Plant Forms in Jewellery from the Royal Cemetery at Ur Author(s): Naomi F. Miller Source: Iraq, Vol. 62 (2000), pp.

149-155 Published by: British Institute for the Study of Iraq Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200486 Accessed: 17/09/2010 10:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bisi. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British Institute for the Study of Iraq is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iraq.

http://www.jstor.org

149

PLANT FORMS IN JEWELLERY FROM THE ROYAL CEMETERY

ATUR1
By NAOMI F. MILLER

finds Sir LeonardWoolleyreportedfrom the Royal Cemeteryat Ur, the Among the spectacular and "diadem" found in Puabi'stomb are amongthe best known.2Partsof these items head-dress look like plants, and many plants had symbolicvalue to the ancient Sumeriansin addition to theirpracticalimportance for food, fodder,fuel and all mannerof materialculture.Insofaras the
Ur ornaments refer to real plants, it is therefore important to know what those plants are. at the level of genus (e.g., oak [Quercus], rose [Rosa], date [Phoenix]) are Plant classifications consistent which that the cross-culturally, suggests way humans process sense data from frequently the natural world is similar, and that the features of plants salient for identification and classification have both a reality in nature and a reality in human perception.3 That is why we can even hope to recognize stylized and abstracted versions of plants and animals created by people of different times and places, such as those of ancient Sumer. Meaning, being culturally constructed, cannot be dealt with so simply;4 for example, we may accurately identify the horse depicted in Lascaux, but not know why it was painted. Fortunately, our database for ancient Mesopotamia is so rich archaeologically and textually that we can reasonably try to interpret a representation

once we have identifiedit.

The new exhibit mounted by the University of Pennsylvania Museum, "Treasures from the

Royal Tombsof Ur", and publicationof the associatedcatalogue5 promptedthe currentreconsideration of the material. Detailed justification for previous identifications and new identifications for some of the plants represented in the ornaments from the Royal Cemetery are presented. Puabi's head-dress6

Puabi's head-dressis a complex artefact which includes four wreaths with botanical motifs
es of eight-petalled rosettes (as does an associated (Fig. 1). The uppermost wreath ha s "comb"); to identifys tylized design as a flower, a star, both, or something else entirely would require a substantial amount of supplementary information about Mesopotamian symbolism. Below the rosettes is a wreath with long, very narrowly lanceolate/elliptic gold leaves, grouped in threes. Below that are two wreaths of ovate (i.e., wider at the base) gold leaves. To anyone familiar with the vegetation along the Euphrates river, the leaves on Puabi's headdress look like willow and poplar.7 Willow (Salix alba being most common) and poplar (Populus euphratica, P. alba, and P. nigra) are importantcomponentsof the vegetationin this habitat.8 The leaves of other trees that grow along the river, like tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) and oriental plane (Platanus orientalis), bear no resemblance to the leaves on the head-dress. Identifications as willow

and poplar are satisfyingnot just becausethe people of Ur would have known these trees, but becausethey grow togetherin the same moist habitat. The shape of a leaf would seem to be the most important characteristicfor a botanical In this respectthe long, narrow upper leaves are like willow. They are unlike representation.9
would like to thank Richard L. Zettler for advice and 11I helpful comments on the text and for suggesting several references, and Richard Harris of the Arboretum at Arizona State University for providing photographs of male and female date-palms. 2Woolley, 1934. 3Berlin (1992: 21) proposes that "the organizing principle of any ethnobiological system of classification will be people's cognitive assessments of the gross perceptual resemblances observed among classes of organisms." For an introduction to the discussion surrounding the question of the degree to which folk classification reflects natural realities or mental constructs see Medin and Atran, 1999.
Iraq LXII (2000) 4 Berlin, 1992: 8.

