Sumerian Shakespeare
The Face of Ur-Namma, part II
The "unknown" ruler
During my research for “The face of Ur-Namma,” I saw many references on the Internet
to “the unknown ruler,” variously ascribing it as Akkadian, Elamite (Iranian), and Sumerian.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art has the statue’s origin as being “Iran or Mesopotamia.”
Their comments on the statue begin with the statement:
"During the later third millennium BC, successive territorial empires ruled Mesopotamia. The first—the Akkadian empire (2350–2150 BC)—was centered at Agade, a city still not located
by archaeologists but probably near modern Baghdad. The Akkadian language of this empire was a Semitic language that differed greatly from Sumerian, which previously had been the predominant language of Mesopotamia. In addition to its political and economic innovations
in administering a large territory, the Akkadian court produced innovative art in a powerful and naturalistic style."
This seems to suggest that the Met curators thought the statue was of Akkadian origin.
However, after I informed the Met of my belief that 'the unknown ruler' was in fact Ur-Namma, they (curiously) inserted the following sentence into their comments:
"The headdress, however, is similar to that of later Middle Elamite small figurines found at
Susa, one of gold and the other of silver. The eyes, eyebrows and nose also seem to render
a related ethnic type. In the case of the copper head, the statue may have been made for an Iranian ruler."
Which raises an interesting question: Is the “unknown ruler” Akkadian, Elamite, or Sumerian?
Ethnicity
I believe there is nothing in the facial features of the unknown ruler that definitely identifies him as being particularly Semitic. I will say that the rounded nose of the unknown ruler is quite unlike the later artistic depictions of the Persians (Iranians) who are usually portrayed with sharper,
more angular features. Note, too, how the artistic conventions for showing the curls of the beard
is the same used for all of the statues shown below:
Left to right: An unknown (high ranking) Babylonian god, probably Enlil, given the number
of horns on the helmet. Ur-Ningirsu (Sumerian), the son of Gudea. Hammurabi (Babylonian) and Sargon the Great (Akkadian). The Babylonians, Akkadians, and Sumerians all used the same artistic conventions to portray gods and kings.
As for the eyebrows, the Met is probably referring to the fact that the unknown ruler doesn't have the “joined eyebrows” commonly seen on Sumerian and Akkadian statues.
The joined eyebrows were a stylistic convention that symbolized “beauty.” They are quite noticeable on the early images of Gudea, which are very formal and stylized. The eyebrows are less noticeable on the statues from the latter part of his reign. This is when Gudea was “inventing” realistic portraiture in Sumerian sculpture. It is the first time in world history when statues actually resembled the people they portrayed. Gudea’s reign ended just eight years before the reign of Ur-Namma.
During the transition to realistic portraits, some of Ur-Namma’s statues had joined eyebrows and some of them did not, as seen below.
Many of the statues of Ur-Namma did not have the joined eyebrows.
The statues are more natural and life-like.
The lack of joined eyebrows is one of the reasons why I believe the statue is of Ur-Namma, who, unlike other ancient kings, chose to represent himself the way he looked in real life.
In regard to the shape of the eyes, the Met mentioned that they are “heavy-lidded,” which is
a distinguishing facial feature of Ur-Namma. However, the most important thing about
Ur-Namma’s eyes is the fact that they are distinctively asymmetrical. This makes Ur-Namma unique among all other ancient kings.
The only exception to this rule is Ur-Namma’s son Shulgi, who inherited his father’s
asymmetric eyes. It is the result of a genetic disorder called congenital ptosis (a drooping eyelid). See The Face of Shulgi.
The fact that Shulgi inherited the asymmetric eyes proves that the "unknown ruler" is indeed
Ur-Namma – beyond a shadow of doubt.
The Met identified this statue as Shulgi. I said it is Ur-Namma. They insisted it is Shulgi. Note the asymmetric eyes. The Met has just proven my own case for me.
Middle Elamite figurine: 12th century BC Click on the picture to see the silver version
of this statue.
This is one of the Middle Elamite figurines mentioned in the Met's comments. There is another silver one just like it. As can be seen in the photo, the headdress on the figure is not really similar to the one worn by the unknown ruler. In any case, the Elamite statues date
from a later period. The Middle Elamite period spans the years of 1500 to 1100 BC, which
is well beyond the date range given by the Met for the statue of the unknown ruler
(2300-2000 BC). It is therefore not very useful for the purpose of making comparisons.
There aren't any known artifacts from the Old Elamite period (2700 – 1600 BC) that are comparable to the statue of the unknown ruler, and it's unreasonable to assume that the unknown ruler is the only example of this kind of Elamite portraiture to survive the millennia.
