The Expression “Non-Lord of a Throne” in Assyrian Royal

The Expression “Non-Lord of a Throne” in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions
by Mattias Karlsson
1. Introductory remarks
The phenomenon of creating enemy images is timeless and universal.1 In this activity,
an abnormal “Other” is negatively juxtaposed in relation to a normal “Self”, not the
least in political discourse. In various situations - notably ones that involve the topic
of colonialism - a “subaltern” is constructed, that is an agent who is both inferior (thus
“sub”) and different in an essence-based, negative way (thus “altern”). Through the
developing of images of “alterity”, various oppressive systems can be justified. In this
way, a colonial power can legitimate its possession of foreign lands and resources.2
Enemy images are expressed not the least in Assyrian royal inscriptions in which
Assyrian kings seek to legitimate their coercion and imperialist wars and ambitions.
As a doctoral student, focusing on this text corpus, I became highly aware of this. One
enemy image that I encountered, and which I decided to come back to when I had
more time, was the curious term or epithet “non-royal person” (or literally “non-lord
of a throne”)3 (lā bēl kussî), applied to some foreign rulers in Early Neo-Assyrian
royal inscriptions.4 As far as I know, the relevant epithet has not been the object of a
special study before. I went on to explore the meanings of this presumably negativelyladen term,5 and in this paper I present the results of the ensuing investigation. The
contexts of the relevant expression, more precisely the textual passages in which the
expression occurs, was highlighted in my analysis and search for meanings.6
In my investigation process, I searched for further attestations by surveying the
preserved Assyrian royal inscriptions (as defined in Grayson 1987: 4), as these are
conveyed in up-to-date publications.7 I did this both through reading the relevant
books and through using the developed, digitalized search tools in the field.8 As for
the books, I naturally refer to the RIMA-volumes (RIMA 1-3) concerning the Old,
Middle, and Early Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions and to the RINAP-volumes
(RINAP 1, 3-4) regarding the Late Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions. Regarding the
inscriptions of Sargon II (RINAP 2 is not yet published), I looked at the publications
of his inscriptions from Dur-Sharrukin (Fuchs 1994) as well as at those (prism
fragments) from Assur and Nineveh (SAAS 8). I also examined Sargon II’s “letter to
a god” which contains this ruler’s famous narration of his eighth campaign (Mayer
1983), and the highly rhetorical, so-called “Assur Charter” (Saggs 1975). As for
1
This article is a part of my research program “The Enemy in Assyrian Propaganda”.
These observations are naturally a part of post-colonial theory, as exemplified in Said 1978.
3
As translated in Grayson 1996: 69, 81. Yamada (2000: 222 n. 502) gives “one not of the royal throne”
or “one who is not suitable to the throne”, while Saggs (1975: 15) in his turn translates the term “not
the (rightful) throne-holder”. A German translation is dem der Thron nicht zustand (Fuchs 1994: 326).
The cuneiform writing of the term is la EN gišGU.ZA (e.g. RIMA 3:A.0.102.14:148).
4
The term is only briefly discussed in my two books (Karlsson 2013: 145, 190; 2016: 162-63, 215).
Unfortunately, my translation of the term there is incorrect, due to a misplacing of the negative particle.
5
This is e.g. argued by Yamada (2000: 222 n. 502) who claims that the relevant term “expresses a
value judgment with a negative connotation”, not the least in its occurrences in omen texts in the
meaning “one who is not suitable to the throne will seize the throne” (lā bēl kussî kussâ iṣabbat).
6
Rather than the semantics and etymology of the words that build up the expression, namely the
negative particle lā, the noun bēlu (lord), and the noun kussû (throne).
7
I also checked whether there is a “positive” version of the expression (i.e. a bēl kussî) attested as a
divine or royal epithet (Tallqvist 1938: 47-48, Seux 1967: 55-57) - with negative results.
8
The primary search tool that I used was Oracc, available on http://orac.museum.upenn.edu/.
