Tiglath-pileser I and the Initial Conflicts of the Assyrians with the Arameans

Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien Herausgegeben von Michael P. Streck Band 5 2017 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden Wandering Arameans: Arameans Outside Syria Textual and Archaeological Perspectives Edited by Angelika Berlejung, Aren M. Maeir and Andreas Schüle 2017 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden Cover illustration: Bronze Horse Frontlet from the Heraion of Samos, Greece, with an inscription of Hazael, from the Samos Archaeological Museum. Photograph by Aren M. Maeir. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at https://dnb.dnb.de . For further information about our publishing program consult our website https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2017 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: Hubert & Co., Göttingen Printed in Germany ISSN 2193-4436 ISBN 978-3-447-10727-3 Contents Figures .................................................................................................................. VI Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... VII Foreword .............................................................................................................. IX I. Syria and Palestine Jonathan S. Greer – Grand Rapids, USA The Cult at Tel Dan: Aramean or Israelite? .......................................................... 3 Holger Gzella – Leiden New Light on Linguistic Diversity in Pre-Achaemenid Aramaic: Wandering Arameans or Language Spread? ........................................................................... 19 Yigal Levin – Ramat-Gan “My Father was a Wandering Aramean”: Biblical Views of the Ancestral Relationship between Israel and Aram ................................................................. 39 Aren M. Maeir – Ramat-Gan Can Material Evidence of Aramean Influences and Presence in Iron Age Judah and Israel be Found? .................................................................................. 53 Andreas Schüle – Leipzig Balaam from Deir Allā – A Peripheral Aramean? ................................................ 69 Omer Sergi – Tel Aviv The Battle of Ramoth-gilead and the Rise of the Aramean Hegemony in the Southern Levant during the Second Half of the 9th Century BCE ....................... 81 II. Mesopotamia and Egypt Angelika Berlejung – Leipzig and Stellenbosch Social Climbing in the Babylonian Exile ............................................................. 101 Johannes Hackl – Leipzig Babylonian Scribal Practices in Rural Contexts: A Linguistic Survey of the Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia (CUSAS 28 and BaAr 6) ..................................................................................... 125 VI Figures Takayoshi M. Oshima – Leipzig How “Mesopotamian” was Ahiqar the Wise? A Search for Ahiqar in Cuneiform Texts ................................................................................................... 141 Michael P. Streck – Leipzig Late Babylonian in Aramaic Epigraphs on Cuneiform Tablets ............................ 169 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. – Deerfield, IL Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Conflicts of the Assyrians with the Arameans .... 195 Günter Vittmann – Würzburg Arameans in Egypt ............................................................................................... 229 Index of Bible Verses ........................................................................................... 281 Index of Places and Proper Names ....................................................................... 285 Index of subjects (selected)................................................................................... 296 Figures Figure 1: Map of sites mentioned in “Evidence of Aramean Influence in Iron Age Judah and Israel”. ......................................................................... 61 Figure 2: Pottery and objects of possible Aramean origin/influence from Tell es-Safi/Gath: a-c) pottery stands found with the fill of the Aramean siege trench; d) glazed vessel found within the fill of the Aramean siege trench; e) incised stone objects discovered on site. ............................... 62 Figure 3: View, looking east, of the Iron Age IIA fortifications of the lower city of Gath (2015 season of excavations). ................................ 63 Figure 4: The seal of Ahīqam (courtesy Cornelia Wunsch). ............................... 114 Figure 5: Distribution of text types. .................................................................... 127 Figure 6: Use of the unorthodox sign values. ..................................................... 128 Figure 7: Use of otherwise unattested sign values. ............................................ 128 Figure 8: Examples for variation in word choice. .............................................. 135 Figure 9: Analysis of orthographies and effetiva pronuncia. ............................. 147 Figure 10: Names and their definitions in the Uruk List. .................................... 149 Figure 11: Chronicles arrangement according to regnal years. ............................ 201 Figure 12: Geographic delimits according to A.087.3 and A.0.87.4. .................. 208 Abbreviations VII Figure 13: Summary of Assyrian fort systems. .................................................... 211 Figure 14: Map of Assyrian fort systems. ............................................................. 212 Figure 15: Military action against Karduniaš according to A.0.87.4 and the Pakute Inscription. .................................................................. 213 Figure 16: Chronology of the interactions of Tiglath-pileser I and Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē. ............................................................................ 221 Figure 17: Depictions of Semites on Egypto-Aramaic stelae: (a) TAD D20.3 (details, from Lidzbarski 1898, II, pl. 28); (b) TAD D20.6 (author’s drawing); (c) TAD D20.4 (from Aimé-Giron 1939, Pl. 3 No. 114). ....................................................................................... 236 Figure 18: Chahapi (detail from stela Berlin 2118; author’s drawing). .................. 237 Figure 19: Find-spots of Aramaic texts. ................................................................ 238 Figure 20: Detachment commanders. ..................................................................... 239 Figure 21: House-owners at Elephantine (dark grey: Egyptians; middle grey: Iranians; light grey: the “half-Egyptian” Harwodj). ............................ 243 Figure 22: a) Genealogy of Yedaniah and Mibṭaḥiah; (b) Mibṭaḥiah’s slaves. Women’s names in italics; EGYPTIAN NAMES in capitals. ............. 245 Figure 23: Genealogy of Yehoyishmac: Women’s names in italics; EGYPTIANNAMES in capitals. ............................................................................. 246 Figure 24: Graffito of Petechnum in the chapel of Amenophis III at Elkab (author’s photograph). ......................................................................... 251 Figure 25: Offering table from Saqqara (Louvre AO 4824; author’s photograph). ........................................................................... 257 Abbreviations For abbreviations see: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (RGG), 4th edition; Theological Realenzyklopädie (TRE), abbreviations, 2nd revised and enlarged edition, compiled by Siegfried M. Schwertner; Lexicon of Assyriology and Near Eastern Archaeology (www.rla.badw.de). Foreword The present volume contains the updated versions of the papers presented at the workshop "Wandering Arameans: Arameans Inside and Outside of Syria", held at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Leipzig in October 2014. The intention of the workshop was to explore Aramean cultures and their impact on their neighbors, including linguistic influence. The idea was to address some of the primary desiderata in current research on the Arameans and so to build a basis for a project proposal submitted to the Minerva Foundation on this and related topics, to be implemented at the University of Leipzig and Bar-Ilan University. The workshop brought together scholars from these two institutions, as well as from the University of Würzburg. In addition to the papers presented at the workshop, we invited four additional contributions to broaden the scope of our endeavor (Greer, Sergi, Gzella, and Younger). The volume is divided into two sections: I. II. Syria and Palestine Mesopotamia and Egypt This division reflects the areas in which one sees the presence of Arameans or of their language, Aramaic, in the first millennium BCE. One of the outcomes of this workshop was that the “Aramean question” is a broad and complex field that touches on many issues (e.g., the presence of ethnical markers, the category of ethnicity in general, history, settlement patterns, archaeology, epigraphy, religion, and sociology) that calls for interdisciplinary work at a highly specialized level. In this perspective, it became clear that future research has to start from the following assumption: Arameans (including the Aramaic languages) in Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Egypt cannot be treated as a single entity but have to be carefully distinguished. The contributions of this volume show that identifying “Arameans” and defining pertinent identity markers are difficult tasks. The interactions between the Arameans, including the Aramaic languages, and their neighbors were complex and depended on the specific cultural and historical circumstances. As a result of the 2014 workshop we decided to limit further research to the interaction between the Aramean states in Syria and the states in Palestine from the end of the 2nd to the late 1st millennium BCE. Correspondingly, we put the focus of the projected Minerva Center on the following preliminary working question: can the rise, flourishing, and decline of Aram and Israel, as independent political entities, be attributed to their autonomous decision making or to their interdependency – or to a combination of both factors? Thus, the articles of the first part of this volume became the foundation for our current research, which will be continued within the framework X Foreword of the Minerva Center for the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times (RIAB; aramisrael.org). We are grateful to the authors of the papers in this volume for their contributions from their particular fields of expertise and their inspiring comments and discussions during the workshop. In addition, we want to thank Prof. Michael P. Streck as the editor-in-chief of the “Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien” for accepting our volume into this series. We want to thank Felix Hagemeyer and Philipp Roßteuscher for collecting and editing the essays. We are particularly grateful to Vivian-Sarah Klee, who took on the laborious task of putting the pieces together and of creating the indices. We wish to express our thanks to all our helping hands. Last but not least, our thanks go to the Minerva Foundation and the Minerva Center for the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times that supported the publication process financially. Leipzig/Ramat-Gan, September 2016 Angelika Berlejung Aren M. Maeir Andreas Schüle Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Conflicts of the Assyrians with the Arameans K. Lawson Younger, Jr. – Deerfield, IL As is the case so often in history, the events in a particular geographic area involving a certain group of polities is tied to events in another geographic area involving another set of polities, with the events in each area having multiple levels of complexity and mutual impacts. The example investigated in this essay is that of the campaigns of the Middle Assyrian monarch, Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076 BCE), against the Arameans (conducted on both sides of the Euphrates) and how these campaigns are integrally tied to events on Assyria’s southern border – the boundary area with Karduniaš (i.e., Babylonia). The Setting Through the energetic kings, Adad-nerari I (1305–1274 BCE), Shalmaneser I (1273– 1244 BCE) and Tukultī-Ninurta I (1243–1207 BCE), the Assyrians had established an empire of significant size: its western border being located perhaps as far as the Euphrates (at least its east bank)1; its eastern border being the Zagros mountains; its northern border being the Upper Tigris region; and its southeastern border encompassing, after Tukultī-Ninurta’s military action, Kassite Babylonia. During TukultīNinurta I’s rule, the empire was truly at its apex.2 However, due to significant internal opposition to his building and religious policies, Tukultī-Ninurta I was murdered by his son. With this traumatic event, modern scholars are in agreement that the empire began to decline.3 In a very real sense, the decline was immediate and continued until the end of the 1 Probably no Assyrian control west of the Euphrates. See Llop-Raduà 2011; 2012; Fales 2011b, 49, n. 21. 