The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur Author(s): J. N. Postgate Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 3, Archaeology of Empires (Feb., 1992), pp. 247- 263 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124761 Accessed: 07-09-2016 19:40 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology This content downloaded from 86.18.92.122 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 19:40:43 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms The Land of Assur and the yoke of Assur J. N. Postgate The Assyrian state had its origins early in the second millennium, as the small self-governing merchant city of Assur, became a territorial power in the fourteenth to thirteenth centuries BC, and survived until 605 BC, by which time it had created an empire which set the pattern for its successors: Babylon, Persia and Macedon. Both as a phenomenon in its own right, and as the originator of the Near Eastern style of empire, Assyria demands to be included in any study of empires. For reasons of simplicity and space our attention will be concentrated on the western frontier, but much of what is described could be illustrated equally from the northern or eastern sectors. The historical framework For our purposes, Assyria's territorial history can be divided into four phases: the creation and original expansion in the period 1400-1200 BC, a long recession of varying intensity from 1200 to 900 BC, the progressive re-establishment of the earlier borders from about 900 to 745 BC, and then the final phase of expansion far beyond these borders into Egypt and Iran, 745 to 605 BC (see Table 1 and Figs 1-2). The form Assyrian control took varied: it did not emerge in a vacuum, and in each case it depended not only on the character of the central Assyrian government itself, but also on the political and social order in the lands absorbed. Both inside and outside Assyria the current realities were also tempered, and policies affected, by perceptions of precedents. It is therefore necessary to give an outline of these phases before examining the principles and practice of empire. Phase 1 saw the transformation of the single city-state of Assur, under the domination, if not the direct rule, of the Mitannian kings, to a territorial state known as 'the Land of Assur', whose kings claimed equality with the Pharaoh and the Great King of the Hittites. From the land annexed by Assur in the fourteenth century, encompassing the cities of Nineveh, Kalhu, Kilizu and Arbil, the three thirteenth-century kings (Adad-nirari, Shalmaneser and Tukulti-Ninurta) swallowed up the remnants of the Mitannian kingdom in the Habur district, and so extended their direct administration to the Euphrates, which formed an acknowledged frontier with Hittite territory. World Archaeology Volume 23 No. 3 Archaeology of Empires ? Routledge 1992 0043-8243/92/2303/247 $3.00/1 This content downloaded from 86.18.92.122 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 19:40:43 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 248 J. N. Postgate Table 1 Chronological chart. King's name Regnal dates Assur-rabi I Assur-nadin-ahhe I Enlil-nasir II 1432-1427 Assur-nirari II 1426-1420 Assur-bel-nigesu 1419-1411 Asur-rim-nisesu 1410-1403 Assur-nadin-ahhe II 1402-1393 Phase 1 < Eriba-Adad I 1392-1366 Assur-uballit I 1365-1330 Enlil-nirari 1329-1320 Arik-den-ili 1319-1308 Adad-nirari I 1307-1275 Shalmaneser I 1274-1245 Tukulti-Ninurta I 1244-1208 Assur-nadin-apli 1207-1204 Assur-nirari III 1203-1198 Enlil-kudurri-usur 1197-1193 Ninurta-apil-Ekur 1192-1180 Assur-dan I 1179-1134 Ninurta-tukulti-Assur Mutakkil-Nusku Asur-res-isi I 1133-1116 Tiglath-Pileser I 1115-1077 Phase 2 < Asarid-apil-Ekur 1076-1075 Asur-bel-kala 1074-1057 Eriba-Adad II 1056-1055 Samsi-Adad IV 1054-1051 Assurnasirpal I 1050-1032 Shalmaneser II 1031-1020 Assur-nirari IV 1019-1014 Assur-rabi II 1013-973 Assur-res-isi II 972-968 Tiglath-Pileser II 967-935 Assur-dan II 934-912 Adad-nirari II 911-891 Tukulti-Ninurta II 890-884 Assurnasirpal II 883-859 Shalmaneser III 858-824 Phase 3 < Samsi-Adad V 823-811 Adad-nirari III 810-783 Shalmaneser IV 782-773 Assur-dan III 772-755 Assur-nirari V 754-745 Tiglath-Pileser III 744-727 Shalmaneser V 726-722 Sargon II 721-705 Sennacherib 704-681 Esarhaddon 680-669 Phase 4 < Assurbanipal 668-627 Assur-etel-ilani 626-624? Sin-sumu-lisir Sin-sar-iskun -612 Assur-uballit II 611-609 This content downloaded from 86.18.92.122 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 19:40:43 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms The Land