No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
The study of ancient religious beliefs is beset with difficulties because we do not know with absolute certainty what the peoples who inhabited the Near East in very ancient times really intended to convey by the designs they depicted. That those designs were not merely decorative but had a special symbolic or apotropaic value seems to be beyond question. In consequence of this ignorance of ours there is a tendency to accept explanations which seem to afford fairly satisfactory interpretations of many of these problems, and also an endeavour to expand them to the utmost to make them cover, directly or indirectly, as wide a field as possible. When an example occurs which cannot be forced to conform to the rules laid down by the explanations, it is said to be a peripheral work, or the mistaken rendering of an ignorant craftsman, or even a forgery.
From time to time, however, a book appears which deals with the subject of the religion of the ancients in some or all of its aspects, and which is fulL of new ideas, sometimes of a revolutionary character. Whether all the views enunciated by the author are accepted or not such a work has the salutary effect that it compels the reader to revise his preconceived ideas and to study carefully the opinions expressed in order to determine whether they should be rejected or accepted as a whole or with modifications.
page 164 note 1 Riemschneider, Margarete, Augengott und heilige Hochzeit, pp. 317, 72 Figs, in text, 4 plsGoogle Scholar. (Fragen zur vorgeschichtlichen Religion I) Leipzig, Koehler und Amelang, 1953.
page 164 note 2 Frankfort, Art and Architecture of tbt Antitnt Orient, pl. 58, B.
page 164 note 3 Mallowan, , Excavations at Brak and Chagar bazar: Iraq IX, Pt. 1, pp. 35-36, 150-6, 198-9, 204–10, Pls. XXV, XXVI, LIGoogle Scholar.
page 165 note 1 Ibid., pp. 151, 153.
page 165 note 2 Ibid., pp. 156, 209.
page 165 note 3 Ibid., pp. 153, 155.
page 165 note 4 Ibid., pp. 151, 155.
page 165 note 5 Ibid., pp. 152, 153, 156, 105.
page 165 note 6 Ibid., p. 151; Heinrich, , Die Stellung der Uruk-tempel in der Baugeschichte: Z.A. 49, pp. 24, 34, 37, 40, fig. 13Google Scholar.
page 165 note 7 Mallowan, op. cit., p. 153.
page 166 note 1 Ibid., p. 152.
page 166 note 2 Ibid., pp. 34, 154-6.
page 166 note 3 Frankfort, Henri, Isbtar at Troy: J.N.E.S. VIII, 194–200Google Scholar; Perkins, Ann L., The Comparative Archeology of Early Mesopotamia (S.A.O.G. No. 25), pp. 191–2Google Scholar; Ziegler, Charlotte, M.D.O.G. No. 82, pp. 9–14Google Scholar.
page 166 note 4 Andrae, , Die Ionische Säule, p. 33, fig. 45, a-b.Google Scholar
page 166 note 5 Andrae, op. cit., pp. 30-2, 36, 39, pl. Ill, a-c.
page 166 note 6 Frankfort, , Ishtar at Troy: J.N.E.S. VIII, pp. 194–8Google Scholar.
page 166 note 7 Tobler, , Excavations at Tepe Gawra II, pp. 171–2Google Scholar.
page 166 note 8 Ziegler, , M.D.O.G. 82, pp. 9–14, figs. 7-12.Google Scholar
page 167 note 1 Riemschneider, Augengott und heiligt Hochzeit.
page 167 note 2 Ibid., p. 22.
page 167 note 3 Ibid., pp. 106-7, 111, 115, 118-21, 138.
page 167 note 4 Ibid., pp. 105-10, figs. 42, 57.
page 167 note 5 Ibid., pp. 126-7, fig. 44.
page 167 note 6 Ibid., p. 4.
page 168 note 1 Ibid., p. 5.
page 168 note 2 M.D.P. XIII, pl. XXXVI, 3.
page 168 note 3 Riemschneider, op. cit., pp. 15-17, figs. 16, 19.
page 168 note 4 Pottier, , M.D.P. XIII, p. 38, pl. II, 3Google Scholar; Herzfeld, , Iranische Denkmäler II, p. 13Google Scholar; Dussaud, , Syria XVI, p. 386, fig. 17Google Scholar. They all give their own interpretations which differ considerably.
page 168 note 5 Riemschneider, op. cit., pp. 1-2.
page 168 note 6 Ibid., p. 111.
page 168 note 7 Ibid., p. 6.
page 168 note 8 Ibid., p. 137.
page 169 note 1 Ibid., p. 13.
page 169 note 2 Ibid., pp. 140-1.
page 169 note 3 Ibid., p. 133.
page 169 note 4 Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, pl. XIX, e,f.
page 169 note 5 Riemschneider, op. cit., p. 140.
page 169 note 6 Ibid., pp. 50-1, 54-5.
page 169 note 7 Epic of Gilgamcsh, Tab. XI: 20ff.
