Arameans, Chaldeans and Arabs in Late Babylonian Sources

Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources from the Late Babylonian Period Paul-Alain Beaulieu – University of Toronto First I wish to thank the organizers of this international workshop for their invitation to speak on the subject of Arameans, Chaldeans and Arabs in cuneiform sources from the late Babylonian period. Late Babylonian sources are abundant, being estimated at some 60,000 items dating from the time of Nabopolassar until the extinction of cuneiform in the first century of our era. Compared with sources from the Neo-Assyrian period, however, late Babylonian documentation differs markedly in terms of quality. The Assyrian royal annals and state archives furnish considerable data on the conduct of war and politics in all regions which fell under Assyrian control, including and especially Babylonia. The near complete absence of such corpora for the Babylonian empire means that we lack crucial data on the relations between the Babylonian state and its various tribal constituencies1. The same situation prevails for the Achaemenid and Seleucid periods. Almost all our information stems from two very large temple archives, those of the Ebabbar temple at Sippar (more than 35,000 texts and fragments) and the Eanna temple at Uruk (more than 8,000), as well as from a number of smaller, mostly private archives, ranging from the rise of the Babylonian empire until the demise of the Seleucid state in Mesopotamia in the second century. These archives document only matters of direct relevance to the conduct of specific businesses and administrations. This means that our data is inevitably skewed. Nonetheless, the texts we have record some interesting facts which have not hitherto received much attention. This paper is intended as preliminary, and therefore I will emphasize only some aspects of these sources. I will also bring some unpublished material into the discussion2. 1 The only exception is an archive of about 300 texts discovered in the south palace of Babylon and dating between years 10 and 28 of Nebuchadnezzar II (594–576 BC). They are still unpublished with a few exceptions (Weidner 1939). However, a description of the texts is now available, partly based on Koldewey’s excavation records (Pedersén 2005b, 111–127, Archive N1). Only part of the archive is housed in the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin; the whereabouts of most of the texts are uncertain, although some have surfaced in the British Museum and other institutions (Jursa 2010, 68). 2 Unpublished tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collection are quoted with the permission of Benjamin R. Foster and Ulla Kasten. I do not provide full editions or copies of unpublished texts here, as I intend to prepare a full publication of them in the future. 32 Paul-Alain Beaulieu 1. A Chaldean Dynasty? The first question which must be raised regarding the role of Chaldeans during the late Babylonian period is that of the ethnic origin of the dynasty which presided over the destinies of the Babylonian empire. The Biblical evidence is crucial in evaluating this question. Chapter 35 of the Book of Jeremiah records the encounter of the prophet with the sect of the Rechabites, who told the prophet they had come to Jerusalem to escape the invading Babylonian army:3 “(11) But it happened when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up into the land, then we said, ‘Come, and let us enter Jerusalem because of the army of the Chaldeans and because of the army of the Arameans.’ So we are dwelling in Jerusalem.” Similar statements are found elsewhere in Jeremiah and Kings, where Nebuchadnezzar appears sometimes with the title “king of Babylon,” and in other passages as “king of the Chaldeans.” The term Chaldean, Kaśdim in Hebrew, refers to both the army and the people led by Nebuchadnezzar, and also to the country he ruled, Babylonia.4 The Biblical terminology appears to anticipate the later Greek designation of “Chaldea” for that region. Biblical authors apparently perceived Babylon as a state ruled and led militarily at that time by West Semitic tribal leaders, especially Chaldeans. On the basis of this evidence scholars have sometimes adopted the term “Chaldean dynasty” in reference to the royal house founded by Nabopolassar at the end of the 6th century.5 On the surface, the Biblical terminology finds little corroboration in cuneiform sources from Babylonia. True, the title “king of Babylon,” melek Babel in Hebrew, is a faithful reflex of Akkadian šar Babili, which is the title claimed by all members of the royal house founded by Nabopolassar in the year 626. Contrary to the Bible, however, rulers of the Babylonian empire never refer to their subjects or their army as “Chaldean” or “Aramean.” When we turn to terms describing members of the ruling dynasty, we encounter a similar paucity of information. While the Biblical evidence has imposed the term “Chaldean Dynasty,” the Neo-Babylonian kings never adopted the designation “Chaldean.” Nabopolassar, the founder of the dynasty, was a usurper who admits in his inscriptions to be a “son of nobody”.6 His 3 Lundbom 2004a, 569. 4 Lundbom 2004b, 369. 5 To my knowledge, Olmstead 1925 was the first to propose that designation. Olmstead also linked the family of Nabopolassar with the previous Chaldean rulers of Babylon, although there is no direct evidence for this. The designation of “Chaldean Kings” for the rulers of the NeoBabylonian empire was taken up later by Wiseman 1956. Edzard 1976–1980 points out that the designation Chaldean for the dynasty of Nabopolassar is not a self-designation but derives from the Old Testament and Classical writers. Jursa 2007 proposes that Nabopolassar was the eldest son of Kudurru, a governor of Uruk under Ashurbanipal. 6 The meaning and intent of the designation mār lā mamman(a) are open to discussion. Seux Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 33 two successors in direct line, Nebuchadnezzar II and Amēl-Marduk, only mention their respective fathers to describe their lineage. The fourth ruler of the empire, Neriglissar, who usurped the throne from his brother-in-law Amēl-Marduk, presents himself as son of one Bēl-šumu-iškun, designated as a wise prince (rubû emqu) without supplementary details. Nabonidus, last member of the dynasty and also a usurper, attributes the same title to his father, a certain Nabû-balāssu-iqbi. Not only do we find no ancient claim for the Chaldean origin of the dynasty, but the term Chaldean does not appear even once in late Babylonian cuneiform documentation7. Additionally, we find only a couple occurrences of the term “Aramean” in sources from the time of the Babylonian empire, and in all cases in reference to single individuals.8 Therefore, relying solely on cuneiform sources from Babylonia, which are relatively abundant, we find no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar considered himself the ruler of Chaldeans and Arameans. If we scrutinize sources more closely, however, some evidence begins to emerge that appears to vindicate the Biblical view. An important document in this respect is the so-called Hofkalender of Nebuchadnezzar. The Hofkalender is included in a building inscription on a clay prism preserved in Istanbul. It begins with a list of officials of Nebuchadnezzar’s court, then continues with governors of territories and cities in Babylonia, and ends with the vassal rulers of conquered regions in the Levant. The list of territorial leaders which makes up the second group starts with the heading rabûtu ša māt Akkadi and preserves eleven names before it breaks off. The prism is dated to the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar II (598–597 BC):9 1980–1983, 152 lays out the evidence for the use of the expression and concludes that it refers to a “homo novus,” somebody without ties to an established family; being a mār lā mamman(a) would not prevent somebody from exercising the royal function, and for a dynasty it could be seen as a beginning, a foundational moment. For Talon 1993, 424–425, the expression underscores the fact that the legitimacy of Nabopolassar rested on divine election, Marduk having selected him to restore the cult of the Babylonian gods. Jursa 2007, 130 finds the epithet unusual, especially in view of his proposal that Nabopolassar was the eldest son of Kudurru, the governor of Uruk at the time of Ashurbanipal, therefore not a man of undistinguished background. The designation mār lā mamman(a) usually applies to upstarts, agitators, and would-be usurpers, and it appears again in that meaning in a recently published inscription of Kurigalzu II (George et al. 2011, 117–118), where mār mamman should perhaps be emended to mār <lā> mamman. 7 The references to Kaldu and Kaldāyû collected by Zadok 1985b, 191–192 all date from the Neo-Assyrian period; Zadok also notes the occurrence of kurKal-dù in an inscription of Nabonidus, but this has now been emended, on the basis of context, to kurLab-<na>-ni! (Schaudig 2001, 713). 