Notes for NMC491

[us4-he2-gal2]

Thread Orientation: Taking notes and summing materials on Mesopotamian Art

---

NMC491

This year I am taking a class on Mesopotamian Art with Prof. Clemens Reichel. Reichel is a Mesopotamian Archaeologist from Germany who has had strong involvement with the Oriental Institute in Chicago; He has worked on the Diyala project (an effort to bring online information about thousands of
items found during the digs in the Diyala region but which have so far remained unpublished) , and on the Iraq Muesum Database, which catalogued lost items during the war looting years. In 2004 he also directed the dig at Hamoukar, a Syrian site which is among those set to redraw the map on early urbanism.


What I intend to do on this thread is to take notes from the readings here instead of in a notebook. This has several advantages.. for one, there is no textbook in this class - Reichel feels that despite so many decades of Mesopotamian archaeology and so many books, no one book offers better details than a choice selection of specialized articles, and so he selects these articles for us and usually provides them as well. So taking notes on an article is basically 80-90% of what I do here anyway and hence, this is quite natural. The below post may be different than my usual as I should mainly be concerned with arranging information for pre-test study sessions.


Although Reichel's lectures are excellent and highly informative, I won't like be able to post notes taken during the lectures themselves, for a number of reasons - time mainly. But also, one can't justifiably reproduce too many particulars of a lecture without risking an offence to the speaker. Of course Reichel must follow the findings of the field most of the time and supply his own insight only some of the time, or else he would be a radical - in other words, the selection of articles to be considered are the core of information. I would start with an exception however.. In the last class, Reichel discussed the Uruk Vase, something I have heard discussed dozens of times. I realize now however that it makes a difference when a Mesopotamian archaeologist discusses and artifact, versus when someone from the philological or literary circles discusses the same - there are so many details I didn't know of before!


Well, seeing as the image is already here on enenuru, and Sheshki has done a great job adapting the work of Wiggermann on this (see the En, Ensi and Lugal thread), I will use his image (in fact I see Wiggermann made many parallel points):




Actual Warka Vase:

Possible Warka Vase (Artistic Reconstruction)

So in addition to the points Sheski has notes from Wiggermann (see thread above) I will add a few notes from the lecture:



1. So along with Wiggermann, Reichel and others also feel that the missing figuring on the top register should be understood as the figure of the Urukian EN or "priest-king" as he is sometimes called. This figure is seen through Urukian art in the form shown in the above "reconstructed" version of the Vase: He as a) A turban like cap b) a net "skirt" (mesh of some sort) c) a long rope belt (in this scene being held by a servant). Reichel states that this is to be understood as one and the same figure as that on the ED cylinder seal depicting the EN feeding the goats - we've talked about the seal here before.


2. The Inanna/priestess gesture: While no one knows where it is goddess or maybe priestess representing the goddess, she is making a strange gesture with her thumb. While scholarly dispute continue about the gesture, Reichel thinks it is simply a "bring it in" gesture - she is pointing behind herself with her thumb - behind to the temple which is holding the goods.

3. The Ringposts have been discussed elsewhere on enenuru where we recognize them as standing outside the doors of sacred structures, not just of Inanna actually, but in this case yes Inanna.

4. Behind the ringposts, which represents inner temple space, is first a bull - yet, if you look carefully, their is a double line around the body of the bull. Reichel explains that this is the convention for drawing two of something in these cases - hence they are a pair of bulls. Perhaps like the lions at the gate of Eridu, they were apotropaic in nature. In any case, the alter like structure on their backs supports the symbol of the EN , and this may mean that the EN had ultimate authority over the temple and the distribution of goods.

5. At the very back are two depictions of objects of the same shape as the Uruk vase - we have long known here that the Uruk vase depicted itself, for one, Balag's wonderful painting of the vase pointed this out. However we notice there are two vases here, so the vase is depicting a pair that were used in this ritual occasion - and in fact, and I didn't know this, Reichel explained that archaeologists had long ago uncovered a small fragment of a second Uruk vase which is no held somewhere in the Berlin museum and is all but forgotten about. Therefore this depiction on the vase may be self-refrential as well as indicating its lost twin.

