Part IX

It may be accidental that in the sculptures in basrelief of the later periods we do not encounter the same degree of perfection. In view of the many and large gaps in our material for tracing the development of Babylonian art, it is rather hazardous to draw conclusions, but it ought not to occasion surprise that after a period of strong art activity a reaction through some cause or the other should have set in.

Comparing the stele of Naram-Sin with the sculptured design at the head of the famous Code of Hammurapi ^[1] (c. 2123-2081 B.C.), one cannot help being struck by the stiffness and conventionality of the figures of both the god and the king on this diorite block, in contrast to the ease and grace of the earlier period. Hammurapi is standing in an attitude of adoration before Shamash, the sun-god, who as the god of justice is symbolized as the ultimate source of the laws compiled in the code.

There is, to be sure, an attempt to reproduce the features and the general expression on the face of the king, as may be seen from a comparison with another bas-relief of Hammurapi which we are fortunate enough to possess. In so far the art of the second millennium continues the traditions of the past, and perhaps may even have improved upon them, but the figures are lifeless. The feet are reproduced in the usual conventional position.

We also have a representation of the seated sun-god, dating from the middle of the tenth century, and showing that in the interval of more than a millennium, there had been no conspicuous change or improvement in the artistic representation of the gods and of the human figure in general. (See PI. 10.)

Turning to sculpture in the round, it is natural in view of the greater difficulties involved to find the Sumerians and Babylonians so hampered by conventionalism that there is very little progress to be noted in a comparison of the oldest with later specimens.

One of the oldest is the statue of a king of Adab, found in the course of excavations on that site and which is now preserved in the Ottoman Museum at Constantinople. The stone is hard marble, and the statue is noticeable for its weight, which is about two hundred pounds. The upper part of the figure is naked, and there is a total absence of any attempt to show the muscles of the body. The arms are attached to the stone, though less closely than in some other specimens. The head is clean ehaven, the eye-sockets are hollow, with indications however that they were once inlaid probably with ivory. This in itself shows the limitations of the art which does not attempt to reproduce the individual features, but contents itself with general and more or less conventionalized traits.

In comparing this with another figure which may be somewhat earlier, it will be noted that in the latter there is no attempt to reproduce the dress, that the arms are closely attached to the body and that the feet are merely indicated and are united to the pedestal. In these three respects, therefore, the sculpture in the round passes through a stage of progressive development, and the statue of the king of Adab shows us how the artists of Babylonia gradually overcame some of the difficulties which they encountered (see Plate XXII, Fig. 1 ; Plate XXIV, Pig. 1).

The treatment of the hair appears to have occasioned special difficulties in this class of sculptures. Ordinarily, the Sumerian artist contented himself in the case of male figures with leaving the hair out entirely, which is natural since the Sumerians were beardless and may at a certain period have had the custom of also shaving the hair of the head. Occasionally, however, the endeavor is made to show the hair, as in the case of the statue of the Sumerian official above discussed, which, though cruder than that of the king of Adab, is redeemed to a certain degree by this feature.

PLATE LI

Fig. 1, Diorite statue of a woman

Fig. 2, Dog, as votive offering

As a result of the growing prominence of the Semites, greater attention was paid to both hair and beard, since the Semites were bearded and wore their hair long. We have from Bismya, which yielded the statue of Lugal-daudu, a splendid specimen of the early portraiture of a Semite. The material is alabaster. While the strands of the beard are not indicated, nevertheless the general effect is pleasing and rather graceful. No doubt this is in part due to the good drawing of the head, the strong characteristic nose, the forehead and the vigor of the eye, although the eye-sockets are as usual hollow.

The statue of an early Semitic ruler, Manishtusu, (c. 2600 B.C.), found in the course of the excavations at Susa, shows that the more careful representation of the beard was within the scope of the older Sumerian or Babylonian artists. ^[2]

One can see also more of an attempt to reproduce personal features, such as the firm mouth and the broad nose. The portrayal of women, whose headdress at all times formed an important part of their toilet, acted as a further incentive to artists to perfect a method of representing the hair in a natural manner. We find this in the case of two heads that have come down to us from the earliest period, showing the hair carefully hanging in tresses that cover the ears and held back by a fillet.

Nothing could be more charming and more graceful than the seated figure with her long hair falling in beautiful strands down her back, and the details of the closely fitting dress so carefully reproduced. Only in the arms closely attached to the body do we see the limitations of this early art. The most remarkable specimens of sculpture in the round that have come down to us from ancient Babylonia are the diorite statues from the days of Gudea. The king set up a large number of such statues of himself of which some are in sitting and others in standing posture. ^[3]

Considering the hardness of the material, which was imported by Gudea from a great distance, it is surprising to see how gracefully the garments fall over the body, and the degree of perfection reached in representing the muscles of the arms and shoulders, and the lines of the neck and breast. The clasped hands, no longer clinging to the body, are admirably executed. In the case of the feet of the standing statues, however, the artist betrays his inability to detach them from the background, and which gives to them a very awkward appearance.

On the other hand, in the case of the seated statues the artist has overcome the difficulty and shows the feet free from the pedestal and from the background. Ten such statues were found, all decapitated, but through recent finds, one statue can now be completed, and we have in addition to this head fitting on the statue several other heads of diorite which enable us to form a very satisfactory idea of the modelling of the human features out of this hard stone. As was to be expected the expression is somewhat blank. The cheek bones and chin are admirably modelled ; the eyes are large and represented as wide open and with heavy eyebrows.

Presumably, the hard substance prevented the artist from making the eye-sockets hollow as in the case of statues sculptured out of a softer stone, but there is a distinct artistic gain in thus avoiding the temptation to insert pupils of ivory or of some other substance. The turban relieves the artist of the necessity of treating the hair, but we are fortunate in having a statuette of a woman, carved out of this hard substance and belonging to the period of Gudea, from which we see how the artist overcame this difficulty to a certain extent. Here the arrangement of the hair is indicated by the curls held in place by a fillet, while the hair falls in a thick mass in the back.

PLATE LII

Fig. 1, 2, and 3, Heads of Lions

The artist evidently could not go as far as in the case of the two figures above discussed, but on the whole the effect is pleasing. We may note in this figure also the skill of the artist in giving a feminine expression to the unusually regular features, and the rather elaborate dress which is admirably reproduced. The proportion of the head to the body is also correct, in contrast to the completed statue of Gudea where the head is out of proportion to the short and thick-set body, which gives the ruler almost the appearance of a dwarf.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

See illustration above, PI. 34 ; and for the other portrait of Hammurapi, Jastrow, Bttdermappe zwr Babylonisch-Assyrischen Religion, No. 5. .

[2]:

Above, Plate XXIII, Fig. 2 ; for the head of a Semite (found at Bismya) Plate XXII, Pig. 2.

[3]:

The standing ones measuring 1.10 to 1.58 metres; the sitting ones 77 to 93 centimetres. See above, Plate XIII and Decouvertes en Citaldee, PI. 7-20.