Ethnicity in The Assyrian Empire A View

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 33

Offprint From:

Literature as Politics,
Politics as Literature
Essays on the Ancient Near East
in Honor of Peter Machinist

Edited by
David S. Vanderhooft and Abraham Winitzer

Winona Lake, Indiana


Eisenbrauns
2013
© 2013 by Eisenbrauns Inc.
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America

www.eisenbrauns.com

This publication is made possible in part by support from


the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts,
College of Arts and Letters,
University of Notre Dame,
and from
the Office of the Provost and Dean of Faculties,
Boston College.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Literature as politics, politics as literature : essays on the ancient Near


East in honor of Peter Machinist / edited by David S. Vanderhooft
and Abraham Winitzer.
   pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-57506-272-3 (hardback : alk. paper)
1.  Middle East—Civilization—To 622.  2.  Middle East—
Literatures—History and criticism.  3.  Bible—Criticism and
interpretation.  4.  Bible—History of Biblical events.  5.  Bible—
History of contempory events.  I.  Vanderhooft, David Stephen,
editor of compilation.  II.  Winitzer, Abraham, editor of
compilation.  III. Machinist, Peter, honouree.
DS57.L547 2013
939.4—dc23
                     2013033823

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the Ameri-
can National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed
Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984. ♾ ™
Contents

Peter Machinist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  ix


David S. Vanderhooft and Abraham Winitzer
Bibliography of Peter Machinist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Fearful Symmetry: The Poetics, Genre, and Form
of Lines 109–118, Tablet I in the Poem of Erra . . . . . . . . . . .  1
Yoram Cohen
Menahem’s Reign Before the Assyrian Invasion
(2 Kings 15:14–16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Peter Dubovský
Ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire: A View from the Nisbe, (I):
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Frederick Mario Fales
David and the Ark: A Jerusalem Festival
Reflected in Royal Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Daniel E. Fleming
Creation and the Divine Spirit in Babel and Bible:
Reflections on mummu in Enūma eliš I 4 and rûaḥ in Genesis 1:2 . . 97
Eckart Frahm
Niṣirti bārûti: une autre approche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Jean-Jacques Glassner
NB Administrative Terminology and Its Influence in
Biblical Literature: Hebrew ‫ ארחה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Ronnie Goldstein
Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Literatures:
A General Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
William W. Hallo
Between Elective Autocracy and Democracy:
Formalizing Biblical Constitutional Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Baruch Halpern

v
vi Contents

Prosperity and Kingship in Psalms and Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . 185


Mark W. Hamilton
Redactors, Rationalists, and (Bloodied) Rivers:
Some Comments on the First Biblical Plague . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
John R. Huddlestun
“An Heir Created by Aššur”: Literary Observations on the
Rassam Prism (A) of Ashurbanipal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Victor Avigdor Hurowitz*
Literary-Political Motifs in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions:
Measuring Continuity versus Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Mario Liverani
Of Bears and Men: Thoughts on the End of Šulgi’s Reign
and on the Ensuing Succession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Piotr Michalowski
A Hidden Anti-David Polemic in 2 Samuel 6:2 . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Nadav Naʾaman
The Prophet and the Augur at Tušḫan, 611 b.c. . . . . . . . . . . 329
Martti Nissinen
Assyria and Judean Identity: Beyond the
Religionsgeschichtliche Schule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Eckart Otto
Psalm 22:16 and Its Sumerian and Akkadian Analogues . . . . . . . 349
Shalom M. Paul
Do Ideas Travel Lightly?: Early Greek Concepts of Justice
in Their Mediterranean Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Kurt A. Raaflaub
The Rod that Smote Philistia: Isaiah 14:28–32 . . . . . . . . . . . 381
J. J. M. Roberts
Errant Oxen Or: The Goring Ox Redux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
Martha T. Roth
Jephthah: Chutzpah and Overreach in a Hebrew Judge. . . . . . . 405
Jack M. Sasson
The Remembrance of Kings Past:
The Persona of King Ibbi-Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
T. M. Sharlach
Contents vii

Hittite Gods in Egyptian Attire:


A Case Study in Cultural Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
Itamar Singer*
How Did Šulgi and Išbi-Erra Ascend to Heaven? . . . . . . . . . . 459
Piotr Steinkeller
“War Crimes” in Amos’s Oracles Against the Nations
(Amos 1:3–2:3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
Nili Wazana
Grammar and Context: Enki & Ninhursag ll. 1–3 and a
Rare Sumerian Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
Christopher Woods
Towards a Biography of Kish:
Notes on Urbanism and Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527
Norman Yoffee
Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
Offprint from:
Vanderhooft and Winitzer eds., Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature:
Essays on the Ancient Near East in Honor of Peter Machinist
© Copyright 2013 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire:


A View from the Nisbe
(I): Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities

Frederick Mario Fales

1. Introduction

Ethnicity is, in present-day anthropological terms, a highly flexible no-


tion along both geographical and historical axes, involving the pinpoint-
ing of group identities and/or differentiations on the basis of mutual con-
tact, as are observed from the protagonist’s viewpoint or from that of
the surrounding social order. 1 Such identities “are essentially defined by
self-ascription and ascription by others, a sheer mechanism of inclusion
Author’s note:  A preliminary version of this essay originally was presented in oral form
at the XLVIII Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Leiden (July, 2002) devoted
to the theme “Ethnicity in Mesopotamia,” many papers of which were published in
W. van Soldt and R. Kalvelagen, eds., Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia: Papers Read at
the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 1–4 July 2002 (Leiden: NINO,
2005). In hindsight, I consider my choice not to publish in the conference proceedings
as felicitous, because the subject matter of this essay has received unexpected accretions
in the intervening years, and also because it happens to touch upon some of Peter Ma-
chinist’s pet historical themes. Thus I hope that the present contribution on the theme
of the nisbe in NA “everyday” texts may be fitting for this volume, in which we are given
the possibility to fete Peter for his wide-ranging scholarly interests and his successful
academic career. My only regret is that, in the course of this writing, the subject matter
expanded to such an extent as to require—for reasons of allotted space—a subdivision
into two separate articles, of which this is the first. But this is, in a way, your fault, Peter.
1.  Single general bibliographies on the subject of ethnicity are at present almost
impossible to come by, given the enormous expansion of this veritable galaxy of studies,
with branches regarding all main geographical areas (emerging nations, the West, the
Far East, etc.), questions of gender and other physical markers, post-colonial theory,
etc., and specific issues which mark the contemporary world (for example, studies on
ethnicity within recent migratory phenomena, on ethnicity and globalization, etc.).
See S. Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Pres-
ent (London: Routledge, 1997) 51–65, for a presentation of the development of the
concept/use of ethnicity from the 1960s onward.

47
48 Frederick Mario Fales

and exclusion”; the only actual “rule” is that of a self-established boundary


separating the group from other groupings of the same order, “regardless
of any cultural traits or patterns of behavior that may from time to time
be seen as characteristic for the members of the group” on the part of
the outside observer. 2 Still, the study of ethnicity frequently demands an
uncertain balancing act between the competing notions of genetic back-
ground—which, of course, formed the backbone of the traditional idea of
ethnos—and cultural buildup. 3
Not surprisingly, the concept of ethnicity appears to have acquired ma-
jor relevance for social studies during the last decades, especially in relation
to the recent phenomenon of worldwide mass migration and to the ensu-
ing problems of multiple collective integration in specific local, national, or
globalized environments. But these same events have instigated renewed
reflection on ethnicity also on the part of the “receiving” communities,
with an eye to the historical formation of their own particular identities,
and in view of the possibilities, ways, and overall convenience of preserv-
ing such identities in the future, and/or assimilating others to them. 4
Thus it may be stated, in very general terms, that ethnicity represents
a pivotal conceptual and problematic focus of the present day and age, al-
though it is unfortunately unbeknownst to many politicians or media gu-
rus who converse loosely on these issues and who invoke the “objective”
traits of language, customs, religion, mode of subsistence, and territorial
contiguity as alleged markers of sameness or difference—whereas in point
of fact these features are neither all, nor always, nor even necessarily per
se, markers of ethnicity. Certainly, in the higher reaches of learning, the
concept of ethnicity appears to have elicited an array of studies and inter-
pretations permeating social and ethno-anthropological studies in their

2.  See N. Luraghi, The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 7, partially quoting the introduction
by F. Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Dif-
ference (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969) 9–38 (and esp. 17–19). On Barth’s innovative
views of ethnicity, and on their influence on subsequent studies and methodological
trends, see S. Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity, and the critical-historical evaluation
by U. Fabietti, L’identità etnica: Storia e critica di un concetto equivoco (Rome: Carocci,
1998) 95–104.
3.  This dualism, which still today lies at the heart of ethnicity studies, is succinctly
but clearly presented through the parallel quote of contrasting definitions of ethnicity
by M. Roaf, “Ethnicity and Near Eastern Archaeology: The Limits of Inference,” in
Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia, 307–8.
4.  See, e.g., E. P. Kaufmann, ed., Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority Groups and Dom-
inant Minorities (London: Routledge, 2004), a useful conference volume regarding a
number of present-day case studies in this perspective.
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 49

entirety. This has begun to filter from the post-colonial horizon into that
of historical studies, not excluding those concerning antiquity, with inter-
esting applications and innovative results, especially due to the diachronic
perspective on the formation of identities and differences that the ancient
textual, and also archaeological, records have to offer. 5
In this light, it is of obvious interest for Assyriologists and historians
of the ancient Near East to single out specific markers of identities and
differentiations among individuals or communities within the domain of
written or iconographic evidence. These markers—as is widely acknowl-
edged—allow us to derive some guidelines for an in-depth historical pic-
ture of the concepts of uniqueness or diversity within the ancient Near
Eastern record, according to the specific chronological and geographical
contexts under examination. 6 For the time being, possible markers of eth-
nicity within Mesopotamian cultures of the third and early second millen-
nia b.c. have attracted the wide majority of scholarly efforts, 7 while much
less attention has been hitherto devoted to the Late Bronze and Early
Iron Ages. 8 The present study thus wishes to address some of the issues

