Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T09:19:58.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FRAGMENTS OF THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BC FROM NIGIN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2021

Davide Nadali  and
Lorenzo Verderame
Davide Nadali
Affiliation:
Sapienza Università di Roma Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Antichità Ex Vetrerie Sciarra Studio 121 Via dei Volsci, 122 00185 Roma Italy davide.nadali@uniroma1.it
Lorenzo Verderame
Affiliation:
Sapienza Università di Roma Istituto Italiano di Studi Orientali Circonvallazione Tiburtina, 4 00185 Roma Italy lorenzo.verderame@uniroma1.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ancient city of Nigin in the State of Lagash is largely attested in the epigraphic sources of the rulers of the First Dynasty of Lagash. Conversely, the archaeological evidence of the Early Dynastic Period is so far very scanty and limited. This paper presents a small group of documents to be dated to the Early Dynastic Period IIIb that were found out of context, but that nevertheless point to a phase of occupation of Nigin in the third millennium BC and are coherent with the information we already know about history of the city and the State of Lagash.

تشهد المصادر الكتابية لحكام السلالة الأولى لولاية لكش على وجود مدينة نيجين القديمة في الولاية . بعكس من ذلك، نجد الأدلة الأثرية لعصر السلالات المبكرة هزيلة ومحدودة للغاية حتى الآن . تقدم هذه الدراسة مجموعة صغيرة من الوثائق التي يرجع تاريخها إلى فترة السلالات المبكرة IIIb والتي تم العثور عليها خارج سياقها، ولكنها على أية حال تشير الى مرحلة من استيطان نيجين في الألف الثالث قبل الميلاد وتتناسق هذه مع المعلومات التي لدينا عن تاريخ المدينة وولاية لجش .

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 83 , December 2021 , pp. 105 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 2021

Introduction

Historical documentation of the third millennium BC occupation of the ancient city of Nigin, modern Tell Zurghul, in the ancient State of Lagash is attested thanks to the large amount of data provided by cuneiform sources of the rulers of the First Dynasty of Lagash.Footnote 1 However, recent excavations at the site by the Italian archaeological expedition of Sapienza University of Rome and the University of Perugia have so far yielded little archaeologically stratified evidence of the third millennium BC phases of Nigin:Footnote 2 in particular, no stratified and contextualised evidence of the mid- and second half of the third millennium BC (corresponding, in Mesopotamian terms, to the Early Dynastic Period IIIa–b) has been clearly and extensively identified. Indeed, the only third millennium occupational levels hitherto excavated date from the very beginning of the millennium: in Area A, a multi-functional building shows a quite extensive and well-preserved phase dated to the Jemdet Nasr Period and a phase (not fully investigated yet and partially covering the old levels) dated to the Early Dynastic I.Footnote 3 Another operation in Area A (trench 1), at the time of the first season of excavation in 2015, also yielded archaeologically stratified materials dating from the Early Dynastic Period (with pottery samples actually fitting in with the repertoire of the Early Dynastic Period III):Footnote 4 however, this context is mainly the result of accumulation levels with materials that have been dragged from more northerly areas by heavy winter rain.

Next to the pottery collected in the strata, that is in fact the widest archaeological evidence of the third millennium occupation of Nigin as verified in the field, other types of artefacts also point to the phase of the Early Dynastic Period at Nigin: two fragmentary pieces of sculpture, a broken cylinder seal, and four fragments of inscribed bricks. Not only are these iconographic and epigraphic documents fragmentary and incomplete, but they come from non-stratified or disturbed contexts and for this reason they provide indirect information (via the analysis of the iconography and the content of the stamped text) on the occupation at Nigin during the Early Dynastic Period.

All bricks and the fragment of a relief plaque were collected in the fill (stratum 812) of the large squared sounding that occupies the top of the small mound B;Footnote 5 the small piece of statue and the broken cylinder seal come from two surface strata (201 and 207) in Area E, on the southern slope of the main mound A of the site, and they are probably the result of landslip and erosion caused by deep, small streams that actually “excavated” lower earlier deposits.Footnote 6

The Visual Evidence

Although fragmentary, the three pieces of evidence of Early Dynastic art from Nigin not only confirm the already-known phase of occupation of the site during the third millennium BC, but they specifically point to a royal commitment. Indeed, one can even argue that the two preserved representations of human characters actually portray royal figures, while the third fragment could be quite reasonably attributed to a royal (or divine) statue. Based on stylistic considerations, all fragments can be dated to the late phase of the Early Dynastic Period, namely the Early Dynastic Period IIIb at the time of the rulers of the First Dynasty of Lagash.Footnote 7

