Did Iron IIB Levantine States Emerge from Neo-Assyrian Colonies?1 Richard Jude Thompson, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Problem The Iron Age Levant (Iron IIB 900–700 B.C.E.) witnessed a period of emerging small states, such as that of Me¡a> of Moab, Ammon, Haddu Yis>i of Tell Fekheriye, Kilamuwa of Ya<udª (Zinjirli), Zakkur of Óamat, Panammuwa I of Ya<udª (Zinjirli), Mati><el of <Arpad and Barga<yah of Ktk (Sefire), Azatiwada of Karatepe, and Barråkib of Sam<al (Zinjirli). Such states might have evolved from and transcended their tribal kinship relationships without breaking them and somehow developed new societies around the institutions of kingship, warfare, building projects, and temple inscriptions on stelae that promoted the symbols, values, and metaphors of a state (Routledge 2000, 154; Tyson, 497). The circumstances leading to the formation of the Levantine states, however, remain obscure and tentative (Kuhrt 1995, 417; Tyson 2014, 498).

The development of the new states coincides with the incursion of the Neo-Assyrian Empire into the Levant, and the archaeological correlates of independent states to the anthropological realities of empires have created ambiguities in the evolutionary scenario of state evolution (Matthews 2003, 129). For instance, the archaeological characteristics that constitute a “state” may constitute evidence of an imperial colony. Evidence linked to empire domination include the following: imported goods; destruction layers and rebuilding; changes in landscape; craft and industry; specialization and standardization; centers of military, agricultural, and commercial settlement; local production of imperial goods and styles; and tribute extraction (Matthews 2003, 131). Changes linked to the state formation of Moab include the following: domestication of the landscape; increase in the number, density, distribution, and form of settlements; regional centers (Dhiban); public buildings; forts and farmsteads; towers; agricultural and agropastoral sites; settlement expansion; livestock production; and military communications, roads, and fortresses (Routledge 2000, 191–201). The site of Edom, just to the south of Moab, illustrates the links between the archaeological evidence of a state and the presence of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. A pastoralist society until the ninth century, Edom became a “state,” in the form of a Neo-Assyrian colony, with a city, fortresses, bureaucracy, trade, industry, agriculture, livestock, expansion, horticulture, and copper-mining. The state, or colony, of Edom, however, disappeared with the NA Empire in the seventh century (Knauf-Belleri, 93–109).

Thus, the problem arises concerning the origin of the emergent states, the nature of the states, the identities of the so-called mlkm “kings,” who founded the states, and the question of whether an indigenous population and elite emulated the empire or whether a colonial population replaced the local population and brought the imperial culture to the periphery. The crux of the problem appears to hinge on the extent of Assyrian deportation, repopulation, and colonization. Kuhrt advises caution in taking the imperial inscriptions at their word, but other scholars emphasize the Assyrian policies of destruction and colonization (Kuhrt 1995, 417; Vera Chamaza 2005, 46–47). Thesis Statement This essay will attempt to show that the new states of the Levant in the ninth and eighth centuries could have emerged from colonies of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Thus, it

2  

proceeds first with a summary of the theoretical work and approaches to the problem. Second, it will summarize the inscriptions and historical records of A¡¡urnaßirpal II (883–859), ⁄almaneser III (858–824), and Tiglath-pileser III (744–727) and finish with a summary of the principal elements of NA imperial ideology and practice. The fourth part presents a chart that indicates the correspondences between the Neo-Assyrian ideology and practice vis-à-vis the ideology and method as expressed in the Levantine inscriptions. The fifth part will contain a discussion of the Levantine inscriptions in their historical contexts. Sixth, the study will conclude with two hypotheses about the role of the Assyrian colonies in the formation of the Levantine states as an alternative to the theory of local tribal elites that might have accepted, assimilated, and emulated the practices of the Empire.

The first hypothesis proposes (1) that the inscriptions provide evidence for the presence of the imperial power, which imposed its ideology and method on the local indigenous or colonial rulers, who then created the emergent states The second hypothesis proposes (2) that the mlk “kings” of the new emergent states might not have arisen out of the local elite tribal organizations but might have arrived with the NA Empire as colonists in the peripheral settlements that included administrators, military garrisons, slave farms, and commercial centers. Theoretical Work and Approaches According to Routledge (2000, 154), the genre of “replicative kingship” spread across the Levant in the ninth century The MI thus corresponds to similar memorial inscriptions from Kilamuwa of Ya<udª (Zinjirli), Zakkur of Óamat, Panammuwa I of Ya<udª (Zinjirli), Azatiwada of Karatepe, and Barråkib of Sam<al (Zinjirli). Altogether they constitute evidence of the movement to kingly state formation in Iron Age IIB. A state hegemony thus developed in Moab in dialogue with “shifting local, regional, and global contexts.” Routledge presupposes that Moab had evolved into an independent state before its appearance in Tiglath-pileser III’s inscription in 728 as a client state that submitted madattu “tribute.” The category, “yoke of A¡¡ur” (Routledge, 202), indicated a client state that kept its local institutions including that of local tribal chiefdom and kinship, and even in the case of Moab, kingship. States with the label “land of A¡¡ur,” however, represented provinces that the empire had absorbed and turned into imperial provinces ruled by Assyrian governors. This categorical distinction guides Routledge’s analysis of the relationship of Moab with the NA Empire. Thus, the independent local kingdom of Moab did not experience assimilation into the empire even after contact with Tiglath-pileser III but must have remained under “treaty,” adê, status in a hegemonic power balance of independence versus incorporation. Under these presupposed conditions, however, Moab functioned like an imperial province in its trade, agricultural intensification, militarization, and submission of horses, metals, and textiles (Routledge, 156–206).

Sanders strengthens the presupposition that the new states of Iron Age IIB had emerged out of West Semitic culture, such as that of Mari and Ugarit, by focusing on an ideal of collective rituals of participation and redemption contrary to Mesopotamian perspectives. The texts of Sam’al, Óamat, Moab, Ammon, and Zakkur differ from the Mesopotamian royal genre appear in a vernacular Aramaic that included local territories, regimes, languages, kings, battles, lands, foes, and gods. The inscriptions thus indicate

3  

the process of inventing nations crafted by the rulers to present a new political order, which presupposed a single people, language, territory, and war god. The “state” of Moab appeared with Me¡a>’s Inscription (MI) as an example of the genre of “imperial imitation” in which the local king, or governor, as in Tell Fekheriye, translated the NA imperial genre into the local Aramaic vernacular. Thus, Sanders admits to influence from the empire but portrays a scenario in which the Levantine elites emulated, translated, and adapted the ideology of the empire to their local culture and language in order to create their emerging states (Sanders 2009, 104–22).

The presupposition that the independent Levantine kingdoms emerged as local states and continued to develop as autonomous states within the context of the Neo-Assyrian hegemony carries over into Tyson’s study of the kingdom of Ammon after 750. Arguing for continuity of a local elite, Tyson notes that the first archeological evidence for an emerging state appears in the mid-ninth century with the signs of increased settlement, markers of wealth, power, elite products, volute capitals, elite products, sculptures, imports, royal inscriptions, monumental structures, gate and water system, fortified towns, walls, glacis, towers, imports, and writing. At that time ⁄almaneser III chronicled that a “Mister Ba’asa, the son of RuΔ∆ubi, of the land of the Amanaya” brought “[N] hundred troops” to the battle of Qarqar in 853 (KUR a-ma-na-a-a; Grayson 1996, 23). This citation may suggest that the “Ammonites” (as Grayson translates a-ma-na-a-a) had a complex state with an army at its disposal before 853 (Tyson 2014, 481–88). Yet the signs of its complexity did not begin until ⁄almaneser III had spread the bodies of his enemies out on the plain and taken over the trade route to Arabia through Ammon and Moab. One may wonder how autonomous the KUR a-ma-na-a-a remained after such a defeat.

