Qualification of the Nimrud Reliefs as Propaganda
Now that we have discussed the Reade’s opposition to the notion of Ashurnasirpal’s propaganda, we will turn one last time to the relationship between realism and propaganda to show how pictorial realism provided the perfect vehicle for Ashurnasirpal’s propaganda. As mentioned earlier, realism allows for more effective propaganda in that it makes the political message more believable by contextualizing it in real settings. Winter argues that the advent of artistic realism allowed Ashurnasirpal to create his own history of sorts; the fact that the selection of scenes at Nimrud constantly show the “invincibility of the Assyrians” suggests that the “’real’ world has been much manipulated.” She adds, “The reliefs, therefore, further mediate between history and the king's "assertion-of-history." Because the scenes appear so real-even to appropriate landscape elements and dress-the denoted images function to naturalize the underlying rhetoric… allowing the message to be bought without defensive armor, since the message is seemingly founded in nature” (Winter 23). Transcending mere propaganda, Ashurnasirpal’s reliefs may have been elevated to a historical status on account of their reality, according to Winter. Her account certainly differs, to say the least, from Reade’s description of the reliefs as “plain.”
Though the reliefs at Nimrud are not as focused on war as the those from the palace of Sargon, some examples of deterrent propaganda, are nevertheless, present in collection. Particularly, Cifarelli’s description of how nudity is used in the Nimrud reliefs evidences the inclusion of this form of propaganda. Nudity is not only used to communicate “the shame and humiliation of being stripped of their clothing” but also to communicate “that [the prisoners] have been stripped of all of their possessions, including their weapons, for the Assyrian term for naked, eru, is also used idiomatically to indicate destitution” (Cifarelli 220). Thus we can conclude that the imagery of Nimrud reliefs included both propaganda with peaceful imagery and the deterrent propaganda of Reade.
Winter goes on to conclusively describe the throneroom as “an integrated architectural, pictorial, and textual representation of the institution of kingship and the ideal of the Neo-Assyrian state” (Winter 32). It is clear by now that Ashurnasirpal was particularly concerned with projecting an image of royal strength. The manifestation of his concern should not be mistaken for mere coincidence. In the centuries to follow, “What remains constant is the emphasis on the role and figure of the ruler throughout a variety of narrative and iconic representations: engaged in ritual practice, facing an enemy citadel or in the lead chariot of a campaign attack, overseeing the quarrying of colossal stone getaway figures” (Winter 77). His successors did indeed employ similar tactics in propaganda, and in at least one instance, the historical record has caught one of these rulers, Ashurnasirpal I, grossly manipulating real events to cast a more favorable light on his kingship. In this particular case, Ashurnasirpal I is included in the imagery of battle he did not actually fight in; “Even when the king was apparently not present on a given military campaign, as in the Ulai Riverbattle mentioned above, it is still the king's person who dominates, and the king's voice that echoes, both in text and in image, since the ultimate goal of the victory as depicted is the bringing of the captives, booty and the head of the defeated Elamite ruler back to the king in Nineveh.” (Winter 77) Though this episode does not directly speak to Ashurnasirpal II’s reliefs at Nimrud, it does further underscore the idea that Neo-Assyrian kings were no strangers to propaganda and suggest that Ashurnasirpal II may also have engaged in similar deceit.