A Companion to Assyria

by Eckart Frahm

  At Kalḫu, Assurbanipal may have been the builder of the Town Wall Palace, a building measuring some 110 by 60 meters just inside the south city wall between the arsenal and the citadel. The excavated portion consisted of an inner court surrounded by a principal reception suite, small residential rooms, and an unusual suite of three large parallel rooms. The principal reception suite had a similar plan to the throne‐room suite in Assurbanipal’s North Palace, which supports Mallowan’s attribution of the structure to that king or one of his successors (Mallowan 1957: 21–5, pls. X–XI; Postgate and Reade 1976–80: 319–20; Oates and Oates 2001: 141–3).

  Sîn‐šarru‐iškun (627–612 BCE)

  Sîn‐šarru‐iškun undertook the last great Assyrian construction project, a new temple for Nabû built on the site of Tukulti‐Ninurta I’s Ištar temple at Ashur. Sîn‐šarru‐iškun leveled Tukulti‐Ninurta’s structure, which was still standing and had evidently been rededicated to Nabû, and built a completely new Nabû temple on the site. This temple measured 68.5 × 55 meters and was planned around two courts. The twin shrines of Nabû and Tašmetu opened off of one court and a single shrine, perhaps a bedroom for the divine couple, opened off the other. The Nabû temple was built against Aššur‐reša‐iši I’s temple of Ištar of Ashur without encroaching on it. Sîn‐šarru‐iškun says that when his new temple was completed, Nabû and Tašmetu were moved into it from the Ištar temple, which must, therefore, still have been active at that time (Böhl 1936: 95–106, 137–8; Andrae 1935: 119–29; Schmitt 2012: 82–100).

  References

  References are found at the end of the following chapter.

  Further Readings

  The best general survey of the excavations at Ashur is still Andrae (1977), supplemented more recently by a volume of studies on individual structures and subjects edited by Marzahn and Salje (2003). Layard’s (1849a, 1853a) accounts of the discovery of Kalḫu and Nineveh still make fascinating reading, as does Mallowan’s (1966) account of his excavations at Kalḫu. More recent overall surveys of Kalḫu are Postgate and Reade (1976–80) and Oates and Oates (2001), with Reade (2002a) and Curtis et al. (2008) giving more detailed studies of specific buildings and groups of objects. Of these, Oates and Oates (2001) and Curtis et al. (2008) are available for free download from the website of the British Institute for the Study of Iraq (http://www.bisi.ac.uk). For Nineveh, the most comprehensive overview of the architecture is Reade 1998–2001, while Russell 1991 and Reade 2005 provide detailed studies of two major buildings. For Dur‐Šarrukin, the original reports by Botta and Flandin (1849–50) and Place and Thomas (1867–70) are models for their day, though difficult to find today. The reports of the Chicago excavations (Loud et al. 1936, Loud and Altman 1938) are available for free download from the website of the Oriental Institute (https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/oip/). A more recent volume of individual studies edited by Caubet (1995) is also valuable. Kertai and Miglus (2013) present excellent recent studies of a number of Neo‐Assyrian palaces.

  CHAPTER 24

  Assyrian Art

  John M. Russell

  Introduction

  This chapter focuses on sculpture, painting, and portable arts made primarily for Assyrian patrons and used in centers of Assyrian culture. This is restricted to the city of Ashur in the third millennium, with the addition of Kaniš, Kar‐Tukulti‐Ninurta, and Nineveh in the second millennium, plus Kalḫu, Dur‐Šarrukin, and provincial cities in the first. Due to space limitations, objects that exemplify regional styles – such as Anatolian and Old Syrian style seals and Syrian ivory carvings – are excluded here, even though they were used by Assyrians. Also due to space limitations, it has been possible to illustrate only a small selection of objects here. For convenient illustrations of many of the Old and Middle Assyrian works discussed, the reader is encouraged to consult Harper et al. (1995; see “Further Readings” below).

  Ashur in the Third Millennium BCE

  A considerable number of broken stone sculptures were found in the destruction debris of Ištar temple levels G and GF. The oldest of these stylistically is a fragmentary conical stone vessel carved with figures in high relief, found at the south end of the cella. Around its top are three lions with space for a missing fourth, and below are a nude male between two bulls on one side and a bull attacking a lion on the other. Comparable vessels from other sites are usually dated to the Jamdat Nasr period (ca. 3100–2900 BCE), meaning that this object was already very old when level G was destroyed (Andrae 1922: 81–2, Taf. 50a–e; Harper, in Harper et al. 1995: 27–8; Bär 2003a: 149–50, 319, Taf. 51–2).

