Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cremation Burials in North Mesopotamia
in the First Millennium BC:
Evidence of social differentiation in the Assyrian
Empire?
Silvia Ferreri
St. Edmund’s College
University of Cambridge
This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy.
August 2015
This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text.
This dissertation does not exceed the word limit stipulated by the Degree Committee for the Faculty of Human, Social and Political Sciences.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Yağmur Heffron, for all her support and
encouragement through the year and in writing this dissertation: her guidance has been
inspiring and her enthusiasm contagious.
I also want to thank my family for always having been at my side and especially Laura, who
gave me the best “dissertation survival kit” ever.
Finally, I am enormously grateful to Diego, Glenda and all the friends who listened to me
speaking about death and burial practices night and day and still want to spend time with
me.
Index
Chapter 1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Research questions.................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Historical overview .................................................................................................................... 3
Historical context: The Neo-Assyrian Empire .............................................................................. 3
1.3 Ethnicity: scholarly approaches ................................................................................................. 6
Ethnicity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire .......................................................................................... 9
1.4 Funerary practices and identity ............................................................................................... 12
Cremation and identity ............................................................................................................. 14
Chapter 2 - Textual sources and archaeological evidence for cremation ......................................... 17
2.1 Textual data ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.2 Archaeological data ................................................................................................................. 22
2.2.1 Cremation burials in the 2nd millennium .......................................................................... 22
2.2.2 Cremation during the Iron Age (end of the 2nd - first half of the 1st millennium) ............ 23
2.2.3a Tell Shiukh Fawqâni ........................................................................................................ 26
2.2.3b Yunus (Carchemish) ........................................................................................................ 29
2.2.3c Dūr Katlimmu .................................................................................................................. 31
2.2.3d Aššur ............................................................................................................................... 36
2.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 38
Chapter 3 - A case study: Dūr Katlimmu ........................................................................................... 43
3.1 The role of Dūr Katlimmu in the Neo-Assyrian provincial system .......................................... 44
3.2 Assyrian imitation of foreign customs? ................................................................................... 45
3.3 Persistence of foreign traditions among Assyrianized people? .............................................. 47
Chapter 4 - Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 55
References ......................................................................................................................................... 57
Appendix 1 - Glossary ........................................................................................................................ 63
Appendix 2 - Characteristics of cremation burials ............................................................................ 66
Appendix 3 - Vessel types from Tell Shiukh Fawqâni ........................................................................ 67
Appendix 4 - Vessel types from Yunus (Carchemish) ........................................................................ 73
Appendix 5 - Cremation burials from Aššur ...................................................................................... 79
List of Figures
Fig. 1 Model of Iron Age settlements in the upper Tigris River valley (after Matney 2010) ................. 11
Fig. 2 Distribution of Iron Age sites where cremation is attested (created using Google Earth) .......... 25
Fig. 3 Cremation burials within the Neo-Assyrian Residences, Dūr Katlimmu (after Kreppner 2008) . 33
Fig. 4 Examples of Brandgrubengräber, Dūr Katlimmu (after Kreppner 2008) ..................................... 34
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Research questions
This study belongs to the wide stream of research on ethnicity and identity in complex
societies (Barth 1969; Just 1989; de Vos 1982). This is a topic of interest for many disciplines,
from ancient history to archaeology, anthropology and social studies seeking to analyse
mechanisms with which societies, ancient and modern, deal with minorities and their
traditions (Hall 1998; Bahrani 2006; Emberling 1997; Preston 1999).
Archaeologists have adopted various approaches in the study of identity and ethnicity based
either on texts and language (Van Driel 2005; contra De Bernardi 2005) or on specific aspects
of material culture (Binford 1965; 1972; Matney 2010). From the 1990s, the focus has been
directed to the social group and its agency (Parker Pearson 1999; Preston 1999; Porter and
Schwartz 2012) with a growing interest on the ways of performing specific actions and the
reasons behind them.
Research focusing on the agency of the social group assigns particular importance to
funerary practices as markers of identity because of their close connection to beliefs about
death and afterlife, which shape the self-perception of the individual within his own group
and in opposition to others; and to the ideology of the social group and its structure.
Funerary practices can be used for manipulating identities and social roles with an
immediate effect on social structure.
The focus of this work is ethnic identity as manifested through funerary beliefs and practices
in North Mesopotamia in the 1st millennium BC and, specifically, the practice of cremation in
the Neo-Assyrian period (900-612).
2
The reasons for this choice are manifold. Firstly, cremation is rarely documented in
Mesopotamia, its widest attestations being concentrated in Syria between the end of the
second and first half of the 1st millennium. Furthermore, cremation represents a deviation
from typical Mesopotamian funerary practices, i.e. inhumation, in terms of both body
treatment and associated beliefs about death. This latter element is also testified by the
Mesopotamian textual sources according to which the destruction of the body of the
deceased prevents access to the Netherworld. Against this background, the use of cremation
represents a mismatch between what is expected according to texts and certain clusters of
archaeological data documented in Syria. This mismatch has significant implications for
assessing ethnic diversity manifesting in mortuary customs.
Within this wider framework, this work analyses the specific case of cremation at Dūr
Katlimmu, an important Neo-Assyrian city in South-western Syria, in relation to its
immediate temporal and regional context, i.e. other contemporary Syrian sites at which
cremation occurs.
The choice of Dūr Katlimmu relies on two observations. First, the type of cremation attested
at this site differs from typical Syrian examples. Second, here the practice dates to the Neo-
Assyrian period, while at all the other Syrian sites cremation ends with the beginning of
Assyrian rule.
Dūr Katlimmu is also exceptional when the core of the Assyrian empire is considered: Here
cremation is attested in less than ten examples and, it may be argued, served mainly
practical purposes, i.e. for creating space in communal inhumation graves.
In summary, this research is composed of three different levels: the study of identity and
ethnicity in complex societies; the study of cremation as marker of identity with specific
3
reference to 1st millennium Mesopotamia and the analysis of the case of Dūr Katlimmu,
which is unique within the framework of the Neo-Assyrian empire.
My aim is to provide an explanation of the data from Dūr Katlimmu in the light of the
processes of assimilation typical of the Neo-Assyrian empire. I consider cremation to be a set
of meaningful actions, extending from the choice of a particular burial place to that of a set
of grave goods, pointing to beliefs different from standard Mesopotamian practices and for
this reason, quite possibly indicative of ethnic differences.
I consider two possible scenarios: i) the imitation of foreign customs by the Assyrians settled
in the city; and ii) the introduction of this practice with the arrival of deportees at Dūr
Katlimmu. Finally, I suggest a possible social framework for the practice of cremation in the
Assyrian empire.
1.2 Historical overview
This section highlights those ideological and structural elements of the Neo-Assyrian empire
that provide the conceptual context for evaluating issues of identity in the funerary sphere,
particularly the practice of cremation. Rather than present an exhaustive historical overview
of the Assyrian empire1, the aim is to draw attention to those mechanism which favoured
the creation of an “Assyrian identity” (Parpola 2004) and influenced relations between
Assyrians and “others”.
Historical context: The Neo-Assyrian Empire
The Neo-Assyrian empire (900-612) has been described as the first world empire (Joannes
2004) and a completely new structure in terms of size, internal organization, ideology and
duration (Beaulieu 2005b:49). At its peak, in the 7th century, it extended into Mesopotamia,
1 See among many others Joannes 2004; Van De Mieroop 2004
4
Western Syria, Western Iran, South-eastern Anatolia, the Levant; and, under Esarhaddon
(680-669) and Assurbanipal (668-631), to Egypt and Elam (Liverani 2007).
From the 10th century onwards, Assyrian kings devoted themselves to the creation of a
unifying ideology to which they were central, linking the Land of Aššur and the gods
(recently Ataç 2010). The variegated components of the empire were kept together by this
ideological glue.
Key elements in the creation of the “Assyrian identity” (Parpola 2004) were the progressive
annexation to the heartland of the empire (the “Assyrian triangle” in the region of Nineveh,
Postgate 1992:252) of the surrounding regions, turned either into provinces or vassal states
(Parker 2001); and deportations of people from the furthest areas of the empire to its centre
(Oded 1979; Wilkinson et al. 2005).
On the one hand, the system of territorial administration allowed Assyrian kings to exert
direct control over a wide part of their lands and bind vassal states to the crown by means of
treaties and oaths (Parpola and Watanabe 1988; Parker 2001). On the other hand, the
deportation of large groups of people broke their ties with their places of origin and, in the
long term, fostered loyalty to the king who settled them in a new country and protected
them from the hostility of local populations (Oded 1979:46–47). The immediate result was
increasing multiculturalism of the empire and the creation of an Assyrian identity under the
king.
By and large, the system of deportations hastened the process of cultural assimilation of the
deportees to the Assyrian dominating culture. However, this process was not univocal.
Contacts between deportees and Assyrians produced a variety of results from complete
acceptance of the Assyrian culture, as in the case of members of foreign nobility raised at
the Assyrian court (Liverani 2007); to phenomena of rejection, as in the case of indigenous
5
communities of the Upper Tigris area (Matney 2010). These processes also worked in
reverse, with foreigners influencing the Assyrian population itself.
In this light, the study of identity in this period is extremely complex. On the one hand, the
tendency towards Assyrianization of foreign populations of the empire resulted in the
imposition of Assyrian architectural and artistic styles, the use of homologate Assyrian
administrative tools, the adoption of imperial Aramaic as common language and religious
reforms merging Assyrian and foreign gods (Parpola 2004; Beaulieu 2005b; MacGinnis 2012).
On the other, foreign traditions and material culture, such as techniques of food processing,
funerary practices and tools (Stein 2002; Atici 2014), survived among the deportees at least
in the first generations (Parpola 2004).
On an archaeological level, these interactions result in the greater visibility of Assyrian
material culture (e.g. Matney 2010). At the same time, the tendency towards abandoning
foreign traditions causes the progressive disappearance of non-Assyrian material culture.
Consequently, the possibility of detecting the presence of deportees and their descendants
in Assyrian contexts often relies only on textual sources and onomastic analyses. However,
one should be aware of the dangers of a text-based approach to identifying ethnic groups.
Firstly, Assyrian sources represent the Assyrian perspective of the people living at the
borders of the empire. Secondly, where propagandistic aims are detectable, these sources
tend to adopt general stereotyped expressions that cannot be linked to any specific group.
Finally, when administrative and business texts are considered, the use of onomastic criteria
can be misleading since, over time, the descendants of the deportees could be fully
integrated into Assyrian culture and adopt Assyrian names.
6
The complexity of the interactions taking place in the Neo-Assyrian empire highlights the
importance of elaborating an appropriate approach exclusively relying neither on material
culture nor on texts since each carries its own biases and methodological risks.
I will follow an integrated approach, considering both textual sources and archaeological
data, since I would argue that the greatest importance must be assigned to the agency of
people and to the meaning of the choices they make. In other words, especially when
working with mortuary practices, the differences in performing acts that are aimed to a
similar end can be extremely instructive and helpful for defining identities.
1.3 Ethnicity: scholarly approaches
Modern scholarship has dealt with the problem of ethnicity on two interconnected levels.
On a general level, efforts to produce a nearly universal definition applicable to the largest
number of cases has led to the analysis of the concept from the different perspectives:
ethnographic studies (Kamp and Yoffee 1980); classical studies (Hall 1998; Gates 2002);
archaeology (Bahrani 2006; Emberling 1997; Jones 1997); and anthropology (see Jones
1997).
Secondly, each discipline has focused on specific questions relevant to its field.
In archaeology, major questions regard the relation between material culture and ethnicity
and between language and ethnicity. The result has been to propose approaches based
either on material culture (Binford 1962; 1965; 1972) or on textual sources (Hall 1997),
although critiques have been made of the validity of both (Van Driel 2005; De Bernardi 2005;
Kramer 1977) and the definition of ethnicity and the identification of characteristics through
which a group recognize its members continue to generate discussion.
7
After the rejection of the racial theories equating material culture and languages to racial
groups (Bahrani 2006) two contrasting positions emerged in the 1960s and 1970s (Jones
1997:57): “Objectivists” claiming the existence of distinctive characteristics of ethnic groups
regardless of their acknowledgment by the members of the group; and “Subjectivists”
claiming that each group identified itself through a subjective perception of differences with
“others”. Thus, ethnicity has come to be regarded as a category subjectively attributed to
the group by its members (Barth 1969; Just 1989).
The idea that the objective features of a group are not fixed by nature but happen to be
those considered important by its members (de Vos 1982; Jones 1997) led, on the one hand,
to analyse ethnic membership as a fluid category connected to socio-historical contingences
(Jones 1997); and on the other, to look for narrow definitions of ethnicity in order to avoid
the risk of reading every social phenomena as “ethnic” (eg. Hunt and Walker 1974).
The result has been the compilation of lists of identity markers such as a shared common
origin (either real or fictitious), language and values and the belonging to the same kinship
(Weber 1961; Emberling 1997). Hall (1997), stressing the fact that material culture, language
and religion are all subject to high contextual variability, suggested instead kinship and
consciousness of sharing the same history as the most reliable markers of ethnicity.
Ethnicity and identity generate a great deal of interest for studying ancient and modern
complex societies. Although their comprehensive and unambiguous definition has proved
elusive (Jones 1997; Bahrani 2006), two significant categories emerge and research now
focuses on the definition of methodologies applicable in the framework of individual
disciplines.
From an archaeological perspective, the key question regarding ethnicity is: Can the
archaeological record provide a safe path for identifying ethnic groups?
8
The debate is largely between two opposing positions which a) reject the use of material
culture in favour of a linguistic and textual-based approach or b) select only specific
elements of material culture as markers of identity.
The first approach relies on the idea of a direct correspondence between languages and
ethnic groups, so that from the analysis of language distribution it would be possible to
identify ethnic separations.
