The "Queen of the Night" Plaque: A Revisit

Author(s): Pauline Albenda

Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society , Apr. - Jun., 2005, Vol. 125, No. 2
(Apr. - Jun., 2005), pp. 171-190
Published by: American Oriental Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20064325

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 [email protected].

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

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The "Queen of the Night" Plaque?A Revisit
Pauline Albenda
Brooklyn, New York

INTRODUCTION

In 1970 this writer published an article on the figurai relief of the clay plaque then known as
the Burney Relief (fig. 1), questioning the authenticity of the plaque based on the iconog
raphy of the ring and rod held in each open hand of the winged female figure.1 This paper is
a revisit to the clay plaque and a reconsideration of its authenticity. It relies primarily upon
the information contained in earlier published articles on the subject and on art-historical
comparisons with similar ancient Near Eastern objects that, for the most part, have been
excavated.
In 1975 the Department of Scientific Research at the British Museum in London under
took a thermoluminescence test of the plaque?still in private ownership at that time?which
showed that in the two tested samples the clay was ancient; however the laboratory results
were not published. A recent inquiry furnished the following information:

One sample was taken from the broken area in the middle of the plaque on the right-hand side of
the plaque, and the second sample was taken from the back, again from the top right-hand side of
the plaque. The Department of Scientific Research has recently looked again at the TL measure
ments, and they say that re-examination of the glow curves confirms that the areas sampled were
fired in antiquity. Although the samples indicate an age for the plaque between 2000 and 3700
years, such a wide range of dates is not unusual.2

My mathematical computations indicate a TL date between 1725 b.c. and 25 b.c.

The British Museum acquired the Burney plaque in 2003. It has now been renamed "The
Queen of the Night" (hereafter British Museum plaque). Currently the British Museum staff
assigns the date of the clay plaque between 1800 b.c. and 1750 B.c., to the Old Babylonian
period of Hammurabi.3 The plaque is now described as one of only two major works of art
from the reign of the Old Babylonian king Hammurabi; the other is the stone stele carved
with the code of Hammurabi, housed in the Louvre in Paris.4 Since the plaque is without a
provenience and was owned by an antiquities dealer in the early part of the last century,
from whom it was purchased, there is the issue of whether one can legitimately date an un
excavated object to a specific time or historical period in antiquity. It is appropriate therefore
to review the evidence presented by modern scholars and to compare the figurai subjects on
the British Museum plaque with excavated ancient Near Eastern art works. The study pre
sented here should clarify the stated importance of the plaque, as it relates?or does not?to
our knowledge of ancient Mesopotamian art, primarily of the second millennium b.c.

1. Albenda 1970.
2. Personal communication from J. E. Curtis, Keeper, Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities, The British
Museum, dated March 6, 2001. On the limits of TL testing without the measurements from soil samples taken from
the place where the object was found, see Brent 2001a: 31; Muscarella 2000: 143-44.
3. BBC News, 8 March 2004; see http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-2/hi/entertainment/3543435.stm.
4. Moortgat 1969: 85, pi. 209.

Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005) 171

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
172 Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005)

f" ' -^i^p^^

x
/, \{.C?
m ?
*v>.

tow ?/;:*'

.; ; ., ?c

:>/*

?## ?V*t
. **&
i$*!
vj^Sft BRi^: ##,**&
*iB m
m*?wmt.
at?'#V
m
#?*.?
fcto&

mWM ?*V*
o?#i ;^?
&m
m
?ife?

*m?
P9*v
?i
fIJ*.

$
99; i> ?.,..
MkV *

Fig. 1. British Museum plaque (former Burney Relief). Photo auth

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Albenda: The "Queen of the Night" Plaque?A Revisit 173

BRITISH MUSEUM PLAQUE

The clay plaque is a unique work. When first brought to public attention in a 1936 article
in the Illustrated London News, the plaque belonged to Sydney Burney.5 The article states
that the object had been subjected to exhaustive chemical examination; therefore there can
be no doubt on its authenticity.6 The article also dates the plaque to the "Larsa Dynasty in
Sumeria," and there is an added comment that "the owls are a puzzle, for Minerva was not
yet born." Until its purchase by the British Museum, the plaque remained in private collec
tions in England and, more recently, in Japan.7 An early publication gives the following in
formation: the rectangular plaque measures 49.5 cm by 37 cm, with an average thickness of
2 to 3 cm. The head of the winged female figure projects 4.5 cm from the surface, the lions
project 4.8 cm, and the owls 4.6 cm. Traces of red ochre paint occur on the female figure's
body, and red and black alternate on her feathers. In addition, the mane of each lion is covered
with a hard bituminous compound.8 The traces of color are now much faded.
As shown in the 1936 published illustration of the clay plaque, damaged areas and cracks
are readily observable. However, the heads of the animals, those of the birds, and the nude
torso of the female are mostly intact. The extreme left side of the female's face and neck
touching the background is damaged and partially destroyed. Her headdress, also partially
damaged, consists of four pairs of horns topped by a disk, but evidently more breakage
occurred sometime after 1936, since only three horns now remain at the proper left side of
the headdress (fig. 2). The four-horned headdress is an item of divinity that occurs in the
visual arts of Mesopotamia, particularly from the Ur III period to the Old Babylonian
period. Moreover, that particular type of headdress is generally reserved for major deities,
primarily the sun god Shamash and the goddess Ishtar. Noteworthy are the female's small
hollow eyes, presumably designed for inserting inlay material. This feature is unique, since I
know of no excavated clay statuette or terracotta figurine in relief whose eyes were originally
inlaid. Inlaid eyes of various materials were applied to ancient Mesopotamian statuary in
stone and metal, generally dated to the third millennium B.c.9

5. Illustrated London News 1936, 1047. Burney was an antiquities dealer who owned an art gallery in London.
Of interest, Burney exhibited the upper part of a stone statue, which "an expert of the British Museum" suggested
might represent Gudea himself. See Science News: The weekly news magazine of Science, May 2, 1931, at http://
sciencenews.org/articles/20010505/timeline.asp. The statue entered the British Museum at a later date. For an illus
tration of the statue, see Frankfort 1996: 93, pi. 98; Parrot 1961a: 385, fig. 262. At some time in more recent years,
an examination showed that the head did not originally belong to the body. The authenticity of the unexcavated iso
lated heads and statues of Gudea has been questioned. For a good summary on this subject, see Muscarella 2000:
172-73. Also interesting is Burney's sale in 1944 of a life-size crystal skull and the story related to the object, pre
viously referred to as the "Burney Skull" and later as the "Skull of Doom." See http://rn.tice.home.comcast.net/
writing/CS.html. A similar crystal skull in the British Museum had been made with modern tools, which revealed
it to be a forgery. Internet articles viewed in November 2004.
6. In a letter to Oscar White Muscarella, dated 4 December 1995, Curtis writes: "the plaque was examined in the
British Museum Research Laboratory in 1935 by Dr. D. I. Plenderlith . . . Chemical analysis has established that the
encrustations are unquestionably ancient and that the bitumen dried out in a way which is only possible in the course
of centuries." I am grateful to Muscarella for this reference. Frankfort 1938: 132 noted further "some damage has
been done by salt."
7. The plaque was exhibited in the British Museum between 1980 and 1991, at which time Mr. Goro Sakamoto
owned it.
8. Frankfort 1938: 129.
9. Frankfort 1996: pis. 20, 39-47, 53-60, 109; Parrot 1961a: figs. 138-42, 206, 217-18. Also compare the small
terracotta sculpted head of a deity discovered at Telloh (Ur III period), Frankfort 1996: 102, fig. 109, and a terracotta
relief of a goddess with a flowing vase from Ur, Parrot 1961a: 387, fig. 301. Both examples have modeled eyes.
Opitz 1938: 270, already noted that the hollow eyes were problematic.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 174 Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005)

