classification, historiography and monumental · pdf fileclassification, historiography and...

95 JCS 52 (2000)

CLASSIFICATION, HISTORIOGRAPHYAND MONUMENTAL AUTHORITY:

THE BABYLONIAN ENTITLEMENT NARU ^S(KUDURRUS)

Kathryn E. SlanskiTel Aviv University

I. Kudurru, Boundary Stone, Grenzstein

In 1788, Antoine Michaux, an amateur bota-nist traveling in Mesopotamia, found an intrigu-ing stone object (fig. 1) on the west bank of theTigris, just south of Baghdad. M. Michaux broughtthe object back with him to Paris, and in 1801 theobject entered into the collections of theBibliotheque Nationale. Thus did the CaillouMichaux, the first significant monument and in-scription from ancient Mesopotamia,1 come to theattention of the modern world.2

In the final decade of the nineteenth century, anumber of inscribed and sculpted stone objects ex-hibiting clear physical and textual similarities tothe Caillou Michaux were discovered by Frenchand British expeditions to Mesopotamia. Shortlyafter the objects made their westward way into the

collections of the Louvre and the British Museum,their inscriptions and reliefs appeared in the seriesMission de la Delegation en Perse (MDP) and inL.W. King’s Babylonian Boundary Stones andMemorial Tablets in the British Museum (BBSt).3

Many of the objects commemorate a grant ofagricultural land from the king to an individual,and their inscriptions open with a description ofthe land according to its borders. The prominenceof these land descriptions and the occurrence ofthe Akkadian word kudurru “boundary” in the in-scriptions led to the classification of the texts as“royal” or “feudal” land grants, and it was assumedthat in antiquity the objects themselves stood uponthe boundaries of granted land. Thus, at the be-ginning of the twentieth century, early in the his-tory of Assyriology, the objects entered into theAssyriological lexicon as kudurrus, English“boundary stones,” German “Grenzsteine.”

Classification plays a primary role in any re-search, and since the time of their publication, the

I am grateful to E. Carter, J. A. Hackett, J. Huehnergard,P. Machinist, B. N. Porter, P. Steinkeller, and I. J. Winter fortheir comments on earlier versions of this article. I wouldlike also to gratefully acknowledge the Bibliotheque Nationaleand the Trustees of the British Museum for their permissionto reproduce the images appearing in this article. This articleis dedicated to Prof. W. L. Moran with thanks for his patientinsistence on the sensitive reading of ancient texts.

1. S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture,and Character (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), 10.

2. The object remains part of the collection of theBibliotheque Nationale and can still be viewed there today.

3. For the objects recovered by the French expedition toSusa, see especially MDP I (1900), II (1900), IV (1902), VI(1905), X (1908), 14 (1913), and XXIX (1943). For theobjects in the British Museum, see L.W. King, BabylonianBoundary Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Mu-seum (BBSt) (London: Trustees of the British Museum,1912).

96 KATHRYN E. SLANSKI

objects have been almost uniformly accepted asboundary stones marking the limits of royal landgrants. Yet there are features of the artifacts thatcannot be reconciled with their alleged functionas boundary markers. For example: one inscrip-tion relates that it is a copy of a text destroyedwhen a wall collapsed upon it.4 This statement

clearly points to an architectural rather than anagricultural provenance. Five initial observationscan be marshaled against the designation kudurru“boundary marker” for the objects:5

1. While the Akkadian word kudurru does mean“boundary,” the inscriptions do not designatethe objects with the word kudurru. Rather, theinscriptions of the objects themselves refer tothe objects to as (na›)narû,6 the regular Akkadianterm for “(stone) stele” or “(stone) monu-ment.”7

2. Some of the inscriptions refer to the objectshaving been erected “in the presence of thegods.” Combined with the passage cited aboveindicating architectural provenance, these ref-erences suggest that the original setting of theobjects had been within temples.

3. Approximately one-third of the objects wasfound in Susa, capital of ancient Elam, wherethey had been taken in the aftermath of Elamiteraids into Babylonia. It is inconceivable that theElamite soldiers went scavenging in the fieldsto pick up boundary markers and carry themhome. Moreover, the objects were set up in themain Elamite temple, alongside more spectacu-lar monuments seized in Babylonia. Archaeo-logical and epigraphical evidence indicates thatthese other trophy objects—such as the LawStele of Hammurabi8 and the Stele of Naram-

4. narâ åa haœbi iåøurma … ina muhhi narê åuΩtu igarui’abitma ihhepi … narâ åa abni eååa gabarê labiri iåøurmaukÏn (After PN) inscribed a narû of clay … and a wall fellupon and broke that narû … (PN¤) inscribed and set up anew narû of stone—a copy of the old one. [Nazi-Maruttaå,MDP II 86: Face III, (médaillon)-Face IV (médaillon)].

5. An in-depth discussion can be found in the author’sPhD dissertation, A Study in the Form and Function of theBabylonian kudurrus (Harvard University, 1997), to be pub-lished in the ASOR Books series.

6. There are a very few (three) exceptions, in which theinscription does appear to refer to the object with the termkudurru rather than with the term narû. See Slanski, Formand Function, Chapter 2.

7. Though usually translated as “stele,” the more neutralterm “monument” is preferred here. Many objects designatedas narû in Akkadian inscriptions—including the Sippar ÅamaåTablet discussed in detail below—do not have the form ofstelae. See Slanski, Form and Function, Chapter 4.

8. Note that the Law Stele of Hammurabi is also desig-nated in its inscription as a (stone) narû.

Fig. 1. Caillou Michaux, dated to the reign ofMarduk-nΩdin-ahhe (1099–1082 BC). (Photo courtesy

Bibliotheque Nationale.)

THE BABYLONIAN ENTITLEMENT NARU ^S (KUDURRUS) 97

Sin—were removed from Babylonian temples.9

The original Babylonian setting for the objectsunder discussion should be sought alongsidethese other artifacts taken from the temples ofBabylonia.

4. Most of the objects have a highly polished, vi-sually appealing surface. The objects do nothave the appearance of stones left outside in theelements.

5. Recent systematic excavations, as well as re-interpretations of earlier, less systematic exca-vations, have indicated that find spots for someof these objects lie within the architectural re-mains of ancient temples.10

In short, these objects were not boundary mark-ers. The Babylonians knew them by the term narû,“(stone) monument,” the same term they used todesignate their royal monuments. In order to de-termine the true function of the narûs under dis-cussion, we need to reject their classification asboundary markers and consider the objects anew.This essay will argue that these objects belong tothe Mesopotamian genre of inscribed and sculptedroyal stone monuments, and that by employing thephysical, textual, and visual form established forroyal monuments, their creators tapped into theauthority generated by the monumental form. Inparticular, I will consider how the objects employverbal and visual presentations of history to es-tablish the authority of the events they commemo-rate.

