Arta Sumeriana Andre Parrot

8/12/2019 Arta Sumeriana Andre Parrot

1/62


2/62

SUMERIAN ART


3/62

S U M E R I A N ART

TEXT BY

Andr Parrot

A MENTOR-UNESCO ART BOOK

PUBLISHED BYTH E N E W AMERICAN LIBRARY, N E W YO RK AN D TO RO NTO

BY ARRANGEMENT WITH UNESCO


4/62

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIF IC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION 1970ALL BIGHTS RESERVED

FIRST PRINTING, MAY, 1970MENTOR TRADEMARK REG. U. S . PAT. OFF. AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES

REGISTERED TRADEMARK MARCA REGISTRADA

MENTOR-UNESCO ART BOOKS ARE PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES BYT H E N E W AMERICAN LIBRARY, INC.,

1301 AVENUE OF T HE AM ER IC AS , N EW YO RK, NEW YORK 10019,IN C A N A D A B Y TH E N E W AMERICAN L I B R A R Y O F C A N A D A LIMITED,

295 KING STREET EAST, TORONTO 2, ONTARIOPRINTED IN ITALY BY AM1LCARE PIZZI S.P.A. MILANO


5/62

M;esopotamian civi l ization began in the fifth millennium B c and ended a little before the Christianera. W ithin the course of its development, the S um erianperiod was undoubtedly that which exercised th e greatestinf luence, not on ly in its o wn re gio n but over a ll mank ind .It is in th e low ly ing country between the rivers Tigrisand Euphrates, extending to the Persian Gulf, that wemust seek th e land of Sumera magic name still redolento f mystery.It was only in 1877 that Sarzec unearthed among

his archaeological discoveries at Tello th e firststatues belonging to a completely unknown people. Tobegin with, they were termed 'Chaldean', which is amanifest error; however, one cannot blam e the specialistso f the period w ho found themselves faced with a newlanguage which they were unable to place exactly amongany o f th e l inguist ic fam ilies then known. It is easy tosmile now at the first tentative translations of the exhumed texts. Epigraphists were pass ionate ly at variance;on the one hand th ere w ere those who would not concedethat it was not a S em itic B a by lo nia n people who wereth e inventors of writ ing, l i terature, science and th e arts,while others insisted, on the contrary, that the realcreators w ere actually people o f another race, in factSumer ians who had arrived at some indeterminate datein th e country of the tw o r ivers.

As soon as one tries to probe deeper into th e q ue stio n,one becomes involved in vague generalit ies. Where d idthe S um erian s come f rom? Doubtless from the East, bu t


6/62

where do the frontiers o f the East end? In I ran, Afghanistan, or even further afield, in th e steppes o f Centra lAsia? This is a quest ion which still re ma in s u na ns we re dtoday. What was th e date of their migrat ion? We arefaced with further problems and doubts. W as it at thebeginning of the fourth mil lennium (in th e tim e of Obeid),or in the middle or end o f th is same mil lennium (theper iods o f Uruk or Jem det N asr)? Each of these dateshas its supporters, each has its ow n arguments, but nonehas been so absolutely conclusive as to carry completeconvict ion. However , w h a t has emerged beyond doubt isthat the Sumerians were not an autochthonous peopleand were not th e first inhab itan ts o f Mesopotamia.Doubtless it was in th e fourth mil lennium (one cannot saymore) that this mass movement took place, bu t it is stillnot know n w hether their migrat ion was made by a landroute or whether they came by sea to th e shores o f thePersian Gulf. W ho knows, perhaps, if th e Bible in theeleventh chapter o f th e Book of Genesis, Verse 2, has notretained the vestiges of a solidly based tradit ion. Herewe read: And it came to pass, as they [ the families ofth e sons of N oah] journeyed from the East, that theyfound a plain in the land o f Shinar and they dwel tthere. The land of Shinar is evidently Babylonia, becausecoupled with this appel lat ion, the name Shanhar has beenfound in cuneiform texts which l eaves no doubt whatsoevero f its geographic posit ion. Thus th e Bible text im p lieswithout doubt that there occurred at one t ime a migratorym ovem ent, the point of departure of w hich was in th eEast and which ended in Mesopotamia. We have nohesitation in ident i fy ing th e 'fam ilies o f th e sons ofNoah with the historical Sumerians.

These newcomers d id no t f ind an empty land to welcomethem. Already there was a p op ula tio n w hich had succeeded in crea ting cond itions of norm al life in a countrywhere the marshes had silted up little by little, thanksto th e al luvial deposits brought down each year on th ef lood tides in th e spring of th e two great rivers, Tigrisand Euphrates f loods which were as richly fertile intheir effect as they could be devastat ing. H ow can one


7/62

forget th e B ible story of the Flood, of which there areth e m o st im p re ss iv e parallels in cuneiform w ritin g s, b o thSumer ian and Akkad ian? The merits of these brave,agricultural, 'autochthonous' peoples, who were alreadylovers of fine objects, are not to be despised. Theirpottery from earliest times was ornamented with painteddesigns, inspired b y geometric patterns; only rarely byanimal life . B u t at the same t ime, together with utensilsused in daily life, we find the first terra-cotta figurines,evidence of the e a rlie st b e lie fs and fear of ancestorsstrange creatures, usually female, with serpentine headssurmounted by bonnets of bitumen, and bodies studdedwith lozenge-shaped lumps of clay. These are the prototypes of mother goddesses, sometimes holding a childat the breast. There is one exception, discovered atEridu a nude m an with elongated eyes and a highbonnet, and with strange blobs of earth studded on hissh ou ld ers a nd chest (Plate 1). Divinit ies or demons, whatis the significance of these mysterious representationswhich plunge us in a world surrounded by magic on allsides? Certainly, one can already speak of civil ization,as well as of art, but there is one essential factor whichis lacking: th e art of writ ing. It was th e S u m eria ns w howere to be the in ve nto rs o f epig raphy. Mesopo tamia wasto gather from these people an extraordinary culturalimpetus which was to have th e mos t brilliant consequences.From this momentthe end o f the fourth and beginningof the third millennium w e wi tness the m o s t spectacu larcreat ions in all f ields of art as well as in different manifestations of man 's ex is tence. T he whole of life w asin f luenced by this great change.

