Hubbry Logo
Ashur (god)Ashur (god)Main
Open search
Ashur (god)
Community hub
Ashur (god)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ashur (god)
Ashur (god)
from Wikipedia
Ashur
A Neo-Assyrian relief (likely from the reign of Sennacherib) depicting Ashur
Other names
  • Bêlu Rabû
  • Ab Ilâni
  • Šadû Rabû
Venerated inAncient Mesopotamian religion
Major cult centerAssur, Uruk (6th century BC)
Genealogy
Siblingspossibly sometimes Šerua
ConsortMullissu (Ishtar of Arbela, Ishtar of Assur, Ishtar of Nineveh), sometimes Šerua
OffspringNinurta, Zababa, sometimes Šerua, sometimes Ishtar of Arbela

Ashur, Ashshur, also spelled Ašur, Aššur (Sumerian: 𒀭𒊹, romanized: AN.ŠAR₂, Assyrian cuneiform: 𒀭𒊹 Aš-šur, 𒀭𒀀𒇳𒊬 ᵈa-šur₄)[1] was the national god of the Assyrians in ancient times until their gradual conversion to Christianity between the 1st and 5th centuries AD.

Name

[edit]

The name of the god Ashur is spelled exactly the same as that of the city of Assur. In modern scholarship, some Assyriologists choose to employ different spellings for the god vis-a-vis the city as a means to differentiate between them. In the Old Assyrian Period, both the city and the god were commonly spelled as A-šùr. The god Ashur was spelled as dA-šur, A-šur, dA-šùr or A-šùr, and from the comparative data there seems to be a bigger general reluctance to use the divine determinative in Anatolia in comparison to data from the city of Assur itself.[2] From the Middle Assyrian period onwards, Aššur was generally spelled as Aš-šur, for the god, the city and the state (māt Aššur = Assyria).

Ashur's name was written once as AN.ŠÁR on a bead of Tukulti-Ninurta I. In the inscriptions of Sargon II Ashur was sometimes referred to as Anshar, and under Sennacherib it became a common systemic way to spell his name.[3] After the fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Ashur continued to be revered as Anshar in Neo-Babylonian era Uruk, and as Ashur in Assyria proper. As Assyrian kings were generally reluctant to enforce worship of Ashur in subject areas, it is assumed that Ashur was introduced to Uruk naturally by Assyrians.[4]

History

[edit]

Third Millennium BCE

[edit]

Little is known about the city of Assur in the 3rd Millennium BC, but the city may have had a religious significance.[5] While the city did contain a temple dedicated to their own localised Ishtar (Ishtar of Assur), there are no known mentions of Ashur as a distinct deity,[6] and it is unknown if the cult of Ashur existed at this time,[7] although the possibility cannot be ruled out because of scarcity of evidence.[6]

Old Assyrian Period

[edit]

The Old Assyrian Period is contemporary with the Isin-Larsa period and the Old Babylonian Periods in southern Mesopotamia after the city became independent from Ur. During the Old Assyrian period, the temple to the god was built and maintained by the residences of the city. Ashur started to appear in texts such as treaties and royal inscriptions, and the king traced their legitimacy to the god.[8] In the Old Assyrian period, the kings never assumed the title of king, instead referring to themselves as the governor (iššiak) or city ruler (rubā'um), reserving the title of king instead for Ashur.[9] Pongratz-Leisten notes that similar cases could be found in Eshnunna, where the early kings of Eshnunna addressed Tishpak as king with titles traditionally associated with kings such as “king of the four corners.” She connects it to an older cultural sphere containing pre-Sargonic Lagash, where the kings of Lagash designated themselves as the ENSI (governor) of Lagash.[10] Charpin instead notes that the ideology around Ashur and Tishpak is similar to the one around Ishtaran of Der, who was called the “king of Der”.[11] However, in the Old Assyrian Period the king was not yet the chief priest of Ashur.[12]

The earliest expression of the god Ashur being the king of the city with the ruler being his representative was in Silulu's seal that is known from uses later in the Old Assyrian period,[13] where the opening lines were "Ashur is king, Silulu is the governor (iššiak) of Assur." The inscription ended with the phrase ARAD-ZU, linking the seal with the Ur III administration,[14] but instead of a presentation scene, a triumphant figure is shown trampling on an enemy, bearing resemblance to Naram-Sin's pose on his victory stela and the lost depiction of Shu-Sin trampling on his enemy.[14] Coupled with the ideology of Ashur being the king of the city, the victorious figure could represent Ashur. [14][a] The Puzur-Assur dynasty which reused the presentation scene, which depicts a worshipper (the seal owner) being led by a goddess to a seated god. Considering that the owner of the seal was the Assyrian ruler, it is likely that the seated god is Ashur.[15]

Almost half of Old Assyrian theophoric names feature the god Ashur, with around another 4 percent featuring ālum (city) which referred to the city of Assur. However, it is not clear whether the term Aššur in the names refers to the god or the city.[16] Theophoric names involving Ashur are generally exclusively Assyrian.[17]

Outside of the city of Assur, Assyrian merchant colonies in southeast Anatolia constructed sanctuaries to the god Ashur,[18] which included the objects like his statue and his dagger and knife/spear.[19] Oaths were sworn[20] and verdicts were issued[21] in front of the dagger. The dagger seemed to have also received libations.[22] The weapon of Ashur, more famously known to have been placed in Assyrian provincial centres and client states in the Neo-Assyrian period (although the weapon being set up in provincial centers is only known from Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II and Sennacherib),[23] were also known in the Old Assyrian period and were seemingly used in ordeals (together with the sword of Ashur and another symbol of Ashur)[24] where the defendant would have to draw the weapon out from its sheath, as the guilty would be unable to draw out the weapon due to divine refusal.[25] The practice of swearing oaths in front of divine symbols, like weapons, is a well known practice in Mesopotamia.[26] Traders would swear by the names of gods such as Ashur, Ishtar, Ishtar-ZA-AT, and Nisaba that they were speaking truth. [20]Traders are often encouraged to go back to the city of Assur to pay homage to Ashur.[12]

In 1808 BCE, Shamshi-Adad captured Assur, dethroned the Assyrian king and incorporated Assur into his kingdom. While he never set Assur as his seat of kingship, he assumed the position of the king in the city and left inscriptions calling himself the viceroy of Ashur, in line with the traditional Old Assyrian inscriptions,[27] and reconstructed the temple of Ashur into a bigger complex, and the groundplan remained relatively unaltered until Shalmaneser I who added a backyard.[28] However, he was first the appointee (šakin) of Enlil, and in one of his building inscriptions he designated the Ashur temple as a temple of Enlil instead.[29] Shamshi-Adad's inscription equating the Ashur temple as a temple of Enlil has commonly been interpreted to be the first reference to an equation between Ashur and Enlil.[30][31] Another possibility is that Shamshi-Adad constructed separate cells in the new temple, which housed both Ashur and Enlil.[31] His inscriptions also always applies the divine determinative to the name of the god Ashur, unlike earlier times.[32] However, in a late 17th century letter written by the Assyrian king to the king of Tikunani uses inconsistent sign markings for the term Aššur, once being accompanied by both the divine determinative and the geographical determinative.[33]

A treaty after the reign of Shamshi-Adad between Assyrian traders (addressed as “we/us” in the treaty)[34] and the king of Apum (Till-Abnu). In the treaty, Ashur is not mentioned, but it has been proposed that Šarra-mātin (meaning "king of two/both lands", dual ending in Akkadian) mentioned at the beginning between Enlil and Dagan is Ashur.[35][36] Kryszat accepts the proposal, and suggests that this may reflect Shamshi-Adad's identification of Ashur with Enlil. However, another Old-Assyrian text appears to name Ashur and Šarra-mātin separately, and so Kryszat suggests that perhaps Šarra-mātin was an older aspect of Ashur or a separate god that was later absorbed into Ashur.[37] Another treaty concluded between Mutija, king of Apum, and Hazip-Teshub king of Razama[38] also invoked Ashur, which Eidem suggests is due to the geographical location of Razama.[35]

