approximated male dress by combining the masculine headdress and waist-dagger with
a wrap pinned at the shoulder (McCaffrey 2008 : 180 ).
The ritual nudity of the early libators fits easily with the idea that the earlier ritual
simulates intercourse more plainly. Indications abound that the so-called “naked
priest,” a functionary identified by art historians but never mentioned in texts, is the
ruler himself. Interpretations of Gudea Fragment ST. 4 demonstrate how modern
notions of royal decorum have contributed to the construct of the “naked priest.”
Taking note that the ruler is the only figure expected in the mid-top register of a stele,
Eckhard Unger (followed by many scholars, see Suter 2000 : 195 , n. 186 ) identified the
bald libator in ST. 4 as Gudea, reconstructing him in a modest robe. When the “pleats”
of the presumed robe turned out to be scratches and it became evident that the libator
was naked, it suddenly seemed obvious to everyone that the figure was not Gudea. The
presumption that no royal monument would depict a ruler naked has been laid to rest,
however, by images of Neo-Sumerian royals emerging nude from the ritual bath with
a towel over one arm, distinguished from bath attendants by their royal caps (see
Börker-Klähn 1975 : 235 – 239 ; cf. the nude libator with a towel over his shoulder in the
upper register of the Ur plaque).
–– The Sumerian sacred marriage ––Figure 11.2ED III palm vase libation, plaque from the Ur Gipar, BM 118561
(courtesy of the Trustees of The British Museum)