The Neo-Assyrian Adê Protocol and the Administration of the Empire

FROM SOURCE TO HISTORY Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds

and Beyond

Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on June 23, 2014

Edited by Salvatore Gaspa, Alessandro Greco, Daniele Morandi Bonacossi, Simonetta Ponchia and Robert Rollinger

Alter Orient und Altes Testament Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments

Band 412

Herausgeber

Manfried Dietrich • Oswald Loretz • Hans Neumann

Lektoren

Kai A. Metzler und Ellen Rehm

Beratergremium

Rainer Albertz • Joachim Bretschneider • Stefan Maul Udo Rüterswörden • Walther Sallaberger • Gebhard Selz

Michael P. Streck • Wolfgang Zwickel

Lo studio per la Storia Antica è sempre stato, per Gianni, piacere intellettuale, dovere sociale e morale e prosecuzione di

quell’idea di “uomo di studio”, imparata dal padre Luigi e così ben impressa nel suo cuore e nella sua mente. A lui, Gianni fa

riferimento, quando studia, quando insegna, quando scrive. Fonti, documenti, testi, sono imprescindibili punti di partenza delle sue analisi, con il pensiero che guarda sempre al mondo dell’Oriente

Antico. Uomo integerrimo e puro, non conosce la competizione e forse per questo, arriva sempre tra i primi. Ha molto a cuore i suoi

allievi: di loro, non esita a metter in luce le qualità positive, soffocando in un “sono giovani” le intemperanze e gli umani

difetti. Lo ammiro perché non conosce invidia, ira, malizia, sospetto: lo amo perché mi ha insegnato a guardarmi da questi

subdoli amici. Ines

INHALTSVERZEICHNIS A Festschrift for an Outstanding Scholar and a Real Friend .................................. p. I Bibliography of Giovanni-Battista Lanfranchi ..................................................... p. V Tzvi Abusch Notes on the History of Composition of Two Incantations .................................... p. 1 Sanna Aro The Relief on the Slab NKL 2 at Karatepe-Azatiwataya: Neo-Assyrian Impact in Cilicia? ......................................................................... p. 11 Ariel M. Bagg Hezekiah’s Jerusalem: Nineveh in Judah? ........................................................... p. 33 Nicoletta Bellotto I contratti pal�hum ad Emar ................................................................................ p. 41 Reinhold Bichler Semiramis and her Rivals. An Essay ................................................................... p. 55 Maria Giovanna Biga The Marriage of an Eblaite Princess with the King of Dulu ................................ p. 73 Olivier Casabonne Karmylessos : une Lycie chimérique ? ................................................................ p. 81 Eleonora Cussini Predial Servitudes and Easements in Aramaic Documents of Sale ..................... p. 87 Rocío Da Riva Assyrians and Assyrian Influence in Babylonia (626–539 BCE) ........................ p. 99 Stefano de Martino The Hurrian “Song of Release”: an Up-to-Date Overview ................................ p. 127 Elena di Filippo Balestrazzi Il mostro “anguipede” e il “dio in battello” nelle stele felsinee. Una proposta di lettura ...................................................................................... p. 139 Betina Faist The Ordeal in the Neo-Assyrian Legal Procedure ............................................. p. 189

Frederick Mario Fales The Two Dynasties of Assyria .......................................................................... p. 201 Sebastian Fink Sardanapal – Ein Hedonist aus Mesopotamien? ................................................ p. 239 Massimo Forlanini The Survival of Dynastic Traditions of Bronze Age Anatolia During the Transition to the Iron Age: the Case of �alpa-šulubi and the Historical Connections Between Išuwa and Milidia ............................. p. 251 Salvatore Gaspa Golden Appliqués in Assyrian textiles: an Interdisciplinary Approach to the neo-Assyrian Evidence and Some Remarks on the Use of Dress Decorations in the Periphery of the Empire in Later Times ................ p. 273 Alessandro Greco The Art of Propaganda in Aegean Iconography: When Art Must Be Sung ....... p. 305 Bruno Jacobs Historische Aussagen in den Achämenideninschriften im Licht sich wandelnder Legitimationsstrategien ........................................................... p. 341 Martin Lang Assyrien im 7. Jahrhundert und die Literarische Produktion in der Levante und der Ägäis ............................................................................. p. 353 Mario Liverani The King and His Audience .............................................................................. p. 373 Paolo Matthiae Image, Ideology, and Politics: a Historical Consideration of the Message of Neo-Assyrian Reliefs ........................................................... p. 387 Raija Mattila The Chief of Trade and the Chief Tailor – New Eponyms During the Reign of Assurbanipal .......................................... p. 405 Mischa Meier Feuer über Konstantinopel: vom Umgang mit einem Nicht-Ereignis ............... p. 413 Clelia Mora Symbols of Power in the Kingdom of Karkamiš (13th–12th Centuries BC) ....... p. 433 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi River Navigation and Transport in Northern Assyria. The Stone Quay-walls of the Rivers Gomel and Al-khazir in the Navkur Plain, Iraqi Kurdistan .......... p. 441

Antonio Panaino Daniel the “Magus” and the Magi of Bethlehem ............................................... p. 455 Simo Parpola Mount Ni�ir and the Foundations of the Assyrian Church ................................ p. 469 Francesco Pomponio Alcune considerazioni sul cosiddetto periodo di Isin-Larsa .............................. p. 485 Simonetta Ponchia The Neo-Assyrian Adê Protocol and the Administration of the Empire ............ p. 501 Beate Pongratz-Leisten Bad Kings in the Literary History of Mesopotamia and the Interface between Law, Divination, and Religion ................................. p. 527 Claudia Posani La diffusione del culto di Kubaba in epoca neo�assira ..................................... p. 549 Daniel Potts Guriania, ��o� and the G�r n .................................................................... p. 561 Karen Radner Zagros Spice Mills: the Simurrean and the Hašimur Grindstones ..................... p. 573 Julian Reade – Irving Finkel Between Carchemish and Pasargadae: Recent Iranian Discoveries at Rabat .... p. 581 Robert Rollinger Aornos and the Mountains of the East: the Assyrian Kings and Alexander the Great ..................................................... p. 597 Kai Ruffing Der Reichtum Babyloniens ................................................................................ p. 637 Paolo Scarpi La divina auctoritas di Ermete Trismegisto: per una nuova religione di tolleranza ................................................................. p. 647 Gebhard J. Selz Plant Metaphors: on the Plant of Rejuvenation ................................................. p. 655 Christopher J. Tuplin From Arshama to Alexander Reflections on Persian Responses to Attack ......................................................................... p. 669 Erik van Dongen The Extent and Interactions of the Phrygian Kingdom ..................................... p. 697

Lorenzo Verderame A Glimpse Into the Activities of Experts (Ummânu) at the Assyrian Royal Court ............................................................................... p. 713 Josef Wiesehöfer Alfred von Gutschmid und Eberhard Schrader: eine Kontroverse .................... p. 729 Anne-Maria Wittke Überlegungen zur Lage von Pteria .................................................................... p. 745 Stefan Zawadzki Depicting Hostile Rulers in the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions .................... p. 767 Plates .................................................................................................................. p. 779

THE NEO-ASSYRIAN ADÊ PROTOCOL AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EMPIRE

Simonetta Ponchia

The recent discovery of a new exemplar of Esarhaddon’s adê in the inner sanctum of a temple in Tell Tayinat, the provincial capital of Kullania (or Ki/unalia, Kunulua) (Harrison – Osborne 2012, Lauinger 2012), has thrown a new light on the inter-pretation of a crucial phase of Assyrian history. From the formal point of view the Tayinat text shares chancery characteristics with the exemplars found in Nimrud and sworn to by Median and other Zagros chieftains, such as the sealing and tablet format. The content (stipulations and curses) is substantially the same. The new text proves that the instrument of the adê was not exceptionally used to assure the loyalty of the Medes in particular, possibly in view of their special role as the crown prin-ce’s trusted corps. The adê was rather an institutional instrument used by the Assy-rian kings throughout the empire, since it was part of the project of creating a mil-itary and administrative elite co-responsible for the protection of the dynasty. In Gianni’s words, “the Median ‘city lords’ and their subjects appear as one among the many nations who cooperated in maintaining, managing and expanding the su-pranational Assyrian empire”.1

Although the adê has been the object of lengthy discussion, the new text solicits further reflections on topics that Gianni has treated with groundbreaking and inspiring methodological approaches, by analyzing the conditions and practice of treaty stipulation, the Medes’ history and the dynamics of Assyrian imperial expansion. It gives me great pleasure to dedicate to Gianni the following consider-ations and I would address to him the major questions these texts pose for an expert response.

1. Esarhaddon’s adê The ample literature on the nature of the adê and very recent analysis of the text from Tell Tayinat provide elements for reflections upon some additional perspec-tives of the Neo-Assyrian political system. While, for the sake of brevity, the reader is referred to this literature for details concerning the treaty tradition, it is at least appropriate to point out the flexibility of the covenantal instrument that was adapted in the course of time to different situations.2 These situations included both rela-

1 Lanfranchi 1998, 109. 2 For a general overview of the sources and references regarding the vast secondary literature on the topic see Radner 2006a and most recently the synthesis by Fales 2012 (appeared 2013). I express my gratitude to the latter author for generously allowing me to read and use his article before publication. While considering the major question to be whether the stipulation

502 Simonetta Ponchia

tionships between peers and unblanced relationships between parties of different status and power, i.e. between a major king and an inferior or submitted king, or between the king and the state hierarchy, as in the present case. A shared feature seems to be the public and ceremonial dimension, which implies and defines a personal adhesion to the oath’s stipulations by virtually all the members of a society or group and their acknowledgment by third parties.

