Talk:Assyrian Soldier/@comment-108.20.253.170-20150123072055/@comment-108.20.248.34-20150124053638

How many of the scholars do you cite are actual assyrologists and scholars of akkadian? How many references can they actually source to the assyrian archives?

Karlsson's book focuses on the reigns of Shalmesser III and Ashurnasirpal in the early Neo-Imperial period, and here is the section on foreign deities.

Turning to the supernatural component of the foreign lands, the relationship between the king and the foreign deities will now be discussed. I will argue that the two kings, especially Shalmaneser III, sometimes portray themselves as the protector of foreign cults, and that an ambition of replacing these, e.g. through “godnappings”, with Mesopotamian ones is not attested in the sources. The world dominion of Ashur and the great gods was implemented pragmatically, both in thought and deed.714

In earlier Assyriology literature, the image of the Assyrian kings as destroying the cults of conquered territories and zealously imposing worship of Ashur is often given.715 In the 1980’s, Spieckermann revived this old image. In his study on alleged Assyrian interference in the cult of Yahweh in Sargonid times, he claims that the deportations of foreign deities, which are frequently mentioned in Assyrian royal inscriptions, were followed by the replacement of these deities with Assyrian ones, whereby a cult imposing was

called weapon of Ashur spoken of in the texts of Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, and Sennacherib is much highlighted here.737 However, drawing from administrative texts, it has been concluded that the core and provinces, i.e. Assyria proper, had certain religious obligations such as the installing of Ashur’s weapon, and the payment of fees for “temple offerings” (ginû) made in the temple of Ashur in Assur, but the vasall states were arguably free in religious matters. The term “liberal policy” is used in the context of this conclusion. 738 Holloway, although questioning the relevance of this distinction, argues that the weapon of Ashur was simply a holy object, a divine standard of a sort, by which the foreign rulers swore allegiance to the Assyrian king, and not an object to be worshipped as a symbol of the one true god.739 He draws a parallel to the apparent use of the “sword of Ashur” (patrum ša Aššur) in Old Assyrian times. This object witnessed the administration of oaths, legal testimonies, and the creating and sealing of vital documents in the Assyrian colony of Kanesh.740 The weapon of Ashur is not referred to other than as in the king’s hands, causing fright, flight, defeat, and submission on the part of the enemies, in the texts of the two kings (see 5.4.2).

After the act of deporting or demolishing the relevant foreign cult image, the next step was, according to the theory of religious fanatism, to replace the destroyed foreign cult with an Assyrian one. The act of installing the so-

ing a resisting foreign ruler.733 Occasionally the information that these deities then were brought to Assyria is added (e.g. SE6:ii7-9). These acts of godnapping are not stressed but rather mentioned in long enumerations of booty. Shalmaneser III narrates in several of his inscriptions that he deported the hostile ruler Ahuni of Bit-Adini along with his troops, court, and deities (e.g. SE6:ii7-9). He also claims to have deported the deities, along with the enemy ruler’s palace women, of the Kassite, south-eastern polity of Namri (e.g. SE6:iv18-21). Just as little, Ashurnasirpal II certainly does not stress the act of godnapping in his texts. He just briefly mentions that he brought away the deities of two different kings, along with women and captives, of the southern Habur-area (AE1:i85, 1:iii40). In all these examples, the mentionings of godnappings are made in unstressed and deity anonymous enumerations of booty taken on Assyrian campaigns.

Turning to the sources of this study, the foreign deities of some polities are anonymously referred to as seized by the Assyrian king after him defeat- effectuated. The textual silence in Assyrian royal inscriptions on the matter of deity replacing does he dismiss with the idea that the imposing of Assyrian deities and their cults after these godnappings was so self-evident that the scribes did not bother to mention it. He also refers to a loyalty oath of Esarhaddon for foreign polities in which it is stated that Ashur should be the god of the conquered lands from that time on,716 thus making a literal interpretation of the relevant narrative passage. Spieckermann also means that the, although seldomly expressed, narrations of the destruction of foreign cult images and sanctuaries are proofs of cult destruction and deity replacing. The installing of the “weapon of Ashur” (kakki Aššur),717 and some remarks in the Old Testament regarding changes of cult in Judah, allegedly under Assyrian pressure, are also highlighted in this context.718 Another, and perhaps more subtle, version of these ideas on Assyrian cult imposing seems to be represented by the works of Parpola. This school of thought claims that an Assyrian monotheism, symbolized by the Assyrian sacred tree or “Tree of Life” and centred on the god Ashur, was propagated in the Ancient Near East by the Assyrian kings,719 notably by the means of peripheral monuments such as stelae, and by translations of Assyrian royal inscriptions into Aramaic, the everyday language in Sargonid times.720 This approach in other words also sees an, although different, i.e. more peaceful, fully deliberate religious imposing. The general lack of clear and explicit proofs of a, here tree-based, mission seems this time to be explained by the nature of the message, i.e. mystical and therefore not subjected to writing. Orientalistic and anachronistic portrayals721 of the Assyrians as zealously imposing worship of Ashur on all conquered lands have been discredited and refuted by later examinations of the sources.722 By means of an argumentation in which a different set of sources are used, in which a different interpretation, often more figurative than literal, of the sources brought up above

