DOCSLIB.ORG

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Composition of the Synchronistic King List Chapter 4 The Composition of the Synchronistic King List Several issues relating to the composition of the ScKL will be discussed in this chapter. These issues are concerned with the date of the ScKL (A.117 and A.118), the beginning entry in A.117, the number of the kings of both Assyria and Babylonia listed in A.117, the use of the ditto sign “MIN”, the meanings of ummânu and the implications of the Babylonian royal title “King of Akkad”. We will see later that the discussions about these issues are fundamental to our further analysis of the purpose of the ScKL. 1 The Date of the Synchronistic King List The method we usually use to date a king list is to deduce the reign under which the list was composed, by the last entry listed in the document itself. For example, the NaKL (ending with Tiglath-pileser II) may date to the reign of Ashur-dan II,1 while the KhKL (ending with Ashur-nirari V) to the reign of Tiglath-pileser III and the SDAS (ending with Shalmaneser V) to the reign of Sargon II.2 The reason is that the number of the regnal years is added to almost every king, from which we know that the list must be composed after the reign of the last king, or to be precise, during the reign of a new king, whose reign is not yet listed in the document. However, this method cannot be applied directly to dating the ScKL, because the exemplars of the ScKL, except for A.117 and A.118, are all small fragments, or unknown parts of the original tablets, thus lacking the last entries of the original lists. Moreover, even in A.117 and A.118, the regnal years of kings are not recorded; that is to say, we cannot determine that the last reigns listed in the two exemplars had already ended when they were compiled. Nevertheless, the information from the last entries of A.117 and A.118 can offer the most valuable clue for our work and our dating of the ScKL will be limited to those two exemplars alone. Firstly, a strong signal can be perceived in the last entries of A.117 and A.118: the title of “King of Assyria and Babylon”, which is attributed to those Assyrian monarchs who ever conquered or ruled Babylonia (such as Sennacherib and 1 A dividing line is drawn under Tiglath-pileser II, with much space uninscribed on the tablet. See Poebel, JNES 1/3 (1942), 251. See also Hallo, EI 14 (1978), 3. 2 Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 101; Hagens, Or 74 (2005), 26. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_005 The Composition of the Synchronistic King List 141 Esarhaddon).3 Clearly, this reflects the great honor of the conquerors, since even Sennacherib, who had never assumed the Babylonian royal title in his own royal inscriptions, was also granted this title. Judging simply from this per- spective, the two exemplars are surely Assyrian documents, that is, they are produced from the standpoint of Assyria or for the benefit of Assyria. In con- trast, the Babylonians would have had no interest in or incentive for glorifying their suzerain or even enemy – such as Sennacherib, who cruelly destroyed Babylonia and left the land kingless for eight years – in an official king list. Additional evidence can be seen in the Assyrian royal genealogies, recorded not only for Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, but also for Erishum I, the first Assyrian king in A.117. The Babylonian monarchs, however, are not granted any specific filiation.4 Most importantly, the provenance of the two exemplars indicates that A.117 might have come from a library of a temple at Ashur (for a tablet recording instructions for the personnel of Ashur temple was also found in the same trench5) and A.118 might have belonged to the private house of an exorcist family of Ashur during the reign of Ashurbanipal or even later.6 Given that the tablet of the KhKL was produced by a temple scribe at Arbela and the SDAS was owned by an exorcist at Ashur,7 it is probable that A.117 and A.118 might have similar origins to those of the KhKL and the SDAS; that is, both lists can be ascribed – in broader terms – to the sources of the AKL in general. 