Vallette 1

Bronze Age Art Propaganda in Mesopotamia

Samantha E. Vallette

Art 2401

J. Walsh

Vallette 2

The media and elites of the twenty-first century were not the first people to use creative

outlets for propaganda. Along with the creation of writing, culture, society, and art, came power.

As far back as the Bronze Age cz. (3200-1200 B.C.E.), social elites have been using any means

possible to manipulate and sway the general public‟s opinions. However, without television,

radio, or any other form of mass media the kings of Bronze Age Mesopotamia were left with art

as their only means of displaying their power and authority. Art was used to express to the public

that the kings were favored and protected by the gods; they were untouchable. Additionally,

kings documented their great achievements through art much as a résumé would in current day

society. Some of the most important examples of propaganda used in Mesopotamia in the Bronze

Age include stelai such as the Stele of the Vultures, the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin, Stele of Ur-

Nammu, and Stele of Hammurabi.

In general, during the Bronze Age in Mesopotamia, stelai were used to commemorate

accomplishments. They were large pieces of stone which were taller than they were wide and on

which was often carved a picture of the king and the events they wanted to be remembered. For

example, many contain images of battles or wars won, cities captured, structures built, or

association with the divinities. These were the first historical records; many included inscriptions

of the details of the event and places they occurred. The purpose of the stelai were to glorify the

king who had it built and to point out the wonderful things they did to reinforce their right to

rule.

The Stele of the Vultures was created around 2600 B.C.E. in Lagash by King Eannatum.

This particular stele was built to commemorate the victory of Lagash over Umma. The lengthy

inscription describes a boundary stone set up by a previous ruler of Lagash being destroyed by

the people from Umma and that they began using the lands belonging to Lagash (Perkins 57)

Vallette 3

(Frankfort 71). This stele was set up to reestablish the boundary line after Lagash‟s victory

(Perkins 57). Although it would have been simple to just inscribe the details of his victory on the

stone, King Eannatum chose to inscribe both text and image. This is most likely due to the fact

that literacy rates were not high since there was no formal schooling system; therefore, those

who could not read the description could view the pictures and understand the general idea of the

events. Also, a large image carved into the stone is more impressive and easily understandable

than having to stand in front of the stele and read the entire description. Furthermore, King

Eannatum starting a war over boundaries was typical of Mesopotamian rulers in that he had a

“dual preoccupation with war and water rights, as well as in his energetic construction of canals

and waterworks” (Knapp 77). However, military movements such as this allowed him to have

the first “political dominance” over Mesopotamia (Knapp 77). Incase any of his subjects or

enemies were unaware of his army‟s accomplishments, he had this stele constructed to inform

them. The images carved on the stele appear in registers, with a single scene in each. On the

front, the top image is a graphic scene which involves King Eannatum leading an infantry on

foot. By showing them marching over the dead bodies of their enemies, the idea that this was a

complete and utter victory is solidified. Here, the artist attempts to capture the monumental size

of the army by repeating body parts to show depth. However, this attempt is slightly

unsuccessful since there are significantly more spears than heads, and still more heads than

shields. However, the effect of depicting an enormous army is successful. Whether or not King

Eannatum actually was at the front of the siege or not is irrelevant, since the message that the

King‟s militia is forceful, powerful, and successful is well portrayed. The second register on the

front reinforces the idea that it is the King who makes this battle victorious since he is horseback

and again leading the troops into battle. Additionally, in this register, King Eannatum is larger

Vallette 4

than the rest of his army, showing his importance using a hierarchy of scale. Propaganda ensues

as the third register depicts King Eannatum overseeing the bodies of his dead laid neatly side-by-

side. This is analogous to current propaganda where the elite is seen visiting troops oversees or

helping the homeless, it is used to show sympathy and a deep caring for his people. The front of

this stele shows “the exploits of warriors led by their King” while “the other side shows the

decisive intervention of the gods on Eannatum‟s side” (Ruskin 145). On the back of the stele, the

top two thirds are taken up by a relief showing the god Ningirsu. This image “reveals hidden

forces which brought [the events] about. The god, Ningirsu, himself had taken up the just cause

of his city; he caught the men of Umma in his net and destroyed them” (Frankfort 71). This

proved to the viewers of the stele that Eannatum‟s cause was just, he was doing the work of the

gods, and that the gods backed him up. For this stele, “the clarity of the pictorial narrative was all

that mattered” (Frankfort 71). King Eannatum‟s main goal for this stele is to inform his subjects

of his victorious actions and that he was willed by the gods to perform them.

Another example of a king erecting a stele to commemorate a victory is in the Victory

Stele of Naram-Sin. This stele is six feet high, was built in 2200 B.C.E. during the Akkadian

Period and was moved to Susa, and is made of pink sandstone (Ruskin 151). Unlike the Stele of

the Vultures, this stele is a single pictorial event. The scene shows the king, Naram-Sin, leading

his army up a hill, his enemies cowering, pleading, and running at his feet, with the heavens

above. Although, there are no strict divisions of registers, the diagonal lines of the soldiers

ascending the hill draw eyes up to the king (Perkins 59). This visual aid reinforces the idea that

King Naram-Sin is the focus of this piece. He also appears significantly larger than his troops,

places his foot on one of his pleading enemies, and is wearing a horned crown. The horned

crown was a symbol of a deity during the Bronze Age and, by wearing this hat, Naram-Sin goes

Vallette 5

beyond associating himself with the gods, placing himself as an equal to them. In fact, he had

adopted the titles “God of Agade” and “King of the four Quarters of the Universe” during his

lifetime (Knapp 88). Since this stele is only a single image and seems to be presenting King

Naram-Sin as an all powerful figure, “the action itself is less specific than symbolic” (Perkins

59). Unlike the Stele of the Vultures, the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin does not describe a specific

victory, but implies that the ruler, King Naram-Sin, is someone to be feared and followed

(Perkins 59).

