by Eckart Frahm
An unusual limestone statue of a nude female from Nineveh is inscribed on the back with a text of Aššur‐bel‐kala (British Museum 124963; photos on British Museum website). The figure, which is somewhat under life size, is missing its head, feet, and forearms. The upper arms are preserved just past the bent elbows and both end in a flat surface drilled with a dowel hole, indicating that the forearms were carved separately and attached. The sharp upward bend of the elbows and the nearly horizontal angle of the attachment surfaces indicate that the forearms extended almost straight up in front of the body, reminiscent of the upraised arms of suppliant goddesses in early second millennium cylinder seals (Reade 2002b: 556–7, 563). The seven‐line inscription, which runs horizontally across the back just above the waist, states that Aššur‐bel‐kala “had these statues made for the pleasure of the citizens and foreigners” (Grayson 1991: 108, with alterations from Assyrian Dictionary, A/1, 1964: 333, 389).
A new type of monument that appears from the eleventh to ninth centuries is the so‐called obelisk, a four‐sided stone stele characterized by a slightly tapering shaft of rectangular section and a stepped top. They are decorated all around with a combination of pictures and text, suggesting a free‐standing location. The complete examples measure less than 3 meters in height. The ancient name for this type of object is not known; their modern designation as obelisks originates with Layard’s account of the discovery of the Black Obelisk (Layard 1849a: I, 345; Russell 2003–05).
Fragments of an obelisk from Ashur that may date to the reign of Tiglath‐pileser I or Aššur‐bel‐kala are discussed with the obelisks of Aššurnaṣirpal II below. The earliest well‐dated example is the limestone “Broken Obelisk,” found by Hormuzd Rassam near the center of the mound of Kuyunjik (ancient Nineveh) in the area of the Ištar temple. Although the name of its patron is lost, it is generally dated to the reign of Aššur‐bel‐kala on the basis of similarities to that king’s texts. Only the upper part of the obelisk is preserved. Curtis reported that its surface was damaged by an inappropriate cleaning technique, resulting in “fanciful” cuneiform signs and sculptural details. At the top center on the front is a rectangular sculptured panel showing the bareheaded king standing at left. In his left hand he holds a mace and ropes tethered to two kneeling figures wearing floppy‐topped hats, while two smaller bareheaded figures kneel behind them. The king’s right hand is outstretched to receive a bow handed down from above by a winged disk, probably representing Šamaš, at the center of a group of five divine symbols. The other symbols at the top are a horned crown, apparently a crescent (only recognizable in pre‐cleaning photographs), a thunderbolt, and a rosette, presumably representing Assur, Sîn, Adad, and Ištar. By contrast, the first two gods listed at the beginning of the inscription are Assur and Ea. Most of the remainder of the space on the shaft is covered with a long inscription (British Museum 118898, H: 63 cm; Börker‐Klähn 1982: Nr. 131; Grayson 1991: 99–105, no. 7; Reade 2005: 373; Curtis 2007: 53–7).
The “White Obelisk,” also of limestone, was also found by Rassam on Kuyunjik, near the Broken Obelisk in the area of the Ištar temple (Figure 24.5). It is intact, though worn, and stands 2.85 m tall. In contrast to the Broken Obelisk, most of the shaft is covered with relief images, while the text is confined to two small areas on the steps at the top and an epigraph on one of the sculptured panels. The inscription is often considered to be unfinished, but in fact is two short texts labeling the events on the front and left sides. The reliefs are arranged in eight registers, each of which runs uninterrupted around the obelisk. When read from top to bottom, they show the king at war, making offerings to a deity, receiving tribute, banqueting, and hunting, essentially the events of a successful campaign and its aftermath. The registers are arranged so that the two longest scenes, which extend around all four sides, are in the center at eye level, and the length of the scenes gradually decreases to three, then two, and finally one side as the eye moves toward the top and bottom. This sophisticated arrangement maximizes visual comprehension of the imagery by allowing the viewer to focus on the extended images in the center while simultaneously taking in progressively shorter episodes peripherally. It also emphasizes receipt of tribute as the central focus of the monument (London, British Museum 118807; Stein 1993–97: 302–3; Pinches 1883: 112–21; Börker‐Klähn 1982: Nr. 132; Pittman 1996; Grayson 1991: 254–6, no. 18).
