The Political History and Historical Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes in Babylonia in the Neo-Assyrian Period

The Political History and Historical Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes in Babylonia in the Neo-Assyrian Period* Grant Frame – University of Pennsylvania “Because of the paucity of the evidence, it is not possible to write a history of the single Aramaean tribes dwelling in the vicinity of Babylonia” – Edward Lipiński.1 “A monographic treatment of Chaldaean history and culture remains a desideratum” – Eckart Frahm.2 The author is in complete agreement with both of the above statements. Unfortunately, just as Lipiński thinks it is not possible to write a history of the individual Aramean tribes in Babylonia, the present author thinks it is not possible to write one of any individual Chaldean tribe. The available evidence, however, does provide some glimpses into the history and historical geography of the Aramean and Chaldean tribes, and at times quite revealing ones. It is not possible to describe here every political event during the Neo-Assyrian period that involved Aramean, Chaldean or Arab tribes in any way or to consider every piece of evidence that could be used to try to locate each and every tribe geographically. To do so would require one, if not two, monographs of considerable length. Thus, only a few aspects of these matters will be treated and emphasis will be upon events that took place in the second half of the eighth century and the early seventh century, before around 689 since the author studied the following period in some detail in his book Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History.3 * The author would like to express his appreciation to J. A. Brinkman and Erle V. Leichty for various useful comments upon a draft of this manuscript, to Andrew Knapp for help with checking the references, and to Ran Zadok for allowing me to see the manuscript of his own chapter for this volume while mine was still in the course of being finished. The responsibility for all errors and omissions is, of course, that of the author. 1 Lipiński 2000, 485. 2 Frahm 2003, 154. 3 The present study makes frequent use of material presented in that book (Frame 1992). Although this study will concentrate on material from the late eighth and early seventh centuries, it will at times deal with events in the ninth century and even earlier. 88 Grant Frame Information on these tribes comes from a variety of sources, in particular the official or royal inscriptions of Assyrian kings and letters found at Kal u, Nineveh and Nippur. Babylonian royal inscriptions, chronicles, extispicy requests, legal and administrative texts, and various other text genres also provide pieces of useful information. The focus of most of the textual sources is the interaction of these tribal groups with the Assyrians, interaction that was for the most part of a hostile nature. Babylonia was made up of a patchwork of old established cities and tribal areas,4 but with tribesmen living in the major cities of the land, as well as in rural areas. A letter sent to the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in the mid-seventh century states that many foreign peoples could be found in Nippur under the protection of the Assyrian king, or more accurately that there were many people speaking (foreign) languages there (EME.MEŠ ma-aʾ-da-a-ti ina EN.LÍL.KI ina GIŠ.MI LUGAL EN-iá).5 Some may have been Elamites who had taken refuge in Nippur from political upheavals in their own land and others traders only temporarily resident there in order to conduct business. However, this letter may well refer to Arameans, Chaldeans and Arabs. Many members of the various tribal groups would have interacted with the older, native population of the land on an almost daily basis. In view of the subdivision of large tribes into smaller groups and the movement of at least some tribes on a seasonal basis in order not to overgraze any one area, we run into problems when we try to determine the historical geography of these tribes with any degree of precision. In view of the fact that many of the tribes led a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle, we must not be surprised if members of individual tribes appear in different parts of the country at different times. Various tribal groups could move in and around the same areas. No tribe was restricted to a reservation of fixed size, as is the case with some Native American tribes in the United States. Tribal groups in Babylonia may have ranged over a large area, not all of which necessarily lay within what we might consider Babylonia proper.6 Cole has noted: “The seasonal orbits of at least certain Aramean groups appear to have extended from northern or eastern Syria across northern Babylonia to the banks of the lower Tigris.” He points out, for example, that the atallu were defeated in the early eighth century by Šamšī-ilu in northern Mesopotamia, likely not far from Til Barsip on the upper Euphrates; 2,000 men of this tribe attacked Laqê on the middle Euphrates in the mid-eighth century; inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727) locate the tribe in southeastern Babylonia and inscriptions of Sargon II (721–705) place them along the Uqnû and Surappu Rivers, thus in the Elamite-Babylonian border region.7 We may also note, for example, that the Aramean amarānu ( amrānu) and Lītawu tribes were associated with the Tigris River by Sargon II and 4 Cole 1994, 224f. 5 ABL 238 rev. 6'. 6 One may compare the areas over which various recent Middle Eastern tribes roamed in Syria and northern Mesopotamia as shown in Postgate 1992, 5 Fig. 1:3. 7 Cole 1994, 224. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 89 with the Euphrates River by Sennacherib (704–681); the Ru a and Ubūlu tribes are said to live along the Tigris in the time of Sargon II and along the Surappu in the time of Sennacherib.8 At times we find statements about the locations of tribes that are too general for real use; for example, a number of Aramean tribes conquered by Tiglath-pileser III were said to live “on the banks of the Tigris, Euphrates, [Su]rappu (and) Uqnû Rivers, as far as the Lower Sea in the East.”9 This does not omit much of Babylonia. Moreover, it is worth remembering that the actual courses of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers at this time are not always certain and that they may even have moved during the course of the period of concern here. Also where exactly was the head of the Persian Gulf and how far did the southern marshes extend? The Surappu, Tupliaš (or Tubliyaš) and Uqnû Rivers are sometimes mentioned in connection with particular Aramean tribes. About fifteen years ago, Fuchs suggested that the Surappu was the Rūd āne-ye Čangūle, the Tupliaš the Nahr at-Tib, and the Uqnû the modern course of the eastern branch of the Tigris and these identifications have been accepted by many scholars and are found, for example, in the Helsinki Atlas.10 While quite possible, none of these identifications are certain, and recently Cole and Gasche have proposed identifying the Surappu with the Nahr at-Tib, the Tupliaš with the Dawairij, and the Uqnû with the ancient course of the Karun, in particular the lower Karun, which they argue entered the Shatt el-Arab or marshes about 80 km NW of where it currently does.11 Contemporary documents make a clear distinction between the Chaldean and Aramean tribes, often referring to them in parallel.12 Sargon II states that he had brought about the defeat of the Chaldeans and Arameans at the Eastern Sea, thus mentioning the two one after the other.13 An extispicy report from the time of Ashurbanipal (668–631/627) refers to “either Assyrians, or Akkad(ians), or Chaldeans, or A lamû (i.e., Arameans)” (lu-ú kurAN.ŠÁRki-a-a lu-ú <lú>URI.KI lu-ú lú Kal-da-a-a lu-ú lúAḫ-lam-i) and Edition A of Ashurbanipal’s Annals refers to “the people of Akkad, Chaldea, Aramu, (and) the Sealand” (UN.MEŠ KUR URI.KI KUR Kal-du KUR A-ra-mu KUR tam-tim).14 8 Fuchs 1994, 195: 18f.; Frahm 2003, 135 and 142: 13f. 9 Tadmor 1994, 194 Summ. 11: 6–8. 10 Fuchs 1994, 459, 465 and 466f.; Parpola and Porter 2001, 16–18 and pls. 16f. See also Lipiński 2000, 413 fig. 16 11 Cole and Gasche 2007, 30, 32 fig. 71, and 35. The author feels that it might be best to follow Cole and Gasche at least with regard to the identification of the Uqnû (see Frame forthcoming). 12 E.g., OIP 2, 25 i 39. 13 Fuchs 1944, 171 line 385. 14 SAA 4, 280 rev. 10–12; Borger 1996, 40 A iii 97f.. With regard to the connection between the Sealand and one particular Chaldean tribe (the Bīt-Yakīn) and the practice of some inscriptions to distinguish that tribe from the other Chaldean tribes, see below. 90 Grant Frame Fig. 1: Map of Babylonia, ca. 755–727 (Location of watercourses and marshes reflects modern topography).Reprinted from Cole 1996b, 108 fig. 2 with the permission of S. W. Cole and the NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project. At times we hear of a land of Aramu (KUR Aramu) and a land of Kaldu (KUR Kaldu) as being located in southern Mesopotamia.15 1. Arameans16 As is well known, the first clear attestation of the term “Aramean” is from the end of the twelfth century, when the Assyrian ruler Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076) employed it for the A lamû-Arameans who were found west of the Euphrates River from Palmyra to Anat and Rāpiqu, thus immediately to the northwest of Babylonia 15 See Parpola 1970, 35–37 (Arumu) and 188–190 (Kaldu). It is likely that these “lands” simply refer to the areas in which the Aramu/Arameans and Kaldu/Chaldeans dwelt and not to an organized state. See Fig. 1 for a map of Babylonia ca. 755–727. 16 Numerous studies have discussed various aspects of the Arameans found in Babylonia but particular attention should be drawn to Lipiński 2000, 409–489. Note also Brinkman 1968, 267–285; Dietrich 1970; Zadok 1985b, 63–70; Cole 1996b, 23–29; Frame 1992, 43–48. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 91 proper,17 and it was likely from this direction that at least some of them first migrated into Babylonia.18 The Arameans are mentioned about the same time (end of twelfth century or early eleventh century) on a cylinder fragment recently discovered at Tell Taban (ancient Tābetu) on the middle Khabur. The inscription was composed in the name of Aššur-ketta-lēšir (II), a local ruler who was “king of the land of Māri,” and refers to KUR A-ri-mimeš, unfortunately in broken context.19 In early texts the Arameans in Babylonia are generally pictured as hostile or disruptive elements, in contrast to the Chaldeans, who when they first appear in texts seem to be “quietly settled in southern Babylonia.”20 The Arameans appear to have been concentrated in rural areas, primarily in the eastern part of the country, along the Tigris River, although their presence is known throughout the land, including around Uruk and Nippur. In fact, we should probably not speak of an exclusively Aramean versus exclusively Chaldean part of the land; members of both groups could be found in any part of Babylonia. By the eighth century, they are found in towns and villages of their own, as well as in the older cities of the land. Inscriptions of Sennacherib state that Arameans and Chaldeans could be found in Kutha, Hursagkalama, Kish, Nippur, Sippar and Uruk, thus in cities in southern, central and northern Babylonia.21 Nevertheless, the Arameans appear to have had fewer large towns in Babylonia than the Chaldeans did, which perhaps indicates a more nomadic character and pastoral economy. Brinkman wonders if their more nomadic character might be indicated by the fact that in texts camels are more often mentioned with Arameans than with Chaldeans.22 Most of the larger settlements specifically associated with the Arameans (or their leaders) seem to have been located in the east, particularly among the Gambūlu tribe located along the Elamite border. meš, m eš 17 RIMA 2, 23 v 44–63 (Aḫ-la-mì-i/KUR Ar-ma-ia lines 46f.); 34: 28f. (restored; [... ] , line meš 28); 37f.: 29–35 (Aḫ-la-mì-i/KUR Ar-ma-ia , lines 29f.); 43: 34–36 (KUR Aḫ-la-me-e KUR meš Ar-ma-a-ia , line 34). 18 For three possible suggestions for the origin of the Arameans found in eastern Babylonia, see Brinkman 1968, 281–285. 19 Tab T06–20 line 5'; see Shibata and Yamada forthcoming. My appreciation must be extended to Drs. Shibata and Yamada for providing me with a copy of their manuscript and allowing me to mention this reference here. 20 Brinkman 1979, 226. 21 OIP 2, 25 i 39–41. 22 Brinkman 1984, 13f. n. 52. 92 Grant Frame Over forty Aramean tribes are attested,23 compared to only five Chaldean tribes. Most Aramean tribes were probably much smaller than the three main Chaldean tribes. Each Aramean tribe was led by one or more sheikhs (singular: nasīku). It is possible that the larger tribes were those that had more than one sheikh. Sargon II mentions eight Gambulian sheikhs who dwelt along the Uqnû River, five sheikhs of the Puqūdu and four of the indaru.24 This diverse form of leadership (if that is what this represents) may have hindered them from presenting a united front against any central authority in Babylonia or Assyria. For example, some Puqūdu actively supported the rebellion of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn against Ashurbanipal in the midseventh century while others fought on the side of the Assyrians. It used to be thought that the eleventh-century king Adad-apla-iddina (1068– 1047) was an Aramean, but Walker has showed that this was not the case.25 During his reign, Arameans (A-ra-mu and KUR A-ra-mu) are said to have desecrated all the sanctuaries of the land and demolished the cities of Agade, Der, Sippar, Nippur and Parsa (Dūr-Kurigalzu).26 The little evidence there is suggests that relations between Arameans and the older settled population of Babylonia did not improve over time. According to the Religious Chronicle, in 972 and 971, during the reign of Nabûmukīn-apli (978–943), hostile actions by Arameans prevented the New Year’s festival from taking place: In the month of Nisan, in the seventh year, the Arameans were belligerent so that the king could not come up to Babylon. Neither could Nabû come nor Bēl [come out. In] the month of Nisan, in the eighth year of king Nabûmukīn-apli, the Arameans were belligerent and captured Bāb-nibiri of Kārbēl-mātāti. (Thus) the king could not cross; Nabû could not come and Bēl could not come out.27 23 The spelling of the Aramean tribal names follows that used by R. Zadok in his chapter in this volume (see especially his Tables 1 and 2; his Table 2 also provides basic information on the chronological and geographical distribution of the various West Semitic tribes). See also Frahm 2003, 151–153 for a list of the Aramean tribes and some information on their general location. In addition to those tribes explicitly called Aramean in Assyrian royal inscriptions of Tiglathpileser III, Sargon II and Sennacherib, there are a number of tribes that were probably also Aramean (see the chapter in this volume by R. Zadok, sub C.a). I have tentatively suggested elsewhere that the Gurasimmu were also Arameans (Frame 1992, 47), but Lipiński (Lipiński 2000, 482f.) and Zadok (see his chapter in this volume sub E.a.1) have presented evidence to suggest that they were instead of Arabian origin. Detailed information of the various Aramean and Chaldean tribes is also found in R. Zadok’s chapter in this volume; he also considers the question of whether or not the names of some of the tribes called Aramean in cuneiform sources were actually Arab/Arabian in origin. 24 Fuchs 1994, 141: 272b–c; 147: 285–286a. 25 Walker 1982, 414f. commentary to line 29. 26 Walker 1982, 399–401 BM 27796: 29–31 and 416 BM 27859: 8–10; RIMB 2, 50; Cole 1996b, 24. 27 Grayson 1975, 137 no. 17 iii 4–9. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 93 Inscriptions of Šamšī-Adad V of Assyria (823–811) state that Arameans – as well as Chaldeans, Elamites and Kassites – aided the Babylonian king Marduk-balāssuiqbi’s opposition to the Assyrians when the latter moved south in 814. According to the Assyrians, the southern forces were defeated at Dūr-Papsukkal in the east Tigris region (possibly located between Der and the Diyala).28 Marduk-balāssu-iqbi was captured by the Assyrians and carried off to Assyria during a following campaign. The Eclectic Chronicle records that in the first third of the eighth century, the Chaldean king of Babylonia Erība-Marduk had to drive Arameans from fields surrounding Babylon and Borsippa: He smote with the sword the Arameans who by means of murder and insurrection had taken the fields of the inhabitants of Babylon and Borsippa and he brought about their defeat. He took the fields and orchards away from them and gave (them) to the citizens (literally: sons) of Babylon and Borsippa.29 The usurpation of fields from city dwellers by Arameans (and also by Chaldeans) is mentioned several times in our sources. In the reign of Erība-Marduk’s successor Nabû-šuma-iškun, for example, Arameans and Chaldeans are said to have been involved in fighting with the Borsippians over the latter’s fields.30 On some other occasions, however, individual tribesmen are attested as legal owners of fields. The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (744–727) claims that “From the beginning of my reign until my seventeenth regnal year, I captured and annexed [to] Assyria the Itū , Rupū , amarānu, Lu u ātu, Nabātu, indiru ( indaru), Ru a, Lītawu, Marūsu, (and) Puqūdu, as many [Ara]means as were on the banks of the Tigris, [Euph]rates, Surappu (and) Uqnû Rivers [as far as the] Lower [S]ea in the East.”31 He says that he despoiled various Aramean tribes, specifically the Ru a, Puqūdu, and Lītawu, and deported several thousand to northeastern Assyrian provinces (e.g., 5,000 to the province of Mazamua and 10,000 to the province of the Palace Herald).32 The tribal centers on the Elamite border that were annexed to Assyria were placed under the governor of Arrapha.33 A fragmentary prism inscription of the Assyrian ruler Sargon II (721–705) composed in 706 (or later) states that Arameans, as well as various other undesirable elements, had made the route from Assyria to Babylon unsafe. They are described as “sons of thieves.” At that time, the ancient road for going to Babylon, the cult center of the Enlil of the god[s] (i.e., Marduk), was not open; [its] tra[ck] was not fit (for 28 29 30 31 32 33 RIMB 2, 109; Cole 1996b, 24; RIMA 3, 187f. iii 70–iv 45. Grayson 1975, 182f. no. 24 rev. 11–13. RIMB 2, 124 i 15'–21'. See also Brinkman 1995c, 24 and Cole 1996b, 25. Tadmor 1994, 130 Summ. 2: 3–10. Tadmor 1994, 44 Ann. 9: 9–11 and 122 Summ. 1: 12f. Tadmor 1994, 160 Summ. 7: 13f. 94 Grant Frame travel). The region (had become) desert (and) passage through it had been blocked for a [long] time. Journey through it was very difficult and no paths were laid out. Thorny-plants, thistles, and brushwood thickets encroached upon impassable pathways. Lions and jackals took cover in them and gamboled about like lambs. Arameans (and) Sutians34 – tent-dwellers, fugitives, criminals, (and) thieves – had set up their abodes in that desert region and had made the route through it desolate. With regard to the settlements there which had long ago turned into ruins, there were neither irrigation ditches nor furrows on their cultivable land; it was covered over with cobwebs. Their rich meadows had turned into wasteland. Their (once) cultivated lands no longer heard (literally: were deprived of) the sweet (harvest) song. Grain had ceased to grow (literally: been cut off). I cut down the brushwood thickets and set fire to the thorny plants (and) thistles. I struck down the Arameans, son(s) of thieves, with (my) weapon(s). I slaughtered the lions and wolves. I occupied the territory of what had previously been wasteland ... and established people from the host[ile] countries which I [had con]quered [ins]ide them.35 (This passage is found towards the end of the inscription, following the description of Sargon’s campaigns against Merodach-baladan II, the Chaldean ruler of Babylonia, the destruction of Dūr-Yakīn in 707, and the subsequent reaction of rulers in Dilmun and Yadnāna.) According to Sargon’s Annals,36 members of the (Aramean) amarānu tribe had entered Sippar out of fear of Sargon and then proceeded to loot Babylonian caravans. Sargon’s troops defeated them. The inscription does not state that these Arameans entered Sippar by violent means. Were they then acting in collusion with the citizens of Sippar? The most frequently mentioned Aramean tribes are the Puqūdu, Gambūlu, and Itū , but the latter were located in large part in what was really Assyrian territory in the Neo-Assyrian period, the area to the east of the Tigris around modern Samarra. Members of the Itū served as permanent units of infantry within the Assyrian army and kept garrison duty for the Assyrian king at Borsippa.37 At times members of other Aramean and Chaldean tribes also appear serving in the Assyrian army. The Puqūdu are first attested in texts of Tiglath-pileser III and the Gambūlu in those of Sargon II.38 Since these two tribes are frequently mentioned in contemporary texts and since they are known to have had more than one sheikh at a time, they may have been among the largest Aramean tribes in Babylonia. The 34 Brinkman raises the possibility that some Arameans could also be described as Sutians in the texts (Brinkman 1968, 280 and 285–287). 35 Gadd 1954, 192f. and pl. 50 vii 45–76. 36 Fuchs 1994, 155f.: 318–320. 37 See Frame 1992, 45. 