Tag Archives: Museums

Red-Bricked Castle of Marienburg on the River Nougat

Before I came to Malbork with my sister and friends from Austria, I had already seen the castle several times from the windows of a train passing by the city of Malbork, either towards the Baltic Sea, or when I was returning from the coast to my hometown hidden in the mountains, in the south of Poland (see: Travelling from ‘Hel’ to the City of Saint Mary). And I always waited when, after a short stop at the Malbork railway station, the train started and after a few seconds the red walls and towers of a Gothic castle appeared, reflecting in the waters of Nougat River. Its shadows stretched with its deep and walled moats and a wooden bridge guarded by thick towers of the entrance gate. Now, at last, I was standing right in front of it, only to disappear into its medieval maw just a moment later.

From Zantir to Marienburg

The settlement in Malbork dates back to the Neolithic (Pro100 z MoSTU 2017). It was only in the tenth century AD. that the region was more intensively settled (Ibid.). In the mid-twelfth century, some regions on the Nougat River were regained by Pomeranian dukes (Ibid.). Thanks to them, the wooden and earth stronghold of Zantir was created on the right bank of the Nougat (18 kilometres to the south of Malbork), which Sambor, one of the brothers of the Duke of Pomerania, offered to the Teutonic Order in 1250 (Ibid.).

Surroundings of the Malbork castle by the Nougat River. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

However, in 1281, a Teutonic commander abandoned it in favour of a nearby castle being just constructed of brick, which possibly happened on behalf of the later GrandTeutonic Master, Konrad von Feuchtwangen (1291-1296) (Bieszk 2010:105; Żylińska 1986:178). The castle, together with the surrounding town, was consequently named Marienburg, meaning the City of Saint Mary, the Patron Saint of the Order (Pro100 z MoSTU 2017). Today the city is called Malbork and its original name, Zantir, was long ago forgotten (Żylińska 1986:178). The village was granted city rights in 1286, and surrounded in the second half of the fourteenth century by walls with towers and gates around the castle, forming one large fortified complex (Pro100 z MoSTU 2017; Bieszk 2010:104).

Visiting the castle of Malbork together with my little sister. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

The initial complex of Malbork was a rectangular building with a chapel and an internal courtyard, surrounded by walls, with corner towers, secured with moats and artificial canals, with a drawbridge leading to the defensive gate (Żylińska 1986:178). The castle was built on the model of fortresses in the Holy Land, but Saint Jean D’Acre fell in 1291, where a century ago, in 1198, the Fratres Domus Hospitalis Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum in Jerusalem was founded as a branch of the Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem (Ibid.:178). Therefore over time, Malbork became the central, though not the only, seat of the Grand Teutonic Master (Ibid.:178).

Fortifications above the Nougat River

In order to build the castle, woods and other building materials had been collected. The first stage of construction began in 1280 (Pro100 z MoSTU 2017). The Teutonic Knights began to build on the top of a moraine hill above the Nougat River, preparing the site, building facilities, digging a moat and bringing water from Dąbrówka Lake, six kilometres south, through a specially dug canal (Bieszk 2010:105; Pro100 z MoSTU 2017). The canal’s waters were directed to the town and castle moats, connected to the River of Nougat, which alone could not provide a constant water level due to its location (Bieszk 2010:105; Pro100 z MoSTU 2017). At the same time, the waters of the canal, flowing through the moat, moved the mills and carried away waste into the river (Bieszk 2010:105). Finally, along the moats, the whole contemporary complex was surrounded by the perimeter wall (Pro100 z MoSTU 2017). Today, the moats are dry, so one can take a closer look at how powerful and high walls protected the lives of the inhabitants (Ibid.).

The Castle of Malbork, Old and New Towns, 1639. By Unknown Author (1639). Public domain. Image modified. Photo source: ”Zamek w Malborku” (2020) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Over the next twenty years, the perimeter wall, the northern wing and, partially, the west wing had been finally completed (Pro100 z MoSTU 2017). A defensive tower called Gdanisko was also erected (Ibid.). It was the observation tower, which also acted as the final defence point (Ibid.).

Enemy’s growing walls and towers over the lands of Poland

Initially, Malbork was a commander’s castle, that is to say, it was of lesser importance. However, its status was going to rise due to a political situation in Europe, or rather, the imperial threat the Teutonic Order imposed in western Europe (PWN 1997-2020; Pro100 z MoSTU 2017).

When Malbork became the headquarters of the Teutonic Order, a huge number of Knights followed there their Grand Master, and that also required a reconstruction or rather a further enlargement of the complex (Pro100 z MoSTU 2017; Bieszk 2010:104, Żylińska 1986:178). The original castle, which constituted  the High Castle, turned out to be insufficient for the growing needs of the Knights and the Grand Master himself; because it was not representative enough, the castle began to grow with more and more magnificent buildings (Żylińska 1986:178). First, the Middle Castle with a large refectory was built, then the Grand Master’s Palace and finally the Low Castle (Ibid.:178). Within the fortress, there were stables and granaries, mills and wells, kitchens and pantries, an infirmary and a pharmacy, an arsenal and a smithy, all that could withstand even a heavy siege for up to two years (Ibid.:178).

Eventually, the castle of Malbork became the main house of the Teutonic Order, the seat of the Grand Master, of the General Chapter, and the administrative and management centre of the monastic state, with rising influence in Europe (Pro100 z MoSTU 2017; Bieszk 2010:104; Chabińska-Ilchanka et al. 2015:174). Seventeen grand masters were in office in Malbork for the period of 148 years (Bieszk 2010:104). The last of them, Ludwik von Erlichshausen, was forced to leave the castle in 1457, in favour of the Polish king, Casimir IV Jagiellonian (1427 – 1492) (Ibid.:104).

Wrong decision of the Duke of Masovia

The Teutonic Knights started their military and religious career quite modestly (Żylińska 1986:178). They were brought to Poland in 1226, by the Polish Duke, Konrad Mazowiecki, to help him in a fight against pagan Prussians and Lithuanians, ravaging his lands, Masovia (Ibid.:178). Until now, contemporary Polish historians have reapproach this disgraceful decision of the Duke of Masovia, who was surely unaware of its long-term consequences.

In the answer of the Duke’s invitation, the Teutonic brothers in the number of seven, including their Grand Master, Herman von Salza, came to Poland from Transylvania, from where they were driven away by the Hungarian king, Andrew the Second (Żylińska 1986:178). Konrad Mazowiecki, seemingly unaffected by this fact, settled his guests in the castle of Dobrzyń, and then offered it to them together with the city of Nieszawa, the villages of Murzynowo and Orłów, and the adjacent areas (Ibid.:178-179).

Picture taken in Malbork after Wikimania 2010 conference. Panorama of Malbork Castle, Poland. Photo by DerHexer; derivate work: Carschten – own work (2010). CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo and caption source: ”Zamek w Malborku” (2020) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Wherever the Teutonic Knights settled in Poland, they established there their commanders and built huge red castles (Żylińska 1986:179). They were supposed to be a fortified defence wall against the invasions of barbarian neighbours, but in fact they became the outposts of a foreign nation inside the feudally fragmented Regnum Poloniae (Ibid.:179). Similarly, the chain of castles of Cardiff-Montgomery-Caerphilly-Chester were built in Wales, in the twelfth century, by Norman kings on the throne of England, which was intended to conquer that country and incorporate it into the English Crown, which actually happened (Ibid.:179).

Hot potato in medieval Europe

As a matter of fact, towards the end of the thirteenth century, the atmosphere of European rulers’ hostility towards the Order had been significantly growing (PWN 1997-2020). It was mostly caused by their conquest of Christian lands instead of those occupied by pagans (Ibid.). As there were concerns about open military actions against the Teutonic Knights, in 1309 it was decided to move the seat of the Grand Master of the Order from Venice to Malbork, closer to the lands still ruled by pagans (Ibid.). By these means, the problem in Europe was dropped like a hot potato, and made decision was actually to a significant disadvantage of Poland.

Heralds of the Teutonic Grand Master are bringing two naked swords just before the Battle of Grunwald. Shot from the movie “Knights of the Teutonic Order” (”Krzyżacy”), directed by Aleksander Ford (1960). Source: East News/POLFILM (2018). “’Krzyżacy’: pierwsza historyczna superprodukcja”. In: Film Interia.pl.

A Polish author, Jadwiga Żylińska (1989:179) writes that the Duke’s wrong decision to bring the Teutonic Knights to Poland resulted from his ignorance of important political events in the contemporary world; Kondrad Mazowiecki was just a feudal ruler who permanently resided on the Prussian borderland and was still involved in local wars with other dukes belonging, like himself, to the Polish dynasty of the Piast. Consequently, he did not know who the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, Herman von Salza, really was (Ibid.:179). And he was, above all, one of the most trusted people in the entourage of the controversial Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick the Second, and the best of his diplomats (Ibid.:179). Finally, it was Herman von Salza who crowned the previously excommunicated by the Pope Emperor as the King of Jerusalem at the Tomb of Christ in Jerusalem (Ibid.:179).

The development of the state of the Teutonic Order in the years 1260-1410. Image by S. Bollmann (2010). CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo source: “Zakon krzyżacki” (2021). Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia.

