iili ■Ifil"' Qlncttell MniuErBity ffiihtatg 3ltl;aca, Netn ^ack l-M. fi-X^KaLvvoie. Cornell University Library DS 59.A7K89 Aram and Israel 3 1924 028 653 115 M^x^ IpI Cornell University mm The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028653115 ARAM AND ISRAEL COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS SALES AGENTS NEW YORK LEMCKE & BUECHNER 30-32 West 27th Street LONDON HUMPHREY MILFORD Amen Corner, E.G. SHANGHAI EDWARD EVANS & SONS, Ltd. 30 North Szechtjen Road UPPER. SYft,lA LOWER. SYRIA COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ORIENTAL STUDIES Vol. XIII ARAM AND ISEAEL OR THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA BY EMIL G. H. KRAELING Submitted in Paetial Fulfilment of the Requirements FOB the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty of Philosophy, Columbu University COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 1918 L Copyright, 1918 By Columbia Univebbitt Pbbss Printed from type, March, 1918 NOTE Graduallt the tangled skein of the early history of Western Asia is being unwotind. Through excavations on the one hand and intensive study of the received documents on the other, the relation is being understood born by the various peoples and races to one another; and hght is being thrown upon the forces that played in the great historic drama that history has unrolled for us in this part of the world. Our own interest in this history- is certain; for whatsoever we are and whatsoever we possess comes to us from the Eastern half of the Mediterranean Sea. The Coast and the Hinterland of that Sea have played a pre- ponderating part in determioing the influence that was supreme there. One of the peoples engaged in playing that part were the Ara- maeans. Who they were and what their r61e was have been studied by Dr. Kraehng with much assiduity and with great care. From the various quarters he has gathered every scintilla of evidence available; and, in the following pages, he has put this evidence into connected form, so that he who reads may learn. It is with much pleasure that I commend the work that Dr. KraeUng has done. RICHARD GOTTHEIL Columbia Univehsitt Nov. 7, 1917 PAHENTIBUS SUIS PBIMIS ET OFTIMIS FRA£CElFTOBTni HUNC LIBBUM DEDIOAT ATJCiTOB FOREWORD The following pages purport only to give a sketch of the his- tory of those Aramaean groups, which are of interest to the student of the Old Testament. I have endeavored to make my account readable and yet thoroughly scientific. The book offers no new and astonishing revelations, but I hope that here and there scholars may find a modest wayside flower worth the picking. The original sources are constantly cited. The secondary sources, so far as they were of value to me, or may be to the reader, are also continually referred to. The inclusion of mmierous references in the text has made many abbrevi- ations necessary and has caused the omission of the names of authors of magazine articles quoted. Only those versed in Oriental studies will realize how much we owe to men Uke Delitzsch, Hommel, Johns, Kittel, Xidzbarski, Meyer, Mtlller, Sachau, Schiffer, Streck, Winckler and others, whose researches have clarified the history of the ancient east and many obscure passages in the inscriptions. I have devoted special attention to geographical matters, for geography forms the basis of exact historical study. The transcription of modern place names generally follows that of Richard Kiepert. I carmot close without expressing my deepest gratitude to Professors Richard Gottheil and J. Dynely Prince of Columbia for the kindness they have shown me, as well as to Professors A. T. Clay of Yale, J. A. Montgomery of Pennsylvania, and to Professors F. Weissbach, Geheimrat H. Zimmern, Geheimrat D. R. Kittel of Leipzig, my revered guides in the realm of Oriental . research. EMIL G. H. KRAELING Luther's Birthday (Nov. 10), 1917 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Tee Sotibces paqe Destiny of the Aramaeans — The Aramaic Inscriptions — Assyrian Annals — The Old Testament Narrative — Classical Authors 1 CHAPTER I The Geogkaphical Backgbound Extent of Syria — Western Mesopotamia — Position of Syria — A Great Highway — Natural Features and Zones — Coelesyria — The Topography and the States 7 CHAPTER II The Aramaean Migration The Arabian Home — The Akkadians — The Hittites — The Amorites — The Aramaean Counter-movement — The Suti — Ur Kasdim — Qir — Terah and the Suti — The Hittite Invasion — The Aflame in Northern Mesopotamia — Campaigns of Tiglathpileser I — Aram Naharaim — The Name "Aramaean " 11 CHAPTER III The Aramaeans of Habran Paddan-Aram — ■ Tiglathpileser I and Harran — The Harran Census — The Cities and Towns — Personal Names — The Life — Social Conditions — Marriage 23 CHAPTER IV The Invasion op Palestine "Hebrew" and Eberhannahar — Migration to Southern Palestine — Jacob — Israel — A tribal treaty relating to intermarriage — Shec- hem — The Rise of the Amurrfi State — Jacob the Aramaean — The 5abiri and the Aramaeans — Revival of the Amorite States — Struggle of Hittites and Egyptians — The Maritime Peoples — The Arrival of the Israel Tribes — Moab, Amon and the Aramaeans — The Laud of Qedem 31 CONTENTS CHAPTER V The Rise of the Aramaeans in Central Stria Aramaeans under Merneptah — Kushanrishathaim — The Aramaean Kingdoms — Beth-Rehob — Zobah — The Ammonite War — Ma' acah and Geshur — The Battle before Rabbah — The Battle of Helam — Hadadezer's Defeat on the way to the Euphrates — David in the BiqS,' — Toi of Hamath'g Embassy 38 CHAPTER VI The Early Kings of Damascus Location and Najne of Damascus — Time of Aramaean Occupation — Israel's Rule of Coelesyria — Rezon and the Rise of the Kingdom — Baasha and Benhadad — The Policy of Damascus — Omri — Ahab and Benhadad II — Rise of Assyrian Power — The Siege of Samaria — The Battle of Aphek 46 CHAPTER VII The Mesopotamian Kingdoms General Survey — Bit-Adini — The Trouble in Bit-JIalupe — Ashurna- zirpal's Campaigns 879 — The Rebellion in Laqe — The First Blow at Blt-Adiui — The Campaign in Syria 868 — Shalmaneser's Advance against Bit-Adioi — The Campaign of 858 — The Occupation of Til- Barsip — ■ Its Site and Inscriptions — The Pursuit of Ahuni — ■ Beth- Eden — The Smaller Principalities 53 CHAPTER VIII The North Syrian States Description of Principalities — Uattina submits to Ashurnazirpal — The Bargylus Region and Luhuti — Shalmaneser and the Battle of Lutibu — ■ The Historical Situation — The Battle of Alisir — Tribute of the Syrian Kings at Dabigu 858 — Pitru and Halman 854 — The gattina Trouble 832 65 CHAPTER IX The Supremacy of Damascus Assyria's Object — The March to Qarqar 854 — The Syrian League — Shalmaneser's Version of the Battle — The Old Testament Difficulties — Benhadad and Adad-idri — The Solution of the Problem — The CONTENTS Result of Qarqar — Further Campaigns of Shalmaneser — Death of Adad-idri — Syrian League falls Apart — Battle of Saniru — Jehu's Tribute — Shalmaneser's Campaign 839 — Hazael'a Vengeance on Israel — His Conquests — Benhadad III — The Siege of Samaria under Joahaz ^ The Deliverance — AdadnirAri and Mari' of Damas- cus — Israel's Recovery i 73 CHAPTER X KiLAMMU OF Sam'al The Inscription and its Language — The Name Kilammu — The Dynasty of Gabbar — Kilammu's Foreign Policy — The Foreign Oppression — The King of D — N Y M — Kilammu's Peaceful Endeavors — Social Achievements t- Factions in Sam'al — Kil- ammu's Religious Life — His Relation to Assyria 85 CHAPTER XI Zakie of Hamath and La' ash The City of Hamath — Borders of the Kingdom — Relation to Assyria — Zakir's Inscription — La'ash and Lu^uti — Zakir's Rebellion — Site of Hadrach — The AlUes of Benhadad — The Siege of Hadrach — Zakir's Deliverance — Hia Building Operations — Close of the Inscription — Rehgion of the Inscription 95 CHAPTER XII NORTHEBN StBIA UNDEB THE VaNNIC KiNGS The Urartu State — Its Part in History — The Haldian Advance — Arpad's R61e — Mati-Uu of Arpad — The Treaty — Tiglathpileser's Struggle for Arpad — The Campaign against Unqi — Azriyiu of Yaudi — ■ The nineteen Districts of Hamath — Effect of Tiglathpile- ser's Victory — Further Campaigns against the Haldiana 105 CHAPTER XIII The Last Days of Damascus Tabel and Rezin — Anarchy in Israel — Menahem's Tribute — The Coalition against Assyria — Pekah and Rezin — Ahaz summons Tiglathpileser — The PMlistaean Campaign 734 — Damascus be- sieged — Expedition to Arabia — Rebellion in Israel — Hoshea'a Tribute — Renewed expedition to Philistaea — Tribute of Tyre — Fall of Damascus — Ahaz and Tiglathpileser 115 CONTENTS CHAPTER XIV Kings of Sam'al Summary — The Hadad Inscription — Tlie Panammu Inscription — The Bar-Rekab Inscription — The Sitting Bar-Rekab — The Jlil^ni or palaces of Sam'al — Fortifications — Ya'di and Sam'al 122 CHAPTER XV The Last Rebellions Fall of Samaria — Yaubi'di's Uprising — Sargon in PhiUstaea — Re- belUon of Carchemish — Revolt of Gurgum — Triumph of the Ara- maean Language 133 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS F. Hommel. — Aufsatze und Abhandlungen. 1892 ff. R. F. Harper. — Assyrian and Babylonian Letters. 1892 fif. C. H. W. Johns. — Assyrian Deeds and Docmnents. Vols. II, III. 1901. Herzfeld und Sane. — Am Euphrat und Tigris. Vol. I. 1911. F. Hommel. — The Ancient Hebrew Tradition. 1898. American Journal of Semitic Languages. King and Budge. — Annals of the Kings of Assyria. Vol. I. 1902. H. Winckler. — Altorientalische Forschungen. 1897 £. Ausgrabimgen in SendschirK. Pts 1-4. 1893-1911. H. Winckler. — Alttestamentliche TJntersuchungen. 1892. Beitrage zur Assyriologie. Ed. DeUtzsch and Haupt. 1881 f. J. H. Breasted. — • Ancient Records of Egypt. 5 vols. 1896 ff. F. Bohl. — Kanaanaer und Hebraer. 1911. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Part II. A. T. Clay. — Amurru the Home of the Northern Semites. 1909. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets. 1896 f . Fr. DeUtzsch. — Wo lag das Paradies? 1881. Carl Ritter. — Erdkunde, XV, XVII. 1854. M. Lidzbarski. — Ephemeris fiir Semitische Epigraphik. 1900 ff. Ed. Meyer. — Geschichte des Altertums. I, pt. 2. 1908. F. Hommel. — Geographic und Geschichte des Alten Orient. 1907. R. Kitt«l. — Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 1909 f . C. H. W. Johns. — ^ Assyrian Doomsday Book. 1901. Jomnal of Biblical Literature. Winckler und Zimmern. — ■ Die KeUinschriften und das Alte Tes- tament. 3. Aufl. 1902. K H K Kurzer Hand. — Kommentar zum Alten Testament (edited by Karl Marti): Budde. — Samuehs. 1897; Benzinger. — Konige. 1899. Kn Knudzton. — Die Tontafeln von El-Amama. 1907 f . LXX The Greek Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. MAE W. M. MilUer. — Asien und Europa. 1893. Masp III G. Maspero. — Passing of Empires. 1900. M D G MitteUungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft. AA ABL ADD AET AHT AJSL AKA AGF AS ATV BA BAR Bohl CIS Clay CT DP EK ESE GA GG GVJ HC JBL KAT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS M K A L. Messerschmidt. — Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Historischen Inhalts. 1911. M T The Massoretic Text of the Old Testament. M V A G Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen GeseUschaft. N S I G. A. Cooke. — North Semitic Inscriptions. 1903. O L Z Orientalistische Literaturzeitung. Procksch Die Genesis. 1913. P S B A Proceedings of the Society of BibUcal Archaeology. R H. RawMnson. — Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. 5 vols. ■■ 1861 f. E. A Revue Arch^ologique. R T P H. Rost. — KeUschrifttexte TiglathpUeser'a III. 1893. S A S. Schiffer. — • Die Aramaer. Geographisch-Historische Unter- suchungen. 1911. Sachau Ed. Saohau. — Reise in Syrian und Mesopotamien. 1883. S B A Sitzungsberichte der Berhner Akademie der Wissenschaften. Textb. H. Winckler. — Keilinschriftliches Textbuoh zum AJten Testar ment. 3d ed. 1908. W G I H. Winckler. — Geschichte Israels. 2 vols. 1895, 1900. Z A Zeitsclirift fur Assyriologie. Z A W Zeitschrift fiir Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Z D M G Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen GeseUschaft. Z D P V Zeitsclirift des Deutschen Palastina Vereins. THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA INTRODUCTION THE SOURCES As the early history of mankind is unrolled before our eyes and as we learn of the struggles of nations whose names have been forgotten for ages, we must needs marvel over nature's endless capacity for producing ever new variations of the race, with a Babel of tongues so vast and bewildering. Yet, somehow, each of these peoples that once trod over the face of the globe had its place in the structure of progress and contributed some new energy toward the onward march of the world. The doctrine that it is not the nature of the absolute to reveal itself fully in one individual, may well be applied to the peoples of the earth. None of them alone represents the ideal of humanity, but each possesses something which it must give toward the reahzation of this ideal before it vanishes to be no more seen. And in this great fellowship Aram, too, has its place. True, its mission was not to create eternal values, as is the case with Hellas and Israel. It was rather the predestined mediiun through which these values were to be commimicated throughout the Orient. The history of the Aramaeans cannot yet be written. Through the gloom that enshrouds their destinies our sources only now and then cast a fitful glimmer. We possess merely flash-light pictures, taken here and there, and preserved in papyri or 1 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA engraved on stone or written on clay. These the chronicler must piece together; they must speak to him and reveal the heart- beats of the race and enable him to paint his sujet in colors true to life. Of the Aramaeans we know just enough to give an im- pressionistic design of who they were and what befell them. Only a few original documents of old Aramaean origin have come down to us. The numerous Aramaic inscriptions of Nab- ataean and Palmyrene provenance,' the valuable Papyri from the upper Nile, dating from the Persian era,'' do not concern us here; for the period with which we propose to deal is the one marked by the hegemony of Assyria, which ended with the fall of Nineveh 606 B.C. The old Aramaic inscriptions antedating this event all come from northern and central Syria. Foremost among them are the inscriptions of the kings of Sam'al, Kilammu (who, though an Aramaean, stiU writes in Phoenician), Panammu and Bar- Rekab, belonging to the eighth century and unearthed at Sengrrli, at the foot of the Amanus range (Chs. X, XIV). Of equal import- ance is also the stele of Zakir, king of Hamath on the Orontes, from the same period (Ch. XI). These are sources of the very first rank and offer valuable insight into the language, life and religion of the inhabitants of Syria.' Our chief geographical and historical information, however, is gained from contemporaneous records in other tongues. The Egyptian monimients, though of great value for previous Syrian history, furnish only small gleanings for the Aramaean epoch.* The Hittite inscriptions, from Carchemish, Mar'ash, Hamath and elsewhere, will doubtless become an important source for • Cf. the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, T. 11, Pt. 1; also Lidzbarski, Nordsemitische Epigraphik, 1898, and the EngUsh translations with com- mentary in Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions, 1903. " Sayce and Cowley, The Assuan Papyri, 1907; Sachau, Aramaische Papyrus und Ostraka aus Elephantine, 1911. ' The mortuary inscriptions of the priests Sin-zir-ban and Agbar of NSrab date probably from 605-652 B.C. (N S 1 187). ' Cf. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, 5 vols., 1896 f., and especially W. M. Miiller, Asien und Europa, 1893. 2 INTRODUCTION our knowledge when once they can be made to yield their time- honored secrets.^ But at present we must mainly depend upon the cuneiform literature of Babylonia and Assyria. The dawn of Aramaean history greets us, it seems, in archaic inscriptions from Nippur and Lagash from the third milleimium b.c.^ The wanderings of the Aramaeans may then be traced in letters of the Hammurapi dynasty ' and of the Amama age,* and more clearly in recently discovered monuments of the early Assyrian kings Adadnirari I and Shalmaneser I,' as well as in the Prism of Tiglathpileser I and in the so-called "Broken Obelisk."' (Ch. II) From the tenth century on we learn of Aramaean kingdoms in Mesopotamia and Syria. For our knowledge of Mesopotamian geography the Annals of Tukulti-Ninib ' form a welcome addi- tion to the inscriptions of Ashurnazirpal * and Shalmaneser III.''^ The two last named monarchs, together with Tiglathpileser IV,^* are our main source for the history and geography of the Aramaean states in Syria. Nor should we omit the mention of Adadnirari IV '^ and of Sargon.''' In some instances the Assyrian Eponym Canon," so invaluable for our chronology, furnishes brief but precious data. In studying the Assyrian annals we must everywhere bear in mind the fact that they are prone to ' Cf . the account of Garstang, Land of the Hittites, 1910. ^ Cf . Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinsohrif ten, 1907. ' Cf. Ungnad, Altbabylonische Briefe aus der Hammurapi Zeit, '13. ' Cf. Knudtzon, Die EI- Amama Tafein, 2 vols., 1911f.; also the Boghaz-Koi Archives, cited by Winckler ia ' Vorlaufige Nachrichten,' M D G '07 no. 35. ' Collected in Messerschmidt, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts, 1911. ' Now newly edited by King and Budge, The Annals of the Kings of Assyria, Vol. I, 1902, p. 128 f. ' Scheil, Annales de Tukulti-Ninip II, '09. * Newly edited, A K A p. 155 ff. ' For the present we must depend on Schrader's Keilinachriftliche Bibli- othek, I, '89, p. 129 ff. i" The final edition is that of Rost, Keilschrifttexte TiglathpUesers 1893. " Cf . Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, I, p. 188 f . ^ The final edition is that of Winckler, Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 1889. " Cf. KeiUnschriftliche Bibliothek, I, 208 f.; Textb., 73 f. 3 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA exaggerate greatly to the glory of their authors, and to omit all mention of reverses. Sometimes, too, the order of events is logical rather than chronological, and occasionally important discrep- ancies appear in the various inscriptions of the same king. Here the sound methods of historical research must be applied to obtain the truth.' From the cultural and religious standpoint the Harran Census^ (Ch. Ill), the Mesopotamian contract litera- ture ' and the treaty of Ashur-nir&ri with Mati-ilu of Arpad (Ch. XII) are extremely illuminating. For the life in the provinces and subjected Aramaean principalities the letters of the Sargonid period offer meager information.^ Our next great source is the Old Testament. True, the histor- ical reminiscences concerning Aram's relations to Israel preserved in this great treasury of ancient lore are seldom contemporaneous. Most of the documents are indeed quite far removed from the happenings that they narrate. Here the work of a generation of scholars enables us to differentiate between various oral and written sources, with their diverging traditions, which the sacred writers employed.* The exact nature of events, consequently, cannot always be fully determined. But where the account, on internal evidence, can be shown to be close in point of time to the events related, the standard of accuracy is usually very great. For the writers of Hebrew history were not, like the Assyriap scribes, official chroniclers bent on glorifying their sovereigns; they did not shrink from describing disasters and defeats. On the other hand, however, their religious bias often, as in the case of Ahab, prevented them from giving a correct estimate of personalities. ' An auspicious beginning in exact critical study has been made by Olmstead, Assyrian Historiography, 1914. 2 Johns, Assyrian Doomsday Book or Liberal Census of the District round Harran, 1901. ^ Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents, 3 vols., 1898-1901. ■" Cf. Harper's great corpus Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, 14 vols., 1892 f. ' Cf . above all Rudolf Kittel's Gesohichte des Volkes Israel, 2 vols., 1909 f. with its detailed, treatment of the sources. 4 INTRODUCTION For the early period of Aramaean history the Old Testament traditions must be used with the greatest of care. It should always be borne in mind that the Hebrew writers did not aspire to set forth the history of the heathen peoples round about. Where they refer to them it is merely a matter of accident. And then the accuracy of their information needs to be closely ex- amined. No scholar would therefore presume to make these traditions the basis of a history. On the other hand we may thankfully make use of them, at least by way of illustration, where they harmonize with what we learn from the mommients. It will be seen that in a surprising number of instances the true course of events is mirrored in the Old Testament. Thus the patriarchal period, beneath the guise of personal adventure, reflects the Aramaean migration and even the social life of certain tribes (of. below Chs. II-IV) . The period of the Judges has only vague news to offer, and under the first kings of Israel we do not fare much better, but nevertheless we shall find certain fixed points of tradition which we can safely adopt for the recon- struction of Aramaean history (Ch. V). From the time of Omri on, however, we are better informed and occasionally have ex- cellent contemporary witnesses of events. It is unnecessary to deal in further detail with individual passages here. The use that is made of them in the course of our narrative will indicate sufficiently to those versed in critical problems what attitude is assumed towards them in each instance. Nowhere is a Ught- hearted acceptance of mere tradition to be found, as little as an espousal of the fanciful theories of some modems. The authors of the Graeco-Roman world have Httle to offer for our theme. Perhaps the Eremboi of the Odyssey (4, 84), to whom Menelaus came after visiting Ethiopians and Sidonians, or the Arimoi of the Iliad (2, 782), in whose land the monster Typhon was concealed, may represent our Aramaeans, for it is not at all vmlikely that the echo of the gigantic Aramaean onset should have reached the ears of the Homeric bards on the shores of Hellas. At the time of Herodotus and Xenophon, however, the 5 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA Aramaean wave had long spent its force and the western Aramaean states had crumbled, so that we learn nothing of value for our purpose from their pages. If Josephus (Ant. VII, 5, 2) cites for the history of Aram the works of Nicolaus of Damascus, the contents of the quotation cannot impress us, for they offer merely misunderstandings spun out of the biblical traditions.' Only for the reconstruction of ancient geography ^ can we gain infor- mation of value from Greek and Latin authors, and perhaps also for our knowledge of the Aramaean religion,' though the task here becomes extremely difficult in view of the syncretism prevalent in Syria in such matters since early days. These then are the materials out of which the workman with keen chisel must carve the history of the Aramaean neighbors of Israel. ' Cf. Schrader's Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung, 78, 379 f . ^ Cf . especially the great work of Carl Ritter, Erdkunde, Vols. XV and XVII. The resiilts of modern travel and of classical geography are presented in the invaluable maps of Syria and Mesopotamia by Richard Kiepert, appended to von Oppenheim's, Vom Mittelmeer zum Persischen Golf, 2 vols., 1899-1900. * Lucian's De Dea Syria dealing with the worship of Atargatis at Hierapolis, the ancient Aramaean Nappigu, is the most noteworthy classical contribution. CHAPTER I THE GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND In order to understand properly the history of any people, it is first necessary to portray the setting upon which it transpired. For by the physiography of the land, its position in respect to other portions of the earth's surface, its natural barriers and features, the destiny of its inhabitants is largely controlled. The scene of Aramaean history, so far as it is the object of the present study, is laid chiefly in Syria and in the great river country east of it, in Mesopotamia. These two regions in reality form a unit, for the Euphrates, which is supposed to mark their boundary, cannot be regarded as a barrier of importance. In reality Syria extends as far east as Nisibis and the valley of the JJabur, and "Mesopotamia" should be applied only to that part of the Gezireh between the JJabur and Babylonia (G A § 332). Thus from the viewpoint of the geographer the northern border of "Greater Syria" should be drawn over the Tur 'Abdin and Karagah Dagh to Samosata and Mar'ash. For practical reasons, however, we shall do well to abide by the traditional terminology and to deal with western Mesopotamia as distinct from Syria. Two streams, both tributary to the Euphrates, divide western Mesopotamia vertically. From the highlands on both sides of the Nimrud Dagh near Edessa the Ballh originates and flows down to meet the great river near Raqqa. The original capital of the Ballh valley is Harran whose importance, however, was later overshadowed by Urhai (Edessa) from which this district received the name Osroene. Further east a larger stream, the iJabur, descends from the Karagah Dagh and