38 See Parpola 1970, 128f. (Gambūlu) and 280f. (Puqūdu); Zadok 1985a, 137 (Gambūlu) and 249f. (Piqūdu). The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 95 Puqūdu were primarily found in eastern Babylonia, in the marshy region along the Elamite border, and they are sometimes mentioned in association with the Uqnû River, but they also appear in the environs of Nippur in central Babylonia and around Uruk in southwestern Babylonia. At times they seem to have treated Nippur as a religious center. One letter from the Governor’s Archive at Nippur refers to the entire Puqūdu tribe coming to Nippur for a festival.39 Members of the Puqūdu may have supplied Nippur with some of its wool. Cole has described Nippur as a “frontier settlement” and as a result that city also had close contacts with other tribal groups, both Aramean and Chaldean, in particular the Aramean Gambūlu and Ru a tribes and the Chaldean Bīt-Amukāni and Bīt-Dakkūri tribes.40 The Aramean Dunānu tribe supplied Nippur with cattle; Aramean flocks were brought into Nippur (or its immediate vicinity) for shearing; and some Arameans were employed for agricultural work in the fields surrounding the city.41 The governor of Nippur had a treaty (adê) with the leader of the Chaldean Bīt-Dakkūri and letters in the Governor’s Archive indicate contacts with the Chaldean tribes of Bīt-Amukāni and Bīt-Yakīn. To return to the Puqūdu, they clearly do not appear always to have been viewed with suspicion by the urban populations. Flocks belonging to the temple of Uruk grazed freely with those of the Puqūdu at one point in time.42 Since a “Puqūdu town” is attested in the area of Uruk, some members of this tribe probably lived a settled life during at least part of the year.43 Some Puqūdu were dedicated by Sargon and Sennacherib to the temples of Ishtar of Uruk and Nanāya at Uruk; possibly they had been arrested for anti-Assyrian or criminal actions. Their status came into dispute in the time of Esarhaddon (680–669) and Ashurbanipal.44 Conflict between the Puqūdu and Chaldean Bīt-Amukāni tribes is attested in ABL 275, and ABL 947 may refer to strife between the Puqūdu and Gurasimmu tribes during the reign of Esarhaddon.45 The Gambūlu are found primarily in the Babylonian-Elamite border region. Thus, they were frequently in contact with Elam. At times, they appear to have been under the control of that country, or allied to it, as they migrated across the border or as that border moved. Inscriptions of Sargon II mention eight Gambulian sheikhs who dwelt along the Uqnû River and attribute to that tribe six districts and forty-four strong towns.46 Two of its main settlements were Dūr-Athara (or Dūr-abī- arā) and Ša-pī-Bēl. The former place was renamed Dūr-Nabû by Sargon II after he had deported a large number of its former inhabitants. He claims to have split Babylonia up into two parts, and placed one under the governor of Babylon and the other under 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Cole 1996a, 88–90 no. 27. Cole 1996b, 5f., 29 and 31. Cole 1996b, 26. ABL 268: 8–10. ABL 268: 9. BIN 2, 132; see below. See Frame 1992, 45. Fuchs 1994, 141–145: 272a–c, 281 and 279a–n. 96 Grant Frame the governor of Gambūlu.47 but this system does not appear to have continued into the following reign. Ša-pī-Bēl, located in the marshes, was the base of the Gambulian leader Bēl-iqīša. He submitted to the Assyrian king Esarhaddon and was rewarded by him. Esarhaddon considered Ša-pī-Bēl to be a garrison fortress to ward off attacks from Elam. The town was destroyed by Ashurbanipal in 653 because Bēl-iqīša and his sons Dunanu and Samgunu had turned from Assyria and encouraged the king of Elam to invade Babylonia.48 Located in a strategic area that was of great importance to Elamites, Assyrians and Babylonians, the sheikhs of the Gambūlu must have been under continual external pressure and observation by all the neighboring states. The Gambūlu were only one of several Aramean tribes found on the frontier with Elam under only the loose sovereignty of either Babylonia or Elam. Other tribes included the Tu mūna, Ru a, indaru, Yadburu, and Puqūdu.49 Although some individual Arameans are known to have held legal ownership of land in or near cities in the times of Erība-Marduk, Esarhaddon and possibly Šamaššuma-ukīn,50 just as the Chaldeans, the Aramean tribes seem to have formed more or less semi-independent units located within the Babylonian state and to have followed their own traditions and lifestyles. It was difficult for Babylonian rulers to exercise authority over them. In practice, the various tribal groups lay outside the normal provincial structure. Arameans may have been less likely to assume Babylonian names than their Chaldean counterparts and an Aramean was usually identified with the gentilic form of his tribe rather than his father’s name.51 Nevertheless, it is likely that some individuals bearing Akkadian names were in fact of Aramean (or Chaldean) descent. Some tribesmen, particularly those living in the ancient cities of the land – the area from which most of our information derives – may have consciously attempted to assimilate with the group that dominated those cities. In general, however, Arameans appear to have become less “Babylonian” than Chaldeans, even though their presence in Babylonia preceded that of the Chaldeans. Although a few Arameans are mentioned by name as leaders or as individuals carrying out actions of political importance – for example the Gambulian Bēl-iqīša son of Bunanu (and his two sons Dunanu and Samgunu) and the Puqudian Nabûušēzib – the author is not certain that it can be said that any played a truly national role in events of the time and there is no good evidence of any united Aramean 47 48 49 50 51 E.g., Fuchs 1994, 230f.: 140. E.g., Borger 1956, 53 § 27 episode 13; Borger 1996, 105f. B vi 17–56 and C vii 10–54. See Brinkman 1986, 200f. Brinkman 1995c, 24 n. 45. It is true that most of the numerous individuals mentioned in a list of Puqudians in BIN 2, 132 bear good Akkadian names, as did their fathers. This text, however, comes from the time of Ashurbanipal and these Puqudians had been dedicated to the service of Ishtar of Uruk and Nanāya by Sargon II and Sennacherib. Thus, they may have been in longer and closer contact with city ways than most other Arameans. See Zadok 1977, 181f. and Frame 1992, 201. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 97 action during this time. It was perhaps in the realm of language that the Arameans had their greatest effect on Babylonia. 2. Chaldeans52 The Chaldeans are first clearly attested in the ninth century. An inscription of the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (883–859) states that after he defeated a Babylonian army in Su u in 878 “fear of my dominion reached as far as the land of Karduniaš; the terror (šu-ri-bat) of my weapons overwhelmed Chaldea (KUR Kal-du).”53 It is not known how the Chaldeans arrived in Babylonia or where they came from, and they are rarely mentioned outside Babylonia.54 They were probably West Semites, just like the Arameans, and possibly related to them, but there is not sufficient evidence to make any definite statement on the matter.55 The Chaldeans played an important role in political events in the Neo-Assyrian period, and six of them rose to the height of political power, being recognized as kings of Babylonia. 52 With regard to the Chaldeans, see in particular Brinkman 1968, 260–267; Diterich 1970; Frame 1992, 36–43; Cole 1996b, 30–34; Edzard 1997; and Frame 1997. Zadok 1985b, 49–63 has a detailed discussion of the geographical locations occupied by the various Chaldean tribes. 53 RIMA 2, 214 iii 23f. 54 The term “Chaldean” did, however, come to be used by Greek and Roman writers to refer to the inhabitants of Babylonia in general or more specifically to Babylonian “scholars” (i.e., priests, diviners, astrologers, magicians, etc.). 55 Brinkman 1968, 265–267; Edzard 1977, 291f. 98 Grant Frame Chaldean Kings of Babylonia Ruler No.56 Name 12 Marduk-apla-usur Tribal Affiliation unknown 14 Nabû-šuma-iškun Reign end of 9th or early 8th century at least nine years, ending no later than 760 ca. 760–748 Bīt-Dakkūri 18 (Nabû-)mukīn-zēri 731–729 Bīt-Amukāni 721–710 and 703 692–689 Bīt-Yakīn 13 Erība-Marduk 21 Merodach-baladan II and (Marduk-apla-iddina) 25 29 Mušēzib-Marduk 66 BKA = Babylonian Kinglist A. Bīt-Yakīn Bīt-Dakkūri Dynastic Affiliation DC: KUR Kal-di BALA.BI57 BKA: (BALA E)58 DC: KUR A.AB.BA [BALA.BI]59 BKA: BALA E60 DC: KUR Kal-di61 BKA: BALA E62 BKA: BALA Šá-pii63 BKA: BALA KUR tam<-tim> and ÉRIN ḫa-bi64 BKA: BALA E65 DC = Dynastic Chronicle.67 Five Chaldean tribes are attested: Bīt-Amūkāni, Bīt-Dakkūri, Bīt-Yakīn, Bīt-Sa alli (or Bīt-Ša alli), and Bīt-Silāni (or Bīt-Šilāni/Ašilāni).68 Very little is known about 56 The number in this column refers to the place of that ruler in the so-called “Uncertain,” “Undetermined” or “Mixed” dynasties, comprising the rulers of Babylonia from 978 to 626, i.e., following the Elamite dynasty (984–979) and before the Neo-Babylonian dynasty (625– 539). See J. A. Brinkman in Oppenheim 1977, 339f. and RIMB 2, 90–274 B.6. 57 Grayson 1975, 144 no. 18 vi 3–5. 58 The king’s name is not preserved, but the 22 (or possibly only 12) rulers before (Nabû-)mukīnzēri (no. 18) are said to be of BALA E (Grayson 1980, 93 iv 6 and 96 commentary to iv 6). 59 Grayson 1975, 144 no. 18 vi 8; cf. vi 5–7 (wholly or partially restored). 60 Grayson 1980, 92f. iv 1 and 6; see n. 58 above. 61 Grayson 1975, 144 no. 18 vi 9; cf. vi 8 and 10f. (wholly or partially restored). The king’s name is not preserved in the text. 62 Grayson 1980, 92f. iv 2 and 6; see n. 58 above. 63 Grayson 1980, 93 iv 7. 64 Grayson 1980, 93 iv 10 and 14. 65 Grayson 1980, 93 iv 18. 66 Grayson 1980, 90–96 § 3.3. 67 Grayson 1975, 139–144 no. 18. Strictly speaking, this is not a chronicle but rather a type of bilingual kinglist, as became clear when Finkel discovered two new exemplars of the text that preserved more of the inscription, in particular the beginning (Finkel 1980, 65–72 and 76f.). 68 Brinkman 1977, 306; Lipiński 2000, 419f.; Frahm 2003, 146 commentary to line 11. Perhaps better Bīt-Aw(ūk)āni than Bīt-Amūkāni; see the chapter by R. Zadok in this volume, sub A.b.α.4. For the sake of consistency, the names Bīt-Sa alli and Bīt-Silāni will be used in this study, even for references in texts where /š/ was written rather than /s/. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 99 the last two tribes and they are normally thought to have disappeared from history early in the seventh century, following Sennacherib’s deportation of a large number of them from Babylonia.69 However, an unpublished fragmentary inscription of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II (604–562) in the Metropolitan Museum of Art mentions the land of Silāni (KUR Si-la-a-ni7) in connection with Bīt-Dakkūri and likely Bīt-Amukāni: i' 1´ 2´ 3´ ii' 1 [La-ra-akki Dil-batk]i MARAD.DAki [KUR Pu-qu-du KU]R É-Da-ku-ru [KUR É-A-mu-ka-n]i7 KUR Si-la-a-ni7 KUR bi-ra-a-tì BÀ[D.AN.KI]70 Sometimes the texts state how many individuals were deported and who the deportees were, but more often no numbers are given and/or it is not absolutely clear who was deported. The Assyrian kings Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II and Sennacherib claim to have deported almost half a million people from Babylonia, over half of them Chaldeans.71 The following chart gives only those cases where the numbers of the deportees are mentioned. 