persia religion idelogy mesopotamia babylon assyria egypt
DESCRIPTION
persian religion under the kings cyrus great darius ptolemy babylonian assyrianTRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITY OF TARTU
FACULTY OF THEOLOGY
ANDREAS JOHANDI
M ESOPO T A M I A N IN F L U E N C ES O N T H E O L D PE RSI A N R O Y A L ID E O L O G Y A ND R E L I G I O N DURIN G T H E A C H A E M E NID PE RI O D
Supervisors
VLADIMIR SAZONOV, PhD
PEETER ESPAK, PhD
TARTU 2012
Table of Contents
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 1 The Main Characteristics of Mesopotamian Royal Ideology ........................................... 13
1.1 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Pre-historic Period ............................... 13 1.2 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Early Dynastic period (ca. 2900/2800-2334) 15 1.3 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Akkadian and Gutian periods (ca.2334-2112) 19 1.4 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Ur III and Isin-Larsa periods ............... 21
1.4.1 The Ur III period (ca. 2112-2004) ...................................................................... 21 1.4.2 The Isin-Larsa Period (ca. 2000-1800) .............................................................. 23
1.5 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian Periods .................................................................................................................................. 23
1.5.1 The Old Babylonian Period (1894-1595) ........................................................... 24 1.5.2 The Old Assyrian Period (ca. 2000-1600/1500) ................................................ 25
1.6 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian periods .................................................................................................................................. 26
1.6.1 The Middle Babylonian Period (1595-1155) ..................................................... 26 1.6.2 The Middle Assyrian Period (ca. 1400-1050) .................................................... 28
1.7 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Neo-Assyrian and Late Babylonian Periods .................................................................................................................................. 29
1.7.1 The Neo-Assyrian Period (934-610) .................................................................. 29 1.7.2 The Late Babylonian Period (ca. 900-539) ........................................................ 30
2 The Main Characteristics of Mesopotamian Religion ...................................................... 32 2.1 Archaic Mesopotamian Religion ............................................................................... 33 2.2 Mesopotamian Religion during the Early Dynastic Period (ca. 2900/2800-2334) ... 35 2.3 Mesopotamian Religion during the Akkadian Period (ca. 2334-2154) ..................... 37 2.4 Mesopotamian Religion during the Ur III and Isin Larsa periods ............................ 38
2.4.1 The Ur III Period (ca. 2112-2004) ..................................................................... 38 2.4.2 The Isin-Larsa Period (ca. 2000-1800) .............................................................. 40
2.5 Mesopotamian Religion during the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian periods ....... 41 2.5.1 The Old Babylonian Period (1894-1595) ........................................................... 41
2.5.2 The Old Assyrian Period (ca. 2000-1600/1500) ................................................ 42 2.6 Mesopotamian Religion during the Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian periods 43
2.6.1 The Middle Babylonian Period (1595-1155) ..................................................... 43 2.6.2 The Middle Assyrian Period (ca. 1400-1050) .................................................... 43
2.7 Mesopotamian Religion during the Late Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian periods ..... 44 2.7.1 The Late Babylonian Period (ca.900-539) ......................................................... 44 2.7.2 The Neo-Assyrian period (934-610) .................................................................. 46
3 Mesopotamian Influences on the Old Persian Royal Ideology and Religion .................. 48 3.1 Traces of Mesopotamian Influences on the Old Persian Royal Ideology and Religion during the pre-Achaemenid Period ...................................................................................... 48 3.2 Mesopotamian Influences on the Old Persian Royal Ideology and Religion during the Achaemenid Period (558-330) ....................................................................................... 55
3.2.1 The Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions .................................................................. 55 3.2.1.1 The Cyrus Cylinder ..................................................................................... 56 3.2.1.2 The Inscription of Darius at Behistun (DB) ................................................ 61 3.2.1.3 The Inscription of Artaxerxes II at Susa A (A2Sa) ..................................... 65
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 69 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 75
................................................................................................................................ 89
Abbreviations
A A M O Acta Antiqua Mediterranea et Orientalia, Ugarit-Verlag.
A B C A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Texts from Cuneiform Sources, Volume V, Locust Valley, New York: J. J. Augustin Publisher, 1975.
A O A T Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-
AoF Altorientalische Forschungen, Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients, Berlin 1974 ff.
A T U 7 Archaische Texte aus Uruk: vol. 7, R. Englund/H. Nissen, Archaische Verwaltungstexte aus Uruk: Die Heidelberger Sammlung, 2001.
BI W A R. Borger, Beit1996.
C A H The Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge, England, 1970 ff.3.
C H Codex Hammurabi.
C I I I/1 R. Schmitt, The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian text. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum I/1, 1, School of Oriental and African Studies, 1991.
DB Inscription of Darius I at Behistun.
E A The El-Amarna Letters, ed. by W. Moran, 1992.
F A OS 5, I I H. Steible, H. Behrens, Die altsumerische Bau- und Weihinschriften, Teil II, Kommentar zu den Insch
-II., Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 5, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 1982.
JA OS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies. New Haven, Baltimore, 1947 ff.
JN ES Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago, 1942ff.
JSO T Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Sheffield, 1978/79 ff.
O B O 160/3 W. Sallaberger, A. Westenholz, Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-ngen, 1999.
O B O 160/5 K.R. Veenhof, J. Eidem, Mesopotamia: The Old Assyrian Period, Orbis
RI M A 1 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Volume 1, University of Toronto Press, Toronto-Buffalo-London, 2002.
RI M A 3 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858-745 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Volume 3, University of Toronto press, Printed in Canada, Toronto-Buffalo-London, 1996.
RI M E 1 Douglas R. Frayne, Presargonic Period (2700-2350 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods, Volume 1, University of Toronto Press, Toronto-Buffalo-London, 2008.
R A
RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archaologie. Berlin, 1928ff.
U F Ugarit-Forschungen. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-
Introduction
Royal ideology and religion are important notions in the study of ancient history. The distance
in time does not allow the drawing of consistent conclusions and the writing of detailed and
all-encompassing overviews of ancient societies. The lack and imbalance of the sources often
leads to one-sided and partial illuminations of ancient life that forms the basis for the
hypothetical theories of the ancient societies as a whole. Between these theories consensus is
sought to revive distant history. As ancient history was often the history of rulers, based on
research into royal ideology could prove resultant in an attempt to elucidate the ancient world.
Religion, on the other hand is always an important part of studying any society. Many
historians of religion are fond of creating opposites of the religious and the secular sphere in
the human experience.1 However, it is difficult to impose such a view upon ancient societies,
to make any clear distinctions between them.
In the history of ancien
also very hard to distinguish between. The heavenly sphere of the gods was not seen as being
apart from the mundane sphere of the humans. Accordingly, religion and royal ideology were
always tightly interwoven. The source of rulership was thus thought to reside in heaven2 and
it was bestowed upon the earthly rulers by the top gods of the pantheon. During a certain brief
period of history, the Mesopotamian rulers themselves were considered to be gods, a concept
common in ancient Egypt but unattested in ancient Iran during the Achaemenid rule. The
sources from ancient Mesopotamia and Iran - cylinder seals, inscriptions on clay tablets and
1 See e.g. Eliade 1959. 2 starts with the words:
(Jacobsen 1939, 71)
7
other material, onomasticon and visual representations on different objects etc. - are often
connected with royal ideology and religion. In the research fields of Assyriology and ancient
Iranian studies, the problems of royal ideology and religion are therefore prominent.
However, there is a lack of thorough and systematic studies on these topics. A wide array of
possibilities is open for future research.
The A im of the Thesis
general developments of royal ideology and religion in the history of Mesopotamia during
three millennia BC (from the Early Dynastic period (2900/2800-2334) to the Neo-Babylonian
(626-538) period) and trace their subsequent influence on the Old Persian royal ideology and
religion during the Achaemenid period (558-330 BC). The hypothetical theories about the
earlier, prehistoric developments of royal ideology and religion on the proto-historic/proto-
literate phases of Mesopotamia and Iran are also sketched. The most important source
materials are the Mesopotamian and Achaemenid royal inscriptions that will be compared and
analysed. Thus, the current thesis stands in the borderline of Assyriology and Iranian studies
and uses the sources from both fields of research.
This thesis has no pretensions whatsoever to be an exhaustive study in the matters of
Mesopotamian influences on the Achaemenid royal ideology and religion, as the topic and the
source material would allow a multitude of monographs to be written. Instead, it makes an
attempt to delineate some of the most obvious and well-founded influences.
current thesis. Both terms seem to adequately render this constantly changing system of views
signator for the ancient
Mesopotamian and Iranian rulers in scholarly works, is avoided for the earlier rulers of
Mesopotamia due to the later historical connotations of the word.
Method
In the current thesis the following methods will be used:
1) Comparative method in religious studies. Comparative overview of the pantheons
and the gods connected with the institution of the ruler in Mesopotamia and the Achaemenid
Empire.
8
2) Comparative method in historical studies. Comparative overview of royal ideology
in the political context at various periods of Mesopotamian history and in the Achaemenid
period. Overview of royal titles as an important vehicle of royal ideology, their development
in time and the comparison of the Mesopotamian royal titles with the later Achaemenid royal
titulary.
3) Comparative method in linguistics. The basic materials for the comparative
linguistics used in the current thesis are the royal inscriptions written in the Sumerian,
Akkadian and Old-Persian languages. The Achaemenid inscriptions will be compared with
the earlier Mesopotamian material, common elements between them will be searched for.
Historiography
The current author is not aware of any thorough and substantial studies on the topic of
Mesopotamian influences on the Old Persian royal ideology and religion during the
Achaemenid period. However, there are some influential articles published on this subject.
The late Gherardo Gnoli gives an adequate short overview of the topic in his 1988 article 3, concentrating not only on the
Babylonian influences on the Achaemenid royal ideology and religion but on cultural
Achae 4 concentrates more specifically on the Mesopotamian influences on
kingship as well as religion, as the notions are tightly connected. Andrea Piras in his 2002
Preliminary Remarks on Melammu Database: The Continuity of Mesopotamian 5 includes also the later Parthian and Sassanian material in
his article and counts the various Mesopotamian cultural influences on Iran as they appear in
Zur Herkun6
7 emphasises on the Indo-European influences on
the institution of Iranian kinship but also hints to some possible customs (e.g. proskynesis8)
rooted in Mesopotamia.
3 Gnoli 1998. 4 Panaino 2000. 5 Piras 2002. 6 Kienast 1979. 7 Widengren 1959. 8 Ibid., 246.
9
From the monographs on Iranian history which also discuss the topics of royal
visionary but now som 9
10 discusses also the later history under Macedonian,
Parthian and Sassan11, originally published in Russian in 1985 (=
, gives an overview of the historical events
during the Achaemenid empire, with a special emphasis on Babylonia, as the author is an
expert in the matters of Babylonia under the Achaemenids. The later stages of Macedonian,
Parthian and Sassanian r12, first released in 1993 and equipped with an epilogue concerning the modern
rediscovery of Iran and the cuneiform script. The colossal monograph on Achaemenid history,
History of the Persian Empire 13, probably the
most thorough study on Achaemenid history, was released originally in French in 1996 (=P.
Though there are countless articles written on the topic, they in general tend to be
engaged with some specific problem and do not consider these notions as a whole. There is a
lack of exhaustive, detailed and compendious studies. The only study known to the current
14 by Henri Frankfort, comparatively discussing the institution of kingship and its
15 does not give a systematic
overview of the religion but bases his study mainly on the quotes from Mesopotamian
literature.
9 Olmstead 1959. 10 Frye 1984. 11 Dandamaev 1989. 12 13 Briant 2002. 14 Frankfort 1948. 15 Jacobsen 1976.
10
On the studies in Iranian religion, the works of Mary Boyce need to be mentioned. Her 16, Vol. 2 198217, Vol. 318
1991) is the classical reference book on Zoroastrian religion. A useful source for studying the
An
Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion: Readings from the Avesta and Achaemenid 19.
Primary Sources
The authentic cuneiform sources used in the current work are mainly the synchronic20 royal
inscriptions of Mesopotamian and Persian rulers. There are many corpora of royal
inscriptions21 available from Mesopotamia (III-I millennium BC) and Persia during the
Achaemenid rule (558-330 BC), some of the exemplary ones will be used here.22 Some
additional source materials like chronicles23, letters24, administrative documents25, laws26,
vassal treaties27, god-lists28, myths29, epics30, hymns31 will also be used. The use of sources
from synchronic and diachronic32 classical authors will be limited in this thesis as the focus of
discussion is set on the original sources from Mesopotamia and Iran.
Geographic Scope
The current thesis covers the area of Mesopotamia (Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia) and
the Iranian plateau (with the emphasis on the modern Iranian province of Fars). Other areas in
the ancient Near East (Elam, Egypt, the Hittite kingdom, Mitanni, Urartu etc.) will be
mentioned in connection with the Mesopotamian and Iranian states and rulers.
16 Boyce 1996. 17 Boyce 1982. 18 Boyce, Grenet 1991. 19 Malandra 1983. 20 The cuneiform texts contemporary with the periods discussed in the current thesis. 21 This thesis comparatively analyses Sumerian, Akkadian and Old Persian texts. 22 RIME 1, RIMA 1, RIMA 3, FAOS 5, II, BIWA, Piepkorn 1933, Cooper 1986, Schaudig 2001 for Mesopotamia; Kent 1950, Schmitt 1991, Schmitt 2007, Brosius 2000, Kuhrt 2010 for Persia. 23 ABC. 24 EA. 25 ATU 7. 26 Roth 1997. 27 Parpola, Watanabe 1998; Wiseman 1958. 28 Litke 1998. 29 30 -Rawi 2000. 31 Reisman 1973. 32 Texts from later periods. In the context of the current thesis texts that were written after the Achaemenid period.
11
T ime F rame and Chronology
The time frame of the current thesis covers the period between the Early Dynastic (ca.
2900/2800-2334 BC) and the Achaemenid periods (558-330 BC). At the beginnings of the
chapters brief abstracts will be added on the hypothetical theories concerning the problems of
pre-historic royal ideology and religion during the so-called Uruk culture in Mesopotamia and
pre-Achaemenid period in Iran. The middle chronology of Mesopotamian history will be used
for dating.
Structure
The text of the present thesis is divided into three main chapters:
Chapter 1, , follows
the general developments of Mesopotamian royal ideology from pre-historic times (the Uruk
culture) to the Neo-Babylonian period (ca. 626-539 BC). The text is divided into subchapters
on the basis of the traditional periods in Mesopotamian history. Under each subchapter, a
short overview of the institution of rulership in the respective period will be presented. The
political and sacral role of the ruler will be discussed using primary sources, scholarly
theories, as well as some exemplary archaeological and iconographic material. The necessary
historical information will be added, with the emphasis on political history. The development
of royal ideology will be briefly discussed on the basis of the use of royal titles during the
various periods. The role played by different ethnical groups in the history of Mesopotamia
and their possible influences on Mesopotamian society, royal ideology and religion will be
presented.
Chapter 2, , follows the
developments of Mesopotamian religion with a structure similar to the first chapter: the text is
divided into subchapters covering the traditional periods of Mesopotamian history. Each
subchapter gives a short overview of the prominent gods of the respective era and centres on
these religious traits that are connected with the royal ideology. The relationship between the
gods and the rulers will be illuminated. The problems of syncretistic deities, the deification of
rulers, top gods of the pantheon and the possible influences of different theologies and
ethnical groups on Mesopotamian religion will also be discussed. The relevant written and
archaeological sources and modern theories will be presented.
12
Chapter 3,
, differs from the first two chapters from a
structural point of view. Here the examples from primary written sources the royal
inscriptions of ancient Mesopotamia and Persia are quoted, analysed and compared. The
chapter is divided into two subchapters, the first traces the possible Mesopotamian influences
on Persian royal ideology and religion during the pre-Achaemenid period and discusses the
hypothetical background of the Iranian peoples and their emergence on the Iranian plateau,
the second part deals with the exemplary sources among the corpus of the Achaemenid royal
inscriptions. The possible Mesopotamian predecessors of the Achaemenid texts are quoted
and the similarities drawn out. The comparison centres on the royal ideology of the rulers,
appearing most prominently in the royal titles, and the relations between the rulers and the
gods.
The main question that the present thesis poses can be phrased as follows: Is it
possible to trace authentic elements of Mesopotamian royal ideology and religion in the
Achaemenid royal inscriptions? To answer this question it is impossible to go straight in
medias res, as the royal ideology and religion are too complex and multifaceted phenomena,
especially for ancient history that is often only partially visible. To give an adequate answer,
the material for the comparative analysis needs to be gathered and delineated first.
Accordingly the first chapters will be centred on delineating the authentic Mesopotamian
characteristics of royal ideology and religion. The results will be used in the third chapter,
which first discusses the pre-historic characteristics of Iranian royal ideology and religion and
then makes an attempt to find an answer to the posed question through a comparative study.
1 The Main Character istics of Mesopotamian Royal Ideology
The concept of royal ideology in Mesopotamia during the last three millennia BC should not
be considered as a single or monolithic unit of developments. There is a need to distinguish
between the different and constantly changing types of rulership, the different (e.g. ethnical,
linguistic, geographic etc.) backgrounds of the people living in Mesopotamia and separate the
multitude of social circumstances related to them. In the current chapter, only the general
developments are outlined and presented.
The primary topic of this chapter is the royal ideology in historical times, starting with
the sources from the III millennium BC. The earlier developments concerning the state
governance in Mesopotamian history remain highly hypothetical due to a lack of written
documents.33 The only basis for drawing the conclusions is the archaeological evidence which
allows only hypothetical claims to be made. Nevertheless, some comments about the era that
preceded the III millennium BC in Mesopotamia are made in an attempt to enlighten the
provenience of historical rulership.
1.1 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Pre-historic Period
The IV millennium in the Mesopotamian history is usually defined as the Uruk period
(differentiated by adding the excavation level numbers). The period is in turn divided into the
Early (ca. 4000-340034, levels XIV-V) and Late Uruk (ca. 3400-2900, levels IV-III) periods.35
33 The writing system was probably developed in the second part of the IV millennium, about 3300-3200 BC. The earliest documents were mainly financial documents and lexical lists composed of pictograms and render little information about the social and political circumstances. 34 All dates in the current thesis are BC, otherwise noted. The middle chronology is followed for the Mesopotamian history.
14
The period is named after the dominating city-state in southern Mesopotamia at the time.36
The traces of the Uruk culture in material findings (bullae, calculi and cylinder seals) do not
appear only in southern Mesopotamia but expand also to other territories (Iran, Anatolia,
North-Syria, Palestine).37 The motives for this broad distribution and its possible colonial or
imperial influences are still debatable. The fourth millennium in Mesopotamia is, despite the
lack of documental findings, considered to be an important period in the history of human
progress towards civilisation. By the end of the millennium, several important inventions like
writing and the system of states and cities are already present. These innovations hint to the
existence of a complex hierarchical society and specialized labour.38 It is undoubtedly the
result of various cultural and social developments taking place during the whole millennium.
The most common view about the type of government in early Mesopotamian society
seems to be the one which concentrates the control over the social-political and the religious
sphere into the hands of a hypothetical ruler, usually referred to as th -
-king. 39 The large cultic temple complexes, like the Eanna precinct in Uruk, are
- 40 which were probably administered
- -state,
administrative as well as sacral, is thought to be concentrated into the h -
of this person and the opinions of scholars vary tremendously. Thorkild Jacobsen opposed the
autocratic-despotic concept of the early Mesopotamian political system and offered another
where the institution of a ruler was required only temporarily and in case of urgency. The
35 The period between ca. 3100-2900 is also called the Jemdet Nasr period, named after the excavation
developed during this period (Kuhrt 1995, 23). 36 Uruk (biblical Erech, modern Warka) is the basis for all the studies in the Mesopotamian early history. The city is notable for the monumental architecture, relief plastics, the seals and above all the development of script. These findings show the high socio-economic level of the Uruk culture (Selz 1998, 287). 37 This phenomenon is also called the Uruk expansion. 38 Mieroop 2004, 19. 39 -ruler is pictured on the Uruk vase and also on the basalt-stele that depicts two figures hunting. Piotr Steinkeller argues, on the basis of various archaic and historical data, that already this early ruler was designated with the title enthe archaic ruler of Uruk went by the name of en is virtually assured. Furthermore, as is strongly suggested by the evidence from Jemdet Nasr, it appears that this title was borne equally by the rulers of other Sumerian city-states. This would mean that the institution of enship enjoyed general acceptance among the Sumerians during the archaic age. To put in even stronger terms, enship apparently was the original form of Sumerian kingship (1999, 111). However, firm evidence to this assumption is not available from the data and it remains a plain speculation. Cf. Braun-Holzinger 2007, 7ff. 40 Kuhrt 1995, 27.
