ALTORIENTALISTIK UND SEMITISTIK
Leitung: Wolfgang Röllig
SOME PROBLEMS IN EARLY ARAMEAN HISTORY*
By Ran Zadok, Tübingen
The ethnogenesis ofthe Arameans belongs to their proto-history and will
be dealt with elsewhere. J.-R. Kupper suggested' that the Arameans, who
are first designated as the 'Aramean Ahlamites' (= the Ahlamites of the
land of Aramu) originated from the Amorites (the general designation for
West Semites in the Fertile Crescent down to the end ofthe OB period).
The abolishment of Mitanni as a buffer state between Hatti and Assyria has
started a period of continuous struggle between the Assyrians and the West
Semitic nomads ('Ahlamites') who seem to have become more powerful
and numerous after the destruction of the central authority in the Jezireh,
viz. Mitanni. For Mitanni practically ruled over most ofthe steppes on the
edge of the Syrian Desert (on both sides of the Euphrates) where these
nomads were apt to concentrate, thereby fulfilling a pre-requisite for
having an effective control on the nomads' movements between the six¬
teenth century and the middle of the fourteenth century B. C. On the other
hand, the Assyrians did not control both sides of the Euphrates during the
second millennium B.C.
The term Ahlamü, which is very common in MB sources of various types,
appears in MA documents only from the time of Adad-nirari I (1307-1275
B. C.) onwards and is restricted to royal inscriptions. The other MA sources
use exclusively the more ancient term Sutü for designating West Semitic
nomads. West Semitic tribes are only rarely specified: these were the
nomads (Sutü) of (the land of) lauru (laureans) and the Hiranu. The latter
group appears about half a millennimn later as an Aramean tribe residing
in Babylonia.^ I should like to point out that none ofthe West Semitic names
* Abbrevations as in AHw. and CAD. Since a detaUed monograph of mine on ear¬
ly Aramean history is in active preparation now, the bibliographical references below are kept at a minimum.
' Les Nomades, xviiif 114. 132 f.
^ See Kh. Nashef: RGTC 5, 145; M. Heltzeb, TheSuteans. Naples 1981, 86'*;
Brinkman: PKB 271"".
ofthe individuals who are described as either Ahlamites or Suteans is typi¬
cally Aramaic. Moreover, some of these names are of a clear Amorite type.
The early history of the Arameans begins with their first mention in a
clear historical context by Tiglath-Pileser I in 1112 B. C' The inscriptions
of this Assyrian king, which describe his campaigns against the Aramean
Ahlamites {Ahlamü Aramäja) in the southern Jezireh (especially south of
the middle Euphrates, notably Mt. Bishri) contain at least two Aramaic
topographical designations (gah'äni and mudab(b)iru) . One may therefore
infer that his scribes used diaries of campaigns while compiling certain
royal inscriptions. The Assyrian resistance to the Aramean penetration
was intensive - if not fairly effective - not only during Tiglath-Pileser Fs
reign, but also in the reign ofhis successor A§§ur-bel-kala, i.e. practically
between 1112 and 1057 B. C. (provided the assigiunent ofthe 'Broken Obe¬
lisk' to A§§ur-bel-kala is correct)." This is in sharp contrast to the following
period (1056-933 B.C.) which witnessed an Assyrian partial retreat from
the Jezireh. As a result, the Arameans, who by that time have already
established several political units in Syria, penetrated into the whole Jezi¬
reh. They also have reached - probably via Sühu - the Babylonian peri¬
phery including the region immediately south ofthe Lesser Zab very close
to the city of Assur. They also threatened the heartland of Babylonia. The
Chaldeans are also mentioned as early as Tiglath-Pileser Fs time (in the
Assyrian economic document VS 19, 10), but their abodes then cannot be
established. The compound designation 'Aramean Ahlamites' is gradually
replaced during this period by the simplex 'Arameans' ; the compound term
is restricted from that period onwards only to a few texts of a highly literary style.
The period of almost uninterrupted Aramean expansion came to an end
as Assur-dan II (932-910 B. C.) has fought against the Arameans especially
(as far as one can gather from the broken context) in the Lesser Zab region
where they were a direct threat to Assyria proper. His activities mark the
beginning of the Assyrian reconquista of the Jezireh, a process which
became intensive in the reigns ofhis successors Adad-nirari II and Tukulti-
Ninurta II (909-884 B. C). The reconquista ofthe Aramean political units
established during the period of Aramean expansion was pursued by Assur¬
nasirpal III and completed by Sbalmaneser Ill's capture of Til-Barsip, the
capital of Bit-Adini, the last Aramean kingdom in the Jezireh in 856 B.C.
