Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-10T00:09:09.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Royal Cities and Fortified Cities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Yutaka Ikeda
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The recovery of the Assyrian Empire from the time of confusion and hardship had begun, though slowly, as early as the end of the tenth century B.C. But Assyria's real expansion dates from the time of Aššurnaṣirpal II (883–859 B.C.). He recovered Assyria's former settlements in the land Na'iri, which had been seized by the Aramaeans in the days of his predecessors, and founded new colonies in North Syria. Likewise, his son Shalmaneser III (858–824 B.C.) restored the old Assyrian bases on the Euphrates and added to the colonies that he had built in the same region, designating them as his “royal cities”.

Yet the rising power of Assyria and its expansionist policy did not go unchallenged. The people whom the Neo-Assyrian kings attempted to subdue mustered their considerable strength to fight against the destructive might of the Assyrian army, and their strongly fortified cities were among the major sources of their power of resistance, as we are told in the Assyrian royal inscriptions. Kaprabi in the land of Bit-Adini, for example, is described as a well fortified city that had “hovered like a cloud in the sky”, while Pitura on the Tigris was, “exceedingly difficult; it was surrounded by two walls; its citadel had the form of mountain peak”. All these strong cities are designated as āl dannūti, “fortified city”, in the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions. When the ruler of a city is known, the city is designated as “his fortified city”, while a city of tribal people, whose country is only loosely organized, is usually called “their fortified city”, whether the name of the ruler of the city or land is known or not (see Table I).

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , Spring 1979 , pp. 75 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acknowledgements: I should like to thank Prof. H. Tadmor, who read this article in manuscript and made numerous useful remarks throughout. I am also most grateful to Mr. J. D. Hawkins for his critical comments concerning the problems dealt with in this paper.

1 The resettling of the “exhausted Assyrians” who had abandoned their cities due to famine in the land of Assyria is already witnessed in the inscription of Aššur-dan II (934–812 B.C.): Weidner, E. F. “Die Annalen des Königs Aššurdân II. von Assyrien”, AfO 3 (1926), 158: 15 ffGoogle Scholar. Grayson, A. K., Assyrian Royal Inscriptions II (Wiesbaden 1976Google Scholar; henceforth ARI II), § 368Google Scholar. See Postgate, J. N. “Some Remarks on Conditions in the Assyrian Countryside”, JESHO 17 (1974), 237Google Scholar. For the famines that afflicted Assyria, see Brinkman, J. A.A Political History of Post Kassite Babylonia 1158–722 B.C. (Rome, 1968Google Scholar; henceforth PKB), 387 ff. Cf. also Tadmor, H., “Historical Implications of the Correct Rendering of Akkadian dâku”, JNES 17 (1958), 133 fGoogle Scholar. While he recounts his restoration of the former Assyrian settlements, among them the cities Arapha, Lubda, Idu and Zaqqu the fortresse (birāte) in the land Na'iri (Seidemann, J., “Die Inschriften Adadnirâri II.”, MAOG 9/3 (1935) 14:29, 16:34)Google Scholar, Adad-nirari II is said to have conquered new territories in Hanigalbat and in the region of the Habur river (ibid., 18:44 , 30:112–113). On the renovation of the ancient city Apqu which had first been built by Aššur-reša-iši (ibid., 18:36), see Grayson, , ARI II, § 227Google Scholar.

2 Among them were the cities Sinabu and Tidu, the fortresses (birāte), which had been built by Shalmaneser (II): King, L. W., Annals of the Kings of Assyria (London, 1902Google Scholar; henceforth AKA), 239:43; Luckenbill, D. D., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (1926Google Scholar; New York, 1968; henceforth ARAB) I, § 501Google Scholar = Grayson, , ARI 11, § 641Google Scholar. Cf. Brinkman, , PKB, 178, n. 1096Google Scholar; Tadmor, H., “Assyria and the West: The Ninth Century and Its Aftermath”, Unity and Diversity (ed. Goedicke, H. and Roberts, J. J. M.; Baltimore and London, 1975), 37 fGoogle Scholar.; Grayson, A. K., “Studies in Neo-Assyrian History. The Ninth Century B.C.”, BiOr 33 (1976), 134 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 Kar-Aššurnaṣirpal and Nibarti-Aššur on the two banks of the Euphrates in 880 B.C. (AKA, 360 f.: 49–50), and Aribua in the land of Pattin in c. 870 B.C. (ibid., 371 f.: 81–83). He is also said to have rebuilt the city Alila in the land Zamua and renamed it Dur-Aššur (ibid., 326:86. Cf. Brinkman, , PKB, 154, n. 93Google Scholar).