Fig. 2. Detail: British Museum plaque. Photo author.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Albenda: The "Queen of the Night" Plaque?A Revisit 175

The centrally placed composite nude female stands in frontal position with her arms up
raised. In each open hand is what I describe in my 1970 article as a ring and rod (see n. 1),
but which Frankfort has identified as a continuous coiled piece of rope (see n. 8); how
ever the object in the right hand is mostly destroyed (the background surface is intact but
an incised line and a darkened hue together emphasize the curve of the missing "ring"). The
female has two wings that extend downward from slightly above and behind her shoulders.
Her talon feet stretch over the haunch of one of two small recumbent lions whose bodies, one
mostly hidden behind the other, turn outward, and whose heads are shown in frontal view.
Beyond each of the lions a large owl-like bird standing in frontal pose completes the com
position (fig. 1).
The female figure is modeled in high relief. Her fleshy torso with its narrow waist, full
high breasts, contour lines of the hips and thighs, and the bone-structured legs disclose an
artistic skill that is almost certainly derived from observed study. But the rather realistic ren
dering of the female's torso, marked by a deep navel, contrasts with excavated nude females
in terracotta that are varied and sometimes clumsy versions.10 A feature of the female's body
that deserves attention is the softly modeled pubic area. The addition of black paint, now
much faded, represents the pubic hair, within which is a tiny vertical indentation (fig. 2).
This particular, somewhat naturalistic rendering finds little parallel with nude female figures
of the third to first millennium B.c., whose respective pudenda?"the pubic triangle"?is
merely outline or decorated with crossed lines, or with curls as an eleventh-century b.c.
Assyrian statue demonstrates.11
The figurai subjects on the British Museum plaque are arranged into a precise symmetrical
composition. The axial symmetry derives from the vertical axis that extends through the
center of the female figure. The one-behind-the-other bodies of the recumbent lions offset
the strict symmetry of the plaque, although their frontal heads accord with the symmetrical
design. The application of axial symmetry in Mesopotamian art of the third and early second
millennia b.c. is rare for major art works; however, there are examples of a three-part em
blematic design that consists of the lion-headed Anzu bird in frontal view whose claws touch
the hindquarters of two animals standing back-to-back.12 On the other hand, the axial sym
metry of the plaque may be described as consisting of a five-part emblematic design, if one
views the nude female, the paired lions, and the large birds placed at each side of the central
group independently (see below). This five-part configuration contrasts with known em
blematic designs produced during the second and first millennia b.c., which conform to the
three-part symmetry.13

10. For select early Mesopotamian terracottas depicting nude females in frontal pose, see Parrot 1961a: figs. 300,
358 (b), 365, 366.
11. Bahrani 2001: 83, describes that ways that the pubic triangle is depicted in ancient Mesopotamian art, and
notes that the central vertical incision on the pubic triangle indicates the separateness of the labia. She observes
(p. 83) that in terms of size and detail, as shown on the nude female figures, the vulva is the site of sexual pleasure.
Bahrani 1993: 13, notes further that the pubic triangle developed into a standard cuneiform sign for females. For
the various depictions of the pubic triangle, see note 10. The Middle Assyrian statue, dated to the reign of Ashur-bel
kala, shows pubic curls; see Moortgat 1969: 122, pi. 250. The frontally posed, four-winged goddess carved on a late
Assyrian ivory fragment from Nimrud shows her partially clothed, revealing an exposed pubic triangle patterned
with incised lines; see Parrot 1961b: 375, fig. 330. Parrot identifies the winged female as Lilith. On the discussion
and imagery of the Hittite goddess Sausga, who is represented nude or partially nude, and with or without wings, see
Alexander 1991.
12. Parrot 1961a: fig. 167a; Moortgat 1969: pis. 113, 117.
13. The limestone plaque discovered in a well at the ancient site of Assur is a notable example from the second
millennium b.c. The main three-figure design consists of the large mountain god and two smaller water goddesses,
one to a side. All three face to the front. The two goats floating in the air and nibbling on plants are ancillary motifs.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 176 Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005)

A noteworthy feature on the plaque is the placement of the three-toed talon feet of the two
birds. The toes extend below the surface of the shallow platform, patterned with the common
mountain motif and marking the ground line of the composition. The extension of the toes
deviates from the standard method of representation in Mesopotamian iconography in which
figurai subjects, drawn or modeled in relief, rest upon the ground line for visual stability.14
Another detail that affects the spatial quality of the composition is the placement of the long,
knobby-clawed toes of the female's talons. The clawed toes touch and overlap the body of
the lion in the foreground and stretch downward considerably, but do not rest upon a ground
line, thereby imparting a subtle notion that the female figure hovers in space. Although her
main portion is contained within the frontal picture plane, since she is posed against the clay
background and touching the lion whose body rests upon the platform defining the frontal
plane, her modeled three-toed talon feet project beyond that imaginary plane. As a visual
device this implied forward movement past the frontal plane disengages the female from
the paired lions. The manner in which the composite female figure and lions are depicted
departs from that shown on bas-reliefs with similar subject matter in Mesopotamian art. In
those works the feet of the human or divine figure rest upon the back of an animal, thereby
creating a unified image by placing both subjects in the same picture plane.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS

Soon after the British Museum plaque was brought to public attention in 1936, Dietrich
Opitz questioned its genuineness.15 He did not consider the chemical analysis mentioned
in the 1936 article sufficient to confirm the antiquity of the plaque, but correctly argued that
comparison with excavated objects should be made. Opitz pointed out that the subject matter
of the relief is without parallel, and that the two owls are absolutely unique.
On the other hand, Elizabeth Douglas Van Buren supported the authenticity of the clay
plaque in an article that appeared with Opitz's article in the same journal issue.16 Van Buren
refers to C. J. Gadd's 1933 published translation of a fragmentary Sumerian clay tablet found
in a house at Ur in 1927 and dated to the end of the Larsa Period, ca. 1800 b.c. He assigned
the text to the Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XII. Gadd translates the text as follows:

The Dyer had not dyed his hair with it. At its root the serpent knew not silence, had made its nest.
At its top the storm-bird (Zu) had put its young. In its midst Lilith ("ki-sikil?-lil la-ge ?") had
built a house.17

