Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:29:47.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Babylonian Architect?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

D. J. Wiseman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Professor Seton Lloyd's publications and teaching have always been marked by his profound understanding of Mesopotamian architecture. It therefore seems appropriate, in this volume to his honour, to present some hitherto unpublished tablets which may add a little to our knowledge of some aspects of the ancient practice of surveying.

The small tablet BM.38217 (Fig. 1), probably originating from Babylon itself, shows in elevation a six, originally seven, stepped ziggurat with the principal dimensions given, UŠ being used for the length, and SAG (the “short side” of the rectangle as drawn) for the height. The second level is described as “Front (-view) of the dwelling of Anshar” (pa-ni šu-bat an-šár). While this note may well apply to the whole of this unique plan, it is to be observed that the first two storeys have accentuated (and external) markings which must represent the frontal and lateral access. The inner markings are perhaps to show where the ramps or stairway crossed the front of the main building (as in the ziggurat at Ur). The gaps in the base of the third and probably fourth (and higher?) stages may show that a direct frontal stairway to the seventh stage was envisaged. This seems a better explanation than that a five staged ziggurat is shown imposed upon the ground-plan of an adjacent and larger building. The lower stages are certainly not the plan of any two-storied “temple of Anshar” or of a gate-building.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 22 , December 1972 , pp. 141 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 E.g. Lloyd, S. H. F., Mesopotamia: Excavations on Sumerian sites (1936)Google Scholar; The Art of the Ancient Near East (1961).

2 I am grateful to the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to publish these texts.

3 Measures 63 × 50 mm. The accession (81–3–30. 206) groups it with texts from “Babylon”.

4 It is more likely that šubtu is here a general designation rather than that part of the temple where statues of gods were kept (ZA 40, (1931), pp. 10–13Google Scholar; 41 (1933), pp. 292,297). It may also denote a cult-object (ZA 41 (1933), p. 296Google Scholar). Figures are shown standing on a two-staged dais or ziggurat with recesses on a seal of the Isin-Larsa period from Ur (UE X, No. 539). an-šár cannot be the god Ashur here because of the late date and provenience.

5 On lower temples “complimentary” to the ziggurat itself, a late development in lower Mesopotamia, see now Busink, Th. A., “L'origine et l'évolution de la ziggurat babylonienne”, JEOL. 21 (1969/1970), p. 125Google Scholar.

6 The end of the broken line could be lú. m a š. m a š. The usual terminology of the colophon, and probably the date, would be expected in the break.

7 H. Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone, Nr. 89, 4 (ana pī ṭuppi gaba-ri Bar-sip KI dated 229 B.C.–the Esagil tablet); Nr. 96,2 (dated 222 B.C.); Nr. 91, 3 (dated 232 B.C.; note also kisitti in 1. 7). W. G. Lambert reads the name as Aḫi'aūtu and notes that the sons of another “ancestor” Arad-Ea acted as surveyors (JCS 11 (1957), p. 4Google Scholar).

8 Strassmaier, J. N., Inschriften von Cyrus, 114, 4Google Scholar; 141, 11; Inschriften von Nabonidus, 551, 2.

9 The plene writing -iš-kun for GARun is rare in late Babylonian.

10 Scribes of this name are attested, cf. STT 16, 3Google Scholar; 242, 29 (the son of Kandalānu, chief scribe of the turtan).

11 For the known names of the Aḫ'ūtu family see Hunger, op. cit., p. 18.

12 A full bibliography and discussion of this tablet is given by Parrot, A., Ziggurats et Tour de Babel (1949), pp. 22–28Google Scholar; cf. Busink, loc. cit., pp. 137f.

13 RA. 22 (1925), p. 30Google Scholar; cf. CAD. 1/2, p. 72Google Scholar, sub ammatu.

14 VAB. IV, 98Google Scholar, i. 27 ff. For Nabopolassar's unfinished work of 30 cubits on Esagila see VAB. IV, 152, 59 ff.Google Scholar, Parrot op. cit. p. 20.

15 Baqir, T., Iraq Suppl. 1942–1943, p, 6Google Scholar.

16 Or NINDA (RA. 33, 1936, p. 164, n. 2Google Scholar).

17 Allowing for a closer join than shown in Boutcher's drawing as in Gadd, C. J., The Stones of Assyria, Pl. 28, p. 206Google Scholar, no. 73 (where he suggests it represents the ziggurat at Dēr). Note the two two-storied buildings to either side of the hillock on which the ziggurat is set. Are these the side elevations of the lower stages, equivalent to the height of the hill? It is note-worthy that the temple on the relief has horns as did the altar of Ezekiel 43:13–17 which was in the form of a miniature altar (cf. 1 Chronicles 4:1) with a base 20 cubits square. The inner-most shrine of Solomon's temple was designed as a cube of 20 cubits (1 Kings 6:20).

18 Also “maps” since many of these have the hall-mark of late scribal essays relating to military exercises (e.g. CT XXII, Pl. 48), cf. AfO 16 (1932), pp. 1–24Google Scholar; KA VI No. 25, where dub 6 kám-ma seems out of place on a map or plan since, as has been pointed out (JSS 7 (1962), p. 188Google Scholar), no series of texts showing plans or maps has been found or is expected, and therefore suggests that the text may be part of a school exercise. CT XXII, Pl. 49, BM 35385 has a military text on the reverse; the map may be a plan to divert the river to break down the gate?

