DOCSLIB.ORG

In Reverence for Deities and Submission to Kings: a Few Gestures in Ancient Near Eastern Societies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Reverence for Deities and Submission to Kings: a Few Gestures in Ancient Near Eastern Societies Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXVII, 2002 IN REVERENCE FOR DEITIES AND SUBMISSION TO KINGS: A FEW GESTURES IN ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN SOCIETIES BY Jamsheed K. CHOKSY (Bloomington) Introduction* Two important themes in archeological, artistic, and literary sources extant from ancient Near Eastern societies are religious devotion and royal ide- ology. A common characteristic of both themes was the presence of symbolic imagery. The authority of deities and monarchs was sustained by those societal constructs within the devotional and ideological systems, practices that also reinforced social hierarchies. Authority, and its grantors and wielders, often is anthropomorphized (Geertz 1977: 153). So, sculp- tural images of divinities and rulers in the ancient Near Eastern societies were often regarded as living, anthropomorphic representations (Bottéro 2001: 64–66). The images became recipients of complex, highly ritual- ized, behavior through which power could be acknowledged (Winter 1992: 13–15). Texts and acts, forms and functions, linked the realms of divinities and humans, to one another within a religiously-constructed worldview. Gesture served as one medium for the nexus between sacred and secular, as becomes apparent from the depictions of that form of sym- bolism in the surviving material and literary corpuses. Gesture or iconicity in expression is a behavioral trait largely, although not completely, unique to humans and is related directly to the conscious capacity and cognitive development of the brain (Donald 2001: 137-139, 144-145, 260-261). * Research on this topic began at Harvard University, under the guidance of Professor C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky. So, it is with much gratitude for Professor Lamberg- Karlovsky’s intellectual acumen and collegial generosity that I present this study in his honor. I am thankful to professors R. N. Frye and P. Steinkeller for their valuable guidance and suggestions proffered at Harvard many years ago. 8 J.K. CHOKSY The gestures portrayed in ancient Near Eastern art and occasionally men- tioned to in religious literature and dedicatory formulae were not, how- ever, merely the products of priests and kings. Gestures appear to have been familiar societal acts whose symbolic significance would have been accessible to all social classes — as was and still is the case for other cul- tures and time periods (compare Bremmer and Roodenburg 1991; Brilliant 1963). Yet, gesture is not merely a performative process of communicat- ing cultural constructs. It is a mimetic means of storing and preserving such information (Donald 2001: 295, 321–323). It also is a ritual structure that permits classification of information. Gesture figured forth, in public and private, the relationships of each individual within the religious cos- mos and the royal kingdom. Hence, many forms of gesture developed and changed over time in the Near East. Certain Near Eastern gestures have been the subject of earlier studies — such as proskynesis (Widengren 1959; Bickerman 1963; Sundermann 1964; Sachsen-Meiningen 1969; Frye 1972), ceremonial acts in Assyria (Furlani 1927), and biblical hand placement (Wright 1986, with extensive bibliography). This essay focuses on four forms of reverential or devotional and sub- missive or deferential gestures: clasped hands; raised hand(s); bent fore- finger; and kneeling and prostration. It continues and supplements, for earlier time periods and somewhat different locales, previous studies by me on the use of gesture in Iran and Central Asia from the Achaemenian period onward (Choksy 1990a-b). Each of those four gestures appear to have been relatively commonplace within ancient Near Eastern societies, as will be seen, from the Mesopotamian floodplain to the Iranian plateau. So, the cultural framework in which the gestures are analyzed is that of Mesopotamia, Assyria, and Elam from Early Dynastic times until the end