 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
 |
B.A.
ANCIENT HISTORY AND EGYPTOLOGY
Essay
Question: Discuss
the significance of the Aramaean movements in the period between c. 1200 and c.
900 BC. Essay
written by David Rohl (1st Year Ancient History/Egyptology). Submitted
to Amelie Kuhrt on 9th May 1988.
It
will be my intention to try to show that the historical material on which the
theories of the so-called Aramaean movements of c. 1200 to c. 900 BC are based
is open to an alternative interpretation. I will attempt to argue that the
standard 'invasion' hypothesis is not impartially based on the available
evidence but rather on a desire to see the rise to political power of the
Aramaean states as part of the general population disturbances and movements
thought to have taken place at the end of the Late Bronze Age [1]. The
basis of my argument will be the assumption that the Aramaeans are at least
linguistically and probably ethnically related to their precursors in the
Levant whom the Egyptians and Hittites called Amurru – the biblical Amorites.
Albright makes the clear statement that 'The descendants of the Amorites became
Aramaean, a process doubtless facilitated by close dialectal similarities' [2]. Indeed,
I am going to propose that they are basically one and the same peoples,
although not absolutely equal in definition. Thus the status of Aramaeans may
be in some ways similar to that of the Habiru of the el-Amarna period – that is
to say, just as all Habiru were SA.GAZ but not all SA.GAZ were Habiru, so not
all Amorites were Aramaeans, for they also consisted of Jebusites, Sutu and
other related tribes or groups. Alternatively, 'Aramu' may have gradually
evolved into a general term similar to the modern 'Arab' which today represents
many very different social and tribal groups under the one banner. The
separate identities of Amorites and Aramaeans, as espoused by the standard
works on the subject, have often been blurred. Where the Old Testament refers
to king Hadadezer, the contemporary of David, as an Amorite, Albright prefers
to call him the 'king of the Aramaeans of Zobah' [3]. Clearly there is little
to differentiate the two in the minds of some scholars and perhaps we would be
wise to consider the possibility that the Aramaeans were indigenous to the
Levant almost from the beginning of the historical period, clad in their
earlier Amorite disguise, rather than newcomers arriving in northern Syria and
northern Mesopotamia at the beginning of the Iron Age. Amorite/Aramaean
territorial geography In the
Old Testament the Amorites are described as principally occupying the highland
areas of the Levant. In particular, they are located in the region north of the
Sea of Chinnereth and east of the Orontes, as well as to the east of the Jordan
and, to a degree, in the mountainous region between the coastal plain and the
Jordan Valley. In the lowlands, that is to say the coastal plain and the
Jezreel and Jordan Valleys, the principal ethnic population was apparently
Canaanite: “The
Amalakites dwell in the land of Negeb; the Hittites, the Jebusites and Amorites
dwell in the hill country; and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and along the
Jordan.” [Numbers 13, 29] In
Numbers 21, 21-23 Joshua's invasion of Trans-Jordan is against the Amorites,
and in Joshua 7, 7 the city of Ai appears to be an Amorite possession. Also in
Joshua 10, 5, the Jebusite king of Jerusalem is named as one of the kings of
the Amorites. According to Kenyon: “The
Jebusites would seem in other references to be comprised within the Amorites,
for the king of Jerusalem, a town specifically Jebusite in Joshua XV. 63, is
one of the kings of the Amorites who banded against the appeasing Gibeonites as
described in Joshua X. 5, ...” [4] A few
centuries later, we find the Aramaeans occupying the same regions all but one –
the newly conquered land of Israel, south of the Jezreel, which was now
occupied by the Hebrews. One extra area is added to their sphere of control and
that is the north Syrian region including the Khabur Triangle. However it could
be argued that this territory was also occupied by the Amorites in earlier
times, but, because of its geographical remoteness from the area of the
Conquest, it was not listed amongst the Amorite possessions in Numbers 13. Brinkman
agrees that: “By
the middle of the eighth century the Aramaeans were dispersed over an area
roughly equivalent to that occupied by the Amorites at their height.” [5] Somewhat
more emphatically he adds: “Even
a superficial glance at the geographical distribution of the Amorites in the
early part of the second millennium and a comparison with the areas occupied by
the Arameans in the second half of the eighth century will show that they
inhabited many of the same regions in Syria, along the middle Euphrates, and in
southeastern Babylonia. ... Since there is no substantial evidence for the
Arameans coming into this area in the intervening period and since there is no
trace of an older Babylonian or Amorite population being displaced, one is led
to wonder whether the southeastern Arameans might not be either remote
descendants of earlier Amorites or at least a group speaking a related West
Semitic language.” [6]
Early
Biblical References Some
scholars suggest that the mentions of Aramaeans in the Old Testament, in
particular in the Pentateuch, are anachronistic. There, for example, Abraham is
referred to as 'the wandering Aramaean' [Deuteronomy 26:5]. We also find
Amorites occurring in the Mari texts (c.1800) whose nomenclature closely
resembles that of the patriarchal period familiar to us from the Old Testament.