Scholars of Ancient Mesopotamia (e.g. Van Driel 2005) have criticize this method rejecting
the equation between languages and ethnic groups. The main objection is that not language
but tribal affiliation (De Bernardi 2005) or behavioural differences (Bahrani 2006) were the
principal criteria by which Mesopotamian scholarship defined “others”. An example of this
perspective are Babylonian descriptions of the Amorites as uncivilised: they live in tents, do
not offer sacrifices and do not bury their dead in the appropriate way, i.e. according to the
Mesopotamian rituals (Van De Mieroop 2004:78; Bahrani 2006:55).
An alternative approach, based on material culture, was developed by processual
archaeologists (especially Binford 1962; 1965; 1972) who focused on the use of specific
types of objects, mainly pottery, as markers of identity. This method distinguishes between
shape and style of the object: while the first is mainly functional so that when the same aim
is pursued the same shape will be used, the second is the product of subjective choices
related to the group identity.
This approach in turn has been criticized because is too limited, whereas the study of
complete assemblages provides a better-nuanced picture (Kramer 1977). Van Driel (2005)
advises against the biased nature of some artefacts and the difficulties in using them as
reliable indicators of ethnicity. Similar objections were raised concerning the use of ancient
texts by Michalowski (1986:132).
9
Neo-Assyrian reliefs make up a significant portion of the available evidence for the study of
ethnic differences within the Assyrian empire (e.g. Brown 2013; Cifarelli 1998; Collon 2005).
As artefacts produced for the specific environment of the Neo-Assyrian court, they are
strongly propagandistic in content. When it comes to ethnic differences, therefore, they can
be highly informative on shared Assyrian views of others, though not necessarily on how
non-Assyrian groups distinguished themselves (see Beaulieu 2005a).
Ethnicity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire
As seen at the beginning of this chapter, the particular ideology of the empire resulted in a
process of Assyrianization of deported populations whose archaeological visibility is
generally low. This is partly due to the uniformity of new settlements founded or rebuilt by
the Assyrians in the provinces, by the diffusion of Assyrian material culture outside the Land
of Aššur and by the use of common administrative tools. All these elements contributed to
the creation of an Assyrian landscape in which the presence of different ethnic groups is
almost undetectable: a goal relentlessly pursued by the imperial ideology aiming to create a
national identity.
Under the circumstances, the approach based on the material culture has been usually
considered less productive than a linguistic and textual-based one (see MacGinnis 2012;
contra Matney 2010). Inscriptions, administrative texts, and contracts provide the main data
for the textual approach, while the analysis of personal and geographical names has been
particularly helpful in the study of the population composition of the empire.
However, the textual approach does have some limitations, one being its reliance on the
onomastic method. It has been demonstrated that after a few generations, deportees were
usually so profoundly Assyrianized that they often used Assyrian proper names (Parpola
2004): this means that they tended to disappear from the texts so that onomastic analyses
10
can underestimate non-Assyrian presence. From a more general point of view, two
observations indicate that language, as attested in texts, is not always the best marker of
ethnicity. First, many of the populations on the borders of the empire and interacting with it
were widely illiterate (Matney 2010): in these cases, language distribution becomes a
misleading approach. Second, the use of Imperial Aramaic as the lingua franca of the empire
resulted in phenomena of mutual acculturation between Assyrians, Aramaeans and the
other ethnic component of the empire (Parpola 2004; Matney 2010) reducing the chances of
recognizing ethnic identities through language differences.
Clearly, the alternative approach is based on the analysis of specific ceramic types such as
the so-called Groovy Pottery that, having been found alongside the typical Assyrian ware, is
now considered a general indicator of the presence of different ethnic groups (Matney et al.
2005). However, the impossibility of its association with a specific population imposes
limitations (Köroğlu 2003; Roaf and Schachner 2005; Matney 2010) so that the only
information obtained is the existence of other groups, not their actual identification.
Matney’s analysis (2010), for example, of the ceramic assemblages of Upper Tigris
settlement, pointing to a mixture of Assyrian and non-Assyrian pottery, leads to the same
conclusion. Although not allowing the recognition of the specific ethnic groups, the
quantitative methods demonstrate that non-Assyrian materials augment gradually with
increasing distance from larger Assyrian centres, thereby permitting the reconstruction of a
plausible social landscape (Fig. 1).
11
Fig. 1 Model of Iron Age settlements in the upper Tigris River valley (after Matney 2010)
Due the limitations of methods based exclusively on textual analysis or material culture, for
this study I will employ a comprehensive approach considering both texts and material
culture.
Although the discursive components of identity have been considered fundamental to the
construction of ethnicity (Hall 1997), so that “what people said about themselves is more
important than what they did” (Hall 1998:267), I believe that the study of the actions and
the reasons behind them is essential for the recognition of different identities. This is
particularly true in the case of the Neo-Assyrian empire where the gradual Assyrianization of
the foreign populations leads to their virtual disappearance from the textual sources.
Furthermore, this process resulted in the adoption of an Assyrian funerary assemblage, so
that foreigners are not immediately recognizable on the sole basis of grave goods.
12
Given the low visibility of ethnic groups in texts and material culture, funerary practices such
as cremation, which diverge from the most attested, i.e. Assyrian, types, offer a valuable
opportunity to consider ethnic differences.
The reason for this is that the actions involved in the funerary ritual are closely connected to
beliefs of those performing them and they tend to survive for a long time even after
different groups come in contact (e.g. Stein 2002). In this light, the reconstruction and
analysis of the sequence of actions performed during cremation is necessary for
distinguishing those elements typical of this funerary ritual from those deriving from contact
with the Assyrian population. It will then be possible to determine the type of cremation
observed at a specific site and find comparisons in those areas of the Near East that were in
contact with the Assyrian empire and in which cremation was a well-established practice. In
the case of Dūr Katlimmu, this process has led to link cremation to the presence of Levantine
people at the site.
1.4 Funerary practices and identity
Mortuary practices are “deliberate, meaningful expression of people’s views about
themselves, other members of the society, and/or the world as they perceive or wish others
to perceive it” (Pollock 1999:216). Such a definition justifies the study of mortuary practices
as expression of people’s identity in its various meanings, i.e. ethnicity, age, sex and gender,
sexuality, personhood, kinship, wealth, prestige, and rank (Jones 1997).
Processual archaeology understood the study of identity in social terms. This approach,
based on the works of Binford (1962; 1965; 1971) and Saxe (1970; 1971), claims direct
relations between communities social structure and disposal of the dead, so that the type of
burial mirrored the person’s social rank.
13
Although this approach has the advantage of drawing attention on the social implications of
the burials, it has significant limitations in its denial of the role of societies as creators of
meaning. On the one hand, the direct correspondence between social structure and
funerary practices underestimates the changes in social relations and identity of the dead
taking place during the funeral (Hodder 1980; Parker Pearson 1999). On the other, the
processual approach overlooked the role of ideologies in transmitting meanings and
reinforcing the position of leading groups through the use of specific funerary practices (De
Marrais et al. 1996).
The criticism of the processual analysis of mortuary practices resulted in a new focus of the
research on the social group and its agency with the two-fold effect of shifting attention on
the investigation of the reasons behind the choices made during the funeral, in terms of
body treatments, burial types and grave goods (McGuire 1988; Parker Pearson 1999; Pollock
1999; Porter and Schwartz 2012), and of analysing the multiple identities acquired by the
individual, some of which are created after death (Parker Pearson 1982).
In the context of the Neo-Assyrian empire, the analysis of funerary practices cannot be
limited to a processual view focusing on the deceased’s social rank. The complexity of the
phenomena of contacts between the Assyrians and foreign populations calls for more
nuanced analyses in which factors such as power relationships (e.g. relations between the
dominant group and minorities) and ideologies are central. In this light, an approach based
on group agency and aiming to recognize the actions involved in the funerary ritual
enhances the possibility of identifying the various ethnic components of the Assyrian society.
Furthermore, this approach has the advantage of surmounting the obstacles posed by the
almost complete invisibility of foreigners in the archaeological record.
14
Cremation and identity
The origin of the practice of cremation in Syria has been traditionally connected either to the
Hittite or the Aramaean populations present in the regions between the end of the 2nd and
the beginning of the 1st millennium (Woolley 1939; Riis 1948; Bieńkowski 1982; Mazzoni
2000; Tenu 2009). When this practice is attested at Neo-Assyrian sites in Syria and Northern
Mesopotamia, it has been read in contrast to the typical Assyrian funerary practice, i.e.
inhumation (Kreppner 2008), and related to the Aramaean presence in the region (Tenu
2009).
Although scholars of the Neo-Assyrian empire (Parker 2001; MacGinnis 2012) have stressed
the cross-cultural nature of the practice of cremation, and its limits for recognizing specific
ethnic groups, only regional usages, its presence in contexts dominated by inhumation still
suggests explanations in terms of ethnic identity.
When the practice of cremation is considered in general, it is often explained as a simple,
economic and hygienic means of disposing the dead (Whitaker 1921; Woolley 1934;
Bieńkowski 1982). Cremation is, however, not cheap either in terms of economic efforts or
the time required (McKinley 2006): Constructing a pyre requires large amounts of fuel;
funerary urns are often produced specifically for funerary purposes as are some types of the
grave goods accompanying the deceased; and the presence of animal remains testify to
conspicuous ritual consumption or offerings to the dead. Finally, the burning of a body,
especially in ancient times, was a difficult and time-consuming activity, taking several hours
in the case of adults (Roberts et al. 1989; Oestigaard 2013).
Cremation is also conceptually complex: the rite comprises at least three phases (burning of
the body, collection of the remains and their burial) (Hertz 1960; Oestigaard 1999)
associated with symbolic elements (mainly fire and water) and beliefs (regeneration and
15
purification) (Polcaro 2014; Oestigaard 2013). Complexity is expressed in terms of identity of
the deceased who undertakes a sequence of transformations. With the burning of his body
the deceased is separated from society, losing his identity. Completing the ritual, the social
group assigns a new identity to the deceased in accordance with its cosmologic and
ancestral beliefs (Oestigaard 2013). The new social role is not always exclusive since the
personal identity of the dead is at times preserved by the visibility of the urns and the
differences in their decorations (Tenu and Rottier 2014).
Finally, the location of cremation burials should also be considered.
During the 1st millennium cremations are widely attested in cemeteries located outside
residential areas. However, examples come from within living quarters of cities such as Dūr
Katlimmu and Aššur. The contrast between the two locations has important consequences
for the identity of the deceased.
A cemetery is a visible, formally identified area, with tangible or intangible borders2 and its
primary function is accommodating the deceased. A cemetery presupposes a degree of
agreement among the members of the local community who decide to bury their dead in a
specific place demonstrating shared common ideas about death. Thus, a cemetery can be
defined as a “meaningful cultural landscape” (McGuire 1988:457) and it contributes to the
creation and maintenance of the ideologies of the leading group (McGuire 1988) and of a
communal identity. Furthermore, through its visibility, a cemetery underlines intra-
community relations and makes the care of the dead a community-related activity (Morris
1991; Pollock 1999).
2 Ancient cemeteries were rarely enclosed by walls, however they were usually located in a completely
separated area so that their limits would have been apparent.
16
By contrast, the choice of locating the burials under the house floors, especially where a
cemetery is available, underlines relations within the family and the household and can
suggest a perception of the deceased as having been separated from the rest of the
community. In other words it can be seen as a marker of identity.
I will argue that in the case of the Neo-Assyrian cremations the location inside the house
should be related to the presence of (ethnic) minorities within the dominant Assyrian group.
17
Chapter 2
Textual sources and archaeological evidence for cremation
Between the mid- 2nd and mid- 1st millennium cremation is widely attested in Syria and
Turkey with some sporadic southern examples from Aššur and Babylon. However, this
practice contrasts sharply with Mesopotamian beliefs about the afterlife stressing the
importance of preservation of the body. Therefore cremation within the Mesopotamian
cultural environment has been connected to Hittite and Aramaean presence in Syria
(Woolley 1914; 1939; Tenu 2009; Lipinsky 2000). Furthermore, it is often stated that
cremation ends with the beginning of Assyrian rule in the area (Woolley 1939; Riis 1948;
Bachelot and Fales 2005).
At Dūr Katlimmu, however, archaeological data indicates that cremation starts with the
beginning of the Assyrian rule. This raises questions relating to the origin of cremation at the
site and about the identity of the people practicing it, which cannot be fully answered by
persisting Aramaean and Hittite traditions. It is therefore necessary to reconsider whether
the use of cremation could have been compatible with Assyrian beliefs about the afterlife,
and how it relates to processes of assimilation within the Assyrian empire.
This chapter provides an overview of cremation drawing from textual sources and
archaeological evidence. The survey of the textual evidence indicates that “standard”
Mesopotamian beliefs associated the burning of a body with punishment which suggests
cremation would have been inconceivable. The survey of the archaeological data shows two
different ways of performing cremation in Syria, pointing to traditions different from
Aramaean and Hittite practices.
18
2.1 Textual data
Akkadian has several verbs whose general meaning is “to burn” (e.g. qamû, šarāpu, qalû,
hamāṭu, bašālu; see Glossary in Appendix 1) used in a variety of contexts from the
destruction of a hostile city to the description of the symptoms of diseases.
It is possible to group texts referring to burning in two broad categories: incantations and
political texts, according to their content and purpose.
The largest group comprises incantations designed to eliminate an evil influence often
explained as the result of witchcraft (Abusch and Schwemer 2011).
The most extensive set of texts of this type is the Maqlû series (Abusch 2002; 2015),
comprising about one hundred incantations to be recited at the end of the month Abu. To
this can be added the Bīt rimki series, a selection of ten incantations mostly incorporated
into the later Maqlû3 (Abusch and Schwemer 2011).
In all these cases, ritual actions for averting witchcraft prescribe the burning of several
figurines representing the sorceress and the disposal of the remains, either by burying or
throwing them into a river.
