ORIENT Volume 49, 2014
Religion, Politics, and War: Gestures toward Babylonia in the Imgur-Enlil Inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria
Amitai Baruchi-Unna
The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (NIPPON ORIENTO GAKKAI) Religion, Politics, and War: Gestures toward Babylonia in the Imgur- Enlil Inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria**
Amitai Baruchi-Unna*
During the first third of Shalmaneser III’s reign (859-824 BCE), the great Assyrian monarch was mostly preoccupied by the expanding western frontier of his kingdom and to a lesser degree by the northern frontier. While throughout these years he campaigned in either direction or both, in two sequential years, 851-850 BCE, he led his army southward, to Babylonia. Within this ʻquarter of the land’ he peacefully visited Babylonia proper and campaigned to its adjacent eastern neighbors: the Diyāla region in the north, and the land of the Chaldeans in the south. In this article I propose seeing Shalmaneser’s inscription preserved on the bronze edging of the doors of the gate of Imgur-Enlil (Tell Balawat) as the ideological and propagandistic part of the king’s endeavor to keep the south peaceful, so as to free himself to complete his western adventure. Composed in order to convey a special message, this unique inscription was built up of a variety of literary materials carefully organized to meet the expectations of a complex audience. First, I analyze the components of the text, emphasizing their linkage to other texts within and outside the corpus of royal inscriptions, an analysis that suggests that the text appealed to various tastes. Finally, given that the place where the text was eventually displayed in antiquity and later found in modern times is not where it was first presented, I suggest a new geographical, temporal and historical setting for the text. Keywords: Shalmaneser III, Assyria, Royal inscriptions, Imgur-Enlil (Balawat), Babylonia
I. Introduction Assyria was the first among the ancient Near Eastern great powers to recover from the crisis of the mass movement of peoples and the cultural and political destruction that this area faced at the turn of the thirteenth and twelfth century.1 Beginning in the second half of the tenth century, the Assyrian kings broadened their domain, recovering areas formerly lost – mostly to Aramean tribes – during the preceding centuries. When Shalmaneser III ascended the throne (859 BCE), his kingdom encompassed almost all of Upper Mesopotamia, and during his first years of reign he subdued the Aramean kingdom of Bīt Adini, thus completing the domination of this region. The military horizon of the Assyrian interest then began to reach out beyond these borders, which were perceived as Great Assyria.2 Thus, during the first third of Shalmaneser’s reign, the great monarch was mostly preoccupied by the expanding western frontier of his empire and to a lesser
*Teaching Fellow, Department of History of the Jewish People, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1 See: H. Tadmor, “The Decline of Empires in Western Asia ca. 1200 B.C.E.,” in F. M. Cross (ed.), Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Cambridge, MA, 1979, 1-14. 2 M. Liverani, “Assyria in the Ninth Century: Continuity or Change?,” in G. Frame (ed.), From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea: Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A.K. Grayson, Leiden, 2004, 213-226.
Vol. XLIX 2014 3 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions degree the northern frontier.3 In almost all of these years he campaigned in either direction or both. Nevertheless in the middle of this period – during two sequential years, 851 and 850 BCE – he led his army southward to Babylonia. Across this border he peacefully visited Babylonia proper and campaigned to its adjacent eastern neighbors: the Diyāla region to the north, and Māt Kaldî to the south. Both the routine of the western campaigns and the deviation from it deserve explanation. Ascending the Assyrian throne, Shalmaneser inherited a long-standing peaceful situation in the south with Babylonia that enabled both states to recover from the long crisis the whole area had experienced, to prosper and broaden their influence in other directions. This situation had begun at the beginning of the ninth century under Shalmaneser’s great grandfather, Adad-nirari II (911- 891 BCE) following the peace agreement as well as intermarriage between the royal families. It was maintained during the reign of his father, Ashurnsirpal II (883-859 BCE), though probably without any official status.4 Shalmaneser, in his turn, renewed the formal peace agreement with Nabu-apla-iddina, the aged Babylonian king, in accord with what seems to have met the apparent interests of both monarchs: Nabû-apla-iddina’s aspiration to leave his heir with a stable kingdom,5 on the one hand, and Shalmaneser’s ambition to broaden the Assyrian domain to the far north and west, on the other hand.6 After the death of the Babylonian king, two of his sons – Marduk-zākir-šumi and Marduk- bēl-usāte – fought each other and divided his land between them. The satisfactory peaceful situation on Assyria’s southern border was about to change, threatening the achievement of the important imperial plans. This threat was severe, considering the difficulties the Assyrian army faced on the western frontier, where a coalition of many Syro-Palestinian states has blocked the southward advance of the Assyrian army in the vicinity of the land of Hamath.7 Guaranteeing tranquility to the Babylonian frontier was therefore a strategic goal of first rank – and, indeed,
3 See: S. Yamada, The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmanesar III (859-824 B.C.) Relating to his Campaigns to the West (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 3), Leiden, 2000. It should be noticed that at this stage, the campaigns are of razzia character, i.e., they were not conquest endeavors that were accompanied by administrative changes and annexation to Assyria. These campaigns set the stage for the change that occurred a century later, when Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BCE) annexed the whole region which the Assyrian army had earlier raided. 4 J. A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia (1158-722 B.C.) (Analecta Orientalia, 43), Rome, 1968, 301-303. This situation is reflected in the Assyrian royal inscriptions of the era by the addition of Marduk to the group of great gods, whose names and epithets are mentioned at the opening section of many inscriptions – e.g., in an inscription of Shalmaneser: dMarduk apkal ilāni bēl têrēti (god Marduk, sage of the gods, [and] lord of omens; A.0.102.10 line 8) see: A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, Part II: 858-745 BC (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods, 3), Toronto, 1996, 51 (reference to Assyrian royal inscriptions follows the numbering of this series); before Shalmaneser, from the beginning of the ninth century on: Adad-nirari II (A.0.99.2 line 2). See: idem, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, Part I: 1114-859 BC (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods, 2), Toronto, 1991, 147; Tukultī-Ninurta II (A.0.100.1 line 8; ibid., p. 165); Ashurnasirpal II (A.0.101.17 line 5; ibid., p. 238); and after Shalmaneser, at the end of the ninth century, within an inscription of an official of Adad-nīrārī III (A.0.104.2010 line 5; Grayson [1996; above], 232). This pattern resulted from the good neighborliness with Babylonia, and its appearance only in relatively late inscriptions of Shalmaneser should be seen as a mere chance. 5 Cf. J. A. Brinkman, “iv. The Revival and Decline of North-Western Babylonia c. 911-811 B.C.,” in J. Boardman et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume III, Part 1: The Prehistory of the Balkans, the Middle East and the Aegean World Tenth to Eighth Century B.C.E.2, Cambridge, 1982, 303. 6 Cf. A. K. Grayson, “x. Shalmaneser (858-824 B.C.),” The Cambridge Ancient History III/1 (ibid), 267. 7 For a detailed discussion of this historical situation, see: Yamada (above, note 3), 150-163.
