, ARAMAEANS AND *

Alan R. Millard

University of Liverpool

Assyrian interactions with the Aramaeans were widespread and long- lasting and so probably reflect Assyria’s policies more clearly than her relations with any other peoples or kingdoms. While most of the information comes from Assyrian royal inscriptions, some Aramaic reports can be set beside them. The fact that the Assyrian royal inscrip- tions portray everything from an Assyrian perspective, with the aim of glorifying the king and his gods, does not evacuate their narratives of value as sources for historical reconstructions of the times they describe. In this connection, it is worth noting how place names and royal names correspond in Assyrian and Aramaic sources. At a time when there is a fashion in some circles to treat any ancient records with skepticism unless they have independent corroboration, these examples of congruence, entirely the product of accidental discover- ies, should foster confidence in Assyrian and Aramaic records which lack such corroboration. The comparable situation between Assyrian and biblical texts does not need demonstration (see table). The triumphalist element is obvious in the Assyrian reports, yet admissions that some kings had to attack the same enemy more than once before gaining victory and that some enemy rulers escaped cannot be ignored. For example, Nūr-Adad of Nisibin faced three campaigns by Adad-nirari II, Ahuni of Bīt Adini faced two by Shalmaneser III

* These observations are offered as a willing tribute to Bustenay Oded whose work on warfare and deportations has brought better knowledge of Assyrian policies. They are expanded from a lecture given at the meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature in Boston, U.S.A., in November 2008. 204 a. r. millard

Table of correspondences between names of kingdoms and kings in Aramaic and Assyrian inscriptions. Aramaic Assyrian Bit-(A)gus gš (a-)gu-(ú-)si Aramu ’rm a/abi -ra-mu Attarsamak ‘trsmk a-tar-šúm-ki Mati’il mt’‘l ma-ti-i’-ilu ḥz’l ḫa-za-i’-ilu Hamath ḥmt ḫa/a-ma-tu Zakkur zkr za-ku-ri Sam’al sm’l sa-ma-’a-al-la Gabbar gbr gab-ba-ri Hayyan ḥy’ ḫa-ya-a-nu Panamuwa pnmw pa-na-am-mu-u Aššur ’šwr aš-šur Tiglath-pileser tgltpl(y)sr tukulti-apil-ešarra and Nūr-Adad of Dagara “climbed a rugged mountain to escape” from Ashurnasirpal II.1 Of course, those admissions were only made when there was a final victory; when there was not, the Assyrians left no record for posterity! Yet absence of an Assyrian victory was not the only reason for the apparent omission of some kings and king- doms from Assyrian records. Some absences indicate there was no contact, as for Damascus and in the reign of Ashurnasirpal II. Other absences may mean that the ruler concerned was contendedly maintaining good relations with Assyria, paying tribute regularly and avoiding relationships with anyone hostile to Assyria. The oath taken by Amme-ba’li of Bīt Zamāni when Tukulti- II was “merciful” to him (rēmuttu aškunaššu) in 886 B.C.E. is one example of the condi- tions for peaceful relations. Tukulti-Ninurta reported, “I had him take an oath by , my lord, . . . [. . .]: ‘If you give horses to my enemies, may Adad [strike your] land with terrible lightning’ ”.2 When Amme- ba’li was assassinated by some of his nobles, about 879 B.C.E., Ashur- nasirpal avenged him, replacing him with the brother of the leading rebel, who, after paying annual tribute for a while, then also rebelled

1 See RIMA 2, pp. 149–151, A.0.99.2, 42–79; RIMA 3, pp. 29–30, A.0.102.5. iii 3b–6; RIMA 2, pp. 203–204, A.0.101.1, 23b–31a. 2 See RIMA 2, p. 172, A.0.100.5, 24b–25.