Tel Dan Stele Inscription Analysis

Monumental writing has surrounded humans in most societies since ancient times. These monuments have all been constructed to communicate messages, often dubbed propaganda because they seek to make their audience think or feel something. The word ‘propaganda’ has many negative connotations, but it need not, because writing monumental inscriptions is much more complex than for the purpose of spreading ideology. What does it mean to write on a monument as a leader? One answer to this question can be pursued by studying inscriptions on stelae from the ancient Near East and their relationships with their audiences. An inscription communicates with its audience through both the content and form, and its meaning varies depending on these as

The inscription does not heavily rely on literary imagery, yet it does not fail to use it in order to relate its message to the reader. The author is agreed by most scholars to be King Hazael of Damascus (Biran and Naveh 17) and the inscription is written from his perspective in the first person. Hazael captured Tel Dan after fighting King Joram of Israel and King Ahaziah of Judah, and erected the stele sometime after that capture (Biran and Naveh 18), but before Tiglath-pileser III’s conquest and destruction of Israel (Biran and Naveh 8). This inscription evokes images of Hazael’s greatness in adversity and even more greatness in his victory, turning the inscription into a piece of propaganda. He gives his audience vivid mental imagery for the purpose of making them respect and fear him as ruler. This is not surprising considering Hazael is historically seen as a usurper of the Damascus throne (Biran and Naveh 17). The relationship that existed between this stele and its audience would have been negative, fake and controlling, evidenced through the form and content of the inscription in its greater historical context. The inscription exemplifies Hazael's effort to illustrate legitimacy by using adapted historical details through exaggerated, matter-of-fact language on this public monument (Biran and Naveh

Hazael was a usurper who presents his audience, which is the general public in a city he overtook, with historical inaccuracies and an inscription whose form and content are straightforward and intimidating. Suriano’s perspective agrees that the inscription is political propaganda reflecting Hazael’s effort to control the tribal groups to make Damascus a patrimonial kingdom (Suriano 164). The relationship this stele would have had with its wide audience would not have been positive because it is propaganda for king Hazael, reflecting the attitude of a king over a conquered people he wishes to subjugate and cares little