Category Archives: IRAQ

War and Peace of Ur

During my several months’ stay in London, one of the sites I visited most frequently was undoubtedly the British Museum. Apart from contemporary exhibitions, the entrance to the Museum is free of charge so it would be a pity to miss it, especially for someone who loves wandering around ancient artifacts. As a museums expert, Amaya (2017) advises, an average amount of time spent in a museum should be no more than around 90 minutes, as a human brain can focus only during this period and then it simply needs a break. If it is not possible to come back to the museum later, it is essential to have intervals between particular display units and drink water for a better concentration (Ibid.).

“5 tips to enjoy a no hassle museum visit”. In: Museums Made Easy by Amaya (2017).

I usually stay longer in a museum when we have just one day for a huge exhibition during a study trip, as it was in Mexico. In London or Paris, it was easier as I could come back to the museums during my longer stay in the cities.

Room 56

Ones of the oldest objects preserved by the British Museum come from the display units dedicated to Mesopotamia (6000–1500 BC), which is the so-called cradle of human civilization (The British Museum 2020). To get there, I needed to climb up to the upper floor, where the Rooms 55 and 56 are located, within the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Gallery (Rooms 53-59) (Ibid.). Of my particular interest was especially the Room 56, as it displays very important artifacts unearthed in the early twentieth century at the Royal Cemetery at Ur, in southern Iraq (Ibid.). The collection includes jewellery, pottery and musical instruments that were excavated by one of the greatest British archaeologist, Sir Charles Leonard Woolley (Ibid.).

The lionheaded eagle, called Imdugud in Sumerian. It seems to have been especially associated with the city-state of Lagash and with its chief deity, Ningirsu. Here it is surmounting a lintel made from sheets of copper, Temple of Ninhursag at Tell al-Ubagid, Iraq, c. 2500 BC. Room 56 in the British Museum.

For a while I was found on my own in the Room, accompanied by all these remarkable objects, yet under the surveillance of the divine Sumerian lion-headed eagle, looking down at me from the panel hanging above the entrance door. Finally, I could take a closer look of the burial goods, without any need of waiting in a queue to stand directly in front of the display window. They are placed among other artifacts from the region, “[illustrating] economic success based on agriculture, the invention of writing, developments in technology and artistry, and other achievements of the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians who lived in Mesopotamia at this time” (The British Museum 2020). Yet many of their aspects are still shrouded in mystery as much as the culture who created them.

Standard of Ur is catching visitors’ attention by its intensively vivid colours. The British Museum, Room 56.

My attention was suddenly caught by vibrant colours of the triangular object, which was calling me behind the glass. Today, it is just an archaeological reconstruction of its once crushed remains, unearthed in such a state that it is only a best guess how the object was originally shaped (McDonald 2013; The British Museum 2015). Nevertheless, it has been labelled as a standard, the Standard of Ur (Ibid.).

Mound of Pitch

The land of ancient Mesopotamia lay across the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in what is today Iraq and Syria (Wakely 1999). It has always been a flat desolate land made green by rivers’ canals and marshes (Ibid.). Yet from this unpromising landscape arouse the foundation of the ancient civilisation, including the world’s first cities and the earliest known writing system (Ibid.). Southern Mesopotamia was settled already by the seventh millennium BC. (Ibid.). By the second half of the third millennium, it was divided into twenty or thirty city-states that controlled the smallest towns and villages dispersed across the countryside (Ibid.). Shifting alliances among competing city-states brought conflicts often over water and even war to the city’s walls (Ibid.).

William Loftus’s sketch of his discovery of the ziggurat, in 1850. Source “Ziggurta of Ur” (2020) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Some objects on display in the Room 56 of the British Museum tell a story about Ur, one of the ancient southern Mesopotamian city-states (Wakely 1999; McDonald 2013). The site is also known as the cradle of civilization (Ibid.) as “[archaeologists] have discovered there the evidence of an early [settlement] during the [so-called] Ubaid Period (ca. 6500 to 3800 BC)” (“Ur” 2020). Its name also appears in the Book of Genesis as the home of the biblical patriarch, Abraham (Genesis 11:29-32), and the region itself is referred to as the location of the Garden of Eden (Wakely 1999; McDonald 2013). “The further occupation of Ur only becomes clear during its emergence in the third millennium BC, although it must already have been a growing urban center during the fourth millennium” (“Ur” 2020), around 3 800 BC (Wakely 1999; McDonald 2013). It was equally among the most powerful and prosperous (Wakely 1999). Although the city-state of Uruk was one of the earliest and most prominent cities by this time, in the early third millennium BC., the temple dominated city-state of Ur emerged as one of the most important cities in the new stage of the development of human society and states (McDonald 2013). The modern name of the ancient Ur is Tell el-Muqayyar, which in Arabic means a mound of pitch (Wakely 1999). The name comes from the monumental temple tower, which was made of baked mud bricks set in the bitumen or pitch, a naturally occurring form of tar (Ibid.).

Ziggurat of Ur

In 1922, under the leadership of a little known young archaeologist, Charles Leonard Woolley, excavations jointly sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and the British Museum were initiated at the site of ancient Ur (Wakely 1999; McDonald 2013). The decision to excavate proved to be a prominent one (Wakely 1999).

Woolley Photo of the Ziggurat of Ur with workers Ziggurat of Ur, c. 2100 BC., Woolley excavation workers (Tell el-Mukayyar, Iraq). Source: German (2014). Khan Academy.

One of the most important part of the ancient city of Ur turned out to be the temple complex of the Moon god Nanna, at the centre of which was a ziggurat: a series of stepped terraces with a temple on top (Wakely 1999). “The remains of the ziggurat were first discovered by William Loftus in 1850” (“Ziggurat of Ur” 2020), during the first excavations at the site, conducted by a British consul at Basra, John George Taylor (Wakely 1999; “Ziggurat of Ur” 2020). The excavations at the mound in 1854 uncovered inscribed cylinders, which recorded rebuilding of the temple tower by the Babylonian king, Nabonidus (around sixth century BC.), who was the successor of the famous Nebuchadnezzar (Ibid.).

Ziggurat of Ur, c. 2100 B.C.E. mud brick and baked brick, Tell el-Mukayyar, Iraq (largely reconstructed). Source: German (2014) Khan Academy.

The ziggurat was excavated further by Woolley who managed to uncover its older layers. The core of the huge pyramidal tower was made of packed mud bricks, whereas the outside of the monument was constructed of baked mud bricks, jointed together with bitumen or pitch (Wakely 1999) Many of the bricks have had a stamped inscription with the name of the founder of the third dynasty of Ur, Ur-Nammu, who ruled there over four thousand years ago (Ibid.). Woolley’s recovery of Ur’s ancient ziggurat and the complex of buildings around it was a remarkable find but it paled in a comparison with his discoveries of the so-called Royal Tombs (Ibid.).

The ‘gold trench’

In 1923, Woolley discovered a whole cache of opulent graves in a trench near the ruins of the ziggurat of Ur (McDonald 2013; Ḏḥwty 2017). The archaeologist, “however, decided to halt the excavation [there], as he was aware that neither he nor his men were experienced enough to excavate burials. Hence, Woolley concentrated on excavating buildings, before returning to the [trench] in 1926, [where his] workmen discovered evidence of burials and jewellery of gold and precious stones, leading to it being called the ‘gold trench’” (Ḏḥwty 2017; see Wakely 1999). Excavated burials were so rich that they competed only with Howard Carter’s discovery of the intact tomb of the boy pharaoh, Tutankhamun, unearthed earlier in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt, in 1922 (Wakely 1999; McDonald 2013).  

A reconstruction of the great death pit burial scene. Notice the two musicians holding lyres just beyond the oxen. (Originally appeared in the Illustrated London News, 23 June 1928). Source: McTague (1999–2020) Live of Ur.

Ur’s discoveries are noteworthy not just for their contents but for the location of the dig (McDonald 2013). The tombs discovered in Ur seemed to date from about 2 550 BC. (Wakely 1999; McDonald 2013). It means the cemetery appeared around fifty years after the reign of Gilgamesh, the legendary king of Uruk (2800 – 2600 BC; see Gibbor in the Louvre). Some tombs of Ur were full of gold and silver jewellery and objects as well as colourful and spectacular grave goods (McDonald 2013). The archaeologists discovered things that had never been seen before: wonderous musical instruments, gold headdresses, a golden ostrich egg, weapons and even inlaid gameboards (Ibid.). What was even more fascinating about them was the fact some contained possibly deliberate human sacrifices as a part of burial rituals (McDonald 2013; Amaya March, 2017).