A century later Tiglath-pileser III (744) chronicled the treasures that he received from the KUR.KUR.ME¡ “lands” of Ammon, Moab, and Edom, as follows:

I received the payment from . . . Mister Sanīpu of the city of the house of Ammanaya, Mister Salāmānu of the land of Ma’abaya . . . Mister Qauš-malaka of the land of Udumuya” (Tadmor and Yamada 2011, 122–23).

Tadmor and Yamada suggest translating KUR.KUR.ME¡ as “(foreign) lands,” as if they represent independent and autonomous client states, but the evidence from the ⁄almaneser III inscription and that of the eighth-century Tiglath-pileser III suggests instead that these states did not exist until the empire created them as colonies. In any case, Tyson observes that Ammon grew in the number of towns, tombs, forts, architecture, sculpture, imports, elite items, and writing, all of which followed Neo-Assyrian styles. Accordingly, the NA Empire encouraged and increased the productivity of the land and the redistribution of the populations onto more farms and citadels. Thus, Ammon’s increased agricultural output supported the caravans, and the elite prospered from tolls on the trade. Sociopolitical complexity developed under the empire in the expansion of the elite class, which emulated, imported, and incorporated NA imperial styles. The cultural borrowing of Assyrian drinking vessels and other signs of wealth and prestige served to legitimize the local power structure. Thus, the importation of luxury goods and wealthy tombs in the Assyrian style mark the local elite in the archaeological record of Ammon. As Tyson proposes, “the sociopolitical and economic changes are the result of synergy between imperial concerns and the local elite . . . but the explanation

4  

remains tentative” (482, 498). This tentative conclusion restates the original problem stated by Matthews that the material remains of local “imperial collaborators” have no distinguishing characteristics from those of imperial colonists (Matthews 2003, 129).

The studies of Routledge, Sanders, and Tyson arrive at ambiguous conclusions because they do not bring into consideration the historical reality of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in its conquest and colonization of the Levant. They presuppose that the local states and elites of the Levant and the Ammonite plateau appeared with the invasion of ⁄almaneser III, remained intact throughout the period of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and proceeded to imitate and to emulate the imperial power in order to strengthen their power base at home. Beginning even earlier, however, with A¡¡urnaßirpal II, the NA Empire had dealt out destruction, depopulation, repopulation, rebuilding, reconfiguration, and renaming of the conquered areas as Assyrian colonies obedient to the god dA¡¡ur. Even existing cities, kingdoms, or states that at first claimed vassal status in time became assimilated as Assyrians. A solution to these tentative conclusions may lie in a review of the ideology and practice of the NA Empire in the ninth and eighth centuries. The NA ideology finds expression in the following paraphrases of the inscriptions of the emperors A¡¡urnaßirpal II, ⁄almaneser III, and Tiglath-pileser III, who express their compliance with the commands of the god dA¡¡ur to expand the god’s territory. A review of the scholarly evaluations of the practice of the Empire in realizing the ideology accompanies the inscriptions.

A¡¡urnaßirpal II (883–859)

“I felled 3,000 of their fighting men with the sword. . . . I razed, destroyed, burnt, (and) consumed the city” (Grayson 1991, 201).

In the early ninth century, A¡¡urnaßirpal II launched his campaigns to achieve the unconditional subjugation of Ôatti Land, the regular delivery of tribute and taxes, the obedience of the lands to his appointed governors, and complete control of the economy (Vera Chamaza 2005, 46–47). As A¡¡urnaßirpal II writes, “I erected my royal image on the entire (KUR) land of Ôatti” (Grayson 1991, 298). That KUR “land” would have included Ôalman, Óamat, Israel, Byblos, Guya, Mußri, Irqanat, Arwad, Usanat, ⁄i<on, Arab tribes, and B•t-Amman just north of Me¡a>’s kingdom (Von Soden 1954, 78). He established colonies with governors, soldiers, agricultural deportees, and merchants in towns with Assyrian names and stelae celebrating his conquests. Unconquered areas, such as the coastal Phoenician states Tyre and Sidon, feared his aggression, destruction, and plunder and submitted to the empire by sending tribute and supplies. A¡¡urnaßirpal II, nonetheless, took over the town of Aribua on the coast and turned it into a military supply and control colony (Kuhrt, 483–85).

According to his inscriptions, A¡¡urnaßirpal II, the emperor of the world, rules the whole world, conquers the lands, disperses enemies, and receives tribute (Grayson 1991, 193–94). The text describes the preeminence of the god A¡¡ur and the king’s role as warrior and priest in the service of A¡¡ur. The king appears both to have a merciless weapon and to perceive himself as a divine weapon. The god dA¡¡ur commanded him to subdue the lands, to massacre, to demolish, to burn them with the radiance of the god dA¡¡ur, and to impose seizure, payments, and labor upon them. He did not leave one of them alive and resettled the rest of the inhabitants in the midst of KalΔ∆u (195–223).

5  

A¡¡urnaßirpal II’s obedience and service to the god provide the king with his ability both to conquer and to instill the pul2-Δ∆i me-lam-me ¡a2 a¡-¡ur EN-ia “fear of the radiance of A¡¡ur, my lord,” in the hearts of kings, soldiers, and citizens in the cities that they encounter (Grayson 1991, 197). As Tadmor writes, the inscriptional rhetoric often matched the actual policy of the empire, and the annals of the campaigns of A¡¡urnaßirpal II describe the calculated destruction and terror and “enumerate those massacred, impaled, burnt, and taken captive” (1975, 36).

Within such an ideological system, underlings and enemies have no choice but to obey the commands of authority or face death by sword or fire. In this context the phrase, “terror of the radiance of A¡¡ur my lord” may refer to the Assyrian army, the sight of which would overwhelm them. The command comes from the god, and the king enforces it by means of the overwhelming power of the army. The system links together by obedience to the will of the god A¡¡ur, who commands the king and the army to project his power into the peripheral regions of the four quarters.

Evidence of mass deportations (Oded 1979, 2–4), enforced labor and urbanization (Tadmor 1975, 37–40), warfare and conquest (Eph>al 1983, 88), political and economic domination sustained by fortress colonies lined up along the periphery (Tadmor 1975, 36–37), and collection of maddattu (Bär 1996, 7), indicate that A¡¡urnaßirpal II enforced his ideology and policy under the universal jurisdiction and legal authority of dA¡¡ur.

⁄almaneser III (858–824)

“I razed, destroyed, and burned it. … 2000 chariots and 10,000 troops of AΔ∆abbu of the land of Sir<alayya … I defeated them” (Grayson 1996, 11–24).

⁄almaneser III carried his father’s policy forward with the destruction of the lands, kings, and gods of Ôatti. He pursued the systematic annihilation of enemies by means of massacre, execution, plunder, deportation, occupation, and eventual loss of national identity. In two battles of 853 and 841, he destroyed the Syrian coalition, demolished hundreds of towns, and killed tens of thousands of their men. After the destruction of Haza<el’s forces, the Assyrians had an unhindered route through Canaan to the Mediterranean coast and to the Arab lands to the south through Ammon, Moab, and Edom. The Assyrians guarded their conquests, tribute, and taxes by removing local populations and establishing colonies, and such a practice would have included Moab, Ammon, and Edom (Vera Chamaza 2005, 49–59). The imperial armies of A¡¡urnaßirpal II and ⁄almaneser III thus demolished the ruling elites of Ôatti Land, and the governors and their scribes would have come from the Assyrian court to govern the Assyrian colonies.

