined to a head (cf., for example, Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: fig. 61), which, although it is said to be 124, is different from 124 and could thus be one of the unpublished heads Kh.IV.157, 291, or 348 (Frankfort 1943: 40–41). As for 104, cf. the following note. 35. The head of Ur-KISAL comes from the deposit in Q42:3 (39.67) of the ‡amus IX:5 phase. Among other points, the inscription on the statue does not show characteristics of the Fara period (G. Marchesi, p.c.). On the basis of the description provided, the other unpublished sculpted pieces from R42:2 (an inscribed arm, a headless bearded statue with tufted skirt, another similar skirt, and a plaque showing a bearded figure seated before a jar; cf. Frankfort 1943: 40–41, Kh.IV.192, 200, 272, 274) may date to a late phase of Early Dynastic III. For a description of the context of R42:2, cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 69–71. A cylinder seal from the room, the elevation of which is not known, can be assigned, in general terms, to Early Dynastic III (Frankfort 1955: no. 246). Boese (1971: 176, pl. IX) completes 185 with an inscribed fragment from the antiquities market. For the dating of the female turban, cf. below, p. 69 n. 202 and p. 94 n. 332. The body of the female statue head 104 was found in room Q42:7 (39.03) and, therefore, its head from the deposit in R42:2 may be considered a residual piece. 36. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 65–66, fig. 61. With regard to the location of the deposit, the text says that it lay 2 m south of the square structure in the center of the courtyard (from the excavation photos, one would say, more precisely, at a point to the southwest: Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: fig. 60 “a”). An unsculpted slate plaque was also present there (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 65, fig. 61 bottom right), the closest comparisons for which are from Early Dynastic IIIa (cf. below, p. 36 n. 76 and p. 85 n. 298). Among the unpublished fragments (cf. Frankfort 1943: 39–40, from Kh.IV.97 to Kh.IV.134, circa), there also are flounced and fleecy skirts, as can be seen in situ in one of the excavation photographs (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: fig. 61 foreground bottom; cf. also Frankfort 1943: 39, Kh.IV.101).

24

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Only one statue fragment, and not a very significant one, has been assigned to ‡amus X, this level having been extensively pillaged by clandestine diggers. I believe, however, that three pieces, for which the elevation is not given, also come from ‡amus X. On the basis of style, the first two can be dated to the late Early Dynastic IIIb (48+253, 252, 254).37 The temple of “Sara” at Tell Agrab (PA.FAR). In the large temple complex of “Sara” at Tell Agrab,38 four main building phases and numerous internal subphases have been identified. Although Lloyd conducted the excavations with great care, he still focused mainly on architectural structures and, consequently, there are various problems in attributing the material to individual levels. Notably, my analysis of the excavation data reveals certain problems relating both to the sequence of the Earlier Building (30.00–31.50 m, with two floors, one at 30.00 and another just below at 31.00), of the Intermediate Foundations (with at least one floor at 31.80/32.00), of the Main Level (32.00–33.75, with various sub-phases), and of the greatly eroded Later Occupation (reaching up to the surface—that is, roughly 35.00 in the western sector) and, consequently, to the attribution of material to various levels on the basis of elevations.39 Nonetheless, the information that can be drawn from the final report of the excavations is sufficient to allow me to propose new interpretations concerning the stratigraphic context of many pieces discussed here. In annex M14:12 of the Earlier Building, a deposit was found with three nude, seated copper statuettes and a model chariot with charioteer wearing a skirt with tufts on the lower part (307– 310; Pls. 3: 4, 60: 2). This element is of iconographic importance, given the fact that the context dates from Early Dynastic I. Another standing statuette in metal, with hands clasped on the 37. On the temple from this phase, cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 71–78, pl. 12. The excavators attribute the rear part of an unpublished female head from R42:3 (Frankfort 1943: 40, Kh.IV.170) and a cylinder seal from R41:1 (Frankfort 1955: no. 248, showing a schematic banquet scene that can be dated to Early Dynastic III) to level X. The head 48 has been joined to 253 by Braun-Holzinger (1977: 49 n. 329, pl. 18: c, f). For the style of 252 and 48+253, cf. below, p. 94 n. 332. 38. An alleged dedication to the god Sara on a stone vase fragment lay at the basis of the traditional identification of the titular god (cf. p. 227). Considering its imposing size in relation to that of the site (revealed by the defensive circuit of Tell A; cf. Delougaz 1952: pl. 202; Frankfort 1955: pl. 95), the temple of “Sara” appears to have been the main shrine of the city. It is therefore more likely that this temple was dedicated to Ilumaªtim, who was probably the city-god of Tell Agrab, according to the new interpretation of the inscription on 263/Cat. 1 given on p. 166. In this connection, also note that the statue dedicated to Ilumaªtim comes from an annex of the main cella. The aforementioned fragment of a vase dedicated to “Sara” (actually, to Ishara: cf. p. 227), which was found in a pit of the Later Occupation (cf. p. 27 n. 49), may allude to the cult of another deity in a secondary “chapel.” Given the persistent questions, I have retained the traditional designation temple of “Sara” for the complex. With regard to the ancient name of Tell Agrab, which was written PA.FAR, the possibility exists that it was Ha††am (cf. p. 165: Cat. 1, comm. on line 2). 39. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: fig. 176, pls. 26–28. From the published sections (1942: pl. 28, where there is also a problem with the eastern structures, since these are graphically assigned to the Earlier Building, pl. 27: B), it can be seen that the break between the Earlier Building and the Intermediate Foundations lay at elevation 31.50 rather than 32.00, as indicated in the text and catalogue of the pieces (1942: 266–83), where these latter structures are dealt with together with the Main Level. From the Earliest Remains, below 30.00, there is only scarce material dating to Early Dynastic I, including Scarlet ware and a seal attributed to the Brocade style (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 260, pl. 28; Frankfort 1955: no. 784). In general, cf. also Tunca 1984: 3–13, fig. 3 (section, with meter scale). From the chronological viewpoint, the excavators themselves, after some initial uncertainty (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 260 and table at the end of the volume), assigned the Earlier phases to Early Dynastic I, Main to II, and the Later Occupation to initial III (Delougaz 1952: table III), although they continued to maintain that the Earlier Building could have lasted until the beginning of Early Dynastic II, possibly because of the stone and copper statues (cf. below). In the meager pottery repertoire of the Earlier phase we find forms that are characteristic of Early Dynastic I (cf. Delougaz 1952: 57, C.515.373, C.526.373a-b, pls. 47:h, 56:b).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

25

chest (306)—which formed part of a support and therefore served a different function from the preceding examples—was found in L13:4 together with an archaic statuette of a crouching lion (298). A schematic kneeling statuette in the pre- and protohistoric tradition comes from room M14:8 (289), while M13:10 yielded the head of a canine or equid (299). The seals from the sanctuary are particularly interesting and contribute significantly to defining this much-debated horizon in the Diyala region. In the Earlier Building, in addition to seals in the Brocade, Piedmont, and “Jemdet Nasr” styles, with herds and temple façades, there are also numerous motifs in the figured style of Early Dynastic I also known to us from central-southern Mesopotamia and characterized by a naturalistic rendering with wide, flat volumes.40 A fragmentary male statue (265; Pl. 3:3) was found in M14:4 at elevation 31.50. It has a smooth skirt, and its hands hold up to its chest a flared cup with a distinct base, a type similar to that of the group from the favissa in the temple of “Abu” at Esnunak (on which, cf. above), dating from (late) Early Dynastic I.41 Because of the elevation at which it was found, it is actually uncertain whether this statue should be attributed to the Earlier Building or the Intermediate Foundations (obliterated by a fill of bricks that at some points, judging from the description, could be interpreted as the remains of collapsed structures). Two archaic pieces from elevation 32.00 in M13:2—that is, in the cella (274 and 275)42—could also possibly be assigned to the Intermediate Foundations stratum. The issue of the various floors identified by the excavators is, however, crucial to identifying the various phases and must now be dealt with. The excavators believed that in the Main Level there were two principal successive floors (“earlier” and “secondary”) that were higher in the central sector (respectively 32.65/32.70 and 32.85/33.00) and lower in the northern and southern sectors (32.30 and 32.50). These were then succeeded by a floor called “intermediate,” again at different depths in the different sectors (33.50 in the center and 33.00 elsewhere). However, the base of the foundations is regular and level throughout the entire building (at roughly elevation 32.00) and it is not obvious why contemporary sectors should have lain at different elevations. I would therefore argue that we are dealing here with numerous different floors that I have grouped together—simplistically perhaps, but in the absence of any other objective criteria—purely on the basis of their elevations.43 40. The “Jemdet Nasr” style probably continues to be produced also in Early Dynastic I (cf. also p. 21 n. 27) and is not, therefore, merely residual (Frankfort 1955: nos. 807, 816, 825, 829, 836; cf. also 1955: nos. 790–94). For the other styles, cf. Frankfort 1955: nos. 808, 817, 819 (seals with globular motifs), 806, 813, 815 (Piedmont), 785, 787, 795, 809– 11, 820–22 (Brocade and similar), 797–802, 824, 831, 837 (figured style of Early Dynastic I). 41. On the stratigraphic attribution of 265 to the Earlier Building, cf. also Braun-Holzinger 1991: 292 n. 787. An unpublished fragment of a limestone statue with tufted skirt may also have been associated with this statue (Pl. 2:4 bottom; Frankfort 1943: 43 sub Ag.35:895; the object, which cannot be located, is known to us only from a sketch in the register of excavation finds kept at the University of Chicago, a copy of which was kindly made available to me by J. Larson; the iconography is not, however, characteristic of this period). Although in the excavation report these two statues are not mentioned explicitly, it does not seem possible to assign them to the sculpted materials from the pit in M14:4, which was dug down from the second floor of the Main Level and extends from elevation 33.00 to 31.60 (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 245): all these materials, in fact, have lower excavation numbers. 42. Cf. also the seals in Frankfort 1955: nos. 838–39, from elevation 32.00 in M14:1 and M14:3, the second of which is in the style of Early Dynastic I. 43. Here (below) I provide an interpretation of the phases grouped together on the basis of the sections, description, and excavation photographs, allowing slight variations in elevation between one sector and another. Phase 1: floor at elevation 32.30, identified in the north sector (L13:1, 4, 6) and in M14:1 and M13:1. Phase 2: elevation 32.50 in the north and south sectors. Phase 3: elevation 32.65/32.70 in the central sector (L14:1, M14: 2–5), presumably too superficial to

26

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

The largest find of sculptures in the northern sector comes from elevation 32.50 (phase 2) in cella L13:6. These statues are homogenous both in style and chronology (266, 273, 288, 301) and date from Early Dynastic II. From L13:4, we have a schematic lion (300) and fragments of two plaques, of which other fragments were also found in other rooms (Pl. 59:3; 314 and 318). Five seals in differing styles, but all from Early Dynastic II, were found in the two rooms from this phase. Phase 2 is also quite well represented in the southern sector, where phases 3 and 4 are also attested.44 Regarding the central-western sector, in the phase 3 paving of L14:1 there was a small pit covered by the partition wall beyond which was M14:4 (an identical stratigraphic situation to that of phases 3 and 4 in cella M14:2). Some statues were found in this pit, perhaps including a seated female statue from elevation 32.50 (271) and a male head and a foot in bronze (283 and 311) from 32.60, the head at least dating from Early Dynastic IIIa.45 A head and a female figure with a fringed, tufted garment (282 and 276) from phase 4 (elevation 33.00) also date from this period. On the floor of phase 3 in L14:1 were eight seals, one of which can be dated to Early Dynastic IIIa.46 In the center of M14:4, at the same depth as the phase 4 floor (33.00), was a 1.40-m-deep pit containing a number of objects, including numerous statues (Pl. 61:1; 264, 267– 70, 272, 277, 279, 286, 292, 302, 304, 318, while 261 and 263/Cat. 1 may be from phase 1).47 have been recognized in the north sector where, however, a stretch of phase 4 was preserved. Phase 4: 33.00 in the (poorly documented) north and central sector (characterized also by repairs carried out using baked bricks; cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 233, 237, 248). Phase 5: 33.50 in the west-central sector (poorly documented). Some statues and seals were also found at the elevations of various phases in rooms where the architectonic sections do not record the relevant likely floors (for example, from elevation 32.50 in the central sector). 44. For the phase 2 seals from the northern sector, cf. Frankfort 1955: nos. 877–81 (from phase Main 1 in L13:3, instead, there is only one seal that is not very significant; cf. 1955: no. 867). Note that a fragment from an archaic plaque (314) was found on the floor of phase 1 in L13:4 and is therefore of an uncertain stratification between phase 1 and 2. The tassel on skirt 266 compares closely with one from Nippur Inªanak pre-VII (7N170; cf. §1.1.2). The southern sector of the temple did not yield particularly significant materials, except for a seal in the classic style of Early Dynastic II, from phase 2 in M14:9 (Frankfort 1955: no. 883). Fragments of a plaque and a statue, again from phase 2, come respectively from M15:2 (322) and N15:1 (Frankfort 1943: no. 281, pl. 41). A fragment of a plaque with banquet scene from M15:6, phase 4, must date to Early Dynastic IIIa (Frankfort 1943: no. 321, pl. 66), as does most probably the head of a bull-man from N15:4, phase 3 (Frankfort 1943: no. 297, pl. 51). 45. For the small pit in L14:1, cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 245; for the copper foot 311, cf. also H. MüllerKarpe in Hauptmann and Pernicka 2004: 3, pl. 4:43. From the fill between the floors of phases 3 and 4 comes a sculpted vase, decorated with the figure of a nude, curly-haired hero having a belt around his waist and grasping two rampant lions, which can be dated to no earlier than Early Dynastic I, possibly even later (cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 242, fig. 189; for the chronology of this kind of production, cf. also below, p. 75 n. 246). For sculpted vases with zoomorphic motifs, the stratification of which is not known, cf. Frankfort 1937a: 793, figs. 7–8. 46. Frankfort 1955: nos. 869–76 (cf. especially no. 875). Again from L14:1, but from elevation 32.50, comes a seal with drilled holes (1955: no. 868). 47. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 245. Only two statues (268 and 270) from the pit come from elevation 32.00 (cf. also n. 43 above), the majority clustering around 32.50. If we bear in mind that two pieces (304 and 318) were joined to fragments found in adjacent rooms at elevation 32.50, it is clear that the material in the pit was, in part, earlier than the period of phase 4 (in fact, some pieces from the pit seem to be later than the others: cf. 270, 286, 292, and 302). A female head (285) cannot come from the pit, considering the elevation to which it is assigned, 33.20, and this is also perhaps true of 261 and 263/Cat. 1 (Pl. 25), since their inventory numbers are higher than the series from the pit (cf. also p. 129 n. 2). Hansen’s argument (in Porada et al. 1992: 105), that the vase on the head of a nude, kneeling statuette (269) is typical of Early Dynastic I, does not seem relevant: the vase in question is, if anything, identical to stone vases of Early Dynastic III (cf., for example, Parrot 1967: 180–81, fig. 225, pl. LXX). It is not certain whether the six seals from different elevations between 32.20 and 32.50 in M14:4 come from the phase 4 pit (Frankfort 1955: nos. 840–45). For another deposit in M14:4, probably of the same or the successive phase, cf. n. 49 below.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

27

In cella M14:2, two refurbishings of the altar and floors of phases 3 and 4 have been documented. At elevation 32.50 (phase 2), there were two smaller fragments (291 and 304, the latter joined to a fragment from the pit in M14:4), while a fragmentary Early Dynastic II plaque (327) embedded in the altar has been correlated with floor 3. The glyptic art from M14:2 mainly dates from phase 3 and shows stylistically conservative traits.48 The last building phase—the so-called Later Occupation—had been greatly damaged by erosion but could be identified fairly well in the area of rooms M14:2, L14:1, M14:4, M14:5, and M13:2. The walls had their foundations at elevation 34.00, while the main floor lay at approximately 34.15.49 It is possible that the Later Occupation phase dates from Early Dynastic IIIb, given the general stratigraphic situation and the female head found on the floor of this phase (287). These elements are sufficient to enable us to outline some interpretations of the complex. The long building sequence of Early Dynastic I includes the Earliest Remains, the Earlier Building, and, perhaps, also the Intermediate Foundations and the Main 1 phase (which yielded little material). The Main 2 phase, instead, dates entirely to Early Dynastic II, while phase 3 probably stretches until the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIa, the period to which phases 4 and 5 date, whereas the Later Occupation relates to Early Dynastic IIIb. The numerous seals from the Main Level attest to stylistic trends in the artistic craftwork of the Diyala region during Early Dynastic II and the beginning of the following period. The glyptics, in fact, appear to develop along local 48. Cf. Frankfort 1955: nos. 846 (elevation 32.30, phase 1), 847–49 (elevation 32.60, phase 2 or 3), 862 (elevation 32.70, phase 3), 860–61. The last two seals, which were in a stone vase near the altar of floor 4, are quite similar to the archaic seals (1955: nos. 850–59) coming, together with numerous mace-heads and plaque 327 (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 238, figs. 184–85), from a deposit that had been walled up in the altar of the cella and later covered by the floor of phase 4 (as a result, it was attributed to phase 3). A fragment of an unpublished tufted skirt comes from the same context (Frankfort 1943: 44 sub Ag.36:234). From phase 1, in the adjoining M14:5, we have four seals of Early Dynastic I (Frankfort 1955: nos. 863–66). From the phase 4 floor in nearby M14:5 (cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 247; the elevation given is, however, 32.75) there is a female head probably already dating to Early Dynastic IIIa (278; cf. J. M. Evans in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 66–67, no. 28, from Nippur Inªanak VIIB). A male head from Early Dynastic IIIa (280) comes from elevation 32.50, which—on the basis of the reconstruction presented here—is too deep, unless we accept that there might have been a pit. From 32.50, in courtyard M13:1, there is a seal dating to Early Dynastic II (Frankfort 1955: no. 882). 49. For this phase, the sections (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: pl. 28) show a floor in M14:2 and L14:1 and another structure of uncertain date above this. Some pits that cut through the wall were noted by the excavators (as in M13:2 and M14:2; cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 229, 238; for the foundations in L14:1, cf. 1942: 241, fig. 188). From the pit in M13:2, we have a stone vase fragment bearing the dedication to “Sara” referred to on p. 24 n. 38. The paleography and characteristics of this inscription do not contradict (if anything, support) a dating to Early Dynastic IIIb (G. Marchesi, p.c.). Room M14:4 presents a rather complex situation: near the southeast corner, above the floor of phase 5, a stone vase and copper fragments of a figured support were found (312; Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 243–45, fig. 191), while in the same position, slightly above phase 4 (1942: 245, fig. 193), there were numerous mace-heads and a sculpted vase (Ag.35:200; cf. now P. Collins and K. Wilson in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 48–50, no. 16: b; for the actual date of this class of vessels, cf. also n. 45 above and p. 75 n. 246). Although these are generally considered to be separate deposits, one cannot entirely exclude the possibility that it is one and the same group of materials. In front of the altar, on the main floor of M14:2, a female head with turban was found (287; cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 238–39, figs. 176, 181, 186). The piece probably already dates from Early Dynastic IIIb, whereas Braun-Holzinger (1977: 45, 50, pl. 21:a–c) assigns it to her “Stilstufe IIb,” that is, to developed Early Dynastic IIIa, also on the basis of a comparable example from ‡amus IX (137) (cf., however, p. 23 n. 35, p. 69 n. 202, and p. 94 n. 332. From the surface of M14:5 we have a head that is probably from Early Dynastic IIIb (Frankfort 1943: no. 284, pl. 41; cf. also Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 43 sub Ag.35:98, an unpublished fragment of tufted skirt from the surface of M14:4). A fragment of an inscribed statue comes from the surface of the temple area (Frankfort 1943: no. 290, pl. 45; Jacobsen 1942: 297 no. 11, fig. 205:11; Steible 1982b: 200–201 AnAgr. 4).

28

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

lines that continue, albeit with alterations, the trends of Early Dynastic I.50 Presumably, most of the phase 3 glyptics date to the beginning of this level, which spans the transition between Early Dynastic II and IIIa, although one seal from L14:1 already dates from the latter period. No seals have been found in phases 4, 5, and in the Later Occupation. The statuary, instead, follows developments that presumably parallel those of central-southern Mesopotamia, with respect to which the Diyala sites provide an earlier and more consistent documentation. The Small Shrine at Tutub (Table 2). Careful study of the provided structural descriptions, photographs, and published material lead me to disagree with Delougaz on various points regarding the sequence of the so-called temple of “Nintur.” Given the unreliable basis on which the titular deity of the eastern sanctuary is identified, it is better to use the designation Small Shrine, as in the first published catalogue of statuary from Esnunak and Tutub.51 One serious difficulty is that the only published plan of this sequence is of level VI. For the other phases, we only have a few photographs of the excavations, since the original documentation once kept in Philadelphia has been lost.52 Level VII was identified in 1932/1933, when a sounding carried out south of the thick southern wall of the Walled Quarter (corresponding to level 1 of the Houses) brought to light a room in which numerous fragments of statues were found (Pl. 3:9).53 In 1937, it was discovered that this wall cut right through the altar area. No relevant difference was noted between levels VII and VI, apart from a slightly greater thickness in the structures and minor differences in elevation between the two floors of cella Q45:4 and courtyard Q45:12/7.54 Similar differences were also found in the cellae P45:51 and P45:52 of the western sanctuary, said to be contemporary 50. In Early Dynastic II, therefore, we have the continuation of the Piedmont seals, seals in the animal “Jemdet Nasr” style and the related abstract Brocade derivation as well as the naturalistic style that has precise parallels in the south during Early Dynastic I but which, in the Diyala region, continues in less-structured shapes also during the following period (in this sense, the remarks by Amiet [1980: 50–51] regarding the “residual” nature of the pieces are reversed). 51. The name of the goddess Nintur (dnin-tu) at the beginning of the inscription on a plaque (201) is, in fact, merely part of the name of the offerer (cf. pp. 225–226). 52. The Small Shrine was excavated in the course of three seasons by two separate research groups at an interval of five years. The second group, which was financed by the University Museum of Philadelphia in 1937 and in the winter of 1937–38 shared only one, albeit notable, member (Delougaz) with the Oriental Institute of Chicago expedition, and the architect was Charles Bache and no longer Hamilton Darby, to whom we owe the plans and architectonic sections of the excavations conducted by Frankfort. For the plan of level VI, cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: pl. 16. The same plan is reproduced below later, residential buildings (1942: pl. 15; Delougaz et al. 1967: pl. 14). A schematic plan, apparently relating to the sanctuary of level VII on the basis of the description but as a matter of fact identical to that of level VI, appears in Delougaz 1940: 66, fig. 63. On the loss of the documentation, cf. Delougaz et al. 1967: 21 n. 22. 53. This room (Q45:4) was at first interpreted as a sculptor’s workshop (Frankfort 1934: 73, fig. 64; however, from 1934: fig. 60, one can see that part of cella P45.51 was also excavated and, since it had been hatched in the plan in the same way as Q45:4, it is clear that it was correlated to the latter). Later, it was understood that it must have been a temple, which resulted in the decision to renew in 1937 exploration of the area (the permit being transferred to Philadelphia during the excavations). 54. Tunca (1984: 33) quite correctly points out some problems and inconsistencies, although he then concludes that level VII does not exist (apart from a few traces of walling). It is, instead, clear that we are dealing here with two distinct phases (although the differences are minimal), since the floor of the 1932/33 campaign is certain, given the disposition of the objects in situ (Frankfort 1934: 73, fig. 64) and the presence of a stratum of sherds and bitumen beside the altar (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 82, fig. 73), whereas the floor of level VI lay a “few centimeters” below that of level VII 1942: 84).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

29

with level VI of Q45:4: there, too, in effect, two floor levels were noted, as well as slight alterations to the two altars.55 More than two decades after the excavation report on the Small Shrine appeared, a fact was made known that is useful for correlating this building with neighboring areas, especially with the Temple Oval and the Temple of ‡amus. In the publication of the area of the Houses, an architectonic section appears in which the level VI structures of the western complex are located below the Houses of level 2—that is, in a similar position to the level 3 Houses slightly farther north (Pl. 4: 1 bottom). This latter level is certainly contemporary with the temple of ‡amus IX and Oval I, since all were sealed by a layer of ash above which the temple of ‡amus X, Oval II, and Houses 2 were built.56 I may therefore trace a correlation between the western Small Shrine VI, on the one hand, and the temple of ‡amus IX and Oval I, on the other (Pl. 4: 2). This conclusion cannot, however, be extended to the entire complex of the Small Shrine, since Houses 2 are not attested in the western part (which is only cut through by the perimeter wall of the Walled Quarter—that is, by Houses 1). The excavators noted, moreover, that a limited and eroded residential level (also present in R45 to the east of the Small Shrine) must have been intermediate between levels 3 and 2 of the Houses, explicitly stating that it was contemporary with the last phases of the Small Shrine and the Small Temple and later than the layer of ash.57 The material from the individual loci also shows a clear chronological differentiation (cf. below), which corroborates the following stratigraphic reconstruction: level VI comprises cella P45:52 (covered by Houses 2) and the floors assigned to this phase in the area of cella Q45:4 and courtyard Q45:12/7 (cf. Pl. 4: 2), while level VII comprises the floors above them and cella P45:51 (which, indeed, cut through the temenos of level VI to the south). On the basis of stratigraphy, therefore, Level VI is contemporary with ‡amus IX, Oval I, and Houses 3, whereas Level VII is only partly contemporary with ‡amus X, Oval II, and Houses 2. Both Level VII and Houses 2 ceased in fact to exist when Houses 1 were built, while ‡amus X and Oval II continued. The sequence before level VI is equally difficult to evaluate, especially with regard to level V, the earliest level in which statues have been found in the temple area. The excavated area, as may be seen from photographs of the dig, was large and included the area of cella Q45:4 and 55. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 87–89, figs. 78–83. The pieces found inside the altar of P45:52 were assigned by the excavator to level VII, though no such precise attribution exists for those from the altar of P45:51. The photograph (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: fig. 83) does not necessarily reveal that cellae P45:51 and 52 were contemporary: although the first cella was said to have two floors (1942: p. 87), the lower of these could be the floor of courtyard P45:53 in level VI, since the refurbishing of the altar (1942: figs. 78–81) seems to have been carried out within a single phase. Note, moreover, that 1942: fig. 78 (P45:51) shows a stratigraphic situation that is very similar to 1942: fig. 73 (Q45:4, level VII) (cf. also below). 56. Delougaz et al. 1967: pls. 14, 15 section B–Bu, where the structures of the Small Shrine (hatched in a way similar to that for Houses 3 in section A–Au, ibid.) are those under O45:3 and P44:10 (Pl. 4:1 below). For a section of the Houses, which includes the external limits of the Temple Oval and the temple of ‡amus, where the layer of ash above Houses 3 is clearly marked, cf. 1942: pl. 15 section A–Au; Delougaz 1940: pl. XII (Pl. 4:1 top). In Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 125, a correlation different from the one I present here is indicated. The position of Gibson (1982: 536 and table) is not clear: he correlates Houses 3 (the material from which is, however, assigned to Early Dynastic IIIa) with ‡amus X and Oval II, a conclusion that the considerations above exclude. 57. Delougaz et al. 1967: 16, pl. 14 (where the related caption appears instead to assign the entire Small Shrine VI complex to this intermediate phase).

30

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

courtyard Q45:12. Though we have no published material for levels I–IV that helps to date them,58 level V, instead, yielded numerous objects, mainly located in a hoard. For chronological purposes, an evaluation of the stratigraphy of this votive deposit is crucial. In the excavation report, it is claimed that the deposit was sealed by the floor of level V and that the circular depression clearly visible in the photographs was due to a partial subsiding of the deposit fill caused by the weight of the unusually thick substructures of level VI.59 In reality, if we compare this with other deposits found in Diyala sites, this appears highly unlikely, and a far simpler explanation would be that it was a pit. I can only conclude, therefore, that this deposit, which held the statues from level V (and probably a few earlier ones; cf. below), was buried no earlier than the construction of the level VI temple. This eliminates the difficulty represented by a statue (217) that is stylistically different from the rest of the group and that obliged Frankfort to employ the unfelicitous term “transitional” style,60 since this more recent object could belong to phases later than level V. Further proof that level V had been greatly disturbed is provided by the fact that fragments of the same statue (219) and plaque (313+325) were found both in the cella and, respectively, in levels VI and VII of the sanctuary.61 To realize the implications of this new stratigraphic interpretation for the study of statuary, we must first and foremost consider the deposit from “level V.” Since the style of the statues that can be ascribed to this hoard (209–216) is still close to those of the pieces from the deposit in Square Temple I:1—which, as noted above, can be dated to the later Early Dynastic I—it seems reasonable to date the deposit to Early Dynastic II (with the obvious exception of 217). There is, however, a close parallel for one piece from the deposit (214), which can be assigned to Early Dynastic IIIa on epigraphic grounds (Pl. 43:5–6; cf. p. 146 n. 85). This might even lead us to think that these statues represent an intentionally archaizing trend of mediocre formal quality rather than actually being archaic. It is also possible, however, that the deposit held statues dedi58. Their attribution to Early Dynastic I by Delougaz is based solely on the fact that they pre-date level V, dated to Early Dynastic II, together with some minor structural considerations (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 125). 59. Delougaz 1938b: 1091, fig. 1; Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 92–95, figs. 85–87. In the excavation photographs, we can see that, below the two narrow strips of floor of level VI that were left unexcavated along the walls of this last phase, only the supposed southern foundations are visible, while the foundations on the opposite side (below which there is the circular depression) are not at all clear, apart from being entirely asymmetrical with respect to the standing walls. Furthermore, the plan of level V (the elevation of which, as already said, is not known) is problematic, since the altar of this level is not placed symmetrically with respect to the plan of level VI, although it is stated that the latter follows the lines of the earlier walls. 60. Cf. Frankfort 1943: 5–6. Frankfort recognized the apparently definite stratigraphic position of the statue in question (as a result of which also Delougaz and Lloyd [1942: 95] speak of a “transitional” style). The head of this statue was compared with heads such as Frankfort 1939a: nos. 42 and 49 from Tutub Oval I, at that time dated to Early Dynastic II but which, in reality, is shown by stratigraphy to belong to Early Dynastic IIIa, thus eliminating the need to speak of a “transitional” style. 61. The photograph of the upper stratum of the deposit (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: fig. 86) shows six statues and two mace-heads. An additional three statues are mentioned in the text (1942: 94), again together with their excavation number, as coming from the same context, but with the explicit comment that there were others in addition to these nine specimens. In the catalogue (Frankfort 1943: 25, nos. 209–17), only these nine statues are said to have come from the deposit. I therefore have two possible solutions to this problem: either the excavation report is wrong in stating that there were more than nine statues in the deposit, or this deposit also included pieces with intermediate or close excavation numbers (218 and the previously unpublished statue Kh.VIII.276; Pl. 3:5), possibly even the fragments already mentioned that were completed with pieces found in the upper level (219 and 313+325; in this case, we would have further proof that the materials were deposited from level VI, especially since the dating of 313+325 is problematical; cf. below).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

31

cated in a temple that dated to the same time as the pieces themselves and that they were buried when the successive level was constructed, as I have attempted to show above.62 Level VI dates from Early Dynastic IIIa. Once we accept the stratigraphic reconstruction proposed above, it becomes clear when analyzing the sculptures—which are fewer than those found in level VII—that many are archaic in style (221–224, 227, 228, 234, and probably also 229, 231, and 303), since the published pieces stylistically dating from Early Dynastic III number about the same (220, 230, 235–236, 239, 241, 305, and 328, to which we must add an additional three pieces, previously unpublished).63 In level VII, which held only a few pieces in the archaic style (69, 226, 242–243), numerous statuettes in various styles dating from developed Early Dynastic III were found (70–73, 75, 77– 78, 89, 103, 161–164, 166–167, 225, 237, 238+240, 244–245, and possibly also 121 and the previously unpublished Kh.VIII.206; Pl. 3:7), as well as animal sculptures (293–296) and two plaques (201 and Kh.III.1005; Pl. 54:1).64 It is difficult to date a plaque found in cella Q45:4 of level VII. Another fragment of this, however, was found in the level V cella (313+325). Boese hesitatingly assigns this to Early Dynastic IIIa,65 which means that the fragment from the earlier 62. It is still difficult, however, to interpret the so-called foundations of level VI. In Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: fig. 85, pit “b” of the deposit, roughly 1 m in diameter, appears to be covered by foundations “c” (as it is also stated in the text and shown by the edge of the pit, which almost reaches the southern wall of the cella after “c” has been removed; cf. 1942: 93–94, fig. 87). The alignment of the long walls of the cella in levels V and VI makes it difficult to assume that the thick asymmetrical (and plastered!) structures along the sides of the level V cella, which were assigned to level VI, are foundations, since the structures of this latter level were, as was customary, built on top of the preexisting ones. It is, however, equally difficult to consider them as indicating an intermediate phase between the two levels. Merely as a hypothesis, one may think of the ritual described by Hansen (2001). Additional discrepancies, which emerge from the shape of the altars and the captions to Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: figs. 85 and 87, are not taken up here. In addition to the material from the deposit in Square Temple I:1, cf. also 216 with 97 from Archaic Shrine IVC; on the style, cf. also BraunHolzinger 1977: 36, 48 n. 320. On the burial of the Small Shrine deposit, cf. 1977: 36 n. 247. Braun-Holzinger considers it to be slightly earlier than level VI. In the light of my observations above, it is not entirely impossible that level V lasted until the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIa. 63. Kh.VIII.15 (Pl. 3:8 left), Kh.VIII.71 (Pl. 3:8 right, here assigned to level VI on the basis of its excavation number) and Kh.VIII.183 (Pl. 3:6), respectively, two bald heads and a plaque with a fighting bull-man. It is not possible to determine the style of a calcinated male statue (Kh.VIII.179) found close to 241. In the records of the University Museum, Kh.VIII.183 and 227 (there catalogued as coming respectively from Q45:12 and Q45:4), the published retrieval context is, instead, given as Q45:10, elevation 39.03. For the inscription on 230, cf. Jacobsen 1942: 290 no. 2, fig. 205:2; Steible 1982b: 209 AnHaf. 6. It is possible that 219, 227, and 228, the fragments of which were found in both Q45:4 and Q45:12, originally belonged to level V, from which the head of the first piece comes. There are no glyptic elements that can help determine a precise chronology: among the four seals relating to level VI and the three to level VII (Frankfort 1955: nos. 277–83), four pieces (1955: nos. 278, 280, 282–83) are in a cursive style that can only be ascribed generically to Early Dynastic III. 64. The three pieces found in the altar of P45:51 have also been assigned to level VII, since here I propose (cf. Pl. 52:4) attributing the head with a chignon 238, from the cella of this phase, to a body with the garment covering the left shoulder 240 (cf. also Braun-Holzinger 1977: 58). For a similar stratigraphic situation, cf. the plaque of Lumma from level VIIB in the temple of Inªanak at Nippur (Pl. 60:6; cf. p. 35 n. 70), which was reconstructed from smaller pieces found on the floor and a large fragment embedded in a bench. Plaque 201 has been assigned to level VII in P45:51 because it was found under rooms of the Houses 2–1 that were located above that cella. A well-known plaque showing a god on a throne, stylistically from Early Dynastic IIIb (Frankfort 1943: pl. 64:315), comes from an area outside the sanctuary complex and cannot, therefore, be taken into consideration here. 65. In Boese 1971: 107–9, 177–78, pls. X: 2–4, XI (where fragment 325 is also added to the plaque), a date between Early Dynastic II and III is proposed on the basis of stratigraphy (1971: 109), but then, in the catalogue (1971: 177–78), the later date is preferred.

32

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

level was left there by activities connected with level VI, to which the plaque belonged, and that it continued to be used until level VII, thus confirming my hypothesis, outlined above, that level V was disturbed. A well-known piece (232), found in Q44:15 and assigned to level VI, can, in fact, only be attributed stratigraphically to VI or VII, as in the case of 217 discussed above.66 Therefore, on the grounds of a comparison with the structural sequence of the temple of ‡amus IX (which has five phases spanning Early Dynastic IIIa and initial IIIb; cf. above) and the stylistic considerations made above about the sculptures from the Small Shrine, I believe that level V may be as late as the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIa (like, perhaps, ‡amus VIII?), level VI as initial IIIb (like ‡amus IX:5, which was destroyed together with this), and level VII as developed IIIb (the stratigraphic reconstruction presented here does not allow us to regard levels VI and VII as subphases of a single coeval level of ‡amus IX).

Table 2. Sculptures (listed by context) found in the Small Shrine at Tutub Level

Room, elevation

Bibliography

Exc. No.

UM no. a

V

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 209, pls. 2–3

Kh.VIII.263

ex 37-15-30 b

V

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 210, pl. 4

Kh.VIII.261

37-15-29

V

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 211, pl. 4

Kh.VIII.265

37-15-34

V

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 212, pl. 5

Kh.VIII.264

V

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 213, pl. 6

Kh.VIII.262

V

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 214, pl. 7

Kh.VIII.259

V

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 215, pl. 7

Kh.VIII.258

V

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 216, pl. 8

Kh.VIII.260

V

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 218, pl. 11

Kh.VIII.275

ex 37-15-39c

V (?)

Q45:4

Kh.VIII.276

37-15-36

V

Q45:4+Q45:12 lev.VI

Frankfort 1943: no. 219, pl. 11

Kh.VIII.269 + Kh.VIII.115

VI (?)

Q45:4+Q45:12

Frankfort 1943: no. 227, pl. 16

Kh.VIII.5

VI (?)

Q45:4+Q45:12

Frankfort 1943: no. 228, pl. 16

Kh.VIII.6

VI

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 234, pl. 21

Kh.VIII.13

VI

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 236, pl. 22

Kh.VIII.14

VI

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 239, pl. 23

Kh.VIII.25

VI

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 303, pl. 53

Kh.VIII.240

VI

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 328, pl. 67

Kh.VIII.26

37-15-27

VI

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: 42

Kh.VIII.15

37-15-44

37-15-33

37-15-32 37-15-40 37-15-41

66. The room is not, in fact, directly covered by the nearby structures of Houses 2 (Delougaz et al. 1967: pl. 14), and it is not clear what its stratigraphic relation is with regard to cella P45:51 (cf. also Frankfort 1943: 5–7). Statue 232 was associated with a statue in the archaic style (233).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

33

Table 2. Sculptures (listed by context) found in the Small Shrine at Tutub (cont.) Bibliography

Exc. No.

UM no. a

Kh.VIII.71

37-15-42

Level

Room, elevation

VI (?)

Q45:4

VI

Q45:12

Frankfort 1943: no. 223, pl. 13

Kh.VIII.116

VI

Q45:12

Frankfort 1943: no. 224, pl. 14

Kh.VIII.160

VI

Q45:12

Frankfort 1943: no. 229, pl. 17

Kh.VIII.114

VI

Q45:12

Frankfort 1943: no. 230, pl. 18

Kh.VIII.7

VI

Q45:12

Frankfort 1943: no. 231, pl. 18

Kh.VIII.8

37-15-35

VI

Q45:12

Frankfort 1943: 42

Kh.VIII.183

37-15-26

VI

Q45:7

Frankfort 1943: no. 305, pl. 54

Kh.VIII.117

VI

P45:52 altar

Frankfort 1943: no. 220, pl. 12

Kh.IX.176

VI

P45:52 altar

Frankfort 1943: no. 221, pl. 12

Kh.IX.195

38-10-52

VI

P45:52 altar

Frankfort 1943: no. 222, pl. 12

Kh.IX.177

38-10-51

VI

P45:52

Frankfort 1943: no. 235, pl. 22

Kh.IX.175

VI

P45:52

Frankfort 1943: 42

Kh.IX.179

VI

P45:52

Frankfort 1943: no. 241, pl. 24

Kh.IX.178

38-10-49

VI–VII

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 217, pls. 9–10

Kh.VIII.272

37-15-31

VI–VII

Q44:15

Frankfort 1943: no. 232, pls. 19–20

Kh.VIII.45

37-15-28

VI–VII

Q44:15

Frankfort 1943: no. 233, pl. 21

Kh.VIII.97

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 69, pl. 64

Kh.III.1002

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 70, pl. 64

—

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 71, pl. 64

Kh.III.1008

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 72, pl. 64

Kh.III.1006

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 73, pl. 64

Kh.III.918

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 75, pl. 64

Kh.III.1007

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 77, pl. 64

Kh.III.923

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 78, pls. 65–66

Kh.III.1001

VII

Q45:4

Frankfort 1939a: no. 89, pl. 69

Kh.III.920

VII

Q45:4

Frankfort 1939a: no. 103, pls. 72–73

Kh.III.1000

VII

Q45:4

Frankfort 1939a: no. 121, pls. 84, 94

Kh.III.1017

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 161, pl. 94

Kh.III.971

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 162, pl. 94

Kh.III.1019

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 163, pl. 94

Kh.III.1004

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 164, pl. 94

Kh.III.1012

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 166, pl. 94

Kh.III.1018

VII

Q45:4, 41,25

Frankfort 1939a: no. 167, pl. 94

Kh.III.1021

34

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Table 2. Sculptures (listed by context) found in the Small Shrine at Tutub (cont.) UM no. a

Level

Room, elevation

Bibliography

Exc. No.

VII

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: no. 245, pl. 25

Kh.III.914

VII

Q45:4, 41,25 + Q45:4 lev. V

Frankfort 1943: no. 313, pl. 62, no. 325, pl. Kh.III.906, 959, 67; id. 1939a: no. 189, pl. 108: B right; Boese 1009, 1015 + 1971: 177–78 sub CN2–4, pls. X: 2–4, XI Kh.VIII.267a-b

VII

Q45:4

Frankfort 1943: 38; Boese 1971: 177 sub CN1, pl. X: 1

Kh.III.1005

VII

Q45:7

Frankfort 1943: no. 242, pl. 25

Kh.VIII.202

VII

Q45:7

Frankfort 1943: no. 244, pl. 25

Kh.VIII.221

VII

Q45:7

Frankfort 1943: no. 296, pl. 51

Kh.VIII.204

VII

Q45:7

Frankfort 19,43: 42

Kh.VIII.206

37-15-37

VII

Q45:12

Frankfort 1943: no. 243, pl. 25

Kh.VIII.19

37-15-43

VII

P45:51 altar + cella

Frankfort 1943: no. 240, pl. 23 and no. 238, Kh.IX.117 + pl. 22 Kh.IX.62

VII

P45:51 altar

Frankfort 1943: no. 293, pls. 46–48

Kh.IX.123

VII

P45:51 altar

Frankfort 1943: no. 294, pls. 49–50

Kh.IX.124

VII

below P45:6 +12 Frankfort 1939a: no. 201, pl. 114 (=P45:51)

Kh.III.1207

VII

P45:51

Frankfort 1943: no. 225, pl. 14

Kh.IX.68

VII

P45:51

Frankfort 1943: no. 226, pl. 15

Kh.IX.174

VII

P45:51

Frankfort 1943: no. 237, pl. 22

Kh.IX.63

VII

P45:51

Frankfort 1943: no. 295, pl. 51

Kh.IX.56

37-15-38

38-10-50

a. The numbers of the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology of Philadelphia relate to pieces that have been examined directly. b. Sold to the Worcester Art Museum in 1937. c. Donated to C. L. Tyson in 1937.

1.1.2. Nuffar (Nippur) Although we can derive no precise chronological data from the first excavations carried out in the nineteenth century, the campaigns conducted in 1957–58 and 1960–61 by the Oriental Institute of Chicago brought to light the protohistoric and Early Dynastic levels in the area of the temple of Inªanak, producing an excellent stratigraphic sequence up to the end of Early Dynastic III.67 From levels VIII and VIIB, dating respectively to Early Dynastic II and IIIa, numer67. V. E. Crawford 1959: 75–76; Haines 1961a: 68–70, photo 2; Hansen and Dales 1962: 79–80, figs. 1–3. It should be noted that the presence of a sanctuary only seems to be attested from Level XI of Early Dynastic I and with certainty from Level IXB onward; cf. Zettler 1992: 21–22. For the architecture and chronology of levels IXB–A, VIII, and VIIB–A, cf. Zettler 1992: 22–38, figs. 4–8; Porada et al. 1992: 105, 108. Starting from different positions, Martin (1988: 76 n. 36) and Karg (1994: 156–157) propose a dating of Nippur Inªanak IXA to Early Dynastic II on the basis of glyptics (cf. also above, p. 19 n. 15; and Table 12 below). For the epigraphic finds, cf. §1.2 and Pl. 22:5–6. For the pottery, cf. Hansen 1965.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

35

ous statuettes of worshipers and sculpted plaques were recovered that, thanks also to their stratification, are the most important existing documents for the study of Early Dynastic sculpture after those from the Diyala sites. Following their publication, the plaques from level VIII were dated to Early Dynastic I, although this raising of the chronology appears to be justified only for one of the four pieces (Pl. 59:1). The other three seem, instead, to belong to Early Dynastic II (Pls. 5:3, 59:2), that is, the same period as the context.68 Two favissae (A–B) of sculpted statues and furnishings were found in the bent-axis shrine (locus IT179) of level VIIB (dated, moreover, by the discovery of twenty or so as yet unpublished tablets of the same kind as those from Fara/Suruppak), under the first floor of the room and inside a bench, respectively.69 A third favissa (C) was walled inside an installation in the room (locus IT173 north) that served as entrance to the sanctuary area (Pl. 6:1),70 and a fourth favissa (D) was found below the floor of a room northeast of the cellae.71 As far as I can tell, the stylistic characteristics coincide with the proposed stratigraphic interpretation (cf. Table 3). The seven statues assigned to favissa A (Pl. 5:5–6, 8) show archaic traits (7N171 being slightly more developed)—like the zoomorphic sculpture found here and the sculpted furnishings from favissa D—while the plaque from favissa C and various pieces from the 68. Hansen 1963: 153–54, pls. III–V; Boese 1971: pls. XV:1–2, XVI:1. For the fourth plaque, which bears a short inscription, cf. Gudrun Selz 1983: 144–45, K12 sub 75, pl. VI:75 (from IT218; the correct inventory number is, however, 7N251: D. P. Hansen, p.c.). Hansen had initially proposed a date contemporary with the context in which the plaque was found; on the subsequent dating to Early Dynastic I, cf. Hansen 1971: 54; Porada et al. 1992: 105. It is only the third example with banquet scene, however, that could perhaps date to late Early Dynastic I, given its flat modeling and close iconographic comparisons with the glyptics assigned to this period (cf. Martin 1988: 244–45, nos. 225–26, from Suruppak). Though the second plaque is in a cursive style, the first, instead, has precise iconographic and stylistic similarities with engraved representations of Early Dynastic II–IIIa Suruppak (Heinrich 1931: pls. 30:d, g, 31:h, l), in addition to demonstrating a method of engraving also found in plaques from the Early Dynastic II favissa below the temple of “Ninhursamak” at Susa (cf. §1.1.10). The fourth plaque is in an expressionist provincial style. It also appears virtually certain that a fifth fragment of a plaque with a banquet scene, carved in the classical style of Early Dynastic II and discovered in a sounding dug starting from level VII, was found precisely in level VIII (Pl. 5:4; V. E. Crawford 1959: 82 and photo on p. 80, right). 69. On the localization of the favissae, cf. Haines 1961a: 68; Hansen and Dales 1962: 79–80, fig. 2. Two photographs of objects in situ (Pl. 5:1–2; Haines 1961a: 68, photo 3; Hansen and Dales 1962: fig. 4) must relate respectively to the lower and upper strata of the earlier favissa A (since this is earlier than the construction of the level VIIB temple, it must, therefore, relate to level VIII from Early Dynastic II; cf. also Behm-Blancke 1979: 58 n. 417). From it also comes a recumbent human-headed bull (Haines 1961b: fig. 15; Behm-Blancke 1979: cat. 170, pl. 27:152). Favissa B, instead, must be more recent than A, since it was embedded in a bench and, therefore, most probably relates to material in use during the initial phases of level VIIB (for a similar reasoning, cf. Hansen 1963: 154). Also from this favissa comes an inscribed zoomorphic sculpture in diorite (7N199: Haines 1961b: fig. 12; Goetze 1970–71: 44, 52; Steible 1982b: 244–45 AnNip. 34; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 326 sub T 12, fig. 7; cf., for the typology, Parrot 1967: pl. LXXIV: 2274, from Mari, as well as Behm-Blancke 1979: cat. 169, fig. 54, from a pre-VIIB context at Nippur Inªanak), a double vessel resting on four birds (Haines 1961b: fig. 10) and an inscribed bowl (7N201: Goetze 1970–71: 44, 53; Steible 1982b: 245 AnNip. 35; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 133 sub G 105). 70. An Early Dynastic IIIa plaque (7N133+134: Hansen 1963: 154–55, pl. VI; Goetze 1970–71: 43, 51; Boese 1971: 184 sub N6, pl. XVII: 1; Steible 1982b: 239–40 AnNip. 24B; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 311 sub W 13), dedicated by the chief stone-cutter Lumma, has been reconstructed from fragments found in favissa C (the stratigraphic situation of which is similar to that of B) and from rooms IT173 and IT194 (Pl. 60:6). Another dedication by Lumma is attested on a limestone bowl from level VIIB (7N122: Goetze 1970–71: 42–43, 50; Steible 1982b: 239–40 AnNip. 24A; BraunHolzinger 1991: 132 sub G 100). 71. Favissa D seems to have been located in IT161 (cf. Haines 1961b: fig. 3 “D” with Zettler 1992: fig. 7). From here come a vase decorated in low-relief (Pl. 5:8 center; Haines 1961b: fig. 16; Hansen and Dales 1962: fig. 7 center; Hansen 1975b: 184, pl. 79: a), another vase with recumbent bulls in high-relief (Haines 1961b: fig. 14), and the forepart of a recumbent ram (Haines 1961b: fig. 11); cf. also Behm-Blancke 1979: cat. 172, pls. 29:157, 33:164.

36

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

VIIB floors are to be attributed to Early Dynastic IIIa,72 like the six statues from favissa B. The latter pieces, although showing certain archaic traits, are stylistically already typical of this period (Pl. 5:7–9).73 Although two statues were dedicated by the temple administrator (samma) of Ellil (7N136+155 from level VIIB and 7N205 from pre-VIIB), level VIIB is associated epigraphically with a ruler of Nippur by the name of Abzukidug.74 Only the base of a (male) statue with parallel feet and a sculpture representing mythical beings can be attributed with certainty to level VIIA of the temple of Inªanak. I do not, therefore, have sufficient data to assign a precise date to this level.75 In terms of visual and epigraphic documentation, the sequence of the North Temple is indicative mainly for levels IV and III, contemporary with Inªanak VIIB and, therefore, from Early Dynastic IIIa, as shown by some tablets of the Fara type found in both levels (Pl. 24:1–2).76 A favissa containing statues was identified in the area of the North Temple (Pl. 6:2–3).77 This deposit is stratigraphically earlier than level II of the Akkadian period, which is a radical renovation of level III and, given the lack of any level that can be dated to Early Dynastic IIIb, must have involved the razing of the immediately preceding buildings. Stylistically, the sculptures from the favissa appear to date toward the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb and can thus be 72. These are 7N136+155, 7N137, 7N138B, 7N159, 7N191, to which should be also added a double vessel resting on a recumbent human-headed bull (Haines 1961b: fig. 13; Behm-Blancke 1979: cat. 171, pl. 27:151 where, however, a wrong context is given). 73. Cf., for example, the detailed rendering of the female hairstyles. Head 7N159 can be compared with 7N186 from favissa B: they both show an iconography similar to that of other Early Dynastic II examples, although the rounder shape represents a marked stylistic difference compared to these. However, a comparison with the female figures on the plaque of Lumma (cf. n. 70 above) confirms a date to Early Dynastic IIIa. Note that, although Goetze (1970–71: 45) states that 7N205 is from favissa B, the statue actually comes from A. 74. Abzukidug is mentioned in 7N128 (cf. Goetze 1970–71: 43, 50; Steible 1982b: 223 Abki. 1; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 127 sub G 73, pl. 6: G 73; Frayne 2008: 355 E1.11.3.1); this is a vase offered by his wife (dedications by women are common in votive objects from the temple of Inªanak). 75. Haines 1958: 386, figs. 2, 8 (from IT179 and IT173, respectively). On the level VIIA temple, cf. Haines 1958: fig. 1; Zettler 1992: 34–35, fig. 8. An inscribed fragment of a vase (8N4) from IT205 of this level attests to a ruler of Nippur called Nammah (cf. Buccellati and Biggs 1969: 5–6, 21 no. 5; Goetze 1970–1971: 46–47; Steible 1982b: 224 Nammah 1; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 128 sub G 75; Frayne 2008: 351 E1.11.1.1). 76. From levels VI and V we only have, respectively, an as-yet-unpublished tablet (McCown et al. 1978: 29, 94 sub 4NT259) and a seal in the Early Dynastic II–IIIa style (Pl. 6:4; McCown et al. 1978: pl. 63:6; cf. below, p. 94 n. 330). From level IV, there are two tablets (McCown et al. 1978: 29, 72, 80, nos. 3, 5, where, however, Biggs assigns the former to level III and dates the second to the late Pre-Sargonic period, while the attribution to the Fara period [1969: 29] is correct), a sealing with geometric motif (1978: pl. 63:5) and two plaques, one with an inlaid figure that has been lost (1978: pl. 66:16) and the other without decoration but with triangular inlays in the grooving around the edge (Pl. 6:5; 1978: 32, pls. 59:1, 67:2; Boese 1971: pl. XVII:2; Hansen 1963: 147, pl. II:A). From level III, we have two tablets (McCown et al. 1978: 29, 72, 79, 81, nos. 2, 6; there, however, the level of the second is called IV), a schematic seal with contest scene (1978: pl. 63: 2; note that the seal in pl. 63:8, from the greatly disturbed area NT80, must come from level II) and four sculptures: an undecorated plaque (unpublished), the lower part of a standing figure, a badly damaged plaque with banquet scene, and a schematic statue (1978: 32, pls. 66:15, 67:1, 68:3). 77. McCown et al. 1978: 21–23, 32, pls. 67:3, 5, 68:1–2, 4, 69:1–2, 70:1–3 (3N401 does not seem to belong to the favissa). For the location of the favissa and a photograph of the statues in situ, cf. McCown et al. 1978: pls. 3, 32:A, 43. The large size of a standing male statue (76 cm high) on which a transfer of land is recorded (Pl. 6:3; McCown et al. 1978: pls. 67:3, 68:1–2; Gelb et al. 1991: pls. 47–48) indicates the importance of this offering, even though it was not dedicated by a royal personage (cf. also below, p. 93 n. 326; according to G. Marchesi, p.c., the inscription appears to be later than Fara).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

37

Table 3. Statues (listed by context) from the temple of Inªanak at Nippur Excav. No.

Level

Favissa/Locus

Bibliography

7N161

Pre-VIIB

A

Haines 1961a: photo 5; Haines 1961b: fig. 18; Hansen and Dales 1962: fig. 10 center; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 38 n. 264

7N162

Pre-VIIB

A

Haines 1961b: fig. 26; Haines 1961a: photo 4; Hansen and Dales 1962: fig. 9; Hansen 1975a: pl. 22; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 42 n. 292

7N163

Pre-VIIB

A

Haines 1961b: fig. 25; Haines 1961a:photo 6; Hansen and Dales 1962: fig. 10 left; Hansen 1975a: pl. 21: a; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 42 n. 293

7N166

Pre-VIIB

A

Haines 1961b: fig. 24; Hansen and Dales 1962: fig. 7 top left; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 43 n. 297

7N170

Pre-VIIB

A

Braun-Holzinger 1977: 43, pl. 13:d–e; Goetze 1970–1971: 44, 52; Steible 1982b: 242–43 AnNip. 30

7N171

Pre-VIIB

A

Braun-Holzinger 1977: 38, pl. 4: c; Goetze 1970–71: 44; Steible 1982b: 243 AnNip. 31

7N205

Pre-VIIB

A

Haines 1961a: photo 7; Haines 1961b: fig. 19; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 38, pls. 6: c–d, 12: c; Goetze 1970–71: 45, 53; Steible 1982b: 246 AnNip. 37

7N182

VIIB

B

Haines 1961b: fig. 21; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 51 n. 344

7N183

VIIB

B

J. M. Evans in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 66–67, no. 28

7N184

VIIB

B

Haines 1961b: fig. 17; Haines 1961a: photo 8; Hansen and Dales 1962: fig. 7 top right; Hansen 1975a: pl. II; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 50, pl. 17:c

7N186

VIIB

B

Haines 1961b: fig. 23; Haines 1961a: photo 9; Hansen and Dales 1962: fig. 10 right; Hansen 1975a: pl. 21:c; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 42 n. 294

7N200

VIIB

B

Anonymous 1985: 363, no. 49

7N202

VIIB

B

Hansen and Dales 1962: fig. 8; Hansen 1975a: pl. 21:b; Braun-

Holzinger 1977: 38, pl. 4:f; Goetze 1970–71: 45–46, 53; Steible 1982b: 245–46 AnNip. 36 7N136+155

VIIB

IT173 (body), IT179 (lower part), IT194 (right shoulder, head and base)

Braun-Holzinger 1977: 42, pl. 7: g–h; Goetze 1970–71: 43, 51; Steible 1982b: 240 AnNip. 25

7N137

VIIB

IT173

Braun-Holzinger 1977: 42, pls. 8: e, 9: i; Goetze 1970–71: 43, 51; Steible 1982b: 240–41 AnNip. 26

7N138B

VIIB

On paving

Haines 1961a: 68, photo 12; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 51 n. 343

7N159

VIIB

IT193, drain

Haines 1961b: figs. 20, 22; Hansen 1975a: pl. 23: b; BraunHolzinger 1977: 50, pl. 21: e

7N191

VIIB

IT205, NW corner

Braun-Holzinger 1977: 50; Goetze 1970–71: 44, 52; Steible 1982b: 237–38 AnNip. 33

38

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

regarded as another group of ritually buried materials belonging to a level intermediate between III and II.

1.1.3. Tello (Firsu) Between 1877 and 1833, four successive French expeditions carried out a total of twenty excavation campaigns at the site of Tello (or Tell Lawh), ancient Firsu.78 The first expedition, led by de Sarzec in collaboration with Heuzey and the Louvre Museum, obtained the most significant results in terms of defining Early Dynastic artistic culture, especially on Tell K (also referred to as the mound of the “Maison des fruits”) between 1881 and 1900.79 On this spot, in addition to unearthing a great number of exceptional works of art (Pl. 7:2–3), the diggers recognized a stratigraphic sequence of temple structures that makes it possible to propose an attribution for the pieces found in them (Pl. 7:1). It now seems certain that the entire area was occupied by the Early Dynastic temple of Ninmirsûk, which stood on a terrace, probably inside an oval enclosure, as has been proposed recently.80 The most interesting element, however, is the construction located at the center of the terrace. This is a rectangular building divided into two small cellae, with the entrances on the opposite short sides, one of which is square and the other a broad rectangle. Two main phases have been identified: the “construction d’Ur-Nanse” and, at a lower level, the “construction inférieure.” Below, I propose a new stratigraphic and structural interpretation of this central area of the sanctuary, in order to give a more accurate historical evaluation of some of the most important examples of Early Dynastic art found there, and attempt to reconstruct their original context. I will then use the conclusions I reach in my discussion of royal iconography (§5.2). The limited data available means that any reconstruction must allow for a significant margin of doubt. Forest’s careful analysis of the excavation data and his subsequent reconstruction, although marking a step forward in our understanding of this exceptional sacred area, is not convincing and needs to be greatly modified (cf. Table 4).81 78. For an account of the excavations, cf. Parrot 1948: 14–33. 79. The results of these campaigns, integrated with data obtained during later expeditions, are summarized by Parrot 1948: 54–132, figs. 13–16. On Tell K, cf. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 68–69, 406. For the general topography of the site, cf. their plan B (cf. also Parrot 1948: figs. 3–5). Cf. now also Huh 2008: 83–153, figs. 5:a–d, 26–30, 34, charts 1–3. 80. Forest 1999: 15–23, figs. 13–14. Data relating to the peripheral zone of Tell K are not considered systematically here (cf. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: plan D; Parrot 1948: 63–66, fig. 16). 81. The schematic architectonic sections are still essential to any reconstruction (Pl. 7:1): de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: plan C: 2; Heuzey 1899: pl. III; Parrot 1948: fig. 13; cf. also the sections contained in the reconstructions provided by Forest (1999: figs. 7, 13), which here have been, however, modified. On the upper Neo-Sumerian levels, cf. Heuzey 1897: 89–90; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 407; Forest 1999: 6–7 (which he calls phases II–I). It is likely that the “massif d’Entemena” represents a rebuilding of the entire terrace (theoretically, therefore, phase 7; cf. also §5.2), rather than merely its outer façade. The plaque of the temple administrator Dudu (Pl. 51:4; Boese 1971: pl. XXXI:3) and the silver vase of Enmetênnâk (Müller-Karpe 1993: pl. 106:1280) are from near this structure, whereas, on the summit of the terrace, foundation deposits and other documents of Enmetênnâk were found (cf. also below, p. 43 n. 107; for the possible provenance from this area of a stone tablet of Eriªenimgennâk, cf. Forest 1999: 17). A fragment of a middle Akkadian stele (Amiet 1976: 128, no. 25) must relate to an intermediate phase between phase 7 and that of Gudeªa (cf. p. 200 n. 70).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

39

Table 4. Schematic stratigraphic sequence of the central area of Tell K at Firsu (DC = de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912) DC, plan C: 2

New proposal

Forest 1999: figs. 7, 13

Name

Level

Ruler – builder

Chronology

Forest’s level

Ruler

Construction d’Our-Nina

6

Eªannâbtum

ED IIIb

IV and III

Urnansêk

Sol d’Our-Nina

5

Urnansêk

ED IIIb

IV

Urnansêk

Sous sol d’Our-Nina

4

Me¶alim-Lugalsagdamalak

ED IIIa

V/VI

3

ED II/IIIa

VI

Construction inférieure

2

ED II/IIIa

V

Sol de la C. i.

1

ED II

Vu/VIu

The first phase (here called 1; Pl. 8:4) consists of a paving (“V”) of large gypsum slabs (as at Adab; cf. below).82 This cannot have been much earlier than the terrace, which was built of alternating stone and baked-brick slabs, since this is aligned with the external paving, unlike the terrace that Forest—following the excavators and Parrot—believes to be the original one (pertaining, that is, to his phase VI) but which in fact was most probably later (here, phase 3). A building must have stood on the terrace (phase 2; Pl. 9:1), but all that remains of it are the characteristic bitumen-filled holes, which have preserved the imprints of ropes presumably tied to the bottom of poles incorporated in the (since lost) walls.83 The building on the terrace was initially held to have been coeval with the southern sunken room but is actually quite distinct from it and belongs to a successive phase (3; Pl. 9:2), as indicated by the fact that it has a different alignment than that of the terrace, as well as by other 82. For a detailed plan of what I here define as phases 1–3, cf. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: plan C:2; Heuzey 1899: pl. III; Parrot 1948: fig. 13. For a detailed perspective view of the same phases, cf. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884– 1912: 411; Heuzey 1899: fig. 33; Parrot 1948: fig. 13. On the floor of room “T,” together with foundations deposits, pieces of a circular base, and a fragmentary stele (Table 5 sub a–c), there was a cruciform brick pillar preserved to a height of 1.8 m (de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 413; Heuzey 1899: 39–40). This must therefore correspond to the elevation of the razing of phase 2. The west wall “X” of the southern room (“T”) must also be assigned to the small chapel of phase 1. My thanks go to S. Pellegrini for inking the section of Tell K and the plans of phases 1–6 (Pls. 7:1, 8:4, 9–10). 83. These holes (for the section, cf. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 413; Heuzey 1899: fig. 41) are recorded on the summit of the terrace both on the detailed plan and in the perspective view mentioned in the preceding note. Their interpretation follows Heuzey’s initial hypothesis (1899: 45–46), taken up by Forest (1999: 13). The interpretation of wall “X” proved to be difficult (Forest 1999: 11). Parrot (1948: 59 n. 21, 29) explained it as the raising of a bench, but this must be rejected if we read it as the western wall of the phase 1 chapel, not oriented in precisely the same direction as the corresponding wall in phase 3. I must, in fact, slightly rotate the lower part of room “T,” together with its stone paving (which would otherwise not form a right angle with the external paving, repeatedly said to be on the same level, as shown by the fact that fragments of the circular base [cf. Table 5 sub a] were found lying on both surfaces) in order to align this with both the holes from phase 2 in the north part of the terrace and the terrace itself. This solution is not as artificial as it may first appear, since the plans were not drawn in the field and excavation methods at that time did not make it easy to record the slight differences in the axis of the buildings that I suggest here (cf., in fact, de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884– 1912: pl. 56:1, where not even the door appears to be entirely certain; cf. n. 85 below).

40

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

considerations.84 Despite the presence of a door in each of the short walls,85 the latter may actually be foundations (the elevation of the floor would then be marked by the top of the holes in the structures) inserted into a mudbrick terrace, as what we see in the section seems to suggest. This terrace covered the phase 2 terrace of stone and baked bricks bound with bitumen (Pl. 8:1). It is still difficult to determine to which phase we should assign the southern room (“T”) with baked-brick walls, where three important pieces were found. Disregarding the upper structures, which belong to phase 3, this room could be interpreted in two ways: either it must be assigned entirely to phase 2, since the top of the buildings from this phase actually emerge to the north; or else it must be further divided between phase 2 (the upper part) and phase 1 (the lower part), represented by the stone floor. I prefer the second of these hypotheses, given the fact that, if phase 2 was the first building to be erected on the floor, it is difficult to explain the depth of this room with respect to the terrace, since there are no elements supporting the hypothesis of a basement room.86 If we accept, instead, that the paving of phase 1 was associated with a first, square building (cf. n. 83 above for an explanation of the slight rotation of the plan used here), then it is easier to explain the erection of the stone and brick terrace in the subsequent phase 2—that is, when the leveling of the ruins of phase 1 required a progressive raising of the area, it was monumentalized by the creation of a terrace (cf. below for the attribution of the recovered objects to the various phases). Phase 3 was then sealed by a podium of baked bricks and gypsum slabs (phase 4; Pl. 9:3), which appears to form the underlying structure of a separate building that probably maintained the same layout as the earlier phase 3 structures, if it is true that Urnansêk’s building (phase 5) is similar in plan to the phase 3 building.87 Phase 4 can be attributed to Me¶alim (me-SILIM) of Kis, a contemporary of Lugalsagdamalak (= “Lugalsaengur”) of Lagas, on the basis of the epithet “builder of Ninmirsûk” inscribed on the head of a colossal mace that he dedicated to the city-god of Firsu (Table 5 sub e). I only know the rectangular external perimeter 88 of Urnansêk’s building (phase 5; Pls. 8:3, 10:1) and some stretches of its baked brick floor (“F”),89 where many objects belonging to Ur84. It is probable that the slight difference in orientation that must have existed between the western wall of the phase 3 building and wall “X” of phase 2 (here correlated with the holes on the summit of the terrace that do not, in fact, follow the alignments of the phase 3 walls) was not recorded on the plan that was sketched at the site. 85. Though there are no photographs of the door in the north wall, in the photograph of the south door we can see two entirely irregular “jambs” (Pl. 8:1; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 56:1), perhaps the result of damage incurred when extracting the large base of a stele, which in fact was later photographed outside of the building (Pl. 8:2; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 56:2). Cf. also p. 43 n. 104. 86. Despite Forest’s (1999: 12–13) defence of this hypothesis, originally proposed by the excavators (Heuzey 1899: 39; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 411–13 and especially p. 412), it must be rejected (as already Parrot [1948: 56– 59, fig. 13] and H. Crawford [1987: 73–74, fig. 1] did). 87. Forest (1999: 14 n. 31) noted this fact but was surprised that the building of his phase IV (= 5 here) perfectly followed the orientation of a building (VI = 3) that he thought was covered by another one that was aligned differently (Forest’s V, corresponding here to 2). That the substructure represented by phase 4 (cf. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 411) cannot be connected architecturally with the underlying building 3 (in a way similar to what occurs, instead, in phase 6; cf. below), it is shown from both its relative thickness and the presence of stone slabs in the platform that it would have been prevented from being properly bound to the hypothetical foundations. 88. Heuzey (1897: 93 and section) describes this platform as consisting of three layers of presumably baked bricks (cf. Heuzey 1899: pl. III “sol d’Our-Nina;” de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: plan C:2). 89. In the photograph (Pl. 8:3; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 54:1 left) we can also see what is presumably another fragment of floor to the southwest, besides the higher structures of phase 6.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

41

nansêk were found in situ, as well as eight square plinths (“H”) for square wooden pillars (in at least one case, the burned base was still in place).90 These plinths were positioned at regular intervals, forming an octagonal perimeter around the corners of the building, thus being placed at greater intervals along the longer sides of the building. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis of mud-brick pillars forming a rectangular plan.91 Since Forest’s theory regarding the existence of an external portico in protohistoric and Early Dynastic Mesopotamian temples lacks adequate foundation and seems, all considered, unlikely (cf. §A.1), we may interpret these pillars differently, although their square section does suggest a structural function. Two objects inscribed with Urnansêk’s name—an object with a truncated cone shape and a door socket—were found within the perimeter of a room of the successive phase (“A,” phase 6) but in the burned filling that I assign to phase 5. An identical door socket was found outside of the building, on its east side (cf. p. 44 n. 110). The problem of the layout of the phase 5 building is a question closely linked to the interpretation of phase 6 (Pl. 10:2), which I discuss below. The building technique of the “Maison des fruits” is unusual: the outer walls are dressed with plano-convex baked bricks, while the interior is covered with mud bricks of the same shape, laid in a herringbone pattern, as indicated by the excavation reports.92 Although Forest maintains that the baked-brick structures are the foundations of the upper phase, placed around earlier mud-brick structures,93 this cannot be the case here. This is proved—quite apart from the intrinsic improbability of such a hypothesis and the fact that in the northern room (“B”) these foundations would quite incongruously follow the line of a podium—by the fact that the outer and inner walls are covered with bitumen. The thick stratum of calcinated bricks and ash that filled the two rooms must pertain, instead, to the destruction of the building of phase 5.94 After the construction of these almost-2-m-deep foundations of mixed masonry, in phase 6 a floor of bitumen-covered baked bricks was created. Above this must have risen the mud-brick upper structures, which also included two small platforms positioned up against the long walls of the temple (“D” and “E”), as well as several bitumen-waterproofed basins found in the vicinity (“G,” “I–J,” “L–K”).95 In addition to the inscribed objects found at this elevation (cf. below), all of which relate to later rulers, there is one element that creates a certain degree of difficulty: the presence of seven plano-convex baked bricks inscribed with Urnansêk’s name, laid flat in the northwestern corner of the brick layer.96 The excavators, however, already believed these to 90. For the detailed plan (indicating also the most important finds) of what I here define as phases 5 and 6, cf. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 406–10, plan C: 1; Heuzey 1897: pl. IV; Parrot 1948: fig. 15 top. On the “cedar” wooden pillars, cf. especially Heuzey 1897: 100; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 408. 91. As was, instead, proposed by Heuzey (1897: 100) and Forest (1999: 9), who maintain that there was, therefore, an outer portico. The reconstruction by Huh (2008: 148–52, fig. 35) of a courtyard surrounded by a portico in the middle of which stood the sanctuary is simply unwarranted by excavation data. 92. Heuzey 1897: 97. Cf. also de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 407; Parrot 1948: 60–61. 93. Forest 1999: 10. In the light of my proposal here, his reconstruction of the plan of the building in his phase IV (5 here; 1999: fig. 6) cannot be accepted. Sauvage (1998: 345 sub M.278) merely gives a description. If the central part in mud bricks belonged to phase 5 (= IV), the fire that put an end to this building would have calcinated these structures too, whereas the excavators make no mention of this at all (Heuzey 1897: 97). 94. Heuzey 1897: 97. 95. Cf. Heuzey 1897: 101–2. In de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 54:2; on the right can be seen basin “G,” structures in baked bricks, and platform “D” (cf. also de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 54:1). 96. In fact, Forest (1999: 10) considers Urnansêk to be the builder of both this and the preceding phase.

42

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

have been reused during the restoration of the original temple, given that the elevation at which they were found was much higher than that at which the other objects inscribed with this ruler’s name were recovered.97 The builder of phase 6 may have been Eªannâbtum, grandson of Urnansêk, whose famous stele was found precisely at this level, though the destruction of the phase 5 temple may have occurred at the time of Ayakurgal, during whose (brief?) reign it is generally believed, on the basis of allusions contained in inscriptions by his successors, that Lagas was defeated by Umma.98 According to the foregoing reconstruction (and the discussion of the objects; cf. below) we have six building levels pertaining to Early Dynastic II (phase 1), II/IIIa (phases 2 and 3), IIIa (phase 4), and IIIb (phases 5 and 6), covering in all approximately 6 m of stratigraphy (cf., however, also p. 38 n. 81)—that is, a depth slightly greater than that of stratifications spanning a roughly analogous period in the main temple sequences of the Diyala region.99 Having proposed a general stratigraphic reconstruction of Tell K, I will now examine the visual and epigraphic evidence from each level. Datings based on intrinsic characteristics are fully in accord with the given stratigraphic context of the objects.100 The earliest document is the socalled circular base (Table 5 sub a), probably a base for insignia or other votive objects.101 Although this object cannot be dated, on paleographical grounds alone, more precisely than to Early Dynastic II or IIIa, given its stratigraphic position and its iconography, it must date to the earlier of these two phases. The main character portrayed on the base appears to be a bearded figure with a curved staff in his right hand102 and an unidentifiable object in his left, while the other figures, apart from one who is holding a stick, have no insignia and presumably held lower positions in the administration (such as, for example, a figure who is qualified as a singer). Numerous foundation figurines of copper (Table 5 sub b) also belong to phase 1.

97. Heuzey 1897: 91–92, fig. 3; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 407–8. The fact that these bricks were all laid close to each other and that one of them (Steible 1982a: p. 81, Urn. 8; Frayne 2008: 105 E1.9.1.19) mentions the temple of Ninmirsûk with a different designation than that used in the others (Steible 1982a: 79–88 Urn. 2 G–O; Frayne 2008: 93–94 E1.9.1.7 exs. 10–18) leads me to assume that it was the builder of this temple himself who piously wanted them included in the reconstruction. These are the earliest royal inscriptions on bricks (cf. Sauvage 1998: 123 n. 1, who, however, on p. 251 sub B.868, classifies them mistakenly as squared rather than plano-convex bricks). There is insufficient comparative documentation to establish how Early Dynastic inscribed bricks were laid (cf., however, Sauvage 1998: 251– 52 sub B.869 for pieces of Eªannâbtum, while those sub B.874, contrary to what is stated there, are not inscribed). 98. Cf. Cooper 1983b: 24. From a purely stratigraphic standpoint, this situation is fairly similar to the Adab sequence (cf. below), where a small sacred building in baked bricks is covered by a floor of bricks of the same type, coated in bitumen, on which there are the foundation deposits of Eªiginimpaªe. 99. Cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: pls. 14, 24: A, 28. Cf. also below, the discussion of Adab (where, from the stone layer upward, there are roughly 4 m of stratigraphy for levels that are contemporary with those of Tell K discussed here). 100. In order to make the following text more accessible, reference to visual material, inscribed or not, is referred to according to Table 5. For the epigraphic documents, instead, essential references are provided in the footnotes (a bibliography relating to the inscriptions can also be found in Braun-Holzinger 1991). 101. This is not, therefore, the pedestal for a statue, as suggested by H. Crawford (1987: 71), since I know of no Early Dynastic statues with tenons under the feet. 102. This could be proof that the statue represents a royal personage, on the basis of comparison with a similarly shaped object held in the right hand of Eªannâbtum on the reverse of the Stele of the Vultures (Table 5 sub p). Cf. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 369.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

43

It is doubtful that the base of a large stele (Table 5 sub c)103 and another fragment of a stele with an inscription that can be assigned to Early Dynastic II (Table 5 sub d) should be attributed to phase 1 or 2. Though we have no detailed references regarding the context of the second piece, the first was reportedly found lying on the paving of phase 1, in the fill of phase 2.104 The paleography of the inscription on the so-called “Figure aux plumes” (Table 5 sub g)—found in phase 5 and hence clearly in a secondary context—is comparable with that of the inscription on the stele fragment. No objects can be attributed to phase 3. I can confidently assign to phase 4 the famous head of the colossal mace of Me¶alim of Kis (Table 5 sub e), since it was found in the “sous-sol d’OurNina.” In the inscription, this suzerain states that he built the temple of Ninmirsûk when Lugalsagdamalak was the city-ruler of Lagas. A copper dagger with two lions on the hilt can also be attributed to the same phase, given its stratigraphic position and the free arrangement of signs in the inscription, a stylistic trait that is typical of the Fara period (Table 5 sub f). It is also quite probable that eight cuneiform tablets of the Fara type, found 0.12 m below the “sol d’Our-Nina,” belong to the same phase (Pls. 24:3–4).105 A fragment of an onyx bowl of Urnansêk with a dedication to the goddess Bawu was found at roughly the same elevation as the other two objects (Table 5 sub e–f): it possibly comes from a pit not identified by the excavator (Pl. 13:3).106 From phase 5 we have numerous pieces attributable to Urnansêk: an inscribed lion’s head (AO 233), which was part of a group of at least five similar examples (Table 5 sub l);107 three “genealogical” plaques (Table 5 sub h); and at least five foundation deposits (Table 5 sub i).108 Among the lion’s heads we must also include two pieces usually attributed (albeit on a rather shaky basis) to Ayakurgal.109 Some objects were found on the platform: two door sockets 103. On stylistic grounds, this piece can only be dated in general terms to some point between Early Dynastic II and IIIa, since the skirt with tassels only on the lower part is attested in both periods. The subject, usually interpreted as three soldiers pushing ahead three naked prisoners, is not actually certain and could represent a procession, although this is less likely. 104. This is also confirmed by the section “Y–Z” (de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: plan C:2; Heuzey 1899: pl. III; Parrot 1948: fig. 13), where the stele is approximately 2 m high and, therefore, vertical, since in its fragmentary state it measures 2 m wide and 0.8 high (note, however, that the stele also measures 2 m on the plan, but this clearly represents a contradiction). I could assume that the stele belongs to phase 1, since it is difficult otherwise to see why a 2-m-deep pit would have had to be dug, rather than simply laying the stele flat, if the stele belonged to phase 2 and was discarded when phase 3 was constructed. 105. Heuzey 1897: 110; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 410 sub 15, pl. 32 bis:1–2; Parrot 1948: 63. Cf. Krebernik 1998: 376. 106. Heuzey 1897: 106, fig. 11; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 409 sub 8; Parrot 1948: 61. For the inscription, cf. Steible 1982a: 109 Urn. 47; Frayne 2008: 113 E1.9.1.27. 107. In addition to the onyx bowl already cited, we must also note the onyx forequarters of a lion of Urnansêk (Table 5 sub o) found in a door socket of Enmetênnâk (cf. n. 114 below). 108. A fourth plaque comes from the antiquities market (Parrot 1948: pl. Vd; Boese 1971: pl. XXIX:T5; BraunHolzinger 1991: 309 sub W 4). On the lower part of one of the foundation figurines (AO 254, Pl. 11:7), it is possible to read after cleaning: ès mír-su mu-[rú], “(Urnansêk) [built] the sanctuary of Firsu” (reading by G. Marchesi). For another foundation figurine with inscribed clevis, cf. Gubel and Overlaet 2007: 67, nos. 36–37. 109. Actually, what has survived of the inscription on the first piece (Unger 1926: fig. 15; Parrot 1948: fig. 21:d) is only a verbal form (cf. Steible 1982a: 118 Akg. 2; Cooper 1986a: 33 n. 1 to La 2.1; Frayne 2008: 122 E1.9.2.2), which is believed to correspond with the last line of the inscription on a lion’s head of Ayakurgal from Tell V (Pl. 13: 4; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 351–52, LIV; Parrot 1948: 86 n. 144; Steible 1982a: 118 Akg. 1; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 324 sub T4; Frayne 2008: 121 E1.9.2.1).

44

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

inscribed with Urnansêk’s name close to its southern edge (Pl. 13:1–2; a third one was found externally and east of the platform)110 and a group of copper blades in its northern part.111 Along the short, northern side of the phase 5 platform, there was a large copper standard on the outer brick paving (Pl. 11:11).112 I must also attribute to phase 5 a colossal copper spear-head of Lugalnamnirsumma, an otherwise unknown ruler of Uruk (Table 5 sub m), found on the eastern outer paving, while two heads of bulls (Table 5 sub n, one of which is inscribed [cf. p. 124 n. 247]) and a copper vase with spout were found south of the platform.113 An inlay representing Urnansêk comes from the foot of Tell K (Pl. 50:2 left; cf. p. 197 n. 54). For phase 6, we have (in addition to the bricks of Urnansêk from a secondary context; cf. above) three fragments of the so-called Stele of the Vultures of Eªannâbtum (Table 5 sub p), which were discovered on the outer paving of the “Maison des fruits” together with the small column of the same ruler (Pl. 13:5) and a diorite mortar of Enªannâbtum I (Pl. 10:3).114 A fragment of a stele found between mounds K and J can be attributed to the Protoimperial period on the basis of style (Pl. 55:1).115 This stele shows a seated goddess, behind whom a bearded ruler with chignon and smooth garment is portrayed in the act of hitting a bound, naked prisoner with a mace.

1.1.4. Bismaya (Adab) Although Banks—who excavated the site for the Oriental Institute of Chicago—provides a very fragmentary and disjointed description of the excavations and the archaeological areas in his reports, Wilson, in preparing the final edition of the excavations, recently furnished an overall stratigraphic interpretation of the temple area, partly based on brief unpublished reports.116 110. Heuzey 1897: 97–98, figs. 5–6; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 409 sub 1–3; Parrot 1948: 61. The first piece probably represents a kind of small base rather than an actual door socket. The second and third specimens, which are virtually identical, are instead undoubtedly door sockets. 111. Heuzey 1897: 99, fig. 7 (with illegible inscription); de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 410. The context is not clear in relation to other blades found in the “couloir,” that is, in the mud-brick wall. According to Forest (1999: 10), this indicates the presence of a door, whereas it seems more likely that they were found below the phase 6 wall, i.e., over the phase 5 platform. 112. Heuzey 1897: 112–13, fig. 19; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 410 sub 17, pl. 57: 1 (photo not in situ); Parrot 1948: 106, fig. 26:c. 113. For the vase, cf. Heuzey 1898: 28–29, fig. 23; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 410 sub 18; Müller-Karpe 1993: 28, no. 39, pl. B:39. The inscription on one of the bull’s heads (visible only after the cleaning of the head in 1986; cf. Caubet and Bernus-Taylor 1991: 23, AO 2676) is a dedication to Ninmirsûk by the chief lamentation-priest of Uruk (cf. below, p. 124 n. 244). 114. Heuzey 1897: 108, figs. 13–14; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 409–10 sub 12–13, xliv–xlv, pl. 2 ter: 5; Parrot 1948: 63; Steible 1982a: 169–71 Ean. 60 (= Frayne 2008: 144–45 E1.9.3.4), 189–90 En. I 18 (= Frayne 2008: 174– 75 E1.9.4.4). From this phase also comes a door socket of Enmetênnâk (Steible 1982a: 222–23 Ent. 22; Frayne 2008: 216–17 E1.9.5.14). Cf. also p. 92 n. 321 for other sculpted but not royal objects. 115. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 103–5, pl. 1:1; Parrot 1948: 70–72, fig. 17:c; Boese 1971: 199–200, pl. XXX: T8. Boese (1971: 67 n. 360), however, held this to be a votive plaque, although there is no trace of the central hole (it is also too thick, 9 cm, to be a plaque). For a discussion of the style, cf. below, p. 199 n. 65. 116. For a schematic plan of the site, cf. Banks 1912: 152 (where the temple area is the small mound “V”). For a composite plan of the temple area, cf. 1912: 235. The data contained in the preliminary reports (Banks 1904–5; 1905–6a; 1905–6b) and in the somewhat confused summary provided by the excavator (Banks 1912) differ on numerous points. At any rate, we must follow the information given in those reports, since most of the documentation relating to the excavation

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

45

Table 5. List by context of the most important Early Dynastic visual documents from Tell K at Firsu In the first column, numbers of the objects on the plans in DC (in brackets) and museum inventory numbers are shown. Description [Plate]

Context

Bibliography

a—circular base AO 2350 +3288 [11:1–2, 49:3]

Phase 1; on the stone paving both inside and outside the room of the “construction inférieure”

Heuzey 1899: 41–44, figs. 37–39; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 353–57, 414–15, xxxv, pls. 1 bis:2, 1 ter:1a–b, 6 ter: 5a–b, 47:1; Parrot 1948: 72–73, fig. 14:b, i–k, 17:e; Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: fig. 44; Zervos and Coppola 1935: 55–57; BraunHolzinger 1991: 347 sub Sockel 1

b—copper foundation figurines; AO 269, 316–19, 2809–36 [11:3–4, 8 left]

Phase 1; below the stone paving of the “construction inférieure”

Heuzey 1899: 44–45, fig. 40; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 414, pl. 1 bis:3–7; Parrot 1948: 75, fig. 14: d–e; R. S. Ellis 1968: 50–51, fig. 5; Rashid 1983: 4–5, pls. A:5–36, 1–3; B. Helwing and U. Müller in Hauptmann and Pernicka 2004: 96–97, pls. 148–49: 2447– 65, 2483

c—fragments of a large stele lost [8:2]

Phase 1 or 2; in the fill of the room of the “construction inférieure”

Heuzey 1899: 40, fig. 34; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 195–96, 413, pl. 56:2; Parrot 1948: 74, fig. 14:a; Börker-Klähn 1982a: pl. 7

d—fragment of a stele EVEM 440 [11:9]

Phase 1 or 2; in the filling of the room of the “construction inférieure”

Heuzey 1899: 40–41, fig. 35; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 414, xxxv, pl. 1 ter: 6a–b;

e—mace-head of Me¶alim (14) AO 2349 [11:10]

Phase 4; 1.15 m below the “sol d’Our-Nina,” in the “sous sol d’Our-Nina”

Heuzey 1897: 109–10, fig. 15; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 410–411, xxxv, pl. 1 ter: 2;

f—copper sword lost [9:4]

Phase 4; 25 m NE of the “Maison des fruits,” 1.3 m below the “sol d’Our-Nina,” in the “sous sol d’Our-Nina”

de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 414–15, liv, pl. 6 ter:2; Parrot 1948: 106, figs. 14:h, 26:b; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 88 sub MW 1, pl. 5:MW 1

g—“Figure aux plumes” AO 221 [49:1]

Phase 5; 8 m N of the “Maison des fruits,” at the elevation of the “sol d’Our-Nina”

Heuzey 1897: 110–11; 1899: 41, fig. 36; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 414, xxxiv, pl. 1 bis:1; Parrot 1948: 70, figs. 14:f, 17:a, 24:b; Gelb et al. 1991: pls. 32–33; Caubet and Bernus-Taylor 1991: 19; Wilcke 1995

Parrot 1948: 74, fig. 14:c–cu; Börker-Klähn 1982a: pl. 5; Gelb et al. 1991: pl. 35:19

Parrot 1948: 72, figs. 15:14, 17:b; Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: fig. 43; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 44 sub K 9; Caubet and Bernus-Taylor 1991: 21

of the temple area was subsequently lost (Banks 1905–6a: 29; Wilson 2002: 283). Cf., most recently, Wilson 2002. The remarks contained in a recent work (al-Mutawalli and Miglus 2002: 7) are based on an erroneous reading of the excavation data by Yang (1988: 12–19; 1989: 99–100; cf. also Wilson 2002: 298 n. 70 for a specific criticism). The names in quotation marks in the present paragraph relate to the terminology used by Banks.

46

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Table 5. List by context of the most important Early Dynastic visual documents from Tell K at Firsu (cont.) In the first column, numbers of the objects on the plans in DC (in brackets) and museum inventory numbers are shown.

Description [Plate]

Context

Bibliography

h—three plaques of Urnansêk (4–6) AO 2344–2345; EVEM 401 [50:3, 51:1]

Phase 5; on the “sol d’Our-Nina”

Heuzey 1897: 103–4, fig. 8; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 409, xxxvii, pls. 2 bis:1–2,

i—five copper foundation figurines with clevis and tablet of Urnansêk (a–d); AO 254, 314, 2351; EVEM 493, 496 [11:5–8 right]

Phase 5; 0.3–0.5 m below the “sol d’Our-Nina;” one specimen (d) 1.7 m below this, another 20 m S (off plan)

l—five lion’s heads (7); AO 231–33; EVEM 456, 458 [12:4–7, 9–10]

Phase 5; on the “sol d’Our-Nina”

de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 409, pl. 25 bis:4–5; Unger 1926: 31, figs. 15–16; Parrot 1948: 84–86, fig. 21:b–e; Spycket 1981: 139, pls. 92–93; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 324–25 sub T 2–3, 5

m—copper spear-head of Lugalnamnirsumma (16) AO 2675 [13:6–7]

Phase 5; 0.15 m above the “sol d’Our-Nina”

Heuzey 1897: 111, fig. 18; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 410, lvi, pl. 5 ter:1a–c; Parrot 1948: 74–75, figs. 15:16, 26:f; BraunHolzinger 1991: 88 sub MW 3; Caubet and Bernus-Taylor 1991: 19; B. Helwing and U. Müller in Hauptmann and Pernicka 2004: 98, pl. 150:2516

2 ter:1; Parrot 1948: 90–92, fig. 15:4–6, pl. Va–c; Boese 1971: 197–99, pls. XXIX:T4, XXX:T6–7; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 308–9 sub W 1–3; Caubet and Bernus-Taylor 1991: 25

n—two copper bull’s heads Phase 5; 16 m SE of the “Maison (18); AO 2676; EVEM 1576 des fruits” [12:1–4]

Heuzey 1897: 113–14, figs. 20–22; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 408–9, pl. 2 ter:3; Parrot 1948: 105, figs. 15:19, 25:a; R. S. Ellis 1968: 51–52, fig. 6; Caubet and BernusTaylor 1991: 20; Rashid 1983: 7, pls. A:43– 45, 4; B. Helwing and U. Müller in Hauptmann and Pernicka 2004: 97, pl. 149:2485, 2487, 2489

Heuzey 1898: 26–28, pl. II; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 410 sub 18, pl. 5 ter: 2a–b; Braun-Holzinger 1984: 32, no. 92, pl. 23: 92:a; B. Helwing and U. Müller in Hauptmann and Pernicka 2004: 98, pl. 150: 2514

o—lion of Urnansêk AO 3281 [12:8]

Phase 6; 10.3 m NE of the “Maison de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 350–51, des fruits,” in a door socket of 414, pl. 6 ter:3a–b; Parrot 1948: 84, figs. 14:g, Enmetênnâk 21:a; Spycket 1981: 140, fig. 46; BraunHolzinger 1991: 324 sub T 1

p—stele of Eªannâbtum (9–11) AO 50 +2346–48 +16109 [52:1, 3, 55:2]

Phase 6; three fragments at the elevation of the floor of the “Maison des fruits,” two between Telul K and J and one in Tell A

Heuzey 1897: 106–7, fig. 12; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 409, xxxviii–xlii, pls. 3–4 ter, 48–48 bis; Parrot 1948: 95–101, figs. 15:9– 11, 23, pl. VI; Börker-Klähn 1982a: pl. 17:a– d; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 335–36 sub Stele 7; Caubet and Bernus-Taylor 1991: 25

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

47

Although her reconstruction is generally convincing, some of her conclusions need to be modified in the light of my reinterpretation of the chronology of the sacred area and associated materials and of the evidence from Firsu and Nutur (cf. §§1.1.3 and 1.1.6). A large, square mud-brick platform, 1 m high and 65 m per side and with the corners aligned with the cardinal points, stood on Tell V. On this platform was a construction (“tower”) with 1-m-thick walls of plano-convex baked bricks. This building measured 8 m on each side and was preserved to a height of 1.5 m.117 At the northeastern extremity of the platform, a large deposit of votive objects was found (“temple dump”) that, in the light of evidence from other sites, must be interpreted as a favissa.118 The fact that this was found on the sides of the western ramp leading up to the platform suggests that the ground-plan was similar to that at Nutur (on which, cf. §1.1.6). This hoard yielded hundreds of fragments of stone vases, 35 of which were inscribed; 14 of these bear a dedication to the Ekiri temple (é-SAR, é-kiri6), often showing the free order of signs that is characteristic of the Fara period texts.119 A statue fragment—a right shoulder—bears a dedicatory inscription (A180, Table 6).120 In addition to other finds (such as stone and shell lamps, inlays and small incised plaques, and a ram’s head in bituminous stone), a stone plaque, partially painted in red and black and that can be dated to Early Dynastic IIIa, is of particular interest (Pl. 15:1).121 The favissa also yielded some of the earliest examples of chlorite vases of Iranian production to come from Mesopotamian contexts (Pl. 14:3).122 This date is also confirmed by an epigraphic reference to Me¶alim of Kis, although this falls into a different category of evidence. Given the importance of paleography in establishing a relative chronology for the monuments— and the rulers—of Adab, the inscriptions on stone for which I have been able to find photographs are listed in the following Table 6, since they offer the only dependable means of studying the shapes of the signs: 117. Banks 1905–6a: 32–33; 1912: 237, 242–44. 118. Banks (1904–5: 32) initially maintained that there were four ramps leading to the platform, but in the published plan and in his later work only one is shown (Banks 1912: 235, 259). On the ramp and the favissa, cf. also Banks 1903– 4: 267; 1905–6b: 35–36. Most of the details can be found in Banks 1912: 259–76. The favissa, which was approximately 65 cm deep, extended over an area of 8 sq m and contained various fragments of plano-convex bricks. 119. Banks 1912: 200–202 (which also includes the statue of Lugaldalu among the dedications to the Ekiri; in total, however, we know of 24 inscriptions). For the royal inscriptions of Me¶alim (= “Bar-ki”) from Adab, cf. Banks 1912: 201, 270 top, 266; Luckenbill 1930: nos. 1, 5, 7 (cf. also Luckenbill 1913–14: pls. I–II:1–2); Steible 1982b: 216–17 Mes. 2– 3; Frayne 2008: 70–71 E1.8.1.2–3. One of these inscribed pieces, a chlorite vase fragment, is illustrated in pl. 14:3 (reproducing Delougaz 1960: pl. IX:a–b); the other two are still unpublished. For inscriptions pertaining to rulers of Adab, cf. Banks 1912: 264; Luckenbill 1930: nos. 8–9, 25–26 (and probably also no. 4); Steible 1982b: 187 Med. 1, 191–93 Lum. 1–2, 194 AnAdab 3; Frayne 2008: 19–20 E1.1.2.1 (“Me-ba-LAK 551”), 25–26 E1.1.5.1–2 (“LUM-ma”). For other fragments of vessels inscribed with dedications to the Ekiri, cf. Banks 1912: 265; Luckenbill 1930: nos. 10–11, 13, 17, 28– 29, 31 (Luckenbill 1913–14: pl. III:1–2); Steible 1982b: 195–97 AnAdab 5–7, 10, 13. On the royal dedications, cf. also Braun-Holzinger 1991: 121, 126 sub G 32, 33, 35, 64. For other inscriptions that presumably also come from the favissa, cf. Luckenbill 1930: nos. 2, 6, 15–16, 23; Steible 1982b: 193–98 AnAdab 1, 4, 9, 11 (note that one of them, AnAdab 9, is possibly a royal inscription; cf. Cooper apud Steible 1982b: 197; Frayne 2008: 21 E1.1.3.1). An inscribed door socket (Luckenbill 1930: no. 24; Steible 1982b: 198 AnAdab 12) cannot be ascribed with certainty to the favissa. 120. Luckenbill 1930: no. 3; Steible 1982b: 193 AnAdab 2; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 242 sub St 11. 121. Boese (1971: 207 AD 1, pl. XXXIV:2) proposes a later date for the plaque (cf. also Banks 1912: 273; Dolce 1978b: 36 sub A6). On the other finds, cf. Banks 1912: 242, 267–76 (on the inlays, cf. Dolce 1978b: 35, pl. VI: A1, although the date assigned there seems too early). According to Behm-Blancke (1979: cat. 164, pl. 27:154), at least in one case we are dealing with a statue of a bovid (cf. also 1979: cat. 165–167).

48

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Table 6. List of the inscribed stone objects, illustrated in photographs, from the temple area of Adab on Tell V and kept at the Oriental Institute Museum of Chicago (measurements provided only where different or missing from Luckenbill 1930)

No. OIM

Bibliography

Phase—Description

Pl.

A180

Luckenbill 1930: no. 3

3—Fragment of a statue in rhyolite

14:5

A192

Banks 1912: 265–66, 269–70; Luckenbill 1930: no. 1; Delougaz 1960: 94–95, pl. IX:a–b

3—Chlorite vase with decoration in the “inter-cultural” style

14:3

A208

Luckenbill 1930: no. 26

3—Steatite goblet with flat base

14:2

A211

Banks 1912: 201; Luckenbill 1930: no. 5; BraunHolzinger 1991: 125 sub G 62, pl. 6:G 62

4 (?)—Stone bowl

15:2

A212

Luckenbill 1930: no. 8

3—Limestone bowl with flat base (9 cm high)

14:4

A235A

Banks 1905–6b: 39, no. 21; 1912: 264; Luckenbill 1930: no. 9 (mistakenly A1164)

3—Alabaster vase with ribbing and flat base (11.5 cm high)

14:1

A1159

Luckenbill 1930: no. 22

4—Plano-convex stone tablet

15:3

Wilson reconstructed the above-mentioned baked-brick building as the cella of an axial sanctuary of the same type as the temple of Ninmirsûk at Firsu (on which, cf. §1.1.3).123 There are, however, some problems with her interpretation that I shall try to explain. Wilson maintains that the sanctuary was built on the terrace (which would, therefore, belong to this building) and was later leveled and covered with a floor of plano-convex baked bricks coated in bitumen,124 on which the foundation deposits of Eªiginimpaªe were found in situ (A1159, Table 6).125 Comparison with the distribution of the foundation deposits of Urnansêk at Firsu, placed roughly around the temple within a radius of 10–20 m, suggests that the deposits of Eªiginimpaªe (in part typologically similar to those of Urnansêk) were also distributed over a fairly large area, which 122. Among the various fragments of chlorite vases, four are illustrated: in addition to A192 (Table 6), cf. Banks 1912: 242, 266–69; Delougaz 1960: 93–94 n. 16, pl. IX:c; Hansen 1975b: 185, pl. 76:c; Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 333–34, fig. 86 (still retaining a dating to Early Dynastic I, which must, however, be lowered to IIIa). This class of materials does not appear to have been attested in Mesopotamia before Early Dynastic IIIa: for pieces dating from this phase, cf. the three chlorite vases from Tutub ‡amus IX (Frankfort 1935b: figs. 53–56; Delougaz 1960: 90 n. 3, pls. VI:a, VII) and the famous inscribed piece found on the floor of Nippur Inªanak VIIB (7N120: cf. Hansen and Dales 1962: 79, cover; Hansen 1975b: 185, pl. 76:a; Goetze 1970–71: 42, 50; Steible 1982b 239: AnNip. 23). 123. The wall to the southeast of the eastern corner (“extension 2 x 8 m long”) was interpreted by Wilson (2002: 292– 96, figs. 7, 10) as the remains of an antechamber that opened on the square room (“tower”). The presence of cavities in the wall is compared with the “construction inférieure” at Firsu (Wilson 2002: 297). Cf. also §A.1 for the discussion of this kind of temple plan. 124. Banks (1912: 244) simply speaks of an upper coating of bitumen on which a fragment of a stone vase with an inscription of king Me¶alim of Kis was found (although this, in terms of stratigraphy, is of no chronological value). I could ask ourselves whether Banks perhaps confused this with two fragments of decorated chlorite vases found immediately below the platform (cf. Wilson 2002: 294 n. 59) or whether this is one of the two published fragments with the name of this king (therefore A211, since A192 undoubtedly comes from the favissa to the northeast; cf. Table 6). Wilson (2002: 296, fig. 9 “e”) believes that the paving represents a later phase, sealing the structures in plano-convex bricks that had previously been filled with mud bricks (whereas I maintain that this fill is of an earlier phase and is cut through by the bakedbrick foundations, the paving consequently relating to the latter; cf. below).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

49

would explain Banks’s vagueness, some of his proposals for relative chronology, and the fact that two tablets were probably stolen during the dig.126 It is precisely through comparison with the stratigraphy of Firsu (as reconstructed in §1.1.3) that we are able to understand the stratigraphic sequence of the temple area at Adab (cf. Table 7). The favissa belongs to the Early Dynastic IIIa phase of a large complex (parallel with phase 4 of the temple of Ninmirsûk, again associated with Me¶alim of Kis). This, in a later phase, saw the construction of a building on a terrace in its southern sector with baked-brick foundations sealed by a bitumen-covered paving,127 the mud-brick uprights of which were not identified by the excavator, who was working in tunnels. This building was the work of Eªiginimpaªe, a ruler of Early Dynastic IIIb, probably no later than Eªannâbtum of Lagas (cf. Table 15b in §2.4). This phase hence appears to be parallel to phase 6 in the temple of Ninmirsûk, with which it shares certain specific structural characteristics. Nonetheless, on the basis of comparison with Firsu Ninmirsûk 3 (cf. §1.1.3), it is possible that the temple of Ninhursamak did not have two axially-connected rooms as proposed by Wilson128 but two independent cellae. Although the floor of the later phase of the sanctuary is of plano-convex baked bricks, the fact that no other coeval floors are recognizable seems to indicate that this floor is coeval with structures of rectangular bricks with linear marks observed in various spots within the temple area. The western rooms and a refurbished drain belong to these structures, as well as a door socket found on the eastern edge. It is thus possible to delineate a fairly complete plan of the temple area for this phase.129 Wilson’s interpretation, which assigns to the Eªiginimpaªe phase all of the structures later than the sanctuary of plano-convex bricks, is not fully confirmed by the excavation data, despite intriguing planimetric and stratigraphic parallels with the sanctuary of 125. In his publications, Banks (1912: 199–202, 275) does not indicate the relevant findspots. Cf., however, Wilson 2002: 298 nn. 66–67 (on the basis of an unpublished report). The deposits consists of a limestone tablet (cf. A1159, Table 6), three copper tablets (Pl. 15:4; Luckenbill 1930: nos. 19–21; cf., however, the following note) and three clevises found in situ with their copper pegs (Pl. 15:5; Luckenbill 1930: no. 18). They all bear a dedication to Dimirmah, that is, to Ninhursamak, and record the construction of the Emah (Steible 1982b: 189–90 Eig. 1 sub A–E; Frayne 2008: 30 E1.1.7.2). R. S. Ellis (1968: 55 nn. 66–67, fig. 9) has identified two pairs of clevises with pegs, while Wilson (2002: 298 n. 67) cites only one. 126. Since Banks (1912: 204, 447) was not sure whether Eªiginimpaªe (= “Esheulpaudu”) preceded Urnammâk and Sulgir or not, it would appear that the deposits were not found in the area of the terrace, which, in his opinion, definitely dated to these two rulers (cf. also Banks 1912: 273). One of the three copper tablets was acquired at the site (Banks [1904a: 144] was convinced that it had been removed from the temple area), though a second limestone tablet is kept in St. Petersburg (R. S. Ellis 1968: 55 n. 63; Steible 1982b: 190 Eig. 1 sub F). 127. No doors were identified during excavations (Banks 1912: 235 plan), even though the structures were built of baked bricks. It seems probable, therefore, that they were foundations. On Ekiri and Emah, which seem to be different names of the temple complex of Ninhursamak (the first is earlier than the second), cf. pp. 223–225. 128. Cf. Wilson 2002: 297, fig. 10. In support of my interpretation, cf. also the straight axis shrine of Inªanak VIII, VIIB, and VIIA (Zettler 1992: figs. 6–8, rooms 223–24 and 177–78). 129. Banks 1903–4: 266; 1904b: 219–20; id. 1905–6a: 31–32; 1912: 237, 240, 247, 341 (pp. 339–40 illustrations). The description by Banks (1903–4: 266; 1905–6a: 31–32) refers to the label “drain” on the top right of the plan in Banks 1912: 235. Refurbishings of this phase, to which a door socket on the southeast side of the terrace has also been attributed (Banks 1903–4: fig. 6; 1912: 247–48, possibly indicated on the plan on p. 235 by the second hatching from bottom right, the elevation of which would, however, appear to be high, judging from the excavation photograph with the bricks of the terrace in the background), have also been noticed in what may be the kitchen-temple to the south (cf. n. 132 below). Banks (1912: 244) believes that the rooms to the west and the structure in baked bricks come from of roughly the same time (cf. also 1912: 247).

50

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Ninhursamak at Nutur; indeed, it only holds true for the sector with rooms to the west.130 As can be seen from the excavation photographs, these rooms stand at a lower level than the thick wall bordering the terrace to the northeast, which must date to the Neo-Sumerian period, given its architectonic characteristics and the finds associated with it.131 It is also difficult to date the two rooms to the southeast of the terrace.132 The Neo-Sumerian temple terrace, which had a ramp along its southwestern side, had a facing of baked bricks inscribed with the name of Sulgir and a dedication to Ninhursamak. Under this facing there was presumably another brick facing of the Akkadian period, but the evidence to support this is somewhat questionable.133 Banks mentions 50 or so statue fragments from various areas of the site, although the majority comes from the temple area.134 The statue of Lugaldalu (Cat. 7; Pl. 31) is one of the few for which we have a clear archaeological context (cf. §3.1). In conclusion, it is possible to reconstruct a schematic stratigraphic sequence of the sacred area of Ninhursamak at Adab (Table 7). Two thick terraces of bricks were built in successive 130. Wilson 2002: 284–92, fig. 2 (which must here be taken as a composite plan of the remains dating to Early Dynastic IIIb and Ur III). For comparisons with the temple of Nutur, cf. 2002: 298–99. For a view from the north, where the boundary wall and the rooms to the west can be seen, cf. 2002: 285, fig. 4. On the 4-m-thick brick enclosure wall, which was preserved to a height of 20/50 cm, cf. Banks 1912: 188. On the problem of the ramp providing access to the terrace, probably located to the north, cf. Wilson 2002: 289–90, figs. 5–6. 131. Banks (1912: 248–49) asserts that the western rooms were still in use during the Neo-Sumerian period, which clearly cannot have been the case. This assertion is probably based on the fact that, in a small room near the western corner of the terrace (possibly the diagonal room at the junction with the thick enclosure wall (1912: 235), which suggests that, instead, it cuts through this structure, although indications that there may have been a room of such an unlikely shape farther to the north of the same structure suggests caution here; cf. also Banks 1905–6a: 30) there was a pavement in the same square bricks as the terrace on which fragments of a sculpted and inscribed Neo-Sumerian vase were found (Banks 1912: 139; Steible 1991b: 349 Adab 1). A Neo-Sumerian head of a ruler with a smooth cap, most probably portraying Sulgir, was found in an adjacent but separate room, “eight meters from the tower,” associated with a fragment of a carved and inscribed vase that mentions Sulgir (Banks 1912: 256–57; Steible 1991b: 349–50 Adab 2). On the much debated dating of the head, cf. Wilson 2002: 285 nn. 37–38, who correctly suggests an attribution to the Ur III period (the absence of any Old Babylonian levels in the area makes it certain that it cannot be later). 132. In the two rooms (“crematory”), which could perhaps be interpreted as a so-called kitchen-temple, installations in plano-convex bricks were excavated, but their stratigraphic relations to the surrounding structures are not clear: cf. Banks 1905–6a: 33; 1912: 245–47 (these are the two rooms shown on the plan along the southeast side of the terrace, 1905–6: 235). The fact that the back part of a diorite head, possibly part of a Neo-Sumerian statue (to judge from its description), comes from one of the rooms makes it difficult to interpret or date these structures with any precision. 133. On the bricks of Sulgir, cf. Banks 1905–6a: 30; 1912: 119, 132–34, 173, 188, 344 (Steible 1991b: 162 Sulgi 8). Cf. also Banks 1904b: 221. There is a degree of confusion concerning the materials bearing testimony to other rulers of Ur III: the inscribed bricks of Urnammâk mentioned by Banks (1912: 235) are not otherwise known; a brick of Amarzuªenak, 1912: 114, 343 (Steible 1991b: 220 Amarsuen 2G), said, in the captions, to belong to Susîn, cannot come from the temple area. The sides of the so-called ziggurat presumably measured 20 m, thus covering a total area only a quarter the size of that of Ur. Therefore, it seems more likely that this was a minor terrace temple. On the stratification of the Akkadian period, cf. Banks 1912: 204, 235, 237, 240, 247–48. The square bricks that Banks attributed to ‡arrumken and Naramsuyin are, in fact, not inscribed (1912: 341–42). An inscription of Naramsuyin on a gold leaf (1912: 145 illustration) is said to be associated with the Akkadian phase of the temple area, although the description of the context casts doubt about its stratigraphic value (Banks [1903–4: 261] says that it came from a room built in stamped rectangular bricks, although he subsequently provides yet another description: cf. 1905–6a: 31). Near the western corner of the terrace, the elbow of a lifesize limestone statue was found (Banks 1912: 137); from the southeast corner comes a bearded statue with locks of hair framing the face, holding a branch and a bowl (Banks 1912: 138 photo; Frankfort 1939a: 27, pl. 115:203). The latter piece, only 7 cm high, must be considered as residual: it was found next to a sculpted, inscribed Neo-Sumerian vase (Banks 1912: 139 illustration; other fragments were lying in a neighboring room paved with inscribed bricks, presumably of Sulgir: cf. 1912: 249), but it dates to Early Dynastic II or IIIa.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

51

phases (1 and 2). The second had stone foundations and an uninscribed foundation deposit. This was followed by a third terrace with, on its northwestern extremity, a ramp on the sides of which numerous offerings were amassed, possibly when the sacred area was leveled before rebuilding began (phase 3).135 Three rulers of Adab are associated with this phase, but it is not known which of these was the builder of phase 3.136 Lastly, phase 4 is represented by a large complex with a sanctuary with baked-brick foundations (and foundation deposits in the vicinity that enable us to attribute this to Eªiginimpaªe), subsidiary rooms, and some drains.

Table. 7. Schematic stratigraphy of the temple area of the Ekiri/Emah on Tell V at Adab Banks 1912: 235–40

New proposal

Wilson 2002: figs. 1, 9

Level

Ruler

Chronology

4

Eªiginimpaªe

ED IIIb

solid mud brick, mud

3

Lumma?

ED IIIa

mud brick, stone blocks, IV

2

ED II/IIIa

mud brick, V

1

ED II

Name, period plano-convex platform, III tower

Wilson’s levels

Ruler

e

Eªiginimpaªe

b d–c a

1.1.5. Tell al-Muqayyar (Ur) Between 1926 and 1933, a number of deep soundings carried out at Ur by Woolley near and in the area that would later be called the Royal Cemetery (cf. below) revealed a thick stratigraphy for the fourth and third millennia b.c. Only in a few cases did this sequence include the vestiges of structures, since most of the finds related to cemeteries and ancient waste dumps.137 The 134. A small, shaven head of Early Dynastic III was found in the northwestern sector of the temple area (Banks 1912: 149, 254 with illustration). For the other six illustrated examples, all from Early Dynastic III (no earlier sculpted pieces are known for this site), but insufficient to define the possible characteristics of a local school, cf. Pl. 44:7; Banks 1912: 251– 55, 443 (cf. also Braun-Holzinger 1977: 77). From the rooms of the “crematory,” in the southern part of the temple area, also come various fragments of statues (Banks 1912: 246–47), which cannot at present be located. 135. Wilson 2002: 281–84, fig. 1 (cf. also 2002: fig. 7 for the location of the two soundings adjacent to the sanctuary constructed of baked brick). In the sounding carried out in the southwestern area of the Neo-Sumerian platform, a copper foundation deposit (which ends in a crouching lion) was found among the stone foundations of the phase here called 2 (Banks 1912: 236–37; Wilson 2002: 283 n. 20, fig. 1 [note that Wilson suggests a lower elevation for this find]; cf. also R. S. Ellis 1968: 56). This object does not, however, allow us to propose a precise date for the construction of the associated platform (the analogy with the stratification of Firsu suggests a date in Early Dynastic II for phase 1 and in late II or the beginning of IIIa for phase 2). Phases 1–3 are each covered by a stratum of ash that does not necessarily indicate a destruction (although the second of these is 20 cm thick), since they could be traces of use or even be the result of some ritual activity. 136. These are Ereskisalêsi (a contemporary of king Me¶alim of Kis), Lumma and Medurba (cf. p. 47 n. 119 for their inscriptions), for whom we do not know the order of succession. Lumma seems, however, to be earlier than the others (cf. Table 15a in §2.4) and could, therefore, have built phase 3. 137. Cf. Woolley 1956: pl. 1, for the location—actually quite sketchy, as shown by Zimmerman 1998: 31–39, fig. 53— of Pits D, W, X, Y, and Z. On these, cf. Woolley 1956: 55, 75–80, pls. 72, 77–78, 82–83; for Pits F and G, cf. 1956: 56– 71, pls. 71–75.

52

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

latter contained a large quantity of pottery, sealings, and inscribed documents, as well as archaeobiological remains. Of particular importance are the levels below the Royal Cemetery of Early Dynastic IIIb. These, called the Seal-impression strata (SIS) 8–4, have yielded material that has so far remained virtually unique in Mesopotamia as evidence of the administrative practices and the visual culture of the archaic phases of the Early Dynastic period. The dating of these levels is, however, debated, since two authoritative studies have proposed assigning them to Early Dynastic II rather than Early Dynastic I, as is more generally believed.138 Here, below, I present a fresh interpretation of the evidence. As for the Diyala (cf. §1.1.1), at Ur, too, stratigraphic factors outweigh stylistic considerations139 in analyses of visual material from excavated contexts.140 Sürenhagen reconstructs in great detail the sequence of Pit F, the only sequence with evidence of structures that has been systematically explored. The various pottery horizons from this trench can be studied in detail,141 while we know of no similar material from the SIS.142 SIS 8–4 are thick, sloping layers of earth of various colors.143 The best stratigraphy is documented in Pit Z: here, SIS 8 is one of the rare contexts for which we have a clear association of seal impressions and pottery from Early Dynastic I.144 The later levels in the trenches, especially 138. These works, which in part evolved together, were developed in the 1980s: cf. Karg 1984: 15–38, 73–74 (on glyptics) and Sürenhagen 1999: 175–250 (on stratigraphy and pottery). 139. Like those by Karg 1984: 10–15, 78–81. 140. There is also a problem of terminology, since it has been suggested that the phase known as Jemdet Nasr should be abolished and included, instead, in the Late Uruk period that has been given the intrinsically wrong name of “frühsumerisch” by Sürenhagen (1999: 1–5). According to Sürenhagen, the Late Uruk phase also includes levels IIIc–a and II–I7 of the Eªanak at Uruk (1999: table 21 on p. 172). Cf., previously, Abu al-Soof 1967, for a similar perspective deriving from the ideas of the Berlin School (cf. Nagel and Strommenger 1995: 455). Frankfort had employed a somewhat similar approach throughout the various publications on the Diyala sites, introducing the term Protoliterate. However, phases c–d of this corresponded to the classical criteria applied in the definition of the Jemdet Nasr phase (polychrome pottery, pictographic tablets, schematic seals; Frankfort [1971], however, employs the label “later Predynastic”). 141. For levels K–E and “kiln strata” 5–1, cf. Sürenhagen 1999: 188–208, pls. 50–59; cf. 1999: table 54 on p. 250, for a relative dating of Pit F (note that Woolley [1956: 61] thought that there was a hiatus between levels G and F). The documentation provided by the seals does not add further details, because the only stratified glyptics (listed by Sürenhagen 1999: 283–84 according to a revised interpretation of the elevations) come from level K, which dates from the Jemdet Nasr period (two seals and two seal impressions; Legrain 1936: no. 30, pl. 2:30, U.14478; Woolley 1956: 65, U.14476, pl. 44 and fig. 11:a U.14457; Moorey 1979: fig. 4:595 U.14568), and from level H, from the beginning of Early Dynastic I (U.14505, cf. Table 8). Notwithstanding these limitations, levels H–E are generally correlated with SIS 8–4 (Moorey 1979: 118; Sürenhagen 1999: table 54 on p. 250). Gockel (1982: 105–6) correlates the seal impressions from SIS 8/6–4 mainly with level G. On the cuneiform tablets from levels B and A, important for the chronology of these later levels, cf. below, p. 95 n. 335. 142. Sürenhagen 1999: 180–87. The pottery horizon that has been reconstructed (1999: pl. 48) for Pit G is, in fact, not relevant as far as the related SIS are concerned, since these appear to be present only in the lower part of the sounding, as well as being at a certain distance from the main trenches for the SIS. It is clear, in fact, that the large terrace wall has greatly disturbed the stratigraphy of Pit G: cf., for example, the two tablets dated to the Jemdet Nasr period (Burrows 1935: 3, nos. 232–33; cf. Visicato 2000: 14 for the date) from, respectively, elevation 8.5 m a.s.l. and the external façade of the terrace wall (cf. also Woolley 1956: 71, pl. 72); they were, therefore, found at a different elevation than the seal impressions in Legrain 1936: nos. 93, 138, 154, 326, 447 (a second example of which comes from Pit W), 480–83 (found at elevation 6.5–7.4 m a.s.l.; cf. also Woolley 1956: 71). 143. SIS 5–4, for example, were bright red (Woolley 1956: 38 n. 5 and p. 79), which means that they were most probably composed of leveled earth containing calcinated mud bricks. 144. In addition to n. 137 above, cf. Woolley 1936: vii–viii, for Pits D, W, X, Y, Z (where it is also stated that SIS 8–7 were not properly Seal-impression strata). Woolley (1956: 79, pl. 82) says that the solid-footed goblets (1956: pl. 56:

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

53

SIS 5–4, have mainly yielded only seal impressions (Pls. 15:6, 49:2, 60:1)145 and tablets (Pl. 22:1– 2).146 Zettler has studied the pottery shapes on which sealings had been impressed and concludes that these correspond to the horizon of Nippur Inªanak XI–IX.147 The so-called archaic texts of Ur all date from a period between the Jemdet Nasr phase and Early Dynastic IIIa, and only rarely is a more precise date than “Early Dynastic I–II” proposed. Although this can be justified in part by the fact that these are different kinds of evidence and so is their terminology, we have here such interesting evidence that one feels compelled to try to define a more precise context and date for these stratified visual and textual documents. It should be noted, in the first place, that, as far as the association of text and image is concerned, only one tablet bears a seal impression, and a virtually illegible one at that.148 Some sealings from SIS 5–4 bear the impression of inscribed seals JN.25) and a few seal impressions come from SIS 8 (on the seal impression from SIS 8 in Z, cf. Legrain 1936: nos. 2, 4– 5, 7–18; Moorey 1979: 561–62). On the dating of the solid-footed goblets to Early Dynastic I, cf. p. 17 n. 7 and n. 150 below. It should be noted, however, that we have no data relating to the exact chronological distribution of this shape in southern Mesopotamia. A fragment of a tablet also comes from SIS 8 (Burrows 1935: no. 307, although Woolley [1956: 55] wrongly cites it as if from Pit D between 7.3 and 7.6 m, i.e., SIS 4). 145. Legrain 1936; Moorey 1979. Sealings nos. 15, 21–23, 36, 39–41, 43, 46 (note that the numbering of the sealings higher than 560 follows Moorey 1979, which complements Legrain 1936) come from SIS 7; nos. 24–30, 32–35, 38, 44– 45, 380, 563 from SIS 7–6; nos. 31, 37, 42, 298 from SIS 6; no. 282 from SIS 5; nos. 131, 135–136, 140, 143, 155, 157, 161, 165, 167–69, 171, 175, 179, 181, 191–92, 201–4, 206, 210, 214–15, 217–21, 223–26, 234, 236–39, 246–52, 254, 256– 57, 270, 275–77, 281, 283, 286, 287, 294, 296–97, 299, 303, 306, 316, 318–19, 324, 329, 345–46, 349–52, 362, 369, 373– 79, 382–84, 386–88, 393–98, 405, 429, 431, 436, 447, 456, 460–61, 463, 465–67, 469, 474–75 from SIS 5–4; nos. 132, 134, 136–37, 139, 141–42, 145–51, 153, 158–67, 170, 172–74, 176–78, 180, 186–88, 190, 193–200, 207–11, 213, 216–17, 222, 227, 229–33, 235, 241–44, 253–56, 258–61, 263–66, 268, 271–74, 278–81, 285–86, 288–89, 291–93, 295, 300, 302, 304– 5, 307–9, 311, 313–15, 317, 320–23, 325, 328, 330, 332–38, 340–43, 347–48, 353, 355–56, 358–60, 364–66, 368, 371–72, 374, 381, 384–85, 387, 389–92, 398–401, 403–4, 406, 408–10, 412–15, 419–21, 423–28, 430–35, 438–42, 444–55, 457– 59, 461–62, 464, 468, 470–72, 479, 568–97 from SIS 4; nos. 134, 144, 156, 182–83, 189, 205, 212, 300, 310, 344, 357, 363, 380, 422, 473, 566–67 from SIS 6–4; nos. 284, 339, 447, 564–65 from SIS 8–4; nos. 184, 262, 407 from SIS 8 or 4. For the sealings from Pit G, cf. n. 142 above, whereas nos. 240, 331, 612 are from Late Uruk levels in Pit F (cf. also Sürenhagen 1999: pls. 57:8–9, 58:22), while Legrain 1936: no. 189 comes from Pit F stratum B (and is also attested in Pit Z SIS 6–4). Three sealings with Early Dynastic III motifs are intrusive (cf. Legrain 1936: 30–31, 42, nos. 298, 476 and Moorey 1979: 116, fig. 5:610). 146. On the archaic texts of Ur, cf., in general, Burrows 1935 (especially, pp. 1–3); and Visicato 2000: 13–18, who maintains that they are separated by no more than a hundred years from the tablets of Fara (Visicato 2000: 14 n. 4). Almost all of the tablets are reported to come from SIS 5–4 (Burrows 1935: 44), but the Pit in which they were found is seldom specified. Apart from no. 307, from SIS 8 in Z (cf. n. 144 above), only two other texts are said to come from earlier levels: nos. 305–6, from SIS 7 in Z (Burrows 1935: 55; the provenance—from Pit D—for nos. 305–7 given by Woolley 1956: 55 is erroneous). A careful revision of the elevations and unpublished information from the original excavation inventory cards kept at the British Museum (courtesy G. Benati, p.c.), allows us to specify the precise stratigraphic provenance for some other published tablets (cf. Table 8). A few texts have been ascribed by Burrows (1935: 3, nos. 1, 63–64, 232–33) to the Jemdet Nasr phase (the last two coming from Pit G; cf. n. 142 above). An additional three tablets, which have been dated to the Fara period (Early Dynastic IIIa), are to be regarded as intrusive material (Burrows 1935: 3, nos. 2, 308, 310, but the second piece comes from “preliminary trial trenches” at –2.75 m from the surface; on p. 5 sub 11 it is also said that no. 299 bears “a drawing of the kind that is characteristic of [the] F[ara tablets],” but this is actually too vague [cf. Burrows 1935: pl. XXXVI:299 rev.]; cf. also Visicato 2000: 14). 147. Zettler 1989: 379–85; cf. also pp. 371–72 (for some information concerning the pottery of SIS 8–4) and Sürenhagen 1999: 185–87. 148. According to Burrows (1935: 5 sub 11), tablet no. 247 bears traces of a seal impression “too faint for reproduction, but probably of the kind that is characteristic of J[emdet ]N[asr]” (also cf. 1935: 52 sub 247). This is not shown in the copy (pl. XXXI: 247). On the other hand, a tablet with a clear seal impression (no. 233 on pl. XXX) is earlier than the archaic texts (both the script and the seal are Jemdet Nasr) and, therefore, it does not belong here (cf. n. 146 above). A rolling of a large inscribed cylinder seal has also been ascribed to the Jemdet Nasr period (1935: no. 1, pl. A).

54

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

(including the city seals; Pl. 15:6). Though the paucity of other stratified inscribed documents from other sites makes any comparative dating of the archaic texts of Ur almost impossible, this can instead be achieved by analyzing the associated materials (cf. also Table 8). The corpus of seal impressions from the lower SIS is sufficiently homogenous in terms of both style and stratigraphy that the pieces can be regarded as forming a coherent and coeval whole. Despite some interesting attempts to lower the date of the glyptics from the SIS from Early Dynastic I to II, the dating to Early Dynastic I is confirmed by comparison with the stratified glyptics from the Diyala sites (cf. §1.1.1).149 In the absence of any indications provided by the pottery horizons, which, as I have already pointed out, are virtually unpublished, here we can only note that in SIS 8, undoubtedly dating from Early Dynastic I given the presence of the solid-footed goblets, we not only find sealings that are similar in style to those from SIS 5–4 but also an archaic cuneiform tablet again similar to those from SIS 5–4.150 The characteristic group of the socalled city seals—which continue a tradition already attested in the Jemdet Nasr period, notably at the site of Jemdet Nasr itself—is already attested in SIS 8 and then more broadly, with a few differences, in SIS 5–4.151 This date finds further confirmation in the fact that, in SIS 4, there are Piedmont type motifs that are hardly ever attested in central-southern Mesopotamia after Early Dynastic I.152 Of particular importance in terms of artistic documentation are the rear part of the head of a limestone statue (Pl. 15:7) and two copper bovine hooves recovered from levels SIS 5–4, thus documenting the existence of these classes of material at Ur at the end of Early Dynastic I.153 I must stress once again that it is only by considering the horizons of visual and material culture from various Mesopotamian sites as a whole that we can obtain further and more precise information regarding individual cases, which only at that point gain real historical significance. [[text continues on p. 61]] 149. Moorey (1979: 117) was among the first to maintain that some seal impressions from SIS 5–4 stylistically belong to Early Dynastic II. However, Frankfort’s (1955: 26 n. 53) comments used in support of this opinion relate, as a matter of fact, to seals (Legrain 1936: nos. 215, 217) that can be compared stylistically with stratified examples from the Diyala region that can now be dated to Early Dynastic I (for example, Frankfort 1955: nos. 800–801, from the Earlier Building phase of the temple of “Sara” at Tell Agrab; cf. §1.1.1). The most elaborate proposal—which is, however, still open to similar objections—has been made by Karg (1984). Cf., on the other hand, the criticisms made by Porada (1991) and Martin (1988: 72, 133–34 n. 29). 150. Cf. nn. 144–46 above. Since the solid-footed goblets are mainly typical of the central phases of Early Dynastic I (cf. Delougaz 1952: 56–57, pls. 146: B.007.700, 148: B.076.600, B.077.700a–b; they are not, in fact, attested in late Early Dynastic I levels such as, for example, ‡amus VII or “Abu” Archaic IV), there is nothing to prevent us from dating SIS 5– 4 to the late phase of the period, especially since it would be difficult to assume that a dump area was used exclusively so for any great length of time. Even if we accept the relative dating proposed by Sürenhagen (1999: 250, table 54 for Pit F; with levels H–E dated to Early Dynastic I–II, which would also solve the problems of the apparent absence of Early Dynastic II levels at Ur), there are no cogent factors correlating this area with SIS 5–4. Therefore, we can continue to date SIS 5–4 to Early Dynastic I. 151. Cf. R. Matthews 1993: 43–44, 46–47, 49, who argues for a dating to Early Dynastic I for the SIS of Ur, also on the basis of comparison with materials from other sites. 152. Cf. Marchetti 1996a: 84–88 (especially, pp. 87–88 nn. 48–49, fig. 2:18). For the Piedmont seal impressions from SIS 4, cf. also Legrain 1936: no. 161 and Moorey 1979: fig. 2:574. For the “naturalistic” Piedmont seal impressions, cf. Legrain 1936: nos. 162, 481 (from SIS 4 and Pit G, respectively). 153. Woolley 1956: 32–33. Cf. 1956: 37, 174, pl. 24:U.8472 (with a wrong caption), for the limestone head, 11 cm high, that was found in the area of the Royal Cemetery in association, it is reported, with the lower SIS. For the two copper hooves from SIS 4–5 of Pit W, cf. 1956: 38, pl. 29:U.14462.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

55

Table 8. Catalogue of stratified tablets and seal impressions from Early Dynastic I levels at Ur Also based on information from the original inventory cards in the British Museum kindly provided by G. Benati; inscriptions have been checked by G. Marchesi. Pit

Stratum/Elevation

Ur excav. no. Type of object

Bibliography

Pit D

6.20–6.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14648

City seal (?) impression

Moorey 1979: no. 571; Matthews 1993: no. 26

Pit D

6.20–6.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14649

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 134, pl. 6

Pit D

6.20–6.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14650

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 307, pl. 16

Pit D

6.20–6.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14703

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 293, pl. 15

Pit D

6.20–6.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14707

Seal impression

Moorey 1979: no. 572; Matthews 1993: no. 80

Pit D

6.20–6.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14708

Inscribed seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 438, pl. 24

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.12505

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 242, pl. 12

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.12545

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 286, pl. 15

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.12546

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 291, pls. 15, 48

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.12547

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 280, pl. 14

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.12551

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 227, pl. 11

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.13006

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 479, pl. 27

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14727

Tablet

Burrows 1935: no. 277, pl. XXXIV

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14718+ U.14728

Tablet

Burrows 1935: no. 264, pl. XXXIII

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14729

Tablet

Burrows 1935: no. 280, pl. XXXIV

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14730

Tablet

Burrows 1935: no. 278, pl. XXXIV

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14731

Tablet

Burrows 1935: no. 281, pl. XXXIV

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.15018

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 255, pl. 13

Pit D

6.20–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.15019

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 387, pls. 20, 51

Pit D

6.70–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14594

City seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 417, pls. 23, 54; Matthews 1993: no. 10

Pit D

6.70–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14595

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: nos. 167, 384, pls. 8, 20, 51

Pit D

6.70–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14597

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 368, pls. 18, 49

Pit D

6.70–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14599

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 302, pls. 16, 48

Pit D

6.70–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14600

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 426, pl. 23

Pit D

6.70–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14602

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 186, pls. 9, 44

Pit D

6.70–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14603

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 256, pl. 13

Pit D

6.70–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14604

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 216, pl. 11

Pit D

6.70–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14605 U.12544

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 328, pl. 17

Pit D

6.70–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14606

Scratches on sealing

Legrain 1936: no. 112, pl. 5

Pit D

6.70–7.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14612

Scratches on sealing

Legrain 1936: no. 56, pl. 4

Pit D

6.70–7.70m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14593 + U.14649

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 134, pl. 6

Pit D

Ca. 6.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14622

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 337, pl. 17

56

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Table 8. Catalogue of stratified tablets and seal impressions from Early Dynastic I levels at Ur (cont.) Also based on information from the original inventory cards in the British Museum kindly provided by G. Benati; inscriptions have been checked by G. Marchesi. Pit

Stratum/Elevation

Ur excav. no. Type of object

Bibliography

Pit D

Ca. 6.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14623

Seal impression

Moorey 1979: no. 590

Pit D

Ca. 6.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14625

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 385, pls. 20, 51

Pit D

Ca. 6.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14629

Scratches on sealing

Legrain 1936: no. 104, pl. 5

Pit D

Ca. 6.70 m a.s.l. (SIS 5–4)

U.14631

Scratches on sealing

Legrain 1936: no. 98, pl. 5

Pit F

H, 9.80/10.00 m a.s.l.