[us4-he2-gal2]

Reviewing:



A Curious and Sometimes a Trifle Macabre Artistry



By: Ian Hodder and Lynn Meskell


Current Anthropology, Vol. 52, No. 2 (April 2011), pp. 235-263

So this is my first post that is to consist specifically of note s from an article for the main purpose of studying for a university test. The format and depth of this summary may therefore be somewhat different than usual.



Hodder is the lead archaeologist digging at the site of Catal Huyuk in former Anatolia (modern Turkey). While this class is on Mesopotamian art, we started with a consideration of art in early Neolithic contexts. Both Catal Hoyuk and the more recently discovered Anatolian site, Gobekli Tepe, which Hodder discusses, predate Mesopotamian civilization by millennia. The author's orientation to the paper reads as follows:

"Comparison of two Turkish Neolithic sites with rich symbolism, C¸ atalhoyuk and Gobekli, suggests widespread and long-lasting themes in the early settled communities of the region. Three major symbolic themes are identified. The first concerns an overall concern with the penis, human and animal, that allows us to speak of a phallocentrism in contrast to the widely held assumption that the early agriculturalists in the Middle East emphasized the female form, fertility, and fecundity. The second theme concerns wild and dangerous animals, even in sites with domesticated plants and animals, and particularly the hard and pointed parts of wild animals, such as talons, claws, horns, and tusks. We interpret this evidence in relation to providing food for large-scale consumption and the passing down of objects that memorialize such events within specific houses. The third theme
is that piercing and manipulating the flesh were associated with obtaining and passing down human and animal skulls. The removal of human heads was also associated with symbolism involving raptors. Overall, we see a set of themes, including maleness, wild and dangerous animals, headlessness, and birds, all linked by history making and the manipulation of the body."


- Of all the sites of the neolithic era (Jericho, Jerf el Ahmar, Nevali Coi, Djade al-Mughara) which have attestible art and symbolism, Catal Hoyuk (7400-6000 BC) has had the most impressive array - Today, the situation has changed with the discovery of Gobekli, an even older site, with "an equally or more remarkable concerntation of symbolism".

- The sites are 450 km apart, Catalhoyuk depends mainly on domestic species, Gobekli on wild plants and animals.

- At Catalhoyuk symbolism is focused in domestic houses while at Gobekli it is focused in separate "temples".





****Key suggestion - rethinking matriarchy


" We suggest that current data do not support the traditional ideas of fertility and matriarchy that have long been associated with discussions of the emergence of settled agricultural life. Rather, current data present a picture of animality and phallic masculinity that downplays female centrality."

So rather than the older idea of some sort of matriarchy at Catal Hoyuk, which was formed after observing some pieces of feminine (goddess?) figures, and which modern feminists have latched onto, Hodder notes that a much more frequent them among neolithic symbolism was carnivorous species: "lions,
leopards, foxes, boars, bears, snakes, scorpions, spiders, and
raptors." More importantly, there is an over abundance of phallic imagery at these sites which has been traditionally underplayed, and which makes suggestions of matriarchy problematic.

- The famous Catalhoyuk image of the naked woman sitting on a pair of felines is "an isolated find" , indeed the number of clearly female figures "is small (40 out of 1,800 so far discovered)."

- Gobekli Tepe shows a total lack of female sculpture; exception, image of women carved into a "bench" - nude.




Phallocentrism:


- Studies of bovine bones at Catalhoyuk show that for feast and ceremonies, male bulls were often preferred. Predominence of males in feast occasions and in art may reflect the fact that they were harder to hunt.

- Suggests the T-pillars at Gobekli may in fact be phallic. Many have dangerous animals depicted on them with phallus. Close assocation between manlike beings (the T-pillars) and male animals.

-a number of stone pestles found at Gobekli which in Levintine contexts have been argued to have phallic associaitons.






Dangerous Animals - sharp pointy objects:



- Despite that 54% of the economny at Catalkoyuk is based on domestic sheep and goats, they are rarely depicted in the symbolism - rather, a particular focus is given to wild, dangerous and flesh eating animals especially their sharp body parts.

- Range of dangerous animals at Gobekli and Catalhoyuk similar, though the latter site shows also domesticated bulls while such was unknown at the former site:

Catalhuyok: "the tusks of wild boars; the horns of wild bulls, wild sheep, and goats; the beaks and talons of vultures and raptors; the teeth of weasels and foxes; and the claws of bears and leopards that are brought on-site and installed in walls in houses or worn as attachments on the body" Gobekli: "this same emphasis is seen in the sculptures showing bared teeth and fangs and the snarling heads."