Most famous of all medieval Orders, the Templar Knights openly showed their hostility towards the Frederick the Second and distanced themselves from the Teutonic Knights and their politics (Żylińska 1986:179). For their paths diverged in opposite directions; whereas the Templars aimed to build a new worldwide Christian community and ensure its safe growth, the Teutonic Knights exclusively thought of establishing their own state at the expense of another country’s territory and the Holy Roman Emperor seemed to fully support them in their ambitions (Ibid.:179). Accordingly, in 1226, Frederick the Second issued a Golden Bull in Rimini (modern day Italy), in which he granted the Teutonic Knights the property of the land conquered in Prussia, the land that did not belong to anybody but to pagan Prussians … (Ibid.:179).

Pagan Prussia

Prussia territory should be defined as the Baltic areas between the rivers of Vistula and Neman (Gruszka 2018). It is estimated that around 170,000 people lived in Prussia in the thirteenth century (Ibid.). At that time, a vast majority of the area was covered with forests (Ibid.).

Entering of the Grand Master Siegfried von Feuchtwangen to the Malbork Castle, painting by Carl Wilhelm Kolbe (the Younger) from 1825. Public domain. Photo source: “Zakon krzyżacki” (2021). Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia.

The main activities of the tribes were farming, breeding and, of course, plundering  (Ibid.). Although various peoples who lived there were usually referred to as ‘Prussians’, they were composed of diverse tribal groups, such as Pomezanians, Pogesanians, Warmians, Scales, Yotvingians, Samogitians and finally Lithuanians  (Ibid.). At some point, however, they began to consolidate and cooperate with each other, especially in the face of growing threats of Christian nations  (Ibid.). As a result, they also became more and more dangerous to their neighbours  (Ibid.). It is worth adding that pagan tribes posed a real threat to Poland, as they did not avoid trying to invade the lands of Christian rulers but any attempts of conquest of their lands turned out to be a real challenge  (Ibid.). War against Prussia was not easy and lasted for half a century (Żylińska 1986:180). For example, in 1261, the Christian army, composed of Polish knights and crusaders from various parts of Europe, was defeated by the Lithuanians and Prussians in Natangia (Ibid.:180).

The Prussians, like the Vikings in the past, dealt not only with attacks and plunder, but also with trade (Żylińska 1986:180). There were also regular trade relations between Poland and Prussia; salt, iron and handicrafts were exported from Poland, for which the Prussians paid with amber and leather (Ibid.:180). However, while the Vikings had already been rightful members of Christian Europe for several centuries, Lithuanians and Prussians were still pagan, which was an impassable barrier between them and their Christian neighbours (Ibid.:181). After Jadwiga Żylińska (1986:181) adopting Christianity meant not only abandoning the faith of their ancestors, but also an access to the Christian civilization of Europe, which was as much a threat to them as a fascinating foreign culture. The first who felt attracted to it were Prussian nobles who, by being baptized and allied with the Teutonic Knights, changed into the Prussian aristocracy and at the same time, they strongly Germanised (Ibid.:181).

Coat of arms of Lithuania. Uploaded by Palosirkka (2012). Public domain. Photo and caption source: “Lithuania” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

With all the distrust aroused by the Teutonic Knights, their red castles, wealth, organization, knightly gear of shiny armours, cloaks and caparisons embroidered with emblems, covering a rider and his horse (see: barding), and their waving banners with almost magical power affected the imagination of contemporaries, and not only of the barbarian tribes (Żylińska 1986:182). According to Żylińska (1986:182) a strong desire to destroy this foreign splendour had to harmonize in the souls of Prussians with their enchantment with such a cultural grandeur or even their aspiration to follow the knights’ example, which could only happen at the cost of losing the Prussians’ own identity. And so it happened; as the Prussia’s tribal substance did not turn into a nation in due time, its inhabitants could not withstand pressures of higher than their own organization and national consciousness (Ibid.:183). Consequently, the Prussians as a nation disappeared from the map and memory of Europe (Ibid.:184). Their language was also forgotten (Ibid.:184). The only its trace has been preserved in the prayer Pater Noster in the original language of Prussia (Ibid.:184).

Christianisation and Polonization of the Baltic tribes

The population of Mazovia in Poland also infiltrated Prussia and the other way round; the Prussians settled in Poland, some as prisoners, an example of which was a Prussian girl, who was brought up by Duchess Hedwig of Silesia, known in Polish as Saint Jadwiga Śląska (1174 – 1243), and eventually married to her steward (Żylińska 1986:181). Others fled from oppressions of the Teutonic Knights and became Polonized (Ibid.:181). By these means, the Polish nobility of the Prussian coat of arms undoubtedly descended from Prussian nobles (Ibid.:181).

Lithuanians fighting with Teutonic Knights (14th-century bas-relief from the Castle of Marienburg). By Unknown Author. Scan from Bumblauskas. Senosios Lietuvos istorija 1009-1795. Public domain. Photo and caption source: “Battle of Grunwald” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

In turn, the Lithuanians were baptized from the hands of the Kingdom of Poland, literally at the very last minute to protect themselves from a total destruction by the Teutonic Knights (Żylińska 1986:182). “In 1385, the Grand Duke Jogaila accepted Poland’s offer to become its king [through a marriage with the young Polish king, Hedwig d’Anjou (Jadwiga Andegaweńska). Consequently,] Jogaila embarked on gradual Christianization of Lithuania and established a personal union between Poland and Lithuania” (“Lithuania” 2021). It is worth adding that it was the Grand Duke Jogaila, who as a Christian king of Poland, Władysław II Jagiełło, finally defeated the Teutonic Order. The coat of arms of Lithuania [Lietuvos herbas Vytis] has been established as Pogonia or Pahoni, which expresses a fascination or rather a situation of transition from one formation to another; namely, it depicts a nomad horseback but already in the armour of a Western Christian knight (“Lithuania” 2021; Żylińska 1986:182). Not to mention the fact that all the great Lithuanian families were eventually Polonized (Żylińska 1986:182).

Shots from a Polish historical drama series: Korona królów (The Crown of the Kings); Season 3. Starring: Vasyl Vasylyk and Dagmara Bryzek. In: TheTwins90 Youtube Channel.

Unlike Prussians, Poles had already developed a well-established national awareness by the thirteenth century and knew that they had to destroy the Teutonic state, which was spreading on their lands, or they would perish themselves (Żylińska 1986:183). Such a destruction of the Teutonic Order eventually started with the Battle of Grunwald in 1410, won by the allied armies of Poland and Lithuania (Ibid.:183-184).

Under the Teutonic sword

Yet in the thirteenth century, when Konrad of Mazovia, together with the Teutonic Knights, had won the victory over Prussia, he additionally offered the Teutonic Knights the lands of Chełmno and Lubawa, located between Osa, Drwęca and Vistula Rivers (Żylińska 1986:180). Consequently, relations between the Duke of Mazovia and the Teutonic Knights were extremely good, and in 1231 they started building together a stronghold in Toruń (Ibid.:180). Soon, the Teutonic Knights got rid of the Poles from it and two years later issued location privileges according to Magdeburg Law for two cities, Toruń and Chełmno (Ibid.:180). The former turned out to be one of the most beautiful Teutonic cities, now in Poland (Ibid.:183). The wealth of the city attracted artists, craftsmen and architects (Ibid.:183). More and more magnificent sacred and secular buildings were built there, among which there were the town hall, the house of the Brotherhood of Saint George, the merchant’s house, bourgeois houses and Gothic churches (Ibid.:183).

After the Battle of Grunwald: The Solidarity of the Northern Slavs (1924), by Alfons Mucha, The Slav Epic. Created: 1924. Public domain. Photo source: “Battle of Grunwald” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

On the whole, the Teutonic Knights acted so quickly and efficiently, that Konrad did not have enough time to realize when their commanders were being established in such cities as Nieszawa, Toruń, Chełmno, Radzyń, Elbląg, Dzierzgoń and Bałda (Żylińska 1986:180). Simultaneously, the Teutonic Knights called on Christian knights from all over Europe to fight the pagans and also attracted settlers from Germany (Ibid.:180). As a result, the settlement of the Teutonic Knights on the border between Poland and Prussia introduced not only a new ethnic element, but also a military organization aimed at conquering Prussia, which eventually took place in 1283 (Ibid.:182).

In the fifteenth century, Jan Długosz (1415 – 1480), a Polish chronicler, judges the act of bringing the Teutonic Knights to Poland by the Prince of Mazovia in the following words (Żylińska 1986:179-180):

“[Konrad of Mazovia] gave [the Teutonic Order the lands] in fact, but not legally, because the Duke Konrad could not make this donation to the disadvantage of the Polish kingdom. And although this grant seemed beneficial at the time, later there was a huge shedding of Christian blood because the Teutonic Knights had sought to seize the remaining lands of the Kingdom of Poland, and the Poles defended their seats. And among Polish kings and princes, there is no other who has brought on the Kingdom of Poland a greater defeat and a greater misfortune than the mentioned Konrad by calling the Teutonic Knights.”

