East of the Euphrates, in the Assyrian territories and Lower Mesopotamia, the Arameans found a different situation both in terms of resources and culture. This situation led to a much more marked separation from the Akkadian-speaking population. Therefore, the Arameans managed to maintain their tribal structure and to remain separate from the powerful centres of the area for a longer period of time. As an extraneous presence in Mesopotamia, the Arameans spread from the north-west to the south-east. They thus followed a path similar to that of the Amorites a millennium earlier. This similarity was due to the location of pasturelands and transhumant areas along the so-called ‘dimorphic zone’, a low rainfall area which was relatively large in Syria, and was located between deserts and cultivated areas. In Mesopotamia, however, this area was reduced to a sort of corridor between the Tigris and the Zagros.
Figure 25.3 The Aramean centre of Guzana (Tell Halaf). Above: Reconstruction of its fortification walls; Centre: Reconstruction of the temple-palace; Below: Cross-section of the citadel gate.
Figure 25.4 The citadel of Zincirli (Sam’al) in the eighth century bc, and the entrance gate with sculpted orthostats.
Around 1100 bc, the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I record the presence of Arameans throughout the Middle Euphrates, from Bit Adini, Laqe and Suhu to Rapiqum, near the northern border of Babylonia. These attestations mainly mark the Aramean presence close to Assyria. The heart of the Aramean presence was still located further west, in the Syrian desert (Palmyra and Jebel Bishri). From there, the Aramean tribes frequently led dangerous incursions (especially during famines) into cultivated lands and even close to larger cities. A clear picture of this, precisely because of the critical timing of this violent incursion, is provided by the so-called ‘Broken Obelisk’ (Ashur-bel-kala, ca. 1060 bc), and by a Babylonian chronicle (referring to Tiglath-pileser I, ca. 1080 bc). These sources record the clashes between Assyrians and Arameans from the Euphrates to well beyond the Tigris.
A similar situation should be envisioned for Babylonia. The decline of the irrigation system and the weakness of the central government gave enough space, both politically and in terms of settlements, to the Arameans. When this process ended, between the ninth and eighth centuries bc, a series of Aramean tribes were settled in Babylonia. These tribes settled especially in the above-mentioned ‘dimorphic corridor’, extending from the eastern side of the Tigris to Elam and the Persian Gulf. The inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III and Sennacherib provide the names of around forty Aramean tribes and some personal names, thus confirming their western origins (with ya - prefixes; - an and - a’ suffixes). These were all small tribes, which were unable to form a large and stable entity, but kept their tribal leaders. The latter were defined in the Assyrian sources as naslku.
Judging from the tribute paid to the Assyrians by these tribes, their economy was mainly based on agriculture and farming, especially transhumant farming. Some tribes (especially the Utu’) even specialised to become mercenary troops. The linguistic and socio-economic assimilation with the Babylonian population, however, remained relatively modest. This assimilation was further worsened by the raids of nomadic groups, who were seen by the Babylonians as bloodthirsty and dangerous bandits. Even the attempts of the Aramean tribes to become more sedentary were seen as an illegitimate appropriation of arable lands at the expense of the Babylonians. At least, this was the propagandistic representation provided by the Assyrian kings, who wanted to depict themselves as liberators and restorers ofjustice in the land. At times, the sources define the Arameans as Sutians, an archaic term that by then simply meant ‘nomads’. For instance, the Aramean invaders were presented as Sutians in the Poem of Erra, which we will analyse later on in relation to Babylonia.
The Chaldeans of Lower Mesopotamia were closely linked to the Aramean tribes. The Arameans and Chaldeans were two distinct ethnic groups and the Assyro-Babylonian sources never confused them with each other, or considered them to be the same. They settled in different areas, with the Chaldeans concentrated around the lower end of the Euphrates (from Nippur to Ur and Uruk) and the Arameans concentrated in the north. Moreover, they settled in Mesopotamia at different times. There is no mention of the Chaldeans before the first half of the ninth century bc. Their political structure was mainly tribal, but larger than the one seen for the Aramean tribes. We only know of five Chaldean tribes: Bit Yakini, Bit Dakkuri, Bit Ammukani, Bit Sha’alli and Bit Shilani. They were all very powerful groups and imposed themselves in a dominant role in Babylonia. This aspect caused many problems for the Assyrians.
Chaldean leaders were defined as ‘kings’ (in the plural sarrani) or ‘chiefs’ (ra’sani) — a clear allusion to a structure similar to that of the Arameans, although some of their most powerful chiefs managed (as we will see later on) to gain control over the area, including its cities. They therefore bestowed upon themselves grander titles such as ‘king of Chaldea’ or ‘king of the Sealand’ and even ones related to Babylonian kingship, becoming the leaders of Babylonia against the Assyrian invaders. Unlike the Arameans, the Chaldeans quickly managed to assimilate with Babylonian culture. They thus took on Babylonian names and do not seem particularly involved in farming activities. Judging from the tributes paid to the Assyrians, one of the main aspects of their economy was a considerable availability of exotic products from India or southern Arabia, such as gold, incense, ivory, ebony and rosewood. Consequently, the Chaldean tribes must have been involved in commercial activities linked to the caravans reaching Arabia, Yemen and the ports overlooking the Indian Ocean. This involvement must have been partly a legacy of the networks reaching Ur and the Sumerian south and partly the result of new Iron Age developments (especially in Arabia), such as the domestication of camels and the appearance of oases and wells.
The hypothesis according to which the origins of the Chaldeans should be placed more in the far south of the Arabian Peninsula, rather than among the Aramean tribes of Syria, is therefore highly plausible. A migration to Mesopotamia from the south rather than the west would explain their settlement in different areas compared to the Arameans. Similarly, a different origin would explain the clear distinction made by the Assyrians between the two groups. Having said that, however, the few surviving Chaldean personal names show some similarity to Aramaic names. Nonetheless, it is also true that the ethnic and linguistic identity of the whole of eastern Arabia in this period remains largely unknown to us.
World History