5.  A good example of recent debate concerning the complex issues of detecting
ethnic identities in antiquity, as regards both the textual and the material/archaeolog-
ical record, may be found in the papers assembled by T. Derks and N. Roymans, eds.,
Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition (Amsterdam: Amster-
dam University Press, 2009).
6.  See the wide-ranging presentation of this subject matter in G. van Driel, “Eth-
nicity, How to Cope with the Subject,” in Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia, 1–10.
7.  See especially K. A. Kamp and N. Yoffee, “Ethnicity in Ancient Western Asia
During the Early Second Millennium b.c.,” BASOR 237 (1985) 85–104; G. Ember-
ling and N. Yoffee, “Thinking about Ethnicity in Mesopotamian Archaeology and His-
tory,” in Fluchtpunkt Uruk: Archäologische Einheit aus methodischer Vielfalt: Schriften
für Hans Jörg Nissen (ed. H. Kühne, R. Bernbeck, and K. Bartl; Rahden: Leidorf,
1999) 272–81.
8.  See, e.g., S. Jakob, “Zwischen Integration und Ausgrenzung: Nichtassyrer in
mittelassyrischen ‚Westreich‘,” in Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia, 180–88, for non-
Assyrian ethnicities in the western region of the Middle Assyrian empire, also on the
basis of “Herkunftsappelative,” i.e., the nisbe and other similar markers. The classifica-
tion of the numerous ethnic minorities in Kassite Babylonia by L. Sassmannshausen
(Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit [Mainz: von
Zabern, 2001] 130–51) is, instead, slightly muddled, due to the use of many paral-
lel criteria for identification—not all of which have the same cogency. See the critical
remarks by J. A. Brinkman (“Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS
124 [2004]: 283–304), although it must be noted that Brinkman himself espouses an
“objective” concept of ethnicity which is far removed from the criteria of present-day
anthropology (see, for example, pp. 284–85). Finally, for a later period than the one
dealt with here, the contribution by R. J. van der Spek (“Ethnic Segregation in Hel-
lenistic Babylon,” in Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia, 393–408) may be singled out
50 Frederick Mario Fales

concerning ethnicity and its markers within what was perhaps the largest
“melting pot” that the ancient Near East created during its history: the
Neo-Assyrian empire.

*  *  *
The last or imperial phase of Assyrian history (ninth-seventh centuries
b.c.) represents a unique observation point for the study of the mecha-
nisms of ethnicity in an ancient Near Eastern context. This is especially
true since one may nowadays view this period in its geographical vastness
and administrative complexity not only through the official utterances of
Assyrian kingship, but also through many “everyday” texts of adminis-
trative practice, deriving from the archives of Nineveh, Kalhu/Nimrud,
Assur, and other sites, available in reliable editions and translations. 9 In
a general view, the hustle and bustle of humanity in its different “hues”
of ethnicity within Assyrian cities and the outlying countryside may be
detected in a series of administrative inventories detailing specific profes-
sional groups of men and women; this forms the backdrop to the lists of
witnesses in the many hundreds of legal documents from this age. It may
be further detailed in depth through lists of palatial personnel drawn up
within loyalty oaths or queries to the sun god Šamaš on matters of fealty
to the crown. The great variety of ethnic identities that marked the popu-
lation of the Assyrian empire, which derived from military conquests and
planned displacements, may be gauged in particular through two essen-
tial markers: personal names in a linguistic perspective, and the “labels”
of geographic/ethnic provenience that were attached to individuals or
groups within the written documentation.
As material for an evaluation of ethnicity in the Neo-Assyrian empire,
personal names have hitherto occupied center stage, especially in connec-
tion with a historical-geographical evaluation of the relevant attestations.
In particular, the two factors of (a) the linguistic-cultural affiliation of the
PNs (on the basis of the etymologies of their verbal/nominal components
and of the known cultic backgrounds of the gods therein invoked), and

as a successful application of the Barthian approach to ethnicity as regards an ancient


social context (the paper is reproduced with almost no changes in Derks and Roymans,
Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity, 101–16).
9.  For the published volumes of the State Archives of Assyria (SAA), see the Hel-
sinki web site http://www.helsinki.fi/science/saa/publicat.html (accessed August 22,
2012). For the volumes presently available on the Web, see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/
sargon/royalcorrespondence/, http://knp.prs.heacademy.ac.uk/lettersqueriesandre� -
ports/ (accessed August 22, 2012).
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 51

(b) the spatial localization of the bearers (as may be deduced from out-
right textual indications or contextual clues), have been used to derive a
number of historical “snapshots”; these have pinpointed either the ulti-
mate origins of some population groups and their distribution throughout
Assyria or, vice versa, the composite ethnicities that shared specific areas. 10
This vast onomastic material has thus given rise to a general sociolinguistic
image of the heartland of the Assyrian empire as formed in the eighth and
seventh centuries b.c. by a vast assortment of peoples of different heri-
tage—from all over western Asia, as well as from Egypt, the Arabian
peninsula, the Iranian plateau, and the eastern Mediterranean—albeit
through different incoming “waves.” In-depth evaluations of Neo-Assyr-
ian administrative and legal documents on the basis of personal names
further indicate that these peoples were either (a) allowed to reside in a
mutual (and basically unrestrained) admixture within the main cities of
the empire itself, or, to the contrary (b) organized in compact “islands” of
single ethnicities in urban or rural milieus, due to specific circumstances,
whether social (as in the case of tribal groups) or political (e.g., the forced
resettlement of entire communities of foreign deportees).

*  *  *

Although there is still much to do in the area of onomastics as markers


of ethnicity, 11 I have chosen on this occasion to focus on the alternative

10.  See, e.g., F. M. Fales, “On Aramaic Onomastics in the Neo-Assyrian Period,”
OA 16 (1977) 41–68; idem, “West Semitic Names in the Assyrian Empire: Diffusion
and Social Relevance,” SEL 8 (1991) 99–117; idem, “West Semitic Names in the Šeḫ
Ḥamad Texts,” SAAB 7 (1993) 139–50; E. Lipiński, The Arameans: Their Ancient His-
tory, Culture, Religion (OLA 100; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), and also many other works
by Lipi´nski; R. Zadok, On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaeme-
nian Periods: An Onomastic Study (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1978); idem,
“Arabians in Mesopotamia during the Late-Assyrian, Chaldean, Achaemenian and Hel-
lenistic Periods,” ZDMG 131 (1991) 42–84; idem, “The Ethno-Linguistic Character of
the Jezireh and Adjacent Regions in the 9th–7th Centuries,” in Neo-Assyrian Geography
(ed. M. Liverani; Rome: University of Rome, 1995) 217–82; idem, The Ethno-linguistic
Character of Northwestern Iran and Kurdistan in the Neo-Assyrian Period (Tel Aviv:
Archaeological Center Publications, 2002).
11.  There remain many attendant methodological problems in this respect as well.
Indeed, it needs to be recalled—even only in passing—that the study of onomastics in
the framework of ethnicity is generally far from foolproof, and shows specific pitfalls
when applied to linguistic-cultural contexts that are only available to us in written form.
In a nutshell, I would point out the following issues: (1) the PN reflects cultural param-
eters of the parents of the bearer, not of the bearer himself, and thus only the study of
family onomastics in a sequential-generational light (i.e., with case studies that are not
52 Frederick Mario Fales

area of “Ethnic-Group terms” as identifiers of ethnicity within the Neo-


Assyrian empire. 12 In particular, I will concentrate on toponyms, ethno-
nyms, and other locational terms in the Assyrian written record to which
the ending commonly known as “gentilic” was applied. Virtually all Se-
mitic languages employ the suffix of relation or pertinence, i.e., the so-
called nisbe (Arab. an-nisba), as an afformative for nouns. In Akkadian,
this ending has the form -āy/-āyum, and its use is restricted, following von
Soden, 13 to the indication of “Völker- und Einwohnerbezeichnungen.”
Not attested before Old Babylonian, and here only at Mari, the Akkadian
nisbe was surmised by von Soden to be of West Semitic origin, where it was
undoubtedly very productive. Alongside it one also finds the traditional
Akkadian ending -ī/-īum, which is of strictly adjectival use (thus taking
on full declension), and which shows a semantical range extending beyond
the mere indication of peoples and inhabitants of specific places, to mark
a wider “belonging” of the subject to a specific structure, profession, or
something else. 14
frequent to come by in the documentation) may lead to some conclusion regarding the
continuity/discontinuity of this-or-that ethnicity marker; (2) the divine names which
are invoked in the PNs represent only in few, and very specific, cases (e.g., Yahwistic
names of deportees: see, for example, Fales, “West Semitic Names in the Šeḫ Ḥamad
Texts”) acceptable clues for the detection of elements of ethnicity, and are most often,
to the contrary, open either to more than one conclusion or to none at all; (3) the
purely linguistic elements of the PN may be at times useful for pinpointing the existence
of a specific ethnic identity vis-à-vis others (e.g., the Amorite PNs in Ur III society and
at Mari; the West Semitic PNs in NA sources, albeit with some difficulty in further lin-
guistic subdivisions, such as Canaanite vs. Aramaic), but this result may only be attained
after an extensive “decoding” of the way the written record represented these PNs (see
Fales, “On Aramaic Onomastics”), and any deduction regarding the presence of this or
that identity in a statistical or geographical light should be presented with the utmost
caution (see, for example, Fales, “West Semitic Names in the Assyrian Empire”).
12. See S. Nuccetelli, “Reference and Ethnic-Group Terms,” Inquiry 47 (2004)
1–17, for this terminology.
13.  GAG §56p.
14.  GAG §56q. These two endings were considered parts of the same “family” of
afformatives (as -iyy, -ayy, -awi) in traditional Comparative Semitics (see, e.g., J. Barth,
Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen [Leipzig: Hinrich, 1894] 369–75).
For the aims of this paper, it may suffice to note that, at least as regards Neo-Assyrian,
there would seem to be a certain overlap between them, insofar as (a) the first of the
two, written -a-a in Neo-Assyrian (and to be transcribed as -āya according to K. Deller
or -ay following S. Parpola), although mainly indeclinable, presents some interesting
exceptions, such as e.g. LÚ.Ku-ma-a-a-e (see J. Hämeen-Anttila, A Sketch of Neo-As-
syrian Grammar [SAAS 13; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000] 84);
while (b) the second appears productive only in the feminine, which has the expected
form in the singular (e.g. armītu) but something of a hybrid form in the plural (MÍ.
ár-ma-a-a-te).
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 53

