PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Overview
Some preliminary matters will be considered first, such as the definition and features of elite display inscriptions, considerations as to their being propaganda, the Neo-Assyrian imperial ideology they manifest, and the nature of literacy in an oral world. These preliminary matters are important to explore because they establish the nature of elite display inscriptions, their uses, and their audiences. Though it is argued that these inscriptions are primarily designed to glorify the king and empire, it is not clear whether they can be considered propaganda and to what extent they were read.
Features of Neo-Assyrian Elite Display Inscriptions
Definition
It is necessary to first define Neo-Assyrian elite display inscriptions for the purpose of this discussion, before considering their visual and verbal natures. A Neo-Assyrian inscription is considered an elite-display inscription if it is a monumental inscription[1] concerned with dynastic history and its main intent is, according to Steinkeller, “to glorify a particular royal figure and his lineage or to commemorate specific historical events (other than temple building),”[2] which he notes stems from traditions developed by the Sargonic kings who were the first to produce such inscriptions.[3] Based on this definition, this discussion accordingly focuses on palace inscriptions as well as stelae and a rock relief produced by the Neo-Assyrian kings, starting with Ashurnasirpal II and ending with Ashurbanipal, though others could be included perhaps.
The Verbal Nature
The verbal contents of elite display inscriptions are highly organized and demonstrative of the literary diction of Standard Babylonian.[4] They are concerned with promoting the king as central to the empire—as the one who maintains its order and extends its dominion. They employ various rhetorical strategies, including divine selection, lengthy epithets, genealogies, military conquests, and building projects, though these are not the focuses.[5] Their language is grandiose and complex, having numerous attributive relative clauses, parallelisms,[6] and extraposed elements that magnify the king and deities and aid in keeping the reader focused through variousstructural shifts.[7] In many ways, the language of elite display inscriptions is like that of non-monumental inscriptions, such as prism inscriptions, that laud the deeds of the king, which suggests that scribes are drawing upon widely-used writing conventions in the production of elite display inscriptions.[8] What sets them apart, however, is their integration of verbal and visual components.
The Visual Nature
The visuals, which consist of sculptured stone bas-reliefs and figures, that complement the text of elite display inscriptions are staggering in their rich detail, colossal size, and life-like dynamism. Their execution requires a variety of expertly applied techniques, such as horizontal alignment, self-containment, progressive distancing, and descriptive clarity, among others, in order to depict a variety of subjects, such as divine and human figures shown in profile, processions, battle scenes, landscapes, and lion hunts. The king is typically portrayed as a life-size figure,[9] but distinguished from others with his royal accoutrements and positioning.[10] In the case of palace inscriptions, there is often a narrative that is conveyed,[11] which focuses on the divine selection of the king and his victories, resulting in the spreading of order throughout the empire. These visuals can even be ordered to convey a syntax that emulates the subject-object-verb word order of Akkadian, as Winter argues:
Thus, in Akkadian, king-citadel-conquers; and so also, in virtually all of the battle scenes, the king is seen at the left, facing toward and/or engaged in warfare against the citadel against which he campaigns, and only as the end, as prisoners are led off, does one “read” the conclusion that the king has indeed conquered the citadel.[12]
As such, the visuals play a pivotal role in elite display inscriptions. Though the inscriptions provide intimate details, the visuals glorify the king and carry the narrative because they are more immediately accessible.
Are Elite Display Inscriptions Propaganda?
