ANE Today – Death as a Stage for Performing Identity in the Assyrian Empire

[vc_row fullwidth=”true” css=”.vc_custom_1486761987223{padding-top: 0px !important;padding-right: 0px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;padding-left: 0px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”33901″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row fullwidth=”true” css=”.vc_custom_1487275830783{padding-top: 10px !important;padding-right: 0px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;padding-left: 0px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1/12″ css=”.vc_custom_1493002455400{margin-right: 10px !important;}” offset=”vc_hidden-md vc_hidden-sm vc_hidden-xs”][vc_column_text]

 SHARE

[/vc_column_text][mk_image src=”http://www.asortest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/social-fb-icon4.jpg” image_width=”42″ image_height=”42″ hover=”false” custom_url=”https://www.facebook.com/ASOResearch/” margin_bottom=”0″][mk_image src=”http://www.asortest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/social-tw-icon4.jpg” image_width=”42″ image_height=”42″ hover=”false” custom_url=”https://twitter.com/ASOResearch?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor” margin_bottom=”0″][mk_image src=”http://www.asortest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/social-in-icon4.jpg” image_width=”42″ image_height=”42″ hover=”false” custom_url=”https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-schools-of-oriental-research” margin_bottom=”0″][mk_image src=”http://www.asortest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/social-ml-icon_7.jpg” image_width=”42″ image_height=”42″ hover=”false” custom_url=”mailto:info@asor.org” margin_bottom=”0″][mk_image src=”http://www.asortest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/blog-icon3.jpg” image_width=”42″ image_height=”42″ hover=”false” custom_url=”https://asor.org/blog” margin_bottom=”0″][/vc_column][vc_column border_color=”rgba(255,255,255,0.01)” width=”1/6″ css=”.vc_custom_1493004112151{margin-right: 20px !important;border-left-width: 2px !important;padding-right: 20px !important;padding-left: 20px !important;border-left-color: #99422f !important;}”][mk_divider divider_color=”rgba(255,255,255,0.01)” thickness=”1″ margin_top=”3″ margin_bottom=”3″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”sidebar-16″ el_class=”.widget { overflow: hidden; margin-bottom: 0; }”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner css=”.vc_custom_1642518966007{padding-top: 10px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 5px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-image: url(https://www.asor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ASOR_Patterns_CMYK_Blue_Thin.jpg?id=77162) !important;}”][vc_column_text]

Not a Friend of ASOR yet? Sign up here to receive ANE Today in your inbox weekly!

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column border_color=”rgba(170,170,170,0.01)” width=”8/12″ css=”.vc_custom_1487276122024{margin-right: 10px !important;margin-bottom: 30px !important;border-right-width: 2px !important;border-bottom-width: 2px !important;padding-top: 30px !important;padding-right: 30px !important;padding-left: 20px !important;background-color: #ffffff !important;border-right-color: rgba(227,228,228,0.75) !important;border-bottom-color: rgba(227,228,228,0.75) !important;}”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1515089047502{padding-right: 20px !important;}”][mk_image src=”https://www.asor.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/foa-reduced-100.png” image_width=”190″ image_height=”100″ crop=”false” hover=”false”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”2/3″][vc_column_text responsive_align=”left”]

January 2024

Vol. 12, No. 1

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][mk_divider][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_wp_text]

Death as a Stage for Performing Identity in the Assyrian Empire

Petra M. Creamer

 

How can burial practices tell us about the power of an empire over its subjects?

If this seems like a broad question – it is. When studying the ancient past, we are most commonly exposed to records and material from the wealthy or powerful upper classes. This is the case for the Assyrian Empire (c. 1350-612 BCE), which brought significant changes to the lives of all its inhabitants, not just elites; what had once been independent kingdoms with varying ethnic groups and cultural practices were now absorbed under Assyria’s control. Brutal strategies of mass deportation and the resettlement of conquered populations created communities of mixed cultures and identities at the empire’s center, further complicating the picture of Assyria’s cultural landscape.

