Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-kjzhn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-09T16:31:24.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE INTERVISUALITY OF ANZÛ IN NEO-ASSYRIAN MYTHOLOGIES OF KINGSHIP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2025

Glynnis Maynard*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intertextual linkages between Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions and mythological narratives have significantly contributed to our understanding of royal self-presentation and historicization. Less explored, however, are how such linkages may be interpreted and visualized within royal art. In this paper, I propose an intervisual connection between Ninurta mythologies and Assyrian royal lion hunts by unpacking modes of display and interaction embedded between image, text, and lived experience in the palace art of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. Intervisuality was arguably deployed as an innovative strategy to craft a sophisticated connection between royal and divine kingship. I explore how Anzû, a mythological adversary of Ninurta that embodies chaos and disorder, was conceptualized and manifested across media, including cylinder seals and in relief art. Consequently, the paper displaces the typical focus given to the Assyrian king by instead investigating the roles of animals and monsters in upholding royal narratives. I argue that the form and actions of Anzû as embodied and performed in objects act as powerful symbolic referents that anchor its transformed image in royal hunt narratives. In conclusion, I consider why Ashurbanipal may have employed visual references to Anzû in his palace art.

التداخل البصري لأنزو في الأساطير الآشورية الحديثة عن الملكية

التداخل البصري لأنزو في الأساطير الآشورية الحديثة عن الملكية

بقلم: جلينيس مينارد

لقد ساهم تحديد الإشارات النصية إلى السرديات الأسطورية في النقوش الملكية الآشورية الحديثة بشكل كبير في فهمنا للعرض الذاتي الملكي والتوثيق التاريخي. والأقل استكشافًا هو كيف تم تفسير مثل هذه الإشارات وتمثيلها في الأعمال الفنية الملكية. في هذه الورقة، أقترح وجود صلة بين أساطير نينورتا وصيد الأسود الملكية التي تم تصويرها بصريًا في فن قصر الملك آشور بانيبال في نينوى. يمكن القول إن هذا الارتباط استخدم لإنشاء استعارة بصرية عميقة تدعم الملكية الملكية والإلهية. ولكن، بدلاً من التركيز فقط على الملك، أقوم بالتحقيق في دور الوحوش الأسطورية والحيوانات الخطيرة في التحقق من صحة التصوير البصري للقوة الملكية والملكية الآشورية. كما أستكشف كيف يظهر أنزو، العدو الأسطوري لنينورتا الذي يمثل الفوضى، في الفن الآشوري الرسمي، بما في ذلك الأختام الأسطوانية والنقوش البارزة. وأنا اقترح بأن شكل وأفعال أنزو كما نراها في مثل هذه الأشياء تعمل كرموز قوية ترسخ صورتها المتحولة في سرديات الصيد الملكية. وفي الختام، أناقش الأسباب التي قد تكون قد دفعت آشور بانيبال إلى استخدام الإشارات البصرية إلى أنزو في فن قصره.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The British Institute for the Study of Iraq (Gertrude Bell Memorial)

Introduction

In her foundational paper on Neo-Assyrian cylinder seals, Irene J. Winter (Reference Winter and Uehlinger2000) proposed a hierarchical image-system for iconography found on both cylinder seals and royal palace reliefs, where seal-holders operating in official political or administrative capacities choose visual motifs found on palace reliefs in order to reference the kingly person.Footnote 1 Such a formulation for the Neo-Assyrian period was likely influenced by arguments of earlier scholars who wondered whether the narrative scenes on cylinder seals were adapted from paintings or reliefs in palaces and templesFootnote 2 (Barrelet Reference Barrelet1970; Paley Reference Paley and Kelly-Buccellati1986: 217; Porada 1980:10; Reference Porada1993: 568). While it is certainly compelling for particular cases, Winter’s proposal somewhat masks the semiotic influence of cylinder seal iconography and perhaps overemphasizes the role of palace relief art across the roughly three centuries of Neo-Assyrian visual cultureFootnote 3 (934-612 B.C.E). The primacy at times attributed to monumental objects can implicitly perpetuate traditional Western art historical expectations placed on Mesopotamian art.Footnote 4 Scholars have since shown that the visual imagery strategically employed by royals and officials in their self-presentation was borrowed from across media types regardless of scale.Footnote 5 This widening interpretation invites further analysis on the roles and uses of images in Neo-Assyrian visual culture, specifically as it affected the planning and execution of that icon of monumental art par excellence: the palace relief programme. Rather than focusing on the self-presentation of Assyrian kings, instead I consider here how non-human actors, specifically animals and monsters,Footnote 6 inform the production and reception of the royal image. As a case-study, I explore the visualization of a famous mythological being in Neo-Assyrian court culture, the Anzû, and its thematic and formal connection to lions in royal hunt narratives.

The Anzû and the lion appear throughout this period on various media and at multiple scales: from miniature renditions on cylinder seals to over life-size reliefs complementing royal architectural programs. Despite the concomitant appearance of lions and the Anzû in similar contexts of image consumption and proposed intertextual parallels between descriptions of royal lion hunts and the Ninurta-Anzû myth, comparatively little has been done in considering any concrete visual relationship between the two subjects. Lion imagery as a visual corpus has a rich history in Mesopotamia, extending back into the Uruk period (ca. 3900-3100 B.C.E.). In the Neo-Assyrian period, the evolving relationship between royal administrative stamp seals depicting the king stabbing a lion and similar compositions found on the palace reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II (r. 883-859 B.C.E.) and Ashurbanipal (r. 668-631 B.C.E.) indicate that this motif was conceptualized at multiple scales (Nadali Reference Nadali, Fales and Lanfranchi2010). Anzû imagery is less studied for the Neo-Assyrian period, with greater attention paid to its appearance in textual sources (Annus Reference Annus2001; Vogelzang Reference Vogelzang1988). Its sole surviving appearance in monumental form is from a pair of reliefs located within a doorway of the Ninurta Temple at Nimrud (Reade Reference Reade2002). Despite a general hesitancy in its identification, many scholars have nevertheless labelled it as such on cylinder seals in which this creature appears (Annus Reference Annus2001; Green Reference Green, Finkel and Geller1997).Footnote 7 Its Early Dynastic predecessor is the Imdugud, which appears as a heraldic lion-headed bird across southern Mesopotamia, including the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ at Girsu (modern Telloh) and on a copper frieze adorning the Temple of Ninhursag at Tell al’Ubaid. It is still unclear exactly when and why the form of this monster shifted between the third and first millennium BCE (Watanabe Reference Watanabe and DiPaolo2018).

From a thematic perspective, both creatures signify the chaotic environment located outside of ordered urban society, and feature prominently in narratives which reaffirm divine and royal authority. To that end, I suggest that Ashurbanipal and his court administration knowingly drew upon mythological imagery when designing his palace relief programme, specifically that which depicted Ninurta battling the Anzû. Mostly known from glyptic examples, this mythological scene was a recurring choice on officials’ seals (Watanabe Reference Watanabe and Watanabe1999). It arranges the hunted figure of Anzû in a rare physical position, which is echoed by particular lions on the reliefs. Tracking this reciprocity via visual composition and figural gesture, I explore the reliefs as a polysemicFootnote 8 and intervisual product that crafted deep links between temporal and mythical narratives of kingship.

New image studies and Neo-Assyrian visual culture

While the influence of the portable arts has long been established elsewhere in Mesopotamian art history,Footnote 9 such studies on the Neo-Assyrian period were initially slow to form, perhaps due to the early framing of how visual culture production works in imperial polities. Many of these foundational arguments were formulated in the late 1970s and 1980s, and understood Neo-Assyrian political history as primarily rooted in the actions of a single individual (the king),Footnote 10 and its visual expression best elaborated by royal sculpture and architecture. Consequently, studies on palace relief programs and visual communication focused on the relationship between propaganda, historical narrative, and royal ideology (Reade Reference Reade and Larsen1979a; Winter Reference Winter1981). While more recent treatments focus on other aspects such as narrative strategies (Gillman 2015; Watanabe Reference Watanabe, Brown and Feldman2014), the depiction of non-Assyrians (Cifarelli Reference Cifarelli1998; Reed Reference Reed, Cheng and Feldman2007), or artistic production (Aker Reference Aker, Cheng and Feldman2007), they nevertheless build on these earlier iconographic interpretations. Studies that problematize the outright political functioning of palace reliefs have since emerged from the mid-2000s (Ataç Reference Ataç2010; Portuese and Pallavidini Reference Portuese and Pallavidini2022).

Similarly to how scholarship on Neo-Assyrian relief art tends to preserve its own autonomy, Stein (Reference Stein, Gansell and Shafer2020: 172) argues that seals have also historically been treated as a “canonical, self-contained body of evidence”; moreover, she maintains that seals remain “separate but occasionally useful to the study of archaeology, texts, and other types of art.” This is despite common consensus that cylinder and stamp seals are incredibly useful vehicles for spreading highly specific visual motifs and compositions, arguably more than imagery stationed inside temples and palaces.Footnote 11 The infinite possibilities of its replication via sealings distributes agency of not only the image itself but also—in the case of inscribed sealsFootnote 12 —the person to whom the seal is attached (Winter Reference Winter, Osbourne and Tanner2007). It is curious that direct comparisons between Neo-Assyrian cylinder seals and palace reliefs are rare (Winter Reference Winter and Uehlinger2000; Nadali Reference Nadali, Fales and Lanfranchi2010), when identifying the roles and tracking the durability of images across media in time and space has always been an interest to scholars of ancient Southwest Asia.Footnote 13 The wide variety of terms applied to the articulation of connections between images—ranging from metaphor to quotation, appropriation to adaptation—underlines the effort to show how images both contribute to and are shaped by intricate visual networks. With the emergence of the so-called ‘iconic turn’ in the late 1990s and early 2000s,Footnote 14 new theoretical frameworks to discuss image relations have emerged under the designations of intervisuality (Mirzoeff Reference Mirzoeff1999), interpictoriality (Isekenmeier Reference Isekenmeier2013), and intericonicity (Arrivé Reference Arrivé2015).Footnote 15 Interpictoriality and intericonicity in particular have been used rather interchangeably to describe the relatedness of images to each other and the mechanism(s) and rationale(s) by which their relation occurs. Applications of these particular frameworks to Mesopotamian art are a recent and highly productive endeavorFootnote 16 (Eppihimer Reference Eppihimer2019; Nadali and Portuese Reference Nadali, Portuese and Bracker2020; Portuese Reference Portuese, Pallavidini and Portuese2020), and there is further scope for its exploration in Neo-Assyrian visual culture.