SZettler and Home, 1998. 6Woolley, 1934: P1. 128. 7Maxwell-Hyslop, 1971: 3, n. 2. Townsend and Guest, 1980. 9For taxonomists from Linnaeus to modem times, "the genus is seen as a configurational category, recognizable almost instantaneously" (Berlin, 1992: 61); that is, identification does not require close study. Given the high degree of overlap between many folk and Linnaean genera, anatomical details would seem to be of lesser significance than the overall form of an organism.

150

N. F. MILLER

ji

.;7:.%.~ ':v
......

w. %"k
t

Museum). (Universityof Pennsylvania Fig. 1 Puabi'shead-dress willow leaves on the branch, however, because the goldsmith grouped them in threes instead of singly. The ovate lower leaves bear a great resemblance to those of poplar. Despite these considerations, Woolley felt that the lower set of ovate leaves were beech-shaped.10 Beech (presumably Fagus sylvatica or F. orientalis) is a tree that does not grow in Iraq and is
10Woolley puts inverted commas around the word "beech" but not around the word "willow" (1934: 84).

PLANT FORMS IN JEWELLERY FROM UR

151

Fig. 2 Detail of Puabi's "diadem"as assembledby Woolley (Universityof Pennsylvania Museum). more closely linked to the cooler and moister climes of the Black and Caspian seas.11Mesopotamian craftsmen would have been unfamiliar with the leaves of the beech tree, even if they ate imported beechnuts or carved imported beech wood. Compared to shape, the pattern formed by the veins and leaf margin would be characteristics of secondary importance in leaf representation. In the gold version both upper and lower types have a central midrib with parallel, straight, unbranched venation that extends to the leaf margin. These characteristics fit beech, and probably explain Woolley's designation. Leaves of poplar and willow, both members of the plant family Salicaceae, have a midrib, but the veins are not straight. The smooth leaf margin of the gold leaves resembles neither beech nor poplar or willow. It therefore seems likely that the gold leaves were "mass-produced", and that realistic portrayal of the venation was sacrificed for efficiency's sake. Similarly, the "long acuminate" leaf tip of the head-dress leaves is not botanically important but rather functions as a place to attach carelian beads. Comparative characteristics of beech and poplar leaves and the lower leaves of the head-dress appear in Table 1. Several manuals and floras illustrate the leaves: Populus euphratica and Salix alba,12 Fagus orientalis,13Fagus sylvatica.14 The "diadem"15 The "diadem" (Fig. 2) was put together by Woolley, based on his observation of an apparently in situ group of beads and ornaments that includes representations of cervids and caprids, three plant-like forms and abstract forms. Richard Zettler, who has compared the original field notes, drawings and photographs with the objects in the University of Pennsylvania Museum collection, considers Woolley to have faithfully assembled this disparate assemblage as he saw them in situ. Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that several simpler pieces were mistakenly arranged
Davis, 1965. Zohary, 1966. 13Heywood, 1978. 14Watts, 1963. 5Woolley, 1934: PI. 140. The "diadem" has been taken apart permanently, because the pieces come from several different items (Zettler and Homrne, 1998).

152
TABLE

N. F. MILLER

1: Comparisonof beech and poplar leaves with those on Puabi'shead-dress (botanicalterms from

Shape Venation

Leaf margin

Guest, 1966) Beech Puabi ovate elliptic(widestin centre) parallel parallel straight straight unbranching unbranching to edge of leaf to edge of leaf end of vein formspoint, entire(i.e., smooth) thoughleaf not really"toothed"

Poplar ovate (widestat base) less parallel curved branching not to edge of leaf serrate-dentate