2 Alessandra Gilibert (2008) has argued that Kār-Tukultı̄ -Ninurta (modern Tulul ul ʿAqar, 3 km upstream from Assur) probably did not represent a transferral of the Assyrian capital away from Assur, and that its construction commenced probably right at the beginning of the Tukultī-Ninurta’s reign, contrary to the common opinion that it did not begin until after the Assyrian monarch’s successful campaign to Babylonia. 3 See the comments of Yamada 2003. 196 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. 10th century.4 There were two phases in this decline: the first phase starting with the death of Tukultī-Ninurta I; the second starting in the last years of Tiglath-pileser I, whose reign only postponed the inevitable. J. N. Postgate envisions this first phase as “a period of gentle recession, down to the reign of Tiglath-pileser I” followed by a second phase that was “a much more intense loss of power which saw Assyrian control wither to the minimal core of Assur itself and the cities to its north on the Tigris.”5 However, there are perhaps good reasons to see this first phase as a more complex period, perhaps not so “gentle of a recession.” First, the assassination of Tukultī-Ninurta I resulted in turmoil within Assyria that allowed Babylonia to reclaim its independence.6 The decline after his murder can be gauged by the general absence of military feats attested in the royal inscriptions of Tukultī-Ninurta’s successors.7 Second, while the initial Assyrian kings established their dominion over the territory to the Euphrates, this was really a network of hubs of Assyrian control, including outposts in the far reaches of the empire.8 The necessity for installing a sukkallu rabi’u, šar (māt) Ḫanigalbat, i.e. “Grand Vizier, Viceroy of the ‘West’” was an indication of the precarious state of Assyrian control over the former Mittanian territory, with the title “king of Ḫanigalbat” (šar māt Ḫanigalbat) serving as “a signal directed against Hittite royalty and the residual Hurrian polities to the north-east.”9 When the decision to establish his son, Ibašši-ili, as sukkallu rabi’u was made, it was undoubtedly perceived by Adad-nerari I to be both expedient and wise. Ibašši-ili’s son, QibiAššur was apparently the first to wear the double title sukkallu rabi’u šar (māt) Ḫanigalbat.10 However, Adad-nerari’s decision set up two concurrent parts of the royal line with the potential for future tensions and conflict. One part of the royal line was the lineage that actually reigned as kings of Assyria (Shalmaneser I, Tukultī-Ninurta I and his heirs). It would seem that this part of the line “viewed themselves as embodying Assyrian royalty from its origins, as centrally emanating from the traditional religious and political hub of Assur,”11 and as overseeing ultimately all territories within the empire. The other segment of the royal family, a collateral lineage, served as the sukkallu rabi’u and šar (māt) Ḫanigalbat.12 Their economic and political interests were centered in the Jezirah with all its agricultural potential and commercial ties with Anatolia and the Mediterranean. At the time of the assassination of Tukultī-Ninurta I, 4 Liverani 1988, 760; Harrak 1987, 263–264. 5 Postgate 1992, 249. Postgate sees the cause of the second phase, while possibly climatic, primarily the Arameans. See also Fales 2011b. 6 For discussion of this, see Yamada 2003. 7 Fales 2011b. 8 For a discussion of the landscape geography of this period, see Harmanşah 2012, 58–61. 9 Pongratz-Leisten 2011, 116. 10 Andrae 1913, no. 63: stela of Aššur-mudammeq, great-grandson of Qibi-Aššur, sukkallu rabi’u, šar (māt) Ḫanigalbat. 11 Fales 2014, 229–230. 12 Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996; 1999. Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 197 it appears that a rift between the two lines occurred.13 According to Fales, this is seen in the fact that only a few years after the assassination, the Babylonian king, Adadšuma-uṣur (1216–1187 BCE), sent a letter addressed to: To Aššur-nerari (III) and Ilī-pa[dâ, …] kings of Assyria (LUGAL.MEŠ šá KUR.Aš+šur), spe[ak!] The words of Adad-šuma-us ̣ur, great king, strong king, [king of the universe], king of Karduniaš […].14 The tension between the “house of Tukultī-Ninurta” and the “house of Ilī-padâ” would seem to have reached its climax only a short while after this letter. Both Aššur-nerari III and Ilī-padâ had died, when Adad-šuma-us ̣ur, king of Babylonia, defeated the Assyrian king Enlil-kudurrī-us ̣ur (1196–1192 BCE) in battle. Following Enlil-kudurrīus ̣ur’s defeat, a usurper, Ninurta-apil-Ekur (1191–1179 BCE), was able to seize the Assyrian throne. The Assyrian King List puts it this way: Ninurta-apil-Ekur, son of Ilī-padâ, descendant of Eriba-Adad (I), went to Karduniaš; he came up from Karduniaš (and) seized the throne. He ruled for 13/3 years.15 As Fales points out, this entry in itself is sufficient to demonstrate how the line of Ilīpadâ first of all “emerged victoriously from a long struggle of Tukultī-Ninurta’s heirs against Babylonia,” and then “proceeded to represent the dynastic reference point for the next generations of Assyrian rulers.”16 In fact, Tiglath-pileser I’s name (Tukultı̄ apil-Ešarra “My trust is the heir of Ešarra”) follows the name-pattern (X–apil–Temple-Name) of the founder of his dynastic line: Ninurta-apil-Ekur (“Ninurta is the heir of the Ekur”). It has been suggested that when Ninurta-apil-Ekur, the son of Ilī-padâ, became king of Assyria, the position of Grand Vizier (sukkallu rabi’u), previously occupied by his house, was abolished.17 However, this is not correct. When Ninurta-apil-Ekur ascended the throne, the office of Grand Vizier passed over to another branch of the family.18 According to his stele, Eru-apla-iddina held the office of sukkallu rabi’u during the reign of Aššur-dan I (1179–1134 BCE).19 Moreover, a certain Ninurta13 14 15 16 17 Fales 2014, 230. ABL 924 (K. 3045). See Weidner 1959, 48 no. 42; Grayson 1972, 137, LXXX no. 1*. Grayson 1980, 111. Fales 2014, 229. Düring 2015, 62. Düring also suggests that it was probably not coincidental that the dunnu of Tell Ṣābi Abyad (that is, the dunnu of the Grand Vizier) was thereafter neglected and its importance diminished, given that the primary concerns of its owner were in Assur. However, the decline of Tell Ṣābi Abyad is more likely the result of Assyrian decline in power west of the Ḫābūr River. 18 Jakob 2003, 63–64. Obviously, the Grand Vizier could no longer rule over districts that had been lost. 19 Andrae 1913, 84–85, Text 128. Eru-apla-iddina was the son of Samēdu, and the grandson of Aššur-zēra-iddina, and thus was in a direct line to Qibi-Aššur, the grandfather of Ilī-padâ. See 198 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. nādin-apli, who served as eponym at the end of the reign of Aššur-rē ša-iši I, was also the šukkallu rabi’u.20 In any case, it seems very likely that at the time of Ninurta-apil-Ekur’s reign the Assyrian empire had lost or was in the process of losing territories in the west, and that during his reign the border was located along the western fringes of the Ḫābūr River. This appears to be the implication of a ginā’ū text21 (MARV 2.21) that gives a list of the provinces22 contributing offerings for the temple in Assur. This tablet had been thought to date to the next to last year of Tiglath-pileser I (1077) based on the eponym found on MARV 2.21, namely Paʾuzu. H. Freydank has made it virtually certain, based on the publication of MARV 6.39, that a Paʾuzu, son of Erib-Aššur, was eponym in Ninurta-apil-Ekur’s reign, and that MARV 2.21 should be dated to his eponomy, rather than his much later namesake Paʾuzu (eponym for the thirty-eighth year of Tiglath-pileser I).23 Thus, the implication drawn from this text is that the Assyrians no longer had any real control over the western regions of the Jezirah.24 After the death of Ninurta-apil-Ekur, his son, Aššur-dan I (1178–1133 BCE) came on the throne. Although he reigned 46 years – the longest of any Assyrian king, he left virtually no inscriptions. This probably means that there was basically a maintenance of the status quo, although the Synchronistic Chronicle records Aššur-dan’s success against Babylonia.25 However, there is no evidence of any renewal of Assyrian power on the western boundaries during his lengthy reign. So, from the death of Tukultī-Ninurta I on, this first phase of the decline of the Middle Assyrian Empire corresponds with the first stage of the rise of the Aramean polities in the Jezirah, what I have termed the “Aramean pastoralist expansion” (ca. 1197–1114 BCE).26 It is important to remember that even though Assyria may have extended its border to the Euphrates, the region between the Euphrates and the Balikh rivers was never fully part of the Assyrian grid of fortified agricultural production Jakob 2003, 63–64. 20 MARV 7 22. For the eponymy of Ninurta-nādin-apli in the reign of Aššur-rē ša-iši I, see Freydank 1991, 160 and Jeffers 2013, 105–107. 21 For the most recent discussion of the ginā’ū texts, see Postgate 2013, 89–146. See also Rosa 2010. 22 For the Middle Assyrian provincial system, see Llop-Raduá 2011; 2012. 23 Freydank 2007, 70–77; see now Postgate 2013, 97, n. 22. 24 This is contrary to the situation during the last part of the 13th century when Ilī-padâ, the sukkallu rabi’u, had his dunnu “fortified agricultural center” located on the Balikh River at Tell Ṣābi Abyad, which was destroyed around 1180 BCE. After a period, a partial reoccupation took place with a renovation of parts of the structure, albeit on a much more modest scale, and then finally, it was abandoned. See Akkermans 2006; 2007; Duistermaat 2008. For a seal of Ilī-padâ, see Wiggermann 2006. For recent discussion of the dunnu system, see Düring 2015. 25 Glassner 2004, 178–179: “In the time of Zababa-šuma-iddina, the king of [Karduniaš], Aššurdan (I), king of Assyria, [went down]; [he took] the cities of Zabban, Irriya, Ugarsal[lu …, (and) carried away] their huge plunder to the land of As[syria].” 26 See Younger 2016, 163–167. Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 199 centers. It had no provincial system as the result of Assyrian colonization. Hence, various tribal and clan groups were located in this region and others may have migrated here before even the demise of the Mittanian kingdom and throughout the early Middle Assyrian Empire period. As outlined above, Assyrian control in the western Jezirah began to erode after the death of Tukultī-Ninurta I, and by the reign of Ninurtaapil-Ekur, the western border was located on the Ḫābūr River. The interruption of the administrative archives at Ḫarbe (Tell Chuēra)27 and Dūr-Katlimmu (Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad)28 during the last years of the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta I and the archive of Tell Ṣābi Abyad29 at the beginning of the reign of Ninurta-apil-Ekur seem to support this. Although Tell Ṣābi Abyad was rebuilt with a much smaller facility, perhaps surviving to the reign of Aššur-rēša-iši, it seems surely abandoned during his reign. In short, it seems that for most of the 12th century BCE the western Jezirah was not in Assyrian control. That some enclaves remained is possible (e.g. Tell Ṣābi Abyad), but the Assyrian grid of hubs west of the Ḫābūr was severely diminished. With the Assyrians no longer in control of large segments of the western Jezirah, various tribes and clans that had the ability and power to move and seize land did so. The perception of opportunity to seize land has been a major strong “pull” factor in migrations, just as much as a stable growing economy. Therefore, it is likely that many Aramean chain migrations were taking place before the decline of the Middle Assyrian kingdom; but the empire’s decline certainly added a further stimulus. A possible “push” factor may have been climate change.30 Finally and importantly, toward the very end of the first phase of decline, there was a slight shift in Assyrian fortunes. Aššur-rē ša-iši I (1132–1115 BCE), the father of Tiglath-pileser I, was able to bring some revitalization to the Assyrian military. This laid a foundation for the temporary renewal of the kingdom under his son’s rule. Aššur-rē ša-iši was able to campaign successfully against a few of the mountain peoples north of Assyria, and he claims to have defeated some aḫlamû in the west,31 though these are not identified as Arameans.32 Yet, there is no indication of any real progress in recovering any territory in the west. Far and away, Aššur-rē ša-iši I’s greatest accomplishment was his repulsion of several incursions into Assyrian territory by the Babylonian kings Ninurta-nādin-šumi and Nebuchadnezzar I. The Assyrian Chronicle Fragment 3 (Chronicle of Aššur-rē ša27 28 29 30 31 The site was abandoned, see Jakob/Janisch-Jakob 2009, 6–7. The tablets from Dūr-katlimmu were discovered in a destruction layer. See Röllig 2008. See note 24. Lönnqvist 2008, 206–207; Reculeau 2011. RIMA 1:310, A.0.086.1, line 6: ša-giš ÉRIN.MEŠ aḫ-la-mi-i DAGAL.MEŠ mu-pár-ri-ir el-late-šú-nu “slaughterer of the extensive troops of the Aḫlamû (and) scatterer of their clans/bands.” Interestingly, the term ellatu/illatu is used which can denote on the one hand, a “clan, kingship group,” or on the other hand, a “band of troops, an army.” See CAD I/J 82–85, s.v. illatu A, esp. the comment on p. 85. 