According to his inscriptions, ⁄almaneser III, emperor of the peoples and prince of the land of dA¡¡ur, heeded the commands of the god dA¡¡ur to conquer the regions of the upper and lower seas. He used the strong weapon of dA¡¡ur to kill the disobedient and to subdue those who would not submit. With the fear of the radiance of dA¡¡ur his lord, by the command of the god, he scattered their forces, besieged the city, and carried off plunder. He annihilated his enemies, and if they submitted, carried them off as slaves. According to scholarship, ⁄almaneser III razed, destroyed, burned, and rebuilt colonies with Assyrian names (Na<aman 2006, 198). He plundered and rebuilt conquered cities in

6  

an Assyrian image and took tribute from Aram (Tadmor 1975, 37–38). He overwhelmed the smaller Aramaean cities with open field battle, siege, assault on cities and breach of walls, raids, and campaigns (Eph>al 1983, 88, 91–95). He took 110,610 captives from Aram to forced labor in KalΔ∆u (Tadmor 1975, 37–40; 1982, 150). Later on he sent his generals on campaigns but still claimed their military successes as his own (Bär 1996, 11). ⁄almaneser III enforced his policies with the power of the army, as he calls it: “the terror-inspiring radiance of my furious weapons and my wild combat” (Grayson 1996, 19). One wonders how a local elite could survive and thrive under such conditions.

Tiglath-pileser III (744–727)

“The entire land of Bit-Ôumria I captured. … I carried them off to the territory of the land of A¡¡ur. … the terrifying radiance of A¡¡ur, my lord,

overwhelmed him” (Tadmor and Yamada 2011, 131–32). If Bit-Ôumria refers to Israel, and Ausi<i refers to Hoshea, then the account in this inscription may correspond to that of 2 Kgs 17:5–6, 24 in which the melek <a¡¡ûr (king of A¡¡ur) invaded Bit-Ôumria, deported the population, and replaced it with deportees from Mesopotamia. According to the Assyrian policy, however, Hoshea would have come from the Assyrian ranks to govern the new colony of Samerina, hence, ⁄øm#rôn (Postgate 1992, 252–57). The inscription describes the policy of annexation but does not describe the violence. The reporting of conquests, however, according to Holloway, took for granted the violence, psychological terror, capture of cult images, mass deportations, repopulation, and rebuilding of conquered areas, which went unreported in the background of the imperial propaganda of the Neo-Assyrians (2002, xv–xvii, 67, 73, 80, 98, 166, 174, 178, 217, 224, 369, 370).

Tiglath-pileser III documents the Assyrian imperial policy of annexation in his inscription KalΔ∆u Annal 9. It presupposes a conquest and begins with the reconstruction of a destroyed city. The text describes his policy of setting up of the “weapon of A¡¡ur” in a new province and his inclusion of the resettled deportees from other conquered areas as people of the land of A¡¡ur. The weapon of A¡¡ur in this inscription may refer to a garrison established under a royal symbol, such as a sword or a battle standard, which the Assyrians took on their campaigns (Gallagher 1999, 95). The inscription attests to the expansion of the policy of annexation, as he apportioned thousands of deportees to conquered cities destined to become the provinces under the jurisdiction of palace administrators (Annal 10, text 6:3). Such deported people became “like Assyrians,” according to Oded, as Tiglath-pileser III “imposed on them the yoke of A¡¡ur my lord as like Assyrians” (1992, 14). Thus, contra Postgate and Routledge, the term “yoke of A¡¡ur” may refer to enslaved deportees living in a colony controlled by an Assyrian governor (Routledge 2000, 156–206).

Tiglath-pileser III transformed the abandoned settlements on the frontier of the land into productive lands in the service of the army of the god A¡¡ur. The Assyrian frontier zone thus comprised a broad transitional zone between the empire and the countries beyond the frontier (Parker, B. 2001, 264). The Assyrians maintained their stranglehold on conquered regions by deporting the existing population and reconstructing colonies with Assyrian names, governors, soldiers, agricultural deportees, and merchants (Malbran-Labat 1982, 13). The term “Assyrian,” as used in this context and perhaps

7  

throughout the imperial inscriptions, designates a political relationship of a people that submitted to the yoke of A¡¡ur and swore the oath of obedience to the god and the king (Machinist 1993, 89). Ammon after 750 would have experienced such a transformation.

The phrase, “with the people of the land of A¡¡ur I counted them,” entails the annihilation and assimilation of local cultures. The greatest number of mass deportations took place during and after the reign of Tiglath-pileser III. The documents record 124 cases of mass deportation, which amount to an estimated total of four and a half million people over a period of about three centuries (Oded 1979, 2–23). The great empire of KUR a¡-¡ur and kept up a constant interior colonization by moving populations around the empire into border areas in order to break up the national cohesion of the groups and to plant loyal Assyrians in the midst of the foreign populations (Malbran-Labat 1982, 7–11). One wonders how the local Levantine elites could survive in the face of such power.

Tiglath-pileser III introduced “systematic economic, cultural, and ethnic integration,” according to Parpola, and transformed client states into provinces run by Assyrian appointees under direct control of the Assyrian government. He destroyed the urban center, deported the population, reconstructed the capital in Assyrian style, installed an Assyrian governor and garrisons, and imposed uniform taxation, conscription, and imperial standards and measures; the inhabitants of the new province became Assyrian citizens, and the economy served Assyrian interests. The so-called vassal treaties legitimized the process of annexation of a country in the event of violation of the treaty, and the onerous stipulations of the treaties forced rebellion, which resulted in destruction, deportation, and annexation (2003, 99–111). The annexation system destroyed the regional power centers and concentrated wealth and power in the provincial capitals and the military elite of dA¡¡ur (Postgate 1979, 216). Most deportees went into the colonies that the Assyrians founded to guard the frontiers, to supply the army, and to expedite commerce (Parker, B. 1997, 84 n. 39).

The evidence presented above (Oded, Machinist, Tadmor and Yamada, Holloway, Gallagher, Malbran-Labat, Parpola, Postgate, and Parker) may contradict the assertion by Routledge and Postgate that nation-states under the “yoke of dA¡¡ur” could remain independent with a local elite class under an adê treaty in a hegemonic relationship with the Assyrians. Tiglath-pileser III’s policy of annexation, according to Oded, involved the liquidation of local political bodies and national groups by deportation and the setting up of a permanent imperial administrative organization in the occupied areas (1979, 43). Tiglath-pileser III’s policy and, in effect, law of annexation resulted in the destruction, plunder, deportation of survivors, exchange of replacement populations, restorations of cities in the image of Assyria, and the Assyrianization of an estimated four and a half million people over his lifetime and that of his immediate successors (Liverani 2005, 149). The policy resulted in the destruction of Israel and Judah, the deportation of their populations, the repopulation by deportees, and their rebuilding in the Assyrian image (Stern 2001, 3, 8–10, 19, 132; Na<aman 2005, 200; Younger 2004, 254). Tiglath-pileser III would have subjected any remaining regional power centers in the Levant to his annexation policy.

Summary of Neo-Assyrian Ideology and Policy To summarize the imperial Neo-Assyrian ideology and practice, then, it consisted of the interlocking roles of the following elements: (1) the god dA¡¡ur, (2) the emperor, (3) the

8  

army, and (4) the ummiån¥ (scholar scribes) served in (5) obedience to the (6) command to annex new territory and to set up (7) military, (8) agricultural, and (9) commercial colonies to support (10) the melammu “radiance” army for the purpose of (11) the control of commerce, (12) the destruction of other nations and (13) the universal obedience of Assyrians to the god dA¡¡ur. The evidence presented above suggests that this ideology and practice went into effect in the Levant with A¡¡urnaßirpal II, expanded with ⁄almaneser III, and accelerated through Tiglath-pileser III. The table below includes the collateral policies and practices involved in the implementation of the ideology.

Levantine Inscriptions The Levantine inscriptions stand in the shadow of the Neo-Assyrian Empire but present, according to Kuhrt, “patchily” gained evidence of their history and relationship with it and, thus, say nothing beyond their “local concerns” and “domestic power struggles” (458–60). This essay now turns to a selection of eight state-ruler inscriptions from six cities of the Levant dating from the period of the Neo-Assyrian Empire under the jurisdictions of A¡¡urnaßirpal II, ⁄almaneser III, and Tiglath-pileser III (883–727). Although representing various genres, each inscription constitutes a state-level public declaration of a ruler.

