Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:56:52.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Interpretation of the Sculptural Decoration of the Second Millennium Temple at Tell al-Rimah*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Theresa Howard-Carter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The dominant feature of the walled town, now identified as Karana, is the temple ziggurat mound which rises prominently at the centre. In this paper we are concerned only with the phases of the principal temple in the second millennium. Suffice it to note that a small Neo-Assyrian temple dated to Adad-nirari III was placed later in the north-west angle formed by the earlier temple and ziggurat.

The great temple of Karana was entirely symmetrical in plan, and attached to a rectangular ziggurat on the east axis. The approach to the ante-chamber and cella was via a courtyard with surrounding rooms. Construction of temple and ziggurat was executed in mud-brick with an elaborate architectural decoration of multi-formed columns and pilasters across the façade of the ante-chamber and surrounding the courtyard. The principal phases of building activity are the Old Assyrian c. 1800 B.C., the Nuzi period after 1600 B.C., and the Middle Assyrian after 1400 B.C.

The additional decoration of major importance which concerns us in this essay consists of four carved stone members associated directly with the functioning of the ante-chamber door. One further piece to be considered with this group is a carved stone orthostat of a winged demon, which we date on stylistic grounds to the Old Assyrian period. It is discernible immediately to the trained eye that the five pieces fall into two groups: the earlier or Old Assyrian consists of Humbaba I, the Lady between Palms, and the Winged Demon; the later group, presumably executed by sculptors of the Nuzi period, consists of Humbaba II and the Bull-man between Palms. Additional evidence comes from the various find spots. It should be emphasized that although two of the stone blocks were excavated in situ, not one of the five reliefs occurred in original context.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , Spring 1983 , pp. 64 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

An abbreviated version of this paper was read before the 29th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London, July 1982.

References

1 Page, S., Iraq 30 (1968), 87–97 (esp. 95–7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Oates, D., Iraq 30 (1968), 115–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Oates, D., Iraq 29 (1967), Pl. XXXCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Iraq 29 (1967), Pls. XXXII, XXXIIIGoogle Scholar.

5 Howard-Carter, Th., BASOR 178 (1965), 40–69Google Scholar.

6 For the original discussion of the inscription see Iraq 29 (1967), 76 fGoogle Scholar. The inscription, although authenticated as Old Babylonian, is baffling, both because of its badly eroded condition and its somewhat unusual form. Professor S.J. Lieberman has prepared detailed epigraphic notes for inclusion in the forthcoming final report of the objects from Tell al-Rimah. He suggests a tentative emended translation:

1For ……2my lady, [personal name],

3son/daughter of Iakun[di]r?5I close?

4(the) lock? of ……, 7I make (him/her/it) [enter?] 6…………

7 Hall, H. R. and Woolley, C. L., Ur Excavations I (1927). 100Google Scholar.

8 Syria 20 (1939), Pl. V, no. 2Google Scholar.

9 AO 17277, Contenau, G., RA 38 (1941), 58–3Google Scholar, illus.

10 Cf. quadruple column cluster at east gate of Rimah temple, Iraq 29 (1967), Pl. XXXIIIbGoogle Scholar.

11 Loud, G., Khorsabad I (OIP 38Google Scholar; 1936), 97–8, Figs. 99, 102; Place, V., Ninive et l'Assyrie I (1870), 120–1Google Scholar.

12 Inv. Napoleon 3147. Inscribed sections of the gold foil were examined in 1979 through the courtesy of M. P. Amiet and Mile. A. Caubet; bronze sections also exist.

13 Parrot, A., Le Palais 2: Peintures murales (MAM II; 1958), Pls. 10–13Google Scholar.

14 Jacobsen, T., ZA 52 (n.f. 18) (1957), 107–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 32, and idem, Toward the Image of Tammuz (1970), 73–4, 83.

15 CAD G, 83–4.

16 Schmökel, H., Ur, Assur, und Babylon (1955), Pl. 41Google Scholar.

17 Gelb, I. J., JNES 19 (1960), 72 ffGoogle Scholar.

18 U. 13709 = BM 128551. Woolley, , Ur Excavations II, Pl. 218Google Scholar; Ur Excavations IV, 156Google Scholar; JEOL 22 (1971–72), Pl. 36. The piece was excavated in a First Dynasty rubbish deposit in Pit F. I thank Dr. C. Quails for this reference and Dr. J. E. Curtis for permitting me to examine the object in the British Museum.

19 TR 8737 (Baghdad. IM 69700); TR 2743 (BSAI); TR 2738 (Phila. UM 65-24-24).

20 I owe this information to Professor Å. Sjøberg and quote the following with his permission: “(Inanna ) ….. [t]ruly bowing down, her vulva is worthy of admiration, […] rejoicing at her [vul]va, she speaks self-satisfied to herself…” (Inanna and Enki, I/i 4–7Google Scholar).

