Our knowledge of the historical developments of the Aramean states is not homogeneous. It is partly based on inscriptions left by the local kings and partly on external sources, such as the Old Testament for the southernmost states, and Assyrian inscriptions for the northern ones. For the earliest phases of their history (eleventh-tenth century bc), however, we do not possess local inscriptions. This is because, at that time, these states were still in their formative phase and had not yet developed those administrative and celebra-tive forms necessary to leave monumental marks. Similarly, we lack attestations in the Assyrian sources, due to the fact that Assyria had to keep a hold of its territories against the spread of Aramean groups.
We possess more evidence on the southern Aramean states, mainly regarding their conflicts against Israel. The important role of Zobah (in the Beqa Valley) at the time of Saul and David seems a reliable memory, also because it had no other purpose for the later editors of the Bible. Zobah lacked urban settlements and was articulated into a network of ‘kings’, who recognised the authority of Hadad-ezer. Following David’s victory, Zobah was broken down, allowing the rise of Damascus, a far more solid state. The city rose in the middle of a vast oasis watered by the rivers flowing down from the Anti-Lebanon Mountains. It was more productive in terms of agriculture and more compact in terms of settlements than the other Aramean centres. Moreover, from a commercial point of view, Damascus’ location to the east made it a privileged commercial junction in the caravan route departing from southern Arabia. This route passed through the states in the Transjordan plateau and, once in Damascus, was divided into various routes moving to the west, towards the Mediterranean Sea, or the north, towards the Orontes Valley and northern Syria, or the north-east, crossing Palmyra to reach the Middle Euphrates and then Babylonia.
The commercial importance of Damascus is evident in the Bible, according to which David tried to take advantage of his victories by establishing a garrison and a commercial centre in Damascus. However, Rezon, a general of Hadad-ezer, managed to establish his authority in the area and began a dynasty that held control over the whole of northern Syria. In the Bible, the rulers of Damascus are all called Ben-Hadad (Hadad was the chief deity of Damascus), making it extremely difficult to distinguish between them. One Bar-Hadad I (which is the Aramaic form of Ben-Hadad, the Jewish version attested in the Bible) is attested on a stele found near Aleppo and dedicated to the god Melqart (surprisingly, a deity of Tyre).
He must have been the same individual who sealed an alliance with Asa of Judah and devastated Israel. A Bar-Hadad II established a sort of supremacy in Israel at the time of Omri, but was defeated by Ahab, who managed to turn the situation around. The aim of these so-called ‘Syro-Ephraimite’ wars was to gain control over the area of Gilead. The latter was the only Israelite point along the caravan route crossing the Transjordan plateau. Therefore, Israel was trying to become one of the states benefiting from this trade. At the same time, Damascus was trying to expand its commercial presence in the south, removing all rivals. It is highly significant that the kingdom able to momentarily succeed always established commercial junctions in the defeated states. Therefore, Damascus established commercial bases in Samaria, while Israel established commercial bases in Damascus.
These local conflicts did not change the overall organisation of the area. Meanwhile, Assyria was still unable to intervene. Assyrian intervention only took place after the mid-ninth century bc with Shalmaneser III, who forced local disputes to a temporary halt. Consequently, old enemies such as Damascus and Samaria suddenly found themselves allied against a common enemy. Before Shalmaneser, northern Syria must have experienced a similar situation. Shalmaneser’s predecessor, Ashurnasirpal II, only reached the Mediterranean in one campaign. It was a relatively peaceful incursion, aimed at the establishment of a commercial colony in the Middle Orontes and of establishing relations with the cities along the coast.
On the contrary, the situation of the Aramean states east of the Euphrates was very different. These states had suffered from the pressure of the Assyrian expansion, aimed at controlling the entire Mesopotamian territory, well before the mid-ninth century bc. Therefore, the former alternation between Assyrian and Aramean settlements was gradually transformed into a more homogeneous territory forced to pay tributes to the Assyrians. The expeditions of Tukulti-Ninurta II, Adad-nirari II and Ashurnasirpal II in the Khabur Valley, the Middle Euphrates and the foothills of the Tur Abdin, led to the conquest of all the small Aramean states which had developed in those areas in the previous two centuries.