Figure 24.5 Nineveh, White Obelisk, probably of Aššurnaṣirpal I or II, limestone, H: 285 cm, London, British Museum 118807.
Source: author.
The date of the White Obelisk is a matter of considerable controversy (Unger 1932; Sollberger 1974; Reade 1975; von Soden 1975). The inscription lacks a royal genealogy, but describes events in the eponym of Aššurnaṣirpal, which suggests a date early in the reign of a king Aššurnaṣirpal. Opinion is divided on whether this is Aššurnaṣirpal I (1049–1031 BCE), the nephew of Aššur‐bel‐kala, or Aššurnaṣirpal II (883–859 BCE). The evidence of the inscription has generally been thought to favor Aššurnaṣirpal II, both in general style and content, and in specific references to the land of Gilzanu, unattested in texts prior to Tukulti‐Ninurta II, and to the bit‐natḫi temple at Nineveh, otherwise known only from texts of Aššurnaṣirpal II.
In support of an attribution to Aššurnaṣirpal I, Frahm recently published a campaign account that he showed may plausibly be attributed to Aššurnaṣirpal I on the basis of the eponyms named in it. This new text describes in detail a campaign in the king’s eponym year to Ḫabḫu lands, a place name that Frahm also identified (written in exactly the same way) in his new provisional collation of the text on the White Obelisk. Frahm noted, however, that Aššurnaṣirpal II also campaigned against Ḫabḫu in his eponymate, so while the presence of Ḫabḫu in the obelisk text provides an additional possible link to Aššurnaṣirpal I, it does not rule out Aššurnaṣirpal II. Frahm further observed that an elaborate ceremonial bed dedicated by Aššurnaṣirpal I to Ištar of Nineveh was likely for the bit‐natḫi, which would provide another possible link between the obelisk and that king. Therefore, while Frahm’s observations strengthen the case for Aššurnaṣirpal I, they do not weaken the case for Aššurnaṣirpal II (Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum, VAT 10803 + VAT 11063; Frahm 2009: 117–23).
By contrast, the visual evidence, particularly the chariot poles, the fez worn by courtiers, and the preponderance of bearded courtiers and attendants, suggests a date prior to the known images of Aššurnaṣirpal II. One way to reconcile these contradictions is to date the White Obelisk to the beginning of the reign of Aššurnaṣirpal II, prior to the revolution in image and text fostered by the move to Kalḫu, but some scholars feel this is not early enough to account for the differences.
The Neo‐Assyrian Period: Sculpture and Painting
In the sections that follow, monumental sculpture and painting are arranged by reign, while portable arts, which are often difficult to date precisely, are grouped by type. Most Neo‐Assyrian monumental art was made under the patronage of the king. The most prevalent type by far was wall reliefs, stone slabs carved with images and texts that lined the walls of important rooms in palaces and temples. Other types of reliefs included bull and lion colossi, usually human headed, that stood in the major doorways of palaces and temples and in the most important city gates. Also in doorways, the wooden door leaves were embellished with strips of bronze, decorated in low relief with figures and ornaments in repoussé. Reliefs could be carved underfoot as well, with historical images on throne bases and floral patterns on threshold slabs. In many places wall reliefs were supplemented by, or even wholly replaced by, paintings. These were done in two different media, the choice probably being governed by location. Exterior walls were decorated with painted glazed bricks. On interior walls, pigment was applied to the whitewashed mud plaster that covered the mud brick. Because of their fragility, most of these paintings are now lost. Outdoors, steles and obelisks were sometimes placed in public lo
cations, as were rock reliefs, carved on natural rock surfaces to mark areas reached during royal campaigns or the location of royal construction projects (Russell 1998–2001).
