Harrison Jones 309193192

A Landscape of Authority:
Landscape Theory and Perceptions of the Periphery in Neo-Assyrian Palace Art

Landscape archaeology is an interdisciplinary field, combining elements of geography, ecology and climatology with the traditional archaeological study of the material remains of past human cultures. By studying the synthesis of the natural and the culturalthe objective and the subjectivea landscape-based archaeological investigation can arrive at more comprehensive and well-rounded conclusions. In the present paper, the value of landscape theory is demonstrated by the integration of geography and ecology with a stylistic and art-historical analysis of NeoAssyrian palace reliefs, in order to appraise the Neo-Assyrian perception of the landscape of the imperial periphery. Landscape archaeology finds its beginnings in the 1920s (Anschuetz et al. 2001: 157 and 164) with Carl Sauers 1925 definition of cultural landscape as being fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural group. This was typical of the early years, before the 1960s (Evans 2003: 1) when the physical environment was seen as merely a passive background to human activity. Geoffrey Dimbleby, Professor of Environmental Archaeology in Londons Institute of Archaeology, identified the importance of ecology to archaeology in the 1960s (Evans 2003: 2) and began a new and far more self-aware phase of environmental archaeology. Lewis Binford is singled out by John Evans (2003: 2) for his development of Middle Range Theory and processual archaeology in the 1960s, both of which placed emphasis on the human lives of the past and their interactions with the world around them (an important consideration of landscape archaeology) rather than simply cataloguing the material remains. Evans (2003: 3) also cites Eric Higgs for his development of site catchment analysis in the late 1960s, which required the archaeologist to look beyond the core site to the environment surrounding it, and consider the sites context in terms of landscape. The term landscape archaeology came into vogue for the first time in the mid-1970s among British archaeologists (Fleming 2006: 267) and was solidified by the publication of Landscape Archaeology by Aston and Rowley in 1974. This was followed in the 1980s and 1990s by postprocessual or contextual archaeology, which sought to examine the landscape from an

Harrison Jones 309193192

experiential perspective to see the landscape through the eyes of its ancient inhabitants. This, in turn, is now being criticised by various authors, such as Andrew Fleming (2006) who describes the principles of contextual archaeology as half-truths (Fleming 2006: 279). He argues that contextual landscape archaeology is hyper-interpretive, and that while it can open up new avenues of research and interpretation, especially in prehistoric contexts, we should be wary of its use of the imagination to go beyond the evidence. The study of landscape, from an archaeological perspective, is really the study of the intersection and interaction of two components: the objective and the subjective. The objective component is the physical land, comprising both the features created by humans and the natural context within which they have been placed by those human actors. The subjective component is the way in which humans perceive the landscape, the cultural overlay that exists only in the mind of the viewer; it is the way in which people throughout time, from the very first inhabitants to modern archaeologists, view and understand the landscape, assigning significance or associations to particular features. This subjective view of the physical world is a set of thought processes, a way of seeing and thinking that can be accessed and reconstructed through archaeological investigation of ideotechnic artefacts; it is this ideological system that Matthew Johnson (2007:4) describes as what transforms the land and its study into land-scape. Anschuetz et al. (2001) propose a paradigm for the use of landscape in archaeology that is based on four connected postulates: that landscapes are not synonymous with natural environments, that landscapes are worlds of cultural product, that landscapes are the arena for all of a communitys activities, and that landscapes are dynamic constructions. The first of these propositions denotes that a landscape is not simply the natural environment by itself, but is a construct brought about by peoples interactions with that natural environment, with these interactions structured and organised by cultural systems. Archaeologists use the word landscape to mean the conceptual end-product of the physical world mediated through subjective human experience, an abstraction formed at the intersection of nature and culture. The second concerns the landscape as space that has not just been physically affected by human activity but has perhaps more importantly been imbued with cultural meaning by communities daily activities, beliefs and values; this proposition builds on the first by extending the idea of

