by Eckart Frahm
In the first year of his reign, Tukulti‐Ninurta I demolished the old Ištar temple, which he reports was at that time 720 years old, and rebuilt it to the north of its former site. In a remarkable text found in the temple, Tukulti‐Ninurta reports that he created an entirely new building at the request of the goddess. The entrance to the temple court was in its old location on the west wall, but the orientation of the temple itself was altered so that the entrance to the cella now faced north. The king also added an antechamber with gate towers at its entrance in front of the cella. The dimensions of the temple, excluding the courtyard, were 51 × 39 meters, and those of the main cella were 32.5 × 8.5 m. At the west end of the cella was a platform two meters high, access to which was via a staircase of sixteen steps. At the southwest corner of the temple was a smaller shrine, entered directly from the courtyard, dedicated to the goddess Dinitu, who was perhaps a form of Ištar (Grayson 1987: 253–6; Andrae 1935: 15–108; Schmitt 2012: 26–68).
Tukulti‐Ninurta I completely rebuilt the Sîn‐Šamaš temple. Haller attributed the stone foundations of the second level to this campaign. Though only about half of the foundations of this phase were preserved, they closely follow the plan of the earlier building. The king also repaired the city wall and dug a ditch in front of the wall on the south and west sides. He continued his father’s work on the Old Palace, and a later king credits him with rebuilding its gatehouse (Grayson 1987: 247, 265–7; 1991: 44; Haller and Andrae 1955: 86–9, Taf. 16–18; Werner 2009: 14–18, 22–4, plans 1–2). Tukulti‐Ninurta built a great new palace as well. In several texts from Ashur, he reports that he took a plot of land on the north side of Ashur between the Adad ziggurat and the Tabira Gate, built a foundation platform of limestone blocks and mud brick, and erected on it his New Palace. This platform measured some 165 × 200 meters, though its northwest half was largely eroded away. The remains of the New Palace on the surviving part of the terrace were very badly disturbed, and Andrae did not attempt a reconstruction, only stating that the preserved sections of foundations indicated a monumental structure with walls two meters thick (Grayson 1987: 237–46, 282; Preusser 1955: 30–1).
Tukulti‐Ninurta I also took the unprecedented step of founding a new capital city, which he named after himself, Kar‐Tukulti‐Ninurta (“Port Tukulti‐Ninurta”), on the east bank of the Tigris River three kilometers north of Ashur. The inner city was roughly square, about 0.8 km on each side, with an area of 62 hectares. The west side was protected by the Tigris, and on the other sides was a massive inner city wall with at least four gates. An archaeological survey in 1986 located the earthen rampart of the outer town some 1.5 kilometers south of the inner wall, bringing the known area of the city up to 240 hectares. The original area must be larger still, as the west and north outer boundaries of the city have not yet been identified. A small temple some 700 meters north of the inner city is evidence that the city extended well to the north. In the northwest quarter of the inner city were a temple and a palace. The temple, called “the temple of totality of Assur,” was dedicated to Assur, Adad, Šamaš, Ninurta, Nusku, Nergal, the Seven gods, and Ištar. It consisted of a lower temple (52 × 53 m) built against a ziggurat (30 × 30 m). The lower temple, which finds its closest parallels in Babylonia, was planned around a square courtyard, with the main entrance hall at the east opposite the principal cult chamber at the west against the ziggurat. The height of the ziggurat and the character of any architecture atop it are unknown. Two sections of the palace were excavated. At the northwest corner of the inner city was the “North Palace” (80 × 65 m) with a gate chamber, two large reception rooms, and several smaller rooms. Just to the north, possibly part of the same building, was a large courtyard paved with rhomboid tiles and surrounded by rooms that its excavators identified as shrines. Some 140 meters to the southeast was the “South Palace,” of which only the mud brick terrace was preserved (75 × 37 m). At the foot of the north and south sides of the terrace were fragmentary wall paintings, fallen from the rooms above (Grayson 1987: 269–78, 285–7; Andrae 1925: 13–20, pls. 1–4; Eickhoff 1985; Dittmann 1990, 2011; Mühl and Sulaiman 2011: 380–3, pls. XXVIII–XXIX; Beuger 2011).