Here, the use of fire has clear punitive aims: “because your hand performed sorcery, may he
(i.e. Girra) inflame your body” (Maqlû III, 1794). The reiteration of burning (“I hand over
figurines of the seven and seven witches to Girra, I am burning them in a burning stove”
[Maqlû IV, 138]), strengthens the idea that total annihilation of the witch is possible only
through fire. Furthermore, the disposal of the burnt figurines in “improper” burials suggests
that the aim of the entire procedure is to block access to the Netherworld: an extremely
3 For the relation between the two series, see Abusch, 2002, chap. 7
4 After Abusch 2015
19
undesirable condition, normally avoided through the performance of specific rituals during
funerals and, at fixed intervals, afterwards (Bayliss 1973).
A second set of textual sources referring to cremation are texts with political content.
The curse formulae of Assyrian treaties frequently refer to the destruction of traitors by
means of fire. The ceremonial curses5 of the so-called “Vassal treaties of Esarhaddon”
(Wiseman 1958; Parpola and Watanabe 1988) provide the best example.
Similar to the incantations, their context is the punishment of an enemy involving the
burning of a wax figurine in fire: “as they burn this figurine […] so may they burn your body
in fire” (Parpola and Watanabe 1988). In contrast to incantations, in which punishment is
only inflicted on the witch, curse formulae in treaties are addressed to the traitor, his reign
and his heirs, to ensure the complete extinction of his household.
The use of fire as punishment is frequently attested in the Assyrian royal inscriptions
recording kings’ military campaigns with particular reference to the destruction of hostile
cities. A typical sequence reads:
“I surrounded, conquered, destroyed, devastated, burned with fire the cities […]”
Sennacherib 3, 226
The burning of the body of the enemy is rather frequent in the Annals of Aššur-naṣir-pal
where it is recorded along with a variety of other harsh penalties and tortures:
“six hundred of their warriors I put to the sword, three thousand captives I burnt
with fire […] their young men and maidens I burnt in the fire”
The Annals of Aššur-naṣir-pal
107-1107
5 Difference between traditional and ceremonial curses in Parpola and Watanabe 1988, p.XLII.
6 http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/corpus/
7 Budge and King 1902
20
Two expressions are implied in contexts like this: ina išâti šarāpu and ana maqlūte šarāpu.
The first one is used with reference to (captive) warriors while the second refers to the
young men and maiden of a conquered city. Translating ana maqlūte šarāpu as “to burn
something as a burnt-offering” (CAD 10:252) could suggest a ritual context in which the
youngest members of the defeated city were sacrificed. On the other hand, “to burn with
fire” is a different possible translation that makes the phrase similar to the curse formulae in
treaties referring to the destruction of the household of the enemy, as suggested by the
specific mention of young men and women of the city.
The survey of the available evidence, although not exhaustive, underlines the connection
between the ideas of burning and punishment. Both the ritual and political texts point in this
direction, although the political texts suggest that the concept can be applied to a more
general idea of misbehaviour, dishonesty and hostility.
A strong connection seems to exist between the crime calling for “burning” and the king. In
the Annals of Aššur-naṣir-pal the offence of the burnt enemies is not submitting to the
Assyrian king and in the treaties the evil-doer betrays the trust of the king.
Either when dealing with a supernatural entity or with a human enemy, some elements are
always present: a rival to be identified (the witch, the opponent city and its citizens, the
traitor), a crime to be punished, and the necessity for an unusually harsh penalty.
All these elements place the action of burning a body in a broad judicial context. However,
both ritual and political texts refer to the disposal of the burnt remains in unusual burials
(e.g. a river, the stomach of an animal), with the aim of preventing the evil-doer accessing
the Netherworld: “may your burial place be in the belly of a dog or a pig” (Parpola and
Watanabe 1988). The cosmological outcomes of burning are therefore central in the choice
of this cruel punishment as are the beliefs about the afterlife.
21
In Mesopotamian thought, the destruction of the body and the lack of a proper burial place
are considered the most undesirable conditions for the deceased. Literary sources (e.g. the
Epic of Gilgamesh) highlight the importance of taking care of one’s ancestors’ burials, and
the performance of kispu rituals, during which remembering the names of the dead and
making offerings, was considered possible only in the presence of both a burial and a body
(Bayliss 1973; contra Van der Toorn 1996). Furthermore, the destruction of the body would
turn the usually favourable spirit of the deceased, eṭemmu (CAD 4:398), into a harmful ghost
(Bayliss 1973).
According to texts, therefore, we should expect a rejection of all the practices, such as
cremation, involving the destruction of the body, reinforced by the connection between
cremation and punishment.
However, archaeological evidence contrasts with the textual view, as cremation cemeteries
are attested in Syria and Anatolia. The negative associations of cremation in Mesopotamian
thought were not universal and the practice was sometimes chosen for disposal of the dead.
The Hittite royal funerary ritual, šalliš waštaiš (Kassian et al. 2002), prescribed the body of
the dead king or queen to be burnt on a pyre on Day Two.
While Mesopotamian texts consider cremation a punishment going beyond death (since it
interferes with the access of the deceased to the Netherworld and hampers the
performance of the kispu rituals), outside the Mesopotamian world its negative aspects are
rejected. This means that, while cremation as a funerary practice was unthinkable among
the Mesopotamians, it was perfectly acceptable and even preferred among people with
different beliefs, such as the Hittites.
Consequently, the choice of this body treatment in funerary contexts represents a variation
in the cosmological views of the people adopting it which is likely to mirror ethnic
22
affiliations, since burial practices are one of the ways in which group identity is constructed
and asserted (De Marrais et al. 1996).
2.2 Archaeological data
2.2.1 Cremation burials in the 2nd millennium
Cremation burials are sporadically documented in Mesopotamia and neighbouring areas
before the mid-2nd millennium8. Afterwards, they are attested in Syria, Anatolia and the
Levant.
Two main traditions, Hittite and Aramaean, have been identified (Bryce 2002; Lipinsky 2000).
Hittite cremation cemeteries, dating between the 17th and the 14th centuries, have been
identified near the Hittite capital of Boğazköy-Hattuša (central Anatolia), at Osmankayası,
Bağlarbaşıkayası and at Ilıca (van den Hout 1994:53–56; Bryce 2002). Cremations are in
common vases, placed in pits, with a restricted range of grave goods (shells, small pots).
Rare multiple burials (adult and child) are documented.
Aramean examples of cremation come from Tell Halaf (northern Syria), where cremations
are in shaft tombs, the cremated remains are in urns and accompanied by a few grave goods
(Lipinsky 2000:637–638). The shaft tombs are closed by basalt statues representing seated
women (Lipinsky 2000:638). Cremations at Tell Halaf seem to be rather exceptional: on the
one hand, inhumation is far more attested, on the other, the statues suggest that the burials
belonged to queens or high priestess and cremation was performed only in these cases
(Lipinsky 2000:638).
The Hittite and Aramaean cremations are extremely different: the few Aramaean examples
are preeminent and costly burials, and the associated statues assign a high degree of
8 Yarim Tepe II (Merpert and Munchaev 1987), Niniveh and Tell Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Cruikshank 1935),
Cemetery of Ur (Woolley 1934)
23
visibility to them. In contrast, Hittite cremations are in earthen pits and the urns are less
conspicuous.
Aramaean examples are unique in the horizon of cremation burials in Syria: as shown in the
next sections, cremation burials at Iron Age Syrian sites present the same structure as Hittite
ones, while none of them show the features distinguishing the Aramaean examples, i.e.
shaft graves and statues. Thus, the oft-proposed direct descent of the Iron Age cremation
from the Aramaean tradition (e.g. Tenu 2009; 2007) is unlikely: the geographical distribution
of Aramaean populations is the main supporting element of this hypothesis, however, when
the archaeological data are considered, the closest parallels are with Hittite, rather than
Aramaean, traditions.
2.2.2 Cremation during the Iron Age (end of the 2nd - first half of the 1st millennium)
The majority of the Iron Age cremation cemeteries is located in Syria and the Levant (Fig. 2).
This period corresponds to the widest diffusion of this practice.
The main dataset for this study is represented by the Syrian cemeteries of Yunus
(Carchemish), Tell Shiukh Fawqâni and Dūr Katlimmu. Their geographical distribution, in the
region between the Euphrates and Khabur rivers, is the first reason for their selection and
justifies the exclusion of important cemeteries, such as Hama and the Levantine sites, which
lay outside it. Aramaeans were present in the region (Lipinsky 2000), which was also part of
the Neo-Hittite kingdom (Wittke et al. 2010) and represented one of the earliest Assyrian
conquests (Liverani 2007) so that contacts and acculturation are likely to have taken place.
The dataset underlines contrasts in the performance of cremation, the most apparent of
which are the differences in dating and locations of the burials within the settlements. At
Yunus and Tell Shiukh the burials are in external cemeteries and end with the beginning of
Assyrian domination. At Dūr Katlimmu, by contrast, the burials are in domestic areas and
24
they date to the period of the Assyrian rule over the city. This non-homogenous picture
justifies the insertion in the dataset of the few cremations documented at Aššur which are
located in the city’s living quarters and date to the Neo-Assyrian period.
To summarize, therefore, a correlation exists between the Assyrian presence at the sites and
cremation. Interestingly, this correlation leads to opposite outcomes at Yunus and Tell
Shiukh compared to Dūr Katlimmu. At the sites where cremation ends with the Assyrian
presence, inhumation becomes the norm for the treatment of the dead (e.g. an Assyrian
inhumation cemetery is documented at Tell Shiukh [Luciani 2000]) so that the beginning of
the practices at Dūr Katlimmu and Aššur raises questions related to the ethnic composition
of their communities.
25
Fig
. 2 D
istribu
tion
of Iro
n A
ge
sites w
he
re c
rem
atio
n is a
tteste
d (c
rea
ted
usin
g G
oo
gle
Ea
rth)
26
2.2.3a Tell Shiukh Fawqâni
The site is located on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, in northern Syria along the Syrian-
Turkish border. Between 1997 and 2008, archaeological investigations of the Iron Age levels
of the settlement revealed an extensive cremation cemetery, comprising 150 burials, located
in an area external to the settlement on the northern side of the tell. The cemetery has been
dated on the basis of radiocarbon analysis and ceramic comparisons between the Middle
Assyrian period (14th century) and the Assyrian presence under Shalmaneser III in the 9th
century (Al-Bahloul et al. 2005:1013–1014; Tenu 2009; 2013).
Tenu (2009) attributes the introduction of the practice to Aramaean populations present in
Syria already in the 14th century. She also rejects the hypothesis linking the practice to the
Hittites, since at Tell Shiukh it starts after their abandonment of the Syrian territories.
Three objections can be made to this hypothesis.
First, Carchemish, the closest site where a cremation cemetery has been found, was one of
the viceregal Hittite kingdoms from the 16th century and a Neo-Hittite settlement in the 12th
century (Bryce 2013). Second, at Tell Shiukh male graves are usually associated with arrow
heads and female graves with spindle-whorls, creating a parallel with the Hittite funerary
ritual where the same association is recorded in the case of the royal statues (van den Hout
1994). In contrast, such an association is absent in the Aramaean burials from Tell Halaf.
Third, the closest ceramic comparisons are with the Yunus cemetery which is considered of
Hittite origin (Woolley 1914; Al-Bahloul et al. 2005).
The long-lasting Hittite presence in the area of Tell Shiukh and the similarities in the funerary
equipment and pottery would support the hypothesis of a closer correlation with Hittite,
rather than Aramaean, traditions.
27
All cremations are in urns buried in a grave pit. The fact that none of the burials disturb
earlier ones suggests that some form of identification of the burial place existed (Tenu
2013:425), even though no funerary monuments of the kind recorded by Woolley (1939:14)
at Yunus has been found.
Four types of burials have been identified (Al-Bahloul et al. 2005:999; Appendix 3):
a) Pear-shaped jar containing the remains of the deceased buried in the grave pit. It is
the simplest and most common type and can be associated with a bowl or a
terracotta figurine placed against its wall.
b) Pear-shaped jar associated with two dishes placed one on the top of the jar, closing
it tightly, and one below it. Additional vessels can be placed against its walls.
c) Pear-shaped jar, bowl or cup covered by an inverted tripod crater. The vase
containing the bones can be closed by a cup, and another cup or bowl placed next
to it, still covered by the crater.
d) Pear-shaped jar covered by an inverted bath-tub with a decorated surface. In this
case only, textile remains have been found.
Jars and craters were produced for funerary purposes and so were the bath-tubs, as
suggested by their impressive dimensions (height and diameter both about 1 m) and place of
discovery (none have been found outside funerary contexts) (Tenu 2013:428). This would
suggest that cremation was not a choice dictated by economic reasons or simplicity. On the
contrary, special meanings must have been attached to the containers of the human remains
if common vessels were not considered suitable for this function.
Grave goods were usually placed inside the urn among the bones, in a few cases small
vessels were placed outside the urn (TSF 97 H 1460)9. There are only a few categories of
grave goods and their number per grave is very limited. The most common are spindle-
whorls, beads (usually as part of necklaces), bone objects (especially spatulae) and astragals,
9 Al-Bahloul et al. 2005:1000
28
animal figurines, iron weapons or pieces of jewellery, notably bracelets, and bronze tools
(Tenu 2013:430).
An association between spindle-whorls and female burials, and between weapons and male
burials has been observed, while children are more frequently associated with jewellery
(Tenu 2013:430). Although these associations are not always consistent, they work in the
majority of the cases, suggesting a correlation between sex and age of the deceased with
possible outcomes in the ritual.
Analysis of the human remains indicates that no bone selection was performed (Tenu
2013:428). The urns usually contained the remains of one individual; however eight multiple
graves have been found containing the remains of an adult and one to two children or of
two adults (Tenu 2013:429): in one case a woman and a child, while in the others the older
individual always showed masculine physical characteristics. Where burials contained two
adults, the bones seem to belong to a woman and a man, although there is a degree of
uncertainty.