Harrison Jones 309193192

landscape as cultural understandings of the terrain (Whitley 2011: 153) the way a landscape is the human perception of the cultural environment that they have constructed in the natural environment, reflecting and communicating the social role of themselves and others in relation to the natural world. The third proposition reminds us that landscapes are more than just the result of deliberate human activity and can extend beyond the immediate vicinity of a community. A landscapes physical territory certainly includes what one might term the living-space and the activity-space of a population, but it also includes the areas that are left unused; the patterning of empty space is open for analysis just as much as the patterning of inhabited space, and it is important to view the distribution of settlements or otherwise culturally-organised space within the wider context of a landscape. The fourth and final proposition considers landscapes as a cultural process in a constant state of flux; for as a synthesis of the cultural and the natural, a landscape must change as its cultural component changes. It is the medium and consequence of social practices (Curtoni and Bern 2006: 100) and thus each civilisation, community, generation and even individual modifies or creates landscapes in accordance with its own cognitive map. Landscape theory, however, is neither infallible nor a panacea for the challenges facing the wider discipline of archaeology; indeed, it has many challenges of its own. A major challenge in this field of study is that there is little consensus on the definition of landscape; Anschuetz et al. (2001: 158) suggest that the wide variability among archaeological uses of landscape at first glance raises the question whether the word retains noteworthy meaning in archaeological practice. That is, has landscape simply become a synonym for natural environment or settlement pattern? Furthermore, the study of landscape has until recently been a secondary consideration in archaeological investigations, being regarded as a geographical assistance for plotting material traces rather than as a field of study in its own right. Now landscape studies are being moved to the foreground of archaeological inquiry, but just as with the word landscape itself, the concept of landscape studies remains somewhat nebulous and lacks clearly defined boundaries and necessities. The hazy and inchoate nature of the field is reflected in archaeologists use of a multiplicity of landscape references that differentially emphasize natural (e.g., ecological, geomorphological, and hydrological) and cultural (e.g., technological,

Harrison Jones 309193192

organizational, and cosmological) aspects of the human environment (Anschuetz et al. 2001: 158). Although the still-nascent field of landscape archaeology has its own problems and challenges, it also has the potential to resolve other problems and challenges that face archaeology in general: the shift from studying single sites to a more regional scale; the post-processual critique of processual archaeologys lack of engagement with the more personal, human aspects of the past; and the need to communicate archaeological findings to the public, and especially to indigenous populations. The study of regional change and variation rather than sites in isolation, and seeing networks of sites interacting with each other, is greatly aided by an awareness of landscape theory. A landscape-based perspective allows for observations of variation in material remains over time and space to be connected to a framework of culture and history, giving the archaeologist a clear picture of spatial and temporal variability and the significance of that variability. Van Rossenberg (2003) uses a landscape approach to compare and contrast depositional patterns in different regions of Northern Italy and how they changed as the Bronze Age progressed; despite his study being carried out on a very large scale (van Rossenberg 2003: 161), his use of landscape-based analysis allows him to tie the results together and assess region-level change. Responding to the post-processualists dissatisfaction (Anschuetz et al [2001: 162] provide an exhaustive list of references) with processual archaeologys apparent focus on scientific study and understanding of technologies and physical environmental trends and its tendency to concentrate on material evidence to the detriment of the study of the society that produced that material evidence, a landscape approach can reconstruct the social context of archaeological remains that has been overlooked. Landscape-based studies are more amenable to a humanistic past of individuals, of actors who have relationships with each other and the environment, and who consciously and unconsciously leave their mark on that environment. Fleming (2006), however, criticises the post-processualists themselves for going too far the other way and ignoring material evidence in favour of phenomenological and experiential approaches, such as that of Tilley (2004) who asserts that an archaeological understanding of a landscape is best achieved through a phenomenological study through familiarizing ourselves with the landscapes and places which we seek to understand through personal bodily experience and encounter, exploring the world through our bodies (Tilley 2004: 185).