69 Zadok 1985b, 51f. and 57f. 70 MMA 86.11.284 will be edited by the author in the forthcoming fourth volume of Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. See also Da Riva 2008, 20 (C41 line 95 KUR É-[Sila-a-ni7]) and 22 (C041 ii 9’ KUR É-Si-la-a-ni7 ). 71 Brinkman 1979, 227 and 242 nn. 27–31; 1984, 20 n. 8. With regard to Assyrian deportations in general, see Oded 1979. 100 Grant Frame Deportations of Chaldeans and Arameans (Occasions citing actual numbers)72 Ruler Tiglath-pileser III Number of Deportees 155,000 Sargon II 15,000+ ? 600 ? 5,400 18,430 Sennacherib 90,580 208,000 Deportees Bīt-Silāni and Bīt-Sa alli73 55,000 from the city Šarrabānu of Bīt-Silāni 30,000 from the cities Tarbāsu and Yaballu 40,500 from Bīt-Sa alli and the city Dūr-Bāli āya74 Arameans75 the city Amlātu of the Damūnu tribe76 Der?77 Dūr-At ara/Abī- arā (Gambulian center), during Sargon’s 12th palû78 Bīt-Yakīn, during Sargon’s 13th palû79 especially Urbu, Arameans, Chaldeans, and Elamites; after 1st campaign80 Although the accuracy of these figures may be questioned, the numbers were surely large. The Bīt-Silāni, Bīt-Sa alli and Bīt-Yakīn tribes basically disappear from mention in cuneiform texts after the time of Sennacherib, although the last tribe at least in part merged itself into the Sealand in general. Descendants of Merodachbaladan based in the Sealand continued to give trouble to the Assyrians. Ashurbanipal also deported Chaldeans and Arameans, including some Gambulians, but no particular numbers are given for those removed. Some Aramean tribes suffered because of the actions of more than one Assyrian ruler. For example, Tiglath-pileser III and Sennacherib both deported members of the Aramean Puqūdu, Ru a and Lītawu tribes,81 while Sargon II, Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal each 72 With regard to the numbers in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions and the following figures in particular, see De Odorico 1995, especially 37, 39, 55, 58, 101, 113f., 172f., 183, 189, 198f. and 204. 73 Tadmor 1994, 194 Summ. 11: 12–15. 74 Tadmor 1994, 160–162 Summ. 7:1 6–21. 75 Tadmor 1994, 44 Ann. 9: 9f. 76 Tadmor 1994, 66 Ann. 13*: 3–5. 77 Tadmor 1994, 66 Ann. 13*: 3–5. Der is not, of course, a Chaldean or Aramean tribe, but it is mentioned immediately after the 600 captives from the city Amlātu in the inscription of Tiglath-pileser III and it was located in an area in which there were numerous Arameans. 78 Fuchs 1994, 140: 271. 79 Fuchs 1994, 164: 354. Some or all of those deported were resettled in Kummuḫu (Fuchs 1994, 178f.: 408f.; for the identification of “this city” with Kummuḫu, see ibid. 338 n. 390). 80 OIP 2, 55: 60; Frahm 2003, 140–149: 60. 81 Tadmor 1994, 122 Summ. 1: 12–13; OIP 2, 25 i 43–53; 54: 55f.; 57: 14–16 (also members of several other Aramean tribes); Frahm 2003, 140: 56. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 101 deported Gambulians,82 undoubtedly in a desire to pacify that important area that provided a buffer zone between Elam and areas controlled by Assyria. Fig. 2: Depiction of a Chaldean Walled Settlement on the Balawat Gates of Shalmaneser III (Band 11 of door C, upper register). K. Leaman-Insua, after Schachner 2007 pl. 11. Fig. 3: Depiction of a Chaldean Walled Settlement on the Balawat Gates of Shalmaneser III (Band 11 of door C, lower register). K. Leaman-Insua, after Schachner 2007 pl. 11. 82 Fuchs 1994, 138–140: 266–272; OIP 2, 25 i 43–53, 54: 55f.; 57: 14–16; Frahm 2003, 140: 55f.; Borger 1996, 39 A iii 61–67 and F iii 2–4. 102 Grant Frame Fig. 4: Depiction of a Chaldean Walled Settlement on the Balawat Gates of Shalmaneser III (Band O of door C, lower register). K. Leaman-Insua, after Schachner 2007 pl. 15. The Chaldeans were located predominantly in southern and western Babylonia. Although they may once have been nomads, from the earliest times that they appear in documents, the Chaldeans were at least partially settled and walled settlements of Chaldean leaders are depicted on the Balawat Gates.83 Inscriptions of Sennacherib state that at least some Chaldeans and Arameans lived in the cities of Kutha, ursagkalama, Kish, Nippur, Sippar, and Uruk.84 He claims to have conquered and destroyed 88 (variant 89) walled cities and 820 villages that belonged to the Chaldeans (with some variants to these numbers). A few of these cities were among the oldest centres of the land (e.g., Eridu and Larsa).85 Assuming that the settlements mentioned in the list of places belonging to the Bīt-Dakkūri, Bīt-Sa alli, BītAmukāni, and Bīt-Yakīn – or at least places situated within the areas that those tribes moved about – are presented in a north(west) to south(east) direction and making use of information from other texts, it seems likely that these tribes could be found roughly as follows: 1) Bīt-Dakkūri: along the Euphrates River from Borsippa to at least Marad.86 Marad (likely modern Wannat as-Sad ūn, located about 55 km southeast of Babylon) and Dūr-Ladīni (possibly Tell Khaled, located several km southeast of Hilla) were said by Sennacherib’s scribes to have been among the cities of BītDakkūri captured by the Assyrian king. Šamaš-ibni of this tribe is said to have 83 See Schachner 2007 pls. 11, 15 and 54a. See also Figs. 2–4 for depictions of these walled settlements. 84 OIP 2, 25 i 39–42; Frahm 2003, 139: 52. 85 OIP 2, 53f.: 48, 50; 56: 11; Frahm 2003, 139: 48, 50, 156f. 86 See Zadok 1985b, 54–57. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 103 2) 3) 4) 5) seized land belonging to citizens of Babylon and Borsippa.87 ABL 853 refers to a Dakkurian getting control of Marad; cf. ABL 1154+ that mentions both Marad and Nabû-(u)šallim mār Dakkūru. Bīt-Sa alli: south of Bīt-Dakkūri.88 Bīt-Amukāni: from southeast of Nippur to the area of Uruk.89 Larak (likely located east or northeast of Nippur) is listed as belonging to the BītAmūkāni and that tribe is known to have been active in the area of Uruk during the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn Revolt. TCL 12, 90 (reign of Nabonidus) mentions land in Bīt-Amukāni that appears to have been located near Uruk. According to Assyrian inscriptions, Šapīya (Assyrian Sapīya) was the capital of (Nabû)mukīn-zēri of Bīt-Amūkāni (731–729).90 Bīt-Yakīn: along the lower Euphrates and amid the marshes of the Sealand.91 Bīt-Silāni: likely near Bīt-Amūkāni.92 Šarrabānu (Sarrabānu in Assyrian texts), its royal city, had been annexed to BītAmūkāni by the time of Sennacherib.93 Reliefs from the palaces of Neo-Assyrian kings indicate that Chaldeans were engaged in agriculture (including the cultivation of date-palm trees) and animal husbandry (cattle and horses). Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (856–824) state that two Chaldean rulers (Mušallim-Marduk of Bīt-Amukāni and Adīnu of Bīt-Dakkūri) brought silver, gold, tin, bronze, elephant tusks, elephant hides, ebony and sissoowood (or meskannu-wood) as tribute to the Assyrian king and inscriptions from the time of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727) refer to “gold ore, silver, precious stones, ebony, wood called ‘brightness,’ cattle (and) sheep” as being items of tribute sent by Chaldeans.94 Most of these items would not have been found naturally in southern Mesopotamia. The Chaldeans (or their sheikhs) probably obtained them by means of their control of the trade routes that ran through their territories. Shalmaneser III, who fought Chaldeans in Babylonia in 850, says they were located in the marshes at the head of the Persian Gulf and along the lower Euphrates, and mentions the three main tribes. Shalmaneser III aided the Babylonian ruler Marduk-zākir-šumi put down a rebellion led by the latter’s own brother (Mardukbēl-usāti) and then proceeded to go down to Chaldea (KUR Kal-di), capture the fortress of Adīnu, ruler of Bīt-Dakkūri, and destroy it. Thereupon, Shalmaneser 87 88 89 90 91 E.g., Borger 1956, 52 § 27, episode 12. See Zadok 1985b, 58. See Zadok 1985b, 58–62. Tadmor 1994, 162 Summ. 7: 23 and 196 Summ. 11: 16; Frame 2009, 29. See Zadok 1985b, 62f. For the connection of the Bīt-Yakīn with the Sealand, see Frame 1992, 40–42. 92 See Zadok 1985b, 57f. 93 Tadmor 1994, 122 Summ. 1: 8f.; Frahm 2003, 138f. lines 42–47 and 146 commentary to line 11. 94 RIMA 3, 139 A.0.102.61; Tadmor 1994, 196 Summ. 11: 19. See Brinkman 1995c, 24. 104 Grant Frame received tribute from Adīnu, from Bīt-Yakīn, and from Mušallim-Marduk of BītAmukāni. “I received tribute from the kings of Chaldea (KUR Kal-di). The terror (šu-ri-bat) of my weapons overwhelmed (them) as far as the Bitter (Sea).”95 In 814, Marduk-balāssu-iqbi, king of Babylon, mustered the lands of Chaldea, Elam, Namri, and Aram (A-ru-mu) and did battle with the Assyrian king ŠamšīAdad V (823–811) at Dūr-Papsukkal. According to the Synchronistic History, after conquering much of eastern Babylonia and capturing its king in 812, Šamšī-Adad went to Chaldea and received tribute from “the kings of Chaldea (KUR Kal-di).”96 Adad-nārārī III (810–783) later claimed that: “All the kings of Chaldea became my vassals (and) I imposed upon them in perpetuity (the payment of) tax (and) tribute,”97 thus claiming like his father and grandfather that he had received tribute from Chaldeans. However, it was during the time of this Assyrian king and his three successors – a period of relative weakness in Assyria – that the first Chaldean rulers of Babylonia appeared. As already mentioned, at least six Chaldeans gained recognition as rulers of Babylonia, including individuals from each of the three major tribes. Their success in being acknowledged king of Babylon was undoubtedly facilitated by the lack of an established royal line in Babylonia; between 810 and 626 there is only one clear case of a Babylonian king being succeeded by his son.98 The first Chaldean ruler of Babylonia was Marduk-apla-usur, who reigned at some point at the end of the ninth or early eighth century. Almost nothing is known about him or his reign; even his tribal affiliation is not known. The Dynastic Chronicle appears to say that he was from a Chaldean dynasty (KUR Kal-di BALA.BI), while the Babylonian Kinglist A may have assigned him to BALA E, where BALA E is normally assumed to refer to a dynasty from Babylon.99 He was the first of three successive rulers of Babylonia who were of Chaldean descent. Marduk-apla-usur’s successor was Erība-Marduk, a member of the Bīt-Yakīn tribe. Unfortunately, it is not known if there was any family relationship between the two individuals. Erība-Marduk sat on the throne of Babylon for at least nine years, with his reign ending no later than 760. According to the Dynastic Chronicle, he was of a Sealand dynasty, while Babylonian Kinglist A apparently assigns him to BALA E.100 He was the son of Marduk-šākin-šumi and a seal of one Marduk-šākin-šumi, son of Marduk-zēra-uballit and descendant of Yakīnu, is attested.101 Marduk-šākinšumi may be one of the kings of Chaldea who gave tribute to Adad-nārārī III. 95 RIMA 3, 31f. vi 5–7; 37 ii 45–54; 46: 24'–29'; 53 ii 35–44; 66: 77–84; 138 A.0.102.59. The passage quoted is ibid. 66: 84. 96 Grayson 1975, 168f. no. 21 iii 6'–iv 14; RIMA 3, 188 iv 37–45. 97 RIMA 3, 213: 22f. 98 Brinkman 1984, 16. 