Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:02:05.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Plano-Convex Building” at Kish and Early Mesopotamian Palaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

P. R. S. Moorey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the main publication of excavations by the ‘Weld-Field Expedition to Mesopotamia’ at Tell Uhaimir little attention was paid to work in area ‘P’. In his account of the 1923–4 season's work Langdon published the headless statue found on the site and referred briefly to the ‘Old Sumerian Palace’ where it had been excavated. Later Mackay recorded that two buildings were examined in the area, one as large as palace ‘A’, but probably earlier. Much of the plan could be traced on the ground and the walls, of plano-convex brick, survived to about thirty centimetres above foundation levels. At the time the importance of this building in area ‘P’ was overshadowed by richer excavation in area ‘A’, where a directly comparable group of buildings was found with a greater variety of furnishings. The remains in ‘P’ were not so extensive, less well preserved and not so easily interpreted. Seen in perspective the site gains considerably in interest. Despite extensive excavations on Early Dynastic sites in South Mesopotamia only three structures have been found which might reasonably be described as palaces, though evidence for temple development in this period is now well illustrated by finds at a number of sites. Were it not for the necessarily restricted scope of excavations on the very large areas embraced by ancient Mesopotamian cities, this might be taken to suggest that still, even by the end of the Early Dynastic period, the city ruler's residence was an indistinguishable part of the temple complex, except in the most politically developed cities.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1964 , pp. 83 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1964 

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.)

References

1 “Excavations at Kish”, I, (hereafter X.K. I) pp. 4–5. 35–36 Google Scholar; pl. III.3, XXXV.1.

2 Field Museum Chicago, Anthropology, Memoirs, I, (hereafter A.M. I), p. 85 Google Scholar.

3 Kish: area ‘A’—A.M. I.2; Eridu: Sumer 6 (1950), fig. 3, p. 31ffGoogle Scholar: two buildings; Mari: reported in latest season of excavation— Syria, XLI (1964), p. 20 Google Scholar. At Fara the building where so many tablets were found was not sufficiently cleared for its identity to be certain — Jacobsen, T.: Z.A. 52 (1957)Google Scholar, note 64.

4 Frankfort, H. in Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region, (hereafter O.I.P. LVIII), pp. 299ffGoogle Scholar; Nippur— Archaeology, XII (1959), p. 74ffGoogle Scholar; XV (1962); pp. 75ff; Mari— Syria, XLI (1964) pp. 5ffGoogle Scholar.

5 Falkenstein, A.: Cahiers d'Histoire Mondiale, I (1954), p. 799 Google Scholar; Jacobsen, T.: Z.A. 52 (1957), p. 107 Google Scholar, note 32, pp. 112ff.

6 Hallo, W. W., Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles, pp. 21ffGoogle Scholar.

7 These sites are shown in A.M. I.2, frontispiece; the ‘Y’ sounding on Tell Ingharra should not be confused with the area in west Kish also called ‘Y’.

8 Watelin, L. Ch., X.K. IV, p. 30 Google Scholar, pl. XXIIff.

9 D.P.M. XXIX, pp. 122–4Google Scholar (No. 280), fig. 89; perhaps p. 103 (No. 322). Le Breton dated these graves to Susa Dd in Iraq XIX (1957), p. 114 Google Scholar. Plundered tombs of an earlier period were found under the Ishtar Temple at Mari— Parrot, A.: Le Temple d'Ishtar, pp. 10–11 Google Scholar, pl. III.

10 Woolley, C. L., Ur Excavations, II, pp. 64ff, 108ffGoogle Scholar.

11 Delougaz, P., Pottery from the Oiyala Region, p. 137 Google Scholar (hereafter O.I.P. LXIII).

12 Some of the seals and seal impressions suggest that it may extend into ED III—Ashmolean Nos. 1930.111, 377, 395: Buchanan, B., Ancient Near Eastern Seals in Oxford, I Google Scholar, Nos. 165, 191, 255. This may mean that the ‘royal’ burials are ED III in date, like those at Susa and Ur, rather than earlier as is usually argued on the basis of pottery from the ‘Y’ sounding. There is no pottery unquestionably associated with the ‘royal’ graves—Y357, Y529, Y237 ( X.K. IV, p. 30ffGoogle Scholar)—and the closest parallels to the form of the vehicles and the rein-rings are those from the Royal Cemetery at Ur and a representation on the Stela of Vultures from Tello ( Louvre, —Encyclopédie Photographique de l'Art, I, p. 191DGoogle Scholar.), dated towards the end of ED III.

