Saturday, December 11, 2021

Notes on ṣalmu ("image") from Zainab Habrani, The Graven Image (2003)

 

Mimesis is the process by which a representation functions as a record of the perception of reality, corresponding to that reality and matching it—whether successfully or unsuccessfully. (Zainab Bahrani, The Graven Image: Representation in Babylonia and Assyria [Philadelphia: University Pennsylvania Press, 2003], 87-88)

 

almu is the Akkadian word used in Assyrian and Babylonian texts to refer to that in our view is a representation. Traditionally, philologists have translated this word variously as statue, relief, monument, painting, and image. More recently, it has been argue that the term image is a more accurate translation of ṣalmu than one that assumes the word defines a particular type of monument. Irene Winter has further argued against the use of portrait when referring to ṣalmu as a representation of a person. In discussing the image of the ruler, she points out that the image is not a natural replica of the king but a conventionally coded, culturally mediated, idealized representation and is therefore not a portrait in the later Western sense. IN this discussion I would like to define the function of ṣalmu as part of a pluridimensional system of representation. While ṣalmu was never meant to be a mimetic visual portrayal of the person, it was at the same time certainly a natural representation. If this seems contradictory, it is only because we continue to approach ṣalmu from the point of view of the opposition of person/image. almu is no doubt an image that is culturally mediated and conventionally coded, but it is not in this characteristic that it differs as a mode of representation from its later Western counterpart, the portrait. . . . almu is thus clearly part of a configuration that enables presence through reproduction. It is necessary for a valid representation. It is not a statue or a relief or a painting; in other words, it is not a work of art. Nor is it an image that is mediated or otherwise encoded as a direct propagandistic declaration of power. Encoding the body here, if such a word should indeed be used, serves to validate the body double as a substitute for the king for purposes that were considered very real. almu becomes a real manifestation of the king in this case. Another indication that ṣalmu is part of a multifaceted mode of representation is the fact that in texts on monuments—for example, on the Great Monolith of Ashurnasirpal—the monument is referred to as ṣalmu in the inscription though it is an object composed of both an image and a text. It is certainly not a portrait as the Random House Dictionary defines it: “a likeness of a person, especially of the face, as a painting, sculpture, or photograph.” Yet it relates to an identity in much closer ways than a portrait. . . .Royal texts often contain a similar phrase when making reference to the setting up of a royal image. The following is anexample: “šiṭir šumiya u ṣalam šarrutiya mahar šamaš u Aja ukin.

 

This is generally translated as “I set up, before šamaš and Aja, an inscription with my name and an image of me as king.” The royal texts are written in the first person in the voice of the king as narrator, and phrases similar to this are always translated as “I fashioned a statue (or stela) showing me as king or “I set up (before the gods) a statue of me as king” (CAD vol. S:81). It has already been pointed out that the translation of the word ṣalmu as statue, sculpture, relief is incorrect because it means image and should not be used to refer to particular art forms or media. But its mistranslations have been rather heavily influenced by modern notions of art. Thus the statement “I set up a statue of me as . . .” implies that ṣalmu as an image portrays a particular being with a separable identity as a king. Whereas the Akkadian text states that he set up “šiṭir šumiya u ṣalam šarrutiya,” which I believe is better translated as “the written [characters] of my name and [visual] image of my kingship,” thereby implying an extension that is natural and organic.

 

alam šarrutiya, as I translate it, “image or physical manifestation of my kingship,” is an analogous reading to the common phrase ṣalam pagrišu: “the shape of his body” The contiguous link formed by the use of the possessive construction is important here, as it has quite different connotations from the standard reading of “me as king,” which works through displacement rather than extension. There is a reason for my insistence on clarifying and stressing the choice of a particular grammatical construction here, Such a use of the possessive construction is of the utmost importance in magical incantations. Similar modern translations have been made in this genre of texts that I find to be equally misleading, and conversely their clarification can shed some light on the process of representations that I wish to define. Take, for example, the following incantation:

 

šiptum šipat Marduk

ašipu ṣalam Marduk

 

In my reading this translates into:

 

The conjuration (is) Marduk’s conjuration.

The conjurer (is) Marduk’s presence/manifestation/substitute.