The tākultu festival was first attested during the reign of Shamshi-Adad I on a vase dedicated to Dagan. It would seem that the festival was already part of the cult of Ashur.[39]

The inscription of Puzur-Sin presents a hostile attitude towards Shamshi-Adad and his successors, claiming that they were a "foreign plague" and "not of the city of Assur." Puzur-Sin claims that Ashur commanded him to destroy the wall and palace of Shamshi-Adad.[40]

Middle Assyrian Period

[edit]

Beginning in the Middle Assyrian Period, the Assyrian kings projected a more territorial ideology, with the king acting as the agent of placing the territory under divine rule.[41] The practice where each province had to supply yearly a modest amount of food for the daily meal of Ashur, which ideologically demonstrated how all of Assyria was to jointly care for their god,[42] was first attested during the Middle Assyrian period.[41] the tākultu festival was also mentioned in the inscriptions of Adad-nirari I and his successor Shalmaneser I.[43] However, mentions of the tākultu ritual in Assyria ceased until the Sargonids.[44]

Starting from Ashur-uballit, the Assyrian kings started to designate themselves as king (šarru) and claimed themselves to be a major power.[45] In addition to emulating the other great powers, they also adopted most of Shamshi-Adad I's royal titulature, including being the appointee of Enlil before being the viceroy of Ashur.[46] Despite this, the Old Assyrian notion that the true king of Assur was the god Ashur persisted, as seen in the Middle Assyrian coronation ritual that was carried out inside the temple of Ashur. The king is led inside the temple where a priest would strike the king's cheek and proclaim "Ashur is king! Ashur is king!"[47] Ashur-uballit also introduced the title SANGA/šangû into the royal repertoire, which may have been the product of a Hittite influence.[48] The practice for the king’s reign to be referred with "during my priesthood" (ina šangûtīya) was also introduced during the Middle Assyrian period.[49]

The Assyrian king was also given the mission to extend the land of Assyria with his "just sceptre" as mentioned in the coronation hymn.[50] Royal actions undertaken, such as military campaigns and successes, were attributed to the support of the god Ashur, along with the other major gods in the Assyrian pantheon.[51][52] Similar to the city of Assur, the land of Aššur (Assyria) shared the same name as the god Ashur, which essentially meant that the country belonged to the god.[53] Starting from the Middle Assyrian period (and extending into the Neo Assyrian period), the mission of the Assyrian king was to extend the borders of Assyria and establish order and peace against a chaotic periphery.[54]

Ashur started to be referred to more often as an Assyrian equivalent of Enlil, with titles such as "lord of the lands" (bēl mātāte), "king of the gods" (šar ilāni) and "the Assyrian Enlil" (Enlil aššurê).[53] Adad-nirari and Shalmaneser began to call the temple of Ashur names of Enli's temple in Nippur, and Shalmaneser even claimed to have put the gods of Ekur into the temple.[55] The construction of Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta was attributed to the command of Ashur-Enlil.[56] However, Enlil and Ashur were still treated as separate gods in the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic, and some traits of Enlil were not carried over to Ashur, especially in regards to how Ea and Enlil raised the young Tukulti-Ninurta (in line with southern traditions), a role which was not given to the god Ashur.[57]

Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, constructed by the eponymous king himself (the name of the city means "quay of Tukulti-Ninurta") was explicitly stated to be a cult centre for Ashur.[58] The building of a new capital and cult centre is traditionally viewed as an attempt to separate the royal monarchy from the established elites and pressure groups,[59] however it is clear that the city of Assur was still respected as building works were still done in Assur, the main palace at Assur was still being constantly maintained,[58] and the perimeter of the ziggurat in Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta was half of the one in Assur.[60] The main bureaucracy in Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta was connected with the city of Assur as well.[60] Assur was still referred with epithets such as "my city" (ālīya) and "desired object of the deities" (ba-it ilāni), although they could refer to Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta as well.[61]

Neo-Assyrian Period

[edit]

The Middle Assyrian practice of provincial provisions to the temple of the god Ashur remained during Sargonid Assyria.[62]

Ashur continued to play a pivotal role in Assyrian imperial ideology in the Neo-Assyrian period. Enemies were often portrayed to have violated the oath to Ashur and the gods of Assyria, and that he had no respect for the gods.[63] In celebrative texts, the oaths imposed on the defeated are sworn in the name of Ashur, extending to the other gods of Assyria in the late Neo-Assyrian period.[64][b] Royal actions were said to be undertaken under the command of Ashur with the king acting as his proxy,[66] with the central mission being to expand the borders of Assyria. The territories controlled by Ashur was aligned with the cosmos,[67] and expanding the lands of Assyria meant expanding the cosmos to include the previously disorderly periphery.[68] Recently, Edmonds pointed out the chronologic problem behind such simplistic assumptions from the Assyrian sources. Early Assyrian sources do not mention a binary between the center and the periphery, and all mentions of such instead come from later in the Neo-Assyrian period.[69] Ideology also doesn’t necessarily translate to real practice, as Assyria had plenty of diplomatic dealings with surrounding states.[70] Edmonds specifically criticizes Liverani’s assumption that this ideology served as the driving force for Assyrian expansion, rather than a later ideological justification.[71] The Assyrian king was the chief priest of Ashur, and while not considered a god (in life or in death) the king is in the image of a god.[72] In Ashurbanipal's Coronation Hymn, the idea that Ashur was the true king reappeared, reflecting on an ideological discourse tracing all the way back to the Old Assyrian period.[72] The old title of "governor (iššiak) of Assur" also didn’t disappear, as Sennacherib named one of the gates of Nineveh "lilbur iššiak Aššur" (may the governor of Assur live on) and the title also comes up during the reign of Esarhaddon and Sinsharishkun.[73]

The Tākultu festival in the Neo-Assyrian period entails delivering food offerings for the gods, and invokes all the gods of Assur, the Assyrian heartland (generally viewed as a triangle between Assur, Nineveh and Arbela) and the Assyrian provinces for blessings on Assur, Assyria and the king.[74] Pongratz-Leisten claims that the festival aimed to bind the gods of the empire to Assur, Assyria, the king and also to each other.[75] Ashur's importance was important to the heritage of the Assyrian Empire.[76]

In the "Letter to the god Ashur", which is commonly dated to the reign of Sargon II, the position and role of Ashur appears to be implicitly referring to Anshar, especially the role conferred into the god in the Enuma Elish. As Marduk is identified as the “Enlil of the gods” in this text, the position of Ashur was modified from an identification with Enlil to Anshar. The relationship of this text to the later "Sin of Sargon" that claims Sargon elevated the gods of Assyria above the gods of Babylonia is unknown, and Marduk is mentioned many times by Sargon.[77]

Sennacherib, in the aftermath of his infamous destruction of Babylon in 689 BCE, reformed aspects of Ashur's cult. He built a new akītu house in Assur, and Ashur instead of Marduk was the centre of the festival.[78] An Assyrian revision of the Enuma Elish replaced Marduk with Ashur as the main character of the epic.[78][79] A change observed during the reign of Sargon II,[78] which became more systemic under Sennacherib,[3] was the equation of Ashur with Anshar, by writing the name of the god Ashur as AN.ŠÁR.[c] The country of Assyria was sometimes written as Māt Anšar in the Neo-Assyrian period.[73]

