IRAQ (2016) 78 215–239 Doi:10.1017/irq.2016.

4 215

THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES:

A RESTORED STATUETTE FROM TELLO AND THE DEPICTION
OF COURT WOMEN IN THE NEO-SUMERIAN KINGDOM OF
LAGASH
By ARIANE THOMAS

A statuette of a woman dating from the Second Dynasty of Lagash features exceptional gold, silver and copper
bracelets that have been recently restored and analysed. The statue is remarkable for its refined dress, to date
known only from a small number of female figures, almost all linked to the court of Lagash’s Second
Dynasty. Examination of the statuette and comparable pieces has revealed possible traces of polychromy,
although these vestiges are particularly difficult to identify with any certainty. This paper presents these
results within the larger corpus of female depictions from the Second Dynasty of Lagash, together with other
very similar examples, to better understand the meaning of the specific costume they wear and the possible
identity of the women wearing it.

Introduction1
This article offers an in-depth study of a Neo-Sumerian statuette (c. 2150–2004 B.C.) that has received
little scholarly attention since its discovery in the late nineteenth century, with the notable exception of
publications on the Tello excavations2 and Agnès Spycket’s survey of ancient Near Eastern statuary.3
It was found “in the excavations of the Tello edifice”4 in August 1881, as recorded in the archives of
the Louvre Museum,5 and was included in a second shipment of objects sent to Paris.
The statuette is carved in a soft gypsum alabaster and has survived in a very partial state.6 All that
remains is the upper body; the neck and head are missing, as is the body below the waist (Fig. 1; TABLE
1, 4).7 It depicts a female with her hands clasped at the front. Remarkably, each wrist is adorned with a
bracelet formed from smooth, undecorated copper bands covered in gold leaf. Her garment criss-
crosses at the back and falls in two parallel sections in front, revealing an undergarment—or a fold
of the same draped material—with a horizontal neckline. All the edges of the garment are
trimmed with a braid in an interlocking “S” pattern, except at the elbows, which are fringed.
Recent restoration work and analysis have revealed technical aspects relating to the methods of
manufacture of the statuette as well as its original appearance. This has also provided an
opportunity to comment on the statue’s dress, which appears to be specific to a set of female
figurines probably depicting royal princesses of Lagash.

A composite statue with lavish finery

The statuette wears a bracelet on each wrist. These two pieces of jewellery were noted when the item
was discovered, earning it publication by Léon Heuzey at the start of a separate section of the

1
The author is very grateful to Christine Pariselle, who 1948: 19). It is therefore possible that the official dates of
restored the statuette, Noëlle Timbart, Dominique Robcis, discovery are not always entirely accurate.
6
Sandrine Pagès-Camagna and Marc Aucouturier from the Louvre Museum AO 297. Maximum height of fragment:
C2RMF laboratory, Caroline Florimont for her very fine 5.95 cm; maximum width: 8.7 cm (base); maximum depth: 5
drawings, and Deke Dusinberre, who translated this paper cm (level of hands). Dimensions of the base of the neck: c. 3.6
into English. x 2.1 cm. Weight: 235.93 grams.
2 7
Heuzey 1902: 252, no. 108; Parrot 1948: 191. Ernest It is not known whether the statuette was broken
Chocquin de Sarzec, appointed as French vice-consul in accidentally or deliberately mutilated. The stone being soft
Basrah in 1877, was responsible for the first official and fragile, damage is probably the result of the effect of
excavations at the site of Tello in the south of Iraq. time and burial, although this cannot be confirmed by the
3
Spycket 1981: 200, pl. 135. appearance of the break lines (diagonal at the base of the
4
Acquisition register, Louvre Museum. neck, horizontal at the base of the arms and hands). It is
5
As André Parrot has pointed out, however, in March 1881 also known that similar works were sometimes made by
de Sarzec wrote to Léon Heuzey, then a curator at the Louvre, assembling separate elements; see Cros et al. 1910: 243,
that “most of the pieces or fragments I’m bringing back were regarding a limestone head that must have been attached to
stolen from me, and I had to buy them back again” (Parrot a body.

Iraq LXXVIII (2016) © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 2016
216 ARIANE THOMAS

Fig. 1 The statuette in its current condition. Photograph © A. Thomas

Louvre’s catalogue of Chaldean antiquities that was devoted to such rare works “with inlay”.8
Initially put on display in the Louvre, it was later transferred to storage at an unknown date.
Subsequently, an accident or inopportune restoration resulted in the loss of part of the bracelet on
the left wrist; it appears complete in a photograph published in 1981, although this may have been
taken a few years earlier (Fig. 2).9 The late nineteenth-century descriptions referred to above state
that the bracelets were gilded. However, they subsequently suffered from an actively corrosive
process that covered them entirely so that the original surface became hidden.10 Nothing remained
of the gilded appearance noted by the excavators until recent restoration work revealed it once
again (Fig. 1).11
Each copper bangle—3 centimetres in length for the right bracelet, 2.5 centimetres for the left—is
covered in leaf composed of gold that is alloyed with silver and copper.12 This leaf is eight to fifteen
microns thick (Fig. 3),13 and was probably applied by lamination rather than hammering, which
would have yielded a much thinner foil. The leaf—or perhaps, given its thickness, better described
as a sheet—is visible right to the edge of the bangles, suggesting that it was applied to the bracelets
before they were attached to the statuette.14
The bangles were set in symmetrical grooves cut into each wrist. The grooves are all the more
apparent in that the statuette’s left bracelet is displaced diagonally toward the elbow (Figs. 4 and 5).
This change in angle might have occurred at the outset, if the bangle proved to be longer than
expected, or might have resulted from later slippage, perhaps when the statuette was buried.
Whatever the cause, the displacement occurred sufficiently early on to prevent any trace of corrosion
in the groove in which the bracelet was originally intended to sit. The ends of the two bangles were

8
Heuzey 1902: 252 and 275–88. The section lists five of the underlying support. Marc Aucouturier (chemist,
works, including this statuette. C2RMF lab) nevertheless states that the copper may well
9
Spycket 1981: pl. 135. be part of the alloy.
10 13
In 1948 André Parrot used the present tense when Examination via X-ray fluorescence and the AGLAE
writing that the figure “still wears on each wrist a thin particle accelerator (Accélerateur Grand Louvre d’Analyse
bracelet of gold-plated bronze” (Parrot 1948: 191), whereas Élementaire), conducted by Dominique Robcis (research
in 1981 Agnès Spycket used the past tense: “the two wrists director, C2RMF) and Marc Aucouturier, to whom this
were decorated with a gold-plated band of bronze” (Spycket author is very grateful.
14
1981: 200). The corrosion thus may have occurred between Since gold is soft, it might have stuck to the bracelet
1948 and 1981, covering the bracelets by the latter date. without a binder; or perhaps it was applied with organic
11
The restoration was undertaken by Christine Pariselle, binders that have now vanished and are undetectable. In
who deserves special thanks for her meticulous work. this respect it is worth noting that the upper end of the right
12
The metal contains approximately 23% silver and 3% bracelet bears black traces of what might be bitumen.
copper, although the copper content may not have been Finally, scratches visible on the gold leaf of the right
part of the original alloy but rather the result of corrosion bracelet might be related to application of the leaf.
 TABLE 1: Statuettes wearing a garment that crosses at the back together with a chignon in a coif held by a headband

No. Museum Museum/archive Object description Materials Dimensions Site Bibliography* - comments Fig.
or field number in cm.
Depictions of garment that crosses in back and falls halfway down the front in two parallel sections, with chignon in coif held by a headband
1 Louvre Museum AO 43 Acephalous statue Limestone H. 24.5; Tello, palace Sarzec 1884: pl. 22, 3a–b; Heuzey 10a
W. 26; 1902: no. 106; Parrot 1948: fig.
D. 13.5 39a; Spycket 1981: 200, n. 82;
Braun-Holzinger, 1991: 300; Suter
2008: St 11

THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES

2 AO 226 Acephalous seated statuette Alabaster H. 12.6; Tello Sarzec 1884: 343, pl. 22 bis 3; 11c
dedicated to Ninegal for W. 9.8; Heuzey 1902: no. 107; Thureau-
Gudea’s life, perhaps by D. 12.8 Dangin 1905: 206 k’); Parrot 1948:
Ninalla or Geme-Shulpae fig. 39b; Spycket 1981: pl. 134;
(name broken) Caubet 1991: no. 3; Braun-
Holzinger 1991: 268, St 132,
Steible 1991: vol. 1, 293–94, St132;
Edzard 1997: 176, E3/1.1.7.94;
Suter 2008: St 7
3 AO 295 Statuette “woman with a Black stone H. 17; W. 11; Tello Sarzec 1884: 158, .344, pl. 24 bis, 2; 10b
scarf” (diorite?) D. 6.7 Heuzey 1902: no. 105; Parrot 1948:
fig. 41a; Spycket 1981: pl. 136;
Caubet 1991: no. 5; Braun-
Holzinger 1991: 300; Suter 2008:
St 10
4 AO 297 Acephalous statuette Alabaster, H. 6; W. 8.7: Tello Sarzec 1884: 345; Heuzey 1902: 1-9,
silver, gold D. 5 no. 108; Parrot 1948: 191; Spycket 10d
1981: pl. 135; Braun-Holzinger
1991: 300; Suter 2008: St 12
5 Sb 5889 Acephalous standing Limestone H. 6; W. 3.2 Susa Spycket 1981: 315, pl. 206a–b 12b
statuette
6 Istanbul, EŞEM 443 Torso Limestone H. 11 Tello Suter 2008, St 13
7 Archaeological EŞEM 6425 Acephalous seated statuette Alabaster H. 7 Tello, tell B, Cros et al. 1910: 300, pl. XI, 3a–c; 11b
Museum grave Parrot 1948: fig. 39 e; Spycket
1981: 199 n. 175; Braun-Holzinger
1991: 300; Suter 2008, St 14
8 British Museum AN00942767 Acephalous standing Black stone H. 17; W. 17; Purchase; Hall 1928: pl. VIII, 6; Parrot 1948: 10a
BM 115643 statuette D. 8.8 Tello (?) fig. 41c; Spycket 1981: 200, n. 79;
Suter 2008: St 16