Utilizing an intervisual framework expands interpictorial or intericonic perspectives to the entire intermedial field of visual culture (Isekenmeier Reference Isekenmeier2013: 27). It is inherently multimodal, reflecting how when images are encountered in different media contexts, they exploit multiple resources to construct meaning (Bruhn and Schirrmacher Reference Bruhn, Schirrmacher, Bruhn and Schirrmacher2022: 3). Examples of multimodal communication in Mesopotamian art abound, from statues and reliefs accompanied by captions or narratives to cylinder seals inscribed with dedicatory and/or genealogical information. The intervisual explication of such objects can thus be formulated from the aesthetic and sensorial qualities of their materials, the spatial and temporal contexts which they inhabit, and the semiotic significance ascribed to them. With such examples in mind, intervisual studies work to frame the act of visuality as a product of multiple perceptive modesFootnote 17 that stem from simultaneous interactions with texts, pictures, and materials (Isekenmeier and Bodola Reference Isekenmeier, Bodola, Bodola and Isekenmeier2017), media which themselves are subject to “different conventions and channels of transmission” (Wolf Reference Wolf, Herman, Jahn and Ryan2010: 253). This acknowledgement of the inherent modal entanglement between text, image, and material is a fruitful framework for the study of Mesopotamian objects, which are still at times subject to logocentric or purely iconographic frameworks of analysis (cf. Bahrani Reference Bahrani, Watts and Knappett2022: 129-131).

As Melissa Eppihimer (Reference Eppihimer2019: 21) notes in her study on the interpictorial and intervisual possibilities of Akkadian imagery in later Assyrian art, an intervisual product may contain within it any degree of specific reference to another image or general association with a conceptual model intended by its maker. While a viewer might successfully identify some of the maker’s original intent, the product instead might invoke specific images in the viewer’s mind that may not be related but were nevertheless triggered by a small component or its entire schema. Such invocations could be informed not only by memories of other objects or textual sources, but also via recollections of oral performances or similar lived experiences. Thus, while Eppihimer (Reference Eppihimer2019: 187) doubts the direct interpictorial quotation of Akkadian contest imagery into the palace art of Sargon II, she does suggest the prospect of an intervisual allusion more generally made between heroes and lions from Akkadian into Assyrian art. This does not preclude, however, the possibility that Neo-Assyrian palace relief programmes may have encoded esoteric references to the visual past, particularly since their layout and content were planned and executed via the intellectual and skilled efforts of court scholars and master craftsmen (Ataç Reference Ataç2010; Moorey Reference Moorey1994: 34-35; SAA XIII: xiii-xiv). As their comprehension was affected by varying levels of social experience and cultural knowledge, Neo-Assyrian palace relief programmes are a particularly rich avenue for intervisual study.

Intervisuality is also strategic in the sense that its modalities may uphold or reject convention as well as negotiate relationships to identity and memory, in the circumstances between and including its production and reception (Arrivé Reference Arrivé2015: 11). Successful comprehension of its visual code might serve as a criterion of social inclusion, marking shared cultural and/or intellectual knowledge. Exploring differing modes of visual comprehension, Karen Sonik (Reference Sonik, Brown and Feldman2014: 284) discusses the image of Ninurta battling Anzû on the doorway relief panel from Nimrud as a polysemic image that simultaneously embodies multiple versions of Ninurta from written sources, including his appearances “as a famous monster-wrangler, a hero-god extraordinaire, and also as a model of human kingship.” The production of palace reliefs can also activate temporal and geographic scales across royal visual programmes: Nadali and Portuese (Reference Nadali, Portuese and Bracker2020) compare the lion hunt reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II and Ashurbanipal and track how Ashurbanipal, a ‘known antiquarian’,Footnote 18 preserved, modified, and substituted earlier motifs to create his own unique version of royal hunting ritual. They acknowledge that these correspondences “can be diverse, shifting from simple to complex quotation, transformation and re-adaptation of images” (2020: 141). For Neo-Assyrian art, this fluidity is one that is equally informed by gesture and pose as much as it is by the flexible use of accoutrements in determining these correspondences. Far from being solely applicable to humans and the gods, monsters and animals also participate in this flexible making of meaning. As a monster emblematic of disorder, Anzû is a productive figure to consider as an intervisual motif embodied though image, text, and experience.

Anzû in the time of Ashurbanipal

By the Neo-Assyrian period, the Old Babylonian Ningirsu myth known as Bin šar dadmē ‘son of the king of habitations’ had received an extended revamp to some 720 lines of text and shifted the protagonist’s role to Ninurta (Dalley Reference Dalley1989: 203). In the Standard Babylonian version of the myth, Anzû is described as a lion-bird with the head, forelegs and body of a lion and the wings, hind leg talons, and feathered tail of a bird. At first a trusted doorkeeper of the god Enlil, one day Anzû steals Enlil’s Tablet of Destinies and carries the tablet away to its mountain lair. As a symbol of cosmic order and divine rulership, the Tablet of Destinies embodies the gods’ legitimate right to rule (Sonik Reference Sonik and Wilhelm2012). Anzû’s theft thus creates a crisis within the divine hierarchy, as whoever possesses the Tablet of Destinies can claim authority over the gods. Enlil asks Adad, then Girra, then Šara, to retrieve his tablet and they all refuse before finally Ninurta agrees to go. After losing their first battle,Footnote 19 Ninurta defeats Anzû by calling the storm wind to make Anzû’s wings falter, which allows Ninurta to cut off Anzû’s wings and pierce its heart with an arrow. He retrieves the Tablet of Destinies for Enlil, thereby restoring divine order (Watanabe Reference Watanabe2002: 131). The updated Standard Babylonian version contained multiple repetitive sections to aid in the mnemonic recall and possible oral performativity of key plot points in the story, such as the search among the gods for a worthy opponent to Anzû. Neo-Assyrian versions of the text were found at Nineveh, Tarbiṣu, and Sultantepe, all of which Dalley (Reference Dalley1989: 203) dates to the 7th century BCE. Other mythological attestations of Anzû at this time include its appearance in Erra and Ishum, as well as via the preservation of the Sumerian Lugal-e and Angim myths, both of which were present in the ‘library’ of Ashurbanipal (Watanabe Reference Watanabe2002: 78-79). The preservation and circulation of myths involving Anzû could have thus become part of the wider scholarly and ritual environment at Nineveh, expressed not only through continued cuneiform production and oral performance, but also perhaps visually through the royal body and palace relief programmes.

Furthermore, some scholars have identified connections between Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions and Ninurta mythology to suggest that some Assyrian kings may have deliberately emulated aspects of the god (Maul Reference Maul and Watanabe1999: 210; Portuese Reference Portuese, Pallavidini and Portuese2020: 131). For example, Ashurbanipal describes his conquest over Elam with the phrase ‘I flattened (it) like the Deluge’ (Akk. abūbāniš aspun), a power otherwise only given to Ninurta or to other storm deities (RINAP 5: 227, r. 2; Annus Reference Annus2001: xxi). The king’s body and image in Assyrian texts can also be described as of ‘the flesh of the gods’ (Akk. šēr ilāne) (Gansell Reference Gansell and Nadali2016: 90). According to a ritual commentary,Footnote 20 Ashurbanipal symbolically reenacted some of Ninurta’s own exploits as part of his royal investiture (Maul Reference Maul and Watanabe1999: 211). Other aspects of Ninurta mythology were made visual, as Anzû was a recurring choice of doorkeeper for Ashurbanipal’s temple renovations, including at the Ešarra (Assur), Emašmaš (Nineveh), Eḫulḫul (Harran), and Egašankalamma (Arbela) temples (RINAP 5: 3, i. 18-20). Perhaps at first glance an atypical choice of apotropaic being for stationing at entrances, Anzû was clearly deemed an appropriate choice to guard the homes of multiple deities. It is unclear whether Anzû was also specifically associated with guarding the Tablet of Destinies in this context (Pongratz-Leisten Reference Pongratz-Leisten, Finkbeiner, Dittmann and Hauptmann1995: 554). Regardless, new images of Anzû were actively produced as part of visual programmes sustaining divine beneficence via the royal obligation to maintain temple complexes.

Ashurbanipal’s famous self-identification as a scholarFootnote 21 may have played out in subtle ways in his own visual programme at his ‘North Palace’ at Nineveh. Built between 646 and 643 B.C.E, it was the last in a series of Sargonid capital palaces built on the Nineveh citadel (Reade Reference Reade, Ebeling, Meissner, Weidner, von Soden and Edzard2000: 417). While it is only partially excavated and remains somewhat poorly understood, the North Palace nevertheless retained the royal Neo-Assyrian aesthetic tradition of lining its corridors and rooms with relief panels. Reliefs depicting scenes of lion hunts are located in Room C, which was a connecting corridor from the central courtyard, and in the western portico that included entrance Room S, and S1, which was some type of architectural space possibly located above Room S at ground level (Kertai Reference Kertai2015a: 179). While these rooms were ‘visible’ in the sense that viewers would have presumably encountered this imagery when either entering the palace from an external area or inner courtyard,Footnote 22 it remains difficult to pinpoint the actual or intended audience(s) of the North Palace reliefs. There were certainly many different kinds of people present in a Neo-Assyrian palace at any given time beyond the royal family, from foreign dignitaries and envoys bearing tribute (Winter Reference Winter1993: 36; Gansell Reference Gansell and Nadali2016: 90) to magnates and scribes conducting administrative and/or economic activities (Russell Reference Russell1991: 231-2; Kertai and Groß Reference Kertai and Groß2019). However, using a conceptual distinction between ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’ in the palace, Ataç (Reference Ataç2010: 89) has postulated that in Ashurnasirpal II’s earlier Northwest palace reliefs at Nimrud,Footnote 23 the primary audience was the king and court officials who were responsible for creating and shaping the imagery itself. By the time of Ashurbanipal, relief art had at least 200 years to develop in complexity (Larsen Reference Larsen, Finkel and Simpson2020: 123), and it is possible that esoteric interpretations remained throughout the development of visual historical narratives (Collins Reference Collins, Brown and Feldman2014: 624),Footnote 24 albeit articulated differently than in previous palace programs.