The Tell Tayinat text (hereunder T) was found in a temple (Building XVI), which the excavators consider to be part of a larger religious complex, remodeled in the late�eighth/early�seventh century, as part of a programme to transform the town into the administrative capital of an Assyrian imperial province,3 after Tiglath-pileser III’s conquest. This king records in his annals the capture of Kinalia, royal city of Tutammû, king of the Syro-Hittite kingdom of Unqi, and the deportation of its citizens, followed by the installation of deportees from Amlatu and Der, and the imposition of Assyrian provincial administrators.

The adê text exhibits the same protocol as that stipulated with Median and Zagros chieftains found in Nimrud (hereinafter ND), in a room annexed to the Ezida temple.4 The T text comes from a local seat of the provincial administration, whereas the ND text comes from the Assyrian heartland—probably from a/the major centre of the military organization. Further evidence of the practice of the adê within the Assyrian core territory is constituted by a fragment from Assur (VAT 11534) which duplicates lines 229�236 of the composite ND text (lines according to SAA 2 edition).5 Letters referring to the adê add information about the persons involved, the oath-taking ceremony and the reception of the treaty’s content. 6

of the adê was made only with newly conquered regions and thus they should be classified as vassal treaties, whether the adê were stipulated with specific categories of officers and soldiers, or whether they were extended to the entire Assyrian population (on which see also Lauinger 2012, 90, with bibliography) he recognizes the wide range of applicability of the instrument and observes an evolution oriented “toward a development of the covenantal instrument of the adê by design, and in fact specifically engineered to compact general relations of fealty in times of dynastic straits”. “Classical” studies on Assyrian treaties are Tadmor 1982 and Canfora – Liverani – Zaccagnini 1990. Too numerous to be mentioned here are the comparisons with the Biblical covenant, see e.g. Hillers 1969, Weinfeld 1976, and more recently essays collected in Witte – Schmid – Prechel – Gertz 2006. For parallels in Greek and Hellenistic documents see Rollinger 2004 and Rollinger – Niedermayr 2007. For the placing of covenants in the category of apodictic law, as distinct from casuistic law, and their relationship with the form of the state see Weinfeld 1973. 3 See § 4 below. 4 For the editio princeps of ND see Wiseman 1958; successive editions are Watanabe 1987 and SAA 2 6. A collection of tablets was found in the temple, in a room directly opposite Nabû’s shrine. For details of the archaeological context and bibliography see Fales 2012, fn. 25. For the T tablet see Harrison – Osborne 2012, 137. The authors remark that a further analogy may be noted with the Nabû temple at Khorsabad, which contained two rooms—with pigeonholes probably for tablet storage—and with the temple of the same god in Nineveh. Fales upholds that the connection with the temple of Nabû is also due to a specific function of the god as “bearer of the Tablet of Destinies of the gods”; on this matter see also Radner 2006a, 369. 5 Cf. SAA 2, xlviii. For another fragment of a treaty concerning Esarhaddon’s succession to Sennacherib’s throne (VAT 11449) see SAA 2 3 and Radner 2006a, Appendix. 6 An interesting, though difficult, letter is SAA 19 133 (dated to Tiglath-pileser III’s reign), where the procedure of sending a copy of the adê from the Palace to the contractor in

The Neo-Assyrian Adê Protocol and the Administration of the Empire 503

The form of the ND and T treaty tablets indicates that they were meant for display and for immediate reading, since obverse and reverse were written in the same direction and it was not necessary to turn the tablet upside-down to read it.7 It is conceivable that the tablets of the adê were kept in a place of reference for those who had pledged, i.e. in the place where the royal power was represented, divinely sanctioned and administered for the categories, groups or people concerned.8

As remarked and commented by J. Lauinger, the protocol of the adê attested in ND and T appears fixed: after naming the parties to the agreement, its object and divine witnesses, the order to swear in the name of the gods is formulated, possibly with some variations in the sequence of divine names between the two texts, but the section is partly broken in T, then follow the stipulations and the long curses section. In this paper the analysis will concentrate on some sections of the adê protocol, focusing in particular on the stipulations and the signatories.

Fig. 1. Plan of Tell Tayinat from Harrison 2007.

Babylonia is attested. For the long and complex ceremony of oath swearing, illustrated by references to letters, see Fales 2008, 536. 7 The T text might have been suspended, as suggested by the hole which pierces the tablet (Harrison – Osborne 2012, 137). The tablet might have been kept in the temple, under divine protection, to be used in periodic(?) renewals of the oath. On the problem of the renewal of the pact and parallels from different periods and areas see Weinfeld 1973, 72. 8 For ND see Wiseman 1958 and Fales 2012 with bibliography.

XIV

position of Building XVI


2. The adê juridical instrument The duties of the recipients of the adê are itemized in detail in the paragraphs of the treaty, as schematically shown below. T, its extensive gaps notwithstanding, allows us to integrate some points of ND and thus obtain a fuller view of the provisions of the oath in its entirety. The juridical instrument appears aimed at completely covering all the situations concerning royal succession, by proceeding from a more general statement—imposing the obligation of protecting the heir apparent and his family line (cf. points 1 and 2 below)—to more specific paragraphs, which list cases of potential danger for the heir and his family and specific rules of behaviour imposed on the subjects.9

� 1.1 execution of Esarhaddon’s will and succession and protection of the heir apparent: this fundamental stipulation (ND 46�51) is articulated in various points including the obligations to provide true and good advice (ND 51�53), not to depose the heir apparent (ND 55f) and to respect Esarhaddon’s will regarding the succession (ND 57�61; T i 65’�67’);

� 1.2 prohibition of evil action against the heir apparent: explicit prohibition is made of sinful or violent actions, open revolt (ND 62�67; T i 72’f), or of support for usurpation, in the form of help offered to Esharaddon’s brothers or other pretenders or by concluding a treaty with someone else (ND 68�72; T i 74’f);

� 1.3 obligation to report opposition: the stipulation lists the possible sources of opposition against Assurbanipal, the designated crown prince, and orders that it be reported directly to him, thus estab-lishing a clear communicatory procedure (ND 73�82, T ii 1).

These are the principal and general stipulations that subsume all the detailed clauses that follow. This part was renewed by the “Zak�tu treaty”, after Esarhaddon’s death.10 In this later occasion, the queen acted as protector and executor of her son’s testament concerning succession. Her authority in the matter derived from Esar-

9 For other useful schematizations of the treaty content and commentary on its provisions see, among others, Weinfeld 1976, who analyses them in comparison not only with the Biblical covenant, but also with the earlier Hittite, contemporary Aramaic, and later Greek and Roman documents of instruction and oath and points out various significant concordances and similarities. This evidence shows that the Assyrian texts may be considered part and parcel of a juridical tradition that developed over a long time span and spreading in different areas. A particularly interesting perspective, which connects the Near Eastern tradition to the Hellenistic and Roman ones, has been proposed in Rollinger – Niedermayr 2007. They analyze the iconography of Shalmaneser III’s throne base from Kalhu and an Antiochus I’s relief from Belkis-Zeugma as the prototype and a significant example of the symbolic act of dexiosis in political relationships, which is also represented in Hellenistic and Roman coins. I’m grateful to Robert Rollinger for drawing my attention to this perspective. 10 SAA 2 8. The treaty identifies and forbids possible ways of contravening Esarhaddon’s will concerning his succession: to conceive and perform a rebellious plot, to speak of rebellion, suggest it, or plan it with someone else. Moreover, the treaty imposes the obligation to report to Assurbanipal and Zak�tu, who are the executors of Esarhaddon’s will.


haddon’s treaty itself, which authorized the means to accomplish its injunctions. The swearing of a new loyalty oath may have been conceived as one of these means.11

The following articles have primarily the purpose of designating and protecting the legitimate dynasty: � 2.1 obligation to foster the succession in case of Esarhaddon’s premature death: if Assurbanipal and Šamaš-šumu-ukin are still minors when the king dies, the contractors are obliged to respect and favour the full achievement of Esarhaddon’s program (ND 83–91);

� 2.2 this entails the protection of Esarhaddon’s line engendered by Assurbanipal’s mother (ND 92–100). The obligation expressed in the previous paragraph is further specified in the clause that imposes loyalty toward Assurbanipal and Assurbanipal’s brothers, sons of his mother. The queen appears to identify the dynastic line and this may invest her with a specific responsibility in the regular transmission of power.12 After the death of Ešarra-hammat, presumably Assur-banipal’s mother, in 673/2,13 and in relation to internal problems, Naqi’a seems to have assumed the role of guarantor which belonged to her deceased daughter-in-law. The duty of protecting the royal progeny is expressed in a formula similar to that referring to Assurbanipal (cf. lines 49–51);

� 2.3 prohibition of disloyal conduct against Assurbanipal and his brothers (ND 101–107): this clause extends to the brothers the clauses of lines 62–67. If disloyalty and rebellion take place, a detailed behavioral protocol is established;

� 3.1 obligations in case of treason: the provisions in the event of treason are minutely articulated, starting from the fundamental obligation (ND 108–122) of referring to Assurbanipal if a hostile