32 See, note 34, below. 200 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. iši)33 reveals that the Babylonian king Ninurta-nādin-šumi had apparently stationed his army near Arba’il (Arbēla). Aššur-rē ša-iši responded by taking his army toward the city, but upon his approach, the Babylonian king fled.34 In the Synchronistic History, there is a report that Nebuchadnezzar I brought his troops up to attack the Assyrian fortress of Zanqi.35 When Aššur-rē ša-iši marched out to confront him, the Babylonian king burned his siege machinery so it would not be captured, and then he fled. After this, the text36 recounts that Nebuchadnezzar I, in another military action, attacked Īdu,37 a fortress of Assyria (a-na I-di bir-ti ša KUR.Aš-šur). This time, the Assyrian king engaged him and inflicted a thorough defeat on him and his army, with Aššur-rē ša-iši even capturing a man named Karaštu(?), his (Nebuchadnezzar I’s) field-commander (ālik ša pān ṣābēšu). From this point on, the Babylonian king was preoccupied with his eastern front with various wars against Elam. All of this had great ramifications for Tiglath-pileser I when he came to the throne. Tiglath-pileser I’s Aramean Conflicts in the Context of his Babylonian Engagements This was the milieu into which Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076 BCE) came to the throne.38 In ways, his reign is a paradox. His royal inscriptions portray him as a king who vigorously campaigned in every direction in order to restore the borders of the empire that his predecessors Shalmaneser I and Tukultī-Ninurta I had established. He even reached the source of the Tigris River39 and the Mediterranean Sea; and defeated Karduniaš (Babylonia). Yet, the end of his reign saw Assyria struggling to ward off the persistent razzias of the Arameans, with Tiglath-pileser I apparently making a “tactical” retreat to Katmuḫu in the face of these onslaughts. The impact of his immediate predecessors’ prior military progress vis-à-vis Karduniaš cannot be overstated. The successes of Aššur-dan I and especially Aššur-rē šaiši I, not only deterred Babylonian incursions into Assyrian territory, but established a truce. This peace with Babylonia (or at least, non-aggression) that Tiglath-pileser I 33 Grayson 1975, 187–188, iv.7–17; Glassner 2004, 186–189. 34 Just prior to this event, the Chronicle’s fragmentary reading is of some interest. Grayson (1975, 188) reads: x-ri-ib-te (7)┌i┐-d[uk]; Glassner (2004, 188–189) gives: …-ri-ib-te (7)i-d[uk]. Borger (1964, 106) suggested reading [ḫ]u-ri-ib-te. Both Grayson and Glassner follow Borger’s suggestion and translate “desert.” Thus the ill-preserved sentence should be translated “he ki[lled … (in) the d]esert.” See AHw 359, s.v. ḫuribtu. This could refer to a hunt in the desert (see RIMA 2:25, A.0.87.1, vi.63), but might possibly reference a military campaign in the desert. 35 Grayson 1975, 163–164, ii.2´–7´; Glassner 2004, 178–181. 36 Ibid., ii.8´–13´. 37 This must be Īdu (Sātu Qala) on the Lower Zab (see the discussion below). 38 See Baker 2014. 39 An image of Tiglath-pileser I with an inscription is preserved on a rock face near the source of the Tigris. See RIMA 2, 61, A.0.87.15 and Schachner 2009, 173–178. 201 Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts enjoyed at the beginning of his reign – and that lasted roughly for his first two decades – permitted Assyria to launch numerous campaigns to reestablish its borders, in particular against the Arameans.40 Tiglath-pileser I’s campaigns against the Arameans are recorded in a series of different versions of his inscriptions over the period of his reign. The progression of the presentations in the series is very informative. In the first edition of his royal inscriptions (A.0.87.1), all of Tiglath-pileser I’s campaigns are presented as being carried out in individual single years, in a presentational order that has led scholars to term this first edition “annals.” H. Tadmor pointed out that in this first edition there was “a successful blend of two current literary genres: that of heroic epic in which major victories of the king were related as if they had taken place in a single year, and that of the chronicle, arranged according to regnal years.”41 Thus, the presentation in A.0.87.1 yields a certain arrangement seen in the following table (based on Jeffers 2013, 282): Regnal Year Eponym Passage Campaign Target(s) Accession year 1st regnal year 2nd regnal year 3rd regnal year 4th regnal year 5th regnal year Ninurta-nādin-apli i.62– ii.84 ii.89– iii.31 iii.35– iv.39 iv.43– v.41 v.44– v.63 v.67– vi.38 to Kašiyāri and Katmuḫu to Alzu, Šubaru, and Katmuḫu to mountains N/NE of Assyria to Na’iri Tiglath-pileser I Ištu-Aššur-ašamšu, son of Aššur-aḫa-iddina Aššur-šallimšunu, son of Idāyu Šamaš-apla-ēriš, son of Aššur-šēzibanni Ḫiyašāyu to desert against Arameans to Muṣri and Qumānu Passage Length 116 lines 44 lines 107 lines 99 lines 19 lines 71 lines Figure 11: Chronic arrangment according to regnal years. Some observations are in order. First, the narrative about the campaign against the Arameans is the shortest by far of all the regnal-year-campaigns. Yet, the account in A.0.87.1 is the only full account of this initial campaign against the Arameans in all of Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions. But the account is comprised, in fact, of two parts: 40 Fales 2011b, 30–31. For the issue of the date given in the Bavian Inscription, see below. 41 Tadmor 1997, 327. 202 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. the battle in the Jezirah and the follow-up action at Mount Bišri. This so-called “annalistic” text (A.0.87.1)42 presents this military action as taking place in his fourth regnal year. Although this may be so, the disparity between the length and detail of some of the earlier campaigns, not to mention the distance covered within these campaigns, causes one to wonder about the manipulation of the material, or whether there is an attempt by the scribes to convey additional information and/or subtle nuances. The presentation of “time” within the account itself is an additional reason to look more closely at what is possibly being meant. To facilitate further discussion, the narrative is presented: With the help of Aššur, my lord, I took my chariots and warriors (and) took off for the desert steppe (mu-ud-ba-ra). I marched against the Aramean-aḫlamû (aḫla-mì-i KUR ar-ma-ia.MEŠ), the enemies of Aššur, my lord. I plundered from (ištu) the edge of the land of Suḫu to (adi) the city of Karkamiš of the land of Ḫatti in “a single day.” I massacred them. I brought back their booty, possessions, and goods without number. The rest of their troops, who fled from the weapons of Aššur, my lord, crossed the Euphrates. I crossed the Euphrates after them on rafts (made of inflated) goatskins. I conquered six of their cities at the foot of Mount Bišri, burned, razed (and) destroyed (them, and) brought their booty, possessions, and goods to my city Assur.43 As noted above, the goal was to restore the borders at the time of Shalmaneser I and Tukultī-Ninurta I. The very wording here in Tiglath-pileser I’s account of his campaign against the Aramean-Aḫlamû44 demonstrates the Assyrian monarch’s focus on recovery of Assyrian lands. These Aramean-Aḫlamû are termed “the enemies of the god Aššur.” This is because they were on “Assyrian soil,” namely on the left bank of the Euphrates, that is the Jezirah. Tiglath-pileser I fought an open-field battle in the steppe (mudbaru) where he was able to utilize his chariots.45 The geographic descriptor (mudbaru) indicates that this is not the Šamīya or the Badia, but the Jezirah. 42 Jeffers (2013, 278–283) has proposed that in order to utilize the “epic-heroic convention” the text actually follows a geographical arrangement of military events – also seen in his later inscriptions – that were manipulated into textual units that represent yearly military campaigns for purely ideological reasons. See also Tadmor 1997, 327–328. 43 RIMA 2:23, A.0.87.1, v.44–63. This text is dated by the eponymy of Ina-ilīya-allak, Tiglathpileser’s sixth regnal year (1108). 44 The construction axlamî/axlamê armāyya, with Aramean as a gentilic/ethnicon is only attested thus far in the genitive (see Younger 2016, 36–37). It is with Tiglath-pileser I that the gentilic form “Aramean” first enters usage in the Assyrian texts being associated with the Aḫlamû “steppe people,” and then, from the time of Aššur-bēl-kala onwards, as an autonomous designation. The suggestion of Alessandroni (2006) that the homeland of Arameans was Mt. Aruma (KUR a-ruma), probably located south of Lake Urmia, is philologically problematic, conflating different linguistic evidence from the various regions. 45 RIMA 2:23, A.0.87.1, v.44–63. Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 203 Moreover, Tiglath-pileser I claims to have then plundered the Aramean-Aḫlamû “from the edge of the land of Sūḫu to the city of Karkamiš of the land of Ḫatti in a single day.” This is an area corresponding to the basin of the Middle Euphrates to the Upper Euphrates, a distance of some 300 km. While the claim is obviously hyperbolic, the use of the toponyms, Sūḫu and Karkamiš, are important. They once again demonstrate that this is the Jezirah steppe where Tiglath-pileser I is engaging these Aramean pastoralists. Therefore, it is little wonder that Tiglath-pileser I designates these Aramean-Aḫlamû “enemies of Aššur,” since to the Assyrian conception of their empire with the Euphrates being its border, these Arameans were “squatters.” Also, combined with the time “in a single day,” these toponyms form “a distance of heroic magnitude” as a motif of the hero epic46 that the scribes are utilizing in the account. The fact is that such a distance would have taken – at the extreme minimum – fifteen days, just for a straight march (300 km divided by 20 km/day). In reality, it would be more like four weeks – and very likely, much more time than this for such a campaign. Yet, by using this motif, Tiglath-pileser I presents himself as an overwhelming victor over these “steppe people.” However, defeating the Arameans in an open-field battle in the Jezirah and then pursuing them “a distance of heroic magnitude” was not sufficient! There was a real need for a follow-up to this initial battle. In other words, as crushing of a loss as the Arameans may have suffered in the Jezirah, they were, by no means, defeated. This is the clear implication from Tiglath-pileser I’s next action. It was essential that the Assyrian king cross over the Euphrates and defeat the Arameans on the right (west) bank, i.e. in the Šamīya. The crossing of the Euphrates should not be played down. This too is likely meant to be understood as “a heroic achievement.” Tiglath-pileser I likely crossed the river at Ḫalabiya and Zalabiya, not far from Jebel Bišri.47 Tiglath-pileser I asserts: “I conquered six of their cities (6 URU.MEŠ-šu-nu) at the foot of Mt. Bišri (GÌR KUR bé-eš-ri).”48 It is important to note that the text does not use a term like “fortified city” (āl dannūti), as this is done, for example, in connection with the campaign to Katmuḫu,49 or “fortress” (ḫalṣu) as in the Babylonian campaign50; or “fort” (birtu). The term ālānīšunu “their cities” is important,51 likely referring here to town 46 Even though “in a single day” may be an idiom for “a short time” (see Marcus 1999), it still would seem that “heroic epic” motifs are present. 47 Pappi 2006, 251. 48 Jebel Bišri was naturally in earlier periods an area inhabited by various nomadic tribes who were perceived by the sedentary rulers in Mesopotamia as enemies. Šar-kali-šarrī reports a military campaign to the west against the nomadic Amurrites at Jebel Bišri. See Frayne 1993, 183, iv. The text reads: (11ʹ) [i]n 1 MU śar-kà-lí-LUGAL-rí MAR.DÚ-am in ba-śa-ar.KUR [iš11-a-ru] “The year Sar-kali-sarrī [was victorious over] the Amurrites at Mount Bašar.” 49 RIMA 2:14–15, A.0.87.1, ii.6, 12. 50 RIMA 2:43, A.0.87.4, line 47. 51 See the recent discussion in Younger 2016, 70–74. 