by
Damien F. Mackey
“Modern
historians judge that Tukulti-Ninurta’s sacking of Babylon
with
the carrying off of Marduk’s statue must have been considered
sacrilegious
by many Assyrians”.
“Turning Babylon into a lake – covering the civilized land with water,
returning the city of Marduk to the primordial chaos –
was an insult to the god. Sennacherib compounded this by ordering the statue of
Marduk
hauled back to Assyria”.
Susan Wise Bauer
I, having initially followed an intriguing suggestion of
Phillip Clapham’s identifying the assassinated Tukulti-Ninurta I with the assassinated
Sennacherib, wrote:
And
there have been other attempts as well to bring order to Mesopotamian history
and chronology; for example, Phillip Clapham’s attempt to identify the C13th
Assyrian king, Tukulti-Ninurta I, with the C8th BC king, Sennacherib. …. Clapham soon decided
that, despite some initially promising similarities, these two kings could not
realistically be merged.
That was enough for me at the time to abandon any notion
that Tukulti-Ninurta I may have been Sennacherib, who is also my Sargon II:
Assyrian King
Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib
https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib
Sargon II and
Sennacherib: More than just an overlap
https://www.academia.edu/8854988/Sargon_II_and_Sennacherib_More_than_just_an_overla
But I have since re-considered all of this, having been
struck by the incredible similarities - that must have impressed Phillip Clapham
also - between Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sennacherib (though I would now add
Sargon-Sennacherib).
Here are some of these (I am using largely, for
Tukulti-Ninurta I, Marc Van de Mieroop’s book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC):
(i)
Son
of Shalmaneser
Tukulti-Ninurta I
(1243-07 BC, conventional dates)
Son
of Shalmaneser (I)
Sargon-Sennacherib
(721-05 – 704-681 BC, conventional dates)
Son
of Shalmaneser (V)
(ii)
Hittites
and Anatolian revolt
Tukulti-Ninurta I
P.
150: “… attacked the Hittite state from the east, and vassals in the west and
south-west of Anatolia rebelled”.
Sargon-Sennacherib
“Evil Hittites without respect for the command of the
gods, whisperers of treachery”—these and similar reproaches were hurled by
Sargon II's scribes against the peoples of Syria and Palestine who would not
submit to the Assyrian yoke, or who having submitted sought relief in
rebellion. Sargon's anger marked a crisis in the long but intermittent Assyrian
relationship with the Anatolian peoples of North Syria and the Taurus, loosely
termed “Hittites”.
(iii)
Invades
Babylonia, puppet king(s) installed
Tukulti-Ninurta I
P. 165: “… invaded Babylonia and deposed Kashtiliashu IV …
whom he took in chains to Assur. ….
After assuming Babylonian kingship for a short time,
Tukulti-Ninurta appointed a series of puppet rulers, who represented Assyrian
interests for a decade.
Sargon-Sennacherib
Sennacherib
likewise “placed a puppet ruler … by the name of
Bel-ibni, in charge at the city of Babylon”. (Paul A. Lindberg, God's
Plan of the Ages Volume 4: King Ahaz to Messiah).
“After consolidating his rule over the empire, Sargon was
ready to reclaim the lost throne of Babylon. In 710 BC Sargon invaded
Babylonia. The fractures and conflicting interests between the polities of the
region became visible in the ensuing war when some cities and tribes quickly
joined Assyria while others stayed loyal to Marduk-apla-iddina. Eventually,
faced with this crumbling of support, the Chaldean abandoned Babylon and its
citizens invited Sargon to enter the city (SAA 17 20-21).
….
Once again, an Assyrian king assumed the Babylonian
throne. In contrast to his Assyrian predecessors, Sargon remained resident in
Babylon for five years, leaving the Assyrian
heartland in the hands of his crown prince [sic] Sennacherib.
Sargon began the process of properly integrating Babylonia into the empire,
following a very different course than his father Tiglath-pileser's
laissez-faire policy. For the first time in Assyria's rule over the south,
large-scale restructuring was evident. Babylonia was split into two provinces
under the rule of Assyrian governors: the province of Babylon comprised the
northern part of Babylonia where most of the big cities were located, the
province of Gambulu consisted of the Aramaean and Chaldean tribal areas.
Under the two provincial governors operated individual
city governors, also directly appointed by the Assyrian king, and military
commanders based in the Assyrian garrisons securing the region. There was,
however, little extensive militarisation.