11 The role of the queen mother in this situation has often attracted scholars’ attention. See most recently Svärd 2012 for a comprehensive re-evaluation of the matter with previous bibliography. She (p. 74) argues that “Whether or not Melville (79–90) is right in her suggestion that Naqi’a was only acting according to Esarhaddon’s plan in imposing the loyalty oath, it is clear that the treaty attests to a level of authority that previously probably only Sammu-ramat achieved. It is the only Assyrian treaty that was imposed by someone other than the king and further supports the idea that the queens’/kings’ mothers’ power was qualitatively not different from the power of the king”. The problem of defining the institutional authority of the queen mother appears not, strictly speaking, to be a cogent one, since from a formal point of view it is not her authority, but the Esarhaddon’s treaty, which provides the institutional basis for the new oath. As a means to enforce the treaty, however, this new document establishes a new communication protocol, which prescribes the com-munication of relevant information to Naqi’a /Zak�tu too. 12 Svärd 2012, 98f. concludes her analysis of the relevant documentation by stating that: “during the Neo-Assyrian period, it seems that the MÍ.É.GAL was an institution of the realm, rather than a title referring to a personal relationship with the king”. 13 According to the Babylonian Chronicle the Assyrian queen died on Addaru 5/6 of Esarhaddon’s 8th year (= February 672). On the death and funeral of a queen and her identification with Ešarra-hammat, cf. LAS 2, 190f. According to royal inscriptions the desig-nation of Assurbanipal as crown prince was communicated and acknowledged by the loyalty oath on the 12th of Aiaru (May) 672 (see SAA 2, xxix for references).


purpose or plan is discovered (largely repeating lines 73�82); furthermore they impose the obligation to:

� 3.2 take action against traitors and rebels and not to swear to some other king (ND 123–129) and specifically:

� 3.3 to fight directly against the traitors, if possible, or to report to and help Assurbanipal in fighting against them (ND 130–138);

� 3.4 to observe a code of conduct, which instructs how to behave in case of contact with rebels (ND 147–161);

� 3.5 to fight at Assurbanipal’s side in the event of open armed rebellion (ND 162–167);

� 3.6 to flee if captured by the rebels (ND 173–179);

� 3.7 prohibition to conceive and plot rebellion (ND 180–187). � 4.1 provisions concerning the moment of Esarhaddon’s succession and its development: these include the acknowledgment of the king’s absolute power, i.e. of the transmission of the full royal powers to his successor (ND 188�197); the crucial moment of the passage of kingship to the heir is protected by imposing conduct which should prevent any risk, in accordance with an articulated sequence:

� 4.2 firstly, rebellion against Esarhaddon is forbidden, since it would obviously hamper regular succession (ND 198�200); then the protocol is fixed for the announcement of Esarhaddon’s death to avoid the risk of the prince being lured into an ambush (ND 201�211);

� 4.3 other prohibitions concern the convening of an assembly,14 that could become an occasion for conferring kingship upon another person (ND 212f),

� 4.4 and the supporting a pretender, whereas the obligation exists to help Assur-banipal (ND 214�228);

� 4.5 lastly, complete loyalty and devotion to Assurbanipal’s cause is imposed (ND 229�236). � 5.1 protection of the dynasty in the event of Assurbanipal’s murder: the adê also covers the possibility that the transmission of power does not follow the foreseen path, with Esarhaddon dying while his sons are still minors and the murder of Assurbanipal. The dynastic line is protected by the prohibition to give support to the murderer, and the injunction to rebel against the usurper and to put on the throne a son of Assurbanipal (ND 237�248);

� 5.2 if this solution is not available, the adê imposes waiting for a posthumous son of Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal (i.e. the two kings from whom kingship emanates), putting him on the throne when he grows up, and slaying the rebels, destroying their seed and avenging Assurbanipal’s death (ND 249�258, T partly preserved, iv 1f). What appears striking in this provision is the exclusion of Esarhaddon’s and Assur-

14 Cf. RINAP 4 1: i 77.


banipal’s brothers from the succession. Such an exclusion (to the advantage of Assurbanipal’s son or a posthumous son of Esarhaddon) is another means to discourage the assassination of the heir apparent by, or at the instigation of, his brothers.

� 5.3 Possibly as a further specification of this point, a clause concerning the protection against subtle methodes of killing Assurbanipal is added: it forbids killing the heir by poison, ointment, and witchcraft (ND 259�265, T iv 3�7).

� 6.1 protection of Assurbanipal’s family: the protection of the heir apparent goes together with the protection of the royal family; moreover, concord between its members should be fostered. The text forbids to slandering the brothers, committing any crime against them, taking away possessions given them as gifts (tidintu) by Esarhaddon or personally acquired (ND 269�282, T only beginning preserved iv 8�11). It seems that exclusion from the succession is balanced by the guarantee of royal favour and respect. It is a delicate point, especially if viewed in relation to the crown of Babylon. The next paragraph makes clear the nature of the dynastic pact by synthesizing its content and imposing its transmission to future generations; they would therefore recognize Assurbanipal’s line as the legitimate one. � 7. allegiance of the oath-takers’ descendants: the treaty is defined as: adê annûte ša Aššur-ahu-iddina šar m�t Aššur ina muhhi Aššur-b�ni-apli m�r šarri rabê ša bt red�ti (u) ahhšu m�r umm�šu ša Aššur-b�ni-apli m�r šarri rabê ša bt red�ti udannin�ni isskunu iškun�ni t�m�tu utamm�kan�ni, “this treaty that Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, has confirmed and established with you on behalf of Assurbanipal, the great crown prince of the succession house, and his brothers, sons by the same mother of Assurbanipal, the great crown prince of the succession house”.

Undersigning this treaty includes the duty of transmitting the given instructions and inculcating loyalty in the contractors’ descendants in order to perpetuate the allegiance with Assurbanipal and his line, together with the prohibition to installing another king in his place (ND 283�301).

Additional dispositions, included after the definition of the dynastic oath, are aimed at controlling the situations that might endanger the succession at various times. The behavioural code imposed by the oath includes a number of positive statements which may be considered to be specific instructions for certain situations. � 8.1 obligation of action against rebels and fomenters of strife before Assurbanipal’s accession: armed attack or resistance is imposed against usurpers of Esarhaddon’s throne; there is an obligation to use all possible means to fight them and help Assurbanipal (ND 302�317);

� 8.2 obligation to protect against family members, officials, citizens or non-citizens who foment hatred between king and heir apparent (ND 318�327);

� 8.3 the paragraph does not exactly impose an obligation or prohibition, but rather makes a historical allusion to the fate of those who in the past slandered the desig-


nated prince (i.e. Esarhaddon) in the eyes of his father (ND 328�335). This is intended to function as an example and a warning for those attempting to discredit the crown prince;15

� 8.4 the next obligation is restricted to danger deriving from family members, officials, citizens or non-citizens who slander the brothers, sons of the crown prin-ce’s mother, and foment divisions; as in the general case of opposition against the designated heir (cf. 1.3, ND 72�83), the treaty establishes the obligation to report to Assurbanipal (ND 336�352; T v 1�8) and again fixes the communication protocol;

� 8.5 the paragraph summarizes the content of the provisions and underscores the binding force of the adê imposed by the prince’s father. Oath-taking was mandatory and the general diffusion of the covenant clauses increased the chance of their being respected and of the spread of reverence for the dynasty (ND imperfectly preserved 353�359; T v 9�15, repeated 16�23).

� 8.6 The other situation considered in the treaty is the post-succession period. The validity of the treaty continues after Assurbanipal has ascended the throne and imposes a prohibition against slandering and alienating the brothers (sons of the same mother) (ND 360�362; T v 24�36). This insistence on the harmony between the closer relatives of the designated heir suggests that Esarhaddon envisaged it as a measure to protect the throne. A final, lengthy section concerns the oath procedure and the instrument itself. First of all, the abrogation of the oath by any means is prohibited: � 10.1 by any practice involving magic or perhaps by disguising oneself (ND 373�376, T v 37�40);

� 10.2 by performing a ritual or revocation of the oath, which remains binding for the future (ND 377�384, T v 41�48);

on the contrary, the treaty enjoins:

� 10.3 the obligation to swear personally and wholeheartedly, to instruct new generations and participate to the oath-taking ceremony (ND 385�396, T 49�60);

15 E. Frahm has recently reconsidered the passage in relation to “Esarhaddon’s Apology” (i 23-31) and stressed that the two texts should be read together: “Wir vermuten, daß der Passus durch seinen eigenwilligen Wortgebrauch intertextuelle Bezüge zum Šamaš-Hymnus und möglicherweise auch zur babylonisch-assyrischen Beschwörungs literatur herstellt, mit dem Ziel, einem gebildeten Leser Asarhaddons Brüder als Gegner des Sonnengottes und archetypische Feinde zu präsentieren. Asarhaddons ‘Vassal Treaties’ mögen in Z. 318-335 (in denen ein bl qin�i /qi��i erwähnt wird) umgekehrt auf ‘Ninive A’ verweisen.” (Frahm 2009, 46). The identity and role of the queen in the events has often been discussed. Tašmetu-šarrat was the sgallu, “queen”, as apparently still attested three months before Sennacherib’s murder (Radner 2012, 695), but it is unknown whether she was the mother of Esarhaddon’s rebel brothers, when she died, or if she had any relationship with Naqi’a, or any role in Esarhaddon’s designation or in his subsequent dismissal. Equally problematic is the question of whether the queen had control of military forces and how they participated in the fight for succession.


� 10.4 the obligation to guard the document: the tablet has a sacred value as indicated by the Aššur seals and must be acknowledged, like the royal statues, as object of respect and veneration. The text prohibits neglecting, tampering with or breaking of the tablet and the adê, together with the statues of Esarhaddon, Assurbanipal and the royal family; orders the protection of the tablet (ND imper-fectly preserved 397�409, T v 61�72); more specifically forbids various ways of destroying the document (ND 410�413, T v 73�77).

The respect and the cult of the royal word and image is imposed by means of the treaty, as a complement to the maledictions inscribed on royal inscriptions and mo-numents. In this way it becomes an institutional duty prescribed in a specific instruc-tion and not only occasioned by the monument itself.

