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...
| Published in: | Journal of ancient Near Eastern religions |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill
2021
|
| In: |
Journal of ancient Near Eastern religions
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Assyria
/ Landscape
/ Sanctuary
/ Assur-Tempel (Assur)
/ History 900 BC-609 BC
|
| RelBib Classification: | AG Religious life; material religion BC Ancient Orient; religion |
| Further subjects: | B
Administration
B Mesopotamia B Royal Ideology B Priests B Religion B Kingship |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1569-2124 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of ancient Near Eastern religions
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15692124-12341320 |