Aššurnaṣirpal I and the White Obelisk

Abstract

It is usually possible to date an inscribed Assyrian sculpture without hesitation to the reign of a specific king, but there are two, both found about the same time in the centre of ancient Nineveh, which have aroused considerable controversy. One of them, the Broken Obelisk, after various adventures, now seems to have settled down in the reign of Aššur-bel-kala. The other is BM 118807, the White Obelisk (hereafter WO).Pinches originally ascribed the WO to the reign of Aššurnaṣirpal II, and this view seems to have prevailed until Unger, in a 1928 lecture and afterwards in the first full publication of the monument, opted for Aššurnaṣirpal I. Forrer accepted this, but Assyriologists generally were not convinced: while Gadd reserved judgement, Landsberger came out firmly for Aššurnaṣirpal II; he was followed by Borger and, more tentatively, by Guterbock and Schramm. Most archaeologists with an interest in iconography, however, including Hrouda, Nagel, Moortgat, Boehmer, and Madhloom, while not necessarily insisting on the ascription to Assurnasirpal I in person, refused to accept that a king as late as Aššurnaṣirpal II could possibly have been responsible for it. Of those who were willing to follow Landsberger, only Frankfort, who probably would not have claimed any great familiarity with Assyrian work, did so without reservation. Akurgal admitted to doubts, and Mallowan argued that the WO might have been produced by a distinctively old-fashioned school of sculptors at Nineveh,…