ebook img

At the edge of empire: conceptualizing Assyria's Anatolian Frontier ca. 700 BC PDF

24 Pages·2008·0.59 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview At the edge of empire: conceptualizing Assyria's Anatolian Frontier ca. 700 BC

JOURNAI. OF Anthropological Archaeology ACADEMIC PRESS Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 371-395 At the edge of empire: conceptualizing Assyria's Anatolian Frontier ca. 700 BC Bradley J. Parker Deptir.tment of History, The Unioersily of Utah, 380 S 1400 E Rm 211, Salt Lnlce Cily, UT 54112-0311, USA Received 23 May 2001; revision received 7 March 2002; accepted 14 March 2002 Introduction mental in shaping the physicality of modern na- tion states (Baty, 1928; Boggs, 1930, 1937, 1940; Frontier studies have long been the focus of Crocker, 191 9; Fawcett, 191 8; Fischer, 1949; considerable debate in various fields and sub- Holdich, 1916). The fields of Classics and Ancient disciplines of the humanities and social sciences. History also have a long "history" of frontier As early as 1893, Fredrick Jackson Turner studies, with some of the major works in espe- brought frontier studies to the forefront of re- cially Roman studies focused on the frontiers of search in American History by arguing that the the empire (Dyson, 1985; Elton, 1996; Isaac, 1990; political, economic and cultural underpinnings of Luttwak, 1976; Whittaker, 1994 for example). American society were not the result of European Frontier studies reached the fields of social science influence, but were rather the product of the and anthropology first through the study of the American frontier experience. Expansion into the process of acculturation (Broom et al., 1954; vast "empty" wilderness of the American west Spencer, 1961; Redfield et al., 1936) and more insolated American pioneers from the European recently through the development and application world while the rugged frontier lifestyle induced of Wallerstein's "World Systems Theory" (Wal- the uniquely American qualities of individualism lerstein, 1974, 1980). In recent years world systems and democracy. Although it has since been dis- theory has helped to direct frontier studies in these credited on various grounds including, among disciplines by giving researchers a framework other things, its ethnocentrism and linearity, within which to turn their focus from core polities Turner's thesis sparked a debate that even today to peripheral regions (Chase-Dunn, 1988; Chase- continues to inform approaches to frontiers in Dunn and Hall, 1991, 1992). This debate soon many fields (Adelman and Aron, 1999; Cayton spread to archaeology as scholars attempted to and Teute, 1998; Faragher, 1994; Jacobs, 1994; adapt the basic tenets of this model to the ancient White, 1991). Frontiers are also, of course, fun- world (Algaze, 1989b, 1993; Blanton and Fein- damental to geographers who took up their own man, 1984; Champion, 1989; Chase-Dunn and discussion of the topic early in the twentieth cen- Hall, 1991; Kohl, 1987; Rowlands et al., 1987; tury (Curzon, 1907; Fawcett, 191 8; Ratzel, 1897). Stein, 1999). In fact, their definition of concepts such as mari- Despite nearly a century of research in these time and aerial borders as well as their discussion and other fields, however, there is still very little of political and ethnic boundaries was instru- consensus about classifications and comparative frameworks within which to consider an interdis- ciplinary study of frontiers. Prudence Rice re- cently concluded that her review of various 0278-4165/02/$ - see front matter O 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. PII: SO278-4165(02)00005-3 372 B.J. Parker / Journal of An/hropological Arcltaeology 21 (2002) 371-395 approaches to the study of frontiers, borders, and archaeological data with textual sources from the boundaries "has revealed the extent of disagree- Neo-Assyrian Iron Age (ca. 700 BC), I will char- ment-and often outright contradiction~on- acterize a particular frontier region on the edge of cerning the nature of these phenomena.. ." (Rice, an imperialistic state. It is my hope that this anal- 1998, p. 59). This statement illustrates that al- ysis will help bring this important frontier zone into though many scholars are involved, in one way or focus and eventually lead to further studies that another, in frontier studies, we have barely begun will illuminate the mechanisms contributing to the to make systematic comparisons across time and dynamics of this and other frontier regions. space or to develop overarching paradigms. One reason such a consensus has yet to be reached highlights the very nature of frontiers A question of definitions while simultaneously underlining their appeal to scholars of so many different disciplines: Frontier Traditionally the borders of the ancient polities ' situations are by definition dynamic. Lying at the have been illustrated on maps in much the same edge or between cultural spheres, frontiers en- way the