The text of the adê, with its many paragraphs and repetitions of statements from slightly different perspectives, is aimed at articulating a complete dynastic pact. The juridical instrument appears to integrate and complete older exemplars and to fully define loyalty and protection, firstly with regard to the designated heir, and then to his dynastic line, with the exclusion of cadet lines.16 The sequence of the stipula-tions, articulated in obligations and prohibitions, prescribes a clear protocol of behaviour in case of rebellion, applied to the various phases in which this abhorred event might develop. The clear choice of a succession line is aimed at warding off fratricidal strife and has its complement in the promotion of concord within the royal family. The relevance of the provisions concerning this point obviously derives from the particular organization of the empire under the “twin” brothers,17 an organization that required agreement, but at the same time the clear definition of one dynastic line to preserve the unity of the reign. The crown of Assyria was the one designated for the overall control of the empire, and for succession and it was fundamental to firmly define and advertise this structure of the empire in the eyes of officials and subjects, whose loyalty had to be focussed on Assurbanipal’s progeny.

Furthermore, the adê specifies the role of the queen mother, whose son is the designated heir and whose other sons form the closest royal entourage, but are not entitled to succession. This institutional role of the queen is expressed not only by the title of ša-ekalli/sgallu, but also by her role as head of a btu and by the assignation of troops.18 The oft-quoted letter from Adad-šumu-u�ur, concerning most probably Assurbanipal and the blessing on the designated king by the queen moth-

16 Cf. the fragmentary Sennacherib treaty, but also other examples such as the Sefire treaties. 17 On the term tal�mu, “twin brother”, its values and the relationships between the royal brothers see Bartelmus 2007 and May 2011�2012. 18 For discussion of the figure and prerogatives of the king’s mother and the specific position of Naqi’a see Melville 1999, esp. 74�77 and Svärd 2012. She notes that in Sennacherib’s time “the king’s mother now emerges as a separate person from the MÍ.É.GAL.” (p. 107). “However, there is a second possible explanation, which relates to Naqi’a’s high position in the realm after her son Esarhaddon ascended the throne. (...) it seems plausible that Naqi’a was given the title ‘MÍ.É.GAL of Sennacherib’ retrospectively, during her son’s reign. This rewriting of history would fit well with Melville’s view, that Esarhaddon elevated his mother’s status in order to fulfill his long-range political agendas.” (p. 95).


er’s ghost, may explicitly refer to Ešarra-hammat’s “legitimacy” (ina ke-nu-ti-šá), insofar as the treaty assigns her this role.19

The instrument of the adê is meant as a durable guarantee, since it is articulated in stages preceding and following the crown prince’s accession and imparts instruc-tions to educate future generations. It includes provisions concerning the oath-taking procedure, which implies a high moral engagement and physical presence, and respect for depictions of royalty, which appear to have the same status as the royal word and seal.20 This suggests that portayals such as Esarhaddon’s Zincirli and Til Barsip statues, with the effigies of the king and the princes designated to the thrones of Assyria and Babylonia, were part of a programme meant to create adhesion to the reigning dynasty, a programme in which the oath-taking ceremony was enriched by visual representations.21

3. Individuals and categories affected by the adê By comparing the various sections of the preserved adê we may obtain a list of the individuals or categories which may menace the crown prince and the dynastic succession and are therefore targeted by clauses of the treaty. They are classified from various points of view, such as status, function, profession, physical proximity, and according to general designations (such as “old or young/great or small”) to avoid missing anyone.22 Comprehensively, the categories mentioned are: members of the royal family (§6, § 10, § 20, § 27, § 29), members of the crown prince’s father’s line (§6, § 10, § 20,23 § 27,24 § 29), magnates and governors (§6, § 27), beard-

19 SAA 10 188; I would prefer to translate “legitimacy” instead of the usual “righteousness”, insofar as it is a recognized official position of the queen, not a quality of her personality. LAS 2, 190f. and Svärd 2012, 115 note the concordance with the queen’s title in her funerary ritual: “The queens cry out: ‘Come on, bury the queen, the daughter of righ[teousness] (DUMU.MÍ ki-n[a-ti]).’” 20 Cf. SAA 18 162 where the sender excuses himself for having missed the appointed time for the treaty of Babylon, but informs that he had later sworn to it in Nippur and Uruk. The letter also considers the pledging of dependents together with their family members, and of the elders. 21 On the erection of statues and images of the Assyrian kings in the west see most recently Bagg 2011, 167�171, Tab. 3.K and map 3.7. In the area of Hamat and Unqi it seems that many symbols of the Assyrian conquest and power had been erected by various kings. The Zincirli stele is of particular importance not only because it so efficaciously represents the royal dynasty, but also in relation to the (still obscure) events that led to the city’s destruction. Lehmann 1994 has proposed dating this destruction to between 676 and 671/670, possibly in connection with the turmoil in Tabal and Hilakku that might have subtracted the town from the Assyrian control. Bagg (p. 260) argues that since these episodes are not mentioned on the stele, they should not be dated before the monument’s erection, but, due to ambiguity of the archaeological evidence, this question must remain open, as well as that of a possible adhesion of the Sam’al population (or of an anti-Assyrian party) to a revolt in the area. For a discussion of the matter and especially of these royal steles’ role as “examples of a sophi-sticated public relations effort” see Porter 2000. 22 For other references and discussion of this topic see recently Steymans 2006, 340�343, and Fales 2012. 23 With the specifications: “whether those who are in Assyria or those who have fled to another country”. 24 With the addition: “any descendant of former royalty” (zr šar pani�ti, l. 320).


ed and eunuchs (§6, § 27, § 29), any human being (§6, § 10, § 20, § 29), enemies (§ 10), allies (§ 10), family members of those who swear (§ 10), prophets, ecstatics, inquirers of oracles (§ 10), closer palace groups, remote palace groups (§ 20), old and young, rich and poor (m�r banê, m�r mušken�ti) (§ 20), bearded, eunuchs, servants, bought slaves (§ 20), citizens of Assyria or foreigners (§ 20, § 27, § 29). It is evident that the list of the possible traitors and rebels coincides with everyone, organized according to their status and the degree of danger they represent.

Fig. 2. Sculpted orthostat probably from Tell Tayinat, now in the Antakya Museum – author’s photo.

In Sennacherib’s treaty for Esarhaddon’s succession (SAA 2 4) the preserved

section refers to the possible adverse speaking of: the royal progeny, magnates and governors, bearded and eunuchs.

These categories are also listed in the oracular queries concerning the possibility of rebellions. The practice of oracular interrogation appears to have been a means to ascertain loyalty to the crown, but was at the same time another way to provide the king with ritual assurance (and psychological support) and to exercise pressure on subordinates. It may be framed in a more general ideology of loyalty, in which this fundamental virtue is ascertained by various means. Furthermore, the use of oracular


investigations corresponded to a decisional procedure in which the king is the only recipient of divine messages and inspired knowledge. This procedure is in accordance with the significance of the adê tablet which, since it is sealed by Aššur’s seal, has the value of the “Tablet of destiny”. The whole administrative system, not only the royal entourage or the decisional procedures of the highest level, appear to have been submitted to this type of control, i.e. to supreme control by the gods, whose only interpreter was the king.

In the preserved oracular queries�which enquire about the possibility of rebellion, by direct or indirect attack upon the person of Esarhaddon, within a period of 90 days (SAA 4 139), or attacks against Assurbanipal (SAA 4 142)�the court members and functionaries can be grouped according to main categories including the royal entourage and family, military ranks and palace personnel, largely com-parable with the categories attested in the adê. The texts offer a sort of organi-zational chart of the court and the state, mentioning all members of these who could ever come into contact with the king or posed the remotest threat of damaging him or fomenting rebellion. 139 142 144 highest officials, court high members and members of a parallel dynastic line

ša–rši, ša–ziqni, manz�z p�ni [šarri, ... z]r šarri ark�te, qurub šarri

[š]a–rši, ša–ziqni, manz�z p�ni šarri, ina ahhšu ahh ab�šu [qinnišu zr bt-a]bšu, zr šarri ark�ti

rab�te, bl pihati, [ša–rši ša–ziqni manz�z-p�ni šarri], ina zr šarri pan�te, [zr šarri ark�ti]

military personnel, guards

[šakn�]te, mušarkiš�ni rab u[r�te, ša–qur]b�ti, ša–šp, narkabat šarri, [atû ša bt�ni, a]tû ša qanni, [ša]–bt–k�dini

tašl�šu, muk�l app�te, m�r šipri, [mušarkišani], šakin zakkê, šakin pthalli, ša–qurb�ti, ša–šp, [atû] ša bt�ni, a]tû ša qanni, rši rakk�ti [ ..] ša–p�n-ekalli, ša–hu��ri, ša–ma��arti, kall�pu, r�di-kibsiani

[... muk]�l app�te, tašl�šu [...] rab ka�ir�, qurb�ti, [... a]tû ša q�nni, kall�pu, [...], ša–p�n-ekalli, ša–hu��ri, ša–ma��arti, [...]

palace personnel ša?–[...], nuhatimm�, karkadinn�, �pi�, kitkittû ga[bbu

[..., k��ir�], š�qi�, nuhatimm�, karkadinn�, �pi�, kitkittû gabbu

[tupšar] Aššuraya, tupšar Armaya ša [...]

foreign contingents Itueans, Elamites, mahi�u, [Hittites, Gurreans], Akkadians, Ahlamu, Cimmerians, Egyptians, Nubians, Qedarites (with relatives, dependents and allies)

Itueans, Elamites, mahi�u, Hittites, Gurreans, Ahlamu, [Cimmerians], Philistines, Nubians, Egyptians, Šabuqeans25

[...], Manneans, Medes, Cimmerians, [...], Sidonians, Egyptians, [...]

