Garrisoning the empire: aspects of the construction and maintenance of forts on the Assyrian frontier

Abstract

It is clear from the royal correspondence of the Assyrian empire and from the annals of Assyrian kings that the construction of forts was an integral part of the permanent establishment of Assyrian sovereignty in newly conquered regions. Forts served as garrison outposts in formerly hostile areas and were therefore the first footholds of Assyrian expansion into recently annexed territories. They were military centres, from which campaigns and intelligence operations were conducted into and beyond the frontier, administrative centres where the daily affairs of the surrounding areas were directed and monitored, and communications hubs through which news and information were channelled. In addition to these roles, forts or garrison centres also served as conduits through which the Assyrian ideology of imperialism could be diffused into the periphery of the empire and the process of the acculturation of the “foreign” inhabitants of peripheral zones could be conducted.Liverani has suggested that Assyrian military expansion was not a process of conquering contiguous areas, in which a clear line could be drawn between regions under Assyrian control and those that were not. Instead, the process of Assyrian imperialism was one in which “islands” of Assyrian occupation were planted in peripheral zones soon after military incursions. In regions of Assyrian expansion, “the empire was not a spread of land but a network of communications” between Assyrian strongholds. The spaces between the “islands” of this “network empire” were slowly filled in through successive military incursion. Following these conquests new forts or garrison towns were constructed at critical junctures, to protect and fortify the networks connecting the existing Assyrian strongholds, and foreign populations were forcibly settled in the surrounding countryside. Peripheral regions were not, therefore, brought under the Assyrian yoke solely through swift military action but by the gradual growth and spread of “islands” of occupation into new regions. These “islands” must have initially consisted of forts or fortified settlements such as those referred to in the royal correspondence as birtu or HAL.ṢU meaning “fort”. This system of planting Assyrian garrisons in newly conquered regions is perhaps best exemplified in Nimrud Letter 48, in which the author speaks of “establishing the foundations (of a fort)” at several junctures in his campaign in the Iranian Zagros. As the system of Assyrian strongholds became more contiguous across the landscape, the area came more firmly into the grip of the imperial administration and the stage was set for expansion further into the periphery or into regions between these pockets of Assyrian control.

2 Assessing the Politics of Neo‐Assyrian Agriculture

“…Neo-Assyrian rulers infused territories captured along and between the Upper Tigris and Euphrates Rivers with farmsteads cultivated by relocated deportees of the empire in a process referred to as "agricultural colonization" (Parker 2001, 82). These agrarian settlements have long been recognized by scholars for their economic value to the empire, especially as producers of foodstuffs for the Assyrian heartland (Parker 1997(Parker , 2001(Parker , 2003Postgate 1979;Wilkinson et al 2005). As the empire's ranks swelled with incoming streams of deportees and internal growth, the royal cities of the "Land of Assur" became very large, dense, urban centers in need of staple imports from the hinterland: Nineveh, 750 hectares; Nimrud, 360 hectares; Khorsabad, 320 hectares; Assur, 70 hectares.…”

The Hevsel Gardens: archives of human activities and of the past and present evolution of the River Tigris at Diyarbakır

“…Bu tahkimli yerleşim alanları seçilirken göz önünde bulundurulan başlıca özellik, potansiyel olarak sömürülebilecek doğal kaynaklarının var olmasıdır. Ayrıca ulaşım ve iletişimin rahatça kurulabileceği nehir kenarı ya da stratejik noktalarda yer almasıdır (Parker, 1997;Kozbe 2006 (Matney ve Köroğlu, 2007;Matney vd., 2002;Matney vd., 2004;Matney vd., 2007;Matney vd., 2009 Depresyon alanı olması nedeniyle çevresine göre daha alçakta kalan Ziyaret Tepe ve kuzey çevresi, kendisinden daha yüksekte kalan bölgelerden farklı bir konuma sahiptir. Bu durumun avantajı ise, yüksekten akan suların bölge toprağını kullanılabilir hale getirmesidir.…”

Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age

“…Strengthening their hold in this region, both economically and militarily, enabled the Assyrians to limit the Egyptian influence in the Levant (Na 'aman 1979, 83-86). Assyrians were therefore relatively lenient with the Philistine cities, preserving, to some degree, their independence and using them as a buffer zone between Assyria and Egypt (Tadmor 1966, 87;Otzen 1979, 255-56;Shai 2006): see also a potentially similar treatment of south-eastern Anatolia as a buffer zone by the Assyrian Empire (Parker 2006).…”

“…The majority of existing studies have analysed the history, economy, structure and ideology of the empire on the basis of the textual evidence, mostly Assyrian royal inscriptions and annals (Bedford, 2001;Cogan 1974;Liverani 1988;Parker 1997Parker , 2006Parpola 2003Parpola , 2004Postgate 1979;Stern 2001). For the Levant specifically see (Bloom 1988;Stern 2001).…”

“…It has been noted in the past, for example, that NeoAssyrian-style forts or palaces, located in various locations of the empire, were in many cases built and/or maintained by the local vassal kingdoms, rather than through the presence of Neo-Assyrian administrators, governors or military personnel (Parker 1997;Fantalkin and Tal 2009). The site at Ashdod-Ad Halom, for example, may represent a clear instance of a proper Neo-Assyrian outpost or administrative centre, located, more sensibly outside the local city.…”