4 ORIENT Religion, Politics, and War: Gestures toward Babylonia in the Imgur-Enlil Inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria according to the Assyrian sources, Shalmaneser devoted two years of his precious time in response to a request by one of the Babylonian royal brothers.8 The aim of the present study is to show the presence of an ideological-propagandistic expression of his endeavor to keep the south peaceful within the inscription of the Imgur-Enlil gates.9 The Imgur-Enlil Gate inscription, two copies of which are engraved on each of the bronze inner edgings of the doors at the gates of ancient Imgur-Enlil (modern Tel Balawāt), six and seven columns of six to eight lines, is unique among Shalmaneser’s inscriptions as well as the whole corpus of Assyrian royal inscriptions, in several aspects. It is unique in its heterogeneous language and literary style, as well as the way it presents the different literary units and moves the narrative forward.10 In what follows I will argue that, because it was composed to covey a special message, this inscription was built of a variety of literary materials carefully organized so as to enable it to meet the expectations of a complex audience. As a rule, only the gods and a potential future ruler, who might find the object on which the inscription is engraved, are mentioned as audience of Assyrian royal inscriptions. The appeal to the future ruler is most common and relates the way he should treat the object on which the inscription is written, whereas the explicit appeal to the gods is rather rare and usually relates to their attitude toward the building project on whose occasion the inscription was composed. The target audience of a typical royal inscription, including the military-political section in its center, is not explicitly mentioned in or outside the inscriptions.11 Hence, any statement concerning this audience’s identity, literary taste, or interest, can never be more than an hypothesis, which is based on the inscription’s content, form, language and occasionally place of display. The working assumption of the current work is that among the audience of some of the inscriptions were groups or circles of political, social and religious elite, that read the inscriptions or were present at a hypothetical occasion when they were read aloud and that the content of the inscriptions was tuned for the ears of these circles.12 I will first present a structural analysis of the text, which will reveal what seems to be its
8 The royal inscriptions as well as the Synchronistic History, describe Shalmaneser’s intervention in Babylonian affairs as an Assyrian response to Babylonian appeal. For the Synchronistic History, see: A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources, 5), Locust Valley, 1975, 167; J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles (Writings from the Ancient World, 19), Atlanta, 2004, 182. There is no positive evidence whatsoever to a supposedly internal Babylonian disagreement concerning the Assyrian Problem; thus, A. T. E. Olmstead, History of Assyria, New York, 1923, 122-123. While it is not impossible that the rebel Marduk-bēl-usāte headed an anti- Assyrian clique, the internal war he waged may have been merely a personal assertion for the throne. Cf. Brinkman (1968; above, note 4), 197, n. 1204; Yamada (above, note 3), 165-166, n. 314. 9 A.0.102.5 see: Grayson (1996; above, note 4), pp. 32-37 with more preliminary information as well as earlier literature. 10 For that reason it is the only representative of Schramm’s recension B. See: W. Schramm, Einleitung in die assyrischen Königsinschriften. Zweiter Teil: 934-722 v. Chr. (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung: der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten. Ergänzungsband, 5), Leiden – Köln, 1973, 72-73. 11 One exception is the little group of royal letters to the gods, a sub-genre of the royal inscriptions, in which the gods are occasionally referred to in the second person. 12 For the audience question, see: M. Worthington, Linguistic and Other Philological Studies in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, c. 1114 - c. 630 BC, PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2007, 55-56. Also to be noted here are the attempts of B. N. Porter to detect an agreement between the content of certain inscriptions and their intended audience as deduced from the place they were found. See, e.g.: B. N. Porter, Images, Power, and Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, 208), Philadelphia, 1993, 122- 127; idem, “Assyrian Propaganda for the West: Esarhaddon’s Stelae for Til-Barsip and Sam’al,” in G. Bunnens (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplements, 7), Louvain, 2000, 143-176.
Vol. XLIX 2014 5 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions central message; in this section I will examine the possibility that the original composition was longer than what was engraved on the doors. Then I will analyze the components of the text, emphasizing their linkage to other texts within and outside the corpus of royal inscriptions that suggests that the text applied to various tastes. Finally, given that the current context of the text does not seem to be the original one, I will suggest another geographical, temporal and historical setting.
II. Original text and context Although the complete text of the Imgur-Enlil inscription is at hand, several considerations suggest that we do not have the full original version of the composition. The text opens with an introduction of the king, within which the names of several great gods are invoked. Then it turns to narrate the military-political achievements of the king. The narrative of the military-political section is cut abruptly at the end of a sentence, but in the middle of an episode: ultu uruBābili attumuš ana māt Kaldî attarad ana uruBakāni birti ša mAdini mār mDakkuri aqṭirib āla assibi aktašad dīktašu ma atta adūk šallassu kabittu alpēšunu ṣēnišunu ašlula āla appul aqqur ina išāti ašrup ultu uruBaqāni attumuš ídPurattu ina gešri ēbir ana uruḪuradi āl šarrūtišu ša mAdinima aqṭirib mAdini mār mDakkuri pulḫi melammē ša dMarduk bēle rabê isḫupūšuma šepēya iṣbat kaspu ḫurāṣu siparrū annakū parzillī […] meskannū šinnū mašak pīri amḫuršu kī ina Ḫuradima uzbākuni maddattu ša mār mYakin […] mMušallim-Marduk mār mA’ukani kaspū ḫurāṣū annakū siparr[ū … m]esukannū šinnū mašak pīri amḫur (vi 5-7)
I set out from Babylon (and) went down to Chaldaea. I approached the city Baqānu, a fortress of Adinu, the man of Bīt- Dakkuri. I laid siege to the city, captured (it), staged an extensive massacre, (and) carried off a valuable booty of oxen and sheep. I razed, destroyed, (and) burned the city. I set out from the city Baqānu. I crossed the Euphrates in flood and approached the city Ḫuradu, a royal city of the same Adinu. The awesome splendour of Marduk, the great lord, overwhelmed Adinu, the man of Bīt-Dakkuri, and he submitted to me. I received from him silver, gold, bronze, tin, iron, [...], meskannu-wood, ivory, (and) elephant hides. While I was residing in Ḫuradu, I received tribute from Bīt-Yakin ... from Mušallim-Marduk, a man of Bīt-Amukkāni (Aukānu): silver, gold, tin, bronze, [...], meskannu-wood, ivory, (and) elephant hides.
These final lines of the inscription lack the routine report of the spoil carried off from the enemy land back home to Assyria, and contain no concluding topics and formulas: neither a building account, nor an address to a future ruler.13 This situation suggests that what was engraved on the doors is actually the first – probably the main – part of a composition, whose original length we can only guess. That this text originally had a continuation is supported by other considerations. The last event reported in the inscription occurred during the līmu of Bēl-bunāya – that is, 850 BCE, while the last events depicted upon the bronze strips of the same doors occurred some two years later.14 Thus the inscription may have been composed a few years later, and may originally have
13 Admittedly, these parts are omitted in several other ninth-century inscriptions as well. This is the case in other inscriptions of Shalmaneser: the one on the stone slab from the kingʼs palace at Calah (A.0.102.1; Grayson [1996; above, note 4], 7-11), and the Kurkh Monolith inscription (A.0.102.2; ibid., 11-24), and in an inscription of his son, Šamši-Adad V (823-811 BCE; A.0.103.1; ibid, 181-188). This phenomenon can also be found in inscriptions of his father, Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BCE), but both cases are offered with an ad hoc explanation: either the text has its continuation on another object (A.0.101.8; Grayson [1991; above, note 4], 233-234), or the work on the object were stopped (A.0.101.18; ibid., 255-256).