Sennacherib's son and successor, Esarhaddon, chose to pursue a more conciliatory route with Babylonia. Esarhaddon addressed both the people of Assyria and Babylonia with identical terms in an attempt to group them under one audience,[80] and the gods Marduk, Nabu and Tashmetum were invoked naturally along with the traditionally Assyrian gods.[81] The inscription also claims that Bēl, Bēltiya, Bēlet Babili, Ea, and Mandanu were born in Esharra, the house of their father, which here refers to the temple of Ashur, and refers to Ashur as the "father of the gods" and Marduk as the "first heir."[82] The political and theological implications of such was that the Babylonian gods were to be adopted into the Assyrian pantheon, and the relationship of Marduk vis-a-vis Ashur (son and father) would reflect the relationship Babylonia has with Assyria, with Assyria in the politically dominant position and Babylonia holding a special position within the empire.[83][d]

There have been suggestions that the worship of Ashur was forcibly imposed onto subject vassals. However, this notion has been challenged by other scholars, most notably Cogan, who concluded that the idea that the cult of Ashur and other Assyrian gods were imposed onto defeated subjects should be rejected, and residents in the annexed provinces were required to provide for the cult of Ashur as they were counted as Assyrian citizens[85] and it was the duty of Assyrian citizens to do so.[86]

Assyrian imperial ideology affirms Ashur's superiority, and the vanquished are obliged to acknowledge the superiority of the Assyrian god and king, however they are not obliged to renounce their own religious traditions.[87] Assyrian kings sometimes claimed to have erected statues of the king and the Assyrian gods in the provincial palace in newly conquered territories, but this does not indicate the imposition of a cult onto the populace.[88] Liverani summarises that there was no intention to convert others to the worship of Ashur, only that Ashur should be recognized as the most powerful god and fit to rule over others.[89]

Olmstead believed that the imposition of the weapon of Ashur onto provinces and client states implies a forced worship of Ashur, but Holloway disagreed, mentioning the usage of the weapon of Ashur in Old Assyrian times, believes the main purpose of the weapon is to serve as a witness to the adê-oaths.[90] Liverani also believes the weapon to have had a celebratory function rather than a cultic one.[91]

A recent discovery in the provincial capital city of Kullania uncovered a copy of Esarhaddon's succession treaty inside a temple, next to a pedestal. The tablet itself is inscribed in a way that the obverse and reverse are both readable when stood on its short side, in contrast to the other Assyrian treaty tablets, where the tablet must be flipped horizontally to read the reverse. This, along with the location of the discovery suggests that the tablet was considered an object of worship.[92] It is uncertain whether this was an innovation during Esarhaddon's reign or if it was already practised prior.[93]

Within Babylonia, outside of the rare mentions of offerings to Ashur after putting down a rebellion, there are no holy structures such as shrines and temples dedicated to Ashur in Babylonia,[94] nor were there any mentions of Assyrian cults established in the Babylonian temples.[95] von Soden had suggested before that the Babylonians purposefully rejected Ashur, but Frame disagrees, and argues that since Ashur was the national god of Assyria with barely any character of his own, he was not very important to the Babylonians.[96]

The universal imperial ideology surrounding Ashur is suggested to have influenced the Kingdom of Judah's own religious discourse surrounding Yahweh.[97] Especially within the First Isaiah, ideological discourse surrounding Assyria and the god Ashur were said to be[weasel words] adapted to Yahweh in an effort to counter Assyria,[98][99] and the trend of depicting kings of powerful foreign empires as servants of Yahweh started with the Assyrian kings.[100]

Simo Parpola had suggested before that the worship of Ashur was essentially monotheistic, and connected it with later Christian and Gnostic beliefs. Many other scholars reject his proposal, and claim that the methodology was flawed.[101][102][103][104]

The city of Assur was sacked by the Median forces in 614 BCE, and the Temple of Ashur was destroyed in the process.[93]

Post Imperial Assyria

[edit]

After the fall of the Assyrian state, a small independent sanctuary dedicated to Anshar was attested in Neo-Babylonian Uruk, which can be understood to be a cult dedicated to the Assyrian god Ashur.[105] The grammatically Assyrian names, as well as the mention of "the city" (referring to Assur) points to a community of Assyrians during the time in Uruk.[106] The cult was likely introduced naturally without coercion as Assyrian rulers didn't impose the cult of Ashur on conquered territories, and a strong pro-Assyrian faction was attested in Uruk during the rebellion of Nabopolassar.[4] Beaulieu also suggests another reason to be that Anshar (Ashur) may have been equated with Anu.[4] Although references to the sanctuary all come from the 6th century BCE, It is unknown when the sanctuary to Ashur in Uruk was established. Beaulieu had suggested that it may have been introduced in the 7th century BCE by the strong pro-Assyrian party, as evidenced by the name of a qēpu known as Aššur-bēl-uṣur.[107] Radner disagrees, as qēpus were directly appointed by the Assyrian kings and generally seen as outsiders, providing no evidence for a sanctuary to Ashur during that time, and argues that the sanctuary was likely established by refugees from Assyria.[108]

After Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon, he claimed to have returned the gods from Assur, Susa, Akkad, Eshnunna, Zamban, Me-Turan, Der and the Zagros Mountains back to their original places, along with their people as per the Cyrus Cylinder.[109] Radner argues that the new temple on top of the old destroyed Ashur temple, called "Temple A" by the excavator Walter Andrae, may have been a new temple to Ashur built after the return of the statue of Ashur,[109] and the usage of old cuneiform texts to build the temple can be seen as an appreciation for the past.[110] Shaudig, on the other hand, believes that Temple A was built during the Neo-Babylonian times,[111] and disagrees with Radner that the pre-Parthian Temple A was built to honour the history of Assyria,[112] and the usage of the ancient texts as flooring implies a more mocking stance.[113]

During the Seleucid period Ashur (rendered Assor) also appears as the theophoric component in Aramaic names.[114] One of the attested names was Ahhiy-Assor (lit. my brother is Ashur) may indicate that Ashur was now seen as more approachable.[115] In the Parthian period, a group of iwans were constructed over the ruins of the old Ashur temple. Worshippers scratched the names of the deities on the third iwan, and among the deities the gods Ashur and Šerua appeared the most often.[116] A Parthian era building was also erected on the ruins of Sennacherib's akītu house following a similar ground plan, indicating the survival of the cult.[117]

Characteristics and Iconography

[edit]

Ashur is a god intrinsically associated with his city. The inscription of Zarriqum, the Ur III governor of Assur, writes Aššur with both the divine determinative and geographical determinative. However, this spelling is not attested in subsequent royal inscriptions,[118] reappearing once in a treaty between the king of Assur and the king of Tikunani.[33] Old Assyrian documents from Anatolia are sometimes unclear with the usage of determinatives, lacking a distinction between the city and the god.[119] In some texts mostly from scholars or the reign of Sargon II, the land of Assyria is spelled with the divine determinative, as they may have been more sensitive to the etymology.[73] He also lacks characteristics, stock epithets or a divine persona in general,[120] and no early mythology surrounding Ashur is known.[121] He has no attributes and traits, solely representing the city (and later the state) and its power.[122]

Lambert had suggested that the god Ashur was the deified hill upon which the city of Assur was built.[5] It is also likely that the cliff over the Tigris river near the city of Assur was the original cult place of Ashur.[123]

A possible representation of Ashur in Old Assyrian seals is the bull altar motif, which appears commonly in seals from Kanesh[124] and also in Assur,[125] with the motif appearing on seals belonging to high officials in Assur.[126] The bull altar can also be the subject of worship on the seal and occasionally replaces the crescent in the presentation scenes.[127] A similar motif is found in the seal of the city hall, which depicts a goddess standing in front of a mountain with a bull head. Since the seal is said to also belong to the divine Ashur, it is likely that the bull represents Ashur.[128][129]

Cult wall relief from Assur. A deity is flanked by 2 water deities and 2 goats. Pergamon Museum, Berlin

