A Companion to Assyria

by Eckart Frahm

  Rollinger, R. 2013. “The View from East to West: World View and Perception of Space in the Neo‐Assyrian Empire,” in: N. Zenzen et al. (eds.), Aneignung und Abgrenzung. Wechselnde Perspektiven auf die Antithese von ‘Ost’ und ‘West’ in der griechischen Antike, Oikumene 10, Heidelberg: Verlag Antike, 93–161.

  Rollinger, R., Gufler, B., Lang, M., and Madreiter, I. (eds.) 2010. Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt: Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts, Philippika: Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 34, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

  Rollinger, R. and Korenjak, M. 2001. “Addikritušu: Ein namentlich genannter Grieche aus der Zeit Asarhaddons (680–669 v. Chr.). Überlegungen zu ABL 140,” Altorientalische Forschungen 28, 372–84.

  Rollinger, R. and Ulf, Ch. (eds.) 2004. Griechische Archaik und der Orient: Interne und externe Impulse, Berlin: Akademie‐Verlag.

  Saggs, H.W.F. 2001. The Nimrud Letters, 1952, Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud V, Trowbridge: Cromwell Press.

  Salonen, A. 1939. Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien, Studia Orientalia VIII.4, Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society.

  Tadmor, H. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath‐Pileser III King of Assyria, Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

  Ulf, Ch. (ed.) 1996a. Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität. Die Bedeutung der früharchaischen Zeit, Berlin: Akademie‐Verlag.

  Ulf, Ch. 1996b. “Griechische Ethnogenese versus Wanderungen von Stämmen und Stammstaaten,” in: Ulf 1996a, 240–80.

  Ulf, Ch. 2009. “The Development of Greek Ethnê and their Ethnicity: An Anthropological Perspective,” in: N. Luraghi and P. Funke (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 215–49.

  Ulf, Ch. and Rollinger, R. (eds.) 2011. Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers Ilias, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

  van Buylaere, G. 2002. “Qurdi‐Aššur‐lāmur,” in: H D. Baker (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo‐Assyrian Empire 3/I, Helsinki: The Neo‐Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1021–2.

  van Dongen, E. 2010. “‘Phoenicia’: Defining and Naming a Middle Levantine Region,” in: Rollinger, Gufler, Lang, and Madreiter 2010, 471–88.

  West, M.L. 1997. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements on Greek Poetry and Myth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Wieshöfer, J. 2011. “Homers ‘orientalische Verbindungen’, oder: Kulturelle Verkehrswege zwischen Orient und Okzident,” in: Ulf and Rollinger 2011, 135–47.

  Yamada, S. 2005. “Kārus on the Frontiers of the Neo‐Assyrian State,” Orient: Reports of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 40, 56–89.

  Yamada, S. 2008. “Qurdi‐Aššur‐lāmur: His Letters and Career,” in: M. Cogan and D. Kahn (eds.), Treasures on Camel's Humps. Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Eph'al, Jerusalem: Magnes, 296–311.

  Further Reading

  The most comprehensive treatment and discussion of the Neo‐Assyrian sources on the Aegean West is Rollinger 2008a. On the Assyrian impact on regions as far west as the Strait of Gibraltar and the ideological dimensions of these contacts, see Rollinger 2008b, and now in detail Rollinger 2013; see also Lanfranchi 1999, 2005, 2011. The archaeological dimensions of Assyrian and ancient Near Eastern influence on the West are discussed by Rehm and Braun‐Holzinger 2005.

  Notes

  1 It is a pity that the new edition of the text by Leichty 2011: 135 again translates Tarsisi as Tarsus, without referring to the problem at all.

  2 In this respect I follow the translation of Leichty 2011: 135 who takes ašpur (l. 9’) as referring to line 10’, whereas Borger 1956: 86 interprets the phrase abēl ašpur as hendiadys: “… nahm ich in Besitz und beherrschte ich.” Leichty’s translation fits the ideological context of the passage much better.

  CHAPTER 15

  Assyria and the South: Babylonia

  Eckart Frahm

  Introduction

  Assyria’s relationship with Babylonia was a special one, similar to the relationship that Rome had with Greece. Like siblings, the two civilizations had much in common, but the many features they shared made their differences only more pronounced, which led on occasion to particularly charged conflicts between them.

