fig.1 Lachish reliefs segment 1(Ussishkin, Conquest)
fig 2. Lachish reliefs segment 4 (Ussishkin, Conquest)
fig 3. Lachish reliefs segment 5 (Usshishkin, Conquest)
fig. 4. Lachish reliefs segment 6 (Ussishkin, Conquest)
This paper was originally prepared as part of the requirements for a doctoral seminar in ancient Near Eastern royal art, led by Gay Robins. It was presented in Philadelphia at the 1995 ASOR meeting. Several of the figures appearing in this article come from D. Ussishkin's fine volume on the reliefs and are used with permission granted by Prof. Ussishkin when I submitted the paper for publication in Israel Exploration Journal. Also, one figure comes from J. M. Russell's fine volume. I received permission from the U. of Chicago press to reprint the figure also when I attempted to have the paper published. If either Prof. Ussishkin or the U. of Chicago Press has any objection to my reprinting the figures here, please inform me and I will remove them immediately.
The article was subsequently rejected for publication by Israel Exploration Journal, for what I believe were rather flimsy reasons. In any case, the conclusions are radical but I invite the reader simply to look at the figures. They speak for themselves and the conclusions that follow are obvious and inescapable.
A Brief Reexamination of the Degree of Specificity in Sennacherib's Battle Reliefs of Lachish
by
Over the past twenty five years M. Wäfler (1975), D. Ussishkin (1980; 1982; 1990), and J. M. Russell (1991; 1993) have stressed the specificity of detail on the reliefs in Room XXXVI of Sennacherib's palace in Nineveh as they pertain to Lachish. 1 In this they have built on a seminal article by R. D. Barnett (1959). Russell, the most recent advocate of this view, delineated three categories of specificity in the reliefs: 1) topographical details, 2) costumes, and 3) architecture (1991:208). Elsewhere, he wrote, "Recent excavations at Tell ed-Duweir, ancient Lachish, have provided convincing evidence that Sennacherib was concerned with . . . constructing the image of a very particular place" (1993:64). It was "intended to be recognizable," being "so specific that it seems probable that anyone who had seen the city itself would recognize its image in the reliefs, whether or not that viewer could read the caption" (1993:64, 65, respectively). Similarly, Ussishkin has stressed the accuracy of the reliefs in depicting the general countryside and architecture of Iron Age Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir). Both concluded that the portrayal of the clothing of the deported inhabitants accurately rendered the actual clothing of the ancient Lachishites.
Several years ago, however, R. Jacoby has shown conclusively that the architectural details in the reliefs are not specific to Lachish but are drawn purely from Neo-Assyrian artistic convention (1991). She concluded that the Lachish reliefs were a "general siege and ramp scene" designed not to "reproduce in the reliefs an exact replica of reality but to portray in great detail the Assyrian siege technique" (1991:126, 130). Thus, she persuasively challenged the consensus regarding the conscious attempts of the Assyrian artists to depict Lachish accurately. Nevertheless, she maintained that features such as people, plunder, and topography in fact illustrate Lachish specifically (1991:113-15).
This study addresses the issue of the degree of specificity in the other two categories delineated by Russell, topography and clothing. It is neither a comprehensive analysis of Neo-Assyrian artistic technique, an introduction to that topic, nor a suggestion that ancient artists never accurately depicted the countryside, clothing and architecture of ancient peoples. It concludes that, after a comparison of these details with other reliefs in Sennacherib's Palace, the degree of specificity has been overstated. The topographical and clothing details are found on too many reliefs representing too many regions of the Fertile Crescent to conclude that they illustrate Lachish only. More likely, the topography and clothing derive from the artist's use of a variety of stock topography and attire common to humans throughout the western Fertile Crescent.
