Part 30 (1/2)
[Plate VIII.]
Plates of Chased Bronze, which covered the Doors of an Enclosure at Balawat. (Left-hand portions, from right-hand leaf.) (Found by Mr. H.
Ra.s.sam, in 1878, and now in British Museum, a.s.syrian Saloon.) I_a_.-The expedition of Shalmaneser II. to the land of Nairi (Mesopotamia).
Sacrificing to the G.o.ds by throwing meat-offerings into the lake. March of the army over the mountains. I_b_.-Siege and capture of the city Suguni, in Ararat. II_a_.-Bringing to Shalmaneser ”_the tribute of the s.h.i.+ps of Tyre and Sidon_.” II_b_.-March against the city Hazizi. Procession of prisoners. III_a_. and III_b_.-Crossing the tributaries of the Euphrates by pontoon bridges. Receiving tribute from Adinu, son of Dakaru, of Enzudu. (Page 337.)
”In my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. ?aza-'ilu of the land of Imeri-u trusted to the might of his troops, and called his troops together in great number. Saniru, the peak of a mountain which is before Lebanon, he made his stronghold. I fought with him, I accomplished his defeat: 16,000 of his fighting-men I slew with the sword: 1121 of his chariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp, I captured. He fled to save his life-I set out after him. I besieged him in Dimaqu (Damascus), his royal city. I cut down his orchards; I went to the mountains of the land of ?auranu (the Hauran), cities without number I destroyed, wasted, and burned in the flames. Untold spoil I carried away. I went to the mountains of Ba'ali-ra'asi” (Aramaic: ”lord of the promontory”), ”which is a headland” (lit., ”head of the sea”)-”I set up an image of my majesty therein. In those days I received the tribute of the Tyrians, Sidonians, (and) of Yaua, son of ?umri.”
The description of this campaign given by the Black Obelisk is as follows-
”In my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. ?aza'-ilu of the land of Imeri-u came forth to battle: 1121 of his chariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp, I took away from him.”
These two doc.u.ments, as will easily be seen, are in perfect accord, and the story they have to tell agrees in its turn with that of the preceding years of Shalmaneser's reign. Indeed, this text may be regarded as confirming the opinions. .h.i.therto held concerning the ident.i.ty of A?abbu mat Sir'ilaa with Ahab of Israel, and Adad-idri with Ben-Hadad of Damascus. This, be it noted, is due to the fact that, like Ben-Hadad, Adad-idri was succeeded by Hazael, who, in both the Bible narrative and the annals of Shalmaneser, is a contemporary of Jehu (Yaua, son of ?umri or Omri). The Black Obelisk, probably for the sake of economizing s.p.a.ce, does not refer to the receipt of tribute from Jehu when speaking of the battle with Hazael, on account of the bas-relief thereon referring to that event. The following is the translation of the epigraph in question which I gave in 1886(91)-
”The tribute of Yaua, son of ?umri: silver, gold, a golden cup, golden vases, golden vessels, golden buckets, lead, a staff for the hand of the king (and) sceptres, I received.”
The account of the conflict with Hazael indicates that certain changes had taken place in the Mediterranean coast-lands since Shalmaneser's former campaigns thither. It was no longer against the kings of Damascus and Hamath with ”a dozen kings” in alliance with them, but against Hazael alone. Had they broken with Ben-Hadad? or did they hold aloof because they had no sympathy with his murderer? In any case, it would seem to be certain that they no longer feared the a.s.syrian king, who, they must have felt, had his hands full. In Israel, too, there had been changes, Ahab having been succeeded by Ahaziah, who, after a reign of one year, was succeeded by Jehoram. The latter tried to reduce Mesha king of Moab again to subjection, but without success. Ben-Hadad's attempt to capture Samaria was made during his reign, and the non-success of the Syrian king was probably the cause of Jehoram's attempt to recover Ramoth-gilead, where Ahab had found his fate some years before. The king of Israel did not fall on the field of battle, but received there a wound which obliged him to return to Jezreel. His death at the hands of Jehu in Naboth's vineyard is one of the most dramatic incidents of Israelitish history.
Jehu's payment of tribute to the a.s.syrian king in 842 B.C. was probably due to a question of policy, and in the main it may be considered as a cheap way of avoiding misfortune, for he might easily have been worsted in an encounter with Shalmaneser. What Tyre and Sidon thought fit to do, could hardly but be recognized as policy for Israel as well. It was important for Jehu that he should consolidate his power, hence this submission, though, to say the truth, he could not have been certain that he would be attacked. Was it that he felt strong enough to resist the a.s.syrian king which made him withhold the payment of tribute when, in 839 B.C., Shalmaneser again marched against Hazael? It would seem so. On this occasion four towns of the king of Damascus were captured, and tribute again received from Tyre and Sidon, Gebal likewise buying peace in the same way.