The Assyrian administration exerted control mainly
through an elaborate intelligence system comprised of local informers and
Assyrian agents.
Unlike in other provinces, the hierarchical relationships
in Babylonia were not clear cut, best evidenced by the fact that Sargon
frequently corresponded with and intervened at all levels and various aspects
of the administration.
Sargon took the role of king of Babylon seriously. He
participated in all major Babylonian festivals, such as the New Year festival (akitu TT ), and
restored the region's temples, a traditional duty and privilege of the king of
Babylon. Sargon profoundly shaped Babylonian politics by appointing his
favoured officials as provincial and city governors and stewards over the most
important temples. Their correspondence with the king survives in many cases (SAA 17). As his special envoy to the region, Sargon appointed
Bel-iddina [Sennacherib’s Bel-ibni?], a scholar
from his entourage whose task in Babylonia it was to oversee the operation of
cults and to report directly to the king on the officials in the region.
Bel-iddina was the king's eyes and ears amongst his administrators in Babylonia
and he acted as an extension of the king's authority”.
(iv)
Faced
with a powerful Elamite-Babylonian coalition
Tukulti-Ninurta I
P. 165: “Elamite pressure and a successful Babylonian
rebellion returned Babylon to Kassite control, but Elam’s raids eventually led
to the collapse of the Kassite dynasty and deposed Kashtiliashu IV … whom he
took in chains to Assur. ….
Sargon-Sennacherib
Sargon reacted to this provocation by marching his troops
southwards and Merodach-baladan retaliated by joining forces with the king of Elam …
Assyria's rival of old. Together they mustered a massive
army against Sargon's forces. In 720 BC, the troops met in battle at the city
of Der …
in the plains east of Babylon …. Although
Merodach-baladan's troops arrived too late for active combat, the Assyrian army
was pushed back by his Elamite allies and he retained control of the south and
the title of king of Babylon.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/essentials/kings/sargonii/
(v)
Literary
tablets seized from Babylonia’s temples
Tukulti-Ninurta I
P. 169: “Tukulti-Ninurta I, for example, after sacking Babylon, took home literary tablets as booty. He may
thus have laid the foundation of a royal library in Assyria filled with
Babylonian manuscripts”.
Sargon-Sennacherib
“Sargon II … or his successor [sic] Sennacherib … gave an
order to a Babylonian scholar concerning … a “writing board of the temples”.
….
The order to prepare a list of Babylonian temples might have
had administrative reasons … but it could also concern the tablets of the
Babylonian temple libraries”.
(vi)
Following
his father in deporting nations
Tukulti-Ninurta I
P. 172: “Under Tukulti-Ninurta this practice was extended by
deporting north Syrian people to Assyria, where they were set to work on public
projects and agriculture”.
Sargon-Sennacherib
“[Sargon II] conquered Samaria
and destroyed the kingdom of Israel. Sargon’s inscriptions record that he deported 27,290 Israelites from
their homeland and re-settled them to regions throughout the empire from Anatolia across to the Zagros Mountains. In doing so, he was simply
following Assyrian political and military procedure ….
https://www.ancient.eu/Sargon_II/
(vii)
Building
new capital city on virgin soil
Tukulti-Ninurta I
P. 172: “The military successes provided the economic
resources for great building activity in Assyria. The greatest project was the
construction of a new capital city by Tukulti-Ninurta, named
Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, opposite Assur [sic] on the Tigris river. It was built
after he had defeated Babylon, the spoils of that campaign helped provide the
means. The city was founded on virgin soil and covered an enormous area, some
240 hectares, if not more”.
Sargon-Sennacherib
P. 251: “… Sargon II … decided to build an entirely new
[capital city] on virgin soil, and called it Dur-Sharrukin, “Fortress of
Sargon” …”.
“A massive wall of mud brick, 14 meters thick and 12 meters
high, surrounds the rectangular site of the city, which covers nearly 300
hectares”.
https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/iraq05-042.html
(viii)
New
city did not last long
Tukulti-Ninurta I
P. 172: “The city’s life as a capital was short, however.
After Tukulti-Ninurta was assassinated, it became a place of secondary status”.
