128 THEO. G. riNCHES, ESQ., NOTES UPON SOME OF THE 



Besides the royal houses and rulers of that period, how- 

 ever, there are many other things which are illustrated by 

 these often long inscriptions ; namely, the religion, civiliza- 

 tion, art, occupations, language, manners, and customs of the 

 people of that ancient time. We see, first, the beginnings 

 of their art and writing, both of them rough and crude, the 

 latter in sketchy and inartistic hieroglyphic form — the former 

 stiff and laboured, showing observation and a certain skill, 

 but also much clumsiness and want of finish. 



Notwithstanding this, the progress in art and civilization 

 made by the little under-kin gdom of Lagas must have been 

 great. Hampered of yore by dearth of stone, it was the 

 good fortune of King Gudea to have an opportunity of 

 bringing large masses of diorite from Makan, a place which 

 is now regarded as some part of the peninsula of Sinai. 

 Here was a chance for the sculptors of Lagas, and they used 

 it to such good effect that the little capital must have been 

 the envy of many another state in the Euphrates valley. 

 To-day these works of Babylonian art are the boast of the 

 Assyriologists of France, and they are most important. 



We cannot say, unfortunately, that the style of art 

 exhibited by these sculptures is by any means elegant — 

 indeed, the lines are stiff, and the whole is rather clumsy. 

 Probably the hardness of the stone and the solidity of the 

 blocks had something to do with this, and their shape, when 

 in the rough, may have influenced the carver. As a rule, 

 the standing figures are rather squat, the seated ones sit 

 very low (thus exhibiting, to a certain extent, the same 

 defect), and the drapery sticks out stiffly. Nevertheless the 

 appearance of the whole is not unpleasing. It is very 

 unlucky that these important statues are, without exception, 

 headless ; but, as a slight compensation, two heads have been 

 found without the bodies to which they belong (Plate 11). 

 These heads, as will easily be seen, are a redeeming point, and 

 (supposing all the statues to have had the heads equally well 

 formed and finished as these) make us excuse the short- 

 comings of the lower parts of the figures. It cannot be said 

 with certainty whether the features are Semitic or not, that 

 important member of the face, the nose, being wanting in 

 both cases. It may probably safely be said, however, that, 

 though th'e hatless example shows clear Semitic features, 

 the covered one has at least some unsemitic indications, high 

 cheekbones, unprominent lips, and a broad, firm, and square 

 chin, a true contrast to the other, which may be regarded as 

 a characterless face, its distinctive features being a round 



