by Eckart Frahm
The import of botanical specimens and their acclimatization in Assyria had a long tradition – since the time of Tiglath‐pileser I (1114–1076) (Grayson 1991: 27, 17–23) – and was also undertaken by Aššurnaṣirpal II in Kalḫu. During the Sargonid period, however, a new concept of “park” (kirimaḫḫu) appeared; it was characterized not only by its exotic plants and trees but also by the modification of landscapes by means of ponds and artificial hills with a particular kind of pavilion at the top. All the Sargonid kings describe their gardens in the same way, comparing them to Mount Amanus, where the Assyrian kings traditionally cut down cedars and other exotic trees. One of these parks was depicted on the slabs covering the walls of the royal palace in Dur‐Šarrukin (Bagg 2000a: 156–9).
Sennacherib (704–681) decided to transform the ancient city of Nineveh into his new capital. He built a 12‐kilometer‐long double city wall with an inner and outer part, which was about 15 meters wide and at least 24 meters high (Frahm 1997: 98–100). It was surrounded by a moat that was 70 meters wide and 10 meters deep. Furthermore, he built a new palace on the Kuyunjik mound and an arsenal on the Nebi Yunus mound. The area covered by the city was increased from 150 to 750 hectares. Taking the reasonable approximation of 100 people per hectare, the population of the city could have amounted to 75,000 inhabitants. The city was transformed into a glamorous metropolis. A fragmentary wall‐panel probably features Nineveh’s southwestern corner (as viewed from the west), showing a double city wall with two gates, a moat fringed by trees on the right, an external fortification with another watercourse, and the Tigris River or a navigable main canal (Figure 25.1). The impressive hydraulic engineering project initiated to supply Nineveh with water will be described in detail below.
Figure 25.1 City wall, probably Nineveh’s southwestern corner. Nineveh, Southwest Palace, Room XXII, Plate 8.
Source: A.H. Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, London, 1853, 231.
The planning and construction of monumental buildings is one of the main activities for which an Assyrian king was celebrated. Thanks to the building accounts in the royal inscriptions, we are relatively well‐informed about the construction of palaces, temples, and defensive works. These reports were written on the occasion of the construction of new buildings, as well as for repair work or the enlargement of existing structures, with the aim of making the name of the king last forever. The Assyrian kings always tried to build palaces that were larger than those of their predecessors. Thus, Shalmaneser III’s armory in Kalḫu extended over an area of 250 meters by 350 meters, Sargon’s palace in Dur‐Šarrukin stood on a 12‐meter‐high terrace and measured 290 meters by 290 meters, and Sennacherib’s “Palace Without Rival” in the southwestern part of Kuyunjik was built on a terrace (503 meters by 242 meters) which covered 12 hectares. Only 30 percent of its total surface (198 meters by 190 meters) and about 50 percent of its building surface have been excavated, but, even so, more than seventy rooms can be identified. Foundations, terraces, and walls needed exact planning because of the great amount of materials and manpower required. A challenge for the Assyrian “engineers” was to roof large rooms, because they only had wooden beams at their disposal. This was a significant restriction in the design of representative rooms because they could have gigantic dimensions only in length. Other relevant technical problems that required well thought out solutions were the lighting in the rooms and the canalizations of courts, roofs, and toilets.
Hydraulic Engineering
Hydraulic works are attested in the Near East in all historical periods and geographical regions. Among the most significant engineering projects were the Assyrian hydraulic installations created from the 13th century BCE onward in conjunction with the foundation of new royal residences (Kar‐Tukulti‐Ninurta, Dur‐Šarrukin) or with the reshaping of existing cities (Arbail, Ashur, Kalḫu, Nineveh). Other than in the Babylonian lowlands, it was not possible to divert or to tap water from the Tigris River because of the difference between the river’s level and its shore and the fluctuations of the water level. Therefore, water was diverted from other rivers, or water resources in the mountainous regions to the north and east were tapped, far away from the city that was to benefit from them.
The border between the dry‐farming region and the arid areas in need of irrigation was not a line but rather a 400‐kilometer‐wide band between the 100 and 400 mm isohyets. In Assyria, especially in its southern part, periods of drought often jeapordized dry farming. Irrigation was necessary in order to secure the crops and to increase yield, which is the reason why the Assyrian kings undertook irrigation projects near their capital cities, where a large population was concentrated (Bagg 2000b: 309). Irrigation was intended primarily for the cultivation of fields and orchards, but was also used for the splendid royal parks and gardens that shaped the landscape of the Neo‐Assyrian capitals.
