Page 95 - The Art & Architecture of the Ancient Orient_Neat

PART ONE: MESOPOTAMIA

Marduk of Babylon, that it is hard to distinguish the two * Moreover, Assur, like Mar-
dnk, was apparently a specialized form of the personification of natural life worshipped
throughout the country from the earliest times onward. Such a god is represented in a
gypsum relief (Plate 72) which was found in a well in the temple of Assur at Assur The
frontal composition shows that it served in the cult (cf. Plate 56 and p. 56). Every cle­
ment of the design is known from earlier times. The lower part of the body of the god,
as well as his cap, shows the scale pattern by which‘the mountain’ is traditionally ren­
dered; it could not be expressed more clearly that the divinity is immanent in the earth.
Plants spring from his hips and hands, and goats (representing animal life) feed on the
plants. A similar design occurs on a cylinder of the Protoliterate Period,4 and figure 17B
shows an Akkadian version of the theme. Two subsidiary deities carry the ‘flowing’ vase
(cf. Plates 45D, 62, and Figure 18). The relief indicates, therefore, that there was no break
in continuity between the art of Assyria and the art of Babylonia and Sumer.
But it is different in the case of the altar of Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1250-1210 b.c.) (Plate
73b). The relief on the front shows a rite performed before the very object which it
decorates. The king bearing a sceptre is first shown as he approaches, then as he kneels
before the altar, carved with the emblem of the god Nusku. The almost intimate mect-
ing between king and god which was depicted on steles from the time of Gudea down
to that of Hammurabi is not considered possible in Assyria. In both art and literature the
gods appear withdrawn from the world of men, and we do not know whether this re­
flects a profounder awareness of the transcendence of divinity, or whether, on the con­
trary, the prominence of the emblems indicates an approach to fetishism. However that
may be, the directness and vividness of the earlier scenes are no longer found. If the god is
seen in a cult scene, he appears as a statue standing on a base (Figure 24B), but in mytho­
logical scenes (for instance, when destroying monsters) the base is absent. In former
times this distinction between the god and his statue had never been made.
The distance between god and men is impressively rendered on a scene of the so-called
‘broken obelisk’ set up by one of the successors of Tiglathpilesar I (c. mo b.c.) (Plate
73a). While vassals pay homage to the king, two hands emerge from a cloud above; one
holds a bow, and this probably identifies the god as Assur; the other hand makes a ges-
ture expressing divine approval of the king’s glorification. On either side of the cloud
appear the symbols of other deities.
In a glazed slab - part of the revetment of a wall - the same idea is expressed. The god
actively supports king and people but remains in his own inaccessible sphere. Above the
royal chariot Assur appears in the flaming disk of the sun drawing his bow against the
enemies of Assyria.5 Even here it is not forgotten that Assur is a power of nature, t le
clouds charged with heavy drops of rain which cluster along the upper edge of the c-
sign represent a blessing brought by the god. The appearance of Assur, with wings an
a feathered tail (cf. Plate 84) is curious; it is generally explained as a derivation from
Po-vnt 6 where Horus, the god incarnate in Pharaoh and manifest in the falcon, was re
presented as a sun disk between (originally: supported by) two wings. The winge sun
i- ar,pears in Syrian cylinders of about the middle of the second md enmum,
original meaning, the wings rendering the sky supporting the sun; an 111s esign is

66