Administrative Symbols in the ED Glyptic?: S. Pizzimenti - L. Romano (edd.), Šime ummiānka. Studi in Onore di Paolo Matthiae.in occasione del Suo 75° compleanno offerti dall’ultima

DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE DELL’ANTICHITÀ

CONTRIBUTI E MATERIALIDI ARCHEOLOGIA ORIENTALE

XVI(2014)

Šime ummiānka

Studi in onore di Paolo Matthiae in occasione del suo 75° compleanno offerti dall’ultima generazione di allievi

a cura di

Sara Pizzimenti e Licia Romano

SAPIENZA – UNIVERSITÀ DI ROMA

INDICE

iii. Abbreviazioni

vii. S. Pizzimenti, L. Romano Prefazione

1. M. Al-Khaled An Analysis of Stone-Built Tombs of the 3rd Millennium BC in the Tishrin Dam Area, Syria

13. R. Dan Le opere idrauliche del regno di Urartu

39. M. D’Andrea Middle Bronze I Cult Places in Northern Palestine and Transjordan: Original Features and External Influences

73. E. Gallo Distruzioni e abbandoni: la fine della prima urbanizzazione nel Levante meridionale al termine del III millennio a.C.

97. A.F. Kzzo L’abbigliamento a Mari nel Bronzo Antico e Bronzo Medio

113. S. Paradiso I vasi zoomorfi siriani del Bronzo Tardo: analisi tipologica e funzionale

Indiceii CMAO XVI

135. S. Pizzimenti The Kassite ‘Naked Goddess’: Analysis and Interpretation

151. A. Polcaro Architettura templare e orientamenti astronomici: analisi della tipologia dell’ Antentempel nel periodo protosiriano

199. L. Romano Institutional Symbols in Early Dynastic Glyptic Art?223. V. Tumolo Le scene di pastorizia nelle impronte di sigillo su

giara del Bronzo Antico: l’espressione simbolica dell’ideologia rurale all’interno del sistema economico regionale eblaita

251. A. Vacca Chronology and Distribution of 3rd Millennium BC Flasks

287. A. Vallorani Il Nordost-Palast di Tell Halaf: sincretismo culturale o esercizio di stile?

299. M. Zingarello Le mura dimenticate di Nippur: analisi del circuito urbano di una città mesopotamica nel III millennio a.C.

INSTITUTIONAL SYMBOLS IN EARLY DYNASTIC GLYPTIC ART?

Licia Romano1

AbstrAct

The research presented here is based on some considerations related to the so-called Fara Style and the “Contest Scenes”. The numerous seals ascribed to this style are usually described as uniform, as far as the subject is concerned. If it is true that such a big amount of seals bears so similar designs that we cannot distinguish them and that we are forced to ascribe the group to a unique and quite uniform style, Fara seals should be considered not attending to their basic function. A seal is, in fact, required to be immediately recognized in order to mark and certify ownership, and thus to warrant the reliability of what was sealed. In this article, Fara and Abu Salabikh sealings will be analyzed in order to understand if these ED Glyptic representations bear a value that goes beyond their aesthetic one, correlating the recurrence of specific symbols and motifs to a specific function in the administration.

1 I would like to dedicate this article to Prof. Paolo Matthiae to show my gratitude for every teaching He has given to me and in particular for His help in discovering and enhancing my capacities.

L. Romano200 CMAO XVI

1. IntroductIon

The first studies about seals and sealings have been focused on iconographic and stylistic analysis of their representations, with attempts in understanding their iconological significance and their chronological development. Only recently scholars have shifted their attention to the function of seals, and in particular sealings, trying to shed more light on the early administrative forms. The first pioneeristic work was realized by E. Fiandra on Festo’s cretulae2: the object of her study were the marks on the back of the clay lumps rather than iconography of the seal impressions left on the forepart. Finding information on what was sealed is of primary importance in reconstructing the economic organization with its storage system and administrative procedures3.

This new line of research has been followed by several scholars and in recent years different contributions on this subject have been published4. Among the studies, the research on the Arslantepe cretulae clearly distinguishes itself for joining together iconographic, functional and technical analysis with archaeological data, obtained with accurate field-data registrations5.

The conclusions reached by M. Frangipane and her research group are definitely interesting. It has been possible, in fact, to distinguish at least four levels in the administrative bureaucracy on the basis both of the kind of marks on the lumps’ back and the number of cretulae impressed with the same seals found in the excavated layers. Who certified with his seal the closure of a storeroom had surely a higher role in the administrative hierarchy, if compared to an official in charge of the control of jars or other commodities. Another factor in determining the level of an official is also the number of times he made the same operation.