A relief found in a well in the inner courtyard of the temple of Ashur in the city of Assur portrays a mountain god flanked by two water-goddesses. Cones growing from the side of the figure, which were being nibbled by two goats. The figure's nose and mouth were badly damaged, suggesting that it was deliberately vandalised and thrown into the well along with other debris following the conquest of the city of Assur in 614 BCE.[130] There is good evidence to suggest that the figure in question is the god Ashur,[131] especially once you consider that the image was specifically mutilated and thrown down a well.[132] The relief had been argued to date to the middle of the 2nd Millennium BC judging from the techniques used, [130] although another stylistic match comes from the Isin-Larsa period.[133] The relief had also been linked to Ilu-shuma's inscription that claimed the god Ashur opened up two springs for him on Ebiḫ, and was subsequently dated by Frayne to the Old Assyrian period. However, Frayne believes that the god represented on the relief is instead Ebiḫ.[133]

The Assyrian sun disk, commonly depicted in Neo-Assyrian royal reliefs, is frequently argued to represent Assur, but there are scholars who disagree with this identification

The wild goat is suggested to be the sacred animal of Ashur.[134] The goat appears several times as a symbol in Assyrian cylinder seals,[135] and also in Neo-Assyrian art such as the royal pavilions of Ashurnasirpal and Shalmaneser III.[131] The cone could also be considered to be a symbol of Ashur.[136] The Neo-Assyrian sun disc is generally viewed to represent Ashur. However, other scholars argue that the disc represents something else, such as another god,[137] or that it represents Shamash instead.[138] Similarly, the chariot standards are also argued to represent other gods of the traditional Assyrian pantheon.[137]

Ashur was never consulted oracularly in the Neo-Assyrian period, and never appeared in Akkadian exorcism literature.[139] However, in the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser III, the king claimed that Ashur gave him oracular consent by confirmation through an omen before each campaign.[140]

Family and relationships

[edit]

In contrast to many other gods, Ashur lacks original familial connections.[141] Mullissu, who is to be identified with Ninlil, reflects instead the identification of Ashur with Enlil,[e] and it is the same for Ninurta and Zababa, sons of Enlil who were occasionally identified as Ashur's sons.[141] The only native relative of Ashur is the goddess Šerua, but Assyrian sources are divisive on whether she was Ashur's wife, daughter,[141] or sister.[143] Šerua was referred to as Ashur's daughter by Tukulti-Ninurta I, but later Tiglath-pileser III referred to her as Ashur's wife,[144] and a Neo-Assyrian text claims that Šerua should not be referred to as Ashur's daughter but as his wife instead.[145]

Tallqvist, when studying Old Assyrian inscriptions, noted that different manifestations of Ishtar are occasionally mentioned alongside Ashur and concluded that Ishtar was seen as Ashur's wife in the Old Assyrian Period. However, Meinhold finds this unlikely as Ishtar only came to be seen as Ashur's consort or wife during the Neo-Assyrian Period.[146] Three main Ishtars shared the title of Mullissu in late Assyrian texts, being Ishtar of Arbela, Ishtar of Nineveh and rarely Ishtar of Assur.[147] Assyrian texts do not always make it clear which Ishtar they are referring to.[148] Meinhold suggests that this goes by a per city basis, with Ishtar of Nineveh being viewed as Mullissu in Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela in Arbela, while in the city of Assur Mullissu appears to function as a separate, distinct goddess.[142] Another Neo-Assyrian text claims Ishtar of Arbela to be Ashur's daughter.[149]

In a bilingual prayer of Tukulti-Ninurta I to the god Ashur, Nusku is listed as Ashur's vizier.[30]

In the Assyrian recension of the Enuma Elish, Ashur's parents were listed as Lahmu and Lahamu. However, subsequent inscriptions from Sennacherib claimed that Ashur effectively created himself, which is reaffirmed in the so-called "Marduk Ordeal" that claimed Ashur came into being from nothingness.[150]

Texts and literature

[edit]

Marduk Ordeal

[edit]

Written in the Assyrian dialect,[151] versions of the so called Marduk Ordeal Text are known from Assur, Nimrud and Nineveh.[78] Using sceneries and language familiar to the procession of the Akitu Festival, here Marduk is instead being held responsible for crimes committed against Ashur and was subject to a river ordeal and imprisonment.[78] Nabu arrives in Babylon looking for his father Marduk, and Tashmetum prayed to Sin and Shamash.[152] Meanwhile, Marduk was being held captive, the color red on his clothes was reinterpreted to be his blood, and the case was brought forward to the god Ashur. The city of Babylon also seemingly rebelled against Marduk, and Nabu learned that Marduk was taken to the river ordeal. Marduk claims that everything was done for the good of the god Ashur and prays to the gods to let him live, while Sarpanit was the one who prays to let Marduk live in the Ninevite version.[153] After various alternate cultic commentaries, the Assyrian version of the Enuma Elish was recited, proclaiming Ashur's superiority.[154]

Assyrian Enuma Elish

[edit]

The content of the Assyrian recension of the Enuma Elish remains largely the same, except that Marduk was replaced by Ashur, written as Anshar. This creates a dilemma where two Anshars are attested in the myth, one being the old king of the gods, and one being the great-grandson, the new king of the gods. Lambert attributed this inconsistency to poor narrative skills, although Frahm believes that this was intentional, to give Ashur both genealogical superiority and political superiority.[155]

