The Great Pyramids at Giza and the ziggurats of the ancient Near East

When first comparing the Great Pyramids at Giza to the ziggurats of the ancient Near East, they seem completely different.  The size, purpose and capabilities that were used to create each differ so dramatically.  Although the ziggurats of the ancient Near East and the Great Pyramids at Giza differ in many ways, there are similarities as well between the structures.

They ways in which each were constructed differ significantly.  The ziggurats were built on top of ruble, perhaps from earlier structures, serving as a foundation.  In contrast, the Great Pyramids at Giza had to have the foundation perfectly level in order to achieve the desired results.  Ziggurats averaged about 170 feet in height and were rectangular, with the Nanna Ziggurat having dimensions of 205 feet by 141 feet.  The pyramids on the other hand reached heights of up to 450 feet, as Khufu’s is, with a square base of 13 acres.  The ziggurats were made on top of ruble and made of a mud brick, with a tar like substance used as mortar.  The pyramids were made from 2.5 ton cut stone blocks which were covered with limestone with gold at the top.  The ziggurats were whitewashed and the pyramids had white limestone, thus having a similar color while someone would look at them.

The Anu Ziggurat was built between 3300 BC and 3000 BC, and the Nanna Ziggurat around 2100-2050 BC.  In between this time is when the Great Pyramids at Giza were built, around 2575-2450 BC.  This is important, I believe, because the ziggurats did not change much in their structure as the pyramids used mathematical calculations to ensure perfect angles that were needed for the structures to meet precisely in the center at the top.  The ziggurats were solid brick whereas the pyramids had tunnels built inside.  Pyramids had smooth sides as opposed to the ziggurats that had different entrances and stairways, as well as different slopes to the structures.

The purpose and functions differ in many ways as well.  Ziggurats were shrines dedicated to gods.  They were built higher off of the ground in order to be closer to the gods.  They were built as a meeting place where the gods could come down.  They were built to commune with the gods.  The ancient Near Eastern people would leave offerings to the gods at the cella and perhaps perform religious rituals there.  The shrines were placed on top of the ziggurats in stark contrast to the pyramids which made use of the inside portions.   Pyramids were built for the pharaohs to protect their tombs that were inside the pyramids.  The architects of the pyramids made elaborate tunnels to the tomb and throughout the pyramid as well.  They had a false tomb chamber under the pyramid to try and protect the resting place of the pharaohs. 

Ziggurats functioned symbolically as bridges between earth and the heavens, a meeting place for humans and their gods.  This could be a definite similarity between the ziggurats and pyramids.  Inscriptions on the walls of pyramids built in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties describe the deceased kings climbing the rays to join the sun god Ra.  The angled sides of the pyramids may represent the slanting rays of the sun.

Whatever the similarities and differences there are between the ziggurats of the ancient Near East and the Great Pyramids at Giza, they are both extremely fascinating and truly amazing.

Assurbanipal and His Queen in the Garden

Assurbanipal and His Queen in the Garden is an example of Assyrian art from the Ancient Near East.  This panel depicts many people eagerly serving and surrounding an apparent affluent couple in a garden.  The impression gained from Assurbanipal and His Queen in the Garden is that of a majestic, relaxing hero.

This alabaster panel is a light brown hue of low saturation with the carvings in a peaceful low relief carving that does not jump out at the viewer.  The blocks like figures in the panel draw the viewer’s attention towards their focal point of the two figures at the right side of the image and the majestic presence.  The lines of the vines that seem to wrap around the king and queen bring them more into focus.

The composition of the figures themselves does not overtake the entire panel, allowing the viewer to see the garden in the background giving the carved panel a sense of relaxation, rest and tranquility.  Relaxation can be seen throughout this work of art.  A figure on the far left side is playing a harp while the other servants are bringing food and drink to the majestic couple.  At least four of the servants seem to be fanning the two dominant figures as they eat and drink.  The servants themselves seem to be walking towards the royal couple as their feet are placed one in front of the other.  The garden has a serene presence.  The trees fan out in glorious fashion with lines covering the palms.

All of the figures, except the king, are carved in profile, which is quite common for this era and type of artistry.  The king is the only one in the carving that is not totally in profile form.  He is twisting the top portion of his body toward the viewer, displaying his majestic presence in the carving.  The king is off his feet; partially laying on a couch or bed with a drink in hand and his left arm resting on a railing, while his queen looks on in admiration.  The queen is in a tall, majestic chair.  Just out of view on the panel is another person on the far left side of the carving.  All that is visible are two hands reaching toward the harpist.  The hands do not appear to be those of servants because they are not carrying anything.  Perhaps they are the hands of the king’s people trying to reach toward him in honor of his heroic stature.  They are trying to get a glimpse at the king to show their affection.