boundaries of modern states are: either as compass the ecological and geographic space a solid line or by the intersection of two con- within which culture contact takes place. Fron- trasting colors. Indeed, as anyone who has at- tiers are, therefore, constantly changing through tempted to cross a contentious border knows, both space and time, and thus different geo- these "lines," more often than not, do act as graphical or chronological views of a single barriers inhibiting the free flow of people and frontier, not to mention comparative views be- goods between two or more polities. Even where tween frontiers, can give sharply contrasting pic- modern borders either fail miserably, or are not tures. Considering the potential for extreme intended to stop such cross-border flow, they can, variability within and between frontiers, it is not nevertheless, be called upon to act as filters, or at surprising that each discipline has developed its least obstacles, between regions. However, the own set of theories and models for the study of idea of a "preclusive border" is a modern concept frontier situations. associated with the administrative and political Given this diversity both within and between boundaries of the modern nation state and, even frontiers and within and between approaches and in the modern world, does not regulate all facets analytic models in frontier studies, it is perhaps of life. Political borders are particularly inept at best to begin by clarifying the basic goals that the governing linguistic boundaries, as the latest study of frontiers should aim to address. First, it is controversy over the English language in France imperative that we define the terminology with has shown. Religion is another aspect of life that, which to classify the various manifestations of regardless of the recent efforts of states such as frontiers. Second, using a unified terminology to Russia and China, has proven to be difficult for aid in cross-frontier comparison, we should define political forces to constrain. and categorize specific frontier situations. Third, In spite of the fact that these and other as- in studying specific frontiers we should focus on pects of modern society are not always confined defining the mechanisms behind andlor the factors by the political boundaries of modern nation contributing to, frontier dynamics. Fourth, we states, the mental framework embodied by the should attempt to understand how these dynamics concept of the modern preclusive border is often affected both the core area and regions beyond the the bias that scholars bring to their study of the frontier zone. And fifth, through the comparison ancient world. Luttwak, for example, in his piv- of various specific frontier situations, we should otal study The Grand Strategy of the Roman begin to build models within which to characterize Empire described the frontiers of the Roman ' and analyze common themes in frontier studies. Empire during the reign of Hadrian as "scien- The object of this paper is to address the first of tific," saying that "the limits of empire were by these problems through an in-depth examination then demarcated very precisely, on the ground, of a specific frontier zone at a particular period in so that all could tell exactly what was Roman history. I will approach the question of terminol- and what was not" (Luttwak, 1976, p. 60). Al- ogy by discussing some previous attempts at cate- though the assumption that the Roman frontier gorization and by proposing a working was a clearly defined line of separation has been terminology based on definitions commonly vehemently contested by various classical schol- utilized by geographers. Then, by combining ars (see especially Isaac, 1990, pp. 394-401 and B. J. Parker I Journal of An~hropologicrrl A rcliaeology 21 (2002) 371-395 373 more recently Whittaker, 1994, pp. 62-70 and passes the more distinct terms "border" and Elton, 1996), the fact that much of the debate at "frontier." "Border" and "frontier" are con- a recent conference entitled "Shifting Frontiers in trasting terms. A "border" is a linear dividing line Late Antiquity" focused on whether or not linear fixed in a particular space, which, according to borders existed in antiquity shows that this issue geographers, is meant to mark the division be- is by no means settled (Mathisen and Sivan, tween political and/or administrative units (Pres- 1996). cott, 1987, p. 12). A "frontier" on the other hand, Another concept that imposes modern linear is a much more loosely defined area or transition stereotypes on ancient frontiers is the so-called zone that lies between two political, administra- "natural" boundary, an idea conceived by the tive or cultural units of varying degrees of com- geographer Ratzel in 1895 and later developed by plexity or between one such unit and a hinterland Curzon (1907) and Holdich (1916). The concept either where no such polities exist, or where such of natural boundaries, which envisions the limits