ASSYRIAN TREATIES:“PATCHWORK”TEXTS*

Michela Piccin

North-West University (NWU),SA

ABSTRACTS The article offers a linguistic and stylistic analysis of the Neo-Assyrian treaties culled from the SAA II (1988).The analysis focuses on defining scribal procedures in building up the text,which may then be conclusively labelled as a“patchwork.”Proceeding through the preamble,list of witnesses,and content,I explore a range of sampling which demonstrates the substantially fixed–albeit expandable–structure of the treaties’ texts.I argue that this evidence shows that the structure of the treaties’ texts had a great communicative efficacy thanks to its standardized character,as well as facilitated the scribes’ editorial work.The fixed nature of these texts was also related to the principles of the legal tradition,which itself was adapted to the historical and political circumstances of the Neo-Assyrian period.

1.Introduction:1Near Eastern abbreviations follow the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and the Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Arch?ologie,whereas the classical ones follow the Oxford Classical Dictionary. adê

The termadêrefers to the oaths of allegiance given by vassals to the Assyrian king.These date from roughly 750/610 BC2Primarily,these treaties date back to the 7th century,the apogee of Assyrian power,under Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal,as well as one each from the 8th and 9th centuries.None has remained intact from Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II,even though other sources and evidence suggest that these materials were used to structure relations between Assyria and other states.See Grayson 1987,131.These texts enclose Tiglath-pileser III 12 3’;20 18’;21 12’;22 8’b;35 i 21’;47 19b (as enumerated by Hayim Tadmor and Shigeo Yamada 2011);in Sennacherib’s inscriptions,Padi was constrained to him by oath (Sennacherib 4 42 and parallels,in Grayson and Novotny 2012).and are thought to be bi-lateral in nature.They were characterised by a highly centralised component,which defined extremely unbalanced and unilateral agreements,and made provision for a vassal’s unconditional dedication whether they were related to“foreign policy”3The oldest treaty,namely the one between am?i-Adad V (823–811 BC) and the king of Babylon Marduk-zakir-?umi,is the exception.Although it is somewhat fragmentary,it attests to military and diplomatic clauses,and (uniquely) sees the Assyrian king in a position of slight political and diplomatic inferiority.See Fales and Lanfranchi 2006,513.or“domestic policy.”4For more on the socio-historical background of these texts,see Fales 2001,212–213.For more on the study of the ideology and terminology of policing in ancient Israel and the Near East,see McCarthy’s book 1981,esp.106–153,and his article of 1979.The book,although dated,remains still useful to consult.It is structured in two sections:the first considers the different types of treaties attested in the Near East,while the second compares those treaties with the Hebrew version.Between the two parallels,the first allows us to capture the specificity of the Assyrian adê with respect to other pacts (both from a formal perspective and in terms of content),while the second concerns the originality of the Eastern neighbour’s agreement with respect to the Hebrew version.

Compared with international treaties (SAA II,1,2,4,5,9,10),a greater number of loyalty oaths (SAA II,3,6,7,8,11,12,13) are known to us,with some even having multiple copies,such as the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon,which is almost intact and found in at least nine manuscripts.

The treaties were sworn in (),and their eventual non-compliance was defined as“to sin”().adê,although not an original Akkadian term (a loanword from Aramaic ‘dy–plural construct state <‘dn),supplanted the indigenous terminology used previously in light of its predominance during the Neo-Assyrian imperial period.5On Akkadian adê as a West Semitic loanword,see Pardee 1978 (in his review of J.C.L.Gibson.Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions.vol.2: Aramaic Inscriptions,Including Inscriptions in the Dialect of Zenjirli) 1978,196.See also Parpola 1987,180–183,where he stresses that the terminological choice reflects the ebb and flow of international relations rather than the adoption of a specified treaty form.

Within this article,I will translateadêas“treaty”when it concerns peace,alliance,commerce,or other international relations among states,and as“oath”when it concerns loyalty,not among states,but among members of the royal family as well as royal palace staff.6Lauinger 2013,101,n.9,and 103.

2.Structural Components of adê

To analyse these texts,I predominantly used the edition by Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe (1988,called SAA II)7These texts are also available online at:http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/saa02 (20.12.2019).–with exception of certain variations that are based on successive studies8The monumental text in three volumes is by Kitchen and Laurence 2012.My gratitude goes to David Warburton for this bibliographic reference,as well as for having given me the opportunity to teach these texts alongside him in a course at IHAC that was open to all interested students and in which it was possible to discuss some of the ideas that are presented here in written form.or my own translations.SAA II consists of 14 texts;9The set of texts edited in SAA II constitutes only a small portion of an undoubtedly larger set of documents drawn up by the Neo-Assyrian rulers.Radner 2006,351–378.In fact,many treaties recorded on papyrus and leather were burned during the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC,and the numerous writings on clay were mostly destroyed in the ruins of the Assyrian palaces and elsewhere.See Parpola and Watanabe 1988,xii–xxv.For this reason,with exception of the few existing texts published in SAA II,only fragments are preserved.all of these are treaties,with exception of SAA II 14,which is a royal inscription.

I have considered all 13 treaty texts detailed in the table below,although SAA II,12 and 13 are too fragmentary to provide any useful detail.

Table 1

Based on texts that are very fragmented,it is difficult to unequivocally reconstruct their structure.However,SAA II,6 serves as a structural prototype.

As Hayim Tadmor10Tadmor 1990,17–36.has clearly pointed out,using SAA II,6 as a prototype appears to be devoid of foundation because,lacking comparison parameters,it is not possible to define a prototype.However,to clarify the distinctive components of the treaties,I will focus on SAA II,6,as it provides a complete depiction of the components.

Table 2

Theadêcontent is undoubtedly the component that varies the most in any text,and this aspect has been privileged by historical analyses,12See the article by Radner 2019.Please refer to it for the previous bibliography on the topic.as it is useful for reconstructing the socio-political climate.However,to express the concepts,which vary from time to time,and to ensure that the speech is effective,it is appropriate to make highly accurate choices on the formal guise.

Consequently,theadês,while possessing precise textual components,are not crystallised forms,but forms capable of acknowledging the demands of the socio-political climate,and of reformulating themselves.While studies on the historical implications and the structure of these texts are far more common,this is not the case,to date,when it comes to investigation of the formal guise of this textual typology.This is thus the goal of my analysis.

I cannot focus on all of the various components shown in the chart,and will,therefore,consider the following components in this paper:(i) preamble,specifically how the king created his credentials thanks to his royal titles (3);(ii) lists of witnesses (human and divine),namely with whom the king stipulated the agreement(4);and (iii) prohibitions,obligations,and curses,i.e.the content of the treaties (5).

To develop these points,I will consider all the titles preserved (3),as there are not many and they consist of only a few words;for the witness lists (4) and the content (5),however,I will utilise only a sample of data,from which an argument on the entire corpus of the treaties can be extrapolated.

Considering this theme,I have studied their form as well as formulae13To recall the title of the workshop I co-organised with Sven Günther (“Forms and Formulas or Forms and Formulas of Narrating? New Approaches to Standardized Elements in Documentary Sources”) for the 64th RAI.I thank him for offering me the opportunity to cooperate with the organisation of the first Chinese panel at RAI,which was an experience with great benefit to me.in diachrony and synchrony,in order to argue the principle of“patchwork.”I adopted this term–never used previously by others–since these texts are composed of small segments (each of which is complete in itself),which are then integrated into an overall design,thus creating a“patchwork”text.