15
actual political power was in th41 In the
42, two types of assemblies seem to be present: the
k and the assembly of the townsmen.43 Gilgamesh, the ruler of
Uruk, has to face both of these assemblies before he sets out to fight with Akka, the ruler of
assemblies.44 However, the Gilgamesh texts are most probably from ca. the Ur III era45, thus
representing the state ideology of a much later era and are therefore of no direct value in
describing the governing bodies of the earlier periods.
The theory of Jacobsen was debated by Adam Falkenstein with his alternative theory, 46 period, suggesting that during the
prehistoric period the temple was the sole landholder of the state.47 -
should have been exercising quite influential power over the subjected people and extended
authority over irrigation works, the building of storehouses and temples, defence works,
defence against the outside and maintaining social justice.48 Falkenstein, in turn, was later
opposed by 49 and concluded that
purchasable land was also in the hands of free community members already from the earliest
times onward.50
1.2 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Early Dynastic period (ca. 2900/2800-
2334)
In the third Millennium the ideology of Mesopotamian rulership seems to gradually move
towards more centralised and autocratic forms of government. This tendency reaches its
41 Jacobsen 1943, 72. 42 , see also Katz 1987. 43 Jacobsen 1943, 66. 44 Ibid. According to Selz 1998, 316-317 these assemblies are called: u - -ra ab-ba-uru-na-ka/ke4 ) and u - - -uru-na-ka Stadt a conflict between two different ruling concepts: the sacral-bureaucracy of the South Mesopotamia and the dynastic rulership from the north of the land (Selz 1998, 318). 45 Cavigneaux, al-Rawi 2000, 4-9. 46 Also known as Presargonic period. 47 Falkenstein 1974, 7. 48 Ibid., 11. 49 Cf. Deimel 1931. 50 Diakonoff 1969, 178.
16
height by the end of the millennium when the autocratic, centralised states of the Akkadian
kings and the III Dynasty of Ur appear.
The Early Dynastic period, the next stage in the history of Mesopotamia lasted from
ca. 2900/2800 until ca. 2334. The period subdivides into Early Dynastic I (ca. 2900-2750), II
(ca. 2750-2600), IIIa (ca. 2600-2450) and IIIb (ca.2450-2334), but the distinctions are made
based on the stylistic changes in the material remains, and in the political sense the whole era
should be seen as a unit.51 It is possible to divide the period as historical and pre-historical
based on the appearance of first longer royal inscriptions, for example, during the reign of Ur-
. 2520.52
The political situation in the Early Dynastic era has often been described as a struggle
between the city-states for hegemony in Mesopotamia. The domination over the adjacent
cities and territories shifted from the hands of one city to another, but these hegemonies
usually lasted for only a brief period of time.53 The most important city states were Uruk, Ur,
city. Different cities had different views about the role of monarchy and also different titles
for designating the rulers. For example, en 54), ensi
sanga lugal
later Mesopotamian history it would become the par excellence designation for the ruler55).
The exact translations are still questionable and a search for specific conformances for those
titles from a modern terminology could easily lead to the usages that probably were alien to
the ancient Sumerians.56 In the same manner it is equally hard to circumscribe the amount of
power exercised by a ruler designated with a specific title.57 Therefore, taking into account all
the conclusions made about the different royal titles and their meaning, it must be kept in
51 Mieroop 2004, 43. 52 For Ur- -119; Cooper 1986, 22-33. 53 Frankfort 1948, 217. 54 Uruk seems to be the only city-state where e n was the designation of the ruler, in Uruk en meant also
55 Hallo 1957, 10. 56 57 that of the l u g a l. Apparently the situation differed in the various states of Sumer. Some states never had a l u g a l, others never had an e n s
en, lugal, and nsi are seen by some to have very
first one originally used in the city of Uruk, second in Ur, and the third in the city-
17
mind that we are dealing with speculative- acts of 58
The royal ideology in the Early Dynastic period was closely connected with gods.
Each city-state had its own tutelary deity, and the ruler was seen as chosen by this deity and
acting as his/her representative on earth. So the real ruler of the city state was not the human
ruler himself but the tutelary deity; the ruler was only seen as following the orders of the god.
The rulers were also seen as created and nurtured by deities. Both the temple and the city as a
whole were considered to be the estate of the god who owned the large temple communities.
His high priest was at the same time the governor (ensi) of the city.59 There were many
temples in one city- about
20 temples60, the most important and largest one belonging to Ningirsu61, the tutelary deity of 62 The city of Nippur had a special sacral function in the history of Mesopotamia. The
Ekur temple in Nippur was the home of Enlil, the political leader of the earlier Mesopotamian
pantheon.63 Enlil and Nippur was tightly connected with the notion of rulership, as the rulers
from various Mesopotamian cities searched recognition and legitimisation from him in
Nippur.64 In turn, the rulers lavished Nippur with precious gifts and carried out elaborate
construction works and restorations of the sanctuaries.65
From this period we have the first written material about the rulers who held power in
the independent city-states. The earliest known royal inscription belongs to (En)mebaragesi,
altogether.66 The scarcity of source material still prevails for the Early Dynastic period. For
some of the rulers of this era no inscriptions are found so far, for some, only a few, and for
some, around ten.67 Taking this into consideration, scholars have tried to reconstruct the
overall picture of the era by using the literary sources depicting the Early Dynastic period. In
58 For the same reasons and
bears very different connotations in the English language and seems unsuitable for the Early Dynastic rulers of Mesopotamia. 59 Frankfort 1948, 222-223. 60 Ibid., 222. 61 Ningirsu = Ninurta in Isin and Assyria, see Annus 2002 about the mythology of Ninurta. 62 63 s king of the gods, his city served as the religious capital of
64 Gibson 2007. 65 Ibid. About Enlil see Selz 1992; Michalowski 1998; Edzard 2003. 66 RIME 1, 56-57; FAOS 5, II, 213-214. 67 Sazonov 2007a, 2002.
18
addition to
Bilgamesh/Gilgamesh and other rulers of Uruk (e. g. Lugalbanda epics68
69 70 71 have formed
as a list of rulers from different cities in Mesopotamia, starting with the legendary times
before the flood when periods of reign were presented as extremely long. Then comes the
flood and after this event the reigning years of the rulers begin to decrease. What makes the
list exceptional is the way the ruling has been depicted. It seems to offer a certain idea of
era and most probably also represents the royal ideology of that period.72
Some scholars73 had the idea that the king list could be used as a source of authentic
history by the means of uniting the information from the royal inscriptions and the more or
less (quasi)histo
inscriptions) is so far as low as six, and the material that the list is based on seems to be
inconsistent.74
tool for recreating the actual Mesopotamian history.75
Among the most prominent and well documented rulers of the Early Dynastic era are
Ur- -
temples, public buildings and irrigation canals. On a votive plaque now in the Louvre, Ur-
role as builder in Mesopotamia. Another text is the first longer description of an
historical event, namely of Ur-
descendant of Ur- 76, is first of all known from the so-called vulture stele77
68 See Wilcke 1969. 69 See Cohen 1979. 70 See Jacobsen 1939. 71 See Michalowski 2006; Sollberger 1962. 72 See Steinkeller 2003. 73 Most elaborately and prominently Jacobsen 1939. 74 Kuhrt 1995, 30. 75 depiction of an idea of reality, the text should forever be banished from reconstruction of early
-3. 76 See RIME 1, 125-167; Cooper 1986, 33-
19
where Eanatum is pictured on his military campaign against the city of Umma. The military
action of Eanatum is sacrally justified by the god Ningirsu, as the latter is pictured on the stele
catching enemy soldiers with a net.78 Several other Early Dynastic rulers are also relatively
well known, such as Enanatum, Uruinimgina, Lugalzagesi etc.
1.3 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the A kkadian and Gutian periods (ca.2334-
2112)
The Akkadian79 dynasty (ruled ca. 2334-2154) marks a wide-scale change in the royal
ideology of the Mesopotamian rulership. Still, the available data and consensus between
scholars concerning the problems with the Akkadian dynasty is limited.80 One of the major
reasons for the scarcity of the material is that Agade, the capital city of the dynasty, remains
unexcavated and even unlocated.81
Traditionally, the first ruler of the Akkadian dynasty, Sargon I (ca. 2334-2279), is seen
as the builder of the first empire. The question whether to call the created state an empire
remains debatable.82 What can surely be stated is the fact that Sargon created an entity that,
compared to the previous entities of the city-states, can be called a territorial state as it
encompassed a much wider scope of land than any of the previous states in Mesopotamia.
Sargon, the creator of the dynasty, managed to gain control over South-Mesopotamia after
defeating Lugalzagesi, the ruler of Uruk, in battle. Sargon is also known to have conquered
areas to the east (western Iran), to the north and to the west (Mari, Ebla). What cannot be
suggested with certainty is the level of rule that the kings of the Akkadian dynasty established
over the lands after conquering them. Though it is almost impossible to state by which means
Sargon added these areas to his state, it seems certain that the era of Sargon and his
descendants is characterised by centralisation and more despotic means of rule than in
previous times.83
77 See Ibid., 33-39. 78 Espak 2010a, 4-9. 79 Also called the Sargonid Dynasty or the Dynasty of Agade 80 Westenholz, OBO 160/3, 18. Ibid.matter of controversy /.../ The available data are scattered, incomplete, inadequately published and even more inadequately analysed. 81 See Wall-Romana 1990 for probable locations. 82 Westenholz, OBO 160/3, 103. 83 Cf. Sazonov 2008, 195.
20
There are various signs of centralisation, provable by using the material available from
written sources. For exam
d the deification of at least one of the Akkadian rulers84 shows
signs of immense power being concentrated into the hands of the rulers. The uniform system
for dating (the so-
archives and the increase of crown-land reflect the extensive bureaucracy in service of the
gh-priestess of the moon-
god Nanna- 85 and the Akkadian nobility (including probably the members of the
royal family) serving as ensis in the conquered areas testify to the fact that the empire was
controlled by a highly centralised family model. The Early Dynastic term ensi became the
designation for a local governor appointed to the office by the Akkadian rulers. The important
position of the rulers is also accentuated by the personal names86, royal statues, and the
portrayal of the kings as mighty warriors, rulers and builders.
Sargon founded a new city called Agade87, which became the capital of the state and
the centre of all trade. The product surpluses of the territorial state were produced for Agade.
It is worth mentioning that despite the changes in the approach to rulership in the Akkadian
times, the royal ideology still remains uniform with the previous times of the hegemonic city-
88
According to the most common version, the end of the Akkadian dynasty came about
through tribesmen from the east, called the Gutians. Some scholars89 have doubted the idea
that the Gutians were primarily responsible for the destruction of Akkadian state and list some
other probable factors like attacks by other ethnic groups (Elamites, Lullubi, Hurrians,
Ummanmanda) and internal upheavals during the reign of Nar m-
archaeological records a large part of Mesopotamian area seems to have been left untouched
84 Most notably Nar m- -2218) who in the Nar m-horned helmet, the symbol of gods. According to Selz 2008, 16 the horned crown is first attested in the
ction. 85 In the next 500-600 years this move designates a ruler whose claim to power is vastly superior to the power of a city-ruler (Kuhrt 1995, 50) 86 personal names with semi- 87 Contrary to the traditional opinion, Aage Westenholz proposes the idea that the city was already
88 Kuhrt 1995, 55. 89 See Hallo 1971; Speiser 1967.
21
by the destruction and so the invasion of the Gutians probably had exerted more influence on
the northern part of the land.90
1.4 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Ur I I I and Isin-Larsa periods
1.4.1 The Ur I I I period (ca. 2112-2004)
The rule of the Gutians was ended half a century later by Utu-hegal (ca. 2119-2113), the ruler
m- 91 It
seems possible that the first ruler of the Ur III dynasty Ur-Namma, (ca. 2112-2095) held a
power struggle over the hegemony of Mesopotamia with th The
circumstances are unknown, but king Utu-hegal disappears from history and the state of
thus creating a new centralised empire in
Mesopotamia. The name of the dynasty the Third Dynasty of Ur or Ur III92 is derived
-
Namma was the first ruler to adopt the t . 93
The Third Dynasty of Ur (ca. 2112-2004) carried on the pattern of centralisation
version of Akkad Empire. 94 This statement seems apt because while the Third Dynasty of Ur
was definitely not as far-reaching in territory, it was one of the most well documented eras of
ca.
2094-2047), who in his 21th year95 started the practice of deification, which was later
followed by the rest of the rulers of the dynasty, who were deified already from the beginning
e for his social
reforms, as his 22th year in office shows a considerable growth in the economy documents,
from then on reaching the amount of thousands of documents per year.96 The amount and
content of the documents, reflecting mainly the economic transactions, allows us to assume
the vast amount of officials and scribes in the service of the hierarchical bureaucracy. The
90 Hallo 1971, 710. 91 Veenhof 2001, 73. 92 Also called the Neo-Sumerian period or the Sumerian Reneissance. 93 Edzard 2004, 99. The area of Sumer covers the area of southern Mesopotamia. The area of Akkad covers the area of northern Mesopotamia. The city of Nippur is considered to be the approximate border between the two areas. 94 Postgate 1994, 1. 95 Michalowski 2008, 36. 96 Nissen 1995, 209.
22
state was divided into provinces, each lead by an ensi who was probably only handling the
administrative matters and was under the absolute power of the king who could, for example
arbitrarily transfer the ensi from one place to another. The local deities were probably still
considered to be the actual owners of the provinces, as proven by the designations of lands as
which have been ratified by the rulers.97 Nevertheless, the actual and
unlimited power was probably a privilege of the absolute ruler. This view is affirmed by the
example, depicts him as the perfect ruler and the son of the supreme god Enlil.98 During the
rule of the Ur III dynasty, several literary compositions were created, most notably the short
epics of the Gilgamesh cycle and the heroic stories of the kings Enmerkar and Lugalbanda99.
Associating the king with those ancient rulers of Uruk might have been also one of the most
significant features of the royal ideology of the period.
and prayers dedicated to him.100
101 ulgi is
presented as a hero who is an expert in warfare, hunting, judgement, music, sports, divination, 102 to
the land of Sumer.
The gods Nanna and Ninurta share the con -born son of Enlil
of Ur and in the second case, on the political realm and the city of Nippur. 103 The earthly
rulers physically als
the written sources.104 Amar Annus concludes that the Ur III
period rulers were considered fully divine and of equal rank with Nanna and Ninurta and that
the divine sons merged with the person of the king.105
97 Edzard 2004, 102. 98 See e.g. Klein 1981. 99 See Wilcke 1969, Cohen 1979. 100 Klein 1981, 8. 101 Ibid. 102 Sipad zid in Sumerian. 103 Annus 2002, 17. 104 Ibid., 18. 105 Ibid.
23
1.4.2 The Isin-Larsa Period (ca. 2000-1800)
The end of the Third Dynasty of Ur came during its fifth ruler Ibbi- -2004). He
lost power over the former provinces. An independent dynasty seized power in Isin, lead by
-Erra (ca. 2017-1985), a former governor under Ibbi-
the Elamites coming from the east and Ibbi- -
Erra, who managed to drive out the Elamite forces -
Erra claimed himself the legitimate successor of the Third Dynasty of Ur106, but the territories
were not as extensive. In the next two centuries there was no central government ruling over
Mesopotamia. The land was divided into smaller, rivalling entities, deriving their royal
ideology mostly from the Ur III state. Among the Ur III influences were probably the
deification of rulers and equating them with Ninurta and Nanna.107 Isin and Larsa were the
most prominent among those states. Thus, the era is sometimes called the Isin-Larsa period.
Lipit- -1924) is another notable ruler from Isin, above all for his law codex.108 The
domination of Isin did not last long, as it was soon rivalled by the dynasty from Larsa and its
fifth ruler, Gungunum (1932-1906), the contemporary of Lipit- managed to conquer
Ur and took control of the important trade route to Dilmun/Bahrain.109 Gungunum bore the
Ur. 110
1.5 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the O ld Babylonian and O ld Assyrian
Periods
The Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian periods are characterised by new political and ethnical
powers appearing in the area of Mesopotamia. The earlier times of Akkadian and Ur III
periods already show traces of new ethnical groups in the Mesopotamian area. These groups
are called the Amorites111 and the Hurrians, with especially the former playing a significant
role in the next stage of the Mesopotamian history. The general political situation in
Mesopotamia is for the most part fragmented into small city-states, thus resembling the
106 This aspiration to legitimate the rulership of Isin is also reflected in the contemporary versions of
(Finkelstein 1979, 61). 107 Annus 2002, 18. 108 See Roth 1997, 23-35. 109 Saggs 1968, 79. 110 Oates 1979, 58. 111 The term is derived from amurru, the Akkadian term which designates the people from the west, probably separate Semitic tribes of North Syrian origin.
24
traditional political order of the Early Dynastic times. The city-states are for short periods of
time concentrated into larger territorial units under capable rulers who use military strength
and diplomatic means in conquering and controlling other city-states. The common examples
-Adad I (1808- - -1763) of Larsa,
and Hammurabi (1792-1750) of Babylon.
1.5.1 The O ld Babylonian Period (1894-1595)
The most famous ruler of the period was Hammurabi of Babylon.112 He was the sixth ruler of
the First Dynasty of Babylon (1894-1595), the dynasty of Amorite origin. The city of Babylon
was then only a locally important centre, ruling only over its close vicinity. By the end of his
rule, Hammurabi had outplayed all his rivals for the dominion over Mesopotamia and reigned
over the whole territory and further, albeit the First Dynasty of Babylon ruled only fleetingly
on such a scale. During the time of Hammurabi, the cult of the local city god Marduk started
to gain momentum. The most famous heritage of Hammurabi is probably the so-called 113 The function of the laws of
Hammurabi has been the subject of constant scholarly debate. The common conclusion seems
-round law code. Contemporary
juridical documents show that the judges seem to rely more on common sense and other
means like documents, testimonies of witnesses and even the river ordeal, and do not need
reference to a certain law code.114
especially its prologue and epilogue, would be to regard the stele as a means of royal
propaganda, presenting the king as the righteous ruler and a benefactor for his subordinates,
ing of justice who secured the eternal well-being of the people and provided just
ways for the land. 115 J.J. Finkelstein also denies the legislative meaning of the laws and
defines them to be royal apologia and testament.116 The view of Hammurabi as a just ruler is
acknowledged on the top of the law stele where the ruler is depicted receiving symbols of
justi sun-god and as such also the all-seeing eye of judgement.
112 About Hammurabi see Klengel 1999; Mieroop 2005. 113 Probably there as a result of an Elamite raid to Mesopotamia. 114 Mieroop 2005, 108. 115 CH xlviii 3 38 = Roth 1997, 134 135. 116 Finkelstein 1961, 103.
25
1.5.2 The O ld Assyrian Period (ca. 2000-1600/1500)
The beginning of the Old Assyrian period is usually dated to ca. 2000. The earlier
developments in northern Assyria remain vague because of the lack of documentation. At
for international trade, situating near the crossing of Tigris where the caravan routes from
different directions met.117 The most significant amount of sources for Old Assyrian period
) of Assyrian merchants was located.118
The early political prominence of Assyria is usually associated with a ruler named
-Adad I. He was not an Assyrian himself but, like Hammurabi, of Amorite origin.
-Adad I managed to create a large territorial state in the northern part of Mesopotamia.
He conquered A 119 and is associated with the first rise of Assyria as major
political power and the development of monarchy in northern Mesopotamia. Albert Kirk
Grayson explains this development: The concept of sovereignty in Assyria was inspired and
conditioned by two chief factors, the growth in political power of Assyria and the presence of
a more sophisticated civilization to the south. 120 -Adad I created the
institution of the ruler in Assyria, following the example of the rulers in southern
Mesopotamia. He also used the Akkadian term , the title traditionally translated as 121, for the first time in Assyrian history.122
The territorial states of the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian era faded soon after their
foun -
First Dynasty of Babylon lasted for one and a half centuries after its most prominent ruler
Hammurabi and was then razed by the Hittite king Mursili I123 (ca. 1620-1590) in 1595. This
event created a vacuum of power in Babylon which was soon filled by a new national group
in the history of Mesopotamia the Kassites.
