Let Praise of Aššur Not Be Forgotten: Temple Heterarchies and the Limits of Royal Patronage in the Neo-Assyrian Empire

Abstract

Understanding how the numerous temples in the Neo-Assyrian Empire situated themselves within the imperial network is challenging, largely because of a bias in the official sources towards a few temples, especially that of Aššur. Revealing the relationships between the less-attested temples necessitates not only moving beyond the top of the hierarchy but also doing away with hierarchies almost entirely, as they both limit the possible connections and are impossible to build for the majority of known temples. Because there are myriad ways of organizing temples relative to one another, this paper proposes heterarchies as a more effective framework for understanding the changing dynamics of cultic landscapes. This study uses royal patronage (or its absence) as its barometer, establishing a typology that ranges from temples operating entirely independently of imperial support to those that actively seek it, and demonstrating how heterarchies can expose different perspectives of power, status, and affinities amongst institutions. Ultimately, a heterarchical approach shows that the relationships established by royal patronage were not straightforward, homogenous, or stable, and that the ways in which temple and state interacted with one another affected both “vertical” and “horizontal” positioning of temples within the cultic landscape of the empire.

Applying Heterarchy Theory to Ancient Mesopotamian Religions

“…An overabundance of gods concentrated in one space was not a trivial matter. Each deity, represented by a cult image (ṣalmu), meant an investment by the state, which was ultimately responsible for the construction and upkeep of shrines, cellas, and larger temple complexes; for providing regular food and drink sacrifices; for holding festivals; and for appointing staff, including priests and specialists (Ziegler 2019;Zaia 2021).12 Multiple gods in one city was not in itself remarkable: while every city in Mesopotamia had at least a patron god, whose responsibility was to protect the city and its inhabitants, the patron's temple complex typically housed shrines to other deities in his or her retinue, such as consorts, children, and officials (Meinhold 2013: 325-334).13 Nonetheless, the statements about Mari and Assur suggest that these cities were models of spaces overpopulated by deities, at least within Samsī-Addu I's kingdom. Assur had been home to several major temples since its earliest occupation phases and others were added over time, which makes it a good candidate for heterarchical analysis.…”