  Assyria and Babylonia were neighbors, connected by the Tigris river, but they had different ecological settings. Assyria’s core area was a hilly landscape that received sufficient precipitation to allow rain‐fed agriculture. Babylonia, in contrast, formed a large alluvial plain where lack of rainfall necessitated an agriculture based on artificial irrigation.

  Culturally, the two civilizations were closely related. For much of their history, they used varieties of the same language: the Assyrian dialect of Akkadian was spoken in the north, the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian in the south. Assyrian cuneiform writing was based on southern models, even though the exact sign forms differed. Over time, many originally southern deities found their way into the Assyrian pantheon, and religious practices and institutions from Babylonia were eagerly adopted by Assyria’s theological and cultural elites, as were Babylonian literature and scholarship. Yet there were also some pronounced differences. Most importantly, Assyria’s main god, Assur, whose cult remained throughout the ages a cornerstone of a distinct Assyrian identity, was never truly worshipped in the south (for a very late exception, see Beaulieu 1997). The Assyrian king’s role as “deputy” and chief priest of Assur was peculiar as well – Babylonian rulers did not have a similarly intimate relationship with Marduk of Babylon (Maul 1999: 212–14). And some of the most essential features of Assyrian art, such as monumental bull colossi and bas‐reliefs on orthostats, did not have Babylonian counterparts either.

  From early on, Assyria had close political and economic ties with Babylonia. Like Rome, it eventually morphed into an empire that exercised political domination over its culturally more advanced sister civilization. In the end, however, Babylonian armies helped destroy the Assyrian state, and Babylonia became the beneficiary of the first translatio imperii that followed Assyria’s demise.

  This chapter seeks to describe and analyze the relations between Assyria and Babylonia as they unfolded over time. Needless to say, only a very rough outline can be provided. Readers interested in more detailed discussions of the matters briefly covered here should consult the historical chapters of this book, as well as those on Assyrian art, religion, and scholarship.

  The Third and Second Millennium BCE

  Like all of Upper Mesopotamia, the “Assyrian triangle,” demarcated in historical times by the cities Ashur, Nineveh, and Arbela, experienced a phase of pronounced regionalization and ruralization during the first centuries of the third millennium BCE,1 with little evidence for economic, cultural, or political interaction with the south (see Chapter 2). From ca. 2700 onwards, however, there are indications of a growing urbanization in the region, and southern influences began to play a more significant role. It is important to stress that no such thing as a cohesive “Assyria” existed at this time and that cities like Ashur and Nineveh were not yet part of the same political sphere.

  Since no texts dating to the Early Dynastic period have been found in the Middle Tigris region and texts from the south are largely silent on the situation in the north, our knowledge about the north during the mid‐third millennium (when numerous city‐states flourished in Babylonia and the Khabur region) remains sparse. The available written sources from Babylonia include the Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names, which may mention the city of Ashur (see Frayne 1992, 42), and a recently published stone plaque from Kiš(?) probably dating to the period between 2750 and 2600 BCE (Steinkeller 2013). It refers to 6300 prisoners brought to the south from “Šubur/Subartu,” a term designating the geographic area later associated with Assyria. This is the earliest attestation of Subartu available so far. Apparently, the region was at least for a while ruled by the southern state of Kiš. The only clues we have from Assyria itself
come from a number of non‐inscribed objects. Of particular interest are the Early Dynastic votive statues discovered in the temples of Assur and Ištar in Ashur. They display striking similarities with comparable statues from Mari and the Diyala region and were apparently inspired by southern models (Bär 2010).

  Between 2350 BCE and 2200 BCE, the rulers of the dynasty of Akkad conquered large portions of Western Asia, including the area along the Middle Tigris. From this period date the earliest texts so far discovered in Ashur. They comprise a few votive inscriptions, one of them (RIMA 1, p. 8) mentioning the Akkad king Maništušu, as well as some mostly unpublished school texts and economic documents (see, provisionally, Neumann 1997). The texts demonstrate that the Old Akkadian state had some impact on the Middle Tigris region, both politically and culturally, but the extent of its influence remains unclear. A case in point is a reference in a royal inscription from the reign of Šamši‐Adad I (ca. 1808–1776) to construction work allegedly performed by Maništušu on the temple of Ištar in Nineveh. Since contemporary evidence for such activities is essentially absent, J.G. Westenholz (2004) has argued that Šamši‐Adad’s account of Maništušu’s efforts could be a complete fabrication, devised to imbue the temple with additional prestige.