Fig. 3 (left) Male date, floweringbranch(length 3.8 cm, diameter 1.0cm) (University of Pennsylvania Museum). at Arizona Fig. 4 (right) Floweringbranchof male date-palm(courtesyof the Arboretum State University). to form the very complex, composite artefact known as the "diadem". The new Ur exhibit, which separates and reorganizes these items into more plausible groupings, reflects the current interpretation. The following discussion deals with the three plant-like forms. The Sumerians had a word for one of them, a2-an-su-sa-la2: an item of jewellery in spadix shape.16 1. Small gold, branchingpendant17(Fig. 3). Woolley and Pittman18 identify this type as wheat. Unlike real grain, which is two-ranked, however, the gold filaments on this item are arranged quite three-dimensionally around the main axis. Woolley oriented the pieces stem up. Loops at one end suggest they should be strung so that they give the impression of a hanging inflorescence.
16PSDa2-an 2: 1.2. A spadixis "a flowerspike with a jewellery, thoughhe does not make the specificconnection below. fleshy or thickenedaxis" (Guest, 1966). Van Dijk (1967: suggested 253 ff.) discusses the symbolic importance of plant1934:PI. 141. 17Woolley, for women(goddessesand priestdepictionsin ornaments "8Woolley,1934: 89; Pittman, 1998 (n. 9 erroneously the designation to N. Miller). esses) in various texts, and even mentions the Ur tomb attributes

PLANT FORMS IN JEWELLERY FROM UR

153

Fig. 5 (left) Female date, fruiting branch (length 5.1 cm, width 3.1 cm, depth 0.7 cm) Museum). (Universityof Pennsylvania at Arizona Fig. 6 (right) Fruitingbranchof femaledate-palm(courtesyof the Arboretum State University).

A plausible identification on both morphological and symbolic grounds is the inflorescence of the date-palm (Phoenix dactylifera), a "much-branched spadix".19This could describe the male flowering branch (Fig. 4). The Sumerian word for spadix (or, more probably, the whole inflorescence) is a2-an, with a primary meaning of broom.20 If the proposed identification is correct, we now have a physical referent for the Sumerian word a2-an-su-sa-la2. 2. "Fruiting"branchpendant21(Fig. 5). For many years this item, too, was displayed upside down. Viewed correctly, it gives the impression of a bunch of some sort of fruit. The ellipsoidal shape of the beads is too long for grape but consistent with date. Dates ripen from the tip toward the main stem, so the carnelian bead could reresent the first ripe date of the bunch.22 In nature, the fruiting inflorescence has dozens of dates, but a single segment has many fewer (Fig. 6). The extant ornaments have only a few fruits per inflorescence but could have had as many as four, date not very rich for an entire branch but perhaps sufficiently dense for a symbolic representation. Dates are associated with the goddess Inanna and fertility. Inanna is not shy to point out, "the one who makes the dates be full of abundance in their panicles, am I",23 and the food offerings in the Ur cemetery included date.24Date would be a satisfying identification because male flowering branches and female fruiting branches occur together in art of the period, notably on an inscribed
'9Feinbrun-Dothan, 1986.
20PSD, a2-an. 2Woolley, 1934:PI. 141, Pittman,1998. 22Both JulideAker and RichardZettlerpointedout to

me thatcarnelian and gold are quiteclose in colourto fully ripeand less ripedates respectively. 1988:line 7. 23Sjoberg, 24Ellison et al., 1978.

