Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T14:59:30.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The White Obelisk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Edmond Sollberger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The remarkable Assyrian monument known as the “White Obelisk” was found by Rassam in July, 1853 at Kuyunjik and immediately attributed to Aššurnaṣirpal II (883–859) whose name (admittedly without titles or patronymy) appears in the inscription. In 1883, Pinches gave a detailed description of the Obelisk with a tentative interpretation of its inscription, but it was only some 80 years after the discovery that the first, and only, full edition of the monument appeared. In it, Unger rather forcefully argued for a much earlier date, namely the reign of Aššurnaṣirpal I (1050–1032). This dating, widely accepted, was later challenged by Landsberger who showed that the textual evidence certainly favoured the original attribution to Aššurnaṣirpal II.

Since then, philologists have generally been following Landsberger while archaeologists, with the notable exception of Frankfort, held for Unger's thesis. Recently, however, a more cautious attitude has begun to prevail among archaeologists. Thus, although in his Die Kunst des Alten Mesopotamien (1967), 126–128, Moortgat demonstrates that the White Obelisk cannot be ascribed to Aššurnaṣirpal II, he nevertheless adds a question mark after “Assurnasirpal I” in the caption to the illustration in the same volume (Pl. 251). Similarly, Hrouda, while upholding his earlier attribution to Aššurnaṣirpal I in his most recent work, adds in a footnote: “Zuweisung unsicher.” Finally, the scholar to whom we pay homage in this issife of Iraq, and who is one of the latest to have discussed the White Obelisk, has come down in favour of Landsbefger's dating to Aššurnaṣirpal II, explaining the stylistic oddities of the monument as due to the Ninevite craftsmen who carved it very early in the king's reign, and who may have been less skilled than their colleagues at Calah.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 36 , Issue 1-2 , October 1974 , pp. 231 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 BM 118807 = 56-9-9, 58.

2 In his still most valuable Guide to the Kouyunjik Gallery (1883), 112–121Google Scholar (not his Guide to the Nimrud Central Saloon of 1886 as stated by Unger, MAOG6/1–2, 9).

3 Unger, E., Der Obelisk des Königs Assurnassirpal I. aus Ninive, MAOG 6/1–2 (1932)Google Scholar.

4 Sam'al (1948), 57 f.Google Scholar, fn. 144.

5 Art & Architecture (1954), 243, n. 16 to p. 84Google Scholar; paper-back ed. (1970), 389, n. 16 to p. 156.

6 Ironically, in view of the present article, the label at the foot of the Obelisk in the Assyrian Transept of the British Museum attributes the monument to Aššurnaṣirpal I!

7 Iraq 25 (1963), 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Vorderasien I: Mesopotamien, Babylonien, Iran und Anatolien (1971), 239Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., fn. 9.

10 An St 22 (1972), 67Google Scholar.

11 Unger, op. cit., 9 f.

12 Original Drawings, Vol. VI, Pls. 41 and 42.

13 I shall refer to them as “frames”.

14 I recognize 18 scenes as against Unger's 17. In addition, his scene 8 ( = A3-B3-C3) corresponds to my scenes 8 (= A3-B3) and 9 (= C3); his scene 13 (= C7-B7-A7-D7) to my scenes 14 (= C7-B7-A7) and 15 (= D7); and his scenes 15 (= A8) and 16 (= B8) to my scene 17 (= A8-B8).

15 Thus, for example, the horses shown on C2 are in fact oxen; the two seated figures to the right of A7 are in fact standing. True, the pictures are correctly described by Unger, but the drawing—without his own description—has often been reproduced and may lead to wrong conclusions.

16 Madhloom, T. A., The Chronology of Neo-Assyrian Art (1970), 10 f., § 5Google Scholar.

17 Kunst, 128.

18 Moortgat, , Kunst, 128Google Scholar; Hrouda, B., Kulturgeschichte des assyrischen Flachbildes (1962), 114Google Scholar.

19 Schroeder, O., KAH II, 80Google Scholar.

20 BM 118800. This fragmentary obelisk from Nimrud (cf. Gadd, , Stones, 128Google Scholar and Pl. 6) is currently being reconstructed in the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities. The so-called “Broken Obelisk” (BM 118898), generally attributed to Aššur-bel-kala (1049–1031), differs from the “obelisks” in being decorated with a single carved panel, in the manner of, e.g., the Code of Hammurapi.

21 Luckenbill, D. D., Ancient Records I, § 414Google Scholar.

22 Col. i 44 ff. (King, AKA, 269).

23 Archaeologia 79 (1941)Google Scholar, Pl. XLIV, no. 58.

24 Thanks are due to A. K. Grayson with whom I had a fruitful discussion of the text.