The Neo Assyrian Empire in The Southwest Imperial Domination and Its Consequences 1St Edition Avraham Faust Ebook Full Chapter

The Neo-Assyrian Empire in the
Southwest: Imperial Domination and its

Consequences 1st Edition Avraham
Faust
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-neo-assyrian-empire-in-the-southwest-imperial-do
mination-and-its-consequences-1st-edition-avraham-faust/
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 16/12/2020, SPi
The Neo-Assyrian Empire in the Southwest

The Neo-Assyrian
Empire in the Southwest
Imperial Domination and Its Consequences
AVRAHAM FAUST
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Avraham Faust 2021
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020943735
ISBN 978–0–19–884163–0
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198841630.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Dedicated to the memory of Shlomo Bunimovitz, teacher, colleague, and friend

Contents
List of Figures ix
Acknowledgements xi
1. Introduction 1
2. Before the Empire: The Southern Levant in the Eighth
Century  35
3. ‘Ah, Assyria, the Rod of My Anger’: The Assyrian
Takeover of the Southwest 60
4. Under the Empire: Settlement and Demography in the
Southwestern Periphery of the Assyrian Empire in the
Seventh Century  73
5. Prosperity, Depression, and the Empire: Economic
Developments in the Southwest during the Seventh
Century  116
6. Assyrians in the Southwest? The Evidence for Assyrian
Administration and Presence 139
7. The Empire in the Southwest: Reconstructing Assyrian
Activity in the Provinces 181
8. Local Responses to the Empire: From Armed Resistance to
Integration 214
9. ‘They Make a Desolation and They Call It Peace’:
Re-Examining the Nature of the Imperial Peace 239
10. Empire by Design? Imperial Policies and Planning and
the Conquest of the Southwest 259
11. A Province Too Far? The Assyrian Empire, Its Southwestern
Margins, and the Dynamics of Imperial Expansion,
Conquest, and Rule 282
Bibliography 301
Index of names 347
Index of places 355
Index 362
List of Figures
1.1 Map of the Southern Levant, with the main the geographical sub-units 7
1.2 Map of the Assyrian Empire, noting ‘the Assyrian triangle’, and
highlighting the extent of the empire in the middle of the eighth
century , and the areas conquered in the second half of this century
(mostly by Tiglath-pileser III) 9
2.1 Map of sites mentioned in Chapter 2 39
2.2 Settlement hierarchy in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah 52
2.3 Socioeconomic stratification in the kingdom of Judah 57
2.4 Socioeconomic stratification in the kingdom of Israel 57
3.1 Schematic map detailing the Assyrian expansion in the Southern Levant 66
3.2 An Assyrian destruction: a photo depicting the destruction in one of
the rooms in building 101 (room 101D), at Tel ‘Eton 68
4.1 Map of sites mentioned in Chapter 4 74
4.2 A comparison of eighth- and seventh-century  settlement
hierarchies in the territories of the kingdom of Israel 104
5.1 Schematic map outlining the production zones in the land of Israel
in the seventh century  120
5.2 Schematic chart of the distribution of olive oil surpluses production
centres in time and space (rounded dates) 137
6.1 Map showing the main sites mentioned in the text 142
6.2 Plans of various structures that were interpreted as Assyrian residencies
in the Southern Levant: (a) ʾAyyelet ha-Šahar;
: (b) Hazor, building 3002;
(c) Megiddo, structures 1052, 1369 152
6.3 Plan of Assyrian Megiddo 155
6.4 Photos of the Assyrian palace at Ad Halom, near Ashdod 156
6.5 Plate with Assyrian Palace Wares 160
7.1 Schematic map of the southwestern provinces, indicating areas of actual
Assyrian activity 183
7.2 The wedged-impressed bowls 189
7.3 (left) A general map of the country (with the location of the detailed map
indicated on it); (right) Detailed map of the Apehk-Gezer area 196
10.1 A schematic map describing the advance of the Assyrian army in
the Southern Levant, and the devastation of many regions, especially
those annexed by the empire 265
Acknowledgements
This book was a long time in the making. My interest in the Assyrian empire
grew out of my work on the Iron Age II, but my first explicit discussion of the
Assyrian policies in the southwest grew from my joint research with Ehud
Weiss on the economy of the 7th century (Faust and Weiss 2005, later
developed into Faust and Weiss 2011). This research was, unintentionally,
initiated in 2002 when we were both carrying out postdoctoral research (on
completely different topics) at Harvard. We began our collaboration in an
attempt to understand the botanical finds at 7th century Ashkelon, but we
quickly realized that the city was embedded within a much larger economic
system and could not be studied in isolation. Understanding the larger econ-
omy of the 7th century exposed a major discrepancy between the common
scholarly perception of the Assyrian involvement in the Southern Levant and
the actual evidence “on the ground”.
My later work on the period of Neo-Babylonian rule in the region, culmin-
ating in the book Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of
Desolation (Faust 2012b) did not directly discuss the period of Assyrian rule,
but it forced me to study this era which served as background to the changes
created by the Babylonian conquests. The more I studied the 7th century data
in the areas annexed by the Neo-Assyrian empire, the more it appeared that
the difference between the policies of the two empires was not as great as they
were often described. Comparing the 6th and the 7th centuries BCE (i.e. the
periods of Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian control) forced me to see that
the reality in the 7th century, when the region was supposed to have prospered,
was more complex, and while the clients flourished the Assyrian provinces
were devastated. This resulted with a few more articles (such as Faust 2011a;
Faust 2015a, and more).
By that time it was clear to me that the economic and demographic reality
under Neo-Assyrian rule, at least the way I understood it, was very different
from most common interpretations (not all). I summarised some of the data in
a few large articles (such as Faust 2018c; 2018d), and (with Shawn Aster)
organised an international workshop on this topic which resulted with an
edited volume. I realised, however, that a much more detailed and systematic
treatment was needed—a treatment that would not only expand the discussion
xii 
of the evidence from the Southern Levant, but would also put it within the
context of the Neo-Assyrian empire at large and even within a broad study of
ancient empires.
In the summer of 2016 I was granted a Summer Visiting Fellowship at
St. John’s College at the University of Oxford with the explicit aim of begin-
ning a book project on this topic. While staying in Oxford I carried out some
of the basic research for this study, outlined its structure, and wrote the book
proposal which I submitted to Oxford University Press.
While working on the book ever since, most of the research and writing was
carried out during four subsequent academic breaks which I spent abroad. The
first of these was in the Oriental Institute (OI) in the University of Chicago (in
February 2018), and the other three were in Oxford.
I am grateful to St. John’s College for granting me the Fellowship that
initiated the research, to Prof. David Schloen for inviting me to the
University of Chicago, to the OI for providing me with library services and
office space, to Oxford libraries (especially the Sackler and the Bodleian), and
to Bar-Ilan’s libraries.
Thanks are also due to the many colleagues and friends who over the years
discussed many of the issues addressed in this book with me, supplied advice
and references, and helped in other ways, including David Schloen (University
of Chicago), Daniel Master (Wheaton College), Shawn Zelig Aster, Joshua
Schwartz, Zeev Safrai, Ehud Weiss, Eyal Baruch (Bar-Ilan University), Peter
Machinist, Jason Ur, (the late) Larry Stager (Harvard University), Shlomo
Bunimovitz, Zvi Lederman (Tel-Aviv University), Jan Joosten (Oxford
University), Peter Dubovský (Pontifical Bible Institute), Chaim Ben-David,
Hayah Katz (Kinneret College), Baruch Brandl (Israel Antiquities Authority),
Gunnar Lehmann (Ben-Gurion Univeristy), Sandra Jacobs (King’s College
London), and Peter Zilberg (the Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Special
thanks are due to my former students Gilad Itach and Yair Sapir whose
work on related topics are quoted in this book.
I would also like to thank the participants of the workshop “The Assyrian
Period in the Southern Levant”, which took place in Yad Ben-Zvi Institute in
Jerusalem in November 11-12 2005, for their insightful papers and comments
during the meeting.
The book contains a vast amount of information, and not all of it is
published (or, in the least, was not published when it was supplied to me),
and I am very thankful to many colleagues who supplied me with this
information, including Hagit Torge (IAA), Gilad Itach (BIU and IAA), Amit
Shadman (IAA), Ron Tueg (IAA), Zvi Lederman (TAU), Jimmy Hardin
 xiii
(MSU), Chaim Ben-David (Kinneret College), and Hayah Katz (Kinneret

