Ethnicity in Empire 161years, the few preserved archaeological remains and texts suggest that Ashur had been
ruled by independent rulers and was then incorporated into the Mittani kingdom of
northern Syria, itself a culturally and linguistically complex state in which the Hurrian
language was widely spoken. New levels of political interconnectedness developed in the
fourteenth centuryBC, inspired in part by the development of chariots and by Egyp-
tian imperial expansion along the Mediterranean coast. Letters written on clay tablets
in cuneiform script found in the Egyptian capital city of Amarna demonstrate diplo-
matic exchanges of gifts between the great kings as well as the political maneuverings of
Egyptian client kings along the Mediterranean coast (Liverani 1990; Moran 1992). A
Mittani king, for example, sent a statue of the goddess Ishtar of Nineveh—a city located
in what would become the Assyrian heartland—on a divine visit to the royal family of
Egypt (Moran 1992: 61ff.). The Mittani, however, trapped between the expanding Hit-
tite Empire in Anatolia and the invading Egyptian army, and weakened by struggles over
royal succession, were unable to prevent Assyria under King Ashur-uballit.I (1363–1328
BC) from establishing an independent Assyria.
The titles used by Ashur-uballit.I in his own inscriptions show the development of
a new Assyrian territorial identity. In his building inscriptions, he used the traditional
form of royal title in the city of Ashur: ÉNSIdA-šur, or “governor of the god Ashur.”
By contrast, Ashur-uballit.I sent at least two letters to Egyptian kings as a part of
the Amarna correspondence, and these letters are notable for being the first to use
the title LUGAL KURdA-šur, or “king of the land of the god Ashur.” The royal
cylinder seal of Ashur-uballit., rolled on clay tablets and thus deployed in international
correspondence, also used this title. The motivation for these changes is clear from
the address formula of the letters, in which Ashur-uballit. addressed the Egyptian
pharaoh as “brother”—a suggestion of equality in status in the conventional diplomatic
language of the time. Objects of prestige made in Ashur during this time also make
reference to international stylistic conventions, such as a set of ivory comb and cosmetic
container with incised decoration found in the family tomb of a wealthy official
(Feldman 2006).
A conflict with Assyria’s Babylonian neighbors to the south further suggests the emer-
gence of a notion of a defined territory. Ashur-uballit.I and his successors concluded
multiple treaties with the kings of Babylon that included the provision for a boundary
line between the states (Glassner 2004: 179, 279). The significance of these changes
for the development of Assyrian identity has often been noted. While there had been
some references to political boundaries in earlier Mesopotamian history—notably the
well-documented conflict between the cities of Umma and Lagash over a disputed field
in about 2400BC—the Assyrian territorial self-definition quickly became the basis for
empire. Yet, while there was a developing notion of Assyrian territory, there is little evi-
dence for a concurrent idea of Assyrian ethnicity. There was a term for an “Assyrian”
person in the Middle Assyrian laws—ashuraiu—but in keeping with the territorial focus
of Assyrian ideology, the word refers to the geographical origin of a person rather than
to language or ethnic identity (Lafont 2003: 531).