The University of Sydney Copyright in relation to this thesis· Under the Copyright Act 1968 (seve,..1 provision of which are referred to below), this thesis must be used only under the normal conditions 0( scholarly falr dealing for the purposes of research, criticism or review, In particular no results or conclusions should be extracted from it, nor should it be copied or closely paraphrased in whole or In part without the written consent 0(the author. Proper written acknowledgement should be made for any assistance obtained from this thesis. Under Section 35(2) 0( the CopyrightAct 1968 'the author of a literary, dramatic. musical or artistic work Is the owner of any copyrlghtsubsisting in the work'. By virtue of Section 32(I) copyright 'subsists in an original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work that is unpublished' and of which the author was anAusualian citizen.anAusmJian protected person or a person resident in Ausmlia. The Aet, by Section 36(I) provides: 'Subject to this Aet, the copyright in a literary. dramatic, musical or artistic work. is infringed by a person who. not being the owner ofthe copyright and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Australia. or authorises the doing in Australia of, any act comprised in the copyright'. Section 31 (I Ha)(i) provides that copyright includes the exclusive right to'reproduce the work. in a material form',Thus. copyright is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, reproduces or authorises the reproduction ofa work. or of more than a reasonable part of the work. in a material form. unless the reproduction is a 'fair dealing' with the work 'for the purpose of research or sOJdy' as further defined in Sections 040 and ~ I of theAet. Section 5I (2) provides that ""Where a manuscript. or a copy, of a thesis or other similar literary work that has not been published is kept in a library of a university or other similar institution or in an archives,the copyright In the thesis orother work Is not infringed by the making of a copy of the thesis or other work by or on behatf of the officer In charge of the library or archives if the copy is supplied to a person who satisfies an authorized officer of the library or archives that he requires the copy for the purpose of research or study', *'Thesis' includes 'treatise', disserution' and other similar productions. Who Wrote the Assyrian King List? Joseph Azize A thesis submitted in fulfilment ofthe requirements for the degree of Master ofPhilosophy School ofArchaeology, Classics and Ancient History University ofSydney © Joseph John Azize, 12 September 1997 This thesis, particularly the work which has gone into it, is humbly dedicated to my parents. Statements in accordance with the University of Sydney's Resolutions 21(5) and as to Higher Degree Theses Throughout this thesis I note in the text itself, or in the footnotes, the sources from which my research was derived. My indebtedness to some earlier work upon the Amorites is duly noted. In this way, the text and the footnotes indicate the extent to which the work ofothers has been used in research. The thesis as stated in the synopsis and worked out in the text of the thesis itselfis entirely original. While some other historians have questioned the attribution of the Assyrian King List to Samsi-Adad I, none have, to the best of my knowledge, attributed it to Assur-nasir-pal I or his father Samsi-Adad IV. I, Joseph Azize, understand that ifI am awarded a higher degree for my thesis entitled "Who Wrote the Assyrian King List" being lodged herewith for examination, the thesis will be lodged in the University Library and be available immediately for use. I agree that the University Librarian (or in the case ofa department, the Head ofDepartment) may supply a photocopy or microform ofthe thesis to an individual for research or study or to a library. Dated: 12 September 1997 .j. p,. ...... ~ Joseph Azize Who was Responsible for the Assyrian King List? Synopsis I argue that the Assyrian King List ("the AKL") was written in Middle Assyrian times, most probably by ASsur-nasir-pal I, or else by his father Samsi-Adad IV. The most plausible motive for its compilation was to preserve information about Assyria's kings which was already becoming lost. I suggest that while the available evidence is too slim to prove my thesis beyond any doubt, the AKL was written with comments which vindicated Samsi-Adad IV's seizure ofthe throne ofASsur using Babylon as a point ofdeparture ifnot as a base. I examine also ASsur-nasir-pal I's hymns to Istar, his few inscriptions, and the White Obelisk. Accepting