6 ORIENT Religion, Politics, and War: Gestures toward Babylonia in the Imgur-Enlil Inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria contained accounts of years later than 850 BCE, as well as concluding topics. Furthermore, in later accounts of the Babylonian campaigns, an additional event is mentioned: the arrival of the army at the Marratu Stream, identified as the Persian Gulf.15 Though not impossible, it is unexpected that later shorter accounts would add such details. Given these facts, it may be reasonable to suggest a scenario, according to which, when the royal architects undertook to decorate the gates, they had a copy of a complete royal inscription, but only used its first part to fill the bronze surfaces of the inner edges of the doors. Further support for this scenario can be found in an echo of this postulated text in a later edition of the annals. As will be elaborated below, one of the noticeable features of our inscription is the change in the grammatical person relating to the king that occurs between its different sections. It occurs, for example, in the section that opens the account of the campaign to Babylonia:
md md md ina līme Šamaš-bēla-uṣur ina tarṣi Marduk-zākir-šumi šar māt Krduniaš Marduk-bēl-usāte aḫīšu elīšu ibbalkit māta malmališ izūzū mdMarduk-zākir-šumi ana nērārūtišu ana muḫḫi mdŠulmānu-ašarēdu uma’’er(a) rakbašu mdŠulmānu-ašarēdu ālilu šamru ša tukultašu dNinurta iṣbat arḫu ana māt Akkadê alāka iqbi ana uruZaban aqṭirib nīqī ina pān dAdad bēliya lū aqqi ultu uruZaban attumuš ana uruMê-turnat aqṭirib …
In the eponymy of Šamaš-bēla-uṣur (851 BCE), at the time of Marduk-zākir-šumi, king of Kardunias, Marduk-bēl- usāte, his brother, rebelled against him (and) they divided up the land evenly. Marduk-zākir-šumi sent his messenger (with a plea) for help to Shalmaneser. Shalmaneser, the vigorous hero whose trust is the god Ninurta, took the road (and) ordered the march to the land of Akkad. I approached the city Zaban (and) offered sacrifices to the god Adad, my lord. I set out from the city Zaban. I approached the city Mê-turnat. … (iv 1-3)
The first part of this section presents the background of the Babylonian campaign relating to Shalmaneser using the third person, whereas its second part narrates the campaign itself using the first person for the Assyrian king. Now, in a text composed in the last years of Shalmaneser (after 828 BCE), and engraved on a statue of the king found in Calah, the Babylonian campaigns of 851 and 850 BCE are narrated while maintaining the changes in person:16 ina 8 [p]alêya mdNabû-apla-iddina šar māt [Karduniaš šadâšu] ēmid mdMarduk-zākir-šumi mārušu kussâ iṣbat [Marduk- bēl-usāte] aḫīšu duppussû ittišu [ibbalkit māta malmališ] izūzū m[dMarduk-zākir]-šumi ana muḫḫi [mdŠulmānu-ašarēd uma’’era rakbašu] md[Šulmānu-ašarēd] alīlu š[amru ša tukultašu dNinurta iṣ]bat [arḫu] ana māt Akka[dê alāka iqbi... uruMê]-turnat akšud [...]
In my eighth regnal year, Nabû-apla-iddina, king of [Karduniaš], passed away (and) Marduk-zākir-šumi, his son, took the throne. [Marduk-bē1-usāte], his younger brother, [rebelled] against him (and) they divided [the land evenly. Marduk-
14 For the reliefs see: R. D. Barnett, Assyrian Palace Reliefs and their Influence on the Sculptures of Babylonia and Persia, London, 1960. The conquest of the Urarṭian city of Arini, depicted on the strip BM 124654, is dated by the inscriptions to 849 BCE (e.g.: A.0.102.6 ii 58; Grayson [1996; above, note 4], 37), and the conquest of the Hamathian city of Aštammaku, depicted on the strip BM 124657, is dated by the inscription to 848 (e.g.: A.0.102.6 iii 1; ibid., 38). 15 See: A.0.102.6 ii 51-54 (Grayson [1996; above, note 4], 37); A.0.102.8 ll. 27'-29' (ibid, 46). Unlike the Imgur-Enlil inscription that locates the receipt of the tribute of Bīt-Yakin and Bīt-Amukkāni in the southern city Ḫuradu (vi 6), these two inscriptions locate this event at Babylon. For ídMarratu as the Persian Gulf see: W. Röllig, “Marratu,ˮ Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, 7 (1987-1990), 432-433. Later on this phrase developed into a general synonym of ʻsea’; see: W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, Winona Lake, 1998, 29, 305. And see more below. 16 See: A.0.102.16 ll. 44-50 (Grayson [1996; above, note 4], 75-76). For the changes in person, see more below.
Vol. XLIX 2014 7 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions zākir]-šumi [sent his messenger (with a plea for help)] to [Shalmaneser. Shalmaneser], the vigorous hero [whose trust is the god Ninurta], took [the road (and) ordered the march] to the land of Akkad. I captured the [city Mê]-turnat [...]
As it is improbable that the authors of the statue inscription reworked the inscription directly from the gates of the far city, this situation suggests that a master text existed in the scribal office, from which the gate inscriptions were copied, and on which the later statue inscription was based. The original setting of this hypothetical composition is the subject of the following investigation. Assuming that the Imgur-Enlil gate was not the primary setting of the composition, this final spot of the inscription’s display should not effect the discussion.
III. Literary structure The existing inscription is divided into ten sequential units that relate to the king alternately in the third and the first persons, making five pairs of units. Thus in the first unit of each pair the speaker is an anonymous narrator, whereas in the second unit of each pair the king himself is speaking; the only deviation from this order is the eighth unit that narrates in the third person the royal pilgrimage to northern Babylonian cult centers. The order of the text is schematized in the following chart:
Pair #1 i: 3rd person – a long introduction of the king (i 1-5) ii: 1st person – an account of his appointment (i 6 – ii 2) Pair #2 iii: 3rd person – a short introduction of the king (ii 2) iv: 1st person – a summary of past achievements (ii 2 – iii 6) Pair #3 v: 3rd person – connecting sentence with date and background (iv 2) vi: 1st person – five ͑journey account͗ units (iv 2 – v 3) Pair #4 vii: 3rd person – connecting sentence with a temporal clause (v 3-4) viii: 3 rd person – non-military campaign in northern Babylonia (v 4 – vi 4) Pair #5 ix: 3rd person – connecting sentence that is a temporal clause only (vi 5) x: 1st person – two ͑journey account͗ units (vi 5-7)
The third person units function as the skeleton of the composition as they connect each of the second longer units to what precedes and follows by means of presentation of the speaker, or by sequential or temporal phrases. In the first two pairs of units the king is introduced at the first unit and speaks for himself at the second. In the first pair the introduction is made by means of a genealogy and a long series of epithets: mdŠulmānu-
Shalmaneser, great king, strong king, king of the universe, king of [Assyria, son of Ashurnasirpal (II), king of the universe, king of Assyria, son of Tukultī-Ninurta (II)], (who was) also [king of the universe (and) king of Assyria], valiant man who [is active] in the four quarters [(...)] merciless [...] who defeats the fierce [... the one (...)] into whose hands are entrusted all the quarters, destroyer of [...] those insubmissive to Aššur, mighty floodtide [which has no opponent, the one] into whose hands [Aššur (and the great gods)] firmly placed the circumference of lands, king of the (four) quarters [controller of the obstinate, crowned] with splendour, fearless in battle, [...] whose lordship has entirely
8 ORIENT Religion, Politics, and War: Gestures toward Babylonia in the Imgur-Enlil Inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria conquered fierce and merciless kings [from east] to west, [...], Shalmaneser, faithful shepherd, vice-regent of Aššur, superb [...]:
Following this introduction, there is a first person account of the king’s nomination and coronation and a general description of his ways (which will be discussed below). In the first units of the second pair the introduction is shorter: mdŠulmānu-ašarēdu šarru dannu dšamšu kiššat ni[šē] (ii 2; ʻʻShalmaneser, strong king, sun[god] of all peopleˮ), and immediately thereafter a first person summary of past achievements is presented; this being the content of the second unit of the second pair (which will be discussed below). In the third pair the words of the king are preceded by the connecting sentence that gives in the third person the date as well as the historical background of the Babylonian campaigns reported in first person thereafter (this connecting sentence is cited above). Similarly, each of the first units of the fourth and fifth pairs connects the unit that follows with what precedes it by means of a temporal clause with the preposition ultu (after). In the fourth pair: ultu mdMarduk-zākir-šumi ikšud(a) gārîšu u mdŠulmānu-ašarēdu šarru dannu imṣû mal libbušu ( v 3-4)
After Marduk-zākir-šumi had conquered his enemies and Shalmaneser, the strong king, had achieved his heart’s desire, …
And in the fifth pair: ultu ilāni rabûti mdŠulmānu-ašarēdu šarru dannu šar māt Aššur ḫadîš ippalsūšuma utarriṣū būnīšu
After the great gods had looked joyfully upon Shalmaneser, strong king, king of Assyria, directed (towards him) their faces, accepted his offerings, and the furious ones received his prayers: I set out from Babylon, … (vi 5)18
The first unit of each pair thus functions as a connecting passage leading to the second unit. We will now turn to the longer second unit in each pair being the literary body of the composition, as they contain the main part of its content and move the plot forward. In the first pair the king describes his nomination and behavior as follows: ina ūmēšuma Aššur bēlu rabû [šumī ana rē’ût] nišē ibbû agâ ṣīra upper(u) bēlūtī [...] kakku ḫaṭṭu šibirru simat nišē ina qātiya ušatmeḫ(u) ina tukulti Aššur bēle rabê bēliya u dNinurta rā’im šangūtiya attallak(u)ma mātāti kalîšina ḫuršāni ana pāṭ gimrišunu ana qātiya ukinnū (i 6 – ii 2)
At that time, Aššur, the great lord, called [my name for shepherdship of] the people, he crowned (me) with the exalted crown, [he ...] my dominion, (and) placed in my hand the sword, sceptre, (and) staff appropriate for (rule over) the people. I always acted with confidence in Aššur, the great lord, my lord, and the god Ninurta, who loves my priesthood, (and) they placed firmly in my hands all the lands (and) the mountains.