Adad-nirari III first conquered, in a series of campaigns, a large section
ofthe northem Jezireh near Assyria proper from the three Temanite mlers.
Thereafter he conquered the rest of the Jezireh which consisted of many
small political uruts. Most of these units rebelled after his death and had to
be reconquered by his successor; the definite conquest of these units was
achieved by Assurnasirpal III who also subdued the whole land of Zamua.
The Aramean expansion has reached in its peak also some vally systems of
Zamua northeast of Babylonia. The region of Dagara in westem Zamua
' For an historical expos6 see Küpper: Les Nomades, llOff.
" See Borger: EAK 1, 138-42; J. E. Reade, Iraq 37 (1975), 129. 139.
(possibly one day march from the Radänu river) was controlled at that time
by the sheikh (nasiku) Nür-Adad, a name which was borne several years
earlier by the Temanite ruler of the Nisibis region. The name of another
Temanite ruler, Mamli (of Huzirina) is identical with that ofthe settlement
of Mamli in Western Zamua which is mentioned in coimection with the
Zamuan rebellion.' Nür-Adad of Dagara played an important role in the ini¬
tial stage of this rebellion, as did Zabini who was responsible on the city of
Kisirtu in Zamua and bore an exclusively Aramaic name. Western Zamua
and Rä§i (east of Der near the Elamite border) were the easternmost
regions of the Aramean expansion. In Western Zamua, like in several
regions of the northern periphey (notably ASäa whole ruler bore the West
Semitic name Gir-Dädi) , the Arameans have attained some political influ¬
ence, but probably remained a minority.
Among the many political entities, only Aram Damascus, Aram Sobah
and Bit-Zamani are defined as Aramean in the sources. Regarding the
Temanites, they probably were Arameans seeing that one of their rulers
(Muquru of Gidara) called his city by the Aramean name Radammatu and
relied upon the Arameans. As for the other entities, there is indirect evi¬
dence that they were Aramean; this is established by a thorough analysis of
their onomasticon. It should not be forgotten that a large section of the
Jezireh was designated as Aramu in late MA sources (this is the origin of
the Biblical name 'Äram Nahärayim)}
The early Aramean political entities were heterogenous if to judge from
the exclusively Assyrian terminology which defines their rulers in three dif¬
ferent manners:'
(1) As sheikhs (sg. nasiku, pl. nasikäti): Dagara; laqimänu, Laqe and
Tupliaä had several sheikhs (cf. below);
(2) Mär ('son') of a tribal eponym (TE) or a dynasty foimder (DF); the
entity is designated Bit ('house, clan') of TE/DF: Bit-Adini, -Agüsi,
-Gabbäri (= Sam'al) in northem Syria; Bit-Bahiäni, -Halüpe (fem.!), -lahiri
in the Habur region. Bit-Zamani on the upper Tigris formally belongs to the
same type, but the name Zamani is recorded as early as the MA period and
cannot be etymologized as Aramaic. It may originally be a non-Semitic
name which was artificially constmcted with Bit-/Mär- by the Assjrians
who considered it a tribal/dynastic designation. Only in the case of Bit-
Agüsi is it possible to date the founder of the dynasty. Names like Bit-
Bahiäni might have been ephemeral and disapjiearcd after the dynasty had
come to an end, just as was the case with Bit-Adini/Agüsi. It should be
remembered that the Aramean rulers do not call their countries by the tri¬
bal or djmastie designation, but usually by the name of their capital (e. g.,
'rpd/Arpad = Bit-Agüsi, Gwzn/Güzäna = Bit-Bahiäni) in the few inscrip¬
tions of their own that have been discovered.
' See A. T. E. Olmstead: JAOS 38 (1918), 229 f.
' See R. T. O'Callaghan: Aram Naharaim. Rome 1948, 132 ff.
' See (especially for the Babylonian material which is not fully considered here)
Brinkman: PKB, 273f. (cf. 255f.); I. Eph'al, JAOS 94 (1974), 108^
(3) The ruler has no designation, but merely bears either a gentilic ofhis
region or is described as „PN of GN": Hindänu, Temän, Til-Abna, lasbuq
and perhaps A§§a, lauri and Sarügi.
