Patung Dolerit dari Gudea, penguasa Lagash

Patung Dolerit dari Gudea, penguasa Lagash


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Neo-Sumeria. Patung Gudea. Girsu, Irak. 2120 SM. Prasasti runcing. Louvre.

Akun Easy-access (EZA) Anda memungkinkan orang-orang di organisasi Anda mengunduh konten untuk penggunaan berikut:

  • Tes
  • sampel
  • Komposit
  • Tata letak
  • Potongan kasar
  • Pengeditan awal

Ini mengesampingkan lisensi komposit online standar untuk gambar diam dan video di situs web Getty Images. Akun EZA bukan lisensi. Untuk menyelesaikan proyek Anda dengan materi yang Anda unduh dari akun EZA Anda, Anda perlu mengamankan lisensi. Tanpa lisensi, tidak ada penggunaan lebih lanjut yang dapat dilakukan, seperti:

  • presentasi kelompok fokus
  • presentasi eksternal
  • materi akhir didistribusikan di dalam organisasi Anda
  • materi apa pun yang didistribusikan di luar organisasi Anda
  • materi apa pun yang didistribusikan ke publik (seperti iklan, pemasaran)

Karena koleksi terus diperbarui, Getty Images tidak dapat menjamin bahwa item tertentu akan tersedia hingga waktu lisensi. Harap tinjau dengan cermat batasan apa pun yang menyertai Materi Berlisensi di situs web Getty Images, dan hubungi perwakilan Getty Images Anda jika Anda memiliki pertanyaan tentangnya. Akun EZA Anda akan tetap ada selama satu tahun. Perwakilan Getty Images Anda akan mendiskusikan pembaruan dengan Anda.

Dengan mengklik tombol Unduh, Anda menerima tanggung jawab untuk menggunakan konten yang belum dirilis (termasuk mendapatkan izin apa pun yang diperlukan untuk penggunaan Anda) dan setuju untuk mematuhi batasan apa pun.


Isi

Prasasti menyebutkan candi yang dibangun oleh Gudea di Ur, Nippur, Adab, Uruk dan Bad-Tibira [ kutipan diperlukan ] . Hal ini menunjukkan semakin berkembangnya pengaruh Gudea di Sumeria. Pendahulunya, Urbaba, telah menjadikan putrinya Enanepada sebagai pendeta tinggi Nanna di Ur, yang menunjukkan kekuatan politik yang besar juga. 20 tahun pemerintahannya semua dikenal dengan nama eksploitasi militer utama tampaknya telah terjadi di Tahun 6, yang disebut "Tahun ketika Anshan dipukul dengan senjata". [3]

Gudea memilih judul ensi (raja kota atau gubernur), bukan yang lebih ditinggikan lugal (Akkadia arrum), meskipun dia menyebut dirinya "dewa Lagash". [ kutipan diperlukan ] Gudea mengklaim telah menaklukkan Elam dan Anshan, tetapi prasastinya menekankan pembangunan saluran irigasi dan kuil, dan penciptaan hadiah berharga untuk para dewa. [5] Bahan untuk bangunan dan patungnya dibawa dari seluruh bagian Asia Barat: kayu cedar dari pegunungan Amanus, batu galian dari Lebanon, tembaga dari Arabia utara, emas dan batu mulia dari gurun antara Kanaan dan Mesir, diorit dari Magan (Oman), dan kayu dari Dilmun (Bahrain). [6] [7] [8]

Ketika kekuatan kekaisaran Akkadia berkurang, Lagaš kembali mendeklarasikan kemerdekaan, kali ini di bawah Puzer-Mama, yang mendeklarasikan dirinya lugal dari Laga. [ kutipan diperlukan ] Setelah itu, gelar ini tidak akan dikaitkan dengan Lagaš, setidaknya sampai akhir periode Gudean. Penguasa Lagašite, termasuk Ur-Ningirsu dan Ur-Bau, yang pemerintahannya mendahului Gudea, menyebut diri mereka sebagai ensi, atau gubernur, Lagaš, dan menggunakan istilah itu lugal hanya untuk dewa mereka atau sebagai masalah peringkat dalam suatu hubungan, tetapi tidak pernah sebagai perangkat politik. Penggunaan terus menerus dari lugal mengacu pada dewa tampaknya menunjukkan upaya sadar di pihak penguasa untuk mengambil posisi kerendahan hati dalam kaitannya dengan dunia-apakah ini kerendahan hati yang jujur ​​atau taktik politik tidak diketahui. [ kutipan diperlukan ]

Dua puluh enam patung Gudea telah ditemukan sejauh ini selama penggalian Telloh (Girsu kuno) dengan sebagian besar sisanya berasal dari perdagangan seni. [ kutipan diperlukan ] Patung-patung awal terbuat dari batu kapur, steatit dan pualam kemudian, ketika hubungan perdagangan yang luas telah didirikan [ kutipan diperlukan ] , diorit eksotis yang lebih mahal digunakan. Diorit telah digunakan oleh penguasa Sumeria kuno (Patung Entemena). Patung-patung ini termasuk prasasti yang menggambarkan perdagangan, pemerintahan, dan agama. [ kutipan diperlukan ] Ini adalah salah satu dari banyak jenis bentuk seni Neo-Sumeria.

Referensi pertama yang diketahui ke Goa di India mungkin muncul sebagai Gubi dalam catatan Gudea. [9] Pada saat itu, Sumeria telah menjalin kontak perdagangan dengan India. [9]

Permohonan kepada para dewa di bawah Gudea dan penerusnya tampak lebih kreatif dan jujur: sedangkan raja-raja Akkadia mengikuti pola hafalan mengutuk keturunan dan merobek fondasi mereka yang merusak prasasti, raja-raja Lagašite mengirim berbagai pesan. [ kutipan diperlukan ] Waktu menjadi ganas setelah kekaisaran Akkadia kehilangan kekuasaan atas Mesopotamia selatan, dan dewa yang paling mendapat perhatian dari Gudea adalah Ningirsu—dewa pertempuran. Meskipun hanya ada satu penyebutan keberhasilan bela diri di pihak Gudea, banyak perangkap perang yang dia bangun untuk Ningirsu menunjukkan era kekerasan. [ kutipan diperlukan ] Kota-kota Mesopotamia Selatan mendefinisikan diri mereka sendiri melalui penyembahan mereka, dan keputusan dari pihak Gudea untuk Lagaš untuk membuat tanda perang bagi dewa-dewanya merupakan indikasi dari temperamen zaman. [ kutipan diperlukan ]

Meskipun jelas kutukan dasar dan keturunan bukan satu-satunya doa agama oleh kekuatan politik selama kekaisaran Akkadia, itu menunjukkan standarisasi tertentu, dan dengan itu, stagnasi, dari posisi para dewa yang kemungkinan tidak cocok dengan orang-orang. Lagaš. Ur-Ningirsu I, yang dengannya dinasti Gudean di Lagaš dimulai, hanya menyisakan sedikit prasasti, dan meskipun beberapa penyebutan berbagai dewa tampaknya menunjukkan peran yang lebih sentral, baru Gudea dapat menjadi pendamping. perbandingan -sisi dengan kutukan lama Sargon dari Akkad. Prasasti pada patung Gudea sebagai arsitek House of Ningirsu, [10] memperingatkan pembaca akan malapetaka jika kata-katanya diubah, tetapi ada perbedaan yang mengejutkan antara peringatan Sargon atau garisnya dan peringatan Gudea. Salah satunya adalah panjang kutukan Gudea yang berlangsung hampir seperempat dari panjang prasasti yang cukup panjang, [11] dan yang lainnya adalah kreativitas. Para dewa tidak hanya akan menurunkan keturunan pelaku menjadi abu dan menghancurkan fondasinya, tidak, mereka akan, "membiarkannya duduk di atas debu daripada di kursi yang mereka siapkan untuknya". Dia akan "disembelih seperti banteng ... ditangkap seperti aurochs oleh tanduknya yang ganas". [12]

Tetapi perbedaan-perbedaan ini, meskipun menunjukkan rasa hormat Lagašite terhadap tokoh-tokoh agama hanya dalam jumlah waktu dan energi yang mereka butuhkan, tidak begitu jelas seperti bahasa yang digunakan Gudea untuk membenarkan hukuman apa pun. Sementara Sargon atau Naram-Sin hanya menuntut hukuman bagi siapa pun yang mengubah kata-kata mereka, berdasarkan kekuatan mereka, Gudea membela kata-katanya melalui tradisi, “sejak hari-hari awal, sejak benih tumbuh, tidak ada yang (pernah) seharusnya mengubah ucapan seorang penguasa Lagaš yang, setelah membangun Eninnu untuk tuanku Ningirsu, membuat segala sesuatunya berfungsi sebagaimana mestinya”. [13] Mengubah kata-kata Naram-Sin, dewa yang hidup, adalah pengkhianatan, karena dia adalah raja. Tetapi mengubah kata-kata Gudea, gubernur Lagaš yang sederhana, tidak adil, karena dia membuat segalanya berjalan dengan benar. [ kutipan diperlukan ]

Reformasi sosial yang dilembagakan selama pemerintahan Gudea, yang mencakup penghapusan hutang dan mengizinkan perempuan memiliki tanah keluarga, mungkin merupakan reformasi yang jujur ​​atau kembali ke kebiasaan lama Lagašite. [ kutipan diperlukan ]