Sumerian civi l ization developed dur ing one and a halfmil lennia within re la tive ly res tric ted confines, but itsinf luence far exceeded th e limits of low er Mesopotamia.One finds examples of Sumerian influence fa r north ofBaghdad, on th e middle Euphrates, as at Mari, in th eupper Djezireh at Chuera, on the upper Tigris and as fa ras Assur. In this latter case, th e character of Sumerianart is modified by the presence of a ruling Semitic people.Later w e will see what were the results and what con-


8/62

elusions mus t be drawn from this mixture of peoples.This phase of history coincides with the first historicdynasties, to which ancient historians ascribe the greatdeeds of old, which fo r many years were consideredlegendary, but which re ce nt a rch ae olo gica l stu die s haveon the contrary proved to be t rue.

This phase was to give place to another, known as th eAmorite period, which was the work of Semitic peopleof the first Babylonian dynasty 1895-1595 B.c.), of whoseru le rs Hammurabi 1792-1750 B.c.) was the most i l lustrious.But, for a millennium and a half it was the Sumeriansw ho exercised pol i t ical suprem acy and total con tro l o fthe M esopotam ian region. There was a se rio us e clipseof some three centu ries, between 2400 and 2100 b.c., dueto th e arrival of a Semitic dynasty founded by thecelebrated Sargon of Agade. Because of this it iscustomary to dist inguish betw een S um erians (between3200 and 2500 b.c.) a nd N eo-S um e rians (b etw ee n 2200 and1950 b.c.), for af ter Agade there occurred the Gut i invasionwhich lasted about a century. Y et Sumerian art is verymuch in evidence during th e whole of the third millenn ium, for al though th e Agadean period marked a pol i t icalbreak, it in no w ay led to any hiatus in th e field of art.Despite certain formal modifications, the influence of th eart o f Sumer is always predominant.

As we have mentioned, it is certainly to the Sumeriansthat we owe th e d is co ve ry of writing. The invent ion mus thave o cc urre d a bo ut th e year 3000, perhaps a little earl ierrather than la te r. A system o f signs was ce rta in ly n otdefined or adopted a ll at once. A t Uruk some 900 signswere first used. A t Jemdet Nasr, after sim plificat ion ,there remain no more than 400. The initial inspirat ionfo r this form of writ ing was pictographic, that is to sa yrepresentations of the visible wor ld: m an and his dwellings, different species of animals and p la nts , to ols andarms. However it was found necessary to sim pl ify th esigns even fur ther and from pictography we pass tol inear and finally to cuneiform writ ing (from th e Latincuneus), so called after th e signs in th e fo rm o f th ecoigns (o r wedges) stam ped on the soft clay of tablets.


9/62

W ith the art of writ ing, now that it was possible to puton a tablet of clay or on th e face of a rock th e namesof kings, cities and gods, history was established. Itbecame possible not only to give lis ts of dynasties butof towns as well. The nam es of the great Sumerian capitalcities w ere preserved fo r posterity: Nippur, the sacredc ity ; U ruk, rendered famous by Gilgamesh; U r and Nannar,its moon god; Eridu, the cradle of Enki , th e god ofwaters; Lagash, which produced a whole l ine of rulersfrom Ur-Nanshe to th e incomparab le Urukagina .

The excavation of these sites proves pr ima facie thatth e Sumerians were exceptional builders. Huge piles ofbricks confront us, the remains of temples bui l t on loftyterraces, w hich la ter we find developed into the giganticziggurats of the neo-Sumerian period, the exact significance of which, so long incomprehensible, is now clear.

In addit ion to this part icular re lig ious a rchitectu re ,there were m any complementary buildings. Everywherethere w ere dozens and dozens of shrines consecrated tothe divinities of a prolific poly theis tic re lig ion. We alsof ind hundreds o f monuments devoted to ex-voto offerings

a nd s ta tu ette s of male and female worsh ippers ;reliefs decorated with rel igious scenes; ritual utensilsmade of stone or metal; decorative mosaic panels composed of mother-of-pearl. All Sumerian art is imbuedwith an extraordinary power and depth of feeling whichis immediately reminiscent of th e art o f the AncientEgyptian E mpire . T hro ugh ou t the world today museumsare filled with these treasures, but such is their overallintrinsic quality that it is difficult to know which toadmire the most.If one was obliged to choose from among all these

masterpieces, doubtless pride of place would be given toth e Warka Female Head (Plate 2). Despite muti lat ion,with eyes no longer encrusted with gems and a brokennose, this mysterious, impenetrable face still remains theperfect synthesis of 'eternal Woman'. Wife, queen,priestess sh e m ight w ell be any of these. She is trulyEve, a Mesopotamian Eve, with lips closed but seemingto express a melancholy disenchantment, a certain disdain


10/62

Worshipper. Deta il. Total height: 36.5 cm. Gypsum. From Khafaje.B ag hd ad M u se um .