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ "Sumerian dictionary entry Aššur [1] (DN)". oracc.iaas.upenn.edu. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-06-19.
  2. ^ Hirsch 1961, p. 6.
  3. ^ a b Beaulieu 1997, p. 64.
  4. ^ a b c Beaulieu 2003, p. 332.
  5. ^ a b Lambert 1983, p. 85.
  6. ^ a b Valk 2018, p. 107.
  7. ^ Maul 2017, p. 338.
  8. ^ Valk 2018, p. 127.
  9. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2015, p. 103.
  10. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2015, p. 108.
  11. ^ Charpin, Edzard & Stol 2004, p. 65.
  12. ^ a b Veenhof & Eidem 2008, p. 104.
  13. ^ Veenhof & Eidem 2008, p. 122.
  14. ^ a b c d Eppihimer 2013, p. 42.
  15. ^ Eppihimer 2013, p. 43.
  16. ^ Valk 2018, p. 128.
  17. ^ Valk 2018, p. 154-155.
  18. ^ Valk 2018, p. 137.
  19. ^ Veenhof & Eidem 2008, p. 56.
  20. ^ a b Veenhof & Eidem 2008, p. 103.
  21. ^ Valk 2018, p. 139.
  22. ^ Veenhof & Eidem 2008, p. 155.
  23. ^ Cogan 1974, p. 53.
  24. ^ Holloway 2002, p. 167-168.
  25. ^ Cogan 1974, p. 54.
  26. ^ Holloway 2002, p. 168.
  27. ^ Valk 2018, p. 170-171.
  28. ^ Stepniowski 2003, p. 235.
  29. ^ Valk 2018, p. 172.
  30. ^ a b Meinhold 2014, p. 142.
  31. ^ a b Valk 2018, p. 173.
  32. ^ Valk 2018, p. 173-174.
  33. ^ a b Valk 2018, p. 129.
  34. ^ Veenhof & Eidem 2008, p. 184.
  35. ^ a b Eidem 2011, p. 330.
  36. ^ Kryszat 2003, p. 99.
  37. ^ Kryszat 2003, p. 100.
  38. ^ Eidem 2011, p. 325.
  39. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2015, p. 393.
  40. ^ Grayson 1985, p. 12.
  41. ^ a b Pongratz-Leisten 2011a, p. 110.
  42. ^ Maul 2017, p. 344.
  43. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2015, p. 393-394.
  44. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2015, p. 394.
  45. ^ Valk 2018, p. 200.
  46. ^ Valk 2018, p. 202.
  47. ^ Valk 2018, p. 203-204.
  48. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2015, p. 203.
  49. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2015, p. 138.
  50. ^ Valk 2018, p. 204.
  51. ^ Valk 2018, p. 206.
  52. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2011a, p. 112.
  53. ^ a b Valk 2018, p. 208.
  54. ^ Liverani 2017, p. 13.
  55. ^ Machinist 1976, p. 469-470.
  56. ^ Machinist 1976, p. 467.
  57. ^ Machinist 1976, p. 474.
  58. ^ a b Gilibert 2008, p. 181.
  59. ^ Gilibert 2008, p. 180.
  60. ^ a b Gilibert 2008, p. 183.
  61. ^ Karlsson 2015, p. 5.
  62. ^ Holloway 2002, p. 68.
  63. ^ Holloway 2002, p. 73-74.
  64. ^ Liverani 2017, p. 222.
  65. ^ Zaia 2015, p. 27.
  66. ^ Liverani 2017, p. 12.
  67. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2015, p. 145.
  68. ^ Liverani 2017, p. 14.
  69. ^ Edmonds 2025, p. 17-18.
  70. ^ Edmonds 2025, p. 18.
  71. ^ Edmonds 2025, p. 16-17.
  72. ^ a b Liverani 2017, p. 11.
  73. ^ a b c Villard 2023, p. 116.
  74. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2015, p. 392.
  75. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2015, p. 401.
  76. ^ Ponchia et al. 2024, p. 461.
  77. ^ Ponchia et al. 2024, p. 464-465.
  78. ^ a b c d e Nielsen 2018, p. 98.
  79. ^ Frahm 2010, p. 8.
  80. ^ Porter 1993, p. 120.
  81. ^ Porter 1993, p. 122.
  82. ^ Porter 1993, p. 124.
  83. ^ Porter 1993, p. 124-125.
  84. ^ Porter 1993, p. 125.
  85. ^ Cogan 1974, p. 60.
  86. ^ Cogan 1974, p. 51.
  87. ^ Liverani 2017, p. 220.
  88. ^ Liverani 2017, p. 221.
  89. ^ Liverani 2017, p. 229.
  90. ^ Holloway 2002, p. 67.
  91. ^ Liverani 2017, p. 221-222.
  92. ^ Radner 2017, p. 80-81.
  93. ^ a b Radner 2017, p. 81.
  94. ^ Holloway 2002, p. 66-67.
  95. ^ Holloway 2002, p. 330.
  96. ^ Frame 1995, p. 63.
  97. ^ Frahm 2017, p. 561.
  98. ^ Aster 2017, p. 19.
  99. ^ Aster 2017, p. 39.
  100. ^ Levine 2005, p. 423.
  101. ^ Pongratz-Leisten 2011b, p. 2.
  102. ^ Frahm 2000, p. 34.
  103. ^ Cooper 2000, p. 439.
  104. ^ Frahm 2017, p. 566.
  105. ^ Beaulieu 1997, p. 61.
  106. ^ Beaulieu 1997, p. 60-61.
  107. ^ Beaulieu 1997, p. 61-62.
  108. ^ Radner 2017, p. 84.
  109. ^ a b Radner 2017, p. 85.
  110. ^ Radner 2017, p. 89.
  111. ^ Schaudig 2018, p. 621-622.
  112. ^ Schaudig 2018, p. 628.
  113. ^ Schaudig 2018, p. 629.
  114. ^ Livingstone 2009, p. 152.
  115. ^ Livingstone 2009, p. 154.
  116. ^ Haider 2008, p. 197.
  117. ^ Livingstone 2009, p. 156.
  118. ^ Valk 2018, p. 105.
  119. ^ Lambert 1983, p. 83.
  120. ^ Lambert 1983, p. 82-83.
  121. ^ Valk 2018, p. 106.
  122. ^ Maul 2017, p. 339.
  123. ^ Maul 2017, p. 340.
  124. ^ Lassen 2017, p. 182.
  125. ^ Lassen 2017, p. 183.
  126. ^ Lassen 2017, p. 185.
  127. ^ Lassen 2017, p. 181.
  128. ^ Lassen 2017, p. 187.
  129. ^ Veenhof 2017, p. 73.
  130. ^ a b Reade & Freydank 2000, p. 106.
  131. ^ a b Reade & Freydank 2000, p. 108.
  132. ^ Reade & Freydank 2000, p. 111.
  133. ^ a b Frayne 1997, p. 23.
  134. ^ Ungen 1965, p. 437.
  135. ^ Ungen 1965, p. 439-441.
  136. ^ Reade & Freydank 2000, p. 109.
  137. ^ a b Holloway 2002, p. 66.
  138. ^ Ungen 1965, p. 463.
  139. ^ Holloway 2002, p. 65.
  140. ^ Liverani 2017, p. 16.
  141. ^ a b c Lambert 1983, p. 82.
  142. ^ a b Meinhold 2014, p. 144.
  143. ^ Krebernik 2011, p. 400.
  144. ^ Meinhold 2014, p. 145.
  145. ^ Meinhold 2014, p. 146.
  146. ^ Meinhold 2014, p. 141.
  147. ^ Porter 2004, p. 42.
  148. ^ Porter 2004, p. 43.
  149. ^ Meinhold 2014, p. 147.
  150. ^ Meinhold 2014, p. 143.
  151. ^ Frymer-Kensky 1983, p. 131.
  152. ^ Frymer-Kensky 1983, p. 134.
  153. ^ Livingstone 1989, p. 88.
  154. ^ Livingstone 1989, p. 85.
  155. ^ Frahm 2010, p. 9.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
![Cult wall relief depicting the god Ashur]float-right Ashur, also spelled Aššur or , was the national and supreme god of ancient , serving as the patron deity of the city of from which his cult originated in the third millennium BCE before elevating to head the pantheon during the empire's expansion. As a unique state god lacking typical mythological family ties and possibly embodying a deified urban center, Ashur symbolized Assyrian sovereignty, war, and kingship, with attributes drawn from Mesopotamian predecessors like , , and . His worship, centered in temples at Assur and spread through conquests, positioned Assyrian kings as high priests who invoked his divine mandate for military campaigns and governance, fostering an ideology that justified imperial dominance from the Old Assyrian period (c. 2025–1750 BCE) through the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–612 BCE). Depicted as a winged sun disk, archer with bow and quiver, or warrior in horned helmet, Ashur's iconography emphasized protection and victory, often accompanied by symbols like the bull and integrated into royal art and inscriptions. The cult's rituals and near-monotheistic prominence reflected causal ties to Assyria's agricultural roots and militaristic ascent, declining sharply after the empire's collapse though lingering in diaspora communities.

Name and Etymology

Linguistic Origins and Meanings

The name of the god Aššur is etymologically inseparable from that of the city (Akkadian: Aššur) and the land māt Aššur, with inscriptions distinguishing the referents primarily through determinatives for "" (d), "city" (URU), or "place/land" (KI), underscoring the god's role as the divine embodiment of the locale rather than an independent anthropomorphic figure. This linguistic equivalence reflects a causal link to the city's physical prominence on a River plateau mound (tell), where early settlement layers date to the third millennium BCE, though no direct semantic tie to terms for "heap" or "mound" is empirically attested in primary sources. The core etymology of Aššur remains unresolved in scholarly analysis, lacking clear pre-Assyrian attestation and resisting definitive derivation from broader Mesopotamian or Semitic lexica; proposed roots include the Hebrew-influenced verb אשר ('asher), meaning "to proceed straight" or implying progression, or ישר (yashar), denoting "level," "upright," or "just," potentially evoking the city's elevated, defensible as a "level " or "step." Alternative Semitic interpretations posit benevolent connotations, rendering the name as "the Holy One," "the Beneficent One," or "the Merciful One," aligned with attributes of favor and in early local cults, though these derive from interpretive traditions rather than unambiguous glosses. A geographical reading as Aushar, "water field," ties the name to the irrigated alluvial plains supporting Assyrian agriculture, consistent with the site's reliance on canals for sustenance. In , Aššur's name occasionally employs the dAN.ŠAR₂ (or dAN.ŠÁR), ideographically signifying "whole heaven" from Sumerian-Akkadian elements, which may reflect later theological efforts to elevate the god by associating him with primordial cosmic totality or equating him to , without altering the name's primary local-geographical basis. This writing highlights interpretive flexibility in Assyrian but does not resolve underlying semantic obscurity, as the god's identity prioritizes empirical embodiment of the over astral or mythic speculation.

