Review

Reviewed Work(s): Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia by Beatrice Laura Goff

Review by: Richard Henshaw
Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 90, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1970), pp.
322-327
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/598170
Accessed: 23-04-2019 03:42 UTC

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of the American Oriental Society

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
322 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 90.2 (1970)

lonia Aramaic Wisdomschools, which The areorganiser of the Symposion and editor of the
the origin
of Gnosticism. Now that the hypothesis of Reitz- volume should have been more severe. But in
enstein is not supported anymore by any living other respects he has done very well; he shows a
scholar except Widengren, there is a real danger keen insight in the gnostic phenomenon and proves
that Iranian influences upon Gnosticism will be to be an excellent organiser. The book is well
neglected. In this volume Closs competently de- printed and magnificently published. The greatest
scribes certain aspects of early Iranian religion as specialists on Gnosticism of our time, Gershom
pre-gnosis. No exact proofs of relations between Scholem and Henri-Charles Puech, were not pres-
the two are to be found in other articles. The fas- ent at the conference.
cinating possibility, that later Iranian religion and G. QUISPEL
THEOLOGISCH INSTITUJUT,
later Buddhism has been influenced by Gnosticism,
UTRECHT, NETHERLANDS
is not discussed at all. Several scholars, among
them Ugo Bianchi, have stressed the contribution
of Greek civilisation, especially Orphism, to the
formation of Gnosticism. These articles, especially
those by Boyanc6 and Crakey, are very scholarly Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia. By BEATRICE
and score a point. But much remains here to be LAURA GOFF. Pp. XXiX + 276, 728 illustra-
done. tions, 1 map. New Haven and London: YALE
A Dutch scholar tries to prove that the Hymn UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1963. $25.00.
of the Pearl is a midrash of the Parable of the This rich book is basically a study of the art of
Pearl in the Gospel of Thomas and a product the periods of Hassuna and Samarra, Halaf,
of Syrian Christianity; the king in the hymn is Ubaid, Uruk, Jemdet Nasr, Gawra and Ninevite
God, the mother of the prince the Holy Ghost, his (Late Gawra), in an attempt to answer the follow-
brother the Messiah. The prince himself is the ing questions: 1) How much can be said about the
soul, which lived in Paradise and is sent out to themeaning of the symbols involved, and 2) How
world, symbolised by Egypt. The Pharaoh is the much continuity is there from prehistoric to his-
devil, the serpent concupiscence. toric periods in the interpretation of myth by art
One misses here a long and detailed article on and literature? The author says that the book is a
encratism, as described by Clement of Alexandria study of symbolism as it relates to the history of
in the third book of his Stromateis. Encratism, so religion (p. xxxiii), but its usefulness goes beyond
very different from Gnosticism, and yet so similar, that field and into that of anyone who is a student
was very influential in Syria and is responsible for of Ancient Mesopotamia'. Each of the first eight
the Gospel of Thomas. It seems hardly believable chapters discusses, figure by figure, symbolic ele-
that anybody who has read Clement on the Encra- ments in the art illustrated, with few difficult
tites still can maintain that the Gospel of Thomas questions bypassed. Pottery, figurines, amulets,
is gnostic. But then the Hymn of the Pearl is not beads and similar objects, are taken as groupings
gnostic either, let alone a document of pre- for the earlier periods. Gradually seals come into
christian, Parthian Gnosis. prominence, with stamp seals first and then cyl-
There are many good and not so good articles in inder seals following (although stamp seals con-
this volume that have nothing to do with the ori- tinue), with comments on 43 cylinder seals of the
gins of Gnosticism. Nor are all the authors compe- Uruk Period, on 72 of the Jemdet Nasr Period, a
tent: on page 265 we read that the Evangelium few of the Gawra and Ninevite Periods, and on 39
Veritatis is attributed to Menander (read Valenti- of the Early Dynastic and Akkad Periods in con-
nus); on p. 289 it is said that Gnosticism (includ-
ing Manicheism) is not a religion and that there- 1 Her geographical boundaries include sites in north-
fore it is absurd to look for its origins in the religious ern Syria, in the region of the Habur River, but for the
field. Is this serious? most part do not include Iran.