See Andrae 1977: 163-64. Abb. 144; Moortgat 1969: 111-12, pi. 236. Based upon stylistic parallels, Evelyn
Klengel-Brandt 1980: 41-42, argues against the Middle Assyrian date generally assigned for the plaque, and for
the time of the Old Babylonian period of the nineteenth to seventeenth centuries. Douglas Frayne 1997 also argues
against the mid-second millennium date for the Assur plaque and for a date about four centuries earlier, that is,
sometime in the Old Assyrian period.
14. Among the examples that may be cited are the late-second-millennium Hittite deities represented on the rock
reliefs at Yazihkaya and the first-millennium Assyrian deities represented on the rock reliefs at Bawian. See Akurgal
1962: pis. 76, 77; Pritchard 1969: 314-15, pi. 537. For a late-third-millennium or early-second-millennium ex
ample, see now the terracotta plaque excavated at Mari: Pic and Weygand 1983: 201-9, cover, pi. I 1-2, figs. 1, 2.
Of related interest is the fragmentary terracotta plaque from Nippur on which is depicted the lower part of a bird
or winged demon turned frontally, whose three toes of each foot extend to the ground line. See Legrain 1930: 20,
no. 228.
15. Opitz 1937: 350-53; 1938: 269-71.
16. Van Buren 1937: 354-57.
17. Gadd 1933: 127-43.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Albenda: The "Queen of the Night" Plaque?A Revisit 177

According to Gadd, the object of this description is a tree; that the ardat lili has built a house
in the trunk of the tree suggests that the demoness here is an owl. But he adds that ardat lili
in Babylonia is never described as an owl, and that the Jewish tradition identifying Lilith
with the owl seems to be of late date.
Van Buren accepts the owl image suggested by Gadd, asserting that the treatment of the
legs and wings of the goddess are "precisely like those of owls, in fact one might imagine that
she was a 'goddess-owl.' " She also refers to an Old Babylonian hymn written on a tablet
from Ur extolling Ishtar?the Venus star?from which she arbitrarily concludes that Ishtar
has been metamorphosed into a bird.
Henri Frankfort supports the authenticity of the clay plaque, arguing that the "presence
of features unparalleled elsewhere is irrelevant since our knowledge of Mesopotamian art
is very slight."18 He cites a few examples, such as the head of a male deity in terracotta
from Ur, to demonstrate that the stylistic qualities of the bought work accord with ex
cavated authentic works. He also notes that the iconography should not conflict with the
general trend of ancient beliefs as known in the texts, and he surmises that the plaque is
probably a cult object. However, he does not agree with Van Buren's view that the relief
shows Ishtar, a view incompatible with his, but maintains that it represents Lilith, indicated
by her bird-like features, whose specialized character is the very opposite to that of Ishtar.
Frankfort therefore concludes that there can be no doubt that the lady "renders an inhabitant
of the Land of Death."19 Years later, Frankfort again validated the plaque and his interpreta
tion of its subject matter in his survey of ancient Near Eastern art.20
Thorkild Jacobsen accepts Frankfort's suggestion that the clay plaque is a cult object,
but disagrees with him, stating: "since demons had no cult the figure depicted is unlikely to
be a demon."21 He observes that the lions suggest Inanna, since she is the only goddess
associated with lions. Thus, according to Jacobsen, the plaque served as a cult relief at the
house altar of an ancient bordello, which would explain the nudity of the female figure. Edith
Porada also supports Frankfort's interpretation, noting that the bird wings of the "beautiful
woman" point downward, a criterion of a demon. She suggests that the figure might be
identified with the female ruler of the dead.22 The British Museum staff accepts the last
assertion, according to a 2004 British Newsroom report on the Internet, where it is suggested
that the female figure on the plaque may represent Ereshkigal, Ishtar's sister who ruled the
underworld.23
All the above identifications rely upon interpretations of both the relevant texts and the
respective images represented on the British Museum plaque. Opitz considered the plaque
a forgery, a position that I concurred with in my 1970 article; other scholars accepted
the genuineness of the plaque, but differed on the identification of the winged female:
Lilith, Ishtar, or Ereshkigal. The last-mentioned female is documented in Mesopotamian

18. Frankfort 1938: 128. In the same article he also defends dealers on the matter of the authenticity of bought
objects by stating: "even if they know its origin to be above dispute, they cannot disclose its provenance without
victimizing those upon whom they are dependent for future supplies." Frankfort's statement does raise the question
of whether artifacts purchased from dealers are plundered or newly manufactured.
19. Frankfort 1938: 135.
20. Frankfort 1996: 110-12.
21. Jacobsen 1987: 7.
22. Porada 1980: 266.
23. http://thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/newsroom/current2004/html dated 12 February 2004. The Ereshkigal identi
fication has also been suggested by Elizabeth von der Osten-Sacken 2002.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 178 Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005)

myths,24 but no identifiable representation of her occurs in excavated ancient Near Eastern
art. A survey of the nature of Lilith and Ishtar as recorded in the texts and their representa
tions in ancient Near Eastern art is necessary, in order to conclude whether the British
Museum plaque is a forgery or not. Therefore, this study focuses on the relevant textual
data and the analysis of both the iconography and style of excavated art objects, to support
comparison with the sculpted female on the British Museum plaque. The study of the owl
and lion should provide further clarification in resolving the authenticity of the subject matter
on the clay plaque, since these animals are an integral part of the composition.

DISCUSSION

Lilith: As noted above, the first identification of Lilith resulted from Gadd's translation of
the fragmentary Sumerian tablet. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary identifies lilitu or lilu
(male) as a demoness, and cites several examples in ritual texts.25 An eighth-century B.c.
Babylonian Utukki Limnuti incantation to block the entry of the enemy into someone's house
mentions among the descriptions and names of evil spirits "the robber lil?, or lilitu or hand
maid of ///w."26 These creatures seem to have been faceless, since no physical features are
explicitly cited in the ritual text. In addition to these evil spirits there was the essebu, a bird
of ill portent.27 In his survey of ancient Near Eastern art, Frankfort referred to Isaiah 34.14 to
support his identification of the composite female on the Burney plaque with Lilith. H. W. F.
Saggs later pointed out that lilitu the feminine demon has been identified with the Hebrew
word lilu, "night-monster," according to the translation of the English Revised Version of
Isaiah 34.14.28 Other modern translations of the Hebrew word in Isaiah 34.14?the Re
vised Standard Version and the King James Version?identify the monster as "night hag"
or "satyr," respectively. Mention of the owl does occur among the wild beasts and birds that
shall settle in the wasted land of Edom. For example, the comparable Isaiah 13.21-22
states that "wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of owls,
and ostriches shall dwell there, and the scops owl shall hop about there."29
In his recent study of the portion of Gilgamesh Tablet XII that Gadd published in 1933,
Andrew George translates the relevant lines of the text as follows:
In its base a Snake-that-knows-no-Charm had made its nest, in its branches a Thunderbird had
hatched its brood, in its trunk a Demon-Maid had built her home. The maiden who laughs with
happy heart, holy Inanna was weeping.30

This translation does not support the interpretations of Van Buren and other scholars who
have identified the female figure on the British Museum relief as the goddess Inanna or
Ishtar. Moreover, several lines later in the text one reads that the Sumerian hero Bilgames
(Gilgamesh in Akkadian) tore down the tree and gave the wood to the goddess for her

24. See the Sumerian myth "Inanna's Descent to the Netherworld," and the Akkadian myth "Nergal and
Ereshkigal": Pritchard 1969: 52-55, 103-4. In Jacobsen 1978: 58, Ereshkigal is described as follows: "her talons
were like a copper rake(?) upon her, the hairs on her head were like (spiky) leeks."
25. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (hereafter CAD) L (1973), 190. For discussion of the /?/w-demon and ref
erences to representations of the nude winged goddess, see Groneberg 1997: 126-30.
26. Wiggerman 1992: 7.
27. CAD E (1958), 370-71. For an identification of essebu with the harrier, a bird of prey, and not likely an
owl, see Veldhuis 2004: 272-74, 337, illus. no. 19.
28. Saggs 1966: 485.
29. The Holy Scriptures (1962), 491.
30. George 1999: 179-80, 182-83.

