Relations of Power in Early Neo-Assyrian State Ideology

Mattias Karlsson

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781501516191
• eBook ISBN: 9781614519683
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: History

This volume examines the state ideology of Assyria in the Early Neo-Assyrian period (934-745 BCE) focusing on how power relations between the Mesopotamian deities, the Assyrian king, and foreign lands are described and depicted. It undertakes a close reading of delimited royal inscriptions and iconography making use of postcolonial and gender theory, and addresses such topics as royal deification, "religious imperialism", ethnicity and empire, and gendered imagery. The important contribution of this study lies especially in its identification of patterns of ideological continuity and variation within the reigns of individual rulers, between various localities, and between the different rulers of this period, and in its discussion of the place of Early Neo-Assyrian state ideology in the overall development of Assyrian propaganda. It includes several indexed appendices, which list all primary sources, present all divine and royal epithets, and provide all of the "royal visual representations," and incorporates numerous illustrations, such as maps, plans, and royal iconography.

1Introduction

1.1Topic and background of the study

The Neo-Assyrian empire was one of the great empires of the ancient world. At its maximal extent in the 7th century BCE, it comprised extensive areas of the Ancient Near East, including parts of present-day Turkey, Iran, and Egypt. A considerable amount of Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions and iconography that legitimate the imperialism and right to rule of the kings has been preserved. This material can be classified as state ideology, conveying the official formulation of an imperial idea in a fundamentally propagandistic and indoctrinating manner (Liverani 1979; Garelli 1982).1 The topic of this book − Neo-Assyrian state ideology − centres on the world view which is expressed in these sources, more precisely in the inscriptions and iconography of the ten kings of the formative Early Neo-Assyrian Period (934–745).2 This study is thus not focused on the actual structure or workings of the empire but on the ideas behind it. The notion that “the history of Assyria was not only the history of the growth of an empire, but also the history of the growth of an imperial idea” (Beaulieu 2005: 49) is here recognized.

Nevertheless, before proceeding to describing the plan and realization of this study in detail, a brief historical background needs to be given. The Neo-Assyrian empire ultimately had its roots in the city state Aššur,3 which in the third millennium BCE seems to have been an insignificant polity, being under some kind of authority of first the Sargonic state (2334–2154) and then the Ur III state (2112–2004) (Cancik-Kirschbaum 2008: 30–31).4 The ethnical composition of this small, dependent polity is unclear, but it may have had an “Akkadian” character right from the start (Larsen 1976: 43).

With the Old Assyrian state (c. 2000–1500), a seemingly independent Assyrian polity had developed. This polity was not only governed by the ruler but also by an assembly of Aššur (ālum) consisting of free men. Eponyms (limmum), i.e. male representatives of “aristocratic” families, also seem to have played a role. The title of “king” (šarrum) was a prerogative of the god Ashur. The city state in question had a mercantile character, as attested by the trade colonies (kārum) and stations (wabartum) in Anatolia, notably Kanesh.5 This trade, in which tin and textiles were given in exchange for gold and silver, was in the hands of the aristocratic families of Aššur and their representatives in Anatolia. At one time, Aššur formed a part of the great, Habur-based, north-Mesopotamian state under the Amorite ruler Shamshi-Adad I (1813–1781). A period of which much is unknown due to the general lack of sources then followed (Larsen 1976: 109–223).

In the Middle Assyrian Period (c. 1500–1000),6 Aššur developed from a city state to a territorial state, i.e. it now consisted of areas beyond the city of Assur and its hinterland. Some scholars, using a looser definition, even refer to the Middle Assyrian state as an empire.7 A first step in this polity development was the gaining of independence from the Hurrite state of Mitanni with its centre in the Habur area. Under Ashur-uballit I (1363–1328), “Assyria” (māt Aššur) seeked recognition as one of the great powers in the Amarna correspondence (Liverani 1990). Under Adad-narari I (1305–1274) and Shalmaneser I (1273–1244), the land between the twin rivers in northern Mesopotamia was gradually conquered from the Hurrites and the Hittites. Cities such as Nineveh and Arbela now became part of the Assyrian state.