U.14505

Seal impression

Woolley 1956: 63, fig. 9:a

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 24, pl. 2; Matthews 1993: no. 79

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Inscribed seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 25, pls. 2, 43; Matthews 1993: no. 116

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 26, pl. 2

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 27, pl. 2

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 28, pl. 2

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 29, pl. 2; Matthews 1993: no. 77

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 30, pl. 2

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 32, pl. 2

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 33, pl. 2

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

City seal (?) impression

Legrain 1936: no. 34, pl. 2; Matthews 1993: no. 76

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 35, pl. 2

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 38, pl. 2

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 44, pls. 3, 43

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 45, pl. 3

Pit W

SIS 7–6

U.18550

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 380, pls. 19, 50

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.13980

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 317, pls. 16, 49

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18394

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 181, pl. 8

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18394 U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 238, pls. 12, 46

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18394 U.18404 U.18406 U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 239, pls. 12, 46

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18394

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 394, pls. 21, 53; Matthews 1993: no. 57

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18395

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 135, pl. 6

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18397 U.18400 U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 169, pls. 8, 44

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18397

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 395, pls. 21, 52; Matthews 1993: no. 35

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18397

City seal (?) impression

Legrain 1936: no. 397, pls. 21, 53

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

57

Table 8. Catalogue of stratified tablets and seal impressions from Early Dynastic I levels at Ur (cont.) Also based on information from the original inventory cards in the British Museum kindly provided by G. Benati; inscriptions have been checked by G. Marchesi. Pit

Stratum/Elevation

Ur excav. no. Type of object

Bibliography

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18397

City seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 429, pls. 23, 54; Matthews 1993: no. 1

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18397

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 436, pl. 24; Matthews 1993: no. 74

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18398

Inscribed seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 431, pl. 23; Matthews 1993: no. 114

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18399

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 155, pl. 7

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18399

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 167, pl. 8

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18399

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 171, pl. 8

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18399

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 210, pl. 10

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18399

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 396, pl. 21; Matthews 1993: no. 61

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18399

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 461, pl. 26

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18400

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 168, pls. 8, 44

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 161, pl. 7

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 220, pl. 11

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 276, pl. 14

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 299, pl. 16

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 345, pl. 18

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 362, pl. 18

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 374, pls. 19, 50

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 386, pl. 20

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 460, pl. 26; Matthews 1993: no. 88

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 465, pl. 26

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 466, pl. 26; Matthews 1993: no. 107

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18401

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 467, pl. 26; Matthews 1993: no. 87

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18402

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 223, pl. 11

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18402

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 275, pl. 14

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18402 U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 281, pl. 15

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18402

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 376, pl. 19

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18402 U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 382, pls. 19, 50

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18402

City seal (?) impression

Legrain 1936: no. 469, pl. 26; Matthews 1993: no. 83

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18404

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 131, pl. 6

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18404

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 306, pl. 16

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18404

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 346, pls. 18, 49

58

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Table 8. Catalogue of stratified tablets and seal impressions from Early Dynastic I levels at Ur (cont.) Also based on information from the original inventory cards in the British Museum kindly provided by G. Benati; inscriptions have been checked by G. Marchesi. Pit

Stratum/Elevation

Ur excav. no. Type of object

Bibliography

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18404

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 349, pls. 18, 49

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18404

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 350, pl. 18

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18404

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 351, pl. 18

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18404

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 352, pl. 18

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18404

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 375, pl. 19

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18404

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 387, pls. 20, 51

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18406

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 191, pl. 9

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18406

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 192, pl. 9

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18406

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 201, pl. 10

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18406

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 224, pl. 11

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18406

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 226, pl. 11

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18406

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 245, pls. 13, 46

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 165, pl. 8

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 217, pls. 11, 45

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 218, pl. 11

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 234, pl. 12; Matthews 1993: no. 52

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 236, pl. 12

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 237, pls. 12, 46

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 247, pls. 13, 46

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 248, pl. 13

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 249, pl. 13

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18407 U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 254, pls. 13, 44

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18407

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 257, pls. 13, 47

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18409

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 175, pl. 8

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18409

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 179, pl. 8

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18409

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 203, pl. 10

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18409

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 204, pl. 10

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18409

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 329, pl. 17

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18409

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 447, pls. 25, 55

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18410 U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 297, pls. 15, 48

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18411

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 383, pls. 20, 50

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18412 U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 379, pls. 19, 50

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 202, pl. 10

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 206, pls. 10, 44

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 214, pl. 10

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

59

Table 8. Catalogue of stratified tablets and seal impressions from Early Dynastic I levels at Ur (cont.) Also based on information from the original inventory cards in the British Museum kindly provided by G. Benati; inscriptions have been checked by G. Marchesi. Pit

Stratum/Elevation

Ur excav. no. Type of object

Bibliography

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 215, pls. 11, 45

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 219, pl. 11

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 221, pl. 11

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 225, pls. 11, 45

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 250, pls. 13, 46

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 251, pl. 13,

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 252, pls. 13, 47

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 270, pl. 14

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 277, pl. 14

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 283, pls. 15, 47

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 287, pls. 15, 48

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 294, pl. 15

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 296, pl. 15

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 303, pl. 16

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 318, pl. 16

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 319, pl. 16

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 324, pl. 17

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 369, pls. 18, 50

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 373, pl. 19

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 377, pls. 19, 50

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 378, pls. 19, 50

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 388, pl. 20

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 405, pls. 22, 53; Matthews 1993: no. 69

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18413

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 456, pl. 26

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18414

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 256, pls. 13, 47

Pit W

SIS 5–4

U.18414

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 316, pl. 16

Pit Z

SIS 8

U.14732

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 14, pl. 1; Matthews 1993: no. 78

Pit Z

SIS 8

U.14739

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 12, pl. 1

Pit Z

SIS 8

U.14741

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 13, pl. 1

Pit Z

SIS 8

U.14743

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 16, pl. 1

Pit Z

SIS 8

U.14744

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 15, pl. 1

Pit Z

SIS 8

U.14745

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 18, pl. 1

Pit Z

SIS 8

U.14752

City seal (?) impression

Legrain 1936: no. 9, pl. 1; Matthews 1993: no. 65

Pit Z

SIS 8

U.14753

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 11, pls. 1, 43

Pit Z

SIS 8

U.14755

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 10, pl. 1

Pit Z

SIS 8

U.14758

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 8, pl. 1

60

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Table 8. Catalogue of stratified tablets and seal impressions from Early Dynastic I levels at Ur (cont.) Also based on information from the original inventory cards in the British Museum kindly provided by G. Benati; inscriptions have been checked by G. Marchesi. Pit

Stratum/Elevation

Ur excav. no. Type of object

Bibliography

Pit Z

SIS 8

U.14890

Tablet

Burrows 1935: no. 307, pl. XXXVI

Pit Z

SIS 8, 4.99 m a.s.l.

U.14754

Seal impression

Moorey 1979: no. 562

Pit Z

SIS 8, 4.99 m a.s.l.

U.14756

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 7, pl. 1

Pit Z

SIS 8, 4.99 m a.s.l.

U.14757

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 2, pl. 1

Pit Z

SIS 8, 4.99 m a.s.l.

U.14759

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 4, pls. 1, 43

Pit Z

SIS 8, 4.99 m a.s.l.

U.14764

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 5, pl. 1

Pit Z

SIS 8, 5.03 m a.s.l.

U.14738

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 17, pl. 1

Pit Z

SIS 8, 5.03 m a.s.l.

U.14742

Seal impression

Moorey 1979: no. 561

Pit Z

SIS 7

U.14191

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 46, pl. 3

Pit Z

SIS 7

U.14192

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 136, pl. 6

Pit Z

SIS 7

U.14194

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 39, pls. 3, 43

Pit Z

SIS 7

U.14199

Seal impression

Moorey 1979: no. 563

Pit Z

SIS 7

U.14200

Scratches on sealing

Legrain 1936: no. 23, pl. 2

Pit Z

SIS 7

U.14501

Tablet

Burrows 1935: no. 305, pl. XXXVI

Pit Z

SIS 7

U.14565

Tablet

Burrows 1935: no. 306, pl. XXXVI

Pit Z

SIS 7

U.14573

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 36, pl. 2

Pit Z

SIS 7

U.14614

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 41, pl. 3

Pit Z

SIS 7–4

U.14502

Tablet

Burrows 1935: no. 255, pl. XXXII

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14190

City seal (?) impression

Burrows 1935: no. 317, pls. XXXVII, F; Matthews 1993: no. 40

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14193

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 134, pl. 44

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14195

Seal impression

Moorey 1979: no. 566

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14196

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 380, pl. 19

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14517

City seal (?) impression

Legrain 1936: no. 422, pl. 23

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14518 U.14557

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 300, pl. 16

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14559 U.14578

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 183, pl. 8

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14560

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 189, pl. 9

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14570

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 344, pl. 17

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14571

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 329, pls. 17, 49

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14574

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 156, pl. 7

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14578

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 363, pl. 18

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14582

Scratches on sealing

Legrain 1936: no. 64, pl. 4

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14616

Impression of a butt-end of cylinder seal

Legrain 1936: no. 128, pls. 6, 43

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14734

Seal impression

Legrain 1936: no. 357, pl. 18

Pit Z

SIS 6–4

U.14895

Tablet

Burrows 1935: no. 299, pl. XXXVI

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

61

The other fundamental context for determining the chronology of artistic material at Ur is the Royal Cemetery, which covers the SIS 5–4 stratigraphically. I obviously cannot discuss here in detail this vast and important array of data but will concentrate on elements that are significant for the work in hand. The sixteen tombs that Woolley believed to be royal are considered such either because they were built in stone and brick and/or because they are accompanied by so-called human sacrifices,154 although other tombs of a simpler type have also yielded extremely interesting material. From the point of view of stratigraphy, the sequence of the built tombs has been convincingly reconstructed by Zimmerman,155 who makes some slight but important changes to the conclusions reached by Pollock.156 A recent analysis of the epigraphic data concords fully with Zimmerman’s seriation, since the inscriptions on two seals from PG1236 (belonging to the stratigraphically and typologically earlier group) again show a free order of signs that is still similar to that of the Fara period.157 Although glyptic specialists agree on dating a large percentage of the seals from the Royal Cemetery to Early Dynastic IIIa (cf. Introduction above), there are not in fact any objectively verifiable criteria to substantiate this. In my opinion, most of the stylistic parallels are found among the seals of Lagas I (and this already at the time of the kings Ayaªumêdug [= “Akalamdug”] and Mesªumêdug [= “Meskalamdug”] who must thus have reigned in Early Dynastic IIIb and therefore be roughly contemporaries of Urnansêk and Ayakurgal). In order to define more clearly the artistic horizon of the Royal Cemetery, I shall now take a brief look at the two most indicative classes of material found in these supposedly royal tombs— that is, seals, which almost always picture contest or banquet scenes; and inlays (cf. Table 9 for individual references). As noted above, the earliest documentation is from PG1236, with four seals, including those of Ganªenkîkak and Ayaªanzud (Pl. 16:1),158 which epigraphically are still linked to the Fara tradition. Some are rather schematic in style, others more volumetric. The latter style is used on the seal of Ayaªanzud, which depicts a battle scene with a chariot crushing an enemy and a procession of soldiers and naked prisoners. The three seals with contest scenes from PG779 portray manes and fleece in a fully volumetric style, whereas the “Standard of Ur” (Pls. 57:1, 58:1) clearly shows the same stylistic traits as 154. Cf. Woolley 1934: 43–134, pl. 273. There were ten “built” tombs (PG777, PG779, PG789, PG800, PG1054b, PG1618, PG1648), in one of which, however, human sacrifices were entirely absent (PG1631), while for another two the documentation is dubious (PG1236 and PG1050). For a discussion of human sacrifices (documented also in pits for which no associated burial chambers have been found, i.e., PG337, PG580, PG1157, PG1232, PG1237, PG1332), cf. most recently Marchesi 2004: 154–55. Sürenhagen (2002) believes that these are secondary multiple depositions. 155. Cf. Zimmerman 1998: 47–49, who identifies five successive groups: 1 consisting of PG1236, PG779, PG777; 2 of PG1054b, PG1648; 3 of PG800, PG789, PG1631; 4 of PG1050c, PG1618; 5 of PG1054a, PG1050a. Numerous difficulties remain, however, which cannot be discussed here. The conclusions arrived at by Nissen (1966) now need to be radically revised on a number of issues, whereas those of Reade 2001: 15–27, table 1, although including some important new information, must on the whole be considered unwarranted. 156. Pollock (1985) had, in fact, identified six pottery groups, the first two of which belonging to Early Dynastic IIIa, the third to IIIb, and the remaining three to the Akkadian period, and proposed a seriation of the tombs that Zimmerman has modified in part (cf. the preceding note). The presence of a globular Syrian bottle is particularly interesting (Reade 2001: 24–26, fig. 4; cf. Margueron 2004: fig. 171:2 top left, from a tomb of “Ville II” at Mari), which is typologically earlier than the elongated form of the late Early Bronze III in Syria (cf. below, p. 82 n. 275; for stratified [Anatolian] Early Bronze II and III globular and elongated specimens, from levels 15 to 11 at Kültepe/Kanes, cf. Özgüç 1986: 34–37, figs. 3:3–8). On metal vases, cf. Müller-Karpe 1993: 245–63, pls. 148–69. 157. Woolley 1934: pls. 194:32, 196:54; Marchesi 2004: 182. 158. For the reading of these names, cf. Marchesi 2004: 182.

62

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

the objects from the other tombs, as does the associated gaming board.159 The two seals from PG789 are in a more schematic style than the better examples from the royal tombs, while the inlays are almost identical in terms of both style and iconography to others from PG800, PG580, and PG1237. PG800 presents a stratigraphic problem, since it has recently been claimed that its dromos actually belongs to another unidentified tomb.160 In any case, from the dromos we have two sheets of gold leaf with animal motifs, a banquet scene in an intermediate style, and a contest scene in a style identical to those from PG779,161 whereas the queen’s tomb yielded three seals with banquet scenes in a courtly style (Pl. 61:2–3).162 These last pieces only find a close comparison in the seal of Gankunsigak, priestess (eres-dimir) of the god Pabilsamak, from PG580 (Pl. 61:5).163 From PG1054 we have the famous seal of king Mesªumêdug (which was not found in the main tomb, generally attributed to a woman; Pl. 16:3) showing a contest scene, like another specimen which is, however, in a schematic style; a gold seal with a banquet scene; and a well-known inlaid object with a mythological scene featuring fantastic creatures. Another royal seal (with a contest scene similar to the pieces from PG779 and PG800) is that of queen Ayasusikilªanak, wife of Ayaªumêdug, which was found in PG1050(c). Numerous seals, with banquet (Pl. 61:6) or contest scenes executed in a mixed or schematic style, were found in the great death pit PG1237.164 In PG1332, a schematic seal with banquet scene and the sound-box of a lyre with a similar scene were found (Pl. 58:7), the latter decorated with an “eye” motif, like a specimen from PG789 and another from PG513.165 Although we have a schematic banquet scene from PG337, with regard to two other splendid inscribed seals from

159. For the name Ezi, inscribed on one of the three cylinders, cf. Marchesi 2004: 181. In terms of its iconography, the “Standard” can be compared with objects from other tombs: cf., for example, the lion-headed eagle attacking a humanheaded recumbent bull in the lower register of one of the short sides with a seal from PG1054 (Woolley 1934: pl. 192:12), or the bearers in the lower register of the “peace” side with the frieze on the chest of Puªabum in PG800 (Woolley 1934: pl. 94). The former motif is also attested at Nutur (cf. Hall and Woolley 1927: pls. XXXV:1, XXXVII: T.O.319); cf. §1.1.6. 160. Although P. C. Zimmerman in Zettler and Horne 1998: 39 correctly emphasize Woolley’s statement (1934: 84) that the paving of the room in PG800 lay 0.4 m below the elevation of the dromos of PG789, this is not shown in the section, where the pavings of both tombs are at the same elevation (1934: fig. 10). Even if we ignore this, Zimmerman’s conclusion, that the real dromos of PG800 lay unexcavated below that of PG789, seems a little too speculative (even though it is true that the dromos that Woolley assigns to PG800 is the only one above the ceiling of a tomb). 161. For the context of Woolley 1934: pls. 192:10–11, 193:19, 197:63 (the last two being the seals of Ayaparagê(si) and Lugalsagepadda), cf. 1934: 78, 81. With regard to the inlays from PG800, U.10436, U.10412, U.10478, and U.10447 (of uncertain stratification) come from the dromos (Woolley 1934: 74–76, 81, 83), as is probably also the case with U.10441–2, whereas U.10917 is from the tomb (1934: 91), as may also be U.11222. 162. For the context of the three seals, cf. Woolley 1934: 88, pl. 193:16–18. On the reading Puªabum, instead of the traditional “Puabi,” cf. Marchesi 2004: 175, 177, 194. 163. Cf. Marchesi 2004: 170–72 (also for a discussion of the dubious context and the chronology that is undoubtedly later than the Fara period and probably contemporary with Lagas I). Also present in the tomb were a gaming board and tesserae in a more cursive style than the pieces from PG779 and PG789 and two inlays from a narrative frieze (U.9905–6). 164. In one case (Woolley 1934: pl. 198:72), the paratactical positioning of the figures in two registers is quite similar to the rules adopted by the Lagas workshops at the time of Lugaldimirda (= “Lugalanda”) (Amiet 1980: no. 1102). 165. Woolley 1934: 276, pl. 95 bottom. Cf. also 1934: 169–70, 383–85, pl. 222: a–d, for a piece of furniture in wood from PG1151 decorated with the “eye” motif and a banquet scene (Pl. 61:4).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

63

Table 9. Catalogue of published visual materials (cylinder seals and inlays, indicated by their excavation number) from the so-called royal tombs of Ur Tomb

Seals

Bibliography

Inlays

Bibliography

PG337

U.8615

L. Legrain in Woolley 1934: 338, no. 27, pl. 194; Amiet 1980: no. 1185

PG580

U.9315; U.9341 (not illustrated)

L. Legrain in Woolley 1934: 343, no. 98, pl. 200; Amiet 1980: no. 1184

U.9905–6, U.9776: parts of frieze and gaming board

Woolley 1934: 278, pl. 99; Dolce 1978b: pl. XII:U1

PG779

U.11174, U.1175B, U.11178; U.11159, U.11175, U.11176 (not illustrated)

L. Legrain in Woolley 1934: 341, nos. 61, 62, 64, pls. 197–98; Amiet 1980: no. 1035

U.11162: gaming board ; U.11164: “Standard”

Woolley 1934: 61, 266–67, pls. 91–93, 97; Dolce 1978b: pls. XXI:U171–72, XXII: U173–74, XXVIII:U128–39

PG789

U.10822–3; U.10804 (not illustrated)

L. Legrain in Woolley 1934: 338–39, nos. 29, 36, pls. 194–95

U.10557: gaming board; U.10556 and U.10577: lyre sound-box

Woolley 1934: 276–78, 280–81, pls. 96, 104–5; Dolce 1978b: pls. XXV: U151–53, XXVI:U72–91, XXVII:U165–68

PG800

U.10444, U.10444A, U.10448A, U.10530, U.10871– 2, U.10939

L. Legrain in Woolley 1934: 336–37, 341, nos. 10– 11 (impressions on gold leaf), 16–19, 63, pls. 192–93, 197; Amiet 1980: nos. 1038, 1181–83, 1192

U.10441–2: friezes; U.10478: tesserae; U.10412, U.10447, U.10917, U.11222: various inlays; U.10436: box; U.10412: lyre sound-box

Woolley 1934: 80, 278–79, 281, pls. 94, 98:b, 100, 103– 4; Dolce 1978b: pls. XVIII: U150, XIX:U180–82, XX: U142, XXIII:U175, XXIV: U140–41, XXVII:U154–57

PG1050

U.11825

L. Legrain in Woolley 1934: 341, no. 65, pl. 198; Amiet 1980: no. 1039

PG1054

U.11528, U.11751, U.11734, U.11904

L. Legrain in Woolley 1934: 336, 338, 340, nos. 12, 21, 44, 55, pls. 192–93, 195– 96; Amiet 1980: nos. 1042, 1121, 1268

PG1236

U.12330, U.12448, U.12457, U.12461

L. Legrain in Woolley 1934: 339–41, nos. 32, 43, 54, 56, pls. 194–97; Amiet 1980: nos. 1040, 1189, 1216

PG1237

U.12371, U.12374, U.12380, U.12387, U.12413, U.12427; U.12372–3, U.12381–86, U.12390 (not illustrated)

L. Legrain in Woolley 1934: 337–39, 342, nos. 14, 22–23, 39–40, 72, pls. 193– 95, 198; Amiet 1980: nos. 1128, 1191, 1194

U.12353, U.12354: lyre sound-boxes

Woolley 1934: 281, pl. 104; Dolce 1978b: pls. XXIV: U162–64, XXVII:U158–61

PG1332

U.12433

L. Legrain in Woolley 1934: 343, no. 31, pl. 194

U.12435: lyre sound-box

Woolley 1934: 126, pl. 116 bottom; Dolce 1978b: pl. XVIII:U176–77

64

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

minor tombs we can only say that, given their style, they belong to the same phase as those from the royal tombs.166 The levels above the Royal Cemetery—but which do not actually cover it in a stratigraphic sense167—are ancient dumps (SIS 3–1) containing administrative material including sealings and tablets, mainly from Early Dynastic IIIb.168 From these levels we have a sealing with the impression of a contest scene; a brief inscription identifies it as belonging to “Nintur, the queen.” This is undoubtedly the same high-ranking woman who defines herself as “wife of Mesªanepadda” on a seal with similar scene but on two registers (Pl. 62:2), from a nonstratified context in the area of the Royal Cemetery. She was probably the mother of prince Mesªumêdug, who was buried in tomb PG755 and probably bore the same name as his grandfather, the king of Ur.169 In a seal impression from SIS 1 showing a contest scene and a curly-haired hero, as on the seals of Saramen and Amaparagêsi (Pls. 16:2, 61:3; cf. n. 166 above), Mesªanepadda bears the title of king of Kis (Pl. 16:2),170 which on his bead from Mari is, instead, reserved for his father Mesªumêdug.171 To conclude, the royal tombs of Ur seem to fall either immediately before or during the dynasty that ran from Ayaªumêdug172 to Ayaªanepadda173 and they therefore appear, contrary to 166. These are the seal of Lugalªanzud from PG261 (Woolley 1934: pl. 197:60; Amiet 1980: no. 1037; on the name, cf. Marchesi 2004: 180 n. 172) and that of Saramen “scribe of the queen” from PG743 (Pl. 16:4; Woolley 1934: pl. 197:57; Amiet 1980: no. 1034; on the title and name, cf. Marchesi 2004: 175). The latter is similar, in terms of style and inscription, to a seal that is documented by an impression from SIS 2 (Woolley 1934: pl. 202:121; Legrain 1936: no. 517; Amiet 1980: no. 1062) and that belonged to Amaparagêsi, the “counselor” (lú-mestug, lit., “the wise man”). 167. Thus Reade 2001: 16–17 (contra Woolley 1934: 218 and passim; Zettler and Horne 1998: 21). No detailed sections exist that allow us to determine the precise relationship between the royal tombs and SIS 3–1 (Woolley 1934: pl. 270 lay, in fact, west of these tombs, while pl. 271 is a schematic reconstructed section), although SIS 2–1 most probably cover at least the most ancient tombs of the Royal Cemetery (cf., e.g., Woolley 1956: pl. 82 to the left). 168. Legrain 1936: nos. 367, 477–78, 484–88, 492, 496, 498–510, 513–18, 525–30, 532; Moorey 1979: nos. 598–601, 603–5, 608–9. For the tablets, cf. Burrows 1935: 23–25, 58–60, pls. XLV–L, E: Supp. 11–12, 15, 17, 20; Alberti and Pomponio 1986. For the dating of the texts, cf. Alberti and Pomponio 1986: 17–18; most of them date from Early Dynastic IIIb, although there are also some Old Akkadian tablets; in any case, only 1986: nos. 6–12 are definitely from SIS 2–1, the others coming from “rubbish and fillings of the cemetery site” (Burrows 1935: 23; cf. also Visicato 2000: 96). A sealing from Pit F (Woolley 1934: 345, pl. 202:123; Legrain 1936: no. 512) shows a seal impression with a contest scene and a Fara-period inscription (Marchesi 2004: 195). 169. Marchesi 2004: 176, 183–85. Cf. also Strommenger 1960: table 6 n. 3. For the two seals of Nintur, cf. Woolley 1934: pl. 207:215; Legrain 1936: no. 516; Amiet 1980: no. 1067 (sealing); and Woolley 1934: pl. 207:216; Amiet 1980: no. 1064 (seal). For the relevant legends, cf. Marchesi 2004: 176 with n. 140. That the queen had two different seals is not surprising if we consider the three of Lugaldimirda of Lagas (Amiet 1980: nos. 1098, 1100–1101), the second of which was reused and inscribed anew by his successor, Eriªenimgennâk (Boehmer 1965: 141 sub VIII, fig. 3). The queen Nintur is also mentioned in the sealing of an official (Woolley 1934: pl. 207:213; Legrain 1936: no. 514; Amiet 1980: no. 1069). For the stratigraphic position of the tomb of prince Mesªumêdug (who almost certainly was never a king, as pointed out by Marchesi 2004: 183–85), cf. Woolley 1934: fig. 10. 170. Woolley 1934: pl. 207:214; Legrain 1936: no. 518; Amiet 1980: no. 1063; Zettler and Horne 1998: fig. 44. For the title dam nu-gig (related to the goddess Inªanak) in the legend of Mesªanepadda’s seal, cf. below, p. 108. Above it, there is a kind of ideogram with a star and a moon crescent, possibly an “astroglyph” (cf. Roaf and Zgoll 2001). 171. Parrot 1968: figs. 35, 37, pls. XXI–XXII; Boese 1978; Steible 1982b: 272–73 Mesan. 1; Frayne 2008: 391–92 E1.13.5.1 (cf. also below, p. 124 n. 252). For a discussion of the “Treasure of Ur,” cf. §1.1.7. 172. If his wife, Ayasusikilªanak, was the main occupant of PG1050c (on the context, cf. Woolley 1934: fig. 14; Zimmerman 1998: 19–20), as we can argue from the discovery of her seal there (cf. Marchesi 2004: 178 n. 143), then the sequence of the built tombs as proposed by Zimmerman (cf. above, p. 61 n. 155) probably needs to be modified, especially if we accept the early dating that is usually assigned to Ayaªumêdug. It should be noted, however, that we know absolutely nothing about the family or chronological relationships of this king in respect of the sequence Mesªumêdug—Mesªanepadda—Ayaªanepadda (Marchesi 2004).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

65

common opinion, to date entirely within Early Dynastic IIIb. With regard to the seals, in addition to the comments I have made in the Introduction, we need note that the only other glyptics from royal workshops dated on epigraphic grounds are those of Lagas I,174 while the few stratified pieces that compare stylistically are from contexts that pertain without doubt to Early Dynastic IIIb.175 Parallels with the inlays and toreutics of the temple of Ninhursamak at Nutur (on which, cf. §1.1.6) are extremely close and are not, however, limited only to this context. Actually, the inlays from the tombs find their closest and most convincing stylistic parallels in the later Early Dynastic production from Mari and Firsu176 and are most definitely different from the Early Dynastic IIIa inlays from Palace A at Kis (on which, cf. §1.1.9) and the temple of Inªanak at Nippur.177 The “eye” motif of the Ur inlays is well attested in Early Dynastic IIIb contexts in Mari and Ebla,178 thus furnishing a further, if minor, element in favor of attributing the royal tombs of Ur to this period (cf. also Introduction above). Other pieces from the royal tombs that can be compared with pieces dated with certainty to Early Dynastic IIIb and, in particular, with documents dating from the dynasty of Urnansêk of Lagas, include, for example, some metal bull’s heads179 that are quite similar to those from phase 5 of the temple of Ninmirsûk on Tell K at Firsu.180 The metal lion’s heads from PG800181 are also comparable, to a certain degree, with similar stone objects from that same context in the temple of Ninmirsûk.182

1.1.6. Tell al-ºUbaid (Nutur) At Nutur (on which, cf. p. 222 n. 20), two excavation campaigns in 1919 and 1923–24, directed, respectively, by Hall and Woolley, brought to light an Early Dynastic IIIb terrace temple 173. Although Woolley (1934: 540 sub U.8981) wrote that “there is no evidence . . . of Ist Dynasty graves, much less of Ist Dynasty royal graves” (but cf. Introduction above). 174. These are the seal impressions of Eªannâbtum, Lugaldimirda(nuhumma), his wife Paragnamtarra, and Eriªenimgennâk (Amiet 1980: nos. 1098, 1100–1102, 1173). 175. Two seals that can be compared with those from the royal tombs are from level 2 of the Houses at Tutub (Frankfort 1955: nos. 332, 334–35) which, as we saw in §1.1.1, is contemporary with ‡amus X and Oval II, since all three contexts lie above the stratum of ash that seals ‡amus IX, Houses 3, Oval I, and probably also Small Shrine VI. It must be due to preconceived ideas that D. Matthews (1997a: 29), despite having correctly (if tentatively) dated level 2 of the Houses at Tutub, then considers the relevant seals to be from Early Dynastic IIIa and, consequently, “residual.” 176. Cf. Dolce 1978b: pls. XXIX–XL, from Mari, and pl. XX: T25, from a context on Tell K at Firsu dated to Eªannâbtum. 177. Hansen and Dales 1962: 79, fig. 6 (where they write that there were also inlays with banquet scenes); Dolce 1978b: pls. XV:N54–55, XVI:N53, apparently from level VIIB. 178. Mari: Pre-Sargonic Palace (Parrot 1970: 240, pl. XIV:4; Dolce 1978b: 153, pl. XLII:M469); Ebla: Palace G and Building P4 from the end of Syrian Early Bronze IVA (R. Dolce in Matthiae et al. 1995: 344, 363, no. 139; Marchetti and Nigro 1995–96: 16, fig. 13). On the tradition of this motif, rendered differently than the examples cited above, cf. Dolce 1978b: pls. XII:T4, XIII:W48, T9, XIV:T6, T11. The pendants from PG800 in the shape of recumbent goats and human-headed bulls (Woolley 1934: pls. 141, 143:a) also belong to the same chronological and stylistic horizon. 179. Cf. Woolley 1934: pls. 107, 120:b, from PG789; pls. 108, 110, 120:a, 125 top, from PG800; pls. 111, 114–15, 117 top right, from PG1237; pls. 116 top, 117 bottom left, from PG1332. Cf. also pls. 118–19, from PG1151; Zettler and Horne 1998: 52–59, cat. 2–4. 180. Heuzey 1898: pl. II; de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 5 ter: 2a–b; cf. Table 5 sub n, §1.1.3. 181. Woolley 1934: pls. 122–24, 125 bottom, 126, 127 bottom left; Zettler and Horne 1998: 50–52, cat. 1. 182. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 25 bis:4–5; Parrot 1948: fig. 21:b–e; Spycket 1981: pls. 92–93. Cf. Table 5 sub l in §1.1.3.

66

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

dedicated to the goddess Ninhursamak. A short campaign under Delougaz in 1937 then revealed that this sanctuary stood within an oval enclosure.183 The main terrace had a facing wall whose lower part was built of plano-convex baked bricks resting on a stone foundation, with shallow buttresses at regular intervals. The internal structure and upper platform were of mud brick. Access was provided by two stone stairways, one on the side and the other along the front. At the foot of the latter were an altar and a floor of pressed, crushed limestone. Numerous objects were found piled at the sides of the main stairway, near the terrace. These form an important group of both visual and written documents. Unlike the excavators, who considered this to be evidence of destruction, Forest, with whom I concur, argues that this was an intentional deposit of material that went out of use when the temple was rebuilt.184 The similarities with the finds from phase 5 of the temple of Ninmirsûk on Tell K at Firsu are remarkable,185 especially since all of the stylistic and epigraphic data concords in indicating that the two complexes were roughly contemporary, the one at Nutur probably running parallel also to phase 6 of the Firsu complex. There are three inscriptions (on a gold bead, a copper bull, and a foundation tablet; Pl. 16:10) of the king of Ur, Ayaªanepadda (probably the builder of the main phase), and a fourth inscription mentioning this king, as well as a fragment of vase naming an unidentified ruler.186 Two inscribed statues were also found close by: that of Ekur (= “Kurlil;” Pl. 16:5–6)—whose chronology is problematical187—and the statue of another individual who is clearly not Ekur, given the new reading of the only legible sign on the back (Pl. 16:7–9).188

183. Hall and Woolley 1927; Hall 1930: 229–75; Delougaz 1938a. 184. Forest 1999: 40–41, 47–48, figs. 16–20. I cannot, however, agree with the iconographical reading proposed by Forest (1999: 54–55). With regard to the hypothetical reconstruction of the temple, cf. §1.2 and the following note. The general stratigraphy of the site is not important for chronology here and I therefore will not discuss it here (Hall and Woolley 1927: 61–76, 105–9, figs. 29, 35, pl. II). 185. Note the presence of copper standards, foundation tablets, lion’s heads, and copper statues of bulls in the two sacred areas (Nutur: cf. Hall and Woolley 1927: pls. IV:5, V:3, X–XI, XXVII–XXVIII, XXXV:5; Firsu: cf. Table 5 in §1.1.3, sub i, l and de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 410 sub 17–18, pls. 5 ter:2a–b, 57:1). Another comparison, in relation to the building technique using an outer plano-convex baked-brick façade, is partly represented by the phase 6 building at Firsu (cf. §1.1.3 and Pls. 8:3, 10:2). 186. For the inscriptions, cf. C. J. Gadd in Hall and Woolley 1927: 126–27, TO.160, 220, 286, pls. XXXV:2, 5, XL (Ayaªanepadda is also mentioned in TO.159 and TO.287—two private inscriptions dedicated “for the life” of the ruler); Hall 1930: 241–42, fig. 216; Steible 1982b: 273–76 Aan. 1–4, pp. 284–85, AnUr 10 (there is no published photograph of that piece and the reading of the place-name Kis is uncertain); Frayne 2008: 395 E1.13.6.1, 396–98 E1.13.6.3–5, 442 E1.15.2.1 (= AnUr 10 above). 187. Hall and Woolley 1927: 19 fig. 2, 27 no. 2, 125, (WA) 114206, pl. VIII: 6; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 73; Reade 2000b: 83; Steible 1982b: 282–83 AnUr 7. Cf. also p. 163 below. The free order of the signs and other details suggest an earlier date when compared to the inscriptions of Ayaªanepadda. It is, therefore, possible that this statue comes from the earlier levels that are certainly present in the temple area (cf., for example, Delougaz 1938a: fig. 2). The mention of Damgalnunak in the inscription is congruent with the discovery of the limestone torso in the temple of Ninhursamak, since these are two different names for the Sumerian “mother-goddess.” What is unusual, however, is the fact that a person not of royal status, as we may deduce from the title “superintendent of the granaries of Uruk,” built a sanctuary and erected a divine statue, even though in a smaller urban settlement such as Nutur. 188. This is the famous, virtually complete dacite statue of a seated figure with crossed legs; cf. Hall and Woolley 1927: 19–20, 27 no. 1, 125, (WA) 114207, pls. VIII:4–5, IX; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 62, 73; Reade 2000b: 83; Steible 1982b: 283 AnUr 8. For the reading nimir-[. . . ], clearly part of a PN, cf. below, p. 163 n. 61. In terms of style, the statue may date to Early Dynastic IIIb (Braun-Holzinger 1977: 62, also on the basis of the comparison with the statue of Diªutûk [= “DI.UD”], which probably dates, however, to the early Akkadian period; cf. Braun-Holzinger 1977: pl. 27:c), entirely in line with the date of the context in which it was found.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

67

1.1.7. Tell Hariri (Mari) Parrot’s extensive excavations, which began in 1933, revealed the urban structure of the site throughout its various phases and furnished a rich set of stratigraphic data. They were later complemented by Margueron’s researches. In particular, the latter confirmed the presence of a first stratum (“Ville I”) that was razed to the ground as part of a radical reconstruction of the city (“Ville II;” Pl. 17:1). This late Early Dynastic city was then destroyed by fire, traces of which are observable all over the site. Limited Akkadian rebuilding (which does not bear a separate numbering in the urban sequence) was followed by a new foundation of the city at the beginning of the Middle Bronze age (“Ville III”), a period roughly lasting from the Neo-Sumerian until the beginning of the Old Babylonian period at the site.189 The question of precisely when “Ville II” was destroyed, the subject of heated debate in recent years, is dealt with in detail in §3.1. Here I shall analyze the main contexts in which visual artifacts were found in an attempt to reconstruct the artistic horizon of the city, which is extremely homogenous in terms of style and chronology. Palace P1. The so-called Pre-Sargonic palace of Mari lay below the great Middle Bronze Age palatial complex, which partly reproduced its layout. Three levels, labeled P3–1, have been identified in the temple area of the palace.190 A thick burned layer was found on the floor of P1, from which we may deduce that the finds from the palace belonged mainly to this phase,191 although their stratigraphic position is rarely specified.192 Seal impressions bearing the name of the rulers Yisqimari and Yiskurdayar came from floors near the entrance to P1 (Pls. 56:3–4, 62:4; cf. §3.1). A subsequent rebuilding dated to the Akkadian period (only on the basis of the alleged pottery finds, however) is labeled P0.193 189. On “Ville II,” cf., in general, Parrot 1974: 25–88; Margueron 1996; Margueron in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 136–37, fig. 39; Margueron 2004: 136–38, 145–51, figs. 120–22; Margueron 2007d: 287. 190. Parrot 1974: 73–87, figs. 42–45, pls. XV–XVI, XX:1; Margueron 1996: fig. 4 (where, however, the room with columns in O/5–6 belongs to P0); Margueron et al. 1997: 59–65, fig. 54. Also cf. Margueron 2004: fig. 189, for an updated plan of P1, which also includes the monumental entrance to the palace (cf. Margueron et al. 1997: 63–65, figs. 61–62). A brief discussion of the sequence P2–P0 in the temple sector of the palace is found in Margueron 1985: 496– 97, figs. 12–14; in greater detail in Margueron 2004: 195–207, figs. 172–88, 242, 244 (P3–P2), pp. 207–9, figs. 189–93, 196, 216, 255, pls. 37–45 (P1) and pp. 209–216, figs. 194–196, 199–204 (where the jar is clearly later and not from this phase), 215 (P0). Cf. also Tunca 1984: 66–68, figs. 95–100 (on the stratigraphy). For the two phases (called P3/P2 and P1/ P0) in the gate area of the palace, cf. Margueron et al. 2007: 38–42, figs. 20–23. 191. As, for example, the inlays in Parrot 1974: figs. 17, 28–30 (Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 157–61, nos. 97, 99, 103:a–b). Cf. especially Dolce 1978b: cat. M438–466 (and probably also cat. M437, 475–78, 483–84). Cf. also below, p. 136 n. 38, for a statuette from the temple sector of P1. Some so-called Pre-Sargonic tablets also come from the palace of this phase (Parrot 1968: 7; 1974: 87; Charpin 1987: 76–80, 111–15, nos. 13–20). During the more recent excavations in the gate area, two floors were identified in P1, the first one (“sol A”) without any trace of destruction, while above it there was a second one showing a clear destruction stratum (“couche A;” P. Butterlin, p.c.). In addition to the royal glyptic discussed in §3.1, a cylinder seal comes from “sol A,” and an impression of the seal of a “general” (sakkanakkum) from “couche A” (cf. Beyer 2007: 246–47, 253–56, nos. 13, 18, figs. 13, 19, 21–23). 192. In some cases, however, there are indications that the materials came from Palace P2: cf., for example, the chlorite vase Parrot 1974: 40–43, fig. 12, pl. XX:2; and the inlays in Dolce 1978b: cat. M467–74, 479–82. Also unquestionably from P2 are the foundation deposits in metal (Parrot 1974: 78–79, pl. XIV:1–3), since we can see from excavation photographs that they were found immediately below the level of courtyard XXVII of this phase. Finally, in courtyard P IV, a large sounding has been made below the level reached by Parrot: thus, the two seal impressions found there (Beyer 2007: 240–42, 244, nos. 6, 10, figs. 6, 10) may belong to P2. 193. Cf. n. 190 above. Also cf. Margueron 1993: 284, 287, fig. 3; Tunca 1984: figs. 93–94 (“Enceinte sacrée”).

68

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

A particularly important find in the palace area is a jar that contained, among other things, fourteen cylinder seals from Early Dynastic IIIb and a lapis lazuli bead bearing an inscription of Mesªanepadda of Ur.194 The deposit has not been ascribed to any specific architectonic phase in stratigraphic terms. The jar had been set into the earth in the courtyard of the temple sector, next to one of the columns of P0, but “0 m. 70 sous une épaisse couche des cendres,” marking the destruction of P1.195 Despite some uncertainty, it is likely that the jar belonged, in fact, to the P1 phase of the Royal Palace. This information is of particular importance since it can be placed within a grid of interlocking dates. The seals all date from Early Dynastic IIIb and, specifically, to the late phase of this period.196 The two ivory figurines from the deposit show clear similarities with Assur Estar G (cf. p. 75 n. 246).197 The amulet in the shape of an eagle with a lion’s head has parallels at Tell Brak/Nagar and Esnunak, from contexts dated to the end of the Early Dynastic and the Akkadian periods, respectively.198 In conclusion, it appears more than likely that the “Treasure of Ur” was buried at the end of Early Dynastic IIIb (for a study of the historical context, cf. §3.1). The temple of INANA.NITA. In this area west of the Palace, Parrot dug a structural sequence over a large area, which Margueron reevaluated after his own excavations in nearby area L, lying to the east and below Parrot’s “Souks.” It is clear that the designation of the levels by Parrot must be differentiated according to the sector: three phases (c–a) in the area of cella 17 and neighboring courtyard 15 correspond in fact to two phases (b–a) in the area immediately to the east (“chambres des pretres”).199 While all these phases belong to “Ville II”—with the uppermost level (a) marked by a destruction—the underlying levels (e–c) in the eastern sector, not yet

194. For the seals, cf. Parrot 1968: figs. 21–34, pls. XVIII–XX. For the bead, cf. 1968: figs. 35, 37, pls. XXI–XXII (for the inscription, cf. Boese 1978; Steible 1982b: 272–73 Mesan. 1; Frayne 2008: 391–92 E1.13.5.1; cf. also below, p. 108 with n. 107). For an updated discussion of the jewelry from the deposit, cf. N. Cholidis in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 143–45, nos. 83–85. 195. Parrot 1968: 10–11, figs. 1–5, pls. I–II. Cf. also Marchetti 1996b: 107 n. 5. I cannot, however, determine the original depth of the pit (and, therefore, cannot exclude the possibility that this was dug down from the level of P0), although it was probably not very deep. The depth of the find indicated in the architectonic cross-section (Parrot 1968: fig. 1 top; Tunca 1984: fig. 95) shows that the jar was above P2 but below the paving of P1 (contra Margueron 2004: 212–14, 307, figs. 197, 251:8, who attributes the deposit to P0). 196. Cf. D. Matthews 1997a: 108, who proposes that the seals came from Kis (cf. also Amiet 1985: 480). Moortgat and Moortgat-Correns (1974: 160–61) instead suggested a date around the time of the transition from Early Dynastic IIIa to IIIb (doubtless influenced by the association with the name of Mesªanepadda), although they conceded that at least one seal is later (Parrot 1968: pl. XX:4450; cf., however, D. Matthews 1997a: 108, who groups this seal together with Parrot 1968: pl. XX: 4440, 4446, 4449, 4452). 197. Parrot 1968: 18–22, figs. 12–13, 15:b, pls. VII–VIII. Cf. also the ivory figurine from area ST at Tell Brak/Nagar, of uncertain date between the late Early Dynastic and the Akkadian period (Oates 1982: 195, pls. XI, XII:c). 198. Parrot 1968: 22–24, fig. 16, pls. IX–X and frontispiece. For a discussion of the chronology and meaning of this amulet and of the other two similar specimens, cf. Marchetti 1996b. In the final excavation report (R. Matthews 2003: 201–8, 228–29), the context of the amulet from Tell Brak/Nagar is dated to the latest Early Dynastic phase rather than to the Akkadian period as had, instead, been proposed in the preliminary reports. In any case, the lion-headed eagle amulets from Nagar and Esnunak are smaller than the specimen from Mari. 199. Parrot 1956: 12–41, pls. IV–VI, VIII. Cf. 1956: pl. VII for the schematic cross-sections that show, especially in the case of cella 17, that we are dealing with a succession of floors rather than distinct architectural phases, as confirmed by the distribution of foundation deposits (Parrot 1956: 52–58, figs. 38–39, pls. XXII–XXIV). Cf. also Margueron 2004: 246–49, figs. 124–25, 237–39; 2007a: 144–46, figs. 10–12.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

69

a temple area, date from the “Ville I” period.200 That the temple area was dedicated to a male god is confirmed by the dedications to INANA.NITA, that is, “male ºAstar” (cf. §A.2.6). As regards epigraphic evidence, the only attestations of kings are an inscription of Yisqimari, possibly the third last ruler of Early Dynastic Mari (cf. §3.1), on a statue from level a (Cat. 12; Pl. 35), and a fragment of a limestone macehead (Pl. 17:8) bearing the inscription “Lugalªutu, the king,” which recalls the king Lugalªutu, who is attested on an inlay from the Early Dynastic IIIa Palace A at Kis (Pl. 50:1).201 Almost all of the statues from the temple of INANA.NITA are from the destruction phase of level a, mainly from cellae 17 and 18 and courtyard 20 together with the eastward-lying annexes, or from pits. Only one small group, buried at the base of the eastern platform in cella 18, is stratigraphically earlier.202 The sculptures display homogenous stylistic characteristics:203 the male figures sport curly beards, while the females wear a dress usually covering both shoulders and a polos on their heads and are shown sitting on zoomorphic stools typical of Early Dynastic III. With the possible exception of some dresses with a row of tufts along the lower edge, we find no stylistic elements characteristic of Early Dynastic IIIa,204 even though this period is attested at Mari by some cylinder seals. The rendering of the tufts on the skirt of Yindinªil (= “Ebihil;” Pl. 17:2–4)205 is stylistically so reminiscent of the representation of Eªannâbtum on the Stele of the Vultures (Pl. 52:3) that the archaic form of the sign IL—thus far the only element in support of an earlier date for this famous statue—must be considered an example of conservative writing or an archaizing trait. The main evidence of inlaid work from the temple of INANA.NITA is the “Standard of Mari,” representing a military subject, from courtyard 20 of level a,206 while the stratigraphically earlier finds consist of stray pieces, mainly from level b.207 200. Parrot 1956: 5–11, fig. 2, pls. II–III; Margueron 2004: 89–92, figs. 55–60, 71, 96; 2007a: 137–44, figs. 5–9. Cf. also Jean-Marie 1990: pl. VII:1, for a view of level e. The pottery from tomb 300—a very important assemblage for the chronology of the area—has been studied by Lebeau (1990), who dates it, however, to Early Dynastic I (a date accepted also by Jean-Marie 1990). It should, however, be correlated with the much later Khuera IC phase (cf. also D. Matthews 1997a: 47–48). The most recent assessment dates it to the very end of “Ville I,” if not at the beginning of the “Ville II,” or between Early Jezirah II and IIIa (P. Butterlin, p.c.; cf. Lebeau 2007: table 3). 201. Parrot 1956: 130, pl. LIV:413 (it is not certain, however, that the mace-head comes from level a). For the inlay from Kis, cf. below, p. 76 n. 257. Braun-Holzinger (1977: 28 n. 196) assigns both pieces to the “Schriftstufe” I or II. Cf. also p. 197 n. 52. 202. Parrot 1956: 38, nos. 5–9, 11, 20, 28–29, 44, 90, pls. XXXI:115, 117–19, XXXIV: 121, XXXV: 122, 127, XXX– VIII:120, XLIII:126. Only the female head (pl. XXXVIII:120) appears to show stylistic characteristics earlier than the end of Early Dynastic IIIb (but cf. figs. 59–60, pl. XXXVIII:1026, 365 from level a, although quite worn). So also BraunHolzinger 1977: 52. Cf., however, the inlaid panel Parrot 1962: pl. XI:1 (Dolce 1978b: pl. XL:M295–97), where the hairdress is attested together with the turban in a piece from the late Early Dynastic IIIb destruction level. 203. Parrot 1956: 71–110, fig. 76:166–67, pls. XXX–XLIII; Parrot 1974: pl. V:1 (with the exclusion of the schematic statue of an offering bearer in the center). Cf. also Tunca 1984: 249, for a list ordered by context. 204. For a slightly different opinion, cf. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 51. 205. Parrot 1956: 70–71, fig. 47, pls. XXVII–XXIX; Dolce 1978a: 276–79; 1978b: pl. XXXVII. Parrot (1967: 71–72, figs. 94–95, pls. XXXIX–XL, A) noted the stylistic similarity between Yindinªil and a head from cella 13 of INANA.ZA.ZA (cf. below). Also cf. above, p. 5 n. 22. 206. Parrot 1956: 136–46, figs. 32, 78–88, pls. LVI–LVII. Cf. pp. 147–152, figs. 89, 91, pl. LVIII, for inlays from other sectors of the temple. Cf. also Dolce 1978b: cat. M316–48, M350–92 (with various unpublished fragments). 207. Parrot 1956: 147–49, figs. 89: 547, 90: 573, 1082, 1272. With the possible exception of the first, these pieces do not display any characteristics that are definitely earlier than those of level a. Parrot 1956: 149, fig. 90:570, which stylistically belongs to Early Dynastic IIIa, comes from the residential area east of the temple. Cf. Dolce 1978b: cat. M1–14.

70

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

The glyptic, whenever a precise context is supplied, is all to be dated within Early Dynastic III. A tomb from the end of the “Ville I” period, found in area L, is the source for two cylinder seals, one of which is in a style of Early Dynastic II–IIIa (cf. p. 75 n. 254, p. 79 n. 270, p. 85 n. 297, and §1.2), a style also attested on a seal from a contemporary level (d or c; Pl. 17:6) in the sector east of cella 17 but also found in later “Ville II” levels (b and a; Pl. 17: 7).208 In fact, the latest piece is a seal found below the stone paved courtyard 15 of level a: it is an Early Dynastic IIIb contest scene.209 The other glyptic objects are either not particularly characteristic or not illustrated.210 The temples of INANA.ZA.ZA and Ba¶¶urat. The temple of INANA.ZA.ZA (= “Ninnizaza”) and the neighboring temple of the goddess Ba¶¶urat (= “Istarat”) were excavated in 1952 and 1953.211 Although the upper levels of the Middle Bronze Age have hardly been documented at all, the internal stratigraphy of the temple area, where clear signs of fire and the intentional destruction of statues were observed,212 has received more attention.213 South of the temple, a 208. For the seal from area L, cf. Beyer 2007: 234, no. 2, fig. 2 (from tomb VII W 50 SE T 2; P. Butterlin, p.c.). For the contemporary seal from level d/c, cf. Parrot 1956: pl. LXV:1388 (where there is an IL sign that is similar to the sign on the statue of Yindinªil [cf. p. 5 n. 22 and n. 205 above; Pl. 17:2–4, 6]; a drawing of this seal is provided by D. Beyer in Margueron 2004: fig. 285:2). For similar contest scenes on glyptics from later “Ville II” contexts, cf. Parrot 1956: pl. LXV:183 (level a), 1080–81 (level b; Pl. 17:7); Beyer 2007: 234, no. 3, fig. 3 (from a level in area F earlier than the destruction). For the dating of that style to Early Dynastic II, cf., among others, Amiet 1980: nos. 908, 960, pl. 72 bis:A; 1985: 477 (who believes these pieces to be out of context); D. Matthews 1997a: 103 sub 1.1.3. However, for comparable seals from contexts whose date reaches Early Dynastic IIIa, cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 909 (Tutub ‡amus IX: the precise phase of this piece is unknown), 947 (Kis Palace A), 945, 949, and 951 (Tutub Oval I), while nos. 923 (Kis Cemetery A, burial 12; cf. Mackay 1925: 62, pl. VI:19; for the equipment of burial 12 in Cemetery A, cf. also 1925: pls. IV:28, X:18, XII:17, XIV:19, XIX:1, 14, 16, XX:2) and 961 (Ur PG1227) are from contexts dating from the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb (on the date of PG1227, cf. §1.1.5). The latter is also the case with Frankfort 1955: no. 330, from Tutub Houses 2. The seal from Ur (Amiet 1980: no. 961) has two registers, like Parrot 1956: pl. LXV:1080, an indication that archaizing traits were sometimes still present at the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb. 209. Parrot 1956: 189, pl. LXV:572. 210. Some chronological distinctions may be made, e.g., between an “eye” motif from level d (Parrot 1956: pl. LXVII: 1422) and a lozenge-shaped motif on two rows from level a (pl. LXVII:251). Other pieces in the catalogue, from level c in the eastern sector and thus of “Ville I” date, are not illustrated (M.1061 and M.1384; Amiet [1985: 477] maintains, however, that the first cannot be earlier than Early Dynastic III, given the image of a deer engraved on it). Finally, two banquet scenes from levels b and a (Parrot 1956: pl. LXVI:1071 and 357, respectively) may only be dated, in general, to Early Dynastic III (as well as Parrot 1956: LXVII:274 from level a). 211. Parrot 1967: 9–34. For the titular deities of these temples, cf. §A.2.6. 212. It is significant that various statues have been reconstructed from fragments found in different rooms (Parrot 1967: 19, 23, 35). 213. In courtyard 12 and cella 13 of the temple of INANA.ZA.ZA, for example, there were two floors (Parrot 1967: 24–26, figs. 14–17, pls. III sections A–B, C–D, E–F, VI:2, VII:2, X:2), as in the cella 5 of the temple of Ba¶¶urat (1967: 19– 20). Although the plastered installations (Parrot 1967: figs. 20–25, pl. XI:2; note that pl. X:3 is a view of cella 5 and not of cella 13) belong to the first phase (but cf. pl. X:4, where a bench can be seen along the north wall of cella 13), the statuary was found on the upper layer of paving (with the exception of pp. 76–77, no. 44, figs. 104–6). In Parrot 1967: pl. IX:1, in fact, the statues can be seen on the upper paving on the westernmost edge of cella 13. The temple of Ba¶¶urat rests up against the southern wall of the INANA.ZA.ZA complex (1967: 19) and, therefore, is a later structure in structural terms. Cf. Margueron et al. 1997: 46–55, figs. 42–48, for new stratigraphic observations on the area of INANA. ZA.ZA (where level II is contemporary with Parrot’s main level). Cf., most recently, also Margueron 2004: 241–44, figs. 229–30, 234, 299, pls. 46, 55.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

71

road led toward an area of houses, one of which was completely excavated.214 Above this was a fairly eroded level of houses in which two groups of copper objects were found, including two vases inscribed for two daughters of Naramsuyin of Akkad.215 Almost all of the statues come from the destruction level,216 a stratigraphic situation similar to that found in the temple of INANA.NITA. Six statues bear the names of rulers of Mari:217 four are dedications made during the reign of Yiplusªil,218 a ruler also known from the archives of Ebla (possibly a contemporary of Yirkabdamu; cf. Tables 15 and A1); and two during the reign of of Yikunsamkan,219 who must have preceded Yiplusªil, since he is not featured in the list of kings of Mari from the Ebla archives. A colossal royal statue from late Early Dynastic IIIb (Cat. 11; Pl. 34) is discussed in Chapter 3.220 On the whole, the statues from these two temples show characteristics similar to those from INANA.NITA a, although we may note a greater presence of traits that are typical of a slightly earlier phase.221 The epigraphs can all be attributed to Early Dynastic IIIb. The few glyptic materials only indicate a date falling in general within mid-to-late Early Dynastic III.222 The inlaid panels (found mainly in room 13 and courtyard 12 of the temple of INANA. ZA.ZA) show the usual military subjects (soldiers intent on massacring their enemies, bound prisoners, men carrying booty, chariots; Pl. 57:2–3) and banquet scenes, with male figures seated 214. Cf. Parrot 1955b: 195–99, figs. 5–7, 9, pl. XIV. Three cuneiform tablets were also found inside the building called the “maison rouge” (because of the traces of fire found there): cf Charpin 1987: nos. 2–4. Cf. also Margueron 2004: 172– 74, figs. 150–53, 163:d. 215. Parrot 1955b: 195, pls. XVI–XVII; Margueron 2004: 305–6, figs. 294–95. 216. In fact, the few fragments of statues that came to light during the dismantling of the cult installations in cella 13 must relate to the first phase (cf. Parrot 1967: 30, 116, no. 104, fig. 163:2723). However, a fragment from bench 2, which can be joined to a second piece found on the floor (pp. 30, 109, fig. 154:2616) may also suggest that no such bench actually existed (although similar stratigraphic situations exist in Nippur Inªanak VIIB and Tutub Single Shrine VI), especially since its shape on the plan is not very convincing (Parrot 1967: fig. 20). 217. The northern Mesopotamian custom of starting a dedication by mentioning the current ruler is well attested at Mari. Although in the past this often led to the conclusion that the statues represented the rulers themselves (as, for example, in Spycket 1981: 86–88, pl. 57), this hypothesis must be ruled out (cf. §4.1; also cf. Marchesi 2004: 177). 218. Parrot 1967: 51–52, 55, 89–96, nos. 11, 17, 68–69, figs. 57–60, 66, 129–33, pls. XXV, XLV–XLVII. The statue of AMAR.AN (cf. Dossin 1967: 318–19 no. 11; Marchesi 2004: 177; Frayne 2008: 322–23 E1.10.12.1) has a line above the chest indicating the bones of the thorax, as in the statue of the singer Urnansêk, although in this latter case the line is less marked. 219. One fragment simply mentions “Yikunsamkan, king [of Mari]” (Parrot 1967: 39–40, no. 2, fig. 37; cf. p. 156 below). All that can be said about this piece is that it belonged to a slightly larger statue than that dedicated by ‡ibum (Parrot 1967: 37–39, no. 1, figs. 31–32, pls. XII–XIII). This king is also mentioned on a vase from the temple of INANA.ZA.ZA (pp. 179–80, fig. 225, pl. LXX). Braun-Holzinger (1977: 51, 59) also agrees that the stylistic elements of the statue from the time of Yikunsamkan are earlier than those dating from Yiplusªil’s reign. The king of Mari who is mentioned on a statue from Sippar dedicated by one Harraªilum (Pl. 43:7–8; cf. §1.1.11) is not Yikunsamkan (cf. Gelb and Kienast 1990: 9–10 sub MP 8) but rather Yikun¶ama¶ (i-ku-dUTU; cf. p. 139 n. 55). 220. As in the case of the statue of Eªabzûk, king of Umma (Cat. 5), which was found at Firsu, this statue had presumably been removed from the temple of another city, since it bears a dedication to a god other than the titular deity of the temple where it was found (which should therefore be regarded as a secondary context; cf. §3.1). 221. Parrot 1967: 40–178, figs. 38–52, 61–65, 67–126, 134–224, pls. XIV–XXIV, XXVI–XLIV, XLVIII–LIX; Margueron 1997. Cf. also Tunca 1984: 250, for a list ordered by context. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 51–52 assigns certain statues to “Stilstufe II.” On the conservation of earlier materials, cf. the comments at the end of this section. 222. Parrot 1967: 275–76, fig. 296: 2794, pls. LXXV: 2794, LXXVI: 2769, 2770, 2819. Two pieces in the catalogue are not illustrated (M.2543, M.2600).

72

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

on stools, cup in hand (Pl. 58:2), musicians, and servants.223 These inlays have been distinguished chronologically from those from the other excavated sectors on the grounds of certain stylistic peculiarities.224 I have no clear data enabling us to determine whether the area was destroyed before the other contexts examined here; as a matter of fact, the temple area seems to have been furnished with a fair number of old dedications when the town was burned.225 The temples of “Ninhursamak” and “Samas.” The names of these Early Dynastic buildings derive from foundation inscriptions retrieved in later levels that were dedicated by, respectively, Niwarmêr to dNIN.HUR.SAF (probably a logogram for the goddess Salas at Mari) and Yaºdunlim to Samas.226 The Early Dynastic temple of “Ninhursamak” (level IV) consists of an axial sanctuary on one side of a courtyard, on the opposite side of which an annex with benches is located (Pl. 17:5).227 According to the excavator, all of the objects found there showed clear traces of violent destruction. Although mention is made of numerous fragments of male and female statues, the latter identified by the polos headwear, only a few examples are illustrated,228 together with a number of inlays.229 Below the Middle Bronze Age temple of Samas, only the foundations of which remain, an area has been brought to light showing clear traces of destruction. This has been identified as a temple on the basis of fragments of statues and disjointed inlaid panels found there (Pl. 58:4).230 The temple of “Dagan.” Excavations of the so-called temple of “Dagan” (given this name as a result of its position north of the terrace, next to the Temple of the Lions) brought to light an extensive area dating from Early Dynastic IIIb. This area, which showed clear signs of a fierce 223. Parrot 1967: 199–260, figs. 247–85, pls. LX–LXIX; Dolce 1978b: cat. M15–294. 224. Dolce (1978a: 175–79) distinguished these inlays, which she dated to the “Meskalamdug” phase, from those from other excavation areas, attributed to “Ur I.” 225. Moreover, in the sequences of the temple of INANA.NITA and of the Pre-Sargonic Palace, there are no signs of fire prior to the final destruction (regarding the intentional nature of the latter, cf. n. 212 above), although Palace P2 appears to have been heavily damaged (Margueron et al. 2007: 38). The scanty superimpositions above the temples of INANA.ZA.ZA and Ba¶¶urat date from the Middle Bronze Age (Parrot 1967: 9–14, 23, figs. 5–7). 226. For their foundation deposits, cf. Parrot 1940: 5–7, figs. 3–5, pl. II and 1954: 160–62, figs. 4–5, pl. XVII:1–2, respectively. 227. Parrot 1940: 16–18, figs. 1 sub C, 11; 1954: 167–69, fig. 8. For new stratigraphic observations, cf. Margueron et al. 1997: 55–59, figs. 49–53; Margueron et al. 2007: 29–38, figs. 11–18. Cf. also Margueron 2004: 238–40, figs. 224–27, pl. 47. For deposits in this area, which have mostly been dated too early, cf. Margueron 2004: 110–14, figs. 88– 92, pls. 32–34; Beyer and Jean-Marie 2007: 76–107, 112–17, figs. 1–19, 22–24. Noteworthy, because it has been found set into a bench in an annex of the temple of “Ninhursamak,” is a base of a statue (Pl. 17:5); cf. Margueron 2004: 239, figs. 224 bottom (in the room with outlined walls), 226:a–b; Margueron et al. 2007: 29, fig. 12. 228. Parrot 1940: fig. 12 (a head from Early Dynastic IIIb), pl. VI:3 (a female head with polos). Cf. also fig. 13 for a larger-than-life-size head (36 cm high; cf. Strommenger 1960: 36 n. 285). 229. Parrot 1940: pl. VI:4; Dolce 1978b: cat. M409–16. Some inlays from a deposit in the northwestern corner of the cella may be ascribed to an early phase of “Ville II” (Beyer et al. 2007: 108, no. 5, figs. 1, 19, 20:5a–c). 230. Parrot 1953a: 201–3, fig. 3; 1954: 163, figs. 6, 8, pl. XIV:2; 1955b: fig. 10. For an updated plan of the area, cf. Margueron in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 137, fig. 39, and Margueron 2004: 240–41, fig. 228. For the statuettes found in the area, cf. Parrot 1953a: 202, pls. XXIV:1, XXVI:1; 1954: pls. XV:3, XVI:4. For the inlays with scenes of sacrifice and, probably, banquets (as suggested by the figure seated on a stool with servant and equids), cf. Parrot 1954: pls. XVIII–XIX; Dolce 1978b: cat. M393–408.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

73

fire, lay below a massive leveling fill consisting of two layers of gravel separated by ashes.231 An axial sanctuary (d; this building, however, probably post-dates the Early Dynastic III period; P. Butterlin, p.c.) stood on the side of a large courtyard (A). A monumental gate (1) led from a road (6) into this courtyard. The road separated the courtyard from what seems to have been a “centre administratif religieux,” to the rear of which ran an alleyway (14). From courtyard A of the temple of “Dagan” and the rooms lying to the north of alleyway 14 we have some fragmentary male statues, similar in style to those from the other temples of Mari.232 From rooms 7 and 10, as well as from other neighboring rooms and the area north of the road, we have an inlaid panel with offering scenes, together with other fragments of mother-of-pearl inlay.233 Similar objects were found in the rooms to the east, along the northern side of the “Massif rouge.”234 Statuary production at Mari appears to be homogenous, like the rest of the artistic horizon documented in the destruction levels of the late Early Dynastic city (that is, Palace P1, INANA.NITA a, “Ninhursamak” IV, “Samas,” “Dagan” 0 and—with the problems outlined above—INANA.ZA.ZA and Ba¶¶urat, as well as other contexts of lesser importance for a study of artistic materials). As has been argued for the INANA.NITA glyptic evidence, it appears likely that the end of “Ville I” at least reaches Early Dynastic IIIa in art-historic terms, while the “Ville II” is comprised of materials dated to that period (in fact, some archaizing seals may have been manufactured at the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb) and the end of Early Dynastic IIIb.235 When conducting a stylistic analysis, we must also take account of the quality of the pieces from different workshops and of their geographical area of production. Although the statues may have remained in use for a long time before being removed—which would justify an earlier date for some pieces compared to the stratum in which they were discovered—wherever there are clear traces of destruction (as in the case of Mari and of Assur Estar G; cf. below) most of the statuary must be dated to the same time—in the case of Mari, therefore, to the end of Early 231. For the excavations of the complex, cf. Parrot 1962: 161–63, fig. 9; 1964: 5–16, figs. 1 (the plan referred to in the names of rooms used herein), 6, pls. I–II, IV. For the traces of fire, cf. Parrot 1962: 161, 171; for the layers of gravel, 1962: 155, 159, 171–72, figs. 37; 1964: 5. In room 16, eight cuneiform tablets were found (Parrot 1964: 7–8, fig. 2; Charpin 1987: nos. 5–12). Cf. also Margueron 2004: 235–38, figs. 221–23 and his detailed study in 2007c: 245–59, figs. 1–11, 14–15. After some reinvestigations in this area, now labeled area H, Margueron labeled Parrot’s excavated remains (which had since been completely eroded) “0” and a level underlying “0” as “1” (Margueron 2007c: 257; Beyer 2007: 236–37; note that “sol b” lay below “sol a”: P. Butterlin, p.c.). 232. Parrot 1952a: 196; 1962: 163, pl. X:1–2; 1964: 13–14, 16, pl. III:1–3. A clay statue comes from room 9 (Margueron 2007c: 256–57, fig. 13). Alleyway 14 has been interpreted as a corridor because of the presence of burnt beams (which, however, probably came from the collapse of the buildings adjoining it). 233. Parrot 1952a: 196; 1962: 163–69, figs. 11–13, pls. XI, XII:2–3; 1964: 16, fig. 7; Dolce 1978b: cat. M295–315. Note that Margueron (2007c: 256, fig. 12) thinks that the panel comes from a collapsed upper storey. A limestone face, part of a composite panel (Parrot 1952a: 196, pl. XX:2–3), is almost identical in style and technique to a specimen from the Early Bronze IVA destruction level of Building P4 at Ebla (TM.95.P.600; on the context, cf. Matthiae 1998: 564 n. 14). 234. Parrot 1952a: 193–95, figs. 5–7, pl. XX:1; Dolce 1978b: cat. M417–36. The “Massif rouge” was first excavated by Parrot (1952a: 190, fig. 5, pl. XIX:1) and then recently reinvestigated by P. Butterlin (p.c.), who identified four phases in it (phase 2 being contemporary with Palace P2 and phase 3 with P1). 235. Interestingly enough, the glyptic recently published by Beyer allows distinguishing an inner chronological differentiation insofar as “Ville II” is concerned: the glyptic from the destruction levels shows different features than that collected in immediately preceding levels, the latter being in fact closer to the Royal Cemetery seals at Ur (cf. §1.1.5). Beyer 2007: nos. 4–10, 12, figs. 4–10, 12 come from levels preceding the destruction one (for areas PIV and H, cf. p. 67 n. 192 and n. 231 above).

74

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Dynastic IIIb.236 Ebla represents a very clear case within this framework: all of the visual material from the Early Bronze Age IVA levels can be correlated stylistically with the Early Dynastic IIIb horizon. In Royal Palace G, however, there were both objects reused in secondary contexts (as in the case of the “Standard of Ebla” or a stone plaque: Pl. 63:6)237 and objects in different styles, whereas in Building P4,238 which housed craftsmen’s workshops, including those for making inlays, these all belong stylistically to the latest phase of Eblaite production, which accounts for most, although not all, of the artistic horizon attested in Palace G (cf. §5.3).239

1.1.8. Qalºat Shergat (Assur) Andrae’s 1922 publication of the archaic sequence of the temple of Estar at Assur (attributed to Estar on the basis of post-Early Dynastic dedications; cf. §A.2.7) marked a crucial turning point for Mesopotamian archaeology because of the novelty and consistency of the recording methods applied in the excavation. The building has a classic temple plan, with a bent-axis sanctuary opening on a court (cf. §1.3), with the same disposition of cella and ante-cella as attested at Mari in the “Enceinte sacrée.” A recent new edition by Bär also revises the stratigraphy, and it is to this work that I hence refer here.240 Three late Early Dynastic floor levels are known, respectively designated as H, G1, and G2; the last shows signs of thorough destruction (Pl. 18:1).241 The similarities to the temples of Mari are remarkable, the most striking being the presence of ovoid pottery basins set in the floor at the base of the altar, which therefore relate to a ritual tradition of Upper Mesopotamia.242 Seventeen almost-complete statues come from level G2—four from the cella and the others from the main court and its immediate vicinity—as well as numerous fragments. The most famous is the “Konsistorialrat” (Pl. 18:2),243 whose curly beard has clear parallels at Mari, but the best among the other specimens (Pl. 18:3)244 also show significant affinities with the statuary of Mari.245 Some 236. In this respect, it is significant that the best comparisons are found in the production of Assur Estar G (cf. §1.1.8). It must be stressed, however, that these are the only contexts to have furnished numerous examples of materials from Early Dynastic IIIb, and mainly from the destruction levels. 237. Matthiae 1989b: pls. I–VI; Matthiae et al. 1995: 274–78, nos. 20–35; Matthiae 2004: 307, fig. 5. Cf. also the Egyptian lamp inscribed by a pharaoh of the 4th Dynasty, Hafra (= “Khephren”), which is certainly a relic, coming from a stratum that was contemporary in date with the 6th Dynasty (Matthiae 1989a: 246, pls. 69–70; Matthiae et al. 1995: 234–35, 282–83, nos. 41–42). 238. Matthiae 1993b: 628–34, figs. 10–11;1998: 562–64 nn. 12–15; Marchetti and Nigro 1995–96. 239. Matthiae 1980b; 1985: pls. 36:b, 38–39, 44, 46:c–f, 47; 1989a: pls. 44–47, 50–52, 57–59; Matthiae et al. 1995: 281, 300–329, nos. 39, 65–97, 99–113, 115–21. Cf. also §5.3. 240. Andrae 1922: pls. 3, 6, 8:a–b; Bär 2003: 37–38, figs. 10, 12, 14. 241. Cf. also the stratigraphic sequence of INANA.NITA at Mari (Parrot 1956: pl. VII, levels c–a). 242. Andrae 1922: 39, figs. 10–11, pl. 2; Bär 2003: fig. 11. For Mari, cf. Parrot 1956: 58–66, figs. 8–9, 12, 15, 22, 31, 41–45, pls. XIV–XVI; 1967: 26–30, figs. 21–25, pl. VIII; Margueron et al. 2007: 36, figs. 15 top, 18. 243. Andrae 1922: 62–64, no. 70, pls. 30–31; Bär 2003: pls. 5–8:SK 4. 244. Cf. Andrae 1922: 58–81, pls. 32–37, 40–48; Bär 2003: 102–25, pls. 3–39 sub SK 3–5, 7–10, 13–15, 17–21, 23, 25–29, 44, 45, 48, 50–54, 59, 62–67, 69–72, 74–77, 80–87, 102, as well as, quite probably, SK 46, 56–58, 73 (cf. also pls. 41–42: SK 103–7, for the zoomorphic sculptures). For the dating of the vase in high-relief, cf. also Bär 1999: 30–38, fig. 10. 245. Cf. Braun-Holzinger 1991: 291; Bär 2003: 94–96.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

75

female ivory figurines resemble two examples from the “Treasure of Ur” at Mari (cf. p. 68 n. 197), while a vase decorated in high-relief, usually considered residual, may in fact date to the same period as the other pieces (Pl. 18:4).246 Regarding the precise date of the destruction, the two seals from level G are not very indicative, although the second, of frit, may be as late as the early Akkadian period;247 this dating cannot, however, be taken as confirmed by a mold for jewels.248 The destruction of Mari and that of Assur Estar G2 appear to have been chronologically close and may have occurred at the end of the Early Dynastic period, when materials that were to become characteristic of the developed Akkadian period had already entered into circulation. The finds from level GF do not differ from those of the preceding level G,249 whereas sculptures in styles later than the Early Dynastic period have now been correctly attributed to level E.250

1.1.9. Tell Ingharra (Kis) At Kis, on Tell A of Ingharra, the expedition led in the field by Mackay in the 1920s brought to light a vast palatial complex251 dated between the Fara period252 and Early Dynastic IIIb, when a necropolis was established over the ruins of the building.253 From the lower part of room 25 comes a seal in a style that, although generally considered to belong to Early Dynastic II, may very well have lived on until Early Dynastic IIIa (cf. p. 70 n. 208).254 Numerous inlays from the rooms of Palace A are dated to Early Dynastic IIIa (although some may actually date to immediately before or after this phase). An inlaid plaque with a military scene, and other inlays, 246. For the figurines, cf. Andrae 1922: 56–57, pl. 29: a–d; Bär 2003: 125–27, pls. 39–40 (SK 89–101); on the vase, cf. Andrae 1922: 81–82, no. 116, fig. 7 (cf. also Harper et al. 1995: 27–28, no. 1). 247. Cf. Andrae 1922: 84, fig. 66 and p. 83, no. 119, fig. 64, pl. 29:i; Bär 2003: 140–41, 318, pl. 44: S 23–24. On the iconography and material of the last seal, cf. Frankfort 1955: 33, no. 514 (clay seal, from Esnunak, found outside the Northern Palace in a context of transitional date) and nos. 596–97 (two frit seals from Houses IVb, which Gibson [1982] holds to be late Akkadian). At Tell Brak/Nagar, a frit seal and some seal impressions with similar motifs were found on the surface of level 2 in area FS, and in courtyard 2 and room 9 of the Palace of Naramsuyin, respectively (cf. D. Matthews 1997a: 146–47, 297, nos. 562–63, pls. XLI:562–63, LIX:562, also for the attribution of the beginning of this style to the transition between the Early Dynastic and the Akkadian periods). On the dating of this class, cf. also Bär 2003: 131–32. 248. Andrae 1922: 84, no. 122, pl. 29:p; Bär 2003: 270, pl. 136:GF 4. This can be compared with specimens from Tell Brak/Nagar (cf. Marchetti 2003: 391 n. 5), usually considered to be “Akkadian” but actually of uncertain stratification. Note that a similar mold comes from Mari Ba¶¶urat (Parrot 1967: 198, figs. 245–46). 249. Cf. Bär 2003: SK 1, 16, 55, 60–61, 68, 79 (for the sculptures), 135, 141, pls. 43–44: S 3, 25 (for two cylinder seals). 250. Bär 2003: pls. 10, 16, 31–32 sub SK 6, 11–12, 22, 24, 88. A statue with traces of burning (Andrae 1922: 68–71, no. 80, pls. 38–39) was found 60 cm above the floor of G between the cella and the ante-cella (cf. Andrae 1922: pl. 6 sub “a, y1, g2”), in a layer of broken bricks and charcoal, possibly a leveling of E above the destruction layer of G (cf. also the section Andrae 1922: pl. 8:a–b). 251. Cf. Mackay 1929: pls. XXI–XXII (for the plan), XXIII (for the sections). 252. A tablet of the Fara type was, in fact, found under the bench in room 31 (Pl. 23:1; Mackay 1929: 90–91, pl. XXXVI:10, 12; Watelin and Langdon 1934: 62–63, pl. XLV), providing an indication of the phase in which that installation was used (if not when it was built, which may have been earlier). The dating to Early Dynastic IIIb proposed for this tablet by Grégoire (1996: 41–42, pl. 4:1928.16) is wrong (cf. Moorey 1970: 91 n. 25; G. Marchesi, p.c.). 253. Cf. Moorey 1970: 89–92, 103–4, for a detailed discussion of the date of Palace A and Cemetery A. Cf. also Dolce 1978a: 73–77. 254. Mackay 1929: 191, 194 sub 8, pl. XLI:8; Amiet 1980: no. 947.

76

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

probably from a banquet scene, were found in an eroded area behind the entrance (31) to the northern complex, the so-called room 35.255 Inlays with identical style and subject were unearthed in room 61 in the southern complex, associated with a frieze showing a herding subject in a more volumetric style.256 The group from room 35 also included an inlay portraying a male figure with a tufted skirt identified by an inscription as “Lugalªutu, the king” (presumably a king of Kis by that name; Pl. 50:1).257 Despite their somewhat cursory publication, soundings Y and YW on Tell E are of great importance because of the glyptic and epigraphic objects found there. As a result of their reconsideration in several important studies, as well as some new proposals I put forward here (cf. Table 10), it seems possible to reconstruct the general lines of their stratigraphy and chronology.258 In sounding Y, a base level in the Jemdet Nasr period (here called level 1)259 and a successive 1-mthick layer (level 2) are followed by a stratum that is approximately 4 m deep (with tombs and structures, levels 3–6), sealed by a 30 cm layer of mud (Flood Stratum, level 7). This, in its turn, is covered by an intermediate level with traces of buildings (level 8) and then by the Red Stratum (level 9), 1.5 m thick, on which, after a necropolis phase (level 10), Monument Z was built.260 255. Mackay 1929: 92, 105, 120–22 pls. XXXV:1–3; Dolce 1978b: cat. K4–8, 28, 71, 76–77. For room 35, which was actually eroded away and in fact not preserved, cf. Mackay 1929: pl. XXIII section E–F. 256. Mackay 1929: 96, 123–25 pl. XXXVI:1, 3–6; Dolce 1978b: cat. K1–3, 10–14, 16–25, 27, 29–33, 35–40, 42–47, 49–50, 52–61, 63–70, 74, 78–85, 88–92 (the last specimens, from K78 onwards, are considered by Dolce to be later than the others stylistically). For other inlays from Palace A, cf. Mackay 1929: 126, pl. XXXVII:1 (from porch 42) and Dolce 1978b: cat. K9 (from room 31). For other pieces from unspecified rooms, cf. cat. K15, 26, 34, 41, 48, 51, 62, 72–73. 257. Langdon 1924: 4, pl. VI:1 top left; Mackay 1929: 122, pl. XXXV:1 left. Cf. also Moorey 1978: 60 nn. 36–37, who compares this with a similar piece inscribed with the name and the title of Urnansêk of Lagas (cf. below). The inlay from Kis may represent a man in a seated position (cf. the right arm of the figures with a cup in their hands, viewed from the right in Parrot 1967: pl. LX:2630, 2425). For the inscription, cf. Steible 1982b: 220 LuUD. 1; Frayne 2008: 61 E1.7.41.1. The oft-asserted identification with the ruler of the same name who is attested on a mace-head from an Early Dynastic IIIb context at Mari (but cf. p. 69 n. 201), although it is likely (cf. p. 101 n. 34) creates some chronological problems. That mace-head could have been a heirloom at Mari, or Palace A could have continued in use until the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb (cf. n. 253 above), although there is no convincing evidence to support this notion. On the one hand, two comparable examples of inscribed inlays with label inscriptions date to the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb (Pl. 50:2; cf. Dolce 1978b: pls. XVIII:T19, XX:T16; the two inscriptions read: ur-dnanse / lú-gal / lagasx(NU11.BUR)la; and: áya-kur-gal / dumu); on the other, it is true that the inlay in question differs stylistically from the others with which it was associated (Dolce [1978b: 69–70, pl. VIII:K8] assigns it to the “Mesilim” phase)—nonetheless, the best comparison for the modeling of the tufts on the skirt is provided by a statue from Tell Agrab “Sara” Main 3, a context dating from Early Dynastic IIIa (Pl. 61:1; Frankfort 1943: no. 270). There is, therefore, no compelling reason (not even paleographic arguments; cf. p. 69 n. 201) to date the inlay of king Lugalªutu later than Early Dynastic IIIa. For the seal of Lugalªutu, cf. p. 197 n. 52 and Pl. 19:4. 258. Cf. Watelin 1929; Watelin and Langdon 1934: vi, pl. III, for the precise location of the soundings (cf. also Tunca 1984: 97, figs. 145–46). For analyses of the planimetry, sections, and materials, cf. Moorey 1966; 1978: 81–115; Lloyd 1969; Gibson 1972a: 80–91, figs. 61–62; 1976–80: fig. 2; Algaze 1983–84. 259. Cf. Watelin and Langdon 1934: 3–5, pls. VI:2, VIII:1. Note, in particular, pl. VII:2, for a burnt steatite seal of the Piedmont type (cf. Marchetti 1996a: 87 n. 44, fig. 2:13a; Amiet 1980: no. 476). For the pottery, cf. Watelin and Langdon 1934: pls. I, VII:1, 3–4, VIII:1; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, C 14. 260. Cf. Watelin and Langdon 1934: fig. 7, for a schematic section, and pl. I, for the pottery sequence, where the metric scale in the center relates to the so-called Plain Level representing the null point (in fact, there are an additional 8 m of stratigraphy above this; note that in the section on pl. VII of Langdon 1930, which includes very interesting annotations, the meter scale is wrong; cf. Pl. 19:2). 6 m below this lay the 1929–30 water table, also taken as another null by the excavators, while here, for the sake of clarity, the relative depths measured from the Plain Level, even below the water table, continue to be employed. On the recording system, cf. Buchanan 1966: 36 sub 176 and Gibson 1970: 60–61; on

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

77

Table 10. Stratigraphy of Tell E at Kis (Kish IV = Watelin and Langdon 1934; JN = Jemdet Nasr; ED = Early Dynastic; Akk. = Akkadian) Depth in m below Plain Level and stratum

Epigraphic objects [Plate here]

0–1.5 tombs cut into the Red Stratum (including the cart-burials) 0–1.5 Red Stratum

New level / Date 10 ED IIIb—Akk.

Cf. p. 79 n. 271

9 ED IIIa/b 7–8 (ED IIIa)

1.5–2.5 Mixed soil 2.5–3 Flood Stratum

3–3.5 EHS Flood 4

YW, lev. 6: Kish IV, pp. 36–37, 59–60, pl. XXVI:5 [Pl. 23:2–4]; legends of seal impressions in Table 11; Y, lev. 6: Kish IV, p. 37

3.5– 6.5 EHS Flood 1–3

Y, lev. 3: Kish IV, p. 34; Langdon 1930: 606–7, pl. IX:3 (upside down and mirrored) [Pl. 22:3]

6.5–7.5 Mixed soil 7.5–9 Jemdet Nasr level

6 ED IIIa 3–5 ED I and II 2 JN/ED I 1 JN

The thick central accumulation, according to the description provided by the excavator and as illustrated in the section (Pl. 19:2), contained building levels (3–6) whose general layout was also ascertained.261 The chronology goes from Early Dynastic I in the lower level to Early Dynastic IIIa in the upper level, prior to the Flood Stratum (level 6). The three lower building levels yielded Brocade and Piedmont style seals, associated with a fragment of a cuneiform tablet (Pl. 22:3; there may also have been a second tablet).262 The dating of level 3 to Early Dynastic I is confirmed by the presence, only in this stratum, of solid-footed goblets (on which cf. p. 17 n. 7 p. 241 Gibson states that soundings Y, YW, and YWN were “apparently” excavated starting from the elevation at Plain Level (cf. n. 270 below; cf. also Gibson 1970: 61). 261. Watelin and Langdon 1934: 5–9, figs. 1–2, pls. IV, V:2, VI:1–2, IX, X:1, XI. This stratum is variously named “first brick buildings,” “first town,” or “Early Houses Stratum” (EHS). In the excavation report, explicit mention is made of three levels, but the plan and section in fig. 7 (Flood 4) show that there is also a fourth level immediately below the Flood Stratum (further, tomb 518, the lower elevation of which is at –3.5 m, reuses some walls that probably belong to EHS Flood 4: cf. Algaze 1983–84: 142 n. 26, 189). Lloyd (1969: 46–47, pl. VII), instead, makes out three building levels below the Flood Stratum, from –6.5 m to –3 m, although he accepts Moorey’s conclusion that the settlement lasted up to the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIa. 262. Cf. Table 10. For the seals, cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 687, 689 and Marchetti 1996a: 87 nn. 42–43, fig. 2:13b. The cuneiform tablet fragment (Watelin and Langdon 1934: 34–35) comes from level 3, on the basis of the elevation at which it was found (5.5 m below the Plain Level). According to Gibson (1972b: 118 n. 20), tablet 1929.836 (Watelin and Langdon 1934: 37) came from Y –2 m below the Red Stratum (that is, at –3.5 m from the “Plain level,” corresponding to level 6, which is in fact a later context than that of the other tablet). It is likely that Gibson (1972b: 118 n. 19) hints at these two tablets when he reports the opinions of R. Biggs and I. J. Gelb regarding the intermediate position, between the archaic texts of Ur and those of Fara, of the tablets found “in trench Y, above the water level, in house debris” (but cf. Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G05).

78

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

and p. 52 n. 144), while other types of pottery characteristic of this and, to a degree, of the following period are also attested.263 Two limestone votive plaques come from elevation –4 m, that is, probably level 4 or 5. One shows a walking human figure (Pl. 19:1), while the other has no decoration and a central hole and is very similar to examples from Nippur North Temple IV and Tell Jokha II.264 Another fragment may be assigned to level 6 (it comes from “below the ‘Flood Stratum’ ”),265 since, although it has been tentatively dated to Early Dynastic II, it actually shows similarities with pieces from Tutub ‡amus IX (cf. also §1.2). The presence of votive plaques indicates a cultic function for part of the area from at least Early Dynastic III on, but probably earlier too.266 Although Moorey concludes otherwise, in the light of the stratification and his own explicit indications, it appears that most of the 122 tombs in Cemetery Y are contemporary with the domestic buildings of levels 3–5 and date, therefore, to Early Dynastic I and II. Some tombs definitely date to Early Dynastic I, since they were found below the floor of the rooms of level 4.267 The stratified glyptic from soundings Y and YW supplies important clues for dating the relevant levels (cf. Table 11, where they are listed by stratification).268 The glyptic styles show that the styles of Early Dynastic I are concentrated in level 3 in Y and YW, although they are still attested in notable proportions in the later levels (as documented also for Agrab “Sara” Main 2–3; cf. §1.1.1). Y 4 has styles from Early Dynastic II, whereas there is little material from Y 6, unlike YW (6), which has furnished a consistent horizon that demonstrates the continuity of Early Dynastic II styles alongside those of IIIa (Pl. 19:3; cf. also §1.2). In level 6 of sounding YW—the stratification of which parallels that of nearby Y—numerous associated tablets and sealings were

263. Watelin and Langdon 1934: pls. I, XVI:1–2, 4. For the pottery types, 1934: pl. I:4, 15, 6, 9, 1 “burnished” (elevation 3–6 m below the Plain Level), cf. the Early Dynastic I horizon in Delougaz 1952: pls. 40–42 (jar with a groove on the rim and incised decorations), 45 (decorated supports), 46 (solid-footed goblets), 47 (upright handled jars), 48:a–b (and p. 58 for gray burnished pottery), as well as Delougaz 1952: pl. 39 (for vases with reserved slip, a class that is also cited in the publication of sounding Y at Kis). 264. Cf. Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D08 sub vi and no. 6, respectively (the first piece, in alabaster, measures 6 x 4.5 cm; V.68 = Ash. 1929.277; the second is kept in the Field Museum, Inv. no. 231711). Cf. also Watelin and Langdon 1934: 11; Boese 1971: 187. 265. Watelin and Langdon 1934: 11, pl. XIII:4; Boese 1971: 186, KI3, pl. XIX:3. 266. “To the west larger rooms and a virtual absence of graves were taken to indicate a public building” (Moorey 1978: 99); in fact, only three burials were located in that sector (Burials 534, 525, 464; cf. Moorey 1978: Microfiches E12, F07, F13; Algaze 1983–84: 173, 179, 186). Algaze (1983–84: 137) adds that the presence of an elaborate structure waterproofed with bitumen is unusual in a private house. In this regard, one may perhaps also recall a stone cone from Y 4 m below Plain, kept in the Field Museum of Chicago (Inv. no. 231473; cf. also a shell inlay, Inv. no. 228786). 267. Watelin and Langdon 1934: 18–30, figs. 4–5, pls. XI:2, XVII–XXII. Cf. Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, E09–G03; and F08, F12 fig. 20 bottom (Algaze 1983–84: fig. A), for the drawing of a tomb (538) that cuts through level 3. For a tomb below the paving of level 4, cf. Watelin and Langdon 1934: 18, fig. 2 “k.” Cf. also Algaze 1983–84: 139, on the stratigraphy, and p. 154 on the chronology of the tombs, which he believes to be mainly from Early Dynastic I. 268. In sounding Y, the Piedmont-style seals are found in levels 1 and 4–5 (Buchanan 1966: nos. 74–76; Langdon 1930: pl. IX:1–2), the Brocade style in levels 3–5 (Buchanan 1966: nos. 81, 84, 93, 95), the schematic specimens in the Jemdet Nasr-Early Dynastic tradition in levels 3–6 (Buchanan 1966: 48, 55, 63–64, 82, 86; Langdon 1930: pl. X:2 center), those characteristic of Early Dynastic I in levels 4–5 (Buchanan 1966: nos. 39, 44, 56, 77), while Early Dynastic II motifs are found in level 4 (Watelin and Langdon 1934: pl. XXXVIII:7 and Buchanan 1966: no. 148, as well as possibly no. 107, from level 5). It should be noted that the seals Buchanan 1966: nos. 94 (Amiet 1980: no. 689), 104–5 are not from the Early Houses Stratum (cf. Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, B12). Unstratified glyptic material from soundings Y and YW does not appear in Table 11 (Buchanan 1966: nos. 112, 117, 149A, 249, 510). Cf. also Gibson 1970 for some corrections (accepted by Moorey 1978) to Buchanan’s loci.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

79

found (Pl. 23:2–4)269 in a context that can then be dated to Early Dynastic IIIa.270 Moorey attributes the cart-burials to the Red Stratum, which he dates to Early Dynastic IIIa, although there is little evidence for such a precise date.271 Moreover, level 7/Red Stratum is cut through by tombs that are contemporary with Cemetery A and therefore date to Early Dynastic IIIb (level 10).272 The excavator regards the cart-burials (of which there are six, possibly seven) with a sloping access ramp as contemporary with the tombs of Cemetery Y. The cart-burials lie, indeed, between 4 and 5.5 m below Plain Level, but, as Moorey has rightly noted, they were excavated beginning from an elevation above the Flood Stratum.273 Since at Ur the entrance shaft could be as deep as 10 m,274 the tombs of Kis, which are very similar, may in theory have been dug through 269. For the tablets, cf. Watelin and Langdon 1934: 35–38, 59–60, 1930.409a–i, pl. XXVI:5 (eight fragments of tablets and a pierced piece of clay [= 1930.409i]). According to Gibson 1972b: 118 n. 20, the tablet fragment 1930.409a was actually found “in debris,” but, according to H. Whitehouse (p.c.), this applies to 1930.409z. The statement by Gibson (1972b: 118) that the tablets come from a context “above the Flood Stratum” is disproved by all of the other publications on the subject (including Gibson 1972a: 90, whose description of the context, moreover, leads one to think of a dump) as well as from the data kindly furnished by H. Whitehouse (who adds that 1930.409f is registered in the original records as “YW –5 m below plain”). Cf. also n. 262 above. 270. In sounding YW, Early Dynastic I seals were found both in elevations corresponding to levels 3 and 4 of Y (Buchanan 1966: nos. 101–2) and below the Flood Stratum (nos. 98, 100, from a context corresponding on the basis of the stratification to level Y 6; note that the Flood Stratum is lower in YW than in Y [Gibson 1972a: 90; but cf. Gibson 1976–80: 618]) in association with a wealth of Early Dynastic IIIa motifs (F. Zaina, p.c., kindly informs me that in two unpublished letters by Watelin—dated from January 26th and February 17th 1930—there are some additional observations on the association of sealings and tablets with a “bed of pottery and ashes” at the elevation –4.5 m). These include examples of both the classical styles of this period (Buchanan 1966: nos. 165, 191) and motifs generally considered to be Early Dynastic II in date (cf., for example, Martin 1988: 76) but which at other sites are still attested in Early Dynastic IIIa contexts (Buchanan 1966: nos. 135, 156, while no. 137 should be from above the Flood Stratum; cf. Algaze 1983– 84: 143 n. 35), as shown in §1.2. The seals from the levels above the Flood Stratum in YW date to developed Early Dynastic III (Buchanan 1966: nos. 129, 137, 151, 215, 255), apart from a Neo-Sumerian piece of uncertain stratigraphic attribution (no. 455) and an Akkadian specimen from Plain Level (no. 397). Cf. Watelin and Langdon 1934: pls. XXVI:1–2, XXXVIII:6, 12, XL:4–5, for other motifs (bearing in mind the comments by Gibson 1970, 1972a: 90 n. 214 on the retrieval contexts, which are here, however, rejected where they do not agree with those provided by Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2; cf. 1978: 115 nn. 152–153). 271. As for the date of the Red Stratum, cf. Watelin and Langdon 1934: 45–46, pls. XXX–XXXI; Moorey 1978: 96– 98. A seal from the Red Stratum is dated by Buchanan (1966: no. 295) to the Akkadian period. Note that one of the plaques, despite being assigned in publications to the Red Stratum (Watelin and Langdon 1934: 45–46, pl. XXVIII:1; Boese 1971: pl. XIX:1), actually comes from C6 3 (3) (cf. Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D08 sub vi: 3). Moreover, it has not been confirmed that three tablets of the Fara type (Watelin and Langdon 1934: 61–62, pls. XLIII:1928.428, 1928.434, XLIV:1928.17; Grégoire 1996: 43–45, pls. 5, 7) come from the Red Stratum (H. Whitehouse, p.c.). An inlay and a plaque dated to Early Dynastic IIIb come from the Plain Level (Pl. 58:5; Dolce 1978b: pl. XVIII:K94 and Boese 1971: 187, KI4, pl. XIX:4), but they could also be from a superficial stratum, later than the main stratum and contemporary with the tombs that cut into it (cf. the following note). Two tablets (probably Sargonic in date) also come from the top of the Red Stratum, from levels that already date into the Akkadian period (Watelin and Langdon 1934: 38, 1930.339c; Grégoire 1996: 47, pl. 9:1930.339a). 272. Watelin and Langdon 1934: 49–51, pls. I top (for the pottery), XXXIV–XXXV. Tomb 306 must date to the early Akkadian period, given the presence of a seal that has been classified as “Akkadisch Ib/c” by Boehmer (1965: fig. 318; cf. Amiet 1980: no. 1386 for a slightly earlier dating; Watelin and Langdon 1934: pl. XXXIV: 3), while tomb 344 has a seal from late Early Dynastic IIIb (Watelin and Langdon 1934: pl. XXXV center; Amiet 1980: no. 1033). Cf. also Moorey 1970: 100–103, 127–28. It seems possible that a seal from the same period belongs to an unidentified tomb (Watelin and Langdon 1934: 64, pl. XL:9, where it is said to come from the Red Stratum; Amiet 1980: no. 1074). 273. Watelin and Langdon 1934: 30–34, fig. 3, pls. XXIII–XXIV: 1; Moorey 1970: 103–4 n. 96; 1978: 104–10; Gibson 1972a: 84–86. I cannot exclude the possibility that the layer of plano-convex bricks in tomb 363 (not 237) was, in fact, the paving of a building from level 3–4 (cf. Watelin and Langdon 1934: 6). 274. Cf. Woolley 1934: 57, fig. 10, PG779. Cf. already Moorey 1978: 104.

80

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Table 11. Glyptics (listed by context) from soundings Y and YW on Tell E at Kis (EHS = Early Houses Stratum; Kish IV = Watelin and Langdon 1934)

Buchanan 1966: no.

Excavation no.

Context

Additional bibliography

75

KM92

Y, –8 m, Jemdet Nasr level

Kish IV, pp. 4, 11, pl. VII: 2; Amiet 1980: no. 476; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D04; Marchetti 1996a: fig. 2:13a

—

V127

Y, –6 m EHS

Langdon 1930: 606, pl. X:2 center; Moorey 1966: 36; Moorey and Gurney 1978: 42, no. 2, pl. IV: 2; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D04

93

K964

Y, –6 m EHS (not from tomb 685) Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D04 (but cf. Algaze 1983–84: 174 sub K964)

150

V495

Y, –6 m EHS (not –5.5 m)

Kish IV, p. 60, pl. XL(:3); Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D04

Y, –5 m EHS

Langdon 1930: 606, pl. IX:1–2; Amiet 1980: no. 477 Kish IV, pl. XXXVIII(:7); Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D04

— —

V427?

Y, –5 m EHS

48

V270

Y, –5 m EHS

76

V706

Y, –5 m EHS (not –4 m)

Kish IV, pl. XXXVIII(:11); Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

148

—

Y, –5 m EHS

Amiet 1980: no. 1710; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D04

82

K715

Y, tomb 630, –5 m (not –6 m)

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, F06

56

V892

Y, –4.5 m EHS

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D04

64

V267

Y, –4.5 m EHS

95

V268 (not V208)

Y, –4.5 m (not –3 m)

Langdon 1930: 606, pl. IX:6; Amiet 1980: no. 688; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D04

39

V649

Y, –4 m EHS (not from C2)

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

44

V701

Y, –4 m EHS

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

55

K647

Y, –4 m EHS (not –6 m)

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

63

V266

Y, –4 m EHS

74

V652

Y, –4 m EHS (not from C4)

Kish IV, p. 11, pl. XV: 4; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03; Marchetti 1996a: fig. 2:13b

77

V653

Y, –4 m EHS

Kish IV, p. 11, pl. XV:2; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

81

V651

Y, –4 m EHS

Kish IV, p. 11, pl. XV: 3; Amiet 1980: no. 687; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

84

K1824

Y, –4 m EHS

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

81

Table 11. Glyptics (listed by context) from soundings Y and YW on Tell E at Kis (EHS = Early Houses Stratum; Kish IV = Watelin and Langdon 1934) (cont.) Buchanan 1966: no.

Excavation no.

Context

Additional bibliography

107

V878–879

Y, –4 m EHS (not –5 m)

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

144

V58

Y, –4 m EHS

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

86

V699

Y, –3 m (close to EHS summit)

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

149

V557

Y, –2 m (not –5 m EHS)

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03; Amiet 1980: no. 1709

1039

Y443

Y, –2 m

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

109

V893

Y, –1 m

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

237

KM216

Y, –1 m

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, D03

295

K752

Y, Red Stratum

102

—

YW, –7 m, below the Flood Stratum

Kish IV, p. 60, pl. XXXIX: 3; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G05; Amiet 1980: no. 1051

101

—

YW, –6 m

Kish IV, p. 60, pl. XL(:7); Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G05; Amiet 1980: no. 1708

98

—

YW, below the Flood Stratum

Kish IV, p. 60, pl. XL(:8); Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G05

100

—

YW, below the Flood Stratum

Kish IV, p. 60, pl. XL(:2); Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G05

135

—

YW, below the Flood Stratum

Kish IV, p. 60, pls. XXVI: 3–4, XXXVIII(:1, 4, 10, 13), XXXIX:1–2, 4–6; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G05; Amiet 1980: no. 946

156

—

YW, below the Flood Stratum

Kish IV, p. 60, pl. XXXVIII(:9); Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G05; Amiet 1980: no. 906

165

—

YW, below the Flood Stratum

Kish IV, p. 60, pl. XXXIX: 2; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G05

191

—

YW, below the Flood Stratum

Kish IV, p. 60, pl. XXXVIII(:2); Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G05

137

—

YW, –3 m

Kish IV, p. 60, pl. XXXVIII(:3); Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G04

151

—

YW, –3 m

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G04

455

KM145

YW, –3 m (!)

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G04

255

KM18

YW, –2.5 m

Kish IV, pp. 32–34 (not KM17), pl. XXIV: 2; Amiet 1980: no. 1217; Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G04

215

KM223

YW, –2 m

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G04

129

KM217

YW, –1 m

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G04

397

KM19

YW, Plain Level

Moorey 1978: Microfiche 2, G04

82

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

the Red Stratum and, therefore, be roughly contemporary with the Early Dynastic IIIb tombs that cut through this level. Moorey inclines toward a date in Early Dynastic IIIa for the cartburials, not only because he relates them to the nearby Palace A but also because he is influenced by the commonly accepted date for the royal tombs of Ur. However, we have no information enabling us to date the cart-burials precisely, except for some copper bridles with zoomorphic sculptures that have parallels from PG800 and PG779 at Ur.275 I can now, however, date the latter to the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb (cf. Introduction above and §1.1.5). It is therefore possible that on Tell E at Ingharra there was a large necropolis that lasted from Early Dynastic IIIb until the Akkadian period, located near a sacred area with (two) ziggurats (called Hursamkalamak at least from Ur III times onward) that also contained princely (royal?) tombs dating from the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb, as at Ur.276

1.1.10. Shush (Susa) In 1908, roughly 4 m below the Middle Elamite temple of “Ninhursamak,” the French expedition at Susa brought to light an Akkadian level (lying below a Neo-Sumerian level), where a statue bearing an inscription of the Akkadian governor ºAsbum was found on the brick floor.277 Some Akkadian alabaster statuettes were found in the immediate vicinity, together with a schematic statuette of a standing worshiper with elaborate hairstyle and robe over the left shoulder (Pl. 53:4–5), which, despite various proposals for an earlier attribution, must be considered contemporary with the others.278 Amiet identified a probable favissa of earlier date that must have belonged to an even earlier temple nearby, as indicated by the homogenous date of the materials found there, which can be ascribed to Early Dynastic II–IIIa, corresponding to period IIIC at Susa.279 These include the 275. Cf. Moorey 1970: 104; 1978: 106. Algaze (1983–84: 149–54, fig. B), instead, seems to prefer a date in late Early Dynastic I, on the basis of the few associated vases. For the rein rings from Kis and Ur, cf. Watelin and Langdon 1934: 33, pl. XXV; Woolley 1934: pls. 166–67:a. For the metal vases, cf. Müller-Karpe 1993: 244, pl. 147 bottom. It is possible that a Syrian bottle (Watelin and Langdon 1934: pl. XVI:3) attributed by the excavators to the Early Houses Stratum actually comes from one of the cart-burials (cf. p. 61 n. 156 for examples of a different type of bottle, from PG800 at Ur). In terms of its typology, this should date to the end of Early Dynastic III, on the basis of stratified examples from other northern Mesopotamian sites (cf. D. Matthews 1997a: 51 n. 118; cf. also Schwartz et al. 2003: 335–36, fig. 23:11–12, from a tomb at Umm el-Marra dated to the transition between Early Bronze III and IV, and Pruss 2000: fig. 9:96.F.047, from the slightly later Khuera IE phase). It is more than likely that the cart-burials of Kis had been pillaged, as were most of those at Ur. 276. Cf. Woolley 1934: pl. 274. Moorey (1978: 105) seems instead to favor an attribution of the cart-burials to the earlier “Mixed soil” (level 8 here) underlying the Red Stratum when he states that “traces of a cart-burial sealed below the larger ziggurat indicate that they were cut before it was built” (so also Gibson 1972a: 84), but the evidence is inconclusive. 277. For the excavations in this area, cf. de Mecquenem 1911a: 71–72, fig. 33 (sub “D” bottom) and insert between pp. 72 and 73; 1911b: 43–47, fig. 5 and fold-out plan; Pottier 1912: 61–65 (levels IV–III, cf. also the section in Pottier et al. 1912: fig. 113); Harper et al. 1992: 123, fig. 41 (on the Middle Elamite temple). 278. For the alabaster statuette Sb 77, cf. de Mecquenem 1911b: 45, fig. 9; Pottier 1912: pl. XL:7–8; Amiet 1966: 180–81, fig. 132 (who wrongly attributes it to the earlier favissa; cf. below); Braun-Holzinger 1977: 58; Spycket 1981: 122 n. 423; Harper et al. 1992: 83–84, no. 50; A. Benoit in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 298, no. 199. On the correct dating of the other figurines to the Akkadian period, cf. Amiet 1966: 241, fig. 174; 1976: nos. 45–51, 54; Spycket 1981: 169, pl. 114. 279. Amiet 1966: 178–82, figs. 117, 119–25, 128, 130, 131, 133–34 (cf. also de Mecquenem 1911b: 45–56, figs. 11– 12). Le Breton 1957: 119–20, figs. 43–44, however, did not believe that the stratification of these materials provided useful information. On the chronology of Susa IIIC, cf. Marchetti 1996a: 97, fig. 4.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

83

upper part of a locally-produced statue of bituminous stone (Pl. 20:3) and a fragment of a limestone plaque (Pl. 20:5), both of which are stylistically similar to analogous objects of the same period from the Diyala region,280 as well as sculpted vases of bituminous stone and other contemporary pieces of sculpture in various materials (Pl. 20:2).281 The association of these objects with other sculpted plaques also appears significant (Pl. 20:1, 4),282 since, in the light of stylistic considerations and of the homogeneity of the retrieval context discussed here, it indicates that some of these and other sculpted materials do not date to Early Dynastic I as has often been claimed.283

1.1.11. Some Groups of Sculpted Artifacts from Other Mesopotamian Sites In this section I discuss some contexts and groups of finds of importance for the chronology and definition of the style of Mesopotamian statuary. Fara (Suruppak). The excavation methods employed by the German expedition of 1902–3 prevent us from studying most of the contexts. Consequently, Martin’s work, which also includes the results of the American excavations of 1931, is of particular importance here.284 Although her discussion of seals will not be taken up here, it is nonetheless useful to bear in mind that most of the sealings lack contexts and can hence only be classified in terms of their style. The tablets from Suruppak, with occasional exceptions, represent a consistent chronological whole that can be 280. For the statue fragment, cf. Pottier 1912: pls. XXXVI:2; Amiet 1966: fig. 133; Connan and Deschesne 1996: no. 117. For the plaque, cf. de Mecquenem 1911b: fig. 11; Pottier 1912: pl. XL:3; Amiet 1966: fig. 131; Boese 1971: pl. XXIV:1. 281. For the vases in bituminous stone, cf. Amiet 1966: figs. 117, 119–22. For two lion-shaped architectural elements, cf. Amiet 1966: fig. 123, 128, and for a steatite seated statuette in Iranian style, fig. 134 (cf. also Spycket 1981: 125–26 n. 441; Connan and Deschesne 1996: nos. 110, 129–30, 133, 135). On these and other materials from contemporary levels, cf. also Pottier 1912: 62–63, pls. XXXIII:5–6, XXXIV, XXXV, XLIV:5 (vases), XXXVI:1, 4–7, XXXVIII:5 (zoomorphic architectural elements), XLIV:1–2 (Iranian statue). The presence of statues that can be dated to developed Early Dynastic III is not significant from the chronological standpoint, since these cannot be linked to any context (Amiet 1966: figs. 136, 138–40; on the dating, cf. also Braun-Holzinger 1977: 79–80). 282. For the other three plaques from the favissa, cf. de Mecquenem 1911b: fig. 12; Amiet 1966: figs. 124–25 (the provenance of the second, however, is not certain), 130; Boese 1971: pls. XXII:1, XXIV:2–3; Connan and Deschesne 1996: no. 139; A. Benoit in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 300, no. 200. Whilst Boese (1971: 53), correctly, attributed this production to Early Dynastic II, Pelzel (1977: 3, 12–13, figs. 1, 5) maintained that part of it could be dated to Early Dynastic I (Amiet 1966: figs. 125, 130; Boese 1971: pls. XXII:1, XXIV:2; Porada et al. 1992: 105 also agree with this dating). Pelzel’s comparisons are, however, not convincing, not even in the case of the first example, which she also compares in terms of the subject, with Boese 1971: pl. I:1 from Agrab “Sara” Main 2. Moreover, the other plaque is incised rather than sculpted and, therefore, employs a schematic rather than an archaic style. 283. Pelzel 1977: 6–11, 13–15, figs. 2–4, 6–7 (cf. also Amiet 1966: figs. 126–27, 129; Boese 1971: pl. XXII:2–4, XXIII:1–2). The last two plaques studied by Pelzel are almost identical to two specimens discussed in the preceding note (the findspot is not known), whereas the first two (Pelzel 1977: figs. 2–3; Pottier 1912: pl. XLIV:3) show close similarities with Early Dynastic IIIa materials (cf., for example, a tablet with an incised motif from Suruppak: Heinrich 1931: pl. 28:a) and we may, therefore, consider assigning them to an even later date. Finally, the third plaque seems to be too schematic to be dated with any precision, although the reversed caprid is a frequent theme in Early Dynastic II glyptics (cf., for example, Martin 1988: 249, nos. 256–57). Further, the style in which the lion’s mane is portrayed is similar to that on a plaque from Nippur Inªanak VIII (Hansen 1963: pl. III) and on the second piece of this group from Susa (Pelzel 1977: fig. 3). Cf., however, also the mace-head of Me¶alim from Firsu (cf. Table 5 sub e) and an Early Dynastic IIIa seal impression from Suruppak (Martin 1988: 269, no. 449). 284. Heinrich 1931; Martin 1988.

84

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

dated on prosopographical grounds to a limited span of no more than a few decades.285 It is likely that most of the seals were associated with these tablets. Martin has recently shown that some sealings that stylistically should be attributed to Early Dynastic II are, in fact, also present in contexts where they are associated with Fara tablets,286 thus providing one of the elements used here for a critical reevaluation of certain northern Mesopotamia glyptic styles (cf. §1.2). I know of only two fragments of statues from Suruppak, one of which can be dated to Early Dynastic II,287 although the comments made in §1.2 regarding extending the chronology of this style also to the later period may be applicable here. Six fragments of votive plaques belong, in terms of style, to the same horizon and likewise come from areas that cannot be dated with any precision.288 Tell Senkere (Larsa). The French expedition has brought to light a late Early Dynastic sanctuary in the northeast sector of the city (Building B 33), where, however, only the niched external wall of the cella has been preserved.289 Phase I, which was destroyed by fire, has provided pottery material dating from Early Dynastic IIIa, while phase II represents a rebuilding phase followed by a period of abandonment. Phase IIIA–B, merely a renewed occupation of a partially destroyed building, has furnished an abundance of pottery from the end of Early Dynastic IIIb or, according to the excavators, even later. The excavation report favors a date in late Early Dynastic II for the original building, since a votive plaque dated to this phase was reused in phase II.290 There is not, however, sufficient evidence to support such a hypothesis, especially because the plaque could date to Early Dynastic IIIa, as Thalmann himself admits (cf. also §1.2). A fragmentary statue of Early Dynastic III was found on the surface and probably had been reused in phase III.291 Building B 33 is, therefore, a sanctuary (cf. §A.1) that was erected and used in Early Dynastic IIIa and abandoned at the end of this period or at the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb. Umm al-ºAqareb. Iraqi excavations at this site southeast of Umma revealed a large sacred area in which some sculptures were found, among which the lower part of a standing statue, a plaque with a banquet scene, and some stone multiple vessels. Published assemblages seem to date from Early Dynastic II (for the most part) and IIIa.292

285. Cf. p. 122 n. 216, also for the position taken by Visicato (2000: 21), who probably compresses the chronology too much. 286. Martin et al. 2001: 13, no. 394. 287. Heinrich 1931: 53–54, pl. 24:b (inscribed shoulder from trench Iae), d (torso from XIVm); Braun-Holzinger 1977: 77 (who also mentions a fragment of skirt). 288. Heinrich 1931: 51–53, pls. 20:f, 21:a, 22:a–d (the second piece from IIco, the fourth and fifth from XVv and VI– IIv, respectively); Boese 1971: pl. XX:1–4. The lions illustrated in Heinrich 1931: pl. 22:a can be compared with plaques from Nippur (cf. §1.1.2) and Susa (§1.1.10). 289. Cf. Thalmann 2003: 42, 56, table 1, fig. 3, for the stratigraphy and chronology. For the east wall (M59) of the cella, cf. Thalmann 2003: pl. 39. From another sacred area at Larsa, the Ebabbar sanctuary, there also comes an Early Dynastic III head, although it was found in a secondary context (Margueron 1971: 280, pl. XVII:3–4). 290. Thalmann 2003: 53 n. 43; Huot 2003: 141. 291. Thalmann 2003: 53, pl. 40 (the frontal portrayal and high relief exclude the possibility that this is a fragment of a stele as is tentatively suggested in the excavation report). 292. Auraibiyi 2003–4: 277 (1–2), 283 (1–3), 286–87 (1), 292 (19). The retrieval context of an inlay, a cylinder seal, and some tablets, apparently from Early Dynastic IIIb, is unclear to me (Auraibiyi 2003–4: pp. 292 [19–21], 293 [23]).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

85

Abu Habba (Sippar). I have no detailed information concerning the context of the fourteen or more fragmentary Early Dynastic statuettes that Rassam found at Sippar. These include the statue of Harraªilum, an official in the service of the Mari king Yikun¶ama¶, whose statue—similar in style to Early Dynastic IIIa sculptures and probably carved locally—must date, instead, to Early Dynastic IIIb (Pl. 43:7–8).293 The other materials, possibly associated with the Harraªilum statue, include standing and seated statuettes, both female and male; according to BraunHolzinger, who has examined them (only a minority, in fact, have been illustrated in print), they can mostly be dated to Early Dynastic IIIa or initial IIIb.294 Tell Jokha. This site, located on the Euphrates roughly 50 km northeast of Sippar and with the same name as the modern site of ancient Umma, was excavated by an Iraqi mission. Level III and the successive level II revealed a fair-sized building (“unit three”) constructed around a courtyard that is larger than the surrounding complexes.295 On the basis of two votive plaques found in nearby rooms, this can be interpreted as a temple (cf. also §A.1). Level III yielded a plaque with banqueting scene in the “classic” style of Early Dynastic II (Pl. 21:2).296 The seals from level II, bearing contest and banquet scenes and the so-called god on a boat, date from Early Dynastic IIIa, with one exception. This seems to belong stylistically to Early Dynastic II (Pl. 21:3), but the presence of this style also in immediately successive phases has already been discussed (cf. p. 70 n. 208).297 The same level also yielded a plaque with central hole but no decoration and with a groove along the edge, which is identical to an example from North Temple IV at Nippur dating from Early Dynastic IIIa.298 Analysis of the pottery horizon also supports an Early Dynastic II date for level III and Early Dynastic IIIa for level II.299 Tell Aswad. This site on the middle Euphrates, 25 km north of Ramadi, roughly near Hit and upstream of Tell Jokha, yielded a statue of a female seated on a zoomorphic stool, which 293. Walker and Collon 1980: 96, no. 1, pl. 25:1; Spycket 1981: 86 n. 212, fig. 31; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 250, pl. 16: St 55. For the inscription, cf. Steinkeller 1984a: 33–34; Cooper 1986a: 87 Ma 3; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 9–10 MP 8; Frayne 2008: 305–6 E1.10.7.1. For the date of the statue, cf. below, p. 139 n. 55. 294. Walker and Collon 1980: 96–97. According to Reade (2000b: 82), the statues may have been found in a favissa. Although the Harraªilum statue was shipped to the British Museum before the other pieces, Reade maintains that they may have been found all together in the area of the sun-god temple. Braun-Holzinger (1977: 51 n. 351, 75, 84) assigns them to her “Stilstufe I” (WA 104729), “II” (WA 91877, 104728, 104734), “II/III” (WA 115031, 115033), and, in only one case, to “III” (WA 114700). (Note that Braun-Holzinger’s “Stilstufe II” ends with Tutub ‡amus IX:5 and Small Shrine VI [cf. 1977: table 1], i.e., beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb here.) Of the original fourteen alabaster pieces dispatched to London, Reade (2000b: 83) has identified twelve of them (three have been illustrated in Hall 1928: pl. IV top right and bottom; cf. 1928: 28), among which two very large specimens (WA 115030 and 115033). The remaining two may be an inscribed lion head (Hall 1928: 25, pl. I:1, WA 91879) and a mace-head with lions in high relief (Hall 1928: 27, pl. II:4, WA 92681), rather than the later pieces indicated by Reade (2000b). 295. Rumaidh 2000: 6–13, figs. 10–11. 296. Rumaidh 2000: 24, fig. 74. 297. Rumaidh 2000: 21–24, figs. 64–68, 70–72. The archaizing seal (2000: fig. 68) shows the hero with two plumes that is also found, for example, in seals from Mari (Pl. 17:5–6) and in a plaque from Suruppak (Boese 1971: pl. XX:3). 298. Rumaidh 2000: 24, fig. 73. For the plaque from Nippur, cf. above, p. 36 n. 76. Cf. also p. 23 n. 36 for a plain plaque from Tutub ‡amus IX:5. 299. Rumaidh 2000: 14–20, 29–34, figs. 21–62. The pottery from level III is, in fact, restricted to 2000: 34, figs. 60–62 and precisely lacks the more characteristic shapes of level II.

86

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

confirms the existence of regional characteristics in Early Dynastic statuary, given its similarity with sculptures from Mari and Assur.300 Tell Maªtuq. A site on the left bank of the Tigris in northern Iraq (12 km south of al-Qayara, in the Mosul district) yielded some late Early Dynastic statues carved in a provincial style (Pl. 21:5–7). They can only be dated vaguely to sometime between Early Dynastic IIIb and the Akkadian period. In style, however, they are very close to the more cursive production of Assur Estar G2.301 This group therefore appears to indicate the presence of local schools, albeit of lower quality, in Upper Mesopotamia. Tell Khuera. In 1963, in the fill of level 2 of the “Kleiner Antentempel” at Tell Khuera, Moortgat found three almost-complete alabaster statues and two others that were fragmentary, as well as parts from another two or three examples. (Pl. 21:1).302 Leaving aside the stratigraphic attribution,303 it has only recently been possible to relate the chronological problem their discovery raised to a detailed archaeological and art-historical context.304 It is likely that the statues date to the Khuera IC phase, which—although showing closest similarities, with regard to glyptics, to Early Dynastic IIIa production305—may have already begun at the end of Early Dynastic II.306 Stylistically, the Khuera statuettes are fairly close to the Diyala production, despite some minor peculiarities that were probably slightly over-emphasized by the excavator. It seems unlikely that we are dealing here with a belated provincial style or even a late importation of the statues themselves from other centers, such as those of the Diyala region.307 It is more likely that there was a local school—possibly already active at the end of Early Dynastic II, when the presence of stone 300. Wootton 1965: pls. 1–4; Anonymous 1985: 302, 362, no. 48. Cf. also Braun-Holzinger 1977: 80, for two female statues from Tell Ashara/Terqa, probably dating to Early Dynastic III, which have the polos headgear that is characteristic of Mari. For a comparable statue from Assur Estar G, cf. Andrae 1922: pl. 41:c–d; Bär 2003: pls. 26–27: SK 18. 301. Taha 1970: pls. 2–4. For Assur, cf. Andrae 1922: pl. 36:a–d; Bär 2003: pls. 22–23: SK 15. Cf. also Taha 1970: pl. 5, from Larsa. 302. Moortgat 1965: 23–27, figs. 12–20, p. 37; 1967a: 21, figs. 13–15; 1967b: pls. 70–75. The largest statue—also the most remarkable in terms of style, and the only one with inlaid pupils—must have been only 35 cm high (Moortgat 1965: 31–37, figs. 21–24; 1967a: 14–21, figs. 11–12). 303. The fragments from which the statues were reconstructed were found scattered in room 1, 2A, 3, 4, and 6, as well as in the fill between the floors of levels 2–1 of the cella. Therefore, in terms of stratigraphy, we can only state that they are earlier than level 1 (cf., however, the comments by Kühne and Schneider [1988: 87 n. 22], who attribute them to level 2). Moortgat (1967a: 45) suggests attributing them to level 4 (as does Orthmann 1990: 11). 304. His attribution of the statues to Early Dynastic II led the excavator to push back the dating of the monuments brought to light at Tell Khuera, which had until then been attributed to approximately the Akkadian period. This, in turn, understandably led to the chronological validity of Tell Khuera material being questioned (Zettler 1978; contra Orthmann 1990: 11). It was only with the internal chronological subdivision of the pottery and the attribution of the monumental complexes to different phases (Orthmann 1990) that the question could be satisfactorily dealt with. The phases Khuera IC and ID—within which the sequences of the temple in antis date, seemingly reaching only the beginning of Khuera ID—fall within Early Bronze III, roughly corresponding to Early Dynastic III in southern Mesopotamia. For a preliminary discussion of the synchronization between the two regions, cf. Marchetti 1998: 115–17, 129–34, table 1. 305. Marchetti 1998: 118–20, 131–32. 306. As also D. Matthews (1997a: 116–17) thinks. It is likely that the beginning of this horizon in the eastern Balikh partially coincides with the latest phase of the period called Ninevite 5 in the Khabur area (late Early Bronze II), which corresponds to circa Early Dynastic II (Marchetti 1996a: 100). 307. Cf., for example, Spycket 1981: 71–72.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

87

Table 12. Relative stratigraphy of the main contexts in which southern Mesopotamian statuary was found (JN = Jemdet Nasr; ED = Early Dynastic; R. Cem. = Royal Cemetery; SIS = Seal-impression strata; R.T. = Royal Tombs) Tutub ‡amus (“Sin”)

Small Shrine

JN

I–III

ED I

IV V–VI VII

I–IV

VIII •

V •

IX:1

VI

ED II ED IIIa ED IIIb

?

T. Agrab

Kis

Nippur

Adab

Firsu

Ur

“Abu”

“Sara”

Ingharra Y

Inªanak

Tell V

Tell K

R. Cem.

1

XIV–XII

Earliest r. Earlier

3–4

XI–IXB IXA

Square I:2 Square II

Main 2

5

Square III

Main 3–5

6

Earliest Archaic I–III Archaic IV Square I:1 ? I

IX:5 X

Akkadian

Oval

Esnunak

VII (+P45:51)

II III

Single I:2 Single I:3 (=I) Single II–IV

?

K SIS 8 7–6 5–4

G

1

1 2•

F E

VIIB

3

4

D C

10 Z

H

• VIII

VIIA

Later

F

5

R.T.

B

6

SIS 3–1

A

4 VI–V

statuettes is attested in sanctuaries of smaller centers 308—which flourished in Early Dynastic IIIa, a period when statues in diverse styles are attested in contexts such as Tutub ‡amus IX. Tell Selenkahiye. Two late Early Dynastic limestone statues, which are thought to have been reused in the Early Bronze IV period at this site on the right bank of the middle Euphrates, represent the westernmost attestation of statuary in a Mesopotamian Early Dynastic style (Pl. 21:4).309

1.2. Early Dynastic Chronology and the Development of Visual and Epigraphic Artifacts The discussion in the previous section enables me to propose a modified chronological framework for the stratigraphic levels of the various sites (cf. Tables 12–13, as well as the Introduction above). Stratigraphic analysis has also allowed me to narrow down the chronology of numerous visual communication artifacts (especially, but not exclusively, statues) whose chronological 308. In fact, the discovery in a chapel from the latest Ninevite 5 phase at Tell Kashkashuk III, in the upper Khabur region, of two fragments from a standing, probably naked statuette (the legs show no traces of clothing) with the head tilted slightly upward (Bounni 1988: 373, fig. 10; C. Breniquet in Rouault and Masetti-Rouault 1993: 302, 449, no. 222) suggests there had been a tradition of producing votive statues in the upper Mesopotamian region. 309. Cf. van Soldt 2001: 459–60, who attributes them to the “Early” period of the site (late Early Bronze III), insofar as he thinks they were reused in the “Late” period (Early Bronze IV; for the chronology of the site, cf. van Loon 2001: 661–62, fig. 3.34; Marchetti 1998: 133–34 n. 106, table 1). The two statues (SLK 74–S 28 and SLK 74–S 35; cf. van Soldt 2001: pl. 9.10:a) are close in style to the production from Mari (cf. §1.1.7). A third statue from a similar stratigraphic context appears, instead, to be later (SLK 74–S 36, cf. 1998: pl. 9.10:b).

88

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Table 13. Relative stratigraphy of the main contexts in which northern Mesopotamian and Syrian statuary was found (JN = Jemdet Nasr; ED = Early Dynastic; EB = Early Bronze) Assur Estar

Mari Palace

T. Khuera

INANA.ZA.ZA INANA.NITA

Kl.Ant.

Palace G

IA

IIA1 (EB I–II)

EB I

IB

IIA2 (EB III)

EB II

JN ED I

e

ED II

c

IC ED III

Akkadian

H G1 G2

P3 P2 P1

Destruction

c b a

GF

P0

Houses

—

b a

Ebla

(EB IVA1) 5–4

ID 3–1 IE

IIB1 (EB IVA) IIB2 (EB IVB)

EB III

EB IV

attribution in the literature has often shifted considerably as a result of the different, often subjective, stylistic criteria applied, with obvious consequences for any reconstruction of Early Dynastic artistic development. The situation is equally complicated as regards epigraphy. To date, we do not have sufficiently precise criteria for defining the development of cuneiform paleography on clay or stone during the earliest phases of the Early Dynastic period. A study of stratigraphy, therefore, is essential in order to provide a foundation for any such attempt (cf. Table 14). Here I briefly mention, without repeating the references, the most important factors that emerge from my discussion of the main Mesopotamian contexts, while bearing in mind the difficulty inherent in stylistically defining homogenous horizons. In fact, Frankfort had already observed that the identification of an uninterrupted cultural sequence meant that “the blunt succession must be reinterpreted as a series of gradual changes, as the interplay of survival and innovation.”310 Early Dynastic I. The earliest Early Dynastic statuary in the Diyala region is represented by the finds from Tutub ‡amus IV, dating from the beginning of Early Dynastic I, and from Esnunak “Abu” Archaic Shrine IVC, which can be dated to the central phase of the period. I can probably date to the end of Early Dynastic I, on the other hand, the statues from the favissa of the “Abu” Square I:1 phase, as well as those from the Agrab “Sara” Earlier Building (and, possibly, also from the Main 1 phase), along with a piece from ‡amus VI–VII. The attested types, which are iconographically and stylistically elaborate, already include the main types found in the following periods: they include both male and female statues, standing or seated with crossed legs, clothed or naked, of stone and of metal. A fragment of a male statue from late Early Dynastic I 310. H. Frankfort in Delougaz 1952: vii.

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

89

Table 14. Main stratified Early Dynastic epigraphic materials (T = clay tablets; O = inscriptions on other materials) Firsu ED I

Diyala O: Tutub ‡amus VII ? (lion-headed eagle)

ED II

O: Tell K phase 1 (stele, circular base)

O: Agrab “Sara” Main 1 (Cat. 1 and vase)

ED IIIa

O: Tell K phase 4 (mace-head, sword) T: Tell K phase 4

O: Tutub ‡amus IX:3 (statue)

ED IIIb O: Tell K phases 5–6 (spear-head, plaques, lion’s heads, various objects)

O: Tutub Small Shrine VII (plaque and statue) and ‡amus IX:5 (two statues); Agrab “Sara” Later (vase)

Uruk T: Eªanak

Kis T: Y 3/4 •

Nippur

Adab

T: Inªanak IXA •

Ur O: SIS 8–4 (seals) T: SIS 8–4

O: Inªanak VIII (plaque, statues favissa A) T: Inªanak VIII

Abu Salabikh O: YW 6 T: archives

Mari O: temples (statues, objects, Cat. 11–12) T: Palace P1, area B

(seals) T: Palace A; YW 6

O: Tell V O: Inªanak phase 3 VIIB (sculptures and (favissa) vases) T: North IV– III; Inªanak VIIB (unpublished) O: North III (statue)

O: Tell V phase 4 (Cat. 7; deposits)

O: Royal Tombs (objects); SIS 2–1 (seals) T: Pit F, levels B–A; SIS 2–1

comes from Ur SIS 5–4. No relief can be dated to Early Dynastic I on the basis of its stratigraphic context.311 The numerous stratified seals from the Diyala valley bear witness to the existence of a characteristic animal style, as well as the Piedmont and Brocade styles. Some of these characteristics can also be found in the seals from Nippur Inªanak XI–IXB and Kis Y 3, while the most complete documentation is provided by Ur SIS 8–4, in which all of the principal motifs of the subsequent period are already attested. With regard to lesser but significant stratified contexts, Early Dynastic I sealings and pottery have been excavated in area G at al-Hiba/Lagas and on Tell B at Jemdet Nasr.312 Important epigraphic documentation on clay from Ur SIS 8–4 (cf. p. 53 n. 146) sheds some light on the administration during this archaic phase of Early Dynastic civilization (Pl. 22:1–2). Also of particular interest is a group of texts from Uruk, which—as far as their context is con311. Hansen 1963 and Pelzel 1977, in fact, assigned materials to this period only on the basis of stylistic criteria. For the Blau Plaques, cf. n. 318 below and §5.1. 312. Hansen 1991–92: 270–71, fig. 2; R. Matthews 1989: 237–44, figs. 5:2–6, 6–8; 1990: 31–36, figs. 9–10. At least three pottery subphases appear to have been identified for Early Dynastic I at the site of Jemdet Nasr, although not within a single stratigraphic sequence.

90

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

cerned—I consider contemporary with those of Ur SIS 8–4 (Pl. 22:4).313 With regard to the other sites, we have one fragmentary stratified tablet of Early Dynastic I from Kis Y 3 (Pl. 22:3; cf. p. 77 n. 262), while three cuneiform tablets come from Nippur Inªanak IXA (Pl. 22:5).314 Some scholars, however, date this level to immediately after Early Dynastic I on the basis of seal impressions found there (cf. p. 34 n. 67). As regards stratified inscriptions on stone, an inscribed object in the shape of a lion-headed eagle probably comes from Tutub ‡amus VII (Pl. 22:7; cf. p. 22 n. 30). Early Dynastic II. Documentation relating to statuary becomes remarkably more abundant from this period on. Stratigraphic and architectural evidence indicates that this period must have been shorter than those immediately preceding and following it. The fact that developments in seals in the Diyala area were less distinctive than in southern Mesopotamia (cf. §1.1.1) does not imply that this region should consequently be defined as “peripheral:” study of statuary shows, in fact, that the Diyala region was fully integrated into southern Mesopotamian culture. Dedications by members of a growing ruling class become common. This elite is also celebrated on plaques and most effectively represents itself in banquet scenes (cf. §5.2). Around the same time, these officials begin to inscribe dedications on statues. The materials from Esnunak “Abu” Square II, Tutub ‡amus VIII and Small Shrine V and, perhaps, Agrab “Sara” Main 2 display a remarkable iconographic and stylistic homogeneity. They record the persistence of symbols linked to the banquet and to offerings, such as the cup held between the hands and the branch of dates, but also testify to the appearance of many new iconographic details and a new way of modeling volumes and surfaces that supersedes the juxtaposition of sharp planes typical of late Early Dynastic I. The frequent use of the term “transitional” to describe this period does not seem adequate since it appears—as we have seen, for example, in the above discussion of Small Shrine V—that the (late) abstract style and the naturalistic style, to use Frankfort’s terminology, never really coexisted. Level VIII of the temple of Inªanak at Nippur yielded some plaques, including a piece from a sounding that I here attribute to this level and a favissa of statues found below the floor of level VIIB (cf. §1.1.2). The evidence from the archaic favissa of Susa “Ninhursamak” (cf. §1.1.10) also seems in part to be stylistically contiguous with this evidence. Firsu Ninmirsûk 1– 2 yielded several significant visual documents (§1.1.3), while from Tell Jokha III there is a plaque in the classical style of Early Dynastic II (§1.1.11). There is little stratified epigraphic material for this period: from Nippur Inªanak VIII there are only one cuneiform tablet (Pl. 22:6)315 and three inscribed statues from favissa A, which must 313. Cf. Green 1982: 163–66, nos. 1–12. Note that texts 5–9 (pp. 164–65) come from square NeXIV4 “aus dem großen Scherbenlager” (waste dumps related to pottery kilns that have then been cut by later Early Dynastic walls, the socalled “Situation 4;” cf. Green and Nissen 1987: 23, 47–48), a context that may be similar to the SIS at Ur. Texts 10 and 12 (Green 1982: 165–66) come, instead, from the vicinity of a kiln assigned to the Jemdet Nasr period (from squares NdXVI5 and NdXVII1/XVI5, respectively), the first of which is associated, in a “Scherbenschicht,” with a sealing showing a motif with a naked man and a temple, which recalls, however, similar motifs from the SIS at Ur (Lenzen 1963: 20, pl. 14:h). Some other tablet fragments (Cavigneaux et al. 1991: 51 W24018/6, p. 126 W24156) come from secondary contexts in the Eªanak. 314. Buccellati and Biggs 1969: 5, 19–20, nos. 1–3. 315. Buccellati and Biggs 1969: 5, 20, no. 4. Cf., however, p. 34 n. 67 above, for the hypothesis that level IXA— and, therefore, also, the three cuneiform documents from this level—extends into Early Dynastic II. These three texts,

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

91

be attributed to this level (cf. Table 3 in §1.1.2). From Agrab “Sara” Main 1 we have a royal statue (Cat. 1) and a fragment of vase with a dedication by a king of Kis,316 while from Tell K at Firsu there is a stele and an inscribed circular base that belong to levels 1–2 of Early Dynastic II (cf. Table 5 sub a, d in §1.1.3). With regard to Suruppak, it is striking that, compared to the abundance of seals that seem to pre-date Early Dynastic IIIa, only a couple of tablets have been judged to date from before the Fara phase.317 The short chronological gap that presumably separates the archaic texts of Ur from those of the Fara type (cf. p. 53 n. 146), however, would probably make it difficult to distinguish any tablets dating from Early Dynastic II from those of the succeeding phase. The epigraphic evidence that can be dated to Early Dynastic II on the basis of its stratigraphy, although scarce, is of great significance if we consider that, until now, the paleography of archaic texts has never been studied in relation to stratigraphy or archaeological periodization: the few attempts by Assyriologists to do so have often been confused by the art-historical debate regarding Mesopotamian chronology.318 Early Dynastic III. In the Diyala region, the Early Dynastic IIIa horizon is documented at Tutub ‡amus IX:1 and Small Shrine VI (we cannot exclude the possibility that the preceding levels VIII and V of both these sectors extend as far as this period), as well as at Esnunak “Abu” Square III and probably also Single I:1. On the other hand, Esnunak “Abu” Single I:3, Tutub Small Shrine VII, and ‡amus IX:5 and X date from Early Dynastic IIIb. Agrab “Sara” Later Occupation dates from Early Dynastic IIIb. The Temple Oval at Tutub was not included in the analytical discussion in §1.1.1, insofar as its exceedingly shallow stratification does not, generally speaking, furnish reliable contexts.319 Temple Oval I, which the excavators maintain was however, seem to differ from the tablet from level VIII, although they are not identical to the archaic texts of Ur, either (G. Marchesi, p.c.). 316. Jacobsen 1942: 296 no. 9, fig. 205:9, from L14:1 Main (the phase cannot be determined). Given the charcteristics of the inscription, it probably dates to Early Dynastic II (cf. below, pp. 100–101 with nn. 30 and 32). 317. Cf. Martin 1988: 82. Apart from Heinrich 1931: pl. 35:f (F520), which can be dated to the Jemdet Nasr period, cf. in particular Deimel 1922: 73 no. 1 (VAT 9091, which R. Biggs (apud Martin 1988: 82) dates to “ED I–II,” like Falkenstein 1936: 68 sub 3a). Also probably earlier than the Fara period are Deimel 1924: 83 no. 136 (VAT 12451), 74 no. 114 (VAT 12554). The Suruppak texts, furthermore, should date to a fairly limited chronological span (cf. below, p. 122 n. 216). 318. Consequently, more precise dates than “ED I–II” have rarely been proposed for the archaic texts (cf. also the preceding note). The texts from Ur SIS 8–4 have most recently been attributed to Early Dynastic II by Krebernik (2002: 4 n. 12 and table on p. 5), who (2002: 3 n. 8) also dates the so-called stele of “Usumgal” (actually of Saraªusumgal) and the “Figure aux plumes” (as well as Burrows 1935: nos. 1, 63–64, 232–33) to Early Dynastic I, which is the opposite of what is proposed here (cf. §§2.1, 5.2, and 6.1). Englund (1996: 7 n. 4; 1998: 65 n. 123) dates the archaic texts of Uruk (cf. n. 313 above; Englund speaks of seventeen texts, but the published archaic texts actually number only twelve: Green 1982: nos. 1–12), the Blau Plaques and numerous archaic stone documents (Gelb et al. 1991: nos. 1–11, there all assigned to the Uruk Eªanak III phase), to “ED I–II.” On the other hand, he dates the Blau Plaques and the archaic texts from Ur SIS 8–4 (cf. Englund 1998: 81, 215, fig. 2) to Early Dynastic I. Falkenstein (1936: 67 sub 2c), instead, dated the Blau Plaques to the Uruk Eªanak III phase, while he gave the “Figure aux plumes” the same date as the text VAT 9091 from Suruppak (1936: p. 68 sub 3b; cf. the preceding note). 319. The most important finds are a deposit of three copper stands from the surface of room M47:1 in Oval I at Tutub (Frankfort 1939a: nos. 181–83, pls. 98–103) and the fragments of statues from room L43:4 in “House D” of Oval I (Frankfort 1939a: nos. 54–56, 59, 85, 131, 142, 144, 154, pls. 61, 67, 86, 88–89, 91), all to be dated to Early Dynastic IIIa.