The fragment SG.19.B.186 (Fig. 1), broken on all sides, depicts a male figure. The head and the bust are fully preserved, while the left arm, the right forearm, and the lower part of the body are missing:Footnote 8 the object is clearly part of a typical limestone plaque relief of the Early Dynastic Period,Footnote 9 a very common and widespread type of item whose function, despite the wide diffusion in ancient Mesopotamia, is still enigmatic.Footnote 10 Although the drawing of the lines and shapes, particularly the details of the nose and mouth, are very smoothed,Footnote 11 the image recalls the contemporary plaque of Ur-Nanshe of Lagash where the ruler is depicted twice, standing with the basket on his head, and seated with a cup in his raised right hand.Footnote 12 Due to the state of preservation, it is quite difficult to reconstruct the original posture of the figure. Due to comparisons with the contemporary plaques from Girsu,Footnote 13 the male character can certainly be identified with one of the rulers of the First Dynasty of Lagash who, as we know from their royal inscriptions,Footnote 14 were actively involved at Nigin with extensive building programmes (the temple Sirara of the city goddess Nanshe and related structures as well as the digging of canals).Footnote 15

Fig. 1:

Fragment of plaque relief from Area B, SG.19.B.186 (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

The figure is bare-headed and beardless and the portrayal fits with the common Sumerian visual conventions: head in profile, frontal view chest. Two horizontal parallel incisions might vividly indicate either the abdominals or part of the belt of the usual long tufted wool skirt. Unfortunately, the original position of the arms is completely missing, but I would like to suggest a possible interpretation. Observing the width of the chest, I would suggest that the male figure is represented seated, like Ur-Nanshe in the lower register of the plaque from Girsu.Footnote 16 Keeping the comparison with the plaque from Girsu, the left arm, stretched forward and slightly bent, was probably held in front of the face, raising a cup in his hand; the right arm was probably also bent, resting on the stomach. According to this hypothetical restoration of the missing parts, the plaque of Nigin enters into the typology of the banquet scene, a very common figurative theme in Early Dynastic Mesopotamian iconography.Footnote 17

The object SG.19.E.125, a very fragmentary and strongly damaged cylinder seal (Fig. 2), also belongs to the same iconography of the banquet and chronological frame of the Early Dynastic Period. Only a very small portion of the original seal, made of white marble, is preserved.Footnote 18 Thanks to the double line that is visible at the lower edge, it is possible to reconstruct the original shape of the seal that was made of two registers,Footnote 19 the upper one showing the typical scene of banquet with two protagonists, a woman and a man, seated one in front of the other while drinking from a cup or from a common shared jar by using straws: the seal from Nigin only preserves the representation of the female character, seated on the left, facing right.Footnote 20 The woman wears a long dress that also covers her shoulder and she has her hair tied up.Footnote 21 Women are in fact commonly represented in relief plaques and cylinder seals while banqueting, together with a male counterpart or within a completely female context. When explicitly stated in the short inscriptions carved onto the seals, as for example with those from the Royal Cemetery of Ur, it is easy to identify the female character with the political and social position of queen.Footnote 22 At the same time, even when the inscription is not present, female characters can still be identified with queen and court ladies not only for the type of dress and hairstyle, but also just because they take part in a banquet that, as already mentioned, acquired a significant political meaning in Mesopotamia of the third millennium BC, as both a manifestation and consolidation of the ruling class.Footnote 23

Fig. 2:

Fragment of cylinder seal from Area E, SG.19.E.125, with modern impression (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

The fragment SG.19.E.71 (Figs. 3–4) is a very fragmentary element of a sculpture, more probably a statue in the round: broken on all sides, it represents two elements of the typical tufted dress (kaunakès).Footnote 24 The shape of the fracture actually seems to be a chip that has been intentionally broken. It is interesting to notice the presence of a sort of pivot and a small regular squared recess that seem to suggest that the piece was assembled into a larger composition.Footnote 25 The state of preservation, however, does not allow for any further more reliable possible interpretation.

Fig. 3:

Fragment of sculpture from Area E, SG.19.E.71, side view (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

Fig. 4:

Fragment of sculpture from Area E, SG.19.E.71, frontal view (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

The Epigraphic Evidence: Enmetena and the Gigunamah of Nanshe

Four fragments of inscribed bricks have been recovered out of context in the fill of a sounding at the top of mound B (see above).Footnote 26 Two fragments (a, b) bear the same inscription. The lines kept in the other two (c, d) may well be part of the same inscription of a and b. This is a previously unknown Early Dynastic IIIb inscription from the ruler of the First Dynasty of Lagash (Lagash I), Enmetena.Footnote 27

Of these the item numbered SG.19.B.5 (= a; H 21.5 cm, W 13.2 cm, THK 5.8 cm; Figs. 5–6) is the biggest fragment. The preserved part is the right border of the second of a two-column inscription. The upper border of the first and last case is not preserved, but from the shape and dimension of the fragment we can argue that the entire column is preserved in its length. This was composed of five cases or lines.