Aššurnaṣirpal II (883–859 BCE)
The earliest surviving Neo‐Assyrian palace reliefs are from the Northwest Palace of Aššurnaṣirpal II at Kalḫu, modern Nimrud. The inspiration for such reliefs may have come from Aššurnaṣirpal’s campaign to the Mediterranean, probably in his ninth year, during the course of which he would have seen Neo‐Hittite architecture decorated with wall reliefs (Winter 1982; Cifarelli 1995: 161; Russell 1999a: 227–9). In the Northwest Palace, wall reliefs were confined to the interior and exterior of the throne‐room suite and the interior of the large reception suites around the inner court. The reliefs were for the most part well‐preserved, as the destruction of the palace seems not to have been accompanied by extensive burning. Most of the reliefs derive from the excavations of A.H. Layard (1849a). The Iraq State Organization for Antiquities and Heritage restored the area of the decorated state apartments as a site museum where visitors were able to view a large number of reliefs in their original context (Figure 24.6) until it was destroyed with explosives by ISIS in April 2015. The definitive publications of the palace reliefs are Meuszynski (1981) and Paley and Sobolewski (1987, 1992).
Figure 24.6 Kalḫu (modern Nimrud), wall reliefs showing apotropaic deities and palm trees, Northwest Palace of Aššurnaṣirpal II, Room S, Slabs 20–22, calcareous gypsum, W: 646 cm.
Source: author.
The throne‐room facade and several other major entrances in the palace were decorated with human‐headed bull and lion colossi (Nimrud, Northwest Palace Museum; London, British Museum; Baghdad, Iraq Museum; New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art). Apart from their size – the largest were nearly 6 meters in length and height – their most striking feature is their combination in a single figure of two distinct relief images: a static frontal view showing two legs, and a striding side view showing four legs, the result being a five‐legged creature. The walls at both ends of the throne‐room facade were paneled with slabs carved with images of western foreigners presenting tribute to the king. At the west end of the facade, these tributaries were shown approaching an image of the king, while at the east end, two tribute processions converged on a doorway, beyond which was the enthroned king himself. Carved across the middle of each slab, and on every other wall slab in the palace, was a text – the so‐called “Standard Inscription” – that gave the name, genealogy, titles, and epithets of the king, summarized his territorial conquests, and described the construction of Kalḫu and the new palace (Grayson 1991: 268, no. 23).
The throne room walls were also covered with reliefs. Directly opposite the central door of the facade, which may have been the location for a temporary throne, and at the east end of the room behind the permanent stone throne base were niches raised somewhat above floor level, each carved with a similar scene. On both, images of the king and a winged deity are shown twice, symmetrically flanking a stylized palm tree, above which is a deity in a winged disk. Apparently the king is worshipping the god in the disk, probably Šamaš, who extends to him the rod and ring, an emblem of authority. Simultaneously, the king receives the protection of the anthropomorphic deities and the palm tree, both of which have apotropaic powers. Brentjes has plausibly proposed that the two kings on each of these slabs could be seen as Aššurnaṣirpal’s predecessors, Tukulti‐Ninurta II and Adad‐nirari II, who also figure prominently in the genealogy at the beginning of the Standard Inscription. If so, then these royal forbears placed to either side of the throne emphasize Aššurnaṣirpal’s legitimacy through recognition of his royal lineage. The relief behind the throne would therefore confer authority, legitimacy, and protection on its occupant (Brentjes 1994; Russell 1998b).
In the corners of the throne room and beside doorways are more images of stylized palms and winged deities. The slabs on the long walls were divided into three unequal registers. The wider upper and lower registers displayed a continuous series of images that are usually termed “narrative,” while on the narrower central register the Standard Inscription was carved complete on each slab. The relief subjects are royal hunts and royal military conquests. Several suggestions have been made about the identity of the cities and regions shown in the military scenes, but as the images carry no written labels and bear no direct relationship to the accompanying Standard Inscription, these remain speculative (Winter 1981; Reade 1985; Cifarelli 1995).
Each of the other three sculptured suites that surrounded the central courtyard (Y) featured a different subject in its major reception rooms. Military conquest and hunts were the subjects of at least some of the reliefs in the West Suite, which may have been a secondary throne room suite and assembly hall. In the East Suite, which was apparently a ceremonial space, Rooms G and H show the king sitting or standing holding his bow and a bowl, engaged in an activity that may most plausibly be identified as pouring libations (Brandes 1970). In some of the images in Room G, the bowl is replaced by a pair of arrows held aloft, apparently receiving the blessing of the gods to whom the offerings are made. In these rooms, therefore, the source of the king’s power is identified with his activity as chief priest of the gods of Assyria. Reception Room S in the South Suite, which was probably the king’s residential suite, as well as Room F in the throne‐room suite and a number of smaller rooms in all three suites, were decorated almost entirely with combinations of the stylized palm tree and winged deities, some with human heads and others with heads of birds. Winged deities were also placed on the jambs of all the doorways that were not decorated with colossi. As the function of the winged deities and palm trees is apotropaic, the decoration of these rooms evidently afforded their occupants a measure of protection from terrestrial and supernatural threats.