polities do not come into direct physical contact of ancient states and empires to be set by geo- (Prescott, 1987, p. 36ff). graphic constraints such as rivers or mountain Some scholars have further defined frontiers in ranges (Fischer, 1949; Pounds, 1951; Prescott, terms of demographic shifts, arguing that a fron- 1987), has also proven to be elusive in the ar- tier is itself characterized by the influx of settlers chaeological and historical records. Strabo makes or pioneers to a sparsely populated hinterland a revealing comment about the role of the Eu- (Lamar and Thompson, 1981; Wynman and phrates river as the frontier between the Roman Kroeber, 1957). In my opinion, using demo- and Parthian empires when he says: "The graphic shift, especially one that is unidirectional, boundary of Parthian power with the country as a defining feature creates a core-centered view opposite (i.e., the Roman Empire) is the Eu- of frontier situations that is far too rigid. Instead, phrates river. But parts within [Parthian terri- I believe that demographic shifts can and often do tory] are held by the Romans and the phylarchs play an important role in frontier dynamics, but of the Arabs as far as Babylonia; some of them this is not necessarily so. Furthermore, the char- adhere more to the Parthians and others more to acter of such demographic shifts can take many the Romans who are their neighbors" (Strabo forms. The archaeological and textual data pre- 16.1.28). This is one of many oft-quoted exam- sented below will show that the Northern frontier ples from the Roman period used to illustrate of Assyria did not serve as a hinterland to which that rivers served not as "natural" boundaries colonists voluntarily migrated, as was the case, for but as corridors of transportation and commu- example, in the North American and South Afri- nication. can frontiers during the eighteenth and nineteenth Similar arguments regarding the incompatibil- centuries. Instead, demographic shifts took the ity of modern concepts of borders, either "scien- form of forced resettlement into the frontier by tific," "natural" or otherwise, can also be made in foreign populations and flight from the frontier by reference to the Assyrian frontier. We shall see, indigenous peoples. for example, that neither the Zagros nor the Turner (1920) and Lattimore (1962) both ar- Taurus mountains acted as "natural" borders gued that frontiers are areas where pioneers have during the Assyrian Iron Age, and that the Tigris opportunities to exploit vast reserves of natural river was to the Assyrians, just as the Euphrates resources. Scholars have since argued that the and other rivers like the Danube and the Rhine North American frontier, for example, was inex- were to the Romans, a transportation corridor tricably linked to the European system of rather than a boundary. In fact, in light of the merchant capitalism through the fur trade archaeological and textual evidence discussed be- (Berkhofer, 1981; Cook, 1981; Hickerson, 1973), low, the entire concept of the linear preclusive while the discovery of gold and diamonds is said border must be abandoned as a modern stereo- to have done the same for Southern Africa (La- type contrary to the nature of boundaries in the mar and Thompson, 1981). Other scholars have premodern world. seen economic frontiers in, for example, the divide It is for this reason that I have chosen to dis- between sedentary agrarian and nomadic pastoral tinguish between the terms "boundary," "bor- subsistence systems in India (Eaton, 1993) and der," and "frontier." Boundary is a general elsewhere. Although the exploitation of natural expression for a divide between geographic, po- resources was certainly an important factor con- litical, or cultural entities and therefore encom- tributing to frontier dynamics, and in many cases 374 B. J. Parker I Journal of Antlzropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 371-395 helped shape change in both the frontier and the If we consider the term "boundary" to describe core polity, I do not see the extraction of wealth all categories of limits or divides, then this dis- as the singular defining feature of frontier situa- cussion has highlighted the fact that there is tions. Nor do I see the economic boundary be- considerable variation among various types of tween different subsistence economies as a boundaries. Some of this variation can be cate- dominant frontier characteristic. Like demog- gorized by more precisely defining the terms raphy, economics are one part of the multi-fac- "border" and "frontier." If we follow geogra- eted layering contributing to the makeup of pher's definition of "border" as a linear dividing frontiers. line, and "frontier" as a transitional zone (Pres- Borders and frontiers have traditionally been cott, 1987), then the above discussion demon- seen as belts of separation between one or more strates that, in their most extreme manifestations, polities or between a polity and a sparsely