Under the authority of kings like Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243–1207) and Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076), the power of the Assyrian state was consolidated, and even Babylonia was temporarily conquered. The major turning-point in Assyrian state ideology took place in the Middle Assyrian Period. The ruler went from “prince” (rubû) to “king of the universe” (šar kiššati) (Magen 1986: 13–19). Royal inscriptions switched emphasis from building to warfare, and a notion of a divinely ordered imperialism was formulated. The nobility continued to be influential (Kuhrt 1997: 362–63), but the power of the ruler, now sharing the title of “king” with Ashur, was strenghtened. In the 11th and 10th centuries BCE, the control of the Assyrian state over western territiories was weakened following Arameans migrating to the Habur and Balih areas. The sources from these centuries are very sparse.

Turning finally to the Neo-Assyrian Period (934–609),8 it was with the Early Neo-Assyrian Period that Assyria began to evolve from a territorial to an imperial state, carrying the idea of a “universal empire” (Barjamovic 2013: 137–50, 153). Ashur-dan II (934–912) repeatedly refers to fighting the Arameans and to reconquering lands. According to a common way of reckoning, this period starts with this king.9 As is narrated by them in their respective royal annals, Adad-narari II (911–891) and Tukulti-Ninurta II (890–884) continued the political-military acts of reclaiming lands. In this study, I refer to this first phase of the Early Neo-Assyrian Period as eNA I.

Ashurnasirpal II (883–859), followed by his son Shalmaneser III (858–824), then came to power. The former is generally regarded as one of the most important kings of the Neo-Assyrian Period. His state ideology is extensive and pretentious, his army arguably conducted many and far-reaching military campaigns (e.g. to the Mediterranean), and he moved the capital away from Assur to Kalhu (modern Nimrud) where he commissioned the so-called North-West Palace and many temples. His son and successor Shalmaneser III kept Kalhu as his royal residence, carried out military campaigns in many directions, commissioned a plenty of royal inscriptions, as well as several temples and palaces, not the least the palace today known as Fort Shalmaneser in Kalhu. The end of this ruler’s reign was turbulent, with a “civil war” breaking out in 826 BCE and still being unsettled at the king’s death three years later. His field marshal, Dajjan-Ashur, is believed to have played a key role in the late phase of the said king’s reign (Fuchs 2008). I refer to this second phase of the Early Neo-Assyrian Period as eNA II.

Three years into the reign of Shamshi-Adad V (823–811), the son of Shalmaneser III, this “rebellion” was finally put down. This king is also famous for his Babylonian campaigns. The grandson of Shalmaneser III, Adad-narari III (810–783), had a long reign, notable e.g. by his building of a new palace in Kalhu. He is believed to have been a minor at accession, and the queen-mother Sammuramat, who is often identified as the basis for the legend of the queenruler Semiramis, is supposed to have been influential at court. The reign of Adad-narari III has often been seen as a time of decline, although this understanding is not undisputed (Siddall 2013). The said king was followed by his three sons Shalmaneser IV (782–773), Ashur-dan III (772–755), and Ashur-narari V (754–745), concluding this first imperial phase. The sources from all these later reigns are comparatively modest, and a gradual weakening of centralized authority in the first half of the 8th century BCE can be detected, although warfare remained a vital ideological theme. Indicative of a political decentralization of a sort is the powerful position of the field marshal and provinicial governor Shamshi-ilu. In this study, I refer to this third phase of the Early Neo-Assyrian Period as eNA III.

