A Companion to Assyria

by Eckart Frahm

  It comes, therefore, as no surprise that the feeding of the god, symbolized by the so‐called “regular offering” (ginā’u), was of great importance for the relationship between the god Assur, the ruler, and the people of the land of Ashur. The religious duties of the king, however, included the provision to care for all of the gods. Shalmaneser I calls himself the mubbib šuluḫḫī u nindabê mušātir ana napḫar ilāne zībi taklīme, “the one who keeps rituals and offerings pure, the one who makes abundant the presentation offerings for all of the gods” (RIMA 1, A.0.77.1:3–5). While his son and successor Tukulti‐Ninurta used very similar epithets, the tone shifted slightly after the reign of Aššur‐reša‐iši. From that point onwards, the epithet section of royal inscriptions emphasized the martial qualities of the respective ruler. The care for sanctuaries and ritual duties are mentioned, rather, in the context of accounts of royal temple building.

  The king as good shepherd

  The fulfillment of the king’s duties to the gods, such as were expected from the king, would ensure the prosperity and welfare of the land and its people. The Assyrian rulers attached great importance to their role as guardians of their subjects. From the reign of Adad‐nirari I onward (Seux 1967: 247), they often called themselves “shepherds.” Shalmaneser I referred to himself as rē’û puḫur dadmē, “shepherd of all the settlements” (RIMA 1, A.0.77.1:7f.), and Tukulti‐Ninurta I boasted that “Assur … gave me the scepter for my office of shepherd (and presented) me in addition the staff for my office of herdsman” (A.0.78.1 i 21–4). Later, he claimed to be in charge of the entire world, saying that he “shepherded the four quarters behind Šamaš” (Deller, Fadhil, and Ahmad 1994: 460f.). From here, it was only a small step for Tukulti‐Ninurta to identify himself with the sun god directly, in the title dŠamšu kiššat nišē, “Sun(god) of all people” (Cifola 2004: 8).

  The king as builder

  In Middle Assyrian royal inscriptions, special attention was paid not only to glorious deeds on the battlefield, but to public works as well. The building and reconstruction of temples were the primary concern, but the king’s palace (ekallu), as a prestigious symbol of kingship, did not remain unmentioned. The Assyrian rulers made considerable efforts to provide proper care and maintenance of public buildings. After all, such deeds would certainly be more lasting than military successes. Consequently, special emphasis was placed on foundation deposits that documented royal achievements in this area. A later ruler who would find earlier building reports in these deposits as he was undertaking his own construction work was thus encouraged to honor his predecessors’ memory. Correspondingly, in case of the removal or the obliteration of the original builder’s name, the violator was cursed. Tukulti‐Ninurta I, for instance, states at the end of an inscription relating to construction work in his new residence: “He who destroys that wall, discards my monumental inscriptions and my inscribed name, abandons Kar‐Tukulti‐Ninurta, my capital, and neglects (it): may the god Assur, my lord, overthrow his sovereignty, smash his weapons, bring about the defeat of his army, diminish his borders, decree the end of his reign, darken his days, vitiate his years (and) destroy his name and his seed from the land” (RIMA 1, A.0.78.22:59–67).

  The king as judge

  Compared to the situation during the Old Assyrian period, the Middle Assyrian king was apparently less concerned with his role as a judge. Although he was likely the supreme judicial authority and could be appealed to directly in certain cases (for example, adultery, theft of booty, or sorcery), judicial functions were usually performed by royal officials. Professional “judges” (da” ānu) are, however, attested only rarely in the textual record (Jakob 2003: 20f.; 183ff.).

  The king’s servants

  At the king’s side, there was a sophisticated bureaucracy, whose fields of responsibility were, however, not sharply outlined. The ruler could intervene at any time and at any level, either personally or through an intermediary, either by command (ina abat šarre), by decree (riksu), or by royal representatives (qēpūtu ša šarre).

