Vallette 1 Bronze Age Art Propaganda in Mesopotamia Samantha E. Vallette Art 2401 J. Walsh Vallette 2 The media and elites of the twenty-first century were not the first people to use creative outlets for propaganda. Along with the creation of writing, culture, society, and art, came power. As far back as the Bronze Age cz. (3200-1200 B.C.E.), social elites have been using any means possible to manipulate and sway the general public‟s opinions. However, without television, radio, or any other form of mass media the kings of Bronze Age Mesopotamia were left with art as their only means of displaying their power and authority. Art was used to express to the public that the kings were favored and protected by the gods; they were untouchable. Additionally, kings documented their great achievements through art much as a résumé would in current day society. Some of the most important examples of propaganda used in Mesopotamia in the Bronze Age include stelai such as the Stele of the Vultures, the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin, Stele of Ur- Nammu, and Stele of Hammurabi. In general, during the Bronze Age in Mesopotamia, stelai were used to commemorate accomplishments. They were large pieces of stone which were taller than they were wide and on which was often carved a picture of the king and the events they wanted to be remembered. For example, many contain images of battles or wars won, cities captured, structures built, or association with the divinities. These were the first historical records; many included inscriptions of the details of the event and places they occurred. The purpose of the stelai were to glorify the king who had it built and to point out the wonderful things they did to reinforce their right to rule. The Stele of the Vultures was created around 2600 B.C.E. in Lagash by King Eannatum. This particular stele was built to commemorate the victory of Lagash over Umma. The lengthy inscription describes a boundary stone set up by a previous ruler of Lagash being destroyed by the people from Umma and that they began using the lands belonging to Lagash (Perkins 57) Vallette 3 (Frankfort 71). This stele was set up to reestablish the boundary line after Lagash‟s victory (Perkins 57). Although it would have been simple to just inscribe the details of his victory on the stone, King Eannatum chose to inscribe both text and image. This is most likely due to the fact that literacy rates were not high since there was no formal schooling system; therefore, those who could not read the description could view the pictures and understand the general idea of the events. Also, a large image carved into the stone is more impressive and easily understandable than having to stand in front of the stele and read the entire description. Furthermore, King Eannatum starting a war over boundaries was typical of Mesopotamian rulers in that he had a “dual preoccupation with war and water rights, as well as in his energetic construction of canals and waterworks” (Knapp 77). However, military movements such as this allowed him to have the first “political dominance” over Mesopotamia (Knapp 77). Incase any of his subjects or enemies were unaware of his army‟s accomplishments, he had this stele constructed to inform them. The images carved on the stele appear in registers, with a single scene in each. On the front, the top image is a graphic scene which involves King Eannatum leading an infantry on foot. By showing them marching over the dead bodies of their enemies, the idea that this was a complete and utter victory is solidified. Here, the artist attempts to capture the monumental size of the army by repeating body parts to show depth. However, this attempt is slightly unsuccessful since there are significantly more spears than heads, and still more heads than shields. However, the effect of depicting an enormous army is successful. Whether or not King Eannatum actually was at the front of the siege or not is irrelevant, since the message that the King‟s militia is forceful, powerful, and successful is well portrayed. The second register on the front reinforces the idea that it is the King who makes this battle victorious since he is horseback and again leading the troops into battle. Additionally, in this register, King Eannatum is larger Vallette 4 than the rest of his army, showing his importance using a hierarchy of scale. Propaganda ensues as the third register depicts King Eannatum overseeing the bodies of his dead laid neatly side-by- side. This is analogous to current propaganda where the elite is seen visiting troops oversees or helping the homeless, it is used to show sympathy and a deep caring for his people. The front of this stele shows “the exploits of warriors led by their King” while “the other side shows the decisive intervention of the gods on Eannatum‟s side” (Ruskin 145). On the back of the stele, the top two thirds are taken up by a relief showing the god Ningirsu. This image “reveals hidden forces which brought [the events] about. The god, Ningirsu, himself had taken up the just cause of his city; he caught the men of Umma in his net and destroyed them” (Frankfort 71). This proved to the viewers of the stele that Eannatum‟s cause was just, he was doing the work of the gods, and that the gods backed him up. For this stele, “the clarity of the pictorial narrative was all that mattered” (Frankfort 71). King Eannatum‟s main goal for this stele is to inform his subjects of his victorious actions and that he was willed by the gods to perform them. Another example of a king erecting a stele to commemorate a victory is in the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin. This stele is six feet high, was built in 2200 B.C.E. during the Akkadian Period and was moved to Susa, and is made of pink sandstone (Ruskin 151). Unlike the Stele of the Vultures, this stele is a single pictorial event. The scene shows the king, Naram-Sin, leading his army up a hill, his enemies cowering, pleading, and running at his feet, with the heavens above. Although, there are no strict divisions of registers, the diagonal lines of the soldiers ascending the hill draw eyes up to the king (Perkins 59). This visual aid reinforces the idea that King Naram-Sin is the focus of this piece. He also appears significantly larger than his troops, places his foot on one of his pleading enemies, and is wearing a horned crown. The horned crown was a symbol of a deity during the Bronze Age and, by wearing this hat, Naram-Sin goes Vallette 5 beyond associating himself with the gods, placing himself as an equal to them. In fact, he had adopted the titles “God of Agade” and “King of the four Quarters of the Universe” during his lifetime (Knapp 88). Since this stele is only a single image and seems to be presenting King Naram-Sin as an all powerful figure, “the action itself is less specific than symbolic” (Perkins 59). Unlike the Stele of the Vultures, the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin does not describe a specific victory, but implies that the ruler, King Naram-Sin, is someone to be feared and followed (Perkins 59). Another type of stele is for the commemoration of building a structure. The Stele of Ur- Nammu is an example of this. It was built in 2000 B.C.E. in Ur and commemorates the building of a ziggurat by King Ur-Nammu. This story seems to go from bottom to top with each register showing an artistic image of one scene rather than each register showing the progression of events. The lower registers show the actual building of the Ziggurat with ladders, bricks, and other building equipment depicted. Even King Ur-Nammu is helping; he is shown in the third register with supplies on his back following a god and being followed by a priest (Frankfort 104). Here, much like the Stele of the Vultures, the king is shown taking part in the action, right along side his people to show that he is not asking his people to do things that he himself doesn‟t participate in. This is easily another form of propaganda analogous to the modern television commercials of elites involved in events such as rebuilding after disasters or for the needy; he was not necessarily in the battle, but the fact that he is envisioned there makes his point. The top two registers show the king interacting with gods. They are symmetrical with the king appearing before the moon-god Nannar and his consort Ningal (Frankfort 103). The symmetry is neither a snapshot of an event nor a story over time, but it “destroys the narrative interest” of the piece and possibly is just for artistic purposes or alluding to two separate ceremonies but shown together Vallette 6 (Frankfort 103). Either way, the fact that King Ur-Nammu is interacting with the gods, seeking their approval of his achievements, is defining him, to his people, as a mediator with the gods. Since this is “a monument of piety, not of worldly achievement, this explains the static, hieteric, character of the composition”, King Ur-Nammu “takes care to emphasize his attentions to the gods in a way unknown to earlier times” (Frankfort 104) (Perkins 60). The Stele of Hammurabi, unlike typical steles, does not show victories or accomplishments, rather, it lays down the laws of the land.