Variants Across Languages and Identifications

The name of the Assyrian national god Aššur appears in texts primarily through syllabic spellings such as aš-šur (often with the divine d), reflecting the East Semitic Akkadian dialect of . This form derives from phonetic renderings in Old Assyrian merchant tablets from the early BCE, where the god's name aligns with the city's designation, underscoring his role as a deified locale. Sumerian-influenced logographic writings employ dAN.ŠÁR (𒀭𒀭𒊹), interpretable as "totality of heaven," which facilitated scribal substitutions but preserved Aššur's phonetic identity in Assyrian contexts. In Babylonian traditions, the shared logogram AN.ŠÁR led to occasional equations between Aššur and the primordial sky god Anšar, a figure in cosmogonic myths like the Enūma eliš representing the encircling heaven. Assyrian texts, however, distinguish Aššur as the active patron of empire and kingship, not a passive primordial entity, prioritizing his elevation as head of the pantheon over Babylonian syncretisms. Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions from the 9th–7th centuries BCE reinforce this by portraying Aššur in Enlil-like supremacy, absorbing attributes of the Sumerian-Akkadian chief god without merging identities. Later attestations in multilingual empires show minor adaptations, such as transliterations approximating ʾšr in bilingual contexts, but these remain tied to Mesopotamian precedents without altering core Assyrian identifications. Scholarly analyses of Neo-Assyrian corpora confirm no substantive links to non-Mesopotamian deities, emphasizing etymological roots in Semitic astral or spatial concepts over speculative cross-cultural borrowings.

Historical Development

Early Attestations (Third Millennium BCE)

The of Assur was founded in the early third millennium BCE on a rocky escarpment along the River, with its Ashur emerging as a deification of the locality itself rather than an anthropomorphic figure independent of the urban center. This conceptualization reflects Mesopotamian traditions where settlements were personified divinely to embody communal identity and protection, distinguished in texts primarily by determinatives for "," "," or "." Archaeological evidence from excavations at indicates occupation layers dating to the mid-third millennium BCE, including early cultic installations at elevated sites overlooking the river, though later imperial reconstructions obscure precise third-millennium configurations. The temple Ešarra, dedicated to Ashur and situated at the city's highest point, originated in this foundational phase, serving as the core of local worship and royal legitimacy without evidence of expansive mythology or iconography at this stage. In the Old Akkadian period (c. 2334–2154 BCE), inscriptions from Akkadian rulers and officials reference in contexts of administrative control and construction, treating it as a sacralized toponym with divine connotations, such as dedications implying protective oversight over the settlement. These sparse textual mentions prioritize Ashur's role in legitimizing territorial authority, aligning with the era's emphasis on imperial integration of peripheral cult sites rather than doctrinal elaboration.

Old Assyrian Period (c. 2025–1750 BCE)

During the Old Assyrian Period, Assyrian merchants from the city-state of Assur established extensive trade networks, including colonies (kārum) in central , notably at Kanesh (modern ), where over 20,000 tablets in Old Assyrian dialect document commercial activities from ca. 1950–1740 BCE. These archives, primarily from Levels II and Ib at , record oaths and contracts invoking Aššur as a guarantor of agreements, often paired with the minor Ilabrat, reflecting his integration into the legal and economic framework of long-distance trade in tin, textiles, and silver. For instance, merchants swore by Aššur to affirm debts, deliveries, and partnerships, underscoring his function as a divine witness ensuring compliance amid risks of caravan losses or disputes. Aššur's worship extended beyond Assur through portable practices, as traders transported symbolic emblems or invoked him in rituals at sites, adapting the god's to support rather than territorial control. Contracts from Kanesh explicitly reference such oaths, such as those binding family firms or agents, where Aššur's sanction deterred fraud in ventures spanning to . This economic emphasis positioned Aššur as protector of caravans and profits, with dedications or vows tied to successful trades, evidenced in texts detailing repayments "before Aššur" upon safe returns. The dated records, cross-referenced with eponyms and royal names like those under Erishum I (ca. 1974–1935 BCE), illustrate Aššur's evolving role from a localized of to an expansive patron of merchant enterprises, fostering the city's prosperity without imperial expansion. This shift, supported by the absence of military references in texts, highlights causal links between and economic incentives, as rulers like Ilu-shuma (ca. 2025–1985 BCE) promoted , implicitly elevating Aššur's to legitimize and safeguard commercial oaths.

Middle Assyrian Period (c. 1365–1050 BCE)

(r. c. 1365–1330 BCE), the inaugural king of the , elevated Ashur's prominence by crediting the god with empowering Assyria's break from vassalage and subsequent conquests, including interventions against Kassite rulers in . In royal inscriptions and , such as letters to Egyptian Amenhotep IV, positioned himself as Ashur's agent, portraying the deity as the source of royal authority and battlefield triumphs that expanded Assyrian territory eastward and southward. This rhetoric framed Ashur not merely as the city-god of but as the divine architect of imperial sovereignty. Successor kings like (r. c. 1307–1275 BCE) and Shalmaneser I (r. c. 1274–1245 BCE) reinforced this integration in their annals, invoking Ashur as the granter of victories over Hurrian principalities and the subjugation of the Habur River region, thereby associating territorial gains with divine mandate. State documents from this era standardized Ashur's primacy in the pantheon, listing him foremost among deities in oaths, treaties, and administrative texts, a shift evidenced by archives reflecting centralized governance over the "land of Ashur" (māt Aššur). Provincial sites like Tell Billa yield Middle Assyrian seal impressions and records that illustrate the propagation of Ashur-centric and protocols into frontier administrations, underscoring the god's role in unifying disparate territories under Assyrian rule. Royal explicitly link military prowess to Ashur's favor, positing that conquests—such as the of heartlands—stemmed from the god's intervention, which in turn justified expanded cultic endowments and temple restorations in . This causal dynamic, rooted in empirical attributions of success to divine agency, propelled Ashur's theological ascent without supplanting other gods but positioning him as the paramount patron of the expanding .

Neo-Assyrian Period (c. 911–609 BCE)

In the Neo-Assyrian Period, Ashur ascended to the position of paramount deity, personifying the empire's martial prowess and territorial dominion as kings styled themselves iššakku (viceroys) of Ashur, crediting military campaigns against regions from to to his direct patronage. This elevation reflected Assyria's imperial zenith, where Ashur's cult supplanted local pantheons in conquered areas through imposed rituals and dedications, as evidenced by royal annals attributing the subjugation of over 80 provinces to his will. Coronation ceremonies, performed within Ashur's Ešarra temple at , ritually affirmed the king's legitimacy by having the —symbolized through or images—bestow sovereignty via weapons or linked to Ashur's warlike attributes, distinguishing Assyrian practice from Babylonian precedents where intermediaries predominated. (r. 681–669 BCE) exemplified this integration by reconstructing the Ešarra complex after prior damages, inscribing prisms that tied the project to Ashur's command for restoring cosmic order and bolstering imperial foundations against Babylonian threats. Theological assertions of Ashur's supremacy appeared in adapted cosmogonic texts, such as the Assyrian Enūma Eliš, where Ashur supplanted as the slayer of and architect of the universe, a deliberate recasting to assert Assyrian primacy amid conflicts with , as preserved in late-period tablet fragments. Palace reliefs and victory stelae, including those from Ashurnasirpal II's (r. 883–859 BCE) complex, routinely portrayed kings receiving divine sanction from Ashur's emblem—a winged solar disk—amid scenes of tribute from unified vassal states, visually propagating the narrative of empire as Ashur's terrestrial extension.

Post-Imperial and Later Worship

Following the destruction of in 612 BCE and the subsequent sack of in 614 BCE by and Babylonians, the cult of Ashur survived in diminished form within the city of itself, where archaeological evidence indicates a small temple was erected during the Achaemenid period (539–330 BCE). Cyrus the Great's policy of restoring displaced cult images to their original shrines extended to Ashur, whose statue was returned to , enabling limited priestly continuity amid Persian oversight. Under Seleucid (312–63 BCE) and especially Parthian (247 BCE–224 CE) administration, Assur reemerged as a pilgrimage site for Assyrian religious practices, with the reconstruction of the temple complex and a dedicated to Ashur and his consort Šerūʾa, as attested by Arsacid-era architecture and inscriptions preserving traditional rituals. Local shrines in northern Mesopotamian settlements, including —a Parthian frontier city—maintained Ashur's veneration through dedications linking him to protective and martial attributes, though integrated with regional pantheons like those of and . This persistence reflected Parthian tolerance for peripheral ethnic cults rather than imperial promotion, with no evidence of widespread revival beyond core Assyrian communities. In the Sasanian era (224–651 CE), Zoroastrianism's elevation as marginalized non-Iranian deities, confining Ashur's practices to isolated rural or urban pockets in proper, where fire temples and oversight gradually eroded pagan infrastructure. The advent of from the 1st century CE onward, culminating in mass conversions among ethnic Assyrians by the 5th century, systematically supplanted Ashur's cult through missionary efforts and royal edicts against , with textual records showing temple conversions to churches in by the late . Epigraphic and numismatic traces of Ashur worship cease reliably after circa 240 CE, marking an empirical termination without organized resistance or later pagan resurgence, though the god's winged-disk emblem endured symbolically in Assyrian ethnic self-identification into .

Iconography and Attributes

Core Symbols and Representations

Ashur's primary iconographic representation is the winged solar disk, a motif denoting solar divinity, martial authority, and imperial oversight, often featuring an emerging bearded figure grasping a . This symbol, carved on ivories from Nimrud's Fort Shalmaneser (9th–8th centuries BCE), underscores Ashur's role as a protective war deity, with the disk's rays and wings evoking omnipresence and swift judgment over enemies. In anthropomorphic form, Ashur appears as a bearded enthroned or standing, adorned with a horned cap signifying supreme —a headdress with multiple pairs of bull horns, adapted from earlier Mesopotamian deities like and to assert Ashur's preeminence. Temple reliefs from , such as those in the depicting a central flanked by water figures and goats (c. 2000–1500 BCE), ground this portrayal in cultic contexts, where the figure's regal posture and divine headgear emphasize sovereignty and ritual potency. Cylinder seals further attest to the horned cap's use, pairing it with Ashur's disk to integrate personal and cosmic power. Select artifacts also incorporate borrowed elements like the snake-dragon (), drawn from Marduk's on cylinder seals, where it accompanies Ashur's symbols to evoke triumph over chaos, though its attribution to Ashur reflects Assyrian adaptation rather than original primacy. These motifs collectively project Ashur's essence through tangible media, prioritizing evidentiary depictions over interpretive variance.

Evolution in Art and Recent Finds

In Neo-Assyrian palace art from the 9th to 7th centuries BCE, depictions of Ashur transitioned toward more anthropomorphic and dynamic forms, portraying the god as a bearded warrior wielding a bow, often emerging from a winged solar disk with a quiver and arrows to emphasize martial prowess. This evolution from earlier, more abstract city-god symbols—such as simple disks or standards—to active, interventionist figures aligned with the empire's expansionist campaigns, as seen in reliefs from Nimrud's Northwest Palace around 865 BCE, where Ashur hovers protectively over royal processions or sacred trees tended by genii. The use of durable limestone slabs, carved in low relief with precise incisions for shading and movement, ensured longevity, with stylistic elements like flowing garments and tensed musculature drawing from broader Mesopotamian conventions but amplifying Assyrian imperial motifs of divine endorsement for conquest. A significant 2025 discovery in (modern , ) has refined understanding of late Neo-Assyrian through the unearthing of a 12-ton, 5.5-meter-long slab from the 7th century BCE, excavated by Heidelberg University's team beneath the North Palace. The slab depicts Ashur standing alongside King (r. 668–631 BCE) and Ishtar, with Ashur identifiable by his winged disk, bow, and protective stance toward the monarch, alongside a fish-cloaked figure; this configuration offers direct evidence of Ashur's role in royal-divine triads without prior parallels in preserved palace contexts. Material analysis confirms the slab's resilience to seismic and erosive forces over 2,600 years, attributed to its massive scale and deep quarry sourcing, while stylistic traits—such as Ashur's arched wings and Ishtar's rosette-adorned weaponry—exhibit continuity with earlier exemplars but heightened emphasis on symmetrical divine flanking of the king.

Theology and Mythology

Divine Family and Relationships

In Assyrian god lists and hymns, Ashur's primary consort is , often equated with the Babylonian and portrayed as the mother goddess supporting his sovereignty. Šerū'a appears as a secondary consort or occasionally as his daughter in earlier texts, though Neo-Assyrian sources explicitly designate her as wife to clarify her status amid familial ambiguities. Textual variances reflect syncretic influences, with absorbing 's role as Enlil's spouse while Šerū'a links to local traditions, sometimes merging with Ishtar in martial hymns where Ashur invokes her for victory. Offspring attributions remain sparse in mythology, with no extensive genealogies; Ashur absorbs Enlil's sons and as divine extensions, evident in royal inscriptions naming kings like Adad-nirari after storm-god progeny, implying hierarchical adoption rather than biological descent. God lists such as position Ashur's "children" within a broader pantheon, prioritizing functional alliances over narrative progeny. Within the pantheon, Ashur holds supremacy akin to , as "king of the gods" (šar ilī), subordinating older deities like —the distant —in active cosmology, per Neo-Assyrian equivalences that elevate him without direct parentage claims. This hierarchy underscores Ashur's embodiment of , integrating Sumerian-Babylonian lineages through equivalence rather than strict filiation, with variances in lists reflecting imperial adaptation.

Key Myths and Texts

In the Marduk Ordeal Text, preserved in Late Assyrian dialect copies from , , and dating to the 7th century BCE, Ashur assumes the role of supreme judge over , subjecting the Babylonian god to interrogation and trial for alleged crimes against the divine order. The narrative depicts Ashur binding , stripping him of authority, and affirming Assyrian theological dominance by portraying Marduk's downfall as , thereby elevating Ashur as the unchallenged arbiter of cosmic justice. This text, likely composed or adapted during the Neo-Assyrian Empire's expansion into Babylonian territories, served to subvert Babylonian primacy in shared Mesopotamian traditions. Assyrian adaptations of the Enūma eliš, the Babylonian creation epic, recast Ashur as the central victor over and her chaotic forces, replacing in the narrative of world formation and divine kingship. Fragments from Neo-Assyrian libraries, including those at , describe Ashur organizing the pantheon, splitting 's body to form and , and establishing order from primordial disorder, aligning the myth with Assyrian imperial . These versions, attested from the 8th–7th centuries BCE, integrated Babylonian literary motifs while asserting Ashur's , evident in rituals like the Assyrian aššū festival where the epic's recitation reinforced national cosmology. Coronation hymns from the , such as SAA 3.11 composed around 668 BCE, invoke Ashur's eternal kingship and role as granter of royal authority, portraying the god as the timeless sovereign whose throne endures forever. These texts, inscribed on clay tablets in Standard Babylonian, emphasize Ashur's bestowal of (majesty) upon Assyrian rulers during rites, linking divine perpetuity to imperial stability without reference to Babylonian precedents. Such hymns, performed in the temple, underscore Ashur's agency in sustaining monarchy through unyielding cosmic rule.

Role in Assyrian Cosmology

Ashur served as the paramount deity in Assyrian cosmology, embodying the principle of cosmic creation and the imposition of order upon primordial chaos. Theological tracts and adapted creation myths positioned Ashur as the divine architect who vanquished chaotic forces, akin to the victor in Mesopotamian epics, thereby establishing the structured universe and delineating the roles of subordinate gods. This conceptualization framed the Assyrian empire as a terrestrial manifestation of Ashur's will, where expansion represented the extension of divine order against disorderly realms. In contrast to Babylonian cosmology, which centered as the creator god legitimizing Babylonian centrality, Assyrian adaptations substituted Ashur to assert national self-legitimacy, identifying him with primordial entities like Anšar to underscore his foundational causality in the . Ashur's deification of itself transformed the god into the causal nexus linking imperial success to cosmic equilibrium, with the nation's viewing conquest as a sacred duty to propagate order. Assyrian omen texts provide empirical corroboration of this , interpreting celestial events—such as planetary alignments or eclipses—as direct indicators of Ashur's disposition toward the empire's fortunes. These practices linked astronomical order to Ashur's favor, positing that harmonious heavenly phenomena presaged imperial victories, thereby integrating cosmology with causal realism in state decision-making.

Cult and State Integration

Temples, Rituals, and Priesthood

The principal temple dedicated to Ashur was the Ešarra, known as the "Temple of the Universe," located at the highest, northernmost point of the city of . This sanctuary, dating to the early phases of the city's settlement in the third millennium BCE, included an adjacent on the western escarpment, serving as the core site for cultic activities. An akītu-temple constructed outside the city walls facilitated specific festivals, distinct from the central Ešarra complex. Rituals centered on regular offerings and periodic festivals, with temple archives documenting administrative aspects of cult maintenance. Daily rituals involved priests presenting offerings to sustain the deity's presence, as evidenced in broader Mesopotamian temple practices adapted to Assyrian contexts. The Akitu festival, marking the New Year, featured processions from the city to the external akītu-temple, where rites invoked Ashur's cosmic order through recitations akin to the . Purification procedures aligned with the , ensuring ritual purity through monthly renewals, though specific Ashur-centric texts remain limited. The priesthood of Ashur's cult operated within a structured dominated by the Ešarra temple, with roles encompassing oversight of sacrifices and . Temple records from detail the receipt and distribution of offerings, including meat preparations for sacrificial rites, managed by specialized personnel. Divinatory practices, such as omen interpretation, were integral to priestly duties, drawing from extispicy and other methods to discern Ashur's will in routine temple operations. These functions ensured the continuity of cultic efficacy, as preserved in administrative tablets from the temple environs.

Association with Kingship and Empire

Assyrian royal inscriptions consistently portrayed the king as the viceroy (iššiak Aššur) of Ashur, emphasizing the god's supreme sovereignty over the state while the human ruler acted as his earthly agent tasked with expansion and justice. This ideology is evident in formulas from Old Assyrian seals declaring "Aššur is king! [Royal name] is viceroy of Aššur," which persisted into the Neo-Assyrian period to legitimize monarchical authority as divinely delegated rather than inherent. Kings such as Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745–727 BCE) invoked this relationship in their annals, presenting themselves as instruments of Ashur's will in reorganizing the empire's administration and military. Victory stelae and campaign reports reinforced this dynamic by attributing conquests explicitly to Ashur's command, with rulers like (r. 681–669 BCE) depicting divine favor in subjugating regions such as in 671 BCE. Neo-Assyrian kings routinely dispatched inscribed "letters to the god" detailing military outcomes, as seen in surviving texts from (r. 722–705 BCE), which framed territorial gains—from Media to the —as fulfillments of Ashur's mandate to enlarge his domain. This causal linkage in fostered imperial cohesion, portraying the empire's vast expanse, peaking at over 1.4 million square kilometers by the late 7th century BCE, as the physical extension of Ashur's cosmic rule. Annals of kings like (r. 883–859 BCE) tied infrastructural and military advancements directly to Ashur's patronage, crediting the god for engineering feats such as the construction of 690 km of roads and the development of iron weaponry that enabled rapid campaigns. Similarly, (r. 668–631 BCE) described aqueducts and palace expansions in as rewards for victories secured under Ashur's aegis, integrating state projects with the ideology of divine reciprocity to sustain loyalty across conquered provinces.

Scholarly Debates

Theories of Deity's Origin

The predominant hypothesis among Assyriologists holds that Ashur emerged as the deified of the of Aššur, reflecting the ancient Near Eastern pattern of elevating urban centers to divine status during the Early (c. 3000–2000 BCE). Early texts from the (c. 2000–1750 BCE) invoke Ashur primarily as a civic patron in and colony contexts, without anthropomorphic traits or personal myths typical of established deities like or . This non-narrative role aligns with archaeological findings of Ashur's temple (Ešarra) integrated into the city's , suggesting the symbolized the polity's rather than an independent cosmic entity. Alternative proposals, such as Ashur deriving from a deified tribal ancestor or indigenous spirit predating urbanization, find limited support in the material record. Proponents cite the city's strategic hilltop location as potentially sacred prior to settlement, but no inscriptions or artifacts from pre-Assyrian layers (before c. 2500 BCE) reference such a figure, and genetic or epigraphic evidence for ancestral cults remains absent. These theories often rely on comparative analogies from other Semitic cultures rather than direct Assyrian data, rendering them speculative. Hypotheses positing astral origins for Ashur, based on later winged-disk iconography, are critiqued for chronological and representational inconsistencies. While solar motifs appear in Neo-Assyrian reliefs (c. 911–612 BCE), early depictions lack celestial attributes, and Ashur's primary emblems—such as the horned cap borrowed from —do not consistently evoke stars or planets, differing from unambiguous astral gods like . Etymological links to Akkadian terms for "eagle" or "heap" (potentially the city's mound) further prioritize terrestrial over heavenly connotations.

Syncretism and Comparative Interpretations

In the Neo-Assyrian period, particularly under (r. 721–705 BCE), Assyrian theologians partially equated Ashur with the primordial Babylonian deity Anšar (AN.ŠAR), the cosmic "whole heaven" figure preceding in creation myths like the , to elevate Ashur's status as the apex of the pantheon. This emphasized Ashur's overarching cosmic sovereignty, aligning him with Anšar's generative role in primordial order, yet Ashur preserved a distinct tied to Assyrian kingship and territorial expansion, rather than fully absorbing Anšar's passive, non-cultic profile. From the Middle Assyrian era onward (ca. 1365–1050 BCE), Ashur increasingly incorporated attributes of the Sumerian high god , as evidenced in god lists such as and royal titles like bēl mātāte ("lord of the lands") and šar ilī ("), positioning him hierarchically akin to Enlil's role as arbiter of divine decrees and earthly fates. This adaptation reflected broader Mesopotamian influences, where Ashur adopted Enlil's familial structure—including Mullissu as consort, equated to —and storm-related epithets, facilitating integration into Babylonian-Sumerian theological frameworks during Assyrian dominance. However, Assyriologists critique interpretations of total syncretism, arguing that Ashur's core function as a deus politicus—embodying the Assyrian state's martial and imperial ethos—retained unique autonomy, distinct from Enlil's more universal, wind-storm persona rooted in Nippur's cult, thereby avoiding dilution of his ethno-national specificity. Speculative cross-cultural parallels, such as links to Indo-European Æsir deities or Indic Asuras based on phonetic resemblances, lack substantiation in cuneiform texts, iconography, or shared mythic narratives, and are dismissed by specialists for relying on unsubstantiated linguistic conjecture rather than empirical attestation.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.