ASIA, INDIA, SRI LANKA

Debate on the Paintings of Damsels Flying on the Clouds

2 Comments

Yet before I started my studies of art history I had got problems to accurately recognize a technique applied by artists in processes of mural painting. Although people generally describe wall paintings simply with the term of frescoes, it may not be technically correct for all of them (Jaspal 2007). Then I actually realized that even scholars may happen to misuse the term, especially in case of controversial examples, whose technique has been always strongly debated.

But let’s start from the beginning

When we talk about wall paintings or murals (Latin murus) we mean paintings done on the walls (Somathilake 2007:109). In the context of techniques of murals, we can specify:

AL FRESCO (It. ‘fresh’) True fresco (buon affresco, as distinct from fresco secco), is painting done with mineral or earth pigments upon wet lime or gypsum PLASTER. (Vegetable pigments cannot be used as they are attacked by the lime). The pigments are suspended in water, and unite with the plaster as they dry. The basis is a roughcast wall, covered with a layer of plaster (the arricciato), on which the composition (the synopia) is sketched out in charcoal and sinopia. Only enough wet plaster (the intonaco) is then applied for a day’s work. Any additional retouching must be done in fresco secco.

(Lucie-Smith 2003:96)

Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564). ‘Sistine Chapel Ceiling, 1508-12 and ‘Last Judgement’ 1536-41 (fresco). True Fresco is a skill that dates back to Classical Antiquity but reached its peak as an art form during the Italian Renaissance. Photo source: Get Your Guide (2008-2020). “Private Early Morning Sistine Chapel Tour.” In: Get Your Guide.

And …

AL SECCO (It. ‘dry’), fresco secco (It. ‘dry fresco’) Painting which, unlike true FRESCO, is carried out on plaster which has already dried. It can be done in TEMPERA, or with PIGMENTS in a MEDIUM of lime-water. In the latter case, the surface is dampened before applying the paint. The results are less durable than true fresco.

Lucie-Smith (2003:195).
Cupola decoration Inv. No. 7118 Tempera; Bawit, Monastery of St. Apollo, 6th / 7th century (Coptic Museum, Cairo, tempera). Photo source: Emil Krén and Daniel Marx © Web Gallery of Art.from Web Gallery of Art (1996-2020).

Al Fresco – from the Antiquity to Renaissance

AL FRESCO (fresh in Italian) indicates fresh or wet ground, and FRESCO BUONO (true fresco) is made using a genuine wet ground (Somathilake 2007:109). Although al fresco had been already practiced by ancient civilisations, the technique called fresco buono (or buon fresco) was first perfected in Italy, around 1300, on the verge of Renaissance (Ibid.:110).

Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564). ‘The Creation of Adam’ from the Sistine Chapel Ceiling, 1508 -1512 (fresco) The most iconic image from the Sistine Chapel ceiling, also referred to as ‘The Creation of Adam’. Public domain. Photo source: “Fresco” (2020) In: Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia.

“The technique [actually] involves the most durable form of art known to Europe where a piece of painting must be completed on a wet and freshly laid stucco ground before another piece of plaster is prepared” (Somathilake 2007:113). In this method pigments are mixed with water only (Lucie-Smith 2003:96). In a fresco technique, “no binder is required to be added to the mineral pigments that are applied because the chemical reaction of the wet plaster with the carbon dioxide in the air creates a hard layer of calcium carbonate and the pigments are securely fixed in the calcium carbonate layer while drying” (Jaspal 2007).

Young Girl Gathering Saffron Crocus Flowers, detail of wall painting, Room 3 of House Xeste, Akrotiri, Thera. Second Palace period, c. 1700-1450 BC., Thera. Public domain. Source: “Wall Paintings of Thera” (2020) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Accordingly, the method “consists of painting with lime-resistant pigments (only pigments which do not suffer from lime can be used) on damp lime plaster, which has not yet set. In this process as the plaster can only be painted on once it is wet, the painter divides his work in the so-called ‘day-pieces’, each piece day being the area, which he can finish [daily]” (Somathilake 2007:113). “In this rapid process, the parts of the plastered portion that have not been painted yet need to be cut away at the end of [work]” (Dhanapala:65). When the artists comes back to painting, the surface is plastered to keep it damp (Ibid.). “Thus in true fresco nothing can be added or altered after the plaster has set. This time factor gives fresco painting an extraordinary vitality as it means that the brushwork must be quick, the forms monumental and the range of colours limited”(Somathilake 2007:113).

“In addition, when the plaster sets, the particles of colours crystallise into the wall and remain permanently fused in it. They cannot flake off. […] The fresco can only be damaged if the wall decays. (…) The relevant plaster layers must therefore be very carefully built up” (Ibid.).

The Minoans decorated their temple (known as palaces) complexes and homes with the so-called true fresco painting (buon fresco). Bull-leaping fresco from the east wing of the palace of Knossos (reconstructed), c. 1400 BC, fresco. Archaeological Museum of Heraklion, photo: Jebulon, CC0. Public domain. Photo and caption source: Dr. Santa German, (2020). “Bull-leaping fresco from the palace of Knossos”. In: Khan Academy (2020).

The technique of Al Secco and Tempera

Fresco secco actually indicates any dry technique of murals, including tempera. Here, “the whole wall or rock surface may be completely plastered and allowed to dry” (Dhanapala:65). The main aspect of this method, involves then painting on lime plaster which already has set (Somathilake 2007:113). The technique al secco was commonly applied in antiquity (Somathilake 2007:113). In its process, “the pigments were ground in an aqueous binding medium. The completely dry lime plaster wall is usually thoroughly saturated with lime water (or baryta water) and left overnight. The painting then takes place on a moist surface as in fresco, except that the colours are mixed with a solution of casein glue or egg yolk [- tempera], instead of being ground in water only” (Ibid.). Painting in fresco secco “are also quite stable, but susceptible to damage by moisture and dampness. Yet, as they are done on dry plaster, there is no stress of the time deadline” (Jaspal 2007). This technique has always complemented the fresco method, when alterations were needed. These are usually referred to as superficial, upper layers (ibid.).

Decorated prayer niche. Inv. No. 7987. Tempera Saqqara, Monastery of St. Jeremiah, cell 1725, 6th / 7th century (Coptic Museum, Coptic Cairo). Photo source: Coptic Cairo. The Coptic Museum (2020).

TEMPERA (It. fr. Lat. temperare, ‘to mix in due proportion’). An EMULSION used as a MEDIUM for PIGMENT. Traditionally, tempera is made with whole eggs or egg-yolk, but milk, various kinds of glue or gum or even dandelion juice or the sap of the fig-tree can be used.

Lucie-Smith (2003:213).

In other words, the pigment used is mixed with some liquid vehicle, such as egg-yolk, diluted glue or gum, chalk, clay, gelatine, etc. (Somathilake 2007:109-110,112,120). Next it is laid on a dry surface. After Somathilake (2007:120), however, true tempera is when the colours are ground with egg yolk only. Another characteristics typical of tempera are rather opaque colours in paintings, whereas in the true fresco technique, colours are subdued and their choice is limited (Dhanapala:67).

It is important to note that tempera in al secco technique is exclusively used in wall paintings, when a painting is applied directly on plaster (the latter is applied first on the wall or rock’s surface). Tempera, however, can also be executed on the wood (e.g. fayum portraits), vellum (e.g. The Beautiful Hours of Jean de France, Duc de Berry), paper (Funerary Equipment, Tomb Of Userhat), canvas (paintings in the Church of Debre Berhan Selassie in Gondar), etc.

Wall painting flourished in Faras in the tenth and eleventh centuries. The finest monumental composition is the Nativity, once in the northern aisle … Photo source: the shot from the documentary by Jurkow W., Manowski R. (2014). FARAS 3D. “Katedra nad Nilem”. [“Cathedral by the Nile”]. National Museum of Warsaw. In: Youtube.
…. and the Three Youths in the Fiery Furnace in the narthex. The paintings were executed in the tempera technique on dry mud plaster, using natural pigments found on the desert fringes of the Nile Valley. Photo source: the shot from the documentary by Jurkow W., Manowski R. (2014). FARAS 3D. “Katedra nad Nilem”. [“Cathedral by the Nile”]. National Museum of Warsaw. In: Youtube.

Major difference between the techniques

Accordingly, the main difference in these two methods is that in the fresco the pigments are strongly bound within the plaster and so are united with the surface, while in al secco the pigments are applied as layers on top of the plaster surface (Dhanapala:65; Somathilake 2007:114).

