Pax Assyriaca: The Process of Assyrianization and

the Effects of
Assyrian Imperial policies at Tel
Beersheba

Course: Pots & People Ceramic Tech., Typology and Sociology in the
Bronze and Iron
Ages 1671400901
Seminar Paper

Gennadiy Shoykhedbrod

921435905

Table of Contents:

Introduction
Assyrian Ideology and Pax Assyriaca
Phoenician Vessels at Beersheba
Edomite Assyrian Pottery
Rise and Fall
Conclusion
Bibliography

3
3
5
7
11
12
14

Introduction
There seems to be a continuous dispute amongst scholars in defining the effects of
Assyrian Colonialism in the late eighth and seventh century BCE Palestine. Academics
such as Nadav Naaman (2003: 81-91) and Avraham Faust (2011: 62-86) have argued
against the notion of an Assyrian socio-economic and political prosperity in Palestine
during the Iron IIB epoch.1 Additionally, Naaman and Thareani-Sussely (2006: 62) and
Parpola (2004: 5-9) have characterized Assyrianization as a form of an ancient colonial
practice.2 However, based on archaeological evidence from Judah, Philistia, and the
Southern Levant, the concept of Assyrianization and colonialism doesnt seem to hold
certainty. This paper will provide a description for Pax Assyriaca and present a specific
case study based on Assyrian-Edomite and Phoenician pottery from Beersheba in order to
define the Assyrian influence on prosperity of Southern Palestine during the Iron IIB
epoch.
Assyrian Ideology and Pax Assyriaca
Obviously, like other imperial concepts, the term Assyrianization has a derogatory
classification. There is a, long standing historical bias that surrounds the Assyrian
empire, seen as a uniquely remorseless warmongering and bloodthirsty military
machine, bent on a single purpose of spreading chaos through out the Near East (Fales
2008: 17). Moreover, Faust (2011: 78) argues that economic development occurred in
Judah and Philistia not due to Assyrian influence, but in spite of it. Parpola (2004: 5-22)
1 Iron IIB dating is based on artifacts found at a particular stratum in the

eighth and seventh century BCE (see Fantalkin and Tal 2009: 194-200)
2 According to Parpola, Assyrianization is characterized as the empires
exploitive methods and policies in establishing a uniform identity for the sole
necessities of the empire (see Parpola 2004: 5-22)

takes the concept even further by asserting that the Assyrian mission was to establish a
unified Assyrian identity.3 However, this description proves to be exaggerated and
erroneous. In contrast to the assertion of Faust (2011: 62-86), one can refer to the opinion
of Fales (2008: 17-35) and Berlijung (2012: 23-59).4 Assyrianization (according to the
Assyrians) was the desired state of law, order, security, and the allowance of imperial
civilians and local clients to pursue daily economic activities without any interference
(Fales 2008: 18).
This imperial system of diplomatic tolerance allowed continuous peace for the
Assyrians as well as its vassal kingdoms in the region. The Assyrians had a profit motive
towards maximizing economic production (Berlijung 2012: 29-32; Fales 2008; Dalley
2004) and military conquest proved to be inefficient.5 The military realism behind
Assyrianization is that war and military conquest drains imperial resources and
establishing peace with foreign provinces was the economic objective of Assyrian policy.
The Assyrian armies devastated foreign lands if those kingdoms proved to be a military
threat to the empire (eighth century Samaria and Judah during the Hezekiah rebellion).6
Additionally, the Assyrian aim was to leave a mark on international relations, expand rule
over wide territories and many peoples, conduct economic policies essentially for the
empire, and to build cultural bridges between the homeland and the outer provinces
(Falles 2008: 28) for the purpose of economic gain. Unlike Samaria and Urartu, the
vassal states such as Judea, Philistia, and the kingdoms of Transjordan were not under a
3 Berlijung (2012) compares Parpolas (2004) description of Assyrianization

to twentieth century European colonialism.

