A New Reconstruction of the Reigns of Adad-nārārī II and Tukultī-Ninurta II in Light of Five Unattributed Royal Inscriptions

1 Introduction

Reconstructing the events of the early Neo-Assyrian period remains an exciting but fraught challenge:^[1] In the span of a few generations, a kingdom reeling from the deprivations of the 11th and 10th centuries became a dominant state once more within the ancient Near East,^[2] before ultimately overcoming its own structural constraints in the 8th century and attaining ‘true’ empire. The reigns of the early Neo-Assyrian kings Adad-nārārī II (911–891) and Tukultī-Ninurta II (890–884) are crucial in understanding the beginnings of this process, but they continue to suffer from a fragmentary state of documentation, and hence negligence on the part of scholars.^[3]

This contribution seeks to presents an historical analysis of five early Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions from Aššur (Qal‘at Širqāṭ, Iraq) published by Frahm (2009b) within the third volume of the series Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts, for which he only furnished tentative suggestions as to their precise commissioner.^[4] As will be demonstrated, close historical, historical-geographical, and philological analysis can safely accord each text an Assyrian monarch. While fragmentary, these texts are still rich in information with which to fill lacunae remaining within these kings’ respective reigns (see the summary of findings in Table 1).

For the sake of brevity and considering their fine state of publication, text editions are not presented, but rather their pertinent contents are summarised and quoted where necessary; the five texts are here discussed sequentially in approximate chronological order (i.e. KAL 3: 48, 47, 53, 56, 45–46).^[5] These five textual-historical analyses’ findings are then integrated into what is known of the reigns of Adad-nārārī II and Tukultī-Ninurta II, and presented in two historical summaries. Finally, new avenues of historiographical research yielded by this work are identified and considered. Prior to the discussion of the unattributed texts, however, it is vital to outline the present state of knowledge on both reigns, and overviews of those surrounding them, as a solid historical foundation for the ensuing analyses (see also the map in Figure 1).

Figure 1:

Key toponyms mentioned in this paper. Map by Bartłomiej Szypuła.

2 Adad-nārārī II’s Reign and its Remaining Lacunae

The reign of Adad-nārārī II is generally characterised as a period of sweeping reconquest of Assyria’s erstwhile territory (e.g Grayson 1982: 249–51; Shibata 2023: 201–09). The backbone to reconstructing his reign is an extended semi-annalistic text from Aššur dubbed the ‘Gula Temple Inscription’ by Dewar (2019) after its appended building report (RIMA.0.99.2). Its historical portion is divided into two parts: The first is an unusual geographical summary (ll. 23–38) of the king’s achievements prior to 901 divided into multiple ruled sections culminating in the rebuilding of the city of Apku (’Abū Māryā, Iraq); the second is an extended annalistic section (ll. 39–119) running from 901 to 894 and describing his seven campaigns to Ḫanigalbat (Upper Ḫābūr plain, Syria and Turkey), some additional campaigning in the Zagros mountains including to Kumme (vicinity of Beytuşşebap, Turkey), and a march along the Euphrates. While this provides detailed coverage of the second half of his reign, the initial decade of his reign up to 901 (the ‘pre-Apku’ period) can only be understood schematically.

This situation is somewhat alleviated by another text, RIMA.0.99.1 (= KAL 3: 15), dated to 6th Kislīmu (IX) 909 which, although fragmentary, does report on a defeat of Qumānû (vicinity of the Zāḫū plain, Iraq) in his accession year, then (after a break) the conquest of Arrapḫa (Kirkūk, Iraq),^[6] followed by yet another lacuna, and then a conquest on the Tigris involving 40 cities and the deportation of three more,^[7] and then a final campaign dated 4th Araḫsamnu (VIII)^[8] to Ḫabḫu (3)^[9] and Meḫru (probably the Şırnak plain, Turkey), implying that the final two episodes occurred just before the inscription’s commission, in late 909.

Mention of Arrapḫa raises a tantalising issue, that of his assault upon Karduniaš known to have occurred prior to 901 (Shibata 2023: 203–04). The Synchronistic Chronicle mentions two (undated) wars between Assyria and Babylonia, the first clearly corresponding to that sketched in the pre-Apku summary, and the second evidently after the events of RIMA.0.99.2, at the close of the king’s reign (ABC 21 iii 1–21). The mention of Arrapḫa in RIMA.0.99.1 suggests that the first Assyro-Babylonian war was prior to 909, but it could also have unfolded in stages (see Fuchs 2011: 263 with ns.) The second, post-884 conflict seems to have been included in KAL 3: 16–17 (= RIMA.0.99.4), which presents a very late geographical summary (13’–52’) based on that of RIMA.0.99.2 23–38, albeit with additional content, some deletion or telescoping of earlier achievements, and a more logical geographical organisation. Comparison of these ‘pre-’ and ‘post-Apku’ summaries is revealing (Table 2):

In KAL 3: 16–17, not only are Kumme and Ḫanigalbat now mentioned in summary (thus postdating 894), but the otherwise identical Karduniaš section is also supplemented with four additional (unfortunately broken) lines (31’–34’) describing the new conflict, and the section on Sūḫu (‘Āna and Ḥadīṯa Districts, Iraq) is extended from mere mention of tribute to a brief (but broken) description of Sūḫu’s defeat, implying further campaigning there. In turn, the Ḫabḫu (2) beyond the Lower Zāb has now become Inner Ḫabḫu (l. 14’), demonstrating deeper penetration of the Zagros, which must correspond to the defeat of Sikkur and Sappānu in 896 (RIMA.0.99.2 80–90). It remains unclear what must have filled the broken section of KAL 3: 16–17 35’–38’.

A final, unusual source is Tukultī-Ninurta II’s unique stele from Sirqu (Tall ‘Ašāra, Syria).^[10] This curious Medioeuphratine monument (perhaps a kudurru?) seems to have been a pre-existing local sculpture of a mythological scene to which an ad hoc inscription and an Aramaicising carving of a deity (or Assyrian king?) were added.^[11] Quite uniquely, it does not directly commemorate Tukultī-Ninurta II’s own deeds, but rather those of his father:

(ll. 1–2; 6–7) Adad-nārārī šar māt Aššur dā’iš Lāqê … Tukultī-Ninurta māršu šarru e[ršu …] ša abūšu īpušu šū īpuš […]

Adad-nārārī (II), king of Assyria, trampler of (the city of) Lāqê … Tukultī-Ninurta (II), his son, the wise king […], did that which his father had done

This inscription alludes to a campaign to the Middle Euphrates by Tukultī-Ninurta II which would tally well with the mention of Lāqê in his summary inscriptions (see below); it also implies that Adad-nārārī II violently subdued this region (indeed, ^uru La-qé-e would imply that Sirqu itself had been taken), although it is unclear as to whether this would have been before or after the peaceful march of 894, in the course of which this is unlikely to have occurred.^[12] Moreover, it intimates that Adad-nārārī II himself did not create stelae outside of Assyria, and his son felt compelled to improvise such a monument while in Sirqu. Certainly, no rock reliefs or stelae of Adad-nārārī II have yet been found, nor do his inscriptions mention such activities. In turn, Aššur-nāṣir-apli II mentions only stelae of Tukultī-apil-Ešarra I and Tukultī-Ninurta II at the Subnat source (Kebeli, Turkey). The hypothesis might hence be posed that Tukultī-Ninurta II was the first Neo-Assyrian king to create such monuments, as will be further explored. From all of this information, the following conservative reconstruction of Adad-nārārī II’s reign may be presented see (Table 3):

From this summary, it is evident that the historian’s most pressing task is to establish an internal chronology of events between mid-late 911 to mid-909 and between 908 and 901. As this contained extensive campaigning in every direction and a momentous war with Babylonia, the order and tempo of these events would reveal a great deal about Assyria’s strategic motivations at this time.