Tur 'Abdin and merges into the Euphrates near ed-Der. Along its course nu- 7 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA merous important cities flourished, in the north notably Mardin and Nisibis. Syria west of the Euphrates was for ages known as AmurrA. Originally this term pertained only to a powerful state whose center was in the Lebanon district. This is attested to by the fact that the region at the passes of the Amanus is called Sam'al or "north," while Yamin or "south" (later Yemen) clings to the district south of Palestine. (K A T 18) Such a terminology can only have arisen when the center of gravity, politically speaking, was midway between Gaza and the Cilician Gate, i.e., in central Syria. The Akkadians however called the entire west-land Amurrd as pars pro toto, although traces of the older usage are by no means infrequent. A glance at the map reveals the imique position held by Syria as the bridge between Eurasia and Africa. The arid and in- hospitable nature of Arabia forces all those who would travel from one continent to the other to traverse this narrow strip of land along the Mediterranean coast. Moreover, the existence of advanced civilizations on the Nile and Euphrates, each with commodities desirable for the other, created an impetus for traffic. Over the great caravan road from Egypt to Gaza, Megiddo, Damascus and Aleppo, and thence to Mesopotamia or to Asia Minor rolled much of the wealth of the ancient world. A nation situated on such a great thoroughfare should be a world power. This was indeed realized in very early days by the state of Amurrtj, which together with Elam, Subartu and Akkad made up the four points of the compass, as being the most important states in their quarter (B A VI 17). But with the rise of imperialism in Egypt and in Mesopotamia the power of the Syrian empire was doomed. For its borders lay open towards both of its great neighbors. And the billows of migrating peoples that descended from Asia Minor and Armenia, and issued out of Arabia were destined to strike Syria with irresistible impact. The natural features of the land predestined it to the fate of producing a number of small rival states. For it divides into THE GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND three latitudinal zones. Each of these is marked by rivers. The southern zone is watered by the Jordan, which rises from the foot- hills of Mt. Harmon and flows south into the Dead Sea. Within this region the Philistaean plain and the hill country of Judah and of Ephraim are the main features. The central zone is marked by the Orontes, which flows north between the Lebanon and Antilebanon and around the Bargylus in a large loop to the Medi- terranean. Between these two zones hes the Biqd\ a fertile plain between the Lebanon and Antilebanon, forming the "Coele" or "belly" of Syria. The coastal plain of central Syria is narrow and intermittent, and isolated from the rest of the land by the steep walls of the Lebanon; protected situation and splendid harbors have made this strip a distinct country, Phoenicia. The northern zone is marked by the twin rivers, Afrin and Kara- Su. The Amanus mountains and the highlands east to 'Aintab form the watershed from which these latter streams flow south to the lake of Antioch and thence with the Orontes to the sea. (E K XV' 20) It is immediately apparent that the southern sector will lie chiefly within the sphere of Egypt's influence, while the northern sector will be controlled by the cultural forces of Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Only in the central portion of the land will an independent life be at all possible. Coelesyria, the biblical Aram, it indeed seems, has been espe- cially favored by nature to fulfill a historical though hmited task. Its heart is the Marsyas plain (il Biqd'), a beautiful garden spot watered by the Littoy river, and protected on all sides by the ramparts of great mountains. Through it leads the main caravan road of Syria. But there is also a second highway, which in a large loop circumvents the Biqa' and passes through Damascus, an oasis on the edge of the desert. Whether the Biq^' or Damascus becomes the center of a possible kingdom, a conflict with their southerly neighbor is inevitable. For the first goal of a ris- ing nation must be to gain an open road to the sea, and this road nature marked out through northern Palestine to Akko. (G V J II 323). To safeguard the kingdom the region of Gilead THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA must also be annexed, since it forms a dangerous salient on the left flank. The struggle between Aram and Israel is therefore a logical necessity. As for the remainder of the land, our superficial survey of its topography gives us an indication of where states of any size might spring up. In the south the districts of Idumaea, Judaea and Ephraim as well as the Shephelah plains furnish opportunity for principalities to crystallize. In the central portion, the Lebanon district, just described, and the Bargylus district from the Tripolis to the Laodicea highways are apparent foci. At the dividing line of the central and the northern sector the lake of Antioch with the fertile 'Amq will see the rise of a power con- trolling the road to the gulf of Alexandrette, as well as the moun- tain district between the Orontes and the way to Laodicea. Above this the plain at the headwaters of the Kara-Su east of the im- portant Amanus passes will be a center for the Amanus region. On the eastern side of the northern sector there will be a few petty principalities in the sphere of the Chains and Sagiir rivers. On the Euphrates river the point where navigation begins, near Gerabis, and the great caravan-crossing at the mouth of the Sagur are likely to be the centers of strong political units which will share the control of the western Osroene with Harran. The history of the Aramaeans, in these regions chiefly, will be followed in the subsequent chapters. The principalities outside of this sphere inhabited by Aramaeans will only be touched on in passing. We are not writing a history of the Aramaean race. We are merely giving an account of the fate of the Aramaeans, so far as it is entwined with the destiny of the "chosen people." 10 CHAPTER II THE ARAMAEAN MIGRATION From the vast, little explored land of Arabia have come the various migrations of Semitic peoples by which the more fertile regions to the north and west have been overrun in different epochs. All attempts at locating the Semitic cradle in Armenia fail because of the presence there of Turanian races in extremely early days; for the original habitat of Semite and Turanian must have lain far apart. The ultimate home of the Semites may have been in AbessjTiia or elsewhere; but most certainly Arabia was an important center for the race and the starting point of its migrations so far as they lie in the clear light of history. The earUest Semitic migration is the Akkadian (Semitic- Babylonian), which began in the fourth or fifth millennium B.C. The Akkadian language stands apart from the other Semitic languages, which have less in common with it than with each other, so that it was the first to branch out from the common tree. The Akkadian migration is shrouded in the mists of the past. When history begins we see the Akkadians building their state in northern Irak and battling with the Sumerians in the south. Soon after, in the third millennium B.C., the Gezireh must have been overrun by Hittite peoples from Asia Minor, for the oldest known rulers of Nineveh, who reigned before the first djTiasty of Babylon, Aushpia and Kikia, are of this Turanian stock (B A VII 6, 8). Furthermore, we find opposite the gabur's mouth a city of Tirqa, the name of which immediately reminds of the Hittite deity Tarqu, and a state called gana, which has its counterpart in the JJani, Yal)an and ganigalbat in northern Syria and Armenia, so that we are tempted to see in it a deposit of the Hittite migration that came from these quarters. Indeed 11 _ THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA "IJatti" appears to be only a feminine form of "Qana" (D P 170). The names of the cities Zakku-Isharlim and Zakku-Igitlim, ap- pearing in one of the JJana Tablets/ also seem to be Hittite (G G 50), and the same is true of the deity Idurmer^ that occurs in an oath formula alongside of Shamash and Dagan. Below IJana on the Euphrates lay the regions of Sujju ' and Mari.* Perhaps we may find here also a slight trace of the Hittite invasion in the name of the god Yabliya mentioned in an Old Babylonian letter dealing with happenings in this region.^ Upon the heels of this Hittite movement must have come the Amorite migration. The original home of this people was South Arabia, for its religious concepts and expressions as evidenced by the personal names are startlingly similar to those of the later Minaeans and Sabaeans (AHT83f.). They first invaded Syria and established there the great state of AmurrH even before the Akkadians completely gained control of Babylonia. It may be assumed that the Amorites came from the Higaz, for the old highway of the gold and frankinscense merchants traversed this region of the Red Sea coast. In the country east of the Jordan, ' Cf. P S B A '07: 180. Since Tell 'Ishar between ed-Der and Salehiye seems to be the place where these tablets were found, the Tell must cover the remains of the city of Tirqa, the capital of Hana. The latter name has also survived in the modern 'Ana (Anatho) further down the river. 2 Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions, '16: 3, however, would make this deity Amoritish, a variant of Amar. ' A most interesting inscription from this region, belonging, however, to a much later period, is that of Shamash-resh-usur, governor of Suhi and Marl (Weissbach, Babylonische Miszellen, '03, p. 9 ff.). It recounts an attack by hostile neighbors, the Aramaean Tu'mdnu, who are partly killed, partly sub- jugated; then it describes the restoration of the canal of Su^i and a boat-ride upon the same. After this it tells of the planting of date palms and the erec- tion of the throne in Ribanish, and finally of the building of the city Gabbari- banl. Other cities mentioned are Harze, YSbi, Railu, Kar-Nabu Yaduru and XJkulai. — Su^^uisprobably theShuachof Gen. 25:2. Cf. Job2: 11, 8: 1,25: 1, 42: 9. Cf. also DeUtzsch, Hiob, '02, p. 139. ' Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions, p. 4, identifies Mari with the Merra of Isidore of Charax, which must be sought at El Irzi. 'Ungnad, Babylonische Briefe aus der Hammurapizeit, '13, no. 238; also M VAG'01:144. THE ARAMAEAN MIGRATION place names like Mefa'at, Sebam, Dibon, Yashimoth, Ma'on, which occur also in the South Arabian regions of Hadramaut, Saba and Ma'in, show the path taken by the Amorites.' From Syria they gradually moved westward down the Euphrates. Especially the regions of gana, Sujiu and Mari were centers of Amorite life and religion, notably of the Dagan cult. From these regions the attacks of the Amorites must have been laimched against Babylonia. Thus Ishbi-Urra, founder of the Isin Dynasty, is called "Man of Mari." The kings of the first dynasty of Babylon from Sumu-abu to Samsuditana are all Amorites, as their names reveal. The greatest of them was Hammurapi" who even called himself king of Amurrfl. Wherever these Amo- rites went they took with them their summus deus Amar, from whom they proudly derive their name, and other gods of their pantheon. (Clay 95 f) They even founded a city of Amurrd near Sippar and in this locality were very numerous.' The third great Semitic migration, the Aramaean, must have started from the highland region of the Negd in inner Arabia. From this fertile district three highways run in northeasterly direction. Two of these, the Wadi er-Rumma and the parallel, more southerly ed-Daw4sir, lead directly to Chaldaea; the former issues near the mouth of the great river, the latter opposite the island of Dilmtm (Bahrein). A third road, the Wadi Sirhan (originating in the Hauran), led in antiquity from the Gof, an oasis north of the Negd, to the vicinity of Basra (A A 331). Any Semitic migration from Arabia into the Euphrates valley must come by these three roads. In consequence, the Aramaeans ought first to appear in Chaldaea. Now it is known that even before the Amorites from the west conquered Babylonia, there existed in the Chaldaean plains a population of nomadic Semites with whom the Sumero- A kkadians ' Cf. Grimme, Mohammed, p. 14 f. ' In the IJama texts the name of this king is written Hammurapi^. This leads me to conclud e that the correct etymology is " ' Amm (the moongod) is exalted," Vrafa'a. ' Cf. Ranke, Personal Names of the Hammurabi Dynasty, 'OS, 34. 13 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA came into contact.' Hommel has shown from a large number of Arabic loan words and formations in the Akkadian language that these Chaldaean Semites were already present in very early days and has claimed that the later Aramaeans were their descendants. (G G 130 f.) Especially the vicinity of Erech seems to have been infested by these Semitic tribes. Thus we know of a Sheikh Anam of the hordes of Erech, son of Bel-shimea, named alongside of the king Sin-Gamil, who restored the wall of Erech.^ With this we must also combine the expression Uruk-supuri, "Erech of the sheepfolds," in the Gilgamesh-Epic (G G 361) and the tradi- tion which makes Nimrod the Cushite (from South Arabia?) builder of Erech (Gen. 10 :10). Furthermore we learn from the Urra myth of a people called the Suti ' who bear some connection with the licentious cult of Ishtar at Erech (col. II 8). A still earlier reference, however, to these Suti occurs in a letter from the time of Hammurapi.* In this letter a trader, who has been imprisoned for embezzlement and who had been sent by his employer across the Euphrates with a shipment of oil, gives assurance of his innocence and places the blame upon the Suti who have attacked and robbed him. These Suti are therefore present in Shumer already in the days of the first dynasty. Indeed we may possibly trace them back to the time of the Dynasty of Ur, for Arad-Nannar of Lagash calls himself "ruler of the Su people." ^ From Shumer they migrated westward in the succeed- ing centuries, for the Amarna letters (ca. 1400 b.c.) show us the Suti present in Syria and opposite Mesopotamia. Thus the Assyrian king Ashur-ubaUit writes (Kn.no. 16:38f.) that the Suti have pursued and held up the messengers of the Egyptian monarch, but that he had rescued them. They are mentioned by Rib- Addi of Gebal in connection with warlike operations and occur even in the letters of Yitia of Ashkelon and Zimridi of Lachish ' Grimme, I.e., p. 5. ' Thureau-Dangin, Konigsinschriften, p. 223. " The Suti are called sab §eri, "warriors of the plains," IV R 44, 1, 20. ' C T II pi. 19; cf. Ungnad, Briefe aus der Zeit Hammurapis, no 154. ' Cf. Thureau-Dangin, Konigsinschriften, '07, 149. 14 THE ARAMAEAN MIGRATION (cf. Kn. 45, 1038). A little later the Cassite Kadashman-ljarbe tried to safeguard the road to Amurrd by digging wells and sub- jecting the Suti (AOF I 147). Another part of this people moved northward towards Bagdad rather than to Syria, and maintained themselves there imtil quite late, giving their name to the Sittacene of classical geography (K A T 22). From these indications we may conclude that the Suti originally tented in the desert from Erech to Babylon, — in other words, they belonged to the early Chaldaeans. It is impossible in consequence to reckon them to the Amorite group, since they must have come from the Wadi er-Rumma and the Wadi Sirhan into Chaldaea. We must rather count them among the vanguard of the Aramaeans.' The wor- ship of the deity Amurru, accredited to them in later times in an Assyrian god-list, they may have adopted in early days from the Amorites. Originally they must have been worshipers of Athtar, then of the Akkadian Ishtar. In the O. T. the westward trend of the Suti may be reflected in the account of Terah's migration from Ur Kasdlm.^ Abraham is not specifically called an Aramaean, though ethnically he be- longs to this group. The same we have foimd to be true of the Suti. The O. T. narrator would perhaps reckon Terah's family to the Chaldaeans. By this latter term the Aramaean inhabitants of the lower Euphrates, the Kaldi, were designated from the ninth century b.c. on. The Hebrew term Kasdim must have passed ^ Troublesome is the problem of the relation of the Suti to the Guti. They appear often side by side in the inscriptions, and seem to be meant by the biblical Koa and Shoa (D P 225 ff.). The term Guti does not refer exclusively to the non-Semitic people of the northern mountains. Thus the Guti who plundered Sippar according to the inscription of Nabonidus (Const. IV 21) are the Aramaeans whom Erba Marduk repelled from Babylonia in the eighth century (Z A XXIII 218). And the bibhcal use of Koa must also have such nomadic Aramaeans in view (Ezech. 23 : 23) . We should therefore define the Guti as the partly Aramaean, originally perhaps purely Alarodian nomads east of the Tigris, and the Suti as the Semitic nomads west of the Tigris. 2 This Ur can only refer to the great city of early Sumerian culture. It is unnecessary to suppose an Ur in Mesopotamia or to have recourse to the Amurru ( = Uru) near Sippar (Clay 190), which was an Amorite center and not an Aramaean. 15 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA over into Palestinian tradition before this time, since it represents an older stage of the name (AHT 210). Kasdim seems to be de- rived from the Babylonian "kishadu" or "shore." (GG 245) The form Kasdiylm used by Ezechiel (23 : 14) is the most exact and must be the equivalent of * Kishadaeans or people from the shore of the Euphrates (or the sea). As we shall yet learn (Ch. IV), the name "Hebrew" attributed to Abraham is virtually synony- mous in meaning. That the Aramaeans came from Chaldaea is the view also of Amos 9:7, "Have I not brought Israel out of Egypt, and the Philistine from Kaphtor and the Aramaeans from Qir? " Where is Qir? We are led by Is. 22 : 6, where it is brought into relation with Elam, to seek it in southern Babylonia.' If we dare place any rehance on 2 Kings 16: 9, which, it seems to me, is an intentional reference to Amos 1:5, we can recall the fact that Tiglathpileser actually did deport captives to the region of the lower Tigris (ATU 104, 178). Hommel was led to find Qir in Gir-su (GG 189), but whether the two elements of this name can be separated in this fashion remains problematic. It seems however, that Haupt has shown the way to the right solution of this question.'' He points out that the modern name of TJr, "Muqayyar," means "asphalted or built with asphalt." The word Qir in Arabic means "pitch." In Hebrew, Qir means wall or city, but originally must have signified "built with asphalt." Now the Sumerian word for city is URU, which also means "foundation." Haupt therefore holds that Qir is a synon5Tn of URU and may have been a by-name of Ur used perhaps by the Beduin of the region.' If this be true, as seems plausible, then the tradition of Amos vindicates Genesis 11:31. ' As A T V 178 proves, the text must be amended "Elam raises the quiver and Aram mounts the horse and Qir bares the shield." The preceding verse must be amended with Haupt (cf . note 13) into " Koa and Shoa batter against the mountain." 2 In a paper entitled "Ur of the Chaldees" in the J B L Vol. XXXVI, p. 99. Professor Haupt very kindly allowed me to see his manuscript. ' Haupt cites as example of translation of names el Leggun (legio) for Me- giddo, "place of troops." Nineveh had the by-name Mespila (Xenophon, Anab., 3, 4, 7), which Haupt equates with mushpjlu, "place of limestone." 16 THE ARAMAEAN MIGRATION The migration of Terah from Ur of the Chaldees to Harran. must then be a reminiscence of a great movement of the Suti from Chaldaea up the Euphrates. This movement can only have begun after the Amorite migration was consummated. It was due no doubt to the constant pressure of additional Aramaean hordes coming from the Negd against Ur and Erech. In the ninth century we learn of a great many Aramaean tribes in Babylonia,' among whom are numbered especially the Puqudu (Pekod, Ezech. 23:23),.Rapiqu, Damunu, Gambulu, and Tu'm&nu (SA Iff.). Some of these groups may have infested Chaldaea at the time when the Suti were forced to emigrate, though the more immediate group seems to have been that of the Ahlame. The westerly migration of these Aramaean tribes was facihtated by a great catastrophe which befell the Amorite realm. The first djmasty of Babylon was overthrown ca. 1760 by a terrible onset of the Hittites (G A §454); for a chronicle informs us that in the days of Samsu-ditana the Hittites invaded the land of Akkad. It may be that the Hyksos invasion which befell Egypt is an organic part of the same general Hittite movement. The attack against Babylon was launched from the district of 3ana on the Euphrates; for about 1600 b.c. Agum-kakrime records that he brought back the statues of Marduk and Sarpanit from the far land of gana, whither they had apparently been carried in Samsu-ditana's time. This Hittite invasion must have destroyed the Amorite life in 3ana as well as in Suhu and Mari. Over Babylonia the Hittites seem to have gained no power of any duration, perhaps because of the Cassite invasion which simultaneously was poxuing in from the north. And now the Aramaean movement, beginning with full vigor, swept on up the Euphrates, overcame the Hittites, overran Sufeu and tJana, and ' When they entered this region we do not know. G G 189 would find the Damunu and Puqudu present aheady in the days of Hammurapi because of the canal name Palag-Damantmi and the city Pikuddnu near Sirgulla. 17 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA foot of the Bishri mountains, i.e., Tell Bashar (P S B A 11:175), he captured six cities. On the left bank of the Sagur he placed an Assyrian garrison in Pituru, which is probably identical with Tell Ghanim below Gerabis, and a second on the left bank of the Euphrates in Mutkinu, which must then be the modern Tell Hal&o (I.e., p. 177). These were intended as frontier posts against the Ah- lame. He evidently calls the Ahlame opposite the mouth of the Balih Aramaeans because he recognizes their relationship to the people of the Kashiar and knows that they belong to one and the same racial group, for this Kashiar region is called in the "Broken Obelisk'" (AKA 128 ff.) mat Arimi, "land of Aramaeans," where the cities of Shasiri, Pauza,^ Nabula, Shinamu and JJulza are mentioned. But Shupria, with the city of Murarir, east of Diarbekr, is also called an Aramaean land. Similarly Magrisi in the mountain of lari at the great forks of the tJabiir, as well as Dur-katlime on the lower Qabtir (cf. Chapt. VII) are described as being in the land of the Aramaeans.' On the other hand, the monolith of Ashurnazirpal from Kurkh (Rev. 47 A K A 240) calls the Aramaeans of Bit-Zamani, in the Kashiar, Aljlame. We see therefore that by 1100 b.c. the cities along the IJabur and Balih, the right bank of the Euphrates from Suhu to Carchemish, and the region of the Tur 'Abdin are explicitly described as settled by Aramaeans. The country west of Harran must also have received an influx of Aramaean population at this time. Oddly enough, the Assyrian records preserve absolute silence about this region. We may safely say, then, that during the thirteenth century all of Mesopotamia was overrun by Aramaeans, and with the excep- tion of a few Hittite-Mitanni enclaves, like Carchemish, it as- sumed Aramaean character. About this time the expression Aram ' In this inscription a successor of Tiglathpileaer tells of the deeds of his great ancestor, as King and Budge have shown. " The Uphaz of Dan 10: 5 ? ' At the time of Tiglathpileser IV the lower Tigris region near the gulf is called Land of Arumu. Cf. S A 115 f. (Surappu-Uknii). These people can only have come from theNegd. The name "Aramaeans" is given to them by the Assyrian in recognition of their aflSnity to the more westerly people of the Kashiar and Syria. 20 THE ARAMAEAN MIGRATION Naharaim may have originated (Gen. 24:10). It is a modifica- tion of the Egyptian Naharin, and the Naferima of the Amarna days. In the Egyptian usage the term seems to include a consid- erable portion of Syria about as far south as Hamath. Miiller held the name to be an abbreviation for "land of rivers," refer- ring to the numerous streams that water it, Euphrates, Tigris, Ballh, gabur. (MAE 249 f.) When the Aramaeans came into possession of this region it could well be called the "river- Aram" in contrast to the other Aramaean seats. Meyer (G A I, 2 §§ 334, 463) interprets Naharaim as a locative of the singular "Aram on the Euphrates" and refers it to the region of the Osroene with Harran. The form Nahrima, or N^rima in the Amarna letters. supports this second view. Similar to this is the interpretation of Haupt (ZDMG 63:527) who translates "Euphrates- Aramaeans," holding that "Aram" only means the people and never a region^ The expression Aram Naharaim probably disappeared after the ninth century when the Assyrians virtually wiped out th& Aramaeans of this region. It belongs to the formative time of Aramaean principalities, as the analogy of Aram Zobah, Aram Beth Rehob reveals. The origin of the name Aramaeans is shrouded in obscurity.