Fig. 5:

Drawing of the brick SG.19.B.5 by Lorenzo Verderame.

Fig. 6:

Fragment of baked brick from Area B, SG.19.B.5 (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

i

(broken)

ii

  1. 1 [lagaš] ˹ki˺/-[k]aFootnote 28

  2. 2 [lu2 g]i/-[gu3-na]-mah

  3. 3 [… d]u3-a

  4. 4 [diĝir-ra]-ni

  5. 5 [dšu]l/-[MUŠxPA]

The fragment SG.17.B.185 (= b; H 13.6 cm; W 8.5 cm; THK 4.7 cm; Figs. 7–8) keeps part of the second column as well and it is parallel to the line 2-4 of SG.19.B.5 (a). Some signs are better preserved and help the reconstruction of the inscription. In l. 3, the broken sign may be the end of an AB shaped sign and could be possibly the sign for Nanše (ABxHA). The RA partially preserved in l. 4, followed by NI, is part of the expression «Šul-MUŠxPA is his god» (diĝir-ra-ni dšul-MUŠxPA),Footnote 29 common in the inscriptions of Enmetena, as well as in those of other rulers of Lagash I. The broken sign of SG.19.B.5 (a): ii 5, is a vertical wedge, which could be the end of the sign ŠUL.

Fig. 7:

Drawing of the brick SG.17.B.185 by Lorenzo Verderame.

Fig. 8:

Fragment of baked brick from Area B, SG.17.B.185 (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

i

(broken)

ii

  1. 1 […]

  2. 2 [lu2] gi/-[gu3-na]-mah

  3. 3 [dnan]še du3-a

  4. 4 [diĝir-r]a-ni

    (broken)

SG.19.B.185 (= c; H 12 cm, W 6.5 cm, THK 5.5 cm; Figs. 9–10) keeps two cases of the first column and one of the second. Thus, it is the piece that allows us to join, besides hypothetically, the four fragments together. The name and title of the dedicant, Enmetena ensi of Lagash, is preserved in the first column's cases. The signs LU2 and KA in the case of the second column complete the second line of the second column of SG.17.B.185 (b) and SG.19.B.5 (a).

Fig. 9:

Drawing of the brick SG.19.B.185 by Lorenzo Verderame.

Fig. 10:

Fragment of baked brick from Area B, SG.19.B.185 (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

i

  1. 1 [e]n-me:te-na

  2. 2’ ensi2([PA].˹TE.SI˺)-

  3. 3’ [lagaški]

    (broken)

ii

  1. 1 […]

  2. 2 lu2 [gi]/-gu3-[na-mah]

    (broken)

The lines of the fragment SG.19.B.110 (= d; H 9.2 cm; W 10.2 cm; THK 3.4 cm; Figs. 11–12) belong to the first column. The two preserved cases contain the name and part of the title of the fourth ruler of Lagash, Enannatum (I), father and predecessor of Enmetena. In the gap at the beginning of the first case there is enough space for a sign before the name of Enannatum. Being the title “son of Enannatum” (dumu en-an-na-tum2) common in the inscriptions of Enmetena, we can conclude that the fragment belongs to a commemorative inscription of this ruler. It has no parallel in the previous fragments, but it is plausible that it is part of the same inscription or even of the same brick.Footnote 30

Fig. 11:

Drawing of the brick SG.19.B.110 by Lorenzo Verderame.

Fig. 12:

Fragment of baked brick from Area B, SG.19.B.110 (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

i

  1. 1’ [en-me:te-na]

  2. 2’ [ensi2-]

  3. 3’ [lagaški]

  4. 4’ [dumu] ˹en˺-a[n]/-na-tu[m2]

  5. 5’ ensi2(PA.TE.[SI])-

    [(…)]

ii

  • (broken)

After ensi2 we expect a case containing the name of Lagash. The bottom line of the last case is broken. We cannot ascertain if the inscription continued with other cases in the first column or at the beginning of the second column. This latter option may solve the gap and the broken signs in the first case of the second column kept only in SG.19.B.5 (a), where the name of Lagash could be restored ([lagaš]˹ki˺/-[k]a).