of the Neo-Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian, and Neo-Elamite periods. The evolution, usage and significance of those gestures during a span of over two thousand five hundred years can be examined using extant evidence from sculptures, bas reliefs, wall paintings, and etchings on cylinder seals. The evidence garnered from such works of material culture may be correlated to textual descriptions of gestures in instances where such data is available. Gesture in ancient Near Eastern societies does not only provide the opportunity for descriptive analysis within a chronological framework. It also enables archaeologists, art historians, and historians to comprehend the continuity of social relationships and distinguish important characteristics IN REVERENCE FOR DEITIES AND SUBMISSION TO KINGS 9 of those archaic societies. Similarly, the prototypes of medieval Near East- ern gestures are often found in antiquity. It is important to note that a sym- bol, especially in the form of a gesture, often possessed different meanings depending on the context in which it was used (Firth 1973: 190, 260). The value ascribed to particular gestures would vary within different contexts, in different places, and at different times — acknowledging divine status or high mortal rank as the situation required. Furthermore, gestures could depreciate or appreciate in valence — so, for example, ones assimilated from Mesopotamia and Assyria by the Iranians and reserved initially for divinities eventually became commonplace as time passed (see further Frye 1972). Therefore it should not be presupposed, for instance, that ges- tures employed both before images of deities and in the presence of mon- archs necessarily indicate Near Eastern rulers always were accorded divine rank by their subjects. Yet, sovereignty was basically regarded as sacral in origin (Geertz 1977: especially 151, 152). Therefore its wielders were considered special in the Near East (Widengren 1959; Choksy 1988). So overlap between categories did occur, as will become apparent, and such congruity may have contributed to the eventual decline in value associated with specific gestures. Clasped Hands The gesture of clasped hands is one of the earliest reverential forms attested in the ancient Near East. Numerous examples of the basic act, placing the palm of one hand in the palm of the other hand, are extant on reliefs and figurines. The hands were clasped with either both palms held vertically or with one palm placed vertically and the other palm placed horizontally. A prototype for the gesture may have been practiced as early as ca. 3300 B.C. by denizens of Susa or Shush (Amiet 1980: Pls. 237–239). The gesture was clearly utilized during the Early Dynastic II period (ca. 2700–2600 B.C.) as evidenced by temple statuary of standing worshipers (Parrot 1961a: Pls. 129–130; Amiet 1980: Pls. 35–36). Figurines from Mari (Tell Hariri), Tell al-Ubaid, Girsu (Tello) and the Diyala region, dating to between ca. 2500 B.C. and ca. 2400 B.C., indicate the gesture continued in use during the Early Dynastic III period (ca. 2600–2350 B.C.) (Amiet 1980: Pls. 39, 42; Hall 1928: Pl. 5; Parrot 1961a: Pl. 140). Per- haps clasping of the right wrist with the left hand, as seen on the votive statute of Lamgi-Mari, head of the city of Mari (ca. 2500–2400 B.C.) in the 10 J.K. CHOKSY temple of the goddess Ishtar, was a variation of the set theme (Parrot 1961a: Pl. 145). Or, perhaps, it was a separate yet parallel gesture. The hand-over-wrist action, first documentable in Neo-Sumerian or Ur III times (ca. 2111–2003 B.C.), may also have belonged to the same category. Overall, both location and imagery of the statuary suggests that clasping of hands was performed, during Early Dynastic times, as a sign of devotion for deities. However, a pierced limestone plaque which depicts Ur-Nanshe, the ensi ‘governor, local ruler, or lord’ of Lagash (Al-Hiba), dating from ca. 2500 B.C. and discovered at Girsu, depicts that leader’s children and courtiers standing in his presence with clasped hands (Parrot 1961a: Pl. 159; Amiet 1980: Pl. 44). Although the scenes on the plaque are not directly devo- tional — depicting construction of a temple and a feast following its