This chart partially overlaps the list of those who swear to the loyalty treaty, as

documented by the adê texts and by references to oath-taking ceremonies or to consequences of the adê provided by other documents.26 On the basis of ND and T,

25 This text adds an entry to clarify the risks deriving from armed personnel: “[eunuchs who bear ar]ms, or the bearded who bear arms and stand guard for the king [or one of the zakkê, the troops] who plotted sedition and rebellion...” (lines 12�15); see also no. 144: 13f. 26 In the Zak�tu treaty foreign contingents are not explicitly mentioned, but the possibility that they are included under the general label zakkê may be suggested on the basis of the analysis of the term within the military organization proposed by Fales 2009, who, after examining


the various categories or groups who swear the oath are explicitely mentioned as contracting parties. The subsequent Zak�tu treaty, sworn for Assurbanipal, with the function of executing the injunctions of Esarhaddon’s adê, featured instead a comprehensive formula including all the various categories together, although the most important contractors are the living brothers of Assurbanipal who are mentioned by name: Šamaš-šumu-ukin, ahu tal�mu, Šamaš-m~tu-uballi� and the rest of his brothers, with the royal seed”. Together with “... the Magnates and the gover-nors, the bearded and the eunuchs, the royal entourage, (and) with the troops, and all who enter the Palace, (and) with Assyrians (of) high and low (status)” they profess their loyalty which first of all means they will not propose themselves as (or side with another) pretender to the throne.

4. The protagonists of the Tell Taiynat adê and the provincial organization The categories listed above appear as well-integrated components of the Assyrian government system, with its various central and peripheral administrative branches. They form the general background against which the ND and T texts can be understood. While the ND texts appear to be addressed to the foreign contingents sector, the T text is particularly interesting because it provides us with a perspective from a fully provincial area with its administrative hierarchy. In the ND texts the adê is undersigned by various bl �li of Median, Zagros and Ellipi polities, mentioned by name. The authority of the bl �li on their own land appears to have been independent of the Assyrian establishment; they autonomously controlled a local enclave with its own institutions.27 These chiefs appear in some cases to relate with Assyrian officials who, as the governors of bordering provinces, may have the status of rabûte and directly represent royal authority. The most important relation with the Assyrian establishment is the delivery of military contingents that are presumably the same mentioned in the oracular queries. The bl �li are responsible for taking the oath as head and representatives of people, who swear as well [��b q�tšu gabbu �eher (u) rabi mala bašû issu nap�h Šamši adi erb Šamši (...) markunu mar markunu ša urki adê ana �m �âti ibbašš�ni, “(and with) the

attestations from various periods and documentary sectors, concludes that: “z�ku and zukkû/zakkû did, over time, come to coalesce in part, being both specifically used as designation(s) of the crack infantry troops of the Assyrian army.” 27 The nature of the bl �li power has been thoroughly discussed by Lanfranchi 2003, esp. 92�96. He considers all the evidence pertaining to this term from Assyrian sources and the changes in its use over time: from Tiglath-pileser onwards this title appears to have been applied to positions previously designated as “king”; this testifies “a growing consciousness of Assyrian superiority” as compared with the description of the Medes as “barbarian mountain peoples” (p. 95); it may be concluded that “they were designated ‘city lords’ because it was obviously impossible to designate them ‘kings’, the only other title which might imply territorial dominion.” (p. 96). In this particular context “local rulers were allowed to retain all their institutional powers within their territories, except that they were subject to the Assyrian king’s authority” (p. 111). This meant also different fiscal regulations. The Assyrians deemed it important to preserve the consensus of local elites and peoples in the delicate phase of the conflict against Urar�u: “Their local authority was acknowledged and made official through the institutionalization of their relations with the Assyrian governor and, through him, with the Assyrian king.” (p. 112). For the particular status of the bl �li of Zamua, which was an Assyrian province, see ibid. p. 115.


people in his hands, of lower and higher status as many as they are, from east to west (... and with) your children and grandchildren who will be born in the future after this treaty”, ND 5�10] and of coordinating the military activity of their subordinates according to the Assyrian orders.

The administrative picture described by the T text is totally different: it includes various categories of officials but no proper names, in a much more bureaucratic style.

4.1 The provincial administrative structure in the Treaty a) provincial governing staff

EN.NAM = bl p�hiti, province governor 2-e = šaniu, vice-governor GAL.É = rab b�ti, majordomo, a high military official28

b) administrative personnel A.BA.MEŠ = tupšarr�, scribes

c) military and administrative officials

DIB.BA.MEŠ = muk�l app�ti, chariot drivers 3 U5. MEŠ = tašl�š�, third men29 GAL.URU. MEŠ = rab al�ni = village managers30 mutir �m = information officers GAR.MEŠ = šakn�, prefects GAL ki�ir.MEŠ = rab ki�ri cohort commanders

d) military personnel with various ranks, craftsmen

EN.GIGIR.MEŠ bl narkabti/mugirri = chariot owners31 bl pthalli = horse owners zakkû = a type of professional troops32 kall�pu = unarmored cavalry/light armored infantry?33 umm�nu = specialists34 ar�t� = shield bearers (?)35 kitkittû = craftsmen/quartermaster/ palace personnel (?)36

28 Postgate 1973, 15, fn. 37 argues that this provincial official functioned as “the governor’s deputy in military affairs”. Desz� 2006, 121 suggests a role of “liaison officer between the royal and provincial troops(?)”. For relevant evidence see also Ponchia 2007, 131. 29 For tasks entrusted to the tašl�šu, see Ponchia 2007, 132f. with bibliography. 30 For the role of these officials in the collection of taxes due from villages see Postgate 1979, 216. 31 On this title and the relationship with the designation m�r damq, see Radner 2002, 9�10. 32 On this term see the lengthy and detailed discussion in Fales 2009, who remarks that from the contexts it appears that the term has no connection with “exemption” as usually understood, proposes that the plural noun zakkû is a variant form of the D verbal adjective zukkû�a verbal form with a technical meaning in the military lexicon of “make ready for departure”, “detach (troops)”�and tentatively suggests that the term may designate “crack infantry troops of the Assyrian army” or heavy infantry employed in sieges. 33 The term has been recently discussed by Postgate and Desz� and reconsidered by Fales 2009, with previous bibliography. He tentatively concludes that the term may indicate the “unarmored cavalry, which was at all times—when it encountered difficulties of terrain or for aims of reconnoitering—ready to transform itself into a form of lightly armored infantry” (p. 92). 34 The personnel designated with this label may include scribes and experts in ritual and divination accompaning the army, as well as craftsmen of various sorts. 35 For discussion of the term and references see Lauinger 2012, 113. 36 Cf. Parpola 2008, 92; Lauinger 2012, 113 and Fales 2012. The comparison with the orac-ular queries suggests a function of service in the palace or military quarters.


The personnel listed in the treaty can be tentatively distinguished in categories corresponding to the provincial hierarchy, i.e. to successive steps of the chain of command from the centre, independently from the degree of autonomy and discretionality the higher steps and officials could enjoy in their activity. In the Assyrian system of delegation of command to officials of lower level and of dependency from a superior level, it was crucial to make clear that the utmost author-ity was the royal one and that especially in critical situations, such as treason and rebellion, obedience was due to the king and information should be directly for-warded to him—although this was not an easy task as the events concerning the denunciation of Sennacherib’s murder illustrate37— through a structure organized as a btu that encompasses and transcends the various administrative levels and branches.38

a) this group of officials clearly represents the provincial governance with both military and administrative tasks. They constitute the link between the centre of the empire and the provincial territory and population. The division of the supreme office of the province between three magistrates may have been conceived as a guarantee for central governamental control. The imposition of Assyrian adminis-trators dates back to Tiglath-pileser III’s conquest and organization of the area, but details of their governorship are unknown. A governor of Kullania is known from legal documents as an eponym during Sennacherib’s reign (684): Manzarnê is mentioned as bl p�hiti in SAA 6 177 and as šakin m�ti in SAA 6 59.39

b) the scribes, at the order of the governor and his deputy, served in taxation and recruitment operations and in the palace chancery and offices. In the letter SAA 10 6 the scribes from various towns (Nineveh, Kalizi, Arbela and also Assur, though this group is mentioned as still lacking) appear to swear as a separate category of specialists. In another letter the scribes from the palace are expected to take oath together with other specialists with a similar background: haruspices, exorcists, physicians and augurs (SAA 10 7). It is not completely clear whether in this provin-cial sector the presence of specialists is restricted to administrative personnel, or whether other specialists are included in the category of the kitkittû.

c) this group shows various direct relationships with the provincial governance; its members are endowed with the authority to implement the orders of the latter. Letters illustrates some of their tasks in administrative matters, such as the trans-mission of orders and communications, the collection and transportation of commod-ities, the control or custody of individuals, in some cases even negotiations with newly conquered lands or client rulers.40 More in general, they would have been permanent members of the military staff, with roles in the provincial military forces and in recruitment, provisioning and logistics, which were part of the taxation system and of duties of the governor. The various specific roles of each of them have been dealt with in various publications, but still present various question marks. The šaknu has received particular attention for his frequent mention in administrative and legal texts. In the latter documents this official appears responsible for people, i.e. to perform the role of controlling people on behalf of the

37 Parpola 1980. 38 For details and further bibliography concerning the administrative hierarchy see Postgate 1974, Fales 2000 and 2001, Ponchia 2007. 39 References to secondary literature in Bagg 2011, 188. 40 Ponchia 2007, 131�133.


administration, thus representing a different level of dependency vis-à-vis the family or village/town community.41 A similar role is that of the rab ki�ri, who appears to direct a military or work team.

d) the last sector, composite as it is, is formed of those subject to taxation and conscription. The list suggests that the distinction between various groups may depend on recruitment categories, i.e. on the weaponry or specialized activities of the personnel, or indicate differences in the length of military service, permanent vs. temporary.42

The definition of the hierarchy recognized by the crown implies that the popu-lation in its entirety (included in the list by means of the formula nišê q�tšu gabbu) is recognized insofar as members of definite categories and subject to the authority of an official (see below). Due to the universal character of the treaty, these categories would have represented the whole organization of the local society, but its composition (original inhabitants, deportees, Assyrians) and the administrative role of each category remain largely undetermined. For instance it is uncertain whether the chariot owners may be considered to have formed the local upper class and participated in civic institutions with roles in community life,43 or if they could have aspired to positions such as that of šaknu or rab ki�ri.