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reviews of Books 323

nection with the last two chapters on amulets and
myth. Temples from Ubaid on, with a few Halaf
shrine-like representations, are illustrated and dis-
cussed.
Without tying herself to any theory of evolu-
tion, Dr. Goff leads the reader through the various
periods, with a later artifact being compared,
either explicitly or tacitly, to an earlier. This can
be illustrated by the manner in which she handles
the analysis of the Samarran deep plates (Schiis-
seln, pp. 3-5, figs. 32-41), with their figures of
"demons" with flowing hair arranged in star-
shaped patterns of foursomes or sixsomes, sur-
rounded by seemingly flowing scorpions, which in
some designs appear as quatrefoiled, long-winged
birds swallowing fish and surrounded by swimming
fish, or by quadrupeds with stag-type horns sur-
rounded by stylized trees. One can present the
figures to show an evolution in an abstract direc-
tion, but we do not know if the successive artists
felt this or, indeed, whether the book's order is thestudies all of the symbols used in a given culture
correct historical order. The last plates in the
group have juxtaposed hourglass-shaped equids
still showing the motif of flow which the "demons"
impressed on us so vividly.
One of the profound questions with which the
author, and anyone who approaches prehistoric
art, has to wrestle results from the tendency of
modern minds to make a dichotomy between the
natural and the stylized. For example, she cau-
tiously doubts whether "the artist was thinking of
any tool or naturalistic object when he set two
triangles point to point" (p. 12, fig. 58, nos. 6-10, nificant, example of this she spends several pages
14, 23) in Halaf painted pottery designs. She finds (pp. 84-86) discussing the meaning of the be-
solar symbols with sometimes naturalistic and
sometimes stylized birds and quadrupeds (p. 14,
figs. 80-88) on this pottery. Human figures are
always stylized. Her conclusion on symbolic ele-
ments in the Halaf Period is that both representa-
tional and geometric elements go to make up
"stylized designs," and that both are symbolic.
She finds that the art of the Uruk Period was
"predominately naturalistic" (p. 59). When a
"new, naturalistic form" prevailed for trees
drawn on pottery of the Jemdet Nasr Period, it
was a sign "that fresh attention was being paid to
them." (p. 121).
Some scholars would emphasize that all pre-
historic art was stylized. The artist used degrees
of stylization, of course, but any occasional nat-
uralization was a means of controlling the sharp-
ness of the understanding of the meaning. S. Gied-
ion2 stresses that not only can it be said that
abstraction runs throughout primitive art, but
that this art is never naturalistic. It always 1) con-
centrates and simplifies the natural form of the
object, 2) uses forms and shapes which are non-
existent in nature, 3) intermingles transformed
natural subjects with abstract symbols, or 4) trans-
forms natural forms into signs intelligible only to
the initiated.3
The book is not a full study of prehistoric Meso-
potamian art, but an attempt to come to grips
with a highly significant element: the meaning(s)
of the symbols used. The author thus seeks out the
forms which became a popular style, rather than
those which are the most beautiful (p. xxxv). She
in a limited time. This may be called the "hori-
zontal method," in contrast to the "vertical
method" which concentrates on separate svmbols,
one at a time, through cultures varying in time
and place. An overriding principle, which she il-
luminates by many examples from all periods, is
that symbols are ambiguous. The same symbol
may in the same period mean fertility or "life"
and its opposite aggression or "death," although at
a particular moment it meant one thing. This was
governed by need. As a complex, yet highly sig-
ribboned standard appearing in the Uruk and Jem-
det Nasr Periods. This is the picture which lies
behind the sign for Inanna in Sumerian writing
2 S. Giedion, The Eternal Present: The Beginnings of
Art, Pantheon, 1962, p. 22.
3 Miss Goff lists the following techniques by which
artists of the Uruk Period made their art abstract: 1) by
simplifying the realistic, 2) by making more realistic the
details which the artist wished to emphasize, 3) by intro-
ducing distortions of reality, 4) by setting objects ab-
stractly beside other objects, though there is no natu-
ralistic connection between them, 5) by combining two
representational forms, and 6) by arranging symbols in
pairs, which at times were set antithetically (pp. 81-2).