Harrison Jones 309193192

A landscape approach is relevant to how archaeologists present their discipline publicly in general and to how they interact with indigenous peoples in particular. Because landscapes communicate information on how communities interacted with their environments over time, they serve as a medium for meaningful cross-cultural dialogue on the construction and reproduction of affiliations with places. A common theme among the study of landscape archaeology is that of landscape as a relationship. Anschuetz et al. (2001: 159), for example, discuss the importance of landscape theory in studying the dynamic interdependent relationships that people maintain with the physical, social, and cultural dimensions of their environments across space and over time, while Curtoni and Bern (2006: 100) regard a landscape as a set of relationships between people and places implying an ongoing process in which multiple significances can emerge as result of the social practices of building, dwelling and being in the world.

This relationship between the cultural and the natural, and the subjective human perception of a cultural environment constructed in a natural environment, is expressed clearly in the representation of North Syrian landscapes in palace reliefs of the Neo-Assyrian empire. The landscape of North Syria, a principal target for territorial expansion by the Neo-Assyrian empire, was reproduced in the core of the empire in depictions on stone reliefs that lined the walls of imperial palaces at Nimrud, Khorsabad and Nineveh, and was the firstand for a long time, the onlyregion to be emulated in such a way (Thomason 2001: 65). These reliefs are a direct representation of the Weltanschauung of the elite strata of Neo-Assyrian society not just what they see in the natural world, but how they see it and which elements hold significance for them. Looking through Assyrian eyes, we observe the peoples, cities and landscapes of the contemporaneous Near Eastern world with which they came into contact during military campaigns in foreign lands and celebratory events in the imperial core. This representation maintained a level of consistency throughout the Neo-Assyrian period, but was not a monolithic, prescriptive or unvarying phenomenon (Winter 1983). Rather, it was a multifaceted graphic programme that was manifested in several different visual topoi, or consistent themes of representation, as time progressed (Thomason 2001, passim). The five pictorial topoi associated with the North Syrian landscape expressed the political ideology that

Harrison Jones 309193192

the North Syrian landscape was a necessary and beneficial addition provided by the NeoAssyrian kings for the prosperity of the empire. These themes are: 1. The depiction of numerous species of plants; 2. The receipt of diverse species of tame animals as tribute; 3. The witnessing and control of the chaos of the North Syrian faunal landscape; 4. The representation of the ex situ re-creation of the abundant North Syrian landscape; 5. The reasons for collecting the elements of the North Syrian landscape to invoke a sense of fertility, leisure, and triumphant celebration associated with the king. The Assyrians, however, were not necessarily striving for perfect verisimilitude in their representation and re-creation of the natural landscape of North Syria, but rather sought to convey a quasi-propagandistic depiction of the sovereigns relationship with the peripheral regions of the empire. The kings commissioned these fanciful simulacra, both graphic and tangible, of the North Syrian landscape in order to assert that such a diverse and fertile land was both contained within the royal realm in the distance and re-created closer to home. The concern of this study is not the realism or factual accuracy of the depictions of the North Syrian landscape, but rather the Assyrian perception of that landscape. Part of that perception is the artistic style and technique employed, and how it evolved over time in conjunction with the perception of the landscape. In the reigns of Ashurnasirpal II (883859 III (858824
BC), BC)

and Shalmaneser

narratives were shown in double registers separated by inscriptions; figures

occupied the entire height of the registers or bands, landscape elements were placed in discrete blocks of space interspersed between, above, or below figures and cities, and three-dimensional space was represented by the overlapping of figures. Such an arrangement causes the viewer to focus on the foreground while the landscape and other background elements, although depicted, remain of only secondary or tertiary importance (Reade 1979a: 5772; Russell 1991: 19395). Under Tiglath-pileser III (744727
BC),

figures were reduced in size, and figures at

different distances were placed on ground lines at different heights in an attempt at showing depth and perspective (Reade 1979a: 7278; Auerbach 1989). In the reign of Sargon II (721705 BC), three schematic features came into vogue in the reliefs: the use of only a single register that spanned the entire height of the reliefs; the lack of adherence to a single ground line; and the use of patterns to fill otherwise empty background

