Some Painted Bricks from Nineveh, a Preliminary Report*

Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIV, 1999

SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH, A PRELIMINARY REPORT*

BY John Malcolm RUSSELL

In 1987, 1989, and 1990, David Stronach directed excavations at Nineveh, Iraq, the first three seasons of a projected multi-year campaign that was unfortunately interrupted by the Gulf Crisis. His goal was to go beyond the previous focus on the Late Assyrian remains atop Kuyunjik, and look at the entire city through time, “to throw new light on the character of the site as a whole at a number of separate intervals between the early third millennium and the 7th century B.C. with reference, not least, to the pattern of urban trends in both prehistoric and historic Assyria”1. To this end, his University of California Berkeley team excavated in the area of the Halzi and Mashki gates, at a small mound near the northwest corner of the city wall, and in a deep erosion gully on the east side of Kuyunjik. The team also documented the current state of the exposed remains throughout the city area, including the Khosr River wall, and the Adad and Shamash gates, and Stephen Lumsden carried out a surface survey of the northern part of the city enclosure. In the 1989 and 1990 seasons, David Stronach invited me to join the group in order to investigate the area of Sennacherib’s palace, the site of the first excavations at Nineveh in the 1840’s. This was a welcome opportunity for me to document the standing remains of the throne-room suite, as excavated and restored by Tariq Madhloom in the mid-1960’s

* This study is dedicated in gratitude and friendship to David Stronach. I am also grateful to the University Seminars at Columbia University for publication assistance that enabled the bricks to be reproduced here in color. A report on the Nineveh excavations was presented at the symposium “New Light on Ancient Assyria: A Symposium in Memory of Edith Porada,” sponsored by the University Seminar for the Archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean, Eastern Europe, and the Near East. Very sincere thanks also to Elizabeth Hendrix for reading the manuscript and preparing the watercolors and Appendix. 1 Stronach 1994: 85. For further preliminary reports, see Stronach 1989, 1990, 1991, 1995, Stronach and Lumsden 1992, and Lumsden 1991. 86 J.M. RUSSELL

Fig. 1. Nineveh, Kuyunjik, Sennacherib Palace Site Museum, throne-room facade (Court H), view, excavation director David Stronach demonstrates the pose of bull colossus 7 in Door a, 1989 (photo: author).

(fig. 1)2. My primary goal, however, was to test some theories about the extent of the palace, while also beginning to complete and correct the plan as it was known from earlier excavations. In 1989, we reexcavated Sennacherib’s “Eastern Building” in search of the northeast end of the palace, which Sennacherib’s building accounts place some 300 meters north of the throne room3. In 1990, we turned our attention to the western end of the palace, 500 meters distant from the area where we had worked the year before, in hopes of clarifying the plan and location of its western facade4. A.H. Layard excavated

2 Russell 1998. 3 Russell 1991: 84-86, Russell 1997: 299-301. 4 My work was funded by the Mesopotamian Fellowship of the American Schools of Oriental Research and by grants from Linda Noe Laine and Columbia University. We began work in late April and stopped at the end of May. Stevan Beverly, a Berkeley graduate student, helped supervise the excavation. Our force of local workers numbered about ten for most of the season, rising somewhat toward the end. SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH 87 in this area during his campaign of 1849 to 1851, and reported that “the western facade, like the eastern, was formed by five pairs of human- headed bulls, and numerous colossal figures, forming three distinct gate- ways”5. His published plan of the west facade is very tentative, however, and the facade is not described in his field notes or shown on his field plan. This suggests either that he investigated it superficially, or that it was discovered after his departure and he was merely reporting what he had been told6. L.W. King also excavated part of the west facade from 1903 to 1904, but did not publish his work, and apparently did not even make a plan. R.C. Thompson, who succeeded King at Nineveh from 1904 to 1905, described King’s discoveries there as follows:

(1) an additional row of chambers beyond the wall which Layard con- sidered to be the external wall of the palace; (2) the exterior wall of the palace on this side was sculptured with representations of his expedition to the Persian Gulf; (3) a pavement forming a terrace thirty feet broad, running along the W. front of the palace; (4), most interesting of all, the main W. entrance to the palace, with two colossal bulls in place, and a colossal figure of Gilgamish strangling a lion7.