As far as I know,no comparable study has ever been attempted,however this could be successfully applied to other treaties14This analysis could also be applied to the Tell Taynat text (T-1801).See Lauinger 2012 for the editio princeps.See also his successive article 2013.This discovery,along with Lauinger’s publications,led to new publications in which Neo-Assyrian specialists brought out their updated views on Esarhaddon’s succession treaty:Fales 2012;Ponchia 2014;Watanabe 2014;2015.as well as to other text types.Consequently,my argument may serve as a stimulus for studies to come.15I am thankful to the two anonymous peer-reviewers for their suggestion to extensively investigate this,both in a monograph and in further articles.

3.Preamble:How Does the King Create his Credentials?

In the opening section,there are the royal titles.These are used to identify the king who stipulated the treaty,through the essential components (name,patronymic,epithets,etc.).

Unfortunately,due to the fragmentary nature of our corpus,only four treaties attest to this portion.

Table 3

Based on these contexts,we can deduce the following basic structure.16Hallo 1996,192:“The simple title of ?king? or ?king of the city of X? developed by stages into ever more elaborate forms reflecting the greater extent of the royal power,both geographically and politically.”The title is built in parallel through two three-part-segments,presenting the first component as different (respectively,their own name and surname),while the second and third components are identical (i.e.charge and country).

Table 4

This proposed basic/primary structure is attested only in SAA II,5.Here,the name of the king is (A??ur-ahu-iddina“Esarhaddon”),and the patronymic is(mār S?n-ahhe-eriba“son of Sennacherib”),while the identical components are:the charge (?arru“king”) and the country (Māt-A??ur“Assyria”) over which the sovereign has authority.

In SAA II,6,there is again this parallelism,but there is also an expansion,following the variable components–the epithet?ar ki??ati“king of the world.”17The counterpart is mentioned in the list of contractors,only by the name and without royal titles.This highlights once more that the Assyrian treaties were unilateral agreements.?ar ki??aticould be interpreted as a magniloquent expression,but also from a historical perspective it could be seen as the symptom of having consolidated the boundaries.18During the reign of Esarhaddon,there were only a few military campaigns aimed at controlling the territories in their possession.See Fales 2001,8.Moreover,it hints at the respective communication with the treatypartner.

Table 5

It is no coincidence that the title of the Mesopotamian sovereigns reflects the historical reality;in fact,it was less random and arbitrary than is generally believed.19Cifola 1995,2:“Considerations of style further account for the variants in the titulary since the scribe strained to somehow innovate within the stereotyped repertoire of titles and epithets traditionally portrayed the royal ideology.”Assyrian sovereigns,since the beginning of their origins,bore certain specific epithets only after the realisation of certain enterprises or the effective achievement of objectives that were“traditionally”linked to the possession of that title.20Concerning the evolution of the genre,see Galter 1997 and Renger 1981.For more on the diachronic perspective of the genre,see Cifola 1995.Moreover,the juxtaposition of king of the world+king of Assyria appears to be focused on the heart of the empire (Māt-A??ur) after an overview of the broad royal domains.

In addition to expansions,the basic structure may undergo variations.Only two treaties function like this:SAA II,8,and SAA II,11.I begin with SAA II,11,since SAA II,8 is so peculiar and represents anunicum.

Table 6

If there was a parallel in the basic structure between the two segments and the only difference was the first component,this case would clearly be asymmetrical.The variation lies in the lack of the emphatic epithet“king of the world.”After the reign of Ashurbanipal (his father),the Assyrian empire suffered a considerable narrowing of its borders,losing the hegemonic power over Mesopotamia.21The end of the kingdom of Ashurbanipal,as well as the later period,is not well documented.However,it does show a strong instability,as clearly evidenced by the numerous figures who contested the throne of Assyria.Among these,S?n-?ar-i?kun (subject of the agreement,the object of analysis) was on the throne at the time of the fall of Nineveh (612 BC).See Postgate 1992,247–263.

Based on the aforementioned case,the royal titles are clearly a reflection of this historical change,while the epithets also have a denotative function,rather than being merely ornamental.22Saddam Hussein’s propaganda recalls that of the ancient Mesopotamian kings.As president,Saddam adopted Nebuchadnezzar as a model and Babylon as a pillar when creating his personality cult.At the annual Babylon festival,lasers would illuminate the sky with pictures of portraits of President Saddam alongside the ancient king.At the peak of the Iran-Iraq war,he directed millions of dollars into a project to improve Babylon,by ordering a consignment of millions of new bricks to build 60-foot high walls–a simplified replica of the ancient buildings.Many of the bricks bear a title according to ancient patterns:“At the time of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq,the protector of Greater Iraq and the reproducer of his awakening and the builder of his civilization.”These features are key–indeed,every communication must be able to make the narrator believable,as a speaker who lacks credibility was not listened to.For this reason,the royal titles allow us to establish a fruitful cooperation between the reader/speaker and the listener,as they correspond to what is plausible.

The collective performance involved representatives of the people along with the lesser king who would have had to read the entire treaty and take the oath.The great king did not travel to every location to supervise this process.It was common practice to send representatives,such as“the statue of Esarhaddon”(as mentioned in SAA II,6 for example),as a proxy to preside over these oaths.Of course,it was common practice to have statues of gods placed nearby,as well as in temples,as witnesses.23See Freire 2017,663–687 and Holland 2009,79,172,230.See also Holloway 2002,270–277.

A significant example of the denotative function of epithets are the royal titles within Zaqutu’s Treaty.

Table 7

This is a unique case in which the“author”was a woman,a foreigner,and,furthermore,a concubine of the harem of Sennacherib.Thanks to a remarkable turn of events,she became queen24To legitimise her position and support her son and grandson,Zaqutu adopted various attitudes of the royal class,such as writing and receiving letters,granting donations to temples,managing their assets,etc.In addition,to publicise her new status,she promoted the construction of buildings.This was the most common way for sovereigns in Assyria to propagate their status.Concerning her architectural and figurative system,see Melville 1999,86.–however,she acted in favour of her son(Esarhaddon) and grandson (Ashurbanipal),and in this treaty in particular she aims to ensure the rise to the throne of Ashurbanipal.Zaqutu was not the true mother of Ashurbanipal,but with every other blood relative dead,it fell to her to ensure the perpetuation of the dynasty.

