Akkadian period

Sargon of Akkad’s (reigned c. 2334–c. 2279 BCE) unification

of the Sumerian city-states and creation of a first
Mesopotamian empire profoundly affected the art of his
people, as well as their language and political thought. The
increasingly large proportion of Semitic elements in the
population were in the ascendancy, and their personal
loyalty to Sargon and his successors replaced the regional
patriotism of the old cities. The
new conception of kingship thus engendered is reflected in
artworks of secular grandeur, unprecedented in the god-
fearing world of the Sumerians.

Architecture
One would indeed expect a similar change to be apparent in
the character of contemporary architecture, and the fact
that this is not so may be due to the paucity of excavated
examples. It is known that the Sargonid dynasty had a hand
in the reconstruction and extension of many Sumerian
temples (for example, at Nippur) and that they built palaces
with practical amenities (Tall al-Asmar) and powerful
fortresses on their lines of imperial communication (Tell
Brak, or Tall Birāk al-Taḥtānī, Syria). The ruins of their
buildings, however, are insufficient to suggest either
changes in architectural style or structural innovations.

Sculpture
Two notable heads of Akkadian statues have survived: one in
bronze and the other of stone. The bronze head of a king,
wearing the wig-helmet of the old Sumerian rulers, is
probably Sargon himself. Though lacking its inlaid eyes and
slightly damaged elsewhere, this head is rightly considered
one of the great masterpieces of ancient art. The Akkadian
head in stone, from Bismāyah, Iraq (ancient Adab), suggests
that portraiture in materials other than bronze had also
progressed.

bronze head of a king

Bronze head of a king, perhaps Sargon of Akkad, from Nineveh (now in Iraq), Akkadian
period, c. 2300 BCE; in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad.
Interfoto Scans/age fotostock
Where relief sculpture is concerned, an even greater
accomplishment is evident in the famous Naram-
Sin (Sargon’s grandson) stela, on which a pattern of figures
is ingeniously designed to express the abstract idea of
conquest. Other stelae and the rock reliefs (which by their
geographic situation bear witness to the extent of Akkadian
conquest) show the carving of the period to be in the hands
of less competent artists. Yet two striking fragments in the
Iraqi Museum, which were found in the region of Al-
Nāṣiriyyah, Iraq, once more provide evidence of the
improvement in design and craftsmanship that had taken
place since the days of the Sumerian dynasties. One of the
fragments shows a procession of naked war prisoners, in
which the anatomic details are well observed but skillfully
subordinated to the rhythmical pattern required by the
subject.

Some compensation for the paucity of surviving Akkadian

sculptures is to be found in the varied and
plentiful repertoire of contemporary cylinder seals. The
Akkadian seal cutter’s craft reached a standard of perfection
virtually unrivaled in later times. Where the aim of his
Sumerian predecessor had been to produce an
uninterrupted, closely woven design, the Akkadian seal
cutter’s own preference was for clarity in the arrangement
of a number of carefully spaced figures.

cylinder seal
Cylinder seal impression from the Akkadian period with a combat scene between a
bearded hero and a bull-man and various beasts; in the Oriental Institute, University of
Chicago.
Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago
The Akkadian dynasty ended in disaster when the river
valley was overrun by the mountain tribes of northern Iran.
Of all the Mesopotamian cities, only Lagash appears
somehow to have remained aloof from the conflict and,
under its famous governor Gudea, to have successfully
maintained the continuity of the Mesopotamian cultural
tradition. In particular, the sculpture dating from this short
interregnum (c. 2100 BCE) seems to represent some sort of
posthumous flowering of Sumerian genius. The well-known
group of statues of the governor and other notables,
discovered at the end of the 19th century, long remained the
only criterion by which Sumerian art could be judged, and
examples in the Louvre and British Museum are still greatly
admired. The hard stone, usually diorite, is carved with
obvious mastery and brought to a fine finish. Details are
cleverly stylized, but the musculature is carefully studied,
and the high quality of the carving makes the use of inlay
unnecessary. The powerful impression of serene authority
that these statues convey justifies their inclusion among the
finest products of ancient Middle Eastern art.

Sumerian revival
The short historical interlude represented by the Gudea
sculptures was followed by a full-scale Sumerian revival, one
that lasted for four centuries and culminated in the
unification of the whole country under the rule of
Hammurabi in the early 18th century BCE. Dominated first by
the powerful 3rd dynasty of Ur and later by the rival states
of Isin and Larsa, the peoples of ancient Sumer reverted to
their pre-Akkadian cultural traditions. On their northern
frontiers the Sumerian culture was extended to increasingly
prosperous younger city-states, such as Mari, Ashur, and
Eshnunna, located on the middle courses of the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers.
 In the 11th century the Seljuq Turks overran Persia and Mesopotamia, and their

ascendancy lasted until the advent of the Mongols during...

