Key Pages:

Home

Discussion/reading questions on Winter/Bahrani article (Early Mesopotamian historical narratives)

• Irene Winter in her discussion of the Stele of Eannatum (a.k.a. "Stele of Vultures"), interprets one side of the monument as a pictorial narrative and the other as "iconic". Why and how so? What are your thoughts on this interpretation? I would be interested to discuss this issue in detail.

• How does Zainab Bahrani answer her own question: "How does the stele of Eannatum function as a monument?" (page 151) - especially from the point of view of the display of bodily violence as a political strategy of the king or the state?

What stands out to me the most from the two readings is the significance of war, conquest, and power to the construction of some monuments. By telling stories and representing certain ideologies, these monuments gain clout in their use as historical documentation. The very process of creating a monument displays the power and ability of its maker; what that creation then goes on to display also serves as a testament to this capability. Those in power are able to dictate how a story ought to be told by exerting control over the pictures and text displayed, even when discrepancies between the text and images occur. If these images utilize violence, it's generally to further impose a sort of authority over people to (perhaps ironically) ensure tranquility and prevent more violence. This goal can be accomplished via both narrative and iconic representations, as they are generally interdependent on one another; the iconic statement needs the pictorial narrative to set up the story, and the narrative must rely on the symbolic images to indicate why the tale is so important as to be commemorated in the form of a monument.

Caitlin Trujillo

Posted at Sep 19/2008 12:05PM:
gianna: After yesterday's discussion I detected a similarity between our present culture and the ancient Mesopotamian culture. Violence back then was used as a method to attain power by instilling fear in neighboring city-states. They had many wars between one another and many of them underwent harsh deaths. Steles created depicted victories of certain city-states as well as images of their defeated enemies. These honored steles helped city-states flaunt their power because of apparent violence and defeat of other cities. Today in society violence is used as well in similar ways. We start wars and infiltrate other countries to show our own power within them. Acts of violence in certain countries evoke fear in others. The more powerful country is the one that wins the wars. It is very interesting how violence resulting in control has been prevalent for thousands of years all over the world.

During the discussion, we focused on the functions of the Stele of the Vultures. The ekphrasis found on the Stele, besides being poetic, helps the king to impose his power by allowing him to brag about the quality of the stele, which shows his power economically. For us, it is an insight into their world since it gives us a first degree perspective of how the stele was constructed, which subsequently introduces us to the writer of the ekphrasis and the creator of the stele, because anyone’s description depends on his personal experiences, which are evident while relating to the described thing. I believe that we cannot think the obverse lacks narrative because the stele was adhering to that time period’s and that place’s audience, who knew about the myth. Their ignorance of it is improbable because then (a) the depiction of the God, when no one recognized him, (b) the power brought to the stele by the referring to the God, to impress those who see it, (c) the goal to prove the case as a “just war”, would be meaningless. In other words, the audience actually could “read” it. Even if people weren’t informed of the iconographies used in the stele, they knew what it was about because they had connections to the story told in it, (they probably had some relative, who had taken part in the war) and were able to connect their knowledge of the myth and the story with the iconographies. Indeed, it makes sense if the story starts with the obverse side, as the depiction of the dream, and continues on to the reverse. It praises the Gods, displays the power of the king and his increase of strength, records the history from the point of view of the winning side and more specifically of the king himself, acts as a social and legal contract and probably also as a decoration as it is displayed publicly.

At the end of the class, I learned that the architects were not allowed to reveal their plan of a building, which is said to appear to them in a dream, to anyone except for the king. And thus they had to build the base of the building by themselves before employing any other person. This reminded me of the earlier articles we have read for the cave art, in which were the shamans who received visions while mediating, similar to sleeping in the sense that there is again no consciousness. Moreover, I used to wonder how the secret rooms in the Egyptian pyramids were kept secret though they employed so many people. Now I know how.

Can

What interests me most about the readings and our discussion is the place that steles had in the ancient societies such as Mesopotamia. The idea that such works of art held so many purposes amazes me. Though the readings mentioned that only fragments of a few steles survived from Mesopotamia, it is believed that many more exisited which means that the early civilization truly relied on works of art for different communications. The public nature of the stele was crucial to its many purposes. The pictorial narration was not only meant to tell a story and record history but had deeper meanings such as to proclaim power and to deter war. While the fragments of steles are limited, the ideas they displayed and the purposes are still known today. To me, the fact that people years later can still understand the stele is one of the creator's greatest accomplishments and truly proves that the stele completed its purpose.

Julia

Posted at Sep 22/2008 05:59PM:
ogencler: do we have 4th week questions?

Posted at Sep 22/2008 11:00PM:
jed: The stele discussed last thursday had some very interesting points to it. It is in this strange "in-between" phase of narrative in the native world. It uses both text and pictorial narrative to convey a story and message. The most pivotal aspects of this piece, lie in the many dualities it presents. In addition to having both text and visuals as a means of conveying information and propelling the narrative, it combines myth and history, the concept of the real world with the imaginative one. It is in very many ways Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde. In Moortgat's interpretation, we discussed in class, he notes not only the interplay of the real world with the mythological one, but the solemn belief in a bridge between them. The King is deified by means of the relation between the two sides of the artifact. The King is depicted with god-like qualities, which is fascinating piece of politics that has still yet failed to fully dissolve. This brings up my final point. By pronouncing his deific qualities, and fully displaying the awesome god-like powers that he possesses; in addition to the fact that this stone was arranged in a fully public arena, the king and his kingdom are making a statement of not only their fortitude and strength, but rather a plea for pacifism by nature of their incredible powers. He is using this token as a deterrent for potential rebels, enemies, or foe.

Posted at Sep 24/2008 10:42PM:
kbarcay: What I found most interesting about last week’s discussion of the Stele of Vultures was its multi-functionality. The stele was an important architectural structure, not only as a commemorative monument, but also as a political statement. Bahrani expains that this type of narû, or victory, monument allows us insight into the culture of the time that reaches beyond the pictorial narrative itself. I had not given much thought to the idea of an ancient monument being used as a political tool, or a symbol for something more than the narration it depicted. I think the obverse side of the stele demonstrates this use of the monument well. It focuses on the deity Ningirsu, who takes up the majority of the two registers. Ningirsu’s appearance is iconic, rather than narrative, as he does not assume an active role in the chain of events associated with the battle. Rather, he is a symbol of the power of the deity in society. He is in control of the battle and its outcome instead of the king. The stele connected the state’s ideology the ultimate judgement of the god in the creation of the official history of the state. Thus, the dedication of a whole side of the stele to this symbolic representation of Ningirsu was a political device, an indication to the public that the battle and its outcome were justified in both society and the realm of the gods. This part of the discussion made me wonder about which of our own memorials and commemorative statues can also be seen as victory monuments and political statements.

Posted at Nov 10/2008 02:05PM:
Nolan: Since we discussed the Stele of Vultures, we have discussed the duality and relationship of the divine and the “human” and its impact on Greek monumental art. The parallels between this facet of Greek art and the Stele of Vultures are profound. The idea of a humanized deity and a divinized human are just as present in Mesopotamian art as in Greek. The two sides of the stele reflect this idea. On one side, the king is shown leading his army to victory. He leads the charge and is the central figure. He is given almost supernatural powers. One the other side, a god is shown physically acting against the king’s enemies. The god is brought down to an almost human level while the king is brought up to an almost god-like level.