For this reason,she needed credible titles more than any other royal.25The treaty is the apex and the end of her political career.After this episode there is no information on her administrative,social or religious life.See Melville 1999,31–77.Her royal title has the usual parallelism,although the difference between this and the basic structure (as SAA II,5,1–2) is substantial.Firstly,the queen changed her name and adopted the name Zaqutu (the Akkadian translation of her real Aramaic name Naqia,meaning“pure”26Stem qattil built upon the root NQ’+ā feminine ending belonging to the Western Semitic.The lack of doubling may be related to the Akkadian orthography.),since she wanted to appear Assyrian and hide her foreign origin–or she could also present herself as being truly Assyrian,since many would have known that she was a foreigner.Secondly,the epithetsēkallītu(“palace woman”)27This indicates Zaqutu as the widow of her royal consort,whereas ummu is the common term indicating a woman in relation to offspring,i.e.physical motherhood.The term ummu does not have the broadest meaning of“grandma”(ummu ummi).See AHw,1416–1417.andummu(“mother”),which were customised titles,gave her the role of head of the household.28By comparing the titles of the oath with the royal inscriptions,I have noted that in the same place there is another epithet:sinni?at ēkalli (MI2.E2.GAL),“palace woman,”meaning“queen.”This difference again documents that the titles reflect the historical reality and that Sennacherib was still alive at the time of the writing of the present inscription.It is difficult to understand the use of the term MI2.E2.GAL as“[...] we are not sure MI2.E2.GAL whether the term was only used by the queen whether or it could be used by other harem women as well (women who had borne the king children,for instance).”Melville 1999,19.Finally,the component:queen+Assur is lacking,while mentioning the sovereignty of her husband and her son.29To promote their status within the title,the sovereigns recall the past through their genealogy and highlight their dominion over the land of Assyria by dynastic succession;Zaqutu,on the other hand,mentions the present through her royal kinship (in chronological order:husband,son,and nephew)and recalls their dominion over the land of Assyria.This means that sovereignty over the territory was only ever exercised by the king,even if he dies.The queen joins him,but she does not replace him.

It follows that the treaties we read today were produced for the needs of the moment,with the wording carefully chosen.They are not random collections of epithets strung together without reason.30For obvious reasons concerning the bibliographical references henceforth given,relating to the contributions to the study of compositional and editorial processes of Assyrian royal inscription,I will be extremely selective.Concerning royal titles,see Cifola 1995.For the usage of numbers and qualifications in royal inscriptions,see De Odorico 1995.On the building inscriptions,see Lackenbacher 1983,and Oded 1982 on the justification for war.This finding has the potential to inform the study of epithets in other types of documents produced by the Neo-Assyrian court,such as royal inscriptions,where there is a debate over precisely this point,i.e.,whether the epithets were carefully chosen or not.

From the previous paragraphs,we see that studying titles is equivalent to studying presentation methods of the“speaker.”Each epithet,charged with a denotative value,attributes a precise characteristic to the sovereign (subject to the treaty).Studying the presentation models serves to recover the peculiarity of the“speaker,”i.e.sovereign,and highlight the clichés.

By clichés I mean here those epithets attested in the titles,but which frequently recur in the body of the treaty,reaffirming certain characteristics of the sovereign.These are:the charge of the sovereign+the country where the lordship is exercised(?arMāt-A??ur“king of Assyria”),and the blood ties (mār ?arri+rabiu+“eldest king’s son on the house of succession,”meaning“crown prince”).

These clichés occur at the end of each pactional clause and serve to underline the identity of the sovereign who entered into the deed.By comparing the occurrences of the three clichés studied,with those of the international treaties and those of the succession oaths,I infer a greater insistence of the formula?ar Māt-A??ur(charge+country) in the international treaties,and on the other hand greater attention is paid to blood ties (expressed throughmār ?arri) in succession oaths.

Furthermore,the comparison shows that the?arMāt-A??uris attested both in the treaties and in the oaths,while the clichésmār ?arriare present only in the latter.Through the?arMāt-A??ur,the sovereignty of the king over Assyria is highlighted,whilemār ?arriemphasize the need to protect the ruling house (in both its existence and its perpetuation).

The presence of the clichés in SAA II,6,SAA II,8 and SAA II,9 clearly exemplifies the above,albeit in different ways.

SAA II,6,being the longest treaty,attests to the greatest number of occurrences of the three clichés studied.In particular,the accentuated insistence on the formulaemār ?arridocuments the essence of the pact:legitimising the succession of Esarhaddon.Moreover,the constant mention of the formulae at the beginning of each pactional clause serves to incontrovertibly identify Esarhaddon.

SAA II,9 is the treaty that presents the greatest number of attestations of?ar Māt-A??ur“king of Assyria”in proportion to its length.This insistence is linked to Ashurbanipal’s need to secure his lordship over northern Babylon,whenama?-?umu-ukin (his brother) broke the Zaqutu treaty (652),aggregating the Chaldean tribes of the anti-Assyrian function zone.

SAA II,6 and SAA II,9 are proposed as model,whereas SAA II,8 represents a particular case,although one that nonetheless supports what has been said so far.It is particular because,although it is a succession oath,it attests not to the specific clichés (mār ?arri),but to the formulae of the international treaties“king of Assyria”(?arMāt-A??ur).

This peculiarity is explained by the fact that,since SAA II,8 was written by queen Zaqutu for her nephew,Ashurbanipal,the clichés (mār ?arri) could not be used to legitimise his lordship,but only that of?arMāt-A??ur“king of Assyria.”This formula,already present in the title next to the name of his grandfather Sennacherib and the father Esarhaddon,again shows the recurrence of the titles/epithets in the body of the oath to strengthen his lordship.

On the basis of the aforementioned discussion,it can be deduced that theadêis adaptable to the type of stipulation whether it is inherent in“foreign policy”or“domestic policy,”by changing its formulae.31For“foreign policy,”?ar Māt-A??ur,whereas for“domestic policy,”mār ?arri rabiu ?a bēt rēdti.The proven effectiveness ofadêin managing international relations meant that it was also adopted to steady internal relations.The evolution of theadê,from an“exterior”means of control to an“internal”one,would be completed by Esarhaddon.32See Fales 2001,222–243.

4.Lists of Witnesses:Who is the Audience of the Treaties?

Directly following the royal titles,33I assume that this is the most appropriate collocation according to most of the treaties’ attestations.However,note no.2 presents the list of gods for adjuration at the end of the treaty.This feature,along with the dialects and ductus,make no.2 a very peculiar text.there is a section with a list of names,both human names and divine names.34A small note on terminology:“list of gods”pertains to at least three divine names strung together in treaties,royal inscriptions,and other administrative records.It is distinct from“godslists,”which pertain to the scribal lexical tradition.See Allen 2013,2,n.3.These two lists detail both the human and divine audience of the treaty.35It is worth bearing in mind the key-terminology for the purposes of this section:enumeratio,and gradatio,and to some extent also accumulatio.It should be noted that definitions of these figures of speech differ in each textbook.Here I refer to the authoritative works of classical rhetoric by Lausberg 1960,§§ 669–674;1967,§§ 298–305.

In the specific case of the treaties,it is only possible to re-construct texts:2,5,6,8,9,10,and 11,due to the fragmentary nature of the texts,as is clearly shown in the charts below.

Table 8

Table 9

The former list consists of the contractors with whom the sovereign signs the pact,while the latter list consists of the supreme guarantor of the oath.

The lists of treaties do not only serve a practical purpose–like the lists of foodstuffs,words,etc.that are highly numerous in Mesopotamia36A discussion on lists and their purposes in Mesopotamia can be found in Wasserman forthcoming.Gratitude is expressed to him here for providing me with the paper,despite not being published yet.In addition to this,see Watkins 1986,351–356.–they are functional to the text into which they are embedded.