117 Veenhof 2001, 113. 118 Veenhof, OBO 160/5, 41. 119 Ibid., 26. 120 Grayson 1971, 312. 121 LUGAL in Sumerian. 122 Grayson 1971, 312. 123 About Mursili I see Bryce 2005, 96-100. According to Walter Mayer the sack of Babylon by Mursili I in the long term lead to total upheaval of the political relations in Syria and Mesopotamia (Mayer 1995, 167).
26
1.6 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Middle Babylonian and Middle
Assyrian periods
The Middle Babylonian (ca.1595-1155) and Middle Assyrian (ca.1400-1050) periods are also 124 The Club of Great
Powers refers to a tighter relationship between the large and powerful territorial states
(Babylonia, Hatti, Egypt, Mitanni, Assyria).125 Part of the period is also referred to as the El-
Amarna age. The name El-Amarna is the modern name of Akhetaten from where an extensive
archive of royal letters was found from the time of Akhenaten and Amenhotep III (ca. 1365-
1335).126 The letters were predominantly written in Akkadian, the lingua franca of the time.
The most part of the correspondence was held between the rulers of Egypt and their subjected
rulers in the Levant, but a smaller part of letters was received from the other great powers.
The main topics in those letters reflect the personal relations of the rulers, for example,
diplomatic marriages between the courts and the royal gifts sent to each other. Among other
information, the Amarna letters render valuable information about the characteristics of
rulership at the time.
1.6.1 The Middle Babylonian Period (1595-1155)
The Middle Babylonian rule in Babylonia proper was, as mentioned before, crucially
influenced by yet another ethnic group of trib -breeders and
charioteers called the Kassites127. Thus, the era is also called the Kassite period. The earliest
signs about the Kassite activity in Mesopotamia come from the 53rd year of Rim-
Larsa (ca. 1770), as an individual named Kilamdi- 128 was mentioned in an economic
text.129 The Kassite dynasty first controlled northern Babylonia (in the early 16th century) and
then expanded their control to the southern part by ca. 1475.130 Their rule lasted until ca. 1155
when it was ended by the Elamite king Shutruk-Nahhunte, who conquered Babylon and
appointed his son Kudur-Nahhunte as governor.131 The Kassite rule is considered to be the
124 125 It is also the period when, though surprisingly late, Egypt appears for the first time in the cuneiform texts (Edzard 2004, 142). 126 See EA and Cohen, Westbrook 2002 for El-Amarna letters. 127 The original homeland of the Kassites has not yet been localised and their language is considered to be an isolate language, not of Semitic or Indo-European ancestry. 128 129 Brinkman 1980, 466. 130 Ibid., 465. 131 Oates 1979, 96.
27
longest and the most stable rule in the history of Babylonia, as well as the age of great
building programs132. However, one of the controversial problems is the question of how
much did the Kassite rulers actually influence the culture and society of Babylonia, as they
seemed to have taken over many of the earlier phenomena from the area.133 John A. Brinkman
suggests two important features of monarchy in the Kassite period that distinguishes it from
the earlier times. Firstly, the birth of a national monarchy in the sense that the ruler is
primarily the ruler of a country or a national state and not a ruler of a city-state; secondly, that
Babylonia was internationally accepted as one of the most important states of the era and its
. 134 Also known are the
patron deities of the royal family, to whom in Kassite Babylonia temples were built.135 The
titles that the Kassite kings used were traditionally Mesopotamian; the only invention attested
. 136 Another distinctive element of the Kassite Babylonia was the
kudurru or the boundary-stone, signifying a royal grant to announce the granting of land to a
person in the form of an oval or pillar-shaped stone.137 Some deities of Kassite origin appear
on the kudurrus.138
After the fall of the Kassites in ca. 1155 a new dynasty of rulers called The Second
Dynasty of Isin (1158-1027) emerged from Isin. Nebuchadnezzar I (1126-1105), the most
powerful king of that dynasty, managed to conquer Susa and bring back the statue of Marduk.
However, the rule of the dynasty remained ephemeral.
The state of Mitanni had its reputation among the great powers of the time. Very little
is known about the historical events and social institutions of this state. In its heyday (ca.
1500-1360) it reached from the Zagros Mountains in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the
west, with its heartland in the
1360 Mitanni became the vassal state of the Hittites king under king Suppiluliuma I (ca.1370-
132 E.g., -Kurigalzu, the second capital or royal residence of Babylonia was erected. 133 Although there was a Kassite family reigning over the country for most of that time, there is no obvious trace of either a Kassite ruling caste of officials or even of a disproportionately large Kassite population within Babylonia. Kassite rulers seem to have followed older Mesopotamian tradition in religious matters. Sumerian was used as the language for most royal building inscriptions; and Babylonian continued as the language for letters, accounts, and legal
134 in Akkadian. Brinkman 1974, 397. 135 Zadok 2005. 136 - Akkadian . means Babylon in the Kassite language. 137 Oates 1979, 99-100. 138 About kudurrus see Seidl 1989.
28
1330). During the 14th century Mitanni was gradually incorporated into the rising state of
Assyria.
1.6.2 The Middle Assyrian Period (ca. 1400-1050)
-Uballit I (ca. 1365-
1330). In his two surviving letters to the Egyptian ruler, located in the El-Amarna archive139,
one can witness his craving to be recognised as one of the great powers. In those letters,
-Uballit I denotes himself with the new politi . 140 The title
exhibits the international ambitions of the ruler. The Assyrian kings thus far had used titles
like d 141 - dEnlil142
gods and the people.
In the Middle Assyrian society many inventions appear, including the Assyrian Royal
Annals143 in the time of Tiglath-Pileser I144 (1114-1076) or the new means of deporting145
people in the conquered areas during the reign of Shalmaneser I (1274-1245). Probably the
most powerful Middle- -Ninurta (1244-1208). He was notable for
conquering Kassite Babylon in 1225 and overthrowing Babylonian ruler Kastiliash IV. His
- 146 and also in his
royal inscriptions with extensive titulary147 -
ni, -Ninurta is also
notable for building Kar- -Ninurta, the new capital of Assyria. The Middle Assyrian
royal ideology and royal titulary, the ak tu festival and literature were strongly influenced by
Babylonia.148 The Middle-Assyrian society has been described as essentially militaristic and
139 EA 15 & 16; see also Artzi 1978. 140 Artzi 1978, 29. 141 -Adad I, see e.g. RIMA 1 A.0.32.1, ll. 2-3, p. 15; RIMA 1 A.0.34.1, ll. 2-3, p. 41. The word is written 142 -Adad I, see e.g. RIMA 1 A.0.39.3, l. 2, p. 55; RIMA 1 A.0.39.4, l. 2, p. 56. 143 Probably influenced by the Hittites. 144 About Tiglath-Pileser I see Olmstead 1917. 145 About Assyrian deportations see Oded 1979, Freydank 1980, Sazonov 2010b. 146 See Machinist 1978. 147 About the titulary of -Ninurta see Sazonov 2010a, 96-148. 148 Grayson 1971, 318-319.
29
lead by strict rules.149 - 150, the common measure of
punishment was mutilation, e.g. the cutting off of the convicts fingers, nose or ears.
1.7 Royal Ideology in Mesopotamia during the Neo-Assyrian and Late Babylonian
Periods151
The next few centuries following the Middle Assyrian and Middle Babylonian periods are
scantily documented in both Babylonia and Assyria. This is usually substantiated by the social
cataclysms and political disorder caused by the new invading tribes called the Arameans. The
time between ca.1050-900 remains relatively obscure in the history of Mesopotamia.
1.7.1 The Neo-Assyrian Period (934-610)
The Neo-Assyrian period saw Assyria emerge as the sole superpower in the Near East. The
new rise of Assyria started i -Dan II (934-912). In the
first phase of the Neo-Assyrian period, the rulers seem to be reclaiming the control that the
powerful Assyrian rulers exercised during the Middle Assyrian period. Mario Liverani sees an
im -859) and
Shalmaneser III (859- -establish the rule over the land
-Ninurta I and Tiglath-Pileser I, Shalmaneser III
broadened the landscape and wanted to conquer the rest of the world.152 After Shalmaneser
III153 there was a period of crisis (ca. 827-744), but when Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727) came
to power, he and the following six rulers managed to seize control over the whole of the Near
-
ca.630), who managed to crush the revolt in Babylonia (652-648) and annihilate Elam in 646.
The unexpectedly rapid downfall of the empire came at the end of the seventh century when
joint forces of Babylonian, Medes and Scythians managed to destruct Nineveh (612) and a
-Uballit II (611-609) in
Harran.
149 Especially harsh rules were imposed upon women. For example, women were only allowed to be seen with covered heads in public places. 150 See Roth 1997, 153-194. 151 -Babylonia to encompass a longer period of time. 152 Liverani 2004, 220. 153 About Shalmaneser III see Yamada 2000.
30
The royal ideology of the Neo-Assyrian Empire centred on the absolute and
unchallenged rule of the king. All of the subordinates were considered to owe total loyalty to
the ruler154, hence the life and death of his subjected people, as well as the appointment of
officials, was solely in the hands of royal power. The ruler was seen as the defender of world
order, and this definition legitimises also the constant military traits of the Assyrian kings.
Everything outside the empire was considered to represent the powers of chaos and had to be
subjected to cosmic order, carried out, among other things, by the military conquests of the
ruler.155 The foreign element or the military foe was described as a demonic, monstrous force.
urbanipal describes his military oppone 156
But as absolute rulers, the Assyrian kings were not deified and acted only as mediators
between their subjects and the gods as in most cases in the history of Mesopotamian
rulership.157 According to Stefan M. Maul, the kings used divination as the means of keeping
the cosmic order in place: the signs in nature, the astral phenomena and the terrestrial omens
were to be heeded by kings as warnings of the wrath of the gods whom they had to pacify
with the help of rituals and sacrifices.158 So there seems to be a certain contradiction in the
arbitrary decisions for his own pleasure. The building of temples, the royal hunt, the cultic
meals are all not only the displays of personal power of the king but first and foremost the
ritual duties of the king as a mediator between his gods and his subjects.159
1.7.2 The Late Babylonian Period (ca. 900-539)
The time between ca.900-745 in Babylonia is scantily documented; the sources are more
numerous for the period of the Assyrian overlordship between ca.744 and 627. For most of
the ninth century, Babylonia was independent and ruled by monarchs within one family, but
the political power was relatively weak and could not control the tribes of Sutians and
Arameans160 in the hinterland. In the eight and seventh centuries, the political situation in the
land was very unstable no continuous dynasties were present and there was constant
154 See the vassal treaties of Assyrian kings: Parpola, Watanabe 1988; Wiseman 1958. 155
Chaoss (Anz , asakku; Ti mat) geschildert sind. 156 Haas 1980, 43. 157 Cooper 2008, 261. 158 Maul 1999, 201. 159 -124. 160 Sometimes thought to be one tribe.
31
fighting for domination over northern Babylonia, mainly between the Assyrians and the
Chaldean tribes from the barely controllable southern Babylonia. Assyria, who dominated161
for most of the time, could not impose any stability, and constant tribal revolts endangered
their rule.
The Neo-Babylonian period (ca.626-539) is better documented. It starts with the king
Nabopolassar (626-605), who formed the Neo-Babylonian dynasty and managed to overthrow
the Assyrian empire. His successor Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562) was a great builder (the
Ishtar gate, Esagila and Etemenanki in Babylon) and is also known for his annual military
campaigns against Egypt, Judah and Elam. His most famous achievement in military history
is the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/6 and the deportation of its people to Babylon, known
as the Jewish exile. His annual campaigns, with tribute-collecting and punitive purposes, are
the follow-up to the common practice of Assyrians. The last king of the dynasty, Nabonidus
(555-539), tried to develop the cult of the moon-god
Babylon.162 These steps proved unpopular among his Babylonian subjects. Nabonidus
succumbed eventually to defeat by Cyrus II of Persia, the founder of the Achaemenid Empire.
The characteristics of royal ideology in the Neo-Babylonian period emphasise the
ngly, the ideologies of rulership differ from the Assyrian ideology in
and endeavours in the Assyrian sense remain in the background.163 Otherwise, the king is still
a typical Mesopotamian absolute ruler with the traditional titulary.
161 The Assyrian rulers had three solutions to the they tried to rule Babylonia themselves, through members of their royal families or through Babylonian puppet rulers, but none of these practises were succesful in the long term (Brinkman 1974, 410). 162 Oates 1979, 133-134. Cf. ABC 104-111. 163 Dandamaev, CAH III, p. 2, 1991, 253.
2 The Main Character istics of Mesopotamian Religion
Writing an overview about religion in Mesopotamia is undoubtedly a difficult task. An
exhaustive, chronological history of Mesopotamian religion is yet to be written. However, one
can seriously doubt the effective purpose of this kind of work164, as the level of ambiguity and
contradictoriness remains high enough for even the most marginal questions of Mesopotamian
religion. The main reason for this kind of situation is the constant lack of findings, the
imbalance of the texts by habitat and by genre (e.g. literary, historical, and ritual texts, royal
inscriptions etc.) and finally the multidimensional religious picture in the area. Even the
attempt to construct a common Mesopotamian pantheon at some point in history is bound to
fail because of the multitude of deities and the endless variety of panthea in different
geographical locations. As Gonzalo Rubio formulates:
It was through the various deities in the pantheon that religion was experienced and public cult performed in Mesopotamia. This pantheon, however, is an archaeological reconstruction predicated on the available sources, which are as diverse as they are inherently uneven: ritual texts, literary compositions, god lists, royal inscriptions, historical texts of various sorts, administrative documents, the onomasticon, and so forth. The inventory resulting from compiling all theonyms attested in all these various sources is called the pantheon of that period or city. Modern scholars are quite aware of the fact that each city or geographical area had its own pantheon and that specific panthea did evolve and change through time. Moreover, each of these corpora (rituals, inscriptions, onomasticon, etc.) may also bear witness to a specific pantheon, and, therefore, the simple addition of all these panthea to construct a single pantheon often entails a simplification of an otherwise sundry religious, devotional, and cultic landscape.165
Despite all of these hardships surrounding the topic, the general developments in
Mesopotamian religion will be presented in this chapter. Accordingly to the title of this thesis,
the religious traits are viewed in connection with the notion of royal ideology. Some religious
164 Cf. Oppenheim 1964, 172 who brings out two major problems in writing the systematical overview of Mesopotamian religion: the nature of the available evidence and the problem of comprehension across the barriers of conceptual conditioning. 165 Rubio 2011, 91-92.
33
topics that are more loosely connected with rulership are excluded or only briefly
mentioned.166
2.1 A rchaic M esopotamian Religion
As was the case with the early Mesopotamian notion of rulership, similar hardships are
encountered when trying to describe the archaic Mesopotamian religion. The lack of material
does not allow anything certain to be said. Various theories have been developed by scholars
but no real consensus is found in many of the problems, and all the conclusions remain highly
hypothetical. One thing that still can be quite surely stated is that the notions of rulership and
religion seem to be tightly entwined167 and so the questions concerning archaic religion
resemble those of archaic rulership, discussed in the beginning of the first chapter of this
thesis. Also the basis for the discussion is formed by the same scanty findings, for example,
the Uruk vase and the archaic texts168 from the same city-state. On the top row of the Uruk
vase, t - en of Uruk seemingly offers
agricultural products to the goddess, who presumably is Inanna, the tutelary goddess of Uruk
known from the later times.169 On the middle section of the vase, naked male servants,
probably th - carry vessels and jars of farm produce. Below, men,
the vase seems to have a significant meaning it could be seen as a life-giving natural force
that makes the plants and animals grow. The carvings on the vase could outline the view of
the ancient Mesopotamians who saw the world as an agricultural hierarchy with water,
animals and grain on the bottom and the goddess on top.170 This leads to the topic of the roles
of female deities in the archaic Mesopotamian pantheon, who, by the speculations of some
scholars, dominated over the male deities. In an attempt to reconstruct the earliest Sumerian
pantheon, Piotr Steinkeller states:
166 E.g. the relatively obscure topic of personal deities, the practice of divination, the role of minor deities etc. 167 One possible explanation is that religion of ancient Mesopotamia is for the most part a religion of the rulers, as very little is known about the religious affiliation of other layers in the society (Oppenheim 1964, 181). 168 See e.g. ATU 7. See also Nissen 1986. 169 -ruler and the goddess seems to be important, as it is also depicted on a number of cylinder seals found in the Eanna precinct in Uruk (Braun-Holzinger 2007, 9). 170 Cf. Espak 2010b, 215.
34
It appears quite certain that the earliest Sumerian pantheon was dominated by female deities. As I would reconstruct the situation existing during the Uruk period, most of the city-states (or proto-city-states) had goddesses as their titulary divine owners. Those goddesses controlled broadly all aspects of human and animal life, namely fertility, procreation, healing, and death. Included among them were the birth goddesses Ninhursag, Nintu, and Gatumdug; the grain goddesses Nisaba and Ninsud; the cattle goddess Ninsun; the fish and water-fowl goddess Nanshe; the goddess of sex drive Inanna; the healer Gula; and the death specialist Ereshkigal.
And then there was one dominant male figure. That was Enki, a personification of male reproductive power, the god of fresh water and creative intelligence. Enki undoubtedly was the original head of the pantheon. As I would suggest, Enki was paired with the most chief goddesses, complementing them as a male element, and thus functioning as a sort of universal husband.171
This quotation raises a few of the most essential questions about the archaic Mesopotamian
religion: about the dominant role of female goddesses and about the early male leader of the
le of female goddesses has
been suggested for many of the ancient societies, with the later Minoan culture one of the
examples with a mother-goddess dominantly appearing in the visual imagery.172 Concerning
archaic Mesopotamian religion, the question arises: why and how did the female-dominated
pantheon of the prehistoric era turn into the masculine one known and documented from the
later periods? Steinkeller insists that it happened in the concurrence of two developments: the
inner changes within the Sumerian society and the northern influence by the Semitic
Akkadians, whose deities were very dominantly male.173 Seeing Enki174 as the head of the
archaic Sumerian pantheon immediately raises the question about the position of Enlil175, the
later top god of the Sumerian pantheon. Steinkeller and Piotr Michalowski have proposed the
idea that Enlil was originally a Semitic god. They equated Enlil with the foreign (probably 176 However, another
171 Steinkeller 1999, 113-114. 172 Matz, ortant role in the pictures is characteristic of Minoan life in general. In accordance with the pre-eminent position of the mother-goddess they appear in cult scenes, and we learn from the miniature frescoes that, when they were spectators at public functions, they were separate from the men and occupied privileged positions. 173 Steinkeller 1999, 114. 174 About Enki/Ea see Espak 2010b. 175 -Wind ; Kramer 1997, x -god . For a different opinion, see the next footnote. 176 Steinkeller 1999, 114, n. 36, Michalowski, 1998, 241-242. Steinkeller gives three arguments why Enlil could be a god with foreign (semitic) background: 1) the earliest spelling of the name I-li-lu suggests a possible etymology of il-
d
female reflection of Enlil. Steinkeller doubts the traditional etymology of Enlil, the one that saw Enlil as - - the animating breath-giver of the universe. He suggests the possibility
that the actual meaning of en- - -not a life-based on the 3rd millennium writing d
35
prominent scholar Dietz Otto Edzard opposed the idea. Edzard argued that the name can be
explained with Sumerian background and there is no basis for the conclusion that the name
derives from the Semitic area.177 As there is no firm proof about the provenience of Enlil and
Enki, both early contenders for the Mesopotamian supreme throne, the situation remains
unclear.