Public secret

At the early stage of excavations, in 1928, Woolley wanted to keep his breath-taking discovery secret (McDonald 2013). Therefore, he sent his telegram announcing the news in Latin to make it understandable only to his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania Museum (Ibid.). When the news finally reached the public and press in London and New York, it created a high sensation (Ibid.). The New York Times and an Illustrated London News wrote articles recounting the marvels discovered (Ibid.). The Illustrated London News even published an artist’s drawing recreating the moments before the people in the great death pit had met their deaths (Ibid.).

Agatha Christie with husband Max Mallowan (left) and lead archaeologist Leonard Woolley at Ur, southern Iraq, in 1931. Photograph: British Museum. Source: Jongh (2014) The Guardian.

The 1920s and early 30s of the same century are a golden age of archaeological discoveries and the public is fascinated by all the details (Wakely 1999; McDonald 2013). Perhaps no excavation in more than one hundred and fifty years of archaeological working in Mesopotamia had excited as much worldwide interest as Woolley’s work in ancient Ur (Wakely 1999). As a result of extensive publicity, tours from all parts of the globe, including European royalty and the famous crime novelist, Agatha Christie, flocked to the remote site in the Iraqi desert (Ibid.). Christie came to Iraq after her devastating divorce and met there her future husband, who was Woolley’s colleague and assistant from the dig, Max Mallowan (McDonald 2013; National Geographic 2019). Her stay at the site during excavations was also the perfect remedy; she lost her heart for the ancient site of Ur and so she even set her another story of mystery murder in Mesopotamia, at an archaeological dig that resembled that one (McDonald 2013; National Geographic 2019; JOM 2020). Later she recalled it by writing (National Geographic 2019):

I fell in love with Ur, with its beauty in the evenings, the ziggurat standing up, faintly shadowed, and that wide sea of sand with its lovely pale colors of apricot, blue and mauve, changing every minute. I enjoyed the workmen, the foremen, the little basket boys, the pick men—the whole technique and life. The lure of the past came to grab me. To see a dagger slowly appearing with its gold glint, through the sand was romantic. The carefulness of lifting pots and objects from the soil filled me with a longing to be an archaeologist myself.

Agatha Christie on Ur. In: National Geographic (2019).

Royal tombs and resourceful researcher

Between 1927 and 1934, Woolley uncovered 1 850 tombs in Ur (Wakely 1999). “The cemetery was used between about 2600-2000 BC and hundreds of burials were made in pits” (The British Museum 2015). Sixteen (or seventeen) tombs dated to the mid-third millennium stood apart from the others; each contained an extraordinary wealth of artifacts and evidence of human sacrifices (Wakely 1999; Amaya March, 2017).

Leonard Woolley holding the noted excavated Sumerian Queen’s Lyre, 1922. Source: Ḏḥwty (2017). Ancient Origins.

Woolley called them Royal Tombs because he assumed they contained Ur’s deceased kings (Wakely 1999). Yet, he recognised considerable variations between them (Ibid.). The archaeologist’s skills also proved equal to his task; he turned out to be an imaginative and resourceful researcher under very difficult circumstances (McDonald 2013). First of all, he knew how to rescue objects of art that seemed lost to time like the wooden sound boxes of the lyres that long ago rotted wet (Ibid.; see Wakely 1999). In order to save them, he poured wet plaster into the holes created by the decayed wood and carefully brushed the dirt aside to reveal the plaster form of a lost article (Ibid.; see Wakely 1999).

Object from the Tomb PG 779

A particular mosaic covered object was discovered in the Tomb PG 779, one of the largest graves in the Royal Cemetery at Ur (McDonald 2013; The British Museum 2015). Already in ancient times, “[robbers] had thoroughly plundered the tomb in which [the artifact] was found. As one corner of the last chamber […] was being cleared, a workman accidentally spotted a piece of shell inlay, and from this starting point, the remains of the [mosaic object] were slowly revealed and reconstructed” (JOM 2020).  When the artifact was found, its original wood had already rotted away but the remains of an elaborate design created by a multicoloured mosaic were preserved (McDonald 2013; Sailus 2003-2020). As the object was decayed, “the two main panels had been crushed together by the weight of the soil [of the collapsed tomb. Moreover], the bitumen acting as glue had disintegrated and the end panels were [also] broken” (The British Museum 2015). So these were only “the mosaic pieces that had kept [in place the whole] form [of the previously wooden skeleton]” (JOM 2020). This is why the object required Woolley’s special attention (McDonald 2013).

Plan of grave PG 779, thought to belong to Ur-Pablisag (1900). The Standard of Ur was located in “S”. Source: “Standard of Ur” (2020). Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Like in the case of other excavated artifacts, “[the archaeologist] looked for hollows in the ground created by [the] decayed object and then filled them with plaster or wax to record the shape of the [material] that had once filled [it. Woolley] carefully uncovered small sections measuring about 3 square centimetres and covered them with wax, enabling the mosaics to be lifted while maintaining their original designs” (JOM 2020). Due to reconstructing efforts, the remains found in the Tomb PG 779 have eventually become a 21.59×49.53-centimetre hollow wooden box in the shape of a trapezoid, covered in original colourful mosaics (McDonald 2013; The British Museum 2015; JOM 2020).

But what was it?

As the artifact was found “lying in the corner of a chamber above the right shoulder of a [ritually sacrificed] man” (The British Museum 2015), Woolley imagined that it had once been supported on a pole and borne by the deceased (Ibid.). The archaeologist reasoned such a possibility because of the object’s position along the dead (McDonald 2013). Accordingly, it may have been carried as a standard in war, aloft on a pole in order to identify a military unit (Ibid.). “Another theory suggests, [however], that it once formed the soundbox of a musical instrument” (The British Museum 2015) or was a part of furniture or else served as a box used to hold civic funds (Sailus 2003-2020). The fact is, however, that nothing like it has been known then or since (McDonald 2013).

Peace (detail), The Standard of Ur, 2600-2400 B.C.E., shell, red limestone, lapis lazuli, and bitumen (original wood no longer exists), 21.59 x 49.53 x 12 cm, Ur © Trustees of the British Museum. Source: The British Museum (2015).

Today this mysterious object is known as the Royal Standard of Ur and it proves to be the most informative, beautiful and enigmatic of all (McDonald 2013). In such a way, Woolley also describes the artifact in his letter (Ibid.). However, no one knows whether the so-called Royal Standard of Ur is a standard or even royal and our knowledge of the royal cemetery is not much greater than it was known from Woolley’s excavations (Ibid.). Scholars assume, however, that modern understanding of the symbolism of early Sumerian society has been improved since the beginning of the twentieth century, and so interpretation of the figures and actions shown on the objects discovered in the cemetery of Ur is much more nuanced and clear (Ibid.). Yet, any interpretation is still speculating and there are more theories than evidence.

Stylistic Conventions

Rendering of the depicted figures on the Standard, both human and animal, is very characteristic of Sumerian stylistic conventions (Feinblatt, Cornelius 2012). Almost all the characters are illustrated in a perfect profile (Ibid.). Accordingly, only one eye is visible (Ibid.). However, it is not directed forward but rather looking outside (Ibid.). By these means, it seems to be depicted in the form of a frontally seen eye but just on the side of the face, like it is present in the Egyptian art  (Ibid.). The human shoulders are squared, as if presented frontally, whereas the feet are again depicted in profile, as if one after the other, which evokes movement  (Ibid.).

The animals’ figures are superimposed; the four are walking one beside the other, and the outlines of the three animals are visible behind the one at the front, so their number overlapping (McDonald 2013). This artistic technique of overlapping gives a sense of depth, which today results from the use of perspective (Ibid.).

Conventional interpretation

The original Warka or Uruk Vase, dated to
c. 3200–3000 BC. National Museum of Uruk.
Source: “Warka Vase” (2020) In: Wikipedia.
The Free Encyclopedia.
 

The Standard of Ur, whose function is still shrouded in mystery, is said to tell more about powerful rulers of Ur and a great deal about life in early Sumerian society than almost any other artifact that was discovered from ancient Sumer (McDonald 2013).