The designation nasiku is a West Semitic loanword in Akkadian and ref¬
ers exclusively to West Semitic rulers (mostly Arameans) whereas (2) and
(3) refer also to non-Semitic political entities. Several rulers in the peri¬
phery ofthe Jezireh bore the title EN.URU 'city ruler'. This Assyrian title
usually refers to non-Semites. It cannot be proven that any of these rulers
(e. g. , those of the region of Qipäni in the northern Jezireh and Giammu in
The Balih region) were Arameans. Sühu, which has become thoroughly
Aramaicized has retained its status as a Babylonian province administered
by a governor [Saknu) until the Assyrian conquest. Sühu was the only
region in the Jezireh which was not controlled by the Assyrians after the
fall of Mitanni. Contrary to the other parts of the Jezireh, which were
strongly influenced by Assyria, SOhu was, culturally speaking, a part of
Babylonia.
It is clear from the designations (1-3) that most of these entities were
originaly tribal, the more so since for certain units several sheikhs are
simultaneously mentioned. Laqe was referred to as 'the whole land of
Laqe' probably because every Laqean sheikh ruled over a certain region
in the same way as the Temanites had different rulers for different regions
at the same time. Tukulti-Ninurta II mentions the clans (bitäti) ofthe Ara¬
means near the Tigris in the buffer zone between Assyria and Babylonia.
The Aramean tribes of Itu' and Ruqahu, who inhabited that zone, were the
closest ones to Assyria proper and seem to have integrated with the Assy¬
rians* before the other Arameans. The Aramaization of Assyria proper
began at the time of Assurnasirpal III at the latest and has been accelerat¬
ed since Tiglath-Pileser Ill's deportations from the West.
The conquering Assyrians did not automatically abolish all the Aramean
political entities in the Jezireh. Some of these entities practically (but not
officially) retained some autonomy. At least in the case of Bit-Bahiani =
Gozan one may infer that members of a local dynasty continued to rule offi¬
cially as Assyrian governors, but practically as vassal rulers (Hdys'y).' The
Assyrians nominated for example the Aramean Azi-ili as governor of Bit-
Halupe as early as 883/2 B. C. Later on, several other provincial governors
bearing West Semitic names are mentioned as eponyms.*
The Assyrian intervention in Syria came to an end after the death of
Sbalmaneser III (824 B.C.), but was renewed by Adad-nirari III (805-781
B.C.). The basic weakness ofthe Assyrian central rule between 823 and
745 B. C. and the emergence of Urartu as a power strengthened the author¬
ity of various Assyrian provincial governors in the Jezireh who have practi¬
cally attained the status of autonomy. '" Such governors were Bel-Harrän-
* Cf. Zadok, OrNS 51 (1982), 132f.
' See A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil and A. R. Millard, La statue de Tell Fek-
heryl et son inscription bilingue assyro-aramlenne. Paris 1982, 98 flf.
See R. Labat in E. Cassin et al. (eds.): Fischer Weltgeschichte 4. Frankfurt a/M. 1967, 48 f.
bel-u§ur, Nergal-ere§, Samäi-ili and Sama§-re§-u§ur. In view of the Assyr¬
ian threat the Arameans of Syria (and the non-Aramean entities of Syria-
Palestine) were organized from time to time in Anti-Assyrian coalitions.
The Assyrians did not succeed in conquering Syria until the reign of
Tiglath-Pileser III. An autonomous Assyrian provincial governor of Ara¬
mean extraction was probably Brg'yh of Ktk, seeing that all the deities
worshipped by this Aramean are Mesopotamian {Kd%^^ = *Kada'Uu<Ak-
kaditu, i.e. IStar of Akkad ), some of them typically Assyrian.'^ Brg'yh's
treaty wih Mati'-'il of Arpad was concluded shortly before the reign of
Tiglath-Pileser III.
The reign of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727) B.C. brought an end to the
long period of Assyrian weakness and marked the culmination ofthe Assyr¬
ian intervention in Syria. He conquered and abolished most ofthe Aramean
kingdoms of Syria. The last Aramean revolt against the Assyrians, which
was led by laubi'di of Hamath, was suppressed by Sargon in 720 B. C. All
the Aramean kingdoms have become Assyrian provinces. This date (720)
marks the end of the early history of the Arameans. Thereafter the Ara¬
means remained as a political factor only in Babylonia.'^
" See J. A. Fitzmyeb: The Aramaic Inscriptions of Seflre. Rome 1967, 35 with previous lit.