4 Pitru and Mutkinu : Smith, G., in Rawlinson, H. G., The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia III (London, 1870Google Scholar; henceforth 3R), 8:36 ff.; ARAB I, § 603Google Scholar; Oppenheim, A. L., in Ancient Near Eastern Texts (ed. Pritchard, J. B.; Princeton, 1965 2Google Scholar; henceforth ANET), 278.

5 3R 8: 34–35: Til Barsip (Kar-Shalmaneser, cf. above note 6), Nappigi (Lit-Aššur), Alligu (Aṣbat-lakunu), Rugulitu (Qibit-x x x). On the reading of Rugulitu (ur]u˹Ru˺-gu-[l]i-˹tú˺) instead of Ruguliti (Parpola, S., Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970Google Scholar; henceforth NAT), 296), see Schramm, W., Einleitung in die Assyrischen Königsschriften, 2. Teil, 934–722 v. Chr. (Leiden-Köln, 1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar; henceforth EAK), 72. Cf. Damdammusa in Na'iri is also called “my royal city” by Aššurnaṣirpal II (AKA 290:103). Damdammusa is said to have been attacked (882 B.C.) by the Assyrians and their city ruler, whom Shalmaneser (II) had settled in the city of Halziluha. Aššurnaṣirpal II quelled the revolt, but later it was recaptured by Ilani, a man of Bit-Zamani, and turned into his fortified city (ARI II, §587Google Scholar). Cf. Unger, E., Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie (Berlin-LeipzigGoogle Scholar; henceforth RLA), II 1938, 104 f. (s.v.)Google Scholar.

6 ARAB I, § 474Google Scholar = ARI II, § 582Google Scholar.

7 AKA 335 104Google Scholar; ARI II, § 571Google Scholar.

8 E.g. the city Lagalga which had been under the dominion of Nur-Adad, the “sheikh” (nasīku) of Dagara in the land Zamua (AKA 304 f.: 29–30). Cf. Olmstead, A. T., “The Calculated Frightfulness of Ashur Nasir Apal”, JAOS 38 (1918), 229 ffGoogle Scholar. Lagalga is preceded by two other city names, Uze and Birute, but the attribute āl dannūti is related only to Lagalga (cf. the translations in ARAB I, § 448Google Scholar = ARI II, § 554Google Scholar). When it is concerned with more than one fortified city, this is explicitly expressed by the plural forms ālānimeš·ni dannūti/te(meš)(-ša) in the inscriptions of Aššurnaṣirpal II (Umalia and Hiranu of Adani; Iyaya and Salanibe of Arbakku; Surra, Abuqu, Arura and Arube of Tumme) as well as in those of Shalmaneser III (Sihišalah, Bit-tumal, Bit-šakki and Bit-šedi of Namri (āl¯ni-šu dannūti); Puštu, Šalahamanu and Kinihamanu of Parsua; Lusanda, Abarnani and Kisuatni of Que, Pirria and Šituaria of Tab(?)[ ]. See also the cities Šuandahul and Durdukka of Manna accompanied by the attribute ālāni meš.nidannūti (Lie, A. G., The Inscriptions of Sargon II King of Assyria I. The Annals (Paris, 1929Google Scholar; henceforth, ISKA), 8:58). In AKA, 319:69, Suritu is designated as āl dannūti (of Ameka), which is not related to the preceding cities Zamru, Arasidku, Parsindu, and Iritu, (cf. ARAB I, § 455Google Scholar and ARI II, § 563Google Scholar). Indeed Zamru is clearly stated as Ameka's “royal city” (āl šarrūti) in AKA, 316:61. Cf. also the form ālāni birātīšu dannūti for Izibia and Amid, Winckler, H., Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons I (Leipzig, 1889Google Scholar; henceforth KTS), 104:42.