The asymmetrical image once again pulls the audience to the king and queen displaying the regal features of the panel.  The disproportionality of the carving suggests the majestic feelings toward the king and queen who seem larger than the servants.  They are also placed higher in the image suggesting their overall importance.  The lines in the king’s beard along with the texture imply a strong, imperial presence.  All of the figures, including the king and queen, seem to have exactly the same style hair.  The hair appears to be braided with the major emphasis on the back part of the hair around the neck.  There are four rows of braids on the back portion around the neck.  The figures also have a type of headband around their heads.

The panel carving of Assurbanipal also shows his triumph and heroic existence.  Behind the king on a table sits his sword, bow and arrows that he has put down after battle to relax.  And for his battle trophy he has the head of an apparent enemy hanging in the second tree from the right.  This signifies his overall heroic nature and majestic standing among his people.  Although the head seems a bit too much, it is a warning to others who may want to bring war to him and his people.

The form of space in the panel carving is amazing.  Although carved in low relief, the overlapping of the figures and objects in the foreground have a three-dimensional effect on the panel.  This three-dimensional effect is highlighted even more with the overlapping of different elements by the king.  There is some kind of table in front of the king, in the foreground.  Behind this lays the king, in his relaxing pose with only his bed or couch having been covered by the table, as not to cover the majestic hero.  The king then covers part of the vines that are surrounding the couple.

This carving signifies a majestic hero in many ways.  His regal stature is communicated by his disproportionate body and the elevated height in the panel.  You only have to see the head of the enemy hanging in the tree and his used weapons behind him to appreciate his heroic efforts.

The Venus of Willendorf

The "Venus of Willendorf" is an amazing and fascinating sculpture.  I believe that this work of art signifies the importance, respect and influence of women in the Paleolithic Era.  It is not a coincidence that many other pieces from that time are similar to the "Venus of Willendorf,” signifying the admiration of this particular corpulent female form.  I also do not believe that it is a coincidence that these figurines far outnumber the images of men of that time.  Whether this “Venus” was a fertility idol, a representation of an actual woman or a portrayal of an “Earth Mother,” I believe that it signifies the prominence of women of that time.

This “Venus” is not the Venus that many conjure up in our minds when we think of the term.  I think of the slender goddess of love and beauty as depicted in other works of art many years later, such as the modest Capitoline Venus, as seen and written about in Witcombe’s article.  Men used the name “Venus” in a sarcastic way to describe these early figurines because they believed they were not modest, tasteful or civilized in the male dominated society of their time.  The "Venus of Willendorf" is not modest and shows all of her beauty, unashamed.  She does not try to cover up anything and actually seems to be flaunting her sexuality with her arms over her breasts not attempting to conceal herself at all, she is proud of her body. 

I can understand why some think that the "Venus of Willendorf" was a fertility idol.  The detail that went into the creation of the piece, especially the genital area, along with the large breasts and corpulent stomach would seem to indicate sexuality and pro creativity.  I know that many believe that this figurine is not pregnant but in fact fat, I do not know if that is the correct interpretation.  She is very large, but that could be due to the fact that she is with child and the members of her clan allow her to rest while they hunt and gather for her.  It would also be good of the clan as a whole to allow her to have no complications with the pregnancy so that the clan can continue to grow.

If this were an actual representation of a woman of that time, it would demonstrate the women’s considerable importance at that time.  As hunters and gatherers it would suggest that she was indeed “catered” to by others.  Perhaps she was the leader of their society and was of great importance to the group in this matriarchal period of time.

The "Venus of Willendorf" and other similar figurines of that time could also represent a female deity an Earth Mother or Mother Goddess as Witcombe references.  Mother Earth is a term I have heard as long as I can remember.  Is it possible that it started with this “Venus”?  With the figure being over 20,000 years old, it is doubtful, but possible.  But I believe that it is definitely possible that this was a depiction of their Earth Mother and an idol used for worshiping.

I doubt that we will ever find out exactly what the "Venus of Willendorf" signifies or depicts, but isn’t that what art is about, the unknown?  We will continue to talk about this indefinitely because of the unknown and beauty of the figurine.  Whatever it signifies, I believe that it demonstrates the deep respect and influence, if not power, of the women of that time.

Hello everyone,

My name is Jesse and I am a senior at the Lynnwood campus.  I am majoring in accounting and business administration.  I have always appreciated art but did not know much about the subject.  I cannot draw or paint therefore I have a great appreciation for those that have the ability.  I have always wanted to learn about works of art, especially medieval art, and I am thankful that I have the opportunity to study the subject.  I am excited to get started.