17 This emendation is suggested for both copies of the inscription (Cf. Grayson [1996; above, note 4], 31 who lives periods of ellipsis). The adjective ekdu (fierce) usually refers to either animals, kings, gods, or enemies, and never to objects such as offerings and prayers (See: CAD E, 62-63, s.v. ekdu), thus, appearing in its plural form, it best read here as referring to “the great gods” that are mentioned at the opening of the sequence. The postulated change in the subject of the new sentence is in agreement with the absence of the consecutive –ma following the previous verb. 18 It should be noticed that when the latter temporal clause is read along with the main sentence, a syntactic difficulty arises, as the changes in the person element occur within one sentence. This difficulty can be solved if we assume the inscription had been composed for being read aloud by at least two people, one of which being a narrator whereas the other being the king or his representative. This assumption seems to fit the structure of the whole inscription. See more footnote 48 below.
Vol. XLIX 2014 9 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions
The second units of the following pairs will be elaborated on below, hence they will be mentioned here only in brief. The second unit of the second pair is a brief summary of the main events that preceded the Babylonian campaigns, or more correctly, the first five years of the king’s reign (ii 2 – iii 3). The last three pairs narrate the 851 and 850 BCE campaigns to Babylonia. The third and the fifth are accounts of royal military achievements in the northeast and southeast of Babylonia respectively (iv 2 – v 3; vi 5-7), and they create a literary frame for the pious religious and civil deeds narrated between them, in the fourth pair of units (v 4 – vi 5). It seems that this structure of the text marks the fourth pair as the climax of the story, an impression that is reinforced by the unique third person of second part of this pair, as well as by further considerations on which I will elaborate later on. One consideration depends on a reconstruction of the original form of the composition. Had this text been constructed with an original sequence of military achievements of two or more years, as well as the usual concluding topics, then the Babylonian campaigns would have been at the real center of the text, and the pilgrimage account would have been further emphasized by its standing at the heart of a conjectured composition of seven pairs:
Pair # 1: The king and his appointment Pair # 2: The king and his wars before the Babylonian campaigns Pair # 3: Background and the beginning of the Babylonian campaigns Pair #4: The non-military part of the Babylonian campaigns Pair #5: The end of the Babylonian campaigns *Pair #6: The wars after the Babylonian campaigns *Pair #7: Building account and application to a future ruler
In either case, the account of the Babylonian campaigns was thus not merely the new event reported in this new edition of Shalmaneserʼs annals; it represented the central object that this composition sought to promote. To clarify the exact message and the way in which the authors of the inscription used to present it to their audience, we will now turn to examine the literary material they chose to include.
IV. Components In addition to the peculiar structure discussed above, the text is unique in the variety of genres and styles used in its various units. We will now deal with the form and content of the second unit of each pair.19 The second unit of the second pair is a summary unit of previous military-political achievements:
[…] tâmti ša māt Na’iri u tâmti ša māt Zamu’a ša bētāni u tâmti rabīte ša māt Amurru māt Ḫatte ana pāṭ gimriša kīma til abūbe ašpun 40 lim 4 lim 4 me ummānīšunu assuḫa ana nišē mātiya am[nu] [(…) m]elammē bēlūtiya eli māt Ḫatte atbuk ina mētaqtiya ša tâmti ṣalam bēlūtiya šurbâ ēpuš ašar ṣalmi ša mAnum- ḫirbe ušēziz(i) ālāni ša šidi ḫūliya appul aqqur ina išāti ašrup m[addattu ša … amḫur ana tâmti] rabītu allik kakkīya
19 The second unit of the first pair dealing with the divine appointment and coronation of the king is of typical nature with no unique feature, and thus will not be elaborated on here. For another inscription with such a presentation, see, for example: A.0.102.1 lines 11-13 (Grayson 1996 [above, note 4], 8). Similar to our inscription, this one opens with no direct invocation of the gods.
