|
 
Dr. Jeff Rose
is an archaeologist and
anthropologist specializing in the
prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula and
surrounding regions. His areas of interest
touch upon a variety of subjects including
modern human origins, Neolithization, stone
tool technology, archaeogenetics, rock art,
geoarchaeology, submerged landscapes, Near
Eastern mythology, and the transmission of
oral traditions. He holds a B.A. in Classics
from the University of Richmond, an M.A. in
Archaeology from Boston University, and an
M.A. and Ph.D. in Anthropology from Southern
Methodist University.
|
The Aramean Kingdoms of Sam'al
During the second millenium B.C.E.the Hittites, a group of people
who spoke an Indo-European language, established an empire, Hattusa,
centered in north-central Anatolia (the Asian part of modern-day
Turkey). The empire reached its height in the 14th century B.C.E.,
but by the 12th century B.C.E. had broken up into a number of
independent Neo-Hittite city-states. By the beginning of the first
millenium B.C.E. a number of the Neo-Hittites states were being
overrun by “roaming” Aramean tribes who spoke a Semitic language,
Aramaic.
Accounts from the ninth century B.C.E., mainly Neo-Assyrian, depict
the Aramean tribes either wrestling with Luwian/Hittite kings for
their territories, or joining together with them in an effort to
stave off the Assyrian conquest. In the famous battle of Qarqar in
853 B.C.E. a coalition of Neo-Hittite and Aramean kings, which also
included king Ahab of Israel, formed an anti-Assyrian alliance
against Shalmaneser III.
It was about this same time, the mid-ninth century, that the Aramean
kings began to produce their own written records, though few would
survive. Unlike Assyrian and Babylonian cuneiform, the Arameans
wrote with an alphabet used mainly on papyrus or animal skin. Such
perishable materials can survive only in the most arid climates such
as that of Egypt or Judean desert, but not in the rainier regions
where the Aramean kingdoms emerged. Therefore little of Aramaic
literature from before the Persian period has survived except for
those inscribed on stone in funerary and architectural monuments.
The monumental inscriptions of these early Aramean kings make up the
bulk of Iron Age Aramaic Literature.
The Semitic language of the Aramean inscriptions, as with their
other cultural traditions displays a blend of Syrian, Anatolian and
Phoenician elements. The Hittite influence was particularly evident
in traditions of royal administration, monumental scultpture and
literature. The gods seem to have remained Semitic, at least in
name, though Hittite counterparts were often recognized for Semitic
deities. Several of the early Aramean inscriptions are reminiscent
of Hittite courtly literature known from the Late Bronze Age. The
Hittites had two writing systems: a form of Akkadian Cuneiform
adapted for their Indo-European Hittite, and an indigenous
hieroglyphic system called Luwian.
The Arameans borrowed much from the Neo-Hittites especially in terms
of royal and administrative practice. But their Canaanite/
Phoenician alphabet they borrowed from a near-by Semitic culture.
Some of the earliest Aramean monumental inscriptions, such as those
from Sam'al are written in Phoenician with many Aramaic elements.
Although they use the Phoenician alphabet instead of Luwian
Hieroglyphics their habit of sculpting the letters in bas relief so
that they stand out from the stone, imitates the Luwian
inscriptions. Most other Aramean inscriptions of the period are
scratched directly into the stone.
A number of interrelated inscriptions have survived from the Aramean
kingdom of Sam'al, modern Zinjirli. These inscriptions enable us to
trace the general outline of its dynastic history and as well as the
development of its hybrid Phoenician / Aramaic dialect called
Sam'alian.
The literary structure of the Sam'alian monumental inscriptions
follows older Syrian and Anatolian traditions. The elements of the
form, whether memorial or dedicatory, are dictated by the usual
preoccupations of ancient princes and generally bear some of the
following features.
1. The first priority is to assert their legitimacy of claim to the
throne, of which heredity is the usual basis. They may also want to
emphasize their worthiness occupying the throne vis-a-vis their
predecessors. This often involves not merely being on par with
ancestors but quite surpassing them in any of their featured
achievements. It is also crucial to be specially favored by the
gods, all the more in cases where dynastic lineage is questionable.