in- these terms can be considered opposites. Thus we habited hinterland. However, recent trends in the might envision the various types of boundaries as study of globalization and culture theory have appearing on a continuum between the static lin- sharpened our focus on how culture contact is ear border on one end and the dynamic fluid interpreted and negotiated by both local and frontier on the other. For the sake of discussion expansionist groups (Appadurai, 1996; Clifford, let us call this continuum the "Continuum of 1997). Instead of conceptualizing contact areas as Boundary Dynamics" (Fig. 1). If we agree that the zones of separation and distinction, scholars are Continuum of Boundary Dynamics is meant to beginning to see such areas as zones of interac- characterize the diversity of boundary situations tion and hybridization (van Dommelen, 1997, then we should envision the continuum starting 1998; White, 1991). Richard White's theory of with the most extreme variation of the static the "middle ground" takes this idea one step border on the far left. This type of boundary is a further by demonstrating that frontiers between closed, static, spatially restricted border or line of previously distinct peoples often act as interac- separation. As we move from left to right the tion zones that, under the right circumstances, boundary becomes more dynamic. At the far right can produce a hybrid area or "middle ground" of the continuum is the most extreme variation of composed of an outgrowth of various aspects of the fluid frontier. This type of boundary is an each previously distinct culture (White, 1991. open, dynamic, spatially expansive frontier or Also see van Dommelen, 1997, 1998). Doyle has zone of interaction. For ease of discussion I have argued that it is often interaction taking place broken the continuum down into four stages from outside the core polity, in the frontier, that in- left to right: static, restrictive, porous, and fluid. fluences and often precipitates change in the These terms are meant to aid us in our description center (Doyle, 1986). A similar stand has been of frontier situations and thus describe various taken by Chase-Dunn and Hall who see the regions along, rather than points on, the contin- formation of complexity in regions peripheral to uum. core polities to be the most likely location for the Beside highlighting the diversity of different formation of new core polities (Chase-Dunn and boundary situations, the above discussion has also Hall, 1991, 1993). shown that boundaries are, in fact, multi-dimen- Although divisions between political entities sional. A complete analysis of any particular are by far the most commonly discussed mani- boundary must therefore include various catego- festation of borders and frontiers, Hugh Elton's book Frontiers of the Roman Empire reminds us that frontiers differ from borders not only because they are zones rather than lines, but also because Boundaries 3 they include various categories of boundaries be- Border Frontier yond the political and administrative. Elton em- Sfatic Restrieti%,e Porous Fluid phasizes cultural boundaries in the realms of Geoeraphir I I religion, ethnicity, linguistics, and material cul- Pollllrnl - 1 -I ture, demonstrating that political boundaries of- ten do not correspond to cultural divisions. With D~n~~ra p-1hir -I this in mind, Elton ultimately defines frontiers as C"l,"rnl -1 -I overlapping zones of political, cultural and eco- F~ommlc -1 -I nomic boundaries (Elton, 1996, pp. 3-9). Fig. 1. The continuum of boundary dynamics. B.J. Parker / Journal of Antlzropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 371-395 375 ries of data. We have thus far considered political, geographically restrictive but culturally and eco- administrative, geographic, demographic, and nomically porous. Furthermore, a "natural" economic boundaries and in doing so it has be- boundary might be classified as geographically come clear, not only that there are many layers or static or restrictive but politically, culturally, and categories that might contribute to boundary sit- demographically fluid. It is from this point of uations, but also that each of these categories reference and with these distinctions in mind that might potentially be broken down into more nu- we will take the next step into the frontier, so to anced sub-categories. For this reason I have in- speak, in an attempt to characterize the nature of cluded five major categories of data to be Assyria's Anatolian frontier at the end of the considered and evaluated on the Continuum of eighth century BC. Boundary Dynamics: geographic, political, de- mographic, cultural, and economic (Fig. 1). My hope is that most more nuanced sub-types of data Defining the data set will fall within one of these overarching catego- ries. During the Mesopotamian Iron Age, from In light of the above discussion, the frontier is about 1000 to 600 BC, the Assyrian empire was transformed from a static line of