The lists of treaties identify the parties particiating in the accord.They also conveyed erudite information (as can clearly be seen from the SAA II texts,where the appearance of planets or stars at the beginning of the list of deities fits the religious directions of the period37See Oppenheim 1969.);however,they were not even merely decorative.

They were powerful intellectual containers,into which the individual items listed reverberate with broad cultural implications.This is what made them so appreciated by their audiences.38As regards lists across several different cultures,see Eco 2019.The volume was published for the first time on the occasion of the“Vertiges de la lists”exhibition organized by Umberto Eco at the Musée du Louvre in 2009.The exhibition embodied the theme in an array of expressive arts:sculpture,painting,writing,etc.

The list of human contractors,if the text is intact,is in the lines following the preamble.This is introduced by the conjunction:issi(TA)“with,”together with their name,charge and city.39No.11,although extremely fragmentary,presents the basic wording above:preposition issi+name of the contractors,one next to the other.Despite not being well preserved,no.5 also attests the basic wording,expansion,and variation mentioned briefly above.The basic wording,expansion,and variation above are also featured in no.8 with few changes.Consanguineous brothers are mentioned,namely the twin and ama?-metu-uballi,then non-consanguineous siblings and relatives,followed by the tycoons,rulers,servants,the people who frequent the palace,and finally the citizens of Assur,old and young.

Table 10

The contractors were explicitly named in the treaty because they were presumably present at the time of signing.The stipulation of the treaty (most likely part of a ritual40In this regard,very little is known,except for the ritual actions that accompanied the signing of the treaty.See Faraone,1993,60–80.) had,as its fulcrum,the oral and public commitment of the contractors.41Porter 1995,15–72.See also Lawson 1994,112.

Consequently,the list of witnesses in the treaty served as a tool to ensure compliance of the copy with the original,given that the contractors were the only ones who had witnessed the first signing of the pact.42The human audience can be reconstructed,moreover,on the basis of the pronominal deixis.I leave,as a starting point for future research,the rather interesting analysis of the treaties’ deixis.

After the names of signatories were mentioned,the names of sons and grandsons were also written in order to bind blood relatives who were perhaps not present during the stipulation.

Table 11

To be more precise,this indicates its supreme sovereignty (qātē?u) over those people,then indicates the space and time coordinates.

Table 12

In the following section the previous concept is taken up by elaborating on the observance ofadêfrom that moment on.

7ammar A??ur-ahu-iddina ?ar Māt-A??ur ?arrūtu bēlūtu

8ina muhhī?unu uppa?ūni

9issīkunu issi mār’ēkunu mār mār’ēkunu

10?a urki adê ana ūmē ati ibba??ni

11?a ina muhhi A??ur-bani-apli mār ?arri rabiu ?a bēt rēdti mār A??ur-ahu-iddina

12?ar Māt-A??ur ?a ina muhhī?u adê issīkunu i?kunūni

“All those on whom Esarhaddon,king of Assyria,carries out kingship and lordship,(with) you,your sons and your grandsons who will be born in days to come after this oath,concerning Ashurbanipal,the eldest king’s son on the house of succession,son of Esarhaddon,king of Assyria,on behalf of whom he has concluded this oath with you.”

(SAA II,6,7–12)

The expansion,accorded to space and time coordinates in terms of the past (rabiu)and the present (),now includes the future,and mentions the grandsons who will be born in the days following the treaty.

Table 13

Here,the contractors section ends,and the end is represented by a line marked on the tablet’s surface.43There are no links between these units,so the etched line had the dual function of keeping the textual parts in place as well as marking the beginning of a new unit.The“patchwork”principle can also be successfully applied to the materiality of writing.Only a clue was offered here above,due to space constraints.

Although it is only SAA II,6 that attests a list of divine names44Fil rouge of the first six gods is a specific collocation in ancient texts,as can clearly be seen from the sequence of multiples of ten connected with each god.Anu=60;Enlil=50;Ea=40;S?n=30;ama?=20;Adad=10.The first-tier gods are connected with the higher numbers,whereas the second-tier gods are connected with the lower three.These gods regularly recur in mythological texts,as well as in royal inscriptions.See Barré 1983,8 (with bibliography).–immediately after the names of the contractors–the gods undoubtedly constituted a certain presence at the time of the agreement,so much so that once sealed and sworn before them,the legal act became sacred and inviolable.45For another perspective on the intersection of the ancient Near Eastern treaties’ tradition with that of the Greek,see Barré 1983 and 1985.

The list of gods’ names46In this corpus,the lists of gods commence with the chief deity (or deities),who are followed by the first-tier deities,Anu,Enlil and Ea,as well as the second-tier deities,S?n,ama?,and Adad.These are followed by lower-tier deities:warrior deities,their consorts,and independent goddesses.Barré 1983,25–26.Sebittu (i.e.Pleiades) concludes any list of Assyrian deities in which they occur.Also,the chief deities of Babylon (i.e.Marduk and Nab) and their consorts often are attested between the second-tier deities and the lower-tier gods and independent goddesses in these contexts.Barré 1983,19.begins withina pān“in the presence of,”and the names are juxtaposed in an asyndetic way.47The divine lists that have come down to us:nos.6,9 and 10.No.8 omits it.The longest list is attested in no.6,whereas nos.9 and 10 attest only the adjuration formulae.Precisely,no.9,being damaged,attests only adjuration formulae;no.10 has no damages in that textual portion,but omits it.The basic structure has two names,whereas the expansion has one or two more.48To corroborate the main body,SAA II,9 r.5’–25’ list of deities is an unicum.According to Allen and Barré’s observations,this is a mix of traditional curses as well as the list of gods’ patterns.It is a treaty between brothers:Ashurbanipal (in Assyria) and ama?-?umu-ukin (in Babylon).The Assyrian chief deity,A??ur,starts the list followed by Babylonian chief deities Marduk and Nab.Next,second-tier deities occur,followed by the warrior deities and three independent goddesses.As the consort of the Babylonian chief,the deities are first and independent goddesses second.See also Allen 2013,6,n.14.

Table 14

Several planets are mentioned (a celestial semblance of the deities) in accordance with the astral interests of the king.The five planets visible are followed by the star Sirius,whose movements,at the time,served to support the prediction of equinoxes and solstices.49See Oppenheim 1969,97–135.

Following Assur,the three deities of the celestial“paths”are attested,Anu,Enlil,Ea,and finally the Moon and the Sun.50Following Barré 1983 and 1985,Adad is included as part of a triad with S?n (Moon) and ama?(Sun).The rest of the pantheon follows,in a list that was perhaps oriented to the various cult sites of the empire,as can be seen from the many goddesses co-present.

Table 15

The geographical interpretation acquires greater validity at line 20,where the reference to the two I?tars recalls the places of their worship (Nineveh and Arbela).

Table 16

The list of gods ends with three collective statements that are arranged in an ascending climax,in order to involve all the deities not explicitly mentioned.