* The earliest occurrences of it show that it is not the name of a re- gion but of a people. The people is called Arimi, Aramu, Arumu; the second form is the most frequent and doubtless the original one, since the others represent merely vowel harmonization to the ending (Z A 27:283). Whether the mountain of Aruma men- tioned by Tiglathpileser I (col. Ill 77), or the mountain city of Arma, of which Shalmaneser I (M KA no. 14 col. II 6f.) says that he gathered its dust and poured it out in the gate of his city of Ashur as witness for the days to come, or the citadel of Arman at the headwaters of the Diy^la, or the god Armannu of the Rapiqu 'The theory of Haupt that Aramu comes from an'amun, "creatures" (Z D M G 61: 194), I regard as unlikely. Not so impossible is the idea of Streck, Kho VI, that the name may go back to a divine appellation. Aram might then be regarded as an anagram of Amar. Cf. the fact that the Suti worshiped the god Amurru. 21 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA tribe near Bagdad (G G 190) have aught to do with this name cannot be decided with the means at our disposal. The word "Aramu" has been interpreted as meaning "high- landers" from the Negd.' But we have seen that this people did not bear this name until they had settled in the Tur 'Abdin region. Consequently we must prefer to call them "highlanders" of the upper Tigris and Euphrates. Since they had constant contact in that region with the Hittites, and since the latter at the time held dominion over Sjrria, it is possible that the name "Aramaeans" was transmitted southward through their agency. Hence we find those groups of the Ayame which penetrated Syria after the Hittite debacle called by this appellation. Perhaps also the alternative translation of Aramu as "the exalted ones" was foremost in the consciousness of the Ahlame when they gave up their more ancient name ia favor of the new. '■ Grimme, Mohammed, '04: 15. CHAPTER III THE ARAMAEANS OF HARRAN If Ur of the Chaldees is viewed by the Old Testament as the first station in the great advance of the Aramaeans, then Harran must be assigned the second place in importance. And indeed this harmonizes excellently with the clues that the inscriptions furnish; for, as we have seen, the advancing Aramaeans swerved from the Euphrates and followed its tributaries, the gabur and the Ball^. This was due no doubt to the presence of the Mitanni state west of the Balih, which formed for a time a bulwark against further Aramaean invasion of this region. And, since the city of Harran was one of the most important cities of Mesopotamia, situated on a great trade route, it is but natural that it should be regarded from now on as a great Aramaean center from which the further northward and westward advance of this race radiated. To the Harran district the Old Testament expression Paddan Aram clings. (Gen. 28:2, etc.) The term is by no means identical with Aram Naharaim, which is a larger geographical concept. The inscriptions furnish us with a land of Padan or Padin. Thus the Cassite king Agum-kakrime (ca. 1650) styles himself "king of Padan and Alman (=Arman?), king of the land of Guti." In this Padan ^ and Arman, Hommel sought to discover our Paddan Aram; according to him the name was carried by a Tigris migra- tion of Aramaeans originally from Gir-su (which he interprets "road of the nomads" and of which he supposes Paddan Aram to be a translation) to the upper course of the Diyala and then even- tually to Harran (G G 190). But it seems unlikely that the Tigris migration was able to pass the Assjrrian state in this angle; on 1 A rab ali or "city chief" of Paddnu is referred to in Rm 54, and in K 7376 Padanu is associated with the Ituai Aramaeans, A D D III 421. 23 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA the contrary, the mountain of Arman must be about the northern- most point reached by the Aramaean tribes of the Bagdad region. The Aramaeans of Harran must rather have crossed the Euphrates from the south, as we have supposed. The more commonly ac- cepted view correlates Paddan Aram with the "field of Aram" (Hosea, 12 : 13), for in Aramaic and Arabic Paddan or Feddan means a yoke of oxen and then metaphorically the area that a yoke of oxen can plow in a day (D P 135). But Hosea's "field of Aram" has a much wider meaning than this and, furthermore, in Hosea's day Paddan Aram can no longer have existed owing to the ex- pulsion of the Aramaeans from Mesopotamia by the Assyrians. More plausible is the view of Zimmem (cf . Gesenius-Buhl Buhl'^) that Paddan is an older equivalent or a by-name of Harran, for padanu in Assyrian means "road" and is a synonjon of harranu. It seems to me, however, that Paddan Aram refers to a distinct city of Paddan, which is Aramaean in contrast to the eastern Padan. It is an example of how the priestly writing occasionally preserves very ancient material; for, while the other documents speak of Harran only, in the sense of the district belonging to the great capital of the Balih, this tradition preserves the exact name of the town. And just S.W. of Harran there is a Tell Feddan in which, as Lagarde divined, our Paddan is preserved. Possibly a divergent tradition is contained in Gen. 24: 10, "city of Nahor," which must be identical with the ancient Til-Nahiri, lying proba- bly a little to the west of Tell Feddan. Tiglathpileser I does not seem to have had the Harran region imder very firm control. True, he boasts (VI 61 f.) that he not only killed four monstrous wild bulls in the desert in the country of Mitani near the city of Araziqi (the classical Eragiza on the left bank of the Euphrates, shghtly south of the latitude of Aleppo, Sachau 133 f.), which is over against the land of Hatti, but also that he killed ten mighty elephants in the country of Harran and in the district of the JJabur. But the "Broken Obelisk" relates (col. Ill 19) that he once made a raid from the land of Mahirdni to the city of Shuppa, which is in the land of Harran. THE ARAMAEANS OF HARRAN Concerning the Harran Aramaeans we have received much enlightenment through an Assyrian census dealing with this district. It lists in detail the facts about each farm in a given district. It names the pater familias, and usually his sons, while the women are merely enumerated. The occupations of the various members of the household are tabulated and the condition of the holding in regard to area, cultivation and live-stock stated. The vineyards are described by the number of vines, roimdly estimated, the herds according to hoof. Buildings, cisterns and ponds are likewise entered, and the name of the holding with its situation appended (H C 6f.). Since the inhabitants to a large percentage bear Aramaic names, this picture of their life must interest us. True, the census is from the seventh century and so objection might be raised to our making use of it in describing a period hundreds of years older. But the fact that the Aramaeans were never disturbed in Harran after the time of Tiglathpileser I as in regions further west, for the simple reason that they never rebelled against Ass3Tia, leads us to believe that the conditions of later days correspond fairly to those of the patriarchal period. In the principahty of Harran are mentioned a number of smaller governmental units, called "qani" (H C 10). These are crystal- lized about places of importance and comprise a number of towns or suburbs. Thus the cities Harran, Dur-Nabd, TinunI, Tilabnt, and Qaurina stand at the head of such "qani." That of Harran included the towns Atnu, Badini, lanata, Saidi and Qdnstiri, and the villages {al she) Arrizu and Kapparu. Several other cities were important enough to have dependent towns but were not seats of a qani. Thus Balihi has the towns Aanata, Bir-nari and 3amu§aen belonging to it. Similarly gasame has Gaduatd, Sarugi has JJanani, and the village LaJiSili, Pidua has the village Akaru. Other cities mentioned in the census are Gadisd, Dimmeti, Qadatti, IJaluli, Halsu, tJamede, JJumu, Immirlna, Nampigi, Dihnunna, Rimusi, Tasume, Tillini, Til-Nahiri.' ' The identification of some of these places is difficult as we have no clues. Of some we shall hear again elsewhere. Ddr-Nabu maybe the DAr north of 25 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA The personal names of the Aramaeans of Harran naturally are of absorbing interest;' for Oriental nomenclature is a mirror of the religious conceptions of the people, often, it is true, of a stage long outgrown, as in so many Old Testament names. For our purposes here this is especially valuable. In the names of the Harran district we find divinities not met with elsewhere, or if so, then under a sUghtly different guise. Very many names are compounded with a god Si', whom we meet also in the Palmyrene inscriptions and who is doubtless identical with Sin (H C 13). Thus we have Si'-dillni, " S. hath set me free"; Si'-idri, "S. is my help"; Si'-aqabi, "S. is my reward"; Si'-manani, " S. hath ooimted me"; Si'-zabadi, "S. hath endowed." A further common divinity is Nashhu, the Nusku of the Assyrians (H C 12) ; we find him in Nashl)u-dimri, "N. is my protection"; Nashhu-gabri, "N. is my hero " ; Nashhu-sagab, "N. is exalted"; Nashhu-sama'ani,"N. hath heard me"; Nashjiu-qatari, "N. is my rock." The only other instance of the form Nashhu is found on a contract (C I S II t. 1, 35), where we have Nash^u-aili, "N. is my strength," a sukallu or "overseer" of Niribi^ about 645 b.c. (H C 12, 33). The god Adad is found in names like Adad-hutni, "A. is my protection." The god Ai ( Aa, la) , the great lunar deity of the Arabians (G G 95) , is found in la-abb^, "Ai is the father"; lamaniai, "Ai is my right hand," Aa-hali, "Ai is my uncle"; Ziri-ia, "My seed is Ai." Very peculiar is the occurrence of AI or Alia instead of the Assyrian ilu, "God"; thus we find AUa-sharru (malik?), "God is King"; AI Nashlju-milki, "The god N. is my counsel." A further divinity is JJan, doubtless identical with the ancient deity of the Hittites, who has survived here from Mitanni days: gdn-dada, "H. is the Harran at the site of the present Anaz (cf. Pognon, Inscriptions s^mitiques, '08; 242 f.). JJamede is doubtless Amid; Nampigi ■ Nappigu (Hierapolis); Jaurina may be the Horrin south of Mardiu (Sachau 400) or else Haura be- tween Raqqa and BaUs (H C 49, 10). ' On the west-Semitic personal names cf . Hilprecht, Babylonian Expedition Series, A, vol. IX, p. 20 f., and especially A H T 75 f . ' The N^rab near Aleppo, whence two old Aramaic inscriptions have come to us. 26 THE ARAMAEANS OF HARRAN beloved"; Blr-btou, "Offspring of S^n." Unique are the gods Sh6r and T6r. Thus we have the names Shfir-ilai, "Shdr is the god Ai" (G G 95), and T^r-nadin-apli (of which the last two elements are Assyrian), " Tgr hath given a son." T^r is perhaps an Arabian deity and appears in the name of Abiate's father T6ri in the Annals of Ashurbanipal (col. VIII 31), while Sh^r may be identical with Sherua, the consort of Ashur (H C 18, 82). The goddess At6, a Hittite deity, is found in At^-idri, "Ate is my help." The Arabian and Aramaean Atar ( = Ishtar) appears in Atar- idri, "A. is my help"; Atar-bi'-di, "A. is my (curse-)remover." These two divinities were later merged into one, Atargatis, whose cult had its famous seat at Hierapolis (our Nampigi, Nappigu) . The life revealed by the Harran Census is chiefly agricultural (H C 19). Each cornland holding is described by "homers" of land, as is the case also in the Qana Tablets. The average holding had an area of 20-24 homers. Usually less than half of the area is mentioned as arshu, " cultivated " ; the remaining doubt- less was lying fallow. Each holding has one or more houses and an adru or "enclosure" (bam?). Sometimes a vineyard is at- tached to the holding, but occassionally it appears independently. , The number of vines in the vineyards ranges from 2000 to 29,000. The account of the live stock shows that the pastoral stage no longer existed. Sheep herds count from 30 to 188 head, and only one goat herd of 58 head is mentioned. Of cattle the ratio is about one head to every ten homers of cultivated land. Isolated mention of the ass, the camel and the horse also occurs. The farms were hereditary holdings, and generally the previous owner is named along with the present. Women, too, could be holders, as a number of instances prove. The families are often remarkably small; the average of persons in one family is five. The monog- amous system seems to have been the most common; in fifteen homes there are two wives and in six there are three. And here childlessness of the first wife may have been the cause for the departure from the rule. Thus, for instance, in four families with two wives there is no offspring at all. 27 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA No doubt the lateness of the period from which our census dates must be strictly borne in mind in drawing conclusions about earlier days. The conditions of agricultural Hfe reflected here were not those existing among the nomadic Ahlame; an adapta- tion to Assyrian customs and laws has taken place. True, the transition from beduin to fellah is often rapid, and the Aramaeans round Harran doubtless accepted the ordered conditions imme- diately. But antiquity can only be claimed for the names whose Arabian character is plain. Concerning the social conditions of the early Aramaeans of Harran we have a more ancient witness in Genesis 31, a chapter the value of which a little study will reveal. It is recorded there how the clan of Jacob,' abandoning the tribe of Laban, crossed the Euphrates and journeyed to Gilead. Jacob, in spite of his oppression by Laban, has grown rich and now seeks to secure his own camping grounds. But Laban with his "brothers" (vs. 23), i.e., clansmen, pursues Jacob and overtakes him at Gilead. The whole desert region from Gilead to the Euphrates is conceived of as Laban's territory. Jacob is accused by Laban of having stolen his divine images or teraphim. Jacob invites his accuser in the presence of "our clansmen" (vs. 32) to search the camp.^ When the search is ended Jacob says, "What hast thou found of all thy property? Set it before my clansmen and thine to decide between us both." The following un-Hebraic features should be noticed. In the first place the women claim the right of inheritance of their father's property (vss. 14-15) ; in the Mosaic code this was ' It is commonly supposed that the name Jacob is an abbreviation for Jacob-el (cf. G V J I 418). Hommel finds a fitting analogy in the name of a Chaldaean Sheikh Ya'qub^lu, which he interprets "God rewards" (G G 167). It may also be possible, however, to find the god Ya (Ai) in the first syllable of this name. We have just quoted the Harranian Si'-aqabi. The form Ya-aqabi would be equally possible. "Ya is the reward" or "Ya has re- warded" might then be the real meaning of "Jacob." ' As Procksch 351 shows, the incident in Gen. 31: 34 f. is intended to cast ridicule on Aramaean idolatry. What kind of a god is that who allows an unclean woman to sit on him! 28 THE ARAMAEANS OF HARRAN provided for only in extraordinary cases. Secondly, they claim that the wealth which Jacob has won is theirs and their children's, not his (vs. 16, they rebuff his claim in vs. 9). Un-Hebraic also is the character of vs. 33 f ., where each woman has her own tent and is thus relatively independent. Among the Palestinian Hebrews Sarah is in the tent of Abraham; the harem is separated by a curtain from the men's room. But an older stage in the history of marriage is reflected here (Procksch 200), the Sadika marriage,' where it lies within the woman's will to receive her husband's visit or not. Under this form of wedlock the man enters into the clan of the wife instead of the wife entering into the clan of the husband. That this conception really underlies our narrative is evidenced in vs. 43, where Laban, unable to answer the terrific arraignment of Jacob, boasts cruelly, "Mine are the daughters, mine the sons, mine the flocks, and all which thou seest is mine." He can do what he pleases with Jacob's family and possessions because he is the head of the family and his will is law; only out of goodness of heart does he yield to Jacob! But where in Israel has the father-in-law such authority? His control over his daughters ceases the moment the "mohar" or price is paid. We must hold, then, that the early Aramaeans of Mesopotamia brought with them their primitive Arabian marriage customs, but dropped them as soon as they settled in estabhshed com- munities where the patriarchal forms prescribed by Hammurapi's laws were the rule. Indeed, as has often been pointed out, the relation of Abraham to his wives follows the precepts of Ham- murapi. Abraham's family at Harran had therefore already adapted itself to these conditions. But Laban, who is more typical of the wandering AJilame of the Syrian desert, still rep- resents the truer Aramaic institutions brought along from Arabia. Of old Aramaean or Arabian religion this chapter reveals but little, unless we regard the teraphim, which was probably a mask • Cf. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 78. 29 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA for the face of the divine image and was worshiped as the giver of family welfare/ as strictly Aramaean. Oddly enough, it is mentioned only among the Hebrews and is never ascribed to the Canaanites; it is found, however, among the later Babylonians, who may have adopted it from the Aramaeans. (Ez. 21:26) 'Gressmann, tJrsprung der Isra^Iitisch-judischen Eschatologie, '05:345. CHAPTER IV THE INVASION OF PALESTINE The Old Testament narrates how divine providence calls Abram away from Harran into a land set apart for him and his seed forever. Historically this reflects the movement of a great stream of humanity, upon which the migration of Abram is but a single wave. Abram is called a Hebrew (Gen. 14: 13). The origin and mean- ing of this latter name has been much discussed. The traditional view that 'Eber is the "region beyond" the Euphrates, and Hebrew therefore "the one from beyond," is unsatisfactory. Attention has often been called to the Assyrian expression EbLr- nM, "region beyond the river," which became the oflB.cial desig- nation for the provinces west of the Euphrates from the time of Ashurbanipal on (S A 80). The Hebrew parallel, "Eberhannahar" (1 Kings 14:15), is not used in this fixed sense but merely means "land beyond the river," or perhaps still more simply "river country." This latter view is vindicated by the fact that Sargon (cf . Winckler 44 f.) translates the Edomite Ibr Naharan, which is in form identical with Eberhannahar, by Kibri-ndri, i.e., shoreland of the river (M V A G '98, 1, 55).' Furthermore 'Eber appears alongside of Ashur in Num. 24:24 as a similar concept, and if we interpret it as "shore-region" (of the Euphrates) we get an excellent sense. A similar meaning is directly offered by Isaiah 7:20, where the "shores of the river" Euphrates are referred ' G G 255 regards Ebirtan "beyond" as a synonym of kibir-nAri since the first part of the ideogram for the former word is Ki.A which ordinarily means Mbru. He also calls attention to a city of Ibri in the vicinity of Babylonia. 31 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA to as '"Ebrei hannahar." If we follow these clues we gain for "Hebrew" the sense "one from the shore of the Euphrates."' We must assume therefore that Abram migrated from Harran to Palestine before the name "Aramaean" became applied to the group to which he belonged. It is different with Jacob, who therefore belongs to a later stage. It seems pecuUar that the Abrahamic migration should seek southern Palestine instead of the more alluring region of Damascus or Hamath. The reason must be sought in the strength of the Amorite states in Coelesyria as well as in the Hittite advance. On the other hand, the weakness of Egyptian power in Palestine must have been such as to make an advance into that region especially alluring. The most suitable time for Abram's immi- gration was toward the end of the seventeenth century when the Egyptian power in Syria stood at zero owing to the internal troubles on account of the Hyksos (G V J I 90). Such a region as the Negeb, where Abram chiefly dwelt, was probably thinly populated and furnished an opportunity for strangers to settle. The next migration of importance is that of Jacob-Israel. Jacob's earhest seat was in Gilead, at Mizpeh. The pressure of other Aramaean tribes from the north caused him great difficulty. In the thirty-first chapter of Genesis, a document of great his- torical value, as we have had occasion to point out, we are told of a treaty between Jacob and Laban.^ In the later Leucosyrians we may have a remnant of the Laban tribe, for this name appears to be merely a translation of "Laban Aramaean" (Gen. 31:20; L Z '07:547). The coloring of the story is accurate, for we learn that a dolmen or cairn is erected, which Laban calls Yegar Sahdutha and Jacob, Ga'led. Dolmens, the megalithic monuments of the Indo-Europeans, are frequent in this region. What is more likely than that such a distinctive landmark of mysterious antiq- ' Similarly Guthe, Geschichte Israels, '14: 14. Another interpretation hav- ing plausibility is that of Spiegelberg, O L Z '07 : 618, according to whom Hebrews means "Wanderstamme" or nomadic tribes. ^ On the two versions of. Procksch, p. 177 ff., 345 ff . Variance in details is no bar to the historicity of the treaty. 32 THE INVASION OF PALESTINE uity should serve as a boundary? Nor is there the least ground for supposing that the Aramaic name given the cairn by Laban is a late invention. For we have an analogy in an Aramaean Fa(?;iro ("Hill") near the lake of Antioch (SB A'92,333). Another version relates that they erected a pillar (Ma?§ebah) and called it Mizpeh. The historian's purpose is no doubt to inform us that the town of Mizpeh in Gilead, which may have been near the famous dolmen, is the site where the treaty was concluded. The actual terms of the treaty show a distinct inferiority of Jacob. They provide that Jacob shall take no further wives besides Laban's daughters. As Procksch has seen, this refers to an agree- ment on intermarriage between the two tribes, but only on the condition that further legitimate marriages (with Amorite women perhaps) be excluded. Jacob, being inferior in strength, has to accept these terms. His tribe entered into the negotiations doubtless because it was dependent on the good will of its power- ful neighbors and also to insure a healthy growth for itself. With the related Esau tribes a similar agreement may have been reached as to the boundary. Jacob, however, did not stay in Gilead, but changed his pastur- age ajQid came to the region of Shechem west of the Jordan. We may surmise the reason if we recall the fact that about this time the Amorite states in central Syria were again attaining to power. Under the leadership of Kadesh on the Orontes, the Syrian king- doms presented a solid front against invasion and thus showed signs of great strength. The strong cities of the plain of Esdraelon seem to have belonged to the kingdom of Kadesh at that period. Seventeen campaigns against Syria are recorded by Thutmose III (from 1479 B.C. on). There is good reason indeed to believe that Kadesh at this time controlled Damascus and the Hauran; for the existence in the Mosaic age of Amorite kingdoms east of the Jordan — those of Og of Bashan and Sihon of Heshbon — evidences the Amorite power of expansion in the centuries previous. At any rate, the removal of Jacob and the cessation of all connection of the Hebrews with Aram hereafter seem to show that a power 33 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA arose at that time in the country of Gilead which was the cause of both of these peculiar facts. Jacob is called a "roving Aramaean" (Deut. 26:5). Because the Aramaeans migrated so much in those times, the name became almost synonymous with "Roamer." • This reminiscence con- cerning the origin of Jacob is all the more important since the Hebrews after him entirely lost their Aramaean character and became virtually Canaanites in language, custom and culture. It is remarkable that the memory of the old blood relationship and even details concerning the earliest common homes have survived. A century after Jacob's time we stand in the Amama age and learn of the great inroads of the SA.GAZ in Syria and of the IJabiri in Palestine. This age and its problems cannot be dealt with here. The question which alone concerns us is whether the gabiri have anything to do with the Aramaeans. As is now proven by the Boghaz-Ko'i Archives, the gabiri and SA.GAZ are identical (Bohl 87). The west-Semitic equivalent of SA.GAZ (= habbatu) seems to have been Shasu, "robber" (G V J I 520). The gabiri can hardly be identical with the Hebrews, since, as we have seen, the patriarchal migration took place earlier and the Mosaic later, though philologically the names might well be correlated (Kn. 46 ff.). It seems more plausible to me, however, to explain the undoubtedly Semitic name from a Canaanitio root, "hdbar," "to join" (= Akkadian abdru), so that gabiri would mean "allies." In Arabic this root possesses a different meaning and therefore we must regard the name as an expression used by the Canaanites to describe the invaders and not as the real name of the people. And, indeed, it was almost necessary to invent such a name for them, since the preponder- ant element of the JJabiri seem to have been non-Semitic. There were Aryans^ among them, and the name of this race occurs in EJi. ' Does Sennacherib Prism V 10 play upon this usage when he speaks of the "aramu halqu u munnabtu"? ^ The gods Mithra and Varuna