3 Reconstructing the Missing Half of Tukultī-Ninurta II’s Reign

Studies of the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta II tend to emphasise its brevity and this ruler’s continuation of his predecessor’s policies; while some authors have underlined the restricted nature of Tukultī-Ninurta II’s campaigning (e.g. Grayson 1982: 251–53), Shibata (2023: 209–13) has recently presented a more positive assessment of this king. His reign’s state of preservation is much the same as for Adad-nārārī II.^[13] The only extended annalistic text (RIMA.0.100.5 [+ KAL 3: 19–20]) is frustratingly broken, providing a narrative only from late 887 to 885.^[14] This can be summarised in the following table (Table 4):

From this, it is evident that a campaign to Na’iri (eastern Taurus and northern Zagros mountains) must have occurred late in 887, and that Bīt-Zamāni (vicinity of Diyarbakır, Turkey) followed this up with a campaign of their own which assisted Assyria. Tukultī-Ninurta II’s march to Bīt-Zamāni from Ninūa (Naynawā, Iraq) began on the 1st Simānu (III), a significant date also chosen by other kings to begin their campaigns (Frahm 2009b: 54), implying that it was carefully planned; that Tukultī-Ninurta II previously dispatched a force from Ninūa to quell a rebellion while remaining at Ninūa also implies that he was still in the process of massing his troops for the assault on the Upper Tigris, and thus that this must have occurred shortly beforehand in the spring. Considering that Bīt-Zamāni was still in Tukultī-Ninurta II’s graces following his campaign of 887, and that the Upper Tigris campaign of 886 was planned, it is hence likely that Bīt-Zamāni’s own campaigning must either have occurred very early in 886 (thus giving Tukultī-Ninurta II sufficient time to marshal his forces), or at the end of 887.

The three-and-a-half years prior to these events (alongside perhaps his final year) can only be reconstructed with the assistance of various near-identical geographical summary inscriptions intended for his unfinished residence at Nēmed-Tukultī-Ninurta (Qaḍīya, Iraq), here referred to as RIMA.0.100.6 (found at Naynawā = Thompson and Hutchinson 1929: 117–18; pl. 41) and Qaḍīya 1–3 (= Ahmad 2000).^[15] The Ninūa copy seems the most trustworthy, as the Qaḍīya exemplars contain some howlers, such as one text repeating Sippar-ša-Šamaš (Tall Abū Ḥabba, Iraq) twice, and the other repeating the doublet Dūr-Kurigalzu (‘Aqar Qūf, Iraq) and Sippar-ša-Šamaš twice.^[16] A composite rendering of the geographical section of RIMA.0.100.6 and Qaḍīya 1–3 is here provided:

kāšid (mātāt) Na’iri ana pāṭ gimrīša šarru ša ištu ebertān Idiqlat adi (māt) Ḫatti (māt) Lāqê ana siḫirtīša Na’iri ana pāṭ gimrīša (māt) Sūḫi adi (māt) Rāpiqi ištu nērebe ša (māt) Ḫabrûri adi (māt) Gilzāni Apâ šar {var. ebertān} (māt) Hubuškia qereb tamḫāri qāssu iṣbatu ištu nērebe ša Bābite adi (māt) Ḫašmar (māt) Zamūa ana siḫirtīša ištu Zāba elî adi Til-Bāri ša ellān (māt) Zabban (māt) Ḫirimmu (māt) Ḫarutu birāte ša māt Karduniaš ištu Ṣuṣi ša eli Idiqlat adi Dūr-Kurigalzi ištu Dūr-Kurigalzi adi Sippar-ša-Šamaš Sippur-ša-Anunnītu (?) (māt) Aramu qāssu ikšudu

Conqueror of (the lands of) Na’iri to its farthest extent, the king who took in the midst of the fray from the other side of the Tigris to (the land of) Ḫatti, (the land of) Lāqê and its environs, (the lands of) Na’iri to its furthest extent, (the land of) Sūḫu up to (the land of) Rāpiqu (and) from the passes of (the land of) Ḫabrûri to (the land of) Gilzānu (and as captive) Apâ, king of (the land of {var. the city of}) Ḫubuškia {var. Gilzānu on the other side of Ḫubuškia}. He captured from the passes of Bābite to (the land of) Ḫašmar (the land of) Zamūa and its environs, from the Lower Zāb to Til-Bāri from upstream of (the land of) Zabban, (the land of) Ḫirimmu and (the land of, var. the city of) Ḫarutu, fortresses of Karduniaš from the city of Ṣuṣi on the Tigris to Dūr-Kurigalzu, from Dūr-Kurigalzu to Sippar-ša-Šamas and Sippar-ša-Anunnītu (?), (the land of) the Arameans.

This geographical extent might be measured against the achievements of Adad-nārārī II (see also Zadok 2008: 322–23): The Synchronistic Chronicle reports the setting of the border at Til-Bāri at the close of Adad-nārārī II’s reign, this lasting until the time of Salmānu-ašarēd III’s intervention, and hence there is no change.^[17] The mention of Ḫatti (northern Syria) does intimate Tukultī-Ninurta II’s penetration farther westwards than his predecessor, and the inclusion of the passes between Habrûri (Ḥerīr plain, Iraq) and Gilzānu (’Urūmīye basin, Iran) and the taking of Ḫubuškia (vicinity of Pirānšahr, Iran) and its king (in the Ninūa text) is novel. The mention in his geographical summary of the pass of Ḫašmar (region of Darband-i Ḫān, Iraq), in contrast to Adad-nārārī II venturing to Namri (western Kermānšāh Province, Iran), is difficult to qualify without more information.^[18] It does, nonetheless, intimate that Tukultī-Ninurta II undertook at least one campaign across Zamūa (Šahr-i Zūr plain, Iraq).