In a report concerning the enlargement of Kalḫu, Aššurnaṣirpal II mentions the irrigation works explicitly: “I dug out a canal from the Upper Zab, cutting through a mountain at its peak, and called it ‘Canal of Abundance.’ I irrigated the meadows along the Tigris River. I planted orchards with all kinds of fruit trees in its environs. I pressed wine and offered the first fruits to Assur, my lord, and to the temples of my land” (Grayson 1991: 290, 36–41). The text continues with a list of forty‐one exotic trees and a poetic description of a watered garden. This royal garden probably lay not far from the upper city of Kalḫu at its southwestern edge. Aššurnaṣirpal gives the irrigation of the fields along the Tigris River as a reason for the construction of the canal, which would allow the cultivation of fruit‐trees. The size of the watered area is unknown, but a plausible estimation is that it could have comprised up to 2500 hectares. It is realistic to suppose that not the entire area was planted with fruit trees, but that part of it (probably the greater part) was intended for the cultivation of barley (Oates 1968: 44–5). Irrigation increased the crop yield and reduced the risk of a harvest failure.
The course of the canal can still be traced as a rock‐cut channel along the right bank of the Greater Zab River for some 8 kilometers from the modern village of Quwair to a point some 5 kilometers before the river joins the Tigris River, where the canal flows in a northwestern‐southwestern direction towards Kalḫu (Oates 1968: 46–7). During part of its existence, the canal was fed by a rock‐cut tunnel, the so‐called Nagub tunnel (Bagg 2000a: 99–102 and 234–7; Davey 1985), which passes through a bluff of coarse conglomerate on the right bank of the Greater Zab River. An inscription found in situ documents restoration works carried out two hundred years later by Esarhaddon (680–669), when the tunnel was silted up (Borger 1956: 35–36, 6–13). Aššurnaṣirpal’s irrigation project testifies to the skills of the Assyrians, who were able to dig a 10‐kilometer‐long canal stretch in hard, rocky ground, to cut another 8 kilometers into the rock, to choose a favorable place for the canal intake, and to master the necessary leveling techniques.
To supply his newly‐remodeled capital, Nineveh, and its environs with water, Sennacherib undertook the most ambitious hydraulic enterprise of his time. Four canal systems, a total of more than 150 kilometers, flowed to the city from different directions. They consisted of canals as well as channeled watercourses, tunnels, aqueducts, and weirs, which were built between 702 and 688 BCE and certainly posed a great challenge for the Assyrian hydraulic “engineers.” Royal inscriptions and palace reliefs show Sennacherib’s interest in technical matters and innovations in the transport of heavy loads, in the acquisition of new materials, in metallurgy, as well as in water‐lifting devices and hydraulic engineering, among others. Although the technical solutions surely did not come from the king himself but rather from his technical entourage, those projects would never have been realized without his personal engagement. For instance, in the year 694 BCE, spring water from mountains 20 kilometers away was collected in reservoirs and directed through canals into a wadi, which itself flowed into the Khosr R
iver, a river that flows to and through Nineveh. In order to locate these new water sources, the king himself marched into this region, certainly accompanied by his technical staff. One may think of this as a “technical campaign” (Grayson and Novotny 2012: 144–5, lines 3–5).