are found in the Boghaz-Koi texts (M V A G '13, 4, 76 f.). Following a hint of Prof. J. A. Montgomery, I would see the deity Varuna in the Jebusite Arauna, 2 Sam. 24: 16 ff. 34 THE INVASION OF PALESTINE 56:44 (where IJar-ri must be read instead of mur-ri [TBohl 17]), The names Shuwardata, Namyawaza, Biridashya ( = Sanscrit Brhadashwa, "the one who owns a big horse") and many others in the Amama letters are Indo-Germanic (G A § 468). On the other hand, there were also Hittites among the JJabiri in large numbers. Thus the chieftain Lapaya is of this stock, and in Abd-Jjipa of Jerusalem we have the divinity Qipa of the Hittites (Bohl 83). But there were also Aramaean elements included in the tJabiri,' especially the Suti of the eastern deserts. The: Ahlame must also have been hammering at the gates of Syria,. and their name, which is distinctly Arabian, forms a curious covmterpart to Sabiri, since both mean "allies." It would be- perfectly feasible if they were included among the "JJabiri." Shortly after this time the Amorite state in central Syria was again revived. It had an important stronghold in Kadesh — not the great city on the Orontes, but that in Galilee (BAR III 71) — and it wavered between allegiance to the Hittites, who are now established in the northern Kadesh, and the Egyptians, seeking protection with one against the other (G V J I 521). Through it the Amorite states east of the Jordan must have been reinvigorated. Seti I of Egypt (1292 B.C.) storms Kadesh, and thus subjects the Amurrti state. Operations against the Amorites east of the Jordan appear certain from the erection of a stele of victory in the Hauran at Tell esh-Shihab. From now on a great struggle ensues between the Egyptians and the Hittites. It was finally concluded by the famous treaty between Ramses II and JJattusil, a cuneiform copy of which has recently been foimd by Winckler at Boghaz-Ko'i, the capital of the Hittite empire (M V A G 13, 4, 101 f.). The Amorite state now enjoyed a quasi-independence imder Hittite suzerainty; its king Bente-shina became the brother-in-law of JJattusil. Indeed, it seems to have extended its influence quite far into the Syrian desert; for we learn that Bente-shina made a raid upon Babylonian territory, since he could not collect the thirty talents of silver ■ Similarly Clay, Cassite Names, p. 42 f. 35 THE AEAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA which the city of Agade owed him, and it is doubtful whether his victims' complaint to gattusil was of avail. The terrible catastrophe which put an end to the Hittite empire as well as to the Amorite state occurred in the time of Mer- neptah whose accession took place in 1225 B.C. The onset of the maritime peoples was so terrific that even the Egyptians were barely able to ward them off. Among them are the Philistines. Ramses III finally, in a great battle by land and by sea, hurled them back and unified Palestine once more under Egyptian rule (B A R IV § 59 ff.). In the country east of the Jordan, however, the Amorite principalities still existed. At this time and on this background occurs the arrival of the Israel tribes in the promised land. They are only able to enter it after circumventing Edom ' and Moab, and then striking at the Amorite kingdom of Heshbon under its king Sihon (G V J 545 f.). This state, together with that of Og in Bashan, are the main remnants of former Amorite power. In Numbers 32:39 Makir is driving Amoritgs out of Gilead. That the relations between Moab and Ammon, who are the purest of Aramaean stock so that they can boast of their origin from Lot's daughters (Procksch 129) and the Aramaeans of Meso- potamia, continued to be friendly, we may infer from the fact that Balak of Moab summons an Aramaean seer from Pethor on the Euphrates to "curse Israel." Mesopotamia is there expressly described as the land of Balaks, "sons of his people," i.e., of the related Aramaeans (Num. 22:5). This opinion, even if it be only that of the Hebrew writer, is important because it shows that the Moabites were considered an Aramaean people. The Hebrews, however, through intermingling with Hittites, Canaanites, Cushites and others, have lost their Aramaean character, so that Moab does not regard them as closely related 1 Z D M G 63: 528 corrects king of Edom, Num. 20: 14, into king of the Aramaeans. That the Edomites were merely an Aramaean tribe 1 regard as assm-ed. Ibid. 506, the correction of Aram, Nmn. 23 : 7, into Edom is disputed. Haupt here regards Aram as the region S.E. of Elath, which in the Koran, 89: 6, appears as the Iram of the Adites. 36 THE INVASION OF PALESTINE to itself. From the Assyrian inscriptions we have learned in a former chapter that Tiglathpileser I conquered Pitru ( = Pethor) on the Euphrates, and placed Assyrian garrisons in Pitru and Mutkinu as outposts against the Ahlame. Tiglathpileser ruled about 1100 B.C. If the exodus of Israel took place under Mer- neptah about 1220 B.C. (G V J 537), and if a stay in the desert is assumed for forty years, we would have the date 1180 for the coming of Balaam from Pethor. How remarkably this har- monizes with the fact that the Aramaeans at this time actu9,lly held Pitru! This speaks highly ia favor of our tradition. The Aramaean home of Balaam ^ is substantiated by the ancient poem 23:7f., "From Aram Balak caused me to be brought, from the moim tains of Qedem the Moabite king." Since Sinuhe, the Egyptian, journeys from Gebal inland to Qedem, its location is east of Byblos. It probably refers to the region beyond Damascus (G V J 66). In Genesis 29:1 the term is applied to the comitry from Palmyra to the Euphrates (ibid. 369). In the vicinity of Qedem, or perhaps within it, lay the land of Ya'a, over which the Amorite king Ammienshi makes Sinuhe ruler; Kittel and Ranke locate this near the lake of Tiberias.^ In these very re- gions, as we shall soon see, and about this very time new vistas of Aramaean life and history are unfolding. ^ The Mesopotamian character of Balaam is proven by Daiches, Hilprecht Anniversary Volume, p. 60 ff., from the conformance of his soothsaying methods with the Babylonia ritual. Even the title of Balaam, Num. 24: 16, "Hearer of the words of God, knower of the knowledge of the most high," reminds one of the Babylonian, "the wise man, the knower who keeps the mystery of the great gods" (Zimmem, Ritualtafeln, 118, 19). ' A land of Ya' in the region of laduana is mentioned in Sargon's Display inscription, 1. 145. ladnana is usually identified with Cyprus. 37 CHAPTER V THE RISE OF THE ARAMAEANS IN CENTRAL SYRIA The great onset of the Indo-Europeans which shattered the Amorite and Hittite power in Syria paved the way for the Ara- maean possession. The Biqa', especially, suffered from the vandalism of the invaders; for the Egyptians tell us that the land became as if it had never existed (B A R IV § 64). To a large extent the population must have been annihilated. The mighty strongholds which had stood many a siege and were built with consummate skill, like Kadesh and others, must have succumbed finally to starvation and disease. Perhaps only in the most sheltered mountain retreats did the inhabitants remain undis- turbed. Already at the beginning of the Indo-European movement, the Aramaean won important positions from which he could at the right moment stretch out his hand to the country's heart. For, as Miiller has shown, his name is not unfamiliar to the Egyptian of the time of Merneptah. One of this Pharaoh's officials has made a record of the sending of messages "to the city of Mer- neptah which lies in the territory of A-ira-mau." This can only be Aram. But in reality he means Amor. It is a scribal error, but it shows that the Aramaeans were already within the scope of Egypt's official cognizance (MAE 222). The Aramaean invasion of Syria, then, synchronizes with the entrance of the children of Israel into Palestine. Viewed from the distance both are identical; it is one great wave, that, coming from the Arabian desert, floods the land, and inaugurates a new period of its history. In Syria the Aramaeans were at first too busy in estabUshing 38 ■ THE RISE OF THE ARAMAEANS IN CENTRAL SYRIA themselves, to bother much about their neighbors.' This is re- flected in Judges 18:7, 28, according to the LXX reading, where we learn that the dwellers of Laish lived peacefully apart, far from the Phoenicians to whom they belong and without relation to Aram. Thus, at the time when the Danites settled at Laish, Aram (perhaps the principality Beth Ma'aoah may be meant) was already a fixed geographical terminus for the region north of Palestine. At the time of Saul, ca. 1025, we find several Aramaean kingdoms definitely established on the edge of Canaan. For in 1 Samuel, 14:47 we read that Saul warred "against Moab, and against the Ammonites, and Aram Beth-Rehob^' and the king of Zobah." The chronicler has no exact information and so does not tell us who the king of Zobah was; but that is no reason for impugning the accuracy of his statement. The location of Beth-Rehob may be fixed with fair certainty as north of Ammon. The relation between the two states was always a close one. The Rehobite Ba'sa is later the leader of the Am- monites in the battle of Qarqar (W Gil 141). In the ruined city of Rihab, discovered by Schumacher in 1900, forty kilometers east of Aglun and fifty north of 'Amman — the old Rabbath Ammon — is to be sought, according to Guthe, the capital of Beth-Rehob.' It lay between the Argob and the upper reaches • A vague reminiscence of a first warlike conflict between Aram and Israel seems to be preserved in Jud. 3: 7-11. A priori such an invasion as that of Cushanrishathaim is not to be dismissed as impossible. How suddenly such attacks may come, we observed in the case of the Hittite onset against Akkad in the days of Samsu-ditana. That Mesopotamia was at this time (ca. 1150) called Aram Naharaim we have held most plausible. Perhaps, following Marquard's example, we should separate the name of this king into Cushan ra's (or "chief") of 'Ataim. There may well have been a locaUty 'Ataim in old Mitanni, a place where the divinity At^ was worshiped. A still further possibihty might be to hold 'Ain an error for Heth. Then Cushan would be a Hittite chieftain, perhaps from Carchemish. True, the name Cushan arouses suspicion (cf. Hab. 3: 7). " Text emended; Edom into Aram. Beth-Rehob supplied from LXX. W G I. I. 143. ' Protestantische Realenzyklopadie, 3d ed. by Hauck, Vol. 21, p. 703. 39 / THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA of the Jabbok river, and doubtless extended east to the Zalmon range.' It is the most easterly of the early Aramaean princi- palities. More problematic is the conflict of Saul with Zobah, if this state lay, as we hold, to the west of Damascus in the Biqa'. But unless we proceed radically as Winckler does (W Gil 142), it is difficult from our tradition to locate it anywhere else. If Zobah really is to be sought in Suf, thirty kilometers west of Ribab (Guthe, I. c), then it is indeed strange that in the Hebrew conquest of Palestine, and in the extensive geographical lists, this important city is not mentioned (S A 141). On the other hand if Zobah be the Biqa', and thus the heir of ancient Amurrti, it is perfectly possible that its power and influence should have extended into the country east of the Jordan, so as to conflict with the ambitions of Saul. That is only analogous to the conditions centuries previous, when the Amorite state expanded into the trans-Jordanic ter- ritory. Indeed just as the principality of Sihon at Heshbon was founded and colonized from the Biqa', so also must the Aramaean state of Beth-Rehob and its sisters have been daughters of Zobah. ■ As Hal^vy showed,^ the word is derived from " Zehobah" — "copper, bronze," and must be an appellative with the meaning "the copper country." Thus copper must be a notable product of this region. Now this is pecuharly true of the Lebanon dis- trict, where there are large deposits of this mineral (E K XVII 1063). And in this connection it must be recalled that we have a city of Chalcis (i.e., "copper") as the capital of the later king- dom of Ituraea which was situated in the Marsyas plain. This Chalcis must be the ancient Zobah.' And indeed Eupolemus ' Others — to my mind erroneously — localize it in the region of Caesarea Panias, S A 76. ' Melanges, 1874, p. 82. Hal^vy's combination ot Zobah-Chalcis with the Nujiashshe of the Aramna days tails. The latter is probably the northern Chalcis (Kinnesrin) near Aleppo, Kn. 1104 f. (Cf. next note.) * From the cuneiform inscriptions a province of ^ubatu (§ubutu, §upite) is known, which has long been identified with our Zobah. Winckler seeks it south of Damascus (W G I, I 141; K A T 61). But the arguments from 40 THE RISE OF THE ARAMAEANS IN CENTRAL SYRIA (ca. 150 B.C.), in recounting the wars of David, substitutes "Itu- raeans" for Zobah, showing thereby that a very definite and fixed tradition placed Zobah in this locality (S A 145). In the mag- nificent ruins of il-'Angar in the Biqa' we perhaps have the site of Chalcis and the old capital of Zobah.^ After the accession of David, however, the real struggle with the early Aramaean states of Syria is begun. It was provoked by the troubles with Ammon. The king of the latter state, Hanun ben Nahash, shamefully insulted and abused David's ambassadors. It is very possible that the Ammonites were directly encouraged in such insolence by the Aramaeans, who clearly foresaw the necessity and inevitability of a conflict with the rising Hebrew state and preferred to have the aid of Ammon in this eventuahty. As soon as the latter perceived that David was not inclined to submit to such an insult, it summoned the aid of Zobah and Beth-Rehob as well as of Ma'acah, a small Aramaean state adjoining Beth-Rehob and located in the Golan directly east and north of the lake of Htile. (2 Sam. 10.) In this con- clave of Aramaic states one only is omitted — the small Geshur, southerly neighbor of Ma'acah, and on the eastern side of the lake of GaUlee. The relations between Geshur and the Hebrews on the west side of the lake appear to have been peculiarly intimate. Ashuibanipal's Annals, VII, 114, are not convincing. This king tells us that he defeated the Arabs in Edom, in the pass of Yabrud, in Ammon, in gaurina, in Seir, in Harge, in Subitu. There is no geographical sequence maintained in this summary, however; for from Haurina (Hawarin north of Damascus) he jumps back to Seir. Not much more help is given by the geographical Catalogue, II R 53. Here a §ubat (al) IJamattu appears in Rev. 41 between Hamath and Sam'al, a §ubatu between Hadrach and Sam'al in Rev. 60, and again between Hadrach and ^imirra in Rev. 73. I hold that this Subatu has nothing to do with our Zobah-Chalcis in the BiqA', but that it was confused with it by the chronicler (2 Chron. 8 : 3 f .) when he speaks of Hamath-Zobah. This §ubat (al) IJamattu (or 5upite, Subutu) I seek in the northern Chalcis (Qinnesrtn south of Aleppo). Here the Arabian campaign as well as A B L no. 414, in which a prefect of gupite reports concerning conditions in the province and relations to the Arabs (A O F 1 465), is readily comprehended. 'Cf. Kiepert, Handbuch der Alten Geographie, 78: 164. Droysen, Ge- schichte des Hellenismus, III, 290, however, seeks Chalcis in Zahleh. 41 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA (2 Sam. 3:3, 13:37.) It was this close affiliation with Geshur, no doubt, which prevented that state from siding with the Ara- maean coalition. The Aramaeans of Zobah and Beth-Rehob together furnish 20,000 men. That the troops of the southernmost and northern- most Aramaean kingdoms should be coimted as a unit is indeed pecuhar; it may find its explanation, however, in the fact that Hadadezer is called (2 Sam. 8: 3 "ben Rehob," which means " Rehobite " ; cf . W G 1 1 141) . He is thus a native of Beth-Rehob, and after becoming king of Zobah, is the special protector of the land of his birth, and not merely its suzerain. Ishtob,' king of Ma'acah, arrives with 12,000 men. Joab, as David's field marshal, sets out to attack the coalition. Like Rameses before Kadesh, he is lured into an ambuscade, and his retreat is cut off. The Israelites hurl themselves first against the Aramaeans and through the bravery of desperation their attack becomes irresist- ible; the Aramaeans are put to flight. And when Joab now turns against the Ammonites, these, seeing that they are deserted by their allies, retreat to Rabbah's sheltering walls. But just as the "victorious" Rameses at Kadesh was glad to return home without molesting the city, so also Joab is satisfied to go back to Jerusalem into winter quarters. The first pitched battle between Hebrew and Aramaean of which we have record has thus resulted in a draw. But Hadadezer was not willing to accept the verdict of the battle before Rabbah. He had not displayed his full force. Now he summoned help from "the Aram which is beyond the river." It is not at all impossible that his authority extended so far, for we have the Amorite state of Benteshina's day whose rule extended far into the Syrian desert toward Babylon, as an analogy. And just at this time Assyria was entirely dormant. But it is sufficient ' Ishtob seems to be a personal name, K H K 248. Those who prefer the traditional "men of Tob" may find the site of Tob in et Tayyibe near Edrei. The list is not intact; 2 Sam. 10: 16 proves that Hadadezer must have been mentioned and probably also the kin^ of Beth-Rehob. 42 THE RISE OF THE ARAMAEANS IN CENTRAL SYRIA to assume that the common blood relationship made mutual aid against other peoples a matter of course, according to sound Oriental principle "I and my brother against the son of my imcle, and I and the son of my uncle against the stranger." Hadadezer's forces are placed imder the command of his field marshal Shobak.> So momentous is the impending struggle for the Hebrews that David himself takes command of his host. He crosses the Jordan (10:17) and marches to Helam ^ which must have lain at the head waters of the Yarmuk river and is probably identical with the Alema of I Maccabees 5:26 (Z A W '02, 137); a reminiscence of it might possibly be seen in 'lima on the Wadi il-Ghar not far from the caravan road Damascus — Sheikh Miskin over which the Aramaeans were likely to come. At Helam David's leadership gained the victory. The Aramaeans were crushingly defeated and their commander Shobak slain. Hadadezer's allies from Mesopotamia immediately concluded a peace with David, and so the latter was able to besiege and capture Rabbah undisturbed. The effect of the battle upon Zobah's prestige was disastrous. The princes of Mesopotamia had lost all respect for him, and therefore it was necessary to reestablish his position of authority. Consequently we learn (8:3) that he goes to retrieve his power at the "river."' David appreciates that Hadadezer is only post- poning further hostilities toward Israel until a more opportune season, and therefore decides to strike Hadadezer once more (Z A W '07, 16 ff). If we are told that the battle took place near Hamath (1 Chr. 18:3) we must regard this as unlikely. The fortresses along the Orontes would have blocked the pursuit of Hadadezer. David could not have passed them so swiftly. Nor is it likely that Hadadezer's expedition led through the territory ' Shofak in 1 Chron. 19: 16. I suspect that Shobak is an error for Sakap, or Sa'kap, an apparently Aramaic Mesopotamian name (ct. A D D III 284), in which case the form Shofak would be the better. It is also possible, however, that the name contains the god Aku, like Shadrach (Shudur-Aku = "command of Aku"). '^ Helam has been identified by others with galman (Aleppo), but this seems too far north. 43 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA of the Hittite kindgoms to the north. The Aramaeans subject to him must have been the Ahlame opposite the mouth of the Bahh. Therefore an expedition thither would most naturally follow the highway from Damascus to Palmyra and Raqqa. Since David through his victory over Ammon and its northern neighbors could move about unhindered in Bashan, it is reasonable to con- clude that from this base he launched his raid and intercepted Hadadezer east of Damascus. Under this supposition the entire picture receives a more rational aspect. The battle may then have taken place near Atera just east of where the Palmyra road diverges from the road to Hamath. It resulted in a complete victory for David.' An auxiliary force that came up from Damas- cus was likewise dealt a crushing blow. David successfully followed up his victories by subjecting Damascus and occupying it for the present by instituting prefects in it, a measure that shows David's resentment of Damascus interference (Z A W '07,18). But David went still further — he invaded the Biqa' from the east, and so penetrated into the heart of Hadadezer's realm. Two cities of Zobah are mentioned (8:8) — Berothai and Tebah (LXX 1 Chron. 18:8). M T erroneously reads Betah and the book of Chronicles for Berothai substitutes Kun. If we could identify these places we should know exactly the location of Zobah. Berothai is mentioned in Ezechiel's description of Israel's boundaries (47:16); the northern border is there defined as extending from the sea over Berothah and Sibraim, between Damascus and Hamath, to Hazar Enon on the edge of the Hauran. Berothai's location in the Lebanon is thus assured. And its site is doubtless preserved in Bretan N. E. of Zahleh (Z D P V 8:34) while Kun ' The figures of the dead and captured in our present text are scarcely trust- worthy. Reliable, however, is the statement about the horses, 8: 4. The meaning "hamstring" for 'iqqer is unsatisfactory, however. Procksch 267 suggests "castrate." But the best sense here is "cut off," i.e., slaughter. David is obeying the precept in Deut. 17: 16, which prescribes that a king must not have many horses. Thus he only retains one hundred and slaughters the rest. After David's time no king would have thought of such a thing. This speaks for the antiquity of our tradition. 44 THE RISE OF THE ARAMAEANS IN CENTRAL SYRIA is to be found in the classical Conna, a few hours distance north on the Horns road. Tebah is found also among the bastard Aramaeans in Genesis 22 : 24. It is mentioned in Papyrus Anastasi after Kadesh (in Galilee MAE 173) and before Gebal and Berut and also occurs in the Armarna letter (Kn. 179) as Tubijii along- side of Amurrtl; and its name is, as has been supposed, perhaps contained in et-Tuffah a district east of Sidon. Thus a satis- factory location for Hadadezer's cities in the Lebanon district may be found. And our traditions expressly emphasize the fact that large stores of copper were captured (2 Sam. 8:8). David thereupon returned home and performed the duty of every pious Oriental King, — he gave votive offerings to his god. As such are mentioned the golden shields of Hadadezer's grandees, and other valuable objects (8:7, 11). Before this, however, — perhaps at Conna, — he received the embassy of the Hittite king Toi of Hamath (8:10). The latter's own son '■ came with presents for the King of Israel and congratulated him on his victory over Zobah. Since the poor Hittite had been the victim of Zobah, as well as of Aramaean inroads from the Euphrates region, we may assume that his congratulations were sincere. The poUtical significance of his act, however, is the acknowledgment by Hamath of Israel's supremacy in Syria. True this hegemony was only short lived but to its brilliance later centuries looked back with awe and, wonder, and dreamed of its restoration as the future's ideal. ' He is called Joram in 1 Sam. and Hadoram in 1 Chron. According to Dussaud, R A '08: 224, the original name probably was Hadad-ram. 46 CHAPTER VI THE EARLY KINGS OF DAMASCUS Damascus, "the eye of the world" as Julian the Apostate sur- named it, lies in a rich and beautiful oasis formed by the river Barada. This stream, descending from the rugged Antilebanon, and called by the Greeks " Chrysorrhoas " — river of gold — was famous in antiquity for its cold and clear waters. Thus Naaman, the Aramaean, at the thought of the muddy Jordan, scornfully cries, "Are not the Amana and the Pharpar, rivers of Damascus,' better than all the waters of Israel?" Indeed these rivers have made it possible for the city to have such a wealth of garden? and parks, which are already mentioned by the Assyrian annals, and which to the Arab are the image of paradise. But to the east of Damascus lies the sandy desert, traversed only by the caravan roads to the distant Euphrates, and to the west the snow-crowned Hermon and the Antilebanon hold watch over the "pearl of the east." Damascus in the Amarna days ^ does not seem to have possessed 'Amana is really the Antilebanon range (called by the Assyrians Amauana), Cant. 4: 8, and by metonomy the river descending from this momitain, the Barada. The Pharpar is probably the A' wag; the old name still survives in the Cebel Barbar. Expository Times, '01, 2, 219 f. ' Damascus is called "Dimashqu" in the Amarna texts. Haupt, Z D M G 63: 528, assumes a form Dar-mashql as original and translates "settlement in a well-watered region." It seems to me, however, that Dimashqu is the older form and is composed of di and mesheq. Cf. Di-zahab, "the one of gold," Deut. 1: 1. Cp. also the late form Dummesheq with Arabian names Uke Dhu-Raidan. Mesheq means "acquisition," "gain," and thus Dimashqu must be "the one of acquisition," "place of gain," a suitable name for a city . situated on a commercial highway. The Assyrians write for Damascus the 46 THE EARLY KINGS OF DAMASCUS much importance. It remains imder the control of the Amorite state and then of Zobah until subjugated by David. The city appears to have come into Aramaean hands during the thirteenth century, for in the Rameses III hst of cities it is written Tiramaski (MAE 234). This writing shows that the Aramaic "Dar- meseq" was already coming into vogue. The new population proudly called the city "dar" or Fortress" rather than merely "place of Mesheq." The Hebrews, it is true, retained the old form "Dimashqu" only sUghtly aramaized as Dammeseq down to the time of Isaiah, if we may trust the Massoretic tradition. For a brief period the Aramaeans of Damascus and Coelesyria seem to have recognized the suzerainty of the King of Israel. If we read in 1 Kings 4 : 21 that kingdoms as far north as the Euphrates brought Solomon presents and were subject to him or more defi- nitely (4 : 24) that his power extended from Thipsach (Thapsacus on the Euphrates; to-day Tel il Thadayain A E T 142) to Gaza^ this is perfectly comprehensible; for he who ruled AmurrA ex- ercised power also over the regions east toward Babylonia as we have seen in the case of Benteshina's state. Because of the weak- ness of Assyria, and through this alliance with Egypt and Tyre Solomon was the greatest ruler in Syria during his day. And if our assumption that the defeat of Hadadezer took place on the Pahnyra road be correct, then the mention of Thapsacus becomes still more credible and even the late statement (2 Chr. 8:4) that Solomon fortified Tadmor (Palmyra) is plausible. The latter was then a military base from which the roving Aramaeans were ideogram SHA - IMERI - SHV. Pognon (Inscriptions SSmitiques, 177) suggests that IMERI stands for the god Amar, for this ideogram means both "ass" and "Amaru" (Briinnow, 4905). Since "ass" was then also written in other ways, SHA - NITA - SHU and other forms came to be mechanically used for Damascus. Cf. also Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions, p. 2, and "Amurru," p. 130. Haupt, however, Z D M G 69: 169, defends with skill the interpretation that the ideogram means "city of asses." KUR, which interchanges with alu, "city," before the ideogram, he argues, means "mountain" and refers to the Antilebanon at the foot of which Damascus lay. Along the western slope of this range led a road which was mainly traveled by caravans using asses as beasts of burden. 