  Nineveh was under strong Hurrian influence towards the end of the third millennium. The city’s principal goddess was known under the Hurrian name Šauš(k)a, and in the mid‐21st century, a Hurrian named Tiš‐atal served as its ruler. By this time, Nineveh was a formally independent principality that cultivated close religious and diplomatic ties with the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur, who in 2110 BCE had founded a new powerful state in the south. Šauš(k)a of Nineveh is mentioned in offering lists from Drehem, an important administrative center of the Ur III state, and Tiš‐atal is known to have visited the southern city of Nippur to express his loyalty to the Ur III king Šu‐Sîn (Steinkeller 2007).

  As for Ashur, scholars assumed for a long time that it had been more closely drawn into Ur’s sphere of influence than Nineveh. Recently, however, the idea that Ashur was administered by a governor appointed by the kings of Ur, and not by a local leader, has been put into question, even though there is no doubt that the city, under the rule of a certain Zarriqum, acknowledged to some extent Ur’s hegemony (Michalowski 2009).

  Ashur gained complete political independence shortly after 2025 BCE, when the Ur III state entered a political crisis leading to its eventual collapse. For some 200 years, a local dynasty founded by a certain Puzur‐Aššur ruled over Ashur, initiating what we now call the Old Assyrian period (see Chapters 3 and 4). It is noteworthy that the members of the Puzur‐Aššur dynasty never used the title “king” (šarrum), which was instead exclusively reserved for the god Assur. This “theocratic” conception of power has parallels further south – during the early Old Babylonian period, very similar political‐theological models were in place in Ešnunna in the Diyala region (Charpin 2004: 64–5, 233).

  Thanks to some 25,000 documents from the city of Kaniš in central Anatolia, we are well informed about Ashur’s commercial and political relations with the north during the earlier phase of the Old Assyrian period. From Ashur itself, however, we have only a very small number of texts from this time and hence know little about the city’s interactions with the Babylonian south. The few available sources present a somewhat contradictory picture. On one hand, a famous passage in an inscription of the early Old Assyrian ruler Ilušuma (RIMA 1, p. 18) claims that the latter had “established the ‘freedom’ (addurārum) of the Akkadians and their children” throughout Babylonia. The exact meaning of this statement remains debated, but Veenhof is certainly right when he argues that it rather refers to Assyrian attempts to facilitate trade with the south than some kind of Assyrian domination over the region (Veenhof 2008: 96–8, 126–7). We know, in fact, that Old Assyrian merchants imported textiles from Babylonia and sold them in the north. On the other hand, a verdict by Ashur’s influential City Assembly barred Assyrian traders from selling gold “to any Akkadian (i.e., Babylonian), Amorite, or Subarean,” and there are indications that Ashur’s merchants sought to stifle attempts by Babylonian traders to compete with them in Anatolia (Veenhof 2008: 58–9, 97).

  The rulers of the Puzur‐Aššur dynasty put a certain stress on their identity as Assyrians. Their royal inscriptions were written in the Old Assyrian dialect and not in Babylonian, and even though a few Babylonian gods and goddesses are mentioned in sources from this time (Veenhof 2008, 103–4), the deities whose temples were particularly important – Assur, Ištar, and Adad – did not have particularly close links with the south. In one respect, however, the south did provide a model – the Akkad period, a turning point of Babylonian history, exerted a strong fascination on the Old Assyrian rulers. Two members of the Puzur‐Aššur dynasty, Sargon and Naram‐Sîn, adopted names of famous Akkad kings, and a literary text from Kaniš, written in Old Assyrian language, celebrates the deeds of Sargon of Akkad (Dercksen 2005).

  It was, however, not until Šamši‐Adad I conquered Ashur in 1808 BCE that the city experienced a more noticeable “Babylonization.” Šamši‐Adad was an Amorite, but one who was deeply steeped in Babylonian culture. He left a number of Babylonian inscriptions in Ashur and, most importantly, introduced the idea of a close connection between the Assyrian chief god Assur and Enlil of Nippur, the traditional head of the Babylonian pantheon. This is apparent from the fact that the new Assur temple built by Šamši‐Adad was also dedicated to Enlil (Galter 1986; Miglus 2001). Ashur, however, did not become Šamši‐Adad’s main residence city, and the new ruler, who controlled large portions of Upper Mesopotamia, did not consider himself a “king of Assyria.” In fact, Assyria as a political entity still did not exist during this time (Charpin and Durand 1997).