The Assyrian conquest lasted for a long time and the results were relatively ambiguous. A clear example of this situation is the bilingual inscription in Aramaic and Assyrian found at Tell Fekheriye. The author of the inscription, who defines himself as ‘king’ (mlk) of Sikannu and Guzana (Tell Fekheriye and Teh Halaf respectively) in the Aramaic version, defines himself as ‘governor’ (saknu) in the Assyrian version. There are several aspects worth noting: the bilingualism of the inscription; the Aramaic name of the king (Hadad-yis‘i) in contrast with the Assyrian one of his father (Shamash-nuri); the Assyrianising nature of the statue in contrast with its local style; and the Assyrian style of the first part of the inscription compared to the Aramaic one of the second part. All these aspects show the politically and culturally ambiguous position of the Aramean states, stuck between being Aramean states conquered by the Assyrian expansion and Assyrian provincial states of intrinsic Aramean tradition.
The inscription from Teh Fekheriye can be dated to the mid-ninth century bc, shortly before the military endeavours of Shalmaneser III west of the Euphrates. This expedition was an attempt to extend to Syria those tributary relations established in Upper Mesopotamia. The state most affected by this expansion was Bit Adini. Its strategic location allowed the crossing of the Euphrates, making Bit Adini one of the main targets of Shalmaneser’s expeditions. Having gained free access to the Euphrates crossing, Shalmaneser made his way to the Aramean states in the centre and the south of Syria. Ah these states tried to oppose him. The most famous conflict of this phase is the battle of Qarqar, which took place near the colony founded by Ashurnasirpal a few years earlier. The following years saw an increasing sequence of battles, which are described as victorious by the Assyrian ruler. Judging, however, from the sheer fact that there was a sequence of conflicts, it is clear that the battles were not enough to establish absolute Assyrian control in the area. The anti-Assyrian coalition, which included Israel and the Phoenician cities, was centred on the two main Aramean states in Syria, namely, Damascus, ruled by Hadad-ezer, and Hama, ruled by Irhu-leni (also attested in some inscriptions in Luwian hieroglyphs). They were, respectively, the hegemonic centres of southern and central Syria.
After the death of Shalmaneser, the Assyrians retreated, the local states resumed their local conflicts and the major centres attempted once again to gain a hegemonic position in the area. In the south, under the leadership of Hadad-ezer and especially Haza-El, Damascus reached a visible supremacy, with Israel, Judah and even the Philistine states recognising its authority, while northern Jordan was directly annexed. In central Syria, Hama was aspiring to a similar role and gained control over the entire region of Lu‘ash (the Nuhashe of the second millennium bc) and the city of Hazrek (Teh Afis). A stele of Zakir, king of Hama, celebrates his successful survival after the siege of Hazrek by a coalition between the king of Damascus, Bar-Hadad III, and ah the Syro-Anatolian rulers (Bit Agushi, Que, Amuq, Gurgum, Sam’al and Malatya) who united to put an end to the rise of a new power in the area, or maybe to punish the pro-Assyrian policy of Hama at the time of Shalmaneser III.
In northern Syria, the main centre was Bit Agushi (Aleppo). We are, however, much more informed about a small marginal state, located in the valley linking the Amuq with eastern Anatolia. This was the kingdom of Sam’al (Zincirli). The inscription of king Kilamuwa indicates that the situation was unstable both internally, with social conflicts and economic instability and externally, with the request of Assyrian intervention against the neighbouring Danunim. The names of the kings of Sam’al are partly Anatolian (such as Kilamuwa) and partly Semitic (Kilamuwa’s father Haya’ or the founder of the dynasty Gabbar). Moreover, the inscription was written in Phoenician, another indication of how in this marginal corner of its diffusion the Aramean element was struggling to find a cultural and political identity.
With the beginning of the eighth century bc, the local conflicts had to decrease due to the impact of more dangerous struggles. Syria found itself at the centre of the aggressive ambitions of Urartu, with its south-western expansion, and Assyria, which was going through a period of reorganisation. The way in which these new hegemonic relations were organised has partly survived. In fact, we have two treaties. The first one, written in Assyrian, was sealed between Ashur-nirari V and the king of Arpad (Bit Agushi) Matti-El. The second one is in Aramaic and was sealed between the same Matti-El and a certain Bar-Ga’yah, king of Katka. The Assyrian treaty is a straightforward expression of the situation at the time: the constant Assyrian incursions in Syria forced Bit Agushi to become a tributary state, although the growing concern surrounding the rise of Urartu led Assyria to turn a verbal agreement into a written treaty, aimed at guaranteeing the loyalty of the key-state of Aleppo.