47 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA kept in check. Solomon's commercial control ' of all the impor- tant highways of Syria lent his authority an immense support. But during Solomon's lifetime a retrogression of his power took place. An adversary arose for him in the person of Rezon (Hezion?) ^ who had fled from the presence of his lord Hadadezer, king of Zobah (1 Kings 11 : 23-25) at the time of David's Aramaean wars. He gathered about himself a troop of adventurers, and perhaps with the aid of large Beduin contingents seized Damas- cus. The moment that a strong personality was able to establish an independent kingdom north of Palestine, Israel's control of Colesyria was of course at an end. Hamath, Thapsacus and Palmyra adapted themselves immediately to the new conditions. Rezon we are told became a thorn in Solomon's flesh, and was "king of Aram." If we may trust our narrative, Damascus from now on became "Aram" par excellence. The division of the kingdom imder Rehoboam gave Damascus abundant opportunity for consolidation of power. Israel and Judah were too busy with their own affairs to pay much attention to Syrian politics. Damascus doubtless forced the hard pressed Jeroboam to make important concessions. But we have little light on the events in Damascus at this time. In 1 Kings 15: 18 there appears to be preserved the succession of the kings in Damas- . cus; the order given is Hezion — Tabrimmon — Benhadad. ' 1 Kgs. 10: 28 f . seems to claim that he imported chariots and horses from Egypt and transmitted them to the kings of the Hittites and Aramaeans. K A T 239 discredits this, although the frequent mention of Kusaean horses in the letters might be cited in its support. Bohl 25 offers a novel interpretation. He takes Mosa (vs. 28) as the starting point of the import and translates, "the export of horses /or Solomon took place from Musri (Cappadocia) and Que (Cilicia) " and was accomplished through the agency of the kings of the Hittites and Aramaeans. ^ LXX in 11: 23 has Esron. This would be the equivalent of Hezron. It has been supposed (cf . KUKad loc.) that Hezion is an error for Hezron. But the converse seems more likely to me. I regard Hezion as the name of the first king of Damascus. The form Rezon is secondary. Hezion is vouchsafed as a good Aramaean form by the Mesopotamian Hazianu, ADD no. 61 rev. 8. Winckler's view, A T V 62, that the original name was Hazael, I regard as unlikely. 48 THE EARLY KINGS OF DAMASCUS Apparently Hezion is identical with Rezon. About Tabrimmon ' we know nothing. With Benhadad the Hebrew king Baasha (914-890) seems to have formed an alliance in order to safeguard himself against attack from the north. But alas for Israel! When the king of Judah Asa (917-876) was being badly worsted by Baasha he sent what was left of the temple treasure, plundered not long before by Sheshonq (1 Kings 14:25-26), to Benhadad, pleading with him to break his alliance with Israel. The wily Aramaean was easily persuaded. Swiftly he attacked Baasha from the north, capturing lyon in the fertile Merg 'Ayun west of Mt. Hermon, Dan, Abel beth-maacah, and all Cinneroth (the rich plain of il Ghuwer on the west shore of the lake of Galilee) and all Naphtali, including such important cities as Kedesh, Hazor, Merom, and Zephath. The effect upon Baasha was immediate, for he ceased his operations of fortifying Ramah, north of Jerusalem. The summoning of Benhadad by Asa, while effective, was none the less extremely short sighted, as intelligent Judaeans realized and as the Seer Hanani openly declared (2 Chr. 16:7-10). It was a betrayal of his own race and bred an ani- mosity which later resulted in an alhance of Israel and Damascus against Judah. It was but natural that Aramaean statesmen hailed with glee any request for intervention in Palestine. If Israel desired the assistance of Aram it could obtain it only in return for concessions in respect to the trade route to Akko; and if Aram had cause to war against Israel its first object was to seize the territory along this route. The attack upon Baasha safeguarded this caravan road almost completely; for the region west of Rama, not occupied by Benhadad, belonged to the tribe of Asher, which had come 'The name means "Rimmon is wise" (A TV 74). Rimmon is the god of the Aramaeans of Damascus (of. 2 Kings 5:18). Rimmon or Rumman means "pomegranate." The god with the pomegranate is designated by this symbol as the spouse and brother of Ishtar. He is identical with Hadad. The Akkadians, it appears, borrowed Rimmon from the west and called him Ramman, popularly connecting the name with ram^mu, "to thunder" (AA97f.). 49 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA largely under Canaanite influence (cf. Judges 5:17) and naturally welcomed all trade from the east. Thus Benhadad I looms up in history as a figure of importance, and a ruler of great vigor and skill. Benhadad must have died during the early years of Omri's reign (899-877). For if we learn from 1 Kings 20:34 that the father of Benhadad II wrested from Omri a number of cities, and forced him to make commercial concessions, this can hardly refer to Benhadad I. It would be odd indeed to find in the Semitic world a son bearing the same name as his father. An unknown king — possibly the Rezon of 1 Kings 11 : 23 who was confused with Hezion • — must have ruled in Damascus as the contemporary of Omri. He forced the Hebrew king to give Syrian merchants a quarter of their own at Samaria. Since the Aramaeans controlled the highway to Akko it was but natural that they should take ad- vantage of their predominance to capture the Israehtic trade market. Through a clever stroke of diplomacy, however, Omri succeeded in offsetting this defeat; he renewed the covenant with Phoenicia (18:18 G V J 334). This naturally tended to keep Damascus in check. The alliance was cemented still further by the marriage of Omri's son and successor Ahab (877-853) to the daughter of Ethbaal, kiog of the Sidonians (877-876). A further restraint upon the Aramaeans was the advance of Assyrian power, which began to loom up like a thundercloud. After centuries of lethargy Ashur had once more awakened and was treading the pathway to a great destiny. Under the mighty Ashurnazirpal it was striking at the Aramaean and Hittite states to the north. In some manner the first contact between Israel and Assyria must have taken place in Omri's day, for henceforth Israel appears in cuneiform records as Bit-|Jumri or "house of Omri" and its kings are often called mir-|Jumri, literally "son of Omri," but really meaning "son of Blt-Qumri," i.e., IsraeUte. If Omri sought aid against Damascus he received none, for Ashur- nazirpal evaded this city's sphere of influence. Since Omri's later days Israel was nominally a vassal of Aram. THE EARLY KINGS OF DAMASCUS Perhaps Ahab now neglected to pay tribute and so provoked his suzerain. In the meantime Benhadad II had come to the throne in Damascus. With startling suddenness the Aramaean appears before the gates of Samaria accompanied by 32(?) vassal kings and their cohorts (1 Kings 20). The nimiber is doubtless ex- aggerated and should perhaps be reduced to eleven; for Damascus only had twelve allies (including Israel) in 854. Even then it seems astonishing that so powerful a league should be brought into action against Israel. And indeed we would be at a loss to account for this fact if it were not for the hght shed on Syrian affairs by the cuneiform inscriptions. While previously Damascus was able to focus its attention entirely upon the opening of the road to the sea, the accession of Ashurnazirpal now made the events in the north supreme in importance. For here Ashur, "the giant among the Semites," was concluding the overthrow of the Syrian states Bit-Adini and Qattina and was getting into position to strike at Damascus in order to open up the road through Palestine. We may therefore surmise that Benhadad's coalition is in reality directed against Assyria, in view of the approaching peril. His purpose at Samaria is to coerce Ahab into the alliance, or else to cripple him so that he cannot aid Assyria. The siege of Samaria is thwarted, however, by the brilliant strategy of Ahab, who, under cover of a ruse, delivers a sudden attack on the surprised foe. The onslaught is carried right into the heart of the camp and Benhadad barely escapes by galloping off on the next best wagon horse (K H K 119). Naturally the army is dismayed. Turmoil ensues and a general rout follows. It was a glorious victory for Ahab and Israel and a disaster for Aram. The Aramaeans, however, were not disposed to accept the verdict of this battle. Thus Benhadad in the following year again ap- peared upon the scene. This time Ahab was ready for him and faced him close to the border at the plain of Esdraelon. On the ranges south of the plain, perhaps in the vicinity of En Gannim, the Hebrews lay in two corps; poetically the narrative Ukens them to two herds of goats pasturing on a hillside. The Aramaeans, THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA however, swarmed over the plain below, evidently waiting for the Israelites to descend into the valley, where the chariots could be used to better advantage. At length on the seventh day Ahab's chance came. He attacked the army of Benhadad and again won the day. The losses of the enemy were great (though the 100,000 of M T is preposterous). What remained of the Aramaean army fled to the nearby city of Aphek. The latter was taken by storm in a sanguinary battle. It was said that 27,000 Aramaeans lay buried beneath the razed walls (G V J 358). Benhadad himself was forced to surrender. Ahab received him. with great kindness and generously allowed him to state hig own peace terms. These included the restitution of cities that had been taken from Israel and trade concessions in Damascus similar to those which Benhadad had obtained from Omri. They were accepted by the king of Israel and the Aramaean was allowed to go scot free. S2 CHAPTER VII THE MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS In the century after the time of Tiglathpileser I the Aramaeans were able to form states in Mesopotamia without molestation from Ashur. In the extreme north in the region of the Tur 'Abdirt lie the principalities of Shupria, north of the Tigris, and Nirdun! to the south of it, while to the west in the vicinity of Diyarbekr is Bit-Zamani.' The latter state especially was a center of Ara- ' maean influence. At the time of Ashurnazirpal its ruler Ammeba'- la, a friend of the Assyrians, was slain by his nobles and a certain Bur-ramanu was raised to the throne. The Assyrian monarch, however, avenged the murder of his friend, flayed Bur-ramanu, and made Ilfi,nu, a brother of Ammeba'la, king. But the latter also revolted, and so Ashxunazirpal was forced again to intervene in Bit-Zam4ni. In the same region the district of Zamua was also occupied by Aramaeans. NCf. To£fteen, Researches in Assyrian and Babylonian Geography, '08, p. 6 £f., on the cities of these regions. THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA The most powerful Aramaean state, however, was Bit-Adini.' It occupied a strategic position on the great highway from Harran to Syria, and had as its capital Til-Barsip near the mouth of the Sagur on the right bank of the Euphrates south of Carchemish. This state extended west into Syria as far as the gates of Arpad ^ and in the east, towards Harran, the duchies Bit-Baliiani, Agalli, Tilabni, and Sarugi were its vassals. The greater part of western Mesopotamia stood therefore under the influence of this powerful Aramaean state. Quite naturally Bit-Adini sought to intrigue against Assyria; thus Ashurnazirpal tells that within the sphere of Assyria's influence, in Suru, the capital of Bit-galupe,' identical with the present Sauar on the lower IJabAr (cf. A E T 176), a revolution had taken place 884 B.C. against the shaknu or custodian; the latter a Hamathite^ was killed and "Ahiababa, a man of unknown origin, whom they brought from Bit-Adini they made their king" (Col. I 74f. A K A 281). Doubtless this revolution was instigated by Ahuni and car- ried out under his auspices. Ashurnazirpal found it so important that he interrupted his campaign in Kummulj and marched down the tJabfir to Bit-galupe, receiving on the way the Tribute of King Shulman-haman-ilani of Sha-Dikanna * and of Ilu Adad of Qatni. When he reached Suru the elders and grandees came out and embraced his feet, saying, "If thou desirest slay! If thou desirest, let live ! " It seems that the party loyal to Assyria 'The name must be derived from 'adana = "dwell pennanently," there- fore a "settlement." ^ In a geographical list (of later times, it is true), R T P 15, we have a list of some cities of Bit Adini. Among them are |Iauram (^lawarin near YabrOd), IJazSzu ('Azaz), Nirabu (NIrab near Aleppo) and the otherwise unknown towns Tuka, Saruna, Dinanu. ^ Oppenheim, Der TeU Halaf, '08, p. 35, would identify this Tell, excavated by him, with Bit-galupi. But this site, at the forks of the gabur, is too far north. * This cannot mean the Hamath in Syria, but must refer to that in Meso- potamia mentioned by Tukulti-Ninib II (cf. the map in ScheU's Annales de Tukulti-Ninip, 1909). ' The identification of this city with the important site of 'Arban remains the most probable, A E T 184. 54 THE MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS was able to gain the upper hand and delivered up the rebels to Ashumazirpal. On a pillar opposite the city gate he flayed all the ring-leaders or impaled them on stakes. Ahiababa was brought to Nineveh and his skin spread out on the city wall. A loyal subject, Azi-ilu, was placed in charge of Bit-galupe. The kings of the region of Laq^ brought tribute, as did also Qai^n of IJind&n; and Iluibni of Su^u sent costly presents to Nineveh. In his third year, the Assyrian returning home from Nairi by way of the lur 'Abdln, received also the tribute of Aljiramu, son of Yaljiri ruler of A§alli and of Btt-Bajjianu which he describes as a "Hittite" land. (Col. II 22 f .) From the nature of these events we can readily divine that an anti-Assyrian confederacy was forming along the gabllr under Bit-Adini's help, and we see also that Ashumazirpal was well alive to the danger and proceeded against it with vigor. But it was not until some years later that the great Assyrian monarch was able to deal a decisive blow against these easterly states. The occasion presented itself in 879, when Babylon made the attempt to renew its claims in the middle Euphrates and leagued itself with Su^u. Breaking up from his capital (Col. Ill 1 f) he marched in a wide half circle to Tabite ' which lay southeast of Nisibis, perhaps at Tell Hamis and thence to the river JJarmish the modern Gaghgagha (Z A XII 43), visiting Magarisinear the fork of this stream. The mountain of lari in which the broken Obelisk locates this city must then be merely an abbreviation of Kashiari. The Harran Census (H C 39) mentions a city of Makrisu in "- -re" (i.e., lar^?) which is no doubt identical with our Magarisi. From Magarisi he descends to the gabtir and exacts tribute from Sha- Dikanna. In his further progress down the river he stops at Qatni, perhaps identical with the great ruins of Shedade (A E T 182), Shunaia, Dur-katlime (ruins of Margada? cf. A E T 179), ' Its location is established by the Route of Tukulti Ninib, Annals Rev. 35. Coming up the IJabUr from Sha-Dikanna he passes Latthi, Duggaete, Magarisi, Guriete and then comes to Tabite. As Sachau has shown, Z A XII, 43, the name is preserved in the "equites sagittarii indigenae Thibithenses" who lay in garrison at Telbesm^ (Notitia dignitatum, ed. Seeck, p. 78, no. 27). 55 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA Bit-Salupe (he refers doubtless to Suru-Sauar), and finally arrives opposite Sirqu. This city lay near the mouth of the 'QahAv and on the right side of the Euphrates, as the annals of Tukulti Ninib prove. According to Ashurnazirpal III 134 it lay at the "crossing of the Euphrates." Scheil (48) compared the classical Circesium, but since the Aramaic name of the latter was Nabagath or Chabora that is impossible (Z A 27: 289). It seems to be a little too far south, otherwise it would be tempting to identify it with ancient Tirqa (Tell 'Ishar). From here he proceeds eastward over Supri and Naqarabani ' to the Euphrates, arriving opposite gindan, the name of which Scheil (p. 44) has properly related to the classical Giddan on the left bank of the river. From here he marched to a mountain, which must mean the promontory opposite the tower of el Qayim, and after halting there continued on to Bit-Garbaia (Bit-Shabaia?) ^ opposite JJaridu, which may then be localized at Gabarlya and Qal' at Ra'fida re- spectively. From Bit-Garbaia the Assyrian proceeds to a point opposite Anat which has been correctly identified with the modern 'Ana and classical Anatho. (Z A 19:252.) Departing thence he storms the city of Suru, whose name I hold may be preserved in the Wadi Sur near Tilbesh. It was a stronghold of Shadudu, the ruler of Suhi. Of the Babylonian contingent that aided Shadudu 50 troopers and 3000 men were captured; Sha- dudu with a small band, however, escaped across the Euphrates. After setting up his royal image in Suru the Assyrian returned to Calali. Shortly afterward (878?) Ashurnazirpal received the news of another rebellion in Laqe, gindan, and Suhu. He straightway goes to Suru on the JJabtir and orders ships to be built for his army. Meanwhile he marches to the mouth of the gabur and then eastward to the city of Sibate in Suhu, destroying the towns ' Tukulti Ninib mentions between Sirqu and Qindan, Kasi, Arbate, Aqarbani (" Naqarabani) and Nagiate. Tukulti Ninib mentions east of Qindan, Kailite, Mashqite opposite Harada (= garidu) Anat, and Suri opposite Talbish (= the present Tilbesh). * S A 103 identifies this place with the Beth-Garbaia of Ephraem Syrus, but this town must have been situated much further west. 56 THE MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS of the region, reaping the harvests and slaughtering all defenders — 490 men. The main force of the Aramaeans had retired to the western side of the Euphrates and was intrenched at Qaridu. As his ships had now been completed, the monarch returned to the mouth of the gabur and ferried his army across the Euphrates. The allied forces of Suhu, Laqe, and ginddn which advanced to meet him were defeated; 6600 men were killed and the remainder of the army perished in the desert from thirst. From garidu as far as Kipina the cities are sacked. In Kipina Azi-ilu of Laqe, doubtless identical with the Azi-ilu of Bit-galupe, had intrenched himself. In the ensuing battle Ashurnazirpal killed 1000 men and carried off the booty and the gods of Kipina. Azilu, however, succeeded in retreating to the Bisuru mountains (the lesser Gebel il Bishri, near the mouth of the Balijj) some 100 km. above ed-Der. Dislodged from there he withdrew with heavy losses in rear guard actions undertaken to protect his herds, into Bit-Adini to the border cities of Dummutu and Asmu.^ The fact that he finds a haven of refuge in Bit-Adini shows with sufficient clearness that the latter state was in sympathy with the rebels. Ashurnazirpal wreaked his vengeance on Dummutu and Asmu by burning them to the ground. He captured the rich herds of Azilu that were "innumerable as the stars of heaven" and apparently destroyed the remainder of the army, but the Aramaean chief himself es- caped farther into Bit-Adini. Meanwhile another Assyrian force had overcome Sheikh Ila of Laqe and captured his chariots and 500 of his men; these, together with the booty taken from Azi-ilu, are transported to Ashur by the victors. Another prince of Laqe, JJamti-ilu, who had taken refuge in his fortress, submitted and payed tribute. At the passes of the Euphrates the Assyrian founded two cities — Kar- Ashurnazirpal (Haleblyeh-Zenobia) and Nibarti-Ashur (Zalebiyeh-Chanuca) as outposts and bases against Bit-Adini (Masp. Ill 30, A E T 164). The struggle with these petty states on the lower Qabdr and its vicinity merely signified the warding off of the Aramaean peril ^ In the modem Yasim there may be a reminiscence of ancient Asmu. THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA from Assyria's own door. But the aims of the Assyrian monarch now went further. To safeguard the land against the Aramaeans it was necessary to strike at the heart of their power in Meso- potamia; and to lead Assyria on its path of destiny it was incumbent upon the monarch to follow in the footsteps of Tiglath- pileser I and open up the road to the western sea, which was blocked by Bit-Adini. Therefore Ashurnazirpal directed his attention to the subjugation of this state. On the 20th of Sivan (June) he marched to Bit-Adini. It is not clear whether this ex- pedition followed the great road over Ras-el-'Ain and Harran, or whether it was imdertaken from the newly founded cities at the passes of the Euphrates. The omission of the mention of Bit- Bajiiani and A§alli speaks for the latter possibility. He approaches the border-fortress of Kaprabi (great rock!) a city "hanging like a cloud in the sky." Its people trusted in their strong garrison and did not come down to embrace his feet. At the command of the gods Ashur and Nergal he stormed and destroyed it, and deported 2400 of its troops to Calah. After this feat of arms AJhuni of Adini and Qabini of Til-Abni payed tribute and gave hostages. Perhaps Ashurnazirpal vaingloriously beheved that the terror of Assyria's military power had prostrated Aljuni. Surely he did not appreciate the greatness of the Aramaean menace, else he would have completed the destruction of this foe, and would not have deported the Aramaeans to Calalj in numbers sufficient to endanger the national life of his own people. His ambitions, however, were primarily directed to obtaining control of Syria, wherefor on the 8th of lyyar (868) he took the road to Carchemish. On the way he comes to Bit Baljiani, which pays tribute and fur- nishes a contingent of troops and chariots, then to A§alli, whose king Adad-'ime presents him with precious metals, chariots, horses, cattle, sheep and wine, then to Bit-Adini, where he re- ceives from Ajiuni costly articles of luxury, — ivory vessels, an ivory bed, an ivory throne overlaid with silver and gold, a dagger of gold, jewelry, live stock as well as a further number of troops. THE MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS JJabini of TilabnS, ' likewise appears with a tribute. On ships built of skins he crosses the Euphrates and comes to Carchemish, whose king Sangara (an Aramaean? cf. Hebrew Shamgar) pays a rich tribute including articles of ukarinnu wood, two hundred maidens, elephants' tusks, a gorgeous chariot and a couch of gold royally adorned. From Carchemish he then marches on into Syria (cf Ch. VIII). The submission of Carchemish and Bit- Adini is peculiar. Possibly they were willing to have Ashurnazirpal overrun the Syrian states, especially gattina, ia order to profit by their weakness. Apparently also none of the Mesopotamian and Syrian states was prepared to combat the sudden and un- expected might of Assyria. In 860 Shalmaneser came to the throne of Ashur. AJjuni of Adini had by this time hastened preparations for combating As- syria and had begun to form a secret alliance against the great peril. One of the first acts of Shalmaneser was prophetic of his policy and showed his indorsement of his father's aims. For "he made shining" his weapons in the Mediterranean sea, sacrificed on its shores to his gods, and erected his image on the Lallar mountain in the Amanus. (Obelisk 276.) In his second year he marched to Bit-Adini (Mon. I 29 f.). After crossing the Tigris he proceeded through the mountains of JJasamu ^ and Di^inunu (the Nimrud Dagh?) and reached the first city of Adini, — La'la'te, which must Ue on the road Harran — Til Barsip. The inhabitants evacuated the town and fled into the mountains. After applying the torch to the place he advanced upon a fortress of Ki qa (name mutilated). Ah.uni of Adini, "trusting in his numerous army," sallied out to meet him. By the help of the god Ashur the Assyrian succeeded in hurling his opponent back into the city, but refrained from attempting a siege. Instead, he proceeded to the unfortified town of Burmaruna, which he stormed, causing iTilabn& is distinctly a more Aramaic form than Tilabni. The status emphaticus appears here unmistakably. ^ I would identify this moimtain with the Gebel abd-il-A^iz on whose western end is a village and ruins of Hossiwe, which may preserve the ancient name. 59 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA the slaughter of the small garrison of 300 men. Before the city he erected a pillar out of human heads. Burmaruna must have been situated on the Euphrates, where el-Burat between Gerabis and the mouth of the Sagur may mark its position. While at this city Ashurnazirpal received the tribute of Qabini of Tilabnd Ga'uni of Sarugi and Giri-Adad of an unnamed principality. On ships of skins he next crossed the Euphrates, and after receiving the tribute of Kummuh he invaded Paqarruhbuni, a province belonging to Adini and bordering on Gurgum. He defeated the Aramaeans at every point, burned their towns into ruins, filled the plain with their warriors' corpses, of which he counted 1300, and then marched on to Gurgum. His aim was to prevent the north Syrian states from giving succor to Adini, and to make ineffective the threatened coalition — a purpose. achieved at the battles of Lutibu and Ah§ir (cf. Ch. VIII). For this reason perhaps he did not deal so thoroughly with Paqarruhbuni and there- fore even after the destruction of Bit-Adini this region became the seat of another rebellion (848) . Shalmaneser's far-reaching pohcy had determined upon the annihilation of Bit-Adini, and his manoeuvers in Syria, to be described in the next chapter, were primarily prompted by the desire of isolating this greatest enemy completely. On the 13th of lyyar 858 he left Nineveh and marched to the capital of Ahuni, Til-Barsip (Mon, II 13 f.). Ahuni was defeated in battle on the left bank of the river and driven back across it to his city. The Assyrian also crossed over in the face of a freshet; but instead of besieging Til-Barsip, he attacked the western possessions of Ahuni. Six fortresses, among them Stirunu, Paripa, Til Bashiri (Tell Bashar), and Dabigu (Dabiq) were captured and spoiled and 200 other peaceful towns were sacked. He thus seems to have followed the Sagur and then turning about, proceeded down the Quweq. Then, wheeling once more, he marched to the vicinity of Car- chemish and assaulted Shazab^, which has been identified with the Syriac Shadabu, two parasangs below Gerabis.