This content downloaded from

ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Albenda: The "Queen of the Night" Plaque?A Revisit 179

throne and bed. In addition, there is no support in George's translation for a linkage between
the Demon-Maid and an owl.
In Mesopotamian iconography there are no known parallels for the nude winged, talon
footed female represented on the British Museum plaque, although demon-like creatures
do occur, particularly on cylinder seal designs of the second millennium.31 Neo-Assyrian
bronze statuettes of the demon Pazuzu show it to be four-winged with talon feet.32 Other
talon-footed monsters of the Assyrian period are represented on the seventh-century b.c.
bas-reliefs of Ashurbanipal.33 These lion-headed male figures, armed with a mace and
dagger, served as protective beings in entranceways of the royal residence.
Ishtar: Both Van Buren and Jacobsen identify the nude female on the British Museum
plaque with the Akkadian goddess Ishtar (Inanna in Sumerian). However, each presents a
different aspect of the goddess, as "goddess-owl" and as "goddess of harlots." The former
identification does not occur in ancient Mesopotamian texts, while the cultic celebrations
in the worship of the goddess, described in the ancient texts, may have included sexual
activities.34 Ishtar has been described as multi-faceted and associated with various charac
teristics.35 Zainab Bahrani also discusses the various aspects of the goddess and states, "the
extremes and opposites combined in the figure of Ishtar make her the superlative sign of
difference."36
An early representation of Inanna/Ishtar is the large stone statue discovered at Susa, dated
to the Akkadian period, and now in the Louvre.37 The goddess holds a goblet and a palm leaf
or plant in the right and left hand respectively, and sits on a square throne. The throne is
decorated with four lions carved in shallow relief, one at each side and two at the back. At the
base, below the feet of the goddess, are two recumbent lions that confront a large rosette.
In later times this floral motif sometimes served as an emblem associated with the goddess.
The prominent depictions of the lions on this statue provide evidence of their direct associa
tion with the goddess by the late third millennium B.c.
In the visual arts, the grouping of a goddess with a lion continued into the later Old
Babylonian period, best exemplified by its occurrence in the wall painting from Mari, dated
to the time of Hammurabi.38 Ishtar stands with one foot on a small recumbent lion whose
mouth is open. In her raised right hand is a ring and rod, and in her lowered left hand is a
scimitar; from each shoulder emerge three weapons, a mace between two axes. This pictorial
version shows the fully clothed goddess in her warrior aspect. A clay plaque discovered at the
same site, produced during the same or an earlier period, depicts in relief the armed goddess
flanked by two important officials.39 Ishtar is posed frontally, although her feet are turned

31. Coll?n 1988: 66, 183, nos. 276, 867-71; Pritchard 1969: 334, fig. 705.
32. Pritchard 1969: 328, no. 659; Oriental Institute 1982, fig. 46 (A 25413). The two bronze statuettes have no
archaeological provenience; the Louvre statuette was acquired in 1874; see Pottier 1924, 131-33, fig. 146. A similar
representation of the Pazuzu demon occurs on small plaques; see Pritchard 1969: 328, 381, figs. 658, 857. The
female demon Lamashtu is also depicted on these plaques. For discussion and representations of Pazuzu and other
talon-footed monsters, see Green 1985: 75-82, pis. vii-xv. For brief discussion of maces in the form of Pazuzu
heads, see Muscarella 1988: 289.
33. Barnett 1976: pi. lv.
34. Jacobsen 1978: 139-40.
35. Harris 1991: 261-78. For a discussion of the male/female aspects of Inanna/Ishtar, see Groneberg 1986.
36. Bahrani 2001: chapter 7.
37. Amiet 1976: 38-39, pi. 36 a-c, fig. 35.
38. Parrot 1961a: 278, fig. 346 (color).
39. Pic and Weygand 1983: cover illus., pi. I 1-2, figs. 1-2.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 180 Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005)

outwards, and she stands upon the back of a recumbent lion turned to the viewer's right.
She is fully clothed and wears the horned headdress, which defines her divine status. The
iconographie image of the clothed Ishtar standing on the back of a lion continued into the
first millennium B.c., and a fine example occurs on a stone stele discovered at Til Bar sip.40
In this work there are several modifications in the depiction of the figurai group. The goddess,
who is identified by an inscription as Ishtar of Arbela, turns to the viewer's right. A quiver
appears from behind each shoulder, and at the back is a spiked shield. Ishtar holds the rope
tied to the lion, which strides forward with its mouth open wide and its tail turned up.
Thus, the standardized iconography of the clothed warrior goddess Ishtar standing upon
one lion can be traced back to the early second millennium, and this imagery continued into
the first millennium. Over time details in the depictions of the goddess, her weapons, and the
lion were modified to satisfy the style of the period.
There is, however, an example of the clothed warrior goddess standing upon two re
cumbent lions. She is depicted on an unprovenienced small molded plaque that was first
published in 1917 and is presently housed at Yale University (fig. 3).41 Van Buren cited this
plaque in her article mentioned above, and in her 1930 monograph dated the plaque to ca.
2100 b.c.42 The goddess on the Yale plaque has a tall horned headdress (three-quarter view)
topped by a disk, and is attired in a long pleated dress that is belted at the waist. Across her
chest are two straps that hold the quivers at her back. In her extended left hand is a bow and
arrow held in upright position, a common method of illustrating bows in Mesopotamia in the
first millennium b.c.43 In her lowered right hand, Ishtar grips a long curved stick or weapon
that touches the head of one lion. This object is similar to one held by the hero-type figure
on the monumental wall reliefs from Khorsabad,44 and by the god Marduk who is repre
sented on a Neo-BabyIonian lapis-lazuli stone from Babylon.45 The armed Ishtar on the
Yale plaque stands with one foot on the neck of each lion to indicate that, visually, the two
animated animals carry equal weight as supports for the standing goddess. The outward
facing, open-mouthed recumbent lions are depicted viewed from the side and are positioned
one behind the other upon a low base. The s-curved tail of the foreground lion rests below
the base line, a detail similar to that shown on the British Museum plaque. The manes of both
lions are patterned with a series of vertical striations.
The particular weapons that the Yale goddess possesses compare favorably with those on
other first-millennium representations of Ishtar.46 Contrary to the date cited by Van Buren,
the Yale plaque should be dated to the first millennium, probably the late eighth or seventh
century b.c. Therefore the Yale plaque cannot be used stylistically to authenticate the British
Museum plaque, whether or not one accepts the proposed dates for both plaques?a sepa
ration of about a millennium. Probably to the same general period belongs the fragmentary

40. Pritchard 1969: 312, fig. 522.

41. Clay 1917: 77, fig. 5 (bottom row).
42. Van Buren 1930: 93, fig. 130.
43. See: Moortgat 1969: pi. 273; Andrae 1977: Abb. 56. Of interest, among the images of Assyrian kings dis
played on the palace wall reliefs are those of Ashurnasirpal II holding the end of the upright bow that rests upon the
ground, and of Ashurbanipal gripping the bow and arrows upright above the ground. At the feet of the ninth-century
king is a dead lion, while four dead lions are aligned one behind the other at the feet of the seventh-century king;
Moortgat 1969: pis. 266, 288.
44. Albenda 1986: pis. 15, 17, figs. 7-8.
45. Koldewey 1981: 216, Abb. 135; Pritchard 1969: 312, fig. 523.
46. See: Coll?n 2001: 127-29, figs. 240, 243 (seal impressions); Koldewey 1981: 160, Abb. 102 (stone relief);
Gibson, Zettler, and Armstrong 1983: 186, fig. 28 (clay plaque).