2. Two important tests of their royal quality will be to secure the
safety and order of the kingdom first by vanquishing foreign enemies
all around and, then by pacifying or dispatching rival claimants and
other internal enemies to the throne.
3. Then follows a description of the golden days of their rule,
their own greatness and wealth as well as the well being of their
subjects. They may claim to have established measures of social
justice, economic prosperity or other benefits to the subjects. Of
course, it may have been propaganda, but could have ramifications
for the very real threat of rival claimants. In such patrimonial
systems the subjects, whether well fed or disgruntled could
influence the outcome of palace conspiracies and succession
disputes.
4. Another type of achievement often mentioned is the occasion for
the inscription itself, namely building projects. Fortifications,
gates, temples and palaces all facilitate a primitive sort of
temple-palace bureaucracy by which these Iron Age kings governed.
5. The inscription will generally conclude with stern instructions
for the preservation of the inscription itself or some aspect of the
king's life and the accomplishments the inscription symbolizes. It
may instruct the reader on the proper feeding of the king in the
afterlife, as with Panamu I. Or it may specify how successors are to
uphold his policy after him, and thereby preserve the prosperity it
achieved for the subjects. One fascinating dimension of the Samalian
royal inscriptions is the way several of the same formulaic elements
remain in place while the language, rhetoric and historical
circumstances change.
|
|
Bar Rakkib and the end of Samal
|
 |
|
Bar Rakkib II
|
The inscriptions of Bar Rakkib are the last in the line of Samalian
kings. One of Bar Rakkib’s most intact records, a dolerite building
inscription, was found in 1891. Unlike the other Samalian
inscriptions which are now in Berlin, the building inscription of
Bar Rakkib is housed in the Museum of Antiquities in Istanbul. It
consists of twenty lines, recounting the construction of a second
palace between 732 and 727 B.C.E.
The two inscriptions pictured here were also discovered in 1891. Bar
Rakkib II is an incomplete fragment of nine lines; at the right a
bearded man holds a drinking vessel and a fan. Symbols of deity
appear at the top. In the inscription, Bar Rakkib declares his
loyalty to Tiglath Pileser, "lord of the four quarters of the
earth," and expresses the favor shown to him by the god Rakkab El.
Bar Rakkib III shows a relief of a king seated on the left, and a
servant standing on the right. On the side of the stone is a servant
standing with fan in hand. At the top is an inscription that states,
"My lord is Baal Harran.
I am Bar Rakkib, son of Panamu."
|
 |
|
Bar Rakkib III, Front
|
Like the previous inscriptions the letters of the alphabet are
carved in Luwian style bas relief. The inscriptions of Bar Rakkib
are not written in the Samalian dialect but are some of the first
ancient records to use imperial Aramaic. This dialect that by the
end of the Neo-Assyrian period had become the lingua franca of the
ancient Near East is also found in the Elephantine papyri and in the
Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel.
As in the memorial to his father, Bar Rakkib emphasizes his own
loyalty to Tiglath Pileser III. He refers to a deity unique to Samal,
known from Kilamuwa, Rakkab El. The Assyrian king causes him to
reign, in fact, on account of his loyalty to his father and to his
god Rakkab El. Thus by circumlocution Bar Rakkib credits both the
god and his forbears as well as as the king of Assyria for his
throne.
We know nothing else of any kings of Samal after Bar Rakkib. The
Assyrian kings after Tiglath Pileser III began to replace their
policy of vassal alliance with annexation and deportation.
Eventually, Assyria, and then Babylon and Persia would bring an end
to most of the independent, often culturally distinctive Iron Age
city states. But it was the Aramaic language that became the lingua
franca of these successive empires. With its concise and efficient
alphabetic writing system adopted from the Phoenicians, it was the
Aramaic language that would bring an end to the cuneiform system
used in Mesopotamia since the dawn of civilization.
 |
|
Bar Rakkib III, Side
|
|
Kilamuwa and the kings of Sam'al
|
 |
|
Click the image to view an enhanced version.
|
Around the time Heinrich Schlieman made his legendary discoveries at
Troy another German archaeological team was breaking ground in
Ottoman Anatolia (modern-day Turkey). At Zinjirli, a site further
east near the border of what is now Syria they unearthed the remains
of the capital city of the Aramean kings of Yaudy, known in Assyrian
sources as Sam'al. A line of eleven Aramean kings ruled this
formerly Luwian city state from the early 900s to 713 B.C.E.
