Iberian Peninsula to the indus

pantheon
. especially important among these is a female figure, 
inanna – later identified with the semitic ishtar – whose symbol (the ring-headed post) 
is found in the earliest written texts from uruk. the famous stone mask known as the 
“lady of Warka” (
fig. 2)
is possibly a depiction of inanna. As known from later sources, 
inanna/ishtar has a complex and multifold personality, which probably derives from 
synchretizing a number of originally independent local goddesses: she is at the same 
time a goddess of love and sexual behaviour, a warlike goddess and an astral deity 
(she represents the planet Venus, the morning and evening star).
the concept of kingship, which lay at the core of the symbolic system of mesopo-
tamian civilisation, was also elaborated in the uruk period. “Kingship” expressed the 
special position of the ruler as representative of the human community in front of the 
gods. the main task of human society was believed to serve for the gods and to pro-
duce food for them, and the ruler was responsible for ensuring the correct operation 
of the society toward the gods, who in their turn would guarantee peace, fertility and 
prosperity to the population. in later times, cuneiform sources often underscore the 
special relation between the king and a female goddess (in most cases inanna/ishtar), 
who acts at the same time as the king’s patron in war, his lover and the mother of 
the legitimate heir, and thus guarantees a rightful and smooth succession to power. 
the king is a human being, but his relation with the goddess reveals his superhuman 
status, which in later times is often expressed by post-mortem divinisation. 
A male figure, who appears prominently in figurative arts of the uruk period and 
is conventionally known as “king-priest” (
fig. 3),
is believed to represent the first 
visual expression of the concept of mesopotamian kingship. he is often depicted in 
larger size in comparison with the other characters of the composition and wears a 
special attire and headdress, or hairdo, which makes him easily recognisable. he is 
generally bare-chested, but wears a long skirt with a thick belt at the waist. he has 
a long beard and wears on the head what has been variously interpreted as a cap 
with a thick brim or a chignon held in place by a headband. 
the figure is involved in various activities – heading processions to the temple 
and taking part in different types of ceremonies, inspecting prisoners, aiming arrows 
at both enemies and wild animals, feeding domestic animals, etc. (
fig. 4
) – all of 
which are later connected with the typical duties of the mesopotamian king, who is 
portrayed at the same time as a triumphant warrior, a pious worshipper of the gods 
and a shepherd for his people. even his physical features (massive, muscular body 
structure, wide breast, strong arms, broad face and large eyes) appear to correspond 
to those that, as demonstrated in a groundbreaking contribution by irene Winter, 
in later mesopotamian texts and figurative arts symbolically represent the qualities 
of the ideal heroic ruler. the name “king-priest” well represents the nature of the 
uruk ruler, who appears to be characterised by a stronger religious component in 
comparison with later mesopotamian kings, in the same way as public buildings of 
the uruk period in Southern mesopotamia can be generally defined as religious, or 
ceremonial, in character, whereas palaces, as known in the region since the first 
half of the third millennium Bc as the residence of the dynast and its court and 
the seat of the central administration, appear to be missing to the present state of 
research. 
in a well-known scene, depicted on the top register of the Warka vase, but also 
repeated on various contemporary cylinder seals, the “king-priest”, at the head of a 
procession of gift-bringing figures, faces a female figure standing beside a couple of 
2
Mask of the “Lady of Uruk”
Uruk, Southern Iraq
Ca. 3300–3000 BC
Gypsum alabaster
National Museum of Iraq, Baghdad 
(after Crüsemann, Van Ess, Hilgert, 
Salje 2013, fig. 11.1)
3
“King-priest”
Uruk, Southern Iraq 
Ca. 3300–3000 BC
Gypsum alabaster, shell and bitumen 
National Museum of Iraq, Baghdad 
OR VAM Berlin????
(after Crüsemann, Van Ess, Hilgert, 
Salje 2013, fig. 20.1)

---

205
204
symbols of inanna, who receives the offers and is identified either with the goddess 
herself or with her priestess. this scene is considered to represent a precursor of 
the so-called “sacred marriage”, a ritual apparently taking place between a deified 
human king and inanna, seen as a symbolic counterpart to the mythical union be-
tween this and the god dumuzi on the occasion of the new year festival, whose aim 
was to propitiate the fertility of crops and animals.
the couple formed by the heroic ruler and the goddess thus represents the core 
of a new “iconography of power”, where the main characters are joined by a number 
of recurring symbols (weapons, vanquished enemies, lions and other wild beasts, 
rosettes, etc.). this new iconography obviously had a strong appeal on contemporary 
societies which were on the way toward increasing social complexity, as it spread, 
during the second half of the fourth millennium Bc, over a vast geographical area 
encompassing the whole of Greater mesopotamia (mesopotamia proper and the 
neighbouring regions of Western iran and northern Syria) and even reaching egypt.
the four stone statuettes from the louvre and from the museums in Zurich and 
padua, which are exhibited together for the first time in Venice, are almost exact 
replicas of the same figure, who shows the same features as the uruk “king-priest”, 
except for the fact that he is naked and lacks the typical skirt. unfortunately, all of 
them are devoid of context, as they reached europe after having been acquired, in 
unclear circumstances, between the late 1850s and the early 1860s by different in-
dividuals who were based in the territory of present-day iraq. it would be therefore 
vain to speculate too much about their original place(s) of discovery and their specific 
function, and even on the intriguing possibility that they might have originally formed 
a group. Stylistic analysis and comparison with excavated materials led to exclude 
that they might be forgeries and suggested that they should date to the earlier phase 
of the late uruk period (possibly around 3300–3200 Bc). 
even though attributes of masculinity, such as a beard, a muscular body and so 
forth are often emphasised in later representations of mesopotamian kings, as bodily 
perfection and male vigour were inextricably connected with concepts of dominance 
and rulership, in later times these always wear the full insignia connected to their 
role and are never portrayed naked. in mesopotamian art, nudity tends to be reserved 
for the following categories of figures: heroes of supernatural nature (“heroic nudi-
ty”); deceased persons, prisoners and dead enemies; worshippers and particularly 
libators (“cultic” or “ritual nudity”). All of these possibilities have been considered 
for the paris, Zurich and padua statuettes by earlier scholars, most of whom came 
to the conclusion that they probably portrayed the “king-priest” performing a ritual 
in cultic nudity. Alternatively, the figurines may portray dead rulers in heroic nudity, 
similar to other superhuman figures and hybrid beings, which are often portrayed, 
e.g. in a “master of animal” attitude, in contemporary glyptic and relief. Such hero-
icised ancestors of the ruling dynast would very appropriately represent the male 
counterpart of the female goddess in this most ancient elaboration of the iconographic 
expression of the ideology of mesopotamian kingship.
R.E.
4
Cylinder seal and modern impression: 
cultic scene with “king-priest” and 
attendant
Uruk, Southern Iraq
Ca. 3300–3000 BC
Shell and copper alloy (the bull figure)
National Museum of Iraq, Baghdad 
OR British Museum????
(after Crüsemann, Van Ess, Hilgert, 
Salje 2013, figs 20.5, 24.6, 24.1)