Jan Długosz in: Żylińska 1986:179-180.

From the times of glory to the fall

Since 1226, the Teutonic Knights had strengthened themselves on every piece of land given or conquered to them (Żylińska 1986:182). Each provincial commander erected a defensive red brick castle and a Gothic church dedicated to the Saint Mary (Ibid.:182). Additionally, European knights with godly intent to fight the pagans kept coming to Teutonic castles (Ibid.:182). The Teutonic Knights themselves, however, did not rush to convert pagans to Christianity, leaving it to the Franciscans and Dominicans (Ibid.:182). Instead, they preferred to fight, build burgs and develop their trade (Ibid.:182). Therefore, they founded their commanders on the trade route, and in the shadow of the castle a town was established, which soon gained an European status (Ibid.:182). Through the Teutonic ports at the Baltic Sea, goods were transported to Flanders, England, Poland, Lithuania and Ruthenia (Ibid.:182). The Order also had its commercial agents in Poland (Ibid.:183). Representatives of the Order took care of the rents due to them from the lands settled by the Polish dukes and additionally provided detailed information on their actions (Ibid.:183).

Prussian Homage by Jan Matejko. After admitting the dependence of Prussia to the Polish Crown, Albert of Prussia receives Ducal Prussia as a fief from King Sigismund I the Old of Poland in 1525. By Jan Matejko – www.pinakoteka.zascianek.pl Created in 1882. Public domain. Photo and caption source: “Prussia” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

The Teutonic Knights ruled perfectly in their country, but it was done through a visible expropriation and an oppression of other peoples and nations (Żylińska 1986:183). Out of the Teutonic Order, a German state of Prussia originated in 1525, with the Prussian Homage to the Polish Crown made in Cracow, when Albert Hohenzollern “resigned his position as Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights and received the title ‘Duke of Prussia’ from King Zygmunt […] the Old of Poland” (“Prussian Homage” 2020). The new “duchy cantered on the region of Prussia on the southeast coast of the Baltic Sea” (“Prussia” 2021) and became the beginning of the Kingdom of Prussia, which eventually participated in the successive Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in the eighteenth century (Ibid.).

The view of the Malbork castle from the other side of the River, at dusk. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

The Teutonic Order, unlike the Templar Knights, was never officially dissolved by the popes (“Zakon krzyżacki” 2021). After the Prussian Homage and the secularization of Livonia (Latvia and Estonia), religious houses of the Teutonic Order mostly remained in the German Reich and the seat of the Grand Masters was moved to Mergentheim Castle in Württemberg (Ibid.).

The Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary had gone a long way from the moment when seven brother-knights with Herman von Salza arrived in Mazovia, in 1226, until 1410, with the Battle of Grunwald, where the Grand Teutonic Master, Urlich von Jungingen and his knights were finally defeated, losing all their banners (Ibid.:183-184).

Silent but haunted witnesses of old times

Gothic cathedrals and castles built of red brick were left behind the glorious times of the Teutonic Knights (Żylińska 1986:184). Some of them, such as the castle in Toruń, were destroyed by citizens of the town during the uprising of the inhabitants of Prussia against the Teutonic Order (Ibid.:184).

But Malbork survived as a testimony of violence and of unsurpassed perfection, whose enormous Gothic silhouette still reminds of the times of terror (Żylińska 1986:184).

Castle in Malbork, view from the side of Nogat River. Photo by Gregy (2012). CC BY-SA 3.0 pl. Photo source: ”Zamek w Malborku” (2020) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Since the time of Casimir IV Jagiellon and the Thirteen Years’ War, the castle had remained in the hands of the Polish Crown (Bąk 2017:55). In 1626, the stronghold was conquered by the Swedish army, which was returned to the Crown in 1635 (Ibid.:55). But the following years were not glorious for the castle at all: fires, the Swedish Deluge, destruction and continuous looting caused the Malbork Castle to start to decline (Ibid.:55). Any undertaken reconstruction attempts did not restore the stronghold to its former grandeur (Ibid.:55). After the First Partition of Poland (1772), the medieval castle fell into the hands of the German state of Prussia, when, after suffering a lot of destruction, it experienced the first renovation works in the nineteenth century (Ibid.:55). Yet, the most serious damage to the castle took place especially during the Second World War (Ibid.:55). Afterwards, many years of conservation work passed away before the building was restored to its former glory, and the castle itself became a Gothic gem on the UNESCO World Heritage List (Ibid.:55).

The Malbork castle’s massive turrets by the Nougat. Photo by Jan Nowak, (2016) Free images at Pixabay.

Malbork is undoubtedly a masterpiece of medieval architecture and the greatest fortification of northern Europe (Żylińska 1986:184). For many, it is also a place haunted by wandering ghosts of its previous inhabitants and infamous past events (Ibid.:184). Apparently, it is not just a matter of human imagination (Ibid.:184). Once, a British television presented a theory according to which events are stored in inanimate matter, just as images are recorded on a tape (Ibid.:184). The more bloody, violent, and significant the event was, the more likely it was to linger where it happened (Ibid.:184). And many of such events took place in the castle of Malbork.

Featured image: The fortifications of the Malbork Castle seen from the Nougat. 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:

“Battle of Grunwald” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3hk5AuU>. [Accessed on 29th June, 2021].

“Lithuania” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3hk5AuU>. [Accessed on 29th June, 2021].

“Prussia” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/35ZmCZM>. [Accessed on 29th June, 2021].

“Prussian Homage” (2020). Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3w5WEOU>. [Accessed on 29th June, 2021].

“Zakon krzyżacki” (2021). Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3qIMxOT>. [Accessed on 30th June, 2021].

”Zamek w Malborku” (2020). Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3qIMxOT>. [Accessed on 7th December, 2020].

Bąk J. (2017). Zamki w Polsce. Najpiękniejsze polskie twierdze. Bielsko-Biała: Wydawnictwo Dragon.

Bieszk J. (2010). Zamki Państwa Krzyżackiego w Polsce. Warszawa: Bellona.

Chabińska-Ilchanka E., Dylewska K., Horecka K., Jaskulski M., Kastelik M. M., Łatka M., Ressel E., Willman A., Żywczak K. (2015). Niezwykłe miejsca świata. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SBM Sp. zo.o.

East News/POLFILM (2018). “’Krzyżacy’: pierwsza historyczna superprodukcja” (photos: 1, 2, 3, 7). In: Film Interia.pl. Available at <https://bit.ly/36KPfuU>. [Accessed on 5th December, 2020].

Erwinbauer (2015). Free images at Pixabay. Available at <https://bit.ly/37HJkq3>. [Accessed on 5th December, 2020].

Gruszka P. (2018). ”Sprowadzenie Krzyżaków do Polski. Dlaczego Konrad Mazowiecki podjął jedną z najgorszych decyzji w dziejach kraju?” In: ciekawostlihistoryczne.pl. Available at <https://bit.ly/2U6CkzM>. [Accessed on 29th June, 2021].

Nowak J. (2016). Free images at Pixabay. Available at <https://bit.ly/3lTa1Ns>. [Accessed on 5th December, 2020].

Pro100 z MoSTU (2017). “Malbork – fakty nie mity (Twierdza)”. In: Pro100 z MoSTU. Available at <https://bit.ly/33OxAkh>. [Accessed on 5th December, 2020].

PWN (1997-2020). “Krzyżacy”. In: Encyclopedia PWN. Available at <https://bit.ly/36I8g1d>. [Accessed on 4th December, 2020].

TheTwins90 (2020). “Jadwiga & Jogaila | 14th February 1386 -17th July 1399 [+ 15th July 1410]”. In: TheTwins90 Youtube Channel. Available at <https://bit.ly/3y6cqe5>. [Accessed on 5th December, 2020].

Żylińska J. (1986). Po drugiej stronie lustra. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.

Image of the Goddess: between Matriarchy and Patriarchy

On the threshold of the Neolithic, the hunter slowly turns into a farmer and breeder (Jabłońska 2010; Burda, Halczak, Józefiak, Szymczak 2002:32). This is a special period in the development of the matriarchal system (Ibid.). The forces of nature continue to play a major role in human life, yet the new lifestyle changes its spiritual approach (Ibid.). Moon worship is replaced by solar cult but it is still closely related to female aspects and so responsible for factors influencing land fertility and annual harvests, which are highly significant to Neolithic society (Ibid.). The cycle process and persistence of nature flows from its divine matrix (Ibid.). Mother Earth supports life, is responsible for death, but also guarantees rebirth (Ibid.).

Neolithic face of Magna Mater

In the Paleolithic, the dark, hidden uterus corresponded to cave sanctuaries (see Figurines of the Stone Age: Miniature Great Mother of the Paleolithic), and in the Neolithic it was identified with the earth itself – the eternal parent (Jabłońska 2010). Magna Mater managed vegetation, nature, and her fertility originated in the ground which, as the humans observed, gave birth to all forms of life without interruption (Ibid.). The Neolithic likewise saw a similarity between the growth of humans and plants, with the cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth (Ibid.).