Monumental inscriptions of four of these kings have survived
beginning with the fifth king of the dynasty, Kilamuwa.
Kilamuwa's inscription was discovered in 1902 at the entrance to his
royal palace. It depicts a regal, long robed figure, presumably king
Kilamuwa himself. He holds in his hand a wilting lotus, the symbol
of deceased kings. With his other hand he points to several symbols
of deities. Beneath these is carved in bas relief the well-preserved
sixteen line Phoenician inscription. Though the language and
alphabet are Phoenician, the bas relief style of the letters
imitates the style of Luwian hieroglyphics.
|
 |
|
Click the image to view an enhanced version.
|
Kilamuwa's claim to the throne seems to rest on heredity but he
mainly emphasizes the superiority of his achievements compared with
his four predecessors. First there was Gabbar, the founder of
Aramean kingship at Yaudy/Sam'al, followed by Bamah. Then came
Kilamuwa's father Hayya and his own brother, or perhaps
half-brother, Shail. We know little of the first four kings apart
from what Kilamuwa says of them. To showcase his own achievements he
says of each of his predecessors, including his father and brother,
only that they "accomplished nothing."
Fortunately Kilamuwa mentions the names of each of his predecessor's
gods. The names of these kings and their gods all seem to be
Semitic. Yet they ruled over a territory largely comprised of an
older Luwian population. The Luwians were related to the Hittites.
Most scholars believe this group is referred to in the inscription
as the mshkbm. Kilamuwa, whose name is Anatolian, mentions
the name of his mother, also apparently non-Semitic.
|
 |
|
Click the image to view an enhanced version.
|
He then describes his own achievements by which he outshone his
forbears. He fended off powerful predatory kings on all sides. Only
the king of the Danunians to the west proved too much for him.
Therefore Kilamuwa "hired" the king of Assyria against this enemy.
There is no mention of Kilamuwa by name in the Assyrian records, but
Shalmaneser does claim to have gathered the kings of the Hittites
together with him in his push toward the coast. This shrewd move
resulted in economic prosperity for himself and his subjects,
particularly for the mshkbm. Kilamuwa places special emphasis on his
beneficence on behalf of these people, whom the former kings treated
like "dogs." He enriched them with livestock, gold and textiles such
as they had never seen. Furthermore, Kilamuwa seems to have achieved
some sort of leveling status for the Luwians vis-a-vis the ruling
Arameans. The wording of the inscription implies a status of
unprecedented reciprocal honour between the mshkbm and the
b'rrm. Therefore the curse that will result from defacing his
inscription is to be the undoing of this reciprocal honour. "Now if
any of my sons who shall sit in my place does harm to this
inscription, may the mshkbm not honor the b'rrm, nor
the b'rrm honour the mshkbm (Gibson 3.13 lines 13-15,
p. 35)." Kilamuwa's only reference to the gods occurs in the last
two lines. Continuing the curses on inscription vandals, he calls
upon the gods of each of his predecessors and upon Rakkab El, lord
of the dynasty, to smash the head of anyone who smashes the
inscription.
We cannot be certain of the exact nature of the social equalibrium
Kilamuwa was trying to accomplish. If the hybrid Anatolian/Aramean
influences apparent for the next century in the art, architecture
and language of Sam'al are any indication, then he must have
succeeded. After Kilamuwa there followed six more kings of Sam'al
before this Aramean kingdom practically vanishes from history.
Fortunately two of his successors also left monumental inscriptions.
Unlike the Kilamuwa inscription these are not in Phoenican. There
are either in the hybrid Phoenician/Aramaic dialect called Sam'alian
or, with the last inscriptions of Sam'al, in Mesopotamian Aramaic.
Rainey, Anson. Sacred Bridge.
Commentary by Jeffrey Rose |
|
|
|
Panamu I and the Hadad Statue
|
 |
|
Click the image to view an enhanced version.
|
The inscription of Panamu I, the son of Qarli, did not turn up in
the excavations at Zinjirli but had already been discovered in 1890
in a village north east of the site. It is inscribed on the base of
a statue of the god Hadad. The sculpture style is of a type that has
Hittite precedents. It is a long inscription of some 34 lines, but
many of them are badly worn having been exposed to the elements.