The box-like sculpture inlaid with colourful mosaics shows scenes of both, warfare and festivals, with a ruler in their center (McDonald 2013). Accordingly, the prevailing subjects depicted on the Standard are a successful military campaign led by the ruler and the abundance of the land which assures fertility for its people (Ibid.). In some aspects, the Standard of Ur repeats themes from the Uruk vase, known also as the Warka vase (McDonald 2013; “Warka vase” 2020). Even though the vase comes from centuries earlier than the Standard itself, it shows a parallel artistic composition and probably gives a similar message (McDonald 2013).

War and Peace

From the reconstructed Standard of Ur, it can be observed that the box itself consists of two panels, which slope together towards the top and two end pieces, which are triangular but cut off at the top (McDonald 2013). All the four sides of the Standard are covered in three registers of mosaics (Ibid.). The inlaid pieces consist of lapis lazuli, shell and red marble (limestone) set into bitumen, which is a sticky oil-by product found in Iraq (Ibid.). Conventionally, the two large sides have been called War and Peace because one side is organised around a depiction of a military campaign, whereas the other illustrates the banquet and files of people and animals (Ibid.). “For those who believe the Standard depicts an historical account of an actual event, the ‘War’ side is the chronological beginning” (Sailus 2003-2020).

Dr Diana McDonald (2013), however, believes that these panels of inlay tell principally about the dual role of a Sumerian ruler controlling a city-state and about a Sumerian society at the time around 2 550 BC. Back in time, when Sumerian city-states first began to coalesce and population pressures made resources of water and food, which was scarce in this arid land, a ruler or king had a special obligation to and role for his people; he was expected to be a leader at war and a commander-in-chief (Ibid.).

Royal entourage

The so-called War Side of the Standard of Ur shows three registers of battle scenes with the earliest representations of a Sumerian army and the aftermath of the fight (McDonald 2013; The British Museum 2015). All the scenes are colourfully illustrated in pieces of red limestone, shell and lapis inlays (McDonald 2013).

War side of the Standard of Ur. Detail from the top register. The ruler as a larger figure among his entourage. Photo by Steven Zucker. Source: The British Museum (2015).

Action seems to begin (likewise on the Uruk vase) at the bottom register (McDonald 2013). The top register shows that all the action leads up from down to the most important figure, depicted at the very top and in the centre (Ibid.). It stands turned to the right, represented in profile. Although the figure is a human-looking being, it is much broader and taller than all the others shown in the register (Ibid.). His head actually pierces the pictorial frame intended for the panel (Ibid.). This outsized man holds what appears to be a staff or a spear and faces a group of men, probably some prisoners who approach him (Ibid.). Among them, there are the men clothed in kilt like skirts with scalloped edges are wearing sheep skins and they are apparently the soldiers (Ibid.).

War side of the Standard of Ur. Detail from the top register. War captives led by soldiers to the ruler. Photo by Steven Zucker. Source: The British Museum (2015).

Differently looking men shown between them are apparently war captives (McDonald 2013). They “are portrayed as naked, bound, and injured with large, bleeding gashes on their chests and thighs” (JOM 2020). The soldiers could have captured them in a battle and they are being presented now to the ruler (McDonald 2013). The poorly looking enemies strikingly contrast with the majestic figures of the ruler and his people, which should be also understood symbolically: the victory is on the side of Ur due to its overwhelming power (Amaya March, 2017).

King’s mounts

Behind the king, to the left of the centre in the top register, there is also his battle wagon and members of the royal entourage or other soldiers with staffs (McDonald 2013).

War side of the Standard of Ur. Detail from the bottom register. One of the royal war wagons. The Photo by Steven Zucker. Source: The British Museum (2015).

The battle wagon is a fairly large and unwieldy looking vehicle (McDonald 2013). It is known, and accordingly represented, that the wagon’s blocky looking wheels were made of two pieces of wood as spoked wheels had not been invented yet (Ibid.). There is also the driver holding the reins and standing behind the vehicle (Ibid.). Horses had not been yet imported to the area so the wagon is probably driven by four asses or onagers (Ibid.). The latter was a kind of wild ass that is now extinct but was originally native to Mesopotamia (Ibid.). Some scholars think that the Sumerians actually interbred the two animals to produce an onager ass hybrid, which was easier to control and stronger than either one (Ibid.). Their tails look long and tufted at the end like an ass or a donkey’s (Ibid.). Such details reveal the ingenuity and technological capability of these people in the beginning of the third millennium BC.; they were domesticating and taming animals, creating vehicles and working on the sophisticated metal technology which allowed the wagons to be yoked to the animals (Ibid.).

In the second register, in the middle, there is a scene of warfare, showing the Sumerian infantry, carrying spears (McDonald 2013). At the left, there is a disciplined phalanxof soldiers, who are wearing some kind of protective clothing, probably a leather armour and helmets (Feinblatt, Cornelius 2012; McDonald 2013). The infantry faces a group on the right consisting of soldiers who are killing or leading off enemy prisoners (McDonald 2013). The latter are either “killed with axes [or] paraded naked [as those above] presented to the king” (The British Museum 2015). It means that the middle register depicts the battle itself (McDonald 2013), which is already shown as a decisive victory of the Standard’s owner.

Battle wagons

On the lowest register, there is the force of battle wagons (McDonald 2013). While some historians believe it to be a depiction of the Sumerian [‘chariot’] attack, others think it is the post-battle procession, [with the ruler’s wagon in front] leading the army back to Ur” (Sailus 2003-2020). If the last interpretation is real, however, the whole sequence of the register should be read from up down, and not the other way round as it is generally assumed.

The depicted vehicles are presumably early forerunners of chariots as they are bulkier and less flexible versions of equid-drawn that are horse-drawn vehicles (McDonald 2013). The line of battle wagons begins at the left with a vehicle, which is drawn by four of these asses or onagers (Ibid.).

Standard of Ur, ca. 2 550 BC. War panel, detail. The illustration of the battle wagons in the bottom register are showing the movement speeding up from left to right. The British Museum; Room 56. Source: “Standard of Ur” (2020). Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

In the back of the wagon, there is a warrior and inside it a driver holds the reins, which pass over the high front of the vehicle and then through what is called a terret or a rein ring, and which was yoked to the animals, which have got nose rings (McDonald 2013). The metal bit had not yet been invented at that time (Ibid.). In this way, all these carefully rendered scenes show a detailed account of transportation technology of the Sumerians (Ibid.).

Pictures in motion

There is also the use of the narrative in the quickening pace of the lower register (McDonald 2013).

War side of the Standard of Ur. Detail from the bottom register. One of the royal war wagons trampling the enemies. The Photo by Steven Zucker. Source: The British Museum (2015).

By observing the next wagon to the right, it is really easy to get the impression that the asses have picked up a bit of speed and their gait is now a canter (McDonald 2013). The animals’ legs are farther apart, stretched in galloping, whereas in the space between them, lies a prostrate figure of a nude dead enemy (Ibid.). The rhythm picks up again with the next two groups of speeding animals and trampling the enemies (McDonald 2013; The British Museum 2015). While one group of mounts is galloping, the last appears to be already in a flying gallop (McDonald 2013). The picking up of speed in these register scenes is a possibly new invention in art (Ibid.). Much later it was applied most notably in the Greek Parthenon frieze, with the huge marble sculpture of a procession with horses that pulses with speed towards the central scene (Ibid.).

Rhythm and hierarchy

The so-called Ram in a Thicket, which was also found among the burial goods from Ur and is today on display just beside the Standard. The same image also occurs on many other Sumerian objects and is probably symbolic of Sumer. the British Museum; Room 56.

The other notable aspect of the way the mosaic has been created is a rhythmic pattern, not just of the individual groups, who vary between active and static poses, but also in bright colours of lapis lazuli and red limestone (McDonald 2013). And this rhythmic pattern of colours punctuates the scenes in a pleasing and sophisticated design (Ibid.). Also, the whole design is hierarchical from bottom to top in scale and in placement; it underlines and attests the dominance and leadership of a powerful ruler (Ibid.). He is portrayed as victorious and is set triumphantly amidst and atop the battle, which is complete with his prisoners dead and the nude enemies at the very bottom below the galloping animals (Ibid.).

Religious banquet?

The other side of the Standard of Ur shows a completely different aspect of the Sumerian leadership (McDonald 2013). This side which was often referred to as Peace, has also been called victory but its meaning is perhaps much broader than either name evokes (Ibid.).