II. Tabula Rasa

The narûs under discussion are a corpus of in-scribed and sculpted stone objects dating from latesecond to mid-first millennium Babylonia; extantmembers of the corpus can be dated to betweenthe fourteenth and the seventh centuries BCE. Ap-

proximately 160 members of the corpus are at-tested in various states of preservation.

Of all the members of the corpus, just over halfwere recovered in the course of controlled archaeo-logical excavation. The rest have come from theantiquities market and consequently informationabout their provenance has been lost. Almost halfof the objects were excavated in Susa. Of thetwenty excavated in Babylonia, most were foundin temples.11

The objects found in Susa had been broughtthere and set up alongside other larger, more spec-tacular and better known Babylonian monumentssuch as the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin, createdtoward the end of the third millennium, and theLaw Stele of Hammurabi, dating from the eigh-teenth century. The inscriptions of some of thesemonuments indicate unambiguously that theyoriginally were set up in Babylonian temples.Thanks to secondary Elamite inscriptions addedto some of the monuments, we know that they weretaken from Babylonia to Susa in the 12th century.There, the Elamite king dedicated them to his owngod and set them up in the courtyard associatedwith the main temple.12

Thus the members of the corpus excavated inSusa, as well as the members of the corpus exca-vated in Babylonia, all point to the temple as theoriginal locus of the objects. Moreover, the ar-chaeological evidence correlates well with whatwe know about the interconnected functions ofBabylonian temples, both as storehouses for com-munity wealth and as public spaces where monu-ments were erected to be encountered by the public.

Complete members of the corpus range in sizefrom about 10 cm to almost one meter in height.Complete or restorable inscriptions range from 39to 390 lines of text. Regardless of length, the texts

9. For a detailed discussion of the evidence, see Slanski,Form and Function, Chapter 2.

10. Although it should be noted that several of these maycome from secondary contexts.

11. See n. 10 and Slanski, Form and Function, Table 3.12. See most recently P. O. Harper, “Mesopotamian Monu-

ments Found at Susa,” in The Royal City of Susa, P. O. Harper,J. Aruz, and F. Tallon, eds (New York: The MetropolitanMuseum of Art, 1992), 159–82.


adhere to a uniform structure.13 Each inscriptionconsists of two main divisions. The first part, theoperative division, provides concrete informationabout the events commemorated by the narû, suchas a royal grant of land. The second part, theimprecative division, consists of a series of prohi-bitions against a would-be evil do-er, followed bya series of divine curses calling the wrath of godsupon the transgressor. The relief sculptures depictprimarily divine symbols, deployed along one sideor at the top of the narû, arranged randomly or inordered rows. According to the inscriptions, thedivine symbols function in tandem with the divinecurses to protect the object, and that which it com-memorates, from harm.14 A small percentage ofthe corpus bears scenes in relief; the function ofthese scenes will be taken up in section III, below.

As noted above the majority of inscriptionscommemorate royal land grants. However, someinscriptions document not a gift but a purchase ofland, others the acquisition of a temple prebend,still others the resolution of a legal case. In theroyal land grants the king plays a primary role, ashe does in resolving the legal disputes. Yet, in otherinscriptions there is no mention of the king what-soever. Thus, the label “royal land grant” must alsobe rejected as a designation for the corpus as awhole.

What every inscription does commemorate isthe acquisition of a source of perpetual income. Inmost of the corpus, the source of income isagricultural land, acquired through grant orpurchase. In some cases, the land is extensive,encompassing whole villages as well as the laborof the people living there.15 In part of the corpus,the source of income is a temple prebend: therecipient is entitled to a certain amount of food,clothing and other consumable goods from thetemple. A few of the narûs commemorate releasefrom traditional obligations of taxes and labor. Inthis way, the labor of those residents and theirproductivity could be redirected toward therecipient’s own local holdings, resulting in anincrease in his “real income.” Remaining membersof the corpus commemorate acquisition of land incombination with a prebend or exemptions.

I have expanded on a concept proposed byBrinkman and Dalley16 and termed this right to asource of income an entitlement. The designationBabylonian Entitlement narû is therefore an accu-rate descriptive term for each and every memberof the corpus, and communicates what the monu-ments actually do commemorate as well as theircorrect native Babylonian designation.

In addition to commemorating acquisition of anentitlement, the imprecations and curses that closeeach inscription, as well as the formulary used torecord the transfer of the entitlement, indicate thatthe monuments were intended to ensure that theentitlement’s acquisition be permanent, that the

13. Examples and discussion can be found in Slanski, Formand Function, Chapter 3: “Structure of the Inscriptions.”

14. Attempts have been made to connect the divine sym-bols on the narûs with the symbols of the zodiac (see, e.g.,W. J. Hinke, A New Boundary Stone of Nebuchadnezzar Ifrom Nippur. The Babylonian Expedition of the Universityof Pennsylvania, Series D: Researches and Treatises 4 [Phila-delphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1907], 71–115) or witha projection of the night sky and thus a date for the monu-ment (see, e.g., V. S. Tuman, “Astronomical Dating of theNebuchadnezzar kudurru found in Nippur in February, 1896,”in Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e RencontreAssyriologique Internationale. [Philadelphia: The UniversityMuseum, 1988], 281–85). As none of these theories has yetbeen demonstrated convincingly, my understanding of thefunction of the divine symbols is based on (a) references tothe symbols made in the inscriptions, and (b) the function of

divine symbols in other Babylonian cultural contexts, spe-cifically, the role of divine symbols in legal process. For tex-tual references to the symbols, see the discussion in Slanski,Form and Function, Chapter 3. The thesis on the relationshipbetween divine symbols on the these artifacts and in the legalrealm was presented in a paper delivered at the 46th RAI(Paris, July 2000) and is currently in preparation for publica-tion.

15. For example, Meli-åipak, MDP II 99.16. J. A. Brinkman and S. M. Dalley, “A Royal Kudurru

from the Reign of Aååur-nΩdin-åumi,” ZA 78 (1988) 76.


entitlement could be inherited by succeeding gen-erations and remain in the recipient’s family forall time.

III. Historiography in the Babylonian

Entitlement narûs.

We turn now from the question of what theEntitlement narûs commemorate to how they com-memorate. A few of the inscriptions of the corpuscontain narratives that relate events bearing onBabylonian history, and these have been termed“historiographic.” The most commonly cited in thisregard is Babylonian Boundary Stone 6 (BBSt 6or the Åitti-Marduk kudurru). Its inscription openswith stirring narrative of the decisive battle inwhich the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I(1125–1104 BCE)17 prevailed over his Elamite ri-val:

The king of the gods, Marduk, commanded him,and

to avenge the crime against Akkad, had himraise his weapons.

He launched the campaign from the city of De¢r,cult seat of Anu—

he took the road at double speed in the monthof Tammuz.