is made, and by highlighting the general silence on cult imposings in the primary sources, Assyrian and foreign, conclusions have been reached that the Neo-Assyrian kings did not interfere in the cult of e.g. Yahweh,723 and that the god Ashur was not forced upon the conquered territories or on Babylonia. 724 Moreover, Assyrian monarchs gave offerings and votive objects to the crossregional and non-Assyrian cult centres in Musasir and Kumme.725 Dalley goes so far as to claim that “religious tolerance is a particular hallmark of Assyrian control”.726 This attitude is not unique for the Assyrians though. Robertson notes the lack of religious difference as a source of societal tensions in Mesopotamia. He claims that “Ancient Near Eastern societies seems conspicious in the almost complete absence of such tensions”.727 The Assyrians were not any Crusaders, but simply applied an essentially political imperialism drawn from a theocentric world view.728

The phenomenon of godnapping is especially focused on in the debate on Assyrian “religious imperialism”. According to Cogan, this act gave the foreign deities the status of guests, not of captives or trophies. The local cults continued, and a returning of the divine cult statue took place in the event of political subordination. Assyrian royal inscriptions clearly express the idea that the victories of the Assyrian army were due to the support both of the Mesopotamian and foreign deities in which the latter had abandoned his/her worshippers and subordinated him/herself under Ashur.729 On the same note, Holloway argues that the Assyrian kings had a pragmatic view regarding the spreading of Ashur’s dominion over the world and on this god’s claim of world rulership. Godnapping was not thought of as iconoclastically motivated plunder, and the support of local cults is well attested and was used as a political means to gain support from the local elites and thereby consolidate the Assyrian empire.730 As convincingly argued both by Holloway and Bahrani, the seizure of cult statues was not regarded as barbaric plunder, but rather viewed upon as psychological warfare whereby the enemy’s source of divine support was perceived of as being taken.731 The seized deities were in fact treated with respect, and their powers were duly recognized.732

Turning to the sources of this study, the foreign deities of some polities are anonymously referred to as seized by the Assyrian king after him defeat-

ing a resisting foreign ruler.733 Occasionally the information that these deities then were brought to Assyria is added (e.g. SE6:ii7-9). These acts of godnapping are not stressed but rather mentioned in long enumerations of booty. Shalmaneser III narrates in several of his inscriptions that he deported the hostile ruler Ahuni of Bit-Adini along with his troops, court, and deities (e.g. SE6:ii7-9). He also claims to have deported the deities, along with the enemy ruler’s palace women, of the Kassite, south-eastern polity of Namri (e.g. SE6:iv18-21). Just as little, Ashurnasirpal II certainly does not stress the act of godnapping in his texts. He just briefly mentions that he brought away the deities of two different kings, along with women and captives, of the southern Habur-area (AE1:i85, 1:iii40). In all these examples, the mentionings of godnappings are made in unstressed and deity anonymous enumerations of booty taken on Assyrian campaigns.

An alternative action when confronted by the foreign deities and their temples could be to destroy and plunder. The former action is seldomly mentioned in Assyrian royal inscriptions,734 while the latter one is occasionally referred to. Again, interpretations of iconoclasm should probably be avoided. As put by van der Spek, when the Assyrian kings occasionally destroyed or plundered foreign temples, they did not do this because of a religious agenda, but as giving a message of the fatal consequences of resistance, or simply out of a practical and pragmatic urge for material resources.735 Similarly, Holloway argues that the destruction and plundering of foreign sacred areas and images were meant to send political messages rather than to display religious zeal. The seemingly sacrilegious acts were simply targeted at those who “chose the path of political resistance or rebellion”.736

Neither the smashing of foreign cult images nor the destruction of temples belonging to foreign deities are mentioned in the texts of the two kings. The narrations that the king plundered the temples, along with the palaces, of the defeated foreign polity are however occasionally attested. Ashurnasirpal II claims to have brought out the treasures, including the deities, of the temple of the rebellious ruler of Bit-Halupe (AE1:i83-89). As for Shalmaneser III, a small cylinder bearing a short text which states that the object in question is booty taken from the temple of the Syrian deity Sheru of Malaha to Assur, may also be understood in this context (SE92:1-2).