Our goal in 1990 was to locate and record L.W. King’s west facade, and to determine its relationship to the part of the palace excavated by Layard. While he was at Nineveh, Thompson made a 1:500 scale topographic plan of the entire mound of Kuyunjik, with the plans of the palaces and the location of all excavations drawn in8. I had hoped that we could use this as the starting point for our own plan of the area around Sennacherib’s palace, but despite its large size and apparent detail, it proved to be completely inadequate. One problem with Thompson’s plan was that the topography of the palace site was omitted, perhaps because the surface there was hilly and uneven as a result of excavation dumps. Instead, this area is shown as if it were flat, with Layard’s plan of the palace super- imposed on it. In fact though, except for the throne room suite, the palace

5 Layard 1853a: 645. 6 Russell 1995. 7 Thompson and Hutchinson 1929: 59-61, 66; Russell 1991: 43-44, 76. 8 Russell 1991: fig. 45. 88 J.M. RUSSELL

Fig. 2. Nineveh, Kuyunjik, southwest corner, plan showing the location of the Berkeley expedition’s 1990 trenches (“a” to “d”) and the approximate location of Sennacherib’s palace and L.W. King’s colossi (source: author).

itself is deeply buried, and the surface features that one actually sees are not shown on the plan. It proved to be impossible, therefore, to correlate the plan with the surface features on the palace site. SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH 89

An even more serious problem with Thompson’s plan is that the mea- surement of the southwest corner of the mound where Sennacherib’s palace is located proved to be very inaccurate. I measured the actual distance from the throne-room facade to the western edge of the mound as about 198 meters, but the same distance is shown on Thompson’s plan as over 220 meters. Comparison between Thompson’s plan and an aerial photograph of the mound taken in 1932 confirms that in the plan the mound is elongated excessively toward the west. As a result, the western terrace of the palace is much too broad on the plan, which makes it useless as a guide to the location of features in this area. These problems did not become apparent until after we had arrived at the site, and we were not prepared at that time to resurvey the mound. We therefore determined to make a new topographic plan of the mound in the following season, at which point we could determine the precise relationship between our 1990 excavations and the throne room. As it turned out, unfortunately, the making of the new plan had to be postponed, which made it difficult to show the location of my 1990 trenches. My provisional solution was to trace the edge of the southwest corner of the mound from the 1932 aerial photograph, and then superimpose the plan of the palace and the location of my trenches (fig. 2). It should be remembered, however, that with the exception of the throne-room suite, Layard’s plan of the palace has never been independently verified. The documented inaccuracies in his plan of the throne-room suite make it seem probable that the remainder of his plan cannot be trusted for measurements and proportions9. Certainly it cannot be relied on for the features of the west facade, most of which he showed restored in outlines. The surface of Kuyunjik is very uneven at the western edge. In most areas the depth of the post-Assyrian deposit is more than five meters, but there is one spot where the present surface of the mound is at the level of the palace floor. We decided to make our first sounding in this depression, which appeared to be roughly where the facade should be, and which in fact is probably King’s old trench (figs. 3, 4). Here we dug a 2 ≈ 22.5 meter east-west trench (“a” on the plan) starting at the west edge of Kuyunjik and running across the depression to the point where the thick post-Assyr- ian deposit begins. At a depth of about 50 centimeters we hit the mudbrick Assyrian palace platform.

9 Russell 1998. 90 J.M. RUSSELL

Fig. 3. Nineveh, Kuyunjik, southwest corner, view looking northwest toward the Berkeley expedition’s 1990 trenches, with trench “a” in the foreground and “b” to “d” behind from right to left (photo: author).

We found no colossi, but near the west end of this trench were several large chunks of sculptural alabaster resting on the platform. Unfortunately, these stones were so shallowly buried that their surfaces were completely eroded by water. If they ever had been sculptured, all evidence of it was lost. Toward the east end of this trench we also found the badly eroded remains of a mudbrick wall. Its west face was lost in the depression, but we were able to trace its east face, which still bore the pickmarks of King’s workmen. This was presumably the outer wall of the palace, the west face of which had been adorned with the colossi. The colossi themselves must have been broken up for lime following King’s departure, as were numerous other sculptures excavated by King at this time10. We attempted to pick up this outer wall in a 2 ≈ 2 meter sounding (“b” on the plan) 15 meters to the north, where we judged it would still be protected by the undisturbed post-Assyrian overburden. We dug down over two

10 Russell 1998. SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH 91

Fig. 4. Trench “a”, view looking northeast toward Sennacherib’s palace (photo: author). meters to the top of the Assyrian destruction level, but ran out of time before we could determine if the wall continued there. We made two more soundings near the western edge of Kuyunjik. One was a 2 ≈ 4 meter trench (“c” on the plan) 35 meters north of the main trench, at the upper end of a small ravine where we hoped to reach the 92 J.M. RUSSELL

