A Companion to Assyria

by Eckart Frahm

  Puzur‐Aššur (III), king of Assyria, and Burnaburiaš, king of Babylonia, took an oath and fixed this very boundary‐line.

  (Grayson 1975: 158–9, i 5’–7’)

  Accepting this evidence at face value, one may suggest that Puzur‐Aššur III, at the turn of the 16th and 15th centuries BCE, ruled an area along the Middle Tigris that faced the territory of Kassite Babylonia, though the extent of his realm could still not have been very large. According to the annals of the Egyptian pharaoh Thutmose III (Breasted 1906: 191 f., §§ 446, 449; cf. also Helck 1962: 165), tribute from Ashur, including lapis lazuli, stone vessels, horses with equipment, and a variety of woods, was delivered to Egypt more than once during the pharaoh’s reign, around the middle of the 15th century BCE. This appears to have been part of an effort to enhance Ashur’s international standing in politics and commerce with the assistance of Egypt. Egypt was expected to check the rising influence of Mittani, the Hurrian kingdom whose realm was centered in the area between the Euphrates River bend and the upper reaches of the Tigris River, thus putting pressure on Ashur from the northwest.

  Mittanian Dominion

  In the subsequent decades in the latter half of the 15th century BCE, the city of Ashur was under strong pressure from Mittani. At the zenith of its power, between the mid‐15th century and the mid‐14th century BCE, Mittani extended its influence westward, deep into Syria as far as the Mediterranean coastal areas and eastward to the foot of the Zagros mountains, thus encompassing the entire Hurrian‐speaking region. Sauštatar, a successful Mittanian king, who ruled in the second half of the 15th century BCE (Stein 1989), is said in the later Hurrian‐Hittite treaty between Šattiwaza and Šuppiluliuma to have taken a door made of silver and gold from the city of Ashur as loot and to have set it up in his palace in his capital Waššukkanni; the door is said to have remained in Mittani until Šuttarna returned it to Ashur in the mid‐14th century BCE (Weidner 1923: 38f. no. 2 = Beckman 1995: 49, no. 6B, obv. 8–10). It is difficult to say what the cause of this incident was; and it is unclear whether Ashur had been a client state of Mittani for some time, revolted, and then was punished, or whether it was first subjugated at this time. Be that as it may, the record clearly testifies to Mittanian politico‐military pressure on Ashur in this period. Furthermore, texts from Nuzi dated to ca. 1430–1330 BCE show that Mittani kept its suzerainty over the kingdom of Arrapḫa that included the Hurrian‐populated town of Nuzi and was located ca. 100 km to the east of Ashur. It is likely that Ashur was under strong influence from Mittani during the latter half of the 15th century BCE and probably the beginning of the subsequent one.

  In spite of the apparent Mittanian supremacy over Ashur and its surroundings, there is some evidence for building enterprises and diplomatic efforts by Assyrian kings toward the end of the 15th century BCE. The clay cones of (69) Aššur‐bel‐nišešu (1407–1399 [1417–1409]), whose text is quoted above, document his construction of a new wall in Ashur. Furthermore, the Synchronistic History (Grayson 1975: 158, i 1’–4’) states that Aššur‐bel‐nišešu made a treaty with Karaindaš of Babylonia and that they took an oath concerning the boundary between Assyria and Babylonia, just as Puzur‐Aššur III and Burnaburiaš had done earlier (see above, “Signs of Prosperity”). Another piece of evidence is found in a letter of Aššur‐uballit I (1353–1318 [1363–1328]) to Amenhotep IV (Moran 1987: 39, EA 16), according to which Aššur‐uballit I’s “(fore)father” Aššur‐nadin‐aḫḫe received 20 talents of gold from Egypt. It is disputed whether this Aššur‐nadin‐aḫḫe is the first (66) or the second (71) king of this name (Kühne 1973: 77–8, n. 387; Kühne 1999: 213, n. 105; Artzi 1978: 36); the former reigned before 1430, the latter from 1390–1381 [1400 to 1391] BCE. In any case, the delivery of a large amount of gold from Egypt testifies to the good diplomatic relations between Ashur and Egypt, whether it was tolerated by a Mittanian overlord or whether it is a testimony to Assyrian efforts to become independent from Mittani. In sum, it appears that Ashur’s gradual transformation from a city‐state with a small hinterland to a state with some territory along the Tigris River started at least as early as the end of 15th century BCE, still under the shadow of Mittanian hegemony. However, one must wait for the mid‐14th century BCE, in particular the reign of Aššur‐uballit I, to find undeniable evidence for Assyria’s independence and the state’s rise as a major power of the ancient Near East.