- Bull horns on display in Catalhoyuk houses could memorialize the hunt and feast and make their way into the ritual system; evidence that for one case where a house was abandoned and built over, pits were dug to retrief wall relief from lower room - the horns and other sharp points of animals were passed down from generation to generation.




Piercing and Fleshing the Body:


At Catalhoyuk there is evidence for the plastering of both bull skulls and human skulls - following death, the head is removed (though rare, 6 out of 350 bodies found so far). This removal of the skull and the plastering of it may be thought of as "history building" and revered ancestors may have been the ones treated in this way.


- paintings at Catalhoyuk associate vultures (death) with severed skulls. At Gobekli, a pillar depicts also birds and a headless human.

- the deceased were buried under the residences in Catalhoyuk and an intimate knowledge of the body and its parts is evident; like the mounting of bull horns, the severing and replastering of the skull appears to have been what Hodder terms "history making".




Conclusion: "The ability to kill a dangerous wild animal or a large wild bull, to use and overcome its masculinity, and to control the distribution of its meat and mementoes was as important to creating the agricultural revolution as domesticating plants and animals. The knowledge of how to pierce animal and human flesh and disarticulate and reflesh human bodies and skulls was as important to creating the long-term dependencies of agricultural societies as the storage of grain and the management of herds. "

[us4-he2-gal2]

Reviewing:



“The Proto-Elamite Period,” in: Aruz, J. and Wallenfels, R. (eds.) Art of the First Cities





By: Holly Pittman

Pittman undertakes to describe the art of the Proto-Elamite period. By way of clarification, she explains the importance of Susa for this study - Susa in the Uruk period demonstrated an obvious influence from the Mesopotamian cultural sphere, it's art from this period is generally termed "late Uruk style"; however with the decline of Urukian power abroad, Susa exhibited it's ties with Elam - in fact the first written Elamite language is documented in this area and so the people are referred to as Proto-Elamites.






Human-Animals in the Proto-Elamite sphere/

a) Kneeling Bull: Proto-Elamite, silver
b) Lioness: Proto-Elamite, Crystaline limestone


Pittman explains that the subject of animals engaged in human activities seemed to hold particular meaning for the people living east of Uruk and in the mountains, at the turn of the 3rd mill. Animals consistently replace humans in cylinder seals of the Proto-Elamites - and a few statues such as the above are known.

- about a) fashioned from many pieces of hammered silver - function unknown
- about b) Identified as Proto-Elamite based on its close similarity to similar lioneon figures from seals of the period. Missing legs and tail likely constructed from gold/silver. Holes may have allowed it to suspended around neck of important person.








Demonic images in Proto-Elamite Iran/

c) Horned Demon: Proto-Elamite, copper


Two of these very interesting statues survive, although they are unprovenanced, they can be placed around the turn of the 3rd mill because of the use of arsenic copper among other things. Interestingly, they depeict a humanoid figure with ibex horns and wearing the body of a vulture. Pittman sees this as this image as having precedents in the area as early as 5000 BC - the presentation of demonic figures with horns is widespread in the ANE, with the exception of southern Sumer where little in this line has been found.


*It's possible that these figures represent a continuation of the power of shamanistic ideas closely associated with a tribal way of life that was already obsolete in the urban centers of southern Sumer.









Vessels with Nude Heros and Animals in Relief/









d) Vessel from Mesopotamia, Jemdat Nasr, Limestone
e) Vesseel from Mesopotamia, ED II, (Tell Agrab, Shara Temple), Gypsum

The master of animals motif also appears on seal impressions from the late Uruk period.

about d) Bearded man wear double strand belt - hair parted in middle, bear central do above eyebrows. Curls. Figure thought to be lahmu, hairy one, a spirit of the rivers who masters wild animals and takes care of domestic herds with his water.

about e) figure wears also double strand belt - acts as master of animals. Stylized mountains around figure.






Kneeling man holding Pot/

f) Kneeling man: ED I, Mesopotamia (Tell Agrab, Shara Temple) Gypsum

about f) Wearing double belt. The straining of arms and legs to lift the pot represent clear movement in the figure, something that is "extraordinarily rare in Mesopotamian art." Vessel being carried is characteristic of ED period, Diyala region.