Aššurnaṣirpal’s temples at Kalḫu were also decorated with reliefs. Two of these, the temples of Ninurta and Šarrat‐nipḫi, were located directly to the north of the palace. In the Ninurta temple, the relief decoration was confined to major doorways. The main entrance contained two human‐headed lion colossi, flanked on the outside by human‐ and bird‐headed protective figures. Both jambs of the subsidiary entrance were lined with reliefs showing a combat between a deity and a monster. Human figures flanked this door on the outside and fish‐men on the inside. The interior doorway connecting the antechamber and shrine was lined with winged figures carrying maces and flanked on the inside and outside by human figures. Three doorways in the courtyard of the temple of Šarrat‐nipḫi were decorated with colossi: a pair of colossal lions on the north side at the entrance to the sanctuary, a pair of larger lion‐footed colossi with the upper parts missing in the outer gate on the east side, and a pair of small (1 m high) human‐headed bulls in a doorway at the west side (London, British Museum 124572; Mosul Museum; Reade 2002a: 167–94; Hussein 2008: 91‐5; Hussein, Kertai, and Altaweel 2013: 104–8, pls. XLV–XLIX).
Layard also found a beautifully‐preserved statue of Aššurnaṣirpal II in the temple of Šarrat‐nipḫi, together with the original base on which it stood, near the cult dais at the west end of the cella. The statue is made of yellowish magnesite and the base of pink dolomite – both are unusual materials for Assyrian sculpture and may have been imported. The king is standing, bare‐headed and wrapped in a long fringed garment, holding a ceremonial sickle in his right hand and a mace in his left. Carved across his chest is a seven‐line inscription that gives the king’s genealogy and the extent of his conquests. Although at 113 cm tall the statue itself is under life size, Winter observed that the base brings its total height to 191 cm, or just over six feet, making the figure stand taller than most humans. If the find spot was near the statue’s original location, then it evidently stood facing the goddess and its inscription was addressed to her (British Museum 118871; Layard 1853a: 361; Reade, in Curtis and Reade 1995: 43; Reade 2002a: 184, 187, fig. 47; Grayson 1991: 305–6; Winter 1997: 375, 380 n. 3
6).
The Central Building, probably another temple of Aššurnaṣirpal II, was located in the center of the Kalḫu citadel. Its facade was decorated with two pairs of addorsed colossi, each pair consisting of a lion at right and a bull at left, with a winged deity holding a fawn in between. The colossi were probably human‐headed, but the upper parts are now lost. Inside was a doorway lined with a winged figure between rampant lions and flanked on the inside by a human figure and outside by a scorpion man. A second slab with a stylistically somewhat different winged figure between rampant lions was found nearby (Barnett and Falkner 1962: pls. 126–7; Meuszynski 1976).
At Nineveh, the Ištar temple of Aššurnaṣirpal II was also decorated with wall reliefs, two fragmentary examples of which were recovered during excavations: one was a procession of three tributaries before the king and the other showed the king hunting lions in the upper register and pouring a libation over a dead lion in the lower (Russell 1998a: pls. 214–20; Reade 2005: 375–9). Excavations at Dur‐Katlimmu on the Khabur turned up two joining fragments of an Aššurnaṣirpal wall relief that depicted an Assyrian courtier holding a bow and fly whisk, presumably accompanying the king, as in the image of the enthroned king with a similar courtier on slab 3 in Room G of the Northwest Palace (Kühne 1987–88: fig. 17). It is carved in the finest court style, identical to that of the Kalḫu palace, which suggests that Dur‐Katlimmu was a center of considerable importance during Aššurnaṣirpal’s reign.