Moreover his ‘conquest’ extending to Dūr-Kurigalzu and Sippar was merely the defeat of the Aramean tribes of the Itu’u on the Wādī aṯ-Ṯarṯār (see RIMA.0.100.5 49–50) on the way to Sūḫu. The inscription does note campaigning to Lāqê (Dayr az-Zūr District, Syria), Sūḫu, and Na’iri (all within the orbit of his father’s achievements), and places the most emphasis upon the lattermost region, as his summary is presaged with the epithet kāšid (mātāt) Na’iri ‘victor over the lands of Na’iri’, perhaps echoing Adad-nārārī II’s epithet as kāšid (māt) Karduniaš. All of this presents a relatively scant list of accomplishments for the first half of the Tukultī-Ninurta II’s reign, which can be contextualised as follows (Table 5):

Here, the historian’s task is to establish the events and internal chronology of Tukultī-Ninurta II’s regnal years prior to late 887. While the scarceness of achievements by his reign’s close implies that they were consolidatory in nature, this would provide vital information as to the state of Assyria’s much expanded realm in the wake of Adad-nārārī II’s conquests, and whether much resistance to Assyrian rule existed prior to his successor’s reign. Before the five unattributed texts might be considered, it is germane to consider the reigns surrounding this period, namely those of Aššur-dān II (934–912) and Aššur-nāṣir-apli II (883–859).

4 Framing the Era – The Reigns of Aššur-dān II and Aššur-nāṣir-apli II

The reigns of Aššur-dān II and Aššur-nāṣir-apli II could not seem more different. Where the first struggled to keep rampant nomads from Aššur’s gates, the latter could march to the Mediterranean, construct a new capital at Kalḫu (Nimrūd, Iraq) and invite emissaries from the nations surrounding the Neo-Assyrian kingdom to a giant spectacle at its inauguration. Despite this, the inscriptions to be discussed could ostensibly belong to the reigns of either king upon initial inspection of their language, script, or content.

Aššur-dān II’s reign lasted more than two decades, and yet only some seven undated and geographically limited campaigns are recorded within his inscriptions. The first three imply that Assyria was territorially reduced to its heartland (RIMA.0.98.1 6–32), while the latter demonstrate minor chevauchées and the reimposition of vassal arrangements on neighbours. While it could be argued that RIMA.0.98.1 (Aššur-dān II’s only extended annalistic text) hails from early in his reign as its eponym remains unattributed, this is contradicted by the large numbers of animals mentioned within his hunting tally (see discussion of tallies below in respect to KAL 3: 48), including some 120 lions, 1600 wild bulls, and 56 elephants (RIMA.0.98.1 68–72) which must have taken considerable time to accumulate, implying a date well into his reign. Constrained by his own kingdom’s weakness, it may well be that Aššur-dān II employed such hunting as a propagandistic pastime in lieu of campaigning. Regardless, none of the unattributed texts discussed here are compatible with what is known of his reign, and need not be further factored into the coming analysis.^[19]

Akin to the end of Tukultī-Ninurta II’s reign, the opening of Aššur-nāṣir-apli II’s reign is very well documented, providing consecutive annalistic accounts running to roughly 877. While this leaves another 18 regnal years in which only Aššur-nāṣir-apli II’s much-lauded ‘march to the sea’ and an abortive campaign to Amēdu 866 are annalistically extant, his various geographical summary inscriptions, the depictions on his gates from Imgur-Enlil (Balāwāt, Iraq), the literary text LKA 64, and the events of his successor Salmānu-ašarēd III’s early reign are sufficient to infer an historical framework.^[20] During this period, Aššur-nāṣir-apli II would become embroiled in wars with Bīt-Adini (the plains between Şanlıurfa, Turkey, and the Euphrates) and later Urarṭu (northern Zagros), the exigencies of which would seemed to have well surpassed anything presented in the five inscriptions examined here. Indeed, the latter part of his reign seems to have been preoccupied with the shoring up of Assyria’s defences by diplomatic means, with the polities of Bīt-Zamāni and Bīt-Baḫiāni (Balīḫ basin, Turkey and Syria) being incorporated into the Assyrian realm as ‘transitional cases’ with their local rulers as governors (Edmonds 2021). One might further note the ‘international event’ that was his inauguration of his capital at Kalḫu (RIMA.0.101.30), the emphasis upon tribute in visual sources, or indeed reconciliatory depictions on palatial reliefs (Portuese 2017). He may well have become a better statesman than warrior by this period. Nonetheless, the window between 877 and 866 cannot be entirely discounted for the events of the texts herein studied, and will be reckoned with in the analysis. In the present author’s own mind, the many obelisk fragments found at Naynawā by Thompson and now spread between Birmingham, London, and Baġdād depicting the tribute of various peoples (see Reade 2005: 374) are probably to be attributed to this latter era of the reign of Aššur-nāṣir-apli II, not only as what scant phraseology and names which might be securely read correspond to events from his reign,^[21] but also because comparable fragments of an obelisk of his reign are now known from Aššur, and there is presently no evidence of any king between Aššur-nāṣir-apli I^[22] and himself having created such a monument: Indeed, the pattern emerging rather places all dateable Assyrian obelisks and obelisk fragments in the reigns of Tukultī-apil-Ešarra I, Aššur-nāṣir-apli I, Aššur-nāṣir-apli II, Salmānu-ašarēd III, and Adad-nārārī III respectively.^[23] Three of these four obelisk-makers are known to have visited the shores of the Mediterranean and washed their weapons there, which may well be meaningful; perhaps Aššur-nāṣir-apli I made it further west than what little remains of his inscriptions intimates.^[24] With this, the first unattributed inscription might be considered.

4.5 KAL 3: 56. Tukultī-Ninurta II’s Early Campaigns along with his Later Flaying of Apâ of Ḫubuškia and Punishment of Naṣībīna (ca. 890–887 BC)

Frahm (2009b: 108–11) considered KAL 3: 56 to present very striking similarities with KAL 3: 45–46 in phraseology, although (as he further notes) the most remarkable congruence is their exceptionally elaborate and minute descriptions of torture. He thus contended that both texts must hail from the same ruler’s reign. Having noted historical incongruities with an attribution to Adad-nārārī II and Aššur-nāṣir-apli II, he ultimately arrived at a very tentative ascription to Tukultī-Ninurta II.

Side a. (probably obv.) is extremely fragmentary, with probably six different ruled sections (Figure 2). What is so exceptional about this tablet is that while Side b. is entirely intact (Figure 3), most of Side a. has been heavily damaged with long linear scratches made after the tablet had been baked (Figure 2). While Frahm notes these to be intentional, he does not comment on why they are only present on one side of the tablet, or why they are so long, parallel, and painstaking in places.^[51] Scrutiny of the photograph included in the volume demonstrates that these are strikings-through of lines, as the lines run carefully through the middle of signs, implying that whoever did this possessed literacy, or at least some familiarity with cuneiform writing. As Side b. is unscathed, the implication must be that its text was needed for some purpose, perhaps for recopying, while that of Side a. was of no further use. One good possibility is that this side, which contains many brief episodes describing the reception of tributes, had been selected for deletion from the historical record;^[52] if so, then this would be remarkable material evidence of the redaction of annalistic texts, although this would require further parallels to confirm.