College).
Permission to use figures was granted by the Israel Exploration Society, The
Israel Antiquities Authority, the Israel Geological Survey, Ronny Reich (Haifa
University), and Ze’ev Herzog (Tel Aviv Univeristy).
Tamar Roth-Fenster and Asnat Laufer helped in the preparation of the
bibliography and of some of the figures. Tidhar Karo produced two of the
maps, and three others were produced by Janet Jackson and Charles Wilson.
Support was also provided by the Ingeborg Rennert Center.
Special thanks are due to Daniela Dueck and especially Shawn Zelig Aster
(both from Bar-Ilan University) who read parts of the book. Shawn’s help was
extremely valuable in many respects, and I wish to thank him for his help and
for his extreme generosity with his time.
I am grateful for all those mentioned above, and apologise to all those whose
contribution and help I failed to mention. Naturally, while all these greatly
helped in improving the book, the responsibility for all the errors and omis-
sions that remain is mine alone.
Finally I would like to thank my family and especially my wife Iris for the
support and understanding, and for allowing me to devote so much time to
this book.
1
Introduction
Developing from a small core area in what is today northern Iraq, the
Neo-Assyrian empire (tenth–seventh centuries ) was the first large empire
of the ancient world, and some have even defined it as the first world empire
(Bagg 2013; Radner 2015: 1). Its historical importance cannot be overesti-
mated, as it initiated what is sometimes called the ‘Age of Empires’ (Altaweel
and Squitieri 2018), i.e. a sequence of empires that ruled the Near East (and
beyond) in tight succession until the twentieth century. The detailed descrip-
tions of the Assyrian empire and its actions in the Hebrew Bible, followed by
the spectacular discoveries of imperial palaces, royal inscriptions, and other
impressive remains, had captured the public imagination, and resulted in a
large number of studies that were devoted to this empire, its history, and
structure.
The Southern Levant—the lands of the Bible—formed the southwestern
margins of the empire, and both the empire and the region have received a fair
amount of research. Only a few, however, have until recently examined the
empire within a large-scale comparative, or anthropologically oriented per-
spective, perhaps as a result of the strong historical bias of the region’s
archaeology (e.g. Moorey 1991; Bunimovitz 1995; Bunimovitz and Faust
2010; Flannery 1998; Davis 2004). While this is gradually changing (see e.g.
Bagg 2011; MacGinnis et al. 2016; Tyson and Rimmer Herrman 2018; Altaweel
and Squitieri 2018), the potential of the empire to contribute to the study of
empires and imperialism is greatly underutilized.
The Southern Levant, moreover, has a number of advantages for the study
of both Assyrian imperialism, and even empires at large. (i) The availability
of a very large archaeological dataset—probably the largest in the world:
while the area is quite small in geographical terms, hundreds of planned
excavations have been carried out in it over the years, along with thousands
of salvage excavations and detailed surveys. Hundreds of these excavations
revealed remains from the periods discussed in this book, providing scholars
with an unparalleled archaeological dataset. This wealth is augmented by
(ii) a relatively large number of ancient texts that relate to the period under
discussion, unearthed both in the region itself and in Mesopotamia. These
The Neo-Assyrian Empire in the Southwest: Imperial Domination and Its Consequences. Avraham Faust,
Oxford University Press (2021). © Avraham Faust. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198841630.003.0001
2  -    
include (cuneiform) royal inscriptions and administrative documents and