In all these cities, both old and new, the period is notable for
the advances made in architectural planning and the large-
scale reconstruction of ancient buildings. In the south the
early promise of Sumerian architecture had reached
fulfillment, first in the great ziggurats, or stepped towers,
rising above their walled temple enclosures at such cities
as Ur, Eridu, Kish, Uruk, and Nippur. These huge structures,
with their summit sanctuaries, the appearance of which can
only be guessed at, were faced with kiln-baked brick,
paneled and recessed to break the monotony of their
colossal facades, and were strengthened with bitumen and
reinforced with twisted reeds. Tradition associates the
ziggurat at Borsippa (modern Birs Nimrūd, Iraq), near
Babylon, with the biblical Tower of Babel. Surrounding
temples at ground level were also much elaborated. The
basic plan consisted of a tower-flanked entry, central court,
antecella (or inner vestibule), and sanctuary, all arranged on
a single axis; however, in the larger examples this plan could
be expanded by means of communicating courtyards.
Facades were often elaborately decorated with panels of
pilasters (recessed columns) or engaged half columns,
skillfully modeled in mud-brick. At Ur, kiln-baked brick was
again used to construct corbeled vaulting over huge
subterranean tomb chambers, entered through funerary
chapels at ground level. Here, too, there are temple-palaces,
the complicated planning of which is seldom self-
explanatory.

Better examples of residential palaces are found in the

newer cities of the north, especially Mari, where a vast
building with more than 200 rooms was constructed by a
ruler named Zimrilim (c. 1779–c. 1761). In this palace is
found the standard reception unit common to all Babylonian
palaces: a rectangular throne room that is entered by a
central doorway from a square court of honour; and behind
it a great hall, in this case apparently serving some religious
purpose. There also is an immense outer courtyard,
overlooked by a raised audience chamber, and, in the
remotest corner of the building, a heavily protected
residential suite. In some of the main chambers, mural
paintings depicting ritual scenes and processions have been
preserved.

The sculpture of this period is perhaps best represented by

some well-preserved statues, also from the Mari palace.
Their style owes much to the preceding Gudea period in the
south, but they lack the authentic stamp of Sumerian design
and workmanship. The same may be said of the few
surviving pieces from the reign of Hammurabi (c. 1792–
c. 1750), whose conquests ended the epoch—for example,
the relief at the head of the stela in the Louvre on which
his law code is inscribed.
Code of Hammurabi
Diorite stela inscribed with the Code of Hammurabi, 18th century BCE.
Art Media/Heritage-Images/age fotostock
Assyrian period

Architecture
Ashur, a small Sumerian city-state on the middle Euphrates,
began to gain political prominence during the pre-
Hammurabi period discussed above. During the latter half of
the 2nd millennium BCE, the frontiers of Assyria were
extended to include the greater part of northern
Mesopotamia, and, in the city of Ashur itself, excavations
have revealed the fortifications and public buildings
constructed or rebuilt by a long line of Assyrian kings. The
character of these buildings suggests a logical development
of Old Babylonian architecture. There are
certain innovations, such as the incorporation of small twin
ziggurats in the design of a single temple, while in the
temples themselves the sanctuary was lengthened on its
main axis, and the altar itself was withdrawn into a deep
recess. For the rest, the absence of ornament and the
multiplication of buttressed facades with crenellated
battlements tend to monotony.

Other forms of art are inconspicuous, except perhaps the

contemporary cylinder seals, which show an interest in
animal forms that anticipates the relief carving of a later
phase of Mesopotamian civilization. Sometimes known
as Middle Assyrian, this later period corresponds to the
occupation of southern Mesopotamia by the Kassites and to
the Mitanni kingdom on the north Syrian frontier, neither of
which contributed greatly to the total development of
ancient Middle Eastern art.