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
324 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 90.2 (1970)

and Ishtar in Akkadian.4 It probablyissometimes

the house-shaped ossuaries found at Ghassul,
stands for a divinity, being accompanied and dated to about 3000 B.C.6 The house is given
by what
was probably an early dingir "divinity" stylized feet,
sign, ineyes and sometimes a mouth, so that
the archaic texts from Uruk. Amongitother has an animal,
ex- or a human, look, but would seem
to be closest
amples it appears on a two-stepped pedestal on to a sheep or an ox. The two elements
of creature
the back of a bull in the alabaster vase from Warka and house are carried by one object. A
double
(fig. 286). It is carried in procession on meaning is similarly expressed in Meso-
a cylinder
potamia
seal from the Jemdet Nasr Period (fig. 347).in It
animal horns shaped like a tree (p. 130),
and in the
appears beside a shrine in the Jemdet Nasr Period swastika-maidens from the aforemen-
(fig. 366) and beside the temple herd in the Uruk plates (figs. 32-35). This re-
tioned Samarran
minds one
Period (fig. 248). Even though some would of the symbolic language which caused
always
relate this symbol to the goddess Inanna, Missmake things abstract by setting them
the artist to
in pairs
Goff, according to her principles, doubts that (pp. 139, 160) and which in a few examples
this
symbol always had one specific unambiguous as early as the Uruk Period, but increasingly later
meaning.5 on, came to be that heraldic device which made a
Since symbols are ambiguous, and the same design abstract by applying a motif whose usage
stone, for instance, can be considered lucky one then became frozen with the passage of time.7
time and unlucky the next, it would seem to be To approach the topic of symbols in Meso-
potamia from another direction, in order better to
difficult to be scientific in one's research on this
subject. Any comment on this score, however, understand Miss Goff's valuable book and its
would be a complaint against the subject itself. immense subject, we may turn to further com-
The understanding must come from the context, orments on a few of the symbols. To begin with the
from what we can guess about the needs of thebasic questions, exactly what are the symbolic ele-
user. The meaning cannot be automatically seen ments in a particular period? What do we look for
as a stream flowing from an earlier period, althoughwhen we want to find symbols? For instance, what
sometimes it happens to be. Rosettes may have in the scene of a given cylinder seal is symbolic?
had solar significance as far back as the SamarraIs the triparte division of the temple into sacred
Period, yet they are used continuously up to thearea, nave and narthex to be considered a usage of
Ninevite Period and beyond. The earlier solar the number three as a symbol, or is this merely a
ideas may have been continued to be associated convenient, functional way to build a temple? A
with them; if so, that would indicate in this case a
temple needs a holy place, set apart from the rest
continuity of religious value (p. 89). of it, an area where worshippers would stand or
Further to exemplify the role of the abstract sit and, perhaps analogously to houses, a front
and multiple meaning in prehistoric art, one may porch. Is the triangle the result of the evolution of
turn to some discoveries made recently in Pales- a geometric two-dimensional form into its most
tine. It would seem that the prehistoric artist simplified end result, or is it (duly considering the
sometimes purposely made objects which had two
problem of continuity of meaning mentioned
meanings. One of the clearest examples of this
above) most often the vulva and thus a symbol
4A. Diemel, SL No. 103/1. for fertility? If it is the latter, is it so also in vases
of be
6 An example of a less guarded conclusion would the Jemdet Nasr Period, where it appears
that of G. Rachel Levy, Religious Conceptions of the
worked into a design including crosshatching,
Stone Age [originally entitled The Gate of Horn], pp. 98 ff.,
who traces the artistic motif of an original reed-bundle,
appearing in a secondary form as a looped pole, to 6its J. Perrot, The Illustrated London News, Dec. 3, 1960,
pp. 998-1000, especially figs. 5 and 16.
ubiquitous usage as the sacred tree. This is "the certain
symbol of the Mother Goddess as the Gate of a sanc- 7H. Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, pp. 24 and passim.
tuary . . . and may itself symbolize the Gate, or beAntithetically
set paired animals often represent agression,
Goff,
beyond it as an extension of its power . . ." (p. 100). p. 67.

