The Language of Power in the Simile, “Like a Caged Bird”: The Assyrian Royal Lion Hunt and Sennacherib’s Military Campaign against Hezekiah of Judah

Sennacherib’s claim that he shut Hezekiah up in Jerusalem “like a caged bird” reflects a broader Assyrian ideological language of domination rather than face-saving rhetoric for a failed siege. Read against Assyrian lion-hunt imagery and military inscriptions, the simile signifies control, confinement, and royal victory, presenting Hezekiah as subdued even without Jerusalem’s destruction.

See also The Language of Power in the Simile “Like a Caged Bird”: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Assyrian Royal Lion Hunt and Sennacherib’s Military Campaign Against Hezekiah of Judah (Pickwick, 2025).

By Woo Min Lee
Adjunct Professor
McCormick Theological Seminary
April 2026

Introduction

Among the most discussed phrases in the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions is the claim that Sennacherib “shut him (Hezekiah, c. 716/715–687/686 BCE) up like a caged bird (kīma iṣṣur quppi esiršu)” (Grayson and Novotny 2012, No. 4, 52, p. 64; No. 15, 18–19, p. 96; No. 16, col. iv, 8–10, p. 115; No. 17, col. iii, 52, p. 133; No. 18, col. iii, 27b–29a, p. 151; No. 22 [the “Chicago” Prism], col. iii, 27b–29a, p. 176; No. 23, col. iii, 33, 24–25, p. 194). The phrase has often been interpreted as evidence of a failed siege of Jerusalem, requiring rhetorical compensation. Scholars such as Hayim Tadmor have suggested that the expression functions as a face-saving literary device to mask the Assyrian king’s “unsuccessful” siege (Tadmor 1994, 79).

                This article proposes a different interpretation of the simile. While the precise historical outcome of the campaign remains debated, the rhetorical function of the simile within Assyrian inscriptions is clear. Rather than reading it as compensatory rhetoric, this study argues that the phrase participates in a broader symbolic language of Assyrian royal ideology. Specifically, it draws on imagery familiar from Assyrian royal lion hunts, in which the king demonstrates absolute control over powerful but ultimately doomed opponents.

                By comparing the use of the simile in Assyrian hunting inscriptions, military texts, and visual representations, this article shows that the simile in the phrase, “shut up/enclosed like a caged bird (kīma iṣṣur quppi esiršu),” encodes a pattern of control, confinement, and domination. Within this framework, Sennacherib’s campaign against Hezekiah may be considered a success, even in the absence of Jerusalem’s destruction.

kīma iṣṣur quppi esiršu in the Lion Hunting Inscriptions and Its Image in Reliefs

However, the simile is not unique to Sennacherib’s inscriptions. It appears earlier in the royal hunting inscriptions to describe the fate of ferocious animals in the hand of the Assyrian king. Specifically, lion hunting was an Assyrian royal sport and a training exercise for battle (Parrot 1961, 54). Watanabe even suggests that the lion hunt was used as a political propaganda to establish and reinforce the Assyrian kingship (Chikako E. Watanabe 2002, 82).

                The simile, “like a caged bird (kīma iṣṣur quppi),” appears in the hunting inscriptions of Ashurnasirpal II. In one of his hunting inscriptions, Ashurnasirpal II hunted 30 elephants and 257 strong wild bulls at the command of Ninurta and Nergal (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.2, 40–42a, p. 227). He also “killed 370 lions like caged birds with the spear (3 me’āt 70 nēšī kīma iṣṣūrī qu-up-pi ina iṣupu-aš-ḫi a-duk)” (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.2, 42b, p. 227). Another hunting account of Ashurnasirpal II follows the record of his erection of the palace and various temples at Calah (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.30, 20–77, pp. 289–291) and the reconstruction of the land (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.30, 78–84a, p. 291). According to the hunting record, the hunt was also initiated at the command of Ninurta and Nergal (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.30, 84b–86a, p. 291). In the hunt, Ashurnasirpal II killed 450 lions (4 me’āt 50 nēšī danānī a-duk) (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.30, 86b., p. 291). He also killed two hundred ostriches “like caged birds (2 me’āt lurmī ki-ma iṣṣūrī qu-up-pi ú-na-pi-iṣ)” (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.30, 89–90a, 291). In addition to the killing of the wild animals, he captured twenty strong lions, fifty wild bulls, and 140 ostriches alive (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.30, 91–94, pp. 291–292).