Instead, with regard to the seals iconography Frangipane states: “the officials working in a particular sector were linked to each other by some kind of bond that was expressed by the sharing of the same symbolic elements and iconographic conventions” 6. If it is possible to distinguish in this way different administrative groups in Arslantepe, there is apparently no evidence to support the idea that “any certain relationship between

2 Fiandra 1968.3 Frangipane (ed.) 2007: 15.4 For example Zettler 1987; Matthews 1991; Zettler 2000.5 Frangipane (ed.) 2007.6 Frangipane (ed.) 2007: 283.

Institutional Symbols in Early Dynastic Glyptic Art? 2012014

the different functions and role of groups and individuals in the administration and the specific types of images depicted on their seals” can be established7.

Such a detailed analysis has been possible only thanks to the modern excavation methodology carried out by the archaeological mission. Nevertheless, it should be interesting to apply the same kind of investigation to the bulk of sealings previously excavated and relative to the Early Dynastic period, the state formation period in Mesopotamia. In Sumerian city centres, in fact, cuneiform writing should be joined to older systems of administrative control8. Unfortunately most of the excavations of the Early Dynastic sites were carried out without adequate scientific criteria, thus seals and, in particular, sealings were collected just for their representations and no attention was given to the find-spot or to technical details.

For example, in the site of Fara more than 1300 among sealings and seals were found9, some of them discarded in a sort of dump (Id-Ie), other inside a building (XIIIf-h). Fara, ancient Shurrupaq, after been visited by H.V. Hilprecht in 1900, was excavated in 1902-1903 by the D.O.G. Expedition that crisscrossed the tell with twenty-one trenches. Then, in 1931, for a total of three months, the University of Pennsylvania expedition investigated the mound, digging four “pits” and cleaning two silos10.

Apart from the D.O.G. publication in 1931 by W. Andrae and E. Heinrich, and only about fifty pages published by the Pennsylvania expedition, the data coming from the excavation remained unknown for a long time. Only in 1988 H. Martin published her re-analysis of both the German and American excavations. In her volume she tried to present as completely as possible all the information omitted in previous publications. As far as the seals and sealings were concerned, she paid particular attention in giving all the details, whenever retrievable, about the impressions rear side, find-spot and number of duplicates.

Martin’s scrupulous catalogue allowed R.J. Matthews to make a study on Fara administration analysing the rear side of some cretulae listed in it11.

Matthews took into account the ED I sealings coming from the dump (Id-Ie), distinguishing 4 groups, each one corresponding to the entire bulk of replicas of the same impression. He found out an apparent correlation between the so-called “Contest Scenes” and doors sealing, while a big variety of iconographic motives characterizes the containers sealing12.

7 Frangipane (ed.) 2007: 270.8 Ferioli - Fiandra 1996.9 Martin 1988: 64.10 About Fara Excavation see: Andrae 1931; Schmidt 1931; Martin 1988.11 Matthews 1991.12 Matthews 1991: 7


With regard to the ED IIIa evidence, Matthews analyzed 250 sealings coming from the XIIIf-h house, distinguishing also in this case 4 groups but detecting no correlation between function and iconography. Nevertheless the use of 20 different seals in this small house prompted the scholar to hypothesize that, besides the inhabitants of the building, also personnel from outside worked in those storerooms13.

While the analysis of the rear sides of the cretulae offers indications about the role played by the owner of the seal impressed, no information is given about his/her identity. Who was the official? Whom did he work for? Who were the others working with him? It’s quite impossible to answer without the help of inscriptions, especially those dealing with seals of the period considered in this article.

However, as already done in Arslantepe, I think it is possible to distinguish, also within the bulk of ED glyptic, some similar motives and themes that can reveal a bound between the seal-holders.

The discussion and hypothesis that will follow are the result of a research just started, thus they have not pretences to completeness and are not intended to be irrefutable.

2. use of seAls And MeAnIng of the representAtIons

The iconographic and symbolic bound noted among the Arslantepe cretulae for the Prehistoric Period and the correlation between motif and function hypothesized by Matthews, observing some of the Fara ED I seals14, led to suppose that, also in ED, seal representations could play more than a simply aesthetic role.

Let us consider, for example, the Fara Glyptic and the already mentioned “Contest Scenes” belonging to the so-called “Fara Style”15. The number of seals ascribed to this group is huge and different studies on the glyptic art describe it as uniform, as far as the subject is concerned: the basic motive consists of a lion attacking a bull, but often the composition could be enriched by the presence of a human hero or of different kinds of animals, monsters, semi-human beings, arranged in different ways, sometimes crossed, sometimes bond to form a single and really original being.