Arranged in chronological order, the inscriptions reveal a pattern of assimilation to the presuppositions and practices of Neo-Assyrian imperial ideology. The following chart indicates which state-level inscriptions of varying genres express which elements of Neo-Assyrian military ideology, as follows: Haddu Yis>i of Tell Fekheriye, Me¡a> of Moab, Kilamuwa of Ya<udª (Zinjirli), Zakkur of Óamat, Panammuwa I of Ya<udª (Zinjirli), Mati><el of <Arpad and Barga<yah of Ktk (Sefire), Azatiwada of Karatepe, and Barråkib of Sam<al (Zinjirli). The chart takes into account the context of the inscriptions as known through archaeological and historical scholarship.

Neo-Assyrian Ideology and Practice as Reflected in the Levantine Inscriptions

Assyria Haddu

Yis>i of Fekheriye

Me¡a> of Moab

Kilamuwa of Ya<udª

Zakkur of Óamat

Panammuwa I of Ya<udª

Barga<yah of Sefire

Azatiwada of Karatepe

Barråkib of Sam<al

Imperial God √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Emperor √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Army √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Scribes √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Subjugation √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Emulation √ √ √ √ √ √ Obedience √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Vassal √ √ √ √ Province √ √ √ √ √ Conquest √ √ √ √ √ √ Commerce √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Peace √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Destruction √ √ √ √ √ Annihilation √ √ √ √ Deportation √ √ √ √ Repopulation, √ √ √ √

9  

Reconstruction √ √ √ √ √ Colonies √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Fortresses √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Expansion √ √ √ √ √ √ Assimilation √ √ √ √ √ Annexation √ √ √ √ √ √ Tax, Tribute √ √ √ √ Internal Oath √ √ Treaty √ √ √ √ Punishment √ √ √ √ √ Literary Tropes √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Diviners √ 28 Characteristics

20 26 25 18 4 14 23 27

This chart of the components of Neo-Assyrian imperial ideology and practice vis-à-vis the Levantine state inscriptions reveals two complementary patterns. Seven of the eight appear to accept the basic characteristics of the imperial worldview. Six of the eight inscriptions have a total of eighteen or more characteristics in common with the twenty-eight of Assyria, as follows: Tell Fekheriye, MI, Kilamuwa, Zakkur, Azatiwada, and Barråkib. One inscription, that of Sefire, has a middle level correspondence focused in the range of passive acceptance of the Assyrian worldview. The inscription of Panammuwa I reveals minimal interest in or knowledge of the empire. With just one exception, the chart indicates that seven of the eight inscriptions share a presupposed imperial worldview on a local scale.

Haddu Yis>i of Tell Fekheriye

Akkadian: “Adadit<i, provincial governor of the city of Guzan,” Aramaic: “Haddu Yis>i, king of Guzan” (Abou-Assaf 1982, 61–65).

The bilingual inscription of Adadit<i / Haddu Yis>i in Akkadian and Aramaic appears on a royal statue dated from 850–825 (Fales 1983, 233–50). Both inscriptions follow an Aramaic style with a dedication to the god Adad / Hadad and to the governor and king Adadit<i / Haddu Yis>i followed by an appreciation of the prosperity endowed by the storm god Adad (Grayson 1971, 222). According to Assyrian policy, a provincial governor (thus, here, also the Aramaic “king”) would have come from the ranks of the central court officials of the land of dA¡¡ur (Postgate 1992, 252–57). Abou-Asaff noted that the first part of the Aramaic inscription evinced some parallels to Aramaic inscriptions of Bar Hadad and Zakkur and speculated that the second part of the Aramaic inscriptions resembled a Neo-Assyrian subjugation treaty of the form that recognized a local king as an Assyrian governor (Abou-Assaf 1982, 69–79). These observations, made by Grayson, Fales, and Abou-Assaf, about the bilingual two-directional cultural and linguistic interchanges, fit into the political situation of the region of Guzan in the ninth century (Abou-Assaf 1982, 98–108). Kuhrt suggests that the Tell Fekheriye statue indicates a symbiosis of an Aramaean kingdom turned into an Assyrian province in which one member of a local Aramaean elite family had taken on the two titles (398). Given the aggressive tactics of the Assyrian military, however, the dual-titled ¡aknu/mlk, “governor/king,” would have come from the Assyrian military court.

10  

The inscription may provide an example of how a local king might have translated imperial ideology into the Aramaic vernacular (Sanders, 121). The Tell Fekheriye text attests to Assyrian rule but does not address imperial projection of power and the destruction of foreign societies and their gods by military force. It does not stipulate punishment for rebellion or disobedience but rather expresses a conciliatory concept of justice, stability, and prosperity as the peaceful submission to a greater power. The inscription, thus, may express the interests of either a governor of Assyrian colonists or a submissive king of Aramaean locals or a mixture of both. The policy of the dominant Assyrians, however, suggests that Adadit<i / Haddu Yis>i may represent one of the Assyrian governors, who became an independent king when left alone to govern a colony (Kuhrt, 483–85).

Me¡a> of Moab

“I killed all of them, seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, maid-servants, and exterminated them for the god A¡tar- Kemo¡” (KAI 181).

Studies of Moab tend to minimize the influence of the NA Empire. Routledge, for example, acknowledges the necessity to analyze the state formation of Moab in the context of the shifting local, regional, and global contexts (2000, 184) but identifies Moab as an emergent state with evidence of the following categories: tax collection, central supply system, defensive forts, standard weights, judiciary, scribes, and titles. Moab produced weights, documents, seals, reservoir, and fortifications parallel to southern Iron IIB Levantine sites, and the MI attests to the presence of a scribe skilled in the royal inscriptions of early state formation. The royal projects of Moab included increasing the “density, distribution, and form of settlement” in regional centers around Moab and Dhiban (188). Such development would parallel that expected of an Assyrian colony.

The ninth century fort at Ara>ir formed part of a series of defensive forts along eastern Moab with agricultural settlements and advanced defensive technologies, such as towers, buttresses, walls, and gates (Routledge, 194). Such sites with forts focus agricultural activities in arable wadis for wine, olive presses, terraces, and storage towers. These agricultural and defensive sites attest to a state-sponsored exchange economy of grains and livestock that had emerged with the construction of the forts and the expansion of military campaigns already by the ninth century. Routledge’s analysis of the Moab state conforms to the Assyrian pattern of setting up colonies protected by a series of forts along the periphery of the empire.

The MI used the same literary tropes that the ummiån¥ of the land of dA¡¡ur used during the period that A¡¡urnaßirpal II and ⁄almaneser III had conquered, destroyed, and decimated Ôatti Land and taken control of the trade in the southern Levant between Arabia and Phoenicia on territory that included Moab. The MI belonged to the genre of building inscriptions (Hallo 2002, 2:137), and in its depiction of the role of the national god, also belonged to the genre of historiography (Gibson 1982, 71–77). The orthography, grammar, and syntax indicate a Canaanite dialect (Huehnergard and Rubin 2012). The MI presents knowledge of the imperial law, policies, strategies, and rhetoric of the Assyrians. It stipulates the obedience of the king and his army to the god Kemo¡, who commanded the projection of Kemo¡’s power, the destruction of resistant foreign populations and their gods, and the accumulation of land and cities by conquest. It

11  

commemorated Me¡a>’s building of a bmt (holy place) to the god Kemo¡ (Mattingly 1989, 219). The MI depicts the central political goal of Me¡a> to drive out his enemies, to slaughter resistant populations, to centralize his military political power, and to accomplish the independence of his land (Vera Chamaza 2005, 36). Thus the divine warrior Kemo¡ won wars through brutal acts of consecration (h˙rmt-h), which meant massacres of populations by divine command.