The fuller manifestation of Assyrian art and architecture is

not seen until the 9th century BCE, when Ashurnasirpal
II transferred his capital from Ashur to Nimrūd (ancient
Kalakh; biblical Calah). The rise of Assyria to imperial power
during this century and those that followed gave increased
vitality to Mesopotamian architecture. The
vast palaces brought to light in the 19th century emphasize
the new interest in secular building and reflect
the ostentatious grandeur of the Assyrian kings. Like the
temples of earlier days, they are usually artificially raised up
on a platform level with the tops of the city walls, astride
which they often stand. Their gates are flanked by colossal
portal sculptures in stone, and their internal chambers are
decorated with pictorial reliefs carved on upright stone
slabs, or orthostats. In addition to the 9th-century structure
at Nimrūd, palace platforms have been exposed at
Khorsabad (ancient Dur Sharrukin), where Sargon
II established a short-lived capital of his own in the late 8th
century BCE, and at Nineveh, which was rebuilt in the 7th
century, first by Sargon’s son Sennacherib and then by his
grandson Esarhaddon. On the platforms at both Nineveh and
Nimrūd, palaces and temples were multiplied by successive
kings.
The platform at Khorsabad is occupied by a single royal
residence, associated with a group of three modest temples
and a small ziggurat. Similar buildings occupy a walled
citadel at the foot of the platform, thus completing a complex
that has been thoroughly excavated and provides the most
informative example of typical contemporary architecture.
Sargon’s palace itself, like that of Zimrilim 1,000 years
earlier (see above Sumerian revival), is planned, first,
around a gigantic open courtyard accessible to the public
and, second, around an inner court of honour. From the
latter the great throne room is entered through triple
doorways, around which, in common with the main outer
entrance to the palace, are concentrated a fine array of
portal sculptures. The throne room has an adjoining stairway
leading to a flat roof and a suite of living apartments behind.
Other state rooms, conventionally planned, open onto an
open terrace facing the mountains beyond. All the principal
internal chambers are decorated with reliefs, except for the
throne room itself, where mural painting seems to have been
preferred. The individual purpose and function of the
innumerable administrative and domestic offices must
remain largely conjectural.

Sculpture
Any history of late Assyrian art must be concerned primarily
with relief carving. Some statues in the round have been
found, but the comparative ineptitude of the majority of
them suggests that this form of expression did not come
naturally to Assyrian sculptors. Portal sculptures, which
many would consider the most characteristic Assyrian art
form, are not statues in the round but “double-aspect” reliefs
(that is, they are meant to be seen from either the front or
the side), apparently derived from a Hittite invention of the
14th century BCE. These impressive guardian figures—
usually human-headed bulls or lions—decorate the arched
gateways and are sometimes supplemented by others set at
right angles on the adjoining facades, their heads facing
sideways. Each is composed from a single block
of stone weighing up to 30 tons, roughly shaped in the
quarry and then carved in situ.

winged bull with a human head

Winged bull with a human head, guardian figure from the gate of the palace at Dur
Sharrukin, near Nineveh; in the Louvre.
Rama, CC-BY-SA-2.0-FR
Less spectacular orthostat reliefs form a continuous frieze of
ornament around the bases of interior wall faces. There is
evidence that they were placed in position before the walls
that they decorate had been completed. Their carving in situ
could thus be executed in full daylight. This form of
architectural ornament dates from the first quarter of the
9th century BCE and seems to have been a genuine
Assyrian innovation. The earliest slabs, from the 9th-century
palaces of Ashurnasirpal II and his son Shalmaneser III at
Nimrūd, are about seven feet (two metres) high, with the
design arranged in two superimposed registers separated by
a band of cuneiform inscription. In those from later
buildings, such as Sargon II’s palace at Khorsabad, the
individual sculptured figures reach a height of nine feet.

The subjects of the designs on these reliefs are rarely

related in any way to religion. Superstitious symbols do
occasionally appear in the form of benevolent winged
beings, or genies, but the primary purpose of the picture is
the glorification of the king himself, either by scenes of
ceremonial homage or by extended pictorial narratives of his
achievements. The most popular theme, giving rise to
numerous variations, involves detailed scenes of military
conquest and the ruthless suppression of revolt. These are
often arranged episodically to represent successive events in
the progress of a single campaign: the Assyrian army
prepares for war; led by the king, it crosses difficult country
on the way to attack a walled city; the city is taken, burnt,
and demolished; the enemy leaders are punished
with conspicuous brutality; and, finally, the victory is
celebrated. Scenes such as these are distinguished above all
by their stylistic vitality and fanciful detail. Animals as well
as men are carefully observed and beautifully drawn. The
principles of perspective as later defined by the Greeks are
unknown, but attention is given to the relationship of figures
in space and to devices for suggesting comparative distance.

At Khorsabad, late in the 8th century BCE, some notable

stylistic changes are perceptible. The lively carving of
narrative and historical subjects has been replaced by more
tedious symbols of pomp and ceremony. In keeping with the
winged bulls and genies of the portal sculptures, stiffly
arranged files of courtiers, officials, and servants stand
immobilized in the routine of ceremonial homage. The
monotony of the figures is occasionally relieved by the
sparing use of coloured pigment on the stone.