of Assur and the yoke of Assur 249 Figure 1 Map of Assyria, thirteenth to eleventh centuries BC, to show state and provincial boundaries: a. maximum extent of Assyrian territory (c. 1200 BC); b. extent of Assyrian territory c. 1100 BC; c. reconstructed provincial boundaries; d. 200mm reliable annual rainfall limit; stippling indicates relief (after Postgate 1985: 97, where the identification of individually numbered sites may be found). Phase 2 could be subdivided, into a period of gentle recession, down to the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I (who was still in a position to march unopposed to the Mediterranean), and a much more intense loss of power which saw Assyrian control wither to the minimal core of Assur itself and the cities to its north on the Tigris (particularly Nineveh). The external political agents of this recession were not neighbouring states: Babylon was equally weak, the Hittite Empire had collapsed and fragmented, and the Mitannian state was only a memory. Rather, the damage was done by incursions of Aramaean tribes, who by 900 BC had established minor dynasties throughout most of North Mesopotamia and Syria. One contributory factor may well have been the climate, since poor rainfall both weakened Assyria's agricultural base and forced Aramaeans north in search of pasture. Phase 3 Much of our knowledge of the dark years of Phase 2 comes from the accounts of later Assyrian kings who describe how Assyrian subjects had been forced to take refuge from famine in the mountains and how some of their towns and strong points had been taken over by the newcomers. In self-consciously reconstituting the former 'Land of Assur', they describe their programmes of agricultural reform in standard formulae which begin in the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I and persist almost 300 years into the time of Shalmaneser III. The re-establishment of the earlier frontier was a long process of picking This content downloaded from 86.18.92.122 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 19:40:43 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 250 J. N. Postgate ] major towns [ provincial capitals (site fairly certain) lI provincial capitals (location uncertain) [7 other sites [ - rock reliefs stelae Figure 2 The Assyrian Empire in the first millennium BC, to show archaeological evidence for extent of empire (after Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Archaeology, p. 188). off the mainly Aramaean states which now confronted the Assyrian kings, beginning very close to home with Assur-dan and Adad-nirari (934-912 and 911-891), and culminating with Shalmaneser's persistent series of campaigns into Syria and Anatolia, in territory still referred to as Hittite (the 'Land of Hatti'). This content downloaded from 86.18.92.122 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 19:40:43 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms The Land of Assur and the yoke of Assur 251 Phase 4 The traditional Assyrian frontier in the west was the Euphrates. Although in the late ninth and early eighth century Assyrian influence was acknowledged by states beyond this line, there is no suggestion that the 'Land of Assur' crossed it too. The powerful Samgi-ilu calls himself 'administrator' (and not 'governor') 'of the land of Hatti', acknowledging thereby the separate identity of the western lands he controlled. Two recently published stelae show the Assyrian king arbitrating between local dynasts - with no visible inclination to annex their territory. This changed abruptly with the accession of Tiglath-Pileser III in 745, who conquered and annexed most of Syria and Lebanon, and initiated a policy of expanding the frontiers of 'The Land of Assur' which ended with Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal's annexation of Egypt and Elam, and abolished the intervening local states, thus setting the scene for the succeeding empires of Babylon, Persia and Macedon. The forms of domination The Assyrian imperial order differed from those of the Mitannians and Hittites, who incorporated a hierarchy of local dynasties into the same system as the high king's core domain. The formal pronouncements of the Assyrian kings distinguish clearly between territory directly administered and incorporated within the 'Land of Assur', and areas acknowledging Assyrian domination but retaining some form of autonomy. The examination of the documentary sources makes it quite clear that this distinction was not an empty formula, but corresponded with both practical arrangements and symbolic actions.