Harrison Jones 309193192

spaces, for instance using spirals or scales to signify a watery or mountainous setting. Furthermore, the artists of this period experimented with scale by showing the figures as consistently smaller than their background, a technique which presented the viewer with a bird's-eye perspective, looking down at the scene from on high (Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951: 177). The absence of a single ground line, the inclusion of an overall pattern of background, and a reduction in the scale of the figures created a generous space for the depiction of individual landscape elements such as trees and animals (Reade 1979a: 8586). Therefore, the treatment of space and scale united the figures in one spatial setting and allowed for increased emphasis on geographic specificity. Within Assyrian ideology, this specificity was intended to assert the veracity of the narratives: if the landscape could be precisely shown in a detailed manner, it would lend credence to the victorious events occurring within the landscape (Winter 1981). With the change in ground line placement and the size differentiation between background and figures having been established as conventions by the reign of Sennacherib (704681
BC),

and

with inscribed bands of text gradually being eliminated from between the registers (Reade 1979a: 8695; Reade 1980: 7172), artists were able to create a greater focus on landscape by experimenting with showing recession into space. They therefore created more comprehensive pictorial narratives with an abundance of symbolic and veristic detail in the representation of landscapes. The increasing standard of detail in representations of landscape that developed in the latter half of the empire is critical to an understanding of the cultural image of the North Syrian landscape as perceived by the Assyrians and ingrained in their ideological conception of the imperial core and periphery. The first three of the pictorial themes regarding the natural landscape, enumerated supra, appear in and are reiterated throughout the reigns of the kings from Ashurnarsirpal II to Tiglath-Pileser III. The first theme is the imaginative reconstruction of the diversity of the North Syrian floral landscape, with a wide variety of trees and vegetation growing wild; the vegetation, however, is not the focus but is subordinate to the action (they are trampled by soldiers or fill in the background of the scene). Irene Winter (1999: 72) suggests that the specific combination of species identifies the setting of the action as a particular location or region Ashurnasirpal IIs

Harrison Jones 309193192

artists, for example, portrayed four clearly different types of tree in the throne room of his Northwest Palace at Nimrud: baobabs and date palms from Carchemish (fig. 2), and vines and tall trees with rounded fruits, perhaps from Damdamussa (figs. 34) (Winter 1999: 15). Shalmaneser IIIs art, specifically the Balawat Gates, also reveals the Assyrian impression of the region as being a particularly fecund landscape by depicting four distinct species of vegetation in representations of his campaigns in North Syria; we see short spiked reeds near Carchemish (fig. 5) but fruit trees on the way to Qarqar (fig. 6); the soldiers tramp through some sort of scrub plant by a river near Hamath (fig. 7), while near Bit-Adini they are faced with tall trees with short spiked branches (fig. 8) (Thomason 2001: 71). During the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III, Phoenicia was a more prominent antagonist than North Syria and the art reflected this - North Syrian vegetation is rarely represented, but a palm tree and what may be a pine tree are shown on the walls of a city by the sea (which contains a variety of marine animals, like fish, turtles, and dolphins), identifying it as a Phoenician city (Albenda 1983). Sennacheribs reign came much later in the period, but this theme remained strong even then - reliefs from the Southwest Palace at Nineveh (figs. 9, 10, 11) show a clear diversity of tree species (Bleibtreu 1980: 15057). Although the artists seem to have conflated the landscapes of North Syria, South Syria and Judah, this misrepresentation in fact provides us with an insight into the Neo-Assyrians subjective perception of those strange and distant landscapes. The second theme is expressed in images of exotic yet tamed animals from North Syria that were symbolically incorporated into the empire as tribute, illustrating the Neo-Assyrian perception of the multifarious and exotic faunal landscape of North Syria. Animals from as far away as central Africa were presented to Ashurnasirpal II, as can be seen in a relief from Court D of the Northwest Palace at Nimrud in which a group of tributaries bring monkeys to the king (fig. 12). An examination of this relief reveals three elements of significance that the monkeys are clearly exotic, as one can see by the awkward portrayal of small hands, large heads, and bent posture, by Assyrian artists unused to the animals; that the tributaries are wearing garments associated with cities of North Syria and not Africa (Wfler 1975: 21819), indicating that the North Syrians acted as middlemen between Assyria and Egypt and are seen as the supplier as well as the source of exotic goods; and finally that the monkeys are on leashes and are tame, symbolically representing the royal control of an exotic realm. These elements combine to