From the perspective of the territorial size of states, the truly imperial state of Assyria was however realized only with the Late Neo-Assyrian Period (744–609) and the king Tiglath-pileser III (744–727) and the Sargonid kings of Sargon II (721–705), Sennacherib (704–681), Esarhaddon (680–669), and Ashurbanipal (668–627). Many different areas, peoples, and cultures formed a part of this imperial state, whose capital was transferred from Kalhu to Dur-Sharrukin by Sargon II and then finally to Nineveh by Sennacherib. The preserved propaganda pieces from these powerful rulers are very extensive and pretentious, and they often tell of the ambitious, religious and military projects of the empire. The Assyrian empire continuously expanded its borders, and the great lands and cultures of Egypt and Babylonia were placed under the Assyrian king’s command. The disintegration of the empire was relatively sudden and is quite unclear to historians. In the final phase, a formidable military threat evolved, and through the combined strength of the armies of the Medes and the Babylonians, the Assyrian empire was defeated around 610 BCE. It however lived on in the ideologies and structures of the succeeding empires of the region (Seux 1980–83: 166; Lamprichs 1995: 405–406), notably the Persian one (Barjamovic 2012).

Neo-Assyrian state ideology then covers a period of over 300 years, and studies on this topic have consequently often been thematic or arranged as surveys (see s. 1.3). A case study, focusing on the state ideology of individual kings or of a certain phase within the time period, is another possible delimitation. In deciding the direction of such a case study, it seems easily defendable to focus on the ten kings and formative historical phase, marked by reconquests and initial empire building, of the Early Neo-Assyrian Period. During this early phase of the Assyrian imperial age, the decisive step to move away from the traditional capital Assur was taken, and the period is represented by rulers who are regarded by historians as much influential in Assyrian history, first and foremost Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III. There are in other words good reasons to centre on the Early Neo-Assyrian Period and the highlighted topic of Early Neo-Assyrian state ideology.

1.2Aims of the study

The overarching aim of this study is to contribute to the description of Early Neo-Assyrian state ideology, both seen as an entity and as consisting of ten parts, i.e. subdivided into the ten reigns. It is to be noticed here that Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III combined are responsible for the vast majority of the preserved royal inscriptions and iconography from this time period. The proportions here are 73%10 and 79% respectively (see apps. 1–3), which means that the propaganda of these two rulers to a large extent represent Early Neo-Assyrian state ideology available to Assyriologists. Nevertheless, a full coverage of the period is needed to give a complete picture.

There are of course many different aspects of a particular state ideology. In other words, the overarching aim then needs to be complemented with a more delimited, precise, and narrower one. The narrower aim of this study is to portray how the relationship between the Mesopotamian deities, the Assyrian king, and “the foreign lands”11 is described and depicted in the inscriptions and iconography of the Early Neo-Assyrian kings. This narrower aim, addressed in chapters 3–5, should be understood as a means to fulfil the overarching one. It should be stated here that my usage of the terms “Assyrian” and “foreign” is strictly a pragmatic, practical one, and I do not intentionally refer to any alleged, ancient nationalities in using them. With regards to geography (see Fig. 1), these terms simply refer to lands and people inside and outside the borders which the Middle Assyrian kings established, and which, put crudely, consisted of the area between the Euphrates and the Tigris in northern Mesopotamia (Radner 2006–2008: 42–53).12

After the fulfilment of the narrower aim, some comparative or secondary aims13 need to be addressed in order to fulfil the overarching aim in a more complete way. These comparative or secondary aims are to trace ideological developments within the reigns (see ch. 6), to trace the existence of local propaganda (see ch. 7), to compare the ideologies of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III and the other kings of the Early Neo-Assyrian Period with one another (see ch. 8), and to place the identified Early Neo-Assyrian state ideology in the historical-ideological contexts of the Old, Middle, and Late Neo-Assyrian periods (see ch. 9). The fulfilment of these aims are intended to lead to a coherent fulfilment of the overarching aim of this work.