Sometimes, cremated bones of animals, especially sheep and goats, have been found mixed
with human remains (Al-Bahloul et al. 2005:1001; Tenu 2013:431): none of the animal
skeletons were complete (Tenu 2013:431), implying the ritual consumption of meat during
funeral and/or offerings at the pyre. However these must not have been fixed elements of
the ritual, since animal bones are not always attested in the burials.
The data from Tell Shiukh suggest that the cremation process took place in a location
different from the final burial place.
There is a correlation between grave goods, sex and age of the deceased although with
exceptions, such as in the case of iron objects related with craftsmanship found in female
tombs (Tenu 2007:271).
29
The presence of burnt animal bones indicates slaughtering of animals during the ritual, some
parts as offerings being deposited on the pyre and others probably consumed by the
participants.
2.2.3b Yunus (Carchemish)
In 1913, L. Woolley and T. E. Lawrence discovered a cemetery north of Carchemish, on the
Syrian-Turkish border. Due the beginning of the First World War, subsequent interruption of
the work and eventual looting of the archaeological camp, the available information is highly
fragmented (Woolley 1939:11–12).
The cemetery is located on the hill of Yunus and comprised 128 graves dated by Woolley, on
the basis of the ceramic types, between the 12th and the 7th century.
Woolley (1914; 1939) considered the cemetery to be Hittite owing to the presence of four
funerary stelae with Hittite inscriptions and Hittite cylinder seals.
This view has been recently questioned by Collins (2007) who points out that the long
tradition of cremation in Syria is against its introduction at Yunus during the Neo-Hittite
period, although a Bronze Age cremation cemetery has not been found at Carchemish.
However, Collins (2007) also recognises the use of funerary stelae, whose presence was
acknowledged by Woolley (1914; 1939), to be a typically Hittite custom. Bonatz (2000) links
to the development of the Syro-Hittite states in the 9th and 8th century, during which time
the use of funerary monuments could have been marker of identity for the Syro-Hittite
states in opposition to the Aramaean political entities in the area.
The long use of cremation in Syria is not necessarily against the attribution of the cemetery
to the Hittites, who could have continue a tradition that was their own as well as Syrian.
Funerary monuments support the Hittite connection as does the association between
spindle-whorls and female graves and weapons and male graves.
30
Except for one grave (YC 72) where the unburnt remains of an adult of uncertain sex has
been recovered, all the burials contained cremated human remains placed inside an urn.
According to the way in which the urn was covered, two types of burials have been
identified (Woolley 1939:14–15; Appendix 4):
a) Pot burials: The urn, often painted, is covered by a shallow basin and stands on a
pottery or basalt dish.
Woolley recognizes two variants of this type, here indicated as 1a and 1b, but does
not assign to them a chronological significance within the group:
1a. The urn is closed by a plate and a crater is inverted over them;
1b. The urn and the plate on which it stands are placed inside a crater and
another crater or a bowl is inverted over them;
b) Bath-tub burials: The urn and the offering vessels are covered by a large bath-tub
(diameter exceeding 1m).
The bath-tub appears in two types (Woolley’s A and B) characterised by a squared
or oval shape and by the presence of handles and a knob base (Appendix 4, pl.XXV).
Sometimes, round elongated vessels were used instead of the bath-tub (types C and
D; Appendix 4, pl.XXV).
All these types were in use at the same time.
The bath-tubs were produced exclusively for funerary purpose given their dimensions and
that they were found only in funerary contexts. The urns and craters were common shapes:
fragments of pottery of the same types come from the living areas of Carchemish.
Grave goods are neither numerous nor various. The number of objects associated with each
grave is small, although significant exceptions exist (e.g. YB 38 containing 14 spindle-whorls,
two clay figurines, a miniature vase among other objects)
A distinction can be made between offerings, placed outside the funerary urn, and personal
possessions of the deceased, found inside the urn and added to the ashes after collection
from the pyre (Woolley 1939:16). The first group comprises only clay pots. The second
comprises cylinder seals, pins, beads, kohl-pots, spatulae, bracelets, amulets, spindle-whorls,
fibulae, arrow heads and knives.
31
Tentatively, spindle-whorls and fibulae have been associated to female burials while arrow
heads and knives with male burials (Woolley 1939:16). The graves of children are usually
associated with terracotta figurines and at least one feeding-bottle (Woolley 1939:16).
The selection of grave goods in association with gender and age, as at Tell Shiukh, can
underline differences in the social role of the individual, emphasizing for instance the role of
warrior for men or a stronger connection with family-related activities for women. However,
hypotheses grounded on grave goods distribution and on attribution of engendered
meanings to objects can be misleading, as a direct correspondence between sex, individual’s
roles and objects is not always the case. Nonetheless, at Yunus a selection has been made,
and suggests a choice of the role for the individual by his community.
Analyses of the human remains are not available.
At Yunus, pyre and burial were not in the same place and the way in which grave goods were
placed in burials suggests that the personal possessions of the deceased were burnt with
him while offerings were made afterwards, when the urn was placed in the pit. The presence
of offerings in the majority of the graves suggests that they were an essential element of the
ritual.
Associations between grave goods and sex/age of the deceased are likely but difficult to
ascertain in the absence of osteological analyses.
2.2.3c Dūr Katlimmu
Dūr Katlimmu, a western Syrian site along the Lower Khabur, is known to have existed since
the Middle Assyrian period and reached the widest extension under the Neo-Assyrian
domination when it became an important political centre of the province of Laqê (Kühne
1983; Fugert et al. 2014). The Lower Town II to the Neo-Assyrian period belongs (Pucci
2008:54).
32
Between 2003 and 2006, 16 cremation burials were found under the floors of the so-called
Neo-Assyrian residences, which comprise four houses located in the Lower Town II. Three
phases of occupation between the late 9th and the 6th centuries were identified (Pucci 2008;
Kreppner 2008:265; Fugert et al. 2014).
The first phase (late 9th- early 8th century) is the less preserved since it was almost
completely levelled by later building (Pucci 2008:50–51).
During the second phase of use (8th- 7th centuries), two houses, Haus 1 and Haus 4, were
connected, leading to the hypothesis that they belonged to married sons of the same family
who attached their residences to that of their father (Pucci 2008:54). All the houses present
the same set of rooms and functions with a central courtyard and a row of rooms on each
side (Pucci 2008).
In the third phase (late 7th- 6th centuries), changes occur in the spatial organization (Pucci
2008:56–57) whereby Haus 1 is no longer connected to Haus 4, which itself was probably no
longer used as a house since its eastern section was completely levelled. Haus 1 now
presents a clear inner separation between a “public” and “private” area through a reception
room indicating the performance of working/public activities, involving people not part of
the family.
According to Kreppner (2008) cremation burials come from each of the phases (Fig. 3).
33
Fig. 3 Cremation burials within the Neo -Assyrian Residences, Dūr Katl immu
(after Kreppner 2008)
The oldest preserved cremation belongs to the first phase and comes from an open area (IZ)
outside the south-eastern corner of Haus 1.
Seven cremation burials belong to the second phase. Four (92/86; 92/87; 92/88 and 4/24)
were located in the open area IZ; one (4/20) in the corner of the courtyard of Haus 1 and the
remaining two in Room GG in Haus 3. Room GG also contained the inhumation of a child
(6/02) dating to the same phase as the cremations. In Room MM of Haus 1 was an urn (4/23)
containing the cremated remains of a 17-20 year-old woman. Finally, a pot-burial of a child,
located in Room K of Haus 1, also belongs to this phase.
Six cremations belong to the last phase of the residences. No other burial-types are recorded
for this period. A cremation (6/15) comes from Room JS of a badly preserved house while
another (3/19) was in the open area FZ; both are located to the north of the Neo-Assyrian
residences. 87/70 comes from the same Room GG which in its second phase hosted the child
inhumation and two cremations.
34
Three cremations (3/03; 3/04; 3/26) were in the courtyard Z of Haus 1. Among them, 3/26 is
the only preserved example at the site of a multiple cremation: the urn contained the
remains of a male of 50-70 years of age and a young individual of 8-14 years.
Kreppner (2008) describes the cremation burials of Dūr Katlimmu as a completely new burial
type, not documented before in other areas of Mesopotamia and Syria, which he calls
Brandgrubengräber (Fig. 4). These are oval pits dug into the ground, about 2-2.5m long and
1-1.5m wide, containing the remains of the deceased. No urns or other vessels are used for
containing the cremated bones which are placed at the bottom of the pit and then covered
with a layer of brownish loam fill. The presence of small, semi-circular depressions along the
edges of the pits bearing traces of fire suggests that cremation was carried out in situ
(Kreppner 2008:266).
Often, the pits were sealed with mud-bricks, a fact confirming that the houses were still in
use after the performance of the funerary rituals and the tombs were probably marked in
some way and visible (Kreppner 2008:265–266).
Fig. 4 Examples of Brandgrubengräber, Dūr Katlimmu (after Kreppner 2008)
35
Only in the case of urn 4/23, the usual cremation burial type was used: an urn, containing
human remains, was placed in a pit under the house floor and covered by an inverted bowl.
A rich variety of objects accompanied the deceased (Kreppner 2008:265–266). Vessels such
as cups, bowls and bottles have been interpreted as containers for food offerings. Glazed
pottery represents one of the most frequent types. Less frequent are metallic and stone
vessels. Among the objects, fibulae and earrings made of bronze and gold, granulated gold
beads, lapis lazuli, an ivory comb, scarabs and a knife were placed in the burials even though
there is not a straightforward association between objects types and the sex of the
deceased. However, as a general tendency, bronze fibulae and bone objects are present in
female burials (exception tomb 06/15 which is a male burial).
Osteological analyses show that the majority of the burials (seven) belonged to females and
three to males; five cannot be identified. The ages represented range from children to
adults, with the majority of the individuals being under 30 (Kreppner 2008, table 1).
All burials were single cremations, with the exception of a grave (03/26) belonging to the
third phase and including the remains of an adult (male?) and a child (Kreppner 2008, table
1).
Along with the human remains, in almost all graves a wide range of animal bones was found,
indicating the performance of rituals involving meat offerings. Sheep bones are present in all
graves; equids, gazelles and goats are also well attested as well as unusual animals such as
turtles, fish, onagers and camels (Kreppner 2008, table 1).
The unusual presence of animals such as turtle and camels could indicate that graveside
rituals were in some way different from standard Mesopotamian kispu (Bayliss 1973). The
killing of onagers and equids and their well-acknowledged symbolic and ideological value
(Schwartz 2012; Weber 2012) suggest that these may be preeminent (elite?) tombs.
36
Cremation at Dūr Katlimmu takes place in situ, which is the most significant point of contrast
with other sites. Although no distinction is made in the location of personal possessions and
offerings since both lay in the pit, it is possible to distinguish between personal possessions
and containers of offerings. The burnt remains of a wide range of animal species, suggest
more elaborate rituals may have been performed than simple offerings to the dead, who
may have been preeminent members of society.
2.2.3d Aššur
In the core area of the Neo-Assyrian empire cremation is much more sporadically attested.
The only two sites where it is documented are Aššur and Babylon10. The following section
present the data from Aššur. Babylon is excluded from this overview because the cremations
at the site date to Kassite, Middle Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian periods (Reuther 1926)
and cannot be directly related to the study of this practice within the Neo-Assyrian empire.
The presence of the practice at Aššur, one of the capital cities of the empire and its main
religious centre, has important implications since it could indicate the adoption of foreign
customs at the very centre of the empire and perhaps modifications of religious beliefs and
practices.
In the early 20th century, German archaeologists discovered among the others, 17 burials in
urns (Haller 1954:51). Of these, six are child inhumations; the remaining 11 contained
cremated remains.
The burials are intramural. According to the available data, all graves were either under the
floors of the houses between the inner and outer city walls or in the tombs from the New
Palace (Pedde 2010:915; 2012:95).
10
One example, probably a secondary burial, comes from Tomb II at Nimrud (Oates and Oates 2001)
37
Urns containing cremated remains come from the area of the inner wall (Ass.12279; 12299)
and Room 18 of the Große Wohnhaus (Ass.10679, 10680, see Haller 1954:52–53; Preusser
1954:40). Ass.7790; 7791; 7792 come from a constructed tomb (Ass.7787) under the terrace
of the New Palace and Ass. 7900 was part of a composite grave placed nearby Ass.7787
(Haller 1954:52, 92, 99).
All have been dated by Haller (1954:52–53) to the Neo-Assyrian phase of the city on the
basis of ceramic comparisons and stratigraphic evidence. According to Pedde (2010:916), a
better chronological differentiation comes from dating the houses between the inner and
outer walls between the 8th and the 7th centuries: the tombs found under their floors must
date to the same period, while those in the inner town are slightly older.
The urns (Appendix 5) are between 20 and 40 cm high, usually with a round belly and flat
base. Some examples are glazed, with painted decorations (of interest is the urn from
Ass.7791 decorated with palmette and a leaping antelope, Haller 1954, p.99). Only in two
cases (Ass.12279 and 12299) has a lid, closing the urn or covering the burnt remains, been
found (Haller 1954:53).
Grave goods are limited in number and variety. Among the pottery, small bottles,
occasionally glazed, and bowls have been found close to the funerary urn. The vessels
recovered are all of Assyrian type (Haller 1954:52–53). A very small number of beads, bronze
fibulae and earrings and shellfish were also found; often no grave goods were present.
Unburnt animal bones, perhaps of a mouse, were found in Ass. 7791.
Information about the sex and age of the deceased are not available.
Cremation at Aššur did not occur in the same place as the burial and in fact the majority of
the cremations were probably secondary burials. This interpretation is sustained by the
38
small quantity of bones and grave goods found in the urns. This does not suggest a process
of bone selection, since no pattern has been recognized, but rather the inaccurate storage of
the remains to make place to others. The necessity for the displacement of the deceased is
testified by the high number of inhumations to which the cremations were associated: the
tomb Ass. 7787 hosted at least 16 individuals and in two cases cremations were associated
with sarcophagi containing between three and five people.