                A clearer interrelatedness between the lion hunt and the Assyrian realpolitik can be found in the reliefs from Room C of the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (BM 124861/862/863/864/866/867/868/869/870) and their related inscriptions. In the reliefs, the Assyrian king hunted down and killed eighteen lions. Weissert argues that the text, K 6085, is related to the reliefs (Weissert 1997, 339–358). This text describes that Ashurbanipal hunted lions in the city of Nineveh. He hunted the lions with a single team and his hunt occurred at forty minutes after daybreak (Weissert 1997, K 6085, 5’–6’, p. 345). The hunt finally concluded with the killing of eighteen lions by the king. The text says that “I [quelled] the tumult of eighteen raging lions (ša 18 nēšī na-ad-ru-ti uz-za-šú-nu [u]-[šap-ši-iḫ])” (Weissert 1997, K 6085, 6’b, p. 345). Considering that the word, ušapšiḫ, “to quell, to pacify” is related to a dissolution of disorder or chaos, it is possible to assume that the Assyrian king brought order over the disorder that the eighteen lions had caused to the city and its inhabitants in his lion hunt.

                Weissert further suggests that the number of the hunted lions represents the number of the gates in the walls of greater Nineveh (Weissert 1997, 355). As written above, the enclosed royal lion hunt in an arena was not only a sport for pleasure, but it also represented political and military propaganda of the Assyrian royal ideology. By hunting eighteen lions, which represented the eighteen gates of the city wall and the potential danger towards the city, the king efficiently showed the spectators his powerful image as a hunter and as a ruler to bring order over the disorder that the lions or enemies could threaten. Finally, as Weissert suggests, “in the eyes of the ancient spectators, the public image of the triumphant king and the public image of the lion hunter merged into a single figure – that of Ashurbanipal” (Weissert 1997, 350).

Patterns of Control, Confinement, and Inevitable Victory

The analysis of the lion hunting inscriptions of Ashurnasirpal II and the image in one of the reliefs of Ashurbanipal reveals certain strategic patterns even with variations and differences. First, as Ashurbanipal’s reliefs explicitly show, the lion hunt was conducted under the controlled conditions through the aid of the royal attendants. The location of the hunt was usually an open field or arena. The main figure in the hunt was a king but there were armed attendants with him. They helped the king hunt and kill the lions successfully while their king killed the wild beasts. The royal attendants maintained control over the surrounding environment with an ultimate aim: a celebration of king as a victorious hunter over the lions.

                With the controlled conditions, the royal lion hunt was done under the confinement of the prey. Based on the reliefs of Ashurbanipal in particular, lions were encircled by armed royal attendants or even held in a cage from which it could be released. The battle between the king and the lion(s) happened in a certain limited area. It was like a contest in a large stadium. In the enclosed area, there was no exit for the lions to be freed or released from the fight. It was a forced confrontation for the beasts without any escape.

                Finally, the conclusion of the hunt was the victory of the king over the lion. In an enclosed arena, the king triumphed over the valiant lions. The victory of the king was shown by the defeat and the death of the lion. The lions never won, and the king always triumphed over his prey. His achievement is highlighted in the inscriptions and on the reliefs.

kīma iṣṣur quppi esiršu in the Assyrian Military Inscriptions

Other than in the lion hunting inscriptions, the simile was found in Tiglath-pileser III’s military inscriptions. In a battle against Assyria, Rezin, the last King of Damascus (754–732 BCE), was defeated, and he fled from the Assyrian army to his city. The Assyrian text describes that “he (Rezin) entered the gate of his city [like] a mongoose ([ki-ma] šikkî abul āli-šú ērubub)” (Tadmor and Yamada 2011, 9’, p. 59). The Assyrian king confined him to his city “like a caged bird (kīma iṣ-ṣur qu-up-pi e-sir-šú)” (Tadmor and Yamada 2011, 11’a, p. 59).[1] During the forty-five-day siege, Tiglath-pileser III cut down his enemy’s plantations and orchards (Tadmor and Yamada, 11’b–12’, p. 59). Rezin was able to escape from the city and the siege did not conclude with the capture or destruction of Damascus at that time. The Assyrian king proceeded to surround and capture Rezin’s ancestral city, [x x]-ḫādara ([x x]-ḫa-a-da-ra … al-me ak-šud) (Tadmor and Yamada, 13’–14’a, p. 59). Then, he took booty from the cities of the land of Damascus, having destroyed 591 cities of the sixteen districts of the land (Tadmor and Yamada, 14’b–17’, p. 59). Tiglath-pileser III again campaigned against Rezin, finally conquered Damascus, and killed Rezin in the following year, according to 2 Kings 15:29 and 16:9 (Tadmor and Yamada 2011, 13).[2]

