Head of a ruler; 2300–2000 B.C. Iran or Mesopotamia Copper alloy; 13 1/2in. (34.3cm) Rogers Fund, 1947 (47.100.80)
This magnificent head portrays a king of the late third millennium B.C. Its heavy-lidded eyes, prominent but unexaggerated nose, full lips, and enlarged ears all suggest a portrait of an actual person. While the date and place of manufacture of this piece have been much debated, its close similarity to the magnificent bronze head found at Nineveh make a late third millennium date most likely. The head is cast almost solid (making it extremely heavy), but a dowel hole at the base would have served to join it to a body or other support, most likely for display in a temple setting. (From the Metropolitan Museum of Art; emphasis added.)
Many thanks to the Metropolitan Museum of Art for making this photograph available on-line.
June 24, 2010
I was looking at this picture of "the unknown Sumerian ruler". It had been on my website for more than a year, so I had seen the picture a hundred times before. Although I had always accepted it to be an unknown Sumerian ruler, on several occasions I had thought to myself, "It could be Ur-Namma. It looks like Ur-Namma. I wonder if it's Ur-Namma". However, I didn't know the provenance of the artifact, or the archaeological context in which it was discovered, so I thought I shouldn't hazard a guess as to the man's identity. I figured that if it was known to be Ur-Namma, then someone else would have mentioned it long before now.
Earlier in the day, I was doing an Internet "image search" on Ur-Namma, thinking I could use another photograph of him on this website. The truth is, I was only doing it out of boredom; I didn't really need another picture of him. The point is, I had just seen a lot of different images of Ur-Namma, all at the same time.
So when I idly looked at the picture of the "unknown Sumerian ruler", I suddenly knew exactly who he was. I was absolutely certain of it, as if I had just seen an old friend of mine walk in through the door. I was so filled with surprise and amazement, I actually spoke aloud. Although I was the only one around to hear it, I said, "That's Ur-Namma."
Ur-Namma
Mighty man
King of Ur
King of Sumer and Akkad
Ur-Namma ruled from 2112 to 2095 B.C. He restored Sumerian independence, after centuries of foreign domination. He also unified the various Sumerian city-states, thus creating a new Sumerian nation. He was the founder of the Neo-Sumerian Revival, the final renaissance of Sumerian civilization (see Ur-Namma translation). Ur-Namma was the best of the known Sumerian rulers. He was an ambitious builder of temples, and a just ruler of men. Ur-Namma was a king, a general, and a self-made living god. In the long history of the Land of Sumer, there had been many great kings. Ur-Namma was the greatest of them all.
The Met Museum was correct in pointing out that the "unknown Sumerian ruler" was clearly meant to resemble an actual person; which was seldom the case in Sumerian art. Throughout most of their history, the Sumerians made little attempt to depict human beings as distinct individuals. Rather, like the Egyptians, the Sumerians portrayed people in a stylized, generic sort of way; as seen below. Sumerian men were drawn with large noses and big eyes, in a style that I call, "Stereotypical Sumerian". The women are distinguishable from the men only by their different clothing and hairstyles.
Sumerian faces: detail from the Royal Standard of Ur. After his victory in battle, a king drinks and celebrates with a friend (probably a general) while being attended by two servants. The king is recognizable by his traditional skirt of woolen leaf petals, and by the fact that he is drawn larger than the others to signify his greater importance. Otherwise he's indistinguishable from the dozens of other men depicted on the Standard of Ur. All of the faces are the same. Circa 2500 B.C.
It wasn't until later in their history, when they became more sophisticated in their art, that the Sumerians started to depict human beings as distinct individuals. This occurred at about the time of Gudea (circa 2130 B.C.) and was due in no small part to the artistic renaissance that blossomed in the city of Lagash during his reign. The "Sumerian woman" is one of the earliest known examples of Sumerian sculpture that closely resembles the person it portrays, and the statutes of Gudea arguably make him the first recognizable man in Sumerian history (see below). During the reign of Ur-Namma, about ten years after the death of Gudea, many of the artisans of Lagash were transferred to Ur-Namma's capital city of Ur. The bust of the unknown Sumerian ruler may have been created by these very same artisans. So it's perhaps no coincidence that Ur-Namma was to become the most recognizable man in all of Sumerian history.