The inscription fits the Assyrian pattern of oracle, departure, battle, capture, massacre, and plunder. Me¡a>’s scribe(s) memorialized his reign by claiming that he obeyed the god Kemo¡, engaged in building projects, and fought military campaigns (Dearman 1989, 203–7). These tactics resembled the psychological and actual warfare tactics of the Assyrians (Dubovsky 2006). Under the rubric of offering sacrifice by massacre (h˙rmt-h) to the god Kemo¡, thus, Me¡a> carried forth the imperial policy of the three Assyrian emperors, who had eliminated enemies by means of massacre, execution, plunder, deportation, and occupation.

According to Routledge, Me¡a> attempted to transform the segmented state of Moab into a unitary state under his rule through narration about military campaigns and information about the king’s obedience to the god Kemo¡. Thus Moab functioned as the primary political unit ruled by Me¡a> as the servant of Kemo¡. The practice of consecrating, h˙rm-h, indicated the policy of the god Kemo¡ to avoid exchange with other populations of the land (2000, 225–44). The MI thus illustrates the concept of a justified war and massacres (h˙rm) commanded by the national god Kemo¡. The conquering king took the spoils of war and the captives as deportees to build temples and cities (Kuhrt, 469). Although Routledge and Kuhrt avoid mention of Assyrian policy, their analyses present evidence of an imperial king, who applies the presuppositions of the Neo-Assyrian emperors to impose his power on other nations.

Kilamuwa of Ya<udª (Zinjirli)

“I hired over me the king of <A¡ur” (KAI 24). The Phoenician inscription of Kilamuwa (c. 824) represents a king with a Neo-Hittite name whose scribes used an Aramaic script to write with Byblian Phoenician orthography and style (Peckham 1992, 5:352; 2001, 32–33). The autobiographical account boasts of king Kilamuwa’s accomplishments in foreign and domestic affairs (Rosenthal 1974, 500). On the face of the inscription, Kilamuwa points to the symbols of four gods: a horned helmet of Hadad, a yoke of Råkib-El, a winged sundisk of ⁄ama¡, and a crescent moon of Ba>al Harrån (Parker, S. B. 1997, 78). Considering the nature of the inscription and Kilamuwa’s allegiance to the Assyrian empire, however, the symbol of the winged sun-disk may designate the god dA¡¡ur, the crescent moon may represent the Aramaean god Sªn, and the horned helmet may represents the sign of an Assyrian god. The yoke could indicate just as well the yoke of dA¡¡ur, which Kilamuwa celebrated in the inscription.

Kilamuwa remained in power in Ya<udª while paying homage and tribute to and accepting the tutelage of the king of <A¡ur and his gods. Kilamuwa’s father had paid tribute to ⁄almaneser III during the Assyrian king’s campaign against the Aramaean coalition of Barhadad of Damascus (Donner and Röllig 1966, 1:4–5). Kilamuwa then

12  

“hired” ⁄almaneser III to help him defend against the Danunians. Kilamuwa sought to improve the living conditions of the Anatolian population that he had conquered. Kuhrt understands the Kilamuwa text as an example of a “domestic power struggle” (ca. 840) in which Kilamuwa calls in the Assyrian army to help (460).

Kilamuwa’s peaceful and prosperous union with the Assyrian empire, however, may entail hidden aspects of political and military submission (Hamilton 1998, 222–25). The historiographic rhetoric of Kilamuwa’s so-called “hiring” of the king of <A¡ur concealed the reality of subjugation and payment of tribute. Kilamuwa’s Assyrian-like appearance on the stele betrayed his emulation of and submission to the empire, yet he appealed to the Aramaean Ba>al Íamad and the imperial Phoenician Ba>al Óaman, for the protection of his memorial inscription (Gibson 1982, 3:39). Kilamuwa directed the first part of his brief account to his royal court and directed the second part of the inscription at his people to whom he had brought economic prosperity by his union with the empire (Parker, S. B. 1996, 216). Kilamuwa’s inscription thus commemorated the economic and political benefits that the Assyrian empire brought. With the support of the king of <A¡ur, Kilamuwa established a rule, a policy, and a law, like that of Me¡a>, that consisted of eliminating neighboring competitors, the Danunians, so that he and the empire could bring prosperity to his land.

Kilamuwa eliminated his competitors and brought prosperity to his land with the military and economic support of the king of <A¡ur. Behind Kilamuwa’s Phoenician literary rhetoric about justice and prosperity, large payments of tribute, taxes, and political and military submission attested to his submission to the empire and to his imperial worldview and policies. In conformity with imperial policy, Kilamuwa might have come from the Assyrian military, since he talks like a local imperial governor looking to expand his territory and to bring the local gods under imperial control.

Zakkur of Óamat

“I rebuilt Óazrak and added to it a whole circle of [strongholds]. I established it as my kingdom” (KAI 202).

The stele of Zakkur contains a historical inscription that dates from 790–775 (Donner and Röllig 1966, 202; Pritchard 1974, 501–2). The inscription describes a war initiated by Barhadad of Aram, who united seven kings to raise a siege against Zakkur. Zakkur appealed to his god, Ba>al¡amayn, who then destroyed the army of Barhadad’s coalition and allowed Zakkur to expand his district and to build strongholds and shrines to the gods. Zakkur’s rise to power coincided with the retreat of the Assyrian army from Syria after it too had defeated a Damascus coalition, and his inscription focused on war and his conflict with his neighbors. The coalition of [six]teen kings, which included those of Aram and Sam<al, had resisted the expansion of Zakkur and set a boundary for him at Óazrak. The inscription provides evidence of another Levantine state that called in the Assyrian army for help in a domestic power struggle (Kuhrt, 460).

The inscription commemorated Zakkur’s imposition of his authority and possession of the land under the auspices of the god Ba>al¡amayn. Zakkur attributed his military success to his religious piety to his local gods Ba>al¡amayn and <Iluwer, who also possessed imperial power of conquest. Thus Zakkur asserted his religious and military superiority over his neighboring kingdoms and did not make contracts or treaties with his

13  

neighbors. His inscription expresses no interest in mutual cooperation with regard to defense but focused instead on his military might to impose order under the authority of the god Ba>al¡amayn. Zakkur’s inscription, like that of Kilamuwa and Me¡a>, provides evidence of another Levantine state that had assimilated the ideology of imperial aggression and assigned imperial duties to its local god. Zakkur could fit into the category of an Assyrian governor taking an autonomous imperial action against his neighbors under the pretense of defending himself from an attack.

Azatiwada of Karatepe

“I have subdued powerful countries to the west, which the kings before me had not been able to subdue. . . . I have brought them down and settled them at

the eastern end of my borders and resettled Danunites there (in the west)” (KAI 26).

The mid-eighth-century bilingual Phoenician and Neo-Hittite building inscription of Azatiwada of Adana, discovered at Karatepe (Donner and Röllig 1966, 26; Green 2010, 232) states that Azatiwada brought peace, prosperity, and expansion to the land. It confirms the ideals of royal responsibility for justice, security, prosperity, and loyalty (Kuhrt, 414) during the rule of Tiglath-pileser III a century after ⁄almaneser III (845) had established Assyrian dominance and set up colonies over Phoenicia and Anatolia (488).

Azatiwada used trope after trope from the rhetoric of the Neo-Assyrian imperial inscriptions. He began with a typical, traditional Assyrian-style introduction and his role as the “the servant of [the god] Ba>al,” (Grayson 1991, 194–95) which echoed the Assyrian emperors, who called themselves “the servant of A¡¡ur” (Oded 1992, 166). Gibson suggests that the title “the servant of the god Ba>al” reflected Azatiwada’s independence just before the Assyrian aggression of 730 (1982, 3:41). Like the Assyrian kings, the servant Azatiwada made war by the command of the god Ba>al. He acted as the representative of the god to “crush the disobedients” (Oded 1979, 13–17, 67–73). The servant Azatiwada followed the same command from his god Ba>al that the imperial god dA¡¡ur made to his kings to expand his territory: “I have expanded the country of the plain of Adana from the rising of sun to its setting … because of Ba>al and the gods.” Like Tiglath-pileser III (746–727), Azatiwada built up his army and used it to take action against his neighbors (Malbran-Labat 1982, 59–60). He built his peaceful city because the god Ba>al commanded him to build it. He constructed a network of forts to serve his expansion into conquered areas and to facilitate agricultural production and to obey the command of the god Ba>al to transform the territory by eliminating the disobedient people (Parker, B. 1997, 89 n. 39). Not submitting to the local ruler of Adana must have constituted as much of a crime as the refusal to submit to dA¡¡ur. Like the Assyrians, Azatiwada founded new rural colonies and settled people deported from across his little empire in order to “pile up more grain than ever before” (Parker, B. 1997, 84 n. 39).

The inscription of Azatiwada may represent a sophisticated, literary, west Semitic royal inscription made for the purpose of legitimating and immortalizing Azatiwada (Younger 1998, 11–48). The text accomplishes that purpose, however, by describing Azatiwada’s Assyrian-like actions, such as building his military, political, and economic security through conquest, deportation, and colonies with storerooms, fortified borders, and building projects, which included a citadel in Karatepe (Winter 1979, 115–51).

14  

A¡¡urnaßirpal II boasted of the same accomplishments: “King not equaled … heroic man … king who makes those not submissive to him submit … disperses all of his enemies … conquers the lands … captured hostages, claimed victory” (Grayson 1991, 194–95).

Azatiwada promulgated the Assyrian idea of peace as enforced order and obedience to the god, and the loss of peace amounted to rebellion, unrest, and insubordination. Like the Mesopotamians, Azatiwada publicized his sense of justice as a paternal duty to bring prosperity to the conquered land (Foster 2007, 70). Like an Assyrian king, Azatiwadda granted his favor to a ruler, who would submit to his authority (Parpola and Watanabe 1988, XIV–XVI). Like Zakkur, Kilamuwa, and Me¡a>, Azatiwada followed Assyrian practice and recreated the local god in the image of the imperial god dA¡¡ur. Azatiwada may thus represent a local Assyrian governor, who had mixed Assyrian military imperialism with Phoenician commercial imperialism.

Barråkib of Sam<al (Zinjirli)

“He ran at the wheels of his lord Tiglath-pileser, the king of A¡ûr, in with the armies from the rising of the sun to the setting and from the four regions of the

world” (KAI 215). The inscription of Barråkib of Sam<al to his father Panammuwa II commemorates Barråkib’s usurpation of the throne of Ya<udª (Zincirli) (ca. 743–740) with the help of the Assyrian emperor Tiglath-pileser III. Barråkib renamed the kingdom Sam<al (Rosenthal 1974, 500). In this votive inscription (ca. 733–727), Barråkib extols the successes of his father, Panammuwa II, who had fought alongside Tiglath-pileser III in campaigns to the east. Kuhrt characterizes Barråkib’s inscription as an example of the “mutuality of relations” that existed between Assyria and the Levantine states in which the empire would reward their loyalty with additions of land from defeated enemy territories (461–62).

Barråkib described a local, historical situation that involved the destructions from which his father, Panammuwa II, extricated himself by enlisting the help of Tiglath-pileser III. By means of superior power, the king of <A¡ûr (mlk <¡wr) had made the nation better by installing Panammuwa II as king of Ya<udª. Panammuwa II’s life then resembled that of an Assyrian provincial governor, who would appoint the local commanders of the villages that functioned as supply centers for the Assyrian army (Postgate 1979, 197; Oded 1979, 67–68; Parker, B. 1997, 77) and the commanders of the chariots that functioned as the primary source of military advantage for the Assyrian army (Eph>al 1983, 96–97). He received imperial authority and wealth through his wise decision to grasp the hem of his lord Tiglath-pileser III’s garment. He accompanied the Assyrian emperor on a campaign to the four corners of the earth and transported the “daughters” from one end of the empire to the other. The passage indicates the Assyrian imperial practice of deportation and repopulation of slaves and prisoners that Tiglath-pileser III had instituted on a large scale. The emperor added to Panammuwa II’s lands and then set his son, Barråkib on the throne to succeed him. At the end Barråkib remembered his local gods and the god of his dynasty, but his allegiance, loyalty, and service belonged to the king of <A¡ûr and to his position as local imperial governor.

Like his father Panammuwa II, Barråkib owed his power and his place on the throne of Sam<al to Tiglath-pileser III, who had conquered the north Syrian region by 737

15  

(Parker, S. B. 1996, 218). Barråkib presented the Assyrian emperor as the just benefactor, who had restored the legitimate dynasty to the throne of Sam<al. M. W. Hamilton points out that the author(s) of the inscription--Barråkib and his scribes--focused at the end of the inscription on the ultimate destiny of Panammuwa as more than just a local dynastic king but also as an important part of the greater endeavor of the Assyrian empire. Panammuwa II had accompanied the emperor on his campaign and fought alongside Assyrian forces “from east to west in the four quarters” of the world (1998, 215–50).

This inscription from Sam<al (Zincirli) illustrates a Levantine “state” that fits the profile of an Assyrian colony under the jurisdiction of the governor Barråkib, who had accepted both Assyrian rule and the imperial cultural vision and worldview of the empire. In the view of Barråkib, Tiglath-pileser III, under the command of the universal god <A¡¡ur, had established peace and prosperity in regions that had lacked great leaders with great vision. Like Zakkur, Kilamuwa, Me¡a>, and Azatiwada, Barråkib shared in the imperial demand for the projection of power and the destruction of foreign societies and their gods by the overwhelming power of an imperial army. The author(s) of this text expressed no concept of justice beyond their servitude and loyalty to Lord Tiglath-pileser III and the imperial god <A¡ûr.

Barråkib followed the policy of Kilamuwa and that of his colonial father Panammuwa II and submitted to the lord Tiglath-pileser III. Barråkib submitted to the universal jurisdiction and imperial mandate of Assyria, paid the taxes and tribute, and accepted the wealth, peace, prosperity, and ideology that accompanied the Assyrian imperial worldview. He joined forces with the Assyrians to extend the influence of the empire in their local regions. Nothing in the inscription or the scholarship of the inscription contradicts the hypothesis that Barråkib might have risen from the ranks of the Assyrian army to lead an independent Assyrian colony under the auspices of Tiglath-pileser III.

Mati><el of <Arpad and Barga<yah of Ktk (Sefire)

“Treaty stipulations of Barga<yah, king of Ktk, with Mati><el . . . king of Arpad” (Fitzmyer 1995, 19–20).

The treaty that Barga<yah of Ktk imposed on Mati><el of Arpad appears in the Sefire documents from the region southeast of Ya<udª/Sam<al and dates to the mid-eighth century during the reign of A¡¡ur-nirari V (755–745). The structure of the document follows that of the international Hittite/Levantine suzerainty treaties of the second millennium with an introduction, a witness list, stipulations, and threats for dishonoring the agreement. Although the treaty acknowledged the military authority of dA¡¡ur in the region, “as long as <A¡¡ur rules,” it did not enforce the rule of an imperial god of subjugation. It resembles a Levantine arrangement in which two cities made promises under oaths and threats, such as “ just as this calf is cut up, so may Mati><el be cut up.” The isogloss “to cut a covenant” suggests a Western Semitic provenance rather than an Akkadian expression, which “bound or established a covenant” (Tadmor 1982, 137).