92

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

founded in Early Dynastic II, actually dates, without doubt, to Early Dynastic IIIa (and, on the basis of the stratigraphy, it is likely that it lived on until the early part of IIIb), while level II reaches the threshold of the Akkadian period, to which level III dates entirely.320 The phase 3 favissa at Adab dates back to Early Dynastic IIIa, and phase 4 relates to the following period, a situation similar to that of levels 4 and 5–6 of the Ninmirsûk temple at Firsu.321 I here assign the Royal Cemetery of Ur to Early Dynastic IIIb, like SIS 3–1. Apart from the statuettes from Tell Khuera, which can probably be attributed to Early Dynastic IIIa (cf. §1.1.11), in northern Mesopotamia and Syria the main contexts with visual material date from Early Dynastic IIIb (Mari “Ville II,” Assur Estar G2, Khuera ID, and Ebla IIB1). Early Dynastic IIIa. In §1.1, it was remarked on several occasions that different styles appear to coexist in Early Dynastic IIIa contexts and that “residual” pieces from the preceding phase are found alongside other examples that are closer to the alleged characteristics of this period. Actually, as I have argued above, the problem should be posed in another way—that is, we should recognize that Early Dynastic IIIa has a different artistic facies than that which is normally accepted. This realization casts doubt on the attribution to Early Dynastic II of numerous sculptural and glyptic artifacts. Take, for example, the case of the votive plaques from Tutub ‡amus IX: they all belong to the style usually considered to belong to Early Dynastic II,322 but it is precisely their homogeneity that suggests that they continued to be produced in Early Dynastic IIIa, as is also shown by three fragments from Houses 3 and by another two plaques in this style from “House D” of Oval I (Pl. 59:6).323 As a matter of fact, these contexts all extend to the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb, and even in other slightly later contexts, we find fragments of plaques in a comparable style, which should suggest that this style effectively continued to be used at least until the end of Early Dynastic IIIa, if not later still.324 The evidence from Nippur is more clearcut in this respect (§1.1.2): the plaques from Inªanak VIII are stylistically earlier than the plaque of Lumma from level VIIB, which—although belonging thematically to the “classical” group—shows stylistic traits only characteristic of Early Dynastic IIIa. The phase 3 favissa at Adab Tell V provided a sculpted plaque in this latter style (cf. p. 47 n. 121). From Ur, we have a

320. Delougaz 1952: table III; Gibson 1982: 536 and table. Cf. also Braun-Holzinger 1977: tables 1–2; Porada et al. 1992: fig. 4. 321. From Tell K there also come various fragments of nonroyal Early Dynastic IIIb statues now in the Louvre. These can, in general, only be attributed to phases 5–6 and include a sculpted plaque, the head of a bovine, and two female heads (de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 204–9, 232, 337, pls. 1 ter: 4, 5 bis:2, 24 bis:1a–b; Heuzey 1902: cat. nos. 12/AO 2354, 80–81/AO 300–301, 112/AO 240). Cf. also Cros et al. 1910–14: 32–34, 98–99, pl. II:2 (AO 4110; Boese 1971: 202 T 13, pl. XXXI:4). 322. For stratified material of this period, cf. the plaques from Tutub ‡amus VIII (Frankfort 1939a: nos. 190–91), from Esnunak “Abu” Square I (1939a: no. 194; 1943: no. 323) and from Agrab “Sara” Main 2 (1939a: nos. 314, 318, 322, 327). 323. ‡amus IX: Frankfort 1939a: nos. 185, 189b (Boese 1971: 176 sub CS6, pl. VIII:3), 192 (the first and the last, furthermore, come from phase IX:5, i.e., from an Early Dynastic IIIb context). Houses 3: Frankfort 1939a: no. 188 (not from ‡amus VIII, cf. 1943: 23); 1943: nos. 320, 326. Oval I:1939a: nos. 187, 195. A plaque from Oval I is engraved in a style that is not easy to classify, although it certainly dates from Early Dynastic III (1939a: no. 193). 324. Esnunak Single Shrine I:3: cf. Frankfort 1939a: no. 186; Tutub Houses 2: 1939a: no. 90 and possibly no. 189, pl. 108:B top left (Boese 1971: 179 sub CH2, pl. XIII:2) and no. 324 (Boese 1971: 179 sub CH1, pl. XIII:1).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

93

piece that comes from an interesting context.325 Plaques without figured decorations have been found in Nippur North Temple IV and III, Tell Jokha II, and Tutub ‡amus IX:5 (cf. p. 23 n. 36, p. 36 n. 76, and p. 85 n. 298), although the latter context actually dates from the beginning of the succeeding period. Similar considerations also hold true for statuary and seals from this period. Statues from the main Early Dynastic IIIa contexts in the Diyala region are, to a significant degree, close to the style of Early Dynastic II (cf., for example, the case of Tutub Small Shrine VI, a context reaching, however, the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb), although I see slightly different stylistic elements in some important deposits, such as one in Q42:7 at elevation 39.03 in Tutub ‡amus IX:1 (cf. §1.1.1). A comparison between one of the statues from this context (34) and those from the famous deposit of Tell Khuera (cf. §1.1.11) is another hint that the latter may belong to this archaic style, which remained in use, with a few modifications, in Early Dynastic IIIa. The evidence from Nippur Inªanak VIIB further corroborates this interpretation. The tufted skirt, although it had already appeared in Early Dynastic II for female garments, is rare in this period, being mainly characteristic of male clothing in Early Dynastic IIIb. At any rate, when the skirt is associated with the archaic style, the tufts are short and triangular, whereas there is no certain stratigraphic evidence for the occurrence in this period of the earliest developed style where the tufts—normally arranged in four flounces—are longer and with rounded tips.326 One of the negative conclusions deriving from this relative chronology is that the criteria identified so far for differentiating statuary chronologically within the span of Early Dynastic II and IIIa do not have equal weight or validity. Braun-Holzinger,327 for example, in assigning various statues to her “Stilstufe Ib,” corresponding to late Early Dynastic II, does not identify any general criteria that can be satisfactorily verified. With regard to the style of seals from this period, in addition to the so-called “Anzu-Sud” or “Imdugud-Sukurru” group from Suruppak and correlated styles (cf. §1.1.11), we should note—as I have already pointed out earlier—that seals showing a hero with a double-pointed headdress, which are generally attributed to Early Dynastic II, are found—whenever they are stratified—in Early Dynastic IIIa contexts: Kis Palace A (cf. p. 75 n. 254) and sounding YW 6 (cf. p. 79 325. A plaque with a chariot in the “classical” style of Early Dynastic II (Woolley 1934: 37 n. 1, 377, 535 sub U.8557, pl. 181:b) may, in fact, date to the following period. It was found in the vicinity of a building with mud-brick walls and plano-convex baked-brick paving (which was located close to the surface at the top of the tomb stratum in the area of the Royal Cemetery), but at a lower elevation. On the basis of a comparison with Firsu Tell K phases 5–6, we cannot exclude the possibility that we are dealing also at Ur with an Early Dynastic IIIb sacred building below which there may have been an earlier level to which the plaque would, therefore, be related. 326. For the archaic rendering of the tufted skirt on male statues, cf. two specimens from Agrab “Sara” Main 3 (Frankfort 1943: no. 270) and from Tutub ‡amus IX:1 (Frankfort 1939a: no. 21; no. 20, however, comes from phase IX:5, dated to the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb). For the earliest developed style, apart from Frankfort 1943: nos. 217 and 232, of uncertain stratification from Tutub Small Shrine, cf. Frankfort 1939a: nos. 93–95 (from Esnunak “Abu” Square III) and McCown et al. 1978: pl. 69:1–2 (from Nippur North Temple pre-II favissa), two contexts that, however, cannot be dated with certainty to Early Dynastic IIIa. Actually, Nippur also furnishes epigraphic material with Early Dynastic IIIb characteristics (cf. the large inscribed statue dealt with on p. 36 n. 77, above, which, on the other hand, seems stylistically archaic). The case of Tutub ‡amus IX:5—from which we have a male statue with flounced and tufted skirt of the developed style (Frankfort 1939a: no. 39)—is solved by the dating of this phase to the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb (cf. above, p. 23 n. 35). 327. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 30–44, table 2.

94

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

n. 270), Tell Jokha level II (cf. p. 85 n. 297); at Mari INANA.NITA, two seals in this style belong to “Ville I” contexts (dated to no later than Early Dynastic IIIa), but similar specimens are also found in “Ville II” layers—that is, mainly of Early Dynastic IIIb date (cf. p. 70 n. 208). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this style continued to be employed at least until Early Dynastic IIIa, but in fact it may even have been limited to this period. The evidence from Suruppak, which includes the largest group of seals in this style,328 would thus, at least in part, be shifted toward Early Dynastic IIIa, the period best documented by those excavations.329 However, there is other evidence, such as that from Nippur and Susa, that may date from Early Dynastic II, so it is better not to generalize and acknowledge that this style must have remained in use for quite a long time.330 Stratified epigraphic material from Early Dynastic IIIa, although more numerous than in the previous period, is still scarce. I do, however, also have paleographic and internal textual criteria for dating these objects fairly precisely, such as, for example, the presence of verbal forms in dedicatory inscriptions. Stratified cuneiform tablets of the Fara type from Early Dynastic IIIa contexts have been found at Nippur Inªanak VIIB (unpublished) and North Temple IV–III (Pl. 24:1–2, 6; cf. §1.1.2, p. 36 n. 76), at Firsu Ninmirsûk 4 (Pl. 24:3–4; §1.1.3, p. 43 n. 105), at Kis Palace A and sounding YW 6 (Pl. 23; §1.1.9, p. 75 n. 252 and p. 79 n. 269), at Abu Salabikh (Pl. 24:5), and Suruppak.331 The most significant Early Dynastic IIIa contexts that have yielded stratified inscriptions on stone or metal are Nippur Inªanak VIIB (§1.1.2, Table 3), Tutub ‡amus IX:3 (§1.1.1, p. 22 n. 32), Firsu Ninmirsûk 4 (§1.1.3, Table 5 sub e–f), and the phase 3 favissa at Adab Tell V (§1.1.4, Table 6, p. 47 nn. 119 and 120). Early Dynastic IIIb. The contexts mentioned at the beginning of the Early Dynastic III section are the primary sources for sculpture and reliefs (cf. also §5.2). The style of this period is characterized by the rendering of flounced garments, of surfaces, and of specific formal devices, as can be seen, for example, among the materials from Small Shrine VII at Tutub and perhaps also from ‡amus X.332 328. Amiet 1980: pls. 64–72 bis; Martin 1988: 74–75. 329. Proof of the continued use of this style has now been provided by Martin et al. 2001: 13, no. 394 (associated with tablets of the Fara type); it was previously dated to the late Early Dynastic II (Martin 1988: 74, 263, no. 394, where, however, it was noted that the Crossed Style showed characteristics of Early Dynastic IIIa). 330. For North Temple V at Nippur, cf. §1.1.2 and p. 36 n. 76. Cf., however, a seal from level XVIII in sounding WF, a layer dated to Early Dynastic IIIa by the excavators (McMahon 2006: 14, 67–68, 119, pl. 158:2). For seals from Susa, from a pit in the southern sector of the “Donjon,” cf. de Mecquenem et al. 1943: 119–20, no. 246, fig. 86 (Amiet 1966: figs. 114, 116) and cf. also 1943: fig. 61:B, for the location, on the plan and the section, of the context there numbered 246 (from which we can deduce that this is one of the pits at a deeper elevation). Here the motifs in the classic style of Early Dynastic II are associated with other, earlier iconographies that are a hint for assigning a date no later than Early Dynastic II to the entire group. 331. Krebernik 1998; Krebernik and Postgate 2009. 332. Cf. already Braun-Holzinger 1977: 52–53, 63, table 1, for a correct chronology of the Tutub materials. The comparison between a female statue with turban from Small Shrine VII (§1.1.1, Table 1 sub 103) and similar pieces from the temple of Estar G2 at Assur (§1.1.8) appears to provide further proof of the close chronology of these two contexts. Two statues that here are assigned to Tutub ‡amus X (Frankfort 1943: nos. 252–53) are similar in style to pieces from Mari INANA.ZA.ZA (Parrot 1967: pls. XXIII, XXV) and Assur Estar G2 (Bär 2003: pls. 5–8, 14–15). For the rendering of the skirt of Ur-KISAL (Frankfort 1939a: no. 37), cf. Bär 2003: pls. 3–4 (a statue from Assur Estar G).

Archaeological Contexts and Chronology of Early Dynastic Statuary

95

With regard to seals, there are enough studies that trace the development and historical connections of this class of production.333 Once we accept the conclusion that the royal tombs of Ur date to the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb, then we clearly have to shift the position of the sequences established by Boehmer (cf. p. 8 n. 39) for the Mesªumêdug (= “Meskalamdug”) and Mesªanepadda styles and must relate the stylistic differences shown by a group of pieces produced over a limited period of time to the varying characteristics of different royal workshops (cf. Introduction above and §1.1.5). The transition to the Akkadian period represents a problem that has aroused much interest in recent years, but this does not need to be dealt with here.334 With regard to stratified cuneiform tablets, a number of documents—dating from Early Dynastic IIIb, notwithstanding their attribution to an earlier period—were found in Pit F at Ur (on which, cf. also §1.1.5, p. 52 n. 141), at the top of the sequence—that is, in levels B and A (Pl. 24:6).335 Southern Mesopotamia does not offer many significant groups of reliably stratified contemporary tablets,336 the main finds being those from Mari (Pl. 24:7; §1.1.7, p. 67 n. 191, p. 71 n. 214, p. 73 n. 231), Tell Beydar/Nabada337 and, above all, Ebla in Syria (on which, cf. §5.3). Stratified inscriptions on stone or metal come, however, from numerous Mesopotamian contexts: Firsu Ninmirsûk phases 5–6 (§1.1.3, Table 5 sub h–n, p–q, p. 42 n. 97, pp. 43–44 nn. 109 and 110, p. 44 nn. 113 and 114), Adab Tell V phase 4 (§1.1.4, Table 6 sub A1159, p. 49 n. 125, and, probably, statue Cat. 7), the royal tombs of Ur and the royal seal impressions in SIS 2–1 (§1.1.5),338

333. Cf., in general, D. Matthews 1997a (but cf. above, p. 8 n. 45 and p. 65 n. 175) and, for the historical relationships revealed by Early Dynastic IIIa–b glyptic, Marchetti 1998. An important stratified context that is not discussed in §1.1.5, is that of the Ziggurat Terrace, Archaic I at Ur. For the visual materials from this context, which is contemporary with SIS 3–1 and thus dates from developed Early Dynastic IIIb, cf. Legrain 1936: nos. 540–47, 549–50; 1951: nos. 84, 90, pls. 6–7; Woolley 1956: pls. 38: U.2826, 39: U.18309, 44: U.18313–4. In the “Stampflehmgebäude” at Uruk Eªanak, a palace that Boehmer (1991a) attributes to Lugalzagêsi, three seal impressions (Cavigneaux et al. 1991: 15–16, nos. 13– 14, pl. 9: a–b; Boehmer 1991a: 166 n. 8, pls. 21–23), some shell inlays (Cavigneaux et al. 1991: 19–20, nos. 39–48, pls. 12:b–c, 13:a–h) and a few inscribed fragments (Cavigneaux et al. 1991: 34 W23949, p. 125 W24155, p. 133 W24231; note that the second piece is ascribed to king “Lugalkigenesdudu,” i.e., Lugalkisaresdudûd) were found in contexts that can mostly be dated to the late Early Dynastic IIIb (1991: 21–23). 334. Cf., for example, Gibson and McMahon 1997; D. Matthews 1997b; and, most recently, McMahon 2006. Cf. also Marchetti 1998: 129–34. 335. The inventory numbers of the tablets are given in the excavation report (Woolley 1956: 56–59; cf. also pls. 73– 74, for the plans and sections of the area). Note that Woolley assigned the tablet fragment U.13658 (= Burrows 1935: pl. XLV:4; Alberti and Pomponio 1986: no. 4) to both level A (on p. 56) and level B (p. 59). However, according to Woolley’s inventory cards (G. Benati, p.c.), U.13658 comes from the former level, as do U.13648 (= Burrows 1935: pl. XLV:5; Alberti and Pomponio 1986: no. 5; cf. Woolley 1956: 57), U.13655 and U.13656 (both unpublished). Three additional texts—U.13654 (= Burrows 1935: pl. XLV:3; Alberti and Pomponio 1986: no. 3, pl. I:3), U.13844 (= Burrows 1935: pls. XLV:2, E: Suppl. 2; Alberti and Pomponio 1986: no. 2), and U.13683 (unpublished)—are reported by Woolley (1956: 59) to come from level B. Finally, “U.13688” (= Burrows 1935: pl. XLV:1; Alberti and Pomponio 1986: no. 1, pl. I:1) should also come from either level A or level B (cf. Burrows 1935: 23 and 58; note that the excavation number is probably wrong: in the cards, U.13688 is recorded as a seal impression; cf. Legrain 1936: 43 sub 502). For the dates attributed to these texts, cf. Burrows 1935: 23 sub A; Alberti and Pomponio 1986: 1, 17–18. Actually, all of the published tablets referred to above can be assigned to Early Dynastic IIIb on paleographic and epigraphic grounds (G. Marchesi, p.c.). 336. Cf., for example, Biggs 1976: nos. 2–3, 10–23, 26–31, from stratified contexts at al-Hiba/Lagas. 337. Ismail et al. 1996. 338. Cf. most recently Marchesi 2004.

96

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Mari “Ville II” (§1.1.7, passim, and statues Cat. 11–12),339 while the date for the statue from Nippur North Temple pre-II favissa can only be set at approximately around the time of the transition from Early Dynastic IIIa to IIIb (§1.1.2, p. 36 n. 77 and cf. p. 93 n. 326). 339. More limited finds include those from Tutub (§1.1.1, p. 28 n. 51 and p. 31 n. 63), Nutur (§1.1.6, p. 66 n. 186) and Lagas (Biggs 1976: no. 1 and, possibly, nos. 32–34).

Chapter 2

Historical Framework

On the basis of archaeological evidence, the Early Dynastic period in Mesopotamia is generally subdivided into four chronological phases: Early Dynastic I, II, IIIa, and IIIb (cf. Introduction above). According to native tradition, it was an epoch of rulers, mainly legendary in character, whose reigns lasted hundreds or even thousands of years. However, archaeological data and epigraphic materials allow us to reconstruct a more reliable (though very schematic and incomplete) picture of this seminal period of Mesopotamian history, which was characterized by cultural uniformity and alternate phases of political unity and fragmentation.

2.1. Political Development in Early Dynastic Mesopotamia: An Outline In the last phase of the Early Dynastic period (IIIb), the Syro-Mesopotamian region appears to have been fragmented into numerous polities, usually called city-states (in Mesopotamia) or kingdoms (in Syria). Each city-state had its own capital, along with secondary and minor centers. 1 It is largely unknown how these political entities came into being, and there is very little information regarding their organization and administrative structures. 2 Indications that the northern city of Kis had previously enjoyed hegemony over much of Babylonia in Early Dynastic IIIa are found in both contemporary and later documents. 3 The use of the title lugal kisi(ki), “king of Kis,” by later Sumerian rulers with pretensions to grandeur and by the kings of Akkad is probably also a reflection of the suzerainty of earlier Kisite sovereigns.

1. Cf. Steinkeller 1992b: 725: “In its classic form, the Sumerian city-state was a clearly demarcated territorial unit, comprising a major city, the state’s capital, and the surrounding countryside, with its towns and villages.” Steinkeller makes a distinction between southern Babylonia (the land of Sumer—that is, the region to the south of Nippur), which was characterized by a system of independent city-states, and northern Babylonia (the land of the Wari/Uri people), which formed a single territorial state or political configuration centered on the city of Kis and extending as far as Mari to the west and beyond the Tigris into the Diyala region to the east (1992b: 725–26; 1993a). This alleged dichotomy between south and north has been criticized by Westenholz (2002: 37–38) and Yoffee (2002: 162–63). Be that as it may, if the strong territorial state of the north postulated by Steinkeller did exist, it could only have done so in Early Dynastic II and/or IIIa. During Early Dynastic IIIb, Mari was certainly an autonomous kingdom, and the same is probably true of Aksâk, another important northern city. With regard to the city of Kis, in this period, it appears to have been “a mere shadow of its former self ” (Westenholz 1999: 29–30). 2. Cf. Steinkeller 1992b: 725; Westenholz 2002. 3. Cf. Cooper 1983b: 7 with n. 5; 1999b: 65 with n. 8; Steinkeller 1993a: 118 with n. 22.

97

98

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Whereas, however, ‡arrumken (= “Sargon”) of Akkad and his successors did achieve control of the ancient power center of the north and could legitimately claim to be the heirs of the kings of Kis, 4 the Early Dynastic rulers of Uruk and Ur who adopted the title lugal kisi(ki) almost certainly never managed to conquer or govern the city of Kis. It is not clear whether lugal kisi(ki), in their cases, is to be understood metaphorically as “great/mighty king,” 5 a nod to the past glory of the kings of Kis whose authority once extended over the south of the country, or whether the use of this title by the rulers of southern cities was meant to underscore their hegemony (real or only claimed) over northern Babylonia, the region that was traditionally controlled by Kis. 6 Going farther back in time, the picture becomes even more vague: history is confused with legend and myth. Almost nothing is known about the historical and political development of Mesopotamia in Early Dynastic I and II. According to the Sumerian King List (hereafter: SKL)—a pseudo-historiographical work that traces the history of kingship in Babylonia from the earliest times to the beginning of the second millennium b.c. (cf. §2.3)—kingship descended from heaven in the city of Kis, where a king named Fusur, “Tree-Trunk,” ruled for 2,160 or, according to another version, 1,200 years. 7 A Kassite-period historical omen credited him with unifying the entire country under his rule, 8 but the author of the omen probably inferred this from SKL. SKL proceeds to mention a number of kings who followed Fusur on the throne of Kis, all of whom lack the concreteness of actual historical figures. It is not until we come to the 22nd ruler that we find the first possible historical personage: Enmeparagêsi of Kis, 9 whose name recalls the quasi-homonymous “Meparagêsi, king of Kis” (me-parag-si lugal [k]isi), 10 who is attested in an Early Dynastic vessel inscription of unknown provenance. 11 It is quite possible that the name Enmeparagêsi, which is usually written en-me-paragge(4)(-e)-si, 12 stems from the misinterpretation of an original en me-parag-ge-si, 13 “eminent

4. Note that one of the sons of Manªi¶tu¶u was named Me¶alim (cf. Gelb et al. 1991: no. 40 D vi 11–12: meSILIM-lim / DUMU LUGAL), presumably after the like-named famous king of Kis. 5. As appears to have been the case in some curse formulas of Eªannâbtum (cf. Cooper 1986a: 45 La 3.11 with n. 5 [on p. 46]; Winter 1986a: 211 with n. 20). 6. Cf. Maeda 1981; Pomponio 1994a: 7 n. 11; Cooper 1999b: 62–63 n. 3. For different views, cf. Steinkeller 1993a: 120: “In its southern application, lugal Kis was a generic term that described a particular form of kingship, namely, an autocratic and hegemonistic type that [. . . ] the southerners associated with the Kishite kingdom;” and Westenholz 2002: 32–35, who postulates the existence of an assembly of Sumerian city-rulers and interprets lugal kisi as the title of its head. 7. Cf. Steinkeller 2003b: 269 i 1–4; ETCSL 2.1.1 lines 41–45. 8. Cf. Frayne and George 1990. 9. Cf. Steinkeller 2003b: 270 ii 7–8; ETCSL 2.1.1 lines 83–86. 10. For the value parag of the sign BÁRA, cf. Lieberman 1977: 437. An alternative reading for the name of this sovereign, “Ishibbaragesi,” was most recently proposed by Michalowski (2003: 199–201), but his arguments and his analysis of the *N1+N2{.e}+{i.si} name-type do not convince (cf. Bauer 1998: 496–97; Edzard 1998–2001: 95 §2.1). Also cf. n. 14 below. 11. IM 30590 (Edzard 1959b: 9 fig. 1; Postgate 1994: 30 fig. b). This inscribed artifact (an alabaster vessel fragment) is said to have been confiscated at Kut al-Imara, on the lower Tigris (Edzard 1959b: 9–10 n. 1). 12. Cf. Klein 1991: 126 n. 12; Oelsner 2003: 213 lines 1 and 3 (Tummal Chronicle). Also note the spelling variant en-me-parag-ga-e-si (Scheil 1934: 160 frag. A iiu 2u and 5u; collated from photo), which reflects a secondary pronunciation of /ê/ as [ae]. 13. Note the Ur III spelling en-me-parag-ge-si in Steinkeller 2003b: 270 ii 7 and 9 (SKL—Ur III version).

Historical Framework

99

Meparagêsi.” 14 Concerning this ruler, tradition has it that he achieved victory over the people of the Iranian plateau 15 and that he was later defeated by Gilgames, the celebrated king of Uruk. 16 The same fate was said to have befallen Enmeparagêsi’s son, Akka, when he laid siege to the city of Uruk. 17 The original inscription of Meparagêsi quoted above can be dated on paleographic grounds to Early Dynastic I; 18 from the same epoch comes the PN pabilgax(“FIS”.PAP.NE)-mes-utupàd-da, “Pabilgames (= Gilgames) Is the Chosen One of Utu,” which points to the historicity of the king of Uruk. 19 The tradition asserts that Gilgames fortified Uruk with an impressive city-wall. 20 Archaeologists at Warka have, in fact, found the remains of a mud-brick fortification wall approximately 10 km in length that enclosed the Early Dynastic settlement. 21 One wonders whether this very wall was Gilgames’s famous handiwork. Be that as it may, the city of Uruk appears to have reached its maximum extension and splendor precisely in Early Dynastic I. 22 14. Cf. en dFIS.BÍL/NE.GA-mes, “eminent Gilgames” (A. George 2003: 97, 103 n. 50, 108, etc.). For a dissenting opinion, cf. Michalowski 2003. According to Michalowski, en-ME-parag-ge(4)(-e)-si was a fictitious name to be read “Enishibbaragesi.” However, note the variant spelling an-mi-parag-ge-SA6 in an unpublished text from Meturan (quoted by Cavigneaux and al-Rawi 1993b: 93), which supports a reading of the sign ME as me, rather than isib. Moreover, the identification of Meparagêsi with Enmeparagêsi was already made by the Babylonians themselves: in UM 29-13-714 (literary text; unpublished), the name of the king of Kis is regularly written den-me-parag-ge-si (col. i 7u: [. . .]-me-parag-ge-si; col. ii 25u: den-me-parag-ge-[si]); however, on the reverse of the tablet, in a cartouche containing the names of four early rulers in archaizing writing, the same is written me-para7-ªgeº-[si] (line 2 of the cartouche; the other three rulers are Gilgames [line 1], Gilgames’s son Urlugalak [line 3], and Mesªanepadda [line 4]; I thank J. Peterson for pointing out this text to me). 15. Cf. WB 444 ii 35–37 (OECT 2, pl. I) = SKL 83–85 (ETCSL 2.1.1): en-me{-en}-parag-ge-si / lú ma-da elamki-ma / mestukul-bé íb-ta-an-has!(GAM), “Enmeparagêsi, the one broke the weapons of the land of Elam” (collation courtesy of J. Dahl). 16. Cf. Sulgi O 56–59 (ETCSL 2.4.2.15): é ªkisiºki!-sè mestukul-zu ba-ta-a-è / ur-ªsamº 7-bé hes!-a mi-ni-dab5 / [lugal] ªkisiºki en-me-parag-ge4-e-si / [mus?-gen7?] ªsamº-má-na mìri mu-na-ni-ús, “You (Gilgames) went out to war against the house of Kis and captured its seven warriors. [As for the king] of Kis, Enmeparagêsi, you trampled upon his head [as if he were a snake]” (transliteration and translation modified; cf. Michalowski 2003: 202). Also note Gilgames’s epithet ªsuº(sic!) en-me-ªparag-ge4-e-si-taº nam-ra ªAKº, “he who took (away) the booty from the hands of Enmeparagêsi,” in BT 14 iii 9–10 (quoted from a cast in the University Museum; cf. Klein 2008: 82 and 89). 17. According to the Gilgames and Akka epic (ETCSL 1.8.1.1). Scholarly opinions concerning the historicity of this epic tale differ considerably (cf. Ridley 2000). For instance, Klein (1991: 127 with n. 23) attributes great antiquity and historical veracity to Gilgames and Akka. Michalowski (2003: 198), on the other hand, sees it as “a later parody of the Ur III poems about the legendary Uruk king” (also cf. Wilcke 1998). Be that as it may, there is evidence that a version of this Gilgames story was already circulating in the third millennium b.c. (cf. Katz 1987; Marchesi 2004: 192 n. 220). 18. Note the very archaic form of the sign KIS, still showing the horns of the aurochs’ head that is at the origin of this grapheme (cf. Steinkeller 2004b; Mittermayer 2005: 23–24). A vessel fragment from Tutub/Khafaja, inscribed with the name me-parag-ªsiº (Jacobsen 1940: 146 no. 2 and fig. 126:2), is usually also attributed to Meparagêsi, king of Kis (cf. Edzard 1959b: 10 with n. 2; 1987–90b; Sollberger and Kupper 1971: 39 n. 2 to IA1a; Steible 1982b: 213 Meb. 1; Cooper 1986a: 18 Ki 1; Postgate 1994: 29–30; Frayne 2008: 56–57 E1.7.22.1). However, this piece comes from an archaeological context dating to Early Dynastic IIIa or the beginning of IIIb (Temple Oval, level I, locus L46:4; cf. above, pp. 91– 92). Moreover, the sign BÁRA of this inscription is quite different in shape from that on the vase of the name-sake king of Kis. Clearly enough, the dedicator of the vessel from Tutub was another Meparagêsi. Also note the occurrence of the name Meparagêsi on an Early Dynastic IIIa administrative tablet from Kis (Watelin and Langdon 1934: pl. XLIV:7 i 3). 19. Cf. Marchesi 2004: 195–97. For Pabilgames as the original form of Gilgames’s name, cf. also A. George 2003: 71–74. 20. Cf. A. George 2003: 91–92. 21. Cf. Nissen 1972; Boehmer 1991b: 468; 1997: 295. 22. Cf. Boehmer 1997: 295.

100

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

From this period also comes a group of sealings made with special seals that depict the symbols of several cities next to each other. 23 These seals, which are usually referred to as “city seals,” have been interpreted as evidence of some type of supra–city-state organization that was centered on Uruk and the cult of Inªanak. 24 One scholar has even suggested that there may already have been a unified Sumerian state at this time. 25 However, other evidence suggests that, in the Early Dynastic I period, the region was divided into city-states that were governed by local rulers. 26 In addition to the aforementioned Meparagêsi and Pabilgames/Gilgames, we know of a king of Lagas who is mentioned on a fragmentary tablet from Archaic Ur. 27 Moreover, a sovereign of Umma by the tongue-twisting name of Akkaªinªanakak, known from a lapis bead inscribed with his name and title, 28 may also date to this period. 29 The following Early Dynastic II and IIIa phases witnessed the rise of Kis as a regional power. An inscribed fragment of a vessel that was probably dedicated by a king of Kis was found at Tell Agrab, in the Diyala region, more than 100 km from Kis. 30 The piece, which comes from an 23. Cf. R. Matthews 1993: 33–34, 41–47, 61–73, figs. 12–25, pls. 2–3. 24. Cf. Steinkeller 2002a; 2002b. According to Steinkeller, Uruk was the beneficiary of ritual obligations that were owed by other cities of the Mesopotamian alluvium. 25. Cooper 1999b: 65–66 n. 9. 26. According to Steinkeller (1992b: 725), the institution of city-states in Mesopotamia goes back to the Uruk period. Westenholz (2002: 23), on the other hand, considers it possible that “around 3200 to 3000 b.c., there was an integrated territorial state in Babylonia, with Uruk as its capital,” and that “the later Sumerian city-state culture was but the decayed remains of that state.” 27. [l]ugal LA.[B]UR.NU11 (Burrows 1935: no. 205B:2u). The tablet comes from the SIS 5 or 4 level of the Royal Cemetery (cf. Burrows 1935: 41), both of which date to Early Dynastic I (cf. above, §1.1.5). 28. AK:dinªanakx(MÙS) / lú-gal umma(FIS.KÚSU)ki (Grégoire 1981: pl. 1:1). Previously interpreted as a dedication to the goddess Inªanak by “Aka/Aga*, king of Umma/Fis(s)a**” (cf. Grégoire 1981: 13 ad 1; Steible 1982b: 266 Aka 1; Cooper 1986a: 92 Um 2*; Gebhard Selz 2003: 506**; Frayne 2008: 363 E1.12.2.1**), this inscription more likely consists of a PN (AK-dinªanakx; cf. Burrows 1935: 31 sub 245) followed by the title lú-gal umma, “king of Umma” (cf. the bead inscription of Ayaªanepadda, king of Ur: Steible 1982b: 273 Aan. 1; Frayne 2008: 395 E1.13.6.1). With regard to the reading of the personal name, a suggestion I made previously, namely, that AK-dMÙS stands for the Akkadian name AK-ºastar (Marchesi 2006b: 214 n. 50), appears now to be incorrect (cf. Krebernik 2002: 12, 52). It is more likely that AK was an Early Dynastic spelling of /akka/ (< {ak} + {ªa}), the past participle of the Sumerian verb AK, “to make” (cf. Attinger 2005: 50–51), and that the name in question is to be interpreted as a Sumerian genitival phrase: {ak.ªa-ªinªanak.ak}, “Made by Inªanak.” This interpretation is supported by, among other things, the variant spellings AK, ak-a, ak-ka, and ak-kà of the name of Enmeparagêsi’s son, Akka (cf. Jacobsen 1939: 84 ii 39 with n. 99; Grayson 1975: 147 line 31; Römer 1980: 23ff. lines 1, 49, 57, 63–64, 67, 81, 90, 99, 101–6, 112–13; Oelsner 2003: 213 line 3; Steinkeller 2003b: 270 ii 9), which is clearly the abbreviation of a name of the type *AK+DN{.ak}. Of course, this does not mean that the legendary king Akka of Kis was the self-same sovereign of Umma, as several scholars have conjectured (cf. Grégoire 1981: 13 ad 1; Cooper 1986a: 18 n. 2 to Ki 1, 92 n. 1 to Um 2; Gebhard Selz 2003: 509–13): in point of fact, there are no reasons or evidence for this identification. 29. Note the disjoined writing lú-gal for lugal(GAL+LÚ), which is peculiar to Early Dynastic I/II, and the form of the grapheme MÙS, which recalls the MÙS sign that is found in the “archaic” tablets of Ur (cf., e.g., Burrows 1935: no. 85 iii 4u ). Another early inscription, on the back of a statue of a bull-man (Pl. 64:1–2), has also been interpreted as a dedication by a king of Umma (cf. Edzard 1959a: 20–21; Steible 1982b: 265–66 Enp. 1; Cooper 1986a: 91–92 Um 1; Frayne 2008: 361–62 E1.12.1.1). However, on closer examination, this alleged additional king of Umma appears to be extremely doubtful: the text, in fact, does not bear the sign HIxDIS = úmma (cf. below, p. 112 n. 150) but rather HIxAS (cf. Aruz and Wallenfells 2003: 51 no. 18; the sense of the entire inscription remains obscure). 30. The inscription (Jacobsen 1942: fig. 205:9) reads: [. . . ] / lú-gal kisi (wr. KIS GAL.LÚ) / dumu / munus-UL4gal (wr. GAL.MUNUS.UL4), “[PN,] king of Kis, son of Munus-UL4-gal” (cf. Jacobsen 1942: 296 no. 9). For a different interpretation, cf. Cooper 1986a: 19 n. 1 to Ki 2. According to Cooper, lú-gal kisi could be a personal name and this

Historical Framework

101

Early Dynastic II/IIIa archaeological context, 31 very likely dates to Early Dynastic II. 32 Later, in Early Dynastic IIIa, a certain Lugalªutu, who was presumably also a king of Kis, is attested both at Kis and at Mari. 33 Quite interestingly, this sovereign styles himself simply as lugal, “the king,” without any geographical designation. 34 Does this mean that there was only a single king and a single kingdom in Babylonia (or, at least, in northern Babylonia 35) at the time of Lugalªutu? The tablets from Fara (ancient Suruppak), dating from Early Dynastic IIIa, also attest to some kind of union of the main cities of the Sumerian south, excluding the southernmost city, Ur. 36 It is not clear, however, whether this union represented an alliance or league of independent Sumerian cities (Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagas, Suruppak, and Umma) or simply an administrative grouping of six cities that were, in fact, under the dominion of Kis. 37 A unique document from Suruppak, which records an assignment of a plot of land by the king of Kis to some unspecified official, 38 seems to support the latter hypothesis. 39 Among the rulers of this period, the figure of another king of Kis, Me¶alim, 40 stands out. His presence is recorded in various places: at Adab, where he performs the bur-gi4 rite, 41 he is “the inscription “might just be a dedication of a private individual.” Note, however, that a PN Lugalkisi is not attested elsewhere (the numerous references given by Edzard et al. 1977: 93 for the PN “lugal-kis” are, in fact, for the PN lugalpirim). 31. Cf. p. 91 with n. 316. 32. Note: (1) the writing lú-gal for lugal(GAL+LÚ) (cf. n. 29 above); (2) the grapheme KIS, which is more archaic than the standard KIS of the Early Dynastic IIIa texts (= LAK 248), though not as archaic as the KIS sign that is found in the Meparagêsi inscription (cf. p. 98 with n. 11 and p. 99 n. 18) and (3) the grapheme UL4 (which was previously misinterpreted as USUM), very close in Gestalt to the UL4 sign of Archaic Ur, though not quite as rounded as the latter (cf. Burrows 1935: pl. 1 signs 4 and 5). 33. Cf. p. 69 with n. 201; p. 76 with n. 257; and p. 197 n. 52. 34. lugal-utu / lugal (Pls. 17:8, 19:4, 50:1). It is virtually certain that the same person is meant in all three cases (note that the three inscriptions are almost identical paleographically). 35. Cf. p. 97 n. 1. 36. Cf. Jacobsen 1957: 120–22; Martin 1988: 98–99, 128; Visicato 1989; 1995: 61–88, 140–44; Pomponio 1994b; Krebernik 1998: 242–43. 37. Note the name é-kisi-nu-mál, “House Where Kis Is Not Present,” of the temple of the moon-god Nanna-Zuªen at Ur (cf. A. George 1993: 114). Is this curious name related to the fact that Ur was the only city of Sumer to be free from the yoke of Kis? In this connection, one should also note that there are at least two known Early Dynastic IIIa rulers of Ur—Mesnunekiªam (Sollberger 1965: no. 2:1u; wr. [MES.KI].ªÁFº.NUN = [mes]-nun-[ki]-ªámº; cf. Marchesi 2004: 168 n. 97) and Urpabilsamakak (Sollberger 1965: no. 3:2; wr. ur-dpa-bilx(NExPAP)-sam; cf. Marchesi 2004: 172–73)— both of whom bore the title lugal, denoting their independent sovereignty. 38. NTSS 154 i 1–2: 15.0.0 GÁNA / me-nun-si lugal kisi áya-ki-gal (wr. GAL.A.KI) mar, “Menunêsi, the king of Kis, allotted 15 bur of land (97.2 hectares) to Ayakigal.” Note the mention, in the same text, of the field recorder of Uruk (col. iii 2: áya:mestin SAF:DÙN unug), which suggests that the land in question may have been situated in the territory of Uruk. On the other hand, a city-ruler of Uruk occurs as a recipient of land in a roughly contemporaneous document from Abu Salabikh (Biggs and Postgate 1978: 114 no. 528 i [1]–4; cf. p. 109 and pl. XVIII:c). It appears, then, that the very same authority had the power to dispose of land in both southern Babylonia (Uruk) and central Babylonia (Abu Salabikh). 39. Also note the reference to an enormous quantity of grain being delivered (as tribute?) to a man from Kis in TSS 247 iii 4–rev. i 2 (cf. Pomponio 1994b: 15). For a different view, cf. Steible and Yıldız 1993, who speculate instead that Kis and the above-mentioned six Sumerian cities formed a single political-administrative community. 40. More often cited under the conventional reading “Mesilim,” after the signs ME and SILIM with which the name is regularly written. For a more accurate reading /me-¶alim/, cf. Marchesi forthcoming d. 41. me-SILIM / lugal kisi / é:kiri6 / bur mu-gi4 / eres-kisal-si / NÍF.PA.TE.SI / arabx(UD.“NUN”), “Ereskisalêsi being the viceroy of Adab—Me¶alim, king of Kis, returned the stone bowls to the Ekiri” (Pl. 15:2; cf. Luckenbill 1913–14:

102

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

beloved son of Ninhursamak” (the Sumerian mother-goddess and patron deity of Adab); 42 in Lagas he is “the builder of Ninmirsûk” (the chief god of Lagas); 43 at Larsa, he built the Ebabbar, the temple of the sun-god Utu (the city-god of Larsa); 44 it is he who drew the borders between Lagas and Umma, marking that event with the erection of stelae that were still visible and held to be authoritative long after his death. 45 It appears, therefore, that the city-states of Adab, Lagas, Umma, and Uruk (which included the town of Larsa in the Early Dynastic period) were under the control of this king at some point. It is perhaps not coincidental that these very cities, together with Nippur and Suruppak, constitute the union of Sumerian cities that is documented in the Fara archives. Me¶alim probably ruled towards the end of Early Dynastic IIIa. 46 After him, for reasons unknown, Kis’s hegemony over Sumer came to an end. 47 Following this, there was a period of political fragmentation and relative instability characterized by fighting among city-states for the control of canals and waterways, by territorial disputes, and by struggles over questions of supremacy. 48 The entire land of Sumer, with the exception of the city-state of Lagas/Firsu, was reunified at the end of Early Dynastic IIIb by sovereigns of Uruk (Ensagkusuªanak and Lugalzagêsi), before it once again fell into the hands of a northern power. 49 The rise of Akkad sounded the death knell for the age of the city-states in Mesopotamia. A new historical phase, which represented at the same time the point of arrival of a series of political and cultural developments that occurred in the Early Dynastic period and a definite rupture with the past, began with the newcomer ‡arrumken, the founder of the Akkadian dynasty. With 219 and pl. I [on p. 221]). The bur-gi4 (lit., “returning the stone bowls”) was a special rite consisting of bringing back the bowls of the temple after they had been filled with beer and/or food offerings (cf. PSD B 186 s.v. bur-gi4-a). The king of Kis used to perform the same ceremony at Kes, another important cult center of the mother-goddess in the territory of Adab; cf. Biggs 1974: no. 308 iiiu 4u–6u: é lugal / kisiki / bur am6-ma-gub, “The king of Kis attended to the stone bowls (rite) for the temple” (Kes Temple Hymn—Early Dynastic version from Abu Salabikh; note the omission of “of Kis” in the later, Old Babylonian version: é-e lugal bur-ra àm-mi-gub [ETCSL 4.80.2 line 108]). 42. me-SILIM / lugal kisi / dumu ªkiº-ám / dnin-hur-sam (wr. NIN.SAF.HUR.DIFIR) / [dnin]-ªhurº-[sa]m (wr. [SA]F.ªHURº.[NIN.DIFIR]) / [a mu-ru], “Me¶alim, king of Kis, the beloved son of Ninhursamak, [presented (this vessel)] to [Nin]hursamak” (Pl. 14:3; cf. Luckenbill 1913–14: pl. II:1 [on p. 222]). 43. Cf. p. 161 sub 3c. 44. If we can trust the information embedded in a traditional saying that is attested only much later (cf. E. Gordon 1953: 29; Alster 1997: 218 14.16). 45. Cf. Ean. 6 iv 16–[21] = 7 ivu 5–10 (Steible 1982a: 160; Frayne 2008: 142); Ent. 28–29 i 1–12 (Steible 1982a: 230–31; Frayne 2008: 195); Ent. 28 ii 6–8 = 29 ii 23–25 (Steible 1982a: 234–35; Frayne 2008: 196). The passage Ent. 28–29 i 1–12 has often been taken as indicating that Me¶alim was not a ruler of the city of Kis but instead of Der, the city of the god Istaran (cf., most recently, Gebhard Selz 1995: 155; Westenholz 2002: 40 n. 28; Edzard 2004: 42, 56, 63–64). According to this view, he bore the title “king of Kis” as a mark of suzerainty (cf. above, pp. 97–98). As far as I have been able to ascertain, this idea goes back to M. Lambert (1952: 66–67). However, the fact that Me¶alim is said to have acted “at the command of Istaran” when he measured off the border between Lagas and Umma is simply due to the special character of Istaran as the god of borders and treaties, and it has no bearing on the question of the identity of Me¶alim’s city of residence (cf. Cooper 1986a: 56 n. 3 to La 5.1). 46. Cf. Rowton 1970: 224–25. 47. At the very end of Early Dynastic IIIa, independent rulers with the title of lugal are attested both at Adab (Medurba, Epaªe) and at Umma (Paragsagnudîd, Eªabzûk) (cf. Table 15a in §2.4). However, Nippur was still in the orbit of Kis at the time of Óinnaªil (beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb). The latter was probably the last great king of Kis proper (cf. p. 180: note to Cat. 10). 48. Cf. Cooper 1983b; Pomponio 1989; Bauer 1998: 445–93. 49. Cf. Maeda 1981: 5–7; Pomponio 1994a: 1–5; Bauer 1998: 493–95; Westenholz 1999: 29–40.

Historical Framework

103

him and his successors, Akkad became the capital of a vast territorial state encompassing Upper Mesopotamia, the middle Euphrates, the whole of Babylonia, and the plain of Susa in Iran. In this new state, there was no longer any space for the autonomous political initiative of local leaders: the once independent or semiautonomous city-states were now relegated to the status of mere provinces of the empire and their rulers to the role of governors in the service of the mighty Akkadian suzerains.

2.2. Royal Titles and Ideology of Kingship At the head of the city-state was a group of high-ranking officials occupying various administrative or religious posts, all subject to the authority of the local ruler. The spouse of the cityruler, the queen (Sumerian eres), 50 appears to have possessed her own goods and lands, as well as her own administrative organization. 51 The existence of decision-making or consultative bodies, such as the City Assembly or the Council of Elders, has been postulated at various times, 52 but no decisive evidence for institutions of this kind is found in Early Dynastic texts. 53 However, some kind of assembly is alluded to in the PN Unkenªumêdug (unken-ùm-dùg), “The Assembly Is Pleasing to the People”; 54 and there are a few attestations of the title ab-ba-eri, “city-elder.” 55 The fragmentary geopolitical situation mentioned above (§2.1) is also reflected in the multiplicity of terms that were used to indicate the supreme political chief. Depending on time, place, and political circumstances, the leader of a city-state was called en, “énsi,” 56 lugal, nun, malkum, ¶arrum, or sashurum. These titles, of course, are not equivalent in meaning: they have different connotations and convey different ideas about the role and functions of the rulers who bore them. A first distinction should be made between purely “functional” titles, referring simply to the exercise of rulership, and titles that had expressly ideological connotations. To the former group belong malkum and ¶arrum. The latter, written with the Sumerogram LUGAL, was presumably the title borne by the northern Babylonian kings of Aksâk and Kis, as well as by the sovereigns of Mari. 57 Akkadian 50. Cf. Marchesi 2004: 175–79, 186–89. 51. Cf. Maekawa 1973–74; Magid 2001. 52. Cf., among others, Jacobsen 1943; 1957: 99–106; Gelb 1984: 273; Katz 1987; Westenholz 2004: 600–601. Further literature on this subject is found in Ridley 2000. 53. Note that the professional title GAL.UNKEN does not mean “head of the assembly” but it instead denotes a military official; cf. GAL.UNKEN gim4uruda, “commander of the (troops equipped with) axes” (NPL 21 [Archi 1981b: 181]). What is meant by GAL.UNKEN in two Pre-Sargonic tablets from Ur, which record offerings by the king “to (the) GAL.UNKEN” (GAL.UNKEN-sè), remains unclear (cf. Visicato and Westenholz 2005: 60 and 64). 54. NPL 171 (Archi 1981b: 186). Cf. Marchesi 2004: 190–91. 55. Cf. PSD A/2 131 sub 8. Note, however, that later on, in the Ur III period, ab-ba-eri appears to designate an official of intermediate rank in the temple-household organization (cf. de Maaijer and Jagersma 1997–98: 287). 56. The conventional reading “énsi” of the composite logogram PA.TE.SI is retained here for the sake of convenience (but cf. below, p. 109 with nn. 123–28). 57. Although there is no proof that LUGAL GN stands for ¶ar(ri/u) GN in Early Dynastic Akkadian inscriptions, as is the case for the Old Akkadian texts of the Sargonic period, this reading seems probable. Note, however, that LUGAL in the Mari DN dLUGAL-KALAM is to be interpreted as baºlu, “lord of ” (cf. W. G. Lambert 1985: 529 with n. 4). As far as I know, the earliest evidence for the use of the Sumerogram LUGAL to express the Akkadian term ¶arrum is provided

104

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

¶arrum (later sarrum), “king, sovereign,” 58 is certainly related to Hebrew ¶ar, “chief, overseer, governor (of a city/province).” 59 It conveys an idea of the ruler as the head of a body of persons or an organization, the one who leads and gives orders. This is also the basic meaning of malkum, one of the possible Semitic readings of the Sumerogram EN in the Mesopotamian periphery. At Ebla, the word represented by this logogram is generally reconstructed as malikum on the basis of the lexical equation nam-en = malikum (ma-li-gúum), “kingship, rulership,” in a bilingual vocabulary, 60 and the formula EN Ù/wa MA.LIK.TUM, which was used in the administrative texts to refer to the royal couple of the Eblaite kingdom, 61 on the assumption that MA.LIK.TUM is a writing of maliktum. 62 Accordingly, the corresponding masculine form is reconstructed as malikum. However, there is evidence that the word for “king” in Pre-Sargonic Ebla was malkum instead of malikum. 63 Moreover, malkum appears not to have been the proper title of the kings of Ebla but rather a generic term for “sovereign” the use of which was restricted to the onomasticon. The Eblaite rulers instead styled themselves as sashurum 64—a word that means approximately “noblest one, prince(?)” (cf. below, p. 105). It is possible that this title connotes an idea of the ruler as a sort of primus inter pares. The term malkum instead derives from the Semitic root MLK, “to have authority, to rule (over), to deliberate.” 65 The paris pattern, which is preserved in the feminine maliktum, 66 suggests that malkum was originally an adjective meaning “authoritative, having authority.” 67 Its use as a royal title is allegedly attested at Tuttul, 68 on the middle Euphrates, and at Beydar, 69 in upper Mesopotamia (on the by the PN u-bi-in-LUGAL-rí (= /. . . -¶arri/, “My King . . .”) in the Obelisk of Manªi¶tu¶u (cf. Gelb et al. 1991: 178). On the other hand, a few personal names containing SAR, a Semitic logogram for ¶arrum, are listed in a lexical text from Ebla immediately after a series of Sumerian personal names that begin with lugal (cf. MEE 3, 59 cols. ii and iii). This suggests that Sumerian lugal and Akkadian ¶arrum may have been connected already in Early Dynastic times. 58. Cf. the PNs SAR-ì-lum-ma = /¶ar(ra)-ªilumma/, “It Is the (City-)God Who Is Sovereign” (Jacobsen 1940: 147 no. 5:1; MEE 3, 59 iii 3), and sar-ru/um-GI = /¶arrum-ken/, “The King Is Righteous” (name of “Sargon” of Akkad). Note that ¶arrum is exceedingly rare in the Akkadian onomasticon prior to the Sargonic period. 59. Cf. Koehler and Baumgartner 1995: 1259–60. Also cf. ¶ararum (Krebernik 1983: 45 ad 080) and ti¶tarrum(?) (Wilcke 2005: 441–42) at Ebla. 60. VE 1088 (MEE 4, p. 318). Cf. Fronzaroli 1979: 6. 61. Cf. Archi 1987b: 37 with n. 1. 62. The reduplicated writing MA.LIK.TUM.MA.LIK.TUM for the plural of this term suggests that MA.LIK.TUM at Ebla is not a syllabic writing but a logogram, albeit one originating in the syllabic spelling of a Semitic word (Bonechi 1997a: 478; cf. Krebernik 1992: 69). In fact, the sign UR at Ebla was not used as a syllabogram for the syllable /lik/ (Bonechi 1997a: 478 n. 7; cf. Krebernik 1982: 205). For this reason, it is likely that the Semitic logogram MA.LIK.TUM originated elsewhere. Whatever its origin may be, however, MA.LIK.TUM was originally a syllabic writing of maliktum (cf. also n. 66 below). 63. Cf. Tonietti 1997: 238–39. 64. Cf. Marchesi forthcoming a. 65. Cf. Huehnergard 1987: 147; Renger 1988; Fronzaroli 1996: 54 with n. 13; Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 1996–2000: 275 s.v. /m-l-k/. 66. M. Bonechi (p.c.) suggests that the spelling MA.LIK.TUM should be interpreted as MA.LIK-tum (Semitic logogram + phonetic complement) = malkatum (cf. Bonechi 1997a: 478 n. 7). Note, however, the PN ma-li-ik-tum, “Queen,” at Old Babylonian Mari (quoted by Bonechi 1997a: 478 n. 7), which attests to the form maliktum for the feminine of mal(i)kum (as far as I know, the byform malkatum only occurs in the much later lexical series Malku; cf. CAD M/1 166 s.v. malkatu A). 67. Cf. Fox 2003: chaps. 12 and 18. 68. Cf. Krebernik 2001: 37 KTT 1. 69. With reference to the king of Nagar. Cf. Sallaberger 1996c: 104–6.

Historical Framework

105

somewhat arbitrary assumption that, in the texts from these two centers, EN stands for malkum 70). At Mari, in contrast, EN = malkum(?) designates not the king but rather a lesser official. 71 Whereas malkum means simply “he who has authority (over the others),” the Sumerian title en, with which it seems to share the same logogram, appears to have been charged with highly religious overtones. 72 In lexical and bilingual texts dating to the Old Babylonian period or later, the term en is translated into Akkadian as belu(m), “lord,” 73 or with the loanword enu(m), denoting either a ruler or a priestly official (usually translated as “high priest(ess)” or “en-priest(ess)”). 74 However, in the much earlier Vocabulary of Ebla, the abstract nam-en, “en-ship,” is rendered as malikum, “kingship, rulership,” 75 while en is translated either as sa-sa-hu-LUM, or as su-su-huLUM—two glosses that have resisted any attempt at interpretation so far. 76 Chances are, however, that these glosses represent, respectively, sashurum (< *¶ashurum) and sushurum (< *¶ushurum), that is, saprus/suprus variants of later Akkadian susruhu, “most magnificent, noblest” (with metathesis of the last two radicals). 77 In point of fact, Sumerian en does not have the connotation of “master, owner, proprietor” that is proper to Akkadian belum. 78 The notion of “lord” as master/proprietor is expressed in Sumerian by the term lugal, whereas en expresses the notion of eminence or very high rank. Thus, for instance, the divine epithet en dimir-re-e-ne 79 certainly does not mean “the lord (sovereign) of the gods” but rather “the eminent one among the gods,” that is, “the most eminent of the gods.” 80 As a royal title, en appears to have been peculiar to the city of Uruk. According to Mesopotamian tradition, en kulkullab(a)x(UNUG)ki(-a), 81 “en of Kullab(a),” 82 was the official title of the early Urukean king Gilgames (cf. §2.1). 83 This title also appears in the titulary of the legendary 70. This assumption may be supported by the apparent use of EN in place of the Semitic logogram MA.LIK (for malkum) in the onomasticon of Beydar (cf. Talon 1996: 75). 71. Cf. Marchesi forthcoming c. 72. Cf., among others, Jacobsen 1991: 116–18; Heimpel 1992: 8–13; Steinkeller 1999; Goodnick-Westenholz 2000; Michalowski 2003: 202–5. 73. Also note the use of EN as a rebus writing for Akkadian maru, “son,” under the influence of Aramaic maraª, “lord” (A. George 2003: 802–3 n. 259). 74. Cf. CAD E 177–80 s.v. enu. 75. Cf. n. 60 above. 76. VE 906 (MEE 4, p. 301). Cf. Fronzaroli 1979: 6; Krebernik 1992: 111–12 s.v. EN; 1996: 248–49; Seminara 1996: 80 n. 1. 77. Cf. kubub-bu-du su-us-ru-hu, “very honored, most magnificent” (said of Marduk) in Craig 1895: 31 K7592+ rev. 6 (cf. Livingstone 1989: 9). For the patterns saprus and suprus at Ebla, cf. Conti 1996; Krebernik 1996: 239 sub 16. 78. Cf. Westenholz 1999: 47 n. 151: “The Old Akkadian reading of EN is unknown [. . . ] but certainly not belum. That reading and its concomitant translation ‘lord’ is wildly anachronistic.” 79. Cf. Sjöberg 1973a: 117–18 (line 19u ) and 121 (ad loc.). 80. In this connection, also note the collective designation en-e/né-ne for the eminent deceased, be they royalty, top-ranking officials, or eminent clergymen (cf. Bauer 1969; Steinkeller 1999: 110 with n. 29; Jagersma 2007: 296 with nn. 20–21). 81. Also spelled en kul-ab-a/kul-ab-ba/kul-la-ba (cf. A. George 2003: 103 with n. 49; Vincente 1995: 241 ii 30u). 82. Name of a district of Uruk (cf. Jacobsen 1939: 91 n. 132; Falkenstein 1941: 32–34). 83. According to Katz 1993: 28–29, Gilgames in the Gilgames and Akka epic (ETCSL 1.8.1.1) held both the titles “en of Kullab(a)” and lugal. Katz suggests that the former was Gilgames’s official title, whereas the latter was his title in time of war. A slightly different view was expressed by Steinkeller 1999: 112 n. 33. According to Steinkeller, the title “en of Kullab(a)” “fixes Gilgamesh’s position in his relations with the divine order,” whereas lugal “describes his socio-political standing in relation to the population of Uruk.” However, there is no dichotomous use of the terms en and lugal

106

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

founder of Uruk, Enmerkar, as an alternative or in addition to en unugki-ga, “en of Uruk.” 84 An earlier occurrence of the title is found in an Early Dynastic literary text from Abu Salabikh, which is also revealing of the special relationship of the “en of Uruk” with the goddess Inªanak and, more generally, of the function of the en as the one who brings divine favor to his people and procures fertility and well-being for his land: en kulkullab(a)x(UNUG) / men sam íl-gen7 / hé-mál kalam / ki dar-ªra? º / [. . . ] As the en of Kullab(a) wears the crown, [she (Inªanak) makes] abundance break through the soil in the Land. 85

Whereas the kings of Uruk were the only sovereigns explicitly called en in the Early Dynastic III period, the fact that the word for “king” was written with the sign EN in upper Mesopotamia and Syria suggests that the use of en as a royal title in earlier phases of the Early Dynastic period was more widespread. 86 This hypothesis finds support in a passage of another literary text from Abu Salabikh, which is written in the orthographic style called UD.GAL.NUN: [lu9-ga]lx(NUN) ªkisiº kisi-t[a] lu9-galx(NUN) arab arab-t[a] enx(GAL) súruppag súruppag-[ta] enx(GAL) ennegirx(ENxGI.KI) ennegirx(ENxGI.KI)-t[a] UDªen (GAL)-ki (UNUG)º x x (the rest is broken)

[The kin]g of Kis from Kis, the king of Adab from Adab, the en of Suruppak [from] Suruppak, the en of Ennegir from Ennegir, (to) (the god) Enkîk . . . 87

From the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb onward, en was considered an obsolete or, in some way, inadequate political title even at Uruk itself. Indeed, the Early Dynastic IIIb rulers of Uruk styled themselves lugal unugki, “king of Uruk,” or lugal kisi(ki), “king of Kis.” 88 The title “en of Uruk” regained favor in the Neo-Sumerian period and, especially, in the early Old Babylonian period. It was first assumed by Urnammâk, the founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur. However, he only made limited use of the title. 89 After his reign, en unugki(-ga) was no longer employed in the titulary of the kings of Ur. 90 In texts of the Ur III period, the title denotes the high priest of Inªanak, who is also called en dinªanakx(MÙS). 91 It is not until the following dynasty of Isin that en unugki(-ga) was used again in the titulary of the sovereign: the kings of Isin bore this title in conjunction with, or as an alternative to, such in Gilgames and Akka that matches this description. In fact, in this composition, only en occurs as a title of Gilgames— lugal being used rather in the sense of “master” (e.g., line 69: “Slave, is that man your master?”) or as a generic term for “king” as, for instance, in the epithet lugal ur-sam, “warrior-king” (line 35). 84. Cf. Wilcke 1969: 45 n. 119. 85. Biggs 1974: no. 329 vi 6ff. 86. Cf. Steinkeller 1999: 111. 87. Biggs 1974: no. 247 ii. 88. Cf. Pomponio 1994a. 89. Cf. Frayne 1997: 35. 90. Contra Steinkeller 1999: 105–6 n. 4. 91. Cf. Ungnad 1938: 145 sub 87; Sharlach 2000: 136 ad 2108.

Historical Framework

107

epithets as “spouse of / dear to / chosen by Inªanak,” and the like. 92 The en, it seems, functioned as a human consort of the goddess. Every year, on New Year’s day, the en was symbolically wedded to Inªanak, thus renewing the ties between the goddess and the human community, of which the en was the highest representative. 93 As Cooper has pointed out, ritual union of this kind— which is generally referred to as “sacred marriage”—“was a way for the king, and through him the people, to establish personal and social ties to the gods.” 94 Through the “sacred marriage” the city-ruler secured “legitimacy and divine blessings” and reaffirmed “his and his people’s obligations to the gods.” 95 This reconstruction of the role and function of the en is based mostly on sources from the Old Babylonian period. However, there are several indications that en-ship functioned this way already in Early Dynastic times. That the en was conceived of as the human spouse of Inªanak at Uruk, or of other goddesses elsewhere, is suggested by various lines of evidence. First, in the Pre-Sargonic texts from Lagas, there are scattered references to an official bearing the title of en. 96 In one text, he is called en kalam-ma, 97 “the en of the Land”—a title from which we might reasonably infer that there was only one en at a time in the Early Dynastic state of Lagas. A few contemporaneous personal names, such as en-dnanse-ki-ám, “The En Is the Beloved of Nanse,” 98 and en-dnanse-mu-dú, “The En—Nanse Created Him,” 99 hint at a special connection between the en and the goddess Nanse. In this connection, it is worth noting that a certain type of official of the Nanse cult—who bore the titles sennu (meaning unknown) and en dnanse, “en of Nanse”—is mentioned in texts from the Ur III period. 100 In their dedicatory inscriptions, persons who held this office refer to themselves as en ki-ám dnanse, 101 “the en dear to Nanse”—an epithet that recalls the Pre-Sargonic PN en-dnanse-ki-ám, “The En Is the Beloved of Nanse.” Moreover, the “en of Nanse” was the only en in the Ur III province of Lagas, just as the en kalam-ma, “the en of the Land,” was the only en in the Pre-Sargonic state of Lagas. These parallels suggest that the en or en kalam-ma that we find in Pre-Sargonic texts from Lagas was in fact the high priest of the goddess Nanse. In all likelihood, he was also the dam dnanse, “the spouse of Nanse,” who is mentioned in an inscription of Urnansêk, the founder of the First Dynasty of Lagas. 102 It follows that, already in Early Dynastic times, the en was regarded as the human consort of the principal female deity of the city-state. Another piece of evidence is provided by an inscription of Fessagkidug. The long titulary of this king of Umma includes the phrase en zag keserx(KÉS) dNIN-urax(UR4)-ke4, 103 which means “the en that NIN-ura tied to herself.” 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103.

Cf. Steinkeller 1999: 106 n. 4. Cf. Cooper 1993; Steinkeller 1999: 129–36. Cooper 1993: 91. Cooper 1993: 91. Cf. Steinkeller 1999: 135–36. Cf. Gebhard Selz 1995: 117 s.v. é-en-na. DP 92 rev. ii 6. Cf. [e]n ka[lam] in NPL 15—Abu Salabikh recension (Archi 1981b: 181). Cf. Struve 1984: 59. DP 175 ii 3. Cf. Steinkeller 1999: 119 with n. 48. Cf. Steinkeller 1999: 119 n. 48. Urn. 24 iii 3–6 (Steible 1982a: 89; Frayne 2008: 104). Cf. Steinkeller 1999: 118–20. Frayne 2008: 373 E1.12.6.2 line 11.

108

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

In Umma the office of en-priest was apparently held by the king himself. The verb zag keserx(KÉS), “to tie,” explicitly refers to the marriage bond between the king, as en-priest, and the goddess. Finally, there is the famous seal of Mesªanepadda, king of Ur (Pl. 16:2). 104 Curiously, on his official seal, the king of Ur does not style himself lugal urim5ki, “king of Ur,” but rather lugal kisiki dam nu-gig, “king of Kis, spouse of the nugig”—nu-gig being a well-known appellative of the goddess Inªanak, the patron goddess of Uruk. 105 This title probably indicates that Mesªanepadda managed to ascend the throne of Uruk as well. In this connection, it is worth noting that in the Early Dynastic IIIb period the rulers of Uruk bore the title “king of Kis.” 106 That Uruk was under the control of the kings of the First Dynasty of Ur is also suggested by a lapis bead found at Mari. 107 This bead is inscribed with a dedication to the sky-god An by “Mesªanepadda, king of Ur, son of Mesªumêdug, king of Kis (i.e., of Uruk).” 108 Since Uruk is the only cult center of An, the bead in question must have come from An’s temple in Uruk. After succeeding his father as king of Uruk, Mesªanepadda also assumed the role of en-priest of Inªanak, which was traditionally held by the rulers of Uruk. This role is referred to by the second title on his seal, “spouse of the nugig,” that is, spouse of Inªanak. If my reasoning is correct, it follows that the Urukean concept of “king by virtue of being married to Inªanak” dates to at least Early Dynastic times. The remaining terms for “king” or “ruler”—lugal, nun, and “énsi”—emphasize other aspects of Babylonian kingship. The first of these titles, which translates into Akkadian as sarrum, “king,” or belum, “lord,” has the more precise meaning of “master,” as we can infer from such legal terms as lugal asag-ga, “owner of the field,” 109 lugal é(-a), “proprietor of the house,” 110 etc., 111 and from the expressions lugal-mu10 and lugal(-a)-né (“my/his master”), which were used in dedicatory inscriptions, prayers, and letters as forms of address to superiors (gods, kings, etc.). 112 It is possible that lugal (lit., “big man”) originally designated the head of a household, 113 as is also the case for nun, “prince, great one” (Akkadian rubaªum/rubûm and rabyum/ rabûm). 114 The latter occurs as a royal title only in the Names and Professions List (a scholarly composition known from Abu Salabikh and Ebla) with specific reference to the ruler of Kis. 115 On the other hand, “énsi” (Akkadian issiªakkum/issiyakkum) appears to connote the ruler as a kind of farm bailiff or steward called to manage the estate of the city-god (the chief deity of the city-state and head of the local pantheon). 116 104. Cf. p. 64 with n. 170. 105. Cf. Zgoll 1997. 106. Cf. p. 106 with n. 88. 107. Parrot 1968: figs. 35, 37, pls. XXI–XXII. Cf. above, p. 68. 108. Cf. Boese 1978: 6–20; Westenholz 1979: 119; Renger 1984; Cooper 1986b; Marchesi 2004: 183–84 n. 175; Frayne 2008: 391–92 E1.13.5.1. 109. Gelb et al. 1991: 227. 110. Roth 1995: 28. 111. Cf. also Steinkeller 1989: 15. 112. Cf. Krecher 1972: 271. 113. Cf. Hallo 1996: 191. 114. A study of the term nun is currently in preparation by the author. Cf. provisionally Sjöberg and Bergmann 1969: 52–53; Larsen 1976: 122–24; Jacobsen 1992: 410–12. 115. Cf. Bonechi 2001a. 116. Cf., among others, Steinkeller 1993a: 117; Wilcke 1997: 21 n. 45; 2007: 30; W. G. Lambert 1998: 55–56; Marchesi 2004: 169 with n. 103.

Historical Framework

109

Variously written (NÍF.)PA.SI or (NÍF.)PA.TE.SI, 117 the word “énsi” (conventional reading) seems to have originally denoted an official who was responsible for superintending agricultural work. 118 This original meaning appears to have survived in the designation (NÍF.)PA. TE.SI-gal, “chief steward,” for an official of lower rank than the “énsi.” 119 The “chief steward” is attested in connection with construction and maintenance works on canals and other hydraulic structures. 120 Consider, too, that the title PA.TE.SI(-gal) dellilx(EN.É)/ellil(EN.LÍL)(-lá) “(chief) steward of Ellil,” was borne by the god Ninªurtâk, the farmer god par excellence. 121 Both the etymology and the exact reading of (NÍF.)PA.TE.SI are unknown. 122 The value “énsi” of the sign complex PA.TE.SI, which is reconstructed on the basis of the spelling ù-muun-si in texts written in the Emesal dialect of Sumerian, 123 is in no way as certain as its widespread usage suggests. There are, in fact, no occurrences of syllabic spellings such as en-si or èn-si that attest to this reading. 124 Moreover, “énsi” is usually analyzed as {en-si.ak}; however, the syllabic spelling ni!(GAG)-in-si in a Sumerian text from Tell Harmal 125 and the Sumerian loanword issiªakkum/issiyakkum in Akkadian 126 point instead to an etymon /ninsiª(/y)ak/ 127 or /nimsiª(/y)ak/. 128 117. Cf. p. 168: Cat. 3, comm. on line (2); p. 172: Cat. 6, comm. on line 2. Also note the UD.GAL.NUN-like writing(?) UD.MUD.NUN, which was used at Umma (cf. p. 126 n. 278). 118. Note the translation of “énsi” as “Agrarverwalter” or “Landwirtschaftsverwalter” by Wilcke 1985: 303 and 1997: 21 n. 45. According to Jacobsen (1991: 113–14), “énsi” was an early synonym of engar, “farmer, plowman.” However, the meaning “farmer” of “énsi”/issiªakkum appears to have emerged only secondarily in the much later Old Babylonian period (cf. CAD I/J 264–66 s.v. issakku 2; Sjöberg 1996: 125). 119. Cf. Jacobsen 1991: 114 with n. 10. 120. Cf., e.g., Lafont 1985: 29 no. 20 (read PA.TE.SI-gal in the place of Lafont’s “ensi2 SÈ? ”: cf. the copy of line 14 of the envelope on p. 114). 121. Cf. Steinkeller 1977: 51 n. 37; 1989: 238–41; Wilcke 1985: 301–3; Jacobsen 1991: 114 n. 7; Sjöberg 1996: 125. 122. Various etymologies have been proposed for “énsi” (cf. Dunham 1986: 51–52 n. 85; Jacobsen. 1991: 115; W. G. Lambert 1998: 56–57), but none of them is convincing. 123. Cf. Falkenstein 1934. Since Emesal ù-mu-un corresponds to en in the main dialect, ù-mu-un-si is thought to represent the Emesal pronunciation of a main dialect form /ensi/. Note, however, that ù-mu-un is the Emesal equivalent not only of en but also of lugal and of the element nin, which occurs in male divine names such as dnin-mír-su (cf. Marchesi 2006a: 118 with n. 602). 124. The often quoted e-SI ù-ri-ma (VS 2, 1 i 3, 6, 10, 14) is not a syllabic writing of “énsi” úrimki-ma, “ ‘ensi’ of Ur,” as is generally assumed (cf. Falkenstein 1959: 113; Sjöberg 1960: 89–90, 92; Lieberman 1977: 228; M. Hall 1985: 654–55; Attinger 2007: 38; CAD I/J 266; ETCSL 4.13.13 [Nanna M] lines 3, 6, 10, 14). Rather, it should be read e-se ù-ri-ma = ès-e úrimki-ma, “of the shrine Ur” (cf. ETCSL 4.13.12 [Nanna L] line 40). 125. TIM 9, 35 rev. 6. The alternative reading ì! -in-si = “énsi” (cf. Gelb and Kienast 1990: 345 Ur C 1 line 31; Frayne 1997: 146 E3/2.1.2.38 line 18) is very unlikely, since this text consistently uses the signs I and IN to express the syllables /i/ and /en/ (ki-NI-ki on line 4 should be interpreted as ki-n-ki = ki-en-gi; cf. also Lieberman 1977: 228 n. 464). Other syllabic writings of PA.TE.SI are in-si (VS 2, 3 rev. i 6, 9), im-sik (Edzard 1974a: 32) and is-se (Arnaud 1987: 47 line 11; also cf. pa5-as-se for pa5-issex(PA.TE.SI) in Arnaud 1987: 149 line 64u ). Finally, note that the “curious ‘misspelling’ ” nu-PA.TE.SI for nu-ès-a (= Akkadian nêsakkum), quoted by Jacobsen 1957: 124 n. 71 from Landsberger’s manuscript of Proto-Lu, does not appear in the MSL edition of this lexical list (cf. MSL 12, p. 40 line 207 and p. 69 ad loc.). 126. Cf. the spellings i-si-a-ku-um (TIM 9, 35 rev. 7) and i-sí-a-ak (construct state) (Grayson 1987: 20 A.0.33.1 line 4). The second spelling clearly reveals the presence of a glottal stop or a palatal glide between /i/ and /a/ (cf. von Soden and Mayer 1995: 26–27 §22b; Marchesi 2006a: 22 n. 86). 127. The lack of initial /n/ in the Akkadian borrowing does not speak against such a reconstruction: the apheresis of /n/ or the change of /n/ to /y/ is common in Sumerian (cf., most recently, Peust 2007). 128. The optional NÍF in (NÍF.)PA.TE.SI could be a phonetic indicator. If so, then we should transliterate NÍF. PA.TE.SI as nímnimsiªakx(PA.TE.SI) or the like (note that SI may be a phonetic complement as well). An alternative interpretation of NÍF.PA.TE.SI as PA.TE.SI-mar, “appointed/installed ‘ensi’ ” (cf. Dunham 1986: 52 n. 85; Wilcke 2007: 28 n. 30), is unlikely: occurrences of this spelling in texts dating to the Early Dynastic IIIb and Akkadian periods

110

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

As a royal title, the term “énsi” conveyes the idea that the king rules in the name of the citygod: the former administers the goods and properties of the latter, who, in the final analysis, is the true master and sovereign of the kingdom. Therefore, “énsi” is best translated “viceroy.” However, the ideology according to which the city-god was the true lord and sovereign of the city-state is also found in places where the ruler normally bore the title of lugal or ¶arrum, as at Kis, for example. In the aforementioned Names and Professions List, the ruler of Kis is styled nun, “prince,” while it is the city-god of Kis, Zababa, who was called “king of Kis” (lugal kisiki). 129 Although they have different connotations, the titles “énsi” and lugal seem to have been interchangeable to some extent. 130 The earthly ruler was viceroy vis-à-vis the city-god and sovereign vis-à-vis the population of the city-state. 131 The use of one or the other title may have depended on the traditions of the individual city-states or on the political or ideological impulse to emphasize one aspect of kingship above the other. For instance, the rulers of Umma used the title lugal in their dedicatory inscriptions, but in administrative and legal texts they were referred to as “énsi.” 132 In some cases, however, the ruler of one city-state came under the authority of a hegemonic ruler of another city-state (cf. §2.1). The fact that the term “énsi” connoted local control (“énsi” being linked to the idea of governing the territory of a city-god on his behalf) resulted in lugal being chosen as royal title by those rulers who wanted to extend their authority beyond the borders of their city-states. 133 In this way, lugal eventually became the royal title par excellence. At the same time, in the period of the Third Dynasty of Ur, “énsi” came to mean “provincial governor nominated by the king.” There is no doubt, however, that in Early Dynastic IIIb Lagas the title “énsi” denoted an independent ruler. Whether or not this was also the case elsewhere is still open to debate. For instance, Edzard was of the opinion that no distinction in rank between “énsi” and lugal can be discerned prior to the reigns of Eriªenimgennâk and Lugalzagêsi. 134 According to Cooper, on the other hand, the term “énsi” connoted something like “governor, subordinate local ruler,” in its usage outside Lagas in Early Dynastic IIIb. 135 Cooper has also suggested that the use of the title “énsi” by the independent rulers of Lagas was in some way a reflex of the past hegemony of Kis, 136 (cf. below, p. 172: Cat. 6, comm. on line 2) make it clear that the correct sequence of signs is NÍF.PA.TE.SI, rather than PA.TE.SI.FAR. As regards the meaning of nímnimsiªakx, we may think of a headless genitive phrase: “the one (in charge) of provisions” (cf. NÍFni-si = ti-ú-tum: CAD T 439 s.v. tiªûtu A). 129. Cf. Archi 1981b; 1984b; Bonechi 2001a. 130. This was the case in Lagas, at least (cf. Heimpel 1992: 6–8). 131. Cf. Steinkeller 1999: 112 with no. 33. 132. Cf. ur-dlum-ma lugal HIxDIS (Frayne 2008: 367–68 E1.12.4.1–2 lines 2–3) and ur-dlum-ma PA.TE.SI (ummaki*) (Arnaud 2007: 69 rev. ii 1*; CUNES 52-10-002 rev. iii [from left] 2); íl lugal HIxDIS (Frayne 2008: 369 E1.12.5.1 line 2) and íl PA.TE.SI ummaki (TCBI 2, I-1 rev. ii 1; CUNES 52-10-005 iii 3); mes-sag4-ki-dùg lugal HIxDIS (Frayne 2008: 371 E1.12.6.1 line 2; inscription of Paragªirnun, wife of Fessagkidug) and mes-sag4-ki-dùg PA.TE.SI ummaki (CUNES 51-07-016 i 4). Likewise, their predecessor Enªakale, who in the inscriptions of Urlummâk, Il, and Fessagkidug’s wife is called lugal HIxDIS (cf. Behrens and Steible 1983: 395), also has the title PA.TE.SI ummaki in CUNES 52-10-036 rev. 4. Note, however, that the penultimate Early Dynastic IIIb ruler of Umma, Lugalzagêsi, is called “énsi” both in dedicatory inscriptions (cf. n. 149 below) and in administrative texts (cf. Powell 1978: 11, 26–29). 133. Cf. Steinkeller 1999: 112–13 n. 33: “In the contexts external to the conditions existing within a single city-state, lugal generally denotes a hegemonic ruler who claimed lordship over an area larger than the limits of his own dominium.” 134. Edzard 1974b: 144. 135. Cooper 1999b: 65 n. 8. 136. Note, however, that Urnansêk, the founder of the First Dynasty of Lagas, styles himself as lugal in his inscriptions.

Historical Framework

111

just as the use, in later times, of sakkanakkum or issiª/yakkum by the independent rulers of Mari, Der, Esnunak, and Assur harked back to the earlier times when these cities were dominated by the kings of Akkad or Ur III and were governed by royal officials who bore those titles. 137 Cooper’s hypothesis is supported by the listing, in the Names and Professions List, of the “énsi” after the king (here called nun, “prince”) and before other high-ranking officials. 138 These officials are mentioned in order as follows: “the (king’s) accountant” (umbisam), “the land registrar” (SAF.DÙN), “the (king’s) scribe” (dub-sar), “the head of the army” (KIS. NITA), 139 “the chief . . .” (gal-gurx(GU4)-ús), “the en of the Land” (en kalam), 140 “the chief secretary” (gal-sukkal), 141 and so on. It is likely that this list reflects the bureaucratic hierarchy of the state of Kis at the time the list was drawn up 142 and that “énsi” here denotes an official who was of lower rank than the king but of higher rank than all other functionaries of the state. 143 On the other hand, it is possible that both the rank of “énsi” and the importance of this title varied from place to place and from time to time. The rulers of Lagas applied their own title “énsi” to their counterparts in other Sumerian city-states 144 but not to the sovereigns of northern Babylonia, whom they called lugal instead. 145 In their view, the terms “énsi” and lugal were interchangeable only when applied to rulers of southern Babylonia. This fact suggests the possibility that “énsi” had a different meaning in the Akkadian-speaking north. It is equally possible that outside Lagas “énsi” was viewed as a lesser title than lugal, indicating a lower degree of independence or autonomy on the part of those city-rulers who bore this title. Thus, the alternating use by the rulers of Adab of the titles lugal arabx(ki), “king of Adab,” and NÍF.PA.TE.SI arabx(ki), “viceroy of Adab,” 146 may point to alternate phases of sovereignty and vassalage on the part of their city. In addition to the domination of Kis in Early Dynastic IIIa (cf. §2.1), there are some indications that Adab fell under Umma’s control around the middle of Early Dynastic IIIb, 147 before it was also subjugated by Uruk. 148 137. Cooper 1999b: 65 n. 8. 138. Cf. Archi 1981b; 1984b; Bonechi 2001a. 139. More precisely, ALIMx.NITA (cf. Steinkeller 2004b). 140. Cf. p. 107 with n. 97. Note that the Eblaite version of this text has the variant mí(n) kalam, which may reflect an early pronunciation of en as /(e)men/ (cf. the reading /umun/ of EN in Emesal). 141. Cf. Sharlach 2005: 18. 142. Cf. Archi 1981b: 177–80. 143. This fact accords well with the meaning “viceroy” that we proposed for PA.TE.SI/“énsi” above (p. 110). Also note the unique occurrence, in the same list, of a junior “énsi” (Archi 1981b: 182 line 52: PA.TE.SI.TUR). 144. Cf. Behrens and Steible 1983: 116–17 sub e–f. 145. Cf. Behrens and Steible 1983: 223–24 sub b and e (8u). 146. Cf. Al-Mutawalli and Miglus 2002: 8. 147. Note the find at Adab of two exemplars of the inscription known as The Frontier of Sara (cf. Yang 1989: 17 with n. 31; Westenholz 1987–90: 156). Previously attributed to Lugalzagêsi, this inscription has most recently been recognized as belonging to Fessagkidug (cf. Frayne 2008: 372–74 E1.12.6.2). It should be noted that Fessagkidug, alone among the Early Dynastic rulers of Umma, bears the title PA.TE.SI kalag-ga dellilx(EN.É)-ke4, “mighty steward of Ellil,” which prefigures the title PA.TE.SI-gal dellilx(EN.É) that was borne by the “great kings” Lugalzagêzi and ‡arrumken (cf. below, p. 184: Cat. 12, comm. on lines 3–4). Fessagkidug’s ambition for hegemony and greatness is also reflected in his epithets: in The Frontier of Sara (lines 9–10) he styles himself nir-mál sam-hus ki-en-gi-ke4 gaba-mál nu-gi4 kur-kur-ra-ke4, “fierce prince of Sumer, invincible opponent of the foreign lands.” 148. Cf. BIN 8, 26 vi 3–7: mes-ki-gal-la / PA[.TE].SI / ªarabx(UD.“NUN”)kiº / lugal-zag-ge-si / lugal, “Meskigalla being vi[cer]oy of Adab and Lugalzagêsi being the king (of the Land).”

112

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Likewise, the assumption of the title PA.TE.SI ummaki, “viceroy of Umma,” by the late PreSargonic rulers Uªu and Lugalzagêsi 149 in the place of lugal HIxDIS, “king of. . . ,” 150 which was borne by their predecessors on the throne of Umma, 151 coincides significantly with the rise of the Urukean king Ensagkusuªanak as “en of Sumer” (en ki-en-gi) and “sovereign of the Land” (lugal kalam-ma). It is probably not a coincidence that from the time when Ensagkusuªanak and his successor Lugalzagêsi sat on the throne of Uruk, no other Sumerian ruler is attested with the title of “king” (lugal) except in the independent state of Lagas, where the rulers were traditionally called “énsi.” It was presumably in order to emphasize his status as an independent ruler that the penultimate Pre-Sargonic ruler of Lagas, Eriªenimgennâk, changed his title from “énsi” to lugal in the second year of his reign. 152 Finally, one last point deserves mention. Even when subordinated to an alien ruler, the Sumerian city-state remained the domain of its city-god and the appointed “énsi” was such because of that god’s will and choice. Two recently published inscriptions demonstrate how the ideology of the city-state continued to hold strong. The first, inscribed on a vase, is a dedication for the life of Meskigalla of Adab: dparag-dellil

A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

x(EN.É)-mar

lugal arabx é-zi-sag4-mál ugula àga-ús-LAGABxSE?-ke4 nam-ti mes-ki-gal-la PA.TE.SI ! arabx(UD.“NUN”)ki-sè a mu-na-ru

To Paragªellilemarra, king of Adab, Ezisagmal, lieutenant of the guardsmen of. . . , for the life of Meskigalla, viceroy of Adab, presented (this vase).

B 1. 2. 3. 4.

mes-ki-gal-la NÍF !.PA.TE.SI arabx(UD.“NUN”)ki lú é diskur ?

Meskigalla, viceroy of Adab, the builder

(UD.“NUN”)ki

149. Cf. Frayne 2008: 376 E1.12.7.1 i 3–8: lugal-zag-ge-si / PA.TE.SI ummaki / lú-mah dnissabakx(NAFA)-ke4 / dumu ú-ú / PA.TE.SI ummaki / lú-mah dnissabakx-ka-ke4, “Lugalzagêsi, viceroy of Umma, lumah of Nissabak, son of Uªu, viceroy of Umma, lumah of Nissabak” (transliteration and translation modified; cf. photo on CDLI [P235681]; for the reading of the name Ú.Ú, cf. Marchesi 2002: 171 n. 105; for the priestly title lú-mah dnissabakx, which was borne by both Lugalzagêsi and his father, cf. Steinkeller 2003a: 622–24). 150. The reading and meaning of HIxDIS are unknown. Various scholars have argued for a reading /umma/ (cf., among others, Steinkeller 1992a: 16, 18; Krebernik 2003b: 166 n. 125; Frayne 2008: 357–58) and the value úmma has been assigned to HIxDIS by Borger 2003. However, not only is there no clear evidence for this reading, but it should also be noted that the sign HIxDIS in the title lugal HIxDIS is never written with the determinative of place (ki)—a fact that makes its interpretation as a place-name questionable, at least. On the other hand, the alternative interpretation “king of 216,000 (men)” that was proposed by Pomponio (1989: 25 n. 4) does not seem possible, since (1) 261,000 is SÁRxDIS, or, more precisely, SÁRxFÉS, “3600x60;” and (2) HI and SÁR are two distinct signs in Early Dynastic monumental script, the first having the form of a rhombus and the second that of a circle. 151. Cf. Frayne 2008: 367–71. 152. He also started counting his regnal years over from the moment he adopted the new title (cf. Bauer 1998: 477– 78; Westenholz 2002: 29).

Historical Framework 5. rú?-a? (the rest is broken)

113

of the temple of Iskur(?), . . . 153

Although the city was subjected to either Uruk or Akkad, at the time of Meskigalla, 154 the true sovereign of Adab was still nominally the city-god (that is, in this specific case, the god Paragªellilemarra 155). Even more telling in this respect is a fragmentary inscription on the statue of an unknown ruler of Suruppak, 156 who governed the city under Rimu¶: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

[. . . (-ra)] [. . . ] [(NÍF.)PA.TE.SI] ªsuruppagºki-ga-k[e4] sag4-ge pàd-da dsùd-da-[ke ] 4 mu pà[d-da] dnin-PA-k[a-ke ] 4 nam-ti lugal-né rí-mu-ús ªlugal kisiº-[ka-sè] (the rest is broken)

[To DN,] [PN,] [viceroy] of Suruppak, the chosen one of Sud, 157 the nomi[nee] [of ] Ninmesdurûk, 158 [for] the life [of ] his master, 159 Rimu¶, king of Kis, ...

Though he acknowledges his subjection to the “great king” Rimu¶, the “énsi” of Suruppak nevertheless stresses that he holds this position not thanks to the king of Akkad but rather because he has been chosen by the principal gods of his city. 160 That Suruppak was now reduced to a province of the Akkadian empire is purely contingent, an accident of history. The cosmic order was established once and for all by the supreme god Ellil at the beginning of time. He decreed that Suruppak belonged to the goddess Sud, 161 and nobody could alienate her property, not even the powerful sovereigns of Akkad, despite the fact that they managed to conquer and dominate all of Babylonia. 153. Anonymous 2003: no. 42 (= CDLI P416103). Note that neither the DN Iskur, in B 4, nor the whole of B 5 are visible in the published photograph. 154. Cf. n. 148 above; and p. 155 n. 2. 155. “The Sovereign Appointed by Ellil” (probably the name of a form or hypostasis of the god Asgi). Cf. SuchGutierrez 2005–6: 6 with n. 50, 42 with n. 503. 156. Published by Frahm and Payne (2003–4). 157. Cf. Marchesi 2006a: 74 n. 387. 158. Although it was rejected by Frahm (in Frahm and Payne 2003–4: 51 n. 18), the reading “dnin-gidru,” or rather dnin-mesduru (given the Emesal form cited below; cf. the reading mes-tu-ru for PA in UET 7, 163 i 7 [MSL 14, p. 113]), x is, however, probably correct here. There are, in fact, two deities whose names were written dNIN.PA: dNIN-had and dnin-mesduru (-k); but the genitive dNIN.PA-ka-k(e ) makes it clear that we are dealing here with the latter (the genix 4 tive of dNIN-had is dNIN-had-da; cf. Marchesi 2006a: 31 n. 134). Moreover, in the Suruppak texts, the god dNIN.PA is associated with the goddess dNIN-me-su-du7 (cf. Martin et al. 2001: 110–11); both of these deities are also found together in later texts written in Emesal: dNIN.PA as Umunmudurûk (ù-mu-un-mu-duru5 /umun-mu-du-ru), the Emesal equivalent of Ninmesdurûk (cf. Marchesi 2006a: 31 n. 134). 159. Cf. Krecher 1972: 271. 160. Cf. Frahm and Payne 2003–4: 54–55. 161. Cf. Civil 1969b: 140–41 lines 88–98; Biggs 1974: 51 lines 180–81; Krebernik 1998: 240.

114

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

2.3. The Sumerian King List Of course, there is no such thing as a Sumerian king list. The text usually referred to as the Sumerian King List (SKL) is a composition halfway between a literary text and a list proper, which deals with the history of kingship in Babylonia from the beginning of time to the early centuries of the second millennium b.c. 162 In fact, the native original title of this composition was simply, after its first word, nam-lugal, “Kingship.” 163 nam-lugal an-ta èd-da-ba / kisiki lugal-àm / kisiki-a FIS.ÙR-e / mu 600x3+60x6 ì-na, “When kingship came down from heaven, (the city of) Kis was sovereign; in Kis, Fusur exercised (kingship) for 2,160 years.” So begins the oldest extant manuscript of SKL, which dates to the time of Sulgir (= “Sulgi”). 164 Later compilers might have felt uncomfortable with an incipit such as this and with the prominence accorded to Kis; they provided a new beginning to the composition by devising a prior descent of kingship in the Sumerian city of Eridug. A preexisting separate tradition concerning kings who reigned before the Flood supplied them with the raw material for reconstructing an antediluvian era of sovereigns with millennium-long reigns. 165 According to the redacted tradition, the Deluge came and swept everything away, putting an end to this primordial age. Kingship came down from heaven again; the northern (and non-Sumerian) city of Kis was selected this time. In the original version, however, it is likely that Kis was recorded as the first seat of kingship. In that city, a certain Fusur (“Tree-Trunk”?) reigned for hundreds and hundreds of years. 166 There follows an enumeration of similarly long-lived kings of Kis, with their respective regnal years, 167 until the city was defeated and kingship was transferred to Uruk or, rather, to Eªanak, 162. Cf. most recently Glassner 2004: 55–70. The editio princeps is still that by Jacobsen (1939). The most complete manuscript of SKL—W(eld-)B(lundell) (1923.)444 (= OECT 2, pls. I–IV)—has been reedited by Glassner (2004: 117–27). An electronic transliteration and translation of a composite text, based on Old Babylonian sources, is also available on the Web site of the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL 2.1.1). For an Ur III forerunner, which differs in many respects from the various Old Babylonian recensions, cf. Steinkeller 2003b (also cf. the remarks by Glassner 2005b). In the references to SKL, the line numbering of the ETCSL online version is followed here (unless reference is made to a specific manuscript). 163. Cf. Kramer 1961: 171 line 25, and 174 ad loc. 164. Cf. Steinkeller 2003b. 165. Cf. Jacobsen 1939: 55–68; Finkelstein 1963; Hallo 1963; 1970: 61–66; Civil 1969b: 139; Lambert and Millard 1969: 15–18; Glassner 2004: 56–58, 108–9; Friberg 2007: 236–41; Peterson 2008. It is also possible, however, that the addition of the antediluvian section to SKL was not motivated by any particular political or ideological bias but rather by the desire of some ancient scholar to combine and reconcile different traditions. 166. On Fusur, also cf. Frayne and George 1990. Note the variant lú-FIS.ÙR-ra in MS 3175 rev. i 9u (collation courtesy of A. George). 167. There is some uncertainty concerning the names of the immediate successors of Fusur. The name of the second king of Kis is variously written ku-la-zi-na-be-el (BT 14 i 6 [Klein 2008: 89]; PBS 13, 2+ i 5), kul-la-zi-na-bé-el (MS 3175 rev. i 11u), gul-la-zi !{-an}-na-ªbeº-el (OECT 2, pl. I: WB 444 i 46; cf. Civil 1969c), [. . .]-na-i-be (Scheil 1934: 160 frag. A iu 4u; collated from photo) and ªx(-x)-la? º-na-bi-ir (Steinkeller 2003b: 269 i 5). The first four spellings are undoubtedly writings of the name Kullassina(i)bêl, “He Rules over All of Them” (cf. Hallo 1963: 52). This name is the reinterpretation of a corrupted original name, of which only the final part, -na-bi-ir, is recognizable with certainty in the Ur III forerunner of SKL (cf. photos in Steinkeller 2003b: 287 and 289). As regards the name of the third king of Kis, previously read “Nangislisma” (Jacobsen 1939: 78 n. 44; Hallo 1963: 53), the unpublished manuscript MS 3175 rev. i 13u gives it as na-an-zi-iz-li-dar-ku. The same spelling probably also occurs in BT 14 i 8 (collated from a cast in the University Museum; cf. Klein 2008: 89). Other sources bear the variants [n]a-ªzílº-zíl-tar-ku-um (Steinkeller 2003b: 269 i 7; cf. photo, p. 289), na-an-iz-li-ªdarº-ku (PBS 13, 2+ i 7; collated) and [. . .]-li-tar-ku (Scheil 1934: 160 frag. A iu 6u; collated from photo).

Historical Framework

115

the sacred precinct of Uruk—the city of Uruk proper having not yet been founded. Various kings succeeded one another in Eªanak/Uruk in the exercise of kingship. Then Uruk was defeated and kingship moved to another city. The same story is repeated many times: according to SKL, kingship continued to shift from one city to another. In this narrative framework, all the rulers who allegedly held sovereignty over the whole of Babylonia are listed one after the other, uninterruptedly, except for one break—a time of political confusion and anarchy, during which it was not clear who the king was. 168 Apart from this, SKL provides us with an unbroken sequence of kings who exercised kingship. Some of them ruled for hundreds, or even thousands, of years; others ruled for more “human” periods of time. Legendary kings of the distant past are followed by kings known from historical sources. Some manuscripts add short biographical notes about particularly remarkable figures. Thus, for instance, we are told that certain personages, before becoming king, were either a shepherd, a fisherman, a smith, a fuller, a boatman, a leatherworker, a low-ranking priest, etc. 169 Even a female tavern-keeper seems to have exercised kingship, and not for a short time. 170 Other notes refer to “historical” events, such as a successful military raid or the foundation of a city. 171 Elements from anecdotal literature and fragments of historical traditions found their way into SKL. 172 Some quite obscure myths and legends, probably transmitted only orally, are also alluded to. 173 SKL, therefore, is not simply a list of kings and dynasties: it is a complex and composite literary work with a long redactional history. The most ancient source is from Ur III, but we have several clues to the existence of an earlier version dating back to the Sargonic period 174 and possibly written in the Akkadian language. 175 Clearly, SKL underwent a number of changes over the course of time. Some of these changes were accidental, due simply to errors and lack of accuracy in the transmission process. Others were the result of deliberate manipulations or the interpolations of other textual sources. 176 Although the circumstances under which SKL was created are still unknown, it is probable that SKL originally served to legitimize, in some manner, the domination of the kings of Akkad over the whole of Babylonia. In point of fact, SKL anachronistically and fictionally projects the political situation of the Sargonic period—when the entire land of Sumer and Akkad was for the first time unified—into the distant past: at any one time, SKL argues, there was only one legitimate seat of kingship and only one legitimate king whose authority extended over the entire country; so it has been from time immemorial. Such is the leitmotif of SKL. Of course, the 168. SKL 284–89. Cf. Steinkeller 2003b: 272 iv 26u–v 4u, 275, 280 ad iv 29u. 169. Cf. Jacobsen 1939: 142–43; Vincente 1995: 259–60. 170. SKL 224–27: kisiki-a kug-dba-ú / munuslú-kaskúrun-na / suhus kisiki mu-un-ge-na / lugal-àm mu 60+10x4 ì-ak, “In Kis, Kubbawûk (= “Kubaba”), the woman innkeeper who consolidated the foundations of Kis, became king and exercised (kingship) for 100 years.” On this legendary queen of Kis, cf. Wilcke 1988: 126; Marchesi 2004: 167 with n. 93. 171. Cf. p. 99 nn. 15–16. 172. Cf. Jacobsen 1939: 142–47; Wilcke 1988: 122–26. 173. Such as a lost myth about animal kings (cf. Wilcke 1989: 567); the story of the first king of Uruk, Meskiªam-theMighty, who “entered the sea and went up to the mountain ranges” (SKL 99–101); the legend of the birth of Gilgames (cf. Wilcke 1989: 562–63). 174. Cf. Wilcke 2001: 108–15; Steinkeller 2003b: 281–83; Glassner 2004: 95–96; 2005a. 175. Traces of an older(?) Akkadian version of SKL or at least evidence that it originated in an Akkadian-speaking milieu are found in the oldest preserved manuscript. Cf. Steinkeller 2003b: 272 iv 26u–29u, 279 ad iv 26u–27u, 280 ad iv 29u. 176. Cf. Steinkeller 2003b: 283–86.

116

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

political reality of the region before the advent of the Akkadian dynasty was actually quite different (cf. §§2.1–2.2). However, historic reality is not what SKL is concerned with. Once it became a traditional authoritative text, it is likely that SKL was utilized again and again by later Babylonian sovereigns or by political circles close to them for their own ideological and political purposes. 177 Finally, the addition of biographical notes to SKL might reflect a genuine interest in history and indicate, moreover, that a shift was underway in the very uses of SKL from the primarily political/ideological to the historiographical. 178 Therefore, SKL is a document of exceptional interest: it provides us with a unique reconstruction of the history of early Babylonia by the Babylonians themselves. The absence of any theological speculation in SKL is also noteworthy, and unique in Sumerian literature. No deity plays a role in the numerous dynastic changes that are related in SKL: kingship is transferred from city to city as a consequence of military events only. 179 The sole divine entity in SKL is kingship itself, which, by virtue of its descending from heaven, was conceptualized as a divine institution. On the other hand, the history told by SKL is largely fictional and mythical in character. Though acknowledging this fact, scholars in the past have relied heavily on SKL data for reconstructing the dynasties and chronology of third-millennium Mesopotamia. 180 The most strenuous defender of the historical value of the information that SKL provides was its editor, Jacobsen. 181 He was of the opinion that, even though the arrangement of SKL and the succession of the various dynasties is “a later construction of no significance,” the actual materials from which it was built up (i.e., names of kings, reign lengths, etc.) represent “a historical source of high value, from which only some exaggerated reigns occurring with the earliest rulers should be segregated.” 182 Jacobsen’s belief in the general historical veracity of SKL led him to emend the text arbitrarily or restore broken portions of it with the names of kings known from historical sources 183 and to suggest unlikely ad hoc readings for some of the royal names in SKL in order to approximate the names of known historical sovereigns. So, for instance, Jacobsen reconstructed the badly preserved name of the penultimate king of the Second Dynasty of Kis in WB 444 iv 31 as “ i-enbi ni-ib-es4-ªtárº” and identified it with en-bí-as11-dar (= ºInbiºastar), 184 the name of the PreSargonic king of Kis who was defeated and taken prisoner by Ensagkusu’anak, king of Uruk. 185 However, WB 444 iv 31 actually reads i-bi-ªx.x.xº and an unpublished duplicate has i-bí-dEN.Z[U] (= Ibbisîn) instead. 186 177. Cf. Jacobsen 1939: 137–41; Kraus 1952: 46–49; Michalowski 1983; Wilcke 1989; 2001: 100–116; Vincente 1995: 267–68; Steinkeller 2003b: 283–86; Glassner 2004: 96–110. Such “political” uses are, however, denied by Westenholz (1999: 27), who remarks that “none of the kings who supposedly commissioned the work ever referred to it, however obliquely, in justification of their rule” (cf. also Steiner 1992). 178. Cf. Steinkeller 2003b: 286. Biographical notes are totally absent in the Ur III version of SKL. 179. Cf. Cooper 1983a: 29. 180. Cf., for example, most recently Frayne 2008: 5–6, 18, 35–36, 38, 50–53, 295, 297, 377–78, 410. 181. Cf. Jacobsen 1939: 165–190. 182. Jacobsen 1939: 167. Also cf. Klein 1991: 127 n. 20. 183. Cf. Jacobsen 1939: 92–95 iii 41a -41c, 100–101 iv 47a—v 7. 184. Jacobsen 1939: 96 (with n. 159) and 169. 185. Cf. Steible 1982b: 293–94 Ensak. 1; Frayne 2008: 430 E1.14.17.1. 186. MS 3429 ii 6u.

Historical Framework

117

As Jacobsen had done, so did other scholars. Geller wanted to recognize the names of NI-zi and ‡aªumu—respectively a king (LUGAL) and a high-ranking official (EN) of Mari who are known from the Ebla archives—in the section of SKL that deals with a Pre-Sargonic dynasty of Mari. 187 Accordingly, he read “ªnáº-zi” and “[s]a-ªu-me” in two manuscripts of SKL. 188 However, the former reading, though possible epigraphically, is unlikely, 189 and the latter is incorrect. 190 Equally unlikely is Klein’s tentative restoration “lugal-ki-ªni?º-s[è ? -du7-du7]” (one of the various spelling of the name of a well-known Early Dynastic king of Uruk) in BT 14 v 8u: 191 the preserved traces of the sign after KI rules out the possibility that this was NI, and there are no traces of SÈ. 192 Very few of the Pre-Sargonic royal names mentioned in SKL are actually attested in sources from the Early Dynastic period. In fact, there are only seven: 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 Enmeparagêsi aka Meparagêsi of Kis 194 Pabilgames (Gilgames) of Uruk 195 Mesªanepadda of Ur Meskiªamnunak aka Mesnunekiªam of Ur196 Elulu aka Elili of Ur197 Enkususaªanak198 aka Ensagkusuªanak of Uruk199 Lugalzagêsi of Uruk

SKL 83 SKL 112 SKL 135 SKL 137 SKL 141 SKL 186 SKL 259

187. Geller 1987: 144–45. 188. PBS 13, 1 v 12 and WB 444 v 29, respectively. 189. Cf. Michalowski 1992: 248; Vincente 1995: 258 ad ii 25u. 190. WB 444 v 29 (OECT 2, pl. III) reads: [li ?-im? ]-er gudugx(AH.ME) mu 10x3 ì-ak (collated from photograph; cf. Vincente 1995: 242 ii 28u, 258–60). 191. Klein 2008: 83. 192. Cf. Klein 2008: 89 (copy) and 91 (photo). Another manuscript of SKL, Ni 9712b (Kramer 1976: pl. 125), reads, at this point, lugal-uras-e (col. iiiu 4u). 193. Note: (1) the identification of Nanne (SKL 193) with Ayaªanepadda, king of Ur (cf. Gadd 1925: 25–26; Jacobsen 1939: 93 n. 145), has no real grounds; (2) the alleged inscriptions of two kings of Aksâk—Umdalulu (SKL 234) and Urªur (SKL 235)—which were reported to have been found at Tell ºUmar, ancient Seleucia (L. Waterman apud Barton 1928: 18; Waterman 1931: 6), turned out to not exist (cf. Barnett 1963: 19 n. 90); (3) the attribution of a mace-head inscription from Ur to king “Anbu/Ansud/Ilsu/Ilum-pû” of Mari (SKL 211; cf. Burrows 1934: 322; Jacobsen 1939: 103 with n. 189; Sollberger and Kupper 1971: 88 n. 1 to IG1a; Kupper 1976–80; Steible 1982b: 286 AnUr 13; Cooper 1986a: 86 Ma 1.1; Vincente 1995: 257 ad ii 24u; Frayne 2008: 300–301 E1.10.1.2) is incorrect: the inscription in question, in fact, reads: dutu / SES.ªKIº.[N]A / ªmuº[-gub] (or: [a] ªmuº[-ru]), “SES.KI.NA [set up / presented] (this mace) for/to Utu” (Woolley 1934: pl. 183:c; for the PN SES.KI.NA, cf. Gelb et al. 1991: 177; Pomponio 1987: 226–27; etc.). 194. Cf. pp. 98–99 with n. 14. 195. Cf. p. 99 with n. 19. 196. Cf. Marchesi 2004: 168 n. 97. 197. Cf. Marchesi 2004: 168 n. 97. 198. This name, written en-PIRIF.DU-an-na, is traditionally read “en-sákan-sa4-an-na.” However, it should be noted that sákan is a value of the sign FÌR, not of PIRIF (in the Old Babylonian period, the two signs, FÌR and PIRIF, have not yet merged). An alternative reading en-kusux-sa4-an-na is suggested by the variant spelling en-kusu-sa4-anna in BT 14 v 6u (Klein 2008: 89). For the value kusux of PIRIF, cf. Alster 1990: 80 ad TIM IX 20:5. Also note the further variant [en]-kusux-sà-an-ªnaº in the Leilan recension of SKL (Vincente 1995: 241 and 244 ii 16u). 199. Written en-sag4-KÚS-an-na. Note that sag4-KÚS is an Early Dynastic spelling for sag4-KÚS.Ù(= kusu4ù).

118

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

The great majority of the Pre-Sargonic rulers listed in SKL are not attested in Early Dynastic texts and their names do not even occur in the Sumerian and Akkadian onomasticon of the third millennium b.c. 200 These facts alone are quite telling about the historical reliability of SKL. Moreover, the durations of the reigns atttributed to the few kings who do occur in Early Dynastic sources are either wholly unrealistic or clearly artificial (round figures, multiples of six, etc.): Enmeparagêsi of Kis Pabilgames (Gilgames) of Uruk Mesªanepadda of Ur Meskiªamnunak of Ur Elulu of Ur Enkususaªanak of Uruk Lugalzagêsi of Uruk

900 years 126 years 80 years 30/36 years 25 years 60 years 25 years

In view of these facts, it is clear that SKL has a little to offer us in reconstructing the historical chronology of the Early Dynastic period. Any reconstruction should be based on Early Dynastic sources only. The picture that emerges when we do rely exclusively on such sources is, of course, dramatically different from that presented by SKL. 201

2.4. Early Dynastic Rulers The tables below (Tables 15a–b) provide an overview of all the known Early Dynastic rulers of the main Meopotamian cities (Ur, Uruk, Lagas, Umma, Adab, Kis, Mari) and of the kingdom of Ebla, in Syria, ordered chronologically by city. These tables are based on a combination and synthesis of textual information (family relationships, genealogies, historical synchronisms between rulers, prosopographic data), paleographic and linguistic analysis of the inscriptions, historical-artistic study of inscribed artifacts (cf. §3.1 and §5.2), and archaeological data relating to the contexts of finds (cf. chapter 1). 200. This is true of Alulim (SKL 3), Alalmar (SKL 5), Ammeluªanak (SKL 11), Ammegalªanak (SKL 13), Dumuzid (SKL 15 and 109), Ensipadzidªanak (SKL 20), Ammedurªanak/Ammedurªankîk (SKL 26), Ubartutu (SKL 32), Fusur (SKL 43; Steinkeller 2003b: 269 i 3; cf. above, p. 114 n. 166), Kullassina(i)bêl/. . . nabir*(?) (SKL 46; Steinkeller 2003b: 269 i 5*; cf. above, p. 114 n. 167), Nanzizlidarku/Nazizziltarkum* (SKL 48; Steinkeller 2003b: 269 i 7*; cf. above, p. 114 n. 167), Entarahªanak (SKL 50; Steinkeller 2003b: 270 i 9), Babum (SKL 52; Steinkeller 2003b: 270 i 11), Puªanum (SKL 54; Steinkeller 2003b: 270 i 13), Zuqaqip (SKL 58), Atab (SKL 60), Etana (SKL 64), Balih/Palih(?) (SKL 68), En-ME-nunak (SKL 71; cf. Steinkeller 2003b: 270 ii 1), Melamkisîk (SKL 72), Barsalnunak (SKL 74; Steinkeller 2003b: 270 ii 3), Z(/S)amug (SKL 76), Ilqû/Ilta¶adûm/Ilqe¶adûm* (SKL 80–81; Steinkeller 2003b: 270 ii 5*; cf. p. 277 ad loc.), Meskiªam(gaser) (SKL 96), Enmerkar (SKL 102), Udulkalamak (SKL 119), Ennuntarahªanak (SKL 124), Meshe(?) (SKL 126), Melamªanak (SKL 127), Lugal-KI.DÙN (SKL 129), Kisiªisk(/q)issu (Steinkeller 2003b: 270 ii 11 = SKL 160), Dadase(LUM*) (SKL 163; Steinkeller 2003b: 270 ii 13*), Mamagal (SKL 164; Steinkeller 2003b: 270 ii 15), TÚG.E (SKL 169), Mennunak (SKL 170), Hadanis (SKL 179), Lugalªurase (SKL 188), Argandeªa (SKL 189), Meskiªamnannâk (SKL 196), Lugalªanemundu (SKL 205), Limªer (SKL 217), LUGAL-i†er (SKL 218), Umzig (SKL 232), Umdalulu (SKL 234), Zimudar (SKL 250; Steinkeller 2003b: 271 iii 6), Ußiwatar (SKL 251). 201. Cf. Tables 15a–b in §2.4.

Historical Framework

119

It would be superfluous to stress the somewhat hypothetical nature of certain parts of this picture, especially in cases where the only evidence available for dating is paleographic. In fact, third-millennium paleography, and especially the paleography of stone inscriptions, has been little studied to date. Identifying Schriftstufen on the basis of the comparison of only a few signs taken from a very limited number of inscriptions (which, furthermore, come from different places), as for example Braun-Holzinger attempts to do, 202 is not only erroneous methodologically and scientifically but also misleading (cf. §4.3, notes to Cat. 7 and 11a). As Biggs has convincingly shown, writing on clay differed greatly from place to place in the Early Dynastic period. 203 We may reasonably suppose that the same was also true of the “monumental” writing that was used on statues and other stone artifacts. Therefore, it makes little sense, for example, to compare an inscription from Adab with one from a site in the Diyala region. What is needed is a sufficient number of stratified objects from each individual site and a series of “local” paleographies formulated on their basis, which can lead to a delineation of the development of writing in each individual center. Nothing like this has been attempted to date, and the material at our disposal is probably not sufficient for it. In general, there are only relatively few inscriptions from well-documented archaeological contexts (cf. §1.2 and Table 14), and these are, for the most part, rather brief. Moreover, many signs show no notable variation over time and thus do not help us to date the inscribed pieces. Even when variations in sign forms are observed, they are often to be attributed to the different engravers who worked the stone or to such factors as the size or shape of the inscribed objects themselves, the materials and tools that were employed, etc., rather than to actual diachronic development of the script. 204 In the specific case of royal inscriptions, we must also consider the possibility that an archaizing writing was used and this, of course, could falsify our attempts to date such pieces on the basis of paleography. However, paleographic analysis is sometimes our only means of determining a dating. Clearly, we are on firmer ground dealing with cases for which we also have textual information about the succession of the rulers of a given city or the relations and synchronisms between rulers of different cities. The two tables below also include rulers of whom we have statues: they are marked by the catalogue numbers assigned to their statues in this book (Cat. 1, etc.). Excluded from consideration here are the numerous sovereigns (ENs) of Syrian and upper-Mesopotamian kingdoms who are known from the texts from Ebla, 205 as well as some rulers of minor Babylonian centers, such as Gizuna (= SID.NUNki), Feskullabak, Marad, Matar, Nippur, Sippar, and Suruppak. A list of the latter is provided below for the sake of completeness: Abzukidug (abzu-ki-dùg): Nippur, ED IIIa (Frayne 2008: 355 E1.11.3.1). A.S[Ú]+SA.ENGUR: Marad, ED IIIb (CUSAS 11, 242). 202. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 20–28. 203. Biggs 1973. 204. Cf. Biggs 1973: 46. 205. No up-to-date list of the Syrian and upper Mesopotamian ENs who are attested in the Eblaite texts exists. Cf., provisionally, Bonechi 1991: 63–67; Archi et al. 1993: s.vv. A-du-úrki, Bur-ma-anki, Du-lum, Du-ubki, Ha-ma-zi-imki, Ì-bu16-buki, Ì-ma-arki, Ì-marki, Ib-al6ki, Kak-mi-umki, Lu-mu-na-anki, Lum-na-anki, Ma-nu-wa-adki, Na-bùki, Na-gàrki, NI-raar ki, Ra-ªà-agki, Sa-du-gu-LUMki, Ù-ti-gúki, Ù-ti-ig ki, Za-la-bu14-umki, and Zú-mu-na-anki.

120

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Enimanne(zid) (enim-ma-né): . . . ?, ED IIIb? (Matouß 1971: 14; cf. Krecher 1973: 212–15; Visicato 2001: 140 with n. 4). Ili . . . (ì-lí-ªxº-[. . .]): Sippar, ED IIIb (Gelb et al. 1991: no. 35). Il¶u-ÉREN+X (il-su/sú-ÉREN+X): Matar, ED IIIb (Pl. 62:3; Gelb et al. 1991: no. 34; cf. Steinkeller 1986: 27–31). Kiªerim (ki:èrim): Suruppak, ED IIIa (Visicato and Westenholz 2001: 77–78 no. 96). LU.SÙR-mah: Gizuna, ED IIIb (Burrows 1935: pl. XLIX:44; cf. Visicato and Westenholz 2005: 65 with n. 26). Nammah (nam-mah): Nippur, ED IIIa / beginning of ED IIIb (Frayne 2008: 351 E1.11.1.1). Urªellilak (ur-dellilx(EN.É)): Nippur, ED IIIb (Frayne 2008: 353–54 E1.11.2.1–2). Ursul(paªêk) (ur-sul): Feskullabak, ED IIIb (cf. p. 172: Cat. 6, comm. on line 3). Yiªpul(ªil)um? (ªiº?-pù-[l]um): . . . ?, ED IIIb (CUSAS 11, 242; I owe the reading ªiº?-pù-[l]um to A. Westenholz). Symbols and conventions used in Tables 15a–b:

RN? = Royal name of uncertain reading . . . ? = Reading unknown RN (?) = Ruler uncertain RN1 A RN2 A = synchronism (attested or probable) between RN1 and RN2 RN1A? RN2 A? = possible synchronism between RN1 and RN2 RN1 A RN2 B RN3 A B = synchronism (attested or probable) between RN1 and RN3 and between RN2 and RN3. [n] = n regnal years ¶ = dating uncertain, possibly earlier • = dating uncertain, possibly later ¶ • = dating uncertain, possibly earlier or later

IIIa

II

I

ED

Eªabzûk (Cat. 5) 230

Akkaªinªanakak 211 ¶•

UMMA

Mesnunekiªam? 229 ¶

Lugalsagdamalak D 220

LAGAS

Paragsagnudîd 226

Lumma C 215

Pabilgames/Gilgames A B 209 •

URUK

Urpabilsamakak Ursampaªe (?) 224 ¶• 225 ¶•

UR

Epaªe (Cat. 4) 231 ¶

Medurba? 227 •

Ereskisalêsi E 221

Lumma 218 ¶

ADAB 206

Table 15a. Early Dynastic I–IIIa Rulers KIS

Me¶alim D E 222

Menunêsi C 216

Lugalªutu 214

Lugalmen (?) 213 ¶•

Munus-UL4-gal (?) 212 ¶•

Akka (?) B 210 •

Meparagêsi A 208 •

(Northern Babylonia)

Ur-AN.SI (Cat. 6)

Urlammarak (Cat. 3)

Tunªak (Cat. 2)

HAR.TU (Cat. 1)

OTHER BAB. CENTERS

Yik¶ud

Isruthalab 228

Yi¶du 223

Isrutdamu 219

Yibbi†liªmu 217

Dapinu

‡aqi¶(u)

...?

Naºmanu

...?

Íilªahlu?

‡amiºu

EBLA 207

122

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

206. Cf. al-Mutawalli and Miglus 2002: 5–8; Pomponio 2006: 52–54. 207. Cf. A. Archi in Archi et al. 1988: 212–14; Archi 1996: 14–15; 2001; Bonechi 2001b. All but the last three of the Early Dynastic kings of Ebla are known only from a dynastic list that was transcribed on a school tablet as an exercise (Pettinato 1979: fig. II, 6; Archi et al. 1988: fig. 1 after p. 306) and from texts that record offerings to dead rulers. The dynastic list enumerates 24 (or 26, according to Archi) kings in reverse chronological order. The attribution here of the last twelve of them to the Early Dynastic IIIa period is to some extent arbitrary: some may have reigned earlier, others later. Furthermore, one or more of the rulers I have attributed to the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb (on the basis of the aforementioned list) may actually belong to the previous period. 208. Cf. pp. 98–99 with nn. 9–16 and n. 18. 209. Cf. p. 99 with nn. 16–17 and n. 19. 210. Only attested in literary and historiographic texts. Cf. p. 99 with n. 17. 211. Cf. p. 100 with nn. 28–29. 212. Father of a king, possibly a king himself (cf. pp. 100–101 with nn. 30 and 32). 213. Only known from the so-called Names and Professions List (cf. Bonechi 2001a). This scholarly composition may have originated as a list of actual officials of the kingdom of Kis (cf. above, p. 111). 214. Cf. p. 101 with n. 34. For the interpretation of the PN LUGAL.UD as lugal-utu, cf. the variant spellings lugal x(GAL+LU)-utu (TMH 5, 132 i 2) and lugal-dutu (MVN 3, 81:4 [Sarg.]; Limet 1968: 476). 215. Cf. Marchesi 2006a: 63 (also cf. the following note). 216. Cf. p. 101 n. 38. This king of Kis was probably a contemporary of Lumma, ruler of Uruk. Both rulers are attested on tablets from the Early Dynastic IIIa archives of Suruppak, which probably cover a very short period of time (cf. Pomponio 1987: xv–xvi; Visicato 1994: 8–9). For the reading of the name as Menunêsi (< *Menuneªisi), cf. the more accurate spelling me-nun-né-si (M. Cohen 1993b: 80 A iii 23; Pettinato 1967: 89 sub 580) and the spelling variant dmi-nune-si of the homonymous DN dme-nun-e-si (Krebernik 1993–97a). The same personal name is also attested in the “archaic” texts of Ur (Burrows 1935: 36 sub 585). Cf. ama-me-nun-si (Burrows 1935: 29 sub 126). 217. For the reading of this royal name, cf. Bonechi 1997b: 33–34 and 36 with n. 26. For the syllabic value idx of NI (possibly from líd), cf. Bonechi: 1993: xxvii–xxviii n. 9. A. Archi (in Archi et al. 1988: 213; Archi 1996: 15; and 2001: 13) instead transliterates the name in question as “i-bí-ni-li-im,” evidently preferring to interpret it as /yibbiªni-liªmu/, “The Clan Called Me.” (Note that LI.IM in the texts of Ebla is not a syllabic spelling but rather a Semitic logogram; cf. Bonechi 1997a: 478.) 218. Cf. p. 168: Cat. 3, comm. on line 2. 219. For the onomastic element isrut, cf. Fronzaroli 2003: 160. DA.MU at Ebla is a Semitic logogram (cf. Bonechi 1997a: 478). 220. Cf. p. 161 sub 3c. The name of this ruler is traditionally read as “lugal-sà/sag4-engur/ENGUR.” The last sign, however, is probably not ENGUR (= LAGABxAN/IDIM/HAL; cf. Wiggermann 1998–2001a: 136–37), but the archaic form of AMA (a rectangle containing the sign AN), exactly like the one found in the inscription of HAR.TU (§4.3, Cat. 1) and in the archaic documents of Ur (cf. Burrows 1935: pl. 26 sign 319; for additional attestations in early texts, cf. Wilcke 1996: 35 ad ii 16 and iii 15). For the interpretation of lugal-sag4-AMA as lugal-sag4-damal (= Lugalsagdamalak, “The Lord Is Generous of Heart”), cf. Sjöberg 1973b: 46 ad 16; and Charpin 1986: 358–59 line 39 (hymn to Asalluhi). 221. Cf. p. 101 n. 41. For the reading of the name as Ereskisalêsi (< *Ereskisaleªisi), cf. Marchesi 2004: 174–75 (KISAL = kisal and not miparx; note that the PN quoted there as “en-miparx(KISAL)-re-si” is actually en-kisal-e-si [cf. Ozaki and Sigrist 2006: no. 241:4]) and 188–89 (NIN = eres and not nin). 222. Cf. pp. 101–102 with nn. 40–42 and 44–46; p. 161 sub 3c. 223. Cf. Bonechi 1997a: 520 with n. 325. 224. Cf. p. 101 n. 37. 225. u[r]-sam-pa-ªèº / [. . . ] [un]ugªkiº (wr. PA.UD.D[U].SAF.U[R]) / [un]ugªkiº [. . . ]) occurs on a vessel fragment from Uruk (H. Klengel and E. Klengel 1980: 49; Lindemeyer and Martin 1993: pl. 61:690). A royal title (en, lugal or NÍF.PA.TE.SI) should probably be restored in the break. 226. Cf. p. 161 sub 3b. 227. Cf. pp. 160–161 sub 2b. 228. Cf. n. 219 above. For the value labx of LAM, cf. Steinkeller 1993c. 229. Cf. p. 101 n. 37. 230. Cf. p. 171: note to Cat. 5 (also cf. p. 133). 231. Cf. p. 131.

Urzagªêk 260 •

Lugasilâ(si) II 286

Uranne X 281

Lugalzagêsi AE? AF AG AH

[2(+x)] 287

Ensagkusuªanak AB

Elili

Lugalkisalêsi 272

Lunannâk 298

AJ

Girimêsi

Z

/ 264

Lugalkisaresdudûd K O

Ayaªanepadda

Engisa 299

Meszid AF

Eriªenimgennâk X Y Z AA [11(+x)] 282

Lugaldimirda S? V [6] 276

Enªentarzid R [5] 273

Enªannâbtum II Q [5] 269

Enmetênnâk (Cat. [40(+x)] 261

9) I J K L M N

Enªannâbtum I H [4(+x)] 257

Mesªanepadda 256

Ayakurgal C? D 246

Urnansêk A B? 238

LAGAS 233

Eªannâbtum (Cat. 8) E F G 250

Lugalsilâsi I 248

Lugalnamnirsumma B? C? 244

URUK 232

Mesªumêdug 252

Ayaªumêdug 243 ¶•

UR

Proto [1(+x); 25?] 291 imp.

IIIb

ED

AA AB

Óinnanum [6(+x)] 300

Mesªe AF 292

Lugalzagêsi [8(+x)] 288

Uªu Y 283

Usurêdug V [8(+x)] 278

Meªanêdug N Q R S? [32(+x)] 274

Eden M [7(+x)] 270

Fessagkidug L [4(+x)] 265

Il J [12(+x)] 262

Urlummâk H I [12(+x)] 258

Enªakale F

249

Nintah D E

Pabilgagaltuku A 240

UMMA 234

Meskigalla (I) 295

AH AI

HAR.TU-asgîk 277 ¶•

Enmeªânu O 271 ¶

Ursamkesak 266 •

Mugêsi 254 ¶

Eªiginimpaªe 251 •

Paragannêdug 247

Lugaldalu (Cat. 7) 242

ADAB 235

Table 15b. Early Dynastic IIIb Rulers KIS

‡arrumken (“Sargon”) of Akkad AF AI AJ

[4(+x); 40?] 296

Urzababâk (?) AG [6?] 293

Yi¶kunnunu (?) AC 289

ºInbiºastar AB 284

Zuzu of Aksâk G 253

Óinnaªil (Cat. 10) 245

Ayaªanzud (?) 241

(Northern Babylonia)

Yigri¶halab P T?

Yaddubdamu

Qumdamu 267

Yi¶armalku 263

Yin˙ardamu

Bakdamu? 255

Yibbiªdamu

Yagurliªmu

Yaburliªmu

Taldayliªmu? 239

EBLA 237

Yiskurdayar [8?] 302 ¶

Yikun¶ama¶ 297 •

Yisqimari (Cat. 12) 294

ˇabdayar AD 290

‡umbaºli (Cat. 11a) 301 ¶

CITY UNKNOWN

Yisªardamu AB? AC AD AE? [36?] 285

Óinnadagan W Yirkabdamu U? W [3(+x)] 279 [6/7?] 280

[3] 275

ºlz(z)i? T? U?