That Jehu, who destroyed the house of Omri, should be called ”son of Omri”
in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser II. of a.s.syria, is strange, and needs explanation. Perhaps the successor of a king could loosely be spoken of as his son, as occupying the place of such a relative; and, as is well known, Belshazzar, in the book of Daniel, is called son of Nebuchadnezzar, which, according to the Babylonian inscriptions, he certainly was not. That Jehu may have been in some way related with Jehoram, and therefore a descendant of Omri, is possible and even probable. That he was not descended from him in a direct line is certain.
It is noteworthy that the a.s.syrian form of the name, Yaua, shows that the unp.r.o.nounced aleph at the end was at that time sounded, so that the Hebrews must have called him Yahua (Jehua). Omri was likewise p.r.o.nounced in accordance with the older system, before the ghain became ayin. ?umri shows that they said at that time Ghomri.
After the rebellion which embittered the closing years of Shalmaneser's life, the great a.s.syrian king died, and his crown went to his younger son ami-Adad III. (825-812 B.C.). The first work of the new ruler was the pacification of his country, and this having been successfully done, he tried to restore a.s.syrian influence beyond the borders of his kingdom.
During his reign of about thirteen years, he warred on the N., N.E., N.W.
and S. (Babylonia), but never came nearer to Syria than Kar-Shalmaneser on the Euphrates, near Carchemish.
His son, Adad-nirari, who reigned from 812 to 783 B.C., followed in his footsteps, and began by making conquests on the east. The north and north-west, however, also felt the force of his arms. The only campaign of which details are given is one against Syria, the date of which, however, is not known. G. Smith thought that this could not have taken place earlier than 797 B.C., during the time of Amaziah king of Judah and Joash king of Israel-a conjecture which is based, to all appearance, upon the comparison of Mansuate with Mana.s.seh. As the a.s.syrian form of this name is Minse or Minase, such an identification is impossible, and this being the case, it is more probable that the expeditions to the Holy Land and Syria took place either in 806, when he went to Arpad, 805, when he was at ?aza, or 804, when he marched against Ba'ali, the name, apparently, of a Phnician city. The next year he went to the sea-coast, but whether this was the Mediterranean or not is not indicated, though it may be regarded as very probable, and if so, 803 B.C. must be added to the dates already named, or the operations to which he refers in his slab-inscription may have extended over one or more of the years here referred to.
So, when he was young and enthusiastic, King Adad-nirari III. of a.s.syria had the inscription carved of which the following is a translation, as far as it is at present known-
”Palace of Adad-nirari, the great king, the powerful king, king of the world, king of the land of Aur; the king who, in his youth, Aur, king of the Igigi, called, and delivered into his hand a kingdom without equal; his shepherding he (Aur) made good as pasture for the people of the land of Aur, and caused his throne to be firm; the glorious priest, patron of e-arra, he who ceaseth not to uphold the command of e-kura, who continually walketh in the service of Aur, his lord, and hath caused the princes of the four regions to submit to his feet. He who hath conquered from the land of Siluna of the rising of the sun, the mountains (?) of the land of Ellipu, the land of ?ar?ar, the land of Arazia, the land of Mesu, the land of the Medes, the land of Gizil-bunda, to its whole extent, the land of Munna, the land of Parsua (Persia), the land of Allapria, the land of Abdadana, the land of Na'iru (Mesopotamia), to the border of the whole of it, the land of Andiu, whose situation is remote, the range (?) of the mountains, to its whole border, as far as the great sea of the rising of the sun (the Persian Gulf); from the river Euphrates, the land of ?atti (Heth, the Hitt.i.tes), the land of Amurri (Amoria, the Amorites), to its whole extent, the land of Tyre, the land of Sidon, the land of ?umri (Omri, Israel), the land of Edom, the land of Palastu (Philistia) as far as the great sea of the setting of the sun (the Mediterranean), I caused to submit to my feet. I fixed tax and tribute upon them. I went to the land of a-imeri-u (Syria of Damascus); Mari'u, king of a-imeri-u, I shut up in Dimaqu (Damascus), his royal city. The fear and terror of Aur, his lord, struck him, and he took my feet, performed homage. Two thousand three hundred talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3000 talents of bronze, 5000 talents of iron, cloth, variegated stuffs, linen, a couch of ivory, an inlaid litter of ivory, (with) cus.h.i.+ons (?), his goods, his property, to a countless amount I received in Damascus, his royal city, in the midst of his palace. All the kings of the land of Kaldu (the Chaldean tribes in Babylonia) performed homage, tax and tribute for future days I fixed upon them. Babylon, Borsippa, Cuthah, brought the overplus (of the treasures) of Bel, Nebo, (and) Nergal, (made) pure offerings....”
(The remainder of the inscription is said to be still at Calah, not yet uncovered.)