                After Tiglath-pileser III, the simile occurs again in Sennacherib’s inscriptions which describe his military campaign against Hezekiah. His inscriptions describe that the Assyrian king enclosed the king of Judah in his city of Jerusalem like a caged bird (kīma iṣṣur qu-up-pi qé-reb alūUr-sa-li-im-mu alī šarru-ti-šú e-sír-šú) (Grayson and Novotny 2012, No. 4, 52, p. 64; No. 15, 18–19, p. 96; No. 16, col. iv, 8–10, p. 115; No. 17, col. iii, 52, p. 133; No. 18, col. iii, 27b–29a, p. 151; No. 22 [the “Chicago” Prism], col. iii, 27b–29a, p. 176; No. 23, col. iii, 33, 24–25, p. 194). Meanwhile, the related biblical texts do not refer to an actual enclosure of the city, though they do describe the threat of the siege against the city through Isaiah’s prophecy (2 Kings 19:32//Isaiah 37:33) and the message of Assyrian officers to Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 32:10).

                In the description of the campaign, the Assyrian inscriptions also mention the recovery of king Padî of Ekron and Hezekiah’s tribute to the Assyrian king. The order of the events is not clear but Sennacherib’s inscriptions describe that Sennacherib successfully retrieved Padî from Hezekiah (Grayson and Novotny 2012, iii.14b–17, p. 176). Meanwhile, none of the biblical texts mentions Padî or Sennacherib’s rescue of the king of Ekron. The Assyrian inscriptions also provide a long list of the tribute that Hezekiah submitted to Sennacherib, including thirty talents of gold, eight hundred talents of silver, ivory beds, armchairs of ivory and valuable treasure (Grayson and Novotny 2012, iii.37b–49, p. 177). In the related biblical text, it is only briefly described that Hezekiah provided a tribute of three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold which was comparatively less than what was described in the Assyrian inscriptions (2 Kings 18:14). Along with the written Assyrian records, the Assyrian reliefs about Sennacherib’s military campaign against the kingdom of Judah, namely the Lachish reliefs, describe that Sennacherib’s army took the city and sent many residents into exile (BM 124904/906).

                Sennacherib’s military campaign against Hezekiah of Judah is distinct from that of Tiglath-Pileser III against Rezin in that the former did not attack Judah or Jerusalem again after his third military campaign while the latter did it again in the following year. Thus, Jerusalem was not included in the list of targets in the following military campaigns of Sennacherib after 701 BCE. Even after Sennacherib, Jerusalem was not aimed in the subsequent campaigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. According to Esarhaddon’s inscriptions (82–5–22,13), Manasseh was one of the vassal kings whom Esarhaddon summoned for his building project of an armory in Nineveh (Leichty 2011, No. 1, v. 54–73; No. 6, vi. 6b’–15’, pp. 23, 46). The king of Judah was also listed as one of the kings of the west who supported Ashurbanipal during his campaign against Egypt (Streck 1916, Cyl. C, I.25–50, pp. 138–141).

Reinterpreting the Imperial Rhetoric of Sennacherib’s Inscriptions

Compared to the royal lion hunt of Ashurnasirpal II and Ashurbanipal, the simile in Sennacherib’s inscriptions regarding his military campaign against Hezekiah of Jerusalem suggests a similar ideological or propagandistic structure. First, his siege/enclosure against Hezekiah reflects control of the situation in the battlefield. The location for the siege/enclosure is Jerusalem. Here, the protagonist is Sennacherib while his antagonist is Hezekiah. Since the siege/enclosure itself implies surrounding the enemy city, the employment of the simile represents that the Assyrian empire had overwhelming power over the city and would be able to control the battle situation between those two counterparts.

                With the control of situation clearly established by the Assyrian army, the military siege/enclosure also represents the confinement of the rebellious or resistant enemy. Based on the inscriptions, the enemy city was enclosed by Sennacherib’s army. The city became a space of confinement of the enemies including Hezekiah. In the siege/enclosure, it would be impossible for the king of Judah to escape or exit the city. Even though he could preserve his life for a short term within his city wall, his fate depended on negotiations with the Assyrian army who were enclosing him.

                An important question to consider here is whether Sennacherib’s inscriptions considered the Assyrian king’s military advance against Judah as a victory through the usage of the simile as in the royal lion hunts. No royal lion hunting inscriptions or reliefs have been found from the reign of Sennacherib. Therefore, it is necessary to consider what kind of image or concept the simile creates regarding the outcome of Sennacherib’s military campaign against Hezekiah.