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Albenda: The "Queen of the Night" Plaque?A Revisit 181

Fig. 3. Terracotta plaque (YBC 10006): armed goddess on recumbent lions. Photo courtesy of the
Babylonian Collection, Yale University Library.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 182 Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005)

terracotta plaque excavated in the Merkes area at Babylon and illustrated in Van Buren's
1937 article.47 It depicts the lower part of a nude female standing on the backs of two re
cumbent lions whose bodies are turned outward and whose heads are turned to the front.
The heavily damaged surface makes it impossible to describe the feet of the winged or
cloaked female, but that it renders the talons of a bird is unlikely in the absence of ex
cavated parallels.
Returning to the nude female on the British Museum plaque, a prominent feature is the
pair of wings. They appear slightly above the shoulders unnaturally, and extend downward
to the level between the hips and knees. Each wing is divided into three layered sections:
the upper covert patterned with small scales and two rows of long thin feathers. Together, the
three divisions of the wing form a jagged outer edge. Although representations of a winged
female deity occur in seal designs of the late third and second millennia B.c., here the wings
extend outwards from the back of the goddess.48 In this regard it should be pointed out that
Mesopotamian images of anthropomorphic figures with two or four wings invariably show
the wings extending from behind the shoulders or torso. Moreover, there are no known
parallels between those wings and the paired version on the plaque.
In 1952 Marie-Th?r?se Barrelet published an article that deals with a group of small
molded plaques, each one depicting a nude woman in frontal or near frontal pose.49 She
assigns these plaques to the Old Babylonian period. Her study demonstrates that, although
their images vary, the females, depicted with or without horned headdress, are shown with
their capes partially or completely pulled back, thereby exposing a nude body. Two of her
illustrated plaques are of particular interest, since the female depicted in each example wears
a horned headdress. On a plaque from Nippur, the nude goddess stands with her upper torso
turned to the viewer's right and has both arms raised in front of her in a suppliant pose.50
Covering her back and slightly raised above the shoulder is a long pleated cape that reaches
to her ankles. On a plaque from Ur, the nude goddess is in frontal position and stands with
both arms raised to her breasts (fig. 4). The overly large toes of her feet rest upon a high
platform. Barrelet assumes that this figure has talon feet, but note that toenails are indicated.51
One also observes here that the upper part of the long cape covers the shoulders and upper
arms, and that the lower portion of the fabric is plaited to form a chevron pattern. The manner
in which the cape is rendered in both excavated plaques, that is, slightly above the shoulders
of the respective goddesses, is similar to that shown for the wings belonging to the com
posite female on the British Museum plaque. Thus we may assert an iconographie linkage
between the depictions of the wings on the latter plaque and the capes on the molded
plaques. In brief, the nude, talon-footed female on the British Museum plaque could be
described as reflecting the manner of wearing a short cape designed here as wings.
The motif of a female with ankle-length cape or wrap turned back to expose her nudity
also occurs in cylinder seal designs of the Old Babylonian period and in designs of the later
second millennium.52 In every known example the female has human feet, with or without

47. Reuther 1926: fig. 218.

48. Pritchard 1969: 312, fig. 526; Amiet 1980: 52, figs. 11-14, 15; Coll?n 1988: 70, figs. 311, 314.
49. Barrelet 1952: 285-93.
50. Barrelet 1952: fig. 40; Opificius 1961: 72, Taf. 3, no. 208.
51. Barrelet 1952: fig. 6; Zervos 1935: pi. 138. Van Buren 1937: 354, describes the nude goddess on the terra
cotta plaque from Kish, which she illustrated, as showing clawed feet. It is equally reasonable to distinguish toes
that extend over the haunches of the two back-to-back recumbent goats. The "wings" of the goddess may also be
interpreted as a cape thrown back to expose her body.
52. Coll?n 1988: 50, 125, 138, 167, figs. 191, 541, 581 (winged), 778.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Albenda: The "Queen of the Night" Plaque?A Revisit 183

Wt
??gfcl! WK *b*L
wa

?????
? &10,
m/sF
RfciV- .?a
&-. ffW $? W
urn

i?

?&S*1

Fig. 4. Terracotta plaque from Ur. Nude goddess with cape over shoulders. After Zervos 1935, pi. 138.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 184 Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005)

footwear. Among those representations is a winged nude or semi-nude female, identifiable

as a goddess. Also note that several stone monuments dated in the mid-second millennium
depict a wingless nude female in frontal position, standing upon a lion that strides forward.
In these works the female has been identified as the Syrian goddess Qedesh shown centered
between two Egyptian deities.53 In each instance the goddess raises her arms and holds a
different object in each hand, a plant in one and a snake in the other. Although they differ in
their iconographie details and assigned dates, the nude goddesses on the stone monuments
reveal similarities with the composite female on the British Museum plaque.
Owl: The unusual renderings of the large birds that frame the recumbent lions on the
plaque are intended to be recognizable as owl-like. Van Buren accepts this identification,
which leads her to identify the nude female figure as the "goddess-owl" aspect of Ishtar. Of
interest, however, the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary translates the phrase describing qadu
(owl): "the owl, the bird of Ea, cries tukku-tukku."54 This brief description suggests that a
different deity was associated with the owl. Turning to the visual arts of the ancient Near
East, one searches in vain for the representation of an owl. Indeed, no known examples of
an owl exist, except on the unexcavated, unprovenienced British Museum plaque. Nonethe
less, the two near-identical depictions of the bird merit discussion.
The rendering of the bird is composed of three separate elements: head, torso, and legs.
As drawn, the large rounded head with round eyes is attached to the upper part of the torso,
which is delineated as a poncho-like shape that also forms the wings (fig. 1). The body is
covered with a scale pattern on the upper part, while the lower part forms a border filled with
vertical lines, perhaps to indicate the feathered wings. Two long, thin legs with talon-like feet
extend from the torso. The three knobby, finger-like claws on the talons of each bird touch the
shallow platform and rest upon the front of the scale-patterned base of the plaque. Overall,
the general appearance of the two birds seems awkward, and indeed is indicative of an almost
simplistic caricature.
A comparison between the owls on the plaque with real owls reveals the craftsman's lack
of knowledge of the living variety and, therefore, his inability to depict an owl in a con
vincing manner. One telling detail is the beak. Centered on the face of each of the two birds
is a continuous contour line that defines a damaged (accidental?) triangular surface rather
than a beak; that is, narrow at the upper end and wide at the lower end. On the bird that is
positioned at the female's proper right side, a beak tip is attached to the lower end of the
damaged area. In contrast, the same triangular area on the bird positioned at the female's left
side is filled in to indicate a shallow human-type nose with nostrils that are clearly visible.
These details contrast with the beak of a living owl?or that of any bird of prey?whose
broad upper bill starts between the eyes and tapers down to a sharp edge. In addition,
the nostrils of a bird of prey are at the upper end of the beak. The craftsman's inaccurate
rendering of these essential features is significant. One would expect that the maker of a
major iconographical plaque, who was capable of modeling the nude female with a consid
erable degree of expertise, had a basic understanding of how to represent and depict an owl
or bird in general.
There are of course examples in ancient Near Eastern art that show a bird, either posed
frontally or in side view, which disclose an ability to depict a bird convincingly. A primary