9 E.g. Pitura of the Dirru (AKA, 232:22, 335:104. See also Libe, Tela, Išpilipria, Mesu, in Table I. Kaprabi, whose people resisted Aššurnaṣirpal II and which was subsequently destroyed (in c. 873), is designated as “their fortified city” (AKA, 361:5 f.). Ahuni, “the man of Bit-Adini”, appears in the following narrative and is stated to have sent tribute to the Assyrian king but there is no clear indication that he had been involved in the war between Kaprabi and Aššurnaṣirpal II. The phrase “at that time” (ina ūmēluma) at the beginning of the narrative describing Ahuni's sending tribute (ibid., 362:55), marks only a literary transition from the preceding narrative (cf. Brinkman, , PKB, 394Google Scholar), hence there is no special reason to take the events in the two narratives as a single historical unit. It is likely that at the time of Aššurnaṣirpal II's war against Kaprabi, the country of Bit-Adini had been only loosely organized and indeed contained some semi-independent city-states whose people enjoyed some sort of autonomy due to their military power and well fortified cities among which was Kaprabi. In this connection it may also be noted that Tanakun, a city in the land of Que is designated as the fortified city of Tulka in the inscription of Shalmaneser III, although Que at that time (833 B.C.) was under the dominion of Kate, a fact which may indicate the specific geopolitical position of Tanakun in the “state” of Kate (Michel, E., “Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III . (858–824)”, WdO 2 (1954–1959), 222:133Google Scholar. The rendering “the royal city of Tulka” in ARAB I, § 583Google Scholar should be corrected to “the fortified city of Tulka”).

10 Previously read Hattin(a), but see now Hawkins, J. D., RLA IV (1972–1975), 160 (s.v. Hattin)Google Scholar; idem, “Assyrians and Hittites”, Iraq 36 (1974), 81.

11 AKA, 368:72 , 370:78 , 371:81. The mis-translation of Aribua as Lubarna's “royal city” (AKA, 371; ARAB I, § 478Google Scholar) was corrected by Oppenheim (ANET, 276). On the city Aribua, cf. Kraeling, E. G. H., Aram and Israel (New York, 1918)Google Scholar; Elliger, K., “Sam'al und Hamat in ihrem Verhältnis zu Hattina|Unqi und Arpad. Ein Beiträge zur Territorialgeschichte der nordsyrischen Staaten in 9. und 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr.”, Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt (ed. Fück, J.Google Scholar; Halle an der Saale, 1947), 74 f.; Lewy, J., “Studies in Historic Geography of the Ancient Near East”, Orientalia N.S. 21 (1952), 401 ffGoogle Scholar.; Tadmor, , in Unity and Diversity, 37 fGoogle Scholar.

12 3R 7 I 24, 8 II 48. Lutibu in 3R I 42 is not Hani's “royal city” (ARAB I, § 599Google Scholar) but his fortified city (see ANET 277b). The use of die attribute “their fortified city” is already seen in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I, AKA, 39:11–12 (Šeriše = ARI II, § 13Google Scholar), 58:99 (Murattaš), 78:99 (Hunusa). Cf. on āl dannūti also CAD D, 100a.

13 3R 7 II 17.

14 Michel, , WdO I (1947–52), 12Google Scholar:Rs 12 (KAH II, 112Google Scholar); 15 : 23 (KAH II, 113Google Scholar); 458: 52 (the Cameron-Text); WdO 2, 28:34 (the Safar-Text); 146:34 (the Black Obelisk).

15 Michel, , WdO 4 (1967–68), 36:6Google Scholar. On Dabigu cf. Honigman, , RLA II, 96Google Scholar.

16 The Kurkh Monolith was compiled shortly after the sixth regnal year of Shalmaneser III, 853 B.C., and the Balawat gates after the eighth year of his reign, 850 B.C. Cf. Schramm, , EAK II, 32 ffGoogle Scholar.