The statue of the unknown ruler looks Sumerian or Akkadian, artistically speaking, and
there is nothing about the statue that is distinctly Elamite.
Some examples of Elamite art can be found on the Iran Chamber Society website.
The statue of the unknown ruler is mentioned in the article (about half way down the page).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article claims the statue is Iranian (Elamite) in origin. The article states, “The features have probably been coarsened by the disintegration of the copper.
Thus the eyelids may seem heavier now than they originally were; the nose, which seems
so thick as to suggest a feature characteristic of some individual, may again have been accidentally enlarged.” This doesn't sound very convincing. It is easy to see how the features of an artifact can be diminished because of accident or erosion, but it is difficult to imagine
how they can possibly become enlarged. As previously noted, the heavy-lidded eyes and the
prominent nose are simply Ur-Namma’s distinguishing facial features. Ur-Namma made
no attempt to depict himself in an idealized manner, to make himself look "prettier"
than he really was.
As for the possibility that the statue is Akkadian, it is a moot point. After all, Ur-Namma was the king of Sumer and Akkad.
Ur-Namma: showing the details of his headdress. Note the heavy-lidded eyes, the rounded nose, and the angle at which the ears are bent. Photo courtesy of Vladimir Korostyshevskiy.
Headdress:
As for the “headdress” mentioned by the Met, it isn’t really a headdress, at all. Notice how the headdress of the unknown ruler is not three-dimensional; it lies flat on his head.
Royal headdresses are always more grandiose. They were taller, to make the ruler seem
more imposing., and they were more “showy.” Could anyone recognize a king in a crowd
if he was wearing this kind of headdress? This would be the most inconspicuous crown
ever worn by a ruler in the history of the world. During my research into Akkadian, Elamite, and Sumerian history, I was unable to find a royal headdress that looked even remotely like this one. That's because it isn’t really a headdress; it's a soft fabric “skullcap,” the kind worn under a crown or a helmet. A Sumerian king wore a shepherd’s hat as a crown, but there’s no reason to assume it was made of wool like a real shepherd’s hat. The crown was probably made of gold, as befitted a king, so it would require a soft lining. The diagonal lines on the headdress suggest the supporting straps beneath a crown or helmet. As mentioned in
“The Face of Ur-Namma,” this statue was probably adorned with a shepherd’s crown.
This is the reason why the ears are bent down, to accommodate the crown. The statue of the unknown ruler is simply Ur-Namma without his hat.
Ur-Namma: Notice how his ears are bent beneath his shepherd's hat. In the profile photo seen above, notice how the ears are bent at the exact angle that Ur-Namma wears his hat. The unknown ruler's bent ears make them seem larger than they really were in life.
It has always been assumed that the fringe seen beneath his hat was his hair, but it is probably a lining for his crown, since it exactly follows the brim. It was probably made of lamb's fleece, and it was part of the skullcap that was worn under his crown. It can be seen
on the images of the unknown ruler.
There is one more aspect of this statue that needs to be addressed: To cast a life-size copper statue was a major undertaking in 2100 BC, requiring considerable resources and technical expertise. An important statue like this one is fit only for a god, or a king who was descended from the gods (like Ur‑Namma). But it’s not just a god. It is too human to be a god (a god with big ears? and asymmetric eyes?) and it doesn't have the horned helmet of a god. There are no Sumerian depictions of the gods, in metal, stone, or seal impressions, where a god is depicted without a horned helmet.
An important life-sized metal sculpture like this one would not have been made for
some two-bit Elamite chieftain (the Sumerians considered the Elamites to be uncivilized barbarians). Nor would this statue be made for a minor king of some small city-state.
Only an important king like Ur-Namma, who ruled two entire nations (Sumer and Akkad), would merit the creation of this very important statue.
Here I must confess my own personal prejudice in regard to the Elamites. In 2004 BC, about one hundred years after the death of Ur-Namma, the Elamites sacked Ur-Namma’s capital city of Ur (“Inside Ur there is death, outside it there is death. Inside it we are to be finished off by famine. Outside it we are to be finished off by Elamite weapons. In Ur the enemy oppresses us, oh, we are finished." Lament for Sumer and Ur.). The Elamites thus destroyed Sumerian civilization. So I’m not wild about the Elamites. Needless to say, neither was Ur-Namma. After the sack of Ur, the last surviving king of Ur-Namma's royal dynasty, Ibbi‑Suen, was hauled away "in fetters" back to Elam. The statue of Ur-Namma doubtlessly followed Ibbi-Suen into Elamite captivity; so it would be one of history’s ultimate ironies
if the Met persisted in identifying Ur-Namma as an Elamite. Ur-Namma himself would be
highly offended.