Seated “goddess” of Çatalhöyük, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, Turkey (the sixth millennium BC). Neolithic Magna Mater was usually enthroned and flanked by two animals. In this representation, she is giving birth to a child. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

While naturalistic cave art fades away with the end of the Paleolithic world of the hunter-gatherer, the image of the Mother-Goddess stubbornly repeats the well-established pattern: exaggeratedly lush shapes with lack of care for facial features, arms and legs, as if the essence of femininity was limited to the heaviness of a figure distorted by motherhood (Nougier 1898:39). Such domestic female figurines still had a right to exist, as does life that awoke in Mother Earth’s womb (Members of Staff at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations 2006:25-48).

Goddess in the first cities

In the Neolithic Age, when the first cities were sprouting, goddess worship was not only common, but it clearly flourished and gained importance (Members of Staff at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations 2006:25-48). This is evidenced by the finds of numerous figurines of the goddess – mother in the houses of the first urban settlements, such as the Anatolian Çatalhöyük or Hacilar (Ibid.:25-48). The place where religious rituals were performed was apparently a part of the house adapted for these purposes, most often decorated with geometric patterns and heads of bulls, animals dedicated to the goddess (Ibid.:25-48). In the museum reconstruction of the home sanctuary in Çatalhöyük, a plaster relief of the Mother Goddess is displayed, surrounded by bull heads (Ibid.:25-48). The local statuettes were most often carved in stone, made of burnt clay, and later also of terracotta, and although they resembled the Great Mother of the Paleolithic, the Neolithic female figurines were distinguished by the multitude of representations (Ibid.:25-48).

Restoration of a typical interior of Catal Höyük dwelling with the bulls’ heads – a possible symbol of the Neolithic goddess. The Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, Turkey. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

They were depicted in a standing or sitting position; once they resembled a young girl, another time a giving birth mother, and finally an old woman (Members of Staff at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations 2006:25-48, 183; Żak-Bucholc 2005). These three views allude to the three aspects of the goddess and at the same time to the three stages of a woman’s life; the Virgin is the first image of the triple goddess, the second is the Mother, and the third is the Old Woman (Ibid.). In this way, the goddess figure makers probably wanted to emphasize the sacred cycle of life and death (Ibid.). Since the Neolithic times, various forms of the image of the Mother-Goddess had slowly emerged, and iconographic figurative groups were formed (Ibid.). In this way, the original idea had been subject to further modifications over time, which took place within the great ancient cultures (Ibid.).

Mother enthroned

One of the famous iconographic groups is the enthroned Goddess and Lady of the Animals (Żak-Bucholc 2005). The oldest example of such a divine position is represented by a figure found in Çatalhöyük (Żak-Bucholc 2005; Members of Staff at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations 2006:25-33). Now preserved at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara, the Mother Goddess dates from the sixth millennium BC (Ibid.). As the one of the most important artifacts, she is enthroned among the rich collections of other Neolithic female figurines in the museum (Ibid.). Like the Palaeolithic Venus, the image of the Çatalhöyük mother goddess is characterized by generous body shapes and slightly delineated facial features, with a high forehead, headgear or single roller hairstyle (Ibid.). The heads of the two leopards are flanking her throne (Ibid.). Between the legs of the figure, at the level of the throne, a small, oval form is visible (Ibid.). Possibly, it is the baby’s head that emerges from the mother’s womb (Ibid.). Accordingly, the clay figurine of the goddess represents a woman giving birth (Ibid.). The second of the three stages of a woman’s life – motherhood – refers directly to the cult of life, fertility, and the very idea of ​​Magna Mater (Ibid.).

Seated Woman of Çatalhöyük, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, Turkey”. In: “Seated Woman of Çatalhöyük. Photo by Dilmen N. (2012). CC BY-SA 3.0. Source: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Another figurine illustrating motherhood is a terracotta statue of a mother with a child in her arms, which also dates back to the sixth millennium and comes from the Hacilar area (Żak-Bucholc 2005; Members of Staff at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations 2006:25-33). Unfortunately, the baby’s head has not survived to our times (Ibid.). The mother was caught in a sitting position; her posture seems very natural and relaxed, as if it came from the joy of having a baby and holding it in her arms (Ibid.).

Lady of the Animals

The image of the goddess sitting on a throne, or standing upright – the position similar to a pole or column – and surrounded on both sides by sacred animals, is probably a prototype of the representations of the later Animal Goddess – Artemis of Ephesus (Żak-Bucholc 2005; Members of Staff at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations 2006:25-33). In the Neolithic and Bronze Age, votive objects of a zoomorphic character were usually offered to the goddess; these were most often terracotta vessels, statuettes or frescoes depicting leopards, bulls, wild boars, deer, bears and birds (Ibid.).

Goddess on the Mountain

Yet another reference to the Throne of the Lady of Animals theme can be a plastic depiction of a female figure standing on a small pedestal or a hill, with animals, often lions facing her (Żak-Bucholc 2005).

Throne Room in Knossos (Minoans; the Bronze Age). If the Throne was once occupied by a Priestess, it may have been symbolically meant for a mountain peak, which was the seat of the goddess. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

This iconographic group is known as the Mountain Goddess, and the mountain the goddess stands on can be interpreted as a form of a throne (Żak-Bucholc 2005). Often the embodiment of the goddess was the Throne itself, flanked by animals, which is best depicted in the Throne Room of the Minoan Knossos – assuming, however, that the throne belonged not to the king Minos but to a priestess (Ibid.; see Lady of the Labyrinth).

Female column flanked by beasts

Another form of representing a goddess is a column or pillar, most often with a pair of lions (lioness) on either side of it. Such depictions of a deity are typical of the Hittites (Żak-Bucholc 2005). One of the best examples of the representation of the Goddess as a column, however, is the Lion Gate in Mycenae (Ibid.).

Detail photo of the Lion Gate in Mycenae, Argolis, Greece. The goddess is played by a column flanked by two lions/lioness. Photo by Van der Crabben J. (2012). Source: Ancient History Encyclopedia.

In Minoan art, the most typical is in turn the image of the Goddess as a woman holding writhing serpents in both hands (Żak-Bucholc 2005). Regardless of the accompanying animals of Magna Mater, the iconographic group described above shows the Lady ruling over the forces of Nature, who is therefore responsible for maintaining harmony in the Universe (Ibid.)

Woman supporting her breasts

Another form of depicting a goddess is a woman supporting her breasts, precisely a female figure with her hands under her breasts or crossed on the breasts, or with her hands supporting them (Żak-Bucholc 2003; 2005).

Twin goddess supporting breasts. Çatalhöyük, 6000-5500 BC. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara. Photo: Zde (1999). Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Such representations date back to the Neolithic age and appear in Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Egypt (Żak-Bucholc 2003; 2005). This iconographic type shows the goddess who feeds the world, who provides nourishment to creation as its mother and protector (Ibid.). In ancient Egyptian mythology, the milk of the goddess Hathor, often pictured as a divine cow, is provided with the pharaoh himself (Ibid.). This group also includes Minoan images of a goddess with bare breasts, or some of the Anatolian figurines exhibited in the Museum of Ankara, such as the Neolithic figurine of the so-called Twin Goddess with two heads and bodies, but with only one pair of arms, the left of which supports two pairs of breasts (Żak-Bucholc 2005; Members of Staff at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations 2006:30).

Lady of the Moon, Sun and the Earth

In the Neolithic, the goddess’ pietism was still associated with the sky; next to the moon, the sun’s disk becomes the main attribute of a woman (Jabłońska 2010; Burda, Halczak, Józefiak, Szymczak 2002:30). Such devotion was intertwined with the telluric cults associated with the earthly sphere (Ibid.). Both cults seemed to penetrate and complement each other; the Sun is the growth force of all seed that draws life-giving juices from the Earth, that blooms, bears fruit, shrinks and dies to be reborn (Ibid.). This is how the cycle of life and death takes place, for which the cult of the Great Mother is responsible (Ibid.).

Shu supporting the sky goddess Nut arched above. Photo by British Museum. Source: Encyclopedia Britannica.

No wonder that among the peoples of Bronze Age Anatolia, the chthonic deity of the mother-woman was represented in writing with an ideographic sign denoting a solar deity (Jabłońska 2010; Burda, Halczak, Józefiak, Szymczak 2002:32). In the mythology of the ancient civilizations of the fertile Crescent and Egypt, the divine shield of the Sun traverses the heavens to finally extinguish and be reborn from the womb of Mother Earth; hence the object of worship was also mentioned in Anatolian texts as “the underground sun” or “the sun in the water” (Popko 1980: 26-29, 63-73; Nougier 1989:39-40; Jabłońska 2010; Burda, Halczak, Józefiak, Szymczak 2002:30-33).