This side depicts a big banquet at the very top register (McDonald 2013). It could perhaps be a cultic banquet with some religious significance but it is also interpreted as a victory feast (Ibid.). The latter is a theory proposed by scholars “who believe the Standard portrays an actual event” (Sailus 2003-2020).

Standard of Ur. Sumerian artwork, ca. 2250 BC. From tomb 779 Ur. British Museum. Detail. By Michel Wal. Source: “Standard of Ur” (2020). Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

The ruler is again the largest figure of all in the topmost part of the panel but this time he is seated at the left with his six bald men facing him as they lift their cups (McDonald 2013). He is also holding a cup and is naked above the waist (Ibid.). He is wearing a fleecy garment or fringed skirt, is bald and sits on a stool with some animal-like legs (Ibid.). It could be a gazelle or a hoof of a similar animal (Ibid.). The slightly smaller seated figures are wearing kilts with a fleecy border and are seated on similar stools as their ruler (Ibid.).

Similarly dressed, three or four other men (the upper-part of the fourth, on the left, is apparently missing) are standing near the ruler (McDonald 2013). They seemed to be attendants for the banquet (Ibid.). To the extreme right, there is a musician playing a lyre, which is similar to the elaborate inlaid bull lyres, which were actually found at the cemetery of Ur (Ibid.; see Wakely 1999). A figure with longer hair at the right of the musician has arms crossed as if singing (Ibid.). This may very well be the musicians for the banquet (Ibid.).

The bounty of land

Below, there are two registers of mostly bald men who guide different kinds of livestock and other goods as if to show the bounty of the land, as much as it is represented on the Uruk vase (McDonald 2013).

“Peace”, detail showing a lyrist and possibly a singer. “Standard of Ur” (2020). Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

In the second register, there are bald Sumerians wearing similar fleece bordered skirts as in the banquet scene and probably leading the animals of the land to the ruler depicted above (McDonald 2013). Animals are one of the most carefully and frequently represented subjects by the Sumerians, as much as by most of the early cultures of the Near East (Ibid.). After all, it is from them that the bounties of the land flow: meat, milk, cheese, wool, leather and even transportation (Ibid.). Also the cultivation of the earth for crops is made easier by the beast of burden, such as an ox (Ibid). Hence the procession of these precious animals led by people: the bull at the right, rams and sheep, and finally a cow and a goat (Ibid.). One bald figure in the middle also holds two large fishes in either hand (Ibid.). Such animals represent the bounty of the lands of Sumer, both marshes and cultivated pastures (Ibid.).

The last row of the side shows a slightly different procession of bounty (McDonald 2013). People depicted there are dressed differently and some bear burdens on their shoulders and backs while other lead asses by their nose rings (Ibid.). It is thought that these people must come from elsewhere, most likely from the north, the region later known as Akkad (Ibid.). Sumer and Akkad were linked as two regions of Mesopotamia and they both complemented each other in their produce and in their topography: marshes in desert versus hillier, more temperate regions in the north (Ibid.).

The same language

The two lower registers of the Peace side move in the opposite direction to the seated men depicted on top (McDonald 2013). By these means, a rhythm is set up (Ibid.). Assuming that the motion of the processions is from bottom to top, it would be again a hierarchical definition of the Sumerian society, where the largest and so the most significant figure is the ruler and just after him the ruler’s closest entourage, probably priests, who are smaller than their ruler but still larger than the banquet musicians and attendants (Feinblatt, Cornelius 2012; McDonald 2013).

Both techniques also appear in the registers of the Uruk vase and one message seems to be common to both artifacts: the bounty of the land prevails and the ruler holds sway over its productivity (McDonald 2013). On the Uruk vase, priests are depicted while making offering to Inanna on behalf of a ruler (Ibid.). Similarly, the banquet, which seems to be religious in nature on the Standard of Ur, positions the ruler at the top and he is receiving the bounty of the land, yet this time without the deity represented (Ibid.). In the object from Ur, however, the fertility theme is in a colourful inlay of shell, lapis lazuli and red limestone, as if it was a more fully realized, colorized version of the vase of Uruk, yet made several hundred years later (Ibid.). Accordingly, both objects show similar concerns : depicting the ruler in a ritual scene with the fertile products of his land display (Ibid.).

Historic events?

Providing that the Standard has recorded a historic event, some scholars interpret the bottom row of the Peace side as the procession of goods being the tribute brought in by the losing side in the battle, shown on the other side of the standard (McDonald 2013).

Standard of Ur, ca. 2550 BC. Peace panel;
the bottom register, detail. Gifts carried
to the ruler shown at the top. The British
Museum; Room 56. Source: “Standard
of Ur” (2020). Wikipedia. The Free
Encyclopedia.

Accordingly, “[the] feast [would have taken] place in commemoration of the preceding side’s military victory; [the] top row [would show] the king being feted and congratulated by his lords who are facing him, [whereas], the bottom two rows [would represent] the preparation of the feast by the common folk, who gather sacks of grain and livestock to be fed to the king and his lords” (Sailus 2003-2020). But there are also other interpretations, such as a recurring theme of the Sumerian leadership and its dual function (McDonald 2013).

Two sides of the kingship

The two sides of the Standard could actually be showing the two sides of the kingship itself: the role of the king as a leader in warfare and his religious role as a leader of his people in worship of the gods (McDonald 2013). He is the one responsible for providing that the fecundity of the land continues to feed his people (Ibid.). The ruler is positioned as a mediator to the deities; his actions and his prayers connect with the divine in order to support his people (Ibid.). So the ruler was not only the protector of his city in war conflict but also the one responsible for the very fertility of the land, which provided for his people (Ibid.).

War side of the Standard of Ur. Detail from the top and middle registers. The royal wagon, soldiers and infantry below. The Photo by Steven Zucker. Source: The British Museum (2015).

The two complementary sides of kingship, warrior and provider, are very clearly represented in Sumerian artworks (McDonald 2013). In fact, these aspects of kingship occur in artistic representations all over the world because they are the heart of the legitimacy of any ruler; they must defend their people and provide for them (Ibid.).

The Sumerians are by no means the only people who had such concerns and expectations for their rulers, and a theme of an offerings procession occurs in many contexts in art (McDonald 2013). Similar scenes occur later in Greek art, as in the mentioned above sculpture of Parthenon, where there are both martial and offering or fertility themes, all directed towards a goddess of the city that appears to coalesce (Ibid.).

Still a mystery

The actual usage of the standard of Ur still remains a mystery; the box like reconstruction does not seem to be ideal for a standard used in war (McDonald 2013). It is because its scenes were apparently meant to be seen up close and understood on a detailed level (Ibid.).

Cylinder seal of Pu-abi, ca. 2600 B.C., lapis lazuli, 4.9 x 2.6 cm, from Ur © Trustees of the British Museum. Source: The British Museum (2015).

Skilled craftsmen who knew how to communicate a message about the kingship and religion in the Sumerian state were engaged in telling a story that rolls out like a narrative, similar to the use of the comic book register, which is also observed in the cylinder seals of the period being very central to Sumerian tradition (McDonald 2013). Banquet scenes, like the one on the Standard of Ur, were also represented on such objects, for example the seal of the so-called Queen Puabi, which was also found in Ur and equally exposed in the British Museum (The British Museum 2015).

Fanciful scenes

Unlike major panels of the Standard, its end panels are usually neglected in detailed interpretations as they are thought to be only fanciful scenes, which were added by the artist merely as a lush decoration (Shukur 2018).

End panels on the Royal Standard of Ur. Source: Shukur (2018). In: Sumerian Shakespeare.

Some authors think that it is unlikely and the depictions on the shorter sides have got a deeper meaning and so deserve thorough explanations (Shukur 2018). As in the case of the longer sides of the Standard, both end panels are also divided into three registers but due to limited space, they depict just a few pictures in comparison to the long panels of War and Peace sides.

Heralds of failure or victory?

One of the end panels. Source: Shukur (2018). In: Sumerian Shakespeare.

The end panel to the left of the War side shows a ram in the top register; it is standing on its hint legs while “feeding on the high branches of a tree” (Shukur 2018). Such an image resembles a famous Sumerian sculpture, known as the Ram in a Thicket, which was also found among the burial goods from Ur and is today on display just beside the Standard. The same image also occurs on many other Sumerian objects (Ibid.) and “it seemed to be symbolic of Sumer itself” (Ibid.). On the other side of the tree, there is an incomplete representation of a creature with hooves and a tail, which can be a half-human hybrid typical of Sumerian mythology (Ibid.).