Assyrian level without having to remove a prohibitive amount of later material. At a depth of 1.5 meters we hit the top of a post-Assyrian mudbrick wall, and at 2.5 meters found the bottom of this wall resting on the top of the Assyrian destruction level. Again, our time ran out before we could dig into the Assyrian layer. The real surprise in these deeper trenches was that the remains were undisturbed by archaeological activity almost everywhere we dug, which we hardly expected in view of the extensive excavations reported in this area. It is evident that large portions of the palace remain untouched. We hope to continue in these trenches in a future season. Our final sounding in this area was a 2 ≈ 4 meter trench (“d” on the plan) 10 meters north of the main trench, on the slope at the northern edge of the depression (figs. 5, 6). Just below the surface here we found a thick post-Assyrian plaster floor, beneath which was a one meter thick layer of Assyrian destruction fill resting on an Assyrian baked brick pavement. The orientation of the pavement bricks was parallel to that of the palace walls, and its location to the west of the exterior wall suggests that this was part of the palace’s outer terrace. The earth between these two surfaces was full of fragments of Assyrian glazed bricks that had originally belonged to a decorated wall. The glazed surface of these bricks was greatly deteriorated and fragile. Great care was required in removing each piece, and because there were so many of them, we decided to excavate only the southern half of the trench to pavement level, a small 1 ≈ 4 meter strip comprising less than 4 cubic meters of earth. Nevertheless, we recovered well over a hundred fragments of glazed bricks. These bricks seemed to be in worse condition than those published from other sites. None were complete and their decorated surface was poorly preserved. The great majority of the glazed fragments were plain white or yellow, but a few had recognizable motifs: the beardless helmeted head of an Assyrian soldier, mountains, trees, 2 cuneiform signs. We did not have the staff in 1990 to make watercolor copies of the figural fragments we had already recovered, nor were there enough fragments to attempt a reconstruction. We therefore decided to postpone full-scale excavation and analysis of the deposit until the following year, when someone could work exclusively on the bricks. Our documentation in 1990 was limited to cleaning, measuring, and photographing all of the figural fragments, which were then stored at the dig house for further analysis the following season. The plain white and yellow fragments were covered with plastic sheeting and reburied beside the trench. SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH 93

Fig. 5. Trench “d”, view looking northeast showing upper plaster floor at left, and Assyrian pavement in center (photo: author). 94 J.M. RUSSELL

Fig. 6. Trench “d”, view looking northwest showing Assyrian destruction debris containing chunks of painted brick (photo: author). SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH 95

Unfortunately, subsequent events have postponed the resumption of the project, and since the fragments that we excavated in 1990 are of considerable interest in themselves, I decided to publish them in a preliminary form here. My photographs of the brick fragments are quite clear, but due to the poor preservation of the painted surfaces, their subjects are not always easy to read. To improve their legibility in presentation, Elizabeth Hendrix, a conservator of archaeological objects, made large watercolor copies of each brick, working from both color and black-and-white photographs. While painting the bricks, she also studied the range of colors and the order in which they had been applied, and her observations on these subjects are included in the Appendix. Her watercolors and my color photographs are reproduced here at a scale of 1:2. Although it would have been preferable to make the paintings and technical observations directly from the original bricks, the procedure we adopted nevertheless yielded considerable information, which can be treated as provisional, to be checked upon our return to Nineveh. In the mean time, because the subject matter of a number of the fragments is uncertain, I hope that communicating the material in this preliminary form will stimulate others to share their observations with me, so that the final publication can be as accurate as possible. The precise date of the bricks is uncertain. Their apparent original con- text in the facade of Sennacherib’s palace suggests that they date to his reign, but the sole human figure in the group is a helmeted beardless soldier, a very rare occurrence in Sennacherib’s relief images, where sol- diers in armor are almost always bearded11. An alternative date is the reign of Assurbanipal, who carried out extensive renovations on Sennacherib’s palace. But although Assurbanipal is frequently accompanied by beardless courtiers in his North Palace reliefs, these figures are apparently never shown helmeted. The best parallel for this type of figure is in the uninscribed reliefs from Court XIX and Room XXVIII in Sennacherib’s palace, which on stylistic grounds seem to date to the reign of Assurbanipal or later. These reliefs differ from the known Assurbanipal examples, however, pre- cisely in that they show beardless figures in full armor, and this anomaly led Reade to suggest that they may date late in the reign of Assurbanipal

11 The single exception I know is a helmeted beardless archer drawing his bow, on Slab 20c in Room I, now British Museum, WA 124789 (Russell 1998: pl. 59; Reade 1983: fig. 16). On Neo-Assyrian decorated glazed bricks in general, see Reade 1979: 19-20, Nunn 1988: 165-84, Moorey 1994: 312-22. 96 J.M. RUSSELL or even to the reign of Sinsharishkun. Although no securely documented art is known from the latter king’s reign, Falkner observed that a Sinsha- rishkun foundation cylinder from Nineveh reports his restoration of the western entrance of Sennacherib’s “marble palace”12. If this should prove to be the west facade of Sennacherib’s palace, then Sinsharishkun could well be responsible for the glazed brick decoration in this area. A more precise dating will have to await the recovery of a sufficient number of bricks to give a good stylistic sample. Whatever their date — Sennacherib, Assurbanipal, or Sinsharishkun — they are of considerable importance, for until now we had no decorated glazed bricks for any of these kings. The bricks probably originally come from a panel or dado associated with the exterior wall of the west facade, where they would have formed a decorated surface that was impervious to the elements. Comparable brick panels were found in situ at Assur and Khorsabad. The Assur example was on the face of a podium outside the southeast door of the Assur temple. The excavator, Andrae, reported that some of the painted bricks bore a Tiglath-pileser stamp on their upper surface. Since the style of the figures painted on the bricks, particularly the partial image of an enthroned king holding a staff, is typical of Tiglath-pileser III, he is most likely the one to have commissioned them13. The subject — the Assyrian army marching through the mountains above, and a fragmentary image of an enthroned king below — is apparently similar to the subject of the Nineveh bricks. At Khorsabad, Sargon II erected painted brick friezes decorated with heraldic subjects on the walls flanking the entrances to the temples14.