For our present purposes it may be noted that the nisbe presents a basic
advantage over personal names in that it represents an explicit identifier
in terms of ethnicity, rudimentary though it may be, whereas onomastics,
as stated above, only allow ethnicity to be deduced. On the other hand, it
is obvious that the attestation of a nisbe cannot be considered automatic
proof of the actual, and “live,” historical existence of this-or-that ethnicity
on the scenario of the chosen documentation; rather, this merely offers the
subjective and occasional perception and communication of that ethnicity. 15
To give just one example of the challenges this raises, we may consider
the archaizing or generalizing identity markers. As in other cultures from
antiquity, these could be employed by the cuneiform scribes especially to
denote foreign and “remote” population groups; we sometimes find these
markers recorded in the very same contexts as other, much more clearly
and immediately meaningful, nisbe designations. 16
In sum, therefore, the range and extent to which the nisbe was ap-
plied to different locational and social entities attested in the documen-
tation of the Neo-Assyrian period requires a series of in-depth contextual
evaluations, from which we should not, in any case, expect to draw an
“objective” historical picture of the jigsaw puzzle of the ethnicities that
formed the Assyrian empire. What we may draw, instead, is a tentative

15.  Possibly the first scholar of allied fields to use the nisbe, drawn from a specific
Oriental linguistic-cultural milieu (Moroccan Arabic), to focus on matters pertaining to
ethnicity was the anthropologist Clifford Geertz (“‚From the Natives’ Point of View‘:
On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding,” Bulletin of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences 28/1 [1974] 26–45). Geertz utilized the concept of nisbe (in Ara-
bic, nisba) to explain how Moroccan culture defined the person. He noted that, at the
highest level, a nisba is an identifier that associated a person with a specific community,
location, or ethnicity. Yet the invoked nisba seems to be a matter of reference frame;
different nisba s may be employed appropriately by dissimilar people within similar loca-
tions. In short, the nisba would seem to create “a framework within which persons can
be identified in terms of supposedly immanent characteristics” (ibid., 42) and at the
same time, to minimize the impact of those characteristics in shaping practical relations
and in how the self sees and describes itself pragmatically within Moroccan culture.
16.  The culture of ancient Mesopotamia presents a number of monikers for foreign
peoples that owe more to traditions handed down over the centuries and/or to their
ideological actualizations, than to any concrete connection with observed realities and
to the commonly used (or “native”) identifiers of the relevant communities. A good
case in point—well investigated in a recent study—is that of the ethnonym Ummān-
manda (of uncertain meaning), which goes back to the so-called Cuthean Legend
of Naram-Sin, at least beginning with the late-second millennium re-elaborations of
this text, and which was applied to the Gimirrāya/Cimmerians in NA texts and to
the Medes in NB texts (S. F. Adalı, The Scourge of God: The Umman-manda and Its
Significance in the First Millennium bc [SAAS 20; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project, 2011]).
54 Frederick Mario Fales

historical-anthropological framework on how the dominating level of


Assyrian society (from which our surviving documentation on Assyria de-
rives) perceived the existence of “others,” whether living beyond its bor-
ders or interspersed in its very midst—per se and especially vis-à-vis its
self-identification. 17 I believe that particularly fruitful results in this sense
may be attained by looking beyond the confines of the official inscriptions
of the Assyrian kings, and concentrating, instead, on the nisbe s attested
in a more haphazard manner in the “everyday” documents of Assyrian
administration. 18
This particular approach to the problem of ethnicity and to its applica-
tion as a historical tool has, in point of fact, few forerunners in the specific
field of research on the Assyrian empire. While straightforward historical
descriptions of the ethnic components of Mesopotamian society (e.g.,
Arameans, Chaldeans, Elamites, Arabs, etc.) in the first millennium b.c.
are certainly not lacking, and at times are remarkable for their depth and
detail, 19 hitherto little has been done in the area of the subjective percep-
17.  The opposite situation, i.e., that of how the “others” perceived the Assyrians,
is unfortunately largely lost, due to the lack of “everyday” documents written by the
neighboring or subjected peoples; at most, we find official utterances (in Aramaic, Lu-
wian, Urartian, etc.) that present fleeting and stereotypical political views on the Assyr-
ian Empire, which are of no real use from the standpoint of this study. Somewhat more
satisfactory, as is well known, is the biblical record: here P. Machinist (“Assyria and Its
Image in the First Isaiah,” JAOS 103 [1983] 719–37) represents a landmark contribu-
tion on how Assyria was perceived in Isaiah’s prophetic utterances—although the results
are, again, more useful in the field of comparative political discourse than in the lower
reaches of judgments on Assyrian ethnicity.
18.  Thus the nisbe markers attested in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (henceforth:
ARI) will be taken into account only for extremely limited comparative purposes. For
their use concerning “Assyrians,” see P. Machinist, “Assyrians on Assyria in the First
Millennium bc,” in Anfänge politischen Denkens in der Antike: Die nahostlichen Kul-
turen und die Griechen (eds. K. Raaflaub and E. Müller-Luckner; Munich: Oldenbourg,
1993) 82 and passim. For the use of the nisbe as one of the means to designate foreign
rulers in the ARI (an alternative to šarru, šakin māti, mār + PN, and bēl āli, depend-
ing on the periods and the areas of application), see most recently G. Lanfranchi, “The
Assyrian Expansion in the Zagros and the Local Ruling Elites,” in Continuity of Em-
pire(?): Assyria, Media, Persia (eds. G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, and R. Rollinger; Padua:
S.A.R.G.O.N., 2003) 93–94.
19.  See, e.g., the informative chapters on the Arameans, Chaldeans, and Kassites
in Babylonia in J. A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722
b.c. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968); D. O. Edzard, “Kaldu,” RlA 5:291–97;
G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 b.c.: A Po l it ic al Hist o ry (PIHANS 69; Istanbul: NINO,
1992); S. W. Cole, Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, c. 755–612 bc (SAAS 4; Helsinki:
Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1996); for the Arameans in general, see Lipiński,
Arameans. For the Arabs in Mesopotamia, see I. Ephʿal, The Ancient Arabs: Nomads
on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent, 9th-5th Centuries b.c. (Jerusalem: Magnes/Leiden:
Brill, 1982).
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 55

tion of ethnicity in the Assyrian written record—with the exception of


attempts concerning the gentilic Aššurāy(a) “Assyrian” itself. 20
How, then, is one to proceed factually in an evaluation of the nisbe? It
is immediately apparent that a comprehensive itemization of the attesta-
tions of the gentilic marker in Neo-Assyrian texts has only limited poten-
tial for historical purposes. 21 As already implied, the nisbe was employed
frequently, especially for a certain variety of ethno-social descriptions; but
in fact it was not employed in all conceivable cases, and at times yielded
ground to other indications of provenience or belonging (e.g., through
the expression[s] LÚ/DUMU KUR/URU, followed by a place name
{GN}, “man of/son of/citizen of the region/town {GN}”). In brief, to
understand just when, why, and how it was employed, it is advisable to eval-
uate the most explicit textual passages in which the nisbes are attested, in
the light of either what is known from other sources or what may be made
out directly from the texts in question regarding the specific historical
context portrayed. In this way, depending on whether the subject to which
the gentilic affix was applied represents a polity, city, tribe, or professional
group, and whether these were communities geographically “beyond” or
“within” the Assyrian frontiers, a situational and/or semantic grid may be
built and then brought up for discussion and verification, case by case. It
is hoped that at the end of such a process at least a rough idea of the (lato
sensu) “anthropological” thought pattern that governed the use of the
nisbe in the Neo-Assyrian context may be gained.
To this aim, it may be noted that the approximately 3,000 epistolary
texts from the “State Archives of Assyria” represent the category that
yields the richest booty in terms of attestations for the use of the nisbe,
even in a diachronic perspective; while the most meager results prove to

20. See Machinist, “Assyrians on Assyria”; S. Parpola, “National and Ethnic Iden-


tity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity in Post-Empire Times,” Journal
of Assyrian Academic Studies 18 (2004) 18 plus charts (publication in http://www.jaas.
org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.pdf; accessed August 22, 2012).
21.  I have, in point of fact, carried out this comprehensive itemization as a prelimi-
nary research venture: the essential tool for this purpose still remains S. Parpola, Neo-
Assyrian Toponyms (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Kevelaer, 1970), with its computer-generated
lists indicating the basic attestations of toponyms in every text of NA date known at
the time of publication. A refinement of the initially established grid of nisbes (yielding
some 125 separate items) was then performed on the basis of works of geographical-
historical scope published in the intervening forty years, i.e., essentially A. M. Bagg, Die
Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit (RGTC 7/1; Wiesbaden: Reichert,
2007), and, for the Neo-Babylonian evidence, R. Zadok, Geographical Names Accord-
ing to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts (RGTC 8; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1985), as well
as on the geographical indexes in the recent text editions of Neo-Assyrian “everyday”
documents.
56 Frederick Mario Fales

derive from the highly formalized and repetitive contexts of the (ono-
mastically rich) legal documents. The so-called administrative texts, i.e.,
accounts and inventories for diverse practical purposes, fall more or less
between these, but show a particularly interesting “peak” in a number of
detailed Fort Shalmaneser lists concerning the military personnel during
Sargon’s reign. Finally, important pieces of information may also be gained
from the small corpus of treaties and loyalty oaths contemporaneous with
the “everyday” texts. 22 In sum, the material regarding the use of the nisbe
in the Neo-Assyrian documents is altogether vast and varied; its range of
detail in some domains makes it an interesting functional marker of the
ethnicities that made up the Assyrian empire.