.10


11/62

towards life life which is never really fulf i l led, since painand sadness far exceed th e satisfaction and joy experiencedby man. Such is the message conveyed by the Womanof Warka, which ranks among th e greatest sculptures ofall t ime and whose unknown author is worthy of placebeside Michelangelo.

N ot a ll of the re lig ious scu lp tu re attains such ful lnesso f expression. A large num ber o f w orks were mass produced by w orkshops ca te ring for the l im i ted pockets oftheir customers. These devout purchasers, having comeon pilgrimage, w ere anxious to place a statuette at th efeet of a divinity in the celia of temples, so that theirpresence there should be perpetuated and their prayersconsequently prolonged. One can wel l imagine th e crowdsof pious pilgrims on their w ay to the sanctuary, hal t ing,before crossing the th resho ld , to purchase the massproduced statuettes from neighbour ing stalls. M o s t ofthese carvings are m ade from common gypsum ; m alef igures for m en, fem ale for women. The majori ty arerepresented s tanding , only a few seated, bu t nearly allwith hands joined in the gesture always associated withprayer. Thei r eyes, encrusted with lapis lazuli, are openwide to m yste ry and f ixed in s ilen t supp lica tion , await ingan answer to their prayers (Plates 3 to 8).

It was necessary to cater for every purse, and th equali ty of these statuettes varies greatly. The faces areoften unidenti f iable, but somet imes sh ort in sc rip tio nsallow one to identi fy an ind iv idual because the names ofthe donor and th e god to whom the offering is dedicatedhave been added. There still remains some doubt to thevalidity o f this theory, because it m u s t be recognizedthat the devotees of a part icu lar god might wel l havemade their purchase from a c olle ctio n o f such statuettesin advance, and then requested that some inscr ipt ionshould be added to make the object a more personalof fer ing. But w e do find cases of actua l portraits. Thatthis has been contested by some authori t ies is somethingof w hich we are wel l aware; however, a number o fdiscoveries made at Mari force us to the definite conclusion that several statues represent the l ikenesses of

11


12/62

l iving people. How, for example, can one deny this whenfaced with th e statues of th e kin gs L am g i-M a ri (Plates 4and 5) a nd Iku -S ha m ag an , or of Ur-Nanshe, th e G reatSinger , or Idi-Narum, the M iller (Plate 6)? Or, aboveall, in the case of th e statuette o f E bih-il, the steward,with his nude torso and leather kilt? His h a n d s arejo ined in prayer and his sparkl ing eyes l ight up th e smileo f a contented man. Whether it is because he is happywith his lot or satisfied to find h im se lf in the presenceof his god, it is diff icult to decide, but o f one thing wecan be certain. Here is a real person we would liketo say an historic person standing before us, happy tobe admired.

Mar i provides us with the finest examples o f Sumerianart tempered by a h um a nizin g S em itic influence. TheSemites adopted and imitated the techniques of theirsouthern neighbours but Sumerian art is stamped withan essential rigidity and severity. The more sensitiveMariots, in their borrowings, softened this rigidity andseverity and added to their statues that smil ing countenance peculiar to their art, a smile which is bothseductive and charming. These same nuances, this samesweet expression, can also be observed on the faces ofth e s ta tu e tte s of m en and w o m e n found on some sites inthe D iyala, close to present day Baghdad. Although notpossessing quite the same smile as that of th e Mariots,the expression of these f igurines is nevertheless genialand c on te n te d (P la te 9).

From this same distr ict of the D iyala, th e sculpturalgroup discovered at Tel Asm ar m ust be regarded as adistinctive work belonging to quite a dif ferent school.The figures predominant ly male all have an hieraticfo rmal appearance. Here we no longer f ind a representat ion o f th e joy of l i fe, but the awe, if not fear, of m enco nfro nte d b y wha t one might call th e 'numinous' , thatis to say th e terrible manifestat ion of divine power. Inparticular, two of the worshippers are represented withenormous eyes and disproportionate pupils, somethingw hich c erta in ly cannot be attr ibuted to an y clu msin esson the part of th e sculptor; quite th e contrary, it re -

12


13/62

presents the anguish of fa i thful worshippers in thepresence of the ' ineffable' (Plates 10 to 12).

The Asmar statues are of quite a different style , whosecharacteristics can be found again far to the north atChuera, n o t far from the Turkish border. A re thesesculptures imported from the Diyala or were they madeby sculptors brought into the province? It is not easyto decide. The same uncertainty exists over certain moreclumsily executed sta tues; it is difficult to know whetherthe c lumsiness is deliberate or whether it is the resultof th e work of a less gifted workshop. Here againopin ion is v ery d iv id ed .

The weal th and va rie ty o f sculptures in the round mus tnot blind us to the fact that the Sumerians were alsomasters of bas-relief, al though of course these are fewerin number. As with th e statues in the round, th e qualityof th e reliefs varies, but the severity and sense of orderwhich is always apparent in these carvings is verycharacteristic of th e Sumerians. In this respect, we haveparticularly in mind th e slabs of stone discovered atTello, the ancient Lagash. These reliefs are prim ari lyconsecrated to the acts of King Ur-Nanshe ( form erly readas Ur-Nina) who is a lw ays shown accompanied by membersof his fa m ily , w h ile he either lays th e f irst brick of abuilding or ce le bra te s th e foundat ion of a sacred edif iceb y p ou rin g a l ibat ion. F ro m T ello also comes the grandestm o n u m e n t o f all, commemora t ing th e victory of Lagashover the neighbouring city of Umma. This monumentconsists of tw o panels carved on the obverse and reverseof th e same block. O n one side are shown the historicalevents: the battles in which King Eannatum leads hissold ie rs , the funeral ceremony in honour o f the dead andthe counting of th e prisoners. On the other face isdepicted the religious aspect of th is victorious w ar andth e conclusive intervention of th e god Ningirsu, smitingth e van quish ed w ho are caught up in a net. This stele,known as th e V ultu re s f rom the b irds of prey shownpicking at th e corpses of th e enemy, is a masterpiece ofits kind which dominates a ll others by the power of itsexpression. It also impresses one by its size (almost six