The sky was burning like fire,and the roadway was scorching like flame.There was no water in the meadows and drink-

ing supplies were cut off;the pick of the great ones, the horses, were at a

standstill.As for the valiant youth, his legs kept giving

way.18

Another member of the corpus also narratesevents from Nebuchadnezzar’s success against theElamites: BBSt 24 contains an account of theBabylonian king’s recovery of the cult statue ofthe god Marduk (Be¢l) from within Elamite terri-tory:

Åamuyya, priest of (the god) URU-ia, andÅamayya, his son …,

fled … from the presence of the king of theland of Elam on behalf of Nebuchadnezzar,king of Babylonia.

Nebuchadnezzar made an assault on theirbehalf, and

(when) they went with him to the land ofElam, the land of Elam he smote.

He took the hand of the god, Be¢l, and then hebore (the god) URU-ia together with Be¢lback to Babylon.19

These two inscriptions relate a version of his-torical events, and they have long been used toreconstruct the history of Nebuchadnezzar’s vic-tory over the Elamites and his recovery of the cultstatue of Marduk. But why were these passagesincluded in inscriptions about entitlement?

As stated above, the inscriptions of the Entitle-ment narûs adhere to a consistent structure. Whenwe look at the textual corpus as a whole, we seethat the historiographic passages of BBSt 6 andBBSt 24 fill a slot within the regular structure ofthe inscriptions. Other kinds of passages filling thisslot include the legal history of an estate left with-out an heir, the circumstances behind land givenas a marriage gift, or a description of how formerlybarren land was prepared for cultivation before itwas given to a recipient.

When we consider the historiographic passagesof BBSt 6 and BBSt 24 in this context, we see thatthey perform a precise and regular function withintheir inscriptions: to justify acquisition of an en-

17. All regnal dates conform to J. A. Brinkman,“Mesopotamian Chronology of the Historical Period,” appen-dix to A.L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, revised edi-tion by E. Reiner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1977), 335–46.

18. Nebuchadnezzar, BBSt 6, i 12–21. Translations in thisessay are by the author. 19. Nebuchadnezzar, BBSt 24, obv. 1–12.


Fig. 2. BBSt 9, dated to the reign of Nabû-mukÏn-apli (979–944). British Museum. (BBSt, pl. LXVII.)

THE BABYLONIAN ENTITLEMENT NARUS (KUDURRUS) 101

titlement. The two historiographic episodes citedabove are not so much about Nebuchadnezzar’smilitary success against the Elamites as they areabout the other people who figure in those epi-sodes. In the case of the first text, BBSt 6, the his-toriographic battle narrative also informs us aboutthe quick-thinking and courageous field officer,Åitti-Marduk, who subsequently received an en-titlement from the king. The second text, BBSt 24,commemorates a temple prebend granted byNebuchadnezzar to the Elamite priest and his son.The function of the historiographic episode is reallyto tell about these two Elamite priests who assistedNebuchadnezzar behind enemy lines, enabling himto take Be¢l by the hand and lead him back toBabylon. In both cases persons portrayed as hav-ing performed a valuable service to the king arethe persons receiving a valuable entitlement.

III.A. Babylonian Boundary Stone 9

Other passages in the Entitlement narû corpusnarrate past events to illustrate a recipient’s rightto receive and hold and entitlement, and these canalso be considered historiographic. These passagesare not concerned with political history, and insome the king plays only a minor role, or no roleat all. The history that they relate is not about battleheroics or of other events that bear on Babylonianhistory writ large. It is history on a local, or evenon a household scale.

One such passage is contained in the text ofBBSt 9 (fig. 2) dated to the reign of Nabû-mukÏn-apli (979–944). The historiographic portion of theinscription covers three generations, the reigns oftwo kings, and, in more than one-hundred lines ofcuneiform text, approximately one-third of themonument’s surface. The inscription opens bynarrating that a female slave was shot with an ar-row and killed. The killer, Arad-Œibitti, appearedbefore the king, customary legal procedure in casesconcerning loss of life, and the king sentenced himto pay damages to the owner of the slave. But thedefendant did not have the resources to pay, set-

ting off a series of legal relations between the plain-tiff and the defendant and their respective fami-lies. According to the text, some eleven years af-ter the wrongful death, the defendant, Arad-Œibitti,gave to his daughter a plot of agricultural land.The gift was made on the occasion of her mar-riage to a son of the plaintiff, the man whose slavehad been killed. Land thus passed from the familyof the defendant to the family of plaintiff. Eigh-teen years later, a descendant of the plaintiff seemsto be bailing out of debt a descendent of the de-fendant, and an additional plot of land as well asother assets have passed from the family of thedefendant to the family of the plaintiff.

The text presents a colorful account of ancientlegal entanglements. But BBSt 9 also has a visualcomponent that we should take into account whenconsidering how the monument presents history.

Past scholarship on the imagery of the Entitle-ment narûs has concentrated almost entirely oniconography—on identification of the divine sym-bols so characteristic of the corpus. Yet a percent-age of the imagery of the corpus depicts scenes inplace of or in addition to divine symbols. Study ofthe scenes, and of the relationship between the in-scriptions and the imagery, suggests that the scenesof the corpus have a historiographic aim, that is,that they serve to present a “version,” a “telling”of the past connected to the entitlement event com-memorated by the inscriptions.20 The historio-graphic imagery of the scenes works together withthe other aspects of the monuments to achieve oneover-riding aim: to ensure the permanence and in-violability of the transactions commemorated bythe monuments.

In general, the scenes of the Entitlement narûsdepict the persons involved in the entitlementtransaction. For example, BBSt 28 (fig. 3), in the

20. This thesis was first presented by the author in a pa-per, “Verbal and Visual Historiography of the Babyloniankudurrus,” at the 49th Rencontre AssyriologiqueInternationale, Cambridge, Massachusetts, July 1997.


Fig.

3 B

BSt

28,

dat

ed to

the

reig

n of

Nab

û-ap

la-i

ddin

a (m

id-9

th c

entu

ry).

Bri

tish

Mus

eum

. (B

BSt

, pl.

CII

I.)


shape of a tablet, depicts an individual, Nabû-apla-iddina, son of Atnayya, in the presence of theBabylonian king, also named Nabû-apla-iddina(mid-ninth century). On the left, Nabû-apla-iddina,son of Atnayya, is shown making a gesture ofgreeting. He faces the king, who is depicted wear-ing long robes, royal headgear, and holding a staff.There can be no doubt about the identity of thetwo figures; they are openly labeled in cuneiforminscribed right on the relief field: “Image of Nabû-apla-iddina, son of Atnayya” and “Image of Nabû-apla-iddina, King.” The text of the main inscrip-tion relates that the king reaffirmed to Nabû-apla-iddina, son of Atnayya, the land holdings of hisfather.21

Similarly, scenes from other monuments in thecorpus, while not always so conveniently labeled,evince demonstrable correspondence between thefigures appearing in the inscription and the fig-ures appearing in the relief.22 This high level ofcorrespondence indicates that the relief scenesdepict the recipient of the entitlement and, in manycases, the king who granted the entitlement.