The following reconstruction of the inscription from the four fragments is hypothetical (Table 1). Particularly dubious are the beginning and the gap between the first and second column. The upper border of the first case of SG.19.B.185 (c) is not preserved and we don't know if this was the first line of the inscription or it was preceded by two lines containing the name and epithet of the god/ddess to whom the inscription was dedicated. However, the available space and the parallel with another inscription of EnmetenaFootnote 31 with similar structure supports the former hypothesis.

Table 1:

Hypothetical reconstruction of the inscription of Enmetena

The inscription would commemorate the building of the giguna-mah of NansheFootnote 32 by Enmetena, which is recalled in other inscriptions of this ruler.Footnote 33 While other gigunas are known from the same period, i.e. that of Ningirsu and that of Ninhursaga/Ninmah in the “sacred grove” (tir-ku3-ga),Footnote 34 only the giguna of Nanshe is called mah “great, lofty.”

The “lofty” temple terrace (giguna) of Nanshe is first mentioned in an inscription of Eannatum, who provided for Nanshe the “lofty giguna” with regular offerings.Footnote 35 Thus, the construction of the “lofty giguna” of Nanshe is to be ascribed to Eannatum, or one of the previous rulers, and Enmetena would have only rebuilt the structure.

Where was the “lofty giguna” of Nanshe located? The goddess had four main sanctuaries: the Sirara in Nigin; the Engur(ra) in Sulum; the Shagepada in Lagash; the Sheshegara in Girsu.Footnote 36 None of the texts mentioning the “lofty giguna” refer to the place where it was or gives any clue to its location. All scholars who have expressed an opinion regarding the matter are agreed in locating the “lofty giguna” in Nigin,Footnote 37 besides the lack of arguments in favour, which is now provided by the inscribed bricks here published.

Conclusion

The fragmentary evidence of the Early Dynastic Period at Nigin, as far as it is possible to reconstruct from the analysis of the data presented here, confirms the information available from the inscriptions of the rulers of the First Dynasty of Lagash and, at the same time, it provides further evidence for the existence of buildings and artefacts of the Early Dynastic Period. However, due to the state of preservation of the documents (fragments of sculpture and broken inscribed bricks that originally had to belong to buildings that are, very likely, no longer existing or are badly preserved), it seems plausible to suggest that a part of the Early Dynastic city has been destroyed or at least severely damaged. In any case, only further archaeological investigations, for example in Area A where a phase of occupation dating from the Early Dynastic Period I has already been identified, can bring additional data and clarify the state of preservation and the extension of the city in Early Dynastic Period: for example, whether the giguna was somehow linked to the main temple of the goddess Nanshe, and then its location on or nearby the main mound A could be plausible. Finally, because the bricks can be attributed to the ruler Enmetena of Lagash, one can therefore suggest that this is the king to be recognised in the male character depicted on the relief plaque: as a matter of fact, the bricks and the plaque relief all come from the same, disturbed, stratum of Area B, but they probably originally belonged to the same context.

Footnotes

Davide Nadali is author of the introduction and the section on the visual evidence; Lorenzo Verderame is author of the section on the analysis of written documents; both jointly wrote the conclusion.

1 For the royal inscriptions of the First Dynasty of Lagash see Cooper Reference Cooper1986, Steible Reference Steible1982a, Frayne Reference Frayne2008; for the building activities in Nigin see Selz Reference Selz1995; Heimpel Reference Heimpel1998: 156; Edzard Reference Edzard2000; for the epigraphic evidence from Nigin see Verderame Reference Verderame, Nadali and Polcaro2020. On the Early Dynastic rulers of the ancient State of Lagash, see Sallaberger and Schrakamp Reference Sallaberger, Schrakamp, Sallaberger and Schrakamp2015: 67–84.

2 For a general overview of the recent results at Tell Zurghul, ancient Nigin, see Nadali and Polcaro (eds.) Reference Nadali, Polcaro and Otto2020.

3 On Area A, see Nadali and Polcaro Reference Nadali and Polcaro2020: 280–283 and Polcaro Reference Polcaro, Nadali and Polcaro2020.

4 Pizzimenti Reference Pizzimenti, Nadali and Polcaro2020.

5 The area of the small mound B (named Áble by locals) was already investigated by Robert Koldewey in 1887 during his expedition in the region of Lagash (Koldewey Reference Koldewey1887): Koldewey certainly operated a sounding on the south-eastern side on the mound that is still visible (Suchgraben E: on the reconstruction of Koldewey's exploration see Huh Reference Huh2008: 245–246, 752, Abb. 55). While the sounding on the side is clear and sure, the origin of the regular square sounding on the top of the mound is unclear: it is presumably also the result of Koldewey's exploration (Koldewey Reference Koldewey1887: 428), but the reason for the fill (made up, beyond the materials that are here presented, of yellowish baked bricks – some of them with stamped marks, and stones) is really enigmatic: the materials seem to have been accumulated from elsewhere to fill the sounding; therefore, the Early Dynastic materials, so far found therein, originally had another context. It is moreover unclear when this operation occurred.