1.1 The Date of A.118 We will turn our attentions to A.118 first, for the solution to dating A.118 will be, to some extent, conducive to dating A.117. A.118 was adduced by Na ʾaman as an important source when he was dis- cussing the chronological scheme for the last days of the Assyrian Empire.8 Na ʾaman argued that Ashur-etil-ilani (the last entry in A.118) would have died with Kandalanu (who might have been listed parallel with Ashur-etil-ilani, according to him) in the same year, and that the death of the two kings would have provided the incentive for the scribe to compose A.118. Later, this sug- gestion was echoed by Zawadzki,9 who accepted the chronological scheme 3 A.117, iv 10’, 12’; A.118, iv’ 1’, 4’. This title must also have been given to Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmanesr V, although both entries are lost at the end of Column III. 4 Although it is recorded that Nergal-ushezib is son of Gahul and Mushezib-Marduk is son of Dakkuru, such a description would indicate their tribal origins, but not their real filiation. 5 Pedersén, ALCA II, 83. 6 Pedersén, ALCA II, 58. 7 Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 229–230. 8 Na ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 248–249. See the commentaries on iv 7’ of A.118. 9 Zawadzki, ZA 85 (1995), 69–70..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com09/30/2021 04:32:21AM Via Free Access 198 Appendix I
    Appendix I A List of Assyrian Kings No. Name Filiation Date (BC) or Regnal years 1 Tudija 2 Adamu 3 Jangi 4 Suhlamu (Lillamua) 5 Harharu 6 Mandaru 7 Imsu 8 Harsu 9 Didanu 10 Hanu 11 Zuabu 12 Nuabu 13 Abazu 14 Belu 15 Azarah 16 Ushpia 17 Apiashal Son of Ushpia 18 Hale Son of Apiashal 19 Samanu Son of Hale 20 Hajani Son of Samanu 21 Ilu-Mer Son of Hajani 22 Jakmesi Son of Ilu-Mer 23 Jakmeni Son of Jakmesi 24 Jazkur-ilu Son of Jakmeni 25 Ilu-kabkabi Son of Jazkur-ilu 26 Aminu Son of Ilu-kabkabi 27 Sulili Son of Aminu 28 Kikkia 29 Akia 30 Puzur-Ashur I 31 Shalim-ahum Son of Puzur-Ashur I 32 Ilu-shuma Son of Shalim-ahum © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_008 Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 04:32:21AM via free access 198 Appendix I No. Name Filiation Date (BC) or Regnal years 33 Erishum I Son of Ilu-shuma 1974–1935 34 Ikunum Son of Erishum I 1934–1921 35 Sargon I Son of Ikunum 1920–1881 36 Puzur-Ashur II Son of Sargon I 1880–1873 37 Naram-Sin Son of Puzur-Ashur II 1872–1829/19 38 Erishum II Son of Naram-Sin 1828/18–1809b 39 Shamshi-Adad I Son of Ilu-kabkabic 1808–1776 40 Ishme-Dagan I Son of Shamshi-Adad I 40 yearsd 41 Ashur-dugul Son of Nobody 6 years 42 Ashur-apla-idi Son of Nobody 43 Nasir-Sin Son of Nobody No more than 44 Sin-namir Son of Nobody 1 year?e 45 Ibqi-Ishtar Son of Nobody 46 Adad-salulu Son of Nobody 47 Adasi Son of Nobody 48 Bel-bani Son of Adasi 10 years 49 Libaja Son of Bel-bani 17 years 50 Sharma-Adad I Son of Libaja 12 years 51 Iptar-Sin Son of Sharma-Adad I 12 years
    [Show full text]
  • Lots of Eponyms
    167 LOTS OF EPONYMS By i. L. finkel and j. e. reade O Ashur, great lord! O Adad, great lord! The lot of Yahalu, the great masennu of Shalmaneser, King of Ashur; Governor of Kipshuni, Qumeni, Mehrani, Uqi, the cedar mountain; Minister of Trade. In his eponymate, his lot, may the crops of Assyria prosper and flourish! In front of Ashur and Adad may his lot fall! Millard (1994: frontispiece, pp. 8-9) has recently published new photographs and an annotated edition of YBC 7058, a terracotta cube with an inscription relating to the eponymate of Yahalu under Shalmaneser III. Much ink has already been spilled on account of this cube, most usefully by Hallo (1983), but certain points require emphasis or clarification. The object, p?ru, is a "lot", not a "die". Nonetheless the shape of the object inevitably suggests the idea of a true six-sided die, and perhaps implies that selections of this kind were originally made using numbered dice, with one number for each of six candidates. If so, it is possible that individual lots were introduced when more than six candidates began to be eligible for the post of limmu. The use of the word p?ru as a synonym for limmu in some texts, including this one, must indicate that eponyms were in some way regarded as having been chosen by lot. Lots can of course be drawn in a multitude of ways. Published suggestions favour the proposal that lots were placed in a narrow-necked bottle and shaken out one by one, an idea that seems to have originated with W.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com09/29/2021 06:11:41PM Via Free Access 208 Appendix III