2
1 Ashurbanipal and his texts (RINAP 5 is not yet published), I naturally consulted the
publication by Borger (1996). I also looked at some important, recent works which
present new Assyrian royal inscriptions (CUSAS 17, KAL 3). Although their not
being royal inscriptions proper, I also paid attention to the less rhetorical texts of the
state archives of Nineveh (SAA 1-19), since their being accessible and relevant.9
2. The attestations
In the following, I will present and discuss all the attestations of the relevant term
“non-lord of a throne”. It turned out that the term is only attested for two Assyrian
rulers - both of the Neo-Assyrian period - namely Shalmaneser III and Sargon II.
There are four attestations of the epithet in question in the royal inscriptions of
Shalmaneser III. They occur in two texts, expressed twice in one certain passage on
the Black Obelisk and on one of the king’s statues. The texts embody the final edition
of the king’s annals, and the passage narrates events from the king’s twenty-eighth
regnal year (RIMA 3:A.0.102.14:146-56, RIMA 3:A.0.102.16:268-86). The said
passage is given below in Grayson’s translation (Grayson 1996: 69, 81-82).
In my twenty-eighth regnal year, while I was residing in Calah, a
report was sent back to me that the people of the land Patinu had
killed Lubarna, their lord, (and) appointed Surri, a non-royal person
(lit. “a non-lord of a throne”), as sovereign over them. I issued orders
and sent out Daiiān-Aššur, the field marshal, chief of my extensive
army, at the head of my army (and) camp. He crossed the Euphrates
in flood and pitched camp at Kinalua, his royal city. Overwhelmed by
fear of the radiance of Aššur, my lord, Surri, a non-royal person,
departed this life. The people of the land Patinu took fright in face of
the flash of my strong weapons, and laying hold of the sons of Surri,
together with the guilty soldiers, they handed (them) over to him. He
hung these soldiers on stakes. Sāsi, a man of the land Kuruṣṣâ,
submitted to him (and) he appointed (him) to sovereignty over them.
He received from them silver, gold, tin, bronze, iron, (and) elephant
ivory without measure. He created my colossal royal statue (and)
erected (it) in Kinalua, his royal city, in the temple of his gods.10
In sum, the people of Patina (a Syrian polity), kill their leader Lubarna (who was
sanctioned by the Assyrian king), and put another person (not sanctioned by the
Assyrian king) named Surri as their leader. Shalmaneser III sends out his field
marshal Dajjan-Ashur (this man took care of the king’s last campaigns). The usurper
is overwhelmed by “fear of the radiance of Aššur” (pulḫi melammē ša Aššur) and dies
before (?) the field marshal arrives with his troops. The people of Patina get afraid
and try to avoid punishment by extraditing the persons directly responsible for the
insurrection. Dajjan-Ashur puts these persons to death, and installs a man named Sasi
from a neighbouring (?) polity on the throne of Patina. Dajjan-Ashur receives this
man’s tribute, and sees to the erecting of a royal statue in the local temple.
Regarding this man Surri, who is referred to as a “non-lord of a throne” twice in the
passage, we do not get much information about him. He obviously had some support,
9
Conveniently accessible at http://orac.museum.upenn.edu/saa/.
As stated by Grayson, the cuneiform, rendering this passage, often gives “I / me” instead of “he /
him” (as in the translation), thus alternating between the king and the field marshal as the subject.
10
2 not the least from “the guilty soldiers” (ṣābī bēl ḫīṭi), in Patina, thus his ascent to the
throne. It is obvious that one of his shortcomings was that he was not sanctioned by
the Assyrian king, and that another of his shortcomings was that he was not of royal
descent, being not of a lordly essence, just as indicated by the term “non-lord”. By
contrast, the Assyrian king is “being lordly” (bēlāku) (RIMA 2:A.0.99.2:14). Perhaps
the telling of the pitiful (?) death of Surri also served to underline the latter idea on
lack of royal descent. The passage, literally translated, informs the reader that “he
went to the death of his destiny” (mūt šīmtišu illik), presenting him as doomed. Still,
his non-support from the Assyrian king is clearly Surri’s primary shortcoming.