217
Continued
 TABLE 1: (Continued )

218
No. Museum Museum/archive Object description Materials Dimensions Site Bibliography* - comments Fig.
or field number in cm.
9 Iraq Museum IM? S 21903 Acephalous standing Gypsum H. 6 Assur, Ishtar Andrae 1922: 113, pl. 58e–h; 11d
statuette Temple Spycket 1981: 251 n. 130; Suter
2008: St 18
10 Vorderasiatiches VA 4856 Statuette inscribed in the Gypsum H. 4,8 Tello? Marzahn 1987: pl. 6, no18; Braun-
Museum name of Agugi Holzinger 1991: St 149; Suter
2008: St 9
11 ? MS 5781-2 Acephalous statuette Stone Tello Photographic archives of Tello 14a
12 ? MS 5781-2 Acephalous statuette Stone Tello excavations from E. de Sarzec 14b
13 ? MS 5781-2 Acephalous statuette Stone Tello (Bibliothèque de l’Institut) 14c
14 ? MS 5781-2 Acephalous statuette Stone Tello 14d
15 ? MS 5781-2 Acephalous seated statuette Stone Tello 14e
Presumed depictions of garment that crosses in back, but fragmentary or two-dimensional (back not visible)
16 ? MS 5781-2 Acephalous statuette Stone Tello Photographic archives of Tello 14f

ARIANE THOMAS
excavations from E. de Sarzec
(Bibliothèque de l’Institut)
17 Louvre Museum AO 10235 Fragment of stele : two Limestone H. 16.5; l.21 Tello Parrot 1948: 185; Spycket 1981: 11e
women 202; Suter 2008: Stele 1
18 AO 15104 Acephalous standing Baked clay H. 10; W. 4.2 Tello Barrelet 1968: pl. XLV, no. 478 12f
TP484 figurine-plaque
19 AO 15108 Acephalous figurine-plaque Baked clay H. 6.2; W. 6.8 Tello Barrelet 1968: pl. XLV, no. 479 11f
TP410
20 AO 35 Statuette Diorite H. 19,5; Tello, tell A Sarzec 1884: p. 157, pl. 22/1; 13 h
W. 14,8 Parrot 1948: fig. 39c
21 AO 9059 Statuette (back missing) Alabaster H. 22,6; Purchase 12c
W. 13,8
22 ? Lower part of statuette with Pierre Tello Sarzec 1884: 346–48; Thureau- 12d
the name of Ninkagina Dangin 1905: 102 f; Spycket 1981:
200; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 271,
St 141; Steible 1991: vol. 1, 374–
75; Edzard 1997: 198, E3/1.1.12.6;
Suter 2008: St 8
23 ? Fragment of garment (part Alabaster H. 8 Tello Cros et al. 1910: 235 10e
of torso?)
24 ? Fragment of garment Alabaster Tello Cros et al. 1910: 30 10e’
(shoulder)
25 ? A no. 2 Fragment of statue(tte) Stone Tello Photographic archives of Tello 11 g
excavations (Louvre Museum)
26 ? T 1383 Mould of a female plaque Baked clay? Tello Photographic archives of Tello 12 g
excavations from André Parrot
(Louvre Museum AO 3765)
27 British Museum BM 114400 Fragment of an inscribed Limestone H. 10,8 Purchase; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 276 St 162; 10f
statuette Tello (?) Reade 2002: 284–85
28 BM 120480 Head, torso and feet Diorite H. 16,5, Purchase; Reade 2002: 284–85, no. 17, fig. 10c
originally 45 Tello (?) 13; Suter 2008: St 15
29 BM 122933 Statuette Limestone H. 51 Ur Woolley and Mallowan 1976: pl. 12e
56a
30 ? U.17904 Cylinder-seal Lapis lazuli H. 3 Ur, royal Woolley, 1934: pl. 211, no. 295; 13j
cemetery Pinnock, 1996: 341
PG/1850/3

THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES

31 Vorderasiatiches VA 2057 S. 29 Cylinder-seal Stone H. 2,4 Babylonia Moortgat 1940: 108, pl. 36, no. 271 13i
Museum
32 Pennsylvania CBS 8960 Statuette Limestone H. 8,7 Purchase Legrain 1927: 235–37; Spycket 12a
University Museum 1948: 90, fig. 2; Spycket 1981: pl.
of Archaeology 173; Suter 2008: St 19
Heads featuring a chignon in a coif held by a headband, perhaps wearing the garment that crosses at the back
33 Musée du Louvre AO 34 Fragmentary head Limestone H. 6.1; Tello Sarzec 1884: pl. 25, 2; Heuzey 13b
W. 4.8; D. 5.4 1902: no. 104; Parrot 1948: fig. 39f;
Spycket 1981: fig. 61; Braun-
Holzinger 1991: 300; Suter 2008:
St 24
34 AO 4113 Fragmentary head H. 4.1; l. 3.8; Tello Cros et al. 1910: 10, 29–31, pl. II 3; 13c
D. 2.7 Parrot 1948: fig. 41d; Spycket
1981: 201, n. 88; Braun-Holzinger
1991: 300; Suter 2008: St 25
35 Vorderasiatisches VA 2911 Fragmentary head Diorite H. 9 Tello (?) Parrot 1948: 191, fig. 41b; Meyer 13a
Museum 1965: no. 45; Suter 2008: St 26
36 VA 6980 = Ass Fragmentary head Alabaster H. 6.8 Assur, Ištar Andrae 1922: pl. 28a; Meyer 1965: 13d
22031 temple no. 39; Spycket 1981: pl. 113;
Harper et al. 1995: 32, fig. 5; Suter
2008: St 3
37 Iraq Museum IM 55958 Fragmentary head Diorite H. 8 Nippur McCown et al. 1967: pl. 31, 7; 13 g
Spycket 1981: 200, n. 84
38 U. 18864 Fragmentary head Limestone H. 2.8 Ur Woolley 1962: 130, pl. 25; Spycket 13e
1981: 202, n. 90
39 Strasbourg University Fragmentary head Alabaster H. 0,28; ? Frank 1928: frontispiece, 36; 13f
W. 0,25 Spycket 1981: 202, n. 90;
Bornemann 2012: 78–81.

219
40 ? MS 5781-2 Fragmentary head Stone Photographic archives of Tello 14 g
excavations from E. de Sarzec
(Bibliothèque de l’Institut)
220 ARIANE THOMAS

Fig. 2 View of the statuette with two complete bracelets. Photograph © Musée du Louvre, Department of Near
Eastern Antiquities

Fig. 3 Digital microscope measurements of the gold leaf on the left bracelet. Photograph © D. Robcis, C2RMF

held in place by copper alloy pins within the recess created by the undercutting that formed the arms and
hands at the level of the current break (Fig. 6).
With additions in a gold-silver alloy—the metals having come from Anatolia, Iran, or even farther
away15—this statuette testifies to the lavish ornamentation of composite statues from the ancient
Near East, only a few examples of which survive today. Such ornamentation takes the form on
other statues not only of bracelets but also necklaces and earrings, as well as the inlaid elements of
eyes and hair.16

15
Texts from the Second Dynasty of Lagash mention gold (TABLE 2: 10), as well as the existence of lateral grooves that
originating from the mountains of Ḫ aḫ um and the land of might have held inlaid material on another female statuette
Meluḫ ḫ a (Edzard 1997: 34, Gudea E3/1/1/7/StB, vi 33–42), from Lagash (TABLE 2: 3). A contemporary female figure
which is located in modern Pakistan and northwest India features a necklace of empty sockets that might have
according to some commentators. Recent analysis suggests originally been inlaid (TABLE 1: 28) and a female head might
that gold in the Royal Graves of Ur was sourced in the east, have worn earrings, given that holes are still visible (TABLE I:
probably Afghanistan (Jansen et al. 2016: 12–23). 29). Two female figures also linked to the Second Dynasty
16
Compare the fragmentary statue with an inlaid stone of Lagash retain vestiges of inlaid eyes (TABLE 2: 28–29).
necklace also found in the Neo-Sumerian levels at Tello
 THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES 221

Fig. 4 The statuette prior to restoration. Photograph © C. Pariselle

Fig. 5 Detail of the groove on the left wrist. Photograph © C. Pariselle

222 ARIANE THOMAS

Fig. 6 Details of the pins on the lower ends of the bracelets. Photograph © C. Pariselle

Fig. 7 Digital microscope image showing a possible layer of ground on the back of the statuette.
Photograph © D. Robcis, C2RMF