If it is true that such a big amount of seals bears so similar designs that we cannot distinguish them and that we are forced to ascribe the group to a unique and quite uniform style, Fara seals should be considered not attending to their basic function.

13 Matthews 1991: 11.14 For the ED III glyptic Matthews, as already said, could not identify evident iconographical grouping.15 On the definition “Fara Style” see Amiet 1980.


Apart from the aesthetic value of their representation, as already said, seals were useful to mark and certify ownership, and thus to warrant the reliability of what was sealed (e.g. the sealing would testify the provenance of a jar or indicate its owner and/or prove that its content has not undergone any tampering).

If a seal is required to be immediately recognized, it must contain in its incision something that allows its identification. An inscription could surely play this role, but in the Fara glyptic, and more in general in the ED glyptic, inscriptions appear on seals only later16. Nevertheless, the same function could be performed by a symbol17.

The administration of a Sumerian city, however, included the work of several officials. Thus, a symbol for each official would result in the same way a blundering and ineffective method to indicate ownership, since it would be very difficult to keep in mind symbols and respective owners.

The majority of administrative officials, however, did not work independently but belonged to different institutions or households. Thus, the symbol on the seal should indicate not the single person, but the institution he worked for. In this way the symbols might be considerably inferior in number. Another possibility is that each symbol indicates not the institution of provenance, but the role and the tasks the holder or holders played inside it18.

M. Brandes has already assumed a similar theory for Uruk early seals, suggesting that Uruk designs could be connected to certain sections of the administration: e.g. the row of animals should indicate the part of the administration dealing with husbandry etc.19.

In the following paragraphs I will try to isolate some hypothetical institutional symbols in Fara’s repertoire, focusing the attention on the sealings with certain provenance.

3. fArA glyptIc: groups of seAls coMIng froM Id-Ie

The group of seals I will analyze is that coming from the dump in Id-Ie. Matthews, who has studied the rear side of different cretulae from the rubbish deposit, dated them to ED I. This rubbish dump according to him was originated by the discard of the administrative

16 Besides the impressions of the so-called city seals (Matthews 1993).17 I will use the term “symbol” to indicate a single image or a group of images repeated with the same

pattern in different sealings.18 In fact, it is possible to hypothesize that a seal, belonging to a specific office of the administration, was

used by different people with the same role.19 Brandes 1979. See also Collon 2005: 15 quoting Brandes and highlighting some difficulties about

his theory.


devices used by an big institution, similarly to what is supposed to have been at the origin of the Seal Impressions Strata (SIS) at Ur20.

3.1.1 The “Slaughtered” Goat (Fig. 1)

The first group of seals that could be distinguished is formed by 4 seals representing with small variants a goat with the neck bent like broken, attached by two lions, wounded in their turn by two armed men. Only nos 1-3 surely come from the dump21.

3.1.2 Hero Holding Lions (Figs 2.1-2)

The second and more frequent motive is that of the hero/bull-man holding two lions. It has two variants: the hero holds the lions from the front legs or from the hind legs. Moreover the group could be flanked on both sides by two other heroes/bull-men.

The first kind of representation occurs in eight sealings. In four of them (2.1.1; 2.1.5; 2.1.6; 2.1.7) the character in the middle is a bull-man, while the helpers are only in one case human (2.1.2; 2.1.3). The motif is accompanied in 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.6 e 2.1.7 by the image of an eagle, with or without spread wings. The provenance from the rubbish deposit is attested only for nos 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.1.722.

The second variant appears on fourteen sealings, among which seven are of known provenance (2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.3.6, 2.2.9, 2.2.10, 2.2.10, 2.2.14). An eagle is represented near the group in 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 while in 2.2.5 the emblem is accompanied by symbol 5, which will be discussed later. In 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8 and 2.2.9 the symbol is followed by a couple of goats or a single goat grazing sprouts. Five sealings represent the group associated with two joined bull-men that I will call since now Gemini (2.2.9, 2.2.10, 2.2.11, 2.2.12, 2.2.13). In particular 2.3.4 joins together the Gemini symbol and the two goats grazing sprouts.

The sealings 2.2.12-14 bring together symbol 2, the Gemini and the goat grazing sprouts with other unique representations. I would like to start analyzing the last sealing 2.2.14, because it falls within the group of sealings analyzed by Matthews. The impression recurs on nine sealings, from whose backside Matthews inferred that the official owner of the seal was involved both in the control of sealed goods and in the access to store-rooms23. According to me it is important to underline the presence of an uncommon banquet scene

20 Matthews 1991: 7-8.21 I have considered also the sealings of certain provenance but not coming from Id-Ie because in the

case of some groups of duplicates not all the replicas of the same seal come from the dump.22 2.1.8 comes from Ih.23 Matthews 1991: 5.


on a boat that is performed by a human and a deity, the same deity represented before the boat and whose action sphere should be linked with water (see the presence of fish under the boat and of a scorpion).