The first of Side a.’s episodes (ll. 1’–8’) fragmentarily describes a campaign to a land possessing horses and a population referred to with the ‘barbarian they’ and contains the name ‘Adad-nārārī’ near its close. The following ruled section of two lines (ll. 9’–10’) describes an imposition of tribute upon a ruler whose name is lost. Yet another section of two lines (ll. 11’–12’) follows describing the reception of tribute from a ‘barbarian they’. The next possesses three unsalvageable lines (ll. 13’–15’). A single-line ruled section then refers to the reception of a livestock tribute without a ‘barbarian they’ (l. 16). A final ruled section of five lines before the tablet breaks is almost entirely gone (ll. 17’–21’); what little remains displays the ‘barbarian they’.

Side b. is far better preserved, presenting two longer narratives divided by a ruled line. The first (ll. 1’–10’) is somewhat fragmentary, but concerns the flaying and execution of a leader at Ninūa, the mutilation of his men, and the destruction of his city. The second narrative (ll. 11’–22’) describes an insurrection at Naṣībīna, possibly inflamed by another group (l. 12’), the name of which is not preserved. The Assyrian king defeats and horrifically tortures the insurrectionists, and then encircles another city, this one belonging to a ruler. This is followed by a march into the ḫabḫu-lands of the Kāšiāru (i.e. Ḫabḫu 4) before the text breaks off.

Figure 2:

KAL 3: 56 Side a. (Photograph: Maul, Assur-Forschungsstelle Heidelberg).

Figure 3:

KAL 3: 56 Side b. (Photograph: Maul, Assur-Forschungsstelle Heidelberg).

Perhaps the most obvious point of attack is the name Adad-nārārī (Side a., l. 7’), and yet this is unfortunately not all that diagnostic. The campaign in question must have taken place in the Upper Tigris or Zagros due to the horses present as spoil, most likely the former. As Adad-nārārī I campaigned as far afield as Eluḫat (RIMA.0.77.1 8; 2 38), he cannot be discounted as the referent here, although his later namesake was much more active there and revered by his son, as discussed.

Rather, the most vital indicator is the appearance of Naṣībīna, which provides a chronological framework. This polity was only defeated by Adad-nārārī II in 896, at which point its ruler Nūr-Adad was replaced with a docile new client king as described in a colourful passage.^[53] Despite Adad-nārārī II’s continued activities in the Upper Ḫābūr, no mention is made of the city up to the end of annalistic documentation in 893, presenting a reasonable terminus post quem for the revolt. In turn, a good terminus ante quem is lent by the itinerary of Tukultī-Ninurta II’s journey up the Greater Ḫābūr at the close of his largely peaceful Medioeuphratine campaign of 885; the monarch ceased collecting tribute after Šadikanni (Tall ‘Aǧāǧa, Syria), implying that the series of settlements (including Naṣībīna) through which he passed thereafter on the way to Ḫuzīrīna (Sultantepe, Turkey) were not vassals, but rather provincial centres (RIMA.0.100.5 115–20). Were this to hold, then a brief window between late 893 and mid-to late 887 would be available for this uprising, probably discounting Adad-nārārī II and Aššur-nāṣir-apli II. While such an insurrection could be supposed subsequent to provincialisation, the multiple campaigns through the Kāšiāru mountains undertaken by Aššur-nāṣir-apli II early in his reign without mention of incident at Naṣībīna would seem to imply that the southern approaches to the Ṭūr ‘Aḇdīn were well secured, and that it was now the ḫabḫu-lands (4) nestled within the range which posed an issue (see Radner 2006a).

Considering all of the minor (and apparently deleted) actions listed on Side a. and the grander business of the capture and flaying of the ruler of a city prior to the revolt at Naṣībīna and ensuing campaign on Side b. (of what is at all preserved of the tablet), it seems very unlikely that Adad-nārārī II would have had time for these many activities alongside a new war with Karduniaš and an assault on Sūḫu in the three years prior to his death.^[54]

In turn, and quite vitally, the gruesome and precisely documented torture forming the text’s most distinctive hallmark (akin to KAL 3: 45–46, see above) is entirely absent from Adad-nārārī II’s royal inscriptions, where enemies are simply slain in heaps. Here, some 45 or more individuals receive amputations, blindings (in one instance with apparently molten tin!), and mutilation of the ears. While Aššur-nāṣir-apli II also amputated the arms of captured soldiers and unabashedly decapitated, flayed, impaled, and even immured (RIMA.0.101.1 72), the other brutalities meted out here were not in his punitive inventory. Considering that KAL 3: 45–46 (see above) fields yet more of the same grisly horrors and displays many other similarities, it should be assumed that the same king commissioned both inscriptions.

A further point is the siegecraft depicted. Adad-nārārī II’s inscriptions laud him as having invented the siege technique used here of encirclement with fortresses during the siege of Raqamātu/Gidāra in 898 (RIMA.0.99.2 54–55). That it appears here (KAL 3: 56 Side b. 18’–19’) without further comment implies that this tactic was no longer novel and must postdate that year (and, indeed, 893). The same stratagem is employed in KAL 3: 45–46 10’–11’, further underlying these two texts’ chronological and stylistic propinquity. In turn, this technique excludes an ascription to the reign of Aššur-nāṣir-apli II, as this king favoured entirely different and more aggressive siege techniques such as storming, tunnelling, or using battering rams and siege towers.^[55]

Hence, all of these various factors indicate that the events of this text must have occurred within the early years of the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta II (i.e. 890–887). From these findings, the capture and flaying of an enemy leader at Ninūa and the torture of his men in Side b., ll. 1’–10’ might be examined. Flaying at Ninūa or Arba’il (rather than in the field) was reserved for enemies of importance, either kings or individuals of particular royal loathing;^[56] furthermore, this individual nonetheless only held sway over a single city, but possessed silver and gold. Finally, a broken ethnicon ]-˹a˺-ia survives (b. l. 3’). Considering the established timeframe, three plausible candidates exist: Apâ, king of the city-state of Ḫubuškia, an unknown ruler of an affluent city in Lāqê, or the governor of Sūḫu as all possess appropriately written gentilica^[57] and rendered silver and gold as tribute.^[58] What would bespeak Lāqê is the very similar treatment of Aḫi-yababa in 882 at Sūru of Bīt-Ḫalupê (probably Tall Fidēn, Syria), but what contradicts this is the lack of any disturbance of the lucrative region of Lāqê between Adad-nārārī II’s march of 894 and Tukultī-Ninurta II’s visit of 885, during which it was obviously in boom, and the very specific case of Aḫi-yababa who had killed Aššur-nāṣir-apli II’s double brother-in-law by inherited marriage;^[59] in turn, none of Lāqê’s emporia were destroyed during this period.^[60] Sūḫu may be similarly discounted: It was only defeated at the end of Adad-nārārī II’s reign, and Ilu-bāni/ibni would seem to have governed it from then on until his death early in the reign of Aššur-nāṣir-apli II.^[61] Hence, it seems most likely that it is the ill fate of Apâ, King of Ḫubuškia, to which the reader is here party, which would make sense considering his appearance on the summary inscription. As his successors are termed ‘King of Na’iri’ (perhaps a hereditary or hegemonic title among the royalty of the Taurus and Zagros),^[62] the prominence of this kingdom during this period is evident; in turn, Tukultī-Ninurta II would have truly earned the title kāšid (mātāt) Na’iri by authoring this sovereign’s doom. However, the question remains as to what justified this punishment. It is worth comparing this episode to that of Būbu, son of Babua the bēl-āli of Ništun, who was flayed by Aššur-nāṣir-apli II in his first regnal year (RIMA.0.101 i 67–68) shortly after Gilzānu and Hubuškia presented their tributes at Ḫabrûri (i 56–57); no motivation for this act is presented by the annals, and it is possible that it was done simply “pour encourager les autres”,^[63] as the Assyrian demand for horses had become a crucial issue.^[64]