Having explored the definition and features of elite display inscriptions, a related question is whether they can be considered propaganda. This is a difficult question, since there are many perspectives on how to define propaganda and how to evaluate ancient inscriptions accordingly. The definition preferred by Tadmor, which he takes from Jowett and O’Donnell, is accepted here: “A modern textbook defines propaganda as ‘a deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate conditions and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.’”[13] It is possible to argue that these elite displays are deliberately and systematically designed to shape the perceptions of the public concerning the king, and thus direct their behavior to further support his reign. This argument is good in theory, but challenging in reality, since it is not easy to determine who the audiences of the elite display inscriptions were, how they perceived them, and what effects they had. Some scholars have been either adamantly against or at least cautious about viewing Mesopotamian inscriptions as pieces of propaganda, especially in the third and second millennia.[14] This discussion remains cautious about terming these elite display inscriptions as propaganda, but it is likely that these elite display inscriptions were partly designed to sway the public to revere the king and empire, though they were also designed for the gods and for the ruling class itself.[15]
Neo-Assyrian Imperial Ideology
It is important to develop an understanding of Neo-Assyrian imperial ideology, which is often evidenced in these inscriptions, which embody “how the Assyrians viewed themselves and their relationship with the outside world, and how they wished the outside world to view them.”[16] Concerning this ideology, Liverani argues that it was developed to maintain an imbalance devised by the ruling class to govern its subjects.[17] It focuses on Ashur, the eponymous and patron god of Assyria, who selects the king and commands for him to engage in holy wars in order to expand the order of the empire over distant and chaotic lands. This imbalance between the ruling class and its subjects is based on a several “qualitative diversities,”[18] including several categories, such as space, time, humans, and goods, within which exist statics and dynamics. For example, there is a qualitative diversity in space, which is divided into what is considered central (belonging to the Neo-Assyrian empire) and peripheral (beyond its control). While this opposition is a static, the dynamic is the transformation of the peripheral into central. As for time, the static is its constant passing, but the dynamic is the king’s “heroic priority”[19] to outdo his predecessors. The static and dynamic with regard to humans is similar to those of space, with the static being an opposition between citizens and barbarians and the dynamic being the conversion of the latter into the former. The static in the last category, goods, is the existence of raw materials at the periphery and the possession of craftsman at the center, whereas the dynamic is converting those raw materials into processed goods.
Literacy in an Oral World
It is commonly accepted that literacy was limited in the ancient Near East, but there are differing opinions on how to define and assess literacy. Some of these views are well-explained by Rollston, who also offers his own definition:
The definition of literacy for antiquity (and modernity) is the subject of substantial debate. Some might suggest that in “oral cultures” the capacity to use language (i.e., the spoken word) in a functional or sophisticated manner constitutes literacy. However, some would argue that literacy is a term that is to be understood as referring to the ability to read and write texts. Occasionally, there are those who propose that functional literacy could be defined as just the capacity to write one’s name. …
For the southern Levant during antiquity, I would propose as a working description of literacy the possession of substantial facility in a writing system, that is, the ability to write and read, using and understanding a standard script, a standard orthography, a standard numeric system, conventional formatting, and terminology, and with minimal errors of composition or comprehension.[20]
Though he is concerned primarily with literacy in the southern Levant, this definition is acceptable for the purposes of this discussion. Considering the highly complex nature of cuneiform writing, especially in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions with their learned usage of CVC signs that varied from context to context, it is no surprise that Ashurbanipal, the last great king of the empire, boasted of his ability to read and write. Regardless of the preponderance of textual evidence, it is reasonable to conclude with Porter that, “in the seventh century Assyria reading and writing were still exceptional skills restricted to a highly respected, and ordinarily professional, elite.”[21] Since the ability to even read, let alone write, cuneiform was limited, it must be concluded that Neo-Assyrian elite display inscriptions were not frequently read by a substantial representation of the population. However, it is possible to argue that these inscriptions were read by scribes on behalf of themselves and others for a variety of occasions, including ceremonial presentations of the monumental inscriptions.[22] To the extent that this is the case, though, is neither clear nor reliable. As such, it is best to assume that these inscriptions were not widely read, but that their use of writing had other purposes.
Summary
Elite display inscriptions are a particular type of monumental inscription that integrate both visuals and text to glorify the king and to focus on dynastic history. The can be considered propaganda, though with some reservations, and they both manifest and are the product of imperial ideology. Though they could been read publicly, their text was minimally accessible to local populations. As such, their writing was primarily included for its visual nature, which further necessitated that they be written in Akkadian and not Aramaic or any other language. Having offered these preliminary matters, this discussion can now consider the triumphs of the visual or the verbal and of Akkadian over Aramaic in Neo-Assyrian elite display inscriptions.
[1]. See K. A. Kitchen, “Now You See It, Now You Don’t!: The Monumental Use and Non-Use of Writing in the Ancient Near East,” in Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in Honour of Alan R. Millard, eds. Piotr Bienkowski, Christopher Mee, and Elizabeth Slater (New York: T & T Clark International, 2005), 175–87, for his understanding of monumental inscriptions.