21 Moortgat, A., Die Kunst des Alten Mesopotamien (1967), 118–19, Fig. 83, Pl. 241Google Scholar.

22 Porada, E., JNES 5 (1946), 257, Fig. 1Google Scholar. Professor Porada presents evidence for the determination of an Elamite provenance for the seal (258–9).

23 Frankfort, H., Cylinder Seals (1939), 61Google Scholar.

24 Amiet, P., Art of the Ancient Near East (1980), 373, no. 347Google Scholar; Margueron, J.-C., Mesopotamia (1965), Pl. 3Google Scholar.

25 Woolley, C. L., Ant. Journ. 11 (1931), 359 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Ur Excavations VII, Pl. 47.

26 Danthine, H., Le palmier-dattier et les arbres sacrés dans l'iconographie de l'Asie occidentals ancienne (1937), no. 572Google Scholar.

27 Barrelet, M.-Th., Figurines et reliefs en terre-cuite de la Mésopotamie antique (1968), no. 815, Pl. 81Google Scholar.

28 Matthiae, P., Missione in Siria 1964, 75Google Scholar, gives a date of 1850 B.C. as the earliest possible; later in Ebla: Un impero ritrovato (1977), 140–3Google Scholar, Matthiae assigns the bulk of the sculpture to the Archaic Old Syrian Period (Mardikh III-A, 2000–1800).

29 Hawkins, J. D., Karkamiš, RIA V, 426–46Google Scholar.

30 TM 72.N.565, Aleppo Archaeological Museum; Matthiae, Ebla, illus. 91.

31 Matthiae, Missione … 1964, Pls. 69–70; (drawing) Sabatini, L., Syria 51 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Pl. 51, no. 23.

32 Woolley, C. L., Carchemish III (1952), 181Google Scholar, Pl. B 49a (Ankara Museum).

33 Cf. Amiet, P., Elam, 376, illus. 285Google Scholar. Cf. also H. Danthine, Le palmier-dattier …, nos. 218–23.

34 Woolley, Carchemish III, Pl. B 52f (Ankara Museum).

35 Hawkins, , RlA V: 439–45, esp. 440Google Scholar. Hawkins attributes them to the Suhis (II)-Katuwas school, estimating the two reigns c. 950–900 B.C. “or even a little later …” (personal communication, December 1980).

36 de Mecquenem, R., RA 19 (1922), 128 ff.Google Scholar; Strommenger, E., 5000 Years of the Art of Mesopotamia (1964), Pl. 180Google Scholar; Amiet, P., Elam, 397Google Scholar.

37 BM 12744 (U.126244). Woolley, C. L. and Mallovvan, M. E. L. (Ed. Mitchell, T. C.), Ur Excavations VII (1976), Pl. 86, no. 193, p. 180Google Scholar. The mask was excavated four metres below the Larsa level in the Royal Cemetery, stratigraphically in an Akkadian context, but with every possibility of disturbance. I am grateful to Dr. R. D. Barnett and Mr. T. C. Mitchell who permitted me to examine the mask and manuscript before publication.

38 (Nippur) Legrain, L., Terracottas from Nippur, PBS 16 (1930), no. 192, p. 26, Pl. 36Google Scholar; (Babylon) AO 6778, Opificius, R., Das altbabylonische Terrakollenrelief (1961), no. 467CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and G. Contenau, Manuel II, Fig. 600; (Eshnunna) AO 12460, Barrelet, Figurines et reliefs, no. 759.

39 See e.g. BM 123287, Smith, S., BMQ 8 (1933–1934), no. 40, p. 41Google Scholar and Pl. Xa, or AO 17580, Barrelet, Figurines, no. 818.

40 Iraq 30 (1968), 206–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Cf. Oppenheim, A. L., The Care and Feeding of the Gods, in Ancient Mesopotamia (1964), 183–98Google Scholar.

42 BM 116624, Smith, S., LAAA 11 (1924): 107–14, Pl. 13Google Scholar.

43 Leichty, E., The Omen Series šumma izbu (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 4; 1970)Google Scholar, Tablet V, no. 56, p. 78.

44 Musée du Louvre, Sb 6602. Not to be confused with its companion piece (Sb 6603) illustrated in Amiet, Elam, no. 219.

45 ND 484, Mallowan, M. E. L., Nimrud and its Remains I (1966), 117–19, no. 60Google Scholar. Note that other identified Pazuzus in this period have the additional feature of serpent-like phalluses.

46 BM 91941 (51.1.1, 304). Zervos, C., L'Art de la Mésopotamie (1935), Pl. 109Google Scholar, published a photograph of a single demon in a way which makes it appear like a plaque. I am indebted to Dr. R. D. Barnett and his staff for the considerable effort expended in 1970 in locating the jar, and to Dr. J. E. Curtis for permitting me to examine it again in 1979.

47 The vertically striated hair on the crown is reminiscent of that identified with the classic Humbaba. Cf. also the pathos of the dying Humbaba (Opitz, D., AfO 5 (1929), 207Google Scholar; Parrot, A., Syria 45 (1968), 230, Fig. 23 top)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.