Bull- man/

g) Bull-man: ED I, Umma, Alabaster.


about g) Originally fited with shell, gold or silver extremities. Originally had beard etc. Three tiered belt. The figure is of a Bull-man, has a companion piece in the Baghdad museum, and together they are the only examples of Bull-man in the round.
Folded hand suggest figure was temple furnishing.

*Inscription on should reads "For Enlil. Pabilgagi, king of Umma."






Stele of Ushumgal (early Kudurru):

h) Stele of Ushumgal: ED I, Mesopotamia, Gypsum


about h) Scene features Ushumgal, a priest before an elaborate architectural facede - perhaps a temple. An archaic inscription records some sort of land transaction, a sale, or grant (interpretation of the inscription is difficult).








Impression of a City Seal/

i) City Seal impression: ED I, Mesopotamia, clay


An example of the city seal impressions found in the Royal Cemetary of Ur - these seals bear proto-cuneiform signs that represented individual city states within Mesopotamia proper. Although not all cities are identifiable, on this speciman, the signs for Kesh, Adab, Ur and Larsa are evident.

[us4-he2-gal2]

The Square Temple at Tell Asmar and the Construction of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, ca. 2900-2350 B.C.E.


JEAN M. EVANS

Author's Introduction:

" The Square Temple building period or, part of a temple sequence uncovered at the Diyala site of Tell Asmar, defined the ED II subdivision along with the Asmar sculpture hoard and Fara-style glypptic. Mesopotamia. A review of the Square Temple excavations suggests that the ED II subdivision is problematic because of the criteria upon which it was established: sculpture style was given precedence over the Square Temple material assemblage, which is ED I. It is therefore concluded here that even within the Diyala region itself, the concept of ED II is largely untenable, and new interpretations are proposed for the original contexts upon which the Early Dynastic subdivisions of Mesopo- tamia were formulated. More generally, and as an assess- ment of an established chronology, this article addresses the various issues involved in negotiating the intersection of stratigraphy, material culture, and dating."


- Evans uses (mainly) unpublished evidence at the Oriental Institute Chicago, in order to argue against the conviction that sufficient evidence exists for the cateogorization of an ED II period.





Geometric style vs Realistic style sculpture/



Hundreds of sculptures were excavated in the Diyala region - that which was geometric was interreted as evidence for a ED II period distinction, that which was realistic, ED III. The famous Tell Asmar sculpture hoard are of the geometric sculpture type. Yet, Evens states, these make bad chronological markers as statues intended for temple are the contintuation of traditional styles.

Yet the significance of the dating of the sculpture for the ED II period was made even greater when archaeologists on the site began dating architectual features by there relation to the sculpture: The Nintu temple at Khafajah, despite ED I architectural features, was dated to the ED II period because examples of the geometric sculpture were found there.




Basic Cristicism/


"Criticisms since the Diyala excavations, archaeologists have maintained that certain regional characteristics in the Diyala are not applicable elsewhere, particularly with reference to ED II.26 Although ceramically ill-defined the Diyala excavators had characterized ED II as the most important of the Early Dynastic subdivisions, "a time of extraordinary expansion and creativeness."27 In contrast, the ceramically well-defined ED I subdivision was characterized in the Diyala as transitional.28 Since the Diyala excavations, the two ED II diagnostic ceramic forms in Houses 6-4 have not been identified in any subsequent archaeological excavation in Mesopotamia, and ED I has come to be recognized as a period of great importance on the basis of ceram- ics.29 The ED I diagnostic ceramics defined in the Diyala region are represented at sites in both southern Mesopotamia and the Hamrin."


Fara Style Glyptic:

A blow to the ED II categoration made by the Diyala team, came with Hansen's discovery of Fara style glyptic in the Ianna temple at Nippur. Fara style glyptic consists of crowded scenes of humans and animals in combat. The Diyala team found some in temples at Tell Asmar and tried to argue that this establishes the date of these temples at ED II - Hansen's observations meant that the glyptic style, in fact, dates as early as ED I.


Pottery in the Square temple:

The Square temple in Tell Asmar is one of the case makers for the ED II period - it was forminative in the serious of observations that led Diyala excavators to form this distinction. Going on the finding of geometric sculpture and Fara style glyptic within the temple, execavators labeled what would otherwise seem to be ED I sequence pottery to the ED II dating range; Evans states on it's own merit, the ED II pottery from the temple should be ED I.




