THE GOD-LIKENESS OF ROYALSSince Mesopotamian kingship was sacred, god-like features in the portrayal of royals
neither began with nor were they confined to deified kings. Both Michalowski ( 2008 )
and Winter ( 2008 ) stressed that the brief episodes in Mesopotamian history during
which some kings of Akkad and Ur III assumed divine status had historical parameters
previously overlooked. Divine kingship was neither the apex of a long development
towards a centralised Mesopotamia, nor an autonomous symbolic system, but a
component of complex reformations that took place in the aftermath of almost fatal
state collapses (Michalowski 2008 : 39 ).
From the beginning of historical kingship, rulers claimed divine parents, could be
venerated after death as local heroes, and their statues could receive offerings. Poetic
texts often deliberately blurred boundaries between kings and gods. Self-deified kings
marked their divine status with the divinity determinative before their name, stylised
themselves as protective spirits of their realm, had temples built to them and festivals
named after them, and their subjects used their names analogous to those of deities in
personal names (Sallaberger 1999 : 152 – 154 ). However, not all deified kings used all these
features and, conversly, some features also occur with kings who did not claim divine
status.
In imagery, god-likeness was conveyed in single elements of attire, hairstyle, attri-
butes, and in stances adopted from gods. Such encroachments upon the divine sphere
became possible only from the later Early Dynastic period on when anthropomorphic
deities began to be frequently depicted in art. Before looking at how this was done,
it is necessary to recall the boundaries between royal and divine spheres and the
representation of regalia in imagery.
Idiosyncratic royal iconography was only sporadically developed in early
Mesopotamia (Braun-Holzinger 2007 ). The ruler was distinguished from other elite
men more often by context than by unique attire or attributes. Exceptions are the Late
Uruk ruler’s hairband, hairstyle and beard; the late Early Dynastic/early Akkad ruler’s
hairband, hairstyle and military garb; the beard style of Akkad and Ur III kings;
Naramsin’s various headgears; the brimmed cap introduced under the Second Dynasty
of Lagash which remain in use until the OB period; the fleece-covered stool of Ur III
kings; and the high priestesses’ headgears and hairstyle. Aside from that, royals are seen
wearing similar garments and hairstyles as other members of the elite, which were
subject to changing fashions. Deities were distinguished from humans primarily by
their horned crown, marker of divinity analogous to the divinity determinative. In
addition, niched thrones, certain types of weapons and, from the late Akkad period on,
also the flounced garment were typical accoutrements of deities.
A number of accoutrements are regularly associated with rulership in texts,
including crown, throne, sceptre, weapon and garment (Sallaberger 2002 : 87 – 88 ).
Kings were entitled to these regalia as the gods’ representatives on earth. In fact, regalia
occur almost exclusively in contexts of their transferral from deity to king. It has
repeatedly been lamented that regalia are missing from images. This is not true. Just
as early Mesopotamian imagery did not systematically mark the king by unique attires
and attributes, it also did not canonise regalia; they were not bound to a specific form
(Suter 2000 : 6 – 7 ). In contrast to verbal terminology, images distinguished between the
mundane and transcendent spheres. To give but one example, while gods are depicted
with horned crowns, kings and high priestesses are seen wearing other headgears, which
–– Kings and queens ––