Yiplusªil P [40(+x)?] 268

Yi¶†up¶arru ¶

Yikunsamkan 259 •

Yiqummari •

MARI 236

124

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

232. Cf. Pomponio 1994a. 233. Cf. Cooper 1983b: 23–36; Bauer 1998: 447–93; Huh 2008: 279–88. 234. Cf. Pomponio 1989; Monaco forthcoming a; forthcoming b. 235. Cf. n. 206 above. 236. Cf. Archi 1981a; 1985; 1996: 26–28; Archi and Biga 2003; Michalowski 1992; Charpin 2005; 2008: 221– 24; Beyer 2007: 248–58; Frayne 2008: 295–43. Note that individuals styled as EN ma-rí ki in Pre-Sargonic texts from Ebla and Mari were not kings of Mari; the sovereign of Mari was called LUGAL at both Ebla and Mari (cf. Marchesi forthcoming c). 237. Cf. Archi 1986; Archi in Archi et al. 1988: 205–21; Archi 1996; 2001; Archi and Biga 2003; Bonechi 2001b; Biga 2003. Also see n. 207 above. 238. Cf. n. 244 below. 239. For this difficult name, cf. Bonechi 1997a: 520 with n. 323. 240. Cf. Marchesi 2004: 196. 241. Father of a king, possibly a king himself (cf. p. 180: note to Cat. 10). 242. Cf. pp. 131–132; and p. 174: note to Cat. 7. 243. Cf. Marchesi 2004: 178–80, 190–91, 194 n. 235. 244. Attested on an inscribed spear-head from Firsu (Pl. 13:6–7). The inscription reads: lugal-nam-nir-súm (wr. LUGAL.SUM.NAM.NIR) / lugal kisi (cf. Frayne 2008: 73 E1.8.2.1). The writing of the name of this king—lugalnam-nir-súm—is probably defective: presumably the name in question should be reconstructed as Lugalnamnirsumma, “The Lord Is Endowed with Authority” (cf. the “parallel” PN lugal-á-súm-ma, “The Lord Is Endowed with Strength,” in CT 50, 134:5). The spear-head of Lugalnamnirsumma was associated with the temple of Ninmirsûk built by Urnansêk and destroyed during the reign of his son, Ayakurgal (Ninmirsûk temple—phase 5; cf. §1.1.3 and Pls. 7:3, 10:1). From the same archaeological context comes another noteworthy artifact: a copper bull’s head (Pl. 12:1–3) bearing a dedication to the god Ninmirsûk by “Lugalsi, the chief lamentation-priest of Uruk” (lugal:si gala-mah / unugki / dnin-mír-su / a muru; collation courtesy of J.-J. Glassner). These two inscriptions are probably not unrelated. Considering (1) that it is very unusual to find objects dedicated by “foreigners” in Lagas (the only other known example is the mace of Me¶alim, king of Kis [Pl. 11:10; cf. below, p. 161 sub 3c], from Ninmirsûk temple—phase 4; cf. §1.1.3 and Pls. 7:2, 9:3) and (2) that the Early Dynastic IIIb kings of Uruk used to style themselves “king of Kis” (cf. Pomponio 1994a), it is likely that Lugalnamnirsumma, like the lamentation priest who dedicated the bull’s head to Ninmirsûk, was also from Uruk. The presence of these officials’ inscriptions in the temple of Ninmirsûk at Firsu may reflect a period of political weakeness at Lagas, during which the city-state fell under the hegemony of Uruk. In this connection, note that Urnansêk changed his title from lugal, “king,” to PA.TE.SI, “viceroy/city-ruler,” toward the end of his reign, as is witnessed by the inscription on his stele (Pl. 51:2; cf. Frayne 2008: 87–89 E1.9.1.6a). 245. Cf. p. 180: note to Cat. 10. 246. Cf. n. 244 above and n. 249 below. 247. Cf. p. 157 with nn. 18–19. If the restoration of his name in Luckenbill 1930: no. 16 by Cooper (1986: 16 ad 4.1) is correct, Paragannêdug must have ruled before Eªiginimpaªe, since the inscription in question is dedicated to the Ekiri (= “Esar”) temple (cf. n. 266 below). 248. Cf. Pomponio 1994a: 4–5; Frayne 2008: 411–12. In contrast to Pomponio and Frayne, I see no reason to identify this early Pre-Sargonic ruler of Uruk with either Lugalkisalêsi (Pomponio) or the Lugalsilâ(si) who is mentioned in an inscription on a clay vessel from Firsu (Frayne). Note: (1) that lugal-sila-si can in no way be interpreted as a variant of lugal-kisal-si: Lugalsilâsi and Lugalkisalêsi were two distinct names; (2) the Lugalsilâ(si) of the Firsu text is definitely a later ruler of Uruk (cf. n. 281 below). As for the name Lugalsilâsi, I analyze it as {lugal-sila.e-i.si}, “The Lord Is Present on the Streets (of the City).” 249. This ruler of Umma—whose name is also read “Gis” or “Us/US”—was probably a contemporary of both Ayakurgal and E’annâbtum of Lagas. After occupying the Guªedenak (the border territory between Lagas and Umma whose possession was disputed by the two city-states) at the time of Ayakurgal, Nintah (“Male”) was presumably defeated by Eªannâbtum and killed by his own subjects (cf. Cooper 1983b: 24–26; Pomponio 1989: 29–30; Bauer 1998: 472). 250. Cf. p. 175: Cat. 8, comm. on i 3. For synchronisms between Eªannâbtum and other rulers, cf. n. 249 above and n. 253 below. 251. Cf. Wilcke 1996: 34–35, 44. Also see n. 254 below. 252. For the interpretation of mes-ùm-dùg as Mesªumêdug (< *Mesªumeªidug), cf. Marchesi 2004: 190–93. On his seal (Pl. 16:3), which was found in the Royal Cemetery of Ur (cf. Marchesi 2004: 161–62), Mesªumêdug simply styles himself “the king” (mes-ùm-dùg / lugal). However, in a dedicatory inscription of Mesªanepadda on a votive bead coming from Mari (but whose ultimate origin was probably Uruk) Mesªumêdug is referred to as “king of Kis” (cf. Marchesi 2004: 183–

Historical Framework

125

84 n. 175), that is, king of Uruk (cf. n. 244 above). It is also worth noting that, in the same inscription, Mesªanepadda calls himself “king of Ur,” instead. Presumably, after occupying the more prestigious post of king of Uruk, Mesªumêdug gave Ur to his son Mesªanepadda to rule. Upon the father’s death, his son also ascended the throne of Uruk, as is revealed by the title “king of Kis” on Mesªanepadda’s seal (Pl. 16:2; note that Mesªanepadda also assumed the role of en-priest of Inªanak, which was traditionally held by the rulers of Uruk. This role is referred to by the second title on his seal, “spouse of the nugig,” that is, spouse of Inªanak; cf. above, p. 108 with n. 105). 253. King of Aksâk who led a coalition of northern Babylonian cities, which included Kis and Mari, against Eªannâbtum, ruler of Lagas. According to Cooper (1983b: 26), Kis and northern Babylonia were under the hegemony of Aksâk at that time. 254. Cf. Luckenbill 1930: no. 52 colophon 1–3: mug-si NÍF.PA.TE.SI ªarabx(UD.“NUN”)kiº. The same individual is probably also meant in a sale document from the time of Eªiginimpaªe. This text (= Foxvog 1980) records a grain payment made by Eªiginimpaªe, ruler of Adab, for the purchase of a field (cf. Gelb et al. 1991: 99–103 Appendix to no. 32; Wilcke 1996: 44–47; 2007: 85–86). Eªiginimpaªe took the grain for the transaction partly from the temple of the goddess Ninmug (é dnin-mug), partly from the estate of Mugêsi (é mug-si). The fact that Eªiginimpaªe could dispose of the grain of Mugêsi implies that the latter’s estate was ultimately under the control of the ruler of Adab. In my opinion, this suggests that Mugêsi was a son of Eªiginimpaªe—indeed, in view of his later accession to the throne, that he was the crown prince. According to other scholars, however, Mugêsi was the predecessor of Eªiginimpaªe (cf. Foxvog 1980: 73 ad 2; Yang 1989: 18; Wilcke 1996: 45–46; al-Mutawalli and Miglus 2002: 7–8; Wilcke 2007: 85; Frayne 2008: 29). 255. The interpretation of ba-ga-DA.MU as Bakdamu is owing to P. Fronzaroli (http://w3.uniroma1.it/eblaproso/ Prosopography/B.pdf). 256. Cf. n. 252 above. 257. For the reading of the name, cf. Marchesi 2006a: 2–3 n. 7. Enªannâbtum I ruled for at least 4 years (cf. Biggs 1976: no. 10, dating to the fourth regnal year of this ruler. Another text [V. Crawford 1977: 219–22 4H-T38], which dates to the third year of an unspecified ruler, should probably also be assigned to Enªannâbtum I; cf. V. Crawford 1977: 198–200). Having succeeded his elder brother, Eªannâbtum (who, judging from the content of his inscriptions, must have enjoyed quite a lengthy reign; cf. Cooper 1983b: 24–28; Bauer 1998: 456–66), we may reasonably assume that the reign of Enªannâbtum I was quite short, especially considering that he seems to have died in violent circumstances during a conflict with Umma (cf. Cooper 1983b: 30). 258. Cf. Monaco forthcoming a. 259. Cf. p. 156 n. 5. The so-called Ennadagan Letter from Ebla (ARET 13, 4) makes Yi¶†up¶arru precede Yiplusªil as king of Mari. However, it is not certain that Yi¶†up¶arru was the immediate predecessor of Yiplusªil, since the text in question appears only to mention those kings who obtained significant military successes in the regions upstream of Mari. Considering that the vase and the statues with inscriptions mentioning Yikunsamkan (Frayne 2008: 317–19; cf. below, p. 156) were found together with inscribed objects from the reign of Yiplusªil, these two rulers must have been chronologically close to each other. 260. Cf. Cooper 1983b: 34; Wilcke 1996: 47–48. Urzagªêk is generally thought to have ruled toward the end of the Early Dynastic IIIb period. However, there does not seem to be space in the sequence of the Urukean rulers to position Urzagªêk after Lugalkisalêsi, as is usually done. It is more likely that Urzagªêk ruled before Lugalkisaresdudûd. In this connection, note that Urzagªêk styles himself lugal kisi ki, “king of Kis,” like Lugalnamnirsumma, Lugalsilâsi I, Mesªumêdug, Mesªanepadda and Lugalkisaresdudûd himself (cf. nn. 244 and 252 above). In the reign of Lugalkisaresdudûd’s successor, Lugalkisalêsi, this title apparently fell into disuse, presumably because it was considered obsolete. 261. Cf. p. 178: Cat. 9, comm. on a ii 1. Enmetênnâk presumably had a very long reign. Two texts dating to the nineteenth year of Enmetênnâk are known (cf. Bauer 1998: 473). ITT 5, 9236, which dates to the twenty-seventh year of an unspecified ruler, probably belongs to his reign as well (cf. Maekawa 1973–74: 138). Enmetênnâk ascended the throne of Lagas after defeating Urlummâk of Umma (who in turn had probably killed Enmetênnâk’s father, Enªannâbtum I; cf. n. 257 above) and must have ruled throughout the duration of the reigns of Urlummâk’s successors Il (12[+x] years), Fessagkidug (4[+x]), and Eden (7[+x]) (though only the synchronism between Enmetênnâk and Il is actually attested). Moreover, his period of rule must also have overlapped with a good part of the long reign of Meªanêdug in Umma (32[+x] years). It follows that Enmetênnâk probably ruled for at least 40 years. 262. Cf. Monaco forthcoming a. 263. For the reading /malku(m)/ of the Semitic logogram MA.LIK, cf. Tonietti 1997: 238–39. 264. The name of this king is variously written lugal-ki-DU.NI-du7-du7 (in texts from Nippur and Uruk) or lugalki-NI(.SÈ)-du7-du7 (in texts from Adab, Lagas, and Ur). Spelling variants such as these show that the signs DU and SÈ could be omitted in the writing of this name. We should probably read lugal-ki- sa4sarex(NI)-du7-du7 and lugal-kisare x(NI)(-és)-du7-du7, respectively. In this connection, note the reading sarex/sar8 that is given for the sign NI in Proto-

126

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Ea 95 (MSL 14, p. 35). An indirect synchronism between Lugalkisaresdudûd and Enmeªânu of Adab is provided by the attestations of the chief scribe Ayadimirmu of Adab in association with either Lugalkisaresdudûd (in CUSAS 11, 68) or Enmeªânu (in MS 3029 [= CDLI P252035]; courtesy of A. Westenholz). 265. Cf. p. 111 n. 147. Fessagkidug ruled for at least 4 years (cf. Monaco forthcoming a). 266. Cf. p. 172: Cat. 6, comm. on line 2. For an interpretation of the PN ur-sam-kès as a genitival phrase (that is, Ursamkesak, “Warrior of Kes”), cf. ur-sam-a-ga-dèki -ka in RTC 102 ii 5. The reign of Ursamkesak at Adab was later than that of Eªiginimpaªe. This is suggested by the occurrence of the PN ur-é-mah, “Dog of the Emah,” in the Ursamkesak text MS 4745 (= CDLI P253775; col. ii 5), since Emah was the new name given to the temple of the goddess Dimirmah by Eªiginimpaªe (before Eªiginimpaªe, that temple was called Ekiri; cf. below, p. 173: Cat. 7, comm. on line 1; and Appendix A.2.1). Finally, note that the very same official—the town crier é-DU—was active under both Ursamkesak and Enmeªânu; cf. MS 2464 (= CDLI P251641; time of Ursamkesak) rev. iii 10–11 (é-DU / nimir) and MS 3792 (= CDLI P252828; time of Enmeªânu) ix 4–6 (é-DU / nimir / ir11 PA.TE.SI). 267. KUM is usually read kùn = /kun/, “be true” (or the like). However, /qum/, “rise, stand up” (imperative), provides a better sense here (cf. Pagan 1998: 159–60 s.v. qwm). 268. Cf. p. 156 with n. 13. This king of Mari, whose death is recorded in an Eblaite document from the time of Yigri¶halab (cf. Archi and Biga 2003: 2–3), probably had a very long reign: he presumably ruled for at least 40 years (cf. n. 290 below). 269. According to Bauer (1998: 474), Enªannâbtum II ruled for 5 years. 270. Cf. Monaco forthcoming a; forthcoming b. 271. Cf. p. 172: Cat. 6, comm. on line 2. The writing ENxME-nú probably represents the same name that is written en-me-a-nú in TCBI 1, 25 ii 1. Both spellings presumably stand for Enmeªânu (< *Enmeªaªinu), “Where Does the Eminent One Lie?” The ruler Enmeªânu of Adab was a contemporary of Lugalkisaresdudûd, king of Uruk and Ur (cf. n. 264 above) and probably ruled immediately after or before Ursamkesak (cf. n. 266 above). 272. For the transcription of this name as Lugalkisalêsi (< *Lugalkisaleªisi), rather than “Lugalgiparesi” or the like (cf. Edzard 1987–90a: 139; Steinkeller 1999: 109 with n. 18), cf. the more accurate spelling lugal-kisal-le-si in MS 1952/45:2 (CDLI P250718). 273. Enªentarzid ruled for 5 years and 1 month (Bauer 1998: 474). 274. This hitherto unknown ruler of Umma had a very long reign. A few tablets from Zabala(m) that date to the years 28–32 of an unspecified ruler of Umma (cf. Powell 1978: 11–12; Monaco forthcoming a) are most probably to be attributed to the rule of Meªanêdug. The same official—Diªutûk, the “temple administrator” (samma) of Zabala(m)—occurs both on a tablet dating to the twenty-sixth year of an unnamed ruler (MS 3791/28 = CDLI P252822) and in a text that mentions me-an-né-dùg (as being the) PA.TE.SI (MS 2824 = CDLI P251871). That the date “year 26” in the former document refers to the reign of Meªanêdug is confirmed by another tablet from Zabala(m), which bears the date formula 30 lá 2 mu iti 8 / me-an-[né-dùg] PA.TE.SI, “Year 28, month 8—Meªan[êdug] being the viceroy (of Umma)” (CDLI P271237 rev. ii 2–iii 1). 275. NI-zi is possibly to be read ì-zi, for /ºiz(z)i/, “My Strong One” (cf. Streck 2000: 354 on the Amorite PN ºIzzaya; and Halayqa 2008: 100 s.v. ºz). This king of Mari, who probably ruled for only 3 years, was a contemporary of either Yirkabdamu, king of Ebla, or, more likely, his predecessor Yigri¶halab (cf. Archi and Biga 2003: 2–4). 276. Cf. p. 162 n. 50. Lugaldimirda (= “Lugalanda”) ruled for 6 years and 1 month (Bauer 1998: 475). 277. Cf. CUSAS 11, 67 rev. ii 1–3: HAR.TU-dasgix(HI¥DIS)gi4 / NÍF.PA.TE.SI / [i]n-na-lá. 278. Cf. Milone 2005 (especially p. 340 with n. 4); Monaco forthcoming a. In regard to the name of this ruler— Usurêdug (< *Usureªidug)—note the spelling variants usurx(LÁLxTÚG)-ì-dùg (Powell 1978: 46 no. 10 i 4) and ùsur(LÁLxLAGAB)-ré-dùg (DP 585 i 7). The highest date for his reign is found in YBC 4719 (Foster 1994: 450–52 and fig.1) rev. ii: ud-ba usurx(LÁLxTÚG)-dùg UD.MUD.NUN 8 mu, “At that time Usurêdug was the king/viceroy (of Umma). Year 8” (UD.MUD.NUN is either a spelling variant of PA.TE.SI [cf. above, p. 109 n. 117] or the writing of another term for “ruler” in use at Umma; cf. Biggs 1974: no. 282). 279. Óinnadagan was a contemporary of the king Yirkabdamu of Ebla and ruled for at least 3 years (cf. Archi and Biga 2003: 1–2, 4–5). 280. Cf. nn. 275 and 279 above. According to Archi and Biga (2003: 6), Yirkabdamu may have ruled for 6/7 years (cf. below, p. 138 n. 48). 281. Two administrative texts from Lagas (DP 545 and Nik 227) allude to three distinct assaults by “the Urukeans” (lú unugki-ga) in the period between the fourth regnal year of Eriªenimgennâk (“when the Urukeans besieged the city”) and the sixth year (“when the Urukeans came for the third time”) (cf. Bauer 1998: 479–80). At that time, the king of Uruk was not yet Ensagkusuªanak, as Bauer suggested (loc. cit.). In the first two military episodes, the troops of Uruk were led by a certain Uranne; cf. Ukg. 14 iiiu 2u–10u (Sollberger 1956: 57): mír-súki / [e]-ma-dab6 / eri-enim-ge-na-ke4 / tukul

Historical Framework

127

e-da-sàg / bàd-bé ì-ni-ma4 / ur-né ì-ti / eri-né-és ba-men / 2-kam-ma-ka / [im-m]en, “(Uranne) encircled Firsu, (but) Eriªenimgennâk battled with him and let him crash against its (= Firsu’s) wall. (However,) Uranne was still alive: he went back to his city, (but then) [he ca]me a second time.” Considering that only rulers are typically mentioned by name in royal inscriptions, we may reasonably assume that Eriªenimgennâk’s rival, Uranne, was the king of Uruk. The war of conquest of Uruk against Lagas was then continued by Lugalsilâ(si), whose name occurs in a fragmentary inscription from Firsu with the title PA.TE.SI unugki-ga-ke4 (cf. Steible 1982b: 337–39 LuTAR. 1; Frayne 2008: 290–91 E1.9.10.2). Although the name of the contemporary ruler of Lagas is not preserved, both the paleography and the phraseology of the text suggest that it be attributed to Eriªenimgennâk. 282. Eriªenimgennâk (= “Uruinimgina/Urukagina”) ruled for at least 11 years (Bauer 1998: 477–78). During his eighth regnal year, the city of Lagas was conquered by Lugalzagêsi, who was, at that time, the ruler of Umma, but not yet king of Uruk; Eriªenimgennâk continued to reign over Firsu only (cf. Bauer 1998: 477–78, 489–93). 283. Cf. p. 112 n. 149. 284. King of Kis who was defeated and captured by Ensagkusuªanak of Uruk (cf. Frayne 2008: 430 E1.14.17.1 lines 1– 12). News of this event may have reached the Palace of Yisªardamu, the last king of Ebla (cf. the following note). 285. The use of the syllabogram ar, rather than àr, speaks against a reconstruction of the first element of this name as /yisg%ar/, as Bonechi (1997a: 481, 519) and Fronzaroli (2003: 148), among the others, have proposed. Cf. also Hasselbach 2005: 85 with n. 173. According to Archi and Biga 2003 and Biga 2003, Yisªardamu allegedly ruled for 35 or 36 years. Cf., however, Bonechi 2001b: 60, in whose opinion the Ebla archives cover “not more than 12 or 15 years.” Yisªardamu was a contemporary of ˇabdayar, king of Mari, and of Yi¶kunnunu of Kis (possibly the king of that city; cf. Archi and Biga 2003: 32). A few documents from the first part of his reign may contain allusions to the military campaign of the Urukean king Ensagkusuªanak in northern Babylonia and to his victories over Kis and Aksâk (cf. Sallaberger 2004: 18– 23). For a possible synchronism between Yisªardamu and Lugalzagêsi, cf. n. 295 below. 286. Cf. n. 281 above. 287. Ensagkusuªanak also occurs (though in the corrupted form Enkususaªanak) in the Sumerian King List, in which he is credited with a reign of 60 years (cf. pp. 117–118). However, a reign this long is quite unlikely, especially considering the fact that the same official—one Uranne (ur-ra-né)—appears to have been active at Nippur under both Ensagkusuªanak and ‡arrumken (cf. Westenholz 1975a: 50–52 texts 81 and 84; 1975b: 4). It is in fact only certain that Ensagkusuªanak ruled 2 years, as evidenced by the two known year-names that refer to his military campaigns in the PreSargonic texts from Nippur (cf. Westenholz 1974: 154; 1975b: 115). Also cf. n. 285 above and n. 295 below. 288. For the reading of the name, note the scriptio plena lugal-zag-ge4-e-si in Cooper and Heimpel 1983: pl. 3b lower edge 2 (on p. 73). Before becoming king of Uruk and suzerain over Sumer (cf. nn. 291 and 295 below), Lugalzagêsi ruled at Umma for at least 8 years (Powell 1978: 11). 289. Cf. n. 285 above. 290. The name of this king, which is generally transliterated “hi-da-ar” and transcribed as “Hidaªar,” should probably be interpreted as †ab6(DÙG)-da-ar, that is, /†ab-dayar/, “Dayar Is Good” (cf. the orthographic variants dab6-da-ar and da-da-ar of the same name in ARET 1, p. 238 and ARET 3, p. 265, respectively). Dayar (“The Lasting/Eternal One”?) is probably a divine name of the paras pattern, like Samas or Hadad/Adad, from the Semitic root DYR (cf. D. Cohen 1993: 239–41). ˇabdayar is only attested in documents from the final years of the rule of Yisªardamu at Ebla (cf. Archi and Biga 2003: 5–8). Charpin (2005) attributes a group of tablets from Mari with dating formulas that vary from the eighteenth to the thirty-fifth year of an unspecified ruler (an unpublished tablet cites an even higher date: “year 40;” courtesy of A. Cavigneaux) to the reign of ˇabdayar. However, not only is there no evidence for such an attribution, but the fact that ˇabdayar was already an important official of Mari at the time of NI-zi, his second predecessor (cf. Archi and Biga 2003: 8), makes Charpin’s proposal unlikely, if not impossible. It is more likely that these tablets date from the period of Yiplusªil: to judge from the quantities of gold and silver that were paid as a tribute by Ebla to Mari during his reign (cf. Archi 1981a: 131–34; Archi and Biga 2003: 2), Yiplusªil must have ruled for quite a long time. Finally, note that an alleged sealing of ˇabdayar from Mari (Pl. 62:4; cf. Archi and Biga 2003: 30 with n. 84; Marchesi 2006b: 263 n. 266) turns out, on closer examination, to be the sealing of another, previously unknown king named Yiskurdayar (cf. Beyer 2007: 248–49 with n. 59). 291. The various versions of the Sumerian King List agree in assigning 25 years to Lugalzagêsi as king of Uruk (cf. Jacobsen 1939: 110–11). However, only one year-name referring to Lugalzagêsi is preserved (TMH 5, 82:7–9; cf. Westenholz 1975a: 52). Moreover, a grandson of the Urukean king Lugalkisalêsi served under Girimêsi, the governor of Uruk who was probably installed by ‡arrumken after defeating Lugalzagêsi (cf. Cooper 1986a: 104 Uk 2.4 with n. 2). This fact suggests that the datum in the Sumerian King List is unreliable. For Lugalzagêsi, also cf. nn. 282, 288, and 295. 292. Cf. n. 295 below.

128

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

293. Only attested in historiographical and literary texts as a contemporary of Lugalzagêsi, king of Uruk (cf. Cooper and Heimpel 1983). Sometimes, Urzababâk’s name is even written with the divine determinative—a fact that leads us to think of a legendary personage (cf. Marchesi 2004: 167). Note, however, the GN ur- dza-ba4-ba4ki, which may have been named after him (cf. Steinkeller 2010: 369 with n. 1). According to the Ur III version of the Sumerian King List, Urzababâk ruled for 6 years (Steinkeller 2003b: 271 iii 4–5). Tradition also has it that ‡arrumken began his career as a “cupbearer” of Urzababâk, before becoming king of Akkad. 294. Cf. pp. 136–139; and p. 184: Cat. 12, comm. on line 1. 295. Meskigalla exercised rulership at Adab under both Lugalzagêsi (cf. p. 111 with n. 148) and ‡arrumken (cf. p. 155 n. 2). It is not clear whether he was still active under Rimu¶ or whether a homonymous grandson of his ruled Adab at that time (cf. Marchesi 2004: 183 n. 174). “The news that Adab has been taken” (NÍF.MUL / arabki / SU.BA4.TI)—which is reported in an Eblaite text from the time of Yisªardamu (MEE 10, 29 rev. iii 26–28; cf. Sallaberger 2003)—may refer to the conquest of that city by Lugalzagêsi. According to Sallaberger (2004: 18–23), the seizure of Adab must have taken place before the seventh year of Lugalzagêsi’s reign, since a few texts from Zabala(m) dating to that year record the allocation of lands to the rulers of Adab and Nippur, as well as to a high priest of Uruk (lú-mah unugki). Reiterating the opinion expressed by Powell (1978: 27) that “the right by which they hold these allotments [. . . ] must be via their political relationship with the head of the state,” Sallaberger assumes that these documents attest to the dependence of Adab, Nippur, and Uruk on Lugalzagêsi in the seventh year of his reign. However, the texts in question (BIN 8, 82; Powell 1978: 34–35 no. 1; and DeJ. Ellis 1979: 40–43 BMC 6–7) are in fact dated to the seventh year of Lugalzagêsi in his capacity as ruler of Umma (lugal-zag-ge-si PA.TE.SI 7), rather than as king of Uruk and Sumer. At the time that these documents were drawn up, Lugalzagêsi was probably still merely a “viceroy/city-ruler” (PA.TE.SI), on the same level as his counterparts at Adab and Nippur. All three rulers were presumably under the hegemony of the “great king” Ensagkusuªanak of Uruk. In fact, once he ascended the throne of Uruk and became “king of the Land” (lugal kalam-ma), not only did Lugalzagêsi no longer use the title PA.TE.SI, but he also entrusted the office of ruler of Umma to Mesªe—most likely the same personage who appears in the texts of Lugalzagêsi from Zabala(m) with the title dub-sar-mah, “head scribe” (cf. Powell 1978: 17; Bauer 1998: 495). 296. The oldest (and most reliable?) manuscript of the Sumerian King List credits ‡arrumken with a reign of 40 years (cf. Steinkeller 2003b: 272 iv 16u–17u ). However, only four year-names that can be attributed to him are known (cf. Westenholz 1975b: 115; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 49–50; Frayne 1993: 8). 297. Cf. p. 139 with n. 55. The alleged attestation of the name of this king on the seal of a high-ranking woman of Mari (Pl. 63:1), which was pointed out by Archi and Biga 2003: 31 (also cf. A. Archi apud Beyer 2007: 238 n. 29), probably does not exist (cf. Marchesi 2006b: 262 n. 244; and Marchesi forthcoming b). 298. Cf. Frayne 1993: 31 E2.1.1.12 caption 3. Note that in another inscription of ‡arrumken, it is Lugalzagêsi who is said to be the king of Ur (Frayne 1993: 20 E2.1.1.6 caption 2). Evidently Lunannâk occupied the vacant throne of Ur after ‡arrumken defeated Lugalzagêsi. 299. Cf. Milone 1998. 300. Cf. Foster 1982: 154; Marchesi 1999b: 104 with n. 3. 301. Cf. pp. 134–136; pp. 162–163 with n. 57; and p. 183: note to Cat. 11a. 302. Cf. n. 290 above; and pp. 138–139 with n. 52.

Chapter 3

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary Early Dynastic royal statuary is difficult to analyze for a number of reasons. 1 There are, first of all, numerous problems concerning the interpretation of their inscriptions, especially for the earliest examples (cf. §§4.2 and 4.3). The identification as royal statues of finds that do not bear inscriptions or are incomplete is, moreover, based exclusively on an analysis of their technical execution (i.e., material and size), iconography, and typology, since other objective criteria are not available. In these cases, I have illustrated, case by case, the arguments for my identification of the uninscribed specimens as royal statues. The resulting corpus is large enough to enable me to outline certain developments in the history of royal statuary and discuss its nature and purpose.

3.1. Royal Statues Identified on Epigraphic Grounds The earliest statue that can certainly be identified as royal (Cat. 1) was found in Main Level 1 of the so-called temple of “Sara” at Tell Agrab (more likely to be attributed to the god Ilumaªtim; cf. p. 24 n. 38). At the level of the “second” floor of room M14:4 (at elevation 33.00 m) was a pit containing various statues dating from Early Dynastic II (cf. §1.1.1). It is not certain, however, that Cat. 1 actually comes from this pit. 2 It has been possible to attribute this statue, the only inscribed example among the numerous specimens from the Main Level, to a king named HAR.TU, after deciphering the inscription on its back. The context from which it was retrieved and the style—narrow waist and wide shoulders, planes intersecting at sharp angles, the carving of the hair and beard—suggest a date in Early Dynastic II. 3 All that remains of the skirt is the 1. Royal statues are here indicated by catalogue number (cf. §3.4, with the main bibliographical references). The sequence of catalogue numbers only partially corresponds to the chronological sequence of statues; the last three inscribed statues (Cat. 10–12) were grouped together because they come from northern Mesopotamia (Cat. 10 probably dates from the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb, like Cat. 7). On royal titles, cf. §2.2. 2. This statue, like another specimen (Frankfort 1943: no. 261, pl. 29), has a higher inventory number than the series from the pit (cf. p. 26 n. 47) and may, therefore, have been found in the lower fill of M14:4 (phase Main 1). 3. It should also be noted that the coloring of the beard and hair with bitumen is relevant in terms of chronology, since this technique was only applied during later Early Dynastic I and Early Dynastic II (cf. Frankfort 1939a: nos. 33, 35, 61, 116, in addition to the famous pieces from the favissa in the Square Temple at Esnunak, including Cat. 13; Frankfort 1943: nos. 211, 213–14, 216, 224, 286).

129

130

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

upper edge rolled over at the waist and the initial part of the rear tassel, placed, as usual, on the left. Given the early date of the piece, the title borne by this individual—“king of PA.FAR” (a place-name possibly to be read Ha††am)—represents an important piece of evidence for the history of royal titulary. 4 Another royal statue from Early Dynastic II is that of Tunªak (= “Ginak;” Cat. 2), “viceroy” (PA.TE.SI) of an unknown city, whose name is written with the logogram BÁHAR.É. This statue is similar in style to examples from Tutub and Tell Agrab, as observed by its editor. The portrayal of the hair and beard with wavy lines 5 and the two-dimensional, nonnaturalistic rendering of volume are also valuable chronological indicators. As in the case of other pieces studied here (Cat. 1 and Cat. 3), there is nothing in this statue to distinguish it from other, nonroyal statues of the same period, all of which depict standing figures with the hands clasped over the chest. The only example showing any iconographic variation is the so-called (statue of the) “god Abu” (Cat. 13), which is probably slightly earlier than Cat. 1. From roughly the same period as these two pieces—given the style and the characteristics of the inscription on the statue’s back—is the upper half of a limestone statuette (Cat. 3), possibly found near Babylon. 6 This statue, known as “Nebo” but actually belonging to a ruler named Urlammarak, was possibly dedicated to a deity whose name is written dPA.ªxº. 7 The bearded figure, whose nose had already been mended in ancient times, has hair parted in the middle and locks falling forward over the shoulders, as was characteristic in Early Dynastic II and IIIa (cf. §1.2). The full, rather than inlaid, eyes could indicate that the statue must be attributed to the later of these two phases. The layout of the inscription on the back, however, seems to be typical of the earlier period. The archaizing inscription on the right shoulder, which is quite ununderstandable (cf. §4.3), is probably a later addition, possibly from the Neo-Babylonian period, when a taste for antiquity is well attested among Mesopotamian men of learning, the most famous of these being Nabûnaªid (= “Nabonidus”); cf. p. 133 n. 25). The alleged provenance of the sculpture from the area of Babylon supports this hypothesis. Two royal statues relating to the kings Epaªe (Cat. 4) and Lugaldalu (Cat. 7; for Cat. 5 and 6, cf. below) 8 come from Adab. Luckily, the headless statue of Epaªe—which is larger than that of Lugaldalu, having originally stood about 1 m tall—was recovered before it could be sold on the antiquities market. It most probably comes from illegal excavations that caused serious and ex4. The earliest attestations of the title “king of GN” date from the Early Dynastic I period (cf. pp. 98–100 and p. 212 n. 6). Braun-Holzinger (2007: 74–75 FD 22, pl. 27) accepts the identification of this piece as a royal figure, although she also considers other, much less likely, possibilities. 5. Cf., among others, Frankfort 1939a: no. 60, pl. 46, from the temple of ‡amus (= “Sin”) VIII at Tutub (also for the eyebrows indicated by a single, continuous incision). 6. Gadd (1934–35: 42–43) expresses himself in favor of the statue being authentic, although he cannot confirm that it was brought to London by Layard in 1854, as maintained by Lenormant (1868: 231). This fact casts doubt on the alleged provenance of this statue, as reported by Lenormant, from the vicinity of Babylon. This origin has most recently been denied by Reade (2000b: 84): Reade’s sources indicate that the statue was bought by Felix Jones in 1854. 7. However, it cannot be excluded that we are dealing here with a toponym, rather than a DN. Braun-Holzinger (2007: 77 FD 35, pl. 35; 2008: 158) thinks that the two inscriptions of Cat. 3, although ancient, are fabrications later than the statue. It is, however, what she considers the main inscription, on the shoulder, that is actually the only secondary addition.

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

131

tensive damage to the ancient site of Adab during the 1990s. The sculpture shows a beardless figure whose head was presumably shaven, like that of the statue of Lugaldalu, which it resembles in style. 9 Although not too distant chronologically from Lugaldalu, Epaªe, given the more archaic iconography of the skirt, was probably a ruler of Early Dynastic IIIa. The dedication to Ninªegalak—a form of Inªanak—suggests that the statue may have come from Tell IV at Adab, where Banks had found terracotta stamps of Naramsuyin for bricks of the temple of Inªanak, which he hence located in that spot. 10 The statue of Lugaldalu (Cat. 7), dedicated to the Ekiri temple, is usually dated to the second half of Early Dynastic IIIb, mainly on stylistic grounds, given its similarity to the statue of Enmetênnâk of Lagas from Ur (Cat. 9), which seems to indicate a narrow chronological gap between these two monuments. Cat. 7 is a statue with shaven head, inlaid eyes and eyebrows, and a short inscription on the right shoulder. The skirt has six flounces and a girdle at the waist and a squared-off tassel on the left side of the back. This appears flattened, as do the very regular tufts. The sculpture also resembles the statue of Enmetênnâk in that the feet just poke out from the base. The paleography of the inscription has been deemed to be conservative or archaizing (cf. §4.3 sub Cat. 7). 11 On epigraphic grounds, as well as for other reasons, a date for this piece no later than the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb is proposed here (cf. below). The head of a statue was found in a room in the western sector of the temple area of Tell V, 12 while the body lay 30 m away, at a depth of 2.5 m, below the western corner of the Neo-Sumerian terrace—that is, roughly at the level of the bitumen-covered baked-brick floor dating from the reign of Eªiginimpaªe, which corresponds to phase 4 (cf. also §1.1.4). 13 The available evidence does not enable us to determine stratigraphic relationships, and it is impossible to establish 8. Among the various unpublished fragments of statues mentioned by Banks (1912: 252), one is in diorite. On a fragment from an alabaster statue (the right shoulder), an incision can be seen in the photograph published by Banks (1912: 252, 256) which does not, however, represent the sign LUM (this could have led one to think of the “viceroy” Lumma; cf. below, p. 168), as is shown by a new photograph from the Oriental Institute Museum in Chicago (Pl. 44:7; inv. A186). 9. Cf. the manner in which volume is sculpted (in the frontal view, since the profile of Cat. 4 still preserves, instead, the more archaic tapered rather than cylindrical shape) and the rendering of the feet, even though the skirt, with a flat, squared-off tassel on the back, is smooth and has only a single fringe at the hem. 10. Banks 1904a: 144; 1912: 152, 342; Luckenbill 1930: no. 27. 11. The signs LUGAL and DA on Cat. 7 are quite archaic in shape, similar to those found in Early Dynastic IIIa inscriptions. To explain this discrepancy between the style of the statue and the paleography of the inscription, BraunHolzinger (1977: 28) dates Lugaldalu to shortly before the Akkadian phase, since royal inscriptions of the latter period deliberately employed an archaizing paleography in order to lend political legitimacy to the Sargonic dynasty. 12. The head of a young, beardless man with locks of hair on the sides (which Braun-Holzinger [1977: 77] instead believes to belong to a female, although she dates the piece correctly to Early Dynastic IIIa) was associated with the head of Lugaldalu and comes from a room “of later construction” (Banks 1905–6b: 35). The room in question, which is said to have been located 30 m north of the statue, is probably the square room that is drawn at the top right of the map in Banks 1912: 235 (cf. also 1912: 193 [note, however, that the indication given there that the findspot of the head was “a hundred metres from the place where the statue was found” is not correct] and pp. 253–54). The Adab head may be compared, for example, with a statue from Temple Oval I–II at Tutub, dated stylistically to Early Dynastic IIIa (Frankfort 1939a: no. 32). 13. The body of the statue of Lugaldalu (= “Daudu”) was found in a trench near the western corner of the “ziggurrat,” apparently inside the foundations (Banks 1912: 188–89). However, the depth, 2.5 m, corresponds to the top of the structure in plano-convex bricks (Banks 1905–6a: 34; 1912: 236), that is, to the level of the floor of Eªiginimpaªe (Wilson 2002: figs. 1, 9). The difference in depth (2.6 m) between the central sounding and the sounding that was excavated to the southwest into the terrace is simply due to the fact that the earth covering the terrace formed a cone (Wilson 2002: 281– 83, fig. 1) that was roughly equal along the southwest and northwest sides. The elevations of the sounding and the retrieval context of the statue relate, respectively, to those two sides of the terrace.

132

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

whether the statue lay above or below this floor. The room in which the head was discovered, however, appears to be of the same or slightly later date as the floor. 14 The relative chronology of the Adab dynasty is a particularly thorny issue (cf. §1.1.4 and Tables 15a–b in §2.4). We have no fixed criteria for determining the order of the four rulers attested in Early Dynastic IIIa (cf. p. 47 n. 119 and p. 51 n. 136). Epaªe and Lugaldalu (who employes the later spelling É.SAR for the temple-name Ekiri, instead of using the reverse writing SAR.É, which is found in most of the dedications from the phase 3 favissa), although not too far apart from a paleographic point of view, differ sufficiently in iconography to allow us to place them in their proper chronological sequence. Since, for stylistic reasons, Lugaldalu cannot be far removed chronologically from Enmetênnâk, we may take him to be the predecessor of Eªiginimpaªe and roughly a contemporary of Urnansêk of Lagas. 15 Ekiri is mentioned in several dedications from the early deposit (Pl. 14; cf. §1.1.4, phase 3 favissa). The Emah of Ninhursamak, on the other hand, is never attested there, although the deposit also yielded a single dedication to Dimirmah, which is another name for the goddess Ninhursamak. 16 Dimirmah is the name used by Eªiginimpaªe in his inscriptions recalling the construction of the Emah (phase 4; Pl. 15:3–5). Therefore, it appears that Ekiri and Emah were two different names of the temple of Dimirmah/Ninhursamak at Adab (cf. Appendix A.2.1). 17 To conclude, if the reconstruction outlined above is correct, then we have here a royal statue that can be dated to Early Dynastic IIIa (Epaªe) on stylistic and paleographic grounds and another (that of Lugaldalu) dating from the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb. These two statues from Adab, close to each other in time but differing in their iconography, bear witness to the gradual making of a stylistic phase that was previously attributed to the time of Enmetênnâk of Lagas, roughly three(?) generations after Lugaldalu. A fragment of the right shoulder of a granodiorite royal statue (Cat. 5) that was found at Firsu bears a short dedication to Sara, the chief god of Umma, by a king of that city named Eªabzûk. For a second fragment in the same material (Pl. 29:3–4 right), attributed to the same sculpture by the first editors, it is now doubtful that it really belongs to the statue of Eªabzûk (cf. §4.3 sub Cat. 5). 18 It is hard to imagine why a statue of a king of Umma should have been kept at Firsu (cf. the case of Cat. 11a, below, and p. 184 n. 120) and we know nothing, moreover, about the context from which it was retrieved. The dedication to Sara, however, leaves us in no doubt that the statue was originally placed in a sanctuary dedicated to this god in the Umma 14. Despite these stratigraphic data, the statue of Lugaldalu is almost certainly earlier than Eªiginimpaªe (cf. Table 15b with n. 266 and §4.3 sub Cat. 7). This means that this statue continued to be kept in the phase 4 sanctuary of Eªiginimpaªe (cf. Table 7). In this connection, note that offerings to a statue of Enmetênnâk of Lagas were still being made in late Akkadian or Gudeªa’s times (cf. p. 231 n. 8). 15. As already suggested by Banks (1912: 202). Al-Mutawalli and Miglus (2002: 8) also place Lugaldalu before Eªiginimpaªe, but only because they mistakenly date the latter to the phase immediately preceding the Akkadian period. For the inscriptions of Eªiginimpaªe, cf. p. 49 nn. 125 and 126, pp. 223–224, and Pl. 15:3–5. 16. Banks 1912: 265 sixth from the top; Luckenbill 1930: no. 14; Steible 1982b: 196 AnAdab 8. 17. As already noted by Yang 1989: 99. 18. De Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 119, pl. LVI. The two pieces have the same museum number. The measurements of the second piece with a slightly curving surface (here called AO 22937b) are H. 10 cm, W. 4 cm, D. 3.5 cm. Regarding Cat. 5, it must be noted that the fragment AO 22937a in the Louvre is missing a piece on the left; cf. the photograph published in De Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 5:3 (= Pl. 29:1 here) with Pl. 29:2, which shows the present state of preservation.

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

133

district. 19 We have no information concerning the chronology of Eªabzûk, but the paleography and phraseology of the inscription (cf. §4.3 sub Cat. 5) seem to suggest a date in Early Dynastic IIIa, even though the material used and the rendering of the arm muscles appear more typical of the following period. A fragmentary statue from the antiquities market can be dated to Early Dynastic IIIa on the basis of its inscription. The epigraph contains a dedication by Ur-AN.SI, “viceroy of Feskullabak,” a city in northern Babylonia (Cat. 6; cf. §4.3). 20 The dacite statue shows traces of a girdle at the waist and could have been of a seated figure, judging from the slight forward inclination of the front break. The rendering of the muscles is similar to that of Cat. 5, whereas the lines representing the collar bones, although already present in Cat. 4, are mainly typical of the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb. 21 The only sculptures of Early Dynastic rulers of Lagas known to us are two diorite/gabbro pieces from two statues, one of Eªannâbtum and one of Enmetênnâk. 22 Of particular importance in terms of its retrieval context is a small fragment of a left shoulder from Lagas (Cat. 8). 23 Although from a later level, it was found near the Bagara temple of Ninmirsûk. Since this is a left shoulder, we can deduce that the torso was naked, as in Cat. 9, and that the inscription on the back must have been of a certain length, also as in Cat. 9. The attribution of this piece to Eªannâbtum is based on the epithet “subjugator of the foreign lands on behalf of Ninmirsûk” (cf. §4.3). The inscriptions and royal titles on Cat. 8 (known in more complete versions from duplicate texts) are quite elaborate and are typical of the Lagas I dynasty. 24 A headless diorite/gabbro statue of Enmetênnâk (Cat. 9), with an inscription on the right shoulder and the back, was found at Ur on the floor of the central room of a gateway in the NeoBabylonian temenos of the god Sîn, reconstructed by Nabûnaªid, and it may have been he who brought the statue to Ur from Lagas. 25 This sculpture has fairly flat feet that barely protrude from 19. The provenance from Umm al-ºAqareb (Steible 1982b: 269 Eªabzu 1; Cooper 1986a: 92 n. 1; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 252 sub St 69; Frayne 2008: 365 E1.12.3.1) is based on a misunderstanding of De Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 74, 108–9, where it is in fact the head of another statue (illustrated 1884–1912: pl. 6:3) that is reported to come from that site (cf. also Parrot 1948: 80, fig. 19:g). Heuzey (in De Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 119, 225 n. 1), moreover, states quite explicitly that the statue of Eªabzûk is from Firsu, although he does not give any precise information regarding the retrieval context. 20. The statue was already housed in the Yale Babylonian Collection in the 1930s (U. Kasten, p.c.). 21. Cf., for example, Frankfort 1939a: no. 48 + 1943: no. 253 (from Tutub ‡amus X) and Parrot 1967: pl. XXV (from Mari INANA.ZA.ZA). 22. Note that Braun-Holzinger 1977: 75 (sub Nies) (= Steible 1982a: 193 En. I 23) is not a fragment from a statue but from a stele (NBC 2520, which I examined directly). A statue that is attributed to Eªannâbtum (Amiet 1987: 30–33, no. 25) must, instead, be a fake, at least as far as the inscription is concerned (cf. below, p. 155 n. 3). 23. For the stratigraphy of area B, cf. Hansen 2001: 216. I owe the information that the material is diorite to the courtesy of the late D. P. Hansen (p.c.). To judge from the curving of the cases in the published photograph, the fragment must have been part of the left shoulder. We are, therefore, dealing with the final part of the inscription, since these normally began on the righthand side of the statue. The integration proposed in §4.3 foresees six lines preceding the first of the preserved section (which is, therefore, the seventh line). Since the lines average 1.5—2 cm in width, we may deduce that the inscription was roughly 20 cm wide. If we take into consideration the shoulders and the usual proportions of late Early Dynastic statuary, then the statue must originally have been a little under 50 cm high. 24. For a diorite fragment previously considered to belong to a royal statue (Pl. 44:8–9; Marchesi 2006: 243–45, Cat. 9), but in fact belonging to a statue of son of Enªannâbtum I, cf. now below, p. 147 n. 87 and §4.2. 25. On the context, cf. Woolley 1962: 11–12. For the plan of the underlying Nabûkudurriußur phase, which is similar, cf. 1962: 10–11, pl. 62:a (where, however, the plan has been swapped with that at the top of pl. 63). As we read in

134

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

the base and a skirt with seven flounces of flat, pointed tufts and an elaborate tassel on the back consisting of four rows of tufts in the upper section and a lower section of wavy hair. 26 The waist of the skirt is almost up to the chest, whose nipples are indicated—a typical trait of developed Early Dynastic III (cf. the sculpture of Mari, §1.1.7). The conical shape of the body and the skirt sticking out sharply in front, as in other roughly contemporary examples, are also characteristic. 27 The inscription on the shoulder records the donation of land to the temple, and the longer inscription on the back recalls the construction of various sacred buildings by the ruler of Lagas and the making of the statue itself, whose name is also mentioned: “Enmetênnâk is the beloved of Ellil.” 28 Finally, I discuss here three inscribed statues of central-northern Mesopotamian rulers, dating from Early Dynastic IIIb. One is a fragment of the right side of the torso of a limestone statue bearing a dedication to Inªanak by Óinnaªil, king of Kis (Cat. 10). 29 It comes from the late levels of the temple of Inªanak at Nippur, but, if it has been correctly dated here, probably originally stood in the level VIIA temple. The dedication records the acquisition of land by that Óinnaªil. The neck of the statue has a mortise for the head (now missing), which was carved separately. 30 This piece can be dated to Early Dynastic IIIb, although only on epigraphic and paleographic grounds (cf. §4.3). The lower part of a life-size statue from Mari (Cat. 11a), which was dedicated by a certain ‡umbaºli (= “Tagge”) to a male deity, carries an inscription that it has been hitherto difficult to

the inscription, the statue was originally placed in the temple of Ellil, the Eªadâk, built by Enmetênnâk probably at Nimen (cf. §4.3). Therefore, it reached Ur later either as booty or, more probably, because of Nabûnaªid’s interest in antiquities. The latter hypothesis is supported not only by this king’s reputation as a “collector” (cf. also comments above, sub Cat. 3), but also by the fact that the neck had already been broken in ancient times, as is indicated by the smooth edges of the break (cf. Woolley 1956: 47–48). On Nabûnaªid’s antiquarian activities at Ur, cf. Schaudig 2003: 478–88. Whether Lagas, which did in fact win some battles against Ur (cf., for example, Steible 1982a: 115–16, 144, 148, Urn. 51 v. i 1–iii 9, Ean. 1 v. ix 1u–2u, Ean. 2 iv 8–9; cf. also Frayne 2008: 89–93, 126–40, 145–49, E1.9.1.6b, E1.9.3.1, E1.9.3.5, respectively), ever exercised effective control over Ur during the Early Dynastic period is rather doubtful, although Woolley (1956: 46–48), to support this hypothesis, cites inscriptions by rulers of Lagas found at Ur. These materials, however, had in fact originally been dedicated in temples of the state of Lagas, as is shown by their internal analysis, as is the case here with Cat. 9. 26. The divided tassel on the back is characteristic from Early Dynastic II onward. In that period, however, since the skirt is smooth (except in the lower part), the tassel is also smooth in the upper part and fringed below. In the case of the tufted skirts from Early Dynastic III, the tassel is similar to that on the statue of Enmetênnâk (also cf. the statue of Meªanêsi, another son of Enªannâbtum I, Braun-Holzinger 1977: pls. 23:b, 27:e, in addition to the numerous examples from Mari, on which cf. Parrot 1967: passim). 27. Cf. Banks 1912: 443 (from Adab) and Stephens 1937: pl. XXXVI:3. Cf. also Frankfort 1943: no. 217, pls. 9– 10 (from Tutub Small Shrine VI–VII; for its date, cf. p. 30 n. 60). 28. On name giving to statues and other votive objects, cf. p. 162. On the dedication of statues in the Early Dynastic period, cf. also §3.3. 29. The Semitic name of the individual suggests that he was a true sovereign of the city of Kis rather than a ruler of another city bearing the title “king of Kis” as a sort of “honorific” title. The inscription is classified in §3.4.1 as being of type D2a, even though it actually extends symmetrically from the right part of the chest to the corresponding one on the back (cf. p. 150 n. 99). 30. That the mortise served for the lost head (as already noted by Gelb et al. 1991: 91) is proved by comparisons with other, very close examples (cf. Frankfort 1939a: 38–39, no. 39, pl. 95: A from Tutub ‡amus IX; Frankfort 1943: 28–29, no. 248, pl. 25:F from Tutub Oval II). On the right arm of Cat. 10, there is a further indentation whose function is not clear (cf. Gelb et al. 1991: pl. 50 top). We cannot, however, exclude the possibility that repairs were already carried out in ancient times.

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

135

interpret (cf. §4.3) but which should probably be considered “royal.” 31 This statue was made in two parts joined at the waist. The upper part, which is lost, must have ended in a rectangular tenon, as indicated by the mortise in the lower part. 32 The smooth skirt has a low waist and carries a fringe of pointed tufts along the front, lower edge, and the left side (those on the right are merely hinted at but not completed), whereas the back is entirely smooth. 33 The statue has a flattened profile, indicating that the sculptor took a two-dimensional approach, although this probably reflects the unusual size of the work rather than being a typical feature of a supposedly archaic Early Dynastic style. Here I propose assigning to Cat. 11a two fragments of a head (Cat. 11b). 34 These fragments show hair parted in the middle and a naturalistic ear, alongside which traces of the beard can be seen. 35 During Early Dynastic IIIb, the combined presence of the beard, hair, and ears is found exclusively in a royal statue (Cat. 12) and in some statues of highranking officials. 36 The seemingly archaic nature of the statue of ‡umbaºli has led to its generally being attributed to Early Dynastic II or IIIa. The piece comes from a context that was destroyed during the Protoimperial period (cf. §1.1.7 and below), although it is not dedicated to the titular goddess of the temple (INANA.ZA.ZA) but to a male deity (“for my lord”), which leads me to believe that 31. As Dossin (1967: 308) already maintained, on the basis, however, of a different (and wrong) interpretation of the inscription (which was also followed by Spycket 1981: 71). 32. Taking into account the average proportions between the various parts of the bodies of other statues, we can calculate the original height of Cat. 11a as being approximately 160 cm, excluding the base (cf. also Margueron 2004: 280). 33. Moreover, the left foot extends slightly farther than the right one, as is usual at Mari (cf. Parrot 1967: pls. LVIII– LIX). 34. The proportions of the gypsum head are consistent with those that can be calculated for Cat. 11a (Parrot [1953a: 212] presumably alludes to Cat. 11b, whereas he speaks of “fragments de perruque” that may belong to Cat. 11a). Cf. also Moortgat 1968: 229 on the hairstyle of Cat. 11b. A gypsum bust, which Parrot (1967: 51, fig. 56) suggested attributing to Cat. 11a, appears, instead, too small to belong to the latter. For other fragments of life-size statues from the temple of INANA.ZA.ZA, cf. Parrot 1967: 76, no. 44, figs. 105–6 (an alabaster shaven head with beard, from courtyard 12; this is the only piece that we know for certain to have been found below the second floor, to which, however, the other statues are related; cf. Parrot 1967: 25; Strommenger [1960: 36 n. 284] seems to refer to the presence of a sign TAG inscribed on this piece, but Parrot [1967] does not mention it in his publication and it seems unlikely that there was an inscription on the head). Cf. also Parrot 1967: 128, nos. 149–50, fig. 175:10144, 10134 (two fragments from a skirt with a row of tufts from cella 13), p. 138, no. 5, fig. 186 (an elbow from cella 13), p. 144, no. 35, fig. 195 (shoulder from cella 13), p. 167, no. 59, fig. 215:10055 (foot from cella 13), p. 171, no. 73, fig. 219:10056 (lower part of a leg from cella 13). For two additional fragments of two larger than life-size statues from the area of the palatine sanctuary and the temple of INANA.NITA, respectively, cf. Parrot 1965: 213 n. 8 and 1956: 132, fig. 76:166. 35. Parrot (1967: 83), however, interpreted the beard as a lock of hair falling forward and compared this with pieces from the Diyala region (cf., for example, Frankfort 1939a: 58–59, no. 18, pls. 29, 30:C–D, 31—a large statue from Tutub ‡amus IX:5 from initial Early Dynastic IIIb, although stylistically earlier). Also cf. Braun-Holzinger 2007: 59 n. 134, 75; 2008: 158–59. In addition to rejecting the attribution of Cat. 11b to Cat. 11a and the fact that Cat. 11a bears a royal inscription, Braun-Holzinger denies that the side piece of Cat. 11b shows traces of hair. However, the presence of hair can be inferred from the beard and from the top fragment. 36. In addition to Cat. 12 and Cat. 16, cf. Braun-Holzinger 1977: pls. 29:c–d (statue of a high-ranking official under Meskigalla of Adab), 30:c–d, 31:c. The last three pieces, in particular, have a naked torso and probably represent Lugalkisalêsi of Uruk himself (cf. Steible 1982b: 309–10 Lukis. 5 and Frayne 2008: 424–25 E1.14.15.4 for the dedication to the goddess Namma on the third example, which excludes the possibility that the sculted peg figure represents a god). For Early Dynastic IIIb statues without beards but with hair, visible ears, and naked torso, cf. Braun-Holzinger 1977: pls. 30:a, 31:a–b from Mari. In several inlays from Mari and Nutur, dating from late Early Dynastic IIIb, there are males wearing smooth skirts with fringed hems (Dolce 1978b: pls. XXIX, XXXIII:M438, M452, XXXV:M54, M416, XXXIX: M303–305, M480, XLIII: Ob1, XLIV:Ob33–35).

136

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

this was a secondary context. The inscription shows no resemblance to stone epigraphs from the Fara period (especially as regards the order in which the signs are read), although it seems paleographically earlier than the other inscriptions from the same archaeological context (cf., however, the discussion in §4.3). It is, however, unlikely that a royal inscription was added at a later date to a statue that was already presumably royal, given its size. 37 If we accept that the two head fragments (Cat. 11b) belong to the sculpture, then we stand a greater chance of solving this problem. It is possible that the statue was actually made for the king of another city and was later carried away by a ruler of Mari during a military campaign and set up in the INANA.ZA.ZA temple (cf. below, p. 183: note to Cat. 11a). Since royal statues of colossal dimensions (Cat. 15) or with the hair gathered in a chignon (Cat. 16) are attested in the Protoimperial period, we could tentatively date the work in question to this period. The Semitic inscription—according to the interpretation provided in §4.3—contains a series of royal epithets. In the first section, the emphasis is on the personal qualities and pietas of the offerer, who does not seem to bear a specifically royal title. In the next section, he appears to mention also his sons, following a pattern also found in other known dedications. A statue of a king of Mari, Yisqimari (Cat. 12), dedicated to INANA.NITA, was found in the upper level (a) of the temple of this deity. 38 It is the earliest certain example of a royal statue in which the garment is draped over the left shoulder and the hair, carved in a checkered chignon, is bound by a thin ribbon around the head (cf. also §5.2). The left hand gripping the right wrist is less common than the traditional pose of hands clasped at the chest but not unknown in Early Dynastic IIIb. 39 The king’s costume is similar, though not identical, to that of Eªannâbtum on the Stele of the Vultures from Firsu (which is, however, more elaborate) and that of ‡arrumken on the stele Sb 1 from Susa (Pls. 52:3, 56:1); 40 the chignon parted in the middle by a ribbon that binds the elaborate coiffure appears to be typical of Early Dynastic IIIb (cf. §5.2). 41 In the Akkadian chignon, however, the hair sticks out below the ribbon and ends in a bun enclosed by a band, as in the stele of ‡arrumken Sb 1, in a copper head—probably of Manªi¶tu¶u—from Nineveh and 37. As maintained by Boese (1996: 33), who, on the other hand, dates Cat. 11a correctly. His discussion of the very rare secondary inscriptions and/or usurpation of statues during the Early Dynastic period (1996: 29–31) does not convince. 38. The statue was found in courtyard 20, near cella 18 (cf. Parrot 1956: 29–41, fig. 23, pls. VII–VIII for level a). Level a is the only level, in the excavated temple sequence (levels c–a, cf. §1.1.7) for which a clear destruction has been documented (Parrot 1956: 40). From the sanctuary area of Palace P1 comes an alabaster headless statuette with naked torso that, according to Parrot (1965: 214 n. 2, pl. XIII:1; cf. also Braun-Holzinger 1977: 72; the inscribed back is now illustrated in Margueron 2004: fig. 260) represents Yisqimari himself before he ascended to the throne, since the inscribed name was at that time read “Lamgi.” This hypothesis is groundless, as shown by the new reading of the name on the back as Yisqibaºli (cf. below, p. 185: note to Cat. 12). 39. For a similar position of the hands in Early Dynastic IIIb art, cf. Parrot 1954: pl. XVIII:2 center top (inlay from the so-called temple of Samas at Mari; cf. also §1.1.7); Hall and Woolley 1927: 99, pl. XXXVII:T.O.315 (inlay from the temple of Ninhursamak at Nutur, possibly to be joined to the foot T.O.314; these two are, in fact, larger than the other inlays found at the site). 40. Hansen 1975b: pls. 89: a, 91; Amiet 1976: fig. 1, pl. 1:a, c; Börker-Klähn 1982a: pls. 17:d, 18:d. The skirt jutting out on the back seen in Cat. 12 is found in several statues from the second half of Early Dynastic IIIb (cf. Strommenger 1960: pl. 6:2; Parrot 1967: pls. XXIII, XXV). 41. Cf. the famous golden cap of prince Mesªumêdug, from tomb PG755 at Ur (Pl. 54:2–3; Woolley 1934: pl. 150, frontispiece; on the tomb, cf. 1934: 155–60, fig. 35; for the identification of this individual, cf. above, p. 64 n. 169). Cf. also the comments by Amiet 1976: 15–16, fig. 11.

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

137

in the stele of Naramsuyin from Pir Hüseyn. 42 The parallels quoted above suggest that the statue of Yisqimari should be assigned to the final phase of Early Dynastic IIIb. Moreover, in his titulary, Yisqimari associates the title of king of Mari with that of “chief steward of Yillilu” (that is, of Dagan, at Mari). The latter title, which is almost certainly also found in the legend of one of his two seals (Pl. 56:4; cf. n. 45 below), was also used by his contemporaries Lugalzagêsi and ‡arrumken, as well as by Yikun¶ama¶, king of Mari. The question of Yisqimari’s chronology is, however, complicated by the issue of the date of Mari’s destruction (Ville II), which Margueron attributes to Naramsuyin, king of Akkad. 43 Naramsuyin, however, claims in his inscriptions to have conquered Ebla and Armanum, not Mari. 44 Some recent discoveries and studies have contributed to clarification of the historical context. Numerous sealings of Yisqimari were found in the wing lying to the west of the monumental entrance, on a floor immediately preceding the destruction level of Palace P1, while only one sealing of this same ruler comes from the destruction layer (Pl. 56:3–4). 45 The king, shown with a robe draped over his shoulder and a chignon, is represented with a mace in his hand, seated on a wooden stool. Behind this stands a servant protecting him with a parasol, while, in the lower register, soldiers of Mari are shown slaughtering their enemies (whose bodies are being pecked at by two vultures). The similarities to the stele Sb1 of ‡arrumken (Pl. 56:1; cf. n. 40 42. P. Amiet in Orthmann 1975: pls. 48, 105; Börker-Klähn 1982a: pl. 25; Braun-Holzinger 1984: 16–17, no. 49, pl. 9:49; D. P. Hansen in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 203–4, no. 130. Cf. also the chignons on other Akkadian reliefs (Amiet 1976: pls. 20–22). In the stele from Pir Hüseyn, the flounced robe covering the left shoulder of Naramsuyin is, furthermore, of a different kind from that of Yisqimari (cf. also the robe worn by the daughter of ‡arrumken, Enheduªanak, in her so-called disk from Ur [Woolley 1956: pl. 41:d; Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 200–201, no. 128]; note that the Akkadian princess lived until well into the reign of Naramsuyin, one of whose daughters actually succeeded Enheduªanak). On the possible attribution of the Nineveh head to Manªi¶tu¶u, cf. Matthiae 1994: 64, fig. II:9. In Akkadian glyptics, the chignon with central part is most common in the “Akkadisch I” phase as defined by Boehmer (1965: passim), while that with the lower bun prevails during “Akkadisch III.” 43. Cf., for instance, Margueron 1997: 728; and, most recently, Margueron 2007d: 290–91, 295–96. The retrieval of a group of alleged Akkadian vases from the pillared room in P0 (Lebeau 1985b) and the fact that this room had been rebuilt immediately after the destruction of P1 are not strong enough arguments. Even if we leave aside the question of the usefulness of pottery in determining historical dates, it is reasonable to assume that P0 must have continued to be used for a certain number of years and that the pottery found there must relate to the final phase of the building’s functional life (cf. also D. Matthews 1997a: 46–47). Note that Parrot (1953a: 219–20; 1955b: 200–201; 1962: 170–71) attributed the destruction of Mari to Lugalzagêsi or ‡arrumken, while Charpin (1987: 94–96), dates the Pre-Sargonic texts of Mari to roughly the time of ‡arrumken, whom he identifies as the possible conqueror of the city. 44. In fact, Naramsuyin probably only conquered Armanum (Gelb and Kienast 1990: 97, 110–11 Naramsîn B7 and pp. 253–64 Naramsîn C5; Frayne 1993: 132–36 E2.1.4.26–27), whose king Rishadda is, in fact, the only ruler recorded in the inscriptions of the Akkadian king that deal with his Syrian campaign against Armanum and Ebla. Rishadda must have dominated the region that was once controlled by Ebla, following the earlier destruction of this city. Cf. now the thorough study by Otto 2006 (also for a possible identification of Armanum with Tell Banat and the citadel of Tell Bazi). 45. Beyer 2007: 249–53, nos. 16–17, figs. 16–18, 20 (cf. also D. Beyer in Margueron 2004: 311, fig. 300; Beyer 2004: 41–42, fig. 5:a–b). “Couche A” represents the destruction level, while “sol A” is a floor earlier than the destruction level. A total of 57 sealings of Yisqimari were found on “sol A” (Beyer 2007: no. 17 TH00.151.1–15 and no. 16 TH00.162.1–42) and only one in “couche A” (no. 16 TH00.152). Beyer agrees, however, in attributing the destruction of Mari to Naramsuyin (cf. n. 43 above) and, accordingly, he considers the seals of Yisqimari to be later than ‡arrumken’s monuments. The seal impressions of Yisqimari show a series of iconographical elements that, taken one by one, were already known but, grouped together, have a strikingly new impact. Moreover, note the presence of divine symbols and of the naked hero, master of animals (on whose meaning, cf. §5.2). For dating Yisqimari to the period of ‡arrumken, cf. now also Braun-Holzinger 2007: 51 n. 94, 59 nn. 132–33.

138

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

above) are such that there cannot be a significant chronological gap between the two kings. This is even more important if we consider that, in one of his celebratory inscriptions, ‡arrumken of Akkad claims to have received, in order, the cities of Mari, Yarmuti, and Ebla from the god Dagan of Tuttul. 46 Furthermore, a year-name that can almost certainly be attributed to this sovereign reads “year in which Mari was smitten.” 47 In a recent study based on the epigraphic documentation of Ebla, Archi and Biga help clarify the historical situation in Syria and northern Mesopotamia during the late Early Dynastic period, taking as a starting point their reconstruction of the internal chronology of the archives. 48 The two scholars not only try to reconstruct the relations that existed between Ebla and Mari (together with the relative chronology of their respective rulers) but also show that the last king of Mari who is mentioned in the Ebla archives is ˇabdayar (= “Hidaªar”). According to Archi and Biga, it was ˇabdayar who destroyed Ebla. 49 Their reconstruction of the series of alliances and battles between the various city-states of Syria and Mesopotamia in this period is extremely interesting. Ebla was probably allied with Kis against Mari, but Kis fell into the hands of Ensagkusuªanak of Uruk, who thus sealed the decline of this great central Mesopotamian city. 50 This enabled Mari to prevail in time over Ebla before, in turn, falling under the domination of ‡arrumken, king of Akkad. Archi and Biga’s historical sketch, however, can be fleshed out with further details. The socalled Pre-Sargonic texts of Mari consist of groups of homogenous tablets found in different parts of the site but all showing signs of the same destruction. Two groups of texts from Palace P1 and from the area of the temple of “Dagan” (cf. §1.1.7), which, according to Charpin, were part of the same archive, since they have identical dating formulas that go up to year 8 of an unspecified king, 51 must relate to the last king attested in Palace P1. Charpin suggested that this king was Yisqimari, since he is not attested at Ebla. However, another ruler, by the name of Yiskurdayar 46. Gelb and Kienast 1990: 163–67 Sargon C2 (= Frayne 1993: 27–31 E2.1.1.11–12). Cf. also Gelb and Kienast 1990: 157–61, 170–74, Sargon C1, C4 (= Frayne 1993: 9–15 E2.1.1.1–2), for the mention of Mari as a subjugated city. If the hypothesis that Ebla was destroyed by Mari is correct, then the mention of the former by ‡arrumken could refer to that city’s territory (cf. also n. 43 above). 47. Gelb and Kienast 1990: 50 sub D-5 (cf. Frayne 1993: 8). However, this year-name does not necessarily imply a thorough destruction of the city. 48. Archi and Biga 2003; Biga 2003 (cf., especially, the table on p. 364). The year-counting at Ebla is based on the as yet unproved assumption that the large accounts for metal are yearly operations. 49. This ruler is only mentioned in the last three or four years of the archives (cf. Archi and Biga 2003: 5–8, table 1), and initially in relation to a defeat he suffered at the hands of Ebla. 50. Cf. Sallaberger 2004: 18–23 and table 2. Sallaberger also suggested that the conquest of Adab that is alluded to in an Eblaite text dating allegedly from year 23 of Yisªardamu should be attributed to Lugalzagêsi of Uruk, at some point before the latter’s seventh year of rule. However, this hypothesis is unlikely (cf. above, p. 128 n. 295). For a detailed reconstruction of the diplomatic events that took place in the last years before the destruction of Ebla, among which the marriage of a daughter of Yisªardamu to a son of the king of Kis, cf. now Biga 2008. 51. Cf. Charpin 1987: 93 and, especially, pp. 70–76 nos. 5–12, for texts from the area of the temple of “Dagan” (cf. above, p. 73 n. 231), and pp. 76–80 nos. 13–20, for the texts from P1 (it is not possible to assign them to “sol A” or “couche A;” cf. n. 45 above). Some other tablets, still unpublished, were discovered some years ago in room 14 of P1 and they bear dating formulas belonging to the two sets of dates known thus far, one up to year 8 and the other up to year 40 (P. Butterlin and A. Cavigneaux, p.c.). There are some ongoing difficulties, however, in the interpretation of the stratigraphy of the latest floor levels of Palace P1: varying absolute elevations for the destruction level within the same room or in the neighboring rooms may be explained as due to sloping floors (P. Butterlin, p.c.), but in a few cases the absolute elevation of the lower floor cannot be reconciled with the elevation of the upper floor. New investigations within this palace area will hopefully help to clarify these problems.

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

139

(Pl. 62:4), seems to have ruled over Mari after Yisqimari and immediately before the destruction of the Palace. 52 Since the last Pre-Sargonic king of Mari does not seem to have ruled more than eight years, another group of texts from level 4 of area B, with dates up to year 35 of an unnamed ruler, 53 must be attributed not to him but, presumably, to some predecessor. 54 The attestation of a third sovereign (Yikun[. . .]) in the destruction level of Palace P1 at Mari further complicates the matter. 55 We do not know when, exactly, during the long reign of Yisªardamu at Ebla (allegedly 36 years), ˇabdayar ascended to the throne of Mari. We only know that this must have happened at some time before the alleged year 32 of Yisªardamu. The synchronisms documented in the Ebla archives between kings of Ebla and kings of Mari are those of Igrishalab with Yiplusªil, of Igrishalab or Yirkabdamu with NI-zi, of Yirkabdamu with Óinnadagan, and of Yisªardamu with ˇabdayar. ˇabdayar was probably followed on the throne of Mari by Yisqimari, who, on stratigraphic grounds, seems to be earlier than the other two kings known from the destruction level P1 at Mari. The texts from the palace extending in date to year 8 should refer to one of these—either Yikun[. . .] or Yiskurdayar—rather than to Yisqimari. The overall number of regnal years of the last three rulers of Mari was presumably not very high. In the light of the consistent archaeological and art-historical evidence from Ebla and 52. Yiskurdayar is known from two sealings (cf. Beyer 2007: 248–49 nos. 14–15, figs. 14–15). The first comes from “couche A” (that is, from the destruction level), while the second was found in Parrot’s excavations. Since almost all of the Yisqimari sealings come from the earlier “sol A,” Yiskurdayar must be later than Yisqimari. The two seals of Yiskurdayar, with the frontal hero with side locks, master of animals, stylistically belong to developed Early Dynastic III. It is these two seal impressions that were mistakenly taken by Archi and Biga 2003: 30–31 as belonging to ˇabdayar (so also Charpin 2005, who follows Archi and Biga). 53. Charpin 1987: 80–89 nos. 21–37 (cf. also 1990: nos. 38–42). For even higher dating formulas, cf. n. 51 above. According to Charpin, these tablets were in two baskets (with texts dating respectively to years 20–26 and 33–35) that were being removed when the destruction occurred. On the archaeological context, cf. Margueron 1983: 14–15, figs. 4– 5, pls. III–IV; Lebeau 1985a: 94. In preliminary reports, level 4 is presented as the first phase of a building that would have been rebuilt in level 3. The pottery, however, shows a few differences (cf. Lebeau 1985a: pls. VII–X from level 4 and pls. III–VI from 3). Level 4 is, moreover, the only one showing signs of fire, like all of the other Early Dynastic remains of “Ville II” (cf. §1.1.7). Level 3, therefore, seems to date after the destruction of Early Dynastic Mari and may be from roughly the same time as Palace P0. Cf. also Margueron 2004: 167–72, figs. 141–48, on the architecture of the building where the tablets were found. 54. Charpin 2005—within an historical scenario that, in any case, seems much too compressed as far as the relations between Mari and Ebla are concerned—proposes that this king was ˇabdayar. However, his suggestion does not convince (cf. above, p. 127 n. 290). 55. The seal impression of this additional king is found on one of a group of three bullae that were impressed with the seal of a “general” (sakkanakkum) whose name has been read either “Yiddinºastar” or “Itida” (cf. Beyer 2007: 253–56, figs. 19, 21–23 [from “couche A;” the seal of Yikun[. . . ]—fig. 21—is dealt with on p. 255]; Durand 2008a). The identification of this king with an EN of Mari by the name of Yikunyi¶ar, who is only attested in two texts dating from the first year of Yisªardamu of Ebla (cf. Archi and Biga 2003: 5, 30; Beyer 2007: 255), is quite unlikely (note that Yikunyi¶ar was probably not a king of Mari; cf. above, p. 124 n. 236). One could rather think of restoring Yikun[. . . ] as Yikun¶ama¶—this being the name of a king of Mari who is mentioned in the inscription of a statue from Sippar (Pl. 43:7–8; cf. p. 85 n. 293 and p. 155 n. 1). The title “chief steward of Yillilu” that is attributed to Yikun¶ama¶ (cf. Steinkeller 1984a: 33–35) was also borne by Yisqimari at Mari. This fact could suggest that these two rulers were not too distant chronologically. The style of the statue that mentions Yikun¶ama¶ does not oppose this interpretation. The lower tufts of the smooth skirt have a shape that recalls Early Dynastic IIIa specimens, but it is also found both at the beginning and at the end of Early Dynastic IIIb (for the earlier contexts, cf. Frankfort 1939a: nos. 17 [= Cat. 14], 18, 37 [from ‡amus IX:5] and no. 231 [from Small Shrine VI at Tutub]; for comparable pieces from later contexts, cf. Parrot 1967: 63, 87, 114–15, figs. 161–62, pls. XXXIII, XLIV [from Mari INANA.ZA.ZA]; Frankfort 1939a: nos. 29, 69–70; and 32, 102 [from Esnunak “Abu” Single Shrine I, Tutub Small Shrine VII, Oval I–II and II–III, respectively]).

140

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Mari, it appears unlikely that Mari was destroyed long after the fire of Royal Palace G at Ebla. This historical period was quite turbulent: numerous military reversals occurred in the space of only few years before ‡arrumken’s rise to hegemony. After destroying Ebla (with ˇabdayar?), Mari may have been destroyed in its turn by ‡arrumken after some 15 or 20 years (cf. Table 16 and §3.3 on the Protoimperial period). 56

Table 16. Hypothetical relative chronology of some rulers of the Protoimperial period (i.e., between late Early Dynastic IIIb and early Akkadian) Epigraphically attested regnal years are given in brackets together with the length attributed by the Sumerian King List in its various recensions. Ebla

Mari

Yisªardamu (36?) ˇabdayar Yisqimari Yikun[¶ama¶?] •

Umma

Uªu Lugalzagêsi (8+x)

Uruk

Ensagkusuªanak (2+x; SKL 60)

Lugalzagêsi (1+x; SKL 25)

Akkad

?

‡arrumken (4+x; USKL 40, SKL 56)

Yiskurdayar ¶

3.2. Uninscribed Statues Presumably Commissioned by Rulers It is necessary to begin this section with some remarks on a famous pair of statues, namely, the statues of the so-called god “Abu” (Cat. 13) and his presumed consort (which has the statue of a presumed child inserted in its base) from the Square Temple of “Abu” at Esnunak. 57 Frankfort immediately identified both sculptures as divine figures (they are identical in style and must hence of necessity be interpreted in the same manner), but his hypothesis has mostly not been accepted. Jacobsen effectively summed up various scholarly opinions in an article where, however, he reasserts Frankfort’s hypothesis, 58 mainly on the basis of the statues’ “abnormally” large eyes and the depiction of an eagle between two caprids crouching in front of some shoots on the base of the male statue. 59 Although the eyes have recently been interpreted, once again, as 56. We do not know where the beginning of the reign of ‡arrumken (for whom the earliest version of the Sumerian King List records 40 rather than 56 years; cf. Steinkeller 2003b: 278) stands in relation to contemporary rulers. In Table 16, I assume that he first unified southern Mesopotamia by defeating Lugalzagêsi and only later moved against Mari. For a general overview of the chronological question, cf. Matthiae 1989a: 241–50. 57. Frankfort 1939a: no. 2. On the archaeological context and its dating to the final phase of Early Dynastic I, cf. §1.1.1. 58. Frankfort 1939a: 13–16; Jacobsen 1989: 125–30. 59. That this is an eagle (and not a lion-headed eagle, as maintained by Jacobsen 1989: 129) is shown by the lacuna (Frankfort 1943: pl. 6:A; Jacobsen 1989: pl. 21), which is not large enough for a lion’s head and is, instead, more suited to a small bird’s head with the beak turned toward the right, as in Frankfort 1955: no. 465 (a seal also from the Square Temple) or the examples collected in Amiet 1980: pl. 94 where, significantly, we have the relief on the statue of “Abu” (no. 1227). For a discussion of the meaning of the lion-headed eagle, cf. Marchetti 1996b.

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

141

merely a means of emphasizing the gaze of the worshiper, 60 the motif on the base does in fact represent the greatest challenge to any attempt to interpret this piece. According to Jacobsen, the relationship between the offerer and the image on the base must be one of either identity or superiority. In this particular case, however, the relationship between the individual represented and the eagle (which is probably not lion-headed) could be different, because the combination on seals of a banquet scene in the upper register and an eagle (only rarely lion-headed), spreading its wings between two caprids in the lower register, is a frequent one. 61 If we bear in mind that the statues in question were buried together in the same votive pit with others in a similar style, assuredly portraying human figures—as well as the fact that the cult of a divine trinity is improbable, judging from the iconographic repertoire of other forms of visual communication—then we may presume that these two works represent a human rather than a divine couple. A link with cultic activity seems provided by the cup held between the hands (a feature present in two other male statues from the same pit), which alludes to the banquet theme, and by the motif on the base of the larger statue. Although we know little or nothing of the administrative structure of Mesopotamia at the beginning of the Early Dynastic period, if we accept this interpretation— which is also supported by the other opinions listed by Jacobsen himself—then we could take this work to represent an important official of the temple and city administration, identified as such by the size and symbolism of his statue. Purely as a working hypothesis, I here consider the statue to be royal 62 and earlier than that of HAR.TU (Cat. 1), which is the oldest royal statue to have been identified on epigraphic grounds. A diorite/gabbro statue of Tutub (Cat. 14) shows a standing, bearded figure wearing what according to Frankfort is an elaborate coiffure. On the basis of this last element and of the material employed, Frankfort considered the sculpture as probably royal. Others, however, have proposed—though far less convincingly—that, rather than an elaborate coiffure, the statue is wearing a kind of beret that is flattened at the front and fuller at the back. 63 The statue has been dated to Early Dynastic II on the grounds of stylistic elements such as its sharply intersecting planes. 64 However, the context (probably level IX:5 of the temple of ‡amus/“Sin,” cf. §1.1.1 and p. 23 n. 35) together with certain characteristics that are more typical of Early Dynastic IIIb, such as 60. On the worshiper’s expression, cf. Winter 2000a: 22 n. 3, 36. One can consider an anthropological parallel (Eck 1996: 6–7): “Hindus say that the deity ‘gives dar¶an’ [= seeing]. . . , and the people ‘take dar¶an’. . . The deity presents itself to be seen in its image. . . The contact between devotee and deity is exchanged through the eyes. . . . Hindu divine images are often striking for their large and conspicuous eyes. . . . The gaze of the huge eyes of the image meets that of the worshipper, and that exchange of vision lies at the heart of Hindu worship.” 61. Cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 839 (= Legrain 1936: no. 373, from Ur SIS 5–4), 1170 (= Frankfort 1955: no. 465, a seal from room D17:8 of Square Temple I: 2). On later motifs, cf. also Amiet 1980: nos. 1172–78. The examples quoted by Jacobsen (1989: 129–30 nn. 20–21) are not relevant. The “appositive” function is, instead, to be taken into consideration in the case of the Neo-Sumerian statue of the goddess Narunte from Susa (Spycket 1981: pl. 96), where, more than the rosette between crouching lions in the foreground, it is the throne with lions on which the goddess is seated that is meaningful. When a deity is portrayed with his/her acolyte animal, the divine figure is shown seated on it in the Early Dynastic period, too (cf., for example, Amiet 1980: nos. 1358, 1363; Boese 1971: pls. XVIII:N11, XIX:KI4). 62. Moorgat (1967b: 41) had already suggested this possibility, while Braun-Holzinger (2007: 39 nn. 34 and 36; 2008: 159) rejects the tentative identifications of Cat. 13 and Cat. 14 (cf. below) as royal statues. 63. Cf. Moortgat-Correns 1972: 17 n. 32; Dolce 1986: 319–21. Statue Cat. 14 is, in fact, compared with the larger figure on the double stele from the Jebelet el-Beyda, which may not have a beret either (cf. n. 67 below). 64. Cf. Frankfort 1939a: 26 and Braun-Holzinger 1977: 42.

142

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

the material used (cf., however, Cat. 5) and the hairstyle (cf. §5.2), suggest that this statue could, instead, be assigned to a date as late as the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb. The large headless basalt statue (Cat. 15) found by Max von Oppenheim in 1913 on the surface of Ras et-Tell in the Jebelet el-Beyda 65 portrays an individual wearing a tufted garment draped over the right shoulder (the lower part, however, strangely lacks the fleece pattern) and a full beard that recalls other curly examples from Early Dynastic IIIb Mari. The mace held against the right shoulder, on the other hand, is quite exceptional for Mesopotamian statuary. 66 That we are not dealing here with the representation of a divine figure is indicated by the similarity of the garment and the attribute with those of the main figure represented on the two faces of the colossal stele, also carved from basalt, found in the vicinity. Iconographic elements such as the chignon, as well as the visual context (on the stele main the figure is positioned above two smaller ones), seem to indicate that this is a royal figure. 67 The hair or headdress, of which only two thick diverging bands falling over the collarbones remain, is also unusual. 68 The stele has 65. The excavations he conducted at the site in 1929 were not fruitful (cf. von Oppenheim 1931: 199–203, 216–20, pls. 60–61; Moortgat-Correns 1972: 54–55, pls. XXXVIII–XLIV). The pits and squared blocks brought to light have been interpreted as pertaining to an open-air platform (von Oppenheim 1931: 211). Remains of a stone paved floor have, however, been found only on the southeastern slope at the top of the site (Moortgat-Correns 1972: pl. XXXIX:b), in which the stele and the statue itself would have been inserted. However, this interpretation is not entirely convincing (cf. Frankfort 1954: 249 n. 12; Moortgat-Correns 1972: 54). The identification of a rounded stone found in the vicinity of the statue as the remains of its head seems unwarranted (so, at least in part, also Moortgat-Correns 1972: 13, no. 2), although this appears in all of the published photographs of the statue. The statue was kept in the Tell Halaf Museum in Berlin, which was destroyed in 1943. The surviving fragments of the statue and of the stele (cf. below) are now stored, without inventory numbers, in the Vorderasiatisches Museum (L. Martin, p.c.). 66. Von Oppenheim (1931: 203) believed that the left hand held also something, although this object could not be identified. This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by Moortgat-Correns 1972: pl. IX:b, where a break can be seen above the hand. Although there are no other Mesopotamian royal statues of this period bearing weapons or insignia, we can compare the two stelae of ‡arrumken, Sb 1 and Sb 2, and possibly also that of Naramsuyin from Pir Hüseyn (Börker-Klähn 1982a: pls. 18:d, 19:b, 25). On these monuments, the figures hold, respectively, a mace and two undefined insignia. However, we must bear in mind that the stelae represent another form of visual communication that did not have the same function or meaning as statuary (cf. §5.2). Similar considerations apply to an Early Syrian wooden inlay from Ebla showing a ruler with an axe (cf. §5.3), although the frontal portrayal could be more significant here. On the grounds of a misleading discussion of a stele fragment from Firsu (cf. p. 199 with n. 65), Braun-Holzinger (2007: 64 n. 154, 75; 2008: 159) does not consider Cat. 15 to be a royal statue but, rather, a divine one. 67. On the larger stele (H. 3.45 m) and a second fragment, both carved on two faces, cf. von Oppenheim 1931: 205– 10, pl. 63:a–b; Moortgat-Correns 1972: 13–18, nos. 3–4, pls. XIV–XXI:a. Frankfort (1954: 136), probably quite rightly (cf. also Moortgat-Correns 1972: 19, pl. XX), rejects von Oppenheim’s reconstruction of the figure standing on a bull in the second fragment (for a different opinion, cf. Spycket 1981: 127). Two figures with shaven head and apparently smooth garments covering the left shoulder are shown in a scale reduced by two-thirds below the main figure and undoubtedly represent the victorious army, since, moreover, one of these, on the better-preserved face, carries an axe (cf. already Frankfort 1954: 135 and Moortgat-Correns 1972: 14, 23; Moortgat [1967a: 52] and Dolce [1986: 325 n. 97], however, interpret the two figures in the lower part as defeated enemies). It is not at all certain that the larger figure on the stele is wearing a flattened beret (Moortgat-Correns 1972: 14), especially since there are no comparisons for this in royal iconography, and it may be a complex but stylized hairstyle ending in a chignon (as Dolce [1986: 316] quite rightly observes). Cf. also n. 63 above. 68. To date, no entirely convincing interpretations have been suggested. The comparison drawn by MoortgatCorrens (1972: 11–12, fig. 1) with the hairstyle of a statue from Mohenjo Daro is meaningless, in historical terms. Given the rendering of the beard, it seems more likely that the two smooth bands were part of a ribbon that held the hair, similar to those found on a number of female statues with the garment covering the left shoulder from developed Early Dynastic III: in these specimens, the band passed under the hair, thus forming an “8” (Moortgat 1967b: pls. 99–100; Spycket 1981: 114, pls. 77–78).

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

143

been dated to the initial Akkadian phase 69 or, rather, in line with the criteria adopted here, the Protoimperial period (cf. §3.3), to which statue Cat. 15 is also to be attributed. One additional late Early Dynastic statue (Cat. 16), which I also consider to be royal, comes from Susa. 70 Its hair, parted in the middle, has a plaited lock bound by a ribbon and an only partially preserved chignon. The tufted garment is draped over the left shoulder, but the most notable feature of this statue is the ram clutched to its breast in an offering-bearer pose. This iconography is attested from Early Dynastic II onward but especially spreads during the final phase of Early Dynastic IIIb and recurs frequently during the Akkadian period. 71 In line with the considerations I have brought forward so far, I attribute this sculpture to the Protoimperial period and interpret it as royal on the basis of its clothing, hairstyle, and size, as well as the pose of the offerer. 72 Actually, the hairstyle and garment are similar to those of a statue portraying an official in the service of Meskigalla of Adab (Pl. 53:6–7). 73 However, there are elements indicating that the Susa statue is royal, notably the fact that it is more accurately crafted than the Adab statue and especially given its “provincial” provenance, which could be an indication of particular importance. A second statue from Susa, of almost the same size as Cat. 16, is executed in a less courtly style, although it too sports a chignon (although wider and flatter), a garment draped over the left shoulder, and perhaps a quadruped attached to the chest, as suggested by three holes on the left arm and a few signs on the stone (Pl. 53:1–3). 74 Due to stylistic and iconographical differences in hairstyle, however, I do not believe that this sculpture can be interpreted as royal. Two heads of diorite/gabbro, from statues that were originally more than a meter tall, must have belonged to royal statues, given their size and the valuable stone they were sculpted in

69. Frankfort (1954: 135–36, fig. 59), with his usual acumen, ascribed the monuments to the Sargonic period, whereas Moortgat (1967a: 52, fig. 36) dated the main stele to his Mesilim period and Moortgat-Correns (1972: 13, 18, 24) to the beginning of Ur I. Dolce (1986), after a detailed stylistic analysis, reaffirmed their attribution to the beginning of the Akkadian period. 70. The retrieval context in de Morgan’s excavations is not known. The excavation number 6608 written in red on the back of the head suggests that the piece was found before 1906 (cf. Spycket 1992: 251). Also cf. n. 74 below. 71. For late Early Dynastic IIIb seals, cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 1187, 1218, 1319 (from Ur), 1323, 1327, 1788 (= Parrot 1967: pl. XVIII: 4440 from Mari, “Treasure of Ur”). Cf. also Pl. 61:8 here. On this motif in Akkadian glyptics, cf. Amiet 1980: no. 1326 (= Frankfort 1955: no. 504 from the North Palace at Esnunak) for a seal in a style similar to the previous specimens but from an Akkadian context, whereas, for seals in the classical Akkadian style, cf., for example, Boehmer 1965: figs. 387, 431, 452, 549, 573, 636, 650. In Early Dynastic IIIb, this motif is also attested on plaques (cf. Boese 1971: pls. XVIII:4, XXI:4, from Nippur and Ur, respectively) and inlays (Dolce 1978b: pl. XXXV:M54, M416, from Mari INANA.ZA.ZA and Ninhursamak IV, and pl. XXI:U171, on the left of the middle register in the “Standard of Ur”). On this motif in plaques from Early Dynastic II, cf. Boese 1971: pls. I:2 (Agrab “Sara” Main 2), XVI:2 (possibly Nippur Inªanak VIII); in those from Early Dynastic IIIa, cf. Boese 1971: pls. IX:1 (from Tutub ‡amus IX:5, therefore probably residual), XVII:1 (Nippur Inªanak VIIB), while for a stele from Badr/Der, cf. Safar 1971: pl. 4 (Börker-Klähn 1982a: pl. 12:b; Canby 2001: pl. 14:d). Cf. also Pls. 5:4, 59:5, 60:3, 6 here. 72. Moortgat (1967b: 54, pl. 129) dated it to the Akkadian period instead (but this attribution is less likely). 73. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 58, 73–74, pl. 29: c–d (cf. also Gelb and Kienast 1990: 200–202 Rimus C4; BraunHolzinger 2007: 59 n. 136). For Meskigalla, cf. above, p. 128 n. 295. 74. Note that statue Sb 83 (= Spycket 1981: 121 n. 420, pl. 86) bears the excavation number 6607 and could, therefore, have originally been associated with Cat. 16 (6608/Sb 84). It is possible that both came from the area of the temple of “Ninhursamak” (cf. §1.1.10) rather than the temple of Insusinak (cf. Harper et al. 1992: 123–24, fig. 41), given that the finds in the first sector are earlier, but it is not possible to check this on the basis of available documentation. BraunHolzinger (2007: 77 FD34a, pl. 35) does not consider Cat. 16 to be a royal specimen.

144

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

(Cat. 17 and Cat. 18). 75 Stylistically, they are very similar, notably in the rendering of the eyes and ears, and can be attributed to Early Dynastic IIIb. 76 The large ears, in particular, could indicate a more precise date to the Protoimperial period, as suggested by a comparison with Cat. 12, with the statue of Diªutûk and with some early Akkadian examples, although this iconographic trait is already attested in relief art at Lagas in the period between Eªannâbtum and Enmetênnâk. 77 The transition to the Akkadian period is a gradual one, and the statuary of this time—apart from the examples dated epigraphically to the reign of Manªi¶tu¶u, successor of ‡arrumken, and Naramsuyin—cannot be clearly differentiated in stylistic terms in a manner similar to that proposed by Boehmer for glyptics. This holds true especially for works produced outside of the royal workshops, since they were, to a certain extent, free from the constraints of the visual celebratory program implemented at a central level by the Akkadian rulers. 78 An important fragmentary statue from Firsu has not been classified here because it is a little too late in date for the purposes of our study. A late context, the small Parthian palace of Adadnadinahhe (on the site of the Neo-Sumerian Eninnu of Ninmirsûk on Tell A), yielded the lower part of a gabbro statue wearing a tufted garment, four flounces of which are preserved. The figure is seated on a simple parallelepiped stool (Pl. 43:1–4), 79 and the size and kind of stone used suggests that it is the statue of a ruler or prince. Purely as a working hypothesis, it could be identified as an Akkadian governor of Lagas, given the feet inserted into a niche, the carving of the tufts, and the fact that the figure is seated (Early Dynastic royal statues are, whenever the pose can be determined, standing, with the possible exception of Cat. 6). 80 75. Parrot (1957: 224) already wrote of a “grand personnage (roi, prince, ou haut fonctionnaire)” in regard to Cat. 17. Cat. 18 was catalogued in the Yale Babylonian Collection in 1934 but could have arrived there as early as 1915, like other pieces with close inventory numbers (U. Kasten, p.c.). A 15-cm-high bronze shaven head (Braun-Holzinger 1984: 16–17, no. 48, pl. 9:48) is considered to be a forgery, most recently also by Muscarella (2000: 162–63, 474 sub no. 22). 76. Cf. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 62 for the attribution of Cat. 17. Cf. also the date assigned by Braun-Holzinger (1977: 77) to a head from Larsa in a similar style (Margueron 1971: 280, pl. XVII:3–4). 77. The statue of Diªutûk (Spycket 1981: 85–86 n. 211, pl. 56), grandson of Lugalkisalêsi, king of Uruk, must date to the early Sargonic period because of the mention of a “viceroy” (NÍG.PA.TE.SI) of Uruk in its inscription (before ‡arrumken, the king of Uruk, bore the title lugal). On some early Akkadian heads, cf. Amiet 1976: figs. 8–9, 11 (= Spycket 1981: pls. 82, 106, 109). On the carving of the ears, cf. also the works from Mari from the end of Early Dynastic IIIb (Parrot 1967: passim). The apparent similarities with a statue dated to the Neo-Sumerian period (Spycket 1981: 189 n. 25, pl. 123) can be explained if we accept Johansen’s opinion (1978: 29) that the latter is a forgery (cf. also Muscarella 2000: 159 sub no. 9). On the Lagas I relief sculptures—where the ear is pointed, unlike in Cat. 17 and Cat. 18—cf. Börker-Klähn 1982a: pl. 17:b, d (Stele of the Vultures; cf. the heads of Ninmirsûk and Eªannâbtum); Boese 1971: pl. XXXI:2 (cf. the head of Enªannâbtum I); Frankfort 1935a: fig. 8 (cf. the figures on the mace-head dedicated by Paragkiba); de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 205 (cf. the head of Dudu before the break). 78. The Manªi¶tu¶u statuary already shows features of developed Akkadian art, including this serial quality (Amiet 1976: 126–27, nos. 11+16, 13; Becker 1993: 78, nos. 964–68, pls. 75–78). On the Akkadian policy for visual communication, cf. the brief comments by Amiet 1976: 5–7, 63–64. 79. Cf. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 149–50, pl. 21 ter:4; Parrot 1948: 81–82, fig. 19:h; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 80; Spycket 1981: 84 n. 203. The seated statue AO 11 (H. 31, W. 33, D. 43.5 cm), in doleritic gabbro (according to analyses conducted by the Musée du Louvre), was found in courtyard A of the palace, together with five statues of Gudeªa (cf. Kose 2000: 409–14, fig. 21 and, in particular, pp. 418–20, fig. 22 on the finds in courtyard A; for the Neo-Sumerian period in that area, cf. Kose 2000: 396–405, fig. 16). 80. Kose’s cautious proposal (Kose 2000: 419 sub d and n. 125) to attribute statue AO 11 to the period of Gudeªa has the merit of raising the problem of the dating (although, among the comparisons cited, the tufts are flatter in the statue of

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

145

3.3. The Development and Meaning of Royal Statuary Anthropomorphic Mesopotamian statuary begins to be well documented at the end of Early Dynastic I (cf. §1.2), although earlier sporadic examples are known, attesting to the existence of a sculptural tradition. 81 The spread of the custom of dedicating statues—usually displaying homogenous iconographic features, like the specimens found in the favissa in the temple of “Abu” at Esnunak—appears to be connected with the establishment of a class of officials at the head of the city administration, as documented by the archaic texts of Uruk and Ur. 82 A possibly royal statue (Cat. 13), the earliest (on stratigraphic grounds) examined here, is much taller than the other sculptures with which it was found and is the only one bearing a symbolic scene carved on its base. This scene alludes to the natural forces through which divine power is manifested and could be ultimately connected to the priestly sphere. Other iconographic details, such as the large eyes and the hair falling down the back, appear less significant. Two inscribed royal statues (Cat. 1–2) date from Early Dynastic II, while a third (Cat. 3) already shows characteristics transitional to Early Dynastic IIIa (cf. also §1.2 for a discussion of the stylistic classification of statues). Statue Cat. 1 is the only one among this early group found in a stratified context, at Tell Agrab in the Diyala region. We do not know exactly where the other two come from. One is said to have been found in the area of Babylon (Cat. 3, whose inscription may not include a place-name), while the inscription on the other mentions a city that cannot be identified (cf. §4.3 sub Cat. 2). The inscriptions on Cat. 2 and 3 are quite simple. The text inscribed on Cat. 1 is more elaborate. The inscriptions on these three statues are no different from other contemporary dedications, which, on occasion, also include the name of the offerer and the title he holds, as do three inscribed examples from a favissa (A) at Nippur, here attributed to level VIII of the temple of Inªanak (cf. Table 3 in §1.1.2). The omission of verbal forms in the dedicatory formulas appears to be characteristic of votive epigraphs in this period. Early Dynastic IIIa is represented by three statues: a large inscribed specimen of king Epaªe from Adab (Cat. 4); one of Eªabzûk, king of Umma (Cat. 5), made of diorite; and one of the god Alla; cf. Strommenger 1959: pl. X). For the carving of the tufts similar to that in AO 11, in addition to Cat. 16, cf. also Frankfort 1943: no. 249 (from Tutub Oval III, a phase dated to the Akkadian period) and Amiet 1976: 126, no. 10, possibly from Umma. Moreover, cf. Huh 2008: 763, 793, no. 491, pl. 20, from Koldewey’s excavations at al-Hiba. The niche for the feet is not characteristic of Early Dynastic IIIb (the female statue from Shatra, near Firsu [Moortgat 1967b: pls. 99–100 and Spycket 1981: 114, pl. 77], must date to the same period as the piece possibly from Umma; cf. also the male statue Parrot 1948: 78 n. 122, fig. 19:c), while the carving of the tibia in AO 11 is similar to that in Akkadian and, above all, Neo-Sumerian statues (cf. for example Amiet 1976: 126–27, no. 14, Manªi¶tu¶u; Spycket 1981: pls. 124, 127, Gudeªa). For the Akkadian royal statues, cf. the niche and square stool in Amiet 1976: 127, 129, nos. 15, 35. Cf., however, also the square stool of the statue of Harraªilum from Sippar (Pl. 43:7–8; cf. p. 85 n. 293). The statue of Enmetênnâk (Cat. 9) shows similarities to AO 11, as well as the hint of a niche. This proves that the two pieces are not very far apart chronologically. A colossal diorite statue from Qadisiya with a niche for the feet (Reade 2002: 262–69, no. 5, figs. 2–4)—attributed by Reade on the basis of the carved fringe to the period of ‡arrumken (or, of Rimu¶, but at that time the inversion of Rimu¶ and Manªi¶tu¶u in the earliest version of the Sumerian King List was not yet known; cf. Steinkeller 2003b: 278–79)—must, instead, given this particular detail, be dated to after Manªi¶tu¶u. Similar fringes, like those on the Qadisiya statues, are, in fact, seen on a diorite statue of a high-ranking official in the service of Naramsuyin (Amiet 1976: 128 no. 28). 81. Cf., for example, a female statuette from Tutub ‡amus IV, dating to the beginning of Early Dynastic I (Frankfort 1943: no. 208, pl. 1), or the so-called priest-king statuette from Uruk (cf. below, p. 189 n. 15), which is even earlier. 82. In addition to the bibliography on the texts, cited in §§1.1.5, 1.2, 2.1 and 6.1, cf. now Marchesi 2004: 195–97, on the existence of an early ruler of Uruk by the name of Pabilgames (= “Gilgames;” cf. also §2.1 and Table 15a).

146

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Ur-AN.SI, “viceroy of Feskullabak,” of dacite (Cat. 6). The use of rare kinds of stone and the large sizes seem to be characteristic of royal statuary in this period, although we cannot be certain of this. 83 The epithet used by Epaªe, “builder of Ninªegalak,” which testifies to the beginning of the royal prerogative of building sanctuaries for the gods and highlights the role of the ruler as a pious intermediary between the human and divine spheres, 84 finds a close parallel in the title “builder of Ninmirsûk,” used by Me¶alim of Kis on a massive mace-head from Firsu Ninmirsûk 4 (Pl. 11:10; cf. Table 5 sub e, §1.1.3). In this connection, also note the inscription on a statue of unknown provenance, which reads: “Subur, the herald of Ninªegalak, is the builder (of the temple).” This Subur, however, may not have been a king (Pl. 43:5–6; cf. §4.2). 85 During Early Dynastic IIIa, building for the gods does not appear to have been the exclusive prerogative of rulers, since Ekur, “the superintendent of the granaries of Uruk,” built a chapel (?) and fashioned a statue for the goddess Damgalnunak (cf. p. 66 n. 187, and p. 163). The inscription of Ur-AN.SI of Feskullabak (Cat. 6) was probably similar in structure to that of Ekur. Royal Early Dynastic IIIb statuary is evenly distributed throughout the two main historical and artistic phases into which this period can be divided. The first and longer of these phases approximately includes the dynasties of Lagas from Urnansêk to Enmetênnâk, of Ur from Ayaªumêdug to Ayaªanepadda, and of Adab from Lugaldalu to Ursamkesak, to mention only the most important localities in terms of art history. The second part of the period stretches from about the time of Enªentarzid until Eriªenimgennâk (= “Uruinimgina”) at Lagas, from Meªanêdug until Uªu at Umma, and includes rulers such as Lugalkisaresdudûd and Lugalkisalêsi of Uruk and Ur and the rulers of Mari from Yiplusªil until Óinnadagan (cf. Table 15b). In line with Frankfort, I here label the period that witnessed the military campaigns of Ensagkusuªanak, Lugalzagêsi, and ‡arrumken as the Protoimperial, which includes rulers such as ˇabdayar and Yisqimari of Mari and Yisªardamu of Ebla (cf. Table 16). This phase, which may have lasted between 30 and 40 years, ends with ‡arrumken extending Akkadian dominion over central-southern Mesopotamia in the second half of his possibly forty-years-long reign. The Protoimperial period is, therefore, a crucial phase characterized by a number of complex textual and visual forms (although this label cannot, of course, be extended to include the material culture), falling between two periods that have their own, specific traits: late Early Dynastic IIIb and the first Akkadian phase. Five royal statues (Cat. 7–10, Cat. 14) date from the first part of Early Dynastic IIIb and at least three (Cat. 12, Cat. 15–16) to the Protoimperial (though Cat. 11 may be slightly earlier). Two statues of rulers of the First Dynasty of Lagas have been dated with certainty on epigraphic grounds (Cat. 8–9), and I also assign Cat. 14 to this phase on the basis of both stratigraphy (if my interpretation is correct; cf. p. 23 n. 36) and iconography (cf. §5.2). Cat. 7 and Cat. 9 are large works, a trait that becomes more marked in royal monuments of the Protoimperial and Akkadian 83. Cf., for the large size, Frankfort 1939a: 58–59, no. 18, pls. 29–31 from Tutub ‡amus IX: 5—a statue that is 73.5 cm high and uninscribed. 84. The contemporary inscriptions of Me¶alim of Kis also attest to this aspect (cf. Table 5 sub e, §1.1.3 and p. 47 n. 119). 85. Grégoire 2002: 455, pls. LXXXV–LXXXVI (note that the statue is in a private collection and not in the Ashmolean or Bodleian collections). This sculpture is stylistically comparable with a statue from Tutub Small Shrine V (Frankfort 1943: no. 214, pl. 7; on the chronology of this sacred building, cf. Table 12); these two examples document the use of the archaic style in Early Dynastic IIIa.

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

147

periods. In the second half of Early Dynastic IIIb, however, we also find large statues of highranking officials, as at Mari. 86 As for the diorite/gabbro that was used for the royal statues of Lagas (Cat. 8–9), this material was not yet reserved for royal use, as shown by the statue of Lupadda from Firsu (Pl. 44:5) or by that of a son of Enªannâbtum I (Pl. 44:8–9). 87 There are also other examples where the stone is neither calcareous nor alabaster, although less valuable than diorite, such as the statue of Dadaªilum from Ur (Pl. 44:6). 88 The only head of a royal statue we have from this phase (Cat. 7) is shaven. It is likely that Cat. 9–10 also had shaven heads. All of the royal statues from this phase that are sufficiently well preserved have only the skirt—but not the cloak—over the left shoulder, as we find, instead, in the Protoimperial period. The most typical characteristic of royal statuary of the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb, when compared with the preceding phases, probably is the complexity of the inscriptions. 89 Although Cat. 7 is still quite simple in form, the statue of Eªannâbtum (Cat. 8) is more elaborate in both structure and lexicon, with regard to the king’s titulary. 90 The inscription on one statue (Cat. 10), however, cannot be classified as votive, since it records the acquisition of land by the ruler (as do other inscriptions on nonroyal statuary; cf. n. 87 above and p. 180 n. 106). In brief, at this time, the size and material of the statues are not yet distinguishing features of royal statuary, since officials had access to sculptures of equal size and equally valuable material. The inscriptions borne by the statues, however, reveal clear differences between dedications by royal personages and those of officials. Two Protoimperial statues show no exclusively royal characteristics (Cat. 12 and Cat. 16). These are, respectively small and medium in size, and are carved in limestone and exhibit the 86. Cf. the statues of ‡ibum (an official in the service of king Yikunsamkan) and Yiªpul¶arru (= “Ipumsar;” Parrot 1967: pls. XII–XIII, XXII; Braun-Holzinger 1977: pls. 23:a, c, 24:d). Cf. also the statue of an official of Meskigalla of Adab (Braun-Holzinger 1977: pl. 29:c–d; cf. Pl. 53:6–7 here). 87. Lupadda: Spycket 1981: 105, pl. 67; Gelb et al. 1991: 72–74 no. 21, pls. 38–39 (where, however, an unlikely dating to Early Dynastic IIIa is proposed). This statue records land transfers, an ancient practice that is attested in Early Dynastic IIIb statues both of private individuals, as in the case of Lupadda (cf. a fragmentary statue probably in dacite or andesite, bought in Paris in 1926 from I. E. Géjou: Reade 2000b: 85 sub WA 118074; 2002: 261–62; H. 9.5 cm; Pl. 44:1– 3), and of royal personages (Cat. 10). Son of Enªannâbtum I: this (long-known) fragment of a left shoulder in diorite/gabbro (Sollberger 1959: 4; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 74) carries a votive inscription to the goddess Bawu that runs parallel to that of Meªanêsi, also a son of Enªannâbtum I (cf. below, p. 164 with n. 65). The statue, bought on the antiquities market, is kept in the Bodmer Foundation in Geneva; inv. 31, H. 10.7 cm, W. 7.5, T. 2.7). After examining the previously unpublished photographs of this piece, I think that it is the left shoulder of a naked torso, with the two upper rows of the inscription extending across the shoulder and ending immediately after the break. In addition to the importance that this has for a reconstruction of the inscription (cf. §4.2), this enables us to determine that the statue was originally at least onethird smaller than, for example, Cat. 8. 88. Cf. Woolley 1956: 47, 170 sub U.2732, pl. 41:c, where it is said that this is in diorite; cf., however, Reade 2000b: 83 sub WA 119063, where the material is labeled as greenstone (cf. also Reade 2002: 262 and Leslie 2002: 299 sub 192710-3, 58, where andesite is suggested instead). For the inscription, cf. Steible 1982b: 287 AnUr 14. The seated statue of Dudu dedicated to Ninmirsûk appears to be in dacite (Moortgat 1967b: pl. 103; Steible 1982a: 361–62 AnLag 7), like the statue of Nimir[. . . ] from Nutur (Pl. 16:7–8; cf. p. 66 n. 188). Other statues are carved in gray stone, such as a piece from Firsu in the Eski Vark Eserleri Müzesi of Istanbul (Pl. 44:4; EVEM 5873, de Sarzec excavations), which has a knot carved on the front side, like in the statue of Diªutûk (cf. p. 144 n. 77). 89. As one can check in §3.4.1, royal inscriptions on statues from Early Dynastic IIIb run from the shoulder onto the back (only Cat. 11a has an inscription on the skirt). In that period, the older type A inscription is no longer attested (an inscription on the chest is only documented by Cat. 4 from Early Dynastic IIIa) and new types C and D appear (cf. p. 150 n. 99). Cf. also Braun-Holzinger 1991: 236–37; Cooper 1999a: col. 229. 90. Cf. Frankfort 1948: 300–301. For Early Dynastic royal titles, cf. §2.2, as well as Hallo 1957 and Edzard 1974b.

148

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

dress and cloak and chignon hairstyle attested from Early Dynastic IIIb onward for high-ranking individuals. As I noted above in my discussion of Cat. 12, not even ‡arrumken adopts a specifically royal iconography: on his stele (Sb1), however, there is a servant with a parasol and the king himself holds what seems to be a mace to denote his status (Pl. 56:1), as on the two seals of Yisqimari. The personages portrayed in statue Cat. 15 and on the stelae from Jebelet el-Beyda (Pl. 56:2; cf. p. 142 n. 67) also bear a mace. Here, then, is another ruler of the Protoimperial period who chose to be represented by a colossal work in the round, as did ‡umbaºli (Cat. 11) and, later on, Manªi¶tu¶u, 91 as well as the offerers of the two great diorite statues Cat. 17 and Cat. 18. The sacrificial quadruped clutched to the breast of Cat. 16 is not a specifically royal attribute, although this is the earliest example in statuary of an iconography that is also royal. 92 The exceptional size of Cat. 11 and Cat. 15 (both from northern Mesopotamia, as a matter of fact) appears to be a characteristic trait of Protoimperial royal statuary and it is, moreover, likely that both sported the chignon hairstyle. In terms of their function, royal statues do not differ from those of officials. They are statues offered in temples with the aim of reminding the deity of the person who makes the offering. It is not easy to reconstruct the precise magical and religious connotations, not so much because of the lack of primary contexts as because roughly contemporary textual sources are scarce and obscure. In this respect, the statue Cat. 9 is exceptional; here, Enmetênnâk gives a name to his own statue (which thus becomes a separate entity) and expresses the hope that not the statue but his own personal god will pray to Ellil for Enmetênnâk’s life. The other royal inscriptions on statues usually go no further than the generic mention of the making of the statue and its placing in the temple, although they do provide some useful information about the relationship between the ruler and the deity. A comparison between statuary and other Early Dynastic classes of inscribed artifacts, which is made possible by Braun-Holzinger’s study, 93 does not seem to reveal any substantial functional differences as far as the dedications are concerned. There appears to be, however, a fundamental difference in phraseology: statues are not only said to have been fashioned, like other votive objects; sometimes they are said to have been created, as if they were living beings. In Cat. 9, Enmetênnâk uses the verb dú(-d), “to create, give birth to,” 94 a clear reference to the living nature of the statue after the ritual consecration culminating in the Namensnennung. 95 91. Cf. Amiet 1976: pls. 11–14, 16. 92. Cf. also p. 144 n. 75. For royal statues from Mari dating from the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Mesopotamia (that is, the Neo-Sumerian period), cf. Spycket 1981: 161–62, fig. 50 (where a different, too-early date is proposed instead). Cf. also Spycket 1981: 197, fig. 60, and pl. 132 for other specimens from Firsu. 93. Braun-Holzinger 1991: 5–17. With regard to the statues, cf. 1991: 227–30, 239. On various classes of votive objects, cf. also Gelb 1956. Deified cult objects (cf. Gebhard Selz 1997: 170–76) represent a different class of artifacts, however. 94. Cf. Braun-Holzinger 1991: 221; Gebhard Selz 1990: 246 n. 6; 1992: 255 (also cf. below, p. 162 with n. 51). The verb dú(-d) is only used in connection with statues. Other votive objects were simply fashioned, not created. Also note the use of different terms in the Early Dynastic period for designating a statue (Sumerian alan, lit., “image”) or a stele (Sumerian na-rú-a, lit., “erected/planted stone”). 95. Note that, among votive objects, only statues and stelae were given a name in the Early Dynastic period. For the ritual of washing and opening the mouth (only possible for objects to be consecrated, not for living beings), which enables the statue—divine, but not only—to “function” by reawakening its senses, cf. Berlejung 1997; Walker and Dick 2001: 10–14. For Early Dynastic documentation relating to this ritual, cf. Cunningham 1997: 163. Cf. also Winter 1992 for some specific historical comments and Winter 2000c for comparative considerations. The magical aspect, however, must

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

149

At Firsu, in the Early Dynastic IIIb period, offerings (normally 1 liter of ghee and 1 liter of dates) were made to statues of living and deceased offerers on the occasion of certain festivals. This means that the function of a statue did not cease with the death of its offerer. For example, a statue of Urnansêk received offerings in Lugaldimirda’s times; and a statue of the latter received offerings during the reign of Eriªenimgennâk. However, royal statues were not the only recipients of offerings: statues of members of the elite other than kings and queens and other kinds of votive objects also received them. 96 The difference among the various kinds of objects offered must, therefore, lie in the anthropomorphism of statues—that is, in the fact that the statue was a double of the offerer (which is undoubtedly the function of statues, as demonstrated by the iconographical features that indicate rank in royal statues dating from the late Early Dynastic and Akkadian periods). The statue, by its very nature, takes on the merits and personality of the offerer. This may also be true of stelae, because erecting them were dedicatory acts, too, though inserted within a narrative context. If so, then we can understand why stelae were kept along with statues in temples for a long time, unlike other classes of votive objects. In Early Dynastic IIIb times, a transformation seems to have taken place that is connected with the new, pervasive role of the king in society and his consequent need of legitimation (cf. Chapter 6). The perpetuating function of statues, coupled with the value given to dynastic continuty and memory, favors a shift in the function of statues: from being a sort of magical self, the statue became a means of establishing one’s own name for posterity. The new values raise new, have been preserved even when a statue was accidentally broken, as shown by the repairs carried out in ancient times on some specimens; cf., for example, Frankfort 1943: no. 225, the neck of which was mended with bitumen. It is also significant that we have no certain attestation of any statue being usurped in the Early Dynastic period (cf. also above, p. 136 n. 37). This fact suggests that they were exclusively bound to their offerers and that their “personality” could not be altered. The fact that enemies took their rage out on statues, especially those of royal figures, must be explained by a profound desire to eradicate all signs of the conquered rivals. As explained in §4.1, it is always the offerer who is portrayed in the statue. We need only think of the examples of ‡ibum, of an official of Meskigalla (cf. n. 86 above) or of the alabaster statue—carved in the typical Early Dynastic IIIb style—of Urªakkilak, “the city-elder,” dedicated for the life of Paragannêdug (= “Barahenidu”), ruler of Adab (Pl. 45; Oriental Institute Museum A7447; H. 28.3 cm, W. 12.5, D. 10.7; bought from A. D. Messayeh in New York in 1930; for the inscription, cf. below, p. 157; also cf. Braun-Holzinger 1991: 242 sub St 9). 96. Cf. Appendix B; and Kobayashi 1984; 1985. The connection that is often assumed to exist between statues and funerary cult not only is not documented but also appears to conflict with the evidence discussed here (cf. also BraunHolzinger 1991: 229). On the other hand, Meyer (1997) considers the possibility of an ancestor cult in the case of Jebelet el-Beyda (cf. above, p. 142 n. 65; also cf. Moortgat 1967a: 45–46, for the statues from Tell Khuera, and, more recently, Hallo 1988; Hrouda’s [1996: 139–42] remarks are inconclusive). The statues received offerings, as may be seen—apart from textual references—by the elongated bowls installed in the floors of the temples of Mari and Assur (cf. §§1.1.7 and 1.1.8). This does not, however, imply that they were part of a funerary cult (Moortgat 1968: 227–28) but rather relates to the “living” nature of the statue (cf. Winter 1992: 30–36, although she also notes links with funerary rites, among other things); Frankfort (1948: 304) understood this aspect, although he thought of statues as divinities. Gebhard Selz’s (1992) philological discussion is misleading because it includes within a single category libations and offerings for the ancestors, which were performed in the ki-a-nam (lit., “water-drinking place, place of libation”), i.e., in the mortuary chapel built above the grave (cf. Jagersma 2007: 294–98), and offerings made to statues, both of deities and of other kinds, which were kept, instead, in temples (a similar approach is also found in Gudrun Selz 1983: 459). Offerings to statues formed part of a standard ritual, unlike those for the ancestors, which were only made on special occasions (Kobayashi 1985). It is furthermore quite likely that the ancestors, who received offerings (not only of water, but also of foodstuffs of various kinds; cf. Jagersma 2007: 294–98) in the ki-a-nam, were not represented by statues. However, on the possible presence of composite statues in Early Syrian princely tombs, cf. below, p. 210 n. 130.

150

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

contrasting behaviors: keeping statues in temples even when their offerers were already dead (instead of disposing of them) and destroying statues or carrying them away as trophies. It is thus this gradual shift from magical self to self-perpetuation that is responsible for the acts of annihilation of statues as well as, on the other hand, their conservation for long periods. 97

3.4. Catalogue of Early Dynastic Royal Statuary The following catalogue lists the statues I believe to be royal and discuss in §§3.1 and 3.2. 98 Given the different degrees of certitude involved in the identification of royal statues when this is also based on epigraphic data, or when it relies on purely stylistic and iconographic elements, the two groups are presented separately. 3.4.1. Inscribed Statues Royal inscriptions on statues usually belong to one or the other of a limited number of main types. In the following catalogue, the types are indicated together with the position of the epigraphs on the statues themselves. 99 For a transcription, translation, and commentary of the individual epigraphs, see §4.3.

97. Cf. above, p. 132 n. 14. Note that at the time of the destruction of Mari, older statues from the time of Yikunsamkan and Yiplusªil were still kept in the temple of INANA.ZA.ZA, together with a vessel naming the former ruler (cf. §1.1.7). We also have archaeological and epigraphic evidence for the abduction of statues from their original place of dedication in the Early Dynastic period. The statue of ‡umbaºli (Cat. 11a), a king of an unknown upper Mesopotamian city/ state, was found in a temple at Mari (this statue and its retrieval context are chronologically very close). The statue of Eªabzûk of Umma (Cat. 5) was apparently found at Firsu, while the statue Cat. 9, of Enmetênnâk, was dedicated at Nimen but was found at Ur (where, however, the statue may have been brought in Neo-Babylonian times; cf. p. 133 n. 25). Furthermore, we know from epigraphic sources that Ensagkusuªanak of Uruk dedicated abducted statues to Ellil in Nippur (probably by adding a secondary inscription of his to the statues in question; cf. Steible 1982b: 293–94 Ensak. 1; Frayne 2008: 429–30 E1.14.17.1). This indicates that a new value was sometimes attached to statues—a value not only magical but also historical and symbolic (cf. Cooper 1990). On the targeting of royal monuments by enemies, cf. now also Nadali 2007. 98. The museum number precedes the excavation or registration number, which is placed in brackets, where known. The description of the material is based in part on the stone identification put forward by those who published the pieces and, in some cases, on my own, but especially upon examination of new color photographs—which has led to the confirmation of previous identifications or the proposal of new ones—by G. M. Bargossi (Department of Earth Sciences and Environment, Alma Mater Studiorum—University of Bologna), who has my profound thanks. All measurements are given in centimeters. The bibliography includes only the original publications and selected reference works on statues, in addition to references to published photographs that show specific views of the statues included in the Catalogue. The bibliography relating to the inscriptions is given in §4.3. Braun-Holzinger (2007: sub FD 10, 11, 14–16, 18–19, 20–23) accepts the identification as royal statues for most of the inscribed examples listed here. Her criticisms of my identification of Cat. 3, 11, 13–16 as royal specimens have been dealt with above. The heads Cat. 17–18 are not discussed by Braun-Holzinger. 99. The following conventions are used: A indicates titulary, B = titulary plus dedication formula, C = titulary plus list of building undertakings, D = land transfer (a = assignment, b = purchase); 1 means “on the chest” (a = right, b = left), 2 = “on the shoulder” (a = right, b = left), 3 = “on the back” (a = right, b = left), 4 = “on the skirt” (a = front, b = back).

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

151

Cat. 1—HAR.TU of PA.FAR (Pl. 25) Museum: Chicago, Oriental Institute Museum—A21488 (Ag.35:857) Material: limestone/gypsum, with traces of bitumen on the beard and hair. Measurements: H. 24, W. 22.3, T. 14.5 Provenance.: Tell Agrab; temple of “Sara,” Main Level, elevation 32.30 m, room M14:4 (phase 1?) Date: Early Dynastic II Bibl: Frankfort 1943: 28–29, no. 263, pl. 30: B–C; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 38 n. 259, pl. 12:a–b Inscription: B3a Cat. 2—Tunªak of BÁHAR.É (= “Ginak;” Pl. 26) Museum: Paris, Musée du Louvre, Departement des Antiquités Orientales—AO 20146 Mat.: gypsum Meas: H. 25.5, W. 10.9, T. 5.8 Prov.: antiquities market Date: Early Dynastic II Bibl.: Parrot 1952b: 73–74, pl. XXIV; 1957: 224–26, pl. XIV; Amiet 1967: 2, no. 3; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 75, pl. 13: a–b; Caubet—Bernus-Taylor 1991: 12 Inscription: A2a Cat. 3—Urlammarak (“Nebo;” Pl. 27) Museum: London, British Museum, Western Asiatic Department—WA 91667 (1854.4.1, 31) Mat.: rosy limestone Measurements: H. 14.6, W. 12.7, T. 5.6 Prov.: vicinities of Babylon (?) Date: Early Dynastic II Bibl.: Lenormant 1868; Gadd 1934–1935: 42–43, pl. XI: 1; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 75, 84; Saggs 1995: 33, fig. 7; Reade 2000b: 84–85 Inscription: B3 (?) Cat. 4—Epaªe of Adab (Pl. 28) Museum: Baghdad, Iraq Museum—IM 160034 Mat.: limestone Meas: H. 82, W. 35, T. 34 Prov.: Adab (Bismaya)? Date: Early Dynastic IIIa Bibl.: Al-Mutawalli and Miglus 2002: 3–4, figs. 1–8 Inscription: A1a Cat. 5—Eªabzûk of Umma (Pl. 29:1–2, 4 left) Museum: Paris, Musée du Louvre, Departement des Antiquités Orientales—AO 22937a Mat.: granodiorite Meas.: H. 9, W. 5, T. 3.5 Prov.: Firsu (Tello) Date: Early Dynastic IIIa Bibl.: De Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 119, pl. 5: 3; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 73 Inscription: B2a

152

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Cat. 6—Ur-AN.SI of Feskullabak (Pl. 30) Museum: New Haven, Yale Babylonian Collection—YBC 2271 Mat.: dacite Meas.: H. 12.5, W. 17, T. 11 Prov.: antiquities market Date: Early Dynastic IIIa Bibl.: unpublished Inscription: C3 Cat. 7—Lugaldalu of Adab (Pl. 31) Museum: Istanbul, Eski Vark Eserleri Müzesi—EVEM 3235 Mat.: gypsum Meas.: H. 78, W. 30, T. 22.5 Prov.: Adab (Bismaya); temple area (Tell V): the body was found inside the west corner of the temple terrace at a depth of 2.5 m, the head in a room 30 m away, beyond the north corner of the terrace (Banks 1912: 193 erroneously states that it was 100 m away) Date: initial Early Dynastic IIIb Bibl.: Banks 1904–5; 1912: 188–94, 196–98; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 61, 77, pl. 26: e–f; Spycket 1981: 85 n. 207, pl. 55:a–c; J. M. Evans in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 63–64, no. 26 Inscription: B2a Cat. 8—Eªannâbtum(?) of Lagas (Pl. 32:1) Museum: Baghdad, Iraq Museum—(4H 27) Mat.: diorite/gabbro Meas.: H. 8.2, W. 4.5, T. 1.6 Prov.: Lagas (al-Hiba), area B, quadrant N550–560/W80–90, locus 37, eastern edge of the filling of level IIB Date: initial Early Dynastic IIIb Bibl.: V. E. Crawford 1977: 198 n. 46, 217–18 Inscription: B3b (probably C3) Cat. 9—Enmetênnâk of Lagas (Pl. 33) Museum: Baghdad, Iraq Museum—IM 5 (U.805) Mat.: diorite/gabbro Meas.: H. 76, W. 37, T. 41.5 Prov.: Ur (Muqayyar); floor of the central room of the Neo Babylonian temenos gate, Nabûnaªid phase Date: initial Early Dynastic IIIb Bibl.: Woolley 1923: 317, 331, pl. XXXI; 1956: 47–48, 168–69, pl. 40; Gadd and Legrain 1928: ix sub 1, pp. 1–2, pls. I, A–B; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 56, 73, pl. 27:d; Spycket 1981: 84 n. 202, pl. 54 Inscription: Da2a+C3 Cat. 10—Óinnaªil of Kis (Pl. 32:2–3) Museum: Baghdad, Iraq Museum—IM 61325 (6N271) Mat.: gypsum/limestone Meas.: H. 10.2, W. 10.7, T. 8.8 Prov.: Nippur (Nuffar); temple of Inªanak, fill of the platform of the Parthian temple (locus SB76) Date: initial Early Dynastic IIIb Bibl.: Goetze 1961: 107, fig. 2 left; Gelb et al. 1991: 91–92, no. 26, pls. 49–50 Inscription: Db2a

Early Dynastic Royal Statuary

153

Cat. 11a—‡umbaºli (= “Tagge;” Pl. 34:1–2) Museum: Damascus, National Museum—(M.2350) Mat.: gypsum Meas.: H. 130 (including base, H. 12), W. 56, T. 28 Prov.: Mari (Tell Hariri); temple of INANA.ZA.ZA, cella 13 Date: late Early Dynastic IIIb/Protoimperial Bibl.: Parrot 1953a: 211–12, fig. 10; 1967: 49–51, no. 10, figs. 53–55, pl. XXIV; Spycket 1981: 70–71, fig. 26 Inscription: B4a Cat. 11b—Two fragments of a head, possibly of Cat. 11a (Pl. 34:3) Museum: Aleppo, National Museum—(M.2965) Mat.: gypsum Meas.: H. 16.2, W. 17.5 (larger left lateral fragment, with eyebrow, basetta and ear), H. 14.4, W. 12 (fragment from top with hair parted in the middle) Prov.: Mari (Tell Hariri); temple of INANA.ZA.ZA Date: late Early Dynastic IIIb/Protoimperial Bibl.: Parrot 1967: 83, no. 58, fig. 119 Cat. 12—Yisqimari of Mari (= “Lamgimari;” Pl. 35) Museum: Aleppo, National Museum—10406 (M.174) Mat.: limestone/gypsum Meas.: H. 27.7, W. 10.3, T. 11.5 Prov.: Mari (Tell Hariri); temple of INANA.NITA, level a, courtyard 20 Date: Protoimperial Bibl.: Parrot 1935: 23–24, pls. VI–VII; 1956: 68–70, fig. 46, pls. XXV–XXVI; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 57–58, 69, pl. 28:c–e; Spycket 1981: 88–89 n. 222; J. M. Evans in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 148– 49, no. 88; Margueron 2004: figs. 217, 269:14, 291, pl. 50 Inscription: B3a

3.4.2. Uninscribed Statues Cat. 13—Standing statue from Esnunak (“Abu;” Pl. 38) Museum: Baghdad, Iraq Museum—IM 19752 (Ag.33:446) Mat.: gypsum, with bitumen on the beard and hair, eyes of shell and black marble Meas.: H. 72, W. 20.5, T. 17 Prov.: Esnunak (Tell Asmar); temple of “Abu,” “Square Temple,” favissa below the floor of room D17:9 (i.e., phase Archaic IVC?) Date: late Early Dynastic I Bibl.: Frankfort 1939a: 22, 56–57, no. 1, pls. 1–3, 5–6, 25; 1943: pls. 82–83; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 34, pl. 1:a–b; Spycket 1981: 52–53 n. 31, pl. 37; Jacobsen 1989: pls. 20–22 Cat. 14—Standing statue from Tutub (Pl. 39) Museum: Baghdad, Iraq Museum—IM 20083 (Kh.IV.269) Mat.: diorite/gabbro Meas.: H. 32, W. 13.5, T. 11.2 Prov.: Tutub (Khafajah); temple of ‡amus (= “Sin”), level IX (possibly phase 5), elevation 39.00 m, room R42:2 (the body was purchased on the antiquities market in 1929) Date: initial Early Dynastic IIIb Bibl.: Frankfort 1939a: 26, 58–59, no. 17, pls. 28, 30: A–B; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 42–43; Spycket 1981: 90–91 n. 236

154

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Cat. 15—Standing statue from the Jebelet el-Beyda (Pl. 40) Museum: Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum (fragments) Mat.: basalt Meas.: H. 200, W. 88, T. 62 (original size before 2nd World War damages) Prov.: Ras et-Tell in the Jebelet el-Beyda, southeastern slope of the hill Date: Protoimperial Bibl.: Von Oppenheim 1931: 203–4, pl. 62; 1934: 28–29, nos. 4–5, pl. I; Moortgat-Correns 1972: 10– 13, no. 1, pls. IX–XIII; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 58, 77; Spycket 1981: 127 n. 447; Dolce 1986: fig. 60 Cat. 16—Standing statue from Susa (Pl. 41) Museum: Paris, Musée du Louvre, Départment des Antiquités Orientales—Sb 84 (6608) Mat.: gypsum/limestone Meas.: H. 43, W. 18, T. 16 Prov.: Susa (Sus), excavations by J. de Morgan Date: Protoimperial Bibl.: Amiet 1966: 190, fig. 141; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 58, 79; Spycket 1981: 90 n. 232, pl. 58 Cat. 17—Head (Pl. 42:1, 3, 5) Museum: Paris, Musée du Louvre, Départment des Antiquités Orientales—AO 20217 Mat.: diorite/gabbro Meas.: H. 15.4, W. 11.8, T. 13.3 Prov.: antiquities market Date: Early Dynastic IIIb/Protoimperial Bibl.: Parrot 1957: 223–24, pl. XIII; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 62, 85; Spycket 1981: 106 n. 333 Cat. 18—Head (Pl. 42: 2, 4, 6) Museum: New Haven, Yale Babylonian Collection—YBC 2282 Mat.: diorite/gabbro Meas.: H. 12, W. 8, T. 9.5 Prov.: antiquities market Date: Early Dynastic IIIb/Protoimperial Bibl.: unpublished

Chapter 4

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues

In the following pages, we present and discuss the inscriptions on Early Dynastic statues that were presumably commissioned by rulers. Some of these inscriptions were already known; others were identified in the course of this study (Cat. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 11a), after a reexamination of the inscribed material presently available. Excluded from consideration here are: 1. Inscriptions on statues that have been interpreted elsewhere as royal inscriptions but that are, in fact, not royal inscriptions. This is the case, for instance, for a long-known statue from Sippar that is generally thought to represent Yikun¶ama¶ (i-ku-dUTU), king of Mari (WA 90828; Pl. 43:7–8). 1 Dedicatory inscriptions commissioned by nonroyal personages “for the life” of rulers, such as that on the so-called “Statue of Meskigalla” (IM 5572; Pl. 53:6–7), 2 also are excluded from consideration here (cf. below, pp. 157–158). 2. Extremely dubious cases, such as the fragment of a statue from Mari on which only the name of the king, Yikunsamkan, and his title are preserved (cf. below, p. 156). 3. Obviously fake epigraphs, such as that on the alleged statue of Eªannâbtum in the Menil Collection (Amiet 1987). 3 1. Cf. CT 5, pl. 2: (BM) 12146. Often attributed to Yikun¶ama¶ (cf. Thureau-Dangin 1934: 137; Jacobsen 1942: 297; Gelb 1961: 2; Dossin 1967: 309–10; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 74–75 BM 90828; Walker and Collon 1980: 96 sub 1; Woods 2005: 29; Frayne 2008: 305–6 E1.10.7.1), the statue in question actually belonged to a high-ranking official (Harraªilum) in the service of Yikun¶ama¶ (cf. Steinkeller 1984a: 33–34). 2. Cf. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 73–74 IM 5572; Cooper 1986a: 17 Ad 6; Frayne 2008: 33–34 E1.1.9.2001. Incidentally, note that this statue is probably early Sargonic in date. This can be inferred from the reference, in a fragmentary part of the inscription, to an expedition to the Cedar Mountain (kur meseren-ta, in line 3u ). The same expedition is also referred to in two administrative tablets from Adab; cf. TCBI 1, 23 ii 3–iii 2: mes-ki-g[al-la] / PA.T[E.SI] / arabki / kur mes eren-t[a] / im-[men-na-àm], “[This was when] Meskig[alla,] the vice[roy] of Adab, re[turned] from the Cedar Mountain;” and CUNES 50-03-136 ii 3–rev. i 2 (Visicato 2010: 270): mes-ki-gal-la / PA.TE.SI / arabki / kur-meseren-kur5ta / im-men-na-àm, “This was when Meskigalla, viceroy of Adab, returned from the mountain where cedar is cut.” The spellings PA.TE.SI, UD.NUNki and àm (instead of NÍF.PA.TE.SI, UD.“NUN”ki and am6) point to a Sargonic date for these tablets. It follows that the inscription on the statue, which probably alludes to the same expedition (presumably the famous expedition of ‡arrumken/“Sargon” to the Cedar Forest, in which Meskigalla, ruler of Adab, also participated; cf. Visicato 2010: 270–71), dates to the Akkadian period too. For the attribution of the statue not to Meskigalla but rather to a son or an official of the ruler of Adab, cf. Marchesi 2004: 185 with n. 183. 3. The inscription—é-an-na-túm / PA.TE.SI / lagasx(NU11.BUR)la.ki / dumu áya-kur-gal, “Eªannâbtum, viceroy of Lagas, son of Ayakurgal”—is certainly a modern fake. Apart from the chronological incongruity between the reference to Eªannâbtum in the inscription and the earlier style of the statue (cf. Amiet 1987), note the cuneiform shape of the inscribed signs, as if they were written on clay. In other words, we are dealing here with the imitation of an inscription on a mud brick or tablet. The monumental writing that occurs on statues and other stone objects of the Early Dynastic period is linear in form (that is, signs are made of linear rather than cuneiform strokes). Moreover, the sign A always consists of two horizontal strokes, not three as we have here, in the name áya(A)-kur-gal. Lastly, the sign LA in the writing of the GN lagasx(NU11.BUR)la.ki has also been reproduced badly.

155

156

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

4.1. Preliminary Observations It is generally assumed that votive statues were conceived of as simulacra of specific persons, created with the aim of permanently praying on their behalf before the statue of the god in the temple. 4 However, the identity of the person represented by a given statue is sometimes controversial or not easy to determine. In the case mentioned above (p. 155), of the fragment that preserves the name of Yikunsamkan, king of Mari (i-ªkuº-dsa-ma-g[an] / LUGA[L ma-rí ki]), 5 the statue from which it came could have belonged to that sovereign. However, it is also possible that it is the statue of a high-ranking official or courtier of Mari, as in the case of another statue whose inscription opens with a reference to Yikunsamkan: 6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

i-ku-dsa-ma-gan LUGAL ma-rí ki ABAx 7 SAF.DÙN [DÙL]-SÙ [dIN]ANAx[Z]A+ZA SA12.[R]IG9

Yikunsamkan (being) king of Mari— ‡ibum, 8 the land registrar, presented (7) his [statue] (5) to INANA.ZA.ZA (6). 9

The possessive “his,” in line 5, does not refer to the king Yikunsamkan 10 but to the presenter of the dedication, ‡ibum. 11 This emerges clearly when we compare this inscription with a similar statue inscription from Mari: 12 1. 2. 3. 4.

ib-lu5-il LUGAL ma-rí ki ur-d[n]anse NAR MAH

Yiplusªil 13 (being) king of Mari— Urnansêk, the master musician, 14

4. Cf. Thureau-Dangin 1934: 139; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 228. 5. Parrot 1967: 39–40 no. 2 and fig. 37; Dossin 1967: 310 no. 2 and fig. 321; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 11 MP 11. For the interpretation of i-ku-dsa-ma-gan as a spelling for Yikunsamkan, cf. W. G. Lambert 1986: 157–58. 6. Parrot 1967: 37–39, figs. 31–36, pls. XII–XIII; Dossin 1967: 309–10 no. 1 and fig. 320; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 10 MP 9. 7. For AB¥ÁS = ABAx, cf. the spelling AB¥ÁSba at Susa (Gelb 1984: 267 sub i). 8. Cf. Gelb 1984: 264–74; Fronzaroli 1993: 137 s.v. AB¥ÁS. 9. For this goddess, cf. Appendix A.2.6. SÙ (line 5) and SA12.RIG9 (line 7) should probably be interpreted as Akkadograms, i.e., as fossilized syllabic writings of Akkadian words used as logograms (cf. Krebernik 1985: 53–55; 1992: 69; W. G. Lambert 1989: 24–25). In Early Dynastic dedicatory inscriptions in Akkadian, the absence of a preposition before the name of the offeree (the deity to whom the votive object is presented) may indicate an original construction of sarakum with the double accusative (cf. CAD R 146 râmu B, “to present, to grant, . . . ,” which is likewise constructed with the double accusative). This also explains the different position of the offeree, immediately before the verb, when compared with Sumerian inscriptions in which the offeree is generally placed at the beginning of the inscription and the verb at the end. 10. As believed, instead, by Dossin (1967: 309). Also cf., most recently, Frayne 2008: 317–18 E1.10.11.2001, who translates: “(For) Iku(n)-Samagan, king of Mari, Sebum, the land registrar, dedicated a statue of him (the king) to INANNA-ZA.ZA.” 11. Cf. already M. Lambert 1970: 168. 12. Parrot 1967: 93–96 no. 69, figs. 132–33, pl. XLVII; Dossin 1967: 328 no. 69 and fig. 345; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 13 MP 14; Boese 1996: 34–36 and figs. 4–6. 13. Cf. Steinkeller 1984c: 11 sub 9, 16–17 n. 30; 1993b: 240 sub 8. 14. Cf. Cooper 1986a: 89 n. 1 to Ma 5.2.