204 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. or village settlements similar to the use of the term ālu in the nomadic cycle as described by M. Streck52 and in the ethno-archaeological work of M. Lönnqvist at Mt. Bišri.53 Archaeologically, sedentary remains in connection to Jebel Bišri are generally restricted to the Euphratic side and the western piedmont areas.54 Hence, they were more accessible, and therefore more vulnerable, to Tiglath-pileser I’s assaults. Interestingly, in another summation of his campaigns,55 Tiglath-pileser I appears to describe this campaign with a few additional details: By the command of Aššur and Ninurta, the [great] gods, [my lords], I conquered [from the edge of the land of Sūḫu] to the city of Karkamiš of the land of Ḫ[atti in a single day]. [I crossed] the Euphrates as though [it were a canal]. Seventeen of their cities (17 URU.MEŠ-ni-šu-nu), from [the city of Tadmor of the land of Amurru, Anat of the land of Sūḫu, as far as Rāpiqu of Karduniaš (Babylonia)], I burned, [razed, (and) destroyed. I brought their booty], their hostages, and [their goods to my city Assur]. The number “seventeen” underscores that it was more than “six” cities (again likely meaning “settlements”) that were eventually destroyed, though this number may be a sum of various campaigns leading up to this point (perhaps Tiglath-pileser I’s 23rd regnal year). In any case, the Arameans were quite resilient. Tiglath-pileser I’s inscriptions attest to their tenacity. The second version of his inscriptions (RIMA 2:31–35, A.0.87.2, lines 28–29) issued roughly five years later, more or less repeats the story in his first edition (A.0.87.1), only with some condensing. While this version does not narrate any additional efforts on the part of Tiglath-pileser I against the Arameans,56 the third version, given in his 23rd regnal year (RIMA 2: 37; A.0.87.3: lines 29–35),57 strongly hints at the necessity for an ongoing significant effort by Tiglath-pileser I. 52 Streck 2002, 159–170, 167. See also Van Driel 2001, 109; Fadhil/Radner 1996, 423, n. 21 (comments on the semantic range of ālu with adurû “village, hamlet”); and Younger 2016, 72. 53 See the ethnographic and the ethnoarchaeological analogies, Lönnqvist 2008, 206–207. She observes concerning a seasonally abandoned village: “The plan of the village still corresponds to a nomadic camp, the houses are not yet agglutinated. The houses are rectangular in layouts and provide tent-like interiors. Open courtyards have household facilities with pens, kitchens and silos. However, tents are still used on the courtyards as additional spaces of living and cooking” (p. 207). 54 Lönnqvist 2008, 202. 55 RIMA 2: 59, A.0.87.13: lines 4´–9´. This is an undated, fragmentary text that is “worn and pitted.” While it narrates the campaign of his fifth regnal year, the inclusion of the campaign to Lebanon requires a date after Tiglath-pileser I’s 21st regnal year. See Millard 1970, 168 and esp. pl. xxxiv. The number 17 is clear. 56 The text still speaks of the capture of just “6 cities.” 57 This “summary” inscription is dated to the eponymy of Ninuʾāyu (23rd year): 1092 BCE. For an analysis of the overarching structure of the inscription, see Odorico 1994, 88–91. Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 205 I crossed the Euphrates […] times, twice in one year, in pursuit of the Aramean-aḫlamû (aḫ-la-mì-i KUR ar-ma-ia.MEŠ), to the land of Ḫatti. I inflicted on them a decisive defeat from (ištu) the foot of Mount Lebanon (GÌR KUR lab-na-ni), the city of Tadmor of the land of Amurru (URU ta-ad-mar [š]a KUR a-mur-ri), (and) Anat of the land of Sūḫu, as far as (adi) Rāpiqu of Karduniaš (Babylonia). I brought their booty (and) possessions to my city Assur. In this third version, for the first time, the statement “I crossed the Euphrates [x] times, twice in one year …” occurs. Although the exact number is not preserved, this statement indicates that the campaigns against the Arameans have been conducted every year (see more discussion below). Furthermore, the very next section in this inscription introduces for the first time an account concerning Tiglath-pileser I’s campaign to Mount Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea: I marched to Mount Lebanon. I cut down (and) carried off cedar beams for the temple of Anu and Adad, the great gods, my lords. I traversed to the land of Amurru; I conquered the land of Amurru in its entirety. I received tribute from the land of Byblos, the land of Sidon, (and) the land of Arvad. I rode in Arvadite ships; I achieved a successful journey, a distance of three double hours from the land of Arvad, which is in the midst of the sea (i.e. an island), to the city of Ṣamuru (Ṣimirra) which is in the land Amurru. In the midst of the sea, I killed a nāḫiru, which is called a sea-horse. Moreover, on my return, I [became lord] of the land of Ḫatti in its entirety [...]. [I imposed] upon Ini-Tešub, king of the land Ḫatti: hostages, tax, tribute, and cedar beams.58 While the fragmentary text recently published by Frahm (2009, 28–32) appears to match more closely the inscription of Tiglath-pileser I written in the next year (i.e., A.0.87.4), it nonetheless mentions an event of this campaign not found in other of his inscriptions: the tribute of Egypt. It states: [I received the tribute of the land of Arwad and of the lands of Byblos and Sidon, (cities)] on the coast [of the sea]. [I received a crocodile, a great ape (and ...)], an offering of the king of Egypt (MAN KUR.mu-u[ṣ-re-e]). The significance of this Mediterranean campaign can easily be lost without an awareness of the past. At the time of Tudḫaliya IV (ca. 1250–1220 BC), the Hittites instigated a commercial blockade of Assyria (perhaps as a check on Tukultī-Ninurta I). In his treaty with Šaušgamuwa of Amurru, the Hittite monarch forbade any Assyrian 58 RIMA 2:37, A.0.87.3, lines 16–28. See also the parallels in RIMA 2:42 A.0.87.4, lines 24–30 and RIMA 2:53, A.0.87.10, lines 33–35. 206 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. merchants access to Amurru.59 Furthermore, the king of Amurru was required to prevent any merchandise of a ship from Aḫḫiyawa from going to Assyria.60 With trade access denied, the Assyrians appear to have sought an alternative commercial route through Tadmor and through the Beqaʿ to the Lebanese coast.61 The discovery of a Middle Assyrian cylinder seal during excavations at Tyre62 may well document the existence of trade relations between that city and Assyria in the late thirteenth century. Furthermore, D. Arnaud has pointed out the Assyrian character in the language and script employed by the scribes of Sidon, particularly in Sidon’s correspondence with Ugarit.63 In light of this past situation, it appears that Tiglath-pileser I – even though the Hittite Empire no longer existed to block his access to the Mediterranean – desired to secure a route through Tadmor to the Phoenician cities. To a certain extent, he succeeded as attested by the tribute from Sidon, Byblos and Arvad. However, rather than the Hittites, the problem for Tiglath-pileser I was the Arameans. During the king’s return from this campaign, the text adds that Ini-Tešub of the land of Ḫatti paid tribute (lines 26–28). This must be Karkamiš, the most significant of all the Hittite successor states in north Syria. J. D. Hawkins observes: “It is hard to see where the centre of this country {Ḫatti} would have been if not in Karkamiš, and the king’s name, recalling the famous Ini-Tešub of the Hittite Empire dynasty, reinforces the impression of dynastic continuity.”64 It was the completion of such a significant campaign to this remote region of Mt. Lebanon that was the obvious catalyst to the creation of this updated version of the king’s royal inscriptions. Once again the “heroic” deeds are highlighted. Moreover, with the Assyrian core secure and with many of the earlier military issues resolved by this time in Tiglath-pileser I’s reign, only the most recent military events and threats were to be detailed in the text since the scribes were purposefully following the editorial paradigm of compiling an up-to-date “status report” on the kingdom.65 Only one year later (in his 24th regnal year), another version of his inscriptions (his fourth edition) was issued (RIMA 2: 43; A.0.87.4: lines 34–36),66 which states: 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Beckman 1999, 101, A iv 12–18. Beckman 1999, 101, A iv. 23; Singer 1991, 171. Markoe 2000, 22. The seal was found in the Late Bronze Age Stratum XV in Area 10. See Bikai 1978, 7–8; pl. XLIV, no. 16. The seal is very similar to one found in the Dinitu temple at Assur dating to the time of Tukultī-Ninurta I. See the detailed analysis of Porada (1978). Arnaud 1992, 180–183, and esp. p. 193. Hawkins 2000, 73–74. Jeffers 2013, 316. This “summary” inscription is dated by eponymy to [Ta]klāk-ana-Aššur: 1091.95 BCE. See also two other texts: Frahm 2009, 28–32 (Text 6:9´–11´); and Frahm 2009, 33–37 (Text 11:17´–21´). Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 207 I crossed the Euphrates twenty-eight times, twice in one year, in pursuit of the Aramean-aḫlamû (KUR aḫ-la-me-e KUR ar-ma-a-ia.MEŠ).67 I inflicted on them a decisive defeat from the city of Tadmor of the land of Amurru (URU ta-ad-mar šá KUR a-mur-ri), (and) Anat of the land of Sūḫu, as far as Rāpiqu of Karduniaš (Babylonia). I brought their booty (and) possessions to my city Assur. The creation of this new version (A.0.87.4) of his royal inscriptions so quickly following the previous one (A.0.87.3) was likely due to two important reasons: (1) Tiglath-pileser I’s just completed momentous victory over the land of Karduniaš (see below); and (2) Tiglath-pileser I’s desire to commemorate the work that had just been completed on his cedar palace. As opposed to his inscription from the previous year, this text (A.0.87.4) preserves the number of crossings of the Euphrates, though it is probably the same number that was found in the previous year’s inscription (A.0.87.3). Another recently published text also preserves the number 28. This inscription can be designated the “Pakute Inscription,” 68 since it gives an account of the fortification of the town of Pakute located in the Diyala River region (a border region with Babylonia) after Tiglath-pileser I’s second campaign against Babylon. The focus of the Pakute Inscription is squarely on the two Babylonian campaigns that likely date to Tiglath-pileser I’s 22nd and 23rd regnal years. The portion of the inscription concerning the Arameans reads: I crossed the Euphrates twenty-eight times, twice in one year, in pursuit of the Aramean-Aḫlamû. I defeated them from foot of Mt. Lebanon, the city of Tadmar of the land of Amurru as far as Rāpiqu of the land of Karduniaš. I brought their booty (and) their goods to my city Assur. So, these “28” campaigns against the Arameans must have been conducted before the king’s 22nd and 23rd years when Tiglath-pileser I fought against Babylonia, i.e., by his 21st year. Therefore, in order to get 28 campaigns into 21 years (perhaps 22 years69) – even though he claims in this text to have campaigned twice in one year – Tiglath-pileser I would have needed to cross the Euphrates multiple times in several of these regnal years! 67 The KUR before aḫ-la-me-e is likely a scribal error, since it is almost everywhere absent. See discussion in 2.5.1.2 above. 68 Frame 2011, 127–134, No. 68 (MS 2004), lines 19–23, pls. XLIX-L (note also the duplicate fragment No. 69, MS 2795). This inscription was written on a completely preserved tablet and was dated to the second day of the month of Araḫsamna (VIII) in the eponymy of Aššuršaʾissunu, possibly ca. 1079 BCE (see Frame’s discussion of the date on p. 134), only three years before the king’s death. However, its account of Tiglath-pileser’s encounters with the Arameanaḫlamû closely follows RIMA 2, text A.0.87.3, lines 29–35 and A.0.87.4, lines 34–36. 69 If the accession year is included and added, then 23 years are in view. 208 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. This means that the Arameans were a constant and substantial challenge that absorbed the Assyrian monarch’s attention virtually every single year of his reign, all the way up to the time of his most significant military achievement: victory over Babylonia. It might seem with a cursory reading of A.0.87.1 that Tiglath-pileser I had “inflicted a decisive defeat” on the Arameans and that they were no longer a military factor. But with a closer reading, there is an unstated, yet very important fact: after over two decades of campaigning, the Arameans were still an incomplete military project – they still posed a very real threat. While there can be no doubt, based on the geographic descriptors that Tiglath-pileser I had success in his attacks on the Arameans, all of his efforts against them had not stopped their incursions. In fact, the geographic delimits given in these two texts (A.087.3 and A.0.87.4) are informative, as seen in the following table. RIMA 2, A.0.87.3 pursuit of Arameans “to” (ana) inflicting a decisive defeat and plundering “from” (ištu) “as far as” (adi) RIMA 2, A.0.87.4 the land of Ḫatti the foot of Mount Lebanon (GÌR KUR lab-na-ni) the city of Tadmor of the land of Amurru Anat of the land of Sūḫu Rāpiqu of Karduniaš (Babylonia) the city of Tadmor of the land of Amurru Anat of the land of Sūḫu Rāpiqu of Karduniaš (Babylonia) Figure 12: Geographic delimits according to A.087.3 and A.0.87.4. The area of conflict is much greater in A.0.87.3 than in the earlier texts (A.0.87.1; A.0.87.2; and A.0.87.13), where it was simply a plundering “from the edge of the land of Sūḫu to the city of Karkamiš of the land of Ḫatti in ‘a single day.’” Over the years, and particularly as highlighted in his 23rd year inscription, Tiglath-pileser I had been engaged against the Arameans across a much broader territorial expanse than ever before with multiple campaigns. A.0.87.3 gives the most detailed description of the parameters of the broadened