In 688 BCE, the last stage of Sennacherib’s hydraulic project was undertaken. Approximately 50 kilometers to the north of Nineveh, the Atruš/Gomel River was dammed at a gorge north of the modern village of Khinis in order to feed a canal that started at that point. The canal head, a masterpiece of Assyrian hydraulic engineering, was decorated with monumental rock reliefs and sculptured blocks and consisted of a dam, intake works, a 300‐meter‐long canal stretch with a retaining stone wall, and a tunnel bored into the rock. From this tunnel, the diverted water was directed through a rock‐cut channel into a 35‐kilometer‐long main canal, which flowed into a tributary of the Khosr. At the halfway point, an aqueduct was built with more than two hundred thousand limestone blocks to permit the crossing of a wadi next to the village of Jerwan. It was 280 meters long and 22 meters wide, with the channel seven meters over the foundations. Five corbelled arches spanned the valley and the canal bed was carefully plastered (Fales and Del Fabbro 2014). Different inscriptions carved on the stone blocks tell of the enterprise, identifying its builder: “Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria. For a long distance I caused a canal to be dug from the river Ḫazur to the environs of Nineveh. Over deep‐cut ravines I built an aqueduct of stone blocks. Those waters I caused to flow upon it” (Grayson and Novotny 2014: 321). The achievements of the Assyrian hydraulic “engineers,” who knew how to fulfill and to implement the desires of a king with an inclination towards technical innovations, were in this case recognized and recompensed: “those men, who dug this canal, I dressed with linen clothes and colored garments. […], golden rings and golden pectorals I put upon them,” wrote the grateful king (Grayson and Novotny 2014: 315, lines 33–4). Sennacherib not only built the first ashlar aqueduct at Jerwan but also a second one in Nineveh, as is attested in the texts (Grayson and Novotny 2012: 123, vii 81–4).
In this context, it is worthwhile to mention a stone slab from Assurbanipal’s palace in the same city (Figure 25.2). The irrigated garden depicted there shows all of the elements of the Assyrian royal parks, namely the hill, the pavilion, and the different kinds of trees. The park is, in this case, watered by an aqueduct, which is very similar in shape to the Jerwan aqueduct, but probably represents the other aqueduct in or near Nineveh, which is mentioned in the texts (Bagg 2000a: 197–8).
Figure 25.2 Irrigated park with aqueduct. Nineveh, North Palace, Room H (BM 124939).
Source: Reproduced with permission of A.M. Bagg.
Usually hidden, other kinds of installations, in particular the sewerage of buildings, accomplished extremely important functions as well – even if they could not compete with the hydraulic works mentioned above in terms of dimension. After the description of building enterprises in his new capital Kalḫu, Aššurnaṣirpal II warns future rulers against neglecting the maintenance of his new palace in one of his royal inscriptions: “he must not tear out its drain pipes (naṣṣabu). He must not clog the outlets of its drain spouts (bāb zinni)” (Grayson 1991: 253, 32–4).
According to the archaeological evidence, sewerage may be classified into four groups: 1) stone conduits (open and closed horizontal installations made of natural stone, usually limestone, basalt, or sandstone), 2) brick conduits (closed horizontal installations made of fired clay bricks), 3) clay pipes (usually horizontal, but sometimes also vertical, installations made of clay with a cylindrical or half‐cylindrical hollow body), and 4) cesspits (vertical installations made, in most cases, of clay rings put one over another into a pit that was dug in the ground). By means of these installations, it was possible to drain the yards, roofs, and toilets in temples and palaces, as well as in private houses. Cesspits were used to dispose of wastewater from private houses, as shown in findings from the residential quarters in Ashur. Main sewers were laid in the streets in order to catch and dispose of wastewater that came from the adjacent buildings. The main sewer of the Assur‐Temple in the city of Ashur was in use over a period of many centuries in the second millennium BCE. The sewer had several different sections, was large enough for a man to walk through, and its vault was made of fired bricks. One section, for instance, was 12 meters long, 1.80 meters wide, 2 meters high and had a barrel vault made of bricks. Stamped bricks allow us to associate this work with Adad‐nirari I, who reigned at the beginning of the 13th century BCE (Bagg 2006).
Bridges
Two types of bridges are attested in the Assyrian sources: temporary and permanent bridges. Most bridges were temporary structures built during military campaigns. Wide and deep rivers had to be crossed, often at the time of their highest water level, so the transportation of troops had to be considered as early as the planning stages of campaigns. Strategically, it was vital to know which materials could be found on‐site and which materials and tools should be brought along. The easiest solution was to build a platform or a raft made of logs. Tiglath‐pileser I reports that he felled trees during a campaign against the Nairi countries (an area to the north of the Taurus Mountains and the Murat‐Su) and built bridges (titurru) so that his troops and chariots could cross the Euphrates River (Grayson 1991: 21, 68–71). Aššurnaṣirpal II crossed the Tigris River by means of a bridge made of logs (Grayson 1991: 210, 103–4). In this case, the term raksu is used for the bridge, which actually means “bounded” and, in this context, can be interpreted as a kind of raft. Depictions of pontoon bridges can be found on the bronze bands from Balawat, which date to the reign of Shalmaneser III (858–824). During a campaign in Armenia, the Assyrian troops crossed a river with the help of a “swimming bridge;” namely, a wooden platform carried by water skins (maškaru, dušû).