correspondence relating to the region (and even these that relate to the
Assyrian empire at large can teach us a great deal about its operation), as
well as alphabetic ostraca from the area. Moreover, (iii) the biblical texts also
provide detailed information on this period. While the different sources all
have biases, taken together, the rich archaeological data, the Assyrian (and
local) documentary information, and the biblical textual data provide excep-
tionally detailed evidence on the period in question, enabling us to study the
nature of Assyrian rule in the area in great detail, and allowing it to serve as
an excellent test case in which to study both the empire and its subjects.
Finally (iv), the studied region, despite its limited size, is quite varied, and
includes both provinces and client kingdoms, as well as diverse ecological
niches, from highlands through fertile valleys to deserts. Thus, the unique
combination of rich data on different political units and ecological zones
enables a detailed comparative research that can compare both the different
units (including provinces versus clients) and regions to each other, as well
as the reality before and after the incorporation of the area within the
Assyrian empire. Notably, the uniquely rich data at our disposable, including
texts that were written by the conquered, illuminates not only the imperial
actions and their outcomes, but also the local responses to imperial activity,
both in the provinces and in the client kingdoms.
Using a bottom-up approach, this book utilizes the unparalleled informa-
tion available from the region to reconstruct its demography and economy
before the Assyrian campaigns, and after them. Comparing these two snap-
shots forces us to appreciate the transformations the imperial takeover
brought in its wake, and to rethink some accepted wisdom on the nature of
Assyrian control. This is followed with an analysis of the actual Assyrian
activities in the region, and the reality in the southwest is then compared to
that in other regions. This comparison, once again, forces us to account for
the differences encountered, resulting in a better appreciation of factors
influencing imperial expansion, the considerations leading to annexation,
and the imperial methods of control, challenging some old conventions
about the development of the Assyrian empire and its rule. This leads to
an examination of the Assyrian empire in comparison to other ancient Near
Eastern empires, analysing the way ancient empires controlled remote prov-
inces. Reviewing the development of ancient empires exposes not only the
nature of Assyrian domination, but also one of the major changes in the
nature of imperial control in antiquity, and to what we call the Achaemenid
revolution.
 3
The book’s structure is outlined in greater details in ‘The Structure of the

Book’ below, but first we should present background information of the study
of empires at large, on the Assyrian empire and its rule in the southwest, and
on the sources of information for this study.
Background
Empires and the Study of Empires
Empires have received a great deal of study,¹ and this brief introduction is only
intended to present some of the basic concepts.
The word ‘empire’ is derived from the Latin term imperium, originally
meaning ‘to command, order, power, rule, or sovereignty’. The term, initially
used to describe ‘the powers of rule and conquest granted to a Roman consul’,
developed to denote the relevant territory, even if the nature of the control was
not always clearly defined (Cline and Graham 2011: 3–4; see also Howe
2002: 13).
The literature on empires is vast, and although definitions vary slightly in
emphasis,² most have similar variables. Sinopoli (1994: 159), for example,
noted that ‘Empires are geographically and politically expansive polities,
composed of a diversity of localized communities and ethnic groups.’ Stark
and Chance (2012: 194) offered a similar definition, emphasizing the large size
of empires, and stating that empires are ‘expansionist states that incorporate
diverse societies well beyond immediate neighbors’ (see also Schreiber 1992: 3).
Altaweel (2008: 16) also notes that one of the characteristics of empires is
control over foreign regions and population that were not originally part of it
(also Cline and Graham 2011: 3–7). Howe (2002:15) suggested that ‘Empires,
then, must by definition be big, and they must be composite entities, formed out
of previously separate units. Diversity—ethnic, national, cultural, often
religious—is their essence.’ Howe, however, added that ‘in many observers’
understanding, that cannot be a diversity of equals’. Indeed, many have stressed
that the nature of the interaction is part of the definition of an empire (below).
Sinopoli (1994:160) summarized that many definitions ‘share in common
a view of empire as a territorially expansive and incorporative kind of state,
¹ E.g. Doyle 1986; Sinopoli 1994; Cline and Graham 2011; Alcock et al. 2001; Parsons 2010; Howe
2002; Morris and Scheidel 2009; Smith 2012.
² E.g. Sinopoli 1994: 159–60; Doyle 1986: 12; Liverani 2017: 1; Stark and Chance 2012: 194; Cline
and Graham 2011: 3–7; Howe 2002: 13–15; Altaweel and Squitieri 2018: 4, and more.
4  -    
involving relationships in which one state exercises control over other

socio-political entities (e.g. states, chiefdoms, non-stratified societies)’, and
Howe (2002: 30) concluded that ‘An empire is a large, composite, multi-ethnic
or multinational political unit, usually created by conquest, and divided between
a dominant centre and subordinate, sometimes far distant, peripheries.’
During their expansion, however, the original polities did not only become
larger, but were also transformed into something different. The result was the
emergence of a new type of social organization, with a ‘new cultural logic and a
new configuration of power’ (Woolf 1997: 347). It is not only that the centre
that, by expanding to surrounding areas, changes the structure of its weaker
neighbours, but also a new social and political entity is formed by the process.
The ‘process of creating and maintaining empires’ is often called imperial-
ism (Sinopoli 1994: 160), and the term is also used to describe the ‘actions and
attitudes which create or uphold such big political units’ (Howe 2002: 30).
Indeed, a second meaning stresses the nature of the relationship between the
centre and the conquered areas, and Howe (2002: 13) noted that the term is
used to denote any form of interaction between a more dominant group or
polity and weaker ones, embracing all forms of control (Howe 2002: 30).
Empires and imperialism are therefore, by definition, about hierarchy and
inequality. Doyle (1986: 12), for example, referred to a system of interaction
between two polities, in which the dominant (‘metropole’), exercises some
control over both the internal and external policies of the weaker, adding that
in order to understand these relations we must fathom the causes for the
weakness of the inferior polity, just as we must appreciate the reasons for the
strength and the motives of the more powerful one. The nature of the imperial
relations are influenced by a number of factors, and Doyle (1986: 46)
noted that:
four interacting sources account for the imperial relationship: the metropol-
itan regime, its capacities and interests; the peripheral political society, its
interests and weakness; the transnational system and its needs; and the
international context and the incentives it creates.
In order to understand the nature of imperial dynamics and the forces that
shape them, many scholars adopt Mann’s (1986: 2) view of the sources of
social power, i.e. ideology, economics, the military, and politics (or IEMP) (e.g.
Cline and Graham 2011: 5; Bagg 2013: 121), with different scholars stressing
the importance of different types of power and control according to circum-
stances. Some view economic strategy as the most important one (Berdan and
 5
Smith 1996), while others stresses political control (Altaweel 2008: 16–17), or
the ideological component, i.e. that proper empires use ideology (often in the
form of religion) to justify their expansion and conquest. Sinopoli (1994: 167),
for example, noted that ideology motivates action, especially imperial expan-
sion, and is ‘providing legitimation for and explanations of extant and emer-
ging inequalities’. Indeed, at times it is the appropriate ideology that enables
empires to expand (Liverani 2017: 8), and Howe (2002: 83) noted that ‘The
rulers of every major empire at least since the Romans . . . offered arguments
and justifications for what they did.’ This, of course, applies to the Assyrian
empire (e.g. Howe 2002: 36; Grayson 1995: 966; Liverani 2017).
Empires use their power in different ways and Berdan and Smith (1996), for
example, articulated a number of strategies that the Aztec empire used to
further its interests, including political strategy, economic strategy, frontier
strategy, and elite strategy. These were used to maintain the imperial control
(see also Stark and Chance 2012: 197–9; see also Chapter 10).
While control of the centre over the periphery is an essential part of being
an empire,³ the nature of imperial control, or integration, varies greatly, and
there is a continuum between ‘weakly integrated to more highly centralized
polities’ (Sinopoli 1994: 160). Indeed, empires always employ some combin-
ation of both, direct and indirect control (Howe 2002: 15; also Altaweel 2008:
16). Various scholars use different terms to refer to the degree of integration of
the peripheral areas into the empire, or the level of centralization exercised
over remote territories. Thus, many refer to a more direct control as territorial,
whereas an indirect control is seen as hegemonic (e.g. Luttwak 1976), and
others use ‘formal’ versus ‘informal empire’ in what for our purposes can be
used in a somewhat similar way (Doyle 1986). No matter which ‘binary’
system (as noted, the poles are part of a continuum) we prefer to use, it is
important to stress that different methods of control often operate simultan-
eously in different parts of the empire, and that imperial policies varied across
time and space, in accordance with the different, and changing, circumstances
(e.g. Sinopoli 1994: 163–4; Howe 2002, and see Chapters 10–11). In many
imperial contexts, the areas that were ruled directly by the empire are referred
to as provinces, whereas the territories that were ruled indirectly are viewed as
client or vassal kingdoms.
In most cases, empires initially preferred indirect control, since the con-
quests required to obtain direct control are costly, and necessitate spending
³ Sinopoli 1994:161 noted the influence of the world system perspective on the study of empires
(and see also Chapter 5).
6  -    
resources and lives, often leading to major destructions and upheavals that
minimize the production capabilities in the conquered territories. The con-
quest, moreover, requires investing in administration and military in order to
rule these territories. Diplomacy, even gun-boat diplomacy—i.e. the threat of
power—is therefore usually preferred (Sinopoli 1994: 162–3, 167; Luttwak
1976). Conquest or destruction might result from the need to decimate a
powerful enemy (Sinopoli 1994: 162–3), but in most cases the transition to
direct rule was a result of continuous revolts.
The Study Area
In modern terms, the southwestern periphery of the Assyrian empire incorp-

orates the southern tip of Lebanon, as well as much of Israel, the Palestinian
authority, and the western part of Jordan. The area is not large, and covers
some 25,000 square km—something like Maryland in the US. There are many
designations to this area in the scholarly literature, for example, the Land of
Israel, Palestine, the Holy Land, the lands of the Bible, or the Southern Levant.
In the Iron Age the region incorporated the kingdoms of Israel, Judah,
Ammon, Moab, Edom, and the Philistine city states, as well as parts of the
kingdoms of Tyre and Aram Damascus. Large parts of the region were turned
into Assyrian provinces in the later part of the eighth century .
Geographically, this small area incorporates diverse topographical and
ecological niches (Figure 1.1). The Mediterranean coastal plain was of great
economic significance, as its ports and anchorages supplied the area with
access to the lucrative maritime trade, and its inner parts controlled the
international highway, connecting Egypt and Syria–Mesopotamia. The central
highland ridge, composed of the hills of Judea, Samaria, and farther north also
the Galilee, although less accessible, could produce surpluses of wine and olive
oil. The fertile northern valleys of modern Israel cut this highland ridge, and
provided easy east–west access, thus hosting an important system of roads,
including a few branches of the international highway. These valleys also
served as the grain basket of the region. Further east, the region included the
Jordan Valley—very fertile in the north, where it was part of the so-called
northern valleys, and arid in the south—and the Transjordanian highlands.
The important ‘King’s Highway’, connecting Arabia and Syria, passed through
the latter. Finally, the region incorporated the semi-arid and arid Negev in the
south, and the routes connecting the ‘King’s Highway’ and the Mediterranean
ports of Gaza and Ashkelon.
 7
Figure 1.1 Map of the Southern Levant, with the main the geographical sub-units
Source: After A. Curtis (2009) Oxford Bible Atlas, 4th edn, courtesy of Oxford University Press;
additions made by Charles Wilson).
Since precipitation declines as one moves southward, and combined with the
existence of large fertile valleys in the north, the latter had a much greater
agricultural potential. The fact that the major roads crossed the north, as well
as the latter’s proximity to Tyre, made its economic potential by far greater
8  -    
than that of the southern parts, and indeed, throughout history the north was
politically and economically more important than the south.
The Assyrian Empire
The Neo-Assyrian Empire: Brief Summary of Its

Development and Basic Periodization
The core of the Assyrian empire in northern Mesopotamia is a triangle

between Assur in the south, Nineveh (Mosul) in the north, and Arbilu
(Erbil) in the east (Radner 2014: 102; Hunt 2015: 20). This was a fertile area,
with good climatic conditions, and it was easily accessible via rivers, leading
to high economic potential for both agricultural production and trade
(Figure 1.2).
In the fourteenth century  Assyria grew from a city-state, dominated by
Mittani, to an independent territorial state. Initially encompassing the cities of
Nineveh, Kalhu, Kilizu, and Arbilu, it later also incorporated the remains of
the Mittani, extending to the Euphrates. This era (1400–1200 ) is some-
times regarded as the period of ‘creation and original expansion’ of the
Assyrian state. Subsequently, Assyria entered a period of recession that lasted
into the tenth or even early ninth century  (e.g. Postgate 1992: 257; Radner
2014: 102).
The re-establishment of the Assyrian state—the Neo-Assyrian kingdom—
was a long process in which the Assyrian kings gradually regained their former
territory. After the expansion of the late tenth and early ninth centuries came a
phase of imperial consolidation. The first step in consolidating its control over
conquered territories was to dismantle the local dynasties in the newly
acquired regions, and replace them with governors from the core area, who
were appointed by the king and were loyal to him. The empire also developed
roads, which enabled speedy connections between the king and the governors
of the more remote provinces, and the king built ‘royal cities’ with palaces
throughout the empire, which he used from time to time (Radner 2014: 105).
Assyria’s nominal extent was still relatively limited, similar to that of the
thirteenth–twelfth centuries , i.e. limited by the Euphrates in the west. Its
role, however, changed considerably and it exerted much influence over its
neighbours, many of which became clients (Radner 2014: 103). Radner defined
the changes that took place in the course of the ninth century as a transform-
ation from a regional power to an hegemonic empire (see also Yamada 2000).
Figure 1.2 Map of the Assyrian empire, noting ‘the Assyrian triangle’, and highlighting the extent of the empire in the middle of the
eighth century , and the areas conquered in the second half of this century (mostly by Tiglath-pileser III)
Source: Prepared by Yair Sapir and Tamar Roth-Fenster; courtesy of the Tel ‘Eton expedition.
10  -    
The latter part of the ninth and first half of the eighth centuries did not see a
significant expansion, and Assyria was (among other things) confronted by
large powers (e.g. Urartu), which sometimes even defeated it and threatened
the loyalty of its clients (Radner 2014: 103–4; for a different view of Adad-
nīrārī III’s rule, see Siddal 2013). The unrest following the defeat of Ashur-
nīrārī V by Urartu led to Tiglath-pileser III (747 ) seizing the throne, and
soon after he embarked on campaigns in all fronts, greatly increasing the
empire’s holdings. As Hunt (2015: 29) noted, in only twenty-two years, ‘the
Neo-Assyrian empire doubled its territorial holdings and sphere of influence’.
Not only did Tiglath-pileser III significantly expanded the empire, but
he also made some substantial administrative changes, aiming to weaken the
power of the governors and to strengthen that of the king. Thus, in addition to
creating new provinces in the conquered territories, he reorganized the older
provinces, replacing them with smaller ones, and hence increasing their
number from twelve to twenty-five (e.g. Radner 2014: 108–9). Similarly, he
divided some of the main military and administrative positions, and two
individuals shared the responsibility, which had been heretofore held by one.
The institution of eunuchs in some positions also supported these efforts, as it
decreased the chances of officials establishing power and passing it to their
sons (Van de Mieroop 2007: 248; see also Perčírková 1987: 173).
This period is regarded as one of expansion (despite the crisis at the time of
Shalmaneser V), lasting until the death of Sargon II in 705 . Most of the
client kingdoms, as well as additional areas, were conquered and turned into
provinces, and this was followed by another phase of consolidation (beginning
after Sennacherib re-established imperial rule). In the period covering mainly
the seventh century, the empire was at the height of its power, and as Parker
(2012: 867) noted, it ‘claimed dominion over almost the entire Middle East,
from the Persian Gulf to the Taurus mountains and from the Zagros moun-
tains to the Mediterranean Sea. For a short period during the 7th century ,
the Assyrians even captured Egypt’ (see also Van de Mieroop 2007: 247). Most
of the conquered areas were turned into provinces, and were regarded as part
of Assyria. The territorial consolidation was accompanied by political changes.
Sennacherib’s great investment in Nineveh, and the massive resettlement of
deportees in this area (Radner 2014: 109; cf. Oded 1979: 28, and see more in
the section ‘The Assyrian Deportation Policy: Causes and Consequences’
below) led to additional changes, as it shifted the distribution of power
between the royal family and court on the one hand, and the officials in the
provinces on the other. This strategy was continued by Sennacherib’s succes-
sors. Essarhadon twice ordered mass executions of state officials, and the fact
that during the reign of Assurbanipal (and onwards) courtiers and palace
 11
officials received distinctions and privileges (rather than state officials) is

another indication of the continued decrease in the power of those outside
the palace (e.g. Radner 2014: 109, 111). The kings spent most of their time in
the palace with their courtiers, rather than in the army, or even making public
appearances (Radner 2014: 109). During the second half of the seventh
century, the Assyrian empire weakened, as a result of various processes and
decisions, and was eventually overthrown by the Babylonians (e.g. Liverani
2001; Kahn 2015).
This long period of time—between 1400 and 650/600 —has been
subdivided differently by various scholars, such as Postgate (1992), Bedford
(2009: 39), and Liverani (2014: 481, 485). Combining these works, we will
use the following, simplistic sub-division, which should be sufficient for our
purposes:
1. the period of initial creation (1400–1200 );

2. a period of recession (1200–934 ). These two phases are usually
regarded as preceding the time of the Neo-Assyrian empire. They were
followed by:
3. the period of initial Assyrian expansion, regaining the former boundar-
ies of Ashur, and even extending beyond that (934–824 );
4. a period of crisis (823–745 );
5. a period of rapid expansion (744–705 );
6. the peak of the Assyrian empire, sometimes referred to as the era of
‘Assyrian peace’ (although the term probably could not be applied to the
first years of Sennacherib) (705–630 );
7. the decline of the Assyrian empire (630–609 ; regardless of the exact
dating, which is debated, e.g. Malamat 1973: 270–2; Eph’al 1979: 281–2;
Kahn 2015).
Phases 1–2, as well as 7, are not of concern here, and will be rarely mentioned.
The earlier phases of Assyrian expansion and rule (phases 3–4) will be
addressed in various parts of the book, mainly for comparative purposes, but
the book mainly focuses on phases 5 and 6.
The Assyrian Empire: Forms of Control
At its peak, the empire was an enormous polity, controlling areas from
modern Iran to the Mediterranean, and from the Zagros to the Persian Gulf,
the Arabian desert, and Egypt.
12  -    
Most of this area was divided into provinces and was ruled by Assyrian
governors. Economically, this area paid taxes.⁴ On its edges were some semi-
independent client states, buffering Assyria from the areas beyond it, paying
tribute to the empire and, nominally at least, subordinated to it (e.g. Grayson
1995: 964; Postgate 1992; Van de Mieroop 2007: 248–50; see also Bagg 2013:
125). Similar phenomena are known from the fringes of many empires, and in
the ‘Background’ section we referred to the distinction between areas of direct
and indirect control, or between territorial and hegemonic empires. Most
empires preferred indirect control, which although a less effective form of
exploitation, was much cheaper, and did not require much investment (see
also Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 378). The Assyrian empire was no
exception. Grayson (1995: 964) noted that ‘the Assyrians preferred to receive
without actually conquering’, adding that the empire ‘preferred to gain control
over a foreign territory through diplomatic means’. This, however, was actu-
ally ‘gunboat diplomacy’ (Grayson 1995: 964), and the Assyrians used ‘psy-
chological warfare to make the enemy submit without a fight’ (Grayson 1995:
960). According to Parker (2012: 871), ‘Vassalage was compromise between
degree of control and cost’, and Bagg (2013: 11) noted that as long as the
clients did not revolt, the system was very efficient. If it failed, however, then
the empire waged war, leading to massive destruction (Grayson 1995: 961; also
Van de Mieroop 2007: 250). Reasons for such conquests include mainly what
the Assyrians considered disloyalty or rebellions, and this is seen also in the
southwest, for example by the final annexation of the kingdom of Israel
(Samaria).
The area directly controlled by the Assyrians was apparently also not treated
uniformly. Liverani (1988: 85) noted that there wasn’t necessarily any physical
continuity between the different zones of direct and indirect control, and the
empire was composed of ‘islands’ or ‘outposts’, adding (p. 86) that ‘the empire
is not a spread of land but a network of communications over which material
goods are carried’. This was supported by Parker (2012: 875), who stressed
that, in contrast to the impression one might get from maps or verbal
description in modern scholarly works, the empire was not ‘made up of a
contiguous stretches of land’, and that much of the empire was made of a
‘patchwork’ of territories annexed to Assyria (provinces), client states, and
buffer states.
⁴ We follow the common, even if schematic, distinction between taxes, paid by people within a
polity on a regular basis, and tributes, paid by ‘foreign’ rulers (cf. Smith 2014; see also Bedford 2009:
35–6).
 13
The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur
The above distinction between direct and indirect control fits nicely with
Assyria’s treatment of its empire. The term māt Aššur (‘the Land of Assur’)
refers to the areas officially annexed by Assyria (sometimes called ‘Assyria
proper’) (Hunt 2015: 20–2; Van de Mieroop 2007: 242–4). It was apparently
coined in the Middle Assyrian period, initially denoting the ‘Assyrian triangle’
(Postgate 1992: 252; see also Radner 2014: 102). Following the conquests of the
thirteenth century (phase 1 in ‘The Neo-Assyrian Empire: Brief Summary of
Its Development and Basic Periodization’ above), the term was expanded to
incorporate also the Habur region. From this time onward, however, this was
the term used to designate Assyria. Thus, ‘Territories freshly added to Assyria,
or reclaimed, are said to be “turned into” or “returned to the land of Assur”’
(Postgate 1992: 252). Māt Aššur, therefore, included the Assyrian core (some-
times called the home provinces or the heartland of Assyria) and all the
territories that were later annexed. They were all officially the Land of Assur,
and their inhabitants became Assyrians. Thus, ‘to the land of Assur I added
land, to its people I added people’ (Postgate 1992: 252; see also Radner 2015:
108; Liverani 2017: 207–8). Still, this ‘citizenship’ involved only ‘fiscal subjec-
tion’ (Liverani 2017: 187).
The mere usage of the name ‘Assur’ for this purpose reflects the importance
of Assur (the god) in Assyrian imperial ideology. Unlike other gods, Assur had
only one temple, in Assur, underlining his significance as personification of
the city and later state of Assur. Their incorporation within the land of Assur is
symbolized by the fact that all provinces brought offerings to the temple, and
all the annexed regions were forced to submit to the national god, Assur,
although they did not have to abandon their own gods (Postgate 1992: 252–3;
see also Van de Mieroop 2007: 243).
The Yoke of Assur refers to the areas that were subjugated by Assyria, but
not formally annexed, or in other words, to the client kingdoms. These regions
were regarded as independent, and the local ruler, even if only a puppet placed
by the Assyrian empire, was regarded as a king of his country, and the
Assyrians interacted with him concerning his kingdom. Postgate (1992: 255)
noted that the relations between the clients and the Assyrian kings were
underlined by oaths, witnessed by Assur and the local gods, and their breach,
therefore, constituted a major sin against Assur, and justified punishment by
the Assyrian king. Such a breach could cause the empire to conquer the
kingdom and annex it. Still, until this happened the Assyrians were not
interested in the internal affairs of the client kingdoms, and they were not
14  -    
viewed as the land of Assur (Postgate 1992: 255; see also Hunt 2015: 22–4; Van
de Mieroop 2007: 242–4). Accordingly, these regions were treated differently.
They did not have Assyrian governors, nor did they usually bring offerings to
the temple of Assur (Postgate 1992: 255). Rather, at least since the time of
Tiglath-pileser I, the client states—those who bore the yoke of Assur—were
expected to pay an annual tribute. Since this was not the Land of Assur, this
was paid to the king, and not to Assur’s temple (Postgate 1992: 253–5).
The provinces provided taxes, mainly the corn and straw tax, some of which
remained in the provinces and supplied the army, and other parts of which
were shipped (when possible), to the Assyrian heartland. The clients provided
tribute, mostly in metals, luxury goods, Horses, and exotic items (Postgate
1992: 254; see also Grayson 1995: 962; Postgate 1974: 189; Eph’al 2010: 55–60).
The taxes and tribute were paid annually (Grayson 1995: 96). A third form of
income came from duties from trade. In theory, this could be taken from both
provinces and client kingdoms, but Radner (2007: 225) claims that governors
did not pay this tax (although there might have been exceptions). Corvée
labour, too, was provided by both provinces and clients.
Some kingdoms were left independent, and in practice served as a buffer
area between the Assyrian empire and its enemies. Parker (2012: 871) believes
that this was done on purpose. However, since an independent kingdom has
no advantages in terms of ‘buffering’ over a client state, it is possible that
kingdoms retained such status only when the Assyrian empire was not
effectively able to turn them into full clients.
The Administration of the Assyrian Empire
Assyria’s success was not only a result of its military capability to conquer new
territories, but also of its ability to administer them (Parker 2012: 867). This
was the responsibility of the empire’s administrators. In contrast to some other
administrative systems in the ancient Near East, however, it appears that the
Assyrian administration was quite thin and not very fixed, and the way it
functioned remained ‘obscure’ (Postgate 2007: 331; see also Postgate 2016;
Hunt 2015: 29). Neo-Assyrian administration appeared not to have been
bureaucratic, and therefore did not leave much in the way of remains (see
also Hunt 2015: 29; Ponchia 2012: 213). Postgate (2007: 331) called it ‘invisible
hierarchy’, and Grayson (1995: 963) noted that ‘the chain of command was not
entirely consistent’.
While certain aspects of Assyrian administration are quite illusive, some
observations, pertaining to both its development and function, can be made.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