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues 5. DÙL-SÙ 6. dªINANAxZA+ZAº 7. SA12.RIG9

157

presented (7) his (of Urnansêk) statue (5) to INANA.ZA.ZA (6).

The above-mentioned statue is of a harpist and, therefore, most probably represents the same person who is identified in the inscription by the title “master musician.” Various inscriptions on votive statues and objects from Pre-Sargonic Mari place the name of the current ruler (in one case together with that of the queen 15) before the name of the offerer. In these cases, the dedication is not for the benefit of the ruler; 16 the ruler’s name is noted simply as a means of dating the offering. In the previous example, “Yiplusªil king of Mari” means “Yiplusªil is ruling at Mari”—that is, the dedication took place during the reign of Yiplusªil. 17 A different case is the statues that were dedicated “for the life” of the ruler, such as the statue illustrated on Pl. 45 (A 7447), whose inscription reads: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

dnin-subur

nam-ti parag-gan-né-dùg 18 NÍF.PA.TE.SI arabx(UD.“NUN”)ki-da ur-akkilx(AB.KID)-lá 20 ab-ba-eri a mu-ru

To Ninsuburak, for the life of Paragannêdug, 19 viceroy of Adab, Urªakkilak, the city-elder, 21 presented (this statue).

The dedication “for the life of Paragannêdug” might lead us to conclude that the statue represents the ruler named. However, that the person represented in this instance is, once again, the offerer (i.e., Urªakkilak) is suggested by comparison with the following inscription that appears on a Neo-Sumerian statue: 22 15. Cf. Marchesi 2004: 177. 16. As interpreted by Sollberger (and Kupper 1971: 88–90 IG4a–IG5b), Cooper (1986a: 86–89 Ma 2.1–2.2 and Ma 5.1–5.3) and Frayne (2008: 317–18 E1.10.11.2001–2, 322–25 E1.10.12.1–3). 17. Cf. Grayson 1987: 46 A.0.35.2001 lines 1–9: i-n[u]-m[e] / dLUGAL.GIN / PA.TE.SI a-sùr / a-na dINANA / a-suri-tim / NIN.A.NI / ha-ti-tum / DAM EN-na-ªdaº / ta-ak-ru-ub, “When divine Sarrumken (= “Sargon”) was viceroy of Assur, Hattîtum, wife of Belamnada(?), dedicated (this object) to Estar of Assur, her mistress.” 18. Previously read “bára-hé-ì-dùg” (Yang 1989: 12) or “bára-hé-NI/ni*-du10” (Steible 1982b: 188; Cooper 1986a: 16*; Frayne 2008: 22), but readings such as these do not produce any plausible meaning (“May the Dais Be Pleasing to Him” would require the verbal form hé-na-dùg). Moreover, neither hé-ì-dùg nor hé-ni-dùg are otherwise attested. More likely, parag-GAN.NI-dùg should be read parag-gan-né-dùg and interpreted as a spelling variant of the PN (lugal*-)parag-ga-né-dùg, “(The Lord) Is Suitable for His Dais” (Powell 1978: 46 no. 10 ii 7, 50 no. 13 ii 6; Gelb et al. 1991: 88 Appendix to nos. 22–23 x 1*; etc.). The same name is elsewhere found even further abbreviated as paragga/gan-né (cf. Gelb et al. 1991: 80 [ad iv 60] and 165). 19. I analyze this name as {parag.anne.e-ªi.dug}, with /anne/ being the third-person possessive suffix of the “personal” class (cf. the preceding note). In this connection, note that “his/her” in Sumerian is /anne/ or /ayye/ (Neo-Sumerian dialect of Lagas), rather than /ani/ (cf. Kramer 1936: 4–5; Falkenstein 1949: 53–54 sub e; Attinger 1993: 172; Krebernik 1998: 324; Peust 2007). 20. Cf. Wiggermann 1998–2001c: 491–92 §2.1. The sign LÁ is written in ligature with KID (KID+LÁ). 21. On Urªakkilak (previously read as “Ureslila,” or the like) and his title, cf. Westenholz 2004: 600 with n. 11. 22. De Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 346–47, LVIII; Steible 1991a: 374 Nammahni 1; Edzard 1997: 198–99 E3/1.1.12.6.

158 i

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ii 1. 2. 3. 4.

dba-ú

munus sag9-ga dumu an-na nin eri-kug-ga nin-a-[n]é nam-[t]i [nam-mah-né] PA.TE.SI lagasx(NU11.BUR)la.ki-ka-sè eres-en[im]-g[e]-na ama dú-da-né dlammar (KAL) TAR-sír-sír-ra x kisal dba-ú-ka ku4-ku4-da-né alan-e nin-mu10

5. mesmestugtúg-ga-né-a [ha]-mu-na-ni-ru-gú 6. sískur-mu10 hé-na-bé 7. bí-dug4!(SAF) 8. a mu-na-ru

To Bawu, 23 the beautiful woman, the daughter of An, the mistress of the Holy City, her mistress, for the life of [Namhanne, 24] viceroy of Lagas, Eresªenimgennâk, 25 the mother who bore him, 26 presented (this statue) (8) saying (7): “When the tutelary goddess of the TAR-sirsir (= Bawu 27) (2) enters the courtyard (of the temple) of Bawu (3), [may] this statue (4) draw me to the attention of my mistress 28 (4–5) and tell her my prayers” (6).

This statue is of a woman, very likely the offerer, Eresªenimgennâk herself. It follows, analogously, that the preceding statue also represents its offerer (Urªakkilak), rather than the person for whose benefit the statue was presented (i.e., the ruler Paragannêdug). A typological correspondence seems to exist between representation (the statue) and representee (the dedicant). Two statues from Mari bearing the dedications of musicians clearly portray musicians; 29 and without exception, statues dedicated by women in later periods are all females. 30 Furthermore, various inscriptions explicitly associate the statue they are inscribed on with the offerer. See, for instance, the following inscription, which occurs on an Early Dynastic IIIb statue from Mari (AO 17551; Pl. 17:2–4): 31 23. Cf. Marchesi 2002. 24. The pronunciation /namhanne/ of the PN nam-mah-né is provided by the spelling variant nam-ha-né (cf. Neumann 1998–2001 sub 1; and n. 19 above). Here, as in other inscriptions of this ruler and in the inscriptions that were dedicated “for his life,” the name of Namhanne was deliberately erased in an act of damnatio memoriae. 25. For the reading /eres/ of the sign NIN as a theophoric element in personal names, cf. Marchesi 2004: 188–89. Note, furthermore, the variant NIN.SÈ(= eres-sè)-an-zu of the PN NIN-e-an-zu in VS 25, 69 iv 18 (cf. Jagersma 1995–96: 223 ad loc.; Marchesi 2004: 189 with nn. 200–201); and cf. Heimpel 2003: 632. 26. We could also read eme4-dú-da-né, “his house-born slave” (cf. Krecher 1987b: 9 with n. 11). However, the Eresªenimgennâk of this inscription is very likely the same Eresªenimgennâk who appears in a number of additional votive inscriptions from the time of Namhanne and his predecessor, Ur-FAR. In those inscriptions, Eresªenimgennâk says that she is daughter of KA-kug (another ruler of Lagas) and wife of the above-mentioned Ur-FAR (cf. Edzard 1997: 189 E3/1.1.9.1 and 199–202 E3/1.1.12.7–10). It is, therefore, very likely that Eresªenimgennâk was the mother of Namhanne. The translation of AMA(.)TU as “cousin” in this passage, proposed by I. M. Diakonoff and J. Renger (cf. Steible 1991a: 374–75 n. 1) and adopted by Edzard 1997: 199, is not justified. 27. Cf. Steible 1991a: 143–44 Urbaba 5 n. 1; Gebhard Selz 1995: 158–59 sub 4. 28. Cf. Wilcke 1987: 95–96 n. 36; 1990: 487 with n. 69; Attinger 1993: 226. 29. Cf. Braun-Holzinger 1991: 220; Boese 1996: 34–40 and figs. 4–10. 30. Cf. Braun-Holzinger 1991: 219. 31. Cf. Thureau-Dangin 1934: 143; Parrot 1956: 70–71 no. 2, fig. 47, pls. XXVII–XXIX; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 5 MP 1. For the date of this piece, cf. above, p. 69.

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

DÙL en-ti-il NU.BÀNDA dINANA(.)NITA SA12.RIG9

159

Statue of Yindinªil, 32 the superintendent: he presented it (5) to INANA(.)NITA (4). 33

Similarly, Yisqimari, king of Mari, presented his statue to the god INANA(.)NITA (Cat. 12); Óinnaªil, king of Kis, made his statue and placed it before ºAstar (Cat. 10); Enmetênnâk, ruler of Lagas, created a statue of himself and took it into the temple of Ellil (Cat. 9), and so on. There are, however, statues dedicated by more than one person. This is the case, for instance, of a fragment of inscribed torso found at Uruk: 34 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

dnin-subur

áya-dimir-mu10 ad-da AK samma dutu KUM-dúr-sè 35 ama áya-dimir-mu10-ke4 ud dnin-ìmma gù e-na-dé-a ní mu-ni-ªtukuº [áya]-dimir-[m]u10 KUM-dúr-sè a [mu-na-ru]

Ayadimirmu, father of Akka, the temple administrator of Utu, and KUM-durse, mother of Ayadimirmu— when Ninªimmâk, called him (= Akka), they showed reverence for (1.) Ninsuburak: [Aya]dimirmu and KUM-durse pres[ented (this statue) to her.]

The fact that the statue is of a male leads us to believe that it represents Ayadimirmu, despite the fact that it was jointly dedicated by Ayadimirmu and his mother. In the cases of statues bearing a dedication by more than one individual of the same sex, the question of identification is more problematical. Consider the following example: 36 1. dnin-subur bàd 2. en-zi sipad 3. amar-ki-kug

To Ninsuburak of Bad 37 (or: Ninsuburak of the walls 38), Enzi, the shepherd, and Amarkikugak,

32. Previously generally read as “Abih(ª)il” or “Ebih(ª)il.” EN.TI is, however, attested as a personal name at Ebla, where it has been convincingly interpreted as a form of the verb nadanum (cf. Krebernik 1988: 56–57 sub N-D(-N?); Pagan 1998: 145 sub ndn and 307: en-ti). Since the god/mountain Ebih (Jebel Hamrin) is not otherwise attested in the third millennium b.c. in either the pantheon or the onomasticon of Mari, it is preferable to interpret EN.TI.IL as en-ti-il = /yindinªil/, “Il Has Given” (note, moreover, that if EN.TI were the logogram for Ebih, we would expect it to be preceded by the divine determinative). 33. For this deity, cf. p. 185: Cat. 12, comm. on line 7. 34. Falkenstein 1963: 2–4, pls. 5–6; Steible 1982b: 339–40 AnUruk 1; Becker 1993: 77, pls. 69–70:953. 35. For this reading, instead of “kum-tus-sè” (as proposed by Steinkeller 1987: 191), cf. é KUM-dúr-ra in ITT 3, 5279 rev. i 8. 36. CT 10, pl. 2: (BM) 22470; King 1910: plate facing p. 102, left-hand side; Steible 1982b: 343–44 Anonym 6. 37. Cf. the GN bàdki in late Pre-Sargonic (or early Sargonic) texts from Adab (TCBI 1, 18 ii 2 and 23 i 4). It is, however, likely that many settlements of the period were named “The Fortress” (Bad, in Sumerian, or Durum, in Akkadian; cf. Steinkeller 1984b: 83–84). A different interpretation was put forward by I. Finkel apud Reade 2000b: 84. Finkel suggested that the sign BÀD here may be a logogram for the city of Der. However, Der is usually written BÀD.ANki. 38. Cf. Bauer 1985b: 150; Wiggermann 1998–2001c: 500. In this connection, cf. dinªanakx(MÙS) da bàd-da, “Inªanak (of the temple) beside the walls” (Sallaberger 1993a: 47 n. 199).

160

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia 4. dumu en-zi 5. a mu-ru

son of Enzi, presented (this statue).

Whom does this statue represent: the father, Enzi, or the son, Amarkikugak? Because of ambiguous examples such as these, 39 one may wonder whether the votive statues of the Early Dynastic period were indeed meant to represent (and portray?) their donors and act as their substitutes in prayer. 40 Or were they merely expressions of devotion or gratitude toward the gods (as appears to have been the case with the above-cited statue dedicated by Ayadimirmu and his mother) and means of requesting divine intervention in favor (“for the life”) of those making the offerings or of some third person? In other words, was the statue purely the medium, the means of conveying a devotional message or a personal request that could otherwise have been inscribed on any kind of votive object? As we have seen above, the representee behind specific statues is not clear; nor is it clear precisely what purpose so-called votive statues are meant to serve: were they thought to pray incessantly on their donors’ behalf or simply stand at mute attention, holding donors’ messages up for the gods to see? In this connection, note that, in the inscription of the statue of Enmetênnâk (Cat. 9), it is Enmetênnâk’s family god, Sul-MUSxPA, and not the statue itself, who is requested to pray for the well-being of the ruler. It is not until the Neo-Sumerian period that votive statues are explicitely said to have been created in order to pray to a deity on behalf of the offerer. As far as their typology and content are concerned, inscriptions on statues generally do not differ greatly from the sorts of epigraphs one finds on other kinds of votive objects; for example: (1a) Cat. 2: 1. tùn-ak 2. PA.TE.SI BÁHAR.É

Tunªak, viceroy of BÁHAR.É.

(1b) Grégoire 1981: pl. 1:1 (lapis bead): (1.) AK:dinªanakx(MÙS) (2.) lú-gal ummaki

Akkaªinªanakak, king of Umma. 41

(2a) Cat. 7: 1. é-kiri6 2. lugal-da-lu 3. lugal arabx(UD.“NUN”)ki

For the Ekiri: 42 Lugaldalu, king of Adab.

(2b) Pl. 14:1 and 4 (vases): 43 1. é-kiri6

For the Ekiri:

39. Also cf. Steible 1982a: 361–62 AnLag. 7 = Braun-Holzinger 1991: 241 St 5; and note the strange case of a “Sakkanakku”-period statue from Mari that bears both a dedicatory inscription by the ruler of Mari, Puzurºastar, and a label inscription of his brother (cf. Nassouhi 1926; Nagel 1959b; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 363–64 MS 9–10; BraunHolzinger 1991: 277–78 St 168; Frayne 1997: 445–46 E3/2.4.5.1; Marchesi 2006b: 219–20). 40. Cf. p. 156 with n. 4. 41. Cf. p. 100 n. 28. 42. Temple of the goddess Dimirmah/Ninhursamak at Adab (cf. Appendix A.2.1). 43. Cf. Luckenbill 1930: nos. 9 and 8, respectively.

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues 2. 3.

me-dur:ba lugal arabx(UD.“NUN”)

(3a) Cat. 5: 1. ds[ára] 2. é-abzu 3. lugal ummaki 4. mu-[g]ub!(= DU-inversum)

161

Medurba, 44 king of Adab. For S[ara,] Eªabzûk, king of Umma, set up (this statue).

(3b) Anonymous 2003: no. 388 (= CDLI P416104; statue of a lion): For Sara, Paragsagnudîd, 1. dsára parag-sàg-nu-di king of Umma, 2. lugal ummaki 3. mu-gub set up (this statue). (3c) Pl. 11:10 (mace-head): 45 (1.) me-SILIM (2.) lugal kisi (3.) é-rú (4.) dnin-mír:su (5.) dnin-mír-ªsuº (6.) mu-gub (7.) lugal-sag4-damal (8.) PA.TE.SI (9.) [la]gasx([BUR].NU11)l[a]

Me¶alim, 46 king of Kis, the builder of Ninmirsûk, for Ninmirsûk, set up (this mace), (at the time of) Lugalsagdamalak 47 (as) viceroy of [La]gas.

(4a) Cat. 9 b iii 8–iv 1: 8. ud-ba en-mete-na-ke4 9. alan-na-né 10. mu-dú 11. en-mete-na-dellilx(EN.É)-le-ki-ám 12. mu mu-né-se21 13. dellilx(EN.É)-la 14. é-a iv 1. mu-na-ni-kurx(DU)

At that time Enmetênnâk created (10) a statue of himself (9), named it (12): “Enmetênnâk is the beloved of Ellil”(11), and brought it here (iv 1) to Ellil (13) into the temple (14).

(4b) Lug. 15 48 iiiu (brick): [ud-ba lugal-dimir-da] 1u. ala[n-na]-né 2u. mu-dú

[At that time Lugaldimirda 49] created (2u ) a statue of himself (1u ),

44. Frayne (2008: 19–20) now reads this name as “Me-ba-LAK 551.” However, the third sign is not LAK 551, but LAK 545 = DUR, as Jacobsen (1957: 125 n. 74) already recognized. Cf. dur (= LAK 545) an-ki, “the bond of Heaven and Earth” (well-known epithet of Nippur as center of the universe), in Zame Hymns 4 (Biggs 1974: 46; Early Dynastic literary composition). For Medurba, also cf. the DN dnin-dur-ba/durba (Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998–2001a). 45. Cf. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: XXXV and pl. 1 ter:2. 46. Cf. p. 101 n. 40. 47. Cf. p. 122 n. 220. 48. Sollberger 1956: 55 Ukg. 9; Steible 1982a: 276–77 Lug. 15; Frayne 2008: 242–43 E1.9.8.2. 49. Traditionally read as “Lugalanda,” but cf. the following note.

162

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia 3u. 4u.

lugal-dimir-da-nu-hum-má-mír[nun]-sè-nu-[kusu4] mu m[u-né-se21] [dnin-mír-su-ra] [é-a] [mu-na-ni-kurx(DU)]

na[med it (4u ):] “Lugaldimirdanuhumma is never [tired] for the Fir[nun]” (3u ), 50 [and brought it here] [to Ninmirsûk] [into the temple.]

On the other hand, statues differ from other votive objects in that they have a human form. This fact has obviously some significance. Moreover, statues were not merely “made” or “fashioned” (dím), like any other kind of votive object: they were “created / brought into the world” (dú), as though they were living beings. 51 Sometimes, they were even given proper names. This custom was later (in the Neo-Sumerian period) extended to the other classes of votive objects as well, but only statues and stelae were named in Early Dynastic times. 52 As Gelb observed, “the purpose in naming ex-voto objects is not solely identification. [. . .] the existence of ex-voto names manifests a case of animistic tendency to endue things with life: [. . .] names are given to ex-voto objects because living things exist only by having names.” 53 Finally, note that the word for “statue”—Sumerian alam/n, Akkadian ßalmum (DÙL)—more properly means “image, figure, representation.” 54 Accordingly, we should translate the clause alan-na-né mu-dú in the inscription of the staue of Enmetênnâk (Cat. 9) not “he created a statue of himself ” but rather “he created an image of himself.” This suggests, again, that the statues were conceived of as representations—or, rather, living representations—of their dedicants. 55

4.2. Definition of the Corpus We consider a royal statue any statue that bears an inscription of a city-ruler, be he a “king” (lugal/¶arrum) or a “viceroy” (PA.TE.SI and variants). 56 However, we also include in our collection the statue of an individual who does not bear an explicit royal title. The unusual size of the statue in question (Cat. 11a; cf. p. 135 n. 32; and p. 153) and the long series of epithets that fol50. Firnun, “Great/Noble Sword,” is a nickname or an epithet of the Eninnu, the temple of Ninmirsûk at Firsu (cf. Marchesi 2006a: 114–15 with n. 590). Another statue of Lugaldimirda was similarly called dnin-ªmír-suº-mír-nun-sèªnuº-[k]usu4, “O Ninmirsûk, He Is Never Tired for the Firnun” (DP 66 vi 7; cf. below, p. 235 sub [6]). Such names appear to pun on the name of the ruler, Lugaldimirdanuhumma, “The King Who Does Not Rest When It Comes to Serve the God” (hum = nâhum). The reading dimir-da is preferable to an-da, considering that there is no evidence for a cult of the skygod, An, at Lagas in the Early Dynastic period (cf. Gebhard Selz 1990: 124 and 132; 1995: 24 sub 6). The term dimir here indicates the god par excellence—that is, at Lagas, Ninmirsûk (cf. Gebhard Selz 1995: 108 sub 2 and 3). Lugaldimirdanuhumma was probably a ceremonial name deriving from the personal name of the ruler, Lugaldimirda (cf. Marchesi 2006a: 3–4 n. 9), which, in turn, is presumably the abbreviation of Lugaldimirdanumeªa (lugal-dimir-da-nu-me-a), “The King (Does Not Rule) without (the Consent of) the God” (VS 27, 4 iii 1). For a different view, cf. Bauer 1998: 475 and 515 (but note that Bauer’s interpretation of the name Lugaldimirdanuhumma does not account for the final /a/ in the verbal form /nuhumma/). 51. For the meaning “to give birth, bring into the world, create” of the verb /dud/ (dú-d) with reference to statues, cf. Vanstiphout 1970: 13–15 n. 30; Horowitz 2003: 151–52. 52. Cf. Gelb 1956. 53. Gelb 1956: 69. 54. Cf. PSD A/3 160–70 s.v. alam; CAD Í 78–85 s.v. ßalmu s.; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 231. 55. Also cf. §3.3. 56. Cf. §2.2.

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues

163

low the name of its offerer lead us to surmize that this statue is most likely a royal monument. 57 Although rare, other such votive objects bearing the inscriptions of rulers whose royal titles are not indicated are, in fact, documented. 58 This could also be the case of a statue from Early Dynastic IIIa (Pl. 43:5–6) that bears a rather unique inscription: 1. subur 2. nimir 3. dnin-é-gal 4. é-rú

Subur, the herald of Ninªegalak, is the builder (of the temple). 59

The title nimir dnin-é-gal, “herald of Ninªegalak,” is not attested elsewhere, nor do we know of anyone else being identified as the herald of a god. It is, therefore, conceivable that this is not the name of a profession but rather an epithet. As an epithet, nimir dnin-é-gal fits well with the figure of a ruler. Who else besides the ruler could present himself as the spokesman of the goddess Ninªegalak, alias Inªanak? 60 However, in the Early Dynastic period, the activity of building for the gods may not have been the sole prerogative of the ruler. Note, for instance, this inscription on the statue of Ekur (WA 114206; Pl. 16:5–6), found at Tell al-ºUbaid: 61 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

é:kur KA:GUR7 unugki ddam:gal-nun mu-dú ªéº mu-rú

Ekur, superintendent of the granaries of Uruk, created (4) a (statue of) Damgalnunak (3) and built (her) “house.”

Even if house in this instance does not refer to a temple but rather to a chapel within the temple of the goddess Ninhursamak at Tell al-ºUbaid, 62 it is nonetheless of some significance that a mere superintendent of the granaries boasted of having created a divine image and built a home for it. 63 57. Inscriptions of other high-ranking personages (family members of the ruler and officials) are generally more prosaic, merely indicating the name of the offerer, with the possible addition of his title/profession and family relationship. Among the various epithets attached to the offerer of this statue, of particular note is na¶iª (ÍL) ªili (DIFIR.DIFIR), “he who maintains/supports the gods,” which undoubtedly refers to one of the main tasks of the ruler: that of providing ritual food offerings to the gods in order to assure their favor and support for the human community, of which the king was the highest representative. 58. Cf. Steible 1982b: 218 Enn. A1 (= Frayne 2008: 75 E1.8.3.1); Steible 1982b: 295 Ensak. 2 (= Frayne 2008: 430–31 E1.14.17.2); Steible 1982b: 298–99 Lukin. 1 (= Frayne 2008: 415–16 E1.14.14.3a); Braun-Holzinger 1991: 375 Varia 4 (= Frayne 2008: 415–16 E1.14.14.3b). 59. Cf. Grégoire 2002: 455 Anonyme 1, pls. LXXXV–LXXXVI. 60. Cf. Wilcke 1976–80: 76–77 (§§3.1 and 3.6), 79 (§5). 61. Note that no other statue of Ekur is attested. The attribution of a second statue found at Tell al-ºUbaid (Pl. 16:7– 8) to the same individual (cf. C. J. Gadd in Hall and Woolley 1927: 125; Steible 1982b: 283 AnUr 8 with n. 1; Reade 2002: 261) is due to an erroneous reading. The sign on the back of this statue that has been read É is in fact NIMGIR (cf. Pl. 16:9). 62. Cf. Steinkeller 1995a: 279. 63. The wealth and power of high-ranking officials and other eminent personages are also demonstrated by the evident high value of certain ex-voto objects such as the copper head of a bull that was found at Firsu in the archaic temple of Ninmirsûk built by Urnansêk (AO 2676; Pl. 12:1–3), which bears the dedication of a lamentation-priest (cf. p. 124 n. 244). More direct evidence of the impressive economic means of such persons is provided by a number of contracts registering the sale

164

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

In the absence of additional and clearer comparisons, it is not possible to determine with certainty whether Subur, “the herald of Ninªegalak,” was a city-ruler or simply a temple official. For this reason, we decided not to include his statue in the present collection of royal statuary. Also not included is the inscribed fragment of a statue that was previously attributed to either Enªannâbtum I or Enmetênnâk. 64 The statue in question (Pl. 44:8–9) may instead belong to a son of Enªannâbtum I. 65

4.3. Statue Inscriptions (Cat. 1–12) Cat. 1—HAR.TU (Pl. 36:1)

Fig. 1a. Jacobsen 1942: fig. 205:8. (1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)

HAR.TU lugal PA.FAR DIFIR-MA.ªTUMº sul an(/dimir) amar nu-nam-ama

(offerer:) HAR.TU, king of PA.FAR. (offeree:) Ilumaªtim, the young one of Heaven (or, of the gods), the calf of Nunamªama.

Bibl.: Jacobsen 1942: 296 no. 8 and fig. 205:8; Frankfort 1943: pl. 30:C; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 68 OIP 60 Nr. 263 Ag. 35:857 and pl. 12:b; Steible 1982b: 199 AnAgr. 1; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 28 VP 1; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 242 St 12; 2007: 74–75 FD 22 and pl. 27 top. Collations:

Fig. 1b. SUL AN (line 4).

Fig. 1c. NU NAM AMA (line 5).

of land, such as the so-called Tablet of Enhemal (Gelb et al. 1991: no. 20), which records the purchase of various fields, totaling an area of 975 hectares, by the “purification-priest” (isib) Lugalkigalla (cf. Wilcke 1996: 26–30). 64. Cf. Sollberger 1959: 4–6; Marchesi 2006b: 243–45 Cat. 9; Frayne 2008: 183 E1.9.4.11. 65. Cf. Steible 1982a: 194–95 En. I 25; 1982b: 92 n. 1 to En. I 25.

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues 1.

2.

165

This very archaic yet elaborate inscription seems to contain a dedication to the god Ilumaªtim by a king named HAR.TU. The text probably runs from left to right, as is the case with other Early Dynastic inscriptions. 66 The term HAR.TU, of uncertain reading, 67 was used to designate a kind of equid (Civil 2008: 112) and a class of personnel, both male and female (Bauer 1972: 95; Renger 1972–75: 440; Sallaberger 1996c: 95). This fact and contextual evidence suggest the meaning “domestic donkey” for anseHAR.TU (or anse-HAR.TU); and “domestic servant/slave” for HAR.TU, referring to a person. 68 An interpretation of HAR.TU lugal (lines 1–2 of our text) as a professional identification (“domestic servant of the king”) or a personal name (Braun-Holzinger 2007: 75), though possible, is improbable: as a matter of fact, HAR.TU lugal is not otherwise attested. On the other hand, HAR.TU is well attested as a personal name (both male and female) in the Early Dynastic period. Cf. Biggs 1974: no. 116 xiii 6u (from Abu Salabikh); DP 128 iii 7 (Firsu); 69 Gelb et al. 1991: no. 14 vii 6 and xiv 12 (Isin?); Grégoire 1996: pl. 1: Ashm. 1924-455 ii 2 (Larsa?) and Ashm. 1924-462 iv 6 (Marad); Pomponio 1987: 116–17 (Suruppak); Steible 1982b: 202–3 AnEsn. 2:3 (Esnunak); Westenholz 1975b: nos. 23 x 1, 46 i 5 and 52:10 (Nippur). 70 PA.FAR should represent the ancient name of Tell Agrab. Note the occurrence of PA.FAR as a placename in the Fara PN PA.FAR-si (Deimel 1924: no. 146 i 2); 71 and cf. the expression ki PA mar-ra, “the place where the staff of command is/was placed” (Izi C iii 1: MSL 13, p. 177). Accordingly, PA.FAR might be interpreted as a Diri-type logogram 72 conveying the notion of leading town and denoting a capital city whose name (= the reading of PA.FAR) is unknown. 73 Another possibility is to interpret PA.FAR, or rather NÍF:PA, as a punning writing of the toponym Ha††am. NÍF.PA occurs in third-millennium texts as a logogram for ha††um, “stick, scepter,” 74 and an Old Babylonian geographical list from Tell Harmal lists a place-name ha-aD-Tamki (MSL 11, p. 58 line 146) associated with centers of northern Babylonia and the Diyala region. Since ha-aD-Tamki can stand for Ha††am (ha-a†-†amki), NÍF.PA = ha††um might have been used as a kind of rebus writing for indicating the quasi-homonymous city of Ha††am.

66. Cf. Pl. 50:2 left (cf. p. 76 n. 257); CT 32, pl. 8: (BM) 60036 (cf. Steible 1982b: 262 AnSippar 1); Woolley 1934: pl. 198:65 (cf. Marchesi 2004: 178–81); etc. 67. Cf. Krecher 1973: 197 (“ur5-tu” or “ur5-dú”); 1987b: 17 (“emex-dú” or “ur5-dú”); Steinkeller 1989: 130 n. 389; 1993a: 121 n. 38 (“àr-tu”); Krebernik 1998: 263 n. 267 (“warx-tu”). Note, however, that a derivation of HAR.TU from Akkadian wardum, as has been suggested by Stenkeller and Krebernik, is not only difficult morphologically (cf. Krecher 1973: 197) but also semantically unlikely (note that the referent of HAR.TU can be either male or female, while wardum is a male gender word). Nor is it likely that HAR.TU was an archaic writing for /urdu(d)/, “servant/slave,” or /emedu(d)/, “house-borne slave” (cf. Gebhard Selz 1989: 73–74; Wilcke 2007: 54). 68. People termed HAR.TU could be bought and owned by individuals (cf. Biggs 1974: no. 256 [Instructions of Suruppak—Abu Salabikh recension] vi 12: HAR.TU na-sa10, “Do not buy a domestic servant”) or institutions (cf. Gebhard Selz 1993: 209–11; Such-Gutiérrez 2005–6: 7 nn. 56 and 58). 69. HAR.TU is here the name of a woman (HAR.TU ama ur-HAR-sar-ra-ka). 70. In all likelihood, HAR.TU is the abbreviation of a theophoric name of the type HAR.TU + DN, “Servant of DN,” like HAR.TU-dasgix(HI¥DIS)gi4 / d.as asgix(SIR)gi4* (CUSAS 11, 67 rev. ii 1; CT 50, 136 rev. 1*), HAR.TU-dnissabakx(NAFA) (Biggs 1974: no. 34 rev. coloph. 10) and HAR.TU-dsùd (Pomponio 1987: 117–19).

71. For the name type *x(-e/Ce)-si, with x being either a geographical name or a temple-name, cf. Krebernik 2002: 29–30 sub 10. 72. A Diri logogram is a sign complex (consisting of the combination of two or more graphemes) whose reading has no obvious relationship to the readings of its components (cf. Civil 2004: 3). Diri compounds were mostly based on semantic associations, and their spellings very often suggest the meanings of the words they express (cf. Marchesi 2001: 316 with n. 36). 73. The determinative for places (= ki), which usually follows geographical names, is often omitted in Early Dynastic I–IIIa texts. 74. Cf., e.g., ED Word List A 40 (Civil 2008: 27): NÍF.PA za-gìn = ha††i (NÍF.PA) ªuqnîm (GÌN), “stick/scepter of lapis lazuli.” Also note mesNÍF.PAni-in-gi-da-ar har-musen-na = ha†-†i MIN (= hu-ha-ri), “stick of the bird trap” (Hh VI 221: MSL 6, p. 72).

166 3.

4.

5.

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Jacobsen (1942: 296) read this line as “dkilim(?)-ma,” based on comparisons with LAK 245 and LAK 246. However, these two forms of the sign KILIM only occur in later texts from the Sargonic and Ur III periods. In the Early Dynastic period, KILIM was quite different (cf. Krebernik 1984a: 288). Moreover, the writing of the genitive (-ma) is totally unexpected in such an archaic inscription. The sign interpreted by Jacobsen as KILIM is actually more probably TUM. 75 A deity whose name is written AN.TUM.MA occurs in Deimel 1923: no. 1 viii 1 (Krebernik 1986: 175) and the interpretation of AN.TUM.MA as DIFIR-MA:TUM, for /ªilu-maªtim/, “God of the Land,” 76 is suggested by comparison with the likely variant spelling DIFIR-má-ti in a contemporary god-list from Abu Salabikh (Biggs 1974: no. 82 rev. iu 2; cf. Krebernik 1986: 166). This and the following line seem to contain two epithets of the god Ilumaªtim. For sul, “young/youthful (one),” cf. Marchesi 2004: 191–92. The phrase sul an occurs otherwise in the PN munus-sul-ank(a), “The Woman (= Inªanak) Is the Young One of Heaven” (Yıldız and Gomi 1988: no. 935:5). However, the possibility of an alternative reading sul dimir (for sul dimir-re-ne) is also to be considered; cf. the ceremonial name of king Sulgir, sul-an-né-zu-dimir-re-ne, “Prominent Young One of the Gods” (Marchesi 2006a: 4 n. 9). Cf. the epithet amar bàndada dellilx(EN.É), “impetuous calf of Ellil,” attributed to the god Zuªen in the inscription of the Stele of the Vultures (cf. Behrens and Steible 1983: 29). nu-nam-ama is likely to represent an archaic compound consisting of the “nominal prefix” {nu} joined to an abstract noun. Cf. nu-nam-sita, in the Pre-Sargonic PN eres-nu-nam-sita (Struve 1984: 151 s.v. Nin-nu-nam-sitax), and Ellil’s byname nu-nam-nir (cf. Edzard 1962: 95–96; Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998–2001f). If nu-nam-nir, which contains the word for “authority/supremacy” (nam-nir), refers to Ellil, the supreme god, then nu-nam-ama, which contains the word for “motherhood” (nam-ama) (cf. von Soden 1989), should refer to the great Mesopotamian mother-goddess, Ninhursamak. 77 It is quite possible that Nunamªama was a local form of Ninhursamak worshiped at Tell Agrab. This would explain why this deity is not known from any other source.

Cat. 2—Tunªak (Pl. 36:3–4)

Fig. 2. Adapted from Parrot 1952b: fig. 1.

75. Cf. the form of the sign TUM in the inscription on the so-called Khafajah Bird (Gelb et al. 1991: no. 9 iii 8). 76. MA.TUM is probably an Akkadogram, that is, a “fossilized” syllabic spelling used as a logogram. A reconstruction of the status constructus of ilum in early Akkadian as ªilu, rather than ªil, is suggested by bound forms such as en-bu, gal-pù, and su-mu in the PNs en-bu-DIFIR /ºenbu-ªilum/, “Fruit of the God” (Gelb et al. 1991: no. 40 A ix 22), gal-pù-as11-dar /kalbu-ºastar/, “Dog of ºAstar” (Westenholz 1975b: no. 47 i 3), and su-mu-as-[d]ar /¶umu-ºastar/, “Offspring of ºAstar” (Deimel 1924: no. 136 i 2). 77. Following Edzard (1962: 96), who takes nu-nam-nir to mean “der mit nam-nir zu tun hat/versehen ist,” we could interpret nu-nam-ama as “die mit nam-ama (= Mutterschaft) zu tun hat/versehen ist” (also cf. Attinger 1993: 156–57 §98 b 1).

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues 1. 2.

tùn-ak PA.TE.SI BÁHAR.É

167

Tunªak, viceroy of BÁHAR.É.

Bibl.: Parrot 1952b: fig. 1 and pl. XXIV; J. Nougayrol apud Parrot 1952: 74; Parrot 1957: fig. 2 and pl. XIV; J. Nougayrol apud Parrot 1957: 225; Sollberger 1957–71; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 75 AO 20146 and pl. 13:a–b; Edzard et al. 1977: 40 s.v. Eªeden; Steible 1982a: 364 AnLag. 2; Cooper 1986a: 17–18 Ee 1; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 241 St 6; Frayne 1992: 33 with n. 241 (on p. 119); Braun-Holzinger 2007: 74 FD 21 and pl. 27 bottom; Frayne 2008: 45–46 E1.5.1. 1.

2.

Usually transliterated “GÍN.AK/AKA*” (Sollberger 1957–71; Edzard et al. 1977: 40*; Steible 1982a: 364) or “GÌN.AK” (J. Nougayrol apud Parrot 1952b: 74; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 75; 1991: 241; 2007: 74), 78 this name has also been read “àga-ak” (Bauer 1985a: 12; Frayne 2008: 45) or “tùngal” (Frayne 1992: 119 n. 241). However, the first sign is DÙN (= LAK 666/786) not GÍN/ÀGA (= LAK 667) (cf. Krebernik 1998: 277); and the following sign is undoubtedly AK. Therefore, the name of this Early Dynastic ruler is tùn-ak, possibly to be connected with tún/tu11 AK, “to fight” (cf. Attinger 2005: 255). BÁHAR.É was previously read “ªà:dinx” (Frayne 1992: 33) or “é:eden/edin*” (Edzard et al. 1977: 40; Frayne 2008: 46*). However, the sign accompanying É is clearly BÁHAR (= LAK 742), and not EDIN (= LAK 747) (cf. Krebernik 1998: 283 with n. 524). In all likelihood, BÁHAR.É is the same toponym as BÁHAR.É.ZA7 in a geographical list of the Uruk period (Archaic Cities 64: ATU 3, p. 149). An Early Dynastic recension of the same lexical composition, from Suruppak, bears the orthographic variant BÁHAR.ZA7.NUN.É.TUS (Deimel 1923: no. 23 iv 9), which recalls the spelling dBÁHAR.É.NUN.ZA.TUS of a divine name that occurs in some Neo-Sumerian incantations (cf. Kramer and Eren 1978: pl. I: Ni 2177 ii 8u; TMH 6, 14:3, 79 19 iii 8, and pl. 38: VAT 6082:14). The same theonym is probably found at Suruppak (Deimel 1923: no. 1 vii 18) with the abbreviated writing dBÁHAR.É (cf. Krebernik 1986: 175). It is, therefore, likely that BÁHAR.É and its variants are writings of the type ELLILx for /nibru/ (the city of the god Ellil), ASAR for /kuªar(a)/ (city of the god Asar), NANSE for /nimen/ (city of the goddess Nanse), etc. (cf. Marchesi 2006a: 23 n. 94). In other words, BÁHAR.É(.NUN.ZA(7).TUS) is presumably a Diri-type logogram (cf. n. 72 above) for the unknown city of the god dBÁHAR.É(.NUN.ZA(7).TUS). The latter must originally have been a craftsman god—the sign group BÁHAR.É.ZA(7).TUS meaning “the potter who dwells in the Eza (‘House—Precious Stone’).” In two of the Ur III incantations mentioned above, the god dBÁHAR.É.NUN.ZA.TUS is styled lugal nam-isib-ba, “lord/patron of the purification craft” (Ni 2177 ii 8u; VAT 6082:15). In later incantations, the same epithet is applied to the god dnun-ur4-ra (YOS 11, 63:6; 5R 51 iii 71 // SpTU 3, 66:54), also called báhar-gal an-na, “the chief potter of An,” and whose name is furthermore also written with the logogram dBÁHAR, meaning “the potter-god” (cf. CAD P 23; Sallaberger 1996a: 5–6; Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998–2001g; Ambos 2004: 24; W. G. Lambert 2005). All these analogies suggest that dBÁHAR.É.NUN.ZA(7).TUS was an archaic spelling of the DN dnun-ur4-ra, probably to be analyzed as dBÁHAR.ÉnunZA(7).TUS (with nun being a phonetic indicator). 80

78. Obviously a reiterated misreading (note that the value gìn belongs to the sign KUR). 79. Note that Geller’s reading “dbáhar-un-za-ku” (TMH 6, p. 51) is wrong: both van Dijk’s copy (TMH 6, pl. 10) and Geller’s own (pl. 36), as well as the published photo (pl. 45), clearly show É.NUN in the place of “un.” 80. A different analysis has most recently been proposed by Krispijn (2008: 181–82), who reads this DN as “ dbáharagrun(É.NUN)-za-ku” and interprets it as “The Divine Potter-Moulder of the Pure (Akkadian zakû) Cella.” Apart from the oddness of a hybrid Sumero-Akkadian name, it should be noted that DÚR/TUS and KU are two distinct graphemes in the Fara period (cf. Krebernik 1998: 278), and the Fara text Deimel 1923: no. 23 iv 9 clearly has DÚR/TUS, not KU.

168

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Cat. 3—Urlammarak (Pl. 36:2)

1. 2.

ur:dlammarx(KAL) NÍF:ªPAº.SI AN.PA.ªxº

Urlammarak, viceroy of AN.PA.x.

Bibl.: Lenormant 1868: 234–36; 1873–75: 145 no. 56; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 75 BM 91667; 1991: 255 St 89; 2007: 44–45 FD 35 and pl. 36. 1.

Lexical sources dating to the first millennium b.c. consistently give /lamma/ as the reading of the logogram dKAL in Sumerian (cf. Borger 2004: 138). However, there is ample evidence that the word originally ended in /r/. Cf., e.g., dlammarx(KAL)-ra (genitive) in the PN ur-dlammarx(KAL)-ra-ke4 in the ergative case (Molina 1999–2000: 228 no. 40:1); and dlammarx(KAL)-re (ergative) in the Dumu Anak hymn to Bawu (CT 36, pls. 39–40), lines 18 and 20 (cf. Marchesi 2006a: 134–35). 2. Cf. lum-ma NÍF.PA.SI, “Lumma, the viceroy (of Adab)” (Pl. 14:2; cf. Luckenbill 1930: no. 26; Frayne 2008: 26 E1.1.5.2). 81 NÍF.PA.SI is assumed to be a variant spelling of the Sumerian term for “viceroy,” usually written NÍF.PA.TE.SI or PA.TE.SI. 82 This interpretation is supported by the additionally shortened spelling PA.SI, which occurs in the archaic texts of Ur (cf. Hallo 1957: 35; Bauer 1987b). AN.PA.ªxº should represent a geographical name, although not otherwise attested. As an alternative, AN.PA.ªxº could be interpreted as a DN: dPA.ªxº. If so, then we would have here an inscription of the type offerer (“the viceroy Urlammarak”) + offeree (the god “PA.x”), as in Cat. 1. Note: According to Braun-Holzinger (2007: 44), the ductus of this inscription “[läßt] sich recht gut mit Inschriften aus der Zeit des Urnanse oder etwas später vergleichen.” However, free spatial organization of the writing, the lack of a dedication formula, and the use of the spelling NÍF.PA.SI instead point to a date in Early Dynastic II or, at the latest, Early Dynastic IIIa. A second, apparently meaningless inscription consisting of four signs (GIBIL ÙZ KID IR) was added later to the right shoulder. The signs of this secondary inscription, which do not respect the required proportions, 83 recall certain archaizing writings of the first millennium b.c. (cf. CTN 4, 229 and 235 [cf. Finkel 1997]; Pearce 1996: fig. 3 on p. 473; Civil 2010: 260) more than the script of the Akkadian period (contra Braun-Holzinger 2007: 44). Cat. 4—Epaªe of Adab (Pl. 36:5)

Fig. 3. Al-Mutawalli and Miglus 2002: fig. 10. 1. 2. 3. 4.

é-rú dnin-é:gal!(GA) é-pa-è lugal arabx(UD.“NUN”)ki

The builder of Ninªegalak, Epaªe, king of Adab.

Bibl.: Al-Mutawalli and Miglus 2002: 4–6 and figs. 9–10; Braun-Holzinger 2007: 73 FD 16 and pl. 25: FD 16 (b). 81. Note that no part of the inscription is lost (collated). 82. For NÍF.PA.TE.SI as a spelling variant of PA.TE.SI, cf. p. 172: Cat. 6, comm. on line 2. 83. Note the excessively elongated forms of the signs GIBIL and ÙZ (especially if compared to KID).

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues

169

1–2. Cf. king Me¶alim’s epithet é-rú dnin-mír-su (cf. p. 161 sub 3c). Also note that é-rú DN does not correspond to Akkadian bani bit DN, “the builder of the house of DN,” as suggested by C. Wilcke (apud Steible 1982b: 216): é-rú is instead a compound noun of the type dub-sar, meaning “he who builds houses, builder.” 84 Accordingly, é-rú DN means “the builder (in the service) of DN.” As regards the reading “ dnin-SU!?-KID!?” proposed by Al-Mutawalli and Miglus (2002: 4–5) for the divine name in line 2, note: (1) a deity dnin-SU.KID is not attested otherwise; (2) the sign read by Al-Mutawalli and Miglus as “KID!?” is clearly É; (3) in no way can the sign before É be interpreted as SU: in all likelihood, the sign in question is an incomplete GAL. For the goddess Ninªegalak (= Inªanak?), cf. Wilcke 1976–80: 75–76 §3.1; Behrens 1998: 13–23; Behrens and Klein 1998–2001. Ninªegalak does not seem to be attested in third-millennium administrative texts from Adab (cf. Such-Gutiérrez 2005–6). However, an unprovenanced inscribed statuette (Pl. 43:5–6), which, curiously, was published the very same year as the statue of Epaªe (Grégoire 2002: 455 Anonyme 1, pls. LXXXV–LXXXVI), could confirm the existence of her cult at Adab in Early Dynastic IIIa. Its inscription reads: “Subur, the herald of Ninªegalak, is the builder” (of the building or room hosting the statue) (cf. above, p. 163). Very close in style to the statue of Epaªe, this statuette may well likewise stem from illicit excavations at the site of Bismaya. 85 A third Early Dynastic artifact dedicated to Ninªegalak, a copper statuette with a dedication by a scribe named Lukesak (lú-kès), “He of Kes” (Metropolitan 1989.281.4; Pl. 52:2), is presumably also from Adab. 86 4. In the writing of the toponym UD.NUNki at Pre-Sargonic Adab, the sign NUN is not exactly NUN but a similar sign that ends in an arrow point. Here the transliteration “NUN” is used to distinguish this sign from the true NUN sign (cf. Krecher 1992: 298 with n. 38). The logogram UD.NUNki is traditionally read /adab/, on the basis of the reading a-da-ab given in the first-millennium lexical series Diri (cf. MSL 15, p. 110 line 140). However, in the Old Babylonian period, the name of the city Adab was variously pronounced /arab/, 87 /arabu/, 88 or (in Akkadian) /usab/. 89 All these variants derive from an etymological form /urabu/, which was probably current before the Sargonic period (cf. Yang 1987; de Maaijer and Jagersma 1997–98: 286 s.v. a12-rá-bu; Jagersma 2000). 90 A short form /urab/ or /arab/ is first attested in the Akkadian period and seems to represent the standard Sumerian pronunciation of the word at Adab itself in the late third millennium b.c. 91 84. Note the occurrences of é-rú in Early Dynastic lists of professional names: ED Lu C 69 (Taylor 2003: §4); ED Lu E 65 (MSL 12, p. 18; MEE 3, p. 38). 85. Curiously enough, the only other known votive object with a dedication in the name of Subur is an Early Dynastic IIIa diorite vessel found at Adab. Its inscription (Luckenbill 1930: no. 28) reads: é:kiri6 subur, “For the Ekiri: Subur” (cf. Braun-Holzinger 1991: 123 G 49). Chances are that the Subur of this inscription and the “herald of Ninªegalak” are the same person. He might also have been a ruler of Adab (cf. above, pp. 163–64). 86. Kes being the main religious center of the state of Adab (cf. Edzard 1976–80). The name of the offerer of this statuette has previously been read “Lú-Te.SARGADU” (V. Crawford in Hoffmann 1964: no. 55) or “lú-x-SÁRxGAD” (Steible 1982b: 346 Anonym 12; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 255 St 87). However, the name in question is lú-kès; the whole inscription reads: dnin-é-gal-ra / lú-kès / dub-sar / dumu ur-dnin-mug?* / a mu-ru (*reading uncertain, but almost certainly not “ur-dnin-urta,” as read in the previous literature). 87. Cf. a-ra-ba for UD.NUNki-a (locative) in VS 2, 48:8u (cf. Bergmann 1964: 8 ad loc.); and [dimerx(AN)me]-ermah dimerxme-er a-ra-ba-ra (VS 2, 54 rev. 5u ), Emesal for dimir-mah dimir UD.NUNki(-a)-ra, “to Dimirmah, the patron deity of Adab” (a-ra-ba = /arab/ + /a(k)/, genitive). 88. Cf. OECT 5, 10 iv 9–11: se-eb a-rá-bu-ka-zu / . . . / é-mah a-rá-ªbuº-zu, “your brickwork in (lit., of) of Adab, . . . your Emah (‘August House’) in (lit., of) Adab” (cf. Black 2005: 57 and 60). Also note the spellings UD.NUNki.bu and UD.NUNbu.ki (cf. Sjöberg and Bergmann 1969: 39 [vars. to lines 376 and 377] and 121 [ad 376] with n. 76); and the reading a-ra-bu for UD.NUNki in Diri Ugarit I 118 (MSL 15, p. 71). 89. Cf. Diri Nippur 324 (MSL 15, p. 24): UD.NUNki = ú-sa-ab; and the phrase is-tu ú-sa-abki!, “from Adab,” in TCL 17, 50:21. 90. Adab (Urabu) owes its name to the homonymous bird, totemic animal of the city (Jacobsen 1967: 100–101). Cf. Westenholz 1975b: no. 4 iiiu 10u–11u, urax(UDU)-bumusen UD.NUNki ugx(U6)-ga / an-né dirig-ga-gen7, “like the urabu bird of wondrous Adab, floating in the sky” (Early Dynastic literary text). 91. Cf. PA.TE.SI UD.NUNki-ba[-ke4], in Yang 1989: 398 A 650:6 (cf. Wilcke 2007: 45 n. 114; Sargonic); and PA.TE.SI UD.NUNki-ba, in Widell 2002: §7 line 6 (Ur III).

170

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Cat. 5—Eªabzûk of Umma (Pl. 29:1–2, 4 left)

Fig. 4. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: LVI.

A = AO 22937a = Cat. 5 1. 2. 3. 4.

ds[ára]

é-abzu(ZU+AB) lugal ummaki m[u-g]ub!(= DU-inversum)

For S[ara,] E’abzûk, king of Umma, set up (this statue).

B = AO 22937b (Pl. 29:3, 4 right) 1u.

[FI]S.PAP.NE [x] S[AF] (rest broken)

... ...

Bibl.: de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: LVI (copy by F. Thureau-Dangin) and pl. 5:3; Thureau-Dangin 1907: 150–51 II.1; Toscanne 1908: 121–22; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 73 Paris ohne AO Nr. (b); Steible 1982b: 269–70 Eab. 1; Cooper 1986a: 92 Um 3; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 252 St 69; Frayne 2008: 365 E1.12.3. A 1. The traces of a squarely sign after DIFIR allow us to restore the DN dsára, as in the “parallel” inscription of Paragsagnudîd (cf. below, comm. on B 1u ). A 2. The PN é-abzu is presumably a genitival compound: *é+abzu+{ak} > /eªabzûk/, “The House of the Abzu . . . ” (abbr.); 92 cf. é-abzu-kug-[ga] = É ap-si-ªiº [el-li], “House of the Holy Abzu,” in BM 55476:1 (A. George 1993: 50 and 208). A 3. We cannot accept the suggestion that the logogram FIS.KÚSUki, traditionally read ummaki, should, instead, be interpreted as “ mismissaxki ” or the like and be related to the onomastic element mes-sag4, which appears, for example, in the PN mes-sag4-ki-dùg, “Fessag Is a Good Place” (cf. W. G. Lambert 1990a; Gebhard Selz 2003: 506–8; Frayne 2008: 357–58). In fact, a few occurrences of FIS.KÚSUki and mes-sag4 side by side in the same text make it unlikely that FIS.KÚSUki was a logographic writing of Fessag (mes-sag4). 93 Moreover, the spelling FIS.KÚSUki-a (genitive/locative), instead of **FIS. KÚSUki -ga, 94 in Early Dynastic inscriptions from Lagas (Ean. 1 x 2 [Sollberger 1956: 11], xvii 10 92. Abbreviation of a name such as é-abzu-làl, “The House of the Abzu Is Sweet” (Pomponio 1987: 73). The term abzu seems to have denoted the waters of the marsh areas in the south of Sumer—the realm of the god Enkîk and his daughter, the goddess Nanse (cf. Alster 2005: 17). 93. Cf. CT 50, 33:114–15 (mes-sag4-ki-dùg / FIS.KÚSUki-kam); Nik 2, 84 rev. 3 (FIS.KÚSU-ki-dùg) and 7 (mes-sag4-x-zu); etc. (see also n. 96 below). 94. Which would be expected if FIS.KÚSUki stood for /messag/. Cf. the DN dnin-mes-sag4-ga, “Mistress/Prince of Fessag,” in Ur III texts from Umma (MVN 1, 34 rev. 6u; TCL 5, 6038 iv 21; etc.).

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues

171

[p. 12], xviii 21 [p. 13], and passim; Ean. 11 iv 6 [p. 23]; Ent. 28 iii 36, iv 21 and vi 9 [p. 38]; Ukg. 6 iv 22u [p. 54]) shows definitively that in Old Sumerian texts, FIS.KÚSUki represents /umma/ 95 and not /messag/. 96 A 4. The sign DU is ambiguous: it can be read either gub, “cause to stand, erect, set up,” re6 /de6, “bring, carry” (cf. Sallaberger 2005; esp. p. 563 sub 1.33), or kurx, “let enter, bring in” (cf. below, p. 179: Cat. 9, comm. on b iv 1). In favor of gub, note: ud alan dsul-gi-e in-gub-ba, “When the divine Sulgir set up the statue” (YOS 4, 56:20–21; cf. Heimpel 1990: 207). Moreover, cf. Rulers of Lagas 157–59 (Sollberger 1967: 282 and 290): an-né-DU dumu ur-dnanse-ka!(text: -ke4) / ki alim-m[a]-na dimir-re-e-ne / mu-un-gu[b]-ba, “Ane-DU, son of Urnansêk, who set up (the statues of) the gods in his venerable place;” and cf. the use of Akkadian suzuzzum, the equivalent of Sumerian gub, in connection with statues, in CAD Í 79–82 (passim). B 1u. This fragment (AO 22937b) seems to contain the DN [dpa]-bilx(FIS.PAP.NE)-s[am] or, more probably, the PN pabilgax(FIS.PAP.NE)-[ur]-s[am] (cf. Marchesi 2004: 195–96). It is doubtful that the fragment in question belongs to the statue of Eªabzûk, as in the reconstruction by F. Thureau-Dangin (de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: LVI). The text of AO 22937a seems to be complete, especially if one compares it to an inscription of another king of Umma, which reads: dsára parag-sàg-nu-di / lugal ummaki / mu-gub, “For Sara, Paragsagnudîd, king of Umma, set up (this statue)” (cf. above, p. 161 sub 3b). On the other hand, the stone of the two fragments is the same (cf. p. 132 with n. 18). If they are indeed part of the same statue, then AO 22937b may attest to a secondary inscription that was added subsequently. In this connection, note that the statue of Eªabzûk was not found in the temple of the god Sara at Umma, where it had originally been placed according to the inscription of AO 22937a, but rather in Firsu, the capital of the neighboring enemy state of Lagas (cf. pp. 132–133 with n. 19). Was the statue of this king of Umma taken to Firsu as booty or as a trophy and rededicated to a Lagasite deity by some high-ranking official of Lagas? (Cf. also pp. 183–184: note to Cat. 11a.) Note: The formula DN (. . . ) mu-gub, which also occurs in inscriptions of Me¶alim (cf. p. 161 sub 3c) and Paragsagnudîd (cf. comm. on B 1u, above), helps to date the statue of Eªabzûk to Early Dynastic IIIa, rather than IIIb, because this dedicatory formula appears to have been peculiar to the former period: both Me¶alim and Paragsagnudîd are definitely earlier than Early Dynastic IIIb. The paleography of the inscription and its subdivision by means of simple lines rather than into cases also support this date (cf. Thureau-Dangin 1907: 151 n. 1). Cat. 6—Ur-AN.SI of Feskullabak (Pl. 36:7)

Fig. 5.

95. Or, more precisely, /ubmay/ (cf. Marchesi 2006a: 22 n. 86). 96. W. G. Lambert (1990a: 80) has suggested that in Early Dynastic times, FIS.KÚSUki may stand for /umma/ in texts from Lagas and for /messag/ in texts from Umma. According to Lambert, “at this time the state Lagash used the name Umma, while the town itself [. . .] used Gissa.” Note, however, that FIS.KÚSUki and mes-sag4 also occur together in Umma sources; cf. Arnaud 2007: 69 rev. i 4 (mes-sag4) and ii 1 (FIS.KÚSUki); CUNES 52-10-005 i 10 (mes-sag4-kidùg) and iii 2 (FIS.KI.KÚSU); etc.

172 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia ur-AN.ªSIº (wr. AN.SI.UR) [N]ÍF.PA.TE.ªSIº (wr. TE.NÍF.SI.PA) mes-ªKULº.[AB/UNUG(ki)] [d . . . (?)] [mu-dú (?)] parag-ªnéº [mu-rú (?)]

Ur-AN.SI, viceroy of Feskul[labak,] [created (5)] [a (statue of) DN (4)] [and built (7)] his/her (of DN) dais (6).

Bibl.: Braun-Holzinger 1991: 255 St 90. 1.

2.

The PN ur-AN.SI also occurs in Biggs 1974: no. 42 ivu 8u. Cf. amar-AN.SI (var. amar-AN.LÚ) in NPL 165 (Archi 1981b: 185); and ur-AN.SI.LU in Gelb et al. 1991: no. 40 B vi 8. AN.SI is attested as a place-name in Archaic Cities 54 (ATU 3, p. 148). The fact that NÍF.PA.TE.SI is a spelling variant of PA.TE.SI (normally transliterated as énsi; but cf. above, p. 109 with n. 128) is confirmed by the mention of Ayakurgal in an unpublished administrative tablet from Adab: the ruler of Lagas, who in his own inscriptions bears the title of PA.TE.SI lagasx (NU11.BUR)la.ki, “viceroy of Lagas” (cf. Sollberger 1956: 8 Akg. 1:2–4), appears here as NÍF.PA. TE.SI lalagas x(NU11.BUR.MUSEN)ki, 97 with his title written after the manner of Adab. Likewise, rulers of Adab had their title written as NÍF.PA.TE.SI (UD.“NUN”ki) in texts from Adab, but as PA.TE.SI UD.NUNki in texts from elsewhere; cf.: 1. ENxME-nú / NÍF.PA.TE.SI / arabx(UD.“NUN”)ki, in MS 3792 (= CDLI P252828) rev. i 13–15, and ENxME-nú / PA.TE.SI / arab(UD.NUN)ki-ke4, in MS 3029 (= CDLI P252035) rev. iv 5–7 and v 4–6. 2. ur-sam-kès / NÍF.PA.TE.SI, in MS 2464 (= CDLI P251641) rev. iv 8–9, 98 and ur-sam-kès / PA.TE. SI / arab(UD.NUN)ki-ke4, in MS 4745 (= CDLI P253775) rev. i 1–3. 3. mes-ki-gal-la / NÍF.PA.TE.SI / arabx(UD.“NUN”)ki, in TCBI 1, 14 rev. ii 9–11, and mes-ki-gal-la / PA.[TE].SI / ªarab(UD.NUN)kiº, in BIN 8, 26 vi 3–5.

3.

The two writings, PA.TE.SI and NÍF.PA.TE.SI, also occur as variants in the texts of Suruppak (cf. Pomponio and Visicato 1994: 17–19) and on an inscribed vase from Adab (cf. above, p. 112). Finally, note nam-mah NÍF.PA.TE.SI in BIN 8, 157:11 (letter-order from Isin), who is almost certainly the same person as nam-mah(-abzu) PA.TE.SI nibruki, who governed the city of Nippur at the time of ‡arkali¶arre, king of Akkad (cf. Kienast and Volk 1995: 122 ad loc.; Frayne 1993: 245–46). For this geographical name, cf. Edzard et al. 1977: 96–97 s.v. Kulªaba. The spellings FIS.KUL. UNUG(ki) and FIS.KUL.AB are probably to be analyzed as mes-kulkullabx(UNUG)(ki) and mes-kulab, respectively. Both stand for /meskullabak/, “Tree of Kullab,” 99 as is shown by the syllabic writing mesku-la-baki in the Ebla recension of ED LGN (MEE 3, p. 234 line 127). 100 Another ruler of this city is attested in TCBI 1, 4 rev. i 2–4: ur-sul / NÍF.PA.TE.SI / mes-kulkullabx (UNUG)ki, “Ursul(paªêk), viceroy of Feskullabak” (cf. Wilcke 2007: 204; Schrakamp 2008: 677–78).

97. I am grateful to A. Westenholz for providing me with his unpublished copy of this tablet. 98. Quoted by Pomponio (2006: 52) as “Ursag-kes GAR-ensi2-mah.” Pomponio suggested that the title “GAR-ensi2mah” refers to a “GAR-ensi2 uscito dalla carica,” since in MS 2464 “si fa riferimento alla morte (ug6) del personaggio in questione” (2006: 52 n. 143). Note, however, that both the sign MAH and the sign TIL (Pomponio’s “ug6”) belong to the clause enim al 6(MAH)-til (“the contract is concluded”), which is written on the bottom edge of the reverse. As far as I know, “GAR-ensi 2-mah,” or, rather, NÍF.PA.TE.SI-mah, is unattested (cf. NÍF.PA.TE.SI-gal, above, p. 109). 99. Old Babylonian lexical sources give the reading of KUL.UNUGki as /kullaba/; cf. [KUL.UNUGki] = [k]u-ula-ba, in Diri Nippur 4:11 (MSL 15, p. 28); and KUL.UNUGki = ku-ul-la-a-[ba], in Diri Oxford 527 (MSL 15, p. 48). However, earlier evidence points to a reading /kullab/, with final /b/; cf. za-i gal-gal gul-la-ab-dax(DAR) si-ga (ARET 5, 20 viii 2), for zag-è gal-gal KUL.UNUG-da si-ga (cf. Steinkeller 1998: 90–91); kar! KUL.UNUGki-ba-ke4 = {kar kullab.ak.e}, “at the quay of Kullab” (Sulgi X 4; cf. Klein 1981: 136); and ú-ru ku-la-ab (Cros et al. 1910–14: 209 AO 4334+ i 7u ), for úru KUL.UNUGki, “the city Kullab.” 100. Note that the corresponding entry in the Abu Salabikh recension of ED LGN is FIS.KUL.UNUGki (and not “gis-kul-abaki,” as transliterated by G. Pettinato in MEE 3, loc. cit.).

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues

173

The location of Feskullabak is unknown. Frayne (1992: 93 and 96), suggests locating it on the Kiskattûm canal, north of Kis and close to Kutha (Tell Ibrahim). However, Feskullabak is more likely to be located within or in close proximity to the triangle formed by the cities of Uruk, Adab and Isin, since the spelling NÍF.PA.TE.SI of the Sumerian term for “viceroy” appears to have been characteristic of and peculiar to that geographical area. 4–7. Cf. the inscription on the statue of Ekur (above, p. 163). On the erection of daises for divine statues, cf. also Behrens and Steible 1983: 70 sub 3; PSD B 136 sub 1.5.1. Cat. 7—Lugaldalu of Adab (Pl. 36:6)

Fig. 6. Banks 1912: 196. 1. 2. 3.

é-kiri6 lugal-da-lu lugal arabx(UD.“NUN”)ki

For the Ekiri: Lugaldalu, king of Adab.

Bibl.: Banks 1904–5: 59; Thureau-Dangin 1907: 152–53 V; Banks 1912: 196–200; Barton 1913; Sollberger and Kupper 1971: 87 IF3a; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 68 Istanbul IOM 3235 and pl. 26:e–f; Steible 1982b: 191 Lug. 1; Cooper 1986a: 17 Ad 5; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 242 St 10; Frayne 2008: 23 E1.1.4.1; Braun-Holzinger 2007: 73 FD 15 and pl. 24. 1.

2.

3.

An alternative interpretation of é-kiri6 as /ekirîk/ (< *é+kiri6+{ak}; genitive case), “belonging to / (property) of the Ekiri,” has been suggested by Sollberger (and Kupper 1971: 87), Steible (1982b: 191) and Frayne (2008: 23). In this connection, note ním-gur11 é-kur-r[a], “property of the Ekur” (Braun-Holzinger 1991: 91 MW 16; inscription on the blade of a copper knife). However, inscriptions expressing ownership of an object by a deity or a temple never mention the name of the person who commisioned the object. 101 More likely, what we have here is a verbless dedicatory inscription with é-kiri6 representing /ekiris/ (< *é+kiri6+{se}; terminative case), “for the Ekiri.” 102 Previously read “é-sar” and confused with the é-sar-ra (the temple of the goddess Inªanak at Adab), the é-kiri6 (“Garden House”) was the temple of Dimirmah, a local form of the mother-goddess Ninhursamak (cf. Appendix A.2.1). The name lugal-da-lu was dealt with most recently by Frayne (2008: 23), who interpreted it as “(Things) Flourish beside the King.” However, the verb “to flourish/prosper” in Sumerian is not lu but lum (cf. Marchesi 2006a: 75 n. 395). In my opinion, the name in question instead means “(We Are) Numerous Thanks to the Lord” (cf. Marchesi 2006a: 72–73 n. 381). The “Lord” (theophoric element) is of course the god Asgi, “the lord of Adab” (cf. Such-Gutiérrez 2005–6: 6 with n. 50). In this connection, also note the Sargonic PN d.asasgix(SIR)gi4-da-lu (Luckenbill 1930: no. 126 rev. 1; Yang 1989: A 719+ i 15u ). Cf. p. 169: Cat. 4, comm. on line 4.

101. Cf. Braun-Holzinger 1991: 65 K 103, 66 K 107, 202 G 429–432, 217 Ständer 11; etc. 102. Cf. é-k[iri6] / ad-[d]a-[d]a / munus-darmu[sen](?) / dam-[né] / a mu-ru, “Adada and Munusdar(?), his wife, presented (this vessel) to the Ekiri” (Luckenbill 1930: no. 10).

174

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Note: The dating of Lugaldalu is a matter of controversy. Thureau-Dangin (1907: 153 n. 2) considered it probable that Lugaldalu ruled at Adab earlier than the reign of Urnansêk at Lagas. According to Curchin (1977: 94), Lugaldalu “may well fit into the period between Mesalim [= Me¶alim] and Eannatum [= Eªannâbtum].” Braun-Holzinger (1977: 28), on the other hand, observes that “die Zeichen der Inschrift erinnern in ihrer langgezogenen, fast kalligraphisch wirkenden Form eher an sargonische Inschriften als an die des Mesilim [= Me¶alim] aus Adab;” accordingly, she classifies it among the latest Early Dynastic inscriptions (1977: 19 with n. 109). Charvát (1974: 165) is of the same opinion, holding that “the script of this monument is closely related to the script of the Akkad dynasty.” Opting for an earlier date are Yang (1989: 99) and, most recently, al-Mutawalli and Miglus (2002: 5–8). In terms of paleography and typology, the inscription of Lugaldalu is in keeping with Early Dynastic IIIa tradition. Moreover, Lugaldalu styles himself “king of Adab,” like the Early Dynastic IIIa rulers Medurba (cf. above, pp. 160–161 sub 2b) and Epaªe (= Cat. 4), whereas ED IIIb rulers of Adab usually bear the title of “viceroy” (NÍF.PA.TE.SI). 103 On the other hand, the TN Ekiri in the inscription of Lugaldalu is written É.SAR, and not SAR.É, as is generally the case for Early Dynastic IIIa inscriptions; and the statue is executed in a style typical of Early Dynastic IIIb (cf. p. 131). Taken together, all of these things suggest that Lugaldalu reigned at the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb. Cat. 8—Eªannâbtum(?) of Lagas (Pl. 32:1)

Fig. 7. V. Crawford 1977: 218.

row i 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

[dnin-mír-su/sú (?)] [ur-sam dellilx(EN.É)-ra (?)] [é-an-na-túm (?)] [lugal/PA.TE.SI] [lagasx(NU11.BUR)la.ki-ke4] [á súm-ma (?)]

[For Ninmirsûk,] [the warrior of Ellil,] [Eªannâbtum,] [king/viceroy] [of Lagas,] [he to whom] Ellil (7)

103. Cf. p. 112 (Meskigalla); p. 125 n. 254 (Mugêsi); p. 126 n. 277 (HAR.TU-asgîk); p. 157 (Paragannêdug); p. 172: Cat. 6, comm. on line 2 (Emmeªânu, Ursamkesak, Meskigalla); p. 223 (Eªiginimpaªe).

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues 7=1u. ªdellilx(EN.É)-ke4º 8=2u. sag4 pàd-da 9=3u. dnanse-ªke4º 10=4u. kur [gú mar-mar] row ii 1. [dnin-mír-su/sú(-ka)-ke4] 2. [dumu áya-kur-gal] 3. [lugal/PA.TE.SI] 4. [lagasx(NU11.BUR)la.ki(-ka)-ke4] 5. [ud dnin-mír-su/sú-ke4 (?)] 6=1u. ªkurº-k[ur su]-né-[sè] 7=2u. mu-[sè-mar-ra-a] 8=3u. [ki-bala míri-né-sè] row iii 1. [mu-sè-mar-ra-a] (rest broken)

175

[has given power (6),] the chosen one of Nanse, [the subjugator] of foreign lands [on behalf of Ninmirsûk,] [son of Ayakurgal,] [king/viceroy] [of Lagas,] [when Ninmirsûk] en[trusted (7)] the foreign lands [to] his [hands (6)] [and placed (iii 1)] [the rebel land at his feet (ii 8),] ...

Bibl.: V. Crawford 1977: 198 4H-T8, 217–218; Steible 1982a: 369 AnLag. 26. i 1–2.

This restoration is based on the assumption that this statue comes from the Bagara temple of Ninmirsûk (cf. p. 133). On the same assumption, the alternative restoration [dnin-mír-su(/sú) / bagára-ra], “[for Ninmirsûk of the Bagara],” is also possible here (cf. Behrens and Steible 1983: 384). i 3. On the name é-an-na-túm, cf. Marchesi 2006a: 2–3 n. 7. i 6–7. Or: [mu pàd-da] ªd ellilx(EN.É)-ke4º, “[the nominee] of Ellil.” Cf. Behrens and Steible 1983: 15 and 273. i 8–ii 4. Cf. Ean. 60 i 6–13 (Steible 1982a: 170; Frayne 2008: 144). For the idiomatic expression sag4(ge) / sag4 kug-ge pàd-da, cf. Marchesi 2006a: 74 n. 387. ii 6–iii 1. Restored after En. I 33 iii 5–8 (Ali 1973: plate facing p. 30: fig. 2; Steible 1982a: 205; cf. 1982b: 101 n. 3 to En. I 33). The same passage is also found in an inscription of Eªannâbtum (Sollberger 1956: 25 Ean. 61 i 104) and on the statue of a son(?) of Enªannâbtum I (cf. Steible 1982a: 194 En. I 25 ii 5u–6u; and p. 164 above). Note: This statue might also have belonged to Enªannâbtum I (cf. Marchesi 2006b: 243), rather than to his older brother Eªannâbtum. They both bore the epithet “subjugator of foreign lands on behalf of Ninmirsûk” (cf. Behrens and Steible 1983: 151). However, only Eªannâbtum used it regularly in his inscriptions. In Enªannâbtum I’s titulary, kur gú mar-mar dnin-mír-su/sú-ka is generally replaced by PA.TE.SI-gal dnin-mír-su/sú-ka, “chief steward of Ninmirsûk.” In fact, kur gú mar-mar dnin-mír-su/sú-ka occurs only once in connection with Enªannâbtum I. Moreover, the sequence of epithets sag4 (kug-ge) pàd-da dnanse kur gú mar-mar dnin-mír-su/sú-ka is only found otherwise in an inscription of Eªannâbtum (Ean. 60 i 6–10; cf. above, comm. on i 8–ii 4).

104. Read: [kur-kur su-né-sè / mu-sè-mar-ra-a / ki-bala míri-né-sè] / m[u-sè]-mar-ra-ªaº / é-an-na-túm / mu pàd-da / d ªninº-[mír-su/sú(-ka)-ke4].

176

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Cat. 9—Enmetênnâk of Lagas (Pl. 37:1–4)

(a) Inscription on the right shoulder

Fig. 8a. Adapted from Sollberger 1956: 32. row i 1. 25.0.0 gána en-an-na-túm-as11né-dnanse-e-ta-èd 2. 11.0.0 gána ní-zú-sub5(ZI:ZI.SÈ) 3. asag abbar-nimenx(NANSE)ki-ka 4. parx(E¥PAP)-kug-ge ús-sa 5. 60.0.0 gána dellilx(EN.É) 6. asag gú-eden-na-ka row ii 1. en-mete-na 2. PA.TE.SI 3. lagasx(NU11.BUR)la.ki-ke4 4. dellilx(EN.É) 5. é-ad-da-ka-ra 6. míri e-na-rú

25 bur of land (= 162.5 hectares) of the (field) Enªannâbtum-asanne-Nanser-ebtaªed, 11 bur of land (= 71.5 hectares) of the (field) Nizuhsubak, in the Abbarnimenak area, next to the Holy Ditch, 60 bur (= 390 hectares) of land of Ellil in the Guªedenak area: Enmetênnâk, viceroy of Lagas, carved out (this land) (6) for Ellil (4) of the Eªadâk (5).

(b) Inscription on the back

Fig. 8b. Adapted from Sollberger 1956: 32.

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues row i 1. [de]llilx(EN.É) 2. [é-a]d-[da-k]a-ra 3. en-mete-na 4. PA.TE.SI 5. lagasx(NU11.BUR)la.ki-ke4 6. sag4 pàd-da 7. dnanse 8. PA.TE.SI-gal 9. dnin-mír-sú-[k]a 10. [dumu e]n-an-[na]-túm 11. [PA.T]E.SI 12. lagasx(NU11.BUR)la.ki-ka 13. dumu-KA 14. ur-dnanse 15. lugal 16. lagaski-ka-ke4 17. dnin-mír-sú-ra 18. ès dug-ru 19. mu-na-rú 20. a-hus row ii 1. é igi zi bar-ra 2. mu-na-rú 3. dlugal-urubx(URU¥KÁR)ki-ra 4. é-gal urubx(URU¥KÁR)ki-ka-né 5. mu-na-rú 6. dnanse 7. é-engur-ra zú-lum-ma 8. mu-na-rú 9. den-ki 10. lugal eridugki-ra 11. abzu parx(E¥PAP)-sír-ra 12. mu-na-rú 13. dnin-hur-sam-ra 14. ge-gù-na 15. tir-kug-ga 16. mu-na-rú 17. dnin-mír-sú-ra 18. an-ta-sur-ra 19. mu-na-rú 20. sag4-pàd-da 21. mu-rú 22. é dmá-tùm-dùg 23. mu-rú

For Ellil of the [Eªa]d[âk.] Enmetênnâk, viceroy of Lagas, the chosen one of Nanse, the chief steward of Ninmirsûk, [son] of Enªannâbtum, [vice]roy of Lagas, descendant of Urnansêk, king of Lagas, for Ninmirsûk built (19) the shrine of Dugru (18), built (ii 2) the Ahus (i 20), the temple looked at with approval (1). For Lugalªurubak he built (5) his palace of Urub (4). For Nanse he built (8) the Eªengurak of Zulum (7). For Enkîk, the lord of Eridug, he built (12) the abzu(-shrine) of Parsir (11). For Ninhursamak he built (16) the gegunna (14) of Tirkug (15). For Ninmirsûk he built (19) the Antasurra (18). He built (21) the Sagepadda (20), built (23) the temple of Fatumdug (22).

177

178

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

row iii 1. dnanse 2. ge-gù-na mah-né 3. mu-na-rú 4. é-né ki-bé mu-na-gi4 5. dellilx(EN.É)-la 6. é-ad-da im-sam-má 7. mu-na-rú 8. ud-ba en-mete-na-ke4 9. alan-na-né 10. mu-dú 11. en-mete-na-dellilx(EN.É)-le-ki-ám 12. mu mu-né-se21 13. dellilx(EN.É)-la 14. é-a row iv 1. mu-na-ni-kurx(DU) 2. en-mete-na 3. lú é-ad-da rú-a 4. dimir-ra-né 5. dsul-MUS¥PA 6. nam-ti 7. en-mete-na-ka-sè 8. ud ul-la-sè 9. dellilx(EN.É)-la 10. kìri su hé-na-mál

For Nanse he built (3) her lofty gegunna (2) and restored her her temple. For Ellil he built (7) the Eªadâk of Imsam (6). At that time Enmetênnâk created (10) an image of himself (9), and named it (12): “Enmetênnâk is the beloved of Ellil” (11); and brought it here (iv 1) into the temple, to Ellil (iii 13). Enmetênnâk, the builder of the Eªadâk— may (10) his (personal) god, Sul-MUS¥PA, pray (10) Ellil (9) for the life (6) of Enmetênnâk (7) until distant days (8).

Bibl.: Gadd and Legrain 1928: 1–2 no. 1, pls. I and A–B; Sollberger 1956: 32 Ent. 1; Sollberger and Kupper 1971: 66–67 IC7a; Steible 1982a: 211–12 Ent. 1; Cooper 1986a: 63–64 La 5.17; BraunHolzinger 1991: 240–41 St 3; Frayne 2008: 219–22 E1.9.5.17. a i 1. The sign preceding dnanse is usually interpreted as SUR; however, this sign is quite different from the SUR of an-ta-sur-ra in b ii 18. In my opinion, the passage in question has, instead, AS-tenû (that is, the sign AS oblique), to be read as11. 105 For as11-né, cf. the PNs as11-né and lugal-as11-né in Cros et al. 1910–14: 182 AO 4348 ii 1 and 4. en-an-na-túm-as11-né-dnanse-e-ta-èd is probably the name of a field: “Enªannâbtum, Only He Went Down to Nanse(’s Realm)” (?). The name of Enªannâbtum I, fourth ruler of the First Dynasty of Lagas, also occurs as a component of other proper names; cf. the PN en-an-na-túm-sipad-zi, “Enªannâbtum Is a Good Shepherd” (Cros et al. 1910–14: 52 AO 4238 rev. iii 4 and 181 AO 4156 rev. i 1); and the canal name en-an-na-túm-gen7-mesmestugtúg-a-ba-má-má, “Who Is as Attentive as Enªannâbtum?” (cf. Bauer 1972: 59 ad ii 2). a i 2. Literally, “Thief of Rushes.” Cf. Bauer 1987a: 6; Molina and Such-Gutiérrez 2004: 15–16 s.v. ú KWU127.SÈ. a i 3. For this reading of the place-name NANSEki, traditionally read “ninaki,” cf. Marchesi 1999a: 11 ad vii 7 with n. 32. a ii 1. For the reading of the name as Enmetênnâk, from {en-mete.anne.ak}, cf. Marchesi 2006a: 83 with nn. 469–70 (cf. also p. 157 n. 19, above). 105. Cf. Postgate 1973; Marchesi 1999a: 14 ad iii 2.

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues a ii 6.

179

Cf. ku6 míri rú-a in DP 336 ii 3 (reference courtesy of P. Steinkeller, to whom I also owe the translation “to carve out” for míri rú). b i 6. Cf. p. 175: Cat. 8, comm. on i 8–ii 4. b ii 15. For the kind of sacred building called /gegunna/ (= “raised temple”), cf. most recently Waetzoldt 2005: 323–29. b iii 6. Imsam, where the Eªadâk stood, was probably a quarter or suburb of Nimen (cf. Falkenstein 1966: 70–71 n. 13; Gebhard Selz 1995: 129). b iii 9–12. Cf. p. 162 with n. 51. b iv 1. For the value /kur/ of the sign DU with the meaning “to let enter, introduce, bring in,” cf. Krecher 1987a. b iv 5. The traditional reading of this divine name, “Sulutul,” has no basis (cf. W. G. Lambert 1995: 135–36). Cat. 10—Óinnaªil of Kis (Pl. 32:2–3)

Fig. 9. Gelb et al. 1991: pl. 50 bottom. row i 1. [x+]4.0.0 GÁNA 2. [k]isal-estubx(KU6+GUD) 3. in ur-ªsáº?-gaba 4. 6.0.0 GÁNA 5. su-ªx-xº 6. ASAG [SA10] 7. [ás-dè] 8. [PN] 9. 2.0.0 GÁNA 10. ASAG SA10

[x+]4 bur of land: (field) Kisalªestubak (“Carp Courtyard”), (located) in Ursagaba(?); 6 bur of land: (field) Su . . . ; fields [purchased] [from] [PN.] 2 bur of land: field purchased

180 11. ás-dè 12. enim-ma-ªné-ziº row ii 1. en-na-il 2. LUGAL KISI 3. A[LAN-SÙ (?)] 4. [MU.DÍM (?)] 5. [. . . ] 6. [. . . ] 7. ªIGIº d[I]NANA 8. MU.GUB

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia from Enimannezid. Óinnaªil, king of Kis, [made] (4) an i[mage of himself (3),] [. . . ] [. . . ] and set it up (8) before ºAstar (7).

Bibl.: Goetze 1961: 107–8 and fig. 2 left; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 72 6N271; 1991: 250 St 56; Gelb et al. 1991: 91–92 no. 26 and pls. 49–50; Frayne 2008: 76 E1.8.3.2. i 3.

The prepositions in and ás-dè / ªa¶te/ (i 7 and i 11) show that this inscription was drawn up in Akkadian. ii 1–8. Cf. Frayne 1993: 68 E2.1.2.18 lines 9–15: rí-mu-ús / lugal / kisi / alan-na-né / an-na-kam / ì-dím / igi dellilx(EN.É)-lá-sè / ì-gub, translated into Akkadian as: rí-mu-ús / LUGAL / KISI / DÙL-su / sa KUG.AN / ib-ni-ma / IGI-me / dELLILx / i-za-az, “Rimu¶, king of Kis, made an image of himself, which is of meteoric iron, and this stands (now) before Ellil.” Note: The first part of this inscription (row i) records the purchase of several plots of land by Óinnaªil. 106 This king of Kis is otherwise known from a variety of sources. In 6NT104—an unpublished Early Dynastic literary text from Nippur—Óinnaªil is given the title PA.TE.SI-gal dellilx(EN.É), “chief steward of Ellil,” which was later borne by the overlords Lugalzagêsi and ‡arrumken (cf. Cat. 12 below, comm. on lines 3–4). An Ur III-period copy of a votive inscription of his, also from Nippur, survives: dINANA / en-na-il / DUMU / áya- an-[z]u5anz[ud] (MI)musen / ELAM / GÍN.SÈ / SA !.RIG !, “To ºAsx 12 9 tar, Óinnaªil, son of Ayaªanzud, vanquisher of Elam, presented (this object)” (Goetze 1961: figs. 2 right and 3). Moreover, Óinnaªil is mentioned in a Neo-Sumerian copy of a Pre-Sargonic literary text in association with the principal deities of Nippur, the god Ellil and his spouse Ninlil. 107 Clearly, he seems to have had a special relationship with the holy city of Sumer and its god Ellil, the head of the Babylonian pantheon. This fact may explain why his texts were copied and passed down at Nippur until the end of the third millennium b.c. Óinnaªil was probably an overlord. An unpublished statue—possibly from Umma—which is dated to his rule, is clearly Early Dynastic IIIb in style. 108 However, the texts relating to Óinnaªil display a number of very archaic features, such as the omission of the determinative of place with geographical names. The writing ELAM GÍN.SÈ in place of the expected GÍN.SÈ ELAM = saªir Elamtim 109 in the above-quoted copy of an inscription of Óinnaªil suggests that the original text was not subdivided into cases and that the signs did not strictly follow the order in which they were to be read— two characteristics that are in keeping with Early Dynastic IIIa tradition. Finally, note the unusual writing of /anzud/, AN.[Z]U5.M[I].MUSEN, in the name of Óinnaªil’s father, Ayaªanzud, which has a precise parallel in a text in UD.GAL.NUN writing from Abu Salabikh (Biggs 1974: no. 131 iv 5u: [U]D(=AN).MI.ZU5.MUSEN). All of this evidence suggests that Óinnaªil lived and ruled at the beginning of the Early Dynastic IIIb period. 106. Other statues with inscriptions of this kind are: Gelb et al. 1991: nos. 21 and 25 (= Pl. 6:3); YBC 2279 (cf. Braun-Holzinger 1991: 255 St 91) and WA 118074 (Pl. 44:1–3; cf. Reade 2002: 261–62 sub 2). 107. Westenholz 1975a: no. 219 iiiu 2u–4u: en-na-il / lugal / dellilx(EN.É) / dnin-líl / ki su silim-ma / [. . . ]. 108. The inscription reads: dsára / en-na-il / lugal kisi / ù-rí-rí / muhaldim-gal / a mu-ru, “To Sara—Óinnaªil being king of Kis—Uriri, the chief cook, presented (this statue)” (courtesy of D. Owen; cf. above, p. 157). 109. Cf. Gelb and Kienast 1990: 32 VP 11.

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues

181

Cat. 11a—‡umbaºli (Pl. 37:5–6)

Fig. 10. Dossin 1967: fig. 329.

row i 1. sum6-BE 2. DAFAL DAM 3. a-FURUS KALAG 4. me-da 5. GIDIM.GIDIM 6. ÍL DIFIR.DIFIR 7. sum6-BE 8. a-bu16(NI) sùr(KAM)-am6-AH 9. ke4(KID)-pum 10. rí-ad 11. ù 12. x-bu-bu row ii 1. ªa5(NI)-na 2. BE-li-SÙ

‡umbaºli, he who extends the “blood”/lineage, the powerful man, he who takes care of the spirits of the ancestors, he who maintains the gods. ‡umbaºli, father of ‡urªamªahu, Qepum(?), Reºat(?), and . . . bubu, for his lord.

Bibl. Parrot 1953a: 211; 1967: 50, fig. 55, pl. XXIV top right; Dossin 1967: 308, 317–18 no. 10, fig. 329; M. Lambert 1970: 169; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 70 Miss. Mari III Nr. 10; Krebernik 1984b: 166– 67; Edzard 1985; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 18–19 MP 24; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 247 St 36; Krebernik 1991: 139–40; Kienast 1994: 327; Boese 1996: 26–34 and figs. 2–3. i 1.

For the interpretation of sum6-BE as ‡umbaºli, “Posterity of My Lord,” cf. Steinkeller 1993b: 238 sub 14 (for BE as a Semitic logogram for baºlum/belum, cf. also Steinkeller 2004a). An alternative interpretation as ‡umbaºlim or ‡umbaºlum, “Posterity of the Lord,” is also theoretically possible, but explicit writings such as sum6-BE-lim/lum or su/su(4)-mu-BE-lim/lum, which would attest to the existence of a name such as this, are not documented. 110

110. Note, however, the Amorite name ‡umubaºla (su-mu-ba-la), which means “Posterity of the Lord” (cf. Streck 2000: 274).

182

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

i 2–3. Krebernik (1991) reads and translates instead: “AMA DAM / A FURUS.FURUS, ‘Mutter der Frau, Vater der Männer’.” The epithet “mother,” however, does not fit well with a male referent such as the individual represented by the statue under discussion. Furthermore, the sign A is not documented elsewhere as the logogram for “father” in Akkadian inscriptions. We therefore propose here the alternative reading DAFAL DAM (= murappi¶ damim) / a-FURUS KALAG (= ºa†lum dannum). For DAM as a Semitic logogram for damum, “blood, lineage,” cf. Krebernik 1988: 80 s.v. da-mu. The verb rapa¶um (= Old Babylonian rapasum) and the noun damum also appear together in the PNs ìrpís-DA.MU and ru12-pù-ús-DA.MU (both names of kings; cf. Bonechi 1997a: 498 and 521; 2001c: 141–42). Cf. also CAD R 157–58 sub 3u, for rapasum in association with other terms for “lineage, progeny, family.” Different interpretations of damum, in a more sociopolitical vein, have been proposed by Bonechi (1997a: 477–81) and Fronzaroli (1998: 111–12). In keeping with the hypothesis proposed by Bonechi, that damum denotes a “société des alliés fondée sur le pacte de sang” (1997a: 480), we could perhaps translate murappi¶ damim as “he who expands the Alliance”—an epithet that may allude to a sort of tribal(?) confederation of which ‡umbaºli was the leader. In this respect, also note the occurrences of DA.MU(ki) in the letter from the princes of Ibºal to the king of Manuwat (ARET 13, 11), where DA.MU (ki) seems to denote a political entity or a tribal group (cf. Fronzaroli 2003: 126 ad 12). For a-FURUS KALAG (line 3), cf. murus kalag(-ga*) in ETCSL 2.5.4.01 line 177* and 2.5.4.19 line 3 (in both cases, epithet of Ismedagan, king of Isin). The writing a-FURUS for ºa†lum (e†lum) can be compared with lúa-UGULA for (w)aklum in the inscription on the statue of AMAR.AN from Mari (Dossin 1967: fig. 330 [on p. 318]; Marchesi 2004: 177). 111 i 4. For the interpretation of me-da as the construct state of the participle of yadaºum/idûm, 112 cf. A. Westenholz apud Kienast and Volk 1995: 167 ad 12u; Hasselbach 2005: 223. 113 For idûm with the meaning “to concern oneself, take care of,” cf. CAD I/J 27–28 sub 2u/au–bu. i 5. The Sumerian term gidim, usually translated as “spirit (of the deceased), ghost,” is probably a loanword from the Semitic *qadimum, “predecessor” (cf. Arabic qadama, “to precede”). Note GIDIM = {nu-}ga-t[i-mu-u]m at Ebla (Archi 1987a: 97 line 97; Civil 1984: 97), which attests to the existence of an earlier Sumerian form gadimx, 114 which is closer to the postulated Semitic etymon. i 6. = na¶iª ªili (cf. Krebernik 1991; CAD N/2 95–96 s.v. nasû A 2f 1u–2u and 113 s.v. *nasû B). i 7. The repetition of the offerer’s name is somewhat unusual. However, cf. Steible 1982b: 307–8 Lukis. 2 (= Frayne 2008: 424–25 E1.14.15.4). i 8–12. For A.NI = a-bu16, 115 “father” (construct state), cf. Krebernik 1992: 100–101 s.v. a-bù. It is difficult to interpret what then follows here and in the succeeding lines as anything other than a series of personal names. It is likely that this part of the inscription lists the children of ‡umbaºli 116 (cf. Steible 1982b: 188–89 n. 4 to Bar. 1, for an analogous example). The mention of children presumably had as its aim the tacit request of divine protection and favor for the offerer’s descendants as well; thus, it 111. Here (ii 2) I read, in fact, lúa-UGULA MAH = (w)aklum ßirum, “chief overseer” (cf. UGULA MAH in Gelb and Kienast 1990: 29 VP 5:2), instead of LÚ a-bá-al6, “der ‘Mann’ des Abal (= NP)” (Gelb and Kienast 1990: 12 MP 12:8; cf. Sallaberger 1998: 35 n. 59). The gloss a does not necessarily imply apheresis of the initial /w/ in waklum (cf. a for /wa/ in the Ebla texts: Conti 1990: 19 with n. 51). 112. Note that mudaºum/mudûm, the normal participle of yadaºum/idûm, derives from *muwdaºum (originally, the participle of wadaºum; cf. Hasselbach 2005: 223). 113. The Mari PN a-hu-ma-da, in a text from Ebla, also attests to the uncontracted form maydaºum (cf. Steinkeller 1993b: 241 sub 25). 114. From which gidim derived, through regressive vowel assimilation. 115. NI is well attested as a syllabogram with the value bu16 both at Abu Salabikh (cf. Krebernik 1998: 294) and at Ebla (cf. Krebernik 1982: 198; Conti 1990: 56; Archi et al. 1993: 19–20; etc.). 116. Assuming that the construct state ªabu governs all the names that follow (cf. von Soden and Mayer 1995: §35c).

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues

183

performed the same function as the formula nam-ti dumu-na-sè/-ne-ne-sè, “for the life of his own child/children,” which is often found in votive inscriptions. i 8. For the value sùr of the sign KAM (HIxTIL/MAS), cf. Archi 1987a: 96 line 66; Steinkeller 1992a: 16–17; Archi et al. 1993: 234. I interpret this name as /¶urªam-ahu/, “The Brother Is Most Dear.” 117 i 9. For Qe/ipum (“Trustworthy”) as a personal name, cf. Gelb 1957: 116 sub Qª7P. Note, however, that the sign KID does not occur elsewhere as a syllabogram in third-millennium Akkadian texts. Another possibility is to emend KID to É! and read É!.SÙD, for /˙ay(ya)-kurub/, “Pray/Bless Óayya” (cf. Tonietti 2003). i 10. Cf. Pagan 1998: 231 s.v. raº-. However, an interpretation of URU.AD as a logographic writing for /ªahli-abi/, “My City Is My Father,” is perhaps also possible here. For AD as a logogram for ªabum, “father,” cf. Gelb 1957: 10–11 sub ªB; Krebernik 1988: 15; Marchesi 2004: 193–94. Note: Despite the lack of an explicit royal title, the individual represented by this statue, ‡umbaºli, was probably a ruler (cf. pp. 162–163 with n. 57). Boese (1996: 26–34) has recently put forward the hypothesis that the epigraph on this statue, which was found in the temple of INANA.ZA.ZA (“Ninni-zaza”) at Mari, is a secondary inscription that should be dated to the last phase of the Early Dynastic period. However, Boese’s assertion that most of the signs on this inscription are roughly identical in shape to those on other statues and inscribed objects from the temple of INANA.ZA.ZA is not true. It is equally false that “viele der Zeichen sind sogar schon aus eindeutig keilförmigen Elementen zusammengesetzt” (Boese 1996: 32). Paleographically, the inscription gives the impression of being rather archaic and, in any case, different from the other inscriptions found in the temple of INANA.ZA.ZA. Braun-Holzinger (1977: 28) considered it to be earlier than the Fara period. According to Quenet (2005: 35), statue and inscription are “probably not later than the first part of E[arly ]D[ynastic] III.” However, it is likely that the curviform lines of some of its signs (for instance, the “head” of KA in i 9 and the final part of AD in the following line) reflect a local writing tradition or a deliberately archaizing style. In fact, certain characteristics of this text (its length, its subdivision into cases, its ordering of signs in the order in which they are to be read, its use of syllabic writings and of the preposition ªa5-na 118) suggest that it should be dated much later, to the end of Early Dynastic IIIb. The dating of the statue on iconographic grounds—on the basis of a consideration of what appears to be the statue’s head (Pl. 34:3 = Cat. 11b; cf. above, p. 135 with n. 34)—lends support to the dating we propose on epigraphic grounds. The peculiarities mentioned above and the unusual and unparalleled content of the inscription suggest that the ultimate origin of the statue in question was not Mari. In this connection, it is also worth noting that, whereas this statue was dedicated to a male god, it was found in the temple of INANA.ZA.ZA—a temple that was most likely consecrated to a female deity (cf. Appendix A.2.6). Perhaps it had been taken to Mari as booty and secondarily dedicated to the goddess INANA.ZA.ZA (cf. Boese 1996: 33). 119 By comparison, consider the well-known case of Mesopotamian statues and 117. Cf. the PN sùr-am at Ebla (Catagnoti 1997: 573). For the “elative” value of the sa/uprus pattern in Akkadian, cf. Speiser 1952. AH is well-attested as an Akkadogram for ªahu(m), “brother,” in Pre-Sargonic texts from Mari and Ebla; cf. the PNs a-ku-AH (Charpin 1987: 97), a-na-AH (Pagan 1998: 281), ar-si-AH (p. 288), ga-ba-AH (p. 308), ru12-zi-aAH (p. 359), etc. 118. The writing ªa5-na is otherwise found only in texts from Ebla and in a Pre-Sargonic text of unknown provenance (M. Lambert 1973: AO 7754 iii 7; cf. Archi 2002: 3–4 with n. 7). In Early Dynastic votive inscriptions in Akkadian from Mari, as in votive inscriptions from other Mesopotamian centers, this preposition is usually omitted (that is, the name of the god to whom the inscription is dedicated is not preceded by any preposition; cf. above, p. 156 n. 9). The only occurrences of ªana I know of are in a votive inscription from Sippar dating to the late Early Dynastic period (Gelb and Kienast 1990: 32 VP 12:4), and in an inscription of Yisqimari (Cat. 12). In the latter case, however, the word is written a-na (cf. also the PN a-na-da5-rím, in Gelb and Kienast 1990: 6 MP 2:1). In the Pre-Sargonic administrative texts from Mari, ªana is usually written with the Akkadogram ÍS (cf. Charpin 1987: 89; Gensler 1997). 119. It is possible that a second inscription, dedicated to INANA.ZA.ZA by a ruler of Mari, was inscribed on the back of the torso, which has unfortunately been lost.

184

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia monuments that were pillaged and taken to Susa by the Elamite king Sutruknahhunte, who then dedicated them to the main god of Susa, Insusinak (cf. Harper 1992). An earlier example of this kind of rededication is found in one of the inscriptions of the Urukean king Ensagkusuªanak, who claims to have presented the statues of the plundered city of Kis to Ellil at Nippur (cf. Steible 1982b: 293–96 Ensak. 1 and 3; Cooper 1986a: 105 Uk 4.1; Frayne 2008: 429–30 E1.14.17.1). 120

Cat. 12—Yisqimari of Mari (Pl. 37:7–8)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

is12(LAM)-gi4-ma-rí LUGAL ma-rí PA.TE.SI.GAL dELLIL (EN.É) x DÙL-SÙ a-na dINANA(.)NITA SA12.RIG9

Yisqimari, king of Mari, the chief steward of Yillilu (= Dagan), presented (8) his statue (5) to (6) INANA(.)NITA (7).

Bibl.: Thureau-Dangin 1934: 140–41; Parrot 1956: 69–70, fig. 46 and pl. 26. Sollberger and Kupper 1971: 88 IG 2a; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 69 Miss. Mari I Nr. 1 and pl. 28:d–e; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 15 MP 17; Cooper 1986a: 89 Ma 6; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 244 St 24; Braun-Holzinger 2007: 74 FD 18 and pl. 26; Frayne 2008: 341–42 E1.10.17.1. The consistent spelling of the onomastic element is11/is 12-gi(4) with the syllabogram is11 or is12 prevents any possibility of interpreting it as a form of ¶aqûm, “to give to drink” (traditional interpretation; cf. Krebernik 1988: 62 s.v. S-G-ª). The element in question is probably to be interpreted as /yisqi/, from the Semitic root SQW~Y, “to grow high, to rise” (cf. Gelb 1957: 282 s.v. SQª7; CAD S/2 19ff. s.v. saqû A v.). For a different interpretation, cf. Pagan 1998: 110–11 sub qkw. 3–4. In later bilingual texts, Sumerian PA.TE.SI-gal is translated into Akkadian as issakku rabû, “great steward” (cf. CAD I/J 262). However, i¶¶iªakkum (PA.TE.SI) rabyum (GAL) dELLILx is syntactically impossible (“the great steward of Yillilu/Illil” in Akkadian should be written either PA.TE.SI dELLILx/EN.LÍL GAL or PA.TE.SI GAL su/sa dELLILx/EN.LÍL). In all likelihood, PA.TE.SI.GAL here represents the loanword *i¶¶iªakkallum (cf. Jacobsen 1991: 113 n. 2 and 114 n. 9), from the Sumerian professional name (NÍF.)PA.TE.SI-gal (cf. above, p. 109). PA.TE.SI.GAL dELLILx is also found in a seal impression of Yisqimari (Pl. 56:4) and in the inscription on the statue of Harraªilum (from Sippar), where it refers to Yikun¶ama¶, another ruler of Mari (Gelb and Kienast 1990: 9 MP 8:3–4; Frayne 2008: 305–6 E1.10.7.1; cf. above, p. 155 with n. 1). The related Sumerian title PA.TE.SI-gal dellil(x)(-lá) was borne by the “great kings” Lugalzagêsi of Uruk (Frayne 2008: 435 E1.14.20.1 i 15–16) and ‡arrumken of Akkad (Frayne 1993: 10 E2.1.1.1 lines 10–11), as well as by the god Ninmirsûk/Ninªurtâk (Steinkeller 1977: 51 n. 37; 1989: 238, 241; Jacobsen 1991: 114 n. 7). In adopting the title of PA.TE.SI-gal dellilx(EN.É), Lugalzagêsi and ‡arrumken most likely assumed the role of Ninªurtâk and both the right and duty to maintain the temple of Ellil at Nippur (cf. Jacobsen 1991: 113–14). Adoption of the title by the rulers of Mari represents a different sort of case. 121 Their use of the title PA.TE.SI.GAL dELLILx presumably reflects the identification, as early as the third millennium b.c., of the Mesopotamian god Ellil with the Syrian god Dagan. In other words, at Mari 1.

120. The habit of pillaging and carrying away royal statues and monuments from conquered cities (cf. also Durand 1985a: 159 n. 55) could also explain the fact that other royal statues have been found out of their original contexts (for example, Cat. 5, belonging to a ruler of Umma, but discovered at Firsu [cf. above, pp. 132–133 with n. 19], capital of the nearby state of Lagas, a traditional enemy). 121. Note that no inscription of a ruler of Mari has ever been found at Nippur.

The Inscriptions on Royal Statues

185

d

ELLILx was either another name (Yillilu 122) or a logogram for Dagan (cf. Fleming 1994; Durand 1995: 146–52; 1997: 278; 2008b: 174–180; Felieu 2003: 84, 170–71; Archi 2004: 322–28). 7. Cf. dUTU(.)NITA in TM.75.G.2593 rev. iv 4–7 (Archi 1993b: 470–71), which was used at Ebla to indicate the masculine-gendered Mesopotamian sun-god ‡ama¶/Samas, in contrast to the female sun deity that was worshiped in Syria (cf. Archi 1993a: 73–74; Pomponio and Xella 1997: 341–42; Mander 2008: 48–50). It should be considered unlikely, however, that dINANA(.)NITA similarly represents the rather obscure Western Semitic god ºAstar, as distinguished from the homonymous Mesopotamian goddess (as suggested, for example, by Gawlikowska 1980; cf. also Bordreuil 1985 and W. G. Lambert 1985: 537), especially in view of the fact that ºAstar’s female counterpart, ºAstarat, is nowhere attested in the third-millennium texts from Mari (cf. Appendix A.2.6). 123 dINANA(.)NITA presumably represents the Mesopotamian goddess ºAstar in her male form (cf. Heimpel 1982: 13–15; 1998–2001b; Reiner 1995: 6 with n. 14; Koch-Westenholz 1995: 125–26), but it is not clear whether dINANA(.)NITA should be read ºAstar (INANA) zikrum (NITA), lit., “the male ºAstar” (cf. Thureau-Dangin 1934: 141 ad 7), or whether it should be interpreted instead as a Diritype logogram (cf. above, p. 165 n. 72) for another name of the goddess, that is, one that was associated with her male aspect. 124 Cf. also dINANA dBE-al6 KALAM-tim, “ºAstar, the lord of the Land” (?), in ARET 5, 7 vi 2 (cf. Krebernik 1992: 95 s.v. dBE.AL6.KALAM.TIM); and dINANA LUGAL, “Estarking” (?), in a votive inscription from the time of Samsiadad at Mari (Charpin 1984: 44–45 no. 2:1 with comm. ad loc.). Note: Another statue assumed to be of Yisqimari (cf. Parrot 1965: 214 with n. 2 and pl. 13:1; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 15 MP 18) actually bears the name is12-gi-BE, that is, Yisqibaºlum or Yisqibaºli (cf. Margueron 2004: fig. 260 on p. 277).

122. Cf. Conti 1990: 193. 123. The only attestation in the Mari texts of the goddess ºAstarat dates to the Old Babylonian period and is found in a letter from the princess Gabiªatum to the king Ya¶maºhaddu (= “Yasmahaddu”), in which this goddess is identified as both the ruler’s mother and his goddess (cf. Durand 1985b: 433 with n. 237). Here, ºAstarat appears to be related to the “foreign” ruler Ya¶maºhaddu rather than to the city of Mari itself. 124. The Sumerians and the Semites of southern Mesopotamia called this male form of Inªanak Ninªusanak (written dnin-usan (SI/SU )an-na; cf. Heimpel 1998–2001b). 4 4

Chapter 5

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

By the end of the Early Dynastic period, royal verbal and visual communication was employing specific and characteristic media. This was the outcome of a process that is difficult for us to follow in its development, although it did speed up exponentially during the final phase of this period in both Mesopotamia and in Syria. There do not, however, appear to be any specifically royal iconographic elements in the earliest phases of the Early Dynastic period. The protohistoric period, at first glance, seems to be different in this respect. At this time, a characteristic figure emerges in visual documentation (mainly at Uruk), the so-called priest-king, some aspects of which probably derive from a still-earlier tradition. This figure’s iconographic characteristics and the visual contexts in which it appears make it easily recognizable. In the following paragraphs, I shall attempt to analyze the visual sources in question from a contextual perspective, striving to highlight the relations between individual iconographic elements and the different levels of meaning that emerge from their combination.

5.1. The Protohistoric Era and the Problem of Identifying the “Priest-King” In the Late Uruk period, as society and the economy developed rapidly, visual means of communication flourished. Their interpretation, however, continues to present serious difficulty. This is due not only to the somewhat impenetrable nature of pictographic texts and their exceedingly selective form of symbolic communication but also and especially to the limited quantity of iconographic documents from contexts where the excavators have paid particular attention to functional and contextual interpretation, at least as far as the two main centers, Susa and, to a lesser degree, Uruk are concerned. The so-called priest-king is one of the most representative figures (and most frequently studied) of this visual apparatus in terms both of his central role in the iconographic context in which he appears and of the variety of such contexts, although today this seems to be mainly due to chronological factors. Amiet, in a study of the divine figure, attempted to show that the figure of the protohistoric “priest-king” changed diachronically and also touched on its probable links 186

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

187

with earlier Chalcolithic motifs on stamp seals. 1 On the one hand, this figure needs to be interpreted within the context of all contemporary visual documentation, since this is the only method by which we may formulate a general key to interpreting the visual imagery of the Late Uruk period and attempt to provide a historically-based reading of the “priest-king,” although this goes partly beyond the scope of the present work. On the other hand, there are sufficient factors indicating continuity with the Early Dynastic period to enable us to analyze certain elements useful in defining the significance of the “priest-king.” Following this, it will be possible to evaluate the relationship of this protohistoric image with those of Early Dynastic rulers. If we accept the usual interpretation that representations of the “priest-king” depict actual human beings placed at the head of the administration, it is somewhat difficult to explain why such images disappeared at the beginning of the Early Dynastic period or, rather, their extremely rare occurrence in visual contexts that, at any rate, appear to rule out the likelihood that they portray human beings at that later time. Chalcolithic materials. The stamp seals of the final Middle Chalcolithic period (which corresponds to the end of the ºUbaid period) show an anthropomorphic figure with a goat’s head clutching two serpents or quadrupeds. 2 This iconography continues through phases 1–2 of the Late Chalcolithic period, a particularly clear example being the group of sealings from Susa attributed to the final ºUbaid phase, on which this demonic character wears an elaborately woven skirt. 3 This figure—interpreted as a human being, although other explanations are more likely 4 —does not appear to be attested in southern Mesopotamia after the central phases of the Late Chalcolithic period, whereas the “priest-king” appears toward the end of this period. The publication of the series of the earliest cylinder seals from Uruk, assigned to level V of the Eªanak, is of major importance. On these, the “priest-king” is identified by a smooth skirt held by a belt and wears a beard, a mass of hair at the nape of the neck, and a band around the forehead or a headdress held by a band. 5 This figure is shown holding either a spear in front of 1. Amiet 1986 is perhaps the only study to deal with this topic from an almost exclusively iconographic perspective, a methodological approach that is all the more valuable when it is applied to a period for which we do not have contemporary epigraphic sources that can be interpreted satisfactorily. In his work, 78 seals are illustrated either by drawings or photographs. Here, the correspondence between drawing and/or photograph in Amiet 1986 (/) and the number in Amiet 1980 (=) is given (the drawings have been corrected in a number of cases in the later publication). Amiet 1986: nos. 2/ 72=1563, 3=1565, 4=148, 8=151, 10/73, 11/74, 12/75=84, 13/76, 14/79–80, 15=150, 18/77=1569, 19=1576, 20=149, 21=1575, 22/78=1573, 23/81=1577, 24=1572, 25/82, 26/83=1580, 27/84=1581, 28=147, 28 ter=1564, 29=1582, 30=153, 32/86=1538, 33/88=1539, 34/87=1540, 36/90=1543, 37=1541, 38=36, 39=40, 40/89=1516, 41=152, 42=117, 43=118, 44/91=119, 44 bis=1530, 45=127, 46=121, 47=122, 48=123, 49=124, 50=1586, 51=1599, 52=1600, 53=1604, 54=1614, 55=1607, 57=1606, 58=656, 59=649, 60=1669, 61=1625, 62=836, 63=831, 64=823, 65=796, 66=822, 67=1358, 68=1357, 69=1389, 70=1771, 71/98, 85=1571, 92=1584, 93=1587, 94=637, 95=1784, 96=1780, 97=1759. 2. Cf. Pittman 2001: 410–11, figs. 11:2–3; Amiet 1986: 6–9; Porada 1993: 46–47, pls. 25–27. 3. Cf. Amiet 1986: 20–24; Porada 1995: 40–41, figs. 20–22; Pittman 2001: 413, fig. 11:4. On the chronology of the sealings from Susa, cf. Hole 1983: 320–21, fig. 2. On the subdivision of the Late Chalcolithic into phases 1–5, according to the terminology applied by the Santa Fe group, cf. Rothman 2001: 5–8, tables 1:1–2. 4. Cf., most recently, Pittman 2001: 411 n. 3, who speaks of a shaman or wizard. Amiet (1986: 19–20), on the other hand, inclines toward a divine interpretation. Cf. Steinkeller 1999: 113–14 on the probably preeminent role in the earlist pantheon of Enkîk (the later acolyte animal of whom is precisely a caprid). 5. The interpretation of the headdress is controversial. Normally, it is taken to be a rounded hat with short, thickened brim (cf. Matthiae 1979: 30 nn. 45, 47), as shown both by the characteristic portrayal of headdresses in some schematic

188

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

soldiers and kneeling prisoners 6 or a fenestrated axe in front of a figure with long hair and hands clasped over his stomach near a temple façade. 7 A seal impression found at Susa shows a line of figures interpreted as captive “priest-kings” because of their arms being behind their backs, as also documented by a series of stone figurines assigned to the phase preceding Uruk Eªanak IV. 8 The association between the serpents and the naked hero is also interesting, because these two motifs appear to be linked, respectively, with the serpents of earlier tradition and the later Early Dynastic hero (on the latter, cf. §5.2). 9 A possible representation of a “priest-king” from Choga Mish, from levels that are probably coeval to “Acropole” I 18–17 at Susa, shows him seated in a boat with a mace in his hand, above a bull, 10 which could be interpreted as a divine attitude as well as documenting a close connection between the “priest-king” and the bull. The symbol of Inªanak known as “Schilfringbundel” (cf. below, p. 190 n. 19) probably makes its appearance in the Uruk Eªanak IV phase. An impression on a tablet from the Late Uruk period, in fact, shows various cultic objects between two striding naked figures and the façade of a temple between two “Schilfringbundeln.” The cultic objects include an altar with two animals and another canopied altar with two bulls’ heads flanked by a single “Schilfringbundel.” 11 The association of the single “Schilfringbundel” with a bull altar appears to be significant, especially seals (Heinrich 1936: pl. 18:b–d) and by the rendering of the beard through horizontal lines versus the smooth head on a seal (Amiet 1980: no. 636; Moortgat 1940: no. 29) and on a statuette from Uruk (Becker 1993: 75, no. 936, pls. 55– 57), possibly from the Jemdet Nasr period (cf., however, Mallowan 1964: pl. 8:b–c, where the upper part of the head does not seem to be smooth). We must bear in mind, however, that the modeling of the brim is similar to that of the belt around the waist and that the top of the head does not usually stick out. This seems to suggest that what we have here is a thick band around the head (Amiet 1986: 34; cf. also Moortgat 1949: 29; Boehmer 1980–83: 203), like the band that can clearly be made out in the later “Figure aux plumes” from Firsu (cf. Table 5 sub g, §1.1.3, p. 195 n. 44 and Pl. 49:3). Frankfort (1939b: 22) remarked that “during the Early Dynastic times [the ruler] wears his hair in the same fashion as on the Uruk seals . . . [in which] the bearded and skirted figure . . . wears his long hair tied in a knot at the back of the head.” 6. Cf. Boehmer 1999: 5–6, 20–21, pls. 12:3A–E, 17:4I–L. The volume of the muscles on the right arm are paralleled on the statuette discussed in n. 15 below (p. 189). 7. Cf. Boehmer 1999: 8, 24–26, pl. 35:10A–Lu. Although the secondary figure does not seems to be an object of worship / greeting as much as the subject of the action, the temple may, in fact, be behind him on the basis of comparison with a stone plaquette from Kis (Pl. 46:4; cf. below, p. 194 n. 42). For protohistoric architecture in visual documentation, cf. Heinrich 1957. The gesture of the secondary figure is similar to that attested on the smaller figures on an archaic impression from Uruk: there, three long-haired figures with clasped hands are shown on a boat next to the model of a temple (a significant association of themes) and what may be a “priest-king,” larger in scale and recognizable by his smooth garment and staff (Lenzen 1960: 49–50, pls. 26:a, 29:d; 1961: 29–30, pl. 26:a–b). 8. Amiet 1980: no. 283 (cf. also Boehmer 1999: fig. 122). For the statuettes, cf. Becker 1993: 75, no. 937, pl. 58:937, from the area of the Bit Res near the ziggurat of Anu (associated with 1993: 76, nos. 947–51, pls. 63–65) and 1993: 73, pls. 58:I, 59, for three standing statuettes from the antiquities market. On the date of these pieces, cf. Hrouda 1970: 39. For other impressions from Susa, allegedly with the “priest-king,” cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 285, 659 (Boehmer 1999: fig. 102:b; cf., however, Braun-Holzinger 2007: 15 n. 24 for some criticisms). 9. Cf. Boehmer 1999: 8, 26–27, 109, pls. 41:13A–W, 42:14A–D, 95 no. 48. It seems likely that this iconography is different from that of the individual trapped in snake coils (cf. Winkelmann 2003 for a diachronic analysis of the motif). Here it can be added that the comments by Wilhelm (2001: 81–82) on the “nudity” of the “priest-king” with the net skirt are not relevant and that the statement by Porada et al. (1992: 103) on the different chronology of the “priestking” motif in relation to the master of animals iconography is not entirely correct. 10. Amiet 1980: no. 1669, where the characteristic headdress is not, however, preserved. 11. Amiet 1980: pl. 48 bis:A; Buchanan 1981: 45, no. 136, where the position of the altar with two animals is corrected in the text.

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

189

if we consider that an image on a stone plaquette shows a bull drawing a sledge bearing the “priest-king.” 12 Various images showing the “priest-king” hunting or in contexts that emphasize his rank also date from this phase. 13 Certain finds make the issue, already mentioned above, of the different dating of the smooth skirt (Uruk Eªanak V–IV) and the net skirt (III) of the “priest-king” more problematical. 14 At Uruk, a statuette (Pl. 46:1) and a stele that show him wearing the smooth skirt were found in contexts that can be tentatively correlated with phase III of the Eªanak, while an impression from a contemporary tablet from Jemdet Nasr portrays the “priest-king”—here without a beard or with a very short one—apparently wearing a smooth skirt. 15 In the Late Uruk temple at Tell ºUqair—possibly the site of ancient Urum—the lower part of a painting depicting a male figure shows a net skirt. Apart from a few relatively unimportant chronological problems and the impossibility of knowing how the hair was represented, it is nevertheless significant—in light of the comments made below—that this figure is attested in a temple context, alongside pictures of felines and bovines. 16 Of particular importance, given the context in which they were found and their exceptional size, are the fragmentary remains of a life-size magnesite statue from the “Riemchengebäude” of Uruk Eªanak IVa, a building that was possibly connected to hypogean cults. The fragments, in Wrede’s reconstruction, belong to a head that is identical to that of the statuette I have just mentioned (Pl. 46:2). 17 The “Sammelfund” of Uruk. The best context for studying the relationship between the “priest-king” and other important elements of visual communication is the “Sammelfund,” a deposit dating from the latest phase of level III of the Eªanak at Uruk. 18 Here I analyze the objects 12. Braun-Holzinger 2007: 26, pl. 9:FS 10F (Amiet 1980: no. 662; Frangipane 2007: 319, fig. III.63:4). Cf. Reade 2000a on the problem of the authenticity of this piece (Braun-Holzinger 2007: 14 considers it probably a forgery, but the Arslantepe VIA evidence speaks against that; cf. Frangipane 2007: 182 sub A206-001, fig. III.6:1) . For comparison with a similar motif from Early Dynastic Egypt, where the figures on the sledge are gods, cf. Wilkinson 1999: 268, fig. 8:3. Cf. also an archaic impression from Susa (Collon 1987: 158, no. 711). 13. Cf. Boehmer 1994: 26, 28 nos. 16–18, pls. 139:f, 140:a, c; 1999: figs. 49, 62; Englund 1995: 121–23, fig. 1. On the well-known knife from Jebel el-Arak (Sievertsen 1992: 11–13, pl. 2:a), the “priest-king” with smooth skirt appears in the iconography of the so-called master of animals—not attested, however, for this personage in protohistoric Mesopotamia. 14. Cf. Amiet 1986: 34 (Collon 1987: 15, however, makes no chronological distinction). An attempt to provide a differentiated chronology for the protohistoric visual documents was already made by Hrouda (1970). The hypotheses of Porada (1995: 134–35, fig. 87), who thinks that the net skirt is not transparent, and of Strommenger (1971: 38, fig. 1), who considers the net skirt reaching to below the knee as a forerunner of the classical Early Dynastic skirt (cf., most recently, also Strommenger 2008: 9 n. 14), seem untenable to me. 15. Cf. Becker 1993: 75, no. 936, pls. 55–57, for the statuette found below a Seleucid wall but inside a vase possibly dating from the Jemdet Nasr period, and Becker 1993: 57–58, pls. 36–38, nos. 783, for the Lion Hunt Stele (cf. also the stele, now lost, seen in the 19th century, Becker 1993: 58, no. 784, pl. 38:784). On the context of the statuette, cf. Hrouda 1970: 35. For the impression from Jemdet Nasr, cf. R. Matthews 1993: 19, no. 15, fig. 3:15. For the smooth skirt, cf. also the smaller Blau Plaque (cf. below, p. 193 n. 37). 16. Cf. Lloyd and Safar 1943: 142, pl. XII “Wall D.” For the chronology of the building, sealed by an artificial fill with hardly any pottery sherds in it, cf. Lloyd and Safar 1943: 146–49. For the interpretation of tripartite protohistoric buildings as temples, cf. §A.1, p. 221 n. 15. 17. Cf. Becker 1993: 75–76, no. 940, pl. 61:940; Wrede 1995: 679–88, figs. 3–9, pls. 52–53. For the interpretation of the “Riemchengebäude,” cf. most recently Forest 1999: 57–73, figs. 24–34. Cf. also §A.1. 18. Heinrich 1936: 2–4, fig. 1, pl. 1.

190

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

found there and extend this analysis to include some pieces from the antiquities market. In addition to the famous alabaster vase (the so-called Warka vase), this deposit contained seven cylinder seals, four of which show the “priest-king” with a net skirt, a trait that appears to be characteristic of the Jemdet Nasr period (cf. n. 14 above), which is also the date of the deposit. On a seal in elaborate style, he is shown holding an ear of barley and grazing two sheep, behind and in front of which are, respectively, an ear of barley and a bundle of reeds with a volute at the top (“Schilfringbundel”), unanimously interpreted as the symbol of Inªanak on the basis of its use as a pictogram to indicate this deity (Pl. 47:2). 19 The same two symbols—the constant association of which indicates that the ear of barley is not merely an offering but instead some kind of emblem—recur on four schematic seals carrying the meeting scene, where, between the “priestking” and the female figure with the two-pointed tiara (the “goddess”), also attested on the Warka vase (cf. below), there are always two baskets of offerings (Pl. 47:3–5). 20 The constant duplication not only of the symbol of Inªanak but also of all of the offerings, notably the baskets, vases, and rhyta, is undoubtedly peculiar and may indicate that these are intended for two individuals, namely, the “goddess” and the “priest-king.” On another seal in the elaborate style, the “priest-king” is shown on a boat in front of a bull-shaped altar, above which are two “Schilfringbundeln” (Pl. 47:6). 21 Given the close association between the “priest-king” and the bull suggested by the seal impression from Choga Mish (cf. above), one could assume that the bullshaped altar possibly refers to the “priest-king.” We cannot, however, rule out that the altar with the “Schilfringbundeln” hints at the “goddess” instead, as could be deduced from the fact that, on another seal from Uruk, the “priest-king” (holding an ear of barley between his hands) stands in front of the usual two baskets and a bull-shaped altar, which replaces in this case the “goddess” in the meeting scene; 22 a third possibility, that the altar supports a semi-pictographic writing of a toponym, is discussed below in n. 27 (p. 191). 19. For the seal, cf. Heinrich 1936: 28–29, pl. 17:b (Amiet 1980: no. 637; Basmachi 1994: 9, no. 1). For the pictographic sign, cf. Green and Nissen 1987: 248, no. 374; Szarzynska 1997: 66–67, tables 1–2. Cf. also Dolce 1978b: 9, pls. I:W1, W3–4, II:W2 for some detailed clay models. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the interpretation proposed by Steinkeller (1998), for whom the “Schilfringbundel” is a rolled drape. The bindings at various heights can easily be explained by the presence of a bundle of reeds. Note also the structures represented in Amiet 1980: nos. 623, 629A, 632, 1613 and dealt with by Szarzyñska 1997: 61, 71, table 6); cf. especially Amiet 1980: no. 656, for a standard, clearly made of reeds, alongside a temple. 20. Heinrich 1936: 29–30, pl. 18:a–d (Amiet 1980: nos. 646, 648, 647, 651; Basmachi 1994: 9, nos. 4–5). In the second and fourth cases, both of the figures are bearing their respective insignia (as in Pl. 48:1; Amiet 1980: no. 649). In the first, only the “goddess” has hers at her back, and in the fourth it is only the “priest-king” who is bearing his ear-of-barley (which Amiet 1986: 41 assimilates with an emblem). In other three seals (Heinrich 1936: pl. 19:a, c–d; for the first, from the “Sammelfund,” cf. also Amiet 1980: no. 621), the so-called sacred flocks are shown, associated with the “Schilfringbundel” or the façade of a temple and, in the third case, a frieze of fighting lions. Jacobsen (1991: 116–17) interprets the ear of barley as a symbol of the vegetal force offered to the goddess by the EN, whose pictographic sign represents a headdress consisting of a band and ears of barley, like that worn by the “Figure aux plumes.” This interpretation must be rejected (cf. below), although the connection with the ear of barley is correct. 21. Heinrich 1936: 28–29, pl. 17:a (Amiet 1980: no. 655). The portrayal of the boat is a symbol of rank associated with both human and divine representations in early Mesopotamian art (cf. Amiet 1980: 227 sub “Barque;” Canby 2006). 22. Cf. Amiet 1980: no. 652 (Basmachi 1994: 9, no. 3). Also cf. Amiet 1980: no. 653. Although the “sacred” flocks of sheep are constantly associated with the symbol of Inªanak in the period of Uruk Eªanak III, Amiet (1986: 32–34) doubts that the herds of bovines, which are also attested earlier, were always related to a single male deity. Cf., however, the seal quoted in n. 31 below (p. 192).

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

191

It is the Warka vase, however, that provides the most complete and satisfactory visual synthesis of the symbolism found on the earlier stamp seals examined above. 23 The accepted reading moves from the bottom upward, from the vegetable world to the animal, the human, and the divine, signifying that it is the latter that grants natural fertility, the fruits of which are gathered by men who, in turn, offer them to the deity. Alongside this, however, there is the obvious question of how to interpret the two main figures portrayed in the upper register. Behind the “goddess” (there seems to be no doubt that she is wearing a pointed hat, thanks to comparisons with images on seals) are two “Schilfringbundeln,” an animal-shaped altar, and various objects. In front of her, there is a naked figure bearing a basket of offerings and an individual with a net skirt (only a small portion of which has been preserved), whose elaborate belt is being held up by a figure with long hair and a smooth skirt. 24 Though it seems that a certain hierarchical relationship is suggested between the two main figures, the “goddess” and the “priest-king,” by the fact that the offerings are being taken toward the former, 25 the objects connected with these figures show some interesting peculiarities. Unlike the other known examples, the altar is here formed of two caprids with large horns, on which stand two figures with long hair. The first of these is holding an object that is generally accepted as being a pictographic sign (EN), 26 but only recently has Hockmann put forward a comprehensive new explanation of them as semi-pictographic writings of toponyms already documented in the contemporary city seals from Jemdet Nasr and Tell ºUqair (Pl. 49:1). 27 The pair of rhyta representing a gazelle and a feline are also interesting. If we interpret them as referring to either the “priest-king” or the “goddess,” the rhyton in the shape of a feline could pertain to the latter and that in the shape of a gazelle to the “priest-king.” 28 A visual analysis of this group, which is archaeologically homogenous and sufficiently diversified in terms of iconography, also extended to include parallels from the antiquities market, 23. Heinrich 1936: 15–16, pls. 2–3, 38; Lindemeyer and Martin 1993: 81, no. 226, pls. 19–25:k–l. 24. Recently, Strommenger (2008) has commented on the reconstruction of the lacuna in the upper register: after noting a mistake in the projection of the recent drawing (Lindemeyer and Martin 1993: pl. 25:l), she proposes that the “priest-king” (whose net skirt would have been made, according to her, of linen rather than of wool) was holding a standard of his own, although she cannot convincingly reconstruct the relationship between him and the elaborate belt brought by the servant. 25. In some seals, however, it is the “priest-king” who appears to take precedence, insofar as this figure is portrayed in front of the “goddess” when they are both facing in the same direction (Pl. 47:4; Heinrich 1936: pl. 18:b). In one case, he is also larger than the “goddess” (Amiet 1980: no. 645). 26. Jacobsen 1991: fig. 1:e. Cf. 1991: fig. 1:f, for the pictographic sign (cf. also Green and Nissen 1987: 197, no. 134). 27. Hockmann (2008) has recognized in the upper frieze of the Warka vase and in three other seals (Pl. 48:6, 9, and Amiet 1980: no. 643) the writings for Nippur, Kutha, Zabalam, and Urum. In one of these seals, which is fragmentary (Pl. 48:9; Amiet 1980: no. 654; Basmachi 1994: 9, no. 2), the altar/pictogram rests on a feline. Braun-Holzinger (2007: 10 n. 9) is wrong to consider the seals illustrated in Amiet 1980: nos. 653–54 forgeries (quoted here and in n. 22 above). On the city seal impressions from Jemdet Nasr, cf. Matthews 1993; on the tablet from Tell ºUqair, bearing the same city seal impression as one of those from Jemdet Nasr, cf. Englund 1996: no. 15 and Steinkeller 2002a: 252–56. 28. The feline-shaped rhyton (portrayed also in the seal cited in association with the altar in n. 27) seems to portray a lion, although, in the Painted Temple at Tell ºUqair, a crouching leopard is attested (Lloyd and Safar 1943: pls. X–XI). The latter animal is well known from the following Jemdet Nasr period (cf. Behm-Blancke 1979: pls. 7:28, 21:94, 96). In two other seals (Pl. 48:6–7; Amiet 1980: nos. 642–43; Braun-Holzinger [2007: 30 sub FS 29F?] has some doubts about the authenticity of the first piece), the “priest-king,” again followed by a long-haired figure, is shown holding, in one hand, the statue of a feline while he moves toward the temple and, in the other, a rhyton in the shape of a gazelle (whereas in the background a similar vessel is shown, together with pairs of other objects). A protohistoric rhyton, in the shape of a bull, is unprovenanced (Peltenburg 1991: 38–39, no. 15). On the duplication of offerings, cf. already Amiet 1986: 38.

192

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

provides new insights on the figure of the “priest-king.” He is placed on an almost equal plane as a female figure that scholars usually identify as Inªanak, the titular deity of the sacred area of the Eªanak. The goddess is unequivocally identified by her constant association with the “Schilfringbundel,” while the “priest-king” is associated with the ear of barley. Whether or not we accept Jacobsen’s contention that the sign EN derives from an ear of barley (cf. n. 20 above), it seems certain that in the Jemdet Nasr period at Uruk it was a kind of insignia of the male figure with the net skirt. The recurring duplication of offerings in iconography, as well as other aspects discussed above, suggest that the cult relates to two figures, one female and one male. Moreover, the iconography of the latter as feeder of herds, attested on the first seal from the deposit examined here, on a famous seal from the Uruk region and on other examples from the antiquities market (Pl. 48:2–5), appears to be typically divine in its sporadic attestations in later Mesopotamian iconography. 29 Although it is possible that the “priest-king” is in fact the EN, the nature of Inªanak is of such complexity that one may wonder whether the “Schilfringbundel” was associated with the “priest-king” as well as the “goddess.” Indeed, the texts of phase IV of Uruk Eªanak attest to two forms of Inªanak, Inªanak-NUN and Inªanak-KUR (although we do not have any offering lists for the latter). 30 Although Inªanak-KUR is still attested in phase III, the two main forms in this period are astral, being identified respectively with the planet Venus as the morning star (Inªanak-hud) and the evening star (Inªanak-sig), for which we have offering lists and also two separate festivals (EZEN). 31 It seems significant that this greater complexity of the Inªanak figure is reflected, in visual documentation from Uruk Eªanak III, in a parallel increase in iconographic and symbolic complexity. Though I cannot point out any definite correspondence between the textual and the visual evidence, it should be noted that, according to Marchesi, Inªanak-KUR, for whom offerings are still not attested thus far, may mean “male Inªanak.” 32 If we accept that the “priest-king” could be identified with a god (at least in the Uruk Eªanak III phase), then it becomes less significant to wonder whether this is a human miming a deity 33

29. Cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 636 (= Moortgat 1940: no. 29), 638–40. Two “Schilfringbundeln” are shown in the first three seals, whereas the long-haired figure only appears in the last two (and, in the first of these, has a net rather than a smooth skirt). A seal impression from Uruk shows a figure, which cannot be identified precisely, feeding a bovine (Amiet 1980: pl. 13 bis:F). On the motif of deities feeding caprids during the Early Dynastic and Akkadian periods, cf. Amiet 1980: no. 1219; D. Matthews 1997a: pl. XXVIII:346; Boehmer 1965: pl. XLVIII:561. 30. Cf. Szarzynska 1997: 118–22, 142–43 for Inªanak-NUN and 108–12, 145 for Inªanak-KUR. 31. Cf. Szarzynska 1997: 116, 123–27, 143–44; Steinkeller 2002a: 253–54. For a Late Uruk seal showing a bull, the symbol of Inªanak and some ideograms, cf. Nissen et al. 1993: 17, fig. 18. On this, the “Schilfringbundel” is associated with the sign EZEN and the symbol for a rising and a setting star, all of which is interpreted as “festival of Inªanak of the morning and of the evening.” 32. Although Szarzynska (1997: 111–12, 145) and Steinkeller (2002a: 254 n. 23) translate (d)INANA.KUR, respectively, as “Inana (from) Kur” and “Inanna of the mountains/Netherworld,” G. Marchesi (p.c.) points out to me that the sign KUR in the archaic texts of Uruk was also used in the sense of “male,” in opposition to MUNUS, “female” (cf. Englund 1998: 70–71, 148, 155, 176, fig. 51). 33. Cf. Amiet (1986: 35, 40) who, noting that it is a leonine demon nourishing the herds in a seal from Tutub ‡amus II (cf. Frankfort 1955: no. 34), thinks that “le Roi-prêtre joue le même rôle qu’un être proprement mythique, assurant la subsistance du bétail, et qu’il a au moins une grande ressemblance avec un Maître des animaux.” He then concludes that this is “un prêtre accomplissant un rite en somme magique, destiné à faire prospérer les troupeaux,” “roi en même temps que prêtre.”