6 The two strata are in fact characterised by the presence of very few Early Dynastic sherds, while the largest amount of pottery coherently belongs to the later phase (Late Akkadian/Post Akkadian). At the same time, the specimens of Early Dynastic pottery might also be explained as the continuation of shapes up to later periods. The pottery from Area E is currently under study by Davide Nadali and Luca Volpi.

7 Braun-Holzinger Reference Braun-Holzinger2007: 40; Marchesi and Marchetti Reference Marchesi and Marchetti2011: 201.

8 The fragment measures: 9 cm (height), 6.6 cm (width), 3.8 cm (thickness).

9 On the relief plaques of the Early Dynastic Period, see the study by Boese Reference Boese1971, although his chronological considerations are no longer reliable.

10 Usually referred as “votive plaques” in the literature, due to their presence in temple contexts (actually the finding of a “votive” plaque has been used to interpret a building as a temple, see Marchesi and Marchetti Reference Marchesi and Marchetti2011: 85), these objects are usually square shaped with a hole in the centre: the presence of the central hole suggested that the plaques were originally attached to the walls with a peg. Various different hypotheses about the function have been advanced so far, the most common is the use as a door plaque, as a part of the mechanism for the locking of doors (see, among others, Hansen Reference Hansen1963: 151–152; Fiandra et al. Reference Fiandra and Graziani2000; Iselin Reference Iselin2006), but there is not a general consensus (see Boese Reference Boese1971: 158, 161–162).

11 See the similar observation and comment by Hansen (Reference Hansen1963: 164) for the plaque 7N133–134 from Level VIIB of the Temple of Inanna at Nippur.

12 Hansen Reference Hansen and Orthmann1975: 188, Abb. 85; Marchesi and Marchetti Reference Marchesi and Marchetti2011: 201, pl. 50:3.

13 Braun-Holzinger Reference Braun-Holzinger2007: 40–41, 71.

14 Steible Reference Steible1982a; Frayne Reference Frayne2008.

15 Selz Reference Selz1995: 184–188, 209–210; Heimpel Reference Heimpel1998; Huber Vuillet Reference Huber Vuillet2009–11.

16 See fn. 12.

17 On the banquet scene in ancient Mesopotamian art of the third millennium BC, see the benchmark study by Selz Reference Selz1983; for more recent evaluations of the meaning of the banquet in Mesopotamian societies of the Early Dynastic Period, see Pollock Reference Pollock and Bray2003; Marchesi and Marchetti Reference Marchesi and Marchetti2011: 203–207; Romano Reference Romano, Dittmann and Selz2015, and Renette Reference Renette, Altmann and Fu2014.

18 The seal measures: 2.3 cm (height), 1.2 cm (width), 0.6 cm (thickness).

19 For a comparison of the general composition and shape of the seals with two registers in the Early Dynastic Period, with the scene of the banquet in the upper space, see Moortgat Reference Moortgat1940: 17, Taf. 21:142–143; Wiseman Reference Wiseman1962: pls. 24: a–c,e–f, 25:a–e, 26:a–d; Amiet Reference Amiet1980: 119–123, 123–130, cat. nos. 1153–1154, 1158, 1161, 1164, 1172–1179, 1181–1194, 1196–1197.

20 Usually, when the couple is represented in banquet on both cylinder seals and plaques (with some exceptions), the woman occupies the left side (Moortgat Reference Moortgat1940: Taf. 21:134–140; Boese Reference Boese1971: Tafn. I, III:3, IV:1, V:2, IX, XXXVIII). Indeed, it cannot be excluded that the seal originally represented a banquet in an exclusively female milieu, although this type of composition occurs less frequently (Asher-Greve Reference Asher-Greve and Schroer2006: 63, fig. 12; Suter Reference Suter2018: 148).

21 Asher-Greve Reference Asher-Greve and Schroer2006: 62–63. See also Suter Reference Suter2008.

22 Asher-Greve Reference Asher-Greve and Schroer2006: 62–63, figs. 9–11.

23 See fn. 17.

24 The fragment measures: 6.2 cm (height), 6.5 cm (width), 2.4 cm (thickness).

25 Evans Reference Evans2012: 137.

26 For an outline of the inscribed objects previously found in Tell Zurghul see Verderame Reference Verderame, Nadali and Polcaro2020.