To be discussed in a forthcoming article in AION.
See Brinkman: PKB 267 ff.; M. Dietrich: Die Aramäer Südbabyloniens in der
Sargonidenzeit. Kevelaer 1970, pass.
UMSTANDSSÄTZE IM AKKADISCHEN*
Von Gerd Steiner, Marburg
1. Das Problem der arkadischen „Zustandssätze"
1.1 Eine charakteristische Erscheinung der Syntax semitischer Sprachen
sind die sog. „Zustandssätze"' oder ähnliche Konstruktionen, bei denen
ein - in der Regel durch eine Konjunktion eingeleiteter - Satz einem voran¬
gehenden syntaktisch und damit auch logisch untergeordnet wird. Die ein¬
leitende Konjunktion ist dabei gewöhnlich *wa „und", das Prädikat des
(verbalen) „Zustandssatzes" aber eine Form der Präfixkonjugation
(„Imperfekt") oder ein Partizip^ Es lag - und liegt - daher nahe, solche
„Zustandssätze" auch im Akkadischen zu erwarten und zu suchen.
1.2 Dementsprechend finden sich bereits in älteren Grammatiken des
Akkadischen („Assyrischen") Abschnitte, in denen „Zustandssätze"
behandelt werden. Die bei weitem ausführlichste Darstellung gibt Fried¬
rich Delitzsch:' „Treten zu einem durch ein Praet. erzählten Geschehnis
nähere Bestimmungen, besagend, in welchem Zustand sich das betr. Sub¬
ject während der Zeit seiner Thätigkeit befand, welche Absicht es mit ihr
hatte, oder in welchem Zustand ein anderes Subject sich zu ebendieser Zeit
befand, so werden die näheren Bestimmungen dem Praet. in Praesensform
beigefiigt, welche im Deutschen durch Participien, Gonjunctionalsätze
(während, indem, o.ä.) wiederzugeben sind. Beispiele:
(01) innabitma ibakam ziknäSu 'er floh, zerraufend seinen Bart'" . . .,
(02) 'alljährlich nach Ninewe ilikamma unaSSaka Sepe'a kam er, um zu küs¬
sen meine Füsse'' . . .
Abkürzungen nach AHw; spezielle Abkürzungen s. p. 102. - Beispiele in Zita¬
ten sind in der Transkriptionsweise und der Übersetzung des jeweüigen Verfassers wiedergegeben.
' Vgl. englisch „circumstantial clauaeis)" ; französisch „proposition(8) circonstan- tielle(8)" [vgl. die Literatur Anm. 2].
^ Vgl. C. Brockelmann: GVGSS H. 1913, S. 501-517 §§ 318-328; sowie für
Arahisch W. Wrioht: A Grammar of the Arabic Language II. Cambridge '1898/
1979, S. 196-198 §§ 73b-74, S. 330-330 § 183; für Aramäisch R. Degen: Alta-
ramäüche Grammatik. Wiesbaden 1969. (= Abh. f d. Kunde d. Morgenlandes.
XXXVIII/3.), S. 128 § 89; für Hebräisch W. Gesknius - E. Kautzsch: Hebräische Grammatik. Leipzig "1902, S. 463f § 142d-e, S.490 § 152u, S. 498f § 156; Th. J.
Meek in: JAOS 49 (1929), S. 156-159; 58 (1938), S. 125f ; iüTPhönikisch J. Fried¬
rich (— W. Röllig): Phönizisch-punische Orammatik. Rom 1951. (= AnOr. 32.), S.
149 § 319a mit Aiun. 1 = ^1970, S. 162 § 319a. - Zustandssätze fmden sich anschei¬
nend nicht im Ya'udischen, vgl. P.-E. Dion, 0. P.: La langue de Ya'udi. Waterloo, Ontario 1974, S. 309, vgl. aber S. 306f (eventuell mit Konjunktion *pa).
^ F. Delitzsch: Assyrische Grammatik. Berlin etc. 1889, S. 362 § 152 = ^1906, S.
371 f § 195.
" VAB 7/n (1916) S. 324: Vs. 15.
' Ash. S. 47: A ü 64.