    Appendix III The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia in the Lacunae of A.117 1 Shamshi-Adad I / Ishme-Dagan I vs. Hammurabi The synchronization of Hammurabi and the ruling family of Shamshi-Adad I’s kingdom can be proven by the correspondence between them, including the letters of Yasmah-Addu, the ruler of Mari and younger son of Shamshi-Adad I, to Hammurabi as well as an official named Hulalum in Babylon1 and those of Ishme-Dagan I to Hammurabi.2 Landsberger proposed that Shamshi-Adad I might still have been alive during the first ten years of Hammurabi’s reign and that the first year of Ishme- Dagan I would have been the 11th year of Hammurabi’s reign.3 However, it was also suggested that Shamshi-Adad I would have died in the 12th / 13th4 or 17th / 18th5 year of Hammurabi’s reign and Ishme-Dagan I in the 28th or 31st year.6 If so, the reign length of Ishme-Dagan I recorded in the AKL might be unreliable and he would have ruled as the successor of Shamshi-Adad I only for about 11 years.7 1 van Koppen, MARI 8 (1997), 418–421; Durand, DÉPM, No. 916. 2 Charpin, ARM 26/2 (1988), No. 384. 3 Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 39, n. 44. 4 Whiting, OBOSA 6, 210, n. 205. 5 Veenhof, AP, 35; van de Mieroop, KHB, 9; Eder, AoF 31 (2004), 213; Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52; Gasche et al., Akkadica 108 (1998), 1–2; Charpin and Durand, MARI 4 (1985), 293–343.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling Strategic Decisions in the Formation of the Early Neo
    Cliodynamics: The Journal of Quantitative History and Cultural Evolution Modeling Strategic Decisions in the Formation of the Early Neo-Assyrian Empire Peter Baudains, Silvie Zamazalová, Mark Altaweel, Alan Wilson University College London Understanding patterns of conflict and pathways in which political history became established is critical to understanding how large states and empires ultimately develop and come to rule given regions and influence subsequent events. We employ a spatiotemporal Cox regression model to investigate possible causes as to why regions were attacked by the Neo-Assyrian (912-608 BCE) state. The model helps to explain how strategic benefits and costs lead to likely pathways of conflict and imperialism based on elite strategic decision-making. We apply this model to the early 9th century BCE, a time when historical texts allow us to trace yearly campaigns in specific regions, to understand how the Neo-Assyrian state began to re-emerge as a major political player, eventually going on to dominate much of the Near East and starting a process of imperialism that shaped the wider region for many centuries even after the fall of this state. The model demonstrates why specific locations become regions of conflict in given campaigns, emphasizing a degree of consistency with which choices were made by invading forces with respect to a number of factors. We find that elevation and population density deter Assyrian invasions. Moreover, costs were found to be more of a clear motivator for Assyrian invasions, with distance constraints being a significant driver in determining where to campaign. These outputs suggest that Assyria was mainly interested in attacking its weakest, based on population and/or organization, and nearest rivals as it began to expand.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat)
    World Heritage Scanned Nomination File Name: 1130.pdf UNESCO Region: ASIA AND THE PACIFIC __________________________________________________________________________________________________ SITE NAME: Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) DATE OF INSCRIPTION: 5th July 2003 STATE PARTY: IRAK CRITERIA: C (iii)(iv) DECISION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE: Excerpt from the Report of the 27th Session of the World Heritage Committee Criterion iii: Founded in the 3rd millennium BCE, the most important role of Ashur was from the 14th to 9th century BCE when it was the first capital of the Assyrian empire. Ashur was also the religious capital of Assyrians, and the place for crowning and burial of its kings. Criterion iv: The excavated remains of the public and residential buildings of Ashur provide an outstanding record of the evolution of building practice from the Sumerian and Akkadian period through the Assyrian empire, as well as including the short revival during the Parthian period. BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS The ancient city of Ashur is located on the Tigris River in northern Mesopotamia in a specific geo-ecological zone, at the borderline between rain-fed and irrigation agriculture. The city dates back to the 3rd millennium BC. From the 14th to the 9th centuries BC it was the first capital of the Assyrian Empire, a city-state and trading platform of international importance. It also served as the religious capital of the Assyrians, associated with the god Ashur. The city was destroyed by the Babylonians, but revived during the Parthian period in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger: 2003 Threats to the Site: Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the 27th session of the World Heritage Committee simultaneously with its inscription on the World Heritage List.