End panel; detail from the top register. Source: Shukur (2018). In: Sumerian Shakespeare.

In the middle register, there is the same ram but this time it is accompanied by a Sumerian man on the right, who “is making a ceremonial offering to the [animal]” (Shukur 2018). On the left, there is another figure, probably of an “Akkadian enemy in the angled-skirt” (Ibid.). He is probably holding a sort of weapon, whose blade seems to spear the ram’s body (Ibid.). At the bottom, the ram disappears as if killed by the enemy (Ibid.). But it has left its tree behind it. Now, it is flanked by two seated man-headed bulls, probably symbols of Sumer (Ibid.). Are these images metaphorical heralds of the coming war, depicted on the longer side of the Standard? (Ibid.).

On the other side, if the registers are read from down up, it would mean that the ram appears in the second register and is still present in the final scene, together with the opposite creature, which may be a key to the meaning of the whole story. If it is one of the man-headed bulls from the bottom, the scenes may announce the Sumerian victory.

From war to peaceful bounties of life

The other end panel. Source: Shukur (2018). In: Sumerian Shakespeare.

The opposite end panel also represents interesting, yet mysterious images. Starting from the bottom, there is possibly the same ram, which is now on top of a mountain or jumping over it. The mountain front can be also interpreted as a gate or door (Shukur 2018). It “is probably [also a] part of a locking mechanism by which the Standard could be attached or removed” (Ibid.). The middle register above shows in turn the ram (its horns are damaged and so are invisible) being chased by a leopard (Ibid.). Finally, the topmost scene represents “two flowering plants with the eight-pointed rosettes, […] symbolically important to the Sumerians” (Ibid.) Above, there may have been also a larger rosette (Ibid.). Unfortunately, now the uppermost image is erased.

As it seems, the two end panels complement each other by the imagery portrayed on them in the three successive registers. If the sequence of events is read from down up in both cases, the scenes of the both sides seem to correlate. The bottom pictures probably build a scenery of peace just before the war, whereas the two middle registers always show the ram in danger. Providing that the ram is identified with Sumer, such imagery may evoke some menace to the city-states, such as war. Nevertheless, the top registers reveal that Sumer has not only been saved but also turned out to be victorious; the ram feeding on a tree and flowering plants may imply an abundance of the land that has become even wealthier afterwards, as much as it is visible on the Peace side of the Standard.

The Standard’s story

But while the Standard does not reveal all its secrets it does tell a story about a society, which was full of hierarchy and wealth (McDonald 2013). Its trade routes reach far and wide to receive the luxury goods of lapis lazuli from Badakhshan, in Afghanistan, to the red marble or limestone, which may have come all the way from India (Ibid.).

The Standard of Ur, in the British Museum, Room 56. Photo by Denis Bourez from France – British Museum, London. Uploaded by SunOfErat. Source: “Standard of Ur” (2020). Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Elaborate mosaics must have been crafted by skilled artisans, which implies that a society that could support art and artists devoted only to that and fed by others had developed in Sumer (McDonald 2013). The artists’ skills were in turn directed towards the support of the elite, the king or ruler and his nobles (Ibid.). Rulers are depicted in art in such a way that their role above the others in the society must have been legitimatized; they were protectors of their people in warfare and bringers of peace, continuously acting as the conduit between fertility and human survival, and by extension, between the earthly world and heavens (Ibid.).

Treasures of the museums

As Sir Charles Leonard Woolley’ archaeological expedition was a joint effort between the University of Pennsylvania Museum and the British Museum in London, the objects uncovered by the excavators were in great part shipped off to new homes in those two museums (McDonald 2013). In fact, a great deal of archaeology of that time and earlier sought to recover fabulous treasures and then remove them from their native lands to the museums of their excavators (Ibid.).

A Street Scene at Ur in the Level of the Abrahamic Period (2000-1900 BC.). Postcard; printed; photograph showing archaeological excavations at Ur, with Arab workmen standing for scale in the excavated street of an early second millennium B.C.E. residential quarter © Trustees of the British Museum. Source: The British Museum (2015).

This is definitely something that does not happen nowadays (McDonald 2013). New moral standards, nationalism, pride and the better resources of art make such wholesale removal of what has been called the national patrimony no longer allowed (Ibid.). Moreover, archaeology as a discipline has changed throughout centuries (Ibid.). Most archaeologists do not seek to wrest the treasures from the ground to exhibit them in a museum far away as their trophies (Ibid.). Instead, they are intent on finding out more about the culture and the society that produced the excavated artifacts and with this objective it is possible to learn more (Ibid.). Objects that are excavated now usually stay in their countries in local museums or universities (Ibid.).

Lost national patrimony

As a matter of fact, the artifacts, which Woolley uncovered in his excavations in Ur were not only divided among the University of Pennsylvania Museum and the British Museum, but also were granted to the National Iraq Museum in Bagdad (Wakely 1999). Although some authors claim that only a small number of artifacts was left in Iraq (Ḏḥwty 2017), Neil McGregor, in The History of the World in 100 Objects (BBC Radio 4), says that “the Iraq Museum in Baghdad [actually] received the lion’s share of the Ur excavations” (Gerry 2010). Nevertheless, in 2003 some part of this unique treasure was looted and lost forever (Barker 2018). Exceptional artifacts from Woolley’s excavations in Ur, such as the bowl made of gold and lapis lazuli, have been stolen and never found (Ibid.). And although plundering museums and archaeological sites has been “regarded as one of the worst acts of cultural vandalism in modern times” (Ibid.), this crime has never stopped.

Gold and lapis bowl from Ur, Iraq Museum IM8272. Current status is unknown. Oriental Institute Lost Treasures from Iraq database. Source: Barker (2018).

Unfortunately, since 2003, “much more of Iraq’s rich cultural history has been destroyed, damaged or stolen […]. Indeed the illegal trade in looted antiquities is growing” (Barker 2018). McGregor says that “the looting of antiquities from the Baghdad Museum during the recent war in Iraq was felt very profoundly by the Iraqis […]; from the moment of discovery, there was a strong connection between Iraqi national identity and the antiquities of Ur. [It was because] the  discoveries at Ur [had] coincided with the early years of the modern state of Iraq, created after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. One of the focal points of that new state was the Iraq Museum in Baghdad […]. Mesopotamia’s past [has become] a key part of Iraq’s future. Archaeology and politics are set to remain closely connected as, tragically, are cities and warfare” (Gerry 2010).

Safe by all means

“The museum looting should have been a clarion call for the need for better protection of antiquities in conflict zones, both from combatants and local populations. Sadly, this has not been the case. There has been subsequent destruction of archaeological sites and museums in [Egypt], Syria and Libya, ISIS selling antiquities to finance weapons, and increases in thefts from both private and public collections and from archaeological sites […] The loss of these sites and artifacts is disastrous for humanity” (Barker 2018).

Ruins in the Town of Ur, southern Iraq, with the ziggurat in the background. CC by SA 2.0. Source: Ḏḥwty (2017). Ancient Origins.

This is also why there are fierce debates weather artifacts taken to overseas museums during colonialism should be returned to their countries of origin, especially when they keep facing unceasing social unrest and wars (Jenkins, Rodet, Stefanidis, Thomas 2019). Actually, there are as many different opinions as scholars (Ibid.). The problem is even more complex; although some authorities definitely agree that archaeological artifacts should be left in the country, where they were unearthed, the overriding matter that counts for them is to keep them safe by all means (Ibid.).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

“Standard of Ur” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2MT6wHM>. [Accessed on 12th June, 2020].

“Ur” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2UFGOec>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2020].

“Warka Vase” (2020) In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2YzBmue>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2020].

“Ziggurat of Ur” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2Yt2cUY>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2020].

Amaya (2017) “5 tips to enjoy a no hassle museum visit”. In: Museums Made Easy. Available at <https://bit.ly/2UAKv4z>. [Accessed on 12th June, 2020].

Amaya (March, 2017) “The Standard of Ur”. In: Museums Made Easy. Available at <https://bit.ly/2BTbUZ5>. [Accessed on 12th June, 2020].