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

193

and whether he furnishes the model for the royal figure attested later, 34 especially because the answer to the latter question must be negative (cf. §5.2). It is the individual with the long hair and smooth skirt or, significantly, the net skirt, who seems to be the human go-between for the deity, who assists him in the scenes of herds being fed, in those showing the bearing of offerings and, on the Warka Vase, holding up the “priest-king’s” elaborate belt. 35 At any rate, the very nature of the material precludes a more in-depth analysis. Admittedly, it does not yet seem possible today to give an overview of this repertoire accounting for all of its iconographic variations, such as the scene in which the “priest-king” is hunting herds. 36 It is particularly difficult to provide any convincing explanation for the reciprocal influence, in terms of visual language as well as other aspects, of the region of Susa and of southern Mesopotamia during the Late Uruk period, when Susa may have had a greater impact on southern Mesopotamia, judging from the iconographic repertoire attested during the Jemdet Nasr phase. The figure with the net skirt in later Mesopotamian iconography. The figure with the net skirt appears on only a few documents later than the Jemdet Nasr period, although these are fairly significant. On one side of the so-called larger Blau Plaque, the “priest-king” is portrayed holding what may be a mace (cf. the “Figure aux plumes,” below) or a wooden pestle in front of a figure with hands clasped before his face (Pl. 47:1). On the other side, however, is a figure with the net skirt, but beardless and with a shaven head, alongside two crouching figures who are employed in some form of manual labor (Pl. 46:5). 37 The date of this piece is uncertain (like that of the 34. Steinkeller 1999: 104–5 (“the ‘man in the net kilt’ is a person of truly royal stature . . . the leader of Uruk’s temple community, who was very likely a linear antecedent of the ensiks and lugals that ruled over the Sumerian city-states half a millennium later”). 35. Cf. also a second fragment from a fairly similar vase (Lindemeyer and Martin 1993: 82, no. 227, pl. 22:227). The belt is associated with a necklace, which is usually connected with the “goddess,” on a seal (Pl. 48:8; allegedly found at Tell Billa in Assyria, cf. Frankfort 1939b: 19, pl. III:d; Amiet 1980: no. 656; Basmachi 1994: 9, pl. 2:6) that shows a procession which includes a shaven-headed figure, wearing, however, a net skirt. This figure is bringing both objects toward a temple as offerings. In two other similar motifs, the long-haired figure holds the necklace and follows the “priest-king” (although this identification is not certain, since the head is not preserved; Amiet 1980: no. 642), or, in the second piece, from Uruk, the elaborate belt is attested (Amiet 1980: no. 1607; Lenzen 1961: 30, pl. 25:n; cf. also Amiet 1986: fig. 6:56 for a further example and, for a brief but clear discussion of the belt and necklace, Strommenger 2008: 7–8, figs. 5–7). With regard to the second motif, from Uruk, it should be noted that it is not entirely clear whether the sealings are from domestic contexts of the Jemdet Nasr phase, since it is said that they were found “neben, unten und über” these (Lenzen 1961: 30). The uncertainty with regard to the chronology is shared also by the seal, allegedly from Tell Billa, which has been attributed to either Uruk Eªanak IV or III (as is the case with Hrouda [1970: 37, figs. 2–3], who, dating these materials to level IV, was thus able to claim that the net skirt already appears in that phase, an opinion shared also by Boehmer 1999: fig. 121:b). Amiet (1986: 41) believes, in keeping with his interpretation of the “priest-king,” that the figure with long hair (on whom cf. also Amiet 1980: nos. 637, 639–40, 643) is a kind of hereditary prince. A seal from Abu Hatab (Amiet 1980: no. 658) has a procession of figures similar to that on the Tell Billa seal (although it may be later than the latter): the main figure is possibly wearing a transparent skirt, which is there represented schematically. 36. Cf. Amiet 1980: no. 1614 (Mallowan 1964: pl. 8:c shows a better rendering of the top of the “priest-king’s” head, which is not smooth), where, alongside the “priest-king” portrayed in the act of hunting bovids, we have a “Schilfringbundel.” The seal comes, at any rate, from the antiquities market. 37. For the smaller Blau Plaque (Pl. 46:3), where the “priest-king” with smooth skirt is holding a deer in his hand (although it is not clear whether this indicates the offering of an animal, a pose documented in Early Dynastic III, or is supposed to represent a rhyton; cf. Pl. 48:6–7), cf. Gelb et al. 1991: 39–43, no. 10, pl. 11; for the larger Blau Plaque, cf. Gelb et al. 1991: 39–43, no. 11, pl. 12. On the front side of the larger Blau Plaque, the “priest-king” holds, according to Cooper (2008a: 78, fig. 53), a wooden pestle, a tool that was used ritually in land-transfer ceremonies (cf. Wilcke 2007: 79). These two pieces in schist are said to come from Uruk or Tell ºUqair, but it seems more correct to consider their provenance

194

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

smaller Blau Plaque, the so-called Obelisk; Pl. 46:3). It has been suggested that the dating should be lowered, on paleographic grounds, to the time of the so-called archaic texts of Ur, which were found in a series of dumps associated with seal impressions attributed to Early Dynastic I. 38 There are remarkable iconographic similarities between the portrayal of the “priest-king” on the larger Blau Plaque and other representations of this figure from the Jemdet Nasr period. There are, however, no known parallels for the unidentifiable figure on the other side of the plaque. 39 The question is further complicated by the attestation of a figure with a net skirt receiving a procession under a canopy of sorts on some archaic Ur seal impressions from Early Dynastic I (cf. §1.1.5). This figure does not have a beard, although he does wear the headband that is characteristic of the “priest-king” (Pl. 49:2). 40 There is a striking resemblance between the figure shown in front of the “priest-king” in the larger Blau Plaque 41 and an individual who is shown in a similar position, but in front of a temple, on two earlier, protohistoric pieces: a seal impression from Uruk Eªanak V (cf. p. 188 n. 7) and a stone plaquette allegedly from Kis (Pl. 46:4). 42 On the latter, the “priest-king” has a smooth skirt—which suggests a date contemporary with or slightly later than the impression— and is portrayed raising an object (a peg? cf. n. 37 above) above the head of a standing figure, whose hands are clasped before his face. This figure is represented on a smaller scale than the “priest-king,” as on the larger Blau Plaque. No firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the relationship between the two figures, although it is clear that they have no relation with the meeting

as unknown (although Reade [2000a] notes that Blau, who first bought the pieces, lived at Samawa, not far from Uruk). Hrouda (1970: 42) interprets them as two symbolic tools—a kind of scraper and chisel. 38. Damerow and Englund 1989: 137. Wilcke (1995: 669), in lowering the date of the Blau Plaques, also accepts the dating of SIS 8-4 to Early Dynastic II suggested by Karg (1984). In terms of paleography, it should be pointed out that, at present, it is not correct to compare the more conservative examples of paleography on stone with those on clay and that the Blau Plaques, at any rate, appear to be earlier than the “Figure aux plumes” (cf. below). Braun-Holzinger (2007: 16– 18) still considers all these pieces to be “frühsumerisch,” while Cooper (2008a: 75 n. 41) agrees with a dating for the Blau Plaques to the beginning of the Early Dynastic period. 39. The closest comparison is found in the main figure on the seal allegedly from Tell Billa (cf. Amiet 1980: no. 656), which, however, has a shorter skirt. I believe we can exclude the possibility of the larger Blau Plaque portraying the same figure in different contexts and with different garments. 40. Legrain 1936: 35–36, no. 387, pls. 20, 51 (cf. Amiet 1980: 114, 117, pl. 61:823), an impression known to us from various sealings found in SIS 4 at Ur (pits D and W). Jacobsen (1989: 127 n. 11) holds this to be a god (also on the basis of later comparisons with the naked priest performing a libation in front of a deity and followed by female figures; cf. Boese 1971: pl. XXI:4; Amiet 1980: nos. 1357–58; continuity of iconographic themes is in no way surprising), but dates the impression to Early Dynastic III. This dating is, however, unlikely, especially considering the fact that Legrain 1936: no. 387 is known from several impressions, while there are only a handful of intrusive specimens from Early Dynastic III, and these all are different from one another (cf. above, p. 53 n. 145). The statement by Braun-Holzinger (2007: 19 n. 43) that the skirt has no net design is contradicted by at least one of the published photographs (U.18404; Pl. 49:2) and by the fact that Legrain drew these multiple seal impressions in the field (cf. also Moorey 1979: 105, for an appreciation of Legrain’s accuracy and note also that Moorey has not corrected his design). 41. Notwithstanding a striking similarity with a female statuette from an Early Dynastic I level at Tutub ‡amus IV (Pl. 3:1; Frankfort 1943: pl. 1:208), Braun-Holzinger (2007: 17) is probably right in identifying the secondary figure on the larger Blau Plaque as a man. The possibility that the larger Blau Plaque is connected with a wedding ceremony (Wilcke 2007: 64) seems extremely unlikely to me. 42. Cf. de Genouillac 1925: pl. I:1; Gubel and Overlaet 2007: 61, no. 1. The photograph in this more recent publication and my direct examination of the piece confirm that the secondary individual is shaven-headed and male (cf. also Braun-Holzinger 2007: 14 n. 21).

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

195

scene found in the Uruk Eªanak III phase. If the gestures have been correctly interpreted as relating to land transfers (cf. n. 37 above and p. 213 n. 12), a “divine” sanction for those transactions may perhaps have been expressed there. An important clue to the identity of the “priest-king” is provided by the Early Dynastic II “Figure aux plumes” from Firsu (Pl. 49:3; cf. Table 5 sub g, §1.1.3), the inscription on which, long held to refer to a land transfer, has been interpreted by Wilcke as a hymn to Ninmirsûk. 43 The bearded figure with a net skirt, who wears a head-band graced with two ears of barley and grasps the first of three colossal maces, 44 in a gesture superficially similar to that of the main figure on the larger Blau Plaque, must then necessarily be the god celebrated in the inscription. 45 To conclude, the figure with a net skirt of the late protohistoric tradition (there is no proof that it is attested earlier) continues into Early Dynastic I and II with sacred features that appear to rule out its being a depiction of an earthly ruler during the Jemdet Nasr period. It therefore most probably represents a divine figure. 46 It is thus proposed here that, in the visual documentation of the Uruk Eªanak III phase, two forms of Inªanak are represented, with their respective insignia: one is a male wearing a net skirt, and the other is a female. The male, when not accompanied by his female counterpart, is sometimes flanked by a smaller figure that could possibly be the EN mentioned in texts from the same period. 47 If we accept that the “priest-king” must be identified with a deity, this makes it easier to explain why his image left no traces in royal iconography, which developed—as will be shown in

43. Wilcke 1995. 44. The plaque comes from phase 5 of the temple of Ninmirsûk on Tell K but may date back to phase 2 (cf. §1.1.3). Cavigneaux’s (1998a) hypothesis that inscriptions may have been attached to the upright stakes is unwarranted. The tradition of attributing colossal weapons to the deity in this sacred area continues also in phases 4 and 5 with, respectively, the mace-head of Me¶alim and the spear-head of Lugalnamnirsumma (cf. Table 5 sub e, m, §1.1.3). Although the interpretation is not certain, the text of the “Figure aux plumes” seems to mention some maces (SITA), which may possibly be related to the iconography of the object (cf. Wilcke 1995: 671 and passim). 45. The classical tiara with horns, as well as the variant with branches in the center, is attested only from Early Dynastic II onward. In the following phase, the latter is further developed through the insertion of a schematic mask (“Idolkröne;” cf. Boehmer 1967: 273–76, table I; Asher-Greve [1995–96: 183, 186–87] thinks the mask represents a lion). According to Dolce (1997: 2–3), the “Figure aux plumes” represents, instead, a ruler of the protohistoric tradition with an archaic royal tiara. It should be noted that what is around the head is quite clearly a band, given the hair shown above it, and this may furnish a further clue regarding the nature of the protohistoric headdress (cf. above, p. 187 n. 5). 46. Since this figure has been thus far almost unanimously interpreted as the ruler of protohistoric Uruk (but the size of the statue from the Late Uruk “Riemchengebäude” creates a further difficulty; cf. above, p. 189 n. 17), I do not think it necessary to list the relevant literature here (cf., however, Schmandt-Besserat 1993; Steinkeller 1999: 104–5 nn. 1–2; Wilhelm 2001: 478–80). Most recently, Braun-Holzinger (2007: 20 n. 46) reaffirms the traditional view and criticizes my interpretation, without, however, noting any chronological distinction within the material and, at the same time, leaving open the possibility that the “goddess,” is in fact a human figure (cf. 2007: 9 n. 7). In partial disagreement with the generally accepted interpretation, Moortgat (1949: 30) identifies the “priest-king” with Dumuzid, the “mythische Hirte . . . Personifiezierung des Naturlebens . . . Mittelpunkt aller Bildkunst” (cf. also Moortgat 1945: 83–84, 88), while Amiet (1986: 35, 40, 43) points to the mythical nature of that figure. Cf. also Hansen 1998: 49, according to whom “the world of humankind and the world of the gods were fused and inseparable [in the art of this period], so this figure may well also be Inanna’s consort and lover, Dumuzi.” If, however, we accept the hypothesis that the “priest-king” represents a male form of Inªanak (cf. above, p. 192 n. 32), then the above-mentioned mediations may be reformulated by assuming that certain attributes of the deity merged with the royal figure of Dumuzid at some later stage. 47. The development of kingship at Uruk appears to have been closely linked to the temple context, as shown by the use of the priestly title EN for the highest administrative post (cf. §2.2).

196

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

the following paragraph—only from the mid-Early Dynastic period onward as a response to specific sociopolitical factors.

5.2. The Iconography and Themes of Early Dynastic Art Following the discussion in chap. 1 on the chronology of some stratified specimens of Early Dynastic visual evidence, I shall now examine diachronically certain visual elements (both iconographic and contextual) that enable us to recognize Early Dynastic rulers as such, starting with an analysis of apparel and insignia, and then move on to cover some specific themes. Apparel, hairstyle and insignia. For a more analytical treatment of Early Dynastic apparel, I refer the reader to some syntheses on this subject. 48 Here I shall concentrate on variations in Early Dynastic costumes and their possible significance in relation to the portrayal of royal figures. Apart from statues Cat. 1–3 and Cat. 13, I know of no other works that recognizably represent rulers in the art of Early Dynastic I and II. In these periods, both clothing and insignia appear to be shared equally by male figures: the garment is usually smooth, with a fringe along the hem (although skirts with triangular tufts already began to appear toward the end of these periods), and stretches from the waist to below the knee. 49 The hair either falls in two locks across the front of the shoulders—in this case the subject always wears a beard—or the figure’s head and face are clean-shaven. The hands sometimes hold a cup (alluding to the banquet scene; cf. below), occasionally associated with a branch, while figures holding an upright rod are characterized as being of lower rank. 50 Only the so-called circular base from Firsu (Pl. 49:4; cf. Table 5 sub a) shows an individual who, based on the symbols he is holding and the visual context, could be regarded as royal, although this is not certain. 51 The sockle of statue Cat. 13 carries a distinctive symbolic scene that could be related to the banquet theme, which is alluded to by the cup held in the statue’s hands (cf. also below). These traits are still found in Early Dynastic IIIa, with a few minor differences. It is likely that Cat. 4, Cat. 5 (which differ from the other statues in size and material, respectively), and Cat. 6 belong to the end of this period, although it is difficult to make any firm judgment in this regard (cf. §1.2). The inlay of king Lugalªutu from Kis, which can be attributed to Early Dynastic IIIa on the basis of the tufted skirt and the paleography of its inscription, as well as of its context, is 48. Strommenger 1971; Börker-Klähn 1972–75; Boehmer 1980–83. 49. Cf. p. 189 n. 14 for a critique of the identification of possible forerunners. In the following notes, I only cite specific or rare cases, since most of the iconography quoted is more than adequately illustrated in the reference works (BraunHolzinger 1977; Boese 1971; Börker-Klähn 1982a; Dolce 1978a, 1978b), to be updated with the information supplied in chap. 1. For references to Early Dynastic royal statues (= Cat.), cf. chap. 3. 50. In addition to the circular base from Firsu, for figures portrayed with a staff on plaques from Early Dynastic II and IIIa, mainly associated with chariots and equids, cf. Pls. 59:5–6, 60:5 and Boese 1971: pls. I:2, III:1, V:2, VII:1, VIII:1, IX, XIII:1. 51. The main figure—who is leading a procession and is represented in the act of greeting an official at the head of a second line of figures—is holding a kind of curved scimitar against his right shoulder and, in his left hand, has an object that cannot be defined. If we take these objects to be some kind of symbol for his office, then there may be a comparison with the curved weapon held by Eªannâbtum in the Stele of the Vultures (Pl. 52:1, 3; cf. also Table 5 sub p and p. 44 n. 114). The beardless official holds a simple, upright staff. On the interpretation of the contemporary stele of Saraªusumgal (Pl. 64:5), which is not a royal piece: cf. p. 193 n. 37 above and p. 213 n. 12.

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

197

the only known non-sculptural document portraying a royal individual (Pl. 50:1). 52 In fact, in this period, the elements characterizing royal dedications are mainly epigraphic rather than visual and, furthermore, royal inscriptions have a more elaborate structure (cf. the inscriptions of Me¶alim from Firsu and Adab, Pls. 11:10, 14:3, 15:2). 53 The most abundant evidence dates from Early Dynastic IIIb. One can often further narrow down the dates of artifacts, assigning them to the earlier or later part of this period or to the following brief phase called the Protoimperial (cf. §3.3). The royal statues of the first part of Early Dynastic IIIb wear a skirt, have a shaven head, and no beard (Cat. 7–10). Non-sculptural depictions of the king with shaven head and tufted skirt also mainly date from the first part of Early Dynastic IIIb (Pl. 51:1–3), 54 although there are two significant exceptions. One is the portrayal of Eªannâbtum on the Stele of the Vultures, beardless but with helmet and a chignon, and the other a bearded royal statue in diorite (Cat. 14) with an unusual hairstyle, swelling out at the back as if foreshadowing the chignon (cf. below). The Protoimperial examples have well-defined characteristics: all wear a garment draped over the left shoulder and, where preserved, the head is bearded and wears the hair in a chignon (Cat. 12 and Cat. 16, but cf. possibly also Cat. 11b and Cat. 15). 55 The statues of high-ranking officials also show them wearing the garment draped over the shoulder and a chignon and hence hardly differ from those of rulers, but they are never portrayed with symbols of rank (cf. below). 56 52. The inlay shows the skirt with schematically carved tufts, which is found alongside the smooth skirt in this period (cf. p. 93 n. 326). In addition to the comments in n. 201 (p. 69) and n. 257 (p. 76) regarding the chronology of this king’s documents, one of his seals is attested on an Early Dynastic IIIa sealing with two impressions (Pl. 19:4, where we read the PN Lugalªutu followed by the title “king”). The sealing was bought by de Genouillac from his workers (1924: 20 n. 1; 1925: 22 sub P.101, pl. I:4, 6) and probably comes from Uhaimir, whereas the inlay is from the palace on Tell A at Ingharra. The rest of inlay production shows subjects that are also found in Early Dynastic IIIb but, since there are not many of them, there is little likelihood that they include portrayals of rulers that have not yet been identified as such. 53. I can find no parallel for a statue clasping a down-turned dagger to its chest (al-Gailani 1972: 74, pl. XXII:c), but I doubt that this may be a special expression of rank. 54. Cf. also the portrayals of the rulers Urnansêk and Enªannâbtum I on their respective plaques (Boese 1971: pls. XXIX:1–2, XXX:1, XXXI:2), the inlay of Urnansêk from the foot of Tell K at Firsu (Pl. 50:2 left; Cros et al. 1910–14: 13, 31–32, pl. II:1, plan A, found next to one of the pillars near the basins; Dolce 1978b: pl. XX:T16; AO 4109) and the presumably royal figures that occur in the center of the upper register of the so-called peace side in the “Standard of Ur” from PG779 and on the short side of a lyre sound-box from PG1332 (Pl. 58:1, 7; Dolce 1978b: pls. XVIII:U176–77, XXI: U171; cf. also Table 9). For the identification of the main personage of the “Standard of Ur” with the king, cf. also Miglus 2008: 234. Two small lapis lazuli disks with a seated shaven-headed personage and a “secondary” royal inscription are most probably a forgery (Muscarella 1995; 2000: 165–66 nos. 43–44, p. 481; contra Porada 1993: 50–52, fig. X:a–c for the first of them). 55. The two bands on the back of Cat. 15 may be related to a different kind of chignon. Moreover, the statue of Yisqimari (Cat. 12) has inspired a number of forgeries, at least one of which has not yet been widely recognized as such. Cf. Parrot 1955a: 182 figure on the right, for an object that the editor immediately identified as of modern manufacture. A small head in lapis lazuli (3.6 cm high), now kept in an Italian private collection, although held to be authentic by authoritative experts (Moortgat-Correns 1967; Braun-Holzinger 1977: 59, 85–86; Spycket 1981: 89–90, fig. 32), is, instead, most probably a forgery (cf. also Muscarella 2000: 164, no. 32), since there is no ribbon under the entwined motif of the hair on the front and because of the odd carving of long, slanting locks between this and the lower curls on the nape of the neck. Cf. also p. 133 n. 22 above, for another forgery. 56. Cf. the statuette from Tutub Small Shrine VII that has been joined from two fragments here on Pl. 52:4 (cf. p. 31 n. 64 and Frankfort 1943: pls. 22:238, 23:240), which is not royal and lacks a beard; a head from the votive deposit in the North Temple at Nippur (McCown et al. 1978: pl. 70:2–3; this context probably dates to the same time as the Tutub context; cf. §1.1.2); the copper statuette of a clean-shaven scribe named Lukesak, probably from Adab (cf. p. 169 sub Cat. 4, commentary on lines 1–2 with n. 86), which is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Pl. 52:2; Braun-Holzinger

198

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

In other artistic genres, similar iconographic details are attested earlier, at the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb, although they actually spread later. The garment draped over the left shoulder and the chignon—presumably derived from female attire, which is hence undoubtedly earlier— are not royal prerogatives, being also found in some representations of gods 57 and high-ranking officials. The young Ayakurgal at Lagas and Mesªumêdug at Ur, two approximately coeval princes, are portrayed with the same chignon bound with a ribbon (Pl. 54:2–3, 6). 58 The garment draped over the shoulder is also worn by another son of Urnansêk of Lagas (Abda; Pl. 50:3) 59 and by a figure represented on a plaque from Tutub Small Shrine VII (Pl. 54:1), as well as by Eªannâbtum on the back of his stele (Pl. 52:1, 3). 60 Abda also has long hair falling loose down the back, which is again similar to Eªannâbtum, as well as being attested in foundation figurines and various statuettes. 61 On a stele attributed to ‡arrumken (Pl. 55:3; Sb 2), the figure shown being struck by the 1984: no. 45, pl. 7:45; the statuette has the inventory number 1989.281.4: O. W. Muscarella, p.c.) and other examples cited by Braun-Holzinger 1977: 53 n. 369, 57–58 (apart from the small lapis lazuli head, which is believed to be a forgery; cf. the preceding note). Among the examples wearing the dress covering the shoulder, cf. also the statuette from Susa in schematic style on Pl. 53:4–5 (Harper et al. 1992: 83–84, no. 50, without beard but with hair) and an onyx piece from room XLVI in the palace at Mari, which was found “immédiatement sous le niveau . . . PP1” (Parrot 1970: 239, pl. XII:3– 4) and therefore earlier, on a stratigraphic basis, than the final phase of “Ville II” (cf. §1.1.7 and especially p. 67 n. 192). 57. On the male gods, cf. for example Ninmirsûk on the Stele of the Vultures (Pl. 55:2; cf. Table 5 sub p; Zervos and Coppola 1935: pl. 107) or the plaque Boese 1971: pl. XVIII:1 (from Nippur), where, however, we do not have the dress covering the shoulder. The gods normally have long hair, as well as a beard: cf. Boese 1971: pls. XII:2, XVIII:2, XXI:4; Amiet 1980: nos. 1357–58, 1372. 58. For the plaque showing Ayakurgal without beard but with the chignon, cf. Boese 1971: pl. XXIX:1. For the golden cap (“helmet”) of Mesªumêdug, cf. Woolley 1934: 155–57, 552 sub U.10000, pl. 150 and frontispiece. On the identity of Mesªumêdug, cf. above, p. 64 with n. 169. For another cap like that of this prince but made of stone, cf. Moorey 1996: 227– 29, figs. 1–7. Moorey (1996: 231–37) also states that the chignon is an exclusively royal hairstyle, but this claim is based on some identifications with which I do not agree. Cf. also Mazzoni 1975: 3; Dolce 2002: 204. An inlay portraying Ayakurgal before he became ruler (Pl. 50:2 right; Barrelet 1974: 72, F.17, pl. I; Dolce 1978b: pl. XVIII:T19; AO 11249) most probably belongs to the same inlaid panel of Urnansêk (cf. n. 54 above). 59. Abda (áb-da), the first figure behind the ruler in the larger plaque (Boese 1971: pl. XXIX:1), is often taken to be female (cf. most recently Marchesi 2006a: 20–21 with n. 82). This is unlikely, especially considering that the right breast of the figure is naked (cf. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 54 n. 377; Cooper 1986a: 23 n. 2; Tunca 2004). One of the very few comparisons in favor of this interpretation could be an earlier, headless statue from Tutub ‡amus VIII (Frankfort 1943: pl. 26). There is also a possible example from Mari, but the sex of the person represented cannot be determined with certainty (Parrot 1967: 103–4, figs. 145–46; only the presence or absence of the tassel on the back could answer this question, but the relevant part is missing; cf., however, a banqueting seated statue from Assur Estar G2: Andrae 1922: pl. 41:c– d; Harper et al. 1995: 30–31, no. 4); finally, note that a standing female statuette from Palace G at Ebla does have a naked breast (Matthiae 2008: pl. 31). On a stele of Urnansêk in cursive style (Pl. 51:2; Börker-Klähn 1982a: pl. 16; Steible 1982a: 112 Urn. 50; Frayne 2008: 87–89 E1.9.1.6a), we have the wife and daughter of the ruler, shown with long hair but in iconographic terms pictured differently from Abda. Moreover, it should be noted that the latter appears on one of the three “genealogical” plaques of Urnansêk from Tell K (cf. Table 5 sub h): these plaques portray only men and presumably served a different function than the small stele mentioned above. 60. For the plaque from Tutub in which one of the clean-shaven figures is wearing a dress that covers the left shoulder and a flat hairy beret, cf. Boese 1971: pl. XII:3; Frankfort 1939a: pl. 114:201. Braun-Holzinger (2008: 159) argues that Eªannâbtum wears a different kind of garment: it is certainly more elaborate than the other examples, but what seems significant here is the fact that it covers the left shoulder. 61. Cf. Parrot 1967: 89–96, pls. XLV–XLVII (the son of the musician Urnansêk, a contemporary of king Yiplusªil of Mari; J. M. Evans in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 152–53, no. 91: a–b); Spycket 1981: 92, pl. 59:a–b from Firsu. Furthermore, the soldiers of Eªannâbtum also have long hair below their helmets. Cf. also Dolce 1978b: pls. XXIX:M23, XXXVI:M399, XXXVIII:M420 from Mari and the comments by Hansen (1998: 46, fig. 36:a) on the last figure on the left in the upper register of the “Standard of Ur,” on the so-called peace side. On the foundation figurines with long hair, cf. Rashid 1983: nos. 1–48, 70–72, 75, pls. 1–5, the last four of which also have a beard. Their interpretation is controversial

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

199

Akkadian ruler has been identified as an enemy king on the basis of his long hair, which clearly differentiates him from the prisoners with shaven heads in the same frame. 62 The chignon and garment draped over the shoulder are rarely found on seals dating from Early Dynastic III but appear frequently in Protoimperial reliefs. 63 Two registers are preserved of a relief sculpted in a cursory style on a kind of circular limestone basin from the temple of Ninhursamak at Nutur. The lower register shows a figure with a chignon and a notched band around the head meeting two other individuals, the second of whom wears a garment draped over the shoulder and, probably, the chignon (this has not been preserved, but he too has the notched band; Pl. 54:4). 64 Woolley believed that the main figure represented a god, but it is more likely that the scene portrays highranking individuals of Early Dynastic IIIb (on the dating of the context, cf. §1.1.6). A fragment of a stele from the foot of Tell K at Firsu, on which the Early Dynastic temple of Ninmirsûk stood, deserves its own discussion (Pl. 55:1; cf. p. 44 n. 115). Behind a seated goddess 65 is a naked prisoner, with his hands tied behind his back, being struck with a mace (the handle of which is thinner than shown in Boese’s drawing) by a standing bearded figure. The latter is wearing a smooth garment and the chignon held by a band at the nape of the neck. As far as its style is concerned, the piece is from a workshop that was unable to combine the expressionist rendering of the scene with compositional and formal devices capable of highlighting its details and frozen dynamism. Similar, rather cursive pieces are attested in the time of Urnansêk (Pl. 51:2); 66 the smooth garments and the rendering of the small ears of the figures on the stele would also since there are no divine attributes (for similar figurines, but with horns, cf. Rashid 1983: nos. 49–68, 73–74, 76, pls. 5– 9, only the last of which has a beard; Furlong 1987: 318–35): while Spycket (1981: 78–79, fig. 29, pl. 50) is undecided as to whether they are to be identified with deities or not, Furlong (1987: 36–37, 338–51) believes they are human. Barrelet (1974: 73–74, F.22, F.25) wrongly considers the foundation figurines of Enmetênnâk to represent the ruler on the basis of later examples from the early Middle Bronze Age (cf. Rashid 1983: nos. 111–15, 119–71, pls. 18–19, 21–35 for bronze figurines, mainly of the peg type, dating from Gudeªa to Susîn). Marchesi (2006: 20 n. 82) and Gebhard Selz (2010) have argued that Abda is, instead, a daughter of Urnansêk in priestly attire. 62. On the identification of this individual, cf. Amiet 1976: 12 (Nigro [1998: 90] suggested that the personage could be Lugalzagêsi). 63. Cf. the stele Sb 1 of ‡arrumken and the stele from Jebelet el-Beyda (cf. p. 136 n. 40 and p. 142 n. 67, respectively, and Pl. 56:1–2). For the seals, cf. especially the impressions of Yisqimari (Pl. 56:3–4; Beyer 2007: 249–53, nos. 16–17, figs. 16–18, 20), contemporary—in my opinion (cf. §3.1)—with the stele Sb 1 of ‡arrumken, where the Akkadian ruler has a similar hairstyle and clothing (which is, however, unusual in that it covers the right and not the left shoulder; furthermore, it is not sure that the king holds a mace; it may well be an axe). Dolce (1986: 317 n. 50) believes individuals with the chignon appear in two seals from Ur (Woolley 1934: pls. 193:16, 194:25); however, only the former (1934: pl. 193:18 from PG800) does have a man with the chignon (in addition to a woman with turban, a feature indicating high rank). Cf. also Amiet 1980: nos. 1141 and 1346 (where, however, he believes a deity is portrayed). The chignon is, instead, common in Akkadian seals and it is also attested in the so-called Tigris group that can be dated to the initial phase of the Akkadian period (Boehmer 1965: figs. 664–65; cf. Marchetti 1998: 130 n. 87). 64. Hall and Woolley 1927: 82–84, pl. XXXVI:2–6, H. 28 cm, from the south side of the stair. One of the small figures in the upper register also has a stylized chignon. 65. The goddess is wearing a horned tiara, the central part of which—now visible after recent cleaning—shows a conical element, with leaves to the sides crossing at the top (cf. Boehmer 1967: 275, table I:D5 for chronological details on the “Mesanepada-Urukagina” phase of this kind of tiara). Cf. also a plaque with two goddesses having similar iconography from a late Early Dynastic IIIb level at Ur (Woolley 1956: 170, pl. 38:U.2826; Dolce 1978b: pl. XLI:U194; Furlong 1987: 280–81). 66. Cf. Boese 1971: 67 n. 360. For two small stelae from the same period, cf. Börker-Klähn 1982a: pls. 15–16. One can compare, however, the rendering of the goddess’s front hair on the stele with a female head dating from the Akkadian period (Amiet 1976: 16, fig. 11).

200

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

suggest a date in that period. However, the similarity of the subject with that depicted on Sargonic stele Sb 2 67 and details such as the ruler’s beard and the horned tiara of the goddess argue for a later date. I would propose a Protoimperial date. The ruler obviously cannot be identified, although, in purely hypothetical terms, Eriªenimgennâk (= “Urukagina”) could be suggested, since a goddess portrayed on a stele dedicated inside the sacred precinct of Ninmirsûk must necessarily be Bawu, wife of Ninmirsûk, for whom Eriªenimgennâk had a special veneration. 68 The missing part of the stele must have shown Ninmirsûk banqueting with the goddess (who is, indeed, shown raising a cup), in a way similar to a format attested on two Early Dynastic IIIb plaques from Nippur. 69 The possible presence of a building phase (7) to be attributed to Enmetênnâk (cf. p. 38 n. 81 and p. 44 n. 114) suggests that phase 6 had by then been destroyed. 70 Insignia and visual contexts. Early Dynastic IIIb furnishes the most significant documentation for insignia and visual contexts. One of the forms of visual communication requiring an articulated interpretation are the inlays, with their numerous iconographic details relating to clothing, hair, and insignia. As briefly noted earlier, inlays are of particular importance for the manner in which late Early Dynastic rulers were characterized in iconographic terms. Below, I offer a brief analysis of the various insignia. I have already discussed some inlays showing rulers, identified as such on the basis of captions or visual or archaeological context (cf. above, p. 197 n. 54). In many other cases, it is not possible to identify these figures, given the variety of situations represented: scenes of banquets and of war, rituals, pastoral, and mythical scenes. Inlaid panels, especially those with scenes of banquets and battles, presumably often also portray the 67. Orthmann 1975: pl. 100; Amiet 1976: 125, no. 6, fig. 7; Börker-Klähn 1982a: pl. 19:b. 68. On the close relation between Bawu and Eriªenimgennâk, cf., for example, Steible 1982a: 351–58 Ukg. 42–57, 61. 69. Cf. Boese 1971: pl. XVIII:1–2, in which, moreover, the gods’ clothes are smooth (like those of Ninmirsûk on the Stele of the Vultures: Table 5 sub p). For the difference between deities at a banquet and deities receiving a libation, cf. n. 72 below. It is unlikely that in the Firsu stele we have a foreign ruler, like Lugalzagêsi, for example, since the dedication of a victory stele would only occur in the sacred precinct of a city under a ruler’s direct control (Lugalzagêsi conquered Lagas but not Firsu, and Eriªenimgennâk, in the last years of his reign, changed his title from “king of Lagas” to “king of Firsu”). 70. This destruction, which occurred at the end of the reign of Enªannâbtum I, may have been caused by Urlummâk of Umma, although the textual sources do not credit him with conquering Firsu (cf. Steible 1982a: 200–201 En. I 29, p. 237 Ent. 28–29; cf. also 1982a: 319–21 Ukg. 6; Frayne 2008: 170–73 E1.9.4.2, pp. 194–99 E1.9.5.1, pp. 269–75 E1.9.9.3). A possible phase 7—that is, the last Early Dynastic phase of the sanctuary—would have lasted at least until the time of Eriªenimgennâk. ‡arrumken does not explicitly say in his inscriptions that he destroyed Firsu but that he “smote(?)” (hulu) the territory of Lagas as far as the sea (Gelb and Kienast 1990: 169, 171–72 Sargon C 3 and C 4), defeating its ruler Meszid, probably an ally of Lugalzagêsi (cf. also Gelb and Kienast 1990: 166 sub Sargon C 2: e). Since Eriªenimgennâk had been relegated to being king only of Firsu after Lugalzagêsi’s conquests (Steible 1982a: 337 Ukg. 16; cf. p. 279 Ukg. 1; Frayne 2008: 265–69 E1.9.9.5, pp. 276–79 E1.9.9.2), it is possible that he was not involved in Sargon’s campaign, which he may even have supported (cf. Powell 1996: 312–13). Against the identification with the person by the same name (Powell 1996: 314) that occurs on the Obelisk of Manªi¶tu¶u (the first successor of ‡arrumken: cf. above, pp. 144–145 n. 80; on the text, cf. Gelb et al. 1991: 116–40, pls. 67–72), cf. most recently Milone 1998. On the question of who destroyed the last Early Dynastic phase of the temple of Ninmirsûk, we can only note that some cities, including Lagas, are cited under Rimu¶ and then Naramsuyin (Gelb and Kienast 1990: 197—Rimus C 2; cf. also p. 204—Rimus C 5 and p. 232—Naramsîn C 1). It is, however, interesting to note that the Neo-Sumerian area of the Eninnu on Tell A has yielded not only the statues of Gudeªa but also the seated statue AO 11 (cf. above, p. 144 n. 79) and the head AO 14 (cf. Amiet 1976: 129, no. 31), both of which are Akkadian. As a result, we may suggest that the main temple of Ninmirsûk was moved from Tell K to Tell A after the destruction of phase 7, although the former area continued to be used for various activities (cf. above, p. 38 n. 81).

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

201

ruler, since they were mainly commissioned by royalty. 71 The reason we can only identify royal individuals in the specific cases detailed above is probably that—apart from the fact that the original visual context in its entirety, which would much help the reading of the object, is mostly lost because of subsequent damage—there was only a slight iconographic difference, if any, between these and their highest-ranking officials. 72 Some clarification may be provided by examining insignia and visual contexts in other categories of Early Dynastic IIIb crafts. Although the pose of the offerer and scenes of battle involving individuals of varying rank do not, in themselves, point to royal figures, the iconography of Urnansêk carrying a basket of clay for bricks for the temple seems to be more indicative of royal rank (Pl. 50:3). 73 Moreover, in this period, the meaning of the banquet scene appears to undergo a certain modification in the sense that it becomes more clearly linked to the ruler (cf. below). As noted in §3.3, royal statues only bear insignia in the Protoimperial period. Statue Cat. 15 is shown holding a mace, an offensive weapon that, in the relief, indicates the victorious power of the king (cf. the stele from Jebelet el-Beyda, stelae Sb 1 and Sb 2 of ‡arrumken, and the stele here attributed to Eriªenimgennâk; cf. above; Pls. 55:1, 3, 56:1–2) as well as being the divine weapon, by definition (Pl. 55:2). 74 Likewise, on his stele, Eªannâbtum is portrayed holding a curved, banded weapon (Pl. 52:1, 3). This could be a sort of harpé, a weapon also held by the hero fighting wild animals on coeval glyptics from Ur (cf. below) and, earlier, by the main figure on the so-called circular base from Firsu (Pl. 49:4). The axe wielded by the king of Ebla (Pl. 63:3; cf. §5.3), instead, does not seem to be characteristic of late Early Dynastic rulers insofar as it is carried by both soldiers and high officials (cf., for example, Pl. 57:1). 75 Medium or long staffs are never royal insignia, 76 nor are the branches held by men and women in banquet scenes, whereas 71. Cf. Matthiae 1994: 40–42. Cf. also Winter 1986a for comments on the function of the captions in the documents of Lagas I (which can be extended to the inlays, as well as the reliefs). 72. Deities may also, significantly, be represented at a banquet (when they hold a cup in their hands, while motifs in which they receive a libation are different): cf. the stele from Firsu, here attributed to Eriªenimgennâk (Pl. 55:1), and some seals, such as Amiet 1980: nos. 1219–21, 1359. Cf. also Boese 1971: pl. XVIII:4. 73. Cf. Boese 1971: pl. XXIX:1–2. For copper foundation deposits in the shape of basket-carriers from Gudeªa to Rimsîn, cf. Rashid 1983: nos. 111–15, 119–78, pls. 18–19, 21–37. However, in the stele of Urnammâk from Ur, the basketcarriers are not royal figures (cf. Canby 2001: pls. 10:IV.25, 37:25). 74. Cf. the Stele of the Vultures (Table 5 sub p); cf. also the plaques Boese 1971: pls. XII:2, XVIII:3; and the numerous occurrences in Akkadian glyptics (Boehmer 1965: passim). For the harpé, discussed below, cf., for example, Amiet 1980: no. 1062; Wiseman 1962: pl. 20:f. 75. Cf. the early Akkadian seal of the scribe KAL.KI (Boehmer 1965: 191, no. 1686, fig. 717, Akk. I[c]; Collon 1987: no. 641; Nigro 1998: 94–95, fig. 10), where the supposed depiction of the “brother of the king”—who is followed by KAL.KI—is distinguished from the two officials who accompany him (one of whom is carrying a staff) by means of the chignon, the longer garment, and the flat headdress (probably related to a military rank) and not by the dress covering the shoulder or the axe held in the hands, which is common to all three figures. The smooth, fringed garment of KAL.KI— which will later also become the Akkadian royal dress—presumably derives from the smooth skirt with tufted lower part attested throughout the Early Dynastic era, including the final phase of Early Dynastic IIIb (cf., for example, the Mari evidence: Parrot 1967: 114–15, figs. 161–62; Dolce 1978b: pls. XXIX, XXXIII:M349, M438, M454, XXXV: M48, M54, M145, M416; female figures in this period can also have the same kind of garment but it also covers the right shoulder; cf. Dolce 1978b: pls. XXXVIII:M306, XL:M295–297, XLI:M299, M307, XLII:M298). 76. These staffs may not only be linked to shepherding activities (cf. Dolce 1978b: pl. XLIV:Ob33–35; Hall and Woolley 1927: 96, pl. XXXVII:T.O. 317) but may also allude to ceremonial or priestly offices (cf. Dolce 1978b: pl. XXIX: M437). On the latter aspect, cf. the scene on the mace-head of the sukkal Paragkiba (Frankfort 1935a: 105–6, no. 2, figs. 5–8; Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: pl. 70; Steible 1982a: 190–91 En. I 19; Frayne 2008: 191 E1.9.4.19). The

202

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

the flabellum may indeed be in some cases an emblem of kingship (cf. below). In this period, no specific headwear appears to be indicative of royal status; in fact, individuals shown wearing headgear are most certainly not royal figures. 77 In the light of these considerations, any attempt to identify the subjects represented on inlays—whose visual contexts, furthermore, are mostly lost—must necessarily envisage several different possibilities. There is a reasonable likelihood that certain figures in banquet scenes shown holding a curved flabellum are rulers, since the principal figures in the panels from the royal tombs PG779 and PG1332 at Ur (Pl. 58:1, 7; cf. above, p. 197 n. 54) have a flabellum consisting of a handle and a soft end-part (not preserved in the first case), an iconography also attested in inlays from Kis, Nippur, and Mari (Pl. 58:2, 5–6). 78 From Mari, we have an inlay that is exceptional in terms both of execution and size. It portrays a figure wearing a garment draped over the shoulder and holding the decorated handle of what is probably a flabellum. Another inlay from the same site, showing a similar bearded figure but without the flabellum, probably represents a ruler at a banquet, given the similar style and technique used (Pl. 58:3–4). 79 The figure with the flabellum also appears on two plaques from the temple of INANA.NITA at Mari. 80 With regard to battle scenes, 81 it should first be noted that the presumably royal figure on the so-called war side of the “Standard of Ur” is distinguished from his officials purely by size, since they all have the same helmet, garment draped over the shoulder, and spear (Pl. 57:1). 82 Two almost-identical inlays from Ur and Mari present a problem (Pl. 57:4–5). 83 They both show a bearded dignitary wearing a helmet that ends in a chignon and the garment draped over the left shoulder, and holding an axe and a short, curved staff (this latter element is only preserved in the example from Mari). Although it is on the whole likely that they represent royal figures (cf. the

main figure is presumably Paragkiba himself, followed by a servant with a libation vase, as in the plaques of Urnansêk, and a third individual with a staff (this is outside the frame shown in Pl. 51:5). In a similar manner, Dudu, the samma of Ninmirsûk and a contemporary of Enmetênnâk, is portrayed in his plaque in front of Anzud (Pl. 51:4; cf. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 205 for the condition of the piece before it was broken; Boese 1971: pl. XXXI:3; Steible 1982a: 266 Ent. 76; Frayne 2008: 232–33 E1.9.5.28). 77. Cf. the figure wearing a flat beret on the Tutub plaque (cf. p. 198 n. 60). In addition to the military helmets cited below, cf. the wide, flat headdress of dignitaries and officials (Dolce 1978b: pls. XXXIII:M438, XXXIV:M7, XXXVI: M439, XXXVII), which derives from an Early Dynastic IIIa tradition (Dolce 1978b: pl. IX; cf., however, Boese 1971: pl. XVI:1, for a plaque from Nippur Inªanak VIII with a different visual context), and is still found in the Early Akkadian period (e.g., in the seal of KAL.KI [cf. n. 75 above], where the flat beret is worn by the king’s brother; and in Boehmer 1965: passim; Watelin and Langdon 1934: 46, pl. XXIX:2, 4, from Ingharra YW Plain Level). 78. Dolce 1978b: pls. XVIII:K94, XIX:N57, XXIX:M16 (in pl. XXIX:M15, we probably have a branch instead). A plaque from the antiquities market showing a seated figure waving a scepter or curved flabellum is definitely a forgery, a judgment that is confirmed because of the horizontal carving of the cuneiform signs (Boese 1971: pl. XLI:2; BraunHolzinger 1991: 312 sub W 17). 79. Parrot 1954: pl. XV:2; 1956: pl. LIX (Dolce 1978b: pl. XXXII:M350, M393). The presence of two curls on the necks of both pieces may indicate a chignon that has been lost (cf. the curls in Cat. 12). 80. Parrot 1956: 123–24, fig. 69; Boese 1971: pl. XXV:1–2. 81. Regarding these motifs before Early Dynastic IIIb, we have the inlays from Palace A at Kis (cf. §1.1.9 and Dolce 1978b: pls. VII, IX–X) and perhaps also the stele from Firsu Tell K phase 1 or 2 (Pl. 8:2; cf. Table 5 sub c and p. 43 n. 103). 82. Dolce (1978b: 85, pl. XXI:U172) states that he is holding a “specie di manico o bastone (?)” in his right hand, but this could be an axe, as in the case of other officials. 83. Dolce 1978b: pl. XXXIII:M349, U191. It is possible that the short, curved staff in the first specimen is a throwing stick, like that carried by a god in a plaque from Tutub (Boese 1971: pl. XII:2).

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

203

costume of ‡arrumken on stele Sb 1), in light of the observations above, this cannot be taken for granted. 84 In the inlays from Mari, which also furnish the richest documentation in terms of the themes portrayed, the officials are shown wearing a costume like that of the larger figure on the “Standard of Ur” (earlier than most of the Mari pieces, where the figures are, furthermore, bearded): a helmet, a garment draped over the left shoulder, and various weapons (Pl. 57:2–3). 85 As far as other aspects of the military apparatus are concerned, the chariot continues to be a symbol of rank and warlike power but not a royal prerogative (cf. also below). 86 We cannot, therefore, be entirely certain of the royal status of a bearded figure with the chignon shown alongside a chariot in an inlay from the temple of Inªanak at Nippur (Pl. 54:5). 87 The banquet theme and the hero fighting wild animals. The banquet is one of the main themes in Early Dynastic art, along with the symbolically charged theme of the contest scene, often significantly found associated with the former. 88 The protagonists of the fight against the wild animals, in the cases where the frieze is not entirely dedicated to animal representations, are the bull-man, the naked hero depicted frontally with curly hair, and the naked hero in profile, initially portrayed with a shaven head, later with short hair. Here below I shall briefly examine these themes in an attempt to understand their ideological basis as related to the representation and celebration of the ruling class. From Early Dynastic IIIb onward, military scenes appear alongside these motifs as a favorite device celebrating the successes of the community and its political leadership. The banquet theme and the contest scene are already attested in a rich variety of versions on Early Dynastic I glyptic from Ur, testifying to the fact that fully functioning ideological structures already existed, which would continue to flourish, with some modifications, until the end of the Early Dynastic period. 89 In Early Dynastic II and IIIa, the banquet scene takes on a standard format: two individuals, usually of different sex and often holding a branch, sit facing each other, with servants bearing 84. Cf. for example Dolce 1978b: pl. XX:Kh2, a small plaque from Tutub, which is quite similar in terms of its iconography, except for the absence of the chignon (Pl. 57:6). With respect to the figure on the “Standard of Ur,” however, the two inlays from Ur and Mari are later, dating no earlier than the final phase of Early Dynastic IIIb. 85. Cf. Dolce 1978b: pls. XXX:M57, M61–62, M66, M80, XXXIV:M59; Parrot 1974: 58–59, fig. 30 (P. Collins in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 158–59, no. 99). 86. Cf. Jans and Bretschneider 1998: 165–66. This motif is attested in southern Mesopotamia in Early Dynastic IIIb in relation to war themes, whereas in the mature Early Syrian culture it is mainly linked to ritual themes. 87. Cf. Dolce 1978b: pl. XXIII:N59. 88. The most abundant documentation for both of these themes is provided by glyptics; cf. Amiet 1980. The standard reference work on iconographic analysis of the banquet motif is Gudrun Selz 1983. As in other cases, these works (and the second in particular) propose dates of the visual materials based on an insufficient analysis of the stratigraphic data to which the reconstruction of a stylistic sequence can be anchored (in general, cf. the Introd. and §§1.1 and 1.2). For similar reasons, Moortgat’s discussion of the “überzeitliche Bildgedanken” (1949: 1–26, on the banquet theme, cf. especially pp. 19–21) ultimately results into an antihistorical reconstruction (cf. Barrelet 1984: 80; Mazzoni 1988: 67–68; Marchetti 1996b; cf. also above, p. 5 n. 21). 89. For contest scenes, cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 775, 777–81 and, for the heraldic eagle on animals, nos. 766–67, 770, 822; for the banquet scene, cf. Amiet 1980: 119–20, nos. 830, 832, 835–37, 839–40, where we also have the motifs of music and of the eagle with spread wings (no. 827 must be classified as a banquet rather than a cultic scene, because there is a figure holding a branch seated on a boat [cf. Pl. 60:1]; cf. similar themes on seals from Nippur Inªanak IXA: Amiet 1980: nos. 1704–5). Wrestlers may also allude to the banquet (Amiet 1980: no. 844; cf. also Boese 1971: pls. IX:2, XI, XL:3).

204

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

objects sometimes shown between them (Pls. 5:3, 20:1, 21:2, 59, 60:6). 90 In the two lower registers of the plaques, we find other servants (and also musicians and/or wrestlers) and, occasionally, chariots or, more rarely, boats, contest scenes, or other motifs relating to the world of nature (animals resting between plants or walking along, sometimes led by shepherds). 91 In statuary, too, the depiction of a cup held between the hands and/or a branch (normally in the left hand, since the right hand is shown raising the cup) is most probably an allusion to the banquet motif (Pl. 61:1). 92 Although the identification of the banquet with the festival of the new year may seem too specific, even though central in ideological terms, 93 there is no doubt that the linking of the banquet and the contest scenes must have a specific meaning, given its frequent occurrence. In addition to glyptics, the fact that panels, plaques, and statues dedicated in temples often contain a reference to the banquet must be significant. 94 The inner tensions of the natural world, along 90. Unlike women, men are sometimes shown holding a kind of flabellum or a different kind of branch (although it is not very clear), which in some cases could be taken as the precursor of the flabellum held by the presumably royal figure in the banquet scenes of Early Dynastic IIIb (cf. p. 197 n. 54 and p. 202 n. 78). Hansen’s suggestion (1998: 59 sub no. 5) that the flabellum is a schematic representation of the male flower of the date palm is not convincing in relation to Early Dynastic IIIb. The palm is, in fact, typical of the earlier period. 91. For the plaques, cf. Boese 1971: pls. I:1–2, II:2–3, III:1–3, V:1–2, VI:1, 3, VII:1–3, VIII:1–3, IX:1–2, XIII:2–3, XIV:1–3, XVI:1–3, XVII:1, XX:1, XXI:1, XXIV:1–2, XXXVII:1, XXXVIII, XL:3–4; Canby 2006: figs. 1–5 (= Boese 1971: pl. XXXIX:1–2 = Pl. 59:4 here), 6 from Nippur. On the possibility that some examples date to Early Dynastic I, cf. above, p. 83 nn. 282 and 283. Cf. also McCown et al. 1978: pl. 67:1 from Nippur North Temple III and Gudrun Selz 1983: pl. VI:75 from Nippur Inªanak VIII (but cf. p. 35 n. 68). In glyptics, the animal motifs are predominantly found in association with banquet scenes: cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 1152–54, 1156–71, 1196, 1199 (it is not easy, moreover, to distinguish between Early Dynastic IIIa and IIIb in the case of seals executed in schematic style). The heraldic eagle does not yet have a lion’s head, since this appears only in Early Dynastic IIIb glyptics (cf. Marchetti 1996b: 111). The banquet theme is also documented, along with war motifs, in the inlays from Palace A at Kis (cf. p. 76 nn. 255 and 256). For earlier inlays from Esnunak “Abu” Square I:2, cf. p. 19 n. 15. Cf. also a vase of the so-called Scarlet Ware (found during illegal excavations at Tutub and showing scenes of banquet, music, and a chariot), which Delougaz (1952: 69–72, pls. 62, 138) dates to the end of Early Dynastic II on the basis of typology (cf. 1952: pls. 60–61) and of the context in which it was supposedly found according to him. Two-wheeled chariots and boats must have been signs of rank, as shown by their presence in later royal and princely tombs at Ur (cf. Woolley 1934: 64–65, pls. 30, 33–35, for the chariot, and p. 71, pl. 169:a, for two boat models in silver and copper from PG789; cf. pp. 78–80, pl. 36, for the chariot from PG800) and Kis (cf. above, p. 79 n. 273), the boats being, however, portrayed in miniature (cf. also Woolley 1934: 52, fig. 24 sub 24–25 and p. 145, pl. 16:a from tombs PG580 and PG527 at Ur). Miglus (2008: 234) stresses the ceremonial aspects connected with the representations of chariots on the plaques. Biga (2007–8: 260) recalls the presence of parts of a chariot and of an equid’s harness among what seems to be the list of funerary gifts for the vizier Yibriyum (= “Ibrium”) at Ebla. 92. Braun-Holzinger 1977: pls. 1–2:a–b, 5:d–e, 9:j–k, 10:f (cf. also Frankfort 1939a: pls. 14, 67, 81, 93:C–D; 1943: pls. 31:B, 35–38:A–B). A statue from Tutub ‡amus IX: 1 (Braun-Holzinger 1977: pl. 2:d–f; Frankfort 1939a: pl. 35:21) has a contest scene on the back and may therefore also allude to the banquet motif, albeit indirectly because these themes are usually related, as in the earlier statue Cat. 13. 93. On the sacred marriage, cf. Cooper 1993 and Steinkeller 1999: 129–36. I cannot fully agree with Moortgat (1967b: 36–37) when he says that “eine thronende weibliche Hauptperson vor, der ein Mann genenübersitzt, dieser sichtlich im Range der Frau nachstehend” (in general, cf. Moortgat 1967b: 20, 37, 40–41 and 1949: 38–39, pls. 8–9, for an interpretation of the data). Frankfort (1939a: 43–48; 1939b: 77–78; 1954: 24, 33; 1955: 38–39) also connects the new year festival to the banquet (cf. the fascinating but tentative comments on the donors for the festival represented in statues by Frankfort 1939a: 47). Cf. also Amiet 1980: 121–30. Collon (1992: 24, 28) writes, unconvincingly, of “agrarian festivals,” also thinking that boats and chariots hint at the journey undertaken to reach banquet localities in the countryside. 94. The motif is documented in inlaid panels from Early Dynastic IIIa Palace A at Kis (i.e., in the inlays of female musicians, cf. p. 76 nn. 255 and 256). From the Early Dynastic IIIb Pre-Sargonic Palace at Mari, however, we only have war motifs (cf. p. 67 nn. 191 and 192), and the banquet theme does not seem to be attested in Palace G at Ebla (cf. p. 208 n. 114). For the relationship between Man and Nature in Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, cf. Frankfort 1948.

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

205

with their unstable interaction with the control that human society exercised over it, appears to be resolved in a social ritual in which the ruling class is represented in this extremely evocative and ritualized group scene. The banquet remains, however, a basically neutral motif in meaning, semantic qualification being given to it by visual material (plaques were, for example, a kind of object only dedicated in temples) or archaeological context (the banquet in an inlaid panel may have had a different meaning if dedicated in a temple or in a palace). 95 A study of plaques indicates that, as we have already seen for statues, in Early Dynastic II, the ruler did not feel the need to be portrayed as such and that, on the ideological level, he was probably not perceived as being superior to the ruling class as a whole (or at least to its highest segment). In Early Dynastic IIIa, however, the emergence of palaces and the creation of a structure of royal power (cf. observations on royal epithets in §3.3) go hand-in-hand with a growing visibility of the ruler. Since the inlay of Lugalªutu from Palace A at Kis (cf. p. 76 n. 257) must be reconstructed as a seated figure—and, therefore, related to pieces from the same room connected with the banquet theme rather than battle scenes—it appears that this is the first known case of a king in a banquet scene. In Early Dynastic IIIa (unlike the successive period; cf. below), access to this motif is still widely shared by other members of the administration. 96 Early Dynastic IIIb witnesses some important changes. In the plaques from Firsu (Pl. 50:3) and Mari, the main figure in the banquet scene can be identified—with varying degrees of certainty—as royal. 97 A similar development seems to take place also in inlaid panels, as noted above. 98 The banquet scene continues to appear on seals, 99 but the most important series, dating from the beginning of this period, is from the Royal Cemetery at Ur, where the connection with royal personages is also proved epigraphically, although there does not appear to be any significant difference in the distribution of banquet and contest scenes among the various tombs (Pl. 61:2–3, 5–6, 8). 100 It seems possible that we are glimpsing here a process by which, as the distance between the ruler and his officials increases, the banquet motif and its archaic “choral” 95. The fact that different individuals are portrayed on the plaques and not, for example, a specific, recurring couple, seems to be demonstrated by the existence of the statues dealt with in n. 92 above. In a plaque like that of the chief stonecutter Lumma, from Nippur Inªanak VIIB, it is probably the offerer himself who is portrayed (cf. Pl. 60:6 and p. 35 n. 70; Boese 1971: pl. XVII:1). The banquet must have also been held on different occasions (cf. also Amiet 1980: 130). Cf. also, for a preliminary analysis of the written sources, Vanstiphout (1992), although there the perspective of the representation of the “Gedanke” is different (cf. p. 5 n. 21). 96. In this sense, cf. also the comments by Gudrun Selz (1983: 459–60) on the banquet motif in seals as indicating kinship to a temple or palatial administration. 97. Cf. also p. 202 with n. 80. For the plaques, cf. Boese 1971: pls. XXV:1–2, XXIX:1. Two nonroyal plaques come from sites in the Diyala region: cf. Boese 1971: pls. IV:1 (from Esnunak “Abu” Single I:3), XI (from Tutub Small Shrine VII, but the piece may, however, be residual; cf. p. 31 n. 65). 98. Cf. p. 62 n. 165, p. 197 n. 54, and p. 202 nn. 77–78. Cf. also Dolce 1978b: pls. XXIX, XXXII:M213–214. 99. Cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 1172–80, 1198, 1200–1201, 1213, 1265, 1267; Jans and Bretschneider 1998: fig. 13, pl. I: Bey. 2. Cf. also, for a banquet on a boat, Amiet 1980: nos. 1204–6 (which come from Early Dynastic IIIb contexts) and nos. 1360–61. 100. Amiet 1980: nos. 1181–94. Cf. Table 9 in §1.1.5. Pollock’s discussion (1983: 184) of the materials (gold and lapis lazuli) used for seals with banquet scenes, more valuable than those employed in seals showing contest scenes, is not convincing. The latter category, in fact, also includes royal pieces. The relationship she notes of the banquet scene with mainly female individuals is, on the other hand, corroborated by female statues with branches in their hand from slightly later northern contexts, such as Mari and Assur (cf. §§1.1.7 and 1.1.8). Contest scenes and banquets do, however, continue to be occasionally found in association with each other (cf. Pl. 61:6–7).

206

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

symbolism are adapted to serve a ceremonial rather than a ritual function. Banquet scenes become increasingly focused on the king, while becoming at the same time far less frequent than related or derivative themes such as presentation and contest scenes. 101 A theme that seems to have had a central ideological importance, since it appears on the seals of members of the royal families in Early Dynastic IIIb, is that of the hero fighting wild animals (cf. Pl. 62). 102 The hero is portrayed in two main attitudes: in profile (naked or clothed, with shaven head or short hair, clean-shaven or bearded) and facing forward (naked, bearded, and with a belt around his waist). These iconographies are already attested on archaic seals from Ur dating from Early Dynastic I. 103 The hero is well documented in these different versions on seals of Early Dynastic II and III. In Early Dynastic IIIb, the hero is always naked (except on commonstyle seals). 104 It is not easy to define the differences between the various representations. The frontally-portrayed hero is always shown in the pose of master of animals, while the hero (or heroes) depicted in profile is usually shown armed and in combat with a single animal, although he does occasionally appear as master of animals. 105 101. Cf. Pollock 1983: 224–26, for an analysis of the Akkadian seals from the Royal Cemetery in which the scenes of presentation and contest represent 75% of the total, whereas the banquet scene seems to be quite rare and limited to individuals of a lesser rank. 102. The earliest royal seal identified by epigraphy is from Early Dynastic IIIa (the seal of Lugalªutu, with the frontally portrayed hero; cf. p. 197 n. 52 and Pl. 19:4), a period that witnessed the spread of seal legends. All of the other known examples are from Early Dynastic IIIb (cf. also the discussion in §1.1.5 for the evidence from Ur): cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 1042 (Mesªumêdug; Pl. 16:3), 1063 (Mesªanepadda; Pl. 16:2), 1098, 1100–1101 (Lugaldimirda of Lagas, inscribed anew by Eriªenimgennâk [cf. p. 64 n. 169]; Pl. 62:1), 1723 (Eªannâbtum). They all have the contest scene and show both the frontal hero with curly hair and the naked, short-haired hero in profile. In the two seals of Yisqimari (cf. p. 137 n. 45), slightly later than the others, there is only the frontal hero associated with a portrayal of the ruler, divine symbols, and a battle scene (Pl. 56:3–4). The two seals of king Yiskurdayar from Mari represent a frontal curly hero (Beyer 2007: figs. 14–15; Pl. 62:4). Seals of queens appear to be similar: cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 1064, 1067 (Nintur, wife of Mesªanepadda; Pl. 62:2; only the frontal hero is attested here, but the motif is fragmentary), 1102 (Paragnamtarra, wife of Lugaldimirda), while in no. 1039 (Ayasusikilªanak, wife of Ayaªumêdug) the hero is lacking from the contest. In the seals of princes (dumu), the simplified format with only one kind of hero is preferred: cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 1076, probably 1108, 1110, 1124 (Pl. 62:3). On the other hand, on the seal of queen Puªabum no. 1182; Pl. 61:2), we have a banquet scene (cf. also below, p. 208 n. 115). 103. The shaven-headed hero fighting lions is documented in Amiet 1980: nos. 782–88, whereas the frontal hero with curly hair is a master of animals (a fundamental iconographic difference that separates this figure from the realm of the purely human): cf. 1980: 112, nos. 806–7. Zettler (2007: 11–14) thinks that it is the contest rather than the hero that “encapsulated an ideal of kingship,” but this interpretation seems too generic. 104. For the naked hero in profile, cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 851, 853, 858–59, 866*, 871–72, 873*, 883, 892, 900*, 907*, 915, 921, 925, 926, 934–36, 948, 951, 955, 963, 996, 1001–4, 1007–8, 1010–11, 1013–14, 1017–19, 1350*, 1371, 1372*– 1373*–1375*, 1377, 1380, 1452, 1711, 1715, 1717–18, 1720; for the hero shown in profile but wearing garments (this hardly appears to be attested after Early Dynastic IIIa), cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 855–56, 861, 864, 866*, 873*, 882, 885, 890, 893, 900*, 902–9, 953, 957, 961–62, 972, pl. 72 bis:C; for the frontal hero with curly hair, cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 854, 886, 889, 891, 896, 903, 905–907*, 913, 928, 939, 942, 945–947, 950, 956, 959, 1000, 1002*, 1004, 1006, 1012, 1216, 1350*, 1372*–1373*–1375*, 1376, 1406, 1450, 1712–13, pl. 72 bis: A–B, D–E, G, I (* indicates that another kind of hero is also attested on the seal). 105. With regard to classes of visual documentation other than glyptics, cf. Dolce 1978b: pls. XLI:Ob36 (from Nutur), XLVIII: E1 (from Eridug); Boese 1971: pls. I:1, XV:1 and XXIII:2 (both with the shaven-headed hero in profile, master of animals, probably from Early Dynastic II), XXVII (in which both iconographic types appear as masters of animals). For vases in high-relief from Early Dynastic III with the frontal hero, cf. p. 26 n. 45 and p. 75 n. 246. The motif is also documented in mature Early Syrian Ebla in inlays and seals: for the naked hero in profile, cf. Matthiae 1985: pl. 43:b; Matthiae et al. 1995: 385, nos. 223–25 (Pl. 62:5–6). It may be that in the Eblaite seals the frontal, curly-haired hero (also represented kneeling like Atlas) is related to the frontal portrayal of the ruler who wears the characteristic turban and a skirt (Pl. 63:2; cf. below, p. 209 n. 122; in a seal they are also associated).

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

207

Bringing to its culmination a process that had begun in Early Dynastic IIIa—as the epithets of Me¶alim bear out—the rulers of Early Dynastic IIIb explicitly emphasize in their texts their links with the principal deities by whom they are favored and destined to their earthly role from the moment they were conceived (cf. §3.3). One may therefore suppose that an early motif, 106 portraying different but possibly related mythical beings, underwent a change in the semantics of visual language and was thus adapted so as to allude to the superhuman qualities of the ruler. It is difficult to pin down the precise manner in which this process of assimilation occurred: the frontal hero with curly hair has semi-divine attributes and is usually identified as a lahama/ lahmu, 107 which in at least one case can also be identified, if somewhat ambiguously, with the deified ruler. 108 In the Early Dynastic period, it is likely that this figure continued to have its own personality, distinct from the ruler. However, the fact that it appears on royal and princely seals (cf. n. 102 above) and that what is presumably the royal figure is portrayed frontally on mature Early Syrian seals from Ebla leaves the way open to other hypotheses. 109

5.3. Ebla and Early Syrian Culture Archaic Early Syrian figurative arts have a traditional repertoire of mainly animal subjects, 110 which expanded rapidly from the end of the Early Bronze II period onward with the renewal of close relations with southern Mesopotamia (whence themes such as the banquet scene were transposed to the north). 111 At the peak of the urbanization process in the second half of Early Bronze III (also known as IVA; cf. Table 13), the cultural originality of the Syrian environment can, however, be viewed within the archaeological continuum of the artistic and material culture that stretched from the shores of the Gulf to the Mediterranean: the internal subdivisions that, 106. It is not possible to determine the relationship between the frontal, curly-haired hero and a similar figure attested in protohistoric art, where he is, at any rate, distinct from the figure shown as victim of serpents or lions (cf. p. 188 n. 9). Moortgat (1945: 85, pls. 28:c, 29:a) believed that the hero was “mit der Welt des Tammuz in Verbindung zu setzen.” Cf. also Moortgat 1949: 33–34 (contra Frankfort 1955: 40 n. 28, who speaks, instead, of this figure as a gatekeeper, a function that he undoubtedly has but that does not exclude others). Amiet (1980: 146–57) rightly notes the multiplicity of iconographic types and contexts and, therefore, distinguishes between the curly-haired hero (in his opinion a genie connected with Abzu), the clothed hero, and the bull-man. 107. Cf. Wiggermann 1981–82: 99–104 (where, however, the iconographic evidence is dealt with rather sketchily, especially as far as the Early Dynastic period is concerned. The long hair, whence the name lahmu, may perhaps symbolize water). Among the studies cited by Wiggermann, the opinion of Frankfort (1939b: 60) is particularly interesting. He considered the possibility that this figure stood for “a whole class of heroic or daemonic figures,” given his different functions in Akkadian glyptics (cf. also Frankfort 1955: 40 n. 28), but cf. the preceding note. 108. The copper statue of Bassetki with an inscription by Naramsuyin (Braun-Holzinger 1984: 23–24, pl. 13:61) must have represented the naked, frontal hero with curly hair of the Akkadian seals, as indicated by the identical belt, multilayered and with side strips, that survives. The inscription does not have a specific dedication to a deity and we cannot therefore exclude the possibility that the statue was intended to allude to the ruler as “god of his city, Akkad” (cf. Gelb and Kienast 1990: 81–83 Naramsin 1; Frayne 1993: 113–14 E.2.1.4.10). 109. Any identification seems, in any case, to be limited to the hero shown in profile. It is not possible to identify other figures portrayed in ritual nakedness in Early Dynastic art with that of the ruler. Cf. the comments by Hansen 1998: 50. 110. Mazzoni 1992: 233–53; D. Matthews 1997a: 90–94. 111. Weiss 1990: 394, pl. 140:a–c; D. Matthews 1997a: 115. On the beginning of the Early Syrian urban culture, cf. Matthiae 1993a; Mazzoni 1991, 1995; Marchetti 1995. The banquet theme also continues, locally, into later Early Bronze IV (or IVB) glyptics (cf. D. Matthews 1997a: 131–32, 139, for the “Brak style”).

208

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

while clearly defined on the edges, did in fact shift almost imperceptibly from one urban center to the next. 112 The documents from the Royal Archives of Ebla bear vivid witness to the extent and systematic nature of direct commercial, diplomatic, and military contacts between this center in western Syria and cities such as Hamazi and Kis, located respectively in Assyria and central Mesopotamia. 113 An artistic phase that slightly predates the destruction of Palace G is documented only by a sculpted plaque that was found below the last floor in the northwestern sector of this palace and by a substantial series of inlays from a secondary context. 114 Documentation from Mari suggests that this could be a well-defined phase, which can thus also be identified in other centers. 115 The artistic horizon of Palace G at Ebla corresponds to the final phase of Early Dynastic IIIb and the very beginning of the Protoimperial period (cf. the discussion in §3.1 sub Cat. 12). 116 Excavations have revealed an important chronological synchronism with the 6th Dynasty in Egypt. 117 The numerous inlays, engravings, seal impressions, and sculptures of all sizes show remarkable originality and figurative independence, as well as bearing witness to techniques that are partially different from those employed in Mesopotamia. 118 112. For an analysis of the seals, organized chronologically and geographically, cf. Marchetti 1998. 113. Cf. Biga 1995. Also cf. the texts published by Fronzaroli 2003; Matthiae 2008: 95–110. 114. The plaque shows a seated, veiled woman (Matthiae 2004: 307, fig. 5; 2008: fig. 9:5), having a parallel in a statuette from the slightly later destruction level of Palace G (Matthiae 1985: pl. 38a; 1989a: pl. 50; 2008: fig. 9:6; Matthiae et al. 1995: 397, no. 95; Matthiae in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 169, no. 108). In the “Standard of Ebla” (cf. Matthiae 1989b: 30–43, pls. I–VI; Matthiae et al. 1995: 274–78, nos. 20–35; Matthiae 2008: pls. 15, 19–23; Matthiae in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 175–77, no. 115:a–f), we have officials and soldiers of Ebla (in terms of iconography, if not style, comparable to the Mesopotamian production discussed in §5.2) but no royal figure (cf., however, a piece of inlay— a skirt with a single row of long tufts—roughly three times larger than other figures that has been interpreted as possibly belonging to a royal figure: Matthiae 1989b: pl. VI:a; Matthiae et al. 1995: 279, no. 36). It may be interesting to note that both the plaque and the “Standard” were found in the northwest wing, i.e., in the vicinities of the newly-found Red Temple (below Middle Bronze Age Temple D) and may thus have been dedicated in a temple rather than in a palace context (a situation similar to the “Enceinte Sacrée” of the Pre-Sargonic Palace in Mari). 115. It is, in fact, extremely interesting to note the iconographic similarities between the veiled female figure seated at the banquet in the plaque from Ebla (cf. the preceding note) and the motif on a sealing from Mari (Pl. 63:1; Beyer 2007: 237–40, no. 4, fig. 4; Beyer in Margueron 2004: fig. 285). The legend on this seal makes it clear that this veiled figure at the banquet is the wife of one of the highest officials, an EN, of Mari (cf. Marchesi 1996b: 262 n. 244; and p. 124 n. 236 above; for another view on the title EN at Mari, cf. Archi and Biga 2003: 31). The impression was found in area H in an earlier level than that pertaining to the destruction of “Ville II” (cf. p. 73 n. 231). Also cf. Margueron 2004: fig. 277, for an inlay in a style comparable with that of the “Standard of Ebla.” 116. For a historical overview of the mature Early Syrian visual culture at Ebla, cf. Matthiae 1985: 25–54; 1989a: 69– 113, 300–309 (cf. also 1974: 136–37; 1980b; Dolce 1980). 117. In fact, two Pharaonic inscribed objects were found in Palace G: a lamp of Hefren and a lid of Pepi I (cf. Scandone Matthiae 1979; 1995: 234–35; Matthiae 1985: pls. 35:b, 36:a; 1989a: 241–50, pls. 69–70; 2008: pls. 11–12; Matthiae et al. 1995: 282–83, nos. 41–42; cf. also J. P. Allen in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 253, no. 61 where, however, the last vizier of Ebla is mistaken for the king). The lid of Pepi I of the 6th Dynasty is from the first part of his reign, as indicated by the ruler’s titulary. The fact that two quite chronologically distant rulers such as Hefren and Pepi I are attested suggests that it was Byblos that functioned as go-between in supplying the objects, rather than considering them to be royal gifts sent to Ebla from Egypt. It is clearly impossible to determine how long before the destruction of Palace G the lid of Pepi had arrived there, although some time must have elapsed between its manufacture and its being buried beneath the collapse layer of the palace. In hypothetical terms, however, a synchronism between the second half of the reign of Pepi I and that of Yisªardamu of Ebla is likely (cf. Table 16 for further chronological consequences). 118. Cf. Matthiae 1985: 25–54, pls. 36:b, 37–39, 41–47; 2008: pl. 10, figs. 4:7, 8:4–5. For a steatite miniature hairstyle from the contemporary palace at Tell Biyaº/Tuttul, cf. Strommenger and Kohlmeyer 2000: 29, pl. 43:1 (it is not a beard).

Kingship and Visual Communication in the Early Dynastic Period

209

The royal figure must have played a central role in the complex program of visual celebration in Palace G. Thanks to studies conducted by P. Matthiae, this figure has been recognized on different classes of visual documents recovered from the destruction level of the palace. It is characterized by a hair skullcap with a thick rim and a tassel on the left side. 119 Miniature versions of this turban are worn by frontal figures shown on high-reliefs made out of several materials and, in one case, on what appears to be a statuette), although, unfortunately, no complete examples survive (Pl. 63:4–5). 120 This headdress is also attested in a carbonized engraving showing the bearded ruler frontally, with a garment draped over his left shoulder and an axe in his left hand (Pl. 63:3). 121 The same individual, this time bare-chested, also appears on seals from the palace, again portrayed frontally and in symbolically-charged contexts (Pl. 63:2). 122 The royal figure did not appear in isolation in the figurative program of the palace of Ebla but was inserted into a complex visual context that, along with the representations of heroic figures and animal motifs (Pl. 62:5), regularly featured court dignitaries (significantly, however, not shown at the banquet). Some pieces of inlays show figures wearing apparel similar to those discussed in the preceding paragraph, notably the garment draped over the left shoulder, 123 caps formed from parallel bands, 124 and, in one case, a chignon; 125 these representations could actually also depict officials in addition to the king. From a historical perspective, the royal tiara of Ebla is particularly interesting, because it shows remarkable stylistic and iconographic similarities with contemporary Mesopotamian documentation. It has been quite reasonably claimed that the Eblaite milieu—or, at any rate, that of northern Syria—may have transmitted certain iconographies that were then elaborated upon in the late Akkadian period. 126 In this regard, although it is less probable—in the light of 119. Cf. Matthiae 1979 for a systematic discussion of the motif (cf. also Pinnock 1992; Biga 1992). On the question of frontality, cf. above, p. 206 n. 105. 120. Matthiae 1979: figs. 4–8; 1985: fig. 39, pl. 44:a–c; 1989a: pl. 45; Matthiae et al. 1995: 300–301, nos. 66–67; Matthiae 2008: figs. 8: 1–2; Matthiae in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 169–72, no. 109:c. These pieces represent the turban in detail, with a herringbone pattern on the edge (like the side interweaving of the hairstyle with chignon) and a wavy molding of the narrow tufts on the skullcap, a stylistic feature similar to that on the skirt of Yindinªil from Mari (cf. above, p. 5 n. 22) or Eªannâbtum’s garment on the back of the Stele of the Vultures (Pl. 52:1, 3; cf. Table 5 sub p). 121. Matthiae 1979: fig. 3; 1985: pl. 42:b; 1989a: pl. 40; 2008: pl. 18; Matthiae in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 170–72, fig. 47. 122. This is associated with mythical beings and contest scenes, as well as with a presumably royal female personage (Matthiae 1979: figs. 9–10; 1985: pls. 25–26; 1989a: 101–5, pls. 55–56; 2008: pls. 25–26, figs. 8:3, 9:2 [a cylinder seal from the northwestern wing of Palace G]; Matthiae et al. 1995: 384–88, nos. 222–31; note that the graphical interpretation in Amiet 1980: no. 1756 is wrong with regard to the headdress of the main male figure, as can clearly be seen, for example, in Matthiae 1985: pl. 25:a bottom right) and one therefore wonders whether these could be royal ancestors (Matthiae 1979: 29 n. 42; Matthiae et al. 1995: 384). It should be noted that, in the positive of the seal impression, the tassel is on the right, while the stone replicas have it on the left side. 123. Matthiae 1989a: pl. 44 left; Matthiae et al. 1995: 302, 311, 314, nos. 69, 75–76, 86; Dolce 1995: 130 top. 124. Matthiae 1980a: fig. 10; Matthiae et al. 1995: 301, no. 68. For portrayals of similar caps, associated with cleanshaven figures in inlays, cf. Matthiae 1980a: figs. 11–12; 1985: pl. 41:c–e, 43:d. 125. Matthiae et al. 1995: 314, no. 87; Dolce 1995: 132 bottom; 2002: 206, pl. I:1 (where it is thought to be imported). The chignon is tied by a ring on the back, like that on stele Sb 1 and on the copper head from Nineveh (cf. above, pp. 136–137 nn. 40 and 42). 126. Cf. the case of a possible Eblaite origin for the tall, conical tiara worn by Naramsuyin on the stele from Pir Hüseyn (cf. p. 137 n. 42). Matthiae (1980a: 44, figs. 6–7, 9) compares the stele with a piece from a panel in high-relief from Palace G (cf. n. 124 above) and with the head from Atareb; D. P. Hansen (in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 203–4, no. 130) and, in part, Bänder (1995: 157) agree with this interpretation. Cf. also, in general, Matthiae 1989a: 308–9.

210

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

the discussion in §5.1—that the Eblaite royal turban derived from a protohistoric tiara, 127 it is also true that no typological or functional parallels are known for it in Mesopotamia before the time of Gudeªa of Lagas. We cannot rule out the existence of a relationship between the supposedly royal tiara of Ebla and that of Mesopotamia—which is similar in shape but without the tassel on the side—used since Lagas II (when it was still tufted) and Ur III until the end of the Old Babylonian period; or between the Eblaite tiara and the archaic Old Syrian tiara. 128 To sum up, the palatine culture of Ebla in the mature Early Syrian period had most probably developed a visual sign of kingship—the turban with tassel on the side—which, though having no direct parallel in the Mesopotamian world, does fit in well with the iconographic experimentation underway on the eve of the Protoimperial period (cf. chap. 3). The latter was a phase in which the Syro-Mesopotamian institution of kingship, 129 subjected to severe political and military tensions, equipped itself with a multiplicity of means of visual and textual communication centered on the figure of the ruler and his court, presumably not restricted to the inlaid panels in palaces and temples or the statues and stelae offered in temples but most probably also including other means of expression conveying a variety of distinct meanings. 130 127. Matthiae 1979: 29–31; Dolce 2002: 206. 128. The archaic Old Syrian royal headdress has skullcap, thickened rim, and a vertical element on the front (possibly derived from the side tassel of the mature Early Syrian period): Teissier 1993; Matthiae 2000: 211–12. 129. In fact, the organizational structure of these early states could vary significantly from city to city: cf., for example, on the better-known cases of Ebla and Firsu (although in both cases the archives only relate to one, albeit significant, sector of the central administration), Archi 1995; Bauer 1998: 534–55; Gelb 1986. 130. The elaborate steatite hairstyles of two busts—one male, the other female—from the inner courtyard L.2913 of Palace G have been tentatively attributed to royal individuals (Matthiae 1985: figs. 62–64, pl. 45; 1989a: pls. 53–54; 2008: pl. 14; Matthiae et al. 1995: 298, no. 63; Matthiae in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 169–70, no. 109:a). Here we may be dealing with an as-yet-unidentified tradition relating to images of rulers and high-ranking officials that may also have a funerary function. In addition to a stone hairstyle in the British Museum, which is partly similar in technique to those from Ebla (cf. above, p. 198 n. 58), we may also cite the golden cap of Mesªumêdug from PG 755 at Ur (cf. p. 136 n. 41; it was not worn by the deceased but placed at his side) and, possibly, the remains of composite Early Syrian statues from tombs of high-ranking individuals at Tell Khuera and Tell Umm el-Marra. From a cremation burial of the Khuera IE period (beginning of Early Bronze IV), we have fragments of the head of a bearded statue in copper sheet and other materials (cf. Krasnik and Meyer 2001: figs. 9–13). In Tomb 4 of the funerary area at Tell Umm el-Marra, which includes some rich burials dating from the period between Early Bronze III and the beginning of Early Bronze IV (cf. Schwartz et al. 2003: 330–41; G. Schwartz in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 179–86), a pair of inlaid eyes was found in the lower level, dated to the beginning of Early Bronze III (G. Schwartz, p.c.). In chamber F of Tomb 7 at Tell Banat, dating to Early Bronze III, inlaid eyes and eyebrows were found in the grave of a high-ranking individual (Porter 2002: 19; cf. also Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 169–70, no. 109:c for an elaborate, miniature hairstyle from Tomb 7). For an initial Middle Bronze Age context at Mari, cf. the three inlaid eyes from the fill of room A of the pillaged royal tomb located under the throne room of Palace A (Margueron 1990: 412–13, fig. 26 bottom). Biga (2007–8: 264) has identified a text from the Royal Archives of Ebla in which some “textiles on the statue of Tinud, woman of the king, for the tomb” are mentioned, and she wonders whether the other offerings of textiles as funerary gifts were in fact intended for statues that were not explicitly mentioned by the scribes, because it would have been obvious.

Chapter 6

Conclusions

It is difficult to reconstruct the political and social history of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, not only because of the scarcity of available data but also because of the difficulties involved in the interpretation of the early written records, as well as the fact that coeval texts contain only oblique references to institutions, which do not appear to have left direct documentation (as in the case of the so-called “assemblies”). Since Jacobsen’s pioneering (and very speculative) reconstruction, no studies of equal importance have been published. 1 In any case, the fact that late Early Dynastic rulers presented themselves as the only active legitimate leaders of society seems reason enough here to interpret the visual forms of communication they promoted in light of this claim. It is not possible to offer here a more complete picture of the ideology of the period, because it would have to derive from an analysis of other artifact classes that reflect more widelyshared conceptions.

6.1 Iconographic Details and Visual Significance: The Ruler and the Early State Administration Very little is known about the administrative structure of southern Mesopotamian cities in the earliest phases of the Early Dynastic period (cf. §2.2). The evidence provided by “city seals” indicates that various centers enjoyed a marked degree of integration, at least in economic terms, during the Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic I periods. Steinkeller suggested that the center of hegemony was Uruk, seat of the cult of Inªanak. 2 His hypothesis is reasonable, if we consider the size of Uruk (roughly 400 hectares) compared to Ur (21 hectares) during Early Dynastic I. 3 The 1. Jacobsen 1957. Cf. also Wilcke 1973: 38–53. These city institutions continued to exist and function, however, in the Akkadian period (cf. Liverani 2002: 156–57). 2. Cf. Steinkeller 2002a: 255–57 on the “city seals,” which in his opinion point to a kind of amphyctionic league. He also (2002b) suggested that this was still centered on Uruk during Early Dynastic I (on the basis of the rosette in the motifs from stamp seal impressions from the SIS at Ur), rather than on Nippur, as he had originally proposed. The rosette was traditionally the symbol of Inªanak, although this is certain only for later periods. Cf. also R. Matthews 1993: 48–50 and Jacobsen 1957: 107–9. It should also be noted that the individual with net skirt attested in the SIS at Ur (cf. p. 194 n. 40) recalls the similar figure of Uruk Eªanak III. Hockmann (2008) has recently proposed recognizing in some wellknown Jemdet Nasr artworks the names of the same cities depicted in the seals (cf. also p. 191 n. 27). 3. H. T. Wright in Adams 1981: 338 sub 10; R. Matthews 1991: 7. The difficulty created by Uruk not enjoying a preeminent position (fourth after Ur, Nippur, and Larsa) in the geographical lists of Uruk Eªanak III (as shown by Green 1977: 294 and again by R. Matthews 1993: 48; cf. also Englund and Nissen 1993: 145) could be explained in part by

211

212

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

internal organization of each city in this period appears to have been quite complex. The multiplication of “inspectors,” “chiefs,” and officials of varying rank suggests that these early cities had a complex and highly hierarchical organization. The problems begin, of course, when we try to assign specific dates to the different stages in this gradual, but overall fairly rapid, process of development. The oldest royal inscriptions—a lapis bead inscribed with the name and title of Akkaªinªanakak, king of Umma (cf. p. 100 n. 28) and a vessel bearing an inscription of Meparagêsi, king of Kis (cf. pp. 98–99) 4—possibly date already from Early Dynastic I, while inscribed statues of rulers are documented in Early Dynastic II (cf. §3.3), when inscriptions on stone artifacts by nonroyal individuals also begin to occur (cf. §1.2). 5 Variations in the titulary of the ruler, who is called “king” on statue Cat. 1 but “viceroy” on Cat. 2 and 3, probably reflects the specific history of each town (cf. §§2.2 and 4.4). In administrative texts, the highest political office, in a broad sense, seems to be already attested, despite some philological difficulties, in the Early Dynastic I tablets from SIS 8–4 at Ur. 6 The availability of epigraphic sources relating to political power as early as the beginning of the Early Dynastic period is not matched by a similar availability of visual evidence. In §5.1, I have attempted to show that the so-called “priest-king” of Uruk Eªanak III displays features that are more divine than human and hence cannot be stylistically regarded as an early icon of political power in Mesopotamia. This figure embodies more complex ideological values that place it on another level, and indeed its iconographical features do live on in Early Dynastic II but only in the “Figure aux plumes” from Firsu (Pl. 49:3), itself a divine image. 7 The iconography of royal power must, therefore, have developed independently of these early motifs. The “invisibility” of rulers in the rich and diversified repertoire of the visual communication from the beginning of Early Dynastic, already discussed above (§5.2), can be explained by the the fact that, in the Late Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods, the difference in size between Uruk and the other centers was not as great as in Early Dynastic I (Adams 1981: 60–94, figs. 13, 15–24, table 6). 4. With regard to Meparagêsi, we may accept the oft-asserted identification with the Enmeparagêsi of later literary and historiographical texts (cf. above, pp. 98–99 with n. 14). The name and title of that ruler have been preserved on an alabaster vase fragment of unknown provenance, which was confiscated in the area of Kut al-Imara (cf. p. 98 n. 11). Another inscription that is generally attributed to Meparagêsi comes from an Early Dynastic IIIa context and is paleographically different; therefore, it should be attributed to another individual of the same name (cf. p. 99 n. 18). 5. A statue of a bull-man, made out of several materials, bearing an epigraph that—though of incertain interpretation, is probably not a royal inscription (cf. p. 100 n. 29)—can also confidently be attributed to Early Dynastic II (Pl. 64:1–2; Frankfort 1943: 12, pl. 115:E; Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 51–52, no. 18). This was allegedly associated with another statue of a bull-man, uninscribed (Pl. 64:3; Hansen 1975a: 163, pl. 16; Anonymous 1985: 302, 361, no. 44). Also cf. the head of a bull-man from Agrab “Sara” Main 3, which, however, dates from the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIa (Frankfort 1943: no. 297; cf. above, p. 26 n. 44). 6. The terminology employed is, in fact, problematical. According to Visicato (2000: 16), the mention of the PA.SI uri m5 (whom Hallo [1957: 34] considers the highest authority at Ur) and of the é-gal suggest a link with the palace administration. Bauer (1987b), too, considers PA.SI urim5 to be a political title. Krebernik (2002: 15 n. 48) considers the possibility that PA-urim5- si is merely a PN (cf. Krebernik 2002: 16, 27 for names beginning with PA-). Cf. also Burrows 1935: sub 52, who took PA-urim5 to be a PN. Finally, note the mention of a king of Lagas in Burrows 1935: no. 205B (cf. above, p. 100 n. 27). On the role of the king (lugal) and of the palace in the archaic texts from Ur, cf. also Jacobsen 1957: 107 nn. 31–32; Moorey 1978: 43; Sallaberger 2003–5: 200.

7. Cf. also Jacobsen 1991: 117, fig. 1:h, who wrongly interprets it as a royal figure. What Jacobsen intreprets as ears of barley on the headdress he thinks would allude to the original pictogram of the sign EN, i.e., the depiction of an ear of barley, in his view (but cf. above, p. 190 n. 20).

Conclusions

213

fact that they did not need to be seen, given the political context, with the ruler being the head of a complex administrative structure in which the chief means of visual self-celebration was the banquet. This was a ritualized and public event, which also had a clearly religious symbolism, as attested by its frequent association with contest scenes and also feasting aspects. 8 Symbols of rank like the two-wheeled chariot depicted empty in the lower register of plaques (Pls. 21:2, 59:6, 60:5), 9 implying that the owner is the male figure seated at the banquet in the upper register, serve to emphasize the prestige of the officials portrayed. 10 What is striking is the lack of attributes or iconographies reserved exclusively for rulers (cf., however, the discussion of Cat. 13 in §3.2). Each member of the administration (or at least the higher-ranking individuals) enjoys equal access to visual forms of communication. Plaques and statues that are attested in Early Dynastic I, although they are few in number, carry simplified motifs and do not bear inscriptions. As early as Early Dynastic I, alongside temple archives—as at Ur and Uruk (§1.2)—the use of writing on stone for private land transactions is attested (a practice that was to last up to the end of the Early Dynastic period), in which as a matter of fact the ruler is not named, unless personally involved in the purchase. The so-called stele of “Usumgal” or, more precisely, of Saraªusumgal (dsára-usumgal; G. Marchesi, p.c.), after the name of the priest (pa4-ses) who is portrayed on it, furnishes one of the most complex and interesting examples of this practice (Pl. 64:4–5). 11 The object, which can be dated to Early Dynastic II, bears a scene carved in relief showing the main personage represented standing in front of a temple façade, followed by secondary figures, as indicated visually by the fact that they are smaller in size. 12 Early Dynastic II witnessed the flourishing of the custom of dedicating statues in temples, some of which are inscribed. 13 This 8. On the connection between feasting—elaborate banquet practices intended to affirm (and challenge) social status—and the raise of elites in ancient central and south America, cf. LeCount 2001; Rosenswig 2007; Vega-Centeno Sara-Lafosse 2007. 9. The boats are not shown empty, like the chariots, but have a crew of oarsmen (§5.2 and Pl. 59:4; cf. also Boese 1971: pls. VII:2–3, XX:1, XXXVIII, XXXIX, and Canby 2006: figs. 1–6 from Nippur). The explanation may be, in fact, relatively simple, since boats need a crew of some size, while chariots are driven by a single charioteer (Pl. 60:2; cf. also Boese 1971: pls. I:2, II:3, V:2, VII:1, VIII:1, XXI:1). These motifs are already attested in Early Dynastic I glyptics (cf. §5.2 and Pl. 60:1). 10. Cf. Kertzer 1988: 16: “Since organizations themselves can only be represented symbolically, it follows that a person’s allegiance to an organization can be expressed only through symbolism. . . . Through such symbolism, in which ritual plays a major role, the relationships between individuals and organizations are objectified.” 11. Cf. Gelb et al. 1991: 43–47, pls. 13–15 and the fragment of a stele from the temple of Ninmirsûk 1 or 2 at Firsu (Pl. 11:9; cf. Table 5, sub c). 12. Cooper (2008: 78, fig. 54) has drawn attention to the object held by Saraªusumgal, which he interprets as a peg (Sumerian gag), hinting at the well-known nail-driving rite that was performed in connection with real estate transactions (cf. Gelb et al. 1991: 240–41; Wilcke 2007: 87–89 with n. 273). However, the object in question seems more likely to be a wooden pestle, as in the Blau plaque (cf. Cooper 2008a: 78, fig. 53), since the nail/peg is shown on the side of the temple doorway in the stele (cf. Gelb et al. 1991: 44). Also note that the main female figure, representing the daughter of Saraªusumgal, holds a vessel that could be an oil container. If so, this may allude to the spreading of oil, which was usually associated with the nail-driving rite (cf. Gelb et al. 1991: 241; Wilcke 2007: 87–89). The secondary figures include the daughter of another priest, a “chief herald” (gal-nimir), and two additional officials possibly connected with the assembly (unken) (but cf. Gebhard Selz 2003: 510). For earlier, untenable interpretations of the stele of Saraªusumgal, cf. Amiet 1980: 117, who takes it as representing a “rencontre”; and Gudrun Selz 1983: 443, who takes Saraªusumgal to be a royal figure. The recent proposal by Wilcke (2007: 63–64) that the subject-matter and the inscription of this stele refer to “a marriage and the formation of marital property” is equally unconvincing. 13. Cf., for example, the statue of Yiddinªilum, temple administrator of Ellil, from Nippur Inªanak pre-VIIB (cf. Table 3 sub 7N205).

214

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

custom may have begun as early as the end of the previous phase, if the chronological attribution I propose here for the favissa in the temple of “Abu” at Esnunak is correct (cf. §1.1.1), and could indicate that by this time the ruling class enjoyed greater affluence. The Early Dynastic II temple contexts excavated in the Diyala sites, at Nippur Inªanak VIII (pre-VIIB) and Firsu Ninmirsûk 1–2 (cf. §§1.1.1–3), attest to the number, value, and variety of dedications placed in temples, 14 a trend that was to intensify during Early Dynastic IIIa.

6.2. From Participation to Individualism: The Development of Royal Visual Propaganda in Early Dynastic IIIa–b As Moortgat had already grasped (cf. Introduction), Early Dynastic IIIa in many respects represents a transitional phase. It is in this period that a language is formulated to celebrate and represent kingship as the central institution of human society. From a cultural standpoint, Early Dynastic II is more closely connected to the subsequent rather than the previous phase, notably in its elaboration of an architectural canon, organization of visual themes according to strict syntactic rules, and norms of social behavior (which can be deduced, for example, from dedications made in temples). To a certain extent, the stylistic character of Early Dynastic II continues into Early Dynastic IIIa alongside new forms, as noted in §1.2. Increasing conflicts between cities, probably caused in part by a decline in forms of inter-city aggregation, resulted in a growing role of the ruler as a military leader who must succeed in concentrating administrative consensus and efficiency around his own person. The appearance of palaces acting as physical centers of power, 15 of battle scenes in the inlays from Palace A at Kis, and of royal monuments that are now larger than usual (Cat. 4) or employing different stone (Cat. 5) are all reflections of this same process. Royal inscriptions become more elaborate (cf., for example, Cat. 6). It is still difficult to determine whether there was a gradual trend toward political unity that was to be fully achieved only during the Akkadian period or whether there were alternating phases of unity and political fragmentation. 16 From an analysis of the archives of Suruppak, it has been deduced that certain large centers were possibly organized into a kind of league, 17 which could perhaps be similar in some ways to the league documented by the “city seals” of a few centuries earlier, although the 14. For example, from the temple of Ninmirsûk at Firsu, levels 1–2, in addition to various foundation figurines, we also have a large stele showing a row of individuals, a land-sale transaction inscribed on a stele, and a circular base on which two converging lines of figures are portrayed, lead by two high officials, one of whom is probably royal (Pls. 8:2, 11:1–2, 9; cf. Table 5 sub a–d and §5.2). 15. It is not possible at present to establish with certainty exactly when Early Dynastic palatial complexes appeared. Although they could have already made their appearance at the end of Early Dynastic II, for the time being it seems better to place them in Early Dynastic IIIa (as also R. Matthews 1991: 13). 16. Cf. Cooper 1999b: 64–65. Steinkeller’s hypothesis (1992b: 725–27; cf. also 1993a: 117–29) of an enduring conflict between a politically-unified central Mesopotamia and the fragmented south of the Mesopotamian alluvium appears less likely. Cf. also §2.1. 17. Cf. Pomponio 1994b, who argues for the existence of a “hexapolis” (Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagas, Suruppak, and Umma). Cf. also Jacobsen 1957: 120–22. According to Jacobsen, it was Uruk that enjoyed hegemony in the area. Information from administrative documents suggests that Kis cooperated closely with this alleged league of six cities (which, according to Visicato [2000: 21], may not have lasted very long). The possibility exists, however, that Suruppak and the other cities of the “hexapolis” were, in fact, under the domination of Kis and of its king Menunêsi (cf. above, p. 101 with n. 38).

Conclusions

215

evidence is too scarce for us to tell whether one was derived from the other. 18 On the other hand, the hegemony of Kis (or, at least, of the individual bearing the title of king of this city) is reflected by the construction of temples by Me¶alim at Firsu and Adab and by his exercising a power of arbitration in the conflict between Lagas and Umma—although we do not know what degree of autonomy the subject cities enjoyed. Quite apart from the problems sometimes caused by a certain chronological confusion in studies in this field (when, for example, archaeological complexes that have been dated erroneously are then related to historical figures from a different period), the fact remains that all that we know for most of the rulers attested in epigraphs is their names (as in the case of statues Cat. 4–6). Early Dynastic IIIb witnessed the appearance of elaborate clothes and hairstyles worn by the highest officials of the administration as symbols of their rank. We do not yet find the insignia or distinctive headwear denoting kingship that appear at least as early as the Late Akkadian period. The hairy robe covering the left shoulder—previously seen in female attire, together with elaborate hairstyles—is associated, particularly in late Early Dynastic IIIb, with the chignon and beard in statues of both officials and royal personages (like Cat. 12 and 16). Royal statuary gradually develops into a specific genre in terms both of the valuable materials employed (Cat. 8, 9, 14, 17, 18) and the size of the works (Cat. 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18). 19 It is not until the Protoimperial period, however, that royal insignia appear (cf. Cat. 15 and, in general, §5.2), whereas these already had an established place in the figurative arts of mature Early Syrian Ebla (cf. §5.3). Moreover, the higher availability of resources resulting from the centralization of the economy, longdistance trade, and occasional victories in war led to luxury goods being displayed by the ruling classes to further increase their own prestige. The royal and princely tombs of Ur, which I date to Early Dynastic IIIb rather than IIIa (cf. Introduction and §1.1.5), provide an outstanding example of this custom. The most significant royal dedications of Early Dynastic IIIb are from sanctuaries on a terrace, although the statues themselves come from bent-axis shrines (cf. Cat. 11, 12, 14). 20 We have a clear and detailed picture of the situation at Firsu (cf. Table 5 in §1.1.3). We can attribute the foundation deposits and inscriptions of Urnansêk and three plaques dedicated to Ninmirsûk by this ruler to level 5 of the sanctuary built by Urnansêk himself and probably destroyed at the time of Ayakurgal. On the plaques, Urnansêk is portrayed (on a larger scale) together with his 18. Cf., however, Pomponio and Visicato 1994: XI; Gebhard Selz 1998: 301–11, 316–18. 19. The iconography of Cat. 16 is different from that of the other royal statues, while Cat. 10 and Cat. 12 show no particularly distinctive characteristics differentiating them from nonroyal statuary, which continued to flourish throughout Early Dynastic IIIb (cf. Matthiae 1994: 46 on the transition to the Akkadian period). 20. Only Cat. 7 comes from a temple on a terrace (but cf. pp. 131–132 with n. 14). The excavations of monumental sacred areas of southern Mesopotamia that have yielded important visual documents are those of Firsu Tell K (cf. §1.1.3), Adab Tell V (cf. §1.1.4), and Nutur (§1.1.6), as well as the Temple Oval at Tutub. The bent-axis shrine, more common than the small straight-axis temples documented on the terraces of Firsu and Adab, is found in relation to a less monumental architectural type. Only at Nippur do we find the two typologies in association (cf. Appendix A.1). The most significant contexts for statuary investigated thus far are all in the northern region: the temples of Mari and Assur Estar G2, the destruction of both of which appear from the archaeological and art-historical perspective to have been roughly contemporary, and of Esnunak “Abu” Single I: 2–3. These have furnished an abundance of documentation testifying to the fact that the practice of officials dedicating statues continued to flourish, at least in peripheral areas. At Mari, in particular, whose temples always also included inlaid panels representing ritual and military subjects, the inscriptions on statuary provide information on the role played by the offerers in the administration.

216

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

closest relatives. Lions’ or bulls’ heads, which must originally have been part of furniture, and a spear-head inscribed with the name of Lugalnamnirsumma, “king of Kis,” also come from level 5. The latter artifact could be evidence that Lugalnamnirsumma exercised some form of hegemony over Lagas, as had already been the case with Me¶alim (cf. pp. 101–102). The large Stele of the Vultures of Eªannâbtum must have stood outside the temple of Ninmirsûk in level 6 and may have been visible from a distance. This is the best representation we have of the ruler as agent of the gods but—despite the fact that it was the most significant one—it was only one of the visual codes employed for celebrating the highest political authority and for showing the flow of agency from deity to ruler and from artwork to viewing public. 21 The abundance of royal inscriptions in Early Dynastic IIIb is particularly significant, since in this turbulent period the by-then well-established monarchic institution was experimenting with an expansionist policy. 22 The obvious corollary of this is a greater need for social cohesion, rulers being then forced to consolidate their legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens. 23 Thus, royal inscriptions feature not only extremely elaborate titles but also, from Eªannâbtum on, frequently allude to the ruler’s divine appointment, which sometimes even precedes his birth. 24 Inscriptions now also include more-or-less lengthy accounts of wars conducted by these rulers in the name of the gods (as is the case of the rulers of Lagas I and Ensagkusuªanak of Uruk). The territorial dispute between the states of Lagas and Umma, which went on for a number of generations and under successive rulers, is the best-known instance of this and helps us to understand royal ideology in the late Early Dynastic period. 25 The ruler’s legitimacy as agent of the gods is demonstrated by his success. Monuments such as the Stele of the Vultures of Eªannâbtum served to indicate to the gods and to men in visible form the conformity of the king’s actions with divine will. 26 In some cases, the kings themselves tend to have their own personal god. 27 The figure of the semi-divine frontal naked hero with curly hair and belt around his waist, shown fighting felines, and often associated with what we may call the naked royal hero shown in profile (cf. §5.2) systematically appears on royal and princely seals, especially at Ur (cf. p. 206 n. 102), and thus alludes to the superhuman qualities of the ruler. There probably is a relationship between the figure of this royal hero and the accomplished deification of Late Akkadian rulers, 28 21. Cf. Winter 2007: 50–52, figs. 2:5–6. 22. The motif of a figure on a four-wheeled chariot trampling enemies is frequently found in late Early Dynastic art; cf. Amiet 1980: nos. 1212–17, 1727 (with pieces that are probably contemporary with the royal cemeteries of Ur and Kis and Houses Vc of Esnunak; on the chronology of this last context, cf. Gibson 1982: 537, table). Also cf. Jans and Bretschneider 1998. 23. According to Liverani (2002: 156), “the existence of a ‘public opinion’ seems to be mostly denied by scholars, since—we are told—no proof of its existence is left. What better and more direct proof are we looking for, than the attempt by the rulers to convince their audience through the celebrative inscriptions?” 24. For an analysis of late Early Dynastic and Akkadian royal inscriptions, cf. Franke 1995. 25. The best analysis of this conflict is still the one given by Cooper (1983b). 26. Cf. Winter 1985 for the most thorough interpretation of the stele. 27. As, for example, in the case of Sul-MUSxPA (“Sulutul”) for the dynasty of Urnansêk, of Mesªan-DU for the dynasty of Enªentarzid, and of Nissabak for that of Lugalzagêsi (cf. Kobayashi 1989: 24, 34–35). 28. On the deification of rulers, cf. Frankfort 1948: 224–28 and, more recently, Sallaberger 2002: 93–97. The comments by Cooper (2008b) are particularly noteworthy in that they outline a specific historical framework for the deification of Naramsuyin and Sulgir—two acts that, according to Cooper, were quite independent from the semidivine attributes claimed by previous rulers. Because of its spread in the most recent scholarly literature, it is perhaps useful to point

Conclusions

217

a process started in Early Dynastic IIIa, as suggested by the epithets of rulers from that period. 29 The banquet motif continues to be featured not only on seals (including numerous pieces from the “Royal Cemetery” of Ur) but also on pieces such as the larger plaque of Urnansêk, fragmentary plaques from Mari, and various works of inlay (where the seated figure identifiable as the ruler is often shown holding a flabellum, probably as a sign of rank). The most famous of these inlaid works is the so-called Standard of Ur, from a presumably royal tomb. The association with war scenes on this last artifact apparently gives the banquet scene a new connotation, more closely linked to court celebrations than to a description of the convivial ritual of the archaic administration. Thus, this traditional visual code undergoes a significant semantic change in order to express new social structures in their interrelations, although it is then gradually abandoned or merely evoked in the form of pars pro toto. 30 Early Dynastic III can thus be regarded as a crucial period in the history of Mesopotamian art. It is at this time that a full awareness is reached of the narrative potential of visual communication (not necessarily limited to the celebration of the ruler, if we think, for example, of representations of gods from this period), which was formerly purely symbolic or emblematical in character (as in the case of the banquet scene). It is impossible to determine whether the rulers of this time, whose increased responsibilities and powers made it essential to find more effective and far-reaching forms of communication, were the agents or merely the beneficiaries of this development. Although it seems likely that, in the initial phases of the process, they were mere beneficiaries, it appears certain that the consequent “feedback” mechanism led to an intensification of work in the main ateliers and to their being placed under the direct control of the ruler. This trend reached its climax in the Protoimperial period, on the eve of political reunification, which, in its turn, led Akkadian sovereigns to conceive of visual communication as one of the pillars of their power. 31 One can also measure how successful late Early Dynastic rulers were in redefining visual communication by the persistence of the canons they formulated—at least as far as iconography is

out here that the privately-owned stone mold that portrays the divine Naramsuyin taken by the hand by Istar (D. P. Hansen in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 206, no. 133) is almost certainly a forgery. 29. For example, Me¶alim had used the epithet “beloved son of Ninhursamak” on a vase from Adab (cf. Table 6 sub A192, §1.1.4), thus hinting at an affective relationship between the ruler and the gods already in Early Dynastic IIIa. 30. Cf. Kertzer 1988: 176–77: “In highly stratified societies, . . . the best that elites can hope to do is shore up a predominant symbolic construction of how society should work. . . . Fragments of other systems, as well as internal symbolic contradictions, are forever threatening to replace discredited views of the political universe.” 31. Cf. Amiet 1976. It is not easy to judge the likelihood of and the modes of contact with Old Kingdom Egypt, where pharaohs had developed their own efficient codes of visual communication (on Early Dynastic Egypt, cf. Wilkinson 1999: 186–99, for visual royal emblems, and pp. 200–208, for the titles of the divine king). There are, of course, analogies between Egypt and Mesopotamia, although perhaps more because of structural similarities among contemporary early states rather than as a result of one-way influences from Egypt (contra Kaelin 2006). However, it is likely that some specific themes were introduced in Mesopotamia from Egypt (Kaelin 2006: 163–64). Hansen (1998: 67–68, no. 13) already had recognized Egyptian influence in a piece from royal tomb PG779 at Ur, where two lions are represented trampling defeated enemies (Pl. 65:1). On the probable direct links between northern Syria and Egypt at the time of Ebla, cf. Biga 2010. Contacts with Egypt are even more likely in the subsequent Akkadian period (cf. Börker-Klähn 1982b, where comparisons with the 6th and 11th Dynasties are drawn; cf., however, also Bänder 1995: 255–57, who explains these similarities in terms of a convergence of themes in court environments).

218

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

concerned—in the royally-commissioned artistic production of later periods. 32 In the NeoAssyrian period, we still find motifs such as the hero portrayed frontally (both grasping a small lion on the so-called great royal emblem and as guardian of gateways), the king as a hero fighting wild beasts, and also the ruler with a mud-bearing basket on his head (Pl. 65:2). 33 The cultivated but clearly politically-oriented behavior of certain rulers in the later 1st millennium b.c., who revived models from their own past, holding them to be more truthful and seminal because they were closer to the mythical time of creation, led them to study and collect not only antiques in general but also the statues of ancient rulers, the most effective and representative icon of the continuity of the institution of kingship. This is the case for both Nabûnaªid 34 and Adadnadinahhe. 35 The latter lived at the beginning of the Hellenization of the Near East, which was to reduce the ancient elaborate symbolic repertory to a marginal role in a renewed system of visual communication in which, however, the royal themes developed in Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium b.c., adopted and adapted by the Hellenistic monarchies, retained their vitality. 32. The banquet theme as reformulated during the late Early Dynastic period—that is, where it is the ruler who is represented—could have been synthesized in the figure of the king holding a vase in the presentation scenes of Neo-Sumerian glyptics (cf., for example, Matthiae 2000: 59–61). In this sense, Winter’s (1986b) suggestion that there may be an allusion to such practices as lecanomancy does not seem to be necessary. 33. For the motifs of the banquet and the royal hero, cf. Orthmann 1975: 356–59, pls. 199, 247, 274:d, figs. 106:a, 107:c. Cf. also Matthiae 1996: 201–3, figs. 4:15–16, on the hunts of Assurbaniapli. For the great royal emblem of Dursarruken, cf. Matthiae 1996: 106, fig. 5:16. On the hero as guardian of gateways at the time of Sînahhêriba, cf. Russell 1991: 180, fig. 94. For Assurbaniapli as mud-bearing-basket carrier, cf. Börker-Klähn 1982a: pls. 224–25. On the banquet and hero motifs in the 1st millennium b.c., cf. Moortgat 1949: 126, 139–40, 145, figs. 57, 60, pls. 53, 62:c; on the development of the heroic motif in the Achaemenid period, cf. now Garrison and Cool Root 2001: 56–60. 34. It is probably Nabûnaªid who brings the statue Cat. 9 and erects it in an entrance to the temenos at Ur (cf. also the case of Cat. 3 and the discussion in §3.1). Cf. Roaf 2000: 1450 on this ruler’s “museums” at Ur and Babylon (cf. also Klengel-Brandt 1990 and Kohlmeyer 1991 on the one in Babylon and cf. Beaulieu 1994: 40 on the antiquarian interests of Nabûnaªid’s daughter, appointed priestess of the moon-god at Ur). For Nabûnaªid’s activities, cf. Winter 2000b. On the behavior of this king, regarded as the most significant representative of an intellectual development that leads to a linear—and, therefore, “historical”—concept of time, cf. Beaulieu 1994: 39–41. 35. Adadnadinahhe in his palace at Firsu (also cf. p. 144 n. 79) collects and displays statues of Gudeªa and reproduces the Neo-Sumerian brick typology, stamped with bilingual Greek and Aramaic scripts (Pl. 65:3; cf. Caubet 1990: 107, no. 55; Kose 2000: 423–25). Schuol (2000: 297–98) excludes any relationship between Adadnadinahhe and the Characene dynasty, which controlled the territory of Tello: the palace, dating from the 3rd century b.c., continued to be in use until the beginning of the 2nd century a.d.

Appendix A

Remarks on Early Dynastic Temples

A.1. Characteristics of Early Dynastic Sanctuaries The standard plan of the Early Dynastic temple was set out in the final report on the excavation of the temples in the Diyala region (cf. §1.1.1), which also included a comprehensive treatment by Frankfort. 1 For a number of decades, there were no substantial critical reexaminations of the subject, even though the excavations of the temple of Inªanak at Nippur (§1.1.2) produced some information that was at odds with Frankfort’s model. It was Forest who first took up the issue again: he maintains that only the buildings on terraces within oval enclosures were actually temples, whereas the bent-axis rooms served a secular function, albeit interwoven with religious elements, as is indicated by the numerous dedications found in them. 2 His theories have been accepted by some French scholars 3 and, given its importance to the current work, the subject must be touched on here, if only briefly. Forest analyzes two late Early Dynastic complexes: 4 the temple oval of Nutur (cf. §1.1.5) and the “Maison des fruits” on Tell K at Firsu (cf. §1.1.3), which he convincingly interprets as a 1. In Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 299–312. Classical studies on the subject are Heinrich 1982 and Tunca 1984. On the bent-axis sanctuaries in northern Mesopotamia during the Early Bronze Age, cf. R. Matthews 2002. In terms of typology, the double entrance to the bent-axis cella is only attested at Tutub in Small Shrine VI and VII, cellae P45:52 and P45:51, and at Mari INANA.ZA.ZA cella 13 and Pre-Sargonic Palace cella XLVI (cf. Heinrich 1982: figs. 183, 197, 208). The creation of a sancta sanctorum by adding a partition wall—a trend that is more evident during the Akkadian period (cf. Esnunak Single Shrine III–IV; Heinrich 1982: fig. 212 and Brak, areas SS and FS, Oates et al. 2001: fig. 91 rooms 2–3 and fig. 42 rooms 41–42)—is documented at Mari Pre-Sargonic Palace cella XLVI and at Assur Estar H and G (cf. Heinrich 1982: figs. 193–94, 208). 2. Forest 1996; 1999. 3. Cf. Vallet 2001: 453 and Thalmann 2003: 61. 4. If the exclusion from Forest’s discussion of the Ibgal of Inªanak at Lagas (cf. Forest 1999: 6) is understandable, the central terrace being not preserved there, the fact that the Temple Oval at Tutub (also consecrated to Inªanak, presumably, as is suggested by the inscribed mace-head dedicated to her from level II of the Akkadian period: cf. Gelb and Kienast 1990: 29 sub VP 5) has also been excluded does not seem to be justified for any genuine reason. Perhaps the fact that the access ramp leading up to the terrace lies off center suggested to Forest that originally there was a bent-axis temple on the summit, which would have conflicted with his too-rigid model. On the other hand, prior to Wilson (2002), the baked-brick structure in the sacred area of Ninhursamak at Adab (for which, cf. §1.1.4) was never included among Early Dynastic sacred buildings. As for the “oval” temple uncovered at Tell Mozan/Urkes (Pfälzner and Schmid

219

220

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

straight-axis temple on the summit of a platform within an oval enclosure. However, the hypothesis that a colonnade surrounded the latter temple, based on the plinths found in phase 5 (cf. Pl. 10:1)—a feature that was subsequently applied to all of the other temples Forest studied —must be rejected. Furthermore, Forest’s work seems to be somewhat lacking in historical perspective. It is strange that he does not take into consideration the evidence from Nippur Inªanak. There, in levels VIII, VIIB, and VIIA, a bent-axis cella adjoins a square axial cella with a very small enclosure at its front (Pl. 6:1; cf. §1.1.2). 5 It is precisely only in the first type of room (i.e., the bent-axis cella) that numerous statues and objects dedicated to Inªanak were found. The temple of Inªanak at Nippur is of primary importance in that it represents a continuous sequence up to Ur III times in which both the overall plan (only the cella area was lost) and the administrative documents retrieved there unequivocally attest to the fact that the building is a temple. It is, therefore, of particular relevance that statues were offered and dedicated there from Early Dynastic down to Ur III times. 6 Similar cases are also known from Mari, where in several areas we have remarkable continuity between Early Dynastic and later temples dating from the Middle Bronze Age with regard to the custom of dedicating statues. 7 The foundation deposits below the walls of the temple of INANA.NITA at Mari (cf. p. 68 n. 199) prove that this building must have served a cultic function, 8 while the rebuilding of the temple sector in the so-called Palace of Zimrilim at Mari, which closely follows the plan of the underlying area of the Pre-Sargonic Palace, supports an interpretation of this area, too, as a cultic space (cf. §1.1.7). 9 Another feature attested at Mari (cf. Pl. 17:1) is the presence of an axial cella together with a bent-axis shrine in the sacred area of “Ninhursamak” (cf. p. 72 n. 227): the statue fragments retrieved in the area do not seem to have come from the cella. Another axial cella is represented by the so-called temple of “Dagan” next to a sacred terrace (“Massif rouge”): there, too, statues were found in the courtyard and not in the cella itself (cf. p. 73 nn. 231 and 232). The architectural sequences of the temples of Estar at Assur and at Nuzi, where the identification of these buildings as sanctuaries is also supported by epigraphic documentation, provide further significant evidence for continuity: the late Early Dynastic temple of phase G2 at Assur (Pl. 18:1; cf. §1.1.8) and the Akkadian temple of phase G and F at Nuzi continued to be rebuilt

2008), its date is later than the period considered in this book and there seem to be some problems concerning its architectural and stratigraphical interpretation. Therefore, it is not discussed here. 5. Cf. Zettler 1992: figs. 6–8, rooms 223–24 (level VIII) and 177–78 (levels VIIB–A), respectively. As far as the two goddesses attested in Nippur Inªanak VIIB are concerned (that is, Inªanak and Ninsig: cf. §A.2.2 below), rather than thinking of two distinct titular deities of as many votive shrines (cf. Marchesi 2006b: 266), one must in fact consider the possibility that straight-axis cella 178, where no sculptures were found, had a different cultic function than bent-axis cella 179. 6. On the temple of level IV, dating from Ur III, cf. Zettler 1992: 39–43, figs. 10, 16–17. Statues were dedicated there, as is shown by the pieces found on the floor of the temple (cf. Haines 1956: figs. 1, 3, 9–15, 20, also for the foundation deposits near the entrances). 7. Cf. the presence of Middle Bronze Age statuary in the superficial levels of the temple of INANA.NITA and in the later palatine sanctuary (Parrot 1956: 41–47, pls. XLIV–XLV; Margueron 1982a: 256–60, 334–35; 2004: figs. 405, 407, 408). 8. On foundation deposits, cf. R. S. Ellis 1968 (especially pp. 46–47, fig. 1 for an uninscribed deposit from Nippur Inªanak VII similar to those from Mari). 9. Cf. Margueron 1982a: 256–60, figs. 146, 192, 220, 234; Durand 1987.

Appendix A: Remarks on Early Dynastic Temples

221

on a bent-axis plan into the second millennium b.c. 10 We are not in a position that permits us to comment extensively on early Mesopotamian urbanism, but one can at least note that the urban plan of Tutub in Early Dynastic IIIa (Pl. 4:2)—with a large temple surrounded by an oval enclosure within a residential area in which other, lesser sanctuaries were also located—can be compared with the plan of Ur in the early second millennium b.c., which had a primary sacred enclosure of Nanna/Sîn and numerous shrines that opened onto narrow streets in the residential quarters. 11 At this point, I need only mention the inscriptions on objects found in Early Dynastic temples, all of which are not only certainly dedicated to deities but also—with very occasional exceptions—to the same divine figure within each building complex throughout the various reconstructions. 12 On the other hand, there are no textual elements that support the hypothesis that “chaque responsable civil pourrait parfaitement se recommander d’une divinité tutélaire, propre, peut-être, au groupe qu’il représente.” 13 Furthermore, a recent detailed analysis of the artifact distribution in the Early Dynastic shrines at Tutub has shown very significant recurring patterns, a fact that adds further weight to a cultic interpretation for the buildings in which they were found. 14 Given the complexity of the subject, which in any case is beyond the scope of this volume, I cannot deal here in greater detail with the problems concerning Early Dynastic temple architecture raised by Forest. 15 Forest’s work does, however, bring into the foreground the problem of the various traditions present in Early Dynastic temple architecture—a problem that has not yet been sufficiently well explored. 16 The two types of cella, the bent-axis type—which derives from 10. Cf. Heinrich 1982: 126–28, 233–34, figs. 192–94, 310, 314, 316, 345 for Assur and pp. 152–53, 221, figs. 213, 216, 294 for Nuzi. 11. For Tutub, cf. Pl. 4:2 and Vallet 2001: fig. 1 (with Oval I, Small Shrine VI, O43 IX, ‡amus IX; note that sanctuary S44, which is also included there, actually belongs—like Small Shrine VII [cf. §1.1.1]—to a later phase: cf. Delougaz and Lloyd 1942: 113; R. Hauptmann 1989: fig. 25); for Ur, cf. Heinrich 1982: figs. 219, 246, 261, 263, 265–68, 271–73. 12. Cf. Steible 1982a; 1982b; Braun-Holzinger 1991: passim. For the exceptions—two dedications to the goddess Ninsig from Nippur Inªanak VIIB; the dedications to Ilumaªtim and Ishara in the temple of “Sara” at Tell Agrab; a few inscriptions from the temple of INANA.ZA.ZA at Mari that mention dedicatees other than the goddess—cf. §A.2 below. Moreover, note the mention of a statue of the goddess Damgalnunak in the inscription of the statue of Ekur (Pl. 16:6; cf. p. 163) from the temple of Ninhursamak at Tell al-ºUbaid; the same inscription also relates the building of a shrine for Damgalnunak inside Ninhursamak’s temple. 13. Forest 1996: 110. 14. Guerri 2008. 15. Forest (1999: 57–87) recognizes only the “Steingebäude” and the “Riemchengebäude” as temples at Uruk, although he fails to mention the fact that the second is built over the tripartite “Steinstiftmosaiktempel” and that, in a basin on one side of the latter complex, there were three bronze standards with rings (Boehmer 1990), which can be compared with a similar, though larger, object found in front of the temple of Firsu Ninmirsûk 5 (cf. above, p. 44 n. 112; cf. also the seal impression Legrain 1936: no. 385 from Early Dynastic I). The sequence of tripartite temples of the late ºUbaid period at Eridug (Heinrich 1982: figs. 60–67, 241), above a series of terraces that were eventually encapsulated in the NeoSumerian ziggurat, the terrace on which the so-called Painted Temple of Tell ºUqair stood in the Late Uruk period (Lloyd and Safar 1943: 143–45, pl. V) and the sequence of tripartite buildings at the summit of each successive refurbishing of the Anu ziggurat at Uruk (Schmidt 2002: figs. 75, 78, 81, 83, 90) constitute further data in support of the cultic nature of tripartite buildings. In addition, one should consider the feasting aspects (ritual consumption and redistribution of food) that were carried out in protohistoric tripartite buildings (cf. the case of Late Chalcolithic 3 Tell Brak: Oates et al. 2007: 594–96, fig. 11). 16. The external niche with podium and semi-column at its rear (26) in Building B33 at Larsa (cf. §1.1.11; Thalmann 2003: 60, figs. 3, 5–6, pls. 3–8), without any close comparisons in Early Dynastic temple architecture, does not seem

222

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

the tripartite protohistoric model, as Frankfort had already grasped—and the straight-axis cella could, in fact, reflect different requirements and cultic functions (for example, statues do not appear to have been offered in the second type of cella). Finally, I would like to mention here Margueron’s hypothesis regarding the possible roofing of the central spaces in the temples of Mari, such as the sanctuary of the Pre-Sargonic Palace and the temple of INANA.ZA.ZA (cf. Pl. 17:1). 17 This hypothesis, however, conflicts with the Early Dynastic temple architecture tradition of the Diyala region (with courtyards equipped with ovens and other installations in front of the cella) and of Assur (cf. §§1.1.1 and 1.1.8, respectively). 18

A.2. Temple Names and Titular Deities Apart from the sporadic cases in which the ancient name of a shrine or temple complex has been passed down to us (the Emah of the goddess Dimirmah at Adab; the Bagara and the Eninnu dedicated to the god Ninmirsûk at Lagas and Firsu, respectively; 19 etc.), scholars have conventionally named Early Dynastic cultic places after the known or presumptive titular deities of those places, when these are named in foundation inscriptions 20 or in dedications on statues or sufficient for interpreting this building as secular. Meijer (2002) has provided an alternative reading of the architectural data relating to the Diyala sites, still retaining the interpretation of the buildings as temples but attempting, at the same time, to analyze their social context. 17. After providing a well-founded analysis of the sacred architecture of Early Dynastic Mari (Margueron 1982b; 1985), Margueron afterward interpreted the central space of these sanctuaries as a roofed space (Margueron 1993; 2004: 217–21, 250–52, figs. 205 bis, 206–8, 231–33, 241). Apart from the case of the temple of “Ninhursamak”—where it seems impossible to me that the asymmetrical space between the axial cella and the bent-axis room to the south could have been roofed—there must have been a courtyard (15) in front of the cella (17) in the temple of INANA.NITA, as is shown by the presence of stone drains and a stone paving (cf. §1.1.7). Another indication of the fact that the central space was open is represented by the presence of water-proofed walkways in the temple of Palace P2 and in the temple of INANA.ZA.ZA, where, moreover, a drain passed through room 17 to empty out onto the street, though the entrances to the rooms around courtyard 12 have raised sills (the excavation photographs also show that the paving of the rooms was not lower than the level of the courtyard itself, as claimed, however, by the excavator): cf. Parrot 1967: 26, 31–32, figs. 16–17, 26, pls. II, VI:2. The central room of the “Enceinte sacrée” in P0, furthermore, had two pillars on the north side, most probably for a porch, given their off-center position (cf. also the columns in courtyard 15 of the temple of INANA.NITA in levels c–b, which, in fact, are similar to the columns in courtyard IT162 at Nippur Inªanak VIIB–A [Zettler 1992: figs. 7–8] and in the first courtyard of the temple of Umm al-ºAqareb [Auraibiyi 2003–4: 277 sub 1]). Margueron’s later interpretation regarding the courtyards also affects his reconstruction of the central space (148) in the temple sector of the second millennium b.c. royal palace at Mari (cf. Margueron 1982a: fig. 234 with 2004: figs. 437 sub D, 452). 18. Cf. also the water-proofed walkways in the central spaces of Esnunak “Abu” Square I:2 (cf. §1.1.1) and of the north building in area E at Tell Abu Salabikh (D. P. Hansen in Biggs 1974: 13, figs. 1, 13; the absence of burials within this building, the retrieval of archives and miniature ware, the presence of a nearby refuse pit of administrative materials [6G] have led Harriet Crawford [p.c.] to consider it to be a temple complex, as Krebernik and Postgate [2009: 7] also do on the basis of the texts found there). Moreover, cf. Starzmann 2008: 210 with n. 43, on the use and functions of courtyards at Suruppak; and the remarks by Battini (2005–6) on the function of the installations in open areas within Early Dynastic sanctuaries. 19. The name é-ninnu (“The Fifty Houses”) is attested for the first time under Enªannâbtum I (cf. Behrens and Steible 1983: 412). In the inscriptions of the previous rulers of Lagas, this temple is referred to as é dnin-mír-su/sú(-ka), “temple of Ninmirsûk” (Behrens and Steible 1983: 385) or ès mír-su/sú, “sanctuary of Firsu” (Behrens and Steible 1983: 414). 20. As in the case of the temple of Ninhursamak, at Tell al-ºUbaid, ancient Nutur or Nuªtur (cf. Steinkeller 1995a and 1995b; also note the spelling nu-ù-tur in Sigrist and Ozaki 2009: no. 2954:4). The recent proposal by Frayne (2008: 395) of an alternative reading “nu-bànda” (and of a possible derivation of the name ºUbaid from it) is disproved by the spelling nu-tur-ra for this place-name in the genitive case (cf. Steinkeller 1995a: 278 nn. 15–16).

Appendix A: Remarks on Early Dynastic Temples

223

other votive objects. 21 However, many of these attributions, which are now standard in scholarship, are based on an erroneous analysis of the available textual evidence. Below, we shall consider the names or designations of the principal Early Dynastic sanctuaries in which statues have been discovered. A.2.1. Adab

According to Z. Yang, there were two temples in the early history of Adab, É-sar and É-mah. The archaeological evidence from Bismaya makes it sufficiently clear that É-sar was an earlier temple with a limestone foundation and that É-mah was a later temple with a foundation of plano-convex bricks, built on the top of the ruins of the É-sar. Textual evidence supports this sequence, since, of the two, É-mah was the temple mentioned in the Old Akkadian period. 22

Yang attributed both é-SAR and é-mah to the mother-goddess Ninhursamak. In her opinion, these two names refer to the same shrine: the temple of Ninhursamak, originally called é-SAR, which was later rebuilt and renamed é-mah. 23 This interpretation was followed by SuchGutiérrez, who, however, observed that der alte Name é-SAR [scheint] bis zur frühen altakkadischen Zeit noch in Gebrauch, worauf die Erwähnung eines sanga-é-SAR in zwei Texten aus der präsargonischen/früh-altakkadischen Periode und von é-SAR in einem Text aus der Zeit des Sargons hinweist. 24

On the other hand, A. George suggested that the é-SAR of the Pre-Sargonic inscriptions from Adab was the same as the é-sar-ra, the temple of the goddess Inªanak at Adab, which is repeatedly mentioned in lexical and literary texts from the Old Babylonian period onward. 25 In George’s view, é-SAR and é-mah represent two distinct sanctuaries: one dedicated to Inªanak and called Esarra; the other, the Emah, dedicated to the mother-goddess. 26 In order to establish the identity of the titular deity/deities of é-SAR and é-mah, the following facts should be considered: (1) A foundation inscription of Eªiginimpaªe (Pl. 15:3) clearly states that the Emah was consecrated to the goddess Dimirmah: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

dimir-mah é-igi-nim-pa-è NÍF.PA.TE.SI arabx(UD.“NUN”)ki é-mah mu-na-rú

For Dimirmah, Eªiginimpaªe, viceroy of Adab, built the Emah,

21. These designations are sometimes based on later, post-Early Dynastic dedicatory inscriptions. This is the case, for instance, of the so-called temples of “Ninhursamak” and of “Samas” at Mari (cf. p. 72) or of the temple of ºAstar/Estar at Assur (cf. §A.2.7 below). 22. Yang 1989: 99. 23. Yang 1989: 10–11 and passim. 24. Such-Gutiérrez 2005–6: 11. 25. A. George 1993: 140–41 sub 978. Note the variant spelling é-sa-ra, in VS 2, 48:8 (cf. Bergmann 1964: 1–2). 26. Cf. A. George 1993: 119 sub 714.

224

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

6. úr-bé ki-sè 7. temen ba-si

and buried foundation deposits beneath its base. 27

(2) In the literary composition known as Temple Hymns, the same temple is associated with Ninhursamak. 28 We know, in fact, from other evidence, 29 that Dimirmah and Ninhursamak were both names of a single goddess. 30 (3) The inscriptions dedicated to the é-SAR come from a deposit (favissa) in the area of the Emah (cf. §1.1.4). In the same deposit, there were also a fragment of a vase with a dedication to Dimirmah 31 and an inscription of Me¶alim, king of Kis, which calls him “beloved son of Ninhursamak.” 32 In combination, this evidence suggests that the é-SAR, like the Emah, was dedicated to the cult of Dimirmah/Ninhursamak. 33 Emah and é-SAR are also found side-by-side in the name and title of a temple official of Adab: igi-é-mah-sè / igi-du / é-SAR, “Igiªemahse, the herald of the é-SAR.” 34 Significantly, the name of this official of the é-SAR means “(He Whose) Eyes (Are Set) on the Emah.” 35 In all likelihood, Emah and é-SAR were but two names for the same shrine: é-SAR was probably the original name of the temple of Dimirmah, which was later renamed Emah, “August House,” by Eªiginimpaªe. 36 Compare, further, the following texts, one from the Early Dynastic period, the other from the Sargonic period: BIN 8, 7 i 1–6: [x]+10 lá 1 lú é-SAR 4 dasgix(HIxDIS)gi4 4 GÁNA.SAHAR 2 dinªanakx(MÙS) 3 den-ki

Luckenbill 1930: no. 143:1–7: 1 urax(UDU) é-mah 1 é-GÁNA.SAHAR 1 urax 1 urax-kungal dasgix(SIR)gi4 1 urax diskur 1 ud5 dinªanakx(MÙS) 1 urax den-ki

The first text refers to men (lú) assigned to the service of temples and gods. The second records the distribution of sheep (urax, 37 urax-kungal) and goats (ud5), again to temples and gods. The two lists are parallel in the main, with é-SAR and Emah occupying the same position in both. 38 27. Cf. Steible 1982b: 189–90 Eig. 1; Frayne 2008: 30 E1.1.7.2. 28. ETCSL 4.80.1 lines 365–78. 29. Cf., e.g., An = Anum I 1–3 (Litke 1998: 86): dimir-mah = dbe-let-ì-li / deres-mah = MIN / dnin-hur-sam-má = MIN. For the identification of Dimirmah with Ninhursamak, cf. also Heimpel 1998–2001a: 378–79 §1; Such-Gutiérrez 2005–6: 26. 30. Similarly, at Lagas, the same goddess was known as both Ninhursamak and Eresmah (cf. Gebhard Selz 1995: 252– 53 s.v. Ninhursam [2]; p. 256 s.v. Ninmah; Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998–2001b). 31. Steible 1982b: 196 AnAdab 8. 32. Cf. p. 102 n. 42. 33. Cf. already Banks 1912: 259–66. 34. MS 3792 (= CDLI P252828) vii 15–17 (igi-du is probably the same as Akkadian alik mahra/i, “herald, harbinger;” cf. CAD A/1 344). 35. Cf. Marchesi 2006a: 109. 36. Note, however, that the older name was still in use, alongside the new one, at the end of Early Dynastic IIIb and in the early Akkadian period (cf. Such-Gutiérrez 2005–6: 11). 37. Cf. de Maajer and Jagersma 1997–98: 286 s.v. a12-rá-bu. 38. Cf. also Such-Gutiérrez 2005–6: 11.

