The Amuq

When Ashurnasirpal undertook his campaign against Phoenicia in the year 877 BC, "the Amuq" (that is, the region extending north of the Lake of Antioch as far as the Taurus) came under a unified government known by the name "Patin," which is the one mentioned in the Torah under the name "Paddan Aram" — and for this reason the region was known as though it were Aramaean. It is not likely that Aramaean princes ruled this patch of ground in the era of Ashurnasirpal, for the outward aspect of things — as revealed by an examination of the names — indicates that their bearers carried names that were not Semitic but Hittite, which comes near to indicating that the people there were, in spite of everything, predominantly Hittite in their leanings. Among these names contemporary with Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III are "Liburna" [?], "Sapalulme," and "Kalparunda," then "Lubarna II," who died in the year 833 BC, as the Assyrian sources indicate. "The Amuq" was the most important district of the region, its capital "Kinalia," and the order that prevailed in it was the Hittite order — a feudalism resting upon the foundations of clans and tribes, whose chiefs were either independent or subject to whoever was stronger than they, according to the power of the one who held sway. With the appearance of Tiglath-Pileser III upon the stage, the princes began to act independently, and the statelet of "Patin" came to an end in this fashion, replaced by lesser statelets: "Marqasi" (present-day Marash), "Gurgum," "Unqi" [?] (the Amuq), "Sam'al," and "Ya'udi" — all of which soon submitted to Assyria. As for the inhabitants of these homelands, they were greatly affected by Aramaean influences (even if the rulers were not Aramaeans, as we have deemed likely; for the names of the rulers after the conquest are likewise, for the most part, not Semitic — such as "Panamur" [?] and "Karal" [?]. Indeed, the only Semitic name we come across, "Azriyau," lord of Ya'udi, is most probably not Aramaean either, but Canaanite, connected to the pre-Hittite phase). But what calls for notice in this phase is the spread of the Aramaic language and the beginning of writing in its letters — indeed, Canaanite began to be written in a Phoenician style, as some of the pieces extracted from the excavations of "Zincirli" indicate. Writing in Aramaic is confirmed also by remains found at "Zincirli," likewise in the region of "the Amuq," the capital of the statelet of Sam'al, dating to the era of "Barrakib," the vassal of Tiglath-Pileser III and son of "Panamu," who died — as his son notes — in the year 732 BC, in the era of Tiglath-Pileser, in the camp at Damascus while he was following the army. And there is, from "Gerjin" [?] (five miles from Zincirli), a monument likewise erected by "Panamu" the Elder, king of Ya'udi. These inscriptions are reckoned the oldest thing found written in Aramaic.

Aleppo

To the east of this region lay the district of Aleppo, which the Assyrian texts do not mention as the capital of an independent province. When Shalmaneser III advanced upon it during his campaign against Damascus in the year 854 BC, he offered sacrifices to "Hadad," but he makes no mention of its political situation. We may suppose — on this basis — the existence of an independent government there, the surviving legacy of the Canaanite-Hittite dominion. And in this very spot we come upon (as the Amarna letters indicate) the region of "Nukhashshe," whose lord notes in his letters to Amenhotep III that Thutmose III had appointed his grandfather governor there, and who complains of the pressure of Hatti.

Hamath

Hamath lies to the south of this district and commands the region situated between Aleppo and Damascus. In it — as the Amarna letters indicate — are certain cities such as "Ni," "Qatna" [?], and Kadesh. In the first and the second we can recognize the two most important ancient cities of the region — "Apamea" and "Homs," or "Emesa" — which were inhabited by Canaanite and Hittite elements. As for Kadesh, its name recurs frequently in the texts as a home of the Hittites in the twelfth century. When Shalmaneser III advanced toward Damascus in the year 854 BC, among his allies (or, more probably, his vassals) were "Bir-Hadad" and "Irhuleni," king of Hamath, who bound himself to Assyria immediately thereafter. And in the era of Tiglath-Pileser III we witness Hamath as a statelet loyal to Assyria; it lost its independence thereafter, in the era of Sargon, following the revolt of "Yau-bidi."