17 Adad-nirari II and Aššurnaṣirpal II (see above notes 1–2). On birtu, cf. CAD B, 261 ff. (birtu A).

18 birtu ana ramānīya aṣbat: WdO 2, 221:130. “Muru the royal city …” (ARAB I, § 582Google Scholar) should be corrected to “Muru the fortified city …”.

19 See above n. 15, and also King, L. W., Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser King of Assyria B.C. 860–825 (London, 1915), Pls. XIX-XXIVGoogle Scholar.

20 See above n. 5. For Pitru (biblical Pethor) see also WdO 2, 28:40, 146:38; and cf. Malamat, A., “The Aramaeans”, in Peoples of Old Testament Times (ed. Wiseman, D. J.; Oxford, 1973Google Scholar; henceforth POTT), 141.

21 ARI II, § 584Google Scholar.

22 For these and other Neo-Hittite countries on the west bank of the Euphrates, cf. Hawkins, J. D., Iraq 36, 67 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the expression “the other side of the Euphrates” (3R 7 I 38; WdO I, 15: 19, 16: 26; WdO 2, 28:41), cf. also Schramm, W., “Die Annalen des Assyrischen Königs Tukulti-Ninurta II.”, BiOr 27 (1970), 151:60, 74Google Scholar; and see also AHw, 44b (s.v. ammiu(m)).

23 3R 7 II 33. Cf. AHw, 695a (s.v. nabalkutu), 1165a (s.v. šanû(m) II).

24 The Cameron-Text from after the year 842 B.C. (and duplicates KAH II, 112, KAH II, 113), the Safar-Text after 839 B.C. and the Black Obelisk after 828 B.C. Cf. Schramm, , EAK II, 72-74, 77, 79Google Scholar. See also above n. 14.

25 On this Neo-Assyrian geographical term as well as its loose use in the later period, see Hawkins, J. D., RLA IV, 152 ffGoogle Scholar. (s.v. Hatti).

26 3R 7 II 14; 8 II 31, 67.

27 WdO I, 16: Vs 29 (KAH II, 113); 460:59 (the Cameron-Text); WdO 2, 28Google Scholar: 38 (the Safar-Text), 146:36 (the Black Obelisk).

28 By courtesy of Dr. O. A. Tasyurek. See above, pp. 47–53.

29 Cf. Tadmor, H., “Que and Muṣri”, IEJ 11 (1961), 143–150Google Scholar. See also Na'aman, N., “Two Notes on the Monolith Inscription of Shalmaneser III from Kurkh”, Tel Aviv 3 (1976), 89 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. The other instance out of the corpus of Shalmaneser III, where a city is designated both āl dannūti and āl šarrūti, is the case of Hubuškia. Sargon II (721–705 B.C.) in the letter to Aššsur recounting the events of the eighth campaign (714 B.C.) calls it the “royal city” of Yanzu, king of Na'iri (Thureau-Dangin, F., Une relation de la huitiène campagne de Sargon (714 av. J.-C) (Paris, 1912Google Scholar; henceforth Sg 8), 48:307), whereas in the Display Inscription (Winckler, KTS, 106:54) and in the Khorsabad Annals (A. G. Lie, ISKA, 26:307) from the end of Sargon's reign, Hubuškia is designated as Yanzu's fortified city. We suggest that here the earlier text should be trusted, for it describes the campaign against Na'iri and Hubuškia, hence the designation by Sargon (as a fortified city of the king of Na'iri) should be attributed to scribal error. Cf. Luckenbill, who renders āl dannūtīšū of the Display Inscription by “his royal city” (ARAB II, § 56Google Scholar), while in the Annals he does not (ibid., § 21).

30 See above n. 27 and cf. also n. 24. The Kenk inscription (above n. 28) may be dated to the fourth year of Shalmaneser, 855 B.C., or alternatively to his fifteenth year, 844 B.C. (J. D. Hawkins and O. A. Taşyürek—personal communication). It should also be noted that Til-Barsip is not referred to in the Balawat Gates inscription, one of the earliest recensions of Shalmaneser III's annals (cf. WdO 2, 414:2–6 and see also above n. 14).