 

This reading his different connotations form the standard translation:

 

The conjuration recited is the conjuration of Marduk.

The conjurer is the very image of Marduk.

 

The Akkadian original is deliberately a repetitive performative utterance that transubstantiates the conjuration into one that Marduk himself is making in his manifestation as organic ṣalmu (body double). For the Assyrians and Babylonians, tautology is certainly part of the performative function of speech acts. šiṭir šumita u ṣalam šarrutiya has similar repetitive quality in its reference to those signifiers, written name and imaged kingship, which links them directly to the person, as if kingship were as natural a manifestation of the person as his name. And there is little doubt that kingship was a natural manifestation. [6]

 

In Assyro-Babylonian ontology, omens are written into the real. Omens could be solicited from the livers of sacrificial animals by priests, for example, but they were also inscribed by the gods into the common, everyday world. An observant person could read these messages at any time or place .Catalogs of omens were made, listing vast amounts of possibilities of patterns of flights of birds, of birth deformities, of chance occurrences in cities, and also aspects of the physiognomy of human beings. By the seventh century B.C. at least one hundred tablets, listing ten thousand omens had been catalogued. Thus, hair-growth patterns, moles, and other such physical characteristics were not considered to be accidental but were linked to the fate of the individual. Semantic codes in physiognomy are in the real. They are not in any way metaphoric or allegorical references. The difference between material reality and semiosis, which is based on scientific reason in the modern view, was an intertwined area in Assyro-Babylonian thought. This is not even to be explained as a blurring of the real and the imaginary. The real contains what we might call the imaginary within it. A physical body is inscribed as a text with signs from the gods. All bodies are therefore encoded by the gods, not simply the royal body. But the king’s body bears the omens of kingship. The king’s image could thus be encoded not just in a metaphoric allegorical way, be read as the divine destiny of kingship, literally written into the body-text. Destiny was inscribed into the real. I do not use that expression in the postmodern rhetorical sense of inscription but as a literal translation of the Akkadian word šaṭaru, to inscribe, a verb used in describing omens as they appear in the natural world. Thus, it is more than a matter of the ideal body when the king’s body is represented. It is a matter of divine destiny.

 

almu is not an objective representation of reality. It is not a represented truth about the person, nor is it a representational lie about the person, as in propaganda. almu, as mimetic representation, may relate to the object as an excess in that it can act as a repetition, a replacement. But it is not an element that represents the whole. It cannot give access to a referent or signified, the Ding-an-sich—at least not uniquely—because the referent can be encountered in many phainomena. ṣalmu is therefore a mode of presencing. The thing or person is accessed through the structuration of difference, which I have described in relation to the logic of the cuneiform script. It is one of several modes and part of a system of circulating presence. In the cuneiform sign the trace or arch-écriture is never totally effaced—the difference and deferment always remains present, making any one stable meaning impossible. Not only in the case of the pictogram but in all words, there was a great concern with the constant trace in any manifestation. Substitution through images—which is not only ṣalmu but requires ṣalmu—is a doubling or multiplication (as a phainomenon), but it is not a copy in the sense of mimetic resemblance; rather, it is a repetition, another way that the person or entity could be encountered. (Ibid., 123, 131, 135-137)

 

[6] Irene Winter has translated ṣalam šarrutiya as image “in the office of my kingship.” She adds that by this inscription “we are told literally that this is not a personal, but an official image” (her image). But the word official occurs nowhere in the text. Šarrum in Akkadian means king. Šarrutu means kingship royalty. The suffix -iya is the suffix applied for creating any possessive construction. I therefore find the translation “official image” or even the posited “personal image” as its opposite unconvincing, and if such a distinction is to be made for Mesopotamian representation, it needs to be done on the basis of other information from antiquity and not on this statement. However, Winter’s argument against the use of portrait should be heeded, and her description of the image of the king as “coded for ideal qualities and attributes of a ruler” is important in any discussion of images (Art in Empire The Royal Image and the Visual Dimensions of Assyrian Ideology. In Assyria 1995, ed. S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting. [1997]:374). (Ibid., 215 n. 6)

 

Further Reading


"ṣalmu" (image) in The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute