Rm Klh and the Worship of Hadad: a Nation of Aram?*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ARAM, 7 (1995) 337-352 337 }RM KLH AND THE WORSHIP OF HADAD: A NATION OF ARAM?* STEVEN GROSBY The question posed by the title to the following considerations is not an unreasonable one despite the prevailing historiographical prejudice that insists that the ethno-geographic collectivity known as nationality is exclusively a modern phenomenon; for there appears in line five of Face A of Sefire Stele I the apparent self-designation “all Aram” – a self-designation that seemingly refers to a relatively extensive, yet bounded territorial collectivity.1 It would appear from the inscriptions of the Sefire Stele that “all Aram” was under- stood by “all Aram”, or at least by Matî{el of Arpad (IA, line 1), to encompass “Upper and Lower Aram” (IA, line 6). It is not exactly clear what was meant by the evidently geographical designation “Upper and Lower Aram”. It is possible that “Upper Aram” referred to Syrian Aram, while “Lower Aram” referred to an area in the vicinity of Babylonia.2 However, it is more likely that “Upper Aram” and “Lower Aram” referred to some kind of a division of a Syrian “all Aram”; that is, a bounded area (and its population) stretching from the Beqa{ Valley/Damascus in the south to Bet-Gush/Arpad and perhaps Ya}di/Sam}al in the north (IB, lines 9-10).3 As is well known, the restoration * Revision of paper presented to “Who were, or are, the Arameans?", conference of The ARAM Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 9-11 June 1996. 1 Of the enormous literature on the Sefire Stele, I cite here only Mazar, B., “The Aramean Empire and its Relations with Israel”, The Biblical Archaeologist, XXV, (1962), 98-120; Fitzmyer, J., The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, (Rome, 1967); Na}aman, N., “Looking for KTK”, Die Welt des Orients, IX, (1978), 98-120; Sader, H., Les États Arameens de Syrie, (Beirut, 1987). 2 For references to Arameans in the vicinity of Babylonia around the time of the Sefire treaty, see Tiglath-pileser III's Summary Inscription 7, lines 5-9, Tadmor, H., The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria, (Jerusalem, 1994), 158-61; Brinkman, J.A., A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158-722 B.C., (Rome, 1968), 268-72. 3 So Alt, A., “Die syrische Staatenwelt vor dem Einbruch der Assyrer”, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 88, (1934), 254, note 2, “Aber die dortigen [along the course of the Euphrates, including in the vicinity of Babylonia] Gebiete und Staaten- gebilde der Aramäer befanden sich zur Zeit unserer Stele längst in den Händen der Assyrer 338 }RM KLH: A NATION OF ARAM? of lines 9-10 of Face B of Stele I is disputed, resulting in an uncertain inter- pretation of those border points apparently marking the territorial extent of the trans-city-state formation of “all Aram”. Indeed, much remains uncertain about the inscriptions of the Sefire Stele, including, most obviously, who and what was, respectively, Bir-Ga}yah and KTK – Bir-Ga}yah, king of KTK, being one of the contracting parties to the treaty preserved on the Sefire Stele; Matî{el, king of Arpad, being the other (IA, line 1; IB, line 1). No attempt is made here to reanalyze or to discuss in detail what appears to me, given the current state of the evidence, to be the insurmountable uncertainties of the Sefire Stele. Rather, in what follows, I wish to consider some of the implications of that evidence which is certain, or at least relatively certain.4 The qualifier “all” in “all Aram” is clearly of some sociological signifi- cance; it implies a certain kind of collective unity. One is immediately reminded of the Deuteronomistic use of “all” in “all Israel (kol yisra}el) from Dan to Beersheba”.5 In the case of Israel, the Deuteronomistic use of “all” underscores the (hoped for) unity of both all the land of Israel and all the people of Israel – the unity of one believed to be inseparable from the unity of the other. While this use of “all Israel” may have represented a programmatic goal for what Israel was supposed to become; it, nevertheless, also reveals the terminological conflation embodied in the very designation “Israel” – a term referring both to all the land “from Dan to Beersheba” and all the people, benê yisra}el. This terminological conflation is indicative of what takes place und kamen infolgedessen als Vertragsteilnehmer für Arpad kaum mehr in Betracht. Es wird sich daher mehr empfehlen, den Ausdruck hier auf Syrien zu beziehen; dann bezeichnet “Oberland” entsprechend der Höhenlage am ersten das Reich von Damaskus, “Unterland” die nördlicheren Aramaerreiche in der Umgebung von Arpad, und das unseres Wissens niemals zu Aram gerechnete Gebiet von Hamath legt sich trennend dazwischen”. For an overview of the problem, see Fitzmyer, Sefire, 31; and, more recently, Sader, Les Etats Araméens, 145, “Les limites géographiques données dans IB 9-10 nous semblent englober les territoires de tous les rois members de la coalition [du haut et du bas Aram], puisque les clauses du traité devaient être appliquées sur tout le territoire ainsi délimité”. Mention should be made that Na}aman, “Looking for KTK”, has challenged the widely accepted restoration of the dalet in Ya}di, thus calling into question Ya}di as a point marking the northern boundary of “all Aram”. 4 The intention of this article is to develop further a few of the points referred to in passing in Grosby, S., “Borders, Territory, and Nationality in the Ancient Near East and Armenia”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 39/4, (1996), 1-29. 5 Consider, for example, 1 Samuel 3:20; 2 Samuel 17:11; 24:2; Dt 11:6; 13:11. As is well known, the object of the designation of “all Israel” varied; for an apparently “archaic usage” of the term, see 2 Samuel 2:9. STEVEN GROSBY 339 in the structure of kinship known as nationality: there is a relation of kinship attributed to a relatively extensive, yet bounded territorial co-residence. When that kinship is described in the idiom of blood relation, usually with reference to an eponymous ancestor, for example Jacob/Israel (Gen 32:28; 35:10), it is, of course, fictitious. This is obvious enough. What, however, deserves to be emphasized is the territorial referent in the relation. In modern nationality, the territorial referent in the mutual recognition of relation around which the collectivity is constituted is usually explicit, as may be seen in the jus soli as a determinant for membership in the national state. Nonetheless, the imagery of blood relation may be found in modern collectivities as well, for example, in both the idiom of the “founding fathers” of the country and the jus sanguinis as a determinant for membership in some national states. In ancient collectivities, the territorial referent is implicit, as may be seen in the more frequent recourse to the idiom of blood relation. In the ancient Near East, this “ethno-geographic” phenomenon may be concretely seen not only in the use of such terms as the Hebrew goy, but also in the use of the designation “house” (bêt), for example, in the Hebrew Bible, “the whole house of Israel” (Ezekiel 11:15) to refer to the nation of Israel, and in the Sefire Stele, “the house of Gush”, Bêt-Gush (IIB, line 10), to refer to both the territorial jurisdiction of the house, the city-state of Arpad,6 and the inhabitants of the house, the Benê-Gush (IB, line 3) – this latter ethno- geographic conflation7 mediated through the reference to the eponymous ancestor “Gusi” who is described as having paid tribute to Ashurnasirpal a little more than a century before the approximate date of the Sefire treaty of 750 B.C.8 Finally, I note in passing that the tribe, usually understood to be constituted by beliefs about actual kinship in blood, may also be an ethno- geographic collectivity. Martin Noth drew attention to this possibility in the history of ancient Israel when he recognized that the names of the tribes Judah, Ephraim, Benjamin and probably Naphtali were most likely originally names of locations.9 In these instances, was it the persistence over time of a 6 The list of towns in lines 34-5 of Sefire IA are those included within the immediate jurisdiction of Arpad. See also the list of towns in Summary Inscription 5, Col. II, line 7, of Tiglath-pileser III, a list that concludes with the phrase “cities of the land of Bit-Agusi”, Tadmor, Inscriptions, 146-47. 7 Is the repeated phrase, “the people of the land of Mati}-ilu” in the treaty of Ashur- nerari V with Mati}-ilu (Parpola, S., and Watanabe, K., Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, (State Archives of Assyria, II, (Helsinki, 1988), 8-13) also indicative of this conflation? 8 Luckenbill, D., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vol.1 (Chicago, 1926), 477. 9 Noth, M., The History of Israel, (London, 1959), 53-84. 340 }RM KLH: A NATION OF ARAM? territorial referent in the mutual recognition – that is, the shared tradition – of those who dwelled in these respective areas which was at the basis of the fiction of blood relation? Is the same phenomenon at work in “enclosed nomadism”, as described by M. B. Rowton, where territorial location, the town, and the in- dividuals putatively and actually related by blood, the tribe, share a name in common?10 Needless to say, these two referents, blood and location, in ter- ritorially small structures of kinship would, over time, converge.11 In any event, we are concerned here with a territorially more extensive structure of kinship than either the Israelite sebä† or the city-state of Bêt-Gush/Benê-Gush.