Among the early deities of prominence, there were three male astral deities: the sky
god An, the moon-god Nanna- sun-god Utu. The astral deities of Mesopotamia
were peculiar compared to almost all of the other surrounding societies because the sun-god
Utu and the moon-god Nanna-
East, the moon was almost always masculine and the sun feminine; sometimes they were
siblings or twins. In the Mesopotamian astronomy, the siblings were usually Venus and the
Sun, Inanna and Utu.178 The moon-god was usually considered to be their father. In another
genealogy all the astral deities were siblings with the sky god An belonging to the older
generation of gods.179
2.2 Mesopotamian Religion during the Early Dynastic Period (ca. 2900/2800-2334)
The religious circumstances in the first part of the Early Dynastic period seem to resemble
those of the previous stage, as there was no common pantheon that would have dominated the
whole area of Mesopotamia. The most common reconstruction of the religious relations in the
Early Dynastic period sees the city-states as entities ruled by their tutelary deities, with the
assistance of human rulers as their deputies or vicars. The royal inscriptions show that the
human rulers were created, suckled and chosen for their office by the deities.180 The ruler
received the crucial legitimisation through the patronage and parentage of the gods, without
being deified himself.181
The will of the gods was seen as the reason for the florescence or decline of the city182,
and the interstate relations were seen as lead by the gods who justified and legitimised the
actions of human rulers. One of the earliest attestations of this royal ideology is in the so- 177 Edzard 2003, 184. 178 Michalowski 2002, 415. 179 The genealogies are based on myths, other literary texts and god-lists. The two referred to here are only two among the most popular, as there was a vast amount of genealogies altogether. 180 See e.g. Eanatum 1: RIME 1, 129-130; Cooper 1986, 34. 181 182 Lambert 1992, 119.
36
183
other deities
besides Ningirsu, like Inanna, Ninhursag and Enlil.184 When a city was annihilated in war, the
reason for the destruction was not seen as a mundane action by the military forces of the
enemy but in the theological justification of the tutelary deity abandoning his/her city.
Evidence from the Early Dynastic city-states indicates to different types of panthea.
The
pantheon represented in the god lists185 and literary texts is scholarly in nature. The pantheon
of the offering lists and cultic texts is that of the official cult. Finally, the theophoric personal
names bear witness to both the mainstream tendencies of the official cult and the individual
preferences of popular religion. 186 The mutual overlapping between the panthea is only
partial as the number of deities appearing in all the sources is slight. The reconstruction of the
popular religion seems problematic, as the major source of information about the religion of
people not belonging to the nobility is the onomasticon. Nevertheless, the personal names
could not even yield
is no direct connection between the language of the name and the language of its bearer or
between language and ethnicity. Some of the names are also the grammatical hybrids of the
Sumerian and Semitic languages.187 So, all the conclusions made about personal religion on
the basis of personal names are highly hypothetical. The pantheon reflected in the god lists
could, in turn, be scholarly constructs188 and thus not reflect the actual religious
circumstances.
Another problem with detecting deities from written sources and pictographic material
is the inconsistency in marking and depicting gods. Two of the most common markers for
separating deities are the dingir-sign, appearing already in the earliest texts from Uruk, and
the horned crown, first attested in the Early Dynastic II period. However, the use of these
markers seems to be rather inconsistent in the sources in the Early Dynastic period.189
Despite the obvious problems with documentation, the pantheon developed gradually
during the Early Dynastic period, and for the second part of the third millennium, some 183 Eanatum 1: RIME 1, 126-140; Cooper 1986, 33-39. 184 Espak 2010a, 13. 185 For god lists see Litke 1998. 186 Rubio 2011, 107. 187 Ibid., 108. 188 Ibid., 109. 189 Selz 2008, 15-16.
37
clearer idea of the overall pantheon had appeared. The central figure of the pantheon is now
definitely Enlil, and his holy city Nippur with his temple Ekur is now the cosmic centre of the
. 190 The rulers who controlled Nippur
were contenders for the hegemony over southern Mesopotamia.191 Enlil was also the
chairman192 193 The first proof
of seeing Enlil as the political deity dates to the 194 An, Enki and
Ninhursag are listed among the other prominent deities of the Early Dynastic period.195
2.3 Mesopotamian Religion during the A kkadian Period (ca. 2334-2154)
As the designation suggests, the Akkadian era has to do with the political influence of
Akkadians, the Semitic people who probably occupied the northern part of Mesopotamia
already previously but gained real political influence only in the 24th century with the rise of
the Dynasty of Agade. Despite the many political196 and religious inventions of the era, the
background and reasoning of those changes remains debatable.
as well as many minor deities appearing in personal names, votive inscriptions and cylinder
seals.197
form the Akkadian-Sumerian syncretistic pantheon. Enlil and Ninurta
were the major gods who were not equated in this way.
The goddess Inanna/Ishtar played a dominant role in the religious traits of the
Akkadian era.198 As -annun tum she was the city goddess of the
capital Agade. Her appearance in different times involves many characteristics, most notably
connected with fertility, love and sexuality, war and Venus-star. The earlier epiphanies of
goddess Inanna with different epithets appear in the god lists, offering lists and literary texts 190 dur an ki in Sumerian, Lambert 1992, 119. 191 -
de jure political hegemony, however
192 sometimes together with Enlil. But unlike Enlil and the other major gods, An/Anu remains a rather shady figure in the Mesopotamian mythology, without clear characteristics in myths and iconography. 193 Jacobsen 1943, 168-170. 194 RIME 1, 126-140; Cooper 1986, 33-39. 195 Michalowski 1998, 240. 196 See Chapter 1. 197 Westenholz, OBO 160/3, 78. 198 About Ishtar see Colbow 1991.
38
in various localities which could be the result of the Uruk expansion.199 In the Akkadian
times, Inanna became synchronised with Ishtar, whose Akkadian form was warlike as
witnessed by the cylinder seals and royal inscriptions from the Akkadian period. Enheduanna,
the daughter of the empire-founder Sargon, who served as priestess in Ur, allegedly wrote
glorifying hymns for Inanna, accentuating her versatility and her affect on human affairs.
Inanna/Ishtar was especially honoured in the inscriptions of the kings of Agade. For example,
Nar m- -annun tum more than any other god.200
As already noted in the first chapter, the important invention explicitly appearing for
first time during the rule of Nar m- the deification of ruler.201 The process of the
deification is described in the so-called Bassetki Statue, a bronze monument found in northern
Iraq. The inscription tells of people of Agade expressing their wish to the gods to make
Nar m-
deification of the Akkadian kings, as Nar m-
not deified.202
2.4 Mesopotamian Religion during the Ur I I I and Isin Larsa periods
2.4.1 The Ur I I I Period (ca. 2112-2004)
One of the main characteristics of the Ur III religion was the formation of a new imperial
pantheon that appears in the lists of deities.203 For the earlier periods of Mesopotamian
history, no such unitary lists existed, probably due to higher level of political and
mythological division in the era of the city-states.204 During the Ur III period, lists with deities
appearing in a steady order emerge, thus reflecting the official interpretation of the pantheon
199 Westenholz, 2009, 336. 200 Westenholz, OBO 160/3, 49. 201 About deification of Akkadian rulers see Sazonov 2007b, Sazonov 2007c. 202 Westenholz, OBO 160/3, 56. The possible deification of Sharkalisharri is a more difficult problem. Some other scholars (cf. Klein 2006, 19; Sazonov 2007b, 22) have proposed his deification, at least in the beginning of his reign. See also Farber 1983. 203 About god-lists see Litke 1998. 204 -Sumerian lists are not organised following a certain fixed centralised model of the pantheon and several differing traditions seem to be in existence simultaneously. Understanding these early lists is made difficult by the fact that several essential aspects of the third millennium mythology are still impossible to interpret in lack of preserved longer mythological texts.
39
by the rulers and officials of the Ur III state.205 The canonical order of the deities in the lists
during Ur III is: en, Utu, Inanna.
Another topic closely connected with both royal ideology and religion is the
deification of the rulers, already briefly discussed in the first chapter. Some follow-up remarks
will be made here. It
name with a divine marker in the middle of his reign. All his successors in the dynasty
followed his example, but his predecessor, the founder of the dynasty Ur-Namma, was never
written with divine determinative during his lifetime.206 m-
as a role-model for his deification207
new royal ideology to make up for his father Ur- le:
inserted himself into the heroic past. The figure of Gilgamesh, sired by the union of mortal royal hero Lugalbanda and the goddess Ninsumuna, provided the perfect
Ninsumuna became his metaphysical parents, assuring his divinity.208
-divinisation, Michalowski sees it only as a part of a
wider process of state reinvention that happened in a concrete historical context, not as an
autonomous symbolic system.209 -divinisation was later followed by all of his
successors in the Ur III dynasty. The deified kings had cults established for them throughout
the land, reflected also in the personal names of the citizens.
Among one of the most frequent and controversial in Assyriology and Ancient
History is the topic of hieros gamos, the sacred marriage rite210. In Mesopotamia, this topic is
usually particularly united with the Ur III dynasty, as most of the texts concerning sacred
marriage date from this period and from the following Isin period.211 The sacred marriage rite
in Mesopotamia was based on the Sumerian epic literature about goddess Inanna and his
-king, and Dumuzi, the deified fisherman.212 In this rite, the Ur III
205 Espak 2012, 47. 206 Hallo 1966, 134. 207 Klein 2006, 119-120. 208 Michalowski 2008, 36-37. However, already Ur-Namma appeared in the literature as brother of Gilgamesh and son of Ninsun (=Ninsumuna) and Lugalbanda. 209 Ibid., 39. 210 About the sacred marriage rite see Lapinkivi 2004; Steinkeller 1999; Kramer 1969. 211 Lapinkivi 2004, 2. 212 Klein 2006, 128.
40
and Isin kings played the role of Dumuzi who marries Inanna213. The rite was probably put
is known for certain is that, at least at Uruk, the king entered the gipar214 and spent there a
period of time, probably a single night, during which he consummated the marriage with
Inanna. 215 The union was probably only a symbolic annual fertility rite with the purpose of
securing abundance in nature and the human society and the relations between the gods, the
king and his people. There have been assumptions that the rites involved real sexual
intercourse, but Steinkeller opposes the idea as there seems to be no adequate candidate for
the role of Inanna among the priestesses of the Eanna temple.216
2.4.2 The Isin-Larsa Period (ca. 2000-1800)
Many of the religious tendencies from the Ur III period were taken over by the rulers of the
politically fragmented Isin-Larsa period. There was a continuation in the sacred marriage rite
as proven by the hymn of Iddin-Dagan217 (ca. 1974-1954) from the Isin dynasty. But as the
rulers of Isin did not always exercise control over Uruk, they moved the festivities to their
capital Isin and practised the rite with their own city goddess Ninisina, who was identified
with Inanna.218 Another ferti -Dagan (1953-1935).219
All the rulers from Isin and some from Larsa followed the example of the Ur III rulers
in writing the god determinative in front of their names.220 But it is doubtful whether this
practice also involved the cults for the living rulers, as it could only be the copying of the Ur
III traditions on a much more limited scale. During Isin-Larsa periods, several or even the
most significant amount of Sumerian myths might have been created, reflecting also the
. 221 In
213 As argued by Steinkeller, the prerequisite for impersonating Dumuzi in this rite was the enship of Uruk. However, this argument remains hypothetical for the Ur III rulers, as only Ur-Namma bore the
, en Unugki. Steinkeller complements his statement with the proposition that the kings of Inanna in the inscriptions (1999, 130; 105 note 4).
214 The residence of the priest/priestess. 215 Steinkeller 1999, 130. 216 Ibid., 133. 217 See Reisman 1973. 218 Klein 2006, 128-129. 219 See Klein 1998. 220 Klein 2006, 120. 221 See Benito 1969.
41
Ninisina is elevated among the great mother-goddesses of the Sumero-Akkadian pantheon.222
In Isin, Ninisina was wedded to Ninurta, the city-god of Nippur, who was paid
great attention by the Isin rulers. The wedding might have been a religious-political concept
of the Isin kings who promoted the elevation of their city-goddess.223 Starting with
Gungunum (1932-1906), the rulers of Larsa had the city of Ur as their important religious
centre, with the cult of the moon-god Nanna- 224 Ninurta and Nanna- were both
sons of Enlil, so the fight over hegemony between Isin and Larsa could be interpreted as the
quarrel of brothers over supremacy.225
2.5 Mesopotamian Religion during the O ld Babylonian and O ld Assyrian periods
2.5.1 The O ld Babylonian Period (1894-1595)
During the Old Babylonian period, the deification of human rulers lost its importance.
Hammurabi, the most successful and prominent ruler of the time might have given up this
practice226. The most important invention during the time of Hammurabi was the addition of
Marduk, the tutelary god of Babylon to the Mesopotamian pantheon.227 The theological
city Babylon, starting with Hammurabi, who managed to conquer large areas of Mesopotamia
and Elam by the end of his reign. From the third millennium, only two texts are known where
Marduk is possibly named. The first firm attestations come from the beginning of the second
millennium when Babylon had already become the centre of a small state founded by the
Amorites.228 Marduk was promoted in the most prominent example of written sources from
the Old Babylonian era he
the great gods Anu and Enlil.229 In the gradual process of gaining importance,
the identities of various deities were added to the figure of Marduk through which he acquired
222 Espak 2010b, 116. 223 Richter 1999, 450. 224 Ibid., 451. 225 Annus 2002, 20. 226 dingir determinative. See e.g. Hammurabi C = Green 1975, 70. 227 228 Ibid., 19-22. 229 Roth 1997, 76.
42
a wide assortment of aspects.230 One of the absorbed gods was Asaluhi, through whom
Marduk was related to Enki or to the Eridu pantheon in general.231 This connection with Enki
was probably also a measure to achieve prominence within the pantheon.
The sun- and his city Sippar held a prominent position at the time of
Hammurabi, who in his inscriptions was described as
the king of the gods. 232 An and Enlil were also prominent deities, but Enki was not
considered important enough to be named in the royal titles.233
2.5.2 The O ld Assyrian Period (ca. 2000-1600/1500)
There are a few essential topics concerning the Old Assyrian religion in Assyriology. One of
them is about the nature of the city-
Mesopotamia on the Assyrian religion. The god A
from the third millennium234, but his initial features and aspects remain shady. He is certainly
a peculiar figure among the gods of Mesopotamia, as he, for example, lacks the usual family
connections with other gods, has no stock epithets and is not related to the powers of nature as
other deities.235 The fact that the god and the city under his aegis both bear the same name is
also peculiar. In this sense, the god could be interpreted as a personification of the city.236 The
influence of the south was a constant feature in the history of Assyrian religion and culture
-Adad I brought the Enlil-centred th century.237 Certain characteristics of Enlil were
s heavenly consort under the name Mullissu.238
230 Oshima 2009, 349. The gods absorbed by Marduk probably appear in the VI and VII tablets of
Metzler 2012 (forthcoming). A slightly different version of the 50 gods appears in the lexical god-lists from the Middle-Babylonian period, see Litke 1998. 231 Espak 2010b, 144. 232 Ibid., 141. 233 Ibid. 234 See e.g. RIMA 1 A.0.1003.2001, l. 13, p. 9; RIMA 1 A.0.27.1, ll. 1-6, p. 13. 235 Lambert 1983, 82. 236 Black, Green 1992, 37. 237 Cancik-Kirschbaum 2003, 144. 238 Ibid., 145.
43
2.6 Mesopotamian Religion during the Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian periods
2.6.1 The Middle Babylonian Period (1595-1155)
The Kassite rule over Babylonia probably brought no major inventions into the religious
sphere as the Kassites largely assimilated with the existing Babylonian society. Nevertheless,
equated with the Babylonian deities; independently they were probably forgotten after the end
of the Kassite rule.239
Some subsequent developments in the elevation of Marduk can be attested in the
Kassite period.240 On the level of personal religion, mirrored by the prayers on cylinder seals
and onomasticon, Marduk is among the most popular deities of the era. On the seals of the
by the fact that of 150 prayers of this kind, his name is mentioned in 62: exclusively in 54 of
them and in connection with other deities in eight occurrences.241 In theophoric onomasticon,
Marduk is also among the most popular deities of the era, evidenced by findings from all the
cities where texts have been found. In official religion, as proven by the kudurru-stones,
Marduk did not rank among the top triad of deities with Anu, Enlil, Ea and occasionally the
mother-goddess, but belonged to the second-ranking group with S
sometimes Ishtar.242
2.6.2 The Middle Assyrian Period (ca. 1400-1050)
In the 14-13th century the importance of the city-
Mesopotamia in connection with the foundation of the powerful kingdom by the Middle
Assyrian kings.243
especially under Tukult -Ninurta I (1244-1208), whose military endeavours granted wider
prominence to the city god. Tukult -Ninurta I conquered Babylon and brought back the statue
of Marduk as booty. Symbolically, Marduk, the head of the Babylonian pantheon, was seen as 239 Black, Green 1992, 112. 240 -190; Sommerfeld 1982, 175). 241 Sommerfeld 1982, 157. 242 Lambert 1984, 3. 243 Sazonov 2010a, 41.
44
Mesopotamian pantheon.244
Another sign of
ritual of the Assyrian king. In this ritual, the mediating role of the king in relation to the god is 245, and the
actual human ruler appears only thereafter.246 This crowning ritual was probably designed in
the Middle-Assyrian period, ca. 1300247, and it clearly validates the predominance of the god 248 The priestly function of the ruler is also
one of the main differences between the Assyrian and Babylonian royal ideologies.249
2.7 Mesopotamian Religion during the Late Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian periods
2.7.1 The Late Babylonian Period (ca.900-539)
In the period of Assyrian hegemony in Babylonia and in the Neo-Babylonian period, Marduk
had performed a gradual rise of about a thousand years starting from the time of Hammurabi.
is already the undisputed leader of the Mesopotamian pantheon and the creator of the world.
The exact dating of the composition is unsure and there are various scholarly opinions in
dating the epic.250 Most copies of the composition date to the first half of the first
millennium.251
244 Sazonov 2010a, 41Babyloniens, sondern auch
lt -Nin rta I.) den
besiegt und gefangengenommen hat. 245 Oppenheim 1964, 99. 246 247 Ibid. 248
ompetenz, administrativ-
Reichsgott -damit eine besondere Verantwortu -Tempel, das Zentrum des Staatskults. 249 Oppenheim 1964, 99. 250 Nebuchadnezzar I (1126-1105) who sacked Elam and brought back the statue of Marduk (Lambert 1984, 4). Stephanie Dalley suggests Old-Babylonian period (Dalley 2000, 230), as does Amar Annus (Annus 2002, 37-39). Walter Sommerfeld (Sommerfeld 1982, 175) and Thorkild Jacobsen (Jacobsen 1976, 189-190) prefer the Kassite period. 251 Jacobsen 1976, 167.
45
his son Ea the fifth generation. The first godly creatures, Tiamat and Apsu252 are getting
annoyed by the noise made by the younger generations of gods and plan to destroy them. Ea
still manages to kill Apsu. Following the killing he builds a dwelling place for himself and his
wife Damkina out of the corpse of Apsu, where they beget Marduk, the protagonist of the
god from the third generation, then in turn sends Ea and Anu to fight Tiamat, but they both
return unsuccessfully. Then Marduk steps up and is ready to fight Tiamat on the condition
that the counsel of gods has to recognise him as the leader of the gods. All the great gods
agree, and the counsel accepts Marduk as the leader of the pantheon. Marduk kills Tiamat
with his bow and arrow and creates heaven and earth out of her body. He also lets Ea design
earth is to work for the gods and feed them.253
The story line of the epic was probably reflected in the annual festivals under the
Late Babylonian kings. During the festivities the battle between Marduk and Tiamat254 was
symbolized with the rites in the house outside the city.255 The festival was also
important for the royal ideology. When Marduk was annualy elevated to the the top of the
pantheon, the human ruler was accordingly reinstated to his position.256
also recited during the festival in Babylon.257
- the
he became an undisputed monarch of the gods and obscured
Enlil. That also reflects the standing of the city Babylon in world politics. In the words of
Wilfred G. Lambert:
When Babylon became the political capital under Hammurabi, its god Marduk was promoted from obscurity to be a great god among the other great gods, the Igigi, and was granted full control of the peoples. Babylon became supreme in the world regions, but that is so far as the wording goes. Cosmically it remained untouched. Anu and Enlil initiated these limited
252 The salty and the sweet water. 253 This motive is actually much older, e.g. appears already in the Isin-the World Order ). 254 -110 = Talon 2005, 92f. See also Jacobsen 1968, 106 who interprets the battle as a fight between forces of nature, the thunderstorm and the sea. 255 Lambert 1963, 189. 256 Annus 2001, 17. 257 Dalley 2000, 231.