Below is a side-by-side comparison of Ur-Namma and the "unknown Sumerian ruler". The bearded image of Ur-Namma is from the "Ur-Namma stele", seen elsewhere on these pages. The other four images are votive statues of Ur-Namma that show him at the construction of a new temple, where he ceremoniously carries the first basket of earth. He is also shown as clean shaven, as part of the purification rites for the dedication of a new temple. The sculpture on the right is in the form of a "foundation figure", which is shaped like a nail or a peg. It is inscribed with the king's announcement to the gods that he is the one who built the temple. Many pegs similar to this one were buried beneath the temple foundations. The inscriptions on all of the statues pictured below clearly identifies them to be Ur-Namma.
Click here to enlarge the picture (add more magnification, if necessary). Note how all four of Ur-Namma's distinguishing features: the heavy-lidded eyes, the rounded tip of the nose, the prominent ears, and the way the mouth is set, are depicted the same in all of the images.
Images of Ur-Namma:
A comparison of Ur-Namma and the "unknown Sumerian ruler":
1) All four of Ur-Namma distinguishing characteristics (the heavy eyelids, rounded nose, large ears, and the way the mouth is set) match those on the face of the "unknown ruler".
2) The chin, cheek bones, and the overall shape of the head, also match.
3) The unknown ruler doesn't have any other distinguishing feature to show that he is someone different than Ur-Namma.
4) With or without hair, with or without a beard, and with or without the royal regalia (the crown, robe, and symbols of office) all of these men are obviously the same person, based on the facial features alone.
The unknown ruler, and three different foundation statues of Ur-Namma. The drawing on the right is the foundation figure seen above, which is partially obscured by shadow.
Although subtle, and not noticeable at first, there's a certain asymmetry to Ur-Namma's eyes. One eye is smaller than the other, and they somehow seem differently focused. This detail is seen on all of the known images of Ur-Namma. It's another of his distinguishing facial features. It may have been a slight facial defect, or the result of a wound, or it could be just the natural asymmetry that occurs in most people's faces (although a bit more pronounced). Click here to enlarge the picture.
Magnification of yet another Ur-Namma foundation cone. Notice the big ears, the rounded tip of the nose, and the asymmetry of the eyes. Click here to see the complete foundation cone. Note how small it is.
Ur-Namma asymmetrical:
Ur-Namma and the god Enlil, with the Tree of Life between them. Detail from the "Ur-Namma Stele".
It was this picture, at this scale, which first led me to suspect that the "unknown ruler" could be Ur-Namma. I had noted the resemblance, even though this figure is rather small, and it's in profile view, rather than frontal view, like the picture of the unknown ruler. What first caught my attention was the heavy-lidded eyes and the rounded shape of the nose. On the original stele there is another image of Ur-Namma, seen below:
Enlil leads Ur-Namma and a worker to begin work on a new temple.
The two views of Ur-Namma are contrasted below, with added magnification:
Ur-Nammaprofiles: The nose of the figure on the right is chipped and damaged.
Notice how the figure of Ur-Namma facing to the right is more heavy-lidded than the other figure, the "worker Ur-Namma", facing to the left. The figure facing left shows his left eye, the "good eye", as it were. Because of the asymmetry of his eyes, Ur-Namma presents a different profile, depending on which direction he is facing. Click here to enlarge the picture.
The left profile is shown in another image of Ur-Namma on the stele:
Ur-Namma and Ninlil, the wife of Enlil.
(The nose of the figure on the right, like the one above, is also damaged.) Why would the same artist, on the same stele, present two different profiles of Ur-Namma, except to show the asymmetry of his features? Note how Ur-Namma's heavy-lidded right profile matches that of the unknown ruler, seen below:
In this photograph of the left profile of the unknown ruler, notice how his left eye is much more prominent than his right, just like the images of Ur-Namma. Click here to enlarge the picture. Photograph courtesy of Kristin Hjellegjerde of ArtEco.
Ur-Namma: The nose and mouth of the figure have been eroded, but notice the large ears and the asymmetry of the eyes.
There also seems to be an asymmetry to Ur-Namma's mouth. It droops slightly to one side. Click here to enlarge the picture. This asymmetry of the mouth can also be seen on the brightly lit close-up of the unknown ruler, seen below. Note: I have lately discovered that the picture of Ur-Namma (third from the left) which is widely used on the Internet, is printed in photographic reverse. The statue actually shows his right eye as being larger than his left eye, unlike all the other images of Ur-Namma. I believe this to be a mistake on the part of the artist, because the asymmetry of the eyes is so pronounced as to seem intentional, but it is the exact opposite of the other images.
Detail of a foundation figure of Shulgi, the son of Ur-Namma, showing the same asymmetry of the the eyes, suggesting that it may have been an inherited characteristic.