Appendix A: Remarks on Early Dynastic Temples

225

Furthermore, the fact that é-SAR is listed separately from Inªanak confirms that it was not the temple of this goddess. As far as the reading of é-SAR is concerned, it should be noted that this temple-name was written é-SAR in both the genitive 39 and terminative cases. 40 This evidence suggests that the word ends in a vowel—which makes the reading of SAR as kiri6 highly probable. 41 A.2.2. Nippur

“Inanna Temple”: identified as such by a foundation inscription of Sulgir. 42 The ancient name of this temple was é-parag-dúr-mar-ra, “House—Dais of the Throne.” 43 From the Early Dynastic levels of this temple come numerous votive objects dedicated to Inªanak, 44 which confirms the continuity of Inªanak’s cult at this site from the earliest times onward. 45 From level VIIB, which dates to Early Dynastic IIIa, there are also two inscriptions dedicated to the goddess Ninsig (dnin-SAR), 46 who is known from later texts as the “butcher of Ekur.” 47 A.2.3. Tutub

“Nintu Temple”: so called on the basis of the alleged dedication to the goddess “Nintu” (more precisely: Nintur 48) of a votive bas-relief (Pl. 54:1). However, the inscription in question reads: i

1. dnin-tu-àga-[zi] 2. dumu 3. ddam-gal-nun

Ninturªaga[zid], 49 son of Damgalnunakak(?), 50

39. Cf. igi-du é-SAR (quoted above) and samma é-SAR (MS 1952/33 [= CDLI P250707] rev. iii 4; CUNES 49–02– 060 i 4u ). Also note samma é-SAR-ra, “to the administrator of the é-SAR,” in CUSAS 11, 195 ii 3 (with -ra being the dative suffix). 40. Cf. above, p. 173: Cat. 7, comm. on line 1 with n. 102. 41. The name Ekiri, “Garden House,” accords well with Ninhursamak’s character as a goddess of fertility and vegetation. In this connection, it should be noted that the Emah complex had at least two gardens, as may be inferred from the mention of mes kiri6 é-mah gu-la, “Emah’s larger/largest garden,” in an unpublished Sargonic text from Adab (quoted by Such-Gutiérrez 2005–6: 11 with n. 102). 42. Cf. Zettler 1992: 16 and 239. 43. Cf. Zettler 1992: 16 with n. 39; A. George 1993: 71–72 sub 110. Note that this name is not attested before the Old Babylonian period. 44. Cf. Goetze 1970–71; Steible 1982b: 223–24 and 233–51. 45. The earliest votive inscriptions dedicated to Inªanak date to Early Dynastic IIIa. From a lower level of the temple of Inªanak (level VIII), dating to Early Dynastic II, we have three inscribed statues (cf. Table 3 in §1.1.2 and pp. 90–91); none of these, however, mention the goddess’s name. 46. Goetze 1970–71: 42–43 and 50–51 7N122 and 7N133 (= Pl. 60:6); Steible 1982b: 239–40 AnNip. 24. Cf. above, p. 220 n. 5. 47. Ellil’s temple at Nippur. For Ninsig, cf. Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998–2001e. The writing dnin-SAR-ga (genitive) and the variants dnin-si and ni-in-si (Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998–2001e: §1) point to the reading d nin-sig (SAR) for dnin-SAR rather than dnin-nisig, as maintained by Cavigneaux and Krebernik. For the value /sig/ x of the sign SAR, cf. also Michalowski 1993: 124–25 n. 17. 48. Cf. Krebernik 1993–97b: 506–7 §3.31. 49. The PN dnin-tu-àga-zi, “Nintur Is the True Crown,” also occurs in VS 27, 13 vi 3. Cf. the PNs eres-àga-zi (VS 27, 13 rev. iv 8; W. G. Lambert 1988: 252 and 259 BM 86271 i 19; etc.) and lugal-àga-zi (Gebhard Selz 1989: 209 Nik 42 iii 1 and comm. ad loc.). 50. ddam-gal-nun should be interpreted either as a personal name of the type DN+{ak}, that is, Damgalnunakak, “Of/ By Damgalnunak” (meaning either “belonging to Damgalnunak” or “Damgalnunak did it”), or as the abbreviation of a personal name beginning with the theophoric element Damgalnunak, such as ddam-gal-nun-an-dùl, “Damgalnunak Is Protection” (Limet 1968: 393) or ddam-gal-nun-ka-ì-sag9, “What Belongs to Damgalnunak Is Good” (Limet 1968: 394).

226

ii

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia 4. 5. 1. 2.

é-TUS?.A dumu ama-ab-zu-da a mu-ru

(and) E . . . , 51 son of Amaªabzûkda, presented (this).

The DN Nintur here is just part of a personal name. The name of the deity who received this offering is not mentioned in the inscription and remains unknown. Therefore, there is no justification for attributing the sacred area in question to the goddess Nintur; the descriptive name “Small Shrine,” originally given to this temple by the excavators, should be preferred. “Sin Temple”: so called on the basis of the statue inscription of a temple administrator of the god Suyin/Sîn of Aksuwak/Aksâk that was found in that temple. 52 This inscription, 53 however, was not dedicated to Sîn but to another deity: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

ur-KISAL SAFFA dEN.ZU UD.KÚSUki DUMU ªxº.TI PA4.SES dEN.ZU dSAF.ªxº SA12.RIG9

Ur-KISAL, 54 the temple administrator of Sîn of Aksâk, son of . . . , the pasisum-priest 55 of Sîn, to (the god) . . . presented (this statue).

The name of the god in line 9—that is, the deity to whom the so-called “Sin Temple” was presumably dedicated 56—has variously been read as dKÚS (= Íalam), 57 AN.SAF.x 58 or dSAF.[FÁ]. ªMUSENº. 59 The signs AN and SAF (not KÚS) are quite clear in both Jacobsen’s copy 60 and in the published photograph of this inscription. 61 As far as the third sign is concerned, however, Jacobsen’s copy is misleading. The sign MÙS can be made out fairly clearly in the photograph. The resulting DN dSAF.MÙS should probably be read dsa12-mùs (= ‡amus or ‡amu¶) 62 and connected 51. Previously read as either “É:KU(?):A(?)” (Jacobsen 1942: 290) or “é-ba(?)-a(?)” (Steible 1982b: 210). Cf. é-TUS (PN) in Deimel 1924: no. 95 rev. ii 7. 52. Cf. Delougaz 1942: 6–8. For the older forms Suyin and Aksuwak of the DN Sîn and the GN Aksâk, cf. Conti 1990: 191–92 ad 799; ED LGN 99 (MEE 3, p. 233 ); NPL 66 (Archi 1981b: 183). 53. Jacobsen 1942: fig. 205:4. 54. Cf. Marchesi 2004: 174–75. 55. For this priestly title, cf. most recently Krispijn 2004; Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2003–5: 630. 56. The recent proposal, by Battini (2006), that the “Temple of Sin” at Khafajah was consecrated to the goddess Inªanak is, of course, groundless. 57. Jacobsen 1942: 294–95 with n. 16. 58. Braun-Holzinger 1977: 68; 1991: 243; Steible 1982b: 211; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 30. 59. Krebernik 1991: 140. 60. Jacobsen 1942: fig. 205:4. 61. Frankfort 1939a: pl. 50:E. 62. For the use of the sign SAF as a syllabogram with the value sa12 (= /¶a/) in the Early Dynastic period, cf. W. G. Lambert 1989: 24–25. In addition, note the PN ì-lum-sa12-ir, “The (City-)God Is Knowing” (cf. Arabic saºara, “to know,” from Proto-Semitic *‡ºR), in Frankfort 1939b: pl. XIV:d (seal from Kis; the sign IR is very clear in the photo published

Appendix A: Remarks on Early Dynastic Temples

227

with the god dsa-mu-US, who is attested in the Sargonic onomasticon of Tutub. 63 A.2.4. Esnunak

“Abu Temple”: this shrine owes its name to a votive inscription on a copper vessel that was dedicated to the god Abªu. 64 However, the vessel was not found in the “Abu Temple” itself but rather in the the vicinity of the adjacent Earlier Northern Palace (cf. p. 12 n. 6). Therefore, the attribution of this temple to the god Abªu is far from certain. 65 A.2.5. Tell Agrab

“Sara Temple”: this large temple complex takes its name from an alleged dedication to the god Sara on a fragment of a stone vase that was discovered in a secondary context. 66 However, the inscription on the statue of king HAR.TU (Cat. 1; cf. above, p. 164), also from the alleged “Sara Temple,” suggests that the temple in question was, instead, dedicated to Ilumaªtim (presumably the city-god of Tell Agrab). 67 The existence of a cult of Sara, a local deity of Umma, at Tell Agrab would be surprising. The logogram dLAGABxIGI-gunû in the inscription on the vase fragment, previously read as “dsára,” is more likely a writing for Ishara (or Ishara). 68 This goddess, who is attested in both Mesopotamia and Syria, 69 may have had her own chapel inside the temple of Ilumaªtim; perhaps she was considered to be his spouse in the local pantheon of Agrab.

in Gullini et al. 1965: pl. CXII:204). For MÙS used as a CVC-syllabogram, cf. the spellings gi-mùs for gi-mus, “punting pole” (Civil 2008: 130), se-mùs (Gelb 1952: no. 297:10) for se-mus (a kind of barley), ur-[dnu]-mùs-da (DP 184 iii 4) for ur-dnu-mus-da (DP 181 i 2; same person), etc. 63. Gelb (1992: 134) interpreted ‡amus(/¶) as a variant of ‡ama¶/Samas, the sun-god. However, the former is only found in the name Puzur¶amus(/¶) (of which three attestations are known; cf. Sommerfeld 1999: 177 s.v. PÙ.SA-d‡a-muu¶) and is always written syllabically. The sun-god, instead, occurs as a theophoric element in various other personal names in Sargonic texts from the Diyala region (not, however, from Tutub) and is always written as a logogram (dUTU) (cf. Gelb 1952: 231). 64. Jacobsen 1942: 298 no. 12 and fig. 205:12; Steible 1982b: 202–3 AnEsn. 2. For the reading of the DN dab-ú (which, incidentally, has nothing to do with the Akkadian term abum, “father”), cf. Marchesi 2002: 168. Also note urab-bu (UET 3, 1309 seal 1) for ur!(LÚ)-dab-ú! (UET 3, 1309, tablet, line 7; courtesy of P. Attinger) with ab-bu likely representing a secondary form /abbu/ resulting from the assimilation of the occlusive laryngeal /ª/ of /abªu/ with the preceding consonant. 65. Abªu is a rather mysterious and elusive god. In late texts (end of the second millennium / first millennium b.c.), he is described as the bridegroom of Gula, the goddess of medicine, and is identified with either Dumuzid or Ninªurtâk (cf. Tallqvist 1938: 257). According to one tradition, Enkîk and Ninhursamak were his parents; according to another, Ellil and Ninhursamak were (Tallqvist 1938: 257; Attinger 1984: 26–31 and 45–46). His cult is attested in the third millennium at Kuªar(a), in southern Sumer (cf. Sallaberger 1993b: 136). Finally, note that the epithet “lord of the plants” (lugal ú), which is given to Abªu in the literary text Enki and Ninhursama (ETCSL 1.1.1 line 273), is likely only a pun on his name (cf. Marchesi 2002: 168) and should not be taken as an indication of the nature or character of the deity in question (contra Jacobsen 1942: 298). 66. Jacobsen 1942: 297 no. 10 and fig. 205:10; Steible 1982b: 200 AnAgr. 3; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 28–29 VP 3. Note that the traces of signs in line 4 do not justify the generally accepted restoration S[A12.RI]G9 for this line (collated). For the findspot of the object in question, cf. p. 27 n. 49, and p. 129 with n. 2. 67. For the findspot of the statue, cf. p. 26 n. 47. 68. Cf. Sallaberger 1996b: 45 n. 6 and 52 sub 500. Also note dLAGABxSIG7.SAHAR = disharax(LAGABx SIG7)sahar, in ARET 2, 8 ii 1 (pl. XXXVII). 69. Cf. Archi 1993a; Prechel 1996; Pomponio and Xella 1997: 202–17.

228

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia A.2.6. Mari

“Estar/Istar Temple”: more precisely, temple of dINANA(.)NITA, a male form of ºAstar (cf. above, p. 185: Cat. 12, comm. on line 7). “Istarat Temple”: this name is based on an erroneous reading of the DN dba-sùr(KAM)-ra-at, which appears in two votive inscriptions that were found in the temple in question. 70 In one of these inscriptions, 71 dba-sùr-ra-at is associated with Id(a) (dÍD), the god of the river ordeal, 72 whose spouse she presumably was. 73 “Ninni-zaza Temple”: numerous statues and votive objects from this temple were dedicated to a deity whose name is written dMÙS.ZA.ZA, dMÙSxZA+ZA and also, in one example, d MÙSxZA, 74 whence the name “Ninni-zaza Temple,” as this shrine is conventionally referred to. 75 It is not clear, however, how the sign complex dMÙS.ZA.ZA/dMÙSxZA+ZA should be analyzed and read. W. G. Lambert 76 has suggested (1) that dMÙS.ZA.ZA and dMÙSxZA+ZA are variant spellings of the DN dMÙSxZA, which occurs in an Early Dynastic god list from Abu Salabikh; 77 and (2) that dMÙS.ZA(.ZA)/ dMÙSxZA(+ZA) may be a logogram for ºAstar. If so, then ºAstar would have been distinguished orthographically from Sumerian Inªanak, whose name was written with the simple MÙS sign. However, the following variant spellings clearly demonstrate that the logogram for ºAstar was dMÙS, and not dMÙS.ZA(.ZA)/dMÙSxZA(+ZA): zàr-bad (Mari, Early Dynastic), 78 das-dar zàr-badki/za-àr-ba-adki (Ebla), 79 and das-dar za-ar-ba-ad (Mari, Old Babylonian). 80 (2) PÙ.SA-dMÙS and PÙ.SA-as11-dar (the same person in both cases). 81 (3) da-ti(-in)/din-dMÙS and da-ti/din-as11-dar (same person). 82 (1)

dMÙS

70. Cf. Krebernik 1984b: 165. 71. Parrot 1967: 179–80, fig. 225, pl. LXX; Dossin 1967: 329 M. 2241 and fig. 346; Gelb and Kienast 1990: 10– 11 MP 10. 72. Cf. W. G. Lambert 1985: 535–36; Durand 2008b: 292. 73. dba-sùr-ra-at probably stands for Ba¶¶urat, “(Good) Annunciation,” from the root B‡R, “to announce (good news)” (cf. D. Cohen 1976: 89 s.v.). 74. Dossin 1967: 309–28. 75. Cf. Miglus 1998–2001. /ninni/ is one possible reading of the sign MÙS, though not one of the best documented (cf. Gelb 1960). From this shrine come three additional statues dedicated to dINANA FIS.TIR, “ºAstar of the Forest” (Gelb and Kienast 1990: 6–7 MP 4), to dNIN-da?-ra-ªxº, “Lady of . . .” (Gelb and Kienast 1990: 21–22 MP 29), and to a male deity whose name is not mentioned (cf. above, p. 181: Cat. 11a). 76. W. G. Lambert 1985: 537; 1990. 77. Biggs 1974: no. 86 v 5u. Note, however, that the alleged variant dMÙSxZA+ZA, which Lambert claimed to occur in another manuscript of this god-list, does not in fact exist; the text in question (Biggs 1974: no. 82 vi 15u ) has dMÙSxZA . 7 78. Charpin 1987: 99 s.v. dinanna-ßar-bat. 79. Pomponio and Xella 1997: 65. 80. W. G. Lambert 1985: 530. 81. Hilgert 2002: 59 sub 53. 82. Hilgert 2002: 304 n. 60.

Appendix A: Remarks on Early Dynastic Temples

229

On the other hand, dMÙS.ZA.ZA is attested outside Mari in an inscription of Enheduªanak, 83 the famed poetess and priestess, daughter of king ‡arrumken of Akkad, who tradition holds was a fervent devotee of Inªanak/ºAstar. 84 This fact may suggest that dMÙS.ZA.ZA is a logogram for a particular form of this goddess. Moreover, MÙS.ZA.ZA(7) appears to have been an archaic writing for the Sumerian word /sube/ or /suba/, 85 which is attested with a variety of spellings (MÙS, MÙS.ZA(7), MÙSxZA(7), ZA.MÙS, ZA.MÚS) and was used to denote either a kind of stone (perhaps agate) or an adjective with the sense of “shining.” 86 It could be, therefore, that d MÙS.ZA.ZA and variants stand for *Nam/wirtum, “The Shining One;” or *‡ubeªitum/‡ubîtum, “She of the Sube-Stone/Beads.” 87 In view of the uncertainty of these interpretations, however, it is preferable, for the time being, to transcribe dMÙS.ZA.ZA and dMÙSxZA+ZA as INANA.ZA.ZA. A.2.7. Assur

“Estar/Istar Temple”: so named on the basis of various inscriptions dedicated to ºAstar/Estar, or to Estar Assuritu(m), “Estar of Assur.” However, these inscriptions are from later periods; 88 the earliest dates to the Akkadian period. 89 Considering that successive temples to specific deities were normally built one top of one other, it is reasonable to conclude that the Early Dynastic sanctuary was also dedicated to this goddess. 90 We cannot exclude the possibility, however, that attestations of Estar from the Akkadian period onward reflect the assimilation of that deity to some other prior local deity. 91 We do not know very much about Early Dynastic Assur, since there are no epigraphic or textual data from that site in this period. 92 83. Gelb and Kienast 1990: 64–65 Sargon A 1; p. 190 Sargon C 15; Frayne 1993: 35–36 E2.1.1.16. 84. Cf. Goodnick-Westenholz 1989. 85. Cf. subex(MÙS.ZA.ZA7) dinªanakx(MÙS) (Biggs 1974: no. 53 iiu 7u ) // subex(MÙSxZA7) dinªanakx(MÙS) (Deimel 1923: no. 57 vi 10; = CDLI P010647), “the sube-stone of Inªanak;” and amar-MÙS.ZA.ZA, PN (Cros et al. 1910–14: 180 bottom ii 1), in place of the ubiquitous amar-subex(MÙS.ZA(7) / MÙSxZA(7)), “Calf of the Shining One” (BIN 8, p. 31 s.v. Amar-ENNIN.ZA; Struve 1984: 21 s.v. Amar-se12; Pomponio 1987: 35–37 s.v. amar-sùba; etc.; cf. Bauer 1998: 513). Also note that in third-millennium texts, the reading /sube/ is to be preferred to /suba/ or /suba/: cf. su-bí làl-lá (Or 58 [1989] pl. III: TM.75.G.2658+ ix 4) // subex(MÙS) lá-lá (Biggs 1974: no. 278 iiiu 9), “the one who wears sube-beads;” and the spelling variants amar-su-be6 (TMH 5, 132 i 4) and amar-(d*)subex(MÙS.ZA)bé (MVN 3, 165:4; 172:4*) of the above-mentioned PN amar-subex. 86. Cf. Sjöberg and Bergmann 1969: 96 ad 216; Lieberman 1977: 465 sub 607; Civil 2008: 67–68 ad 058. Also note the divine epithet dsubex(MÙS.ZA) an-na, “the shining one of the sky,” in MS 2400:2 (= CDLI P251600; courtesy of P. Steinkeller). 87. Cf. Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998–2001c and d; and the similarly formed PN Uqnîtum, “She of the Lapis Lazuli(s)” (Buccellati and Kelly-Buccellati 1995–96: 14–16). 88. Cf. A. George 1993: 123–24 (sub 756) and 165 (sub 1336). 89. Grayson 1987: 7 A.0.1001. 90. Cf. Meinhold 2009: 15–21. 91. Cf. Beckman 1998. 92. Cf. Goodnick-Westenholz 2004: 11.

Appendix B

Royal Statues in Administrative Texts

Except for a small round tablet from Ebla, which mentions an expenditure of lapis lazuli (ca. 7 kg) for the manufacture of the head of a statue—possibly of the king 1—the only texts that provide us with information about royal statues in the Early Dynastic period are the Pre-Sargonic texts from Lagas that relate to the queen’s household at Firsu. A document dating to the second year of Eriªenimgennâk as king (lugal) of Lagas (that is, Eriªenimgennâk year 3) records a distribution of various commodities to several craftsmen “when the statue of refined silver of (queen) Sassag (named) ‘Bawu Made Her Perfect for Queenship’ was installed in the (offering-)place of Utu” (dba-ªúº-[na]m-eres-e-[su-e-n]a-du7 / ªalanº kug luh-ha / sag9-sag9 / ki dutu-ka / ì-tus-sa4-a). 2 The craftsmen in question—the chief sculptor (gal-KÍD.ALAN), a stonecutter (zadim), two smiths (simug) and five silversmiths (kugdím)—were presumably the very same persons who fashioned the statue. 3 Additional statues of rulers and other notables are occasionally mentioned in documents that relate to the ritual activities of the queen of Lagas (records of offerings to deities, temples, and temple paraphernalia on the occasion of religious festivals). Here is a list of the relevant passages: [1] DP 55 (no date). iv 4. 1 sìla ì ním-sa-ha 5. ki 11-sè dnin-tu 6. 7. na-rú-a bar-ta gub-ba v 1. HAR sar-ra

1 liter of oil and (1 liter) of fruit for 11 destinations(, namely): (the goddess) Nintur, the stele set up outside, the inscribed/engraved ring, 4

1. TM.78.G.333, edited by Archi 2005: 88 (cf. also Archi 1990: 102 n. 5 bis; Pasquali 2005: 62). Note that KIFx.AK / SAF / AN.DÙL / EN could mean either “for the manufacture of the head of a statue of the king” or “for the king” (that is, a statue commissioned by the king). The latter translation seems preferable in the light of a similar passage in MEE 10, 20 rev. xvi 12–19: 10 LÁ 1 MA.NA GÌN.GÌN / KIFx.AK / 1 SAF / 1 AN.DÙL / NÍF.BA / EN / dªà-da / halabx(LAM)ki, “9 minas of lapis-lazuli for the manufacture of 1 head for 1 statue—king’s gift for (the god) Hadda of Aleppo.” 2. VS 27, 72 rev. iii 1–iv 1. Cf. Steinkeller 1990: 22 n. 30; Gebhard Selz 1992: 248–50. 3. Cf. VS 14, 122 (Steinkeller 1990: 22). 4. Cf. Gebhard Selz 1995: 140 with n. 571; 1997: 173.

230

Appendix B: Royal Statues in Administrative Texts

vi

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. 2.

na-rú-a é-sag4-ga alan eres-hi-li-sù alan en-mete-na alan ir11-kug-nun-na gi-mus dnin-DAR manun mah dlugal-x-è-a dinªanak (MÙS) MÙSki x

231

the stele of the “inner room,” 5 the statue of Ereshilisug, the statue of Enmetênnâk, the statue of Irkugnunak, the punting pole of (the god) Nin-DAR(’s boat), the great storehouse, (the god) Lugal. . . , (the goddess) Inªanak of . . .

The text ends with the subscript: ním mes tag-ga dNIN.MAR.KI-ra dul5-dul5-la, “sacrificial offerings collected for (the goddess) NIN.MAR.KI” (DP 55 vii 5–7). 6 The three statues of Ereshilisug, Enmetênnâk, and Irkugnunak were presumably in the cella of NIN.MAR.KI’s temple at Guªabak, together with the “stele of the ‘inner room’.” 7 Apart from Enmetênnâk, who is obviously none other than the ruler of Lagas, 8 we can confidently identify Ereshilisug with the high-ranking woman of the same name who occurs in certain lists of offerings to female ancestors of the royal family. The fact that she occurs in such lists just after the wife of Enªannâbtum I, Ayasurmen, 9 and that her statue is associated with the statue of Enmetênnâk in the abovequoted text have led some scholars to consider Ereshilisug to be Enmetênnâk’s wife. 10 Nothing is known about Irkugnunak. [2] TSA 1 (Lugaldimirda year 2). viii 1. ì sìla 1-ta 2. zú-lum sìla 1-ta 3. ki 20 lá 1-sè dama-NU.MU.DIB 4.

1 liter of oil each, 1 liter of dates each, for 19 destinations(, namely): (the goddess) Amanugig(?)/Amamugeb(?), 11

5. Cf. sag4 = ªà-da-lu/ru12-um /˙adrum/, “inner room,” in VE 595 (MEE 3, p. 267; Fronzaroli 1984: 165). The term é-sag4, which properly denotes the innermost part of a building or building complex, actually has two meanings: (1) “inner room” and (2) “inner quarters” (cf. Gebhard Selz 1993: 209–10 with n. 21; for é-sag4 as an architectural term referring to a specific room of a building, cf. also Bauer 1972: 192–93 ad viii 2; Yang 1989: 217; Gebhard Selz 1993: 391 no. 41 ii 8–iii 2; Sallaberger 1994: 139). In na-rú-a é-sag4-ga, the first meaning is probably intended: “inner room” here presumably denotes the cella of a temple. 6. Cf. Gebhard Selz 1995: 258 n. 1239. 7. Cf. n. 5 above. 8. Another statue of Enmetênnâk, presumably dedicated to Inªanak of the Ibgal (= Inªanak’s temple at Lagas), is mentioned in a much later document from the late Akkadian or Gudeªa period as the recipient of a lamb offering (cf. Gebhard Selz 1990: 133–34). 9. Cf. DP 57 iv 13–14, viii 11–12, xi 2u–3u, xiii 8u–9u; DP 223 viii 8u–9u, xii 3u–4u; VS 14, 172 viii 3–4 (Bauer 1972: 466, 468); VS 27, 85 ii 11–12, rev. iii 5–6. 10. Cf. Allotte de la Fuÿe 1912: 148 with n. 2; Basmachi and Edzard 1958: 112–13; Kobayashi 1984: 46; Gebhard Selz 1995: 258 n. 1238. 11. For dama-NU.MU.DIB, cf. Gebhard Selz 1995: 21 and Bauer 1998: 509. They both transliterate it as “damanu-mu-dib,” which is interpreted by Selz as “Die Mutter geht nicht (an mir) vorbei” and by Bauer as “die Mutter geht nicht vorbei” or “der, der an der Mutter nicht vorbei geht.” However, it should be noted that the same deity occurs as (d)ama-MU.DIB in Ur III texts: cf. é dama-MU.DIB, “the temple of Ama-MU.DIB,” in UDT 58 rev. i 3; and the PN ur(d*)ama-MU.DIB (BCT 2, 108:10; Foxvog 1986: 22 and 26 UCLM 9-2854 iii 13*; etc.). The omission of the sign NU makes an interpretation of (NU.)MU.DIB as a verbal form difficult. I would rather suggest that dama-(NU.)MU.DIB represents the divine name or epithet *(d)ama-nu-gig, “Mother Nugig” (cf. Sjöberg and Bergmann 1969: 123 ad 387), pronounced /amamugeb/ in the Emesal-like dialect that was spoken at Lagas (cf. Bauer 1998: 435–36; Krispijn 2000: 154– 55, 161). Accordingly, dama-NU.MU.DIB and (d) ama-MU.DIB should be transliterated as dama-numu-gebx(DIB) and

232

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia 5. 6. 7.

dnin-tu

8.

lagasx(NU11.BUR)la.ki-sènimenx(NANSE)ki dnin-subur KA-si du6 TAR-ma4-a dPA.IGI.DU dès-ir-nun ès ub5 kug GAL+BALAF mesnimbaruruda

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ix 1. 2. 3. dama-mu-geb

zag-ga ddumu-zi gú-en dnin-tu-ama-eri-da-ma -a 4

(the goddess) Nintur of the precinct, 12 (the goddess) Dumuzid of the guªen, 13 (the stele(?) named) “Nintur Is the Mother Who Is Grown with the City,” 14 (the stele(?) named) “For Lagas: (the people of) Nimen,” (the goddess) Ninsuburak, the . . . , 15 the throne-platform, 16 the . . . , (the god) PA.IGI.DU, 17 (the god(dess)) Esªirnun of the Shrine, 18 the holy tambourine, 19 the. . . , 20 the (copper) palm-tree,

respectively. The spelling numu may well be an example of morphographemic writing, with indication of the Lagasite pronunciation of the morpheme {nu} of nu-gig as /mu/. However, I am not aware of other evidence attesting to the value /geb/ of DIB. 12. The translation “Nintur of the shrine” (or the like), which is commonly given for dnin-tu zag-ga, is inaccurate: zag instead means “edge, border, delimited area” and probably denotes here the temple temenos, like the later term zagmar-ra, lit., “established border/boundary” (cf. von Soden 1975: 140). The referent of dnin-tu zag-ga is probably a divine image of the goddess Nintur situated at the main entrance of the sacred precinct that circumscribed the temple area. 13. According to Civil (1983: 51), gú-en means “assembly of the lords” and designates the assembly of chthonic gods, among whom Dumuzid was counted after his death (cf. also Steinkeller 1995c: 542–43). However, Dumuzid in the Pre-Sargonic texts from Lagas is not the chthonic god Dumuzid, but rather the goddess Dumuzidªabzûk (“Good Child of the Abzu”), a deity in the circle of Nanse whose name is often abbreviated as Dumuzid (cf. Falkenstein 1966: 67–68; Sallaberger 1993a: 284 with n. 1322; Gebhard Selz 1995: 114–16). In the present text, the term gú-en instead denotes part of a temple, possibly a sort of audience court. Cf. Gudea Cyl. A xxvii 14–15 (Edzard 1997: 86 = ETCSL 2.1.7 lines 746–47): gú-en bar-ra-bé / ki-di-kur5 da-nun-ke4-ne, “its (the temple’s) outer guªen is the place of rendering judgments of the Anunak-gods;” and Cyl. B xvi 17 (Edzard 1997: 97 = ETCSL 2.1.7 line 1196): gu-za gú-en-na gub-babé, “its (the temple’s) throne, set up in the guªen.” 14. Cf. the Ur III PN ur-(d*)ama-eri-da (MVN 7, 225 rev. 10; MVN 17, 134:8*; etc.). 15. Given the context, Gebhard Selz’s interpretation of KA-si as zú-si, “The Sheep Plucking” (place-name) (1997: 173 with n. 152 on p. 195; also cf. Gebhard Selz 1995: 289) seems unlikely to me. Nor does KA.SI, “bridles(?)” (Civil 2008: 121) help clarify this passage. 16. du6 is generally translated as “hill” or “mound” (Akkadian tilum/tillu). However, in the present text, du6 probably denotes some cultic installation; it is thus preferable to translate “throne-platform” or the like (Akkadian diªum/dû). 17. Perhaps to be read d.papalil, “The Foremost One.” For other possible readings and interpretations, cf. Gebhard Selz 1995: 271–72 and Bauer 1998: 500. 18. Here ès, “shrine,” means “the Shrine” par excellence of Nimen, namely, the temple complex of Nanse, which was later renamed é-sìraraki, “House of Sirara,” after the name of the city-quarter in which it was located (cf. A. George 1993: 142; Gebhard Selz 1995: 210). For the god(dess) dès-ir-nun, cf. Bauer 1972: 450 (ad iv 14) and Gebhard Selz 1995: 133–34. 19. Cf. most recently Civil 2008: 101 ad 213. 20. Cf. the lexical equation mesbalam-gal = a-lu-ú, “(a kind of) wooden drum,” quoted in CAD A/1 377 s.v. alû C. For balam meaning “drum,” rather than “harp,” cf. M. Cohen 1974: 31; Black 1991: 28 with n. 39; Veldhuis 1997–98: 120; Civil 2008: 99–100 ad 206. In this connection, also note (d)balam ud-da, “the (divine) balam of the storm” (PSD B 75), which may allude to the thunder-like sounds of the instrument. On the other hand, the original form of the logogram (Green and Nissen 1987: 179 no. 47), the etymology of the word—if balam is indeed an onomatopea (cf. Attinger 1993: 453 with n. 1233)—and lexical evidence from Ebla (cf. Conti 1990: 123 [ad 364] and 160 [ad 572]) support the traditional rendering of balam as “harp.” Also cf. Draffkorn-Kilmer 1993–97: 463–65 §§2.1 and 2.3. x(DIB),

Appendix B: Royal Statues in Administrative Texts 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

na-rú-a diskur dPA.KAL dasa[r] alan ur-dnanse 8 sìla ì 8 sìla zú-lum alan é-sag4-ga 8-ba-kam

233

the stele, (the god) Iskur, (the god) PA.KAL, 21 (the god) Asar, the statue of Urnansêk. 8 liters of oil, 8 liters of dates: this is for the 8 statues of the “inner room.” 22

These sacrificial offerings were made by the queen Paragnamtarra on the first day of the Malt Eating Festival of Nanse. 23 The statue of Urnansêk, the founder of the dynasty, and the eight “anonymous” statues of the “inner room” were probably placed in the Shrine (viii 14), the main temple of the goddess Nanse, situated in the city of Nimen (also cf. below, sub [4]). [3] DP 53 (Lugaldimirda year 3). viii 7. 1 sìla ì 8. 1 sìla zú-lum 9. ki 20 lá 1-sè dama-NU.MU.DIB 10. dnin-ªtuº zag-ga 11. 12. ªddumu-ziº gú-en-na dnin-t[u]-ama-eri-ªdaº13. ma4-a dnin-subur 14. 15. lagasx(NU11.BUR)lanimenx(NANSE)ki 16. KA-si 17. TAR-ma4-a ix 1. du6 dPA.IGI.DU 2. dès-ir-nun ès 3. diskur 4. dasar 5. dPA.KAL 6. 7. ub5 kug

1 liter of oil, 1 liter of dates, for 19 destinations(, namely): (the goddess) Amanugig(?)/Amamugeb(?), 24 (the goddess) Nintur of the precinct, 25 (the goddess) Dumuzid of the guªen, 26 (the stele(?) named) “Nintur Is the Mother Who Is Grown with the City,” (the goddess) Ninsuburak, (the stele(?) named) “ Lagas: (the people of) Nimen,” the. . . , 27 the. . . , the throne-platform, 28 (the god) PA.IGI.DU, 29 (the god(dess)) Es’irnun of the Shrine, 30 (the god) Iskur, (the god) Asar, (the god) PA.KAL, 31 the holy tambourine,

21. Perhaps to be read dugula-kalag, “Strong Overseer.” For other possible readings and interpretations, cf. Gebhard Selz 1995: 272 and Bauer 1998: 500. 22. Cf. n. 5 above. 23. Cf. M. Cohen 1993a: 51–52. 24. Cf. n. 11 above. 25. Cf. n. 12 above. 26. Cf. n. 13 above. 27. Cf. n. 15 above. 28. Cf. n. 16 above. 29. Cf. n. 17 above. 30. Cf. n. 18 above. 31. Cf. n. 21 above.

234

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

[G]AL+BALAF [mes]nimbaruruda!(UM) na-rú-a alan ur-dnanse 8 sìla ì 8 sìla zú-lum alan é-sag4-ga 8-ba-kam

the . . . , 32 the (copper) palm-tree, the stele, the statue of Urnansêk. 8 liters of oil, 8 liters of dates: this is for the 8 statues of the “inner room.” 33

Offerings made by Paragnamtarra on the third day of the Malt Eating Festival of Nanse. [4] Nik 23 (Lugaldimirda year 6(?)). 34 ix 11. 1 sìl[a ì] 12. 1 sìla [zú-lum] 13. ªkiº [. . . -sè] d[. . . ] 14. (break) x 1u. d[. . . ] 2u. d[x(-x)]-ªEZENxHAL?º[(-x)] 3u. deres-[m]e[te]-ama-na 4u. dPA.IGI.DU 5u. dès-ir-nun ès 6u. diskur 7u. dasar 8u. dPA.KAL 9u. lagasx(NU11.BUR)la.kinimenx(NANSE)ki 10u. KA-si 11u. TAR-ma4-a (break) xi 1u. na-r[ú-a] na4[esax(KAL)?] 2u. alan ur-dnanse 3u. alan dnanse-ama-lugaldimir-da 4u. 8 sìla ì 5u. 8 sìla zú-lum 6u. alan é-sag4-ga 8-ba-kam

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

1 liter of [oil,] 1 liter of [dates,] [for x] destinations(, namely): (the god(dess)) [. . . ,] [. . . ] (the god(dess)) [. . . ,] (the god(dess)) [. . . ,] (the goddess) Eresmeteªamânnâk, 35 (the god) PA.IGI.DU, 36 (the god(dess)) Es’irnun of the Shrine, 37 (the god) Iskur, (the god) Asar, (the god) PA.KAL, 38 (the stele? named) “ Lagas: (the people of) Nimen,” the. . . , 39 the. . . , [. . . ] the ste[le of diorite,] 40 the statue of Urnansêk, the statue (named) “Nanse Is the Mother of Lugaldimirda.” 8 liters of oil, 8 liters of dates: this is for the 8 statues of the “inner room.” 41

Cf. n. 20 above. Cf. n. 5 above. Cf. Powell 1981: 129. Cf. the PN eres-me-te-ama-na in BM 16377 rev. iii 13 (Yildiz and Maekawa 1982: 105 and 112). Cf. n. 17 above. Cf. n. 18 above. Cf. n. 21 above. Cf. n. 15 above. Cf. Gebhard Selz 1995: 180–81 s.v. na-rú-a § 5. Cf. n. 5 above.

Appendix B: Royal Statues in Administrative Texts

235

Offerings made by Paragnamtarra on the third day of the Barley Eating Festival of Nanse. 42 The name of Lugaldimirda’s statue—“Nanse Is the Mother of Lugaldimirda”—suggests that this statue was dedicated to the goddess Nanse and set up in her temple (cf. above, sub [2]). [5] DP 54 (Eriªenimgennâk year 3). v 10. 2 (mun-du) zíd 11. 1 (dug) kas KAL 12. 1 (dug) kas FI6 13. 1 sìla ì 1 sìla zú-lum vi 1. 1 sìla mestin LAK 490 zíz 1 mas ib íd-eden-na 2. 1 sìla ì 1 sìla zú-lum 3. alan parag-nam-tar-ra 4. 1 sìla ì 1 sìla zú-lum 5. alan sag9-sag9

24 liters of flour, 1 jar (= 20 liters) of . . . beer, 1 jar of dark beer, 1 liter of oil, 1 liter of dates, 1 liter of grapes, cheese and emmer wheat, 43 1 kid: (for) the ib-shrine of the Canal of the Steppe. 1 liter of oil, 1 liter of dates: (for) the statue of Paragnamtarra. 1 liter of oil, 1 liter of dates: (for) the statue of Sassag.

Offerings presented during the Courtyard Festival of the goddess Bawu. 44 The two statues of the living queen Sassag and of the former, deceased, queen Paragnamtarra were possibly set up in the immediately before-mentioned “ib-shrine of the Canal of the Steppe,” which is known to have been located in or near the Holy City at Firsu. 45 [6] DP 66 (Eriªenimgennâk year 5). vi 7. 1 sìla ì dnin-ªmír-suº-mírnun-sè-ªnuº-[k]usu4 8. alan lugal-dimir-da

1 liter of oil: (for the statue named) “O Ninmirsûk, He Is Never Tired for the Firnun” —a statue of Lugaldimirda.

Offerings made on the third day of the Malt Eating Festival of Ninmirsûk. 46 The name of this statue of Lugaldimirda suggests that it was dedicated to Ninmirsûk and placed in the Eninnu at Firsu. 47

*

*

*

In addition to the above-mentioned offerings of oil and dates, which were performed on the occasion of special religious ceremonies, it is likely that royal statues received daily provisions of grain products, as is known to have been the case in later times. 48 However, the only evidence of this practice at Pre-Sargonic Lagas is provided by a controversial passage (Nik 64 v 2–5) that deals with monthly amounts of beer and bread offerings for a statue—apparently that of the queen Sassag:

42. Cf. M. Cohen 1993a: 44–46. 43. Cf. Bauer 1972: 411 ad i 4; Gebhard Selz 1995: 33 with n. 105. 44. Cf. M. Cohen 1993a: 53. 45. Cf. Bauer 1972: 412 ad vii 4. According to Bauer (1969: 111), however, the two statues in question were “im Tempel der Baba [= Bawu] in der Heiligen Stadt.” 46. Cf. M. Cohen 1993a: 48–49. 47. Cf. p. 162 n. 50. For a different interpretation, cf. Bauer 1969: 112. 48. Cf., e.g., Gudea St. B i 3–12 (Steible 1991a: 156–59; Edzard 1997: 31).

236 v

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia 2. 3. 4. 5.

0.1.0 sekas 0.1.0 zízkas 0.1.0 zízìnda sá-dug4 alan sag9-sag9

60 liters of barley beer, 60 liters of emmer beer, 60 liters of emmer bread: provisions for the statue of Sassag.

Gebhard Selz, on the other hand, translates this passage “0.1.0 Gerste für Bier, 0.1.0 Emmer für Bier, 0.1.0 Emmer für Brote ist die regelmäßige Lieferung für die Statue. (An) Sasa.” 49 Indeed, parallel texts display the following variants for line 5: 1a) sá-dug4 alan / sag9-sag9 50 “provisions for the statue. (Assigned to) Sassag.” 1b) sá-dug4 alan-kam / sag9-sag9 51 “these are provisions for the statue. (Assigned to) Sassag.” 2a) sá-dug4 alan-kam / úr-mud / agrig 52 “these are provisions for the statue. (Assigned to) Urmud, the steward.” 2b) sá-dug4 alan-kam / . . . / úr-mud / agrig 53 “these are provisions for the statue. . . . (Assigned to) Urmud, the steward.”

All five of these cases refer to the same statue. The variant in Nik. 64, if my interpretation is correct, makes explicit that the statue in question was a statue of Sassag herself, possibly located in the é dba-ú, “the temple of Bawu,” 54 or in a shrine within the é-mí, “The Female House/Quarters.” 55 This could explain why responsibility for provisioning the statue was sometimes assigned directly to the queen and sometimes to Urmud, one of the stewards in her service. 56 49. Gebhard Selz 1989: 274 (also cf. p. 254 ad vi 12–13). 50. TSA 34 vi 12–13 and 36 vi 10–11. 51. Nik 59 vi 12–13 (cf. Gebhard Selz 1989: 251). 52. CT 50, 37 v 13–vi [1]; Gebhard Selz 1993: nos. 32 vi 6–8 (p. 338) and 33 v 13–15 (pp. 345–46); etc. 53. Gebhard Selz 1993: nos. 34 v 6–16 (p. 352) and 35 v 8–18 (pp. 358–59). 54. Cf. Spycket 1968: 34. 55. This term was also used to refer to the queen’s palace. Both the é-mí and the temple of Bawu were under the control and administrative responsibility of the queen of Lagas. 56. Cf. Visicato 2000: 72–73.

Appendix C

Notes on the Transliteration of Texts and the Transcription of Proper Names

[1] Sumerian and Akkadian words and texts are quoted in either transliteration or transcription. Transliterations represent in our own writing system the manner in which words were written in cuneiform texts; transcriptions approximate the manner in which words were to be read or pronounced. [2] Sumerian words are transliterated in spaced characters, Akkadian words in italic. Logograms of uncertain reading are in capitals (not spaced).1 [3] In Akkadian texts, syllabograms are transliterated in italics and Sumerian logograms in capitals. Akkadograms or Semitic logograms (cf. p. 104 n. 62 and p. 156 n. 9) are in capital italics. [4] In the transliterations, the following symbols are used: [ ] ªº ( ) < >

enclose a broken piece of text enclose one or more graphemes (= cuneiform signs) that are only partially preserved enclose the uncertain restoration of an optional grapheme enclose one or more graphemes that were omitted in writing but that are to be restored in the text { } enclose one or more graphemes that were written pleonastically and, hence, erroneously ! marks an emended grapheme ? marks a grapheme of uncertain reading

[5] In the transcriptions, the following symbols are used: [ ] enclose a phonetic transcription / / enclose a phonemic transcription { } enclose a morphemic transcription . denotes a morpheme boundary - denotes a word or syntagm boundary

1. For the values of signs (German Lautwerte), we follow Borger 2004: 467–539. However, note suruppag and súruppag in the place of Borger’s “suruppak” and “súruppak.” Values that are not found in Borger 2004 are marked by an x-deponent (= x). Moreover, contrary to Borger, we distinguish between the phonemes /g/ and /m/ and between /r/ and /r/ (cf. below, sub [9]). This means that Borgers’s “gá” corresponds to our má, Borger’s “rá” to our rá, and so forth.

237

238

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

[6] Third-millennium Akkadian texts are transliterated according to Gelb’s system, that is, by selecting the most basic value for each grapheme.2 However, more accurate readings and additional phonological information are often added in transcription. In this connection, note the following correspondences: (graphemic) s = (phonemic) /¶/ = (phonetic) [s]; s = /s/ = [s] (= IPA S); z = /s, ß, z/ = [ts, ts’, dz]. [7] In reconstructiong the phonological forms of Sumerian logograms, preference is accorded to Old Babylonian sources for the pronunciation of Sumerian (syllabaries, pronunciation glosses, syllabic texts, phonetic complements, etc.), in keeping with recent trends in Sumerological studies. Thus, for instance, the traditional reading uru of the Sumerian word for “city” has been abandoned in favor of eri: the former reading, though commonly used by scholars, is anachronistic, based as it is on first-millennium sources; the evidence of earlier syllabaries, such as Proto-Ea and Sa, as well as the use of the sign URU as a syllabogram with the value /re/ or /ri/ in thirdmillennium texts, suggests that the Sumerian word for “city” was more likely ere, eri, or iri.3 [8] Vowel length is not indicated in the transcription of Sumerian proper names, unless the length is owing to an underlying contraction, in which case it is indicated by means of a circumflex. No doubt, Sumerian did have primary long vowels.4 However, the Sumerian writing system allows us to speak with certainty of vowel length in only a very few cases. Accordingly, for the sake of consistency, we omit any marking of vowel length in our transcriptions, except for cases of vowel contraction. [9] Sumerian /m/ and /h/ are generally understood to be a voiced velar nasal (= [˜], according to IPA) and a voiceless velar fricative (= [x]), respectively. The phonetic status of /r/ is uncertain. This phoneme, which is often referred to as the /dr/-phoneme, was orthographically distinguished from /r/ in the Pre-Sargonic texts5 but disappeared in later Sumerian, having merged with either /r/ or /d/ in different dialect regions. There is evidence to suggest that this phoneme was heard as [ts] by speakers of Akkadian, which raises the possibility that it was, in fact, pronounced as [tsh] by Sumerians.6 [10] Syllabic spellings such as a-sag4 (instead of a-sa/sa4) for /asa(g)/, “field,” ú-dug4 (instead of ú-du) for /udu(g)/, “(male) guardian spirit,” etc., as well as the scribal conventions for writing the dative in the Pre-Sargonic texts (dnin-mír-su-ra = /ninmirsûkra/ vs. dnanse = /nanser/) indicate that the so-called “amissable” final consonants of Sumerian,7 which include the phoneme /k/ of the genitive, were in fact pronounced in the Early Dynastic period.8 Accordingly, we transcribe Enªentarzid, instead of Enªentarzi; Mesªanêdug, instead of Mesªanêdu; Ninmirsûk, instead of Ninmirsû; etc. For the same reason, we employ the so-called “long” values in transliterations (for example, pàd rather than pà; parag rather than para10; etc.), instead of following the more standard practice using “short” values. 2. Cf. Hasselbach 2005: 24–25. 3. /uru/ is how this word was pronounced in the Emesal dialect (cf. Edzard 1991: 77–78; Attinger 2008: 104 with nn. 2–6). 4. Cf. Edzard 2003: 13–14. 5. Cf. Bauer 1975. 6. Cf. Jagersma 2000. 7. That is, /d/, /g/, /k/, /r/, held to be mute in word-final position. 8. Cf. Bauer 1989–90: 77. The loss of these consonants probably occurred in the Neo-Sumerian period.

Appendix C: Notes on Transliteration and the Transcription of Proper Names

239

[11] The symbol ª (= “aleph”) in transcriptions of Sumerian personal names indicates a hiatus or a “weak” consonant that is concealed by the commonly used system of transliteration. Spoken Sumerian of the Early Dynastic period had several phonemes that fell out of use in later periods. Many words that begin with a vowel in our transliterations actually began with either a socalled semiconsonant (/y/ or /w/) or with a laryngeal. Sumerian originally had two laryngeals— one fricative (/h/), the other occlusive (/ ª/).9 By the end of the Early Dynastic period, these two phonemes had very likely merged.10 When / ª/ was preceded by another consonant, it assimilated to it.11 In personal names, analogous assimilations also occurred between independent morphemes; cf., e.g., lugal-dnanna-ra-túm = /lugalnannarraltum/, from {lugal-nanna.rªal.tum};12 dnin-na-zu for dnin-a-zu;13 ni-in-ni-im-ma for dnin-ìmma;14 ur-ri-ni-in4-na for ur-in(n)inx(MÙS);15 ni-in-nu-ú, hypocoristic of dnin-urta-sam-kal;16 ni-in-nu-u[r-ta] for dnin-urta;17 (ni-)in-na-na for d(n)inªanakx/(n)innanakx(MÙS), from {nin-ªan. ak};18 etc. On the other hand, examples of unassimilated /ª/, both “ancient” and “modern,” are also attested; cf. the syllabic spelling ur-sa-nu-ù-du of the PN ur-sam-utu at Ebla;19 ù-mu-un-a-zu and mu-na-a-zu for /(u)munªazu/, the Emesal form of the DN Ninªazu;20 etc. For this reason, we prefer to provide “etymological” transcriptions in these cases; thus, Ninªurtâk rather than Ninnurtâk, etc. Analogously, we transliterate the DN dMÙS as dinªanakx rather than dinnanakx. However, note that in addition to representing the phoneme /ª/, the symbol ª in our transcriptions sometimes indicates the original presence of an /h/, /y/, or /w/.21 Moreover, we omit this symbol altogether when the corresponding phoneme appears in word-initial position (e.g., we transcribe Enªannâbtum rather than ªEnªannâbtum).22 [12] It should be noted that our readings of Sumerian logograms are, to some extent, anachronistic. They derive principally from syllabic writings of Sumerian words in texts of the Old Babylonian period or later. We realize that the Sumerian that was spoken in the third millennium b.c., and especially in the Early Dynastic period, may have been very different from that “spoken” in later periods. For instance, the PN é-an-na-túm, which we transcribe as Eªannâbtum, should probably be reconstructed as Hayªannâbtum or Hayyanâbtum, from {hay-ªan.ªa9. Cf. the minimal pair é = /hay/, “house,” and a = /ªay/, “water.” 10. As is suggested by the variant spelling a-gi 16 -sa of the PN é-gi 16 -sa in the Pre-Sargonic texts from Lagas (cf. Gebhard Selz 1993: 234 ad viii 4). 11. For example: {ªan.ªa} > /ªanna/, “in heavens” (cf. instead {ªan.ak} > /ªana(k)/, “of heavens”). 12. Cf. Marchesi 2004: 191 n. 216 and 193 n. 226. 13. Sigrist 1995: no. 178:5. 14. Cf. Focke 1998–2001: 384 §1. 15. Scheil 1925: 50 no. 7:1. 16. Charpin 1980: 343. 17. Geller 1989: 198 line 64u. 18. Cf. ur-dMÙS = ur-ni-in-ªnaº-na (Scheil 1925: 50 no. 7:2); ÌR?-din-na-na (Arnaud 1994: pl. 26:56 iii 9u ); [inn]a-na (Arnaud 1982: 211–12 line 25); d.in-na-na[MÙ]S (CT 25 pl. 30: K 219 rev. i 14); etc. (cf. Attinger 2007: 37–38). 19. Cf. Steinkeller 1993b: 237 sub 1. 20. Cf. Wiggermann 1998–2001b: 330 §1. 21. For instance, chances are that the PNs en-á-kal-le and ur-sam-pa-è, which we transcribe as Enªakale and Ursampaªe, were in fact pronounced /(e)wenhakale/ and /ursampaye/, respectively. Cf. the use of Á and È for writing the syllables /ha/ and /ye/ in the Old Akkadian syllabary (Hasselbach 2005: 79–80 n. 162, 87–88). 22. Analogously, we omit the glottal stop in word-initial position in the transcription of Semitic proper names (e.g., Ilumaªtim, instead of ªIlumaªtim).

240

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

ªa.b.i.tum}.23 The value é of the grapheme É reflects a later development—the loss of initial laryngeals and the mutation of /ay/ into /e/. Sumerian words that were loaned into western Semitic languages, such as Syriac haykal (< é-gal, “palace”) and Aramaic ªyk (< é-an-na, a kind of sanctuary),24 show that É was originally read /hay/ in Sumerian. Similarly, the usage of EN in the Old Akkadian syllabary as a syllabogram for /hin/, /˙in/, /ºin/, and /yin/,25 but not for /en/ or /in/, and the form /(u)mun/ of the Sumerian word en in the Emesal dialect suggest that the sign we transliterate as en should actually be read /(e)wen/ in third-millennium Sumerian texts.26 In the local dialect of Lagas, moreover, the same word was possibly pronounced /mun/.27 If so, then the name en-an-na-túm should perhaps be transcribed as Munªannâbtum. The transcription we employ, Enªannâbtum, comes closer to representing the pronunciation of the name in Old Babylonian Sumerian. Analogously, the name eri-enim-ge-na was possibly pronounced /uru(ª)namgennâk/ at Lagas,28 but we transcribe it as Eriªenimgennâk, according to standard Sumerian. [13] Sumerian third-person possessive suffixes are properly reconstructed as /anne/ and /be/, rather than /ani/ and /bi/ (cf. p. 157 n. 19). Accordingly, we transliterate (a-)NI and BI as (a-)né and bé, respectively, and transcribe a personal name such as enim-ma-NI-zi as Enimannezid, rather than Enimanizid.29 [14] Since a number of new, non-conventional transcriptions of proper names are introduced in the present work, a list of concordances between our readings and more traditional transcriptions is presented as an aid to the reader.30

I. Personal Names ºAsbum (Espum, Isbum) ºInbiºastar (Enbiªestar, Enbiªistar) ºIz(z)i (Nizi, NI-zi) Aªanepada, Aªannepada > Ayaªanepadda Aªanzu > Ayaªanzud Abarage > Ayaparagê(si) Abihªil > Yindinªil Aburlim > Yaburliªmu Abzukidu > Abzukidug Abzukidug (Abzukidu) Adingirmu > Ayadimirmu Adubdamu > Yaddubdamu Agaªak > Tunªak 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Agga > Akka Agurlim > Yagurliªmu Aka > Akka AK-inana, AK-inanna > Akkaªinªanakak Akalamdu, Akalamdug > Ayaªumêdug Akigal > Ayakigal Akka (Agga, Aka) Akkaªinªanakak (AK-inana, AK-inanna) Akurgal > Ayakurgal Amaªabzuda > Amaªabzûkda Amaªabzûkda (Amaªabzuda) Amabarasi > Amaparagêsi Amaparagêsi (Amabarasi) Amarkiku > Amarkikugak

Cf. Marchesi 2006a: 2–3 n. 7. Cf. Cavigneaux 1998b. Cf. Gelb 1957: 47 sub ª 2N: en-ma; p. 51 sub ª 4NB: en-bí/bu; p. 52 sub ª xNN: en-na; p. 191 sub Nª3R: en-ar. Cf. Schretter 1990: 263–64 sub 469. Cf. Cavigneaux and al-Rawi 1993a: 102 lines 5u and 14u; Krispijn 2000: 161. Cf. Krecher 1967: 94; W. G. Lambert 1992: 257; Bauer 1998: 476; Krispijn 2000: 161. Cf. Limet 1968: 436 s.vv. Inim-ma-an-ni and Inim-ma-an-ni-zi. Note that the alphabetic order is as follows: ª, º, a, b, d, e, g, m, h, ˙, h, i, k, l, m, n, p, q, r, r, s, ß, s, t, †, u, w, y, z.

Appendix C: Notes on Transliteration and the Transcription of Proper Names Amarkikugak (Amarkiku) Amarsin, Amarsuen, Amarsuena > Amarzuªenak Amarzuªenak (Amarsin, Amarsuen, Amarsuena) Ammedurªanak (Enme(n)durana, Enme(n)duranna) Ammedurªankîk (Enme(n)duranki) Ammegalªanak (Enme(n)galana, Enme(n)galanna) Ammeluªanak (Enme(n)luana, Enme(n)luanna) Arraªil, Arraªilum > Harraªilum Assurbanipal > Assurbaniapli Assurbaniapli (Assurbanipal, Asurbanipal) Asumeªeren > Ayasurmen Asurbanipal > Assurbaniapli Asurmen > Ayasurmen Asusikildingir > Ayasusikilªanak Ayaªanepadda (Aªanepada, Aªannepada) Ayaªanzud (Aªanzu) Ayaªumêdug (Akalamdu, Akalamdug) Ayadimirmu (Adingirmu) Ayakigal (Akigal) Ayakurgal (Akurgal) Ayaparagê(si) (Abarage) Ayasurmen (Asumeªeren, Asurmen) Ayasusikilªanak (Asusikildingir) Badamu, Bagadamu, Bakadamu > Bakdamu Bakdamu (Badamu, Bagadamu, Bakadamu) Baraganidu > Paragannêdug Baragnamtara > Paragnamtarra Barahenidu > Paragannêdug Barakibad, Barakisumun, Baraki-TIL > Paragkiba Baranamtara, Baranamtarra > Paragnamtarra Barasagnudi > Paragsagnudîd Barsalnuna > Barsalnunak Barsalnunak (Barsalnuna, Barsalnunna) Barsalnunna > Barsalnunak Bilgames > Pabilgames Bubu > Uªu Damgalnun, Damgalnunaka > Damgalnunakak Damgalnunakak (Damgalnun, Damgalnunaka) Diªutûk (Diutu, Silimutu) Diutu > Diªutûk Eªabzûk (Eabzu) Eªannâbtum (Eanatum, Eannatum) Eabzu > Eªabzûk Eanatum, Eannatum > Eªannâbtum

241

Ebihªil > Yindinªil Eden (Edin) Edin > Eden Ekur (Kurlil) Enªakale (Enakale, Enakalle) Enªannâbtum (Enanatum, Enannatum) Enªardamu > Yin˙ardamu Enªentarzid (Enentarzi, Enentarzid, Enlitarzi) Enakale, Enakalle > Enªakale Enanatum, Enannatum > Enªannâbtum Enardamu > Yin˙ardamu Enbiªestar, Enbiªistar > ºInbiºastar Endaraªana, Endaraªanna > Entarahªanak Enentarzi, Enentarzid > Enªentarzid Engilsa > Engisa Engisa (Engilsa) Enheduªanak (Enheduana, Enheduanna) Enheduana, Enheduanna > Enheduªanak Enimannezid (Inimanizi) Enlitarzi > Enªentarzid Enmeªânu (ENxME-nu) Enme(n)baragesi > Enmeparagêsi Enme(n)durana > Ammedurªanak Enme(n)duranki > Ammedurªankîk Enme(n)duranna > Ammedurªanak Enme(n)galana, Enme(n)galanna > Ammegalªanak Enme(n)luana, Enme(n)luanna > Ammeluªanak Enmenuna > En-ME-nunak En-ME-nunak (Enmenuna, Enmenunna) Enmenunna > En-ME-nunak Enmeparagêsi (Enme(n)baragesi) Enmetena > Enmetênnâk Enmetênnâk (Enmetena, Entemena) Ennaªil > Óinnaªil Ennadagan > Óinnadagan Ennalum, Ennanum > Óinnanum Ennundaraªana, Ennundaraªanna > Ennuntarahªanak Ennuntarahªanak (Ennundaraªana, Ennundaraªanna) Ensipadzidªanak (Ensipaziana, Ensipazianna) Ensipaziana, Ensipazianna > Ensipadzidªanak Ensagkusana > Ensagkusuªanak Ensagkusuªanak (Ensagkusana, Ensakusana, Ensakusanna) Ensakusana, Ensakusanna > Ensagkusuªanak Entarahªanak (Endaraªana, Endaraªanna) Entemena > Enmetênnâk

242

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Eresªenimgennâk (Nininimgina) Ereshilisug (Ninhilisu, Ninhilisug) Ereskisalêsi (Ninkisalsi) Eriªenimgennâk (Iriªinimgina, Irikagina, Uruinimgina, Urukagina) Espum > ºAsbum Ezisagal > Ezisagmal Ezisagmal (Ezisagal) Ganªenkîkak (Ganenki) Ganenki > Ganªenkîkak Gankunsig > Gankunsigak Gankunsigak (Gankunsig) Gilgames > Pabilgames Ginak > Tunªak Girimêsi (Girimsi) Girimsi > Girimêsi Gis > Nintah Gisakidu, Gissakidu > Fessagkidug Gisur, Gusur > Fusur Fessagkidug (Gisakidu, Gissakidu) Fusur (Gisur, Gusur) Harraªilum (Arraªil, Arraªilum) Óinnaªil (Ennaªil) Óinnadagan (Ennadagan) Óinnanum (Ennalum, Ennanum) Hadanis (Hatanis) HAR.TU-asgi > HAR.TU-asgîk HAR.TU-asgîk (HAR.TU-asgi) Hatanis > Hadanis Hidaªar, HI-daªar > ˇabdayar Humma > Lumma Ibbidamu > Yibbiªdamu Ibbinilim > Yibbi†liªmu Iblulªil > Yiplusªil Ibrium > Yibriyum Ideªilum > Palaªilum Igrishalab, Igrishalam > Yigri¶halab Iksud > Yik¶ud Ikummari, Ikunmari > Yiqummari Iku(n)samagan > Yikunsamkan Iku(n)samas > Yikun¶ama¶ Il (Ila) Ila > Il

Ilkû, Ilkuª(u) > Yilqû Ilqesadwum > Yilqe¶adûm Iltasadum > Yilta¶adûm Inimanizi > Enimannezid Iplulªil > Yiplusªil Ipumsar, Ipumsar > Yiªpul¶arru Iriªinimgina, Irikagina > Eriªenimgennâk Irkabdamu > Yirkabdamu Irkugnunak (Irkununa, Irkununna) Irkununa, Irkununna > Irkugnunak Isidu > Yi¶du Isªardamu, Isardamu > Yisªardamu Isarmalik > Yi¶armalku Isbum > ºAsbum Isgimari, Iskimari > Yisqimari Iskunnunu > Yi¶kunnunu Iskurdaªar, Iskurdar > Yiskurdayar Isqimari > Yisqimari Istup(i)sar, Is†upsar > Yi¶†up¶arru Kubaba, Kubau > Kubbawûk Kubbawûk (Kubaba, Kubau) Kullassinabel > Kullassina(i)bêl Kullassina(i)bêl (Kullassinabel) Kumdamu, Kundamu > Qumdamu Kurlil > Ekur Lamgi > Yisqibaºli/Yisqibaºlum Lamgimari > Yisqimari Lugalªanemundu (Lugalannemundu) Lugalªanzud (Lugalanzu) Lugalªurase (Lugal-IB-e, Lugalure) Lugalªutu (Lugal-UD) Lugalanda > Lugaldimirda Lugalandanuhunga > Lugaldimirdanuhumma Lugalannemundu > Lugalªanemundu Lugalanzu > Lugalªanzud Lugaldimirda (Lugalanda) Lugaldimirdanuhumma (Lugalandanuhunga) Lugalgiparesi > Lugalkisalêsi Lugal-IB-e > Lugalªurase LUGAL-i†er (Sarrumiter) Lugalkigala > Lugalkigalla Lugalkigalla (Lugalkigala) Lugalkigin(n)edudu, Lugalkinesdudu, Lugalki(n)genesdudu, Lugalkinis(e)dudu, Lugalkisaresdudûd Lugalkisalêsi (Lugalgiparesi, Lugalkisalsi) Lugalkisalsi > Lugalkisalêsi

Appendix C: Notes on Transliteration and the Transcription of Proper Names Lugalkisaresdudûd (Lugalkigin(n)edudu, Lugalkinesdudu, Lugalki(n)genesdudu, Lugalkinis(e)dudu) Lugalnamnirsum > Lugalnamnirsumma Lugalnamnirsumma (Lugalnamnirsum) Lugalsila > Lugalsilâ(si) Lugalsilasi > Lugalsilâsi Lugalsilâ(si) (Lugalsila, Lugaltar) Lugalsilâsi (Lugalsilasi, Lugaltarsi) Lugalsaengur > Lugalsagdamalak Lugalsagdamalak (Lugalsaengur, Lugalsagengur) Lugalsagengur > Lugalsagdamalak Lugalsagepadda (Lugalsapada) Lugalsapada > Lugalsagepadda Lugaltar > Lugalsilâ(si) Lugaltarsi > Lugalsilâsi Lugal-UD > Lugalªutu Lugalure > Lugalªurase Lugalzagesi > Lugalzagêsi Lugalzagêsi (Lugalzagesi, Lugalzaggesi) Lugalzaggesi > Lugalzagêsi Luma > Lumma Lumma (Humma, Luma) Lunanna > Lunannâk Lunannâk (Lunanna) Lupad, Lupada > Lupadda Lupadda (Lupad, Lupada) Manªi¶tu¶u (Manistusu, Manistusu) Manistusu, Manistusu > Manªi¶tu¶u Meªanêdug (Meanedu, Meannedu) Meªanêsi (Meanesi, Meannesi) Meanedu > Meªanêdug Meanesi > Meªanêsi Meannedu > Meªanêdug Meannesi > Meªanêsi Mebarasi > Meparagêsi Melamªanak (Melamana, Melamanna) Melamana, Melamanna > Melamªanak Melamkis, Melamkisi > Melamkisîk Melamkisîk (Melamkis, Melamkisi) Mennuna > Mennunak Mennunak (Mennuna, Mennunna) Mennunna > Mennunak Menunêsi (Menunsi) Menunsi > Menunêsi Meparagêsi (Mebarasi) Mesªanepadda (Mesanepada, Mesannepada) Mesªumêdug (Meskalamdu, Meskalamdug)

243

Mesalim > Me¶alim Mesanepada, Mesannepada > Mesªanepadda Mesilim > Me¶alim Meskalamdu, Meskalamdug > Mesªumêdug Meskiªam(gaser) (Meskiaggaser, Meskingaser) Meskiªamnannâk (Meskiagnanna) Meskiªamnunak (Meskiagnuna, Meskiagnunna) Meskiaggaser > Meskiªam(gaser) Meskiagnanna > Meskiªamnannâk Meskiagnun, Meskiagnuna > Mesnunekiªam Meskiagnuna, Meskiagnunna > Meskiªamnunak Meskigala > Meskigalla Meskigalla (Meskigala) Meskingaser > Meskiªam(gaser) Mesnunekiªam (Meskiagnun, Meskiagnuna) Me¶alim (Mesalim, Mesilim) Mugêsi (Mugsi) Mugsi > Mugêsi Naºamanu (Namanu) Nabonidus > Nabûnaªid Nabûkudurriußur (Nebuchadnezzar) Nabûnaªid (Nabonidus) Namanu > Naºamanu Namhani > Namhanne Namhanne (Namhani, Nammah(a)ni) Nammah(a)ni > Namhanne Nangislisma > Nanzizlidarku Nanzizlidarku (Nangislisma) Naramsin, Naramsuen > Naramsîn/Naramsuyin Naramsîn/Naramsuyin (Naramsin, Naramsuen) Nebuchadnezzar > Nabûkudurriußur Ninbanda > Nintur Ninhilisu, Ninhilisug > Ereshilisug Nininimgina > Eresªenimgennâk Ninkisalsi > Ereskisalêsi Nintah (Gis, Nita, Us) Nintuagazi > Ninturªagazid Nintur (Ninbanda) Ninturªagazid (Nintuagazi) Nita > Nintah Nizi, NI-zi > ºIz(z)i Pabilgagaltuku (Pabilgaltuku) Pabilgaltuku > Pabilgagaltuku Pabilgames (Bilgames, Gilgames) Palaªilum (Ideªilum) Paragannêdug (Baraganidu, Barahenidu) Paragkiba (Barakibad, Barakisumun, Baraki-TIL)

244

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Paragnamtarra (Baragnamtara, Baranamtara, Baranamtarra) Paragsagnudîd (Barasagnudi) Puªabum (Puabi) Puabi > Puªabum Puzurªestar, Puzurªistar > Puzurºastar Puzurºastar (Puzurªestar, Puzurªistar) Puzur¶amus (Puzursamus) Puzursamus > Puzur¶amus Qumdamu (Kumdamu, Kundamu) Rimus > Rimu¶ Rimu¶ (Rimus, Rimus) Rimus > Rimu¶ Risªadad > Rishadda Rishadda (Risªadad) Saªumu > ‡aªumu Sagisu > ‡aqi¶(u) Samiªu > ‡amiºu Sargon > ‡arrumken Sarkalisarri > ‡arkali¶arre Sasag > Sassag Sassag (Sasag, Sagsag, Sasa) Sennacherib > Sînahhêriba Silimutu > Diªutûk Simudar, Simudara > Zimudar Sînahhêriba (Sennacherib) Subur (Subur) Sulgir (Sulgi) Íilªahlu (Ziªalu) ‡aªumu (Saªumu) ‡amiºu (Samiªu) ‡aqi¶(u) (Sagisu, Sagisu) ‡arkali¶arre (Sarkalisarri, Sarkalisarri) ‡arrumken (Sargon, Sarrukin) ‡ibum (Sebum, Sibum) ‡umbaºli (Sumbeli, Tagge) Sagisu > ‡aqi¶(u) Sagsag, Sasa > Sassag Sarkalisarri > ‡arkali¶arre Sarrukin > ‡arrumken Sarrumiter > LUGAL-i†er Sebum, Sibum > ‡ibum Subur > Subur

Sulgi > Sulgir Sumbeli > ‡umbaºli Tagge > ‡umbaºli Tunªak (Agaªak, Ginak) ˇabdayar (Hidaªar, HI-daªar) Uªu (Bubu) Udulkalama > Udulkalamak Udulkalamak (Udulkalama, Udulkalamma, Utulkalamma) Udulkalamma > Udulkalamak Umdalulu (Undalulu) Umzig (Unzi) Undalulu > Umdalulu Unkenªumêdug (Unkenkalamdu) Unkenkalamdu > Unkenªumêdug Unzi > Umzig Urªakkilak (Ureslila, Ureslilla) Urªur (Urur) Urani > Uranne Uranne (Urani, Urni) Ureslila, Ureslilla > Urªakkilak Urlama, Urlamma > Urlammarak Urlammarak (Urlama, Urlamma) Urluma, Urlumma > Urlummâk Urlummâk (Urluma, Urlumma) Urnamma > Urnammâk Urnammâk (Urnamma, Urnammu) Urnammu > Urnammâk Urnanse > Urnansêk Urnansêk (Urnanse) Urni > Uranne Urpabilsag > Urpabilsamakak Urpabilsamakak (Urpabilsag) Ursagkes > Ursamkesak Ursamkesak (Ursagkes) Ursul(paªêk) (Ursul) Ursul > Ursul(paªêk) Uruªinimgina, Urukagina > Eriªenimgennâk Urur > Urªur Urzababa > Urzababâk Urzababâk (Urzababa) Urzae > Urzagªêk Urzagªêk (Urzae, Urzage) Urzage > Urzagªêk Usardu > Usurêdug Us > Nintah

Appendix C: Notes on Transliteration and the Transcription of Proper Names Usurdu > Usurêdug Usurêdug (Usardu, Usurdu) Utulkalamma > Udulkalamak Yaºdunlim (Yahdunlim) Yaburliªmu (Aburlim) Yaddubdamu (Adubdamu) Yagurliªmu (Agurlim) Yahdunlim > Yaºdunlim Ya¶maºhaddu (Yasmahaddu) Yasmahaddu > Ya¶maºhaddu Yiªpul¶arru (Ipumsar, Ipumsar) Yibbiªdamu (Ibbidamu) Yibbi†liªmu (Ibbinilim) Yibriyum (Ibrium) Yigri¶halab (Igrishalab, Igrishalam) Yik¶ud (Iksud) Yikun¶ama¶ (Iku(n)samas) Yikunsamkan (Iku(n)samagan) Yilqe¶adûm (Ilqesadwum)

Yilqû (Ilkû, Ilkuª(u)) Yilta¶adûm (Iltasadum) Yindinªil (Abihªil, Ebihªil) Yin˙ardamu (Enªardamu, Enardamu) Yiplusªil (Iblulªil, Iplulªil) Yiqummari (Ikummari, Ikunmari) Yirkabdamu (Irkabdamu) Yi¶armalku (Isarmalik) Yi¶du (Isidu) Yi¶kunnunu (Iskunnunu) Yi¶†up¶arru (Istup(i)sar, Is†upsar) Yisªardamu (Isªardamu, Isardamu) Yiskurdayar (Iskurdaªar, Iskurdar) Yisqibaºli/Yisqibaºlum (Lamgi) Yisqimari (Isgimari, Iskimari, Isqimari, Lamgimari) Ziªalu > Íilªahlu Zimudar (Simudar, Simudara, Zimudara) Zimudara > Zimudar

II. Divine Names ºAstar (Astar, Estar, Istar) Abªu (Aba, Abba, Abu) Aba, Abba, Abu > Abªu Adda > Hadda Amamugeb/Amanugig (Amanumudib) Amanumudib > Amamugeb/Amanugig Astar > ºAstar Astarat > Ba¶¶urat Baba > Bawu Baraenlil(e)gar(a), Baraenlil(e)garra > Paragªellilemarra Ba¶¶urat (Astarat, Estarat, Istarat) Bau, Bawu > Bawu Bawu (Baba, Bau, Bawu) Dagan > Dagan Dagan (Dagan) Damgalnun, Damgalnuna > Damgalnunak Damgalnunak (Damgalnun, Damgalnuna, Damgalnunna) Damgalnunna > Damgalnunak Dimirmah (Dingirmah) Dingirmah > Dimirmah

245

Dumuzi > Dumuzid Dumuziabzu > Dumuzidªabzûk Dumuzid (Dumuzi) Dumuzidªabzûk (Dumuziabzu) Ellil (Enlil) Enki > Enkîk Enkîk (Enki) Enlil > Ellil, Yillilu Eresmah (Ninmah) Eresmeteªamânnâk (Ninmeteamana) Esªirnun (Esirnun) Esirnun > Esªirnun Estar > ºAstar Estarat > Ba¶¶urat Gatumdu > Fatumdug Fatumdug (Gatumdu) Hadda (Adda) Illil > Yillilu Ilmatim > Ilumaªtim Ilumaªtim (Ilmatim)

246

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Inªanak (Inana, Inanna, Innana) Inana, Inanna, Innana > Inªanak Istar > ºAstar Istarat > Ba¶¶urat Lugalªurubak (Lugalurub, Lugal-URUxKÁR) Lugalurub, Lugal-URUxKÁR > Lugalªurubak Namma (Nammu) Nammu > Namma Nidaba > Nissabak Ninªazu (Ninasu, Ninazu) Ninªegalak (Ninegal, Ninegala, Ninegalla) Ninªimmâk (Ninimma) Ninªurtâk (Ninurta) Ninªusanak (Ninsiana, Ninsianna) Ninasu, Ninazu > Ninªazu Ninegal, Ninegala, Ninegalla > Ninªegalak Ningidru > Ninmesdurûk Ningirsu > Ninmirsûk Ninmesdurûk (Ningidru) Ninmirsûk (Ningirsu) Ninhursag, Ninhursaga > Ninhursamak Ninhursamak (Ninhursag, Ninhursaga) Ninimma > Ninªimmâk Ninmah > Eresmah Ninmeteamana > Eresmeteªamânnâk Ninmu > Ninsig

Ninnisig, Ninsar > Ninsig Ninsiana, Ninsianna > Ninªusanak Ninsig (Ninmu, Ninnisig, Ninsar) Ninsuburak (Ninsubur, Ninsubura) Ninsubur, Ninsubura > Ninsuburak Nintu > Nintur Nintur (Nintu) Ninurta > Ninªurtâk Nisaba, Nissaba > Nissabak Nissabak (Nidaba, Nisaba, Nissaba) Pabilsag > Pabilsamak Pabilsamak (Pabilsag) Paragªellilemarra (Baraenlil(e)gar(a), Baraenlil(e)garra) Sin > Sîn/Suyin Sîn/Suyin (Sin, Suen) Suen > Sîn/Suyin Sul-MUSxPA (Sul-MUSxPA, Sulutul) ‡amus (Samus) Samus > ‡amus Sul-MUSxPA, Sulutul > Sul-MUSxPA Yillilu (Enlil, Illil)

III. Geographical and Topographical Names Aksak > Aksâk Aksâk (Aksak) BÁHAR.É (Eªeden, Eªedin) Der > Der Der (Der) Eªadâk (Eadda) Eªanak (Eana, Eanna) Eªeden, Eªedin > BÁHAR.É Eªengur, Eªengura > Eªengurak Eªengurak (Eªengur, Eªengura, Eªengurra) Eªengurra > Eªengurak Eadda > Eªadâk Eana, Eanna > Eªanak

Ekiri (Esar) Enegi, Enegir > Ennegir Ennegir (Enegi, Enegir) Eridu > Eridug Eridug (Eridu) Esar > Ekiri Esnuna > Esnunak Esnunak (Esnuna, Esnunna) Esnunna > Esnunak Girsu > Firsu Guªabak (Guaba, Guabba) Guªedenak (Guedena, Guedenna) Guaba, Guabba > Guªabak Guedena, Guedenna > Guªedenak

Appendix C: Notes on Transliteration and the Transcription of Proper Names Feskullabak (Kulªaba, Kulaba) Firsu (Girsu)

Manuwat (Manuwat) Manuwat (Manuwat)

Hursagkalama, Hursagkalamma > Hursamkalamak Hursamkalamak (Hursagkalama, Hursagkalamma)

Nigin > Nimen Nimen (Nigin, Nimin, Nina) Nimin, Nina > Nimen Nutur > Nutur Nutur (Nutur)

Ibªal > Ibºal Ibºal (Ibªal, Ibal) Ibal > Ibºal Imsaga, Imsagga > Imsam Imsam (Imsaga, Imsagga) Kuªar(a) (Kuara, Kuwara) Kuara > Kuªar(a) Kulªaba, Kulaba > Feskullabak Kulaba, Kullab > Kullab Kullab (Kulaba, Kullab, Kullaba) Kullaba > Kullab Kuwara > Kuªar(a)

Parsir (Pasir, Pasirra) Pasir, Pasirra > Parsir Sagepada > Sagepadda Sagepadda (Sagepada, Sapada) Sapada > Sagepadda Tirkug (Tirku) Tirku > Tirkug

247

This page intentionally left blank.

Abbreviations

A AB ADFU ADOG AfO AJA AJSL AnOr AO AOAT AoF AOS APA Archaic Cities ARES ARET

ArOr AS Ashm. ASJ ATU AuOr AUWE AVO BaF BAH BaM BAR IntSer BASOR BBVO BBVOT BCT BiMes BIN BiOr

Asiatic collection (object siglum, Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago) Assyriologische Bibliothek Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Archiv für Orientforschung American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Analecta Orientalia Antiquités orientales (object siglum, Musée du Louvre, Paris) Alter Orient und Altes Testament Altorientalische Forschungen American Oriental Series Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica Archaic List of Cities (Uruk III lexical composition; ATU 3: 145–50) Archivi reali di Ebla, studi Archivi reali di Ebla, testi 1: Archi 1984a 2: Edzard 1981 3: Archi and Biga 1982 5: Edzard 1984 13: Fronzaroli 2003 Archív Orientální Assyriological Studies Ashmolean (object siglum, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) Acta Sumerologica Archäische Texte aus Uruk 3: Englund and Nissen 1993 Aula Orientalis Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Endberichte Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients Baghdader Forschungen Bibliothèque archéologique et historique Baghdader Mitteilungen British Archaeological Reports, International Series Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderer Orient Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderer Orient, Texte Birmingham: Cuneiform Tablets 2: Watson 1993 Bibliotheca Mesopotamica Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of J. B. Nies 8: Hackman 1958 Bibliotheca Orientalis

249

250 BJVF BM BMC BMQ BPOA BSOAS BT CAD CAH

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Berliner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte British Museum (tablet siglum, British Museum, London) Bryn Mawr College (tablet siglum) British Museum Quarterly Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Brockman Tablets (tablet siglum, Brockman Collection, University of Haifa) The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago The Cambridge Ancient History I/1: Edwards et al. 1970 I/2: Edwards et al. 1971 CBS Catalogue of the Babylonian Section (tablet siglum, Babylonian Section, University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia) CDLB Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin CDLI Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative, University of California at Los Angeles and Max Planck Institute for the History of Science / CDLJ Cuneiform Digital Library Journal CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East CM Cuneiform Monographs CMAO Contributi e materiali di archeologia orientale CNIP Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications CPOA Civilizations du Proche-Orient, Série I: Archéologie et Environnement CRAIBL Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, comptes rendus CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 5: King 1898 10: King 1900 25: King 1909 32: King 1912 36: Gadd 1921 50: Sollberger 1972 CTN Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 4: Wiseman and Black 1996 CUNES Cornell University, (Department of) Near Eastern Studies (tablet siglum, Cornell University, Ithaca) CUSAS Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 11: Visicato and Westenholz 2010 DamM Damaszener Mitteilungen Diri lexical series diri = (w)atru (MSL 15) DP Allotte de la Fuÿe 1908–20 DV Drevnosti Vostocnyja, Trudy Vostocnoj Komissii Imperatorskago Moskovskago Archeologiceskago Obscestva Ean. (royal inscription of) Eªannâbtum (= “Eannatum”) ED LGN Early Dynastic List of Geographical Name (MEE 3: 227–41) ED Lu C Early Dynastic list of professions (MSL 12: 14–15; Taylor 2003) ED Lu E Early Dynastic list of professions (MSL 12: 16–21; MEE 3: 34–46) ED Word List A Early Dynastic lexical composition (Civil 2008) Emar VI Recherches au pays d’Astata: Emar, VI: Textes sumériens et accadiens En. I (royal inscription of) Enªannâbtum (= “Enannatum”) I Ent. (royal inscription of) Enmetênnâk (= “Entemena”) EVEM Eski Vark Eserleri Müzesi (object siglum, Eski Vark Eserleri Müzesi, Istanbul) ETCSL Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, Oriental Institute, University of Oxford

FAOS Freiburger altorientalische Studien Gudea Cyl. A Cylinder A of Gudeªa Gudea Cyl. B Cylinder B of Gudeªa

Abbreviations Gudea St. B HANES HdO HSAO HSSt HUCA Hh ILN IM IstM ITT

Izi JA JAA JAC JAOS JCS JEOL JHS JNES JRAS JSOT LAK Lug. MAD MAM MARI MC MDAI MDOG MDP MEE

MHEM MMAI MS MSAE MSL

MSVO MVAG MVN

Statue B of Gudeªa History of the Ancient Near East, Studies Handbuch der Orientalistik Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient Harvard Semitic Studies Hebrew Union College Annual lexical series HAR-ra = hubullu (MSL 5–11) Illustrated London News Iraq Museum (object siglum, Iraq Museum, Baghdad) Istanbuler Mitteilungen Inventaire des tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Impérial Ottoman 3: de Genouillac 1912 5: de Genouillac 1921 Lexical series izi = isatu (MSL 13: 154–226) Journal asiatique Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Journal of Ancient Civilizations Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Cuneiform Studies Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Deimel 1922 (royal inscription of) Lugaldimirda (= “Lugalanda”) Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary Mission archéologique de Mari Mari, annales de recherches interdisciplinaires Mesopotamian Civilizations Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique en Iran, Mission de Susiane Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse Materiali epigrafici di Ebla 3: Pettinato 1981 4: Pettinato 1982 10: Mander 1990 Mesopotamian History and Environment, Memoirs Mémoires de la Mission archéologique en Iran, Mission de Susiane Manuscript Schøyen (tablet siglum, Schøyen Collection, Oslo) Materiali e studi archeologici di Ebla Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon / Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 6: Landsberger 1958 11: Reiner 1974 12: Civil 1969a 13: Civil 1971 14: Civil 1979 15: Civil 2004 Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft Materiali per il vocabulario neosumerico 1: Pettinato and Waetzoldt 1974 3: Owen 1975 7: Pettinato and Picchioni 1978 17: Pettinato 1993

251

252 MVS NABU Names Ni Nik Nik 2 Nin NPL NTSS OA OBO Ocnus OECT

OIC OIP OLA OLP OLZ OPKF Or P PBF PBS

PIHANS PSD QDL QuSem 5R RA RAI RGTC RIMA RIME RlA RO RSO RT RTC SAA SAALT SANE SAOC SEb SEL SKL SMS SpTU StOr

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Materiali per il vocabolario sumerico Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires Names: Journal of the American Name Society Nippur (tablet siglum, Eski Vark Eserleri Müzesi, Istanbul) Nikol’skij 1908 Nikol’skij 1915 Nin: Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity Names and Professions List (ED lexical composition; Archi 1981b and 1984b) Jestin 1957 Oriens Antiquus Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Ocnus: Quaderni della Scuola di Specializzazione in Archeologia/Beni Archeologici dell’Alma Mater Studiorum — Università di Bologna Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 2: Langdon 1923 5: Gurney and Kramer 1976 Oriental Institute Communications Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund Orientalia, Nova Series CDLI number Prähistorische Bronzefunde Publications of the Babylonian Section (of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania) 13: Legrain 1922 Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica — Università di Firenze Quaderni di Semitistica Pinches 1880–84 Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie Rocznik Orientalistyczny Rivista degli studi orientali Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes Thureau-Dangin 1903 State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria, Literary Texts Sources from the Ancient Near East Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization Studi eblaiti Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico The Sumerian King List (Sumerian literary composition) Syro-Mesopotamian Studies Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk 3: von Weiher 1988 Studia Orientalia

Abbreviations StPohl (SM) TAPS TAVO TBC TCBI

TCL

TCS TIM TMH

TSA TSS UAVA UCLM UDT UE UET

Ukg. UM UMM Urn. VAT VE VO VS

VT WA WAW WB WO WVDOG WZKM YBC YNER YOS

ZA

253

Studia Pohl (Series Maior) Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Texts from the (Yale) Babylonian Collection Le tavolette cuneiformi . . . della Banca d’Italia 1: Pomponio, Visicato, and Westenholz 2006 2: Pomponio, Stol, and Westenholz 2006 Musée du Louvre — Département des Antiquités Orientales: Textes cunéiformes 5: de Genouillac 1922 17: Dossin 1933 Texts from Cuneiform Sources Texts in the Iraq Museum 9: van Dijk 1976 Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection 5: Pohl 1935 6: van Dijk and Geller 2003 de Genouillac 1909 Jestin 1937 Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie University of California: Lowie Museum (object signature) Nies 1920 Ur Excavations Ur Excavations, Texts. 3: Legrain 1937–47 7: Gurney 1974 (royal inscription of) Eriªenimgennâk (= “Urukagina”) University Museum (tablet siglum, Babylonian Section, University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia) University Museum Monograph (royal inscription of) Urnansêk (= “Urnanse”) Vorderasiatische Abteilung Tontafeln (tablet siglum, Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin) Vocabolario di Ebla (MEE 4: 115–343) Vicino Oriente Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 2: Zimmern 1912 14: Förtsch 1916 25: Marzahn 1991 27: Marzahn 1996 Vetus Testamentum Western Asiatic Antiquities (object siglum, British Museum, London) Writings from the Ancient World Weld-Blundell Collection (object siglum, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) Die Welt des Orients Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Yale Babylonian Collection (tablet siglum, Yale University, New Haven) Yale Near Eastern Researches Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts 4: Keiser 1919 11: van Dijk et al. 1985 Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete / Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie

Bibliography

Abu al-Soof, B. 1967 The Relevance of the Diyala Sequence to South Mesopotamian Sites. Iraq 29: 133–42. Adams, R. McC. 1981 Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Alberti, A., and F. Pomponio 1986 Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic Texts from Ur Edited in UET 2, Supplement. StPohl SM 13. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Algaze, G. 1983–84 Private Houses and Graves at Ingharra: A Reconsideration. Mesopotamia 18–19: 135–93. Ali, F. A. 1973 New Text of Enannatum I. Sumer 29: 27–30. Allotte de la Fuÿe, M. F. 1908–20 Documents présargoniques. Paris: Leroux. 1912 Notes sumériennes. RA 9: 143–54. Alster, B. 1990 Contributions to the Study of Sumerian Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad, 1: Collations to Innin-sà-gur4-ra: TIM IX 20–26. NABU 1990/100: 79–81. 1997 Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections. Bethesda, MD: CDL. 2005 Nanse and Her Fish. Pp. 1–18 in Y. Sefati et al. (eds.), “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Ambos, C. 2004 Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Dresden: ISLET. Amiet, P. 1966 Elam. Auvers-sur-Oise: Archée. 1967 Département des antiquités orientales et section des arts musulmans. Pp. 1–19 in A. Parrot and H. Adhemar (eds.), Vingt ans d’acquisitions au Musée du Louvre, 1947–1967: Orangerie des Tuileries, Paris 16 décembre 1967–mars 1968. Paris: Ministère d’État Affaires Culturelles / Réunion des Musées Nationaux. 1976 L’art d’Agadé au Musée du Louvre. Paris: Musées Nationaux. 1980 La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque. 2nd ed. Paris: CNRS. 1985 La glyptique de Mari: État de la question. MARI 4: 475–85. 1986 Le problème de l’iconographie divine en Mésopotamie dans la glyptique antérieure à l’époque d’Agadé. CMAO 1: 1–65. 1987 A Statue of Eannatum, Prince of Lagash. Pp. 30–33 in The Menil Collection: A Selection from the Paleolithic to the Modern Era. New York: Abrams. Andrae, W. 1922 Die archäischen Ischtar-Tempel in Assur. WVDOG 39. Leipzig: Hinrich. Anonymous 1985 La terra tra i due fiumi: Venti anni di archeologia italiana in Medio Oriente; La Mesopotamia dei tesori. Turin: Il Quadrante.

254

Bibliography 2001 2003

Archi, A. 1981a 1981b 1984a

255

Le Mésopotamie: Entre le Tigre et l’Euphrate (24 mars–15 Juillet 2001). Taipei: National Museum of History. Archéologie. Drouot-Montaigne: (ventes du) lundi 17 mars 2003 . . . (et) mardi 18 Mars 2003 . . . [Piasa auction catalogue, Paris].

I rapporti tra Ebla e Mari. SEb 4: 129–66. La “Lista di nomi e professioni” ad Ebla. SEb 4: 177–204. Testi amministrativi: Assegnazioni di tessuti (Archivio L.2769). ARET 1. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. 1984b The “Names and Professions List”: More Fragments from Ebla. RA 78: 171–74. 1985 Le syncronisme entre les rois de Mari et les rois d’Ebla au IIIe millénaire. MARI 4: 47–51. 1986 Die ersten zehn Könige von Ebla. ZA 76: 213–17. 1987a The “Sign-list” from Ebla. Pp. 91–113 in C. H. Gordon, G. A. Rendsburg, and N. H. Winter (eds.), Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Languages, vol. 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1987b Les titres de en et lugal à Ebla et des cadeaux pour le roi de Kish. MARI 5: 37–52. 1990 Données épigraphiques éblaïtes et production artistique. RA 84: 101–5. 1993a Divinités sémitiques et divinités de substrat: Le cas d’Ishara et d’Istar à Ebla. MARI 7: 71–78. 1993b Fifteen Years of Studies in Ebla: A Summary. OLZ 88: 461–71. 1995 Gli Archivi Reali e l’organizzazione istituzionale e amministrativa protosiriana. Pp. 112–19 in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, and G. Scandone Matthiae (eds.), Ebla: Alle origini della civiltà urbana; Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Milan: Electa. 1996 Chronologie relative des archives d’Ébla. Pp. 11–28 in J.-M. Durand (ed.), Mari, Ébla et les Hourrites: Dix ans de travaux, pt. I. Amurru 1. Paris: ERC. 2001 The King-Lists from Ebla. Pp. 1–13 in T. Abusch et al. (eds.), Historiography in the Cuneiform World: Proceedings of the XLV e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, 1: Harvard University. Bethesda, MD: CDL. 2002 Prepositions at Ebla. Pp. 1–21 in C. H. Gordon and G. Rendsburg (eds.), Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Languages, vol. 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2004 Translation of Gods: Kumarpi, Enlil, Dagan/nisaba, Halki. Or 73: 319–36. 2005 The Head of Kura — The Head of ªAdabal. JNES 64: 81–100. Archi, A., and M. G. Biga 1982 Testi amministrativi di vario contenuto (Archivio L.2769: TM.75.G.3000–4101). ARET 3. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. 2003 A Victory over Mari and the Fall of Ebla. JCS 55: 1–44. Archi, A., M. G. Biga, and L. Milano 1988 Studies in Eblaite Prosopography. Pp. 205–306 in A. Archi (ed.), Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving. ARES 1. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Archi, A., P. Piacentini, and F. Pomponio 1993 I nomi di luogo dei testi di Ebla (ARET I–IV, VII–X e altri documenti editi ed inediti). ARES 2. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Arnaud, D. 1982 Les textes cunéiformes suméro-accadiens des campagnes 1979–1980 à Ras Shamra-Ougarit. Syria 59: 199–222. 1987 Textes de la bibliothèque: Transcriptions et traductions. Emar VI/4. Paris: ERC. 1994 Texte aus Larsa. BBVOT 3. Berlin: Reimer. 2007 Documents à contenu “historique”, de l’époque présargonique au VIe siècle. AuOr 25: 5–84. Aruz, J., and R. Wallenfels (eds.) 2003 Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium b.c. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Asher-Greve, J. M. 1995–96 Reading the Horned Crown: A Review Article. AfO 42–43: 181–89.

256 Attinger, P. 1984 1993

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Enki et Ninhursama. ZA 74: 1–52. Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di “dire.” OBO Sonderband. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2005 À propos de AK “faire” (II). ZA 95: 208–75. 2007 Addenda et corrigenda à Attinger dans Mittermayer 2006. NABU 2007/37: 37–39. 2008 À propos de quelques lectures: NABU 2008/72: 103–4. Auraibiy, H. A. 2003–4 Result of Prospecting in Um Al-Akarib, 2001–2002. Sumer 52: 242*–93*. [Arabic] Bänder, D. 1995 Die Siegesstele des Naramsîn und ihre Stellung in Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte. Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte 103. Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner. Bär, J. 1999 “Djemdet Nasr” in Assur? Pp. 1–52 in B. Böck, E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, and T. Richter (eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger. AOAT 267. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 2003 Die älteren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur: Stratigraphie, Architektur und Funde eines altorientalischen Heiligtums von der zweiten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v.Chr. WVDOG 105. Saarbrücken: SDV. Banks, E. J. 1903–4 Report from Bismya, II. AJSL 20: 260–68 [ed. R. F. Harper]. 1904a Reports nos. 19–21. The Biblical World 24: 137–46. 1904b The Evolution of the Babylonian Brick. The Biblical World 24: 218–23. 1904–5 The Oldest Statue in the World. AJSL 21: 57–59. 1905–6a The Bismya Temple. AJSL 22: 29–34. 1905–6b Plain Stone Vases from Bismya. AJSL 22: 35–40. 1912 Bismya, or the Lost City of Adab: A Story of Adventure, of Exploration, and of Excavations among the Ruins of the Oldest of the Buried Cities of Babylonia. New York: Putnam’s Sons. Barnett, R. D. 1963 Xenophon and the Wall of Media. JHS 83: 1–26. Barrelet, M.-T. 1974 La “figure du roi” dans l’iconographie et dans les textes depuis Ur-Nanse jusqu’à la fin de la Ire dynastie de Babylone. Pp. 27–138 in P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royauté: XIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Paris: Geuthner. 1984 Le décor du bol en or de Hasanlu et les interprétations proposées à son sujet. Pp. 13–176 in M.-T. Barrelet (ed.), Problèmes concernant les Hurrites, vol. II. Paris: ERC. Barton, G. A. 1913 The Names of Two Kings of Adab. JAOS 33: 295–96. 1928 Report of the Director of the School in Baghdad. BASOR 32: 17–19. Basmachi, F. 1994 Cylinder Seals in the Iraq Museum: Uruk and Jamdat Nasr Periods. Edubba 3. London: NABU. Basmachi, F., and D. O. Edzard 1958 Statue of a Son of Enannatum I in the Iraq Museum. Sumer 14: 109–13. Battini, L. 2005–6 Les aménagements à l’air libre dans la cour du Temple Ovale. AfO 51: 235–41. 2006 Un nom pour la divinité adorée dans le “Sin Temple” à Khafadjé. Akkadica 127: 93–94. Bauer, J. 1969 Zum Totenkult im altsumerischen Lagasch. Pp. 107–14 in W. Voigt (ed.), XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag: Vom 21. bis 27. Juli 1968 in Würzburg. ZDMG Suppl. 1. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. 1972 Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch. StPohl 9. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. 1975 Zum /dr/-Phonem des Sumerischen. WO 8: 1–9. 1985a Altorientalistische Notizen (21–30). Höchberg [self-published]. 1985b Review of Steible 1982a and 1982b. OLZ 80: cols. 147–50. 1987a Altorientalische Notizen (31–44). Höchberg [self-published].

Bibliography 1987b 1989–90 1998

257

Ortsnamen in den frühen Texten aus Ur. WO 18: 5–6. Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden in Leningrad. AfO 36–37: 76–91. Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der mesopotamischen Geschichte. Pp. 431–585 in J. Bauer, R. K. Englund, and M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. OBO 160/1. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Beaulieu, P.-A. 1994 Antiquarianism and the Concern for the Past in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 28: 37–42. Becker, A. 1993 Uruk: Kleinfunde, I: Stein. AUWE 6. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Beckman, G. 1998 Istar of Nineveh Reconsidered. JCS 50: 1–10. Behm-Blancke, M. R. 1979 Das Tierbild in der altmesopotamischen Rundplastik: Eine Untersuchung zum Stilwandel des frühsumerischen Rundbildes. BaF 1. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Behrens, H. 1998 Die Ninegalla-Hymne: Die Wohnungnahme Inannas in Nippur in altbabylonischer Zeit. FAOS 21. Stuttgart: Steiner. Behrens, H., and J. Klein 1998–2001 Ninegalla. RlA 9: 342–47. Behrens, H., and H. Steible 1983 Glossar zu den altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. FAOS 6. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Bergmann, E. 1964 Untersuchungen zu syllabisch geschriebenen sumerischen Texten. ZA 56: 1–43. Berlejung, A. 1997 Washing the Mouth: The Consecration of Divine Images in Mesopotamia. Pp. 45–72 in K. van der Toorn (ed.), The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Biblical Exegesis & Theology 21. Leuven: Peeters. Beyer, D. 2004 Quelques réflexions sur les contraintes spatiales et les problèmes d’échelle dans le décor des sceaux du Proche-Orient antique. Ktèma 29: 39–49. 2007 Les sceaux de Mari au IIIe millénaire: Observations sur la documentation ancienne et les données nouvelles des Villes I et II. Akh Purattim 1: 231–60. Beyer, D., and M. Jean-Marie 2007 Le temple du DA III de la déesse Ninhursag à Mari: Les dépots votifs du lieu très saint. Akh Purattim 2: 75–122. Biga, M. G. 1992 Les vêtements neufs de l’Empereur. NABU 1992/19: 16–17. 1995 I rapporti diplomatici nel Periodo Protosiriano. Pp. 140–47 in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, and G. Scandone Matthiae (eds.), Ebla: Alle origini della civiltà urbana; Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Milan: Electa. 2003 The Reconstruction of a Relative Chronology for the Ebla Texts. Or 72: 345–67. 2007–8 Buried among the Living at Ebla? Funerary Practices and Rites in a XXIV Cent. b.c. Syrian Kingdom. Scienze dell’Antichità 14/1: 249–75. 2008 Au-delà des frontières: Guerre et diplomatie à Ébla. Or 77: 289–334. 2010 Tra Menfi ed Ebla. Pp. 23–40 in L’Egitto tra storia e letteratura. Torino: ACME-AdArte. Biggs, R. D. 1973 On Regional Cuneiform Handwritings in Third Millennium Mesopotamia. Or 42: 39–46. 1974 Inscriptions from Tell Abu Íalabikh. OIP 99. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1976 Inscriptions from al-Hiba–Lagash: The First and Second Seasons. BiMes 3. Malibu: Undena. Biggs, R. D., and J. N. Postgate 1978 Inscriptions from Abu Salabikh, 1975. Iraq 40: 101–17.

258 Black, J. 1991 2005

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Eme-sal Cult Songs and Prayers. AuOr 9: 23–36. Songs of the Goddess Aruru. Pp. 39–62 in Y. Sefati et al. (eds.), “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Munuscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger. AOAT 267. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Boehmer, R. M. 1964 Datierte Glyptik der Akkade-Zeit. Pp. 42–56 in K. Bittel et al. (eds.), Vorderasiatische Archäologie: Studien und Aufsätze Anton Moortgat zum fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet von Kollegen, Freunde und Schülern. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1965 Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit. UAVA 4. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1967 Die Entwicklung der Hörnerkrone von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende der Akkad-Zeit. BJVF 7: 273– 91. 1969 Zur Glyptik zwischen Mesilim- und Akkad-Zeit (Early Dynastic III). ZA 59: 261–92. 1980–83 Kopfbedeckung, B. RlA 6: 203–10. 1987–90 Lugalanda-Stufe. RlA 7: 111–14. 1990 Zur Funktion des Steinstifttempels in Uruk nach Befunden der Kampagne 39. BaM 21: 49–65. 1991a Lugalzagesi, der Bauherr des Stampflehmgebäudes in Uruk. BaM 22: 165–74. 1991b Uruk 1980–1990: A Progress Report. Antiquity 65: 465–78. 1994 Die Siegelabrollungen auf dem archäischen Tafeln der frühen Uruk-Kampagnen. Pp. 25–28 in R. K. Englund, Archaic Administrative Texts from Uruk: The Early Campaigns. ADFU 15; ATU 5. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1997 Uruk-Warka. Pp. 294–98 in E. M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1999 Uruk: Früheste Siegelabrollungen. AUWE 24. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Börker-Klähn, J. 1972–75 Haartrachten. RlA 4: 1–12. 1979 Die Stellung Mesilims und der mit ihm verbundene Stilbegriff. BaM 11: 33–43. 1982a Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs. BaF 4. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. 1982b Die reichsakkadische Kunst und Ägypten. WZKM 74: 57–94. Boese, J. 1971 Altmesopotamische Weihplatten: Eine sumerische Denkmalsgattung des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. UAVA 6. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1978 Mesanepada und der Schatz von Mari. ZA 68: 6–33. 1996 Zu einigen frühdynastischen Figuren aus Mari. Pp. 25–49 in U. Magen and M. Rashad (eds.), Vom Halys zum Euphrat: Thomas Beran zu Ehren mit Beiträgen von Freunden und Schülern. AVO 7. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Bonechi, M. 1991 Onomastica dei testi di Ebla: Nomi propri come fossili-guida? SEL 8: 59–79. 1993 I nomi geografici dei testi di Ebla. TAVO, Beiheft — Reihe B/7: RGTC 12/1. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 1997a Lexique et idéologie royale à l’époque proto-syrienne. MARI 8: 477–535. 1997b II Millennium Ebla Kings. RA 91: 33–38. 2001a Notes on the Names and Professions List. NABU 2001/29: 32–33. 2001b The Dynastic Past of the Rulers of Ebla. UF 33: 53–64. 2001c On Semitic *rm¶. QDL 11: 137–44. Bordreuil, P. 1985 Ashtart de Mari et les dieux d’Ougarit. MARI 4: 545–47. Borger, R. 2003 Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. AOAT 305. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Bounni, A. 1988 Découvertes archéologiques récentes en Syrie. CRAIBL 1988: 361–78. Braun-Holzinger, E. A. 1977 Frühdynastische Beterstatuetten. ADOG 19. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1984 Figürliche Bronzen aus Mesopotamien. PBF I/4. Munich: Beck.

Bibliography 1991

259

Mesopotamische Weihgaben der frühdynastischen bis altbabylonischen Zeit. HSAO 3. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. 2007 Das Herrscherbild in Mesopotamien und Elam: Spätes 4. bis frühes 2. Jt. V. Chr. AOAT 342. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 2008 Review of N. Marchetti, La statuaria regale nella Mesopotamia protodinastica. Con un’Appendice di Gianni Marchesi. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie, Serie IX, Vol. XXI, Fasc. 1. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2006. ZA 98: 156–60. Buccellati, G., and R. D. Biggs 1969 Cuneiform Texts from Nippur: The Eighth and Ninth Seasons. AS 17. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Buccellati, G., and M. Kelly-Buccellati 1995–96 The Royal Storehouse of Urkesh: The Glyptic Evidence from the Southwestern Wing. AfO 42–43: 1–32. Buchanan, B. 1966 Catalogue of Ancient Near-Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum, I: Cylinder Seals. Oxford: Clarendon. 1981 Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection. New Haven: Yale University Press. Burrows, E. 1934 Inscribed Materials. Pp. 311–22 in C. L. Woolley, The Royal Cemetery: A Report on the Predynastic and Sargonid Graves Excavated between 1926 and 1931. UE 2. London / Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. 1935 Archaic Texts. UET 2. London / Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. Canby, J. V. 2001 The “Ur-Nammu” Stele. UMM 110. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. 2006 Early Dynastic Plaque Fragments. Pp. 45–54 in A. K. Guinan et al. (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty. CM 31. Leiden: Brill. Catagnoti, A. 1997 Les listes des HÚB.(KI) dans les textes administratifs d’Ébla et l’onomastique de Nagar. MARI 8: 563–96. Caubet, A. 1990 Aux sources du monde arabe: L’Arabie avant l’Islam; Collections du Musée du Louvre. Paris: Institut du Monde Arabe / RMN. Caubet, A., and M. Bernus-Taylor 1991 Le Louvre: Les antiquités orientales et islamiques. Paris: Scala / RMN. Cavigneaux, A. 1998a Un détail de la Figure aux Plumes. NABU 1998/73: 74–75. 1998b É.AN.NA et le génitif sumérien. NABU 1998/75: 76. Cavigneaux, A., U. Finkbainer, U. Seidl, and H. H. Siewert 1991 Uruk 33/34. BaM 22: 1–163. Cavigneaux, A., and M. Krebernik 1998–2001a Nin-durba, dNin-DUR.BU.KA. RlA 9: 341. 1998–2001b NIN-mah. RlA 9: 462–63. 1998–2001c dNin-MÙS.KUR. RlA 9: 474. 1998–2001d dNin-MÙS.ZA. RlA 9: 474. 1998–2001e dNin-SAR. RlA 9: 484–86. 1998–2001f Nunamnir. RlA 9: 614. 1998–2001g Nun-ura. RlA 9: 620–21. Cavigneaux, A., and F. N. H. al-Rawi 1993a Gilgames et taureau de ciel (sul-mè-kam) (Textes de Tell Haddad IV). RA 87: 97–129. 1993b New Sumerian Literary Texts from Tell Haddad (Ancient Meturan): A First Survey. Iraq 55: 91– 105. Charpin, D. 1980 Archives familiales et propriéte privée en Babylonie ancienne: Étude des documents de “Tell Sifr.” Hautes études orientales 12. Geneva: Droz.

260 1984 1986 1987 1990 2005 2008 Charvat, P. 1974 Childe, V. G. 1956 Civil, M. 1969a 1969b 1969c 1971 1979 1983 1984

2004 2008

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Inscriptions votives d’époque assyrienne. MARI 3: 41–81. Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurapi (XIXe-XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.). Hautes études orientales 22. Geneva: Droz. Tablettes présargoniques de Mari. MARI 5: 65–127. Nouvelles tablettes présargoniques de Mari. MARI 6: 245–52. Mari et Ebla: Des synchronismes confirmés. NABU 2005/1: 1–2. Mari au IIIe millénaire d’après les sources écrites. Cols. 221–33 in R. Le Deaut (ed.), Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, fasc. 77–78. Paris: Letouzy. Pre-Sargonic Adab. ArOr 42: 161–66. Piecing Together the Past: The Interpretation of Archaeological Data. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. The Series lú = sa and Related Texts. MSL 12. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. The Sumerian Flood Story. Pp. 138–45 and 167–72 in W. G. Lambert and A. Millard, Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Legend of the Flood. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sur le nom d’un roi de Kis. RA 63: 179. Izi = isatu, Ká-gal = abullu and Níg-ga = makkuru. MSL 13. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Ea = nâqu, Aa A = nâqu, with Their Forerunners and Related Texts. MSL 14. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. The 10th Tablet of úru am-ma-ir-ra-bi. AuOr 1: 45–54. Bilingualism in Logographically Written Languages: Sumerian in Ebla. Pp. 75–97 in L. Cagni (ed.), Il bilinguismo a Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 19–22 aprile 1982). Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. The Series DIRI = (w)atru (MSL 15). Rome: Biblical Institute Press. The Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary A (Archaic HAR-ra A). ARES 4. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 12. Bethesda, MD: CDL.

2010 Cohen, D. 1976 Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues sémitiques, fasc. 2. The Hague: Mouton. 1993 Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues sémitiques, fasc. 4. Leuven: Peeters. Cohen, M. E. 1974 Balag-Compositions: Sumerian Lamentation Liturgies of the Second and First Millennium b.c. SANE 1/2. Malibu: Undena. 1993a The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MD: CDL. 1993b Two Versions of a Fara-Period Name-List. Pp. 79–86 in M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Collon, D. 1987 First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum. Banquets in the Art of the Ancient Near East. Pp. 23–29 in R. Gyselen (ed.), Banquets d’Orient. 1992 Res Orientales 4. Bures-sur-Yvette: Group pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient. Connan, J., and O. Deschesne 1996 Le bitume à Suse: Collection du Musée du Louvre. Paris: RMN / Elf Aquitaine Production. Conti, G. 1990 Miscellanea eblaitica, 3: Il sillabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita. QuSem 17. Florence: Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze. 1996 Thèmes “assyriens” et thèmes “babyloniens” à Ebla. Pp. 193–202 in P. Zemánek (ed.), Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures: Memorial Volume of Karel Petrácek. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic / Oriental Institute. Cooper, J. S. 1983a The Curse of Agade. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bibliography 1983b

261

Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: The Lagash-Umma Border Conflict. SANE 2/1. Malibu: Undena. 1986a Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions, I: Presargonic Inscriptions. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. 1986b Studies in Sumerian Lapidary Inscriptions, V. RA 80: 73–74. 1990 Mesopotamian Historical Consciousness and the Production of Monumental Art in the Third Millennium b.c. Pp. 39–51 in A. C. Gunter (ed.), Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 1993 Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia. Pp. 81–96 in E. Matsushima (ed.), Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East — The City and Its Life, Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 20–22, 1992. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 1999a Sumer, IV.1: Inscriptions et textes historiques. Cols. 226–48 in R. Le Deaut (ed.), Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, fasc. 72. Paris: Letouzy. 1999b Sumerian and Semitic Writing in Most Ancient Syro-Mesopotamia. Pp. 61–77 in K. van Lerberghe and G. Voet (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm; Proceedings of the 42nd RAI. OLA 96. Leuven: Peeters. 2008a Incongruent Corpora: Writing and Art in Ancient Iraq. Pp. 69–94 in P. Taylor (ed.), Iconography without Texts. Warburg Institute Colloquia 13. London: The Warburg Institute. 2008b Divine Kingship in Mesopotamia: A Fleeting Phenomenon. Pp. 261–65 in N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Cooper, J. S., and W. Heimpel 1983 The Sumerian Sargon Legend. JAOS 103: 67–82. Craig, J. A. 1895 Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, vol. I. AB 13. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Crawford, H. 1987 The Construction Inférieure at Tello: A Reassessment. Iraq 49: 71–76. Crawford, V. E. 1959 Nippur, the Holy City. Archaeology 12: 74–83. 1977 Inscriptions from Lagash, Season Four, 1975–1976. JCS 29: 189–222. Cros, G., L. Heuzey, and F. Thureau-Dangin 1910–14 Nouvelles fouilles de Tello. Paris: Leroux. Cunningham, G. 1997 “Deliver Me from Evil”: Mesopotamian Incantations 2500–1500 bc. StPohl SM 17. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Curchin, L. Eannatum and the Kings of Adab. RA 71: 93–95. 1977 Damerow, P., and R. Englund 1989 Bemerkungen zu den vorangehenden Aufsätzen von A. A. Vajman unter Berücksichtigung der 1987 erschienenen Zeichenliste ATU 2. BaM 20: 133–38. Deimel, A. 1922 Die Inschriften von Fara, I: Liste der archäischen Keilschriftzeichen. WVDOG 40. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1923 Die Inschriften von Fara, II: Schultexte aus Fara. WVDOG 43. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1924 Die Inschriften von Fara, III: Wirtschaftstexte aus Fara. WVDOG 45. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Delaporte, L. 1920 Catalogue des cylindres, cachets et pierres gravées de style orientale, I: Fouilles et missions. Paris: Hachette. Delougaz, P. 1938a A Short Investigation of the Temple at al-ºUbaid. Iraq 5: 1–11. 1938b A Great Discovery of Sumerian Sculptures. ILN 10th Dec. (no. 5199): 1091–94. 1940 The Temple Oval at Khafajah. OIP 53. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1952 Pottery from the Diyala Region. OIP 63. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1960 Architectural Representations on Steatite Vases. Iraq 22: 90–95.

262

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Delougaz, P., H. Hill, and S. Lloyd 1967 Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region. OIP 88. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Delougaz, P., and S. Lloyd 1942 Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region. OIP 58. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Dijk, J. J. A. van 1976 Texts of Varying Content. TIM 9. Leiden: Brill. Dijk, J. J. A. van, and M. J. Geller 2003 Ur III Incantations from the Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection, Jena. TMH 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Dijk, J. J. A. van, A. Goetze, and M. I. Hussey 1985 Early Mesopotamian Incantations and Rituals. YOS 11. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dolce, R. 1978a Gli intarsi mesopotamici dell’epoca protodinastica, I: Testo. Serie archeologica 23/1. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente. 1978b Gli intarsi mesopotamici dell’epoca protodinastica, II: Catalogo, Tavole. Serie archeologica 23/2. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente. 1980 Gli intarsi figurativi protosiriani del Palazzo Reale G. SEb 2: 105–28. 1986 Per una riconsiderazione delle opere figurative da Gebelet el-Beyda. CMAO 1: 307–33. 1995 La cultura artistica di Ebla protosiriana. Pp. 126–33 in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, and G. Scandone Matthiae (eds.), Ebla: Alle origini della civiltà urbana; Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Milan: Electa. 1997 Aux origines de la royauté à Tello. Akkadica 103: 1–5. 2002 “Royal” Hairdresses and Turbans at the Court of Ebla: Two Marks of Royalty Compared. Pp. 201– 11 in M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, M. Liverani, and P. Matthiae (eds.), Da Pyrgi a Mozia: Studi sull’archeologia del Mediterraneo in memoria di Antonia Ciasca. Vicino Oriente — Quaderno 3/1. Rome: Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Dossin, G. 1933 Lettres de la première dynastie babylonienne, vol. I. TCL 17. Paris: Geuthner. 1967 Les inscriptions des temples de ninni-zaza et de (G)istarat. Pp. 307–31 in A. Parrot, Le temple d’Ishtarat et de Ninni-zaza. BAH 86; MAM 3. Paris: Geuthner. Draffkorn-Kilmer, A. 1993–97 Musik, A: I. In Mesopotamien. RlA 8: 463–82. Dunham, S. 1986 Sumerian Words for Foundation, Part I: Temen. RA 80: 31–64. Durand, J.-M. 1985a La situation historique des sakkanakku: Nouvelle approche. MARI 4: 147–72. 1985b Les dames du palais de Mari à l’époque du royaume de Haute Mésopotamie. MARI 4: 385–436. L’organisation de l’espace dans le palais de Mari: Le témoignage des textes. Pp. 39–110 in E. Levy 1987 (ed.), Le système palatial en Orient, en Grèce et à Rome: Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 19–22 juin 1985. Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 9. Leiden: Brill. 1995 La religión en Syria según la documentación de Mari. Pp. 125–533 in P. Mander and J.-M. Durand, Mitología y Religión del Oriente Antiguo, II/1: Semitas Occidentales (Ebla, Mari). Sabadell: AUSA. 1997 La divination par les oiseaux. MARI 8: 273–82. 2008a À propos de shakkanakku de Mari. NABU 2008/18: 25–26. 2008b La religion amorrite en Syrie à l’époque des archives de Mari. Pp. 163–716 in G. del Olmo Lete (ed.), Mythologie et religion des Sémites Occidentaux, I: Ébla, Mari. OLA 162. Leuven: Peeters. Eck, D. L. 1996 Dar¶an: Seeing the Divine Image in India. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press. Edwards, I. E. S., C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond (eds.) 1970 The Cambridge Ancient History, I/1: Prolegomena and Prehistory. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography 1971 Edzard, D. O. 1959a 1959b 1962 1974a

263

The Cambridge Ancient History, I/2: Early History of the Middle East. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Königsinschriften des Iraq Museums, II. Sumer 15: 19–28. Enmebaragesi von Kis. ZA 53: 9–26. Sumerische Komposita mit dem “Nominalpräfix” nu-. ZA 55: 91–112. Deux lettres royales d’Ur III en sumérien “syllabique” et pourvu d’une traduction accadienne. Pp. 9–34 in R. Labat, Textes littéraires de Suse. MDAI 57. Paris: Geuthner. 1974b Problèmes de la royauté dans la période présargonique. Pp. 141–49 in P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royauté: XIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Paris: Geuthner. 1976–80 Kes. RlA 5: 571–73. 1981 Verwaltungstexte verschiedenen Inhalts (aus dem Archiv L.2769). ARET 2. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. 1984 Hymnen, Beschwörungen und verwandtes (aus dem Archiv L.2769). ARET 5. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. 1985 Le soi-disant “Tagge” et questions annexes. MARI 4: 59–62. 1987–90a Lugal-gipare-si. RlA 7: 139. 1987–90b ME-barage-si. RlA 7: 614. 1991 Irikagina (Urukagina). AuOr 9: 77–79. 1997 Gudea and His Dynasty. RIME 3/1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1998–2001 Name, Namengebung (Onomastik), A: Sumerisch. RlA 9: 94–103. 2003 Sumerian Grammar. HdO 1/71. Leiden: Brill. 2004 Geschichte Mesopotamiens: Von den Sumerern bis zu Alexander dem Großen. Munich: Beck. Edzard, D. O., G. Farber, and E. Sollberger 1977 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der präsargonischen und sargonischen Zeit. TAVO, Beiheft — Reihe B/7; RGTC 1. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Ellis, M. deJ. 1979 Cuneiform Tablets at Bryn Mawr College. JCS 31: 30–55. Ellis, R. S. 1968 Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. YNER 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. Englund, R. K. 1994 Archaic Administrative Texts from Uruk: The Early Campaigns. ADFU 15; ATU 5. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1995 Late Uruk Pigs and Other Herded Animals. Pp. 121–33 in U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann, and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens: Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. 1996 Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Diverse Collections. MSVO 4. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1998 Texts from the Late Uruk Period. Pp. 15–233 in J. Bauer, R. K. Englund, and M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. OBO 160/1. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Englund, R. K., and H. J. Nissen 1993 Die lexikalischen Listen der archäischen Texte aus Uruk. ADFU 13; ATU 3. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Evans, J. M. 2007 The Square Temple at Tell Asmar and the Construction of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, ca. 2900– 2350 b.c.e. AJA 111: 599–632. Falkenstein, A. 1934 issakku. ZA 42: 152–54. 1936 Archäische Texte aus Uruk. ADFU 2. Berlin: Deutsche Forshungsgemeinschaft. 1941 Topographie von Uruk, I: Uruk zur Seleukidenzeit. ADFU 3. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. 1949 Grammatik der Sprache Gudeas von Lagas, I: Schrift- und Formenlehre. AnOr 28. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. 1959 Sumerische Götterlieder, pt. I. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 1963 Zu den Inschriftfunden der Grabung in Uruk-Warka 1960–1961. BaM 2: 1–82.

264 1966 Feliu, L. 2003

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagas, I: Einleitung. AnOr 30. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria. CHANE 19. Leiden: Brill. Festschrift für Gernot Wilhelm anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 28. Januar 2010. Dresden: ISLET.

Finkel, I. L. 1997 Practical Political Paleography. NABU 1997/1: 1. Finkelstein J. J. 1963 The Antediluvian Kings: A University of California Tablet. JCS 17: 39–51. Fleming, D. E. 1994 The Mountain Dagan: dKUR and (d)KUR.GAL. NABU 1994/16: 17–18. Focke, K. 1998–2001 Nin-imma. RlA 9: 384–86. Förtsch, W. 1916 Altbabylonische Wirtschaftstexte aus der Zeit Lugalanda’s und Urukagina’s. VS 14. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Forest, J.-D. 1996 Les pseudo-temples de la Diyala, ou le contrôle de la population urbaine au Dynastique Archaïque. Pp. 97–111 in H. Gasche and B. Hrouda (eds.), Collectanea orientalia: Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre; Etudes offertes en hommage à Agnès Spycket. CPOA 3. Paris / Neuchâtel: Recherches et Publications. 1999 Les premiers temples de Mésopotamie (4e et 3e millénaires). BAR IntSer 765. Oxford: Archaeopress. Foster, B. 1982 Umma in the Sargonic Period. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 20. Hamden, CT: Archon. 1994 Early Mesopotamian Land Sales. JAOS 114: 440–52. Fox, J. 2003 Semitic Noun Patterns. HSSt 52. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Foxvog, D. A. 1980 Funerary Furnishings in an Early Sumerian Text from Adab. Pp. 67–75 in B. Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the XXVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Mesopotamia 8. Copenhagen: Akademisk. 1986 A Third Arua Summary from Ur III Lagash. RA 80: 19–29. Frahm, E., and E. E. Payne 2003–4 Suruppak under Rimus: A Rediscovered Inscription. AfO 50: 50–55. Frangipane, M. (ed.) 2007 Arslantepe Cretulae: An Early Centralized Administrative System before Writing. Arslantepe 5. Rome: Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Franke, S. 1995 Königsinschriften und Königsideologie: Die Könige von Akkade zwischen Tradition und Neuerung. Münster / Hamburg: LIT. Frankfort, H. 1934 Iraq Excavations of the Oriental Institute, 1932/33. OIC 17. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1935a Early Dynastic Sculptured Maceheads. Pp. 105–21 in Miscellanea orientalia dedicata Antonio Deimel annos LXX complenti. AnOr 12. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. 1935b Oriental Institute Discoveries in Iraq, 1933/34. OIC 19. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1936 Progress of the Work of the Oriental Institute in Iraq, 1934/35: Fifth Preliminary Report of the Iraq Expedition. OIC 20. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1937a Revelations of Early Mesopotamian Culture. ILN 6th Nov. (no. 5142): 792–95. 1937b Review of Woolley 1934. JRAS 1937: 330–43. 1938 New Discoveries Concerning the Early Dynastic Period at Tell Asmar and Khafaje. Pp. 47–50 in Atti del XIX Congresso Internazionale degli Orientalisti: Roma, 23–29 Settembre 1935. Rome: Tipografia del Senato. 1939a Sculpture of the Third Millennium b.c. from Tell Asmar and Khafajah. OIP 44. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.

Bibliography 1939b 1943 1948 1954

265

Cylinder Seals: A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. London: Gregg. More Sculpture from the Diyala Region. OIP 60. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. The Pelican History of Art. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region. OIP 72. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. The Last Predynastic Period in Babylonia. CAH I/2: 71–92.

1955 1971 Frayne, D. R. 1992 The Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names. AOS 74. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. 1993 Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 bc). RIME 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1997 Ur III Period (2112–2004 bc). RIME 3/2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2008 Presargonic Period (2700–2350 bc). RIME 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Frayne, D., and L. George 1990 The “Rake’s” Progress: A Phantom King of Kis. NABU 1990/30: 24–25. Friberg, J. 2007 A Remarkable Collection of Babylonian Mathematical Texts. New York: Springer. Fronzaroli, P. 1979 Un atto reale di donazione dagli archivi di Ebla (TM.75.G.1766). SEb 1: 3–16. 1984 Materiali per il lessico eblaita, 1. SEb 7: 145–90. 1993 Testi rituali della regalità (Archivio L.2769). ARET 11. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. 1996 À propos de quelques mots éblaïtes d’orfèvrerie. Pp. 51–68 in O. Tunca and D. Deheselle (eds.), Tablettes et images aux pays de Sumer et d’Akkad: Mélanges offerts à Monsieur H. Limet. Liège: Université de Liège. 1998 Kam4-mu in Ebla Letters. Pp. 103–14 in M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu: Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, 2: Culture, Society, Image. Subartu 4/2. Turnhout: Brepols. 2003 Testi di cancelleria: I rapporti con le città (Archivio L.2769). ARET 13. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Furlong, I. 1987 Divine Headdresses of Mesopotamia in the Early Dynastic Period. BAR IntSer 334. Oxford: Archaeopress. Gadd, C. J. 1921 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum, pt. 36. London: British Museum. 1925 On Two Babylonian Kings. StOr 1: 25–33. 1934–35 Babylonian Stone Carvings of the Early Period. BMQ 9: 42–45. Gadd, C. J., and L. Legrain 1928 Royal Inscriptions. UET 1. London / Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. al-Gailani, L. 1972 Some Sumerian Statues in the Iraq Museum. Iraq 34: 73–76. Garrison, M. B., and M. Cool Root 2001 Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, 1: Images of Heroic Encounter. OIP 117. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Gawlikowska, K. 1980 ºEstar et Istar à Mari au IIIe millénaire. RO 41: 25–28. Gelb, I. J. 1952 Sargonic Texts from the Diyala Region. MAD 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1956 The Names of Ex-Voto Objects in Ancient Mesopotamia. Names 4: 65–69. 1957 Glossary of Old Akkadian. MAD 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1960 The Name of the Goddess Innin. JNES 19: 72–79. 1961 Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. MAD 2. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1984 Sîbût kusurraªim, “Witnesses of the Indemnity.” JNES 43: 263–76.

266 1986

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Ebla and Lagash: Environmental Contrast. Pp. 157–67 in H. Weiss (ed.), The Origins of Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium b.c. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters. 1992 Mari and the Kish Civilization. Pp. 121–202 in G. D. Young (ed.), Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Gelb, I. J., and B. Kienast 1990 Die altakkadische Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v.Chr. FAOS 7. Stuttgart: Steiner. Gelb, I. J., P. Steinkeller, and R. M. Whiting 1991 Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. OIP 104. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Geller, M. J. 1987 The Lugal of Mari at Ebla and the Sumerian King List. Pp. 141–45 in C. H. Gordon, G. A. Rendsburg, and N. H. Winter (eds.), Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Languages, vol. 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1989 A New Piece of Witchcraft. Pp. 193–205 in H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg. OPKF 11. Philadelphia: The University Museum. Genouillac, H. de 1909 Tablettes sumériennes archaïques: Matériaux pour servir à l’histoire de la société sumérienne, publiées avec introduction, transcription, traduction et tables. Paris: Geuthner. 1912 Textes de l’époque d’Ur, pt. II. ITT 3. Paris: Leroux. 1921 Époque présargonique, époque d’Agadé, époque d’Ur. ITT 5. Paris: Leroux. 1922 Textes économiques d’Oumma de l’époque d’Our. TCL 5. Paris: Geuthner. 1924 Premières recherches archéologiques à Kich: Mission d’Henri de Genouillac, 1911–1912, vol. I. Paris: Champion. 1925 Premières recherches archéologiques à Kich: Mission d’Henri de Genouillac, 1911–1912, vol. II. Paris: Champion. Gensler, O. D. 1997 Mari Akkadian iß “to, for” and Preposition-Hopping in the Light of Comparative Semitic Syntax. Or 66: 129–56. George, A. R. 1993 House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. MC 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2003 The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibson, McG. 1970 Review of Buchanan 1966. JNES 29: 59–64. 1972a The City and Area of Kish. Miami: Field Research Projects. 1972b The Archaeological Uses of Cuneiform Documents: Patterns of Occupation at the City of Kish. Iraq 34: 113–23. 1976–1980 Kis, B: Archäologisch. RlA 5: 613–20. 1982 A Re-evaluation of the Akkad Period in the Diyala Region on the Basis of Recent Excavations at Nippur and the Hamrin. AJA 86: 531–38. Gibson, McG., and A. McMahon 1997 The Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition, Part II: The Author’s Response. Iraq 59: 9–14. Giuliano, A. 2001 Scritti minori. Xenia Antiqua, monografie 9. Rome: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider. Glassner, J.-J. 2004 Mesopotamian Chronicles. WAW 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2005a La date de composition de la chronique de la monarchie une. Pp. 138–41 in Y. Sefati et al. (eds.), “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda, MD: CDL. 2005b La chronique de la monarchie une et l’écriture de l’histoire à la fin du 3e millenaire. NABU 2005/46: 51–52.

Bibliography Gockel, W. 1982

267

Die Stratigraphie und Chronologie der Ausgrabungen des Diyala-Gebietes und der Stadt Ur in der Zeit von Uruk/Eanna IV bis zur Dynastie von Akkad. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider.

Goetze, A. 1961 Early Kings of Kish. JCS 15: 105–11. 1970–71 Early Dynastic Dedication Inscriptions from Nippur. JCS 23: 39–56. Goodnick-Westenholz, J. 1989 Enheduanna, En-Priestess, Hen of Nanna, Spouse of Nanna. Pp. 539–56 in H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg. OPKF 11. Philadelphia: The University Museum. 2000 King by Love of Inanna: An Image of Female Empowerment? Nin 1: 75–89. 2004 The Old Akkadian Presence in Nineveh: Fact or Fiction. Iraq 66: 7–18. Gordon, E. I. 1953 Mesilim and Mesannepadda: Are They Identical? BASOR 132: 27–30. Grayson, A. K. 1975 Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin. Repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. 1987 Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia bc (to 1115 bc). RIMA 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Green, M. W. 1977 A Note on an Archaic Period Geographical List from Warka. JNES 36: 293–94. 1982 Miscellaneous Early Texts from Uruk. ZA 72: 163–77. Green, M. W., and H. J. Nissen 1987 Zeichenliste der archäischen Texte aus Uruk. ADFU 11; ATU 2. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Grégoire, J.-P. 1981 Inscriptions et archives administratives cunéiformes. MVN 10. Rome: Multigrafica. 1996 Contribution à l’histoire sociale, économique, politique et culturelle du Proche-Orient Ancien: Archives administratives et inscriptions cunéiformes de l’Ashmolean Museum et de la Bodleian Collection d’Oxford, I: Les sources, 1. Paris: Geuthner. 2002 Contribution à l’histoire sociale, économique, politique et culturelle du Proche-Orient Ancien: Archives administratives et inscriptions cunéiformes de l’Ashmolean Museum et de la Bodleian Collection d’Oxford, I: Les sources, 4. Paris: Geuthner. Gubel, E., and B. Overlaet (eds.) 2007 De Gilgamesh à Zénobie: Trésors de l’antiquité, Proche-Orient et Iran (6 décembre 2007 — 27 avril 2008). Brussells: Fonds Mercator / Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire. Guerri, L. 2008 Space and Ritual in Early Dynastic Mesopotamia: A Contextual Analysis of the Shrines of Tutub. Ocnus 16: 131–46. Gullini, G., et al. (eds.) 1965 Capolavori del Museo di Baghdad: 6 millenni di arte mesopotamica. Turin: Museo Civico di Torino / Centro Scavi di Torino per il Medio Oriente e l’Asia. Gurney, O. 1974 Middle Babylonian Legal Documents and Other Texts. UET 7. London / Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. Gurney, O., and S. N. Kramer 1976 Sumerian Literary Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. OECT 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hackman, G. G. 1958 Sumerian and Akkadian Administrative Texts from Predynastic Times to the End of the Akkad Dynasty. BIN 8. New Haven: Yale University Press. Haines, R. C. 1956 Where a Goddess of Love and War Was Worshipped 4000 Years Ago: The Temple of Inanna Uncovered during Further Excavations at Nippur, the Ancient Holy City of Sumeria and Babylonia. ILN 18th Aug. (no. 6115): 266–69.