46
promotions of Marduk and Babylon but in no way abdicated in the process. However, the continuance of Babylon as the political capital resulted in the building of pressure to have Marduk and Babylon made supreme in place of Enlil and Nippur. This eventually happened
he manifesto of this change. Marduk becomes the head of the pantheon by saving his elders from Tiamat, Qingu, and the eleven monsters. The older gods agreed to abdicate in his favour should he succeed in this mission. Enlil is humiliated throughout. Until the very end he only appears as one of the Neo-Sumerian trinity, Anu, Enlil, and Ea, never on his own. And his very first appearance is after the battle is over and Marduk, using his newly acquired authority, reorganizes the universe to his own specifications.258
This citation sums up the overthrow of the earlier leaders of the pantheon in favour of the new
Marduk-centred rule. Marduks rise to supremacy is also stressed by the fact that in the late
Babylonian times he is usually called b l
The late Babylonian period saw the rise of another prominent deity. This time it was
Marduks son Nab , the scribe of the gods259 and the tutelary deity of Borsippa near Babylon.
Nab have been
on the verge of replacing his father at the top of the pantheon.260
2.7.2 The Neo-Assyrian period (934-610)
The Neo-Assyrian period sees Assyrian hegemony over most of Mesopotamia. When the
Assyrians rose to world dominance in the beginning of the first millennium, they continued
the tradition of borrowing from their southern neighbours Babylonians, especially in the fields
cosmogony by making only minor adjustments to the original text, most prominently with the 261 One other important change was introduced in the
262, maybe only due to the
similarity of the names.263 Th 264 and
made him the forefather of the other great Mesopotamian gods. Apart from the adapted
258 Lambert 1992, 120. 259 Before Nab , the scribal role was attributed to goddess Nidaba/Nisaba of Eresh, see Michalowski 2002. 260 Oates 1979, 172. Cf. Lambert 1963, 190. 261 Jacobsen 1976, 167. 262 R, 2000, 160). 263 Black, Green, 1992, 38. 264 Cancik-Kirschbaum 2003, 112.
47
deities.265
among other deities, his name almost exclusively precedes the other gods.266 Besides him
there was a group of other important gods in the Assyrian pantheon. Among them were
sun-god and the god of justice, who was very powerful and popular in Assyria in
the second and first millennia; the moon- r Erra; the
warlike Ishtar, who was prominent until the end of imperial Assyria, and others.267
In Neo-Assyrian times there was at least one occasion when an Assyrian ruler tried to
introduce an essential religious invention. That happened when the Assyrian king Sennacherib
(704-
Sennacherib developed a hatred for Marduk, city god of Babylon, who had replaced Enlil as head of the pantheon some 500 years earlier. This hatred expressed itself in the attempt to put
268
uction of Babylon and
its temples in 689. A part of the blame for the destruction was put on the military activities of
the Marduk temple.269
265 Cancik-Kirschbaum 2003, 113. 266 Parpola 2000, 168. 267 Sazonov 2010a, 38f. 268 Lambert 1983, 86. 269 Brinkman 1973, 95.
3 Mesopotamian Influences on the O ld Persian Royal Ideology and
Religion
civilization on pre-Islamic Iran: (1) the pre-Achaemenid period: before the conquest of
Babylon by Cyrus the Great; (2) the Achaemenid period: before the conquest of the Persian
Empire by Alexander the Great; and (3) the Seleucid-Parthian- 270 The
current chapter centres on the Achaemenid (Old Persian) period, but some introductory
remarks about the pre-Achaemenid period are also presented.
3.1 T races of Mesopotamian Influences on the O ld Persian Royal Ideology and
Religion during the pre-Achaemenid Period
The Persians stemmed from the proto-Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-Europeans. All of the
many theories about Indo-Europeans and their beginnings remain highly hypothetical, but a
-
actually a special term designating the hypothetical initial language which later divided into
Indian, Iranian, Tocharian, Anatolian, Armenian, Greek, Italian, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and
Slavic branches and can be reconstructed by comparative methods.271 The proto-Indo-
Iranians272 probably lived as pastoralists east of the Volga River and divided into two separate
groups of peoples in the beginning of the third millennium.273 The Persians, in turn, are a part
of the larger Iranian group of peoples who were identified on the basis of language which
270 Gnoli 1988. 271 Puhvel 1996, 42. 272 A term designating the transitional stage of developments between the Indo-Europeans and Indians and Iranians as linguistically distinct peoples. 273 Boyce 1979, 2.
49
divided into dialects.274 A closer following of the Iranian peoples in reaching their new
homelands in Central Asia, the Iranian plateau and Afghanistan is problematic due to
hardships in uniting archaeological findings with linguistic data.275 They probably stayed for a
long period of time in Central Asia and Eastern Iran, with little contact with the west where
the settled cultures of Mesopotamia and Elam were located.276
Before the Iranians reached the Iranian Plateau, it was already inhabited by various
ethnic groups. Western Iran had been occupied by the Hurrians277 (who were related with the
later Urartians and Mannaeans) in the north and the Elamites278 (together with Kassites) in the
south.279 These ethnic groups (especially the Urartians) played an important role as mediators
of influence between the Mesopotamians and the Iranian newcomers. The general agreement
proposes the gradual movement of Iranians from Zagros to Anshan towards the end of the
second millennium.280 To a certain degree the Iranian peoples probably assimilated with the
locals, thus forming the ethnic groups of the Medes (in Zagros) and the Persians (in Fars, Old
Persian P rsa, Greek Persis).281 As stated by Gherardo Gnoli about the earlier Mesopotamian
Persians that was often indirect and at times mediated by the Elamite world /.../. 282 The
penetration of the Persians to the land of the Elamites might have been peaceful and carried
out with the permission of the Elamite rulers.283 The pre-Achaemenid Mesopotamian
influences on Iran were probably also mediated by the kingdom of Urartu (ca. 900-590).284
Very little is known about the society and the royal ideology of the pre-historic
Iranians. The main reason for this is that none of the Iranian peoples seem to have used
writing until the Old Persian script was invented, probably during the reign of Darius I (522-
274 Avestan and Persian (Kuhrt 1995, 652). 275 Frye 1984, 47. 276 Ibid., 52. 277 The Hurrians are attested already in the Akkadian cuneiform tablets from the third millennium. During the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni (ca. 15th-14th century), probably the first Indo-Iranian names appear. In the treaty between the Hittite king Suppiluliuma I and Kurtiwaza, the king of Mitanni, Indian deities Indra, Mitra-Varuna and the N saty (Frye 1984, 46; Puhvel 1996, 48-49). However, many topics concerning the Indo-Iranian influences on Mitanni remain controversial (Kuhrt 1995, 297-298). 278 The Elamites had close and often violent relations with Mesopotamia at least from the third millennium. 279 Frye 1984, 46. 280 Briant 2002, 17. 281 Kuhrt 1995, 652. 282 Gnoli 1988. 283 Dandamaev 1989, 1. 284 The intermediation of Urartu can be traced in the Achaemenid royal titulary (Schmitt 1977, 386f., 389).
50
486).285 The society of the early Iranian peoples is widely accepted as being tribal. The
Avesta, the only known text written in the Avestan language, which together with the Old
Persian forms the Iranian subdivision of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European
languages, and also the holy book of the Zoroastrians mention some officials who could be
interpreted as tribal leaders. Richard N. Frye lists nm n paiti (pater familias), v spaiti
zantupaiti 286 Several tribes ruled by tribal chiefs formed
a dahyu 287 However, offering
adequate translations and a closer view of the early tribal offices on the basis of the Avesta is
complicated because of difficulties in dating the different parts of the text. The situation is
even more complex because in earlier times parts of the Avesta were only rendered orally.288
The written Avesta probably dates only to the Sasanian rule over Iran, approximately to the
p r II (309-379 AD)289, and is thus not trustworthy as a source of history.
Therefore, the Avesta is not the primary source for estimating Mesopotamian influence on the
Achaemenids, as there might be no straight connections between the Avesta and the
Mesopotamian civilisation.290
The religion of the early Iranians is also surrounded by great obscurity. The
hypothetical Proto-Indo-Europeans who lived in the steppes might have had fire and water as
the main objects of worship.291 Water was honoured as personified goddesses, the Apas; the
personification of the ever-burning fire was honoured under the name Atar.292 It has been
suggested, based on a lack of autochthonous elements in the Avesta, that the ancient Iranian
beliefs were probably closer to general Indo-European layers than the many other related
branches of the Indo-European linguistic family.293 The comparison between the G th s294
and Rig-Veda suggest initial similarities between the Iranian and Indian religions before the
285 Kellens 1987. 286 Frye 1984, 56. 287 Dandamaev 1989, 13. 288 It has been suggested that the Indo-Iranian religions evaluated the oral textual transmission. Learning the texts by heart and reciting them precisely and carefully might have been essential in the adequate cult (Kellens 1987). 289 Kellens 1987. Cthe late Parthian period, but the fixed canon was not established until the Sasanian era, apparently as late as the 6th century A.C. 290 Frye 1984, 52. 291 Boyce 1979, 3. Water was the life-giving force and fire was the source of warmth and used in cooking. 292 Ibid., 4. The cognate forms of Atar are Agni in Sanskrit and Ignis in Latin. 293 Frye 1984, 54. 294 The G th the oldest part of Avesta, traditionally attributed to Zoroaster himself.
51
reforms of Zoroaster.295 It has also been suggested that in contrast to ancient Mesopotamian
gods, the social and moral elements of the Iranian deities were more important in their
character than the forces of nature.296 The tendency with the Indo-Iranian deities seems to be
that before the specific god was personified, there existed an abstract idea or concept that was
later gradually developed into the divine personality.297 Mithra, the god first hypostatizing
loyalty to the covenant298 and later the god of war299, the great judge and a solar deity, seems
to be an example of this tendency. He was also considered to be the upholder of the ancient
Indo-Iranian principle of , ta in Sanskrit.300 was the orderly principle or natural law
which was believed to maintain the movement of the sun, the change of the seasons, and the
continuance of existence.301 The worship and sacrifice by humans was also thought to
maintain the .302 Another important Iranian deity was the goddess An hit . She appears in
the Yashts303 of Avesta as Ar dw S ra An hit , the goddess
whose main dominion is water304. In the post-Zoroastrian tradition the name An hit appears
in the astrological context, designating the name for planet Venus and could thus have been
influenced by Mesopotamian Inanna/Ishtar. The most prominent god of the ancient Iranians
was Ahura Mazd
link with Varuna, the Vedic deity who for some reason lost his importance in the Iranian
religion.305 In the G th s and Achaemenid inscriptions Ahura Mazd was considered to be the
creator of the universe, the controller of all destinies and a personal deity of his
295 Puhvel 1996, 104. The reforms of Zoroaster and even his dating are still a matter of controversy. Zoroaster has been suggested to have purged the Iranian pantheon from the older deities as he accentuated the role of Ahura Mazd h as his only god. He also might have set in place the dualism of
and drug, the good and evil (Ibid., 105). 296 Ibid. Nevertheless, the forces of nature were also honoured by the early Iranians as Sky and Earth, Asman and Zam; Sun and Moon, Hvar and Mah; and two gods of the wind: Vata and Vayu (Boyce 1979, 6). 297 Boyce 1979, 10. 298 The Indo- (Malandra 1983, 56). 299 As the god of war, Mithra rides a chariot filled with weapons and punishes the covenant breakers. The warlike role of Mithra is very similar to the role of Vedic Indra. The possible explanation is that when Indra was eclipsed by the reforms of Zoroaster, his characteristics were taken over by Mithra (Ibid., 57). 300 Boyce 1996, 27. 301 Boyce 1979, 6-7. 302 Ibid., 7. The principle of was confronted by drug, the principle of falsehood or distortion (Ibid., 8). 303 304 The other aspects of her personality, when compared with the non-Avestan material could point to non-Iranian origins. On the basis of linguistic evidence it has also been suggested that two distinct goddesses might have been united in the Avesta (Malandra 1983, 117-118). 305 Frye 1984, 54.
52
worshippers.306 In the Zoroastrian dualism he was opposed to his evil counterpart, Angra
Mainyu.307
The traces of the Iranian peoples are visible in the Mesopotamian sources in the first
quarter of the first millennium. The Medes appeared in the Assyrian sources from the ninth
century onwards.308 The Assyrians had constant military conflict with them in the Zagros
area.309 Probably the most famous historical information about the Medes was the sacking of
Assyrian capital Nineveh in 612 in coalition with the Babylonian forces. The scholarly
tradition reports the existence of a Median empire after this event, but as the modern views 310, the
existence of Median Empire has been doubted in recent works.311 Until today very little is
known about the Medes as they had no script of their own, and the archaeological findings are
uncertain, saying little about the territorial, political, social and cultural circumstances in the
Median state.312
The first possible mention of the Persians by the Assyrians appears in a royal
inscription of Shalmaneser III (859-824), dating from his 24th year:
ma-da-t s 27 MAN- -ni / KUR -su-a at-ta- ar313
I received tribute from twenty-seven kings of the land Parsua.314
Here, however, the situation is more problematic, as it cannot be said with certainty that the
kings mentioned here are the kings of the ancestors of the later Persians. As the mentioned
Parsua is probably located near the modern Kermanshah in north-western Iran and is not the
later settlement of Persians in the modern province of Fars (Old Persian P rsa), the Parsuans
could be the Persians who later moved southwards or a splinter group of the same people who
306 Malandra 1983, 44f. 307 However, the development of this opposition is somewhat more complicated. In the Zoroastrian sense there was a dualistic opposition of and drug (Cf. Vedic ta and druh), the truth and the lie, or (the good and evil). The executor of was Sp ), of drug, Angra
). In the later developments Sp nta Mainyu lost its importance and Angra Mainyu was opposed directly to Ahura Mazd (Puhvel 1996, 105). 308 309 Kuhrt 1995, 652. 310 E.g. Herodotus I. 103. 311 Rollinger 2008, 52. See also Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1988. 312 313 RIMA 3 A.0.102.14, ll. 19-20, p. 68. 314 Ibid. A.0.102.14, l. 20, p. 68.
53
moved west while the main body moved on to south.315 In 714 the Persians are mentioned as
the subjects of Assyrian king Sargon II (721-705).316
The exact time the Persians reached the modern province of Fars is unknown. The
ancient name of the area, roughly corresponding to the area of P rsa, was Anshan. It was the
centre of the eastern part of the Elamite state.317 318
Cambyses I, Cyrus I and Teispes on the Cyrus Cylinder.319 The second testimony of the title
is an impression of a cylinder seal from Persepolis320, depicting a spearman on a horse
attacking the enemies, complemented with the Elamite text
Teispes. 321 -grandfather could have been
the first to bear this title after 646, when Assyrians sacked the Elamite capital Susa.322 After
the sacking of Susa, a new kingdom of Elamites and immigrant Persians was possibly formed
in Fars, independent of the Elamite state with its capital in Susa.323 This Teispes/Chishpish
was thus maybe the first king of the Persians. The later sources mention Achaemenes, the
eponymous name-giver of the dynasty, but he was possibly only a legendary figure.324 There
325
315 Frye 1984, 66. 316 Dandamaev, Lukonin 1989, 3. 317 period texts that this area was called P rsa, which is the Persis of the Greek sources, modern Fars. Consequently, it was concluded that Anshan and P rsa were alternative names for one and the same country. Starting from at least the middle of the seventh century B.C., Anshan became the old, archaic and formal name, sanctified by an age-old tradition which was mainly preserved in royal titles. But the real name of the land was P rsa, which was derived from the appelation of its new rulers. 318 Briant 2002, 17. 319 Schaudig 2001, 552. 320 Catalogued as PFS (Persepolis Fortification Tablets) 93. The Persepolis Fortification Tablets together with Persepolis Treasury Tablets (PTT), are administrative documents written on clay tablets in the Elamite language. These tablets from Persepolis are an important source of the early Achaemenid history from Darius to Xerxes. The use of the Elamite language as the official administrative language of the empire ceased in ca. 460 and was later replaced with Aramaic documents written on parchment
321 Brosius 2000, 4. The Cyrus appearing on the seal is usually identified witgrandfather. 322 Ibid. 323 Dandamaev 1989, 2. 324 Ibid. 325 - -192.
54
Later the Persians became the vassals of the Median kings.326 Cyrus II the Great (558
530) was traditionally seen as the ruler who managed to break free from the rule of Medians
under king Astyages. Cyrus II managed to sack Ecbatana, the capital of the Medes in
554/53327 or 550/49328. This event is witnessed in the chronicle of Nabonidus (555-539) from
Babylon:
1 [id]-[ke]-e-ma ana mu i mKu- r An- -an ana ka- [ -di i]l-lik-ma [...]
2 m -tu-me- - -su- II a- -na mKu- -x[...]
3 mKu- -na kurA-gam-ta- - -tu il-lik-ma kaspa a [...]
4 kurA-gam-ta- -lul- -ma a-na kurAn- -an il-...]329
1 (Astyages) mustered (his army) and marched against Cyrus (II), king of Anshan, for conquest [...]
2 The army rebelled against Astyages and he was taken prisoner. Th[ey handed him over] to Cyrus (II). ([...])
3 Cyrus (II) marched to Ecbatana, the royal city. The silver, gold, goods, property, [...]
4 which he carried off as booty (from) Ecbatana he took to Anshan. The goods (and) property of the army of [...]330
After the sacking of Ecbatana and subordinating the Medes, Cyrus conquered Lydia 547,
Babylonia 539331 and eastern Iran in less than twenty years and created an empire stretching
from Mediterranean to India.
326 Mary Boyce suggests that the Persian-led kingdom of Anshan was made subject to the Medes right after the overthrow of Assyria by the Medes and Babylonians (1979, 49). 327 Third year of Nabonidus as proposed in the Sippar Cylinder (see Law 2010, 202-208). 328 Sixth year of Nabonidus as proposed in the Nabonidus Chronicle (See ABC 7). 329 ABC, 106. 330 Ibid. 331 Henri Frankfort in his seminal conquering of Babylon and the influence of this event on the abrupt change in the royal ideology,
lon, for example, he assumed a cultural heritage which could not be accommodated within the traditional forms of Persian life. /.../ after the conquest of Babylon, Cyrus found himself the center of an immense apparatus which set the Mesopotamian ruler apart and insured his proper functioning as an intermediary between society and the divine powers. Although our knowledge of the Achaemenian kingship is very slight, Greek sources show that its original simplicity was lost when it became burdened with the dignthat kingship under Cyrus the Great and Darius I was given a setting for which there were no Persian
55
3.2 Mesopotamian Influences on the O ld Persian Royal Ideology and Religion during
the Achaemenid Period (558-330)
In the following treatment some of the most exemplary Achaemenid sources are taken under
discussion in chronological order. The focus is on the royal inscriptions where the possible
Mesopotamian influence concerning royal ideology and religion is being traced. The
necessary information about the historical background of the material is added.
3.2.1 The Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions
The Achaemenid royal inscriptions together with the Elamite administrative tablets from
Persepolis and archaeological findings are the most important sources for reconstructing
Achaemenid history, as they are both contemporary and Iran-oriented.332 Most of these
inscriptions were trilingual333 and were found in Persis (Persepolis, Naqhs-i Rustam,
Pasargadae), Elam (Susa) and Media (Behistun, Hamadan).334
The first problem that arises in discussing the Achaemenid royal inscriptions is the
genealogy of the Achaemenid kings. There are different sources for reconstructing the
Achaemenid lineages of rulers, none of them entirely trustworthy. About the kings prior to the
empire founder Cyrus II, the information is scanty. The Cyrus cylinder lists the following line
of kings: Teispes-Cyrus I-Cambyses I-Cyrus II335 while the Behistun inscription of Darius I
lists Achaemenes-Teispes-Ariaramnes-Arsames-Hystaspes-Darius I336 and states that there
were eight kings in his family ruling before him337. The reason for the differing lineages lies
Cambyses II and the revolt of Gaumata in 522. It has been claimed that Darius used the means
precedents and in which the Mesopotamian ingredients are clearly recognizable. If the pillared halls of the Achaemenid palaces had prototypes in the vast tents of nomadic chieftains, the walled artificial terrace, the monstrous guardians at the gates, the revetments of sculptured stone slabs, and the panels of glazed bricks derived from Babylon, Assur and Nineveh, even though they were executed by craftsmen from all over the empire and transfused with the spirit demonstrably Persian. 332 e a unique source of information about Old Iranian religion in that they can be dated and assigned to historical personalities. 333 Written in Old Persian, Elamite, Babylonian. Sometimes also bilingual or monolingual. 334 335 Schaudig 2001, 552. 336 Cf. Herodotus VII.11 lists Achaemenes-Teispes-Cambyses-Cyrus-Teispes-Ariaramnes-Arsames-Hystaspes- 337
56
of propaganda to justify his rights to the throne of the Achaemenids.338 In connecting his
ancestors to the royal line of Cyrus II with the mutual ancestor Teispes, Darius I presents
himself as a member of the branch of the royal family and thus legitimises his claims to the
throne.339 There are also two inscriptions on golden plates from Hamadan (ancient Median
capital Ecbatana) attributed to Ariaramnes and Arsames,340 but most scholars have accepted
them as not authentic on the basis of grammatical peculiarities and dated them to the late
Achaemenid period.341
3.2.1.1 The Cyrus Cylinder
There are no inscriptions in the Old Persian language preserved from the time of Cyrus II342.