[2]. Piotr Steinkeller, “Writing, Kingship and Political Discourse in Early Babylonia: Reflections on the Nature and Function of Third Millennium Historical Sources” (Unpublished), 3. What Steinkeller refers to as elite display inscriptions are considered “inscriptions triomphales” in J.-R. Kupper, “Les inscriptions triomphales akkadiennes.” OrAnt 10.2 (1971): 91–106, p. 99, concerning which he asserts, “La structure de ces inscriptions est assez lâche; on n’y découvre pas l’articulation des schémas traditionnels, autour d’éléments fondamentaux. Deux thèmes majeurs y sont exploités: les succès militaires du roi et les marques particulières de sa grandeur.”
[3]. See Steinkeller, “Writing, Kingship and Political Discourse in Early Babylonia,” 4.
[4]. See N. J. C. Kouwenberg, The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background, LANE 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 16–17. He states, however, that the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions would also have Assyrianisms. See also John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, HSS 45, 3rd ed. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 346–48.
[5]. See Hayim Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September, 7-11, 1995, eds. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997), 325–38, esp. pp. 327–30.
[6]. See Johannes Renger, “‘Versstrukturen’ als Stilmittel in den Inschriften Sargons II von Assyrien,” in Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, eds. Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard, and Piotr Steinkeller (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 425–37.
[7]. For the various functions of extraposed elements, see Geoffrey Khan, Studies in Semitic Syntax, London Oriental Series 38 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 165–95.
[8]. See Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography,” 327–30. See also Elnathan Weissert “Royal Hunt and Royal Triumph in Prism Fragment of Ashurbanipal (82-5-22,2),” in Parpola and Whiting, Assyria 1995, 339–58, which argues for connections between elite display inscriptions and prism inscriptions.
[9]. J. E. Reade, “Ideology and Propaganda in Assyrian Art,” in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. Mogens Trolle Larsen (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), 329–43,esp. p. 342, notes that the larger-than-life portrayal of Esarhaddon in his stela at Sam’al (see below) probably referenced Egyptian styles that he encountered during his invasion.
[10]. See Pauline Albenda, Monumental Art of the Assyrian Empire: Dynamics of Composition Styles, Monographs on the Ancient Near East 3 (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1998).
[11]. Irene J. Winter, “Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in Neo-Assyrian Reliefs,” in Of the First Millennium B.C.E., vol. 1 of On Art in the Ancient Near East, CHANE 34 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 3–70, p. 3, writes that “While ‘story’ is a major component in narrative, the terms are not synonymous. Story evokes content. Narrative, however, demands that one address oneself at the same time to both content and structure.”
[12]. Irene J. Winter, “Art in Empire: The Royal Image and the Visual Dimensions of Assyrian Ideology,”in in Parpola and Whiting, Assyria 1995, 359–81, p. 362. Note that this order depends on the perspective of the viewer, which may depends on one’s position in a given context, so Holly Pittman, “The White Obelisk and the Problem of Historical Narrative in the Art of Assyria,” The Art Bulletin 78.2 (1996): 334–55, esp. pp. 347–48.
[13]. Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography,” 332. The definition is taken from Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1986), 16.
[14]. See for example, Jacob J. Finkelstein, “Early Mesopotamia, 2500–1000 B.C.,” in The Symbolic Instrument in Early Times, vol. 1 of Propaganda and Communication in World History, eds. Harold D. Lasswell, Daniel Lerner, and Hans Speier (Honolulu: East-West Center, 1979), 50–110. See also Aage Westenholz, “The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture,” in Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, OBO 160, eds. Pascal Attinger and Markus Wäfler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 15–117, esp. pp. 26–28.
[15]. Reade, “Ideology and Propaganda,” 339, writes concerning wall reliefs, “This was preaching to the converted rather than propaganda.” As for the gods as their audience, see below concerning the Kition Stela.
[16]. Reade, “Ideology and Propaganda,” 329.
[17]. See Mario Liverani, “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire,” in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. Mogens Trolle Larsen (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), 297–317.
[18]. Liverani, “Ideology,” 303.
[19]. Liverani, “Ideology,” 308.
[20]. Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age, ABS 11 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 127.
[21]. Barbara Nevling Porter, “Language, Audience and Impact in Imperial Assyria,” in Language and Culture in the Near East, IOS 15, eds. Shlomo Izre’el and Rina Drory (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 51–72, p. 53.
[22]. See A. Leo. Oppenheim, “The City of Assur in 714 B.C.” JNES 19.2 (1960): 133–47.