Shalmaneser I and Tukulti‐Ninurta I both acknowledged the importance of Nineveh, as evidenced by both kings’ work on the temple of Ištar there. Shalmaneser I says that the walls, gate towers, and ziggurat of the temple were badly damaged by an earthquake and that he rebuilt them. This project was apparently finished by Tukulti‐Ninurta I, as recorded on his inscribed bricks from the site. Also at Nineveh, a few palace brick fragments were stamped with the names of Shalmaneser I and Tukulti‐Ninurta I. It is not known whether these fragments mean these kings built a palace at Nineveh, or if they derive from work on the Ištar temple (Grayson 1987: 206–8, 212–13, 216–18, 284–5, 287–9; Reade 2005: 371–2). According to a later king, Shalmaneser I also built, or rebuilt, the city of Kalḫu (Grayson 1991: 222).
Aššur‐reša‐iši I to Aššur‐bel‐kala (1132–1056 BCE)
The final flourishing of construction activity at Ashur during the Middle Assyrian Period, including restoration work on the major temples and the palace, occurred during the reigns of Aššur‐reša‐iši I, Tiglath‐pileser I, and Aššur‐bel‐kala. The first two kings were also very active at Nineveh, and this is the first period when we have clear documentation of Assyrian palaces built at Nineveh. In this period, therefore, Assyria had essentially two main centers – the traditional cult and administrative center of Ashur in the south and the newly‐renovated, strategically‐located commercial and military center of Nineveh in the north.
Tiglath‐pileser I reports that when the old Anu‐Adad temple became dilapidated, it was pulled down by Aššur‐dan I and was not rebuilt. Only a small section of the stone foundation of this first temple survived beneath the southeast side of the later temple. Aššur‐reša‐iši I laid the foundations of a new temple of Anu and Adad, and its construction was completed by Tiglath‐pileser I. A considerable part of its foundations survived. The temple measured 110 × 84 meters, including the ziggurats. Its entrance was in the long wall of a rectangular courtyard. On the opposite side of this were two identical shrines, side‐by‐side, flanked by two ziggurats, each 37 meters square (Grayson 1987: 317–18; 1991: 28–31, 64–6; Andrae 1909: 3‐38). Aššur‐reša‐iši also rebuilt the Ištar temple, and as before, the new structure was built in a new location. Inscribed bricks of Aššur‐reša‐iši I that describe him as “builder of the temple of Ištar of Ashur” were found built into the cult platform in the cella of a temple located some 30 meters northeast of Tukulti‐Ninurta’s temple. This new Ištar temple was smaller, its cella measuring 20 × 7 meters. Tiglath‐pileser I says he completed the reconstruction of the Ištar temple (Grayson 1987: 318; 1991: 26; Andrae 1935: 109–12; Schmitt 2012: 69–72).
Tiglath‐pileser I rebuilt considerable areas of the Old Palace, including a new gatehouse, the main door of which was decorated with basalt statues of a sea animal and a mountain animal. He reports that he lined the walls of this palace with slabs of basalt, limestone, and alabaster. This is the first reference to wall slabs and sculptures of protective figures located in the entrances of an Assyrian palace. Numerous fragments of inscribed unsculptured wall slabs and possibly also some fragments from the sculptures were recovered in excavations on the Old Palace. Aššur‐bel‐kala rebuilt the palace storage areas and the large terrace on the north side, and continued work on the gatehouse, adding stone statues of sea animals, mountain animals, lions, and human‐headed bulls (Grayson 1991: 44–5, 104–5; Lundström and Orlamünde 2011).
The Middle Assyrian phases of the Old Palace were not well‐preserved and the excavators were not usually able to separate the architectural work of one king from another. In the pavement of the central court, Miglus distinguished three phases on the basis of inscribed bricks: the lowest he dated to before Adad‐nirari I, the middle to Tukulti‐Ninurta I or later, and the upper to Tiglath‐pileser I
. The plan as published probably represents the final form of the palace after the restorations of Tiglath‐pileser I and Aššur‐bel‐kala. Though the plan is very fragmentary, it is clear that the Middle Assyrian palace was roughly the same size as the Old Assyrian palace, but its general layout was different and its rooms were larger (Preusser 1955: 13–19; Miglus 1989: 124; Pedde, Lundström, and Frahm 2008: 32–7).
Aššur‐bel‐kala was the last king in this period to claim to have carried out extensive reconstruction projects, often closely paralleling the projects of Tiglath‐pileser I. In addition to his work on the Old Palace, he restored the large terrace “before the forecourts” of Tukulti‐Ninurta I’s New Palace. He also claims to have worked on the Anu‐Adad temple, to have restored the quay wall, city wall, and at least two gates, and to have cleaned out Tukulti‐Ninurta I’s ditch. Aššur‐bel‐kala was also the first king known to have built his tomb on the southeastern side of the palace in an area that would be used by several later kings (Grayson 1991: 94, 101, 104–5, 109–10; Haller, Andrae, and Hrouda 1954: 176–7, Taf. 42–3; Lundström 2009: 73–93).
Several inscriptions from Nineveh document work by Tiglath‐pileser I on what appears to be an elaborate palace complex comprising up to three palaces and a garden. The most complete text begins with the construction of a terrace rising above the Khosr river, its side faced with stone slabs. A number of inscribed Tiglath‐pileser bricks from Nineveh also derive from the Khosr river wall. The text next states that Tiglath‐pileser completed a palace begun by his father, Aššur‐reša‐iši I, and decorated it with colored glazed bricks and placed images of date palms on its gate towers. Aššur‐reša‐iši bricks found at Nineveh also refer to his palace. The Tiglath‐pileser text continues that he planted a garden by the terrace and irrigated it with a canal he dug from the Khosr. In that garden the king built a palace and depicted therein his “victory and might,” possibly in images. The building report concludes with a statement that he restored the palace of his grandfather, Mutakkil‐Nusku, which was located on the terrace beside the Ištar temple. In another text that refers to one of these palaces, Tiglath‐pileser says that he placed statues of a sea animal and mountain animal at its entrance and named it “Palace of the King of the Four Quarters” (Grayson 1987: 315–16; 1991: 54–7, 66–8; Reade 1998–2001: 411, 416; Maul 2000: 23‐6).
Based on these texts, there appear to have been two palaces on the terrace above the Khosr and a third one below in the garden beside the terrace. These buildings have not been identified in excavations at the site, but Thompson reported that King’s test trenches revealed foundations and painted bricks beneath the Late Assyrian platform on the east side of the mound, and these may derive from one of Tiglath‐pileser’s palaces (Thompson and Hutchinson 1929b: 64–5).
On a number of inscribed clay cones from Nineveh, Aššur‐reša‐iši I says that in the time of his grandfather, Aššur‐dan I, the gate towers of the Ištar temple were shaken by an earthquake and not repaired, so Aššur‐reša‐iši rebuilt and considerably enlarged them. Tiglath‐pileser I and Šamši‐Adad IV also worked on the Ištar temple. Other clay cones of Aššur‐reša‐iši I from Nineveh say that he restored the gate chamber(?) of the back palace, which had been damaged by the same earthquake. In the Neo‐Assyrian period, this building was on the nearby mound of Nebi Yunus, and it presumably stood there in the Middle Assyrian period as well (Grayson 1987: 309–15; 1991: 59, 117–20).
The Neo‐Assyrian Period
Aššur‐dan II to Tukulti‐Ninurta II (934–884 BCE)
Early in the Neo‐Assyrian period, Aššur‐dan II restored the Tabira Gate in the city wall of Ashur and Adad‐nirari II repaired the quay wall by the Assur temple. Aššur‐dan II also says he completely restored the New Palace. This is the last certain reference to the New Palace (Grayson 1991: 135, 137–8, 140, 144–5).
Tukulti‐Ninurta II divided his attention between Ashur and Nineveh. At Ashur, he restored the city wall and a gateway of the Assur temple, and rebuilt the wall of some palace’s large terrace, which he says had previously been restored by Aššur‐bel‐kala. This could refer to either the Old Palace or the New Palace. A number of his inscribed palace bricks turned up at Ashur, as well as two glazed terracotta orthostats, painted with military scenes and a standard palace inscription, but all were found in secondary contexts (Grayson 1991: 167–8, 178–9, 184; Andrae 1925: 25–31, pls. 7–9).
Two headless statues of bulls in yellow limestone and part of a third in white limestone were found reused in a bridge or dam near the village of Qadhiah, 3 kilometers north‐northwest of Kuyunjik. The bulls were inscribed with a Tukulti‐Ninurta II text stating that they belonged to the king’s palace in the city Nemed‐Tukulti‐Ninurta (“Abode of Tukulti‐Ninurta”). The same text was on a large limestone slab found in secondary context on Kuyunjik. Remains of a baked brick pavement by the east end of Qadhiah, as well as a pottery jar with a palace inscription of Tukulti‐Ninurta also found in the village, both point to Qadhiah being the site of the palace. Tukulti‐Ninurta’s historical texts indicate that he conducted northern campaigns from Nineveh, and presumably Nemed‐Tukulti‐Ninurta was a new residence he built in Nineveh’s pleasant northern suburbs. This is the general backdrop against which we must view the remarkable, but not wholly unprecedented, building activities of Tukulti‐Ninurta II’s son, Aššurnaṣirpal II (Grayson 1991: 171, 179–80; Ahmad 2000; Ahmad, personal communication). Ironically, former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein coveted this same area for his Nineveh palace, so the area of the ancient pavement was bulldozed to make a modern lake surrounded by palatial residences.
Aššurnaṣirpal II (883–859 BCE)
At the beginning of his reign, Aššurnaṣirpal II seems to have maintained his father’s emphasis on Nineveh. According to Aššurnaṣirpal’s annals, at least three of his first five royal campaigns originated from Nineveh, and foreign tribute was delivered to him at Nineveh as well. Inscriptions of Aššurnaṣirpal II on clay cones and stone slabs from the area of the Ištar temple at Nineveh say that he completely rebuilt it. The physical remains of Aššurnaṣirpal’s building are at the northeast end of the temple platform and include sections of pavement made of inscribed baked bricks and a section of mud brick wall. One part of this wall was faced with the remains of the lower part of a stone slab over four meters wide carved in relief with three foreigners bringing tribute to Aššurnaṣirpal, and fragments of a second slab reused in the Nabû temple showed the king hunting lions and pouring an offering over a dead lion. Pieces of glazed Aššurnaṣirpal bricks, some with molded decoration, were found in the area immediately west of the Ištar temple, and these may have figured in the exterior decoration of the temple (Grayson 1991: 306–10; Reade 2005: 375–9).
Aššurnaṣirpal also carried out substantial projects at Ashur, where he completely rebuilt the Sîn‐Šamaš temple. Though its remains were very fragmentary, they were sufficient for Haller to reconstruct the main lines of the plan, which was very different from the earlier phases. The entrance was in roughly the same place, but the orientation of the building had been changed slightly. It now measured roughly 65 × 46 meters, with the entrance in the short side. The entrance hall, which ran through the center of the building to a courtyard at the far end, was flanked by two shrines that could be entered either from the courtyard or from the entrance hall (Grayson 1991: 324–5, 339–40; Haller and Andrae 1955: 88–92, Taf. 16–18; Werner 2009: 18, 24–5, plan 3).
The Old Palace at Ashur was leveled and rebuilt in the Neo‐Assyrian period, apparently by Aššurnaṣirpal II, whose inscribed bricks were found in the pavements. The preserved part of the palace measured some 60 × 60 meters, at most only about a third of its original area. Its layout seems typically Neo‐Assyrian, with double ranks of rooms opening off of courtyards in the large apartments in the western section and small service rooms surrounding a courtyard in the eastern wing (Grayson 1991: 378–9; Preusser 1955: 19–27; Miglus 1989: 124; P
edde, Lundström, and Frahm 2008: 37–58; Lundström 2013). Aššurnaṣirpal II built his tomb near Aššur‐bel‐kala’s at the south side of the palace, and these were later joined by three more tombs, belonging to Šamši‐Adad V, and perhaps Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (Haller, Andrae, and Hrouda 1954: 170–81, Taf. 40–4; Lundström 2009).
Around his fifth year, Aššurnaṣirpal II began the reconstruction of the city of Kalḫu (modern Nimrud), some 35 kilometers south of Nineveh on the east bank of an ancient bed of the Tigris river just north of its confluence with the Greater Zab. Starting with his sixth year, every campaign originated from Kalḫu and it is clear that from this time forward Kalḫu was Aššurnaṣirpal’s chief administrative city. Aššurnaṣirpal’s preserved texts do not give the reasons for his move to Kalḫu. It is possible that the king needed a new city to accommodate a steady stream of deportees to Assyria. Kalḫu, situated well within the Assyrian rain‐fed agricultural zone and surrounded by rich farmland, had the agricultural resources to support a large population. It is also easy to irrigate, due to its proximity to the Greater Zab. The Nimrud Monolith, a large stele inscribed after Aššurnaṣirpal’s fifth year, gives the earliest account of the reconstruction of Kalḫu, reporting that the king dug a canal, planted orchards, and built a city wall and a palace. This new canal would not have significantly increased the agricultural production of the area, but it would have enabled the city itself to become a garden spot. The emphasis on the canal in most of the Kalḫu building accounts shows that it was viewed as a major part of the city’s appeal (Grayson 1991: 252–4; Russell 1999a: 221–5; Oates and Oates 2001: 33–5).