31 There is an indication that Ahuni used Ki[…]qa as his residence at the time of his war against Shalmaneser in 857 B.C., hence the proposal to restore the relevant lacuna in the text (3R 7 I 31): Ki[…]qa the royal city/residence of Ahuni, e.g. by Luckenbill, (ARAB I, § 599)Google Scholar and Oppenheim, (ANET, 277a)Google Scholar. [A. Malamat in a recent study suggested to restore this toponym as Ki-[it]-qa or Ki-[tá]-qa and to identify it with the enigmatic KTK of the Aramaic Sefire treaties, the seat of king Bir-Ga'yah. See for the present his “A New Proposal for the Identification of KTK in the Sefire Inscriptions”, apud Razin, M., Census Lists and Genealogies etc. (Haifa, 1976), pp. VII–XI (in Hebrew)Google Scholar. Malamat takes now the qa/ka shift at the end of the city-name as a phonetic change, met with in Assyrian transcription of “foreign” toponyms (personal communication). For KTK see Na'aman, N., “Looking for KTK”, WdO 9/2 (1978), 220 ff.]Google Scholar After the fall of Til-Barsip (856 B.C.), Ahuni went to Šitamrat, a mountain peak on the Euphrates, and turned it into his last stronghold (dannūtu), see 3R 8 69; WdO 2, 462:5; WdO 2, 30:51, 146:46, 414:4. Til-Barsip is generally identified with Tell Ahmar on the east bank of the Euphrates, cf. Thureau-Dangin, F. and Dunand, M., Til-Barsip (Paris, 1936)Google Scholar; Kupper, J.-R., Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari (Paris, 1957), 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions from Tell Ahmar as well as on the cultural character of Bit-Adini, cf. Ussishkin, D., “Was Bit-Adini a Neo-Hittite or Aramaean State?”, Orientalia 40 (1971), 431 ff.Google Scholar; and see also above n. 9.

32 Cf. ARAB I, § 602Google Scholar; and also above n. 5.

33 3R 8 II 88, 90. The cities Adennu and Barga are not related with the attribute āl šarrūti (ARAB I, § 610Google Scholar). Cf. above n. 8.

34 Michel, , WdO 4, 36:18Google Scholar.

35 Idem, , WdO 1, 466: II 72-III 1Google Scholar; WdO 2, 34:54–57 (Abšimaku). Mount Yaraqu is also recorded in the texts of Aššurnaṣirpal II (AKA, 471:80).

36 Cf. Kraeling, , Aram and Israel, 67Google Scholar; Lewy, , Orientalia 21, 399, n. 2Google Scholar.

37 Cf. Dussaud, R., Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médtévale (Paris, 1927), 239CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elliger, , Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt, 83, n. 44Google Scholar.

38 Astour, M. C., “The Partition of the Confederacy of Mukiš-Nuhašše-Nii by Šuppiluliuma. A Study in Political Geography of the Amarna Age”, Orientalia 38 (1969), 412Google Scholar.

39 See King, op. cit. (above n. 19), Pls. LXXVII. Cf. Billerbeck, A. and Delitzsch, F., “Die Palastore Salmanassars ‘II’ von Balawat”, BA 6 (1908), 75Google Scholar; Barnett, R. D., Assyrian Palace Reliefs (London, 1970), 16 ffGoogle Scholar.

40 Ingholt, H., Rapport préliminaire sur sept campagne de fouilles à Hama en Syrie (1932–33) (København, 1940), 84 ff.Google Scholar; Riis, P. J., Hama. Les cimetières à crémation (København, 1948), 196 ffGoogle Scholar.; Fugmann, E., Hama. L'architecture des périodes préhellénistiques (København, 1958), 150 ffGoogle Scholar. For Hamath's artistic prosperity in this period, cf. also Barnett, R. D., A Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories (London, 1957), 46 ff.Google Scholar; Winter, I., “Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving in Historical Context: Questions of Style and Distribution”, Iraq 38 (1976), 15 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 ARAB I, §§ 610–611Google Scholar; ANET, 278b. On the war of Qarqar see Astour, , Orientalia 38, 411–414Google Scholar; Kraeling, op. cit., 73 ff.; Malamat, A., “The Wars of Israel and Assyria”, The Military History of the Land of Israel (ed. Liver, J.Google Scholar; Tel-Aviv, 1964), 246 ff. in Hebrew); Elat, M., “Campaigns of Shalmaneser III”, IEJ 25 (1975), 25 ffGoogle Scholar.