The bow of Nut

The most beautiful illustration of beliefs about the rebirth of the Sun is the ancient Egyptian image of the Heavens’ Goddess, Nut (Lipińska, Marciniak 2006:170; Karaszewski 2011; Żak-Bucholc 2003;2005). The wife of the telluric deity and the mother of the superior gods of Egypt was usually depicted in art as a woman whose body, bent into a bow, formed the vault of heavens, but at the same time marked the underground path of the sun (Ibid.). The personification of Nut thus combines the earthly element with the sky; according to Heliopolitan beliefs, during the day the goddess touches the earth only with the tips of her hands and fingers, creating a sphere of air, but when the sun approached the west, her body could completely fuse with the earth (Ibid.). Nut swallowed them, which brought night, and every morning at dawn the goddess again gave birth to the Sun, which emerged from between her thighs, giving rise to a new day (Ibid.). The repeating cycle of death and rebirth of the solar disk echoes Stone Age beliefs of mankind (Ibid.). The body of Nut, dotted with stars and arched, resembles a crescent, which brings to mind the Palaeolithic lunar cult (Ibid.). Another image of Nut emphasizes even more the connection of ancient Egyptian beliefs with the beliefs of the original hunter-gatherers; keeping in mind the sacred dimension of the horned animals (Ibid.). It is not surprising that Nut or Hathor were also imagined as the Heavenly Cow, on whose back the sun traversed the sky. In this view, the spouse of the goddess Nut was represented as Taurus (Ibid.).

The sky goddess Nut depicted as a heavenly cow. Photo by King Vegita (2006). Source:: “Nut (goddess)” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

In the Hittite mythology of Anatolia, which is heavily influenced by Mesopotamian myths, it is typical to divide the deities into “lower” – telluric or underground, and “upper” – uranic, related to the sky sphere (Popko 1980:37; Kapełuś 2008:46-47). As patriarchy progressed, most solar deities become masculine, yet female sun deities often had a superior function (Ibid.). They usually combined the element of heaven and earth, hence the association of the goddess with the Earth’s sun. According to Anatolian texts, the Earth’s Sun was based in the land of the dead as it descended into the abyss of the earth at the end of the day (Ibid.). The concept of the relationship of the Sun with the underworld reveals a dual image of the Mother Goddess, perhaps frozen in the image of the Twin Goddess of Çatalhöyük (Ibid.).

Lady of Hatti

Apart from the Egyptian Nut, the solar goddess, also known the Lady of Hatti, had a similar character (Popko 1980:37; Kapełuś 2008:46-47). During the Hittite period, the goddess became one of the main deities of the pantheon (Ibid.). She was called “Queen of Heaven and Earth, mistress of the kings and queens of the country of Hatti” (Kapełuś 2008:46). In the Mesopotamian pantheon, the same title was borne by the Sumerian goddess Inanna, with whom the Semitic goddess Ishtar was identified (Drenowska-Rymarz; Wygnańska 2008:46-47; Żak-Bucholc 2005; Burda, Halczak, Józefiak, Szymczak 2002:32-33).

Nut swallows the Sun. Photo by Hans Bernhard (Schnobby)  (1976). Source: “Nut (goddess)” (2020) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

The main attributes of such goddesses were the animals flanking them; most often they were lions, other times horned animals, or owls and lions (Drenowska-Rymarz; Wygnańska 2008:46-47; Żak-Bucholc 2005; Burda, Halczak, Józefiak, Szymczak 2002:32-33). The goddess herself is usually depicted naked, standing, with a tiara on her head (Ibid.). Her arms covered with wings are most often raised upwards, and her feet end in claws (Ibid.). The silhouette of a woman is based on zoomorphic pedestals which brings to mind the iconographic type of the enthroned goddess discussed above, whose majesty is nature (Ibid.). A similar image of the goddess is a visualization of the original idea of ​​belief related to the power of Magna Mater over the Element (Ibid.). The symbol of the goddess was a star, which gives her the character of uranium deities (Ibid.). Yet it was also the Lady of the Earth; in one of the myths in the Akkadian version, Ishtar, as a solar deity, descends into the underworld to also take over the land of the dead. In turn, Inanna went underground in the fall to return in the spring. Her return heralded the rebirth of nature (Ibid.).

Warrior and the dragon

Around the fifth millennium BC, with the emergence of breeding and pastoralism and the rise of the first cities, patriarchy prevailed in Asia, Europe and the Middle East (Żak-Bucholc 2005; Burda, Halczak, Józefiak, Szymczak 2002:32; Jabłońska 2010; Drenowska-Rymarz, Wygnańska 2008:46-47; ”Artemida” 2020). The goddess then takes on the characteristics typical of men; Ishtar is the goddess of love, but on the other hand, she is an armed warrior and a cruel lover (Ibid.). The masculine principle dominates the pantheon of ancient deities; the goddess ceases to be the lady of the universe (Ibid.). From then on, power is unevenly distributed between female and male deities (Ibid.).

Minoan goddess/priestess/votaries with snakes. Knossos. (Minoans, the Bronze Age). Typical depiction of the Lady of Animals with chthonic powers. Both figures hold snakes and the one on the right additionally has got a lion/lioness on her head (Archaeological Museum of Heraklion, photo (modified): Jill_Ion, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0; modified). Source: German (2018).

The latter play a superior role (Żak-Bucholc 2005; Burda, Halczak, Józefiak, Szymczak 2002:32; Jabłońska 2010; Drenowska-Rymarz, Wygnańska 2008:46-47; ”Artemida” 2020). The aforementioned victorious fight between god – warrior and dragon is the best illustration of the collapse of matriarchy (Ibid.). Nevertheless, the cult of the Great Mother has survived to historical times (Ibid.). Successive incarnations of Magna Mater proliferate in ancient cultures. In Mesopotamia the Great Mother is known as Inanna and Ishtar, in Egypt – Isis and Hathor. The Hittite Kubaba, known as the Phrygian Iron Age Cybele, became one of the many divine designs of the Mother-Goddess of the Neolithic (Ibid.). The features of the latter were inherited by Artemis of Ephesus (Ibid.). We also find the Great Mother in the Greeks in the form of Demeter or Gaia. There are many examples (Ibid.). The Catholic Church raised Mary to a pedestal; she was granted the status of the Eternal Virgin, Immaculate, Assumed, Second after God, Mother of God and all creatures (Ibid.).

From patriarchy to matriarchy

The subject of the work is relatively difficult to analyse in detail due to its breadth and territorial scope (Burda, Halczak, Józefiak, Szymczak 2002:31). It combines such diverse scientific disciplines as archaeology, anthropology, religious studies, cultural studies and art history (Ibid.:31). So far, there have been many scientific works on the subject of the Mother Goddess, her iconographic representations in art or on the matriarchy itself (Ibid.:31). Nevertheless, learning about the religious practices of the lunar or solar cult, which are connected with the image of the goddess in art, requires further, thorough research (Ibid.:31). Most of the readings on the topic are based on more or less credible theories and are still looking for evidence to support them. The theme of Mother Goddess worship goes back to the Upper Paleolithic, an era studied solely through archaeological excavations and artifact interpretations. Therefore, an important key to the matriarchal culture of the Stone Age are the depictions of deities supplemented by a written source, created only by people living already in the patriarchy.

Featured image: “Nut as she is traditionally depicted”. Photo by Golden Meadows. Source: Encyclopedia Britannica.

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

”Artemida” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at  <https://bit.ly/3eBcyYX >. [Accessed 17th July, 2020].

Burda, B., Halczak, R. M. Józefiak, M. Szymczak (2002) Historia. Od dziejów najdawniejszych do schyłku starożytności. Gdynia: Wydawnictwo Pedagogiczne Operon.

Drenowska-Rymarz O., Wygnańska Z. (2008) ”Ludy Mezopotamii”. In: Mitologie Świata. Rzeczpospolita Kraków: Drukarnia Narodowa.

German S. (2018) “The Snake Goddess of Ancient Minoa, an Enticing Mystery”. In: Brewminate. A Bold Blend of News and Ideas. Available at <https://bit.ly/2DwfysD>. [Accessed on 1st August, 2020].

Jabłońska, N.(2010)Matriarchart”. In: Wiedza i Edukacja. Świat Wirtualnej Nauki. Available at <https://bit.ly/2U8tfEf>. [Accessed 26th February, 2020].

Kapełuś M. (2008) ”Ludy starożytnej Anatolii”. In: Mitologie Świata. Rzeczpospolita. Kraków: Drukarnia Narodowa.

Karaszewski A. H. (2011) ”Mitologia egipska”. In: Czas duszy. Available at  <https://bit.ly/3eDbQKH>. [Accessed 20th September, 2010].

Lipińska J. Marciniak M. (2006) Mitologia starożytnego Egiptu. Mitologie świata. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Auriga.

Louis-René Nougier (1989) ”Sztuka pradziejowa” In: Sztuka świata, tom 1, [Historia del Arte, vol. 1], Marzyńska, T. trans. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Arkady.

Members of Staff at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations (2006). The Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, Turkey. Ankara: Dönmez Offset.

Photo: Dilmen N. (2012) “Seated Woman of Çatalhöyük, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, Turkey”. In: “Seated Woman of Çatalhöyük”. In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at  <https://bit.ly/3eFu7qX>. [Accessed 17th July, 2020].

Photo: “Nut as she is traditionally depicted”. Source: Golden Meadows. In: Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at  <https://bit.ly/30pEkm2>. [Accessed 17th July, 2020].

Photo: Van der Crabben J. (2012) “Detail photo of the Lions Gate in Mycenae, Argolis, Greece”. In: Ancient History Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2OFk9ek>. [Accessed 18th July, 2020].