Topographical Details
According to Russell, in the Lachish reliefs "highly specific . . . scenery" obtains (1991:256). Similarly, Ussishkin wrote that the Assyrian artist has depicted the "hilly landscape of the Lachish area . . . in a conventional way" (1980:193). Two types of topographical details appear in the Lachish reliefs: the mountainous background, conventionally depicted by "fish-scales" in the background, and the flora (see figs. 1-4).
|
fig.1 Lachish reliefs segment 1(Ussishkin, Conquest) |
fig 2. Lachish reliefs segment 4 (Ussishkin, Conquest) |
|
fig 3. Lachish reliefs segment 5 (Usshishkin, Conquest) |
fig. 4. Lachish reliefs segment 6 (Ussishkin, Conquest) |
The flora, although conventionally sketched, generally resemble grapevines,
fig trees, and probably date-palm trees. 2 The grapevines
are drawn as small trees with full clusters and pentagonal leaves, similar
to actual grapevines (see fig. 2a).
 |
 |
 |
fig. 15a |
fig. 15b |
 fig. 15c |
The fig trees are accurately drawn with leaves of shape quite similar to actual fig trees and small well-drawn figs (see fig. 4a). The date-palms trees are shown with a thick stem and several fronds. Although the fronds somewhat resemble olive branches, the general shape of the tree resembles a date-palm (see fig. 4b). As Ussishkin noted, "If indeed this is an olive tree, it is rendered in a very schematic manner" (1982:94). Anyway, all three flora grow throughout the Fertile Crescent and probably only conventionally depict a piedmont or mountainous area. Indeed, I photgraphed similar flora on a trip to Syria in 1996. Compare figures 2a, 4a, and 4b with the flora that allegedly specifically point only to the Lachish area (figs. 15a, b, c, above). Moreover, in no way does the rendering exhaust the potential selection of flora found anywhere in the Levant. The oak tree, for instance, is absent, as are fruit trees.
Significantly, these topographical and floral features
appear on other reliefs in Sennacherib's palace, scenes that portray regions
far from Judah. Slab 10 from Room XIV (fig. 5), for instance, shows a city
named "Alammu" 3 near Musasir (1991:157-58).
fig. 5: Room XIV Slab 10 (Layard, Second Series, pl. 39) |
fig. 6: Court VI Slabs 67, 68 (Paterson, pl. 35) |
Here the same type of mountainous background appears. In addition, the
same rendering of grapevines, with large clusters and pentagonal leaves,
and date-palm trees obtain. 4 Although there are
no fig trees in this scene, slabs 67-68 from Court VI (fig. 6), identified
by the inscription as Balatai near Nineveh, show fig trees, along with
mountainous terrain, grapevines and date-palm trees. Compare figures 2a
with 5a, 4a with 6a, and 4b with 5b:
|
fig. 2a |
fig. 4a |
fig. 4b |
fig. 5a |
fig. 6a |
fig. 5b |
Therefore, without an inscription or some sort no viewer could distinguish Lachish from Balatai based on the topographical and floral features used in the reliefs.5 This conclusion is in escapable. Although this may be the general topography of the Lachish area, it is also the general topography of much of the Fertile Crescent. It cannot be concluded that the artist was making any effort to portray accurately the terrain of Lachish.
Costumes
Regarding the clothing of the Lachishites, Russell stated that they wear "highly specific costumes . . . to insure maximum recognizability," and thus foreign visitors "may have recognized their own people" (1991:256). However, a close study of the dress of both the men and women on all of the Sennacherib reliefs would suggest that peoples of regions far from Judah wore the same clothing, again making it difficult to conclude that the artist consciously sought to draw Lachishites as they really dressed.
