RoyalCities · The King’s City: A Comparative Study of Royal Patronage in Assur, Nineveh, and Babylon in the First Millennium BCE

The King’s City: A Comparative Study of Royal Patronage in Assur, Nineveh, and Babylon in the First Millennium BCE

Cities had a special status in ancient Mesopotamia as centers of civilization. The first city in the world was founded there 6,000 years ago, and Mesopotamian mythology claimed that the gods themselves created the cities, even before creating humankind to live in them. Imperial capitals emerged with the development and growth of empires in the first millennium BCE. These capitals acted as the king’s main seat of power in an ever-expanding territory and were home to complex administrative organizations and innovations in irrigation, architecture, and urban planning. This project focused on three of the most important imperial capitals in Mesopotamian history: Assur, the traditional religious hub and original capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (c. 1000-c. 600 BCE, northern Iraq), Nineveh, the political capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire under the most powerful kings, and Babylon, the cultural and political center of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (c. 626-539 BCE, southern Iraq). The latter city was so magnificent that it inspired the biblical and classical legends of the Tower of Babel and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Despite the prominence of these capitals, little work had been done on how royal patronage affected them. This project addressed the following questions: What constitutes a royal capital and what distinguishes it from other cities? How did kings conceptualize their capitals? What were the effects of the kings’ presence on the urban fabric and the social and economic structure of a capital? These questions were answered through detailed examinations of texts written by kings, officials, priests, and administrators in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Empires. The royal inscriptions, which recorded the kings’ deeds, give a sense of what the kings prioritized and of how they displayed their power in the city itself, whereas letters from elites and bureaucratic documents present a more “realistic” image of urban development in the empire, one in which the king was often absent or unreachable. This project found that capitals attracted more money, resources, and people than non-capitals, both via active royal patronage and by virtue of being the seat of kingship. Kings used their considerable resources and power to undertake important and expensive construction projects on the city’s infrastructural or monumental features. The royal court was based there, and officials across the empire routinely visited for audiences with the king. People also came to the capital for legal, administrative, and economic or trade reasons. Elite families often moved to these cities, which were safer against enemy invasion, drought, and famine. This study also revealed negative effects that prioritizing the capital had on the rest of the empire. These impacts were subtler, but there are many cases in which a king’s need (or desire) to promote his capital had deleterious effects on other cities in the empire. Many cities were obligated to contribute money and manpower towards developing the capital without receiving treatment in kind. Archives from temples in non-capitals revealed how these institutions were sometimes forced to liquidate warehouse holdings and dispatch staff to support state initiatives, or relied upon local and neighboring communities to function on a daily basis. These findings challenge previous assumptions about urban development in these empires, demonstrating that an eclectic and ad hoc approach was the reality.

Текст от CORDIS, на английски · Данни: CORDIS, © Европейски съюз