Photo: King Vegita (2006) “The sky goddess Nut depicted as a cow”. In: “Nut (goddess)” (2020) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2WtvZwA>. [Accessed 18th July, 2020].

Photo: Hans Bernhard (Schnobby)  (1976) “Nut swallows the Sun”. In: “Nut (goddess)” (2020) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2WtvZwA>. [Accessed 18th July, 2020].

Photo: Zde (1999) “Twin goddess. Marble statuette, height 17.2 cm, from Çatalhöyük, 6000-5500 BC. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara”. In: Wikimedia Commons. Available at <https://bit.ly/3hcpA0D>. [Accessed 18th July, 2020].

Photo: “Shu supporting the sky goddess Nut arched above”. Copyright: British Museum. In: Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at  <https://bit.ly/30pEkm2>. [Accessed 17th July, 2020].

Popko M. (1980) Mitologie świata. Mitologia hetyckiej Anatolii. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Artystyczne i Filmowe.

Żak-Bucholc J. (2005) “Formy obrazowania bóstw”. In: Racjonalista Available at  <https://bit.ly/32pezFe>. [Accessed 17th July, 2020].

Żak-Bucholc, J. (2003) “Kult świętej krowy” In: Racjonalista. Available at <https://bit.ly/2xbYl4H>. [Accessed 26th February, 2020].

Artifact from the Grave PG 779 in Ancient Ur

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz9tH6nFi2U
“5 tips to enjoy a no hassle museum visit”. In: Museums Made Easy by Amaya (2017). In: Youtube Channel.

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

Room 56

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

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

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

Mound of Pitch

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

William Loftus‘s sketch of his discovery of the ziggurat, in 1850s. “Discovery of the Ziggurat of Ur (The Great Temple at Mugeyer from the west)” (1857). Public domain. Source “Ziggurat of Ur” (2020) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

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

Ziggurat of Ur

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

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

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

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

The ‘gold trench’

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

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

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

Public secret

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

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

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

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

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

Royal tombs and resourceful researcher

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

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

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

Object from the Tomb PG 779

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

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

But what was it?

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

Peace side of the Standard of Ur, 2600-2400 B.C.E., shell, red limestone, lapis lazuli, and bitumen (original wood no longer exists), 21.59 x 49.53 x 12 cm, Ur ©Trustees of the British Museum. Source: The British Museum (2015). “Standard of Ur”. In: Smarthistory, December 18, 2015, accessed December 11, 2020.

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

Stylistic Conventions

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

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

Conventional interpretation

The original Warka or Uruk Vase, dated to
c. 3200–3000 BC. National Museum of Uruk.
Photo by Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg). CC BY-SA 4.0. Photo source: “Warka Vase” (2020).In: Wikipedia.
The Free Encyclopedia.
 

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

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

Treasures of the museums

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

A Street Scene at Ur in the Level of the Abrahamic Period (2000-1900 BC.). Postcard; printed; photograph showing archaeological excavations at Ur, with Arab workmen standing for scale in the excavated street of an early second millennium B.C.E. residential quarter ©Trustees of the British Museum. Source: The British Museum (2015). “Standard of Ur,” in Smarthistory, December 18, 2015, accessed December 11, 2020.

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

Lost national patrimony

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

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

Safe by all means

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

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

Featured image: Standard of Ur (Peace side); British Museum; Room 56. Photo source: Neil MacGregor (2020). “Standard of Ur. A History of the World in 100 Objects. The First Cities and States (4000 – 2000 BC.) Episode 2 of 5”. In: BBC Radio 4.

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The British Museum (2015) “Standard of Ur”. In: Smarthistory, December 18, 2015, accessed December 11, 2020. Available at <https://bit.ly/2BYdtVN>. [Accessed on 11th June, 2020].

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

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

Squared Humanity inscribed in the Universe of God

Among art works preserved in the Condé Museum in Chantilly, in France, there is a lavishly illuminated and decorated manuscript created at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Commonly known from French as Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry [The Very Rich Hours of the Duke of Berry], the bookcontains undoubtedly one of the most beautiful and important cycle of Gothic miniatures shaped by the Late Middle Ages (Żylińska 1986:236; Białostocki 2008:213).

The Limbourg Brothers and the Duke of Berry

Jean de Berry, the Duke. Detail from January. By Limbourg brothers – R-G Ojéda/RMN (created between 1412 and 1416). Public domain. Photo cropped. Photo source: “Très Riches Heures …” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

It is believed that the medieval masterpiece was produced by the three Limbourg brothers who came from the Low Countries. The authorship of the Book of Hours is also ascribed to other great contemporary illuminators, namely Barthélemy d’Eyck and Jean Colombe, who successively illuminated the manuscript after the death of the Limbourg, in the years between 1440s and 1480s (“Très Riches Heures …” 2020). As a matter of fact, it took a number of skillful craftsmen to produce a manuscript of that kind. (Husband, Cambell 2010). The writing, the calligraphy and the text was done by scribes (Ibid.). Somebody else did the decorating of the letters, the line enders and all the decorations within the text (Ibid.). Yet other craftsmen did all the rest of the borders (Ibid.).

The duc d’Aumale with a friend in his study at Chantilly. By Gabriel Ferrier – Bibliothèque et Archives du Château de Chantilly (created circa 1880). Public domain. Photo from “Très Riches Heures …” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

As the name of the book indicates, the manuscript was commissioned by a well-known great patron of the arts Jean, Duke of Berry. Although he had already owned a few books of such kind, he was always eager to get involved in a new ambitious project. (Secomska 1972:14-25; Husband, Cambell 2010). One can almost envisage the Duke flicking through his precious books by candlelight, savouring their charming illuminations (Husband, Cambell 2010). One of his other famous manuscripts, the Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry was also painted by the brothers Limbourg, between 1405 and 1409 (Ibid.). What makes the manuscript really unique among other Books of Hours is that it consists of seven inserted “story-like cycles that read like picture books” (“Belles Heures …” 2018; see Husband, Cambell 2010). They are devoted to saints, particularly venerated by the Valois princes, and to other important historical moments in Christianity (Husband, Cambell 2010). “Each section of the Belle Heures is customized to the personal wishes of its patron” (“Belles Heures …” 2018) and the Duke’s ownership of the book is indicated by representations of his coat of arms and personal emblems, namely the swans and bears, in each elaborate border of its pages (Husband, Cambell 2010). “Along with the Très Riches Heures, […] the Belles Heures ranks among the great masterpieces of the Middle Ages. The manuscript is now in The Cloisters in New York (“Belles Heures …” 2018).

The Art of Illumination: The Limbourg Brothers and the Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry. (Husband, Cambell 2010). Video source: Husband, T., Cambell, T. (2010) “The Art of Illumination: The Limbourg Brothers and the Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry”. In: Behind the Scenes at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In: The Met Youtube Channel.

The Very Rich Book of Hours was painted by the Limbourg between circa 1412 and 1416 but eventually, the manuscript could not be finished by the three brothers who died, as their patron, in 1416 (“Très Riches Heures …” 2020). In 1856, the masterpiece was acquired by the Duke of Aumale and now it is preserved as the MS 65 in the Musée Condé in Chantilly, France (Ibid.).

Livres D’Heures

BOOK OF HOURS A book of prayers to be said at the canonical Hours, intended for a lay person’s private devotion (e.g. Hours of the Blessed Virgin). Popular in the Late Middle Ages and often containing rich ILLUMINATION.

(Lucie-Smith 2003:36)

Books of Hours were used as prayer books that developed in late medieval Europe World (Digital Library 2017). Although they were made for the wealthy laity and so were used for private devotion, it had been based on the books used by the clergy but much simplified (World Digital Library 2017; Husband, Cambell 2010). Accordingly, they were devotional manuals used as personal prayer books; usually beautifully covered in jewels and with a silver fastening (Pijoan 2006:56-57; Białostocki 2008:211-213). Sometimes they open with a portrait of an owner and of their patron saint (Ibid.).

Books of Hours universally include a register of Church feasts together with multiple texts of everyday prayers (Pijoan 2006:56-57; Białostocki 2008:211-213; Digital Library 2017). The text is accompanied by rich miniature cycles, representing the Christian iconography characteristic of the Middle Ages, such as the Annunciation, Nativity, the Three Wise Men, the Life of Christ, the Virgin, various Saints, and sometimes also scenes depicting episodes of the Old Testament (Pijoan 2006:56-57; Białostocki 2008:211-213).

Illuminated manuscript page illustrating the Annunciation from the Belles Heures du Duc de Berry. Photo from “Belles Heures …” 2018. Books of Hours were mainly dedicated to the “Hours of the Virgin”. That component begins in the Belles Heures with the scene of the “Annunciation” (Husband, Cambell 2010). By Pol, Jean, and Herman de Limbourg (Franco-Netherlandish, active in France, by 1399–1416). Public domain. Photo source: “Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry” (2018) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

One of the most dominant and significant parts of Book of Hours, particularly in the case of the Très Riches Heures, is unquestionably a multi-coloured calendar year with vibrantly dynamic miniatures (Pijoan 2006:56-57; Białostocki 2008:211-213).

Owning such a manuscript was also a way for wealthy individuals to establish a more direct relationship with the God than exclusively through the Church, and in particular to express a more personal prayer to the Virgin Mary for at the core of each Book of Hours, there are the “Hours of the Virgin” (World Digital Library 2017; Husband, Cambell 2010).

Art of Luxury

The Reign of Saint Louis the Ninth in France (1226-1270) was the very peak for medieval illumination being developed mainly in Paris. Dante, the author of the Divine Comedy, describes the moment while he meets the most famous illuminator of his times in Purgatory and pays honour to this art (Pijoan 2006:56), which “is in Paris called illuminating” (Alighieri: CantoX:79).

ILLUMINATION The illustrations and book decorations found in medieval and later manuscripts, usually painted in GOUACHE or TEMPERA with gold highlights – hence the name. Synonym of ILLUMINATIONMINIATURE.

(Lucie-Smith 2003:117,139)

Not only the Bible and canonical books were decorated at that time – like in the Carolingian epoch – but there were also various texts, psalters and prayer books for a personal use. The most characteristic books of the times of Philip August and Louis IX were definitely psalters illuminated with two kinds of miniatures. Some in their forms imitating stained glasses cover the pages in circles, within which various episodes are told; in others, the entire compositions of scenes are enclosed in an intricate frame of Gothic architectural motifs: pinnacles, rosettes, roofs and arcades with flying buttresses (Pijoan 2006:56).

Château de Saumur, France. Its representation is shown in the miniature of September. Photo by Kamel15 (2008). R.M.N. / R.-G. Ojéda. CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo source: Château de Saumur (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.
Sainte-Chapelle, Paris, in the miniature of June. View of the chapel from approximate position of the Palace gateway (lower parts obscured by much later buildings). Photo by Beckstet (2005). CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo and caption source: “Sainte-Chapelle” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

After a thousand years, non-religious themes in art had reappeared and the Limbourg brothers painted the Duke’s properties: castles, lands and peasants (Beckett 1996). Towers, battlements, pinnacles – a castle seems the main witness to events illustrated by the Limbourg brothers and the Duke of Berry actually owned seventeen castles (Ibid.). Regrettably, not much original architecture depicted has been preserved; some of the examples painted by the artists that survived to our times are the castle of Saumur by the River Loire (Ibid.), the castle of Vincennes to the east of Paris, and St. Chapelle on the Île de la Cité.

Château de Vincennes, shown by the miniature of December. Photo by Selbymay (2012). CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo source: “Château de Vincennes” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

As the artwork commissioned by the Duke of Berry, his Very Rich Book of Hours also “celebrates the luxuries and sophistication of court life. Partially, it was designed to delight, flatter and amuse the patron” (Prof. Elizabeth 2019).

European Courts of the Late Middle Ages

The Very Rich Hours of the Duke of Berry was created in the Late Middle Ages where the world of art was becoming smaller (Beckett 1996). Artists were travelling and meeting one another (Ibid.). Consequently, the so-called international style had been born (Ibid.).

The Nativity of Jesus, folio 44v. By Limbourg brothers (created between 1411 and 1416). Public domain. Photo from “Très Riches Heures …” (2020). In Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

In the span of the years 1320-1420, royal and duke’s courts, mainly of Paris, Berry, Dijon, Burgundy and Low Countries, started to witness an unusual florescence of miniature painting within contemporary manuscripts. In the fourteenth century, together with a transformation of the feudal society hierarchical structure and a formation of a new social stratum, namely the rich intellectuals, a considerable need for a decorated book substantially increased. In about one hundred years the same need would result in the invention of the printing press, which rapid development consequently brought the end to the illuminated manuscript (Pijoan 2006:56-57; Białostocki 2008:211-213).

In the heyday of the medieval handwritten book, there was also a rapid artistic growth of illustrations within its frame. With the development of a medieval image in wooden panel paintings, the illustration had also flourished on parchment or vellum used for miniatures and illuminated manuscripts, particularly lavishly in prayers books of hours, called in French, livres d’heures. Their rich and intricate decorations at the time constituted a manifestation of a luxury and personal wealth, and even satisfied snobbery (Pijoan 2006:56-57; Białostocki 2008:211-213).

Calendar in Medieval Art aka Labours of the Months

Life at the Duke’s Court is the subject of the secular scenes that portray the seasons (Prof. Elizabeth 2019). “The pictorial calendar convention […] has a very long history and a very wide circulation” (Henisch 1999:vii). In Western Europe its origins date back to “the ninth century onwards; by the twelve century it had become firmly established, and was to grow especially strong and popular in France, Italy, England and Flanders” (Ibid.:5). Medieval calendar year not only was represented on sheet of vellum inside devotional books but also designed by skillful artists in wood, stone, glass, and woven into mosaics, most universally, however, used in the magnificent sculpture of Gothic cathedrals (Henisch 1999:4; Białostocki 2008:211-213; Cerinotti 2009:68-69).

The Limbourg brothers. Christ Led to Judgment, folio 143r. Uploaded by the User: Petrusbarbygere (2005). Public domain. Photo from “Très Riches Heures …” (2020). In Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Wherever it is depicted, and irrespective of small deviations in its details, the calendar pattern always consists of twenty-four scenes. Twelve of them stands for each month of the year. Correspondingly, they unfold tasks, popular occupations at the countryside, detailed scenery landmarks, and all other features characteristic of a given month (Henisch 1999:vii-3; Białostocki 2008:213; Cerinotti 2009:68-69). The successive months of the year chase one another like shifting scenes in a wheel of a vibrant kaleidoscope, “and each of these represents one stage in the never-ending process of providing food for society” (Henisch 1999:vii). Hence the medieval calendar year is also known as the “labours cycle” or the “Labours of the Months” (Ibid.:vii).

“As the year unfolds, each season has its own character and concerns. The winter months are spent indoors, in feasting and keeping warm by the fire. In the early work spring begins on the land, getting it ready to yield the best crops in the months ahead. At spring’s high tide, in April and May, there is a pause to celebrate the new life bursting out of the ground, the vigor and vitality coursing through the world’s veins. After the joy, the hard work starts again. June, July, and August are dominated by the raking of hay, the reaping of wheat, and the threshing of grain. In September, attention turns to the grape harvest and the making of wine. In the late autumn fields are plowed and seed in sown, for next year’s food supply, and animals are fattened and killed, to make sure there is plenty to enjoy when the year swings around once more to the time for feasting by the fireside.”

(Henisch 1999:2)

General plan

The overall pattern of the monthly labours inscribed in the framework of the calendar was thoroughly set up, conventionally repeated by artists throughout centuries, and therefore recognized elsewhere by the medieval mind (Henisch 1999:3-7).

“Little jingles, [usually chanted by children] – like the following, copied down in mid-fifteenth century England – also served to make the general plan well known and easy to remember” (Henisch 1999:3).

January: By thys fyre I warme my handys

Februar: And with my spade I delfe my landys.

Marche: Here I sette my thynge to sprynge;

Aprile: And here I here [hear] the fowlis synge.

Maij: I am as light as byrde in bowe;

Junij: And I wede my corne well I-know [enough].

Julij: With my sythe [scythe] my mede [meadow] I mawe [mow];

Auguste: And here I shere my corne full lowe.

September: With my flyll I erne my brede:

October: And here I sawe [sow] my whete so rede.

November: At Martynessmasse I kylle my swine;

December: And at Cristesmasse I drynke redde wyne” (Henisch 1999:3)

Reliefs of the Zodiac signs and Labors of the months at Portal of Saint Fermin, Amiens Cathedral. Photo by Olivier (2010-2015). Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. Photo cropped and colours intensified. Photo source: Wikimedia Commons.

From Labours of the Months to the Cycle of Occupations

LABOURS OF THE MONTHS A series of twelve scenes, one for each month, each showing a different country occupation, and usually accompanied by the appropriate sign of the zodiac. Found in medieval sculpture and STAINED GLASS and often in the calendar of the BOOK OF HOURS decorated with ILLUMINATION.

(Lucie-Smith 2003:127)

By the end of the epoch in question, however, a set of the illustrations – traditionally called the Labours of the Months – had become more often known as  “a cycle of occupations than labors” (Henisch 1999:7). It was because instead of duties people usually carried out in due seasons, artists started to illustrate seasonal activities and pleasures the contemporary society themselves indulged in with a full engagement and fantasy (Ibid.:7) “from snowball fights in December to boating parties in May” (Ibid.:7).

Photos by Martin Greslou (2013). Public domain. Photos source: “Zodiac on Chartres cathedral stained-glass windows.” In: Wikimedia Commons.

Signs of the Zodiac

In the medieval calendar the twelve scenes of the Labours or Occupations of the Months are always matched pair with the remaining twelve scenes representing each month’s principal zodiac sign (Henisch 1999:vii-3). It is because every month is identified with a certain planet and the divine power, an influence of which was believed to be very present in the world of nature and human disposition (Battistini 2005:47). In view of that, “the occupation scene for each month is usually linked in some way with the month’s zodiac sign, whose familiar emblem helps to pinpoint the position of each activity of the year’s map” (Henisch 1999:2). Just as it is illustrated by the cycle of stained glass scenes depicted in the Cathedral of Chartres in France, where a particular zodiac sign on the right is ascribe to each of monthly human occupations on the left.