  The representatives were trusted men recruited, to a large extent, from the group of officials called ša rēši (see below, “The Royal Palace”). With their help, the king maintained contact with various institutions all over the Assyrian territory. The main task of the administration, especially in the provinces, was to register the crop yield of state‐owned fields under cultivation and the stocks of animal husbandry. In and around the capital, administrators were also concerned with the registration of men and goods (e.g., prisoners of war, deportees, levies, or tribute), the allocation of royal gifts (rīmuttu), long‐distance trade, and the certification of private sales of land (Jakob 2003: 270–81).

  High‐ranking officials had their own qēpu representatives, who acted on their behalf. Of particular note is a certain Babu‐aḫa‐iddina, who was a powerful official, presumably a vizier, at the royal court during the second half of the 13th century BCE. The archive from his private quarters in the city of Ashur (Freydank and Saporetti 1989; Pedersén 1985: 106–13) provides us with rich information about his economic activities and his relationship with the court. Babu‐aḫa‐iddina’s qēpūtu were instructed to check and inventory the stocks of his storehouses in several cities. Furthermore, they supervised the servants and workers of the household and served as messengers. In the absence of their master, they were allowed to write to the superintendent of Babu‐aḫa‐iddina’s house in the latter’s name (Jakob 2003: 282–6). Altogether, we get the impression that Babu‐aḫa‐iddina’s household was a smaller‐scale version of the royal household.

  The royal qēpu officials were responsible for the registration of administrative processes, but, as a rule, they did not write themselves. This task was delegated to a professional scribe (ṭupšarru), often mentioned in the documents in question after the qēpūtu.

  The durability of clay as a writing material meant that a large number of administrative tablets have survived. But it must be assumed that a considerable part of administrative procedures were actually documented on wooden writing‐boards (lē’u) with wax surfaces (Postgate 2007: 371–4). They were demonstrably used for lists of personnel and also for the daily administration of commodities, which required a constant addition or removal of entries. This can be deduced, for example, from a document which records the transfer of information about sheepskins that were accrued in various temples during a period of two years from “the writing‐boards of the offerings” to a clay tablet (Jakob 2003: 377).

  Certainly there was a group of counselors at the king’s court to advise him on the politics of the day, even though we have no evidence that any Middle Assyrian king had a “cabinet” of the highest officials, as it has been suggested for the Neo‐Assyrian Empire (Parpola 1995; see also Faist 2010: 24). Among these counselors, the “vizier” (sukkallu) seems to have played a particularly important role. As soon as relevant sources become available, we see Assyrian viziers concerned with diplomatic matters, as was the case in the 14th century BCE in the kingdom of Arrapḫa (Jakob 2003: 57ff.).

  In the second half of the 13th century BCE, at the latest, after the conquest of Ḫanigalbat, the position of a “grand vizier” (sukkallu rabi’u) was created, superior to the ordinary viziers. The “grand vizier” was also called the “king of Ḫanigalbat” (a title that survived at least until the first half of the 12th century BCE), in reference to his administrative tasks in the western part of the Assyrian realm. Here, the grand vizier was the highest official, comprehensively dealing with the supervision of the territorial administration. Several subordinate viziers stood ready to act upon his instructions. They kept in constant touch with him through letters and were involved in border patrols and enemy defenses as well as in economic matters (agriculture, irrigation, food storage and distribution). It is probable that the “grand viziers” had their residence in an important local center. A possible candidate is the city of Aššukanni in northeastern Syria (Jakob 2009: 45f.).

  Ob
viously, the tasks of the grand vizier went far beyond the consolidation of Assyrian authority in the western territories, as may be demonstrated by the events surrounding a siege of Lubdi during the reign of Tukulti‐Ninurta I. The city was situated in the Eastern Tigris River region, far from Ḫanigalbat. Nevertheless, the grand vizier had to be kept informed about the fate of the besieged town and its inhabitants, as well as about any military activities in that area (Cancik‐Kirschbaum 1996: 158f.).