^ This city to- ' D P 68, and cf . Hoffmann, Auszuge aus den Syrischen Akten, etc., p. 164. 60 THE MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS gether with the towns of its neighborhood, he burned into a ruined heap. His aim was clearly to intimidate the Hethitic states so that they should not render aid to A^uni. This strategy was effective, for the princes of the west paid tribute; — among them the kings of Sam'al, JJattina, Arpad, Carchemish, and Kummuh. In the following summer, in the month of Tammuz 857, Shal- maneser again took the road to Til-Barsip to deal the finishing blow. But the adroit Ahuni, in order to avoid certain annihila- tion, evacuated the capital and retreated with his army into Northern Syria. Shalmaneser was able to occupy the whole region of Bit-Adini without resistance. The important cities of the land were made royal residences of the king of Assyria and received new names. Til-Barsip became K4r-Shulmanasharid, Nappigu became Lita-Ashur, Align ' became A?bat-la-kunu, Rugulitu became Qibit. . . . The cities of Pitru and Mutkinu on opposite sides of the Euphrates, which had been conquered by Tiglathpileser and under Ashur-irbe had been retaken by "the king of the land of Arumu," were restored again to Assyria and colonized anew. While delaying at Til-Barsip and organizing the new province,^ Shalmaneser received the tribute of the kings of the seashore and of the Euphrates. Kar-Shulman-asharid, or Til-Barsip, has recently been dis- covered in the mound of Tell Ahmar (P S B A '12, 66), situated near the mouth of the Sagur, and directly on the shore of the Euphrates, where there is an excellent ford. It therefore is south of Carchemish, and not north, as was formerly held (D P 263: Biregik). The coimtry on this side of the river is fiat for miles, but on the opposite side low and abrupt limestone hills come close to the river. The old ramparts of Til-Barsip, which warded off Shal- maneser, still stand. Within the wall a broken stela has been found, ' Nappigu has been identified with MembiJ (Hierapolis) south of the, Sa|;ur river. Aligu is compared with Legah on the left bank of the Euphrates some distance above the mouth of the Sagur. ^ In the district of Til-Barsip lay also a city KapridargUd. The new cylinder of Sennacherib, C T XXVI col. VI 546, relates that S. found breccia for great stone vessels, such as had never before been found at this place. 61 THE AEAMAEANS IN MESOPOTAMIA AND SYRIA representing an Assyrian king addressing a smaller male figure with conical cap and beard. It is doubtless Shalmaneser and his subject king. In the southeast gate which looks towards Nineveh, two basalt lions stood, bearing inscriptions of the Assyrian mon- arch. He calls himself: " the great king who hath swept the lands of 5atti, Guti and all the lands of the sun from the shore of the great sea of the setting sun, who hath defeated Mu?ru and Urartu with its people, who hath swept the land of Ubu, the lands of Harutu and Labdadu, affecting their subjugation." These "mighty lions" were set up as symbols of victory in the "great gate of the city" after a triumph of Assyrian arms over some northern king who was in league with Urartu. In the midst of a great mountain the defeat was accomplished. Like a fierce windstorm that breaks the trees was Shalmaneser's onrush, and like the swoop of a hawk the attack of his troops. The opposing king had to slink out of his camp as a thief in the night to escape. In 856 (so the monolith II 66 f . while the black obelisk gives 854) Shalmaneser took up the pursuit of Ahuni. The resourceful and coiu-ageous Aramaean had taken refuge in an almost impregnable citadel on a cliff "that hung down like a cloud from the sky" beside the Euphrates and which was called Shitamrat. It lay in an almost impassable region, a three days' journey from Til- Barsip. Shalmaneser boasts that none of his forefathers had ever penetrated thither. Ahuni met the Assyrian in open battle, but was driven back into the city. The heads of his warriors were cut off and the mountain stained with the blood of his fight- ing men. The remnant of the army retreated to the top of the mountain. If Shalmaneser says that in the midst of the city a great battle ensued (Mon. II 73), we must refer this to the town below the acropolis. Elsewhere he relates that like the divine storm-bird his warriors attacked and killed 17,500 foemen (Bala- wat III, 3 f). He was unable to take the citadel itself by storm. Ahimi, however, wisely chose not to subject his people to the priva- tion of a long siege, but instead submitted and saved his and his people's lives. His treasure of incalculable weight, his troops 62 THE MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS and chariots and cavalry he surrendered to Shalmaneser. He himself, with his gods and sons and daughters and people, was deported to the vicinity of Ashur. The mere fact that he was not cruelly executed shows that his surrender took place while yet imconquered. Nevertheless, the state of Bit-Adini was now a thing of the past, and its last hope of a revival removed. The tragic end of the most powerful Aramaean state in the north is reflected in the prophecy of Amos 1:5: "I will exterminate the inhabitants of Biq'at Aven and the staff-holder" of Beth Eden (= Bit-Adini).' The last shepherd of the pastoral people of Bit- Adini shall perish. At the time when Amos prophesied, about 760 B.C. and after, Bit-Adini was merely a geographical concept and no longer existed as a state, so that the translation "Scepter bearer" would be impossible. The disastrous deletion of this people is also played upon in the words of Sennacheribs Rabshaqeh (Is. 37 : 12, 2 Kings. 19 : 12) : " Have the gods of the peoples that my fathers destroyed delivered them — Gozan ^ and Harran and Reseph ' and the people of Eden (that dwell) at Telassar? " The latter name need not be amended into Tel-bashar (Winckler), but is rather the equivalent of Til-Ash m gattina, killing 2800 warriors and carrying off large booty. Arame of Gusi (Arpad), who had not joined the alliance agamst Assyria, paid tribute. 1 The site of gazaz being known ('Azaz), we may look for Taid to the west and Nulia and Butamu to the east, between 'Azaz and Dabiq. The Assyrians are bound for Til-Barsip. Nulia I think may be the modern Niyara. Butamu Tomkins (I.e., p. 6) aptly compared to Beitan near 'Azaz. THE NORTH SYRIAN STATES In the following year (858) Shalmaneser attacked the cities of Bit-Adini west of the Euphrates and came very close to the border of gattina at Dabigu (to-day Dabiq Z A XII 47). The kings of Syria, chastened by the events of the previous season, brought him tribute. The Qattinaean paid the sumptuous amount of 3 talents of gold, 100 talents of silver, 300 talents of iron, 100 copper vessels, 1000 brightly colored and linen garments, his daughter and her rich dowry, 20 talents of bright purple, 500 head of cattle, 5000 sheep. Besides this Shalmaneser imposed upon him a yearly tax, to be delivered at Ashur, of 10 talents of silver, 2 talents of purple, and 200 cedar beams. The tribute imposed on Sangar of Carchemish is a close second in rank. It included 3 talents of gold, 70 talents of silver, 30 talents of bronze, 100 talents of iron, 20 talents of bright purple, 500 weapons, his daughter and her dowry, 100 daughters of his nobles, 500 head of cattle, 5000 sheep; his yearly tax was fixed at 1 mina of gold, 1 talent of silver, 2 talents of purple. JJaiini, son of Gabbar, "from the foot of the Amanus," who is doubtless identical with JJani of Sam'al, brought 10 talents of silver, 90 talents of bronze, 20 talents of iron, 300 brightly colored and linen garments, 300 head of cattle, 3000 sheep, 2000 cedar beams, his daughter and her dowry, together with an annual tax of 10 minas of gold and 200 cedar beams. Arame, "son of Bit-Agusi," gave 10 minas of gold, 6 talents of silver, 500 head of cattle, 5000 sheep; he appears to remain exempt from further taxa- tion. Katazil of Kummuh agreed to a yearly tribute of 20 minas of silver and 300 cedar beams. From this it appears that Car- chemish and Qattina were the richest states of northern Syria. After Shalmaneser in the following years had accomplished the destruction of Bit-Adini he at length in 854 turned his face westward. He is bound for the country of Hamath, bent upon new conquests in Central Syria. The kings of northern Syria — Sangar of Carchemish, Kimdashpi of Kummul), Arame son of Gusi, LaUi of Mehd, Qaiani, son of Gabbar, Kalparuda of gattina, Kalparuda ' of Gurgum acknowledged their vassalship by ap- ' Dittography of the previous name? 71 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA pearing before him at Pitru, and bringing tribute (Mon. II 82 f.). From Pitru he marched to Qalman (Aleppo) which submitted in fear at his approach and paid silver and gold. Before leaving IJalman the monarch brought sacrifice to the god Hadad, who had a famed sanctuary in this city. The attack upon central Syria, and especially the outcome of the battle of Qarqar, appears to have weakened the prestige of Shal- maneser. For after an expedition to the upper Tigris and two campaigns in Babylonia, he was forced to return to Syria. Per- haps Arpad and Carchemish refused to pay tribute, for in 850 he made a raid into the territory of both. In 848 he found it necessary to deport the restless population of Paqarahbuni (Ann. 85-91). In 832 finally we hear again of gattina (Ann. 147 f.). While at Calah, Shalmaneser is informed that the Hattinaeans have as- sassinated their king Lubarna (II) and have made Surri, who had no claim to the throne, their king. The Assyrian dispatches his war-chief Daidn Ashur, a remarkable general, to Kinalua, the capital of JJattina. The city is assaulted and sanguinary fighting ensues. Surri dies suddenly, — the Annals claim of fright. His son Zaipparma and other ringleaders of the rebellion are seized by the people, surrendered by them to Daian Ashur and cruelly impaled. Sasi, son of Kuruzza, of the loyal Assyrian party, is made king of JJattina. A large tribute is imposed and the image of Shalmaneser is erected in the temple of the gods at Kinalua. From now on the name JJattina disappears from the inscriptions. The power of this state is greatly reduced, and its realm confined to the 'Amq of Antioch, so that it receives the name Unqi. The earliest occurrence of it is in the inscription of Zakir (cf. Ch. XI). Qattina's southern possessions in the Bargylus appear to have been lost to Hamath. Northern Syria was from now on quite firmly under Assyria's control and isolated attempts at rebellion were suppressed without great difficulty. 72 CHAPTER IX THE SUPREMACY OF DAMASCUS The Assyrians had succeeded in laying open the road to the sea. The next logical step was to safeguard this achievement from ■covetous neighbors. This required constant campaigns both in the north and in the south. In central Syria it was especially Damascus, with its ally Hamath, that threatened to contest Assyria's claims in the west. The conquest of these states, there- fore, became a necessity for the new world-power. Furthermore, beyond Damascus there beckoned Tyre and Sidon, Palestine and South Arabia. To unite this great avenue of commerce from Asia Minor to Africa, under a common scepter, with all that such a thing implies, in coinage and language, law and order, was in- deed a lofty aim, achieved for a passing moment by Esarhaddon, realized in the empire of the Persians. In the year 854 Shalmaneser crossed the border of Qattina into Hamath. He approached first the cities of Adennu and Bargd. The former has been suitably identified with Tell Danit, southeast of Idlib (R A '08, 225). Bargd should then he to the south of it, but close by — perhaps at Stuma. Adennu is called "Ada, a 'city of Urljileni of Hamath " on band IX of the gates of Balawat. It and Pargi (or Bargd) surrendered to the Assyrian. His first blow struck Argani, a royal city, which is perhaps identical with the modern Ril;ia on the north side of the mountain of the same name (R A '08, 225).' The city was captured and pillaged, and the palaces of king Irljuleni of Hamath were set in flames. From here the Assyrian marched to Qarqar, the ancient Apamea and modern Qal'atilMudtq (Masp. Ill 70). At Qarqar a great ' Is the name, as Dussaud supposes, preserved in the swamp of ir-Rug further west? 73 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA battle is fought with twelve kings of Syria, of whom only eleven, however, are specified. This Syrian league is composed of Adad-idri of Damascus, Irljuleni of Hamath, Ahab of Israel, the king of Irkana, and Adunuba'li of Shiana. But Que, Mu§ri, Arvad, Ushana, Ammon, and an Arabian tribe are also represented. Damascus furnishes 1200 chariots, 1200 horsemen, and 20,000 men infantry. Israel lends 2000 chariots and 10,000 men. Hamath is third, with 700 chariots, 700 horsemen, and 10,000 men. Irkana and Shiana each furnish 10,000 men, but only 10 and 30 chariots respectively. Musri is represented by 1000 men, Que by 500, and Ushana and Arvad (under its king Matinuba'li) each by 200. The cavalry is strongly reenforced by the 1000 camels of Gindibu the Arabian. Ba'sa mar Ruhubi of Ammon finally had at least a thousand men in his detachment. As usual Shalmaneser claims the victory in extravagant phrases. Thus the monolith (II 96 f.) relates: "With the exalted power that the Lord Ashur granted, with the mighty weapons that Nergal who goes before me, presented, I fought with them, from Qarqar to GilzS,u I accompMshed their defeat. Fourteen thous- and of their warriors I prostrated with weapons, like Hadad I caused the storm to rain upon them, heaped up their corpses, filled the surface of the field. Their numerous troops with the weapons I slew, their blood I made flow over the expanse of the plain. Too small was the field for the slaughter, the wide plain did not suflice to bury them. With their corpses I dammed the Orontes as with a bridge. In the midst of that battle I took their chariots, riders, horses, and harnesses." Shalmaneser has bequeathed us also several other versions of this great battle. According to the Annals (66) 20,500 foemen are slain, a Bull inscription from Nimrud gives 25,000, a recent statue from Ashur 29,000. But even the more conservative figure of the monolith — 14,000 — must be regarded as greatly exaggerated. In a certain sense the battle was an Assyrian victory, since Shalmaneser remained master of the field, whereas 74 THE SUPREMACY OF DAMASCUS the allies retreated. But at Gilz4u, which may be the Seleucid Larissa (Qal'at Segar),^ they again halted. Directly on the bank of the Orontes, which here runs through a steep and narrow valley, the battle raged. Shalmaneser boasts that he dammed the river with the corpses of his foes, but in reality he must have suffered a defeat at this citadel. Had he been victorious he would surely have pressed on to Hamath. Thus success at Qarqar and failure at Gilzdu attend his first campaign against the Syrian league. When we compare this account of the cuneiform inscriptions with our Old Testament narrative, the difl&culty of harmonizing them becomes vexing. As we have seen, Ahab of Israel fought successfully against Damascus, and even captured its king at Aphek, making of him a vassal. The Hebrew account deserves full credence, the more since Ahab is distasteful to the prophetic narrators, so that an exaggeraton of his deeds would not have been allowed to pass into our record unchallenged. If this tradi- tion is discarded and Ahab made the vassal of Benhadad (Winckler), such procedure is utterly arbitrary. The difficulties increase when we regard the name of Ahab's opponent in the Old Testament and of his suzerain in the inscrip- tions of Shalmaneser. Where the Bible reads Benhadad the Assyrian gives (ilu) IM-idri. The fact that the LXX translates Benhadad by "son of Ader" led to the supposition that haddr, "glory," and not the divinity Hadad was originally the second element of this name. It would have been more natural to con- clude, however, that hadar was a later modification of Hadad for the purpose of avoiding the name of this heathen divinity. It was furthermore supposed that the ideogram I M could be read "Bir," and that Bir was an Aramaean divinity. Thus Birhadar was held by many to be the original name rather than Barhadad.^ ' Here the retreat from Qarqar woxild most logically reach the Orontes. For a description of the place of. Bell, The Desert and the Sown, p. 235. 2 Cf . A T U 73 and most recently Zimmem in the Hilprecht Anniversary Volume, p. 303. The name Barhadad occurs in Christian days as that of a bishop in Mesopotamia; cf. von Gutschmid, Neue Beitrage zur Geschichte des Alien Orients, 46 f . 75 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA But, admittedly, the existence of a god Bir is not established by indisputable evidence (K A T 446) and, admittedly, the ideogram (ilu) IM is regularly the equivalent of Adad. And in the god- lists we are explicitly told that Addu and Dadu were the names of the god IM in Amurru (C T XXV pi. 16:16). For this reason Adad-idri is the only possible reading of this name, and its only possible form in Hebrew could be Hadadezer (A J S L 27: 27 f.). Benhadad and Hadadezer cannot be identified except under the theory that the full name was Ben-Hadadezer, of which the As- syrians dropped the first element and the Hebrews the last. In addition to the fact that this name is of a most improbable formation, this theory is full of difficulties.' Luckenbill has shown one way out of the dilemma by the as- sertion that Benhadad is not identical with Adad-idri, but rather the latter's predecessor (A J S L 27:277f.). Then the fighting between Ahab and Benhadad might possibly have taken place about 860. The change of rulers at Tyre, where Pygmalion (860-814) came to the throne, may have been the signal for Benhadad to attack Ahab, since the latter could now expect no help from his ally. The battle of Aphek, then, took place in 859, whereupon two years of peace with Aram followed.^ The death of Benhadad took place, no doubt, during this interim in 858 and Adad-idri became king in Damascus. Possibly he was a usurper, most certainly he was a vigorous and able ruler. In 857-856 he made war upon Israel and gained Ramoth in Gilead from the Hebrews. Ahab can have suffered no crushing defeat, for then he would not have had the superiority in chariots with which he is credited by Shalmaneser. It is probable that in view of the common danger from Assyria, Ahab, who appears as a wise states- man, made peace with Adadidri and then in 854 appeared as the latter's ally at t^e battle of Qarqar. Perhaps believing the danger from Assyria to be over for the present, Ahab in the following year was led to imdertake the campaign against the Aramaeans to ' Cf. Zeitschrift fiir Keilschriftforschung, II, 167. ^ These L. unnecessarily assigns to the years after Qarqar, l.c., 279. 76 THE SUPREMACY OF DAMASCUS reconquer Ramoth Gilead in which he met his fate. It must be noted that in this accoimt (1 Kings 22) the opponent of Ahab is not mentioned by name, as in the preceding chapter, but is merely called "King of Aram." (Luckenbill, p. 281.) It is perfectly possible to assume, therefore, that a period of five or six years in- tervenes between 1 Kings 20 and 22 and that the "King of Aram" is our Adad-idri. We can now also account for the fact that the king of Israel does not appear among Shalmaneser's foes again after 854, because the new king Joram (853-842) was engaged in unsuccessful attempts to subdue the rebelhous Moab (2 Kings 3).' The result of Qarqar was not discouraging to the Syrians. Indeed, after settling more urgent business in Babylonia, Shal- maneser returned in 850 to Syria and foimd also Arpad and Car- chemish rebellious. According to the Bull inscription he crossed the Euphrates for the eighth time and burned and destroyed many cities belonging to Sangar of Carchemish, captured Arne,^ a royal city of Arame of Arpad and sacked it, together with 100 towns of its neighborhood. This campaign, according to the Black Obelisk (85-86), took him all that year. The Bull inscription is mistaken in assuming an attack on the Syrian league in that season (Textb. 21). It must also be mistaken in repeating the incursion into Carchemish and Arpad, where 97 and 100 cities respectively are sacked. The 100 cities of Arpad could scarcely be destroyed twice in succession. His trip to the Amanus, however, must belong '■ If our modification of the Luckenbill theory gives a rational explanation of the problems confronting us, then we must conclude that 2 Kings 8: 7-15 is, to say the least, inaccurate when it makes Hazael the successor of Benhadad. Either we must suppose Benhadad to be an error for Adadidri in vss. 7, 9 (or a gloss!) or else deny the passage as unhistorical, for which there is hardly enough ground (G V J 365). Those who would abide by the text must take recourse to Kittel's theory (ibid. 359 ff.) that Shalmaneser is in error when he mentions Ahab as his opponent, and that Ahab died 865, so that his son Joram fought at Qarqar. Then the battle of Aphek took place 858. Under this supposition the Benhadad-Adadidri problem, however, remains unsolved. ^ Band XII of the gates of Balawat records also the capture of " . . . agd^, a city of Arame son of Gusi." 77 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA to the 11th year, although it is not mentioned by the Obelisk (87-89), according to which he captures 89 towns of Hatti and Hamath. Traversing the Yaraqu mountains, apparently in the footsteps of Ashumazirpal, he reached the cities of Hamath in the Bargylus. Here he captured the important place of Ashta- maku, as well as 97 towns of the region, bringing about great slaughter. At this time, the Bull inscription vaguely tells, Adad-idri, Irhuleni, and twelve other (?) kings of the seaboard went forth to meet him. He claims to have accomplished their de- feat, slain 10,000 of their warriors, and taken away their weapons, chariots, and horses. It is impossible to say where the battle took place. On his return he went to the Amanus for cedars, and then back to Mesopotamia. On the way he captured Apparasu, a fortress in Arpad (perhaps to-day Tatmarash, northwest of Erfad) and received the tribute of King Kalparundi '■ of Qattina. In 848 he found it necessary to undertake a punitive expedition against Paqarhubuna (the territory of Bit-Adini west of the Euphrates) as we learn from the Black Obelisk (896). In 846, his 14th year, Shalmaneser makes a supreme effort. He mobilizes troops from all parts of his domain, as the Bull inscription informs us, and with 120,000 men crosses the Euphrates. The same Syrian league (this time 14 kings) again takes the field against him. At Qarqar about 60,000 men had fought against Shalmaneser. But now the huge army of the Assyrian must have necessitated a much greater levy. Shalmaneser claims that he routed the enemy; but since he furnishes no facts at all, we must regard his statement with distrust. During the next three years he was busy with operations in Nairi, Namri, and the Amanus. About this time a change of rulers took place at Damascus. ' Apparently the last king of this state. Saehau, Z A 6: 432, has shown that the name occurs in an Aramaic inscription of the seventh century, C I S II no. 75, "To Atrabu (?) son of Gabbarud, the eunuch, who drew near unto Hadad." Gal-pa-ru-da, Galpurundi, Garparunda, Gabbarud are all variations of the same name. The one of this inscription may have been a Syrian prince whose son suffered the fate referred to in Is. 39: 7. 