Instead of this dynamic of dating pottery by sculpture, Evans suggests the reverse:

"The date of the Asmar hoard should be established by ceramics, which indicate that the hoard was buried before the end of ED I. Geometric-style sculpture is, then, pres- ent in temple contexts throughout the Early Dynastic period, and I suggest that the maintenance of temple traditions encouraged the continuation of relatively consistent sculpture styles."



Evans final suggestion: "Yet, rather than leaving a gap in the Early Dynastic chronology, the solution outlined here eliminates ED II terminology by way of correction: the ED I dating of the relevant Square Tem- ple and Shara Temple levels is based on ceramics, and the ED II ceramics at Khafajah are better understood as localized variations on ED III ceramics. The span of time now accorded to an ED II period could then be subsumed equally into ED I and ED III."

[sheshki]

Wow Ush, what big and interesting posts. Thanks for sharing!

[us4-he2-gal2]

Narration in Babylonian Art

by Ann Perkins

American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 61 no 1, 1957

Although the article in question is not quite dated, the information Perkins provides is still essential and "foundational" to the study of Mesopotamian art. Mainly, the author is concerned here with the idea of "narration" - when a scene on a stele or seal can be said to be telling a story through inter-related scenes.


Perkins notes that the number of narrative scenes are few compared to number of art scenes which seem purely decorative or symbolic in intent. Due to the lack of stone resources, these scenes were typically small in scale, appearing on Vases, plaques, stelae and cylinder seals. Two forms of narrative are attested:

a) Culminating scene: one group of figures, one moment of time, at the climax of a series of events, standing for the entire story. An Example is the Warka Vase: the bottom two registers depict rows of men bearing offerings, in the top register the EN priest is before the goddess/priestess. The registers do not reflect "separation in time or in idea" - but a story which culminates in the upper register.

b) "episodic" or successive scenes: shows shows successives episodes of the story, often juxtaposed without clear delimitation. The group of scenes, usually two or three, stand for the entire story. An example is the "Lion Hunt" stele from Uruk. In this stele, a man, who appears to be the city rule or priest-king given his outfit, attacks a lion - but there is not one but two depictions of this act (one with javelin one with bow). As Perkins explains this is not to be taken as several men, but the same man at different points in the narrative (just as a cartoon displays action by repeated drawings of the same character).

www.baghdadmuseum.org/stromm_fig18-sm.jpg

"The subject is presumably an early representation of the royal hunt shown so explicitly and beautifully in Assyrian reliefs some two thousand years later."



These two narration types were not always strictly separated in the minds of the Mesopotamians, the author states: The Standard or Ur, for example, contains 6 registers, 3 devoted to what was probably a specific military campaign, the "war side" and the reverse three dedicated to gathering the spoils of war and a victory celebration, the "peace' side. This item would seem to combine both styles of narration as the "episodic" scene appear, as the war is conducted and the booty collect and finally the celebration; and yet the celebration register itself represent a sort of "culmination" - so the distinction between the two types is not always clear.

[us4-he2-gal2]

Early Cylinder Seal Design and Function







The following summaries proceed from Chap. 1 of the book First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, by Dominique Collon (2003).



Uruk Cylinder Seals/

Mark Brandes published a study wherein it is suggested that the subject of the scenes in Uruk period seals can be categorized into certain branch of the administration.

- One category are those seals which seem to depict the priest-king figure or EN of Uruk - he wears a beard and thick rolled band around his head, he hair is worn in a bun, he wear the cross-hatched kilt/skirt. His priestly roles seem evident in his ritual feeding of sheep from a stylized plant, in other scenes he takes part in hunting, is in battle or with prisoners. **The administration centered on the temples of Uruk and seals depicting the priest-king may have been use for sealing central temple stores.

- Another category, rows of animals, sometimes called 'animal file' would have been used by the branch administration responsible for animal husbandry or hunting (depending on types of animal represented).

- Those showing prisoners would have been used to seal booty.

- Those showing boating scenes would have been used by officials in charge or fishing and irrigation.

- Other seals particularly those showing mythical or heraldic beasts or monster cannot be so easily categorized. Common theme involves entwined snakes or braid patterns alternating with birds in a variety of combinations - it could be that they had a geographical meaning and have been used by different localities connected to the the central administration.