Possible polychromy
Whilst the inlaid metal bracelets provided a contrast of colour and material against the stone of the
statuette, it is also possible that specific areas or the entire surface of the figure was painted. Indeed,
vestiges of what might have been a ground layer can be seen with the naked eye on various parts of the
statuette, notably on the chest and the back (Fig. 7): a material visibly different from the stone, and
which seems to have contracted. The stone from which this statuette is carved is particularly
heterogeneous, displaying stains and other imperfections, notably a large horizontal vein crossing
the entire width of the chest below the braid, as well as other small cracks and incrustations. A
ground layer would have smoothed the overall appearance by filling cracks and masking
irregularities. Furthermore, this would have favoured the application of coloured pigments.
However, we cannot exclude deterioration of the alabaster itself as a possible cause—indeed, the
shrunken layer is largely composed of calcium carbonate and gypsum, which are also found in the
gypsum alabaster from which this statuette was made. Unfortunately, if the layer was designed to
function as a ground prior to the application of paint its composition is much too similar to that
of the deteriorating statuette to distinguish between the two.17

17
Many thanks go to Sandrine Pagès-Camagna (physicist
at the C2RMF lab) for her valuable help.
 THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES 223

The use of a digital microscope has revealed, however, small dots of colour at a number of places
on the statuette: a micro-dot of red on the neckline in the middle of the horizontal braid, as well as on
the left bracelet; a yellow dot on the neckline; and some malachite on the back—the latter may,
however, simply be the effect of oxidation (Figs. 8a–b). Yet again it is possible that these are
concretions or other deposits related to the burial of the statuette or to external “pollution” where
the composition is similar to that of vestigial pigments. It is nevertheless tempting to correlate the
presence of red and perhaps yellow with the location of what would have been a carved or painted
necklace: although no visible trace survives on this figure, a necklace is present on comparable and
sufficiently well-preserved statuettes.18 It is also possible that the skin was painted yellow,19 since
dots of yellow colour remain visible on some comparable female statuettes from Lagash (TABLE 2:
15 at the wrist; TABLE 1, 27 on the left cheek, and possibly I, 26 at the left base of the neck).
Besides the potential use of colour on a necklace or skin, it is also possible that the yellow was
used to highlight the braiding; a fragment of a garment bears traces of blue on the fringe (TABLE 1:
18) and this may have been part of the same statue as a female head (TABLE 1: 27) from the Second
Dynasty of Lagash where traces of blue are visible to the naked eye on the forehead.20 Finally it is
worth noting that red 21 might have been the original colour of the garment that crosses at the
back, as the surviving evidence suggests for the so-called “woman with a scarf” (TABLE 1: 3),
specifically on several places of the dress22 as well as on the front of the headband (one dot) and
on the back of the coif (three dots of red).23 The question arises as to whether there existed red
garments crossing at the back with blue fringing and/or if some of these garments were red while
others were blue, perhaps depending on the role of the women wearing them.
Thus the garment of the statuette could have been painted red—perhaps over a preparatory ground
layer—which may correspond to its colour in reality (including the so-called coif, which looks to have
been made of a similarly fine textile),— possibly with blue fringes and braiding and the use of red and
yellow.

The statuette’s dress and jewellery within a wider corpus

This female statuette is dressed in a garment with complex draping and refined trimming of a type
known from only a number of other surviving female figures, at most forty, for which see TABLE 1.

An unusual and prestigious garment. The garment is characterized by the way it crosses at the back but
falls straight in front in two parallel sections approximately to the knees, over an underlying fold (?) of
apparently plain fabric marked by a horizontal neckline (Fig. 9; TABLE 1: 4).24 On the basis of several
almost complete statues where the lower sections has survived, the garment would have descended to
the feet (Figs. 10b–d, 11a–b, 11d–g, 12e; TABLE 1: 2, 5, 7, 9, 15, 18, 22, 26, 32). A single rectangular
piece of fabric of very large size can be arranged in this way,25 as demonstrated by Léon Heuzey,26 and
followed by Eva Strommenger.27 Such lengths of cloth to make garments existed at least since the
Akkadian period, as shown by statues of King Manishtushu, but being more difficult to make,

18 22
Yet even if these are really vestiges of pigment, they The colour appears on the back of the statue (one long
might have migrated there over time from other parts of the crack full of red and one micro-dot at the bottom of the
statuette. crack) and on the front of the figure (micro-dots on the
19
It is noteworthy that in Egyptian art yellow skin is chest on both the upper right section and the lower central
reserved for women while men are shown with red skin. part of the dress).
20 23
For a relationship between the sculpture fragment and Consequently, they might be the same type of textile.
24
head see footnote 31. The blue is on a band just below the One figurine displays a V-neck, but its inclusion in the
headband where the hair is generally depicted. In fact, corpus is debatable in that it is known only from a drawing
despite the geometric shape of this “band”, it could be hair of the front (Fig. 11f).
25
rather than the coif that is painted in blue, as seen in the The dimensions have been estimated as 4 metres by 1.3
eyebrows and hair of another statuette of this type (TABLE 1, metres (Spycket 1981: 199) but the size of the cloth must
29; see Andrae 1922: pl. 28a). Hair was sometimes painted have been adapted to the size of the person for whom it was
black (see, for instance, TABLE 2, 15). made, as later documented in the royal archives of Mari.
21 26
This author disagrees with the assertion that red was Heuzey and Heuzey 1935: pl. XLII–XLII bis.
27
reserved for deities, kings and high priestesses (Suter 2008: Strommenger 1971: figs. 33–34 (already published in
25), given the apparently contradictory evidence discussed Andrae 1922: 113).
here as well as the current lack of data on the use of colours.
224 ARIANE THOMAS

Fig. 8 a. Detail of yellow colouring on the front neck. Photograph © D. Robcis, C2RMF; b. Detail of red
colouring on the front neck. Photograph © D. Robcis, C2RMF

they must have been a luxury item, possibly reserved for ceremonial, perhaps exclusively princely,
dress. Furthermore, the overall dress has the same remnants of colours, as also seen on the
“woman with a scarf” figurine,28 which would be logical for the use of one large piece of textile.
Although less probable, given that it would have been more complicated to make, this dress might
have been composed of several smaller pieces of fabric. In that case the outfit would have included
two or three items of clothing: a kind of cloak worn over a long gown.29 In any event, it must have
involved complex drapery of one or several pieces of material without the need to cut the garment
to shape. The fabric may have been fine linen or wool; possibly wool if it was coloured since linen
is more difficult to dye.

The corpus. Fifteen statuettes are sufficiently well-preserved to show both the front and back of the
garment, some of which still have the head and/or lower part of the body preserved (TABLE 1: 1–15).30
A further seventeen fragments of statues may represent parts of the same type of garment. One
example represents the lower half of a statue with its back missing (Fig. 11d; TABLE 1: 22), two others

28
See above, footnote 22. is impossible to know if these women wore other garments
29
These various possibilities were tested through modern beneath this costume.
30
reconstructions, but the first one—calling for a single large Due to the poor quality of images for TABLE 1: 6 and 10, I
piece of fabric—is likely to be the right one. Furthermore, it follow Suter’s (2008) classification.
TABLE 2: Non-divine female statuettes wearing alternate garments to those in TABLE 1. Exceptions to the standard combination of hairstyle and garment appear in italics
Representations on cylinder-seals are not included (see Suter 2008: table 2).

No. Museum Inventory n Object Materials Dimensions Site Main bibliographic references
° in cm
Long gown of plain fabric draped in various ways and, where head survives, chignon held by a headband
1 Musée du Louvre AO 44 (?) Fragment of lower body of Diorite (?) H. 10.2; Tello Sarzec 1884: 46, 159, pl. 21.4; Parrot
statuette with name of Hala- W. 11.2 1948: fig. 46 g; Spycket 1981: 210–11,
Lama: fringe gathered in pl. 133; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 274,
tassels St153; Edzard 1997: E 3/2.1.2.2012;

THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES

Suter 2008: St 20
2 AO 227 Statuette inscribed with the Alabaster H. 17.5; Tello Sarzec 1884: pl. 22bis 2; Thureau-
name of Ninalla W. 7.9 Dangin 1905: 206); Parrot 1948: fig.
39d; Spycket 1981: pl. 139; Caubet
1991: no. 2; Braun-Holzinger 1991:
268–69, St133; Steible, 1991: vol. 1,
343–44; Edzard, 1997: 179, E3/1.1.7.99;
Suter 2008: St 1
3 AO 241 Statuette Limestone H. 15.2; Tello Sarzec 1884: pl. 21bis, 4; Spycket 1981:
W. 7.8 pl. 140; Caubet 1991: no. 4; Braun-
Holzinger 1991: 300; Suter 2008: St 5
4 AO 450 (?) Small plaque Baked clay Tello Sarzec 1884: pl. 40, 2 b; Barrelet 1968:
no. 482, pl. XLVI
5 AO 2112 Statuette Alabaster H. 7.8; Tello Spycket 1981: 203, n. 95; Caubet 1991:
W. 3.3 no. 1; Suter 2008: St 4
6 ? Fragment of lower body Stone Tello Sarzec 1884: 349; Thureau-Dangin
dedicated by a daughter of Ur- 1905: 100, no. 13; Spycket 1981: 203,
Bau (name broken) for the life n. 97; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 270–71, st
of her husband Urgar 140; Steible 1991: vol. 1, 371; Edzard
1997: 190, E3/1.1.9.2; Suter 2008: St 2
Heads with chignon held by a headband without a coif
7 Vorderasiatisches VA 3297 Fragmentary head Diorite H. 5 Tello (?) Spycket 1981: pl. 137; Suter 2008: St 27
Museum
8 British Museum BM 91075 Wig inscribed in the name of Diorite H. 5,7 ? Suter 2008: St 29
Baba-Ninam
9 BM Head Diorite H. 8,3 Ur, Ningal Hall 1928: pl. VIII, 7; Spycket 1981:
118564 temple 212, n. 141; Suter 2008: St 28
Other (?)