Harrison Jones 309193192

reinforce the notion that North Syria is a desirable territory which has much to contribute the empire, and which does so as a consequence of the kings authority over it. The third theme concerns the depiction of North Syria as a site where nature could be both witnessed and controlled, and is primarily manifested in scenes of the Assyrian sovereign hunting lions. Lion-hunting is an important theme throughout the history of Mesopotamian imperial art, dating back to the fourth millennium with these stele from Uruk depicting a man hunting a lion with a bow and arrow (fig. 13). A symbol of abundance and virility as well as the uncontrolled chaos of nature, lions were both hunted and kept as pets to demonstrate royal power. Ashurnasirpal IIs Throne Room B, in the Northwest Palace at Nimrud, has the earliest reliefs of Neo-Assyrian lion hunts (Thomason 2001: 75); the setting is uncertain, as there are no epigraphs or floral elements that identify the location, but the scene of the king hunting from his chariot is analogous to hunting scenes on his Balawat gates, strongly suggesting that his royal hunts took place within North Syria. While the relationship between the Neo-Assyrian king and the North Syrian lion is certainly a metaphor for what Liverani (1979: 306) saw as the dichotomy of the orderly center versus the chaotic periphery, there need not even be a royal figure depicted in order for the artist to express this concept. Royal lion hunts are not found in the art of Shalmaneser IIIs reign, but a scene on the Black Obelisk of a lion attacking a gazelle (fig. 14) is interpreted by Thomason (2001) and Marcus (1987) as symbolic of the wild outer provinces of the empire being witnessed and then controlled by the king, symbolised by the scene being confined within the strict lines of the carving. Tiglath-Pileser IIIs palace at Bit-Adini (modern Til Barsip) contains paintings which reiterate this theme of controlling nature in North Syria; the location of the palace is significant, as some of the paintings probably depict events that occurred in the immediate vicinity of the palace, and one (fig. 15) shows a lion sitting tamely at the kings feet, showing how the landscape has been pacified and brought inside and under control. Ashurbanipals reign, which occurred at the very end of the Neo-Assyrian period, much later in the empire than the examples above, presents us with what are the most famous depictions of lion-hunting (fig. 16) (Thomason 2001: 79). These depictions show that the North Syrian landscape is so controlled and the chaos of nature has been so subdued that these lion hunts appear to take place in an artificial garden

Harrison Jones 309193192

which recreates the North Syrian environment closer to home. This urban hunt, as Weissert (1997) calls it, is really the culmination of the subjugation of the landscape, and adumbrates the development of the fourth theme in the latter part of the empire.

The fourth theme is the representation of a royal garden modelled after the landscape of North Syria, which was imagined as lush, abundant and diverse. This theme appears during the reigns of the kings from Sargon II to Ashurbanipal; previously, most representations had been of the flora and fauna in situ i.e. the depictions were set in the native foreign landscape. Under Sargon II, however, the first depictions are seen of the North Syrian landscape recreated in royal gardens in Assyria. Beginning with the period of his reign, there are many references in royal inscriptions regarding the construction of a garden (kirimahhu) that is modelled after Mount Amanus in North Syria in which all the aromatic herbs of Hatti and fruit trees of the mountains were planted (Fuchs 1994: 6667); texts going back to the imperial Akkadian period remark on the cedar forests of the mountains of North Syria (Rowton 1967:26788), and the landscape of that region alone was emulated in gardens in the imperial heartland until Babylonias rise to prominence under Sennacheribs reign. A relief from Room 7 in Sargons palace at Khorsabad (fig. 17) shows a hare and fowl hunt in one such artificially constructed royal park; the king and his attendants can be seen approaching from the left, along with a pavilion in a pond in the centre of the relief and three different birds walking among trees on the hill on the right. Reliefs from the reign of Ashurbanipal show another royal garden complex modeled in part after the North Syrian landscape (fig. 18), depicting a triple-walled city with crenellated towers and leonine column bases; this structure, perhaps the Ninevite palace of Ashurbanipal or that of his grandfather Sennacherib (or even symbolising the entire city of Nineveh) is positioned next to a hill with many different species of trees growing between crossing streams which are possibly artificially constructed canals. Reade (1998) suggests that this relief is a conflation of the area surrounding Nineveh and is a compressed representation of the entirety of Sennacheribs landscape achievements. The fourth topos therefore represents the landscape of the artificially constructed North Syria as a site where the king and his retinue could both manipulate and witness the diversity and abundance of nature; at the same time, it