8 Zadok 1985b, 27. 9 Edition in Unger 1931, 282–294; asterisks indicate readings based on his photograph which differ from his transliteration. 34 Paul-Alain Beaulieu Column iv 20 lúGAL.MEŠ ša ma-at Ak-ka- di-im 21 IdÉ-a-da-a-a-an lúšá-kìn tam-tì 22 IdU.GUR-LUGAL-ú-sur lú .d30-ma-gi-ir 23 I SUM*.NA* -ŠEŠ ša kurTu-up- li -ia*-iá-áš 24 IdEN-MU-GAR-un ša kurPu-qu-du 25 IBi-bé-e-a DUMU IDa-ku-ru 26 ISUM.NA-ŠEŠ lúÉ.MAŠ BÀD.ANki 27 IdAMAR.UD-LUGAL-ú-sur ša kurGa-am-bu-lum 28 IdAMAR.UD-LUGAL-a-ni lúEN NAM 29 ša Su-ma-an-da-ar 30 IdEN-li-dar-um DUMU IA-mu-ka-nim 31 IRi-mu-tu ša-ak-nu ki-nu ša kurZa-mé-e 32 IdNÀ-KAR-ZI.MEŠ ša-ak-nu 33 [ša kurIa-a]p-[t]i-ri 20 The territorial leaders (rabûtu) of the land of Akkad: 21 Ea-dayyān, the governor (šaknu) of the Sealand; 22 Nergal-šarru-usur, the Simmagir official; 23 Nādin-a i, of the country (ša māt) Tupliyaš; 24 Bēl-šumu-iškun, of the country (ša māt) Puqūdu; 25 Bibea, the Dakūrean (descendant of Dakūru); 26 Nādin-a i, the šangû of Dēr; 27 Marduk-šarru-usur, of the country (ša māt) Gambūlu; 28 Marduk-šarrani, the provincial governor (bēl pī āti) 29 of Sumandar; 30 Bēl-lū!-dārû, the Amūkanean (descendant of Amūkānu); 31 Rīmūt, the regular (?) governor (šaknu) of Zamê; 32 Nabû-ētir-napšāti, the governor (šaknu) 33 [of Ya]ptiru. Six distinctive titles are borne by these dignitaries: simmagir, bēl pī āti followed by GN (= Geographical Name), šaknu followed by GN, šangû followed by GN, ša māt followed by GN, and mār PN (= Personal Name). Four of the dignitaries listed headed important Chaldean and Aramean tribes.10 Among the Chaldeans we find Bibea, the son of Dakūru (mār Dak ri), and Bēl-lū!-dārû, the son of Amūkānu (mār Am kāni). Among the Arameans we find Bēl-šumu-iškun, of the country Puqūdu (ša 10 I am using the word “tribe” largely as a conventional designation, since we know almost nothing about the social structure and kinship of Arameans and Chaldeans in Babylonia. However, the distinction we find in sources between Chaldeans, who are designated as descendants of a clan (mār PN), and Arameans, who are designated by territory (ša māt GN), certainly reflects a perception, on the part of the scribes, of a different social structure between these two large ethnic groups. Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 35 māt Puq du), and Marduk-šarru-usur, of the country Gambūlu (ša māt Gamb lu). All four tribes are documented in earlier Babylonian and Assyrian sources. Two others dignitaries in the list may also have headed tribal units, but their wider ethnic affiliation remains unknown: Rīmūt, the šaknu of Zamê, a region in southeastern Babylonia, and Nabû-ētir-napšāti, šaknu [of Ya]ptiru, possibly also a tribal area on the Uqnû river. The absence from the list of Bīt Yakīn, the most important Chaldean tribe during the preceding century, could be explained by the lasting effects of Assyrian repression. Their territory more or less corresponded with the area known as the Sealand, which is listed in the Hofkalender as a territorial unit headed by a šaknu named Ea-dayyān. As the other two šaknus in the list probably led tribal areas, it cannot be excluded that the Sealand was also considered a tribal unit, perhaps even the successor of the Chaldean Bīt-Yakīn tribe, but this remains speculative. One Nergal-šarru-usur appears in the list as the simmagir official. It is now certain that the exact same individual appears in Jer 39, 3 among the high officials of Nebuchadnezzar present at the siege of Jerusalem:11 And all the princes of the king of Babylon entered and sat in the Middle Gate: Nergalsharezer the Samgar (= Nergal-šarru-usur simmagir), Nebusarsechim the Rabsaris (= Nabû-šarr ssu-ukīn rab ša-rēši), Nergalsharezer the Rabmag, and all the remaining princes of the king of Babylon. A number of translations still follow the traditional reading of this passage, understanding Samgar-Nebo as a personal name and Sarsechim as either a title or a personal name12. However, a recently identified tablet in the British Museum dated to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar lists a certain Nabû-šarrūssu-ukīn with the function of Rab-ša-rēši, indicating that the Biblical text, though later misunderstood, preserved in this case accurate data.13 The word Samgar must therefore be the title borne by the first Nergal-sharezer, and this ensures his identification with Nergalšarru-usur the Simmagir in the Hofkalender.14 The identity of Nergal-sharezer the simmagir with the future king Nergal-šarruusur, who appears in Greek transcription as Neriglissar(os), is now generally accepted. As Neriglissar claims in his official inscriptions to be the son of one Bēlšumu-iškun, it has also been proposed that the Bēl-šumu-iškun who appears as head of the Aramean tribe of Puqūdu in the Hofkalender should be identified as his father. Additional circumstantial evidence from contemporary cuneiform documents can be adduced to support that hypothesis15. Thus, the evidence appears to suggest that at 11 12 13 14 15 Lubdbom 2004b, 80. Lubdbom 2004b, 84–85. Jursa 2008. Becking 2009; Jursa 2010, 85. The evidence is detailed by Unger 1931, 36 and 290–291, notes 5 and 1; Weisberg 1974, 447– 36 Paul-Alain Beaulieu least one ruler of the Babylonian empire stemmed from an Aramean background, and that, prior to ascending the throne, that future ruler participated in the capture of Jerusalem. But is this enough to vindicate the Biblical view that Nebuchadnezzar led an army of Chaldeans and Arameans in his invasion of Judah? The Neo-Babylonian Chronicle Series may provide an additional clue. In the segments covering the Babylonian empire, the Chronicle refers to the military operations which took place every year either with a statement that “the king and his army” went on a campaign, or alternatively that “the king mustered his army” and went on a campaign. During the stay of Nabonidus in Teima, however, the Chronicle insists on the lack of military operations. The same statement highlighting such neglect is repeated for every year, for example in the entry for the tenth year:16 (ii 19) MU 10-KAM LUGAL ina uruTe-ma DUMU LUGAL lúGAL.MEŠ u ERÍN-ni-šú ina kurURIki LUGAL ana [ITI BÁRA ana Eki NU DU-ku] (20) d NÀ Eki NU DU-ku dEN NU È-a EZEN a-ki-tú ba-til The tenth year (of Nabonidus): the king was in Teima while the crown prince, the high dignitaries (rabûtu), and his army stayed in Babylonia. The king [did not come] to [Babylon in the month of Nisannu]. Nabû did not come to Babylon, Bēl did not come out. The Akītu festival did not take place. The word translated as “high dignitaries” in the Chronicle is rabûtu. This is the only other occurrence of the word in that specific meaning for the entire Neo-Babylonian period outside the Hofkalender, which designates the territorial dignitaries of the empire as rabûtu ša māt Akkadi.17 The Chronicle draws a distinction between the situation during Nabonidus’ absence from the capital and the normal state of affairs, when the king resides in Babylon, conducts annual campaigns, and performs the Akītu festival at the beginning of the New Year. The implication must be that in normal times the king would lead his army on a campaign accompanied by the rabûtu, the territorial leaders. As we have just seen, at least one of the rabûtus listed in the Hofkalender, the simmagir Nergal-šarru-usur, did participate in the campaign against Judah and was present at the siege and capture of Jerusalem according to Jeremiah 39: 3. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that other dignitaries subsumed in the Hofkalender under the rubric rabûtu ša māt Akkadi would also regularly participate in military campaigns, including the leaders of the four major 454; Beaulieu 1998, 198–200; and Beaulieu 2002, 100. 16 Grayson 1973, Chronicle 7. 17 During the Neo-Assyrian period there is evidence that the word rabûtu applied to Chaldean and Aramean high dignitaries, for instance in the letter ABL 1006 (= SAA 8, 316) rev. 1: GAL.MEŠ šá KUR Ka-al-du lu-ú KUR A-ra-mu. Jursa 2010, 96–97 briefly discusses the role of the rabûtu in the Babylonian empire, proposing to view them as a group distinct from the high dignitaries of the court and which included, among others, leaders of the Aramean and Chaldean tribes of southern and eastern Babylonia. References to the word rabûtu are collected in CAD R 36–37 s. v. rabû 7 “important, noble person.” Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 37 Aramean and Chaldean tribes of Puqūdu, Gambūlu, Bīt-Amūkāni and Bīt-Dakūri, and probably of troops formed by members of these tribes. Admittedly this cannot count as decisive evidence without further corroboration, but it still gives us a hint that the Biblical view of the Neo-Babylonian king as a leader of Chaldean and Aramean troops might reflect the political reality of the Babylonian empire. 