12 Layard 1853b: pls. 26, 42, 43; Russell 1991: 150-51; Reade 1972: 89; Falkner 1952-53: 306. King found two fragments of this cylinder in his Shaft 9 (shown on Thomp- son’s plan), just above the late Assyrian platform in the area between Sennacherib’s palace and the Eastern Building (D’Andrea 1981: 112, 197-200). Other fragments derive from Rassam’s excavations of 1878-82, but their find spot has apparently not been published. 13 Andrae 1923: 11-12, pl. 6; Haller and Andrae 1955: 56-61. The stamp identifies the bricks as belonging to the podium at the entrance of the Anu-Adad temple, so it is possible that they were moved to the Assur temple by a later king. Other Tiglath-pileser III painted bricks bear Assur temple podium stamps (Tadmor 1994: 212-13), however, so it is more likely that the Anu-Adad ones were diverted to the Assur temple by Tiglath- pileser himself. Nunn (1988: 180-82) dates the painting to Sargon II on the basis of mountain names in the painted cuneiform inscription, but this seems questionable in view of the stylistic evidence and the brick stamps. 14 Place and Thomas 1867-70, vol. 3, pls. 24, 26-31; Loud et al 1936: fig. 104; Loud and Altman 1938: pls. 17D, 44. SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH 97

The body of the glazed bricks from the area of the west facade is fired clay, apparently the same material as unglazed Assyrian fired bricks. The bricks average 10cm in thickness. No complete examples are preserved to give the other dimensions, but presumably they measured roughly 35 ≈ 35 cm, like the unpainted fired bricks. As already noted, the bricks are very thor- oughly broken, making one wonder if they were smashed deliberately, perhaps in order to make a smoother fill. The image is painted on the edge of the bricks, which were apparently assembled together temporarily for the purpose. Prior to firing, the composition was then disassembled and fitters’ marks were painted in white on the bricks’ upper surfaces to assist in their final reassembly. Glaze runs on the top and bottom surfaces indi- cate that the bricks were painted and/or fired with the glazed face up. The principal colors in the figurative compositions are white, yellow, and green, with outlines painted in white, black, and purple, a typical Neo-Assyrian palette. The plain glazed bricks, which presumably served as borders or backgrounds, were painted either white or yellow. As the composition of the glazes was not analyzed, it is not known if any of these colors have changed over time15. The condition of the glaze ranged from fair to terrible, with most examples falling in the range of poor to very poor. The original surface had almost always flaked away or turned to powder. What remained on the brick was either a thin, often powdery, opaque layer of pigment, or a tinted stain on the brown color of the brick. The most interesting nondecorative feature of the bricks is the fitters’ marks on the upper surface of the decorated bricks. Only a few were preserved in the sample we excavated, but they must originally have appeared on every decorated brick, as an aid in reassembling the composition after the bricks had been fired. Some of the marks were placed in the two corners just above the painted face. Although the Nineveh sample does not include any complete or adjoining bricks, comparanda from Nimrud, Khor- sabad, and Babylon suggest that in these cases, adjoining corners would have been marked with the same sign16. Other marks appear to have been painted nearer the center of the upper surface. Again, comparanda suggest

15 For the range of colors in Neo-Assyrian glazed bricks, see Nunn 1988: 158, and Moorey 1994: 320-21. For technical analyses of Assyrian glazes, see Hedges and Moorey 1975, Hedges 1982, Moorey 1985: 171-87, Reade 1987: 31-33, and Moorey 1994: 319-20. 16 Nimrud: Reade 1963: 39-40, Curtis et al 1993: 20-30, 35-36. Khorsabad: Loud et al 1936: 92-93, Loud and Altman 1938: 14. Babylon: Koldewey 1914: 105-107 (quoted in Moorey 1994: 321-22). 98 J.M. RUSSELL

Fig. 7. Trench “d”, upper surface of brick fragment no. 6, fitters’ mark in the form of Aramaic letter “W”, scale 1:2 (photo: author).