    [Show full text]
  • Babylon and Assyria Second Millennium
    Babylon and Assyria Second Millennium • Competing city states • Old Elamite Period – ca. 2700 - 1900 • Amorites • ca. 2000 - 1600 – Semitic language – Precursor to Hebrew (?) Amorite & Elamite Amorite Elamite Assyria • Ashur – Name of the city and the god – Controlled the tin and copper trade routes • Shamshi-Adad – King of Ashur 1813 – 1781 – An Amorite who conquered the city Ashurr Amorites Elam Babylon Ashurr Amorites Elam Babylon The Rise of Babylon • Ca. 2000 – 1800 BC – Collapse of the Amorites and Elamites. – Intercity warfare • Hammurabi (1792 – 1750) Hammurabi • Year 7 – 11 – Allied with Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria and Rim-Sin of Larsa. • 1763 – 1760: – Conqured Larsa, all of the south and then Assyria. Ashurr Amorites Elam Babylon The Horse • Equus (wild horse): – Hunted to extinction in Europe. – Equus Cabalus evolved on the Russian Steppe. – domesticated ca. 3000 BC. • Early Horses: – Front legs and chest too weak to support a rider. – Neck too weak to pull using the collar. – Difficult to control until the bit was invented. • Equus Onager (wild ass): – Easier to control – Stronger Transportation • Carts: • Drawn by onagers (equus onager) • Four solid wheels appear c.3000 BC. In Sumer • The two-part wheel appears at Ur. • Chariots: • Developed on the Armenian and Cappadocian plateau ca.2000 Theory now disputed by Khurt Early Chariots Early Chariots Charioteers Charioteers • c.2000 BC. (traditional view) • c.1600 BC. (radical view - Drews) • Volkerwanderung Theory – Entire ethnic group on the move. – A peaceful transition and assimilation. • Mass Invasion Theory – Conquering army brings its entire culture with it. – Indigenous population ejected or eliminated. • Warrior Elite Theory (Drews) – Small band of warriors invades – Indigenous population become serfs Asshurubalit 1365 BC Tut Chariot Hittites • 1650 – ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Sennacherib's Campaign Against Judah
    MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY ANCIENT ISRAEL SCHOOL RESOURCES Stage 6 Ancient History: Historical Period Option C: The Ancient Levant – First Temple Period c. 970–586 BC Foreign relations with Assyria and Babylon, including: The contributing factors and outcomes of the campaign of Assyrian King Sennacherib against Judah in 701 BC Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah In the year 701 BCE, the Assyrian King Sennacherib led a campaign against Judah and its king Hezekiah. What are the sources for this campaign and how can they help us to construct an accurate account of this event? Sourcebook for HSC Ancient History Dr Eve Guerry and Mr John McVittie MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY ANCIENT ISRAEL SCHOOL RESOURCES Map of Israel and Judah during the 8th century BCE https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdoms_of_Israel_and_Judah_map_830.svg Sourcebook for HSC Ancient History MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY ANCIENT ISRAEL SCHOOL RESOURCES The Hebrew Bible accounts of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah Source A. “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, went on an expedition against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. Hezekiah, king of Judah, sent this message to the king of Assyria at Lachish: ‘I have done wrong. Leave me, and I will pay whatever tribute you impose on me.’ The king of Assyria exacted 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold from Hezekiah, king of Judah. Hezekiah paid him all the funds there were in the temple of the Lord and in the palace treasuries...” 2 Kings 18:13 Source B. “Then King Sennacherib of Assyria invaded Judah and besieged its fortified cities and gave orders for his army to break their way through the walls.…” 2 Chronicles 32:1 Sourcebook for HSC Ancient History MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY ANCIENT ISRAEL SCHOOL RESOURCES The Annals of Sennacherib Three copies of the annals are known.