Damascus

As for the region of Damascus, it lies to the south, toward the desert, and in the Amarna letters it plays no role more important than that of Hamath. But we find its name recurring continually from the era of David, where it is referred to as the capital of a kingdom standing on an equal footing with the other kingdoms. This kingdom was from the very first "Aramaean": its kings were Aramaeans, and it was known from the beginning as a center of the Aramaeans. Here, perhaps, we encounter for the first time rulers of the Aramaeans who take one of the regions as a center from which to radiate their civilization, and from which they are able to contribute to the direction of the international politics of their day. Damascus perhaps owes this distinction to its position, for its geographical situation was able for a time to fend off the ambitions of Assyria on the one hand, while it likewise made easy for it direct contact with the civilizations near it by way of the valleys and the plains. It is at the same time an important center for the caravan routes into the Syrian desert, and thereby a direct intermediary between the Arabian and Babylonian trade on the one hand and the trade of Syria and Palestine on the other. For this reason it was, more than any other, exposed to the migrations and raids of the Aramaeans from the direction of the plains; indeed, for this reason also it was the first part of Syria to fall into their hands and the first of the regions they settled there. The Amarna letters mention an embassy from Damascus to the Egyptian court alluding to the threat of the massing hordes of the Aramaeans, though no mention is made of the homelands from which they were advancing. The advance of the Aramaeans into these parts meant the existence of an Aramaean region to the south of Damascus in the era of Saul and David, comprising "Aram Zobah" and extending as far as the region of "Geshur," to which "Absalom" took refuge when he was living as a fugitive. Accordingly, we are able to conclude that the region of Damascus represents the immediate center of the Aramaeans more than the other cities do, and that it is the most ancient of the homelands in which the Aramaeans settled, making of it a center for their tribal movements, until they made of Damascus a state that was able, from the tenth century BC, to impose itself upon the events that were unfolding, and to stand on an equal footing with the other states — so that it became able to tip the balance of forces whenever it took the side of one party, and so that it gained the respect of its neighbors thanks to the impregnability and strength it displayed and the eminent cultural standing it attained. The first time we come upon [?] the mention of the kingdom of Damascus in the Torah is when "Rezin," during the reign of Solomon, was able to throw from his shoulders the yoke of "Hadadezer," king of Zobah, and to seize Damascus... Accordingly, "Zobah" must have been a center for the Aramaeans who were pressing upon Syria, and the possession of Damascus was the next step in their expansion. "Rezin" was in perpetual conflict with Israel, and Galilee and the east of the Jordan were the arena of the struggle between the two parties. The Torah mentions names that are, most probably, garbled or distorted, among them the following two: the first is "Hezion," as the Torah refers to him — that is, "Hazael" — who was succeeded by "Tabrimmon" or "Tab-el," and we scarcely know anything of the two of them beyond two recorded names. Some historians think it likely that the first of them killed his immediate predecessor, and that when his allies deserted him he resolved to fight Shalmaneser alone. After this phase our information about Damascus and its rulers begins to increase. There is "Bir-Hadad" (who is the "Ben-Hadad" referred to in the texts of the Torah); in his era Damascus was able to become the head of the Syrian statelets (885–844 BC). Shalmaneser III attacked it in the year 854 BC, and in his annals he mentions the regions and provinces subject to Damascus, among them "Hamath" and "Israel" (under the rule of Ahab), then Moab and Judah (as subjects of Israel), then Edom (as a subject of Judah).... and the northern Phoenician provinces to the north of "Byblos," and "Ammon," and "Que" (Cilicia)... a group that a kingdom, not a statelet, is able to encompass. ...But the Battle of Qarqar — despite its importance, as we know — Shalmaneser was unable to reap any gain from it, and disappointment befell him likewise in his following campaign to subdue Syria. Assyria came to realize that, without subduing Damascus, it could not plant its feet firmly in Syria. It was not easy for any one of these provinces to show an inclination toward Assyria, because that would necessarily mean its exposure to the harshness and resolve of Damascus. Matters remained thus until Tiglath-Pileser was at last able to subdue Damascus. "Bir-Hadad" in fact represented the prime of the might of Damascus and its glory, and we do indeed see his name recurring

Recurs in the Torah

just as the name of "Hazael" recurs, when reference is made to their palaces and to the destruction that would befall them. We in fact find [?] no reference or allusion to Damascus before the era of Shalmaneser. Indeed, we all but conclude, from behind the silence of the Assyrian texts in the era of Ashurnasirpal as he cut his way toward "Patin," that the state of "Bir-Hadad" had an entity of its own and that the Assyrian king was careful not to come into friction with it. For this reason he did not advance beyond "Patin"; indeed, he makes no mention of having marched south to Phoenicia, and did not touch upon the mention of any city other than "Arwad." He makes no mention of Israel and does not touch upon it (for in the era of Omri it was, most probably, among the vassals of Damascus). As for Tyre, it used to pay tribute to Assyria. The Torah mentions the prophecy of Elisha concerning the death of "Bir-Hadad" (Ben-Hadad), but the reference here does not make clear the role played by his successor "Hazael"....

Perhaps we noticed earlier the effect of the change of the monarchy here in the fall and collapse of the house of "Omri" and the passing of the throne to the house of "Jehu." And since "Jehu" had just declared his submission to Assyria, we all but perceive that Assyria had a finger in the revolt and in the sedition it helped to awaken, in an attempt to weaken an enemy it had been unable to defeat on the field of battle. Perhaps "Hazael" likewise turned to Assyria to support him in ascending the throne; but as soon as he became king over Damascus he persisted in resisting Assyria, in the hope of consolidating his position and displaying his strength. Thus we see him, in the year 842 BC, fighting Shalmaneser. Here we can draw the comparison between him and his predecessor "Bir-Hadad": in the era of "Bir-Hadad" we would read the names of his allies and vassals, whereas here we witness "Hazael" standing alone, just as we see the Assyrians cutting their way straight toward Damascus, and Hazael being compelled to defend himself in his capital. Shalmaneser was not able to take all the strongly fortified places, so he contented himself with overrunning the regions in the barbarous Assyrian manner. The campaign of 839 BC likewise met with success. But Assyria was afterward compelled to abandon the attempt to achieve its aims, and Damascus sought to recover Israel, which fell between two fires: its new masters, the Assyrians, and its old master, who was seeking to reclaim it.

Hazael was succeeded by "Mari," whom we come to know in the texts of "Adad-nirari III" and to whom the Torah likewise refers under the name "Ben-Hadad."

Under his rule Damascus was subjected to a new Assyrian assault, and he was compelled to surrender after the siege of Damascus. But the weakness of Assyria after the age of "Adad-nirari III" encouraged Damascus to reclaim its independence, which it did not enjoy for long, for soon Shalmaneser IV advanced upon it in the year 773 BC. Yet matters remain obscure until the era of Tiglath-Pileser III, who renews the attack upon it as well.