To that end, scholarship on Ashurbanipal’s lion reliefs has mainly sought to establish how best to ‘read’ and understand this imagery. The visual construction of Ashurbanipal’s role(s) in the lion hunts has been broadly examined (Aker Reference Aker, Cheng and Feldman2007; Reade Reference Reade and Porter2005; Watanabe Reference Watanabe and Prosecký1998, Reference Watanabe2002, Reference Watanabe, Brown and Feldman2014). Chikako Watanabe (Reference Watanabe, Brown and Feldman2014: 345-6) suggests that continuous interplay between ‘linear’ and ‘centric’ narratives are intended to create a semi-historical, strategically constructed picture of Assyrian kingship and royal ritual. Visual accounts of Ashurbanipal’s lion hunts reflect both a linear progression of events, such as in sequences of caged to killed lions, and centric arrangements composed of multiple events performing outside of historical time, which emphasize the king’s divinely bestowed ability to impose order over a chaotic environment, here personified by the lion [fig. 1]. Weissert (Reference Weissert, Parpola and Whiting1997a) suggests these reliefs narrate a particular royal lion hunt that took place in a Nineveh arena.Footnote 25 Lions are described as ‘tragic heroes’ in emotional relation to the king in the hunt narrative (Watanabe Reference Watanabe2002: 146), invoking empathic human response (Sonik Reference Sonik and Kipfer2017: 242). Additional attention has been drawn to the ‘imaginative’ portrayal of defeated lions, in which they are shown bleeding out onto the earth or coughing up blood, relating this to a uniquely Assyrian brand of ‘comic-horror’ also seen in the torture of Assyrian prisoners (Reade Reference Reade and Porter2005: 23-4). Negative, violent imagery in general—in which Neo-Assyrian palace reliefs are well-versed—can also act as neurological stimuli, capturing the attention and recollection of viewers (Nadali & Portuese Reference Nadali, Portuese and Bracker2020: 138).

Figure 1. Gypsum wall relief from room S1 of the North Palace at Nineveh (645-635 B.C.E.), which shows successive phases of the royal lion hunt. In the second register, Ashurbanipal hunts on foot. BM 124886-7. Author’s own photo

Regarding the thematic interpretation of Ashurbanipal’s lion reliefs, Watanabe (Reference Watanabe2002: 79-81) and Annus (Reference Annus2002: 102-8) have drawn connections to Ninurta-Anzû mythology. While this paper proposes that there are intervisual relationships between hunted lions and the hunted Anzû, Watanabe and Annus instead ground their thematic comparison by focusing on intertextual relationships between the Anzû myth and Assyrian royal inscriptions.Footnote 26 There are three suggested connections: firstly, a giš nar’amtu, a special weapon used to kill lions, is attested on the so-called ‘Broken Obelisk’ from Nineveh that is attributed to the Middle Assyrian ruler Tiglath-Pileser I (r. 1114-1076 B.C.E.).Footnote 27 Nar’amtu stems from the verb ru”umu ‘to cut off’, which is used in the Akkadian version of the Anzû myth to describe Ninurta’s action of cutting off Anzû’s wings (Anzû II: 110, III: 11; Watanabe Reference Watanabe and Prosecký1998: 442). Secondly, Assyrian kings hunted lions in special ‘open’ chariots (giš gigir pattūte), described in numerous royal inscriptions,Footnote 28 mimicking the actions of Ninurta in the Angim hymn,Footnote 29 who returned to Nippur in his chariot with the bodies of eleven conquered monsters. Thirdly, Ashurbanipal is shown on his palace reliefs hunting on foot,Footnote 30 and earlier Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions describe hunting lions ina šēpīya lassamāte ‘on my swift feet’.Footnote 31 The use of the word lassamātu is associated with the cultic lismu-footrace that commemorates Ninurta’s victory over Anzû (Watanabe 1998: 444, Reference Watanabe and DiPaolo2018: 34). These intertextual examples suggest that beyond merely hunting lions, Ashurbanipal is also connecting his exercise of kingship to that of Ninurta’s actions in the Anzû myth. Watanabe (Reference Watanabe2002: 145) mentions that the lion can represent mythological figures along the lines of Anzû and other enemies of Ninurta, as a scapegoat whose defeat endorses the overarching royal narrative of imposing order over chaos. It is also argued that such allusions to mythological literature are found elsewhere among palace reliefs at Nineveh, for example the parallel between the treatment of Humbaba’s head from Tablet 5 of the Epic of Gilgamesh and the transport of the Elamite king Teumman’s head in Ashurbanipal’s Battle of Til-Tuba reliefs from Sennacherib’s Southwest palace (Bonatz Reference Bonatz, Collon and George2004).

One common thread throughout these iconographical and intertextual explanations is the central importance of Ashurbanipal, from his explicit actions to minute changes in dress and accoutrements between relief panels, as informing and driving the overall meaning of his lion hunt reliefs. But what about the other main protagonist on these reliefs, or, from an Assyrian perspective, the antagonist? Apart from describing these lions as comically horrific or heroically emotive, how else might artistic decisions of physical gesture or motion and compositional arrangement inform our understanding of these reliefs?

Anzû as an intervisual subject

The visualization of the Anzû myth has been proposed as one of the few identifiable mythological scenes in Mesopotamian art (Green Reference Green, Finkel and Geller1997). When scholars do point out any visual examples of the Anzû myth, they cite its appearance generally on Neo-Assyrian linear-style cylinder seals of the 9th and 8th centuries and specifically on the relief from the Ninurta temple at Nimrud (Watanabe Reference Watanabe and Prosecký1998: 442; Winter Reference Winter and Uehlinger2000: 74) [fig. 2].Footnote 32 Additionally, the temple relief has been previously regarded as the blueprint for cylinder seals depicting the myth (Kolbe Reference Kolbe1981: 75).Footnote 33 Again, the citations of Anzû imagery in relation to the lion reliefs are seemingly made at a thematic level, but when compared to visual examples of Anzû on cylinder seals with the Ninurta temple relief, they are actually quite different. The Ninurta temple relief, which likely depicts NinurtaFootnote 34 battling with the AnzûFootnote 35 , arranges the Anzû such that its body is in profile, wings behind its body and forelegs in front, as its twists its neck backwards to roar at its assailant. This particular poseFootnote 36 also occurs on a Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal inscribed with the name of Ištar-balāṭa-ēreš, governor of Kilizu, a province in the Assyrian heartland [fig. 3].

Figure 2. Gypsum wall relief (BM 124572) from the Temple of Ninurta at Nimrud (Kalḫu) which likely depicts Ninurta battling Anzû (865-860 B.C.E.). H: 240.7 cm, W: 362.7 cm. Drawing by Kyra Kaercher

Figure 3. Impression of chalcedony cylinder seal. 9th-7th centuries B.C.E., unprovenanced. H: 4.05 cm, D: 1.6 cm. BM 135752. After Collon Reference Collon2001: no. 291, pg. 151. © The Trustees of the British Museum

However, the composition of Anzû on most linear-style cylinder sealsFootnote 37 diverges slightly from the oft-cited Ninurta temple example and could represent an alternative conceptualization of Anzû’s actions in the Ninurta-Anzû myth. On these seals, the Anzû’s hind legs are shown in profile, and its wings and forelegs separate from each other and fully extend outwards [fig. 4a-c]. The presentation of wings on either side of the body is normally reserved for figures that appear in fully frontal form, such as female divinities, or en face (front+profile), such as daimons who act as beneficent protectors and gatekeepers (Asher-Greve Reference Asher-Greve2003; Bahrani Reference Bahrani2001; Sonik Reference Sonik, Feliu, Llop, Millet Albà and Sanmartín2013b).Footnote 38 Its twisted profile, complete with its outstretched paws and roaring maw, highlights its monstrous nature in comparison to the orderly figure of Ninurta, who appears in full profile.Footnote 39 This juxtaposition in body language between a god (whose actions are sanctioned) and a monster (whose actions were subversive) can serve to evoke distinctions between the familiar and the ‘Other’ in the experience of the viewer (Sonik Reference Sonik and Kipfer2017). Moreover, the positioning of Anzû’s body is now ambiguous- are we supposed to be looking at its chest or its back? The presentation of the entire back would be highly unusual in Neo-Assyrian art.Footnote 40 There appears to be limited attempts to render shoulder blades on fig. 4b, and a later 8th century example shows Anzû’s left wing clearly emerging from its back [fig 4c].

Figure 4 a, b, c: Examples of 9th-8th centuries B.C.E. impressions of chalcedony cylinder seals which show Ninurta battling Anzû. 4a: VA 5180, H: 4.2 cm, D: 1.7 cm from Assur. ©Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum. 4b: BM 119426, H: 3.45 cm, D: 1.5 cm, unprovenanced, after Collon Reference Collon2001: 123, no. 232. ©The Trustees of the British Museum. 4c: BM 129560, H: 2.9 cm, D: 1.1 cm, unprovenanced, after Collon Reference Collon2001: 152, no. 292. ©The Trustees of the British Museum

While each cylinder seal with this scene is inscribed with its own composite image, there does appear to be some general overlap. Anzû’s twisting pose heightens the tension in the overall scene, capturing the moment just before Ninurta surprises Anzû with the decisive arrow. In Tablet II of the Standard Babylonian version, Anzû locks eyes with Ninurta (line 36) before roaring like a lionFootnote 41 (line 38). This locked gaze is present on a majority of examples, where the faces of Anzû and Ninurta are fixed at the same height. On others, Ninurta shoots an arrow tipped in lightning,Footnote 42 echoing Ea’s advice to Ninurta to shoot arrows like lightning (II: line 111). The striding figure of Ninurta usually stands on similar-looking creature who is differentiated from Anzû by a scorpion-tail. Seidl (Reference Seidl1998) argues this is the abūbu, a creature representing the Deluge who aids Ninurta in his hunt.Footnote 43

In comparison to other hunt or combat scenes on Neo-Assyrian cylinder seals, the hunted creature is typically shown in full profile [fig. 5]. Its neck will often twist around to look over its shoulder away from (or at the back of) its pursuer, which is akin to the physical arrangement of the hunted Anzû from the Ninurta temple. On the above seals, however, Anzû appears to twist its entire upper body in order to present its back, emphasizing its impressive wingspan as if to foreshadow their impending doom. To my knowledge, the only other creatures to be composed in such a way, and perhaps mirroring or referencing this rather unique pose, are particular lions on Ashurbanipal’s relief program.Footnote 44 Indeed, the rampant and splayed dying lion between two chariots in room C shows this correspondence at its largest scale [fig. 6]. Taking up the majority of the Southwest wall, this composition is described by Watanabe as “difficult to make sense of […] from the point of view of time and space in reality” (2014: 353). Ashurbanipal, who is shown twice in separate chariots on either side of this lion, is practically a supporting character along with his charioteers. The arrangement of this lion between two chariots echoes other heraldic compositions in Neo-Assyrian art, including three-figure contest scenes on cylinder seals and the sacred tree relief from Ashurnaṣirpal II’s throneroom. Its body twists aggressively at its middle, presenting its back and modelled shoulder blades to the viewer. The strong articulation of each digit of the forepaws as they spread out in empty space is also paralleled in Anzû seal imagery (e.g. fig. 4c). Although Ashurbanipal is hunting from each approaching chariot with either a sword or a spear, it is an arrow through the face that is the principal demise of this particular lion, in this specific case perhaps another reference to the defeat of Anzû beyond hunting lions with arrows.