Eranya terutama salah satu perkembangan seni. Tapi Ningirsu-lah yang menerima sebagian besar perhatian Gudea. Ningirsu, dewa perang, yang untuknya Gudea membuat gada, tombak, dan kapak, semuanya dinamai dengan tepat untuk kekuatan penghancur Ningirsu—besar dan emas. Namun, pengabdian untuk Ningirsu terutama diilhami oleh fakta bahwa ini adalah dewa pribadi Gudea dan Ningirsu sejak zaman kuno adalah dewa utama wilayah Lagashite (bersama dengan pasangannya Ba'u atau Baba). [ kutipan diperlukan ]

Dalam hal perdagangan, Lagash di bawah Gudea memiliki komunikasi komersial yang luas dengan alam yang jauh. Menurut catatannya sendiri, Gudea membawa pohon aras dari pegunungan Amanus dan Lebanon di Syria, diorit dari Arabia timur, tembaga dan emas dari Arabia tengah dan selatan dan dari Sinai, sementara pasukannya terlibat dalam pertempuran di Elam di timur. [14]

Silinder Gudea, yang ditulis setelah kehidupan Gudea, melukiskan gambaran menarik tentang Mesopotamia selatan selama supremasi Lagaš. Di dalamnya, “Orang Elam datang kepadanya dari Elam… dengan beban kayu di pundak mereka… untuk membangun Rumah Ningirsu” (hlm. 78), nada umumnya adalah cinta persaudaraan di daerah yang hanya dikenal konflik regional.

Gudea membangun lebih dari sekadar Rumah Ningirsu, dia mengembalikan tradisi ke Lagaš. Penggunaan judulnya ensi, ketika dia jelas-jelas memiliki pengaruh politik yang cukup, baik di Lagaš maupun di kawasan itu, untuk membenarkan lugal, menunjukkan kebijaksanaan politik yang sama dengan penekanannya pada kekuatan ilahi. [ kutipan diperlukan ]

Ur-Ningirsu II, penguasa Laga berikutnya, mengambil gelarnya, "Ur-Ningirsu, penguasa Lagaš, putra Gudea, penguasa Lagaš, yang telah membangun rumah Ningirsu" (hlm. 183).

Dalam sebuah prasasti, Gudea menyebut orang Meluhhan yang datang ke Sumeria untuk menjual debu emas, akik, dll. [14] Dalam prasasti lain, ia menyebutkan kemenangannya atas wilayah Magan, Meluhha, Elam, dan Amurru. [14]

Dalam silinder Gudea, Gudea menyebutkan bahwa "Saya akan menyebar di dunia menghormati Kuil saya, dengan nama saya seluruh alam semesta akan berkumpul di dalamnya, dan Magan dan Meluhha akan turun dari gunung mereka untuk hadir" (silinder A, IX) . [15] Dalam silinder B, XIV, ia menyebutkan pengadaannya "balok lapis lazuli dan akik cerah dari Meluhha." [16]

Penampilan Gudea dapat dikenali hari ini karena ia memiliki banyak patung atau berhala, yang menggambarkan dirinya dengan realisme hidup yang belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya, ditempatkan di kuil-kuil di seluruh Sumeria. Gudea memanfaatkan perkembangan seni karena dia jelas ingin anak cucunya tahu seperti apa penampilannya. Dan dalam hal itu dia telah berhasil — suatu prestasi yang tersedia baginya sebagai bangsawan, tetapi tidak bagi orang biasa yang tidak mampu memiliki patung yang diukir dari diri mereka sendiri. [ kutipan diperlukan ]

Gudea, mengikuti Sargon, adalah salah satu penguasa pertama yang mengklaim keilahian untuk dirinya sendiri, atau mengklaimnya setelah kematiannya. Beberapa eksploitasinya kemudian ditambahkan ke Gilgamesh Epic (N. K. Sandars, 1972, Epik Gilgames).

Setelah Gudea, pengaruh Lagaš menurun, sampai mengalami kekalahan militer oleh Ur-Nammu, yang Dinasti Ketiga Urnya kemudian menjadi kekuatan yang memerintah di Mesopotamia Selatan. [ kutipan diperlukan ]

"Vas persembahan Gudea" dengan naga Mušḫuššu, didedikasikan untuk Ningishzida (kronologi singkat abad ke-21 SM). Caduceus (kanan) ditafsirkan sebagai menggambarkan dewa Ningishzida. Prasasti ""Untuk dewa Ningiszida, dewanya, Gudea, Ensi (gubernur) Lagash, untuk perpanjangan hidupnya, telah mendedikasikan ini"

Kepala Gudea dengan diorit yang dipoles, pemerintahan Gudea (Museum Seni Rupa Boston).


Periode Neo-Sumeria atau Dinasti Ketiga UR

Sekitar abad 21-20 SM Ur dipulihkan sebagai ibu kota Sumeria dan Dinasti III Ur dimulai di bawah pemerintahan raja Ur-Nammu. Namun, pengaruh Akkadia terlihat jelas dalam seni periode ini: meskipun kekuatan dan kekuasaan kembali ke garis depan penciptaan artistik, pelunakan kekakuan leluhur dalam seni Sumeria mencerminkan pengaruh yang ditinggalkan oleh dominasi Akkadia.

Raja Ur-Nammu pasti telah memerintah selama 18 tahun dan digantikan oleh putranya Dungi yang memerintah hampir setengah abad. Monumen yang tak terhitung jumlahnya yang batu batanya disegel dengan nama kedua penguasa ini menunjukkan kekuatan konstruksi kedua raja. Perhatian pertama Ur-Nammu adalah membentengi ibu kota sehingga bisa menahan serangan apa pun. Dinding Ur yang dibangun selama ini hampir 25 mt. lebar di bagian dasarnya. Tetapi pekerjaan yang luar biasa ini sama sekali bukan bangunan paling penting dari Neo-Sumeria. Reruntuhan kuil Sin, dewa bulan, adalah zigurat atau menara berundak yang dibangun agar dewa bisa turun dari surga ke bumi. Sebagian besar kota Sumeria memiliki konstruksi serupa. Monumen ini memiliki tiga sampai tujuh tingkat, masing-masing dengan dasar yang lebih kecil dari sebelumnya, dan sesuai dengan jenis bangunan yang dijelaskan dalam Alkitab sebagai “Menara Babel”.

Rekonstruksi ziggurat Ur-Nammu di Ur (sekitar 2100 SM).

NS zigurat Ur, dimulai oleh Ur-Nammu, adalah menara tiga lantai. Tingkat pertama benar-benar kokoh dan berdiri 65 mt. panjang 43 mt. lebar dengan tinggi 22 mt. Dindingnya sedikit miring. Platform lantai pertama dapat dicapai dengan tiga tangga monumental: dua lateral di samping kiri dan kanan fasad depan dan yang ketiga menghadap ke depan dan tegak lurus dengan dua lainnya. Tiga anak tangga ini memiliki 100 anak tangga. Di atas alas raksasa ini berdiri dua platform lain yang tumpang tindih di atasnya adalah kuil untuk dewa. Kuil lain di dasar yang dikondisikan sebagai rumah bagi keilahian mengubah bangunan ini sebagai tangga monumental untuk naik atau turun dari surga. Nabi Yakub, setelah mengunjungi negeri asal ayahnya, pasti ingat upacara keagamaan dan prosesi yang dilakukan di tangga raksasa Ur’s ini. zigurat. Hari ini masih menakjubkan untuk berpikir bahwa arsitektur raksasa ini terbuat dari batu bata tidak ada yang mencapai 40 cm. Konstruksi seperti itu harus membutuhkan jutaan potongan buatan tangan ini dan mengatasi kesulitan besar untuk mengangkat seluruh bangunan.

Patung Gudea, Patesi dari Lagash, dalam pemujaan (Louvre), ca. Abad XXII SM.

Kita tahu patung Neo-Sumeria dengan temuan di Lagash, sebuah kota yang berdaulat tidak pernah memiliki gelar raja tetapi dikenal sebagai patisi atau gubernur. Menurut daftar kuno, yang paling penting adalah yang ketujuh yang disebut Gudea. Ini pati, yang memerintah Lagash selama lebih dari 15 tahun, membangun kuil dan istana dan telah meninggalkan kita serangkaian potretnya yang luar biasa yang mungkin merupakan kelompok pahatan paling mengesankan yang dibuat oleh kehendak satu individu. Saat ini, kita mengenal lebih dari 30 patung yang dipahat di bebatuan vulkanik yang keras dan mengkilat: diorit biru dan dolerit hitam. Dalam semua dari mereka patisi Gudea tampil berpakaian seperti seorang biarawan dalam jubah yang membiarkan bahu dan lengan kanannya telanjang, dan selalu dengan tangan tergenggam dalam doa. Kehalusan detail seperti jari, bibir dan alis, dan beberapa otot beraksen halus di permukaan tubuh sangat kontras dengan kesederhanaan gaun itu. Semua patung dari seri ini tidak hanya menghasilkan kesan keagungan yang tenang, tetapi juga semangat keagamaan yang kuat.