53. Pritchard 1969: 305-6, figs. 470-74. A nude frontal female, who stands upon two back-to-back seated lions
with their heads turned back, is depicted on a seal design from Ras Shamra-Ugarit; see Schaeffer-Forrer 1983:
16-17.
54. CAD Q (1982), 51.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Albenda: The "Queen of the Night" Plaque?A Revisit 185

example of the frontal view is the Anzu (Zu) bird, mentioned previously. This bird-type,
dated to the Ur III period, has its wings spread out from its body, as if in flight.55 In
Mesopotamian art it is characteristic for the wings of a bird to be attached to the sides of
the body, however simplified may be its depiction. Moreover, the side view of a bird was the
general method of representation in ancient Near Eastern art. Interest in depicting different
types of birds seems to have increased during the second millennium, and later into the Neo
Assyrian period.56 The owl is not among the identifiable birds represented in ancient Near
Eastern art.
Lion: The turned heads of the two recumbent lions on the plaque conform to the compo
sition's scheme of depicting the frontal view. The projecting portion of their respective heads
is modeled in the round and is intact. Each lion has a closed mouth and a passive gaze. Ex
cavated third-millennium B.c. parallels of a close-mouthed head of a lion modeled in the
round include a stone mace-head from Tel Agrab decorated with projecting lion heads, a
stone base from Susa, and from Telloh (ancient Girsu) the mace-head belonging to Gudea
(ca. 2100 b.c.) and several isolated lion heads that originally decorated basins.57 Also dated
to the third millennium are depictions of a lion with an open mouth. Notable examples are
the carved lions that decorate the throne of the seated statue of Ishtar from Susa, described
above. Two stone recumbent lions from Susa are likewise rendered with open mouths.58 The
pair of Urkish lion pegs, one housed in the Louvre, the other in the Metropolitan Museum
of Art, also portrays the animals with an open mouth as if snarling or roaring.59 From the
second millennium onwards this facial feature was standard for active lion representations in
the art of Mesopotamia. It is not surprising that the ancient artist emphasized the fearsome
expression of a lion, since this feature conveys effectively the notion of animation and animal
power.
The head of each lion on the British Museum plaque has a mane covered with bitumen,
which is patterned with incised lines. The foreground lion shows the hair of the mane extend
ing across its underside, a feature of lions that occurs in cylinder seal representations of the
Akkad and Middle Assyrian periods.60 The extension of the mane to the underside of a male
lion was a standard feature in the art of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Hittite periods.
Two details on the lions warrant further discussion. One is the rendering of their paws,
three of which are depicted. The paws stretch outward and tilt toward the viewer. Conse
quently, the forepaw of the foreground lion displays six toes/claws, somewhat carelessly.
This detail is unique since the forepaws of the living species have four toes/claws at the
front, while the fifth is at the back. Turning to the visual arts of Mesopotamia, the toes/
claws of the forepaws of a lion are extended only in animal battle scenes or in the royal
hunt, thus intensifying the notion of stressful action; closed forepaws occur on an inactive,

55. Moortgat 1969: pis. 113, 117.

56. For a selection of representations of birds in ancient Near Eastern art, see: Moortgat 1969: pis. 120 (vulture),
287-88 (dove); Amiet 1980: figs. 11-14, 17 (eagle); Pritchard 1969: figs. 519-21 (falcon?); Schm?kel 1959: Taf. 76
bottom (ostrich); Coll?n 1988: fig. 405 (ostrich).
57. See Moortgat 1969: 29, pi. 38; Amiet 1976: 43, 131, figs. 55, 56; Parrot 1969a: fig. 291; Parrot 1948: 195,
fig. 42 h, k, m.
58. Amiet 1976: 131, figs. 59 a, b, 60.
59. Amiet 1976: 65, fig. 64 a, b. The two lion pegs are illustrated and discussed in Muscarella 1988a: 374-77;
1988b: 93-99, illus. 48-53. See now the excavated seal impression from Tell Mozan (ancient Urkish), which depicts
a recumbent, open-mouthed lion at the feet of the seated king; G. Buccellati and M. Kelly-Buccellati 1997: 80-81.
60. Cf. Moortgat 1969: pis. F 3, K 2, 3.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 186 Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005)

occasionally recumbent lion.61 In Mesopotamian art the hind paws of a passive lion are
always closed; but oddly, this is not the case with the visible hind paw of the foreground
lion on the plaque.
The second detail is the ornamentation on the upper outer edge of the somewhat dis
torted foreleg of each lion.62 These differ from one another. On the shoulder of the mostly
hidden background lion, a few short random striations frame a small button-like circle; on
the shoulder of the foreground lion, a broad curved shape extends downwards from one side
of the small button-like circle. The two different decorative motifs catch our interest, since
a shoulder ornament sometimes occurs in Mesopotamian representations of lions. An early
example of the shoulder ornament is that on the six lions carved on the statue of the seated
goddess discovered at Susa, mentioned above. The same ornament is given to each lion; it has
been described as resembling a knot or bow with a spiral display of its two extended attach
ments.63 Another version of the shoulder ornament occurs on a fragmentary stone lion from
Uruk, inscribed with the name of Gudea of Lagash.64 It consists of a circle filled with curved
radiating lines, and attached to each side is a downward-turned rectangular shape. A late
third-millennium b.c. copper lion discovered at Mari shows a shoulder ornament that consists
of a circle filled with curved radiating lines.65 The shoulder ornament on another copper lion
and on a terracotta lion, both from Mari, is described as in the form of the sun.66 Comparison
between the two types of shoulder ornaments depicted on the British Museum plaque and
the several versions cited here reveals a slight resemblance to those on the Susa and Uruk
lions. Since the last-named lions are dated to the late third millennium b.c., we may suppose
that the apparent resemblance is fortuitous.

CONCLUSION

One must acknowledge that the British Museum plaque, recently named "Queen of the
Night," is impressive at first viewing. However, the above brief study dealing with the style
and iconography of the plaque reveals many features that are unusual or unique when com
pared with excavated and provenienced Mesopotamian and Near Eastern art, primarily of the
second millennium b.c. Moreover, the contradictions of iconographie imagery (e.g., goddess/
female demon, lion/owl) within the figurai grouping on the terracotta plaque have resulted in
conflicting identifications by modern scholars. This too adds to the uniqueness of the plaque,
and may indicate a real problem with its date and place of manufacture.