*  *  *

For reasons of space, I limit the present inquiry to an examination of


two basic uses of the nisbe: the singling out of members of polities con-
sidered to lie beyond the borders of the empire (§2), and of members
of communities that, by contrast, were part and parcel of the imperial
structure even if they enjoyed a special status owing to specific historical
circumstances and/or cultural or social characteristics (§3). 23 In a second
planned contribution on the same topic, I will deal with the nisbe as ap-
plied to semi-nomadic groupings encountered by the Assyrians, from the
limited tribal splinter groups to the vast tribal “league”—this latter topic
leading almost naturally to the vast and complex issue of the “Aramean”
ethnicity within the Assyrian empire. Finally, in a third planned essay, I will
take up again, by way of conclusion, the crucial topic of the “Assyrians,”
albeit from the specific standpoint of ethnicity markers.

2. The nisbe as indication of foreign polities

The most basic and transparent use of the nisbe in Neo-Assyrian “every-
day” documents 24 is its application to the subjects that modern bureaucra-

22.  All in all, however, the most intriguing evidence on the nisbe as a marker of
ethnicity is to be drawn from a textual category that at first sight might seem unpro-
ductive: extispicy reports, specifically the parallel lists in Cole, Nippur in Late Assyrian
Times, 139 and 142, with their variants (see F. M. Fales, L’impero assiro: Storia e am-
ministrazione, IX-VII sec. a.C. [Rome-Bari: Laterza, 2001] 59–60, 77–78, for a presen-
tation in chart form).
23.  Considerations of space also force me to limit the presentation to a number of
particularly significant case studies, although some indications on parallels to these may
be found in the footnotes.
24.  As well as the one most frequently attested in the contemporaneous ARI.
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 57

cies may dub, somewhat crudely, as “aliens,” that is, individuals or groups
whose origin or homeland lay outside the borders of the Assyrian state,
and who were subjects of a non-Assyrian territorial or political complex
(defined as such by the prefixed determinative KUR). More precisely, this
application of the nisbe within non-official documentation usually concerns
peoples who entertained political and/or economic relations with the As-
syrian empire but who were not incorporated (yet/any longer) within its
boundaries and thus were not subjected to the “inner” jurisdiction of the
provincial areas. The best-known cases thus refer to the peoples of the
Levant, of the Zagros mountain range (especially under Sargon), and of
southern Anatolia—in sum, to the populations of the outer “rim” of lands
that entered most intensely into contact with Assyrian imperial policies.
As shall be seen, however, some “ethnic-group terms” of the same type
also were applied to breeds of horses originally raised in far-off areas and
were employed to mark out particular technical specializations developed
abroad and imported into Assyria through the mechanism of deportation.
In sum, there is enough material in this particular bracket to single out a
number of historical issues underlying the use of the nisbe.

*  *  *

One of the best-known cases of the nisbe describing “alien” ethnicities


is found in the letter of the governor of Ṣimirra, Qurdi-Aššur-lāmur, to
Tiglath-pileser III concerning the monopolistic restrictions 25 imposed by
the Assyrians on the vassal/allied people of Sidon (URU.Ṣi-du-na-a-a) 26
regarding the trade of timber from Mount Lebanon:

25. On the historical-economic implications of this letter, see M. Elat, “Phoeni-


cian Overland Trade within the Mesopotamian Empires,” in Ah, Assyria: . . . Studies
in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tad-
mor (SH 33; eds. M. Cogan and I. Ephʿal; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991) 25–26; and,
more widely, M. Allen, “Power Is in the Details: Administrative Technology and the
Growth of Ancient Near Eastern Cores,” in The Historical Evolution of World-Systems
(eds. C. Chase-Dunn and E. N. Anderson; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) 84.
On Qurdi-Aššur-lāmur, see PNA 3/I 1021–22; S. Yamada, “Qurdi-Assur-lamur: His
Letters and Career,” in Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies
from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Ephʿal (eds. M. Cogan and D. Kahn;
Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008) 296–311.
26.  The particular status of the Sidonians is recalled elsewhere. For example, in a
letter from the time of Sargon: “The Sidonians (URU.Ṣi-du-na-a-a) and their chiefs
did not go to Kalhu with the Crown Prince my lord, nor are they staying in watch duty
(here) in Nineveh. They loiter in the city center, each one in the house of his compan-
ion” (S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the
West [SAA 1; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1987] 153 obv. 6–rev. 6).
58 Frederick Mario Fales

Bring down your timber, and perform work on it, but do not sell it
to the Egyptians (KUR.Mu-ṣur-a-a) or the Philistines (KUR.Pa-la-áš-
ta-a), or I shall no more allow you to go up to the mountains. 27

The case of the Philistines mentioned in this letter is worth lingering on,
since this mid-eighth-century nisbe 28 gives the second earliest attesta-
tion—and the earliest in terms of contextually clear evidence—to suggest
that the Assyrians knew and recognized a specific and distinct territorial
entity corresponding to the strip along the southern Levantine coastline
and its immediate hinterland. This same area is circumscribed by some
250 attestations in the Old Testament as occupied by the Pelešet/Pelištîm,
according to the biblical record this area was centered on the “Pentapolis”
of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gath. 29 Earlier scholarly thought
had insisted that these Philistine cities had been wiped out around around
1000 b.c., positing that the population had suffered a similar fate; how-
ever, the survival of the ethnonym in the ARI, notably in Sennacherib’s in-
scriptions, paints a completely different picture, as do the results of recent
archaeological investigations. 30
The case of Tel Miqne-Ekron, excavated from 1981 to 1996, is in-
structive in this respect. It is now accepted that the local population had
not abandoned the 50-acre fortified site it had inhabited for some three
centuries in the LB-IA 1 periods. Rather, it had merely withdrawn to the
upper tell, whence it began rebuilding and greatly expanding the urban
settlement (to some 85 acres)—especially owing to favorable industrial
and commercial policies stimulated by the Assyrians after Sennacherib’s
conquest of the Judean Shephelah. 31 In particular, the Assyrians greatly

27.  ND 2715 l.e. 1–2 (= H. W. F. Saggs, The Nimrud Letters, 1952 [CTN 5; Lon-
don: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2001] 155–58; Yamada, “Qurdi-Assur-
lamur,” 301–2). Both Saggs and J. N. Postgate (who aided Saggs extensively in his
long-awaited comprehensive edition of the Nimrud letters) translate KUR.Pa-la-áš-
ta-a as “Palestinians,” which is patently erroneous in view of the remarks given below.
28.  One in less than a handful in the “everyday” NA texts, which consistently show
the variant Pi-li-is/lis-ta-a-a; Bagg, Orts- und Gewässernamen, 189–90.
29.  The earliest evidence of Philistia (KUR.Pa-la-as-tú) appears in a summary list
of conquests of Adad-nirari III (RIMA 3 213 line 12). For the Pelešet/Pelištîm in a
historical-archaeological light, see A. E. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An
Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100
b.c. e. (Atlanta: SBL, 2005) 217–67, with ample bibliographical references.
30.  See S. Gitin, “The Philistines: Neighbors of the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Is-
raelites,” in One Hundred Years of American Archaeology in The Middle East (eds. D. H.
Clark and V. H. Matthews; Boston: ASOR, 2003) 57–87, with earlier bibliography.
31.  The majority of mentions of “the land of the Philistines” dates in point of fact,
from Sennacherib’s royal inscriptions; and it may be recalled that the “crime” of Heze-
kiah of Judah in the Assyrians’ eyes was the support he had given to the insurgents who
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 59

fostered—for their own ultimate benefit, as some silver hoards indicate—


the development of the olive oil industry, previously unknown in the city
but native to conquered Judah, and turned it into a product of a prosper-
ous international commerce, presumably directed westwards to Egypt and
North Africa. The city thrived on this activity for almost a century, until
the fall of Ekron to the Babylonians in 604. 32 The excavation of Ekron
has also yielded an alphabetic inscription of a king, son of a contemporary
to Sennacherib, who bore a non-Semitic name, celebrating a goddess un-
known elsewhere in the Near Eastern horizon, and thus possibly from the
Aegean. 33 Thus, despite a number of traits (in writing forms and some re-
ligious practices) indicating that earlier Philistine culture had given way to
a certain acculturation to Canaanite mores, 34 it may be shown that a Phil-
istine identity managed to maintain its continuum through the centuries,

had overthrown Padî, king of Ekron, actually holding the Philistine king captive in Je-
rusalem (see D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib [Chicago: Oriental Institute,
1924] 31 II 73–77). However, a letter from an officer to Sargon indicates that Philis-
tines were among the foreign (subjected/allied) populations from which the Assyrian
king had drawn armed contingents, making them part and parcel of the Assyrian army:
“The Philistines (KUR.Pi-lis-ta-a-a), whom the king my lord formed into a cohort
and gave me, refuse to stay with me; in the town of Luqaše, near Arbaʾil, they [reside]”
(Parpola, Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I, 155 obv. 4–10). It is interesting to note
that the ARI of Sargon do not mention this fact, while recalling on the other hand the
cohorts of Samarians and of other population groups drawn by the ruler (see S. M.
Dalley, “Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglathpileser III and Sargon
II,” Iraq 47 [1985] 31–48), and that no Philistines are attested in the contemporane-
ous “horse lists” from Fort Shalmaneser (S. M. Dalley and J. N. Postgate, Tablets from
Fort Shalmaneser [London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1984]). At the same
time, the place of chosen residence of the Philistine military in Assyria is close to one of
the cities (Arbaʾil) which was famed for a “city contingent” within Sargon’s army itself
(cf. §3 below).
32. See Gitin, “The Philistines,” 61–63 (esp. p. 62: “As the political and economic
superpower of its day, Assyria was the major influence in shaping the development of
the nation-states of the eastern Mediterranean basin, including Philistia”). However,
the detailed historical interpretation of the prosperity of Ekron in the seventh century
is still somewhat open to debate; a more nuanced view of events, with an emphasis
on Assyrian self-interests coming before everything else, is suggested by N. Naʾaman,
“Ekron under the Assyrian and Egyptian Empires,” BASOR 332 (2003) 87: “We may
. . . conclude that the prosperity of certain western vassals arose from the stability pro-
duced by the pax Assyriaca and from the new economic opportunities created by the
empire—rather than the result of a deliberate imperial policy of economic development
of these states.”
33.  See E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topo-
graphical Researches (OLA 153; Leuven: Peeters, 2006) 66, with previous bibliography.
34.  B. J. Stone, “The Philistines and Acculturation: Cultural Change and Ethnic
Continuity in the Iron Age,” BASOR 298 (1995) 7–32; see also Lipiński, Skirts of
Canaan, 50.
60 Frederick Mario Fales