completion — the pose adopted by Ur-Nanshe’s children and courtiers suggests that use of this gesture was not always restricted to veneration of spiritual entities. Consequently, the question arises as to whether Ur- Nanshe had sought reverence similar to that for deities, or if the gesture was used merely as a form of deference to him. Given that, prior to Ur- Nanshe’s reign, clasping of the hands appears to have been used only as a symbol of devotion by votaries suggests he may have been regarded by persons in the royal court as having semi-divine status or may have sought to claim such status for himself — perhaps because he established the dynastic principle at Lagash (Hallo and Simpson 1998: 50). Enshrinement and deification of important rulers was not particularly rare (Winter 1992: 29, 33). So, Ur-Nanshe’s image as the recipient of a votive gesture would not have been regarded as inappropriate. Yet, even he was depicted, in another image from Girsu, with clasped hands gazing out of the scene pos- sibly toward a deity or symbolic signs of a deity (Amiet 1980: Pl. 326). About three hundred and fifty years later, Gudea (ca. 2165–2145 B.C.) the ensi of Lagash had numerous seated and standing statues of himself carved with his hands clasped (Parrot 1961a: Pls. 251, 253–256, 263, 265; Amiet 1980: Pls. 377–378, 380–381). The manner in which Gudea’s hands are clasped represents an artistic convention: in reality, the thumb of his left hand could not have been placed fully in the position shown on those statues (as noted by Parrot 1961a: xlvi–xlvii, and Pls. 251–256). Attached inscriptions record that the images were placed within temples to represent Gudea before the divinities, and to recount the major endeavors undertaken by him in the construction of temples (Pritchard 1969b: IN REVERENCE FOR DEITIES AND SUBMISSION TO KINGS 11 268–269; Harper 1984: 4–5; on the ritual roles of Gudea’s imagery see Winter 1992).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nature and Importance of Sumerian City States 73
    The Nature and Importance of Sumerian City States 73 The Nature and Importance of Sumerian City States Kate Narev Masters, University of New England Introduction Civilisation had existed in the lowlands between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers from around 5000 BCE, but as the fourth millennium progressed the structure of self-sufficient villages changed, and the population shifted into larger settlements with bigger and more enduring architectural constructions. By 3000 BCE the settlements had become established city-states, providing their inhabitants with economic organisation, irrigation and political leadership. While it was once assumed that leadership came from a clearly defined combination of temples, palaces and assemblies, it is now acknowledged that these three institutions shared responsibility in a more fluid way, without clear delineations of power. The features of these early city-states included pioneering developments in writing, law and education; the use of walls and weapons for protection; and the production of art in the form of pottery, decoration, jewellery, and figural art. The Sumerian city-state was remarkable for its highly developed political and economic management, and the relative uniformity of culture throughout the region. While archaeologists such as Wooley and Moorey have excavated invaluable material evidence, the extant evidence from this period is fragmentary. No cities have been excavated in their entirety.1 Much of the evidence comes from the two main cities of Uruk and Ur, but this evidence is largely transactional, with some one-dimensional historical accounts.2 Unfortunately, the evidence does not provide a full picture of the personal lives or human experiences of these first city dwellers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meanings of the Term Mudra and a Historical Outline of "Hand