Close-ups of another Shulgi foundation figure: showing the asymmetry of his eyes. To enlarge the picture, click here. A different Shulgi foundation cone also shows his rounded face and nose and the asymmetry of his eyes.
A foundation figure at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which they have tenatively identified as Shulgi, pending further investigation. I believe it's Ur-Namma, because the foundation statues of Shugi, that I'm familiar with, portray Shulgi with a rounder face and a more bulbous nose, as seen above. For instance, when I first found the "sepia" image of Shulgi (above right) on another website, it was misidentified as Ur-Namma (click here to see the orignal image) but I immediately recognized it as Shulgi because of his rounded features. After some research, I was able to confirm my identification when I found the statue in its proper museum setting (Royal Ontario Museum). Shulgi looks similar to his father Ur-Namma, but not the same. (September 10, 2010).
Ur-Namma: Notice the resemblance to all of the other figures of Ur-Namma, and to the statue of the unknown ruler. Note how the squared-off right corners of his mouth are like those of the unknown ruler seen below.
The asymmetry of his facial features is seen on all of the statues of Ur-Namma. It's another of his distinguishing characteristics. There isn't any known image of Ur-Namma that doesn't portray the asymmetry of his features. This asymmetry isn't present on the statues of other Sumerian rulers such as Gudea (see below) or on any other images of Sumerian men, but it is clearly portrayed on the statue of the unknown ruler:
In this brightly lit close-up picture of the unknown ruler, it is easy to see the asymmetry of his facial features: the eyes, ears, nose, and mouth. Ur-Namma was the only ancient ruler to consistently portray himself in this asymmetrical manner. See another image of the statue that highlights the asymmetry of his features.
Because every single facial feature matches on the two men, and because there are no dissimilarities, it can safely be said that the "unknown Sumerian ruler" is, in fact, Ur-Namma; to the exclusion of all others. It would be difficult to imagine anyone else, ancient or modern, who could resemble the "unknown ruler" more than Ur-Namma does.
Three views of Ur-Namma:Click here to enlarge the picture.
The bust of the unknown Sumerian ruler ties together all the other images of Ur-Namma. The other statues of Ur-Namma (shown above) are really quite small; they're little more than "figurines". Even so, their level of detail is remarkable, because they faithfully record the unique combination of facial features that makes Ur-Namma easily recognizable. The bust of the "unknown Sumerian ruler" is much larger. At thirteen and a half inches, it is life-sized; and it's more highy detailed. Although it's possible that the artisans who crafted the statuettes of Ur-Namma had seen him in person, and therefore knew what he looked like, it's more probable that they copied the face of Ur-Namma from this life-sized statue; thus they were able to convey on a smaller scale the unusual combination of facial features that makes Ur-Namma easy to recognize. (Ur-Namma was a very busy man, the ruler of two kingdoms, Sumer and Akkad; he didn't have a lot of time to sit around posing for statues.) In copying this life-size statue, the artists were able to realistically model even minor details like the slight asymmetry of the eyes (which seems a bit more exaggerated when duplicated on a smaller scale). I would suggest that the statue of the unknown Sumerian ruler is clearly modeled from life, with Ur-Namma himself sitting for this portrait; and that the other images of Ur-Namma were copied from this statue. So it's perhaps not surprising that the "unknown Sumerian ruler" looks more like Ur-Namma than Ur-Namma does!
Which brings us to an interesting question: Is Ur-Namma the first truly recognizable man in Sumerian history? And, based on the assumption that any first in Sumerian history is a first in world history, is Ur-Namma the first recognizable king in all of human history?
Images of Gudea: Gudea is recognizable mostly by his royal regalia and the inscriptions written on the statues; and by the fact that the statues are carved in black diorite stone. This rare stone had to be imported into Sumer, so it was very expensive. It is very hard, durable, and damage-resistant, and therefore difficult to carve. The artists of the city of Lagash were some of the first to learn how to work this stone. Because of the high cost of the stone, and the difficulty in carving it, most of these diorite statues are quite small, less than two feet high; "Little Gudeas", they're called. Yet they helped to insure Gudea's immortality long after the monuments of other great kings had crumbled into dust.
These statues make Gudea the first individually recognizable Sumerian man. They are immediately recognizable as Gudea; but it's mostly because they resemble each other, more than they resemble the man himself. Although these statues give us some idea of what Gudea looked like, they are still too formal and stylized to be an accurate portrayal of the man's face. They are too idealized to be revealing. All of the facial features are in perfect harmony, with no feature that's too big or too small, or too asymmetrical. There are none of the flaws and imperfections that make a person recognizable in the first place. There's no "distinguishing feature" that makes him a unique individual, that sets him apart from everyone else. During my research for this website, I saw hundreds of images of Gudea, and I always instantly knew it was him; but I doubt that I would be able to identify the man himself, were I to bump into him on a city street.