If we ask what directed the choice of individu-als depicted in the relief, the answer seems self-evident. The function of the Entitlement narûs isto commemorate acquisition of entitlement and topreserve that entitlement for all time. The sceneon the monument depicts the relationship betweenthe entitlement recipient and the king. The sceneon BBSt 28 presents in lasting pictorial form thenotion that the entitlement detailed in the inscrip-tion was, in fact, sanctioned by the Babylonianking. It calls upon the audience to witness the re-lationship between the entitlement recipient andhis king, perhaps even evoking the moment in timewhen the entitlement was conferred. Thus, verymuch like the verbal historiographic passages citedabove, this visual relief scene validates therecipient’s right to the entitlement. It depicts himin a way that provides justification from the his-torical past for a situation in the historical presentthat is intended to endure into the distant histori-cal future.

Returning to the discussion of BBSt 9, with itslengthy passage about the history of legal relation-ships between two families, we can now take aninformed look at its reliefs. Knowing what weknow about relief scenes in the corpus—that per-sons receiving entitlement are depicted visuallyin the relief—we expect to view the recipients ofthe entitlement, in this case the plaintiff and hisfamily into whose holdings land has passed, firstas a marriage gift and then in exchange for pay-ment of debts.

As in BBSt 28, the figures in the reliefs of BBSt9 are also labeled. On the left face of the monu-ment, the first of the two figures bears the legend,“Image of Arad-Œibitti, [son of Atrattaå]” (fig.4)—i.e., the man charged with killing the slave inthe first place. Behind him stands a woman who islabeled, “f≠PN±, daughter of Atrattaå” (fig. 4). Onthe right, we see the figure of the king, labeled“Image of Nabû-mukÏn-apli, King of the Universe,King of Babylon” (fig. 5). Contrary to our expec-tations, it is not individuals from the family thathas received land that are depicted with the king,but rather individuals from the family that hasgiven up the land.

This raises a new set of questions—foremost,why are these individuals pictured in the relief?As has been demonstrated in Mesopotamian arthistory,23 it is an oversimplification and a mistaketo assume that imagery occurring in the samevenue as text serves as an illustration for the text,or that the text serves to explain the imagery. Butwhat end is served by depicting persons from thehouse of Atrattaå?

21. Nabû-apla-iddina, BBSt 28.22. For example, Meli-Åipak, MDP X 88. See Slanski,

Form and Function, Chapter 3.2: “Relationships between theInscriptions and the Reliefs.”

23. E.g., I. J. Winter, “After the Battle is Over: The Steleof the Vultures and the Beginning of Historical Narrative inthe Art of the Ancient Near East,” in Pictorial Narrative inAntiquity and the Middle Ages, eds. H. L. Kessler and M. S.Simpson. Studies in the History of Art 16 (Washington: Na-tional Gallery of Art, 1985), 11–32; by the same author,


Fig.

4. B

BSt

9. (

BB

St, p

l. L

XX

II)

Fig.

5 B

BSt

9. (

BB

St, p

l. L

XX

IV)


In the relief scene, the two persons from theHouse of Atrattaå appear to approach the king eachholding an object: the woman perhaps a bowl orcup, the man a bow in his left hand and an arrowin his right (figs. 2 and 4). I would suggest thatthe pictured members of the House of Atrattaå arerepresented as bringing offerings to the king, andhe receiving them. The depiction of Arad-Œibittiwith bow and arrow also recalls the crucial eventwith which the inscription opened, his shooting ofanother man’s slave. It should be noted as wellthat, according to the inscription, when the monu-ment was executed, the defendant, Arad-Œibitti,had been dead for many years.

It is, of course, the House of Atrattaå that bene-fits from being memorialized here, shown in goodstanding while being received by the king. Yet, itis the second family, the family of the plaintiff,who, according to the inscription, had acquiredentitlement to income-producing lands, and whomwe expect to find memorialized visually by themonument. To understand the overall verbal andvisual composition of this monument, we mustdetermine what circumstance could have led to thefavorable memorialization of the family who hadgiven up the entitlement.

At one point in the dealings between the twofamilies, a daughter of the defendant was marriedto a son of the plaintiff, and on that occasion shereceived land from her father, land to which hermale relatives publicly gave up any claim. The sig-nificance of this gift and of the public renuncia-tion made by her male relatives lies in the fact thatin Mesopotamia, the customary path of inheritanceof family property is from father to son. But chil-dren of this union of the family of the defendantand the family of the plaintiff would stand to in-herit lands through their father and also through

their mother—that is, lands formerly belonging tothe house of the defendant. Could these childrenbe responsible for commissioning the monument?The message of the relief is that the House ofAtrattaå exists in a relationship of good standingwith the king. By depicting visually the good stand-ing of his maternal grandfather vis-a-vis the king,the hypothetical heir would have reinforced hisclaim to lands traditionally belonging to hismother’s family—freely, and by the grace of theking, passing to him through his mother’s line.None of this is conveyed by the inscription. But itseems to be the only way to understand the reliefand the inscription of the monument, knowingwhat we know about the intent of the monuments’composers in presenting a version of the past.

III.B. The Sippar Åamaå Tablet, BBSt 36.

We are now in a position to take up the verbaland visual messages presented by the Sippar ÅamaåTablet, BBSt 36.

The Sippar Åamaå Tablet, BBSt 36 (fig. 6), wasdiscovered in 1881.24 Full publication of the arti-fact with an edition of its text and and photographsof its inscription and relief is found in King’sBabylonian Boundary Stones. The artifact was dis-covered at Sippar (Tel Abu Æiba) in the remainsof the Ebabbar, temple of Åamaå, sun-god and godof justice. The object has been featured in variousstudies, chiefly in the context of Mesopotamiancultic practice.25 Yet the function of the Åamaå Tab-let in its native cultural setting remains to be ex-

“Eannatum and the ‘King of Kiå’? Another Look at the Stelaof the Vultures and ‘Cartouches’ in Early Sumerian Art,” ZA76 (1986) 205–12.

24. See C. B. F. Walker and D. Collon, “HormuzdRassam’s Excavations for the British Museum at Sippar in1881–1882,” in Tel Ed-Der III, ed. L. De. Meyer (Leuven:Peeters, 1980), 93–112.

