Page 83 - The Art & Architecture of the Ancient Orient_Neat

PART one: MESOPOTAMIA

The Isin-Larsa Period
The last king of the Third Dynasty of Ur was overthrown by a combined attack of
Elamites from the cast and Amorites from the north-west. The invaders settled and
mixed with the older population, and the traditional Mesopotamian pattern of political
existence asserted itself as soon as the central power had collapsed, namely, a number of
independent city-states now existed side by side. This phase is called the Isin-Larsa Period
(2025-1763 b.c.) after the two who were rivals for hegemony. Babylon played no im­
portant part until Hammurabi (1792-1750 b.c.) came to the throne. He succeeded in
uniting the whole country once more after the defeat of Larsa (1763 b.c.), Eshnunna,
and Mari.
But we cannot distinguish the art of Hammurabi’s time or of that of his successors of
the First Dynasty of Babylon from that of the Isin-Larsa period, unless the monuments
are inscribed.
The temple of Ishchali (Plate 55) was built after the fall of Ur and belonged to the
independent kingdom of Eshnunna, with its capital at modern Tell Asmar, east of the
Diyala river, in the neighbourhood of Baghdad. The building was dedicated to a form
of the Mother Goddess, Ishtar-Kititum. It stood upon a platform, but the main shrine, at
the western end (at the back, in plate 55), was elevated yet again above this common level
of the temple. Viewed from the main courtyard the general situation resembles that at
Khafaje (Plate 12): to reach the shrine from the court, which is surrounded by subsidiary
J buildings, one has to mount a platform and turn sharply to the right to face the deity in
her sanctuary. But at Ishchali the architectural arrangements are much more complex.
Instead of a single-chambered shrine there is again a court; and the deity is approached
through an antecella, as in the palace chapel, on the left in figure 19. We insist on the
comparison with Khafaje to emphasize the continuity of an architectural development
which the elaboration of the later plans tends to obscure. In contrast with Khafaje, we
find that the elevated platform of Ishchali has a gateway leading directly into the street,
and viewed from this entrance the shrine of Ishtar-Kititum lies in the central axis; but
the comparison with the temple oval demonstrates that here, as at Tell Asmar (Fig ure
19), the street entrance is, historically, an addition to an original scheme with a bent-
axis’ approach. The same applies to the second sanctuary, in the north-west corner of
the building, where a ‘bent-axis’ connected shrine and court, while an entrance leading

from the street was placed opposite the cella.
It remains to explain the broad, shallow cella of these temples; for hitherto a long,
narrow room had been customary (Figures 3, 5, 6, and 10). The broad cella is merely die
most sacred part of the long room converted into a separate unit. This development
starts in Early Dynastic times, when an attempt was made to demarcate the position o
the altar and divine statue and set it apart from the area where worshippers gathered. At
nd elsewhere20 this was done by means of piers. The same method was sti use
Assur a
in the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur (Figure 20). Steps led from the fore-
at Assur in
where the statue of the god stood before the short wall at the
court into a long room
54