    The Meanings of the term Mudra T h e M and a Historical Outline of ae n ni "Hand gestures" g s o f ht e Dale Todaro t re m M u d 梗 概 ar a この 拙 論 は2部 に分 か れ る。 n d 第1部 は"mudra"と い う語 の最 も一 般 的 な 定 義 を 扱 う。仏 教 ・ヒ ン ドゥー 教 a H を 研 究 して い る学 者 や東 洋 の 図像 学 の専 門 家 は、 大 抵、"皿udra"の さ ま ざ まな 意 i torical Outline味 を 知 って い る。 しか し、特 に タ ン トラ にお い て 使 用 され た"mudr翫"の す べ て の 定 義 が、 どん な 参考 文 献 に も見 つ か るわ け で は な い。 従 って、 第1部 は これ ら 種 々の、 一 般 的 な"mudra"の 語 法 を集 め る よ う試 み た。 又、 イ ン ドの舞 踏 や 劇 につ いて 書 いた 人 が、"hasta"と い う語 を 使 用 す べ きで あ るの に、 専 門的 に言 え ば 誤 って"mudra"を 用 いて い る。 それ に つ いて も説 明 を試 み た。 fo " 第1部 よ りも長 い 第2部 で は、"印 契(手 印)"と い う意 味 で使 用 され た"mu- H a dra"の 歴 史 の あ らま しを、 系 統 的 に述 べ た。 印契 の歴 史 上 異 な った 使 用 と意 味 n d g は、 次 の4に お い て 顕著 にみ られ る。 即 ち、1)ヴ ェー ダ の儀 礼、2)規 格 化 され た se ut イ ン ドの舞 踏、3)イ ン ドの彫 刻(仏 教、 ヒ ン ド ゥー 教、 ジ ャイ ナ教)、4)タ ン ト r s"e ラの 成 就 法、 で あ る。 これ ら4の 分 野 は す べ て、 共 通 して、 イ ン ドで 使 用 され た 印 契 の 伝統 か ら由 来 して い る。 そ しで、 い くつか の事 例 に お いて、 イ ン ドか ら 日 本 密 教 の 伝 統 まで に わ た って、 特 定 の"mudra"が 驚 くほ ど継 続 して 使 用 され て い るこ とが、 証 明 で き る。 Introduction The goal of this short essay is twofold.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Gilgamesh: His World and His Story Aims Toward This Process of Communication
    University of Pretoria etd – De Villiers, G (2005) UNDERSTANDING GILGAMESH: HIS WORLD AND HIS STORY by GEZINA GERTRUIDA DE VILLIERS submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR LITTERARUM (SEMITIC LANGUAGES) in the FACULTY OF HUMANITIES at the University of Pretoria SUPERVISOR : PROF GTM PRINSLOO Pretoria October 2004 University of Pretoria etd – De Villiers, G (2005) CONTENTS Pag CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1-1 1. Motivation for research 1-2 2. Research problem 1-4 3. Hypothesis 1-5 4. Purpose for research 1-5 5. Methodology 1-6 5.1. Source-orientated inquiry 1-6 5.2. Discourse-orientated analysis 1-7 5.2.1. Epic: poetry or prose? 1-7 6. Premises 1-9 7. Contents 1-12 CHAPTER 2 : THE STANDARD BABYLONIAN GILGAMESH EPIC 2-14 1. The narrative 2-15 CHAPTER 3 : THE SOURCE HISTORY OF THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH 3-38 1. The Sumerian past 3-38 1.1. General background 3-38 1.2. Cities 3-40 1.3. Animals 3-45 1.4. Kings 3-46 1.5. Theology 3-49 2. Sumerian literature: the five poems on Bilgames 3-56 2.1. Obscure origins: did the king really exist? 3-56 2.2. The poems 3-58 2.3. The function of the Sumerian poems 3-71 3. From frivolous frolic to academic achievement: entertainment to literature 3-72 University of Pretoria etd – De Villiers, G (2005) 3.1. Writing 3-72 3.2. From Sumerian to Akkadian 3-74 3.3. The Sumerian Renaissance 3-76 3.4. The end of Ur III and the Isin-Larsa period 3-79 3.5 Babylon 3-81 3.5.1.
    [Show full text]
  • This List of Gestures Represents Broad Categories of Emotion: Openness
    This list of gestures represents broad categories of emotion: openness, defensiveness, expectancy, suspicion, readiness, cooperation, frustration, confidence, nervousness, boredom, and acceptance. By visualizing the movement of these gestures, you can raise your awareness of the many emotions the body expresses without words. Openness Aggressiveness Smiling Hand on hips Open hands Sitting on edge of chair Unbuttoning coats Moving in closer Defensiveness Cooperation Arms crossed on chest Sitting on edge of chair Locked ankles & clenched fists Hand on the face gestures Chair back as a shield Unbuttoned coat Crossing legs Head titled Expectancy Frustration Hand rubbing Short breaths Crossed fingers “Tsk!” Tightly clenched hands Evaluation Wringing hands Hand to cheek gestures Fist like gestures Head tilted Pointing index finger Stroking chins Palm to back of neck Gestures with glasses Kicking at ground or an imaginary object Pacing Confidence Suspicion & Secretiveness Steepling Sideways glance Hands joined at back Feet or body pointing towards the door Feet on desk Rubbing nose Elevating oneself Rubbing the eye “Cluck” sound Leaning back with hands supporting head Nervousness Clearing throat Boredom “Whew” sound Drumming on table Whistling Head in hand Fidget in chair Blank stare Tugging at ear Hands over mouth while speaking Acceptance Tugging at pants while sitting Hand to chest Jingling money in pocket Touching Moving in closer Dangerous Body Language Abroad by Matthew Link Posted Jul 26th 2010 01:00 PMUpdated Aug 10th 2010 01:17 PM at http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/07/26/dangerous-body-language-abroad/?ncid=AOLCOMMtravsharartl0001&sms_ss=digg You are in a foreign country, and don't speak the language.