25. See especially T. Jacobsen, “The Graven Image,” inAncient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank MooreCross, ed. P. D. Miller, et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982),15–32; S. Rashid, “Zur Sonnentafel von Sippar,” BJVF 7(1972) 297–309, pls. 4–7; J. A. Brinkman, “A Note on theShamash Cult at Sippar in the Eleventh Century B.C.,” RA 70(1976) 183–84.


plained, and without such a fundamental under-standing of the artifact, our ability to study thepiece is necessarily limited.

The Åamaå Tablet dates from the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina and originates in the city of Sippar.The artifact is made of stone, and bears both in-scription and relief. The stone is carved in the shapeof a tablet, obverse flat and reverse slightly con-vex, and it is inscribed to be turned end-to-end,sharing characteristics of both plaque- and tablet-shaped members of the entitlement narû corpus.26

The edge of the stone is ridged all the way around,a feature encountered in the entitlement narû cor-pus on an unpublished entitlement narû of Adad-apla-iddina, an artifact that also exhibits charac-teristics of both the tablet- and plaque-shaped En-titlement narûs.

The inscription of the Åamaå Tablet commemo-rates the grant of a significant prebend from KingNabû-apla-iddina to a priest of the Ebabbar. Theinscription opens with a historiographic narrativecentering on the fortunes, or misfortunes, of thecult of the sun-god. It begins by relating the lossof the cult statue and disruption of cult activitiesin the mid-eleventh century and culminates withthe rediscovery, recreation, and re-installation ofthe cult image of Åamaå in the Ebabbar almost two-hundred years later. In the inscription, the god ischaracterized as having been angry with the land,its people and, presumably, its kings. The textimplies that Åamaå allowed a model of his imageto be found during the reign of Nabû-apla-iddinabecause he is a worthy king. According to the text,a valuable entitlement was given to the priest whowas responsible for restoring the divine image toits place, and was given by the king whose reignthe sun-god favored with his return. The historio-graphic message is that after centuries of chaosand strife, Åamaå returned to his city once Nabû-apla-iddina took the throne.

The relief (fig. 6) shows us, from left to right,three figures in procession: a priest leading a king,followed at the rear by a goddess. The center ofthe relief field is occupied by a sun-disc. To theright sits the anthropomorphic image of a god,enclosed within a space circumscribed by the long,snake-like lower body of a two-torsoed divinityand a horizontal pole. The two-torsoed divinityholds ropes attached to the table supporting thesun-disc. The elements of the relief yield a fairlystraightforward interpretation, recognizable as awell-attested Mesopotamian composition: the pre-sentation scene. Best known from the Ur III pe-riod, a presentation scene depicts a person beingled by the hand of a minor deity into the presenceof a major deity. The scene on the Åamaå Tabletlends itself to the interpretation that the king is ledinto the presence of Åamaå—represented in thescene both by the sun disk and by the seated an-thropomorphic figure. He is led at the hand of apriest, presumably an e¢rib bÏti, literally, “one whoenters the temple,” a term designating the priestswho perform cultic duties requiring them to enterthe god’s sanctuary.27 The scene is readily con-nected to the verbal narrative: the priest respon-sible for the rediscovery and reinstallation of thecult image, whom we know from the text to be amember of the e¢rib bÏti, leads the king into thepresence of the sun-god Åamaå.

In the century since its publication, scholarshave yet to reach a consensus about the artifact’sstatus vis-a-vis the Entitlement narû corpus. Inpublishing the Åamaå Tablet in Babylonian Bound-ary Stones, King must have considered it part of,or at least related to, the Entitlement narû corpus.F. X. Steinmetzer included it in Die babylonischenKudurru (Grenzsteine) als Urkundenform, pub-lished in 1922, the only full length treatment ofthe inscriptions.28 In A Political History of Post-

26. For discussion of the different shapes found in thecorpus, see Slanski, Form and Function, Chapter 4, “Physi-cal Characteristics.”

27. See for example, v 20–27, in the inscription, in whichfood allotments granted to the sangû-priest are reckoned ac-cording to the allotments of the e¢rib„t bÏti.

28. The piece is designated L 36 in Steinmetzer’s study.


Fig. 6. BBSt 36, dated to the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina (mid-9th century). British Museum.


Kassite Babylonia, J. A. Brinkman refers to thepiece as a “stone tablet,”29 as he refers to othertablet-shaped members of the corpus, reserving theterm kudurru for monuments in the shape of ste-lae. Similarly, Walker and Collon (see n. 24) in-clude the artifact under the heading “Stone Tab-lets and Monuments” separately from the narûslisted under the heading “Boundary Stones.” U.Seidl, in her study of the Entitlement narû reliefs,30

did not include the Åamaå Tablet.These earlier discussions focused on the shape,

material, and size of the so-called “kudurrus,” andomitted the Åamaå Tablet. But by seeing the cor-pus as genre with distinct textual and visual char-acteristics, it is clear that the Åamaå Tablet is anEntitlement narû.

The Åamaå Tablet conforms to the formal andfunctional definition of the entitlement narûs. Itmeets the chronological and geographical para-meters set by the uncontested members of the cor-pus. Its size, shape and material conform to thephysical characteristics evinced by the Entitlementnarûs. It was found in the remains of a temple, alocus indicated by archaeological and textual evi-dence as the one in which the Babylonians erect-ed their Entitlement narûs. Its inscription refers toitself as a (stone) narû, and commemorates a roy-al grant of a temple prebend. Moreover, the in-scription adheres to the structure common to allmembers of the Entitlement narû corpus and fea-tures specific terminology not found outside of thecorpus. The subject matter of the relief conformsto relief scenes found elsewhere in the corpus, thatis, the major actors involved in the entitlementevent are visually depicted. In every measurableaspect the Åamaå Tablet conforms to the functionaland descriptive definition of the Entitlement narûs,

and henceforth the artifact should be considered amember of the corpus. Proper classification of thepiece enables us to understand its function, andunderstanding its function enables us to appreci-ate and interpret details of its text and imagery thathave up to now been overlooked.

III .C. Interpretation of the Sippar ÅamaåTablet: Text and Image

1. Text. The narrative portion of the inscriptionprovides valuable information about the politicalhistory and religious cult practice of Babylonia atthe beginning of the first millennium. In the elev-enth and tenth centuries, semi-nomadic peoples,designated as Sutians by Babylonian sources, wereresponsible for disturbances throughout northernand eastern Babylonia.31 They are connected to thedestruction of cult centers at Nippur, Sippar, andpossibly also De¢r and D„r-Kurigalzu during thereign of Adad-apla-iddina (1068–1047 BCE). Onecasualty of the Sutian destruction was the Ebabbartemple in the city of Sippar, cult center of the godÅamaå. According to the Åamaå Tablet, the devas-tation of the Ebabbar resulted in the loss of thedivine image of Åamaå—the focus of cult wor-ship—and the discontinuation of the regular culticrites.