Patesi Gudea (Louvre), penguasa Sumeria di Lagash, ca. 2200 SM. Dia memakai di kepalanya pita geometris yang digunakan dalam upacara keagamaan tertentu, dan roknya memiliki teks dengan doa.

Selama ribuan tahun, telah datang kepada kami salah satu benda paling suci dari harta Gudea: piala persembahan yang ia gunakan dalam upacara keagamaan. Ini adalah piala batu yang reliefnya memberi tahu kita bahwa, terlepas dari humanisasi para dewa yang diperkenalkan selama dominasi Akkadia, monster ilahi lama tidak sepenuhnya menghilang. Piala persembahan Gudea memiliki dua naga berdiri memegang tombak dengan kaki depan mereka. Mereka adalah monster menakutkan dengan kepala ular, tubuh kucing, sayap dan cakar elang, dan ekor kalajengking. Kedua monster menjaga tongkat di mana dua ular memutar dan yang kepalanya naik ke tepi cangkir seolah-olah mereka ingin minum dari cairan ritual. Simbol suci ini sudah sangat mirip dengan Tongkat Asclepius Yunani yang digunakan oleh para tabib kuno, dan masih tetap dengan beberapa modifikasi sebagai lambang farmasi dan obat-obatan.

Piala persembahan Gudea (Louvre). Itu dibuat di soapstone dan berasal dari abad XXII SM.

Penggalian Lagash kuno telah memberikan beberapa patung yang tidak mewakili potret raja tetapi laki-laki muda dengan wajah dan kepala dicukur penuh, serta berbagai representasi perempuan. Yang paling penting dari semua representasi perempuan ini adalah sosok dengan tangan yang disatukan dalam posisi yang sama dengan Gudea dan mengenakan tunik dan mantel yang dihiasi dengan pita bordir, dan yang rambut keritingnya ditutupi dengan hiasan kepala kain yang juga diikat dengan pita. Suasana megah dari gambar ini dan perasaan mistis yang muncul darinya yang ditekankan oleh posisi berdoa dari tangannya telah membuat banyak arkeolog mengidentifikasi dia sebagai istri Gudea sendiri.

Wanita dengan hiasan kepala (Louvre), dari Lagash. Dalam patung batu sabun hijau ini, para arkeolog percaya melihat potret istri Gudea.

Patung-patung Neo-Sumeria menunjukkan kepada kita interpretasi estetika yang sepenuhnya asli dari wajah manusia. Dalam hal ini mengesankan kepala seorang putri ditemukan di Ur pada tahun 1927. Dia memakai ikat kepala melingkar halus, seperti cincin emas, untuk menahan rambutnya dan, meskipun kehilangan bagian bawah wajahnya, matanya, bertatahkan lapis lazuli , lihat kami dengan ekspresi keheranan milenial.

Kepala wanita pualam (Museum Universitas Pennsylvania, Philadelphia), dari Ur dan bertanggal sekitar 2100 SM. Telah diidentifikasi dengan seorang putri Neo-Sumeria dan juga dengan dewi Ningal.

Tongkat Asclepius: Juga dikenal sebagai Staf Asclepius (kadang-kadang juga dieja Asklepios atau Aesculapius) dan sebagai asklepian. Dalam Mitologi Yunani mengacu pada batang yang dililit ular yang dipegang oleh dewa Yunani Asclepius, dewa yang terkait dengan penyembuhan dan pengobatan. Simbol itu terus digunakan di zaman modern, di mana ia dikaitkan dengan pengobatan dan perawatan kesehatan, namun sering dikacaukan dengan tongkat dewa Hermes, lambang kedokteran, yang sebaliknya memiliki dua ular yang terjalin di sekitar tongkat dan diatasi dengan sayap.


Patung Gudea

Sejauh ini dua puluh tujuh patung Gudea, seorang penguasa (ensi) negara bagian Lagash di Mesopotamia Selatan yang memerintah ca. 2144 - 2124 SM, telah ditemukan, dan diberi nomor A-AA. A-K ditemukan selama penggalian Ernest de Sarzec di istana istana Adad-nadin-ahhe di Telloh (Girsu kuno). Patung M-Q berasal dari penggalian klandestin di Telloh pada tahun 1924 sisanya berasal dari perdagangan seni, dengan sumber yang tidak diketahui dan terkadang diragukan keasliannya. Angka L dan R tidak mewakili Gudea dengan kepastian yang masuk akal. Patung-patung itu untuk mewakili penguasa di kuil-kuil, untuk mempersembahkan doa yang terus-menerus sebagai gantinya, persembahan dibuat untuk ini. Sebagian besar patung memiliki dedikasi tertulis yang menjelaskan kepada dewa mana patung itu dipersembahkan. Gudea duduk atau berdiri dalam satu kasus (N), dia memegang kendi air au vas jaillissant. Dia biasanya memakai pakaian yang pas kaunakes, mungkin terbuat dari kulit domba, dan gaun panjang berumbai. Hanya dalam satu contoh (M, Soclet-patung) dia mengenakan gaun yang berbeda, mengingatkan pada kostum kerajaan Akkadia (batang tubuh Manishtushu). Di pangkuan salah satunya (patung B) adalah denah istananya, dengan skala pengukuran terpasang. Patung F mirip dengan patung B keduanya kehilangan kepala, dan di pangkuannya ada papan dengan timbangan dan stylus, hanya patung F yang tidak memiliki denah.

Tampaknya patung-patung awal berukuran kecil dan terbuat dari lebih banyak batu lokal (batu kapur, steatite dan alabaster) kemudian, ketika hubungan perdagangan yang luas telah dibuat, diorit eksotis yang lebih mahal digunakan. Diorit telah digunakan oleh penguasa Sumeria kuno (Patung Entemena). Menurut prasasti, diorit (atau gabro, na4 esi) berasal dari Magan.

Dedikasi patung diorit biasanya menceritakan bagaimana ensi Gudea memiliki diorit yang dibawa dari pegunungan Magan, membentuknya sebagai patung dirinya, disebut dengan nama untuk menghormati dewa/dewi (x) dan patung itu dibawa ke kuil (y). Sebagian besar (hampir seukuran manusia, D bahkan lebih besar dari kehidupan) patung didedikasikan untuk dewa atas Lagash: Ningirsu, istrinya Ba'u, dewi Gatumdu dan Inanna dan Ninhursanga sebagai "Bunda para dewa". Q didedikasikan untuk Ningiszida, dewa pelindung pribadi Gudea yang lebih tepat terhubung dengan Fara dan Abu Salabikh, M, N dan O yang lebih kecil untuk "istrinya" Gestinanna. Hubungan antara Ningiszida dan Gestinanna mungkin diciptakan oleh Gudea untuk membuat hubungan yang lebih dekat dengan Lagash.


Patung Raja Gudea (sekitar 2140-2124 SM) penguasa Lagash, yang dikenal sebagai Gudea Kecil, dari Telloh, diorit

Akun Easy-access (EZA) Anda memungkinkan orang-orang di organisasi Anda mengunduh konten untuk penggunaan berikut:

  • Tes
  • sampel
  • Komposit
  • Tata letak
  • Potongan kasar
  • Pengeditan awal

Ini mengesampingkan lisensi komposit online standar untuk gambar diam dan video di situs web Getty Images. Akun EZA bukan lisensi. Untuk menyelesaikan proyek Anda dengan materi yang Anda unduh dari akun EZA Anda, Anda perlu mengamankan lisensi. Tanpa lisensi, tidak ada penggunaan lebih lanjut yang dapat dilakukan, seperti:

  • presentasi kelompok fokus
  • presentasi eksternal
  • materi akhir didistribusikan di dalam organisasi Anda
  • materi apa pun yang didistribusikan di luar organisasi Anda
  • materi apa pun yang didistribusikan ke publik (seperti iklan, pemasaran)

Karena koleksi terus diperbarui, Getty Images tidak dapat menjamin bahwa item tertentu akan tersedia hingga waktu lisensi. Harap tinjau dengan cermat batasan apa pun yang menyertai Materi Berlisensi di situs web Getty Images, dan hubungi perwakilan Getty Images Anda jika Anda memiliki pertanyaan tentangnya. Akun EZA Anda akan tetap ada selama satu tahun. Perwakilan Getty Images Anda akan mendiskusikan pembaruan dengan Anda.

Dengan mengklik tombol Unduh, Anda menerima tanggung jawab untuk menggunakan konten yang belum dirilis (termasuk mendapatkan izin apa pun yang diperlukan untuk penggunaan Anda) dan setuju untuk mematuhi batasan apa pun.


Irak Kuno: penemuan baru

Merayakan warisan budaya Irak yang kaya, pameran tur British Museum ini menandai pertama kalinya penelitian lapangan Irak yang baru akan melakukan tur dengan objek-objek utama dari koleksi Museum.

Melalui 80 objek luar biasa, pameran ini berusaha menyoroti tantangan melindungi warisan budaya Irak yang beragam setelah konflik selama beberapa dekade. Ini juga akan menyajikan karya saat ini dari British Museum's Iraq Scheme untuk melindungi warisan ini untuk generasi mendatang.