99 Grayson 1975, 144 no. 18 vi 3–5; Grayson 1980, 92f. iv 6 (see n. 58 above); RIMB 2, 111 B.6.12. 100 Grayson 1975, 144 no. 18 vi 6–8; Grayson 1980, 92f. iv 1 and 6 (see n. 58 above). 101 RIMB 2, 113 B.6.10.2002. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 105 Nabû-šuma-iškun, who followed Erība-Marduk as ruler of Babylonia, was a member of the Bīt-Dakkūri, a different tribe to the one to which his predecessor had belonged. There is no information on how he came to the throne or how ErībaMarduk’s reign ended. Nabû-šuma-iškun reigned for at least thirteen years (ca. 760– 748) and was apparently said to be of a Chaldean dynasty in the Dynastic Chronicle. However, Babylonian Kinglist A appears to include him in BALA E.102 His reign was not a successful one: a. In his 5th and 6th years, the god Nabû did not leave Borsippa to go to Babylon (for the important New Year’s festival) according to the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn Chronicle.103 b. An historical-literary text from Uruk (a copy from a damaged original) ascribes various sacrilegious and criminal actions to Nabû-šuma-iškun (who is not called “king” in the text) and clearly reflects discontent with his reign on the part of the text’s author. Nabû-šuma-iškun had apparently favored Chaldeans and Arameans at the expense of the older population of the land. Among other actions, he plundered Esagila, seized people and their property without just cause, gave people as gifts to Chaldea and Aramu, and burned alive sixteen Kuthians.104 c. An inscription of the governor of Borsippa describes turmoil in that city. Apparently there was fighting among the people of Babylon, Borsippa, Dilbat, and Dutēti, as well as Chaldeans and Arameans, that resulted in people being killed.105 Nabû-šuma-iškun was succeeded as king by Nabû-nāsir (767–734). It is not known whether or not the two were related in any way. The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III fought with three Chaldean tribes during his reign and received tribute from the two others. In 745, acting in support of Nabû-nāsir, he devastated Bīt-Silāni and BītAmūkāni. Following the death of Nabû-nāsir in 734, two individuals briefly occupied the throne of Babylon: Nabû-nādin-zēri (733–732), who was Nabû-nāsir’s son, and Nabû-šuma-ukīn II (just over one month in 732). The latter was forcibly removed by (Nabû-)mukīn-zēri (731–729), a member of Bīt-Amukāni.106 According to Babylonian Kinglist A, the new Chaldean ruler came from a Šapî dynasty (BALA Šá-pi-i); Šapî/Šapīya was the main city of Bīt-Amūkāni.107 In 731–729 Tiglathpileser III invaded Babylonia, defeated (Nabû-)mukīn-zēri, and claimed the throne of Babylon for himself. He devastated Bīt-Silāni, Bīt-Sa alli and Bīt-Amukāni. As a result he received tribute from Balāssu of Bīt-Dakkūri and Merodach-baladan II of Bīt-Yakīn, the latter of whom he called “king of the Sealand.” Tiglath-pileser’s royal 102 Grayson 1975, 144 no. 18 vi 8–11 (royal name restored); Grayson 1980, 92f. iv 2 and 6 (see n. 58 above); Frame 1998. 103 Grayson, 1975, 130 no. 15: 22. 104 Cole 1994. 105 RIMB 2, 124 i 15'–21'. 106 Grayson 1975, 72 no. 1 i 16–18. 107 Grayson 1980, 93 iv 7; Frame 2009, 29. 106 Grant Frame inscriptions describe his actions against the Chaldeans vividly: “I smashed Bīt-Silāni in its entirety like a pot. I laid waste to Šarrabānu, their great royal city, as though by a flood.” “I threshed Bīt-Amūkāni as though with a threshing sledge. I took all of its people (and) its property to Assyria.” “I destroyed Bīt-Silāni, Bīt-Amūkāni, and BītSa alli in their entirety, like mounds after a flood, and turned them into mounds of ruins (literally: mounds and ruins).”108 When Tiglath-pileser III’s son and successor Shalmaneser V (726–722) died, a member of the Chaldean tribe of Bīt-Yakīn, Merodach-baladan II (Marduk-aplaiddina), led a rebellion that regained Babylonia’s independence. Merodach-baladan occupied the throne of Babylon on two separate occasions: 721–710 and 703 (nine months). According to Babylonian Kinglist A, his first period as king was as a member of a Sea<land> dynasty (BALA KUR tam<-tim>) and the second was as ÉRIN ḫa-bi; ḫa-bi likely stands for ḫa-bi-gal and anigalbat, thus “soldier of Hani<galbat>.”109 (Note that Sennacherib was said to be of BALA ḫa-bi-gal.110) Merodach-baladan II was a descendant (possibly grandson) of Erība-Marduk and probably the most important Chaldean ruler of Babylonia; he and his sons and grandsons were leaders in the fight against Assyria.111 Merodach-baladan II had given tribute to Tiglath-pileser III, but when Sargon II (721–705) usurped the throne of Assyria, he presumably thought it was an opportune time to attempt to regain Babylonia’s independence and himself occupy the throne of Babylon. As we all know, he was successful and managed to hold back the Assyrians and keep the throne until 710, when Assyrian forces forced him to flee from Babylon. Sargon’s Display Inscription states: Marduk-apla-iddina (Merodach-baladan II), descendant of Yakīn, the king of Chaldea, a murderer (literally: seed of murder) (and) exact copy of an evil gallû-demon, who did not fear the word of the lord of lords (Marduk), put his trust in the sea (with its) mighty waves, broke (his) loyalty oath (sworn) by the great gods, and withheld his tribute. He turned to the Elamite umbanigash ( umban-nikash) for aid, caused all the Sutians, the people of the steppe, to rebel against me, and prepared for battle. He imposed himself on the land of Sumer and Akkad and for 12 years he ruled and governed Babylon, the city of the Enlil of the gods (Marduk), against the will of the gods … He gathered together the inhabitants of his cities (literally: his inhabited cities) and the gods dwelling in them (his cities), and he brought them into the city Dūr-Yakīn. With regard to the citizens of Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, and Borsippa who through no fault of their own were held captive there (Dūr-Yakīn), I put an end to their imprisonment and let them see the light (of day). With regard to their fields, which long ago, while the land was 108 109 110 111 Tadmor 1994, 122 Summ. 1: 8f. and 11f., and 162 Summ. 7: 25. Grayson 1980, 93 iv 10 and 14. Grayson 1980, 93 iv 12. See Brinkman 1964 for a thorough study of this Chaldean ruler. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 107 in a state of disorder, the Sutians had taken away and appropriated for their own – I put (those) Sutians, the people of the steppe, to the sword. I reassigned to them (the citizens of Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, and Borsippa) their territories (whose boundary lines) had come to be disregarded during the troubled period in the land. I (re-)established the freedom of Ur, Uruk, Eridu, Larsa, Kullab, Kissik, (and) Nēmed-Laguda. Moreover, I returned their gods that had been carried off as booty to their cult centers and I restored to their former status their regular offerings that had been interrupted.112 Sargon claims that citizens and temple personnel of Babylon and Borsippa welcomed his victory over Merodach-baladan II and invited him into Babylon.113 Is this evidence of anti-Chaldean sentiment or simply pragmatic thinking on the part of citizens of Babylon and Borsippa? Or is it merely Assyrian propaganda? Among the matters worth noting in this episode are the Assyrian vilification of Merodachbaladan II, the claim that help came to Merodach-baladan from Elam, and the statement that Merodach-baladan had taken as hostages people and gods (i.e., divine statues) of various Babylonian cities, presumably in part to ensure the loyalty of those cities. We should also note that Sargon claims to have returned the hostages to their cities and to have granted privileges to some Babylonian cities, undoubtedly in an attempt to win the support of those cities and indicate that it was he, and not a Chaldean, who was their real friend and supporter. Letters and other texts indicate that Merodach-baladan II had received help in opposing Sargon in 710 from the governors of Borsippa and Nippur and “officials of Bīt-Dakkūri,” as well as the army of Bīt-Yakīn, his own tribe.114 Sargon II succeeded in expelling Merodachbaladan II from Babylon in 710 and himself ascended the throne of Babylon, although he did not capture the latter’s tribal stronghold of Dūr-Yakīn until 707. As already mentioned, he claims to have deported over 105,000 Arameans and Chaldeans to other parts of his realm. Sennacherib (704–681), Sargon II’s successor as king of Assyria, had a great deal of problem controlling Babylonia. A rebellion put Marduk-zākir-šumi II on the throne of Babylon for one month in 703, but he was quickly ousted by Merodachbaladan II, who occupied the throne for a second reign, but one that only lasted for nine months before Sennacherib forced him to flee. For three years (702–700), Bēlibni, a native of Babylon, ruled over Babylonia as an Assyrian vassal. For some reason (presumably disloyalty or incompetence), Sennacherib deposed Bēl-ibni and put his own son, Aššur-nādin-šumi, on the throne of Babylon. The latter governed Babylonia for six years (699–694) until an Elamite army invaded and carried him off to Elam, where he disappears from history. The individual whom the Elamites installed on the throne, Nergal-ušēzib, a member of the Babylonian family of Ga al, 112 Fuchs 1994, 225–230: 121–137. 113 Brinkman 1964, 20. 114 Cole 1996b, 33. 108 Grant Frame lasted for about a year until he was captured by Sennacherib’s forces in a battle near Nippur. The Assyrians, however, did not manage to gain control of Babylon and a sixth Chaldean, Mušēzib-Marduk, sat on the throne there and kept it for four years (692–689). He was a member of the Bīt-Dakkūri tribe and, according to Babylonian Kinglist A, from BALA E. During at least the last fifteen months of his reign, Babylon was under siege by Assyrian forces. The city eventually fell in Kislīmu 689 and Mušēzib-Marduk was taken to Assyria.115 Mušēzib-Marduk was the last Chaldean ruler of Babylonia during the NeoAssyrian period and detailed information on the involvement of Chaldeans in Babylonia’s political life during the remainder of that period can be found in Frame 1992. Whether any or all of the rulers of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty (625–539) were Chaldean is uncertain, even though that period is often referred to as the “Chaldean period” or “Chaldean dynasty.”116 During the Neo-Assyrian period, even if a rebellion placed a member of the older Babylonian population on throne, that individual was often quickly replaced by a Chaldean:117 Nabû-šuma-ukīn II was soon replaced by Mukīn-zēri of Bīt-Amūkāni, Marduk-zākir-šumi II by Merodachbaladan II of Bīt-Yakīn, and Nergal-ušēzib by Mušēzib-Marduk of Bīt-Dakkūri (although Nergal-ušēzib was really captured by Assyrians and not removed by Mušēzib-Marduk). The Chaldeans who managed to be acknowledged as legitimate rulers of Babylonia were assigned to various dynasties in the cuneiform sources. The Dynastic Chronicle, which only preserves statements about the first three Chaldean rulers, assigns Marduk-apla-usur and Nabû-šuma-iškun to a Chaldean dynasty, and Erība-Marduk, who reigned between them, to a Sealand dynasty. This is not totally surprising since the base of Erība-Marduk’s tribe, the Bīt-Yakīn, was in the Sealand (see below). Moreover, we can note that in Sargon II’s royal inscriptions the BītYakīn are mentioned separately from the other Chaldean tribes.118 Babylonian Kinglist A apparently assigned all three of those rulers, as well as Mušēzib-Marduk, to BALA E, which presumably means a dynasty from Babylon; however, it also assigns Erība-Marduk’s descendant Merodach-baladan II to a Sea<land> dynasty (BALA tam<-tim>), at least for his first period of rule. Why it used the term ÉRIN ḫa-bi for his second period of rule is mysterious, just as is why it called Sennacherib ÉRIN ḫa-bi-gal for his own first period of rule (704–703), although ḫa-bi-gal 115 Grayson 1980, 93 iv 18; RIMB 2, 162 B.6.29. The Babylonian ruler Bēl-ibni and some of the rulers before (Nabû-)mukīn-zēri were also of BALA E according to Babylonian Kinglist A. For Sennacherib’s involvement with Babylonia, see Brinkman 1965b, 244–246; Brinkman 1973; and Levine 1982. 