  The majority of the stone sculptures from Ištar temple level G are human figures similar in style to examples from Mari, the Diyala, and southern Mesopotamia that generally seem to date to the Early Dynastic IIIB period (ca. 2500–2334 BCE). The Ashur examples are well under life size and include male and female figures, both seated and standing, and range in appearance from strikingly naturalistic to highly stylized. Many are shown wearing a garment covered with rows of stylized tufts of wool. None were inscribed. Most were found either in the cella or in the courtyard just beyond the cella door, leading Andrae to propose that they had originally stood in the cella as votive figures, possibly placed on the mud brick benches that ran along the base of the long walls (Andrae 1922: 58–80, Taf. 30–48; Harper, in Harper et al. 1995: 28–31; Bär 2003a: 84–96, 317–18, Taf. 1–35). Andrae stated that a similar figure of a seated female was found in the Assur temple, but he gave no information on its archaeological context. He observed that this statue had been extensively repaired in antiquity, suggesting a long period of use (Assur Nr. S 16710; Andrae 1922: 76, Taf. 40).

  One complete stone statue and several fragmentary examples probably date to the late third millennium. A headless but otherwise well‐preserved life‐size diorite statue of a man was found in secondary context in the vicinity of the Anu‐Adad temple in 1905 and its head was excavated in 1982 in the area of the Assur temple (Figure 24.1). Although the head is in Baghdad and the body in Berlin, the two have been reunited digitally to give an impression of the whole. The figure wears a wide headband with long hair bound at the back of his head. A long beard hangs over his chest in curly locks. His torso is bare with prominent musculature and hands clasped in front of the waist. He wears a necklace and a long smooth skirt supported by a wide belt at the waist. The figure is usually dated to the Akkadian period (2334–2154 BCE) on the basis of the slender build, powerful musculature, and similarities of the hair and beard to the Akkadian copper head from Nineveh. The Ashur head, however, is much less naturalistic than the Nineveh example, suggesting that it is a provincial work inspired by an Akkadian model (VA Ass 2147; Andrae 1909: 28; Klengel‐Brandt, in Harper et al. 1995: 42–3, pl. 4; Klengel‐Brandt 2003: Abb. 6).

  Figure 24.1 Ashur, statue of a ruler, digital reconstruction, probably Akkadian Period, diorite, total H. ca. 1.70 m; body in Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum, VA Ass 2147, head in Baghdad, Iraq Museum, copyright Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum; Foto: Fotoarchiv; Bildmontage: Olaf M. Teßmer.

  Ehrenberg proposed that this statue represents an Old Assyrian king, perhaps Sargon I or Naram‐Sîn, who would be expressing his independence from Ur III rule by invoking a pre‐Ur III style. Against this, however, Eppihimer observed that the labeled Old Assyrian statue of Erišum I and the seals of Sargon I and Naram‐Sîn are firmly in the Ur III tradition, indicating that the Old Assyrian kings were not seeking a visual break with their Ur III predecessors (Ehrenberg 1997; Eppihimer 2009: 186–90). A fragmentary diorite life‐size male torso in the same pose is even more naturalistic and muscular, and this, together with diorite muscular arm fragments from two further statues, presumably dates to the Akkadian period as well (Andrae 1977: 127–9, figs. 106–10; Moortgat 1969: pl. 143).

  A beautifully modeled small‐scale head of a woman was found 60 cm above the floor of the cella in the destruction debris of Ištar temple level GF.
The fringe of hair that extends below her elaborate head covering was originally inlaid, as were her eyes and eyebrows. Andrae believed that fragments of the feet and body of a standing statue found nearby belonged to the same statue as the head, but Bär argued these were from a male figure. The body fragments were clothed in a garment with horizontal, vertical, and diagonal fringes. This garment and the naturalistic modeling of the female head suggest a date in the Akkadian or Ur III period (2112–2004 BCE), which would be consistent with their find spots near the foundation level of Ištar temple level E, built during the Ur III period (Andrae 1922: 68–71, Taf. 28, 38–9; Harper, in Harper et al. 1995: 31–3, pl. 2; Bär 2003a: 96–9, 318, Taf. 10, 31–2). A headless half‐life‐size statue of a man was found in secondary context standing against the outer wall of the Ištar temple of Tukulti‐Ninurta I. The pose and long garment of this standing figure are very similar to Ur III statues of Gudea, except that this figure was bearded and the fringes of his garment are shown as tassels. This figure also may originally have been associated with Ištar temple level E, and may represent the Ur III governor Zarriqum, who apparently built level E (Ass. 20070; Andrae 1922: 108–10, Taf. 63).