In the 7th-century palaces of Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal

at Nineveh, the reliefs suggest a reaction in favour of
narrative and violent activity. The slabs are covered to their
full height by complicated battle scenes in which the
progress of the fighting is suggested by episodic repetition.
Types of landscape are depicted schematically, and
significant episodes or individuals are identified by a short
inscription, without impairing the overall rhythm of the
design.

In the intervals between their military campaigns, Assyrian

kings appear to have been much preoccupied with hunting,
and scenes from the chase provided an alternative subject
for the reliefs. Lions hunted with spears from a light chariot
and herds of wild asses (onagers) or gazelles are subjects
that stimulated the imagination and sensibility of the
Assyrian artist.
“Dying Lioness,” detail of an alabaster mural relief from the North Palace of
Ashurbanipal, Nineveh, Assyrian period, c. 650 BC. In the British Museum.
© Irstone/Dreamstime.com
A contrast to these descriptive carvings is provided by the
formal monumentality of the Assyrian rock reliefs, secular or
religious devices carved on vertical rock faces in localities
such as Bavian and Maltai to commemorate historical events
that took place there.

The Assyrian talent for relief ornament was not confined to

sculpture in stone. First seen during the reign of
Shalmaneser III (858–824 BCE) are striking examples of
relief modeling in bronze. The huge wooden gates of a minor
palace at Imgur-Enlil (Balawat), near Nimrūd, were
decorated with horizontal bands of metal, 11 inches (28
centimetres) high, each modeled by a repoussé process
(relief hammered out from behind), with a double register of
narrative scenes. Their subjects are much the same as the
stone reliefs, but even greater ingenuity has been used in
adapting the designs to so confined a space.

Painting and decorative arts

When greater economy of labour and material was
necessary, mural paintings were substituted for slab reliefs.
At the time of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BCE), a country
palace at Til Barsip (modern Tall al-Ahmar) was decorated in
this way, with the conventional motifs of relief designs
rather clumsily adapted to this very different medium. A few
years later, such paintings were extensively used to decorate
both wall faces and ceilings in Sargon II’s palace buildings at
Khorsabad. One magnificent panel of formalized ornament
has been reconstructed. It is painted in primary colours on a
white ground.

There is evidence that the Assyrian palaces were well

equipped with furniture. The wooden components have
perished, but the ivory ornaments with which the furniture
was enriched have survived in great quantities. Of these
“Assyrian ivories”—relief panels, inlays, and other forms of
ornament—only a small proportion can be attributed
to indigenous workmanship. The remainder represent either
loot from the cities of Syria and Phoenicia or the work of
craftsmen imported from those regions. The carving is often
technically superb, and the enrichment of the ivory with
gold, semiprecious stones, or coloured paste by cloisonné or
champlevé processes (whereby the applied decoration is
outlined by raised metal strips or fills depressed areas of the
surface that have been cut out to receive it) gives increased
elegance. The designs, however, are for the most part a
pastiche of misunderstood Egyptian symbolism and are often
less attractive than the purely Assyrian devices.

Neo-Babylonian period
During the half century following the fall of Nineveh, in
612 BCE, there was a final flowering of
Mesopotamian culture in southern Iraq under the
last dynasty of Babylonian kings. During the reigns
of Nabopolassar (625–605 BCE) and his
son Nebuchadrezzar II (604–562 BCE), there was widespread
building activity. Temples and ziggurats were repaired or
rebuilt in almost all the old dynastic cities,
while Babylon itself was enormously enlarged and
surrounded by a double enceinte, or line of fortification,
consisting of towered and moated fortress walls. Inside the
city the most grandiose effect was obtained by the disposal
of public buildings along a wide processional way, leading
through the centre of the town to the temple and ziggurat of
its patron god, Marduk. Where the street passed through the
inner-city wall, the facades of the famous Ishtar Gate and
those facing the adjoining street were ornamented in
brightly glazed brickwork, with huge figures of bulls, lions,
and dragons modeled in relief. This form of decoration—a
costly process, since each of the bricks composing the
figures had to be separately cast—provided a solution for the
problem of embellishing mud-brick facades. It appears again
in the court of honour of Nebuchadrezzar’s palace, using a
more sophisticated design that suggests familiarity with
Greek ornament. For the rest, there are few innovations in
the planning of either palaces or temples during the Neo-
Babylonian period. Also (strangely enough, in view of the
prolonged excavations that took place at this site), examples
of contemporary art are limited almost exclusively to
cylinder seals and terra-cotta figurines of unpretentious
design.