42 Rost, P., Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III. (Leipzig, 1893Google Scholar; henceforth KTP), 22:131, 26:152 = H. Tadmor, Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (henceforth ITP), Ann. 19:10, Ann. 13:12 (forthcoming). The form kutHammat- appears in KTP 70:8, 85:49 = ITP Summ. 7:rev. 8', Summ. 5 II:24. kurHamat appears in an unpublished inscription of Tiglath-pileser III (by courtesy of Prof. H. Tadmor).

43 Forrer, E., Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches (Leipzig, 1920), 52Google Scholar. But B. Landsberger was of the opinion that this was a school text, hence there is no reason to draw any conclusion on historical matters from it (Sam'al (Ankara, 1948), 81, n. 212). On the GN Hamat of Transjordan listed on the list K 4384:13, see Forrer, ibid., 70; Oded, B., “Observations on Methods of Assyrian Rule in Transjordania after the Palestinian Campaign of Tiglath-pileser III”, JNES 29 (1970), 180 fGoogle Scholar.

44 Parpola, , NAT, 130, 244 fGoogle Scholar. On these places, see Hawkins, , Iraq 36, 69 ffGoogle Scholar. Later, in the days of Sargon, Melid becomes a capital city of Kammanu (cf. Landsberger, op. cit., 20 f., n. 40). Cf. also the names of the city-states : URU/KUR Arwad (NAT, 37); URU/KUR Gubla (ibid., 135); URU/KUR Ṣidunu (ibid., 322), URU/KUR Ṣurru (ibid., 325 f.), but the name of Ṣimirra is almost exclusively written with the determinative URU (ibid., 323 f.).

45 NAT, 158 (s.v. Hattina), 368 (s.v. Unqi). Cf. the name of its capital, written with URU exclusively (NAT, 206, s.v. Kinalua).

46 NAT, 194. On Melid as a capital of Kammanu, see above note 44. The land of Judah is always designated with the determinative KUR (NAT, 182) except in one case (Borger, R., Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien (Graz, 1956Google Scholar), 60:55:mMe-na-si-i šàr uruIa-ú-di). It is known that since the period of Sargon Marqasi (today's Maras) was a central city of Gurgum (see NAT, 239 f.). The name is accompanied only with the determinative URU. The restoration of the name of Marqasi with the determinative KUR in ND 2762:11 (Saggs, H. W. F., “The Nimrud Letters, 1952—Part V”, Iraq 21, 159:11Google Scholar) is not undisputed. On the other hand, the GN Gurgum is generally written with the determinative KUR (NAT, 137. The earliest reference to the name is found in an inscription of AššsurnaṢirpal II from Nimrud; see Wiseman, D.J., “A New Stela of Ashurnasirpal II”, Iraq 14 (1952), 35:145CrossRefGoogle Scholar). However, the fact that the Kurkh Monolith gives not only the form of KUR Gurgumaya (3R 8 II 84) but that of URU Gurgumaya (3R 7 I 40, 41) may suggest that like Carchemish, Gurgum was originally a name of a city, which had served as Gurgum's capital until it was either renamed Marqasi or replaced by a new capital, Marqasi. As regards the name of Kummuh (classical Commagene), Landsberger assumed that it had originally been a land name, not a city name, mentioning that the determinative URU is used for the GN only in the later inscriptions (op. cit., 21, n. 41). However, it should be pointed out that Kummuh with the determinative URU already appears in the Kurkh Monolith (3R 8 II 83) along with the form with KUR (3R 7 I 37, 8 II 30). See also NAT, 215 f. Thus it is possible that Kummuh was used also as a name of a capital of the country in the ninth century B.C., while the problem of the definite identification of its site still remains open (see Hawkins, J . D., “Hieroglyphic Hittite Inscriptions of Commagene”, AnSt 20 (1970), 69Google Scholar; idem, , “Vom Kummuh nach Kommagene”, Kommagene (ed. Dorner, F. K.; Küsnacht, 1975), 6Google Scholar).