The term 'Sutu' (see below) is also attested in the Mari archive. An
interesting theory regarding the origins of the Amorites was proposed by Clay
in 1919 [7]. According to him, the name 'Uru' appears to be associated with the
principal early deity of the 'Am-urru' [8]; he then goes on to assert that the
ancient Mesopotamian city of Ur was named after this deity. In Aramaic the name
'Amurru' is written 'Uru' and is identical to the writing of the city name of
'Ur'. The logic of his argument continues with the biblical story of Abraham's
links to that city and hence the Amorite origins of the Patriarchs. The name
Uru-salim would also have a satisfactory explanation in the context of an
Amorite/Jebusite kingdom in the Judean hills [9]. The early god of the Amurru
was also, according to Clay, variously called El-Ur/Amar/Mar of which the first
gives us another obvious patriarchal link and the last the name of the city of
Mari. Whether
or not Clay was near the mark with his hypothesis (without a knowledge of early
Amorite religion and language I am unable to take issue with him), it is
superficially at least an elegant scheme which appears to add some credence to
the Old Testament traditions concerning the origins of the Patriarchs. Later,
in the monarchy period, king David (c. 1000) overthrew Hadadezer king of Zobah
when the latter was occupied trying to retrieve land captured presumably by the
Assyrians near the Euphrates [2 Samuel 8:3]. This victory led to the absorption
of Aram-Zobah into Israelite territory, much of which was then lost again under
the rise to power of Rezin king of Aram-Damascus (contemporary of Isaiah).
Again I stress that Albright regarded Hadadezer as an Aramaean. We therefore
meet the Aramaeans in Palestine at the turn of the 10th century, but their
occupation of the area may be extended backwards in time for an undetermined
period on the grounds that Hadadezer was in the act of recovering his domains
from aggressors in the north when David attacked. Hadadezer was not therefore
in the act of arriving in the region for the first time. Thus the beginning of
the 10th century must act only as a terminus ad quem for the arrival/appearance
of the Aramaeans in Palestine. Early
Mesopotamia From
early Mesopotamian sources we hear of a group of people known as the 'Sutu' who
are in later times often associated with the so-called Aramaean movements.
Brinkman confirms that: “Their
distribution in time and place roughly matches the distribution of the
contemporary Arameans, and one is led to suspect that in Babylonian parlance
the terms 'Sutian' and 'Aramean' may not always have designated distinguishable
groups.” [10] According
to O'Callaghan, the Sutu are recorded as being desert nomads in the reign of
Rim-Sin of Larsa (c. 1790) [11]. Brinkman also notes the first rather puzzling
occurrence in this reign of the institution of the nasiku (tribal chieftain)
which regularly occurs in association with the much later Aramaeans [12]. The
first clear and unequivocal reference to the nasiku is otherwise dated to the
reign of Assurnasirpal II c. 870 BC. One must then ask the question: should these
Aramaean associations also be regarded as anachronistic, just as is argued for
the early biblical references dated to the same 18th-century period? Egypt In the
Egypt of the 18th Dynasty we find the pharaohs in correspondence with a country
called Naharaim/Mitanni. The Amenhotep III heart scarabs of Year 10 (c. 1380)
commemorate the marriage of the king to a Mitannian princess. One inscription
reads: “A
marvel brought to his majesty, the daughter of the king of Naharaima, Shutana,
the princess Gilukhepa and women of her harim numbering 317.” [13] The
terms Naharaim and Mitanni appear to be interchangeable in the Egyptian texts,
both names possessing the hill-country/foreign-land determinative. However,
'Mitanni' is primarily used in association with the king of the country or his
envoys, whereas 'Naharaim' is predominantly the term used to describe the
geographical region across the Euphrates. The term 'Mitanni' probably therefore
has a narrower, more political connotation and direct connection with the
Hurrian ruling class. The country of Mitanni and therefore
Naharaim was centred on the Khabur Triangle at around 1350 BC, as was the
Aramaean kingdom of Aram-Naharaim conventionally dated to 1150. Even though the
region was ruled in the earlier period by Hurrian princes, the indigenous
population may have been Amorite. In this regard Goetze argues that: “Hurrian
knights had then replaced the Amorite princes, taken over the best parts of the
land for themselves and their liegemen (mariyanna), and now formed a caste of
their own.” [14] If
Goetze is right in his understanding of the change in political control of the
Khabur region, then it would not be a giant leap of the imagination to suggest
that, following the collapse of the Mitannian Dynasty during the 13th century,