In contrast to temporary bridges, permanent bridges made of ashlar or masonry are known not only from the written sources but are also archaeologically attested. Stone bridges are known from two Assyrian towns. In his new capital, Dur‐Šarrukin, Sargon II built a stone bridge connecting the palace terrace and the Nabû temple. The bridge was 3.7 meters wide, more than 5 meters high, and was held up with a pointed arch (Loud and Altman 1938: 32 with plates 11c and 12a–d). Sennacherib reports building a bridge (titurru) for the royal procession with fired bricks and limestone somewhere opposite the gate of the city center of Niniveh (Kuyunjik) (Grayson and Novotny 2012: 123, vii 85–viii 3). The exact location of this bridge is not known.
Transportation of Materials and Heavy Loads
Timber was scarce in Assyria but was indispensable for the roofing of buildings and the construction of gates, and thus its acquisition and transport represented a particular concern. Cedars, for instance, had to be brought from distant regions, which was done mostly during the course of military campaigns. The logs were first transported by land from the forest to the river and then shipped or rafted to their final destination. The water transport of timber is attested several times in the correspondence of Sargon II (SAA 1, 63. 102; SAA 5, 4. 6. 7. 254). Among other matters, navigation problems, which slowed or hindered delivery, are mentioned (SAA 1, 63). Another method for transportation is shown on a wall relief from Sargon’s palace in Dur‐Šarrukin. There, some logs are depicted as piled up on a ship while others are rafted, fastened with ropes at the ship’s stern. Whether this was a maritime transport in the Mediterranean Sea (Albenda 1983) or a river transport (Linder 1986) is still a matter of discussion. In any case, the fact that such a scene was incorporated into the visual program that was depicted on the palace walls shows the importance this technical achievement held for Sargon’s contemporaries. The water transport of other building components such as stone slabs, thresholds, or steps is also attested in the written sources and depicted on the reliefs (SAA 1, 56. 58. 59; SAA 5, 297; see BM 124822 and BM 124823 in SAA 1, page 53, fig. 17).
The greatest challenge concerning the transpo
rt of heavy loads was posed by the Assyrian bull‐colossi, gigantic statues of human‐headed, winged bulls that protected the entrances to the main rooms in the Assyrian palaces. These protective genii, up to 6 meters high and weighing up to forty or fifty tons, were made from single blocks of massive stone. Since the quarries lay several kilometers upstream from Nineveh and the other Assyrian capitals, the stone blocks could be brought down to their final destinations either by water or by land. Until the reign of Sennacherib, the stone blocks came from a quarry called Tastiate on the right bank of the Tigris River. Because all of the potential destinations lay on the left bank, water transport was unavoidable. We learn about the troubles and dangers associated with stone transportation in the official letters from the reign of Sargon II (SAA 1, 119. 120; SAA 5, 57. 58. 297. 298. 299. 300, water transport SAA 1, 119 and SAA 5, 298. 299). Among other matters, the texts inform us that, in some cases, watercrafts could not carry the heavy loads and sank (SAA 1, 119). Sargon’s son Sennacherib was aware of the disadvantages of river transport and looked for a better solution: a new quarry on the left bank. Sennacherib characterizes the complicated water transport methods employed by his predecessors with these words: “bull‐colossi of white limestone they quarried in Tastiate, which lies on the other bank of the Tigris River, as supports for their (i.e. the new palaces’) entrances. For the construction of boats they (i.e. the workers) felled mighty trees in the forests throughout the whole of their land. In the month Ajaru (April/May), at the time of the spring floods, they (i.e. the workers) laboriously brought them over to this side on mighty rafts. As they crossed the quay‐wall, the large boats went down. (My predecessors) had their (i.e. the rafts’) crew exert themselves and strain their bodies. By might and under the most dire conditions they landed them with difficulty and placed them by their doors” (Grayson and Novotny 2012: 138, v 64–78).