page 170 note 1 Riemschneider, op. cit., p. 115.
page 170 note 2 Thureau-Dangin, , S.A.K., p. 6Google Scholar, h; Witzel, , A.f.O. VII, pp. 33–6Google Scholar; Auswahl sumer. Dichtungen I (An. Or. 15 [1958]), p. 82, No. 11Google Scholar.
page 170 note 3 Riemschneider, op. cit., pp. 115-16.
page 170 note 4 Ibid., pp. 116, 135, fig. 45, a.
page 170 note 5 Ibid., p. 117.
page 170 note 6 Ibid., p. 117. This categorical statement is very interesting. I must confess, however, even if it convicts me of ignorance, that I cannot recall a single authentic foundation tablet on which the hieros gamos is illustrated. Here there seems to be some confusion between true foundation tablets and the New Year Festival plaques found at Tell Agrab, Khafajah, and Ur (Frankfort, Sculpture of the Third Millennium B.C. (O.I.P. XLIV [1939]). pp. 44–7Google Scholar; More Sculptures from the Diyala Region, O.I.P. LX [1943]), pp. 14–16, pls. 60, 65-7Google Scholar. The pre-Urnanshe foundation figurines were the only ones which were stuck into a hole in the tablet.
page 170 note 7 Woolley, , Ur Excavations II. The Royal Cemetery, pp. 274–8, pls. 95-6Google Scholar; Unger, , Spiel und Spielzug: D: Vorderasien: R.L.V. XII, pp. 346–7Google Scholar.
page 171 note 1 Riemschneider, op. cit., pp. 158-211.
page 171 note 2 Ibid., pp. 184, 185, 187.
page 171 note 3 Ibid., pp. 161, 166.
page 171 note 4 Ibid., pp. 188-9, 205.
page 171 note 5 Ibid., pp. 190-1, fig. 58.
page 171 note 6 Ibid., pp. 174-5, 185-6, 195 (C.T. XXXVI, 28: 13, 39: 6-20; S.T.V.C. 46, II: 9-11; S.R.T. VIII: 25–6Google Scholar).
page 171 note 7 Riemschneider, op. cit., pp. 182-5; Kramer, , Inanna's Descent to the Nether World: R.A. XXXIV, pp. 93ff.Google Scholar; Falkenstein, , A.f.O. XIV, pp. 113–38Google Scholar.
page 172 note 1 Woolley, , Ur Excavations II. The Royal Cemetery, 274, 277–9. pls. 96, 98, 221Google Scholar.
page 172 note 2 Buren, Van, The Seven Dots in Mesopotamian Art and their Meaning: A.f.O. XIII, pp. 277–89Google Scholar: Symbols of the Gods, pp. 74-82; Haldar, , Orientalia Suecana I (1952), pp. 62–3Google Scholar.
page 173 note 1 Mallowan, , Iraq IX, Pt. 2, p. 153Google Scholar; pl. LI, Nos. 43. 44.
page 173 note 2 Ibid., pl. LI, Nos. 19-21, 42.
page 173 note 3 Ibid., p. 156.
page 173 note 4 Ibid., pp. 32, 156, 209.
page 174 note 1 Buren, Van, Symbols of the Gods, pp. 115–19Google Scholar.
page 174 note 2 Parrot, I.L.N. No. 16017, Aug. 14, 1954, p. 259, fig. 3; Syria XXXI, p. 153Google Scholar; pl. XV, I (M 2734).
page 174 note 3 M.D.P. XIII, pp. 154–5, No. 372, fig. 177Google Scholar; Contenau, , Manuel d'Archéologie Orientale I, p. 328, fig. 235Google Scholar.
page 174 note 4 B.M.Q. III, pp. 40–1, pl. XXII, a, bGoogle Scholar; Amtl. Berichte, LI, pp. 2–4, figs. 3-6Google Scholar; Contenau, , Antiquités Orientales I, p. 11, pl. 6Google Scholar; Basmadschi, , Sumer VI, pp. 168, 171, pls. I, 2, III, 2Google Scholar.
page 174 note 5 Ur Excavations II, pl. 215, No. 364; Ménant, , Cat. Coll. de Clercq I, pl. XVI, No. 143Google Scholar; Fischer, und Wiedmann, , Babyl. Talismane, p. 14, pl. II, No. 14Google Scholar; B.M. 89771; Speleers, , Cat. des Intailles, pp. 125–6, No. 590Google Scholar; Potada, The Morgan Library Coll.: Corpus I, pl. XXXI, No. 202; Buren, Van, The Flowing Vase, pp. 36–9, figs. 9, 10Google Scholar.
page 175 note 1 Ziegler, M.D.O.G. No. 82, p. 14, fig. 12; p. 198, fig. 12; Dussaud, , Ancient Bronzes du Luristan: Syria XXVI, p. 198, fig. 1Google Scholar.
page 175 note 2 p 165.