19 52 × 60 cm. (81–8–30,206).

20 MSL. V, p. 17Google Scholar.

21 70 × 93 mm. (89–10–14,630; Babylon; probably M. Bab.)

22 Heinrich, E. u. Seidl, U., “Grundrisszeichnungen aus dem alten Orient”, MDOG 98 (1967), pp. 24–45Google Scholar.

23 Heinrich u. Seidl, loc. cit., Nr. 13, Old Babylonian. Note the enigmatic label ša parāsīsu (von Soden “das seiner Entscheidung”) which may be a further example of a student's note.

24 “Provenance unknown; 120 × 84 mm.; rev. uninscribed.

25 Cf. Heinrich u. Seidl, loc. cit., Nr. 2.

26 E.g. at Assur and Mari. cf. also the partially excavated building shown in the upper left corner of the plan of Sargon's palace at Khorsabad (Frankfort, H. H., Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, p. 75, fig. 30Google Scholar).

27 Woolley, C. L., Ur Excavations, VIII, Pl. 59Google Scholar. The triple suite may also be compared with the triple cult-stands marked on a Nippur plan so far published only in reconstructed form (Heinrich u. Seidl, p. 34, Nr. 11).

28 RLA. I, Taf. 39. I owe this information to Sir Max Mallowan.

29 dub.šàr a.šà.ga (AfO 18 (1957/1958), p. 83, n. 201Google Scholar), translated by Goetze, A. as “field recorder” (Sumer 14 (1958), p. 6Google Scholar) and by von Soden, W. as “Kadaster Direktor” (ZA. 41 (1933), p. 233fGoogle Scholar). His was certainly a high profession (JCS. 23 (1970), p. 41Google Scholar).

30 Series Lú-ša I. 141 ff.

31 Paper read by Landsberger, B. at the 23rdInternational Congress of Orientalists, Cambridge, 1954Google Scholar.

32 King, L. W., Babylonian Boundary Stones, 4,i, 16–20Google Scholar.

33 Hinke, W. J., Selected Babylonian Kudurru Inscriptions, iii, 14Google Scholar.

34 Brinkman, J. R., A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, p. 94, n. 490Google Scholar.

35 dub.sar.zag.ga=zazakku (Proto-Lú, 48; precedes dub.sar.a.šà.ga=šasukku ib. 61; cf.AfO 18 (1957/8), p. 83, 200); AS 16, p. 238Google Scholar quotes Landsberger as translating this official as “public secretary of high officials”. Meissner, B. translated “Geometer” (OLZ 1922, col. 243Google Scholar). Cf. the suggestion “Kadasteramt” (Falkenstein, A., ZA. 49 (1950), p. 140Google Scholar, nam.sag.sug6).

36 Cf. mut-tab-bi-lat áš-lu am-mat qanâtimeš gi-níg-da-nak-ku, ap. Lambert, , Or. 36 (1967), 118Google Scholar, 41. The ašlu was taken as a linear or surface measure of 1 ašlum= 10 GAR (RA. 23 (1926), p. 33Google Scholar).

37 A Sumerian loanword, see Ungnad, A., ZA. 31 (1920), p. 257Google Scholar; Poebel, A., AJSL 51 (1934/1935), p. 170Google Scholar.

38 Listed in Diri IV,227.

39 VAB IV, 62Google Scholar, ii.25 f. (Nabopolassar).

40 4R 14, 3, 7, also Kramer, S.N., JCS. 5 (1951),p. 2:19Google Scholar (gi.diš.ninda.ešé.gán.za.gìn). See also RA. 50 (1956), p. 141Google Scholar, n. 3. Cf. also the line quoted in n. 36.

41 gišpa-lu-um, RA. 32 (1935), p. 13Google Scholar; 35 (1938), p. 104. At Nuzi giš/qānmindatu or gištaiyāru were used of such a rod. Cf. Labat, , Le poème bab. de la Crèation, p. 123 on 1. 29Google Scholar.

42 So Heinrich u. Seidl, loc. cit., Nr. 2, 5; note the buttresses marked on Nr. 18, 19; Nr. 8 (Gudea's statue plan, cf. ANEP, No. 749) and Nr. 19 (=CT XXII, Pl. 50); but neither of the last two are of identified buildings. Loud, G., “An architectural formula for Assyrian planning based on the results of excavations at Khorsabad”, RA. 33 (1936) pp. 153 ff.Google Scholar, supports this.

43 Also written ușșurtu, RA, 46 (1952), p. 111Google Scholar.

44 Kupper, J-R., TCL XXIV, 11, 12–13Google Scholar; Heinrich u. Seidl, loc. cit. Nr. 13.

45 ARM III, 11, 13Google Scholar.

46 Sennacherib (OIP 2, p. 94Google Scholar, 1. 64). My thanks are due to the editor for a number of helpful suggestions made in the course of seeing this article through the press.