13 I am grateful to R. W. Hamilton, Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, for permission to publish this material.

14 Hereafter referred to as the PCB.

15 Ashmolean Kish Negatives, Nos. B.K. 344–348A.

16 Langdon, S., X.K. I Google Scholar, pl. XXXIII, top.

17 A.M. I.2, pl. XXI.

18 Safar, F., Sumer 6 (1950)Google Scholar, fig. 3.

19 Delougaz, P., ‘Plano-convex Bricks and the Methods of their Employment’, O.I.C., 7, pp. 28–9Google Scholar. See Appendix I for brick sizes in PCB.

20 Delougaz, P., The Temple Oval at Khafajah, p. 75 Google Scholar (hereafter O.I.P. LIII).

21 A.M. I, pl. XXXV–VI, pp. 120ffGoogle Scholar.

22 Woolley, C. L., Ur Excavations, II, pp. 262ffGoogle Scholar.

23 Parrot, A., Le Temple d'Ishtar, pp. 135ffGoogle Scholar.

24 O.I.P. LIII, pp. 133ffGoogle Scholar, figs. 121–3.

25 24 cms. wide, 22 cms. deep.

26 Lloyd, S. in O.I.P. LVIII, pp. 178–9Google Scholar, fig. 137.

27 Delougaz, P., O.I.P. LIII Google Scholar, pls. III–V, VII; for date: O.I.P. LVIII, endplate—chronological table.

28 H. Frankfort, The Gimilsin Temple, pl. I (hereafter O.I.P. XLIII).

29 A.M. I, pls. XXII, XXV.

30 Delougaz, P., O.I.P. LIII Google Scholar, pl. XI.

31 A.M. I, pl. XXI.

32 Number given as U.G. 983—probably K. 983—in Baghdad: IM 1945, published by Amiet, P., Sumer, XI (1955), p. 56 Google Scholar, fig. 8.

33 Amiet, P., La Glyptique Mésopotamienne Archaique, pp. 177ffGoogle Scholar; K.983 is fig. 1416 here.

34 57 cms. wide at top, 35 cms. wide at bottom.

35 45 cms. wide, 40 cms. deep.

36 80 cms. at the top tapering to 42 cms. at a depth of 32 cms.

37 Each 37 cms. deep, 74 cms. in diameter.

38 Langdon, S., X.K. I Google Scholar, pl. XXXV, top centre; statuary also came from a blocked well at Khafajah, O.I.P. LIII, p. 39 Google Scholar.

39 Delougaz, P., O.I.P. LIII, pp. 120–130 Google Scholar.

40 Op. cit., pp. 35ff, figs. 31–2.

41 Buren, Van, Iraq XIV (1952), pp. 76ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Delougaz, , O.I.P. LIII, p. 37 Google Scholar.

43 Langdon, S., X.K. I, pl. XV.2, p. 76 Google Scholar.

44 41 cms. long, 19 cms. wide.

45 Delougaz, P., O.I.P. LIII, pp. 43ffGoogle Scholar, figs. 40, 41.

46 Diameter 113 cms., 60 cms. deep.

47 Another stone pyramid of a similar kind was found in room XV—U.G.643. U.G.811—allocated to Baghdad—was ·109 high, with base ·063 × ·052 m. U.G.643—allocated to the Field Museum, Chicago— was ·122 high with base ·041 × 042 m. They may be weights or gaming pieces. The bull's head may be compared to that on a Fara impression—P. Amiet, La Glyptique Mésopotamienne Archaique, pl. 74, 988.

48 ‘Base flat, 47 cms. in dia. Height 28 cms. Conical shape. Hole in top somewhat oval in section measuring 4 cms. in dia. and 26 cms. deep. Two small holes in side of base which run obliquely to central hole. The large hole at top does not run through to base and is acentric’.

49 A.M. I, pp. 120ffGoogle Scholar.

50 O.I.P. LXIII, pp. 144, 146 Google Scholar.

51 A. Parrot, Le Temple d'Ishtar, figs. 80, 82, cf. X.K. I, pl. XXXIX.

52 A.M. I, p. 202 Google Scholar, pl. XXXVI.10, 12; X.K. IV, p. 62 Google Scholar, pl. XLV; O.E.C.T. VII, pl. IV, No. 11 = Ashmolean: 1928.16. A similar stray tablet is reported from the PCB but without fixed provenance—O.E.C.T. VII, pl. XV.49—originally Ashmolean: 1924.924; returned to Baghdad after study.