27 Another previously unknown inscription of Enmetena has been recently published by Khwshnaw and Zólyomi Reference Khwshnaw and Zólyomi2020.

28 For the reading of this line see below.

29 The name of this god is traditionally read as Šul-utul12, see Selz Reference Selz1995: 279–282, Frayne Reference Frayne2008: 81–82; this reading has been contested by Lambert Reference Lambert1995: 135–136.

30 Due to the COVID pandemic restrictions on travel, we have not been able to check this hypothesis on the original pieces. However, we may argue hypothetically the join of SG.19.B.185+SG.19.B.110+SG.19.B.5.

31 Ent. 18 = RIME 1.09.05.10, «Enmetena, ensi of Lagash, who has built the reed shrine giguna of Ningirsu – his god is Shul-MUŠxPA» (1) en-me:te-na 2) ensi2- 3) lagaški 4) lu2 eš3-gi-gi-gu3-na 5) dnin-ĝir2-su2-ka du3-a 6) diĝir-ra-ni 7) dšul-MUŠxPA(-am6)).

32 For the giguna-mah of Nanshe see Selz Reference Selz1995: 186; Heimpel Reference Heimpel1998: 156. For the giguna see in general Szarzyńska Reference Szarzyńska1992: 278–280.

33 Ent. 8 = RIME 1.09.05.12, «For Nanshe, he built her lofty giguna» (vii 5) dnanše gi-gu3-na-mah-ni 6) mu-na-du3); Ent. 1 = RIME 1.09.05.17, «For Nanshe, he built her lofty giguna and restored her temple» (iii 1) dnanše 2) gi-gu3-na-mah-ni 3) mu-na-du3 3) e2-ni ki-be2 mu-na-gi4). It is possible that the passage of Ent. 23 = RIME 1.09.05.16 (17) ˹gi-gu3-na-ni˺ 18) mu-na-du3) refers as well to the giguna-mah.

34 Selz Reference Selz1995: 228, 252, 256; Frayne Reference Frayne2008: 209. See also the fragmentary passage of En. I 29 = RIME 1.09.04.02, «For the god/dess Nin-[… and for the god/dess …] he built their gigunas» (iv 9) dni[n-…] 10) d…] v 1) gi-gu3/-na-ne/-ne 2) mu-ne/-du3). The names of the gods for which the gigunas are built are lost. The restoration of the names Nin-MUŠ3-bar and Nin-MAR.KI proposed by Selz Reference Selz1995: 143 fn. 591 and followed by Frayne Reference Frayne2008: 170–171, remains highly hypothetical. Selz's arguments that «1. dnin-MÙŠ-bar-dnin-MAR.KI-bi in dieser Verbindung in den Opfertexten häufig belegt sind und 2. auch dort regelmässig nach dnin-dar genannt werden» (Selz Reference Selz1995: 143 fn. 591) are based on the association of the two god names and that of Nin-DAR (which is mentioned in the previous lines of the inscription) in the administrative texts. However, none of the administrative documents or royal inscriptions mention a giguna of Nin-MUŠ3-bar or Nin-MAR.KI; for the relationship of these two gods see Selz Reference Selz1995: 262–263. Previously, Biggs, who was the first to edit the text, advanced the hypothesis that the line could be read dn[in-ĝir2-su dba-U2-bi] (Biggs Reference Biggs, Eichler, Heimerdinger and Sjöberg1976: 37); see the commentary by Steible Reference Steible1982b: 95. Considering that in the royal inscriptions the gigunas mentioned, besides Nanshe's, are those of Ningirsu and Ninhursaga/Ninmah, we can advance the reading dn[in-ĝir2-su dnin-hur-saĝ (…)] as a mere hypothesis.

35 Ean. 62 = RIME 1.09.03.11, «For Nanshe, he provided the lofty giguna with regular offerings» (Side 1 v 2) dnanše 3) gi-gu3-na-˹mah˺ 4) sa2 še3-[na]-du11-[du11]). References to the “lofty giguna” of Nanshe are limited to these two rulers and none of the previous or successive rulers of the third millennium BC mention it. In literature, the “lofty giguna” may be referred to in the passage of the Hymn to Nanshe (Nanše A) «(Hendursaga,) the lord who has no rival in the giguna of the temple of Nanshe» (gi-gun4-na e2-dnanše-ka en gaba gi nu-tuku, l. 182).