10 ORIENT Religion, Politics, and War: Gestures toward Babylonia in the Imgur-Enlil Inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria ina tâmti rabîte ūlil nīqē ana ilāniya aṣbat maddatu ša šarrāni ša šidi tâmti kalîšunu amḫur ṣalam bēlūtiya šurbâ ēpuš t[anatti Aššur bēle rabê bēliya u lîti kiššūtiya ša ina] tâmti ētappaš ina qerebšu ašṭur ina muḫḫi tâmti ušēziz ultu māt Enzite adi māt Dayēni adi [uruArṣaškun āl šarrūtišu ša mAr]ame kurUrarṭaya akšud appul aqqur ina išāti ašrup kī ina uruArṣaškun uzbākuni mArame kurUrarṭaya ana gipiš ummānātišu ittakilma ummānātišu kalîš lū idkâ ana epēš qabli u tāḫāzi ana muḫḫiya itbâ abiktašu aškun muqtablišu unappiṣ(i) 3 lim ummānāt tidūkišu ina kakkē ušamqit dāmē qurādīšu ṣēra rapša umalli unūt tāḫāzišu niṣirti bēlūtišu pitḫallu ma’du ēkimšu ana šūzub napšātišu ana šadê marṣi ēli mār Gutê rapaštu kī dErra ašgiš ultu uruArṣaškun adi māt Gilzāni ultu māt Gilzāni adi māt Ḫubuškiya kīma dAdad rāḫiṣi elīšunu ašgum nāmurat bēlūtiya eli māt Urarṭu ušaškin mAḫuni mār mAdini ša ultu šarrāni abbēya šipṣu u danānu iltakana ina šurrat šarrūtiya ina ālišu ēsiršu ebūrašu assuḫ(u) kirâšu akkis ana sūzub napšātišu ídPuratta ēbir uruŠītamrat ubān šadê ša ina aḫat ídPuratte šakinima ša kīma erpeti ultu šamê šuqalulat ana dannūtišu iškun ina šitte šatte arkīšu artēdi ubān šadê assibi mundaḫṣīya kīma Anzê elīšunu išē’ū 17 lim 5 me ummānātešu assuḫ(a) mAḫuni adi ummānātešu ilānišu narkabātešu sisēšu ana pāniya utēra ana āliya Aššur ūbla ana nišē mātiya amnu (ii 2 – iii 6)
I overwhelmed like the Deluge the entire (territory stretching) [from] the sea of the land Nairi, the sea of the interior of the land Zamua and the great western sea of the land Ḫatti. I uprooted 44,400 of their troops (with) their officers (and) regarded (them) as people of my land. I unleashed upon the land Ḫatti my lordly radiance. Upon my passing by the sea I created a colossal image of my lordship (and) erected (it) where the image of Anum-ḫirbe (stands). I razed, destroyed, (and) burned the cities along my way (and) [received] the tribute of [...]. I went down to the great [sea], washed my weapons in the great sea, (and) offered sacrifices to my gods. I received the tribute of all the kings by the sea. I created a colossal image of my lordship (and) wrote thereon the praises [of Aššur, the great lord, my lord, and the mighty deeds which] I had been accomplishing [by] the sea. I erected (it) by the sea. I conquered, razed, destroyed, (and) burned from the land Enzite to the land Dayēnu, from the land Dayēnu to [the city Arṣaškun, the royal city of Ar]amu the Urarṭian. While I was residing in the city Arṣaškun, Aramu the Urarṭian, trusting in the might of his army, mustered all his troops (and) attacked me to wage war and battle. I defeated him, crushed his soldiers, put to the sword 3,000 of his fighting men, (and) filled the wide plain with the blood of his warriors. I took away from him his military equipment, his royal treasure, (and his) numerous cavalry. To save his life he ascended a rugged mountain. I slaughtered the extensive Guti like the god Erra. I thundered like the god Adad, the devastator, against (the territory stretching) from the city Arṣaškun to the land Gilzānu (and) from the land Gilzānu to the land Hubuškia. (Thus) I laid my lordly brilliance over the land Urarṭu. Aḫunu, the man of Bīt-Adini, who had been swaggering about with might and main since (the days of) the kings my fathers: at the beginning of my reign I imprisoned him in his city. I uprooted his harvest (and) cut down his gardens. To save his life he crossed the Euphrates and fortified himself in the city Šītamrat, a mountain peak situated on the bank of the Euphrates which is suspended from heaven like a cloud. In a second year I went after him (and) laid siege to the mountain peak. My soldiers flew up against them like the Anzû-bird. I uprooted (and transported) 17,500 of his troops. I took for myself Aḫunu together with his troops, gods, chariots, (and) horses, brought (them) to my city Aššur, (and) regarded (them) as people of my land.
This edited unit is based on a previous annalistic account of the events, and may be labeled a "Summary Unit".20 The full annalistic record of these events appears on the Kurkh Monolith, composed in 852 BCE.21 As in other summary inscriptions, the events narrated in this section are
20 This phrase is drawn from Tadmor’s definition of royal “summary inscriptions.” See: H. Tadmor, “The Historical Inscriptions of Adad-Nirari III,” Iraq 35 (1973), 141; idem, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, Jerusalem, 1994, 25; for a division of Shalmaneser’s inscriptions according to this system, see: Yamada (above, note 3), pp. 10-52; see also: F. M. Fales, “Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: Newer Horizons,” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 13 (1999-2001), 131. 21 See: A.0.102.2 (Grayson, [1996; above, note 4], 11-24). Most parts of this account had probably appeared earlier on a stone slab from Fort Shalmaneser in Calah (A.0.102.1; ibid., 7-11).
Vol. XLIX 2014 11 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions organized in thematic order: the events that occurred during these years are grouped according to their relevance to one of the three selected targets: northern Syria, Urarṭu and Bīt Adini, resulting in a narrative that only partly parallels the original chronologically ordered one. Omitting many episodes known from the detailed accounts,22 this summary unit totally omits the events of the three years immediately preceding the Babylonian campaigns.23 Shortening the long and detailed accounts of earlier campaigns, the authors of this summary omitted, inter alia, all annalistic features such as dates and verbs that describe the advance of the king and his army.24 This omission leaves this summary with only a few of the numerous Assyrianisms that characterize the earlier accounts, and which stand out in them within the surrounding Standard Babylonian register.25 By maintaining and adding several mythological metaphors – recalling the gods Erra, Anzû, Adad and the deluge – this summary unit emphasizes the divine aspect of the warrior king, far beyond what appears in the earlier, rather laconic accounts.26 The omission of the events of the three years prior to 851 within a summary unit that appears in an inscription that was composed in 850 or later suggests the use of an existing summary inscription, that was composed several years earlier and was available to the author of our inscription, but has not reached us. This hypothesis is strengthened by considering a difference between the general account opening this summary unit and the details concerning the journey reported later in the inscription and in other inscriptions. The general account delineates the borders of the kingdom by means of marking great bodies of water at its ends. This account apparently relates to Lake Urmia in the north, a body of water in the Zagros Mountains to the east, and the Mediterranean in the west.27 Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, in later accounts of the 850 BCE Babylonian campaign, arrival at the Marratu Stream – which is probably the Persian Gulf – is reported. Considering the importance of great bodies of water within Mesopotamian geographical conceptions, one would expect that such an account would also have referred to the southern waters, completing a series of the four seas at the four ends of the land. So it is, for example, in the inscription that was composed after 841 BCE and engraved on the colossal bulls at Calah.28 The absence of the Marratu Stream in the general account that opens the summary unit
22 Mazamua and Nairi are briefly mentioned in the general statement opening this unit. It delineates the scope of Shalmaneser’s conquests by means of marking the seas as its ends: the western sea (Ḫatti and Amurru) the northern sea (Nairi), and eastern sea (Zamua). 23 Omitted are the northern campaign to Mt. Kashiyari of 854 BCE and the western campaigns of 853 and 852 BCE. 24 In the unit dedicated to the Urarṭian affairs, for example, the previous detailed account of the march between Til- barsip and Urarṭu has been changed into two short lists of sections of the road, which function as the literary framework for one episode of the campaign (ii 5-6; iii 2-3). This editorial phenomenon occurs in other inscriptions; it is elaborated on in my Hebrew PhD dissertation (pp. 98-102). 25 For the Assyrian forms within the Standard Babylonian of the royal inscriptions see more below. 26 Deluge (ii 2), Anzu (iii 5), Erra (iii 2), Adad (iii 3). 27 See: K. Yamada, “ʻFrom the Upper Sea to the Lower Seaʼ – The Development of the Names of Seas in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” ORIENT: Reports of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 40 (2005), 31–55, with earlier literature. 28 See: A.0.102.8 lines 24-40 (Grayson [1996; above, note 4], 44), and on the golden tablet from Assur that mentions only the Upper and the Lower seas: A.0.102.26 lines 5-9 (ibid., 100), and more. 29 If this composition was originally longer and included more details concerning the last part of the Babylonian campaigns, one should not assume that the southern sea was absent from its original form just because of its absence from the part of the composition that we now have. Be the original form of the composition as it may, it had been composed after the Assyrian army reached the Marratu Stream, and the avoidance of mentioning it should be explained.