225
Continued
 TABLE 2: (Continued )

226
No. Museum Inventory n Object Materials Dimensions Site Main bibliographic references
° in cm

10 Louvre Museum AO 298 Bust with inlaid necklace: V- Alabaster, H. 2.8; Tello Sarzec 1884: 245, pl. 44ter, 1a–b;
shaped neckline cornelian, W. 4.4 Heuzey 1902: no. 121; Spycket 1981:
turquoise, 201, pl. 85; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 300
copper
Long “poncho-like” kaunakes; loose, semi-long hair held by a band on forehead
11 Louvre Museum AO 40 Statuette Steatite (?) H. 6.1; Tello, palace Sarzec 1884: 48, 158, pls. 25, 3; Parrot
W. 4.7 1948: fig. 39 g; Spycket 1981: pl. 130;
Suter 2007: 334
12 AO 2761 Bas-relief Steatite (?) H. 14; W. 6 Heuzey 1902: no. 28; Orthmann 1975:
no. 117b
13 AO 13211 Statuette Alabaster H. 15; W. 9.5 Tello Spycket 1981: pl. 117; Suter 2007: 334
14 AO 15117 Statuette Baked clay H. 9.8; Tello Barrelet 1968: no. 483, pl. XLVI
W. 3.7

ARIANE THOMAS
15 AO 23995 Statuette Alabaster H. 20; W. 8.2 Parrot 1948: fig. 41 g; Suter 2007: 334,
fig. 10
16 MN 122 Bust Limestone H. 6.7; Tello
W. 5.4
17 AO 5682 Fragment of vase: head of a Stone Tello
(?) woman on the left
18 Vorderasiatisches VA 4854 Statuette Alabaster H. 11.3 Meyer 1965: no. 49; Spycket 1981: pl.
Museum 116; Suter 2007: 334, fig. 11
19 Istanbul, EŞEM Statuette Stone H. 13 Tello, tell V Cros et al. 1910: 235; Parrot 1948: fig.
Archaeological 2381 41f; Spycket 1981: 172 n. 131; Suter
Museum 2007: 334
20 Iraq Museum IM 18659 Statuette Limestone H. 46 Ur, Spycket 1981: fig. 66; Suter 2007: 334
U 16960 Ninshubur
shrine
21 IM 56505 Statuette Limestone H. 15,3 Nippur, Mc Cown 1967: pl. 145/2; Suter 2007:
scribal 334
quarter
22 IM Lower body Limestone H. 13,3 Uruk Lenzen 1966: 38 pl. 18a; Suter 2007: 334
23 Pennsylvania Statuette of the goddess Ur Frankfort 1954: no. 118; Suter 2007: fig.
University Museum of Ninegal? 9
24 Archaeology U 6352 Statuette of Eannatum, high- Diorite H. 24,5 Ur Spycket 1981: pl. 176
priestess
25 UM L29- Statuette Limestone Nippur Spycket 1981: fig. 55; Suter 2007: 334,
214 fig. 12
26 Yale Babylonian YBC Statuette Limestone H. 15 Purchase Spycket 1981: 173, fig. 56; Suter 2007:
collection 334
27 ? ? Statuette Stone H. 8,5 Adab Banks 1912: 258 ; Suter 2007: 334
Heads alone with semi-long hair held by a band on forehead
28 Louvre Museum AO 9035 Head with inlaid eyes Alabaster, H. 67; W. 6.6 Tello Contenau 1931: 682, fig. 473

THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES

bitumen
29 AO 12844 Head Alabaster H. 6.9; Tello Cros et al. 1910: pl. 83/1, 3; Parrot 1948:
W. 4.8 fig. 41e ; Spycket 1981: 202, no. 92;
Suter 2007: 334
30 AO 5682 Fragment of vase: woman Stone Tello
head on the left
31 Pennsylvania CBS 16228 Head Marble H. 9.5 Ur Spycket 1981: pl. 138; Suter 2007: 334
University Museum of
Archaeology

227
228 ARIANE THOMAS

Fig. 9 Details of the garment, front and back. Drawing C. Florimont, DAO

are fragments of dress (Figs. 13e–e’; TABLE 1: 23–24), with insufficient details to confirm the exact type
represented with any certainty but they include a comparable decorative border and probably belong to a
statue with a head coiffed like the other women in the series.31 Another fragment (Fig. 13f; TABLE 1: 27) is
similarly problematic but it does show clearly two sections of garment with fringes identical to the more
complete statues. Further examples include low relief plaques of four female figures where their backs are
not visible, but their garments are nevertheless arranged in front exactly like ten of the best preserved
statuettes that wear a chignon under a coif held by a headband (Figs. 10e–f, 11f–g; TABLE 1: 17–19,
26).32 This arrangement is also suggested for the images of women shown on two cylinder-seals (Figs.
14i–j; TABLE 1: 29–3033) wearing a similar headdress, jewellery and a garment with a part that falls to
the knees at the front (without revealing whether there is a second, parallel section at the front or
whether the garment crosses at the back). Finally, a lack of surviving details on seven other sculptures
make it difficult to be certain that the same dress is depicted: one is simply represented too
schematically (Fig. 14h; TABLE 1: 20), four have backs that are either too schematic or damaged (Figs.
11a, 11c, 11e, 13c; TABLE 1: 21, 28, 29,34 32), whilst only archival photographs of the back of one
statue and the front of another are known to the present author (Figs. 10g, 12f; TABLE 1: 25, 16). As
discussed below, based the examples which have retained their head and on two-dimensional
representations showing the garment that crosses at the back (TABLE 1: 3, 17, 28, 29, 32 and maybe
20–21), it can be assumed that eight heads featuring a chignon under a coif held by a headband wore
this same garment (Figs. 12g, 14a–f; TABLE 1: 33–40).

An attempt to reconstruct the statue’s appearance

Among the statuettes wearing the garment under discussion and where the heads have survived intact,
all are coiffed in the same manner. It is therefore plausible that eight fragmentary heads with a similar
coiffure, namely a chignon wrapped in a fine scarf, or coif,35 and held in place by a headband, may

31
One of these fragments (Fig. 13e’; TABLE 1: 24) is claimed seals show the two sections in front fall almost to the feet,
by its excavator to belong to the same statuette as a head which is much longer than other depictions of this garment.
(Fig. 14c; TABLE 1: 34) which is comparable with the Pace Pinnock 1996: 341, it is difficult to be certain what
“woman with a scarf” (Fig. 13b; TABLE I, 3), reinforcing the type of costume is represented on these two seals, nor do we
idea that the whole statuette would have originally looked recognize the crossed-back garment on the seal of Ninhilia,
similar and that these three fragments belong to this corpus wife of an Umma governor (Parr 1974: 111 seal B).
34
of female statuettes. Indeed, another fragment of garment Statuette dated to the late third millennium B.C., then
(Fig. 13e; TABLE 1: 23) is so identical that it probably comes reused during the Amorite period.
35
from the same sculpture. Folds in the cloth of the coif are depicted on the side of
32
Despite its many anachronistic connotations, the term the head (see Sarzec 1884: pl. 24bis, 2c and 2d, and see Figs.
“coif” is appropriate to describe this fine textile covering the 10e, 11c, 13b here). It might be the same fine textile as the
hair of these women, leaving some hair visible on the dress itself, considering that it shows vestiges of the same
forehead. colour on the “woman with a scarf” (see footnotes 22 and 23).
33
Only one seal (Fig. 13i; TABLE 1: 31) appears to depict
two sections of garment but these are seen in profile. Both
 THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES 229

Fig. 10 a. Female figure, Tello. Paris, Louvre Museum, inv. AO 43: front and back; b. Seated female figure,
Tello. Istanbul Archaeological Museum, inv. EŞEM 6425: front and back, after Parrot 1948, fig. 39e; c. Inscribed
seated female figure, Tello. Iraq Museum, inv. S 21903: front and back after Andrae 1922, pl. 58e–h; d. Female
figure, Assur. Louvre Museum, inv. AO 226: front and back; e. Fragment of stone stele depicting two women,
Tello. Louvre Museum, inv. AO 10235; f. Baked clay plaque of a female figure, Tello. Louvre Museum, inv. AO
15108; g. Female figure, Tello: back after an archive photograph from the Tello excavations (A no. 2). All
drawings © C. Florimont, DAO

have been originally dressed in the garment that crosses at the back (Fig. 12g, 14a–f; TABLE 1: 33–40).
The actual headband was perhaps of precious metal, as with known examples of earlier date.36 It is
also possible that a hair-ring or some other hair jewel held the bun in place; such contemporary jewels
have been found in excavations.37
Eleven of the women wear jewellery: necklaces around their necks and/or bracelets at their wrists.38
This does not, however, appear to have been worn consistently since depictions of jewellery are found
on only a few sculptures. Ten to thirteen pieces show necklaces (Figs. 10d, 11a, 11f–g, 12g, 13c, 13d(?),
14a, 14c, 14f, 14j; TABLE 1: 9, 18, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 39, 4039, 39 and perhaps also 4—if painted—, 7,
19, and 31—that have very schematic representations). These mostly take the form of a multi-strand
necklace—possibly made of linked chains40 or beads of indeterminate shape—covering the neck like
a “choker”,41 although three statuettes wear a necklace clearly made of circular beads (Figs. 10d, 10f,
14a; TABLE 1: 9, 19, 35). Based on the evidence of the statuette illustrated in Fig. 14a (TABLE 1: 35), this
collar of round beads could be worn as a single strand combined with a multi-strand necklace—it is
unclear if the latter is formed from beads.42 Five women of the corpus wear bracelets (Figs. 10b, 10d,
11a, 11b, 13d; TABLE 1: 4 [inlaid bracelets], 5, 7, 9, 32 [carved bracelets]). Many of the remaining