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reviews
vertical lines in fours, threes or twos, herringbone
designs, and lozenges?
The hand is a much-used symbol in Aurig-
nacian art and has continued to be used up to the
present day, among primitive peoples. Because of
its scarcity in prehistoric Mesopotamia, only a few
examples of the hand are given in this book,8 but
its possible significance may be considered in two
further areas. The first is the cuneiform sign for
hand, which goes back to a very early period of
writing,9 one later meaning of which being
"power." The second is the usage of the hand, not
separately but as a part of a gesturing arm, in such
oft-appearing scenes on cylinder seals as the figure
with arm uplifted in prayer, or the seated deity
with arm stretched out in reception.
It is observed that everyday scenes, including
flora and fauna, are the most popular as symbols,
perhaps so because everyone can recognize them.'0
The use of a wide variety of animals, birds and in-
sects is particularly noticeable. The debate goes on
concerning whether or not this interest can be ex-
plained by research into a subject called "totem-
ism." The author does not comment on the sub-
ject, being in another field than that covered by
the book, but this reader was forced again to ask
the question. We are indebted to Claude Levi-
Strauss" for broadening the horizons of the subject
to such an extent that its boundaries as a self-
contained area of study almost break down. It is
true, however, that regardless of our categories of
totems, in prehistoric Mesopotamia there was a
sensitivity of observation of, and a strong interest
'Although outside the time span of this book, and
beyond its geographical confines, several examples have
been found from the Old Babylonian Period (H.
Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, p. 240), and in early sixth
millenium B.C. Anatolia at Chatal Huyuk (J. Mellaart,
The Illustrated London News, Feb. 2, 1963, p. 161, figs.
7-9; Feb. 8, 1964, p. 196, fig. 18, inside a vulture's body),
each several hundred years before the painted pottery of
the Hassuna Period (J. Mellaart, Earliest Civilizations
of the Near East, pp. 81 ff., where radiocarbon dates are
given.)
9 A. Falkenstein, Archaische Texte aus Uruk, Zeicheni-
liste, Nos. 9-10.
10 But with cautions iios. 2 and 4 mentioned above,
p. 323.
11 Totemism, Beacon, 1963.
This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
of Books 325
in, wild animals, birds and insects, and so the
world of man and of living creatures other than
man are shown in close and meaningful proximity.'2
Her final chapters, acting as a kind of control to
previous conclusions, pass the historical boundary
into the period of writing, and concern the role of
amulets in ritual texts, and the origins of Sumerian
mythology. Making due allowance for the diffi-
culty which sometimes does not allow an amulet
to be recognized by us as such, she has a short dis-
cussion (pp. 170-174) of shapes, numbers, sizes,
and places of occurrence, of beads, necklaces, seals
and other exemplars. She has much that is useful
to say about how seals were used as amulets, dis-
cussing this from the standpoints of art, place of
discovery, and ritual texts. Several ritual texts
which mention stones, seals and other possible
amulets are presented in translation. This difficult
genre of text could use extensive notes and
Miss Goff balances well the technical requirements
with the needs of the chapter. She must of neces-
sity compare amulets of the prehistoric period with
texts from the late third millenium on, but there
would seem to be a continuity in this usage, as
there was, because of religious conservatism, be-
tween this and later times.
She takes up strongly and convincingly the
argument over the origins of myth. None of the
myths of about 2000 B.c. and following is reflected
anywhere in the art of the Uruk and Jemdet Nasr
Periods (pp. 67-70, 123).'3 A few seals of the Uruk
Period (figs. 281-5) show scenes which may be
from stories, but the contents are not recognizable
from any of the known myths of later times. That
the gods have epithets applied to them in some
Early Dynastic inscriptions reveals only a few
traces of underlying mythology, not a developed,
persistent pattern of myth. There are some gods
whose names themselves are epithets, as Ningirsu
"Lord of Girsu," or An "sky, heaven," but whether
12 Giedion says simply that to prehistoric mnan the
animal was a superior being. Op. cit., p. 90.
13 The underlying assumption seems to be that what-
ever myths there were would show up in art, analagous
to the theory that the stories found in. literature well
represent the stories which were actually told in a given
period.
326 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 90.2 (1970)