12 ORIENT Religion, Politics, and War: Gestures toward Babylonia in the Imgur-Enlil Inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria therefore strengthens the hypothesis that an already existing summary was used here.29 It is possible that the author’s choice to use a two-or-three-year-old inscription and to introduce it into the new inscription was based on quality and time-saving considerations. Nevertheless, as will be shown below, an additional option should be considered: it was the absence of any reference in this summary to the wars in the western land of Hamath at 853 BCE that made it suitable for our inscription. Following this brief summary of previous achievements, the inscription moves on to narrate the new one, the Babylonian campaigns. This is done in a way similar to that used to narrate the previous events in earlier accounts, that is, in the annalistic style of the ninth century: ana uruZaban aqṭirib nīqī ina pān dAdad bēliya lū aqqi ultu uruZaban attumuš ana uruMê-Turnat aqṭirib āla assibi aktašad dīktašu adūk šallassu ašlula ultu uruMê-Turnat attumuš ana uruGannanāte aqṭirib mdMarduk-bēl-usāte šar ḫammāʼi lā mūdê alakte ramānišu ana epēš qabli u tāḫāzi ana muḫḫiya ūṣâ abiktašu aškun dīktašu maʼatta adūk ina ālišu ēsiršu ebūrašu assuḫ kirîšu akšiṭ nārašu askir ina šanê tāluki ina līme mBēl-bunāya ina araḫ Nisanu ūmu ešrû ultu uruNinua attumuš ídZaba elīta u šapla ēbir ana uruLaḫiru aqṭirib āla assibi aktašad dīktašu adūk šallassu ašlula ultu uruLaḫiru attumuš ana uruGannānte aqṭirib mdMarduk-bēl-usāte kīma šēlebi ina pulše ūṣi ana šadê kurYasubi iltakan pānišu uruArman ana dannūtišu lū iṣbat uruGannanāte lū akšud dīktašu adūk šallassu ašlula arkīšu ana šadê ēli ina uruArman ēsiršu āla assibi aktašad dīktašu adūk šallassu ašlula mdMarduk-bēl-usāte ina kakkē ušamqit u ummānāt ḫupše ša ittišu ayyumma ul ēzib (iv 2 – v 3)
I approached the city Zaban (and) offered sacrifices to the god Adad, my lord. I set out from the city of Zaban. I approached the city Mê-turnat. I laid siege to the city, captured (it), slaughtered its (people), and plundered it. I set out from the city Mê-turnat. I approached the city Gannanāte. Marduk-bē1-usāte, the rebel king who did not know what he was doing, came forth to wage war and battle against me. I defeated him, made an extensive massacre, (and) imprisoned him in his city. I uprooted his harvest, cut down his gardens, (and) stopped up his canals. On a second campaign, in the eponymy of Bēl-bunāya, in the month Nisan, the twentieth day, I set out from Nineveh. I crossed the Upper and Lower Zabs (and) approached the city Laḫiru. I laid siege to the city, captured, massacred, (and) plundered it. I set out from the city Laḫiru. I approached the city Gannanāte. Marduk-bēl-usāte escaped like a fox through a hole, set out for Mount Yasubu, (and) fortified himself in the city Arman. I captured, massacred, (and) plundered the city Gannanāte. I ascended the mountain after him and imprisoned him in the city Arman. I laid siege to the city, (and) captured (it), massacred (its people), (and) plundered it. I put Marduk-bēl-usāte to the sword and did not spare any of his ḫupšu-soldiers.
Each stage of the campaign is described in what I label a ʻjourney accountʼ unit. Such units usually open with the verb attumuš, describing the departure from the current location. Similar to several other verbs of motion, this verb almost always appears in its first person, Assyrian perfect form. Save the section that reports the non-military visit at the north Babylonian cult centers (the
30 The first date, preceding the unit that is similar to a unit in the Synchronistic History (see below), is short, while the second one is detailed, giving the year, the month and the day. For examples of dated ʻjourney account’ units from ninth, eighth and seventh centuries, cf.: Assurnasirpal II (883-859 BCE): A.0.101.1 ii 49-51 (Grayson [1991; above, note 4], 205); Sargon II’s (722-706 BCE) “Letter to Aššur,” lines 6-8 (W. Mayer, “Sargons Feldzug gegen Urartu – 714 v. Chr. Text und Übersetzung,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 115 [1983], 68); and Assurbanipal’s (668-627 BCE) Prisms A viii 96-100 (R. Borger, Beitrage zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals, Wiesbaden, 1996, 64).
Vol. XLIX 2014 13 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions second unit of the fourth pair), all of the seven stages of these two campaigns are reported in this way, and, as typical of such units, two of them open with a date.30 The seven ʻjourney accountʼ units are divided into three groups; the first three narrate the first-year campaign (iv 2-5), the following two narrate the first part of the second-year campaign (iv 5 – v 3), and the last two units – that are introduced following the account of the non-military section of the campaign – narrate the last reported part of this campaign (vi 5-7; cited earlier). The last unit of each of these groups is more detailed than the first ones, a feature that further unites each group. The Assyrian forms typically used in such ʻjourney accountʼ units stand out within the Standard Babylonian setting of the royal inscriptions.31 Possibly the use of Assyrian linguistic elements reflects the use of an administrative document by the authors when preparing these compositions.32 Sabrina Favaro has suggested that the introduction of elements of an itinerary – which is basically an administrative genre – into the royal inscriptions that are of literary character should be understood as a literary means whose initial purpose was to illustrate a political idea. According to this suggestion, the authors thus sought to express the idea that the district of Ḫābūr River is part of the Assyrian heartland, and thus it is spoken of in Assyrian administrative fashion.33 One can thus view the itinerary elements, as well as the accompanying multiplicity of Assyrian linguistic elements in Assyrian royal inscriptions mainly of the ninth century BCE, as a reflection of the administrative documents used by the authors, who chose to advance them from behind the scenes to the literary forefront, for reasons of either ideological, aesthetical, or other nature. The use of this literary device in the Babylonian account of our inscription, as well as in earlier inscriptions of Shalmaneser, that have no relation with the Ḫābūr region and do not have an administrative setting, may thus be explained by assuming that this pattern became part of the authors’ literary inventory. In our inscription it may have possibly been used as a means to meet the taste of the Assyrian ear. The first ʻjourney account’ series is introduced by means of an eponym date: ina līme mdŠamaš-bēla-uṣur (in the eponym year of Šamaš-bēla-uṣur; iv 1), which is interrupted by a passage as follows:
md md ina tarṣi Marduk-zākir-šumi šar māt karduniaš Marduk-bēl-usāte aḫīšu elīšu ibbalkit māta malmališ izūzū mdMarduk-zākir-šumi ana nērārūtišu ana muḫḫi mdŠulmānu-ašarēdu uma’’er(a) rakbašu
At the time of Marduk-zākir-šumi, king of Kardunias, Marduk-bēl-usāte, his brother, rebelled against him [and] they divided up the land evenly. Marduk-zākir-šumi sent his messenger [with a plea] for help to Shalmaneser (iv 1-2)
31 Tadmor suggested viewing the multiplicity of Assyrianisms in the royal inscriptions of the first half of the ninth century as a reflection of the pro-Assyrian attitude of the scribe and his royal master. See: H. Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995, Helsinki, 1997, 329; idem, “With my many chariots I have gone up the heights of mountainsˮ- Historical and Literary Studies on Ancient Mesopotamia and Israel, edited by M. Cogan, Jerusalem, 2011, 12. Nevertheless, this explanation is based on the assumption according to which this phenomenon is confined to the inscriptions of Tukultī-Ninurta II and Assurnasirpal II, but need to be corrected, because it does not take into account its concentration in the vicinity of itineraries. For Assyrianisms in Assyrian royal inscriptions see: Worthington (above, note 12), 222-270. 32 For the hypothetical source material used for the composition of the royal inscription, see: Tadmor, ibid. 33 See: S. Favaro, Voyages et voyageurs à l’époque néo-assyrienne (State Archives of Assyria Studies, 18), Helsinki, 2007, 36-38; Cf. A. R. Roskop, The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah (History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant, 3), Winona Lake, Ind, 2011, 102-104.