Barker C. (2018) “Fifteen Years after Looting, Thousands of Artefacts are still Missing from Iraq’s National Museum”. In: The Conversation. Available at <https://bit.ly/2AlheUX>. [Accessed on 12th June, 2020].

Ḏḥwty (2017) “Where Sumerian Rulers Lie: The Royal Tombs of Ur’. In: Ancient Origins. Available at <https://bit.ly/2MQfCFi>. [Accessed on 11th June, 2020].

Feinblatt E., Cornelius S. (2012) “Standard of Ur from the Royal Tombs at Ur”. In: Khan Academy; Smart History. Available at <https://bit.ly/2XTVZCy>. [Accessed on 12th June, 2020].

German S. (2014) “Ziggurat of Ur”. In: Khan Academy. Available at <https://bit.ly/3fkpX8r>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2020].

Gerry (2010) “The Standard of Ur”. In: That’s How the Light Gets In. Available at <https://bit.ly/2BSGTED>. [Accessed on 12th June, 2020].

Jenkins T., Rodet M., Stefanidis I.D., Thomas N. (2019) “Do historical objects belong in their country of origin?” In: The History Today. Available at <https://bit.ly/2BWdwkN>. [Accessed on 12th June, 2020].

JOM (2020) “Standard of Ur”. In: Joy of Museum Virtual Tours. Available at <https://bit.ly/30AfmlR>. [Accessed on 12th June, 2020].

Jongh N. de (2014) “From the archive, 13 January 1976: Agatha Christie remains unsolved”. In: The Guardian. Available at <https://bit.ly/3fmon6e>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2020].

MacGregor N. (2020) “Standard of Ur. A History of the World in 100 Objects. The First Cities and States (4000 – 2000 BC) Episode 2 of 5”. In: BBC Radio 4. Available at <https://bbc.in/2N7ZsY5>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2020].

McDonald D. K. (2013) “Lecture 4: The Standard of Ur: the Role of the King”. In: 30 Masterpieces of the Ancient World. The Great Courses. Boston College.

McTague C. (1999–2020) Live of Ur. Available at <https://bit.ly/2Ap7MQt>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2020].

National Geographic (2019) “Agatha Christie’s adventurous ‘second act’ plays out in Mesopotamia”. In: History Magazine: National Geographic. Available at <https://on.natgeo.com/2B1kcxI>. [Accessed on 13th June, 2020].

Sailus, Ch. (2003-2020) “Standard of Ur: Definition & Concept. Chapter 3. Lesson 24”. In: Study.com. Available at <https://bit.ly/2BYeRYx>. [Accessed on 11th June, 2020].

Shukur (2018) “Narrative of the End Panels on the Standard of Ur”. In: Sumerian Shakespeare. Available at <https://bit.ly/2Yo6ptb>. [Accessed on 11th June, 2020].

The British Museum (2015) “Standard of Ur”. In: Smart History. Available at <https://bit.ly/2BYdtVN>. [Accessed on 11th June, 2020].

The British Museum (2020) “Room 56. Mesopotamia (6000–1500 BC) The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Gallery”. In: The British Museum. Available at <https://bit.ly/2YhrCop>. [Accessed on 9th June, 2020].

Wakely G. (on behalf of Penn University) (1999) “Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur”. In: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. A Production of the Education Department. Available at <https://bit.ly/2B4DUbK>. [Accessed on 12th June, 2020].

Gibbor in the Louvre

The Louvre Museum is without doubt one of the most famous and largest museums in the world. Its Department of Near Eastern Antiquities display, inter alia, 37 monumental bas-reliefs discovered in 1840s by Paul-Emile Botta at the site of Khorsabad (ancient site of Dur-Sharrukin) (Joshua 2014; The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2016). The city itself was built between 717 and 707 as the Assyrian capital in the time of Sargon II (Ibid.). The same site was harshly destroyed by the Islamic State in 2015. After almost five years, it is still impossible to find words to describe the magnitude of the loss for the world’s cultural heritage …

First impression

Two sculptures brought to France from Dur-Sharrukin palace represent the hero, aka Gilgamesh, choking a lion (Olivier 2011; Flynn 2014). His figure constitutes a part of a monumental complex of the outside façade of the throne chamber: passageways guarded by colossal lamassu and a pair of genies (Ibid.). In the central passageway, between each pair of lamassu stood Gilgamesh (Ibid.). I remember yet its white and black depiction from my elementary book. At that time I interpreted the statue through the lens of school education. So who was Gilgamesh to an eight-year-old girl? Was he a “good” king-hero who fought against “evil” creepy-crawly monsters? All his heroic deeds were known to me from the Epic of Gilgamesh. I do not remember if we thoroughly studied it at all, but even for an adult it is quite difficult stuff to follow. Instead, I mostly paid attention to Gilgamesh’s appearance: alien and sinister. His up-right, muscular, frontal figure was overwhelming with physical strength and hieratic attitude. Wild looking, wide open eyes were set in a round face covered with plaited beard, and were piercing me through. I was just sorry for the lion stuck in his iron grip. The animal’s pulled claws and his silent roar made no impression on the hunter. At that time, Gilgamesh looked to me more like a motionless robot than a “good” hero.

Second impression

Gilgamesh, one of the two images of the hero

Years later I saw the sculpture myself in the Museum of Louvre. At that time, I studied in Paris so as a student of art history I was allowed to enter the museum after its closure, that is to say, after 9 p.m. I think it is still practiced and students under 26 are allowed to enter the museum for free when all the hordes of tourists are already gone. When I entered the courtyard to the Palace of Sargon II in the Department of Near Eastern Antiquities, I felt intimidated by gigantic Assyrian wall reliefs and orthostats. Here I stood alone, face to face with mythical creatures, divine heroes and winged Anunnaki. Facing one of the colossi of Gilgamesh, smarter or not, I got a very similar impression as in the time of my childhood, additionally intensified by the dimension of the image. Gilgamesh’s eyes, once brightly coloured were mesmerising with a magical impact (Olivier 2011). The hero was an incarnation of divine and royal power, and his supernatural strength was believed to have protected the palace and the royalty (Ibid.) from the evil spirits, as much as the image of Medusa’s head in ancient Greece.

Magical Being

The second image of Gilgamesh in the passageway. Photo by (Flynn 2014)

As mentioned above, there are two Gilgamesh’s sculptures in the museum (Flynn 2014). Each is larger than life as they measure over five meters high. Both are represented in high relief (Olivier 2011). Unlike other characters from the orthostats, the hero is standing in a frontal position, with upper body and head facing the viewers, and with his legs in profile (Olivier 2011; Flynn 2014). Such a frontal representation is rare in Assyrian art and only reserved to illustrate magical beings (Ibid.). In his right hand he holds a ceremonial, royal weapon with a curved blade (harpe) (Ibid.). In one representation, he is wearing a short tunic with a large fringed shawl over it, hiding one leg and revealing the other, while in the second one two legs are visible (Olivier 2011; Flynn 2014). In the former, the lion is lifting its head and baring its teeth (Ibid.), the latter shows it biting Gilgamesh’s arm. In both cases, the lion is grasped by the left arm around which the hero is wearing a bracelet with a rosette in the centre (Olivier 2011), looking like a modern watch.

Hero or Tyrant

My feeling at the sight of the sculptures faithfully corresponded to a mythical story I learned about the Sumerian hero: Gilgamesh was a wandering god-king, tragic hero but tyrant. In his destructive desire to become equal to gods (God?), he failed the final battle for immortality and, despite his heroic deeds, he was doomed to death as all human beings.

They came from nowhere

Among numerous artefacts uncovered at the site of Dur-Sharrukin, one of the most-valuable finds was the Assyrian King List (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2016). Whereas Assyria came to power in Mesopotamia only about 1900 BC, the king lists enumerate much earlier rulers of Sumer, located once in the southernmost part of Mesopotamia since at least 4500 BC. That region is commonly described as the cradle of civilization due to Sumerians’ outstanding achievements (Cartwright 2018). They appeared in Mesopotamia from “nowhere” and are believed to have invented as the first in human history writing, wheel, agriculture (irrigation), ceramic, bronze, advanced astronomy, astrology, calendar, mathematics, legal code, monumental architecture (ziggurats) and the idea of city-states (Bright, J. 2018; Kosmiczne … 2019).