Fig. 8. Trench “d”, upper surface of two brick fragments, fitters’ marks in the form of Aramaic letter “S”, scale 1:2 (photo: author). SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH 99 that these should have identified the bricks in individual courses, with every brick in a given course carrying the same mark. Some of the marks appear to be Aramaic letters: W and S are well-preserved (figs. 7, 8), and two broken characters may be M and Q (figs. 9, 10). Others are apparently nonalphabetic symbols (figs. 11, 12). Possibly these letters and symbols occurred in a consistent sequence, which would have assisted the bricklayers in deter- mining the order of the bricks in each row, and the order of the courses. Those that resemble Aramaic letters are oriented upright when viewed from the front edge, suggesting that the marks were painted from the front as the composition was disassembled for firing. The 22 fragments with preserved decoration are illustrated in the color plates. The general subject seems to be the Assyrian army in a wooded mountainous region. Fragments 1 to 4 depict landscape features. Fragment 1 has alternating short and tall conifer trees, a landscape motif that occurs in a similar form in the colossus transport reliefs in Court VI of Senna- cherib’s palace17. Fragment 2 shows the contour of a mountain top, decorated with the conventional imbricated pattern. Fragments 3 and 4, and possibly 13, also have this pattern. Fragment 5 shows the head and shoul- ders of the helmeted beardless Assyrian soldier already discussed above, in front of whom is an unidentifiable object, possibly the neck of a horse. On Fragment 6 are the lower part of the kilt and the legs of an Assyrian soldier facing left. His rear leg appears to be overlapped by an unidentifiable object. Fragment 7 is decorated with a pattern of concentric circles. The closest parallel to this is the pattern on the round shield held by an Assyrian soldier in one of the wall paintings from Til Barsip18. Alterna- tively, this could simply be part of a “target” pattern from a decorative frieze. Fragment 8 has traces of two cuneiform signs, perhaps ud and lu. Fragments 9 to 12 all appear to be representations of decorated garments. Fragment 9 shows a common pattern that occurs on the kilt worn by auxiliary archers in reliefs from Sargon II to Assurbanipal, and also on the sides of war chariots and siege machines in Sargon’s reliefs, and on the garments of captive women in Sennacherib’s19. Fragment 10 appears to be

17 Russell 1991: figs. 56, 58-60. 18 Parrot 1961: xvi-xvii. 19 Sargon II (all from Albenda 1986), kilts: pls. 128, 136, fig. 88; chariot box: pls. 116, 121, 123, 129; siege machine: pl. 141. Sennacherib: Hall 1928: pl. 38:1, Layard 1853b: pl. 20, 27. Assurbanipal: Layard 1853b: pl. 46. 100 J.M. RUSSELL

Fig. 9. Trench “d”, upper surface of a brick fragment, fitters’ mark, possibly the Aramaic letter “M”, scale 1:2 (photo: author).

Fig. 10. Trench “d”, upper surface of a brick fragment, fitters’ mark, possibly the Aramaic letter “Q”, scale 1:2 (photo: author). the lower curve of a fringed garment, similar to examples worn by pro- tective figures painted on doorjambs at Til Barsip20. Fragments 11 and 12 may also depict a patterned garment, perhaps with a border or fringe on the lower part of Fragment 11. A similar pattern of a grid in one color with inset squares of another color occurs on the garment of the king in one of

20 Parrot 1961: fig. 110, Thureau-Dangin 1936, “Album”: pls. 47, 48. SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH 101

Fig. 11. Trench “d”, upper surface of brick fragment no. 5, nonalphabetic fitters’ mark, scale 1:2 (photo: author).

Fig. 12. Trench “d”, upper surface of brick fragment no. 1, nonalphabetic fitters’ mark, scale 1:2 (photo: author). 102 J.M. RUSSELL the Til Barsip wall paintings21. Fragments 15 and 16 seem to belong to a decorative border or frieze composed of alternating squares in white, green, and yellow, with yellow borders above and below. I cannot identify the remaining fragments with confidence. Fragment 17 may depict a royal crown, and Fragments 18 and 19 may show parts of horse tack. The surviving part of Fragment 20 is reminiscent of the profile of the horned crown of divinity, but this appearance may be an accident of preservation22. Hendrix observed that the toothed pattern on Fragment 22 recalls the treatment of the lion’s mane in the Til Barsip paintings23. Fragments 14 and 21 are too incomplete for me to guess their subject. When we return to Nineveh, there is still much to learn about the glazed bricks, both those excavated in 1990 and those presumably still buried in the remainder of the deposit. Excavating more of the deposit might allow us to recover a sample large enough to enable us to identify the composition and, ideally, attempt a reconstruction, as well as to ascertain the iden- tity of the king who erected them. A larger corpus of bricks might also enable us to reconstruct the repertory and system of fitters’ marks. We also need to check our watercolor copies against the original bricks, make copies of any new bricks, and analyze the composition of the glazes. To summarize, the 1990 season raised many more questions than it answered and laid the groundwork for much future work. We were not able to determine the plan of any part of the western end of the palace, though the mudbrick platform, baked brick pavement, mudbrick wall, and glazed brick wall fragments are all parts of it. We did come to appreciate the difficulties of trying to work in the late Assyrian level of Kuyunjik, with its tremendous accumulation of later material, the undisturbed part of which is itself poorly understood and well worth investigating. Finally, we were able to get a good head start for next time, having reached at least the top of the Assyrian level everywhere we excavated. Let us hope the next season is not long in coming.