Sargon-Sennacherib
“Sargon was killed in battle [sic],
and Dur Sharrukin was
quickly deserted”.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Dur-Sharrukin
It seems
inevitable, now, that the brand new city built by the Great King of Assyria,
his pride and joy, Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta/Dur Sharrukin, should be recognised as
being just the one mighty capital city of Assyria.
The conventional site choice for
Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, modern Tulul ul Aqar (Telul al-Aqr) in the
Salah al-Din Governorate, Iraq, may, in fact, have been simply an associated part (extension) of the ancient
city of Assur (Ashur), for example, an “administrative district” (see below):
Bible Map: Rehoboth-Ir (Nineveh)
“REHOBOTH-IR
…. Though the probabilities in
favor of Rebit Ninua are great, it is doubtful whether a suburb could have been
regarded as a foundation worthy of a primitive ruler, and that a very important
city, Assur, the old capital of Assyria, would rather be expected. One of the
groups expressing its name is composed of the characters Sag-uru, or,
dialectically, Sab-eri, the second element being the original of the Hebrew
`ir. As the "center-city," Assur may have been regarded as the city
of broad spaces (rechobhoth)-its ruins are of considerable extent. The German
explorers there have made many important discoveries of temples, temple-towers,
palaces and streets, the most picturesque in ancient times being the twin
tower-temples of Anu (the sky) and Adad (Hadad). The ruins lie on the Tigris,
about 50 miles South of Nineveh. …”.
From snippets that I have taken
here from Alessandra Gilibert’s article:
On Kār
Tukultī-Ninurta: chronology and politics of a Middle Assyrian ville neuve
(5) On Kār Tukultī-Ninurta: chronology and politics of a Middle Assyrian
ville neuve
one will perhaps notice that the
conventional Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta appears to have been dominated by the city of Ashur,
and was not so large in some of its aspects, “relatively modest size”, “a
“miniature ziqqurrat”,” “the architecture of the temple in Kār Tukultī-Ninurta
does not fit with the role of a great institution”, “The perimeter of the
ziqqurrat measures virtually exactly half that of the Aššur temple in Aššur”, “Kār
Tukultī-Ninurta had the status of pāḫutu, or
“administrative district”.
Thus Alessandra Gilibert writes:
“… the location selected for Kār
Tukultī-Ninurta suggests rather a choice which stresses a vicinity to Aššur,
rather than a move away from it. In fact, the city is the only example of an
Assyrian city planned and erected in patent proximity to Aššur.
The same impression is clearly
conveyed in the text of the inscriptions reporting on the foundation of Kār
Tukultī Ninurta. In them there is no trace of a desire to redefine the role of
the capital. On the contrary, the I-narrator, that is, the fictive voice of
Tukultī-Ninurta, repeatedly calls Aššur alij a, “my city”, and URU ba-it ilāni,
“’desired object’ of the gods”.”
….
“Turning to the architectonic
evidence, the existence of public and cultic buildings in Kār Tukultī-Ninurta
is alone not enough to imply a consistent transfer of political and religious
affairs from Aššur to the new foundation”.
….
“Less than one hundred metres
southeast of the palace complex in Kār Tukultī-Ninurta, a temple complex of
elegant architecture but relatively modest size has been found (Fig. 5). It was
surrounded by a precinct and characterized by the presence of a “miniature
ziqqurrat” (Lloyd 1978: 183)”.
….
“… it has been argued that the
temple in Kār Tukultī-Ninurta attempted to supplant the traditional pivotal
religious role of the temple of Aššur (Klengel 1961: 74; Eickhoff 1985: 49, fn.
144; Mayer 1988: 156). Yet relevant facts speak against this view. First of
all, Tukultī-Ninurta had important renovation works done at the temple of Aššur
in Aššur (A.0.78.1003), installing goods looted from Babylonia there (Lambert
1957-58: 45, l. 12-19). Furthermore, the architecture of the temple in Kār
Tukultī-Ninurta does not fit with the role of a great institution. The
perimeter of the ziqqurrat measures virtually exactly half that of the Aššur
temple in Aššur,12 …”.
….
“Finally, textual evidence
demonstrates that Kār Tukultī-Ninurta was administered by a bureaucratic cadre
partially coterminous with that of Aššur, thus speaking against a political
fracture. Kār Tukultī-Ninurta had the status of pāḫutu, or “administrative district” (Postgate 1995: 5; Jakob 2003: 14-15,
111-131)”.
No comments:
Post a Comment