Objek bintang akan menyoroti dua proyek kerja lapangan skema di kota Irak Kuno Girsu dan Qalatga Darband dan penelitian arkeologi ke kota-kota ini, yang berasal dari sekitar 4.000 tahun yang lalu. Salah satu skema proyek di Irak selatan berfokus pada penemuan kompleks candi utama. Dipajang dalam pameran untuk pertama kalinya di luar London akan menjadi patung Gudea, penguasa negara kuno Lagash, yang awalnya akan didirikan di dalam kompleks candi ini.

Proyek kedua skema, di utara Irak modern, mengungkapkan penggalian di situs yang sebelumnya belum dijelajahi di tepi Kekaisaran Romawi, posisi yang ditantang oleh Parthia yang menakutkan, yang menganut tradisi budaya Yunani yang diturunkan oleh Alexander Agung. Patung-patung yang terinspirasi Yunani, ornamen pribadi yang dipengaruhi oleh mitologi Yunani, serta patung pahlawan Heracles, juga akan dipajang.

Bagian terakhir dari pameran akan membahas penghancuran warisan budaya Irak baru-baru ini oleh Daesh (yang disebut Negara Islam), dan pekerjaan skema dalam menanggapinya. Dikembangkan pada tahun 2014 di puncak kehancuran ini, skema ini memberikan pelatihan langsung di situs penggalian kepada para arkeolog Irak, membantu mereka menilai, mendokumentasikan, dan menstabilkan situs warisan budaya yang telah rusak atau dihancurkan oleh Daesh. Banyaknya penemuan baru yang dibuat di kedua lokasi dalam skema tersebut menunjukkan betapa masih banyak yang harus dipelajari tentang warisan budaya unik Irak.

Dengan dukungan dari Dorset Foundation, untuk mengenang Harry M Weinrebe, pameran tur British Museum Irak Kuno: penemuan baru akan tur ke Newcastle dan Nottingham.


SEJARAH SUMER DAN AKKAD

KITA telah melihat bahwa Dinasti Akkad menandai titik puncak yang dicapai oleh ras Sumeria dan Akkad selama periode awal sejarah mereka. Memang benar bahwa raja-raja pada periode ini berutang banyak kepada pendahulu langsung mereka, tetapi mereka menambah dan meningkatkan warisan mereka. Melalui perkembangan yang lambat selama berabad-abad, komunitas desa berangsur-angsur berubah menjadi negara-kota, dan lembaga ini telah berkembang dan pada gilirannya membusuk sebelum pengaruh terpusat dari kerajaan Sumeria dan Kish. Di reruntuhan monarki terakhir itulah Shar-Gani-sharri mendirikan kerajaannya, yang berbeda dari Kish dalam hal luasnya, bukan dalam prinsip-prinsip pembentukannya. Hubungan erat yang serupa dapat dilacak antara sisa-sisa budaya dari periode-periode berturut-turut yang sampai sekarang telah kita tangani. Upaya artistik yang kasar, meskipun penuh semangat, dari bangsa Sumeria sebelumnya melengkapi model-model di mana para imigran Semit dari Babilonia Utara berkembang. Dalam pahatan Kish dan pada segel silinder pada periode itu kita melihat transisi antara dua gaya, ketika tujuan pada perlakuan naturalistik terkadang menghasilkan hasil yang aneh dan aneh. Pencapaian penuh dari tujuan ini di bawah perlindungan raja-raja Akkadia memberikan minat dan kepentingan pada zaman mereka, yang, dari kerajaan mereka saja, mungkin tidak akan dinikmati.

Segel Silinder Jasper Merah Akkadia Akhir

Sementara zaman-zaman awal sejarah Babilonia memberikan gambaran yang mencolok tentang pertumbuhan dan perkembangan bertahap, periode-periode setelah Dinasti Akkad ditandai dengan gerakan kemunduran tertentu, atau kembali ke cita-cita sebelumnya. Stimulus, yang menghasilkan kekaisaran dan seni Akkad, dapat ditelusuri ke masuknya elemen rasial segar ke Babilonia Utara dan perpaduan mereka dengan elemen yang lebih tua dan lebih berbudaya di selatan. Ketika dorongan itu habis dan dinasti-dinasti yang melahirkannya telah berjalan, sedikit perkembangan lebih lanjut di sepanjang garis-garis ini terjadi. Baik dalam seni maupun politik, reaksi Sumeria mengikuti periode kekuasaan Semit, dan pembentukan Dinasti Ur lebih penting daripada pergeseran pengaruh politik ke selatan. Tampaknya upaya sistematis telah dilakukan untuk kembali ke standar sebelumnya. Tetapi pengaruh Akkad dan raja-rajanya, meskipun sengaja diabaikan dan dilawan, jauh dari tidak efektif. Karena patung-patung Gudea berhutang banyak pada periode Naram-Sin, maka kekaisaran Dungi pasti dipengaruhi oleh penaklukan Shar-Gani-sharri. Tidak ada penangkapan mendadak baik dari politik atau perkembangan budaya negara. Pemulihan kekuasaan oleh bangsa Sumeria hanya mengubah arah perkembangan selanjutnya. Meskipun, jika dilihat dari sudut pandang umum, tidak ada pemutusan kontinuitas antara zaman Akkad dan zaman Ur, ada beberapa kekurangan informasi sehubungan dengan peristiwa-peristiwa dalam periode tersebut. Ada setiap indikasi bahwa antara pemerintahan Naram-Sin dan Ur-Engur, pendiri Dinasti Ur, kita harus menghitung dalam beberapa generasi, bukan dalam abad, tetapi total panjang periode masih belum diketahui. Penutupan Dinasti Akkad, seperti yang telah kita lihat, terbungkus dalam misteri, tetapi kesenjangan dalam pengetahuan kita untungnya sampai batas tertentu dapat dijembatani. Pada titik ini kota Lagash sekali lagi datang untuk membantu kami, dan, dengan memberikan nama-nama sejumlah patesisnya, memungkinkan kami untuk mengatur urutan penguasa, dan dengan demikian membentuk beberapa perkiraan panjang periode yang terlibat.

Harus diingat bahwa di bawah Shar-Gani-sharri dan Naram-Sin, Lugal-ushumgal tertentu (ca. 2230-2200 SM) adalah patesi dari Lagash, dan bahwa cap segelnya telah ditemukan yang ia gunakan selama pemerintahan kedua raja ini. Nama-nama tiga patesis Lagash lainnya diketahui, yang juga harus ditetapkan pada periode Dinasti Akkad, karena mereka disebutkan pada tablet pada tanggal tersebut. Ini adalah Ur-Babbar, Ur-E, dan Lugal-bur yang pertama tampaknya sezaman dengan Naram-Sin, dan dalam hal ini dia pasti mengikuti Lugal-ushumgal. Mengenai Ur-E dan Lugal-bur, kami tidak memiliki informasi selain fakta bahwa mereka hidup selama periode raja-raja Akkad. Sekelompok tablet lebih lanjut ditemukan di Tello, dibedakan dalam jenis dari Dinasti Akkad di satu sisi, dan di sisi lain dari tablet Dinasti Ur, memberi kita nama-nama patesis lain yang ditetapkan pada periode tersebut. sebelum munculnya Ur-Engur. Tiga di antaranya, Basha-mama, Ur-mama, dan Ug-me, mungkin berada di depan Ur-Bau, yang telah meninggalkan banyak bukti kepada kita tentang aktivitas pembangunannya di Lagash. Kami memiliki sebuah tablet yang bertanggal pada tahun naik takhta Urma, dan satu lagi bertanggal selama kepatihan Ug-me, pada tahun pelantikan imam besar di Nina. Penyegelan pemerintahan patesi terakhir ini juga telah ditemukan, yang mendukung atribusi kelompok tablet ini pada periode antara era Sargonik dan era Ur. Subyek ukiran pada segel adalah pemujaan dewa, pemandangan yang sangat umum terjadi selama periode selanjutnya tetapi dengan gaya dan perlakuannya, karya tersebut dengan jelas mengingatkan pada zaman Shar-Gani-sharri dan Naram-Sin. Berdasarkan kekuatan bukti ini, dikatakan bahwa periode Ug-me tidak jauh dari periode Lugal-ushumgal, Ur-E, dan Lugal-bur.