13


14/62

feet in height); though actua l size in no w ay detractsf rom th e smal l panels d iscove red, for example, at Ur andKhafaje (depicting religious ceremonies of the 'NewYear') or at Nippur (l ibation poured out before Enlil),or again at Tello (l ibation to N in hu rsa g, th e priest Duduofficiating in th e service of Ningirsu) and f inally, sincewe m u s t limit this l ist, th e mythological rel ief found atObeid showing a l ion-headed eagle tearing at the croupof a man-headed bull.

The skill in w orking in stone, both statues and reliefs,was also employed in th e ornamentat ion of sacred vessels, for besides metal and earthenware, these were alsosometimes fashioned from stone. Before 3000 B.c., duringth e 'Jemdet Nasr ' phase o f c iv iliz atio n, when the Sum e rians had certainly already been l iving in Mesopotamiafor tw o or three centuries, there were already ritualutensils in use, with original decoration: beakers usedfor l ibat ions, ornamented in high re lie f, depicting l ionsand bulls (Plate 14); cups, on th e outsides of which areraised . reliefs showing a procession of bulls and heavyears of corn, obviously evocations on the themes offecundity and fertility (Plate 15). This same preoccupationwith fecundi ty and fertility is evident on the great Warkavase on which, in super imposed bands (another exampleof the Sumerians ' a tte ntio n to o rd erly design and clarityin the rendering of facts, if not also of ideas), a re depictedo ffe rin gs a t th e shrine of Inanna. A priestess (o r goddess)emerging from the tem ple, greets a procession led by apriest (o r king). The members of th e procession, men inritual n u d ity , c arry vessels and baskets; on a lower band,animals advance in procession, and f inally there arerepresentat ions of corn p lanted on th e banks o f riverswhich assured life to a country which without water isnothing but desert. This sym bolic ornamentat ion is areminder not only that earthly existence is inevitablygoverned by powers of good, but that m an is engagedin a perpetual struggle against the forces of evil. Someo f these are represented by wild beasts and birds ofp re y, re nd ere d natural ist ical ly, whi le others are the products of th e decorators' imaginat ion. B ut these artists

14


15/62

were not given an entirely free hand, since they wereobliged to subm it to the directions of priests andtheologians.

As a lready mentioned, apart from stone, metal was alsoused, both brass and bronze. In the third mil lennium,the process of casting by th e technique of cire perdue wasalready known. If the M esopotam ian soil was not sodeleterious to th e preservat ion of metals, there is nodoubt that a fa r greater number of m e ta l ob je cts wouldhave been discovered. Enough, however, have beenfound to obtain a suff icient idea o f the skill and originalityof these bronze workers. There is the chariot harnessedto four wild asses discovered at Tel Agrab (Plate 16);the nude w o rs hip pe rs sta nd in g on a four-legged plinthfrom Khafaje; th e head of a goat f rom Shuruppak; abu ll from Tello; th e wrestlers from Khafaje; th e bullsfrom Obeid; th e naked goddess from the ' treasure' of U r,discovered at Mari , and many other examples whichdeserve to be inc luded in this inventory of ant ique metallurgy. However, nothing can compare with the sump-tuousness of th e objects from th e tombs of Ur. Glintinggold, electrum and silver; th e vase of S hubad; the helmetof Meskalamdug (Plate 19); th e bulls decorating th e harpcases (Plate 18); th e bridle bits of funeral chariots; ramsmade of gold and lapis lazuli; a dagger with a sheathdecorated with cloisonn; jewelry; diadems everything aw o ma n could hope to conquer and hold. Across th em il len nia, w o ma n has never changed.

H ow can one describe these objects as 'minor art ' whenthey constitute one of the most remarkable achievementsof man, a form of art in which the S um erians remainunequalled? The craftsmanship is perfect, employing acombinat ion of a ll materials; noth ing is copied, everything is original and always surprising, and alwaysastonishingly successful.

What can we say now of the engravings on thethousands of cylinders, like little rolling p ins, o rnamentedwith scenes cut in stone which, when rol led on th e softclay of table ts, p roduced an authentic reproduction inrelief? These cylinders are engraved with a variety of

15


16/62

themes which are no t always easy to interpret and whosemeaning is often vague because here and there onecomes up against an hermet ic language made up ofsymbols which can only be read with difficulty and th esignificance of w h ich cannot usual ly be understood.After th e cylinders we come to mother-of-pearl mosaicpanels, in which the Sumerians display a ll their tastefo r polychrome. The most celebra ted example is certainlythat known as the Standard of Ur no doubt an incorrect name, but one which has become so hallowed bytradit ion that we wil l ingly continue to use it. In fact itis not a stand ard a t all, but an object in th e shape of alectern composed of tw o ornamented panels depictingcontrasting scenes. O n one side there is a scene of war,on th e other of peace. Here we see the preparat ions fo ra banquet and the actual feast itself, th e reward for th evictor ious warr iors; on the other panel are depicted w archariots fol lowing captives led before the king. It is , aswe have said, a polychrome composition. The figures andanimals are cut out of white shell; the background ismade up of thin layers of lapis lazuli; th e borders arecomposed of alignments of sma ll mo the r-o f-pearl plaquessurrounding lapis lazuli or rose-coloured stone lozenges.A ll is held together and mounted on a black bi tuminousbackground; in short there are four colours employed(black, white, red and blue) harmoniously combined andmaking tw o re al p ic tu re s, each of which occupies one ofthree bands, typical of the Sumerians ' clarity of expression and orderly presentation.