2. The Chaldeans in the Eanna Archive The temple archive of Uruk has yielded the largest amount of data on Chaldeans during the late Babylonian period, while the temple archive of Sippar is silent on the subject for the probable reason that the city did not have any economic or administrative interest in the Chaldean territories, which apparently did not reach further north than Babylon. During the period of Assyrian dominance, cuneiform sources mention five large Chaldean tribes: Bīt-Yakīn, Bīt-Dakūri, Bīt-Amūkāni, Bīt-Sa alli, and Bīt-Silāni18. Bīt-Yakīn and Bīt-Sa alli are no longer heard of after the fall of Assyria and the end of Assyrian documentation. Although Bīt-Silāni disappears from Assyrian sources in the early part of the 7th century, it resurfaces one century later in the geographical lists found in the building inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar II relating to the ziggurats of Babylon and Borsippa19. In these lists Bīt-Silāni occurs together with Puqūdu, Bīt-Dakūri and Bīt-Amūkāni in descriptions of the areas ruled by the Babylonian king. The best preserved list occurs in BM 42667, an exemplar of the E-urmeiminanki cylinder of Nebuchadnezzar:20 Col. II 8' kurPu-qu-du kurÉ-Da-ku-ru kurÉ- A -[mu-ka-nim] 9' kurÉ-Si-la-a-nim kurbi-ra-a-tim k[urBÀD.ANki] As we have seen, Bīt-Dakūri and Bīt-Amūkāni are the only two Chaldean territories mentioned in the Hofkalender. The Uruk archive makes no mention of Bīt-Silāni either, but contains a number of documents relating to Bīt-Amūkāni and Bīt-Dakūri. They furnish some data on the social organization of the two tribes, on their geographic extent, and on the nature of their relationship with the city of Uruk. 18 Lipiński 2000, 419. 19 Zadok 1985a, 58 proposes that Bīt-Silāni was incorporated in Bīt-Amūkāni at the end of the 8th century. Frahm 2003, 146, notes that the last reference to Bīt-Silāni occurs in the inscriptions of Sennacherib that report on the battle of alulê in 691. This is the last reference to Bīt-Silāni with the exception of the occurrence in Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions mentioned below, which have become known only recently. 20 Da Riva 2008, 22; the list can be restored on that basis in inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar commemorating the rebuilding of the E-temen-anki ziggurat in Babylon; see Da Riva 2008, 19– 23 and George et al. 2011, 166–167. 38 Paul-Alain Beaulieu 2.1. Social and Military Organization AUWE 5, 136 is a letter sent by one Nanaya-ēreš, the tithe farmer of Bīt-Amūkāni (ša mu i ešrî ša Bīt Am kāni), to four recipients, the last one being addressed collectively as “the elders of Bīt-Amūkāni” (šīb ti ša Bīt-Am kāni): (rev. 3') lú AB.BA.MEŠ (4') šá uruÉ-A-muk-a-nu. The unpublished text NCBT 666 (partly edited below) mentions the citizens (mār-banî) of Bīt-Amūkāni: (2) lúDUMU.DÙimeš (3) šá kurÉ IA-muk-a-nu. Finally in YOS 7, 30, an individual is referred to as mār kānu, literally “son/descendant of Amūkānu”: (1) PN lúDUMU uruÚ-ka- nu ; this designation must be understood as “member of the Amūkānu tribe,” or “citizen of Amūkānu,” and occurs in the Hofkalender as the title of Bēl-lū-dārû, the Amūkānean leader. None of this terminology suggests in and of itself that the social structure of Bīt-Amūkāni was any different in that period from other territorial units in Babylonia, including cities. At the same time it seems hard to imagine that Chaldean tribes did not maintain some of their hereditary institutions and kinship structure through the entire Neo-Assyrian and late Babylonian periods, but the evidence available does not necessarily suggest it. The name Amūkānu is spelled either simply as a personal name (Amūkānu preceded by the Personenkeil, as in Hofkalender iv 30 (IA-muk-a-nù), or as a household (Amūkānu preceded by the logogram É = bītu, with or without the Personenkeil, as in YOS 3, 79: 37 (É-IÚ-ka-nu) and TCL 12, 73: 9 (É-A-muk-a-nu), or as a city and territory (Amūkānu preceded by the determinative URU, with or without É and Personenkeil, as in YOS 7, 84: 2 (uruÉ-IU-ka-a-ni) and VAB 4, 146 ii 3 (kurÉ-A-mu-ka-nù).21 I would argue that each of these designations corresponds to a stage in the evolution of Bīt-Amūkāni from the status of tribe claiming descent from a common ancestor to that of an extended notional household and finally a territorial unit. The organization into bītus claiming a common ancestor is typical of the Chaldeans, but not exclusive to them; the same terminology applied earlier to Kassites. There is also some information on Bīt-Dakūri. The variations in its spelling parallel those of Bīt-Amūkāni, suggesting either an individual, or a household (bītu), or a city and territory (with variation URU and KUR), with the same implications. In a few texts we find individuals designated as mār Dak ri. A letter from the Sippar archive (sent by Guzānu to Širku) dated to the reign of Darius I, contains some important details as it mentions the “troops” (sābu) of Bīt-Dakūri:22 28 a-mur lúEN.NUN KÁ.GAL.MEŠ lúDUMU.MEŠ si-si-i 29 gab-bi ina pa-ni-ka ù lúERÍN.MEŠ 30 šá É-Da-ku-ru šá ina TIN.TIRki áš-bu-uʾ 21 The determinative URU in this case does not necessarily refer to an urban center. It can also designate foreign kingdoms as well as territories inside Babylonia originally settled by outsiders, like the Arameans and Chaldeans, and is interchangeable with KUR in these cases. 22 CT 22, 74. Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 39 31 ina pa-ni-ka Now, all the watchmen of the gates and the cavalry stand at your disposal, and the troops of Bīt-Dakūri who are currently residing in Babylon are (also) at your disposal. This letter suggests that Bīt-Dakūri furnished military contingents to the Achaemenid army and ties in well with the Biblical claim that Chaldean troops formed the bulk of Nebuchadnezzar’s army in his invasion of Judah. Admittedly the word sābu has other meanings – it could also refer to gangs of workmen – but the context of CT 22, 74 is unambiguous; the letter clearly deals with military matters. The Eanna archive also contains two texts (YBC 3926 and 6914) which mention a certain Nabû-zēru-līšir (or -ibni), son of Bibea the Dakūrean (lúDUMU [Da]-kuru). This Bibea is obviously identical with the Bibea who appears in the Hofkalender as leader of (Bīt-)Dakūri. Therefore Nabû-zēru-līšir/ibni must have been his successor in that position. The two texts detail transactions which highlight the importance of Bīt-Dakūri in agriculture and the cattle and sheep industry.23 2.2. Geography There is broad agreement that the home of the Chaldeans in southern Babylonia extended roughly from Borsippa to Ur along the Euphrates as far Nippur and Larak. Lipiński summarizes the location of the five Chaldean tribes as follows: Bīt-Dakūri living southeast of Borsippa; Bīt-Amūkāni in the area to the north of Uruk; BītYakīn around Ur and the marshes to the east; Bīt-Ša alli near the Persian Gulf; and Bīt-Silāni to the east of Bīt-Dakūri.24 Assessing precise boundaries for Bīt-Amūkāni and Bīt-Dakūri present more difficulties. The map appended to RGTC 8 places BītDakūri just south of Borsippa, in the region between Dilbat and Marad, and BītAmūkāni between Isin and Uruk.25 Frame also tentatively places Bīt-Amūkāni between Larak and Uruk, and Bīt-Dakūri around the Euphrates just south of Babylon and Borsippa.26 Cole locates Bīt-Dakūri southwest of Dilbat and Bīt-Amūkāni southwest of Nippur.27 Joannès and Lemaire in their discussion of recently discovered texts from Bīt-Abi-rām attempt to assess the location of Bīt-Dakūri mainly on the basis of names of towns that belonged to it. They opt for a location southeast of Babylon.28 Texts from Uruk provide additional information. The most detailed evidence comes from the unpublished tablet NCBT 666.29 It records the assessment of the 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Beaulieu 2002, 115–120. Lipiński 2000, 419. Zadok 1985b. Frame 1992, 39–40. Cole 1996, 17 and 108. Joannès and Lemaire 1996, 52–53. Uruk, Cambyses year 2, month 9, day 14; Yale Babylonian Collection. 