The first collective expression includes the merism51Merism is a figure of speech in which everything is expressed through extreme terms.It is a polar expression that indicates totality through the mention of the most remote points,e.g.“sky and earth”(Gn 14.19,22;24.3),“day and night,”or to say“forever”and“continuously”(Dt 28.66;Re 8.29;Sal 22.2;88.1)“Good and Evil”(Gn 2–3).More instances in Watkins 1986,321–324 and Wasserman forthcoming.(?amê u qaqqari).By indicating the extremes,it wishes to embrace every god in heaven and on earth.Since this formula is very frequently attested in both literary and nonliterary Akkadian texts,it can be considered a cliché.52Among Akkadian literary texts,see Ee I 1–2 and VI 99–100,whereas among letters see SAA X,225,v.4–7 as well as 227,v.3–9.However,as regarding the treaties,it lends each text an ornate filigree texture,connoting their style as sophisticated with an emphatic aim.

Table 17

To reiterate the concept,reference is made to the primary ethnic groups (Sumer and Akkad) incorporated by Assyria.

Table 18

Finally,all the deities of all countries are mentioned in the most general way possible,in order to include the largest number possible.53The Assyrian deities were indicated before the foreign ones,whether explicitly mentioned or not.If implicitly included,they were evoked by expressions like those above.

Table 19

Immediately following this list,there is a second list related to the adjuration.54In four texts (nos.2,6,9,and 10),an adjuration clause recurs,which is missing in 8.In nos.6,9,and 10 it is located right after the list of deities,whereas in no.2 it is at the end of the record.The clause’s wording varies from text to text,with extremes at no.6 vs.no.10.No.6 has the imperative,whereas no.10 merely names gods without the verb.Similar in wording is no.2,although the verbal form is not the same,i.e.,“you are sworn by the gods.”This wording was well-known in exorcistic literature (e.g.KAR 227 ii 45) in relation to evil demons.Perhaps,the formula turned out effective in that context,and it transferred to these texts.Evil demons could successfully be neutralised by it,so other unfavourable presences could too.It implicitly expresses the Assyrian attitude towards the contract parties:as they look like evil demons to Assyrian eyes.See Parpola and Watanabe 1988,xxxvii–xxxviii.An active role of the contracting parties is to swear by the deities who thus become the supreme guarantors of the oath.

This list of names has several formulae with the same components (deity name,epithets,place,verb) arranged in several ways.The first formula presents the name of the deity with two epithets,and finally the specific verb of the oath().

Table 20

Here,the name of the deity is Assur and the epithets“father of the gods”(ab ilāni) and“lord of the earth”(bēl mātāti) and finally the verb () is properly conjugated.After this line,however,the final verb is no longer written,as it is replaced by the MIN-sign“ditto.”In spite of this,during the oath,it was most likely read aloud by the contractors.55A further variation of the second sentence is found within no.2,r.7–12,where the double repetition of the verb (tam),which divides the same line into two parts,is attested.

The second formulation juxtaposes the names of three or four gods.

Table 21

The sentence is proceeded by accumulation;in fact,the names of the deities follow one another in an asynthetic way,and each sentence should end with the verb,suitably conjugated.

Until the formula above,the celestial gods appear one after another–however,from the following formula onwards,there are earthly ones,along with their places of worship.These can be mentioned with the generic name of the city (ālu),the different proper names of the cities (Babylon,Borsippa,Nippur,etc),up to the collective formula“Land of Sumer and Akkad ”of the final sentence.Again,this is intended to cover all the places that were not explicitly mentioned.

Table 22

The desire to include all the places not explicitly mentioned is even more clear within the three final,emphatic formulae.

These three sentences begin and end with the same words:(ilāni)“gods”and (kal??unu)“all,”but in the middle there is wording that serves to create an ascending climax.

In the first case,there is the generic expression (mātāti)“lands,”intended to generically broaden the deities series listed above.

Table 23

In the second sentence,there is an emphatic formula,namely the meristematic expression?amê u qaqqiri,which broadens the concept expressed above in a more effective way,to include heaven and earth.56By fitting a paragraph between these sections and the pactional clauses,specifically no.6,ll.41–45,this emphatic formulation reappears with the addition of the adjective rabti“great”relating to the deities.41adê ?a A??ur-ahu-iddina ?ar Māt-A??ur ina pān ilāni rabiūti 42?a ?amê u qaqqiri issīkunu i?kunūni 43ina muhhi A??ar-bani-apli mār ?arri rabiu ?a bēt rēdti 44mār A??ur-ahu-iddina ?ar Māt-A??ur bēlīkunu ?a ana mār ?arrūte 45?a bēt redti ?um?u izkurūni ipqidū?ūni/ “(This is) the oath which Esarhaddon,king of Assyria,has completed with you,in the presence of the great gods of heaven and earth,on behalf of Ashurbanipal,the eldest king’s son on the house of succession,son of Esarhaddon,king of Assyria,your lord,whom he has called by name and designated to the crown-princeship.”

Table 24

Finally,the suffixed pronoun (-?u)“one’s”in the last sentence adds even more emphasis.The individual entities are indicated,with distributive value.

Table 25

The strength of these three conclusive statements is intended to“make accomplices”of all the peoples and deities not explicitly mentioned (likely due to their lesser importance,or their presence in other copies of the treaty) but who are nonetheless part of the pact.

From the lists’ ending sentences above and in the context collected below,it is clear that the human audience is limited by space and time,and can be expanded in size,while the divine audience (being eternal) is not restricted by time.

The following charts display all the formulae attested in the entire corpus of the treaties.57Polybius’s Histories allegedly handed down a verbatim copy of the 3rd century BC treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia stored in the Roman archives.Also,this treaty attests“the double formula toward the end of the gods of Macedonia and Greece;from this it appeared that the gods listed before were Punic and Greek.”Barré 1983,11 (with bibliography).

Table 26

Table 27

Table 28

These sentences can be interpreted not just as devices with which to comprehend all people or all deities not explicitly mentioned,but also to convey the subliminal message concerning the everlasting prescription of the treaties.In other words,the treaty binds people all over the world,through all the ages,forever.58The audience of the treaties,which is expressed person-by-person through the lists,becomes universal through their closing sentences.The universal audience has no objective existence but is a construction that is individual to each individual and culture.This argument is key because it allows unanimous consent to be obtained.In fact,if the argument addressed to the audience fails to convince everyone,there is always the possibility of disqualifying the recalcitrant.To interpret this,I considered the point of view and terminology used by Perelman and Olbrechts Tyteca 1988,259–350,to involve modern audiences.

5.Treaties’ Content:Pactional Clauses and Curses

The content of the treaties is divided into legal and religious parts,i.e.treaty stipulations and curses.

Their distribution is shown in the chart below.

Table 29

Although these two sections differ in content,they nonetheless depend on each other.After a number of apodictic commands,the stipulations take the form of a long series of incomplete sentences beginning with“if”(?umma).59See Weeks 2004,45.The implied apodosis comes in the sections concerning curses.60The close relationship between the pactional clauses and the curses is confirmed by no.2.In this,specific obligations follow their own curses (the only treaty that works like this).All the others have the two components in separate sections of text.This clue corroborates the close correlation between the two textual components,as well as the principle of“patchwork.”

The stipulations of the treaties are divided into obligations and prohibitions.Their distribution is shown in the chart below.

Table 30

When we analyse this portion of the text as a whole,we see a great deal of insistence (expressed through repetitions) on certain aspects of the obligation and prohibition clauses,highlighting coinciding or parallel cases.