the attribution ofthe White Obelisk to ASSur-nasir-pal I, I provide a picture ofhis reign which is somewhat different from the standard account. I therefore dispute the standard view that the AKL was created by Samsi-Adad I to legitmize his role as an "Amorite usurper". These ideas lead one to question the \dew that the AKL is not a reliable historical document in its earlier portions. I briefly" examine the Amorites in the light offresh material from Ebla. There, I take up the theory, hitherto advanced, that the early Amorites who moved into the east may have had a military expertise which enabled them to achieve conquests ofthe scale ofSarn8i­ Adad's, with relatively few numbers. Finally, by attributing the AKL to Middle Assyria one obtains fresh insights into the royal ideology and the character of Samsi-Adad I - revealing him to be an original and visionary monarch. I argue that he created a new role for himself, as the "pacifier of the land between the two rivers", and used this role as one item in his attempt to create a royal ideology which would have currency throughout his empire. Table of Contents Who was Responsible for the Assyrian King List? Introduction This paper considers the question: who caused the writing ofthe Assyrian King List (''the AKL")? The standard view is that it was written by Samsi-Adad I as propaganda, to fuse in the general mind his Amorite dynasty to the native Assyrian one, thus legitimizing his rule. For example, van Driel, referring to the presence ofUspia (the first builder ofthe temple ofAssur) in the AKL says: "... the addition ofUspia to the kinglist, i.e. to a list ofthe traditional ancestors of Samsi-Adad I, was an attempt to join the native Assyrian tradition to that ofthe conquerors ofthe west.,,1 On the available material, I suggest that the person responsible for the AKL was Assur-nasir-pal1. In so far as any motive for its creation is discernible from the text itself, I suggest that it was to preserve data about Assyria's kings which was already becoming lost. Whatever the ultimate motivation for the creation ofthe list, it was drafted in such a way that - together with anything else it may have communicated to an Assyrian audience - it vindicated the way that Assur-nasir-pal's father, Samsi­ Adad IV, came up from Babylon to seize the throne which he claimed to be his. But it would be difficult to assert that this was the motive for the compilation of the list: rather, the compilation ofthe AKL seems to have been the occasion for the comments on Samsi-Adad I, Samsi-Adad IV, and some other monarchs associated with Babylon. It is hard to find solid evidence that the AKL was a resource for use in a mortuary cult, as has been suggested: this may be so, but I do not find the arguments for this persuasive. I G. van Drie1 The Cult ofAssur Assen 1969 p.2. 2 I suggest that the standard view (which I refer to as the "Samsi-Adad I" theory) can be subjected to some damaging examination, pace its proponents, namely: I. Ifthe AKL is propaganda for Samsi-Adad I, why would he refrain from criticizing his immediate predecessors either there or in any ofhis inscriptions? Why would he baldly state that he seized the throne from them without presenting this as an act ofpropriety or making any attempt to justifY it? 2. Most ofthe names given in the AKL have a standard form: name ofking and his father, and length ofrule. The only annotations or additions to the standard entry worth mentioning are those which refer to Babylon. These end with Samsi~Adad IV. This leads to the suggestion that all ofthese annotations were written in the one transaction ofcreation. The only other thesis can be that Samsi-Adad I incorporated such a note for himself, and then, whenever Babylon had a role in Assyrian history, later editors mindlessly added references to it, but to no other place or event. 3. In the time ofSamsi-Adad I, Babylon was not the important city it later became; but by the time ofSamsi-Adad IV it was certainly a great city. Mentioning it to the exclusion ofany other city would seem more appropriate at the time ofits greatness. 4. There is a linguistic point. The AKL refers to Babylon as "Kardunias", which is its Kassite name. Obviously, then, it was not known by that name in Old Assyria. It was, however, known by that name in Middle Assyria. Why would a Middle Assyrian editor rewrite place names found in the earlier material? Surely, the most likely scenario is that the passage dealing with Samsi­ Adad I was written in the Middle Assyrian period: a scenario consistent with the suggestion that it was written by Assur-nasir-pal I or his father.