4.2 From the reign of Unqi to the province of Kinalia The full control of the region of Unqi was achieved by Tiglath-pileser III who, after a long period of Assyrian interventions and alternating control,44 transformed the

41 For these functions of the šaknu, retrievable from no-claim clauses, witness roles and specific references see Ponchia 2009 and 2012. 42 On the organization of the army see most recently Fales 2010, 95�151. 43 And to overlap, at least in part, the category of the m�r banê, on which see Barjamovic 2004, 77�84. 44 The process that led to the inclusion of the area in the Assyrian provincial system began, as is well known, more than one century earlier. According to the royal accounts, the boundaries of the Neo-Hittite kingdom of Unqi/Pattin changed in the course of time due to conflicts with other states in the region and to the Assyrian intervention. Assurna�irpal II captured two key fortresses, presumably located along the northern (Hazazu) and the southern access (Aribua) to the kingdom (among the various reconstructions of the history of ‘mq/Unqi/Pattin see Hawkins 2000, 361�364). Particularly intense was the military activity of Shalmaneser III, who included the region of the lower part of the Kara Su valley and its confluence with the Orontes in his program of surpassing the Euphrates boundary. During Shalmaneser’s march in 858 the region seems to have had an important role, since Pattin appears to include a key stronghold located across the Orontes from the Amanus, where the resistance of the entire western coalition was organized. The stronghold appears to have controlled the road from the Amanus to the coast. In the area Shalmaneser captured the major cities (RIMA 3 0.102.2: ii 11; and 102.3: 92f: m�h�z� rabûti) of Taia, Hazazu (recorded also in the Balawat gates 102.67), Nulia and Batamu, massacred 2,800 fighting men and carried off 14,600 captives. From Hazazu he reached the fortress of Urime where he received tribute (as added in 102.3, which might be conflated with later events). The references to booty and tribute show that the strategic importance of Pattin rests in the control of the access to the Amanus, with its resources, and to the Orontes line. A revolt against the philo-Assyrian elite and tributary king by an anti-Assyrian party, which imposed a new king, determined a campaign led by the turt�nu Dajjan-Aššur in 829. It ended with the imposition of a new philo-Assyrian king who erected a colossal statue of Shalmaneser in the temple of his gods in Kunulua. If this was the answer to the Shuppiluliuma’s colossal statue, ritually deposed, and unearthed in 2012, is


vassal reign into a province in 738, as a development of the confrontation which took place in 743 with the coalition of Urar�u and the Syrian states. It is not the aim of the present contribution to fully discuss the crucial, but thorny, problem of the Assyrianization of the conquered territories, but simply to highlight some aspects of this question in order to better frame the stipulation of the adê in the context of the functioning of the provincial administrative system in Kinalia.45 In this respect it is necessary first of all to evaluate the process of substitution of the ruling class and management of the territory, by means of deportation from and to the area, and reorganization of the settlement geography and demography. In addition to the royal inscriptions narrative, the beheading of the rulership of the Unqi reign is also attested by SAA 19 55, a short letter probably referring to king Tutammû as a prisoner, together with his officials (rššu). As for the rest of the inhabitants, the sources are less explicit, but an inscription (RINAP 1 12) records the distribution of people with their possessions among the Assyrian soldiers, presumably as booty. Deportation appears to correspond to a standardized procedure, when compared with evidence concerning other areas.46 For instance, in the case of the bordering reign of Hamat, royal inscriptions record topographical details—which appear relevant in the organization of administrative subdivisions47—and the deportation of a large mass of inhabitants removed to Tušhan (83,000) and of a smaller one (1223) brought to Ulluba. The latter number may correspond simply to a part of the total which met the needs of the destination country, or suggest the deportation of a selected group of citizens, perhaps an elite separated from the rest of their people. On the other hand, on the basis of the annalistic account, the western area of the coast and Unqi appear to have been the target of a comprehensive restructuring of administrative districts and can be identified as the destination of various groups of deportees, generally not too numerous, who were moved from their homes in the Aramean area of Babylonia and the east, distributed among the newly organized districts and towns, and transformed into Assyrians.48 They appear to have been scattered through-out the territory, presumably to compensate the loss of manpower due to depor-tations from the area and/or on the basis of the territorial sustenance capacity. In the land of Unqi 600 prisoners from Amlatu of the Damunu tribe and 5400 from B|t-Deraya were distributed in at least 7 cities, Kunalia included. According to the royal records these forced settlements followed the conquest of cities, which can be only

matter for further reflection. The Assyrian presence in the region in the following, scarcely documented, phase must have been quite problematic, although Adad-nirari III was able to intervene in the local interstate relationships to the advantage of Assyrian hegemony. The Antakya stele, in which the Assyrian king fixes the boundary between Hamat and Arpad along the Orontes, seems to imply that Unqi’s borders had been altered. See Bagg 2011, 158f. with literature. For surveys in the area see Haines 1971, Batiuk – Harrison – Pavlish 2005. In Iron Age II “the Early Iron Age settlement network (...) developed into an integrated, urbanized regional entity, with Tell Ta‘yinat at its center” (Janeway 2006�2007, 127). 45 For a recent summary of the problem see again Bagg 2011, 281�308. 46 For aims and effects of Assyrian mass deportation, as well as for quantifications and distribution of deportations see Oded 1979, passim and Appendix for a geographical list of references to deportations, and Na’aman 1993. 47 The list of toponyms and the administrative reorganization, with the provinces of `imirra and Hatarikka, has recently been discussed by Na’aman 2007, 42�53. 48 Cf. the distribution of groups numbering some hundreds of captives from various tribes from the east among the coastal cities in RINAP 1 14: 5�8.


partially identified in the preserved lists. It remains difficult to understand in what measure the previous boundaries, a network of fortresses and royal towns, as well as the ethnic and social texture of this densely settled area, were altered to become part of a new system.

RINAP 1 35: ii 5’� 9’ RINAP 1 43: ii 8�15 RINAP 1 14: 3b�5a (26: 1�3)49 conquered towns conquered towns distribution of captives Pattinu’s toponyms are recorded in a comprehensive view: “The land of B|t Agusi in [its entirety], the land Pattinu in its entirety, from the city [... to ] the city Nanpigi, which is on the bank of the Euph[rates...] Qarnê, Hadatete, Da[...], Qinasrins, which is in the steppe, [as far as] Damascus and Hamat”50

The cities Ta...[...], Hurmu, Anlama[...], Urrus, Ur...[...], Kulmadara, Ha[tatirra], Unniga, [...], Ardâ, Mudru[...], Muruya, Tiris[...], Lapsitania, ci[ties of the land of Unqi]

[I settled] 600 captives of the city Amlatu of Damunu, 5400 captives of the city (B|t)-D~r ya [in Kunalia ...] Huzarra, Ta’e, Tarmanazi, Kulmadara Hatatirra, Irgillu, [cities of the land of Unqi]

The organization of the provincial institutions for the administration of the

territory and its people is hardly documented. Kinalia/Kullania is mentioned in but a handful of administrative texts, including records of contributions and letters.51 Due to their fragmentariness, or conciseness, these texts do not reveal much about the role of the Kullania province in the Assyrian administration.52 As a whole, Tiglath-pileser III’s correspondence reveals the gigantic effort of creating an efficient military machine with duly garrisoned points and duly provisioned troops. Dislo-cation of troops, soldiers and deportees, cultivation, and the storage and distribution of crops and equipment appear to have been constant preoccupations of the Palace and duty of the governors. This scenario may be inferred for Kinalia/ Kullania too. Particularly interesting are SAA 19 6 and 47. In the first letter the king entrusts Aššur-remanni, most probably the governor of Kullania, and his scribe, with the responsibility of settling and nourishing captives and keeping them healthy, and of

49 Restorations from text no. 26. The partly preserved toponyms that might be interpreted as coinciding with the better preserved ones are in italics. 50 The, unfortunately incomplete, passage seems to allude to three lines of penetration: the eastern one is the Euphratic line, the middle one runs from Gurgum to Damascus through the inner region of the steppe (including B|t-Agusi and Hamat), the western one runs along the seashore. Kunalia/Kullania might have played an important role in connecting itineraries and administrative units in the area. 51 See recently Radner 2006b, 61. 52 One of the administrative problems that the coordination of the local and central administration migth have faced was the definition of the provincial boundaries. State letters to the king often plead cases concerning territories disputed between governors or report quarrels concerning the control of people and fiscal revenues. In royal inscriptions information about the establishment of provincial boundaries is scanty (cf. Bagg 2011, 164) and mostly worded in the generic assertion that the territory has been added to Assyria. In letters, the information derives from the above-mentioned denunciations; administrative documents are extremely laconic on such matters. Provincial boundaries seem to have coincided with the limits of an area under the authority of an official, i.e. not with precise territorial demarcations but with the presence of manpower settled there and assigned to the authority of an official and/or civic institutions. The control was exercised through the chain of dependency of the officials over their dependents.


managing the supplies for military contingents. The second letter concerns a dispute of the sender, Sulaya, with an official, Šamaš-na�ir, who is presumably the deputy governor of Kullania. The deputy’s claim to the possession of three towns (Taku, Lulubani and Mila) is reported; he intends to settle there his own people, whose origin and status are however not specified and might have the status of dependents or of deportees assigned to him. The context of the letter suggests that the towns/villages might be located in an area bordering the province of Arpad, in an environment not particularly apt for cultivation. Although Sulaya’s identity and jurisdiction remain unknown, he appears to have been involved in the task of meeting the standard of agricultural productivity planned by the king.