                The simile explicitly describes Sennacherib as a controlling and powerful hunter while Hezekiah as a controlled and powerless caged bird. Such a positive image in favor of Assyria through the simile explains the outcome of Sennacherib’s campaign against Jerusalem. His campaign did not lead to the destruction of the city. Instead, the campaign resulted in the release of Padî by Hezekiah and the payment of tribute from Hezekiah to Assyria. With such outcomes, the overall image of Hezekiah of Jerusalem is depicted “like a bird in a cage.” The Judaean king was still alive, and he also preserved his royal status as a king of Judah after the campaign. However, he was under the control of Sennacherib. It is not that Sennacherib “could not” destroy the city of Jerusalem or Hezekiah. Instead, it is that he “did not” destroy them.

                Ariel Bagg argues that Sennacherib’s campaign was already effective without any actual assault against or conquest of Jerusalem, in that the Assyrian dominance was (re)established, as indicated by a large tribute of Hezekiah sent to Nineveh (Bagg 2013, 124–125). According to him, a full conquest or destruction of Jerusalem was not necessary after Hezekiah’s capitulation with a heavy tribute even after the departure of the Assyrian force (Bagg 2013, 125). The tribute represented Hezekiah’s submission to the Assyrian Empire. Thus, booty was one of the benefits obtained from a military campaign (Fales 2010, 207–212). Therefore, in terms of the tribute and the imperial control, the military campaign was successful. Sennacherib did not need any actual assault and capture with siege-engines. David Ussishkin argues that Sennacherib decided to turn Hezekiah into an Assyrian vassal rather than to conquer and destroy the city of Jerusalem (Ussishkin 2006, 353). Sennacherib conquered and destroyed Lachish with other fortified cities of Judah and sieged/enclosed Jerusalem. As a result, the Assyrian king achieved his two aims: to neutralize the military power of Hezekiah and to demonstrate the overwhelming power of the Assyrian Empire (Ussishkin 2014, 277). Sennacherib’s controlling power over the Levant, including Judah, facilitated the successful military campaigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal against the land of Egypt (Ussishkin 2014, 277).

Conclusion

The simile, “like a caged bird (kīma iṣṣur quppi),” in the inscriptions of Sennacherib is best understood within the broader symbolic language of the Assyrian royal ideology. Drawing on imagery from royal lion hunts, the phrase encodes a pattern of control, confinement, and domination. Rather than masking failure, the simile asserts Sennacherib’s success in his campaign against Judah. By portraying Hezekiah as a confined and powerless figure, the simile reinforces the image of Sennacherib as a dominant ruler who imposes order and compels submission—even without the destruction of Jerusalem.

Bibliography

Bagg, Ariel. 2013. “Palestine under Assyrian Rule: A New Look at the Assyrian Imperial Policy in the West.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 133 (1): 119–144.

Barnett, R. D. 1960. Assyrian Palace Reliefs and Their Influence on the Sculptures of Babylonia and Persia. London: Batchworth.

Fales, Frederick Mario. 2010. Guerre et paix en Assyrie: Religion et impérialisme. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.

Grayson, A. Kirk. 1991. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC). Vol. 2. Royal Inscriptions from Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Grayson, A. Kirk, and Jamie R. Novotny, eds. 2012. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1. Vol. 1. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period (RINAP). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Leichty, Erle. 2011. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC). Vol. 4. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period (RINAP). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Parrot, André. 1961. The Arts of Assyria. Trans. Stuart Gilbert and James Emmons. Arts of Mankind. New York: Golden Press.

Russell, John Malcolm. 1999. The Writing on the Wall: Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Assyrian Palace Inscriptions. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Streck, Maximilian. 1916. Assurbanipal Und Die Letzten Assyrischen Könige Bis Zum Untergange Niniveh’s. Vol. 2. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 7. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

Strommenger, Eva. 1964. 5000 Years of the Art of Mesopotamia. Trans. Christina Haglund. With Max Hirmer. London: Thames and Hudson.

Tadmor, Hayim. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations, and Commentary. Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section of Humanities. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Ussishkin, David. 1982. The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, no. 6. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology.

Ussishkin, David. 2006. “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Philistia and Judah: Ekron, Lachish, and Jerusalem.” In Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʼaman, ed. Yaira Amit, Ehud Ben Zvi, Israel Finkelstein, and Oded Lipschits. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Ussishkin, David. 2014. Biblical Lachish: A Tale of Construction, Destruction, Excavation and Restoration. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Watanabe, Chikako E. 2002. Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia: A Contextual Approach. Wiener Offene Orientalistik 1. Wien: Institut fur Orientalistik der Universitat Wien.

Weissert, Elnathan. 1997. “Royal Hunt and Royal Triumph in a Prism Fragment of Ashurbanipal (82–5–22,2).” In Assyria, 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.