Page 1 of 3

3.

Describe Neo-Assyrian Imperial ideology (i.e., records of conquest and deportations) in

light of Biblical history and its Deuteronomic framework.
The establishment of the Assyrian empire in Syria-Palestine started in the days of Tiglat-Pileser

III's military actions (745-727). It is from this time on that the Assyrian empire reached its expansion's
peak. The empire was able to maintain its borders without major changes until its collapse in 610. It is
said that only after the Assyrian conquest, the entire region between the Euphrates and the border of
Egypt was united into one political and territorial unit, known as the Land Beyond the River. It was
through it imperial policy of annexation that the Northern kingdom, as well as others, was transformed
into a province within the Assyrian Empire.
The unfolding of events that led to the fall of Samaria in 722 reveal the elements of the imperial
ideology of the hateful Assyrians. The mentioned historical process can be divided in two phases: First,
the Northern kingdom became an Assyrian vassal state during the reign of Tiglat Pileser III (745-727).
Second, during the reigns of Shalmaneser V (727-722) and Sargon II (722-705) the vassal state became a
province within the Assyrian Empire. The political means with which the Assyrians carry out the creation
of provinces in former rebellious kingdoms was deportation. This practice had a long history of practice
in ancient Egypt, the Hittites as well as Mesopotamian kings, but only in the period of Tiglat Pileser III
and the Sargonides was it been practiced in a long scale. We will discuss their aim in our further
discussion of the fall of Samaria.
The first phase corresponds to the military campaigns of Tiglat-Pileser III in SyriaPalestine. In his annals we read of a Judean king, the head of the anti-Assyrian alliance in 738,
called "Azriau". He has been identified as Uzziah/Azariah. Although the Biblical record does not
mention him being involved in a military campaign against Assyria, the description on 2 Chr. 26 portrays
him as a successful ruler, defeating the Philistines, the Arabs, Meunites, and the Amonites. Therefore, a
leading role in the mentioned campaign is not unlikely. In the aftermath of the revolt, the rebellious areas
-being at the time vassal states- were incorporated as provinces in the Assyrian Empire, and part of the
population were carried in exile. The Assyrian record states that 30,300 inhabitants, from cities belonging
to Hamath and the cities in its vicinity situated at the coast of the Western sea, were deported and settle in
an unknown province, and 1,223 in the province of Ullaba. However, the Biblical record does not
mention any deportation at this time in any traditional Judean territory.
The insertion of Assyrian provinces in the surrounding areas of still independent kingdoms
created a convoluted environment filled with anti-Assyrian feelings. Burdened vassal states forced to pay
tribute to avoid military attacks were always seeking for a vacuum of power to instigate and lead revolts
to regain their independence. This is most probably the context for the thousand talents that Menahem of
Israel gave to Pul in 2 Kgs.15 and which was paid by the wealthy men of the kingdom. The Assyrians

Page 2 of 3

also record a list of rulers paying tribute to Tiglat-Pileser: Rezin of Damascus, Menahem of Samaria and
Hiram of Tyre, among others. He said of Menahem: "I overwhelmed him as a snowstorm, and he fled like
a bird, alone, and he bowed to my feet." Interestingly, there is no mention of Judah as a tribute-paying
kingdom in the list. It may be the case, that after its defeat mentioned in the Azriau text, it did not seek
any involvement in anti-Assyrian activity. On the contrary, it apparently attained some kind of vassal
status around 742 B.C., as we read in 2 Kgs. 16:7-9, that Ahaz sought help from Assyria, saying: I am
your servant and vassal. Come up and save me.
At this point in our discussion, it seems necessary to explain the Assyrian interest over the SyriaPalestine region. On the one hand, its interest was directed to take control over the overseas-trade located
along the Phoenician coast, as well as the trade with Egypt and the caravan routes to the Arabian
Peninsula. In fact, after their victorious campaigns of 734-732, the Assyrians, according to their
chronicles, a commerce Centre around the city of Gaza. On the other hand, they wanted to prevent any
Egyptian military intervention through this area.
During Tiglat-Pileser's eleventh to thirteenth years (734-732), he resumed his attack on the region
during the reign of Pekah (2 Kgs.15:27-29). Much of Israel's northern and eastern territory was annexed
to the Assyrian empire. Moreover, this is the first time we read of the deportation of a significant part of
the Israelite population. Archeological evidence has interpreted a major destruction of many Israelite
cities occurred at this time. Also, this event is to be correlated with the Assyrian record of the campaigns
against Philistia and Damascus. It is mentioned that Tiglat-Pileser, after the assassination of Pekah, placed
Hoshea as king in Israel (cf. 2 Kgs.15:30). However, the reports of the military campaign itself are very
fragmentary, but they mention some Israelite cities which were conquered and their inhabitants taken into
captivity.
The second phase, as it was mentioned previously, came into effect under a new Assyrian king,
Shalmaneser V, the Northern kingdom saw its end. The fall of Samaria is described in 2 Kgs. 17:3-6 and
18:9-11. The Assyrian king marched against Samaria, without explicit motive (although the NIV
translates that Hoshea was found a traitor, the Hebrew text is a narrative chain of wayiqtols), and captured
Hoshea. The following siege of the city lasted for three years (due to its strategic location and by the
defensive structures built during Ahab and Omri). The Babylonian Chronicles as well as the Biblical
record credit the conquest of Samaria to Shalmaneser V. In Assyrian records, the credit goes to his
successor, Sargon II. He claims that at the beginning of his rule, he besieged and conquered Samaria. He
led away as prisoners 27,900 inhabitants of Samaria, and equipped his army with them. He rebuilt the
town and settle therein peoples from other lands also conquered by him. This discrepancy is probably
explained by the overlapping of the final days of Shalmaneser with the beginning of the reign of Sargon.
Other possibilities are given, such as, that Sargon absorbed Shalmaneser's conquest into his own record in

Page 3 of 3

order to make himself a greater king since he was a usurper to the throne, or that Shalmaneser started the
siege but during the three years he died and Sargon carried on with the deportation and consolidated the
conquest. Whatever the case, after the fall of its capital, Israel was transformed into the Assyrian province
of Samerina.
According to some scholars, the aim of the Assyrian mass deportation was threefold: First, to
break the anti-Assyrian resistance in problematic areas especially those in the borders of the Empire.
Second, to use the deportees to strengthen the Assyrian army. Third, to bring the skilled people to the
central areas and to increase the human-capital in rural areas. It is also discussed that the Assyrians did
not have a consistent pattern of treatment for their conquered territories. As we have seen, they allowed a
certain degree of independence to some territories accompanied with a pay of tribute, so kingdoms
survived as vassal-states (e.g. Ahaz, Menahem), also they installed puppet-kings (e.g. Hoshea), and they
used mass-deportation. In the case of the Israelite deportation, the three elements are in play. Because
Samaria has been proved very problematic, but after the deportation there was no revolt in the Assyrian
province of Samerina. From the Assyrian records we know that Sargon incorporated the deportees into his
army, and finally there are Assyrian sources that mention Israelite who lived in important agricultural
areas of the Empire.