J. A. Fitzmyer summed up the arguments of Koro¡ec, Mendenhall and Moran, Wellhausen, and McCarthy to conclude that the Sefire treaties represent “vassal or suzerainty treaties” (1995, 136–66). His argument rests on the observation that the refugee clause of Hittite king Mursilis over Duppi-Tessub of Amurru parallels that of

16  

Sefire III:4–7, as follows: “If a fugitive flees from me … you must return them to me.” The use of the term “great king” also resonates a historical relationship of a vassal to a Hittite overlord. Terms for fugitives, however, characterized trade treaties between other Levantine states and Hittite treaties interested in preserving lucrative local markets (such as Ugarit and Amurru) but did not characterize Assyrian subjugation treaties. Fitzmyer then compares the treaties of Sefire to the so-called parity treaty between Ramses II and Ôattu¡ili III (136–66), but a treaty between two warring empires from the second-millennium does not parallel the local Aramaic situation in Sefire. More appropriate parallels occur in the earlier local agreements between the Levantine political entities Ugarit, Amurru, and Phoenicia of the second-millennium.

Perhaps Barga<yah’s treaty did not differ much from the treaty that A¡¡ur-nirari V imposed upon Mati<ilu of Arpad at the same time (755) that stipulates Mati<ilu’s obligation to return Assyrian fugitives and to provide military support to Assyria (Tadmor 1982, 144). Barga<yah’s treaty for mutual defense left Mati><el’s office of king intact and did not impose imperial subjugation or annexation. No one god had preeminence in this worldview, but “all the gods of Ktk and the gods of <Arpad” had agreed with Hadad in ratifying a political and military alliance. Barga<yah further enforced a contract with Mati><el for mutual cooperation with regard to peace, tranquility, the safe conduct of businessmen, and the return of fugitives. The Sefire inscriptions, thus, may provide evidence for a transitional state of affairs in the region before the final destruction and annexation of <Arpad by Tiglath-pileser III around 740. According to Khurt, the treaty may indicate the importance of local Assyrian governors in supporting the interests of the empire by imposing conditions on bordering states (493).

The Sefire inscriptions of Mati><el of <Arpad and Barga<yah of Ktk resemble the pre-Assyrian, Levantine and Hittite contracts of the second millennium for international cooperation in order to maintain peace, tranquility, safe conduct of ambassadors and businessmen, military protection, protection from rumor and threats, and the reciprocal return of fugitives. The Sefire inscriptions take the NA Empire for granted and, in paying respect to the god dA¡¡ur, do not express any hostility to the empire. The Sefire inscriptions thus suggest the existence of local Aramaean states, or colonies, under contractual obligations to the empire before the arrival of Tiglath-pileser III. In view of the contemporaneous policies of A¡¡urnaßirpal III and ⁄almaneser III, however, the two characters in this inscriptions could represent Assyrian colonial governors acting independently to control their borders and relationships by means of local Levantine and Neo-Hittite traditions.

Panammuwa I of Ya<udª (Zinjirli)

“May the soul of Panammuwa eat with Hadad and may the soul of Panammuwa drink with Hadad” (KAI 214).

In the first half of the eighth century, Panammuwa I of Y>dy in southeastern Anatolia (780–743) erected a statue with an inscription to the god Hadad a little to the northeast of the site of Zinjirli (Donner and Röllig 1966, 214). The scribes used a dialect of Samalian Aramaic (Hallo 2002, 2:156). The inscription reveals Panammuwa’s concern for local affairs and local gods. At the time of this inscription, Syrian colonies enjoyed freedom from Assyrian interference, and the local orientation of the inscription reflects

17  

Panammuwa’s independence and the lack of pressure from the empire. In the absence of Assyrian imperial influence, the king of Ya<udª demanded that his offspring make offerings to Hadad to ensure the well-being of Panammuwa and the kingdom. The inscription bears no military concerns for warfare, conquest, obedience, or punishment. Panammuwa I commemorated his independence by a deliberate exclusion of any mention of the Assyrian empire (Hamilton 1998, 215–50).

This text depicts a peaceful, non-imperial, West Semitic relationship between the gods, the king, and the people. The text stipulates the king’s duty to secure peaceful succession to the throne, to sacrifice to the gods, to build defensive fortifications, and to guarantee crops and prosperity. It does not stipulate punishment by death or exile for rebellion against the god. The local Levantine god Hadad did not command Panammuwa I to destroy his neighbors and to expand his kingdom by annexing their land. Although written in Aramaic, this inscription bears no traces of imperial ideology for warfare, conquest, obedience, or punishment. Of all the Levantine inscriptions, Panammuwa I’s may indicate a governor or king free of Assyrian aggression, although the inscription per se may indicate an Assyrian royal scribal tradition, and the concern for defensive fortifications may reflect imperial policy. Colonies and Colonialism The historical conditions described above suggest that the NA army under A¡¡urnaßirpal II, ⁄almaneser III, and Tiglath-pileser III (883–727) did not distinguish between the “land of dA¡¡ur” (province) and the “yoke of dA¡¡ur” (vassal). The dichotomy of “vassal state” versus “province” may require a third middle category of “colony” in order to explain the appearance of the “emergent states” of the Levant of this period. If indeed the NA emperors, as they claim, marched across the ancient Near East destroying and reconstituting every city, town, country, and local institution, especially the ruling class, in their path, then how did a “local elite” come to power? How did “kings,” who did not exist before the tenth century in places such as Moab, appear on the scene at the same time as the NA Empire? The “kings” would have arisen from the class of Neo-Assyrian governors, who colonized conquered areas with garrisons of soldiers, deportee slaves, and merchants and, left to their own devices, later became the “kings” and the “local elite.” Such a governor would have known how to set up a satellite state from the foundations of a colony, with a centralized city, agricultural settlements, garrisons, and merchants which followed the Assyrian design and continued to serve the NA Empire.

Scholarship acknowledges the presence of Neo-Assyrian agricultural colonies across the ancient Near East from the earliest period. The pattern of founding colonies to control foreign territories and goods began in Uruk, which established settlements in Syria and Anatolia (Yoffee 1995, 1387–99). The pattern became embedded in the local Syrian cultures along with the spread of Mesopotamian languages and cultures. Evidence of mass deportations (Oded 1979, 2–4; Machinist 1993, 89), enforced labor and urbanization (Tadmor 1975, 37–40), warfare and conquest (Eph‘al 1983, 88), political and economic domination sustained by fortress colonies like that in Aribua (Tadmor 1975, 36–37), and collection of maddattu (Bär 1996, 7) indicate that A¡¡urnaßirpal II enforced, and thus made law, his ideology and policy under the universal jurisdiction and authority of A¡¡ur. A¡¡urnaßirpal II and ⁄almaneser III created the pattern for the empires and its colonies, and Tiglath-pileser III put the imperial policies into effect on a large scale and created the

18  

great empire of KUR a¡-¡ur. Emperor Tiglath-pileser III kept up a constant interior colonization by moving populations around the empire into border areas in order to break up the national cohesion of the local tribes and to plant loyal Assyrians in the midst of the Aramaean populations (Malbran-Labat 1982, 7–11). Nelson acknowledges the political and cultural domination of the colonizing power Assyria in Israel and Judah from 721 and throughout the seventh century (2009, 5–14).

An emergent state with the archaeological correlates of an Assyrian colony, such as Moab, cannot arise out of a vacuum. The local elite leaders, who composed or dictated the inscriptions, could represent such a class of Assyrian colonial governors, who both brought Assyrian culture and society to the periphery and over their lifetimes identified with and came to call themselves locals. Thus, instead of hypothesizing a group of local tribal leaders, who would not have known how to set up such a state by adapting to the imperial culture, one could hypothesize that a group of Assyrian colonists (administrators, soldiers, slaves, and merchants) settled the area in compliance with Assyrian imperial demands. They then would have adapted to the local conditions and created a local autonomous state sending tribute and taxes to the empire, as loyal vassals, and supplying the caravans passing from Arabia and the Mediterranean to Assyria. Thus, this essay hypothesizes that the emergent Levantine states of ninth and eighth centuries evolved from the imperial colonies set up by A¡¡urnaßirpal II, ⁄almaneser III, and Tiglath-pileser III.

19  

REFERENCE LIST Abou-Assaf, A., P. Bordreuil, and A. R. Millard. 1982. La statue de Tell Fekherye et son

inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne. Études Assyriologiques. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilizations.