Considering the tight timeframe of three years at the beginning of Tukultī-Ninurta II’s reign, the deletion of the events of Side a., and that KAL 3: 45–46 must also date to this chronological span, the most logical constellation of events is to understand the events of Side b. as the latest events. Placing Side a.’s events prior to this, it seems most likely these six to seven campaigns occurred very early in Tukultī-Ninurta II’s reign, and that they had thereafter been redacted on account of their inconsequentiality once this king had achieved greater things (such as the defeat of Apâ), a situation akin to that of Ušḫu and Atkun’s deletion from the annals as early as 909 (see above). In light of the tightness of the period, it would be most logical to infer the Naṣībīna episode ending in a foray into the Upper Tigris region of Side b. 11’–22’ as constituting the first half of the Na’iri campaign of 887, which begins in media res in RIMA.0.100.5 1–3 with a return through the Ṭūr ‘Aḇdīn after campaigning in the Upper Tigris, pillaging Ki[baki] (presumably Mağara, Turkey) on the journey back. This would place the other campaigns in the Upper Ḫābūr and Upper Tigris recorded in KAL 3: 45–46 in the intervening period, perhaps between 889 and 888. With this analysis of the five texts completed, new portraits may be now presented of these two kings.

5 Adad-nārārī II – Warrior King

Adad-nārārī II’s reign is marked by sweeping conquests, the two main targets of which were Karduniaš and Ḫanigalbat. His throne name (which he himself intriguingly calls an “important name” [šumu kabtu, RIMA.0.99.2 9–10]) was programmatic,^[65] as his namesake not only conquered a large swathe of Ḫanigalbat, but also celebratedly vanquished the Kassite king Nazi-Maruttaš, a deed celebrated in both an Assyrian epic composition and elsewhere in later literary tradition (Frazer 2013). The remarkable ambition implied by this decision is already demonstrated by the activities of his year of accession (911); after a minor campaign to Ušḫu and Atkun, perhaps as a first test of his abilities, Adad-nārārī II launched what would seem to be a surprise offensive on Qumānû, attacking its capital Kipšūna and capturing its king, Ilūya, and enforcing vassalage upon the kingdom. This aggressive strategy from the very outset could only have been enabled by a military and populace reinvigorated after the deprivations of the previous decades, and it must be assumed that Aššur-dān II’s reign had been responsible for this reflorescence. The following reconstruction of his reign can now be presented (Table 7):

In the wake of this early victory, it seems that Adad-nārārī II already assaulted and took the Babylonian protectorate of Arrapḫa between late 911 and mid-909. As discussed, it is unclear whether his Karduniaš campaign should be linked with this activity or not. During this period, in the autumn of 909, he also attacked forty settlements on the Tigris and deported the populations of three, all seemingly belonging to a mountainous or pastoral polity, although it is unclear whether this occurred upstream or downstream of Assyria.^[66] On 4th Araḫsamnu (VIII) 909, he would march into Meḫru, a vital source of timber (RIMA.0.99.1 rev. 6’–9’): That he ventured into the mountains so late in the year bespeaks once more his remarkable energy as king, and, indeed, he would even campaign into Na’iri as deep into winter as 28th Kislīmu (IX) on another occasion (KAL 3: 47 8’–9’, see above). At some point between early 908 and 901, he must have surpassed this and marched on to the more distant regions of Salua and Uraṭri (perhaps in the region of Çatak, Turkey?) as summarised in RIMA.0.99.2 24–25.

Only the vaguest of chronologies can be established for the ensuing period up to 901, and considering the remarkable number of actions already in his first years, various minor campaigns might be assumed. Whether it occurred prior to or after late 909, his successful war with Karduniaš was the defining achievement of this period, leading him to style himself kāšid (māt) Karduniaš. This need not have been a single year’s campaigning, but the decisive moment was the resounding defeat of his adversary Marduk-mudammiq, who is stated by the Synchronistic Chronicle to have adopted a defensive position on Mount Yalman, and his pursuit of the Babylonian to the River Turān (Diyālā), where the latter appears to have abandoned much of his equipment (ABC 21 iii 1–7). It may well be in the aftermath of this event that Adad-nārārī II undertook his dramatic foray southwards to Dēru (Tall al-‘Aqar, Iraq); in light of the religious significance of this city (Frahm 2009a) and the impermanence implied by kašādu, this may well have been a propagandistic pilgrimage (akin to Kumme) rather than a military operation. In the aftermath, Assyria had incorporated Lubdu (vicinity of the Ǧabal Ḥamrīn, Iraq) and controlled a swathe of territory stretching as far south as Laḫīru (1).^[67]

The wake of this victory must have witnessed considerable ‘mopping up’, such as the re-incorporation of Idu (Sātū Qalā, Iraq) and Zaqqu into Assyria. It would also have been the precondition for campaigning in Lullumê which ensued, as Assyria’s new north-eastern flank now lay open.^[68] His annals mention campaigning as far as the passes of Namri, also a Babylonian holding during this period. It is in this context that the rather forlornly named Assyrian garrison of Tukulti-Aššur-aṣbat at Arrakdi (probably as-Sulaymānīya, Iraq, see Radner 2017) must have been established, although it is unclear whether Adad-nārārī II or Tukultī-Ninurta II was responsible, and it may well have been the latter.

It was likely in the wake of his Babylonian expansion that Adad-nārārī II turned his attention to Na’iri. As KAL 3: 47 demonstrates, two campaigns to Na’iri certainly preceded his assault on Katmuḫi, which must have happened in the year following the second campaign, as it is dated to 28th Kislīmu (IX), at the very limits of the campaigning season. Perhaps marching through or around this previously disloyal vassal’s territory to the Upper Tigris presented a frustration, and so he determined to annex the kingdom come spring. The terminus post quem for this action would have been 907, thus with the second Na’iri campaign having unfolded late in 908, but these campaigns could also have reasonably occurred within the mid-900’s. As the remaining sources intimate, the chief priority here was the procuring of horses from the thriving husbandry of the Upper Tigris basin. The presumed reconquest of the cities of Arinu, Turḫu, and Zaduru from Šubria (RIMA.0.99.2 35 – the sentence is very curiously formulated) must have occurred during this period, and demonstrates the establishment of a ‘pre-provincial’ presence in the region, presumably in cooperation with the relict Assyrian community there (see Edmonds 2021: 79–81). His devastation of Alzi during the same period (RIMA.0.99.2 31–32) was likely a prophylactic measure to secure these Assyrian possessions. Following the intimations in KAL 3: 53, what was probably the last of the Na’iri campaigns saw the reinforcement of an Assyrian outpost in the Upper Tigris, presumably at Damdammusa, as is demonstrated by the harvesting of crops for the garrison there, and then his return through the Kāšiāru, his objectives apparently fulfilled. The conclusion of his Na’iri campaigns may have been close to 901, as a general spirit of consolidation throughout Assyria is evident during this later period.