Unlike the Kilamuwa inscription Panamu’s Hadad inscription is one of
two written in the distinctive Sam'alian dialect. Sam'alian is
mainly a mixture of Phoenican and Aramaic but also has some features
not found elswhere.
|
 |
|
Click the image to view an enhanced version.
|
The inscription suggests Panamu I enjoyed a long and prosperous
rule. His reign may have spanned four decades, nearly the first half
of the 8th century. He does seem to have been in the lineage of
Kilamuwa and Qarli, but legitimizes his rule largely on the basis of
special favor the gods. He mentions five gods but the inscription
appears on a statue of Hadad. He even claims to have been in a
“covenant” with them. His special concern for the gods makes stark
contrast with the Bar Rakkib inscription, and even that of Kilamuwa.
It is however reminiscent of Zakkur and of Hittite inscriptions. By
divine will Panamu I receives the throne of his father, is made
wealthy and showers benefits on the kingdom. The land becomes
fertile; his subjects prosper in livestock. He builds and restores
temples. Panamu demonstrates a vivid concern for his own afterlife,
offering a blessing for whoever will pray that Panamu will eat with
Hadad in the hereafter. He also heaps curses on any successor that
does not care for his feeding in the afterlife.
|
 |
|
Click the image to view an enhanced version.
|
Panamu I also claims to put an end to “sword and tongue,” some sort
of internal palace strife. He lays out the detailed procedure for
communal stoning in cases in which his successor would seek to
slaughter members of the royal family who might put forth rival
claims to the throne. This preoccupation for bloodless succession
and for harmony within the royal family after his death indicate
that the upheavals that followed his reign had already begun toward
the end of his life. It turns out that his worries were justified as
his successor, Bar Sur, was killed in palace plot. After Bar Sur,
the dynasty was interrupted by a usurper. Panamu II, the son of Bar
Sur, does manage to restore the dynasty using Kilamuwa’s strategy of
co-opting the Assyrian king, but this time at great cost to the
kingdom of Sam'al.
|
|
|
Panamu II, Assyrian Vassal
In the first half of the first millenium B.C.E. the Aramean city states
of eastern Anatolia and northern Syria posed a formidable challenge to
Neo-Assyrian expansionism. Yet, their various tribes never united. On
the contrary their rivalries among themselves and with the Neo-Hittite
city states could be exploited to Assyrian advantage. This appears to
have been the case with Panamu II, the 10th known king of the city state
of Sam'al. Panamu II was the grandson of Panamu I, son of Qarli who
succeeded Kilamuwa. About a century after the reign of his ancestor
Kilamuwa, the dynasty had fallen to violent intrigues from within.
Panamu II’s father Bar Sur was assassinated in a coup following the long
prosperous reign of Panamu I. In dealing with the dynastic crisis Panamu
II adopted a strategy similar to that of Kilamuwa before him, taking
refuge in Assyrian intervention. But this is a quite a different Assyria
than that of Shalmaneser III whom Kilamuwa “hired” a century before. The
change becomes particularly evident in Assyria’s Syrian and Anatolia
ambitions under Tiglath Pileser III. This is the socio-political
situation to which the Panamu II inscription bears witness.
|
 |
|
Click the image to view an enhanced version.
|
The inscription, now housed in the Staatliche Museen in Berlin, was
discovered during the German excavation at Zinjirli in 1888. It was not
Panamu II himself, who died an untimely death in battle, that
commissioned the inscription, but his son Bar Rakkib. The inscription is
both a memorial and dedication. Like the Hadad inscription of Panamu I
it is written in the Sam'alian dialect. Like the Hadad inscription,
Panamu II was inscribed around the base of a pillar-shaped statue,
perhaps of a god or king. The fringe of the figure’s robe runs
diagonally from right to left down the middle of the inscription’s 23
lines of text. All of the lines are well preserved at the beginning but
fade out gradually. Many of the lines become untranslatable at the far
left and have been variously reconstructed. The details of the dynastic
intrigue it reveals confirms that the violence and upheaval Panamu I
feared came true. In fact, Bar Rakkib seems to insert details, in a
badly preserved section, referring to a prophecy of Panamu I, predicting
bad times during the reign of a usurper. This tradition about his
grandfather’s prophetic faculties would be consistent with Panamu I’s
claim of being in a covenant with the gods. Indeed, Panamu I’s
successor, Bar Sur, was murdered by a usurper. Whether this was an
internal enemy from within the royal house or some external pretender we
do not know for certain. The usurper is not named but suggestively
referred as the “Stone of Destruction.”