36 40
Gold headbands from tombs at Ur dating from the Early See, for instance, a headband from Ur in the British
Dynastic and the Akkadian periods, bore traces of fine Museum (BM 122210).
41
netting on the inner surface (Spycket 1955: 127). Maxwell-Hyslop 1971: 85.
37 42
Maxwell-Hyslop 1971: 65–72, pls. 45–48. A statue slightly later in date is shown wearing a multi-
38
Two figurines (TABLE 1: 6, 10; see footnote 30) are not strand necklace formed very clearly from circular beads, see
included in this group because there no clear illustrations Orthmann 1975: no. 160b. Since most of the figures are
exist to confirm the presence of jewellery. broken at the neck, it is not possible to know whether this
39
Combined with an inlaid necklace of beads. was a multi-strand necklace.
230 ARIANE THOMAS

Fig. 11 a. Female figure. Pennsylvania University Museum of Archaeology, inv. CBS 8960: front after Spycket
1948: 90, fig. 2; b. Female figure, Susa. Louvre Museum, inv. Sb 5589: front and back; c. Female figure. Louvre
Museum, inv. AO 9059: front; d. Lower part of a statuette inscribed with the name of Ninkagina, Tello: front
after Sarzec 1884: 34; e. Female figure, Ur. British Museum, inv. BM 122933: front; f. Baked clay plaque of a
female figue, Tello. Louvre Museum, inv. AO 15104. All drawings © C. Florimont, DAO

statuettes are too fragmentary and/or too schematic, but there is a clear absence of bracelets on six
figures (Figs. 10a, 10c, 10f, 12a, 13a–b, 13c; TABLE I: 1, 2, 3, 11, 19, 28) and an absence of a
necklace on at least four (Figs. 10e, 11c, 11e, 13a, 10c [?], 11b [?], 13a [?]; TABLE 1: 1, 17, 21, 29 and
perhaps 2, 5, 8) while two incomplete statuettes (Figs. 11e, 13a; TABLE 1: 8, 29) and figures on a
relief (Fig. 10e; TABLE 1: 17) do not wear jewellery.
Some of the sculptures of the corpus might have earrings (Fig. 14a, c and d; TABLE 1: 34–35 [carved?]
and 36 [originally inlaid, based on a still-visible pair of holes]). None of the figures appear to wear finger
rings, but these may not have been considered significant, as perhaps was also the case with pins and
personal seals. As already discussed, one should not rule out the possibility that some jewellery may
have been indicated by paint, while other items were inlaid in metal and/or stone.

Variations in design
On statuettes where this type of garment is being worn using the same method of draping and
adornment with decorative edging and simple fringes, that is to say, without knotted tassels. The
edging is visible along the sections that cross at the back and fall straight in front, as well as across
the horizontal neckline. The fringe must have run along the outer edge of the cloth—assuming the
garment was made from a single piece of fabric—because it is visible only at the arms (which are
shown covered by the fabric to varying lengths, since the wrapped material could be easily pushed
up to reveal more of the arm) as well as along the bottom of the parallel sections falling in front
(based on the best-preserved and detailed examples: Figs. 10b–c, 10d, 11a–b, 11d, 11f–g, 12b,
12d–e, 13f; TABLE 1: 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14–15, 18, 22, 26–27, 32).43 The only details that vary on these

43
The fringe is also visible on the side of the long section of
the garment falling to the feet (Fig. 10c; TABLE I: 2).
 THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES 231

Fig. 12 a–e- Female figures, Tello: front and back drawn after archival photographs from the Sarzec
excavations (Bibliothèque de l’Institut); f. Female figure, Tello: front after ancient pictures from Sarzec
excavations (Bibliothèque de l’Institut); g. Fragmentary female head, Tello: after ancient pictures from Sarzec
excavations (Bibliothèque de l’Institut). All drawings © C. Florimont, DAO

standard depictions of the garment are the pattern of the decorative edging and the choice of shoulder
that takes the uppermost piece of crossed fabric—this passes over the right shoulder in most cases,
with the exception of two figures where it is the left shoulder that is covered44 (Figs. 10c–d; TABLE
1: 2, 9).45 With regard to the decorative borders or braid, three main groups can be identified as
described below:46

Group 1. Interlinking “S” pattern47 along the edge (nine examples: TABLE I: 3, 4, 8, 13–15, 16, 27–28).
Heuzey has described it as a “twisted loop fringe” that may have been embroidered or openwork.48 In
a few cases (see TABLE 1: 4, 8) this pattern involves stiffer lines, indeed rectilinear ones approaching the
shape of a “5”.

44
In the former case the drape would begin with the left notably the lower part (TABLE I: 6, 27 (standing statues) and
shoulder, while in the latter case it would begin with the 10 (seated statue)).
46
right, which might have had a symbolic significance that In addition to this categorization of decorative edgings,
now escapes us. It is nevertheless noteworthy that most it should be noted that the number of parallel lines incised
cases involve a garment that drapes from the left, which between braid and edge varies from three (Fig. 13c) to zero,
texts described as the feminine side as distinct from the but this may have simply been artistic variation at the
more virile right side (Stol 1993: 124). moment of production.
45 47
Only one of these two figures (TABLE I: 2) bears an Note that this same motif served also to depict lion pelts
inscription. It is not known if the inscription was added on contemporary objects from Lagash (see Louvre Museum,
later or is contemporary with carving of the work and/or inv. AO 2752 and AO 3146), so it may also be a stylistic
the details of the dress. Perhaps the inclusion of the convention.
48
inscription made it necessary to represent the garment in a Heuzey’s description (frange à boucles tortillées) is
different manner, although other examples demonstrate that quoted in Spycket 1981: 199.
the inscription could be placed elsewhere on the figure,
232 ARIANE THOMAS

Fig. 13 a. Female figure, Tello (?). British Museum, inv. BM 115643: front and back; b. Female figure called
“Woman with a Scarf”, Tello. Louvre Museum, inv. AO 295: front and back; c. Fragmentary female figure (head,
torso and feet), Tello (?). British Museum, inv. BM 120480: front; d. Female figure, Tello. Louvre Museum, inv.
AO 297: front and back; e. and e’. Fragments of a garment, Tello: drawing after Cros, 1910, 30 and 235;
f. Fragment of garment, Tello (?). British Museum, inv. BM 114400. All drawings © C. Florimont, DAO

Group 1’. Comma pattern (two examples: TABLE 1: 23–24). This edging is characterized by upward-
pointing commas, and is seen only on two fragments of garments not conclusively identified as
crossing at the back and falling straight in front over a horizontal panel. Furthermore, they are
known only from drawings that are not necessarily reliable; this pattern could thus have been very
similar to the “S” pattern.

Group 2. Scalloped or tufted and hatch pattern (nine examples: TABLE 1: 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 25,
32). Along the border is a series of small rectangles with rounded edges (TABLE 1: 2, 7, 19), similar to
the scalloping or tufting found on sculptures of the Akkadian period. For actual garments, these were
probably made separately as appliques. Within this same group can be included depictions which
comprise a series of parallel hatching, perhaps fringing. This pattern is similar to examples known
from the edges of garments on statues of Gudea.