The sealing 2.2.12 joins the symbol 2 and the Gemini with a curly-haired man who raises a little goat from the hind-leg while sealing 2.2.13 associates the same symbols with an original horned monster, with the arm ending in scorpion figures.

3.1.3 Hero Holding Goats (Fig. 3)

The third symbol is comparable with the previous one and represents a hero holding two goats. Also in this case it is possible to distinguish between sealings in which the goats are held from rear legs and the others from hind legs. Among the impressions showed in figure 3.1 only 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 surely come from the dump24. With the exception of 3.14, in all cases the hero is a bull-man. Three seals have the scene completed by the presence of sprouts or vegetable elements (3.1-3). In two cases the scene is enriched by two more bull-men fighting with the goats (3.4-5). An eagle holding the goat is the common element in 3.6 and 3.7, a motif that, as we will see, appears alone on other seals. The third symbol appears bonded with the second (hero holding lions) in 3.8-10.

On 3.11 and 3.12 the symbol is joined to a hero holding an animal from the tail, and killing him with a dagger. Finally, 3.13 combines the motif discussed with a Mischwese (see below).

3.1.4 Goat with Sprouts (Fig. 4)

The fourth symbol discussed here is a motive that we have already met in association with the second symbol (4.6)25. Among the sealings shown in Fig. 4 only 4.1 and 4.3 come from Id-Ie, while numbers 4.4 and 4.5 come respectively from IVc and Ih.

The two goats are in two cases (4.3 and 4.4) associated with an eagle, though in the latter case the bird of prey grasp the lions catching the goats in their turn.

It seems important to point out that a Goat with Sprouts is represented also on the rear side of a School Text from Fara26.

24 Impression 3.2.1, on the contrary, comes from VIIIh.25 It is impossible to say if there is a connection between this fourth symbol and the frequent presence of

sprouts or vegetal elements in the third group of sealings with the hero grasping two goats.26 About this and the other cuneiform tablets with incisions coming from Fara, Ebla and Abu Salabikh

see Mander 1995. About the relationship between cuneiform tablets and seals see Fiandra 1981b.


3.1.5 Eagle Grasping Goats (Fig. 5)

The eagle catching goats recurs as already seen with the second and the fourth motif and it is the main subject of three other seals. Sealings 5.1 and 5.4 come from the dump, while the provenance of the others is unknown.

3.1.6 Hero Holding Lion Hind Leg (Fig. 6)

This symbol recurs seven times, in cretulae unfortunately not entirely preserved. Two of them (6.1 and 6.2) come from Id-Ie. While it is the only motif preserved in the 6.1-4 sealing, it recurs in association with the third motif in 6.5 and 6.6, and it is linked with the second and the fourth motives in 6.7.

3.1.7 Other Secondary Symbols from Id-Ie

Besides the six symbols singled out, it is important to mention two other emblems classified here as secondary because never occurring alone but always in connection with other “primary” groups of images27. These are the already quoted Gemini and the so-called Mischwese. The Gemini, as already said, are two bull-men represented crossed, though sometimes the artist who realized the seals missed up the overlapping part, outlining in this way a single figure made up of two joined bodies. The Gemini appear in connection only with Symbol 2.

The Mischwese appears only twice in 2.2.1328 and 3.14, though it is a very common and frequent character of the Fara Glyptic29.

27 I have not included the eagle figure that often occurs inserted among the pictures, because it seems not to be significant in the entire representation and it usually occupies only a small part of the seal surface (it is the same for the scorpion figure that is depicted in 2.1.7. The Gemini and the Mischewesen, on the contrary, occupy the entire height of the seal incised surface).

28 Nevertheless, the representation in this case is not very clear.29 It is depicted in different seals presented in Martin (1988: cat. nos 385, 386, 389, 392, 392).


3.1.8 Association of Symbols

I have analyzed the frequency with which the six symbols appear in the Fara Glyptic (see graphic 1). The most common emblem is Symbol 2 (Hero grasping Lions - 21 occurrences), followed by Symbol 3 (Hero grasping Goats - 15 occurrences). Nevertheless graphic 1 does not consider associations among different symbols that might conceal particular relationships among groups of administrative officials.

In graphic 2 I have considered the frequency of different association of symbols, indicating also the connection with secondary symbols and referring with “Other a/b/c” to those figures that occur only once. What appears is the subdivision in four groups of frequency: the highest columns represent the more recurrent symbols (symbols 2 and 3) while the shortest columns indicate the symbols combinations occurring only once. The explanation of this subdivision could be related to the seal-owner’s30 position inside the

30 In a conventional way I will talk in the following pages of “seal owner” or “official”, thought it is not excluded the possibility, as said in chapter 2, that a seal was used by different people belonging to the same office and, thus, sharing the same role.

