The Neo-Assyrian Empire in the Southwest

Imperial Domination and Its Consequences

Bibliographic Data

ID13048024
AuthorsGunnar Lehmann (0000-0001-9270-4678, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume9
Issue3
Pages299-303
Publication date2021-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2166-3548 • E-ISSN: 2166-3556
PublisherThe Pennsylvania State University Press (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.9.3.0299
OpenAlexW4232240011
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited8

Recent years have seen the publication of several comprehensive studies regarding the archaeology of the Assyrian Empire. Focusing on the western parts of the empire, I would like to point out only a few of these, such as the volume edited by S. Hasegawa and K. Radner in 2020 on the Reach of the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires; the conference on imperial connections authored by K. Gavagnin and R. Palermo in 2020; B. Düring's Imperialisation of Assyria (2020); and the study of the Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire, edited by J. MacGinnis, D. Wicke, and T. Greenfield (2016). Avraham Faust, the author of the publication reviewed here, and S. Z. Aster edited an earlier volume entitled The Southern Levant under Assyrian Domination (2018), which is now followed by Faust's monograph, The Neo-Assyrian Empire in the Southwest, reviewed here. By use of the term “Southwest” the author aims at a comprehensive discussion of the Assyrian domination of the southern Levant, that is, modern Israel and Palestine.Avraham Faust is one of the most prolific archaeologists in Israel and a professor at Bar-Ilan University. He has written and edited numerous books and articles on various topics of the archaeology of the southern Levant and is doubtless one of the most influential archaeologists in Israel at the current juncture. Not surprisingly, given the deep political and ideological divides in the modern State of Israel, Faust has become one of its most debated and controversial scholars. Notably, he is one of the few archaeologists in modern Israel who focuses explicitly on anthropological, sociological, and economic questions regarding ancient Israel. While many scholars discuss such questions based on ancient texts, Faust emphasizes the potential of archaeology and material-culture studies to contribute to this discourse. His study on the Assyrian Empire in the southern Levant is the sum of many years of research, some of which was already previously published in a number of articles. As a result of the still quite isolated situation of the State of Israel in the Middle East, Israeli archaeology in general, and this volume in particular, focuses almost exclusively on archaeological research in Israel and the Occupied Territories.Faust's book consists of 11 chapters including an introduction (Ch. 1) and an epilogue (Ch. 11). The Introduction sets the stage, placing the book in the context of current research, detailing the periods discussed in it, and laying out the structure of the book. The Introduction includes a discussion of historical forms of imperialism stemming from authors like Sinopoli, Altaweel, or Mann. Discussing the specific historical expressions of Assyrian imperialism, Faust mentions scholars such as Liverani, Parker, Radner, and others. Düring's (2020) work is not included in this discussion, probably because it was published too recently for Faust to have incorporated it. While Faust accepts Postgate's (2007) conclusion that the Assyrian administration was essentially not bureaucratic with an almost “invisible hierarchy,” he never discusses in any depth the concept of the patrimonial empire as outlined by Eisenstadt (1969), and Herrmann (2011). Herrmann's important thesis, and some of her relevant papers, are not even mentioned by Faust. Assyria's lack of abilities to control the Mediterranean Sea is mentioned in passing, but this aspect is never fully evaluated and discussed against Faust's reconstruction of the economy of the southern Levant under Assyrian rule.The Introduction reviews aspects of the absolute and relative chronology of the Assyrian period in the southern Levant as well. Faust correctly presents one of the main archaeological problems of studying the Assyrians in the southern Levant, the lack of sufficient resolution by which to date relevant archaeological contexts in necessary detail. Despite the many excavations in Israel and the remarkable density of research and research institutions, it remains difficult to distinguish the material culture of the eighth century BCE from that of the early seventh century BCE. Apparently, the Assyrian conquest did not cause a major change in local pottery production and other artifacts. This problem was discussed previously by Finkelstein (1994) and also by Fantalkin and Tal (2015). Singer-Avitz (2014) demonstrated that two levels of occupation were noted at some sites with evidence of Assyrian presence. Such differentiations are, however, difficult to date precisely when just local pottery is available. Only Greek, Cypriot, and Phoenician imports help to distinguish between levels of the late eighth, early seventh, and late seventh centuries BCE. Such imports, however, are unfortunately quite rare. Faust is well aware of this problem and his detailed reconstruction of imperial destruction, administration, and possible investment suffers from the lack of precise dates.Chapter 2 describes the southern Levant in the period immediately before the appearance of Assyria. Faust focuses on the archaeological evidence of the kingdom of Israel during the eighth