Group 3. No edge decoration, just a simple fringe running along the bottom of the two sections of
fabric falling in front (four examples: TABLE 1: 21–22, 29 and perhaps 18). Here the only evidence
is either an inadequate photograph (TABLE I: 18) or very schematic and fragmentary statuettes
(TABLE 1: 21, 29), which leaves some doubt as to the actual absence of decorative edging. The
accuracy of a drawing of one statuette (TABLE I: 22) is confirmed by a recently rediscovered
excavation photograph.
The significance of the various edging decorations, if any existed, remains totally unknown.
Similarly, due to the lack of surviving inscriptions it is hard to determine if levels of status were
implied by the type of stone used to depict the women, either a local white stone (including
alabaster, gypsum, limestone: TABLE 1: 1–2, 4–7, 9–17, 21, 23–27, 29, 32, 33–34, 36, 38–39) or, less
often, an imported black stone that can be assumed to have been more prestigious (steatite,
 THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES 233

Fig. 14 a. Fragmentary female head, Tello (?).Vorderasiatisches Museum, inv. VA 2911: left side;
b. Fragmentary female head, Tello. Louvre Museum, inv. AO 34: front, left side and back; c. Fragmentary female
head, Tello. Louvre Museum, inv. AO 4113: front, left side and back; d. Fragmentary female head, Assur.
Vorderasiatisches Museum, inv. VA 6980: right side, front, left side and back after Andrae 1922: pl. 28a;
e. Fragmentary female head, Ur. Iraq Museum, inv. U. 18864: left side after Woolley 1962: pl. 25; f. Fragmentary
female head. Strasbourg University: front, left side and back after Bornemann 2012: 78–81; g. Fragmentary
female head, Nippur. Iraq Museum, inv. IM 18864: after McCown 1967: pl. 31, 7; h. Fragmentary female statue,
Tello. Louvre Museum, inv. AO 35: front, left side and back; i. Cylinder-seal, unknown provenance.
Vorderasiatisches Museum, inv. VA 2057: after Moortgat, 1940: pl. 36, no. 271; j. Cylinder-seal, Ur. Drawing
after Woolley, 1934: pl. 211, no. 295. All drawings © C. Florimont, DAO
234 ARIANE THOMAS

diorite: TABLE 1: 3, 8,20, 28, 35–37 and maybe 22). Similarly, status might have been indicated by
scale: three statuettes (TABLE 1: 1, 22, 29) that are much taller than the others in the corpus, which
were all otherwise approximately 25 centimetres high.

A costume for court women, perhaps the wives of rulers

Based on the garment’s decoration and that it was probably made from a large and therefore
expensive piece of fabric, the woman wearing it would have occupied a privileged social position;
something also suggested by the jewellery shown on some of the sculptures. The statues were not
intended to represent goddesses given the absence of the horned head-dress conventionally worn
by deities since the Akkadian period. They do, however, wear the chignon—though covered by a
coif—as did deities and kings until at least Akkadian times.49 In fact, this headdress held by a
headband may have been a distinctive sign of the wearer’s royal status,50 as was perhaps was its colour.
Of particular significance in regard to their possible royal status is that two of the statuettes in this
corpus bear inscriptions51 stating that they represent wives of Lagashite rulers—a third statuette
(TABLE I: 10)52 is inscribed with the name of Agugi, wife of Lu-duga but neither name is known
from other sources. One statuette of a royal wife (TABLE 1: 2) bears a lacunary dedication for
Gudea’s life that Vincent Scheil has linked to the text on an altar dedicated by Gudea’s first wife,
Ninalla,53 who may therefore be the subject of this sculpture (alternatively, it could represent his
second wife, Gemeshulpae, see below).54 The second statuette (TABLE 1: 22) is inscribed with the
name of Ninkagina, second wife of Ur-gar and perhaps the mother of the ensi Nammahani,55 who
allegedly reigned a few years after Gudea.56
Consequently, it is tempting to view these female figures as royal women or princesses at the court
of Lagash, although it is unclear whether they represent exclusively wives of rulers or may also have
been mothers, daughters, sisters, or other relatives of the king. Certainly the inscribed examples refer
to wives of rulers. Julia Asher-Greve57 has suggested that the statuette dedicated to Gudea (Fig. 10c;
TABLE 1: 2), who is shown seated with both legs drawn up under her to the right,58 is Gemeshulpae,
arguing that the unusual posture of the figure may have indicated her rank as subordinate to the
ruler’s first wife Ninalla who is identified with another standing statuette (TABLE 2: 2).59
Unfortunately, as many of the statuettes are very fragmentary and their inscriptions are missing,
the only other statuettes seated in this fashion (Figs. 10b, 12e; TABLE 1: 7, 15) cannot be identified.
Furthermore, Ninkagina, who was the second wife of Ur-gar, appears standing (TABLE 1: 22). Her
stance, however, may be due to the fact that she is described as the daughter of Kaku, possibly
king of Ur, and her royal connection may have taken precedence over her rank as a wife.60 It is
noteworthy that a fragment of a stela shows two women together wearing this same costume
(TABLE 1: 17), although colour might have originally distinguished them. The relief perhaps
represents the two wives of a ruler, though it is not known if Neo-Sumerian Lagashite rulers had
more than one wife simultaneously.61

49 55
With the exception of the coif covering the hair, this Suter 2008, footnote 14.
56
coiffure is very similar to the chignon held by a headband The sequence of the rulers of the Second Dynasty of
seen on monarchs during the Early Dynastic to Akkadian Lagash is not certain (see Steinkeller 1988; Monaco 1990;
periods, in the latter period it was also worn by women Edzard 1997, 3–5; and Renger 1976 for the family of Ur-
(Spycket 1981, pl. 112–113). Bau and Gudea as mentioned by Asher-Greve 2006).
50 57
According to Suter 2008, 6, it may evoke the aga crown, Asher-Greve 2006: 55.
58
a circlet apparently made of gold worn by high priestesses. This pose suggests that she was sitting on the ground,
51
Originally, all these statuettes may have been inscribed perhaps on a mat or carpet.
59
although only four examples have survived, one of which is The only other known example is a nude female figure
too fragmentary to attempt an identification (TABLE 1: 28). from a later period, found in the Amorite layers of Tell
Except for one statuette which is inscribed on the back Asmar (Baghdad Museum IM 20631: Frankfort 1943: no.
(TABLE 1: 2), the inscription appears on the front, lower 337, pl. 76). It is noteworthy that the figures are kneeling
section of the dress. and not enthroned as would be expected with kings, high
52
Suter 2008, 8. priestesses (see below) or deities—with the exception of the
53
Scheil 1927; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 268; Steible 1991: statuette of Agugi if the published drawing is to be believed.
60
vol. 1, 293–94, St132; Edzard 1997: 176, E3/1.1.7.94. Westenholz 1984: 339–41.
54 61
Gudea of Lagash is known to have had at least two wives, Asher-Greve 2006: 71.
Ninalla and Gemeshulpae (Falkenstein, 1957–1971: 676).
 THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES 235

A possible costume for ladies at worship

On the few representations of these women in a context, they appear as worshippers: either clapping
their hands, probably participating in a ritual ceremony (Fig. 10e; TABLE 1: 17) or—if the two seals
mentioned above do depict this costume (Fig. 14i–j; TABLE 1: 30–31)—they stand in front of a
major seated deity to whom they are introduced by a minor god, in the manner of kings known
from contemporary seals. Moreover, except for the two ladies clapping their hands, all the other
women of the corpus have their hands clasped in a position exactly like that found on the many
statues of Gudea in a gesture of prayer.62 This might suggest that the statuettes depict princesses
engaged in worship that were perhaps dedicated in temples (as indicated by the text on the
inscribed examples). Indeed, one sculpted head in the corpus was discovered in a temple, albeit at
Assur (TABLE 1: 36).63 In this regard, it is noteworthy that the only two female figures interpreted
as dressed in the crossed-back garment where their feet survive, are barefoot (Figs. 11d, 13c; TABLE
1: 22, 28).64
Apart from the specific garment crossing at the back and falling straight in front in two parallel
sections roughly to the knees, plus the “coif”, these statuettes bear comparison with other
contemporary depictions of women from Lagash who wear either a garment called a kaunakes
(because it resembles thick, tufted wool) or a long, apparently plain but fringed gown, rather than
the garment that crosses at the back (TABLE 2). These two other costumes allow more to be said
about the women in our corpus.
A group of twenty-one figures (TABLE 2: 11–31) comprises women wearing a kaunakes falling to
their ankles, covering the top part of the body like a poncho in so far as no slits can be detected
anywhere in the garment. The outfit may therefore have consisted of two garments, consisting of a
gown or long skirt underneath the “poncho”. Based on the most complete examples, this dress was
worn with semi-long hair loose at the back but held by a headband at the level of the forehead.65
In these particular examples the women are shown seated in a chair, like enthroned kings and
deities. The best-preserved examples wear multi-strand necklaces but no bracelet.66 They look very
similar to female deities but according to the few extant inscriptions and based on comparison
with the relief depicting Enheduana,67 the daughter of Akkadian king Sargon and high priestess of
the Moon-god at Ur, the women wearing the kaunakes are understood to be high priestesses.68
In contrast, a second group of ten statuettes consists of women wearing a long gown of plain fabric
edged with a fringe and sometimes decorative borders; judging from the best preserved examples, all
are shown standing. Their long plain gown appears to have been draped in various ways—a simple
panel falling to the side in front and back, or with the chest panel allowed to drop into a V-shape.
In fact, the garment that crosses at the back must have been formed from a similar large piece of
fabric with decorated edges, and would seem to have been closely comparable to the other
garments if only in terms of their arrangement. Indeed, one of these figures is inscribed with a
prayer for the life of Gudea, and perhaps depicts the ruler’s first wife Ninalla; since the sign nin is
still visible (TABLE 1: 2). Furthermore, included in this heterogeneous group is a fragment of a
section of fabric draped down the back of a figure that is inscribed with the partial name of a