There are five attestations of the epithet in the royal inscriptions of Sargon II. It is
expressed in two different contexts. One of these contexts is conveyed in a passage of
the (displayed) annals and summary inscription from Dur-Sharrukin regarding the
king’s eleventh regnal year (Fuchs 1994: 2.3 Ann 241-54, Fuchs 1994: 2.4 Prunk 90109). The said passage is given below in the translation of Fuchs (1994: 326).
(Was) Azuri (anlagt), den König der Stadt Asdūdu, so plante sein …,
den Tribut nich mehr zu bringen, und er sandte den Königen in seiner
Umgebung (Briefe voller) Gehässigkeiten gegen Assyrien. Wegen der
Bosheit, die er (damit) begangen hat, hob ich seine Herrschaft über die
Bewohner seines Landes auf und setzte Aḫimiti, seine Lieblingsbruder
über sie ein. Diese verlogenen Hethiter haßten jedoch seine Herrschaft
und machten Jadna über sich groß, dem der Thron nicht zustand,
(und) der wie sie keine Ehrfurcht vor der Herrschaft kannte.
Im Zorn meines Herzens zog ich, (begleitet nur) von meinem
persönlichen Streitwagen und meinen Reitern, die mir in Freundes(wie in Feindes)land nicht von der Seite weichen, im Eilmarsch nach
seiner Köningsstadt Asdūdu und umzingelte (und) eroberte die Städte
Asdūdu, Gimtu (und) Asdudimmu. Die Götter, die in inhnen wohnen,
ihn selbst zusammen mit den Einwohnern seines Landes, (außerdem)
Gold (und) Silber (und) das Gut aus seinem Palast, rechnete ich zur
Beute. Diese Städte gestaltete ich völlig neu: Leute aus von mir
eroberten Ländern siedelte ich in (ihnen) an, setzte einen meiner
Eunuchen als Provinzherrn über sie ein, zählte sie zu den Einwohnern
Assyriens und sie schleppten mein Joch.
The second part of this passage is somewhat different in the summary inscription,
and is conveyed below through the translation of Fuchs (1994: 348).
In der Wut meines Herzens sammelte ich nicht erst die Masse meines
Heeres und brachte auch nicht mein Heerlager zusammen, sondern zog
gegen Asdūdu (allein) mit (denjenigen von) meinen Kriegern, die mir
in Freundes- (wie in Feindes)land nicht von der Seite weichen. Und
kaum hörte jener Jamani11 in der Ferne von meinem Heereszug, da
floh er zu Grenze Ägyptens im Bereich des Landes Meluḫḫa, und sein
Aufenthaltsort war nicht zu finden. Asdūdu, Gimtu (und) Asdudimmu
umzingelte und eroberte ich, seine Götter, seine Frau, seine Söhne,
11
As noted also by Fuchs (1994: 326 n. 307), Jadna and Jamani must be the same person. There is not
any room for two “rebels” with very similar names, in the same role and in the same regnal year.
3 seine Töchter, das Hab und Gut, den Schatz aus seinem Palast,
rechnete ich zusammen mit den Bewohnern seines Landes zur Beute.
Diese Städte gestaltete ich völlig neu: Leute aus von mir eroberten
Ländern, aus […] von Sonnenaufgang [siedelte ich] in (ihnen) an
(und) [setzte einen meiner Eunuchen als] Provinz[herrn] über [sie
ein]. Ich zählte sie zu den Einwohnern Assyriens und sie schleppten
mein Joch.
A similar version of this passage is given in the fragmentarily preserved annals from
Assur and Nineveh and the reign of Sargon II (SAAS 8: VII.b K.1668+ IV´ 1-48).
The passage in question is here given in the translation of Fuchs (1998: 73-74).