Salah satu dokumen dari periode ini bertanggal pada masa pemerintahan Ur-Bau sendiri, pada tahun di mana ia melakukan pekerjaan irigasi ekstensif tertentu, sementara yang lain bertanggal pada tahun aksesi Ur-gar, dan pada tahun berikutnya. aksesi Nammakhni. Dari bukti lain kita tahu bahwa Nammakhni adalah menantu Ur-Bau, karena dia menikahi Ningandu, putri Ur-Bau, dan melalui dia mendapatkan gelar takhta. Ur-gar juga harus berasal dari generasi setelah Ur-Bau, karena patung perempuan telah ditemukan di Tello, yang dipersembahkan kepada beberapa dewa oleh putri Ur-Bau atas nama hidupnya sendiri dan kehidupan Ur- gar, pati. Tablet juga diberi tanggal pada tahun aksesi Ka-azag, Galu-Bau, dan Galu-Gula, dan isinya memberikan indikasi bahwa mereka berasal dari waktu yang kira-kira sama. Ur-Ninsun, yang nama dan gelarnya terdapat pada pecahan mangkuk yang sangat mirip dengan yang digunakan oleh istri Nammakhni, tidak disebutkan pada tablet tersebut, tetapi beberapa diberi tanggal pada masa pemerintahan Gudea dan putranya Ur-Ningirsu. Sekarang, pada masa pemerintahan Dungi, putra Ur-Engur, hiduplah seorang imam besar dewi Nina bernama Ur-Ningirsu dan, jika kita dapat mengidentifikasi pejabat imam ini dengan patesi dari nama itu, seperti yang sangat mungkin, kita mendapatkan titik kontak yang pasti antara sejarah Lagash dan Ur. Tetapi bahkan jika sinkronisme antara Ur-Ningirsu dan Dungi dianggap tidak terbukti, tidak ada keraguan bahwa tidak ada jarak yang lama memisahkan pemerintahan Gudea dari Dinasti Ur. Karakter seni dan gaya penulisan yang kita temukan di Lagash saat ini sangat mirip dengan Ur, sehingga satu periode pasti mengikuti yang lain tanpa jeda. Contoh mencolok dari kemiripan yang ada dalam produksi artistik kedua kota saat ini diberikan oleh kerucut tembaga nazar, atau paku, dari Gudea dan Dungi, dilampaui oleh sosok banteng. sofa. A glance will show the slight changes in the form and treatment of the subject which have been introduced by the metal-workers of Dungi's reign.

From the brief summary given in the preceding paragraphs it will have been noted that we have recovered the names of some twelve patesis of Lagash, who may be assigned to the period between the dynasties of Akkad and Ur. Of these twelve names no less than eleven occur upon a group of tablets, which were found together at Tello, and are marked out by their shape and contents as belonging to a single period. The tablets themselves are of unbaked clay, and they form a transition between the types of Akkad and Ur. In the last of the reigns mentioned it is probable that we may trace a synchronism with the Dynasty of Ur, and, although no actual point of contact can yet be established with the Dynasty of Akkad, such evidence as that furnished by Ug-me's sealing suggests that no considerable lapse of time can have taken place. That these twelve patesis were the only ones who ruled at Lagash during this interval is improbable, and at any time the names of other rulers may be recovered. But it is certain the reigns of many of these patesis were extremely brief, and that we have not to do with a single dynasty, firmly established throughout the whole period, whose separate members, after their accession, each held the throne for the term of his natural life. We have definite proof that several of the patesis, such as Ka-azag, Galu-Bau, and Galu-Gula, ruled only for a few years, and it would seem that at certain points during this period a change of rulers took place in Lagash with considerable frequency.

TO NINGIRSU, MIGHTY WARRIOR OF ENLIL, GUDEA RULER OF LAGASH MADE IT SPLENDID FOR HIM AND BUILT FOR HIM THE TEMPLE OF THE SHINING IMDUGUD BIRD AND RESTORED IT

The employment of the title of patesi, and the total absence of that of "king" at this time, suggests that Lagash had not succeeded in establishing her independence, and still owed allegiance to some alien dynasty. It is in accordance with this view that the dates inscribed upon the commercial tablets do not refer to events of a military character. We may conclude that, at any rate until the reign of Gudea, Lagash and her rulers were not concerned to enforce their authority over other cities, nor to defend their own border from attack. The existence of a more powerful city, claiming the hegemony in Babylonia, would account for the absence of military enterprise reflected in the date- formulas and in the foundation-records of the time. For such a city, while guaranteeing the integrity of each of her tributary states, would have resented the inauguration of an ambitious policy by any one of them. On the other hand, the purely local character of the events commemorated in the date-formulas is no less significant. These are without exception drawn from the local history of Lagash, and betray no evidence of the authority exercised by a foreign suzerain. It is therefore probable that during the greater part of this period Lagash enjoyed a considerable measure of autonomy, and that such bonds as may have united her to any central administration were far less tightly drawn than at the time of Shar-Gani-sharri and Naram-Sin. Like Lagash, her old rival Umma seems to have survived as a patesiate under the later Semitic rulers in the north, and it is probably to this time that we may assign Galu-Babbar, the patesi of that city, three of whose votive cones are preserved in the British Museum. During the earlier part of this period Lagash presents the picture of a compact and peaceful state, content to develop her own resources. A considerable increase of power is noticeable in the reign of Gudea, the most famous ruler of the period, who, though still retaining the title of patesi, must be regarded as practically an independent sovereign, since he was strong enough to undertake a successful campaign in Elam, and imported his building materials from Arabia and the Syrian coast.

With the exception of Gudea, the only ruler of this period who has left us any considerable records or remains is Ur-Bau (c. 2164-2144 BC), the predecessor of Nammakhni and Ur-gar upon the throne of Lagash. We possess a small diorite statue of this ruler, which, like most of those found at Tello, is without its head. It is a standing figure, and its squat and conventional proportions suffice to show that it must date from a rather earlier period than the larger and finer statues of Gudea, which are fashioned from the same hard material. Gudea definitely states that he fetched the diorite for his series of large statues from Magan, but Ur-Bau makes no such boast and, although it is clear that his stone must have come from the same quarries, we may probably conclude that the small block he employed for his figure had not been procured as the result of a special expedition. In fact, such records as he has left us portray him as devoting all his energies to the building of temples within the different quarters of his city.

His chief care appears to have been the rebuilding, upon a new and enlarged site, of E-ninnu, the great temple of Ningirsu at Lagash, in which he placed the statue of himself that has been recovered. Little of this temple now remains in the mounds of Tello, beyond a wall the lower part of which was found still standing under the south-east corner of the later palace erected in the second century BC. In addition to the rebuilding of the temple of the city-god, Ur-Bau records that he erected three temples in Girsu in honour of the godĀ­desses Ninkharsag and Geshtin-anna, and of Enki, "the king of Eridu". In Uru-azagga he built a temple for the goddess Bau, and in Uru, another quarter of the city, he constructed a shrine in honour of Ninni, or Nin-azag-nun, the goddess Ishtar. Other deities honoured in a similar way by Ur-Bau were Nindar, Ninmar, and Ninagal, the last of whom stood in the mystical relation of mother to the patesi. Attached to E-ninnu he also built a "House of the Asses" in honour of Esignun, the deity whose duty it was to tend the sacred asses of Ningirsu.

Ur-Bau may probably be regarded as representative of the earlier patesis of this epoch, who, while acting with freedom and independence within the limits of their own state, refrained from embarking on any policy of conquest or expansion. With the accession of Gudea a distinct change is noticeable in the circumstances of Lagash. Like his predecessors, he devoted himself to the building of temples, but his work was undertaken on a wider and more sumptuous scale. Of all the kings and patesis of Lagash, he is the one under whom the city appears to have attained its greatest material prosperity, which found its expression in a lavish architectural display. Although not much of his great temple of E-ninnu still survives at Tello, his monuments are more numerous than all the others that have been recovered on that site. Moreover, the texts engraved upon his statues, and inscribed upon the great clay cylinders which he buried as foundation-records in the structure of E-ninnu, are composed in a florid style and form a striking contrast to the dry votive formulae employed by the majority of his predecessors. The cylinder-inscriptions especially are cast in the form of a picturesque narrative, adorned with striking similes and a wealth of detailed description such as are not found in the texts of any other period. In fact, Gudea's records appear to have been inspired by the novelty and magnitude of his architectural constructions and the variety of sacred ornament with which they were enriched.

We have no information as to the events which led to his accession, beyond the negative evidence afforded by the complete absence of any genealogy from his inscriptions. Like Ur-Bau, Gudea does not name his father, and it is possible that he was a man of obscure or doubtful birth. The energy which he displayed as patesi is sufficient to account for his rise to power, and the success which attended his period of rule may be held to have amply justified a break in the succession. Another problem suggested by a study of his texts concerns the source of the wealth which enabled him to undertake the rebuilding and refurnishing of the temples of Lagash upon so elaborate a scale. The cause of such activity we should naturally seek in the booty obtained during a number of successful campaigns, but throughout the whole of his inscriptions we have only a single reference to an act of war. On the statue of himself in the character of an architect, holding the plan of E-ninnu upon his knees, he gives in some detail an account of the distant regions whence he obtained the materials for the construction of Ningirsu's temple. At the close of this list of places and their products, as though it formed a continuation of his narrative, he adds the record that he smote with his weapons the town of Anshan in Elam and offered its booty to Ningirsu. This is the only mention of a victory that occurs in Gudea's inscriptions, and, although in itself it proves that he was sufficiently independent to carry on a war in Elam on his own account, it does not throw light upon the other causes of his success.