stories or a theological way of thinking lay behind carved the seals came from a different stratum in
these is uncertain. The god lists of the Fara texts society than the scribes who wrote down the
(about 2600 B.C.) show no theological thinking, be- myths later on. A general conclusion, however, is
cause of the unfixed order of names and the lack that artifacts must be related to the literature of
of indication of family relationships. A developed the period studied.
pantheon would perhaps indicate a mythology, and The subject of the last chapter of the book is a
this does not begin to show itself until the end of vast one. The author's caution about seeing later
the Early Dynastic Period. myths in earlier art is consistent with the careful
H. Frankfort, whose arguments are analyzed in and straightforward system of art criticism she has
this book, has called attention to the many appear- built up throughout the book. There are, of course,
ances of a bull-man in Early Dynastic seals, which other approaches to the subject. T. Jacobsen"6 has
indicates that he fulfilled a variety of functions.1" evolved the theory of "transitive" and "intransi-
If he later came to be seen as Enkidu, the friend of tive" gods. The "intransitive" feature is the older,
Gilgamesh, this is the kind of associative thinking and consists in mere will power, in existence. The
which often is brought out by art. The naked and "transitive" feature shows gods who are active in
bearded hero, also appearing in many and varied guiding and shaping human affairs. One can detect
contexts, might represent a whole class of heroic these two features-earlier and later-in later
or demonic figures.'5 His association with the bull- writings. A hymn of the early second millenium,
man on Akkadian seals led possibly to the label- for instance, may have "intransitive" action
ling of the pair as Gilgamesh and Enkidu. No which would reflect fourth millenium thought."
scenes recognizable from the Sumerian Gilgamesh Mircea Eliade would stress the long process of
cycle have been found, although we may not have rethinking through which all the great myths
discovered all of the many storie s about this hero. went. "It is doubtful that there is a single written
Finally, the independence and inventiveness of the document from these areas [Ancient Near East
artist may have been the governing factor, and he and Asia] representing a genuine neolithic reli-
may not have felt obliged accurately to portray gious conception." What neolithic general motifs
tradition. there are in later writings, such as that of the
Miss Goff carefully discusses these ideas, and Great Goddess, were altered bv later reinterpre-
some which arise through the seals seeming to pic- tations.'8
ture scenes from the Creation Epic, the Myth of There appears to be an approach to an agree-
Etana, and the Myth of Anzu. She stresses caution ment among all critics that sees some kind of
in labelling the action, unless a figure is accom- myth or story reflected in the art of the late pre-
panied by an inscription. Her conclusion is that historic period. Miss Goff would stress our inability
in the Early Dynastic Period there are traces of to recognize or even describe the scene, and so
myths shown on seals, but on a rudimentary level. would not compare it to myths of more than a
Early layers of a people's tradition would use thousand years later. Jacobsen would present a
ritual and "magic," rather than myth to indicate theory that some later conceptions, as that of
its feelings for the numinous. A classification of "intransitive" gods, are unchanged from earlier
scribes would suggest but not conclusively indicate ones. Eliade would agree that there is continuity,
whether or not they were "independent" or affili- but that the changes were so great with the pas-
ated with the priesthood, and thus a study from sage of time that the earlier could not be recognized
this angle of what the point of view of the myths
6 Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,
was cannot be pursued to a satisfactory conclusion.
107/6, 1963, pp. 473-84, and in G. E. Wright (ed.), The
It is even possible that the scribe-artists who Bible and the Ancient Near East, pp. 268 if.
17 PAPS, loc. cit.
14 H. Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, p. 65. 18 JAOS, 82 (1962), p. 216, in a review of S. N. Kramner
1 6Ibid., p. 60. (ed.), Mythologies of the Ancient World.