exclusion to a the greatest power the world had yet known. For dynamic zone of interaction where various cate- much of this period Assyria dominated the entire gories of geographic, political, and cultural Near East from the Zagros mountains in modern boundaries intersect and interact to form a unique Iran to the Eastern Mediterranean, and from the matrix capable of changing, or at least influenc- Taurus mountains in Southern Turkey to the ing, society, politics, and culture on both sides of Persian Gulf (Fig. 2). The Assyrian empire is well the boundary. Furthermore, in using the Contin- known from references in the Bible. Perhaps the uum of Boundary Dynamics it will hopefully be most famous of these references is to the Assyrian easier to categorize, describe and compare various king Sennacherib who attacked Judah and be- types of boundaries. For example, Luttwak's sieged Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah in "scientific" boundary of the Roman empire 701 BC (Isaiah 36; 37. Also see Ussishkin, 1982 might be characterized as politically static and and Machinist, 1983). ARABIAN DESERT Fig. 2. Map of the Assyrian empire at its maximum extent (ca. 680 BC). 376 B. J. Parker 1 Journal of Antlzropologiccrl Arclmeolog,~2 1 (2002) 371-395 However, the historical significance of the east of central Assyria, and the Taurus Mountains Neo-Assyrian empire lies neither in the modern of southeastern Turkey to its north and north- perceptions of Assyria nor in the influence the west, was a patchwork of polities of varying de- Assyrians imposed on the creation of the early grees of political centralization. It contained large, Judeo-Christian world. Rather, Assyria's impor- highly centralized states like Hanigalbat whose tance in world history lies in the fact that the influence stretched from their heartland in the Assyrian state that emerged during the Mesopo- Khabur plains of north Syria well into south- tamian Iron Age represented an entirely new level eastern Anatolia, Bit Zamani around modern of political development in the ancient world. The Diyarbakir, Shubria northeast of Diyarbakir and Assyrians were the first true empire builders, and Kumme north of modern Zakho. The Northern it was upon their legacy that later empires, such as highlands, known to the Assyrians as the lands of those of the Persians and Romans, were built. Nairi and Habhu, also contained a wealth of other Despite Assyria's importance in ancient his- less-centralized societies such as the Early Iron tory, many gaps still remain in our current un- Age polities of the Upper Tigris River Valley and s derstanding of this once great empire. Several of the towns and villages of Dirn~i,n the Bohtan and the major excavations carried out in the Near East Garzan river drainages, and the Kashiiari moun- over the past 150 years focused on Assyrian cities tains, the modern Tur Abdin (Fig. 3). such as Ashur, Nimrud, Khorsabad, and Nineveh. Neo-Assyrian imperial expansion irrevocably Beside bringing to light the grandeur of the altered this geo-political configuration. Only the Assyrian palaces and other material remains of heartland of Kumme would survive, although it the Assyrian empire, these excavations uncovered was reduced to an Assyrian vassal and much of its the majority of the written evidence pertaining to former holdings were annexed to the province of the Mesopotamian Iron ~ ~ ein,clu'd ing much of the Mashennu. Early in the Neo-Assyrian Impe- the royal correspondence and many of the an- rial period, Hanigalbat was completely destroyed, nalistic texts. Since then, smaller, but much more making way for Assyrian invasion of the entire scientific excavations and surveys have continued Upper Tigris River region. Bit Zamani and the to augment the steadily increasing corpus of data Upper Tigris River Valley were made into the regarding this important period. Nevertheless, provinces of Amedi and Tushan, while Shubria research on the Assyrian empire has thus far was eventually divided into the provinces of Up- concentrated on the Assyrian heartland and some ummu and Kulimmeri. The lesser societies of of the Western provinces. Until recently, few ar- Nairi and Habhu were either destroyed, used as chaeologists and historians have focused their buffer areas or forced to unite against the Assyrian attention on the peripheral regions of the empire. threat, coalescing into the empire of Urartu (Fig. The nature of the written sources, which are in- 4). The kingdom of Urartu eventually expanded herently biased toward the center, and the scarcity into an empire that engulfed the entire Eastern of archaeological information from outside the half of Anatolia, the area of Lake Sevan (the Assyrian heartland, has meant that little research modern republic of Armenia) and the northwest- has focused on the frontier zones where imperial ern corner of Iran around Lake Urmia. Urartu expansion and the interaction between the empire also held sway over many of the city-states of and the