40 Paul-Alain Beaulieu remainder of tithe to be paid in barley and dates to the Eanna of Uruk by the mārbanîs of Bīt-Amūkāni: NCBT 666 obverse 1 150 GUR ŠE.BAR 150 GUR ZÚ.LUM.MA PAP 300 GUR 2 ŠE.BAR ù ZÚ.LUM.MA eš-ru-ú šá lúDUMU.DÙ-imeš 3 šá kurÉ-IA-muk-a-nu ul-tu UNUGki a-di TIN.TIRki 4 ÍD tak-ki-ru ù ÍD LUGAL la e-be-ri a-di 5 eš-ru-ú šá IDi- u-um-mu lúšá UGU GIŠ.BÁN 6 šá É-IA-muk-a-nu NÍG.GA dINNIN UNUGki u dNa-na-a 7 ina UGU IBa-ni-ia DUMU-šú šá Id In-nin-MU-ú -[su-ur] 8 DUMU I ŠU-dNa-na-a ina ITI GU4 ŠE.BAR u ITI [x x x] 9 [ZÚ.LUM.M]A PAP 300 GUR ŠE.BAR ù ZÚ.LUM.MA 10 [a-na NÍG].GA É.AN.NA i-nam-din 11 [x x x x x] x šá ITI DU6 MU 2-KAM lower edge 12 [IKam-bu-zi-i]a LUGAL TIN.TIRki LUGAL KUR.K[UR] 13 [re-e -ti ŠE.BAR ù] ZÚ.LUM.MA reverse 14 [šá eš-ru-ú šá k]ur É -IA-muk-a-nu 15 [šá ina UGU] IBa-ni-ia (Witnesses and date formula) 150 kurrus of barley (and) 150 kurrus of dates (for a) total of 300 kurrus of barley and dates, the tithe of the mār-banîs of the territory of Bīt-Amūkāni between Uruk and Babylon, without crossing the Takkīru canal and the Royal Canal, together with the tithe of Di ummu, the general tax farmer of Bīt Amūkāni, the property of Ištar-of-Uruk and Nanaya, are owed by Bāniya, son of Innin-šumu-u[sur], descendant of Gimil-Nanaya. He will repay the barley in the month Addaru and the [date]s in the month [x x] (for a) total of 300 kurrus of barley and dates [to the trea]sury of the Eanna temple. [x x x] of the month Tašrītu in the 2nd year of [Cambyse]s, king of Babylon, king of the lands. [This is the remainder in barley and] dates [of the tithe of] BītAmūkāni [owed by] Bāniya. (Witnesses and date formula). The territory in question is described as extending “between Uruk and Babylon, without crossing the Takkīru canal and the Royal Canal.” The Takkīru canal probably flowed southwest of Uruk towards the Euphrates, and the Royal Canal flowed northwest of Uruk towards Nippur, but the course of the two canals cannot be determined with greater precision.30 The information from NCBT 666 suggests 30 Zadok 1985b, 385 and 400 locates the two canals in the vicinity of Uruk. Cocquerillat 1968, 16 Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 41 that Bīt-Amūkāni was an extensive territory between Babylon and Uruk, with its boundaries marked by Babylon to the north, by the Royal Canal to the northeast and east, and by Uruk and the Takkkīru canal to the south. Only the southwestern and western boundary of the territory is not stated in the text. This information is at variance with the common assessment of Bīt-Amūkāni as limited to the region between Nippur and Uruk. Bīt-Amūkāni seems therefore to have been larger than previously assumed, which should not surprise us given the fact that according to the toponymic data found in Neo-Assyrian sources on the Babylonian countryside, BītAmūkāni contained the largest number of settlements of all Chaldean territories.31 NCBT 666 is closely paralleled by TCL 12, 73,32 which records the grant of the right to collect the tithe for the Eanna temple: TCL 12, 73 obverse 1 IdIn-nin-MU-ÙRI A-šú šá IdNa-na-a-KAM a-na pa-ni 2 IdNÀ-LUGAL-ÙRI LÚ SAG LUGAL ù lúEN.MEŠ pi-iq-né-e-ti 3 šá É.AN.NA il-lik-ma ki-a-am iq-bi um-ma eš-ru-ú 4 šá dGAŠAN šá UNUGki šá ul-tu UNUGki a-di TIN.TIRki ul-tu 5 mu - i ÍD LUGAL a-di mu - i ÍD Pu-rat-ti A.ŠÀ šá dGAŠAN šá UNUGki 6 šá ina BÀD šá É-Da-ku-ru 1 ME šá GARIN i-šu-ba-ti 1 ME šá GARIN Raq-qa-nu 7 1 ME šá GARIN Šá-qil-lat 1 ME šá GARIN Ku-sa-a-a 1 ME šá GARIN Nam-zu-ú 8 1 ME šá DU8 šá KI.LAM 1 ME šá u-us-se-e-ti-šá-DUMU-LUGAL qaqqar šá IdAMAR.UD-A-ÙRI 9 eš-ru-ú šá É-A-muk-a-nu šá ina IGI IDÙ-ia A-šú šá IdNa-na-a-MU 10 bi -in-nam-ma ina MU.AN.NA 5 ME GUR ŠE.BAR ù ZÚ.LUM.MA 11 [ina giš]ma-ši- u šá dGAŠAN šá UNUGki ina UGU me-e GAL.MEŠ a-na 12 [dGAŠA]N šá UNUGki lud-din IdNÀ-LUGAL-ÙRI LÚ SAG LUGAL ù 13 [lúEN.M]EŠ pi-iq-<né>-e-ti šá É.AN.NA iš-mu-šu-ma points out that the Royal Canal served as a means of transportation between Uruk and Babylon (BIN 1, 7: 23–24), and joined the Euphrates in an undetermined location (UCP 9/I, 74: 4), while the information on the Takkīru canal places it in the vicinity of Uruk. Joannès 1982a, 117 claims that the course of the Euphrates in that period was similar to what it is now, and that the Royal Canal more or less followed the old course of the Euphrates, reaching Uruk from Nippur; he locates the Takkīru canal between Uruk and the Euphrates, irrigating the areas southwest of the city. In fact according to YOS 7, 172: 7–8 the Takkīru canal was a tributary of the Euphrates. 31 According to Frahm 2003, 143 and 157, the figures given by Sennacherib can be summarized as follows: all of Chaldea included 88 fortified cities and 820 small cities (villages), of which BītAmūkāni counted for 39 fortified cities and 350 small cities (Bīt-Dakūri came second with 34 or 33 fortified cities and 250 small cities). 32 Uruk, Nabonidus year 1, month 2, day 8. 42 Paul-Alain Beaulieu 14 [id-di-n]u-niš-šú ina MU.AN.NA 5 ME GUR ŠE.BAR ù 15 [ZÚ.LUM.MA] ina gišma-ši- u šá dGAŠAN šá UNUGki [ina] 16 [UGU me]-e GAL.MEŠ a-na dGAŠAN šá UNUGki i-nam-[din] (etc… + witnesses and date formula) Innin-šumu-usur, son of Nanaya-ēreš, came in the presence of Nabû-šarruusur, the royal servant, and the commissioners of the Eanna temple, and spoke as follows: “Give me (the right to collect) the tithe of the Lady-ofUruk from Uruk to Babylon and from the Royal Canal to the Euphrates (in) the fields of the Lady-of-Uruk which are located in Dūru-ša-Bīt-Dakūri, one hundred (of unknown quantity) in išubātu, one hundred in Raqqānu, one hundred in Šaqillat, one hundred in Kusāyu, one hundred in Namzû, one hundred in the …, one hundred in the ussēti-ša-mār-šarri, the land of Marduk-aplu-usur, the tithe of Bīt-Amūkāni which is the responsibility of Bāniya, son of Nanaya-iddin, and I will pay annually 500 kurrus of barley and dates to the Lady-of-Uruk [in] the measuring standard of the Lady-ofUruk at the great waterworks.” Nabû-šarru-usur, the royal servant, and the [com]missioners of the Eanna temple heard him and [gave] (it) to him. He will pay annually 500 kurrus of barley and [dates] to the Lady-of-Uruk in the measuring standard of the Lady-of-Uruk [at the] great waterworks (etc … + witnesses and date formula). The territory described here stretches “from Uruk to Babylon and from the Royal Canal to the Euphrates.” The territory is further described as including fields of the Eanna of Uruk located in the Dūru-ša-Bīt-Dakūri, as well as various tamirtus, and also estates belonging to the crown prince. The text adds that the right of collection includes the tithe of Bīt-Amūkani. As is the case in NCBT 666, the area described extends from Uruk to Babylon, and the Royal Canal marks its northern and eastern boundary, but its southern and western boundary is marked by the Euphrates instead of the Takkīru canal. If we follow the current assumption that the Takkīru canal linked Uruk to the Euphrates to the southwest of the city, then TCL 12, 73 appears to give a more complete description of the territory involved: a large, elongated, roughly oblong-shaped territory between Babylon, Uruk, the Royal Canal, and the Euphrates, or else it describes a larger territory. Indeed, the fact that TCL 12, 73 includes towns in both Bīt-Dakūri and Bīt-Amūkāni seems to imply that the area described here is more extensive than the one in NCBT 666, which appears to have been restricted specifically to Bīt-Amūkāni. To conclude, it seems clear that the territories named after Chaldean tribes during the late Babylonian period lay in the alluvial plain between Babylon and Uruk, probably down to Ur, and did not extend inland further than Nippur and possibly Larak. This information is corroborated by Strabo and Ptolemy, who both locate Chaldea (Chaldaia in Greek) and the Chaldeans in the southwestern portion of Babylonia: Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 43 Strabo 16.1.6: “There is also a tribe of Chaldæans, who inhabit a district of Babylonia, in the neighbourhood of the Arabians, and of the sea called the Persian Sea.”33 Strabo 16.1.8: “The country of the Babylonians is surrounded on the east by the Susans, Elymæi, and Parætaceni; on the south by the Persian Gulf, and the Chaldæans as far as the Arabian Meseni; on the west by the Arabian Scenitæ as far as Adiabene and Gordyæa; on the north by the Armenians and Medes as far as the Zagrus, and the nations about that river.”34 Ptolemy, Geography V 19: “Babylonia is terminated on the north by Mesopotamia along the parts of the Euphrates river we have described; on the west by Arabia Deserta, next to which are the mountains which we have described; on the east by Susiana along the remaining parts of the Tigris river as far as its eastern mouth which opens into the Persian Gulf in 80 31 31; on the south by a part of the Persian Gulf as far as the terminus located on the border of the Arabia Deserta … Moreover the region adjoining the Euphrates is called the Auranitis region, and that adjoining Arabia Deserta is called Chaldaea.”35 Strabo and Ptolemy both differentiate between the terms Chaldea/Chaldeans and Babylonia, seeing in Chaldea only a region of Babylonia or Chaldeans as inhabiting parts of it. This view is at variance with other Classical sources, including Berossus, for whom Chaldea and Babylonia were more or less synonymous.36 2.3. Relations with Uruk Finally we must consider the question of the relation of the administration of Uruk and the Eanna temple with Bīt-Amūkāni and Bīt-Dakūri. As discussed above, the two territories occur several times in the Uruk archive in texts dealing with taxation, particularly the tithe (ešrû). AUWE 5, 136 is a letter from one Nanaya-ēreš, the man in charge of the tithe (ša mu i ešri) of Bīt-Amūkāni. NCBT 666 is a promissory note to deliver to the Eanna temple 300 kurrus of barley and dates described as “the tithe of the mār-banîs of Bīt-Amūkāni” and as “the tithe of Di ummu, the general tax farmer (ša mu i s ti) of Bīt-Amūkāni”. TCL 12, 73 records the granting of the right to collect the totality or part of the tithe of Bīt-Amūkāni together with the tithe owed by Dūru-ša-Bīt-Dakūri and other localities between Uruk and Babylon. The unpublished text YBC 9057 adds more information. It lists various localities in charge of individuals who are summed up as “these are the commissioners who are in service for the tithe of Bīt-Amūkāni” ((12) lúEN.MEŠ pi-qit-ni-ti (13) šá ina mu 33 34 35 36 Jones 1932. Jones 1932. Stevenson 1932, 131. Plin. nat. V, 90; Berossus, passim; Oelsner 2011; Pliny, Natural History 5, 90, calls Babylon “the former capital of Chaldea” (Rackham 1942). 