This is attested by the subsequent defeat and deportation of the Aḫlamû (perhaps menacing the Sinğār or Middle Euphrates at the time) to Arrapḫa (RIMA.0.99.2 33; KAL 3: 53 7’–8’), the levying of tribute from Sūḫu and harrowing of Lāqê (its harvested crops perhaps being deposited at Dūr-Katlimmu), and finally Apku’s refurbishment; this activity may well have been selected to commemorate one era’s close, and the beginning of another, i.e. the Ḫanigalbat campaigns. Not only was Tukultī-apil-Ešarra I emulated and Assyria’s Tigridian rive droite safeguarded from nomadic incursions (a problem well into the early 20th century AD),^[69] but also communication with the Sinğār and Ḫābūr strengthened for the coming campaigns.^[70]

901 brought the initiation of Adad-nārārī II’s seven Ḫanigalbat campaigns. Their concerted nature (including a superfluous final campaign, perhaps to reach a ‘magic’ seven) implies that they had long been planned, and all external threats to Assyria removed before their advent. Their central aim was the defeat of Naṣībīna, which would win Assyria hegemony over the region. This began with a pitched battle in the first year and the establishment of a forward stronghold at Saraku in the second. By the sixth year (896), he had succeeded in blockading Naṣībīna until it surrendered; he captured its king Nūr-Adad, and placed a new ruler on the throne whose only fragmentarily preserved name [DN-gi]millī hints at a Mesopotamian cultural background.^[71] In the intervening campaigns, he stormed and presumably provincialized the former Assyrian holding of Raqamātu/Gidāra, received the allegiance of Gūzāna/Bīt-Baḫiāni (Tall Ḥalaf, Syria, ultimately destined to become a ‘transitional case’), ‘tidied up’ along the western foothills of the Kāšiāru, re-established a presence at Ḫuzīrīna, and engaged in early diplomacy with Bīt-Adini.

With Naṣībīna humbled, Adad-nārārī II could devote himself to other projects, such as a march to Sikkur and Sappānu in the Zagros (RIMA.0.99.2 84–88, this probably warranting the emendation to Ḫabḫu ša bētāni in KAL 3: 16–17 14’) and two expeditions in alleged defence of the shrine city of Kumme which were probably as much about securing horses as divine favour (RIMA.0.99.2 91–96; KAL 16–17: 17’–20’). He followed these activities with a tribute-gathering march to Ḫanigalbat to announce his dominance and ‘incorporate’ it into Assyria’s borders, and then a journey down the Middle Euphrates collecting further tithes. Curiously, he stopped before reaching Sūḫu, previously his tributary, the southernmost point rendering tribute being Ḫindānu (Abū Kamāl, Syria, RIMA.0.99.2 119). Considering the ensuing war with Babylonia and the subsequent “defeat” of Sūḫu in KAL 3: 16–17 39’–41’, it is likely that Sūḫu’s governor had accepted Karduniaš’ offer of protection, and that a Babylonian military contingent large enough to deter Adad-nārārī II had been stationed there, much as would be the case in 878.

This may well have been casus belli for the conflict which ensued. It seems unlikely that this had begun prior to mid-893, as Adad-nārārī II inaugurated a temple of Gula at Aššur in the middle of the summer (17th Abu [V]), when he would have been expected to have been busy prosecuting his war.^[72] Considering that his last campaign had been more than a year prior^[73] and Gula’s role within the Mesopotamian pantheon, he may well have suffered from poor health following his Medioeuphratine campaign of 894 or his many years of relentless campaigning had begun to take a toll upon him.^[74] This is particularly interesting considering the wording of the Synchronistic Chronicle (ABC 21 iii 8–21). Šamaš-mudammiq of Karduniaš had died and Nabû-šuma-ukīn had acceded to the Babylonian throne. The chronicle is ambiguous as to the instigator of the conflict, merely stating that Adad-nārārī II clashed with Nabû-šuma-ukīn, and that the former won, before mentioning that Adad-nārārī II raided various towns, took the booty back to Assyria, and strategically forced Nabû-šuma-ukīn to the negotiating table.

It may well be that it was Nabû-šuma-ukīn who had initiated renewed hostilities between Assyria and Babylonia, banking on Adad-nārārī II’s infirmity. Very suspicious in this regard is that the eponym named in RIMA.0.99.2 134 does not reflect that named in the later eponym lists – could there have been an internal political intrigue during this period? Certainly, Adad-nārārī II was unable for whatever reason to truly press his advantage, as a peace accord was ultimately agreed upon, with the two men marrying each other’s daughters and a border being set from Til-(Bīt-)Bāri to Til-ša-Abtāni and Til-ša-Zabdāni. The political manoeuvring was probably more complex than just this, with Laḫīru (1) (likely ’Askī Kifrī, Iraq) perhaps returned to Babylonia’s orbit,^[75] Lubdu permitted some autonomy,^[76] and Karduniaš’ protection of Sūḫu revoked for the time being.^[77] In the wake of this accord, Adad-nārārī II would have then have marched upon Sūḫu and dealt with it piecemeal. Not all that long afterwards, in 891, he would pass away; it would be left to his son to complete the renovation of the walls of Aššur with which he was still engaged at the time.

In sum, the reign of Adad-nārārī II represented a remarkable shift in Assyria’s fortunes from scarce more than a recovering Transtigridian kingdom to a leading state within the Near East. Although Salmānu-ašarēd III’s reign would mark the zenith of early Neo-Assyria’s career, the kingdom would not experience another leader of such brilliance until Tukultī-apil-Ešarra III. Like the latter, his sheer competence renders his actual character somewhat obscure. An incredible dynamism and thirst to emulate his predecessors can nonetheless be noted; particularly telling is that he ventured into the mountains on campaign as late in the year as 28th Kislīmu (IX) and 4th Araḫsamnu (VIII) respectively, something scarce other Assyrian ruler durst.^[78] With this energy came also a touch of vainglory, whether in his long marches to distant shrines, his inscriptions’ curious emphasis upon his own youthfulness, vigour, and appearance in what must have been middle age, or the unique description of his defeat of Naṣībīna in which the newly installed client king praises Adad-nārārī II in direct speech (RIMA.0.99.2 77–78). Adad-nārārī II’s strange eponym stele remains an enigma; Andrae (1913: 14–18, no. 9) understands this as an anthropomorphic statue some three metres in height (including the base) which had been crudely reworked into a stele (Figure 4).^[79] Considering the figure wears Assyrian royal regalia, this could only be a previous king, but which could have earnt such treatment, and why would Adad-nārārī II have chosen so curious a means of legitimating himself?

Figure 4:

The eponym stele of Adad-nārārī II (Andrae 1913: 16, fig. 18).

Nonetheless, this is little to go on in terms of his character: As always, the most competent Assyrian kings present the least personal information. Certainly, Babylonia would not forget him: One exemplar of Adad-nārārī II’s Ninūa Inscription was discovered in Bābilu (Bābil, Iraq), a trophy from the capital’s fall some three hundred years later.^[80]

6 Tukultī-Ninurta II – Consolidator and Innovator

Considering that both his father and grandfather had enjoyed long reigns of some two decades apiece and, in turn, his son and grandson would enjoy even longer reigns, it is likely that Tukultī-Ninurta II’s eight-year incumbency began at something of a mature age, rendering it a ‘sandwich reign’. This would be aptly supported by his (unfinished) palace at Nēmed-Tukultī-Ninurta (‘Tukultī-Ninurta’s Resort’) at modern Qaḍīya just outside of Ninūa. His throne name is particularly interesting; like his father, it suggests a preoccupation with Babylonia (particularly interesting considering that Nabû-šuma-ukīn was now his double brother-in-law), and perhaps even scholarly pretentions, as will be explored.^[81] Despite his apparent age, his reign is patterned by an energetic consolidation of Adad-nārārī II’s achievements and some further successes, albeit no direct territorial expansion seems to have occurred.^[82] In contrast to his father’s unusual monument, his own eponym stele seems to have been a traditional narû-shape, albeit also quite sizeable (Figure 5).^[83]

Figure 5:

(What remains of) the eponym stele of Tukultī-Ninurta II (Andrae 1913: 18, fig. 20).

As reverent as he would seem to have been of his father, Adad-nārārī II had left him with a large but disunified patchwork of provinces and dependencies on the Upper Ḫābūr, and it hardly surprises that his early years required the brutal suppression of rebellions by Irbibu on the River Ḫarmiš, Tillê and Kaḫat, and Naṣībīna. It may have been the frustrations of these constant uprisings which prompted the brutal measures which Tukultī-Ninurta II would undertake, which are curious in both their excess and minute documentation. Certainly, it is striking that his own son dubbed him “he who … fixed his foes’ corpses to posts” (ša … ina gašīši urettû pagrī gērīšu RIMA.0.101.1 28–29; 17 28–29; 20 35–36; 40 17–18). While Olmstead (1918) famously scolded Aššur-nāṣir-apli II for his “calculated frightfulness”, the innovator of this tactic seems to have been Tukultī-Ninurta II,^[84] a summary of whose broader achievements can now be presented (Table 8):

Nonetheless, the challenges in consolidation may also have driven Tukultī-Ninurta II’s exploration of new means of legitimation, such as leaving stele and inscriptions outside of Assyria proper (such as at Sirqu and the Subnat source) and creating rock reliefs.^[85] In turn, as the example of Kaḫat demonstrates, Tukultī-Ninurta II was also prepared to construct palaces within his new realm as provincial control points,^[86] a practice continued by his son on a wider scale (see e.g. Liverani 2012: 183). This is particularly interesting as there is little to no evidence of Adad-nārārī II creating such provincial nodes;^[87] Adad-nārārī II’s curt use of eṣēdu without any mention of construction implies that he simply harvested the crops of the defeated and brought them back to the nearest (allied) Assyrian stronghold (presumably Damdammusa for the Upper Tigris and Dūr-Katlimmu for the Middle Euphrates). It may well be on these grounds that the construction of Tukulti-Aššur-aṣbat in the as-Sulaymanīya plain should be assigned to Tukultī-Ninurta II’s reign.^[88]

From the epithet kāšid (mātāt) Na’iri “victor over (the lands of) Na’iri” with which his surviving summary inscriptions begin, it seems that Tukultī-Ninurta II considered his efforts in this region his central achievement, comparable to his father’s Babylonian doings. Adad-nārārī II seems to have left him an Assyrian garrison in the Upper Tigris (presumably Damdammusa)^[89] and probably an uneasy alliance with the local relict Assyrians of Ḫalziluḫa. Tukultī-Ninurta II’s response was to improve communication between this region and the south by subjugating Nirdun (dispelling its control of the northern entrance to the Ṭūr ‘Aḇdīn massif by the Savur Çayı) and exploring new routes to the Upper Tigris basin, such as via the Karacadağ. In turn, he sought to harness Bīt-Zamāni’s rising power by entrusting the polity with campaigning on Assyria’s behalf in 887. This tactic evidently backfired, as the Aramean state became confident enough to consider unsanctioned campaigns into the Upper Ḫābūr, and so Tukultī-Ninurta II was compelled to march once more to the Upper Tigris in 886 in order to bring the wayward polity of Bīt-Zamāni to heel (RIMA.0.100.5 11–29). Fascinatingly, this resulted in an agreement that Bīt-Zamāni would sell horses solely to Assyria, and close supervision of the polity. With this, it seems that the issue of the Upper Tigris was satisfactorily resolved, as his remaining campaigns were devoted to other regions.

The other defining moment of Tukultī-Ninurta II’s reign was likely the defeat, capture, and subsequent flaying of Apâ, King of Ḫubuškia. As suggested, this may have been to intimidate the remaining horse breeding and dealing polities of the northern Zagros to render tribute and do business on his own terms. Similarly economic motives may have inspired his campaign to the land of Ladānu (RIMA.0.100.5 30–40), which lay north of Ḫabrûri, a key conduit for equine tribute. It is during this campaign that the first mention of dedicated Assyrian cavalry might be found (RIMA.0.100.5 37), and Tukultī-Ninurta II’s annals emphasise his accumulation of horses from the Upper Tigris and Zagros, providing a total figure of 2702 mounts (RIMA.0.100.5 128–131). It may well be the intense pressure laid upon these horse trading groups by himself and his son which provoked Urarṭu’s ire in the 860’s.^[90]

In 885, Tukultī-Ninurta II toured the Middle Euphrates collecting massive tribute from the flourishing trade emporia of the region (presumably stopping to inscribe the curious Tall ‘Ašāra Stele), this also permitting him to attack the Itu’u, who would come to be a considerable nuisance by the 8th century.^[91] The genius of his route was that it took him through ‘allied’ Babylonian territory so as to approach Sūḫu from the south, an act of calculated political brinksmanship. While not breaking the decade’s truce between Babylonia and Assyria, it was a remarkable demonstration of Assyrian might.^[92] The absence of Nabû-šuma-ukīn or any other Babylonian sovereign in this narrative is also telling; it may well be that the king of Karduniaš had died and his successor Nabû-apla-iddina had not yet been crowned, leaving a power vacuum for Tukultī-Ninurta II to exploit.^[93]

Yet, his visit to Karduniaš may also have provoked his employing of an ummânu, apparently the first time that an Assyrian king had done so since Tukultī-Ninurta I; the Synchronistic King List notes Tukultī-Ninurta II’s scholarly advisor as one Gabbu-ilāni-ēreš,^[94] who was retained by Aššur-nāṣir-apli II, and would be an ancestor of the famous scribe Nabû-zuqup-kēnu.^[95] In patronising an ummânu, it is possible that Tukultī-Ninurta II was inspired by his namesake, and particularly his famous plundering of Babylonian scholarly works as prominently commemorated in literature,^[96] or his familial ties with Babylonia may have encouraged this. Collecting a fortune from the polities of the Middle Euphrates newly wealthy from caravan trade as he marched upstream, he cannily married the sisters of Ḫamatāya, ruler of the boomtown of Sūru in Lāqê (RIMA.0.100.5 101), ensuring that Assyrian interests would be represented in the region, the allegiance of which would soon become a point of contention between Assyria, Babylonia, and Bīt-Adini.