  At some point, Šamši‐Adad put his son Išme‐Dagan I in charge of Ekallatum and the nearby city of Ashur. After his father’s death in 1776 BCE, Išme‐Dagan faced a highly volatile political situation that forced him on at least three occasions to take refuge in Babylonia. The new Mesopotamian strongman was Hammurapi of Babylon, who claims in the prologue to his famous law collection that, among other pious deeds, he “returned to Ashur its benevolent spirit” (iv 53–8). But apparently, Hammurapi did not seek to rule Ashur directly. Išme‐Dagan managed to somehow stay in power there, trying to maintain the religious politics implemented by his father. A historical‐literary text known from seventh century BCE manuscripts from Ashur and Nineveh includes a dialogue in which the god Enlil‐Assur expresses to Išme‐Dagan his displeasure about interruptions of his cult (KAL 3, no. 76).

  The repeated political unrest notwithstanding, Ashur carried on its commercial relations with the south throughout much of the 18th century. Babylonian documents dating to the reign of Hammurapi’s successor Samsuiluna indicate that Assyrian traders went to Sippar and even lived there during this time (Veenhof 1991).

  After 1700 BCE, Ashur and the territories further north entered a dark age, and for several centuries little is known about their relations with the south (see Chapter 5). A reference to a slave owner from Ashur in a sales document from northern Babylonia dated to 1641 BCE (YOS 13, 35) is a rare exception. The most important political development of this period was the rise of the Mittani state, which dominated for a time much of Upper Mesopotamia and exposed the Assyrian territory to strong Hurrian influence. Nonetheless, a dynasty of formally independent Assyrian rulers, founded towards the end of the 18th century by a certain Adasi, managed to stay in power in Ashur.

  At least some of the early members of the Adasi dynasty seem to have been able to conduct diplomatic business with the south. If we are to believe an entry in the Synchronistic History (Grayson 1975: 158–9, i 5’–7’), Puzur‐Aššur III, who reigned at the turn from the 16th to the 15th century, had enough political clout to sign a treaty with the Kassite king Burnaburiaš I that fixed the boundary between the territory of Ashur and Babylonia. Very slowly, it seems, and not without setbacks, Ashu
r began to morph into a territorial state, Assyria, that became increasingly capable of handling its affairs on its own (Llop 2012). This development reached a first peak under Aššur‐uballiṭ I (1353–1318), when Assyria joined Egypt, Babylonia, the Mittani state, and Ḫatti as a new member of the small and exclusive 14th century “Club of the Great Powers” that controlled international relations in Western Asia. Aššur‐uballiṭ wrote at least two letters to the Egyptian pharaoh and assumed the royal title šarru.

  The Kassite rulers of Babylonia were dismayed by Assyria’s rise but unable to reverse it. Burnaburiaš II, who had married a daughter of Aššur‐uballiṭ by the name of Muballiṭat‐Šerua and apparently believed this gave him certain rights over his northern neighbor, sought to convince the Egyptians not to initiate direct commercial relations with Assyria (Moran 1992: 18), but to no avail. Assyria’s new power came into even sharper relief after the Kassite military instigated a coup against Burnaburiaš’s successor, who was a son of Muballiṭat‐Šerua. Aššur‐uballiṭ, turning the tables, defeated the usurpers and helped another son of Burnaburiaš onto the throne. Such interventions became quite common from now on. Depending on who had the upper hand in military terms, Assyrian kings sought to influence politics in Babylonia and Babylonian kings in Assyria (see Chapter 6 and Fuchs 2011: 244–60), each side apparently convinced that the close relations that existed between them entitled it to interfere in the affairs of the other.

  Culturally, the influence was for the most part rather one‐sided. Perhaps in order to suppress the traces impressed on Assyria by centuries of Hurrian domination, Assyrian kings began to endorse again with great enthusiasm religious and cultural concepts rooted in Babylonia. During the reign of Aššur‐uballiṭ I, a Babylonian scholar by the name of Marduk‐nadin‐aḫḫe, who hailed from an important Babylonian family of administrators and scribes, assumed the office of “royal scribe.” He lived in a house in Ashur located in close proximity to a “Gate of Marduk,” which in all likelihood belonged to a Marduk temple founded by Aššur‐uballiṭ (Wiggerman 2008). The city god of Babylon and his son Nabû rose to great prominence in Assyria during this time, as shown by numerous Middle Assyrian personal names that include their names as theophoric elements.