62
This is true for the statues of Ur-Bau and Ur-Ningirsu, as woman with this type of dress but a chignon held by a
well as of smaller, unidentified praying figures from the headband (TABLE II: 16) while another depicts a woman
Lagash court, comparable in size to the female statuettes with long hair loose held by a headband while wearing a
(for example, Louvre Museum AO 3182). For an hypothesis long wrapped dress (TABLE II: 4), such as depicted on the
that clasped hands expressed passive attendance or seal of Geme-Lama, priestess of Baba at Lagash (Asher-
attentiveness, see Suter 2000: 58, 261–62. Greve 2006: fig. 18).
63 66
However, one of the statuettes (Fig. 10b; TABLE 1: 7) was Except on one statuette, which is also the only one who
found in a tomb, according to the excavators (Cros et al. 1910: holds a vase instead of clasping her hands in prayer (TABLE
300). 2: 15). This necklace appears to be placed quite high on the
64
Thus, the lack of jewellery (and shoes) on statues of neck, which explains it why it would have disappeared on
Gudea would indicate especially his pious humility before many examples lacking a head.
67
the gods, whereas his garment and head-gear (when he wore Orthmann 1975: no. 101.
68
one) asserted his status. Winter 1987; Suter 2008: 5–7. Like Suter, this author
65
Four heads with identical coiffures have thus been added disagrees with Pinnock 1998 who concludes that these must
to TABLE 2, as their bodies might have been dressed in the same be high priestesses, which is certainly not the case with the
fashion. But exceptions exist, since one statuette depicts a other women depicted at Lagash.
236 ARIANE THOMAS

daughter of Ur-Bau and probably wife of the ensi Urgar, to whose life this statuette is dedicated (TABLE
2: 6). A fragment dating to the later Third Dynasty of Ur of a lavish garment edged with a tasselled
fringe is inscribed with the name of Hala-Lama, daughter of Lugirizal, governor of Lagash in the time
of Shulgi of Ur, to whose life this statuette is dedicated (TABLE 2: 1). There also survives a fragment of
wig (TABLE 2: 8) showing the chignon held by a headband which would normally be associated with
the long undecorated garment. The wig is, however, inscribed with the name of Baba-Ninam, cup-
bearer of Ur-Ningirsu and is thus the only known example of the dedication of a female statue of
this type by a male.69 Consequently, it seems that this type of costume was worn by court women
who, judging from the sufficiently well preserved sculptures, also have their hands clasped together
as if in prayer. This costume is the closest to both the crossed-back garment and also the wrapped
costume worn by rulers and anonymous court males. It is difficult to determine, however, if this
particular draped garment was associated with specific contexts such as worship, or was worn by
only certain court women (wives and also daughters of rulers according to associated inscriptions).
All the well-preserved figures have their hair arranged in chignon without a coif.
In summary, the loose hair of high priestesses was held in place by a band across the forehead while
they were dressed in the long kaunakes, whereas other royal women would have had a chignon and worn
a long dress wrapped in various styles, including the garment that crosses at the back (the chignon being
coifed in this specific case). There is no indication of a specific function of the chignon, nor any
explanation for the presence or absence of jewellery.70 Based on inscriptions—the contents of which
may not be representative, given that so few survive—a variously wrapped garment, including the
one that crosses at the back, combined with a chignon, is attested for Lagashite court women,
especially—but not only—wives of the ruler. Since only high priestesses wore their hair loose and
since they were unmarried women, it is possible that the chignon was worn by married women, or
perhaps loose hair was limited to the specific status of high priestess. Regarding the women with a
chignon, if Ninalla, draped in a different garment from the crossed-back model, originally wore an
chignon without coif, as the standard combination allows us to surmise, then it would demonstrate
that the coif was not necessarily reserved for married women, as later texts from beyond Lagash
might suggest.71 In this case, it may be possible that the coif or textile covering the head of a woman
wearing the long crossed-back garment was reserved for the depiction of wives of rulers at a specific
moment of worship rather than because they were royal spouses. On the evidence of these three
costumes or combinations, primarily characterized by a type of garment—or its arrangement—and
associated hairstyle, these figures were not necessarily intended as physical likenesses yet perhaps
intended as portraits of office that indicate status through dress and/or coiffure that would have
made it possible to identify a princess and her role in the same way as would an inscription.72
The headband is the only element common to the various costumes discussed here, including the
one apparently restricted to high priestesses. Since all the women were members of the royal court—or
more specifically members of the royal family—this headband, which is comparable to the one seen
on kings and deities, may have been a royal attribute, as has already been assumed for high priestesses.
Given that these women are also all depicted as worshippers, the headband had perhaps both a
religious and royal association.73

Dress specific to the Neo-Sumerian court at Lagash?

Whilst representations of court women have been found in large numbers from earlier periods,74 the
corpus of female statuettes discussed here remains exceptional in quantity, especially if we include the

69
Suter 2008: 8. perhaps also by the type of cloth, the quality of the weaving
70
The chignon may have been simply fashionable rather of the coif, as well as the use of a headband and style of
than holding any symbolic value (Asher Greve 2006: 56). garment.
73
Furthermore, a high priestess might be dressed and It surrounded the head like a crown and its circular shape
coiffured like a royal woman, as exemplified by Geme- held symbolic meaning.
74
Lama (Suter 2008: 6–7). See Spycket 1981: 67–69, 96, 107–20 and 165–74; Asher-
71
See Michel 1997: 38, and Van der Toorn 1995: 329. Greve 1985; 2006: 11, 45, 73.
72
Lavishness was conveyed not only by the amount of
fabric and decoration (including colours—see below), but
 THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES 237

women dressed in all three styles of garments. The vast majority of the statuettes appear to have
derived from Tello, and the few examples known from Ur, Uruk, Nippur, Adab, Assur or Susa
may have perhaps reached these cities as a result of diplomatic exchanges with the state of Lagash;
unless their appearance there is the result of the vagaries of excavation. It is significant that the
combination of chignon with scarf or coif held by a headband together with the crossed-back
garment is known from a group of statuettes found at Tello, including those from the antiquities
market, some of which are assumed to have originated from this site.75 But this pattern may only
be due to the paucity of depictions of “princesses” outside the court of Lagash, as suggested by
two figures and one seal from Ur, one from Nippur, one from Susa and two examples found much
further north at Assur (TABLE 1: 5, 9, 29–30, 36–38). According to archaeological evidence,
however, the combination of features discussed here may have its earliest occurrence at Lagash.
Nevertheless, this set of richly dressed female figures, although smaller in scale than the statues of
the rulers of Lagash—Ur-Bau, Gudea, and Ur-Ningirsu,—perhaps reflects an unusual role played by
women at the court of Lagash, at least in terms of court imagery. There may be a correlation with the
fact that the lineage of the Second Dynasty of Lagash was largely perpetuated through women,76
three of Ur-Bau’s sons-in-law having succeeded him by marriage.77
Furthermore, this overall dress, combining the garment that crosses at the back and falls in two
panels in front with chignon under a coif held by headband, plus possible bracelets and/or
necklace(s), is well attested only in the Neo-Sumerian period and may be specific to that era.78
The “fashion” for this particular arrangement nevertheless seems to have inspired a few echoes in
the outfits of women from the later Middle Bronze Age.79 These are not completely similar,
however, because some of the garments appear to have been cut to shape rather than draped.

Conclusion
With her gilded bracelets, draped dress and refined decoration apparently reserved for court women,—
as well as the possible application of significant colours over a potential ground layer—the statuette of
a woman that prompted this study offers exceptional testimony to the quality of small statuary during
the Second Dynasty of Lagash. Probably representing a worshipping princess, perhaps more specifically
a ruler’s wife, it also provides valuable information on the splendour of depictions of women at the court
of Lagash. It is additionally one of an outstanding group of images representing non-divine females, so
rare among known monuments from the ancient Near East.

References
Andrae, W. 1922. Die archaischen Ischtar-Tempel in Assur. Leipzig: Wissentschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 39.
Asher-Greve, J. M. 1985. Frauen in Altsumerischer Zeit, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica, Malibu, Undena
Publications.

75
See for instance Parrot 1948: 191, fig. 41b. these is uncertain, they have been included in the corpus.
76
Several princesses of the Second Dynasty of Lagash are Comparable is a female figure wearing a draped garment
known through inscribed monuments other than statues. See that crosses at the front, which evokes but is not identical to
Edzard 1997: 10 (Nin-NIGIN-e-si, wife of Ur-Ningirsu I), the one worn by the Lagash princesses (Reade 1991: no.
24–25 (En-anne-padda, daughter of Ur-Bau and priestess of 67), and several other depictions of women from the
the moon-god at Ur), 178–79 (Nin-alla, daughter of Ur- Akkadian period wearing a chignon under a scarf held by a
Bau and wife of Gudea), 189–90 (Ninkagina, daughter of headband (Spycket 1981: 166). Nevertheless, if the two seals
Ur-Bau and wife of Ur-GAR), 197 and 206 (Nin-ḫ edu, already mentioned (TABLE 1: 30–31) really do show the main
daughter of Ur-Bau and wife of Nammaḫ ani), 198–202 garment under discussion here, it may have existed as early
(Ninkagina, daughter of Kaku, wife of Ur-gar and mother as the royal tombs of Ur where one of the seals was
or cousin (?) of Nammaḫ ani) and 208 (Ḫ ala-Bau, wife of discovered.
79
Lugal-irida). Louvre Museum, AO 17554, from Mari (Spycket 1948:
77
Caubet 1991: 17; Asher-Greve 2006: 55. fig. 5) and Sb 2746 from Susa (Contenau 1931: 794, figs.
78
This assumes that a small statuette found at Susa 544–55) date to the early second millennium BC: only the
(Fig. 11b; TABLE I: 6) dates from the Neo-Sumerian period, suggestion of a garment that crosses in back and has ornate
as with two other statues (Figs. 10d, 11a; TABLE 1: 9, 32) edging is apparent. Note also two female statuettes from
showing a long counterweight to their necklace at their the early second millennium BC who wear a long garment
back of a type that was fashionable in the early second with two parallel sections falling approximately to the knees
millennium BC (Spycket 1981: 251). Although the date of (Spycket 1948: fig. 8; Spycket 1981: pl. 159).
238 ARIANE THOMAS