36 Selz Reference Selz1995: 184–187; Heimpel Reference Heimpel1998: 156.

37 See, for instance, Falkenstein Reference Falkenstein1966: 135; Bauer Reference Bauer1972: 448; Heimpel Reference Heimpel1998: 156. In his work on the Lagash pantheon, Selz is cautious about the location of the “lofty giguna” (Selz Reference Selz1995: 186 fn. 855, «Der Lokalisierungsvorschlag von A. Falkenstein ist jedoch nicht über jeden Zweifel erhaben»; see also p. 296), while in another place he provides evidence to support its existence at Nigin (Selz Reference Selz1995: 194, fn. 896, «Der Name dieser Verehrungstätte des Enki ist wohl der Grund für die Annahme von A. Falkenstein … und J. Bauer … dass das in den Weihinschriften bezeugte gi-gù-na(-mah) der Nanše in NINA gelegen habe»). In both notes, the contradictory arguments are based on the same evidence, i.e. the reference to the den-ki-gi-gu3-na in administrative texts, for which see Selz Reference Selz1995: 194.

References

Amiet, P. 1980. La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Asher-Greve, J. 2006. “‘Golden of Age’ of Women? Status and Gender in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Art.” In Schroer, S., ed., Images and Gender. Contributions to the Hermeneutics of Reading Ancient Art. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 220. Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pp. 42–81.Google Scholar
Bauer, J. 1972. Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch. Studia Pohl 9. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.Google Scholar
Biggs, R. D. 1976. “Enannatum I of Lagash and Ur-Lumma of Umma – A New Text.” In Eichler, B. L., Heimerdinger, J. W. and Sjöberg, Å. W., eds., Kramer Anniversary Volume. Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 25. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag. Pp. 33–40.Google Scholar
Boese, J. 1971. Altmesopotamische Weihplatten. Eine sumerische Denkmalsgattung des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun-Holzinger, E. 2007. Das Herrscherbild in Mesopotamien und Elam. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 342. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. S. 1986. Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions, I: Pre-Sargonic Inscriptions. New Haven (CT): American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Edzard, D. O. 2000. “NINA.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9: 322–324.Google Scholar
Evans, J. M. 2012. The Lives of Sumerian Sculpture. An Archaeology of the Early Dynastic Temple. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenstein, A. 1966. Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagaš, I. Einleitung. Analecta Orientalia 30/I. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.Google Scholar
Fiandra, E. et al. 2000. “Elementi per la chiusura delle porte nel Vicino Oriente Antico e in Egitto.” In Graziani, S., ed., Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Pp. 283–307.Google Scholar
Frayne, D. R. 2008. Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC). Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Early Periods 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, D. P. 1963. “New Votive Plaques from Nippur.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 23/3: 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, D. P. 1975. “Frühsumerische und frühdynastische Flachbildkunst.” In Orthmann, W., ed., Der Alte Orient. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14. Berlin: Propyläen Verlag. Pp. 179–193.Google Scholar
Heimpel, R. 1998. “Nanše. A. Philologisch.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9: 152–160.Google Scholar
Huber Vuillet, F. 2009–11. “Sirara. II.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 12: 552–553.Google Scholar
Huh, S. K. 2008. Studien zur Region Lagaš. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 345. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.Google Scholar
Iselin, C. 2006. “Les plaques perforées au Proche-Orient: fonction et datation.” Orient-Express 2: 44–50.Google Scholar
Khwshnaw, A., and Zólyomi, G.. 2020. “An abbreviated version of En-metena 1 from the Sulaymaniyah Museum.” Hungarian Assyriological Review 1: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koldewey, R. 1887. “Die altbabylonischen Gräber in Surghul und El Hibba.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 2: 403–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, W. G. 1995. “Review of R. A. Di Vito, Robert A., Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names: The Designation and Conception of the Personal God.” Orientalia 64: 131–136.Google Scholar
Marchesi, G., and Marchetti, N.. 2011. Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian Civilizations 14. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Moortgat, A. 1940. Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst. Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann.Google Scholar
Nadali, D. and Polcaro, A. (eds.) 2020. The Italian Archaeological Excavations at Tell Zurghul, Ancient Nigin, Iraq. Final Report of the Seasons 2015–2017. Quaderni di Vicino Oriente XVI. Roma: Sapienza Università di Roma.Google Scholar