Times of conquest and instability are often when identities are contested, re-negotiated, and re-created.  Understanding how identities formed and fluctuated in this context is key to tracing imperial developments, lasting effects on absorbed polities, and the perspectives of the non-ruling classes in imperial Assyria.  The empire underwent many of these phases of instability, expanding in the Middle Assyrian period (c. 1350-950 BCE), contracting to its heartland in northern Iraq after the Late Bronze Age collapse, and then rapidly expanding well beyond its previous extent in the Neo-Assyrian period (c. 950-612 BCE) to become the largest polity the world had yet seen.[/vc_wp_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_single_image image=”94153″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][mk_padding_divider size=”30″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_wp_text]But to what extent were these conquered populations affected by Assyrian culture, and was it enough to change the way they perceived themselves?  Mortuary material provides a unique avenue to explore identity at this level. Practices surrounding death are one of the most conservative forms of culture; they are deeply rooted in tradition, personal belief systems, and group identity. Burial practices (including related experiences such as funerary ritual and practices like the kispu ritual, which involved feeding and caring for the deceased regularly after they had passed), provide an opportunity to create and reinforce identity and memories among the living community.  The negotiation between the identities maintained by groups drawn into an empire and the introduction of ideas and practices of the imperial conquerors creates a complex setting of tensions between different actors. Furthermore, studying non-royal burials like the ones included in this study allows us to understand the impact of Assyrian control throughout society, not just among its most elite actors.

To explore how Assyrian traditions may have impacted those within the empire, we can first take a look at the mortuary practices of Aššur, Assyria’s first capital and continuing cultural center, and then compare them to those at Tell Billa (ancient Šibaniba), a provincial center directly adjacent to the imperial core, but subject to varying degrees of Assyrian control.[/vc_wp_text][vc_single_image image=”94154″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][mk_padding_divider size=”30″][vc_wp_text]

[/vc_wp_text][vc_column_text]

• In Assyria, it was common practice for people to be buried under house floors. Socially, this indicates deep linkages to familial practices and ancestral memory.
• From the Middle Assyrian period throughout the Neo-Assyrian period, vaulted tombs were sometimes constructed to hold numerous deceased members of the household.
• Sherd-covered graves were one of the most popular types of graves, with their use remaining steady between both periods.
• Both double-jar graves and sarcophagi graves were also common forms of burial at Aššur and seem native to the Mesopotamian region.
• Identity-marking objects such as seals, tools, and unique forms of jewelry were uncommon — instead, standardized ceramic sets and similar strings of beads were usually buried with the deceased.

[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”94155″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1st-millennium_BCE_grave_at_Yasin_Tepe,_Shahrizor_Plain,_Sulaymaniyah_Governorate,_Iraqi_Kurdistan.jpg”][mk_padding_divider size=”30″][vc_wp_text]Beyond these general practices, several developments occur between the Middle and Neo-Assyrian periods. Most notably, the use of sarcophagi as burial containers skyrockets, replacing sherd graves as the most popular grave type. Additionally, other non-Assyrian grave types are beginning to be utilized, most notably mudbrick-encased burials and, for the first time in the Assyrian heartland, cremations.  Also interesting is a notable decrease in the wealth of objects with which the residents of Aššur were buried. Whether this indicates changing traditions regarding grave goods or a decrease in resources available to these families is debatable, but it is starkly clear that in the Middle Assyrian period, there was a wider variety, both of burial assemblage variety and of burial assemblage wealth, among the deceased than in later times.[/vc_wp_text][vc_single_image image=”94156″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][mk_padding_divider size=”30″][vc_wp_text]These identified characteristics from Aššur show up in varying levels during the same periods at Šibaniba (modern Tell Billa), alongside a number of local traditions.  Šibaniba was located close to the core of the empire and was absorbed into it at the beginning of Assyrian expansion in the 14th century BCE.  Assyrian control over Šibaniba likely was lost during the contraction of the empire at the end of the Middle Assyrian period.  The mortuary remains of 80 graves in the southwest town at Šibaniba (excavated by a joint Penn-ASOR project in the early 20th century) collectively give an impression of varied local practices, present in the Middle Assyrian period with some continuing through the Neo-Assyrian period.  However, there is also an introduction of new, more Assyrian, mortuary practices and an abandonment of many local practices during the growth of the empire.[/vc_wp_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1515089047502{padding-right: 20px !important;}”][vc_wp_text]As time passed, Šibaniba’s mortuary practices came to resemble those of Aššur’s. Between the Middle and Neo-Assyrian periods, there is a rise in the number of double-jar burials, total discontinuation of cremations, and the presence of a single sarcophagus grave (a grave type previously absent from Šibaniba) in the Neo-Assyrian period. Earlier graves had higher numbers of grave goods along with a higher value of these goods, but assemblages became more uniform over time, eventually adopting the “typical” Assyrian mortuary culture that was maintained in Aššur.  Personal identity markers in graves, such as seals, tools, and unique jewelry, were left out in favor of typical ceramic sets, bronze rings, and simple strings of beads – seeming to parallel the majority of assemblages at Aššur. The inhabitants at Šibaniba went from practicing widely varied methods of funerary rites (cremations, mudbrick graves, individualizing goods, etc.) to a version of mortuary culture (double-jar graves, sarcophagi, and more uniform grave assemblages).  Essentially, the personal identity of Šibaniba’s inhabitants as expressed through mortuary culture appears to become more traditionally “Assyrian” over time.[/vc_wp_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”94157″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][mk_padding_divider size=”30″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_wp_text]The identity of the ruling actors can be taken up by the ruled for various reasons, each with their unique form of consequent practice.  “Becoming” Assyrian shows an accordance with Assyrian beliefs — believing oneself to be a part of the empire, not just a resident of a province — while “practicing” denotes a purposeful outer adherence to the cultural norms of the ruling class, while internally “othering” them.  Mortuary culture is a fundamentally private practice, betraying the unique ways in which Assyrian identity became integrated into the lives of Šibaniba’s residents.  The Assyrianization of these deeply personal and emotional rituals suggests that this adoption of the identity was not just a hollow practice.  Instead, it seems that the residents of Šibaniba made, in some capacity, a choice — without enforced compulsion —to adopt Assyrian traditions.[/vc_wp_text][vc_single_image image=”94158″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][mk_padding_divider size=”30″][vc_single_image image=”94159″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][mk_padding_divider size=”30″][vc_wp_text]When assessed with a long-term perspective, overarching trends in mortuary culture serve as a kind of “litmus test” indicator of social change.  Here we have been able to see how shifting burial practices in the Assyrian capital and in a provincial center indicate differences in non-elite perception and adoption of Assyrian cultural practices.  At an individual level, this suggests an exposure to imperial mortuary practices and a normalization of adopting Assyrian practices.  More broadly, it suggests that non-elite Assyrian subjects came to accept and replicate aspects of imperial society which, to our knowledge, were not forced through imperial channels.  Because funerary culture is one of the most conservative forms of practice, the implications of its change under Assyrian imperialism at a non-elite, provincial level point to the depth of cultural influence that Assyria had over its subjects which has been difficult to identify by other means.

I put forward the conclusion that the residents of Šibaniba began to see themselves as fundamentally/culturally “Assyrian” as the hegemony of the Assyrian Empire grew.  No evidence exists for a purposeful imposition of mortuary traditions by Assyrian rulers.  Rather, the mortuary practices of the Assyrians seemed very much like a “take it or leave it” aspect of their lives.  When many of those living in the Empire decided to “take it,” it was an unimposed choice — reflecting not the demands of a dominant imperial power, but rather the purposeful adoption of new traditions into personal and community-driven narratives.

Petra M. Creamer is Assistant Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Emory University. She directs the Rural Landscapes of Iron Age Imperial Mesopotamia project in Iraqi Kurdistan.

 

Further Reading and Sources:

Hauser, S. 2012. Status, Tod und Ritual: Stadt- und Sozialstruktur Assurs in neuassyrischer Zeit.  Harrassowitz.

Miglus, P. 1996. Das Wohngebiet von Aššur.  Stratigraphie und Architektur. Gebr. Mann Verlag.

Miglus, P.A. 1999. Stadtische Wohnarchitektur in Babylonien und Assyrien. (BaF 22) Mainz: Ph. Von Zabern.

Miglus, P., K. Rader, & F.M. Stępniowski. 2016. Ausgrabungen in Assur: Wohnquartiere in der Weststadt. Harrassowitz.

Pedde, F. 2015. Gräber und Grüfte in Aššur II: Die mittelassyrische Zeit. Harrassowitz.[/vc_wp_text][mk_divider thickness=”1″ margin_top=”10″][vc_wp_text]

Want To Learn More?

The Remarkable Rise of Assyria: A Reassessment

By Bleda S. Düring

What led to the success and dominance of the Assyrian Empire in the Iron Age? Bleda Düring argues we must look back to its beginning in the Bronze Age. Read More[/vc_wp_text][mk_divider thickness=”1″ margin_top=”10″][vc_wp_text]

The Egyptian Conceptualization of the Otherworld

By Silvia Zago

As the place where the deceased continued living after death, the Duat is a core notion of Egyptian afterlife beliefs. But pinning down its features and location is no easy feat. Read More[/vc_wp_text][mk_divider thickness=”1″ margin_top=”10″][vc_wp_text]

Not a Friend of ASOR yet? Sign up to receive ANE Today in your inbox weekly!

[/vc_wp_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][mk_page_section][vc_column][/vc_column][/mk_page_section]