78 THE SUPREMACY OF DAMASCUS Concerning this event an Ashur text (M K A no. 30:25) says, "Adad-idri forsook the land (i.e. died); Hazael, son of a nobody seized the throne." More detailed information is presented in 2 Kings 8:7-15, if we delete the name Benhadad as a gloss and refer "king of Aram" to Adad-idri. According to this passage Elisha reads the mind of Hazael, who has been sent to him by the king, and recognizes his innermost ambitions and designs. Alone with the King in his chamber soon afterward, Hazael smothers him with a wet blanket (so that no sign of murder can be detected) and then, with the help of other conspirators, seizes the throne of Damascus. Adadidri must have been an able and a brilliant ruler. With his death the Syrian league seems to have fallen apart. Assyrian diplomacy may have speeded this. Concerning Israel we know that Joram asserted his independence by emphasizing his claims on Gilead (2 Kings 8:28). He attacked Ramoth, captured it, and then "held the watch" against Hazael, king of Aram (9:14) and after being wounded, went to Jezreel for a rest-cure. With his murder by Jehu, the dynasty of Omri reaches its end. Hazael meanwhile' was laboring under great difficulties, and needed time to whip his vassals back into line. But Shahnaneser, seeing his advantage, was quick to make use of it. In 842, therefore, he advanced upon Damascus without tarry- ing on the way. Hamath must have submitted and allowed him to pass on unmolested. At the mountain of Saniru (the Shenirof Deut. 3:9), "in front of the Lebanon," Hazael intrenched himself. The "Lebanon" must here refer to the Antilebanon range, before whose southern "front" the Saniru or Hermon, lies (Textb. 24). Of course, the Assyrian does not mean to say that Hazael intrenched himself on the top of the great Hermon! Haupt thinks the Gebel ez-Zebedani, 50 km. northwest of Damascus, is meant (Z D M G 69:169). Most assuredly the position which the Aramaean took was in the close vicinity of the Wadi Zerzer on the present railroad from Damascus to Shtora, for the Assyrians must have approached Damascus from the Biq^' on the very same 79 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA route as does the modern traveller coming from Berut. In the ensuing battle Hazael was forced to retreat to Damascus. Besides the slaughter of 6000 Aramaeans, Shahnaneser claims a large booty of 1121 chariots, 470 riding horses, and Hazael's camp. But this battle had evidently cost him so heavily that he was imable to lay siege to Damascus. He had to content himself with destroying the beautiful parks of the vicinity and with a raid against defenseless towns in the Hauran. Then he turned back to the Phoenician coast, journeying as far as the mountains of Ba'li-ra'-si (the promontory at the Nahr-el-Kelb above Berut), where he set up his royal image, which is still standing to-day.' Here he received the tribute of Tyre, Sidon and Jehu of Israel. This fact is of extreme importance. None of these states needed to pay tribute. Arvad, Simyra and Ushana were much nearer and yet did not find it necessary. The significance of the act is twofold. We see first that Jehu maintains the tradition of the house of Omri of fraternizing with Sidon and Tyre (cf . the words of the disappointed prophetic writer 2 Kings. 10:31). And further- more we perceive that these three states make a bid for Assyrian friendship and thereby declare themselves the foes of Aram. For Israel's history it was a momentous decision. Under this aspect, the attitude of Hazael, that Elisha foresaw,, becomes perfectly clear. He is filled with an implacable hatred for Israel. True, for the present he could not pay any attention to this southern neighbor, for his mind and strength were occupied with the Assyrian menace. In 839 Shalmaneser made a last attempt to strike at Damascus. The Obelisk (102-4) tells that he captured four of the Aramaean's cities, and received the tribute of Tyre, Sidon, and Gebal. The eponym chronicle designates the campaign for this year as "to the land of Danabi." This can only refer to the classical Danaba and the Dunip of the Amarna letters, which lay perhaps at Sednaya north of Damascus (Z D P V 30: 17). Danaba was, then, one of the four captured cities. But Shalmaneser's success was not decisive, and henceforth he had to ' Cf. Winckler, Das Vorgebirge am Nahr-el-Kelb, '09, p. 16. 80 THE SUPREMACY OF DAMASCUS give up the Syrian wars in favor of more urgent business in the far north. At last Hazael was at Uberty to wreak his vengeance on Israel. His first blows apparently fell upon Gilead and Bashan, which he " cut off " from Israel (2 Kings 10:32-33). Jehu may have appealed more than once to Shalmaneser. How terrible the revenge of Hazael was appears from Amos 1 :3 — " They have threshed Gilead with iron threshing sledges." Hazael's action was a signal for all other neighbors to stretch out their hands for spoil, and so we find Philistines, Edomites, Ammonites, and even the Tyrians, "forgetting the bond of brotherhood" (Am. 1:9), making Razzias into Israel (Is. 9:12, Am. 1:6-15). Under Jehu's son Joahaz (814-797) Israel's abasement reached the extreme stage. Hazael's armies overran the entire land (G V J II 378). So ignominious were the conditions in these days that the records are silent of all detaUs save the one fact that the Aramaeans only allowed Joahaz an army of 50 horsemen, 10 chariots and 10,000 men (more prob- ably only 1000 men O L Z '01, 144, 2 Kings. 13:7). Hazael's ambitions, it appears, were chiefly directed to the south, and he wisely abstained from giving offense to Assyria by undue eilorts in the north. Arabia especially seems to have been close to his heart, for it was with the purpose of exercising more complete control over the Arabs that he pushed his con- quests into Philistaea, where the Arabian caravan roads reached the sea.' Besides this the control of the coastal plain of Palestine gave him the monopoly of the trade with Egypt. According to the information of the Greek text of Lucian in 2 Kings 13 : 22, lost in the M.T., Hazael captured all of Philistaea as far as Aphek in Sharon. He even laid siege to Gath, and from there made an ex- pedition against Jerusalem, whose king Joash paid him a rich tribute out of the temple treasury (2 Chr. 24 : 19 f., 2 Kings 12 :18 f.). Thus Hazael looms up as a great warrior, the greatest, perhaps, of the Aramaean kings. He was on the best road to the reaUzation 1 It is possible that Hazael was of Arabian extraction, for we find a king of Aribi named Hazaiilu in the time of Essarhaddon; cf . Prisms A and C, III, 1 f. 81 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA of a Syrian-Arabian empire when death called him away from the throne. Benhadad III assumed the reins of government at the very latest in 804 B.C. It would seem that Joahaz of Israel immediately seized the opportunity of a change of rulers at Damascus to shake off the foreign yoke.' According to a suggestion of Kuenen (Ein- leitung 25), the account of a seige of Samaria (2 Kings 6: 24-7:20) which, in its present connection, is placed in the time of Joram ben Ahab in reahty seems to belong to the time of Joahaz. It is a priori unhkely that Joram should be meant, since Damascus was during his reign too occupied with the Assyrian danger to assume the offensive against Israel. The actual fighting that did occur at this time, furthermore, centered at Ramoth in Gilead (G V J II 362). That Joahaz alone can be meant becomes a certainty from 6: 32, where the king is called "son of a murderer, " which must refer to Jehu, the father of Joahaz, whose bloody deeds are chronicled in detail {I.e. 379). The Benhadad of our story can well be the son of Hazael, for the prophet Elisha was aUve still in the time of Joash the son of Joahaz. Benhadad, then, upon the denial of his suzerainty by Joahaz, marched against Israel and laid siege to Samaria. Dire need and starvation reigned soon in the city. The king's whole wrath was turned against Elisha, who could give no other counsel than "Trust in God." But the prophet's word was vindicated, for on the morrow the Aramaean war camp lay deserted. The cause of the flight of the enemy is sought in the approach of Hittite and Egyptian armies. Usually this is emended by historians into "Assyrian armies" and referred to the advance of Adadnirari IV (810-782). Perhaps we should do better, however, to abide by the text and to understand Misraim as referring not to Egypt but to the northern " Mu?ri ", or Cappadocia. They and the Hittites of Car- chemish and Arpad may well have been moved by the Haldians ' 2 Kings 13: 22 must then be regarded as inexact. Its late origin is recog- nized by commentators on other grounds than the one advanced here. Besides, Hazael died some time before 803, while Joahaz hved till 797. 82 THE SUPREMACY OF DAMASCUS of Urartu to attack Damascus, for the Haldians were striving to establish an empire in Syria about this time (cf. Ch. XII). The campaigns of Adadniriri in 806 to Arpad, 805 to gazaz, may- have been directed against the Haldian power in this quarter. If our interpretation can be trusted, the siege of Samaria must have taken place about 806 b.c. Damascus, forced to fight the Haldians, had to release its pressure on Israel. Certainly some events must have taken place which momentarily weakened Damascus. For Adadnirdri can boast on the stone- slab inscription that in one of his campaigns, probably that of 803 "to the sea," he laid siege to Damascus and received the tribute of its king Mari'.' This name is merely the popular title of the kings of Damascus, "my lord." The real name of the ruler can only have been Benhadad. Adadnirdri received from him in his palace 2300 talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3000 talents of copper, 5000 talents of iron, brightly colored garments, cloths, an ivory bed, a couch of inlaid ivory. In the same inscription he asserts that he made tributary to himself Hatti, Amurri, Tyre, Sidon, the land of Omri, Edom, and PhiUstaea. These glittering generaUties, however, must be regarded mth the greatest scep- ticism. The renewed advance of the Assyrians gave Israel a breathing spell. Already in the reign of Joash (797-781) the Hebrews won successes against Aram. This is reflected in the oracle of the dying Elisha concerning "the Arrow of victory over Aram" (2 Kings 13: 14^19). From it we may at least gather that Joash administered a most severe defeat to Damascus at Aphek. The AssjTian campaign against Manguate in 797 may have helped to render the beginning of his reign auspicious, since Damascus was heavily engaged thereby. Joash succeeded in winning back the cities which his father had lost to Hazael. His successor 'As now appears from the Boghaz-Koi texts, the word Mar, "lord," is derived from the title "mariannu" borne by the Aryan nob'lity in Syria in the days of the Hittite empire. Adadniriri is for some reason reverting back to this old title of city rulers in our instance, O L Z '10: 292 f. S3 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA Jeroboam II (781-740) even regained the Marsyas plain as far as the entrance to Hamath, and gave Israel a new period of bloom. The campaign of Shalmaneser IV (783-773) against Damascus in 773 and JJatarik in 772, mentioned in the Eponym chronicle, may have greatly aided Jeroboam. About this time the reign of Benhadad III must have drawn to its close. Valuable light is shed on the events in his last years by an Aramaic inscription from Hamath which we shall discuss in an especial chapter (Ch. XI). 84 CHAPTER X KILAMMU OF SAM'AL Among the north SjTian principalities we have already met that of Sam'al, at the foot of the Amanus mountains, and have heard of its King gdni of Sam'al, alias JJaiini son of Gabbar. The bril- liantly successful excavations conducted by F. von Luschan on behalf of the German Oriental Society at Sengirh, have brought to Ught the capital and center of the kingdom of Sam'al and a number of valuable inscriptions of Sam'al's kings. The oldest of these inscriptions, found shattered to fragments, but completely restored by the skill of an expert of the Berlin Museum, is that of Kalammu son of Qaia.^ Von Luschan straightway recognized that the 3aii mentioned can be no other than the U^ni of Sam'al who hved in the days of Shalmaneser. The language of the inscription is Canaanitic or Phoenician. If it were not for the fact that its author calls himself "bar JJaid," using the Aramaic word "bar" for son, we would scarcely believe that he was an Aramaean, for there are hardly any traces of Aramaic in the rest of the inscription. Nevertheless the language of the invaders must have been spoken to a very large extent in this region at Kilammu's time and even earlier, for some geographi- cal terms in the Assyrian inscriptions referring to this district are undoubtedly Aramaic; the name of the Kara-Su river as Saluara (El) river, is an example (S B A '92, 330). But the learned men of the land, the priests and scribes, were all of the older stock, • A S 237 S. makes no attempt to decipher the inscription. Its difficulties were, however, quickly solved by the work of Littmann, S B A '11: 976 f.; Lidzbarski, E S E III 218 f.; Bauer, Z D M G, 67: 684 f. Extremely diver- gent but not convincing is the interpretation of Hoffmann, Theol. Lit. Zeit., '12 (January 6). 85 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA and thus the Phoenician tongue, which had maintained itself in spite of centuries of Hittite domination, was used in the cult and in the civic administration. The name of our king K L M V has been variously interpreted. Littmann vocahzed it "Kalumu" (I.e. 978) and compared the personal name "Kalimimu" (= "young") of the Hammurapi Dynasty. Streck (ibid. 985) calls attention to the Kulummai in M V A G '06, 230. But in view of such names as Giammu, Panammu, Tutammu, it seems preferable to regard that of this king as Hittite. The first element then is Kil — which is frequent in proper names of Asia Minor provenance; ^ the second element mu is then the ending — moas, — mouas, — mues.^ Lidzbarski suggests (I.e. 224) that the name Kheramues found on the island of Samos (Kretzschmer 333) is perhaps identical with "Kilammu." Kilaramu's inscription is divided into two portions by a double Une drawn horizontally through the middle, and the material content of the inscription justifies this division. In the first half he deals with historical matter and in the second part with social and religious things. Let us follow his own story in detail. After informing us who he is by the words "I am Kilammu son of gaia," the author gives us a brief historical survey of his djmasty (2-5) and mentions as its founder a certain Gabbar whom we have heard of as the father of S&ni of Sam'al from Assyrian sources. As his name shows, Gabbar was an Aramaean. If he was con- temporary of Ashumazirpal, we see that already at this day the Aramaeans had seized the reins of government in Sam'al. This king's reign is described briefly as "Gabbar ruled over Ya'di' and accomplished nothing." Likewise his successor Bamah ' Cf . Lycian Kill-ortas, pisid. Kill-ares; also the place names KiHstra, Kilarazos (Kretzschmer, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Griechischen Sprache '96, p. 368). O L Z '11: 542 compares of Kili-Teshup (Hittite). ^Poiamoas, Oubramouasis, Panamues. Kretzschmer, i.e., 332 f. As Lidz- barski points out, the final vav in KLMV must have had consonantal value for the scriptio plena for vowels does not occur in this inscription. This dis- penses at once with all Semitic interpretations of the name. 2 Ya'di = Sam'al; ef. Ch. XIV. 86 KILAMMU OF SAM'AL (B M H) accomplished nothing. The third king of the dynasty was the present ruler's father Qai&. Since he is called by the Assyrian "son of Gabbar," we must assume that Bamah was either an older brother of Qaia or else a usurper, gaid, too, accomplished nothing. His name is given in the short hypocoristic form, while the Assyrian gives the fullest form gaiani. Perhaps the popular form was avoided in speaking to strangers; thus the bilingual texts from Palmyra give the hypocoristic form in the Aramaic portion, but the full form in the Greek (E S E III 225, II 282). The name Qaian also appears in the later Nabataean inscriptions. It has been frequently pointed out that the name of the Hyksos king, Khian, recorded by Manetho, bears striking similarity to this Arabian- Aramaean JJaian (S B A 11:979). JJaiA was suc- ceeded by Kilammu's brother She'll ' who "accomphshed nothing."" How Kilammu finally came to the throne is not said but it is quite hkely that the murder of She'll preceded his accession. Since Kilammu's name is unsemitic, he may have been the son of a Hittite wife of JJaia, and only a half-brother to Shell. Peculiarly indeed Kilammu described himself as "son of per- fection." It has been suggested that he is imitating the custom of Assyrian kings, who in praising themselves very often use the ex- pression "gitmalu," "perfect." ^ And Bauer {I.e. 685) has sup- posed that Kilammu is playing on his name with the similar Assyrian "kalamu" and calling himself "der AUesmacher" or the "one who accomphshes everything." For an Assjrrian vassal it, of course, must have been eminently satisfactory that he was able to give his name such a flattering interpretation. And in- deed this observation seems justified from the next sentence, in ' This would be the Aramaic vocalization. If it was spoken in Hebrew fashion, it would be Sha'ul ( = Saul). Littmann's interpretation "sha-ili," "of God," is less likely. Perhaps She'll was gain's brother, not KUanunu's; E S E III 226 suggests that possibly the oldest member of the ruUng family came to the throne as among the Osmanhs. 2 Hehn, Bibl. Zeitschr., '12: 121. It seems vmnecessary to hold with E S E III 227 that bar Tarn is a proper name, "son of Tam," referring to the mother of Kjlanunu. It would be rather imusual for a Semite to mention his mother in this manner. 87 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYKIA AND MESOPOTAMIA which this king shows a most remarkable self-esteem: "Of that which I accomplished the previous (kings) accomplished nothing." Thus the history of the dynasty culminates in himself, and before his glory the deeds of all other who sat on Sam'al's throne pale into insignificance. Of his foreign policy he tells us in 11. 5-8, "My father's house," he says, "was in the midst of powerful kings." He does not name them, but we can imagine who most of them were. For Sam'al bordered to the north on Gurgum, to the south on JJattina, and Yahan, to the east on Bit-Adini. And beyond these were numerous other kingdoms that were constantly forming new political constellations, and whose aid could be bought with gold. It was a perilous diplomatic game that was constantly being played at the royal courts of these petty states. "Every one (of these kings) stretched out his hand against (my people)" (Z D M G 68:227). Vividly in these few words our author paints the situation that existed in Syria since time immemorial. It was under such conditions that Kilammu came to the throne. And what was the result? Forcibly he relates: "But I became in the hands of the kings like a fire that devours beard and hand." ' In this connection he gives us an incident: "When the king of the D — N Y M^ arose against me, I hired against him the king of Ashur. A maiden he (the king of D.) had to give for every sheep, and a man for every garment." ' Kilammu employs almost military terseness and brevity. The result of his ad- versary's hostility was disastrous to himself. The adversary had to pay him a large war indemnity. Who is the king of D — N Y M? This problem is the most vexing one offered by our inscription. We are well acquainted ' Bauer, I.e., 690. But the passage is interpreted also in various other ways. E S E III 228 translates, "I also was in the hand of kings, for devoured was my beard, devoured was my hand." Beard and hand typify a man's dignity and strength. ^ Unfortunately the second letter of the name is illegible. ' Bauer, I.e., 686 f. This interpretation is preferable to that of Lidzbarski, 231, who assumes that Kilammu made this payment to the king of Ashur. KILAMMU OF SAM'AL with the various states of Syria from the Assyrian records, but there is no such name occurring among them. It would be tempt- ing to correct the name into Y (g) N Y M — people of Yahan, but this is precarious. If we abide by the reading D — N Y M, it might be held that the Dodanim, a Greek tribe and branch of the lonians, referred to in Genesis 10 :4 are meant. In this case it must be assumed that sea-kings from Cyprus or other islands of the Mediterranean temporarily exercised power over the Amanus region. Then too it must be concluded that the Assyrian king on an oversea's venture subjected this Greek king and forced him to pay an indenmity. While this is not impossible per se, we must be rather skeptical in regard to such an expedition. Another possibility is that advocated by Littmann, that the tribe or people of Danuna is here referred to, which appears among the Asiatics in the Egyptian annals (MAE 359) and occurs in a letter of Abimilki king of Tyre (Kn. no. 151:52). The locaUty referred to is disputed. The only indication we have is the fact that it is mentioned along with Ugarit. The latter seems to have been a seaport in the extreme north of Syria (Kn. 1017). In one of the Boghaz-Koi tablets the Hittite Idng justifies himself before the king of Babylon because a caravan bound for Amurru and Ugarit was attacked within his territory (M D G no. 35, p. 24). In our Amama letter the Hittite army is also mentioned. It is therefore undeniably plausible that a small state or people of Danuna may have existed in the ninth century in the vicinity of Alexandrette on the western slopes of the Amanus. This people was fairly safe from attack by the Ass3rrians, and need therefore not be m.entioned in the inscriptions of the latter. On the other hand it might through the pass of Beil^n encroach upon the territory of Sam'al or at least make razzias into this region.^ An additional explanation which has not yet been proffered might be this, that the country of Daiaeni on the Upper Euphrates is re- ferred to by D — N Y M. A temporary expansion of power from '■ The city of Dinanu given in the list R T P 15 and lying in the vicinity of Aleppo might also claim consideration. 89 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA this center south to the region of Sam'al is not impossible. Still better, however, might be the supposition that (Blt)-Zamdni is meant,' a state in the Kashiar region against which the Assyrians in these days made a number of campaigns (of. Toffteen, Re- searches, p. 6ff.)- Whoever the hostile king was, Kilammu "hired against him the king of Ashur" (cp. 2 Sam. 10:6). We do not hear what measures the Assyrian took, nor have we any clue in the cimei- form inscriptions. The Assyrian help, however, was effective. Kilammu retained his independence, and the large indemnity which he received, coupled with the care-free life that he could now live under Assyria's protection, enabled him to devote his attention to the promotion of the common weal. About such peaceful endeavors, Ealammu tells us in the second part of his inscription. Herein lies his greatest pride. Like Solomon of Israel, he was a diplomat, a builder, an organizer, rather than a warrior. But his idea of the relation of a king to his subjects is singularly different from that recorded of Solomon and other Oriental potentates. What the word "Landesvater" expresses to the German appears to have been the ideal of Kilammu. The second part begins anew with an introduction in which the king names himself. We find the same form in the Assyrian annals, as well as in the Phoenician monuments (cf. Eshmimazzar, 13). "I Kilammu, son of IJaia, sat on the throne of my father. Before the previous kings the inhabitants walked (i.e. were con- sidered) like dogs."