Next to the Deutero-Isaiah mentioning of Cyrus, the most important document concerning the
founder of the kingdom is the so-called Cyrus cylinder, written in Akkadian language.343 The
text describes the misdeeds of Nabonidus, the last king of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, who
was not pious towards Marduk and tortured the citizens of Babylon with a corv e. Marduk
decides to punish Nabonidus, chooses Cyrus II as the ruler of the world and sends him to
Babylon. Cyrus takes the city without battle and the citizenry greets him with joy. Cyrus then
returns the images of gods, releases the people connected with their cults to their original
dwellings344 and starts out with building activity. The text ends with the report of Cyrus
connect himself to an earlier prosperous ruler.345
This propagandistic text directly reflects the Mesopotamian influences on the Old
Persian royal ideology. The physical shape and literary genre of this text was already a few
thousand years old when this particular text was written, as it belongs to the tradition of
Mesopotamian building texts, a subgenre of royal inscriptions.346 In fact, there are no
338 Cf. Briant 2002, 16. 339 Teispes between his sons Cyrus I and Ariaramnes (See e.g. Frye 1984, 90-91). 340 AmH, AsH. 341 Dandamaev 1989, 8. Cf. Schmitt 2007, 28. 342 There are two inscriptions CMa and CMc from Pasargadae attributed to Cyrus II, but they are considered to be later additions by Darius I (Waters 2004, 94). 343 Ahn 1992, 135. 344 , the Book of Ezra 1:2-4 where Cyrus starts out the building of a temple in Jerusalem and releases the Jews from captivity in Babylon. 345 Kuhrt 1992, 51. 346 Kuhrt 1983, 88.
57
composed in accordance with traditional Mesopotamian royal building texts and apart from
the incontrovertible fact that the main protagonist is a Persian no foreign and/or new literary
elements appear in it. 347 The traditional way to substantiate this kind of Mesopotamian
new tolerant policies
towards the subdued peoples.348 Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg doubts the emergence of a new
political philosophy of tolerance and argues that the Achaemenid kings only followed local
customs and acted as local kings.349 The cylinder has also been attributed to the priests of
Marduk who were concerned with their privileges under Nabonidus and thus sustained the 350 From the discussed evidence it
could be concluded that the Cyrus Cylinder was by genre closer to the royal inscriptions of
Mesopotamian kings than of the Achaemenids.
If one traces back the more specific role-model of the Cyrus cylinder, the somewhat
surprising outcome would be that the text lacks similarity with most of the Neo-Babylonian
building inscriptions, resembling only some inscriptions of his antagonist Nabonidus.351
Taking into account that the texts of Nabonidus have been written following the example of
the inscriptions by Assyrian kings, it can be concluded that the closest Mesopotamian
relatives to the Cyrus Cylinder (besides texts from Nabonidus) are actually those of the Neo-352 The aforementioned te
found by Cyrus, could in this context be important.
The obvious way to stress the genuinely Mesopotamian essence would be the analysis
of the royal titles in the text:
(20) a-naku Iku-ra- lugal - lugal gal lugal dan-nu lugal tin.tirki lugal kur -me- -
ka-di-i lugal kib-ra-a-ti er- -et-
(21) dumu Ika-am-bu-zi-ia lugal gal lugal uru an- -an dumu dumu Iku-ra- lugal gal luga[l*
u]ru* an- -an I - -pi- lugal gal lugal uru an- -an353
347 Kuhrt 1983, 92. 348 Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993, 156. 349 Ibid. distinguished the Achaemenid rulers, Cyrus in particular, and no doubt facilitated the integration of many diverse components into a centralized empire. 350 Piras 2002, 207. 351 Kuhrt 1983, 91. 352 Ibid., 92. 353 Schaudig 2001, 552.
58
(20) I am Cyrus, king of the universe, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer
and Akkad, king of the four quarters,
(21) son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of
Anshan, offspring of Teispes, great king, king of Anshan
(1) a-na-ku dNa-bi-um-na- - -bu- -nu
(2) - - KI -ra-a-ti er-bet-ti354
(1) I, Nabonidus, great king, mighty king,
(2) king of the universe, king of Babylon, king of the four quarters
All the five titles used by Nabonidus are similar to the ones used by Cyrus II. The cited
-na- - - -nu
-rat irbitti(tim)
3 i- - -a a- -
-a - 355
1I, Ashurbanipal, the great king, the mighty king, 2king of the universe, king of
Assyria, king of the four world-regions, 3offspring of the loins of Esarhaddon, king of
Assyria, 4duke of Babylon, king of the land of the Sumerian and the Akkadian, 5grandson of Sennacherib, king of the universe, king of Assyria 356
Cyrus on his cylinder. Both kings also list their ancestors. The only difference appears in the
title concerning Babylonia. While Cyrus II presents himself as the lugal tin.tirki
-357
354 Kienast 1979, 354. 355 Piepkorn 1933, 28. 356 Ibid. 357 G R.NITA in Sumerian, first used by Lugal-zagesi (Hallo 1957, 127).
59
The Cyrus Cylinder follows the example of the age-old Mesopotamian titles:
1. LUGAL = 358
designated the ruler of the city-
exert his power during conflicts between the city- 359. During the times starting with
Sargon of Akkade (2334-2279) and the Akkadian dynasty, the Sumerian titl
was translated into Akkadian as and started to be used as a universalistic royal
title360 361 This title was later used by e.g. Hammurabi (1792-
-Adad I (1808- -Ninurta I (1244-1208) and Kurigalzu I (ca.
1400).362
2. LUGAL GAL, in Akkadian ). LUGAL GAL is a far-spread
Mesopotamian title from the third millennium. Used in the inscriptions of Assyria from
-1057), in Babylonia from Kurigalzu I.363
II (883-859), Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727), Esarhaddon (680- -ca.630)
of Assyria.364
3. LUGAL dannu or
period, first used in Sumerian form LUGAL KALAGA by Amar- -2038), 365 The remaining Ur III kings and
all kings from Isin, as well as Hammurabi and his successors from the First Dynasty of
Babylon, all bore the title.366 -1308), Sennacherib
(704- -605) of Babylonia.367
4. LUGAL tin.tirki DINGIR RAki),
-Ninurta I, Tiglath-
Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib; the Babylonian kings Marduk-apla-idinna (721-710),
358 Appears in the first known Mesopotamian royal inscriptions by (En)mebaragesi, see RIME 1, 56-57; FAOS 5, II, 213-214. 359 See Maeda 1981. 360 About universalistic royal titles see Stadnikov 1998. 361 Sazonov 2008, 196f. 362 Ibid., 208. 363 -Adad I (1813-1781)(ibid.). 364 Ibid. 365 Hallo 1957, 127. 366 Ibid. 367 Kienast 1979, 356f.
60
Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562), the Achaemenid ruler Cambyses II (in
538368).369
5. LUGAL akkadi (= ), LUGAL KI-ENGI KI-URI in
king Ur-Namma
(2112-ca.2095).370 -2047)371, the Old Babylonian kings, the
-Ninurta I372, the Neo- -Adad V (823-
811)373 and Tiglath-Pileser III374.
6. LUGAL (= ), LUGAL AN-UBDA LIMMUBA in
- -2218).375 This
-
military expansion to distant territories.376 The title is partly synonymous with another
universalistic title as both stand for the political program of universal control.377
The title is also borne by e.g. the Sumerian king Utu-hegal378 (2119-2113), the Old
Babylonian king Hammurabi379 -Ninurta I380, the Kassite
king Kurigalzu I381.
The Cyrus Cylinder follows the example of the earlier Mesopotamian concepts also in
the religious traits. The king is seen as the restorer of cults and a great builder. He holds an
exclusive relationship with the god Marduk who chose him as his favourite. All these
concepts reach back to the third millennium Mesopotamia. The ideas of the Cyrus Cylinder
are also present in another text from the same time and probably written for the same
purposes, the so-called verse account of Nabonidus.382
368 Cyrus II probably appointed his son Cambyses as king of Babylon in 539/538. The title
) was attributed to Cyrus II, while ) was attributed to his son Cambyses (Peat 1989, 210). This institution of co-regency was probably one of the Assyrian influences on the Achaemenid royal ideology (See Frankfort 1948, 243f.). 369 Kuhrt 1992, 25. 370 Hallo 1957, 126. 371 Ibid. 372 Cifola 1995, 42. 373 Ibid., 129. 374 Cifola 1995, 138. 375 Hallo 1957 124f. 376 Maeda 1984, 80. 377 Cifola 1995, 141f. 378 Hallo 1957, 125. 379 Ibid. 380 Sazonov 2010a, 115. 381 Ibid., 116. 382 For the text of the verse account of Nabonidus see Law 2010, 209-217.
61
3.2.1.2 The Inscription of Darius at Behistun (DB)
Cyrus II died in the summer of 530 in the battle with the Massagetai, east of the Caspian
Sea.383 After him reigned his son Cambyses II, who managed to conquer Egypt in 525. The
inscription at Behistun reflects the events that took place after the death of Cambyses (530-
522) in 522. Cambyses had secretly killed his brother Bardiya384 before setting off to
Egypt.385 Cambyses himself died on his way back from Egypt when a revolt had started
against him in Fars, Media and other provinces.386 The leader of the revolt was Gaumata the
magus387, who presented himself as Bardiya, the brother of Cambyses. Gaumata was
overthrown by Darius in 522. According to Muhammad A. Dandamaev, the Behistun
inscription was created between November 521 and March 518.388 Apart from containing
some historical facts, the inscription is also a propagandistic piece of self-justification by
Darius and thus should not be considered to be an entirely adequate depiction of history.
The inscription of Behistun is typically to the Achaemenid inscriptions trilingual,
written in Old Persian, Elamite and Akkadian. Old Persian was a south-western Old Iranian
dialect spoken by the king and his subjects in Fars, with the written form probably invented
under Darius I.389 The Old Persian language is expressed most elaborately and substantially in
the inscription of Behistun. The inscription is also notorious for being the device for
deciphering the ancient Near Eastern scripts. In the traditional manner of the ancient
Mesopotamian inscriptions, it starts with the royal titles given by Darius and the listing of his
genealogy:
i
i i
383 Frye 1984, 95. 384 Smerdis in Greek. 385 386 Frye 1984, 98. 387 Member of the hereditary priesthood in Media. 388 Dandamaev 1989, 134. 389 language.
62
390
-3. I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King in Persia, King of countries, son of Hystaspes, grandson of Arsames, an Achaemenian.
-6. Darius the King says: My father was Hystaspes; Hystaspes' father was Arsames; Arsames' father was Ariaramnes; Ariaramnes' father was Teispes; Teispes' father was Achaemenes.
-8. Darius the King says: For this reason we are called Achaemenians. From long ago we have been noble. From long ago our family had been kings.
-11. Darius the King says: there were 8 of our family who were kings before me; I am the ninth; 9 in succession we have been kings.391
The titles used here are similar to the titles used by the earlier Mesopotamian rulers:
1. ) a title derived from the verbal root 392 This title is
probably a Median loanword into Old Persian and, as such, probably a title coined by the
Medes.393
2. the title is often accompanied by the
title vazraka taken over from Media and follows the
Mesopotamian example (cf. Akkadian , also appearing on the cylinder of Cyrus).394
The Medes, in turn, probably took the title over from Urartian kings (starting with Sarduri I (-
ca. 825) and Ishpuini (-ca. 810)) who bore the same title in the 9th century.395
390 Kent 1950, 116f. 391 Kent 1950, 119. 392 (erschlossenen) Nomen actionis -a - (mit dem suffix ar. *-atha-, iran. *-a -) zu der Verbalwurzel ar. der, ,der charaktisiert ist durch die Herrschaft . as den eine Herrschaft auszeichnet . 393 Ibid. Though studies have given no firm proof about the Median provenience, Schmitt gives two justifications to the Median background of the title: firstly, he suggests that it is historically coherent while there was no kingdom ruled by the Iranians prior to the Medes; he also cites Strabo (11, 13, 9), who h Ibid.). 394 395 Schmitt 1977, 386.
63
3. also a title of Mesopotamian origin, taken over
by the Persians from the Medes, who in turn borrowed it from the Urartians.396 It was a
universalistic title written 397 398 and LUGAL 399) in Akkadian.400 In the Mesopotamian inscriptions it was first used by the
-Ninurta I.401 The title first appeared in the name of Akkadian
-2193).402 Later it became a title par excellence for the Iranian rulers
(Middle Persian , New Persian ).403
4. a rare title in the Old Persian royal inscriptions,
appearing besides DB only in one minor inscription404 which copies the beginning of DB405
and in the two aforementioned suspicious inscriptions from Hamadan406. It is probably
impossible to follow the probable role-models for this title as this kind of combination
(designation of a ruler + topographical name) is widespread.407
5. 408 the title was used by all of the Achaemenid
kings who left behind royal inscriptions, starting with Darius I.409 It has only rare counterparts
in Mesopotamia as appearing
during the reigns of the Neo- 410 A
version of this title, iya dahy is comparable to the Akkadian titles
and in the demand for world dominion.411
11 /.../ 412
396 Schmitt 1977, 386. 397 See e.g. RIMA 1 A.0.78.7, l. 1, p. 248. 398 See e.g. RIMA 1 A.0.78.24, l. 7, p. 275; RIMA 1 A.0.78.13, l. 3, p. 257. 399 See e.g. RIMA 1 A.0.78.39, l. 3, p. 289. 400 Sazonov 2012, 257. 401 Ibid. 402 403 404 DBa. 405 DB 1.1-11. 406 AmH, AsH. 407 ki from Mesopotamia. 408 ya iya dahy n m vispazan n
ya iya dahy n m paruzan nya iya dahy n m par n
. 409 Nagel 1975, 356. 410 Kienast 1979, 358. 411 Schmitt 1977, 388. 412 Kent 1950, 117.
64
-2. /.../ By the favor of Ahuramazda I am King; Ahuramazda bestowed the kingdom upon me.413
This is a typical formula of the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, probably influenced by
Mesopotamian ideology.414 The Achaemenid divine investiture contained the idea of a king
chosen by the top deity of the pantheon which is similar to the Mesopotamian idea of sacral
kingship.415 In the Mesopotamian inscriptions, the king was similarly chosen by top gods of
already in the third millennium. Lugalzagesi, the king of Uruk was granted the kingship of the
land by Enlil in a similar manner in the 24th century:
36) u4 en-
37) lugal-kur-kur-ra-ke4
38) lugal- -ge-si
39) nam-lugal-
40) kalam-ma
41) e-na-sum-ma-a416
i 36-37) When the god Enlil, king of all lands,
i 38-41) gave to Lugal-zage-si the kingship of the land417
In this text appears the Sumerian title lugal-kur-kur-ra
texts it was used as a title of the gods Enlil and An. The title could be a distant predecessor of
the Old Persian title
The Behistun inscription is illustrated with a relief depicting life-sized Darius with his
foot on prostrating Gaumata and attended by two servants and nine figures with their hands
tied and ropes around their neck, representing the conquered peoples. Also appearing in the
scene is a figure within the winged disk, handing Darius the ring of kingship. The relief has
similarities with earlier Mesopotamian depictions of victorious royalty. Various rock reliefs
and other pictorial representations have been suggested to be the role-
relief. For example, the Sar-i Pul relief of the king Annubanini from ca. the late third 413 Kent 1950, 117. 414 Gnoli 1988. 415 Ibid. 416 RIME 1 E.1.14.20.1, p. 436. 417 Ibid.
65
millennium is the most obvious example in the vicinity.418 The motive of the king placing his
foot upon the prostrate enemy, the pose of the bound enemies, as well as the king being
offered the ring of kingship on the Behistun monument might have been directly taken over
from the Sar-i Pul relief.419 The Sar-i Pul relief, in turn, might have been influenced by the
earlier Mesopotamian prototypes.420 - 421 has also been
suggested as a possible role- -
foot upon the enemy and is pictured larger then the other human actors, as is Darius on the
Behistun relief. Joan Goodnick Westenholz has suggested that Darius might have had seen the
-
probably still standing there in his days, among the other Akkadian stelae.422 The Neo-
Assyrian prototypes have also been considered important influences for the style of the
Behistun relief.423 Margaret Cool Root considers the Neo-Assyrian stelae and palace reliefs as
the possible influences for the Behistun relief.424
3.2.1.3 The Inscription of A rtaxerxes I I at Susa A (A2Sa)
The trilingual (Old Persian, Elamite, Akkadian) inscription of the late Achaemenid period
king Artaxerxes II (404-359) commemorates the building of a palace:
a
a a
5 naha
425
418 Westenholz 2000, 122. The Sar-i Pul relief is located on the same road from Babylon to Ecbatana. 419 Root 1979, 199-201. 420 placing one foot upon a prostrate enemy directly from the Sar-i Pul relief of Annubanini. The appearance of the motif at Sar-i Pul may, in turn, be due to the influence of a series of Akkadian and Ur III monuments which display the same motif of the king placing his foot on prostrate, living, captive enemy in a symbolic gesture of supremacy. 421 However, one thing that Darius and Nar m-Achaemenid kings were not deified and they were not of divine origin (cf. Schmitt 1983). Aeschylus contradicts this o (157)
Aeschylus 1991, 53). 422 Westenholz 2000, 122. 423 Root 1979, 200. 424 Ibid., 202-210. 425 Kent 1950, 154.
66
This palace Darius my great-great-grandfather built; later under Artaxerxes my grandfather it was burned; by the favor of Ahuramazda, Anahita, and Mithra, this palace I built. May Ahuramazda, Anahita, and Mithra protect me from all evil, and that which I have built may they not shatter nor harm.426
In the inscriptions starting from Artaxerxes II (404-359), a triad of gods appears instead of
only Ahura M
Mithra to his inscriptions as an abrupt change in the religious policies of the Achaemenids.427
In the Darius inscription of Behistun, the actions of the king were brought into life by the
favor of Ahura M 428, three gods are invoked.
In no way can this be interpreted as a development from monotheism towards polytheism, as
Darius mentions other gods already in the Behistun inscription.429 This could more likely be a
roposed by William W. Malandra.430
deus otiosus, a god whose level of
transcendence was too high to actively participate in the everyday religious concerns.431 So
inscription could be based on the need to support
the royal ideology with gods who take more active part in human affairs. This development
has its similarities with the usually abstract and inactive role of the sky god An in the
Mesopotamian religion. An had become a deus otiosus while Enlil and Enki/Ea remained
active figures in the Mesopotamian religion and mythology.432 However, these parallels can
not be taken too far, as there is absolutely no proof that the example of An had anything to do
has been noted above. Another possible parallel with Mesopotamian religion could be found
in the divine pairings of gods. As the Mesopotamian royalty had tight connections with divine
pairings like Enlil- -Ninlil (Ishtar) and Marduk-Zarpanitu, the emergence of
during the reign of Artaxerxes
II could have been introduced due to Mesopotamian influence.433
426 Kent 1950, 154. 427 Jacobs 2006, 1. 428 Also in the inscriptions of Artaxerxes III (359-338). 429 Cf. worship on the great god Ahura Mazd and both did not deny the existence of other deities. 430 Malandra 1983, 47. 431 Ibid. About deus otiosus see Eliade, Sullivan 1987. 432 Enlil and Enki eventually lost their prominence to Marduk in the theology of 433 Panaino 2000, 36.
67
with the Mesopotamian
influences, as there are some recognisable similarities with the Mesopotamian deities. In the
detection of possible influences, it should be kept in mind that the religious influences are
never unambiguous in topics like the Achaemenid religion. The absence and imbalance of
sources can never lead to exhaustive conclusions or a clear determination of the influences.
Despite of this, it can be stated that the religion during the Achaemenids was essentially
syncretistic. Richard N. Frye lists the major elements of the fusion:
Three general factors can be singled out as the background for discussion about the religion of the Achaemenids, first the general Iranian beliefs and practices inherited from Indo-Iranian ancestors, second the message of Zoroaster grafted onto, or mixed with, the former, and finally ancient Near Eastern religions with temples, priests and ancient practices. In time, under the empire the third factor obviously grew in importance /.../434
chaemenids seem to be examples of this threefold
fusion. As this thesis focuses on the Mesopotamian influences, the argumentation is mainly
connected with the third basis layer of the Achaemenid religion suggested by Frye.