As for the above discussed narrative passage in the loyalty oath of Esarhaddon, used as evidence by those scholars who see an intolerant religious zeal, a more figurative reading of it seems more appropriate, especially in the light of the circumstance that possible proofs of cult imposing are on the whole scarce.741 In addition, the relevant text is from the Late Neo- Assyrian period. The fragmentary loyalty oath from the time of Ashurnasirpal II (AE174) does not carry a similar expression. As noted by Dalley, Assyrian vassals swore their loyalty oaths both by their own and Assyrian deities, without any substantial religious imposings attached.742

Lastly, the allusions to Judean cultic reforms under Assyrian pressure during the reign of Manasseh have, as stated, been dissected and convincingly refuted by the biblical scholars of Cogan and McKay. As for ancient Assyria and the other and northern Hebrew land, Shalmaneser III does only mention (SE88, e.g. 16:134´-35´) and illustrate tribute and submission in his representations of his dealings with the Israelite ruler Jehu. As for the scene on the Black Obelisk (SI11:A2), the prostrating Jehu arguably shows his humility towards the king and not to the divine emblems in mid-air.

The textual silence regarding alleged Assyrian cult imposing is, to my mind, a decisive argument in favour of identifying a more pragmatic and

tolerant Assyrian “religious imperialism”.743 As noted by Frahm, this general silence does not only characterize Assyrian sources, but also the Old Testament and the Graeco-Roman ones. He e.g. notes that the god Ashur is not even or barely mentioned in the named foreign sources.744 If the Assyrian kings really sought to impose the worship of Ashur on conquered lands and people this would surely have been traumatically discussed in the sources of the defeated. Textual silence is of course always problematic to use as evidence, but it is in my view much more plausible to use it here than in the arguably more speculative cases of Spieckermann and Parpola.745

Direct attestations of the Assyrian king as the protector and priest of foreign deities may constitute the final blow for the argumentation of those who see a zealous, Assyrian religious imperialism. As noted by Cogan, the Assyrian kings often sponsored the cults of foreign deities, presumably in the hope of gaining support from the foreign people and their deities.746 Similarly, Holloway refers to the practice of Assyrian kings as protecting and promoting cultic activitites such as temple building in honour of foreign deities as a way of ensuring imperial stability.747

Six foreign deities are explicitly referred to in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III.748 Regarding these, it is sometimes indicated that the priesthood duties of the Assyrian king were not limited to the Mesopotamian deities. In this role, the king calls Amurru and Hallasua “his lord(s)” (bēlšu) (SE97:1, 119:2 resp.).749 Shalmaneser III presents offerings to e.g. Adad of Aleppo and Zaban (SE2:ii87, 5:iv2-3 resp.). Although being two manifestations of the “Mesopotamian” storm god Adad, these deities nevertheless had their bases in foreign territory, and surely displayed some divergences due to their outside locality. The same monarch also dedicated cult objects to foreign deities: Amurru was given a stone mace head (SE97), and the Tigris-source deity Hallasua was given a precious stone (SE119).750 Moreover, a text on two bricks from Assur states that Shalmaneser III commissioned a golden statue of the Phoenician god Armada of Arwad (SE55:4-6).751 As for the performance of rituals to foreign deities, the site of the Tigris-source has been interpreted as a natural sanctuary related to the Kumarbi-myth and the cult of a Hurrian deity.752 Due to its function, the river source in question also had the status of “holy waters”.753 Shalmaneser III’s rituals at this same site may be seen in this light. In conclusion, Shalmaneser III occasionally presented himself as the priest to the foreign deities as well. Ashurnasirpal II does to a lesser degree refer to relationships with foreign deities, although the western god Dagan is referred to in his common royal epithet “beloved of Anu and Dagan” (e.g. AE1:i10-11).754 The other foreign deity who is actually named is Samnuha, the god of his provincial governor Mushezib-Ninurta (AE150:3). The king does however mention the creating of royal images at the source of the river Subnat, in analogy a holy site too, (AE1:i104-5) as well as on an ēqu-mountain in a probably foreign city (AE1:i68-69). The ēqu of a building was regarded as the holy of the holiest, and basically referred to a cult object or to the temple cella of a particular goddess.755 The acknowledging of a foreign city or temple area as holy reveals a respectful attitude on the part of the king. In sum, examples of the Assyrian king honouring foreign deities are frequent, and express the tolerant nature of Assyrian religious imperialism.756