4 For further details see Singer-Avitz (1999: 3-74; 2002: 110-215; 2007: 182203; 2010: 188-189).
5 Although Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria, Sennacherib allowed the
Davidic Dynasty continue to reign (see 2 Kings 18-19).
6 See also Finkelstein and Silberman 2006: 21-22.

direct military control (Knauf-Belleri 1995: 114) and therefore were allowed to remain
autonomous. Although Faust (2011: 77) might be correct in that the Assyrians demanded
taxes and tribute from their vassals in exchange for survival, his assertion that the
Assyrians did not provide economic diplomacy to its vassals is inaccurate. The empire
relied on the employment of the sheikhs of semi-nomadic tribes from the Sinai and
Philistia to oversea the trade routes between Palestine and Egypt (Elat 1978: 20-22;
Byrne 2003: 11-25). These cross local-imperial relationships were already present in the
mid-eighth century (Byrne 2003: 19-22). In addition to producing diplomatic
relationships with nomadic tribes, Assyrian dominance relied heavily from supporting
vassals and in return the Assyrian kings installed local vassal leaders.7 David Schloen
(2001: 141-147) disputes the authenticity of a so-called Assyrian economic master plan
and that economic prosperity resulted from the change of a clan-based society to a
household society.8 Although such a theory might sound promising, the shift from a clan
based society to a household union at Ekron originated as a result from the deliberate
Assyrian policy of deportation. After all most of the immigrants living in the outskirts of
Ekron were immigrants from Judah who were forced to settle there due to forced
Assyrian deportation (Scloen 2001: 141).

7 The Assyrians reinstalled Padi as the King of Ekron (in701 BCE) after his release
from Judean captivity. After the Ekronite rebels were crushed and Padi was reinstated,
tribute and taxes from Ekron were continuously paid to Assyria (see Naaman 2003:
83).

8 Before the Assyrian involvement in the region, nomadic societies were

primarily based under a clan or band system. Tributes and taxes to local kings
were paid based on goods and services provided by clans. However,
according to Schloen (2001) taxes were paid to the king of Ekron based on
production of goods conducted by individual households after Assyrian
involvement.

Phoenician vessels at Beersheba

Contrary to Fausts (2011: 77) statement, there is a clear archaeological indication at Tel
Beersheba that signifies commercial activity as a result of Assyrian influence (not in spite
of it). Commercial trade relations between Judah and Phoenicia only began to exist in the
late phase of the Iron IIB (Singer-Avitz 2010: 188). This phenomenon only came to
existence due to the imperial policies of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II (ibid: 188).
Furthermore, evidence shows that political boarders between Southern Judah and
Philistia were accessible during the century of Assyrian Peace (other Near Eastern trade
networks did exist during this era but these notions will not be discussed for the sake of
this papers length).
According to Singer-Avitz (2007: 194-195), Beersheba was a getaway city
exposed to various foreign influences. Excavations from Beersheba Stratum II revealed
pottery assemblages of Phoenician characteristics (Singer-Avitz 2010: 188).9 Many of
these assemblages either originated from the Lebanese coast (Singer-Avitz 2010: 188;
Goren and Halpern 2004) or were of Phoenician imitation. The most prominent of these
assemblages were the Elongated Jars, which were typically found in Tyre (the Lebanese
coast) or from Hazor (Northern Israel). Petrographic analyses of twenty of these vessels
from Stratum II revealed that the material was of Lebanese origin (Singer-Avitz 2010:
189). The clay from twenty of these vessels does not match the material typical of the
Beersheba valley and so an extensive trade organization had to take place during the era
of Assyrian Peace. Furthermore, four hundred such jars were also found in cargo from

9 Beersheba Stratum II-III is dated to the latter half of the eighth century BCE
(for further details see Herzog 2010: 176-179).