10

Harrison Jones 309193192

demonstrates that the sovereign could control that natural abundance through the royal hunt, a metaphor for military control of the chaotic periphery (Liverani 1979: 306). The final theme pertains to the association of the landscape of North Syria with triumphant victory, pleasure, and fertility, and is prevalent in images predominantly from the later empire. Ashurbanipals relief, in the Southwest Palace at Nineveh, of a lion and lioness resting in a forest appears to show a tranquil but wild scene (fig. 19); while there is no direct evidence that this scene occurred within Assyria, one can observe that the lower two branches of the left tree have in fact been pruned. This too, therefore, is part of the vast artificial garden complex near Nineveh. The kings have recreated what was until then considered a unique landscape of diversity and fertility; therefore, they are suppliers of fertility and fecundity, and are victorious over the chaos and wilderness of nature. Furthermore, a relief from Ashurbanipals North Palace (fig. 20), presents the king and queen relaxing in a garden combining elements of the North Syrian and Babylonian landscapes, enjoying a banquet to celebrate their victory over the Elamite king Te-Umman, whose severed head hangs from the tree on the left of the frame. They are simultaneously promoting their control over their natural and human enemies from all points of the compass - North Syria in the north and west, Babylonia in the south, and the Elamites in the east. They are supremely in control of their entire known world, and they revel in this power by treating a microcosm of that world as their Xanadu which sums up the elements of the whole world [in] a concrete demonstration of the centers ability of siphon in from the remotest corners of the periphery those contributions that are owed to it (Liverani 1979: 314). These royal gardens, modelled in part after the North Syrian landscape, were constructed tangibly and in images as sites of symbolic power and fertility and royal leisure. One must, however, be mindful of the audience for whom these artworks were created and the milieu in which they were displayed: the elite of Assyrian societycourtiers, aristocrats and royaltywho were the authors of the ideology and beneficiaries of the imperialism (Liverani 1979: 299) and the only ones allowed into the inner sancta of the imperial palaces. The significance of this is not so much as a sixth theme, but rather as the conspicuous absence of a theme: ordinary people and their landscape. There is an inherent bias in this imagery as a consequence of its creation by elites for elites their perception of the North Syrian landscape
11

Harrison Jones 309193192

is of a place to hunt and relax amidst trees, flowers and streams; the palace reliefs make no reference to the strong village economy based on agriculture of North Syria (Postgate 1979: 198) which would have dominated that landscape as it was perceived by the soldiers who actually conquered the territory, and the peasants whose fields and towns were invaded and occupied. This disparity in perception is a demonstration of the development of a landscape as the result of the physical world being mediated through cultural ideology and subjective human experience. To conclude, a landscape-based investigation of the representation of North Syrian landscapes in palace reliefs of the Neo-Assyrian empire enables us to achieve an understanding of the deeper levels of meaning and significance in the ancient elite Assyrian perception of the landscape on the imperial periphery, by approaching the imagery in terms of the relationship between the cultural and the natural, and the subjective human perception of a cultural environment constructed in a natural environment. By combining geography and ecology with a stylistic art-historical analysis, it becomes clear that the imagined diversity and abundance of the appropriated North Syrian landscape were conceived and consistently reiterated through the use of five visual topoi: 1. The depiction of numerous species of plants; 2. The receipt of diverse species of tame animals as tribute; 3. The witnessing and control of the chaos of the North Syrian faunal landscape; 4. The representation of the ex situ re-creation of the abundant North Syrian landscape; 5. The reasons for collecting the elements of the North Syrian landscape to invoke a sense of fertility, leisure, and triumphant celebration associated with the king. The attitude of the Assyrian hierarchy to the North Syrian natural landscape is revealed by textual allusions and pictorial references to its manifold floral and faunal elements for the Assyrians the area was wild, bounteous and diverse, a landscape so appealing that the kings were moved to recreate the floral and faunal plenitude of the periphery within the imperial heartland in the form of royal gardens and game parks as sites of relaxation and leisure for the Assyrian royal families. The relationship between the natural and cultural landscapes is embodied by the physical and pictorial reconstruction of the North Syrian landscape as a world that was diverse, fertile, and most importantly, appropriated and supplied by the king.

