THE TRIUMPH OF AKKADIAN IN NEO-ASSYRIAN ELITE DISPLAY INSCRIPTIONS

Overview

While the previous section demonstrates the use of writing in elite display inscriptions primarily for its visual nature, this section argues the necessity of Akkadian in elite display inscriptions for representing the king. To prove this necessity, several elite display inscriptions that have been situated in regions where Akkadian was not spoken by the general populace—in Anatolian, Levantine, and Mediterranean environments—including the Kurkh stelae of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III, the Kition Stela of Sargon II, and a few inscriptions of Esarhaddon, such as his stelae from Sam’al and Til Birsip as well as his rock relief at Nahr el-Kelb. After considering these elite display inscriptions, the bilingual statue from Tell Fekheriyeh is offered as an example of blending Akkadian and Aramaic for a difference purpose than glorifying the king, since it is not an elite display inscription. It must be stated that in the case of most of these inscriptions, their original context is difficult to restore beyond the general location in which they were found, but Radner provides helpful comments on their typical positioning:

Assyrian royal steles are usually placed near significant natural landmarks like mountains, the sources of rivers or the shores of the sea; the idea seems to be that such sites provided an immediate connection with the divine world. Therefore, the monument separates not only the known from the unknown according to the concept of the “officially existing world” discussed above [concerning the Kition Stela]; it is also a boundary and bridge between the human and divine sphere.[1]

Moreover, it is important to note that despite the rise of Aramaic as a lingua franca and even its use in the administration of the Neo-Assyrian Empire,[2] these inscriptions remain in Akkadian, hence displaying its triumph over Aramaic in representing the king in elite display inscriptions.

Kurkh Stelae of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III

The Kurkh stelae were found in Kurkh (located in modern-day Turkey), and they separately depict Ashurnasirpal II and his son Shalmaneser III in their typical royal accoutrements and include divine symbols and Akkadian inscriptions that read similarly to their palace inscriptions and to the Black Obelisk, though the text of both of these stelae are considered incomplete, lacking, according to Grayson, “the usual concluding passages regarding building, blessings and curses, and date.”[3] Not only do these inscriptions lack the usual endings, but they are considered hastily engraved. Nevertheless, they extol the power of the king and serve as impressive examples of his conquests in the western reaches of the empire.

Kition Stela of Sargon II

The Kition Stela of Sargon II is the westernmost Neo-Assyrian monumental inscription and it is more specifically an elite display inscription of Sargon II that was erected in Kition, which was a Phoenician colony on Cyprus. The stela was probably established after Sargon II aided Shilta of Tyre against his vassals, but it details many of Sargon II’s campaigns and generally extols him as is typical of elite display inscriptions. Like the Kurkh stelae, it was composed in Akkadian, which would have been almost unintelligible to the locals who spoke Eteocypriot, Greek, and Phoenician. Though the language was foreign, the visuals depicted were more familiar, such that the locals could probably grasp the portray of a devout and power Neo-Assyrian king.[4]

Esarhaddon Inscriptions

Though this discussion has not considered any palace inscriptions of Esarhaddon, it does dwell on a few of his elite display inscriptions dispersed in various Anatolian and Levantine locations, such as Sam’al (modern-day Zinçirli, Turkey), Til Birsip (modern-day Tell Ahmar, Syria), and Nahr el-Kelb (a river in modern-day Lebanon). Note that all have a mixture of Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian signs, but these nuances were probably unperceivable to the locals. The stela he erected at Sam’al is quite impressive and memorializes his invasion of Egypt by featuring a larger-than-life Esarhaddon with diminutive and groveling captives held by tethers in his hand who are perhaps the Egyptian Ushanahuru and the Phoenician Abdi-Milkuti. The stela is also flanked by his two crown princes, Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shuma-ukin, who are of a moderate stature. The text is clearly written and could have been read by onlookers, but Sam’alian, which may be considered a dialect of Aramaic, was predominantly spoken in Sam’al, as indicated by several local monumental inscriptions.[5]

The stela from Til Birsip is quite similar to the one from Sam’al in that it also depicts a larger-than-life Esarhaddon with two tethered captives who are presumably the same figures as in that other stela. Additionally, it is likewise flanked by the crown princes. Unlike the other stela, it is not finished, which probably means that it was started shortly before Esarhaddon’s death in 669 BCE. What text is extent is not quite like that of the other stela though, and deals with an Arab king named Hazael (not of Damascus) who pays homage to Esarhaddon in Ninveh.[6]

As for the rock relief from Nahr el-Kelb, it also deals with Esarhaddon’s invasion into Egypt and it was carved next to a pre-existing Egyptian rock relief of Ramses II. The juxtaposition of the two is no doubt intentional and the differences are stark. Whereas the Egyptian rock relief has a rectangular building-like structure, the Neo-Assyrian one has a less ornate, but iconic arch frame. Considering that these two rock reliefs are only a foot or so apart, the Neo-Assyrian elite display inscription is perhaps expressive of a competitive and victorious spirit felt by Esarhaddon towards Egypt, which, along with the Levant that it used to control, was now a part of his empire.[7]

Tell Fekheriyeh Statue

The bilingual statue from Tell Fekheriyeh is the only Akkadian-Aramaic monument and the longest bilingual text of those two languages. The inscriptions are featured on the front and back sides of the skirt of the statue figure, who is identified as Hadad-yis‘i in Aramaic (Adad-it’i in Akkadian), the governor of Guzan. Though the dating is not certain and was originally contested due to epigraphic discrepancies, the Hadad-yis‘i can be placed in the 9^th century, perhaps during the rule of Ashurnasirpal II.[8] This inscription is not an elite display inscription of the king, however, but a dedicatory inscription of a governor to Adad, so it adds further support to the necessity of Akkadian only in elite display inscriptions.

Summary

The various elite display inscriptions discussed above all demonstrate the use of Akkadian only in various locations where Akkadian was not spoken. It is possible that upon the erection of any of these monuments, they could have been read aloud in both Akkadian and any other target language, such as Aramaic, but this is not clearly evident. Whether their Akkadian inscriptions were read aloud or not, they would have been accessible to a very limited audience, such as the presiding Akkadian officials and their scribes. In this case, according to Porter, these inscriptions could have served a purpose to “reassure the ruling class of their right to rule and of their power, enhancing their confidence and ability to rule effectively.”[9] She adds, though, that the overall impression of the monument would have had more lasting effects than its text alone and that the expressed audience of these texts, at least in the case of the Esarhaddon stela from Sam’al, was future rulers.[10] In the case of the Kition stela, which was far removed from a context where Akkadian was accessible, Radner argues that the intended audience was not the locals, but the god Ba‘al-harri, the “lord of the mountain.”[11] As such, the ability to read the inscription by a local audience is not critical. Instead, the writing has a primarily visual effect, which necessitates that it be in Akkadian only, so that it can properly reflect the traditions and prestige of the king and the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The use of Akkadian for its prestige rather than its ability to communicate is thus affirmed by Galter, “prestige-endowing functions seem often to have been more important than communication in the choice of language.”[12] Even the cuneiform-style of the writing, therefore, is appreciated for its visual nature, as it triumphs over Aramaic.