conflict, utilizing a threefold object for the preposition ištu: from (ištu) the foot of Mount Lebanon (lacking in A.0.87.4), from (ištu) the city of Tadmor, and from (ištu) the city of Anat. These provide progressively eastward points of derivation for “from,” starting with the most westward location (Mount Lebanon). The terminus, however, for the preposition “as far as” (adi) is the same in both texts: Rāpiqu of Karduniaš. Tracing these delimiters yields an area stretching from Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 209 roughly the Beqaʿ Valley to the border with Babylonia (Rāpiqu) on the Middle Euphrates (750 km!). The mention earlier in the inscription (A.0.87.3) of “the land of Ḫatti” (i.e., Karkamiš) provides an additional geographic delimiter for the whole area of the conflict.70 This campaign, as detailed in A.0.87.3 (seconded with A.0.87.4), was undoubtedly the apex of Tiglath-pileser I’s campaigns against the Arameans, climactically stressing the herculean efforts being expended to defeat these Arameans. Such impressive efforts demonstrate the power and resources available to Tiglath-pileser I to carry out such an endeavor. Other than the open-field battle in the Jezirah (year 5), Tiglath-pileser I’s encounters with the Arameans appear to be west of the Euphrates, i.e., in the Šamīya or in north Syria. Nothing in his inscriptions is said about any territory or cities located east of the Euphrates.71 Thus, it may appear that the Arameans’ activities on the eastern bank were primarily that of raiding Assyrian interests. But Tiglath-pileser I’s inscriptions are only recording his engagements with particular groups of Arameans, and so it would be an error to assume that there were no other Arameans in other parts of the Jezirah just because he does not mention them. In fact, his victory in the open-field battle in the Jezirah certainly did not remove the Arameans living in the Jezirah. The mention of “Sūḫu” and “Karkamiš” in Tiglath-pileser I’s initial campaign against the Aramean-Aḫlamû stresses the two important zones where trade and communication routes were located and where apparent tribal penetrations were especially occurring.72 His construction of forts on the Euphrates at Pitru and Mutkīnu was designed to control this river crossing point. Pitru (Tell Aušariye) was located at the confluence of the Euphrates and the Sagūru River (modern Sajur), while Mutkīnu (possibly Tall al-ʿAbr,73 2.5 km north of Tell Aḥmar/Til Barsib) was on the opposite side (i.e., east bank) of the Euphrates.74 At a much later time, it is not surprising that Til Barsib was renamed Kār Shalmaneser and the turtānu Šamšī-ilu was stationed there. Tiglath-pileser’s ability to found these two forts in this location may have been a result of the submission of Ini-Tešub. If the city of Til Barsib was under Assyrian control, it apparently was insufficient to accomplish what was needed in controlling 70 These delimiters demonstrate the very widespread distribution of the Aramean entities at the time of Tiglath-pileser I. For such a geographic range and the numbers necessary to populate it, a reasonable time span for growth and diffusion is demanded. In addition, Tiglath-pileser I’s failure in spite of his numerous campaigns that culminate in the demise of the Assyrian kingdom at the hands of these groups of Arameans speaks to their power (see discussion about the Tiglath-pileser I Chronicle below). They are, by no means, a little group of pastoralists hanging out at Mt. Bišri. 71 Bunnens 1999, 606. 72 Herles 2007. 73 See Bunnens 2000, 304; Yamazaki 1999; and Parpola/Porter 2001, 3, 18 (T. ʿAbir). Another less likely candidate would be Tall Ḫamis, Lipiński 2000, 168; Morandi Bonacossi 2000, 386, no. 28. For discussion, Bagg 2007, 180. 74 RIMA 3:19, A.0.102, ii.35b–40a. 210 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. this important zone. It seems that Til Barsib (Luwian: Masuwari) came under Luwian control some time later. In any case, it seems unlikely that Masuwari was an independent entity at this time which could oppose these constructions.75 On the Middle Euphrates, a series of forts (many with Middle Assyrian pottery) have been surveyed and excavated (see Table and Map below). Important synthetic studies of the excavations demonstrate that a significant Assyrian fort system in the region of Sūḫu existed from the 12th to 8th centuries. Some of these forts were originally built in the Middle Assyrian period in order to control trade and nomadic movements in the region.76 At Ḫaradu (modern Khirbet ed-Diniyeh),77 two 12th century BCE Middle Assyrian tablets have been discovered. Although their attribution to Tiglath-pileser I was initially announced, it seems that they come from earlier in the century.78 While there can be little doubt that these forts served a role over against Kassite Babylonia,79 it is very likely that their primary purpose was to control the river crossings. Historically, this is an area where tribal penetrations took place.80 In any case, it is interesting that the last sentence of the Tiglath-pileser I entry in the Synchronistic History states: “[He ruled] the land of Sūḫu in its entirety (a-na paṭ gim-ri) as far as Rāpiqu.”81 At some point later, the excavators feel that the fort at Ḫaradu came under Aramean control, which may well have been the case with a number of the other forts, or they were abandoned, until the Neo-Assyrian period (Aššurnaṣirpal II being a likely candidate for some of the reconstructions). As discussed above, part of the reason that Tiglath-pileser I could conduct all of these campaigns was that, for his first two decades, there was relative peace between Assyria and Babylonia (Karduniaš), or at least he did not need to worry greatly about his southern frontier. This permitted the Assyrian king to devote his time and energy to all his other borders. However, this changed drastically when Tiglath-pileser I invaded Karduniaš in two consecutive campaigns (1092 and 1091 BCE, his 22nd and 23rd regnal years).82 75 This is obviously only a deduction from the extremely limited knowledge of the situation at this time. 76 Tenu 2006, 217–245; 2008, 151–175; 2009, 222–223; Clancier 2006, 247–289. Likewise, the fort of Pitru was also founded by Tiglath-pileser I (Tell Aushariye). See Eidem/Pütt 2001. 77 Tenu 2006; 2006b; 2008; 2009, 222–223; Kepinski 2006; 2009; and al-Shukri 1988; 1997. 78 See previous note. The tablets have not yet been published. 79 Cf. the letter (KBo 1.10 + KUB 3.72) from the Hittite king, Ḫattušili III, to the Kassite king Kadašman-Enlil. The Middle Euphrates forts may have been the point where Assyrians intercepted messengers from either state (though Tuttul, modern Tell Bia) may have been another. For the letter, see Beckman 1999, 132–137; COS 3, 52–53. For discussion, see Hoffner 2009, 15, 24. 80 See Clancier (2006, 269) who documents difficulties for later kingdoms to regulate this zone (Achaemenid, Seleucid and Parthian). 81 Grayson 1975, 165, Chronicle 21, ii.24´; Glassner 2004, 180–181. 82 For the dates, see now Jeffers 2013, 120–128, 185–210. Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 211 SYSTEMS SITES – MODERN (ANCIENT) ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 1st Three-Fort System Modern Sur Murʾeh Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery Modern Gleiʾeh (Kār-Apladad) Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery Modern Sur Jur’eh (Gabbāri-bānî) Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery The Island of Bijan (Sapirutu?)83 Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery ʿUsiyeh Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery and Assyrian lamassu Yemniyeh Neo-Assyrian pottery (9th century) pottery 2nd Three-Fort System Single Forts/Cities Sur Telbis (Sūru, capital of Sūḫu) Island of Anat (Anat) Khirbet ed-Diniyeh (Ḫaradu) Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery; 2 texts dating to the first half of the 12th century Figure 13: Summary of Assyrian Fort Systems. There are a number of texts that are germane to understanding the interactions between Assyria and Karduniaš related to these campaigns: Tiglath-pileser I’s royal inscriptions (A.0.87.4; A.0.87.10; and the Pakute Inscription); the Synchronistic History84; the Babylonian Chronicle 2585; a business text (A 1123)86; Sennacherib’s 83 Sapirutu is mentioned by Tiglath-pileser I (RIMA 2, A.0.87.4, line 42; A.0.87.10, line 41) and Tukultī-Ninurta II (RIMA 2, A.0.100.5, line 66). See Gawlikowski 1983–1984. 84 Grayson 1975, 164–165, ii.14´–24´; Glassner 2004, 180–181. 85 Walker 1982; Glassner 2004, 282–285. 86 See below. 212 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Bavian Inscription87; and a kudurru inscription of Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē’s 10th regnal year88 (see the Appendix A below for an outline of the events). Figure 14: Map of Assyrian fort Systems. There are various speculations about Assyrian motives in these invasions.89 It appears that some type of Babylonian aggression was the trigger. From Babylonian Chronicle 25, it appears that the successor of Nebuchadnezzar I, Enlil-nādin-apli, decided to attack Assyria. He marched directly against the city of Assur (called Baltil in the text). However, Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē , his uncle, revolted. This forced Enlil-nādin-apli to return to Babylon, where he apparently died at the hands of Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē, who in any case became the ruler of Karduniaš in 1095 BCE.90 Now even though Enlil-nādin-apli had failed, and even though no actual combat 87 RINAP 3/2, 316, Text 223, lines 47–50a. 88 Paulus 2014, 543–533, i.5 and ii.27; King 1912, 43–51. For a discussion of the text, see Brinkman 1968, 126, n. 738. 89 For recent detailed discussions, see Bloch 2012, 53–78; Jeffers 2013, 213–217. 90 Recent study yields this chronology for the rulers of Karduniaš: Nebuchadnezzar I 1121–1100; Enlil-nādin-apli 1099–1096; Marduk-nādin-aḫḫ 1095–1078; and Marduk-šāpik-zē ri 1077–1065. See Bloch 2012; Jeffers 2013. Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 213 appears to have occurred between Assyrian and Babylonian troops, and even though a new king had ascended the Babylonian throne, the damage had been done. Karduniaš had violated Assyria’s borders – a sure breach of treaty. This necessitated Tiglath-pileser I to turn his attention to Karduniaš. This violation of Assyrian sovereignty alone would have been sufficient this, but it is also possible – though far from certain due to the damaged lines of Babylonian Chronicle 25 – that Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē also caused an escalation in hostilities with Assyria.91 In any case, Tiglath-pileser I decided to take military action against Karduniaš. To facilitate the discussion of the two campaigns, the following presentation compares the narratives of A.0.87.4 and the Pakute Inscription (the tablet’s horizontal rulings are included). RIMA 2, 43–44, A.0.87.4, lines 37–51 (37–40) I marched to the land of Karduniaš. I conquered from the other side of the Lower Zab River, the city Arman of Ugar-Sallu, as far as the city of Lubdu. I crossed the Radānu River. I conquered the cities at the foot of Mt. Kamulla (and) Mt. Kaštilla. I brought out their booty (and) possessions; I brought them back to my city Assur. (41–43) On this campaign of mine, I marched to the land of Sūḫu. I conquered (from) the city of Sapiratu/Sapirutu, an island in the Euphrates, as far as the city of Ḫindānu (Ḫimdānu), all the cities of the land of Sūḫu. I took their booty; I carried off their numerous gods and their property; 91 Jeffers 2013, 217–233. Pakute Inscription (Frame 2011, 127– 134) (24–27) I marched to the land of Karduniaš. I conquered from the city of Turšān on the other side of the Lower Zab River as far as the city of Lubdu. I razed their cities (and) I burned (them) with fire. I brought back their booty (and) possessions to my city Assur. (28–33) On my return (march) from this campaign of mine, I marched to the land of Sūḫu; I conquered from the city of Yaduri (as far as) the city of Sapiratu/Sapirutu, the city of Šandada, the city of Ḫaradu (Ḫarada), and the cities that are (on islands) in the middle of the Euphrates. I removed their countless booty; 214 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. I brought (them) back to my city Assur. I uprooted their fields; (and) I cut down their orchards. (44–51) (34–48) I captured the palaces of Babylon that belonged to Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē, king of Karduniaš. I burned (them) with fire. I removed their countless booty (and) possessions. I razed the palaces of the city of Babylon that belonged to Marduknādin-aḫḫē, the king of the land of Karduniaš. I carried off the great property of his palaces. At the command of Ninurta, who loves me, I marched to Karduniaš. I conquered the city of Dūr Kurigalzu, the city of Sippar-of-the-God-Šamaš, the city of Sippar-of-the-Goddess-Annunītu, the city of Babylon, the city of Opis, which is on the other (east) side of the Tigris, the great cult-centers of the land of Karduniaš, together with their fortresses. I brought about their defeat in great numbers. I took their booty without number. In the eponymy of Aššur-šuma-ē riš (and) in the eponymy of Ninu’āyu, twice, I drew up a battle line of chariots against Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē, king of Karduniaš; I massacred him. At the command of Ninurta, the god who loves me, I marched to the land of Karduniaš for a second time. I conquered Dūr Kurigalzu of the city of Simbur, the city of Sippar-of-the-GodŠamaš, the city of Sippar-of-the-Goddess-Annunītu, the city of Babylon, the city of Opis, the great cult-centers of the land of Karduniaš, together with their fortresses. Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē, king of the land of Karduniaš, relied on the strength of his troops and his chariots; and he marched after me. He fought with me at the city of Šitula, which is upstream of the city of Akkad on the Tigris River; and I dispersed his numerous chariots. I brought about the defeat of his warriors (and) his fighters in that battle. He retreated; and returned to his land. Figure 15: Military action against Karduniaš according to A.0.87.4 and the Pakute Inscription. Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 215 The Pakute Inscription divides the narrative into two clearly marked campaigns (lines 24–33; 34–48), first by wording “I marched to the land of Karduniaš for a second time,” and second by horizontal ruling. But it is A.0.87.4, lines 49b–50 that specifies the precise year by eponym.92 From the places mentioned in the initial account of Tiglath-pileser I’s first campaign in both texts, it is evident that he raided the northernmost part of Karduniaš/Babylonia, with perhaps the deepest penetration being the city of Lubdu.93 However, while Tiglath-pileser I may have had some limited success in his initial raid as described in the two texts, he was, in fact, defeated (see further below). Moreover, it appears that he suffered the personal loss of two of his sons who were killed in battle. A very important business document (A 1123) reveals the startling information concerning the death of two of Tiglath-pileser I’s sons. The tablet states: Two pirı̄su-“garments” of multicolored cloth for the coverings (?) of Sîntukultı̄ and Nirāya, the sons of the king, who were killed in the great attack of the land of Karduniaš (ina ti-bi-te [read: ti-be-e] GAL-e ša KUR kar-du-ni-aš), were given for burial. Month Ša-kē nātu, day 20, līmu of Aššur-šuma-ē riš.94 This text reveals that these deaths occurred in the same līmu as the year of Tiglathpileser I’s initial attack on Karduniaš according to A.0.87.4: Aššur-šuma-ēriš. In addition, the text provides the date of the burial ceremony: the 20th day month of Šakēnātu (the 9th month).95 Unfortunately, A.0.87.4 does not give the month of the attack. Thus, one cannot discern immediately whether the two sons were killed before the Assyrian invasion or as part of this military action. The crux seems to be centered on the interpretation of the clause: ina ti-bi-te (read: ti-be-e) GAL-e ša KUR kar-duni-aš. Llop-Raduà has suggested understanding ša KUR kar-du-ni-aš as either (1) “the great attack of/by the land of Karduniaš” (i.e., Karduniaš’s great attack”) or (2) “the great uprising/revolt of the land of Karduniaš.” A third possibility is interpreting the phrase as “the great attack on Karduniaš” (Jeffers 2013). In my opinion, the least likely scenario is Llop-Raduà’s second option, because it requires some type of established Assyrian rulership in Karduniaš in order for there to be a revolt, and this lacks any direct evidence. While Jeffers’ suggestion is very appealing because it melds quite 92 See the discussion in Jeffers 2013, 120–128, who has recently argued that the eponymy of Aššuršuma-ē riš should be placed in Tiglath-pileser’s twenty-second regnal year, the eponymy of Ninu’āyu in his twenty-third regnal year. 93 Parpola/Porter (2001, 12, 22, and 33) suggest modern Tawuq/Daquq on a tributary of the Adhaim River. 94 Originally published by Donbaz (1992, 183, n. 15). For comprehensive studies of this text, see Llop-Raduà 2003, 204–210 and Jeffers 2013, 234–238. 95 The Assyrian month Ša-kē nātu equates with the Babylonian month Tašrītu, the seventh month (MARV 5, 43), roughly mid-September to mid-October. See Llop-Raduà 2003, 208–210; Jeffers 2013, 235. 216 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. well with the other data, one would have expected the text to read ana māt Karduniaš “against Karduniaš.”96 There can be no doubt that the deaths occurred before the month of Ša-kēnātu. While a campaign could have been launched against Karduniaš after this month,97 the fact that the campaign starts out in northern Babylonia and ends (on its return) in Sūḫu means that there is too little time for all of this to transpire in what is left of Aššuršumā-ēriš’s līmu. There are a number of evidences that point to Tiglath-pileser I’s defeat in this initial attack on Karduniaš.97a The wording of the Synchronistic History implies a defeat. After stating that Tiglath-pileser I twice (II-šu) drew up his battle line of chariots, it records that in the second year he defeated Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē. This implies that Tig-lath-pileser I did not defeat the king of Karduniaš until the second year, thus losing in the first try. The Assyrian loss can also be inferred from the Assyrian royal inscriptions. The Assyrian scribes attempt to cover up this defeat and salvage matters by highlighting the Assyrian army’s return to Assur via a razzia to Sūḫu. Even this “return campaign of mine” raises some questions. If Ḫaradu (spelled ḫa-ra-da in the Pakute Inscription) is a part of the Assyrian fort system, what is Tiglath-pileser I doing “conquering” (kašādu) it?98 The city of Ḫindānu (spelled ḫi-im-da-ni in A.0.87.4) is further up the Euphrates from the land of Sūḫu, but it is lumped in with “all the cities of the land of Sūḫu.” Are these further hints that the scribes are glossing over the tragic event of this first campaign against Karduniaš in the official documentation of the state? The very next year, Tiglath-pileser I invaded Karduniaš a second time. No doubt motivated now by revenge for the deaths of his sons and the humiliation of the previous year’s defeat, this campaign had the full resources of the Assyrian empire at Tiglath-pileser I’s disposal. He marched all the way to Babylon, sacked its palaces, and defeated Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē and the Babylonian army. The scale of the conflict during these two years, particularly the second, must have been devastating and financially draining on both sides. A word or two should be said about Sennacherib’s Bavian Inscription and Marduknādin-aḫḫē’s kudurru. In Sennacherib’s Bavian inscription,99 it states that Sennacherib retrieved the statues of Adad and Šāla from Babylon that Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē had stolen from Ekallāte 418 years earlier. In his kudurru, Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē (1095– 1078 BCE) claims to have defeated Assyria. Since this inscription is dated to his 10th 96 A close look at CAD (T 386–393, s.v. tību and tibûtu) yields no examples with Jeffers’ proposed meaning; ana is usually used for this nuance. 97 Jeffers’ attempt (2013, 235–236) to disqualify this based on the agricultural season. However, from the inscriptions of Aššur-bēl-kala, campaigns are attested in the months following Tašrītu: Araḫsamna (APIN), Kislīmu (GAN) and Šabāṭu (ZÍZ). 97a The present reconstruction is based on and follows Jeffers 2013, 223–255. 98 Again, note the Synchronistic History’s attribution of Tiglath-pileser I’s control over Sūḫu (see above). 99 RINAP 3/2, 316, Text 223, lines 47–50a. Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 217 regnal year (1085 BCE), and since the land granted in the kudurru was associated with land in northern Babylonia,100 this would seem to relate to a military engagement with Assyria in 1086 BCE. The date given in the Bavian Inscription has long frustrated interpreters. Its figure of 418 when added to a date of 688 or 687 BCE (assuming Sennacherib’s inscription was written one or two years after his attack on Babylon) yields 1106 or 1105 BCE respectively. In light of recent data, both dates are impossible. Another possibility would be to posit a slight error (a “10” wedge has been accidentally inserted). If Sennacherib’s Bavian Inscription is dated to 687 BCE and the resultant figure of 408 is added, this yields 1095 BCE (Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē’s first year). However, if 688 BCE is the correct date for the Bavian Inscription, this solution does not work. One problem with any date prior to Tiglath-pileser I’s invasions of Karduniaš is that Tiglath-pileser I did not retrieve the statues of these deities. Thus a final solution would be to posit an error with the 418 figure and posit that the kudurru’s statement about defeating Assyria should be tied to the Bavian Inscription’s witness to the “god-napping” from Ekallāte (the error would be about 20 years). This solves the problem of Tiglath-pileser not recovering the statues: they have not yet been stolen when Tiglath-pileser I attacked Babylon!101 There are two important conclusions to draw from Tiglath-pileser I’s Babylonian ventures. First, it appears that Tiglath-pileser I’s initial attack on Babylonia was a defeat; yet the Assyrian scribes found a way to gloss over this. This should caution us that the continuously successful campaigns against the Arameans that are narrated in his inscriptions might not be entirely accurate either. Interestingly, one version of his inscriptions from Nineveh102 omits any account of the campaigns against the Arameans, an account that appears in every other version of the king’s inscriptions. While this could be explained as a telescoping of the king’s campaigns, it appears to be rather blatant. Thus, it is more likely the result of the scribe of this version believing that these conflicts were not going so well for the Assyrian king, and so he made no reference to them. Second, with all the campaigning that Tiglath-pileser I did – to Lebanon, southeastern Anatolia, from Sūḫu to Karkamiš, Mt. Bišri, the Upper Tigris, Babylonia – Assyrian resources were likely stretched to the limit, if not completely overextended. There were undoubtedly many enemies who were looking for a chance to rebel and/or get revenge. Therefore, as a result of the huge military efforts expended by Assyria (Tiglath-pileser I) and Babylonia (Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē) (that only really ended with the treaty between Aššur-bēl-kala and Marduk-šāpik-zēri), both kingdoms were highly susceptible to Aramean penetrations that ultimately brought both to their knees. In a sense, it was like two heavyweight boxers punching each other silly – and then a 100 See note 88. 101 See Borger 1964, 120. 102 RIMA 2:50–56, A.0.87.10. The name of the eponym is broken; so the date is unknown, although it was perhaps written around the same time as RIMA A.0.87.4 or a little later. 218 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. featherweight jumping into the ring and delivering knockout blows to each. Thus, as noted above, Tiglath-pileser I’s so-called victories did not remove the Aramean threat. After his 23rd year there is no record of a campaign against the Arameans. It may be that the fort system did its job for a time. But the very last years of Tiglath-pileser I’s reign saw a significant reversal in Assyrian fortunes. This can be seen in the Assyrian Chronicle 4, the so-called Tiglath-pileser I Chronicle103: (2) [In the eponymy of … great starvation(?) …] The peopl]e (the Assyrians) ate one another’s flesh […] (3) […] the houses of the Arameans (É.MEŠ KUR.Ar-ma-a-ia.ME[Š]) (4) [increased(?)] they plundered104 [the harvest of Assyria]; they seized the roads; (5) They captured105 (and) took [many districts of] Assyria. (6) [The people (the Assyrians) [(7)fled] (6)[t]o the mountains of Ḫabrūri106 for (their) lives. (7) Their [gold], their silver, (and) their possessions they (the Arameans) took. (8) [Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē, king of] Karduniaš (Babylonia), passed away; Marduk-[šāpik]-zēri (9)ascended hi[s father’s throne]. Eighteen regnal years of Marduk-[nādin-a]ḫḫē. (10) [In the eponymy …] the harvest of the land of Assyria, all of it, [was flood]ed.107 (11) [The houses of the Arameans] increased; they proceeded along (lit. “took”) the b[ank of the Tig]ris.108 103 Grayson 1975, 189; Glassner 2004, 188–191. 104 Tadmor (1958, 133) and Grayson (1975, 189) read: … a]-lak tap-pu-tu ḫu-la-a-[ni]. MEŠ iṣbu-tu “… to] render aid they set out” understanding alāku(m) tapputu as an idiom “to go to someone’s assistance.” Glassner (2004, 188–189) reads: …] iḫ-tab-ba-tu ḫu-la-a-ni.MEŠ iṣbu-tu. See also Neumann/Parpola 1987, 178; and Naʾaman 1994, 33–34. 