Controversy in the matter of the Technique of Murals in South Asia

Controversy regarding a recognition of a correct technique of murals mainly appears in an analysis of paintings from South Asia, precisely Ajanta (India) and Sigiriya (Sri Lanka). Let’s call them simply paintings. The paintings of Ajanta Caves and of Sigiriya rock are said to have been created between the fifth and seventh centuries (Dalrymple 2014; De Silva 2019). Most of experts have already reached a consensus that the so-called Ajanta ‘frescoes’ are actually paintings made by means of some kind of tempera, which actually amounted to the title of al secco as their pigments had been applied to dried plaster (Somathilake 2007:120). Nevertheless, the case of Sigiriya still keeps the scholars awake.

Dancer with her attendants and musicians around her, mural painting in Ajanta caves. Photo and caption source: Baani Sekhon (2020). “Shades of Indian Women in the Art World”. In: Baani’s Art Point.

Differences between murals of Ajanta and Sigiriya

One of Sri Lankan authors, D.B Dhanapala heatedly states that even “most authorities incline to the opinion that [Sigiriya paintings] are tempera in technique, [their] reasoning seems to be this wise: ‘[the] Sigiriya pictures bear a close affinity to those at Ajanta. [As the latter] have been proved to be tempera paintings, therefore the Sigiriya figures are tempera [too]!” (Ibid.:64).

There are several aspects of murals that can be actually examined in order to decide on a technique applied: characteristics of the ground (plaster), the presence of medium and its nature (Somathilake 2007:119).

Women in the Clouds in Sigiriya: true freso or tempera? Photo by Agnieszka Szkarłat. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Medium

As it is discussed above, a medium binder has been ultimately used in al secco technique, usually by means of tempera. The universally accepted classification of paintings, such as oil, watercolour, tempera, fresco etc. is generally formulated based on the medium (binder) used (Ibid.). Unfortunately, the binding medium in India and Sri Lanka is said to have largely perished due to autoxidation and the depredations by insect-pests (Ibid.:119-120). Hence there is an issue of identifying the presence of the binder even through chemical analysis, which factually stands in the way of coming to a definite conclusion (Ibid.:120).

One of the most iconic Sigiriya’s murals ; the so-called Apsara or a court lady. Photo by Agnieszka Szkarłat. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Dr. Somathilake (2007:120,123), however, underlines that “in many murals [vegetable glue or gum] was the only organic binding medium that held the pigments firmly to the ground unlike in the fresco method. Thus, all these facts would definitely point to a tempera technique at Ajanta and elsewhere.” The binding components of the Sigiriya pigments are said to be a vegetable gum and a drying oil, which is insoluble in water (Ibid.:124). Probably, this is why the murals, which were exposed to the elements for centuries, have eventually survived to our times (Ibid.). From literary documents, we also know that ancient artists of Sri Lanka were familiar with a technique of using an oil medium for wall paintings (Ibid.)“and there was an apparent reason for using [it] since almost all of the murals were located outdoor, unlike the painting sites of India” (Ibid.).

Ground for the murals

Ajanta painting. Photo source: Josh Hortman (2020). “Ajanta Paintings”. In: Pinterest.

In further examination, Dhanapala also analyses the ground for the murals in both cases, Ajanta and Sigiriya. The proper thickness and composition of the plaster at Sigiriya, unlike Ajanta’s thin surface, was actually more prepared for the technique of true fresco (Dhanapala:65-66). Moreover, artists working in Ajanta Caves must have worked in dimly-lit halls (Ibid.:66)(the way they actually let the light in is another mystery) and so they probably were not able to complete such intricate compositions, as Ajanta boasts, before the plaster got dry (Ibid.). Sigiriya’s painting have got more simple compositions and they are located in the open rock pocket, where strong sunlight has been available (Ibid.). A separate question is how the artists actually managed to paint on the rock surface, while being suspended at the height of over fifty meters above the ground (Kovalsky, V. 2013). It is also worth mentioning that no trace of rock-cut stairs have ever been found in the proximity of the painted granite wall, hence ancient viewers could only observe the paintings from the ground (Ibid.). This, however, would not have been possible to do without using some type of binoculars (Ibid.). Today, on the third level of the Rock of Sigiriya, which is fenced by the Mirror Wall, there is a spiral metal staircase for modern-day visitors, so they are able to climb deeper twenty metres up to see the paintings in detail (Ibid.). But how were they reached to be admired fifteen hundred years ago?

Additionally, although there are today just few left examples of such paintings in Sigiriya, originally, it is said to have been about five hundred of similar scenes, apparently surrounding the rock like a colourful belt (Kovalsky, V. 2013).

The proper thickness and composition of the plaster at Sigiriya was more prepared for the technique of true fresco. Photo by Artur Maltsau (2015). Free images at Pixabay.

Pigments used

Dhanapala observes that in case of Ajanta, the scenes are overpainted in many scenes, whereas at Sigiriya, there are only few examples of overcoating (Dhanapala:67). In comparison to Ajanta, where colours are deeper and their palette wider, at Sigiriya the pigments are much thinner and so subdued, and they are restricted to mainly red, yellow, green and black (Dhanapala:67; Somathilake 2007:121,123). Although there are small areas of more intense green and blue, the author suggests, they may have been later additions completed in tempera (Dhanapala:67). Dr. Somathilake (2007:121), however, argues that although the blue pigment was not actually used as much as the other colours, it is evident that the green was originally applied in Sigiriya murals and so it was not a later addition. He also underlines that all the pigments used were of natural origins. In a fact, organic pigments were typical of both, fresco and tempera techniques.

Ajanta caves Mural paintings- Flying Apsara (Left), Queen Sivali begin tended to by her maids (Right) . Photo and caption source: Baani Sekhon (2020) . “Shades of Indian Women in the Art World”. In: Baani’s Art Point.

Besides, Dhanapala points out to the fact that the pigments in tempera have got a tendency to peel off on the plaster, which happens at Ajanta but does not occur at Sigiriya (Dhanapala:67). Even though the plaster comes off in Sigiriya murals, the pigments stay strongly incorporated in its structure (Ibid.:68). And if paint peels off, it appears only on surfaces, which were later altered in tempera (Ibid.).

Sigiriya woman with two hands

Dhanapala then puts forward another argument to support his thesis. In the figure no. 8 of the pocket B, behind the woman’s right hand, which was altered, there is an outline of the original hand visible in the plaster (Dhanapala:67).

Mural showing the woman with the outline of the original hand and the altered one below. The artist must have changed his mind … (Image modified from the original – the size reduced). Photo source: Jenny Rainbow (2020). In: Fineartamerica.

Dhanapala came to the conclusion that the artist changed his mind about how the woman’s hand should be actually depicted “but before he had time to erase the original hand the plaster dried” (Ibid.). Dr. Somathilake responds to Dhanapala’s argument claiming that an examination of the painting does not show any attempts to erase the contour of the original hand (Somathilake 2007:120-121). Moreover, if the plaster had dried before the artist had time to erase the hand, he would not have enough time to finish the hand in the altered position (Ibid.). Simultaneously, the scholar assumes that both: the original version and its alteration would have been done in fresco. There is another option though. The original woman’s hand may have been made in a true fresco technique, and later her hand was altered with a tempera technique. That would actually explain how the artist had enough time to finish the altered version and also why his original idea was still visible in the plaster.

Compromise ?

In his conclusion, Dhanapala sustains his arguments and claims Sigiriya murals were originally made as real frescoes (Ibid.:68). On the other side, such authorities, as Dr. Somathilake, strongly disagree with that opinion and argue that using the term ‘frescoes’ in terms of Ajanta or Sigiriya murals “is a misnomer in every sense” (Somathilake 2007:124). Further, they emphasize that there is no evidence that the Asian wall paintings are real frescoes (Ibid.), and “the general technique of the murals of India and Sri Lanka has always been some kind of tempera” (Ibid.). On the other side, there are scholars who have reached the compromise in that hotly debate and they believe that a technique applied in Ajanta and Sigiriya may be actually a combination of real fresco with tempera (see Somathilake 2007).

Notable Mural painting in Ajanta caves called Black Princess . Photo and caption source: Baani Sekhon (2020). “Shades of Indian Women in the Art World”. In: Baani’s Art Point.

“No known process …”

Finally, it is also worth to quote another scholar, Havel (1905) whose words have become prominent for many researchers investigating the matter of Sigiriya’s murals (Dhanapala:66).