Bär, J. 1996. Der assyrische Tribut und seine Darstellung. Eine Untersuchung zur imperialen ideologie im neuassyrischen Reich. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Dearman, J. A. 1989. Historical reconstruction of the Mesha> inscription, in Studies in the Mesha inscription and Moab, ed. idem, 155–210. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars.

Donner, H. and W. Röllig. 1966. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (KAI). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Dubovsky, P., SJ. 2006. Hezekiah and the Assyrian spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian intelligence services and its significance for 2 Kings 18–19. Biblica et Orientalia 49. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.

Eph>al, I. 1983. On warfare and military control in the Ancient Near Eastern empires: A research outline, in History, historiography and interpretation: Studies in biblical and cuneiform literatures, eds. Hayim Tadmor and Moshe Weinfeld, 88–106. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes.

Fales, F. M. 1983. Le double bilinguisme de la statue de Tell Fekherye. Syria 60:233–50. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1995. The Aramaic inscriptions of Sefire. Rev. ed. Biblica et Orientalia

19/A. Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico. Foster, B. R. 2007. Water under the straw: Peace in Mesopotamia, in War and peace in

the ancient world, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub, 66–80. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Gallagher, W. R. 1999. Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah: New studies. Leiden: Brill. Gibson, J. C. L. 1982. Hebrew and Moabite inscriptions. Vol. 1 of Textbook of Syrian

Semitic inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon. ------. 1982. Phoenician inscriptions. Vol. 3 of Textbook of Syrian semitic inscriptions.

Oxford: Clarendon. Grayson, A. K. 1996. Assyrian rulers of the early first millennium BC. II (858–745 BC).

The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods; v. 3. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

------. 1991. Assyrian rulers of the early first millennium BC. I (1114–859 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods; v. 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

------. 1971. Assyrian civilization, in The Assyrian and Babylonian empires and other states of the Near East, from the eighth to the sixth Centuries B.C. Vol. 3, part 2 of The Cambridge ancient history. 2d ed., eds. John Boardman et al., 3:194–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Green, D. J. 2010. “I undertook great works”: The ideology of domestic achievements in West Semitic royal inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Hallo, W. W., ed. 2002. The context of scripture. 3 vols. Leiden, New York: Brill. Hamilton, M. W. 1998. The past as destiny: Historical visions in Sam<al and Judah under

Assyrian hegemony. Harvard Theological Review 91:215–50. Holloway, S. W. 2002. A¡¡ur is king! A¡¡ur is king!: Religion in the exercise of power in

the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Boston: Brill.

20  

Huehnergard, J. and A. D. Rubin. 2012. Phyla and waves: Models of classification, in Semitic languages: An international handbook on their structure, their history, and their investigation, ed. M. P. Streck and S. Weninger, 259–78. Handbücher zur Sprachund Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin: De Gruyter.

KAI. Donner, H. and W. Röllig. 1966. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Knauf-Bellerri, E. A. 1995. Edom: The social and economic history, in You shall not abhor an Edomite for he is your brother: Edom and Seir in history and tradition, ed. D. V. Edelman, 93–116. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 3. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press.

Kuhrt, A. 1995. The ancient Near East, c. 3000–330 BC. 2 vols. New York: Routledge. Liverani, M. 2005. The impact of the Assyrian Empire (c. 740–640), in idem., Israel’s

history and the history of Israel, trans. C. Peri and P. R. Davies, 143–64. Oakville, Conn.: DBBC.

Machinist, P. 1993. Assyrians on Assyria in the first millennium B.C., in Anfänge politischen Denkens in der Antike. Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und die Griechen, eds. K. Raaflaub and E. Müler-Luckner, 77–104. München: R. Oldenbourg.

Malbran-Labat, F. 1982. L’armée et l’organisation militaire de l’Assyrie. D’après les letters des Sargonides trouvées à Ninive. Hautes études orientales 19. Genève: Librairie Droz.

Mattingly, G. L. 1989. Moabite religion and the Mesha> inscription, in Studies in the Mesha inscription and Moab, ed. J. A. Dearman, 211–38. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars.

Na<aman, N. 2006. Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography: The First Temple Period. Collected Essays. Vol. 3. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

------. 2005. Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays. Vol. 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Nelson, R. D. 2009. A response to Thomas C. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History. The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9:17: 5–14. Online: www.jhsonline.org.

Nissinen, M. 1998. References to prophecy in Neo-Assyrian sources. State Archives of Assyria Studies 7. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Oded, B. 1992. War, peace, and empire: Justifications for war in Assyrian royal inscriptions. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

------. 1979. Mass deportations and deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.

Parker, B. 2001. The mechanics of empire: The northern frontier of Assyria as a case study in imperial dynamics. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

------. 1997. Garrisoning the empire: Aspects of the construction and maintenance of forts on the Assyrian fontier. Iraq 59: 77–88.

Parker, S. B. 1997. Stories in scripture and inscriptions: Comparative studies on narratives in Northwest Semitic inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

------. 1996. Appeals for military intervention: Stories from Zinjirli and the Bible. Biblical Archaeologist 59:213–24.

Parpola, S. 2003. Assyria’s expansion in the 8th and 7th centuries and its long-term repercussions in the west, in Symbiosis, symbolism, and the power of the past: Canaan,

21  

Ancient Israel, and their neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, 99–111, eds. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Parpola, S. and K. Watanabe, eds. 1988. Neo-Assyrian treaties and loyalty oaths. State Archives of Assyria 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

Peckham, B. 1992. History of Phoenicia, in Anchor bible dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman et al., 5:349–57. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday.

------. 2001. Phoenicians and Aramaeans: The literary and epigraphic evidence, in The world of the Aramaeans II: Studies in history and archaeology in honour of Paul-Eugène Dion, ed. P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl, 19–44. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 325. 3 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

Postgate, J. N. 1992. The land of Assur and the yoke of Assur. World Archaeology 23:247–62.

------. 1979.The economic structure of the Assyrian empire, in Power and propaganda: A symposium on ancient empires, ed. M. T. Larsen, 193–221. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

Pritchard, J. B., ed. 1974. Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament. 3d ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Rosenthal, F. 1974. Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions, in Ancient near eastern texts relating to the Old Testament, 400–504. 3d ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Routledge, B. 2000. The politics of Mesha: Segmented identities and state formation in Iron Age Moab. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 43:221–56.

Sanders, S. L. 2009. The invention of Hebrew. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press. Tadmor, H. 1982. Treaty and oath in the ancient Near East: A historian’s approach, in

Humanizing America’s iconic book: Society of Biblical Literature centennial addresses 1980, eds. G. M. Tucker and D. A. Knight, 127–52. Chico, Calif.: Scholars.

------. 1975. Assyria and the west: The ninth century and its aftermath, in Unity and Diversity, eds. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts, 36–48. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.

Tadmor, H. and S. Yamada. 2011. The royal inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC), and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), kings of Assyria. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Vera Chamaza, G. W. 2005. Die Rolle Moabs in der neuassyrischen Expansionspolitik. Altes Orient und Altes Testament 321. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Von Soden, W. 1954. Herrscher im Alten Orient. Berlin: Springer. Winter, I. J. 1979. On the problems of Karatepe: The reliefs and their context. Anatolian

Studies 29:115–51. Yoffee, N. 1995. The economy of ancient western Asia, in Civilizations of the Ancient

Near East, ed. J. M. Sasson. New York: Scribner. Younger, K. L., Jr. 2004. The repopulation of Samaria (2 Kings 17:24, 27–31) in light of

recent study, in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, eds. J. K. Hoffmeier and A. Millard, 254–80. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans.

------. 1998. The Phoenician inscription of Azatiwada. Journal of Semitic Studies 43:11–48.

22  

                                                                                                                           

1 Revised chapter 6 of Terror of the radiance: A¡¡ur covenant to YHWH covenant. OBO 258. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.