and was recognized as such by the neighboring peoples—i.e., as distinct


from that of the Phoenicians, Judeans, Edomites, and Ammonites. In a
letter from the age of Sargon dealing with arrivals of horses (presumably
ultimately of Egyptian origin, see below) as tribute, a full-fledged political
geography of the southern Levant is provided through subsequent nisbe s,
although the Philistine territories are subjected here to a detailed break-
down by cities (Gaza, Ashdod, Ekron):
I have received 45 horses for the country. 35 The emissaries (LÚ*.MAḪ.
MEŠ) from the lands of Egypt (KUR.Mu-ṣur-a-a), Gaza (KUR.Ha-za-
ta-a-a), Judah (KUR.Ia-ú-du-a-a), Moab (KUR.Ma-ʾa-ba-a-a), and of
the “sons of Ammon” (KUR.Ba-an–Am-ma-na-a-a) entered Kalhu on
the 12th, their tributes in hand. A (further) 24 horses of (the emis-
sary) of Gaza (KUR.Ha-za-ta-a-a) were (also) available. (As for) the
Edomites (KUR.Ú-du-mu-a-a), the Ashdodites (KUR.As-du-da-a-a),
and the Ekronites (KUR.An-qar-ru-na-a-a) . . . [rest lost].

*  *  *

Moving to a different geographical horizon, that of the northeastern


frontier of Assyria, one notices a particular (and relatively frequent) use
of the nisbe to indicate the ruler of a specific foreign land, coupled with
a verb in the singular (KUR.GN-a-a, “the xxx-ean”). A good example of
this is represented by the frequent designations of the king of Urartu as
KUR.URI-a-a (=Urarṭāya) in both the royal inscriptions and “everyday”
texts—designations which have, by the way, caused some problems for
pinpointing the exact identity of the ruler(s) in question. 36 A similar case
appears in the following letter, written around 714 b.c. by Bēl-iddina, the
ruler of Allabria, to Sargon; the “Urartian” mentioned therein, possibly
Rusa I, 37 and a number of his allies (Andia, Zikirtu, Hubuškia) are simi-
larly indicated by this “royal” nisbe:

35.  Parpola, Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I, 110 rev. 4: ANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ


ša [KU]R. For the distinction between horses ša KUR, the ones which were to stay in
the country (and participate, for example, in the building activities in Dur-Šarruken),
and ša KASKAL, those which were to be used for military campaigns, see the discus-
sion in Dalley and Postgate, Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser, 204. Thus the translation
in Parpola, Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I, 92, “45 horses for the palace,” should
be amended, also because KUR = ekallu is elsewhere absent in these letters (cf. ibid.,
212b).
36.  See G. B. Lanfranchi and S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II:
Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces (SAA 5; Helsinki: Helsinki Uni-
versity Press, 1990) xv–xvi.
37.  Lanfranchi and Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II, xvii.
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 61

To the king, my lord, (from) your servant Bēl-iddina.


As to the news of the Urartian (KUR.URI-a-a), a messenger of the An-
dian (KUR.An-di-a-a) and a messenger of the Zikirtean (KUR.Zi-ki-ra-
a-a) have gone to Waisi and told him: “The king of Assyria is upon us.”
The day he saw the messengers he set out for Zikirtu, he himself with
his troops.
The Hubuškian (KUR.Ḫu-ub-ka-a-a) also went with him for five stages.
(Then) he (= the Urartian king) turned back, and ordered his magnates:
“Organize your troops. I shall array myself against the Assyrian king.”
This is from informers. (The news) regarding the arraying is (also) from
informers. 38

A number of further nisbe s relating to local rulers of the anti-Assyrian


front mark this particular epistolary corpus. Thus we find the “Šubrian,”
the “Hargean,” and the “Mannean,” while a governor of Urartu is de-
scribed as the one “adjacent to the ruler of Ukku” (qanni KUR.Ukkāya). 39
One wonders if a derogatory tone did not lie beneath the scribal use of
these nisbe s—that is, to belittle foreign rulership—also owing to the suspi-
cion that, to the contrary, rulers somehow allied with Assyria in the same
general region (for example, the above-mentioned Bēl-iddina of Allabria
or Urzana of Muṣaṣir) seem to have been entitled to mention by their
full personal name. In this light, the very presence or absence of the PN
might be taken as an implicit clue for shifts in political relations. Thus,
for example, in Lanfranchi and Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II,
Part II, 133 lines 9–10, “Yanzû, the Hubuškian” explicitly is mentioned as
bringing tribute to Sargon, whereas only the nisbe was applied to the same
king during the subsequent phase of his defection to the Urartian camp,
as noted above. 40

38.  Lanfranchi and Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II, 164. Of inter-
est in this text are the numerous idiosyncratic writings of names and nouns on the part
of the scribe, with various omissions of signs: KUR.Zi-ki-ra-a-a for *Zikirtāya (obv. 6),
KUR. Zi-ki-ti-a for *Zikirtia (obv. 15), KUR.Ḫu-ub-ka-a-a for *Ḫubus/škāya (rev. 3),
and ma-di-tu for *mardītu, “stage, lap” (rev. 4).
39.  See the indexes of place names in Parpola, Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I;
and Lanfranchi and Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II.
40.  Lanfranchi and Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II, xxii. On the
localization of Hubuškia, see G. B. Lanfranchi, “Assyrian Geography and Neo-Assyrian
Letters: The Location of Ḫubuškia Again,” in Neo-Assyrian Geography, 127–37. Indica-
tions of this type are, however, by no means limited to the Zagros area: see, for example,
in the letter of Qurdi-Aššur-lāmur quoted above, the initial clause (obv. 3–4): “Con-
cerning the ruler of the city of Tyre (URU.Ṣur-a-a), about whom the king my lord
62 Frederick Mario Fales

Finally, a somewhat exceptional case from the same area and date is
represented by the nisbe KUR.Gimirrāya. Recent scholarship has rec-
ognized unanimously that the Gimirrāya should be compared with the
Herodotean ethnonym “Cimmerians.” At present, however, the specific
linguistic-cultural identity of this population and its ultimate geographical
origin—such as may be made out through a combined “reading out” of
the Assyrian sources and Greek historiography, along with the archaeo-
logical record from Iranian, Anatolian, and even circum-Caucasian sites—
has given rise to complex and partially conflicting views. 41 Moreover, as a
mobile armed community, the Gimirrāya might rather warrant inclusion
among the nisbe s employed by the Assyrians for tribal groups. 42

*  *  *
Horses in great number represented a major requirement of the Assyr-
ian army. 43 Contrary to the idea that horses were caught consistently in the
wild and then tamed, 44 it seems preferable to assume that horses had been
foaled in Assyria over generations, since horse “corrals” are noted in legal
documents all over the empire. 45 Moreover, non-agricultural areas like the
foothills of the eastern provinces appear to have been quite suitable for
said, ‘Speak kindly to him’ . . .” (for the political implications of this clause, see F. M.
Fales, “‘To Speak Kindly to Him/Them’ as Item of Assyrian Political Discourse,” in Of
God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars: Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo
Parpola [eds. M. Luukko, S. Svärd, and R. Mattila; StOr 106; Helsinki: Finnish Orien-
tal Society, 2009] 27–40); and, from the age of Sargon, Parpola, The Correspondence of
Sargon II, Part I, 226 lines 7–10: “the ruler of the country of Suhu (KUR.Su-ḫa-a-a)
and the local people are also bringing saplings from the country of Laqê,” with refer-
ence to the semi-independent status of the Middle-Euphrates polity of Suhu.
41.  See G. B. Lanfranchi, I Cimmeri: Emergenza delle élites militari iraniche nel
Vicino Oriente (Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N., 1990); A. I. Ivantchik, Les Cimmériens au
Proche-Orient (OBO 127; Fribourg: Editions Universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1992); Adalı, Scourge of God, 107–32; K. Strobel, “‘Kimmeriersturm’ und
‘Skythenmacht’: Eine historische Fiktion?,” in Leggo! Studies Presented to Prof. Frederick
Mario Fales (eds. G. B. Lanfranchi et al.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011) 771–820.
42.  In at least one such case, the ethnonym is preceded solely by the determinative
LÚ.
43.  On the use of horses in the Assyrian armed forces, see most recently F. M. Fales,
Guerre et paix en Assyrie: Religion et impérialisme (Paris: Cerf, 2010) 117–30, with
previous bibliography.
44. K. Radner, “An Assyrian View of the Medes,” in Continuity of Empire(?), 43.
In point of fact, the custom, reported by Sargon for the Manneans, was quite extraor-
dinary; see F. Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la huitième campagne de Sargon (714
av. J.-C.) (Paris: Geuthner, 1912) 28–29, Sargon’s seventh campaign account, lines
163–75; also Dalley, “Foreign Chariotry,” 42.
45.  J. N. Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire (Studia Pohl,
series maior 3; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974) 14.
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 63

selective breeding purposes. 46 But the needs of the imperial chariotry and
cavalry were such that horses were regularly imported from abroad, either
through direct trade or as imposed tribute on allied regions (as in the case
above for horses from the Levant), at times with considerable ceremonial
paraphernalia of ideological-political value. In this light, it appears that to
a certain extent the ebb and flow of horse imports followed the vagaries
of Assyrian foreign policy. The early imports came from the plains of in-
ner Anatolia; but in the wake of Urartu’s rise as a rival force to Assyria,
Iran, and later Egypt, became ultimately the most important sources for
Assyrian horses—to the extent, that is, that these two areas gave rise to
distinctive and well-recognizable horse breeds, through the nisbe s Kusāya
and Mesāya. 47
Kusāya undoubtedly refers to the land of Kush, the name by which Up-
per Egypt and Nubia was known; horses of Egyptian origin are attested
also in the Old Testament. 48 The second species most likely originated in
Iran: the Mesay race should be tied to the region of Mēsu/Mīsu, located
by the official inscriptions of Sargon in northwestern Iran. 49 The resem-
blance of the Assyrian moniker to that of Xerxes’ “Nesaian” horses, said
by Herodotus to come from Media (Histories VII 40–41), should also be
noted, since Mēsu/Mīsu came to be considered by the Assyrians a part of
Media. A further geographical term of origin, Ḫaršāya, appears in con-
temporaneous administrative texts, 50 and may be connected to Anatolia.
Still, it should not be ruled out that Kusāya and Mesāya horses were, in
the course of time, bred as such within the confines of Assyria. If so, then
it follows that the two main nisbe s employed for these horses progressively
took on a technical meaning, referring to different physical and functional
characteristics of the relevant breeds in their domesticated state. This state
of affairs may be surmised from some forty inventories of incoming horses,
which Nabû-šumu-iddina/Nadinu, “mayor” (or inspector) of the Nabû
temple at Kalhu, had sent to Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, apparently
on a quasi-daily basis. 51 In these texts, which follow an epistolary form,