[……] Wegen [der Bosheit, die er (damit) begangen hat … holte ich
ihn] aus der Stadt [Asdūdi heraus], machte Aḫimeti, [……] seinen
Lieblingsbruder, über [die Bewohner von Asdūdi] groß, und [setzte
ihn auf dem Thron seines Vaters.] Ich setzte für ihn Tribut, Abgabe,
[Frondienst (und) Heeresfolge] entsprechend dem fest, was [meine]
königlichen [Vorfahren ihnen auferlegt hatten.]
Doch [jene] boshaften [Hethiter], in/bei [……] um den Tribut nicht
mehr zu bringen (zu müssen), hatten sie Böses [im Sinn.] [Gegen]
ihren Fürsten [unternahmen sie] Aufstand (und) Rebellion [und] jagen
ihn wie einen, der Blut vergossen hat, aus [Asdūdi] hinaus. … […]
Jamani, einen aus dem niederen Volk, [dem der Thron nicht zustand,
setzen sie] in die Köningsherrschaft über sich [ein, auf den Thron]
seines Herrn setzen sie [ihn!] [……] ihre(r) Stadt … [……] der
Schlacht [……] … [……] […] … [……] […] … [……] in ihrer
Umgebung [ihre] Gräben [……] 20 Ellen [gruben sie] in die Tiefe, bis
sie das Grundwasser erreichten. Den Königen der Länder Pilište,
Ja’udi, Udumu (und) Mābi, (so wie auch denen), die das Meer(esufer)
bewohnen, die (allesamt) Assur, meinem Herrn, tribut- [und]
abgabepflichtig waren <schickten sie> (Briefe voller) Lügengeschwätz und hochverräterischem Gerede, dazu gedacht, (sie) mir
zum Feind zu machen. Zu Pir’ū, dem König von Muṣri, einem
Fürsten, der sie (doch) unmöglich hätte retten können, trugen sie ihr
Geschenk und baten ihn wiederholt um Unterstützung.
Ich, Sargon, der rechtmäßige Fürst, der den (bei) Šamaš und Marduk
(geleisteten) Eid ehrfürchtig achtet, der das Geheiß Assurs bewahrt,
ließ (daraufhin) meine Truppen den Tigris (und) den Euphrat beim
Höchststand der Flut, das Frühjahrshochwasser, (so leicht) wie
trockenes Land überqueren. Und eben jener Jamani, ihr König, der
(ja so sehr) auf seine eigene Kraft vertraute und sich keiner Herrschaft beugen wollte – kaum hörte er aus der Ferne von meinem
Heereszug, als ihn auch schon der furchterregende Glanz [Assurs],
meines [Herrn], überwältigte und … [seine Beine wie eine Wurzel]
am Ufer eines Flusses [nachgaben.] […] … [Gleich Fischen] wählten
sie die Tiefe [ferner] Gewässer als Versteck. […] ferne(r) […] [……]
floh er. [……] Asdūdi [……] …
4 In sum, the ruler Azuri of the Philistean city state Ashdod turns and conspires
against the Assyrian king and is (somehow) deposed by the latter. Sargon II places
Azuri’s brother, Ahimeti, on the throne instead. However, this man gets dethroned by
the inhabitants who instead elevate Jamani, the “non-lord of a throne” in question.
Sargon II turns hastily (heroically without waiting for reinforcements) against Ashdod
and two related cities. He captures them, seizes their booty, install a governor,
effectuates cross-deportations, and declares that this reorganized polity now bear the
yoke of Ashur and that its population now are counted as Assyrians. In the prism
fragments from Assur and Nineveh, it is also narrated that Jamani dug a moat (?)
around his city in order to defend his stronghold from the coming Assyrian army. He
sought support from the neighbouring powers in the region, first and foremost Egypt.
This notwithstanding, Ashdod and its related cities were conquered. After perceiving
the already mentioned, fatal “fear of the radiance of Aššur”, Jamani himself is said to
have fled by going to Egypt (?), like a fish who hides at the bottom of the sea (!).
Focusing on Jamani, “the non-lord of a throne”, also this ruler seem to fail in the
two areas: sanctioning from the Assyrian king and royal descent. As for the former
area, his seizing of the throne is not at all described as backed by Sargon II. The
people of Ashdod, referred to as “Hittites” (!), replaced Sargon II’s protégé with
Jamani. As for the latter area, there are several factors that, beside the focused epithet,
testify of the shortcoming in question. He did not “know” (edû) a “respect for”
(palḫu) the relevant “lordship” (bēlūtu), quite naturally since he was a “non-lord”.12
It is also said of Jamani that he cowardly fled when he heard of the coming of the
Assyrian army, that “he fled and disappeared” (innabitma lā innamer) on his way to
Egypt. He is also described as coming from the lower classes, in the epithet
“commoner” (ṣāb ḫupši), attested alongside the term “non-lord of a throne”. The noun
ḫupšu generally means “member of lower class” and specifically “rabble” of soldiers
(CAD Ḫ: ḫupšu). The class dimension comes across clearly here. Jamani is also
described as foolish in his futile projects of digging a moat and seeking alliances. It is
e.g. stated that he looked for support from Egypt - a power that (according to Sargon
II) was not able to lend this support. Jamani is also portrayed as trusting in his own
strength and as unwilling to accept any superior, thus being haughty and godless - a
common characterization of Assyrian enemies (Karlsson 2016: 225-26). Lastly,
Jamani and his flight is ridiculed by pointing to his panic and likening him to a fish
that seeks refuge at the bottom of the sea. He clearly does not behave lordly here. In
the case of Jamani, it seems that the dimension of class belonging is stressed.
The second context in question is found in the already quoted summary inscription
from Dur-Sharrukin (Fuchs 1994: 2.4 Prunk 33-36). The event that is narrated dates to
the king’s second regnal year, as indicated in the annals (Fuchs 1994: 2.3 Ann 23-25).
It is here conveyed below, once again in Fuch’s translation (Fuchs 1994: 345).
(Was) Jaubi’di von Amattu (angeht), einen aus dem niederen Volk,
dem der Thron nicht zustand, einen böser Hethiter, so sann sein
Herz auf die Königsherrschaft über das Land Amattu. Er brachte die
Städte Arpadda, Ṣimirra, Damaskus (und) Samerīna gegen mich zum
Aufstand, stellte Einmütigkeit (unter ihnen) her und rüstete zur
Schlacht. Ich bot die Heeresmassen Assurs auf, umzingelte ihn
mitsamt seinen Kämpfern in seiner Lieblingsstadt Qarqaru und nahm
12
Paradoxically, he is referred to as “king” (šarru) in the prism fragments, implying a respected status.
However, the term does not automatically convey this recognition (CAD Š II: šarru).
5 diese ein. Qarqaru verbrannte ich mit (dem Feuergott) Gira, ihm
selbst zog ich die Haut ab. In jenen Städten tötete ich die Schuldigen
und stellte den Frieden wieder her. 200 Streitwagen (und) 600 Reiter
hob ich unter den Leuten des Landes Amattu aus und gliederte sie in
meine königliche Kerntruppe ein.
This event also appears in the so-called Assur Charter, a text in which Sargon II
concisely discusses his right to the throne and his reconfirming of the special status of
the city of Assur (and Harran) in the Assyrian empire (Saggs 1975: ll. 16-27). The
relevant passage is conveyed below in the translation of Saggs (1975: 15).
Ilu-bi’idi13, the Hamathite, not the (rightful) throne-holder, unfitted
for a palace, who in the shepherding of (his) people did not consider
their destiny but for the god Aššur, his land (and) his people sought
evil, not good, and treated (them) with insolence, gathered together
Arpad (and) Samaria and turned (them) to his side… … he then killed,
and did not leave a single person… … I raised my hands to Aššur and
in order to conquer Hamath (and) the rebel peoples of the
widespreading Westland I came before (Him in prayer). Aššur the
great god … heard my prayer and received my supplication. I caused
my widespread forces to take the way to the Westland. Hamath … …
from days of old who had learned the fame … I made the peoples of
the Westland bow to my feet, and the spoil therefrom I brought to my
city Aššur.
In sum, Sargon II is confronted by a widespread rebellion in the west, instigated by
Ilu-bi’idi/Jaubi’idi, the ruler of Hamath in Syria. This ruler had managed to bring
together a number of important polities (Arpad, Damascus, Simyra, and Samaria) in a
rebellion against their common Assyrian overlord. Sargon II hears of this, receives
reconfirmation from the god Ashur on his support, and marches to Qarqar in Syria for
a battle with the enemy coalition. Sargon II and his army captures, plunders and burns
Qarqar. Chariots and charioteers are seized and incorporated into the Assyrian army.
The guilty people are killed, and Ilu-bi’idi himself gets punished by having his skin
carved off. The remaining inhabitants subordinate themselves under Sargon II.
Regarding Ilu-bi’idi, “the non-lord of a throne”, also he is portrayed with the dual
shortcomings of non-sanctioning from Assyria and the lack of proper royal descent.
As for the former shortcoming, it is not really stated how he came to power, but the
phrasing that “he set his heart on the kingship of Hamath” (ana šarrūt māt Amatti
libbašu ikpud) points to a force of ambition and opportunism. In any case, his position
of power is not approved by Sargon II, who calls him “commoner” and “unfitted for
the palace” (lā šininti ēkalli). Both of these epithets express his non-lordly status,
from an Assyrian point of view. The noun šinintu, in combination with the noun
ēkallu, signifies “a person not up to/worthy of the palace” (CAD Š III: šinintu). Ilubi’idi is also accused, in his shepherding, of working against his own population (not
knowing their best) as well as against the Assyrian god, land, and people. In ethnic
terms, Ilu-bi’idi is referred to as the “Hamathite” (Amattû) and (anachronistically) as
the “evil Hittite” (Ḫattû lemnu). As the stereotypical Assyrian enemy, he cowardly
13
Jaubi’di and Ilu-bi’idi must be the same person. There is not any room for two “rebels” with very
similar names, in the same role, from the same place, and in the same regnal year.
6 bands together against the sole Assyrian king, employing a chaotic form of violence
(Karlsson 2016: 226-27, 238-39). The fate of Ilu-bi’idi was not at all glorious. Sargon
II tells us that he was seized and then killed by having his skin carved off. In short,
Ilu-bi’idi was illegitimate and lowly in the world view of the Assyrian court.
3. Concluding discussion
In this article, I have focused on the expression “non-lord of a throne” in Assyrian
royal inscriptions. It is attested solely in the Neo-Assyrian period and only for three
Levantine rulers. The former limitation may be meaningful (Neo-Assyrian annals are
relatively rich), but the latter one is probably coincidental, since the west was
respected in Assyria, and it would be more likely for other regions to be stigmatized
(Karlsson 2016: 189-202). Anyway, I have tried to understand the term using a
context-based approach, looking at the passages in which the expression is attested.
First of all, I could conclude (unsurprisingly) that the term or epithet in question is
perceived of as altogether negative in Assyrian royal inscriptions. In other words, the
“non-lord of a throne” is a bad person or character in Assyrian state ideology.
Secondly, the expression refers to an individual who has seized the throne (in an
Assyria-dominated area) without the permission from the Assyrian king. In the
Assyrian world view, foreign rulers within the orbit of Assyrian imperialism had to
have the blessing of the Assyrian king, otherwise they would be illegitimate (Karlsson
2016: 158-73). Many passages in Assyrian royal inscriptions tell of the Assyrian king
placing a trusted, local person on a foreign throne to be his vassal (e.g. RINAP 3/2:
Sennacherib 46: 26-27). Foreign potentats “who had placed himself for the kingship
(of GN)” (ša ramānšu iškunu ana šarrūti GN) (Borger 1996: A VIII 3-4) or “who sat
on his throne without my (the Assyrian king’s) permission” (balum ṭēmeja ina kussîšu
ūšibu) (Fuchs 1994: 2.4 Prunk 84) are highly disapproved of. These examples were
seen as direct challenges to the world order, established by the Mesopotamian deities
and administered by the Assyrian king. The Assyrian king himself could, without the
help of any other human being, seize the throne alone (e.g. RIMA 2:A.0.101.1:i44),
since he was the only truly (earthly) legitimate ruler (Karlsson 2016: 147-58).