47 Meriggi, P., Hieroglyphisch-hethitisches Glossar (Wiesbaden, 1962), 18Google Scholar. On the new reading of the name, see Hawkins, J. D., Morpurgo-Davies, A. and Neumann, G., Hittite Hieroglyphs and Luwian: New evidence for the connection (Göttingen, 1973), 15Google Scholar.

48 Meriggi, ibid., 70 f.

49 Donner, H. and Rollig, W., Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (Wiesbaden, 1966Google Scholar; henceforth KAI), no. 202 A 1, 2; B 17. On the two ivory panels bearing the place names Hamath and Lu'aš in alphabetic letters from Nimrud, see Millard, A. R., “Alphabetic Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud”, Iraq 24 (1962), 42 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mallowan, M. E. L., Nimrud and its Remains II (London, 1966), 582, 595Google Scholar. Cf. also Barnett, R. D., “Hamath and Nimrud. Shell Fragments from Hamath and the Provenance of the Nimrud Ivories”, Iraq 25 (1963), 81 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the reading of the name Zakur, cf. Hawkins, , RLA V, s.v. JahanGoogle Scholar.

50 NAT, 108, 328. Cf. Borger, R., “Geographisches und Topographisches”, ZA 66 (1977), 277Google Scholar; Malamat, , POTT, 142, 151 n. 22Google Scholar.

51 Ben-hadad (2 Kings 6, 24; 8, 7, 9); Hazael (2 Kings 8, 28-29; 9, 14-15; 12, 17-18; 13, 3, 22); Rezin (2 Kings 15, 37; 16, 5-7).

52 In 2 Chron. 24, 23, the word darmāśeq is not related to the preceding “king” in a construct form, but it should rather be understood as locative, hence “at Damascus”. See Rudolph, W., Chronikbücher (Tübingen, 1955), 276Google Scholar; Myers, J. M., II Chronicles (New York, 1965), 135Google Scholar; The Jerusalem Bible, 480.

53 Cf. also Is. 36, 19–20; 2 Kings 18, 33.

54 As to the question of Hamath in the second and third millennia B.C., Astour proposed to identify it with Tunip (Orientalia 38, 394Google Scholar), but see his more recent opinion in “Tunip-Hamath and Its Region. A Contribution to the Historical Geography of Central Syria”, Orientalia 40 (1977), 51 ffGoogle Scholar.

55 Rost, , KTP 20:123 ffGoogle Scholar. = Tadmor, , ITP, Ann. 19Google Scholar. Cf. Tadmor, H., “Azriyau of Yaudi”, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961), 257 ff.Google Scholar; Weippert, M., “Menahem von Israel und seine Zeitgenossen in einer Steleninschrift des assyrischen Königs Tiglathpileser III . aus dem Iran”, ZDPV 89 (1973), 44 ff.Google Scholar; Kessler, K., “Die Anzahl der assyrischen Provinzen des Jahres 738 v. Chr. in Nordsyrien”, WdO 8 (1975). 49 ffGoogle Scholar.

56 Generally translated “Great Hamath” or “Hamath the great”. But see the form in the MT ḥamat rabbāh (not ḥamāt rabbāh). It should also be pointed out that the Greek translations do not take rabbāh as an adjective but as a part of a proper name exclusively: Αιμαθραββα/Εμαθραββα/Μαθραββα, while ṣidōn rabbāh, i.e. “Great Sidon” (Jos. 11, 8), is translated Σιδϖνος της μεγάλης. Nor do we have any clear evidence for the existence of a geographical name such as “Little Hamath”, while we know of “Little Sidon” (uruṢidunnu ṣehru) as against “Great Sidon” (Ṣidunnu rabû) from a cuneiform text (Luckenbill, D. D., The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago, 1924), 29:41Google Scholar). But cf. Lewy, J., “The Old West Semitic Sun-God Hammu”, HUCA 18 (1944), 444 ffGoogle Scholar.