two sunken ships of the coast of Ashkelon (Singer-Avitz 2010: 189) suggesting trade
networks between Philistia and the Beersheba valley.
Open bowl fragments with everted rims (which is a characteristic of Phoenician origin)
were also found at Stratum II at Beersehba. Similarly to Elongated jars, Petrographic
analyses conducted by Goren and Halpern (2004: 25532568) from Lachish Stratum III
revealed a context of rendzina material typically associated with soil from the Phoenician
coasts. It is not a coincidence that similar bowls were also found in Ashdod (Dothan
1971: 86). Other bowls found in the stratum contained similar Phoenician imitations but
were made with clay typical from the Beersheba valley (Singer-Avitz 2010: 194).
Regardless if the vessels and assemblages were of Phoenician origin or imitation, a trade
network had to exist. Such evidence would only conclude peaceful relations between the
boarders of Philistia and the Beersheba valley. Most of the pottery of Phoenician origin or
imitation was concentrated at Stratum II (along with Edomite-Assyrian assemblages) and
not a single Phoenician example was found at Stratum III (ibid: 195).10 Of course like
other stratum levels in West Mediterranean archaeology, the transition from stratum III to
II at Beersheba is difficult to label. 11 Nevertheless, the exact dating of the transition from
stratum III to II is not needed in an argument against Faust (2011: 62-86) and Naaman
(2003: 81-91). It is well established that stratum II at Beersheba is dated to the last
decade or two of the eighth century and has a terminus ante quem date at 701 BCE
(Herzog 2010: 177-178). 12 Therefore, it can be recognized that a trade network already
10 For further details on Assyrian-Edomite pottery see Singer-Avitz: 2007.
11 Dating the transition from Beersheba Stratum II to III has been an

academic argument between Herzog (2010: 193-196) and Naaman (2006:

131-161).
12 Stratum II is associated with the destruction of Judah conducted by the
Sennacherib campaign (Herzog 2010: 177-178).

existed between the Phoenician cities, Philistia, and Beersheba during the latter half of
the eighth century (also known as the era of Assyrian Peace). Incorporating trade
networks with the imperial periphery for the sole purpose of gaining profit (mainly from
tributes and taxes) was an economic policy instituted by the empire.
Edomite-Assyrian Pottery at Beersheba
Phoenician pottery assemblages are not the only evidences of an international
trade network from the Beersheba Valley. Other evidence of foreign origin existed in the
same stratum as well. Commerce at Beersheba not only existed with Phoenicia but also
with Egypt, Edom, and Arabia (Singer-Avitz 1999: 3-4). Naaman and Thareani-Sussely
(2006: 61-82) have claimed that vessels of Assyrian imitation found at Beersheba are
actually of Edomite influence and only began to appear in the late seventh century BCE.
We suggest imitation began to no earlier than 7th century, and Assyrian characteristics
in ceramic assemblages at Beersheba were minimal (Naaman and Thareani-Sussley
2006: 61). Although Naaman and Thareani-Sussley (ibid) are correct in elaborating
Edomite influence on pottery in the Beersheba valley, pottery of Assyrian influence is
also evident.
Stratum II contained several assemblages of Edomite origin as well as ceramics that have
characteristics typically associated with Assyrian palace ware. Carinated bowls found at
Beersheba Stratum II were also typically found at Assyrian sites from Northern Iraq and
Syria such as Ninveh, Nimrud, Khirbet Qasrij, and Khirbet Khatuniya (Schneider 1999:
351-354; Curtis and Green 1997: 353-354; Jamieson 2000: 1-8).13 However, most
13 Nimrud is also known as Kalhu. A tomb dating from the late eighth century
BCE contained the bodies of two Assyrian queens identified as Yaba and
Atalya. Both names are of Hebrew origin (see Dalley2004: 387-401 for a full
study on this topic).

Assyrian assemblages found at Beersheba were not actually produced at Assyrian cities
and Naaman and Yifat Thareani Sussley (2006: 61) have claimed that Assyrianization
did not take place in the late eighth century (Beersheba Stratum II). While Singer Avitz
(2007: 185) has insisted that both sub-groups of pottery exists at Beersheba stratum II
(Assyrian and Edomite), Naaman and Thareani Sussley have rejected any Assyrian
characteristics in pottery located within that stratum. The reasoning behind their rejection
seems to be the impossibility of time it would take for the process of assimilation to
occur. In other words the influence of Assyrian artifacts on local material culture, could
not have taken place in the early seventh century BCE because more time would be
needed in order for Assyrianisation to take place (Naaman and Thareani Sussley 2006:
62). However, Naaman and Thareani Sussleys argument is inconsistent due to their
views on Assyrianisation, Colonialism, assimilation, and nationality. Labeling
characteristics of pottery to a particular origin is an attempt to categorize pottery to a
certain nationality, which I do not think was a factor in kingdoms under indirect Assyrian
rule.
First of all, the Assyrians did not institutionalize a direct Assyrian identity upon their
subjects. For example although the Assyrian hegemony has been at constant war with
Aramaic tribes and kingdoms before the eighth century BCE, Aramaic became the
unavoidable official language in communications dealing with business and law within
the empire (Falles 2008: 27). 14 The Assyrians never institutionalized their native
language (Akkadian) upon the empire (ibid: 27) and therefore day-to-day economic
14 Aram Damascus was at constant state of war with the Neo-Assyrian