44 Paul-Alain Beaulieu i eš-ru-ú (14) šá É-Ú-ka-nu (15) ú-šu-uz-zu). The juridical and institutional basis for the tithe paid by Bīt-Amūkāni is unclear, but the fact that the collection of that tithe could be farmed out reveals its compulsory nature37. It is also important to note that the tithe is collectively owed by Bīt-Amūkāni, one document stating that it must be contributed by its mār-banîs. Finally, another unpublished text, NCBT 1234, mentions the šibšu of Bīt-Amūkānu, another type of agricultural tax. These documents show that the agricultural output of the two Chaldean territories, and more particularly Bīt-Amūkāni, was monitored by the administration of the Eanna temple, which seems to have had taxation rights on parts or all the land involving tithe and šibšu. 2.4. Bīt-Yakīn and the Sealand There is no attestation of other Chaldean tribes besides Bīt-Dakūri and Bīt-Amūkāni in late Babylonian documentation. However, we must consider the possibility that the Sealand province (māt tâmtim) continued in an administrative form the former tribe of Bīt-Yakīn. During the Neo-Assyrian period the Bīt-Yakīn had become geographically co-extensive with the Sealand to the point where the two terms became almost synonym.38 Tiglath-pileser III refers to the southernmost region of Iraq as the “Sea of Bīt-Yakīn,” and Sargon II claims that Bīt-Yakīn was located “on the shore of the sea as far as the border of Dilmun.” Known rulers of the Sealand during the Neo-Assyrian period stemmed from the Bīt-Yakīn and on two occasions Assyrian inscriptions refer to the leader of Bīt-Yakīn as “king of the Sealand.” As noted by Frame 1992, 40, Bīt-Yakīn is seldom mentioned as a tribe between 689 and 627; this might be due to the dramatic reduction in their numbers because of deportation policies, but scribes may have also have adopted the term Sealand as a convenient designation of Bīt-Yakīn. Later Babylonian tradition sometimes attributed the foundation of the Babylonian empire to insurrectionists originating in the Sealand.39 The tradition is found in various forms in Berossus and a number of cuneiform sources from the Hellenistic period. One of these texts designates Nabopolassar as “king of the Sealand” (šar māt tâmtim). This tradition appears to be corroborated by the fact that the governor of the Sealand is listed first in the Hofkalender. This could reflect the instrumental role of the region in the rise of the new Babylonian state at the end of the 7th century. The governor of the Sealand in the Hofkalender is named Ea-dayyān, and he appears in that capacity quite early in the reign of Nabopolassar, at a time when loyalties were still divided between the waning Assyrian state and the new Babylonian monarchy. In a sense, the Sealand may have continued and brought to fruition the policies of resistance against the Assyrians initiated by the Bīt-Yakīn. 37 Jursa 1998, 7–8 briefly discusses TCL 12, 73 and points out that the amount of tithe to be paid, 500 kurrus, seems very small for the size of the area described in the text. 38 Frame 1992, 40–42. 39 Beaulieu 2002, 114–115. Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 45 We must therefore entertain the possibility that the leading forces originating in the Sealand did indeed trace their origins back to that Chaldean tribe. 3. The Arameans in the Eanna Archive There is much less information on Arameans than on Chaldeans in the documentation from the Eanna temple, mainly for geographic reasons. Arameans had settled in Babylonia along the Tigris and east of it, in an area beyond Uruk’s direct control.40 The Hofkalender mentions two leaders of Aramean territories: Bēlšumu-iškun of the country Puqūdu, and Marduk-šarru-usur of the country Gambūlu. These two territories occur a few times in the Uruk documentation. Other inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar II also mention Puqūdu among the lands he governed alongside Chaldean areas.41 Like Chaldean territories, Puqūdu (which appears also under the form Piqūdu42) can be written indifferently with the determinatives KUR and URU, possibly reflecting its foreign origin. Puqūdu and Gambūlu have been located generally in southeastern Babylonia close to the Elamite border region. Puqūdu may have lain on the Uqnû river;43 Neo-Assyrian sources present it as an important territory on the frontier between Babylonia and Elam and associate it with the city of La iru.44 Institutions of Puqūdu are sparsely mentioned in Uruk documents. The text DCEPHE 1, 475 is a fragmentary letter sent by the elders of Puqūdu (šīb tu ša āl Piq du) to the resident and administrator of the Eanna temple ((1) IM lúAB.BA.MEŠ (2) šá uruPi-qu-du). The office of second-in-rank of Puqūdu (šanû) occurs in AnOr. 8, 33, where it is held by one Bēl-šūzibanni ((13) IdEN-KAR-an-ni lú MIN-ú šá kur Pu-qu-du, Nabonidus year 15!, month 9, day 3), as well as in the unpublished text NBC 4842, where it is held by one Nabû-a ē-šullim ((7) IdNÀ-ŠEŠ.MEŠ-GI (8) lú MIN-ú šá uruPi-qu-du, Nebuchadnezzar II year 31, month xx, day 15). The office of šanû of Puqūdu is mentioned earlier in Neo-Assyrian documentation.45 40 The literature on Arameans is substantial. Important introductory works are Dion 1995 and 1997. On the Arameans in Babylonia during the Iron Age see Zadok 1985a, 63–70. Particularly important is the recent synthesis by Lipiński 2000, 409–489, with special sections on Puqūdu and Gambūlu. Like all other studies of the subject (e.g. Brinkman 1968, 1977; Dietrich 1970; Fales 2007), however, it concentrates almost exclusively on the Neo-Assyrian period and deals only sketchily with later Babylonian sources. The same is true of the article on Puqūdu by Radner 2006–2008. Zadok 1977 has investigated the Aramean presence in late Babylonia from the angle of onomastics. 41 Da Riva 2008, 20. 42 Lipiński 2000, 430 explains the form Piqūdu as reflecting the weakening of the short vowel u > šewa (the sign PI also has the phonetic value /pe/), already announcing the Masoretic Hebrew vocalization of Puqūdu as Peqōd (Jer. 50, 21; Ez. 23, 23; see Lundbom 2004b, 403). 43 Zadok 1985b, 249–251. 44 Lipiński 2000, 432–434. 45 CT 54, 429: 6. 46 Paul-Alain Beaulieu I already mentioned the probability that the Neo-Babylonian king Neriglissar (Nergal-šarru-usur) was the son of Bēl-šumu-iškun, who appears as leader of Puqūdu in the Hofkalender. GCCI 2, 149, a text from Uruk dated to the 41st year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, records the allocation of flour to individuals who are sent to Puqūdu concerning the tithe in silver of one Nergal-šarru-usur, who is probably identical with the future king of the same name.46 Nergal-šarru-usur had by then presumably succeeded his father Bēl-šumu-iškun as leader of Puqūdu.47 Thus, this text might inform us indirectly that the leader of Puqūdu contributed a tithe to the Eanna temple.48 Said tithe, however, was probably voluntary, unlike those paid by Bīt-Amūkāni and Bīt-Dakūri. This is suggested by the complete absence of documents on tithe collection and tithe farming for Puqūdu, Gambūlu, and other Aramean territories, and also by the fact that the tithe is attached personally to the leader of Puqūdu, not to the territory or tribe. It is probable that tithes in gold, silver, and other precious metals or stones from the king, members of the royal family, and high dignitaries, were contributed on a voluntary basis. It is difficult to identify individual Arameans in the Eanna archive, unless they are specifically designated as a member of the Puqūdu or Gambūlu tribe. One such case occurs in YOS 6, 183, a legal deposition concerning a Puqudean who was caught red-handed stealing cattle. The name of the culprit is Śameš-kīn or Śawš-kīn (YOS 6, 183: (13) IIl-ta5-meš-ki-i-ni (14) lúPi-qu-da-a-a, Uruk, Nabonidus year 10, month 10, day 25). Śameš or Śawš is a form of the sun god that appears several times in West Semitic names attested in Late Babylonian texts. The element -kīn should also be analyzed here as West Semitic, though the root is also common in Akkadian. However, another individual Puqudean who appears in the Sippar archive bears the typical Babylonian name Kalbāyu (CT 56, 454: 6'. IKal-ba-a Pi-qu-da-aa). One additional area that may have been Aramean is Zamê.49 In the Hofkalender an individual named Rīmūt appears as “regular governor” (šaknu kīnu) of Zamê. A few documents from the Eanna archive mention the same Rīmūt with the title ša māt Zamê “of the country Zamê”; others mention his brother Nanaya-ēreš with the same title. The Annals of Sargon II locate Zamê on the Uqnû river inside the territory of Puqūdu, and a letter from Nineveh mentions a Zamean (lúZa-me!