14 ORIENT Religion, Politics, and War: Gestures toward Babylonia in the Imgur-Enlil Inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria
The interrupting passage looks as if it was a quotation from either an early version of the Synchronistic History, or better, one of its sources.34 Like many entries in the Synchronistic History, it opens with the temporal phrase ina tarṣi RN, uses the name Karduniaš for Babylonia,35 and deals with the relations between Assyria and Babylonia. Reviewing Assyrian- Babylonian relations from the beginning of the fifteenth to the end of the ninth centuries BCE, this composition is marked by its Assyrian bias.36 This section of our inscription with its Synchronistic History style, may be either a quotation or a paraphrase of it, and can thus be seen as an effort to please the possible Assyria-oriented audience of the composition. The literary climax of the Imgur-Enlil inscription, as deduced from the structural analysis above, coincides with its poetic climax. The pilgrimage of Shalmaneser to the cult centers in northern Babylonia is described in special language that stands out even above the usual Standard Babylonian of the royal inscriptions, which is in its own right a high literary artificial register.37 In detailed sentences, full of superlatives, this part of the account of the Babylonian campaign describes three royal cultic visits to the cities Cuthah, Babylon and Borsippa, and a celebrative meal prepared for the citizens of the latter two. Each of the accounts, as well as the main part of the connecting sentence, opens with a sentence of a peculiar structure: the verb with an enclitic -ma (meaning: ̔and̕ ) stands in the first position of the sentence (the verb and its ̔natural̕ position are marked by *…*): ultu mdMarduk-zākir-šumi ikšud(a) gārîšu u mdŠulmānu-ašarēd šarru dannu imṣû mal libbišu *itta’’idma* pî bēle rabê dMarduk ** Šulmānu-ašarēd šar māt Aššur ana Bābili iqṭabi alāka *ikšudamma* ana uruKuta āl qarrad ilāni šaqê dUtulu ** ina bāb Ekur ašriš uškēnma niqêšu ušamḫir(a) uqa’’iš(a) qīšāte *ērubma* ana Bābili markas šamê u erṣete šubat balāṭi ** *elīma* ana Esagil ēkal ilāni šubat šar gimri ** ana maḫri dBēl u dBēlet palḫiš innamerma uštēšer(a) kibsīšunu nīqašu ṣīra nindabašu ella ina Esagil uṭaḫḫid(a) upaqqid bīt ilāni šūt Esagil u Bābili ušamḫir(a) nīqašu ella *iṣbatma* ḫarrāna ana uruBorsippa āl qarrad ilāni rubê gašri** *ērubma* ana Ezida bīt šimâte bīt purussê kēni ** *uškēnma* ina maḫar dNabû u dNanâ ilāni bēlēšu palḫiš ** uštēšer(a) kibsišu alpū bitrūte immerū mar[ūte] uṭaḫḫid(a) upaqqid bīt ilāni šut uruBorsippa u Ezida kīma ištēniš ušamḫir(a) busaggi qīšāte uqa’’issunūti uruBābili u [uru]Borsippa ṣabē kidinnu šubarê ša ilāni rabûti qerēti iškunma akala kuruna iddinšunūti lubulti birme ulabbiš qīšāta uqa’’issunūti (v 3 – vi 5)
After Marduk-zākir-šumi had conquered his enemies and Shalmaneser, the strong king, had achieved his heart’s desire, he (Shalmaneser) heeded the command of the great lord, the god Marduk, (and) Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, ordered the march to Babylon. He reached Cuthah, city of the hero of the gods, the exalted divine Utulu. He bowed down humbly at the gate of the temple and made sacrifices and offerings.
34 See: H. Tadmor, “Observations on Assyrian Historiography,ˮ in Maria de Jong Ellis (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of J.J Finkelstein, Hamden, 1977, 209-213; “With my many chariotsˮ (above, note 31), 47-53. It seems that the source material option should be preferred, as the Imgur-Enlil passage opens with ina tarṣi (Babylonian) RN, whereas the Synchronistic History always has ina tarṣi (Assyrian) RN. 35 As opposed to URUKÁ.DINGIR.RAKI (v 4) and Akkade (iv 2). 36 See: Grayson (1975; above, note 8), 51-56, 157-170; Glassner (above, note 8), 176-183. 37 To put it in the first editor’s words: “The highly poetic language in which the account of this expedition is told is not its least interesting feature.” See: T. G. Pinches, “The Bronze Gates discovered by Mr. Rassam at Balawat,ˮ Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 7 (1882), 88.
Vol. XLIX 2014 15 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions
He entered Babylon, bond between heaven and underworld, the abode of life, (and) ascended to Esagil, the palace of the gods, abode of the king of all. He reverently appeared in the presence of divine Bēl and Bēlet, properly performed their rites, slaughtered (and) offered up lofty sacrifices (and) holy offerings in Esagil. He (also) presented holy offerings at the shrines of (other) deities in Esagil and Babylon. He took the road to Borsippa, city of the hero of the gods, son of Bēl, the powerful prince, (and) entered Ezida, temple of destinies, temple of his firm decision. He bowed down in the presence of the deities Nabû and Nanâ, the gods, his lords, and reverently (and) properly performed their (lit. “hisˮ) rites. He slaughtered (and) offered up superb oxen (and) fat sheep. He presented bursaggû- offerings at the shrines of (other) deities of Borsippa and Ezida in like fashion. He prepared a banquet for (the people of) Babylon and Borsippa, people of the kidinnu and the šubarê of the great gods, and gave them bread (and) wine, dressed them in multicoloured garments, (and) presented them with presents.
While Standard Babylonian is not obligated to follow classic Akkadian word order,38 this structure is of highly artificial nature. By bringing forward the very element that connects the current sentence to the following one, it weakens its binding force and hence the communicative force of the sequence. Admittedly, this structure occurs here and there in the Akkadian literature such as the Gilgamesh Epic and Enuma Elish,39 but it is rather rare in Assyrian royal literature,40 whereas here it occurs seven times in one passage: the connecting sentence and the Cuthah account each have one sentence of this kind, the Babylon account has two, and the Borsippa account has three such sentences. The unique syntax can be understood as a means of highlighting the episodes described, perhaps by imitation of the style of the great literary compositions, pointing to the heart of its message. Imitating the style of the well-known Babylonian literary compositions the author may have possibly intended to please a pro-Babylonian audience. In addition to the pro-Babylonian attitude expressed by the military-political section in the main part of this inscription, and the religious and civil deeds celebrated in its heart manifesting a pro-Babylonian attitude, there is room to credit its author with more than a blink to a Babylonian, or better north-Babylonian, audience. As can be seen in the passage cited above, the inscription narrates the Babylonian journey, and specifically the pilgrimage, as undertaken in heed of Marduk’s command (v 4). Furthermore, this is the first and almost only Assyrian royal inscription that mentions pulḫi melammē ša dMarduk bēle rabê ʻthe fearsome radiance of Marduk, the great lord’ (vi 7), an attribute that usually relates to the god Aššur.41 Finally, it is the only inscription I know that ascribes the epithet markas šamê u erṣete (ʻthe bond of heaven and earth’; v 5) to the city Babylon. This epithet originally belonged to the pan-Mesopotamian holy city Nippur, whose
38 See: Brigitte Groneberg, Syntax, Morphologie und Stil der jungbabylonischen “hymnischen” Literatur, Stuttgart 1987, 44-52. 39 For example: īmuršum[a] fŠamḫat lullâ amēla (Gilgamesh Epic i 176, see also: 185, 192 and passim) see: A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Oxford 2003, 548; innindūma atḫû ilū (Enūma Eliš i 21, see also: 27, 37 and passim) see: Ph. Talon, The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enūma Eliš (State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts, 4), Helsinki, 2005, 34. It should be emphasided that these cases lack the artificiality of that of the inscription, as the -ma does not function as connecting word. 40 This grammatical structure is found in two other royal texts: in a prayer of Ashurnasirpal I and in the Esarhaddon account of his Egyptian campaign, both highly celebrative texts; W. von Soden, “Zwei Königsgebete an Ištar aus Assyrien,ˮ Archiv für Orientforschung 25 (1974), 37-49; E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) (Royal Inscriptions of Neo Assyrian Period, 4), Philadelphia, 2011, 86-88. 41 See: CAD M/II, p. 10, s.v. melamme 1a1'. It seems that twenty years later, the author of the Black Obelisk inscription was uncomfortable with the phrase in this form and added the legal owner of the epithet, God Aššur: pulḫi melammē ša Aššur dMarduk isḫupūšu (ʻThe fearsome splendour of Aššur [and] the god Marduk overwhelmed Marduk-bēl- usāte’; A.0.102.14 lines 78-79 and also: 188; Grayson [1996; above, note 4], 66)
16 ORIENT Religion, Politics, and War: Gestures toward Babylonia in the Imgur-Enlil Inscription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria
Sumerian title is dur.an.ki, which can be read in Akkadian as this epithet.42 The authors of this inscription have granted Babylon a primary title. Some two centuries later it was ascribed to the temple of Aššur in the city Aššur, in the famous AsBbA inscription of Esarhaddon.43 This step taken by Esarhaddon’s scribes may testify to the significance of this epithet in Assyrian eyes, or better: the significance they ascribed to it for the sake of Babylonian eyes. No Babylonian monarch had ever ascribed this prestigious epithet to Babylon. Finally, it should be noted that the first unit of this fourth pair that functions as a connecting sentence is formulated in the same peculiar syntactical pattern as the whole pilgrimage account.44 This may suggest that the pilgrimage account and the connecting phrases of the first unit of each pair, which function as the skeleton of the composition, were written by the same hand. This, in turn, may strengthen the impression stressed above, that it is the kingʼs positive attitude towards Babylon, and northern Babylonia, that is the main focus of this text. The discernable pro-Babylonian message is carefully wrapped with Assyrian oriented passages, in a way that enables both Babylonian and Assyrian aspects to be fully represented. This complicated composition, interweaving different dialects, registers, genres, and speakers, was apparently directed to different literary tastes as well as different ideological views, and suggests that it was written during a complicated historical situation and possibly for a mixed audience.