The insistent repetition of obligations and prohibitions62The most complete series of obligations and prohibitions is that of no.6,which can be summarised as follows.Obligations:to protect the heir (ll.46–54),to denounce any opponents to the succession (ll.73–82),to denounce the handover,if the heir is a minor (ll.83–91),to be loyal and honest (ll.92–100),to denounce attempts at conspiracy (ll.108–122),to act violently against conspirators (ll.130–146),to protect the crown prince if there is a military coup (ll.162–172),to refuse and evade proposals to join conspirators (ll.173–179),to ensure the succession within the time limits established (ll.188–197),to give one’s own life for the new king (ll.229–232),to support the Royal House in the event of the murder of Ashurbanipal (ll.237–258),to be supportive of the members of the royal House (ll.266–282),to perpetuate loyalty to the crown,teaching respect for the royal family in perpetuity (ll.283–301),to mitigate rumours (ll.328–335),to reverse actions and words prejudicial to the king (ll.353–358),to ensure fidelity to the adê (ll.385–396).Prohibitions:to depose the sovereign (ll.55–56),to alter the adê (ll.57–61),to support other princes of the royal family in the succession (ll.68–73),to act with hostility (ll.101–108),to commit treason (ll.123–129),to enter into agreements with third parties (ll.153–161),to develop uncivilised and rebellious thoughts (ll.180–187),to listen to false messengers that might conceal an attack (ll.201–211),to organise a meeting for the reattribution of sovereignty (ll.212–213),to support members of the royal family or anyone else who tries to usurp the throne (ll.302–317),to be involved in rumours against the sovereign (ll.318–327),to stir up rumours (ll.336–352),to incite discontent within the royal family (ll.360–372),to use magical or religious activities to the detriment of the audience of adê (ll.373–376),to revoke the adê (ll.377–384).aims at embracing the most complete range of possibilities of betrayal,to sensitise the entire population of the centre (land of Assur) and the periphery (the conquered territories) in its various professional sectors and multiple ethical-religious spheres.The final sentence of this section is a double intimation:to preserve the agreement and to keep the text and contents unchanged.

Typologically,the attested stipulation is divided into declarations,demands,injunctions,obligations,commands and prohibitions,and these are usually phrased in the form of sentences beginning with the particle?umma“if”and ending with a subjunctive predicate.

These formulae are not proper conditional clauses.Their origin may lie in oathbound conditional clauses (I’ll be demanded if ...),but in their actual usage they are simply solemn statements in Neo-Assyrian language.63See Parpola and Watanabe 1988,xl.

46kīma A??ur-ahu-iddina ?ar Māt-A??ur ana ?īmti ittalak

47A??ur-bani-apli mār ?arri rabiu ?a bēt rēdti ina kussie

48?arrūti tu?e??abba ?arrūtu bēlūtu

49?a Māt-A??ur ina muhhīkunu uppa? ina eqli ina birti āli

50

51lā tamuttāni ina ketti ?a libbīkunu

52issī?u lā tadabbubāni milku damqu

53?a gammurti libbikunu lā tamallikā?ūni

54hūlu damqu ina ?ēpī?u lā ta?akkanāni

55?umma attunu tunakkarā?ūni issu libbi ahhē?u

56

57tu?e??abāni ?umma abutu ?a A??ur-ahu-iddina ?ar Māt-A??ur

58tennāni tu?annāni ?umma A??ur-bani-apli mār ?arri rabiu

59

60[u]kallimkanūni hannumma lā tadaggalāni

61?arrūtu bēlūtu ?a Māt-A??ur ina muhhīkunu lā up[pa]?ūni

When Esarhaddon,king of Assyria,has gone to (his) fate,you will seat Ashurbanipal,the eldest king’s son on the house of succession,on the royal throne,and he will carry out the kingship and lordship of Assyria on you.You shall protect him in country and in the citadel (lit.the town’s fortress),fall and die for him.You shall speak with him in the truth of your heart,give him good advice loyally,and smooth his way in every respect.You shall not dethrone him nor seat (any)one of his brothers,elder or younger,on the throne of Assyria instead of him.You shall neither change nor alter the word of Esarhaddon,king of Assyria,but serve this very Ashurbanipal,the eldest king’s son on the house of succession,whom Esarhaddon,king of Assyria,your lord,has presented to you,and he shall carry out the kingship and lordship on you.

(SAA II,6,46–61)

The basic form is made up of a verb (–sometimes with negation) that represents the actions the contractors must or must not take.These types of sentence follow one another asyndetically.

Table 31

The basic structure may undergo additions.A second sentence after the basic formulation can be added concerning the actions or non-actions the king promises them,according to their behaviour.

Table 32

The basic structure may be subject to expansion.Prepositions can be added before the basic formulation,to provide temporal or spatial coordinates.

Table 33

These are the main wordings that are attested both in the loyalty oath and in the international treaties.64All the details of the phrases cannot be considered in this paper due to space constraints.I leave this possible path to my future investigations.

The backbone of the Assyrian treaties are the curses.65Curses may be found across a wide range of texts and are not just attested in treaties and loyalty oaths but also in legal and epic materials.For these,see Roth 1997,and Hallo and Younger 1997.These defined the divine punishments resorted to in the event of a possible treaty violation,and,therefore,were certainly included in every treaty.66Curses fall into two main categories:“traditional”and“ceremonial”curses.The latter have a number of the ritual actions that were most likely performed during the ritual accompanying the stipulation,as part of the treaty’s ratification.The most complete series of curses is that of no.6,§§ 37–106.

Table 34

A curse section is actually attested in most of those texts in which this section is extant,67No.1 is highly fragmentary and very little remains of the curses section.Note,this is most likely the Babylonian copy of the treaty,since it gives precedence to the Babylonian gods.Marduk comes first,while Assur is not mentioned in the text.Brinkman 1990 offers an explanation concerning the minor power of the Assyrian king in this instance.except for two texts (nos.7 and 8),both of which are highly fragmentary,and always follows directly after the stipulations (and violations clause).

Structurally,the sections of the curse form an independent unit within the treaty that has nothing to do with the previous section on the stipulations.It is comparable to the penalty section of legal documents,and is also preceded by a violation clause that constitutes an autonomous unit within the document.

Substantively,the curses68For more information on gods and their curses,see Black and Green 2003.are articulated by a wide series of invitations to the deities to strike each transgressor with a peculiar anathema related to their area of expertise.

Various gods appear in the curses.These are mainly Assyrian,but some foreign gods related to the subjected countries are also mentioned towards the end of the curses section.

69 In Mesopotamia,survival,in addition to being linked to the name (?umu),is connected to the seed(zēru),i.e.to the generations of children.The translation of CAD Z,however,“sons and descendants”(?umu u zēru) eliminates the opposition between the ideological and the physical components which is instead attested viscerally in the ancient Near East.

These statements,in their basic form,can be divided into the deity name,epithet,domain,and anathema.70Despite being extremely fragmentary,no.3 v.7’–12’;r.1’–8’ attests the aforementioned basic structure with a varied long list of deity names,without epithet,and with a generic anathema.This type of wording is attested only in this context.

Table 36

The basic structure may undergo additions.A second sentence with further anathemas against the potential offender is frequently added.The name of the deity is not repeated,but the anathemas are related with their area of expertise.