Cultic rites served to guide and punctuate thelife of the Mesopotamian temple and its commu-nity. Linked to the agriculturally based calendar,cultic rites featured offerings of consumable goodsto the temples. In addition to the produce of landsheld directly by the temple, these offerings pro-vided the income of the temple—income that wasthen disbursed to cult personnel and other templedependents. Prosperity and well-being in the landwas reflected in the regularity and the richness ofcultic rites and offerings; their cessation signaledlarge-scale collapse of community and of civilizedrule. From their earliest to their latest royal inscrip-tions, Mesopotamian kings commemorated their

29. J. A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-KassiteBabylonia, AnOr 43 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,1968), 348.

30. U. Seidl, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs, OBO87. (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1989). Republished, withaddendum, from BaM 4 (1967). 31. After Brinkman, Political History, 285–87.


giving of gifts to their gods. Establishment of regu-lar offerings in sustenance of a temple and its per-sonnel was an obligation of the king, and an an-cient means of demonstrating both able rule andreceipt of divine favor.

From the Åamaå Tablet we learn that kingSimbar-Åipak (1025–1008 BCE), first king of theSecond Dynasty of the Sealand, endeavored to re-cover the lost cult image and to restore cultic ritesat the Ebabbar. When Åamaå, however, did not“reveal his face” to the king, Simbar-Åipak erectedinstead a sun disk,32 established regular offerings,and installed as sangû-priest one Ekur-åuma-uåabåi. In the reign of a later king, Kaååû-nΩdin-ahhe, characterized as a time of hardship and fam-ine, those offerings ceased. The aforementionedsangû-priest then petitioned a subsequent king,Eulmaå-åΩkin-åumi (1003–987), who allocatedsome of the income from the Esagila, temple ofthe god Marduk in Babylon, to Åamaå in Sippar.33

Such was the state of the Åamaå cult at Sippar un-til the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina (ca. 887–855BCE).34

King Nabû-apla-iddina, having vanquished theSutians from Babylonia, proceeded to rebuild theholy temples and restore the cultic rites. At thistime, according to the Åamaå Tablet narrative, amodel for the lost cult image of Åamaå was dis-covered alongside the Euphrates river. The textimplies that Åamaå, having been angry with theland, relented in his anger and allowed the neces-sary design for his cult image to be found. Nabû-nΩdin-åumi, contemporary sangû-priest of Sipparand descendent of the aforementioned sangû-priestEkur-åuma-åabåi, then displayed the design toNabû-apla-iddina. The king rejoiced and commis-

sioned the fashioning of a new cult image, whichwas duly consecrated and installed in the (presum-ably rebuilt) Ebabbar. Pleased with the new stateof cultic affairs, King Nabû-apla-iddina assigneda rich prebend of food, garments, and oil to thesangû-priest.

The historiographic narrative of the Åamaå Tab-let compares well with other narratives found inthe Entitlement narû corpus. The basic plot,grounded in a larger history of recent fortunes ofthe Ebabbar, is that King Nabû-apla-iddina,pleased with the recreation and reinstallation ofthe cult image of Åamaå, granted a rich prebend tothe priest responsible for rediscovery of the imageand for presiding over its consecration and instal-lation rites. The climactic event of the long narra-tive is the discovery and installation of a new cultimage of Åamaå. Light and vision run inter-depen-dently throughout the narrative as a Leitmotif, aptfor a monument profoundly connected to thetemple of the now reappeared sun-god and all hismanifestations as deity of sunlight, oracular vision,truth, and justice.

2. Image. At the center of the relief field is alarge sun disk—larger than the human figurespresent in the scene—standing upright upon analtar. To the right of the altar sits the god Åamaå,facing left, iconographically marked as a god byhis size, horned crown, seated position vis-à-visthe other figures in the relief, and signaled asÅamaå by the rays streaming out from his shoul-ders, the “bull-men” depicted on his throne, andthe mountains beneath his feet. He holds in hishand and extends forward the “rod and ring,”iconographic insignia associated with rulership35

and prominently associated with the god Åamaåon the Law Stele of Hammurabi (fig. 7).

As noted above, over the head of theanthropomorhic image, a two-torsoed divinity

32. Brinkman, “A Note on the Shamash Cult,” 183.33. According to the text, the king established (ukÏnma)

income for Åamaå and granted it (irÏm) to the priest (ii 4–10)and gave (iddin) the orchard to Åamaå and entrusted it (pΩniPN uåadgil) to Ekur-åuma-uåabåi (ii 11–17). This impliesthat a gift made to a god is understood to be at the use of apriest who serves that god.

34. Brinkman, Political History, 285.

35. There is no consensus among art historians about thesignificance—or even the identity—of these items. The mostextensive discussion remains E. D. van Buren, “The Rod andthe Ring,” ArOr 17 (1949) 434–50.


holds ropes attached to the table supporting thesun disk. Their torsos form the top and back of anenclosure within which the divine image, repre-sented as larger than life, is seated. The front ofthe enclosure is marked by a pole carved with thetexture of a palm tree(?), with volute capital andbase. Jacobsen has suggested that this is a repre-sentation of the sanctuary of the god, viewed fromthe side, and that the two divine torsos are at op-posite corners of the front of the shrine, which thisperspective otherwise obscures from our view.36

We know that a temple sanctuary was where thedivine image was kept, and was the most sacredpart of the temple.

To the left of the sun disk, opposite and facingtoward the seated Åamaå, are the three standingfigures in procession. The first, i.e., closest to thesun disk and marked as a priest by his cap andshaven chin, grasps the leg of the table supportingthe sun disk with his left hand and leads the figurebehind him with his right. The second figure isdesignated as the king by his headgear, beard, andslightly taller stature. The third figure wears ahorned crown and robe signaling divinity, appearsto be female, and has both hands raised.

3. Text and Image. There are three epigraphs,short verbal texts directly connected to the visualimagery, in the relief field. The leading epigraph(A in fig. 6), “Image of Åamaå, great lord, resi-dent of the Ebabbar, which is within (the city of)Sippar” refers to the seated deity at the right. Theepigraph is echoed in the first line of the main in-scription: “Åamaå, great lord resident of theEbabbar, which is within Sippar.” The fact thatthe word œalmu, “image,” occupies a prominentposition as the very first word encountered by areader of the monument is significant, as is thedeletion of the word “image” in the main text. Theother two captions provide additional informationabout details of the relief. Epigraph B reads: “Sîn,Åamaå, and Iåtar, set upon the face of the apsû,between Nirah (and) the support pole.” The threenamed gods correspond to the three astral disksarranged in that order over the sun-god’s head.Nirah, (∂MUÅ), the snake-god, has been inter-preted by Poebel and Jacobsen as the two-torsoedfigure arching over Åamaå, with the curved poledescending from the heads to the ground repre-senting the body of the snake. The “support pole,”Akkadian timmu, corresponds to the palm-polebefore the god. The term apsû has been interpretedas a basin for fresh water, a feature of the sanctu-ary symbolizing the cosmic abzu (subterraneanwaters), possibly represented by the wavy lines36. Jacobsen, “Graven Image,” 19.