  From its first attestation around the accession of Tukulti‐Ninurta I, the holders of the office of grand vizier were members of a certain branch of the royal family. The title was passed down from father to son. That sons followed their father can be observed in the case of other high offices as well, but not consistently. The administrative notice MARV VIII 59, for example, reveals that a certain Aššur‐naṣir was acting as the highest official in the administration for deliveries of the “regular offering” ginā’u in the Assur sanctuary at the time of writing, like his father Ezbu‐lešir before him (Jakob 2003: 175f.). On the other hand, there are many cases in which the succession was settled differently, without taking into account possible heirs.

  The Royal Palace

  A symbol of royal power, the palace (ekallu) was the center of the land’s government. The king had palaces in several locations at his disposal. As shown inter alia by the so‐called Middle Assyrian Palace decrees (Roth 1995: 195–209), the king’s court did not always stay in the main palace in Ashur, but often traveled, as we may presume, from one residence to the other (see MARV III 1).

  The Palace decrees were compiled during the eponym year of Sîn‐apla‐iddina, which means either in the third decade of the reign of Tiglath‐pileser I (1114–1076 BCE) or in the time of his immediate successors (Freydank 1991: 89), and contain a large collection of regulations relating to the palace personnel, in particular to the women in the vicinity of the Assyrian king. The regulations differentiate between the “wife of the king” (aššat šarre) and a group of “palace women” (sinniltu ša ekalle), who seem to have been of lower rank, i.e. ordinary “harem” women.

  Daily life inside the palace followed strict rules. Aside from the “provincial governor” (bēl pāḫete), mentioned in the first decree by Aššur‐uballiṭ I, there was a range of office holders who were closely linked to the royal court. These include the “palace administrator” (rab ekalle), the “palace herald” (nāgir ekalle), the “chief supervisor” (rab zāriqē), and the “physician of the Inner Quarters” (asû ša bētānu). These men formed a council whose task it was to supervise the activities and the conduct of court attendants (Jakob 2003: 67, 75f., 80ff.). Two different types of personnel were distinguished: ša rēši and manzaz pāni. In particular the status of the ša rēši officials is still a matter of dispute. While most scholars believe that they were eunuchs (see ibid.: 82–92), others tend to interpret the problematic textual evidence in a different way (Dalley 2001; see also Siddall 2007).

  The individual decrees dealt with general rules for daily life within the community of courtiers and harem women. Attention was given, on the one hand, to admission requirements for male personnel regarding their suitability or their access to the harem. On the other hand, the proper behavior of palace women was specified: their relationship to the king within the inner palace as well as away on travel, dispute resolution, or the custody of their property. Aside from these women, there were other women working in the palace who were married to men from outside of the palace.

  The king Ninurta‐apil‐Ekur (1191–1179 BCE) issued a particularly large number of decrees. This probably reflects his attempt to impose law and order in Assyria again after a period that was politically complicated. In this context, it may be of interest to observe that one regulation provides that a palace woman shall be mutilated if she has cursed a descendant of the late Tukulti‐Ninurta I (1233–1197 BCE), whose last direct descendant, Enlil‐kudurri‐uṣur, was overthrown by Ninurta‐apil‐Ekur.

  From an economic point of view, the “palace” represented the main institution of the Middle Assyrian state, comparable to a very large household (Faist 2001: 80ff.). The designation of income and expenditure within the royal administration as “belonging to the palace” (ša ekalle) has to be understood in this sense (Jakob 2003: 25, fn. 184). The chief administrator of the royal palace was the “steward” (mašennu), who was known from the second half of the 12th century BCE onward as the mašennu rabi’u (to distinguish him from office holders in smaller administrative units or in private households). His area of operations comprised large storage facilities. Here, raw materials were given to craftsmen (including bow makers, leather workers, smiths, and perfume makers) to manufacture products “just‐in‐time” (ibid.: 100–8). The written agreement between the administration of the storehouse and the individual expert was concluded in the form of a work contract. First, the materials were listed in terms of quality and quantity with the mention of the palace as owner of the goods. After the name(s) of the craftsmen who had received these materials, the desired product was specified. The contract concludes with the so‐called ṭuppušu iḫappi clause that meant that the tablet was to be broken after fulfillment (Jakob 2009: 22).