-e) alongside a 46 GCCI 2, 149: PNs (5) šá a-na UGU KÙ.BABBAR (6) eš-ru-ú šá (7) IdU.GUR-LUGAL-ÙRI (8) a-na kurPu-qu-du (9) šap-ru “PNs who have been sent to Puqūdu to (collect) the tithe in silver of Nergal-šarrru-usụr.” The king is not named in the date formula but Nebuchadnezzar II is the only likely candidate given the length of his reign (the tablet is dated to year 41). 47 The Hoflakender is dated to the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar; we may therefore assume that Bēlšumu-iškun had passed away in the intervening years. 48 Other texts from Uruk list the temple income (erbu) contributed by Bēl-šumu-iškun and other dignitaries or members of the royal family, including Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter Kaššāya, who was probably the wife of Neriglissar. It is possible that these “incomes” were identical with the tithe (Beaulieu 2002, 100, n. 9). 49 Beaulieu 2002, 120–123. Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 47 Puqūdean (lúPu-qu-da-a-a). Therefore Zamê may have been a segment of Puqūdu. Like other Aramean and Chaldean territories, Zamê can be written indifferently with the determinatives URU and KUR. All texts from Uruk that mention Zamê concern cattle. This data accords well with the fact that Aramean tribes alongside the Tigris often grazed livestock belonging to the Eanna temple. 4. Arabs in Late Babylonian Sources Arabs first occur in cuneiform sources in the 9th century in the Annals of Shalmaneser III.50 The Akkadian term for “Arab” is Arbāyû. A number of individuals in Late Babylonian documents are designated as “Arab” (lúAr-ba-a-a). It can be argued that this should be read Armāyû “Aramean” (lúAr-ma-a-a), because the signs MA and BA are often treated as allographs in that period. However, the general understanding is that in all cases Arabs are meant. The term “Aramean” occurs in the form Ar(r)am(m)āyû rather than Armāyû.51 Also, Arameans are usually designated in late Babylonian texts by their tribal name (e.g. Puq dāyû, Gamb lāyû), and only occasionally by the ethnic term Ar(r)am(m)āyû. The people designated as Arbāyû do not necessarily bear Arabic names, although in some cases they do. Conversely, other people who have an Arabic name are not designated as “Arabs.” This lack of correspondence between the language of a personal name and the ethno-linguistic affiliation of its bearer is a common fact. The Neo-Babylonian kings came into conflict with the Arabs of North Arabia and Transjordan on two occasions. The Babylonian Chronicle states that Nebuchadnezzar campaigned against them successfully in the year 598, one year before the first conquest of Jerusalem:52 (9) MU 6-KAM ITI [GAN] LUGAL URIki ERÍN.ME-šú id-ke-ma ana at-tú DU-ik TA kur at-tú ERÍN-ni.ME-šú iš-pur-ma (10) mad-ba-ri UŠma kurA-ra-bi ma-du-tu NÍG-šú-nu bu-li-šú-nu u DINGIR.ME-šú-nu ma-diš i -tab-tu-nu ina ITI ŠE LUGAL ana KUR-šú GUR kur The sixth year, in the month [Kislīmu], the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to attu (= Levant). He sent his army from attu and they went off to the desert. They plundered extensively the properties, flocks and gods of the numerous Arabs. In the month of Addaru the king returned to his country. 50 There are a few studies on Arabs in cuneiform sources, notably Eph al 1984, as well as Zadok 1981 and 1990. 51 Zadok 1985b, 27. 52 Grayson 1973, 101, Chronicle 5. 48 Paul-Alain Beaulieu It is generally admitted that this campaign is reflected in the Biblical oracle against the Arabs of Kedar and Hazor in Chapter 49 of the Book of Jeremiah (verse 28–33), where the Babylonian king is mentioned by name.53 Babylonian intervention in North Arabia culminated with Nabonidus, who launched a successful campaign there and took up residence in Teima for ten years. The conquest of the region is reflected in several sources from his reign. The Babylonian Chronicle, in the damaged entry for his third year, describes the march of the army from Lebanon to Transjordan,54 where a rock relief with a depiction and inscription of Nabonidus was found some years ago.55 Other entries of the Chronicle describe the king as staying in Teima while the crown prince resided in Babylonia with the high dignitaries and the army. Several details on the extent of Nabonidus’ campaign, the organization of the conquered regions and the means by which it was achieved can be gleaned from the stela of the king found at Harran,56 and especially from the Verse Account, although the reliability of the latter source can be questioned given its obvious bias.57 In the past few years, excavations at Teima have uncovered several traces of the Babylonian presence, including a poorly preserved cuneiform inscription of Nabonidus58 and inscriptions in northern Arabian dialects which mention the Babylonian king by name and members of his retinue.59 A few texts refer to caravans going back and forth between Arabia, including Teima, and Babylonia.60 In spite of this, however, there is no evidence so far that Arabs came to Babylonia in large numbers at that time. Documents from Nippur dated to the early Achaemenid period and belonging to the archive of Nergal-iddin refer to a locality in the vicinity of Nippur called the Ālu-ša-Arbāyê (URU- šá-lúAr-ba-a-a), which means literally “town of the Arabs”; it was very probably so named because Arabs had settled there, and in fact one individual appearing in a document drafted in that town bears an Arabian name.61 The presence of Arabs in that region at that time is now confirmed by a text from the archive of Zababa-šarru-usur which mentions Arabs as a collectivity.62 At Nippur at 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Lundbom 2004b, 351–356. Grayson 1973, 105–106. Dalley and Goguel 1997. Schaudig 2001, 486–499. Schaudig 2001, 563–578. Eichmann et al. 2006. Hayajneh 2001. GCCI 1, 294, dated to the 5th year of Nabonidus; GCCI 1, 405, dated to the same year (collation in Beaulieu 1989, 158); and YOS 6, 134, dated to the 10th year of Nabonidus. The last two documents deal with the taking of provisions and sacrificial remainders to the king. All three texts stem from the Eanna archive at Uruk. 61 Zadok 1981, 71; references in Zadok 1985b, 9, who posits that the Ālu-ša-Arbāyê is identical with the town of Ālu-ša-Abi-ilīya, where most of the documents from the Nergal-iddin archive were drafted. On this archive see also Zadok 1986, 286 and Jursa 2005, 114. 62 The archive of Zababa-šarru-usur is briefly described in Jursa 2005, 151. Joannès and Lemaire 1996, 48–49 published a document from that archive which mentions a “Domain of the Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 49 the end of the 5th century Arabs further appear in the Murašû archive, which mention a town named Arbāyû and a atru organization of Arabs (lúAr-ba-a-a) at the end of the 5th century.63 Other foreign groups formed similar towns in Babylonia in the first millennium, including Judeans and Phoenicians, and there is now textual evidence for a town of Jerusalem-in-Babylonia (Āl-Yahūdu) as well as a Tyre-in-Babylonia (Surru).64 Contrary to Chaldeans and Arameans, however, these groups do not seem to have reached a critical mass that would have enabled them to play a significant role in the institutional fabric of Babylonia. After the end of the Nippur documentation at the end of the 5th century cuneiform sources become noticeably fewer and those we have no longer refer to Arabs. The only exceptions are the Astronomical Diaries.65 One fragment of an astronomical diary (BM 34433) datable to the reign of Demetrios I Soter (he reigned from 161 to 150 BC) mentions the presence of troops in the land of Arabia, but in a badly broken context.66 It is uncertain whether Demetrios mounted a campaign against Arab tribes who were threatening Babylonia on its southwestern flank. That the Arab menace was mounting can be gauged from the Diaries from the years 130 to 106 BC, when control of Babylonia had already passed to the Parthians. Over a period of 25 years Arabs made repeated incursions in Babylonia, to the point where the compilers of the Diaries routinely mention that they committed acts of plunder “as previously.” Some entries in the Diaries yield more elaborate information, however. In the year 125 BC Arabs arose against Babylonia and plundered Borsippa and other unnamed localities until the local inhabitants apparently bought them off with presents. They came back the following year, causing great terror in the country. In 123 BC they surrounded the land of Akkad, causing the gates of Babylon to be shut for numerous days because of the state of warfare. A Diary for the year 119 BC claims that they finally withdrew, allowing the inhabitants to come out of Babylon to the canals and countryside now emptied of them. I am quoting some of the references at length since they are not generally well known:67 Year 125 BC (Diary –124, pp. 264–265) (8') ITI BI lúAr-ba-a-a šá AN.TA IM ZI.MEŠ-nim-ma SA[R x x x x] (9') [x x x] Bar-sìp u URU.MEŠ šá-nu-tú KUD-at lúUN.MEŠ šá i-tat URU u? A.