|
 |
|
Click the image to view an enhanced version.
|
Whether it was the usurper or Bar Sur’s son Panamu II that would have
been the successor justified by Sam'alian tradition we do not know. But
it was Panamu II that took action to assure he would be the one to live
to tell about it. The assassination of his father Bar Sur prompted
Panamu II to flee to Assyria on chariot and to “bring a gift” to their
emperor.
Compared to the Hadad inscription, there is a noticable absence of
Panamu I’s concern for the gods. Where the king usually links his claim
to the throne to his relation to the gods, Panamu II credits the
Assyrian king with killing the usurper and restoring the dynasty. All
the usual divine praise for legitimacy and then abundance is now
attributed to the Panamu II’s loyalty to Assyria. Tiglath Pileser III
expanded his kingdom northwards into Gurgum and possibly Quwe (both in
what is now south central Turkey). Whereas Panamu I had boasted of favor
from the gods, Panamu II is honored by “mighty kings,” or so his son
boasts. Panamu II does carry out some of the usual reforms, frees
captives, empties prisons, comforts women, and his subjects prosper. The
usual building projects for which a king is remembered are different for
Panamu II. As he bought legitimacy at cost of being a vassal, the cost
of tribute probably would have left little budget for fortifications or
bureaucratic hubs such as expanded temple and palace complexes. What he
does mention where one would expect the mention of building projects is
that he appointed some sort of proto-bureacratic officials, “lords of
villages and lords of chariots.” These were probably necessary to meet
his part of the deal with Assyria which would have involved taxes and
military support.
|
 |
|
Click the image to view an enhanced version.
|
The rest of the commemoration praises Panamu II’s loyalty as vassal to
Tiglath Pileser III, even to personally serving Tiglath Pileser III in
battle and being killed in action on campaign in 732. This was probably
the same campaign that brought about the end of the northern kingdom of
Israel which also fell in 732. Tiglath Pileser III and all the kings and
camp wept for Panamu II. They brought his body back to Assyria and he
was buried there. Finally, the Assyrian king established his son Bar
Rakkib, the author of this inscription, on the throne of his father. Bar
Rakkib concludes by invoking the usual gods, Hadad and all the gods of
Yaudy, that is Sam'al.
Sam'al briefly prospers by the Assyrian vassaldom. Panamu II not only
restored the dynasty of his ancestors but, also with the aid of Tiglath
Pileser III, greatly expanded the kingdom of Sam'al northward into the
area wrested from Gurgum. Yet the strategy Kilamuwa called “hiring” the
Assyrian king this time proved far more costly to Sam'al’s relative
political autonomy and lingering Anatolian cultural traditions. Many of
the Neo-Hittite and Aramean citystates permanently lost their
independence under Tiglath Pileser III. It was Panamu II’s successor,
Bar Rakkib, a distinctly Aramaic name, who comissioned this inscription
for the memory of his father in the Sam'alian dialect. The language of
Bar Rakkib’s own inscriptions however, is not Sam'alian. In the
Sam'alian inscriptions up to Panamu II, the kingdom is called by its
older name, Yaudy. Yet in Bar Rakkib’s own inscriptions he calls the
kingdom Sam'al. This is the name by which it is known in the Assyrian
and Aramaic sources such as those of Tiglath Pileser III and Zakkur. The
epigraphic data of the region then suggests that after Panamu II an
early form of imperial Aramaic finally supplants the Sam'alian dialect
and along with it the unique hybrid Anatolian/Syrian culture of this
kingdom.
Commentary by Jeffrey Rose
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/ancient_texts/panamu.shtml |
|