46.  Lanfranchi, “Assyrian Expansion,” 98.


47.  Radner, “Assyrian View of the Medes,” 43; Dalley, “Foreign Chariotry,” 43.
48. See Postgate, Taxation and Conscription, 11; Dalley, “Foreign Chariotry,” 43–
45; L. Heidorn, The Horses of Kush, JNES 56 (1997) 105–14, for Kush; N. Naʾaman,
Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction: Collected Essays (vol.
1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 7, for 1 Kgs 10:28.
49.  L. D. Levine, Geographical Studies in the Neo-Assyrian Zagros (Toronto: Royal
Ontario Museum, 1974) 11, 114.
50.  F. M. Fales, “Notes on Some Nineveh Horse Lists,” Assur I/3 (1974) 5–24.
51.  S. W. Cole and P. Machinist, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Priests to
Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (SAA 13; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, nos.
64 Frederick Mario Fales

the incoming groups of animals are listed in relation to their most recent
administrative area of foaling or stabling within Assyria, and are further
classified by breeds, as in the following example: 52
To the king my lord, your servant Nabû-šumu-iddina. The very best
health to the king my lord! May Nabû and Marduk bless the king my
lord!
4 Kusāya horses, from the Treasurer of the Queen Mother; [7] Mesāya
horses, trained to the yoke, the deficit from Dur-Šarrukku; [14] Mesāya
horses, trained to the yoke, 34 cavalry mounts, 2 mules—in all, 50
(equids) from Tille.
A total of 4 Kusāya horses, 21 Mesāya horses, trained to the yoke, 34
cavalry mounts, and 3 (sic!) mules: 53 horses and mules in all have come
in. The 15th day. 53

*  *  *

A final case of “alien” ethnicity indicated through the nisbe (though


yielding some open questions) regards some administrative lists of female
personnel of foreign origin, who operated and resided within the Assyrian
palace, quite surely as the product of mass deportation and subsequent
selection and redeployment. An interesting facet here is that in some cases
the personnel seem to have been specialized in various techniques or activ-
ities, and that the nisbe itself may have had connections with this special-
ization. The following inventory from Nineveh, dated to the latter part of
the reign of Esarhaddon, constitutes a good observation point. The text
starts out as follows:
36 Aramean women (MÍ.Ár-ma-a-a-te); 15 Kushite women (MÍ.Ku-
sa-a-a-te); 7 Assyrian women (MÍ.Aš-šur-a-a-te), maids [of theirs]; 4
replacements . . . ; [x+] 3 Tyrian women (MÍ.Ṣur-ra-a-a-te); [n] Kassite
women (MÍ.Kaš-šá-a-a-te) (break of some 4 lines) . . . [n] female Cory-
bantes (? MÍ.KUR.GAR.RA.MEŠ); 3 Arpadite women (MÍ.Ár-pad-da-
a-a-te); 1 replacement; 1 Ashdodite woman (MÍ.As-du-di-tú); 2 Hittite
women (MÍ.Ḫat-ta-a-a-te) and [n . . . -ean] women: in all, 94 women

78–123. For the largely obscure reasons behind the fact that a high official of the tem-
ple of Nabû at Kalhu, such as Nabû-šumu-iddina/Nadinu (on whom, see PNA 2/II
885–86), had come to be in charge of conspicuous contingents of horses, see Cole and
Machinist, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Priests, xvii–xviii.
52.  Note the quaint mistake in the scribe’s final count of heads; see further, Fales,
“Nineveh Horse Lists,” 19.
53.  Cole and Machinist, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Priests, 90.
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 65

and 36 maids of theirs. Grand total, of the father of the Crown Prince:
in all, 140 (women). 54

This section of the text, marked off by a horizontal ruling, seems to list the
women constituting Esarhaddon’s harem in one of his palaces, presumably
the one in Nineveh, with no details beyond the place of origin of the sub-
jects. As may be seen, these women were drawn from all over—from Egypt
to Anatolia, from Babylonia to the Mediterranean—and thus the explicit
differentiation of their origins in the text may pertain to the ostentation
of a “collector.” 55 More specifically, considering these women implicitly
as concubines (sekretu), their origins may be matched against the infor-
mation given in the ARI concerning Esarhaddon’s removal to Assyria of
entire harems, relevant to Gambulu and Egypt; 56 this may account at least
for the “Kushite” women listed, and possibly the “Aramean” ones as well.
In a further section of the text, however, another inventory of women
from almost all the same places is provided, with the specification that
these were musicians:
8 female chief musicians; 3 Aramean women; 11 Hittite women; 13
Tyrian women; 13 female Corybantes (?); 4 women from Sah[. . .]; 9
Kassite women: in all, 61 female musicians. 57

Now, it may be asked whether in this case the ethnicities of these women
could have had anything to do with the instruments they played or even
with the particular music they performed. To be sure, all the ethnic des-
ignations of these musicians match those of the sekretus described above.

54.  F. M. Fales and J. N. Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Pal-


ace and Temple Administration (SAA 7; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992) 24
lines 1–17, commented on recently in S. Parpola, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” in
Leggo! Studies . . . Fales, 598–99. The text presents many breaks and erasures (Fales and
Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, Part I, 32, apparatus), but these character-
istics have been noted only minimally in the following reproduction of the contents.
55.  On the collecting habits of Neo-Assyrian kings, see recently J. E. Reade, “The
Assyrians as Collectors: From Accumulation to Synthesis,” in From the Upper Sea to the
Lower Sea: Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A. K. Grayson
(ed. G. Frame; PIHANS 101; Leiden: NINO, 2004) 255–68; A. K. Thomason, Luxury
and Legitimation: Royal Collecting in Ancient Mesopotamia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005)
217–19 and passim. It may be recalled that the possibility that a particular enemy’s con-
cubines in their entirety should enter into the possession of the Assyrian king (ana pān
šarri erābu) is discussed in a letter by Mar-Issar to Esarhaddon as one of the felicitous
outcomes of an eclipse affecting the Westland (Amurru) negatively (S. Parpola, Letters
from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars [SAA 10; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press,
1993] 364 rev. 10–11).
56. See Parpola, “Neo-Assyrian Royal Harem,” 604–5.
57.  Fales and Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, Part I, 24 lines 20–27.
66 Frederick Mario Fales

However, the fact that already a century earlier the Nimrud Wine Lists
show the distinctive presence of “Hittite” and “Arpadite” female musi-
cians, as well as of “Kassite,” “Hittite,” and “Assyrian” male musicians
within the Assyrian palace 58 might justify this hypothesis—although the
degree to which a series of different musical traditions either enjoyed par-
allel development in the court environment or were supposed to somehow
merge escapes us.

3. The nisbe applied to “inner” settled


communities enjoying special status

We now move our gaze to the lands falling within the political frontiers
of the Assyrian empire, fluctuating as such frontiers were over time. Here,
it may be noticed that a number of (a) urban/ provincial areas and (b)
particular territorial units within “inner” Assyria were often singled out
by means of the nisbe (though others, more abundant in number, were
not); and that (c) Babylonian place names also were marked as such. In my
opinion, all these cases may be unified as designations of settled commu-
nities enjoying special cultural and/or political status—whether owing to
tradition or to particularities of these communities’ positions at the time
of their textual attestation.