Although U r has provided us with th e most completeexamples of these composit ions, other Mesopotamianworkshops produced similar works. K ish possessed some,but Mar i see Plates 20 to 22) was particu la rly rich inpanels attached to th e walls of th e temples of Ishtar,Ishtarat, Ninhursag and Shamash as wel l as in palaces,such as the royal residence dating from th e third millennium which is now in course of excavation. Thes ub je cts d ep ic te d are sim i lar to those found in lowerMesopotamia, that is to say scenes of warnatural lyalways a victorious war. Only th e antagonists differ.

16


17/62

At Mari, a Semitic city, th e vanquished are the Sumerians,while naturally at Ur it is the Sum erians who are thevictors. But it was not only w ar that inspired thesem iniatur ists. Somet imes we f ind peaceful scenes: a procession of priestesses or worshippers; a scene of spinningwith a distaff; fishermen, and a vast number ofother fragments. They shed a vivid l ight on the workadaylife of this Mesopotamian population consisting of tw opeoples co-existing side by side if not actually cohabiting,but among whom the Sum erian influence was alwayspredominant. What would have happened if their liveshad continued without th e shock of the 'Agadean' intervent ion? Wou ld th e evolut ion o f art have fo l lowed thenormal course, passing naturally from the archaic to theclassic phase? It is ve ry p ro ba ble tha t th is w ould havebeen the case, because the Agadean period was too briefto produce any great repercussions.

Around 2400 B.c. a Semitic dynasty founded by Sargonbrought Sumerian hegemony to an end and assumedcontrol of all Mesopotamia. This new regim e, if one isto believe the records (and there is no reason to doubtthem), lasted fo r no more than two centuries, too shorta period fo r all cultural standards to be upset, but longenough to direct art towards a more human approach.The middle Euphrates, with its Semitic population, andthe region of the Diyala, whose inhabitants were ofmixed stock, had already experienced this gradual change,but Sumer ian art was to be shaken to its foundat ions.

Two monuments stand out l ike beacons in this modif ication of style. (To describe the change as a metamorphosis' would be an exaggeration; the Sumerianheritage is always apparent and left an indelible imprintfrom which it was impossible to escape altogether.)The first is th e head, said to be that of Sargon (Plate 23),discovered in Nineveh. This sovereign, with his haughtyprofile and p la ited hair, is astonishingly similar to thehelmet of Meskalamdug from U r (Plate 19), with the'chignon' raised above the nape of the neck, but now wehave not a symbol but a living man. No longer do we findan inaccessib le monarch closer to heaven than earth,

17


18/62

but a human leader determined to be obeyed, a m anw ho knows how to enforce his will. Here is dignityand majesty; but we also see humanity as well.

The second monumen t is th e stele of Naram-Sin, fourthking of Agade. Once again this depicts a w ar scene and,of course, a victor ious war . H ow m uch there is to belearnt from this, when w e compare it with the Steleo f th e Vultures which deals with th e same subject Hereth e batt le is depicted with fantasy and f reedom o fexpression. Eighteen figures in v io le nt action a re do mina ted by King Naram-Sin who wears a t iara, emblematic ofgodhood. This is no hum an batt le, for the luminar iesdep ic ted a t the summit of th e ro se -co lo ure d sandstoneblock indicate that the gods are no t absent but areintervening to grant victory to the faithful. It will beremembered that on the Stele of the Vultures, the rowsof carvings d ep ict th e phases of the battle in chronologicalorder. O n the one side there are m en; on the o ther,quite distinctly, th e gods. Here we find tw o dif ferentconceptions, tw o differe nt temperaments. The Sumerianatt i tude to art is methodica l and consti tutes a systematicanalysis. In th e Agadean stele we f ind an immediatesynthesis and dynamism represented by a group of f iguresin action.

A sim ilar exuberance and realism persists in their gemengraving, which is some of th e r ichest in a ll Mesopotamia. Here, as previously, we f ind the representat ionof religious and mythological subjects; but again we mustcontent ourselves with a descript ion of th e works, sinceit is only with diff iculty that we can decipher their exactsignificance or even a plausible meaning from existingtexts. N o engravers were ever more ski l ful in work ingon such a minute scale. They achieved with their bur insthe mos t astonishing little maquet tes which need onlyto be enlarged to make into great pictures.

Tw o new polit ical developments were once more tochange the Mesopotamian world. Agadean rule ended incomplete anarchy. Records of the t ime state in a toneof utter disi l lusionment: W ho was king? W ho was notking? Central government was no more than a dream

18


19/62

and it is easy to believe that art was no longer able torely on the support indispensable for its survival, thatthe economic condit ions no longer existed for its development or even for its product ion.

Invasion, too, contr ibuted to th e chaos. When a countryis physically weak b ut m a te ria lly wealthy, as was th eplain of th e Tigris and Euphrates, it becomes a sourceo f tem pta tion to those w ho consider themselves disinherited. A nomadic people, the G uti, now a rrive d to taketheir share of th e riche s, but not for long. They lackedorganisat ion and discipline and th e o ld rulers soon tookcont ro l again o f th e co un try w hich their ancestors hadcreated. The neo-Sumerian era had arr ived, a periodwhich m ay r ightly be regarded as a second golden age.Once again Mesopotamia possessed an all-powerful kingship after a brief split between two cities, Uruk and Ur,both of which wished to be th e cradle of a dynasty.Uruk at f irst seemed to be winning the day, withUtuhegal, but U r bro ug ht th is defection to an end in acampaign which lasted no more than a 'week of years'.U r was definit ively assured of hegemony with its thirddynasty.