“There is no known process of tempera or oil painting which would stand to exposure of tropical weather for nearly fifteen hundred years as the Sigiriya paintings have done.”

Havel (1905). In: Dhanapala:66.
“Gallery of Art” at Sigiriya. Photo source: Dustbowl_Debutante (aka Jeanne), Joseph Cator (2020) “Frescoes at Sigiriya” In: Findery.

We can also conclude that, like many aspects of Sigiriya site (see: In the Realm of Demon Ravana), also the question of its paintings (aka frescoes) still remains unsolved, not only in terms of their technique of painting but also regarding the way they were executed, iconographically represented, and the purpose they were made for at all.

Featured image: Dancer with her attendants and musicians around her, mural painting in Ajanta caves. Photo and caption source: Baani Sekhon (2020). “Shades of Indian Women in the Art World”. In: Baani’s Art Point.

By Joanna
Faculties of English Philology, History of Art and Archaeology.
University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland;
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland;
University College Dublin, Ireland.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Image: “Cupola decoration” (6th century; mural painting in Coptic Museum, Cairo) (1996-2020). In: Emil Krén and Daniel Marx © Web Gallery of Art. Available at <https://bit.ly/2T9xCOB>. [Accessed on 29th February, 2020].

Image: “Decorated prayer niche” (Saqqara, Monastery of St. Jeremiah) (2020) In: Coptic Cairo. The Coptic Museum. Available at <https://bit.ly/2uJZQq0>. [Accessed on 29th February, 2020].

“Fresco” (2020) In: Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/396c1fR>. [Accessed on 27th February, 2020].

Image: Get Your Guide (2008-2020). “Private Early Morning Sistine Chapel Tour.” In: Get Your Guide. Available at <https://bit.ly/37bujh9>. [Accessed on 27th February, 2020].

Dalrymple, W. (2014) “The Ajanta cave murals: ‘nothing less than the birth of Indian art’.” In: The Guardian. Available at <https://bit.ly/2Pu9pAB>. [Accessed on 26th February, 2020].

De Silva, R. (2019) “The Sigiriya Ladies: Who were they, why were they painted?” Available at <https://bit.ly/388vTxC>. [Accessed on 26th February, 2020].

Debutante D. (aka Jeanne), Cator J. (2020) “Frescoes at Sigiriya” In: Findery. Available at <https://bit.ly/2T90uXi>. [Accessed on 29th February, 2020].

Dhanapala, D.B. (Date is not provided) A Short Note on the Technique of the Sigiriya Pictures. University of Ceylon Review, pp. 64-68.

Free photo of “Sigiriya fresco” by Maltsau, A. (2015). Free images at Pixabay. Available at <https://bit.ly/3oFsizq>. [Accessed on 29th February, 2020].

German S. (Dr) (2020) “Bull-leaping fresco from the palace of Knossos”. In: Khan Academy. Available at <https://bit.ly/2Pwgr81>. [Accessed on 27th February, 2020].

Hortman, J. “Ajanta Paintings”. In: Pinterest. Available at <https://bit.ly/39d6PGK >. [Accessed on 29th February, 2020].

Jaspal, N. (2007) “Frescoes vs Tempera”. In: Heritage Preservation Atelier. Virtus and Labor. Available at <https://bit.ly/37XeEPy>. [Accessed on 26th February, 2020].

Jurkow, W., Manowski, R. (2014) FARAS 3D. “Katedra nad Nilem”. [“Cathedral by the Nile”]. National Museum of Warsaw. In: Youtube. Available at <https://bit.ly/2J4yNtj>. [Accessed on 29th February, 2020].

Kovalsky, V. (2013) “Chapter 2 of a Detailed Photo Essay on Sigiriya, or Lion’s Rock, in Sri Lanka: Thoughts and Impressions of My Visit”. In: Vladimir KovalSky. Available at <https://bit.ly/32AEaZR>. [Accessed on 26th February, 2020].

Lucie-Smith, E. (2003) The Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Art Terms. London: Thames & Hudson World of Art.

MacTaggart, J. (2020) “Italian Renaissance Art – Fresco Painting”. In: Artfactory. Available at <https://bit.ly/2wRxril>. [Accessed on 27th February, 2020].

Rainbow. J. (2020) “Apsara With Flowers. Sigiriya Cave Painting Art Print”. In: Fineartamerica. Available at <https://bit.ly/2I10NgK>. [Accessed on 26th February, 2020].

“Wall Paintings of Thera” (2020). Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2KfYLO0>. [Accessed on 27th February, 2020].

Sekhon, B. (2020) “Shades of Indian Women in the Art World”. In: Baani’s Art Point. Available at <https://bit.ly/2Vtr27t>. [Accessed on 27th February, 2020].

Somathilake, M. (2007) Further Analysis on Fresco and Tempera: An Analysis of the Technique of Murals in South Asia. In: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka New Series, Vol. 53, pp. 109-132.

AMERICA, MEXICO

Astronomical Sanctuary of the Cloud People Atop the Hill

Leave a comment

We were travelling in the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico, moving along the mountain range of Sierra Madre. The mountains climb there from 500 to 3 250 metres above sea level, bringing low temperatures with frequent frost in their higher parts. For some, it does not even sound like Mexico … especially in February.

Shivering from the cold and … excitement

When the alarm rang it was 5 am. That morning was really chilly. I forcefully shivered when my feet touched the icy cold stone floor. The unpleasant feeling made me literary jumped into my shoes. Then I quickly switched on a small electric heater. The red diode came on together with a characteristic loud noise. Finally I felt a gentle blast of warm air. Still shivering I grabbed my clothes and went to the bathroom, of course, dragging the buzzing heater behind me.

The constructions of Monte Alban. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

With a cup of hot coffee, warming up my hands, and wrapped up in my balmy cardigan, I felt much better when we finally arrived at Monte Alban. Outside it was still cold but just a thought alone about the site filled with a mystery, a myth and a legend recharged my battery and I was ready to give up my warm seat inside the car.

Like an eagle perched high-up

Monte Alban looks like an eagle perched high-up in its nest. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Monte Alban looks like an eagle perched high-up in its nest; it is located around 1 940 metres above sea level and 400 metres above the Altiplano of the Oaxaca Valley, which offered us breath-taking panoramic views of the horizon and so of the huge area surrounding the site (“Monte Albán” 2019; Heyworth 2013; Heyworth “ A Brief History” 2014). Precisely, Monte Alban occupies the meeting point of three arms of the Valley, known as the Etla, Tlocolula and the Valle Grand (Heyworth “A Brief History” 2014). Before the fifth century BC., they were inhabited by various tribes, of which the most important was the community of San Jose Mogote in the Etla branch (Ibid.). That population is believed to have initiated the city of Monte Alban and effectively unified local tribes under their control, either by means of a peaceful alliance or by force (Heyworth “A Brief History” 2014; Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014).

The city offered us breath-taking panoramic views of the horizon. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

It is thought that Monte Alban had played a very important role in Mesoamerican history since its rapid development around the third century BC. Its importance ceased only in the eighth century AD., when the site was suddenly abandoned for unknown reasons (Heyworth 2013; Heyworth “A Brief History” 2014). Archaeologically, the history of the city is divided into several successive stages, such as ‘Monte Alban Early I’, ‘Monte Alban Late I’, ‘Monte Alban II’, ‘Monte Alban III’ and ‘Monte Alban IV’, etc., which all correspond to certain periods of time, from the fifth century BC. to the beginning of the fifteenth century AD. (Heyworth “A Brief History” 2014; Strom 2019). The first phases with the Zapotec dominance correspond to the city’s cultural growth, where it had played the role of a religious center till the eighth century AD., whereas during the last two phases the gradual fall of the city was followed by its final abandonment; it was the time of the Mixtec and later cultures (Strom 2019). Only during the latter phases, the city became surrounded by fortifications (Strom 2019; Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014).

The site filled with mystery, myth and legend recharged my battery … Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Origins shrouded in mystery

The matter of the city’s origins itself is strongly debated (Heyworth 2013). Apparently, the very first settlement appeared on the site already before the fifth century BC. but with a limited population till the time when the Zapotecs grew in number and became more powerful, mainly due to the centralization (Heyworth 2013; Heyworth “A Brief History” 2014). Generally, Monte Alban is believed to have been the capital of the Zapotec empire, where approximately 20 000 people had lived at its heyday (Ibid.). Between the first century BC. and the second century AD., Monte Alban developed to an influential political metropolis, being in lead within the Oaxaca region and possibly beyond it (Heyworth “A Brief History” 2014). We can even assume that the city owed its pivotal role not only to its central role in the Valley but also for that it was built at the crossroads of trade routes between the highlands of Teotihuacán to the west and the Mayan lowlands to the east (Ibid.).