Jemdat Nasr Scenes:



Collon explains that while many of the types of scenes evidenced from the Uruk period, male type industries (animal husbandry, hunting, cereal production, irigation, fishing, booty etc.) continued into the Jemdat Nasr period, many of the scenes from the new period are typified by what might be terms womens industries - weaving, potter, spinning.

- Pig-tailed figure are often scene and represent women who are generally squatting but can also be engaged in processions and hold knobbed staffs

- Activiities such as weaving are shown - stylised spiders represent weaving as indicated by the Sumerian goddess of weaving Uttu (whose form is a spider.)

- Other Jemdat seal design show women making pots (although it is sometimes interpreted that they are offering them).

- Seals depicting women picking fruit could have been used for storing james or preserves.




Early Dynastic Period/


While use of Cylinder Seals in Uruk and Jemdat Nasr period is mostly evidenced in south Mesopotamia and southwestern Iran, a massive shift in the trade route occured toward the end of the 4th Millennium following the decine of Uruk; the trade routes would now run "from Susa and southwestern Iran through the Diyala region and up in a huge arc through northern Mesopotamia and Syria, with a southern extension into Palestin...the sites along this Susa-Syria trade route are linked by a common geometric Internation seal style."


In the ED A (ED I and early ED II) period, the Susa-Syria trade route flourished; however, in the ED B (later ED II and ED III) period, the southern end of the route was taken over by Mesopotamia, which would have far reaching effects on seal design in the later ED period.


a) Geometric design in ED


Typifying seal design during the Susa-Syria trade route period are the Geometric design seals, sometimes termed "Piedmont" seals because of their distribution in the foothills of the Zagros and southern Turkey - but they also have strong presence in northern Mesopotamia, the Diyala region and Syria-Palestine.

The design continue the abstract tendencies of the Jemdat Nasr period and go further - patterns are often based on the rosette which can be enclosed in a circle or surrended by a hatched circular band.. hatched bands form arches or lozenges
etc.

Toward the end of the 3rd millennium (ED B) "there was a revival of interest in geometric designs which seems to be associaed with Mesopotamian activity along the same trade-route . The designs consist of herring bone patterns in three registers and a grid of lines enclosing drill-holes with examples from Ur, Fara, Tello and Susa in the south to Hama and Tarsus int he west...that the design may have been conciously revived is suggest by 53 which conbines ED A ach and rosette with an ED B contest scene.


** Collon makes no mention of the potential meaning (if any) of abstract or geometric patterns. However if they indeed were characterized by the existence of the Susa-Syria trade network, it is not surprising they would lack the conventions of the temple administration seen in earlier seals. Somehow these design seem to have fit the needs of traders.


b) Diyala styles:



In the Diyala region during ED A a style known as Brocade was particularly prevelant -patterns of animals with interlocking horns. Another style features animals whose bodies were cut with a broad cutting wheel but whose eyes and antlers are finely incised. The Diyala region is also region in Mesopotamia to feature contest scenes which were known from Proto-Elamite Iran at that time and "must have influenced Mesopotamian Iconography". Thereafter, in ED B, the Diyala seems to have become a cultural province of southern Mesopotamia.


c) Influence of Mesopotamian south on seals in ED B Syria:

Scenes from Syrian seals reflect growing influence of ED B Mesopotamia - Banquet scenes with figures drinking through tubes or eating from tables, accompanied by musicians etc.



d) Southern Mesopotamia in ED B

"During this period it seems that a secular administration gradually replace the temple organisation - a process which was to culminate in Akkadian times." Collon distinguishes to main themes in the cylinder seals of this area, the contest and the banquet scenes, and attampes to put them in chronological order.


Contest Scenes:

Originally these scenes consisted of Lion attacking bull from behind in 4th millennium seals - in ED A humans were now involved in some scenes and scenes in which lions attack bulls head on (from the front). In the Diyala regionfor the first time "we find man's great ally, the bull-man."

"Seal 79 shows a radical change in the composition which I take to mark the beginning o the ED B. The emphasis is now on vertical contestants and the animals stand on their hind-legs..This change in the main axis of the composition, from predominantly horizantal to vertical, led to the deelopment of more complex compositions. Crossed lions now appear and their manes are hatched, possibly owing to Syrian influence.