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reviews of Books 327

in the later. The first speaks from the standpoint Ancient Mesopotamia, Portrait of a Dead Civiliza-
of the meaning of the art, the second from the tion. By A. LEO OPPENHEIM. XI, 433 Sei-
understanding of the texts, the third from the ten, 14 Tafeln. Chicago and London: THE
study of the history of religions. Although there is UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 1964. Preis
the danger of being considered inconclusive, a $8.50.
fourth party might see that there is a great deal of
Als B. Meissner 1924 "nach funfzehnjahriger
truth in each of these approaches, and the student
Gesamtarbeit, die zeitweise fast unertraglich
is thereby enriched. Finally, one must be cautious
schwer erschien," den zweiten Band seines
not to explain differences between preliterate and
Meisterwerkes "Babylonien und Assyrien" (Hei-
literate periods as due to some inherent property
delberg, I 1920, II 1925) zum Abschluss brachte,
of the artificial boundary line fixed by the time of
und damit den Plan, den er als Student bereits
the invention of writing, as if it were analogous
gefasst hatte, im Alter von 56 Jahren verwirk-
to the barrier created by the speed of sound.
lichte, hatte er im vollsten Sinne die sumerisch-
One learns a great deal from this book about
akkadische Kulturgeschichte als Wissenschaft
how art uses symbols, what feelings and areas of
begrundet. Mosaikartig ist hier praktisch jedes
the intellect of a man can be appealed to by means
Stuckchen Erkenntnis, das Texte und Aus-
of symbols, the feeling of the ancient for the
grabungen damals vermittelt hatten, an der
efficacy of symbols, and how he hoped to control
passenden Stelle notiert und mit Quellenangabe
events by them. But because symbols touch on
versehen. Mit Recht lobte Landsberger BuA
universal themes, as life and death, the use of art,
I-II als ausgesprochen realistisch, unabhaingig
and the emotions of man, and since over the whole
von wissenschaftlichen Modeerscheinungen und
of the prehistoric period studied there was a "basic
aere perennius (Deutsche Literaturzeitung 1927
continuity in types of design, methods employed
Sp. 350). Die alteren Darstellungen wie z. B. C.
and values achieved" (p. 161), a study such as this
Bezold, Ninive und Babylon (Bielefeld 1903, 4.
has meaning for later periods, even up to today.
Auflage posthum Bielefeld und Leipzig 1926),
As a summary, one might classify the three overall
P. S. P. Handcock, Mesopotamian Archaeology
modes or types of symbolic expression as 1) art,
(London 1912), M. Jastrow, The Civilization of
in which non-verbalized designs were considered
Babylonia and Assyria (Philadelphia und London
sufficient for reassurance and, indeed, there was
1915), sowie L. Delaporte, La Mesopotamie
no necessity for an explanation, 2) ritual, in
(Paris 1923, englische ltbersetzung London 1925)
which the actions and the accompanying fixed
waren damit, wissenschaftlich gesehen, praktisch
words and phrases were considered potent when
erledigt. Wahrend der folgenden Jahrzehnte hat
the formula as a whole was carried out, and 3)
denn auch meines Wissens niemand mehr eine
myth, in which the scene of events conjured up by
Kulturgeschichte des Zweistromlandes in AI-
the words themselves added another, literary
griff genommen. Nun ist freilich BuA durch
dimension to something already containing sym-
die starke Zunahme des Quellenmaterials in-
bolic elements.
zwischen doch einigermassen veraltet, und die bei
This large book, with generous margins, has il-
der Entwicklung der Akkadistik und Sumerologie
lustrations, especially of cylinder seals, which are
seit dem ersten Weltkriege gemachten Fort-
of sufficient size to be studied in some detail. Al-
schritte miussten in einer neuen, auf Meissners
most every picture discussed in the text is printed.
Buch beruhenden Gesamtdarstellung mit Beleg-
The writing flows, and the footnotes are given in
material zu jeder einzelilen Bemerkung zusam-
satisfactory detail. This important book could
mengefasst werden. Solch eine Gesamtdarstellung
have many implications and usages outside of the
wurde jedoch viele Lebensjahre eines versierten
field described by its title.
Assyriologen erfordern, wenn sie uiberhaupt jetzt
RICHARD HENSHAW
KENYON COLLEGE
noch von einem einzelnen Gelehrten bewaltigt
SAMBIER, OHIO werden kann. Bei allen Fortschritten im. einzel-

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms