From Middle to Neo-Assyrians: Mesopotamia's Turning Point
The Bronze to Iron Age transition in the Near East is sometimes clearly defined, but sometimes it is not so clear. Iron innovation in the region appears to have been a result of the Bronze Age collapse, particularly as iron-bearing people groups moved into the Near East after or during the collapse (Erb-Satullo 2019: 557-58).
One characteristic of the Early Iron Age across the Near East and into Europe and other parts of Asia was a prolonged period of an arid climate, with lake levels dropping, rain levels reducing, and the temperature lowering by an average of 2º C (Drake 2012: 1865-66).
In Mesopotamia, the end of the Bronze Age and move into the Iron Age saw changes in almost all major powers, except one: the Middle Assyrian Empire, which spanned the Late Bronze-Iron Age transition. Later in the Iron Age, the Neo-Assyrian Empire would develop from the Middle Assyrian, but the Neo-Elamite and Neo-Babylonian empires also form.
The End of the Middle Assyrian Period.
The Middle Assyrian period extended from the Late Bronze Age well into the Iron Age (Düring 2018: 42), the only Late Bronze Age power in the region to survive the crisis years of the Bronze Age collapse (Düring 2015: 299). The Middle Assyrian period, as noted before, saw a change in kingship, administration, and even religion, becoming more and more adapted to broader Mesopotamian culture. By the end of the period, in the tenth century (Brown 2013: 97), the culture between the Middle and Neo-Assyrian Empires would be difficult to differentiate (Düring 2018: 42), but the political differences become evident when after years of patterns of weakness and revival diminished the Assyrian state, a succession of kings expanded Assyrian control once again, establishing the new Assyrian Empire (Brown 2013: 99).
Neo-Elamite.
Having discussed the Elamites only a little, as they are technically outside of the Near East and in the Iranian plateau and Zagros highlands (Álvarez-Mon 2012: 740-41), a short description is needed here. The word ‘Elam’ appears to literally mean ‘highland,’ as in reference to the highlands of the Zagros (Alizadeh 2010: 2). Elam is first recognized in the Bible in Genesis 10:22 where the personal name, Elam, is referenced as a son of Shem, along with Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram, the first and last of whom are known from the broader Mesopotamian region. Thus, Biblically, the Elamites are a Semitic group. With that said, Elamite as a language is a linguistic isolate (Seri 2010: 96), meaning that the origins of the language remain obscure.
Origins of Elam
Because the Elamite language does not appear to have Semitic cognates, the Elamites are considered non-Semitic (Zadok 2018: 147). Several possibilities may account for the Semitic/non-Semitic controversy, including that the Biblical record is simply incorrect. On the other hand, as little is known of the Elamites early on, in fact the proto-elamitic script has yet to be fully deciphered (Woods 2010: 60), it is uncertain if the Elamites later referred to were in fact the same people group. Much like how the biblically Hamitic Canaanites were later replaced by a Semitic group at the beginning of the Bronze Age who retained the same name, so the biblical Elamites may had faced a similar fate.
As a people group, the Elamites constantly acted as a thorn in the side of the ancient Mesopotamians; even though they were culturally influenced by the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Babylonians (Cotterell 2019: 271), they were the long-time enemies of those peoples (Mack 2011: 98), most notably destroying the Kassite kingdom (Adamo and Al-Ansari 2020: 52) and plundering the stela that was the Code of Hammurabi (Kriwaczekn 2012: 11).
It should be noted that the Elamites were not always enemies, as peaceful relations did, at times, occur (Masuri, Behroozi, and Majdabadi 2013: 2178), even including the hiring or inspiring of Elamite mercenaries (Potts 2004: 268). During the reign of Aššurbanipal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, an uneasiness in Elam developed when the king was murdered by his brother, causing many of the princes to flee to Assyria (Fuchs 2017: 265). These Elamite princes were then educated at the court of Aššurbanipal (Livingstone 2017: 364) later to be installed as puppet rulers in Elam (Livingstone 2017: 365).
The Neo-Elamite Period
The beginning of the Neo-Elamite period, Neo-Elamite I dating from ca. 1000-750/700 B.C. (Basello 2016: 7), is poorly known as no texts have been discovered and the links to Mesopotamia are minimal (McIntosh 2005: 357). During the Neo-Elamite II period, dating ca. 770-585 B.C., is seen a series of battles and wars against the Neo-Assyrians culminating in the capture of Susa, the Neo-Elamite capital (Basello 2016: 7-8). This period is somewhat well documented in Assyrian sources (Potts 2004: 8).
The capital of Elam, Susa, was somewhat protected by marshlands, but the proximity to southern Mesopotamian cities, when compared to the highland Elamite settlements, made Susa not only a suitable target for the Assyrians but made the Elamites susceptible to Mesopotamian developments (Cotterell 2019: 271), including war related developments. In fact, the Elamite archers were well known, and the Elamites were something of archery specialists (Potts 2004: 268).
From Elamite inscriptions at Susa, only five kings are known, but others, as well as details concerning both political and military affairs, are known from Mesopotamian sources, primarily Neo-Assyrian royal annals (Basello 2016: 8). The eighth and seventh centuries B.C. are characterized by Elamite-Assyrian conflicts (Álvarez-Mon 2012: 755), a key point of which included the founding of a new Elamite dynasty ca. 760 B.C. that ushered in Neo-Elamite II, and the defeat of the Neo-Assyrian Sargon II shortly thereafter (Masuri, Behroozi, and Majdabadi 2013: 2177). By Neo-Elamite III, there are seen close ties between the Elamites and the Persians (Potts 2004: 259), who are out of the purview of this study.
Neo-Assyrian.
The establishment of the new or Neo-Assyrian Empire came after years of a pattern of alternating weakness and revival (Brown 2013: 99), beginning with Tiglath-Pileser II in 966 B.C. and extending until its fall at the hands of the Babylonians and Medes in 609 B.C. (McIntosh 2005: 336). The regime is arguably the first world empire, though the successes of the Neo-Assyrian Empire are firmly rooted in the Middle Assyrian period (Düring 2018: 41). The period continued many of the Middle Assyrian traditions (Sazonov 2016: 36), and, as noted above, the cultural shift between the Middle and Neo-Assyrian periods is difficult to differentiate (Düring 2018: 42).
The Expanding Empire
The new empire expanded in connection to the ideological programs of leaders such as Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Aššurbanipal who gave a theological justification for their successes (Sazonov 2016: 36-37), a concept of substantiating the reasons for war based on the will of the gods that began in the region as early as 2400 B.C. (Cserkits 2022: 10). Of course, the many successes of the Neo-Assyrian kings no doubt owed largely to the professional army under their control that stood at the forefront of technological progress (McIntosh 2005: 179).
As early as Aššur-uballiṭ during the Middle Assyrian period, documentation exists for the dissecting of the empire into administrative units or provinces (Llop 2011: 593). During the Neo-Assyrian period, Tiglath-Pileser III rearranged the districts, and Sargon II created a bureaucratic organization to maintain the provincial system (May and Svärd 2015: 14). Appointed governors of these provinces were required to maintain roads and infrastructure, levy and collect taxes, distribute land, preserve order, and command the local garrison (Harrison 2016: 254).
Resettlement of Conquered Peoples
While vassal states of the empire paid tribute, the differing Assyrian provinces, those regions that had been directly conquered by Assyria, paid a type of grain tax, as well as customs duties (Aster and Faust 2015: 304). Unfortunately, these obligations at times made life unbearable (Hipp 2015: 52) perhaps due to another of the key ideological concepts championed by Neo-Assyrian leadership that became a long-lasting legacy of the empire (Radner 2017: 209), the forced resettlement of entire people groups (Bonacossi 2018: 62). This systematic resettlement or deportation of conquered peoples had a two-fold benefit for Assyrian governance, namely pertaining to resource management and the reduction of rebellion due to patriotic resentment (Radner 2017: 209).
The two-way resettlement of groups surely lowered the possibility of rebellion, but it also moved peoples into lands of which they were not familiar and into which others may had already been present. While the Assyrian overlords attempted to treat fairly all those who were resettled, and in fact resettlement was seen as a privilege rather than a punishment (Radner 2017: 211), the heavy grain taxation of a defeated people surely caused problems.
For one, many of the peoples attempted to retain their traditional lifestyle (Koch et al. 2020: 33). This concept is noted by Josephus in his Antiquities (9.288) where a group was moved into Samaria in the Southern Levant, worshipping their native gods and, according to Josephus, provoking Yahweh. The land of Samaria became impoverished to the point that taxes could not be extracted, likely due to the great amount of time that it takes to create an economic surplus, particularly with a diminished populace (Aster and Faust 2015: 304-05), Tiglath-Pileser III having moved the Israelites out of the land (Koch et al. 2020: 30) and Sargon II having resettled the area with Arabs years later (Frahm 2017: 181), essentially restarting the agricultural narrative of the land.
Of interest, of the Neo-Assyrian sites throughout the empire studied thus far, about forty percent are established on virgin soil (Bonacossi 2018: 63), meaning a brand new life for many. These people benefited from Assyrian dominance in the form of new technologies and industries, for example the creation of canal systems or the establishment of new crops (Radner 2017: 210). Assyrian administrators also built and maintained highways for the movement of information and goods (McIntosh 2005: 184), all to the benefit of the state and the people. Many have attempted to locate the so-called ten lost tribes of Israel, but it is possible that these simply became absorbed into other groups, taking advantage of the Neo-Assyrian advantages.
Check out the Bible Land Explorer!
[This is a lecture written for the course 'HIST 262: History of the Ancient Near East,' taught Fall 2023 at God's Bible School and College, a regionally accredited College in Cincinnati, Ohio. Bibliographical material will be posted under Research on this site.]
Comments