The absence of military records from Gudea's texts is rendered the more striking, when we read the names of the countries he laid under contribution for the materials employed in the building of E-ninnu. The fullest geographical list is that given on the statue of the architect with the plan, and, although unfortunately some of the places mentioned have still to be identified, the text itself furnishes sufficient information to demonstrate the wide area of his operations. Gudea here tells us that from Mount Amanus, the mountain of cedars, he fetched beams of cedar-wood measuring fifty and even sixty cubits in length, and he also brought down from the mountain logs of urkarinnu-wood five-and-twenty cubits long. From the town of Ursu in the mountain of Ibla he brought zabalu-wood, great beams of ashukhu-wood and plane-trees. From Umanu, a mountain of Menua, and from Basalla, a mountain of Amurru, he obtained great blocks of stone and made stelae from them, which he set up in the court of E-ninnu. From Tidanu, another mountain of Amurru, he brought pieces of marble, and from Kagalad, a mountain of Kimash, he extracted copper, which he tells us he used in making a great mace-head. From the mountains of Melukhkha he brought ushu-wood, which he employed in the construction of the temple, and he fetched gold-dust from the mountain of Khakhu and with it he gilded a mace-head carved with the heads of three lions. In Gubin, the mountain of khuluppu-wood, he felled khuluppu-trees from Madga he obtained asphalt, which he used in making the platĀ­form of E-ninnu and from the mountain of Barshib he brought down blocks of nalua-stone, which he loaded into great boats and so carried them to Lagash in order to strengthen the base of the temple.

The above list of places makes it clear that Gudea obtained his wood and stone from mountains on the coast of Syria and in Arabia, and his copper from mines in Elam. On the first of his cylinders he also states that the Elamite came from Elam and the man of Susa from Susa, presumably to take part as skilled craftsmen in the construction of the temple. In this account he does not mention the names of so many places as in the statue-inscription, but he adds some picturesque details with regard to the difficulties of transport he encountered. Thus he records that into the mountain of cedars, where no man before had penetrated, he cut a road for bringing down the cedars and beams of other precious woods. He also made roads into the mountains where he quarried stone, and, in addition to gold and copper, he states that he obtained silver also in the mountains. The stone he transported by water, and he adds that the ships bringing bitumen and plaster from Madga were loaded as though they were barges carrying grain.

A third passage in Gudea's texts, referring to the transport of materials from a distance, occurs upon the colossal statue of himself which he erected in E-ninnu. Here he states that Magan, Melukhkha, Gubi, and Dilmun collected wood, and that ships loaded with wood of all kinds came to the port of Lagash. Moreover, on eight out of his eleven statues he records that the diorite, from which he fashioned them, was brought from Magan. In his search for building materials, he asserts that he journeyed from the lower country to the upper country and, when summarizing the area over which he and his agents ranged, he adopts an ancient formula, and states that Ningirsu, his beloved king, opened the ways for him from the Upper to the Lower Sea, that is to say, from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.

The enumeration of these distant countries, and Gudea's boastful reference to the Upper and the Lower Sea, might, perhaps, at first sight be regarded as constituting a claim to an empire as extensive as that of Shar-Gani-sharri and Naram-Sin. But it is a remarkable fact that, with the exception of Lagash and her constituent townships, Gudea's texts make no allusion to cities or districts situated within the limits of Sumer and Akkad. Even the names of neighbouring great towns, such as Ur, Erech, and Larsa, are not once cited, and it can only be inferred that they enjoyed with Lagash an equal measure of independence. But if Gudea's authority did not extend over neighbouring cities and districts within his own country, we can hardly conclude that he exercised an effective control over more distant regions. In fact, we must treat his references to foreign lands as evidence of commercial, not of political, expansion.

Gudea's reign may be regarded as marking a revival of Sumerian prosperity, consequent on the decay of Semitic influence and power in the north. The fact that he was able to import his wood and stone from Syria, and float it unmolested down the Euphrates, argues a considerable weakening of the northern cities. Whether Akkad, or some other city, still claimed a nominal suzerainty over the southern districts it is impossible to say, but it is at least clear that in the reign of Gudea no such claim was either recognized or enforced. We may suppose that Lagash and the other great cities in the south, relieved from the burden of Semitic domination, enjoyed a period of peace and tranquillity, which each city employed for the development of her material resources. The city of Ur was soon to bring this state of affairs to a close, by claiming the hegemony among the southern cities and founding the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad by force of arms. But during Gudea's reign Ur appears to have made no movement, and Lagash and the other great cities of the land may be pictured as maintaining commercial relations with each other, unhampered by the striving of any one of them for political supremacy.

It is possible that we may trace the unparalleled building activity, which characterized Gudea's reign, in part to a development in the art of building, which appears to have taken place at about this period. It has been suggested that both Gudea and Ur-Engur, the founder of the Dynasty of Ur, participated in the same great architectural movement, and proof of this has been seen in their common employment of the smaller square brick, measuring from about twelve to thirteen inches, which was more easy to handle than the larger bricks employed by Ur-Bau and at the time of the Dynasty of Akkad. The inherent advantages of this form of brick are attested by its retention, with but slight variations, down to the end of the Babylonian empire. That Gudea himself set considerable store by the form of the bricks which he employed would seem to follow from the passage in his first cylinder-inscription, where he describes the ceremonies with which he inaugurated their manufacture, including the offer of sacrifices and the pouring of a libation into the sacred mould. The use of an improved material may well have incited him to rebuild the greater number of the sanctuaries in Lagash on their ancient sites, but enlarged and beautified in accordance with the new architectural ideas. From another passage in his texts it would seem that he definitely claimed to have inaugurated a novel form of building, or decoration, such as no patesi before him had employed. The meaning of the phrase is not quite certain, but it may, perhaps, have reference to the sculptured reliefs with which he adorned E-ninnu. It may also refer to the use of raised pilasters for the adornment of facades and external walls, a form that is characteristic of later Babylonian architecture, but is not found in the remains of buildings at Lagash before Gudea's time.

In addition to E-ninnu, the great temple of the city-god Ningirsu, Gudea records that he rebuilt the shrines dedicated to Bau and Ninkharsag, and E-anna, the temple of the goddess Ninni, and he erected temples to Galalim and Dunshagga, two of Ningirsu's sons. In Uru-azagga he rebuilt Gatumdug's temple, and in Girsu three temples to Nindub, Meslamtaea, and Nindar, the last of whom was associated with the goddess Nina, in whose honour he made a sumptuous throne. In Girsu, too, he built a temple to Ningishzida, his patron god, whom he appears to have introduced at this time into the pantheon of Lagash. One of the most novel of his reconstructions was the E-pa, the temple of the seven zones, which he erected for Ningirsu. Gudea's building probably took the form of a tower in seven stages, a true ziggurat, which may be compared with those of Ur-Engur. But the work on which he most prided himself was the rebuilding of E-ninnu, and to this he devoted all the resources of his city. From a study of the remains of this temple that were uncovered at Tello by M. de Sarzec, it would appear that Gudea surrounded the site of Ur-Bau's earlier building with an enclosure, of which a gateway and a tower, decorated with pilasters in relief, are all that remains. These were incorporated in the structure of the late palace at Tello, a great part of which was built with bricks from the ancient temple. It is difficult to determine the relation of these slight remains at Tello, either to the building described by Gudea himself, or to the plan of a fortified enclosure which one of the statues of Gudea, as an architect, holds upon his knees. That the plan was intended, at any rate, for a portion of the temple is clear from the inscription, to the effect that Gudea prepared the statue for E-ninnu, which he had just completed.

The detailed account of the building of this temple, which Gudea has left us, affords a very vivid picture of the religious life of the Sumerians at this epoch, and of the elaborate ritual with which they clothed the cult and worship of their gods. The record is given upon two huge cylinders of clay, one of which was inscribed while the work of building was still in progress, and the other after the building and decoration of the temple had been completed, and Ningirsu had been installed within his shrine. They were afterwards buried as foundation-records in the structure of the temple itself, and so have survived in a wonderfully well-preserved condition, and were recovered during the French excavations at Tello. From the first of the cylinders we learn that Gudea decided to rebuild the temple of the city-god in consequence of a prolonged drought, which was naturally ascribed to the anger of the gods. The water in the rivers and canals had fallen, the crops had suffered, and the land was threatened with famine, when one night the patesi had a vision, by means of which the gods communicated their orders to him.

Gudea tells us that he was troubled because he could not interpret the meaning of the dream, and it was only after he had sought and received encouragement from Ningirsu and Gatumdug that he betook himself to the temple of Nina, the goddess who divines the secrets of the gods. From her he learnt that the deities who had appeared to him in his vision had been Ningirsu, the god of his city, Ningishzida, his patron deity, his sister Nidaba, and Nindub, and that certain words he had heard uttered were an order that he should build E-ninnu. He had beheld Nindub drawing a plan upon a tablet of lapis-lazuli, and this Nina explained was the plan of the temple he should build. Nina added instructions of her own as to the gifts and offerings the patesi was to make to Ningirsu, whose assistance she promised him in the carrying out of the work. Gudea then describes in detail how he obtained from Ningirsu himself a sign that it was truly the will of the gods that he should build the temple, and how, having consulted the omens and found them favourable, he proceeded to purify the city by special rites. In the course of this work of preparation he drove out the wizards and sorcerers from Lagash, and kindled a fire of cedar and other aromatic woods to make a sweet savour for the gods and, after completing the purification of the city, he consecrated the surrounding districts, the sacred cedar-groves, and the herds and cattle belonging to the temple. He then tells us how he fetched the materials for the temple from distant lands, and inaugurated the manufacture of the bricks with solemn rites and ceremonies.