King List

Sumerians also documented on their clay tablets the antediluvian list of demi-divine kings, identifying ten kings who lived for tens of thousands of years before the Flood (Bright, J. 2018). Similar record of extreme longevity is also found in the Bible (Noah lived for 950 years) (Ibid.). No need to say that this particular part of Sumerian “history” was automatically classified as a myth (and its biblical version was re-interpreted) (Ibid.). Nevertheless, scholars acknowledge the King List at the moment it starts with the House of Uruk – the first royal dynasty of Sumer who reigned just after the Great Flood (McLoud 2019; Kosmiczne … 2020). For ancient Sumerians, these were the greatest of all demi-divine king-heroes (c. 3800-2850 BC) (Ibid.). Assuming the List gives a right order, Gilgamesh appears there as the fifth king of Uruk who reigned sometime between 2800 and 2600 BC (Farmer, Jarrell 2017; Kosmiczne … 2020).

  1. Mesz-ki-ag-gaszer
  2. Enmerkar
  3. Lugalbanda
  4. Dumuzid
  5. Gilgamesh
For ancient Sumerians, these were the greatest of all demi-divine king-heroes.

The fifth King

Evidently, there are not more “historical” records about the fifth king of Uruk than it is given by the Epic of Gilgamesh. This literary history begins with five independent Sumerian poems going back to the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2100 BC). The Old Babylonian version (eighteenth century BC) is the first surviving version of the Epic, whereas the standard one is much later (thirteenth – tenth centuries BC). Longer, twelve clay tablet version was discovered in the Library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in Nineveh (seventh century BC) (Epic … 2020).

Mighty One

After the Epic, Gilgamesh was in two-thirds god and in one-thirds human (Farmer, Jarrell 2017). As such he was distinguished to obtain lost knowledge from the antediluvian world (Epic of Gilgamesh, lines 5-9) (Ibid.). To do so he journeyed to Mount Hermon (the legendary mount between Syria and Lebanon, in the Anti-Lebanon mountain range) (Ibid.). According to the apocrypha Book of Enoch (Enoch 6:1-6) Mount Hermon was the place where a group of fallen angels – the Watchers – descended to earth, whereas in the Mesopotamian tradition it is known as the dwelling place of Anunnaki – “those of royal blood” – or in other words – sons of god (Hines 1989:73; Farmer, Jarrell 2017). Are those the same?

Who were Anunnaki?

“[T]he true identity of the Anunnaki [or Annunaki] is to be found in the Eastern tradition of [demi-gods], spawned by cross-breeding between divine beings and mortal females at Mount Hermon. […] These beings are often associated with knowledge from the world before a great deluge and were later assigned roles in the underworld. This would suggest [they should properly be compared to the Nephilim and the fallen “sons of God” brought up in Genesis Chapter 6]” (Farmer, Jarrell 2017; see Hines 1989).

Sons of God

In the Hebrew Bible the expression: “sons of God” appears four times and always refers to angelic beings (in Hebrew: singualr מַלְאָךְ‎ mal’akh, plural: מלאכים mal’akhim)(Gentry 2019). Only with the coming of Christianity, the title of the Son of God has been ascribed to Jesus. The Bible says (Gen. 6:2,4):

the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. […] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

As Dr. Peter Gentry (2019) says: “Gen.6:1-4 is a difficult text. And as we attempt to interpret it, we should be humble because there are different interpretations that have been taken of this text.” Scholars explain the fragment: “in those days and also afterward” differently. Some suggest that the Nephilim had already lived in the earth “when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans” and also existed after that time, so they have nothing to do with the story of the fallen angels (Gentry 2019). Others suggest that “afterward” stands for the times after the flood as the giants also appears in the Bible later on. Still the Nephilim came into existence in those days, that is to say “when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them.” (Alberino, Quayle 2016). On the other side, when taking into account the testimony of Apocrypha, “in those days and also afterward” may refer to the times of Jared, that is to say, when the fallen angels descended (Skiba 2016).

Universal myths

In almost all the ancient cultures, there are three recurring myths telling about ancient gods that once descended from heavens to take for themselves human women, about giants that were the offspring of the sexual relationship between the gods and earthly daughters, and about a great cataclysm – in many cases – the flood that destroyed the empire of the gods and their children (Alberino, Quayle 2016). Ancient traditions alongside with biblical texts also give references to the way the sons of god were punished for their misdeeds (Ibid.; Farmer, Jarrell 2017). The Book of Jude 6 says:

“And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day”.

The same notion is supported by the New Testament (2nd Peter, 2:4, KJV) :

“God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness”.

It is noteworthy that “the word translated as hell in this verse is actually the Greek Tartarus, referencing the deepest underworld of Greek mythology—the prison of the Titans” (Farmer, Jarrell 2017). Not only ancient legends support the biblical texts but also record that the gods’ offspring, the giants, shared the fate of their fathers. Most famous of all, the mythology of ancient Greeks actually repeats the same universal stories of the older Eastern traditions (Ibid.). Accordingly, the Greek Titans may stand for both: the Nephilim and Anunnaki. They all were, as the Greek myth says, the offspring of Gaia – an earth goddess (human women?) and Uranus – a sky deity who stands for heavenly beings – gods (Ibid.).

Who were the Nephilim?

“[T]he Septuagint translates both the Hebrew נְּפִלִ֞ים [Nephilim] and גִּבֹּרִ֛ים [gibborim – mighty men or men of renown] in Genesis 6:4 as γίγαντες [gigantes – giants]” (Garris 2019). “Some scholars, [like Michael Heiser (2015:107)], also think Nephilim comes from the Aramaic word naphiyla for giant”(Ibid.). Biblical giants are also referred to as Anakim and Rephaim (Ibid.). What is the difference between those? “In spite of the flood, giants eventually made a comeback” (Ibid.). In this context, Nephilim were mostly antediluvian giants, whereas their descendants were already recorded after the flood as generations of Anakim and Rephaim (Ibid.). Although Genesis 6:4 does not describe the Nephilim as beings of great stature, Numbers 13:32-33 already gives such a narrative (Ibid.). After leaving Egypt, Israelites are approaching the Promised Land (Canaan) (Ibid.). However, Moses first sends there 12 scouts who come back after 40 days with a report about the land (Numbers 13:32-33) (Ibid.)

“The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them“.

The Palace of Sargon II in the Department of Near Eastern Antiquities, Louvre. Photo by (Flynn 2014)

Was then Gilgamesh a giant?

Intriguingly, there are ancient sources suggesting that Gilgamesh was actually of gigantic stature (Farmer, Jarrell 2017). The Epic of Gilgamesh from Ugarit (lines 34-36) reveals the hero’s size (Ibid.): “Eleven cubits was his height, four cubits the width of his chest. A triple cubit was his foot and a reed-length his legs”. Accordingly, Gilgamesh would have been over five metres tall as his statue in the Louvre (Farmer, Jarrell 2017). At this point, we should also take a closer look at Gilgamesh relief representing him while grasping a lion. Usually, an adult lion measures around three metres, while in Gilgamesh’s embrace, he looks more like a kitty. Assuming that Gilgamesh was over five metres tall, the depicted size of a lion seems more accurate (Zalewski 2017). Also the fragmentary Book of Giants found among apocrypha scrolls in Qumran enumerates Gilgamesh as one of giants (Farmer, Jarrell 2017). Gilgamesh’s divine origins were taken either after his mother – a goddess Ninsun, or his father. Although Lugalbanda (the third king of Uruk) is believed to have been the father of Gilgamesh, according to Sumerian Kings List, his true father was a spiritual being (Farmer, Jarrell 2017). As stated by the Book of Enoch, after the flood a number of dead giants was doomed to eternal exile on earth as spiritual beings. Those wandering entities have desired for revenge on God and His creations for the destruction of their world (Skiba 2016). Hence it happened they possessed human beings. Some of those may have brought Gilgamesh to life, as much as other creatures of their kind (Ibid.).

Gilgamesh, the Giant (Photo from Itadmin, 2020).

Through the Flood

According to the apocrypha Book of Giants, not only giants were the offspring of fallen angels but also animal-angelic hybrids. There was also a crossbreeding between animals themselves. Such beast-like creatures were giants’ inferior comrades (Alberino 2014). Gilgamesh himself makes friends with Enkidu – a wild man (animal-human hybrid) who apparently looked like a Minotaur.

