Interpretations of the 'Assyrian sacred tree,' 1849--2004.

Abstract

The so-called Assyrian sacred tree is often said, probably correctly, to be the most discussed symbol in the entire historiography of Assyrian art. This image, appearing most famously in relief repeatedly on Assurnasirpal II's palace walls at Nimrud, has been defined variously as a <italic>kiskanu </italic> (an undefined species of tree named in texts), as a stylized depiction of a date palm and as a cult object. These three interpretations, recurring in scholarly literature dating from 1849 to 2004, are here examined both in terms of their limitations and their possibilities. The idea that the Assyrian sacred tree can be identified as a botanical species, and/or that it can be identified as a precursor to the 'tree of life' described in Genesis, is examined in the first part of this study. In interpreting the Assyrian sacred tree as the <italic>kiskanu</italic>, scholars have had to decide whether the depicted form is a representation of an actual tree or a representation of a mythical tree. I introduce the possibility that the <italic> kiskanu</italic> could itself have been an artificial tree; and I suggest that this might throw light on the identity of the Assyrian sacred tree. The idea that the Assyrian sacred tree as seen in the reliefs is a stylized version of a date palm, and that it represents an abstract symbol of that tree, is examined in the second part of this study. In interpreting the motif as a symbol of a date palm, scholars have relied on claims of similarity to actual trees, on the social significance of trees in the ancient Near East and on parallels discussed in the Bible, buttressing their views with the theory that the genies are fertilizing the sacred tree. I conclude that the date palm identification follows from historical trends of thought rather than from the presentation of convincing evidence. The theory that the Assyrian sacred tree as seen in the reliefs was an object that was set up and worshipped is examined in the third part of this study. In addition to examining evidence for artificial trees in ancient Near Eastern texts and the visual record, I also examine ways in which the so-called tree might have been constructed. Particular elements in the depicted form lend themselves well to comparisons with furniture and architecture of the Neo-Assyrian period. These comparisons encourage us to view the Assyrian sacred tree as composed of distinct components that can be analyzed separately. There exists no evidence that enables us definitively to identify the Assyrian sacred tree as either a <italic>kiskanu</italic>, or as a stylized date palm, or as a cult object. However, an analysis of the entirety of this enduring scholarly debate provides us with the means to critically assess the arguments put forward in support of each interpretation. It also allows us to study the operation of scholarly thought in the humanistic disciplines, and the ways in which ideas are engendered, how they are sustained and why they are sustained.