*  *  *

As for case (a), the following Assyrian cities were either endowed with
a nisbe or, alternatively, their inhabitants were marked out by the indica-
tion DUMU/mār URU.GN “son/citizen of the city GN”: Arbaʾil, Ar-
rapha, Arzuhina, Assur (or its equivalent Libbāli), Halahhu, Harran,
Kalhu, Kannuʾ, Kalzu(/Kilizu), Kurbaʾil, Isana, Lahiru, Naṣibina, Ninua,
Raṣappa, Til-Barsip. Thus it is reasonable to believe that in this respect the
nisbe was used to denote native birth and/or specific types of birthright or
residence rights as part of the local community.
Some of these cities obviously enjoyed a certain degree of institutional
prestige in the NA period, not only as successive seats of royalty itself
(Assur–Kalhu–Nineveh) but also as seats of temples of particular rele-
vance within Assyrian religiosity (Arbaʾil [Ištar/Mullissu], Assur/Libbāli
58.  J. V. Kinnier Wilson, The Nimrud Wine Lists: A Study of Men and Administra-
tion at the Assyrian Capital in the Eighth Century b.c. (CTN 1; London: British School
of Archaeology in Iraq, 1972) pl. 15 40ff.; pl. 28 7ff., pl. 30 27ff.; F. M. Fales, “A
Fresh Look at the Nimrud Wine Lists,” in Drinking in Ancient Societies (ed. L. Milano;
Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N., 1994) 371–80.
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 67

[Assur/Mullissu, etc.], Harran [Sîn, Nusku], Kalhu [Ninurta, Šarrat-


nipḫi, Nabû], Kannuʾ [Adad, Apladad], Kurbaʾil [Adad], Lahiru [Adad],
Nineveh [Ištar/Mullissu]). 59 It may be noticed that the Assyrian cities
with the most famous temples could also form nisbe s as personal names,
for example, Arbailāya, Ḫarrānāya/Aramaic ḥrny, Kalḫāya, Libbālāya,
Ninuāya, etc. 60 In all these cases—from the frequency of some of these
PNs 61 and from their comparison with other PNs comprising the same
cities as either subject 62 or object 63 elements—it is absolutely clear that
the named cities here stood for the gods of their main temples, that is,
that the relevant names did not so much mean “Born in GN” as “Blessed
by the god(s) of GN.” 64 Other cities were the seat of secondary palatial
buildings dear to the ruling dynasty or the higher echelons of government
(Kilizu [queen mother], 65 Kurbaʾil and Til-Barsip [turtānu]); while some
of the above-named cities (Assur, Arrapha, Arbaʾil, Arzuhina) provided
the so-called “city contingents” to Sargon’s army. 66 Finally, other nisbe s
refer to the capitals of provinces occasionally singled out in the texts for
the delivery of yearly shipments of barley and emmer for divine banquets

59.  In general, on Assyrian temples, see B. Menzel, Assyrische Tempel (2 vols.; Stu-
dia Pohl, series maior 10; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981). More recently, for the
temples of Kalhu, see J. E. Reade, “The Ziggurrat and Temples of Nimrud,” Iraq 64
(2002) 135–216; for Ištar of Nineveh, J. E. Reade, “The Ishtar Temple at Nineveh,”
Iraq 67 (2005) 347–90; for the cults of Kannuʾ, see R. Zadok, “Kannuʾ,” in Leggo!
Studies . . . Fales, 853–69. For Assur and Harran as cities with important temples sub-
jected to tax exemption (with others?) by Sargon at the beginning of his reign, see
G. W. V. Chamaza, “Sargon II’s Ascent to the Throne: The Political Situation,” SAAB
6 (1992) 21–33.
60. For Arbailāya, see PNA 1/I 124–26; Ḫarrānāya/Aramaic ḥrny, PNA 2/I
461–62; Kalḥāya, PNA 2/I 599; Libbālāya, PNA 2/II 660; Ninuāya, PNA 2/III
963–65.
61.  For example, the PN Arbailāya has the vast number of 35 different prosopo-
graphical entries; Ḫarrānāya has 14; Ninuāya has 22; etc.
62.  For example, Arbail/Libbāli/Ninua–hammat, Arbail/Libbāli–šarrat.
63.  For example, Mannu-ki–Arbail/Ḫarrān/Libbāli/Ninua, etc.
64.  Thus, for example, S. Parpola (“Cuneiform Texts from Ziyaret Tepe [Tušhan]
2002–2003,” SAAB 16 [2007] 79) pointed out the fact that “the name Mannu-kī–
Libbāli is best attested in texts from Assur and Nineveh, where Mullissu was wor-
shipped as Ištar of Nineveh or under the name Lady/Queen of Nineveh,” with only
one out of fourteen attestations not connected to either of these two sites.
65.  See J. N. Postgate, “Kilizu,” RlA 5:591–93. Renewed excavation of this city,
to be identified with Qaṣr Šemamok in present-day Iraqi Kurdistan, has been ongoing
since the spring of 2011. It is led by a French archaeological team (O. Rouault and
M. G. Masetti-Rouault) and has already provided written evidence of MA and NA date
(public oral communication, July 2011).
66.  Dalley and Postgate, Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser, 36–37.
68 Frederick Mario Fales

at the Assur temple, as well as vast quantities of sheep and oxen to be sac-
rificed on behalf of the king or to be offered in holocaust to the heavenly
gods; each of these areas had its allotted days for delivery within the cultic
calendar. 67
What could have been the reason for the use of the nisbe to single out
these cities over others? 68 A comprehensive answer to this question does
not seem possible at present, since it is very likely that the special status of
these sites was determined by a variety of factors, some of which certainly
escape us. In general, however, a quick look at the map and at a chrono-
logical chart shows that all of these toponyms may be placed within either
the “extended heartland” of Assyria or the area of the “home provinces,”
such as was established during the reign of Shalmaneser III, but with some
further extensions under Shalmaneser himself and his successors Šamši-
Adad IV and Adad-nirari III. 69 In addition, a number of these sites were
already important provincial cities during the thirteenth and twelfth cen-
turies, under Tukulti-Ninurta I and Tiglath-pileser I. 70
In sum, these cities, or most of them, constituted the “old cities” of
Assyria, marking the original expansion of the “Land of Assur” in the MA
period or its reconquista under the tenth–ninth century NA kings. In this
light, the reference to their inhabitants through the nisbe may reflect a
hint at a traditional status of esteem they enjoyed, as that of veritable “pil-
lars” of the inner core of the empire—although specific measures of eco-
nomic favor concerning them should not be ruled out either. 71 Certainly,
whether in relation to their famed temples or not, a number of these cities

67. See Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, 96 for a list of these
provinces; see also Cole and Machinist, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Priests,
xvi–xvii.
68.  That is, other than possible whimsical habits of individual scribes, which should
by no means be ruled out in any case.
69.  See J. N. Postgate, “Assyria: The Home Provinces,” in Neo-Assyrian Geography,
4 (chart of the provincial governors who became limmu s) and 13–17 (maps of the
provinces of the Assyrian state in various phases).
70.  As may be made out from the MA offering lists that show the kingdom, then
encompassing roughly the entire area from the Euphrates (down to the confluence
with the Habur) to the two Zabs. See J. N. Postgate, review of Kh. Nashef, Die Orts-
und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit, AfO 32 (1987)
95–101 (= J. N. Postgate, The Land of Assur & the Yoke of Assur: Studies on Assyria
1971–2005 [Oxford: Oxbow, 2007] 123–30).
71. For example, Esarhaddon (E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon,
King of Assyria [680–669 bc] [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011] 84 no. 33 rev.
iii ll. 21′–22′) states that he apportioned the captives from Šubria all over the land,
mentioning specifically the inhabitants of four of these cities: “I distributed the re[st of
them] like sheep and goats among my palaces, my nobles, the entourage of my palace,
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 69

were known as places of specific scribal learning. Thus, for instance, a letter
to Esarhaddon concerning the preparation for the vast ceremony of the
adê (“treaty/loyalty oath”), which was to sanction fealty to Crown Prince
Assurbanipal in 672, mentions some of these scribal groups by origin:
The scribes of the cities of Nineveh (DUMU.MEŠ URU.NINA.KI),
Kilizi (URU.Kàl-zi-a-a), and Arbaʾil (URU.Arba-ìl-a-a) may enter the
treaty; they have (already) arrived. Those of Assur (URU.ŠÀ.URU-a-a
[= Libbālāya]) have not (yet) arrived. The king, my lord, knows that
they are (also) clergymen.
If it pleases the king, my lord, let the ones who have arrived earliest enter
the treaty; the Ninevites (DUMU.MEŠ URU.NINA.KI) and the people
of Kalhu (URU.Kal-ha-a-a) could be free soon, and could enter the
treaty under (the statues of) Bel and Nabû (already) on the 8th day. 72

*  *  *

The second group of “inner” toponyms to which the nisbe could be


applied (see b, above p. 66) are a few specific territorial enclaves that could
have enjoyed a particularly prominent political position during either late
Middle Assyrian or Neo-Assyrian times, and thus retained for some rea-
son a special administrative status, despite their progressive annexation to
the provinces being formed in the “extended heartland” throughout the
eighth century b.c. Admittedly, this conjecture stems from the single case
of the territory of Šadikanni on the Lower Habur (modern Tell ʿAğağa),
now viewed as having been “ruled continuously by independent but loyal
rulers throughout the ‘dark ages’.” 73 That Šadikanni did not constitute a

and [the citizens of Ninev]eh, Kalhu, Kalzu, (and) Arbaʾil” (ù [DUMU.MEŠ NINA].
KI URU.Kal-ḫa URU.Kàl-zu URU.4-ìl GIM ṣe-e-ni ú-za-ʾi-iz).
72.  Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, 6 obv. 6–edge 23. “To
enter the treaty” (ana/ina libbi adê erābu) was the first of two juridical procedures to
be observed upon the occasion of an adê, and it presumably consisted in listening to
the reading out of the text of the treaty itself. The procedure must have required some
hours, in view of the fact that Esarhaddon’s treaty to which reference is made here, con-
sisted of 670 lines (text publication: S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties
and Loyalty Oaths [SAA 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988] 6). For other
attestations of scholars (ummānu) from Assur (Libbālāya), Nineveh, Arbaʾil (both with
DUMU+GN), Kalhu (Kalḫāya), and Harran (Ḫarrānāya) described as “in the service
of the king,” see, for example, the royal banquet lists in Fales and Postgate, Imperial
Administrative Records, Part I, 150; Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and
Loyalty Oaths, 11′–13′; 151 rev. i 11′–16′; 153 rev. ii′ 2–6.
73. H. Kühne, “The Assyrians on the Middle Euphrates and the Ḫābūr,” in Neo-
Assyrian Geography, 76.
70 Frederick Mario Fales

fully “standard” community from the administrative point of view even


in the late eighth century b.c. may be made out indirectly from a letter
of reply to an inquiry by Sargon (who was perplexed concerning a certain
dearth of recruits from this enclave):
The king my lord knows that the Šadikanneans (URU.Še-di-kan-a-a)
are hirelings; they work for hire all over the king’s lands. They are not
runaways; they perform the ilku-duty and supply king’s men from their
midst. 74

