Page 87 - The Art & Architecture of the Ancient Orient_Neat

PART one: MESOPOTAMIA

UOt a TayS kn0Wn‘ Thc clcSancc fineness of the figurine of Idu-ilum
o Man (Plate 6ic) are contrasted with thc larger statues from that site in a way re­
calling the contrast between plate 49 and plates 46-8. Of thc larger statues from Mari
that of Puzur-Ishtar (Plate 60) is closest to thc statuette. It combines a broad but sensitive
treatment of the bare parts of the body with an extraordinary elaboration of all those
details of dress and hair which arc ca pablc of ornamental treatment. Thc pair of horns
cnclosmg the round cap reminds one of the pretensions of some of these rulers. At
Eshnunna, for instance, some wrote their names with thc determinative of divinity, of
which the horns in our statue arc thc pictorial equivalent.
The statue of Ishtup-ilum of Mari (Plate 6ia) shows an almost brutal simplification of
forms. This is a provincial trait. It recurs in an even more extreme form in north Syria.
Statues of rulers of Eshnunna arc also known.30 They arc coarser than that of Puzur-
Ishtar and more florid than that of Ishtup-ilum. The folds in the robes arc heavier, thc
muscles more bulging but flaccid, and heavy bead necklaces are added to the costume.
At Assur thc local rulers set up similar statues.31 They wear a long kilt, not a shawl, and
the dress is treated summarily, but thc muscles of the bare body arc vigorously rendered,
and the shoulder-blades arc made into striking ornaments of thc normally uninteresting
back view. The best preserved of thc four statues wears the necklace of heavy beads,
which seems to have been characteristic for sculpture of thc time of Hammurabi. It ap­
pears on his own stele (Plate 65) in thc statues of rulers of Eshnunna and again in the
statue of the goddess from Mari (Plate 62). Even as late as the beginning of the Isin-
Larsa Period the usage of earlier times (Plate 5013) had survived, and necklaces were ren­
dered by thin horizontal ridges without indication of thc individual beads. This treat­
J ment was in keeping with thc fine, mostly linear, rendering of all other details in those
times; in comparison, the forms of the Hammurabi Period appear inflated and flabby.
The goddess, once again, pours water from a flowing vase. We have met this motif
often, and shall soon find it applied to Kassite architecture; but the figure from Mari is
unique in that it actually dispensed water. A channel drilled from the vase to the base,
and no doubt connected by piping with a tank placed at a higher level in or behind a
wall, turned the vessel of the goddess into a true fountain. The vertical wavy lines en­
graved in her gown do not merely represent folds, but render streaming water, as is
shown by the fishes engraved alongside. The statue finds parallels, on the one hand, in
the basin of Gudea (p. 49) and, on thc other, in late Assyrian temples at Khorsabad,
where pairs of male gods holding the vase flanked the entrance of each temple in the
palace of Sargon.
If we consider the style of the sculptures discussed so far, their traditional character
stands out. Allowing for differences in quality, the continuity which links them, throug 1
the statues of Gudea, with the Akkadian Period is clear. Yet if we compare the statuette
of Idu-ilum (Plate 61 c) with that of Gudea (Plate 49), one notices, in the figure rom
phasis on the rendering of substance; compare the tassels at the edge
Mari, a greater em
of the shawl - and one ma y remember that Akkad, Eshnunna, and Mari all he to the
north of Sumer proper.

58