For somewhat more than a century 2124-2016 B.c.), U rremained supreme. During this t ime tw o rulers emerged,Ur-Nammu and S hu lg i (Dungi), and th e la tte r in particular,occupying the throne for a lmost half a century, gave backto Sumer ian civilization all its sp lendour and power .

It is diff icult to understand how U r, whose authori tywas incontestable, was able to support the presence o fanother city, Lagash, not a hundred miles away, whichwas also th e ce ntre of an equally brilliant society, withoutengaging in a morta l conflict. It was in Lagash that therelived a wise m an, Gudea, w ho never assumed the titleof king, but was always content to remain a patesi (o rishak), that is to sa y a great princely priest. It wouldseem probable that it was because of a his self-denialthat the land of Sumer w as ab le to avoid an internalconfl ict w hich w ould have proved fa ta l to its existence.

The N eo-S um erians, like their ancestors, were indefatigable builders. A ll their cities were dom inated by

19


20/62

ziggurats, whose or igin, as we have already pointed out,la y in the high-terraced temples of the Sumerians. N owwe find ourselves faced with these t iered towers, diminishin g in size as they ascend. In the hearts of cities, theyconstituted a link between heaven and earth and wereindispensable for the m ain tenance o f terrestrial andcelestial relat ions and thus assured m an of fertility andfecundity. There can be no doubt that it was the zigguratsthat inspired th e story of the Tower o f Babel in theBook of Genesis (Ch. xi, 1-9), but with one importantexception. Instead o f being an act of defiance cast atGod, as th e writers of Genesis m ainta ined, the zigguratwas an act of faith, a hand stretched out to th e e m pyre an .The ziggurat was essentially a religious monument ,although unti l the last century 'Chaldean' pundits believedit to have been an observatory, or even, more prosaically,a high building constructed ove r th e pla in to providecitizens with a little fresh a ir during th e hot season oron summer nights

These ziggurats w ere gigantic constructions, made, asis believed today, from prefabricated material, bakedbricks of an overall size of between 32 and 45 cm.These were hol low and fo rmed a sort o f box containinga core of sun-dried clay. Thus the building could resisterosion without much difficulty, a hazard which was aserious menace to b uild in gs faced with fragile materials.These impressive towers were ascended by one or morestairways in the case o f U r, by three to a rrive at thetemple on th e summi t , a shrine of welcome. Here processions of p rie sts a w aite d th e god descending f rom theheavens to accompany him to th e shrine where he residedor manifested himsel f on th e level of the city. In thisway the city benefited by th e god's stay on earthand the country was assured fecundity and fertility.

Every towns, as we have said, possessed its own ziggurat,but not all have remained in th e same state o f preservat ion. That of Lagash has completely disappeared andno t even it s site has been discovered. O n the other hand,th e ziggurats of Nippur , Uruk, Larsa, Eridu and Mar ihave been prese rved and the ru ins of these cities are stil l

20


21/62

dominated by them . H ow ever, it is at U r tha t the mostspectacular of these towers is to be found, with its trip lestairway, and although its upper storeys have disappeared,the effect is still impressive.

As wel l as the ziggurats and temples, the remains ofroyal residences survive. B eing at ground level, they havesuffered more from destruction and the ravages of war .The best preserved and la rgest is at Mar i . Covering anarea of several acres, with hundreds of rooms and courts,it will long remain th e mos t splendid example o f easternarchitecture dating f rom the end of the third and beginning of the second mil lennium. B ut even more than itssize, it is its state of preservation, by fa r th e best everm et w ith in any Mesopotamian city, which is so impressive.

While architects were giving proof o f their technicalability, artists were proving themselves in no way inferior.T he n eo -S ume ria n period produced as much sculpture asearlier ones, but its style was undoubtedly more elegant,a fact due perhaps to th e influence of the Agadeans whohad softened the original Sumerian severity. Lagash wasfilled with statues, most of which w ere dedicated toPrince Gudea, of whom there are more than thirtyportraits. Whereas most earlier sculpture was carvedfrom gypsum, one of the ve ry softest stones, sculptorsnow attacked harder and harder rock calcite, steatite,dolerite and diorite. W hat too ls d id they use to achievetheir masterpieces? And how did they achieve such animpeccable polish in which one can find no trace of theinstruments employed? This stil l remains a mystery,bu t th e results are there to see. Gudea is usually represented standing, more rarely seated, but always inan attitude of prayer with hands joined. There is ,however, one exception, a carving in which he is represented holding a vase spouting water. The head withits smooth face and nutcracker chin, the prominent eyes,all breathe an air of authority, of a m an m aster ofhimsel f and with th e gift of command. Yet among allthe long inscriptions engraved with such prodigality onhis robe, there is never a w ord of war, never theslightest allusion to m ilitary conquest or force of arms.

21


22/62

H is son and successor Ur-Ningirsu, showed less discret ion.On the plinth support ing his statue we find depictedkneeling vassals holding in their hands baske ts filled withtr ibutes, and vanquished prisoners serving as footstoolfor their conqueror .The statuary of Lagash resembles that of Mari , by whichit was probably inspired; in any case it is also in th en eo -S ume ria n s tyle . Only in the costumes do we f indany radical difference. The images of Puzur-Ishtar, Idi-i lum and Ishtup-i lum (Plates 24 and 25) are a ll represented in identical attitudes, with hands joined inprayer and bare feet, since they are treading on th e holyground of th e sepulchre. However, there is one statuefrom Mar i which deserves our part icular attent ion. Thisis not the statue of a worshipper, devotee or governorbu t of a goddess, in the same pose as the tatue o f Gudea.She too holds a vase in her hands from which water,channel led through passages h ollow ed o ut in the interioro f the statue, flow s over her long robe on which arecarved waves and fishes (Plates 26 and 27).