  The organization of long‐distance trade belonged to the tasks of the mašennu as well. There were both Assyrian and foreign merchants who were engaged on a commercial basis for this purpose. As we learn from administrative documents, they provided the “palace” not only with luxury goods (perfume, precious oil and textiles, wooden objects, and jewelry), but also with metals, animals (horses, donkeys, cattle, sheep and goats), and animal skins (see Faist 2001: 53–76). Conversely, Assyria’s export goods were textiles, metals (bronze, silver, and tin), and slaves.

  Based on the model of the capital’s palace there were royal residences in other Assyrian cities or rural estates all over the realm. The king and his entourage could rest comfortably at these places while traveling over land. The administrative centers in provincial capitals were organized in the same way as in Ashur. The official residence, where the head of the local administration was situated, was part of the “palace,” without necessarily being a monumental building – the term “palace” had become synonymous with Assyrian state power.

  The Administrative Structure of the Middle Assyrian Kingdom

  Provincial government

  The administration of the “land of Ashur” was headed by the king, who acted as the intermediary between gods and men. All of the offices were, at least in theory, responsible toward the king. There are some hints of a swearing‐in process for the royal officials within the so‐called “coronation ritual” (Müller 1937: 14f.). However, whether it was a one‐time act on the occasion of the king’s accession to the throne or, rather, was performed periodically (once a year, for instance), is still contested.

  The territory of Assyria proper was divided into smaller units usually referred to as a pāḫutu “district” (or “province”), first mentioned in an edict of Aššur‐uballiṭ I with regard to the city of Ashur (Roth 1995: 197). From sources from the 13th century BCE, we also know the comparable term ḫalṣu “fortress, fortification, district” (Postgate 2007: 243ff.), but this was only of subordinate importance and was afterwards replaced completely with pāḫutu.

  Moreover, there were some areas within the Assyrian realm that were subject to the Crown but outside of the pāḫutu framework in certain ways. A prominent example of this has come from recent excavations in Tell Ṭaban, ancient Ṭabetu, on the eastern bank of the Khabur River. Sources are available from the first decade of the reign of Shalmaneser I (eponymate of Aššur‐nadin‐šumate; see Bloch 2008: 146) until the beginning of the 11th century BCE (Shibata 2009: 106; Maul 2005: 17). According to both administrative documents and monumental inscriptions, there was a local dynasty of rulers in Ṭabetu who called themselves “kings of the land Mari” (see Shibata 2012: 491–3).

  Another local kingdom is known from the annals of Aššur‐be
l‐kala (1073–1056 BCE), which mention a certain Tukulti‐Mer, “king of the land Mari” (or “the land of Ḫana”). After his father, Ilu‐iqiša, likewise known as “king of the land of Ḫana,” had apparently been subordinated to the Assyrian monarch, Tukulti‐Mer strove for autonomy. But an Assyrian attack had a fatal impact on his area of control. Aššur‐bel‐kala claims (RIMA 2, A.0.89.1:15’–16’): “By the command of the god Assur, [my lord], I marched [to the land Mari …]. The land Mar[i …] I uprooted their [people].”

  In contrast to these “lands” of client kings, the names of genuine pāḫutu districts were derived from their central town (pāḫutu ša GN), where the office of the “district governor” (bēl pāḫete) was located. The district governor bore responsibility for the economy, the public safety, and the order of his area. A fundamental part of his tasks pertained to the cultivation of crown land and the storage and distribution of its products. The king sent his representatives (qēpūtu) to the provincial capital once a year to “release the barley‐heap” (pišerti karu’e). This meant that the royal officials registered the yield of the current season and wrote an administrative document that would be stored at the central office in the capital. In this way, the Assyrian administration was well informed about the current stocks of grain throughout the kingdom. Similarly, the representatives supervised the herdsmen and shepherds (Jakob 2003: 353–73; Röllig 2008: 5ff.).