Real architects of the city

Who was the real architect of the city? Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Although it was the centralization process that eventually gave the beginning of the dominant Zapotec civilization, it does not mean that the people of San Jose Mogote were the real architects of the city (Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014). In fact, none of the tribes in the Valley, including the ancestors of the Zapotecs, had built anything that would be even slightly similar to the style of the sophisticated architecture found at Monte Alban (Ibid.). The Zapotecs had also been far from using such advanced engineering and building techniques as those employed in the city (Ibid.). What is even more thought-provoking is that among the construction phases of Monte Alban, the earliest ones are the most innovative (Heyworth “The Observatory” 2013; Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014). As a matter of fact, the architects of Monte Alban, just like the Olmecs, made their calculations by means of the bar-dot code, proving their advanced knowledge of mathematics (Hancock 2016:155). They also used the calendar invented by the Olmecs, which has commonly been ascribed to the Mayans (Ibid.:155). If the calendar, astronomy and counting of time occupied such a prominent place among the inhabitants of Monte Alban, maybe they themselves were heirs of the Olmecs, or even their descendants? (Ibid.:155). The Maya, on the other hand, would have to be regarded as devoted guardians of this cultural heritage (Ibid.:155).

Artificial flattening of the hill with the Sunken Patio on the right. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

One of the most puzzling features of the city of Monte Alban is the fact that it was actually built atop an artificially flattened hilltop (Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014). Such a position could obviously provide a sense of security and make a city a fortified stronghold (Ibid.). But was it the case? In truth, a gradual development of a rather ceremonial space and the use of principles of sacred topography suggest that Monte Alban was built for quite different purposes than to play just a defensive function (Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014; Strom 2019). Besides, as discussed above, “the city’s [fortifications] were added several hundred years after the city had risen to power” (Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014).

Plan of the Monte Alban archaeological site, created by MapMaster. The SVG original (which turned out to be smaller than anticipated) can be found at Image:Monte Alban archaeological site.svg (2006). CC BY-SA 3.0. Original photo modified. Photo and caption source: “Monte Albán” (2019) In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Successive phases of construction

Officially, it is assumed that monumental architecture had appeared on the site since the third century BC., however, other theories say it may have happened even earlier (Heyworth “A Brief History” 2014; Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014). Irrespective of the real time of its initiation, the city was built in successive phases (Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014). Firstly, the hilltop must have been artificially levelled, primarily in the areas of the Main Plaza and the North Platform with the Sunken Patio (Ibid.). Then there emerged its first huge constructions, such as the System IV, Monticle M and J (the so-called Observatory) (Ibid.).

Monticle J, known also as the Observatory. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Monticle J aka the Observatory

Particularly the latter seizes viewers’ attention (Heyworth “The Observatory” 2013; Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014), especially while being observed from the bird’s eye view. The observatory, consisting of a strange arrow-tipped structure, stands at an angle of 45 degrees to the main axis of the city, deliberately shifted a few degrees from the northwest (Hancock 2016:154). Although the Monticle J was one of the first building constructed at the site, its peculiar shape (Ibid.) and “juxtaposition to the rest of the Main Plaza and its temples” (Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014) make it unfit to the overall plan of the city (Ibid.).

Graham Hancock (2016:154-155) crawled inside the Observatory during his visit to Monte Alban. Afterwards, he described it as a labyrinth of narrow tunnels and staircases from which various parts of the sky can be observed (Ibid.:155). Indeed, I was sure that it must have been once used as an astronomical device. The building’s “odd pentagonal shape points, literally, like an arrow to the south-west and it is believed it was deliberately designed to align with the star Capella on its heliacal rising” (Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014). It is supported by the fact that the Observatory’s shape itself reproduces on earth the position of five dominant stars of Auriga Constellation, in which Capella is the brightest one (Heyworth “The Observatory” 2013).

View of Monte Alban and its mountainous surrounding. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

In addition, “the understanding of heliacal phenomena is important to the growing studies of archaeoastronomy and the history of science [in general]” (Schaefer 1987:S19) What is it all about?

The building’s “odd pentagonal shape “. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Bradley E. Schaefer (1987:S19) explains that “celestial bodies undergo periods of invisibility, when the Sun is nearby. These periods of invisibility are bounded by the dates of the star’s heliacal rising and setting. The star is first glimpsed during morning twilight on the date of heliacal rising”, when it re-emerges at sunrise (Heyworth “The Observatory” 2013). “The apparition […] of the star ends on the date of heliacal setting when the Sun approaches too close to the object” (Schaefer 1987:S19), that is to say, when the star rises after the sunrise (Heyworth “The Observatory” 2013). Aveni (1978) claims that “the heliacal rise of Capella from Monte Alban occurred on the day of the first solar zenith passage[1]in the year 275 [BC.]” (Schaefer 1987:S31), which is actually the theoretical date of the construction of the Observatory (Heyworth “The Observatory” 2013). In order to capture that event, the building was provided with the so-called zenith tube (Ibid.) – a narrow horizontal passageway or shaft (Heyworth “The Observatory” 2013; Strom 2019) “which only allows light to shine directly through it on a specific day, when the sun reaches a precise position in the sky” (Heyworth “The Observatory” 2013). That phenomenon takes only place on 2nd May (Strom 2019).

[1] [the Sun at the highest point in the sky, 90 degrees from the horizon] (Heyworth “The Observatory” 2013; Barnhart, Powell 2010-11).

Engineering feat

As much as the Building J proves the importance of astronomy to the inhabitants of Monte Alban, their real feat of high level engineering was achieved by the artificial flattening of the hill (Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014), or as we should rather say – by the cutting off the top of it in order to build the city. “The Main Plaza alone stretches for 300 [metres] from north to south and 200 [metres] from east to west” (Ibid.). Additionally, to the north of the Main Plaza, there is also the so-called Sunken Patio (Patio Hundido), which was hewed further down into the rock (Ibid.) and so “scientifically designed to reflect sound and amplify it” (Ibid.). Actually, a much easier way to achieve the same effect would be a construction of walls around the perimeter (Ibid.). Yet, for some reasons, the city’s architects had chosen to accomplish a gargantuan task of “[digging] down into the hilltop to carve the space out” (Ibid.).

Actually, I am getting used to this ancient phenomenon of making things far more complicated than necessary. Here we can ask the question usually posed by alternative archaeologists: ‘Was it then a difficult task to them at all?’

To make the thing even more intriguing, “the Patio Hundido is replicated twice at Monte Alban with smaller scale versions known as System IV and [Monticle] M” (Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014). Furthermore, all these three patio groups are aligned in such a way to reflect not only celestial events but also to show their mutual geometric relations with other compounds of the city (Ibid.). That fact, in turn, makes the whole city “an observatory or [even a complicated] celestial timepiece” (Ibid.).

Astronomical Observatory

Scattered blocks of stone among mysterious constructions. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Gathered evidence shows that the inhabitants of Monte Alban were able to understand and predict such celestial events “as the passing of comets, eclipses, helical risings, equinoxes and solstices” (Heyworth “The Encrypted …” 2014). In these terms, Monte Alban may not have been originally designed as a fortified stronghold, whose function would be narrowed to controlling the region (Ibid.) “but rather [as] a sacred sanctuary dedicated to reading the celestial objects of the skies” (Ibid.). As a matter of fact, “the astronomy may have been the real reason for building [the complex] on the craggy impractical hilltop – for Monte Alban is one of the few cities in the world that enjoys incredible 360° views of the horizon” (Ibid.).

The impressive stairs leading up to the South Platform. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

When we climbed up the hills in the proximity of the South Platform, I looked down at the city spreading in front of me and valleys of Oaxaca below me. The whole picture seemed to be suspended in the background of the dark mountains and white clouds in the sky. In the center, the Main Plaza gleamed in the morning sunlight (Hancock 2016:153). It was fringed by clusters of pyramids and other buildings arranged geometrically to each other (Ibid.:153). The whole arrangement gave an impression of perfect proportion and symmetry (Ibid.:153).

With every kilometre I took through Mesoamerica, the mystery of its ancient cities kept growing and deepening (see Hancock 2016:153). Consequently, I have felt magnetically attracted, although it does not promise its mysteries to be revealed.

Featured image: Monte Alban. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

By Joanna
Faculties of English Philology, History of Art and Archaeology.
University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland;
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland;
University College Dublin, Ireland.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

“Monte Albán” (2019) In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2VdZB13>. [Accessed on 22nd February, 2020].

Barnhart, E., Powell, C. (2010-11) The Importance of Zenith Passage at Angkor, Cambodia, pp. 1-23. University of Texas at Austin Chautauqua Program courses to the ancient city of Angkor, Cambodia.

Hancock G. (2016) Ślady palców bogów. [Fingerprints of Gods]. Kołodziejczyk G. trans. Warszawa: Amber.

Heyworth, R. (2013) “Monte Alban – Ancient Observatory.” In: Uncovered History. Available at < https://bit.ly/32hyvYw>. [Accessed on 22nd February, 2020].

Heyworth, R. (2013) “Monte Alban.” In: Uncovered History. Available at <https://bit.ly/37UwvGF>. [Accessed on 22nd February, 2020].

Heyworth, R. (2014) “Monte Alban – Brief History.” In: Uncovered History. Available at <https://bit.ly/2vW9pSS>. [Accessed on 22nd February, 2020].

Heyworth, R. (2014) “Monte Alban – The Encrypted City.” In: Uncovered History. Available at < https://bit.ly/2VdzQ11>. [Accessed on 22nd February, 2020].

Ortega, M., Miguel, M. J., Camacho, A. (2005). “Microstructural study of the treasure of tomb #7 of Monte Alban, Oaxaca.” In: Microscopy and Microanalysis. pp. 19-24.

Schaefer, B. E. (1987) “Heliacal Rise Phenomena.” In: Journal for the History of Astronomy, Archaeoastronomy Supplement, vol. 18, pp. S19-S33.

Strom, C. (2019) “The Zapotecs of Monte Alban – The First Civilization in Western Mexico?” In: Ancient Origins. Available at <https://bit.ly/2HKlo8S>. [Accessed on 23rd February, 2020].

EUROPE, IRELAND

A Survey of the Long Story of High Irish Crosses

Leave a comment

One of the books I have come across while studying early Christian sculpture of Ireland, is the work written by Hilary Richardson. With the prominent High Crosses in the title, and with a depiction of a naive outlines of carved panels of the Cross of Moone on the front cover, this physically thin book, but of substantial content, is another position on a long list of academic publications dedicated to one of the most distinctive landmarks of Ireland – the so-called High Crosses. As indicated by the title of the book, An Introduction to Irish Crosses, (1990) it is just the very beginning of a long story, as if a threshold to the mystery of the Irish early Christian sculpture. Beside High Crosses figuring in the title, the book also describes a considerable number of stone slabs predating the mature sculpture of Ireland and bearing the first signs of the coming Christianity.

Just the Beginning of a Long Story

The work covers all the information in just a few pages of written text and gives basic information on the subject alongside with some interesting insights into assumed, yet controversial origins of High Crosses. Simultaneously, it can serve as a field guidebook to be with you while exploring High Crosses at first hand on various sites.

The head of the so-called Muiredach’s High Cross, with the details of the Crucifiction face, usually placed from the west. Monasterboice. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Also this is a highly illustrated book with a number of drawings and 199 black-and-white plates constituting the major part of its content, showing a variety and richness of the Irish early Christian sculpture. Interpreting a piece of art cannot be carried out without its proper image so it is essential that any description of art is accompanied by its complete illustration. Each picture from that section shows with details the same monument from various perspectives, which additionally allows a reader to see and examine particular features of sculpture on the crosses with a closer look. All photographs are also shown with a short caption. The major part of the pictures comes from the Photographic Collection of the Office of Public Works in Ireland.

As far as the composition of the book is concerned, Hilary Richardson – the author of the text, was responsible for drawings and diagrams, whereas John Scarry compiled the section with photographs. As a photographer, Scarry had been already familiar with different types of Irish monuments with High Crosses in the lead. He believed that such important monuments, as they have always been, deserved much more public attention than they had received so far. Chiefly for this reason, he engaged himself in the project together with the main author of the book, Hilary Richardson. Mostly remembered as an author of An Introduction to Irish Crosses, Hilary Richardson studied at University College Dublin together with another great specialist in early Irish art, Françoise Henry (1902–1982), whose hypotheses on the origins of High Crosses possibly influenced Hilary’s research. Hilary Richardson graduated in archaeology, anthropology and history of art, and became an academic in the Department of Archaeology, University College Dublin. She gave lectures on Irish High crosses internationally and published numerous papers on her research. She was invited at conferences in Austria and Italy, but mainly carried out her research in Armenia and Georgia.

Ireland’s Golden Age of Saints and Scholars

Tall High Cross at Monasterboice. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Alongside very richly illuminated manuscripts, carved in stone Irish High Crosses are one of the finest fruits of early medieval art of Ireland, and like round towers they are the most unique free-standing monastic monuments that are dated back to the legendary Ireland’s Golden Age of Saints and Scholars. Apart from Ireland, they were also built on the British Islands, especially in the regions of Celtic Fringe, namely in Wales, Cornwall, Northumbria and Scotland. High Crosses largely contribute to early Christian art in Western Europe and are of international importance. They are distinguished by the diversity of sculpture and designed as paupers’ Bible by means of elaborate pictures coming from the Old and New Testament, apocryphal texts and hagiographic legends of saints, and hermits who lived in Egypt. There is also a significant number of crosses, either with just a few figurative scenes depicted in panels or with solely geometrical or floral decorations, or none of those. Christian symbols appeared first on slab stones around the early sixth century and since then they had been developed into High Crosses or the so-called Crosses of Scriptures in the tenth and eleven century, to finally give the place to the styles coming from the Continent in the twelfth century. The very shape of the ringed cross, widely known as the Celtic cross has been always strongly associated with Ireland.

Elaborated free-standing monuments erected in the so called Dark Ages

At the beginning of the book, a very basic map is provided with monument sites showing a general location of the crosses marked with numbers from 1 to 55 listed. In addition, there are County Boundaries marked with the first letter of a name for each county within the boundary, so it is easier to localise a given monument on the map. The map depiction is followed by “Preface” with a fragment taken from Pilgrimage Home by Padraic Colum (1985:78-80), giving a poetic description of an encounter with “a stone cross with a circle” and of emotions accompanying this meaningful and deep experience. In “Introduction”, the author describes the aim of this work as a comprehensive illustration given on individual features of the major Irish crosses and strongly highlights the artistic value of High Crosses in European history, as the only elaborate free-standing monuments erected in the so called Dark Ages. Hilary points to their uniqueness belonging to the Irish tradition but at the same time she reminds of their strong links with the monastery of Iona in Scotland and the Celtic monasticism in general.

Muiredach’s High Cross, Monasterboice. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

As it is only a practical survey, a complete catalogue of sculpture is not intended here. Nevertheless, the material gathered by the authors is impressive and gives an idea about an abundance of stone sculpture in early medieval Ireland. By a thoughtful observation of a carving style of some sculpted panels, Hilary assumes the presence of individual schools and even the same hand of a master sculptor. As she correctly notices, in various studies on the crosses some of elements of the sculpture are outlined, whereas others rather neglected. Peter Harbison, a great scholar and specialist on Irish High Crosses is also an author of the guidebook known as Irish High Crosses with the Figure Sculptures Explained, which is a sort of abbreviated version of the book entitled The High Crosses of Ireland published in three volumes. Likewise Richardson’s survey, a short guide by Harbison confines itself only to a group of crosses, namely those which bear figure sculpture. However, the sculpture excluded from his review has been listed by name in Appendix, at the end of the book. Richardson’s book lacks such appendix, which is a pity. On the other hand, the authors of An Introduction to Irish Crosses pay a greater attention to the detail of the panels appearing on the north side of the crosses or slab stones in the photographs, whereas in most works on High Crosses, including Harbison’s, that aspect of High Crosses seems to be neglected, apparently due to a poor lighting of that side of the monuments.