  References

  Artzi, P. 1978. “The Rise of the Middle Assyrian Kingdom according to el‐Amarna Letters 15 & 16: A Contribution to the Diplomatic History of the Ancient Near East in the Mid‐Second Millennium B.C.E.,” in: P. Artzi (ed.), Bar Ilan Studies in History 1, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 25–41.

  Baker, H. 2010. “The Meaning of ṭuppi,” Revue d’Assyriologie 104, 131–62.

  Barjamovic, G., Hertel, T.K., and Larsen, M.T. 2012. Ups and Downs at Kanesh: Chronology, History and Society in the Old Assyrian Period, PIHANS 120, Leiden: NINO.

  Beckman, G.A. 1995. Hittite Diplomatic Texts, Writings from the Ancient World 7, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

  Birot, M. 1985. “Les chroniques assyriennes de Mari,” MARI 4, 219–42.

  Boese, v. J. and Wilhelm, G. 1979. “Aššur‐dān I., Ninurta‐apil‐Ekur und die mittelassyrische Chronologie,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 71, 19–38.

  Breasted, J.H. 1906. Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. 2, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  Charpin, D. 2004. “Mari und Assyrer,” in: J.‐W. Meyer and W. Sommerfeld (eds.), 2000 v. Chr. Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende. 3. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient‐Gesellschaft 4.–7. April 2000 in Frankfurt/Main und Marburg/Lahn, Saarbrücken: SDV, 371–82.

  Charpin, D. and Durand, J.‐M. 1997. “Aššur avant l’Assyrie,” MARI 8, 367–92.

  Charpin, D. and Ziegler, N. 2003. Mari et le Proche‐Orient à l’époque amorrite. Essai d’histoire politique, Florilegium marianum 5, Paris: SEPOA.

  Freydank, H. 2007. “ṭuppu in anderer Sicht,” Altorientalische Forschungen 34, 225–36.

  Galter, H.D. 2002–05. “Textanalyse assyrischer Königsinschriften: Der Aufstand des Puzur‐Sîn,” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 14, 1–22.

  Gasche, H., Armstrong, J.A., Cole, S.W., and Gurzadyan, V.G. 1998. Dating the Fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second‐Millennium Chronology, Ghent and Chicago: University of Ghent and Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

  Grayson, A.K. 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, TCS 5, Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin.

  Grayson, A.K. 1980–83. “Königslisten und Chroniken. B. Akkadisch,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 6, 86–135.

  Grayson, A.K. 1985. “Rivalry over Rulership at Aššur: The Puzur‐Sîn Inscription,” Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project 3, 9–14.

  Grayson, A.K. 1987. Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennium BC, RIMA 1, Toronto: Toronto University Press.

  Heeßel, N.P. 2002. “Zur Lesung der Königsnamens ŠÚ‐URU.NINA,” NABU 2002 (Sept.), 60–1.

  Helck, W. 1962. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

  Hunger, H. and Pruzsinszky, R. (eds.) 2004. Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited, Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  Kühne, C. 1973. Die Chronologie der internationalen Korrespondenz von El‐Amarna, AOAT 17, Neukirchen‐Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

  Kühne, C. 1999. “Imperial Mittani: An Attempt at Historical Reconstruction,” in: D. Owen and G. Wilhelm (eds.), Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 10, Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 203–21.

  Landsberger, B. 1954. “Assyrische Königsliste und ‘Dunkles Zeitalter,’” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 8, 31–73, 106–33.

  Lion, B. 2011. “Assur unter der Mittaniherrschaft,” in: J. Renger (ed.), Assur – Gott, Stadt und Land. 5. I
nternationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient‐Gesellschaft 18.‐21. Februar 2004 in Berlin, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 149–67.

  Maidman, M.P. 2010. Nuzi Texts and Their Uses as Historical Evidence, Writing from the Ancient World 18, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

  Millard, A. 1994. The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire, 910–612 BC, SAAS 2, Helsinki: Neo‐Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

  Moran, W. L. 1987. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  Pruzsinszky, R. 2009. Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium B.C.: An Introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological Issues, Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  Reade, J.E. 2001. “Assyrian King‐Lists, the Royal Tombs of Ur, and Indus Origins,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60, 1–29.

  Stein, D.L. 1989. “A Reappraisal of the ‘Sauštatar Letter’ from Nuzi,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 79, 36–60.