Symbols occurrences,1 2 3 4 5 65 22 15 8 9 4

Graphic 1- Frequency of symbols in Fara glyptic.


household administrative hierarchy: more frequently the symbol or symbols combination is attested on different seals, more common should be the role of the seal-owners and, probably, lower their position.

An element that indicates the level of an official inside the household administration is the number of cretulae he impressed with his seal: more duplicates of the same seal are found, higher was his role31. For this reason, and following Matthews’s study, I compared the results obtained from the symbols frequency with the number of duplicates discovered in the dump.

Table 1 lists the number of duplicates for each design, indicated with the number used in the pictures at the end of the contribution and the catalogue number used in Martin’s text.

The seals highlighted in grey are those of each group with more duplicates. It is interesting to notice that these seals correspond to those presenting a not common combination of

31 This statement, however, is questionable: higher level official, like for example a supervisor, being his duty just to check the correct activities development, could put his seals a number of times lower than an official in charge of the counting of entries and deliveries. Nevertheless, it is also possible that a supervisor, having to check all the operations made by lower officials, had to affix his seals numerous times. Thus, I will proceed in the discussion following the second hypothesis, showing afterwards an iconographic proof to this theory. I would like to thank Dr Davide Nadali for the thought-provoking advices about this theme he gave me during one of our conversations.

Graphic 2- Frequency of symbols association.


No. Fig. Martin N.cretule N.Fig. Martin N.cretule

Sym

bol 1

1.1 231 4 3.4 243 2

Symbol 3

1.2 229 9 3.5 242 11.3 201 1 3.6 195 11.4 232 1 3.7 265 11.5 230 1 3.8 275 1

Sym

bol 2

2.1.1 239 1 3.9 269 12.1.2 241 1 3.10 270 22.1.3 240 1 3.11 266 12.1.4 236 1 3.12 264 52.1.5 234 1 3.13 267 12.1.6 233 4 3.14 393 12.1.7 237 1 4.1 192 1

Symbol 4

2.2.1 246 1 4.2 247 12.2.2 254 1 4.3 194 22.2.3 253 1 4.4 249 12.2.4 275 1 4.5 248 12.2.5 263 2 4.6 274 22.2.6 252 1 5.1 194 2

Symbol 5

2.2.7 250 (44) 60 5.2 193 12.2.8 274 2 5.3 277 12.2.9 276 20 5.4 263 82.2.10 255 2 5.5 278 12.2.11 259 1 6.1 310 2

Symbol 6

2.2.12 260 2 6.2 315 12.2.13 273 3 6.3 274 22.2.14 554 (4) 9 6.4 266 1

Sym

bol 3 3.1 271 1 6.5 269 1

3.2 268 1 6.6 312 13.3 272 1 6.7 311 1

Tab. 1- Number of duplicates for each seal-design (the numbers written in brackets are those reported in Matthews’ article, correcting the information given by Martin).


symbols. These seals (and thus their owners), presenting in their representation more symbols joined together or associated to a special image, have been found on numerous impressions, while a lowest number is documented for those seals that show a standard symbol. In case of those seals with representations of more symbols, it could be possible to assume that their owners were in charge of the control of two administration parts or offices inside the household. Nevertheless it could be also possible that one of the symbols indicates the institution of provenance and the other the function played by the seal owner. It is difficult to say which of the two hypothesis could be true.

4. Abu sAlAbIkh And the glyptIc froM the 6g Ash-tIp

In order to confirm what has been said about the Fara glyptic from Id-Ie, the case of the Abu Salabikh sealings should be taken in consideration. The site, located 20 km north-west from Nippur, has been excavated from 1963 to 1965 by the Chicago Oriental Institute, under the direction of D.P Hansen. The expedition succeeded in bringing into light about 5000 among tablets and fragments. From 1975 to 1989 the excavations were directed by N. Postgate, on the behalf of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Due to the Kuwait invasion in 1990 and the present unstable Iraqi situation the research activities have not been resumed.

The 6G Ash-Tip was located on the Main Mound, in the so-called Area E. It consisted of several ash and clay strata, sloping downwards away from the South-East and Central Complex, near which the Ash Tip was placed32. The excavation of the area were carried out from 1975 to 1978, and brought to light a remarkable quantity of clay objects: sealings, figurines, miniature vessels, pottery discs and clay tokens.