From other administrative documents the province also appears to contribute, or have been intended to contribute, to the delivery of commodities, such as red wool (and madder),53 sheep,54 horses,55 and of deportees/personnel.56

Although the ratio between the groups composing the province’s population (original residents, deportees and “Assyrian” soldiers and administrators) and their place in the new administration cannot be established, another aspect of the transformation of the region may be briefly analyzed: the erection of symbols of power and town planning. The Luwian citadel of Tell Tayinat includes some notable buildings, excavated by the University of Chicago in the 1930s and re-studied or newly discovered by the Toronto expedition in the last decade.57 Some of these buildings are: Building XIV (dated to 10th�early 9th cent.) and tentatively associated with the dynasty of the Padasatini kingdom, as royal palace;58 Building I, or the b�t hil�ni palace, dated to late 9th cent. or Iron Age IIB; Building II, the so-called megaron-style temple, which corresponds to the temple in antis “indigenous to West Syria and the Levant”, and Building XVI, probably renovated together with the latter two buildings as part of a sacred precinct which adjoined the royal palace in the late 9th �8th cent.59 These buildings constitute major features of the cultural,

53 SAA 7 116 is a fragmentary account of contributions from the west. 54 See the fragmentary account SAA 11 80 and the letter from Akkullanu recording the magnates who have not delivered their sheep offerings in Assur (SAA 10 96). 55 SAA 13 86 is a letter to the king recording the contribution of horses (including the Kush breed) from various provinces. Kullania contributes with 67 equids (57 horses of different type) from the centres of D na and Qarnê, possibly mentioned in the royal account too (see fn. 49 above). 56 SAA 11 170 is a broken list of deportees. 57 Excavations found evidence of five building periods during the Amuq Phase O, ca. 950–550 B.C., as described in Haines 1971. For the discoveries of the Toronto mission see www.utoronto.ca/tap/index.html�with annual reports on fieldwork�and various syntheses, e.g. Harrison 2007 and Harrison – Osborne 2012 with bibliography. 58 See Harrison 2007 for details concerning this large building and the existence of a sequence of 7 phases starting in the 12th cent., with remains showing marked Aegean influences. The phase that Haines named the I Building Period has yielded numerous fragments of hieroglyphic inscriptions, including the name of Halparuntiyas, sculpted orthostats with lions and a narrative scene showing a war chariot, though its provenience is uncertain (Fig. 2, see Harrison 2007). 59 Harrison – Osborne 2012, 139 point out that: “Building XVI and Building I, clearly link the temples architecturally to the adjacent b�t hil�ni palaces, and mark them as an integral, though subsidiary, component of the Second Building period complex (...).”. The artifacts associated


religious and ideological horizon preceding the Assyrian intervention, which was distinguished by the use of Neo-Hittite representational models.

When Tiglath-pileser III conquered the region, he renovated Kinalia, the capital of the subdued land of Unqi (ana ešš�ti a�bat), transforming the local kingdom into an Assyrian province under the authority of royal eunuchs as governors (bl p�h�ti).60 As a first measure to stress the change of authority, Tiglath-pileser III records the siting of his own throne “in the centre of Tutammû’s palace” (RINAP 1 12: 8’), presumably one of the rooms of the buildings just mentioned. An element of major interest during the Neo-Assyrian provincial phase is the renovation of the innermost room of Building XVI, with the construction of a podium probably in its final phase of use (8th–7th cent.) when the building contained a cache of Neo-Assyrian tablets and the treaty text, and together with Building I formed a religious complex after the model of the Assyrian double temple.61

During the Neo-Assyrian period a new complex was constructed in another area, Building IX, which was recognized by the excavators as a typical example of an Assyrian-style structure; according to Harrison 2005 it may be identified as the governor’s palace and dated to Tiglath-pileser III or slightly later:62 it “represents a physical manifestation of the bureaucratic order imposed by Tiglath-pileser as part of the imperial administration he installed to maintain control over his expanding empire.” It occupied an elevated position dominating other buildings and the approach through Gateway VII, which was decorated with reliefs of Assyrian assault troops (Fig. 3).

It may be hypothesized that while the Assyrians consistently transformed the urban centre through the erection of symbols and Assyrian-style buildings and decorations, they did not completely obliterate the face of the pre-existing citadel and that a mixture of elements still characterized various structures, although the ceremonial and power core was moved to new or greately transformed buildings.

Although the evidence is not sufficient to outline an exact profile, the province appears to have been a patchwork of elements, with various cultural and political backgrounds. But as a whole it was forced to meet the requirements of the expand-ing empire. This leads us to a last reflection on the function of the adê.

with their last phase of use, however show that the buildings were later incorporated into an Assyrian religious complex. 60 RINAP 1 12: 3’�12’; 14:3�5. These officials are elsewhere referred to in the account of the organization of the district of Hamat, cf. RINAP 1 13: 11; 3: 8. They were probably the governor and his deputy. 61 For this interpretation and a detailed description of the phases of the building, which led scholars to describe it as “a palimpsest of modifications and additions that belonged to at least two primary phases of construction”, see Harrison – Osborne 2012, 133. On the suggestion that Platform XV could be an Assyrian structure too, designed to host a cultic monument, see ibid. 139. 62 Harrison 2005, 29. The palace probably eclipsed the “modestly renovated b�t-hil�ni” of the previous phase—whose layout and elements “clearly mark it as a proto-typical Neo-Assyrian palatial complex” (p. 28)—and was then re-worked in a shape that reveals “a liberal application of the ‘reception suite’” used to articulate the various constitutive parts of the palace.


5. An open question ND and T are oaths sworn to the king and his dynasty; they were carefully articu-lated from a juridical point of view to solve the problem of royal succession under the pressure of difficult circumstances; they appear to have been sworn to by the various categories that composed the Assyrian state, in central and peripheral regions.

Fig. 3. Assyrian sculpted orthostat, now in the Antakya Museum – author’s photo.

The adê not only oblige contractors to protect the king’s house and heir, but

identify the institutions responsible for this protection; they identify who bears authority and the officials with whom the central administration deals. The pledging of the adê to the king appears to have also been perceived as the acknowledgment of the status of a town or community that, on the basis of its own loyalty, was granted the possibility of addressing the king to ask for help and justice, since this was the king’s duty as guarantor of the political and social order. Those who swore formed the local institutions—as suggested also by references concerning Babylonian towns, whose magistrates, or elders, addressed letters of petition to the king or pro-


fessed their loyalty63—or established roles and categories of the state administration. Either in a territory of more recent and problematic Assyrianization (or of easier control through its own institutions) which maintained its own administrative structures, or in a well established provincial region with a regular administrative hierarchy, the local officialdom was acknowledged and invested with the duty and responsibility of protecting the crown. On the other hand, the adê was sworn to by those at all levels of the hierarchy alike, and for everyone loyalty to and veneration of the king’s image, word and will was the all-encompassing law. Both in hierar-chically structured administrative organizations and within possibly highly unbalan-ced societies, all the members are equal in their duty of loyalty.

Pre-existing institutions and oath-taking traditions may have influenced the perception of the adê sworn to the Assyrian king. In the Neo-Hittite area the use of dynastic pacts, or of binding instructions for military and administrative personnel, was not new but rather the heritage of the Hittite empire, although only some hints of a continuation of these or similar practices survive in the extant documents.64 Furthermore, in the provincial context the Assyrians imposed substantial social and institutional changes, with local elites presumably inserted into the conquerors’ system when they collaborated with Assyrian power, or reduced or even annulled by deportations, when they resisted. On the other hand even deportees, when incorpo-rated into the military and productive ranks, became “like Assyrians” and corespon-sible for the life of the king and the state.65

In a province such as Kilania the recognized hierarchy was the palace and military establishment and the population was controlled by this officialdom and inserted into its ranks. At the same time, all mentioned categories were recognized as citizens and as such could address the crown and comply with their duty of

63 For instance, in SAA 18 77 the citizens of Larak declare their loyalty to the king; in SAA 17 145 the adê is mentioned as a way to recognize the status of a community: “Nemed-Laguda, a sanctuary of Marduk in the middle of [...], an old cult centre which the king has put in the adê” (lines 17f.). The message is sent by two temple enterers, who in SAA 17 146 act as messengers, and by citizens/magistrates, probably the elders, of the town. The adê seems to be connected to a tax exemption granted by Sargon at the time of his conquest of Sealand. Letter no. 145 is fragmentary, but it can be associated with no. 146 in which the senders declare that they have sent and [will send] all the information, and therefore may recall the terms of a treaty. The situation might be parallel to that defined by Esarhaddon’s treaty, at least as far as the definition of the king’s communication and the acknowledgment of the local institution is concerned. For other references in letters to the functioning of the direct link with the crown established by the adê, cf. the texts quoted by Radner 2006a, 360�363. 64 Legitimation of succession and support for the ruling king and his dynasty is a crucial topic of Neo-Hittite public script, as illustrated by Lanfranchi 2009. A Neo-Hittite (prob. 8th cent.) attestation of a pact between rulers, extended to the dynasty, is provided by the rock inscriptions from Karaburun, in the Kizil Irmak valley (Hawkins 2000, X.18). The historical background of the legitimation system goes back to the Hittite empire and the diplomatic tradition of subordination treaties, cf. e.g, the treaty of Mursili II and Tuppi-teshup of Amurru, which explicitly refers to an oath the Hittite king imposes in support of the Syrian king’s succession; the treaties of Hattushili III and Bentešina of Amurru; Hattushili III and Tudaliya IV with Kurunta of Tarhuntassa, etc. (see Beckman 1996 nos. 8, 16, 18C). See Neumann 2010 with previous literature. For elements of comparison with the Homeric epic see Rollinger 2004 with particular reference to ritual actions. 65 For an overview of the position of the deportees see Oded 1979, chap. V.


loyalty. The juridical instrument of the adê gave to everybody the authority to denounce dangers menacing the royal dynasty. All the people who swore to the adê had a common duty, which identified them as members of the Assyrian imperial organization.66 And this consciousness was made manifest through the public ceremony of the oath.