We are not here concerned with Gudea's elaborate description of the new temple, and of the sumptuous furniture, the sacred emblems, and the votive objects with which he enriched its numerous courts and shrines. A large part of the first cylinder is devoted to this subject, and the second cylinder gives an equally elaborate account of the removal of the god Ningirsu from his old shrine and his installation in the new one that had been prepared for him. This event took place on a duly appointed day in the new year, after the city and its inhabitants had undergone a second course of purification. Upon his transfer to his new abode Ningirsu was accompanied by his wife Bau, his sons, and his seven virgin daughters, and the numerous attendant deities who formed the members of his household. These included Galalim, his son, whose special duty it was to guard the throne and place the sceptre in the hands of the reigning patesi Dunshagga, Ningirsu's water- bearer Lugal-kurdub, his leader in battle Lugal-sisa, his counsellor and chamberlain Shakanshabar, his grand vizir Uri-zi, the keeper of his harim Ensignun, who tended his asses and drove his chariot and Enlulim, the shepherd of his kids. Other deities who accompanied Ningirsu were his musician and flute-player, his singer, the cultivator of his lands, who looked after the machines for irrigation, the guardian of the sacred fish-ponds, the inspector of his birds and cattle, and the god who superintended the construction of houses within the city and fortresses upon the city-wall. All these deities were installed in special shrines within E-ninnu, that they might be near Ningirsu and ready at any moment to carry out his orders.

The important place which ritual and worship occupied in the national life of the Sumerians is well illustrated by these records of the building and consecration of a single temple. Gudea's work may have been far more elaborate than that of his predecessors, but the general features of his plan, and the ceremonies and rites which he employed, were doubtless fixed and sanctified by long tradition. His description of Ningirsu's entourage proves that the Sumerian city-god was endowed with all the attributes and enjoyed all the privileges of the patesi himself, his human counterpart and representative. His temple was an elaborate structure, which formed the true dwelling-place of its owner and his divine household and it included lodgings for the priests, treasure-chambers, store-houses, and granaries, and pens and stabling for the kids, sheep and cattle destined for sacrifice. It is interesting to note that in the course of building Gudea came across a stele of Lugal-kisalsi, an earlier king of Erech and Ur. From the name which he gave it we may infer that he found it in Girnun, which was probably one of the shrines or chapels attached to E-ninnu and he carefully preserved it and erected it in the forecourt of the temple. In the respect which he showed for this earlier record, he acted as Nabonidus did at a later day, when he came across the foundation-inscriptions of Naram-Sin and Shagarakti-Buriash in the course of his rebuilding of E-babbar and E-ulmash, the temples of Shamash and of the goddess Anunitu.

Of the article productions of Gudea's period the most striking that have come down to us are the series of diorite statues of himself, which were found together in the late palace at Tello. From the inscriptions upon them it is clear that they were originally prepared by the patesi for dedication in the principal temples of Lagash, which he either founded or rebuilt. Three were installed in E-ninnu, of which one is the statue of the architect with the plan, and another, a seated figure, is the only one of the series of colossal proportions. Three more were made for the temple of Bau, and others for Ninni's temple E-anna, and the temples of the goddesses Gatumdug and Ninkharsag. The small seated figure, destined for the temple of Ningishzida, is the only one of which we possess the head, for this was discovered by Commandant Cros during the more recent diggings at Tello, and was fitted by M. Heuzey to the body of the figure which had been preserved in the Louvre for many years. From the photographic reproduction it will be seen that the size of the head is considerably out of proportion to that of the body and it must be admitted that even the larger statues are not all of equal merit. While in some of them the stiffness of archaic convention is still apparent, others, such as the seated statues for E-ninnu and that of the architect with the rule from the temple of Gatumdug, are distinguished by a fine naturalism and a true sense of proportion.

Some interesting variations of treatment may also be noted in two of the standing statues from the temple of Bau. One of these is narrow in the shoulders and slender of form, and is in striking contrast to the other, which presents the figure of a strong and broad-shouldered man. It would seem that the statues were sculptured at different periods of Gudea's life, and from the changes observable we may infer that he ascended the throne while still a young man and that his reign must have been a long one. The diorite which he used for them was very highly prized for its durability and beauty, and the large block that was required for his colossal figure appears, when the carving was completed, to have been regarded as far more precious than lapis-lazuli, silver, and other metals. Certainly the preparation of so hard a stone presented more difficulty than that of any other material, and that Gudea's sculptors should have learnt to deal successfully with such large masses of it argues a considerable advance in the development of their art.

The small copper figures of a kneeling god grasping a cone are also characteristic of Gudea's period, but in design and workmanship they are surpassed by the similar votive figure which dates from Ur-Bau's reign. A fine example of carving in relief is furnished by the oval panel, in which Gudea is represented as being led into the presence of his god a similar scene of worship, though on a smaller scale, is engraved upon his cylinder-seal. A happy example of carving in the round, as exhibited by smaller objects of this period, is his small mace-head of breccia decorated with the heads of three lions. In design this clearly resembles the mace-head referred to on one of the statues from E-ninnu, though, unlike it, the small mace-head was probably not gilded, since the inscription upon it mentions the mountain in Syria whence the breccia was obtained. But other carved objects of stone that have been recovered may well have been enriched in that way, and to their underlying material they probably owe their preservation. The precious metal may have been stripped from these and the stone cores thrown aside but similar work in solid gold or silver would scarcely have escaped the plunderer's hands.

With the exception of the period of drought, in consequence of which Gudea decided to rebuild Ningirsu's temple, it is probable that during the greater part of his reign the state of Lagash enjoyed unparalleled abundance, such as is said to have followed the completion of that work. The date-formula for one of his years of rule takes its title from the cutting of a new canal which he named Ningirsu-ushumgal, and there is no doubt that he kept the elaborate system of irrigation, by which Lagash and her territories were supplied with water, in a perfect state of repair. Evidence of the plentiful supplies which the temple-lands produced may be seen in the increase of the regular offerings decreed by Gudea. On New Year's day, for instance, at the feast of Bau, after he had rebuilt her temple, he added to the marriage-gifts which were her due, consisting of oxen, sheep, lambs, baskets of dates, pots of butter, figs, cakes, birds, fish, and precious woods, etc. He also records special offerings of clothing and wool which he made to her, and of sacrificial beasts to Ningirsu and the goddess Nina. For the new temple of Gatumdug he mentions the gift of herds of cattle and flocks of sheep, together with their herdsmen and shepherds, and of irrigation-oxen and their keepers for the sacred lands of E-ninnu. Such references point to an increase in the revenues of the state, and we may infer that the people of Lagash shared the prosperity of their patesi and his priesthood.

While Gudea devoted himself to the service of his gods, he does not appear to have enriched the temples at the expense of the common people. He was a strict upholder of traditional privileges, such as the freedom from taxation enjoyed by Gu-edin, Ningirsu's sacred plain but he did not countenance any acts of extortion on the part of his secular or sacred officials. That Gudea's ideal of government was one of order, law, and justice, and the protection of the weak, is shown by his description of the state of Lagash during the seven days he feasted with his people after the consecration of E-ninnu. He tells us that during this privileged time the maid was the equal of her mistress, and master and slave consorted together as friends the powerful and the humble man lay down side by side and in place of evil speech only propitious words were heard the laws of Nina and Ningirsu were observed, and the rich man did not wrong the orphan, nor did the strong man oppress the widow. This reference to what was apparently a legal code, sanctioned by the authority of the city-god and of a goddess connected with the ancient shrine of Eridu, is of considerable interest. It recalls the reforms of the ill-fated Urukagina, who attempted to stamp out the abuses of his time by the introduction of similar legislation. Gudea lived in a happier age, and he appears to us, not as a reformer, but as the strong upholder of the laws in force.

That the reign of Gudea was regarded by the succeeding generations in Lagash as the golden age of their city may perhaps be inferred from his deification under the last kings of the Dynasty of Ur. There is no evidence that, like Sar-Gani-sharri and Naram-Sin, he assumed divine honours during his own lifetime, for in his inscriptions his name is never preceded by the determinative of divinity, and it also occurs without the divine prefix upon the seals of Gimdunpae, his wife, and of Lugal-me, his scribe. In the later period his statues were doubtless worshipped, and it has been suggested that the perpetual offerings of drink and food and grain, which he decreed in connection with one of them, prove that it was assimilated from the first to that of a god. But the names of his statues suggest that they were purely votive in character, and were not placed in the temples in consequence of any claim to divinity on Gudea's part.

It was the custom of the Sumerian patesis to give long and symbolical names to statues, stelae and other sacred objects which they dedicated to the gods, and Gudea's statues do not form an exception to this rule. Thus, before he introduced the statue with the offerings into E-ninnu, he solemnly named it : "For my king have I built this temple may life be my reward!". A smaller statue for E-ninnu was named : "[The-Shepherd] who loveth his king am I may my life be prolonged!", while to the colossal statue for the same temple he gave the title : "Ningirsu the king whose weighty strength the lands cannot support hath assigned a favourable lot unto Gudea the builder of the temple." The small standing statue for the temple of Ninkharsag bore the equally long name : "May Nintud (i.e. Ninkharsag) the mother of the gods the arbiter of destinies in heaven and upon earth prolong the life of Gudea who hath built the temple!", and another small statue for the temple of Bau was named "The lady the beloved daughter of the pure heaven the mother goddess Bau in Esilsirsir hath given Gudea life". The statue for the temple of Ningishzida was named "To Gudea the builder of the temple hath life been given," and that for E-anna bore the title "Of Gudea the man who hath constructed the temple may the life be prolonged!". It will be seen that these names either assert that life and happiness have been granted to Gudea, or they invoke the deity addressed to prolong his life. In fact, they prove that the statues were originally placed in the temples like other votive objects, either in gratitude for past help, or to ensure a continuance of the divine favour.