With the aim of proving the plausibility of what argued about the Fara sealings, I have analyzed the glyptic repertoire coming from the Ash-Tip, since it has been probably originated from the discard of administrative devices and other items from the adjacent building complex of the ED IIIb.

4.1 Crossed Lions with Goats (Figs 7.1-2)

A big number of the cretulae discovered in the Ash-Tip presents the common motive of two crossed lions biting goats (7.1-2), subject that has been already recognized by H.P. Martin and R.J. Matthews as typical of the Ash-Tip Glyptic33. What I would like to propose

32 The 6G area is exactly located east of the South-East Complex and south of the corridor that separates the South-East from the South Complex (Green [ed.] 1993: 1-2).

33 Martin - Matthews in Green (ed.) 1993: 29-30.


is that this motive is considered not only as a characteristic of Abu Salabikh Glyptic but rather bearing an important value as a sign of recognition for part of the administration34.

In the extended version, the scheme described above is completed by the presence of two heroes grasping the goats (7.1.3, 7.1.8-9). In one case the motive is accompanied by an eagle with goats in an upper register (7.1.2).

4.2 Knots or Mazes (Fig. 8)

A particular sign recurring in two cretulae is a doodle that, as already noticed35, recurs also in a tablet from Abu Salabikh. The common presence of a specific design both on seals and on tablets should offer a further confirmation of the connection between iconography and administrative organization.

5. concludIng reMArks

Fara and Abu Salabikh sealings seem to confirm that the ED Glyptic designs bear more than an aesthetic value. Any symbols or any images could hide information about the seal-owner, the institution he belongs to or his role and perhaps, in some cases, also about him as an individual (for example an emblem could indicate his beloved deity or could be an astral symbol referring either to his birthday or to another important moment of his life)36.

As evidence for what I said I would like to quote the three different Lugalanda seals37. Why did the lugal of Lagash need more than one royal seal? Perhaps each one was used to make different operation or utilized in various sectors of the Lagash administration. It is possible that Lugalanda’seals contain more information in their images than those we are able to understand.

34 I have tried to isolate other “emblems”, though the incompleteness of most of the sealings has made this a hard work. Probably the banquet on a boat or the lion’s head profile should be interpreted in the same way.

35 Martin - Matthews in Green (ed.) 1993: 33. 36 During a conference held in RomaTre University entitled On Art in the Ancient Near East. A Sky

Chart on an Old Akkadian Seal? Astronomical Knowledge in the Late 3rd Millennium BCE (22nd April 2009), Irene Winter observed that the little images, generally showing animals, often depicted under the inscription in later seals should offer some indications on the personality of the owner, something perhaps about him as an individual. In particular in the case of the Adda seal, object of her lecture, the little lion was not part of the cosmological representation but was referred to the cartouche with the inscription and thus to the owner of the seal.

37 Amiet 1980: nos 1098, 1100-1101.


It has been already suggested, for example, that the symbol of the lion-headed eagle grasping animals, recurring also in one of the Lugalanda’s seals38, has some connection with the patron deity of a city39. Anzu with lions is in fact one of the most common symbol of Lagash, probably connected with the main god Ningirsu40. In addiction Lagash is the only city in which Anzu is joined also to some birds, clearly symbols of Baba, the female main city deity, which was honored during the two festivals of the Barley and Malt Consumption, parallel to the celebrations in honor of Ningirsu41.

Like these, also other symbols should be interpreted as typical of a specific city like for example the Human Circle at Ur42, the Lions Circle at Shurrupaq43 or Atlas holding up four animal heads at Ebla44, and thus as sign at least of provenance of the holder45. With regard to this, it is worth mentioning here the so-called City Seals46, impressions on jar sealings, found at Ur and Jemdt Nasr, that according to Jacobsen47 are inscribed with the names of a group of major Sumerian cities. These sealings are probably evidence of a religious, economic or political union, known as Kengir League, operating during the Late Uruk period but vanished for unknown reasons at the beginning of the ED48.

If the indication of belonging throughout images was already present in the Uruk Period seal, nothing avoids to assume a similar use in the ED period, in particular when cuneiform cartouche were not yet in use. I have quoted these examples as conclusions just to show how many information are hidden in seals’ representation and how far we are from their complete understanding. A more detailed analysis of the Fara Glyptic iconography could surely give more information than those exposed here. It should be interesting, for example, to study also the sealings coming from the XIIIf-h household, with the purpose to understand if also in the ED III iconography plays an important role in the seal owner identification. Nevertheless, it is likely that over time the inscription