61. See Parrot 1961a: pi. 225 (Akkad period); Strommenger 1964: pis. 248-49 (Neo-Assyrian period). A rare
exception to the rule of showing the closed hind paws of a lion in defensive posture occurs on two monumental wall
reliefs from Khorsabad. There, a hero-type figure clutches to his body a roaring lion that struggles to free itself; see
Albenda 1986: pis. 15, 17, figs. 7, 8. It may be noted that the tail of each obliquely positioned lion extends downward
in a reverse s-curve, similar to the tail of the foreground lion on the British Museum plaque.
62. I find a curious similarity between the somewhat awkward renderings of the high-shoulder forelegs on the
recumbent lions on the British Museum plaque and that of a dying lioness on the wall reliefs from room C of
Ashurbanipal's North Palace at Nineveh. The wall reliefs were excavated in the mid-nineteenth century and trans
ported a short time later to the British Museum. For good illustrations of the Nineveh lioness, see Parrot 1961b;
Strommenger 1964, pi. 250.
63. Amiet 1976: 38.
64. Beyer et al. 1993: 100, fig. 20.
65. Beyer et al. 1993: 100-102, figs. 8 (bottom right), 21 b.
66. Beyer et al. 1993: fig. 21 a. For bibliography on the subject of shoulder ornaments on lions, see Beyer et al.
1993: n. 28.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Albenda: The "Queen of the Night" Plaque?A Revisit 187

Comparison between excavated objects and the British Museum plaque makes it evident
that the selection and arrangement of the subject matter on the plaque has no known parallels.
However, the theme of a goddess with birds is represented on terracotta plaques discovered
at Telloh, Nippur, and Ur. These depict the seated or standing goddess, identified variously as
Gula, Bau (Baba), and Nanse, and large geese.67 The flounced robe worn by the individual
goddesses is an item of dress that dates these plaques to the third millennium b.c. The rep
resentation of a bird with spread wings held in the hand of a goddess occurs in a second
millennium seal design, and on a terracotta plaque from Alalakh the nude goddess Sausga is
depicted with a bird (dove?) in each upraised hand.68 Thus in the visual arts, where there is a
direct association between a goddess and bird(s), the bird represented is never identifiable as
an owl. Relevant to the matter of similar or related motifs is Van Buren's assumption that the
two recumbent lions depicted on the British Museum plaque match up with those shown on
the Yale plaque. That supposed parallel should now be dismissed. I have demonstrated that
the latter plaque must be dated to the first millennium B.c., rather than to the Old Babylo
nian period. Moreover, the frontal heads of the lions on the British Museum plaque find
their closest parallels with excavated examples dated to the late third millennium b.c.
In the ancient Near East divine or human figures are set atop an animal or upon a base
line, but do not overlap in mid-air, as is the case with the composite female on the British
Museum plaque. And the depictions of the two owls portray little more than an awkward
caricature of the living variety, whereas the ancient artist or craftsman was capable of depict
ing a bird with a degree of correctness. The fleshy nude body of the composite female is the
major contemporary attraction to the plaque, but to me this rendering looks "modern," when
compared with other nude females portrayed on terracotta plaques of the second millennium
b.c. I may add that the female's hollow eyes, which evoke a strange stare, are quite unusual
since there is archaeological evidence that terracotta human/deity figurines were molded with
filled-in eyes.
A serious problem with the British Museum plaque is that early on it was in the posses
sion of an antiquities dealer, i.e., without an archaeological locus. However, one should not
overlook the results of the 1935 chemical analysis and the 1975 thermoluminescence tests
undertaken by the British Museum on two separate occasions. Unfortunately, the results of
these tests have merely been cited and never published. The cited TL tests indicate a broad
range of dates for the clay that forms the background surface upon which the figurai subject
matter was modeled. It is my view that the figurai relief itself must be studied as an artifact on
its own terms, independent of the chemical analysis and TL tests elsewhere. The significance
of the stated chemical analysis of the plaque remains vague with regard to the specific period
of its antiquity; an artificial "aging" process could have been known and applied.69 There
fore, I believe a scientific re-examination of the plaque is necessary.
In this study I have followed recognized art-historical methods. Accordingly, analysis of
the subject matter makes it clear to me that the British Museum plaque presents a pastiche

67. See Parrot 1948: 239, pi. 49 c; Legrain 1930: 28, no. 212; Maxwell-Hyslop 1992: 79-82, pis. vii-ix. For a
version of the same motif on a seal design, see Moortgat 1940: 108, no. 273. On two other seals (nos. 269, 270) a
frontal bird in flight appears just above the extended hand of the enthroned goddess. The text of Name and the Birds
begins with the mention of the goose, and the list of birds that follows does not include the owl. See Veldhuis 2004:
4-5, 117-22.
68. Coll?n 1987: 73, no. 318; Alexander 1991: 168-69, fig. 4.
69. Of interest is the method that has been used to fake African terracotta animals, many of which have been
acquired by private collectors and museums; see Brent 2001b: 26-32.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 188 Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005)

of artistic features and motifs observable in excavated and unprovenienced ancient Near
Eastern art objects that were known in the early 1930s. Some of the objects had already been
published; others entered museums and were therefore available to interested individuals.
Added to the borrowings of ideas were others coming from "modern invention"; the paired
owls are a prime example. However extraordinary the so-called "Queen of the Night" plaque
must appear, I continue to be unconvinced of its antiquity. I am even less inclined to believe
that it represents a major work of the Old Babylonian period.70

70. Unexcavated and unprovenienced objects sometimes give rise to fictitious storytelling surrounding their
alleged antiquity and place of origin. For example, see Simpson 2005.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akurgal, E. 1962. The Art of the Hittites. London: Thames and Hudson.
Albenda, P. 1970. The Burney Relief Reconsidered. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of
Columbia University 2/2: 86-93.
_. 1986. The Palace ofSargon, King of Assyria. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Alexander, R. L. 1991. Sausga and the Hittite Ivory from Megiddo. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50:
161-82.
Amiet, P. 1976. L'art dAgad? au Mus?e du Louvre. Paris: ?ditions des Mus?es Nationaux.
_. 1980. The Mythological Repertory in Cylinder Seals of the Agade Period (c. 2335-2155
B.C.) In Ancient Art in Seals, ed. E. Porada. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. Pp. 35-59.
Andrae, W. 1977. Das wiederstaudene Assur. Munich: C. H. Beck. Reprint of 1936 Leipzig edition,
with additions.
Bahrani, Z. 1993. The Iconography of the Nude in Mesopotamia. Source: Notes on the History of Art
12/2: 12-19.
_. 2001. Women of Babylon. Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia. London: Routledge.
Barnett, R. D. 1976. Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (668-627 B.C.).
London: British Museum.
Barrelet, M.-T 1952. A propos d'une plaquette trouv?e ? Mari (AO. 18962). Syria 29: 285-93.
Beyer, D., C. Forri?res, F. Lemaire, and F. Bargain. 1993. Les lions du temple du "Roi du pays" de
Mari. Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 7: 79-105.
Brent, M. 2001a. The Limits of TL. Archaeology January/February: 31.
_. 2001b. Faking African Art. Archaeology January/February: 26-32.
Buccellati, G., and M. Kelly-Buccellati. 1997. Urkesh: The First Human Capital. Biblical Archaeologist
60/2: 77-96.
Clay, A. T. 1917. The Art of the Akkadians. Art and Archaeology 5/2: 69-100.
Coll?n, D. 1987. First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press.
_. 2001. Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Cylinder Seals V: Neo
Assyrian and Babylonian Periods. London: British Museum.
Frankfort, H. 1938. The Burney Relief. Archiv f?r Orientforschung 12: 128-35.
_. 1996. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. 5th ed. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Frayne, D. 1997. On the Date of the "Mountain God" from Assur: Husumma and Mount Ebih. Nou
velles Assyriologiques Br?ves et Utilitaires, No. 23.
Gadd, C. 1933. Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XII. Revue dAssyriologie et d Arch?ologie Orientale 30:
127-43.
George, A. 1999. The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and
Sumerian. London: Penguin.
Gibson, M., R. Zettler, and J. Armstrong. 1983. The Southern Corner of Nippur: Excavations During
the 14th and 15th Seasons. Sumer 39: 170-90.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Albenda: The "Queen of the Night" Plaque?A Revisit 189