Such evidence as we possess would seem to show that at the time of Gudea no Sumerian ruler had ever laid claim to divine rank. It is true that offerings were made in connection with the statue of Ur-Nina during Lugal-anda's reign, but Ur-Nina had never laid claim to divinity himself. Moreover, other high personages treated their own statues in the same way. Thus Shagshag, the wife of Urukagina, made offerings in connection with her own statue, but there is no evidence that she was deified. In fact, during the earlier periods, and also in Gudea's own reign, the statue was probably intended to represent the worshipper vicariously before his god. Not only in his lifetime, but also after death, the statue continued to plead for him. The offerings were not originally made to the statue itself, but were probably placed near it to represent symbolically the owner's offerings to his god.

This custom may have prepared the way for the practice of deification, but it did not originate in it. Indeed, the later development is first found among the Semitic kings of Akkad, and probably of Kish, but it did not travel southward until after the Dynasty of Ur had been established for more than a generation. Ur-Engur, like Gudea, was not deified in his own lifetime, and the innovation was only introduced by Dungi. During the reigns of the last kings of that dynasty the practice had been regularly adopted, and it was in this period that Gudea was deified and his cult established in Lagash along with those of Dungi and his contemporary Ur-Lama. By decreeing that offerings should be made to one of his statues, Gudea no doubt prepared the way for his posthumous deification, but he does not appear to have advanced the claim himself. That he should have been accorded this honour after death may be regarded as an indication that the splendour of his reign had not been forgotten.

Gudea was succeeded upon the throne of Lagash by his son Ur-Ningirsu, and with this patesi we may probably establish a point of contact between the rulers of Lagash and those of Ur. That he succeeded his father there can be no doubt, for on a ceremonial mace-head, which he dedicated to Ningirsu, and in other inscriptions we possess, he styles himself the son of Gudea and also patesi of Lagash. During his reign he repaired and rebuilt at least a portion of E-ninnu, for the British Museum possesses a gate-socket from this temple, and a few of his bricks have been found at Tello recording that he rebuilt in cedar- wood the Gigunu, a portion of the temple of Ningirsu, which Gudea had erected as symbolical of the Lower World. Moreover, tablets have been found at Tello which are dated in his reign, and from these we gather that he was patesi for at least three years, and probably longer. From other monuments we learn that a highly placed religious official of Lagash, who was a contemporary of Dungi, also bore the name of Ur-Ningirsu, and the point to be decided is whether we may identify this personage with Gudea's son.

Ur-Ningirsu, the official, was high-priest of the goddess Nina, and he also held the offices of priest of Enki and high-priest of Anu. Moreover, he was a man of sufficient importance to stamp his name upon bricks which were probably used in the construction of a temple at Lagash. That he was Dungi's contemporary is known from an inscription upon a votive wig and head-dress in the British Museum, which is made of diorite and was intended for a female statuette. The text engraved upon this object states that it was made by a certain Bau-ninam for his lady and divine protectress, who was probably the goddess Bau, as an adornment for her gracious person, and his object in presenting the offering was to induce her to prolong the life of Dungi, "the mighty man, the King of Ur." The important part of the text concerns Bau-ninam's description of himself as a craftsman, or subordinate official, in the service of Ur-Ningirsu, "the beloved high-priest of Nina". From this passage it is clear that Ur-Ningirsu was high-priest in Lagash at a period when Dungi (Shulgi), king of Ur, exercised suzerainty over that city. If therefore we are to identify him with Gudea's son and successor, we must conclude that he had meawhile been deposed from the patesiate of Lagash, and appointed to the priestly offices which we find him holding during Dungi's reign.

The alternative suggestion that Ur-Ningirsu may have fulfilled his sacerdotal duties during the lifetime of Gudea while he himself was still crown-prince, is negatived by the subsequent discovery that during the reign of Dungi's father, Ur-Engur (Ur Nammu), another patesi, named Ur-abba, was on the throne of Lagash for tablets have been found at Tello which are dated in the reign of Ur-Engur and also in the patesiate of Ur-abba. To reconcile this new factor with the preceding identification, we must suppose that Ur-Ningirsu's deposition occurred in the reign of Ur-Engur, who appointed Ur-abba as patesi in his place. According to this view, Ur-Ningirsu was not completely stripped of honours, but his authority was restricted to the purely religious sphere, and he continued to enjoy his priestly appointments during the early part of Dungi's reign. There is nothing impossible in this arrangement, and it finds support in account-tablets from Tello, which belong to the period of Ur-Ningirsu's reign. Some of the tablets mention supplies and give lists of precious objects, which were destined for "the king", "the queen", " the king's son", or "the king's daughter", and were received on their behalf by the palace-chamberlain. Although none of these tablets expressly mention Ur-Ningirsu, one of the same group of documents was drawn up in the year which followed his accession as patesi, another is dated in a later year of his patesiate, and all may be assigned with some confidence to his period. The references to a "king" in the official account-lists point to the existence of a royal dynasty, whose authority was recognized at this time in Lagash. In view of the evidence afforded by Bau-ninam's dedication we may identify the dynasty with that of Ur.

The acceptance of the synchronism carries with it the corollary that with Ur-Ningirsu's reign we have reached another turning point in the history, not only of Lagash, but of the whole of Sumer and Akkad. It is possible that Ur-Engur (Ur Nammu) may have founded his dynasty in Ur before Gudea's death, but there is no evidence that he succeeded in forcing his authority upon Lagash during Gudea's patesiate and, in view of the comparative shortness of his reign, it is preferable to assign his accession to the period of Gudea's son. Sumer must have soon acknowledged his authority, and Lagash and the other southern cities doubtless formed the nucleus of the kingdom on which he based his claim to the hegemony in Babylonia. This claim on behalf of Ur was not fally-substantiated until the reign of Dungi, but in Sumer Ur-Engur appears to have met with little opposition. Of the circumstances which led to Ur-Ningirsu's deposition we know nothing, but we may conjecture that his acknowledgment of Ur-Engur's authority was not accompanied by the full measure of support demanded by his suzerain. As Gudea's son and successor he may well have resented the loss of practical autonomy which his city had enjoyed, and Ur-Engur may in consequence have found it necessary to remove him from the patesiate. Ur-abba and his successors were merely vassals of the kings of Ur, and Lagash became a provincial city in the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad.


Historical Periods

During the reign of Gudea in the ancient city of Lagash, the great city temples were adorned with several statues of him. While Lagash collapsed many centuries ago, the Statue of Gudea (which dates back to ca. 2090 B.C.) still sits pretty.

  • Louvre Museum, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Royal Acquaintances Memi and Sabu, on the other hand, dates back to the Fourth Dynasty (ca. 2575–2465 B.C.) of ancient Egypt.

Appearance

The Royal Acquaintances Memi and Sabu were made from limestone while the statue of Gudea is a stone sculpture made from diorite.

The Statue of Gudea portrays him as a ruler that he was, seated before his subjects with his hands folded into a prayer or greeting gesture, while the Royal Acquaintances Memi and Sabu depict the intimacy of Memi and Sabu standing side-by-side, with Memi’s left hand hanging down Sabu’s shoulder and her right hand wrapped around his waist.

One thing both statues have in common is the presence of inscriptions. The inscriptions on the statue of Memi and Sabu suggested they were acquainted with a royal family, while that of the statue of Gudea described him as royalty and a hero, expressing the wish for him to live long.

Significance

The level of intimacy observed in the Royal Acquaintances Memi and Sabu suggests they were a couple, so the statue could be a depiction of love. However, while their hands tell us they may have been lovers, their facial expressions say otherwise. It seems they were connected physically and not emotionally. Both husband and wife are dressed in similar clothes, which means they belonged to the same social class. Furthermore, the simplicity of their clothes shows they were probably commoners or servants.

This, however, isn’t the case with the Statue of Gudea. The Statue of Gudea represents royalty and power – this is evident in the portrayal of Gudea. The statue shows him seated, wearing a royal robe like he was about to address his subjects, unlike the Royal Acquaintances Memi and Sabu, which shows them standing, like subjects.

Tujuan

Just like many others, the statue of Gudea was made to be placed in the great temples of Lagash Gudea built. Placing his statue in the temples was a way of preserving his legacy for the next generations to come and for the people to continue serving and worshipping him like a god.

The Royal Acquaintances Memi and Sabu were made to be buried with the dead (most likely their masters), to continue serving them even in the afterlife.


Komentar

I think this is one of the most vital info for me. And i am glad reading your article. But want to remark on few general things, The site style is perfect, the articles is really nice : D. Good job, cheers

We’re really happy that you liked this piece of information. Thanks for appreciating our blog style and articles too. Keep reading and visit our services section also.

Wow! Finally, I got a web site from where I can genuinely get valuable information concerning
my study and knowledge.

Thanks for appreciating our blog. We’ll soon share more interesting topics
Keep checking and happy reading!