Schrader, in his _Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament_, makes the campaign against Syria to have taken place in 803 B.C., and sees in Adad-nirari the deliverer sent by Yahwah in answer to the prayers of Jehoahaz. According to 2 Kings xiii. 3, the Israelites were subject to Hazael and Ben-Hadad, his son, all their days. There is every probability that the successor of the latter was the Mari'u mentioned in the translation given above, and the same inscription would seem to indicate that the Israelites submitted to the a.s.syrian king, and paid him tribute in order to secure his intervention, which, judging from the enormous amount of spoil which he secured, he did not regret. The saviour having come, and the tribute paid, ”Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime”
(2 Kings xiii. 5). Verses 22-25 are to all appearance a recapitulation, probably extracted from another source. They show that Joash, son of Jehoahaz, rebelled, and took from Ben-Hadad the cities which the last-named had captured from Israel, and defeated him three times (see ver. 19). Apparently ”all their days” in ver. 3 is not to be taken literally, as the war of the Israelites against Syria took place before the death of Ben-Hadad III. It may also be conjectured that the reason of there being no more than three defeats of the Syrians was due to the death of Ben-Hadad, and his sceptre pa.s.sing into younger and more vigorous hands, so that ”a saviour” was still needed, and found in the person of the a.s.syrian king, as suggested by Schrader. The Syrian forces not being in a condition, after their defeats by the Israelites, to offer battle to Adad-nirari, apparently submitted without fighting, and after such a visit the country had too much need for peace to allow of reprisals being made against the Israelites.
The fame of Adad-nirari was great, and his queen seems to have shared in it. She was named Sammu-ramat, ”(the G.o.ddess) Sammu loveth (her),” a name which is generally regarded as the original of the somewhat mythical Semiramis of Herodotus. That she was looked up to by the subjects of her royal spouse, however, is proved by the two statues in the British Museum (there were in all four of them, erected at Calah). According to the inscription on them, they were made and dedicated for one of the chief officers of the kingdom, Bel-tar?i-ili-ma (”a lord before G.o.d”), who furnished them with the following dedication-
”To Nebo, mighty, exalted, son of e-saggil,(92) the wise one, high-towering, the mighty prince, son of Nudimmud, whose word is supreme; prince of intelligence, director of the universe of heaven and earth, he who knoweth everything, the wide of ear, he who holdeth the tablet-reed (and) hath the stilus; the merciful one, he who decideth, with whom is (the power of) raising and abasing; the beloved of Ea, lord of lords, whose power hath no equal, without whom there would be no counsel in heaven; the gracious one, pitiful, whose sympathy is good; he who dwelleth in E-zida, which is within Calah-the great lord, his lord-for the life of Adad-nirari, king of the land of Aur, his lord, and the life of Sammu-ramat, she of the palace, his lady, Bel-tar?i-ili-ma, ruler of the city of Calah, the land of ?amedu, the land of Sudgana, the land of Temeni, the land of Yaluna, for the saving of his life, the lengthening of his days, the adding of days to his years, the peace of his house and his people (not the one evil to him), he has caused (this statue) to be made as a gift. Whoever (cometh) after: Trust to Nebo-trust not another G.o.d.”
It is rare that an a.s.syrian queen is mentioned in the inscriptions, especially on almost equal terms with the king, and additional interest is added by the fact, that she bears a name commonly regarded as the same as that of Semiramis. In a.s.syrian and Babylonian history, it is always the king who is the ruler, whatever influence his spouse may have had in determining his policy as such being always unmentioned, and therefore unknown to the world at large. The present inscription, however, seems to testify that Sammu-ramat was known outside the walls of the palace, and that one of the greatest in the kingdom thought fit to do her honour by a.s.sociating her with the king in the dedication to Nebo which he made for the preservation of the lives of the king, the queen, and himself. Whether the history of Sammu-ramat, queen of a.s.syria, was laid under contribution to furnish details for the legend of Semiramis, will probably never be known; but it is nevertheless unfortunate that the slab recounting the warlike exploits of Adad-nirari, king of a.s.syria, her husband, should break off in the middle of his account of his successes in Babylonia.
Adad-nirari reigned 29 years, and was succeeded by Shalmaneser III. in 783 B.C. The expeditions of this king were princ.i.p.ally against Armenia and Itu'u, a region on the Euphrates. In the year 775 B.C. he went to the cedar-country, but whether the mountain region of the Ama.n.u.s, Lebanon, or of a district called ?aur be intended, is unknown. The necessity of expeditions against Syria, however, still continued, for in 773 B.C. we find Shalmaneser at Damascus, probably to bring the king then ruling there again into subjection.
Although doubt is now expressed as to whether ?atarika, whither Shalmaneser III. marched in 772 B.C., the last year of his reign, be really Hadrach (Zech. ix. 1) or not (the consonants do not agree so well as they ought to do), in all probability it was a district not far from Damascus to which he went.