In the next part of the book, Hilary Richardson returns to the matter of an in-depth interpretation of the crosses and the symbolism expressed by their form and sculpture. The author focuses first on an a

The third high cross on the site, the North Cross, Monasterboice. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

ppearance of a typical ringed Irish cross and gives a short graphical description of its general form, breaking it into several basic parts: a stepped base, shaft, ring, and a cap stone with its different types. More detailed characterization of the particular components of High Crosses and their supposed origins are given in the following parts of the written survey, entitled “Structure” and “Interpretation of the Cross”. Yet before that Hilary explains the general meaning of the Christian cross and Crucifixion and defines their iconographical representations in the Irish sculpture from the sixth to the twelfth century. She also underlines a particular role of the Emperor Constantine in shaping such an iconography, by changing the meaning of the cross from the symbol of execution and shame into the sign of triumph and symbol of Christian faith. Constantine was also the first who introduced the use of the Chi-Rho monogram, often enclosed in a circle of a laurel’s wreath, which may be the origins of the ring encircling the arms of High Crosses, as suggested by the author.

Next part of the book is entirely dedicated to stone carving in Ireland, where the author suggests pagan origins of the free standing monuments dedicated to Christianity. The latter undeniably developed from stone pillars erected in prehistoric times. First Christian forms, like a Latin cross with wedge shaped terminals, or a Greek cross inscribed in a circle with floral characteristics predate more complex and three dimensional monuments, fully carved in the form of the cross with a free circle around its arms. The oldest examples of free-standing crosses were usually depicted among interlaced decorations in low relief and supposedly appeared first in the far-west of the country. Hilary emphasizes the fact that we are missing an absolute chronology in case of many of these stone carvings around Ireland. In her opinion, slab stones with various forms of crosses incised usually indicate the times of early monasteries, others bear engraved inscriptions in the form of short prayers, many a time including the names of deceased, which is very helpful in their dating. As far as the function of High Crosses in concerned, the author reminds that their role cannot be confined to funerary memorials only, even if some contain such indications. The question of various inscriptions and their function on different crosses are more discussed later, under the title “Inscriptions”.

Orientation and grouping

Cross of the Scriptures, Clonmacnoise. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Quite significant part of the survey says on the general rule for the orientation of crosses within the plan of an early Christin monastery, as it is presented in the diagram of the eighth century Book of Mulling. That aspect is usually omitted or hardly mentioned in most studies on High Crosses. Like other scholars, Hilary Richardson also makes an attempt to categorize the crosses into several groups according to their location and style. Peter Harbison divides High Crosses into two major groups: the crosses with biblical themes, created in the midlands and in the north, from ninth to the eleventh century, and those with less emphasis on the scriptural content and with bigger figures in high relief, erected mainly in the twelfth century. Hilary Richardson’s division is more detailed. According to the author, the crosses fall into four successive groups: the Athenny and Osory Group; Transitional Crosses, Scripture Crosses, and finally Late Crosses. Her classification ranges chronologically, like in Harbison’s case, from the ninth century and the earliest ringed carvings with more abstract decorations, through the introduction of biblical scenes to the representation of large single figures, usually of Christ, a saint or a bishop, in the twelfth century.

Mysterious Eastern origins

In the section entitled “Interpretation of the Crosses”, a reader can find thought-provoking assumptions on the origins of the very distinctive characteristics of Irish High Crosses, namely the stepped base, capstone, but first of all, the ring. Hilary suggests that they all developed from artistic forms established already in the fourth century, that is to say in the times of the Emperor Constantine. The author also claims very strong links of early Irish art with Jerusalem, Georgia and Armenia, where very similar features and stone carvings appeared. Such a theory strongly distinguishes Hilary’s survey from other works. Richardson’s proposal that Celtic crosses have their close parallels in the East Christian world, especially in the Caucasus, may have been influenced by the hypothesis proposed by another specialist in the subject, Françoise Henry. The latter theorised on cultural and artistic connections between Ireland and Coptic Egypt. That controversial idea had already been argued by Arthur Kingsley Porter in the first part of the twentieth century.

Major studies in the field

Tall High Cross at Monasterboice and the Round Tower. It is well visible by the difference in colours of the the main vertical shaft that the high cross has been reconstructed. Copyright©Archaeotravel

In the last section of the written part of the book, Hilary Richardson gives a list of the major studies on the Irish Crosses up to the time of her own research underlying an invaluable role they played in the development of the studies. In her list of authorities, there appeared the names of such famous scholars as Henry O’Neill, Margaret Stokes, Henry S. Crawford, Arthur Kingsley Porter, Françoise Henry, and Helen M. Roe. Since An Introduction to Irish Crosses was published, however, many other scholars have become involved in the further studies on Irish High Crosses, without whom such a list will not be complete. Among them there are Peter Harbison, Elinor D.U. Powell, Ryszarda Bulas and Oliver Crilly.

From general information to the details

In the “Catalogue of Crosses and Illustrations” which follows the written part, the crosses are enumerated alphabetically, according to their location. After a short description of a monastic site containing certain High Crosses, each of them is described with the sequence : north side, south side, east face and finally west face. Successive panels are listed from the bottom upwards. Small diagrams of the crosses are also provided to assist in the identification and location of particular features or scenes. Each description of the sequential panels contains an abbreviation which stands for the initials of an author of a given interpretation. The height of the crosses is given including the base, shaft and the head. There is also a range of plates referring to every cross with their numbers given in the brackets. As the author remarks, new discoveries are constantly changing a direction of the studies. A short bibliography at the end of the book is proposed to encourage a deeper interest in the subject and its development in time.

To summarize

An Introduction to Irish Crosses itself is a very important survey listing and illustrating significant stone carvings among those erected in Ireland. It is a very essential introduction, and simultaneously, a guide which should be taken for reference in studies of the monuments.

Featured image: The seventh-century Donagh Cross or St Patrick’s Cross, Carndonagh, Co. Donegal. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

By Joanna
Faculty of History of Art and Archaeology
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland
University College Dublin, Ireland

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Richardson, H. and Scarry, S. (1990) Introduction to Irish High Crosses. Cork & Dublin: the Mercier Press.

Colum, P. (1985) “Pilgrimage Home”. In: Selected Short Stories of Padraic Colum, Sterlincht, S. ed. Syracuse: University Press.

Harbison, P. Irish High Crosses with the Figure Sculptures Explained, The Boyne Valley Honey Company, Drogheda, 1994.

Henry, F. Irish Art. In the Early Christian Period, London, 1940-1965.

Henry, F., L’Art irlandais, v. 1, Yonne, 1963-1964.

Kingsley Porter, A., “An Egyptian Legend in Ireland”, Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, v. 5, Marburg, 1929.

ASIA, CAMBODIA

On the Way to the Heart of Koh Ker

Gallery Leave a comment

Increased trade contacts between Rome, India, China and Southeast Asia in the last centuries BC. resulted in international cultural exchange, including the idea of kingship (Fagan 1996-2004). Mon-Khmers groups started to absorb the idea of Buddhism or worship Hindu gods (bid.). That provoked building stone temples (Fagan 1996-2004; Mazzeo, Antonini 1978:19-20).

First Hindu shrines normally contained lingams (Fagan 1996-2004; Mazzeo, Antonini 1978:47-48). In Hinduism, the term lingam stands for the phallic symbol of the deity Shiva (“Lingam” 2021; PWN 2007:230; Mazzeo, Antonini 1978:47-48) and represents “[the idea] of ‘divine royalty’” (Mazzeo, Antonini 1978:47-48).

Map of Cambodia indicating the location of Koh Ker in relation to Angkor, near modern-day Siem Reap. Data obtained from Open Street Map. http://www.openstreetmap.org 04.04.2022.  (Hall, Penny, Hamilton 2018:2). Koh Ker is located in modern Preah Vihear province (Miura 2016:28). “More than 180 sanctuaries were found in a protected area of 81 square kilometers” (”Koh Ker” 2021).

Moats and reservoirs were constructed not only to supply water but also to represent the seat of the Hindu gods, Mount Meru, ruled by the god Indra (Fagan 1996-2004; Mazzeo, Antonini 1978:47). Its earthly reflection became Angkor, the state city established in 802 AD. by the king Jayavarman II after he moved his centre from the Mekong Valley to the lands between Kulen Hills and north-western part of the Lake Tonlé Sap (Fagan 1996-2004; Tully 2005:7). By then the process of unification of competing Khmer chiefdoms into the Angkorean Empire had started (Fagan 1996-2004; Tully 2005:7).

In the jungle

After about two hours and 120 km drive from Siem Reap, we were slowly reaching Koh Ker, a remote archaeological site with Cambodia’s second largest temple complex plunged in the jungle (Lawrence 2020; Sopheak 2015).

Koh Ker is situated around eighty kilometres northeast of Angkor is (Hall, Penny, Hamilton 2018:1). It is an archaeological site, located in northern Cambodia, known for the ancient Khmers’ second largest temple complex and their second capital in the period from 928 to 944 AD., after when it was moved back to Angkor (Lawrence 2020; Sopheak 2015; Fagan 1996-2004).