Thirdly, there is a class-based dimension to the epithet “non-lord of a throne”. The
Assyrian kings put much stress on royal genealogy, e.g. by king lists and references to
previous kings in epithet sections and in narrations of (re)building. Successors are
called upon to carry on the ruling Assyrian king’s work. The Assyrian royal line was
pivotal and sacrosanct (Karlsson 2016: 211-23). This makes it understandable why
the “non-lords of thrones”, in their usurping and self-made ways, were regarded so
negatively in the sources (apart from their opposing the Assyrian state). Moreover,
these individuals do not belong to the local higher classes, but they are rather
“commoners”, “unfitted for the palace”, and part of the “populace”. The connotation
of class-based contempt is thus also a component of the negatively-laden epithet.
To sum it all up at the end, the “non-lord of a throne” in Assyrian royal inscriptions
was a bad (1), illegitimate (2), and socially misplaced (3) individual. He was an
“Other” and “subaltern” in an imagery of alterity that justified inequality.
7 4. Abbreviations and list of references
Borger, R. 1996. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Die Prismenklassen A, B, C,
K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften, mit einem Beitrag von Andreas Fuchs.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
CAD = I. J. Gelb et al., Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. Chicago: Oriental Institute,1956-2011.
CUSAS 17 = A. George et al., Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the
Schøyen Collection. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17. Bethesda:
CDL Press, 2011.
Fuchs, A. 1994. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen: Cuvillier.
Fuchs, A. 1998. See SAAS 8.
Grayson, A. K. 1987. See RIMA 1.
Grayson, A. K. 1991. See RIMA 2.
Grayson, A. K. 1996. See RIMA 3.
KAL 3 = E. Frahm, Historische und historisch-literarische Texte. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur
literarischen Inhalts 3 (WVDOG 121). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009.
Karlsson, M. 2013. Early Neo-Assyrian State Ideology: Relations of Power in the Inscriptions
and Iconography of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859) and Shalmaneser III (858-824). Uppsala:
Department of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala University.
Karlsson, M. 2016. Relations of Power in Early Neo-Assyrian State Ideology. Studies in
Ancient Near Eastern Records 10. Boston and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Mayer, W. 1983. Sargons Feldzug gegen Urartu – 714 v. Chr. Text und Übersetzung. Pp. 65131 in Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 115.
RIMA 1 = A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115
BC). Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods 1. Toronto, Buffalo, and London:
University of Toronto Press.
RIMA 2 = A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859
BC). Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods 2. Toronto, Buffalo, and London:
University of Toronto Press.
RIMA 3 = A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858-745 BC).
Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods 3. Toronto, Buffalo, and London:
University of Toronto Press.
RINAP 1 = H. Tadmor and S. Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727
BC) and Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC), Kings of Assyria. Royal Inscriptions of the NeoAssyrian Period 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
RINAP 3/1 = A. K. Grayson and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of
Assyria (704-681 BC), Part 1. Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
8 RINAP 3/2 = A. K. Grayson and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of
Assyria (704-681 BC), Part 2. Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/2. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
RINAP 4 = E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC).
Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
SAAS 8 = A. Fuchs, Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr. State Archives of Assyria Studies 8.
Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Saggs, H. W. F. 1975. Historical Texts and Fragments of Sargon II of Assyria: 1. The “Assur
Charter”. Pp. 11-20 in Iraq 37.
Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Seux, J.-M. 1967. Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes. Paris: Centre national de la
recherche scientifique.
Tallqvist, K. 1938. Akkadische Götterepitheta. Studia Orientalia 7. Helsinki: Societas
Orientalis Fennica.
Yamada, S. 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 3. Leiden: Brill.
9

Download Report