THE AGE AND PRINCIPAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF SUMERIAN CIVILIZATION
Considerable changes have recently taken place in our estimate of
the age of Sumerian civilization, and the length of time which
elapsed between the earliest remains that have been recovered and the
foundation of the Babylonian monarchy. It was formerly the custom to
assign very remote dates to the earlier rulers of Sumer and Akkad,
and although the chronological systems in vogue necessitated enormous
gaps in our knowledge of history, it was confidently assumed that
these would be filled as a result of future excavation. Blank periods
of a thousand years or more were treated as of little account by many
writers. The hoary antiquity ascribed to the earliest rulers had in
itself an attraction which outweighed the inconvenience of spreading
the historical material to cover so immense a space in time. But
excavation, so far from filling the gaps, has tended distinctly to
reduce them, and the chronological systems of the later Assyrian
and Babylonian scribes, which were formerly regarded as of primary
importance, have been brought into discredit by the scribes themselves.
From their own discrepancies it has been shown that the native
chronologists could make mistakes in their reckoning, and a possible
source of error has been disclosed in the fact that some of the early
dynasties, which were formerly regarded as consecutive, were, actually,
contemporaneous. Recent research on this subject has thus resulted in
a considerable reduction of the early dates, and the different epochs
in the history of Sumer and Akkad, which were at one time treated as
isolated phenomena, have been articulated to form a consistent whole.
But the tendency now is to carry the reaction rather too far, and to
compress certain periods beyond the limits of the evidence. It will be
well to summarize the problems at issue, and to indicate the point at
which evidence gives place to conjecture.
In attempting to set limits to the earlier periods of Sumerian history,
it is still impossible to do more than form a rough and approximate
estimate of their duration. For in dealing with the chronology of
the remoter ages, we are, to a great extent, groping in the dark.
The material that has been employed for settling the order of the
early kings, and for determining their periods, falls naturally into
three main classes. The most important of our sources of information
consists of the contemporary inscriptions of the early kings
themselves, which have been recovered upon the sites of the ancient
cities in Babylonia.[1] The inscriptions frequently give genealogies
of the rulers whose achievements they record, and they thus enable
us to ascertain the sequence of the kings and the relative dates at
which they reigned. This class of evidence also makes it possible to
fix certain points of contact between the separate lines of rulers
who maintained an independent authority within the borders of their
city-states.
A second class of material, which is of even greater importance for
settling the chronology of the later Sumerian epoch, comprises the
chronological documents drawn up by early scribes, who incorporated in
the form of lists and tables the history of their own time and that of
their predecessors. The system of dating documents which was in vogue
was not a very convenient one from the point of view of those who used
it, but it has furnished us with an invaluable summary of the principal
events which took place for long periods at a time. The early dwellers
in Babylonia did not reckon dates by the years of the reigning king,
as did the later Babylonians, but they cited each year by the event
of greatest importance which took place in it. Such events consisted
in the main of the building of temples, the performance of religious
ceremonies, and the conquest of neighbouring cities and states. Thus
the dates upon private and official documents often furnish us with
historical information of considerable importance.
But the disadvantages of the system are obvious, for an event might
appear of great importance in one city and might be of no interest
to another situated at some distance from it. Thus it happened that
the same event was not employed throughout the whole country for
designating a particular year, and we have evidence that different
systems of dating were employed in different cities. Moreover, it would
have required an unusually good memory to fix the exact period of a
document by a single reference to an event which took place in the year
when it was drawn up, more especially after the system had been in use
for a considerable time. Thus, in order to fix the relative dates of
documents without delay, the scribes compiled lists of the titles of
the years, arranged in order under the reigns of the successive kings,
and these were doubtless stored in some archive-chamber, where they
were easily accessible in the case of any dispute arising with regard
to the date of a particular year. It is fortunate that some of these
early Sumerian date-lists have been recovered, and we are furnished
by them with an outline of Sumerian history, which has the value of
a contemporary record.[2] They have thrown light upon a period of
which at one time we knew little, and they have served to remove more
than one erroneous supposition. Thus the so-called Second Dynasty of
Ur was proved by them to have been non-existent, and the consequent
reduplication of kings bearing the names of Ur-Engur and Dungi was
shown to have had no foundation in fact.
From the compilation of lists of the separate years it was but a step
to the classification of the reigns of the kings themselves and their
arrangement in the form of dynasties. Among the mass of tablets
recovered from Niffer has been found a fragment of one of these early
dynastic tablets,[3] which supplements the date-lists and is of the
greatest value for settling the chronology of the later period. The
reverse of the tablet gives complete lists of the names of the kings
who formed the Dynasties of Ur and Isin, together with notes as to
the length of their respective reigns, and it further states that the
Dynasty of Isin directly succeeded that of Ur. This document fixes
once for all the length of the period to which it refers, and it is
much to be regretted that so little of the text has been recovered.
Our information is at present confined to what is legible on part of
one column of the tablet. But the text in its complete form must have
contained no less than six columns of writing, and it probably gave
a list of various dynasties which ruled in Babylonia from the very
earliest times down to the date of its compilation, though many of the
dynasties enumerated were doubtless contemporaneous. It was on the
base of such documents as this dynastic list that the famous dynastic
tablet was compiled for the library of Ashurbani-pal at Nineveh, and
the existence of such lengthy dynastic records must have contributed to
the exaggerated estimate for the beginnings of Babylonian history which
have come down to us from the work of Berossus.
A third class of material for settling the chronology has been found
in the external evidence afforded by the early historical and votive
inscriptions to which reference has already been made, and by tablets
of accounts, deeds of sale, and numerous documents of a commercial
and agricultural character. From a study of their form and material,
the general style of the writing, and the nature of the characters
employed, a rough estimate may sometimes be made as to the time at
which a particular record was inscribed, or the length of a period
covered by documents of different reigns. Further, in the course of the
excavations undertaken at any site, careful note may be made of the
relative depths of the strata in which inscriptions have been found.
Thus, if texts of certain kings occur in a mound at a greater depth
than those of other rulers, and it appears from an examination of the
earth that the mound has not been disturbed by subsequent building
operations or by natural causes, it may be inferred that the deeper
the stratum in which a text is found the earlier must be the date to
be assigned to it. But this class of evidence, whether obtained from
palaeographical study or from systematic excavation, is sometimes
uncertain and liable to more than one interpretation. In such cases it
may only be safely employed when it agrees with other and independent
considerations, and where additional support is not forthcoming, it is
wiser to regard conclusions based upon it as provisional.