The possible introduction of the
in the works of classical authors. Berossos, the Babylonian priest of Marduk, reports through
a quotation of Clement of Alexandria435 that Artaxerxes, the son of Darius, introduced the
adoration of anthropomorphic figures to the Persians, set up the statues of Aphrodite Anaitis
in Babylon and demanded their worship from the Susians, Ecbatanians, Persians and
Bactrians and from Damascus and Sardis.436 A contrasting remark is made by Herodotus, who
describes P
practice among them, and anyone who does such thing is considered a fool, because, 437 So it seems that
Artaxerxes II introduced a new trait to the traditionally non-iconographic Achaemenid
religion. Taking the Achaemenid inscriptions and classical sources into account, it could be
anian
culture, probably in the figure of the Mesopotamian goddess Inanna/Ishtar.438 The similarities 439, which could be
434 Frye 1984, 121. 435 Proptrepticus V, 65.2-3, for translation see Kuhrt 2007, 566-567. 436 However, the excavations have not revealed any statues of the Persian deities and the identification of Aphrodite Anaitis with An hit could be problematic (Brosius 2006, 66-67). 437 Herodotus I. 131 438 Panaino 2000, 37; Cf. Malandra 1983, 118. 439 Described in Yasht 5 sentences 126-129; see Malandra 1983, 129-130 for translation.
68
based on the observation of a cult image.440 It is known that Inanna/Ishtar was also elaborately
dressed for worship.441 The Mesopotamian influences are also noticed by Herodotus, who
says that the cult of Uranian Aphrodite was learned from the Assyrians and Arabians.442 The
Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar also is a probable influence to the seals, rings and tablets 443
Mithra was identified with the Mesopotamian sun-god Though the Iranians
had their own sun-
nce as a solar god.444
the first millennium.445 Both were solar deities and in the Mesopotamian calendar446, the
seventh month (
( ) was dedicated to Mithra.447
the 448 The later Mithraic mysteries in the
Roman Empire most probably had a connection with Iranian Mithra, but the exact nature of
the relation remains open.449
Only a fraction of the possible Mesopotamian influences on Old Persian royal
ideology and religion were discussed in the third chapter. A more detailed view is possible on
many of the topics, as the current observation tried to show.
440 Malandra 1983, 18. 441 Netherworld (ETCSL c. 1.4.1). 442 Herodotus I. 131. However, in the same paragraph Herodotus equates Aphrodite with Persian Mitra, which is clearly a mistake. 443 Briant 2002, 253-254. 444 Boyce 1982, 28. 445 Ibid. 446 Babylonian calendar was used throughout the Achaemenid empire (Frye 1984, 133). 447 Gnoli 1988. 448 Puhvel 1996, 109. 449 Jong 1999, 579.
Conclusions
Persian royal ideology and religion during the Achaemenid period (558-330 BC). For
delineating the material for comparative analysis, the general concepts of royal ideology and
religion in Mesopotamia were chronologically discussed from the hypothetical pre-historic
stages of the Uruk period (4000-2900 BC) to the Neo-Babylonian period (626-538 BC). The
political and sacral role of the rulers and the royal titles were observed. The primary sources
and scholarly theories, with some exemplary archaeological and iconographic material,
formed the basis of discussion. The discussion in the first two chapters was used as a basis for
the third chapter, where parts of some exemplary Achaemenid royal inscriptions were
analysed and compared to the earlier Mesopotamian royal inscriptions in an attempt to track
the possible influences on royal ideology and religion. In the context of royal ideology and
religion, the necessary historical information was added. The possible influence of different
ethnical groups on Mesopotamian and Iranian society was examined.
The first chapter
traced the chronological development of Mesopotamian royal ideology in some of its
manifestations. The political and sacral role of the rulers, and the royal titles were observed.
About the pre-historic period of Mesopotamian royal ideology, conclusions of only
speculative nature can be made on the basis of the archaeological material (e.g. the Uruk
vase), as there is no written evidence directly reflecting the concept of royal ideology. The
common theory suggests that the administrative and sacral powers were united into the hands
of a hypothetical - en. It is possible to divide the
historical and pre-historical periods of Mesopotamian history in the Early Dynastic period (ca.
2900/2800-2334 BC) on the basis of the first longer royal inscriptions, for example, during
the reign of Ur- 520 BC). In this period the royal ideology was closely
70
connected with the tutelary deities of the city-states. The tutelary deities were seen as the
actual rulers of the city-states with human rulers as their representatives. The god Enlil and
his city Nippur played a special role concerning the royal ideology, as rulers searched
legitimisation from him in Nippur. The following Akkadian period (ca. 2334-2154 BC)
brought about a change in the royal ideology. The Akkadian kings, starting with Sargon I (ca.
2334-2279 BC), created a territorial state and practiced a more despotic and centralised rule
than their predecessors, witnessed by the new universalistic royal titles and the deification of
rulers. After the ephemeral interlude of the Gutian rule, the shift in the royal ideology
introduced by the Akkadian dynasty was followed by the Ur III state (ca. 2112-2004 BC). The
Ur III rulers exercised absolute rule on a smaller geographical scale, set in place the
a. 2094-2047 BC), were also deified. The
royal ideology of the Ur III state was inherited by smaller states that reigned in Mesopotamia
during the Isin-Larsa period (ca. 2000-1800 BC). In the Old Babylonian (1894-1595 BC) and
Old Assyrian periods (ca. 2000-1600 BC) the territorial states re-emerged, most famously
with Babylonia of Hammurabi (1792- -Adad I (1808-1776) in
northern Mesopotamia. Both rulers were of western, Amorite origin. Hammurabi promoted
the cult of Marduk, the city god of Babylon. He also is known for his law code, which
probably was not a legislative codex in the modern sense but an expression of royal
-Adad I is connected with the
emergence of the concept of sovereignty in Assyria, probably following the example of
southern Mesopotamia. During the Middle Babylonian (1595-1155 BC) and Middle Assyrian
(ca.1400-1050 BC) periods new international relations emerged in the Near East, reflected in
the El-Amarna correspondence. The Middle Babylonian period was influenced by the
Kassites, a new ethnical group appearing in Babylon. The Kassites had probably little
influence on Mesopotamian royal ideology. One possible innovation was the concept of
national monarchy. The Middle Assyrian period saw the state of Assyria rise among the great
powers of the ancient Near East. The new political might was reflected in the extensive
titulary of the kings, especially -Ninurta I (1244-1208 BC). In the Neo-Assyrian period
(ca. 934-612 BC) Assyria became the sole superpower in the Near East. The militaristic kings
of Assyria starting with Shalmaneser III (859-824), set a new aim and wanted to conquer the
world. The royal ideology of the Assyrians centred on the unchallenged rule of the king, who
was seen as a defender of world order from chaos. The Neo-Assyrian hegemony was ended
by the joint forces of the Babylonians and the Medes. The Neo-Babylonian period (626-539
BC) was characterised by building activity and military campaigning of the rulers, especially
71
during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BC). The royal ideology in the Neo-
Babylonian state centred on the cultic activities of the kings.
The second chapter centred
on the traits of Mesopotamian religion that were connected with the institution of the ruler.
The development of the pantheon, the role of the prominent gods, the relations of gods and
rulers, the deification of rulers, religious syncretism and the various theological and ethnic
influences on Mesopotamian religion were examined.
The theories about archaic Mesopotamian religion remain speculative due to a lack of
- en) of Uruk offering agricultural
products to Inanna, the tutelary deity of the city. The archaic Mesopotamian pantheon might
have been dominated by the female deities, who were paired with the god Enki as the
universal husband. The later, mainly masculine pantheon could have been formed by the
influence of the Semitic Akkadians. The question about the pre-historic leader of the pantheon
remains open, with Enlil and Enki as the main contenders. The astral deities - the sky god An,
the moon-god Nanna- sun-god Utu - might have also been prominent in the pre-
historic times. In the Early Dynastic times the tutelary gods were considered to be the actual
rulers of the city states, who created, chose, and suckled the human rulers. The will of the
gods was seen as a guarantee for the well-being of the cities and the interstate relations were
considered to be lead by the gods, who justified and legitimised the actions of human rulers.
Enlil was established as the top god of the pantheon during the Early Dynastic period, with
An, Enki and Ninhursag being the other prominent gods. In the following Akkadian period
many Semitic god names appeared. The Semitic gods were probably equated with the
Sumerian gods to form a syncretistic pantheon. The goddess Ishtar was an important deity
during the Akkadian period in her warlike form, honoured in the royal inscriptions of the
kings. She was the city goddess of Agade, the capital of the Akkadian state. The Akkadian
period witnessed the first known case of deification of the ruler in the history of
Mesopotamia. During the following Ur III period a new imperial pantheon appeared. The
The Ur III rulers were engaged in the controversial hieros gamos, which was probably
-Larsa period
took over many religious concepts of the Ur III period. In the Old Babylonian period the main
religious innovation was the adding of the Babylonian city god Marduk to the Mesopotamian
pantheon. Marduk started his gradual rise to the top of Mesopotamian pantheon. The Old
72
Mesopotamian, Nippur-centred theology, exported to Assyria -Adad I (1808-1776
period brought no major inventions to Mesopotamian religion; some Kassite gods are attested
and some following developments in the elevation of Marduk could be traced. The Middle
rise of political prominence of the Middle Assyrian kingdom. The annual crowning ritual of
ruler of the state. The late Babylonian period witnessed the final elevation of Marduk to the
status of the t
the Babylonian creation epic. This period also witnessed the rise of another prominent
deity Nab -Assyrian period adapted the
the other prominent gods in the Neo-Assyrian period.
The third chapter
first deals with the hypothetical origins of the Iranian peoples. The Iranians
were part of the proto-Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. They
probably reached the Iranian Plateau at the end of the second millennium, first inhabiting the
eastern part of the plateau. They might have blended with the autochthonous people to a
certain degree, thus forming the ethnic groups of the Medes and the Persians. The pre-
Achaemenid influences of Mesopotamia might have been indirect and mediated by the
Elamites and Urartians. Very little is known about the society and rulership of the early
Iranian peoples. The form of society was probably tribal. In the Avesta, the holy book of the
Zoroastrians, some tribal offices are mentioned, but their translations and definitions are
problematic due to the problems with dating the various parts of the Avesta. The proto-Indo-
Iranians might have worshipped fire and water. The later prominent gods were Ahura Mazd
Mithra and An hit An hit was connected with the planet Venus
and was thus possibly influenced by Mesopotamian goddess Inanna/Ishtar. Compared to the
Mesopotamian pantheon, the archaic Iranian deities might have been more abstract in their
character, as their moral characteristics were more important than the forces of nature. The
Persians and the Medes first appeared in the Assyrian sources in the ninth century; the
73
Persians in the 24th year of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (859-824 BC). In the middle of
the sixth century the Achaemenid king Cyrus II (558-530 BC) conquered the other great
powers Media, Lydia and Babylonia and created an empire stretching from the Mediterranean
to India.
The second part of the third chapter discusses the most significant sources of the
Achaemenid Empire the royal inscriptions. Three exemplary Achaemenid royal inscriptions
the Cyrus Cylinder from Babylon, The Inscription of Darius I at Behistun and the
inscription of Artaxerxes II from Susa were analysed and compared with earlier
relations with the gods were emphasised.
The Cyrus Cylinder actually is a Mesopotamian royal inscription a building text
written in the manner of the two thousand year tradition in the Akkadian language. The only
truly Persian element in it was the nationality of the king. The Darius Inscription of Behistun
is a trilingual text written in the Old Persian, Elamite and Akkadian language. It is the longest
and most elaborate text written in Old Persian, the language which in its written form was
probably invented during the reign of Darius I (522-486). In the current thesis the Old Persian
version of the text was analysed and compared to the Mesopotamian texts. In the titles of
Darius, many Old Persian renderings of the Mesopotamian royal titles appear, probably
intermediated to the Persians by the Urartians and the Medes. The inscription of Artaxerxes II
at Susa is noteworthy for the fact that instead of only Ahura Mazd An hit
also included. The discussion presented in the current thesis traced the parallels of An hit
and Mithra and the Mesopotamian deities. It was concluded that An hit
In conclusion it could be stated that many elements of the Old Persian royal
inscriptions are very similar to their Mesopotamian predecessors and in all probability were
influenced by them. Thus the question posed in the introduction can be answered positively.
In the context of the present work, the topics reflected in the Achaemenid inscriptions,
especially the relations between the ruler and god(s) and the royal titulary, had their
antecedents in the distant history of the third millennium Mesopotamia. Despite the seemingly
many abrupt changes in the institution of rulership and religious life, the almost constant
political turmoil and ceaseless influences of various ethnical groups during the three millennia
long history of Mesopotamia, the core features of the Mesopotamian royal ideology and
74
religion always showed signs of utmost durability. This is proven by the fact that the elements
of Mesopotamian culture survive in the artefacts of the people with a completely different
ethnic, linguistic and religious background the royal inscriptions of the Achaemenid
Persians.
Bibliography
E lectronic Sources
E T CSL : Black, J.A., Cunningham -Hawker E., Robson E., Taylor J.,
Oxford 1998- . Last visite 27.04.2012. Gibson, McGuire, 1993. Nippur Sacred City of Enlil, Supreme God of Sumer and Akkad. The Oriental Institute of Chicago. http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/projects/nip/nsc.html last visited 23.03.2012. Gnoli, Gherardo, 1988. Babylonian Influences on Iran. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babylonia-ii last visited 28.04.2012. Jacobs, Bruno, 2006. Anahita. Iconography of Deities and Demons in the Ancient Near East. Electronic Pre-Publications. http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/prepublication.php last visited 24.04.2012. K ellenshttp://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/avesta-holy- Schmitt . http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/achaemenid-dynasty last visited 05.05.2012. Zadok, Ran, 2005. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kassites last visited 17.03.2012.
76
Primary Sources
F rom M esopotamia
A B C : G rayson, Albert Kirk, 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources, Volume V. Locust Valley, New York: J.J. Augustin Publisher. A T U 7: Englund, Robert; Nissen, Hans J., 2001. Archaische Verwaltungstexte aus Uruk : die Heidelberger Sammlung. Berlin: Mann. Benito, Carlos Alfredo, 1969. " Enki and Ninmah" and " Enki and the world order " : [Sumerian and Akkadian texts with English translations and notes] . Ann Arbor (Mich.), London: University Microfilms International. BI W A: Borger, Rykle, 1996. Prismenklassen A, B, C = K , D , E , F , G , H , J und T sowie andere Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Cavigneaux, Antoine; al-Rawi, Farouk N.H., 2000. Texts de Tell
. Cuneiform Monographs, 19. Groningen: Styx Publications. Cohen, Sol, 1979. Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. Ann Arbor (Mich.), London: University Microfilms International. Cooper, Jerrold S., 1986. Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions I: Presargonic Inscriptions. New Haven: The American Oriental Society. Dalley, Stephanie, 2000. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The F lood, Gilgamesh, and O thers. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. E A : Moran, William L., 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press. F A OS 5, I I : Steible, Horst; Behrens, Hermann, 1982. Die Altsumerische Bau- und
-II., Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 5. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
, Thomas R., Metzler, Kai A., 2012 (forthcoming). Das babylonische . AOAT 375.
L itke, Richard L., 1998. A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, AN: dA-NU-
. New Haven: Yale Babylonian Collection. Machinist, Peter, 1978. The Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta I: A Study in Middle Assyrian Literature. Yale University Dissertation.
77
Michalowski, Piotr, 2006. Sumerian King List, in: Historical Sources in Translation: The Ancient Near East. Ed. by Mark W. Chavalas. Malden(MA), Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 81 85. Parpola, Simo; Watanabe, Kazuko, 1988. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Archive of Assyria Studies, Volume II. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Piepkorn, Arthur Carl, 1933. Historical Prism Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal I: Editions E , B1-
5,D and K. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Assyriological Studies, No. 5, Chicago, Illinois, The University of Chicago Press. RI M A 1: G rayson, Albert Kirk, 2002. Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Volume 1. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press. RI M A 3: G rayson, Albert Kirk, 1996. Assyrian Rulers of the Early F irst Millennium BC II (858-745 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Volume 3, Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press.
RI M E 1: F rayne, Douglas R., 2008. Presargonic Period (2700-2350). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods, Volume 1. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press. Roth, Martha T., 1997. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Volume editor Piotr Michalowski. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
, Willem H.Ph., 1980. - AOAT 209/1. Schaudig, Hanspeter, 2001. samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften. Textausgabe und Grammatik. AOAT 256. Talon, Philippe, 2005. The standard cuneiform text, transliteration, and sign list with a translation and glossary in F rench. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts, Volume 4. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Wilcke, Claus, 1969. Das Lugalbandaepos. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wiseman, Donald John, 1958. The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon. - Iraq XX, Part I. Published by The British School of Archaeology in Iraq (Gertrude Bell memorial). London: 5
C.2.
78
F rom Persia
Brosius, Maria, 2000. The Persian Empire from Cyrus II to Artaxerxes I. The London Association of Classical Teachers K ent, Roland G., 1950. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society. K uhrt The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. New York: Routledge. Malandra, William W., 1983. An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion: Readings from the Avesta and Achaemenid Inscriptions. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Schmitt The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian text. CII I, 1. Schmitt Pseudo-moderne Nachbildungen in altpersischer Keilschrift. Akademie der Wissenschaften. G reek Sources Aeschylus, 1991. The Persians, in: The Complete Greek Tragedies. Aeschylus II. Second Edition. Translated by S. G. Benardete. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 44-86. H erodotus, 1972. Historiesintroduction and notes by A. R. Burn. London, New York, Ringwood, Toronto, Auckland: Penguin Books.
Secondary Sources
Ahn, Gregor, 1982. Voraussetzungen und die Struktur ihrer Argumentation. Acta Iranica 31. Leiden: Brill; Louvain: Peeters. Annus, Amar, 2001. Paabeli Marduk ja Hammurapi. Tuna 2, pp. 9-19. Annus, Amar, 2002. The god Ninurta in the mythology and royal ideology of ancient Mesopotamia. State Archives of Assyria Studies, Volume XIV. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
79
A rtzi, Pin as, 1978. The Rise of the Middle-Assyrian Kingdom According to El-Amarna letters 15&16, in: Bar Ilan Studies in History, P. Artzi (ed.). Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Baum-Holzinger, Eva, 2007.
. - AOAT 342. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain, 1993. An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians. JNES, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 241-261. Black, Jeremy, G reen, Anthony, 1992. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. London: British Museum Press. Boyce, Mary, 1979. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London, Boston and Kenley: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Boyce, Mary, 1982. A History of Zoroastrianism, Volume Two: Under the Achaemenians.
Boyce, Mary, 1996. A History of Zoroastrianism, Volume One: the Early Period, Third Impressions with Corrections Boyce, Mary; G renet, Frantz, 1991. A History of Zoroastrianism, Volume Three: Zoroastrianism Under Macedonian and Roman rule. Leiden, New York, KE. J. Brill. B riant, Pierre, 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Brosius, Maria, 2006. The Persians: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Brinkman, J. A., 1973. Sennacherib's Babylonian Problem: An Interpretation. JCS, Vol. 25, pp. 89-95. Brinkman, J. A., 1974. The early Neo-Babylonian monarchy, in:
Proceedings of the Rencontre assyriologique internationale; Compte rendu de la Rencontre Assyriologique lnternationale, Paul Garelli (ed.). Paris: Paul Geuthner, pp. 409-415. Brinkman, J. A., 1980. Kassiten. RlA 5, pp. 464-473. Bryce, Trevor, 2005. The Kingdom of the Hittites, New Edition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Cancik-K irschbaum, Eva, 2003. Die Assyrer: Geschichte, Gesellschaft, Kultur. Beck. Cifola, Barbara, 1995. Analysis of Variants in the Assyrian Royal Titulary from the Origins to Tiglath-Pileser III. Napoli: Instituto Universitario Orientale, Departimenti di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor XLVII.