38 Amiet 1980: nos 1100.39 Porada 1992: 70.40 It recurs on numerous sealings, on two votive plaques, one of them belonging to the high-priest Dudu,

but above all it is represented on the Vultures’ Stele of Eannatum (Romano 2007).41 About these festivals see Cohen 1993.42 Amiet 1980: nos 1063, 1081.43 Amiet 1980: no. 1083; Martin 1983: nos 456 and 459. Amiet 1980: no. 1082 bears the same design but

does not come from Fara.44 Matthiae 1989: 39-40, pls III, IVd, IVn; 1990: 399-404, figs 9-11; 1995a;1995b. the presence in the

Ebla inlays of a group formed by Anzu with two human-headed bulls should perhaps be connected with one of the main worshipped gods and be interpreted as a local symbol

45 The presence in all the three cases of a quadripartite group it is probably connected with the royal title “King of the four corners of the world” as already suggested by P. Matthiae for the Atlas symbol (Matthiae 1995b). Nevertheless, it is not possible to affirm that, whenever present, a quadripartite symbol indicates a royal owner.

46 About the City Seals see Jacobsen 1957; Matthews 1993 and Steinkeller 2002.47 Jacobsen 1957: 109.48 On the Kengir League see Steinkeller 2002.


replaced the institutional symbol and this evolution can be seen in some seals where the pictures’ chain is interrupted by a subdivision of the register’s height into two parts, both filled with smaller figures. One of the two halves, generally the upper one, will be than occupied by a cartouche identifying the owner. The main design and the lower symbol in this case do not need to be necessarily connected to the role played by the seal-holder, thought it does not appear unjustified Lugalanda’s choice of joining his name and title to the Lagashite heraldic group.

bIblIogrAfIA

Amiet, P.1980 La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque, Paris.

Andrae, W. (ed.)1931 Fara. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in

Fara und Abu Hatab, 1902/03, Berlin.

Brandes, M.1979 Siegelabrollungen aus den arcaischen Bauschichten in Uruk-Warka (= Freiburger

Altorientalische Studien 3), Wiesbaden.

Cohen, M.E.1993 The Cultic Calendar of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda.

Collon, D.2005 First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East (reprinted with

revisions; first edition 1987), London.

Ferioli, P. - Fiandra, E.1996 The Continuance of More Ancient Bureaucratic Administrative Criteria in the

Age of Writing in Administration in Ancient Societies, in P. Ferioli- E. Fiandra - G.G. Fissore (eds), Administration in Ancient Societies: Proceedings of Session 218 of the 13th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Mexico City, July 29th-August 5th, 1993, Toronto, 87-97.

Fiandra, E.1968 A che cosa servivano le cretule di Festos, in Περαγμένα του A’ Διεθνούς

Κρητογικού Συνεδρίου, Athens, vol. I: 383-395.1981a Attività a Kish di un marcante di Lagash in epoca presargonica, OrAnt 20:

165-174.1981b The Connection between Clay Sealings and Tablets in Administration, South

Asian Archaeology 1979: 29-43.

Frangipane, M. (ed.)2007 Arslantepe Craetulae. An Early Centralized Administrative System Before

Writing (= Arslantepe 5), Roma.


Green, A. (ed.)1993 Abu Salabikh Excavations Vol. 4: The 6G Ash-Tip and its Contents: Cultic and

Administrative Discard from the Temple?, London.

Jacobsen, Th.1957 Early Political Development in Mesopotamia, ZA 18 (52): 91-140.

Mander, P.1995 Designs on the Fara, Abu-Salabikh and Ebla Texts, Annali dell’Istituto

Universitario Orientale 55: 18-29.

Martin, H.1988 Fara: a Reconstruction of the Ancient Mesopotamian City of Shurrupak,

Birmingham.

Martin, H.P. - Matthews, R. 1993 Seals and Sealings, in A. Green (ed.), 1993: 23-81.

Matthews, R.1991 Fragments of Officialdom from Fara, Iraq 53: 1-15.1993 Cities, Seals and Writing: Archaic Seal Impressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur

(= Materialen zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orient 2), Berlin.

Matthiae, P.1989 Masterpieces of Early and Old Syrian Art: Discoveries of the 1988 Ebla

Excavations in Historical Perspectives, Proceedings of the British Academy 75: 25-56.

1990 Nouvelles fouilles à Ebla en 1987-1989, CRAI 1990: 384-431.1995a Intarsi con aquile leontocefale e tori antropocefali (cat. nn. 29-35), in P.

Matthiae - F. Pinnock - G. Scandone (eds), Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Roma: 277-278.

1995b Cretula con impronta di sigillo (cat. n. 222), in P. Matthiae - F. Pinnock - G. Scandone (eds), Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Roma: 384.

Porada, E.1992 A Lapis Lazuli Disk with Relief Carving Inscribed for King Rimuš, in D.