No further campaigns can be confirmed for Tukultī-Ninurta II’s reign,^[97] and he must have died while his Assyrian Sanssouci at Nēmed-Tukultī-Ninurta was still under construction, as Aššur-nāṣir-apli II would reuse some of his father’s inscribed slabs in Ninūa. Certainly, his building project at Qaḍīya serves as an interesting bridge between his father Adad-nārārī II’s building works at Ninūa, and his son Aššur-nāṣir-apli II’s later creation of a new capital at Kalḫu, and thoughts also turn to the ill-fated construction of Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta; it is possible that he already strove to concentrate power beyond the city of Aššur’s traditional confines by means of an informal or secluded powerbase in the manner of a Capri or Mar-a-Lago.^[98] While there is nothing to suggest any irregularity in Aššur-nāṣir-apli II’s succession, it is striking that ‘Tukultī-Ninurta’ did not see use as a throne name thereafter, particularly in light of the turgid successions of Aššur-nārārī’s which the Assyrian entr’acte brought.^[99] One might ask if there was something maudlin or Tiberian about this figure; his son’s throne name, Aššur-nāṣir-apli II, displays a tonal shift, his namesake having been a successful king in an ill-fated epoch, more Arthur than Alfred.

7 New Outlooks on Early Neo-Assyrian Historiography

Although only the discovery and publication of further texts will permit the better articulation of this period, it is clear that even with the fragmentary sources available much remains to be done. The next step must naturally be to recontextualise these two reigns within broader early Neo-Assyrian history, which may well be to the detriment of Aššur-nāṣir-apli II’s hold upon the Assyriological imagination. In turn, as will have become clear from this study, the redactional history of these early Neo-Assyrian kings’ royal inscriptions is far more complex than was previously evident. A brief sketch can be outlined.

KAL 3: 48 presents a highly detailed description of the early conquests of Adad-nārārī II with a clear focus upon his military and venatory exploits. The surviving accounts have an almost military historical preoccupation: Ušḫu and Atkun lie in the midst of a karru, a rather obscure geographical term (obv. 9’), while the account of Qumānû’s conquest mentions the name of the capital city, the terrain (šapliš, obv. 13’), and possibly even a counterattack (obv. 15’). It is possible that precise dates were given for these campaigns and are lost in the broken portions (see ina, rev. 6’).

Written but three years later, RIMA.0.99.1 already omits Adad-nārārī II’s somewhat minor first campaign to Ušḫu and Atkun and rather begins with the far more impressive defeat of Qumānû. In one exemplar of this text, a ruling is retained between the description of Adad-nārārī II’s accession and the campaign to Qumānû, retaining a ‘modular’ model and permitting narrative ellipsis, while, in another, this ruling is absent, implying contiguity in events. The focus in what survives of this text is less upon warfare itself, and more upon the spoils of campaigning (including King Ilūya), returning with them to Aššur, and bestowing them upon the eponymous god, which is cogent considering that this text was compiled for the inauguration of a new quay wall at Aššur.

KAL 3: 47 and 53 display some affinities with KAL 3: 48 such as the use of rulings and mention of military historical details such as dawn attacks (47 2’–3’) and the harvesting of grain for strategic purposes (53 4’ & 12’). 47 displays precise dates for campaigns (53’s broken state precludes judgement), perhaps akin to 48: This use of dates is of considerable historiographical interest. Otherwise in Adad-nārārī II’s inscriptions, the precise dates for campaigns (or even simply the months) are only given for the campaigns most recent to that inscription. In RIMA.0.99.1, this is for the campaign immediately prior to the inauguration, while the date or at least month is given for the campaigns of the two years preceding the text’s creation in RIMA.0.99.2. This intimates a redactional procedure in which more precise (and perhaps more realistic) campaign accounts, perhaps based upon Gottesbriefe,^[100] were gradually reworked into more summary descriptions retaining only the information which their editors considered most pertinent. It is possible that the more detailed ‘first accounts’ contained within these ruled sections were retained for future reference, perhaps compiled sequentially in the manner of KAL 3: 47 and 53, and excerpted for new texts when appropriate. That such a practice of documentation was well established would explain the penchant for early Neo-Assyrian kings to mention very precise events in their predecessors’ reigns in respect to their own specific targets when campaigning. However, features such as the running game tallies may well point to other dynamic processes in the updating of these historical texts.

Hence, it is all the more striking that the long litany of apparently inconsequential early campaigns and tribute collections found on Side a. of KAL 3: 56 have been systematically scratched through with long lines well after they had been baked, while the more substantial, impressive, and recent achievements of the capture of Apâ of Ḫubuškia and quelling of an uprising at Naṣībīna on Side b. are unscathed. A hypothesis for this presently unique phenomenon can be derived from the historical circumstances of Tukultī-Ninurta II’s reign. Having finally stepped out Adad-nārārī II’s shadow after a long period of less than glamorous consolidation, Tukultī-Ninurta II had achieved genuine success in his own right by capturing Apâ and extending Assyrian influence over Na’iri. It was time to rework his very early, unglamorous campaigning into an entirely new narrative, or to delete it entirely as Adad-nārārī II had for Ušḫu and Atkun – quite literally Strich drunter!

In turn, the ghastly and astonishingly minute descriptions of torture found in the two narratives from the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta II remind once more of the redactional layers through which a campaign account might travel before its ‘annalistic’ endpoint, and, indeed, of the first-hand documentary processes which must rather gallingly have been undertaken by scribes themselves. Far from the jovial writer of palatial missives one might imagine, here is a figure coldly tallying the flayed, perhaps while a colleague sketched the scene for a later palace relief.^[101] Such information did not make the ‘final cut’ of the annalistic accounts of RIMA.0.100.5, or indeed the even further abridged KAL 3: 21.^[102] Yet, herein lies an emerging issue.

The wide variety of narrative approaches, level of detail, and intended audiences presented by the texts here raise the question as to what exactly the moniker ‘annalistic’ should actually pertain during this period. Structuralist methodologies and inventories aimed at cracking an annalistic ‘code’ and, more recently, statistical and narratological investigations all necessitate uniformities and homogeneities which might come to be undermined as the true diversity of early Neo-Assyrian inscriptions becomes apparent. Considering the recent (and forthcoming shifts) in ascription of the Broken and White Obelisks and, in turn, of other late Middle Assyrian inscriptions, a revised diachronic, genre-historical study of the composition and redaction of Assyrian royal inscriptions prior to and including the early Neo-Assyrian kings will certainly become a necessity in the coming years, should it be sought to refine present methodological tools.