V. Conclusions The unique inscription that is preserved on the Imgur-Enlil gates may thus be informative inter alia in the aspects of the linguistics, compositional process, and even method of presentation; the present study focuses mainly on its historical setting. In the opening section of the article I suggested that one of the motives of Shalmaneser’s 851-850 BCE Babylonian campaigns was to reestablish the stability on the southern border of Assyria, as a means to enable the completion of his endeavor to broaden the imperial sphere of influence westward. A close reading of the Imgur- Enlil inscription had shown that in order to ensure that the Babylonian break in the sequential western effort would be as short as possible, the Assyrian king combined military and political steps with religious and civil ones. Not only did he invade former eastern territories of Babylonia, pursuing and subjugating the enemies of Babylonia, and securing the throne of its legitimate king, but he also made a pilgrimage to its sacred centers and held a celebrative meal with their citizens.45 The purpose of Imgur-Enlil inscription was thus to glorify the deeds of the Assyrian kings undertaken on behalf of Babylonia, its kings and its inhabitants, emphasizing his respect for its sanctuaries, and no less importantly: it makes no mention of the difficulties the empire faced in the west. Being pleasing for both Assyrian and north-Babylonian ears, the message
42 See: A. R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 40), Leuven, 1992, 261-261. 43 A.0.112.48 line 99 see: Leichty, [above, note 40], 109. 44 This was noticed already by the first editor; see Pinches [above, note 37], 116. 45 Shalmaneser did not behave like a Babylonian king, bestowing traditional privileges to the two northern cult centers, as can be deduced from Graysonʼs translation of the report of the celebrative meal arranged in Babylon and Borsippa (1996; above, note 4, 31). The inscription does not call their inhabitants ʻhis people’, but rather: ṣabē kidinnu šubarê, ʻpeople of kidinnu and šubarê,’ and the object of the verb iškun ʻestablished/arranged’ is not the privileges, but rather the meal.
Vol. XLIX 2014 17 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions of the inscription may thus be formulated as follows: Shalmaneser III, the legitimate king of Assyria, the mighty warrior, really admires Babylon, cares for it and have common external as well as internal enemies. This message may be otherwise rendered: “Dear Babylonians! Please stand aside, so that I can manage my real troubles on the other side of the Euphrates.” In tying the royal achievements and deeds to an ideological maneuver, the Imgur-Enlil inscription may even have taken the realistic situation a little further. In a damaged text, the Babylonian king Marduk-zākir-šumi reports that in his 17th regnal year he formally renewed the tax exemption privileges – the kidinnu – of the city Borsippa.46 Describing the homage Shalmaneser paid the Babylonian citizenry, and emphasizing the civil and religious status of these cities, the Imgur-Enlil inscription may even be read as implying that the Assyrian king treated the northern Babylonian cities better than its own dawdling king. One may further speculate that the propagandistic effort reflected in the Imgur-Enlil inscription was initiated several years after the military and religious steps were taken. It is possible that after the failed western campaigns of 849 and 848, it was understood that this endeavor may take more years, and a need was felt to gain some additional peaceful time on the southern border. The propagandistic maneuver can thus be seen as an effort to gain more profit from the past deeds.47 Be that as it may, judging from Shalmaneser’s reports, after 850 no need was felt to deal with the Babylonian frontier. On the western frontier, in contrast, after nine years, four campaigns and an additional break of three years, in 841, the Assyrian king lead a further western campaign, and this time, he did not confront the great coalition that had blocked his way for so long.48
**Since the welcoming and fruitful conference at Tsukuba, this study was further presented and discussed at the 59th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Ghent, Belgium, July 2013), and a Hebrew version was published in Historia. Journal of the Historical Society of Israel 29 (2013), pp. 37-59. The present article has benefited from the comment of the participants at both conferences, and my mentor, Prof. Mordechai Cogan, Dr. Martin Worthington, Dr. Uri Gabbay, and the anonymous reader of Historia, all of whom I wish to thank.
46 B.6.7.2 see: G. Frame, Rulers of Babylonia. From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Babylonian Periods, 2), Toronto, 1995, 105–107 with earlier literature. In this regard another monument (AO 6684) should be mentioned, one in which Marduk-zākir-šumi commemorated his donation to the temple of Eanna of Uruk. See: F. Thureau-Dangin, “Un Acte de Donation de Marduk-Zâkir-Sumi,ˮ Revue dʼassyriologie et d’archeologie orientale 16 (1919), 117–141. 47 The visual art has been also recruited in an effort to glorify the good relations between Shalmaneser and Marduk- zākir-šumi. Both monarchs appear shaking hands as equals in a relief on the front of an Assyrian throne base made of stone, completed around 846 BCE, and found at Calah. See: D. Oates, “The Excavations at Nimrud (Kalḫu), 1962,” Iraq 25 (1963), plate VIIc. Such a representation, in which another human appears as equal with the Assyrian king, has no parallel in Assyrian royal art. 48 Finally, one further note concerning the ancient publication methods of such texts. More than any other Assyrian royal inscription that I know, this one gives a sense of its public presentation. The way in which the first person speaker is presented, as well as the systematic change between third and first persons, makes it easy to imagine the anonymous speaker as a narrator in a play, within which the king, or an actor, plays the protagonist. As is stated above (note 18), such a conjuncture may well explain the seemingly corrupt syntax of the opening sentences of the fifth pair, changing from third to first person, relating to the king, within one sentence (vi 5). Accordingly, the third-person narrator of the pilgrimage account may then be a person of a religious standing, presumably an actor disguised as a Babylonian priest. Surely, this is an imaginary picture, and there is not any positive evidence whatsoever to support it.
18 ORIENT