105 While Grayson (1975, note to line 5) remarks that “it is difficult to say whether Aššur is the direct object in this sentence when the beginning is missing,” the subject must be plural and the most reasonable option is the bītāt māt Aramāya since these Aramean tribes are clearly the subject of numerous plural verb forms in the text. 106 While earlier read as Kirriuri (Tadmor 1958, 133; Grayson 1975, 189), Levine (1976–1980) suggested reading Ḫabrūri based on a Sultantepe Eponym Chronicle text. He identified it with Dašt-e Ḥarīr located northeast of Arbail in the Zagros area closest to Assyria proper. See Parpola/Porter 2001, 9. For the reading, see now Millard 1994, 35, year 796. 107 Tadmor (1958, 133) restored [ra-ḫi]-iṣ “was ravaged” speculating that the crop damage in this year was caused by excessive rains flooding the fields. Neumann/Parpola (1987, 178, n. 52) point out that “the verb can equally be read [ma-ḫi]-iṣ, which simply means ‘was ruined’ (by any agent, e.g., by locusts).” Recently Postgate (2013, 60) has pointed out that the restoration is likely [ra-ḫi]-iṣ, since there is the occurrence of the same verb in administrative texts from Dūr-katlimmu (see Röllig 2008, No. 67:12). 108 Naʾaman (1994, 33–34) reads: ši[d]-d[i ÍD.]ID[IGNA]. Glassner (2004, 188) follows. Tadmor Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 219 (12) [They plundered] [the land of GN1, the land of GN2, the land of] Īdu,109 the district of Nineveh, (and) the land of Kili[zi].110 (13) [In that year Tiglath-pil]eser (I), the king of Assyria, [marched] to Katmuḫu. Assyrian Chronicle 4 is fragmentary and difficult to interpret. Yet, because it dates to the late Middle Assyrian period, it is more or less contemporaneous with the Middle Assyrian royal inscriptions. Thus, it is an important witness to historical events that it records. Summing up the Assyrian chronicle materials, Postgate (2013, 60) states: These scraps of chronicle are tantalising out of proportion to their size, since they must be the remnants of at least two centuries of annual records maintained by Assyrian scribes in their vernacular dialect, to preserve factual information of a kind we do not find in the self-glorifying texts composed in Babylonian dialect to commemorate royal building projects. The copy of the Tiglath-pileser I Chronicle Fragment/Assyrian Chronicle 4 even comes from the so-called “library of Tiglath-pileser” from the southwest courtyard of the Aššur Temple.111 This particular text reveals a number of important pieces of evidence. First of all, the events that it narrates can be accurately dated since the text makes reference to the death of Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē and the accession of his son Marduk-šāpik-zēri. Thus, these events date to the latter part of Tiglath-pileser I’s reign (1078/1077, Tiglathpileser’s I’s 37th year).112 This is important for contextualizing the data that is discernible in the text. Second, the vocabulary of war is clearly used in lines 3–7, and thus it is very likely that the conflict between the “houses of the Arameans” and the Assyrians is in view. More specifically, the grammar indicates the bītāt māt Aramāya “houses of the Arameans” is the subject of a number of plural verb forms: “they plundered,” “seized,” “captured,” “took” (2x), “increased” and “seized.” The term bītātu is a powerful precursor of the later partition of the entire Jezirah into a number of 109 110 111 112 (1958, 133) reads: ⌈É.MEŠ⌉ [KUR A]r-m[a-a-ia-e] and Grayson (1975, 189) reads: bītā[ti]ME[Š māt A]r-m-a-a-iaMEŠ]. While Grayson (1975, 189) and Glassner (2004, 188) understand this to be a reference to Īdu, Postgate (1985, 100) suggests a possible reading of either [Taʾi]du or Īdu. The mention of the Tigris in the immediate context would make Īdu more likely. Although Grayson (1975, 189) reads KUR KI.TA “the land downstream,” the reading KUR.Kili-[zi “the land of Kili[zi]” makes better sense in light of the mention of Īdu, Nineveh, and Katmaḫu (see Glassner 2004; Naʾaman 1994; Postgate 1976–1980, 592). It was located in between Arbail and Kalḫu, at Qasr Šemamok (30 km south of Arbail). See Rouault/Masetti Rouault 2013. Pedersén 1986, 2:20, Archive N1:21; Jeffers 2013, 78–79. Based on Bloch 2012, 56; 2010, 74, n. 48; see Jeffers 2013, 248–254. Brinkman (1987–1990a; 1987–1990b) gives the followings date: the death of Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē (1099–1082 BCE) and the accession of his son, Marduk-šāpik-zēri (1081–1069 BCE) = Tiglath-pileser I’s 32nd year (1082/1081). 220 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. polities – mostly Aramean – characterized by the bītu-formula.113 Third, it is manifest that there was famine bad enough that cannibalism took place. It may well be that the famine was the result of climate change during this period (Kirleis/Herles 2007; Neumann/Parpola 1987). Fourth, it is interesting that the Assyrian people escaped “[t]o the mountains of Ḫabrūri for (their) lives.” This was an Assyrian province in the late Middle Assyrian Period (ca. 1124–1120 BCE).114 This is the very same place mentioned by Aššur-dan II who “brought back the weary [people] of Assyria [who in the face of] famine, hunger, (and) shortage had abandoned [their cities (and) houses] (and) [had gone up] to oth[er] lands.”115 Fifth, a number of the same district names occur in this Chronicle that also occurs in the gināʾū lists: Kilizi, Īdu, Katmuḫu, and Nineveh. As mentioned above, in the past scholars have dated the gināʾū list of MARV 2.21 to Tiglath-pileser I’s reign (1077 BC) and have reconstructed the extent of the Assyrian loss (Postgate 1985, 100; 1992). However, in light of the re-dating of MARV 2.21 to Ninurta-apil-Ekur’s reign, it appears that the Chronicle is the main witness to the end of Tiglath-pileser I’s reign. The Chronicle gives evidence of a significant struggle. The extent of the Assyrian loss is not entirely clear, but from the Arameans’ actions on the Tigris, it is clear that the Aramean penetrations were east of the Tigris – this is now abundantly clear since Īdu must be equated with Sātu Qala116 – and that at a minimum these districts mentioned in the last lines of the Chronicle were plundered, though not necessarily lost.117 Finally, this entry into the Chronicle ends with a single statement that Tiglath-pileser went to Katmuḫu. It is very likely that this was not a normal royal military campaign, but instead the statement seems to imply that even Tiglath-pileser I was forced to flee to the mountainous region of Katmuḫu to save his life, just as other Assyrians had fled to the mountains of Ḫabrūri. Conclusion Even though Tiglath-pileser I conducted successful campaigns that restored the Middle Assyrian Empire to the borders at the time of Tukultī-Ninurta I, with many spectacular achievements like the expedition to Mt. Lebanon and the conquest of Karduniaš (Babylonia), there was a constant problem: the Arameans. By the end of his nearly forty-year reign, perhaps by sheer attrition the Aramean penetrations began to 113 See Younger 2016, 43–48. 114 Ḫabrūri (modern Dašt-i Ḫarīr). See Zadok 2012, 578; Bloch 2012, 69, n. 65. See Freydank/Feller 2005, 86, 16. It is mentioned after the province of the bank of the ḪUR-ri river (or I7.ḫar-ri “the province of the bank of the ditch”?) in connection with Arbela. 115 RIMA 2:133–135; A.0.98.1, lines 54–67. 116 For the site’s location east on the Lower Zab at Sātu Qala, see below. 117 The extent of the penetrations into the heart of Assyria may have cause Tiglath-pileser I to “beat a strategic retreat” westward to Katmu̮,hu (the eastern flank of the Kašiyāri range (modern Ṭūr ʿAbdīn) (Brinkman 1968, 388). Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 221 take a great toll. Throughout his reign, Tiglath-pileser I fought the Arameans over a wide extent of the western part of his kingdom and beyond. But at the end of his reign, the Aramean pressure could no longer be withstood. Arameans appear within the core of Assyrian territory itself in the final years of his reign, and most of the military campaigns of his successor, Aššur-bē l-kala (1073–1056 BCE), had to be directed against this enemy, although like his father ultimately without success. Thus, the Arameans were an important factor in the erosion of the Middle Assyrian Empire. Appendix: Chronology of the Interactions of Tiglath-pileser I and Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē Date Events (Assyria) 1095 Attack on Ekallāte? Events (Babylonia) Enlil-nādin-apli is aggressor; retreats Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē comes to the throne Although Enlil-nādin-apli’s attack on Assyria (mentioned in Babylonian Chronicle 25) might be a possible context where Tiglath-pileser’s sons could have been killed. But the Assyro-Babylonian synchronisms do not support a chronology in which the Assyrian eponymy of Aššur-šuma-ē riš coincides with Enlil-nādin-apli’s last regnal year. *Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē attacks and seizes the deities Adad and Šāla from Ekallāte? 1092 1st Battle (Tiglath-pileser I’s 22nd year) (Bloch 2012, 73: 1095/94) (Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē’s 4th year) (Bloch 2012, 73: 1st battle is in Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē’s 1st regnal year) 1091 2nd Battle (Tiglath-pileser I’s 23rd year) (Bloch 2012:73: 1094/93 (Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē’s 5th year) 222 1086 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Battle with Assyria (attack on Ekallāte?) *Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē attacks and seizes the deities Adad and Šāla from Ekallāte? 1085 Kudurru of Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē’s 10th regnal year records attack in a year previous (probably the previous year) 1078 End of Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē’s reign 1077 Beginning of Marduk-šāpik-zēri’s reign 1076 End of Tiglath-pileser I’s reign Figure 16: Chronology of the Interactions of Tiglath-pileser I and Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē. Bibliography Akkermans, P. M. M. G. 2006: The Fortress of Ili-pada: Middle Assyrian Architecture at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria, in: P. Butterlin/M. Lebeau/J.-Y. Monchambert/J. L. Montero Fenollos/B. Müller (eds.), Les espaces syro-mésopotamiens: Dimensions de l’expérience humaine au Proche-Orient ancient, Volume d’hommage offert à Jean-Claude Margueron (Subartu 17), Turnhout, 201–211. —. 2007: S ̣abı̄ y Abyad ̣, Tall (Sabi Abyad), RlA 11.5–6, 476–478. Alessandroni, M. 2006: Il paese di Aram attraverso le fonti assire da Tiglatpileser I a Salmanassar III, in: G. Regalzi/C. Peri (eds.), Mutuare, Interpretare, Tradurre: storie di culture a confront, Atti del 2o Incontro “Orientalisti”, Roma, 11–13 dicembre 2002 (Studi Semitici 21), Roma, 67–73. Al-Shukri, S. J. 1988: Archaeological Survey of Ancient Settlements and Irrigation Systems in the Middle Euphrates Region of Mesopotamia, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 223 —. 1997: Assyrian Frontier Sites on the Middle Euphrates, New Evidence from the al-Qadisiya (Haditha) Dam Region in the Western Desert of Iraq, in: H. Waetzoldt/H. Hauptmann (eds.), Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten, XXXIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Heidelberg 6.–10. Juli 1992 (HSAO 6), Heidelberg, 219–221. Andrae, W. 1913: Die Stelenreihen in Assur (WVDOG 24), Leipzig. Arnaud, D. 1992: Les ports de la “Phénicie” à la fin d’âge du Bronze Récent (XIV-XII siècles) d’après les textes cuneiforms de Syrie, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 30, 179–194. Bagg, A. M. 2007: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit, Teil 1: Die Levante (RGTC 7.1. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients 19), Wiesbaden. Baker, H. D. 2014: Tiglath-pileser I, RlA 14.1/2, 19–21. Beckman, G. 1999: Hittite Diplomatic Texts (SBLWAW 7), Atlanta. Bikai P. M. 1978: The Pottery of Tyre, Warminster. Bloch, Y. 2010: Solving the Problems of the Assyrian King List: Toward a Precise Reconstruction of the Middle Assyrian Chronology, Journal of Ancient Civilizations 25, 21–87. —. 2012: Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reign of Aššur-rēša-iši I: The Contribution of Administrative Documents to History-Writing, in: G. Galil/A. Gilboa/A. M. Maeir/D. Kahn (eds.), The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May, 2010 (AOAT 392), Münster, 53–78. Borger, R. 1964: Einleitung in die assyrischen Königinschriften, Erster Teil: Das Zweite Jahrtausend vor Chr. (HdO 5.1.1) Leiden. Brinkman, J. A. 1968: A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 B.C. (AnOr 43), Rome. —. 1987–90a: Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē, RlA 7, 377. —. 1987–90b: Marduk-šāpik-zēri, RlA 7, 378. Bunnens, G. 2000: Géographie historique de la région du barrage de Tishrin, in: O. Rouault/M. Wäfler (eds.), La Djéziré et l’Euphrate Syriens de la Protohistoire à la Fin du IIe Millénaire av. J.-C. (Subartu 7), Turnhout, 299–308. Cancik-Kirschbaum E. C. 1996: Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad, Berlin. —. 