it was the native Amorite population, now described as Aramaeans by the
Assyrians, which again rose to the forefront of the political scene and
provided the new bulwark against early Assyrian expansion. This hypothesis
transforms the historical picture from the standard view of a new group of
Aramaean invaders arriving from the Syrian plains and western Arabian peninsula
into something quite different. Instead, with the overthrow of the Hurrian
ruling class which had previously dominated the territories to the west of the
Assyrian heartland, we see a simple change in adversary for the rising power of
Assyria in the form of the re-emerging old Amorite population, dominated in
particular by one tribe – the 'Ahlamu Aramaeans'. That
the Sutu were also a force to be reckoned with in the 14th century is surely
evident from their appearance in the Golden Horus name of Amenhotep III which
is first attested in a stela from Aswan dated to Year 5 of the king. There
Amenhotep is called hwi Sttyw 'smiter of the Sutu' [15]. This group were
therefore clearly seen by the Egyptians as a major adversary at this time. Egypt:
The el-Amarna Letters In the
el-Amarna correspondence (1360-1335) we come across for the first time in
Egyptian sources the group of people called the 'Ahlamu' who apparently occupy
parts of Syria. The letters were written in Akkadian, although the provenance
was Egypt, and so this name occurs in its non-Egyptian form. These Ahlamu are
referred to as 'brigands' [EA 200] and are associated with another group called
the Sttyw (the Sutu already mentioned above) who have been holding up the
messengers of Pharaoh returning from Mesopotamia [EA 195]. The
term Ahlamu or 'hlmw contains the frequently used 'h' of the cuneiform texts,
which in Egyptian vocalisation and writing may well have been dropped. The
letter 'l' is, of course, interchangeable with 'r' and the 'w' ending
represents the plural nominative termination. Thus it is possible to argue with
confidence that the terms '(h)lm(w) and 'rm(w) or Aramu belong to the same
basic stem and may indeed represent one and the same peoples. There is
therefore the possibility of Aramaeans appearing on the scene as early as the
end of the 18th Dynasty in Egypt (c. 1350) at about the time that Mitannian
control of the North Syria region was starting to wain. It is
universally accepted that Hadadezer king of Aram Zobah and adversary of king
David was a 10th-century Aramaean ruler. However, in the el-Amarna
correspondence of 1350, the name Hadadezer appears in its abbreviated form of
'Aziru' (-ezer), the king of Damascus. Thus an Aramaean king's name is employed
by a 14th-century ruler whose territory coincides with the later Aram Zobah of
the 10th century. The Hittite king Suppiluliumas I, in his letters to Pharaoh,
calls this same Aziru 'king of the Amorites'. A more
speculative but very interesting linguistic idea suggests that the Aramaeans
were known to the Egyptians even as far back as the Middle Kingdom [16]. The
so-called 'Cursing Texts' of this period refer to a people called '3m. In these
texts, the aleph glottal stop is used to represent the Semitic post-vocalic 'l'
in the transcriptions of some Levantine place-names and their rulers [17]. It
is therefore a possibility that '3m represents 'lm or 'rm and this could be
seen as the Egyptian writing of Ahlamu or Aram, though some caution is
necessary in view of the initial 'ayin. In spite of the latter, Smith and Smith
did in fact assume this view by using the anglisization 'Alamu for '3m in their
translation of the Kamose texts of the late 17th Dynasty [18]. Their
translation would put the Ahlamu back into the 16th century and by consequence
to at least the 18th century through the '3m of the 'Cursing Texts'. This would
tie in well with the mentions of Sutu in the Mari archive. Hatti Suppiluliumas
I, as already mentioned, was a contemporary of Amenhotep III c. 1350. He also
had a battle near Carchemish in which the Sutu were a part of the enemy
confederacy ranged against the Hittite army. Three
generations later, the Ahlamu are again preventing messengers from reaching
their destinations – this time the couriers are from Kadashman-Enlil of Babylon
on their way to Hattusilis III of Hatti (c. 1270). Assyria The
Ahlamu/Aramaeans occur unequivocally in Assyrian texts some 220 years after the
el-Amarna Period, in Year 4 of Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1110). In his annals for
that year the king states that he 'conquered six of their cities at the foot of
Mount Beshri'. The use of the word 'city' in association with the Ahlamu
clearly suggests a settled population by this time [19]. Tiglath-pileser went
on to record 28 campaigns against the Ahlamu during his 38-year reign [20]. Aramaean
tribes also appear settled in Babylonia by the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (c.