Some entities of the antediluvian world made through the flood along with the corrupted genome. How? There are several contingencies (Alberino 2018):

  1. The second incursion: spirit beings again got into a sexual intercourse with women and more giants were born (Alberino 2014; Garris 2019);
  2. “Nephilim genes were passed down through Noah’s daughters-in-law. These wives of Ham, Shem, and Japheth were not descended from Noah and thus potentially had Nephilim genes in them” (Garris 2019; see Skiba 2016; Alberino 2018).
  3. Necromancy: a genetic transmutation through the sorcery (Alberino 2018; Skiba 2016).
  4. “The Exile of Atlantis” a theory proposed by Timothy Alberino (2018): some forbidden entities escaped the deluge by different means.

As the Epic says, Gilgamesh himself meets Utnapishtim – a survivor of the great flood whom the god Enlil saved from the waters and made immortal (Farmer, Jarrell 2017). Gilgamesh desires the immortality for himself but eventually he fails in his quest. Even if he has got divine origins, defeats Humbaba (Huwawa) – the guardian of the Cedar Forest, and slays the Heavenly Bull, he is unable to become immortal like Utnapishtim. In this context, he can be seen as acting against the postdiluvian order (Wayne 2019).

One of Tower Babel paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder.

Gilgamesh aka Nimrod?

Similar attitude is expressed by another Mesopotamian king, known from the Bible (Genesis 10) as Nimrod whom other traditions also ascribe the construction of the Tower of Babel (Skiba 2016). Although the Bible calls him Nimrod, it may have been actually a nickname meaning as much as a Hebrew word to rebel or we shall rebel (Alberino 2018; Skiba 2019). Hence Nimrod is believed to have rebelled against Yahweh by building a tower (Gen:10:8-10).

“And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar”.

Although he apparently came from the second generation after the flood, scholars’ attempts to associate Nimrod with historical rulers have failed (Kosmiczne … 2020). Some scholars, like Rob Skiba (2016), claim that Nimrod and Gilgamesh are actually the same, whereas scholars, like David Rohl (2015), notice parallels between Enmerkar (the second ruler from the List of Sumerian Kings) and Nimrod, as both characters seem to share several characteristics. Also Gilgamesh and Nimrod have one feature in common: they were both described as mighty ones, hunters, warriors (Wayne, Magalashvili 2016). “[All these titles derive] from Hebrew gibbor/Gibborim […] meaning [a] powerful warrior, tyrant; champion […] and can include or be a giant/Nephilim (as in Gen 6)” (Ibid.). According to the Scriptures and apocrypha tradition, however, Nimrod was not a giant originally but “[he began] to be a mighty one in the earth. In this application of Hebrew chalal means to profane and to break your word when Nimrod for some reason became a mighty one. So something mysterious happened to make Nimrod like a mighty one.” (Ibid.). A sorcery?

Between the Lamassu

Post-flood resurrection

Irrespective of a true identity of Nimrod or Gilgamesh, it can be concluded that the ancient world just after the Great Flood may have been ruled by demi-divine gigantic beings – Gibborim who originated from the Nephilim – the extremely intelligent but wicked angelic offspring. The latter built up the antediluvian empire with the help of their heavenly fathers. After Merriam Webster Dictionary, there are a few notions of the adjective antediluvian :

  1. of or relating to the period before the flood described in the Bible;
  2. made, evolved, or developed a long time ago;
  3. extremely primitive or outmoded.

Due to a pejorative meaning of the last definition, people usually tend to imagine the antediluvian world as the one inhabited by primitive, wearing animal skins people who lived in the the time of general ignorance, with a very low level of technology, knowledge or progress (Alberino, Quayle 2016). Yet nothing could be more further from the truth than these stereotypes (Ibid.). Strange as it seems it was a much more advanced world than we know today (Ibid.). Although this antediluvian empire was destroyed by God and the evil was chained in the darkness, the vestiges of the forbidden knowledge introduced by the Watchers have remained in the earth together with their architecture, technology and angelic gens (Ibid.). Post-flood Gibborim, like Gilgamesh, longed for the lost antediluvian realm and so they were constantly trying to take revenge on God for its final destruction by water. They wished to regain power by means of resurrection: they would rebel against the universal order, just as their antediluvian ancestors did. The Epic of Gilgamesh or the story of the Tower of Babel teach, however, that as mighty as they were, they could not win with the Supreme.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

“Anunnaki i Sumerowie – Naukowe Fakty” (2019). In: Kosmiczne opowieści. Available at <https://bit.ly/377sSwH>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

“Biblia i Sumerowie – Wieża Babel Odnaleziona” (2020). In: Kosmiczne opowieści. Available at <https://bit.ly/3bjwZZX>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

“Epic of Gilgamesh” In: Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/38cAH5B>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Alberino, T. (2018) “New Theory On How The Nephilim Returned After The Flood.” In: Peck, J. Daily Renegade. Available at <https://bit.ly/2S7x6Ah>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Alberino, T., (2014) “The Book of Giants.” In: The Alberino Analysis. Available at <https://bit.ly/2uy7Rhs>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Alberino, T., Quayle, S. (2016) True Legends: Technology of the Fallen/ The Unholy See: The Vatican Knows All The Secrets. GenSix Productions. Available at <https://bit.ly/2OBBfu6>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Bright, J. (2018) “The Ancient Sumerians & Lost Ancient Human Civilizations.” In: Bright Insights. Available at <https://bit.ly/2ulse1B>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Cartwright, M., (2018) “Fertile Crescent – Cradle of Civilization.” In: Ancient History. Available at <https://bit.ly/2OFKuJP>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Dr. Gentry, P. (2019) “Were the sons of God in Genesis 6 fallen angels? Who were the Nephilim?” In: Southern Seminary. Available at <https://bit.ly/2ujh0KZ>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Farmer, S., Jarrell, J. (2017) “Anunnaki Revealed: Finding the Nephilim in Myth, Giants Among Men– Part II”. In: Ancient Origins. Available at <https://bit.ly/3boy16Y>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Flynn, R. (2014) “Hero Overpowering a Lion.” In: Impressions Travelogue. Available at <https://bit.ly/3bjjJVb>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Garris, Z. (2019) “Giants in the Land: a Biblical Theology of the Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim (and Goliath).” In: Knowing Scripture. Available at <https://bit.ly/2HiM8x7>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Heiser, M. (2015) The Unseen Realm. Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Lexham Press.

Hines, C. (1989) Gateway of the Gods: An Investigation of Fallen Angels, the Nephilim, Alchemy, Climate Change, and the Secret Destiny of the Human Race. Murrysville: Numina.

Itadmin (2020) “20 Facts about Gilgamesh—Ancient Sumeria’s Demigod.” In: Ancient Code. Available at <https://bit.ly/38c7qbq>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Joshua J. M., (2014) “Dur-Sharrukin”. In: Ancient History Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2ODn5sl>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Joshua J. M., (2018) “Gilgamesh”. In: Ancient History Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2tG1OXP>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

McLoud, W. (2019) “The House of Uruk, Greatest of Sumerian Heroes.” In: Ancient Origins. Available at <https://bit.ly/39ddlNo>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Olivier, T. (2011) “Work: The Hero Overpowering a Lion. Department of Near Eastern Antiquities: Mesopotamia.” In: Louvre. Available at <https://bit.ly/2Syf6xU>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Rohl, D., M. (1995) Pharaohs and kings : a Biblical quest. Tower of Babel – A Fact or a Biblical Myth. Discovery Channel Video. Available at <https://bit.ly/39ixKk9>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Skiba, R. (2016) Moses said the post-Flood Nephilim came from other Nephilim. Available at <https://bit.ly/38at6Vt>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Skiba, R. (2016) Moses tells us exactly how the Nephilim returned after the Flood. Available at <https://bit.ly/2SrlLtO>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Skiba, R. (2019) Archon Invasion and the Origin of the Nephilim. Available at <https://bit.ly/39heeEI>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2016) “Dur Sharrukin. Ancient City, Iraq.” In: Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at <https://bit.ly/2vjVSnG>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Wayne, G. (2019) “Chapter 27: Nimrod.” In: The Genesis 6 Conspiracy. Available at <https://bit.ly/2vgb7hL>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Wayne, G., Magalashvili, M. (2016) The Genesis 6 Conspiracy. Available at <https://bit.ly/2OEdpOB>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Zalewski, F. (2017) Ostatnie Odkrycie Polskiego Naukowca: MaTma Kwiat Życia. Available at <https://bit.ly/38mayBL>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].