Another type of stele is for the commemoration of building a structure. The Stele of Ur-

Nammu is an example of this. It was built in 2000 B.C.E. in Ur and commemorates the building

of a ziggurat by King Ur-Nammu. This story seems to go from bottom to top with each register

showing an artistic image of one scene rather than each register showing the progression of

events. The lower registers show the actual building of the Ziggurat with ladders, bricks, and

other building equipment depicted. Even King Ur-Nammu is helping; he is shown in the third

register with supplies on his back following a god and being followed by a priest (Frankfort

104). Here, much like the Stele of the Vultures, the king is shown taking part in the action, right

along side his people to show that he is not asking his people to do things that he himself doesn‟t

participate in. This is easily another form of propaganda analogous to the modern television

commercials of elites involved in events such as rebuilding after disasters or for the needy; he

was not necessarily in the battle, but the fact that he is envisioned there makes his point. The top

two registers show the king interacting with gods. They are symmetrical with the king appearing

before the moon-god Nannar and his consort Ningal (Frankfort 103). The symmetry is neither a

snapshot of an event nor a story over time, but it “destroys the narrative interest” of the piece and

possibly is just for artistic purposes or alluding to two separate ceremonies but shown together

Vallette 6

(Frankfort 103). Either way, the fact that King Ur-Nammu is interacting with the gods, seeking

their approval of his achievements, is defining him, to his people, as a mediator with the gods.

Since this is “a monument of piety, not of worldly achievement, this explains the static, hieteric,

character of the composition”, King Ur-Nammu “takes care to emphasize his attentions to the

gods in a way unknown to earlier times” (Frankfort 104) (Perkins 60).

The Stele of Hammurabi, unlike typical steles, does not show victories or

accomplishments, rather, it lays down the laws of the land. This stele is one of many that were

“planted in every town in his empire” (Ruskin 155). It is seven feet tall and was built in 1750

B.C.E., during the Babylonian Period. The only picture on this stele is at the top and is a meeting

between the king, Hammurabi, and the sun god Shamash, “the supreme judge” who holds the

measuring stick and rod of justice (Frankfort 119) (Ruskin 155). The picture only takes up two

feet of the seven foot structure because the bulk of the stele is the “legal document” which is, in

fact, the longest surviving text from the Babylonian Period (Frankfort 119) (Knapp 149). The

242 laws were not written by Hammurabi himself, but by Shamash, and only codified by the

King. The laws cover everything about daily life including “a man‟s responsibility to his wife

and children, and for his wife‟s debts, and fixes the rules for a tolerant divorce […] the sale of

alcoholic beverages and the percentage of interest on loans” (Ruskin 155). The stele even sets up

three social groups, “the awilum, an upper class of freeman; the wardum, or slave; and the

mushkenum, whose status is still disputed by scholars” (Knapp 149). As far as propaganda goes,

the image itself is more important than the laws. Seeing the king stand before the enthroned sun

god, one perceives “not only a sense of confrontation, but of communication between the lord of

justice and the law giver” (Frankfort 119). King Hammurabi‟s place as mediator between his

people and his gods is solidified, obvious for all his people to see. Not only that, but since he

Vallette 7

placed these stelai in every city, he made sure that his status and Shamash‟s laws were seen by

everyone. Through this technique, “a society in which individual rights became an issue and in

which political and economic dominance by Babylon became absolute” was formed (Knapp

149). However, since “it states that no man will take the law into his own hands, and that the

state will see that justice is done” the stele is an important step towards true civilization (Ruskin

155). One of King Hammurabi‟s own inscriptions sums up the idea of the stele by stating that

“When Shamash with radiant face had joyfully looked upon me – me, his favorite shepard,

„Hammurabi‟” (Frankfort 119).

Although the Stele of the Vultures, Victory Stele of Naram-Sin, Stele of Ur-Nammu, and

Stele of Hammurabi all depicted different events, each of them underlines the power and

authority of the king who built it. Although text was used to describe the events depicted on the

stelai, it was not necessary. In general, the images were more powerful than the words because it

was a universal language, anyone could understand it. Whether they showed military or divine

power, the stelai of the Bronze Age were a visible reminder to the people of their empires of who

was in charge, and why.

Vallette 8

Works Cited

Frankfort, Henri. Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. Yale University Press. Pelican

History of Art. New Haven. 1970.

Knapp, A. Bernard. History and Culture of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt. Department of

Anthropology University of Sidney. Wadsworth Publishing Company. Dorsey Press.

Belmont, CA. 1988.

Perkins, Ann. Garland Library of the History of Art: Volume 2: Ancient Art: Pre-Greek and

Greek Art. J. Akkerman, S. Crosby, H. Janson, R. Rosenblum. Garland Publishing Inc.

New York 1976.

Ruskin, Ariane. Prehistoric Art and Ancient Art of the Near East. New York University.

McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York 1961-1971.

Vallette 9

Figure 1: The Stele of the Vultures front and side views.

Vallette 1

0

Figure 2: The Victory Stele of Naram-Sin. Figure 3: The Stele of Ur-Nammu.

Vallette 1

1

Figure 4: The Stele of Hammurabi.