The three classes of evidence that have been referred to in the
preceding paragraphs enable us to settle the relative order of many
of the early rulers of Babylonia, but they do not supply us with
any definite date by means of which the chronology of these earlier
ages may be brought into relation with that of the later periods of
Babylonian history. In order to secure such a point of connection,
reliance has in the past been placed upon a notice of one of the early
rulers of Babylonia, which occurs in an inscription of the last king of
the Neo-Babylonian empire. On a clay cylinder of Nabonidus, which is
preserved in the British Museum, it is stated that 3200 years elapsed
between the burial of Narâm-Sin's foundation-memorial in the temple of
the Sun-god at Sippar, and the finding of the memorial by Nabonidus
himself when digging in the temple's foundations.[4] Now Narâm-Sin was
an early king of Akkad, and, according to later tradition, was the son
of the still more famous Sargon I. On the strength of the figure given
by Nabonidus, the approximate date of 3750 B.C. has been assigned to
Narâm-Sin, and that of 3800 B.C. to his father Sargon; and mainly on
the basis of these early dates the beginning of Sumerian history has
been set back as far as 5000 and even 6000 B.C.[5]
The improbably high estimate of Nabonidus for the date of Narâm-Sin
has long been the subject of criticism.[6] It is an entirely isolated
statement, unsupported by any other reference in early or late texts;
and the scribes who were responsible for it were clearly not anxious
to diminish the antiquity of the foundation-record, which had been
found at such a depth below the later temple's foundations, and
after so prolonged a search. To accept it as accurate entailed the
leaving of enormous gaps in the chronological schemes, even when
postulating the highest possible dates for the dynasties of Ur and
Babylon. An alternative device of partially filling the gaps by the
invention of kings and even dynasties[7] was not a success, as their
existence has since been definitely disproved. Moreover, the recent
reduction in the date of the First Dynasty of Babylon, necessitated
by the proof that the first three dynasties of the Kings' List were
partly contemporaneous, made its discrepancy with Nabonidus's figures
still more glaring, while at the same time it furnished a possible
explanation of so high a figure resulting from his calculations. For
his scribes in all good faith may have reckoned as consecutive a
number of early dynasties which had been contemporaneous.[8] The final
disproof of the figure is furnished by evidence of an archaeological
and epigraphic character. No such long interval as twelve or thirteen
hundred years can have separated the art of Gudea's period from that
of Narâm-Sin; and the clay tablets of the two epochs differ so little
in shape, and in the forms of the characters with which they are
inscribed, that we must regard the two ages as immediately following
one another without any considerable break.
By rejecting the figures of Nabonidus we cut away our only external
connection with the chronology of the later periods, and, in order to
evolve a scheme for earlier times we have to fall back on a process
of reckoning from below. Without discussing in detail the later
chronology, it will be well to indicate briefly the foundations on
which we can begin to build. By the aid of the Ptolemaic Canon, whose
accuracy is confirmed by the larger List of Kings and the principal
Babylonian Chronicle, the later chronology of Babylon is definitely
fixed back to the year 747 B.C.; by means of the eponym lists that for
Assyria is fixed back to the year 911 B.C. Each scheme controls and
confirms the other, and the solar eclipse of June 15th, 763 B.C., which
is recorded in the eponymy of Pûr-Sagale, places the dead reckoning for
these later periods upon an absolutely certain basis. For the earlier
periods of Babylonian history, as far back as the foundation of the
Babylonian monarchy, a chronological framework has been supplied by the
principal List of Kings.[9] In spite of gaps in the text which render
the lengths of Dynasties IV. and VIII. uncertain, it is possible,
mainly by the help of synchronisms between Assyrian and Babylonian
kings, to fix approximately the date of Dynasty III. Some difference
of opinion exists with regard to this date, but the beginning of the
dynasty may be placed at about the middle of the eighteenth century B.C.
With regard to Dynasty II. of the King's List it is now known that it
ruled in the Sea-country in the region of the Persian Gulf, its earlier
kings being contemporary with the close of Dynasty I. and its later
ones with the early part of Dynasty III.[10] Here we come to the first
of two points on which there is a considerable difference of opinion.
The available evidence suggests that the kings of the Sea-country never
ruled in Babylon, and that the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty followed
the First Dynasty of Babylon without any considerable break.[11] But
the date 2232 B.C., which probably represents the beginning of
the non-mythical dynasties of Berossus,[12] has hitherto played a
considerable part in modern schemes of chronology, and, in spite of the
fact that no amount of ingenuity can reconcile his dynasties with those
of history, there is still a strong temptation to retain the date for
the beginning of Dynasty I. of the Kings' List as affording a fixed
and certain point from which to start calculations. But this can only
be done by assuming that some of the kings of the Sea-country ruled
over the whole of Babylonia, an assumption that is negatived by such
historical and archaeological evidence as we possess.[13] It is safer
to treat the date 2232 B.C. as without significance, and to follow the
evidence in confining the kings of the Sea-country to their own land.
If we do this we obtain a date for the foundation of the Babylonian
monarchy about the middle of the twenty-first century B.C.
[Illustration: Brit. Mus., No. 86261.--Brit. Mus., No. 86260.--THE
BLAU MONUMENTS.]
The second important point on which opinion is not agreed, concerns
the relation of the First Dynasty of Babylon to that of Isin. From the
Nippur dynastic list we know the duration of the dynasties of Ur and
Isin, and if we could connect the latter with the First Dynasty of
Babylon, we should be able to carry a fixed chronology at least as far
back as the age of Gudea. Such a point of connection has been suggested
in the date-formula for the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit's reign,
which records a capture of Isin; and by identifying this event with
the fall of the dynasty, it is assumed that the kings of Isin and of
Babylon overlapped for a period of about ninety-nine years. In a later
chapter the evidence is discussed on which this theory rests, and it is
shown that the capture of Isin in Sin-muballit's seventeenth year had
nothing to do with the dynasty of that name, but was an episode in the
later struggle between Babylon and Larsa.[14] We thus have no means of
deciding what interval, if any, separated the two dynasties from one
another, and consequently all the earlier dates remain only approximate.
The contract-tablets dating from the period of the Dynasty of Isin,
which have been found at Nippur, are said to resemble closely those
of the First Babylonian Dynasty in form, material, writing, and
terminology.[15] It would thus appear that no long interval separated
the two dynasties from one another. We have seen that the foundation
of the Babylonian monarchy may be set in about the middle of the
twenty-first century B.C., and by placing the end of the Dynasty
of Isin within the first half of that same century we obtain the
approximate dates of 2300 B.C. for the Dynasty of Isin, and 2400 B.C.
for the Dynasty of Ur. It is true that we know that the Dynasty of
Ur lasted for exactly one hundred and seventeen years, and that of
Isin for two hundred and twenty-five years and a half, but until we
can definitely connect the Dynasty of Isin with that of Babylon, any
attempt to work out the dates in detail would be misleading. We must be
content to await the recovery of new material, and meanwhile to think
in periods.
There is evidence that Ur-Engur established his rule in Ur, and founded
his dynasty in the time of Ur-Ningirsu, the son of Gudea of Lagash. We
may therefore place Gudea's accession at about 2450 B.C. This date is
some thirteen hundred years later than that assigned to Narâm-Sin by
Nabonidus. But the latter, we have already seen, must be reduced, in
accordance with evidence furnished by Tello tablets, which are dated
in the reigns of the intermediate patesis of Lagash. If we set this
interval at one hundred and fifty years,[16] we obtain for Narâm-Sin
a date of 2600 B.C., and for Shar-Gani-Sharri one of 2650 B.C. For the
later Semitic kings of Kish, headed by Sharru-Gi, one hundred years is
not too much to allow;[17] we thus obtain for Sharru-Gi the approximate
date of 2750 B.C. It is possible that Manishtusu, King of Kish, was the
contemporary of Urukagina of Lagash, but the evidence in favour of the
synchronism is not sufficiently strong to justify its acceptance.[18]
By placing Urukagina at 2800 B.C., we obtain for Ur-Ninâ an approximate
date of 3000 B.C., and for still earlier rulers such as Mesilim, a date
rather earlier than this.[19] It is difficult to estimate the age of
the early graves, cylinder-seals and tablets found at Fâra, but they
cannot be placed at a much later period than 3400 B.C. Thus the age
of Sumerian civilization can be traced in Babylonia back to about the
middle of the fourth millennium B.C., but not beyond.
It must be confessed that this is a reduction in the date usually
assigned to the earliest relics that have been recovered of the
Sumerian civilization, but its achievements are by no means belittled
by the compression of its period of development. It is not suggested
that this date marks the beginning of Sumerian culture, for, as we
have noted, it is probable that the race was already possessed of
a high standard of civilization on their arrival in Babylonia. The
invention of cuneiform writing, which was one of their most noteworthy
achievements, had already taken place, for the characters in the
earliest inscriptions recovered have lost their pictorial form.
Assuming the genuineness of the "Blau Monuments," it must be admitted
that even on them the characters are in a comparatively advanced stage
of development.[20] We may thus put back into a more remote age the
origin and early growth of Sumerian culture, which took place at a time
when it was not Sumerian.
In the concluding chapter of this volume an estimate is given to
the extent to which Sumerian culture influenced, either directly or
indirectly, other races in Asia, Egypt, and the West. In such matters
the interest attaching to the Sumerian original is largely derived
from its effects, and its study may be undertaken mainly with the view
of elucidating a later development. But one department of Sumerian
activity forms a striking exception to this rule. The arts of sculpture
and engraving, as practised by the Sumerians, are well worthy of study
on their own account, for while their work in all periods is marked by
spirit and originality, that of the later time reaches a remarkable
standard of excellence. The improvement in technique observable in
the later period may largely be due to the influence of Semitic work,
which was derived from Sumer and reacted in its turn on the parent
stem. But the original impulse to artistic production was of purely
Sumerian origin, and it is possible to trace the gradual development
of its products from the rudest reliefs of the archaic period to the
finished sculpture of Gudea's reign.[21] The character of the Semitic
art of Akkad was secondary and derivative, though the Semites certainly
improved on what they borrowed; in that of the Sumerians the seeds
of its later excellence may be detected from the beginning. The most
ancient of the sculptured reliefs of the Sumerians are very rudely
cut, and their age is attested not only by their primitive character,
but also by the linear form of the writing which is found upon them.
These, owing to their smaller size, are the best preserved, for the
later reliefs, which belong to the period when Sumerian art reached its
fullest development, are unfortunately represented only by fragments.
But they suffice to show the spirit which animated these ancient
craftsmen, and enabled them successfully to overcome difficulties
of technique which were carefully avoided by the later sculptors of
Assyria. To take a single instance, we may note the manner in which
they represented the heads of the principal figures of a composition in
full-face, and did not seek to avoid the difficulty of foreshortening
the features by a monotonous arrangement in profile. A good example
of their bolder method of composition is afforded by the relief of a
god, generally identified with Ningirsu, which dates from the epoch
of Gudea; he is seated upon a throne, and while the torso and bearded
head are sculptured full-face, the legs are in profile.[22] On another
fragment of a relief of the same period, beautifully cut in alabaster
but much damaged by fire, a goddess is represented seated on the knees
of a god. The rendering of the group is very spirited, for while the
god gazes in profile at his wife, she looks out from the sculpture
curving her body from the hips.[23]
[Illustration: DIORITE STATUE OF GUDEA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA,
REPRESENTED AS THE ARCHITECT OF THE TEMPLE OF GATUMDUG.--In the Louvre;
Déc. en Chald., pl. 14.]
In neither instance can it be said that the sculptor has completely
succeeded in portraying a natural attitude, for the head in each case
should be only in three-quarter profile, but such attempts at an
unconventional treatment afford striking evidence of the originality
which characterized the work of the Sumerians. Both the sculptures
referred to date from the later Sumerian period, and, if they were the
only instances recovered, it might be urged that the innovation should
be traced to the influence of North Babylonian art under the patronage
of the kings of Akkad. Fortunately, however, we possess an interesting
example of the same class of treatment, which undoubtedly dates from
a period anterior to the Semitic domination. This is afforded by a
perforated plaque, somewhat similar to the more primitive ones of
Ur-Ninâ,[24] engraved in shallow relief with a libation-scene. The
figure of a man, completely nude and with shaven head and face, raises
a libation-vase with a long spout, from which he is about to pour water
into a vase holding two palm leaves and a flowering branch.[25] The
goddess in whose honour the rite is being performed is seated in the
mountains, represented as in later times by a number of small lozenges
or half circles. While her feet and knees are in profile, the head is
represented full-face, and the sculptor's want of skill in this novel
treatment has led him to assign the head a size out of all proportion
to the rest of the body. The effect is almost grotesque, but the work
is of considerable interest as one of the earliest attempts on the
part of the Sumerian sculptors to break away from the stiff and formal
traditions of the archaic period. From the general style of the work
the relief may probably be dated about the period of Eannatum's reign.
[Illustration: Fig. 20. Perforated plaque engraved with a scene
representing the pouring out of a libation before a goddess.--In the
Louvre; Cat. No. 11.]
The Sumerians did not attain the decorative effect of the Assyrian
bas-reliefs with which the later kings lined the walls of their
palaces. In fact, the small size of the figures rendered them suitable
for the enrichment of stelæ, plaques, basins and stone vases, rather
than for elaborate wall sculptures, for which in any case they had not
the material. The largest fragment of an early bas-relief that has been
recovered appears to have formed the angle of a stone pedestal, and is
decorated with figures in several registers representing ceremonies of
Sumerian worship.[26] In the upper register on the side that is best
preserved is a priest leading worshippers into the presence of a god,
while below is a crouching figure, probably that of a woman who plays
on a great lyre or harp of eleven cords, furnished with two uprights
and decorated with a horned head and the figure of a bull. On the side
in the upper row is a heavily bearded figure on a larger scale than
the rest, and the mixture of Sumerian and Semitic types in the figures
preceding him suggests that the monument is to be assigned to the
period of Semitic domination, under the rule of the kings of Kish or
Akkad. But it is obviously Sumerian in character, resembling the work
of Gudea's period rather than that of Narâm-Sin.
[Illustration: Fig. 21.--Fragments of sculpture belonging to the best
period of Sumerian art.--_Déc._, pl. 25, Figs. 4 and 6.]
The perfection of detail which characterized the best work of the
Sumerian sculptors is well illustrated by two fragments of reliefs,
parts of which are drawn in outline in the accompanying blocks. The one
on the left is from a bas-relief representing a line of humped cattle
and horned sheep defiling past the spectator. It is badly broken,
but enough is preserved to show the surprising fidelity with which
the sculptor has reproduced the animal's form and attitude. Though
the subject recalls the lines of domestic animals upon the Assyrian
bas-reliefs, the Sumerian treatment is infinitely superior. The same
high qualities of design and workmanship are visible in the little
fragment on the right. Of the main sculpture only a human foot remains;
but it is beautifully modelled. The decorative border below the foot
represents the spouting vase with its two streams of water and two
fish swimming against the stream. A plant rises from the vase between
the streams, the symbol of vegetation nourished by the waters.[27] The
extreme delicacy of the original shows to what degree of perfection
Sumerian work attained during the best period.
The use of sculpture in relief was also most happily employed for
the decoration of basins or fountains. The most elaborate of those
recovered, unhappily represented by mutilated fragments only, was
decorated on the outside with a chain of female figures passing from
hand to hand vases of spouting water.[28] Better preserved are the
remains of another basin, which was set up by Gudea in Ningirsu's
temple at Lagash. Rectangular in shape, each corner was decorated with
a lion. The head, drawn in the accompanying block, is a fine piece
of sculpture, and almost stands out from the corner, while the body,
carved in profile on the side of the basin, is in low relief. In this
portrayal of a lion turning its head, the designer has formed a bold
but decorative combination of relief with sculpture in the round.
[Illustration: Fig. 22.--Limestone head of a lion which decorated
the corner of a basin set up by Gudea in Ningirsu's temple at Lagash
(Shirpurla).--Déc., pl. 24, Fig. 3.]
The most famous examples of Sumerian sculpture are the statues of
Gudea, and the rather earlier one of Ur-Bau, which, however, lose
much of their character by the absence of their heads. It is true
that a head has been fitted to a smaller and more recently found
figure of Gudea;[29] but this proves to be out of all proportion to
the body--a defect that was probably absent from the larger statues.
The traditional attitude of devotion, symbolized by the clasping of
the hands over the breast, gives them a certain monotony; but their
modelling is superior to anything achieved by the Babylonians and
Assyrians of a later time.[30] Thus there is a complete absence of
exaggeration in the rendering of the muscles; the sculptor has not
attempted by such crude and conventional methods to ascribe to his
model a supernatural strength and vigour, but has worked direct from
nature. They are carved in diorite, varying in colour from dark green
to black, and that so hard a material should have been worked in
the large masses required, is in itself an achievement of no small
importance, and argues great technical skill on the part of the
sculptors of the later period.
[Illustration: Fig. 23.--Upper part of a female statuette of diorite,
of the period of Gudea or a little later.--_Déc_., pl. 24 _bis_, Fig.
2.]
For smaller figures and statuettes a softer stone, such as white
limestone, alabaster, or onyx, was usually employed, but a few in
the harder stone have been recovered. The most remarkable of these
is a diorite statuette of a woman, the upper part of which has been
preserved. The head and the torso were found separately, but thanks to
their hard material they join without leaving a trace of any break.
Here, as usual, the hands are crossed upon the breast, and the folds of
the garment are only indicated under the arms by a few plain grooves
as in the statues of Gudea. But the woman's form is visible beneath the
stuff of her garment, and the curves of the back are wonderfully true.
Her hair, undulating on the temples, is bound in a head-cloth and falls
in the form of a chignon on the neck, the whole being secured by a
stiff band, or fillet, around which the cloth is folded with its fringe
tucked in.
The drawing in Fig. 23 scarcely does justice to the beauty of the face,
since it exaggerates the conventional representation of the eyebrows,
and reproduces the texture of the stone at the expense of the outline.
Moreover, the face is almost more striking in profile.[31] The nose,
though perfectly straight, is rather large, but this is clearly a
racial characteristic. Even so, the type of female beauty portrayed is
singularly striking, and the manner in which the Sumerian sculptor has
succeeded in reproducing it was not approached in the work of any later
period. Another head from a female statuette, with the hair dressed in
a similar fashion, is equally beautiful. The absence of part of the
nose tends to give it a rather less marked ethnographic character, and
probably increases the resemblance which has been claimed for it to
types of classical antiquity.[32]
[Illustration: Fig. 24.--Limestone head of a female statuette belonging
to the best period of Sumerian art.--_Déc._, pl. 25, Fig. 2.]
The art of casting in metal was also practised by the Sumerians, and
even in the earliest period, anterior to the reign of Ur-Ninâ, small
foundation-figures have been discovered, which were cast solid in
copper. In fact, copper was the metal most commonly employed by the
Sumerians, and their stage of culture throughout the long period of
their history may be described as a copper age, rather than an age of
bronze. It is true that the claim is sometimes put forward, based on
very unsatisfactory evidence, that the Sumerian metal-founders used not
only tin but also antimony in order to harden copper, and at the same
time render it more fusible;[33] and it is difficult to explain the
employment of two ideograms for the metal, even in the earlier periods,
unless one signified bronze and the other copper.[34] But a careful
analysis by M. Berthelot of the numerous metal objects found at Tello,
the dates of which can be definitely ascertained, has shown that, even
under the later rulers of Lagash and the kings of Ur, not only votive
figures, but also tools and weapons of copper, contain no trace of tin
employed as an alloy.[35] As at Tello, so at Tell Sifr, the vessels and
weapons found by Loftus are of copper, not bronze.[36] The presence of
an exceedingly small proportion of elements other than copper in the
objects submitted to analysis was probably not intentional, but was due
to the necessarily imperfect method of smelting that was employed.
[Illustration: CLAY RELIEF STAMPED WITH THE FIGURE OF THE BABYLONIAN
HERO GILGAMESH, HOLDING A VASE FROM WHICH TWO STREAMS OF WATER FLOW.
_Brit. Mus., No._ 21204.]
[Illustration: FRAGMENT OF LIMESTONE SCULPTURED IN RELIEF WITH VASES
FROM WHICH STREAMS OF WATER FLOW. _Brit. Mus., No._ 95477]
No trace has yet been found of any mould used by the Sumerians in the
process of casting metal, but we may assume that clay was employed both
for solid and hollow castings. While many figures of the same form have
been found, no two are exactly alike nor of quite the same proportions,
so that it may be inferred that a mould was never used a second time,
but that each was broken in order to remove the casting. The copper
foundation-figures usually take the form of nails, terminating with
the bust of a female figure, and they were set in a socket beneath
stone foundation-inscriptions which they support. Later, votive
objects, cast in copper, represent male figures, bearing on their heads
the builder's basket, in which is clay for the sacred bricks of the
temple's foundation; or they consist of great cones or nails supporting
a recumbent bull,[37] or clasped by the kneeling figure of a god.[38]
Large figures of wood were sometimes covered with thin plates of copper
joined by a series of small nails or rivets, as is proved by the horn
of a bull of natural size, which has been discovered at Tello.[39]
But hollow castings in copper of a considerable size have also been
found. A good example is the bull's head, figured in the accompanying
block, which probably dates from a period not later than the close
of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty. Its eyes are inlaid with mother-of-pearl and
lapis-lazuli, and a very similar method of inlaying is met with in the
copper head of a goat which was found at Fâra.[40]
[Illustration: Fig. 25--One of a series of copper female
foundation-figures with supporting rings, buried in a structure of
unburnt brick beneath stone foundation-records. From Tello; period of
Ur-Ninâ. _Déc._, pl. 2 _ter_, Fig. 3.]
A far simpler process of manufacture was employed for the making
of votive figures of terra-cotta, which, in order of development,
preceded the use of metal for this purpose, though they continued to
be manufactured in considerable quantities during the later periods.
Here the mould, in a single piece, was cut in stone or some other hard
material,[41] and the clay, after being impressed into it, was smoothed
down on the back by hand. The flat border of clay left by the upper
surface of the mould, was frequently not removed, so that the figures
are sometimes found standing out from a flat background in the manner
of a sculptured plaque, or bas-relief. In the period of Gudea, the
mould was definitely used as a stamp, thus returning to the original
use from which its later employment was developed. Interesting examples
of such later stamped figures include representations of a god wearing
a horned headdress, to which are added the ears of a bull, and of a
hero, often identified with Gilgamesh, who holds a vase from which two
streams of water flow.[42] The clay employed for the votive figures is
extremely fine in quality, and most of them are baked to a degree of
hardness resembling stone or metal.
[Illustration: Fig. 26-27.--Heads of a bull and a goat cast in copper
and inlaid with mother-of-pearl, lapis-lazuli, etc. The bull's head was
found at Tello, and that of the goat at Fâra.--_Déc._, pl. 5 _ter_,
Fig. 2; _Zeits. für Ethnol._, 1901, p. 163.]
[Illustration: Fig. 28. Stamped terra-cotta figure of a bearded god,
wearing the horned headdress, to which are attached the ears of a bull.
Period of Gudea.--_Déc._, pl. 39, Fig. 3.]
The art of inlaying was widely practised by the Sumerians, who not
only treated metal in this way, but frequently attempted to give more
expression or life to stone statues by inlaying the white of the eye
with mother-of-pearl or shell, and representing the pupil and iris by
lapis-lazuli or bitumen. A similar method was employed to enrich votive
stone figures of animals, and to give a varied and polychrome effect to
vases carved in stone. The finest example of this class of work is a
libation-vase of Gudea made of dark green steatite, which was dedicated
by him to his patron deity Ningishzida. The vase has a short projecting
spout running up from the base and grooved, so as to allow only a small
stream of liquid to escape during the pouring of a libation. Its scheme
of decoration is interesting as it affords an excellent example of the
more fantastic side of Sumerian art, inspired by a large and important
section of the religious belief. The two intertwined serpents, whose
tongues touch the point where the liquid would leave the vase, are
modelled from nature, but the winged monsters on each side well
illustrate the Sumerian origin of later Babylonian demonology.
[Illustration: Fig. 29. Scheme of decoration from a libation-vase of
Gudea, made of dark green steatite and originally inlaid with shell.
_Déc._, pl. 44, Fig. 2; cf. Cat., p. 281.]
It is probable that such composite monsters, with the bodies and
heads of serpents and the wings and talons of birds, were originally
malevolent in character, but here, like the serpents, they are
clearly represented as tamed, and in the service of the god to whom the
vase was dedicated. This is sufficiently proved by the ringed staffs
they carry,[43] their modified horned headdresses, and their carefully
twisted locks of hair. They were peculiarly sacred to Ningishzida and
in Fig. 12 they may be seen rising as emblems from his shoulders.
The rich effect of the dark green steatite was originally enhanced
by inlaying, for the bodies of the dragons are now pitted with deep
holes. These were no doubt originally inlaid with some other material,
probably shell, which has been found employed for this purpose in a
fragment of a vase of a very similar character.
[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF A CYLINDER-SEAL ENGRAVED WITH SCENES
REPRESENTING AN EARLY BABYLONIAN HERO, PROBABLY GILGAMESH, IN CONFLICT
WITH A LION.--_Brit. Mus., No._ 89147.]
[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF A CYLINDER-SEAL ENGRAVED WITH A SCENE
REPRESENTING GILGAMESH AND EA-BANI IN CONFLICT WITH BULLS IN A WOODED
AND MOUNTAINOUS COUNTRY.--_Brit. Mus., No._ 89308.]
[Illustration: IMPRESSION OF A CYLINDER-SEAL ENGRAVED WITH A SCENE
REPRESENTING MYTHOLOGICAL BEINGS, BULLS, AND LIONS IN CONFLICT.--_Brit.
Mus., No._ 89538.]
In the same category with the monsters on the vase we may class the
human-headed bulls, of which small sculptured figures, in a recumbent
attitude, have been found at Tello; these were afterwards adopted by
the Assyrian kings, and employed as the colossal guardians of their
palace door-ways. The extent to which this particular form of composite
monster was employed for religious and decorative purposes may be seen
on the cylinder-seals, upon which in the earlier period it represents
the favourite device. Examples are frequently found in decorative
combinations, together with figures of early bearded heroes, possibly
to be identified with Gilgamesh, and with a strange creature, half-man
and half-bull, resembling the later descriptions of Ea-bani, who strive
with lions and other animals.[44] Gudea's catalogue of the temple
furniture and votive objects, with which he enriched E-ninnû, throws
light upon the manner in which Sumerian art reflected this aspect of
the Sumerian religion. Some of the legends and beliefs may well have
been derived from Semitic sources, but the imagery, which exerted so
strong an influence upon the development of their art, may probably be
traced to the Sumerians themselves.
The engraving upon cylinder-seals during the Sumerian period appears
to have been done generally by hand, without the help of a drill
or a revolving tool.[45] Outline engraving with the point was also
practised, that on stone having probably preceded the use of the
bas-relief,[46] but it continued to be employed in the later periods
for the decoration of metal and shell. The finest example of metal
engraving is the silver vase of Entemena, around which is incised in
outline a decorative band, consisting of variations of the emblem of
Lagash, arranged beneath a row of seven calves. But the largest number
of designs engraved in outline have been found, not upon stone or
metal, but upon shell. It is an interesting fact that among the smaller
objects found by M. de Sarzec at Tello, there is not a single fragment
of ivory, and it would seem that this material was not known to the
earliest inhabitants of Babylonia, a fact which has some bearing on
the disputed question of their relations to Egypt, and to the earlier
stages of Egyptian culture.[47]
From the earliest period at Lagash fragments of shell were employed
in place of ivory, and the effect produced by it is nearly the same.
Certain species of great univalves or conch-shells, which are found
in the Indian Ocean, have a thick core or centre, and these furnished
the material for a large number of the earliest cylinder-seals. Small
plaques or lozenges could also be obtained from the core by sectional
cutting, while the curved part of the shell was sometimes employed
for objects to which its convex form could be adapted. The numerous
flat lozenges that have been found are shaped for inlaying furniture,
caskets, and the like, and curved pieces were probably fitted to others
of a like shape in order to form small cups and vases. Each piece is
decorated with fine engraving, and in nearly every instance the outline
is accentuated by the employment of a very slight relief. The designs
are often spirited, and they prove that even in the earliest periods
the Sumerian draughtsman had attained to a high standard of proficiency.
One of the most interesting engraved fragments that have been recovered
consists of a slightly curved piece of shell, which probably formed
part of a small bowl or cup. The rest of the side seems to have been
built up of pieces of similar shape, held together by bitumen, or,
more probably, fitted to a metal lining by rivets through holes in the
shell. The scene engraved upon the fragment represents a lion seizing a
bull in a thicket of shrubs or high flowering plants. Though the group
upon the fragment is complete in itself, there are indications that it
formed only part of a more elaborate composition.
[Illustration: Fig. 30--Convex panel of shell from the side of a cup,
engraved with a scene representing a lion attacking a bull; early
Sumerian period. _Déc._, pl. 46, No. 3; cf. Cat. p. 189]
For in the space on the right of the fragment behind the lion's mane
are engraved two weapons. The upper one is a hilted dagger with its
point towards the lion; this may be compared with the short daggers
held by the mythological beings resembling Ea-bani upon one of
Lugal-anda's seals, with which they are represented as stabbing lions
in the neck.[48] Below is a hand holding a curved mace or throwing
stick, formed of three strands bound with leather thongs or bands of
metal, like that held by Eannatum upon the Stele of the Vultures.[49]
It is, therefore, clear that on the panel to the right of the lion and
bull a king, or patesi, was represented in the act of attacking the
lion, and we may infer that the whole of the cup was decorated with a
continuous band of engraving, though some of the groups in the design
may have been arranged symmetrically, with repetitions such as are
found upon the earlier cylinder-seals.
The position of the lion upon the fragment, represented with luxuriant
mane and with head facing the spectator, and the vigour of the design
as a whole combined with certain inequalities of treatment, have
suggested a comparison with the lions upon the sculptured mace-head
of Mesilim. The piece has, therefore, been assigned to the epoch of
the earlier kings of Kish, anterior to the period of Ur-Ninâ.[50] It
may perhaps belong to the rather later period of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty,
but, even so, it suffices to indicate the excellence in design and
draughtsmanship attained by the earlier Sumerians. In vigour and
originality their representations of animals were unequalled by those
of the later inhabitants of Babylonia and Assyria, until shortly
before the close of the Assyrian empire. But the Sumerian artists only
gradually acquired their skill, and on some of the engraved fragments
recovered it is possible to trace an advance on earlier work. The
designs in the accompanying blocks have been selected as illustrating,
to some extent, the change which gradually took place in the treatment
of animal forms by the Sumerians.
[Illustration: Fig. 31.--Fig. 32.--Fig. 33. Three fragments of
shell engraved with animal forms, which illustrate the growth of a
naturalistic treatment in Sumerian design.--_Déc._, pl. 46, Nos. 4, 5,
and 8.]
Of the three designs, that on the left is engraved upon a convex piece
of shell, thin as the shell of an egg; it represents a lion-headed
eagle which has swooped down upon the back of a human-headed bull and
is attacking him with mouth and claws. The subject resembles that
found upon the most primitive Sumerian cylinder-seals, and its rough
and angular treatment is sufficient indication of the very archaic
character of the work. The central panel resembles in shape that of
the lion and the bull.[51] The design represents a leaping ibex with
flowering plants in the background, and the drawing is freer and less
stiff than that of the animals on the silver vase of Entemena.[52]
Some archaic characteristics may still be noted, such as the springing
tufts of hair at the joints of the hind legs; but the general treatment
of the subject marks a distinct advance upon the archaic conventions
of the earlier fragment. The third design is that of a leaping kid,
engraved upon a flat piece of shell and cut out for inlaying. Here the
drawing is absolutely true to nature, and the artist has even noted the
slight swelling of the head caused by the growing horns.
The Sumerians do not appear to have used complete shells for engraving,
like those found on Assyrian and Aegean sites. A complete shell has
indeed been recovered, but it is in an unworked state and bears a
dedicatory formula of Ur-Ningirsu, the son and successor of Gudea.
Since it is not a fine specimen of its class, we may suppose that it
was selected for dedication merely as representing the finer shells
employed by the workmen in the decoration of the temple-furniture. The
Sumerians at a later period engraved designs upon mother-of-pearl.
When used in plain pieces for inlaying it certainly gave a more
brilliant effect than shell, but to the engraver it offered greater
difficulties in consequence of its brittle and scaly surface. Pieces
have been found, however, on which designs have been cut, and these
were most frequently employed for enriching the handles of knives
and daggers. The panels in the accompanying blocks will serve to
show that the same traditional motives are reproduced which meet us
in the earlier designs upon fragments of shell and cylinder-seals.
They include a bearded hero, the eagle attacking the bull, a hero
in conflict with a lion, the lion-headed eagle of Lagash, a winged
lion, a lion attacking an ibex, and a stag. Even when allowance is
made for the difficulties presented by the material, it will be seen
that the designs themselves rank far below those found upon shell.
The employment of mother-of-pearl for engraving may thus be assigned
to a period of decadence in Sumerian art when it had lost much of its
earlier freshness and vigour.
[Illustration: Fig. 34.--Fig. 35.--Fig. 36.--Fig. 37. Four panels of
mother-of pearl, engraved with Sumerian designs, which were employed
for inlaying the handles of daggers. They belong to a period of
decadence in Sumerian art.--In the Louvre; Cat. Nos. 232 ff.]
The above brief sketch of the principal forms and productions of
Sumerian art may serve to vindicate the claim of the Sumerians to a
place among the more artistic races of antiquity. Much oriental art is
merely quaint, or interesting from its history and peculiarities, but
that of the Sumerians is considerably more than this. Its sculpture
never acquired the dull monotony of the Assyrian bas-reliefs with their
over-elaboration of detail, intended doubtless to cloak the poverty
of the design. Certain conventions persisted through all periods, but
the Sumerian sculptor was never a slave to them. He relied largely on
his own taste and intelligence, and even the earliest work is bold and
spirited. After centuries of independent development fresh vigour was
introduced by the nomad Semitic races who settled in the north, but in
the hands of the later Semites the Sumerian ideals were not maintained.
For the finest period of Babylonian art we must go back to a time some
centuries before the founding of the Babylonian monarchy.
[1] These have been collected and translated by Thureau-Dangin
in "Les Inscriptions de Sumer et d'Akkad," the German edition of
which, published under the title "Die sumerischen und akkadischen
Königsinschriften" in the _Vorderasiatische Bibliothek_, includes the
author's corrections and an introduction; a glossary to subjects of
a religious character, compiled by Langdon, is added to the German
edition of the work.
[2] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 228 ff., where the
lists are restored from dates on early tablets; for the earlier
date-formulæ from tablets, see pp. 224 ff.
[3] See Hilprecht, "Mathematical, Metrological, and Chronological
Tablets," p. 46 f., pl. 30, No. 47.
[4] Cf. "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," V., pl. 64, Col. II., ll. 54-65.
[5] Hilprecht formerly placed the founding of Enlil's temple and the
first settlement at Nippur "somewhere between 6000 and 7000 B.C.,
possibly even earlier" (cf. "Old Babylonian Inscriptions chiefly from
Nippur," Pt. II., p. 24.)
[6] See Lehmann-Haupt, "Zwei Hauptprobleme," pp. 172 ff., and Winckler,
"Forschungen," I., p. 549; "Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament"
(3rd ed.), I., p. 17 f., and "Mitteil. der Vorderas. Gesellschaft,"
1906, I., p. 12, n. 1; cf. also Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV.,
p. 72, and "Rec. de tabl.," p. ix.
[7] Cf. Radau, "Early Babylonian History," pp. 30 ff., 215 ff.
[8] Cf. King, "Chronicles," I., p. 16. This explanation is preferable
to Lehmann-Haupfs emendation of the figures, by which he suggests that
a thousand years were added to it by a scribal error. The principle of
emending the figures in these later chronological references is totally
unscientific. For the emenders, while postulating mechanical errors in
the writing of the figures, still regard the calculations of the native
scribes as above reproach; whereas many of their figures, which are
incapable of emendation, are inconsistent with each other.
[9] For references, see King, "Chronicles," I., p. 77. n. 1.
[10] _Op. cit._, pp. 93 ff.
[11] _Op. cit._, Chap. IV. f. Meyer also adopts this view ("Geschichte
des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 340 f.).
[12] Cf. "Chronicles," I., pp. 90 ff.
[13] The purely arbitrary character of the assumption is well
illustrated by the different results obtained by those who make it.
By clinging to Berossus's date of 2232 B.C., Thureau-Dangin assigns
to the second dynasty of the Kings' List a period of 168 years of
independent rule in Babylon (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp. 176
ff., and "Journal des savants," 1908, pp. 190 ff.), and Ungnad 177
years ("Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 638, 1908, col. 63 ff.).
Lehmann-Haupt, in his suggested reconciliation of the new data with
his former emendation of the Bavian date, makes the period 80 years
("Klio," 1908, pp. 227 E). Poebel, ignoring Berossus and attempting
to reconcile the native chronological notices to early kings, makes
it 160 years (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp. 162 ff.). The latest
combination is that proposed by Schnabel, who accepts the date of 2232
B.C. for both the system of Berossus and that represented by the Kings'
List, but places the historical beginning of the First Dynasty in 2172
B.C.; this necessitates a gap of 120 years between Dynasties I. and
III. ("Mitteil. der Vorderas. Gesellschaft," 1908, pp. 241 ff.). But
all these systems are mainly based on a manipulation of the figures,
and completely ignore the archaeological evidence.
[14] See below, Chap. XI., pp. 313 ff.
[15] Cf. Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tabl.," p. 55, n. 1.
[16] Thureau-Dangin would assign only one hundred years to this period
(cf. "Journal des savants," 1908, p. 201).
[17] The period may well have been longer, especially if Manishtusu
should prove to have been the contemporary of Urukagina.
[18] See below, pp. 176, n. 2, 209 f.
[19] For a list of the kings and rulers of Sumer and Akkad with their
approximate dates, see the List of Rulers at the end of the volume.
[20] See the plate opposite p. 62. The objects have been previously
published by Hayes Ward in "Proc. Amer. Orient. Soc.," Oct., 1885, and
"Amer. Journ. Arch.," vol. iv. (1888), pp. 39 ff. They subsequently
found their way into a London sale-room, where they were bought as
forgeries and presented as such to the British Museum.
[21] Our knowledge of Sumerian art is mainly derived from the finds at
Tello, since the objects from other early sites are not yet published.
For its best and fullest discussion, see Heuzey's descriptions in
"Découvertes en Chaldée," his "Catalogue des antiquités chaldéennes,"
"Une Villa royale chaldéenne," and the "Revue d'Assyriologie"; cf. also
Perrot and Chipiez, "Histoire de l'art," vol. ii. The finest examples
of Semitic art have been found at Susa (see De Morgan, "Mémoires de la
Délégation en Perse," _passim_). A scientific treatment of the subject
is adopted by Meyer in "Sumerier und Semiten," but he is inclined to
assign too much credit to the Semite, and to overestimate his share in
the artistic development of the two races.
[22] See below, p. 267, Fig. 66.
[23] See the photographic reproduction in "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 22,
Fig. 5.
[24] For the use of these perforated sculptures, see below, p. 110 f.
[25] The rite is represented upon other Sumerian monuments such as the
Stele of the Vultures (see below, p. 140). Heuzey suggests that the
liturgy may have forbidden the loss of the libation-water, the rite
symbolizing its use for the profit of vegetation; cf. "Catalogue des
antiquités chaldéennes," p. 118.
[26] See the plate opposite p. 52.
[27] Cf. Heuzey, "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 218; "Catalogue," p. 149.
[28] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 24, Fig. 4, pp. 216 ff.
[29] See the plate opposite p. 268.
[30] For the seated statue of Gudea as the architect of Gatumdug's
temple, see the plate opposite p. 66; and for descriptions of the
statues, see Chap. IX., p. 269 f.
[31] See the very beautiful drawing in outline which Heuzey prints on
the title-page of his Catalogue.
[32] Cf. Heuzey, "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 158.
[33] It should be noted that of the seven objects from Nippur and
other south-Babylonian sites which were submitted to analysis by Herr
Otto Helm in Danzig, only two contained a percentage of tin (cf.
"Zeitschrift für Ethnologie," 1901, pp. 157 ff.). Of these a nail (_op.
cit._, p. 161) is from a stratum in Nippur, dated by Prof. Hilprecht
himself after 300 A.D. The "stilusartige Instrument," which, like the
nail, contained over five per cent, of tin, was not found at Nippur,
but is said to have come from a mound about thirty miles to the south
of it. Nothing is therefore known with accuracy as to its date. The
percentage of antimony in the other objects is comparatively small, and
the dates assigned to them are not clearly substantiated. These facts
do not justify Hilprecht's confident statement in "Explorations," p.
252. Meyer also credits the earliest Sumerians with using bronze beside
copper, and he describes the axe-heads and arm-rings found in the early
graves as of bronze (cf. "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II.,
p. 416 f.); but he also describes the little foundation-figures from
the oldest stratum at Tello as of bronze, whereas analysis has proved
them to be copper.
[34] This point is made by Sayce (cf. "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform
Inscriptions," p. 59 f.), who, however, holds the definite opinion that
nothing of bronze has been discovered on the earlier sites (_op. cit._,
p. 55 f.).
[35] Cf. Berthelot, "La chimie au moyen âge," tome I., Appendix IX., p.
391 f.; "Introduction à l'étude de la chimie," p. 227 f., and Heuzey
in "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 238; antimony is said to have been known and
used by itself, though not as an alloy (Berthelot, "Introd.," p. 223),
but there is no proof of the date of the fragment from Tello, which was
analysed. It may be added that the votive figures of Gudea's reign,
which are preserved in the British Museum and are usually regarded as
of bronze (cf. the plate opposite p. 272), should, since they came from
Tello, be more accurately described as of copper.
[36] See Loftus, "Chaldaea and Susiana," p. 268 f., who describes
all the objects as of copper. One of the knives excavated by Loftus
was subsequently analysed and found to be copper (see "Report of the
British Assoc.," Nottingham, 1893, p. 715); this analysis was confirmed
by that of Dr. J. H. Gladstone (published in the "Proc. Soc. Bibl.
Arch.," vol. xvi., p. 98 f.). A careful analysis of the metal objects
found by members of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft at Fâra in 1902
and 1903, and styled by them as bronze (see "Mitteilungen," No. 17, p.
6), would probably result in proving the absence of any alloy.
[37] See the blocks on p. 256.
[38] See the plate opposite p. 272.
[39] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 45, Fig. 1.
[40] See Fig. 27, and cf. Hilprecht, "Explorations," p. 539 f.
[41] Like the brick-stamps, they may sometimes have been made of clay
burnt to an extreme hardness.
[42] See the stamped figure published on the plate opposite p. 72 from
a terra-cotta in the British Museum.
[43] The ringed staff occurs as a sacred emblem upon cylinder-seals,
and is sometimes carried by heroes (cf. p. 82, Fig. 34). A colossal
example of one, made of wood and sheathed in copper, was found at Tello
by De Sarzec (see Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 112, and "Déc. en
Chaldée," pl. 57, Fig. 1), but the precise use and significance of the
object has not been determined.
[44] See the plate opposite p. 76, and see below, p. 174 f.
[45] It should be noted that a few of the early cylinder-seals found
at Fâra Andrae considers to have been engraved with the help of the
wheel (see "Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 17, p. 5).
The suggestion has also been made that, on the introduction of harder
stones, the cutting tool may have been tipped with a flake of corundum;
cf. Hayes Ward, "Cylinders and other Oriental Seals," p. 13.
[46] For early examples, see above, p. 49.
[47] See further, Chap. XII.
[48] See below, p. 175.
[49] See the plate opposite p. 124.
[50] See Heuzey, "Catalogue," p. 387.
[51] See above, p. 79, Fig. 30.
[52] See above, p. 78, and below, p. 167 f.