Iberian Peninsula to the indus

Bibliography
: Spycket 1981; Winter 1989, pp. 573–
583; Schmandt-Besserat 1993, pp. 201–219; matthi-
ae 1994; Winter 1996, pp. 11–26; Wilhelm 2001, pp. 
478–483; Winkelmann 2003, pp. 567–678; Gambino, 
rova 2005, pp. 6–53; rova 2010, pp. 269–284; crüse-
mann, Van ess, hilgert, Salje 2013.

---

207
206
65
Standing nude “King-prieSt” 
Southern Mesopotamia 
Uruk period (ca. 3300–3000 BC)
Limestone, H. 25 cm, W. 9.8 cm
Archäologische Sammlung Universität 
Zürich, Zurich, inv. 1942
Antiquarische Gesellschaft in Zürich, 
Ankäufe & Geschenke 1862–1874 
(Staatsarchiv des Kantons Zürich W 
I 3 274.4), 25 no. 20, reproduced in 
Mango et al. 2008, p. 35, fig. 15); F. 
Bürkli 1864, 
Neunzehnter Bericht über 
die Verrichtungen der Antiquarischen 
Gesellschaft
(der Gesellschaft für 
vaterländische Alterthümer) in 
Zürich. Vom November 1862 bis 
December 1863, David Bürkli, Zürich, 
p. 6 sq.; R. Ulrich, A. Heizmann, 
1890, 
Catalog der Sammlungen der 
Antiquarischen Gesellschaft in Zürich
. 
Theil 2: 
Griechisch-Italisch-Römische 
Abtheilung; Assyrisch-Aegyptische 
Abtheilung
(rothe Etiquette), Dr. 
Ulrich, Zürich p. 155, no. 58; A. Boissier 
1912, 
Notice sur quelques monuments 
assyriens à l’Université de Zürich
, 
Imprimerie Atar, Genève, especially 
pp. 28–30, no. 58; H. Blümner 1914, 
Führer durch die archäologische 
Sammlung der Universität Zürich
, 
Albert Müllers Verlag, Zürich, p. 8, no. 
237.
Bibliography:
Müller 1976; Aruz, 
Wallenfels 2003, no. 8; Hansen 2003; 
Evans 2003, p. 38, no. 8; Gambino, 
Rova 2005, pp. 22–23, figs. 5, 12; 
Mango et. al. 2008; Azara 2012, p. 235; 
Vogel 2013, pp. 139–145, fig. 20.4 b. 
Mostly intact; surface partially 
corroded; small vulnerations on the 
in Paris, while the third belongs to 
the Archäologische Sammlung of 
Zurich University. All of them have 
no known context, although they 
were presumably acquired in Iraq in 
the mid-nineteenth century. Their 
most precise excavated parallel is 
the alabaster torso of the so-called 
“Kleiner König” found in a late 
fourth millennium BC context at Uruk 
(present Warka in Southern Iraq), 
which differs from them only in the 
fact that he is not naked, but wears 
a smooth, heavy belted skirt. The 
attire and hairstyle of the Uruk torso 
allow it to be identified with the so-
called “king-priest”, a figure that 
is often portrayed in the arts of the 
Uruk period and is generally assumed 
to represent the city ruler. More 
generally, iconography and style of the 
four statuettes find a large number of 
comparisons in the small plastic, relief 
and glyptic arts of the Middle/Late 
Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods (ca. 
3500–2900 BC) from Mesopotamia. 
Images engraved on contemporary 
cylinder seals, in particular, suggest 
a date in the early Late Uruk phase 
(3300–3200 BC). The Uruk “king-
priest” is generally portrayed with 
the full insignia connected to his role; 
the four figurines from Padua, Paris 
and Zurich being, up to date, the only 
cases where he is depicted naked. 
They may represent kings in “cultic 
nudity” performing a ritual for the 
gods, or, alternatively, they may be 
images of dead, heroicised kings.
The Padua figurine was rediscovered 
a few years ago in the reserve 
collections of the Museo 
Archeologico. It has a very peculiar 
history that well represents the 
intellectual and historic climate in 
which during the nineteenth-century 
diplomats, intellectuals, antiquaries 
and adventurers took part, in the 
framework of the decadent Ottoman 
empire, in the rediscovery of ancient 
Mesopotamian civilisation. The year 
of donation year – 1876 – was easily 
obtained from the museum’s inventory, 
which also contained the epistolary 
exchange between Andrea Gloria (the 
museum’s director) and the statuette’s 
owner, the doctor Antonio Fabris 
from Padua (1809?–1877). Fabris’s 
letter describes part of the events 
connected with the acquisition of 
the figurine: the doctor writes that 
he received it, on 6 September 1872, 
from a dear friend and university 
colleague of his, Sante Zennaro 
(1809–1872/1876?), a doctor in 
Constantinople who, at some point in 
1860, got the statuette from another 
doctor, “d.r Henry, Bolognese”. 
Luckily, Fabris quotes integrally the