Empire. Hadadezer united a collation of twelve allies at the Battle of Qarqar

(853 BCE) against the Assyrian armies of Shalmaneser III. Tiglath-Pileser III
sacked Aram-Damascus in 730BCE and incorporated the kingdom into the
Assyrian empire (see Benjamin Mazar 1962).

dealings remained unchanged in kingdoms under indirect rule. Also, the Assyrians had no
intention to force their religion upon their subjects (Berlijung 2012: 33). The
misunderstanding that Assyrian religion was applied upon the empire is based on the
pattern of European colonialism (ibid: 33). Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence that
the Assyrians attempted to implement Assyrianization on other aspects such as pottery.
In fact Assyrian policies encouraged their subjects to continue present practices (without
intervention) and to also adapt the traditions of foreign entities.15 Communities that
became subjects to the empire were encouraged to integrate with foreign deportees (ibid:
48). It seems unreasonable to rely on the chronological dating of the eighth century BCE
based on the amount of Assyrian pottery located at a site if the empire did not require
their subjects to assimilate to Assyrian culture in the first place. Asserting that, local
material culture contradicts studies on the archaeology of colonialism, (Naaman and
Thareani-Sussely 2006: 62) is inaccurate and such perception does not apply to
Beersheba.
Secondly, as a matter of fact Edomite Carinated Bowls found at various sites in
Transjordan are of Assyrian imitation. Assyrian characteristics are noticeable in Edomite
vessel repertoire, which is hardly surprising since Assyrianization is already present in
Edomite material culture (Stern 2001: 288-289; Bennett 1978).16 Additionally, these same
Assyrian style Carinated bowls contain Edomite characteristics as well which proves
15 Limestone Weights were used to measure spices, precious metals, and

other special products in Judah, Philistia, and the Sinai. The distribution of
limestone weights was predominant in the seventh century BCE. It is very
likely that the weight system was adapted from the Egyptians during the era
of Assyrian peace (see Kletter 1991: 121-136; 1998: 49-60; Lipshitz, Sergi,
and Koch 2011: 5-41)
16 Local cultures tended to combine Assyrian influences with traditional
practices. Assyrian architecture and building techniques were adapted with
local traditions in the Kingdom of Gaza starting as early as the late eighth
century BCE (See Oren 1993: 103)

10

that the two material cultures were able to interact (Singer Avitz 2007: 184). Edomites
may have been involved in trade networks with Assyria and simultaneously with Judah
and Egypt, which explains the existence of Edomite-Assyrian pottery in the Beersheba
Valley. Edomite-Assyrian pottery was brought to Beersheba due to its status as a gateway
community along a trade route that connected Egypt with Asia (Singer-Avitz 1999: 60).
Unlike the commonly held belief that Edom was in a hostile relationship with Judah
(Aharoni 1981:150-152), there were peaceful cultural interactions between the two
kingdoms during the century of Assyrian peace (Singer Avitz 1999: 9) and so the way we
perceive nationality may not have been perceived as such in ancient times. The rivals
began to live under hostile conditions only after the Assyrian armies withdrew from the
Southern Levant. This reinforces the theory that the subjects of the Assyrian empire
(under indirect rule) lived in a constant state of law, order, and security. Cultures were
able to intermingle under the Assyrian authority. Therefore, Naaman and ThareaniSusselys labeling of pottery based on nationality is inaccurate.
Rise and Fall
Ironically, the fall of the Assyrian empire was the result of its instability and conflict with
an entity under its direct military rule and supervision. Unlike the lenient policies that
were endured in kingdoms of the empires periphery, the Assyrian administration had
exploited the Babylonian culture, history, and religion for centuries (Fales 2008: 27). The
Assyrians attempted to formalize the Assyrian higher culture as the sum of all past
Sumero-Akkadian knowledge, history, and religion in order to culturally degrade their
centuries-old religious rival Babylonia (ibid: 27). With the Assyrian hegemony over
Babylon, Marduk was removed as the head of the Mesopotamian pantheon and the