“January – Aquarius, the Water Carrier,

 February – Pisces, the Fish,

 March – Aries, the Ram,

 April – Taurus, the Bull,

 May – Gemini, the Twins,

 June – Cancer, the Crab,

 July – Leo, the Lion,

 August – Virgo, the Maiden,

 September – Libra, the Scales,

 October – Scorpio, the Scorpion,

 November – Sagittarius, the Archer,

 December – Capricorn, the Goat” (Henisch 1999:2-3).

The Anatomical Zodiac Man, folio 14. By Limbourg brothers (created between 1411 and 1416). Public domain. Photo from “Très Riches Heures …” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

In the Very Rich Book of Hours of the Duke of Berry, the zodiac signs depicted at the top of the page tract the cycle of months represented below (Prof. Elizabeth 2019).

Long Ancient Tradition Inscribed in the Medieval Iconography

As the tradition goes, the zodiac signs were first of all to represent the endless, subsequent cycle of the passing time. Still they also gave the evidence of a close and harmonious relation between human activities and the movements of heavenly bodies in the sky. Their origins reach the ancient civilizations, such as of Egypt, China, Persia, and India. The zodiac was then adapted by the Christianity on the way of the religious syncretism, to eventually find its central place in the medieval iconography, where it was linked to twelve labours depictions characterizing twelve months of the year. As it was said above, the calendar year was being commonly worked out in the stones of Gothic cathedrals where, like in the late medieval illuminations, the zodiac signs correspond to human occupations (Cerinotti 2009:68-69).

Accordingly, while the sign of Aries, the Ram is joined with March’s activity of trimming the Vines, Libra, the Scales illustrates a grape picking in September (Maye, Stones 2009). Sometimes, the zodiac signs are placed in a tympanum semicircle, surrounding the figure of Christ; in this case they show a close connection between the earth and the Heavens, people and God, and so they illustrate that the actual order of the Creation and events on the earth meets the order imposed by the Creator (Cerinotti 2009:68-69).

Angers Cathedral South Rose Window of Christ (centre) with elders (bottom half) and Zodiac (top half). Medieval stained glass by Andre Robin after the fire of 1451. Photo by Chiswick Chap (2013). CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo source: “Zodiac” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

“The zodiac is the narrow pathway across the sky, in which the sun, the moon and the principal planets seem to move throughout the year. It is divided into twelve equal sections, or signs, each named after a constellation, whose position once, long ago lay within it. The sun passes through one of these sections each month, as it makes its progress from one year’s end to the next. Because the sun was all-important in the life of men and women, its movement was studied with the greatest attention, and it was only natural and fitting, that the twelve divisions of the calendar should be marked with the zodiac signs, as reminders of the sun’s journey through the sky, as well as with the scenes that show the round of labors needed to sustain society on the earth below.”

(Henisch 1999:2)

Square and Cycle Intertwined

January: A New Year’s Day feast including Jean de Berry. By Limbourg brothers – R-G Ojéda/RMN (created between 1412 and 1416). Public domain. Photo from “Très Riches Heures …” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

The zodiac signs and labours of the medieval calendar many a time were represented as scenes inscribed in the forms of cycles (medallions or quatrefoils). A cycle – an ideal geometrical figure – was believed to have been created to reflect the perfection of God. Correspondingly, its shape incorporated into art assured the balance of the universe, and so regulated the cycle of life (Cerinotti 2009:68-69). In this context, the shape of a square on the other side stands for the earthly world and human sphere of influence. Not without reason these two geometrical figures predominate in the calendar illuminations of the Very Rich Hours of the Duke of Berry. The entire composition of the calendar including two scenes is thus divided into two geometrical zones: at the bottom of the framework there is a square-shaped image of human labours, whereas at the top – a semi-circular forms with zodiac signs and the symbols of the planets (Białostocki 2008:213). In each of the zodiac spheres, there is additionally a representation of “the Greek deity Apollo who rides his [heavenly] chariot while carrying the Sun across the sky (Prof. Elizabeth 2019). Such an illustration referring to the ancient tradition not only introduces a divine element in the human everyday life but also it is a sing of the coming Renaissance.

December: Château de Vincennes. By Barthélemy d’Eyck– R.M.N. / R.-G. Ojéda (created circa 1440). Public domain. Photo source: “Très Riches Heures …” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

The overall set of illustrations in the Book of Hours successfully “depicts the year as a round of seasonal activities on the land, […] almost always drawn from the countryside and the farm, [which sequence] represents the annual, endlessly repeated cycle of necessary, basic tasks which put food on the table” (Henisch 1999:vii,1-2). On the other side, all the human occupations framed in the squares are regulated by the divine element above – the earthly world of a human being inscribed into the sphere and order of God.

Featured image: The upper semi-circular frame of the scene of Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry: “January”, representing the zodiac signs depicted at the top of the page, assigned to the month of January and its occupations, represented below. By Limbourg brothers – R-G Ojéda/RMN (created between 1412 and 1416). Public domain. Image cropped. Photo from “Très Riches Heures …” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

“Zodiac signs and Labors of the months at Amiens Cathedral” (2010-2015). In: Wikimedia Commons. Available at <https://bit.ly/2Qv8d32>. [Accessed on 16th April, 2021].

“Zodiac on Chartres cathedral stained-glass windows” (2013). In: Wikimedia Commons. Available at <https://bit.ly/2RG7pJt>. [Accessed on 4th April, 2020].

“Zodiac” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3gg12qr>. [Accessed on 4th April, 2020].

“Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry” (2018) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/39I0DWE>. [Accessed on 4th April, 2020].

“Château de Saumur” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2RwUdq1>. [Accessed on 4th April, 2020].

“Château de Vincennes” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2RB7xKe>. [Accessed on 15th April, 2021].

“Sainte-Chapelle” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/32ddmQ6>. [Accessed on 15th April, 2021].

“Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry” (2020) Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2X7xQIK>. [Accessed on 3rd April, 2020].

Alighieri, D. “Purgatorio: Canto X:79” in Dante Alighieri, “The Divine Comedy”, Wadsworth, H. Longfellow trans. In: everypoet.com. Available at <https://bit.ly/3bLuaAv>. [Accessed on 1st April, 2020].

Baez, R. (2020) “Miniatures of the twelve Zodiac signs from the Hunterian Psalter, AD 1170, England”. In: “Medieval Enchantment”. In: Pinterest. Available at <https://bit.ly/345Xy1w>. [Accessed on 3rd April, 2020].

Battistini, M. (2005) “Symbole i alegorie.” In Leksykon, historia, sztuka, ikonografia [Dizionari dell’Arte], Dyjas, K. trans. Warszawa: Arkady.

Beckett, W. (1996) Sister Wendy’s Story of Painting, Episode 1: “The Mists of Time.” Rossiter, N., Robinson T. BBC Production.

Beckett, W. (2001) Sister Wendy’s 1000 arcydzieł. Warszawa: Arkady.

Białostocki, J. (2008) Sztuka cenniejsza niż złoto. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Cerinotti, A. ed. (2009) Tajemnicze katedry [Cattedrali del mistero]. Cieśla, H. trans. Warszawa: Bellona.

Henisch, B. A. (1999) The Medieval Calendar Year. Pennsylvania: University Park, Penn State Press.

Huizinga, J. (2003) Jesień średniowiecza [Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen]. Brzostowski, T. trans. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.

Husband, T., Cambell, T. (2010) “The Art of Illumination: The Limbourg Brothers and the Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry”. In: “Behind the Scenes at the Metropolitan Museum of Art”. In: Met Youtube Channel. Available at <https://bit.ly/2JANBzY>. [Accessed on 2nd April, 2020].

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

Maye, P., Stones, A. Vadnal, J. (2009) ”West Façade: Sculptural Panels: Astrological Table of Zodiac Signs and Labors.” In: Images of Medieval Art and Architecture. France, Paris Cathedral of Notre Dame. Available at <https://bit.ly/2UCFk4R>. [Accessed on 1st April, 2020].

Pijoan, J. (2006) ”Sztuka gotycka. Sztuka gotycka we Francji.” In: Sztuka świata vol. IV [Historia del Arte, vol. IV], Machowski, M. trans. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Arkady.

Prof. Elizabeth (2019) “The Tres Riches Heures of Jean Duke of Berry”. In: Professor Elisabeth. Available at <https://bit.ly/2w8sP7v>. [Accessed on 2nd April, 2020].

Secomska, K. (1972) Mistrzowie i książęta malarstwo francuskie XV i XVI wieku. Warszawa.

World Digital Library (2017) “Book of Hours.” In: Library of Congress. Available at <https://bit.ly/2X3sxtR>. [Accessed on 2nd April, 2020].

Żylińska, J. (1986) Spotkania po drugiej stronie lustra. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.

Gibbor in the Museum of Louvre

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

First impression

Two sculptures brought to France from Dur-Sharrukin palace represent the 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

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].