periphery actually took place. north Syria and the Levant forming a political . The historical record indicates that before the system that rivaled even Assyria in its magnitude era of Neo-Assyrian imperialism from about 930 (Salvini, 1995; Zimansky, 1985, 1998). This gen- to 610 BC, the arch of mountainous terrain era1 outline of the progress of Neo-Assyrian im- formed by the Iranian Zagros mountains north- perial penetration into its Northern frontier shows that southeastern Anatolia was indeed on the 1 cutting edge of Neo-Assyrian expansion. ' For the purpose of this paper I will refer to the This study focuses on three discrete areas along Mesopotamian Iron Age as three roughly divided sub- the Tigris river in southeastern Anatolia. Al- periods. The Early Iron Age, from approximately 1100- though the archaeological components of this 900 BC, is the period directly prior to the expansion of study are based on surveys conducted in the Up- the Assyrian empire. The Assyrian Imperial period per Tigris River region between 1988 and 1992 begins just before 900 BC and lasts until the fall of the (Algaze, 1989a; Algaze et al., 1991), my analysis of empire at the end of the seventh century. The Late Iron Age, or Post-Assyrian period refers to the several the archaeological and especially the textual re- hundred year period after the fall of the empire. cord is not limited to the specific survey areas, but B.J. Parker I Journal of Anthropological Archaeologj~2 1 (2002) 371-395 Fig. 3. Map of southeastern Anatolia before Assyrian annexation. instead focuses on the wider geographic region plain, in the vicinity of the modern border be- within which they originally belonged.2 The first tween Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. The second study study area is located in and around the Cizre area consists of two adjacent areas in the valleys of the Bohtan and Garzan rivers; the third in- cludes the U.m er Tigris River Vallev between the The archaeological surveys analyzed in this paper were modern town & of ~i~an~d ~the figris-~atman directed by Professor Guillermo Algaze to whom I owe a confluence, and the Batman river valley between great debt for allowing access to the data and for his help the upper Batman dam and the Tigris (Fig. 5). in the classification and analysis of the ceramics. Prelim- inary reports of the surveys here discussed are published in Algaze (1989a) and Algaze et al. (1991). For a more complete discussion of the Iron Age in the Upper Tigris The nature of Assyria's Anatolian frontier River region see also Parker (1997a, 2001). The textual data discussed in this paper was extracted from the Neo- Geograplzic boundaries Assyrian Text Corpus Project's database at Helsinki University in Finland. I wish to thank Professor Simo The physical geography of southeastern Ana- Parpola and Dr. Robert Whiting not only for allowing me tolia contrasts sharply with that of the Assyrian access to the project's database, but also for many hours of heartland in what is today Northern Iraq. The consultation regarding the translation and interpretation Assyrian heartland is characterized by steppe and of the texts analyzed here. For up-to-date translations and transliterations of most of the documents here discussed rolling hills, while Eastern Anatolia is dominated see Parpola (1987) and Lanfranchi and Parpola (1990). by the Taurus mountains that, for all intents and B.J. Parker 1 Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 371-395 371 Turkey Diyarbakir River Region Upper Tigris Wer Valky Tigris Mardin - -- -__- - r Iraq , , Syria - _____- *- - - -A - - Dam Projects I I International Borders \ Fig. 5. Map showing the location of the survey areas analyzed in this paper (cf. Algaze, 1989a; Algaze et a]., 1991). Assyria is traversed by a number of rivers in- Anatolian highlands. Despite the potential for cluding not only the Tigris but also the Kosr and extensive agriculture in the plains of north Mes- Zab rivers, its steppeland topography meant that opotamia, this region had few other natural re- intensive irrigation agriculture was limited to a sources to offer. The opposite is true of the few areas directly around the rivers or where an- Anatolian highlands where timber, metals, and cient irrigation schemes could bring water to the semiprecious stones were abundant.' Even today surrounding fields (Jacobsen and Lloyd, 1935; some of the richest copper mines in the Near East Reade, 1978). Extensive dry farming agriculture in are located in the area of the Ergani Maden in the plains of north Syria and Northern Iraq thus central Anatolia. Anatolia also contains large produced dispersed rural settlement across nearly deposits of iron and was one of the main sources the entire steppeland north of the 200mm isohy- of iron for the Assyrian empire (Maxwell-Hyslop, ate (Weiss, 1986; Wilkinson and Tucker, 1995; 1974; Oppenheim, 1967). Maxwell-Hyslop has Wilkinson and Barbanes, 2000). Adequate pre- pointed out that the mere