21 Parrot 1961: fig. 112. 22 Russell 1991: fig. 95. 23 Hendrix, Appendix; Parrot 1961: fig. 345. SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH 103

Appendix: Some Observations On Technique

Elizabeth A. Hendrix

The process of making watercolors of the Nineveh glazed bricks afforded me the opportunity to examine the painting techniques of their artisans. Although I worked from photographs rather than the actual objects, some of the physical relationships between the colors were revealed in the black-and-white prints and color slides. I hope my observations, necessar- ily preliminary at this stage, can be compared to observations made from the bricks themselves before too long. My conclusions were based on the following details: 1) Losses in the surfaces of the glaze revealed whether the brick surface or a previously applied glaze was directly underneath. In the latter case, the relative sequence of colors could be determined. 2) The texture of the brushwork of one color was sometimes visible underneath a thinner color that had been applied over it. On other examples, the pattern of the brushwork in adjacent colors indicates that one area of color was painted in first, and the other color was then filled in around it. 3) Very often, the contours of the design were emphasized or “cleaned up” by painting a border around them. This border occasionally strayed inside the contours of the design, leaving bits of the design outside the borders. It also interrupted the texture of the colors underneath it, showing that it was applied after the main shape was painted, but before that paint had set. It is certain that these borders did not function as a guide for the application of colors, like the lines in a coloring-book. Rather, they help emphasize the shapes of the design. The artisans responsible for painting these bricks seem to have approached their work in two different manners: painting the design from a “drawer’s” point of view, and painting from a “colorist’s” point of view. In the former approach the subject of the design, for example the golden stepped pattern which may represent an elaborate textile (no. 9), was painted first, directly onto the brick surface. The motif itself seems to be foremost in the mind of the artisan. Once that was painted, the white background color was then laboriously applied around the golden design, the brush strokes of the white following the contours of the golden lines. Bricks painted with the second method show that the artisan had the overall appearance of the brick in mind from the beginning: the main background color was put down over all or most of the brick, and then the design details were 104 J.M. RUSSELL painted on top of that. Interestingly, the former technique could be observed on more of the bricks in this sample than the latter, more effi- cient technique. Brief descriptions of the painting techniques used for each of the bricks follow.

No. 1. Alternating trees. Despite the complexity of the design, the yellow, green and white shapes were all painted directly on the brick surface. The white borders were painted last. No. 2. Mountain scene. The white and the green were painted directly on the brick surface. The yellow must have been painted on top of the white background color, as the texture of the white continues underneath the yellow color. White borders were painted after the yellow to clean up its contours. The purple outlines were applied last. No. 3. Mountain scene. The green and yellow were painted directly on the brick surface. The borders look completely flaked off, though they seem to have originally interrupted the lines of yellow. No. 4. Mountain scene. The yellow and most of the white were painted first, directly on the brick surface. Areas of green were painted next, possibly on top of the white. White borders around the yellow were painted last to define the contours of the yellow. No. 5. Upper part of a soldier and neck of a horse. All areas of colors were painted on the brick surface. The dark lines emphasizing the contours of the soldier and horse were painted last, on top of the other colors. No. 6. Lower part of a soldier. The brick surface is visible directly beneath the yellow. The white was applied next, and finally the dark purple borders which emphasize the contours of the design. No. 7. Shield or “target” pattern. The texture of the glaze shows that the yellow was painted first, the white next, and the pale purple borders last. No. 8. Cuneiform writing. The yellow ground line and the white background were painted directly on the brick surface. The cuneiform signs, painted on top of the white, are now visible as stains on the white background color. The borders to either side of the yellow ground line were either left unpainted, allowing the natural brick color to serve as the borders, or the glaze of the borders has completely flaked off. Alternatively, the borders may be painted in a color that is not distinguishable from the natural brick color in the photographs. No. 9. Textile pattern? Here the texture of the glazes clearly shows that the yellow was painted first, followed by the white; the strokes in the white follow the pattern established by the yellow design. SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH 105

No. 10. Textile pattern? The white and yellow were painted directly on the brick surface. The green seems to have been applied over the white. The purple areas and the borders were painted last, over other colors. No. 11. Textile pattern? It seems the yellow design was painted first, followed by the white background. On top of these the other colors and details were painted, including the white borders that refine the edges of the yellow. No. 12. Textile pattern? The white and green were painted directly on the brick surface. It appears that the yellow was painted on top of white. The borders were applied last. No. 13. “Diamond” pattern. The preservation of the glazes on this fragment shows that the yellow and white areas of color were painted directly on the brick surface, and that the glaze was most thickly built up on the borders. No. 14. Unidentified design. The green and yellow were painted directly on the brick surface. The white borders and details were painted last. No. 15. Series of colored squares. All the colors were painted directly on the brick surface except the borders, which were painted last. No. 16. Series of colored squares. It is obvious in this fragment that the white and the yellow were each painted directly on the brick surface, and that the borders were painted last. No. 17. Unidentified design, possibly part of a helmet. The white was painted directly on the brick surface, then the green was applied over the white. Although difficult to discern, it seems the yellow was painted on top of the white as well. The white/pale green borders were painted last. No. 18. Unidentified design, possibly part of a helmet. The green, yellow and white areas were painted directly on the brick surface. The dark stripes were painted last, on top of the other colors. No. 19. Unidentified design, possibly part of a horse’s tack. In this fragment the pale green seems to have been painted directly on the surface of the brick. The white was painted onto the brick surface as well, and here, perhaps due to the complexity of the design, the yellow was painted on top of the white. No. 20. Unidentified design. The green was painted directly on the brick surface, as were the large white and yellow shapes. The smaller yellow shapes may have been painted over a white ground. The white borders and details were painted last. No. 21. Unidentified design, possibly a portion of a wing. This fragment shows that most of the yellow that is visible is the “stain” of the original 106 J.M. RUSSELL glaze, which remains here only in small patches. The yellow was painted directly on the brick surface. The white was applied over the yellow, and the purple lines finally applied over the white. No. 22. Unidentified design, possibly part of the fringe of an animal’s coat. The boundaries of colors on this small fragment were difficult to discern. However, it is evident that the black lines were painted last.