1999: “Nebenlinien des assyrischen Königshauses in der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jts. v. Chr.”, AoF 26, 210–222. Clancier, P. 2006: Le moyen Euphrate de l’implantion des Araméens à la periode romaine, in: C. Kepinski/O. Lecomte/A. Tenu (eds.), Studia Euphratica: Le moyen Euphrate iraquien révélé par les fouilles préventives de Haditha (Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 3), Paris, 247–289. Donbaz, V. 1992: The “House of the Kings” in the City of Aššur, in: H. Otten et al. (eds.), Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp (Anadolu Medeniyetlerini Araş tirma ve Tanitma Vakfi Yayinlari, Sayi 1), Ankara, 119–225. 224 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. van Driel, G. 2001: On Villages, in: W. H. Van Soldt/J. G. Dercksen/N. J. C. Kouwenberg/Th. J. H. Krispijn (eds.), Veenhof Anniversary Volume, Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 89), Leiden, 103–118. Düring, B. S. 2015: Reassessing the Dunnu Institution in the Context of the Middle Assyrian Empire, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 52, 47–68. Duistermaat, K. 2008: The Pots and Potters of Assyria: Technology and Organisation of Production, Ceramic Sequence and Vessel Function at Late Bronze Age Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria (Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities 4), Turnhout. Eidem, J./ Pütt, K. 2001: Iron Age Sites on the Upper Euphrates, AAAS 44, 83–96. Fadhil, A./Radner, K.. 1996: Äste, Gras und Esel: Ein neuassyrischer Privatbrief aus Nimrud im Iraq Museum, BaM 27, 419–28. Fales, F. M. 2011a: Die Ausbreitung Assyriens gegen Westen und seine fortschreitende Verwurzelung: Der Fall der nordwestlichen Jezira, in: J. Renger (ed.), Assur – Gott, Stadt und Land. 5, Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 18.–21. Februar 2004 in Berlin (Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 5), Wiesbaden, 211–237. —. 2011b: Transition: the Assyrians at the Euphrates Between the 13th and the 12th Century BC, in: K. Strobel (ed.), Empires after the empire: Anatolia, Syria and Assyria after Suppiluliuma II, ca. 1200/800–700 B.C. (Eothen 17), Firenze, 9–59. —. 2014: The Two Dynasties of Assyria, in: S. Gaspa/A. Greco/D. Morandi Bonacossi/S. Ponchia/R. Rollinger (eds.), From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on June 23, 2014 (AOAT 412), Münster, 201–237. Frahm, E. 2009: Historische und historisch-literarische Texte (WVDOG 121), Wiesbaden. Frame, G. 2011: Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, in: A. R. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17), Bethesda, 127–134. Frayne, D. 1993: RIME 2. Freydank, H. 1991: Beiträge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 21), Berlin. —. 2007: “Honig”-Lieferungen für den Gott Assur, AoF 34, 70–77. Freydank, H./Feller, B. 2005: MARV 6. Gawlikowski, M. 1983–84: Began Island, AfO 29–30, 207. Gilibert, Alessandra. 2008: On Kār Tukultı̄ -Ninurta: Chronology and Politics of a Middle Assyrian Ville Neuve, in: D. Bonatz/R. M. Czichon/F. J. Kreppner (eds.), Fundstellen: Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvordersiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne, Wiesbaden, 177–188. Glassner, J.-J. 2004: Mesopotamian Chronicles (SBLWAW 19), Atlanta. Grayson A. K. 1972: Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. Vol. 1, Wiesbaden. —. 1975: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources), Locust Valley, NY. Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 225 —. 1980: Königslisten und Chroniken, B. Akkadisch, RlA 6, 86–135. Harmanş ah, Ö.. 2012: Beyond Aššur: New Cities and the Assyrian Politics of Landscape, BASOR 365, 53–77. Harrak, A. 1987: Assyria and Hanigalbat, Hildesheim. Hawkins, J. D. 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Volume 1: The Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions of the Iron Age (UISK 8.1), Berlin/New York. Herles, M. 2007: Assyrische Präsenz an Euphrat und Balīḫ: Grenzkontrolle gegen Feinde des Reiches und nomadische Gruppierungen, UF 39, 413–49. Hoffner, H. A., Jr. 2009: Letters front the Hittite Kingdom (SBLWAW 15), Atlanta. Jakob, S./Janisch-Jakob, D. I. 2009: Die mittelassyrischen Texte aus Tell Chuēra in NordostSyrien (Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 2, Ausgrabungen in Tell Chēra in Nordost-Syrien 3), Wiesbaden. Jeffers, J. A. 2013: Tiglath-pileser I: A Light in a “Dark Age”, Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Kepinski, C. 2006: Haradu: A General Outline of the Middle- and Neo-Assyrian Fortress, with a Brief History of the French Excavations at Khirbet ed-Diniyeh, in: C. Kepinski/O. Lecomte/A. Tenu (eds.), Studia Euphratica: Le moyen Euphrate iraquien révélé par les fouilles préventives de Haditha (Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 3), Paris, 329–338. —. 2009: Conflict, Territory and Culture: the Case of Haradu, a Fortress on the Iraqi Middle Euphrates (11th to 7th Centuries BC), Syria 86, 149–158. King, L. W. 1912: Babylonian Boundary-stones and Memorial-tablets in the British Museum, London. Levine, L. D. 1976–80: Kirruiri, Kirriuri (Ḫabr(i)uri?), RlA 5, 606–607. Lipiński, E. 2000: The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100), Leuven. Liverani, M. 1988: Antico Oriente: Storia società econontia, Roma. Llop-Raduà, J. 2003: Die persönlichen Gründe Tiglat-Pilesers I., Babylonien anzugreifen, Or 72, 204–210. —. 2011: The Boundary between Assyria and Babylonia in the East Tigris Region during the Reign of Tukultī-Ninurta I (1233–1197 BC), in: P. A. Miglus/S. Mühl (eds.), Between the Cultures the Central Tigris Region from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC, Conference at Heidelberg January 22nd–24th 2009 (HSAO 14), Heidelberg, 209–215. —. 2012: Did the Assyrians Occupy the Euphrates-Elbow in the Middle Assyrian Period (Late Bronze Age)?, in: F. Borrell/M. Bouso/A. Gómez/C. Tornero/O. Vicente (eds.), Broadening 226 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Horizons 3, Conference of Young Researchers Working in the Ancient Near East (Congressos 8), Barcelona, 203–225. Lönnqvist, M. A. 2008: Were Nomadic Amorites on the Move? Migration, Invasion and Gradual Infiltration as Mechanisms for Cultural Transitions, in: H. Kühne/R. M. Czichon/F. J. Kreppner (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 29 March – 3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin, Vol. 1: The Reconstruction of Environment: Natural Resources and Human Interrelations through Time: Art History: Visual Communication, Wiesbaden, 195–214. Marcus, David. 1999: Nineveh’s ‘Three Days’ Walk’ (Jonah 3:3): Another Interpretation, in: S. L. Cook/S. C. Winter (eds.), On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of George M. Landes, Atlanta, 42–48. Markoe, G. E. 2000: Peoples of the Past: Phoenicians, London. Millard, A. R. 1970: Fragments of Historical Texts from Nineveh: Middle Assyrian and Later Kings, Iraq 32, 167–76 and pls. xxxiii–xxxvii. —. 1994: The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC (SAAS 2), Helsinki. Morandi Bonacossi, D. 2000: The Syrian Jezireh in the Late Assyrian Period: A View from the Countryside, in: G. Bunnens (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (ANESSup 7), Louvain, 349–396. Naʾaman, N. 1994: Assyrian Chronicle Fragment 4 and the Location of Idu, RA 88, 33–35. Neumann, J./Parpola S. 1987: Climatic Change and the Eleventh–Tenth Century Eclipse of Assyria and Babylonia, JNES 46, 161–182. Odorico, M. de. 1994: Compositional and Editorial Processes of Annalistic and Summary Texts of Tiglath-Pileser I, SAAB 8/2, 67–112. Pappi, C. 2006: The Jebel Bišri in the Physical and Cultural Landscape of the Ancient Near East, KASKAL 3, 241–256. Parpola, S./Porter, M. 2001: The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period, Helsinki. Paulus, S. 2014: Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen (AOAT 51), Münster. Pongratz-Leisten, B. 2011: Assyrian Royal Discourse between Local and Imperial Traditions at the Hābūr, RA 105, 109–128. Porada, E. 1978: The Cylinder Seal, in: P. M. Bikai 1978, 77–82. Postgate, J. N. 1976–80: Kilizu, RlA 5, 591–593. —. 1985: Review of K. Nashef, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit, RGTC 5. BTAVO, B. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1982, AfO 32, 95–101. —. 1992: The Land of Aššur and the Yoke of Aššur, World Archaeology 23, 247–263. —. 2013: Bronze Age Bureaucracy: Writing and the Practice of Government in Assyria, Cambridge. Reculeau, H. 2011: Climate, Environment and Agriculture in Assyria, Wiesbaden. Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Assyrian-Aramean Conflicts 227 Röllig, W. 2008: Land- und Viehwirtschaft am Unteren Ḫābūr in mittelassyrischer Zeit (BATSH 9, Texte 3), Wiesbaden. Rouault, O./Masetti Rouault M. G. 2013: La mission 2013 à Qasr Shemamok – Kilizu (Kurdistan irakien), ArchéOrient-Le Blog (Hypotheses.org) 5/7 2013: https://archeorient.hypotheses.org/1302. Accessed December 26, 2014. Rosa, D. F. 2010: Middle Assyrian Ginā’ū Offerings Lists: Geographical Implications, in: M. G. Biga/M. Liverani (eds.), ana turri gimilli: studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S. J. da amici e allievi (Quaderni di Vicino Oriente 5), Roma, 327–342. Schachner, A. 2009: Assyriens Könige an einer der Quellen des Tigris: Archäologische Forschungen im Höhlensystem von Birkleyn und am sogenannten Tigris-Tunnel (Istanbuler Forschungen 51), Tübingen. Singer, I. 1991: A Concise History of Amurru, in: S. Izreʾel (ed.), Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study, vol. 2, Atlanta, 135–195. Streck, M. P. 2002: Zwischen Weide, Dorf und Stadt: Sozio-ökonomische Strukturen des amurritischen Nomadismus am Mittleren Euphrat, BaM 33, 155–209. Tadmor, H. 1958: The Historical Implications of the Correct Rendering of Akkadian dâku, JNES 17, 129–141. —. 1997: Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, in: S. Parpola/R. M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10 th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 7– 11 1995, Helsinki, 325–338. Tenu, A. 2006: Le moyen Euphrate à la’époque médio-assyrienne, in: C. Kepinski/O. Lecomte/A. Tenu (eds.), Studia Euphratica: Le moyen Euphrate iraquien révélé par les fouilles préventives de Haditha (Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 3), Paris, 217–245. —. 2008: Les fortresses assyriennes de la vallée du moyen Euphrate, in: P. Abrahami/L. Battini (eds.), Les armées du Proche-Orient ancien (IIIe–Ier mill. av. J.-C.): actes du colloque international organisé à Lyons les 1er et 2 décembre 2006, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée (BAR International Series 1855), Oxford, 151–175. —. 2009: L’expansion médio-assyrienne: approche archéologique (BAR International Series 1906), Oxford. Valerio M. 2012: Hani-Rabbat as the Semitic name of Mitanni, Journal of Language Relationship 6, 173–183. Walker, C. B. F. 1982: Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties, in: G. van Driel/Th. J. H. Krispijn/M. Stol/K. R. Veenhof (eds.), Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten Studia Francisci Scholten Memoriae Dicata 5), Leiden, 398–417. 228 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Weidner E. F. 1959: Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I. und seine Nachfolger, Graz. Wiggermann, F. A. M. 2006: The Seal of Ilī-padâ, Grand Vizier of the Middle Assyrian Empire, in: P. Taylor (ed.), The Iconography of Cylinder Seals, London/Turin, 92–99. Yamada, S. 2003: Tukulti-Ninurta I’s Rule over Babylonia and its Aftermath – A Historical Reconstruction, Orient 38, 153–177. Yamazaki, Y. 1999: Excavations at Tell al-ʿAbr, in: G. del Olmo Lete/J.-L. Montero Fenollós (eds.), Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates: The Tishrin Dam Area: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th–30th 1998 (AuOrSup 15), Barcelona, 83–96. Younger, K. L., Jr. 2016: A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of Their Polities (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 13), Atlanta. Zadok, R. 2012: The Aramean Infiltration and Diffusion in the Upper Jazira, ca. 1150–930 BCE, in: G. Galil/A. Gilboa/A. M. Maier/D. Kahn (eds.), The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May, 2010 (AOAT 392), Münster, 569–579. MARV 2 H. Freydank, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte II. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 21, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982. MARV 6 H. Freydank/B. Feller, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte VI. WVDOG 109. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, 2005. MARV 7 H. Freydank/B. Feller, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte VII. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Assur, E. Inschriften 7. Keilschrifttexte aus mittelassyrischer Zeit 5. WVDOG 111. Saarwellingen: Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag, 2006. RIMA 2 The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods. Volume 2: A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC (1114–859 BC). Toronto: University of Toronto, 1991. RIME 2 The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods. Volume 2: D. Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC). Toronto: University of Toronto, 1993.