LATE ASSYRIAN ARMS AND ARMOUR: ART VERSUS ARTIFACT by Amy E. Barron A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. © Copyright by Amy E. Barron (2010) Late Assyrian Arms and Armour: Art versus Artifact Amy E. Barron Doctor of Philosophy Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto 2010 Abstract The present study was intended as a new approach to the study of the military equipment of the Late Assyrian period which has traditionally relied upon the pictorial representations of the palace reliefs. By examining extant artifacts from the first millennium in their own right, with the reliefs merely serving to contextualize them, a truer understanding of Assyrian arms and armour can be gathered. This is necessary because the artwork only provides us with a filtered view of the real world, the reliefs are as much works of propaganda as of history. The approach taken here is to first examine the existing weapons typologically, and then to evaluate whether such weapon types appear to be accurately represented in contemporary artwork. Textual sources are also used where they can aid in the discussion. Five categories of arms and armour were studied: swords and daggers, spearpoints, shields, armour and helmets. The quality and quantity of the items in these categories varied significantly, providing for a much better representative sample of some items than others. Further questions concerning the possible ritual, rather than military, use of some of the existing artifacts were raised. However, the main conclusions reached were that the reliefs suffer not only from a propagandistic viewpoint which sometimes obscures the reality of Assyrian warfare, but that they also suffer from artistic license and spatial restraints, the difficulties in representing three-dimensional objects in a two-dimensional manner, the possible unfamiliarity ii of the artists with changing military technology and methods of construction, and finally, our inability to understand artistic short-hand for what were commonplace objects to the contemporary viewer. These have led to misunderstanding both as to the dating and chronological changes in weaponry, and also to the tactics used by the Late Assyrian military. This study of the artifacts themselves reveals a more mundane, utilitarian, and conservative military force which shows both a basic homogeneousness throughout the empire, and the myriad tiny variables of an army on the move drawing weapons and troops from many regions. iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the many people who helped me and supported me along the path to finishing what so often seemed like an overwhelming project. Firstly, my original thesis supervisor, T. Cuyler Young who could both inspire and terrify a new graduate student, and who first introduced me to the collegial atmosphere of the academic world, where professors and students could sit around informally discussing ideas and swapping stories. After Cuyler‟s death, Tim Harrison stepped up to the plate and became my supervisor for which I am grateful. He has provided invaluable assistance along the way and toiled through many versions of my thesis. I also wish to express my gratitude to Grant Frame who supported my endeavours not only by being part of my thesis committee from the very beginning, but through my continued involvement with the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project. The financial support of the RIM project and working as a TA for Grant made it possible to continue my studies. Even after his move to the University of Pennsylvania Grant still aided me through this process with his support both academically and personally. The rest of my committee, Paul-Alain Beaulieu and Clemens Reichel, both willingly stepped in quite late in the process, and their comments and efforts for a project they had been thrown into the deep end of were appreciated, as were the valuable comments and insights of Richard Zettler. During the long process of this study I dealt with the staff of many institutions without whom I could never have proceeded. Among these I would particularly like to thank the late Roger Moorey at the Ashmolean in Oxford, Bill Pratt at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Christopher Thornton of the Hasanlu Project, University of Pennsylvania, and John Curtis and the ever helpful staff at the British Museum in London. I would also commend the British iv Museum for their exemplary online database of artifacts providing a great deal of information to overseas scholars when they cannot always get to London, and helping to prepare for trips when they can. In the technological world in which we live this should be a role model for other museums. Further thanks must go to Maynard Maidman for his advice on the material from Nuzi, and to Chief Warrant Officer Ralph Brothers and various members of the Governor General‟s Horse Guards for discussions on the capabilities of mounted lancers. Despite all the advice and assistance I have received from so many people, all final errors or omissions are my own. I would never have made it to the end of this project or kept my sanity were it not for those two administrative wonders who keep the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations and all of its students on the correct path: Anna Sousa and Jennie Jones. May the two of you someday get back a hundredfold all the goodness you spread to others. Finally, to Professor Sadek of the University of Guelph, a belated thank you, for without your classes in ancient art history I might never have been seduced to the path of archaeology and saved from the monotony of BioSci. On a more personal note, I would like to thank my friends and colleagues for asking me how it was going and even greater thanks for those who understood it was better not to ask. Hugs to my mother who bought me birthday presents of books with titles she thought odd and uninteresting, photocopied long sections of British dissertations and mailed them to me, and read the final manuscript for editing. She instilled in me a love for all things academic and has followed every step of this process with interest and enthusiasm. Thanks are also due, of course, to my husband and my adorable daughters (Isobel and Alexandra) who will be glad to get their Mummy back. Last of all, I dedicate this work to my grandparents, you are very much missed. --Toronto, 2009 v Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents vi List of Figures viii List of Assyrian Rulers and Regnal Dates x I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 I.1 Previous studies............................................................................................. 5 I.2 The Column of Trajan: A comparable approach........................................... 12 I.3 Archaeological sites....................................................................................... 20 I.3.1 Nimrud I.3.2 Balawat I.3.3 Khorsabad I.3.4 Nineveh I.3.5 Hasanlu and Dinkha Tepe I.3.6 Urartu I.3.7 Syro-Palestine I.4 Metal working................................................................................................ 38 I.5 Methodology.................................................................................................. 41 II. Swords and Daggers.................................................................................................. 46 II.1 Artifactual evidence....................................................................................... 46 II.1.1 Artifacts from Assyria II.1.2 Artifacts from Hasanlu II.2 Pictorial evidence........................................................................................... 60 II.2.1 Swords II.2.2 Daggers II.3 Summary observations................................................................................... 68 Figures....................................................................................................................... 71 III. Spearheads................................................................................................................. 79 III.1 Artifactual evidence....................................................................................... 79 III.1.1 Artifacts from Nimrud III.1.2 Artifacts from Nineveh III.1.3 Artifacts from Hasanlu III.1.4 Artifacts from Syro-Palestine III.2 Pictorial and textual evidence........................................................................ 96 III.3 Summary observations................................................................................... 102 Figures....................................................................................................................... 106 vi IV. Shields........................................................................................................................ 113 IV.1 Artifactual evidence....................................................................................... 113 IV.1.1 Artifacts from Nimrud IV.1.2 Artifacts from Urartu IV.1.3 Artifacts from Hasanlu IV.2 Pictorial evidence........................................................................................... 120 IV.2.1 Round shields IV.2.2 Tower shields IV.2.3 Rectangular shields IV.2.4 Palisade shields IV.3 Textual evidence...........................................................................................