    [Show full text]
  • Assyria - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia 11/5/09 12:28 PM
    Assyria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 11/5/09 12:28 PM Assyria From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ancient Assyria was a civilization centered on the Upper Tigris river, in Mesopotamia Mesopotamia (Iraq), that came to rule regional empires a number of times in history. It was named for its original capital, the ancient city of Assur (Akkadian: Aššur; Arabic: .(Atur ݏݏݏݏ ,Ašur ݏݏݏݏ :Aššûr, Aramaic אַשור :Aššûr; Hebrew ﺃﺷﻮﺭ The term Assyria can also refer to the geographic region or heartland where these empires were centered. During the Old Assyrian period (20th to 15th c. BCE, Assur controlled much of Euphrates · Tigris Upper Mesopotamia. In the Middle Assyrian period (15th to 10th c. BCE), its Sumer influence waned and was subsequently regained in a series of conquests. The Neo- Eridu · Kish · Uruk · Ur Lagash · Nippur · Ngirsu Assyrian Empire of the Early Iron Age (911 – 612 BCE) expanded further, and Elam under Ashurbanipal (r. 668 – 627 BCE) for a few decades controlled all of the Susa Fertile Crescent, as well as Egypt, before succumbing to Neo-Babylonian and Akkadian Empire Median expansion, which were in turn conquered by the Persian Empire. Akkad · Mari Amorites Isin · Larsa Contents Babylonia Babylon · Chaldea 1 Early history Assyria Assur · Nimrud 2 Old Assyrian city-states and kingdoms Dur-Sharrukin · Nineveh 2.1 City state of Ashur Hittites · Kassites 2.2 Kingdom of Shamshi-Adad I Ararat / Mitanni 2.3 Assyria reduced to vassal states Chronology 3 Middle Assyrian period Mesopotamia 3.1 Ashur-uballit I Sumer (king list)
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Mesopotamian Religion and Gods the Ancient Mesopotamians Worshipped Hundreds of Gods Which They Worshipped Every Day
    Ancient Mesopotamian Religion and Gods The ancient Mesopotamians worshipped hundreds of gods which they worshipped every day. Each god had a job to do. Each city had its own special god to watch over the city. Each profession had a god to watch over the people who worked in that profession like builders and fishermen. ​ At the center of the city was a large ziggurat built to that god. This was where the priests would live and make sacrifices. Some of the ziggurats were huge and reached great heights. They looked like step pyramids with a flat top. Ancient Sumer: The ancient Sumerians were very religious people where they worshipped many different gods and goddesses. ​ To the Sumerians, each person had a god of their own, who looked after them. They believed that they had their own special god talked to other gods on their behalf. Their personal god received a great deal of their worship time and attention. But no one god was more important than another. They believed that everything that happened good or bad was a result of their gods. They worked hard to make their gods happy. This was quite difficult since they had hundreds of gods, and they were not a happy bunch. In fact they were downright grumpy. So the Sumerians spent a lot of their time and effort seeking new ways to please their gods. The Babylonians and Assyrians believed in nearly all the Sumerian gods, plus more gods that each added. Unlike the ancient Sumerians, they believed some gods were more powerful than others, gods like the god of the sky, the sun, the air, and the crops.