  Weidner, E. 1923. Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien: Die Staatsverträge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazköi, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.

  Wilhelm, G. 1982. Grundzüge der Geschichte und Kultur der Hurriter, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

  Yamada, S. 1994. “The Editorial History of the Assyrian King List,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 84, 11–37.

  Yamada, S. 2003. “Genealogical Data of the Assyrian King List,” Eretz‐Israel 27, 265–75.

  Ziegler, N. 2002. “Le Royaume d’Ekallatum et son horizon géopolitique,” in: D. Charpin and J.‐M. Durand (eds.), Recueil d’études à la mémoire d’André Parrot, Florilegium marianum 6, Paris: SEPOA, 211–74.

  Further Reading

  Important studies of the chronographic sources available for the “transition period” include Landsberger 1954, Yamada 1994 and 2003, Gasche et al. 1998, Reade 2001, Galter 2002–05, and Pruzsinszky 2009; the last‐mentioned work conveniently summarizes previous discussions. On the Hurrians, see Wilhelm 1982. The Mittanian dominion over Ashur is explored by Kühne 1999 and Lion 2011. On evidence for relations between Assyria and Arrapḫa, see Maidman 2010. On the mid‐second millennium Mesopotamian dark age in general, see Hunger et al. 2004.

  Notes

  1 The location of Ekallatum is still in dispute; it was probably on the right bank of the Tigris River a day’s walk north of Ashur (Charpin and Durand 1997: 372–74; Ziegler 2002).

  2 The numbers in parentheses are given in order to facilitate the identification of each king. They follow those of Grayson 1980–3: 101–15.

  3 The meaning and exact chronological connotations of the Akkadian expression bāb tuppišu have been in dispute. Baker’s 2010 study suggests that it refers to a one‐year period. For other views, see Freydank 2007 and Pruzsinszky 2009: 62–4, with bibliography cited there.

  4 For the reading of this personal name as Kidin‐Ninua, rather than Šu‐Ninua, see Heeßel 2002.

  5 This may be not Išme‐Dagan II but a homonymous individual belonging to a different line descended from (54) Kidin‐Ninua (Yamada 1994: 28 f., n. 51).

  6 The lower numbers are the ones suggested by Boese and Wilhelm 1979.

  7 There is insufficient space to restore another name in this line, despite the suggestion by Landsberger 1954: 31.

  CHAPTER 6

  The Middle Assyrian Period (14th to 11th Century BCE)

  Stefan Jakob

  Assyria Joins the Scene

  In its beginning stages, the rise of the Middle Assyrian kingdom was closely linked to the fate of the Mittanian state. At some point during the second half of the 15th century BCE, the Mittanian king Šauštatar conquered Ashur. Since then, the rulers of the city governed a small client state, always hoping to find a way to throw off the yoke of Mittani and to regain independence. It required, however, a fatal period of weakness within the administration of the Mittanian overlord in order to achieve this objective. In the first half of the 14th century, Artašumara, the original heir to the Mittanian throne, was murdered by a certain Utḫi, who appointed the minor figure Tušratta as a puppet king in his place. As a result, the quarrel about power escalated and, shortly thereafter, induced the division of the Mittani state (Harrak 1987: 15–24).

  Aššur‐uballiṭ I, who came to power in the city of Ashur in 1353 BCE, took advantage of this situation. He allied himself with the land of Alše, northeast of the Mittanian heartland, against Tušratta, thus breaching his contract as a vassal. His pursuit of recognition as the ruler of an independent state is also reflected elsewhere, especially in two letters discovered in Tell el‐Amarna in Egypt. The (presumably) earlier letter begins as follows: “Say to the king of E[gypt]: thus Aššur‐ubal[liṭ, the king of Ass]yria” (EA 15, Moran 1992: 38). In the second letter, the salutation is considerably more elaborate: “To Napḫurureya [great king], king of Egypt, my brother, s[ay]: ‘thus speaks Aššur‐uballiṭ, king of Assyria, great king, your brother’” (EA 16, Artzi 1997: 322). Here, the Assyrian ruler presents himself as the ruler of a major power. Furthermore, as a “brother” of the pharaoh, he lays claim to equal status with him. Later, Aššur‐uballiṭ explicitly emphasizes the equality between the king of Ḫanigalbat, i.e., Mittani, and himself (EA 16:26f.). This clearly indicates that the balance of power in northern Mesopotamia had changed decisively.