53 A.M. I, p. 123 Google Scholar, pl. XXXVII.4, 5, 6.

54 Delougaz, P., O.I.P. LXIII, p. 99 Google Scholar.

55 Ibid., p. 142. Archaeological knowledge of Kish is insufficient to say whether this reflects a gap in occupation, even a very localized one. Indeed documentary evidence suggests otherwise. At least two Kings of Kish, who may be ascribed to the ED II period in archaeological terminology, are known from inscriptions: En-me-baragesi— Edzard, D. O., Z.A. 53 (1959), pp. 9ffGoogle Scholar: Enna-il— Goetze, A., J.C.S. XV (1961), pp. 107ffGoogle Scholar.

56 Frankfort, H., Sculpture of the Third Millennium … O.I.P. XLIV Google Scholar, pl. 67, nos. 84, 85.

57 Langdon, S. (X.K. I, pp. 4–5)Google Scholar described this statue as a ‘king of Kish’ holding a weapon. I base my identification on the Diyala analogies; the inscription is probably dedicatory, rather than descriptive as Langdon seems to imply.

58 It falls in the group mentioned by Goetze, A., J.C.S. XV (1961), p. 111 Google Scholar, n. 34; Langdon's reading is given in X.K. I, p. 5 Google Scholar. He gives a revised reading on one of the PCB cards as—LA-ḪAN(?)-DE-IGI-ZA.

59 Gadd, C. J., The Cities of Babylonia, (C.A.H. 2), p. 27 Google Scholar. It is of course impossible to estimate how long the palace area lay in ruins before it was used for burials. This historical hypothesis presupposes a fairly short time. Mesannepadda's attack on Kish ( Kramer, , The Sumerians (1963), p. 49 Google Scholar) might then be associated with one of the earlier destruction levels for which there was evidence in the PCB.

60 The earliest shrines at Kish have yet to be identified with certainty. Two ziggurats of small planoconvex bricks were found on Tell Ingharra ( X.K. IV, pp. 45, 55, 56 Google Scholar) and a plano-convex building was found in the temple area in West Kish ( X.K. I, pp. 66–7Google Scholar).

61 Mackay, in A.M. I, p. 110 Google Scholar calls the PCB a ‘Fortress-palace’.

62 Jacobsen, T., Z.A. 52 (1957), pp. 120–22Google Scholar, n. 67. ‘The modest sized building’ at Fara may, on the analogy of Kish, be only a small unit in a scattered complex.

63 Kramer, S., The Sumerians, (1963), p. 318 Google Scholar.

64 Frankfort, H. in O.I.P. LVIII, p. 304 Google Scholar.

65 Langdon, S., Der Alte Orient XXVI (1927)Google Scholar, fig. 12.

66 Perkins, A. L., The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia, p. 130 Google Scholar.

67 Childe, G., New Light on the Most Ancient East (4th Ed.), p. 134 Google Scholar, pl. XXIA.

68 E. Mackay, A.M. I.3, pl. LXVIII.8, 11; LXXIV.9.

69 Delougaz, P., O.I.P. LXIII, p. 47 Google Scholar.

70 Frankfort, H., Cylinder Seals, p. 23 Google Scholar, fig. 6.

71 Delougaz, P. in O.I.P. LVIII, pp. 261ffGoogle Scholar.

72 Kramer, S. N., Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta 1952), p. 50 Google Scholar, note to line 301.

73 O.I.P. LVIII—end plate: chronological table.

74 Jacobsen, T., Z.A. 52 (1957), p. 107 Google Scholar, n. 31.

75 This is not clear in palace ‘A’ at Kish; it might be room 43 behind the columned hall—A.M. I, pl. XXI.

76 O.I.P. XLIII, pl. I.

77 Mallowan, M. E. L., Iraq IX (1947), pp. 27–8Google Scholar, n. 3; but see also Preusser, C., Die Paläste in Assur, p. 8 Google Scholar, for later dating; an early tablet was found in the area of the oldest palace; Preusser, op. cit. pl. 12c.

78 Woolley, C. L., Excavations at Ur(1954), p. 147ffGoogle Scholar; Lenzen, H. J., Iraq XXII (1960), p. 136 Google Scholar.

79 Parrot, A., Mission de Mari II Google Scholar; Architecture—end plate.

80 U.V.B. XIX, 1963 Google Scholar, pl. 49.

81 Frankfort, H., O.I.P. XLIII Google Scholar, pl. XII.

82 Jacobsen, , Z.A. 52 (1957), p. 120 Google Scholar.