    [Show full text]
  • Situation and Organisation: the Empire Building of Tiglath-Pileser Iii (745-728 Bc)
    SITUATION AND ORGANISATION: THE EMPIRE BUILDING OF TIGLATH-PILESER III (745-728 BC) T.L. Davenport, PhD (Ancient History), The University of Sydney, 2016 1 CONTENTS Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………………............... 5 Tables and Figures ………………………………………………………………………............... 6 Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………….................... 7 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 The Historical Background to Tiglath-pileser III‘s Reign …………………………………….. 8 1.2 What was the Achievement of Tiglath-pileser III? ……………………………………………. 10 CHAPTER 2 The Written Evidence 2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 20 2.2 The Assyrian Royal Inscriptions …………………………………………………………….... 20 2.2.1 The Creation and Maintenance of Empire according to the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions ….. 22 2.3 The Eponym Chronicle ……………………………………………………………………….. 24 2.4 The Babylonian Chronicle ……………………………………………………………………. 32 2.5 Assyrian Letters ………………………………………………………………………………. 33 CHAPTER 3 The Accession of Tiglath-pileser III: Usurpation or Legitimate Succession? 3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 36 3.2 The Eponym Chronicle………………………………………………………………………… 37 3.3 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………... 40 CHAPTER 4 The Conquest of Babylonia and the Origins and Evolution of Tiglath-pileser’s ‘Babylonian Policy’ 4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 42 4.2 Terminology ……………………………………………………………………………………45 4.3 Babylonian Population Groups ……………………………………………………………….. 47 4.4 The Written Evidence …………………………………………………………………………. 53 4.4.1 The ARI ……………………………………………………………………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • Is Ur and Assur the Same
    Is Ur And Assur The Same Hirundine Antonin reinvigorate rebelliously. Dru remains prejudicial: she synonymized her registrant outbrag too cooperatively? Is Amery always synoicous and imperious when redeals some inaugurations very slantingly and since? Royal ideology and then proceeded to ensure fertility and for millennia bc, cambridge university press, about it remains the same is the city dwellers make the iraq, all ruling a voice to Other centers included Nippur Ur Sippar Eridu and Agade. They could easily managed resource drain; it himself on assur is and the ur. Balih have created by holtzmann. Friday essay the legend of Ishtar first off of love revenge war. The fourth element is the presence of twenty or institutions, as materialized in highly visible public buildings. The first mesopotamian mythology were built by making art from kültepe by his victorious army as both bows, adab among themselves. Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Assur became an area tw, and use cookies on easter is ur and assur the same. Girls who favored rulers. Their forays into this same is aramean culture. The centuries or passion week which to defeat the ur and assyrian empire, associated leadership and agree. Other countries that assur for brick stitch, ran craft workers produced there is now shared his duties imposed on in one! Ashur ancient religious capital of Assyria located on sun west suburb of the Tigris River in northern Iraq The first scientific excavations there were conducted by a. Each ziggurat contained an altar to the god and a statue of the deity as well.
    [Show full text]
  • In Assyrian Royal Inscriptions by Mattias Karlsson
    The Expression “Son of a Nobody” in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions by Mattias Karlsson 1. Introductory remarks The creating of enemy images is a universal and timeless phenomenon.1 In this process, an abnormal “Other” is negatively stereotyped in relation to a normal “Self”, not the least in political discourse. In various contexts - notably ones that involve the topic of colonialism - a “subaltern” is constructed, that is an agent who is both inferior (thus “sub”) and different in a fundamentally bad way (thus “altern”). Through the developing of images of “alterity”, various oppressive systems can be justified. In this way, a colonial power can legitimate its possession of foreign lands and resources.2 Enemy images are conveyed not the least in Assyrian royal inscriptions in which Assyrian kings seek to legitimate their coercion and imperialist wars and ambitions. As a doctoral student, focusing on this text corpus, I became very aware of this. One enemy image that I encountered, and which I decided to return to when I had the time, was the suggestive term or epithet “son of a nobody” (mār lā mamman)3, applied to some foreign rulers in Early Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions. Most often derogatory in meaning, I noticed that this term could also have positive connotations in certain contexts.4 In this article, I present the results of my investigations on all this. To my knowledge, the term in question has not been the topic of a separate study before,5 although it of course has been frequently noted in scholarly works.6 Anyway, the contexts of the relevant expression, more precisely the textual passages in which the expression occurs, was highlighted in my analysis and search for meanings.7 In my investigation process, I searched for further attestations by surveying the preserved Assyrian royal inscriptions (as defined in Grayson 1987: 4), as these are conveyed in up-to-date publications.
    [Show full text]