  Two copper‐alloy statuettes (H: ca. 20 cm) of a male offering bearer carrying an animal were found in a cache of copper‐alloy votive objects buried in a jar in the earliest level of the Assur temple, in the area that would later be the sanctuary. The figures are best appreciated in photos taken prior to cleaning, since much detail was lost during the restoration process (Haller and Andrae 1955: 12, pl. 26). The figures are more slender than contemporary stone counterparts, and because metal is less brittle than stone, the arms and legs are fully modeled and extend unsupported beyond the body. Based on the date of other objects in the cache and comparisons with other sculptures, Wartke dated these statuettes to the last quarter of the third millennium (Wartke, in Harper et al. 1995: 37–41, pl. 3).

  The most complete publication of cylinder seals excavated at Ashur is still Moortgat’s Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel (1940, unrevised 2nd edition 1966), which catalogs seals in the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin. The Ashur seals are of great interest since, as an excavated corpus, they display a much wider range of artistic quality than is typically found in seals collected from the market. Indeed, the carving on some of the Ashur seals is so schematic that it can be difficult to identify their subject or period. As with the sculpture, third millennium cylinder seals from Ashur are similar to examples from southern Iraq, the Diyala, Mari, and southwest Iran, indicating that the city was part of the broad Mesopotamian trade system.

  The earliest examples are a Jamdat Nasr (ca. 3100–2900 BCE) seal with stylized animals and an Early Dynastic I (ca. 2900–2750 BCE) seal with a geometric pattern (Moortgat 1966: nos. 22, 50). Somewhat later are three seals with contest scenes that date stylistically to the late Early Dynastic I/II (ca. 2750–2600 BCE), and two with banquet scenes from the Early Dynastic IIIa (ca. 2600–2500 BCE; Moortgat 1966: nos. 77, 98, 109, 142, 143). Five further seals seem to date to the Early Dynastic period on the basis of their subjects, but are so crudely carved that it is difficult to determine a more precise date on the basis of style. Two of these are of baked clay with linear figures, similar to examples from Early Dynastic contexts in the Diyala and Susa, suggesting that Ashur participated in the eastern Mesopotamian cultural sphere (Moortgat 1966: no. 131, 777–8; Bär 2003a: Taf. 43, S3, S4, S21; al‐Gailani Werr 1988: 2–3, no. 11). Two slightly later seals from the Early Dynastic‐Akkadian transitional period likewise seem to represent peripheral styles (Moortgat 1966: no. 106; Bär 2003a: Taf. 44, S24, S25).

  In comparison with the Early Dynastic seals, the excavated Akkadian (2334–2154 BCE) style seals from Ashur are better carved and exhibit less stylistic variability. Their imagery is typical for Akkadian seals in the south, including contests, worship scenes, and mythological subjects, including the unusual subject of three gods(?) hunting from a boat in a marsh (Moortgat 1966: nos. 162, 189, 195, 203, 221, 242, 248; Bär 2003a: Taf. 43, S2; Hockman 2010: pl. 67). In addition to actual seals, two fragmentary clay sealings (ancient impressions) apparently in Akkadian style were found in the fill above the floor in the main courtyard of Ištar temple level E (Bär 2003a: Taf. 46, 147, S10, S11). While ancient impressions on clay constitute critical primary evidence for sealing motifs and practices, it is important to note that they differ from modern impressions in plasticine in that they are less distinct and often show only a part of the scene. They are often published as composite drawings reconstructed from several impressions of the same seal, and since the artists who make these drawings have their own individual styles, drawings by two different artists of the same seal impression may look quite different.