The Neo Assyrian Empire in The Southwest Imperial Domination and Its Consequences 1St Edition Avraham Faust Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Neo Assyrian Empire in The Southwest Imperial Domination and Its Consequences 1St Edition Avraham Faust Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Neo-Assyrian Empire in the

Southwest: Imperial Domination and its

The Neo-Assyrian Empire in the Southwest

Dedicated to the memory of Shlomo Bunimovitz, teacher, colleague, and friend

(MSU), Chaim Ben-David (Kinneret College), and Hayah Katz (Kinneret

2  -    

include (cuneiform) royal inscriptions and administrative documents and

The book’s structure is outlined in greater details in ‘The Structure of the

Empires and the Study of Empires

4  -    

involving relationships in which one state exercises control over other

6  -    

The Study Area

In modern terms, the southwestern periphery of the Assyrian empire incorp-

8  -    

The Assyrian Empire

The Neo-Assyrian Empire: Brief Summary of Its

The core of the Assyrian empire in northern Mesopotamia is a triangle

10  -    

ofﬁcials received distinctions and privileges (rather than state ofﬁcials) is

1. the period of initial creation (1400–1200 );

The Assyrian Empire: Forms of Control

12  -    

The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur

14  -    

The Administration of the Assyrian Empire

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Section 4. Information about Donations to

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

Section 5. General Information About Project

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

You might also like