    [Show full text]
  • Hand Gestures
    L2/16-308 More hand gestures To: UTC From: Peter Edberg, Emoji Subcommittee Date: 2016-10-31 Proposed characters Tier 1: Two often-requested signs (ILY, Shaka, ILY), and three to complete the finger-counting sets for 1-3 ​ (North American and European system). None of these are known to have offensive connotations. HAND SIGN SHAKA ● Shaka sign ​ ● ASL sign for letter ‘Y’ ● Can signify “Aloha spirit”, surfing, “hang loose” ● On Emojipedia top requests list, but requests have dropped off ​ ​ ● 90°-rotated version of CALL ME HAND, but EmojiXpress has received requests for SHAKA specifically, noting that CALL ME HAND does not fulfill need HAND SIGN ILY ● ASL sign for “I love you” (combines signs for I, L, Y), has moved into ​ ​ mainstream use ● On Emojipedia top requests list ​ HAND WITH THUMB AND INDEX FINGER EXTENDED ● Finger-counting 2, European style ● ASL sign for letter ‘L’ ● Sign for “loser” ● In Montenegro, sign for the Liberal party ● In Philippines, sign used by supporters of Corazon Aquino ● See Wikipedia entry ​ ​ HAND WITH THUMB AND FIRST TWO FINGERS EXTENDED ● Finger-counting 3, European style ● UAE: Win, victory, love = work ethic, success, love of nation (see separate proposal L2/16-071, which is the source of the information ​ ​ below about this gesture, and also the source of the images at left) ● Representation for Ctrl-Alt-Del on Windows systems ● Serbian “три прста” (tri prsta), symbol of Serbian identity ​ ​ ● Germanic “Schwurhand”, sign for swearing an oath ​ ​ ● Indication in sports of successful 3-point shot (basketball), 3 successive goals (soccer), etc. HAND WITH FIRST THREE FINGERS EXTENDED ● Finger-counting 3, North American style ● ASL sign for letter ‘W’ ● Scout sign (Boy/Girl Scouts) is similar, has fingers together ​ Tier 2: Complete the finger-counting sets for 4-5, plus some less-requested hand signs.
    [Show full text]
  • New Evidence for One of the Oldest Political Frontiers in the Ancient World
    Journal of Near Eastern Studies Longitude 457 East: New Evidence for one of the Oldest Political Frontiers in the Ancient World SAJJAD ALIBAIGI, Razi University, Kermanshah SHAHRAM ALIYARI, Office of Cultural Heritage, Handicraft, and Tourism, Kermanshah JOHN MACGINNIS, Cambridge University NASER AMINIKHAH, Razi University, Kermanshah* Introduction: Longitude 457 East, One of the made to commemorate a victory of Iddin-Sin, king of Oldest Political Frontiers in the Ancient World Simurrum.1 With these two rock reliefs, the number of ste- lae and rock reliefs around Bamu mountain reaches five. The Zagros mountains, which constitute the defining These are among the most ancient rock reliefs in the topographic divider between Iraq and Iran, have over world, and reveal the importance of the surrounding the course of history been witness to countless incur- region for eastern Mesopotamia. With the help of Ak- sions and invasions launched from Mesopotamia into kadian texts from the time of the kingdom of Simurrum, Iran and vice-versa. The rock reliefs, stelae, and kudur- specifically the stele of Bitwata and the inscription of rus discovered in the western foothills of this mountain Haladiny (Qarachatan), together with consideration of range indicate that throughout history the region wit- the location of the rock reliefs of the rulers of Simurrum, nessed many major events and conflicts, with numerous we are able to draw the state’s eastern frontier along a line monuments being erected to commemorate victories that connects the rock reliefs of Sar Pol-e Zahab, the (see Fig. 1). In this context, this study focuses on two Bamu mountains, and Darband-i Ramkan.