Figure 5 Impression of a stone cylinder seal from Assur which shows a typical Neo-Assyrian hunting scene. 9th–8th centuries B.C.E. VA Ass 1685, H: 2.3 cm, D: 1.1 cm. ©Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum

Figure 6. Series of gypsum reliefs from the Southwest wall of room C in the North Palace at Nineveh (645-635 B.C.E.). BM 124851-4, H: 160 cm. Author’s own photo

Intervisuality as a mnemonic device in Neo-Assyrian visual culture

Exploring intervisual relationships between cylinder seals and palace reliefs can help unpack social relationships between aesthetic producers and consumers. To what extent did individuals, either loosely or directly affiliated with the institution of Assyrian kingship, interact with and/or contribute to the ongoing production and development of motifs within Neo-Assyrian art? Among inscribed seals and extant impressions of inscribed seals, Ninurta is the most frequently depicted deity (Collon Reference Collon and Taylor2006: 104). Watanabe (Reference Watanabe and Watanabe1999: 322) similarly noted the popularity of Ninurta imagery for seals of officials, which she attributed to an ideological connection between royal lion hunts and Ninurta hunting Anzû. Of the inscribed examples,Footnote 45 most belonged to individuals either involved in political administration and governance, or whose skills were used in the Neo-Assyrian courtly milieu: Ninurta-bēl-uṣur, ša rēši to Ninurta-ašarēd [fig. 4a], eponym in 812 B.C.E.; Ištar-balāṭu-ēreš, rab ālāni of Kilizu [fig. 3]; Bēl-ēmuranni, who is perhaps identified with one of three eponyms (Raṣappa- 737 B.C.E., Karkemiš- 691 B.C.E., or as turtānu in 686 B.C.E.); one Marduk-šumu-ibni; and Yapa-Haddu, whose Aramaic inscription names them as a mpšr, or ‘dream interpreter’.Footnote 46 One rather interesting Babylonian example belonged to Nabû-ēṭir, a paqdu-official, with a later inscription added by Erība-Marduk, who was either father or grandfather to the Babylonian ruler Marduk-apla-iddina II (r. 722-710 B.C.E.).Footnote 47

Whether this mythological scene was the personal choice of these individuals, or perhaps indicative of a more widely adopted composition among those involved in political administration, it is not yet known, but it is the impressed version of Anzû on these seals that particular lions on the North Palace reliefs match most closely. Winter (Reference Winter and Uehlinger2000: 65) argued that cylinder seals with imagery complementary to palace reliefs often show the same scene in reverse, as if the seal maker saw (or even heard about) a relief and copied it directly onto the seal surface, which then produced a reverse impression. If the planners of Ashurbanipal’s reliefs previously experienced this Anzû type impressed into clay, the near exact copying of pose from seal impression to palace relief would suggest conscious emulation of the seal impression—using Winter’s logic. This would also seem to complement Nadali’s (2010) argument that the North Palace reliefs directly copied or indirectly referenced older images of the king hunting lions from stamp seals for the layout of various lions in the hunt scenes. Although no full examples of inscribed cylinder seal impressions containing the Anzû scene as yet appear on surviving documents,Footnote 48 it does seem to suggest that this particular image of Anzû must have been circulated to some degree, to the point where those determining the figural composition of lions on the North Palace reliefs were perhaps familiar with its unique pose.

A fragmentary limestone plaque found at Nineveh, tentatively dated to the 9th-8th centuries B.C.E., could be an example of such a vector. Originally perhaps 30 by 18 cm, its portability could have eased the distribution of its visual program and recalls the oft-cited hypothesis of ‘pattern books’ (Moorey Reference Moorey1994: 34) to explain how motifs were circulated among artisans and workshops. Depicting on one side the lower half of a striding god atop the remaining upper half of a winged creature, with a smaller figure to the right in a similar striding pose, Reade (Reference Reade2001/2: 158-160) interprets this scene as the Ninurta-Abūbu-Anzû composition found on cylinder seals of the same period (e.g. fig. 4a).Footnote 49 He argues that the plaque “implies the existence of larger versions of the Ninurta-Abūbu-Anzû scene, from which the makers of cylinder seals could have drawn their imagery” (2001/2: 160). Ranked notions of media aside, it is unfortunate that we are missing the entire Anzû on this plaque, to see whether its form matched the posture found on the majority of relevant cylinder seals, or whether it was arranged more in line with the one from the Ninurta temple at Nimrud. Regardless of whether such larger examples may have once existed, the total breadth of possible mental and material references to such imagery was likely much wider.

If this were indeed an image associated with the personal and/or professional actions of government officials, its metaphorical inclusion on Ashurbanipal’s reliefs could suggest a strategic choice in coopting a pose identifiable to particular members of his court. The composition of Anzû on cylinder seals could have communicated a powerful visual message complementing familiarity with Anzû in textual and oral settings, and thus resonating with the community responsible for the design of relief programmes. Utilized in this way across multiple visual scales, this imagery had the capacity to create and activate specific relationships between the gods, the Assyrian king, and members of his court (Collins Reference Collins, Portuese and Pallavidini2022). Indeed, the king and his court complex, composed of family members, scholars, and political officials, would have understood this type of imagery in a more nuanced way than outside visitors (Collins Reference Collins, Brown and Feldman2014: 621). While the occasional outsider might read these lion reliefs as a series of lion hunts, those who frequent the palace might recognize the message of Assyrian kingship, and still others might identify a relationship to Ninurta and Anzû through recognition of this visual covalence between certain lions and the Anzû, or even via recollection of the myth. The visual affinity between both battles could stimulate shared perceptions about the nature of combat as it relates to the maintenance of royal authority and divine order. Gansell’s (2016: 86-7) notion of ‘elite ideological memory’ is helpful here; as individuals enculturated in the intellectual milieu of the palace encountered relief narratives, they would have re-experienced their own participation in the ‘political and sacral events portrayed’. While this collective memory could have served to prop up notions regarding embodied divinity in the visual portrayal of the Assyrian king, elevating their mortal actions into mythological stages, it also could have applied to the perception of ‘supporting characters’ in the narrative. Consequently, I suggest that the rear-facing pose of Anzû establishes an intervisual paradigm between the pursued Anzû and hunted lions within particular vignettes amongst the wider lion hunt relief program. The composition of ‘Ashurbanipal-chariot-lion’ crafted on the Southwest wall of Room C and ‘Ninurta-Abūbu-Anzû’ on 9th and 8th century linear-style cylinder seals carry the same visual structure, allowing for an implicit connection that is bolstered by the distinctive posture of certain lions and the Anzû.Footnote 50

Interestingly, this type of mnemonic device also arguably occurs among cylinder seals at a compositional level, in which figures are substituted in mythological scenes. Anthony Green (Reference Green, Finkel and Geller1997) cites an example of this substitution from another of the few identifiable mythological scenes in Mesopotamian art, that of Gilgamesh and Enkidu slaying the monster Humbaba. On a 9th-8th century B.C.E. chalcedony cylinder seal from Assur (VA 4215),Footnote 51 Gilgamesh and Enkidu flank Humbaba on either side, and Humbaba is shown kneeling, facing frontally [fig. 7a]. A later 8th-7th century cylinder seal (Met 1983.314.13) shows a strikingly similar composition, except that each figure is substituted by a kusarikku ‘bull-man’, laḫmu ‘hairy one’ and girtablullû ‘scorpion-man’ respectively [fig. 7b]. Green (Reference Green, Finkel and Geller1997: 138) suggests that this substitution is a sort of humorous visual play, one that would have been recognizable to and enjoyable for ancient viewers who were familiar with Gilgamesh’s exploits. Viewed thusly, the correspondence between particular lions and Anzû in Ashurbanipal’s lion reliefs may have even been an esoteric visual pun for members of Ashurbanipal’s inner court. What is particularly curious is that neither Neo-Assyrian ‘royal’ seals nor ‘bureau’ seals seem to use mythological iconography, but rather it is found on the seals of court officials. Beneath the upper echelons of activities conducted by/on behalf of royals and high officials, there appears to be a dynamic visual landscape constituted by the personal seals of officials and courtiers, likely influenced by and contributing to the production of court-centered art, which by extension includes the play and display of scholarly knowledge.

Figure 7 a, b: On the left, impression of a chalcedony cylinder seal from Assur which shows Gilgamesh and Enkidu slaying Humbaba. 9th-8th centuries B.C.E. VA 4215, H: 3.2 cm, D: 1.9 cm. ©Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum. On the right, impression of a chalcedony cylinder seal (unprovenanced) showing a kusarikku, laḫmu, and girtablullû mimicking the figural composition of fig. 7a. Late 8th-7th centuries B.C.E. Met 1983.314.13, H: 3.6 cm. 2025 © The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/Scala, Florence

The suggested intervisual relationship between Anzû imagery and particular lions on Ashurbanipal’s North Palace reliefs aims to widen frameworks of visual transfer in the Neo-Assyrian period. Intervisual approaches can help disentangle the complex origin and interpretative range of a given motif or composition among different social groups. The transposition of Anzû into Ashurbanipal’s lion hunt reliefs implies a strategic adaptation of imagery across media that worked to craft deep links between narratives of mythological order and royal authority. It also points towards a coded system of visual representation which knowingly engaged with composition, visuality, and gesture across human and animal categories. The production and reception of Ashurbanipal’s relief programme was contingent upon a web of social, intellectual, and material communication, and there are likely more semiotic interpretations yet to be revealed.

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Augusta McMahon, Paul Collins, Yağmur Heffron, and Christina Tsouparopoulou for their helpful comments on successive drafts of this paper, and to Jon Taylor for his kind assistance with cylinder seal images from the British Museum. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their critical feedback. Any mistakes are my own.

Footnotes

1 Abbreviations follow CDLI. Most recently accessed on 22 July 2025 at https://cdli.earth/abbreviations.

2 Henri Frankfort’s (1939: 308) essay on cylinder seals famously argues that “the inventions of the seal-cutters” were the driving inspiration throughout the decorative arts.

3 The deliberate use of the term ‘visual culture’ in this paper highlights “the culturally specific ways in which visual images are both bearers of meaning and themselves participate in making meaning” (Graff Reference Graff and Gunter2019: 159).