First discoveries in Cambodia

In the second part of the nineteenth century, two French researchers, Étienne Aymonier (1844 – 1929) and Lunet de Lajonquière (1861-1933) studied the complex of Prasat Thom and a stepped pyramid of Prang (Hall, Penny, Hamilton 2018:1; “Koh Ker” 2021). Their research was continued in the twentieth century by Georges Coedès (1886 – 1969) who claimed Koh Ker a capital of the Khmer empire (928 – 944 AD), basing on inscriptions found on site (“Koh Ker” 2021). In the 1930s, monuments in the area were documented in a number of drawings and photographs by Henri Parmentier (1870-1949) (Hall, Penny, Hamilton 2018:1; “Koh Ker” 2021).

Henri Parmentier à Sambor Prei Kuk in 1908, Angkor, Cambodia (Archives EFEO). Ecole Française d’Extrême Orient. In: Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.

Such fine discoveries were followed by expeditions of a more looting character, which especially intensified in the 1960s and 1970s. (“Koh Ker” 2021; Miura 2016:28). Many stolen artifacts are now preserved by the Musée Guimet in Paris or in private collections and museums in USA (“Koh Ker” 2021; Miura 2016:28). The problem of looting monuments in Cambodia has always been a serious problem, but was especially intensified during the civil war (1975 and 1979) (“Koh Ker” 2021; see: Miura 2016:28-31). Afterwards the field campaign at Koh Ker was continued by APSARA National Authority, along with French, Japanese and Australian researchers (“Koh Ker” 2021).

Latest discoveries

In the twenty-first century, the research was extended to 184 monuments having been studied in situ for five years since 2004 (“Koh Ker” 2021). One of the most intriguing facts about Koh Ker is a great number of temples supposedly built in the area just for two decades of the tenth century (Sibson 2019; Lawrence 2020; Sopheak 2020). Yet, excavations continued between 2004 and 2015 by Cambodian and international teams confirmed by radiocarbon data and LiDAR surveys the site had been inhabited in the prehistoric and pre-Angkor periods (Hall, Penny, Hamilton 2018:2), and there was also “post-10th century development occurring at the site” (Hall, Penny, Hamilton 2018:2).

King’s un/reasonable decision

In 924, for unknown reasons, King Jayavarman IV moved the capital of the Khmer Empire to Koh Ker from Angkor, located around 60 km away (Lawrence 2020).

The Empire of Khmers with its capital in Angkor was once a dominant power in South East Asia, from 802 AD to 1431 AD (Quijada Plubins 2013). “At its peak, [it] covered much of what today is Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, and southern Vietnam” (Ibid.). First, mainly Hinduism, then Buddhism were dominant religions in the region. (Ibid.). The Khmer were great architects and engineers. They mastered designing and building huge monumental temples with intricate carvings and sculpture – the landmarks of contemporary landscape (Ibid.). They also constructed huge reservoirs, known as baray, canals and an extensive road network with bridges (Ibid.).

Off the beaten track

The site of Koh Ker is off the beaten track for tourists (Lawrence 2020) visiting mostly the medieval capital of the Empire – Angkor. Yet Koh Ker stays one of the most mysterious archaeological sites in Cambodia (Ibid.).

In the past, it was called either Lingapura (city of lingams) or Chok Gargyar (Higham 2001:70; Sibson 2019) – translated as a city of glance (hematite) (Jolyon, Chau 2013), or as an iron tree forest (Kàdas 2010:8-9; Sibson 2019). One of the most intriguing facts about it is a great number of temples (180 sanctuaries) built in the area just for two decades of the 10th century, especially when Koh Ker was the actual capital of the Empire (Sibson 2019; Lawrence 2020; Sopheak 2020). As the area has only been partially de-mined after the war, only a small percentage of local temples can be visited (around 25) (Ibid.)

Three small prasats in the jungle

Making its way through the heavily forested area, our bus was bumping along muddy potholed and narrow road. Every ten seconds we were jumping up on our seats. Finally, I felt sick.

‘I have eaten too much soup for breakfast this morning,’ I admitted. ‘My stomach is coming up to my throat… The bowl was too big.’

My friend, Gosia, looked at me eloquently. ‘Too big?, ’she replied. ‘You could do hand washing in it!’

I was just going to defend my gluttony when our driver suddenly slowed down and exclaimed, ‘Take a look!’. He pointed out of the window to a row of three small sanctuaries of Prasat Pram, with two structures nearby, known as libraries (Lawrence 2020). They all looked like playing hide and seek behind the green paravane of trees. Nature had already taken over the site by its green branches sprouting upwards from the temples and cascading in tangled rooting down and around the buildings.

A while after, the bus stopped and its single door opened with a squeak.

‘Here we are, ‘the guide said. ‘Half an hour for this small marvel’.

The entrance to Prasat Neang Khmau. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

At once, everyone spilled out of the bus into the humid and hot air of the jungle. Anyway, after one week in Cambodia I had already got used to this tropical weather with drops of sweat running constantly down my back. It was November. The rainy season was coming to an end, still with some disturbing heavy showers from time to time. It was at once hot and cool but I preferred that over the air-conditioned temperature inside the bus.

We stood just in front of another temple, the solitary Prasat Neang Khmau. Its walls had blackened, possibly due to a fire in the forest that happened in the past (Lawrence 2020). “Despite being dedicated to Shiva, it faces west, while almost all other Shiva temples built by the Khmers face east” (Ibid.). Before we came back to the bus I climbed up the temple to look inside. The lingam altar table (yet with broken lingam) was standing there in the middle with incense sticks and flowers left there as gifts. “Furthermore, the lintel carving above the door featured a rare depiction of Brahma, though this can hardly be made out now due to erosion” (Ibid.).

On the further way to the main temple of Koh Ker, we also took a glimpse of Prasat Chen, where the masterpieces of Khmer sculpture were once discovered (Lawrence 2020), and then we stopped at Andong Peng – rectangular pond filled with water (Ibid.). The area around us was heavily forested; each element was harmoniously merging with the jungle (Ibid.).except for a narrow path boring through the green thicket. After leaving the bus behind, it became our principal guide on the way to the heart of Koh Ker.

To the heart of Koh Ker

The chief component of Koh Ker complex is made by Jayavarman IV’s state temple – Prasat Thom. However, some of its structures had already existed, when Koh Ker became the capital of the Empire in 928 (Sopheak 2020).

We were approaching it from the south-west. To the east of our path, there was the capital’s central reservoir, called Rahal Baray but we turned westwards to face a procession way going along the east-west axis (more precisely 15 degrees to the north-east), on which the main temple is arranged (Sopheak 2020). The whole complex is surrounded by the outer wall, divided further into two rectangular enclosures (Ibid.). The front one defines the limits of a moat, whereas the rear one encompasses the true highlight of the main temple – a stepped pyramid, referred to as Prasat Prang (Sopheak 2020; Lawrence 2020). Generally, the main axis runs through the horizontally arranged, successive levels of the temple to finally reach seven ascending steps of the pyramid and climb up its peak – the holy of the holiest.

Central and linear

The whole complex of Koh Ker is outstanding in the background of a typical Khmer urban planning, where the concentric ground plan is dominant, that is to say, where outer courtyards completely surround the inner ones (Sopheak 2020). In Prasat Thom, however, it is more a combination of linear and concentric designs (Ibid.). Whereas the temple within the front enclosure holds a typical concentric layout, the overall plan of the complex is characterized by an axis linear plan, with its successive compounds appearing one after another, according to their growing importance on the way to the peak of the pyramid (Ibid.). It immediately brings to mind an arrangement of ancient Egyptian temples of Karnak or Luxor, where the most important sanctuary was located at the very end of the temple, and was preceded by a line of pylons, courts and passageways.

In the heart of Prasat Thom. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

The central sanctuary of the complex is known as Prasat Thom (Sopheak 2020). It constitutes “an ensemble of nine Prasat towers surrounded by three enclosures. A ring of elongated buildings called libraries surrounds the core area between the first (inner) and second enclosure, [with] an impressive moat between the second and third (exterior) enclosure walls” (Ibid.).