116 Jursa has recently suggested that Nabopolassar (625–605), the founder of the “dynasty” – which was actually comprised of three different families, although the first ruler of the second family, Neriglissar (559–556), was married to a daughter of a ruler from the first family – may have been the son of Kudurru, a former governor of Uruk (Jursa 2007). 117 Noted by Brinkman 1984, 23. 118 See Frame 1992, 41. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 109 presumably stands for anigalbat. Babylonian Kinglist A also assigns (Nabû-)mukīn-zēri to a dynasty from Šapīya (Šá-pi-i), which undoubtedly refers to his tribe’s (Bīt-Amūkāni’s) major center. The leaders of the Chaldean tribes were normally called collectively raʾšānu (NB) or raʾsānu/reʾsānu (NA), and each tribe appears to have had only one such leader. As already mentioned, the leaders of the Aramean tribes, on the other hand, were called nasīkāni/nasīkāti (sing. nasīku/nasikku) and some Aramean tribes had more than one such leader.119 A tribal ruler was often designated simply as the son of the eponymous ancestor of his tribe (e.g., mār Dakkūri). Assyrian sources sometimes referred to particularly important Chaldean tribal leaders as kings (e.g., Merodach-baladan II of Bīt-Yakīn and Šamaš-ibni of Bīt-Dakkūri), pointing to their power and influence.120 Although the Chaldeans maintained their own tribal structure and distinct identity, individual Chaldeans often took Babylonian names,121 became involved in Babylonian political life, and turned to agriculture for their livelihood, thus in effect becoming “Babylonianized.” Chaldean tribes were referred to as the “House of PN” (e.g., Bīt-Amūkāni), with PN standing for the eponymous ancestor of the clan or tribe. Individual Chaldeans were normally referred to as “PN1 son of PN2,” with PN2 indicating the eponymous ancestor of the individual’s tribe – e.g., Ea-zēra-(i)qīša mār Amūkāni. The descendants of Merodach-baladan II, however, became deeply involved with the political events of the period and were often referred to by the more conventional Babylonian manner (e.g., “Nabû-zēr-kitti-līšir mār Marduk-aplaiddina”) in letters and Assyrian royal inscriptions.122 The Neo-Assyrian kings found it very difficult to control Babylonia and, in particular, the various tribes located there.123 The leaders of Chaldean tribes frequently were the ones leading the opposition to Assyrian overlordship during the eighth and seventh centuries. Chaldean kings of Babylonia, such as Merodachbaladan II, often won support of older, native Babylonians, Arameans and others (particularly Elamites, although sometimes for payment) against Assyria. Although some/many Chaldeans lived a settled existence, they were still more practiced in making use of the natural environment to avoid Assyrian military actions and to 119 The Chaldean leaders could at times also be called nasīkāni (OIP 2, 47 vi 25). 120 Frame 1992, 37f. 121 It is worth noting that all the “leaders” of the Chaldean tribes listed in the Table below have good Akkadian names, except for Adīnu (the head of Bīt-Dakkūri in the time of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III) and Zaqiru (the head of Bīt-Sa alli in the time of Tiglath-pileser III). The ancestral names of the tribes are also not of Akkadian derivation. With regard to these names and to other non-Akkadian names borne by Arameans, Chaldeans and Arabs in Babylonia during this period, see the chapter by R. Zadok in this volume. 122 Frame 1992, 37. 123 For an overview of Assyria’s problem in governing Babylonia, see Brinkman 1973 and Frame 2008a. 110 Grant Frame harry enemy forces than the normal residents of cities and towns would have been.124 As already mentioned, the Chaldean tribes regularly led opposition to Assyria. (Nabû)-mukīn-zēri of Bīt-Amūkāni, Merodach-baladan II of Bīt-Yakīn, MušēzibMarduk of Bīt-Dakkūri, and Nabû-bēl-šumāti of Bīt-Yakīn were among the most prominent leaders. Occasionally Assyrian rulers killed or deposed Chaldean chieftains, presumably in order to replace them with individuals friendlier to Assyria. For example, Esarhaddon replaced Šamaš-ibni of Bīt-Dakkūri with Nabûušallim, son of Balāssu. Assyrians sometimes held important Chaldeans as hostages for their family’s/tribe’s loyalty. This is not to imply, however, that the Chaldeans always opposed Assyria; indeed some are known to have fought for Assyria against Babylonian rebels and to have served in the Assyrian army.125 Chaldean Leaders126 Bīt-Amūkāni Mušallim-Marduk (Nabû-)mukīn-zēri, king time of Shalmaneser III 731–729 gave tribute to Shalmaneser III in 850127 deposed by Tiglath-pileser III; besieged in Šapīya, but not captured father of Šuma-ukīn128 Ea-zēra-(i)qīša 673 > time of Ashurbanipal held hostage in Assyria during rebellion of 652–648 his mother was Humbušte129 ? Kudurru ca. rebellion of 652–648? position in tribe uncertain130 124 Frame 1992, 38. 125 E.g., ABL 1292 (= SAA 1, 18): 5'–7'; Dalley and Postgate 1984, 35; 38f. 126 In this chart the term “leaders” is used somewhat loosely. It is sometimes impossible to state with certainty that an individual was the actual head of the respective Chaldean tribe, but the individuals in question all appear to have been important or influential individuals. 127 RIMA 3, 32 vi 7; 46: 29'; 139 A.0.102.61; PNA 2/2, 775 sub Mušallim-Marduk 1. 128 See above. Tadmor 1994, 162 Summ. 7: 23 and 196 Summ. 11: 16; Brinkman 1995a; RIMB 2, 132 B.6.18; PNA 2/2, 764f. sub Mukīn-zēri 1. 129 BM 118970 (Frame 2013 no. 4); ABL 896; Frame 1992, 172f.; PNA 1/1, 94 sub Aia-zēruqīša. For his sons, see Borger 1996, 312 no. 63 and Frame 1992, 162 n. 137 and 173. 130 Bīt-Amūkāni seems to have been under the control of one Kudurru at some point in time; he was required to deal with raids by members of the Puqūdu. ABL 258, 275 and 279; Frame 1992, 39 and 169 n. 180; PNA 2/1, 634 sub Kudurru 24. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 111 Larak131 Nādinu time of Tiglath-pileser III gave tribute to Tiglath-pileser III in 731132 time of Shalmaneser III ca. time of Adad-nārārī III gave tribute to Shalmaneser III in 850133 Bīt-Dakkūri Adīnu Nabû-šumu-līšir his position in the tribe is uncertain but a stone weight from his “palace” is attested134 Nabû-šuma-iškun, king ca. 760–748 some discontent/unrest is attested during his reign135 Balāssu time of Tiglath-pileser III 692–689 gave tribute to Tiglath-pileser III ca. 731136 Mušēzib-Marduk, king Šamaš-ibni ?–678 before he seized the throne of Babylon, he had been an official of the governor of La īru, an outlaw residing in the marshes, and a fugitive in Elam; carried off to Assyria following Sennacherib’s siege of Babylon137 called king (of Bīt-Dakkūri) by Esarhaddon; taken to Assyria and executed138 131 Larak is said to be part of Bīt-Amūkāni in an inscription of Sennacherib (Frahm 2003, 138f. lines 42–47). In one inscription of Tiglath-pileser III, Nādinu of Larak is mentioned together with the leader of Bīt-Dakkūri (Tadmor 1994, 162 Summ. 7: 26), and in another inscription of that king (Tadmor 1994, 196 Summ. 11: 18f., partially restored) he is described as a [sheikh] of Chaldea, mentioned between sheikhs of Bīt-Dakkūri and Bīt-Yakīn. 132 Tadmor 1994, 162 Summ. 7: 26 and 196 Summ. 11: 18; PNA 2/2, 919 sub Nādinu 1. 133 RIMA 3, 31 vi 7; 46: 28'; 139 A.0.102.61; 145f. A.0.102.79; RIMB 2, 107f. B.6.7.2001; PNA 1/1, 53 sub Adīnu 1. 134 RIMB 2, 112 B.6.10.2001. According to Brinkman (1968, 216), it is possible that he was a minor Chaldean prince sometime between 811 and 770 and that he was one of the Chaldean “kings” from whom Adad-nārārī III received tribute (RIMA 3, 213: 22f.). 135 See above. Cole 1994; RIMB 2, 117–126 B.6.14. 136 Tadmor 1994, 162 Summ. 7: 26 and 196 Summ. 11: 18; PNA 1/2, 256 sub Balāssu 1. ND 2603 (Saggs 1955, 32–35 and pl. IX; Saggs 2001, 25f. and pl. 4) has been interpreted to indicate that Balāssu was the maternal uncle of Mukīn-zēri (then leader of the Bīt-Amukāni and king of Babylonia) (Saggs 1955, 34 commentary to line 13'; PNA 1/2, 256) or of Merodach-Baladan II (leader of the Bīt-Yakīn) (PNA 2/2, 764). It would not be surprising if the ruling families of two of the Chaldean tribes were connected by marriage. Unfortunately the text is damaged and the context is not clear as to who is the uncle and who the nephew. It is possible that some other individual was in fact being referred to by the phrase “son of my sister” (line 13'). 137 See above. Brinkman 1984, 62–68; Brinkman 1995b; RIMB 2, 162 B.6.29. 138 Borger 1956, 33 § 21: 22f. and 52 § 27 Episode 12; Grayson 1975, 83 no. 1 iv 1f. (partially 112 Grant Frame Nabû-ušallim Kudurru ca. 678 > time of Ashurbanipal son of Balāssu 675 son of Šamaš-ibni appointed by Esarhaddon to replace Šamašibni139 carried off to Assyria and executed140 Bīt-Saʾalli Zaqiru time of Tiglath-pileser III captured and carried off to Assyria by Tiglath-pileser III after siege of Dūrbalihāya which began ca. 731141 time of Tiglath-pileser III captured and killed by Tiglath-pileser III after siege of Šarrabānu which began ca. 731142 Bīt-Silāni Nabû-ušabši Bīt-Yakīn “son of” Yakīnu time of Shalmaneser III Marduk-šākin-šumi ca. 800 Erība-Marduk king Merodach-baladan II, king 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 gave tribute to Shalmaneser III in 850143 son of Marduk-zēra-uballit144 9 (+) years, ending son of Marduk-šākin-šumi145 no later than 760 time of gave tribute ca. 731; called king of the Tiglath-pileser III; Sealand by Tiglath-pileser III 721–710, 703 descendant of Erība-Marduk146 restored) and 126 no. 14: 10f.; Frame 1992, 79f.; RIMB 2, 266–268 B.6.35.5; Frame 2008b, 617. BBSt 10 rev. 10 and 45; Frame 1992, 79, 235 and 238; PNA 2/2, 903f. sub Nabû-ušallim 11. Grayson 1975, 84 no. 1 iv 14f. and 126 no. 14: 19; Frame 1992, 83f. and 241 n. 156; PNA 2/1, 633 sub Kudurru 12?. Tadmor 1994, 162 Summ. 7: 19 and 194 Summ. 11: 12. Tadmor 1994, 122 Summ. 1: 9f., 160 Summ. 7: 15, and 194 Summ. 11: 12; PNA 2/2, 901 sub Nabû-ušabši 1. RIMA 3, 31f. vi 7; PNA 2/1, 489 sub Iakīnu c.1'. RIMB 2, 113 B.6.10.2002. He may have been one of the Chaldean “kings” from whom Adad-nārārī III received tribute (Brinkman 1968, 216). See above. RIMB 2, 114–116 B.6.13. It is likely that all of his reign, or at least the largest part of it, was in the early eighth century, lasting until at least ca. 780. See above. Tadmor 1994, 162–164 Summ. 7: 26–28 and 196 Summ. 11: 19 (name restored); RIMB 2, 135–142 B.6.21 and 156 B.6.25; Brinkman 1964; PNA 2/2, 705–710 sub Mardukapla-iddina 1. Adīnu, a son of his sister, was captured when Sennacherib’s forces moved south against Merdoach-baladan (Frahm 2003, 137 line 28). The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 113 Nabû-šuma-iškun Nabû-zēr-kitti-līšir time of Sennacherib captured at battle of Halulê, ca. 691 ?