Transjordan and Assyria Piotr Bienkowski Transjordan in the Iron Age aPa-a (?)-[di} (Tadmor 1994:192, pl. LVII rev.), which was used to restore Summary Inscription In the Iron II period, Transjordan was divided 9 rev. 3 (Tadmor 1994:186). Summary Inscrip­ into three separate, independent kingdoms: tion 4.6' has VRVGa-al-[ } (Tadmor 1994:138, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. Their origins and pl. XLIXa). Tadmor restores both as GaPadi histories are still not clear (Bienkowski 1992; ( 1994:297), although the ending is speculative. Herr 1992), but theywere certainly independent Weippert (1972:54-55) surveys the problems kingdoms ruled by kings by the time they appear with the reading, noting that George Smith's in Assyrian inscriptions beginning in the eighth original tracing of the cuneiform signs at the end century BCE. The borders of the kingdoms fluctu­ of the name was completely hypothetical, and ated and they are difficult to pin down precisely suggests three possible restorations, all based on (Bienkowski 1992: 1). The boundaries ofAmmon the writing of "Gilead" (Hebrew gi,l'ad) in the Old are particularly elusive, but it appears to have Testament. The context of the disputed name been centered on the modern capital of Amman in Tiglath-pileser's inscriptions does imply that and the Wadi Zerqa (Hubner 1992:131-57). the reading "Gilead" is likely, since it is described Still unclear is the status of northern Trans­ as a part of Aram on the borders of Israel (Bit­ jordan, north of the boundary of Ammon, wher­ Humria). The )a!,eph present in the third syllable ever that was located (see Kletter 1991:43-44; rules out a possible alternative of "Galilee, "1 Sauer 1986:15). Apparently not an independent and no other likely alternative can be proposed. kingdom, this area is called Gilead in the Old Gilead is therefore probably correct and the read­ Testament, and seems to have been inhabited by ing is accepted throughout this paper, though Israelite tribes, and fought over and ruled at dif­ some caution is justified on the grounds that no ferent times by Israel and Aram, and probably restoration is ever absolutely certain.2 Ammon and Moab (Ottosson 1969; Mittmann 1970:212-31; recently Na'aman 1995b), though The Assyrian Provincial and Tributary Ottosson (1993:92) suspects that northern Trans­ Systems and Transjordan jordan was settled by Arameans in the Iron Age. It is perhaps not surprising that none of the rel­ The expansionist policy of the early N eo­ atively few epigraphic finds from Transjordan Assyrian kings, prior to Tiglath-pileser III, mentions the name Gilead. There are in fact only 1 If "Gilead" is correct, Akkadian 'aleph would represent two possible occurrences of the name in ancient Hebrew 'ayin (see Zadok 1977:24 7). 2 Kings 15:29 lists both texts, both in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser Gilead and Galilee among the areas conquered by Tiglath-pile­ III, and in both cases the end of the name has ser III. been restored, so the 2 Jirku (1928:253) regarded Smith's restoration of Gal'azu reading is not absolutely or Gal'aza as untenable, but was accused of unhelpful skepticism certain. Summary Inscription 10 rev. 3 has uRu Ga- by Alt (1929:239). 44 Bienkowski: Transjordan and Assyria involved conquest, payment of tribute, replace­ inhabitants of the Land of Ashur." The newly ment of anti-Assyrian rulers, and deportation of conquered and annexed provinces were thus conquered populations. Apart from Bit-Adini, placed under direct rule and were considered with its capital at Til Barsip, turned into a prov­ as constituent parts of Assyria proper. This was ince by Shalmaneser III, there were no annex­ of course a sudden, massive expansion, and it is ations west of the Euphrates. In this period, still uncertain how far this new, provincial "Land the only references to Transjordan are to the of Ashur" really functioned as an integral part of defeat by Shalmaneser III at Qarqar in 853 BCE Assyria proper (Postgate 1992:261-62). of Ba)asha, who may or may not have been What is clear is that there was a deliberate, an Ammonite ruler, and payment of tribute by conceptual distinction from the states which Edom to Adad-nirari III in 796 BCE.3 simply paid tribute and which were not annexed. Tiglath-pileser III for the first time extended These paid annual tribute, and acknowledged the land of Assyria beyond the Euphrates by Assyrian overlordship, but were not considered annexing certain Levantine states. He annexed part of "the Land of Ashur." The relationship Arpad, the north Syrian states ofUnqi, Hatarikka, of tributary states does not seem to change with and Simirra, Aram-Damascus (including Gilead), Tiglath-pileser III. The king of a tributary state and northern parts of Israel. The remainder was left on his throne, and it was not standard became tributary states, essentially a continua­ Assyrian policy to interfere in the internal affairs tion of the old policy: the Neo-Hittite states of of a tributary state if it paid its tribute regularly southern Anatolia, Arvad, Tyre, Sidon, truncated and its king appeared when required. There Israel with its capital at Samaria,Judah, Philistia, are instances where an Assyrian agent could be and the Transjordanian states of Ammon, Moab, attached to a local court that was nevertheless and Edom. Some of these were later annexed a tributary state, and this is best attested in the by Tiglath-pileser's successors, but not Ammon, Phoenician ports, or southern Palestine under Moab, or Edom. Garelli (1991:50) argues that the Sargonids, which has towns with clear Assyr­ Tiglath-pileser's annexations developed gradu­ ian presence but was never annexed, or politi­ ally as rebellions occasioned new campaigns, cal interference in the states on the sensitive and that he did not systematically alter previous border with Urartu. These seem to be distinctive policy. All the evidence suggests that turning an responses to particular situations, and perhaps independent state into a province incurred sub­ we should regard them as examples of "half-way" stantial military and administrative expenditure, stages (Postgate 1992:256-57) .4 so presumably it was in Assyria's interest to leave Unfortunately, our understanding of the it as a tributary state if at all possible (Grayson Assyrian provincial system is incomplete. Most of 1995:964). the evidence has to be pieced together from frag­ Tiglath-pileser Ill's royal inscriptions use mentary letters and administrative documents, phrases which seem to distinguish systematically and much remains uncertain as to exactly how between these different types of Assyrian rule the provinces were administered, how the offi­ (see Tadmor 1994). He specifies quite clearly cials were organized hierarchically, and even when he annexes a state to Assyria. His inscrip­ what the names of the provinces were. The tions use phrases like "I annexed to the Land 4 Lamprichs (1995:118-25) distinguishes among provinces, of Ashur [place name]," "I placed my eunuch client states, and puppet kingdoms. It is not always clear from over it as governor," or "I considered them as administrative documents which territories were considered fully independent, although this is the case mostly with the 3 Detailed references to the cuneiform sources are given by northern and northeastern territories (Lanfranchi and Parpola Weippert 1987 and Millard 1992. 1990:xxi). 45 .