The idealization of a ruler's facial features to the point of making him unrecognizable is not a practice that was restricted to the Sumerians. It was done throughout history, all over the world, until the present day (and the invention of photography). Royal statuary and portraiture is all about "The King", and not "the man". It isn't meant to portray the individual features (or flaws) of the king (or emperor, or pharaoh); rather it is meant to show him as strong and handsome, wise and powerful; a godlike being. This, for instance, is the reason why all Egyptian pharaohs look alike. Although there may have been some small attempt to portray a pharaoh's individual features, pharonic images are always "symbolic", rather than "representational". They are meant to project the power and majesty of the pharaoh, with little regard for the man's personal appearance (which in real life may have been somewhat less than awe-inspiring). Like Gudea, an ancient Egyptian pharaoh is recognizable mostly by his royal regalia and by the heirogylphic inscriptions, and not by his facial features. All of us have seen the face of Tutankhamen, but we still don't know what he looked like. None of us would recognize him, even if he walked into the room.
The statues of Ur-Namma are different. They carefully record how he looked in real life. There's no attempt to idealize his features into nullification, or to make him godlike and perfect. Instead, they show him as he really was; with the heavy-lidded eyes and the ears that are perhaps too big. These are not really "flaws"; just the inbalance of features that gives character to a man's face. It's what makes him a unique individual; it makes him recognizable in a crowd.
There can be little doubt that this statue of Ur-Namma was modeled from life, and that every attempt was made to show Ur-Namma as he looked in person, without abstraction and without idealization. I would suggest that this statue shows us exactly what Ur-Namma looked like, when he was a living man. To stare into the face of this statue is to see the face of Ur-Namma, the man himself.
Which is exactly what it seemed like when I was staring at this picture. It must have been a trick of the light, in the way the picture was transmitted on the computer screen, that made it seem as if he was staring back at me. And it must have been a trick of my mind, when I first said aloud, "That's Ur-Namma!", that he seemed to give me just the sligthest nod, with a bemused look on his face and a sparkle in his eye that seemed to say, "That's right". For a brief moment, I was face to face with Ur-Namma, the greatest of all the Sumerian kings, who was worshiped as a living god. But I wasn't seeing a god or a king, just the man himself. In that brief instant, I was looking into the face of Ur-Namma, across 4,000 years of history.
Other life-like statues had been carved for other people (such as the Sumerian woman, mentioned above) but we don't know who they were; their names have been lost to history. And most of these statues are "one-offs", the only known example of a person's appearance. Ur-Namma is well-known to history, and there are multiple images of him that consistently portray him in the same manner, which allows us to form some idea of what he looked like. (We can "recognize" someone only if we already know who he is; i.e., if we have seen him several times before). This sculpture gives Ur-Namma an advantage over Gudea as history's first recognizable man. While this sculpture is very life-like and realistic, the statues of Gudea are very formal and stylistic.
Note: I have found a new, more realistic statue of Gudea. See "The face of Gudea".
Ur-Namma and the unknown ruler: They are clearly one and the same.
Anyone who has seen the pictures on this webpage could recognize Ur-Namma in other Sumerian works of art. And once they have seen the picture of the unknown Sumerian ruler, they could recognize this man (were he alive today) even if he was dressed in a suit and tie. That's how recognizable he is. It's what gives Ur-Namma the final edge over Gudea as the first recognizable man in human history. Judging by his statues, Gudea seems to be more "average-looking" than Ur-Namma; more "nondescript", in that none of his facial features are so different from the norm as to be distinctive. Ur-Namma's face is different; he doesn't look like everyone else.