268 1958

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Further Excavations at the Temple of Inanna — Goddess of Love and War: Results of the Sixth Season at Nippur, Ancient Holy City of Sumeria. ILN 6th Sept. (no. 6222): 386–89. 1961a A Report of the Excavations at Nippur during 1960–1961. Sumer 17: 67–70. 1961b The Temple of Inanna at Nippur, the Ancient Holy City of Sumer: Further Excavations at This Notable Site. ILN 9th Sept. (no. 6371): 408–11. Halayqa, I. K. H. 2008 A Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite. AOAT 340. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Hall, H. R. 1928 Babylonian and Assyrian Sculpture in the British Museum. Paris / Brussells: G. van Oest. 1930 A Season’s Work at Ur, al-ºUbaid, Abu Shahrain (Eridu), and Elsewhere, Being an Unofficial Account of the British Museum Archaeological Mission to Babylonia, 1919. London: Methuen. Hall, H. R., and C. L. Woolley 1927 Al-ºUbaid: A Report on the Work Carried Out at al-ºUbaid for the British Museum in 1919 and for the Joint Expedition in 1922–3. UE I. London / Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. Hall, M. G. 1985 A Study of the Sumerian Moon-God Nanna/Suen. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. Hallo, W. W. 1957 Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles: A Philologic and Historical Analysis. AOS 43. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. 1963 Beginning and End of the Sumerian King List in the Nippur Recension. JCS 17: 52–57. 1970 Antediluvian Cities. JCS 23: 57–67. 1988 Texts, Statues, and the Cult of the Divine King. Pp. 54–66 in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986. VT Suppl. 40. Leiden: Brill. 1996 Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions. Leiden: Brill. Hansen, D. P. 1963 New Votive Plaques from Nippur. JNES 22: 145–66. 1965 The Relative Chronology of Mesopotamia, Part II: The Pottery Sequence at Nippur from the Middle Uruk to the End of the Old Babylonian Period (3400–1600 b.c.). Pp. 201–13 in R. W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1971 Some Early Dynastic I Sealings from Nippur. Pp. 47–54 in D. G. Mitten, J. G. Pedley, and J. A. Scott (eds.), Studies Presented to George M.A. Hanfmann. Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Monographs in Art and Archaeology 2. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. 1975a Frühsumerische und frühdynastische Rundplastik. Pp. 158–70 in W. Orthmann (ed.), Der Alte Orient. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14. Berlin: Propyläen. 1975b Frühsumerische und frühdynastische Flachbildkunst. Pp. 179–93 in W. Orthmann (ed.), Der Alte Orient. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14. Berlin: Propyläen. 1991–92 al-Hiba, 1990. AfO 38–39: 269–71. 1998 Art of the Royal Tombs of Ur: A Brief Interpretation. Pp. 43–72 in R. L. Zettler and L. Horne (eds.), Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. 2001 Some Notes on the Old Babylonian Bagara of Ningirsu in Lagash. Pp. 215–32 in C. Breniquet and C. Kepinski (eds.), Études mésopotamiennes: Recueil de textes offert à Jean-Louis Huot. Paris: ERC. Hansen, D. P., and G. F. Dales 1962 The Temple of Inanna Queen of Heaven at Nippur. Archaeology 15: 75–84. Harper, P. O. 1992 Mesopotamian Monuments Found at Susa. Pp. 159–62 in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz, and F. Tallon (eds.), The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Harper, P. O., J. Aruz, and F. Tallon (eds.) 1992 The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Bibliography

269

Harper, P. O., E. Klengel-Brandt, J. Aruz, and K. Benzel (eds.) 1995 Discoveries at Ashur on the Tigris: Assyrian Antiquities in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Hasselbach, R. 2005 Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hauptmann, H., and E. Pernicka (eds.) 2004 Die Metallindustrie Mesopotamiens von den Anfängen bis zum 2. Jahrtausend v.Chr. Orient-Archäologie 3. Rahden: Leidorf. Hauptmann, R. 1989 Die sumerische Beterstatuette. Liebieghaus Monographie 12. Frankfurt am Main: Stadt Frankfurt am Main. Hausman, C. R. 1991 Figurative Language in Art History. Pp. 101–28 in I. Kemal and S. Gaskell (eds.), The Language of Art History. Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and the Arts 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heimpel, W. 1982 A Catalog of Near Eastern Venus Deities. SMS 4: 59–72. 1990 Ein zweiter Schritt zur Rehabilitierung der Rolle des Tigris in Sumer. ZA 80: 204–13. 1992 Herrentum und Königtum im vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Alten Orient. ZA 82: 4–21. 1998–2001a Nin-hursama, A. RlA 9: 378–81. 1998–2001b Ninsiana. RlA 9: 487–88. 2003 Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. MC 12. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Heinrich, E. 1931 Fara: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Fara und Abu Hatab 1902/03. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatische Abteilung. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. 1936 Kleinfunde aus den archäischen Tempelschichten in Uruk. ADFU 1. Berlin: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. 1957 Bauwerke in der altsumerischen Bildkunst. Schriften der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1982 Die Tempel und Heiligtümer im Alten Mesopotamien: Typologie, Morphologie und Geschichte. Denkmäler antiker Architektur 14. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Heuzey, L. 1897 La construction du roi Our-Nina d’après les levés et les notes de M. de Sarzec. RA 4/4: 87–122. 1898 La construction du roi Our-Nina: Notes complémentaires d’après les découvertes de M. de Sarzec. RA 5/1: 26–32. 1899 Construction antérieure à Our-Nina. RA 5/2: 33–56. 1902 Catalogue des Antiquités Chaldéennes: Sculpture et gravure à la pointe. Paris: Braun. Hilgert, M. 2002 Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit. Imgula 5. Münster: Rhema. Hockmann, D. 2008 Die Warka-Vase: Eine neue Interpretation. AoF 35: 326–36. Hoffmann, H. (ed.) 1964 Norbert Schimmel Collection. Mainz: von Zabern. Hole, F. 1983 Symbols of Religion and Social Organization at Susa. Pp. 315–33 in The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia Presented to Robert J. Braidwood, November 15, 1982. SAOC 36. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Horowitz, V. A. 2003 The Mesopotamian God Image, from Womb to Tomb. JAOS 123: 147–57. Hrouda, B. 1970 Zur Datierung frühsumerischer Bildwerke aus Uruk-Warka. BaM 5: 33–44.

270 1971

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Vorderasien, I: Mesopotamien, Babylonien, Iran und Anatolien. Handbuch der Archäologie. Munich: Beck. 1996 Einige Bemerkungen zur Rundplastik im Alten Orient. Pp. 137–43 in H. Gasche and B. Hrouda (eds.), Collectanea orientalia: Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre; Etudes offertes en hommage à Agnès Spycket. CPOA 3. Paris / Neuchâtel: Recherches et Publications. Huehnergard, J. 1987 Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. HSSt 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Huh, S. K. 2008 Studien zur Region Lagas: Von der Ubaid- bis zur altbabylonischen Zeit. AOAT 345. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Huot, J.-L. (ed.) 2003 Larsa: Travaux de 1987 et 1989. BAH 165. Beirut: IFAPO. Invernizzi, A. 1992 Dal Tigri all’Eufrate, I: Sumeri e Accadi. Studi e materiali di archeologia 5. Florence: Le Lettere. Ismail, F., W. Sallaberger, P. Talon, and K. Van Lerberghe 1996 Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995). Subartu 2. Turnhout: Brepols. Jacobsen, T. 1939 The Sumerian King List. AS 11. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1940 The Inscriptions. Pp. 146–50 in P. Delougaz, The Temple Oval at Khafajah. OIP 53. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1942 The Inscriptions. Pp. 289–98 in P. Delougaz and S. Lloyd, Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region. OIP 58. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1943 Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia. JNES 2: 159–72. 1957 Early Political Development in Mesopotamia. ZA 52: 91–140. 1967 Some Sumerian City-Names. JCS 21: 100–3. 1989 God or Worshipper. Pp. 125–33 in A. Leonard and B. Beyer Williams (eds.), Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor. SAOC 47. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1991 The Term Ensí. AuOr 9: 113–21. 1992 The Spell of Nudimmud. Pp. 403–16 in M. Fishbane and E. Tov (eds.), “Shaºarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Jagersma, B. 1995–96 Review of Marzahn 1991. AfO 42–43: 222–24. 2000 Sound Change in Sumerian: The So-Called /dr/-Phoneme. ASJ 22: 81–87. 2007 The Calendar of the Funerary Cult in Ancient Lagash. BiOr 64: 289–307. Jans, G., and J. Bretschneider Wagon and Chariot Representations in the Early Dynastic Glyptic: “They Came to Tell Beydar 1998 with Wagon and Equid.” Pp. 155–94 in M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu: Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, 2: Culture, Society, Image. Subartu 4/2. Turnhout: Brepols. Jean-Marie, M. 1990 Les tombeaux en pierres de Mari. MARI 6: 303–36. Jestin, R. R. 1937 Tablettes sumériennes de Suruppak conservées au Musée de Stamboul. Mémoires de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie de Stamboul 3. Paris: de Boccard. 1957 Nouvelles tablettes sumériennes de Suruppak au Musée d’Istambul. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie d’Istanbul 2. Paris: Maisonneuve. Johansen, F. 1978 Statues of Gudea, Ancient and Modern. Mesopotamia 6. Copenhagen: Akademisk. Kaelin, O. 2006 “Modell Ägypten”: Adoption von Innovationen im Mesopotamien des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. OBO, Series Archaeologica 26. Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bibliography Karg, N. 1984

271

Untersuchungen zur älteren frühdynastischen Glyptik Babyloniens: Aspekte regionaler Entwicklungen in der ersten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends. BaF 8. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Review of Martin 1988. ZA 84: 151–58. Mesilim, B: Archäologisch. RlA 8: 74–81.

1994 1993–97 Katz, D. 1987 Gilgamesh and Akka: Was Uruk Ruled by Two Assemblies? RA 81: 105–14. 1993 Gilgamesh and Akka. Library of Oriental Texts 1. Groningen: Styx. Keiser, C. E. 1919 Selected Temple Documents of the Ur Dynasty. YOS 4. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kertzer, D. I. 1988 Ritual, Politics and Power. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kienast, B. 1994 Glossar zu den altakkadischen Königsinschriften. FAOS 8. Stuttgart: Steiner. Kienast, B., and K. Volk 1995 Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe. FAOS 19. Stuttgart: Steiner. King, L. W. 1898 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum, pt. 5. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. 1900 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum, pt. 10. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. 1909 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum, pt. 25. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. 1910 A History of Sumer and Akkad: An Account of the Early Races of Babylonia from Prehistoric Times to the Foundation of Babylonian Monarchy. London: Chatto & Windus. 1912 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum, pt. 32. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. Klein, J. 1981 Three Sulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Sulgi of Ur. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. 1991 A New Nippur Duplicate of the Sumerian Kinglist in the Brockmon Collection, University of Haifa. AuOr 9: 123–29. 2008 The Brockmon Collection Duplicate of the Sumerian Kinglist (BT 14). Pp. 77–91 in P. Michalowski (ed.), On Ur III Times: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist. JCS Suppl. 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Klengel, E., and H. Klengel 1980 Zum Fragment eines Steatitgefäßes mit einer Inschrift des Rimus von Akkad. RO 41: 45–51. Klengel-Brandt, E. 1990 Gab es ein Museum in der Hauptburg Nebukadnezars II. in Babylon? Forschungen und Berichte 28: 41–46. Kobayashi, T. 1984 On the Meaning of the Offerings for the Statue of Entemena. Orient 20: 43–65. 1985 The ki-a-nag of Enentarzi. Orient 21: 10–30. 1989 Was Mesandu the Personal Deity of Enentarzi? Orient 25: 22–42. Koch-Westenholz, U. 1995 Mesopotamian Astrology. CNIP 19. Copenhagen: Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies. Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner 1995 Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill. Kohlmeyer, K. 1991 Das “Schloßmuseum” von Babylon. Pp. 45–48 in K. Kohlmeyer and E. Strommenger (eds.), Wiedererstehendes Babylon: Eine antike Weltstadt im Blick der Forschung. Berlin: Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte / Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz.

272 Kose, A. 2000

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Das “Palais” auf Tell A von Girsu: Wohnstätte eines hellenistisch-parthischen Sammlers von Gudeastatuen? BaM 31: 377–431.

Kramer, S. N. 1936 The Sumerian Prefix Forms be- and bi- in the Time of the Earlier Princes of Lagas. AS 8. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1961 New Literary Catalogue from Ur. RA 55: 169–76. 1976 Sumer edebî tablet ve parçaları / Sumerian Literary Tablets and Fragments in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul, vol. II. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. Kramer, S. N., and M. Eren 1978 A Tablet of Historical Significance from Nippur. Anadolu Aravtırmaları 6: 171–75. Krasnik, K., and J.-W. Meyer 2001 Im Tod den Göttern nahe: Eine prunkvolle Bestattung in Tell Chuera, Nordsyrien. Antike Welt 32/4: 383–90. Kraus, F. R. 1952 Zur Liste der älteren Könige von Babylonien. ZA 50: 29–60. Krebernik, M. 1982 Zur Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla, Teil 1. ZA 72: 178–236. 1983 Zur Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla, Teil 2 (Glossar). ZA 73: 1–47. 1984a Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla. Hildesheim: Olms. 1984b Zur Lesung einiger frühdynastischer Inschriften aus Mari. ZA 74: 164–67. 1984c Review of Steible 1982a–b. BiOr 41: cols. 641–46. 1985 Zur Entwicklung der Keilschrift im III. Jahrtausend anhand der Texte aus Ebla: Ein Vergleich zwischen altakkadischem und eblaitischem Schriftsystem. AfO 32: 53–59. 1986 Götterlisten aus Fara. ZA 76: 161–204. 1988 Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte: Eine Zwischenbilanz. BBVO 7. Berlin: Reimer. 1991 Review of Gelb and Kienast 1990. ZA 81: 133–43. 1992 Mesopotamian Myths at Ebla: ARET 5, 6 and ARET 5, 7. Pp. 63–149 in P. Fronzaroli (ed.), Literature and Literary Language at Ebla. QuSem 18. Florence: Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze. 1993–97a Menune-si. RlA 8: 65. 1993–97b Muttergöttin, A: I. In Mesopotamien. RlA 8: 502–16. 1996 The Linguistic Classification of Eblaite: Methods, Problems, and Results. Pp. 233–49 in J. Cooper and G. Schwartz (eds.), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1998 Die Texte aus Fara und Tell Abu Íalabih. Pp. 237–427 in J. Bauer, R. K. Englund, and M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. OBO 160/1. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2001 Tall Biªa/Tuttul, II: Die altorientalischen Schriftfunde. Saarbrücken: SDV. 2002 Zur Struktur und Geschichte des älteren sumerischen Onomastikons. Pp. 1–74 in M. P. Streck and S. Weninger (eds.), Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik. AOAT 296. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 2003 Drachenmutter und Himmelsrebe? Zur Frühgeschichte Dumuzis und seiner Familie. Pp. 151–80 in W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift fur Claus Wilcke. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Krebernik, M., and N. Postgate 2009 The Tablets from Abu Salabikh and Their Provenance. Iraq 71: 1–22. Krecher, J. 1967 Zum Emesal-Dialekt des Sumerischen. Pp. 87–110 in D. O. Edzard (ed.), Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient: Adam Falkenstein zum 17. September 1966. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1972 Review of I. J. Gelb, Sargonic Texts in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. MAD 5. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970. ZA 62: 269–73. 1973 Neue sumerische Rechtsurkunden des 3. Jahrtausends. ZA 63: 145–271.

Bibliography 1987a 1987b

273

du = kux(-r) “eintreten”, “hineinbringen.” ZA 77: 7–21. /ur/ “Mann”, /eme/ “Frau” und die sumerische Herkunft des Wortes urdu(-d) “Sklave.” WO 18: 7– 19. 1992 UD.GAL.NUN versus “Normal” Sumerian: Two Literatures or One? Pp. 285–303 in P. Fronzaroli (ed.), Literature and Literary Language at Ebla. QuSem 18. Florence: Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze. Krispijn, T. J. H. 2000 The Change of Official Sumerian in the City-State of Lagas. ASJ 22: 153–75. 2004 pa4.ses, “Ältester.” Pp. 105–12 in H. Waetzoldt (ed.), Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück: Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato zum 27. September 1999 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. HSAO 9. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2008 Music and Healing for Someone far Away from Home: HS 1556, a Remarkable Ur III Incantation, Revisited. Pp. 173–93 in R. J. van der Spek (ed.), Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society Presented to Marten Stol on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, 10 November 2005, and His Retirement from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Kühne, H., and G. Schneider 1988 Neue Untersuchungen zur Metallischen Ware. DamM 3: 83–139. Kupper, J.-R. 1976–80 Ilum-pû. RlA 5: 62–63. Labat, R. 1974 Textes littéraires de Suse. MDAI 57. Paris: Geuthner. Lafont, B. 1985 Documents administratifs sumériens provenant du site de Tello et conservés au Musée du Louvre. Paris: ERC. Lambert, M. 1952 La période présargonique (Essai d’une histoire sumérienne). Sumer 8: 55–77 and 198–216. 1970 Les inscriptions des temples d’Ishtarat et de Ninni-zaza. RA 64: 168–71. 1973 AO 7754. RA 67: 96. Lambert, W. G. 1985 The Pantheon of Mari. MARI 4: 525–39. 1986 The Reading of the Divine Name Sakkan. Or 55: 152–58. 1988 An Old Akkadian List of Personal Names. Pp. 251–60 in E. Leichty, M. deJ. Ellis, and P. Gerardi (eds.), A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs. OPKF 9. Philadelphia: University Museum. 1989 Notes on a Work of the Most Ancient Semitic Literature. JCS 41: 1–33. 1990a The Names of Umma. JNES 49: 75–80. 1990b Addenda to W. G. Lambert, “The Pantheon of Mari” (MARI 4 [1985] pp. 525–529). MARI 6: 644. 1992 The Reading of Uru-KA-gi-na Again. AuOr 10: 256–58. 1995 Review of R. A. Di Vito, Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names: The Designation and Conception of the Personal God. StPohl SM 16. Rome: Biblical Institute Press 1993. Or 64: 131–36. 1998 Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 54–70 in J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. JSOT Suppl. 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. 2005 Marginalia on MSL XV. NABU 2005/29: 33–34. Lambert, W. G., and A. R. Millard 1969 Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Landsberger, B. 1958 The Series HAR-ra = hubullu Tablets V–VII. MSL 6. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Langdon, S. 1923 The Weld-Blundell Collection, II: Historical Inscriptions, Containing Principally the Chronological Prism, W-B 444. OECT 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

274 1924

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Excavations at Kish: The Herbert Weld and Field Museum of Natural History Expedition to Mesopotamia, vol. I. Paris: Geuthner. Excavations at Kish, 1928–9. JRAS 1930: 601–10.

1930 Larsen, M. T. 1976 The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies. Mesopotamia 4. Copenhagen: Akademisk. Lebeau, M. 1985a Rapport préliminaire sur la séquence céramique du Chantier B de Mari (IIIè millénaire). MARI 4: 93–126. 1985b Rapport préliminaire sur la céramique du Bronze Ancien IVa découverte au “palais présargonique 1” de Mari. MARI 4: 127–36. 1990 La céramique du tombeau 300 de Mari (temple d’Ishtar). MARI 6: 349–74. 2007 La séquence stratigraphique du chantier B de Mari (IIIe millénaire): Une révision de la datation. Akh Purattim 2: 221–25. Le Breton, L. 1957 The Early Periods at Susa: Mesopotamian Relations. Iraq 19: 79–124. LeCount, L. J. 2001 Like Water for Chocolate: Feasting and Political Ritual among the Late Classic Maya at Xunantunich, Belize. American Anthropologist 103: 935–53. Legrain, L. 1922 Historical Fragments. PBS 13. Philadelphia: The University Museum. 1936 Archaic Seal-Impressions. UE 3. London / Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. 1937–47 Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur. UET 3. London / Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. Lenormant, F. 1868 Sur une statuette babylonienne d’albatre. Revue Archéologique n.s. 18: 231–36. 1873–75 Choix de textes cunéiformes inédits ou incomplétement publiés jusqu’à ce jour. Paris: Maisonneuve. Lenzen, H. J. (ed.) 1960 XVI. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in UrukWarka: Winter 1957/58. ADOG 5. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1961 XVII. vorläufiger Bericht über die . . . Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka: Winter 1958/59. ADOG 6. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1963 XIX. vorläufiger Bericht über die . . . Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka: Winter 1960/61. ADOG 8. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Leslie, K. 2002 Examination and Tentative Identification of Some Black Stone Objects. ZA 92: 296–300. Lieberman, S. 1977 The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian, 1: Prolegomena and Evidence. HSSt 22. Missoula: Scholars Press. Limet, H. 1968 L’anthroponymie sumerienne dans les documents de la 3e dynastie d’Ur. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège 180. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Lindemeyer, E., and L. Martin 1993 Uruk: Kleinfunde, III: Kleinfunde im Vorderasiatischen Museum zu Berlin: Steingefäße und Asphalt, Farbreste, Fritte, Glas, Holz, Knochen/Elfenbein, Muschel/Perlmutt/Schnecke. AUWE 9. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Litke, R. L. 1998 A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, AN: dA-nu-um and AN: Anu sá ameli. TBC 3. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. Liverani, M. 1988 Antico Oriente: Storia, società, economia. Collezione storica. Rome: Laterza.

Bibliography 2002

275

Response to Gebhard Selz. Pp. 151–59 in A. Hausleiter, S. Kerner, and B. Müller-Neuhof (eds.), Material Culture and Mental Spheres: Rezeption archäologischer Denkrichtungen in der vorderasiatischen Altertumskunde; Internationales Symposium für Hans J. Nissen, Berlin, 23.-24. Juni 2000. AOAT 293. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Livingstone, A. 1989 Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. SAA 3. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Lloyd, S. 1969 Back to Ingharra. Iraq 31: 40–48. Lloyd, S., and F. Safar 1943 Tell Uqair: Excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate of Antiquities in 1940 and 1941. JNES 2: 131–58. Loon, M. N. van (ed.) 2001 Selenkahiye: Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of Amsterdam Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967–1975. PIHANS 91. Leiden: NINO. Luckenbill, D. D. 1913–14 Two Inscriptions of Mesilim, King of Kish. AJSL 30: 219–23. 1930 Inscriptions from Adab. OIP 14. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Maaijer, R. de, and B. Jagersma 1997–98 Review of PSD A/1 and A/2. AfO 44–45: 277–88. Mackay, E. 1925 Report on the Excavation of the “A” Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia, Part I. Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropology Memoirs 1/1. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. 1929 A Sumerian Palace and the “A” Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia, Part II. Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropology Memoirs 1/2. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. Maeda, T. 1981 “King of Kish” in Presargonic Sumer. Orient 17: 1–17. Maekawa, K. 1973–1974 The Development of the É-MÍ in Lagash during Early Dynastic III. Mesopotamia 8–9: 77–144. Magid, G. 2001 Micromanagement in the é-mí/dBa-ú: Notes on the Organization of Labor at Early Dynastic Lagash. Pp. 313–28 in T. Abusch et al. (eds.), Historiography in the Cuneiform World: Proceedings of the XLV e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, 1: Harvard University. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Mallowan, M. 1964 A Cylinder Seal in the Uruk-Jamdat Nasr Style. BaM 3: 65–67. 1971 The Early Dynastic Period in Mesopotamia. CAH I/2: 238–314. Mander, P. 1990 Administrative Texts of the Archive L.2769. MEE 10; MVS 1. Rome: Università di Roma «La Sapienza». 2008 Les dieux et le culte à Ébla. Pp. 1–160 in G. del Olmo Lete (ed.), Mythologie et religion des Sémites Occidentaux, I: Ébla, Mari. OLA 162. Leuven: Peeters. Marchesi, G. 1999a Notes on Two Alleged Literary Texts from al-Hiba/Lagas. SEL 16: 3–17. 1999b Two Delivery Records from Umma and Related Subjects. Or 68: 104–13. 2001 Alleged sig7 = agar4 and Related Matters. Or 70: 313–17. 2002 On the Divine Name dba.ú. Or 71: 161–72. 2004 Who Was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic and Textual Data. Or 73: 153–97. 2006a LUMMA in the Onomasticon and Literature of Ancient Mesopotamia. HANES 10. Padua: SARGON. 2006b Statue regali, sovrani e templi del Protodinastico: I dati epigrafici e testuali. Pp. 205–71 in N. Marchetti, La statuaria regale nella Mesopotamia protodinastica. Con un’Appendice di Gianni Marchesi. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie, Serie IX, Vol. XXI, Fasc. 1. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.

276

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

forthcoming a Notes on the Royal Titulary at Ebla. forthcoming b Notes on Two High-Ranking Women’s Inscriptions from Mari. forthcoming c The Titles EN and LUGAL at Pre-Sargonic Mari. forthcoming d The Name ME.SILIM. Marchetti, N. 1995 Die Entstehung der frühsyrischen Stadtkultur. Das Altertum 41: 3–14. 1996a The Ninevite 5 Glyptic of the Khabur Region and the Chronology of the Piedmont Style Motives. BaM 27: 81–115. 1996b L’aquila Anzu: Nota su alcuni amuleti mesopotamici. VO 10: 105–21. 1998 The Mature Early Syrian Glyptic from the Khabur Region. Pp. 115–53 in M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu: Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, 2: Culture, Society, Image. Subartu 4/2. Turnhout: Brepols. 2003 Workshops, Trading Routes and Divine Figures: On the Early Middle Bronze II Syro-Anatolian Lead Figurines. Or 72: 390–420. Marchetti, N., and L. Nigro 1995–1996 Handicraft Production, Secondary Food Transformation and Storage in the Public Building P4 in EB IVA Ebla. Berytus 42: 9–36. Margueron, J.-C. 1971 Larsa: Rapport préliminaire sur la cinquième campagne. Syria 48: 271–87. 1982a Recherches sur les palais mésopotamiens de l’Age du Bronze. BAH 107. Paris: Geuthner. 1982b Mari: originalité ou dépendance? SEb 5: 121–44. 1983 Mari: Rapport préliminaire sur la campagne de 1980. MARI 2: 9–35. 1985 Quelques remarques sur les temples de Mari. MARI 4: 487–507. 1990 Une tombe royale sous la salle du trône du palais des Shakkanakku. MARI 6: 401–22. 1993 Une couverture possible pour l’espace central de l’Enceinte sacrée. MARI 7: 281–313. 1996 Mari, reflet du monde syro-mésopotamien au IIIe millénaire. Akkadica 98: 11–30. 1997 Autour de la tête d’une statuette du temple de Ninni-zaza. MARI 8: 725–30. 2004 Mari: Métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. Paris: Picard / ERC. 2007a Réexamen des niveaux inférieurs du secteur du temple d’Ishtar de Mari. Akh Purattim 1: 129–47. 2007b La maison d’habitation de la Ville II. Akh Purattim 2: 227–44. 2007c Un centre administratif religieux dans l’espace urbain à Mari et à Khafadjé. Akh Purattim 2: 245–77. 2007d Mari et la chronologie: Acquisitions récentes et problèmes. Pp. 285–301 in P. Matthiae et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the International Colloquium From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium bc in Syria-Palestine (Rome 29th November — 1st December 2001). Contributi del Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare «Beniamino Segre» 117. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Margueron, J.-C., D. Beyer, C. Breniquet, P. Butterlin, A. Liégey, B. Muller, and I. Weygand 1997 Mari: Rapport préliminaire sur les campagnes de 1990 et 1991. MARI 8: 9–70. Margueron, J.-C., D. Beyer, E. Capet, P. Gontier, M. Jean-Marie, A. Liègey, and I. Weygand 2007 Mari: Rapport préliminaire sur la campagne de 1993. Akh Purattim 1: 13–43. Martin, H. P. 1988 Fara: A Reconstruction of the Ancient Mesopotamian City of Shuruppak. Birmingham: Martin. Martin, H. P., F. Pomponio, G. Visicato, and A. Westenholz 2001 The Fara Tablets in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Marzahn, J. 1991 Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Girsu/Lagas. VS 25. Berlin: Akademie. 1996 Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte und ein Brief aus Girsu/Lagas. VS 27. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Matouß, L. 1971 Einige Bemerkungen zu altsumerischen Rechtsurkunden. ArOr 39: 1–15. Matthews, D. 1997a The Early Glyptic of Tell Brak: Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium Syria. OBO, Series Archaeologica 15. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bibliography 1997b

277

The Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition, Part I: When Did the Akkadian Period Begin? Iraq 59: 1– 7. Matthews, R. J. 1989 Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, 1988. Iraq 51: 225–48. 1990 Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, 1989. Iraq 52: 25–39. 1991 Fragments of Officialdom from Fara. Iraq 53: 1–15. 1993 Cities, Seals and Writing: Archaic Seal Impressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur. MSVO 2. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 2002 Seven Shrines of Subartu. Pp. 186–90 in al-Gailani Werr et al. (eds.), Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday. London: NABU. 2004 The Archaeology of Mesopotamia: Theories and Approaches. Approaching the Ancient World. London: Routledge. Matthews, R. J. (ed.) 2003 Excavations at Tell Brak, 4: Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian Regional Centre, 1994–1996. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge / London: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research / British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Matthiae, P. 1974 A Fragment of a “Second Transition Period” Statuette from Tell Mardikh. BaM 7: 125–37. 1979 Appunti di iconografia eblaita, I: Il turbante regale (?) eblaita di Mardikh IIB1. SEb 1: 17–31. 1980a Appunti di iconografia eblaita, II: La testa di Atareb. SEb 2: 41–47. 1980b About the Style of a Miniature Animal Sculpture from the Royal Palace G of Ebla. SEb 3: 99–120. 1985 I tesori di Ebla. 2nd ed. Rome: Laterza. 1989a Ebla: Un impero ritrovato; Dai primi scavi alle ultime scoperte. Saggi 719. 2nd ed. Turin: Einaudi. 1989b Masterpieces of Early and Old Syrian Art: Discoveries of the 1988 Ebla Excavations in a Historical Perspective. Proceedings of the British Academy 75: 25–56. 1992 Figurative Themes and Literary Texts. Pp. 217–41 in P. Fronzaroli (ed.), Literature and Literary Language at Ebla. QuSem 18. Florence: Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze. 1993a On This Side of the Euphrates: A Note on the Urban Origins in Inner Syria. Pp. 523–30 in M. Frangipane et al. (eds.), Between the Rivers and over the Mountains: Archaeologica anatolica et mesopotamica Alba Palmieri dedicata. Rome: Università di Roma «La Sapienza». 1993b L’aire sacrée d’Ishtar a Ebla: Résultats des fouilles de 1990–1992. CRAIBL 1993: 613–62. 1994 Il sovrano e l’opera: Arte e potere nella Mesopotamia antica. Grandi opere. Rome: Laterza. 1995 Il Palazzo Reale G: Struttura e immagine del centro del potere nel Periodo Protosiriano. Pp. 104– 11 in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, and G. Scandone Matthiae (eds.), Ebla: Alle origini della civiltà urbana; Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Milan: Electa. 1996 L’arte degli assiri: Cultura e forma del rilievo storico. Storia e società. Rome: Laterza. 1998 Les fortifications d’Ébla paléo-syrienne: Fouilles à Tell Mardikh (1995–1997). CRAIBL 1998: 557– 88. 2000 La storia dell’arte dell’Oriente Antico: Gli stati territoriali 2100–1600 a.C. Milan: Electa. 2004 Le palais méridional dans la ville basse d’Ebla paléosyrienne: Fouilles à Tell Mardikh (2002–2003). CRAIBL 2004: 301–46 2008 Gli Archivi Reali di Ebla: La scoperta, i testi, il significato. Rome: Mondadori Università / Sapienza Università di Roma. Matthiae, P., F. Pinnock, and G. Scandone Matthiae (eds.) 1995 Ebla: Alle origini della civiltà urbana; Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Milan: Electa. Mazzoni, S. 1975 Sulle figurine eburnee del “tesoro di Ur” da Mari. OA 14: 1–10. 1988 “Problèmes et questions ouvertes” nell’archeologia orientale. VO 7: 59–69. 1991 Ebla e la formazione della cultura urbana in Siria. La Parola del Passato 47: 163–94. 1992 Le impronte su giara eblaite e siriane nel Bronzo Antico. MSAE 1. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria.

278 1995

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Le origini della città protosiriana. Pp. 96–103 in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, and G. Scandone Matthiae (eds.), Ebla: Alle origini della civiltà urbana; Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Milan: Electa. McCown, D. E., R. C. Haines, and R. D. Biggs 1978 Nippur, II: The North Temple and Sounding E; Excavations of the Joint Expedition to Nippur of The American Schools of Oriental Research and The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. OIP 97. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. McMahon, A. 2006 Nippur, V: The Early Dynastic to Akkadian Transition; The Area WF Sounding at Nippur. OIP 129. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Mecquenem, R. de 1911a Constructions élamites du tell de l’Acropole de Suse. Pp. 65–78 in M. D. Soutzo et al. (eds.), Recherches archéologiques, quatrième série. MDP 12. Paris: Leroux. 1911b Vestiges de constructions élamites. RT 23: 38–55. Mecquenem, R. de, G. Contenau, R. Pfister, and N. Belaiew 1943 Mission de Susiane. MMAI 29. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Meijer, D. J. W. 2002 The Khafaje Sin Temple Sequence: Social Divisions at Work? Pp. 218–26 in L. al-Gailani Werr et al. (eds.), Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday. London: NABU. Meinhold, W. 2009 Istar in Assur: Untersuchung eines Lokalkultes von ca. 2500 bis 614 v.Chr. AOAT 367. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Meyer, J.-W. 1997 Djebelet el-Beda: Eine Stätte der Ahnenverehrung? AoF 24: 294–309. Michalowski, P. 1983 History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List. JAOS 103: 237–48. 1992 Mari: The View from Ebla. Pp. 243–48 in G. D. Young (ed.), Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1993 On the Early Toponymy of Sumer: A Contribution to the Study of Early Mesopotamian Writing. Pp. 119–35 in A. F. Rainey (ed.), kinattutu sa darâti: Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. 2003 A Man Called Enmebaragesi. Pp. 195–208 in W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift fur Claus Wilcke. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Miglus, P. A. 1998–2001 dNINNI.ZA.ZA. RlA 9: 478–79. 2008 Kings Go into Battle: Representation of the Mesopotamian Ruler as a Warrior. Pp. 231–46 in P. Abrahami and L. Battini (eds.), Les armées du Proche-Orient ancien (IIIe-Ier mill. av. J.-C.): Actes du colloque international organisé à Lyons les 1er et 2 décembre 2006, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. BAR IntSer 1855. Oxford: Hedges. Milone, M. E. 1998 Irikagina, figlio di Engisa, énsi di Lagas. NABU 1998/106: 96–97. 2005 Un piccolo archivio di tavolette presargoniche provenienti da Umma-Zabala. Sefarad 65: 327–51. Mittermayer, C. 2005 Die Entwicklung der Tierkopfzeichen: Eine Studie zur syro-mesopotamischen Keilschriftpaläographie des 3. und frühen 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. AOAT 319. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Molina, M. 1999–2000 Neo-Sumerian Letter-Orders in the British Museum, I. AuOr 17–18: 215–28. Molina, M., and M. Such-gutiérrez 2004 On Terms for Cutting Plants and Noses in Ancient Sumer. JNES 63: 1–16. Monaco, S. forthcoming a Some New Light on Pre-Sargonic Umma. Proceedings of the 56 e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Barcelona, 2010.

Bibliography

279

More on Pre-Sargonic Umma. Proceedings of the 57 e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Rome, 2011. Moon-Killick, J. 1986 The Lower Diyala and the Hamrin Basin: Ceramic Relations during the Early Third Millennium. Pp. 112–19 in U. Finkbeiner and W. Röllig (eds.), G& amdat Naßr — Period or Regional Style? Papers Given at a Symposium Held in Tübingen November 1983. TAVO, Beiheft — Reihe B/62. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Moorey, P. R. S. 1966 A Re-Consideration of the Excavations on Tell Ingharra (East Kish), 1923–33. Iraq 28: 18–51. 1970 Cemetery A at Kish: Grave Groups and Chronology. Iraq 32: 86–128. 1977 What Do We Know about the People Buried in the Royal Cemetery? Expedition 20: 24–40. 1978 Kish Excavations 1923–1933. Oxford: Clarendon. 1979 Unpublished Early Dynastic Sealings from Ur in the British Museum. Iraq 41: 105–20. 1996 A Stone Replica of an Early Dynastic III Royal Hairstyle? Pp. 227–38 in H. Gasche and B. Hrouda (eds.), Collectanea orientalia: Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre; Etudes offertes en hommage à Agnès Spycket. CPOA 3. Paris / Neuchâtel: Recherches et Publications. Moorey, P. R. S., and O. R. Gurney 1978 Ancient Near Eastern Seals Acquired by the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 1963–1973. Iraq 40: 41– 60. Moortgat, A. 1935 Frühe Bildkunst in Sumer. MVAG 40/3. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1940 Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1945 Die Entstehung der sumerischen Hochkultur. Der Alte Orient 43. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1949 Tammuz: Der Unsterblichkeitsglaube in der altorientalischen Bildkunst. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1965 Tell Chuera in Nordost Syrien: Vorläufiger Bericht über die vierte Grabungskampagne 1963. Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen 31. Cologne: Westdeutscher. 1967a Tell Chuera in Nordost Syrien: Vorläufiger Bericht über die fünfte Grabungskampagne 1964. Schriften der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1967b Die Kunst des Alten Mesopotamien: Die klassische Kunst Vorderasiens. Cologne: DuMont Schauberg. 1968 Frühe kanaanäisch-sumerische Berührungen in Mari. BaM 4: 221–31. Moortgat, A., and U. Moortgat-Correns 1974 Archäologische Bemerkungen zu einem Schatzfund im Vorsargonischen Palast in Mari mit einer Tabelle der wichtigsten Vergleichsstücke. Iraq 36: 155–67. Moortgat-Correns, U. 1959 Bemerkungen zur Glyptik des Diyala-Gebietes. OLZ 54: cols. 341–54. 1967 Kleiner Männerkopf aus Lapislazuli. ZA 58: 299–301. 1972 Die Bildwerke von Djebelet el Beda in ihrer räumlichen und zeitlichen Umwelt. Berlin: de Gruyter. Müller-Karpe, M. 1993 Metallgefäße im Iraq, I: Von den Anfängen bis zur Akkad-Zeit. PBF II/14. Stuttgart: Steiner. Muscarella, O. W. 1995 Bazaar Archaeology. Pp. 449–53 in U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann, and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens: Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. 2000 The Lie Became Great: The Forgery of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures. Studies in the Art and Archaeology of Antiquity 1. Groningen: Styx. al-Mutawalli, N., and P. A. Miglus 2002 Eine Statuette des Epaªe, eines frühdynastischen Herrschers von Adab. AoF 29: 3–11. Nadali, D. 2007 Monuments of War, War of Monuments: Some Considerations on Commemorating War in the Third Millennium bc. Or 76: 336–67. Nagel, W. 1959a Datierte Glyptik in frühdynastischer Zeit. Or 28: 141–62. forthcoming b

280 1959b 1963 1964

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Die Statue eines neusumerischen Gottkönigs. ZA 53: 261–65. Datierte Glyptik aus Altvorderasien. AfO 20: 125–40. Frühdynastische Epochen in Mesopotamien. Pp. 178–215 in K. Bittel et al. (eds.), Vorderasiatische Archäologie: Studien und Aufsätze Anton Moortgat zum fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet von Kollegen, Freunde und Schülern. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Nagel, W., and E. Strommenger 1995 Sechzig Jahre Forschung zur frühdynastischen Bildkunst und ein neues Denkmal des Urdynastikums. Pp. 455–68 in U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann, and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens: Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Nassouhi, E. 1926 Statue d’un dieu de Mari, vers 2225 av. J.-C. AfO 3: 109–14. Neumann, H. 1998–2001 Nammahani. RlA 9: 135. Nies, J. B. 1920 Ur Dynasty Tablets: Texts Chiefly from Tello and Drehem, Written during the Reigns of Dungi, Bur-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin. AB 25. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Nigro, L. 1998 The Two Steles of Sargon: Iconology and Visual Propaganda at the Beginning of Royal Akkadian Relief. Iraq 60: 85–102. Nikol’skij, M. V. 1908 Dokumenty chozjajstvennoj otcetnosti drevnejsej e&pochi Chaldei iz sobranija N.P. Lichaceva. DV 3/2. St. Petersburg: Vostocnoj Komissii Imperatorskago Moskovskago Archeologiceskago Obscestva. [Russian] 1915 Dokumenty chozjajstvennoj otcetnosti drevnejsej e&pochi Chaldei iz sobranija N.P. Lichaceva, II: E& pocha dinastii Agade i e&pocha dinastii Ura. DV 5. Moscow: Vostocnoj Komissii Imperatorskago Moskovskago Archeologiceskago Obscestva. [Russian] Nissen, H. J. 1966 Zur Datierung des Königsfriedhofes von Ur unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Stratigraphie der Privatgräber. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 3. Bonn: Habelt. 1972 The City Wall of Uruk. Pp. 793–98 in P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbley (eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism: Proceedings of a Meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects Held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University. London: Duckworth. Nissen, H. J., P. Damerow, and R. K. Englund 1993 Archaic Bookkeeping: Early Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Oates, D. 1982 Excavations at Tell Brak, 1978–1981. Iraq 44: 187–204. Oates, D., J. Oates, and H. McDonald (eds.) 2001 Excavations at Tell Brak, 2: Nagar in the Third Millennium bc. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research / London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Oates, J., A. McMahon, P. Karsgaard, S. Al-Quntar, and J. Ur 2007 Early Mesopotamian Urbanism: A New View from the North. Antiquity 81: 585–600. Oelsner, J. 2003 Aus den sumerischen literarischen Texten der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena: Der Text der Tummal Chronik. Pp. 209–24 in W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift fur Claus Wilcke. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Özgüç, T. 1986 New Observations on the Relationships of Kültepe with Southeast Anatolia and North Syria during the Third Millennium b.c. Pp. 31–47 in J. V. Canby et al. (eds.), Ancient Anatolia: Aspects of Change and Cultural Development. Essays in Honor of Machteld J. Mellink. Wisconsin Studies in Classics. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Bibliography

281

Olmo Lete, G. del, and J. Sanmartín 1996–2000 Diccionario de la lengua ugarítica. AuOr Suppl. 8. Sabadell: AUSA. Oppenheim, M. von 1931 Der Tell Halaf: Eine neue Kultur im ältesten Mesopotamien. Leipzig: Brockhaus. 1934 Führer durch das Tell Halaf-Museum, Berlin, Franklinstr. 6. Berlin: von Oppenheim-Stiftung. Orthmann, W. 1990 L’architecture religieuse de Tell Chuera. Akkadica 69: 1–18. Orthmann, W. (ed.) 1975 Der Alte Orient. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14. Berlin: Propyläen. Otto, A. 2006 Archeological Perspectives on the Localization of Naram-Sin’s Armanum. JCS 58: 1–26. Owen, D. I. 1975 John Frederick Lewis Collection. MVN 3. Rome: Multigrafica. Ozaki, T., and M. Sigrist 2006 Ur III Administrative Tablets from the British Museum, pt. I. BPOA 1. Madrid: CSIC. Pagan, J. M. 1998 A Morphological and Lexical Study of Personal Names in the Ebla Texts. ARES 3. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Parrot, A. 1935 Les fouilles de Mari: Première campagne (hiver 1933–34); Rapport préliminaire. Syria 16: 1–28. 1940 Les fouilles de Mari: Sixième campagne (automne 1938). Syria 21: 1–28. 1948 Tello: Vingt Campagnes de fouilles (1877–1933). Paris: Albin Michel. 1952a Les fouilles de Mari: Septième campagne (hiver 1951–1952). Syria 29: 183–203. 1952b Statuaire mésopotamienne du dynastique archaïque. Iraq 14: 73–75. 1953a Les fouilles de Mari: Huitième campagne (automne 1952). Syria 30: 196–221. 1953b Mari. Collection des ides photographiques 7. Neuchâtel / Paris: Ides et calendes. 1954 Les fouilles de Mari: Neuvième campagne (automne 1953). Syria 31: 151–71. 1955a A propos de la “statue d’un homme de Mari.” Syria 32: 182–83. 1955b Les fouilles de Mari: Dixième campagne (automne 1954). Syria 32: 185–211. 1956 Le temple d’Ishtar. BAH 65; MAM 1. Paris: Geuthner. 1957 Acquisitions et inédits du musée du Louvre. Syria 34: 223–31. 1962 Les fouilles de Mari: Douzième campagne (automne 1961). Syria 39: 151–79. 1964 Les fouilles de Mari: Treizième campagne (printemps 1963). Syria 41: 3–20. 1965 Les fouilles de Mari: Quinzième campagne (printemps 1965). Syria 42: 197–225. 1967 Le temple d’Ishtarat et de Ninni-zaza. BAH 86; MAM 3. Paris: Geuthner. 1968 Le “Trésor” d’Ur. BAH 87; MAM 4. Paris: Geuthner. 1970 Les fouilles de Mari: Dix-huitième campagne (automne 1969). Syria 47: 225–43. 1974 Mari, capitale fabuleuse. Bibliothèque historique. Paris: Payot. Pasquali, J. 2005 Il lessico dell’artigianato nei testi di Ebla. QuSem 23. Florence: Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze. Pearce, L. E. 1996 The Number-Syllabary Texts. JAOS 116: 453–74. Peltenburg, E. 1991 The Burrell Collection: Western Asiatic Antiquities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University. Pelzel, S. M. 1977 Dating the Early Dynastic Votive Plaques from Susa. JNES 36: 1–15. Peterson, J. 2008 A New Sumerian Fragment Preserving an Account of the Mesopotamian Antediluvian Dynasties. AuOr 26: 257–62 Pettinato, G. 1967 Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Landwirtschaft, I: Die Felder, pt. 2. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli.

282 1979 1981

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Ebla: Un impero inciso nell’argilla. Milan: Mondadori. Testi lessicali monolingui della biblioteca L. 2769. MEE 3. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli. 1982 Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769. MEE 4. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. 1993 Testi economici neo-sumerici del British Museum (BM 12230—BM 12390). MVN 17. Rome: Bonsignori. Pettinato, G., and S. A. Picchioni 1978 Testi economici di Lagas del Museo di Istanbul, II. La. 7601–8200. MVN 7. Rome: Multigrafica. Pettinato, G., and H. Waetzoldt 1974 La Collezione Schollmeyer: Testi economici della III Dinastia di Ur conservati a Werl e Heidelberg. MVN 1. Rome: Multigrafica. Peust, C. 2007 Zur sumerischen Phonetik. NABU 2007/70: 83–85. Pfälzner, P., and J. Schmid 2008 Das Tempeloval von Urkes: Betrachtungen zur Typologie und Entwicklungsgeschichte der mesopotamischen Ziqqurrat im 3. Jt. v. Chr. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 1: 396–433. Pinches, T. G. 1880–84 A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia, Prepared . . . by . . . Sir C. Rawlinson . . . , Assisted by Theophilus G. Pinches. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia 5. London: British Museum — Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities. Pinnock, F. 1992 Le “turban royal éblaïte.” NABU 1992/18: 15–16. Pittman, H. 2001 Mesopotamian Intraregional Relations Reflected through Glyptic Evidence in the Late Chalcolithic 1–5 Periods. Pp. 403–43 in M. Rothman (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors: CrossCultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Pohl, A. 1935 Vorsargonische und sargonische Wirtschaftstexte. TMH 5. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Pollock, S. M. 1983 The Symbolism of Prestige: An Archaeological Example from the Royal Cemetery of Ur. Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. 1985 Chronology of the Royal Cemetery of Ur. Iraq 47: 129–58. Pomponio, F. 1987 La prosopografia dei testi presargonici di Fara. Studi semitici, nuova serie 3. Rome: Università «La Sapienza». 1989 La rivale di Lagas. RSO 63: 25–37. 1994a Re di Uruk, “re di Kis.” RSO 68: 1–14. 1994b The Hexapolis of Suruppak: Political and Economic Relationships between Suruppak and the Other Towns of Central and Southern Mesopotamia. Pp. 10–20 in F. Pomponio and G. Visicato, Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets from Suruppak. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. 2006 La storia politica di Adab. Pp. 52–57 in F. Pomponio, G. Visicato, and A. Westenholz, Le tavolette cuneiformi di Adab delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. Rome: Banca d’Italia. Pomponio, F., M. Stol, and A. Westenholz 2006 Tavolette cuneiformi di varia provenienza delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. Rome: Banca d’Italia. Pomponio, F., and G. Visicato 1994 Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets from Suruppak. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Pomponio, F., G. Visicato, and A. Westenholz 2006 Le tavolette cuneiformi di Adab delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. Rome: Banca d’Italia. Pomponio, F., and P. Xella 1997 Les dieux d’Ebla: Études analytique des divinités éblaïtes à l’époque des archives royales du IIIe millénaire. AOAT 245. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.

Bibliography Porada, E. 1965

283

The Relative Chronology of Mesopotamia, Part I: Seals and Trade (6000–1600 b.c.). Pp. 133–200 in R. W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1991 Review of Martin 1988 and Karg 1984. AJA 95: 170–73. 1993 Seals and Related Objects from Early Mesopotamia and Iran. Pp. 44–53 in J. E. Curtis (ed.), Early Mesopotamia and Iran: Contact and Conflict 3500–1600 bc; Proceedings of a Seminar in Memory of Vladimir G. Lukonin. London: British Museum. 1995 Man and Images in the Ancient Near East. Anshen Transdisciplinary Lectureships in Art, Science and the Philosophy of Culture 4. London: Moyer Bell. Porada, E., D. P. Hansen, S. Dunham, and S. H. Babcock 1992 The Chronology of Mesopotamia, ca. 7000–1600 b.c. Pp. 77–121 in R. W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Porter, A. 2002 The Dynamics of Death: Ancestors, Pastoralism and the Origins of a Third Millennium City in Syria. BASOR 325: 1–36. Postgate, J. N. 1973 Old Sumerian GE23 = as? AfO 24: 77. 1994 Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Pottier, E. 1912 Étude historique et chronologique sur les vases peints de l’Acropole de Suse. Pp. 27–103 in E. Pottier, J. de Morgan, and R. de Mecquenem, Recherches archéologiques, cinquième série: Céramique peinte de Suse et petits monuments de l’époque archaïque. MDP 13. Paris: Leroux. Pottier, E., J. de Morgan, and R. de Mecquenem 1912 Recherches archéologiques, cinquième série: Céramique peinte de Suse et petits monuments de l’époque archaïque. MDP 13. Paris: Leroux. Powell, M. A. 1978 Texts from the Time of Lugalzagesi: Problems and Perspectives in Their Interpretation. HUCA 49: 1–58. 1981 Collations to M. V. Nikol’skiî, Dokumenty khoziaistvennoî otchetnosti drevneîsheî epokhi Khaldei iz sobraniia N. P. Likhachëva. Drevnosti Vostochnya. Trudy Vostochnoî Kommissii Imperatorskago Moskovskago Obshchestva 3/II (1908). ASJ 3: 125–47. 1996 The Sin of Lugalzagesi. WZKM 86: 307–14. Prechel, D. 1996 Die Göttin Ishara: Ein Beitrag zur altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Pruss, A. 2000 Recent Excavations at Tell Chuera and the Chronology of the Site. Pp. 1431–46 in P. Matthiae et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998. Rome: Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Quenet, A. 2005 The Diffusion of the Cuneiform Writing System in Northern Mesopotamia: The Earliest Archaeological Evidence. Iraq 67: 31–40. Rashid, S. A. 1983 Gründungsfiguren im Iraq. PBF I/2. Munich: Beck. Reade, J. E. 2000a Early Carvings from the Mocatta, Blau, and Herzfeld Collections. NABU 2000/71: 81–82. 2000b Early Dynastic Statues in the British Museum. NABU 2000/73: 82–86. 2001 Assyrian King-Lists, the Royal Tombs of Ur, and Indus Origins. JNES 60: 1–29. 2002 Early Monuments in Gulf Stone at the British Museum, with Observations on Some Gudea Statues and the Location of Agade. ZA 92: 258–95. Reichel, C. 2003 Diyala Project. Pp. 44–50 in G. J. Stein (ed.), The Oriental Institute 2002–2003 Annual Report. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.

284 Renger, J. 1972–75 1984 1988

Reiner, E. 1974 1995 Ridley, R. T. 2000 Roaf, M. 2000

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Hofstaat. RlA 4: 435–46. Zur Inschrift Mesannepadda 1. RA 78: 175–76. Zur Wurzel MLK in Akkadischen Texten aus Syrien und Palästina. Pp. 165–72 in A. Archi (ed.), Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving. ARES 1. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. The Series HAR-ra = hubullu Tablets XX–XXIV. MSL 11. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Astral Magic in Babylonia. TAPS 85/4. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. The Saga of an Epic: Gilgamesh and the Constitution of Uruk. Or 69: 341–67.

Survivals and Revivals in the Art of Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 1447–62 in P. Matthiae et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998. Rome: Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Roaf, M., and A. Zgoll 2001 Assyrian Astroglyphs: Lord Aberdeen’s Black Stone and the Prisms of Esarhaddon. ZA 91: 264–95. Römer, W. H. P. 1980 Das sumerische Kurzepos “Bilgames und Akka.” AOAT 209/1. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Rosenswig, R. M. 2007 Beyond Identifying Elites: Feasting as a Means to Understand Early Middle Formative Society on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. JAA 26: 1–27. Roth, M. T. 1995 Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. WAW 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Rothman, M. S. (ed.) 2001 Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors: Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Rouault, O., and M. G. Masetti-Rouault (eds.) 1993 L’Eufrate e il tempo: Le civiltà del Medio Eufrate e della Gezira siriana. Milan: Electa. Rowton, M. B. 1970 Chronology, II: Ancient Western Asia. CAH I/1: 193–239. Rumaidh, S. S. 2000 Excavations in Chokha, an Early Dynastic Settlement. Edubba 8. London: NABU. Russell, J. M. 1991 Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Safar, F. 1971 A Stela from Badre. Sumer 27: 15*–24*. [Arabic] Saggs, H. W. F. 1995 The Babylonians. Peoples of the Past. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. Sallaberger, W. 1993a Die kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit, pt. 1. UAVA 7/1. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1993b Die kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit, pt. 2. UAVA 7/2. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1994 Review of Zettler 1992. ZA 84: 136–44. 1996a Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefäße nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen. MHES 3. Ghent: University of Ghent. Sign List: Paleography and Syllabary. Pp. 33–67 in F. Ismail et al., Administrative Documents from 1996b Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995). Subartu 2. Turnhout: Brepols. 1996c Grain Accounts: Personnel Lists and Expenditure Documents. Pp. 89–106 in F. Ismail et al., Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995). Subartu 2. Turnhout: Brepols. 1998 Ein Synchronismus der Urkunden von Tell Beydar mit Mari und Ebla? Pp. 23–39 in M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu: Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, 2: Culture, Society, Image. Subartu 4/2. Turnhout: Brepols.

Bibliography 2002

285

Den Gottern nähe — und fern den Menschen? Formen der Sakralität des altmesopotamischen Herrschers. Pp. 85–98 in F.-R. Erkens (ed.), Die Sakralität von Herrschaft: Herrschaftslegitimierung im Wechsel der Zeiten und Räume: Fünfzehn interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu einem weltweiten und epochenübergreifenden Phänomen. Berlin: Akademie. 2003 Nachrichten an den Palast von Ebla: Eine Deutung von ním-mul-(an). Pp. 600–625 in P. Marrassini (ed.), Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2003–5 Palast, A: I. Mesopotamien im III. Jahrtausend. RlA 10: 200–204. 2004 Relative Chronologie von der späten frühdynastischen bis zur altbabylonischen Zeit. Pp. 15–43 in J.-W. Meyer and W. Sommerfeld (eds.), 2000 v. Chr. — Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende: 3. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 4.–7. April 2000 in Frankfurt/Main und Marburg/Lahn. Colloquien der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 3. Saarbrücken: SDV. 2005 “bringen” im Sumerischen: Lesung and Bedeutung von de6(DU) und tum2(DU). Pp. 557–76 in R. Rollinger (ed.), Von Sumer bis Homer: Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Sallaberger, W., and F. Huber Vulliet 2003–5 Priester, A: I. Mesopotamien. RlA 10: 617–40. Sarzec, E. de, and L. Heuzey 1884–1912 Découvertes en Chaldée. Paris: Leroux. Sauvage, M. 1998 La brique et sa mise en oeuvre en Mésopotamie des origines à l’époque achéménide. Paris: ERC. Scandone Matthiae, G. 1979 Vasi iscritti di Chefren e Pepi I nel Palazzo Reale G di Ebla. SEb 1: 33–43. 1995 Ebla, la Siria e l’Egitto nel Bronzo Antico e Medio. Pp. 234–41 in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, and G. Scandone Matthiae (eds.), Ebla: Alle origini della civiltà urbana; Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Milan: Electa. Schaudig, H. 2003 Nabonid, der “Archäologe auf dem Königsthron”: Zum Gesichtsbild des ausgehenden neubabylonischen Reiches. Pp. 447–97 in G. J. Selz (ed.), Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. AOAT 274. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Scheil, V. 1925 Quelques particularités du sumérien en Elam. RA 22: 45–53. 1934 Listes susiennes des dynasties de Sumer-Accad. RA 31: 149–66. Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1993 Images of Enship. Pp. 201–19 in M. Frangipane et al. (eds.), Between the Rivers and over the Mountains: Archaeologica anatolica et mesopotamica Alba Palmieri dedicata. Rome: Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Schmidt, J. 2002 Zum Realitätscharakter der sumerischen Baukunst: Gestaltmetamorphose in der frühsumerischen Sakralarchitektur. BaM 33: 45–87. Schrakamp, I. 2008 Review of Pomponio, Visicato, and Westenholz 2006 and Pomponio, Stol, and Westenholz 2006. BiOr 65: 651–711. Schretter, M. K. 1990 Emesal-Studien: Sprach- und Literaturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Frauensprache des Sumerischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Schuol, M. 2000 Die Charakene: Ein mesopotamisches Königreich in hellenistisch-parthischer Zeit. Oriens et Occidens 1. Stuttgart: Steiner. Schwartz, G., H. H. Curvers, S. Dunham, and B. Stuart 2003 A Third-Millennium b.c. Elite Tomb and Other New Evidence from Tell Umm el-Marra, Syria. AJA 107: 325–61.

286

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Selz, Gebhard J. 1989 Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagas, 1: Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der Eremitage zu Leningrad. FAOS 15/1. Stuttgart: Steiner. 1990 Studies in Early Synchretism: The Development of the Pantheon in Lagas; Examples for InnerSumerian Synchretism. ASJ 12: 111–42. 1992 Eine Kultstatue der Herrschergemahlin Sasa: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Vergöttlichung. ASJ 14: 245–68. 1993 Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagas, 2: Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischen Sammlungen. FAOS 15/2. Stuttgart: Steiner. 1995 Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagas. OPKF 13. Philadelphia: The University Museum. 1997 The Holy Drum, the Spear, and the Harp: Towards an Understanding of the Problems of Deification in Third Millennium Mesopotamia. Pp. 167–213 in I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller (eds.), Sumerian Gods and Their Representations. CM 7. Groningen: Styx. 1998 Über mesopotamische Herrschaftskonzepte: Zu den Ursprüngen mesopotamischer Herrscherideologie im 3. Jahrtausend. Pp. 281–344 in M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), dubsar anta-men: Studien zur Altorientalistik; Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. AOAT 253. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 2003 Who Is Who? Aka, König von Fis(s)a: Zur Historizität eines Königs und seiner möglichen Identität mit Aka, König von Kis(i). Pp. 499–518 in G. J. Selz (ed.), Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. AOAT 274. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 2010 Immer nur Söhne und keine Tochter? Zu einem Familienrelief des Ur-Nanse (Urnanse 20 = RIME 1 E1.9). Pp. 187–96 in D. Shehata, F. Weiershäuser, and K. V. Zand (eds.), Von Göttern und Menschen: Beiträge zu Literatur und Geschichte des Alten Orients; Festschrift für Brigitte Groneberg. CM 41. Leiden: Brill. Selz, Gudrun 1983 Die Bankettszene: Entwicklung eines “überzeitliches” Bildmotifs in Mesopotamien von der frühdynastischen bis zur Akkad-zeit. FAOS 11. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Seminara, S. 1996 Il “lugalato” da Ebla a Emar: Sopravvivenze emarite della terminologia e della prassi eblaite della gestione del potere. AuOr 14: 79–92. Sharlach, T. 2000 Review of M. Sigrist, Texts from the Yale Babylonian Collections. SAT 2 and 3. Bethesda, MD: CDL 2000. JCS 52: 131–37. 2005 Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court. JCS 57: 17–29. Sievertsen, U. 1992 Das Messer vom Gebel al-Arak. BaM 23: 1–75. Sigrist, M. 1995 Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontario Museum, 1: The Administration at Drehem. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Sigrist, M., and T. Ozaki 2009 Neo-Sumerian Administrative Tablets from the Yale Babylonian Collection, pt. 2. BPOA 7. Madrid: CSIC. Sjöberg, Å. W. 1960 Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der sumerischen Überlieferung, I: Texte. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. 1973a Hymn to Numusda with a Prayer for King Sîniqisam. Orientalia Suecana 22: 107–21. 1973b Miscellaneous Sumerian Hymns. ZA 63: 1–55. 1996 UET VII, 73: An Exercise Tablet Enumerating Professions. Pp. 117–37 in O. Tunca and D. Deheselle (eds.), Tablettes et images aux pays de Sumer et d’Akkad: Mélanges offerts à Monsieur H. Limet. Liège: Université de Liège.

Bibliography

287

Sjöberg, Å. W., and S. J. Bergmann 1969 The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns. TCS 3. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin. Soden, W. von 1975 Le temple: Terminologie lexicale; Einleitung zum Colloquium am 6. Juli 1972. Pp. 133–43 in Le temple et le culte: Compte rendu de la vingtième Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale organisée à Leiden du 3 au 7 Juillet 1972 sous les auspices du Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Leiden: NINO. 1989 Weitere Bemerkungen zu Texten aus Emar. NABU 1989/8: 7. Soden, W. von, and W. R. Mayer 1995 Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. AnOr 33. 3rd ed. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Soldt, W. van 2001 Stone Objects. Pp. 447–77 in M. van Loon (ed.), Selenkahiye: Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of Amsterdam Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967–1975. PIHANS 91. Leiden: NINO. Sollberger, E. 1956 Corpus des inscriptions “royales” présargoniques de Lagas. Geneva: Droz. 1957–71 GÍN.AK PA.TE.SI EDIN.É. RlA 3: 376. 1959 Sumerica. ZA 53: 1–8. 1965 Royal Inscriptions, pt. II. UET 8. London: The Trustees of the British Museum / Philadelphia: Trustees of the University Museum. 1967 The Rulers of Lagas. JCS 21: 79–91. 1972 Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic Economic Texts. CT 50. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. Sollberger, E., and J.-R. Kupper 1971 Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes. Paris: Cerf. Sommerfeld, W. 1999 Die Texte der Akkade-Zeit, 1: Das Dijala-Gebiet: Tutub. Imgula 3/1. Münster: Rhema. Speiser, E. A. 1952 The “Elative” in West-Semitic and Akkadian. JCS 6: 81–92. Spycket, A. 1968 Les statues de culte dans les textes mesopotamiens des origines a la 1re dynastie de Babylone. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 9. Paris: Gabalda. 1981 La statuaire du Proche-Orient ancien. HdO 7/1/2/B/2. Leiden: Brill. 1992 Les figurines de Suse, I: Les figurines humaines IVe-IIe millenaires av. J.-C. MDAI 52. Paris: Gabalda. Starzmann, M. T. 2008 Use of Space in Shuruppak: Households on Display. Pp. 203–19 in J. M. Córdoba et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3–8 2006, vol. 3. Madrid: UAM. Steible, H. 1982a Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, I: Inschriften aus “Lagas.” FAOS 5/1. Wiesbaden: Steiner. 1982b Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, II: Kommentar zu den Inschriften aus “Lagas”; Inschriften ausserhalb von “Lagas.” FAOS 5/2. Wiesbaden: Steiner. 1991a Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, 1: Inschriften der II. Dynastie von Lagas. FAOS 9/1. Stuttgart: Steiner. 1991b Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, 2: Kommentar zu den Gudea-Statuen; Inschriften der III. Dynastie von Ur; Inschriften der IV. und “V.” Dynastie von Uruk; Varia. FAOS 9/2. Stuttgart: Steiner. Steible, H., and F. Yıldız 1993 Ki’engi aus der Sicht von Suruppak: Eine frühdinastische Regio nach Fara-zeitlichen Urkunden. IstM 43: 17–26. Steiner, G. 1992 Nippur und die sumerische Königsliste: Pp. 261–79 in M. deJ. Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988. OPKF 14. Philadelphia: The University Museum.

288

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Steinkeller, P. 1977 Seal Practice in the Ur III Period. Pp. 41–53 in McG. Gibson and R. D. Biggs (eds.), Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East. BiMes 6. Malibu: Undena. 1984a The Eblaite Preposition qidimay “before.” OA 23: 33–37. 1984b Old Akkadian Miscellanea. RA 78: 83–88. 1984c The Sumerian Verb lugx(LUL). SEL 1: 1–17. 1986 Seal of Isma-ilum, Son of the Governor of Matar. VO 6: 27–40. 1987 Review of Foster 1982. WZKM 77: 182–95. 1989 Sale Documents of the Ur-III-Period. FAOS 17. Stuttgart: Steiner. 1990 Threshing Implements in Ancient Mesopotamia: Cuneiform Sources. Iraq 52: 19–23. 1992a Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. MC 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1992b Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium b.c. Pp. 724–32 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4. New York: Doubleday. 1993a Early Political Development in Mesopotamia and the Origin of the Sargonic Empire. Pp. 107–29 in M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad, the First World Empire: Structure, Ideology, Traditions. HANES 5. Padua: SARGON. 1993b Observations on the Sumerian Personal Names in Ebla Sources and on the Onomasticon of Mari and Kish. Pp. 236–45 in M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo. Bethesda, MD: CDL. 1993c More on Ha-LAM = Ha-labx. NABU 1993/10: 8. 1995a A Rediscovered Akkadian City? ASJ 17: 275–81. 1995b The Location of Kuwara. NABU 1995/91: 82–83. 1995c Review of Marzahn 1991. JAOS 115: 540–43. 1998 Inanna’s Archaic Symbol. Pp. 87–100 in P. Braun et al. (eds.), Written on Clay and Stone: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Krystyna Szarzynska on the Occasion of Her 80th Birthday. Warsaw: Agade. 1999 On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship. Pp. 103–37 in K. Watanabe (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East — The City and Its Life, Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22–24, 1996, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 2002a Archaic City Seals and the Question of Early Babylonian Unity. Pp. 249–57 in T. Abusch (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2002b More on the Archaic City Seals. NABU 2002/30: 29. 2003a The Question of Lugalzagesi’s Origins. Pp. 621–37 in G. J. Selz (ed.), Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. AOAT 274. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 2003b An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List. Pp. 267–92 in W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift fur Claus Wilcke. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2004a On the Writing of belum in Sargonic and Earlier Sources. NABU 2004/13: 12–14. 2004b Studies in Third Millennium Paleography, 4: Sign kiß. ZA 94: 175–85. 2010 On the Location of the Towns of Ur-Zababa and Dimat-Enlil and on the Course of the Arahtum. Pp. 369–82 in J. Fincke (ed.), Festschrift für Gernot Wilhelm anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 28. Januar 2010. Dresden: ISLET. Stephens, F. J. 1937 Votive and Historical Texts from Babylonia and Assyria. YOS 9. New Haven: Yale University Press. Streck, M. P. 2000 Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit, 1: Die Amurriter; Die onomastische Forschung; Orthographie und Phonologie; Nominalmorphologie. AOAT 271/1. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Strommenger, E. 1959 Statueninschriften und ihr Datierungswert. ZA 53: 27–50.

Bibliography 1960

289

Das Menschenbild in der altmesopotamischen Rundplastik von Mesilim bis Hammurapi. BaM 1: 1– 103. 1971 Mesopotamische Gewandtypen von der Frühsumerischen bis zur Larsa-Zeit. APA 2: 37–55. 2008 Netzrock und Wolle oder die Macht der Quellen. ZA 98: 1–11. Strommenger, E., and M. Hirmer 1962 Fünf Jahrtausende Mesopotamien: Die Kunst von den Anfängen um 5000 v.Chr. bis zu Alexander dem Großen. Munich: Hirmer. Strommenger, E., and K. Kohlmeyer (eds.) 2000 Ausgrabungen in Tall Biºa/Tuttul, 3: Die Schichten des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Zentralhügel E. WVDOG 101. Saarbrücken: Saarbrückener. Struve, V. V. 1984 Onomastika rannedinasticeskogo Lagasa. Moscow: Nauka. [Russian] Such-Gutiérrez 2005–6 Untersuchungen zum Pantheon von Adab im 3. Jt. AfO 51: 1–44. Sürenhagen, D. 1999 Untersuchungen zur relativen Chronologie Babyloniens und angrenzender Gebiete von der ausgehenden ºUbaidzeit bis zum Beginn der frühdynastisch II-Zeit, 1: Studien zur Chronostratigraphie des südbabylonischen Stadtruinen von Uruk und Ur. HSAO 8. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. 2002 Death in Mesopotamia: The ‘Royal Tombs’ of Ur Revisited. Pp. 324–38 in L. al-Gailani Werr et al. (eds.), Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday. London: NABU. Szarzyn! ska, K. 1997 Sumerica. Prace sumeroznawcze. Philologia Orientalis 3. Warsaw: Dialog. Taha, M. Y. 1970 Sumerian Statues from Tell Maªtuq. Sumer 26: 101*–8*. [Arabic] Taylor, J. 2003 Collations to ED Lu C and D. CDLB 2003/3. Tallqvist, K. L. 1938 Akkadische Götterepitheta, mit einem Götterverzeichnis und einer Liste der Prädikativen Elemente der sumerischen Götternamen. StOr 7. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. Talon, P. 1996 Personal Names. Pp. 75–80 in F. Ismail et al., Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995). Subartu 2. Turnhout: Brepols. Teissier, B. 1993 The Ruler with the Peaked Cap and Other Syrian Iconography on Glyptic from Kültepe in the Early Second Millennium b.c. Pp. 601–12 in M. J. Mellink, E. Porada, and T. Özgüç (eds.), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and Its Neighbours; Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. Thalmann, J.-P. 2003 Larsa 1987/1989: Le bâtiment B 33. Pp. 35–139 in J. L. Huot (ed.), Larsa: Travaux de 1987 et 1989. BAH 165. Beirut: IFAPO. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1903 Recueil de tablettes chaldéennes. Paris: Leroux. 1907 Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek I/1. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1934 Inscriptions votives sur des statuettes de Maªeri. RA 31: 137–44. Tonietti, M. V. 1997 Le cas de mekum: Continuité ou innovation dans la tradition éblaïte entre IIIe et IIe millénaires? MARI 8: 225–42. 2003 É = bitum or = ªà? About Ea in Early Dynastic Sources. Pp. 666–79 in P. Marrassini (ed.), Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Toscanne, O. 1908 Textes divers babyloniens. RT 30: 121–36.

290 Tunca, Ö. 1984 2004 Unger, E. 1926 Ungnad, A. 1938 Vallet, R. 2001

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia L’architecture religieuse protodynastique en Mesopotamie. Akkadica, Suppl. 2. Leuven: Peeters. A propos d’une figure de la plaque perforée d’Ur-Nanse (Urn. 20): Fille/femme, fils ou devin? NABU 2004/22: 22–23. Sumerische und akkadische Kunst. Jedermanns Bücherei. Breslau: Hirt. Datenlisten. RlA 2: 131–94.

Khafadjé ou les métamorphoses d’un quartier urbain au IIIe millénaire. Pp. 449–61 in C. Breniquet and C. Kepinski (eds.), Études mésopotamiennes: Recueil de textes offert à Jean-Louis Huot. Paris: ERC. Vanstiphout, H. L. J. 1970 Political Ideology in Early Sumer. OLP 1: 7–38. 1992 The Banquet Scene in the Mesopotamian Debate Poems. Pp. 9–21 in R. Gyselen (ed.), Banquets d’Orient. Res Orientales 4. Bures-sur-Yvette: Group pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du MoyenOrient. Vega-Centeno Sara-Lafosse, R. 2007 Construction, Labor Organization, and Feasting during the Late Archaic Period in the Central Andes. JAA 26: 150–171. Veldhuis, N. C. 1997–98 The Sur9-Priest, the Instrument gisAl-gar-sur9, and the Forms and Uses of a Rare Sign. AfO 44–45: 115–28. Vincente, C.-A. 1995 The Tall Leilan Recension of the Sumerian King List. ZA 85: 234–70. Visicato, G. 1989 Fara ed Ebla: Nuove prospettive storico-politiche nel periodo protodinastico. OA 28: 169–76. 1994 Typology and Internal Dating of the Tablets of the Central Administration of Suruppak. Pp. 3–9 in F. Pomponio and G. Visicato, Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets from Suruppak. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. 1995 The Bureaucracy of Suruppak: Administrative Centres, Central Offices, Intermediate Structures and Hierarchies in the Economic Documentation of Fara. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 2000 The Power and the Writing: The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia. Bethesda, MD: CDL. 2001 The Prosopography of the Sale Contracts of Fara. Pp. 139–62 in H. P. Martin et al. (eds.), The Fara Tablets in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Bethesda, MD: CDL. 2010 New Light from an Unpublished Archive of Meskigalla, Ensi of Adab, Housed in the Cornell University Collections. Pp. 263–71 in L. Kogan et al. (eds.), City Administration in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, vol. 2. Babel und Bibel 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Visicato, G., and A. Westenholz 2001 Fara Tablets Purchased by the University Museum. Pp. 77–100 in H. P. Martin et al. (eds.), The Fara Tablets in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Bethesda, MD: CDL. 2005 An Early Dynastic Archive from Ur Involving the Lugal. Kaskal 2: 55–78. 2010 Early Dynastic and Early Sargonic Tablets from Adab in the Cornell University Collections. CUSAS 11. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Waetzoldt, H. 2005 Tempelterrassen und Ziqqurrate nach der Sumerischen Überlieferung. Pp. 322–42 in Y. Sefati et al. (eds.), “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda, MD: CDL.

Bibliography

291

Walker, C. B. F., and D. Collon 1980 Hormuzd Rassam’s Excavations for the British Museum at Sippar in 1881–1882. Pp. 93–114 in L. De Meyer (ed.), Tell ed-Der, III: Sounding at Abu Habbah (Sippar). Leuven: Peeters. Walker, C. B. F., and M. Dick 2001 The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Mis Pî Ritual; Transliteration, Translation and Commentary. SAALT 1. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Watelin, L. C. 1929 Rapport sur les fouilles de Kish. JA 215: 103–16. Watelin, L. C., and S. Langdon 1934 Excavations at Kish: The Herbert Weld and Field Museum of Natural History Expedition to Mesopotamia, vol. IV. Paris: Geuthner. Waterman, L. 1931 Preliminary Report upon the Excavations at Tell Umar Conducted by the University of Michigan and the Toledo Museum of Art. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Watson, P. J. 1993 Catalogue of Cuneiform Tablets in Birmingham City Museum, 2: Neo-Sumerian Texts from Umma and Other Sites. BCT 2. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Weiher, E. von 1988 Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, pt. III. ADFU 12. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Weiss, H. 1990 “Civilizing” the Khabur Plains: Mid-Third Millennium State Formation at Tell Leilan. Pp. 387–407 in P. Matthiae, M. van Loon, and H. Weiss (eds.), Resurrecting the Past: A Joint Tribute to Adnan Bounni. PIHANS 67. Leiden: NINO. Westenholz, A. 1974 Early Nippur Year Dates and the Sumerian King List. JCS 26: 154–56. 1975a Early Cuneiform Texts in Jena: Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic Documents from Nippur and Fara in the Hilprecht-Sammlung vorderasiatischer Altertümer Institut für Altertumswissenschaften der Friedrich-SchillerUniversität, Jena. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. 1975b Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia Chiefly from Nippur, 1: Literary and Lexical Texts and the Earliest Administrative Documents from Nippur. BiMes 1. Malibu: Undena. 1979 The Old Akkadian Empire in Contemporary Opinion. Pp. 107–24 in M. T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk. 1987–90 Lugalzagesi. RlA 7: 155–57. 1999 The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture. Pp. 17–117 in W. Sallaberger and A. Westenholz, Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur-III-Zeit. OBO 160/3. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2002 The Sumerian City State. Pp. 23–42 in M. H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Six City-State Cultures. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. 2004 “Have You Been near Prof. Larsen Too Long?” Pp. 599–606 in J. G. Dercksen (ed.), Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Møgens Trolle Larsen. Leiden: NINO. Widell, M. 2002 A Previously Unpublished Lawsuit from Ur III Adab. CDLJ 2002/2. Wiggermann, F. A. M. 1981–82 Exit talim! Studies in Babylonian Demonology, I. JEOL 27: 90–105. 1998–2001a Nammu. RlA 9: 135–40. 1998–2001b Nin-azu. RlA 9: 329–35. 1998–2001c Nin-subur. RlA 9: 490–500. Wilcke, C. 1969 Das Lugalbandaepos. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1973 Politische Opposition nach sumerischen Quellen: Der Konflikt zwischen Königtum und Ratversammlung; Literaturwerke als politische Tendenzschriften. Pp. 37–65 in La voix de l’opposition en Mésopotamie: Colloque organisé par l’Institut des Hautes Études de Belgique. Brussells: Institut des Hautes Études de Belgique5.

292 1976–80 1985 1987

1988

1989

1990

1995

1996 1997 1998

2001

2005

2007 Wilhelm, G. 2001

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Inanna/Istar (Mesopotamien), A: Philologisch. RlA 5: 74–87. Neue Quellen aus Isin zur Geschichte der Ur-III-Zeit und der I. Dynastie von Isin. Or 54: 299–318. A Riding Tooth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Synecdoche, Quick and Frozen in Everyday Language. Pp. 77–102 in M. Mindlin, M. J. Geller, and J. Wansbrough (eds.), Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Die Sumerische Königliste und erzählte Vergangenheit. Pp. 113–40 in J. von Ungern-Sternberg and H. Reinau (eds.), Vergangenheit in mündlicher Überlieferung. Colloquium Rauricum 1. Stuttgart: Teubner. Genealogical and Geographical Thought in the Sumerian King List. Pp. 557–71 in H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. J. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg. OPKF 11. Philadelphia: The University Museum. Orthographie, Grammatik und literarische Form: Beobachtungen zu der Vaseninschrift Lugalzaggesis (SAKI 152–156). Pp. 455–504 in T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard, and P. Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. HSSt 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Die Inschrift der “Figure aux plumes” — ein frühes Werk sumerischer Dichtkunst. Pp. 669–74 in U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann, and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens: Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Neue Rechtsurkunden der altsumerischen Zeit. ZA 86: 1–67. Amar-girids Revolte gegen Naram-Suªen. ZA 87: 11–32. Zu “Gilgames und Akka”: Überlegungen zur Zeit von Entstehung und Niederschrift, wie auch zum Text des Epos mit einem Excurs zur Überlieferung von “Sulgi A” und von “Lugalbaanda II.” Pp. 457–86 in M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), dubsar anta-men: Studien zur Altorientalistik; Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. AOAT 253. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Gestaltetes Altertum in antiker Gegenwart: Königlisten und Historiographie des älteren Mesopotamien. Pp. 93–116 in D. Kuhn and H. Stahl (eds.), Die Gegenwart des Altertums: Formen und Funktionen des Altertumsbezugs in den Hochkulturen der Alten Welt. Heidelberg: Forum. ED Lú A und die Sprache(n) der archäischen Texte. Pp. 430–45 in W. van Soldt (ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 1–4 July 2002. Leiden: NINO. Early Ancient Near Eastern Law: A History of Its Beginnings; The Early Dynastic and Sargonic Periods. 2nd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Der “Mann in Netzrock” und kultische Nacktheit. Pp. 478–83 in J.-W. Meyer, M. Novák, and A. Pruß (eds.), Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Winfried Orthmann gewidmet. Frankfurt am Main: Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität. Wilkinson, T. A. H. 1999 Early Dynastic Egypt. London: Routledge. Wilson, K. L. 1986 Nippur: The Definition of a Mesopotamian G& amdat Naßr Assemblage. Pp. 57–89 in in U. Finkbeiner and W. Röllig (eds.), G& amdat Naßr — Period or Regional Style? Papers Given at a Symposium Held in Tübingen November 1983. TAVO, Beiheft — Reihe B/62. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2002 The Temple Mound at Bismaya. Pp. 279–99 in E. Ehrenberg (ed.), Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Winkelmann, S. 2003 Berliner Schlangenbecken, Trichterbecher und Cincinnati-Mann: Verkannte Schlüsselobjekte der altorientalischen Archäologie? Pp. 567–678 in R. Dittmann, C. Eder, and B. Jacobs (eds.), Altertumswissenschaften im Dialog: Festschrift für Wolfram Nagel zur Vollendung seines 80. Lebensjahres. AOAT 306. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Winter, I. J. 1984 Review of Spycket 1981. JCS 36: 102–14.

Bibliography 1985

1986a 1986b

1992 2000a

2000b

2000c

2003

2007

293

After the Battle Is Over: The Stele of the Vultures and the Beginning of Historical Narrative in the Art of the Ancient Near East. Pp. 11–32 in H. L. Kessler and M. S. Simpson (eds.), Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Studies in the History of Art 16. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art. Eannatum and the “King of Kis”? Another Look at the Stele of the Vultures and “Cartouches” in Early Sumerian Art. ZA 76: 205–12. The King and the Cup: Iconography of the Royal Presentation Scene on Ur III Seals. Pp. 253–68 in M. Kelly-Buccellati, P. Matthiae, and M. N. van Loon (eds.), Insight through Images: Studies in Honor of Edith Porada. BiMes 21. Malibu: Undena. “Idols of the Kings”: Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual Action in Ancient Mesopotamia. Journal of Ritual Studies 6: 13–42. The Eyes Have It: Votive Statuary, Gilgamesh’s Axe, and Cathected Viewing in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 22–44 in R. S. Nelson (ed.), Visuality before and beyond the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Babylonian Archaeologists of the(ir) Mesopotamia Past. Pp. 1785–1800 in P. Matthiae et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998. Rome: Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Opening the Eyes and Opening the Mouth: The Utility of Comparing Images in Worship in India and the Ancient Near East. Pp. 129–62 in M. W. Meister (ed.), Ethnography and Personhood: Notes from the Field. New Delhi: Rawat. “Surpassing Work”: Mastery of Materials and the Value of Skilled Production in Ancient Sumer. Pp. 403–21 in T. Potts, M. Roaf, and D. Stein (eds.), Culture through Objects: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P. R. S. Moorey. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Agency Marked, Agency Ascribed: The Affective Object in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 42–69 in R. Osborne and J. Tanner (eds.), Art’s Agency and Art History. New Interventions in Art History. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wiseman, D. J. 1962 Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Cylinder Seals, 1: Uruk, Early Dynastic Periods. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Wiseman, D. J., and J. A. Black 1996 Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû. CTN 4. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Woods, C. E. 2005 On the Euphrates. ZA 95: 7–45. Woolley, C. L. 1923 Excavations at Ur of the Chaldees. Antiquaries Journal 3: 311–33. 1934 The Royal Cemetery: A Report on the Predynastic and Sargonid Graves Excavated between 1926 and 1931. UE 2. London / Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. 1936 Introductory Note. Pp. vii–viii in L. Legrain, Archaic Seal-Impressions. UE 3. London / Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. 1956 The Early Periods: A Report on the Sites and Objects Prior in Date to the Third Dynasty of Ur Discovered in the Course of the Excavations. UE 4. London / Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. 1962 The Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods. UE 9. London / Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums. Wootton, J. E. 1965 A Sumerian Statue from Tell Aswad. Sumer 21: 113–18. Wrede, N. 1995 Relief einer Göttin oder Herrscherstatue? Pp. 677–89 in U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann, and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens: Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Yang, Z. 1987 The Name of the City Adab. JAC 2, 121–25. 1988 The Excavation of Adab. JAC 3, 1–21.

294 1989

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Sargonic Inscriptions from Adab. Periodic Publications on Ancient Civilizations 1. Changchun: The Institute for the History of Ancient Civilizations. Yildiz, F., and T. Gomi 1988 Die Puzris-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler Archäologischen Museen, II: Nr. 726–1379. FAOS 16. Stuttgart: Steiner. Yildiz, F., and K. Maekawa 1982 Animal and Human Castration in Sumer, Part III: More Texts from Ur III Lagash on the Term amar-KUD. Zinbun 18: 95–121. Yoffee, N. 2002 Aspects of Conflicts and Their Management in Early Mesopotamia: Comments on Prof. Selz’s Paper. Pp. 161–64 in A. Hausleiter, S. Kerner, and B. Müller-Neuhof (eds.), Material Culture and Mental Spheres: Rezeption archäologischer Denkrichtungen in der vorderasiatischen Altertumskunde; Internationales Symposium für Hans J. Nissen, Berlin, 23.-24. Juni 2000. AOAT 293. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Zervos, C., and H. Coppola 1935 L’art de la Mésopotamie de la fin du quatrième millénaire au XVe siècle avant notre ère: Elam, Sumer, Akkad. Paris: Cahiers d’art. Zettler, R. L. 1978 Review of H. Kühne, Die Keramik von Tell Chuera und ihre Beziehungen zu Funden aus Syrien-Palästina, der Türkei und dem Iraq, Berlin: Gebr. Mann 1976. JNES 37: 245–350. 1989 Pottery Profiles Reconstructed from Jar Sealings in the Lower Seal Impression Strata (SIS 8–4) at Ur: New Evidence for Dating. Pp. 369–93 in A. Leonard and B. Beyer Williams (eds.), Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor. SAOC 47. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1992 The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur: The Operation and Organization of Urban Religious Institutions in Mesopotamia in the Late Third Millennium b.c. BBVO 11. Berlin: Reimer. 2007 Dynastic Change and Institutional Administration in Southern Mesopotamia in the Later Third Millennium bce: Evidence from Seals and Sealing Practices. Pp. 9–35 in H. Crawford (ed.), Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt: From Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein. Proceedings of the British Academy 136. Oxford: The British Academy. Zettler, R. L., and L. Horne (eds.) 1998 Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Zgoll, A. 1997 Inana als nugig. ZA 87: 181–95. Zimmerman, P. C. 1998 A Critical Reexamination of the Early Dynastic “Royal Tomb” Architecture from Ur. M.A. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Zimmern, H. 1912 Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit: Erste Reihe. VS 2. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Philological Index This index includes all signs, words, phrases, and proper names that are discussed in the present work, as well as a number of philological items that, although not discussed here, are nonetheless worth noting because they are unusual spellings or readings, rare words/names, or hapax legomena.

ªà-da-lu/ru12-um > sag4 ªa5/a-na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 n. 118 /ªay/ > a

amar (as a divine epithet) . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 and 166 amar bàndada dellilx(EN.É) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 amar nu-nam-ama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 amar-AN.LÚ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 amar-AN.SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 amar-MÙS.ZA.ZA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 n. 85 amar-su-be6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 n. 85 amar-subex(MÙS.ZA(7)/MÙSxZA(7))/ (d)sube (MÙS.ZA)bé . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 n. 85 x AMA(.)TU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 n. 26 a-na > ªa5-na (a-)né . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 n. 19; 240 an-mi-parag-ge-SA6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 n. 14 AN.PA.x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 AN.SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 AN.SI.UR > ur-AN.SI anse-HAR.TU > anseHAR.TU AN.TUM.MA > DIFIR-MA:TUM anzudx(MI)musen > áya-an-zu5anzudxmusen AN.ZU5.MI.MUSEN = /anzud/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 a-ra-ba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 n. 87 a-ra/rá-bu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 n. 88 arabx(UD.“NUN”)(ki) > lugal, NÍF.PA.TE.SI as11(AS-tenû) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 with n. 105 dasgi (HIxDIS)gi4 > HAR.TU- dasgi gi4 x x d.asasgi (SIR)gi4 > d.asasgi gi4-da-lu, HAR.TU-d.asasgi gi4 x x x d.asasgi (SIR)gi4-da-lu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 x as11-né . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 A.SÚ+SA.ENGUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 lúa-UGULA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 with n. 111 áya-an-zu5 anzudx(MI)musen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 áya-ùm-dùg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 n. 243

ºAstar > dMÙS ºAstarat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 with n. 123 ºa†lum dannum > a-FURUS KALAG A (grapheme) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 n. 3 a = /ªay/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 n. 9 a = /wa/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 n. 111 ABAx /ABxÁS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 with nn. 7–8 ab-ba-eri . . . . . . . . . . . 103 with n. 55; 157 with n. 21 ab-bu > ur-ab-bu a-bu16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181–82 dab-ú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 nn. 64–65 AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 a-da-ab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 ÀGA > LAK 667 àga-ús-LAGABxSE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 a-gi16-sa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 n. 10 a-FURUS KALAG = ºa†lum dannum . . . . . . . 181–82 AH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 n. 117 a-hu-ma-da . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 n. 113 AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 n. 28 AK:dinªanakx(MÙS), AK-dinªanakx(MÙS) . 100 n. 28 akkilx(AB.KID) > ur-akkilx-lá Aksuwak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 n. 52 alam/n = ßalmum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 with n. 54 ALIMx.NITA (KIS.NITA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 n. 139 a-lu-ú > mesbalam-gal AMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 220 ama dú-da-né . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 with n. 26 (d)ama-eri-da > ur-(d)ama-eri-da ama-me-nun-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 216 (d)ama-MU.DIB > (d)ama-mu-geb x (d)ama-mu-geb (DIB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231–32 n. 11 x dama-numu-geb (DIB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231–32 n. 11 x dama-NU.MU.DIB > dama-numu-geb x

bàdki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 n. 37 BÁHAR > LAK 742 dBÁHAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 “dbáhar-agrun(É.NUN)-za-ku” . . . . . . . . . . . 167 n. 80 dBÁHAR.É(.NUN.ZA.TUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 BÁHAR.É(.ZA7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

295

296

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

BÁHAR.É.ZA(7).TUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 báhar-gal an-na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 “ d báhar-un-za-ku” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 n. 79 BÁHAR.ZA7.NUN.É.TUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 balam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 n. 20 (d)balam ud-da . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 n. 20 mesbalam-gal = a-lu-ú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 n. 20 dba-sùr-ra-at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 with nn. 70 and 73 dba-ú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 with n. 23 dba-ú-nam-eres-e-su-e-na-du . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 7 BE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 bé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 dBE-al KALAM-tim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 6 belu(m) > en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bilx(NExPAP) > ur-dpa-bilx-sam bu16(NI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 n. 115 bur gi4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101–2 n. 41 bur-gi4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101–2 n. 41 dax(DAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 n. 99 da/dab6-da-ar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 n. 290 DAFAL DAM = murappi¶ damim . . . . . . . . . . 181–82 dal-da-LI.IM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 n. 239 dam (as a priestly title) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107–8 dam dnanse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 with n. 102 dam nu-gig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 with n. 105 DAM = damum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181–82 ddam-gal-nun (PN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 with n. 50 DA.MU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 219 DA.MU(ki) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 damum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 de6 > re6 dimir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 n. 50; 169 n. 87 dimir UD.NUNki(-a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 n. 87 dimir-mah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223–24 with n. 29 DIFIR-má-ti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 DIFIR-MA.TUM, DIFIR-MA:TUM . . . . . . . 164; 166 with n. 76 dimerx(AN)me-er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 n. 87 dimerx(AN)me-er a-ra-ba . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 n. 87 dimerx(AN)me-er-mah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 n. 87 DU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 dú > dú(-d) du6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 with n. 16 dub-sar-mah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 n. 295 dú(-d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 with n. 94; 162 with n. 51 DÙG-da-ar > †ab6-da-ar dul5-dul5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 with n. 6 dumu ki-ám dnin-hur-sam . . . . . . . . . . 101–2 with n. 42 ddumu-zi gú-en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 with n. 13 Dumuzidªabzûk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 n. 13 DÙN > LAK 666/786 DUR > LAK 545 dur (= LAK 545) an-ki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 n. 44

DÚR/TUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 n. 80 é = /hay/, /e/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 n. 9; 240 é dba-ú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 with n. 55 é dnin-mír-su/sú(-ka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 n. 19 é-abzu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 with n. 92 é-abzu-làl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 n. 92 é-an-na-túm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175; 239–40 with n. 23 EDIN > LAK 747 é-gi16-sa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 n. 10 é-kiri6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173; 225 with n. 41 é-kisi-nu-mál . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 n. 37 ELAM GÍN.SÈ > GÍN.SÈ ELAM dellil (EN.É) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 et passim x [cf. Marchesi 2006a: 32–33 n. 142] dELLIL (EN.É) (= Yillilu?) . . . . . . 184–85 with n. 122 x é-mah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223–24 eme4-dú-da-né . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 n. 26 /(e)men/ > en é-mí . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 with n. 55 en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105–8 enx(GAL) (= en) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 en = belu(m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 with n. 78 en = /(e)men/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 n. 140 en = enu(m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 with n. 74 en = /(e)wen/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 with n. 26 EN = malkum . . . . . . . . . . . 104–5 with nn. 70–71 EN = maru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 n. 73 en = /mun/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 with n. 27 en = sa-sa-hu-LUM, su-su-hu-LUM . . . . . . . . . 105 en dimir-re-e-ne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 enx(GAL) ennegirx(ENxGI.KI) . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 en dFIS.BÍL/NE.GA-mes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 n. 14 en dinªanakx(MÙS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 with n. 91 en kalam(-ma) . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 with n. 97; 111 en ki-ám dnanse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 en ki-en-gi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 en kul-ab-a/kul-ab-ba/kul-la-ba . . . . . . . 105 n. 81 en kulkullab(a)x(UNUG)(-a) . . . 105–6 with n. 83 EN ma-ríki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 n. 236 en me-parag-ge-si . . . . . . . . 98–99 with nn. 13–14 en dnanse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 with n. 100 enx(GAL) súruppag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 EN Ù/wa MA.LIK.TUM . . . . . . . . 104 with n. 61 en unugki(-ga) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 en zag keserx(KÉS) dNIN-urax(UR4) . . . . . . . . 107 en-á-kal-le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 n. 21 en-an-na-túm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 n. 257; 240 en-an-na-túm-as11-né-dnanse-e-ta-èd . . . 176 and 178 en-an-na-túm-gen7-mesmestugtúg-a-ba-má-má . . . . . . . 178 en-an-na-túm-sipad-zi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 “ i-enbi ni-ib-es4-tár” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 en-bu-DIFIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 n. 76 en-e/né-ne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 n. 80

Philological Index ENxGI.KI > ennegirx ENGUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 220 enim al6-til . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 n. 98 enim-ma-NI-zi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 with n. 29 é-ninnu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 n. 19 en-kusu/kusux(PIRIF)-sa4-an-na, en-kusux(PIRIF)-sà-an-na . . . . . . . 117 n. 198 en-me-a-nú, ENxME-nú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 n. 271 en-me-parag-ga-e-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 n. 12 (d)en-me-parag-ge (-e)-si . 98–99 with nn. 12 and 14 (4) Enmetênnâk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 en-dnanse-ki-ám . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 en-dnanse-mu-dú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 ennegirx(ENxGI.KI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 en-né-ne > en-e-ne en-PIRIF.DU-an-na > en-kusux-sa4-an-na “énsi” . . . . . . .108–12 with nn. 118, 122, 124–25, 132 EN.TI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 n. 32 EN.TI.IL = en-ti-il . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 with n. 32 enu(m) > en é-parag-dúr-mar-ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 ere > URU eres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 with n. 50; 158 n. 25 eres-enim-ge-na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 with n. 25 eres-kisal-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 221 (d)eres-mete-ama-na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 with n. 35 eres-nu-nam-sita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 eri > URU eri-enim-ge-na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 é-rú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163; 169 with n. 84 é-rú dnin-é:gal! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 é-rú dnin-mír:su . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161; 169 ès . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 with n. 18 ès mír-su/sú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 n. 19 é-SAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223–25 é-sar-ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 with n. 25 e-SI ù-ri-ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 n. 124 é-sìraraki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 n. 18 dès-ir-nun ès . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 with n. 18 esax(KAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 é-sag4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 n. 5 estubx(KU6+GUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 É!.SÙD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 é-TUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 n. 51 é-TUS?.A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 with n. 51 /(e)wen/ > en gaba-mál nu-gi4 kur-kur-ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 n. 147 gadimx(GIDIM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 galx(NUN) > lu9-galx gala-mah unugki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 n. 244 GAL+BALAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 with n. 20 gal-KÍD.ALAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 GAL.MUNUS.UL4 > munus-UL4-gal

297

gal-pù-as11-dar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 n. 76 gal-sukkal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 with n. 141 GAL.UNKEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 n. 53 GAL.UNKEN gim4uruda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 n. 53 “GAR-ensi2-mah” > NÍF.PA.TE.SI-mah gebx(DIB) > (d)ama-mu-gebx, dama-numu-gebx ge-gù-na = /gegunna/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 and 179 gidim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 with n. 114 GÍN > LAK 667 gìn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 n. 78 GÍN.SÈ ELAM = saªir Elamtim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Gizuna > SID.NUNki gub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 gú-en > ddumu-zi gú-en gul-la-ab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 n. 99 gul-la-zi!{-an}-na-be-el . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 n. 167 mesdurux(PA) > dnin-mesdurux mes-kul-ab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 mes-ku-la-baki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 mes-kulkullabx(UNUG)(ki) . . . . . . 172 with nn. 99–100 mes-sag4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 with nn. 93–94, and 96 mesmestugtúg(+loc.) ru-gú . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 with n. 28 mes-tu-ru > PA míri rú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 mír-nun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 with n. 50 FIS.KUL.AB > mes-kul-ab FIS.KUL.UNUG(ki) > mes-kulkullabx(UNUG)(ki) FIS.KÚSUki = ummaki . . . . . 170–71 with nn. 93–96 paFIS.NExPAP-gal-tuku > papabilga -gal-tuku x “ mesmissax(KÚSU)ki” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170–71 FIS.ÙR = mesmusurx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 murus kalag(-ga) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 musurx(ÙR) > FIS.ÙR /hay/ > è ha-aD-Tamki, ha-a†-†amki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 HAR sar-ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 n. 69; 230 with n. 4 HAR.TU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 with nn. 67–70 anseHAR.TU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 HAR.TU-dasgix(HIxDIS)gi4/d.asasgix(SIR)gi4 . 165 n. 70 HAR.TU-dnissabakx(NAFA) . . . . . . . . . . . 165 n. 70 HAR.TU-dsùd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 n. 70 HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 n. 150 “hi-da-ar” > †ab6-da-ar HIxDIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 n. 150 i-bí-idx(NI)-LI.IM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 217 i-bí-dEN.ZU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 “i-bí-ni-li-im” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 217 ib-lu5-il . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 with n. 13 dÍD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 idx(NI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 217

298

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

igi-du . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 n. 34 igi-du é-SAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 with n. 34 igi-é-mah-sè . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 with n. 35 i-ku-dsa-ma-gan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 n. 5 i-ku-dUTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 n. 297 ÍL DIFIR.DIFIR = na¶iª ªili . . . . . . 163 n. 57; 181–82 ì-lum-sa12-ir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 n. 62 im-sik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 n. 125 dinªanak (MÙS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 x dinªanak (MÙS) da bàd-da . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 n. 38 x dinªanak (MÙS) MÙSki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 x Inªanak-hud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 with n. 31 Inªanak-KUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 with nn. 30 and 32 Inªanak-NUN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 with n. 30 Inªanak-sig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 with n. 31 dINANA FIS.TIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 n. 75 dINANA LUGAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 (d)INANA.KUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 n. 32 dINANA(.)NITA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 INANA.ZA.ZA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 in-na-na > (ni-)in-na-na dinnanak (MÙS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 x in(n)inx(MÙS) > ur-in(n)inx in-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 n. 125 i-pù-lum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 iri > URU ìr-pís-DA.MU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 dishara (LAGABxSIG )sahar . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 n. 68 x 7 i-si-du . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 223 is11-ar-DA.MU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 n. 285 is11/is12-gi(4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 is12-gi-BE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 i-sí-a-ak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 n. 126 i-si-a-ku-um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 n. 126 isrut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 219 is11-ru12-ud-DA.MU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 219 is11-ru12-ud-ha-labx(LAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 228 is-se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 n. 125 issex(PA.TE.SI) > pa5-issex *issiªakkallum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 issiªakkum/issiyakkum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 with n. 126 ì-zi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 n. 275 KA:GUR7 unugki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 kar! KUL.UNUGki-ba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 n. 99 KA-si, KA.SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 with n. 15 ke4-pum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181 and 183 keserx(KÉS) > zag keserx ki alim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 ki PA mar-ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 ki-a-nam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 n. 96 ki:èrim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 KIFx(UNKEN) > KIFx.AK KIFx.AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 n. 1

KIFx.AK SAF AN.DÙL EN . . . . . . . . . 230 n. 1 KILIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 ki-NI-ki = ki-n-ki (= ki-en-gi) . . . . . . . . 109 n. 125 meskiri é-mah gu-la . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 n. 41 6 KIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 n. 18; 101 n. 32 KIS GAL.LÚ > lú-gal kisi KIS.NITA > ALIMx.NITA KU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 n. 80 kug-dba-ú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 n. 170 ku-la-ab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 n. 99 ku-la-zi-na-be-el . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 n. 167 kulkullab(a) (UNUG)(ki) 105 with nn. 81–82; x 172 n. 99 kul-la-zi-na-bé-el . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 n. 167 KUL.UNUG(ki) > kulkullab(a)x(ki) kum-DA.MU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 n. 267 KUM-dúr-sè . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 with n. 35 KUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 n. 32 kur meséren, kur-meséren-kur5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 n. 2 kur gú mar-mar dnin-mír-su/sú-ka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 kurx(DU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171; 179 kusux(PIRIF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 n. 198 ku-ul-la-a-ba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 n. 99 labx(LAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 228 LA.BUR.NU11 > lugal LA.BUR.NU11 dLAGABxIGI-gunû (= Is/shara) . . . . . 227 with n. 68 dLAGABxSIG .SAHAR > dishara 7 x LAGABxSE? > àga-ús-LAGABxSE? lagasx(BUR.NU11)la, lagasx(NU11.BUR)la(.ki) > lugal, PA.TE.SI lalagas (NU .BUR.MUSEN)ki > NÍF.PA.TE.SI x 11 lagasx(NU11.BUR)la(.ki-sè)nimenx(NANSE)ki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232–33 LAK 245–246 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 LAK 490 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 with n. 43 LAK 545 = DUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 n. 44 LAK 551 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 n. 44 LAK 666/786 = DÙN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 LAK 667 = GÍN/ÀGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 LAK 742 = BÁHAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 LAK 747 = EDIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 LAK 786 > LAK 666 dlammar (KAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 x dlammar (KAL) TAR-sír-sír-ra . . . 158 with n. 27 x LI.IM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 217 /lik/ > UR lú unugki-ga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 n. 281 lú-gal > lugal lu9-galx(NUN) > lugal lugal . . . . . . . . . .101 with n. 34; 102 n. 47; 104 n. 57 105–6 n. 83; 108; 110–12 with nn. 132–33, 136, and 148; 124 nn. 244 and 252; 180 n. 107 lú-gal (= lugal) . . . . . . . . . . . .100 n. 29; 101 n. 32

Philological Index lu9-galx(NUN) (= lugal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 lugalx(GAL+LU) (= lugal) . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 214 LUGAL = ¶arrum/sarrum . . . . . . . . 103 with n. 57 lu9-galx(NUN) arab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 lugal arabx(UD.“NUN”)(ki) . . . . . . . . 111–12; 161; 168; 173 lugal asag-ga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 lugal é(-a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 lugal HIxDIS . . . . . . . 110 n. 132; 112 with n. 150 lugal kalam-ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112; 128 n. 295 lú-gal kisi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100–101 n. 30 lu9-galx(NUN) kisi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 lugal kisi(ki) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97–98 with nn. 5–6; 101–2 with nn. 38, 41, and 42; 106 with n. 88; 108; 110; 113; 124–25 nn. 244, 252, and 260; 161; 180 with n. 108 LUGAL KISI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 lugal LA.BUR.NU11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 n. 27 lú-gal lagasx(NU11.BUR)la . . . . . . . . . . . 76 n. 257 lugal lagasx(NU11.BUR)la.ki . . . . . . . . . . . . 174–75 LUGAL ma-ríki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156; 184 lugal nam-isib-ba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 lugal PA.FAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 lugal ú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 n. 65 lú-gal ummaki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 n. 28; 160 lugal ummaki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161; 170–71 lugal unugki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 with n. 88 lugal ur-sam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 n. 83 lugal(-a)-né . . . . . . . 108 with n. 112; 113 with n. 159 lugal-as11-né . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 lugal-á-súm-ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 n. 244 lugal-da-lu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 lugal-dimir-da . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161–62 with nn. 49–50 lugal-dimir-da-nu-hum-má . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 with n. 50 lugal-dimir-da-nu-hum-má-mír-nunsè-nu-kusu4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 with n. 50 lugal-dimir-da-nu-me-a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 n. 50 lugal-mu10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 with n. 112 dLUGAL.KALAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 n. 57 lugal-ki-DU.NI-du7-du7 > lugal-ki-sa4sarex(NI)-du7-du7 lugal-ki-NI(.SÈ)-du7-du7 > lugal-ki-sarex(-és)-du7-du7 “lugal-ki-ni?-s[è?-du7-du7]” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 lugal-kisal(-le)-si . . . . . . . . . . . 124 n. 248; 126 n. 272 lugal-ki-sa4sarex(NI)-du7-du7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 n. 264 lugal-ki-sarex(NI)(-és)-du7-du7 . . . . . . . . . . 125 n. 264 lugal-nam-nir-súm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 n. 244 lugal-dnanna-ra-túm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 with n. 12 lugal-né > lugal(-a)-né (lugal-)parag-ga-né-dùg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 n. 18 lugal-sila-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 n. 248 LUGAL.SUM.NAM.NIR > lugal-nam-nir-súm lugal-sag4-damal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 220

299

LUGAL.UD > lugal-(d)utu lugal-uras-e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 n. 192 dlugal-urub (URUxKÁR)ki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 x lugal-(d)utu, lugalx(GAL+LU)-utu . . . . . . . 122 n. 214 lugal-zag-ge4-e-si, lugal-zag-ge-si . . . . . . . . 127 n. 288 lú-mestug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 n. 166 lú-FIS.ÙR-ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 n. 166 lú-kès . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 with n. 86 lú-mah dnissabakx(NAFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 n. 149 lú-mah unugki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 n. 295 LU.SÙR-mah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 ma-li-gú-um > nam-en ma-li-ik-tum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 n. 66 MA.LIK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 n. 70; 125 n. 263 MA.LIK.TUM . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 with nn. 62 and 66 MA.LIK.TUM.MA.LIK.TUM . . . . . . . . . . 104 n. 62 malikum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 malikum > nam-en malkatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 n. 66 malkum . . . . . . . . . . . . 103–5 with nn. 63, 70, and 71 MA.TUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 n. 76 maydaºum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 n. 113 me-da GIDIM.GIDIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181–82 me-dur:ba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 with n. 44 dme-nun-e-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 216 me-nun(-né)-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 216 me-para7-ge-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 n. 14 me-parag-ge-si > en me-parag-ge-si me-parag-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 with n. 10 me-SILIM DUMU LUGAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 n. 4 MES.KI.ÁF.NUN > mes-nun-ki-ám mes-nun-ki-ám . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 n. 37 mes-ùm-dùg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 n. 252 Me¶alim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 with n. 40 mí(n) kalam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 n. 140 dmi-nun-e-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 n. 216 mudaºum/mudûm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 n. 112 mu-DU > mu-gub mu-gub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 /mun/ > en mu-na-a-zu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 with n. 20 munus-sul-an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 munus-UL4-gal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 n. 30 murappi¶ damim > DAFAL DAM MÙS (grapheme) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 n. 29 mùs (syllabogram) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 n. 62 dMÙS (= ºAstar) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 dMÙS > dinªanak , dinnanak x x dMÙSxZA (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 with n. 77 dMÙS.ZA.ZA, dMÙSxZA(+ZA) . . . . . . . . . . . 228–29 *muwdaºum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 n. 112 na-an(-zi)-iz-li-dar-ku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 n. 167

300

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

nam-ama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 nam-en = ma-li-gú-um (= malikum) . . . 104 with n. 60 nam-ha-né . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 n. 24 *Nam/wirtum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 nam-isib-ba > lugal nam-isib-ba nam-lugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 nam-mah-né . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 n. 24 NANSEki > nimenx dnanse-ama-lugal-dimir-da . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 NAR MAH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 with n. 14 na-rú-a é-sag4-ga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 with n. 5 na¶iª ªili > ÍL DIFIR.DIFIR “ná-zi” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 na-zíl-zíl-tar-ku-um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 n. 167 nimenx(NANSE)ki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176 and 178 ním-gur11 é-kur-ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 nimir dnin-é-gal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 with n. 60 NÍF:PA, NÍF.PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 with n. 74 (NÍF.)PA.SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109; 168 (NÍF.)PA.TE.SI . . . . . . . . 109 with nn. 125 and 128; 124 n. 244; 126 nn. 274 and 277; 128 n. 295; 172–73 NÍF.PA.TE.SI arabx(UD.“NUN”)(ki) . . .101 n. 41; 111 with n. 148; 112; 125 n. 254; 157; 172 NÍF.PA.TE.SI mes-KUL.[AB/UNUG(ki)] . . . . . 172 NÍF.PA.TE.SI mes-kulkullabx(UNUG)(ki) . . . . . 172 NÍF.PA.TE.SI lalagasx(NU11.BUR.MUSEN)ki 172 (NÍF.)PA.TE.SI suruppagki-ga . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 (NÍF.)PA.TE.SI-gal . . . . . . . . . . 109 with nn. 119–20 NÍF.PA.TE.SI-mah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 n. 98 nímnimsiªak (PA.TE.SI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109–10 n. 128 x (ni-)in-na-na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 with n. 18 ni-in-ni-im-ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 with n. 14 ni-in-nu-ú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 ni-in-nu-ur-ta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 ni-in-si (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 n. 47 ni!-in-si (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 with n. 125 NIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 n. 25 d(n)inªanak (MÙS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 x Ninªegalak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 with n. 60; 169 dnin-dur-ba/durba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 n. 44 NIN-e-an-zu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 n. 25 dnin-mesduru (PA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 n. 158 x dnin-mes-sag -ga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 n. 94 4 dnin-mír-su ba-gára . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 dnin-mír-su-mír-nun-sè-nu-kusu 4 . . 162 with n. 50; 235 dNIN-had . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 n. 158 d(n)innanak (MÙS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 x dnin-na-zu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 /ninni/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 n. 75 dnin-PA > dnin-mesduru x dNIN.PA > dNIN-had dnin-SAR > dnin-sig x

dnin-si

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 n. 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 n. 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 with nn. 37–38 NIN.SÈ-an-zu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 n. 25 dnin-SU.KID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 nintahx(US) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Table 15b dnin-tu zag-ga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 with n. 12 dnin-tu-àga-zi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 with n. 49 dnin-tu-ama-eri-da-ma -a . . . . . . . . . . . 232 with n. 14 4 Nintur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 with n. 48 dNIN-ura (UR ) > en zag keser dNIN-ura x 4 x x dnin-usan (SI/SU )an-na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 n. 124 4 4 nir-mál sag4-hus ki-en-gi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 n. 147 dnissabak (NAFA) > HAR.TU-dnissabak , x x lú-mah dnissabakx NI-zi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117; 126 n. 275 ní-zú-sub5(ZI:ZI.SÈ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 and 178 Nuªtur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 n. 20 nu-gig > dam nu-gig nun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 with n. 114; 110–111 “NUN” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 nu-nam-ama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 with n. 77 nu-nam-nir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 with n. 77 nu-nam-sita > eres-nu-nam-sita dnun-ur -ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 4 nu-PA.TE.SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 n. 125 Nutur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 n. 20 nu-ù-tur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 n. 20 dnin-sig (SAR) x dnin-subur bàd

PA = mes-tu-ru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 n. 158 pa5-as-se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 n. 125 pabilgax(FIS.NExPAP/“FIS”.PAP.NE) > papabilga -gal-tuku, pabilga -mes-utu-pàd-da x x papabilga (FIS.NExPAP)-gal-tuku . . . . . . . 124 n. 240 x Pabilgames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 with n. 19 pabilgax(“FIS”.PAP.NE)-mes-utupàd-da . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 with n. 19 PA.FAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 PA.FAR-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 dPA.IGI.DU > d.papalil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pa5-issex(PA.TE.SI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 n. 125 dPA.KAL > dugula-kalag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d.papalil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 n. 17 parag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 n. 10 dparag-dellil (EN.É)-mar . 112 with n. 155 (on p. 113) x parag-ga/gan-né . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 n. 18 parag-ga-né-dùg > (lugal-)parag-ga-né-dùg parag-gan-né-dùg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 with n. 18 parx(ExPAP) > parx-kug, parx-sír parx(ExPAP)-kug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 parx(ExPAP)-sír . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 PA.SI > (NÍF.)PA.SI PA.SI urim5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 n. 6

Philological Index

301

PA.TE.SI > (NÍF.)PA.TE.SI PA.TE.SI arabki . . . 111 n. 148; 112; 155 n. 2; 172 PA.TE.SI BÁHAR.É . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 PA.TE.SI kalag-ga dellilx(EN.É) . . . . . . 111 n. 147 PA.TE.SI lagasx(BUR.NU11/ NU11.BUR)la(.ki) . . . . . . . . . .161; 172; 174–77 PA.TE.SI UD.NUNki-ba . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 n. 91 PA.TE.SI ummaki . . . 110 n. 132; 112 with n. 149 PA.TE.SI unugki-ga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 n. 281 PA.TE.SI-gal > (NÍF.)PA.TE.SI-gal PA.TE.SI.GAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 PA.TE.SI.GAL dELLILx(EN.É) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 PA.TE.SI(-gal) dellilx(EN.É)/ ellil(EN.LIL)(-lá) . . . . . . . . . . . .109; 180; 184 PA.TE.SI-gal dnin-mír-su/sú-ka . . . . . . . . . 175; 177 PA.TE.SI-mar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109–10 n. 128 PA.TE.SI.TUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 n. 143 PA.UD.DU.SAF.UR > ur-sam-pa-è PA-urim5-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 n. 6 dPA.x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Puªabum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 n. 162 Puzur¶amu¶/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 n. 63

subex(MÙSxZA7/MÙS.ZA.ZA) dinªanak (MÙS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 n. 85 x subex(MÙS) lá-lá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 n. 85 su-bí làl-lá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 n. 85 (d)sube > amar-(d)sube (bé) x x dsube (MÙS.ZA) an-na . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 n. 86 x sul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 sul an/dimir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 sul-an-né-zu-dimir-re-ne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 sum6-BE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 su-mu-as-dar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 n. 76 su-mu-ba-la . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 n. 110 sùr(KAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 sùr-am . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 n. 117 sùr-am6-AH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 and 183 with n. 117 Suyin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 n. 52

*qadimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

saªir Elamtim > GÍN.SÈ ELAM sag4 = ªà-da-lu/ru12-um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 n. 5 sag4(-ge / kug-ge) pàd-da . . . . . . 113 with n. 157; 175 sag4-KÚS(.Ù) = sag4-kusu4(ù) . . . . . . . . . . . 117 n. 199 sákan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 n. 198 SÁR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 n. 150 sarakum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 n. 9 dsára-usumgal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 SÁRxDIS/SÁRxFÉS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 n. 150 sarex(NI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125–26 n. 264 SÁRxFÉS > SÁRxDIS sarrum > ¶arrum sa-sa-hu-LUM > en sashurum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104–5 sennu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 with n. 100 SES.KI.NA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 n. 193 SID.NUNki (= Gizuna) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 su en-me-parag-ge4-e-si-ta nam-ra AK . . . . . 99 n. 16 sub5(ZI:ZI.SÈ) > ní-zú-sub5 “Sulutul” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 súruppag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106; 237 n. 1 sushurum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 susruhu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 with n. 77 su-su-hu-LUM > en suzuzzum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

rí-ad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181 and 183 ru-gú > mesmestugtúg(+loc.) ru-gú ru12-pù-ús-DA.MU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 re6/de6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 sa12 > SAF “sa-ªu-me” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 sá-dug4 alan sag9-sag9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 SAF = sa12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 n. 62 SAF:DÙN unug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 n. 38 SAFFA dEN.ZU UD.KÚSUki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 samma é-SAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 n. 39 samma utu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 dSAF.MÙS > dsa -mùs 12 dsa -mùs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226–27 with n. 62 12 dsa-mu-US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 with n. 63 SAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 nn. 57–58 SAR.É . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 SA12.RIG9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 n. 9 SAR-ì-lum-ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 n. 58 sar-ru/um-GI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 n. 58 sigx(SAR) > dnin-sigx SÙ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 n. 9 subex(MÙS/MÙS.ZA(7)/MÙSxZA(7)/ MÙS.ZA.ZA(7)/ZA.MÙS/ ZA.MÚS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 with nn. 85–86

¶ararum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 n. 59 ¶arrum/sarrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103–4 with nn. 57–58 *¶ashurum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 *‡ubeªitum, *‡ubîtum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 with n. 87 *¶ushurum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

ti¶tarrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 n. 59 TUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 with n. 75 tún/tu11 AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 tùn-ak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

302

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

TUS > DÚR †ab6(DÙG)-da-ar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 n. 290 ub5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 with n. 19 u-bi-in-LUGAL-rí . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103–4 n. 57 /ubmay/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 n. 95 UD.MI.ZU5.MUSEN = /anzud/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 UD.MUD.NUN . . . . . . . . . . . 109 n. 117; 126 n. 278 UD.NUNki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 with nn. 87–91 UD.NUNki-ba (genitive) > PA.TE.SI UD.NUNki-ba UD.NUNbu.ki, UD.NUNki.bu . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 n. 88 UD.“NUN” > arabx ugx(U6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 n. 90 dugula-kalag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 n. 21 UL4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 n. 32 ummaki > FIS.KÚSUki úmma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 n. 150 umun-mu-du-ru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 n. 158 ù-mu-un . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 n. 123 ù-mu-un-a-zu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 with n. 20 ù-mu-un-mu-duru5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 n. 158 ù-mu-un-si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 with n. 123 unken-ùm-dùg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 with n. 54 Uqnîtum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 n. 87 UR = /lik/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 n. 62 urax(UR4) > dNIN-urax ur-ab-bu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 n. 64 ur-akkilx(AB.KID)-lá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 with n. 20 ur-(d)ama-eri-da . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 n. 14 ur-AN.SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 ur-AN.SI.LU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 ur-é-mah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 n. 266 ur-in(n)inx(MÙS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 ur-KISAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 with n. 54

ur-dlammarx(KAL)(-ra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 ur-dpa-bilx(NExPAP)-sam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 n. 37 ur-ri-ni-in4-na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 ur-sam-a-ga-dèki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 n. 266 ur-sam-kès . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 n. 266 ur-sam-pa-è . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 n. 225; 239 n. 21 ur-sa-nu-ù-du . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 with n. 19 ur-sul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 URU = ere/eri/iri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 URU = /uru/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 n. 3 URU.AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 urubx(URUxKÁR)ki > dlugal-urubxki ur-dza-ba4-ba4ki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 n. 293 urax(UDU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 with n. 37 urax(UDU)-bumusen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 n. 90 urax(UDU)-kungal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 ú-sa-ab(ki) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 n. 89 usurx(LÁLxLAGAB/LÁLxTÚG/) > usurx(-ì)-dùg, usurx-ré-dùg usurx(LÁLxTÚG)(-ì)-dùg, usurx(LÁLxLAGAB)-ré-dùg . . . . . 126 n. 278 dUTU(.)NITA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Ú.Ú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 n. 149 x(-x)-la?-na-bi-ir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 n. 167 Yikun[…] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 with n. 55 Yillilu > dELLILx zag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 n. 12 zag keserx(KÉS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 zag-mar-ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 n. 12 […]-li-tar-ku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 n. 167 […]-na-i-be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 n. 167

Sources of Illustrations Plate

Source, credits

1 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:4 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5–8 3:9 4:1 4:2 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:9 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6 7:1 7:2–3 8:1 8:2 8:3 8:4 9:1–3 9:4 10:1–2 10:3 11:1–7, 10 11:8

Adapted from R. Hauptmann 1989: 17. Frankfort 1939a: pl. 70: F–H. Frankfort 1935b: fig. 11. Frankfort 1935b: fig. 63. Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Frankfort 1943: pl. 1:C. Frankfort 1939a: pl. 69:G. Frankfort 1943: pl. 31:B. Frankfort 1943: pl. 56:A–C. Courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Frankfort 1934: fig. 64. Delougaz et al. 1967: pl. 15. Adapted from Vallet 2001: fig. 1. Haines 1961a: photo 3. Hansen and Dales 1962: fig. 4. Hansen 1963: pl. III. V. Crawford 1959: 80. Haines 1961a: photo 4. Braun-Holzinger 1977: pl. 13:d–e. Haines 1961a: photo 12. Adapted from Hansen and Dales 1962: figs. 7, 10. Braun-Holzinger 1977: pls. 9:i, 8:e. Adapted from Hansen and Dales 1962: fig. 2. McCown et al. 1978: pl. 69:1. McCown et al. 1978: pls. 67:3, 68:2. McCown et al. 1978: pl. 67:2. McCown et al. 1978: pl. 63:6 McMahon 2006: pl. 158:2. N. Marchetti. Adapted from Parrot 1948: figs. 14, 15 bottom. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 56:2. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 56:1 (detail). de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 54:1. N. Marchetti. N. Marchetti. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 6 ter:2. N. Marchetti. Heuzey 1897: fig. 14. Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Zeynep Kızıltan.

303

304 Plate 11:9 11:11 12:1

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia Source, credits

Gelb et al. 1991: pl. 34:19. De Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 57:1. Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre – P. and M. Chuzeville. 12:2, 5–8 N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Annie Caubet. 12:3 Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre – C. Larrieu. 12:4, 9–12 N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Zeynep Kızıltan. 13:1, 3, 5 N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Zeynep Kızıltan. 13:2, 7 N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Annie Caubet. 13:6 Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre – C. Larrieu. 13:4 Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre. 14:1–2, 4–5 Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 14:3 Delougaz 1960: pl. IX:a–b. 15:1 Banks 1912: 273 top. 15:2 Braun-Holzinger 1991: pl. 6:G 62. 15:3 Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 15:4 Banks 1912: 199. 15:5 Banks 1912: 275. 15:6 Burrows 1935: pl. F:319. 15:7 Woolley 1956: pl. 24:U.8472. 16:1 Wiseman 1962: pl. 26:f. 16:2 Legrain 1936: pl. 57:518. 16:3 Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 103, no. 55:a. 16:4 Courtesy of the Iraq Museum. 16:5–9 Courtesy of The British Museum. 16:10 Hall and Woolley 1927: pl. XXXV:5. 17:1 Adapted from Margueron 2004: figs. 121–22. 17:2–4 Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre. 17:5 Margueron 2004: fig. 226. 17:6 Parrot 1956: pl. LXV:1388. 17:7 Parrot 1956: pl. LXV:1081. 17:8 Parrot 1956: pl. LXIV:413. 18:1 R. Hauptmann 1989: fig. 27. 18:2 Braun-Holzinger 1977: pl. 24:c. 18:3 Invernizzi 1992: fig. 418. 18:4 Harper et al. 1995: 27, no. 1. 19:1 Courtesy of The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. 19:2 Adapted from Langdon 1930: pl. VII (detail). 19:3 Buchanan 1966: pl. 11:135a. 19:4 de Genouillac 1925: pl. I:4, 6. 19:5 Mackay 1929: pl. XLI:8. 20:1 Pelzel 1977: fig. 1. 20:2 Pottier 1912: pl. 44:5. 20:3 Pottier 1912: pl. 36:2. 20:4 Pelzel 1977: fig. 5. 20:5 Pottier 1912: pl. 40:3. 21:1 Moortgat 1967a: fig. 15. 21:2 Rumaidh 2000: fig. 74. 21:3 Rumaidh 2000: fig. 68.

Sources of Illustrations

305

Plate

Source, credits

21:4 21:5 21:6 21:7 22:1 22:2 22:3 22:4 22:5 22:6 22:7 23:1 23:2–4 24:1 24:2 24:3 24:4 24:5 24:6 24:7 25:1 25:2–3 26:1 26:2 26:3–4 27:1, 3 27:2 28:1 28:2 28:3 29:1 29:2–3 29:4 30:1, 3–4 30:2 31:1 31:2 31:3 32:1 32:2 32:3 33:1 33:2 33:3–4 34:1–2 34:3 35:1 35:2–3 36:1

van Soldt 2001: pl. 9.10:a. Taha 1970: pl. 2 right. Taha 1970: pl. 3 right. Taha 1970: pl. 5 left. Burrows 1935: pl. D:252. Burrows 1935: pl. B:93. Courtesy of A. Westenholz. Green 1982: 172, no. 8. Buccellati and Biggs 1969: 19, no. 1 (recto). Buccellati and Biggs 1969: 20, no. 4. Gelb et al. 1991: pl. 8 center. Mackay 1929: pl. XXXVI:12. Courtesy of The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. McCown et al. 1978: 80, no. 5. McCown et al. 1978: 79, no. 2. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 32 bis:2. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 32 bis:1. Biggs 1974: pl. 176:494 (recto). Burrows 1935: pl. E:Supp. 2. Charpin 1987: 120, no. 28 left. Frankfort 1943: pl. 30:B. Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre – É. Revault. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Annie Caubet. Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre. Courtesy of The British Museum. Saggs 1995: fig. 7. al-Mutawalli and Miglus 2002: fig. 1. al-Mutawalli and Miglus 2002: fig. 2. al-Mutawalli and Miglus 2002: fig. 5. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 5:3. Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre – C. Larrieu. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Annie Caubet. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Ulla Kasten. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection. Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 63, no. 26. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Zeynep Kızıltan. Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 64 right, no. 26. V. Crawford 1977: 217. Gelb et al. 1991: pl. 50. Gelb et al. 1991: pl. 49. Invernizzi 1992: pl. 46. Invernizzi 1992: pl. 47. Woolley 1956: pl. 40 bottom. Courtesy of the Direction Génerale des Antiquités et des Musées, Damas. Parrot 1967: fig. 119. Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 148, no. 88. Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: pl. 100. Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

306

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Plate

Source, credits

36:2 36:3–4 36:5 36:6 36:7 37:1 37:2 37:3 37:4 37:5 37:6 37:7–8 38:2 38:1 38:2 38:3 38:4 39:1 39:2 39:3 39:4 40:1 40:2 40:3 40:4 41:1 41:2 41:3–4 42:1, 3, 5 42:2, 4, 6 43:1, 4 43:2–3 43:5–6 43:7–8 44:1–3 44:4 44:5 44:6 44:7 44: 8–9 45:1–3 46:1 46:2 46:3, 5 46:4 47:1 47:2 47:3 47:4

Courtesy of The British Museum. Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre. al-Mutawalli and Miglus 2002: fig. 9. Courtesy of the Eski Vark Eserleri Müzesi, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzesi. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection. Gadd and Legrain 1928: pl. B bottom left. Gadd and Legrain 1928: pl. A bottom. Gadd and Legrain 1928: pl. A top. Gadd and Legrain 1928: pl. B top. Courtesy of the Direction Génerale des Antiquités et des Musées, Damas. Parrot 1967: fig. 55 (detail). Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: pl. 100 (detail). Frankfort 1939a: pl. 6:A. Frankfort 1939a: pl. 6:A. Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: pl. 51 left. Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: pl. 54. Frankfort 1939a: pl. 28:B. Frankfort 1939a: pl. 28:A. Frankfort 1939a: pl. 30:A. Frankfort 1939a: pl. 30:B. Moortgat-Correns 1972: pl. XI:a. Moortgat-Correns 1972: pl. XII:b. Moortgat-Correns 1972: pl. XIII:b. Moortgat-Correns 1972: pl. IX:b. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Annie Caubet. Zervos and Coppola 1935: 41. Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre – É. Revault. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Annie Caubet. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Ulla Kasten. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Annie Caubet. Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre. Grégoire 2002: pl. LXXXV. Walker and Collon 1980: pl. XXV:1. Courtesy of The British Museum. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Zeynep Kızıltan. Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre. Woolley 1956: pl. 41:U.2732. Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Courtesy of the Fondation Martin Bodmer, Cologny (Geneva). Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Becker 1993: pl. 57:c. Wrede 1995: fig. 9 left. Courtesy of The British Museum. de Genouillac 1925: pl. I:1. Courtesy of The British Museum. Heinrich 1936: pl. 17:b. Heinrich 1936: pl. 18:a. Heinrich 1936: pl. 18:b.

Sources of Illustrations

307

Plate

Source, credits

47:5 47:6 48:1 48:2 48:3 48:4 48:5 48:6 48:7 48:8 48:9 49:1 49:2 49:3 49:4 50:1 50:2, 4 50:3 51:1 51:2 51:3 51:4 51:5 52:1 52:2 52:3 52:4 53:1 53:2–3 53:4–5 53:6 53:7 54:1 54:2 54:3 54:4 54:5 54:6 55:1 55:2 55:3 56:1 56:2 56:3 56:4 57:1 57:2 57:3 57:4

Heinrich 1936: pl. 18:c. Collon 1987: fig. 807. Saggs 1995: fig. 16. Collon 1987: fig. 6. Wiseman 1962: pl. 1:a. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Annie Caubet. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Ulla Kasten. Orthmann 1975: pl. 126:b. Buchanan 1981: fig. 135. Basmachi 1994: pl. 2:6. Basmachi 1994: pl. 1:2. Hockmann 2008: fig. 8. Legrain 1936: pl. 51:387. Zervos and Coppola 1935: 53. Zervos and Coppola 1935: 55. Langdon 1924: pl. VI:1. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Annie Caubet. Moortgat 1967b: pl. 109. Moortgat 1967b: pl. 111. Börker-Klähn 1982a: pl. 16:b. Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: pl. 71. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: 205. Adapted from Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: pl. 70 bottom. Zervos and Coppola 1935: 111. Hoffmann 1964: no. 55. de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884–1912: pl. 3 bis (detail). Adapted from Frankfort 1943: pls. 22:F–G, 23:C. Zervos and Coppola 1935: 40. Courtesy of the Département des Antiquités Orientales, Musée du Louvre – É. Revault. Harper et al. 1992: 83, no. 50. Braun-Holzinger 1977: pl. 29:c. Braun-Holzinger 1977: pl. 29:d. Frankfort 1939a: pl. 114. Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: pl. XV. Woolley 1934: pl. 150:b. Hall and Woolley 1927: pl. XXXVI:3–6. Dolce 1978b: pl. XXIII:N59. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Annie Caubet. Anonymous 2001: no. 56. Zervos and Coppola 1935: 107. N. Marchetti’s photo, reproduced with the kind permission of Annie Caubet. Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: pl. 115. Moortgat-Correns 1972: pl. XVIII:a. Beyer 2007: fig. 17. Beyer 2007: fig. 18. Zervos and Coppola 1935: 70. Parrot 1967: pl. LXIII:2402. Parrot 1967: pl. LXIII:2502. Parrot 1953b: pl. 71.

308

Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

Plate

Source, credits

57:5 57:6 58:1 58:2 58:3 58:4 58:5 58:6 58:7 59:1 59:2 59:3 59:4 59:5 59:6 60:1 60:2 60:3 60:4 60:5 60:6 61:1 61:2 61:3 61:4 61:5 61:6 61:7 61:8 62:1 62:2 62:3 62:4 62:5 62:6 63:1 63:2 63:3 63:4 63:5 63:6 64:1–2 64:3 64:4 64:5 65:1 65:2 65:3

Invernizzi 1992: pl. 50. Dolce 1978b: pl. XX:Kh2. Zervos and Coppola 1935: 74. Parrot 1953b: pl. 65 right. Parrot 1956: pl. LIX. Parrot 1954: pl. XV:2. Dolce 1978b: pl. XVIII:K94. Gudrun Selz 1983: pl. XVII:207. Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 107, no. 59. Hansen 1963: pl. V. Gudrun Selz 1983: pl. VI:75. Frankfort 1943: pl. 63. Canby 2006: fig. 5. Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Amiet 1980: pl. 61:827. Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Safar 1971: pl. 4. Safar 1971: pl. 2. Frankfort 1939a: pl. 109:C. Hansen 1963: pl. VI. Frankfort 1943: pl. 35. Strommenger and Hirmer 1962: pl. 64 top. Zettler and Horne 1998: 78, no. 18. Woolley 1934: pl. 222:c. Gudrun Selz 1983: pl. XX:257. Zettler and Horne 1998: 83, no. 27. Buchanan 1981: fig. 327. Gudrun Selz 1983: pl. XIX:248. Anonymous 2001: no. 101. Zettler and Horne 1998: 82, no. 25. Anonymous 2001: no. 102. Beyer 2007: fig. 14:c. Matthiae 1985: pl. 43:b. Matthiae et al. 1995: 385, no. 223. Beyer 2007: fig. 4:c. Matthiae 1985: pl. 25:a (detail). Matthiae 1979: fig. 3. Matthiae 1979: fig. 5:a. Matthiae 1979: fig. 4:a, d. Matthiae 2004: fig. 5. Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 51, no. 18. Anonymous 1985: 302, no. 44. Gelb et al. 1991: pl. 14 top (detail). Adapted from Gelb et al. 1991: pl. 13. Zettler and Horne 1998: 67, no. 13. Börker-Klähn 1982a: pl. 224. Anonymous 2001: no. 290.

Plates

310

'\ )

I

....... .......... I

.f

", ,

/'

'J

.r·-.

I

\./

\ I

•

Tell Selenk.;hiy

'·-~,/

Ebla •

"'·-·-""'·') (~

r I

i