11

Babylonian cultic tradition was degraded (Levine 2005: 411-427). Furthermore, it was
Ashur (the head of the Assyrian pantheon) that was elevated to the status of Marduk and
the religious capital shifted from Babylon to the city of Assur (ibid). After the death of
Esarhaddon in 669 BCE, Ashurbanipal was installed to the Assyrian throne while his
older brother Shamash-shum-ukin was arranged as king of Babylon (Macginnis 1988: 3839). During Ashurbanipals reign, the empire was involved in a series of conflicts with
Babylonia including the siege of Babylon in 650 BCE (ibid: 38). 17 Violent confrontations
between the rival kingdoms eventually increased after Ashurbanipals death (627 BCE)
and with the fall of Nineveh in 612 BCE the Neo-Assyrian Empire was ultimately
annihilated two years later (ibid). What lead to the destruction of the Neo-Assyrian
empire was not its lack of direct control on its vassal kingdoms and provinces at its
periphery but more so its direct military control on entities within its boarders.
Conclusion
The study of assimilation and imperialism are modern notions that seem to mimic
European patterns of colonialism. These social constructs tend to be inaccurate when
applying them to theories of Assyrianization and therefore our perception of imperialism
is imprecise. A so-called common Assyrian identity wasnt implemented on the vassals
and continues day-to-day transactions were in fact encouraged so long as taxes and
tributes were compensated to the empire. The Assyrians had a clear motive to maximize
economic profit of the territories they conquered. There hegemony provided the desired
state of law, order, and security not only upon the inner-empire but also to its vassal
kingdoms as well. The prosperous trade network of late eighth-seventh century BCE
17 Babylon was placed under siege in 650 BCE and fell two years later.

Narratives of the war are documented in the Babylonian Chronicles (see

Macginnis 1988: 38).

12

Beersheba valley is a perfect example of the empires management (or perhaps indirect
management) of its vassals in its periphery. Whether of origin or imitation, Phoenician,
Edomite, and Assyrian pottery wares are visible at Tel Beersheba stratum II. However,
classifying pottery types based on a particular nationality at Beersheba is a complicated
procedure that might not always hold truth and should be reexamined.

13

Bibliography
Aharoni, Y. 1981. AradInscriptions.Jerusalem..
Berlejung, A. 2012. The Assyrians in the West: Assyrianization, Colonialism,
Indifference, or Development Policy. In: Nissinen, M., ed. Congress Volume
Helskinki Leiden and Boston: 23-59.
Byrne, R. 2003. Early Assyrian Contacts with Arabs and the Impact on
Levantine
Vassal Tribute. BASOR 331: 11-25.
Curtis, L and Green, A. 1997. ExcavationsatKhirbetKhatuniye
Saddam Dam Report 11. London.
Dalley, S. 2004. Recent evidence from Assyrian sources for Judaean history from
Uzziah
to Manasseh. JSTOT, 28.4: 387-401.
Dothan, M. 1971. AshdodIIIII:TheSecondandThirdSeasonsofExcavations1963,
1965,Soundingsin1967Atiqot 910. Jerusalem.
Elat, M. 1978. The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with Egypt.
JAOS 98: 20-34.
Fales, F. 2008. On Pax Assyriaca in the Eighth-Seventh Centuries BCE and Its
Implications, In: Cohen, R. and Westbrook, R., Eds. Isaiahs Vision of
Peace in
Biblical and Modern International Relations: Swords into
Plowshares.
Hampshire: 17-35.
Faust, A. 2011. The Interests of the Assyrian Empire in the West:
Olive Oil Production as
A Test-Case. Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient 54: 62-86. Fantalkin, A. and Tal, O. 2009. Re-discovering the
Iron Age Fortress at Tell Qudadi in
the Context of the Neo-Assyrian
Imperialistic Policies. PEQ 141:188-206. Finkelstein, Israel, and N. A. Silberman
2006.Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the
Remaking of Jerusalem and the Rise
of the Pan-Israelite Ideology, JSOT 30:
259-285.
Goren, Y. and Halperin, N. 2004. Petrographic
Analysis: Selected Cases. In: Ussishkin,
D. The Renewed Archaeological
Excavations at Lachish 19731994 (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology
of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 25532568.