We now come to another aspect of Sumerian art: m ura lpainting. The finest example is to be found at Mari ,w here the palace, last occupied by Zimrilim, became th ecentre o f pictorial decoration. In one of th e courtyardsand in several recep tion rooms in the residential quarters,decorat ions have been found whose composi t ion is happi lystill almost complete, although the painting i tself is inshreds. There is The Sacri f ice of Fire and Water in theaudience hall, T he Sacrif ice o f the Bull on the wall o fCourt 106, and, mos t impor tant of all, The Panel of th eInvest i ture , undoubtedly a landmark in th e h is to ry o fart, w hich also serves as an example o f the marr iageof two cultures Sumerian and Semitic. Sumerian art isapparent on a grand scale in the scenes represent ingZimrilim before the goddess Ishtar; Semit ic in th edepiction of trees, some of which are s ty lised , o thers ofwhich are rendered with astonishing realism, where menare seen cl imbing to th e branches o f a palm tree, fromwhose f ronds there flies away a m a g nific en t b lu e bird,no doubt frightened by th e noise made by the approach-

22


23/62

in g clim b ers. In this painting we have that combinationo f h ie ra tic and dynamic art, tw o c urre nts w h ic h over thecenturies mot ivated Mesopotamian art. It is difficult tounderstand how such a work o f art has not onlysurvived th e destruction by fire in which th e palacewas ultim ately destroyed, but thousands of years ofinhumation.

Do th e works in metal and terra-cotta o f th is periodcompare with stone carvings both in th e hardest andsoftest rocks? This was the great p erio d w h ich producedth e bronze fig urin es b y which rulers wished to preservethe m em ories of their re ig ns: fig ure s of basket carriers;kneeling gods thrusting into th e soil th e nai l whichkeeps evil spirits in the depths below; guard ian lions atthe doors of shrines, like those at the tem ple of Daganat Mar i . There are thousands o f earthenware f igures,some model led in th e round, o th ers taken from a mould ,all of which were later fired . These are of the utmostdocumentary value, because in this series we f ind notonly representat ions o f women with dulcimers o r nudefemales, bu t also gods, warr iors and anim als and thefirst scenes o f w ar to w hich th is period was part icular lyprone and which heralded the disappearance of th eSumerians.

Indeed, it was in the third dynasty tha t U r saw itshegem ony contested. A Semit ic people had settled in Isinand th e Elamites were at Larsa, a cause fo r great anxietysince nei ther now accepted the dominat ion o f theirSumerian neighbours. They founded powerfu l dynastiesand engaged in a pol i t ical game o f all iances which stillremain somewhat obscure to us today. A t th e close o fth e twentieth century b.c., Ibi-Sin, fifth king o f th e dynastyof U r, w as overw helm ed. Then came the era of Larsa,contemporary with th e last phase of the palace o f Mar i .This was a period o f p rosperity and great artistic vigourwhich heralded th e day w hen B abylon w ould contro l a llM esopotam ia and th e ancient country of Sumer. Thepeople w ho had once held th e leadership o f the Easternworld were now defini tely on the decline. There was nohope of their reestablishing themselves, for Hammurab i

23


24/62

1792-1750 B.c.), th e most powerfu l ruler o f th e f irstBabylonian dynasty, held out no hope to the heirs of thepast. He held out no hope even to the kings of Isin orof Larsa, Semites like himself, who fo r a brief t ime hadbeen h is allies; and even less to Zimrilim of M ari,another Semite.

The Sumerians now disappear from history. Only theirlanguage continued to be used, and th is only as a r itualreligious language. B ut th e work of their minds andtheir hands has survived, an inestimab le treasure which,thanks to archaeologists, has become part of th e heritageof mankind.

24


25/62

ILLUSTRATIONS


26/62


27/62


28/62


29/62


30/62


31/62


32/62


33/62

M i Vil ... A lAU '


34/62


35/62

Ill


36/62


37/62


38/62

v.

fc


39/62


40/62


41/62


42/62


43/62

18


44/62

v~ Kl


45/62


46/62


47/62

r*A \a 1r V i 1

/ r ^1

jf^^^^^ ^BP

22


48/62

23


49/62

24


50/62

i

25


51/62

26


52/62

27


53/62

28


54/62

29


55/62

30


56/62

w jj I iu>

31


57/62


58/62

CONTENTS

Introduction by Andr Parrot * Pace 5Mate figurine. Detail. Total height: 14 cm. Tcrra-cotta.From Eridu. Baghdad Museum Plate 1Warka Female Head. Height: 20 cm. Stone. From Warka.Baghdad Museum Plate 2Worshipper with a lam b. Detail. Total height: 52 cm.Gypsum. From Mari. Aleppo Museum Plate 3Statue of King Lamgi-Mari. Detail. Total height: 27.2 cm.Gypsum. From Mari . Aleppo Museum Plate 4King Lamgi-Ma ii. Height: 27.2 cm. Gypsum. From Mari.Aleppo Museum Plate 5Idi-Narum, the M iller . Detail. Total height: 20.4 cm.Breccia. From Mari. Aleppo Museum Plate 6The Embracing Couple . Height: 12.6 cm. Gypsum.From Mari. Aleppo M useum Plate 7Worshipper. Height: 104 cm. Gypsum. From Mari. Aleppo Museum Plate 8Female head. Height: 12 cm. Gypsum. From Tel Agrab.Baghdad Museum Plate 9Worshipper (o r god). Height: 72 cm . Gypsum. FromTel Asmar. B aghdad M useum Plate 10Worshipper (o r god). Detail. Total height: 72 cm.Gypsum. From Tel A sm ar. Baghdad Museum Plate Worshipper (or goddess). Height: 59 cm. Gypsum. FromTel Asm ar. Baghdad Museum Plate 12Worshipper. Height: 30 cm. Gypsum. From Khafaje.Baghdad Museum Plate 3Ritual vase. Height: 30.2 cm. Stone. From Warka.Baghdad Museum Plate 4Ritual cup. Height: 5.5 cm. Steatite. From Ur. BaghdadMuseum Plate 15Chariot drawn by four animals. Height: 7 cm . Bronze.From Tel Agrab. B aghdad M useum Plate 16* Translated from the French


