beyler yardımcı olun ingilizce

Beyler yardımcı olun lütfen ingilizceci panpalarim ingilizve bilenler çok faydalı olacak beyler boş bir şey için kullanılmayacak lutfen su ceviride yardimci olun

YArdimci olan herkese hergun gördüğüm entrylerine suku hergün duzenli nickalti

Bi paragrafta olsa sorun değil panpalar



Slightly modifying the topic originally suggested to me by the organisers of this symposium, I will not discuss "how the Assyrian King perceived his land and its resources," but attempt to investigate "how the Neo-Assyrian king perceived his land and its resources" in the present paper. Focusing on the Neo-Assyrian period is, I think, justified by the sources which in that age are more diverse than in the preceding periods.

It should be noted, however, that the Neo-Assyrian kings' views on land can be expected to reflect their predecessors' as the attitude towards land tends to be determined by tradition to a large extent
I am aware of the limited possibilities at our disposal to find answers to the question "how the Neo-Assyrian king perceived his land and its resources" as no king, and indeed nobody else, from that period left a treatise elaborating on his personal views on the matter.

However, we are in the fortunate position to command a variety of different sources which at least allow us to attempt an approximation of the king's attitude towards his land and its resources. The royal inscriptions are probably our most informative source. But as they illustrate the way in which the king chose to portray himself and his actions they do not necessarily reflect the way he actually thought and acted. The same is true for our second source, the royal grants and decrees with which privileges were bestowed upon individuals and temples. A more unbiased view may be found in our third source, the correspondence between the king and his officials. However, as authors and addressees were familiar with the overall situation, the letters do not offer much general information, but primarily deal with specific details. Another important source is the visual record left, most prominently the reliefs found in the Neo-Assyrian palaces. On these reliefs close attention is paid to the depiction of landscape.

By combining the information gathered from these sources, we may try to approximate the king's views on land and its resources. For the purpose of this paper, I will focus on two kings, Sargon II (721-705 BC) and Sennacherib (704-681 BC), as texts covering all the aforementioned categories as well as reliefs have survived from the reigns of these kings. Both Sargon and Sennacherib had new residence cities built, the first Dur-Sarrukin and the latter Nineveh; in their inscriptions they explain why they chose to do this. These passages contain the most personal accounts on how these Assyrian kings saw their land and its potential. While Sargon relishes the thought that none of his predecessors, 350 in number, had realised the great promise shown by city of Maganuba which he had chosen as a location for his residence Dur-Sarrukin, Sennacherib takes pride in being the one to raise the ancient city of Nineveh to the eminent position it had so long deserved.

As a first step to approximate the Assyrian kings' attitude towards land a reaction to a recent description of this attitude as that of a dominant male penetrating a passive female is called for.

In an attempt to interpret the landscape imagery of the Assyrian reliefs, modelled after interpretative work on sixteenth century Italian and seventeenth century Dutch landscape paintings, M. I. Marcus, claiming that "it seems worthwhile exploring the radical idea that the Assyrian imperial "landscapes" were likewise expressions of (male) sexual anxieties and ideologies - expressions of (royal) manhood in the face of Nature, seen as female and Other" tries to connect Assyrian territorial conquest, characterised as "penetration followed by possession" with "male (hetero)sexual anxieties." She comes to the conclusion that "all of this imagery implies a double desire by the king and state: to dominate the land as a man might dominate a woman." While it is clear that the Assyrian king indeed wished to master the land the sources hardly lend themselves to the equation with a sexual relationship between a dominant male and a passive female. As sexual connotations are entirely missing both in the written and in the visual accounts on the Assyrian conquests, Marcus' approach may be less radical than rather unduly influenced by pre-conceived notions about the nature of Assyrian imperialism as well as her theoretical

framework. Especially the idea that the Assyrians equated the land with the female and the female body cannot be supported at all. Note also that the Assyrians called their country ASsur, after their male god.