154

N. F. MILLER

Fig. 7 (left) Apple(?)branch(length 3.2cm, width 3.8cm, depth 3.0cm) (University of Museum). Pennsylvania surrounded Fig. 8 (right) Apple showingclusteredinflorescence by leaves closely spaced along branch. plaque from the Inanna Temple at Nippur.25 The identification of these pieces as date serves as a reminder not to take artistic representations too literally, for in the physical world the fruits cannot develop until after the female flowers have been fertilized by the pollen of the male flowers. 3. Three-leavedand three-fruitedpendant26(Fig.7). Woolley27 described this type as a "cluster ... of three pomegranates with their leaves", though neither fruit nor leaves looks particularly like those of the pomegranate. Following up a suggestion by Andrew Cohen,28 an identification as apple is plausible. On morphological grounds apple is consistent with the form of the pieces (Fig. 8). Like poplar, the leaves have a central midrib and may be wider at the base. On the branch, apple leaves can sometimes have a whorled appearance, because they grow closely spaced along short shoots. Like the plant represented in the pendants, many apple species, including Pyrus malus, have several fruits in terminal clusters. In that species the leaves are about twice the length of the 2.5-5 cm "depressed-globose" fruit.29Plant geography and archaeology present no impediment to the identification - not only does apple grow in Iraq today, dried apple-halves were found in the Royal Cemetery.30Finally, much as the date-palm is commonly associated with sexuality in Sumerian, so too are apples.31 Conclusion The referents and meanings of symbolic representations can be difficult to determine, especially for those of cultures remote in time and space, but their forms are not necessarily arbitrary. This is particularly the case for representations of biological entities, like plants and animals, which are likely to be understood by people in different cultures, as long as they are familiar with the organism being depicted. Therefore, as others have suggested, we can be confident that Puabi's head-dress includes depictions of willow and poplar leaves. It is also possible to identify with near certainty two types of ornament as male and female date inflorescences, based on the morphology and physiology of the date, which is consistent with what we know about the symbolic expression of Sumerian concerns about fertility and the afterlife. Similar reasoning applies to the "apples", but the argument connecting apple morphology and physiology to the Sumerian symbolic and representational conventions of these pieces may not be quite as strong as that for the dates.
1963: P1. VI, plaque 7N 133-4. 26Woolley, 1934: PI. 141. 27 Woolley, 1934: 89.
25Hansen,
28

Townsend and Guest, 1966: 110. 30Ellison et al., 1978. 31Veenker, 1994.
29

Personalcommunication.

FROM UR PLANT FORMS IN JEWELLERY

155

References
Berlin, Brent 1992. Ethnobiological Classification. Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in

Societies.PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton. Traditional Vol. 7. UniversityPress,Edinburgh. Davis, P. H. (ed.) 1965.Floraof Turkey, Ellison, R., J. M. Renfrew,D. Brothwelland N. Seeley 1978. Some food offeringsfrom Ur, excavatedby Science5: 167-77. Journal Sir LeonardWoolley,and previouslyunpublished. of Archaeological Jerusalem. Vol. 4. IsraelAcademyof Sciencesand Humanities, N. 1986.FloraPalaestina, Feinbrun-Dothan, Baghdad. Guest, E. 1966.Floraof Iraq,Vol. 1. Ministryof Agriculture, Hansen, Donald P. 1963. New votive plaques from Nippur. Journalof Near EasternStudies23: 145-67 and plates. Plantsof the World. Books, New York. Mayflower Heywood,V. H. 1978.Flowering c. 3000-612 B.C. Methuen,London. K. R. 1971. Western AsiaticJewellery Maxwell-Hyslop, pp. 1-15. MIT Press, Medin, Douglas L., and Scott Atran 1999. Introduction.In eid. (eds.), Folkbiology, Cambridge. Pittman,H. 1998.Jewelry.In Zettlerand Horne, 1998:87-122. Studies40: 165-86. Journalof Cuneiform A. 1988.A hymn to Inannaand her self-praise. Sj6berg, Baghdad. Townsend,C. C. and E. Guest 1966.Floraof Iraq,Vol. 2. Ministryof Agriculture, and AgrarianReform,Baghdad. 1980.Floraof Iraq,Vol.4. Ministryof Agriculture 233-68. Studien zumAltenOrient, van Dijk, J. 1967.VAT8382,ein zweisprachiges Heidelberger Konigsritual. fruit, ancientNear Easternsexualmetaphors(Draft, 5 January1994). Veenker,R. A. 1994. Forbidden Watts,M. T. 1963. MasterTreeFinder.NatureStudyGuild, Berkeley. Publicationsof the Joint Expeditionof the II, The Royal Cemetery. Woolley, Sir L. 1934. Ur Excavations to Mesopotamia. BritishMuseumand the Museumof the Universityof Pennsylvania
Zettler, R. L., and L. Home 1998. Treasuresfrom the Royal Tombs of Ur. University of Pennsylvania

Museum,Philadelphia. Jerusalem. Vol. 1. IsraelAcademyof Sciencesand Humanities, Zohary,M. 1966. FloraPalaestina,