The Sumerian sign for Elam. See a tablet dated the year Ur was besieged (destroyed) by the Elamites
The Met originally said the statue is probably Akkadian. After I proved this wasn't true, they said it was Iranian. After I proved this wasn't correct, they changed their notes into
a generic description:
"The identity of this lifesize head and where it was created remain a mystery [sic!, it is a mystery only to the experts at the Met Museum]. The expert craftsmanship and innovative technology involved in shaping it and casting it in copper alloy, a very costly material, [the curators of the Met did not realize it was “innovative technology” until I brought it to their attention] indicates that it represents a king or elite person. The nose, lips, large ears,
heavy-lidded eyes, and modeling of the face are rendered in a naturalistic style. ….
Patterns in the elegantly coiffed beard and well-trimmed mustache and the curving and diagonal lines of the figure’s cloth turban [it is not a turban, as explained above] can still be seen beneath the corroded copper surface. These aspects of personal appearance further support the identification of this image with an elite personage. Furthermore, the head’s unusually individualized features suggest that it might be a portrait [I've been saying that
all along!]. Were that to be true, the head would be a rare example of portraiture in ancient Near Eastern art."
The curators at the Met have reduced Ur-Namma into bland nothingness.
The provenance of the statue hasn’t been published. In any case, it wouldn’t matter. This statue wasn't found in its original location (it was discovered in Azerbaijan). It was probably carried away as booty, perhaps several times, in the many wars that occurred in the region during the course of history.
I would suggest that the statue’s unmistakable resemblance to Ur-Namma overrides
the vagaries of the archaeological context in which it was discovered, along the lines of
“If it looks like a duck. . .” Even if this statue was found in Egypt, it would still be Ur-Namma.
Even if it was wearing a beanie, it would still be Ur-Namma.
Ur-Namma: 3/4 view.
So, to summarize:
1) The "unknown ruler" looks like Ur-Namma, with the same heavy lidded eyes, rounded nose, large ears, and the same mouth. The chin and cheek bones also match, as does the asymmetry of the eyes. It matches in the frontal, both left and right profiles, and the 3/4 views.
2) It matches all of the other known statues of Ur-Namma, ones which have his name engraved on them.
3) The unknown ruler doesn't have any other distinguishing facial feature that shows he is someone different than Ur-Namma.
4) Ur-Namma's unusual combination of facial features is so unique, the unknown ruler can hardly be anyone else. If you still don’t believe that the unknown ruler is Ur-Namma,
then try this experiment. Ur-Namma looks unlike anyone else in history.
5) Ur-Namma's reign, 2112 - 2095 BC, falls about mid way in the date range given by the Met for the manufacture of the statue: 2300 - 2000 BC.
6) The place for the manufacture of the statue is also the same given by the Met: Mesopotamia (Sumer, not Iran).
7) Ur-Namma chose to represent himself as he looked in real life. He and Gudea are the only known exceptions to the rule that ancient kings portray themselves in a stylistic and idealized manner.
8) The ears of the unknown ruler are bent at the exact angle that Ur-Namma wears his shepherd crown.
9) The statue of the unknown ruler looks Sumerian (or Akkadian) artistically speaking, and it doesn't resemble any known Elamite artifact.
10) Ur-Namma is the only king, at that time and place, who was important enough
to merit a life-sized copper statue. He had the resources (money) necessary to commission
a very expensive work of art, and he had the skilled artisans who had technical expertise
that is necessary to manufacture such a difficult statue.
11) Ur-Namma’s son Shulgi had the same genetic condition (congenital ptosis) that causes a drooping eyelid. Like father, like son.
I can understand why the Metropolitan Museum of Art may be reluctant to recognize
that the statue is Ur-Namma, without a known provenance, but I suggest that we don't need
to have Ur-Namma's name carved into his head of this statue to know that it's Ur-Namma
(just look at all of the pictures above). I further suggest that the unknown ruler's unmistakable and undeniable resemblance to all other known images of Ur-Namma is provenance enough.
For example: One time many years ago I turned on the TV in the middle of a program.
It showed two archaeologists standing behind a statue that they had just discovered.
I took one look at the statue and said, "That's Alexander the Great." The archaeologists
were droning on and on, talking about this and that, and I was about to jump out of my seat.
I was saying, "It's Alexander! Don't you know it's Alexander?" Eventually, they got around
to identifying the statue as Alexander. They knew it was Alexander and so did I, even though
the statue didn't have his name written on it. How did we know this? Because it looks like Alexander, and no one else. The same is true for the "unknown ruler;" it looks like Ur-Namma, and it doesn't look like anyone else in all of history.
Hopefully the Met will not be too conservative in its estimation of the statue, so that
it may one day get the attention it truly deserves.
