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.