To summarize, it would seem that two different approaches to applying glazes to the bricks were used here, one more frequently than the other. The more common method, used on bricks 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22?, was to paint the main colors of the design and background directly onto the brick surface, and then emphasize or clean up the contours of the design with borders applied in a second layer. The alternate method, used on at least some areas of bricks 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20?, 21, in combination with the former method, was to paint broad areas of background color first, with the elements of the design painted on top, and again, the contour borders painted as the final step. The complexity of the design does not appear to have influenced the method used, at least in all cases, since the fragment showing relatively detailed trees, No. 1, reveals the more common approach, as does the com- plex textile pattern of No. 9. The fragment with the soldier, No. 5, is like- wise very detailed as well as complicated, and the artisan may have used the common method here simply to keep track of the design as the work progressed. The two approaches may reflect the working habits of at least two individual artisans. It would be most useful to study the bricks to see if in some cases guidelines were scored onto their surfaces as an aid to the painters, or if the designs were created by those applying the colors. From the present study, painting methods can begin to be discerned, but not the processes or materials of the designers.

Bibliography

ALBENDA, Pauline, 1986, The Palace of Sargon, King of Assyria: Monumental Wall Reliefs at Dur-Sharrukin, from Original Drawings Made at the Time of Their Discovery in 1843-1844 by Botta and Flandin (Synthèse, 22). Paris: Édi- tions Recherche sur les Civilizations. ANDRAE, Walter, 1923, Farbige Keramik aus Assur und ihre Vorstufen in altassy- rischen Wandmalerei. Berlin: Scarabaeus. SOME PAINTED BRICKS FROM NINEVEH 107

CURTIS, John E., Dominique COLLON, and Anthony GREEN, 1993, “British Museum Excavations at Nimrud and Balawat in 1989.” Iraq, 55: 1-37. D’ANDREA, Mary Magnan, 1981, “Letters of Leonard William King: 1902-1904; Introduced, Edited and Annotated with Special Reference to the Excavations of Nineveh.” M.A. thesis, Department of History, University of Wisconsin, River Falls. FALKNER, Margarete, 1952-53, “Neue Inschriften aus der Zeit Sin-sarru-iskuns.” Archiv für Orientforschung 16: 305-10. HALL, Harry Reginald, 1928, Babylonian and Assyrian Sculpture in the British Museum. Paris: Les Editions G. van Oest. HALLER, Arndt and Walter ANDRAE, 1955, Die Heiligtümer des Gottes Assur und der Sin-Samas-Tempel in Assur (Die Wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 67). Berlin: Verlag Mann. HEDGES, R.E.M., 1982, “Early Glazed Pottery and Faience in Mesopotamia.” In The Evolution of the First Fire-Using Industries, ed. Theodore A. Wertime and Steven F. Wertime. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 93-103. HEDGES, R.E.M. and P.R.S. MOOREY, 1975, “Pre-Islamic Ceramic Glazes at Kish and Nineveh in Iraq.” Archaeometry 17: 25-43. KOLDEWEY, Robert, 1914, The Excavations at Babylon. London: Macmillan. LAYARD, Austen Henry, 1853a, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. London: John Murray. —, 1853b, A Second Series of the Monuments of Nineveh. London: John Murray. LOUD, Gordon, Henri FRANKFORT and Thorkild JACOBSEN, 1936, Khorsabad: Part I: Excavations in the Palace and at a City Gate (Oriental Institute Publi- cations, 38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. LOUD, Gordon and Charles B. ALTMAN, 1938, Khorsabad: Part II: The Citadel and the Town (Oriental Institute Publications, 40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. LUMSDEN, S., 1991, “Urban Nineveh: Investigations Within the Lower Town of the Last Assyrian Capital.” Mar Sipri 4/1: 1-3. MOOREY, P.R.S., 1985, Materials and Manufacture in Ancient Mesopotamia. The Evidence of Archaeology and Art. Metals and Metalwork, Glazed Materials and Glass (BAR International Series, 237). Oxford: BAR. —, 1994, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: the Archaeological Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. NUNN, Astrid, 1988, Die Wandmalerei und der glasierte Wandschmuck im alten Orient. Leiden: E.J. Brill. PARROT, André, 1961, The Arts of Assyria. New York: Golden Press. PLACE, Victor and Félix THOMAS, 1867-70, Ninive et l’Assyrie. 3 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale. READE, Julian E., 1963, “A glazed-brick panel from Nimrud.” Iraq 25: 38-47. —, 1972, “The Neo-Assyrian Court and Army: Evidence from the Sculptures.” Iraq 34: 87-112. —, 1979, “Assyrian Architectural Decoration: Techniques and Subject-Matter.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 10: 17-49. 108 J.M. RUSSELL