4 Most notably, lingering Western hierarchical classifications of the monumental and non-monumental, or the ‘major’ and the ‘minor’. As tracked by Thomason (Reference Thomason, Brown and Feldman2014), Neo-Assyrian sculpture and wall reliefs were neatly slotted into a ‘major’ conception of relative artistic value and stacked (subconsciously or otherwise) at the apex of period-specific mid-20th century surveys of Mesopotamian art (Amiet Reference Amiet1977; Frankfort Reference Frankfort1954; Moortgat Reference Moortgat1969). General surveys of Western art history, such as Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, favor ‘iconic’ selections of Mesopotamian art that overwhelmingly fall into sculptural or architectural categories (Gansell and Shafer Reference Gansell, Shafer, Gansell and Shafer2020: 15). Other objects such as cylinder seals, clay figurines, ivory plaques, and ceramics were coded as ‘minor’, either by virtue of smaller scale or mode of creation, sometimes designated as ‘craft’ (Moortgat Reference Moortgat1940: 76; Suter and Uehlinger Reference Suter and Uehlinger2005: xix, note 4). This artificial coding meant that ‘crafts’, as opposed to true ‘works-of-art’, were evaluated on the basis of “production and utility” rather than as objects to be approached for their aesthetic or affective value (Thomason Reference Thomason, Brown and Feldman2014: 137).

5 For example, see Gaspa (Reference Gaspa2018: 145-155) on Assyrian textiles and the royal image; Niederreiter (Reference Niederreiter2008) on visual symbols utilized by Sargon II and particular members of his court.

6 ‘Monster’ here is defined as a being who predominantly interacts with divine figures and heroes, usually in geographic extremes far away from human habitation (Sonik Reference Sonik2013a: 107). Their inherent abnormality may be expressed in various ways, such as via an atypical physical form or in their aversion to established societal norms.

7 On the front cover of the State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts vol III on the Standard Babylonian Epic of Anzû is the cylinder seal BM 129560, which arguably depicts the myth (Annus Reference Annus2001). In her catalogue of cylinder seals from the British Museum, Collon (Reference Collon2001: 11) instead uses the term ‘lion-griffin’ to describe this figure.

8 Polysemy is a term often employed in textual studies, used to describe the simultaneous co-existence of multiple yet related meanings to a given word or phrase.

9 For an early example from the Uruk period, see Pittman Reference Pittman, Cooper and Schwartz1996.

10 The impact of this formulation on Neo-Assyrian art history from the late 80s to early 00s arguably supported hierarchical frameworks whereby monumental works of art located in royal spaces (e.g. reliefs and statuary) were thought to influence artistic output in non-monumental art categories (Reference ReadeReade 2001/2: 160; Winter Reference Winter, Leonard and Williams1989: 321). While Winter’s (1989) paper on North Syrian ‘luxury’ ivories on reliefs and sculpture from Tell Halaf and Tell Fakhariyeh actually argues the opposite, it is here where she first proposes the visual directionality of Neo-Assyrian art from the ‘major’ to the ‘minor’. She later upholds this argument, examining multiple types of seal motifs ranging from bull hunts to attendants flanking a sacred tree to suggest that they originated from Ashurnasirpal II’s Northwest Palace at Nimrud (2000: 79, note 38). However, Nadali’s (2010: 222) work on royal administrative stamp seals instead shows that the depiction of certain lions on Ashurbanipal’s North Palace hunt reliefs directly borrow from the arrangement and pose of lions found on these seals. In fact, certain impressed examples of this motif appear almost 60 years earlier on clay bullae found at Nineveh (e.g. Sm. 2276; Mitchell and Searight Reference Mitchell and Searight2008: 35).

11 See, for example, Scott’s (2018) study on the changes in pictorial imagery on seals of the Uruk period. There are other media, equally capable of transmitting visual motifs, that are either ephemeral or less robustly attested in the archaeological record, such as wall paintings, metal vessels, furniture fittings, and clothing.

12 Personal inscriptions on cylinder seals appeared to be a rare practice in the Neo-Assyrian period, with even fewer impressions of inscribed seals surviving in the archaeological record (Paley Reference Paley and Kelly-Buccellati1986).

13 For a discussion of the ‘pictorial stream of tradition’, see Sonik Reference Sonik, Pongratz-Leisten and Sonik2015.

14 See Bredekamp (Reference Bredekamp2003) and Mitchell (Reference Mitchell1994) for German and Anglophone approaches to the ‘iconic turn’.

15 These frameworks are heavily influenced by the development of intertextuality studies in philology and literary criticism.

16 Studies on the use of ‘visual formulae’ (Ataç Reference Ataç2006) and ‘symbolic technologies’ (Pittman Reference Pittman, Cooper and Schwartz1996) in Mesopotamian art anticipate these newer efforts. For an intericonic perspective on ancient Egyptian art, see Laboury Reference Laboury and Gillen2017.

17 In this sense, intervisual studies could be brought into closer dialogue with sensorial approaches, particularly those that focus on synesthetic perception where the visual is merged with the haptic or olfactory. The melammu, or ‘awe-inspiring radiance’ wielded by various beings and inanimate objects is a well-known example of haptic visuality in Mesopotamian art (Scott Reference Scott, Neumann and Thomason2022).

18 Nadali and Portuese (Reference Nadali, Portuese and Bracker2020: 143) rekindle an idea earlier expressed in Reade Reference Reade and Porter2005: 24.

19 Anzu is able to initially deflect Ninurta’s arrows due to his possession of the Tablet of Destinies (Anzû II: 75-85; Heinrich Reference Heinrich and Benjamin2022).

20 SAA 3: 39, r. 20-22.

21 RINAP 5/1: 220, I 10’-18’. Beyond claims of literacy, Ashurbanipal also purports to understand the meaning behind esoteric texts and ‘secret’ knowledge.

22 Kertai (Reference Kertai2015b: 347) argues that the ‘basement’ area, which includes room S, formed part of the king’s residential suite, which would suggest a quite limited audience in this area.

23 The traditional formulation of a Neo-Assyrian palace that is architecturally organized according to public and private spaces has been recently questioned and reimagined (Kertai and Groß Reference Kertai and Groß2019).

24 For example, Ataç (Reference Ataç and Nadali2016: 71) has proposed that military narratives could have referenced a ‘sacral history’ belonging to the memory of ‘mythical or epic’ events from the Late Bronze Age, re-enacted through visual tropes that were used to depict contemporary events.

25 While Weissert discusses how such images could evoke memories of actual lion hunts, they could equally invoke associations with other famous hunts, such as the one conducted by Ninurta against Anzû.

26 Elsewhere, intertextual links between Assyrian military narratives and mythological narratives are attested within Sennacherib’s account of the Battle of Halule, in which the Babylonians are equated with the ‘evil demons’ (Akk. gallē lemnūti) from Enūma eliš (Weissert Reference Weissert, Waetzoldt and Hauptmann1997b).

27 Grayson Reference Grayson1991: A.0.89.7. For a discussion of the dating of this monument, see Shibata Reference Shibata, Radner, Moeller and Potts2023: 169-171. It is not clear if any of the weapons that Ashurbanipal used to kill lions on his North Palace reliefs was in fact a giš nar’amtu.

28 See Watanabe Reference Watanabe2002: 79-80 for an extended discussion including bibliographic references.

29 For the Sumerian Angim hymn, see Black, J.A. et al. Reference Black, Cunningham, Robson and Zólyoni2005: 181-186.

30 Barnett Reference Barnett1976: pl. XLIX (BM 124875), pl. LI (BM 124878), pl. LVII (AO 19903, BM 124886)

31 Following Watanabe Reference Watanabe2002: 80; for Aššur-dan II, see AfO 3: 160, lines 24-26; for Adad-nērārī III, see KAH 2: 84, lines 123-124.

32 I have so far located forty-two cylinder seals with components of the Ninurta-Anzû mythological scene and one partial seal impression: Brooklyn Museum: 80.173.3; Buchanan Reference Buchanan1966: no. 639 (AN 1913.767); Collon Reference Collon2001: no. 232 (BM 119426), no. 288 (BM 89533), no. 291 (BM 135752), no. 292 (BM 129560); Collon Reference Collon and Taylor2006: fig. 173; Delaporte Reference Delaporte1909: no. 100 (AO 22699); Delaporte Reference Delaporte1910: no. 314, no. 315; Delaporte 1923: A.644 (MNB 1354), A.645 (AO 1162); Hammade Reference Hammade1987: no. 222 (Aleppo M 6046), no. 223 (Aleppo M 1026), no. 224 (Aleppo M 6290); Herbordt Reference Herbordt1992: pl. 5, no. 11; Hussein and Abdul Razaq 1997-8: no. 40 (IM 127813); Keel and Uehlinger Reference Keel and Uehlinger1990: no. 17 (BIF 173a); Kist Reference Kist2003: no. 379; Klengel Brandt et al. 2014: no. 17 (VA Ass 1695); Legrain Reference Legrain1925: no. 610 (CBS 1051); Metropolitan Museum of Art: 41.160.318, 65.135.2, 1999.325.69, 1999.325.72; Moortgat Reference Moortgat1940: no. 595 (VA 5180), no. 615 (VA 3885), no. 616 (VA 7544); Muscarella Reference Muscarella1981: no. 88; Porada Reference Porada1948: no. 689, no. 690, no. 719, no. 720; Porada Reference Porada and Markoe1981: no. 1218 (LACMA M.76.174.409), no. 1223 (LACMA M.76.174.414); Porada Reference Porada1993: fig. 46; Teissier Reference Teissier1984: no. 256, no. 257; Ward Reference Ward1910: no. 569; Watanabe Reference Watanabe1993: 8.3, 8.7, 8.18 (Penn L-29-494A); Watanabe Reference Watanabe and Watanabe1999: 1.1.4. Of these, seven are inscribed. A recent PhD dissertation examines this grouping of seals from the perspective of divine combat (Richey Reference Richey2019), arguing that the figure of Ninurta on such seals might equally be associated with the figure of the Assyrian ruler, further deepening the theological beliefs and political commitments of the seal owner to the ruling body.

33 Elsewhere this relationship is not expressly stated, but the relief is introduced first in the text, e.g. Green Reference Green, Finkel and Geller1997: 142 lists the relief first, then the seals; Watanabe 1998: 142; Reference Watanabe2002: 78 also lists the relief first, then the seals.