    [Show full text]
  • Pointing Gesture in Young Children Hand Preference and Language Development
    Pointing gesture in young children Hand preference and language development Hélène Cochet and Jacques Vauclair Aix-Marseille University This paper provides an overview of recent studies that have investigated the development of pointing behaviors in infants and toddlers. First, we focus on deictic gestures and their role in language development, taking into account the different hand shapes and the different functions of pointing, and examining the cognitive abilities that may or may not be associated with the production of pointing gestures. Second, we try to demonstrate that when a distinction is made between pointing gestures and manipulative activities, the study of children’s hand preference can help to highlight the development of speech-gesture links. Keywords: toddlers, gestural communication, pointing, handedness, speech- gesture system Emergence of communicative gestures: Focus on pointing gestures Pointing is a specialized gesture for indicating an object, event or location. Chil- dren start using pointing gestures at around 11 months of age (Butterworth & Morissette, 1996; Camaioni, Perucchini, Bellagamba, & Colonnesi, 2004), and this behavior opens the door to the development of intentional communication. One of the prerequisites for the production of pointing gestures is a shared experi- ence between the signaler and the recipient of the gesture, that is, a simultaneous engagement with the same external referent, usually referred to as joint attention (e.g., Carpenter, Nagell, & Tomasello, 1998). While pointing is sometimes regard- ed as a “private gesture” (Delgado, Gómez, & Sarriá, 2009), whose main role is to regulate the infant’s attention rather than to enable the latter to communicate with a recipient, a growing body of research suggests that the onset of pointing gestures reflects a newly acquired ability to actively direct the adult’s attention to outside entities in triadic interactions (e.g., Liszkowski, 2005; Tomasello, Carpenter, & Liszkowski, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • 16 Gestures by 16 Months
    16 Gestures by 16 Months Children Should Learn at Least 16 Gestures by 16 Months Good communication development starts in the first year of life and goes far beyond learning how to talk. Communication development has its roots in social interaction with parents and other caregivers during everyday activities. Your child’s growth in social communication is important because it helps your child connect with you, learn language and play concepts, and sets the stage for learning to read and future success in school. Good com- munication skills are the best tool to prevent behavior problems and make it easier to work through moments of frustration that all infants and toddlers face. Earlier is Better Catching communication and language difficulties By observing children’s early early can prevent potential problems later with gestures, you can obtain a critical behavior, learning, reading, and social interaction. snapshot of their communication Research on brain development reminds us that “earlier IS better” when teaching young children. development. Even small lags in The most critical period for learning is during the communication milestones can first three years of a child’s life. Pathways in the add up and impact a child’s rate brain develop as infants and young children learn of learning that is difficult to from exploring and interacting with people and objects in their environment. The brain’s architec- change later. Research with young ture is developing the most rapidly during this crit- children indicates that the development of gestures from 9 to 16 ical period and is the most sensitive to experiential months predicts language ability 2 years later, which is significant learning.
    [Show full text]
  • NABU 2021 1 Compilé 09 Corr DC
    ISSN 0989-5671 2021 N° 1 (mars) NOTES BRÈVES 1) Ebla: how many years? — Essays on Ebla by the philologists who collaborate with the Archaeological Expedition to Ebla of the University of Rome – La Sapienza are published rather frequently, one after the other. They concern a society which is different in some way from those studied by other specialists of third millennium B.C. Ebla is something like a New World: personal names and many geographic names sound alien to these colleagues; some documentary forms are unusual; the lexicon coincides in large part, but not completely, with that of the Mesopotamian documents; Sumerian names are applied to local deities. No one can follow everything and must therefore rely (sometimes perhaps with a grain of salt) on what Eblaitologists say. Too many things are not as clear as one would wish, but this is what stimulates research. The situation becomes uncomfortable, however, if Eblaitologists disagree with each other on some basic features. This predicament is evident comparing the two essays, which in some way also concern Ebla, that appear in The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East I (K. Radner ed.), New York 2020, an opus intended to replace the glorious Cambridge Ancient History, as far as the Ancient Near East is concerned. V. Bartash, author of chapter 8, “The Early Dynastic Near East”, gives a concise picture of the Ebla state basing himself on the interpretations offered by the philologists of the Ebla Expedition (Bartash 2020: 579–583). P. Michalowski, author of chapter 10, “The kingdom
    [Show full text]
  • The Melammu Project
    THE MELAMMU PROJECT http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/ “The King, the Emperor, and the Empire. Continuity and Discontinuity of Royal Representation in Text and Image” JOAN WESTENHOLZ Published in Melammu Symposia 1: Sanno Aro and R. M. Whiting (eds.), The Heirs of Assyria. Proceedings of the Opening Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project. Held in Tvärminne, Finland, October 8-11, 1998 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project 2000), pp. 99-125. Publisher: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/saa/ This article was downloaded from the website of the Melammu Project: http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/ The Melammu Project investigates the continuity, transformation and diffusion of Mesopotamian culture throughout the ancient world. A central objective of the project is to create an electronic database collecting the relevant textual, art-historical, archaeological, ethnographic and linguistic evidence, which is available on the website, alongside bibliographies of relevant themes. In addition, the project organizes symposia focusing on different aspects of cultural continuity and evolution in the ancient world. The Digital Library available at the website of the Melammu Project contains articles from the Melammu Symposia volumes, as well as related essays. All downloads at this website are freely available for personal, non-commercial use. Commercial use is strictly prohibited. For inquiries, please contact [email protected]. WESTENHOLZ T HE KING, THE EMPEROR, AND THE EMPIRE JOAN W ESTENHOLZ Jerusalem The King, the Emperor, and the Empire: Continuity and Discontinuity of Royal Representation in Text and Image * Empires in the Ancient World he concept of empire relates to a made by kings as diverse as Šamši-Adad I period when disparate geographical of Assyria (1813-1781) and Nabonidus, the Tterritories are united under one re- last Babylonian king (555-539).