The Men
The most indicative item of clothing on the male deportees is what Ussishkin called a "peculiar Judean headdress consisting of a scarf wound around the head with its free end hanging down to cover the ears" (1982:99; see also Wäfler 1975: 1:53-54; my figs. 2, 3, and 2b below).
fig. 2b. |
fig. 3a |
fig. 3b |
Also, the male deportees are barefoot, wear a skirt with a belt hanging between the legs, and have rounded, grizzled beards (fig. 2b). Some individuals approaching the king, however, are bareheaded. These men Barnett identified as "Hezekiah's men" (1959:163)(fig. 3a). Some of them are dressed differently than the capped deportees behind them (their cloaks are bare and without adornment and they do not wear a waistband). Those who are being stabbed through the breast (fig. 3 and 3b), however, bareheaded as "Hezekiah's men," are dressed as those with the "Judean" headdress. Also, the beards and faces of both bareheaded and capped men are identical. Thus, the clothing does not appear to differentiate class or place of origin.
Most significantly, men with the "Judean" headdress
are drawn on the walls of several rooms of Sennacherib's palace. First,
in Room XLIII (figs. 7, 8) the males wear the identical cap and similar
clothing.
fig. 7: Room XLIII Slabs 2,4,9,10.11.13.14 (Layard, Second Series, pl. 33) |
fig. 8: Room XLIII Slab 10 (Layard, Second Series, pl. 33). |
Also, compare figs 2b and 8a below.
|
fig. 2b. |
fig. 8a |
fig. 2c |
fig. 8b |
Unfortunately, there is no inscription exactly locating these scenes,
but Layard believed they rendered captives from Sennacherib's Eastern (Second)
campaign, 6 perhaps Elamites, because of the "Phrygian-type
bonnets the archers wear"
7 (fig. 7, lower register;
fig. 7a below).
fig. 7a
Paterson agreed (1915:10). Russell, on the other hand, took them as Westerners, but solely because of the "Judean" headdress (see also Wäfler 1975: 1:56-57; 8 Reade 1979:92). To account for the presence of both Judahites and Easterners on one scene, he argued that Room XLIII, like Courts VI and LXIV, depicted multiple regions of the Assyrian empire (1991:171; Reade 1979:93). Almost all the rooms in Sennacherib's palace, however, contain scenes from only one campaign (Layard 1853a:651; Reade 1979:91), and according to Russell, these are the only rooms in the entire palace that contain reliefs from more than one campaign (1991:169-70). Like Room XLIII, Russell ascribed the scenes in Court LXIV to more than one topic solely because of the "Judean" headdress. If we disregard the scenes of Court LXIV and Room XLIII, however, only Court VI contains scenes of more than one campaign. Significantly, Court VI was part of the main throne room complex (1991:265; 172, fig. 92), and may have been more encompassing than normal. Therefore, it is far more likely that Easterners, and only Easterners, appear in Room XLIII. Certainty is impossible, but a valid conclusion is that men of at least two different ethnic backgrounds wore the so called "Judean" headdress: Lachishites and Easterners of some sort.
Second, men with this headdress appear in Court VI
(figs. 9, 9b)(Paterson, pl. 81).
fig. 9
fig.
9a.
Again, Ussishkin and Barnett took these as Lachichites (Ussishkin
1982:130; Barnett 1959:164; see also Bleibtreu, 53-61). Problems
exist with this interpretation, however. Although the men do have
the same headdress, they wear the "Eastern" skirts, as well as boots and
leggings. Further, they have pointed, rather than rounded, beards.
Therefore, it is doubtful that these men can be identified as Lachishites
solely because of the headdress. They could just as easily interpreted
as another ethnic group who also wore the headdress.
Third, an Assyrian soldier wears the "Judean" headdress (fig. 10).
fig. 10: Assyrian Soldiers, unknown location (Paterson, pl.
99)
Barnett took this man as a Lachishite in Sennacherib's army and claimed that the "better characters from Lachish" became part of Sennacherib's bodyguard (1959:161). This soldier, however, may be an Assyrian, if one begins an interpretation with his clothing and beard and not the headdress. He may simply have picked up the headdress on a battlefield anywhere in the Assyrian empire. No other captive on the Lachish reliefs wears an Assyrian beard,9 so there is little reason to believe this soldier is a Judahite. True, he may have been, but there are other equally valid interpretations.
Fourth, slabs 14 and 15 from Room XXXVIII (fig. 11)
show men with this headdress.
fig.
11
fig. 11a
fig. 11, 11a: Room XXXVIII, slabs 14-15 (Russell, Palace,
fig. 115, p. 210).
Picture here is unclear, but more plain in Russell's volume.
They wear identical clothing as on the Lachish Reliefs, are barefoot, and the stereotypical mountains, date-palm trees and grapevines appear. But the presence of a river identifies the scene as a victory from Sennacherib's Second campaign (Russell 1991:161), not his Third Campaign. These captives are leaving the city, and therefore, belong not to Lachish but to some unidentified city to the East of Assyria. Are these 1) exiled Judahites, now leaving their new home, 2) indigenous occupants of this unnamed town, or 3) simply an artist's rendition of a typical captive? Clearly, an examination of all of the extant Sennacherib reliefs shows that every region of the Fertile crescent had human occupants who wore this headdress.
Although one could argue that these are all deported Judahites, this is by no means a necessary conclusion. Indeed, it seems rather forced in light of the evidence presented above. Other interpretations exist. Elamites sent to Judah, for instance, could have been drawn on the Lachish reliefs. Or the artist could have been drawing his neighbors in the reliefs. In any case, it cannot be concluded that the clothing is strictly that of Lachishites or Judahites or that the artist has consciously rendered accurately the siege of Lachish. There is clearly no element of clothing on the men peculiar to Lachishites, nor could any ancient viewer, or modern viewer for that matter, recognize them as Lachishites without the inscription.
Women
In the Lachish reliefs, the women wear a long dress
and a shawl (fig. 3; fig. 3c below).
fig. 3c |
 fig. 12a |
Without doubt, the Lachish reliefs have been given an overly decisive role in the interpretation of the clothing on the deportees. A different starting point or greater emphasis on other reliefs could yield significantly different conclusions. If we begin, for instance, with Slabs 14 and 15 from Room XXXVIII, we could conclude that the headdress was the peculiar trademark of Easterners or the inhabitants of that town. In this case, the deportees on the Lachish reliefs could be interpreted as representations of Easterners being reexiled, not Lachishites or Judahites. On the other hand, if we conclude that people from several areas of the Fertile Crescent are depicted with the headdress, then this article of clothing is no longer peculiarly "Judean" and there is no certainty that Judahites or Lachishites dressed this way.
Perhaps the clothing of the men and women in the Lachish reliefs is meant to be a stereotypical depiction, not of Judahites, but of bedouins. On both the Lachish reliefs and the sculpture in Room XLIII the men with the headdress are shown leading camels. Moreover, a scene from an undetermined location shows a woman dressed as a "Lachishite" leading a camel (figure 13).11
fig. 13: unknown location (Layard, Monuments of Nineveh,
pl. 61)
Although uncertain, this conclusion fits the evidence better than the conclusion that these reliefs show Lachishites or Judahites. I am more inclined, however, to conclude that the individuals in the Lachish reliefs are merely stereotypical renderings of conquered peoples.
Conclusion
Given the evidence elucidated from a comparison of the Lachish reliefs with other reliefs in Sennacherib's palace, the conclcusion is inescapable: the details in topography and clothing have not in any way been drawn to depict specifically ancient Lachishites or Judahites. The Lachish reliefs omit certain flora that one would have expected had Lachish been accurately depicted; all other details of topography and flora are found throughout the Levant and do not reflect any effort by the artists to depict the region of Lachish. Similarly, costumes found on other reliefs in Sennacherib's palace, depicting people of regions far from Palestine closely resemble those of the "Lachishites," warranting grave doubts about the degree of specificity in the Lachish reliefs. The details on the reliefs appear to be the product of Assyrian artistic convention and license not eyewitness descriptions or drawings based on written accounts. Therefore, without the inscription, no one, past or present, could have recognized these reliefs as the siege and destruction of Lachish. Despite the weight of scholarship in name and achievement that has argued or accepted that these reliefs accurately portray ancient Judahites, this conclusion is erroneous. If any aspects of Sennacherib's battle reliefs accurately depict either ancient Lachishites or Judahites, they have yet to be identified by modern scholars. The reliefs speak for themselves.