ŠÀ.MEŠ šá-nu-tú È NÍG.BA [x x x] “In that month (Nisannu) the Arabs from above the wall/wind arose and plun[dered x x x for] Borsippa and the 63 64 65 66 67 Arab(s)” ((4) A.ŠÀ EGIR lúAr-ba-a-a). Zadok 1981, 72; Stolper 1985, 85–87. On texts from the city of Āl-Yahūdu in Babylonia see Joannès and Lemaire 1999 and Pearce 2011, with complete bibliography. On Surru in Babylonia see the initial study by Joannès 1982b and the recent one by Zawadzki 2003, with extensive references to previous discussions. There is also mention of Arabs in the astronomical diary for the year –329 (Del Monte 1997, 6). BM 34433, 5': [x x lú]ERÍN.MEŠ ina KUR A-ra-bi [x x x]; preliminary edition on the Livius Web Site under the rubric “Demetrius Fragment” (http://www.livius.org). Sachs and Hunger 1996. 50 Paul-Alain Beaulieu other towns was interrupted. The people who went out to the surroundings of the city and? to the other fields [gave] presents [to the Arabs].” Year 123 BC (Diary –122, pp. 298–299) (9') ITI BI lúAr-ba-a-a (10') [ZI.MEŠ-nim-ma ku]rURIki gab?-bi NIGIN-ú UD.MEŠ MA .MEŠ KÁ.[GAL?.ME]Š Eki L[Ú.N]E NU BAD-te “In that month the Arabs [arose and] surrounded all of Akkad, and for many days the ga[tes?] of Babylon were not opened (because of) wa[rfa]re.” Year 119 BC (Diary – 118, pp. 320–321) (A22) [x x x] lúAr-ba-a-a È lúUN.MEŠ T[A] E ki a-na ÍD.MEŠ u EDIN.MEŠ šá la lúAr-b[a-a]-a È-ú “[x x x] the Arabs went out. The people came out of Babylon to the rivers and the countryside that were (now) without Arabs.” The Arabs came back in the year 112 but the local troops apparently repelled them. They are last mentioned in the year 106 BC around Seleucia. The latest Diary is datable to the year 63 BC. Albeit meager, the data from the Diaries is of considerable importance in supplying the earliest evidence for continuous penetration of Arabs in central and southern Iraq before the Islamic era. This movement culminated three centuries later with the rise of the La mid dynasty under the Sasanians and the establishment of their capital, al-Hīrah, on the fringe of the desert west of Babylon.68 One text from the Eanna archive69 provides an interesting glimpse of the position of Arabs and other outsiders in the social structure of Babylonian cities in the 6th century. It records an injunction issued by the authorities of the temple and reads as follows: YOS 7, 92 1 i-na u4-mu IZab-di-ia lúAr-ba-a-a 2 it-ti fNIN-AD-šú salza-ki-tu4 3 šá dGAŠAN šá UNUGki it-<<na>>-ta-na-ma-ra 4 i-tu šá IGu-ba-ru lúNAM 5 TIN.TIRki ù e-bir ÍD 6 i-šad-da-ad (Witnesses, scribe, date formula) On the day when Zabdiya, an Arab, is seen (again) together with A āt-abīšu, a zakītu woman of the Lady-of-Uruk, he will bear the punishment of Gubaru, the governor of Babylon and Transeuphratene. (Witnesses, scribe, date formula). 68 Bosworth 1983, 597–603. 69 YOS 7, 92; Uruk, Cyrus year 6, month 3, day 11. Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 51 What prompted this injunction? The two individuals may have engaged in some illicit trade, activity or behavior deemed improper by the authorities of the temple. However, the existence in the Eanna archive of an identical injunction addressed to one Zababa-ereš, specifically identified as a citizen of Kiš near Babylon (YOS 7, 56: 2: lúKIŠki-a-a), strongly suggests that the zakītu women of Uruk just could not engage in close relations with people from outside the Uruk community. The implications of the zakītu status are not clear. Whether the injunction involved relations of a sexual nature cannot be established. The name Zabdiya is not Babylonian but based on the root ZaBaD “to give,” which occurs in Hebrew, Aramaic and also Arabic. Thus we may have a case where a man designated as “Arab” is indeed an Arab.70 However, it is clear that the injunction did not stem from his Arab or non-Babylonian origin, but simply because he did not belong to the civic community of Uruk. Even Babylonians from other cities were barred from engaging in the activities that are implied in the document. 5. Conclusions In conclusion, the most important fact that emerges from a survey of late Babylonian sources is the sharp contrast we observe between the situation of Chaldeans and Arameans during the time of Assyrian hegemony, and their position in the Babylonian empire of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, and their successors. Assyrian sources generally describe Arameans and Chaldeans as competitors and political enemies. The Chaldean leaders in particular were viewed as agitators undermining the Assyrian control system in Babylonia. Babylonian historical sources for that period also describe the Arameans and Chaldeans in negative terms, although they seem more tolerant of the latter because of their frequent espousal of Babylon’s interests. With the fall of Assyria and the rise of Babylon to hegemonic position, we witness a complete turnabout. The terms “Chaldean” and “Aramean” cease to be used altogether as indicators of ethno-linguistic affiliation. The reason for this sudden silence is probably ideological. The new kings of Babylon adopted an archaizing political vocabulary which harked back to the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon and even to the Old Akkadian period. The perennial and unchanging nature of Babylonian civilization and its Sumero-Akkadian heritage was emphasized, and the reality of a society fragmented along ethnic, tribal, and linguistic lines, as well as by several other factors of social and institutional nature seems to be denied. One can argue that this impression results in part from the fact that only cuneiform sources have survived, while everything written in Aramaic has 70 Zadok 1981, 78 considers the name to be Arabian. Since the root ZBD also occurs in Aramaic, however, it can be argued that the ethnic term lúAr-ba-a-a should be read lúAr-ma-a-a “Aramean.” As mentioned above, my main argument against this is that Arameans in that period, like Chaldeans, are designated by tribal rather than ethnic label. 52 Paul-Alain Beaulieu vanished, but the new official discourse is too pervasive to be ascribed merely to chance. A detailed look at the sources, on the other hand, reveals that the Chaldeans and Arameans did in fact make up an important component of Babylonian society in the 6th century. The Hofkalender of Nebuchadnezzar names the leaders of two Chaldean and two Aramean territories among a small group of high dignitaries (rabûtu) of Babylonia: Bīt-Amūkāni, Bīt-Dakūri, Puqūdu, and Gambūlu. This information is corroborated by the Uruk archive, which reveals that the leaders of these groups reached a position of prominence probably owing to the geographic extent of their territories and their wealth. The texts also suggest that Chaldeans were more closely linked to Uruk institutionally than Arameans, probably due to their geographic proximity and also because their land was enmeshed with the ancestral holdings of the most important urban areas of Babylonia. The position of Arabs in late Babylonia seems to have been quite different from Chaldeans and Arameans in terms of numbers, influence, and institutional integration. Contrary to them, they are always designated solely by their general ethnic term of Arbāyû. Arabs belonged to the many groups that settled in Babylonia in the first millennium either voluntarily or as a result of the deportation policies of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings. In that respect their position resembled that of the Judeans, who were also sometimes designated under a separate ethnic identity, namely Yahūdāyû, in documents from the 6th and 5th centuries.71 It is important to stress that our sources provide no indication that Chaldeans and Arameans were considered foreign elements in the fabric of society. In fact, their degree of acculturation must have been relatively high, especially for Chaldeans. This is reflected by the fact that all Chaldeans and Arameans in official positions bear traditional Babylonian names that could have been taken from scribal textbooks. However, we also find individual Arameans with West Semitic names, suggesting that acculturation was a complex process that did not necessarily result in assimilation. There is a strong probability that Arameans from the Puqūdu tribe eventually gained the Babylonian throne with the coup that brought Neriglissar to power in 560. This was not a new phenomenon. Some Chaldean princes had risen to that position already during the 8th and 7th centuries. The influence of Chaldeans and Arameans on the conduct of politics may have been in fact much stronger than it appears. Besides the four tribal territories mentioned in the Hofkalender that we definitely know to have been Chaldean and Aramean, a few others may also have belonged to these groups. This seems probable for Zamê, possible for the Sealand as a continuation of the earlier Bīt-Yakīn, and arguable for Yaptiru which may also have been a West Semitic tribal area. A look at the hierarchy of dignitaries listed in the Hofkalender gives the impression that tribal areas were predominant in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. This seems to vindicate the Biblical view that the king of Babylon relied on armies of Arameans and Chaldeans to expand his empire, and 71 Pearce 2011. Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 53 perhaps justify the denomination of Chaldean Dynasty for the royal house founded by Nabopolassar. Further research on these questions is obviously needed. Bibliography Beaulieu P.-A. 1989: The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556–539 B. C. (= YNER 10). — 1998: Ba’u-asītu and Kaššaya, Daughters of Nebuchadnezzar II, Or. 67, 173–201. — 2002: Ea-dayān, Governor of the Sealand, and Other Dignitaries of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, JCS 54, 99–123. — 2006: Official and Vernacular Languages: the Shifting Sands of Imperial and Cultural Identities in First Millennium BCE Mesopotamia, in: S. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures (= Oriental Institute Seminars 2) 185–215. Becking B. 2009: The Identity of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the Chamberlain. An Epigraphic Note on Jeremiah 39, 3. With an Appendix on The Nebu(!) sarsekim Tablet, BN 140, 35–46. Bosworth C. E. 1983: Iran and the Arabs before Islam, in E. Yarshater, ed., The Cambridge History of Iran vol. 3/1, The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods (Cambridge) 593– 612. Brinkman J. A. 1968: A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia (= AnOr. 43). — 1977: Notes on Aramaeans and Chaldeans in Southern Babylonia in the Early Seventh Century B. C., Or. 46, 304–325. — 1979: Babylonia under the Assyrian Empire, 745–627 B. C., in: M. T. Larsen( ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (= Mesopotamia 7) 223–250. — 1984: Prelude to Empire. Babylonian Society and Politics 747–626 B. C. (= Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7). Cole S. W. 1996: Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, c. 755–612 B. C. (= SAAS 4). Cocquerillat D.1968: Palmeraies et cultures de l’Eanna d’Uruk (559–520) (= ADFU 8). Dalley S./Goguel A. 1997: The Sela’ Sculpture: A Neo-Babylonian Rock Relief in Southern Jordan, ADAJ 41, 169–176. Da Riva R. 2008: The Neo-Babylonian Royal Inscriptions. An Introduction (= GMTR 4). Del Monte G. F. 1997: Testi dalla Babilonia Ellenistica – Volume 1 – Testi Cronografici (= Studi Ellenistici IX). Dietrich M. 1970: Die Aramäer Südbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700–648) (= AOAT 7). Dion P.-E. 1995: Aramaean Tribes and Nations of First-Millennium Western Asia, in: J. M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (New York: Scribner’s) 1281–1294. — 1997 Les araméens à l’âge du fer: histoire politique et structures sociales (Paris). Edzard D. O. 1976–80: Kaldu (Chaldäer), RlA Bd. 5, 291–297. Eichmann R./Schaudig H.-P./Hausleiter A. 2006: Archaeology and Epigraphy at Teima (Saudi Arabia), Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 17, 163–176. Eph al I. 1978: The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th–5th Centuries B. C., Or. 47, 74–90. — 1984: The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent, 9th–5th Centuries B. C. 2nd rev. reprint. Jerusalem. Fales F. M. 2007: Arameans and Chaldeans – Environment and Society, in: G. Leick (ed.), The Babylonian World (London: Routledge) 288–298. 54 Paul-Alain Beaulieu Frahm E. 2003: New Sources for Sennacherib’s ‘First Campaign’, Isimu 6, 129–164. Frame G. 1992: Babylonia 689–627 B. C. A Political History (= PIHANS 69). — 1997: Chaldeans, in: E. M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol.1 (New York and Oxford) 482–484. George A. R. et al. 2011: Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection (= CUSAS 17). Grayson A. K. 1973: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (= TCS 5). Hayajneh H. 2001: Der babylonische König Nabonid und der RBSRS in einigen neu publizierten frühnordarabischen Inschriften aus Taymā’, Acta Orientalia 62, 22–64. Joannès F. 1982a: Textes économiques de la Babylonie récente. Paris. — 1982b: La localization de Surru à l’époque néo-babylonienne, Sémitica 32, 35–43. Joannès F./Lemaire A. 1996: Contrats babyloniens d’époque achéménide du Bît-Abî Râm avec une épigraphe araméenne, RA 90, 41–60. — 1999: Trois tablettes cunéiformes à onomastique ouest-sémitique, Transeuphratène 17, 17– 33. Jones H. L. 1932: The Geography of Strabo, vol. 7, Loeb Classical Library. Jursa M. 1998: Der Tempelzehnt in Babylonien vom siebenten bis dritten Jahrhundert v. Chr. (= AOAT 254). — 2005: Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents – Typology, Contents and Archives (= GMTR 1). — 2007: Die Söhne Kudurrus und die Herkunft der neubabylonischen Dynastie, RA 101, 125–136. — 2008: Nabû-šarrūssu-ukīn, rab ša-rēši, und „Nebusarsekim (Jer. 39:3), NABU no. 5. — 2010: Der neubabylonische Hof, in: B. Jacobs/R. Rollinger (ed.), Der achaimenidische Hof / The Achaemenid Court (= Classica et Orientalia 2) 67–106. Langdon S. 1912: Die neubabylonische Konigsinschriften (= VAB 4). Lipiński E. 2000: The Arameans. Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (= OLA 100). Lundbom J. R. 2004a: Jeremiah 21–36, The Anchor Bible. — 2004b: Jeremiah 37–52, The Anchor Bible. Oelsner J. 2011: Chaldaia, in: H. Cancik/H. Schneider (ed.), Der Neue Pauly Bd. 2, 1086. Olmstead A. T. 1925: The Chaldean Dynasty, HUCA 2, 29–55. Pearce L. E. 2011: ‘Judean’: A Special Status in Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Babylonia?, in: O. Lipschits/G. N. Knoppers/M. Oeming (ed.), Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period – Negotiating Identity in an International Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 267–277. Pedersén O. 2005a: Foreign Professionals in Babylon: Evidence from the Archives in the Palace of Nebuchadnezzar II, in: W. H. Van Soldt (ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia – Papers Read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale – Leiden, 1–4 July 2002 (Leiden) 267–272. — 2005b: Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon. Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899 1917. Berlin. Rackham H. 1942: Pliny – Natural History, Books 3–7, Loeb Classical Library. Radner K. 2006–2008: Puqūdu, RlA Bd. 11, 113–115. Sachs A/Hunger H. 1996: Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia – Volume 3 – Diaries from 164 B. C. to 61 B. C. Wien. Sack R. H. 1994: Neriglissar – King of Babylon (= AOAT 236). Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources 55 Schaudig H.-P. 2001: Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ der Großen (= AOAT 256). Seux M.-J. 1980–83: Königtum, RlA Bd. 6, 140–173. Stevenson E. L. 1932: Claudius Ptolemy – The Geography (facsimile edition of original published by the New York Public Library). New York 1991. Stolper M. W. 1985: Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia (= PIHANS 54). Talon P. 1993: Le rituel comme moyen de légitimation politique au ler millénaire en Mésopotamie, in : J. Quaegebeur (ed.) ed., Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991 (= OLA 55) 421–433. Unger E. 1931: Babylon, die Heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier. Berlin. Weidner E. F. 1939: Jojachin, König von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten, in Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud (Paris: Geuthner) 923–935. Weisberg D. B. 1974: Royal Women of the Neo-Babylonian Period, in : P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royauté. Archéologie et civilisation (= CRRA 19) 447–454. Wiseman D. J. 1956: Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum. London. Zadok R. 1977: On West Semites in Babylonia During the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods. An Onomastic Study. Jerusalem. — 1981: Arabians in Mesopotamia during the Late-Assyrian, Chaldean, Achaemenian and Hellenistic Periods Chiefly According to Cuneiform Sources, ZDMG 131, 42–84. — 1985a: Zur Geographie Babyloniens während des sargonidischen, chaldäischen, achämenidischen und hellenistischen Zeitalters, WO 16, 19–79. — 1985b: Geographical Names According to New- and Late Babylonian Texts (= RGTC 8). — 1986: Archives from Nippur in the First Millennium B.C., in: K. R. Veenhof (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries (= PIHANS 57) 278–288. — 1990: On Early Arabians in the Fertile Crescent, Tel Aviv 17, 223–231. Zawadzki S. 2003: Nebuchadnezzar and Tyre in the Light of New Texts from the Ebabbar Archives in Sippar, in Hayim and Miriam Tadmor Volume (= Eretz-Israel 27) 276–281.