1.3Earlier research

In this section, earlier research on Neo-Assyrian state ideology in general (i.e. surveys), according to themes, or through case studies on shorter historical phases or on the sources of Ashurnasirpal II, Shalmaneser III, and other Early Neo-Assyrian kings is presented. Assyriology literature which uses the theoretical approaches of this study are briefly mentioned.14

General studies on Neo-Assyrian state ideology are to be found e.g. in the anthology edited by Larsen containing important contributions by e.g. Liverani (1979) regarding the written sources, and by Reade (1979a) on the visual sources. Studies on Assyrian royal inscriptions and their ideological character are found in the anthology edited by Fales (1981a–b), updated by himself in a subsequent article (Fales 1999–2001), as well as in the recent anthology edited by Eph‘al and Na’aman (2009). Other vital and epigraphically based studies on Assyrian state ideology include those by Garelli (1982) and Tadmor (1997) who both highlight the issue of propaganda. An extensive, although not complete, study on Assyrian royal titles and epithets has been made by Cifola (1995). The ideological character of Neo-Assyrian state iconography has been investigated by e.g. Winter (1981) and Magen (1986).

Studies which focus on particular themes of Neo-Assyrian state ideology are many and diverse. Oded (1992) discusses the justifications for war in Assyrian royal inscriptions, Bär (1996) centres on the topic of foreign tribute, Shafer (1998) studies the phenomenon of Assyrian monuments in the periphery, and Weissert (1997) and C. Watanabe (1998) discuss the ideological role of the royal hunting. The topic of the nature of the Assyrian king − human or divine − as given in the sources has been frequently discussed. The aged but still relevant studies by Labat (1939) and Frankfort (1948) focus on the human nature of the king, while the works by Engnell (1943), Gadd (1948), and more recently Parpola (1999) identify a divine, or at least semi-divine, essence of the king. The external, religious policies of the Assyrian kings, mostly in relation to Israel and Judah, has also been a frequent topic. The works by Olmstead (1931) and Spieckermann (1982) identify a zealous Assyrian approach, while the studies by McKay (1973), Cogan (1974), and Holloway (2001) see a pragmatic and tolerant Assyrian attitude.

Moving on, the anthology edited by Hill et alii (2013a) centres on a dichotomy of cosmic/political orientations of Assyrian and Mesopotamian kingship, identifying three approaches in earlier research: the cosmic or political aspect is put before the other, the two aspects are separate but equal, or the focal point is on exploring the interaction between the two. It is claimed that studies on Assyrian and Mesopotamian kingship tend to focus on the political aspect (Hill et al. 2013b: 4). Contrasting this identified pattern, Pongratz-Leisten (2015) highlights religion and ideology in imperial Assyria. Intertextuality between Assyrian royal inscriptions and various mythological texts has been investigated e.g. by Cancik-Kirschbaum (1995) and Maul (1999). The descriptions of the enemy in Assyrian royal inscriptions have been studied by Fales (1982) and Zaccagnini (1982), while Saggs (1982) has addressed the status and treatment of defeated foreigners.

As for works which are specifically dedicated to the study of Early Neo-Assyrian state ideology, the focal point tends to be on individual kings rather than on the time period as such. Most of these studies then highlight Ashurnasirpal II. The dissertation by Cifarelli (1995), containing (post-colonial) analyses both of the iconographic (emphasized) and epigraphic material, should be mentioned here. Ideology and iconography are focused on by e.g. Winter (1983), J. M. Russell (1998b), and Lumsden (2004) on the reliefs of the North-West Palace, and by e.g. Parpola (1993), Albenda (1994), and Porter (2003) in t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• List of figures
• Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The primary sources of the study
• 3 The relationship between the great gods and the foreign lands
• 4 The relationship between the great gods and the king of Assyria
• 5 The relationship between the king of Assyria and the foreign lands
• 6 Ideological development within the reigns
• 7 Local propaganda and regional politics
• 8 Ideological comparison between the reigns
• 9 The development of Assyrian state ideology
• 10 Conclusion of the study
• Bibliography
• Figures
• Appendices and indices
• Footnotes