Charpin - F. Joannès (eds), La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le proche-orient ancient. Actes de la XXXVIIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 8-10 juillet 1991), Paris: 69-72.

Romano, L.2007 La Stele degli Avvoltoi: una rilettura critica, VO 13: 3-23.


Schmidt, E.1931 Excavations at Fara, 1931, University of Pennsylvania Museum Journal 22:

193-245.

Steinkeller, P.2002 Archaic City Seals and the Question of Early Babylonian Unity, in T. Abush

(ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, Winona Lake: 249-257.

Zettler, R.1987 Sealings as Artifacts of Institutional Administration in Ancient Mesopotamia,

JCS 39: 197-240.2000 Pottery Profiles Reconstructed from Jar Sealings in the Lower Seal Impression

Strata (SIS 8-4) at Ur: New Evidence for Dating, in A. Leonard - B. Beyer Williams (eds), Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor (= SAOC 47), Chicago: 369-393.


fIgures references

Fig. 11. Martin 1988: fig. 231.2. Ibid.: fig. 229.3. Ibid.: fig. 201.4. Ibid.: fig. 232.5. Ibid.: fig. 230.

Fig. 2.11. Martin 1988: fig. 239.2. Ibid.: fig. 241.3. Ibid.: fig. 240.4. Ibid.: fig. 236.5. Ibid.: fig. 234.6. Ibid.: fig. 233.7. Ibid.: fig. 237.

Fig. 2.21. Martin 1988: fig. 246.2. Ibid.: fig. 254.3. Ibid.: fig. 253.4. Ibid.: fig. 275.5. Ibid.: fig. 263.6. Ibid.: fig. 252.7. Ibid.: fig. 250.8. Ibid.: fig. 274.9. Ibid.: fig. 276.10. Ibid.: fig. 255.11. Ibid.: fig. 259.12. Ibid.: fig. 260.13. Ibid.: fig. 273.14. Ibid.: fig. 554.

Fig. 31. Martin 1988: fig. 271.2. Ibid.: fig. 268.3. Ibid.: fig. 272.4. Ibid.: fig. 248.5. Ibid.: fig. 243.6. Ibid.: fig. 195.7. Ibid.: fig. 265.8. Ibid.: fig. 275.9. Ibid.: fig. 269.10. Ibid.: fig. 270.11. Ibid.: fig. 266.12. Ibid.: fig. 264.13. Ibid.: fig. 267.

14. Ibid.: fig. 393.Fig. 4

1. Martin 1988: fig. 247.2. Ibid.: fig. 192.3. Ibid.: fig. 194.4. Ibid.: fig. 249.5. Ibid.: fig. 248.6. Ibid.: fig. 274.

Fig. 51. Martin 1988: fig. 194.2. Ibid.: fig. 193.3. Ibid.: fig. 277.4. Ibid.: fig. 263.5. Ibid.: fig. 278.

Fig. 61. Martin 1988: fig. 310.2. Ibid.: fig. 315.3. Ibid.: fig. 311.4. Ibid.: fig. 312.5. Ibid.: fig. 269.6. Ibid.: fig. 266.7. Ibid.: fig. 274.

Fig. 7.11. Green (ed.) 1996: cat.

no. 35 a+b.2. Ibid.: cat. no. 36a+b.3. Ibid.: cat. no. 40.4. Ibid.: cat. no. 44.5. Ibid.: cat. no. 47a+b.6. Ibid.: cat. no. 49.7. Ibid.: cat. no. 17.8. Ibid.: cat. no. 22.9. Ibid.: cat. no. 23.

Fig. 7.21. Green (ed.) 1996: cat.

no. 34.2. Ibid.: cat. no. 29.3. Ibid.: cat. no. 26.4. Ibid.: cat. no. 28.5. Ibid.: cat. no. 46.6. Ibid.: cat. no. 33.7. Ibid.: cat. no. 42.8. Fig. 8

9. Green (ed.) 1996: cat. no. 83.

10. Ibid.: fig. 2.1.11. Ibid.: cat. no. 82a+b.


Fig. 1 - The “Slaughtered Goat”.

Fig. 2.1 - Hero holding lions.


Fig. 2.2 - Hero holding lions.


Fig. 3 - Hero holding goats.


Fig. 4 - Goats with sprouts.

Fig. 5 - Eagle grasping goats.


Fig. 7.1 - Crossed lions with goats.

Fig. 6 - Hero holding lion hind leg.


Fig. 7.2 - Crossed lions with goats.

Fig. 8 - Knots or mazes.

Administrative Symbols in the ED Glyptic?: S. Pizzimenti - L. Romano (edd.), Šime ummiānka. Studi in Onore di Paolo Matthiae.in occasione del Suo 75° compleanno offerti dall’ultima

Documents