Ur-Namma: This is the head of a statue in the Baghdad Museum. It's labeled simply as a "male with a cap" (actually, it's a shepherd's hat, the crown of a Sumerian king). It's displayed on their website "Treasures of the Iraq Museum in Baghdad" (page 4, #34, IM 41014). Surprisingly, it isn't cataloged under their classification of "king". The statue is dated as being "Neo-Sumerian 2150 - 1950 B.C.", which is the historical age of Ur-Namma. It's origin is listed as Uruk/Warka; the same provenance that's given for a foundation statue of Ur-Namma in their collection (Uruk is Ur-Namma's "hometown"). From this angle, his eyes look asymmetrical, with his right eye smaller and more heavy-lidded than his left eye; in which case, this is a statue of Ur-Namma. The squared-off corner of the mouth on the statue is also similar to the statues of Ur-Namma and to the "unknown ruler". Although Gudea would be another likely candidate for the identity of this statue, it isn't from Gudea's region of Lagash, and it doesn't have Gudea's straight mouth and square chin, as seen on the images of Gudea shown above. Gudea also wears a different kind of crown; his crown has a straight brim, and it always shows the stylized curls of a fleece shepherd's hat. This crown is smooth, with a fluted brim, and it looks exactly like the crown that's worn by Ur-Namma. The only other real possiblity for the identity of this statue is Shulgi, the son of Ur-Namma, because of the asymmetry of the eyes. Shulgi, however, has a much rounder face, as seen on his statue. There can be little doubt that this statue is Ur-Namma. His facial features are very distinctive, making him easy to recognize. Since the face is beardless, it may represent Ur-Namma in his youth. The statue of the "unknown ruler" shows Ur-Namma in his later years. Enlarge. (November 5, 2010)
I would suggest that Ur-Namma, by his unique facial features and by his willingness to be realistically portrayed, is the first truly recognizable man in all of history. There were no earlier Egyptian pharaohs who are immediately recognizable by their facial features alone (and in ancient Egypt, life-like depictions of the pharaohs never really did catch on). This kind of "photo-realism" in a royal portrait would not occur again for another fifteen centuries, at the time of the Greeks and Romans, in the statues of Caesar and Alexander. Nor was there anything like it in ancient China. During this period of history (about 2100 B.C.) when the Sumerian civilization, already ancient, was at its apex and was soon to be eclipsed, the Chinese civilization was just beginning to form. Nor was there anything like this sculpture in the rest of the world. When this sculpture was forged in metal, most of the rest of the world was still living in the stoneage.
I would further suggest that not only is this statue the first recognizable portrait of a man, it is the first recognizable portrait of a king (or pharaoh, or emperor, or ruler of any kind).
Ur-Namma: Notice his heavy eyelids, and the rounded tip of his nose. His ears are prominent beneath his shepherd's hat. In Sumer, a shepherd's hat is the crown of a king.
The "unknown" Sumerian ruler: Notice how his ears are bent down, as if he is still wearing a shepherd's hat. It's probable that the statue was adorned with a shepherd's crown during ceremonial occasions.
This is clearly the face of a man who was meant to rule.
There are several different places where this statue could have been displayed: palace, temple, or city square. I agree with the Met's assessment that this statue was once part of a temple setting, since King Ur-Namma was also worshiped as a god in his lifetime. Given the importance of this statue, it was probably displayed in the temple where Ur-Namma was worshiped as a god. In which case, the statue itself would have been worshiped as a god, as the divine embodiment of Ur-Namma.
In the same way that the Mona Lisa is a masterpiece of painting, and Tablet #36 is a masterpiece of literature (as seen on these pages), the "unknown Sumerian ruler" is a masterpiece of sculpture. Interestingly enough, all of these works contain some element of mystery; but more importantly, all of them are examples of the very best that can be produced in their given art forms. The sculpture of the "unknown Sumerian ruler" rivals the best sculptures of the The Classical Age, fifteen centuries before the Greeks and Romans. The skill and artistry of the unknown craftsman who created this piece should not be overlooked. He created a living protrait in copper that rivals the painting of the Mona Lisa, thirty-five centuries before Leonardo da Vinci.
As simply "an unknown Sumerian ruler", this sculpture is a rare and valuable artifact. As a known portrait of Ur-Namma, it has great historical importance. As an artistic masterpiece, it is a treasure. As the world's first recognizable portrait of a man, a king and a living god, it is priceless. It is truly a masterpiece, worthy of a great king.
Magnification of yet another Ur-Namma foundation cone. Notice the big ears, the rounded tip of the nose, and the asymmetry of the eyes. 
Detail of a foundation figure of Shulgi, the son of Ur-Namma, showing the same asymmetry of the the eyes, suggesting that it may have been an inherited characteristic.
Ur-Namma and the unknown ruler: They are clearly one and the same.
Ur-Namma: Notice his heavy eyelids, and the rounded tip of his nose. His ears are prominent beneath his shepherd's hat. In Sumer, a shepherd's hat is the crown of a king.
The "unknown" Sumerian ruler: Notice how his ears are bent down, as if he is still wearing a shepherd's hat. It's probable that the statue was adorned with a shepherd's crown during ceremonial occasions. 
Ur-Namma