—, 1983, Assyrian Sculpture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. —, 1987, “Field Observations of Glass and Glazed Materials.” In Early Vitreous Materials (British Museum, Occasional Papers, 56), ed. M. Bimson and I.C. Free- stone. London: British Museum, pp. 31-38. RUSSELL, John M., 1991, Sennacherib’s Palace Without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. —, 1995, “Layard’s Descriptions of Rooms in the Southwest Palace at Nineveh.” Iraq 57: 71-85. —, 1997, Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival Revisited: Excavations at Nineveh and in the British Museum Archives.“ In Assyria 1995, ed. Simo Parpola and Robert M. Whiting. Helsinki: State Archives of Assyria, pp. 295-306. —, 1998, The Final Sack of Nineveh. London: Yale University Press. STRONACH, David, 1989, “When Assyria Fell: New Light on the Last Days of Nineveh.” Mar Sipri 2/2: 1-2. —, 1990, “Nineveh.” In K. Nashef, “Archaeology in Iraq.” American Journal of Archaeology 96: 280. —, 1991, “Nineveh.” In “Excavations in Iraq, 1989-1990.” Iraq 53: 178-79. —, 1994, “Village to Metropolis: Nineveh and the Beginnings of Urbanism in Northern Mesopotamia.” In Nuove Fondazioni nel Vicino Oriente Antico: Realtà e Ideologia (Seminari di Orientalistica, 4), ed. S. Mazzoni. Pisa: Giardini, pp. 85- 114. —, 1995, “Notes on the Topography of Nineveh.” In Neo-Assyrian Geography (Quaderni di Geografia Storica, 5), ed. M. Liverani. Rome: Università di Roma “La Sapienza,” pp. 161-70. STRONACH, David and Stephen LUMSDEN, 1992, “UC Berkeley’s Excavations at Nineveh.” Biblical Archaeologist 55: 227-33. TADMOR, Hayim, 1994, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. THOMPSON, Reginald CAMPBELL and R.W. HUTCHINSON, 1929, A Century of Explo- ration at Nineveh. London: Luzac. THUREAU-DANGIN, François and Maurice DUNAND, 1936, Til-Barsib (Bibliothè- que archéologique et historique, 23). 2 vols. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Captions Plate I. no. 1: Trench “d”, brick fragment, conifer trees, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Eli- zabeth A. Hendrix). no. 2: Trench “d”, brick fragment, mountain, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Eli- zabeth A. Hendrix). no. 3: Trench “d”, brick fragment, mountain pattern, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 4: Trench “d”, brick fragment, mountain pattern, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix).

Captions Plate II. no. 5: Trench “d”, brick fragment, head of an Assyrian soldier, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 6: Trench “d”, brick fragment, legs of an Assyrian soldier, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 7: Trench “d”, brick fragment, shield or “target” pattern, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 8: Trench “d”, brick fragment, cuneiform signs, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix).

Captions Plate III. no. 9: Trench “d”, brick fragment, textile pattern?, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 10: Trench “d”, brick fragment, textile fringe?, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 11: Trench “d”, brick fragment, textile pattern?, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 12: Trench “d”, brick fragment, textile pattern?, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix).

Captions Plate IV. no. 13: Trench “d”, brick fragment, “diamond” or mountain pattern, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 14: Trench “d”, brick fragment, unidentified subject, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 15: Trench “d”, brick fragment, decorative border, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 16: Trench “d”, brick fragment, decorative border, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix).

Captions Plate V. no. 17: Trench “d”, brick fragment, unidentified pattern, possibly a royal crown, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 18: Trench “d”, brick fragment, unidentified pattern, possibly horse tack, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 19: Trench “d”, brick fragment, unidentified pattern, possibly horse tack, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 20: Trench “d”, brick fragment, unidentified pattern, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 21: Trench “d”, brick fragment, unidentified pattern, possibly a horned crown, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). no. 22: Trench “d”, brick fragment, unidentified pattern, scale 1:2 (photo: author, watercolor: Elizabeth A. Hendrix). PLATE 1

3 4 PLATE 2

5 6

7 PLATE 3

9 10

11 12 PLATE 4

13 14

15 PLATE 5

17 18 19

20 21 22