Herzog Z. 2010. Perspectives on Southern Isaels Cult

Centralization: Arad and
Beer-sheba In: Kratz, Reinhard G., eds. One
God-One Cult-One Nation:
Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives.
Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Fur Die

Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft: 169-199.

Jamieson, A.S. 2000. Identifying Room Use and
Vessel Function. A Case-Study of Iron
Age Pottery from Building C2 at Tell
Ahrnar, North Syria. In: Bunnens, G., ed. EssaysonSyriaintheIronAge(Ancient
Near Eastern Studies Supp. 7). LouvainParis-Sterling, VA: 260-303.
Kletter,Raz.1991.TheInscribedWeightsofthe
KingdomofJudah.TelAviv18:121
163.
Kletter, Raz. 1998. Economic
14

Keystones: the Weight System of the Kingdom of

Sheffield.

Judah.

Knauf-Belleri, E.A. 1995. Edom: the Social and Economic History. In: Edelman, D.Y.
ed. You shall not Abhor an Edomite for He is your Brother: Edom and Seir in
History and Tradition.Atlanta: 93-118.
Levine,B.A.2005.AssyrianideologyandIsraeliteMonotheism.
Iraq67.1:411427
Lipschits, O., Sergi, O., and Koch I. 2011. Judahite Stamped and Incised Jar Handles: A
Tool for Studying the History of Late Monarchic Judah. Tel Aviv 38: 5-41
MacGinnis,J.D.1988.CtesiasandtheFallofNineveh.
IllinoisClassicalStudies13.1:3742.
Mazar,B.1962.TheArameanEmpireanditsrelationswithIsrael.BA25.4:98120.
Naaman, N. 2003. Ekron Under the Assyrian and Egyptian Empires.
BASOR 332: 81-91.
Naaman, N. 2006. The King Leading Cult Reforms in his Kingdom: Josiah and
Kings in the Ancient Near East. In: Amit, Y., Ben Zvi, E., Finkelstein, I.,
and Lipscits, O., eds. Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near
Eastern Context. United States: 131-168.
Na'aman, N. and Thareani-Sussely, Y. 2006. Dating the Appearance of Imitations of
Assyrian Ware in Southern Palestine. Tel Aviv 33.1: 61-82.
Oren, Eliezer D. 1993. Ethnicity and Regional Archaeology. The
Western Negev under Assyrian Rule. Pp. 102-105 in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990,
Proceedings of
the 2nd International Congress of Biblical Archaeology, eds. A.
Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Parpola, S. 2004. National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian
Identity in Post-Empire times. Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies
18.2: 5-22 Schloen,J.D.2001.TheHouseoftheFatherasfactandsymbol:
Patrimonialismin
UgaritandtheancientNearEast.WinonaLake:141147.
Schneider, E. 1999. "Assyrische" Schalen aus Tell Shaikh Hassan (Syrien) undihre
Stellung innerhalb der Keramik des assyrischen Einflussgebietes. In: Hausleiter,
A. and Reiche, A.,eds. IronAgePotteryinNorthernA1esopotamia.Northern
SyriaandSouthEasternAnatolia.Munster: 347-375.
Singer-Avitz, L. 1999. Beersheba: A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian
Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 26.1: 3-74.
Singer-Avitz, L. 2002. Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages.
Tel Aviv 29.: 110-215.
Singer-Avitz, L. 2007. On Pottery in Assyrian Style: A Rejoinder.
Tel Aviv 34.2: 182-203.
Singer-Avitz, Lily 2010. A Group of Phoenician Vessels from Tel Beersheba.
Tel Aviv 37.2: 188-199.

15

16