What Made a "Good King" in the Ancient Near East

 This paper originally written as a discussion paper with informal citation.

ASH-3200:  Ancient Near Eastern Societies

Dr. Tiffany Early-Spadoni

University of Central Florida

Victory Stele of Naram-Sin

What Made a "Good King" in the Ancient Near East

            The specific traits of what constituted a “good king” in the Ancient Near East can often be relative to the time period, the culture, and the individual.  We do not have writings from the common people to help us understand what they thought a good ruler ought to be like, thus we are left with the records of the rulers themselves.  Therefore, we are left with a single-sided view.  We can, however, gleam some additional information from the actions of the rulers themselves as well as a few fragmentary stories that we have available to us.  While specific traits of kings changed over time and place, there are some similarities between them that we can identify, and we can also see comparisons in the changes that took place.  From the earliest historical records, both Mesopotamian and Egyptian rulers seemed to have been regarded as gods, or at least semi-divine (Earley-Spadoni, Kingship in the Ancient Near East).  In some instances, rulers achieved some type of divine recognition after death.  After the Early Bronze Age, rulers across the area seems to have lost their innate divine nature and were viewed as, at best semi-divine, but more likely as just below the gods (Earley-Spadoni, Kingship in the Ancient Near East).  Kings and Pharaohs often saw themselves as chosen by the gods as well as individually formed by the gods.  There was a sense that the gods “allotted” to the ruler certain rights and lands (See Gurney, Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and Lichtheim, Ramses II).  In the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta I, he considers himself the “Chosen of Assur” (Gurney, The Sultantepe Tablets).  It is important to remember, however, as pointed out by Dr. Earley-Spadoni that the king was not a “despot with unlimited power” (Kingship in the Ancient Near East).

            We can see in the development of the royal form, an increase in the importance of the male form related to rulership.  Specifically, the virile, masculine form which included a physique and a closeness to divinity.  Rulers began to identify the perfection of their rule with certain traits that can be identified with the masculine role, an attractive physique, individual prowess in combat, as well as overall success in combat.  These suggest both an approval of the divine as well as the ruler possessing attributes approaching the divine.  Royal images often depict “near divine” status such as the control over life and death.  In fact, even the female Pharaoh Hatshepsut developed a public image that portrayed her with masculine features, including a full beard (Earley-Spadoni, Kingship of the Ancient Near East).  In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the central protagonist is said to have been 2/3 divine and 1/3 human.  These traits are often seen as a reflection of the male figure as being the dominant figure, and therefore reflective of what makes a good king.  In her book “Sex, Rhetoric, and the Public Monument:  The Alluring Body of Naram-Sin,” Irene Winter suggests that this royal image, a projected aura, or “auspiciousness” was representative of “wholeness and perfection.”  According to Winter, one of the primary traits of a king, bastu, which can be translated as “life-force, vigor, or vitality,” is often conflated with manliness (Sex, Rhetoric, and the Public Monument). 

            However, these traits alone do not make a king.  And certainly not a good king.  There is an expectation that a king will provide to his people certain fundamentals.  While we can view expansion of territory as a trait of masculine virility and kingly ego, the basic ability to protect one’s people in combat is a necessary evil.  “Hail, O Good Warrior!” was the cry of Ramses II’s warriors at the victory of the Battle of Qadesh (Lichtheim, pg. 69).  This is Ramses’ account, but an indicator that success in battle was necessary for a ruler to be considered effective.  Many rulers were complicated characters.  The Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II apparently collected exotic animals and considered himself a scholar, amassing a large library in his capital.  He was also known for his extreme violence, having the tongues of the vanquished cut out or flaying them alive (Earley-Spadoni, Kingship in the Ancient Near East).  Many rulers were known for extensive building projects including large-scale irrigation as well as temples and other public buildings.  But, certainly, the writings of the cultures indicate to us that rulers of the later periods were not divine and were often punished by the gods for striving to reach beyond their allotted place.  The central story of the Epic of Gilgamesh revolves around this theme as does the Legend of Naram-Sin.  Divine judgement is often directed against the “arrogant and impetuous king” (Foster, pg. 171).  We see echoes of these motifs carried down in later periods, such as in Greek writings (See The Odyssey) and the Hebrew Bible (See the Book of Job).  According to Foster, the highest calling for mankind, and thus the ruler, is to pass on our knowledge and experience to subsequent generations (pg. 171).  A king was also expected to produce a better society for his subjects.  In the Legend of Naram-Sin, the king wonders if he has produced anything good out of his reign.  He sees himself as a king who has not done anything good for his land and likens himself to a shepherd who brings nothing good to his flock (Foster, pg. 174).  And again, in Ramses II’s inscription on the Battle of Qadesh, he cries out about all the good things he has done for the gods (Lichtheim, pg. 65) and later portrays himself as the “good king” who has cared for Memphis, opened the districts, let the nobles keep their possessions, and allowed the humble to freely move about in their towns. (Lichtheim, pg. 76).  It becomes apparent that kingship in the Ancient Near East was a complicated affair.  While we cannot look past the obvious masculine nature of what was considered to be a “ruler,” we also have to take into consideration the “good” that these rulers strived to accomplish.