  Three seals and eleven clay sealings from Ashur depict variations of the presentation scene typical of Ur III (2112–2004 BCE) and Isin‐Larsa (2003–1793 BCE) seals. The three seals all show a male worshipper and intecessor female deity standing before a seated god or deified king, with filling motifs in the two Isin‐Larsa examples (Moortgat 1966: nos. 250, 296, 309; Bär 2003a: Taf. 44, S 22). The eleven sealings preserve impressions from nine different seals with Ur III/Isin‐Larsa presentation scenes (Bär 2003a: Taf. 45‐9, 147, S5, S7, S8, S9, S12, S13, S14, S15, S17, S18). One of these sealings can be dated very early in the Isin‐Larsa period on the basis of its inscription, which states that it belonged to an official of Iṣi‐Dagan, viceroy (šakkanakku) of Mari. Durand demonstrated that Iṣi‐Dagan’s reign began in 2007 BCE or soon thereafter, and the archaeological context of this sealing in level E likewise supports a date around the turn of the second millennium (Bär 2003a: Taf. 45, S6; Durand 1985: 149–50, 155). The seal shows evidence of recarving, which suggests that it was brought to Ashur as a valuable object in its own right and was then recut in accordance with local preference.

  The clay sealings all come from the fill above the floor in the main courtyard of Ištar temple level E. The use patterns on the backs of these sealings give some clues to the functions they served in their temple context. Three were flat with a pronounced projecting ridge, indicating that the sealings had been pressed over a crack between two surfaces, such as a box lid or closed door. The backs of two others were molded to the shape of the neck and rim of a jar, and one of these also had the impressions of the textile and cord that were on the jar. The reverse sides of five more had impressions from one or more cords. These distinctive and often inscribed sealings on vessels, boxes, baskets, and doors provide some of the best evidence for the practical functioning of the temple administration (Bär 2003a: 130, 135–40, Taf. 45–9).

  According to his Ištar temple text, Zarriqum, governor or king of Ashur during the later Ur III period, built the Ištar temple during the reign of Amar‐Suen (2046‐2038 BCE; Grayson 1987: 9; Michalowski 2009). The archaeological evidence suggests that this was Ištar temple level E, which therefore would have been in use from the time of Amar‐Suen until it was rebuilt by the Old Assyrian king Ilušuma (died 1974 BCE), a period of at most seventy‐three years, and probably less. This is the period during which these sealings were discarded in the fill of level E, and it is presumably the period during which the seals that made those impressions were in use.

  The Old Assyrian Period

  The first Asyrian Kings (ca. 2040–1809 BCE)

  In the Assyrian King List six kings precede the Old Assyrian king Erišum I (1974–1935 BCE), the first king whose regnal dates are known. The last three of these kings – Puzur‐Aššur I, Šalim‐ahum, and Ilušuma – are also attested in Old Assyrian royal genealogies. Two others, Sulili/Ṣilulu and Kikkiya, are also known from other sources and probably ruled at this time as well, while the sixth, Akiya, is otherwise unattested (Larsen 1976: 34–40; dates according to Chapter 3 of this volume, for slightly different dates cf. Barjamovic et al. 2012: 1–40). This seems to be plenty of kings for the span of some sixty‐four years between the death of Amar‐Suen and the accession of Erišum I, which suggests tha
t Assyria began to be ruled by local kings soon after the time of Zarriqum. The implication of this is that the Ur III level E temple at Ashur actually functioned under a native Old Assyrian administration for most of its existence, and this administration continued to use seals in the prevailing Ur III and Isin‐Larsa styles. This provides a context for the origin of the local Old Assyrian style.

  An under life size seated statue that apparently represents Erišum I was found near the southern entrance of the great southeast courtyard of the Assur temple. The figure is of alabaster, which was heavily eroded, and the head is missing. The right side of the seat carries a fragmentary inscription stating that the sitter, whose name is damaged, “built the temple for Assur, his lord.” According to Grayson, the text was collated and with “reasonable certainty” belongs to Erišum I, which would be consistent with Erišum’s other texts describing his work on the Assur temple. Andrae described the statue’s style as similar to that of the seated Gudea statues from Telloh, namely Ur III, and a poor photograph of the piece seems to support the Ur III attribution (VA Ass 2260; Andrae 1904: 30–1; Grayson 1987: 34–5; Bär 2003c: 116, Abb. 6; Eppihimer 2009: 183–4).