century BCE, giving a detailed description of its flourishing settlements and economy. In his discussion, he makes a thorough attempt at overcoming the chronological problems involved in reconstructing this period. The chapter gives a valuable summary of the Israelite society during the eighth century BCE, which has been discussed by the author in more detail in previous publications.Faust's conclusions, however, and in particular his reconstruction of urbanism in ancient Israel during this period is debatable. Faust understands the kingdom of Israel as urbanized with a differentiated social structure that included an emerging middle class. This view was sharply refuted by Maeir (2013). Maeir and Shai have—in my view convincingly—that Israelite society remained organized within kinship structures and tribal social communities throughout the Iron Age (Maeir and Shai 2016). As a result, Israel was possibly less of a complex society as Faust assumes. Although Faust has applied postprocessual approaches in other aspects of his research, here he reconstructs Israelite society in a rather formalist way, following the approach of H. Reviv (1993). Possibly other approaches, such as an interpretation of the society as patrimonial communities, may explain the evidence more convincingly.Chapter 3 discusses the Assyrian interaction and eventual conquest of the southern Levant from the ninth century BCE through the times of Sennacherib, when the entire southern Levant was in one way or another under the control of the Assyrians. Faust distinguishes between an Assyrian provincial system in the northern parts of the country and the client and vassal states in the south.Chapter 4 describes the devastations in the northern Assyrian provinces of the southern Levant in contrast to what Faust presents as a flourishing economy in the autonomous regions of the south. The dramatic decline in the north is emphasized by the large number of abandoned settlements of the eighth century, which were destroyed and erased by the Assyrians to such an extent that even their place names were eventually forgotten over time. In an appendix, Faust discusses population data and the impact of Assyrian deportations.Chapter 5 is dedicated to the economy of the southern Levant during the period of Assyrian rule. Here Faust uses a formalist approach to analyze the economy: markets and profits determine agriculture and economy. The question is whether this represents the economy appropriately. While Faust's discussion focuses rightly on questions of profit and marketing, it does not leave sufficient options for economic practices of subsistence during the late Iron Age (Master 2014; Walton 2015). In contrast, Walton assumes an interaction of subsistence and market economies. Subsistence appears in this book only as an expression of underdeveloped local economies destroyed by the empire and not as still-operating traditional modes of production. In this context I find Walton's thesis on the regional economy of the southern Levant quite useful and interesting, and it is difficult to understand why Faust ignored Walton's study entirely in his book.In an appendix, Faust discusses Greek pottery of the late seventh century BCE. Although the Assyrian period itself is characterized by an almost complete disappearance of Greek pottery imports, Faust nevertheless sees a continuation of economic patterns in the way Greek pottery was imported in the post-Assyrian time. Greek pottery is again mentioned in Chapter 7, where it is not always clear to nonspecialists that the Greek pottery mentioned is post-Assyrian. Another appendix analyzes the importance of oil production in the southern autonomous states. Faust concludes that only the south participated in international trade, while the northern Assyrian provinces did not produce the necessary agricultural surplus with which to trade.Assyrian presence in the southern Levant is the subject of Chapter 6. Faust convincingly concludes that direct Assyrian impact on the region was minimal and is difficult to identify with archaeological methods. Only very few epigraphical finds or other remains of the Assyrian administration have so far been discovered. Faust embraces Kertai's (2018) conclusion that most of the assumed Assyrian administrative buildings are in fact not Assyrian but instead date to the Persian period. I firmly agree with this view. The only remaining examples of Assyrian architecture appear to be the buildings at Megiddo Stratum III and II and at Ashdod Ad Halom Stratum 7 on the slopes of Tell Ashdod. The finds at Ashdod Ad Halom somewhat contradict Faust's repeated statements that—after the initial establishment of an Assyrian province at Ashdod under Sargon II—the south was entirely outside of the territories administered by the Assyrians. Faust's interpretation is also difficult to reconcile with the mentioning of King Ahimilki of Ashdod by Esarhaddon in 677 and by Assurbanipal in 667, since in between these two references to the king of Ashdod, an Assyrian governor, Šamaš-kāšid-ayābi, is mentioned as an eponym of the year 669 BCE.Chapter 7 expands on the interpretations of Chapter 6, and Faust's conclusion is compelling that the provinces were not of much significance for the imperial authorities who made no real attempt at reconstructing the devastated northern provinces of the southern Levant. While Faust in most chapters adopts a processual approach, Chapter 8 employs a postprocessual, postcolonial perspective. The chapter analyzes local responses to Assyrian imperialism. According to Faust, there is not only a large archaeological database available but also “a