34 Kolbe Reference Kolbe1981: 68-74 argues that this winged figure is a benign demon related to the god Adad, but it does not make sense to show an attendant of Adad at the entrance of a temple dedicated to Ninurta. Adad is associated with a winged lion-dragon in Akkadian period glyptic but is regularly associated with a bull in Neo-Assyrian iconography, and Assyrians could have adapted aspects of Adad’s iconography to use in constructing Ninurta’s distinctly Assyrian identity (see fig. 4a where both Ninurta and Adad appear on the same seal). Collon (Reference Collon and Taylor2006: 102) points out that Ninurta was also considered to be a storm god. Moortgat-Correns (Reference Moortgat-Correns1988: 120) supports the identification of this scene as Ninurta in ‘seiner mythologischen Erscheinungsform’ combating Anzû. Moreover, a winged rendition of Ninurta would not be too unusual for this period either- Ištar could also be winged, as seen in glyptic examples. More recently, Shehata (Reference Shehata, Kertai and Nieuwenhuyse2017: 191) has upheld the deity’s identification as Ninurta.

35 This figure has also been interpreted as Tiāmat (Reade Reference Reade1979b: 43), a general embodiment of chaos, or an asakku-demon. Since the figure on the relief is male, its attribution to Tiāmat has been disputed (Green Reference Green and Edzard1994: 258). The asakku-demon, or Sumerian á.sàg, generally causes disorder and/or disease (CAD A2: 325-6).

36 Ninurta’s running pose in Neo-Assyrian imagery may itself have been an intervisual innovation meant to connect his image with the lismu footrace, particularly since Anzû does not mention Ninurta running during his battles against Anzû (Watanabe Reference Watanabe and DiPaolo2018: 34).

37 Twenty-five examples follow this composition, whereas only six examples could be said to directly replicate the example from the Ninurta temple in Nimrud. The remaining Anzûs either completely face or run from their pursuer.

38 The frontal form in general is rare, and can denote hierarchical rank and/or a charged engagement with the viewer (Asher-Greve Reference Asher-Greve2003: 13).

39 Twisted forms can also denote the transgressive or metamorphic nature of particular beings, such as Inana/Ishtar (Bahrani Reference Bahrani2001: 130-3) as well as those that are inimical or socially alienated (Sonik Reference Sonik, Feliu, Llop, Millet Albà and Sanmartín2013b: 293) like the Anzû.

40 Apart from sculpture and clay figures in the round, fully frontal figures are rarely found on Neo-Assyrian cylinder seals but see Collon Reference Collon2001: no. 156 (BM 89382), as well as the four-winged male figures that appear as ‘master-of-animals’ on three-figure contest scenes from this period (Collon Reference Collon2001: no. 336, no. 343, no. 349). See also cylinder and stamp seals from Assur with a four-winged goddess, for example Klengel-Brandt et al. Reference Klengel-Brandt, Böhme and Keel2014: no. 176, no. 294, no. 295. The profile form is typical for human figures in relief, e.g. Ashurnasirpal II and his attendants on the Northwest Palace reliefs, see Budge Reference Budge1914: pl. XIX, 2 (BM 124535); whereas apotropaic daimons can appear in a twisted profile form to show the torso and face frontally, or the torso frontally but face in profile. On clay plaques from Assur, the lower half of laḫmus appear in profile and fully frontal from the waist up (Rittig Reference Rittig1977: 2.2.4; VA 4894). Winged animals that appear in hunt and contest scenes on cylinder seals are typically in full profile with wings arranged on one side of the body (as on fig.3), and at times twist their neck to look behind at their pursuer, e.g. Klengel-Brandt 2014: no. 212 (VA 4233), no. 252 (VA Ass 1685).

41 Anzû also bares its teeth like an ūmu ‘storm demon’ (line 37). Other storm demons, such as the ugallu (u4.gal), are also lion-headed. Such physical similarities and shared behaviours between these figures may have triggered visual recollections in the minds of encultured viewers.

42 For example, see Porada Reference Porada1948: no. 689; Collon Reference Collon2001: no. 288 (BM 89533), no. 291 (BM 135752).

43 This creature appears to be associated with Ninurta, Sîn, and arguably Aššur (Seidl Reference Seidl1998: 107-8); however, its relationship to Anzû isn’t as yet fully understood. As tracked by Kertai (Reference Kertai2015b), Hormuzd Rassam (Reference Rassam1897: 32) mentions a relief located in the niche between rooms S and T in the North Palace whose description could indicate either a standing Anzû or abūbu, but we have neither a drawing nor the relief itself to study. Kertai (Reference Kertai2015b: 347) supports its identification as an abūbu (as an Anzû might be considered dangerous) but acknowledges that other examples of a standing abūbu are unknown.

44 Other possible visual precedents are the lions that fight mythological beings in Akkadian glyptic (most similarly, see Collon Reference Collon1982: no. 74 (BM 89165) and no.114 (BM 89147)), but it should be noted that the scholars and officials responsible for Neo-Assyrian relief programs may not have had immediate access to such imagery and instead looked to more familiar sources for inspiration. For a critical discussion of the reception of Akkadian imagery in the Neo-Assyrian period, see Eppihimer Reference Eppihimer2019.

45 Of the uninscribed examples which have worshippers depicted, eight are bearded and five are beardless. Watanabe (Reference Watanabe and Watanabe1999) would consider the seals depicting the latter as seals of court eunuchs.

46 mpšr could also be Aramaic shorthand for the Babylonian mupašširu ‘dream interpreter’ (CAD M2: 210).

47 In order: VA 5180 (Klengel-Brandt et al Reference Klengel-Brandt, Böhme and Keel2014: no. 219); BM 135752 (Collon Reference Collon2001: no. 291); Watanabe Reference Watanabe1993: no.8.3, 8.18; Penn L-29-494A (Watanabe Reference Watanabe1993: 8.7); Collon Reference Collon and Taylor2006: 105.

48 A seal impression on a tablet from Tell Halaf appears to depict Anzû and a partial Ninurta (Herbordt Reference Herbordt1992: Tf. 5, 11). Millard (Reference Millard, Suter and Uehlinger2005: 6) remarks that tablets with seal impressions from before about 725 BCE are practically non-existent, in part due to the increased use of Aramaic on papyrus, upon which cylinder seal impressions would be neither feasible nor practical.

49 The other side of the plaque depicts a fragmentary image of the king as he typically appears in royal stelae. If Reade has correctly identified both faces of the plaque correctly, then it is interesting that the object closely locates the images of an Assyrian king and Ninurta.

50 A simpler example of visual quotation is the repetition of gesture within the same scene: for example, as Ashurnasirpal II returns from campaign on a relief from the Northwest palace, he mirrors the pose of a god in a winged disk located directly above him (Collins Reference Collins and Gunter2019: 297).

51 This cylinder seal is unfortunately now lost.

References

Aker, J. 2007. “Workmanship as ideological tool in the monumental hunt reliefs of Assurbanipal” in Cheng, J. and Feldman, M. H., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Art in context: studies in honor of Irene J. Winter by her students. Boston: Brill, pp. 229263.Google Scholar
Amiet, P. 1977. L’art antique du Proche-Orient. Paris: Editions d’art Lucien Mazenod.Google Scholar
Annus, A. 2001. The standard Babylonian epic of Anzu. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts 3. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar
Annus, A. 2002. The God Ninurta: in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia. State Archives of Assyria Studies 14. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar
Arrivé, M. 2015. “L’intelligence des images – l’intericonicité, enjeux et méthodes”. E-rea. Revue électronique d’études sur le monde anglophone. 13(1) (https://erea.revues.org/4620).Google Scholar
Asher-Greve, J.M. 2003. “The Gaze of the Goddesses: On Divinity, Gender, and Frontality in the Late Early Dynastic, Akkadian, and Neo-Sumerian Periods”. NIN 4(1): 159.10.1163/157077603775818585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ataç, M-A. 2006. “Visual Formula and Meaning in Neo-Assyrian Relief Sculpture”. The Art Bulletin 88(1): 69101.10.1080/00043079.2006.10786279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ataç, M-A. 2010. The mythology of kingship in Neo-Assyrian art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ataç, M-A. 2016. “The Historical Memory of the Late Bronze Age in the Neo-Assyrian Palace Reliefs” in Nadali, D., ed. Envisioning the Past Through Memories. How Memory Shaped Ancient Near Eastern Societies. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 6983.Google Scholar
Bahrani, Z. 2001. Women of Babylon: Gender and Representation in Babylon. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bahrani, Z. 2022. “Metapictures, Materiality, and Texts: Ancient West Asian Art and the Scholarship of the Iconic Turn” in Watts, C. and Knappett, C., ed. Ancient Art Revisited: Global Perspectives from Archaeology and Art History. London: Routledge, pp. 126148.10.4324/9781003131038-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, R. D. 1976. Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (668-627 B.C.). London: Trustees of the British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Barrelet, M.-Th. 1970. “Etude de glyptique akkadienne”. Orientalia 39: 213–51.Google Scholar
Black, J. A., Cunningham, G., Robson, E., and Zólyoni, G. 2005. The Literature of Ancient Sumer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bonatz, D. 2004. “Ashurbanipal’s Headhunt: An Anthropological Perspective>” in Collon, D. and George, A., ed. Nineveh: Papers of the XLIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London, 7-11 July 2003, Part One . London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, pp. 93101.Google Scholar
Bredekamp, H. 2003. A Neglected Tradition? Art History as Bildwissenschaft . Critical Inquiry 29(3): 418428.10.1086/376303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruhn, J. and Schirrmacher, B. 2022. “Intermedial studies” in Bruhn, J. and Schirrmacher, B., ed. An Introduction to Meaning Across Media. New York: Routledge, pp. 327.Google Scholar
Buchanan, B. 1966. Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern seals in the Ashmolean Museum. Volume I. Cylinder seals. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Budge, E. A. W. 1914. Assyrian sculptures in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum.10.5479/sil.354125.39088005811260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cifarelli, M. 1998. “Gesture and Alterity in the Art of Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria”. The Art Bulletin 80(2): 210228.10.2307/3051230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, S. W. and Machinist, P. 1998. Letters from priests to the kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. State Archives of Assyria 13. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar
Collins, P. 2014. “Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Violence: Warfare in Neo-Assyrian art” in Brown, B. A. and Feldman, M. H., ed. Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 619644.Google Scholar
Collins, P. 2019. “Narrative” in: Gunter, A.C., ed. A companion to ancient Near Eastern art. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 285307.Google Scholar
Collins, P. 2022. “Kingship in time and space in the Northwest Palace, Nimrud” in Portuese, L. and Pallavidini, M., ed. Near Eastern Weltanschauungen in Contact and in Contrast: Rethinking the Terms Ideology and Propaganda. Münster: Zaphon, pp. 183204.Google Scholar
Collon, D. 1982. Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder seals. II, Akkadian, Post-Akkadian, Ur III periods. London: Trustees of the British Museum.Google Scholar
Collon, D. 2001. Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum . Cylinder seals. 5, Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. London: Trustees of the British Museum.Google Scholar
Collon, D. 2006. “The iconography of Ninurta>” in Taylor, P., ed. The iconography of cylinder seals. Warburg Colloquia 9. London: The Warburg Institute, pp. 100109.Google Scholar
Dalley, S. M. 1989. Myths from Mesopotamia. Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Delaporte, L. 1909. Catalogue du Musée Guimet. Cylindres orientaux. Paris: E. Leroux.Google Scholar
Delaporte, L. 1910. Catalogue des cylindres orientaux et des cachets assyro-babyloniens, perses et syro-cappadociens de la Bibliothèque nationale. Paris: E. Leroux.Google Scholar
Delaporte, L. 1920. Catalogue des cylindres, cachets et pierres gravées de style oriental. 2: Acquisitions. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Eppihimer, M. 2019. Exemplars of Kingship. Art, Tradition, and the Legacy of the Akkadians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190903015.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfort, H. 1939. Cylinder Seals, A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Frankfort, H. 1954. The art and architecture of the ancient Orient. Middlesex: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Gansell, A. R. 2016. “Prioritized Presence: Rulers’ Images in the Neo-Assyrian Palace as Devices of Elite Ideological Memory” in Nadali, D., ed. Envisioning the Past Through Memories. How Memory Shaped Ancient Near Eastern Societies. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 85100.Google Scholar
Gansell, A. R. and Shafer, A. 2020. “Perspectives on the Ancient Near Eastern Canon. More than Mesopotamia’s Greatest Hits” in Gansell, A. R. and Shafer, A., ed. Testing the Canon of Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 141.10.1093/oso/9780190673161.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaspa, S. 2018. Textiles in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, A Study of Terminology. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9781501503054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillmann, N. 2015. “Tradition and Innovation in the Neo-Assyrian reliefs” in Archi, A., ed. Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 57th Rencontre Assyriologique International at Rome, 4-8 July 2011. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, pp. 267288.10.5325/j.ctv1bxgx2w.26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graff, S. B. 2019. “Visual Culture” in Gunter, A., ed. A companion to ancient Near Eastern art. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 159181.Google Scholar
Grayson, A. K. 1991. Assyrian Rulers of the early First Millennium B.C. I (1114-859 B.C.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442671089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, A. 1994. “Mischwesen B” in Edzard, D.O., ed. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 8. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 246264.Google Scholar
Green, A. 1997. “Myths in Mesopotamian Art” in Finkel, I. L. and Geller, M. J., ed. Sumerian Gods and their Representations. Cuneiform Monographs 7. Groningen: Styx Publications, pp. 135158.Google Scholar
Hammade, H. 1987. Cylinder seals from the collections of the Aleppo Museum, Syrian Arab Republic. 1, Seals of unknown provenance. Oxford: B.A.R.10.30861/9780860544296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, A. C. 2022. Anzû Chapter Standard Babylonian II. With contributions by E. Jiménez and T. D. N. Mitto. Translated by Benjamin, R. Foster. Electronic Babylonian Library. https://doi.org/10.5282/ebl/l/1/10 Google Scholar
Herbordt, S. 1992. Neuassyrische Glyptik des 8.-7. Jh. V. Chr. : unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Siegelungen auf Tafeln und Tonverschlüssen. State Archives of Assyria Studies 1. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar
Hussein, M. M. and Abdul Razaq, R. M. 1997-8. أختام من نمرود (Cylinder seals from Nimrud). Sumer 49: 166191.Google Scholar
Isekenmeier, G., ed. 2013. Interpiktorialität. Theorie und Geschichte der Bild-Bild-Bezüge. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
Isekenmeier, G. and Bodola, R. 2017. “Introduction: Literary Visuality Studies” in Bodola, R. and Isekenmeier, G., eds. Literary Visualities. Visual Descriptions, Readerly Visualisations, Textual Visibilities. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 917.10.1515/9783110378030-002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertai, D. 2015a. The architecture of Late Assyrian royal palaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723189.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertai, D. 2015b. “The Guardians at the Doors: Entering the Southwest Palace in Nineveh”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74(2): 325349.10.1086/682152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertai, D. and Groß, M., 2019. “Becoming Empire: Neo-Assyrian palaces and the creation of courtly culture”. Journal of Ancient History 7(1): 131.Google Scholar
Keel, O. and Uehlinger, C. 1990. Altorientalische Miniaturkunst: die ältesten visuellen Massenkommunikationsmittel: ein Blick in die Sammlungen des Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg Schweiz. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.Google Scholar
Kist, J. 2003. Ancient Near Eastern Seals from the Kist Collection: Three Millennia of Miniature Reliefs. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004496323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klengel-Brandt, E., Böhme, S., and Keel, O. 2014. Die Neuassyrische Glyptik aus Assur. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Kolbe, D. 1981. Die Reliefprogramme religiös-mythologischen Charakters in neuassyrischen Palästen: die Figurentypen, ihre Benennung und Bedeutung. Frankfurt am Main: P.D. Lang.Google Scholar
Laboury, D. 2017. “Tradition and Creativity. Toward a Study of Intericonicity in Ancient Egyptian Art” in Gillen, T., ed. (Re)productive Traditions in Ancient Egypt. Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Liège, 6th-8th February 2013. Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège, pp. 229258.Google Scholar
Larsen, M. T. 2020. “The development of Neo-Assyrian narrative art: toward Assurbanipal’s Ulai river reliefs” in Finkel, I. L. and Simpson, St J., ed. In Context: the Reade festschrift. Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing, pp. 119126.10.2307/j.ctv1ddckv5.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legrain, L. 1925. The Culture of the Babylonians: from their seals in the collections of the museum. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.10.9783/9781512817539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingstone, A., 1989. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellania. State Archives of Assyria 3. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
Maul, S. M. 1999. “Der assyrische König – Hüter der Weltordnung” in Watanabe, K., ed. Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: papers of the Second Colloquim on the Ancient Near East – the City and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22-24, 1996. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, pp. 201214.Google Scholar
Millard, A. 2005. “Makers’ marks, owners’ names, and individual identity” in Suter, C. E. and Uehlinger, C., ed. Crafts and images in contact: studies on Eastern Mediterranean art of the first millennium BCE. Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 110.Google Scholar
Mirzoeff, N. 1999. An Introduction to Visual Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. J. T. 1994. Picture theory: essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. C. and Searight, A. 2008. Impressions of stamp seals on cuneiform tablets, clay bullae, and jar handles. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Moorey, P. R. S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian materials and industries: the archaeological evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Moortgat, A. 1940. Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst. Berlin.Google Scholar
Moortgat, A. 1969. The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia: The Classical Art of the Ancient Near East. London: Phaidon Press.Google Scholar
Moortgat-Correns, U. 1988. “Ein Kultbild Ninurtas aus neuassyrischer Zeit”. Archiv für Orientforschung 35: 117133.Google Scholar
Muscarella, O. W. 1981. Ladders to Heaven: art treasures from lands of the Bible. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.Google Scholar
Nadali, D. 2010. “Neo-Assyrian state seals: an allegory of power” in Fales, F. M. and Lanfranchi, G. B.. ed. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 18. Padova: Sargon, pp. 215244.Google Scholar
Nadali, D. and Portuese, L. 2020. “Archaeology of Images: Context and Intericonicity in Neo-Assyrian Art” in Bracker, J., ed. Homo Pictor. Image Studies and Archaeology in Dialogue. Heidelberg: Propylaeum, pp. 127157.Google Scholar
Niederreiter, Z. 2008. “Le rôle des symboles figurés attribués aux membres de la Cour de Sargon II: Des emblèmes créés par les lettrés du palais au service de l’idéologie royale”. Iraq 70: 5186.10.1017/S0021088900000875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paley, S. 1986. “Inscribed Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Cylinder Seals and Impressions>” in Kelly-Buccellati, M., ed. Insight through Images: studies in honor of Edith Porada. Malibu: Undena Publications, pp. 209220.Google Scholar
Pittman, H. 1996. “Constructing Context: The Gebel el-Arak Knife—Greater Mesopotamian and Egyptian Interaction in the Late Fourth Millennium B.C.E.” in Cooper, J.S. and Schwartz, G.M., ed. The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 932.Google Scholar
Pongratz-Leisten, B., 1995. Anzû-Vögel für das É.ḪÚL.ḪÚL in Ḫarrān, in: Finkbeiner, U., Dittmann, R. and Hauptmann, H. (eds), Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 549557.Google Scholar
Porada, E. 1948. Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern seals in North American collections. The collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Porada, E. 1980. “Introduction” in Porada, E., ed. Ancient Art in Seals. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 330.Google Scholar
Porada, E. 1981. “Stamp and cylinder seals of the ancient Near East” in Markoe, G., ed. Ancient bronzes, ceramics, and seals: the Nasli M Heeramaneck Collection of ancient Near Eastern, central Asiatic, and European art. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, pp. 187234.Google Scholar
Porada, E. 1993. “Why Cylinder Seals? Engraved Cylindrical Seal Stones of the Ancient Near East, Fourth to First Millennium B.C”. The Art Bulletin 75 (4): 563582.10.2307/3045984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portuese, L. 2020. “Live and Let Live Images: Metaphor and Interpictoriality in Neo-Assyrian Art” in Pallavidini, M. and Portuese, L., ed. Researching Metaphor in the Ancient Near East. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 115139.10.13173/9783447114370.115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portuese, L. and Pallavidini, M. 2022. Ancient Near Eastern Weltanschauungen in contact and in contrast: rethinking ideology and propaganda in the ancient Near East. Münster: Zaphon.Google Scholar
Radner, K. 2008. “The delegation of power: Neo-Assyrian Bureau Seals” in Briant, P., Henkelman, W.F.M., and Stolper, M.W., ed. L’archive des Fortifications de Persépolis: État des questions et perspectives de recherches: actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par la “Chaire d’histoire et civilization du monde achéménide et de l’empire d’Alexandre” et le “Réseau international d’études et de recherches achéménides” (GDR 2538 CNRS), 3-4 novembre 2006. Paris: De Boccard, pp. 481515.Google Scholar
Rassam, H. 1897. Asshur and the Land of Nimrod. Cincinnati: Eston & Mains.Google Scholar
Reade, J. E. 1979a. “Ideology and propaganda in Assyrian art” in Larsen, M.T., ed. Power and propaganda: a symposium on ancient empires. Copenhagen: Academisk Forlag, pp. 329343.Google Scholar
Reade, J. E. 1979b. “Assyrian Architectural Decoration: Techniques and Subject-matter”. Baghdader Mitteilungen 10: 1749.Google Scholar
Reade, J. E. 2000. “Nineveh” in Ebeling, E., Meissner, B., Weidner, E.F., von Soden, W., and Edzard, D.O., ed. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 388433.Google Scholar
Reade, J. E. 2001/2. “Unfired clay, models, and “sculptors’ models” in the British Museum”. Archiv für Orientforschung 48/49: 147164.Google Scholar
Reade, J. E. 2002. “The Ziggurrat and Temples of Nimrud”. Iraq 64: 135216.10.2307/4200523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reade, J. E. 2005. “Religious Ritual in Assyrian Sculpture” in Porter, B.N., ed. Ritual and Politics in Ancient Mesopotamia. New Haven: American Oriental Society, pp. 761.Google Scholar
Reed, S. 2007. “Blurring the Edges: A Reconsideration of the treatment of enemies in Ashurbanipal’s reliefs” in Cheng, J. and Feldman, M. H., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Art in context: studies in honor of Irene J. Winter by her students. Boston: Brill, pp. 101130.Google Scholar
Richey, M. P. 2019. Visions of Gods and Monsters: Levantine and Mesopotamian Iconographies of Divine Combat and their Textual Impressions. PhD dissertation submitted to the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Rittig, D. 1977. Assyrisch-babylonische Kleinplastik magischer Bedeutung vom 13.-6. Jh. v. Chr. München: Verlag Uni-Druck.Google Scholar
Russell, J. M. 1991. Sennacherib’s palace without rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, O. 1922. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts II. Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 37. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.Google Scholar
Scott, S. J. 2018. “Slave Labor: Uruk Cylinder-Seal Imagery and Early Writing” in Scott, S., Costello, S.K., Ameri, M., and Jamison, G., ed. Seals and Sealing in the Ancient World: New Approaches to Glyptic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3653.10.1017/9781108160186.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, S. J. 2022. “Beyond the flesh: Sensing identity through the body and skin in Mesopotamian glyptic contexts>” in Neumann, K. and Thomason, A., ed. The Routledge Handbook of the Senses in the Ancient Near East. London: Routledge, pp. 167188.Google Scholar
Seidl, U. 1998. “Das Flut-Ungeheur abūbu”. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 88: 100113.10.1515/zava.1998.88.1.100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehata, D. 2017. “Naturgewalt und (Un)heilsmacht. Strukturelle und inhaltliche Überlegungen zum akkadischen Anzû-Mythos” in Kertai, D. and Nieuwenhuyse, O., ed. From the Four Corners of the Earth. Studies in Iconography and Cultures of the Ancient Near East in Honour of F.A.M. Wiggermann. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, pp. 181203.Google Scholar
Shibata, D. 2023. “Assyria from Tiglath-pileser I to Ashurnasirpal II” in Radner, K., Moeller, N. and Potts, D.T., ed. The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East, vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 161256.Google Scholar
Sonik, K. 2012. “The Tablet of Destinies and the Transmission of Power in Enūma eliš” in Wilhelm, G., ed. Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg 20-25 Jul. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, pp. 387395.Google Scholar
Sonik, K. 2013a. “Mesopotamian Conceptions of the Supernatural: A Taxonomy of Zwischenwesen ”. Archiv für Religiongeschichte 14(1): 103116.10.1515/arege-2012-0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonik, K. 2013b. “The Monster’s Gaze: Vision as Mediator between Time and Space in the Art of Mesopotamia” in Feliu, L., Llop, J., Millet Albà, A., and Sanmartín, J., ed. Time and History in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, pp. 285300.Google Scholar
Sonik, K. 2014. “Pictorial Mythology and Narrative in the Ancient Near East” in Brown, B.A. and Feldman, M.H., ed. Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 265294.Google Scholar
Sonik, K. 2015. “Divine (Re-)Presentation: Authoritative Images and a Pictorial Stream of Tradition in Mesopotamia” in Pongratz-Leisten, B. and Sonik, K., ed. The Materiality of Divine Agency. Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 142193.10.1515/9781501502262-010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonik, K. 2017. “Emotion and the Ancient Arts: Visualizing, Materializing, and Producing States of Being” in Kipfer, S., ed., Visualizing Emotions in the Ancient Near East. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 219261.Google Scholar
Stein, D. L. 2020. “The Canon of Ancient Near Eastern Glyptic on a Roll. Leaps, Hurdles, and Goals” in Gansell, A. and Shafer, A., ed. Testing the Canon of Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 172194.10.1093/oso/9780190673161.003.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suter, C. E. and Uehlinger, C. 2005. Crafts and Images in Contact: studies on Eastern Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium BCE. Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Teissier, B. 1984. Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals from the Marcopoli Collection. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, A. K. 2014. “The Impact of the ‘Portable’: Integrating ‘Minor Arts’ into the Ancient Near Eastern Canon” in Brown, B.A. and Feldman, M.H., ed. Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 133157.Google Scholar
Vogelzang, M. E. 1988. BIN ŠAR DADMĒ: edition and analysis of the Akkadian Anzu poem. Groningen: Styx Publications.Google Scholar
Ward, W. H. 1910. The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia. Washington, D.C.: The Carnegie Institution of Washington.Google Scholar
Watanabe, C. E. 1998. “Symbolism of the Royal Lion Hunt in Assyria” in Prosecký, J., ed. Intellectual life of the Ancient Near East: papers presented at the 43rd Rencontre assyriologique international, Prague, July 1-5, 1996. Prague: Oriental Institute, pp. 439450.Google Scholar
Watanabe, C. E. 2002. Animal symbolism in Mesopotamia: a contextual approach. Wien: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien.Google Scholar
Watanabe, C. E. 2014. “Styles of Pictorial Narratives in Assurbanipal’s Reliefs” in Brown, B.A. and Feldman, M.H., ed. Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 345368.Google Scholar
Watanabe, C. E. 2018. “Composite animals in Mesopotamia as cultural symbols” in DiPaolo, S., ed. Composite Artefacts in the Ancient Near East. Exhibiting an imaginative materiality, showing a genealogical nature. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 3137.10.2307/j.ctv1nzfvtp.8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, C. E. 1993. “Neuassyrische Siegellegenden”. Orient 29: 109138.10.5356/orient1960.29.109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, C. E. 1995. “Weitere neuassyrische Siegellegenden”. Acta Sumerologica 17: 291297.Google Scholar
Watanabe, C. E. 1999. “Seals of Neo-Assyrian Officials>” in Watanabe, K., ed. Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East - the City and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22-24, 1996. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, pp. 313366.Google Scholar
Weidner, E. F. 1926. “Die Annalen des Königs Aššurdân II. von Assyrien”. Archiv für Orientforschung 3: 151161.Google Scholar
Weissert, E. 1997a. “Royal hunt and royal triumph in a prism fragment of Ashurbanipal” in Parpola, S. and Whiting, R. M., ed. Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, pp. 339358.Google Scholar
Weissert, E. 1997b. “Creating a Political Climate: Literary Allusions to Enūma Eliš in Sennacherib’s Account of the Battle of Halule” in Waetzoldt, H. and Hauptmann, H., ed. Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 6. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, pp. 191202.Google Scholar
Winter, I. J. 1981. “Royal rhetoric and the development of historical narrative in neo-Assyrian reliefs”. Studies in Visual Communication 7(2): 238.10.1111/j.2326-8492.1981.tb00045.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, I. J. 1989. “North Syrian Ivories and Tell Halaf reliefs: the impact of luxury goods upon ‘Major’ arts” in Leonard, A. Jr. and Williams, B. B., ed. Essays in Ancient Civilization presented to Helene J. Kantor. Chicago: Oriental Institute, pp. 321332.Google Scholar
Winter, I. J. 1993. “‘Seat of Kingship’/ ‘A Wonder to Behold’: The Palace as Construct in the Ancient Near East”. Ars Orientalis 23: 2755.Google Scholar
Winter, I. J. 2000. “Le palais imaginaire: scale and meaning in the iconography of Neo-Assyrian cylinder seals” in Uehlinger, C., ed. Images as Media: sources for the cultural history of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st millennium BCE). Fribourg: University Press, pp. 5187.Google Scholar
Winter, I. J. 2007. “Agency Marked, Agency Ascribed: the Affective Object in Ancient Mesopotamia” in: Osbourne, R. and Tanner, J., ed. Art’s Agency and Art History. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 4269.10.1002/9780470776629.ch2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, W. 2010. “Intermediality” in Herman, D., Jahn, M. and Ryan, M-L., eds. Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 252256.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Gypsum wall relief from room S1 of the North Palace at Nineveh (645-635 B.C.E.), which shows successive phases of the royal lion hunt. In the second register, Ashurbanipal hunts on foot. BM 124886-7. Author’s own photo

Figure 1

Figure 2. Gypsum wall relief (BM 124572) from the Temple of Ninurta at Nimrud (Kalḫu) which likely depicts Ninurta battling Anzû (865-860 B.C.E.). H: 240.7 cm, W: 362.7 cm. Drawing by Kyra Kaercher

Figure 2

Figure 3. Impression of chalcedony cylinder seal. 9th-7th centuries B.C.E., unprovenanced. H: 4.05 cm, D: 1.6 cm. BM 135752. After Collon 2001: no. 291, pg. 151. © The Trustees of the British Museum

Figure 3

Figure 4 a, b, c: Examples of 9th-8th centuries B.C.E. impressions of chalcedony cylinder seals which show Ninurta battling Anzû. 4a: VA 5180, H: 4.2 cm, D: 1.7 cm from Assur. ©Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum. 4b: BM 119426, H: 3.45 cm, D: 1.5 cm, unprovenanced, after Collon 2001: 123, no. 232. ©The Trustees of the British Museum. 4c: BM 129560, H: 2.9 cm, D: 1.1 cm, unprovenanced, after Collon 2001: 152, no. 292. ©The Trustees of the British Museum

Figure 4

Figure 5 Impression of a stone cylinder seal from Assur which shows a typical Neo-Assyrian hunting scene. 9th–8th centuries B.C.E. VA Ass 1685, H: 2.3 cm, D: 1.1 cm. ©Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum

Figure 5

Figure 6. Series of gypsum reliefs from the Southwest wall of room C in the North Palace at Nineveh (645-635 B.C.E.). BM 124851-4, H: 160 cm. Author’s own photo

Figure 6

Figure 7 a, b: On the left, impression of a chalcedony cylinder seal from Assur which shows Gilgamesh and Enkidu slaying Humbaba. 9th-8th centuries B.C.E. VA 4215, H: 3.2 cm, D: 1.9 cm. ©Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum. On the right, impression of a chalcedony cylinder seal (unprovenanced) showing a kusarikku, laḫmu, and girtablullû mimicking the figural composition of fig. 7a. Late 8th-7th centuries B.C.E. Met 1983.314.13, H: 3.6 cm. 2025 © The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/Scala, Florence