  Mittani, for its part, had no chance to reestablish the previous order. After the loss of the western Euphrates River area, Tušratta was murdered by one of his sons, who apparently believed he was more capable of coping with Mittani’s problems – it was a fatal misjudgement on his part, as is often the case with impatient princes. The sovereignty of Mittani could not be regained in this way.

  As a result, several pretenders to the Mittanian throne struggled for the crown. From the Hittite sources, we learn that Šuttarna III, the son of the former Hittite ally Artatama II, secured the support of Assyria and Alše. Although he was successful, he paid a high price: prestigious booty from the time of Šauštatar, including a “door of silver and gold,” was returned to Ashur.

  At that point, the Hittites defined in a treaty that descendants of Artatama would be excluded from succession. Instead, the Hittites chose Šattiwaza, the son of Tušratta, who had meanwhile returned from exile and offered the Hittite king his services (since his application for asylum in Babylon was rejected). The monarch also wanted to benefit from the dispute over the Mittanian throne by extending and securing his power base in the east Tigris River region at the cost of the kingdom of Arrapḫa. Aššur‐uballiṭ, for his part, doubtlessly kept an eye on these activities since he was interested in the expansion of his own realm.

  For a while, Arrapḫa seemed able to defend itself against Assyrian and Babylonian attacks but was forced to succumb in the end (Müller 1994: 4). The destruction of Nuzi was probably carried out by 1330 BCE at the latest (Stein 1989: 59; cf. RlA Bd. 9, 641). Even though the troops of Aššur‐uballiṭ were primarily responsible for this military action, it did not have the effect of incorporating the city and its surroundings into the Assyrian realm. Most likely, the Assyrians withdraw into the Lower Zab, leaving the eastern part of the kingdom of Arrapḫa to the Babylonians (Wilhelm 1982: 50). From this point onwards, every battle for supremacy in the east Tigris River region would be a confrontation with Assyria’s southern neighbor.

  Aššur‐uballiṭ could not have had any political interest in a long‐lasting conflict with Babylonia. The marriage of his daughter Muballiṭat‐Šeru’a to the Babylonian king Burnaburiaš II, as recorded by Chronicle P (Grayson 1975: 171), could well have been in conjunction with a treaty that, perhaps, defined the common border. We may assume that the division of the spheres of influence east of the Tigris River played an important role.

  This alliance did not have only supporters at the Babylonian court. After several years, the anti‐Assyrian coalition finally succeeded in overthrowing Karaindaš, the son of Burnaburiaš. His mother, Muballiṭat‐Šeru’a, a symbol of Assyrian heteronomy, was probabl
y killed during the rebellion. Aššur‐uballiṭ was subsequently forced to march to Babylonia in order to replace the usurper, whom Chronicle P refers to as “Šugaš, son of a nobody” (Synchronistic History: Nazibugaš), with Kurigalzu (II), another son of Burnaburiaš (Grayson 1975: 159). Aššur‐uballiṭ could not have known what the consequences of such a decision would be for both sides.

  His successor, Enlil‐nirari (1317–1308 BCE), found himself confronted with the fact that Kurigalzu failed to remain loyal to the Assyrians. As we learn from the chronicles, these two adversaries confronted each other as enemies at Sugaga, a day’s journey south of Ashur near the Tigris River (Nashef 1982: 235), to do battle. The result of the confrontation is assessed differently depending on the provenance of the later commentator. The Babylonian Chronicle P laconically notes that Kurigalzu went to Assyria to fight his adversary, whose name is erroneously given as Adad‐nirari (cf. Mayer 1995: 190, fn. 2). Not only, according to this source, did the Babylonians win the battle, but they also captured several Assyrian captains. By contrast, the Assyrian “Synchronistic History” claims the victory for the Assyrians and adds two details: that the Babylonian camp was carried off and that the boundary was redefined: “They divided the districts from Šasili (of) Subartu [to] Karduniaš into two (and) fixed the boundary‐line” (Grayson 1975: 160).

  Later tradition suggests that the Assyrian version is closer to the truth (RIMA 1, A.O.76.1:25f.). But how threatening the situation was for Assyria during this phase is well illustrated by another chronicle fragment, which records a Babylonian attack on the Kilizu area, not far from Ashur (Grayson 1975: 185). Even if the Assyrians were able to defend their heartland, this event obviously left an impression. They had to prevent any further attempts by Babylonians to reach that very district again. In the future, the Babylonian outposts in the east Tigris River region would become an object of particular attention.