Green, A. 1985. A Note on the "Scorpion-Man" and Pazuzu. Iraq 47: 75-82.
Groneberg, B. 1986. Die sumerisch-akkadisch Inanna/Istar: Hermaphroditos? Die Welt des Orients
17: 25-46.
_. 1997. Lob der I star: Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusg?ttin tattatti Istar.
Groningen: Styx.
Harris, R. 1991. Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites. History of Religions 30:
261-78.
The Holy Scriptures. 1962. Jerusalem: Koren Publishers.
Jacobsen, T. 1978. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven:
Yale Univ. Press.
_. 1987. Pictures and Pictorial Language (The Burney Relief). In Figurative Languages in the
Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlin, M. J. Geller, and J. E. Wansbrough. London: Univ. of London.
Pp. 1-11.
Klengel-Brand. 1980. Bemerkungen zum Kultrelief aus Assur. Akkadica, E. 16: 38-47.
Koldewey, R. 1981. Das wieder erstehende Babylon. Zurich: Editions Olins. Rpt. of 1925. Leipzig
edition.
Legrain, L. 1930. Terracottas from Nippur. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Museum.
Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R. 1992. The Goddess Nanse: An Attempt to Identify Her Representation. Iraq
54: 79-82.
Moortgat, A. 1940. Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel. Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann.
_. 1969. The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia. New York: Phaidon.
Muscarella, O. W. 1988a. Bronze and Iron. Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
_. 1988b. Comments on the Urkish Lion Pegs. In Mozan I: The Soundings of the First Two
Seasons, ed. G. Buccellati and M. Kelly-Buccellati. Malibu: Undena. Pp. 93-99.
_. 2000. The Lie Became Great: The Forgeries of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures. Groningen:
Styx.
Opficius, R. 1961. Das altbabylonische Terracottarelief. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Opitz, D. 1937. Die vogelf?ssige G?ttin auf den L?wen. Archiv f?r Orientforschung 11: 350-53.
_. 1938. Die Probleme des Burney-Reliefs. Archiv f?r Orientforschung 12: 269-71.
The Oriental Institute. 1982. A Guide to the Oriental Institute Museum. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
Parrot, A. 1948. Tello. Vingt compagnes d fouilles (1877-1933). Paris: Editions Albin Michel.
_. 1961a. Sumer: The Dawn of Art. New York: Golden Press.
_. 1961b. The Arts of Assyria. New York: Golden Press.
Pic, M., and I. Weygand. 1983. Une terra cuite provenant de Mari figurant la d?esse Ishtar. Mari,
Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 2: 201-9.
Porada, E. 1980. The Iconography of Death in Mesopotamia in the Early Second Millennium B.C. In
Death in Mesopotamia, ed. B. Alster. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Pp. 259-67.
Pottier, E. 1924. Catalogue des antiquit?s assyriennes. Paris: Mus?es Nationaux.
Pritchard, J. B., ed. 1955. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton:
Princeton Univ. Press.
_, ed. 1969. The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Second edition.
Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Reuther, O. 1926. Die Innenstadt von Babylon (Merkes). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Saggs, H. W. E 1966. The Greatness that Was Babylon. New York: Hawthorne Books.
Schaeffer-Forrer, C. E 1983. Corpus des cylinders-sceaux de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et d 'Enkomi-Alasia.
Paris: ?ditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Schm?kel, H. 1958. Ur, Assur und Babylon. Jahrtausende im Zweistromland. Stuttgart: Gustav K?pper
Verlag.
Simpson, E. 2005. Tall Tales, Celts, Connoisseurs, and the Fabrication of Archaeological Context.
Sources: Notes on the History of Art All: 28-41.
Strommenger, E. 1964. 5000 Years of the Art of Mesopotamia. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 190 Journal of the American Oriental Society 125.2 (2005)

Van Buren, E. D. 1930. Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
_. 1937. A Further Note on the Terra-cotta Relief. Archiv f?r Orientforschung 11: 354-5
Veldhuis, N. 2004. Religion, Literature and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition Nanse an
Birds. Leiden: Brill/Styx.
von der Osten-Sacken, E. 2002. ?berlegungen zur G?ttin auf dem Burney-Relief. In Sex and Gen
in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,
sinki, July 2-6, 2001, ed. S. Parp?la and R. Whiting. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Pro
Pp. 479-87.
Wiggermann, F. A. M. 1992. Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts. Groningen: Styx.
Zervos, C. 1935. L'art de la M?sopotamie de la fin du quatri?me mill?naire au XVe si?cle avant notre
?re. Paris: ?ditions "Cahiers d'Art."

ADDENDUM

The following British Museum booklet came to my attention several months after th
article was accepted for publication: D. Coll?n, The Queen of the Night (London, 2
The author states "although originally Plenderleith had thought that bitumen was used
the background, more recent analysis has shown that charcoal and soot were used not o
for the background, but also for the Queen's hair and eyebrows, for the manes of the l
and for the scale pattern at the bottom of the relief. A gypsum pigment was used for
white bodies of the lions" (p. 17). With regard to the identification of charcoal and
this contradicts the British Museum letter of 1995 (see n. 6) stating, "the exhaustive chem
analysis . . . has established . . . bitumen dried out in a way which is only possible i
course of centuries." It is odd that Plenderleith erred between bitumen and charcoal. Mo
over, Frankfort never mentions that white paint occurred on the bodies of the lions, n
elsewhere on the plaque. He does note that the feathers alternate in red and black
wonders how Frankfort overlooked the evidence of the white pigment, if indeed the 19
chemical analysis had recorded its presence. If white pigment was not recorded, one
then surmise that repainting occurred sometime after 1936. Therefore, to clarify the a
issues, the documentation of both the early and recent chemical analyses of the "Queen
the Night" plaque should be published as soon as possible.

This content downloaded from

150.244.160.84 on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:35:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms