Wright Commensal Politics ZAW Part 1-2 small -2

ZAW 122. Bd., S. 212–233 DOI 10.1515/ZAW.2010.016© Walter de Gruyter 2010

Commensal Politics in Ancient Western Asia:The Background to Nehemiah’s Feasting (Part I)*

By Jacob L. Wright

(Emory University)

»Beer, meat, and politeness«(A Baganda list of requirements for a good leader1)

Nam-sag5-ga kas-àm nam-äul kaskal-àm»Pleasure – it is beer. Discomfort – it is an expedition.«(Sumerian Proverb2)

I. Introduction

In a passage of his Memoir describing his munificence and personalinvolvement in the labor on Jerusalem’s ramparts, Nehemiah includesa statement about his mensal practices: »Moreover at my table there were150 people, Judeans and officials, besides those who came to us from thenations round about« (Neh 5,17). He boasts that this large number ofguests enjoyed handsome hospitality: »Now that which was prepareddaily was one ox, six choice sheep, and poultry; this was prepared atmy expense. And at ten-day intervals, we had wine of every kind in abun-dance« (v. 18).

Table-fellowship and feasting similar to that described by Nehemiahis encountered throughout the ancient world, where it played a centralrole in displaying power, forming social bonds, and fortifying politicalalliances. Surprisingly scholars have rarely if ever brought this com-parative data to bear upon the Memoir.3 The present essay works towardredressing this deficit by discussing a wide range of texts and images re-lated to commensality. My overarching interest is how feasting functionswithin the political calculus of ancient Western Asian rulers as one of themost popular means to promote internal social cohesion and forge exter-nal alliances – either as a way of avoiding military conflict or as a preludeto warring against a third party. In keeping with this interest, I devote an

* To Nadav Na ’aman on his 70th birthday.1 L. Mair, An African People in the Twentieth Century, 1934, 183.2 E. I. Gordon, Sumerian Proverbs, 1959, 264f.3 See however the treatment of the Achaemenid sources in H. G. M. Williamson, The Gov-

ernors of Judah under the Persians, TynB 39 (1988), 59–82.

Commensal Politics in Ancient Western Asia (Part I) 213

extensive portion of the discussion to the manner in which feastingworks: By making a deep impression on his or her guests, the host createsmemories of the feast that contribute to the maintenance of the socialbonds formed in the act of feasting. Both of these aspects figure promi-nently in Nehemiah’s Memoir, with its themes of social bonding, externalconflict and the memory of the host. The implications of this study arehowever not confined to research on the Nehemiah Memoir. Indeed,many of my analytical distinctions, observations, and conclusions applyequally to a wide range of commensal practices in other times and places.4

II. Commensality – Anthropological Considerations

In a recent volume on The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory,Emma Blake writes with respect to the activity of commensalism andfeasting:»[It] always has some bearing on social relations and on the identities of the participants,whether creating them, reinforcing them, or even masking them. Thus the punctuated occa-sion of the feast sheds light on ongoing social roles: Who is hosting the feast? Who arethe participants? Who is excluded? What kind of obligations does this event place on itsparticipants? […] Feasts serve a range of social functions. They may help raise or maintainthe status of the host, and establish indebtedness in the guests that can be repaid immediately(as in the case of work-parties) or at a later date in the form of a delayed reciprocity.«5

Blake’s questions and observations – with respect to the status of thehost, the identity of the guests, the social bonds created between the two,and the indebtedness that the guests can repay in contributions of labor –are by no means new to the fields of (Old and New World) archaeologyand cultural anthropology. Scholars in these fields have long studied thecomplex phenomena associated with commensality. The particular sub-jects that have attracted attention are wide-ranging, including everythingfrom weddings to kahvehaneler (Turkish coffeehouses), from early Chi-nese porcelain trade with Europe to the Wari ceramic assemblages fromMiddle Horizon period Peru.

In his seminal study, Cooking, Cuisine and Class, Jack Goody sug-gests that scholarly interest in commensality can be traced to a pivotalmoment in feasting history, namely to the repasts enjoyed by Sir James

4 The activity of feasting may be compared to the institution of gift-giving inasmuch asboth serve as means of forming alliances. Feasting and gift-giving also figure promi-nently in academic ritual life, with its time-honored traditions of symposia, Fest-schriften, and dedications. I thus offer this article to Professor Nadav Na’aman on his70th birthday in appreciation for his exemplary research on the history of ancient Israel,and wish him many more years of productive research.

5 E. Blake, The Material Expression of Cult, Ritual and Feasting, in: E. Blake/A. B. Knapp(eds.), The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, 2005, 102–129, 107.

214 Jacob L. Wright

Frazer and William Robertson Smith at Trinity High Table.6 This historiccommensality contributed directly to the latter’s influential Lectures onthe Religion of the Semites (1889). Exploring in one of these lectures thesubject of sacrificial feasts, Smith claimed: »According to antique ideasthose who eat and drink together are by this very act tied to one anotherby a bond of friendship and mutual obligation.« Such an act is »thesolemn and stated expression of the fact that all those who share the mealare brethren, and that all duties of friendship and brotherhood are impli-citly acknowledged« in this very activity of feasting.7 Although Smithwas a professor of Old Testament before penning his controversialEncylopaedia Britannica articles on the Bible (and commissioning similarones from his close colleague Julius Wellhausen), his insightful ideas onfeasting have stimulated more interest in anthropological research thanin Hebrew Bible studies.8

Before proceeding, we need first to address several issues related todefinition and approach. The present essay employs the terms »feasting«and »commensality« as analytical rubrics to cover a wide range of cul-tural practices. Common to all these practices is the communal consump-tion of drink and often food. The manner of consumption is however tobe distinguished from quotidian activities of feeding or domestic meals.In contrast to the latter, food consumption during a feast has a formal-ritual-dramaturgical character; it is often called »banqueting.«9 Theintentionality that characterizes feasting distinguishes it from normalmeals. Within anthropological research on feasting, one may distinguishbetween approaches that are ecological-materialist in orientation, whichplace greater emphasis on the redistribution/recycling aspects of feasting,and those with roots in cultural studies and political practice theory,which devote more attention to issues of prestige and status.10 Althoughfounded on conflicting ontological premises, the two approaches are notnecessarily always at odds in praxis. Yet given the alternative between the

6 J. Goody, Cooking, Cuisine and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology, 1982, 10–12.7 W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites I, 1889, 247f.8 See E. Schmitt, Essen in der Bibel, Studien zur Kulturanthropologie 2, 1994; A. Brenner/

J. W. van Henten (eds.), Food and Drink in the Biblical Worlds, Semeia 86, 1999; andN. MacDonald, Not Bread Alone: The Uses of Food in the Old Testament, 2008. Feast-ing has been studied widely by New Testament scholars, but only rarely by students ofRabbinic Judaism. Most recently this lacuna has begun to be filled by J. D. Rosenblum,»They Sit Apart at Meals«: Early Rabbinic Commensality Regulations and Identity Con-struction, PhD Dissertation, Brown Univ., 2008 and D. M. Freidenreich, Foreign Food:A Comparatively-enriched Analysis of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law, PhD Disser-tation, Columbia Univ., 2006.

9 The term »banquet« is thus used here as a subset of the larger category of »feast«.10 See, e.g. the introduction and articles in M. Dietler/B. Hayden (eds.), Feasts: Archae-

ological and Ethnographic Perspectives, 2001.


two, the present paper tends more toward the latter constructionist ap-proach.11 It demonstrates the validity of Michael Dietler’s incisive state-ments: The feast represents »a remarkably supple ritual practice thatallows the strategic reciprocal conversion of economic and symboliccapital toward a wide variety of culturally appropriate political goals.«This potential for converting symbolic and material capital »is what ac-counts for the striking ubiquity and durability of the feast as an institu-tionalized practice in the face of dramatic social transformations …«12

As for the social impact or benefits of feasts, one of the problemsfacing any political economy – be it a tribal coalition, a nascent state, oran empire – is the need to transcend or to reconfigure allegiances that arelocal, kin-based and/or primordial. Rituals involving food and drink arecommonly one of the more prominent means utilized toward this end.But what is it about the meal that predestines its widespread use in socialbonding rituals? Anthropological research has variously shown how eat-ing and drinking are not just physiological necessities but also communi-cative and performative acts. Food and drink are highly charged forms ofmaterial culture, and the act of ingesting food into the body may be com-pared to sexual intercourse in both its physicality and symbolism.A group becomes in a certain sense one body at the table. As Arjun Ap-padurai argues in his earlier work on »gastro-politics,« food must be seenas part of a semiotic system; it encodes complex sets of social and moralpropositions.13 Food and drink »are almost infinitely variable and sub-ject to elaboration – not only what is eaten and drunk, but how it is pre-pared, served, and consumed.«14 By virtue of their unique symboliccapacities, food preparation and food consumption often express what itmeans to be human and to belong to a particular species of humanity(nationality, ethnicity, social class, etc.).15

As formal practices, feasts represent an especially powerful com-municative-performative kind of eating and imbibing.16 Cultically, feastsplay a central role in maintaining contact with the gods and/or ancestors

11 For the differences between constructionism and constructivism, see M. Q. Patton,Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 2001 (3rd ed.), 96f.

12 M. Dietler/B. Hayden, Digesting the Feast, in: idem (eds.), Feasts, 1–20, 13.13 A. Appadurai, Gastro-Politics in Hindu South Asia, American Ethnologist 8 (1981),

494–511.14 S. Pollock, Feasts, Funerals, and Fast Food in Early Mesopotamian States, in: T. Bray

(ed.), The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires,2003, 17–38, 18.

15 For the relationship between consumption and identity construction, see P. Bourdieu,Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, 1984.

16 The performative-communicative aspects of feasting are treated at greater length below,V. (Part 2).

216 Jacob L. Wright

and, in turn, affirming boundaries and idealized concepts important tothe group. Yet they also offer contexts for individuals to serve as the hostsand, in so doing, to advertise their largesse and success.17 In this way theycontribute directly to prestige and status. Feasts create strong socialboundaries between outsiders and insiders (via invitations to the table).They likewise can serve to construct or reinforce hierarchies and rank viaa precisely demarcated social space (e.g., seating arrangements). Theycan also function as ritual theaters for the enforcing of social sanctions(honor, shame, ostracism, etc.). Furthermore, by excluding those outsidethe circle, feasts furnish opportunities for social change in a protected,confined environment. In this »safe« setting, the guests can enter intonew relationships (communitas) through conviviality, with all its ritual,formal, dramaturgical, and occasionally ecstatic-bacchanal qualities.18

The relationships sought and produced in feasting range from marriageto political alliances and networks of reciprocal debts, which can be re-paid in various forms (such as conscripted manpower).19 With respect totheir potential for mobilizing labor as well as armies, feasts to be sure are»not simply epiphenomenal reflections of changes in culture and society,but central arenas of social action that have had a profound impact onthe course of historical transformations.«20

17 For modern society, see T. Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899; P. H. Nystrom,Economic Principles of Consumption, 1929, as well as P. Bourdieu, Language and Sym-bolic Power, 1991, 163–170.

18 Thus for the case of warriors, feasting often played a role in building solidarity andcamaraderie that was essential to fighting efficiency. Referring to early European medi-eval society, Guy Halsall writes that battle »was fought at close quarters in formationswhich depended upon mutual support for their cohesion. A warrior had to be sure ofthose who stood to each side of him … This necessity … surely lay behind the communalfeasting and drinking which helped to bond the warrior classes. The need to express thismartial reliability may have produced the boasting culture apparent in the feasting hallsdepicted in the late Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf and elsewhere« (Warfare and Society inthe Barbarian West: 450–900, 2003, 33).

19 As one who recently relocated to Atlanta, I may be permitted to refer here to the incessantbanqueting in the plantation culture of the antebellum South, described for example inMargaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind. At the other end of the social spectrum is thetavern, which is often represented as a den of conspirators and shady characters. Alreadythe Hammurabi Laws stipulate that »if criminals [conspirators] plot in a tavern keeper’s[sabitum’s] house and she does not arrest those criminals and bring them to the palace,that tavern keeper shall be put to death« (Law 109 in M. T. Roth, Law Collections fromMesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed., 1997, 101). The tavern was also a place wherecontracts and alliances were formed; see B. Alster, The Instructions of Suruppak. A Su-merian Proverb Collection, MCSA 2, 1974, 38f., l. 72. See also K. Dixon, Saloons in theWild West and Taverns in Mesopotamia: Explorations Along the Timeline of Public Drink-ing, in: S. N. Archer/K. M. Bartoy (eds.), Between Dirt and Discussion, 2006, 61–79.

20 Dietler/Hayden, Digesting the Feast, in: idem (eds.), Feasts, 16.


Feasting functions similarly to the more widely studied activity ofgift-exchange (e.g., potlatch). Both activities figure prominently in thecritical process of converting prestige goods, material surplus, and mar-riageable children into social bonds and political power.21 Yet one shouldnote a major difference between feasting and gift-giving: »[F]ood is de-stroyed in the act of commensal consumption at a feast; and, moreover,destroyed by ingesting it into the body. This is the literal ›embodiment‹ or›incorporation‹ of the gift and the social debt that it engenders. Asidefrom the powerful symbolic dimension of this practice, it also results inthe pragmatic fact that, unlike durables, the food cannot be recirculatedor ›reinvested‹ …«22 Although feasting may be understood as a subset ofgift-exchange, gift-exchange is often subsumed to the goals of feasting:By presenting gifts to his or her guests, the host of a banquet can maxi-mize and perpetuate the impact of his or her table.23

The host of a feast typically strives to leave a deep impression on hisor her guests.24 The delicacies that are served, their distinctive taste, theaesthetics of the table, the entertainment, and gifts or »party-favors,«which the guests do not consume but rather take home as lasting mem-entos or keepsakes, all work toward this goal of memory-making.25 As weshall see below, this principle was not lost on ancient Near Eastern hosts.

III. The Politics of Commensality in Ancient Israel and Judah

In a chapter from his recent book on the uses of food in the Hebrew Bible,Nathan MacDonald treats feasting not just as a matrix for general socialchange but as one of the essential elements in the move towards morecentralized institutions of authority.26 Although tending to treat the »the

21 M. Douglas/B. C. Isherwood, The World of Goods, 1996; D. V. Kurtz, Political Anthro-pology, 2001.

22 M. Dietler, Theorizing the Feast, in: Dietler/Hayden (eds.), Feasts, 65–114, 73f.23 This fact, and the unceasing necessity of producing food that can be used as commodities

in exchange, bring to the fore the role feasts play in mobilizing labor (for agricultural andconstruction projects) as well as armies (for raiding/looting and expanding territory).

24 Thus one often distributes party favors to guests as souvenirs, which are especially im-portant since the commodities exchanged at feasts are perishable and ingested. Thememory-making role of banquets is reflected in the way high school proms in the US areoften referred to as »A Night to Remember.« For an anthropological study of feasting inrelation to memory, see D. E. Sutton, Remembrance of Repasts, 2001.

25 Cf. the common presence of photographers at contemporary banquets, who are hired topreserve the memory of the event.

26 Not Bread Alone, 134–165 (chapter title: »Feasting Fit for a King: Food and the Rise ofthe Monarchy«). The theories on the rise of the Israelite monarchy that MacDonaldchooses as conversation partners for his own ideas are unfortunately outdated, andhis discussion is in many respects confined by the contours of the books of Samuel and

218 Jacob L. Wright

rise of the monarchy« as if state-formation constituted a single event ortransitional period, MacDonald identifies a real deficit in earlier modelsof political change in ancient Israel. He observes that growing social in-equality was not simply a factor of time but also of variation in fertility –both of the soil and of families. »For some individuals good fortunemeant the existence of surplus production that could be invested throughfeasting. [S]uch investments can lead to greater accumulation of powerand prestige.«27 One may note here that, of course, not everyone who en-joyed material surplus would have been adept in converting it into sym-bolic and social capital through hosting feasts and exchanging commod-ities. Yet this makes feasting and other forms of gift-giving all the moreimportant as pieces of the puzzle, for it is not so much a matter of beingblessed with surpluses as much as it is about the charisma, skills andsophistication required to transform the surpluses – through the fine artof commensality – into status, power and (institutional) authority.28

A wide variety of biblical texts witness to the social and political im-portance of the dining table in the governance of the states of Israel andJudah.29 When the Queen of Sheba witnesses »the wisdom of Solomon, thefood of his table, the seating of his officials, the attendance of his servants,their clothing, his cup-bearers, and the offerings that he offered in thehouse of Yhwh, she was left breathless« (I Reg 10,4–5).30 In keeping withthe principle that to increase one’s wealth one must first display it, the nar-rative goes on to tell that after catching her breath, the queen gives the Is-raelite king extravagant gifts of gold and jewels, and an unsurpassed quan-tity of spices for his table (v. 10; see the following description of wealthaccumulation in vv. 11–29).31 Solomon is remembered as fighting no wars

Kings. Yet MacDonald has rendered a great service to the study of the Hebrew Bible andancient Israel by offering delectable hors d’œuvres that one hopes will be followed byfurther studies that engage the interdisciplinary, cross-cultural study of feasting. My ownwork has been fed by discussions with MacDonald in recent years.

27 Not Bread Alone, 149.28 D. Kertzer, The Role of Ritual in State-formation, in: E. Wolf (ed.), Religious Regimes

and State-formation: Perspectives from European Ethnology, 1991, 85–103.29 For many of these texts, the reader is encouraged to check the indices of Not Bread

Alone, whose discussions are provocative and sometimes pursue different directionsthan I take here.

30 Notice that the seating arrangements of his servants are explicitly mentioned. That rankand order are reflected in the place where one sits at the royal table is indicated by the de-scription of David’s absence at Saul’s table during the new moon festival in I Sam 20. Seealso Gen 43,33. See the discussion in MacDonald, Not Bread Alone, 154–160.

31 Here one can observe the close reciprocal relationship between feasting and gift-givingnoted above. The account of Solomon’s daily provisions (I Reg 5,2f.) clearly aims toglorify the splendor of his court. Many features of this list resemble the one found inNehemiah 5.


and demonstrating proficiency in international diplomacy. Not surpris-ingly some of the more prominent features of the account of his peacefulreign are his political marriages, the gifts he exchanged, and not least thesumptuous feasting in which engaged (see also I Reg 3,15; 8,2.65).

The narrative of the book of Kings uses the symbol of the king’s tableto express its most fundamental point: the demise of Israelite autonomy.It begins with Solomon’s awe-inspiring table as an image of Israelite power.After depicting the gradual forfeiture of Israelite/Judean sovereignty,it returns to the image of the royal table. This time, however, the host isa foreign king and the hosted is the Judean king (II Reg 25,28–30; seealso Jer 52,31–34). The tables have turned, literally.32 But we are toldthat the Judean king was granted a seat above the seats of other vassals,and therein lies the prospect of prosperity under these new mensal con-ditions.33

The »law of the king« in I Sam 8 also identifies ostentation at theroyal table – and the concomitant stratification in society that this tableboth mirrors and promotes – as central features of monarchic rule. Ac-cording to this text, the king will not only have at his disposal a standingarmy and a weapons industry (vv. 11f.), but also agricultural lands, cattleand produce that he will seize (vv. 14–17), as well as sons and daughtershe will conscript to harvest his crops and to serve in his kitchen (vv. 12f.).Whereas I Sam 8 attends more to the production of goods to be con-sumed, the account of Solomon’s reign, discussed above, configures king-ship in terms of the royal performance of consuming these goods.

The king’s table not only offered a context in which one could per-form kingship, display status and demonstrate one’s qualifications torule; it also served as a ritually constructed space in which one couldform and cement political bonds.34 The Chronicler reports that whenDavid’s warriors made him king, they spent three days together banquet-ing. Political approbation and alliances are here expressed in the provi-

32 The Esther scroll uses feasting to show how Jews regain power in the Diaspora and at aforeign court (moving gradually from being hosted to hosting); see below V. (Part 2).

33 The sudden transition of events (release from prison and rehabilitation) depicted in thisnarrative is probably completely constructed for the purpose of the narrative (restora-tion after defeat). From the Weidner Tablets (see below V. [Part 2] we know that Jehoia-chin was receiving generous rations already in 592 BCE. And despite attempts at har-monization (e.g. R. Albertz, In Search of the Deuteronomists, in: T. Römer [ed.],The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, BETL 147 [2000], 1–17, 15, n. 52), we lackwarrant for assuming that Jehoiachin lost his privileges and then later regained them.That the final passage of Kings depicts feasting is all the more significant since it seemsto belong to a group of two additions (25,22–26 and 27–30) that have been secondarilyappended to the conclusion (probably 25,21b).

34 For »promotional and alliance feasts,« see Dietler/Hayden, Feasts, 55–57 and 196–198.

220 Jacob L. Wright

sioning of the coronation feast: By telling how the food was transportedfrom remote places in Israel, the author underscores the wide acceptanceof David’s rule (I Chr 12,38–40).35 David’s proficiency in mensal politicsis portrayed in the account of Abner’s defection: When this former gen-eral of Saul comes to Hebron with twenty men (representing probablyvarious clans), David prepares a feast that eventually leads to a covenantbetween him and all Israel (II Sam 3,20). Representations of the king’stable as a place for nourishing former alliances are found in the accountsof David showing kindness to the house of Saul by granting Mephibos-heth son of Jonathan a place at his table (II Sam 9) and later offering todo the same with Barzillai the Gileadite (19,31–40).36

Rebellions against reigning rulers are often accompanied by »com-petitive feasts« that rival the repasts at the king’s table.37 When Adonijahb. Haggith determines to assume the throne, he acquires chariots andhorsemen, and then hosts a grand fête to which he invites the priest, com-mander of the army, children of the king and all the royal officials of Judah(I Reg 1,5–49).38 Suggestive in this context are the sheep-shearing festiv-ities that Absalom organizes on his path to kingship (II Sam 13,23–29;cf. 15,1 with I Reg 1,5).39 Banqueting figures prominently also in theaccount of Jehu’s putsch: When he is anointed, Jehu is found sittingtogether with other commanders – either in council or eating (II Reg 9,5).Later, after entering Jezreel and assassinating Jezebel, he »came [into thepalace?] and ate and drank« (9,34); the statement suggests some sort oftriumphal celebration.40 Jehu’s feasting is matched by the group of dogsoutside feeding on the corpse of the queen mother (9,34–37).41

35 The expression of political solidarity by means of food provisions, described in this text,may be compared to the gifts of grain and other alimentary benefactions to Athens fromdistant allies during the Hellenistic period. The Chronicler’s act of composing the textmay likewise be compared to the commemoration of the benefactors in Athenian inscrip-tions. On the latter, see G. J. Oliver, War, Food, and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens,2007, 228–259.

36 See also I Reg 18,19 (versus II Reg 4).37 See also I Reg 12,32–33. On »competitive feasts,« see Dietler/Hayden, Feasts,

57f.206–209.279–282.38 For the association of the feasting motif with chariots/horses (also prestige symbols), see

the glyptic art discussed below.39 For the literary and social significance of sheep-shearing feasts, see GenR 74,5.40 See the discussion of Ashurnasirpal and Shalmaneser below, V. (Part II) for examples of

victory feasting in the palace of the opponent.41 Compare the account in Jdc 9: The lords of Shechem »place their confidence« in a cer-

tain Gaal b. Ebed (v. 26), they harvest grapes and make a banquet. During their eatingand drinking in the local temple, they curse the king Abimelech. Gaal gives a speechreflecting his increased confidence. He then – prematurely – challenges Abimelech to en-gage him in battle.


Military triumphs were often celebrated with feasts. Although moreprevalent in ANE iconography (see IV. below), the Siegesmahl appearsnot only in poetic and prophetic texts (such as Isa 25, Ez 39, Nah 2,Zach 14) but also in several narratives. After Abra(ha)m defeats Chedor-laomer, the king of Sodom comes out to greet him and Melchizedekbrings out bread and wine (Gen 14,17–20). Similarly, the Philistine lordsoffer a great sacrifice to Dagon »with rejoicing« (feasting) because Sam-son had been divinely delivered into their hands (Jdc 16,23). FollowingSaul’s victory over the Ammonites, the people/militia go to Gilgal tomake him king; they celebrate the occasion with sacrificial feasting(I Sam 11,15). Yet the most thorough account of victory feasting is foundin the Esther scroll; indeed, the triumph over the enemy occasions its ownfestival that is integrated into the holiday calendar (9,17–32).42

The solidarity achieved through feasting can serve as a prelude towar or as a passage to peace. An example of the former is found in thebook of Chronicles, where Ahab hosts a regal repast for Jehoshaphatin order to persuade the Judean king to join him in an attack on Ramoth-Gilead (II Chr 18,1–3). A more illustrative account is the story ofthe siege of Samaria by Benhadad and 32 allied kings (I Reg 20). Whenthe Israelites take the offensive at midday, they catch the Aramean kingoff-guard, drinking in the camp with the 32 kings who were assisting him(20,16; cf. also 20,12). On the one hand, this banqueting may be inter-preted as a further expression of Benhadad’s hubris (cf. 20,10–12) – as asort of anticipatory victory feast. On the other hand, the activity may beunderstood as means through which Benhadad maintained politicalbonds and exerted influence on his 32 vassal kings/coalition partners.43

42 The same may be said for some texts relating to Passover; see esp. Ex 13,27.43 The account presents however Benhadad’s hegemonial system, based upon rituals of

commensality, as ultimately deficient: He loses the battle to Ahab, and consequently islater advised to remove the kings from their posts and replace them with governors(20,24). The hegemonial system is thus transformed into direct rule, and, in support ofthis interpretation, we are not told about any alcohol consumption during the secondcampaign. That the 32 kings represent vassals of Benhadad is based solely upon 20,24.From 20,1.12.16 the reader is tempted to understand these kings as partners in a militarycoalition. The reason for the discrepancy is likely due to what many commentators(e.g. E. Würthwein or V. Fritz pace the critique by D. Sroka, Kings, Wars and Prophets:Historiography, Literature and Ideology in 1 Kings 20, MA Thesis, Tel Aviv Univ., 2006[in Hebrew]) identify as two separate battle stories: the first about Samaria (vv. 1–21)and the second about Aphek (vv. 26–43), which have been united by means of a literarybridge (vv. 22–25, probably also vv. 35–43). It is significantly this middle piece thatidentifies the kings as vassals (v. 24). That they are replaced with governors may be re-lated to their absence in the second story. But in its present shape, the unified accountclearly depicts a transition of a hegemonial system (with client kings) to a system of di-rect rule (with governors).

222 Jacob L. Wright

Examples of commensality fostering peace are found throughout thebook of Genesis. When Abimelech, accompanied by his adviser and thecommander of his army, visits Isaac in Beersheba after repeated alter-cations over water rights, Isaac hosts a feast to ratify and celebrate apeace treaty (Gen 26,17–31; see also Gen 21). Similarly, after Jacob andLaban had successfully deescalated mounting hostilities, they make atreaty that includes sacrificing and breaking bread (Gen 31,43–55).44 Theimmediately following account, while not referring to feasting, illustrateshow armed conflict is avoided with the help of a gift-exchange (which isclosely related to commensality, as noted above). Jacob sues for peacewith his brother, who is approaching with 400 warriors, by proffering agift consisting of elaborately orchestrated droves of livestock (32,13–21).The text plays on the close phonetic similarity yet great conceptual dis-parity between the terms hnxm, »(war-) camp,« and hxnm, »gift« (see thejuxtaposition in 32,22 and throughout the account). The sending of thehxnm contributes directly to the reunification of the divided hnxm. Onemay compare these patriarchal stories to the complex descriptions offeasting and gift-giving as a means of rapprochement in the story of Jo-seph and his brothers.45

Our survey of biblical texts leaves little room for doubt that manyrulers and elites in ancient Israelite and Judahite society recognized, andknew how to profit from, the political benefits of feasting – whether it bein terms of performing kingship, forming political/military coalitions,celebrating victory, or making peace.46 Indeed, the Hebrew Bible containssome of the richest material for studying the art of commensal diplomacyin ancient Western Asia. Future biblical research on this subject howevercannot afford to neglect, on the one hand, the insights of cross-culturalanthropological research, and on the other hand, important bodies ofancient evidence, such as remains from material culture, iconographic

44 For further references to feasting in connection to treaty ratifications, see, inter alia,Ex 18,12; 24,11; Num 22,40; 25,2; Jos 9,12–14 and perhaps also Deut 23,5–7 (the fail-ure to offer Israel food and water signifies the Ammonites’ and Moabites’ unwillingnessto ratify a pact of non-aggression and this leads in turn to a prohibition on any futurepacts with these neighbors).

45 Seen from the perspective of Jacob’s family, the book of Genesis treats feasting andgift-giving as a strategy of pacification first with outsiders (Isaac and Abimelech), thenwith closer relatives (Jacob and Esau), and then within the family itself (Joseph and hisbrothers).

46 The present discussion of commensality versus war in HB literature has not been exhaus-tive (see e.g. Jdc 14 or Ps 41,10). The social aspects of feasting can also be studied viacultic and mythic texts. I have omitted these because they deserve a separate treatment.See meanwhile A. Marx, Opferlogik im Alten Israel, in: B. Janowski/M. Welker (eds.),Opfer: Theologische und kulturelle Kontexte, 2000, 129–49 and C. Eberhart, Studienzur Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament, WMANT 94, 2002.


representations, and various genres of official and occasional texts. Inwhat follows I aim to illustrate the potential of such integrative research.

IV. Raising the Cup:The Siegesmahl in Ancient Western Asian Iconography

In glyptic art from ancient Western Asia, the banqueting scene representsa widespread motif signifying power and domination.47 Closely associatedwith these scenes are martial images (e.g. chariots, battles, or transfer ofspoils). In some cases, one cannot ascertain a direct connection betweenthe two image sets; they seem merely to represent popular symbolsof puissance and prestige. But in many other instances the scenes of con-viviality should be interpreted in direct relationship to the associatedmartial images, namely as a representation of a Siegesmahl (»victory cel-ebration«). My primary aim here is to draw attention to the pervasive-ness of the juxtaposed banquet and martial motifs; I therefore will notdiscuss the artifacts at length. Because the cultic aspects of feasting inancient Near Eastern texts and iconography have already been subjectedto numerous discussions, I will omit them from treatment here.48

The association of the martial images with the banqueting motifappears to be as old as the banqueting motif itself. Already cylinder sealsfrom Early Dynastic II and III, collected by Pierre Amiet, depict seated

47 For the various interpretational approaches to the scenes in iconography (sacred mar-riage, funerary, New Year’s Festival, etc.), see the research reviews in J.-M. Dentzer,Le motif du banquet couché dans le Proche-Orient et le monde grec du VIIe au IVe siècleavant J.-C., Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 246, 1982; F. Pin-nock, Considerations on the ›Banquet Theme‹ in the Figurative Art of Mesopotamia andSyria, in: L. Milano (ed.), Drinking in Ancient Societies: History and Culture of Drinksin the Ancient Near East, History of the Ancient Near East 6, 1994, 15–26, as wellas idem, Il motive del banchetto rituale nell’arte della Mesopotamia del III millennio a.C.(PhD Dissertation, Rome, 1976). See also G. Selz, Die Bankettszene: Entwicklung eines»überzeitlichen« Bildmotivs in Mesopotamien von der frühdynastischen bis zur Akkad-Zeit, 2 vols., FAS 11, 1983; A. Da Silva, La symbolique du repas au Proche-Orientancient, SR 24 (1995), 147–157; R. Muyldermans, Two Banquet Scenes in the Levant,in: L. de Meyer/E. Haerinck (eds.), Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis: Miscellaneain Honorem Louis vanden Berghe, 1989, 393–407, and M. Haran, The Bas-Reliefs onthe Sarcophagus of Ahiram King of Byblos in the Light of Archaeological and LiteraryParallels from the Ancient Near East, IEJ 8 (1958), 15–25. – For the contrast betweenthe ideology expressed in these images and the Greek world, epitomized in the image ofSardanapalus, see Aristotle, Nich. Ethics, 1095.19–22 and the classic work by S. Maz-zarino, Fra Oriente E Occidente: Ricerche Di Storia Greca Arcaica, 1947.

48 Of course, cultic feasts also functioned as catalysts for social and political change. Forexample, the failure of a king to support and participate in central festivals had directconsequences for his own reign and other sectors of society; see below on the Hittites.

224 Jacob L. Wright

figures drinking through straws from a common vessel in the upper reg-ister with equid-drawn war wagons in the lower register (see fig. 1).49

Similarly, several relief plaques show war wagons in their bottom reg-isters and the delivery of what is probably booty (figs. 2–3).50 In these im-ages one can distinguish a seated couple from the attending servants andmusicians. Here the motif of the right hand raising a (victory) cup, whichwill pursue a long career in ANE glyptic art, is already present.51

49 If the seal belonged to aristocracy, it may express both prestige (serving in chariot divi-sion) and allegiance. »The seals in question all belong to elite members of society whoplayed an important role in the Ur III state organization. It would not be surprising tolearn that the primary message of the ›presentation scene‹ on their official marks of iden-tity – the cylinder seal – is that of vassalage and obedience to the king of the realm or tothe god who represents the realm and, thus, the king.« P. Michalowski, The DrinkingGods: Alcohol in Mesopotamian Ritual and Mythology, in: L. Milano (ed.), Drinking inAncient Societies, 27–44, 36f.

50 J. Boese, Altmesopotamische Weihplatten, 1977, pls. VI, LV, LVI and LVII. On the de-velopment of the four-wheeled wagons into later chariots, see my article »Chariots/Chariotry« forthcoming in A. Berlejung et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Material Culture,2010.

51 Many seals show both types of drinking – through straws from a common vessel andfrom a cup; indeed, based on analogies, the seal in fig. 1 seems to show the figure on theleft drinking from a cup. Drinking straws represent a card of membership to a rulingcouncil. The elders of the Luo people of western Kenya bring their own long straws(oseke) to feasts in order to drink from pots (thago), while younger men and womendrink from mugs. Nevertheless, the move away from straws in Mesopotamia is related,at least in the seals, to a larger number of attending servants who are shown filling thecups. Straws served of course also a practical function of avoiding the floating materialin the drink; see Xen. Anab. IV.26f. – On the symbolism of the cup in early Mesopota-mian literature, see Michalowski, The Drinking Gods, 35–37 and I. J. Winter, The King

Fig. 1–3: P. Amiet, La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque, 1980, pls. 92–93


The most important early example of juxtaposed banqueting and mili-tary images is the »Standard of Ur« (fig. 4–5). One side of this box(»War«) depicts a battle scene and the other side (»Peace«) a banquetscene. Although this work distinguishes between war and feasting, thetwo activities are probably not to be understood as alternatives but

and the Cup: Iconography of the Royal Presentation Scene on Ur III Seals, in: M. Kelly-Buccellati (ed.), Insight through Images: Studies in honor of Edith Porada, 1986,253–268, as well as the literature cited in Haran, The Bas-Reliefs, 22, n. 16–18. As forbiblical texts, see esp. Gen 40,11.13.21; Ps 116,13. For the numerous texts referringto the victory cup at Ugarit an exhaustive but much needed study has yet to be written;see meanwhile O. Loretz, Der Thron des Königs ›zur Rechten‹ der Gottheit beim Sieges-mahl nach Psalm 110,1–2. Jüdische Umformung altorientalischer Königs- und Kultbild-ideologie, Ugarit 38 (2006), 415–36.

Fig. 4–5: »Standard of Ur« (BM 121201)

226 Jacob L. Wright

rather as a sequence: the feasting is part of the celebrations after the cam-paign.52 Nevertheless, the fact that fighting has been so clearly demar-cated from the feasting is noteworthy. It attests to the consciousness oftwo connected yet still distinct moments (and manners) of rule.53

The correspondence between battles and banquets, as well as manyof the discrete features from early Sumerian art, will continue in theiconographic traditions for millennia to come. Thus sculptures on thetwo ritual basins from Tel Mardikh/Ebla (22nd–20th cent. BCE) show anenthroned king raising a drinking vessel, with armed warriors behind thethrone (fig. 6–7). The second scene stands in direct continuity with thepopular first millennium BCE »Neo-Hittite« motif of the conviving kingand queen. While the sculpture on the second basin displays figures bear-ing large vessels, the first portrays a figure standing before the king alsowith upraised cup; behind him and on the other side of the basin standwarriors posed for action. This image may represent the celebration ofa treaty with a vassal (see e.g. the letter to Zimrilim discussed below,V. [Part 2] as well as ARM 26 438).

52 With respect to the »Peace« panel, one can distinguish in the first register a number of at-tendants and musicians (harpist and singer) from seven seated, male guests, six of whomare facing a larger figure. The latter is most likely to be identified with the same person-age on the »War« panel who is shown inspecting the naked and wounded captives. Theguests at the banquet may represent recognized officers or figures from the aristocracy.

53 More attention is devoted to the display of the booty than to the feasting itself. The bot-tom two registers show various groups bearing offerings and leading animals. As tobe expected from comparison with later representations of post-battle processions, theartist depicted the groups with distinctive features signifying the diversity of subjugatedpeoples. The type of banquet displayed here and in several other images discussedbelow is what some anthropologists call »tribute feasts.« See Dietler/Hayden, Feasts,58.194.275.339.

Fig. 6–7: Basins from Tel Mardikh. Adapted fromP. Matthiae, Ebla: Un impero ritrovato,1989, 2nd ed., figs. 126 and 127


The LB Megiddo ivory engraved inlays also depict the activity of ban-queting after vanquishing the enemy. The first (fig. 8) shows a prince intriumphal procession on the right side proceeding directly to the throneon the left side, where he has already assumed the throne and begunto imbibe wine. Two servants are portrayed next to a large wine cauldronand two extraordinary rhyta in the shape of animal heads. Standingbefore him are a lady in aristocratic Syrian headdress (the queen?) anda lyre player. (A table is noticeably absent.) The activities take placeen plein air.54

Comparable attention to detail can be witnessed in the second specimen,a group of four inlays with dovetailed ends (Megiddo nos. 159–162; hereare shown pieces of what are presumably the beginning and end of theseries – fig. 9.). The two longer strips show chariots in action and return-ing from battle in triumphal procession with captives, like the first Me-giddo ivory. The two shorter strips portray post-battle scenes: a proces-sion of captives/booty and a banquet consisting of a ruler and otherseated figures (apparently indoors) imbibing wine from a large cup anda large vessel. The notable difference between this scene and the formerMegiddo ivory is that we have here true commensality, rather than a lonefigure who is portrayed prominently and in isolation. Indeed, the posi-tion of »the one« in relation to »the many« is an important analytic per-spective for the study of these images.

54 See H. Leibowitz, Military and Feast Scenes on Late Bronze Palestinian Ivories, IEJ 30(1980), 163–69.

Fig. 8: Megiddo no. 2 (PAM 38.780). Based on G. Loud, The Megiddo Ivories, 1939, pl. 4

Fig. 9: Redrawing of parts of four inlays from G. Loud, The Megiddo Ivories, pl. 9

228 Jacob L. Wright

An ivory found at Nimrud and dated to the 9th cent. BCE depicts a strik-ingly similar scene of commensality, with the king alongside other guestsseated at multiple tables rather than a single enthroned imbiber (fig. 10).The martial character of the feasting is marked by a sword that theking has girded at his side. Two heavily-armed bodyguards stand behindthe throne. The remaining banqueters, attended to by eunuchs, are alsogarbed in field/military attire yet unarmed. The banqueter nearest theking is a high official, perhaps the turtannu. While the style is Assy-rian(izing), the ivory must have been produced in a Levantine atelier. Be-cause the hosts and guests are raising a cup in their right hands, the scenemay depict a victory feast rather than a pre-battle alliance ceremony; oneshould perhaps avoid such alternatives when interpreting this multivalentimage.

In contrast, a section of the gates of Balawat shows the king, Shal-maneser III, in a more prominent position. He is seated outdoors with acup in his right hand (fig. 11). Behind him stand two bodyguards (as infig. 9). Before the throne are not only a table and vessel-stand (similar tothe one in the left corner of fig. 9) but also a long line of officials and sol-diers bearing booty.

Additional Neo-Assyrian examples of feasting iconography arefound on the large slabs from Sargon’s palace at Chorsabad (figs. 12–15).Although heavily damaged, one can still detect their basic contours. Theupper registers present rows of dignitaries or officers dining and drink-ing – notably all hoisting the victory cup in their right hands. In thebottom registers, we can still see hunting scenes or more images of war –

Fig. 10: Adapted from M. Mallowan and L. G. Davies, Ivories in Assyrian Style.Ivories from Nimrud (1949–1963), Fascicule II, 1970, 18, pl. v,7

Fig. 11: From E. Unger, Zum Bronzetor von Balawat, 1912, Taf. I,3


chariots, mounted riders, dismembered bodies, and siege. These strikingexemplars have unfortunately not received the attention they deserve inpast research; a discussion in my book War and the Formation of Societyin Ancient Israel (forthcoming Oxford UP) will help correct this deficit.

Because they bear less directly upon my interest in the social aspectsof banqueting, the numerous »Neo-Hittite« representations of a singledining individual or a couple (often attended by one or two servants and

Fig. 12–15: P.-E. Botta, Monument de Ninive, Vol. 1, 1849, pls. 61, 63, 64 and 65(see also pls. 58–60, 62, 66).

230 Jacob L. Wright

occasionally with musicians) will be omitted from consideration here.55

Many of these images are associated with military or combat scenes, withwhich they are often found in close proximity (as in the case of the or-thostats at the gates of the citadel of Zincirli) or in explicit juxtapositionin the same sculpture. As such, one may perhaps view these scenes as theclimax of the conquest »narrative« – as the feasting that follows the van-quishing.56 Caution is however urged against overextending the martialassociation or, for that matter, seeking the one authentic Sitz im Lebenfor the banqueting motif. The image is powerful and popular because it ispolyvalent.

The parade example of banqueting after vanquishing is the scene of»Ashurbanipal’s Garden« in the North Palace at Nineveh (fig. 16).57 Al-though often viewed in isolation, the scene comprises just one, albeit cen-tral, piece of a program relating to the garden itself and to the Battle ofTil-Tuba.58 Our relief presents a stark contrast between the violent actionon the battlefield and the perfect peace and tranquility of the recliningruler.59 The passivity of this paradise is underscored by the attentiongiven to the imposing number of servants situated throughout the garden:No less than six are occupied with the task of fanning the conviving royalcouple, who thus do not even have to raise a hand to shoo away flies. Therelaxed pose of the king is made psychologically possible by the complete

55 See W. Orthmann, Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst, 1971, 366–93.56 Support for such a reading is furnished by other images (e.g., figs. 8 and 14 that show the

royal couple feasting alone in direct connection with prior success in vanquishing anenemy).

57 J. Reade, Elam and Elamites in Assyrian Sculpture, AMI NF 9 (1976), 97–105 as well asJ. A. Brinkman, Prelude to Empire. Babylonian Society and Politics, 747–626 B.C.,1984, 91ff. and R. Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals, 1996. See alsoS. Maul’s keynote address at the 52nd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale 2006 inMünster, Die Rache der Besiegten: Neues zum Untergang Ninives im Jahre 612 v.Chr.

58 For the whole pictorial narrative of the Teumman head and related objects in Assurbani-pal’s reliefs, see P. Albenda, Grapevines in Ashurbanipal’s Garden, BASOR 215 (1974),5–17 and idem, Landscape Bas-Reliefs in the Bit-Hilani of Ashurbanipal, BASOR 224(1976), 49–72 and 225 (1977), 29–48.

59 This is the first time in Assyrian sculpture that we witness a reclining sovereign (a popu-lar motif in Persian and Greco-Roman art); see J.-M. Dentzer, L’iconographie iraniennedu souverain couche et le motif du banquet, AAS 21 (1971), 39–54. This fact is not sur-prising given that the subject matter is the conquest of an Elamite ruler. Indeed, this ac-counts in large part for the fact that such great attention is given to the depiction of theparadeisos. Attempts, often frustratingly speculative, to reconstruct a more elusive cultic(New Year), ritual (qirsu war rituals) and mystical (hieros gamos) background to thisgarden scene, abound; see the review of literature in C. Nylander, Breaking the Cup ofKingship: An Elamite Coup in Nineveh?, Iranica Antiqua 34 (1999), 71–83 as well as hisown thesis presented in his essay.


annihilation of the enemy, portrayed elsewhere but also explicitly con-nected to the scene by means of Teumman’s head hanging from a tree notfar from the table. Similarly, the king’s weapons are shown on a table be-hind his couch; the relaxed bow is lying alongside a quiver and sword.60

The efficacy of these images resides in their historically concrete, yetnevertheless universal commemoration of the Assyrian king’s success.The Elamites, who later assisted the Babylonians in razing Nineveh to theground, would undoubtedly have taken great pleasure in giving the sceneits final touch by blotting out from memory Assurbanipal’s face and hisright arm in which his victory cup resided.61 This conscious act of icono-clasm illustrates in the most striking manner the appeal and symbolic res-onance of the long tradition of the victory cup iconogram in ancientWestern Asia.62

Finally we should note the existence of a multitude of tribute scenesin Egyptian and Mesopotamian art. In many cases, these scenes showforeign emissaries or captives under the careful oversight of soldiersbringing food, drink and precious items for the royal table. As a repre-sentative example, I refer to the reliefs on the small staircase south of

60 It is possible to be identified with the same bow that inscriptions report was dedicated toIshtar-of-Nineveh; see Borger, Beiträge, 101–3 and Albenda, Landscape Bas-Reliefs, part2. Similarly the necklace hanging from the bed may very well represent a trophy taken inthe victory over the Egyptians; also the horse-trappings may be trophies taken as booty.

61 See Nylander, Breaking the Cup. On the destruction of Nineveh, see most recently P. Mig-lus, Die letzten Tage von Assur und die Zeit danach, ISIMU 3 (2000), 85–100.

62 The power of the image and ritual of raising the victory cup for other cultures is illus-trated not least by its continuation in contemporary sports. As for the mutilation of As-surbanipal’s upraised cup in our image, one may compare it to many further instances oficonoclasm, such as the eradication of the faces of the Assyrian soldiers who are showndecapitating Teumman (BM 128801/802) or the erasure of Ashurbanipal’s and Senn-acherib’s right arms throughout the reliefs.

Fig. 16: Ashurbanipal’s Garden (BM 124920)

232 Jacob L. Wright

Tripylon Hall from the Palace of Darius at Persepolis (fig. 17). Facingoutwards are images of armed royal bodyguards, while facing inwardsare representations of various conquered peoples bringing gifts andtribute (in the form of precious perishables) up to the great king.

In the next issue of ZAW, I continue this discussion by treating ref-erences to feasting in various texts from ancient Western Asia and thenreflecting on the implications of this diverse material for the study ofNehemiah’s account and ancient commensality in general.

Table-fellowship and feasting similar to that described by Nehemiah (Neh 5,17–18) is en-countered throughout the ancient world, where it played a central role in displaying power,forming social bonds, and fortifying political alliances. Surprisingly, scholars have rarelybrought this comparative data to bear upon the Memoir. The present essay works toward re-dressing this deficiency by discussing a wide range of biblical and other ancient Near Easterntexts and images related to commensality. It shows how feasting functions within the politi-cal calculus of ancient Western Asian rulers as one of the most popular means to promoteinternal social cohesion and forge external alliances – either as a way of avoiding militaryconflict or as a prelude to warring against a third party. On the basis of different texts andimages, the article demonstrates how feasting as a ritual performance plays an essential rolein the construction of victory.

In the first instalment of this two-part article, I begin with theoretical observations,move to discuss an array of biblical texts, and continue with an overview of iconographic im-ages of victory feasting.

Des pratiques de commensalité et de festin comparables à celles décrites par Néhémie(Neh 5,17–18) se retrouvent partout dans l’Antiquité. Ces pratiques jouent un rôle centraldans la démonstration du pouvoir, la formation de liens sociaux et le renforcement desalliances politiques. Étonnamment, les chercheurs ont rarement rapporté ces informationscomparatives au »mémoire de Néhémie«. Cet essai cherche à pallier à ce déficit en examinant

Fig. 17: Staircase from Palace of Darius at Persepolis(photo by G. R. Frysinger, permission granted)


un ensemble de textes bibliques et proche-orientaux, ainsi que des images, en lien avec lacommensalité. L’ intérêt premier est de montrer comment fonctionne le festin dans les calculspolitiques des souverains d’Asie occidentale comme l’un des moyens les plus populaires depromouvoir la cohésion sociale interne et de forger des alliances à l’extérieur – soit commefaçon d’éviter un conflit militaire, soit comme prélude à la guerre contre un parti tiers. Sur labase de textes différents et d’images, l’auteur tente de montrer comment le festin en tant queperformance rituelle joue un rôle essentiel dans la construction de la victoire.

Cet article se divise en deux parties. La première partie, débute par des remarques théo-riques, puis analyse une gamme de textes bibliques et s’achève par un survol de documentsiconographiques de festins de victoire.

Tischgemeinschaft und Festgelage, wie in Neh 5,17–18 beschrieben, sind in der antiken Weltallgemein üblich gewesen, wo sie eine zentrale Rolle bei der Entfaltung von Macht, der Bil-dung sozialer Bindungen und beim Stärken politischer Bündnisse gespielt haben. Überra-schenderweise sind die vergleichbaren Belege aus anderen antiken Kulturen bisher nur seltenund unzureichend zum Verständnis der »Nehemia-Denkschrift« herangezogen worden. Dievorliegende Untersuchung zielt darauf ab, diese Lücke zu schließen. In ausführlicher Diskus-sion sollen biblische und weitere altorientalische Belege in Text und Bild herangezogen wer-den, um die Bedeutung der Kommensalität im politischen Kalkül altorientalischer Herrscherzu zeigen. Tischgemeinschaft war eines der beliebtesten Mittel, internen sozialen Zusammen-halt zu fördern und externe politische Allianzen zu schmieden – sei es, um militärische Kon-flikte zu vermeiden, oder als Auftakt eines Krieges gegen eine dritte Partei. Auf der Basis ver-schiedener Texte und bildlicher Darstellungen wird weiterhin aufgezeigt, welche rituelleBedeutung dem Element »Festmahl« im Rahmen einer Siegesfeier – und in der Konstruktiondes Sieges selbst – zukam.

Im ersten Teil dieser auf zwei Teile angelegten Untersuchung werde ich mit theoreti-schen Überlegungen beginnen, sodann zur Diskussion ausgewählter biblischer Texte fort-schreiten und einen Überblick über die Ikonographie des Siegesmahles bieten.

ZAW 122. Bd., S. 333–352 DOI 10.1515/ZAW.2010.024© Walter de Gruyter 2010

Commensal Politics in Ancient Western Asia:The Background to Nehemiah’s Feasting

(continued, Part II)*

By Jacob L. Wright

(Emory University)

V. Commensality, War and Memory in Epigraphic Evidence

The abundant iconographic material bearing the Siegesmahl motif – arepresentative selection of which was examined in § IV in Part I of this ar-ticle – is matched by a wide range of texts that touch on various facets ofbanqueting rituals. In keeping with the focus of this paper, I cataloguein what follows those texts that relate specifically to commensality in re-lation to warfare and alliance formation.

Already in Ur III and Old Babylonian sources, we find numerous ref-erences to a practice known as kas-dé-a (literally, »the pouring of beer«);they appear in connection with the banquets performed in celebrationof various events, not least military victories.1 Myths and epics mentionthe excessive amounts of food and drink as well as singers, musiciansand consorts, and occasionally formal disputations on these occasions.

* Part I of this contribution was published in ZAW 122/2 (2010), on pages 212–233. Aspointed out to me in the meantime, I. Ziffer published an article on 2nd mill. Levantineiconography of feasting in TA 32 (2005).

1 See the sources cited in Michalowski, The Drinking Gods, 29f., n. 10. On the material ingeneral, see D. Schmandt-Besserat, Feasting in the Ancient Near East, in: Dietler/Hayden(eds.), Feasts, 391–403. In L. Milano (ed.), Drinking in Ancient Societies. History andCulture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East, HANE 6, 1994, see J. Bottéro, Boisson, ban-quet et vie sociale en Mésopotamie, 3–13 and H. Neumann, Beer as a means of compen-sation for work in Mesopotamia during the Ur III Period, 321–331. See also J. Bottéro,Textes culinaires Mésopotamiens, Mesopotamian Civilizations 6, 1995; J.-J. Glassner,L’hospitalité en Mésopotamie ancienne: aspect de la question de l’étranger, ZA 80(1990), 60–75; W.G. Lambert, Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods of Ancient Me-sopotamia, in: J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, 1993,191–201; J.B. Lloyd, The Banquet Theme in Ugaritic Narrative, UF 22 (1990), 169–193;D.P. Wright, Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and RetaliationRites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat, 2001. Among the countless studies of the xjrm, seeD.B. Bryan, Texts Relating to the Marzeah: A Study of an Ancient Semitic Institution,PhD Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1973 and J.C. Greenfield, The Marzeah asa Social Institution, Acta Antiqua 22 (1974), 451–455.

334 Jacob L. Wright

Not surprisingly, these texts, like many of their later counterparts, pay alot of attention to seating arrangements, which correspond to the rankand status of the guests.2

A reference to commensality strikingly similar to the statement inNehemiah’s account is Sargon I’s claim that 5,400 men ate daily in hispresence. The text is extant in both Sumerian and Akkadian.3 Whilethe former refers to érin2, »troops,« the Akkadian text refers to gurus,»young men fit for military service,« which may be compared to Nehe-miah’s ,yrin. By means of these quotidian meals, the expenses of whichwere included in his own oikos, Sargon could establish a relationship ofboth dependency and intimacy with his vast army.4 That his court ap-preciated the social potential of this commensality explains the statementthat they ate daily in his presence.5 One may compare Sargon’s statementto the black obelisk of his son Manistusu that describes how the purchaseof eight parcels of land at Marda (northern Babylonia) was celebratedwith a two-day banquet at Kazallu at which 600 soldiers feasted.6 AsP. Abrahami suggests, these 600 soldiers likely formed one regiment, justas 5,400 troops of Sargon probably consisted of nine regiments.7 The rea-son why a regiment of soldiers attended this feast was because Manistusu

2 See lit. cited throughout Michalowski, The Drinking Gods. For Mari seating arrange-ments, see lit. cited below. Seating arrangements are mentioned widely in Ugarit; forexample, Anat arranges »chairs for the soldiery, tables for the hosts, footstools forthe heroes …« (CTA 3.2 [KTU 1.3 II].20–22). See also the references in A.J. Ferrera andS.B. Parker, Seating Arrangements at Divine Banquets, UF 4 (1972), 37–39. For seatingarrangements among the Persians, Classical literature contains many references; see e.g.the description of the attention given by Cyrus to table seating in Xenophon’s Cyrop.8.4.1.

3 D.R. Frayne, The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, vol. 2: Sargonicand Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC), 1993, p. 29, Sargon E2.1.1.11, lines 34//41; p. 31,Sargon E2.1.1.12, line 27’: 5400 erin2 u4-su2-se3 igi-ni-se3 ninda i3-ku2-e / 5400 gurusu-um-sum6 ma-har-su ninda ku2.

4 A. Westenholz, The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture, in: P. Attinger et al.(eds.), Mesopotamien. Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, OBO 160/3, 1999, 17–117, 68, pro-poses to view these 5,400 troops as organized according to nine regiments of 600 sol-diers, a regimental size documented elsewhere in Ur III texts.

5 Compare the weekly Hassidic tish celebration during which a large multitude (oftenmore than a thousand) Hasidim eagerly gather at the table in order to eat in the presenceof the Rebbe.

6 600 gurus in ga-za-luki ninda i3-ku2 600 gurus su 1 u4 1200 gurus su 2 u4 – I.J. Gelb/P. Steinkeller/R.M. Whiting, Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: AncientKudurrus, OIP 104, 1991.

7 P. Abrahami, L’armée d’Akkad, in: P. Abrahami/L. Battini (eds.), Les armées du Proche-Orient ancien, BAR International Series 1855, 2008, 1–22, 7f. A subject that I do notpursue in the present paper is the feasts celebrated to honor service and loyalty of ser-vants, and oftentimes specifically soldiers.

Commensal Politics in Ancient Western Asia 335

had purchased the lands in order to remunerate his troops for their faith-ful service and to boost their morale.

Some of the richest textual evidence for commensal practices can befound in the Old Babylonian Mari archives. These texts provide us withinvaluable details regarding the size of feasting parties, elaborate formsof dining etiquette, gift-giving, table-seating, the forms of entertainment,etc.8 The social-political aspects are particularly pronounced. The firstruler that deserves to be discussed in this context is Samsi-Adad, whoconquered Mari and established his son, Yasmaä-Adad, on its throne.Various clues suggest that the longevity of his reign was due not solely tomilitary prowess but more importantly to his activities in peacetime. NeleZiegler draws attention to the efforts of this ruler in not only integratingthe regions he defeated but also in unifying the very diverse (ethnicand socioeconomic) groups in his army and in securing their commonloyalty.9 In order to achieve the latter, he pursued an effective policy ofland distribution, gifts and, not least, common meals. An impression ofhow he would have likely ruled himself is provided by the various lettersin which he instructs and counsels his son Yasmaä-Adad on how to gov-ern Mari. Thus, he urges his son to do everything to satisfy the needs anddesires of the troops who protect Mari, »instead of just opening the jarsand dispensing silver.« The soldiers should eat in the king’s presence in-cessantly and should be served liberally.10 Samsi-Adad’s appreciation forthe importance of commensality in unifying subjects corresponds to hisactions in protecting the oppressed and granting clemency.11 Similarly,Nehemiah recounts his magnanimous table practices in the context of his

8 There are already a number of very good studies; see esp. J. Sasson, The King’s Table:Food and Fealty in Old Babylonian Mari, in: C. Grottanelli/L. Milano (eds.), Food andIdentity in the Ancient World, HANE IX, 2004,179–215 as well as R. R. Glaeseman, ThePractice of the King’s Meal at Mari: A System of Food Distribution in the 2nd MillenniumB.C., PhD Dissertation, UCLA, 1978; J.-P. Materne, Remarques sur l’écriture des ›repasroyaux‹ Zimri-Lim, in: J.-M. Durand/J.-R. Kupper (eds.), Miscellanea Babylonica: mél-anges offerts à Maurice Birot, Florilegium Marianum 2, 1985, 223–231; A. Malamat,The King’s Table and the Provisioning of Messengers, IEJ 53 (2003), 172–177.

9 N. Ziegler, Samsi-Addu et ses soldats, in: P. Abrahami/L. Battini (eds.), Les armées duProche-Orient ancien, BAR International Series 1855, 2008, 49–56, 51f.; see also B. La-font, Le sâbum du roi de Mari au temps de Yasmaä-Addu, in: Durand/Kupper (eds.),Miscellanea Babylonica, 161–179.

10 ARM I, 52:12–35 = LAPO 16, 1. See also the unedited text A. 4265 and 1160 discussedby Ziegler. Several texts enumerate the numbers who feasted at the royal table; theyrange from 110 to 562, with the average of 180 to 280. On the basis of other texts, wecan reveal the diverse social and ethnic groups that constituted the army who feasted inthe king’s presence: captains, lieutenants, nobles, guards, Suheans, Elamites, couriers,auxiliaries, Sinameans, etc.

11 Ziegler discusses this evidence on pp. 53f.

336 Jacob L. Wright

social reforms for the people as a whole and for the poor in particular(see Neh 5).12

In a fascinating study, Jack Sasson draws attention to the way Maricommensality contributed to political cohesion. »Elaborate codes of con-duct were staged around sacramental meals hosted by the king, their goalwas to include those deemed worthy of belonging to his circles; but alsoto exclude those unworthy of the honor. At such moments, leaders couldfeel themselves part of a ›family‹ and did not hesitate to use kinshipvocabulary … to calibrate precise power relationship [sic] among eachother.«13 Wherever Zimrilim, the perhaps most convivial of the Marirulers, travelled, his exquisite drink- and tableware accompanied him.During elenum celebrations, meat was sent to the vassals and allies sothat they could still partake from the overlord’s sacrifice.14 In addition toshedding light on the logistics of the naptan sarrim u sabim (lit. »the mealof the king and troops«), several letters provide fascinating accounts ofhow complex war plans were forged and coalitions formed at the table(e.g. ARM 26, 392); others tell how older alliances were endangered byinfractions of etiquette (e.g. ARM 26, 101 and 26, 438).15 Particularlysignificant is the material relating to the elaborate betrothal and weddingrituals for marriages among allies and with vassals. They describe the ex-change of various kinds of nuptial gifts and banqueting that lasted fordays on end.16

In keeping with the memory-making function of feasting, banquetsat Mari were choreographed to make a lasting impression on the guests.One went to great lengths when preparing for visits from foreign rulersand dignitaries. Before the food was served, the royal standards were

12 As such, his account has the character of a Fürstenspiegel or miroir de princes; see below.13 Sasson, King’s Table, 213f. Furthermore: »The notion of solidarity was reinforced by a

great number of body metaphors that addressed the unity of the houses … being ce-mented à table. They include reference to the mingling of blood, to sharing the same bed-ding, and to becoming as one finger in a hand …« (203).

14 Sasson, King’s Table, 204f. See J. Bottero, Textes economiques et administratifs, ARM 7,1957, 7.14.16 and 201f. It is clearly represented in Neo-Assyrian texts as well as Greco-Roman authors writing on the Achaemenids; see S. Parpola, The Leftovers of God andKing, in: Grottanelli/Milano (eds.), Food and Identity (see n.8 above), 281–312. Com-pare the tvnm xvl>m in Est 9,19.22 and Neh 8,10.12 and below n. 48.

15 Convinced that Zimrilim’s commensality, in contrast to that of his predecessor, directlycontributed to his success as ruler, Sasson, King’s Table, 210, writes that »I would not besurprised if the reluctance [of Yasmaä-Adad] to leave his residence – for which he wasroundly criticized by his father – did not eventually undermine the loyalty of his vassalsand of allies who were denied the opportunity to practice table fellowships«.

16 See B. Lafont, Les filles du roi de Mari, in: J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient antique, 1987, 113–121, and J. Sasson, The Servant’s Tale: How Rebekah Founda Spouse, JNES 65 (2006), 241–265.


paraded. During the dinner, the guests were treated to performances ofacrobats, dancers and singers. Gifts were exchanged both before andafter the meal, which the guests could take as souvenirs of their experi-ence. A particularly intimate form of these gifts is the garments (some-times from the king’s own wardrobe) that were distributed before themeal. A letter referring to these gowns reads: »My lord had rubbed hishands on the fringes of my garments and I can now smell the wonderfulscent of my lord throughout my house.«17 In such ways, the accompany-ing gifts served one of the main purposes of the feast, viz. to create an en-during memory.

Feasting was of course a common component of ANE treaty ratifi-cations. Already Early Dynastic sale documents refer to the consumptionof food and drink on occasions of land transfer and sale.18 At Mari foodand wine consumption are mentioned often in connection to oaths andratification of treaties. In a letter discussed by Piotr Steinkeller, we hearabout a certain Akin-Amar who was hosted by Zimrilim: »He [Akin-Amar] drank from the cup and raised it (in salute). His Majesty countedhim among his own men, dressed him and gave him a huburtum head-dress [or wig]. But he went back on his word and he defecated into thecup from which he had drunk; he is hostile to His Majesty!«19 A rich de-scription of commensality in the context of political-military alliances isfound in a letter sent from Yasim-El to Zimrilim reporting the making ofa pact between Atatmrum of Andarig and Askur-Addu of Karana againstHammurabi of Kurda. In attendance at the festive ceremonies were manyvassals and emissaries from neighboring lands. The ceremonies them-selves consist of the sacrifice of a donkey, an oath, drinking from cupsand exchange of gifts (ARM 26, 404). Eating bread and drinking beercan even serve synecdochally for property transfer and treaties (ARM 22,328). Similarly, in an Amarna letter to Azirru of Amurru, the Pharaohaccuses his vassal of treasonous relations with others: »Now the kinghas heard as follows, ›You are at peace with the ruler of Qidsa. The two

17 Sasson, The King’s Table, 203, n. 67. Sasson compares this practice of robe-sharing withthe elaborate durbar ceremonies of Moghul India. More similar are however the khilatceremonies, which significantly go back to earlier Arabic customs. See S. Gordon, Robesof Honour: Khilat In Pre-Colonial and Colonial India, 2003. See also II Reg 25,29 forclothes in the context of the king’s table.

18 P. Steinkeller, Sale Documents of the Ur-III Period, Freiburger altorientalische Studien 17(1989), 143f.; see for later times J.-M. Durand, Sumerien et Akkadien en pays Amorites,MARI 1, 1982, 79–82. See also the Obelisk of Manistusu: E. Cassin, Le semblable et ledifférent, Éditions la Découverte, 1987, 323f. and 331–333.

19 P. Michalowski/P. Steinkeller, The Drinking Gods, 35; now published in FM (=Florile-gium Marianum) II: 122 (p. 238). See the motif of the raised cup and drinking beforekings in figs. 6–7 and 10 (Part I).

338 Jacob L. Wright

of you take food and strong drink together.‹«20 The commensality hereequals alliance formation and thus disloyalty. On the other hand, if twoare already allies, they can express their solidarity by eating each other’sfood: In a letter to Babu-ahu-iddina, the Hittite king Tudhaliya IV wroteregarding the peaceful relationship and alliance with Shalmaneser I: »Ifhe would enter my land or if I were to enter his, we would eat the bread ofone another.«21 From a much later period, the Assyrian-Aramaic egirtusa sulmu stipulates that agreements are valid only if one party makes theformal statement to the other before witnesses: »Here eat bread!«22 Simi-larly, Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (VTE), which evinces many pointsof contact with Aramaic treaty forms and tropes,23 proscribes the enter-ing of a mutually binding oath with anyone that involves first »setting upthe gods before them,« as well as »setting up a table« (rikis passuri) and»drinking the cup« (satê kasi; §13). From these and other texts, it ap-pears that the act of eating (and drinking) was what ratified a treaty. Oneingested corporeally the oath: the food and drink was the means throughwhich the oath and curse – symbolized by the slaughtered animal – en-tered the body of the oath-partners. Only after the eating and drinkingdid the pact go into force and become legally binding.24

The eating of food during treaty ratifications – and specifically theexecrations – often possesses a sympathetic or imitative magical quality.Thus the curses of the treaty of Ashur-nirari V with Mati’ilu of Arpadreads: »May the people of his country (be forced to) eat the flesh of hissons and daughters and may it taste as good to them as the meat of a male

20 EA 162:22–24. W.L. Moran, The Amarna Letters, 2000; see also EA 161:22.21 KUB XXIII 103: Rs. 4’-5’; see H. Otten, Ein Brief aus Hattusa an Babu-ahu-iddina,

AfO 19 (1959–60), 42f. Noteworthy in this context of political alliances is also theplanned marriage-feast of the daughter of Hattushili III and Rameses II. The correspon-dence emphasizes fraternal solidarity and the unification of the thrones and respectivelands. E. Edel, Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischerund hethitischer Sprache I, 1994.

22 S.A. Kaufman, An Assyro-Aramaic egirtu sa sulmu, in: M. de J. Ellis (ed.), Essays on theAncient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, 1977, 119–127. – Notice alsothe use of the bread and wine brought by the Gibeonites when making a covenant withJoshua (chap. 9). These items are both the means with which the covenant is made andthe evidence that they came from a distant land, which is the precondition for the cov-enant.

23 C. Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund, BZAW 383, 2008.24 For an etymology of the Hebrew term »covenant« (tyrb) by appeal to a rare verb for »to

eat« (hrb) and the noun »food« (hyrb), see TDOT 2: 253f. Less speculative are the nu-merous texts referring to eating oaths. For a rich study of the expressions of asakkumakâlum in Mari texts, see D. Chapin, Manger un Serment, in: S. Lafont (ed.), Jurer etMaudiere: Pratiques politiques et usages juridiques du serment dans le Proche-OrientAncien, Méditerranées 10–11, 1997, 85–96.


or female spring lamb,« which was apparently slain and eaten during theratification ceremonies.25 Similarly §69 (a ceremonial curse) of Esarhad-don’s Succession Treaty (VTE) reads: »Just as this mother sheep is rippedopen and the flesh of her offspring is placed in her mouth, so may theyallow you to eat the flesh of your brothers, sons, and daughters to satiateyour hunger.«26 A comparable symbolic curse is found in §75: »Just ashoney is sweet, may the blood of your wives, sons and daughters be sweetin your mouths.«27 Here anthropophagy and particularly teknophagy areimprecated on disloyal vassals through sympathetic rites of food con-sumption. In this way, curses were not only inscribed but also ingested sothat the vassal would be ever mindful of the consequences of perfidy (seebelow §VI on inscribed versus ingested memories).28

The importance of the banqueting table as a place where importantpolitical decisions were made is mirrored in the myths with respect to thedivine council. For example, in the Babylonian Epic of Creation all thegreat gods come and take their places at the banquet table where theyelect to invest their champion Marduk with the power to wage waragainst Tiamat (3,125–138). Later Marduk invites the gods to his ownbanquet during which they complete his investiture (6,70–90).29 Similardepictions of feasts as the assembly of (divine) councils are found often inAkkadian and Ugaritic epic literature.30

25 ser maremes-su-nu marati-mes-su-nu li-ku-lu-ma kima sîr UDU.NIM.SAL.NIM elî-su-nuli-tib (iv 10f.); see E.F. Weidner, Der Staatsvertrag Assurnirâris VI. von Assyrien mitMati’ilu von Bît-Agusi, AfO 8 (1932), 17–34, 18f.

26 ki sa agurrutu [anni]tu salqatuni siru sa mar’isa ina pisa sakinuni ki äanni’i siru sa (aääe-kunu) mar’ekunu mar’âtekunu ana burîkunu lusâkilûkunu.

27 kî sa dispu matiquni damu sa mar’isa îssatekunu mar’ekunu (mar’atekunu) ina pikunulimtiq.

28 I treat anthropophagy and teknophagy as symbols of the abrogation of the rule of lawduring wartime (an Ausnahmezustand) in an extensive forthcoming study of war andfamilies.

29 With respect to this passage, J. Bottéro, Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, 2001,75f., writes: »For the sovereign to assemble his subjects, or at least a representative se-lection of them, at one and the same ›sitting‹, to share his own meal, was both to displayand create or strengthen the cohesion of all in a single ›body‹, a single state. It was alsoa way of demonstrating and consolidating his power over them: not only did his guestseat the same food as himself – in other words, were united in the same life derived fromthe same foodstuffs – but their presence together, the good tidings they were sharing andtheir common happiness tacitly announced their approval of the sovereign from whomthey received these benefits; confirmed his authority over all of them and the entirepopulation they represented; and renewed, if you will, his investiture«.

30 See, inter alia, the Gilgamesh epic, Atrakhasis, Nergal and Ereshkigal, Tale of Keret, Taleof Aqhat, the Baal cycle, the unnamed KTU 1.114. For the research on feasting in re-lation to ritual in Ugaritic texts, see Wright, Ritual, 1–18.

340 Jacob L. Wright

Feasting is also attested widely in Hittite texts. From them, we knownot only about numerous cultic festivals but also various other feasts,such as the celebration held every six years in honor of the Hittite kings’success.31 Other documents describe how, after the completion of the an-nual military campaign, the king, accompanied by the queen and otherofficials, would celebrate in important cities the nuntarijasäas festival,during which the local population formed a massive assembly around theking and other leaders.32 More than any of his peers, Mursili II vaunts inhis annals the care he took in ensuring that the gods were honored withregular festivals. Before he initiated a campaign, he celebrated the feastsof the sun-goddess Arinna, praying for prosperity and success in his mili-tary endeavors. He even tells how his father, Suppiluliuma I, failed to re-turn from his Mitanni campaign in time to participate in the Arinna fes-tival. This in turn led to the widespread rebellion after his death. Orderwas restored when Mursili redirected attention to the festival calendar,preferring to even interrupt any diplomatic or military activities ratherthan to cancel or postpone a festival.33

In contrast to the commensality reflected in Old Babylonian andHittite sources, the feasting in Neo-Assyrian is much more a matter ofshowcasing power and celebrating victories; this is at least partly due tothe nature of the sources (i.e. inscriptions). On his »Banquet Stele« As-hurnasirpal II claims to have hosted a ten-day dedication feast for nearly70,000 people – including 5,000 envoys (sirani lùsaprate) from variouscountries – after finishing the construction of Nimrud.34 He also reportsthat when he conquered the city of Aribua, he made a feast in the localpalace (cf. II Reg 9,34).35 More importantly, one of the incentives for As-hurnasirpal’s campaigns seems to have been the abundant goods he coulddespoil and later display and consume at his royal feasts. As in earlierHittite inscriptions and in the records of many of his successors, he re-ports that various rulers met him with tribute, which consisted not onlyof precious metals but also of many items that could be used directly for

31 See B. Rosenkranz, Kultisches Trinken und Essen bei den Hethitern, in: E. Neu/C. Rüster(eds.), Documentum asiae minoris antiquae. FS Heinrich Otten, 1988, 283–289;B.J. Collins, Ritual Meals in the Hittite Cult, in: M. Meyer/P. Mirecki (eds.), AncientMagic and Ritual Power, RGRW 129, 1995, 77–92; A. Archi, Das Kultmahl bei denHethitern, Türk Tarih Kurumu Kongresi Yayinlari 8, 1979, 197–213.

32 See most recently M. Nakamura, Einige Fragmente des hethitischen nuntarijasha-Festes,Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology, University of Tokyo 8 (1989), 129–144.

33 A. Goetze, Die Annalen des Mursilis, MVAG 38, 1933, 20.34 RIMA 2/1 A.0.101.30 = ANET 560.35 RIMA 2/1 A.0.101.1:iii 80–84a (p. 218) = ANET 275f.


his banquets: sheep and cattle, garments, singers/musicians, numeroustables and countless fine vessels.36

Feasting is attested also for Ashurnasirpal’s successors. ShalmaneserIII is reported to have celebrated banquets (tasiltu), more than once, inthe palaces of the rulers he conquered, thus following the precedent es-tablished by Ashurnasirpal.37 The inscriptions on the Balawat Gates forhis 9th year refer to a sumptuous feast that he made after triumphantly en-tering Babylon: »For the people of Babylon and Borsippa, the protégés,the freemen (awelu) of the great gods, he prepared a feast, he gave themfood and wine, he clothed them in brightly colored garments and pres-ented them with gifts.«38 These actions of feeding and clothing possess,on the one hand, a solicitous, parental quality, and, on the other, they dis-tinguish and confirm the beneficiaries in their status and prestige dueto the luxurious qualities of the feasting and the brightly colored gar-ments.39 For the early 8th century, the Wine Lists from Fort Shalmaneserlikely attest to the regular celebration of a banquet were wine flowed inabundance for the troops. It may have been held in the ekal masarti (theReview Palace), which with its many open courtyards would have been»a suitable place for recruits, officials and ambassadors to ›drink andmake merry.‹«40 With respect to Sargon II, the images from Dûr-Shar-rukîn reproduced above are matched by the Pavement Inscriptions fromKhorsabad, which refer to banqueting with rulers when they brought theAssyrian overlord their tribute.41 In the account of his 8th year, he alsoclaims to have elevated the throne of Ullusunu, making for him and hisgrandees a sumptuous table, where they were seated with Assyrians. Theresult was that they all blessed Sargon’s kingship before Assur and thegods of their own country.42

36 The details may be found throughout the very long inscription RIMA 2/1 A.0.101.1.37 See S. Yamada, The Construction of the Assyrian Empire, CHANE 3, 2000, 152. See

also the reference to the celebratory feast (naptan hudûti) after reaching the source of theTigris in his 7th year and the accompanying depictions on the Balawat Gates (Yamada,Construction, 281 and AAAO 91).

38 Luckenbill, ARAB I, Shalmaneser III, 624, 231.39 See also above on the robes distributed in Mari feasting.40 F.M. Fales, A Fresh Look at the Nimrud Wine Lists, in: L. Milano (ed.), Drinking in

Ancient Societies, 361–380, 368. See also the statement by S. Dalley and J.N. Postgatein The Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser, 1984: »It is possible that the same event inthe military calendar gave rise to the muster of equids, and the feasting of the army withmembers of the royal family and foreign emissaries …« (24). For banqueting with mili-tary officers and guests in 2nd millennium material, see – in addition to the iconographytreated above – the extensive description in the Ugaritic text KTU 1.15 IV 1–V14 (and1.15V [?]).

41 Luckenbill, ARAB II, 50f.42 ARAB II, 144.148.

342 Jacob L. Wright

The official inscriptions do not exhaust the references to Neo-Assy-rian commensality. Simo Parpola has collated intriguing letters related tothe royal/divine »leftovers« (reäati), which enhanced the social status ofthe recipients.43 Various documents from Nineveh refer to ceremonialfeasts – including information on the delicacies served, the guests (pre-dominantly military officers), and table/seating arrangements.44

Conviviality in relation to a putsch is depicted in the fascinating cor-respondence between Kudurru (a Babylonian expert in scribal lore anddivination expert) and the Assyrian rulers Esarhaddon and Ashurbani-pal.45 The former reports that high-ranking functionaries (Nabu-killianni,the chief eunuch, and a troop commander) went to great lengths to per-suade him to perform an oracle. They fetched him from prison (perhaps hehad been interned already for treasonous activities) and had him broughtto an upper chamber.46 There »they tossed me a seat and I sat down, drink-ing wine until the sun set. Moving my seat closer, he (the chief eunuch?)started speaking to me with the quota of the temple of Nusku, saying: ›Youare an expert in divination …‹« (18–22). They then petition Kudurru: »Goperform the (following) divination before Shamash: ›Will the chief eunuchtake over the kingship?‹« (r. 4–5). The long hours of sitting and drinkingtogether constituted a prelude to a carefully orchestrated coup d’état.

Especially relevant for our purposes are Neo-Assyrian victory ritualsthat involved banquets, of which the most famous is the akitu festival.47

The careful research of Beate Pongratz-Leisten has revealed many im-portant details related to this celebration.48 After the destruction of Bab-

43 Parpola, Leftovers of God and King. See comments in n. 16 above. For the reäati, sellutabnitu and kurummat sarri in the Eanna archive, see P.-A. Beaulieu, Cuts of Meat forKing Nebuchadnezzar, NABU 93, 1990. The royal and sacrificial (e.g., veäati sa panAssur) »leftovers« deserve a comprehensive and cross-cultural study; they providea backdrop for understanding not only the Eucharist but also the sirayim (Heb. »left-overs«) of the meal eaten in the presence of the Rebbe during the Hassidic tish festivities.The latter has yet to be studied from a comparative perspective; see however A. Nadler,Holy Kugel: The Sanctification of Ashkenazic Ethnic Foods in Hasidism, in: L. Green-spoon (ed.), Food and Judaism, 2005, 193–214.

44 Now published in SAA 7 (texts 148–157); see discussion by F.M. Fales and J.N. Postgateon pp. xxx–xxxiv as well as R. Mattila, Balancing the Accounts of the Royal New Year’sReception, SAAB 4, 1990, 7–22.

45 See SAA 10, 179 as well as M. Nissinen, References to Prophecy in Neo-AssyrianSources, SAAS 7, 1998, 133–153. The depicted events may be connected to the conspi-racy against Esarhaddon in 670 BCE.

46 The similarities between this account and several of the putsch narratives in the book ofKings are unmistakable.

47 F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, 1921, 111–118.48 See B. Pongratz-Leisten, Ina Sulmi Irub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Pro-

grammatik der akîtu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr.,


lyon in 681 BCE (during the reign of Sennacherib), the Assyrians trans-ferred the theology of Marduk to their god Assur and introduced theakitu festival to Assyria. The symbolic valence of the procession as thefight of the deity (here Assur) against Tiamat remained the same. Yet theAssyrians introduced significant changes: They abandoned the stages inthe procession of the deity and the visits of gods from other cities. Theyalso celebrated the festival in diverse ways in various cities, all of whichwere, significantly, either royal residences or important garrisons on theborders of the empire. The theological and cultic advancement of thetemples in the frontier cities (accompanied by material support) servedthe concerns of the Assyrian court for the security of its borders. One ofthe chief differences from the Babylonian celebration is the central rolethe Assyrians assigned to the king in the festivities and, with it, the re-versal of the centripetal movement (with the gods coming to the center,Babylon) to the centrifugal character of the Assyrian ritual (with the kingmaking his presence felt on the periphery). »In Assyria … the processionof the city-gods in the respective military garrisons serves to visualize thepresence of the king in this peripheral region, even if it occurs only sym-bolically through his garments.«49 The celebration of the festival in Nine-veh and Arba^il (Arbela) included the banquet in the akitu-house, atriumphal procession back to the city, and a »war ritual.«50 During thereigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, the celebration of the festivalin Arba^il was occasionally associated with extraordinary victories. Theparade of Ishtar from the akitu-house was accompanied by the display ofmilitary rewards – both human and material.51

Unfortunately we have very little information on the king’s table andthe role of political commensality in the Neo-Babylonian period. TheWeidner Tablets, dated to 595–570 BCE, record oil rations from theroyal court to various persons of status. One of these figures is Jehoiachin(called sarri sa KURyaäudu; Tablet B) and his five sons (ANET 308; TabletC is dated to 592 BCE). This same ruler is depicted by the biblical auth-ors as not only receiving »regular allowance« in the form of »victuals«

Baghdader Forschungen 16, 1994, and The Interplay of Military Strategy and Cultic Prac-tice in Assyrian Politics, in: S. Parpola/R.M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995, 1997, 245–252.

49 See ibid., 252.50 This ritual concludes: »Having defeated his enemy, [the king] puts on the jewelry and

hangs the lyre on his shoulder. He goes before the gods. Sheep offerings are performed.He kisses the ground, does triumphal entry into the campy, enters the qirsu-enclosureand begins the banquet. The king rejoices« (B. Menzel, Assyrische Tempel, SPSM 10;Rome, 1981, II, T82–89).

51 In addition to Pongratz-Leisten, see also N. Weissert, Royal Hunt and Royal Triumph ina Prism Fragment of Ashurbanipal (82–5–22,2), in: Parpola/Whiting (eds.), Assyria,339–358.

344 Jacob L. Wright

(„lmh tXm vl hntn dymt txrX vtxrXv) but also being released fromprison (by Evil-Merodach), given new clothes, and granted the highestseat, and eating his bread continually in »his presence« (II Reg 25,27–30;see discussion of Sargon I and Samsi-Adad as well as reäati above). Ifthe biblical account actually reflects Babylonian practices, it would meanthat vassal rulers ate regularly at the king’s table (II Reg 25,28).52

But of all the peoples of Western Asia it is the ancient Iranians whoare most famous for their feasting practices. Their customs and opulencedisplayed at the table exercised the imagination of Greek authors as wellas others. One of the greatest descriptions of Persian feasting is Esther 1,in which the king celebrates with his satraps, princes, servants and armyfor 180 days, displaying the wealth and glory of his kingdom (v. 4).53

Many of the details in Jewish and Greek depictions of Persian opulenceare pure fantasy, yet these accounts do accurately reflect the importanceof feasting in Persian court life.54 The antiquity of Iranian traditions ofcommensality is reflected in the material cultural record. For example, atGodin Tepe, the archeologically discernible patterns of state feasting (in-cluding pillared buildings, fine ceramics and floral/faunal remains) showhow pots functioned as political tools and represented an indispensablestrategy of Median statecraft.55 The epigraphic evidence from the laterAchaemenid period attests to the continuation of these traditions.56

52 On the problems of this account, see Part I note 33. On the texts themselves, see B. Oded,Observations on the Israelite/Judaean Exiles in Mesopotamia during the Eighth-SixthCenturies BCE, in: K. van Lerberghe/A. Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigrationwithin the Ancient Near East (FS E. Lipinski), OLA 65, 1995, 205–212. See the dis-cussion of the constructed nature of II Reg 25,27–30 in Part I note 33. I thank Prof. Paul-Alain Beaulieu for sharing with me his thoughts on this text.

53 D. J. Clines tracks the way feasts (as well as fasts) in the Esther scroll demarcate shifts inpower as the perspective shifts from Persian to Jewish celebrations. Viewed from thisperspective, the book of Esther tells the opposite story of the book of Kings (see the dis-cussion on Solomon’s table in Part I § III).

54 See the excellent discussions in P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Per-sian Empire, 2002; cf. the passages listed under »banquet« in the index. See also idem,Table du roi, tribut et redistribution chez les Achéménides, in: idem (ed.) Le tribut dansl’Empire perse, 1989, 35–44; A. Dalby, Greeks Abroad: Social Organisation and Foodamong the Ten Thousand, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 112 (1992), 16–30; H. San-cisi-Weerdenburg, Persian Food. Stereotypes and Political Identity, in: J. Witkin et al.(ed.), Food in Antiquity, 1995, 286–302; K. Vössing, Mensa Regia. Das Bankett beimhellenistischen König und beim römischen Kaiser, 2004, esp. chap. 2; C. Binder, Plu-tarchs Vita des Artaxerxes, 2008.

55 H. Gopnik, Why Columned Halls?, forthcoming in: St. John Simpson (ed.), The Worldof Achaemenid Persia; and H. Gopnik and M. Rothman, On the High Road: The Historyof Godin Tepe, Iran, 2009. I thank Prof. Gopnik for making available to me unpublishedportions of her research. For further research on feasting in the ANE material culture,


VI. Interpreting the Evidence

Having surveyed a host of images and texts relating to our subject, wecan now reflect on the ways commensality figured in the political calcu-lus of ANE states. In § II, I discussed feasts in general – from modernweddings to sacrificial rites. In the body of the paper, § III–V, I focusedon a dataset from ancient Western Asia that consisted primarily of diplo-matic commensality and victory banquets. Yet even here we encountereda wide array of phenomena. To organize such disparate facets of feasting,I employ three basic categories: the functional, the performative and thecommunicative.

With respect to the functional, the evidence surveyed here confirmsWilliam Robertson Smith’s observation regarding the capacity of feastingto consolidate groups and foster cohesion, while demarcating the groupfrom those who are denied a place at the table. What happened before thefeast and how one uses the solidarity achieved at the table are differentquestions. The banqueters may be convening to celebrate some event inthe past, such as a coronation of a ruler or a victory over a commonenemy (although these two acts are closely linked in several texts welooked at; see e.g. I Sam 11,15). Moreover, the solidarity fostered byfeasting can be applied to very diverse ends. Parties could pacify their ag-gressions in the collective activity of eating and drinking, or the fellow-ship at the table could create coalitions with the ultimate objective ofwarring against another group. These questions of before and after areimminently important and require case-by-case analysis. Yet they shouldnot be confused with the more general and basic conclusion regarding theconsolidating character of commensality.

see the articles on ancient Syrian drinking vessels by G.F. del Monte, I. Caneva, M. Fran-gipane, S. Mazzoni, F. Baffi Guardata and R. Dolce in L. Milano (ed.), Drinking inAncient Societies, as well as A.H. Joffe, Alcohol and Social Complexity in Ancient West-ern Asia, Current Anthropology 39 (1998), 297–332. For archeological studies of feast-ing in the Levant, surprisingly very little exists for the Iron Age. Much more however hasbeen written on the Bronze Age and Philistine material culture; see A. Yassur-Landau,Old Wine in New Vessels: Intercultural Contact, Innovation and Aegean, Canaanite andPhilistine Foodways, Tel Aviv 32 (2005), 168–191, and most recently the papers fromthe conference »Dais: The Aegean Feast« published in Aegeum 29 (2008).

56 W.F.M. Henkelman’s careful research on Elamite texts has brought to light many import-ant royal table, feasts and sacrifices, see his »Consumed before the King.« The Table ofDarius, that of Irdabama and Irtastuna, and that of his Satrap Karkis, in: B. Jacobs/R. Rollinger (eds.), Der Achämenidenhof, Oriens et Occidens, forthcoming; idem, Parnak-ka’s Feast: sip in Parsa and Elam, in: J. Alvarez-Mon (ed.), Elam and Persia, forthcoming;and his book The Other Gods Who Are. Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation Based onthe Persepolis Fortification Texts, Achaemenid History XIV, 2008. I thank Prof. Henkel-man, as well as Prof. Matthew Stolpert, for kindly sending me several unpublished articles.

346 Jacob L. Wright

The other aspects of feasts, the performative and communicative, areclosely related to the first.57 They can be observed in material ranging fromthe biblical account of Solomon’s reign to the popular iconogram of theraised victory cup. In contrast to much of the evidence discussed here,these facets of feasting are not so much about creating alliances or bolster-ing older bonds as about performing the established rites and roles of king-ship or displaying to a public (even if it is confined primarily to the courtand a small circle of elites) one’s superior status. The performative-com-municative aspect is connected not only to the competitive character ofmany feasts but also to the association of our images with other symbolsof status and power, such as chariots and horses, weapons, troops, andmartial valor.58 Such advertising of success in word, image and behavior isoften treated cynically by those who embrace the Hobbesian attitude thatpower is simply the imposition of one’s will on another through both thethreat of violence and the display of symbols of status and prestige. Amore sympathetic posture towards this recurring feature of human beha-vior recognizes that prestige and status represent »the preconditions fordeveloping the moral authority to influence group decisions, exert leader-ship, and wield power – or to resist the powers of others.«59 Seen in thislight, the performative-communicative side of feasting is closely related toits functional character in creating and fortifying social-political bonds.

The use of martial motifs along with the images of feasting is, how-ever, not just about the display of potent symbols of power. This juxta-position, we saw, should often be interpreted in terms of the feasting thatfollows the vanquishing of an enemy. As such, these images and the re-lated texts attest to the importance of performing a particular ritual (theSiegesmahl) in order to translate ephemeral success on the battlefield intoformal »victory« and enduring institutional authority.60

The outcome of a battle was often a matter of interpretation.61 Incontrast to sporting events, one cannot consult a field judge or ref-

57 For a good overview of past research on performance in communication studies, seeM.A. Carlson, Performance: A Critical Introduction, 1996.

58 For biblical texts juxtaposing feasting and chariots, see the stories of Absalom in IISam 13–15 and Adonijah in I Reg 1f.

59 Dietler/Hayden, Digesting the Feast, 15. The latter stance is in line with Foucault’s viewthat »sees the strategies of power used by kings and governments as embedded in and de-pendent upon the level of ›microrelations‹ of power, the local interactions and petty cal-culations of daily life« (C. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 1992, 200).

60 Ritual studies are only slowly starting to have an impact in biblical studies and Assyri-ology. For a brief research overview, see the introduction to B.N. Porter (ed.), Ritual andPolitics in Ancient Mesopotamia, AOS 88, 2005.

61 Compare, e.g., the biblical account of Sennacherib’s activities in Judah with the differentmessage in the Assyrian annals.


eree.62 Moreover, even when the outcome is indisputable, it was easilyforgotten. Yet concomitant with the emergence of civilization, human so-cieties developed a wide array of means and media for interpreting his-tory and perpetuating memories.63 One option was monuments, rangingfrom orthostats to architecture (palaces, temples or even whole cities).Another option available to ancient memory makers was writing: Itsdevelopment allowed greater control and precision in the process ofmemory construction.64 Often written memories were integrated withmonuments – hence, monumental inscriptions. Yet another alternative, es-pecially in a predominantly oral culture, was song (see e.g. Ex 15,20–21; ISam 18,6–7; II Sam 1,20.24). Closely related to song is ritual, such as cel-ebrations, triumphal processions or feasting.65 By raising the victory cup,one performed the role of victor and thereby communicated to otherswho lost the battle. More importantly, by assuming the head seat at thetable, hosting a resplendent banquet, and engaging in rituals of triumph,the champion converted a short-lived moment of success into valuable,long-lasting symbolic capital.66 In this sense, the performance of victoryis tantamount to, or constructs, the victory.67

Commensality and the memory of it nourished alliances. But even avery ostentatious celebration was bound to be forgotten sooner or later,and thus one combined performance with communication: Feasting andbanqueting were depicted, in word and image, on durable »memory-

62 For the presence of a (divine) judge in battle, see Jud 11,27 and M. Liverani’s commentson »War as an Ordalic Procedure« in his Prestige and Interest, HANE I, 1990, 150–159.The overlap between battles and athletic competitions with respect to deciding winnersand losers can be witnessed in the practice in Archaic Greece of armies setting up a tro-paion on the battlefield at the site of the »turning point« (tropê), where the enemy phal-anx broke and retreated.

63 J. Assmann has devoted much of his research to this phenomenon; see e.g. his Tod undJenseits im Alten Ägypten, 2001.

64 The development of the written record posed new problems, however. For example,when the Neo-Assyrian scribes could not report the capture of enemy kings, they soughtcreative ways to compensate. One option was to report the felling of trees and orchards,which was associated symbolically with complete victory and utter destruction. For astudy of this phenomenon, see B. Oded, Cutting Down Orchards in Assyrian Royal In-scriptions: The Historiographic Aspect, JACiv 12 (1997), 93–98 as well as my own War-fare and Wanton Destruction, JBL 127 (2008), 423–458.

65 For Roman triumphal rituals, see H.S. Versnel, Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin,Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph, PhD Dissertation, Univ. of Leiden,1970.

66 Compare this conversion process to the one discussed above (II.) in which material sur-plus is translated into political power through feasting. For the concept of symbolic andsocial capital, see Bourdieu, Distinction.

67 The same can be said with respect to mourning rituals and the will to admit defeat.

348 Jacob L. Wright

media« (Gedächtnisträger) that included precious works of art, largersteles and display inscriptions, or monumental architecture, all of whichhas been treated in this article.68 Via these communicative media, feastingcould continue to play its performative role long after the original per-formance had ceased.

The significance of this fundamental point is that it draws intoquestion any facile distinction between ingested memories and inscribedmemories.69 Inscription and pictorial depiction should rather be seen asadditional media through which ingestion (feasting) can continue to per-form its memory-making function.

VII. Commensality and Memory-Making in Nehemiah’s Memoir

Returning now to the point of departure for this paper, Nehemiah signifi-cantly tells about his feasting (Neh 5,17f.) after first describing how hedonned the mantle of a military commander and skillfully mobilized theJudeans to defend Jerusalem against an assault by their neighbors (chap.4). Nehemiah also claims a divine victory of sorts: »When our enemiesheard that we were privy to their plan and that God had frustrated theirscheme, all of us returned to the work on the wall …« (4,9). The accountof his financial reforms (5,1–13) separating this passage from the descrip-tion of his table seems to have been inserted at a later point.70 Yet even ifthe texts directly followed each other in an earlier version of the Memoir,one should not interpret the eating and drinking mentioned in chap. 5 asa victory celebration. The account clearly refers to regular (daily) com-mensality, not a single occasion as in the case of triumphal banqueting.Nonetheless, the present comparative study of feasting – with respect notonly to war and alliance formation but also to the memory-making roleof commensality – opens up new vistas for appreciating Nehemiah’s ac-

68 Feasting is of course not the only victory ritual combined with the medium of monumen-tal architecture; an important example from Jewish history is the triumphal processiondepicted on the Arch of Titus on the Via Sacra in Rome. In this regard, see Josephus, Bell.Iud. 7,1, for a description of the feasting of Titus with his commanders and army im-mediately after the conquest of Jerusalem.

69 The works of P. Connerton, How Societies Remember, 1989 and Sutton, Remembranceof Repasts, posit this distinction. While initially valuable as heuristic tool, the distinctionbreaks down in fascinating ways when we examine the representations of feasting intexts and iconography. For a discussion of food in relation to memory in the book ofDeuteronomy and the writings of the Apostle Paul, see MacDonald, Not Bread Alone,70–99. For further theoretical reflection on feasting in relation to memoria, seeM. Mauer (ed.), Das Fest. Beiträge zu seiner Theorie und Systematik, 2004.

70 See my Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and Its Earliest Readers, BZAW348, 2004, 163–188, and the discussion there of scholars who share this opinion or havemade similar claims.


tions. We may divide these according to two aspects of feasting presentedabove: the performative-communicative and the functional.

First, the performative and communicative aspects of feasting:Nehemiah’s generosity at his table was not only performed but also com-memorated in a medium that ensured it would not be forgotten. Thismedium is what one calls his »Memoir« (or Denkschrift). The desig-nation stems from his repeated demand that the deity remember himfor his deeds, which also concludes the description of his feasting (5,19).On the basis of these petitions, scholars rightly conclude that Nehemiah’saccount – or at least some version of it – was intended (primarily) for adivine readership.71 To be sure, however, writing for a divine audiencedoes not obviate its usefulness for more mundane purposes. Long beforethe Memoir was incorporated into larger histories (Ezra-Nehemiah, Jo-sephus’ Antiquities), it would presumably have been read – perhaps as avotive inscription – by those who were not (or no longer) privileged topartake in Nehemiah’s grand repasts.72 While not specifically address-ing this wider public, the Memoir can indirectly inform (or remind) it ofNehemiah’s generosity, much in the same way as the monarchic inscrip-tions and iconography discussed above function to commemorate othertypes of feasts. For many, I argue, the Memoir served as a model ofleadership – a sort of Fürstenspiegel or miroir de prince.

One may note another performative-communicative aspect of Nehe-miah’s feasting. Within the satrapal administration of the Achaemenidempire, one can observe at work what may be called the mimeticprinciple, elite emulation or imitatio regis: Satraps often mimicked thegreat-king in material culture, court life and behavior, which includedtheir judicial, fiscal, diplomatic, military, and domestic roles. Thus, forexample, they not only trained aristocratic children by guiding them onhunting excursions in their satrapal paradeisoi; they also granted statelyaudiences to foreign emissaries. The king was also imitated by local gov-ernors and officials, who witnessed Achaemenid court life and ruleeither indirectly through satrapal intermediaries or first-hand. Nehemiahwould have belonged to the latter group. The particular constellation ofemphases in his account – as well as the accusation that he intended tobecome king (6,5–9) – make sense when viewed against the backdrop of

71 Nehemiah emphasizes that despite the great expense his generosity caused him, he »didnot eat the bread of the governor« because »the servitude weighed heavy on thispeople.« From the perspective of the divine readership, he records these deeds so thatthey are reckoned to his name. See »do not wipe out my good deeds« in 13,14.

72 The reasons for being excluded were location (those who did not reside in Judah or werenot among those »who were coming to us from the surrounding nations«), status (theywere not among the 150 »Judeans and officials« that were granted a place at the table),or time (Nehemiah was no longer hosting guests).

350 Jacob L. Wright

satrapal and imperial behavior. Thus one may compare what is knownabout the satraps to Nehemiah’s statements regarding his house (2,8),body-guards (2,9, as well as his ,yrin mentioned throughout his ac-count), his military command (chap. 4), his financial reforms (chap. 5;see also 13,10–14), his foreign diplomacy (chap. 6), some features of hisinternal reforms (chap. 13), the building project as a whole, and – notleast – the personal wealth and benefaction he displays at his table.73 Ac-cordingly, his boasts of providing wide assortments of meat, poultry andwine may be likened to the ostentation that characterized other satrapaltables.74 It is, moreover, not surprising that Nehemiah, as a cupbearer toArtaxerxes, highlights the role he played à table.

Finally, we turn to the functional side of commensality.75 AlthoughNehemiah is granted permission to build, he does not come to Judah withan imperial decree comparable to those recorded elsewhere in Ezra-Nehe-miah. The success of his project depended ultimately on his own pith andpluck. His account leaves no room for doubt that he faced many ob-stacles and fierce opposition. When he arrives in Judah, the population isfar from consolidated. It consists of territorial divisions as well as numer-ous different strata, social groups, and guilds (2,16 and 3,1–32). He con-vinces them to adopt his project (2,17f.) with the same rhetorical skillsdisplayed before the king when the latter was banqueting (2,1–8). In theprocess Nehemiah forms a community of builders (2,18; 3,1–32.38). Yetthereafter he continues to face not only social divisions (5,1–13) but alsohostile opposition – both within and without (2,19f.; 3,33–4,17; 6,1–19;13,4–9.28f.). His strategies for overcoming these hurdles include ripostesagainst antagonists that strengthen the resolve of the builders (2,20;3,36f.), using a military threat to assume great control over the commu-nity (4,1–17),76 introducing social reforms as a way of increasing soli-

73 See Hilmar Klinkott, Der Satrap, OSAW 1, 2005, as well as my review in RBL athttp://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5760.

74 For example, Herodotus (III.125) and other classical authors report that Polycrates, thetyrant of Samos, mimicked Persian luxury (tryphe) by recreating a Persian court wherehe sumptuously feasted. See also Williamson, The Governors of Judah.

75 A further functional aspect of Nehemiah’s table worth considering is what M. Dietlerand I. Herbich call »Collective Work Projects« (Feasts and Labor Mobilization, in:Dietler/Hayden [eds.], Feasts, 240–264). The meat and wine accordingly served as a wayof remunerating the labor. If the amount of meat listed in the text sufficed for hundredsof mouths, then Nehemiah could likely have fed the entire work force (= »the Judeansand the leaders« in 5,17). The similarities between the use of pelek in Nehemiah 3 to thesystem of ilku-service in Akkadian sources are also significant in this light.

76 The assumption of power and imperium by a strong-handed leader in direct response tomilitary threats, as depicted in Nehemiah’s Memoir, is a common phenomenon in humanhistory (see e.g. the Roman iustitium or the modern »state of exception/emergency«).For the Ausnahmezustand phenomenon, see G. Agamben’s State of Exception, 2004.


darity among the Judean populace (5,1–13), forgoing the gubernatorialallowance (5,14f.), etc. In such precarious conditions, with internal fric-tion and external hostility, it is not surprising that Nehemiah hosted athis table every day »150 Judeans and rulers as well as those [compatriotsor foreign dignitaries] who came to us from the surrounding nations«(5,17). The sumptuous feasting on beef, lamb, poultry and »wine of allkinds in abundance« would have certainly helped to ease tensions and tostrengthen the resolve of the communal leaders to complete the project.Later Nehemiah’s table would have continued to feed growing alliancenetworks between groups and regions within Judah itself as well as withits neighbors.77 And in his role as a host, he could not only put to use hisprofessional training and years of experience as a cupbearer at the Ac-haemenid court but also draw on the long-established Israelite and West-ern Asian conventions of commensality.

Table-fellowship and feasting similar to that described by Nehemiah (Neh 5,17–18) is en-countered throughout the ancient world, where it played a central role in displaying power,forming social bonds, and fortifying political alliances. Surprisingly, scholars have rarelybrought this comparative data to bear upon the Memoir. The present essay works toward re-dressing this deficiency by discussing a wide range of biblical and other ancient Near Easterntexts and images related to commensality. It shows how feasting functions within the politi-cal calculus of ancient Western Asian rulers as one of the most popular means to promoteinternal social cohesion and forge external alliances – either as a way of avoiding militaryconflict or as a prelude to warring against a third party. On the basis of different texts andimages, the article demonstrates how feasting as a ritual performance plays an essential rolein the construction of victory.

The second instalment of this two-part article continues with a discussion of a widerange of ancient Near Eastern texts, engages in theoretical reflections on the disparate ma-terial, and finally brings the findings to bear on the interpretation of the Nehemiah Memoir.

Des pratiques de commensalité et de festin comparables à celles décrites par Néhémie(Neh 5,17–18) se retrouvent partout dans l’Antiquité. Ces pratiques jouent un rôle centraldans la démonstration du pouvoir, la formation de liens sociaux et le renforcement desalliances politiques. Étonnamment, les chercheurs ont rarement rapporté ces informationscomparatives au »mémoire de Néhémie«. Cet essai cherche à pallier à ce déficit en exami-nant un ensemble de textes bibliques et proche-orientaux, ainsi que des images, en lien avecla commensalité. L’intérêt premier est de montrer comment fonctionne le festin dans les cal-culs politiques des souverains d’Asie occidentale comme l’un des moyens les plus populai-res de promouvoir la cohésion sociale interne et de forger des alliances à l’extérieur – soitcomme façon d’éviter un conflit militaire, soit comme prélude à la guerre contre un partitiers. Sur la base de textes différents et d’images, l’auteur tente de montrer aussi comment lefestin en tant que performance rituelle joue un rôle essentiel dans la construction de la vic-toire.

77 Neh 6, however, is less sanguine about the prospects of diplomatic relations with (someof) Judah’s neighbors.

352 Jacob L. Wright

La deuxième et dernière partie de cet article contient l’examen d’un large éventail detextes du Proche-Orient ancien, des réflexions théoriques concernant le matériel disparaterassemblé dans le »mémoire de Néhémie«, et je montre finalement l’enjeu des observationsprécédentes pour l’interprétation dudit »mémoire«.

Tischgemeinschaft und Festgelage, wie in Neh 5,17–18 beschrieben, sind in der antiken Weltallgemein üblich gewesen, wo sie eine zentrale Rolle bei der Entfaltung von Macht, der Bil-dung sozialer Bindungen und beim Stärken politischer Bündnisse gespielt haben. Überra-schenderweise sind die vergleichbaren Belege aus anderen antiken Kulturen bisher nur seltenund unzureichend zum Verständnis der »Nehemia-Denkschrift« herangezogen worden. Dievorliegende Untersuchung zielt darauf ab, diese Lücke zu schließen. In ausführlicher Diskus-sion sollen biblische und weitere altorientalische Belege in Text und Bild herangezogen wer-den, um die Bedeutung der Kommensalität im politischen Kalkül altorientalischer Herrscherzu zeigen. Tischgemeinschaft war eines der beliebtesten Mittel, internen sozialen Zusammen-halt zu fördern und externe politische Allianzen zu schmieden – sei es, um militärische Kon-flikte zu vermeiden, oder als Auftakt eines Krieges gegen eine dritte Partei. Auf der Basis ver-schiedener Texte und bildlicher Darstellungen wird weiterhin aufgezeigt, welche rituelleBedeutung dem Element »Festmahl« im Rahmen einer Siegesfeier – und in der Konstruktiondes Sieges selbst – zukam.

Der zweite Teil dieser auf zwei Teile angelegten Untersuchung bietet zunächst einenÜberblick über das Phänomen der »Tischgemeinschaft« nach dem Zeugnis von Texten ausverschiedenen altorientalischen Kulturen. Daran anschließend wird versucht, das verstreuteMaterial theoretisch zu gliedern und die Ergebnisse für die Deutung der »Nehemia-Denk-schrift« fruchtbar zu machen.

Wright Commensal Politics ZAW Part 1-2 small -2

Documents

Transcript of Wright Commensal Politics ZAW Part 1-2 small -2