–680 son of Merodach-baladan II son of Merodach-baladan II147 governor of the Sealand, likely appointed in time of Sennacherib; flees to Elam following a failed attempt to seize Ur in 680148 Na id-Marduk ca. 680 > son of Merodach-baladan II (but never explicitly called such in texts) governor of the Sealand149 Nabû-ušallim ca. 680 > son of Merodach-baladan II father of Šumāya attempted to gain control of the Sealand with the support of Elam150 ? Nabû-ētir time of Esarhaddon governor of the Sealand, thus possibly a member of this tribe151 Nabû-bēl-šumāti time of Ashurbanipal > ca. 646 possibly governor of the Sealand grandson of Merodach-baladan II major supporter of the rebellion of 652–648; flees to Elam and commits suicide (or is killed) there ca. 646152 Unknown Tribal Affiliation Marduk-apla-usur, end of 9th or king early 8th century153 In inscriptions of Sennacherib, more walled cities and villages (39 and 350 respectively) were credited to the Bīt-Amūkāni than any other tribe.154 They may thus have been the largest Chaldean tribe at that time, but we cannot be certain that all these places were inhabited by the Bīt-Amūkāni, as opposed to simply being located in the area where they roamed semi-nomadically. This tribe provided at least 147 148 149 150 151 152 PNA 2/2, 888f. sub Nabû-šumu-iškun 7. Frame 1992, 42, 65f. and 277; PNA 2/2, 906 sub Nabû-zēr-kitti-līšir 3. Frame 1992, 42f., 66, 88f. and 277. Frame 1992, 42, 88f. and 122; PNA 2/2, 903 sub Nabû-ušallim 10. Frame 1992, 277; PNA 2/2, 830 sub Nabû-ētir 12. Malbran-Labat 1975; Frame 1992, 42f., 123 and passim; Millard 1998; PNA 2/2, 811–814 sub Nabû-bēl-šumāti 10. 153 See above. RIMB 2, 111 B.6.12. 154 OIP 2, 52–54: 36–50; Frahm 2003, 138f.: 36–50; 154–156. 114 Grant Frame one individual who was acknowledged king of all of Babylonia: (Nabû-)mukīn-zēri (731–729). However, he managed to hold the throne for only three years before being deposed by Tiglath-pileser III. Chaldean Settlements in the Time of Sennacherib (see Frahm 2003, 154–157) Named Cities155 Total for Cities156 Villages Tribe Bīt-Amūkāni Bīt-Dakkūri Bīt-Sa alli (Bīt-Silāni) Bīt-Yakīn 39 (var. 38) 26 (var. 32) 8 39 33 (var. 34) 8 350 250 120 8 8 100 (Various texts refer to a total of 88 / 89 / 75 cities and 820 / 620 / 420 villages) Sennacherib’s inscriptions accord the Bīt-Dakkūri 33 (var. 34) walled towns and 250 villages, more settlements than Bīt-Sa alli and Bīt-Yakīn and somewhat less than Bīt-Amūkāni.157 As the Bīt-Yakīn declined in importance because of actions against that tribe by Assyrian kings, the Bīt-Dakkūri appear to have assumed a more important position in Babylonia. Two known kings of Babylonia came from this tribe: Nabû-šuma-iškun (ca. 760–748) and Mušēzib-Marduk (692–689); and one of its sheikhs, Šamaš-ibni, was called a king in inscriptions of Esarhaddon.158 Leaders of Bīt-Dakkūri twice acted in unison with the governors of Nippur in anti-Assyrian actions during the reign of Esarhaddon; in 678 and in 675 the then-governor of Nippur and ruler of Bīt-Dakkūri (called mār Dakkūri) were taken away to Assyria.159 As mentioned earlier, very little is known about the tribes of Bīt-Sa alli and BītSilāni; what little is known comes mainly from the reigns of Tiglath-pileser III and (for Bīt-Sa alli) Sennacherib. The names of only two of their leaders are known – one for each tribe – and both were defeated by Tiglath-pileser III as part of his campaign in 731 against (Nabû-)mukīn-zēri. It is interesting that Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions refer to both of these leaders – Zaqiru of Bīt-Sa alli and Nabû-ušabši of Bīt-Silāni – as “kings” of their respective tribes. Until around the end of the eighth century, the Bīt-Yakīn were probably the most important Chaldean tribe. Actions by Assyrian rulers – in particular deportations by Sargon II and Sennacherib and the subsequent flight of members of this tribe to 155 156 157 158 159 This refers to the number of cities mentioned specifically by name. This refers to the final total number of cities according to the text. Frahm 2003, 138: 36–39 and 154f.; Frame 1992, 39. Borger 1956, 33 § 21: 22f. and 52 § 27 episode 12. Grayson 1975, 83f. no. 1 iv 1f. and 14f., and 126 no. 14: 10f. and 19. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 115 Elam160 – brought about the (at least partial) eclipse of this tribe. The Bīt-Yakīn are mentioned by name in only two documents dating after 689.161 Nevertheless, individual members of this tribe could still get involved in political life. In ABL 1373 (a report of the astrologer Bēl-ušēzib to the Assyrian king Esarhaddon) reference appears to be made to a ḫazannu (mayor) of Babylon who was a member of the (Bīt-) Yakīn tribe.162 Sennacherib states that he conquered eight walled towns and one hundred villages of the Bīt-Yakīn – far fewer than for the Bīt-Amūkāni and the Bīt-Dakkūri – but among those eight walled towns are Larsa, Eridu, Kissik, Kullab, and DūrYakīn.163 Not all these cities were inhabited by or even on good terms with the Chaldeans. The people of Kissik claimed that the Chaldeans hated them and that all the people of the region hated them because they reported loyally to Ashurbanipal.164 Dūr-Yakīn probably served as the tribe’s major center, at least until Sargon II destroyed it toward the end of the eighth century. The Sealand, the area of swamp-marsh around the lower courses of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, was closely connected to Bīt-Yakīn. The “Bitter (Sea) ([íd]mar-ra-ti) of Bīt-Yakīn” appears to have been viewed as one end of Tiglath-pileser III’s empire165 and inscriptions of Sargon II state that Bīt-Yakīn was found “on the shore of the sea as far as the border of Dilmun.”166 The identification of Bīt-Yakīn with the Sealand, or at least part of it, is clear for several reasons that the author delineated in his Babylonia 689–627167 and which he will not repeat here, but it is worth noting that Sargon II consistently separates Bīt-Yakīn from the other Chaldean tribes in his inscriptions.168 Probably the Bīt-Yakīn formed a large part of the population of the Sealand and encouraged anti-Assyrian actions there, although it seems likely that other groups, including tribeless individuals (e.g., refugees and outlaws hiding from the authorities), also dwelt there. The lay of the land was ideally suited for hiding from pursuers and for guerrilla warfare. The Bīt-Yakīn could be a disruptive element in the land. A letter in the archive of the governor of Nippur refers to a patrol from 160 OIP 2, 38 iv 32–36. 161 ABL 1131: 3 (partially restored); 7; 11; and CT 54, 22 rev. 27; see also Frame 1992, 40 n. 49. lú ki 162 [mx x-dAMA]R.UTU DUMU mIa-ki-nu ḫa-za-an-nu TIN.TIR , ABL 1373: 6. SAA 10, 110 restores the individual’s name as [Na id-Ma]rduk, but this is unlikely, as noted in PNA 2/1, 489 sub Iakīnu b.3'. Due to the broken nature of the passage, it is not impossible that the text actually refers to two individuals (a member of the tribe of Bīt-Yakīn and the mayor of Babylon). 163 Frahm 2003, 139 lines 48f. and 156. 164 ABL 210 and 736. Frame 1992, 40. 165 Tadmor 1994, 158 Summ. 7: 3. 166 E.g., Fuchs 1994, 196: 22. It is not likely, however, that the tribe actually occupied the area along the southern shore of the Persian Gulf as far as Bahrain. See Frame 1992, 41. 167 Frame 1992, 40–42. 168 E.g., Fuchs 1994, 266: 82–86. 116 Grant Frame Bīt-Yakīn stealing four men and five donkeys and the fact that they were now being offered for sale in Uruk.169 Two kings of Babylonia were members of the Bīt-Yakīn tribe: Erība-Marduk (reigning for at least 9 years, no later than 760) and a descendant (grandson) of his, Merodach-baladan II (721–710 and 703). Merodach-baladan and his descendants (in particular Nabû-zēr-kitti-līšir, Nabû-ušallim, and Nabû-bēl-šumāti) were among the most notable opponents of Assyrian ambitions in southern Mesopotamia. Na idMarduk, another son of Merodach-baladan, ruled the Sealand as a loyal official of Assyria, but he had previously been involved in Nabû-zēr-kitti-līšir’s rebellion and had submitted to Assyria because he found that Elam could not be trusted to give him asylum. Although Nabû-bēl-šumāti may have been a loyal official of Assyria before he joined the rebellion of 652–648, once he did so, he came to be Šamaššuma-ukīn’s most important ally in Babylonia. The area of Bīt-Yakīn bordered on Elam, and thus the leaders of Bīt-Yakīn had close contacts with Elam. At times they received military aid from Elamite kings for actions against the Assyrians and at times they fled to Elam for refuge from the Assyrians.170 In sum, despite numerous military actions directed against them and the loss of numerous tribesmen because of Assyrian deportations, the Chaldean tribes regularly provided the impetus, leadership, and manpower for actions against Assyria. As noted by Brinkman, the Chaldean tribal leaders managed to combine: a. the political strength of their own unified tribes (i.e., each had a ready base of support in his own tribe), b. the economic power of the tribes that was based on animal husbandry and control of trade routes, and c. their mobility and ability to adapt to and make tactical use of their environment (i.e., their ability to easily pick up and flee in the face of the advance of Assyrian military forces; their experience in hunting and living off the environment, and thus for fighting and guerrilla warfare).171 3. Arabs172 From letters in the Governor’s Archive at Nippur, it appears that Arab nomads may have penetrated into the Nippur region by the middle of the eighth century and we certainly hear of an Arabian caravan at indānu in texts of mid-eighth century 169 170 171 172 Cole 1996a, 72f. no. 18. Frame 1992, 43. Brinkman 1984, 24. In Neo-Assyrian times, the term “Arab” may have been employed simply for bedouin – outsiders who lived in tents and led a nomadic lifestyle on the fringes of the settled areas – and not exclusively for those whom we would consider ethnically Arab. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 117 date.173 An Arab raid on Sippar is mentioned in the time of Sargon II (ABL 88 = SAA 1, 84).174 Arab forces came to the aid of Merodach-baladan II against Sennacherib and to that of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn against Ashurbanipal.175 ABL 1404 records that the king of Babylonia had been visited by a merchant from Tema and a letter found at Ur (UET 4, 167) may report that two families from Tema had fled from Eridu.176 Thus there were clearly Arabs active in Babylonia. Some objects that may be Arab or Phoenician in origin have been discovered in Babylonia, as have a few inscriptions that may be connected to proto-Arabic script; however, their exact dates are not certain.177 Brinkman has suggested that a number of new small settlements to the south of Ur may have been Arab settlements.178 Various scholars have suggested that a good number of Babylonian towns and tribes had Arab names and Cole has stated that “Many West Semitic personal and tribal names in the Governor’s Archive at Nippur are either identical with or closely related to names found in later Safāitic, Thamūdic, and Lihyānic inscriptions from the Syrian Desert, North Arabia, and the northern Hijāz,”179 but the author will leave the question of such names to R. Zadok (see his chapter in this volume). There remains the vexing question of whether the word Urbu that appears in three Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions refers to (1) a type of warrior, (2) fugitives who had formed irregular bands and at times served as mercenaries, or (3) an ethnic group, i.e., Arabs.180 According to inscriptions of Sennacherib, during his first campaign, that king captured lúúr-bi lúA-ra-mu lúKal-du who were resident in several Babylonian cities: “I brought forth the irregular bands of Aramaeans and Chaldaeans (or: the Arabs, Aramaeans, and Chaldaeans) who were in Uruk, Nippur, Kiš, and ursagkalama, together with the citizens who had committed the crime (of opposing me), and counted them as spoil.”181 The lúur-a-bi, ur-a-bi and lúar-a-bi appear in some letters and from these Parpola (followed by Cole) takes Urbu to mean “Arab (troop)s.”182 The author must confess that at the present time he is uncertain about the matter, although he is perhaps leaning towards the view that the term does refer to Arabs. 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Cole 1996b, 34–42; RIMB 2, 300 iv 26b'–38a'. See Eph‘al 1982, 115f. (note also ABL 547). OIP 2, 51: 25–29; Frahm 2003, 136f.: 25–29, esp. line 28; Frame 1992, 151f. See Eph‘al 1982, 190 n. 650. Eph‘al 1974, 109f.; Brinkman 1984, 28; Frame 1992, 50. Brinkman 1984, 28. Cole 1996b, 37. Eph‘al 1974; Na’aman 2000; Lipiński 2000, 423. The translation follows Frahm 2003, 143 line 52; note his commentary to that line on p. 150. SAA 1, 95 note to line 7ˊ; Cole 1996b, 42 n. 133. 118 Grant Frame 4. Conclusion It is clear that the Assyrians found it harder to control the tribal groups in Babylonia than the urban populations since the latter could not so easily pick up their possessions and move at the news of the approach of hostile Assyrian forces. As Brinkman has noted, tribal groups could make swift raids and then flee before Assyria could even receive word of their actions, let alone reach the area.183 They could retreat to the marshes where it would be difficult to track them down, as is noted in inscriptions of Sennacherib.184 The tribal groups of Babylonia, as well as the older families of the land, tried at times to win the support of Elam for actual military aid against Assyria and for a place of refuge should the Assyrians prove the stronger.185 Luckily for the Assyrians, the sheer number of the tribal groups made it difficult for them to act in unison. At times the tribal groups fought among themselves and it is clear that on occasion some Chaldeans and Arameans supported – or at least remained neutral and did not actively oppose – the Assyrians, for example, during Ashurbanipal’s fight with Šamaš-šuma-ukīn in 652–648.186 The Assyrians tried to play off the urban populations against the tribal groups, by attempting to portray Chaldeans as evil and taking the side of the cities in any disputes. Esarhaddon, for example, returned to the people of Babylon and Borsippa fields that had been seized by members of the Bīt-Dakkūri following Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon.187 As indicated at the beginning of this presentation, the scarcity of reliable information makes it impossible for us to write detailed political histories and historical geographies of any of the individual Aramean, Chaldean or Arab tribes active in Babylonia in the Neo-Assyrian period. This presentation has been able to touch on only a few aspects of this topic and to do so in only a cursory fashion. 183 184 185 186 187 Brinkman 1979, 235f.. OIP 2, 52: 34; 56: 10; Frahm 2003, 137f.: 34. Brinkman 1965a. Frame 1992, 167 and 170. Borger 1956, 52 § 27 episode 12; Frame 1992, 79. Note also Beaulieu 2000, 40f. on the return of fields to citizens of urban centers. The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 119 Bibliography Beaulieu P.-A. 2000: A Land Grant on a Cylinder Seal and Assurbanipal’s Babylonian Policy, in: S. Graziani (ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, vol. 1 (Napoli) 25–45. Borger R. 1956: Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien (= AfO Beih. 9). — 1996: Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T, sowie andere Inschriften. Mit einem Beitrag von Andreas Fuchs. Wiesbaden. Brinkman J. A. 1964: Merodach-Baladan II, in: R. D. Biggs and J. A. Brinkman (ed.), Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (Chicago) 6–53. — 1965a: Elamite Military Aid to Merodach-Baladan, JNES 24, 161–166. — 1965b: Ur: 721–605 B.C., Or. 34, 241–258. — 1968: A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 B.C. (= AnOr. 43). — 1973: Sennacherib’s Babylonian Problem: An Interpretation, JCS 25, 89–95. — 1977: Notes on Arameans 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). — 1986: The Elamite-Babylonian Frontier in the Neo-Elamite Period, 750–625 B.C., in: L. de Meyer/H. Gasche/F. Vallat (ed.), Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae: Mélanges offerts à M.J. Steve (Paris) 199–207. — 1995a: Mukīn-zēri, RlA 8/5–6, 410f. — 1995b: Mušēzib-Marduk, RlA 8/5–6, 455. — 1995c: Reflections on the Geography of Babylonia (1000–600 B.C.), in: M. Liverani (ed.), Neo-Assyrian Geography (Roma) 19–29. Cole S. W. 1994: The Crimes and Sacrileges of Nabû-šuma-iškun, ZA 84, 220–252. — 1996a: The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur (= OIP 114). — 1996b: Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, c. 755–612 BC. (= SAAS 4). Cole S. W./Gasche M. 2007: Documentary and Other Archaeological and Environmental Evidence Bearing on the Identification and Location of the Rivers of Lower Khuzestan and the Position of the Head of the Persian Gulf ca. 1200 BC – 200 AD, Akkadica 128, 1–72. Dalley S./Postgate J. N. 1984: The Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser (= CTN 3). Da Riva R. 2008: The Neo-Babylonian Royal Inscriptions: An Introduction (= GMTR 4). Dietrich M. 1970: Die Aramäer Südbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700–648) (= AOAT 7). Edzard D. O. 1977: Kaldu (Chaldäer), RlA 5/3–4, 291–297. Eph‘al I. 1974: ‘Arabs’ in Babylonia in the 8th Century B.C., JAOS 94, 108–115. — 1982: The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent, 9th–5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Leiden. Finkel I. L. 1980: Bilingual Chronicle Fragments, JCS 32, 65–80. 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 (= Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 69). 120 Grant Frame Frame G. 1995: Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) (= RIMB 2). — 1997: Chaldeans, in: E. M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research) 482–484. — 1998: Nabû-šuma-iškun, RlA 9/1–2, 33. — 2008a: Babylon: Assyria’s Problem and Assyria’s Prize, Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 3, 21–31. — 2008b: Šamaš-ibni, RlA 11/7–8, 617. — 2009: Šapīya (Šapî, Sapê, Sapīya), RlA 12/1–2, 29. — 2013: The Archive of Mušēzib-Marduk, Son of Kiribtu and Descendant of Sîn-nāsir: A Landowner and Property Developer at Uruk in the Seventh Century BC (= Babylonische Archive 5). — forthcoming: Uqnû, RlA. Fuchs A. 1994: Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen. Gadd C. J. 1954: Inscribed Prisms of Sargon II from Nimrud, Iraq 16, 173–201 and pls. 43– 51. Grayson A. K. 1975: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (= TCS 5). — 1980: Königslisten und Chroniken. B. Akkadisch, RlA 6/1–2, 86–135. Jursa M. 2007: Die Söhne Kudurrus und die Herkunft der neubabylonischen Dynastie, RA 101, 125–136. Levine, L. D. 1982: Sennacherib’s Southern Front: 704–689 B.C., JCS 34, 28–58. Lipiński E. 2000: The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (= OLA 100). Malbran-Labat F. 1975: Nabû-bêl-šumâte, Prince du Pays-de-la-Mer, JA 263, 7–37. Millard A. R. 1998: Nabû-bēl-šumāte, RlA 9/1–2, 30f. Na’aman N. 2000: abiru-like Bands in the Assyrian Empire and Bands in Biblical Historiography, JAOS 120, 621–624. Oded B. 1979: Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden. De Odorico M. 1995: The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (= SAAS 3). Oppenheim A. L. 1977: Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Revised edition completed by Erica Reiner. Chicago. Parpola S. 1970: Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (= AOAT 6). Parpola S./Porter M. 2001: The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period. Chebeague Island, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute; Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Postgate J. N. 1992: Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London and New York. Saggs H. W. F. 1955: The Nimrud Letters, 1952–Part I., Iraq 17, 21–50 and pls. 4–9. — 2001: The Nimrud Letters (= CTN 5). Schachner A. 2007: Bilder eines Weltreichs. Kunst- und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Verzierungen eines Tores aus Balawat (Imgur-Enlil) aus der Zeit Salmanassar III, König von Assyrien (= Subartu 20). Shibata D./Yamada S. forthcoming: The Building Inscriptions of Aššur-ketta-léšir II, ‘King of the Land of Mari’, in the Late Middle Assyrian Period: Their Historical Implications, in: M.-G. Massetti-Rouault/O. Rouault (ed.), Après l’Empire: Crise de l’État et de la Monarchie en Mésopotamie du Nord et en Anatolie (XIIIème–Xème siècle av. J.C.). The Political History and Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes 121 Tadmor H. 1994: The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary. Jerusalem. Walker C. B. F. 1982: Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties, in: G. van Driel et al. (ed.), Zikir šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Leiden) 398–417. Zadok R. 1977: On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods: An Onomastic Study. Jerusalem. — 1985a: Geographical Names According to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts (= RGTC 8). — 1985b: Zur Geographie Babyloniens während des sargonidischen, chaldäischen, achämenidischen und hellenistischen Zeitalters, WO 16, 19–79.