59/62

CONTENTS

Worshipper on a pedestal. Height : 55.5 cm. Bronze. FromKhafaje. Baghdad M useum Plate 17Bull 's head. Height: 29.5 cm. Gold. From Vr. BaghdadM u s e u m Plate 18Helmet of Meskalamdug, Height: 23 cm. Gold. FromUr. Baghdad Museum Plate 19Mother-of-pearl mosaic panel. Height: 36 cm; length:72 cm. From M ari. Modern mount ing, A le ppo M useum Plate 20

Dignitary from mosaic panel. Height : 11 cm . From Mari .Aleppo M useum Plate 21Dignitary from mosaic panel. Height: 11 cm. From Mari .Aleppo M useum Plate 22Head of King Sargon ?). Height: 30 cm. Bronze. FromNineveh. Baghdad M useum Plate 23Statue o f Is htu p-ilu m , governor o f Mari . Detail. Tota lheight: 152 cm. Black stone. From Mari . A le pp o M useum Plate 24Statue o f Ishtup-i lum, governor of Mart . Head detail.Total height: 152 cm. Black stone. From Mari . AleppoMuseum Plate 25Goddess with flowing vase. Height: 149 cm. White stone.From Mari . A le ppo M useum Plate 26Goddess with f lowing vase. Detail. Total height: 149 cm.White stone. From Mari . Aleppo Museum Plate 27W arr ior with a chin piece. Height : 20 cm . White stone.From Mar i . Aleppo Museum Plate 28Androcephalic bull bearing the name of Ur-gar. Length:14.3 cm. Steatite. From Tello. B aghdad M useu m . . . Platb 29Worshipper with a lamb. Detail. Total height: 23 cm.Gypsum. From Mari . Aleppo Museum Plate 30Basket bearer. Height: 32.5 cm . Bronze. From Nippur.Baghdad Museum Plate 31Warrior. Height: 19 cm. Terra-cotta. From Tello.Baghdad Museum Plate 32The colour photographs for this volum e were specially taken byMario Carrieri.


60/62

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Christ ian, Viktor, Altertumskunde de s Zwe is tromlandes , Leipzig ,Kar l VV. Hiersemann, 1940.

Contenau, Georges, Manuel d'archologie orientale, Paris, A. Picard,1927-1947.

Frankfort , Henr i , The Art and A rc hite ctu re o f th e Ancient Orient ,Melbourne, London, Balt imore, Penguin Books, 1954.

Frankfo rt, Henri, Sculpture of the Third Millenium B. C. from Tel lAsmar and Khafadje (OIP, XLIV), Chicago, The University ofChicago Press, 1939. More Sculpture from the Diyala Region(OIP, LX), C hicago, T he U n iv ers ity o f Chicago Press, 1943.

Lenzen, Heinr ich, Die Sumerer , Berl in , Gebr. Mann, 1948.Lloyd, Seton, The Art of the Ancient Near East, London, Thames

and Hudson, 1961.M\l lowan, M . E. L., Early Mesopotamia and I ran, London, Thames

and Hudson, 1965.Malraux, Andr, Le Muse imaginaire de la sculpture mondiale,

Paris, Gal l imard, 1933.Moortgat, Anton, Die Ku n s t des Alten Mesopotamien, Kln , Du

Mo n t Schauberg, 1967.P arrot, Andr, M is sio n a rch o lo giq ue de Mar i (MAM), Paris,

Geuthner :

I. Le Temple d'Ishtar, 1956.II. Le Palais. 1. Architecture, 1958. 2. Peintures murales, 1959.

3. Documents et monuments , 1959.III. Les Temples d' Ishtarat et de Ninni-zaza, 1967.IV. Le Trsor d'Ur , 1968.

P arro t, A n dr , Sumer, London, Thames and Hudson, 1960.Parrot, Andr, Assur, London, Tham es and Hudson, 1961.Sciimkel, Hartmut , Ur, Assur und Babylon, Stuttgart, Gustav

Kpper , 1955.W ool ley, C. L., Les S u m rie ns , P a ris , Payot, 1930.Woolley, C. L., Ur Excavations, II: The Royal Cemetery, London,

Philadelphia, British Museum and University Museum, 1934.Woolley, C. L., The Development of Sumerian Art, London, Faber

and Faber, 1935.


61/62

Pr inted in Italy


62/62

From around the world From ancient t imes to the present

THE MENTOR-UNESCO ART SERIESpresents ART MASTERPIECES

in full color, finest quality, full-pageand double-page reproductions.

This h a n d s o m e volumeof masterworks of

Sumer ian Artfeatures a text by

Andr Parrot, Conservator-in-Chief,Department of Oriental Antiquities,

the Louvre.

Currently published