^ Forcefully, though not imjustly the author describes the character of the Oriental despots. But how dif- ferent was his own way! "I on the contrary was a father to the one, a mother to the next, a brother to the third " (cf . Bauer I.e. 688). He also brought prosperity to the poor and miserable. "Him, who never saw the face of a sheep, I made the possessor of ' The change of Z into D is no obstacle, as that is frequent; cf. gindan and ginzan, Z A 19: 236. ' Cf. E S E III 233. Another interpretation, "slunk about like dogs," is offered, Z D M G 68: 227. 90 KILAMMU OF SAM'AL a flock and him who never saw the face of an ox, I made the possessor of cattle, and owner of silver and owner of gold, and him who from his youth had never seen cotton, I covered in my day with byssus." What a contrast to the poverty and utter neglect of human needs in former times! No wonder that as he thinks back and recalls former conditions he comes to the judgment that his predecessors accomplished nothing! "But I stood as support at the side of the inhabitants, and they showed me a feehng such as the feeling of an orphan for a mother." Thus the ideal state, Kilammu believes, was achieved under his rule. Like all those who erect moniunents for posterity, Kilammu fears nothing so much as that his memory might be forgotten. Therefore he adjures the coming generations: "If any one of my descendants who shall sit in my stead, shall bring libation to this inscription, (under him) the Mushkab shall not oppress the Ba'rir and the Ba'rlr shall not oppress the Mushkab." ' He thus invokes a blessing upon the reign of his successor who honors his monument. And the greatest benefit that he can think of for a King of Sam'al is peace between two factions that were powerful in this state. It has been suggested that Mushkab represents the inhabitants or fellahin, while Ba'rlr designates the Beduin. Still more Ukely, however, is the view (E S E III 235) that the difference is more a national than a cultural one, and that the Mushkab is the old inhabitant of Canaanite or Hittite stock, while the Ba'rlr is the Aramaean immigrant who now formed an im- portant part of the population. This indeed strikes the truth squarely, for the word Ba'rir is used in the later Aramaic in the sense of barbarian or foreigner. Since the two words appear without the article they are semi-proper names. The Ara- maeans therefore continued to be called Ba'rlr long after they ^The word "Mushkab" must refer to human beings, as proceeds from the contrast to Ba'rir in 1. 14. The translation "sepulchers" is impassible. E S E III 233 correctly suggests that it means inhabitants of a lower order. The Babylonia "Mushkenu," so frequent in the Hammurapi code, might be re- garded as analogous. Bauer, I.e., 687, explains the expression "Mushkab" as "dwelling" used for "dwellers," just as Assyrian bit often means "tribe." 91 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA had ceased to be nomads and had taken up agriculture and trade. The linguistic and racial differences between the two factions made a sharp distinction necessary in the affairs of the kingdom and increased the difficulties of the sovereign. The modus Vivendi presupposed by Kilammu is exactly like that in early Shechem between Hebrew and Canaanite. But the possibility of bloody strife arising at any moment, as happened in Shechem, seems dreadful to him. The rite which Kilammu hopes shall be evermore performed at his monument, the Hbation,^ has its analogy in Semitic usage. Thus Sennacherib (Prism VI 66f.) says that whoever of his descend- ants that shall reign after him shall have to renovate his palace, "May he gaze upon the inscription of my name, may he anoint it with oil, bring sacrifice, and return it to its place; then Ashur and Ishtar shall hear his prayer." To anoint an inscription of one's forebears with oil was thus an act of respect and veneration, incumbent upon those who were pious. But as Sennacherib closes his inscription with a curse upon the head of him who shall change the writing of his name, so Kilammu also concludes "who- ever shall destroy this inscription, may Ba'al §emed who is Gab- bar's (god) destroy his head, and Ba'al JJaman, who is Bamah's (god), destroy his head, and Rekabel, Ba'al of my house." In this oath formula lies the only indication that we have of Kilammu's religious life. He mentions three royal patrons that have proved themselves helpful to the kings of Sam'al. Nor can it be accidental that above his inscription there are engraved three divine symbols. The first of these symbols, to the left, is the horned head-dress usually worn by the gods in ancient sculptures; the second is undoubtedly the bridle of a horse; ^ the third is the waning moon with a superimposed full moon. The god Ba'al Semed, "lord of the team" (of oxen), is an agri- ' So Bauer, I.e., 689. Lidzbarski and others translate "damage," which is unlikely. The remainder of the quotation has likewise been correctly ex- plained by Bauer, ibid. 'So Hehn convincingly proves, Bibhsche Zeitschrift, 1912, p. 116. 92 KILAMMU OF SAM'AL cultural deity and may be meant with the first symbol. To define Ba'al JJaman is more difficult. The interpretation "Lord of the Amanus" is untenable (E S E III 236). The name must be derived from the Canaanite hamon, which primarily signifies "noise, roar, tumult." We should therefore regard this divinity as a storm-god, and the equivalent of Hadad; and since Hadad is a variation of the moon god in his r61e of weathermaker (G G 88), the third symbol can represent Ba'al-JJamon. Honrniel's suppo- sition (G G 160) that the Carthaginian Ba'al JJaman represents the waning moon is thus vindicated. Rekabel "The charioteer (or rider) is god" is the old Aramaean war-god and is a mani- festation of the God Amar (0 L Z '09:16). His symbol must thus be the bridle. But though Kilammu recognizes these gods and calls upon them to curse impiety, he does not give any credit to them for past help. As long as he lives he does not need them; when he is dead they may guard his inscription! How differently does a Panammu speak of the grace of the Gods! Lack of the reverence which he demands of others is characteristic of Kilammu. He has neither respect for his ancestors nor for the divine powers. He is Kilammu, "son of perfection." His relation to Assyria is not clear. The expression "I hired the king of Assyria" is noticeably contemptuous. He is imgrate- ful, however, for without Assyrian help his prosperity would have been impossible. But we must ask ourselves — was he still a subject of Assyria at the time of this inscription and would a vassal have dared to speak in this fashion? It is quite possible that he wrote this inscription at the time of Shalmaneser IV (783-773), when Assyria was greatly weakened. But on the other hand it is singular that Kilanmiu has no weapon, but peacefully holds in his hand a flower,^ while in pre-Assyrian sculptures from Sengirli weapons are always represented. (E S E III 230.) This seems to indicate that Kilammu is still a vassal, and that it was • Is the flower a symbol of the moongod? According to Hommel, G G 88, Nannar is pictured as "lily." Nannar-In-shushinak, God of Shushan, the city of the "lily," III R 55 No. 3, 24 be. 93 THE ARAMAKANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA forbidden to vassals to wear weapons or to allow themselves to be portrayed with them. Assyria's prestige, however, is so small, and Kilaramu's notion of his own greatness so exaggerated, that it is only a little step to a declaration of independence. Kilammu, we must conclude, was a wise and able ruler. If we set aside his impiety and conceit, we have a man of sagacious and kindly character. His inscription, however, was destroyed despite the curses, which the foe who sacked the city may not have xmder- stood. Thousands of years later, however, the skill of the modem scientist has restored the fragments to a Uving whole. 94 CHAPTER XI ZAKIR OF HAMATH AND LA'ASH As we have already indicated, Hamath's rise to power is syn- chronous with the decay of gattina. The capital city, called also Hamath Rabbah,"^ or the "great Hamath" (Am. 6:2), is identical with the modern Hama on the Orontes and the classical Epiphania. The great Tell in the middle of the present city contains the remains of this ancient capital of the second largest state of Syria, and an excavation of it should yield rich treasures in inscriptions and monuments. The location of Hama has always been one of commercial importance, situated as it is on the great highway from the BiqA' and Damascus to Aleppo and in the vicinity of one of the most fruitful districts of central Syria. If the in- terpretation of its name as meaning "Metropolis" (Konig) be correct, as seems likely, then its commercial and pohtical character is sufficiently emphasized. It was doubtless an ancient Canaanitic settlement (cf. Gen. 10:18) and then became a center of Hittite influence, as is affirmed by the discovery there of the so-called "Hamath stones," or Hittite inscriptions.^ Its king Irjjuleni, who fought at Qarqar, was a last scion of the Hittite nobihty in this part of Syria. But the population of his country must have been largely Aramaean. The northern border of Hamath in Shalmaneser's day must have been near Idlib, southwest of Aleppo, where we found the frontier towns of Adennu, Bargd and ArganA. Later it reached as far north as il-Atharib, as will appear shortly. Two excellent strongholds guarded Hamath, which itself is undefended, on the ' A reminiscence of Kabbah may be seen in Qal'at er-Rubbeh a little west of Hama. 2 Cf . Garstang, The Land of the Hittites, 93 f . 95 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA north — Apamea and Larissa. In its best days Hamath con- trolled the entire Bargylus region together with a number of im- portant coast cities like Usnu, Siannu Simirra, Rashpmia.^ Its southern border must be defined, by the familiar Old Testament expression Labo Hamath, "the entrance to Hamath," with which Israel's ideal northern frontier is described. This can only designate that point where the Orontes river leaves the Biqa' and flows into the valley between Lebanon and Antilebanon. Near this point there is a town to-day called Lebweh and in ancient times Libum; it is very likely, as is supposed by some, that the verbal form Labo has crystalhzed into the mane of this place in later days. And if we read in Numbers 34:11 that Harbelah (LXX while M T has Riblah) is Israel's border we find this preserved in the modem il Harmel north of Libum (Z A W 3:274). But apart from this indirect argument, we know definitely that the territory of Hamath extended at least to Riblah, south of the lake of Homs (cf. 2 Kings 23:33 etc.). Hamath, after the death of Benhadad II of Damascus, seems to have given up resistance against Assyria, in order to avoid further demolition of its cities. Indeed, it became a supporter of Assyria, for the attack of Adadnirari IV against Mari' of Damascus, as well as of Shalmaneser against Hazael, is unthinka- ble except under the supposition that the Assyrians allowed Hamath to annex some of the territory of JJattina, when that state was reduced to Unqi-il Amq. It was good policy for them to strengthen Hamath at the expense of other less loyal states. However, it was only natural that, as soon as Assyria failed to assert its power in the west, the other states of Syria should seek to avenge themselves upon Hamath for its Assyrian partisanship. These conditions are reflected in a most remarkable inscription, discovered and edited by Pognon.^ It is written in a dialect that is Aramaic in many characteristics, but in which a Canaanitic ' We shall deal with the so-called " 19 districts of Hamath" in Chapter XII. ^ Inscriptions s^mitiques de la Syrie, de la M&opotamie et de la region de Mossoul, 1907, No. 86. 96 ZAKIR OF HAMATE AND LA'ASH vocabulary predominates (J B L 28:64). It takes us, therefore, to the period of the Aramaean absorption of this region, and throws an imexpected flood of light on the history of Hamath in the obscure period between Shalmaneser and Tiglathpileser. The inscription unfortimately is not fully preserved. It was once written upon a monolith of at least 2:10 meters height (according to the discoverer's estimate), which no doubt the Arabs broke into blocks for building purposes. Four of these blocks were recovered and the largest exhibits the relief of the lower extremities of a human figure. Whom this sculpture once represented is related in the opening: line of the inscription: "The stele which Zakir," ' king of Hamath and La'ash placed for Elur (and inscribed "). This title of the inscription straightway raises the question, what is meant by La'ash. A city or region so important that it can be named alongside of Hamath should be mentioned in the Assyrian inscrip- tions, or in the Old Testament. But the cuneiform records seem to leave us in the lurch entirely. In Genesis 10: 19, however, we may have an occurrence of it if the conjecture that Lasha' is an error for La'ash be true (Procksch79). There the border of the Canaanite habitat is described as running from Sidon to Gerar (near Gaza), then east to Sodom, and then north again to Lasha'. We are led to expect that Lasha' lies somewhere east of Phoenicia, in order to complete the quadrangle. Montgomery has discovered references in the early Arabic Geographies to a town of Bal'&s'' in the region of Horns (J B L 28 : 69) which is to-day preserved in the Gebel Bil'ds southeast of Selemiyeh (E S E III 176). If this be the neighborhood of the ancient La'ash, then its omission in the cuneiform inscriptions is explicable by the analogy of the near-by 1 This vocalization given by Pognon is retained by us here because of the occurrence of this form among the Mesopotamian names. Noldeke (Z A XXI 375 ff.) reads Zakur and Montgomery, Zakar. Kn. 1095 compares the prince Ztkar from the same region in Amama days. 2 Montgomery, I.e., 70, also reminds us of the startling similarity between the names La'ash and Lagash in Babylonia, and finds a Balds between Wa§it and Basra. 97 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA Tadmor (Palmyra), which is also never mentioned, since it lies too far to the left of the highway. But, on the other hand, Bil'4s lies far north of the latitude of Sidon, which seems rather a serious objection. For the present the view of Dussaud appears prefer- able. HeidentifiesLa'ashwithLuhuti(R A '08, 222f.). This is philologically plausible and historically most highly probable. As we have seen (Ch. VIII) the land of Luhuti is the lofty Bargylus plateau, which seems to have belonged to Hamath in the days of Ashumazirpal. It represents a conquered province of Hamath rather than an integral original part of the kingdom. What is more likely than that a ruler of Hamath should include Luhuti in his title, and call himself " King of Hamath and Luhuti " ? It is certainly more probable than that the obscure Bil'as should appear in the title.^ This would only be possible if it be the birthplace of Zakir or the first city of his rule. After designating the stele as dedicated to the god Ellir, the author begins anew "Zakir, King of Hamath and La'ash, a humble man am I" (1-2).^ And because of his great humility he received divine aid: "And (there helped me) Ba'alshamayn and stood by me and Ba'alshamayn made me king over Hazrak" (3-4). It would appear that Zakir was the organizer of a rebellion in this city, and became its king and that from here he subdued the rest of the kingdom. What the political cause of his rebellion was is not quite clear, but we may assume that in all probability the king of Hamath had yielded to the pressure of his neighbors, especially of Damascus, to join an anti-Assyrian coalition, and that the pro- Assyrian party had raised Zakir to the throne in one of the chief strongholds of the realm. It is but natural that the southern part of the kingdom near the border of Damascus should be hostile to this dangerous neighbor. The fortress of Hazrak is identical with the Hadrach of Zechariah 9 : 1 — " Jahve is in the land of Hadrach and in Damascus is his seat." 'As historically, if not philologically, unlikely I also regard the view of Grimme, L Z '09: 15, that La'ash ■ Alashia (Cyprus). ^E S E III 6 suggests "man from 'Ana" (or Akko?). I prefer "humble," and find here a striking analogy to the Messianic predicate Zech. 9: 9. 98 ZAKIR OF HAMATH AND LA'ASH It occurs in the cuneiform inscriptions as gatarikka. The name is considered to be of Hittite origin by Lidzbarski who thinks that the initial 3 in JJamath, Qalman, JJadrach may be a word meaning fortress or city (E S E III 175).^ There can be no doubt but that the Zakir inscription originally stood in the city of Hadrach. Pognon conceals all information as to the place of discovery of the stele, but as Lidzbarski has seen, it doubtless was found at Unmi-esh-Shershtih situated on a high long Tell above the Orontes northwest of Tell Bise and south of ir-Restto, the classical Arethusa (E S E III 174 f.). It holds a commanding position on the important highway to the Biqa'. Here Lidzbarski foimd in the wall of a house part of a relief of Assyro-Aramaean character, showing the upper part of a man's body, the hand up- lifted in gesture of adoration, hair and beard curled, and wearing a tiara with feathers and a horn curved upward above the brow (E S E III 167 f.). The missing part of the Zakir stele must have been quite similar. Here then lay ancient Hadrach, the im- portance of which disappeared with the rise of Homs, as had that of Kadesh with the rise of Hadrach. Our inscription now relates how the great coalition immediately attempted to suppress the rebellion and to capture Hazrak. "And Barhadad, son of Hazael, king of Aram, imited against me (seven)-teen kings" (4-5). We thus have an astonishing and im- portant reference to Benhadad III of Damascus. There now follows a list of kings, which, however, cannot have included 17 names. Seven are preserved: "Barhadad and his war-camp, Bargush ^ and his camp, the king of Que and his camp, the king of 'Amq and his camp, the king of Gurgum and his camp, the king of Sam'al and his camp, and the king of Miliz ' (and his ' It is tempting to find in Hadrach the name of the moongod Aku. If it were not for the form Hazrak, we should translate it ' ' sacred enclosure of Aku. ' ' '' As Schiffer first saw (S A IV), Bargush is the "apil Gusi" occurring often in the Assyrian inscriptions as a term for the king of Arpad. Gush is perhaps, a divine name; it occurs also in "N R G S H." C I S II 105; cf . E S E III 7. 'Mihz was correctly identified by Dussaud with the Armenian Milid (Malatia). THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA camp)" . . . (5-7). In the lacuna of line 8 there is room for possibly three more names; then at the end of line 8 and in line 9 we must read with Pognon "seven kings they and their camps." These seven unspecified kings, with the three missing and the seven given names make up the number seventeen.^ Vividly Zakir proceeds to give details of the siege of JJazrak. "And all these kings laid siege against JJazrak, and raised a wall higher than the wall of !gazrak, and dug a ditch, deeper than the ditch of gazrak" (G-19). The procedure is very similar to that described in the siege of Abel Beth Ma'acah (2 Sam. 20:15 f.). The purpose of these engineering operations was to undermine the wall of the city so that it should fall at some point and make a breach for the attackers. The aUies, however, were imsuccessful. Piously Zakir assigns his deliverance to his patron Ba'alshamayn : "I lifted up my hands unto Ba'alshamayn, and Ba'alshamayn answered me and Baalshamayn said unto me through the instrumentality of seers and the instrumentality of counters" (11-12). The word of the gods, therefore, came to the king through the mouth of diviners. The "seers" are familiar to us from the Old Testa- ment, but the "counters" ioxm a new class. They are probably astrologers. As has been suggested, the word has its parallel in the Babylonian "dupshar minati" or "writer of numbers" a class of diviners.^ In this manner then "Baalshamayn (said), 'Fear not, for I made thee king and I will stand by thee and I will deliver thee from all (the kings which) have laid against thee a siege'" (13-15). Unfortimately our account here becomes ex- tremely fragmentary. Pognon estimates that with the loss of the upper part of the stele some thirty lines of the inscription which is continued on the narrow face of the left-hand side, are missing. They must have reported the events leading up to the raising of the siege. Evidently there was mention of the clash ' Cf. Montgomery, I.e., 60. ^ J B L 28: 69. Montgomery also suggests in that connection that the father of the prophet Azariah (2 Chron. 15:1) and another prophet named Oded (2 Chron, 28:9) never bore such a name, but that this was really the official title "counter, diviner." 100 ZAKIR OF HAMATH AND LA'ASH of battle, for chariots and horsemen are spoken of and a king is described as in the midst of the fray (block III 2-3). The upshot of it all was the victory of Zakir and the discomfiture of the hostile coalition. Peculiar circumstances, similar perhaps to those of 2 Kings 7 : 6, must have made the deliverance of Zakir possible. We have pointed out that his rebellion must have been due to the Anti- Assyrian policy of the king of Hamath, which finds its explanation in the weakness of Assyria and the peril from powerful neighbors. If so, then it is most likely that Assyrian aid caused Zakir's triumph over the hostile coalition, and helped him to gain Hamath and La'ash. Do the cuneiform records lend us any clues? The suggestion has been made that the campaign of Adadni- r&ri IV in 803 against Mari' had some connection with Zakir's relief (J B L 28:62). But this seems to me unlikely. Our in- scription mentions among the foes of Zakir the king of 'Amq. The last trace of the kingdom of IJattina dated from 832. Its re- duction to the *Amq must have taken place because of hostility toward Assyria. During the reign of Shalmaneser, about which we are quite fully informed, this cannot have come about, much less in the time of Shamshi-Adad (825-813), who did not concern himself with the west-land. But it is most plausible that Qattina should have been forced by Vannic influence (ch. XII) to resist Adadniriri, as did its neighbor Arpad in 806; the campaign against Qazaz, the JJattina city, in 805 raises this to a certainty. And since the campaign against Damascus in 803 presupposes at least the passive aid of Hamath, I regard it as most likely that Hamath was rewarded by districts cut off from JJattina, which since then was called 'Amq. We must therefore seek a slightly later date for our events. For the year 773 the Eponym list records a campaign of Shal- maneser against Damascus. This eo ipso indicates that Damascus was the heart of an anti-Assyrian coalition which did not in- clude Hamath, since the expedition must have been undertaken from Hamath as a base. In the following year Shalmaneser died. 101 THE ARAMAEANS IN SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA This gave the vigilant Benhadad and his allies a new opportunity of preparing against Assyria, and the Vannic state in the north gladly aided him. A coalition of seventeen states is formed, among them such northern principalities as Que, Gurgum, Sam'al and Melid, which were tributaries of Urartu. The one state loyal to Assyria, Hamath, was thus greatly imperiled and so its king chose to abandon his allegiance to Ashur and to join the allies. The pro- Assyrian party in Hamath, however, organized a rebellion and raised Zakir to the throne in the stronghold of Hadrach. The allied forces attempted to suppress this rebellion, but were defeated by the appearance of an Assyrian relief expedition. This expedition was one of the first acts of the new Assyrian king Ashurdan, for the Eponym list mentions as the salient fact of the year 772 "to the land of Hatarikka" (Hadrach). It may be that in the battle before the gates of this city Benhadad III lost his life and that Tab'el (Is. 7 : 6) now became ruler of Damascus. What the piirpose of the later campaigns against Hatarikka in 765 and 755 under Ashurdan and his successor may have been we do not know. It is possible that they had some connection with the pressure of Israel against the southern border of Hamath under the brilliant rule of Jeroboam II (cf. 2 Kings 14:25, 28). The lines 4-15 of the third block of the Zakir inscription deal with the building operations of our ruler. " I (enlarged) Hadrach," he tells us, "and ad(ded to it) the whole surrounding district . . . and filled it with . . . (and built) these fortifications on every side. I built houses for the gods in my whole land and built . . . and the cistern(?) . . . the temple (of Elur) and I erected before (Elllr) this stele and wro(te up)on it the inscription of my hands." His main efforts, in great contrast to Kilammu of Sam'al, were de- voted to strengthening the defenses of his realm and of building temples for the gods that had helped him. The inscription closes with the customary imprecations 11: 16-28 — "Whoever causes the inscrip(tion of the hands) of Zakir, king of Hamath and La'ash to disappear from this monu- ment or whoever causes this monument to disappear from before 102 ZAKIR OF HAMATH AND LA' ASH Eltir or robs it away from its place, or whoever sends forth against it (his hand) . . . may Ba'alshamayn and E(I