12

Harrison Jones 309193192

Figures

Figure 1 (Thomason 2001, fig. 1)

Figure 2 (Budge 1914, pl. 13)

13

Harrison Jones 309193192

Figure 3 (Budge 1914, pl. 18)

Figure 4 (Budge 1914, pl. 17)

14

Harrison Jones 309193192

Figure 5 (King 1915, fig. 36)

Figure 6 (King 1915, fig. 48)

15

Harrison Jones 309193192

Figure 7 (King 1915, fig. 75)

Figure 8 (Unger 1920, pl. 4)

16

Harrison Jones 309193192

Figure 9 (Barnett et al. 1998, pl. 357)

Figure 10 (Barnett et al. 1998, pl. 323)

17

Harrison Jones 309193192

Figure 11 (Barnett et al. 1998, pl. 410)

Figure 12 (Budge 1914, pl. 28)

18

Harrison Jones 309193192

Figure 13 (UVB 1934, pl. 12)

Figure 14 (Thomason 2001, fig. 16)

19

Harrison Jones 309193192

Figure 15 (Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1936, pl. 50)

Figure 16 (Barnett 1976, pl. 6)

20

Harrison Jones 309193192

Figure 17 (Botta and Flandin 18491950, pl. 114)

Figure 18 (Reade 1999, fig. 52)

21

Harrison Jones 309193192

Figure 19 (Reade 1999, fig. 80)

Figure 20 (Reade 1999, fig. 106)

22

Harrison Jones 309193192

Bibliography
Albenda, P. 1974. Grapevines in Ashurbanipal's Garden. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 215: 5-17. 1976. Landscape Bas-Reliefs in the Bit-Hilani of Ashurbanipal. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 224: 4972. 1977. Landscape Bas-Reliefs in the Bit-Hilani of Ashurbanipal(cont.). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 225: 2948. 1983. A Mediterranean Seascape from Khorsabad. Assur 3:3. Malibu: Undena. Anschuetz, K., R. Wilshusen, and C. Scheick. 2001. An archaeology of landscapes: Perspectives and directions. Journal of Archaeological Research, 9(2):157211. Auerbach, E. 1989. Emphasis and Eloquence in the Reliefs of Tiglath-pileser III. Iraq, 51: 79 84. Barnett, R.D. 1976. Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (668627 B.C.). London: Trustees of the British Museum. Barnett, R.D., E. Bleibtreu, and G. Turner. 1998. Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh. London: British Museum. Bleibtreu, E. 1980. Die Flora der neuassyrischen Reliefs: Eine Untersuchung zu den Orthostatenreliefs des 9.-7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Sonderband 1. Vienna: Institut fr Orientalistik der Universitt Wien. Botta, P.E. and E. Flandin. 1849-1950. Monument de Ninive. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Budge, E.A.W. 1914. Assyrian sculptures in the British Museum: reign of Ashur-nasir-pal. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Bunbury, J., and D. Jeffreys. 2011. Real and literary landscapes in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 21(1):6576. Cifarelli, M. 1998. Gesture and Alterity in the Art of Ashurna-sirpal II of Assyria. Art Bulletin, 80(2): 21028. Curtoni, R., and M. Beron. 2003. Perception, identity and meaning in the social and ritual construction of landscape: The Lihue Calel Hills, La Pampa, Argentina. Revista Chilena de Antropologa, (24). Evans, J. 2003. Environmental archaeology and the social order. Hove: Psychology Press.