Nadali, D. and Polcaro, A. 2020. “Italian Archaeological Expedition to Nigin, Southern Iraq: New Results from Recent Excavations.” In Otto, A. et al. , eds., Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 03–07 April 2018, Munich. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pp. 277–292.Google Scholar
Pizzimenti, S. 2020. “From the 3rd to the 2nd Millennium BC: An Assessment on Area A Pottery Assemblage from Trench 1.” In Nadali, D. and Polcaro, A., eds., The Italian Archaeological Excavations at Tell Zurghul, Ancient Nigin, Iraq. Final Report of the Seasons 2015–2017. Quaderni di Vicino Oriente XVI. Roma: Sapienza Università di Roma. Pp. 89–106.Google Scholar
Polcaro, A. 2020. “The Excavations in Area A: The Discovery of a Multifunctional Building of the 4th-3rd Millennium BC.” In Nadali, D. and Polcaro, A., eds., The Italian Archaeological Excavations at Tell Zurghul, Ancient Nigin, Iraq. Final Report of the Seasons 2015–2017. Quaderni di Vicino Oriente XVI. Roma: Sapienza Università di Roma. Pp. 19–34.Google Scholar
Pollock, S. 2003. “Feasts, Funerals, and Fast Food in Early Mesopotamian States.” In Bray, T. L., ed., The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Pp. 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renette, S. 2014. “Feasts on Many Occasions: Diversity in Mesopotamian Banquet Scenes during the Early Dynastic Period.” In Altmann, P. and Fu, J., eds., Feasting in the Archaeology and Texts of the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Pp. 61–86.Google Scholar
Romano, L. 2015. “Holding the Cup: Evolution of Symposium and Banquet Scenes in the Early Dynastic Period.” In Dittmann, R. and Selz, G. J., eds., It's a Long Way to a Historiography of the Early Dynastic Period(s). Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 15. Münster” Ugarit-Verlag. Pp. 289–302.Google Scholar
Sallaberger, W. and Schrakamp, I. 2015. “The Presargonic Period.” In Sallaberger, W. and Schrakamp, I., eds., History & Philology. ARCANE III. Turnhout: Brepols. Pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Selz, G. 1983. Die Bankettszene. Entwicklung eines „überzeitlichen“ Bildmotivs in Mesopotamien von der frühdynastischen bis zur Akkad-Zeit. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 11. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Selz, G. 1995. Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadstaates von Lagaš. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund XV. Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund.Google Scholar
Steible, H. 1982a. Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, I. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 5/1. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Steible, H. 1982b. Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, II. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 5/2. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Suter, C. E. 2008. “Who are the Women in Mesopotamian Art from ca. 2334-1763 BCE?” Kaskal 5: 1–55.Google Scholar
Suter, C. E. 2018. “Feasting and Elite Women in Early Mesopotamia: A Contribution from the Visual Record.” Kaskal 15: 139–154.Google Scholar
Szarzyńska, K. 1992. “Names of Temples in the Archaic Texts from Uruk.” Acta Sumerologica 14: 269–285.Google Scholar
Verderame, L. 2020. “Inscribed objects from Zurghul, ancient Nina/Niĝin.” In Nadali, D. and Polcaro, A., eds., The Italian Archaeological Excavations at Tell Zurghul, Ancient Nigin, Iraq. Final Report of the Seasons 2015–2017. Quaderni di Vicino Oriente XVI. Roma: Sapienza Università di Roma. Pp. 219–236.Google Scholar
Wiseman, D. J. 1962. Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals I: Uruk – Early Dynastic Periods. London: The Trustees of the British Museum.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1: Fragment of plaque relief from Area B, SG.19.B.186 (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

Figure 1

Fig. 2: Fragment of cylinder seal from Area E, SG.19.E.125, with modern impression (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

Figure 2

Fig. 3: Fragment of sculpture from Area E, SG.19.E.71, side view (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

Figure 3

Fig. 4: Fragment of sculpture from Area E, SG.19.E.71, frontal view (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

Figure 4

Fig. 5: Drawing of the brick SG.19.B.5 by Lorenzo Verderame.

Figure 5

Fig. 6: Fragment of baked brick from Area B, SG.19.B.5 (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

Figure 6

Fig. 7: Drawing of the brick SG.17.B.185 by Lorenzo Verderame.

Figure 7

Fig. 8: Fragment of baked brick from Area B, SG.17.B.185 (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

Figure 8

Fig. 9: Drawing of the brick SG.19.B.185 by Lorenzo Verderame.

Figure 9

Fig. 10: Fragment of baked brick from Area B, SG.19.B.185 (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

Figure 10

Fig. 11: Drawing of the brick SG.19.B.110 by Lorenzo Verderame.

Figure 11

Fig. 12: Fragment of baked brick from Area B, SG.19.B.110 (photo of the Italian archaeological expedition to Nigin).

Figure 12

Table 1: Hypothetical reconstruction of the inscription of Enmetena