existence of ore sources cipitation to support rain-fed agriculture is much solved only part of the problem faced by ancient less reliable in the Southern Assyria and south- metal workers. Since it takes over 8 tons of char- central Syria. coal to smelt one ton of iron ore, only ore sources In spite of the higher levels of precipitation in located in thickly wooded regions, like the Taurus the Anatolian foothills, the lack large tracts of mountains, would have made mining and smelting arable land that characterize lowland Mesopota- ore viable (Maxwell-Hyslop, 1974, p. 143). The mia, meant that highland economies emphasized Assyrian dependence on this area for their supply animal husbandry rather than extensive agricul- of metals and other raw materials absent from the ture. Topography and the lack of adequate top- Mesopotamian lowlands is exemplified by the soil, as well as the short growing season, all played Assyrian booty and tribute lists which describe a role in making large parts of Eastern Anatolia large quantities of copper, iron, and other valued unsuitable for cultivation (Zimansky, 1985). commodities extracted from enemies and vassal The elevation differential and its corresponding states on the Northern periphery of the empire. I climate and precipitation rates, combined with the The above discussion shows that within the extremely rugged character of the Taurus foot- category of "geographic boundaries" there are hills, obviously means that the Taurus range several sub-categories that contribute to the geo- formed a formidable geographic boundary be- graphic make-up of Assyria's Anatolian frontier. tween these two regions. However, the Taurus In a sense, the geography of Northern Mesopota- range was not only a topographic boundary between Assyria and its Anatolian periphery, it Yener has shown that although much of this area i? was also the frontier between the resource-poor currently devoid of trees, this deforestation is a relative11 Mesopotamian lowlands and the resource-rich recent phenomenon (Yener, 1982). 380 B.J. Parlcer 1 Journal of Antltropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 371-395 mia and southeastern Anatolia fits well with ge- the last half of the eighth century BC during and ographer's definition of a "natural" boundary slightly after the second phase of Assyrian inter- (Fischer, 1949; Pounds, 1951; Prescott, 1987). This vention in the Upper Tigris River region. region is marked by an extreme variation in to- Assyria's first major campaign aimed at the pography, a topography that surely restricted annexation of portions of southeastern Anatolia movement into and within this frontier zone. took place in 882 BC. It was in this year that the However, two aspects of natural boundaries that Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal, responding to what are often not considered by geographers are also Assyrian scribes referred to as a "rebellion" that revealed by this discussion. One of these divided threatened Assyria's allies at the city of Damam- the two regions and another brought them to- musa, took military control of large parts of the ' gether. To begin with, the variation in precipitation Upper Tigris River region (Parker, 2001). The and land type meant that there was a stark differ- textual and archaeological records indicate that ence in the subsistence patterns between Northern Ashurnasirpal fully intended to permanently oc- Mesopotamia and southeastern Anatolia. Al- cupy parts of the Tigris basin, for it was at this though we can assume that this difference in sub- time that the Assyrians established the first in sistence strategies led to cultural differences in what would become a series of fortified centers terms of foodways and domestic production, this along the Upper Tigris river. The most important assumption is difficult to test with the available of these strongholds was the city of Tushan, which data. The distribution of natural resources is the also served as the capital of a province of the same second sub-category that surely affected the nature name. Ashurnasirpal describes in some detail the of Assvria's Anatolian frontier. The fact that re- construction of this city, saying that he sur- sources such as timber and metals that were not rounded it with a city wall, constructed a palace obtainable in Northern Mesopotamia were readily and large storage facilities there, and traversed the available in southeastern Anatolia played an im- Tigris with a bridge of rafts to give the inhabitants portant role in Assyria's foreign policy (see below). ready access to the fertile farmland on the north Although the physical geography of Assyria's bank of the river (Grayson, 1991a, p. 202). He Anatolian frontier must be considered to have followed this construction three years later by been very restrictive, other aspects of the geogra- establishing two more fortified towns (Assyrian phy of this region certainly contributed to both Tidu and Sinabu) at regular intervals