THE GODDESS AND CHILD. 153 
the time this design was drawn the convention had not been adopted by which 
the attendant and directing figure was drawn with two faces to indicate that atten- 
tion was given both to the deity and to those that approach. In this case the attend- 
ant on the goddess 1s compelled to turn her face from the goddess, an attitude which 
later seemed to imply disrespect. The child is nude; the other figures are all 
dressed exactly alike, in garments of simple construction reaching to the ankles 
and folded in front, fringed at all the edges, and leaving the arms and feet bare. 
The hair is bound in a fillet, which holds it looped up behind, in a way usual for 
female figures of the very early period. ‘The features are quite distinctly drawn, 
not of the “bird” type, but with a sharp nose and thin protruding lips. 
A second one of this design is to be seen in fig. 403. This is of green serpentine 
(“porphyrie”’) and may be of a somewhat later period. The inscription accompany- 
ing the design appears to be quite as old as the period of Sargon I. Here the god- 
dess is more elaborately dressed than her two worshipers, in a flounced garment, 
and her hair hangs in a queue behind. The child faces her, with hand lifted, as if 
in an attitude of respect. M. Heuzey says (“Origines,” p. 93) that the figure in the 
lap of the goddess is not a child, as it is bearded. ‘This may be doubted, and the 
child’s attitude of respect with the hand lifted shows that it is not a full-grown 
god, while the fact that it is nearly nude (it may have a girdle) would suggest that 
it is not a king or worshiper of rank that is taken for protection into the lap of the 
goddess, as, in Hittite art, a deity folds his arm about the much smaller figure of 
the king. Only slaves of mature age are represented nude in Babylonian art, 
except, of course, as Gilgamesh and Zirbanit are nude. But the general modesty 
of the Babylonian art, in the matter of clothes, is very marked. We never see any 
display of phallism. ‘Iwo figures approach bearing offerings, one male, with a 
goat, and the other female, with a pail or basket; while behind the goddess a female 
figure kneels, in an attitude of worship, and seems to present a large vase on a 
tripod, while two other large vases are above her. 
The third cylinder known to me with this design is shown in fig. 404. It belongs 




to the Louvre.* Here we have a scene similar to the other two. The goddess holds 
the child who turns its face to its mother and who, as figured by Ménant and Heuzey, 
has a queue from the top of its head. An at- —-#-—¥__ 
perhaps a cook, has her hand on the top of a 
broad-bottomed vase on a tripod, as if taking \ 
something from it for presentation to the god- cos) us 
dess. ‘The vase is of the character naturally Enh 4 
used for cooking. Above are three slender mh m 
thing about this cylinder is the child’s queue. Heuzey calls attention to the Egyp- 
tian parallel, as we find the tress on the breast the sign of infancy and the mark 
of the infant god Horus. 
A fourth cylinder with this design belongs to the J. P. Morgan Library (fg. 
405). It differs from the others in that the child is clothed, perhaps in a flounced 
tendant presents a vase, and a kneeling figure, 
vases on a shelf. ‘The specially interesting a 

* Unfortunately, my notes do not show that I found this cylinder in the Louvre. I much regret it, as I should have 
much wished to examine the queue from the head of the child. In the drawing I am, therefore, compelled to follow Ménant, 
“ Pierres Gravées,” 1, p. 166, and Heuzey, “ Origines,” p. 93. 