80
Cohen, Raymond; W estbrook, Raymond (eds.), 2002. Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Colbow, Gudrun, 1991. Der kriegerische Ishtar: zu den Erscheinungsformen bewaffneter Gottheiten zwischen der Mitte des 3. und der Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends
-Verlag. Cole, Steven W., 1996. Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755-612 BC. State Archives of Assyria Studies, Volume IV. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Cooper, Jerrold S., 2008. Divine Kingship in Mesopotamia, A Fleeting Phenomenon, in: Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World And Beyond. Ed. by Nicole Brisch, Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 261-266. Dandamaev, Muhammad A., 1989. A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire. Translated by W. J. Vogelsang. Leiden: Brill. Dandamaev, Muhammad A.; Lukonin, Vladimir G., 1989. The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran. English edition by Philip L. Kohl with the assistance of D. J. Dadson. Cambridge, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press. Dandamaev, Muhammad A., 1991. Neo-Babylonian Society and Economy. CAH, Vol. III part 2, pp. 252-275. Deimel, Anton, 1931. Sumerische Tempelwirtschaft zur Zeit Urukaginas und seiner
: Abschluss der Einzelstudien und Zusammenfassung der Hauptresultate. Analecta Orientalia II. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Diakonoff, Igor M., 1969. The Rise of the Despotic State in Ancient Mesopotamia, in: Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio-Economic History : A Collection of Studies by Soviet Scholars. USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of the Peoples of Asia, edited by I. M. Diakonoff. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 173-203. Edzard Semitic and Assyriological Studies, Presented to Pelio F ronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 173-184. Edzard, Dietz Otto, 2004. Geschichte Mesopotamiens: von den Sumerern bis zu Alexander dem Grossen. E liade, Mircea, 1959. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated from the French by Willard R. Trask. Orlando, Austin, New York, San Diego, Toronto, London: A Harvest Book, Harcourt, Inc. E liade, Mircea; Sullivan, Lawrence E., 1987. Deus Otiosus, in: The encyclopedia of religion. Volume 4, [Conc - Ecol], Mircea Eliade, editor in chief. New York: Macmillan; London: Collier Macmillan.
81
Espakallilma. Eesti Akadeemilise Orientaalseltsi aastaraamat, 3, 19-29. Espak, Peeter, 2010a. S -Idas. - Eesti Akadeemilise Orientaalseltsi aastaraamat, 4, 69-84. Espak, Peeter, 2010b. The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology. Dissertationes Theologiae Universitatis Tartuensis 19. Tartu: Tartu University Press. Espak, Peeter, 2012. Some Early Developments in Sumerian God-Lists and Pantheon, in: Identities and Societies in the Ancient East-Mediterranean Regions: Comparative Approaches. Henning Graf Reventlow Memorial Volume. AOAT 390/AAMO 1, Thomas R.
-Verlag, pp. 47-57. Falkenstein, Adam, 1974. The Sumerian temple city. Introduction and translation by Maria de J. Ellis. Los Angeles: Udena Publications. Farber Orientalia, Nova Series, pp. 67-72. F inkelstein, Jacob J., 1979. Early Mesopotamia, 2500-1000 B.C., in: Propaganda and Communication in World History, Volume I, The Symbolic Instrument in Early Times. Ed. by Harold D. Lasswell, Daniel Lerner, Hans Speier, An East-West Center Book. Honolulu: Published for the East-West Center by the University Press of Hawaii, pp. 50-110. F rankfort, Henri, 1948. Kingship and the gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. F reydank, Helmut, 1980. Zur Lage der deportierten Hurriter in Assyrien. AoF , Vol. 7, pp. 89-117. F rye, Richard N., 1984. The History of Ancient Iran. Verlagsbuchhandlung. G rayson, Albert Kirk, 1971. The Early Development of Assyrian Monarchy. U F , 3, pp. 311-319. G reen, Margaret W., 1975. Eridu in Sumerian Literature. PhD dissertation. University of Chicago. Haas Rocznik Orientalistyczny, XLI, pp. 37-44. Hallo, William W., 1957. Early Mesopotamian royal titles: A Philologic and Historical Analysis. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Hallo, William W., 1966. The Coronation of Ur-Nammu. JCS, Vol.20, pp. 133-141. Hallo, William W., 1971. Gutium. RlA 3, pp. 708-720.
82
Jacobsen, Thorkild, 1939. The Sumerian King List. Assyriological Studies 11. London: The University of Chicago Press. Jacobsen, Thorkild, 1943. Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia. - JNES, Vol. 2, pp. 159-172. Jacobsen, Thorkild, 1968. The Battle between Marduk and Tiamat, in: Essays in Memory of E . A. Speiser. Ed. by William W. Hallo, American Oriental Series, Volume 53. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society. Jacobsen, Thorkild, 1976. The Treasures of Darkness: History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, London: Yale University Press. Jakob, Stefan, 2003. Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur, Untersuchungen. Cuneiform Monographs 29. Edited by T.Abusch, M.J.Geller, M.P.Maidman, S.M.Maul, F.A.M.Wiggermann. Leiden: Brill; Boston: Stix. Jong, Albert F. de, 1999. Mithras, in: Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst. Second Extensively Revised Edition. Leiden, Boston, KEerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 578-581. K atz, Dina, 1987. Gilgamesh and Akka: was Uruk ruled by two assemblies? - RA, 81, pp. 105 114. K ienast Die
65. Geburtstag. Herausgegeben von Ulrich Haarmann und Peter Bachmann. Beirut: In Komission bei Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden. K lein, Jacob, 1981. The Royal Hymns of Shulgi King of Ur: Man's Quest for Immortal Fame. - Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 71, pp. 1-48. K lein, Jacob, 1998. The Sweet Chant of the Churn, in: Dubsar anta-men: Studien zur
Lebensjahres, . - AOAT 253. Unter Mitwirkung von
Thomas E. Balke, herausgegeben von Manfried Dietrich und Oswald Loretz. -Verlag. K lein, Jacob, 2006. Sumerian Kingship and the Gods, in: Text, Artifact, Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown Judaic Studies, pp. 115-131. K lengel, Horst, 1999. Artemis & Winkler. K ramer, Samuel Noah, 1969. The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer. Bloomington, London: Indiana University Press. K ramer, Samuel Noah, 1997. Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
83
K uhrt yal policy. JSOT, 25, pp. 83-97.
K uhrtRituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, ed. by David Cannadine and Simon Price. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 20-55. K uhrt The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC. Routledge History of the Ancient World, General Editor Fergus Miller. London and New York: Routledge. Lambert, Wilfred G., 1963. The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious Year: The
Iraq, Vol. 25, pp. 189-190. Lambert Iraq, Vol. 45, pp. 82-86. Lambert, Wilfred G., 1984. Studies in Marduk. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 47, pp. 1-9. Lambert, Wilfred G., 1992. Nippur in Ancient Ideology, in: Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Recontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988. Philadelphia: Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14, pp. 119-126. Lapinkivi, Pirjo, 2004. The Sumerian Sacred Marriage. State Archives of Assyria Studies, volume XV. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Law, George W., 2010. The Identification of Darius the Mede. North Carolina: Ready Scribe Press. L eemans Ishtar of Lagaba and her Dress. Leiden: Brill. L iverani, Mario, 2002. The Great Powers' Club, in: Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations. Edited by Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 15-27. L iverani, Mario, 2004. Assyria in the Ninth Century: Continuity or Change?, in: From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea: Studies on the history of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A. K . Grayson. Ed. by Grant Frame. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten, pp. 213-226. Maeda -Sargonic Sumer. Orientalia 17, pp. 1-17. Maeda Orientalia 20, pp. 67-82. Matz, Friedrich, 1989. The Zenith of Minoan Civilization. CAH, Vol. 2, part 1, pp. 557-581. Maul Priests and officials in the ancient Near East : papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East
84
- the City and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22 - 24, 1996. Ed. by Kazuko Watanabe. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 201-214. Mayer, Walter, 1995. Politik und Kriegskunst der Assyrer Ugarit-Verlag. Michalowski, Piotr, 1983. History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List. JAOS, 103, pp. 237-248.
Michalowski, Piotr, 1998. The Unbearable Lightness of Enlil, in: Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East - Papers Presented at the 43rd Rencontre assyriologique internationale Prague, July 1-5, 1996. Ed. by Jiri Prosecky. Prague: Oriental Institute ASCR, pp. 237-248. Michalowski, Piotr, 2002. Round About Nidaba: On the Early Goddesses of Sumer, in: Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriolgique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2-6, 2001. Edited by S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, pp. 413-422. Michalowski, Piotr, 2008. The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia, in: Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World And Beyond. Ed. by Nicole Brisch, Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 33-46. Mieroop, Marc van de, 2004. A history of the ancient Near East, ca. 3000-323 BC. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. Malden(Mass.), Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell Publishing. Mieroop, Marc van de, 2005. King Hammurapi of Babylon: a Biography. Blackwell Ancient Lives. Malden (Mass.), Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell Publishing. Nagel, Wolfram, 1975. RlA 4, pp. 355-367. Nissen, Hans J., 1986. The Archaic Texts from Uruk. World Archaeology, Vol. 17, pp. 317-334. Nissen, Hans J., 1995. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Oates, Joan, 1979. Babylon. London: Thames and Hudson. O B O 160/3: Sallaberger, Walter; W estenholz, Aage, 1999. Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-ZeitAttinger Ruprecht. O B O 160/5: Veenhof, Klaas; E idem, Jesper, 2008. Mesopotamia: The Old Assyrian Period.
Oded, Bustenay, 1979. Mass deportations and deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
85
Olmstead, Albert Ten Eyck, 1917. Tiglath-Pileser I and his Wars. JAOS, Vol. 37, pp. 169-185. Olmstead, Albert Ten Eyck, 1959. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. Oppenheim, Adolf Leo 1964. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Oshima, Takayoshi, 2009. The Babylonian God Marduk, in: The Babylonian World. Ed. by Gwendolyn Leick. New York, London: Routledge, pp. 348-360. Panaino, Antonio, 2000. The Mesopotamian Heritage of Achaemenian Kingship, in: The Heirs of Assyria. Proceedings of the Opening Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian
and, October 8-11, 1998, Melammu Symposia 1, ed. by Sanno Aro, R.M. Whiting. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Corpus Project, pp. 35-49. Parpola, Simo, 2000. Monotheism in Ancient Assyria, in: One God or many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World. Ed. by B.N. Porter. Casco Bay: Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, Volume 1, pp. 165-209. Peat, Jerome, 1989. : The Disputed Co-Regency. JCS, Vol. 41, pp. 199-216. Piras, Andrea, 2002. Preliminary Remarks on Melammu Database: The Continuity of Mesopotamian Culture by Iranological Evidence, in: Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena. Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project. Held in Chicago, USA, October 27-31, 2000. Melammu Symposia 3, ed. by
-14. Postgate, J. N., 1994. In Search of the First Empires. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No.293, pp. 1-13. Puhvel, Jaan, 1996. Reisman, Daniel, 1973. Iddin-Dagan's Sacred Marriage Hymn. JCS, Vol. 25, pp. 185-202. Richter, Thomas, 1999. Untersuchungen zu den lokalen - und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit. AOAT 257. Rollinger, Robert, 2008. The Median 'Empire', the End of Urartu and Cyrus the Great's Campaign in 547 BC. Ancient West & East, Vol. 7, pp. 51-65.
Staat und Religion. -125.
Root, Margaret Cool, 1979. The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire. Textes eLeiden: E. J. Brill.
86
Rubio, Gonzalo, 2008. From Sumer to Babylonia: Topics in the History of Southern Mesopotamia, in: Current Issues in the History of the Ancient Near East. Publications of Ancient Historians 8. Ed. by Mark W. Chavalas. Claremont, California: Regina Books, pp. 1-52. Rubio, Gonzalo, 2011. Gods and Scholars: Mapping the Pantheon in Early Mesopotamia, in: Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism. Ed. by Beate Pongratz-Leisten, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, pp. 91-116. Saggs, Henry William Frederick, 1968. The Greatness that was Babylon: a sketch of the ancient civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. New York, Toronto: The New American Library. Sancisi-W eerdenburg, Heleen, 1988. Was there ever a Median Empire?, in: Achaemenid History Vol. 3: Method and Theory: Proceedings of the London 1985 Achaemenid History Workshop. A. Kuhrt, H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (eds.). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten.
Sancisi-W eerdenburg, Heleen, 1993. Political Concepts in Old-Persian Royal Inscriptions, in: .
-Luckner. R.Oldenburg Verlag. Sazonov -24. saj. eKr. Akadeemia 9, pp. 2001-2031. Sazonov, Vladimir, 2007b. Akkadi kuningate jumalikustamine. Tuna 2, pp. 11-23. Sazonov Beihefte zur
. New York: de Gruyter, pp. 325-342. Sazonov Ajalooline ajakiri, 3(125), pp. 195-214. Sazonov, Vladimir, 2010a. -epitheta in Assyrien, im Hethiterreich und in
Gemeinsamkeiten, Unterschiede und gegenseitige Beeinflussung. Dissertationes historiae Universitas Tartuensis 21, Tartu: Tartu University Press. Sazonov, Vladimir 2010b. -9. 7. sajandini eKr. , 44, pp. 153-174. Sazonov
- 1206), in: Identities and Societies in the Ancient East-Mediterranean Regions: Comparative Approaches. Henning Graf Reventlow Memorial Volume. - -Verlag, pp. 235-276. Schmitt - Saeculum 28, pp. 384-95.
87
Seidl, Ursula, 1989. Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs: Symbole mesopotamischer Gottheiten. Selz Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Recontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988. Philadelphia: Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14, pp. 189-225. Selz, Gebhard J., 1995.
. Philadelphia: Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 13. Selz, Gebhard J., 1998. Mesopotamischen Herrschaftsideologie im 3. Jahrtausend, in: Dubsar anta-men: Studien zur
mi . AOAT 253. Unter Mitwirkung von Thomas E. Balke herausgegeben von Manfried Dietrich und Oswald Loretz. -Verlag, pp. 281-344.
Selz, Gebhard J., 2008. The Divine Prototypes, in: Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World And Beyond. Ed. by Nicole Brisch, Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 13-32. Sollberger, Edmond, 1962. The Tummal Inscription. JCS, Vol. 16, pp. 40-47. Sommerfeld, Walter, 1982. Der Aufstieg Marduks: Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. AOAT 213. Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor, 1967. Some Factors in the Collapse of Akkad, in: Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E . A. Speiser. Edited and with an Introduction by J. J. Finkelstein and Moshe Greenberg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stadnikov, Sergei, 1998. Universalism kui fenomen, in: Vana-Egiptuse kultuurilugu: Valitud artikleid, . -142. Steinkeller, Piotr, 1999. On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship, in: Priests and officials in the ancient Near East : papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East - the City and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22 - 24, 1996. Ed. by Kazuko Watanabe. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 103-138. Steinkeller, Piotr, 2003. An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List, in: Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: F estschrift fur Claus Wilcke. Ed. Walter Sallaberger et al. Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 267 92. Veenhof, Klaas R., 2001. Geschichte des Alten Orients bis zur Zeit Alexanders des Grossen.
Wall-Romana, Cristophe, 1990. An Areal Location of Agade. JNES, Vol. 49, pp. 205-245. Waters, Matthew, 2004. Cyrus and the Achaemenids. Iran, Vol. 42, pp. 91-102.
88
W estenholz, Joan Goodnick, 2000. The King, the Emperor, and the Empire. Continuity and Discontinuity of Royal Representation in Text and Image, in: The Heirs of Assyria. Proceedings of the Opening Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Projec -11, 1998, Melammu Symposia 1, ed. by Sanno Aro, R.M. Whiting. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Corpus Project, pp. 99-125. W estenholz, Joan Goodnick, 2009. Inanna and Ishtar the dimorphic Venus Goddesses, in: The Babylonian World. Ed. by Gwendolyn Leick. New York, London: Routledge, pp. 332-347. Widengren, Geo, 1959. The Sacral Kingship of Iran, in: . Leiden: Brill, pp. 242-257.
, Josef, 2005. Das Antike Persien Verlag. Yamada, Shigeo, 2000. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859 824 BC) relating to His Campaigns to the West. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, volume 3, ed. by. B.Halpern, M.H.E. Weippert, Th. P.J.
-religioonile Ahhemeniidide a jastul
olulisus teadusvaldkonnas
-
Mesopotaamia
ideoloogia ja religiooni peamisi arenguid kolmel eelkristlikul aastatuhandel, alates
-2334 e.m.a) kuni Uus- -538
-
ajastul (558- a
tunnusjooned. Tulemusi kasutati vastuseid
Mesopotaamia j
gselt ja katkendlikult. Seda liiki
kauge ajaloo elustamiseks. Et muistne ajalugu oli tihti valitsejate ajalugu, sest suur osa
osutuda tulemuslikuks muistse maailma valgustamisel. Samas on religioon alati oluline
on inimkogemuse lahutanud
90
ada. Eelnev kehtib ka muistse Mesopotaamia ja Iraani
religioon ja kunin
perioodidel Mesopotaamia ajaloos arvati, et ka maised valitsejad kuuluvad jumalate hulka.
Se
objektidel on tihti seotud
See il ning kasutab
Allikad
Mesopotaamia ja Vana- ud.
Eelkristlikest III-I aastatuhande Mesopotaamia ja Ahhemeniidide ajastutest (558-330) on
91
Meetod
ja religiooni, kasutades algallikaid ja sekundaarkirjandust.
Vaadeldakse valitseja poliitilist ja sakraalset rolli ning tiitleid.
kirjalikke materjale, mis otseselt peegeldaks
-
pikemate raidkirjade (nt valitseja Ur-
inimestest valitsejad.
2334-2279 e.m.a), rajasid territoriaalriigi, rakendasid despootlikumat ja tsentraliseeritumat
v
ning kuningate jumalikustamine.
sid Uri kolmanda
-
-2047) olid jumalikusta
-Larsa (u 2000- - -1595)
ja Vana- - Hammurapi (1792-
1750) Vana- -Adad I (1808- -Mesopotaamias.
92
-
Kesk- -1155) ja Kesk- - -Idas
uudsed rahvusvahelised suhted, mida peegeldab El-Amarna kirjavahetus. Kesk-
rahvusliku monarhia idee. Kesk-
Uus- -
(859-
kaitsjat kaose eest. Uus- -538) iseloomustas kuningate ehitustegevus
-
keskendus kuningate kultustoimingutele.
keskendub
Mesopotaamia religiooni nendele omadustele, mis on seotud valitseja institutsiooniga.
rolli, jumalate ja valitsejate suhteid,
allikmaterja
Mesopotaamia arhailises panteonis
maskuli
-
riikidevahelisi suhteid juhivad
Akkadi perioodil ilmusid mitmed semiidi jumalate nimed. Semiidi jumalusi hakati ilmselt
93
on teada esimene valitseja jumalikustamise juhtum Mesopotaamia ajaloos, Nar m- ca.
2254-2218)
sejad osalesid hieros gamos
-
religioosseid ideid. Vana-
-
- rnaselt
akati samastama
kaaslase Mullissuga. Kesk-
asised arengud
Marduki kerkimisel peajumala staatusesse. Kesk-
a panteoni peajumaluseks.
Nab -
ja -
-
struktuur erineb kahest esimesest
nne Ahhemeniidide ajastut, ning
-indoiraani harust. Iraani lavamaale
Iraani
94
defineerimine on keeruline Avesta erinevate osade date -
i Ahura
Mazd An hit An hit oli seotud planeet
st Inannast
abstraktsemad, sest nende moraalsed omadused olid olulisemad kui loo
-824 e.m.a) 24. valitsemisaastal. Kuuenda eelkristliku sajandi keskpaigas
mis ulatus Vahemerest Indiani.
allikatest kuninglikest raidkirjadest. Siin on vaadeldud kolme eksemplaarset Ahhemeniidide
raidkirja Kyrose silindrit, Dareios I Behistuni ning Artaxerxes II Susa raidkirja. Nimetatud
valitsejate titulatuuri ja valitseja ning jumalate suhete uurimisele.
Kyrose silinder ongi loomult Mesopotaamia raidkiri ehitistekst, mis on kirjutatud
kahe tuhande aastase traditsiooni vaimus. Ainus tegelikult element sellel on
ak -486)
lastele
varasemate Ahhemeniidide raidkirjades mainitud jumal Ahura Mazd
jumalad An hit ja Mithra. Arutati An hit kke paralleele Mesopotaamia
-
neist
Ahhemeniidide raidkirjad kajastasid, antud kontekstis eriti valitseja ja jumala suhted, ning
s
95
ajaloos.
erineva etnilise, keelelise ja
kuninglikes raidkirjades.