The case of the four cremations under house floors is probably different since their location
suggests a primary burial. The absence of grave goods associated with them does not permit
any hypotheses regarding the identity of the deceased.
2.3 Conclusions
Cremation burials involve at least three key stages: burning of the body, collection of the
remains, and burial. However, this structure can be expanded.
The sequence of actions proposed below is speculative but stems from the analysis of the
data from Yunus, Tell Shiukh Fawqâni and Dūr Katlimmu.
The aim is to demonstrate the presence of two different traditions of cremation; one which
may be linked to the Hittite, and to a lesser extent, Aramaean worlds, the second of a
different origin, attested at Dūr Katlimmu, the only site where cremation starts in the Neo-
Assyrian period.
These two traditions, which correspond to different rituals and, possibly, beliefs about the
afterlife suggest different types of cremation could be markers of different identities.
Furthermore, by comparing the two ways of performing cremation with each other and with
inhumation, it may be possible to understand the extent to which cremation at Dūr
39
Katlimmu has been influenced by other practices and assess this in terms of processes of
acculturation in the Neo-Assyrian empire.
Stage 0 – Containers
At Yunus and Tell Shiukh Fawqâni vessels containing the remains and covering the urns were
produced exclusively for funerary purposes so that an additional phase has to be added to
the mortuary sequence which thus increases in complexity and costs.
Stage 1 – Cremation
In the most attested type of cremation, the pyre and the burial are in two different
locations. This ritual requires several stages and the presence of a container to move the
cremated remains to the burial place. Where the pyre and the burial are in the same place
(i.e. open cremation)11, the burial takes place immediately after the cremation. If the two
are separated by considerable distance, burial cannot be immediate. In both cases, we can
assume rituals to have been performed between the two events.
Ideologically, the two types of cremation are distinct since the various ritual actions implied
can be connected to different beliefs.
Stage 1.1 – Preparing the body
Before the burning, the deceased is placed on the pyre with a selection of personal
belongings, perhaps related to age and/or gender as suggested by the burial goods at all the
sites considered. This phase represents a necessary preparatory stage in both types of
cremation.
The presence of people taking care of the deceased, of prayers and other ritual actions are
likely at this stage.
11
For the term see Bloch-Smith 1992
40
Stage 1.2 – Animal offerings
At Tell Shiukh Fawqâni and Dūr Katlimmu, burnt animal bones were found mixed with the
human remains, indicating that they were placed on the pyre and burnt with the deceased.
The rituals performed at this stage must differ from those involving the deposition of
unburnt animal parts in the grave, which may be associated with offerings to the dead or
funerary feasting by the participants.
At Dūr Katlimmu the absence of complete animal skeletons suggests complex actions
including slaughtering, selection of specific parts for burning, and ritual consumption.
Stage 2 – Collecting burnt remains
This stage is present only when pyre and burial place are different. In the case of Yunus and
Tell Shiukh all the bones would have to be collected and placed in the urn alongside objects
and animal remains also burnt on the pyre.
At Tell Shiukh a particular treatment of iron weapons is noticeable: they were burnt
(presumably on the pyre) but deposited separately from the bones - although placed inside
the urn (Tenu 2013:430).
Stage 2.1 – Awaiting burial
From the available data, it is impossible to say how long this stage lasted or even whether it
took place. If it did, this stage would have involved additional ritual actions absent from the
open cremations.
During this phase, the deceased remains in a liminal status during which he is separated
from the community of the living, following the physical transformation of the body. This
separation can have different duration according to beliefs about death and ends only with
the burial of the urn through which the deceased is reintegrated into his community as an
ancestor.
41
Stage 3 - Burial
At all the sites, the dead are deposited in pits dug in the earth.
When a funerary urn is present, it is placed in the pit and sealed. During this phase, vessels
containing offerings are placed in the pit outside the urn, clearly separated from personal
possessions. Such a distinction does not exist when the urn is absent, grave goods being
distinguished only by being burnt or unburnt.
Local variations are documented by the presence of an additional shallow bowl or crater
containing the funerary urn, clearly placed in the pit beforehand. The number of lids used to
cover the urn is subject to local preference: at Yunus, where the situation has the highest
degree of variability, a maximum of three lids are present, the largest one covering the
entire funerary set.
The placement of all these containers may be understood as a series of ritual actions
necessary to the positive outcome of the entire ceremony if, for instance, offerings and the
recital of prayers accompanied their insertion in the burial.
Two different traditions
The overview of the sites where cremation is attested underlines the existence in the Syrian
region of two different traditions distinguishable by the type of cremation ritual involved.
1. The ceremony in which the pyre and the burial are separated is the most common
and it is attested at Yunus and Tell Shiukh Fawqâni.
The type of container involved, regardless the local variations in the number of lids and
decoration, its placement in earthen pits, the fairly consistent association of females with
spindle-whorls and males with weapons and the fact that at these sites cremations are
attested only in cemeteries, create a connection with the Hittite world.
An Aramaean connection has been also proposed, but it is uncertain (see section 2.2.1).
42
2. The second type of cremation is attested at Dūr Katlimmu.
It cannot be related to Hittite practices due to the absence of the funerary urns and of
correspondences between sex/age of the deceased and associated grave goods. For
instance, fibulae are the most attested object but are not exclusively related to females. No
spindle-whorls are recorded. Finally all the cremations have been found in domestic
contexts, which is not documented in the Hittite period.
It is also difficult to link the practice to the Aramean sphere. First, cremations at Tell Halaf
have completely different characteristics compared to those from Dūr Katlimmu. Second, no
trace of the Aramaean population has been found at the site, where and Neo-Assyrian levels
overlie directly Middle Assyrian strata (Kühne 1983) suggesting a history of the settlement
mainly related to the Assyrian sphere of influence.
Open questions
The different ways of performing cremation lead to questions about the identity of the
performers.
In the case of a ritual where pyre and burial place are separate, the attribution to the Hittite
tradition seem likely and further supported by the observation that the arrival of Assyrians
corresponds to a general abandonment of this practice in favour of inhumation.
In the case of the open cremation at Dūr Katlimmu the situation is complicated by the fact
that this practice starts with the Neo-Assyrian levels.
In the following chapter, I will consider two possible scenarios for the presence of the
practice at the site:
a) acquisition of foreign customs by the Assyrian population;
b) presence of partially Assyrianized foreigners with different funerary traditions.
43
Chapter 3
A case study: Dūr Katlimmu
The survey of textual sources suggests that cremation contradicts Assyrian views of afterlife
and at least on an ideological level, this practice should have been rejected by the Assyrians.
Archaeological evidence, however, points to a preference for cremation at certain sites. At
those cities where cremation ends with the arrival of the Assyrians, the practice has been
attributed to Hittite or Aramaean traditions, which preferred it over other practices.
However, this explanation is not suitable for sites, such as Dūr Katlimmu, where cremation
starts with the Neo-Assyrian period.
Is the use of cremation at these sites indicative of ethnic differences and/or related to social
distinctions?
The overall homogeneity of grave assemblages suggests that cremation was the generic
treatment of the deceased regardless of social condition. Thus, an ethnic distinction
between populations using inhumation and cremation seems more probable, due also the
presence of rare inhumations in cemeteries otherwise predominated by cremations.
The case of Dūr Katlimmu is rather different: here we are in the presence of a fully
Assyrianized settlement where an “intrusive” funerary practice is documented, leading us to
consider this practice among a single population, the Assyrians, whose beliefs, at least
according to texts, should not allow cremation. However, the composition of the Assyrian
population, far from being homogeneous, was the result of the processes of amalgamation
favoured by Assyrian policy and imperial structure which produced admixtures of ethnic
identities incorporating Aramaeans, Luwians, Israelites and Egyptians among others.
44
Multiculturalism must have profoundly shaped the Assyrian worldview. Therefore, when
dealing with funerary practices, which are an important tool for displaying group identity,
processes of acculturation and imitation must be taken into account. Foreign populations
coming in contact with the Assyrians must have had an influence on perceptions of Assyrian
identity itself.
I would therefore propose two possible perspectives to evaluate the use of cremation in the
Neo-Assyrian empire: the acquisition of non-Mesopotamian customs by the Assyrian
population or the persistence of foreign traditions among assyrianized people.
As a test case, I will focus on Dūr Katlimmu, a fully Assyrianized centre, with important
administrative functions, which must have hosted a wide sample of the Assyrian population.
Also, the city was the end point of deportations, so that a significant foreign presence is to
be expected.
3.1 The role of Dūr Katlimmu in the Neo-Assyrian provincial system
Dūr Katlimmu has a long history dating back at least to the Middle Assyrian period when it
housed a palace and a governor (Kühne 1983; 2010). In Neo-Assyrian times, it was part of
the province of Laqê; a military garrison and an important administrative centre in the
region (Kühne 2010) according to the stele of Adad-nirari III (Grayson 1996) from Tell Rimah.
The document lists a number of cities under the control of the Assyrian governor Nergal-
ereš. Dūr Katlimmu would have been the largest settlement in a wide system articulated on
four tiers of which the uppermost would have been Dūr Katlimmu itself and the lowermost a
series of smaller villages (Kühne 2010:124).
45
Dūr Katlimmu shares some significant historical and structural features with Ziyaret Tepe12
(south-eastern Turkey), the provincial capital of Tušhan. Both cities were important centres
during Middle Assyrian times and abandoned after the collapse of the Middle Assyrian
empire.
During the Neo-Assyrian period, both cities reached considerable size (> 32 ha), located
similarly along main communications routes in their respective regions (Parpola 2001, maps
3, 9). Their internal structure is typical of the main Assyrian centres of the time, with a
citadel on the mound (that at Ziyaret Tepe housed the palace) and a lower city with
preeminent administrative buildings and houses.
Administrative texts come from both the centres (Radner 2002; MacGinnis and Monroe
2013) which appear to have controlled the surrounding smaller settlements.
As a provincial capital, at Dūr Katlimmu we should expect to find traces of the population
movements characterizing the main centres of the empire and of the related phenomena of
imitation or rejection of the Assyrian culture (Matney 2010).
Most importantly, although with some uncertainty, Neo-Assyrian cremation burials have
also been identified at Ziyaret Tepe, raising the same questions about the identity of the
deceased as at Dūr Katlimmu (Matney et al. 2009; Kreppner 2008).
3.2 Assyrian imitation of foreign customs?
Two key questions relating to this hypothesis are: 1) When did the Assyrians come in contact
with the practice; and 2) Why did they adopt it for treating their dead?
12
Ziyaret Tepe excavations preliminary reports in Anatolica 1998 – 2011 and http://www3.uakron.edu/ziyaret
46
The Assyrian presence in Syria dates back to the 9th century. Following the conquest of Tell
Shiukh Fawqâni by Shalmaneser III, cremation fell out of use at the site (Tenu 2009), and it
was substituted by inhumation burials (Bachelot and Fales 2005).
Shortly after Sargon II’s conquest of Carchemish (Tadmore 1958) the cremation cemetery
here also ceased to be used.
The cases of Tell Shiukh Fawqâni and Carchemish suggest that Assyrian presence may have
led to the abandonment of traditional funerary customs. However, Dūr Katlimmu suggests
the opposite scenario with the possible adoption of foreign customs by the Assyrians.
Assyrians had been in contact with groups practicing cremation since the 9th century and it is
reasonable to assume that some imitation of local customs took place. Nevertheless, the
textual hostility towards this practice and the marked preference for inhumation (over 98%
of the known Neo-Assyrian burials, [see Kreppner 2008]) raises the question as to why some
Assyrians should have adopted it.
A possible explanation could be found in the solar aspects of Assyrian kingship.
The Assyrian king, like his Old Babylonian predecessors and Egyptian and Hittite
counterparts, is usually associated with the sun and the sun-god Šamaš (Frahm 2013).
Reasons for such association (Frahm 2013:100) are manifold.
The king was considered ṣalmu, i.e. (living-)image of Šamaš and šīr ilāni (flesh of the gods)
(Frahm 2013:102–103), he was the focus of rituals with a solar component (Frahm
2013:103–104) and, according to Holloway (2002:185–188), his statues in the temple
received offerings and sacrifices.
In this context, it is likely that the importance of solar cults grew among the highest officials
and collaborators of the king. These beliefs are usually connected to ideas of regeneration
47
and rebirth symbolized by the course of the sun, concepts that apply to cremation as well,
justifying the use of fire as a purifier and as a means of propitiating a future rebirth (Polcaro
2014:223–224). It is possible that the diffusion of such cults among the highest ranks of
society could have favoured the acquisition of a foreign practice like cremation even though
it contrasts with established beliefs about the afterlife and body preservation.
The fact that cremation burials at Dūr Katlimmu are only documented in the Assyrian
Residences, which are elite buildings, suggests that those practicing it must have lived in
those houses and, therefore, be part of the Assyrian administration.
On the other hand, two observations challenge this hypothesis.
The small number of primary cremation burials found in the core of the empire speaks
against the diffusion of the practice in the capital cities: if it is true that a sort of palace
religion developed during the period, one would expect to find a wider attestation of
cremation in the capitals, due the presence of a large part of the elite there.
More importantly, the type of cremation observed at Dūr Katlimmu is different from that of
the other Syrian centres and Aššur. If the adoption of this funerary treatment were the
result of a process of imitation of local practices, one would have expected greater
similarities with cremation attested elsewhere in Syria.
Rather than imitation, cremation emerges as presumably limited to the members of specific
families. Thus, a different scenario, involving the continuation of foreign practices, should be
taken into account.
3.3 Persistence of foreign traditions among Assyrianized people?
The second hypothesis is that the open cremations documented at Dūr Katlimmu have been
introduced by foreigners, namely Levantine people, living in the city.
48
Archaeological and textual data support this thesis. In particular, I will focus on three
elements.
Firstly, I will present the data indicating that open cremations were in use among Levantine
populations before their contact with the Assyrians and continued to be in use afterward.
Secondly, I will draw attention on the fact that these contacts, taking the form of Assyrian
conquest of the region, resulted in the deportation of a huge amount of people to the
central provinces of the empire.
Thirdly, I will present the textual data testifying that a community of Westerners, who, I
suggest, continued using their own funerary practices, was settled at Dūr Katlimmu at the
time of the Assyrian expansions in the Levant. Finally, I will discuss the data considering their
social implications.
Levantine Iron Age open cremations
Between the 12th and the 6th centuries, cremation is attested along the Levantine coast and
in the heartland in three different types (Bloch-Smith 1992):
a) pyre burials in the sand;
b) cremations in urns, amphorae and jars;
c) partially cremated bones in inland cave tombs.
The first type corresponds to open cremations described in the previous chapter, where the
deceased is cremated in situ and the remains are not collected in an urn.
There is no age or gender preference associated to the diverse types of ritual (Bloch-Smith
1992:52–53). The burials are mainly single, although a few multiple burials are attested.
Child burials are not usually accompanied by grave goods, while in adolescent and adult
burials similar assemblages (pottery, jewellery, personal items) are documented, the only
difference being in their number, which is higher in the case of the adults (Bloch-Smith
49
1992:52–55). Pottery and grave goods associated with the burials are locally produced and
the vessels have not been made for specific funerary purposes (Bloch-Smith 1992:54).
Graves are rarely associated with animal bones (Bloch-Smith 1992:103–108).
Open cremations are attested in Israel at Tell el-Ajjul (Petrie 1932; Bieńkowski 1982), Akhzib
(Makhouly 1941), Atlit (Johns 1938; Kreppner 2008:267) and Tell el-Ruqeish (Biran 1974),
dating between the 10th and the 7th centuries.
These sites provide the best comparisons with the cremations at Dūr Katlimmu: in all the
cases the practice is not restricted to a specific gender or age group, the same type of ritual
is performed and pottery and grave goods are not produced specifically for the funeral.
However, some differences should be noted in the location and aspect of the tombs and the
associated offerings. In terms of location, Levantine burials are mostly in cemeteries (the
only exception being Tell el-Ruqeish where the graves were scattered on a sandy hill), while
the attestations from Dūr Katlimmu come from houses. In addition, the burials at Atlit lack
pits, which is present instead at the other Israelite sites and at Dūr Katlimmu. As for the
offerings, animal bones are rare in the Levantine burials whereas they are present in nearly
all the cremations at Dūr Katlimmu with a considerable variety of species.
Assyrian presence in the Levant and deportations
The first Assyrian attempt of conquering the Levant dates back to the expedition of
Shalmaneser III in the 9th century (Liverani 2007:678). A permanent Assyrian presence in the
area starts at the end of the 8th century when Tiglat-Pileser III and Sargon II established
provinces in the region (Cogan 1993; Liverani 2007:678).
The presence of the Assyrians in the region was characterized by repeated mass
deportations and resettlement of a significant part of the Levantine population in the central
areas of the empire (Oded 1979). These started with Tiglat-Pileser III (Cogan 1993), who
50
systematized their use (Oded 1979:19), and continued until the time of Ashurbanipal (Cogan
1993). It was under Tiglat-Pileser III and Sargon II that the majority of the deportations took
place, which is in keeping with the chronology of the cremations at Dūr Katlimmu: 17 out of
18 date either to the second or the third phase of the Neo-Assyrian Residences in the Lower
Town II (Kreppner 2008, table 1), meaning that they date between the beginning of the reign
of Sargon II (721) and the end of the empire. Furthermore, among the deportations
documented by royal inscriptions and administrative texts (Oded 1979:6–11) some were
directed to the province of Laqê and the neighbouring areas (Oded 1979, Appendix).
Presence of foreign groups at Dūr Kat limmu
During the excavations in the Red House in the Lower Town II, four tablets recording
purchases of land in the area of Dūr Katlimmu have been found (Brinkman 1993; Fales 1993;
Postgate 1993). These date to the beginning of the Babylonian control over the city
(Brinkman 1993), between the second and fifth year of the reign of Nabuchadnezzar II,
corresponding to the period 603-600. Two characteristics stand out: the presence of
numerous West Semitic and Hebrew names among the landowners (Fales 1993; Heltzer
1994) and the Neo-Assyrian aspect of the texts in terms of tablet shape, script and
documentary formulae (Postgate 1993; Becking 2002:156).
On the one hand, the presence of Levantine landowners at a time preceding the Babylonian
deportations from the West (the first dates to 598, see Becking 2002, p.163) indicates that
they arrived in Dūr Katlimmu during Assyrian domination.
On the other, although the texts belong chronologically to the Neo-Babylonian period, they
are still within the Assyrian tradition, only 10 years separating the end of Assyrian
governance and the beginning of the Babylonian presence at Dūr Katlimmu.
51
Finally, according to Brinkman (1993), the date and the structure of the tablets also suggest
that the impact of the Babylonian rule was, at least at its beginning, minimal. This justifies
the use of the tablets to shed light on the population of the city in the previous period since
very little must have changed in the social structure of Dūr Katlimmu during the first years of
the Babylonian domination.
Discussion
The archaeological data from the Levantine sites suggests that cremation was present there
in its various forms from the 12th century, while the specific type of open cremation was
introduced during the 10th century by the Phoenicians (Johns 1938; Bloch-Smith 1992). This
means that already at the beginning of permanent Assyrian presence in this area (at the end
of the 8th century) open cremation was a well-established practice at least among some of
people deported from the Levant to the centre of the empire, particularly those from Israel
where open cremations are attested more frequently.
That a community of Israelites was present at Dūr Katlimmu is proved by the four recorded
Israelite names. This is valuable information indicating that at the end of the Neo-Assyrian
presence in the city these people were fully integrated in the social fabric: their names figure
among those of the landowners both as sellers and witnesses of land purchases. What is
more, people bearing proper Assyrian names are recorded among the witnesses, a fact
which supports the idea that foreigners had numerous diverse connections within their host
community and were merged with it.
The late date of this textual evidence notwithstanding, the particular social structure at Dūr
Katlimmu is in keeping with the idea that the deportees and their descendants were so well
integrated to be frequently involved in state administration as functionaries, sometimes
holding high offices such as district and provincial governors (Oded 1979:104–109).
52
Although the presence of Israelite groups is certain, the assemblage of grave goods and
pottery shows slight differences between the Levantine sites and Dūr Katlimmu. In both
cases, beads, metal bracelets, rings and earrings are present as well as bowls, jars and jugs.
However, two significant omissions in the Levantine examples can be listed: fibulae and of
weapons, both object types widely attested in Dūr Katlimmu and, in general, in the Iron Age
Mesopotamian funerary assemblage. Furthermore, none of the objects in the Dūr Katlimmu
graves seems to be of Levantine origin so that a specific Levantine connotation cannot be
inferred from the analysis of the grave goods.
The fact that fibulae and iron weapons are attested only in Assyrian graves suggests that the
people practicing cremation at Dūr Katlimmu had undergone a process of assimilation into
Assyrian culture, since both fibulae and iron weapons were part of the common
Mesopotamian assemblage. Furthermore, all other grave goods typical of the Levantine
cremations were a selection from the same assemblage so that the addition of fibulae and
weapons would not have created too great a difference. As for the fact that the objects in
the burials were locally produced, this indicates that, for the performance of the ritual, the
presence of specific types of objects was required, their provenance being of no interest.
This situation mirrors the case at Israelite sites, each producing locally the pottery and the
grave goods needed for funerary assemblages.
Finally, the presence of animal bones in Dūr Katlimmu, which contrasts with their absence at
Levantine graves, may likewise be explained by progressive Assyrianization. The offering of
animal parts to the dead is a well-known practice in Assyrian times and is part of rituals for
honouring and remembering the dead (Bayliss 1973; Van der Toorn 1996). It is probable that
the newcomers imitated these rituals in the same way they imitated the type of grave goods
assemblage typical of the Assyrian tombs.
53
A second mismatch concerns the location of the burials: in Israel they are in cemeteries,
often mixed with inhumations and other burial types, while at Dūr Katlimmu all the
examples come from the houses.
In this respect, it is important to bear in mind that the graves from the Assyrian Residences
are at present the only ones discovered at the site, since as yet cemetery has been found.
This obviously affects the way in which the variation in their location should be understood.
However, as seen in Chapter 1, the ideological difference between cemeteries and in-house
graves is strong and the presence of the latter in contexts in which communal cemeteries
were the norm can be associated with a distinction in the practice and in their performers.
The limited number of cremations found in the Assyrian Residences suggests that the people
buried there were members of the family. Since all ages and both sexes are documented,
what differentiates them from the deceased buried elsewhere should not be their social or
gender identity but their ethnic affiliation. Burying the dead in the house rather that in a
communal cemetery is a way to keep them discreet, although a degree of assimilation is
testified by the performance of kispu-like rituals and in the type of the grave goods chosen. I
would tentatively propose to recognize in the cremated remains those members of the
families living in the Assyrian Residence that retained their ethnic identity for a longer time.
This last remark leads to a final question: Which was the social position of these people?
The most probable explanation is that they represent part of the elite of foreign origins
documented by the administrative sources since the 8th century. In the case of Dūr
Katlimmu, this elite could well have developed through intermarriages between foreigners
and Assyrians.
If these people had been settled in the city to attend their bureaucratic duties having been
raised in Assyria, as often documented in other cases, their funerary behaviours would have
54
been fully Assyrianized. By contrast, native-immigrant intermarriage would have led to a
longer persistence of the traditions of the place of origin.
Instead, the mixture of local and non-native traditions observed at the site is best explained
in the framework of intermarriages as a form of middle ground (White 1991) within which
contacts between different traditions result in “the creation of a set of practices, rituals,
offices, and beliefs ” (White 1991:XIII) having aspects of both traditions but not being part of
any. In the case of Assyrians and Israelites, mix marriages could hasten the processes of
assimilation but would also be counterbalanced by the resilience of certain cultural
behaviours, among which are burial practices.
55
Chapter 4
Conclusions
Cremation in 1st millennium Syria shows a high degree of uniformity, as underlined by the
cemeteries at Yunus and Tell Shiukh Fawqâni which provide the background against which
the specific case of Dūr Katlimmu is analysed here. The beginning of Assyrian control over
the region marks the end of cremation at sites where it was attested from the 14th-12th
centuries as a Hittite and/or Aramaean custom; followed by the re-introduction of
inhumation, the typical Mesopotamian funerary treatment.
However, while inhumation represents 98% of known Assyrian burials, this is not the only
attested practice, as demonstrated by Dūr Katlimmu where open cremations occur inside
Neo-Assyrian houses, thus starting with the Assyrian domination.
To date, the type of cremation and its date make Dūr Katlimmu a unique case in the Assyrian
empire, calling for an explanation leaving aside the usual connection with the Hittite and the
Aramaean worlds.
Two hypotheses have been evaluated: the use of cremation among Assyrians settled in the
provinces as a consequence of the contact with local traditions and the introduction of the
practice with the arrival of deportees, namely Levantine people.
The first hypothesis has been rejected: despite the introduction of cults with a strong solar
element, which could have favoured the adoption of cremation among the uppermost class
of Assyrian officials and bureaucrats, the virtual absence of this funerary treatment in the
core of the empire and the differences with the Syrian local tradition cannot be satisfactorily
explained.
56
The second hypothesis, instead, provides an explanation for the chronology of the burials,
their location and the differences in the ritual.
The presence of Levantine people, i.e. Israelites, is directly documented by the late texts
from Dūr Katlimmu as well as royal inscriptions of Sargon II and Sennacherib recording
deportation to the region of Laqê at a time compatible with the first attestation of the
practice at the site. Open cremation was practiced in Israel from the 10th century and at the
time of the Assyrian conquest in the 8th century it was a well-established custom.
The problems related to the location and the rituals can be explained in the light of the
progressive Assyrianization of the newcomers who, although maintaining a physical
separation between their own dead and those of the Assyrians, adopted some elements of
the Assyrian material culture such as the fibulae and Assyrian pottery along with animal
offerings absent in their place of origin.
I have proposed that the social situation favourable to such a development was
intermarriage between Assyrians and Israelite. Intermarriage favours the mixture of local
and foreign uses and explains the presence of people of Israelite origin in houses whose style
and architecture are surely Assyrian.
The case of Dūr Katlimmu demonstrates some of the challenges posed by the study of
identity in the 1st millennium underlining the complexity of the Assyrian social fabric and
providing a perfect point of observation of the processes of assimilation and social
integration typical of the period. Finally, it gives the chance of studying cremation as an
independent source of information, avoiding the traditional approach of contrasting it with
inhumation resulting in the underestimation of the significance of this practice.
57
References
Abusch, T., 2002. Mesopotamian witchcraft: toward a history and understanding of Babylonian
witchcraft beliefs and literature, Leiden - Boston.
Abusch, T., 2015. The witchcraft series Maqlû, Atlanta.
Abusch, T. and Schwemer, D., 2011. Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-Witchcraft rituals,
Al-Bahloul, K., Barro, A. and D’Alfonso, L., 2005. Area H: The Iron Age cremation cemetery. In L.
Bachelot and F. M. Fales, eds. Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994-1998. Padova, pp. 997–1048.
Ataç, M.-A., 2010. The Mythology of kinghship in Neo-Assyrian art, Cambridge.
Atici, L., 2014. Food and Ethnicity at Kültepe-Kanesh: Preliminary Zooarchaeological Evidence. In L.
Atici et al., eds. Current Research at Kültepe/Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and Integrative
Approach to Trade Networks, Internationalism, and Identity. Atlanta, pp. 195–211.
Bachelot, L. and Fales, F.M., 2005. Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994-1998, Padova.
Bahrani, Z., 2006. Race and ethnicity in Mesopotamian antiquity. World Archaeology, 38(1), pp.48–
59.
Barth, F., 1969. Introduction. In F. Barth, ed. Ethnic groups and boundaries. Boston, pp. 9–38.
Bayliss, M., 1973. The Cult of Dead Kin in Assyria and Babylonia. Iraq, 35(2), pp.115–125.
Beaulieu, P.-A., 2005a. The god Amurru as emblem of ethnic and cultural identity. In W. H. Van Soldt,
ed. Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Leiden, pp. 31–46.
Beaulieu, P.-A., 2005b. World hegemony, 900-300 BCE. In D. Snell, ed. A companion to the Ancient
Near East. pp. 48–61.
Becking, B., 2002. West Semitic at Tell Seh Hamad: Evidence for the Israelite exile? In M. Weippert, U.
Hübner, and E. A. Knauf, eds. Kein Land für sich allein. Gottingenp, pp. 153–166.
De Bernardi, C., 2005. Methodological problems in the approach to ethnicity in Ancient
Mesopotamia. In W. H. Van Soldt, ed. Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Leiden, pp. 78–89.
Bieńkowski, P., 1982. Some Remarks on the Practice of Cremation in the Levant. Levant, 14(1),
pp.80–89.
Binford, L.R., 1972. An Archaeological Perspective, New York.
Binford, L.R., 1965. Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. American antiquity,
31(2/1), pp.301–313.
Binford, L.R., 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. American antiquity, 28(2), pp.217–225.
Binford, L.R., 1971. Mortuary practices: their study and potential. In J. A. Brown, ed. Approaches to
the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Washington, pp. 6–29.
Biran, A., 1974. Tell el Ruqeish to Tell er Ridan. Israel Exploration Journal, 24(2), pp.141–142.
Bloch-Smith, E., 1992. Judahite burial practices and beliefs about the dead, Sheffield.
Bonatz, D., 2000. Syro-hittite funerary monuments: a phenomenon of tradition or innovation? In G.
Bunnens, ed. Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Louvain, pp. 189–210.
58
Brinkman, J.A., 1993. Babylonian influence in the Seh Hamad texts dated under Nebuchadnezzar II.
State archives of Assyria Bulletin, 7(2), pp.377–382.
Brown, B.A., 2013. Culture on Display : Representations of Ethnicity in the Art of the Late Assyrian
State. In B. Brown and M. H. Feldman, eds. Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art.
Tubingen, pp. 515–542.
Bryce, T., 2013. Anatolian states. In P. Fibiger Bang and W. Scheidel, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the
State in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Oxford, pp. 161–179.
Bryce, T., 2002. Life and society in the Hittite world, Oxford.
Budge, W. and King, L.W. eds., 1902. Annals of the kings of Assyria: the cuneiform texts with
translations, transliterations etc. from the original documents in the British Museum, London.
Cifarelli, M., 1998. Gesture and Alterity in the Art of Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria. The Art Bulletin,
80(2), pp.210–228.
Cogan, M., 1993. Judah under Assyrian hegemony: A reexamination of imperialism and religion.
Journal of Biblical Literature, 112(3), pp.403–414.
Collins, B.J., 2007. The Hittites and Their World, Leiden.
Collon, D., 2005. Examples of ethnic diversity on Assyrian reliefs. In W. Van Soldt, ed. Ethnicity in
Ancient Mesopotamia. Leiden, pp. 66–69.
Van Driel, G., 2005. Ethnicity, how to cope with the subject. In W. H. Van Soldt, ed. Ethnicity in
Ancient Mesopotamia. Leiden, pp. 1–10.
Emberling, G., 1997. Ethnicity in complex societies: Archaeological perspectives. Journal of
Archaeological Research, 5(4), pp.295–344.
Fales, F.M., 1993. West semitic names in the Seh Hamad texts. State archives of Assyria Bulletin, 7(2),
pp.139–150.
Frahm, E., 2013. Rising suns and falling stars: Assyrian kings and the cosmos. In J. Hill, P. Jones, and A.
Morales, eds. Experiencing power, generating authority. Philadelphia, pp. 97–120.
Fugert, A. et al., 2014. Early Neo-Assyrian Dur-Katlimmu. In Proceedings of the 8th International
Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. pp. 217–239.
Gates, J., 2002. The ethnicity name game: what lies behind “Graeco-Persian”? Ars Orientalis, 32,
pp.105–132.
Grayson, K., 1996. Assyrian rulers of the early First Millennium BC II (858-745), University of Toronto
Press.
Hall, J.M., 1997. Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity, Cambridge.
Hall, J.M., 1998. Review - Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 8(02),
pp.265–283.
Haller, A., 1954. Die gräber und grüfte von Assur, Berlin.
Heltzer, M., 1994. Some remarks concerning the Neo-Babylonian tablets from Seh Hamad. State
archives of Assyria Bulletin, 8(2), pp.113–116.
Hertz, R., 1960. Death and the right hand, Aberdeen.
59
Hodder, I., 1980. Social structure and cemeterie: a critical appraisal. In P. Rahtz, T. Dickinson, and L.
Watts, eds. Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, 1979. Oxford, pp. 160–170.
Holloway, S., 2002. Aššur is king! Aššur is king! Religion in the exercise of power in the Neo-Assyrian
empire, Leiden - Boston - Koln.
Van den Hout, T., 1994. Death as a privilege. The Hittite royal funerary ritual. In Hidden futures.
Death and immortality in Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the Classical, Biblical and Arabic-Islamic
world. Amsterdam, pp. 37–75.
Hunt, C.H. and Walker, L., 1974. Ethnic dynamics: patterns of intergroup relations in various societies,
Joannes, F., 2004. The Age of Empires: Mesopotamia in the First Millennium BC, Edinburgh.
Johns, C.N., 1938. Excavations at Pilgrims’ Castle, 'Atlit (1933); Cremated burials of Phoenician origin.
The quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, 6, pp.121–151.
Jones, S., 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity - Constructing identities in the past and present, London.
Just, R., 1989. The triumph of the ethnos. In E. Tonkin, M. McDonald, and M. Chapman, eds. History
and Ethnicity. London, pp. 71–88.
Kamp, K. and Yoffee, N., 1980. Ethnicity in Ancient Western Asia during the Early Second Millennium
B.C.: Archaeological Assessments and Ethnoarchaeological Prospectives. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, 237, pp.85–104.
Kassian, A., Korolev, A. and Sidel’tsev, A., 2002. Hittite funerary ritual šalliš waštaiš, Munster.
Köroğlu, K., 2003. The Transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age in Eastern Anatolia. In B. Fischer et al.,
eds. Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its
Neighbouring Regions. Istanbul, pp. 231–244.
Kramer, C., 1977. Pots and People. In L. D. Levine and T. C. Young, eds. Mountains and lowlands:
Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Malibu, pp. 91–112.
Kreppner, F.J., 2008. Eine außergewöhnliche Brandbestattungssitte in Dūr-Katlimmu während der
ersten Hälfte des ersten Jts. v. Chr. In D. Bonatz, R. M. Czichon, and F. J. Kreppner, eds.
Fundstellen: gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem
Hartmut Kühne. Wiesbaden, pp. 263–276.
Kühne, H., 1983. Tell Seh Hamad/Dur Katlimmu: The Assyrian provincial capital in the Mohafazat Deir
Az-zor. In Symposium International Histoire de Deir Ez-Zur et ses antiquites. pp. 160–168.
Kühne, H., 2010. The rural hinterland of Dūr Katlimmu. In H. Kühne, ed. Dūr Katlimmu 2008 and
beyond. Wiesbaden, pp. 115–128.
Lipinsky, E., 2000. The Aramaeans thier ancient history, culture and religion, Leuven-Paris-Sterling.
Liverani, M., 2007. Antico Oriente, Roma-Bari.
Luciani, M., 2000. Iron age graves in Northern Syria: The Tell Shiukh Fawqani evidence. In
Proceedings of the first International congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
Roma, pp. 803–814.
MacGinnis, J., 2012. Population and Identity in the Assyrian Empire: A Case Study. In Ö. A. Cetrez, S.
G. Donabed, and A. Makko, eds. The Assyrian Heritage: Threads of Continuity and Influence.
Uppsala, pp. 131–153.
60
MacGinnis, J. and Monroe, M.W., 2013. Recent texts from Ziyaret Tepe. State archives of Assyria
Bulletin, 20, pp.47–56.
Makhouly, N., 1941. Achzib/ez-Zib,
Mallowan, M.E.L. and Cruikshank, R., 1935. Excavations at Tall Arpachiyah 1933. Iraq, 2(1), pp.1–178.
De Marrais, E., Castillo, L.J. and Earle, T., 1996. Ideology, Materialization and Power Strategies.
Current Anthropology, 37(1), pp.15–31.
Matney, T. et al., 2005. Archaeological investigations at Ziyaret Tepe, 2003-2004. Anatolica, 31,
pp.19–68.
Matney, T. et al., 2009. Excavations at Ziyaret Tepe 2007-2008. Anatolica, 35, pp.38–84.
Matney, T., 2010. Material culture and identity: Assyrians, Arameans and the indigenous peoples of
Iron Age Southeastern Anatolia. In Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New paths
forward. London, pp. 129–147.
Mazzoni, S., 2000. Syria and the periodization of the Iron Age: a cross-cultural perspective. In G.
Bunnens, ed. Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Louvain, pp. 31–57.
McGuire, R., 1988. Dialogues with the dead: Ideology and the Cemetery. In M. Leone and P. Potter,
eds. Meaning in historical archaeology. Washington, pp. 435–480.
McKinley, J., 2006. Cremation...the cheap option? In R. Gowland and C. Knusel, eds. Social
archaeology of funerary remains. Oxford, pp. 81–88.
Merpert, N.Y. and Munchaev, R., 1987. The earliest levels at Yarim Tepe I and Yarim Tepe II in
northern Iraq. Iraq, 49(1987), pp.1–36.
Michalowski, P., 1986. Mental maps and ideology: reflections on Subartu. In H. Weiss, ed. The Origins
of cities in dry-farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the third millennium B.C. Guilford, pp. 129–
156.
Van De Mieroop, M., 2004. A history of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000-323 BC, Oxford.
Morris, I., 1991. The Archaeology of Ancestors: The Saxe/Goldstein Hypothesis Revisited. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal, 1(02), pp.147–169.
Oates, J. and Oates, D., 2001. Nimrud: an Assyrian imperial city revealed, London.
Oded, B., 1979. Mass deportation and deportees in the Neo-Assyrian empire, Wiesbaden.
Oestigaard, T., 1999. Cremations as transformations: when the dual cultural hypothesis was
cremated and carried away in urns. European Journal of Archaeology, 2(3), pp.345–364.
Oestigaard, T., 2013. Cremations in Culture and Cosmology. In The Oxford Handbook of the
Archaeology of Death and Burial. pp. 497–509.
Parker, B., 2001. The mechanics of empire. The northern frontier of Assyria as a case study in imperial
dynamics, Helsinki.
Parker Pearson, M., 1982. Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study. In
I. Hodder, ed. Symbolic and structural archaeology. Cambridge, pp. 99–113.
Parker Pearson, M., 1999. The archaeology of death and burial, Sutton.
61
Parpola, S., 2004. National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity in
Post-Empire Times. Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, 18(2), pp.5–22.
Parpola, S., 2001. The Helsinki atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian period, Helsinki.
Parpola, S. and Watanabe, K. eds., 1988. Neo-Assyrian treaties and loyalty oaths State Arch., Helsinki.
Pedde, F., 2012. The Assur Project : The Middle and Neo-Assyrian Graves and Tombs. In Proceedings
of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. pp. 93–108.
Pedde, F., 2010. The Assur Project: a new analysis of the Middle- and Neo-Assyrian graves and tombs.
In P. Matthiae et al., eds. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of
the Ancient Near East.
Petrie, F., 1932. Ancient Gaza II: Tell el Ajul, London.
Polcaro, A., 2014. Fire and death: incineration in the Levantine Early-Middle Bronze Age cemeteries
as a mark of cultural identity or as a technical instrument of purification? In Proceedings of the
8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. pp. 223–234.
Pollock, S., 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia, Cambridge.
Porter, A. and Schwartz, G.M. eds., 2012. Sacred killing. The archaeology of sacrifice in the Ancient
Near East, Winona Lake.
Postgate, J.N., 1992. The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur. World Archaeology, 23(3), pp.247–263.
Postgate, N., 1993. The four “Neo-Assyrian” tablets from Tell Seh Hamad. State archives of Assyria
Bulletin, 7(2), pp.109–124.
Preston, L., 1999. Mortuary Practices and the Negotiation of Social Identities At Lm Ii Knossos. The
Annual of the British School at Athens, 94, pp.131–143.
Preusser, C., 1954. Die Wonhauser in Assur, Berlin.
Pucci, M., 2008. The Neoassyrian residences of Tell Shekh Hamad, Syria. In J. Cordoba et al., eds.
Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. pp.
49–64.
Radner, K., 2002. Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad, Berlin.
Reuther, O., 1926. Die innenstadt von Babylon (Merkes), Leipzig.
Riis, P.J., 1948. Hama, Les cimetières à crémation, Copenhagen.
Roaf, M. and Schachner, A., 2005. The Bronze Age to Iron Age transition in the Upper Tigris region:
new information from Ziyaret Tepe and Giricano. In A. Cilingiroglu and G. Darbyshire, eds.
Proceedings of the 5th Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van, 6-10 August 2001. Ankara,
pp. 115–123.
Roberts, C., Lee, F. and Bintliff, J. eds., 1989. Burial archaeology: current research, methods and
developments, Oxford.
Saxe, A., 1970. Social dimensions of mortuary practices.
Saxe, A., 1971. Social dimensions of mortuary practices in a Mesolithic population from Wadi Halfa,
Sudan. In J. A. Brown, ed. Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices.
Washington, pp. 39–57.
62
Schwartz, G.M., 2012. Era of the Living Dead : Funerary Praxis and Symbol in Third Millennium BC
Syria P. Pfälzner et al., eds., Tubingen.
Stein, G.J., 2002. Colonies without colonialism: a trade diaspora model of fourth millennium BC
Mesopotamian enclaves in Anatolia. In C. Lyons and J. Papadopulos, eds. The archaeology of
colonialism. Los Angeles.
Tadmore, H., 1958. The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: a chronological-historical study (conclusion).
Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 12(3), pp.77–100.
Tenu, A., 2007. A propos de la necropole a incineration de Tell Shiukh Fawqani: l’incineration dans le
monde syrien a l'age du Fer. In L. Baray, P. Brun, and A. Testart, eds. Pratiques funeraires et
societes. Nouvelles approches en archeologie et en anthropologie sociale. pp. 267–276.
Tenu, A., 2009. Assyrians and Aramaeans in the Euphrates Valley viewed from the cemetery of tell
Shiukh Fawqani (Syria). Syria, 86, pp.83–96.
Tenu, A., 2013. Funerary practices and society at the Late Bronze-Iron Age tansition. A view from Tell
Shiukh Fawqani and Tell An-Nasriyah (Syria). In K. A. Yene, ed. Across the border: Late Bronze-
Iron Age relations between Syria and Anatolia. Leuven, pp. 423–448.
Tenu, A. and Rottier, S., 2014. Fire in funeral contexts: new data from Tell Al-Nasriyah (Syria). In
Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. pp.
123–136.
Van der Toorn, K., 1996. Family religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the
forms of religious life, Leiden.
De Vos, G., 1982. Ethnic pluralism: conflict and accomodation. In G. de Vos and L. Romanucci-Ross,
eds. Ethnic identity: cultural continuities and change. Chicago, pp. 5–41.
Weber, J., 2012. Restoring order: Death, Display and Authority. In Sacred killing - The Archaeology of
Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, pp. 159–190.
Weber, M., 1961. Ethnic groups. In T. Parsons et al., eds. Theories of society. New York, pp. 301–309.
Whitaker, J., 1921. Motya: a Phenician colony in Sicily, London.
White, R., 1991. The Middle Ground, Cambridge.
Wilkinson, T.J. et al., 2005. Landscape and Settlement in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, 340, pp.23–56.
Wiseman, D.J., 1958. The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon. Iraq, 20(1), pp.1–99.
Wittke, A.-M., Olshausen, E. and Szydlak, R., 2010. Historical atlas of the ancient world, Leiden.
Woolley, L., 1914. Hittite burial customs. The Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 6(87-98).
Woolley, L., 1939. The Iron Age graves of Carchemish. The Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology,
26, pp.11–37.
Woolley, L., 1934. The royal cemetery. Ur excavations, II, London.
63
Appendix 1
Glossary
Akkadian word
English translation
Reference Examples
ayyābu enemy CAD 1a:222 He heard my royal message which burns my enemy like a flame [RINAP Esarh. 33, i1]
bašālu to cook; to burn to ashes
CAD 2:135 Incantation burn, burn blaze, blaze! [Maqlû IV, 1]
eṭemmu ghost CAD 4:397 whether you are one who has slipped from a date palm, or one who drowned in a ship, or a ghost who has no grave, a ghost who has no one to care for him or a ghost who gets no scrap offering or a ghost who gets no libation water or a ghost who has no one to mention him by name [CT 16 10 v. 1-14] Have you seen the ghost of him who has no one to care (of him)? (that) I have seen, he eats what is left to eat in the pots, scraps food, that are thrown away in the street [Gilg. XII] Whether it be a roving ghost (of a man) who(se body) was cast into the fields, or the ghost (of a man) who drowned in a well, or the ghost (of a man) who died of hunger, or the ghost (of a man) who died of thirst, or the ghost (of a man) who was burnt (to death) in a fire, or the ghost (of a man) who died of a sunstroke (?) [LKA 84:23ff]
girru fire CAD 5:93 May Girru who gives food to small and great burn up your name and your seed [SAA 6,62] You, O Girra, it is you who are the burner of warlocks and witches […] I call upon you in the stead of Shamash, the judge. Judge my case, render my verdict [Maqlû I, 110-117] May raging Girra inflame your body [Maqlû III, 30; 164]
hamāṭu to inflame; to scorch
CAD 6:64 […] because your hand (i.e. the evildoer’s) performed sorcery, may he (i.e. Girra) inflame your body [Maqlû III, 178-179] May raging Girra inflame your body [Maqlû III, 30; 164]
64
išātu fire CAD 7:227 Just as an image of wax is burnt in the fire […] [SAA 6,89] [Whoever takes away this stela from] its place and [erases my inscr]ibed name and writes his name […] and burns (it) with fire [RINAP Esarh. 1008]
kabābu to burn CAD 8:2 You (i.e. Lamaštu) burn bodies like fire [Farber, Lam. I]
nablu flame CAD 11:26 He heard my royal message which burns my enemy like a flame [RINAP Esarh. 33, i1] I fought with them, I rained fire on them [AKA 335 ii 106, 233 r24]
narû stele CAD 11:365 Whoever takes away this stele from its place and erases my inscribed name […] burns (it) with fire […] may the goddess Ištar […] change him from man into a woman [RINAP Esarh. 98, 53b]
našpartu šarrūtiya
my royal message CAD 12:70 He heard my royal message which burns my enemy like a flame [RINAP Esarh. 33, i1]
qalû to roast CAD 13:69 Girra scorch my warlock and my witch [Maqlû IV, 142] They (i.e. the sorcerers) have made figurines of me and burnt (them) in a potter’s kiln [AfO 18 292:34]
qamû to burn CAD 13:76 May the god Nergal […] burn his (i.e. of the evildoer) people [LH li 24-39] Burn my warlock and my witch. Devour my enemies, consume the ones who would do evil to me! [Maqlû I, 115-117] O warlock and witch, may Girra burn your hand […] [Maqlû III, 154] May your figure be burnt in the fire [SAA 6,89] I surrounded, conquered, destroyed, devastated, burned with fire the cities [RINAP Sen. 3, 22]
ṣalmu figurine; image CAD 16:78 Just as an image of wax is burnt in the fire and one of clay dissolved in water, so may your figure be burnt in the fire and sunk in water [SAA 6,89]
65
šarāpu to burn CAD 17b:50 I hand over figurines of the seven and seven witches to Girra, I am burning them in a burning stove [Maqlû IV, 138-140] six hundred of their warriors I put to the sword, three thousand captives I burnt with fire […] their young men and maidens I burnt in the fire [AKA Aššur-naṣir-pal 107-110] Just as an image of wax is burnt in the fire […] [SAA 6,89]
Abbreviations
AfO Lambert, W.G., An Incantation of the Maqlû Type. Archiv für Orientforschung, 18, pp.288–299.
AKA Budge, W. and King, L.W. eds., 1902. Annals of the kings of Assyria, London.
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago.
CT Cuneiform texts from Babylonian tablets in the British Museum, London.
Farber Farber, W., 2014. Lamaštu: an edition of the canonical series of Lamaštu incantations and rituals and related texts from the Second and First Millennia BC, Winona Lake.
Gilg. Thompson, R., 1930. The epic of Gilgamesh, Oxford.
LH Roth, M., 1997. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Atlanta.
LKA Ebeling, E., 1956. Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur
Maqlû Abusch, T., 2015. The witchcraft series Maqlû, Atlanta.
RINAP University of Pennsylvania, 2011. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period. Available at: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/index.html.
SAA Parpola, S. and Watanabe, K. eds., 1988. Neo-Assyrian treaties and loyalty oaths. State Archives of Assyria, Helsinki.
66
Appendix 2
Characteristics of cremation burials
Tell Sh
iukh
Faw
qân
i Yu
nu
s D
ūr K
atlimm
u
Aššu
r
Date
1
4th –
9th cen
t 1
2th – 7
th cent
9th –
6th cen
t 8
th – 7th cen
t
Locatio
n
extern
al cemetery
√ √
in-h
ou
se graves
√ √
Place o
f crem
ation
d
ifferent fro
m th
e bu
rial p
lace √
√
√
same o
f the b
urial p
lace
√
Type o
f bu
rial sin
gle √
√ *
√
√
mu
ltiple
√
√
√
Co
ntain
ers jar/u
rn co
vered b
y on
e or
mo
re lids
√
√
√
no
con
tainer: rem
ains in
earth
en p
it
√
mad
e for fu
nerary p
urp
oses
√
√ (b
ath-
tub
e)
com
mo
n vessels
√
√
Grave go
od
s p
erson
al po
ssession
s mixed
to
the ash
es √
√
n
o sep
aration
b
etwee
n
perso
nal
po
ssession
s and
o
fferings
√
offerin
gs separate
d fro
m th
e ash
es (main
ly po
ttery) √
√
√
An
imal b
on
es p
resen
t √
√
√ ?
absen
t
√
* at Yun
us tw
o d
ou
ble p
ot b
urials are atte
sted, w
ith th
e disp
osal o
f two
ind
ividu
als in tw
o d
ifferent u
rns w
ith th
eir ow
n p
erson
al
po
ssession
s bu
t placed
with
in th
e same p
it.
? the p
resence o
f anim
al bo
nes is d
ou
btfu
l: the o
nly attested
bo
nes are n
ot b
urn
t and
pro
bab
ly belo
ng to
a mo
use.
67
Appendix 3
Vessel types from Tell Shiukh Fawqâni
(after Al-Bahloul, K., Barro, A. and D’Alfonso, L., 2005. Area H: The Iron Age cremation cemetery. In L.
Bachelot and F. M. Fales, eds. Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994-1998. Padova, pp. 997–1048.)
Tell Shiukh Fawqâni: Bath tube (Tenu 2013:fig.4)
Tell Shiukh Fawqâni: Cremation burial with two cinerary urns (Tenu 2013:fig.9)
68
Bath-tub
Large elliptical shape with a splayed flat rim. The base is not preserved. Decoration just below the rim: rope moulding appliqué with small incised squares. This shape seems to have been produced for burials.
Craters
Type 1: Bell crater with four handles connected to the rim. The rim is out-turned with a square ending and a flat upper surface with an in-turned protrusion. The body is divided by a soft carination just below the handles. Two corrugated bands decorate the vertical neck. The base presents three looped feet connected to the ring-base. The colour of the surface goes from buff to pink, the fabric is reddish yellow. This shape seems to have been produced for burials.
69
Craters
Type 2: Bell crater with three handles connected to the rim, which is out-turned, edge-shaped with two parallel grooves. The neck is vertical. A carination, decorated by a corrugated band, divides the neck and the belly. The base has three looped feet. The surface colour is pink, the fabric is reddish yellow. This shape seems to have been produced for burials.
Jars
Type 1: Pear-shaped jar with a narrow ring-base. A strong carination divides the shoulder from the belly: under the carination the profile is hemispherical; conical above. The neck is vertical, carinated, well separated from the shoulders. Its diameter is usually smaller than that of the base. The rim is flattened and out-turned. The surface colour is from light pink to light red, while the fabric goes from reddish yellow to light reddish brown. This shape seems to have been produced for burials.
70
Jars
Type 2: Pear-shaped jar, similar to Type 1. The ring-base is incised and the neck is larger than in Type 1. The carination is less accentuated and the separation between body and neck less evident. This shape seems to have been produced for burials.
Jars See Jamieson 1999, 288 fig. 2.1 (7th cent.)
Type 3: Elliptical shaped jar with restricted neck and out-turned rim. The base is slightly rounded. This shape seems to have been produced for burials.
71
Cups
Type 1: Slightly concave, carinated cup with flaring and tapering rim set on a low pedestal base with thickened rim. Above the carination is an incised band that runs all around the circumference. A pair of vertical, loop, decorative handles is on both the sides. The fabric is reddish yellow; the surface goes from pink to light red.
Cups
Type 2: Cup with tapering rim, slightly everted walls and almost flat, slightly convex base. A small appliqué with three incisions decorates the rim. The fabric colour is buff, the surface is pink.
Cups
Type 3: Hemispherical cup with simple rim. The colour of the surface is reddish yellow.
72
Zoomorphic vessel
The vessel has a cylindrical body with four looped feet, attached directly to the body, on which the vessel is supposed to stand. The ends of the cylinder are decorated. One is almost flat with a series of regular incisions running from the top to the bottom. The other is conical, with a pellet on the apex. This side represents the face of the animal. Probably the vase had an additional handle opposite to the feet. Complex manufacturing technique: the two halves of the cylinder are wheel-made and then joined together. Afterwards, the hand-made parts (handles, decorations) were applied. This vessel has not direct parallels. However, zoomorphic vessels with a cylindrical body have been found in some Iron Age sites (Beit Mersim, Lachish, Khaldé, Tyre, Byblos, Tell Afis): all of them were far West from Tell Shiukh, the only close one was Carchemish. The decoration finds comparisons in the cemetery of Deve Hüyük and at Tell Afis.
73
Appendix 4
Vessel types from Yunus (Carchemish)
(after Woolley, L., 1939. The Iron Age graves of Carchemish. The Annals of Archaeology and
Anthropology, 26, pp.11–37.)
Yunus: Pot Burial (Woolley 1939:pl.VIII)
Yunus: Bath burial with two cinerary urns (Woolley 1939:pl.VI)
74
Yunus graves: Types of vase shapes (Woolley 1939:pl.XIII)
75
Yunus graves: Types of vase shapes (Woolley 1939:pl.XXII)
76
Yunus graves: Types of vase shapes (Woolley 1939:pl.XXIII)
77
Yunus graves: Types of vase shapes (Woolley 1939:pl.XXIV)
78
Yunus graves: Types of vase shapes (Woolley 1939:pl.XXV)
79
Appendix 5
Cremation burials from Aššur
(after Haller, A., 1954. Die gräber und grüfte von Assur, Berlin.)
Aššur, urn 10680
Aššur, urn 14485