23

Harrison Jones 309193192

Fleming, A. 2006. Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 16(3):267280. Fuchs, A. 1994. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Gttingen: Cuvillier. Groenewegen-Frankfort, H.A. 1951. Arrest and Movement: An Essay on Space and Time in the Representational Art of the Ancient Near East. London: Faber and Faber. Johnson, M. 2007. Ideas of landscape. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Johnston, R. 2008. Approaches to the perception of landscape. Archaeological Dialogues, 5:54 68. King, L.W. 1915. The bronze reliefs from the gates of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, B.C. 860825. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Liverani, M. 1979. The ideology of the Assyrian Empire. In M.T. Larsen (ed.) Power and propaganda: a symposium on ancient empires, Mesopotamia 7, pages 297317. Copenhagen: Akademisk. Marcus, M.I. 1987. Geography as an organizing principle in the imperial art of Shalmaneser III. Iraq 49:7790. 1995. Geography as visual ideology: landscape, knowledge and power in Neo-Assyrian Art. In M. Liverani (ed.) Neo-Assyrian Geography, Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5, pages 193202. Rome: Universit di Roma. Oppenheim, A.L. 1965. On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 24: 32833. Postgate, J.N. 1979. The economic structure of the Assyrian empire. In M.T. Larsen (ed.) Power and propaganda: a symposium on ancient empires, Mesopotamia 7, pages 193221. Copenhagen: Akademisk. Reade, J.E. 1979a. Narrative Composition in Assyrian Sculpture. Baghdader Mitteilungen 10: 52 110. 1979b. Ideology and Propaganda in Assyrian Art. In M. T. Larsen (ed.) Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, Mesopotamia 7, pages 32943. Copenhagen: Akademisk. 1980. Space, Scale and Significance in Assyrian Art. Baghdader Mitteilungen 11: 71-74. 1999. Assyrian Sculpture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Russel, J.M. 1991. Sennacherib's Palace without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University of Chicago.

24

Harrison Jones 309193192

Thomason, A.K. 2001. Representations of the North Syrian landscape in Neo-Assyrian art. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 323:6396. Thureau-Dangin, F. and M. Dunand. 1936. Til-Barsib. Paris: Geuthner. Tilley, C. 2004. Round barrows and dykes as landscape metaphors. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 14(2):185203. Unger, E. 1920. Die Wiederherstellung des Bronzetores von Balawat. Archaeologisches Institut de Deutschen Reichs. Athenisches Mitteilungen 44:79-101. UVB. 1934. Vorlufiger Bericht ber die von dem Deutschen Archologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgmeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka,Vol. 5. Berlin: Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft. van Rossenberg, E. 2003. Embedding material culture in perceptions of landscape. A contextual analysis of the deposition of bronzes in Northern Italy. In A. Brysbaert, N. de Bruijn, E. Gibson, A. Michael, and M. Monaghan, editors, SOMA 2002. Symposium On Mediterranean Archaeology. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of Postgraduate Researchers. University of Glasgow, Department of Archaeology, 15-17 February, 2002, Glasgow, Bar International Series 1142, pages 157164. Oxford: Archaeopress. Wfler, M. 1975. Nicht-Assyrer neuassyrischer Darstellungen. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 26. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker. Whitley, D.S. 2011. Introduction to rock art research. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc. Winter, I.J. 1981. Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in Neo-Assyrian Reliefs. Studies in Visual Communication, 7: 138. 1982. Art as Evidence for Interaction: Relations between the Assyrian Empire and North Syria. In H.-J. Nissen and J. Renger (eds.) Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und Kulturelle wechselbeziehungen im alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr, Berliner Beitrige zum Vorderen Orient 1, pages 35581. Berlin: Reimer. 1983 The Program of the Throne-Room of Assurnasirpal II. In P. O. Harper and H. Pittman (eds.), Essays in Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson, pages 1531. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. 1999. Tree(s) on the Mountain: Landscape and Territory on the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin of Agade. In L. Milano, S. de Martino, F M. Fales, and G. B. Lanfranchi (eds.), Landscapes: Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East, Part 1: Invited Lectures: Papers Pre- sented to the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Venezia 7-11 July 1997, History of the Ancient Near East, Monographs 3:1, pages 6372. Padua: Sargon.

25