740) and it is generally thought that they had gradually infiltrated from the
west as part of the overall movements of peoples during the troubled times of
the 12th to 10th centuries. Again this group is not perceived as indigenous to
the region but as a migrating/invading population. Brinkman, however,
acknowledges the weaknesses on which this assumption rests: “...
evidence regarding this supposed migration is frustratingly sparse; and, in
many instances, one may question whether the prevailing historical
reconstructions are satisfactory.” [21] He
further adds: “In
surveying the evidence available on the Arameans who affected Babylonia between
1150 and 746, we find that we are not in a position to answer even such
essential questions as: who were these Arameans and where did they come from,
...?” [22] Thus
the Egyptian evidence, its corroboration from Hatti, and indeed that from
Tiglath-pileser I's own records combines to cast considerable doubt on the
hypothesis of an Aramaean invasion of northern Mesopotamia in the late-12th
century BC. The Aramaean population appears to have been settled in northern
Syria and probably the Khabur Triangle for at least 150 years prior to this
time and most likely for a considerable time longer. This is further suggested
by a reference to 'the mountains of the Ahlami' in a campaign text from the
reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1235). The Ahlamu/Aramaeans cannot therefore be
regarded as forming a major part of the widespread population movements which
are believed to have taken place at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Their
political emergence probably took place around two centuries earlier during the
LHIIIB period and may have originally been the rising of an indigenous 'serf'
population which brought about the overthrow of their Hurrian overlords – the
Mitannian Dynasty. Even if no direct evidence for this uprising is currently
available, there is certainly sufficient circumstantial evidence to point to
the Aramaean population filling the political vacuum following the sudden and
mysterious disappearance of the Mitannian kingdom. Their raids into Assyrian
territory may well have been caused by 'land-hunger' brought about by severe
famines which, according to ancient sources, appear to have been widespread at
this time. Babylonia In
Lower Mesopotamia we find that a king of Babylon, Adad-apla-iddina (c. 1060),
was himself an Aramaean [23] and that the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty of later years
was of Aramaean stock. Simbar- Thus
the Aramaeans were very active in southern Mesopotamia throughout this long
period, during which time they spasmodically gained effective control of much
of the region. This, however, does not in my view constitute evidence of
population movements or invasions and could equally represent the fluctuating
fortunes of an influential settled group living within the multi-racial
population of the region. These tribes may have lived in the area for many
centuries prior to their rise to power. The
Aramaic language Although
not absolutely identifiable as the precursor to Aramaic, Amorite seems to have
contained many elements that were later to form the basis of Aramaic grammar,
including the method of indicating the plural and the verbal structure. The
other major influences on early Aramaic were Phoenician and Ugaritic. Later it
borrowed further from the Mesopotamian scripts before becoming the lingua
franca of the Levant in the Persian Period [27].
Date 1950
Abraham 'the Aramaean wanderer' leaves Ur. 1850
Possible mention of Alamu in the Cursing Texts of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt. 1800
Naram-Sin fights against 'Harshamadki lord of Aram' (??). 1790
Rim-Sin of Larsa encounters Sutu. 1550
The Kamose texts mention Asiatics called '3mw/Alamu. 1381
Amenhotep III 'the smiter of the Sutu' marries a princess of Naharaim. 1350
Ahlamu and Sutu appear in the el-Amarna Letters. 1270
More Ahlamu in the reign of Kadashman-Enlil. 1150
Supposed invasion/migration of the Aramaeans into Northern Mesopotamia. 1110
First use of the term Aramaeans during the reign of Tiglath- 1060
Adad-apla-idinna, an Aramaean, becomes king of Babylonia. 1020
Simbar-Shipak repairs shrines damaged by Aramaeans. 1000
David defeats Hadadezer of Aram-Zobah. 860 Nabu-apla-idinna defeats the Sutu. Conclusion As far
as I have been able to ascertain, none of the inscriptions from the records of
the ancient Near East suggest an invasion or major movement of population by
the people known as the Aramaeans in around 1200 – 1100 BC. The sudden
appearance in Assyrian documents of the name Ahlamu Aramaeans in the reign of
Tiglath-pileser I may be explained by the paucity of annals surviving from the