The phase in which Šadikanni and other small enclaves, either lying like-
wise on the Lower Habur (like Qatnu, present-day Tell Fadġami) or in
the hills north of the Habur (like Izalla), 75 began to be integrated into the
administrative structure of the greatly expanding kingdom as acquiescent
tributary states, was in the late tenth century, and especially under Assur-
nasirpal II (884–858 b.c.). 76 In a (partially fragmentary) royal decree of
this age for the appointment of the high official Nergal-āpil-kūmûʾa as city
overseer over Kalhu, the populations of these three polities connected to
the Habur—as well as those of other areas—are explicitly named with their
nisbe s as falling under the appointee’s jurisdiction in the new capital city:
. . . be it a Hamudean, or a Sirganean, or a Yalunean, 77 or a Harṭunean,
or a Bit-[. . .]ean, or an Azallean (KUR.A-za-la-a-a), or a Qatnean
(KUR.Qat-na-a-a), or a (Ša)dikannean (KUR.Di-kan-na-a-a), or a
Kassi[te, or a . . .]ean, or from (any of) the far-off lands (? na-sik-ka-te)
of the Magnates, as many as are resident in Kalhu. 78
The entire inventory is thereupon summarized in the three categories of
“Assyrian craftsmen, ‘(palace-)enterers’, and performers of the ilku (a-lik
il-ki).” Now, by exclusion, it is reasonable to suppose that the people of
Šadikanni and of the other pro-Assyrian local communities belonged to
the latter category, that is, that they were present in Kalhu in order to per-

74.  Parpola, Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I, 223 lines 4–13.


75.  See J. N. Postgate, “Izalla,” RlA 5:25–26.
76.  See M. Liverani, Studies on the Annals of Ashurnasirpal II: Topographical Anal-
ysis (vol. 2; Rome: University of Rome, 1992) 31, 108, 117.
77.  For these first three nisbe s, see the later inscription of the age of Adad-nirari III
(RIMA 3 226–27; a dedication text of Bēl-tarṣi-ilumma, governor of Kalhu), suggest-
ing that the relevant territories thus should have been not far from Kalhu itself.
78. L. Kataja and R. Whiting, Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period
(SAA 12; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1995) 83 rev. 17–20. For Nergal-āpil-
kūmûʾa, see PNA 2/II 941. For the uncertain interpretation surrounding the term
KUR.na-sik-ka-te in this context, see Kataja and Whiting, Grants, Decrees and Gifts of
the Neo-Assyrian Period, 96, critical apparatus.
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 71

form corvée work (perhaps as masons for the buildings of the new capital).
And possibly a specific aptitude in carrying out such menial labor under
request had come to characterize the Šadikanneans from one century to
the next—making them well known in Sargon’s time for their capacity in
general work activities, and thus always on the move, from one labor con-
tract to another, “all over the king’s lands.”
In sum, the particular professional identity of the people of Šadikanni—
as noted in the documents of the Assyrian administration—would seem to
fall somewhat in between a low-level workforce and a group of occasional
(or seasonal) migrants within the imperial territory. And their long-lived
political attachment to Assyria could have been of some aid in offsetting
the risk of their being confused superficially with runaways from the ranks
of the glebae adscripti or other types of lawless subjects. Thus it was pre-
sumably not by chance that a specific “seating area” (mūšabu) to attend
official ceremonies had been reserved for the Šadikanneans in Nineveh
during Sennacherib’s reign. 79

*  *  *

The nisbe s referring to Babylonian cities (c, above p. 66) reflect, to a


certain extent, the particular status of the relevant communities within the
southern Mesopotamian alluvium at the time of decided Assyrian inter-
vention, that is, from Tiglath-pileser III onward. As most recently detailed
by G. Barjamovic, 80 Babylonian society was encountered by the Assyrians
in a fragmented state, due to the multifaceted types of allegiance brought
about by the splitting up of the previous Kassite monarchy into a series
of city-states, whether vis-à-vis Babylon, the traditional seat of indigenous
monarchical power, or Assyria, the newer dominant power. This dualism
of potential allegiance (“royal or loyal”) 81 is well captured in a letter of the
Babylonian scholar Bēl-ušēzib to Esarhaddon:

79.  Fales and Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, Part I, 9 rev. i 24. For the
suggestion that mūšabu may have meant here “seat, seating area,” against the previous
interpretation as “residence” brought forth in Fales and Postgate, Imperial Adminis-
trative Records, Part I, xvii–xviii, see F. M. Fales, “Palatial Economy in Neo-Assyrian
Documentation—An Overview,” in Palatial Economy in the Ancient Near East and the
Aegean (eds. P. Carlier and F. Joannès; Paris, in print).
80. G. Barjamovic, “Civic Institutions and Self-Government in Southern Meso-
potamia in the Mid-First Millennium bc,” in Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to
Mogens Trolle Larsen (ed. J. G. Dercksen; PIHANS 100; Leiden: NINO, 2004) 48–53.
81.  The expression comes from S. Richardson, “The World of Babylonian Country-
sides,” in The Babylonian World (ed. G. Leick; New York: Routledge, 2007) 27.
72 Frederick Mario Fales

Now his son Bēl-ahhē-(e)rība—his mother is Borsippan ([BÁR.SIPA.


KI]-i-ti) 82 but his grandmother was Assyrian (Aš-šur.KI-a-a), and he
himself is Borsippan-born ([DUMU.BÁR.SI]PA.KI)—is in a leading
position among the citizens of Borsippa (LÚ.BÁR.SIPA.KI.MEŠ) and
the nobility of Borsippa, and he is devoted to Assyria, having said, “May
the rule of the king, my lord, last over me unto the end of days, and may
I pull the yoke of Assyria.”

Through the name of Assyria and with his help, the citizens of Borsippa
will be subdued, and he will keep the watch of the king my lord. 83

A further aspect of fragmentation had moreover been caused by late- and


post-Kassite migratory movements, which had split the southern alluvium
into many different (but also partially overlapping) ethnicity enclaves, en-
tailing radical social and cultural differences. 84 Thus, in some of these Baby-
lonian cities—the best-known example being Nippur—the written record
shows that residual representatives (and, in some cases, proud champions)
of a bimillennial “Mesopotamian” cultural tradition happened to operate
daily and side by side with Aramean tribesmen, Chaldean soldiers, and at
times even Arab allies in matters of business, religion, and politics. 85 This
jigsaw puzzle of ethnicities, expressed through the many languages in use
in this region—is described well in the following passage from a letter to
Assurbanipal:
I am the king’s servant and watchman here. There are many foreign
language speakers in Nippur (operating) under the aegis of the king my
lord. I implement the king’s orders and speak to them (all). 86

Moreover, as also noted by Barjamovic, the very notion of “citizens” of


some of these urban sites (at times endowed with the nisbe, but most of-
ten as LÚ/DUMU–{GN}.KI.MEŠ) is not immediately easy to infer and

82. The plural of this feminine gentilic is given, for example, in another letter,
M. Luukko and G. Van Buylaere, The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon (SAA
16; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2002) 153, addressed to Esarhaddon by “the
gentlewomen of Borsippa” (MÍ.a-me-la-te/[MÍ.bar-sí]p-a-a-te; obv. 2–3). Notice fur-
ther that the feminine PN Barsipitu is attested (PNA 1/II 273), as is also its masculine
counterpart Barsipāya (PNA 1/II 272).
83.  Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, 118 rev. 2–9.
84. See most recently F. M. Fales, “Arameans and Chaldeans: Environment and
Society,” in Babylonian World, 288–98.
85. For the continuing presence of a Nippurian astrological “school” in contact
with the Assyrian court, see Cole, Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, 43.
86. A. Fuchs and S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part III: Letters
from Babylonia and the Eastern Provinces (SAA 15; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press,
2001) 192 rev. 5′–8 ′.
Foreigners and “Special” Inner Communities 73

render; yet it presumably hides a possible subdivision between the scions


of older families and the remainder (and less prominent segment) of the
local population, to be unraveled case by case. 87 This scenario of divided
political allegiances and inherent class hierarchies seems to underlie the
following passage from an epistolary report by the Assyrian governor of
Babylon, Šarru-ēmuranni, to king Sargon, concerning an attempt of the
Chaldeans to sway the pro-Assyrian allegiance of the city of Larak on the
alleged authority of a (prominent) Babylonian citizen:
. . . [ ]hayu sent a Chaldean, an informer, to Larak, (but) the Larakeans
(URU.La-rak-ka-a-a) arrested him and brought him before me. I asked
him, “Where are you (coming) from?” He said: “A citizen of Babylon
(DUMU–KÁ.DINGIR.RA.KI) sent me to Larak.” But they (= the Lara-
keans) said, “He is a crook, he is lying! We know him, the people of
Nippur (EN.LÍL.KI-a-a) [told us about him(?)].”
Now they are bringing him to the king, my lord; may the king, my lord,
question him. 88

4.  Provisional conclusions


The case studies provided above represent only the first half of an over-
all dossier on ethnicity in the Assyrian empire, as seen through the use
of the nisbe in Neo-Assyrian “everyday” texts. But even the limited ma-
terial presented here begins to shed light on some facets of the subjec-
tive perception of both an outside world and an inner society on the part
of the Assyrian ruling class, in which numerous ethnicities of different
types and origins were recognized and had to be called upon for rea-
sons of bureaucratic precision and efficaciousness in communication. In
the eyes of the historian these ethnicities thus form a comprehensively
fragmented “mental map” of the empire, one in which the “ecumenical”
aspiration—overtly expressed by a number of kings in their royal inscrip-
tions—to “turn into Assyrians” the entirety of the population groups liv-
ing in the empire, seems to have clashed in practice against a number of
limiting factors; these factors derived from deep-seated varieties of cultural
tradition or entrenched ethnolinguistic differentiations. And yet a basically
ideological thrust toward the adoption of the adherence to an “Assyrian”
supra-segmentary ethnicity was encouraged continuously by the crown. 89
87. See Barjamovic, “Civic Institutions and Self-Government,” 55–59.
88.  Fuchs and Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part III, 218 obv. 5–rev. 4.
89.  This will be demonstrated in the follow-up article, the planned title of which is:
“Ethnicity in The Assyrian Empire: A View from the Nisbe (II): Tribalists, ‘Arameans’
and ‘Assyrians’.”

You might also like