— 2006. “Golden Age” of Women? Status and Gender in Third Millenium Sumerian and Akkadian Art. Pp. 41–
81 in S. Schroer (ed.) Images and Gender, Contributions to the Hermeneutics of Reading Ancient Art,
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 220.
Banks, E.J. 1912. Bismaya or the lost city of Adab : A story of adventure, of exploration, and of excavation among
the ruins of the oldest of the buried cities of Babylonia, New York : G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
Barrelet, M.T. 1968. Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Mésopotamie antique, Potiers, termes de métier,
procédés de fabrication et production. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Bornemann, D. 2012. Une tête sumérienne en albâtre. La revue de la Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de
Strasbourg 5: 78–81.
Braun-Holzinger, E. 1991. Mesopotamische Weihgaben der frühdynastischen bis altbabylonischen Zeit,
Heidelberg Studien zum Alten Orient, 3, Heidelberg Orientverlag.
Caubet, A. 1991. Un autel dédié par Nin Alla, épouse de Goudea, don du baron E. De Rothschild. La Revue du
Louvre et des Musées de France 1: 14–17.
Contenau, G. 1931. Manuel d’archéologie orientale, II. Paris: Picard.
Cros, G., L. Heuzey, and F. Thureau-Dangin. 1910. Nouvelles fouilles de Tello. Paris: Ernest Leroux.
Edzard, D.O. 1997. Gudea and His Dynasty: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, 3/1. Toronto/Buffalo/
London: University of Toronto Press.
Falkenstein, A. 1957–1971. Gudea (A. Nach Texten), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen
Archäologie: 676–79.
Frank, C. 1928. Strassburger Keilschrifttexte in sumerischer und babylonischer Sprache. Herausgegeben. Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Frankfort, H. 1943. More Sculpture from the Diyala Region. Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications 60.
— 1954. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. London: Penguin.
Hall, H.R. 1928. Babylonian and Assyrian Sculpture in the British Museum. Paris/Brussels: Les Editions G. Van
Oest.
Harper, P.O., E. Klengel-Brandt, J. Aruz and K. Benzel. 1995. Discoveries at Ashur on the Tigris: Assyrian
Origins, Antiquities in the Vorderasiatisches Museum. Berlin/New York: The Metropolitan Museum
of Art.
Heuzey, L. 1902. Catalogue des antiquités chaldéennes. Paris: Musée du Louvre.
Heuzey, L. and J. Heuzey. 1935. Histoire du costume dans l’antiquité classique, l’Orient. Paris: Les Belles-Lettres.
Jansen, M., S. Aulbach, A. Hauptmann, H.E. Höfer, S. Klein, M. Krüger, R.L. Zettler, 2016. Platinum group
placer minerals in ancient gold artifacts – Geochemistry and osmium isotopes of inclusions in Early
Bronze Age gold from Ur/Mesopotamia. Journal of Archaeological Science 68: 12–23.
Lgrain, L. 1927. Sumerian Sculptures. Museum Journal 18: 217–46.
Lenzen, H. 1966. Die Kleinfunde. Uruk vorläufiger Bericht 22: 31–44.
Marzahn, J. 1987. Sumerische Inschriften des Vorderasiatischen Museums zu Berlin. Altorientalische
Forschungen 14: 21–40.
Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R. 1971. Western Asiatic Jewelry c. 3000–612 B. C. London, Methuen & Co Ltd.
McCown, D.E., R. Haines and D.P. Hansen. 1967. Nippur I, Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quarter, and Soundings.
Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications, 78.
Meyer, R. 1965. Altorientalische Denkmäler im Vorderasiatischen Museum zu Berlin. Leipzig: VEB E.A.
Seemann.
Michel, C. 1997. Un témoignage paléo-assyrien en faveur du port du voile par la femme mariée. Nouvelles
Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1: 38.
Monaco, S. 1990. Two Notes on ASJ 10, 1988. Acta Sumeriologica 12: 89–108.
Moortgat, A. 1940. Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst. Berlin: Gebr.
Mann.
Orthmann, W. 1975. Der Alte Orient. Berlin: Propyläen.
Parr, P.A. 1974. Ninhilia, Wife of Ayakala Governor of Umma. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 25: 90–111.
Parrot, A. 1948. Tello, vingt campagnes de fouilles (1877–1933). Paris: Albin Michel.
Pinnock, F. 1998. The Iconography of the Entu-Priestesses in the Period of the Ur III Dynasty. Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale 43: 339–46.
Reade, J.E. 1991. Mesopotamia. London: British Museum Press.
— 2002. Early monuments in Gulf stone at the British Museum with observations on some Gudea statues and the
location of Agade. Zeitschrift Fur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archaologie 92/1: 258–95.
Renger, J. 1976. The daughters of Urbaba: Some Thoughts on the Succession to the Throne during the 2nd
Dynasty of Lagash. Pp. 367–69 in B. L. Eichler; J. W. Heimerdinger and A.W. Sjöberg (ed.), Kramer
Aniversary Volum: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. AOAT 25.
Sarzec, E. de and L. Heuzey 1884. Découvertes en Chaldée. Paris: Ernest Leroux.
Scheil, V. 1927. Nin Alla, femme de Gudea. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale XXI/3 : 109–10.
 THE FADED SPLENDOUR OF LAGASHITE PRINCESSES 239

Spycket, A. 1948. Un élément de la parure féminine à la 1ère dynastie de Babylone. Revue d’Assyriologie 42: 89–
97.
— 1955. La coiffure féminine en Mésopotamie. Revue d’Assyriologie 49: 113–28.
— 1981. La Statuaire du Proche-Orient ancien. Leiden: Brill.
Strommenger, E. 1971. Mesopotamische Gewandtypen von der frühsumerischen bis zur Larsa Zeit. Acta
praehistorica et archaeologica 2: 411–13.
Steible, H. 1991. Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. 2 vol. Stuttgart.
Steinkeller, P. 1988. The Date of Gudea and His Dynasty. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 40: 41–53.
Stol, M. 1993. Women in Mesopotamia. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 38/2: 123–44.
Suter, C. 2000. Gudea’s Temple Building. Leiden: Brill.
— 2007. Between Human and Divine. High Priestesses in Images from the Akkad to the Isin-Larsa Period. Pp.
317–61 in M. Feldman and J. Cheng (eds.), Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context. Studies in Honor of
Irene J. Winter.
— 2008. Who are the Women in Mesopotamian Art from ca. 2334–1763 BCE? Kaskal 5: 1–47.
Thureau-Dangin, F. 1905. Les inscriptions de Sumer et d’Akkad. Paris: Ernest Leroux.
Van Der Toorn, K. 1995. The Significance of the Coif in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 327–40 in D.P. Wright, D.N.
Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells. Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near
Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Winona Lake.
Westenholz, J.G. 1984. Kaku of Ur and Kaku of Lagash. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43/4: 339–42.
Winter, I.J. 1987. Women in Public: The Disk of Enheduanan, The Beginning of the Office of EN-Priestess and
the Weight of Visual Evidence. Pp. 189–201 in J.-M. Durand (ed.), la femme ds le Proche-Orient antique.
CRRAI de la XXXIIIe RAI, ERC.
Woolley, C.L. 1934. Ur Excavations II: The Royal Cemetery. London: The British Museum.
— 1962. Ur Excavations IX: The Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods. London: The British Museum.
Woolley, C.L. and M.E.L. Mallowan. 1976. Excavations VII: The Old Babylonian Period. London: The British
Museum Press.

Ariane Thomas
Département des Antiquités orientales
Musée du Louvre
Pavillon Mollien
75058 Paris cedex 01

‫ ﺗﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﻣﺮﻣﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻮ ﻭﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻣﺮﺃﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻼﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﻣﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻟﺠﺶ‬: ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺪﺛﺮﺓ ﻷﻣﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻟﺠﺶ‬
‫ ﺃﺭﻳﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﻣﺎﺱ‬: ‫ﺑﻘﻠﻢ‬

‫ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﺟﺪﻳﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎﻥ‬. ‫ﺗﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﺇﻣﺮﺃﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻼﻟﺔ ﻟﺠﺶ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﺃﺳﺎﻭﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻀﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﺗﻢ ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍ ﺗﺮﻣﻴﻤﻪ ﻭﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻪ‬
‫ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻔﺤﺺ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻰ‬.‫ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻴﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻤﺎﺛﻴﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺎﺙ ﺟﻤﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺒﻼﻁ ﺳﻼﻟﺔ ﻟﺠﺶ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬.‫ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻗﻄﻊ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻛﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻣﺤﺘﻤﻠﺔ ﻷﻟﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﺭﻏﻢ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺑﺄﻱ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺿﻤﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻤﺎﺛﻴﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺎﺙ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻟﺠﺶ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﻣﻤﺎﺛﻠﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺃﻋﻤﻖ ﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﺴﺎﺗﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ‬
.‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﺮﺗﺪﻭﻧﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﺨﻴﺺ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻤﻞ ﻟﻤﻦ ﺍﺭﺗﺪﺍﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎﺀ‬