century immediately prior to his reign and the ineffectual rule of the Assyrian
kings preceding this veteran campaigner. The
Assyrian attacks on the Khabur Triangle are not considered by scholars to be
either invasions or population movements because it is tacitly understood that
the Assyrians had dwelt in the region between the two Zabs for several
centuries prior to their expansion in the 11th century. I see no reason to take
a different view in respect of the Amorite/Aramaean peoples. I suggest that, in
attacking Assyria, they were doing no more or no less than their neighbours,
all of whom were trying to capitalise on the power vacuum created by the
collapse of firstly the Mitannian kingdom and then later both the Hittite and
Egyptian empires in northern Syria. Although
much of the above argument is based on the phonetic similarities between the
names of various groups appearing in the ancient texts, I feel that there is
sufficient other supportive evidence to show continuity of occupation in the
region by both the Ahlamu and Sutu. Because the phonetic arguments are not
therefore applied in isolation I believe there is justification for some
speculation on the origins of the Aramaeans using this methodology. Cook
tells us that by the time of the Persian Empire 'Important peoples like the
Hittites and Aramaeans, the Philistines, and the Edomites had more or less lost
their identity, as the Midianites, Amorites and Amalekites had done earlier'
[28]. One might be entitled to question the assumption that the Amorites had
ever really disappeared from the scene. Rather perhaps they had become known by
the new name of Aramaeans, adopted from what was originally a smaller branch of
the whole Amorite group. This new name was to become synonymous with the
general population of the region for many centuries and the language which
these people spoke became the lingua franca of the first millennium BC in the
Levant. It is
interesting to note that the root 'Aram' may remain to this day in the name
most commonly used to describe the people of the Near East – the modern
'rb/Aribi. The lip consonants 'm' and 'b' in semitic languages have often
become interchanged over the passage of time. It is thus likely that the modern
word 'Arab' is a direct descendant of the ancient name 'rm/'lm although this
must of course be considered in the light of a different historical
perspective. Notes
and References 1. For
the standard view of the widespread population movements and a detailed
historical analysis of the dispersion of the Aramaean states c. 1200-700 BC
see: J. D. Hawkins: 'The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia' in Cambridge
Ancient History Volume III, Part 1, (Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp.
372-441. For a map of the Neo-Hitite/Aramaean city states see p. 374. 2. W.
F. Albright: 'Syria, the Philistines, and Phoenicia' in Cambridge Ancient
History Volume II, Part 2A, (Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 532. 3.
Ibid., p. 533. 4. K.
M. Kenyon: Amorites and Canaanites (Oxford University Press, London 1966), p.
3. 5. J.
A. Brinkman: A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia (Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum, Rome 1968), p. 267. 6.
Ibid., p. 282. 7. A.
T. Clay: The Empire of the Amorites (Yale University Press, Newhaven 1919),
Chapter X. 8.
Ibid., p. 67. 9.
Ibid., p. 71. 10. J.
A. Brinkman: op. cit., p. 285. 11. R.
T. O'Callaghan: Aram Naharaim: A Contribution to the History of Upper
Mesopotamia in the Second Millennium B.C. (Pontificium Institutum Biblicum,
Rome 1948), p. 94. 12. J.
A. Brinkman: op. cit., p. 274, note 1767. 13. In
the Petrie Collection at UCL. 14. A.
Goetze: Hethiter, Churriter und Assyrer (Oslo, 1936), p. 1. 15. W.
Helk: Urkunden IV, 1663. 16.
This idea was developed in discussion with Professor Smith who first brought my
attention to the possibility during an Egyptian Language class last term. 17. G.
Posener: Princes et Pays d'Asie et de Nubie (Bruxelles, 1940), pp. 41-2. 18. H.
S. Smith and A. Smith: 'A Reconstruction of the Kamose Texts' in Zeitschrift
für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Vol. 103 (1976), p. 52. 19. A. K.
Grayson: Assyrian Royal Inscriptions Volumes 1 & 2 (Otto Harrassowitz,
Wiesbaden 1976), pp. 13-14. 20. J.
B. Pritchard: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament
(Princeton University Press, New Jersey 1969), p. 275. 21.
Brinkman: op. cit., p. 268. 22.
Brinkman: op. cit., p. 280. 23.
Brinkman: op. cit., p. 279. 24.
Brinkman: op. cit., p. 150. 25.
Brinkman: op. cit., p. 152. 26.
Brinkman: op. cit., p. 189. 27.
Albright: op. cit., p. 530. 28. G.
A. Cook: North Semitic Inscriptions, p. 175. |
 |
 |
||
| Site Map |