Fig. 7. Relief portion of the Hammurabi Law Stele(17th century). Louvre.


and stars at the lower portion of the relief field.37

Epigraph C: “Herald of Åamaå, snake of two-faces”certainly refers to the twin torsos above Åamaåholding the ropes attached to the table of the sundisk.

Elements from the main inscription are reflectedin the relief as well. Brinkman proposed that niphain line 18 referred to the sun disk shown in therelief.38 As part of his argument, he postulated thatåutruœu, “a stem most commonly employed in pas-sages concerned with the construction of roofs ofbuildings, would not be unexpected if one com-pares the mode of support for the disk shown inthe picture on the tablet.” In other words, Brinkmansuggested that the manner in which the sun diskwas shown, “supported by what seem to be tworopes grasped in the hands of two divine protomes(wearing horned crowns) projecting from the frontof the roof of the shrine” was comparable to theway roofs were erected in Babylonia. In the relief,though, the sun disk does not appear to be sup-ported by as much as suspended from the ropesfrom up above, and the comparison to roof con-struction is not altogether satisfying, especially asåutruœu connotes the idea of extending somethingoutward or upward, not downward.

Jacobsen offered the following interpretation forlines 18–19:

ni-ip-ha åá pa-an dUTUú-åat-ri-œa-am-ma

so he had the sun disc (that is) in front of Åamaåroofed over.39

But the use of åutruœu in this passage does notrequire the concept of roofing over or construct-ing a roof. It can be taken in its basic meaning, “toextend,” as it is attested with objects such as the

hand, finger, face, covering, sacrificial offering,and measuring line.40 Brinkman and Jacobsen bothinterpret the larger context of these lines as tellingthe story about the king who set up a sun disk toserve as the focus for the temple cult until the lost(anthropomorphic) cult image could be reconsti-tuted. This specific passage can be interpreted sim-ply as: “he had the sun disk that (is) before Åamaåextended.”41

What is the role of the sun disk in the relief?On closer examination, this portion of the reliefscene is dynamic: the left leg of the table is justraised off the ground, and the positions of the armsof the two deities above suggest motion, evenstrain. The angle of the two ropes fastened to thealter suggests that the table is not at rest, merelysuspended from above, but in motion. I would sug-gest that the two deities holding the ropes fromabove are depicted as either raising the table up orlowering it into position. Below, the priest withhis hand on the left table leg is depicted as guid-ing the table, either into place on the ground ortoward the heavens above.

Thus, the textual passage about the sun diskrefers to a time previous to the scene depicted inthe relief. Whereas the text narrates the construc-tion and emplacement of the sun disk under kingSimbar-Åipak (1025–1008 BCE), the relief depictsthe time after the installment of the newly conse-

37. See E. Burrows, “Problems of the abzu,” Or I/2 (1932)231–56 and CAD A/II, 194–97.

38. Brinkman, “A Note on the Shamash Cult,” 183–84.39. Jacobsen, “Graven Image,” 20, n. 19.

40. AHw, 1326–1327. The verb tarΩœu means “to extend”in the G-stem, and “to cause, allow, or let extend” in the å-stem. A specialized application of åutrœu, “to erect a roof,” isknown, but in such usage, attested objects of the verb areguå„ru “roof beam,” tarΩnu “protective roof,” or e¢re¢nu “ce-dar-(wood).” Jacobsen’s interpretation of åutrœu with niphu asdirect object is contra-indicated by other attestations of theverb that take roofing materials as the direct object.

41. As translated also by CAD N/II 245: “he had the sundisk which was(?) before Åamaå suspended.” Note that thesame root tarΩœu occurs later in 35–42. There, pleased withthe newly consecrated image of Åamaå, the face of the kinggrows bright and he literally “extended his expression” itruœab„nÏåu upon the priest. The text thus draws a parallel betweenthe glowing face of the generous king and the glowing faceof the sun-god.


crated anthropomorphic image during the reign ofNabû-apla-iddina (ca. 887–855). I suggest that weinterpret the sun disk as being raised, and that thismotion of the sun disk can be seen to reflect thenew cultic reality: with the cult image restored toits proper place in the sanctuary, the sun disk isbeing removed from the center of cultic activity.This interpretation of the visual evidence is con-sonant with the hierarchy of divine representationimplied by the text. According to the verbal narra-tive, the symbolic sun disk (niphu) was installedat a time when the anthropomorhic image (œalmu)was sought and could not be found. Now that therestored image (œalmu) of Åamaå can be reinstalledin the temple, the makeshift symbolic representa-tion of the divine, the sun disk (niphu), can beremoved.

Whatever the precise interpretation of the cap-tions and this detail of the relief, it is clear that therelief depicts a cultic scene, one involving themajor actors of the entitlement transaction: the kingwho granted the entitlement, the recipient of theentitlement, and the god Åamaå, in whose templethe prebend was granted. These three entities arealso the main actors in the narrative portion of theinscription, a narrative that culminates in thereinstallment of the divine image of Åamaå in theEbabbar. The relief figure of Åamaå on the rightside of the relief, seated/resident42 within the sanc-tuary, represents not simply the god, but specifi-cally the god manifest as the reinstalled divine cultimage. On the left side of the relief, the sangû-priest of Sippar, Nabû-nΩdin-åumi, leads the kingNabû-apla-iddina into the presence of Åamaå, whohas taken up his traditional residence in theEbabbar sanctuary. In light of this understanding,the import of the first epigraph comes into focus:“Image of Åamaå, resident of the Ebabbar, which(is) within Sippar.” As members of the audienceviewing the relief, we have become witness to KingNabû-apla-iddina being received by the enthroned

divinity, led at the hand of the dutiful and duti-fully rewarded sangû-priest.

The scene of the Sippar Åamaå Tablet evokes amoment after the recreated image has been in-stalled in the temple. By portraying the priest lead-ing the king into the presence of the deity, the scenechooses not to tell an episode from the narrative:not of the discovery of the image, for example,nor of its installation. Instead, the scene displaysan image that conveys the idea of the priest’s ser-vice to the king. Simultaneously, the scene showsthe dependence of the king upon this priest whoplayed a vital role in the reinvigoration of the sun-god’s cult.