There are several interpretations of the Aramaic treaty. This is due to the intrinsic problems surrounding the identity of Bar-Ga’yah (which means literally, ‘son of majesty’, and is a title rather than a personal name) and in identifying the unknown state of Katka with an important state of the time. It is clear that in this treaty Bar-Ga’yah was in a dominant position. The most likely hypothesis is that it was Assyria, represented by the powerful turtanu Shamshi-Ilu, who ruled the western provinces of the empire and was facing the Urartian expansion between 805 and 750 bc. Another Aramaic inscription, similar to the one of Sefire, has been found in Bukan (Mannea) and is probably another piece of evidence attesting to Shamshi-Ilu’s interventions against Urartu.
At the time of Tiglath-pileser III’s enthronement, the system of alliances was in favour of Urartu. Its king, Sarduri, was in an alliance with Matti-El of Arpad and all the Neo-Hittite states of eastern Anatolia and Syria. The decisive victory of Tiglath-pileser in 743 bc, however, completely turned the situation around, cutting Urartu off the west. In this way, the Assyrians established their control in Syria and put an end to its independence. Aleppo was besieged, conquered and turned into an Assyrian province. The states still able to remain independent, including Damascus, were forced to pay tributes.
The condition of those states that were still autonomous is exemplified by the case of Sam’al. Its last local kings, Panamuwa and Bar-Rakib, managed to keep the royal title, but were in fact completely overshadowed by the authority of the Assyrian king (Figure 25.2). They owed him the ‘independence’ of their kingdom. They were therefore linked to the Assyrian ruler through ties of loyalty and gratitude, and provided him with military support and tributes. These were destined to be the last autonomous endeavours of the western Aramean states The Assyrians continued to relentlessly annex these states to
Figure 25.2 Aramaic royal inscription: the inscription of Bar-Rakib, king of Sam’al, vassal of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria.
Their territories, taking advantage of any vacillation from their vassals. Tiglath-pileser III thus annexed Arpad in 740 bc, Hazrek (the northern region of the kingdom of Hama) in 738 bc and Damascus in 732 bc. Sargon II completed the process with the annexation of Hama and possibly Zobah in 720 bc. Consequently, in about twenty years, all the Aramean states were conquered and turned into Assyrian provinces.
The culture of the Aramean states is not well attested. The main Aramean centre, Damascus, has not been excavated for this period. In the case of Aleppo, the discovery of a temple in its citadel shows more of the Hittite legacy of this city than the Aramean contributions. A better idea of the Aramean cities in the region can be gained from relatively important centres, such as Hama and Sam’al. The acropolis of Hama had a monumental complex constructed shortly before the Assyrian conquest of the city. It was built over a settlement that had existed for around a millennium, thus maintaining its basic plan. In comparison, the citadel of Sam’al was planned and built ex novo. The external city walls formed a circle at the centre of which was the citadel, protected by a defensive wall, with more walls protecting each part of the citadel. Moreover, the citadel had the porticoed palaces (bit hilani) considered by the Assyrians to be a typical north Syrian type of building. Both Zincirli and Tell Halaf (Guzana) had a regular city plan, a similar division between outer and inner city (i. e. the citadel) and the same style of palace architecture (Figures 25.3 And 25.4). While the western city of Zincirli preferred a circular plan, however, the more eastern Tell Halaf preferred a square plan. This was a clear mark of Assyrian influence, which had a long history and a strong influence on the settlement east of the Euphrates.
At its height, Aramean culture in Syria developed as a response to the Assyrian empire, against which it was politically opposed, even though it was still heavily influenced by the Assyrian presence. Nonetheless, local features prevail and can be found throughout Aramean culture: from architecture to urban planning; ivory production; and even in terms of the characteristics and language used in royal inscriptions. There were, however, two trends closely linked to the hegemonic role of Assyria in the area. On the one hand, Assyria had a fascination for western culture and made sure to take advantage of it. Initially, Assyria expressed this fascination in a non-destructive way: from the imitation of the bat hilani to the acquisition of techniques and luxury goods such as ivories, bronze ware and embroidered fabrics. However, the Assyrians soon began to directly interfere with the Aramean states, which led to the depletion of local resources and an overall cultural decline in the area. On the other hand, there is also a strong ‘Assyrianising’ tendency attested amongst the last Aramean states. These acted as imperial outposts and partly tried to tailor the production of luxury goods to the needs of the prevailing Assyrian market. It is therefore highly significant that the peak of Aramean culture in Syria can be dated to the eve of its destruction at the hands of the Assyrians, as if the empire had initially stimulated, then abused and destroyed, its western territories.
World History