east of the centrifugal and centripetal forces shaping this city of Tushan (Grayson, 1991a, pp. 257-262). frontier region during the Mesopotamian Iron This string of fortresses is still conspicuously Age. visible along the south bank of the Upper Tigris river. Three large mounds with extensive Assyrian Political boundaries occupation grace the landscape of the Tigris basin east of Diyarbakir. It is obvious from the surface Assyria's intervention in the Upper Tigris morphology of these sites that each of them con- River region of southeastern Anatolia can be tained a monumental gateway flanked by large broken down into three main phases: the annex- towers strategically facing north toward the river. ation of Nirdun (the Upper Tigris River Valley) Extensive research on the historical geography and its conversion into the province of Tushan of southeastern Anatolia has made the direct during the reign of Ashurnasirpal (883-859 BC); attribution of these sites with fortresses mentioned ' the conquest of Ulluba (the Cizre plain and in Assyrian texts virtually certain (Karg, 1999; surrounding area) and its conversion into the Kessler, 1980; Liverani, 1992; Parker, 1998,2001 ). province of the Mashennu during the reign of This reconstruction strongly supports the location Tiglath-pileser 111 (744-727 BC); and the subju- of the city of Tushan at the site of Ziyaret Tepe 3 gation of Shubria (the Taurus foothills south of about 10 km east of the modern town of Bismil; the the Murat river) and its division into the provinces city of Tidu at the site of uGtepea bout 10 km west of Upummu and Kullumeri during the reign of of Bismil; and the site of Sinabu at modern Mur- Esharhaddon (680469 BC, see Figs. 3 and 4). atta? (previously known as Pornak) about 30 km Since nearly all of the royal correspondence west of Bismil (Kessler, 1980; Liverani, 1992; Par- originating in, or pertaining to, the Upper Tigris ker, 1998,2001). The modern city of Diyarbakir is River region dates to the reigns of Tiglath-pileser located atop the ancient town of Amedi (Fig. 6). 111 (744-727 BC) and Sargon I1 [721-705 BC Recent archaeological surveys at Ziyaret Tepe (Parpola, 1981)], this study focuses primarily on confirm that occupation at this site vastly B. J. Parker. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 371-395 38 1 the Masha \ Fig. 6. Map of southeastern Anatolia with three of Assyria's key eighth century frontier provinces highlighted. The dots show the location of known Assyrian frontier fortifications. From left to right the fortifications in the province of Tushan are; Sinabu, Tidu and Tushan. The fortification at the Tigris-Bohtan confluence (between Dirru and Habhu) is inferred from Assryian letter NL 67 (see Parker, 1997b, 2001). The ancient name of this site is unknown. The fortified center on the Tigris in the province of the MaSennu was known to the Assyrians as ~abire~Tuh. e name of the fort in Kumme is unknown. expanded during the Neo-Assyrian Imperial chariots, cavalry, and specially trained troops for period (Algaze, 1989a; Algaze et al., 1991; Matney, a swift strike to the east. This elite force reached 1998). The site grew from a relatively small village the valley of the Garzan river (Assyrian Dirru) of only a few hectares centered on the high mound within a day and over the course of the next sev- during the Early Iron Age, to a large center of over eral days ravaged the villages and towns of this 32 ha, which included the high mound and a vast and the neighboring Bohtan River Valley [Assyr- lower town, during the Assyrian Imperial period ian Habhu, Fig. 6 (Parker, 2001; contra Radner (Matney, 1998; Parker, 1998). Magnetometry and Schachner, 2001)l. In contrast to his efforts to surveys of portions of the lower town at Ziyaret consolidate his military gains in the Upper Tigris Tepe (Matney and Somers, 1999) have revealed River Valley, Ashurnasirpal made no attempt to what appear to be substantial fortifications in the form ofwalls and towers and several other mon- umental structures. Surface survey also recovered several terracotta clawed forepaws that presum- ably belonged to monumental lions that guarded each entrance to the city (Fig. 7). Excavations at the site of uGtepe (Assyrian Tidu) have also re- vealed substantial structures including fortifica- tion walls over 3 m thick that enclosed the citadel during the Assyrian Imperial period (Koroglu, 1998). Ashurnasirpal was also the first Assyrian king to venture into the second study area: the Garzan and Bohtan river valleys. After consecrating his Fig. 7. Terracotta lion forepaw discovered in surface new palace at the city of Tushan in 879 BC, survey at Ziyaret Tepe (Assyrian Tushan [photo cour- Ashurnasirpal selected an elite force of heavy tesy of Matney]).

Description:
theory has helped to direct frontier studies in these disciplines by giving defining the mechanisms behind andlor the factors contributing to, frontier
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.