unique textual source, reflecting the voice of (some of) the conquered, i.e. the Hebrew Bible.” The author uses at times a somewhat explicitly formalist approach, summarizing possible responses to the empire in a table where certain reactions are checked as present or absent. I hesitate to reduce complex responses such as resistance, cooperation, collaboration, integration, and the like to dichotomies of “present” or “absent.” In fact, these responses may be interrelated and overlapping in real life. Among other aspects, Faust discusses the lack of Assyrian Palace Ware from most sites in Judah as conscious avoidance and a form of cultural resistance against imperialism. One wonders whether there are other possibilities to explain this phenomenon. Mesopotamian-style hospitality rituals may have been simply located at a few locations of Assyrian presence in the southern Levant and remained foreign to most of the local population. In any case, Assyrian-style pottery was rather rare in the southern Levant, as opposed to the northern Levant.Some of Faust's thoughts on local responses to imperialism were previously discussed by E. Said, H. Bhabha, and G. Chakravorty Spivak. While these scholars are well known for their postcolonial research, they are not even mentioned in this volume. Despite his selective references, Faust displays sensitivity and compassion in this chapter. One could argue whether he could have included a reference to modern Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation in his historical examples of local responses to imperialism. After all, this modern resistance takes place in exactly the same geographical region.Chapter 9 is a reckoning with the scholarly notion of “Pax Assyriaca,” the presumed peaceful conditions that followed the Assyrian conquest. Faust believes nothing of this “peace” and points out the devastations and the brutal imperialist rule of the Assyrians disguised within an imperial narrative as harmonic relations between the masters and the dominated.Chapter 10 criticizes some of the prevailing theories on assumed Assyrian strategies of rational imperial planning with a well-designed imperial protocol. Faust holds that master plans of empire building cannot explain the various stages of conquest, annexation, and devastation of a remote, small highland region such as Samaria that was devoid of major roads or valuable resources. Agreeing with Liverani (2017: 8, 33–54), Faust emphasizes the role of Assyrian religion in the imperial expansion. Repeated revolts and resistance led to immediate tactical responses, conquests, annexations, and devastations. In the end, Faust persuasively argues that the Assyrian provinces in the southern Levant were not the result of meticulous strategic planning but rather the end result of circumstances not foreseeable to the Assyrians.Faust distinguishes between provinces and vassal states closer to the capitals of the empire and those further away. In regions closer to the empire, models such as B. Parker's “Territorial Hegemonic Model” would have been more practicable. In Parker's model, the Assyrian Empire was not made up of contiguous stretches of land. Instead, much of the empire consisted of a patchwork of provinces, vassal states, and buffer areas linked to the imperial core by a network of fortified transportation and communication corridors (Parker 2012: 875). This model includes exactly those imperial investments that are missing in the southern Levant. As the empire expanded into its periphery, transportation costs and logistical constraints increased dramatically. The sociopolitical landscape beyond the imperial core was, therefore, dotted with “islands” of imperial control (Liverani 1988). Much of this system was difficult to control and, in the periphery of the southern Levant, the empire reached its limits.I agree with Faust that a contingency of errors, mistakes, failures, egos, and the like played a potentially significant role in shaping the imperial landscape of the southern Levant. If there was an Assyrian religious imperative to conquer farther than one's predecessor, at some point in the seventh century BCE these distant conquests began to cost the Assyrians more than they could possibly gain from them. While this is well argued by Faust, his view of a frontier strategy that created a buffer of devastated land against Egypt contradicts the flourishing economy in the areas of the southern Levant bordering Egypt.Faust's arguments essentially resemble those of the “Patrimonial Model,” proposed by Schloen and Herrmann, although Faust never directly refers to it. Schloen and Herrmann argue that the Assyrian empire was not organized according to a grand strategic plan (Herrmann 2011). With the “Patrimonial Model” there is no evidence that the Assyrians understood or were actively organizing the economic development of the territory they ruled. Their main interest was to make it easy for themselves to tax or confiscate its wealth. It is anachronistic to credit them with understanding the economics of how this wealth was produced (Schloen 2001: 146–47).Faust has written a comprehensive and insightful study, well illustrated with several maps. It provides the specialist and the wider public with a detailed analysis and explicit interpretations of the evidence. This publication is currently the best summary of the Assyrian era in the southern Levant and will stimulate the ongoing debate and the research of this important period

Ancient history · Empire · Ancient Near East History · Archaeology and Historical Studies · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · History

Tools

Open DOI