Although the empire was a composite entity with differentiated institutional and administrative sectors, loyalty towards the dynasty encompassed or—in cases of more marked transformation—utterly substituted other forms of dependency and appurtenance. While the stipulation of the adê was dictated by the circumstances of royal succession, did this instrument not perhaps acquire a more general role in spreading veneration for the emperor and forming the mental attitude of the “sub-jects of the empire”? Bibliography Bagg A. 2011, Die Assyrer und das Westland (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta

216), Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA. Bartelmus A. 2007, “Tal�mu and the relationship between Assurbanipal and Šamaš-

šumu-uk|n”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 16, 297–302. Batiuk, S. – Harrison T. P. – Pavlish L. 2005, “The Ta‘yinat Survey, 1999–2002”, in

K. Asl�han Yener Ed., The Amuq Valley Regional Projects. Volume I: Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002 (Oriental Institute Publications 131), Chicago, 171–192.

Barjamovic G. 2004, “Civic Institutions and Self-Government in Southern Mesopo-tamia in the Mid-First Mill. B.C.”, in J. C. Dercksen Ed., Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, Leiden, 47–98.

Beckman G. 1996, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, Atlanta. Fales F. M. 2001, L'impero assiro, Roma – Bari. ––. 2008, “Il periodo neo-assiro: trattati ed editti”, in M. Liverani – C. Mora Eds., I

diritti del mondo cuneiforme (Mesopotamia e regioni adiacenti, ca. 2500 –500 a. C.), Pavia, 503–556.

––. 2009, “The Assyrian Words for ‘(Foot) Soldier’”, in G. Galil – M. Geller – A. Millard Eds., Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded, Leiden, 71–94.

––. 2010, Guerre et paix en Assyrie. Religion et impérialisme, Paris. ––. 2012 (appeared 2013), “After Ta‘yinat: The New Status of Esarhaddon’s Adê for

Assyrian Political History”, Revue d’Assyriologie 106, 133–158. Frahm E. 2009, “Warum die Brüder Böses planten: Überlegungen zu einer alten

Crux in Asarhaddons ‘Ninive A’-Inschrift‘”, in W. Arnold – M. Jursa – W. W. Müller – S. Procházka Eds., Philologisches und Historisches zwischen Anatolien und Sokotra Analecta Semitica in Memoriam Alexander Sima, Wiesbaden, 27–49.

Harrison T. P. 2005, “The Neo-Assyrian Governor’s Residence at Tell Ta�yinat”, Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 40, 23–33.

––. 2007, “Neo-Hittites in the North Orontes Valley: Recent Investigations at Tell Ta�yinat”, Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 2, 59–68.

66 Cf. RINAP 4 1: i 80.


––. 2011, “Temples, Tablets, and the Neo-Assyrian Provincial Capital of Kinalia”, Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 6, 29–38.

Harrison T. P – Osborne J. F. 2012, “Building XVI and the Neo-Assyrian Sacred Precinct at Tell Tayinat”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 125–143.

Hawkins J. D. 2000, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Berlin – New York.

Hillers D. R. 1969, Covenant. The History of a Biblical Idea, Baltimore – London. Janeway B. 2006–2007, “The Nature and Extent of Aegean Contact at Tell Ta‘yinat

and Vicinity in the Early Iron Age: Evidence of The Sea Peoples?”, Scripta Mediterranea 27–28, 123–146.

Lanfranchi G. B. 1998, “Esarhaddon, Assyria and Media”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 12, 99–109.

––. 2003, “The Assyrian Expansion in the Zagros and the Local Ruling Elites”, in G. B. Lanfranchi et al. Ed., Continuity of Empire (?). Assyria, Media, Persia, Padova, 79–109.

––. 2009, “A Happy Son of the King of Assyria: Warikas and the Çineköy Bilingual (Cilicia)”, in M. Luukko – S. Svärd – R. Mattila Eds., Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola (Studia Orientalia 106), Helsinki, 127–150.

Lauinger J. 2012, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Com-mentary”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 87–123.

Liverani M. 1990, “Terminologia e ideologia del patto nelle iscrizioni reali assire”, in L. Canfora – M. Liverani – C. Zaccagnini Eds., I trattati nel mondo antico, Roma, 115–120.

May N. N. 2011–2012 (appeared 2013), “The Comeback of Tal�mu. A Case of the Invention of a Word-Meaning by Neo-Assyrian Scribe”, State Archive of Assyria Bulletin 19, 153–174.

Mattila R. 2000, “The King's Magnates”, State Archives of Assyria Studies 11, Helsinki.

Na�aman N. 2007, “Borders and Districts in Descriptions of the conquest of the West in Tiglath-pileser III’s Inscriptions and in Biblical Historiography”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 16, 39–61.

––. 1993, “Population Changes in Palestine following Assyrian Deportations”, Tel Aviv 20, 104–124.

Neumann H. 2010, “Zur rechtsgeschichtlichen und sozialpolitischen Bedeutung der hethitischen Staatsverträge aus dem 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.”, in M. Lang – H. Barta – R. Rollinger Eds., Staatsverträge, Völkerrecht und Diplomatie im Alten Orient und in der griechisch-römischen Antike (Philippika 40), Wiesbaden, 139–155.

Oded B. 1979, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Wiesbaden.

Porter Nevling B. 2000, “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 East Studies, Supplement 7), Louvain�Paris�Sterling, 143–176.

Postgate N. 1974, Taxation and Conscription in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, (Studia Pohl Series Maior 3), Roma.

Radner K. 2006a, “Assyrische �uppi adê als Vorbild für Deuteronomium 28.20�44?”, in Witte et al. Eds., 351–378.


––. 2006b, “Provinz”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11, 42–68. ––. 2012, “The Seal of Tašmetum-šarrat, Sennacherib’s Queen, and its Impressions”,

in G. B. Lanfranchi – D. Morandi – C. Pappi – S. Ponchia Eds., Leggo! Sudies presented to Prof. Frederick Mario Fales on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 2), Wiesbaden, 687–698.

RINAP 1 = H. Tadmor – Sh. Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria (The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Volume 1), Winona Lake, 2011.

RINAP 4 = E. Leichty with a contribution by G. Frame, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Volume 4), Winona Lake, 2011.

Rollinger R. 2004, “Die Verschriftlichung von Normen: Einflüsse und Elemente orientalischer Kulturtechnik in den homerischen Epen dargestellt am Beispiel des Vertragswesens”, in R. Rollinger – Ch. Ulf Eds., Griechische Archaik und der Orient: Interne und externe Impluse, Berlin, 369–425.

Rollinger R. – Niedermayr H. 2007, “Von Assur nach Rom: Dexiosis und „Staats-vertrag“ – Zur Geschichte eines rechtssymbolischen Aktes”, in R. Rollinger – H. Barta in Verbindung mit M. Lang Eds., Rechtsgeschichte und Interkulturalität (Philippika 19), Wiesbaden, 135–178.

SAA 2 = S. Parpola – K. Watanabe Eds. 1988, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (State Archives of Assyria 2), Helsinki.

SAA 4 = I. Starr Ed. 1990, Queries to the Sungod Divination and Politics in Sargo-nid Assyria (State Archives of Assyria 4), Helsinki.

SAA 17 = M. Dietrich Ed. 2003, The Babylonian Correspondence of Sargon and Sennacherib (State Archives of Assyria 17), Helsinki.

SAA 18 = F. Reynolds Ed. 2003, The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon (State Archives of Assyria 18), Helsinki.

SAA 19 = M. Luukko Ed. 2012, The Correspondence of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud (State Archives of Assyria 19), Winona Lake.

Svärd S. 2012, Power and Women in the Neo-Assyrian Palaces, PhD Dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-7631-2.

Steymans H. U. 2006, “Die literarische und historische Bedeutung der Thron-folgevereidigung Asarhaddons”, in Witte et al. Eds., Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, Berlin – New York, 331–349.

Watanabe K. 1987, Die adê-Vereidigung anlässlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asar-haddons, Berlin.

Weinfeld M. 1973, “The Origin of the Apodictic Law: An Overlooked Source”, Vetus Testamentum 23, 63–75.

––. 1976, “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East”, Ugarit Forschungen 8, 379–414.

Wiseman D. J. 1958, The Vassal-treaties of Esarhaddon, London, (=Iraq 20[1958], i�ii, 1–99).

Witte M. – Schmid K. – Prechel D. – Gertz J. C. Eds. 2006, “Die deuteronomisti-schen Geschichtswerk”, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissen-schaft 365, Berlin – New York.

The Neo-Assyrian Adê Protocol and the Administration of the Empire

Documents

Transcript of The Neo-Assyrian Adê Protocol and the Administration of the Empire