Bibliography
Albenda, P.
1974 Grapevines in Ashurbanipal's
Garden. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research
215:5-17.
Barnett, R. D.
1959 The Siege of Lachish, Israel Exploration Journal 8:161-64.
1985 Lachish, Ashkelon and the Camel: A Discussion
of its Use in Southern Palestine.
Pp. 15-30 in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron
Ages, edited by J. N. Tubb.
London, Institute of Archaeology.
Bleibtreu, E.
1991 Grisly Assyrian Record of Torture and Death.
Biblical
Archaeology Review
17,1:53-61.
Jacoby, R.
1991 The Representation and Identification of Cities
on Assyrian Reliefs.
Israel
Exploration Journal 41:112-31.
Layard, A. H.
1849 Monuments of Nineveh from Drawings Made on the Spot, London,
1853a Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. London
1853b A Second Series of Monuments from Nineveh. London
Na'aman, N.
1979 Sennacherib's Conquest of Judah and the Date
of the LMLK Stamps.
Vetus
Testamentum 29:61-86.
Paterson, A.
1915 Palace of Sinacherib. The Hague.
Reade, J. E.
1979 Narrative Composition in Assyrian Sculpture.
Baghdader
Mitteilungen 10:52-
110.
Russell, J. M.
1991 Sennacherib's Palace Without Rival at Nineveh.
Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
1993 Sennacherib's Lachish Narratives. Pp. 55-73
in Narrative and Event in Ancient
Art, edited by P. J. Holladay. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ussishkin, D
1980 The "Lachish Reliefs"and the City of Lachish,
Israel
Exploration Journal 30:174-
195;
1982 The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib, Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University.
1990 The Assyrian Attack on Lachish: The Archaeological
Evidence from the
Southwest Corner of the Site. Tel Aviv 17:53-84.
Wäfler, M.
1975 Nicht-assyrer neuassyrischer Darstellungen.
2 Volumes. Neukirchen-Vluyn,
Neukirchener Verlag.
Notes
1) For drawings of the Lachish Reliefs now in the British Museum, see Ussishkin 1982. For a floor plan of Sennacherib's palace, see Russell 1991:172, fig. 92; for a diagram of the reliefs of Room XXXVI in situ, see Russell 1991:200-201, fig. 108. In addition, for Sennacherib's military campaigns, see Russell 1991:153-69; for the Third campaign to Syria-Palestine in particular, see N. Na'aman 1979:61-86.
2) Ussishkin cautiously regarded them as olive trees (1982:94).
3) Apparently, only the URU sign is missing.
4) On the grapevines, P. Albenda already noted their presence at -Allamu. She wrote, "On another series of reliefs dealing with a similar geographic region, outside a city identified as "Alammu", a vineyard with the same vine culture is partially visible" (1974:6).
5) Although the scenes from Court VI also show date-palm trees with protrusions of some sort (probably dates), one can hardly believe the viewer could recognize this as Balatai from this detail.
6) For details of this campaign, see Russell 1991:155-56.
7) 1853b, description of pl. 33. Note the mistake in Layard's text: these reliefs came from Room XLIII not Room LXIII.
8) Wäfler believed that the artist mistakenly portrayed a Judahite in an Elamite scene.
9) Although at least one of the fighters on the walls has an Assyrian-type helmet.
10) Note also the same stereotypical mountains and date-palm trees. Women are drawn in various attire, depending on the scene (fig. 13; also Layard 1853b: pl.18).
11) Although others dressed differently, and without the headdress, are shown riding camels (see Layard 1849, pl. 57).