From the outside to the inside

At the doorstep of the temple and east of the main pyramid, there are a few important constructions. Yet before entering the outer (first) enclosure, we saw the ruined but once large (first if counting from the outside) Eastern Gopuram (Sopheak 2020; Lawrence 2020; Cunin 2019). It is a cruciform gateway tower with equilateral wings in the form of elongated buildings (palaces) on either side of the axis (Ibid.). The constructions were lighted by large windows with balusters (Sopheak 2020).

The causeway with partially fallen pillars between Prasat Kraham and the the first (outer) enclosure. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Their walls were literary being devoured by offensive branches of trees and undermined by their roots. Then, the alley was leading through the successive compounds of the complex (Sopheak 2020). The first Eastern Gopuram opens to Prasat Kraham (also Krahom) Gate Tower (Sopheak 2020; Ciccone 1998-2020). The latter is the second Eastern Gopuram but may have once been a temple on its own (Sopheak 2020). As it is built of red brick it is usually referred to as the “Red Temple” (Ibid.). Prasat Kraham is the actual entrance to the successive enclosures of the complex (Ibid.) but it is itself “located outside the temple moat of Prasat Thom” (Ibid.). Prasat Thom, in turn, “[remains the only] temple on the artificial island surrounded by the moat, [within the third (inner) enclosure]” (ibid.). In other words, it is the kernel of the concentric enclosure (Ibid.).

By Cunin (2019): 3D rconstruction of the temple complex in Koh Ker.

Accordingly, Prasat Kraham led us further. First we entered the causeway through the moat with a series of pillars along the way (Sopheak 2020; Lawrence 2020). One of its rows had already collapsed, looking like fallen dominoes. From the beneath of the bases of still standing pillars, tree roots were crawling down the path. Consequently, some of them were leaning inwards as if subjects beating nods to the passing ruler. At the end of the way, the Eastern Gopurams of the second and then the third enclosure were guiding us inwards (Cunin 2019). By these means, we found ourselves in the heart of the temple but at the same time only half-way to its sanctuary – the pyramid. And this is (apart from the Prang pyramid) what makes the plan of Koh Ker highly intriguing. Such a concentric – linear resolution in architecture must have been successful as its main concept was also later applied in a nearby temple of Banteay Srei (Sopheak 2020).

Quite complicated, isn’t it …? Hopefully, the ground plan of the complex will give you a better understanding of its layout.

By Sopheak (2020): The central-linear ground plan of the complex.

Chaotic order

In the front enclosure preceding the pyramid, there is a real variety of structures: “sanctuaries, galleries, libraries and gates. Some of them are still standing, but many have been reduced to rubble” (Lawrence 2020).

A cow-like head among the scattered pieces of sculpture. Copyright©Archaeotravel.
At first site the piece of sculpture looks like an owl but it is probably a fragmented torso of a lion. Copyright©Archaeotravel.
All over there are pieces of sculptures. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

At each step we took, we encountered precious remains of sculpture, smashed into pieces, and huge blocks of stone scattered around like mismatched puzzles. Some carvings and sculpture elements of the complex have been looted (see: Miura 2016), others are fortunately preserved in museums.

When the massive ‘Prang’ finally came into view. Copyright©Archaeotravel

“The chaotic appearance of the temple only [increased] the dramatic effect when the massive ‘Prang’ finally [came] into view” (Lawrence 2020). The pyramid grew in front of us like a mountain’s peak, just at the end of the procession avenue crossing Prasat Thom (Sopheak 2020).

Featured image: Sanctuaries of Prasat Pram along the access road to the heart of Koh Ker. Photo by Bluesy Pete – Own work (2011). CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo and caption source: “Koh Ker” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

By Joanna
Faculties of English Philology, History of Art and Archaeology.
University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland;
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland;
University College Dublin, Ireland.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

“Koh Ker” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3wdCUJf>. [Accessed on 5th July, 2021].

“Lingam” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3vPT8so>. [Accessed 15th October, 2021].

Ciccone T. M. (1998-2020). “Prasat Thom Temple, Koh Ker, Cambodia.” In: Asian Historical Architecture. Available at <https://bit.ly/37z2nkk>. [Accessed on 14th February, 2020].

Cunin O. (2019). Two Emblematic Khmer Shaiva temples – Prasat Thom and Banteay Srei. (PDF retrieved from Academia: oc.angkor@gmail.com). In: Khmer Temple: Architecture and Icons. Visual presentation of a lecture given in April 2019 at Jnanapravaha Mumbai. See at <https://bit.ly/2JFRnve>; <https://bit.ly/2wevMD7>.

Fagan, B. M. ed. (1996-2004). “Khmer Civilization and the Empire of Angkor”. The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Latest Edition (2 ed.). Oxford University Press.

Hall, T., Penny, D., Hamilton, R. (2018). Re-evaluating the occupation history of Koh Ker, Cambodia, during the Angkor period: A palaeo-ecological approach. PLoS ONE 13(10): e0203962, pp. 1-25. Available at <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203962>. [Accessed 15th October, 2021].

Higham C. (2001). The Civilization of Angkor. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Jolyon R., Chau I. (2013). Hematite from Cambodia. Available at  <https://bit.ly/3bBBRtE>. [Accessed on 27th July, 2015].

Kàdas C. (2010). “Koh Ker” In: Shortguide. Budapest: Hunincor.

Lawrence K. (2020). “Koh Ker: The Unsolved Puzzles of the Pyramid.” In: Sailingstone Travel. Available at  <https://bit.ly/2Hr3Q1u>. [Accessed on 15th February, 2020].

Mazzeo, D., Antonini, C. S. (1978). Monuments of Civilization. Ancient Cambodia [Civiltá Khmer],  Arnoldo Mondadori trans. London: Cassell.

Miura K. (2016). “Koh Ker.” In: Cultural Property and Contested Ownership: The Trafficking of Artefacts and the Quest for Restitution. Hauser-Schäublin, B., Prott, L. V. Routledge: London&New York.

PWN (2007). Słownik terminologiczny sztuk pięknych. Kubalska-Sulkiewicz K., Bielska-Łach M., Manteuffel-Szarota A. eds. Fifth edition. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Quijada Plubins R. (2013). “Khmer Empire” In: Ancient History Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/37vKdQm>. [Accessed on 15th February, 2020].

Sibson M. (2019). “The Enigmatic Koh Ker Pyramid of Cambodia” In: Ancient Architects Channel. Available at <https://bit.ly/2SPGSpZ>. [Accessed on 15th February, 2020].

Sopheak H. (2015). “Koh Ker” In: Angkor Temples In Cambodia. Available at  <https://bit.ly/31TNs2S>. [Accessed on 15th February, 2020].

Sopheak H. (2020). “Prasat Thom temple complex in Koh Ker.” In: Koh Ker – Temple Town Tours. Available at <https://bit.ly/2SHaZzO>. [Accessed on 15th February, 2020].

Tully, J. (2005). A Short History of Cambodia. From Empire to Survival. Australia: Allen&Unwin

ASIA, IRAQ

Gibbor in the Museum of Louvre

Leave a comment

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 so-called 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. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

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 Renate Flynn (2014). “Hero Overpowering a Lion.” In: Impressions Travelogue.

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).

The Sumerian 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

The fifth King: 𒀭𒉈𒂵𒈩

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 five 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 a professor of Old Testament interpretation, 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. Gentry (2019) suggests that the Nephilim had already lived on 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. Others suggest that “afterward” stands for the times after the flood as the giants also appears in the Bible later on (Gentry 2019). 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).

Tablet V of the Epic of Gilgamesh The Sulaymaniyah Museum, Iraq. Photo by Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg) (2014). CC BY-SA 4.0. Photo source: “Gilgamesh” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

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“.

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, or both. 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.).

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).

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?

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.

Featured image: Gilgamesh statue at Sydney University (image cropped). Photo by Samantha/Flickr/Creative Commons. Photo source: Ancient Code Team (2020) “20 Facts about Gilgamesh—Ancient Sumeria’s Demigod.” In: Ancient Code.

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].

“Gilgamesh” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <http://bit.ly/2KjWX6U>. [Accessed on 20th December, 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.

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

Bruegel P. the Elder (1568). “The Tower of Babel (Rotterdam)” – edited. Google Art Project. Public domain. Photo source: “The Tower of Babel (Bruegel)” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <http://bit.ly/3aq67cQ>. [Accessed on 8th February, 2020].

Bruegel P. the Elder (1563). “The Tower of Babel” (Vienna) – Google Art Project – edited. Photo source: “The Tower of Babel (Bruegel)” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <http://bit.ly/2Wy8RwI>. [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.

Ancient Code Team (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].

 

Joanna Pyrgies