Table 37

A more concise wording may also occur.This combines the two previous formulations into one sentence,in which just the deity’s name and epithet appears,and is directly followed by two anathemas,one alongside the other asyndetically.

Table 38

A further variation may occur.Immediately after the name of the deity and the epithet,the anathemas can follow in a long list,one after the other,asyndetically.

Table 39

The second variation may vary further by coordinating the two anathemas with the conjunction (u) and adding an imperative at the end,to increase the emphasis.71This is one of several similar curses in which agricultural disasters are invoked by the deity/deities as punishment for the transgression of an oath or other stipulations,either by withholding the expected rain or by delivering one or more unfertile alternatives.See also no.6,§§63–64.

Table 40

The curses are articulated in a long series of invitations to the deities to strike each transgressor with a peculiar anathema,and end with the merism (see below),aimed at reaffirming the concept at a glance.72A detailed analysis of the curses occurring in the texts falls beyond the scope of the present article.However,this is a rewarding research path that the author will pursue in the future.This is followed by a list of invitations (as with the basic ones) for the deities to jointly strike the transgressor with some anathemas.

Table 41

This final sentence recalls those of adjuration.Comparing the two cases,the final sentence of the curses section appears to simply mark the end of the section,albeit with emphasis–whereas the adjuration’s final sentences–combining collective phrases with merism and the alternation of“all”and“one’s,”–is far more magniloquent,expressing everything with greater solemnity.

6.Conclusions

In this paper,I have explored the form as well as formulae in diachrony and synchrony of the Assyrian treaties,in order to argue the principle of“patchwork”–the results of which are summarised here.73“[...] my point then is not to describe structural features of ancient literature so much as point out the rhetorical effect of their combination.Wherever it occurs,the combination in various patterns and proportions of stories,lists,and sanctions serve the same recognizable purpose:persuasion.”Watts 2004,203.

From the bit-by-bit analysis of the royal titles of both the treaties and royal inscriptions,I have identified their structural constants and variables.From the communication point of view,I have singled out the modes of self-presentation of the king/queen,while from an editorial point of view,I have enhanced their editorial methods,arriving at the proof that they correspond with the principle of plausibility.

From the bit-by-bit analysis of the lists of contractors and deities,I have pinpointed,from the perspective of communication,modes used to involve both human and divine audience,as well as,from an editorial point of view,their great utility for composing the texts.The lists,most likely circulated as separate units,may be modelled on roll-calls for establishing who is present and so forth.Combining entertainment with instruction,they would have been truly appreciated by audiences.This,together with scribes’ aid,made them popular as their extant condition demonstrates.

Based on the lists,obligations and prohibitions are also structured.Their detailed bit-by-bit analysis was only carried out for certain formulations (as they are both textual sections within a long series of paragraphs).The editorial constants and variables emerged as much as the reiteration of obligations/prohibitions through curses,with the purpose of a greater communicative efficacy on the human audience.

All in all,the textual dismantling completed in this paper has not lost the big picture of the texts as a whole.The detailed analysis has identified the planned design of a global illocutionary force,which is transmitted from the individual phrase through to the sequences of the speech and the text as a whole as it is woven together.

Bibliography74I would like to thank Péter Kató,Marco Perale,and Ryan Thomas for providing me with much of the bibliography collected here in digital format,despite the difficulties arising from the CoViD-19 pandemic.

Allen,S.L.2013.

“Rearranging the Gods in Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (SAA 2 6:414–465).”Die Welt des Orients43/1:1–24.

Barré,M.L.1983.

The God-list in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia:A Study in Light of the Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Tradition.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.

—— 1985.

“The First Pair of Deities in the Sef?re I God-List.”Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society44:205–210.

Black,J.and Green,A.1992.

Gods,Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia:An Illustrated Dictionary.London:British Museum Press.

Borger,R.1965.

Die Inschriften Asarhaddons,K?nigs von Assyrien.Archiv für Orientforschung,Beiheft 9.Osnabrück:Biblio-Verlag.

Brinkman,J.A.1990.

“Political Covenants,Treaties,and Loyalty Oaths in Babylonia and between Assyria and Babylonia.”In:L.Canfora,M.Liverani and C.Zaccagnini (eds.),I trattati nel mondo antico.Forma,ideologia,funzione.Rome:L’Erma di Bretschneider,81–111.

Cifola,B.1995.

Analysis of Variants in the Assyrian Royal Titulary from the Origins to Tiglath-Pileser III.Naples:Instituto Universitario Orientale.

Crouch,C.L.2014.

Israel and the Assyrians.Deuteronomy,the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon,and the Nature of Subversion.Ancient Near East Monographs 8.Atlanta:SBL Press.

De Odorico,M.1995.

The Use of Numbers and Qualifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.State Archives of Assyria Studies III.Helsinki:Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Eco,U.2019.

La vertigine della lista.Rome:Bompiani.

Edzard,D.O.1990.

“Selbstgespr?ch und Monolog in der akkadischen Literatur.”In:A.Tzvi,J.Huehnergard and P.Steinkeller (eds.),Lingering over Words:Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of W.L.Moran.Atlanta:Scholars Press,149–162.

Elman,Y.1975.

“Authoritative Oral Tradition in Neo-Assyrian Scribal Circles.”Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society7:19–32.

Fales,F.M.1999–2000.

“Assyrian Royal Inscriptions:Newer Horizon.”State Archives of Assyria.Bulletin13:115–144.

—— 2001.

L’impero assiro.Storia e amministrazione (IX–VII secolo a.C.).Rome &Bari:Laterza.

—— 2012.

“After Tainat:The New Status of Esarhaddonsadêfor Assyrian Political History.”Revue d’Assyriologie106:133–158.

Fales,F.M.and Lanfranchi,G.B.2006.

“L’impero neoassiro.”In:A.Barbero (ed.),Storia d’Europa e del Mediterraneo.sez.1:La preistoria dell’uomo.L’Oriente mediterraneo.vol.2:Le civiltà dell’Oriente mediterraneo.Rome:Salerno Editrice,505–575.

Faraone,C.1993.

“Molten,Wax,Spilt Wine and Mutilated Animals:Sympathetic Magic in Near Eastern and Early Greek Oath Ceremonies.”Journal of Hellenic Studies113:60–80.

Galter,H.D.1997.

“Assyrische K?nigsinschriften des 2.Jahrtausends v.Chr.Die Entwicklung einer Textgattung.”In:H.Hauptmann and H.Waetzoldt (eds.),Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten.Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 6.Heidelberg:Heidelberger Orientverlag,53–59.

Gelb,I.J.1962.

“The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon.”Bibliotheca Orientalis19:159–162.

Grayson,A.K.1987.

“Akkadian Treaties of the Seventh Century B.C.”Journal of Cuneiform Studies39:127–160.

Grayson,A.K.and Novotny,J.2012.

The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib,King of Assyria (704–681 BC).The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1.Winona Lake:Eisenbrauns.

Hallo,W.W.1996.

Origins–The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions.Leiden,New York &Cologne:Brill.

Hallo,W.W.and Younger,Jr.K.L.1997.

Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World.vol.1.Leiden:Brill.

—— 2000.

Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World.vol.2.Leiden:Brill.

Kitchen,K.A.and Lawrence,P.J.N.2012.

Treaty,Law and Convenant in the Ancient Near East.pt.1:Text;pt.2:Text,Notes and Chronograms;pt.3:Overall Historical Survey.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.

Kitz,A.M.2007.

“Curses and Cursing in the Ancient Near East.”Religion Compass1:615–627.

Holland,G.S.2009.

Gods in the Desert:Religions of the Ancient Near East.Lanham:Rowman &Littlefield.

Holloway,S.W.2002.

A??ur is King! A??ur is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire.Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 10.Leiden:Brill.

Hoskisson,P.Y.and Boswell,G.M.2004.

“Neo-Assyrian Rhetoric:The Example of Third Campaign of Sennacherib(704–681 B.C.).”In:C.S.Lipson and R.A.Binkley (eds.),Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks.Albany:State University of New York Press,65–78.

Lackenbacher,S.1990.

Le roi batisseur:les récits de construction assyriens des origines à Teglatphalasar III.Paris:Editions Recherche sur les civilisations.

Lauinger,J.2012.

“Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat:Text and Commentary.”Journal of Cuneiform Studies64:87–123.

—— 2013.

“The Neo-Assyrianadê:Treaty,Oath or Something Else?”Zeitschrift für Assyriologie19:99–115.

Lausberg,H.1960.

Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik:Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft.Munich:Max Hueber.

—— 1967.

Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik.Eine Einführung für Studierende der klassischen,romanischen,englischen und deutschen Philologie.Munich:Max Hueber.

Lawson,J.1994.

Concept of Fate in Ancient Mesopotomia:Of the First Millennium,Towards an Understanding of ?Shimtu?.Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 7.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.

Liverani,M.1981.

“Critique of Variants and the Titulary of Sennacherib.”In:M.Fales (ed),Assyrian Royal Inscriptions:New Horizonsin Literary,Ideological and Historical Analysis.Rome: Don Bosco,225–257.

—— 1990.

“Terminologia e ideologia del patto nelle iscrizioni reali assire.”In:L.Canfora,M.Liverani and C.Zaccagnini (eds),I trattati nel mondo antico.Forma,ideologia,funzione.Rome:L’Erma di Bretschneider,113–147.

McCarthy,D.J.1979.

—— 1981.

Treaty and Covenant.A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament.Analecta Biblica 21.Rome:Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Melville,S.C.1999.

The Role of Naqia/Zakutu in Sargonid Politics.SAAS IX.Helsinki:Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Oded,B.1992.

War,Peace and Empire:Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.Wiesbaden:Reichert.

Oppenheim,A.1969.

“Divination and Celestial Observation in the Last Assyrian Empire.”Centaurus14/1:97–135.

Pardee,D.1978.

“Review of J.C.L.Gibson,Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions.vol.2:Aramaic Inscriptions,Including Inscriptions in the Dialect of Zenjirli.”Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society37:195–197.

Parpola,S.1987.

“Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh.”Journal of Cuneiform Studies39:161–189.

—— 2003.

“Assyria’s Expansion in the 8th and 7th Centuries and its Long-Term Repercussions in the West.”In:W.G.Dever and S.Gitin (eds.),Symbiosis,Symbolism,and the Power of the Past:Canaan,Ancient Israel,and their Neighbors–From the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina.Winona Lake:Eisenbrauns,99–111.

Parpola,S.and Watanabe,K.S.1988.

Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths.State Archives of Assyria II.Helsinki:Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Perelman,Ch.and Olbrechts-Tyteca,L.1989.

Trattato dell’argomentazione.La nuova retorica.Turin:Einaudi.

Ponchia,S.2014.

“The Neo-AssyrianadêProtocol and the Administration of the Empire.”In:S.Gaspa et al.(eds.),From Source to History:Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond Dedicated to G.B.Lanfranchi.Alter Orient und Altes Testament 412.Münster:Ugarit Verlag,501–526.

Porter,B.N.1995.

“Language,Audience and Impact in Imperial Assyria.”In:S.Izre’el and R.Drory(eds.),Language and Culture in Near East.Israel Oriental Studies 15.Leiden:Brill,15–72.

Postgate,J.N.1992.

“The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur.”World Archaeology23:247–263.

Radner,K.2006.

“Assyrischeals Vorbild für Deuteronomium 28,20–44?”In:M.Witte et al.(eds.),Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke:Redaktions-und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur ?Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten.Berlin:De Gruyter,51–378.

—— 2019.

“Neo-Assyrian Treaties as a Source for the Historian:Bonds of Friendship,the Vigilant Subject and the Vengeful King’s Treaty.”In:G.B.Lanfranchi,R.Mattila and R.Rollinger (eds.),Writing Neo-Assyrian History:Sources,Problems,and Approaches.State Archives of Assyria Studies 29.Helsinki:Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project,309–328.

Renger,J.1981.

“K?nigsinschriften.”Reallexikon der Assyriologie6:65–77.

Roth,M.T.1997.

Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor.Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 6.Atlanta:Scholars Press.

Schaudig,H.2010.

“Cult Centralization in the Ancient Near East? Conceptions of the Ideal Capital in the Ancient Near East.”In:R.G.Kratz and H.Spieckermann (eds.),One God–One Cult–One Nation:Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives.Berlin:De Gruyter,145–168.

Tadmor,H.1990.

“Alleanza e dipendenza nell’antica Mesopotamia e in Israele:Terminologia e prassi.”In:L.Canfora,M.Liverani and C.Zaccagnini (eds.),I trattati nel mondo antico.Forma,ideologia,funzione.Rome:L’Erma di Bretschneider,17–36.

Tadmor,H.and Yamada,S.2011.

The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V(726–722 BC).The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1.Winona Lake:Eisenbrauns.

Wasserman,N.forthcoming.

“Lists and Chains:Enumeration in Akkadian Literary Texts.”In:R.L?mmle,C.Scheidegger-L?mmle and K.Wesselmann (eds.),Lists and Catalogues in Ancient Literature and Beyond.Towards a Poetics of Enumeration.Trends in Classics–Supplementary Volumes.Berlin:De Gruyter.

Watanabe,K.2014.

“Esarhaddons Succession Oath Documents Reconsidered in Light of the Tayinat Version.”Orient49:145–170.

—— 2015.

“Innovations in Esarhaddon’s Succession Oath Documents Considered from the Viewpoint of the Documents Structure.”State Archives of Assyria Bulletin21:173–215.

Watkins,M.1986.

Classical Hebrew Poetry.A Guide to its Techniques.Sheffield:JSOT Press.

Watts,J.W.2004.

“Story-List-Sanction:A Cross-Cultural Strategy of Ancient Persuasion.”In:C.S.Lipson and R.Binkley (eds.),Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks.Albany:State University of New York Press,197–212.

Weeks,N.2004.

Admonition and Curse:The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships.Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:Supplement Series 407.London:T&T Clark.

Wiseman,D.J.1958.

“The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon.”Iraq20:1–99.

Zaccagnini,C.1990.

“The Forms of Alliance and Subjugation in the Near East of the Late Bronze Age.”In:L.Canfora,M.Liverani and C.Zaccagnini (eds.),I trattati nel mondo antico.Forma,ideologia,funzione.Rome:L’Erma di Bretschneider,37–79.