57 Hawkins, , Iraq 36, 82 f.Google Scholar; Na'aman, N., “Sennacherib's ‘Letter to God’ on his Campaign to Judah”, BASOR 214 (1974), 37 and n. 51Google Scholar.

58 WdO 1, 269: 1–4Google Scholar.

59 Marduk-balassu-iqbi, king of Babylonia, is also said to have had two royal cities at the time of the fourth campaign (815 B.C.) of Šamši-Adad V (823–811 B.C.): Qarne and Dur-Papsukkal (Abel, L., in Schrader, E., Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek I (Berlin, 1889), 184 IV 9, 24Google Scholar). On the date of this campaign see Brinkman, , PKB, 208, n. 1291Google Scholar, and most recently, Grayson, , BiOr 33, 141 ffGoogle Scholar. Among the cities of the same king of Babylonia destroyed in Šamši-Adad V's fifth campaign were Qai[…]-na, Padnu and Makurrit, which are described as 3 ālāni (URU.MEŠ-ni) āl šarrūti (MAN-ti)-šu (Weidner, E. F., “Die Feldzüge Šamši-Adads V gegen Babylonien”, AfO 9 (1933–34), 92: 22Google Scholar. It is possible that URU was only mistakenly written for URU.MEŠ before MAN-ti-šu. However, cf. Brinkman, , PKB, 209Google Scholar “he (Šamši-Adad) destroyed three small towns” (see also there n. 1301). Although it belongs to a much later period, Aššurbanipal (668–627 B.C.) boasts that he had conquered many “royal cities” of Ummanaldash, king of Elam (Streck, M., Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Nineveh's (Leipzig, 1916), V, 81 ff.Google Scholar; ARAB II, § 805Google Scholar), which can probably be taken as a scribal exaggeration to describe Aššur banipal as the mightiest of all the Assyrian kings, while there is no doubt that the king of Elam had built more than one royal city in his country.

60 Mazar, B., “Jezreel”, Encyclopaedia Biblica III (1958, Jerusalem), col. 627 f. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar; Napier, B. D., “The Omrides of Jezreel”, VT 9 (1959), 378Google Scholar. Cf. also Yadin, Y., “The ‘House of Baal’ in Samaria and in Judah”, Eretz Shomron (Jerusalem, 1973) 59, 65 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar. Ishida, T., “The House of Ahab”, IEJ 25 (1975), 135–137Google Scholar.

61 KAI, no. 261:16–19.

62 Cf. Fugmann, op. cit., 189 ff.; Riis, P. J., Sūkās. The North-East Sanctuary and the First Settling of Greeks in Syria and Palestine (Kobenhavn, 1970), 169 ffGoogle Scholar.

63 KAI no. 202 A 4, 9, 10; B 1, 4. Cf. also Buccellati, G., “The Enthronement of the King and the Capital City in Texts from Ancient Mesopotamia and Syria”, Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (Chicago, 1964), 56Google Scholar.

64 Fugmann, op. cit., 189, 276.

65 Tadmor, , Scripta Hierosolymitana 8, 268Google Scholar; Na‘aman, , BASOR 214, 38Google Scholar. For the Neo-Babylonian text found in the excavation at Hama, see Læssøe, J., “A Prayer to Ea, Shamash, and Marduk from Hama”, Iraq 18 (1956), 60 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Winckler, , KTS 102:35Google Scholar; ARAB II, § 55Google Scholar. Cf. AHw, 745b (s.v. narāmu).

67 Cf. Tadmor, H., “The Campaign of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study”, JCS 12 (1958), 38Google Scholar; Reade, J. E., “Sargon's Campaigns of 720, 716, and 715 B.C.: Evidence from the Sculptures”, JNES 35 (1976), 101Google Scholar; Hawkins, J. D., RLA IV, 69 (s.v. Hamath)Google Scholar.