    [Show full text]
  • Some Professions with Both Male and Female Members in the Presargonic E2-MI2 Corpus
    ORIENT Volume 51, 2016 Some Professions with Both Male and Female Members in the Presargonic E2-MI2 Corpus Fumi KARAHASHI The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (NIPPON ORIENTO GAKKAI) Some Professions with Both Male and Female Members in the Presargonic E2-MI2 Corpus Fumi Karahashi* This paper will examine three professions (šu-i2, tug2-du8, and i3-du8) in the Presargonic E2- MI2 Corpus that included both male and female members, with the aim of assessing their socio-economic status and roughly delineating their internal organization. A pattern seems to be discernible, namely that each group was comprised of men who held subsistence land and thus were listed in Type I ration lists, and men and women who held no land but received barley rations every month, and thus were listed in Type II or IV lists. Assuming that the ration lists and land allotment texts reflect the socio-economic status of a receiver, these documents should in turn refect the workforce hierarchy. Keywords: women, Presargonic, Lagaš, queen’s household, E2-MI2 I. Introduction The so-called Presargonic E2-MI2 Corpus (ED IIIb), which originated in Girsu in the city-state of Lagaš, contains some 1,800 texts (Foxvog 2011, 59). Many were excavated clandestinely and reached museums in various parts of the world (Paris, Berlin, London, St Petersburg, Copenhagen, US, and so forth) via antiquities dealers in Baghdad (Prentice 2010, 2–5). The majority of the documents are dated to the last three rulers of Presargonic Lagaš, spanning more than twenty years (Visicato 2011, 301; Sallaberger and Schrakamp 2015, 70–74).1 The institution that produced these documents was called E2-MI2 during the reigns of Enentarzi and Lugalanda as well as the frst year of Urukagina, and then its designation was changed to E2- d Ba-u2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ubaid Period the Sumerian King List
    Sumer by Joshua J. Mark published on 28 April 2011 Sumer was the southernmost region of ancient Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq Map of Sumer (by P L Kessler, Copyright) and Kuwait) which is generally considered the cradle of civilization. The name comes from Akkadian, the language of the north of Mesopotamia, and means “land of the civilized kings”. The Sumerians called themselves “the black headed people” and their land, in cuneiform script, was simply “the land” or “the land of the black headed people”and, in the biblical Book of Genesis, Sumer is known as Shinar. According to the Sumerian King List, when the gods first gave human beings the gifts necessary for cultivating society, they did so by establishing the city of Eridu in the region of Sumer. While the Sumerian city of Uruk is held to be the oldest city in the world, the ancient Mesopotamians believed that it was Eridu and that it was here that order was established and civilization began. The Ubaid Period The region of Sumer was long thought to have been first inhabited around 4500 BCE. This date has been contested in recent years, however, and it now thought that human activity in the area began much earlier. The first selers were not Sumerians but a people of unknown origin whom archaeologists have termed the Ubaid people - from the excavated mound of al- Ubaid where the artifacts were uncovered which first aested to their existence - or the Proto-Euphrateans which designates them as earlier inhabitants of the region of the Euphrates River. Whoever these people were, they had already moved from a hunter- gatherer society to an agrarian one prior to 5000 BCE.
    [Show full text]