The king needs a fully functioning Åamaå-temple, and the temple requires the presence ofthe divine image, focal point of cult activity. Theking needs the cult to be fully functioning if he isto receive divine sanction as a just king fromÅamaå, the god of justice. The relief tells a slightlydifferent version of history than history as told inthe inscription. In the verbal narrative, the central,dynamic figure is the god Åamaå, who chooses toreturn to his temple, and the figure who receivesthe most verbal recognition and praise is the king.In the visual image, the central and dynamic fig-ure is the priest. Shown leading the king into thepresence of the god, it is the priest who mediatesamong the elements of the relief: the fully restoredcult of Åamaå and the king who receives divinesanction from the god of justice. The relief thustells the story of how the cult image of Åamaå cameto be seated again in his sanctuary and focuses ourattention on the role of the priest. By so doing, therelief recreates for every viewer the story of thepriest’s service to god and to king, and conse-quently validates his right to the the valuable en-titlement detailed in the inscription.

IV. Monumentality, Memory, and Authority

The Babylonian Entitlement narûs look to pastevents and employ tellings of history to justify andvalidate events of their present—the acquisition42. The Akkadian Ωåib conveys both meanings.


of an entitlement. They do so by presenting a com-bination of visual and textual historiographic ele-ments that are received by an audience accustomedto encountering such a presentation on other, i.e.,royal, Mesopotamian monuments.

Recall that, like the first Europeans to view theCaillou Michaux, very few of the Babylonians whoformed the audience of these objects would havebeen able to read the inscriptions. Their encounterwith these objects would have been primarilyvisual. Without the aid of a specialist, they wouldhave had no access to the inscription. Even withsuch a specialist, the aural experience of the recitedtext would have been fleeting while the visualexperience would have been steady and easilyrepeatable.

In this context it is worthwhile to consider howan ancient Mesopotamian monument construes theway in which it was meant to be encountered byits audience. The Law Stele of Hammurabi, oneof the trophies removed to Susa alongside manyof the Entitlement narûs, is probably the bestknown and readily recognizable of all the artifactsrecovered from ancient Mesopotamia. The stelebears a long and sophisticated inscription as wellas a sculpted relief image. The inscription con-sists of a prologue recounting Hammurabi’sachievements and his selection by the gods to rule,a middle section recounting hundreds ofHammurabi’s legal decisions, and an epiloguelooking to the future. Whereas the prologue re-counts Hammurabi’s glorious past, the epilogueexpresses concern about the future of the stele andthe precepts of justice inscribed thereon. Writtenin the voice of Hammurabi, the text of the epi-logue proclaims, “let any wronged man who has alawsuit come before my image as a just king sothat he may have my inscribed (stone) narû readout loud and that he may hear my precious words;so may my (stone) narû reveal the matter to him.May he see his case; may he soothe his heart, andmay he speak (my praise)”43—and here a shorttext about the goodness of Hammurabi is inserted.

This passage is a key for understanding a num-ber of elements bearing on the setting and use ofinscribed and sculpted stone monuments inMesopotamia. Foremost is the indivisible juxta-position between image and text. The intendedaudience—the “wronged man”—is explicitlycalled to come view the image of Hammurapi andthere hear the text of the monument read to himout loud. The passage makes clear the public na-ture of the monument, and accounts for how theaudience would have had access to the inscriptioneven though he could not read it: he was to havehad it read to him out loud. Finally, the visual view-ing and aural hearing of the monument—the per-formance of the stele to its audience—was inex-tricably linked to a real-time invocation ofHammurapi, the speaking of his name in a shortpraise composition, even, and I would argue espe-cially, after his death. For in Mesopotamian be-lief, one was assured of a good afterlife only ifone’s descendants performed the proper funeraryrituals. These included making offerings of foodand drink but relied principally on invoking thename and memory of the deceased.

When we consider the Entitlement narûs in thecontext of other Mesopotamian monuments, wesee that the historiographic elements play an inte-gral role in establishing the authority of the monu-ment. The visual imagery and textual passages arehistoriographic to a specific end—to preserve im-mutably an account of the circumstances leadingup to the acquisition of entitlement. Some of thecircumstances have been recognized as key eventsin Babylonian history, but others were events fromlocal or household history. In the verbal narrativeand the visual relief, the monument preserved aneternal memorial to the persons depicted thereon.

M. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Mi-nor, WAW 6 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 134–35. awÏlumhablum åa awΩtum irassu ana mahar œalmÏya åar mÏåarimlillik-ma narî åaøram liåtassi-ma awâtÏya åuq„rtim liåme¢-manarî awΩtam likallimåu dÏnåu lÏmur libbaåu linappiå-ma …liqbÏ-ma (author’s translation).43. xlviii 3–40, Akkadian text most recently edited in


By commissioning and setting up such a monu-ment, the recipient of the entitlement ensured notonly that his descendants could maintain theirclaim to the entitlement in the future, but simulta-neously also ensured that he himself would be re-membered and honored for all time to come. Theentitlement beneficiary thus also inserted himselfdirectly and unalterably into the historical con-tinuum extending back from the moment in timeevoked by the historiographic elements up throughto infinite future readings and viewings of themonument. This insertion of a real-time figure con-cretized the historiographic presentation, which,in turn, enhanced the authority of the monumentand the entitlement it commemorated.

With such a potential impact, it becomes clearwhy individuals would have monumentalized ac-quisition of entitlement in the first place, invest-ing resources in the commissioning and executionof what must have been an expensive object—costly stone, a lapidary sculptor, someone to com-pose the text, and someone to carve it on the stonein archaizing cuneiform script. And, as demon-strated by the members of the corpus found in Susa,the resultant Entitlement narûs must have beenimpressive enough by contemporary cultural stan-dards to merit an invader’s taking them and trans-porting them back to his own capital, setting themup on public display along with the royal monu-ments taken from the raided kingdom.

In neither BBSt 9 nor the Åamaå Tablet couldwe call the relief scene an illustration of events

narrated in the inscription, or the text an explana-tion of the relief. Both verbal and visual mediaoperate in concert to relate history in the serviceof the historical present and future. That the twomedia do so by emphasizing different aspects ofthe history they relate would only enhance theauthority the monuments must have commanded.

Recategorizing the kudurrus as monumentsstanding in association with the temple, rather thanas boundary markers out in the fields, provides acontext that makes these objects and their mate-rial, textual, and iconographic aspects intelligiblein relation to their function. In this context weshould not underestimate the impact of the me-dium of stone—even today, texts written in stone,reserved for monuments and memorials, are con-sidered lasting and not subject to change. Rare andcostly in Mesopotamia, stone was reserved for thecommemoration of royal achievements or divinevotive objects. Carved in stone in archaic script,partnered with divine images and curses, the ver-sion of history presented by the Entitlement narûinscriptions were imbued with an incontrovertibleauthority. The scenes of their relief sculptures like-wise presented a version of history that conveyedat a glance the incontrovertible circumstances ofthe entitlement acquisition. Like the shelter of anover-arching canopy, the authority imbued in theform, text, and imagery of a Babylonian Entitle-ment narû was extended to the entitlement it com-memorated and rendered it beyond challenge.

classification, historiography and monumental · pdf fileclassification, historiography and...

Documents