Page:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu/202

other, we must think of common political relations binding the districts east and west of the Euphrates. The king mentioned above (Shaushatar) conquered Asshur (Assur), and Assyria remained subordinate to Mitanni till near the middle of the 14th century, when, on the death of Tushratta, it overthrew Mitanni with the help of Alshe, a north Mesopotamian state, the allies dividing the territory between them. The Hittite king’s interference restored the Mitannite state as a protectorate, but with a smaller territory, probably in the north-west, where it may have survived long.

Assyria was now free, and Ashur-uballiṭ [Assur-yuballidh acc. to Sayce] knew how to make use of his opportunities, and, in the words of his great grandson, “broke up the forces of the widespread Shubari” (AKA, p. 7, l. 32 seq.). Knowing what we know of the colonizing power of the Assyrians, we may assume that among the “Mitanni” and other elements in the Mesopotamian population there would now be an increase of people of “Assyrian” origin. On the tangled politics of this period, especially Mesopotamia’s relations with the north-west, the Boghaz-Keui documents may be expected to throw a great deal of light. We know already a little more of the chequered history of the Amorites in the Naharin district, beset by great powers on three sides. When Mitanni fell Babylon no doubt adhered to its older claims on Mesopotamia; but the Kassite kings could do little to contest the advance of Assyria, although several rectifications of the boundary between their spheres are reported.

Mitanni’s fall, however, had opened the way for others also. Hence when Ashur-uballiṭ’s grandson, Arik-den-ili (written PU.DI.ili), carried on the work of enforcing Assyria’s claim to the heirship of Mitanni, he is described as conquering the warriors^[1] (?) of the Akhlame and the Suti. The references to these people, who practically make their first Aramaeans. appearance in the Amarna correspondence,^[2] show that they were unsettled bands who took advantage of the loosening of authority to introduce themselves into various parts of the country, in this case Mesopotamia. Gradually settlements were made, the names of many of which are given by the various Assyrian kings who had at one time or another to assert or reassert supremacy over them—such as Chindanu, Laqe, Suḥi along the South Euphrates boundary of Mesopotamia, and various districts bearing names compounded with Bit＝settlement (see above), such as Bit-Adini (nearly equal the later Osroene; see Edessa), or Bit-Zamani in the north near Diārbekr. The specific name Aramaean first appears in the annals of Tiglath-pileser I., unless we identify the Arimi of Shalmaneser I. in Ṭūr ʽAbdin with the Aramu;^[3] but the name may probably with fitness be applied to a very large number of the communities mentioned from time to time. Their position in Mesopotamia must have been very like that of the Shammar at the present time (see ad fin.). As they gradually adopted settled life in various parts of the country the use of Aramaic spread more and more (see below, § “Persians”).

Meanwhile Mesopotamia continued to be crossed and recrossed by the endless marches of the Assyrian kings (such as Adad-nirari, Shalmaneser I. and his son), building and rebuilding the Assyrian empire (see Babylonia and Assyria), and eventually pushing their conquests towards Asia Minor at the expense of the Hittite domain. Assyrian Empire. If, on the fall of the Kassites, Nebuchadrezzar I. established more direct relations between Mesopotamia and Babylon, his work was presently undone by the vigorous campaigns of Tiglath-pileser I., who seems to have even won Egypt’s sanction of his succession to the Hittite claims. The newly recovered (1909) tablet of Tukulti-Ninib, the grandfather of Shalmaneser II., is interesting from its account of an expedition down the course of the Tharthār to Hīt＝Id (river and town now first mentioned in cuneiform sources) and up the Euphrates to the Khābūr district.

Now that Mesopotamia had passed out of the hands of Babylon, all that the later kings could do was to encourage local Mesopotamian rulers in their desire for independence (Nabuapluiddin). These were convinced that Assyria was master, but refused their tribute when they thought they dared. To thoroughly overpower the troublesome Bit-Adini (see above, § 3, viii.), which had naturally been aided by the states west of the Euphrates, Shalmaneser II. (860–825) settled Assyrians in their midst. Ḥarrān was one of the few places that remained on his side during the great insurrection that darkened his last days. Similarly the province of Guzanu (Heb. Gozan, Γαυζανῖτις), on the Khābūr, held with the capital Asshur in the insurrection that occurred in 763 (the year of the eclipse), when evidently some one (an Adad-nirari ?) wore the crown, at least for a time. Ḥarrān was clearly closely associated with Asshur in the rights and institutions that were the subject of so much party struggle in the new Assyrian empire that began with Tiglath-pileser IV. (see Babylonia and Assyria). When the policy of transporting people from one part of the empire to another was developed, new elements were introduced into Mesopotamia, amongst them Israelites, of whom perhaps traces have been found in the neighbourhood of Ḥarrān at Kannu’.^[4] These new elements may have been more organically attached to the Assyrian state as such than the older inhabitants, to whom the affairs of state at Nineveh would be of little interest. On the conditions at Ḥarrān some light is thrown by the census partly preserved in Ashurbanipal’s library.^[5] The governors of several Mesopotamian cities, such as Nasibin, Amid, took their turn as eponyms; but this would not have much significance for the people. Hence even the fall of Nineveh (607 B.C.), apart from what such cities in Mesopotamia as held by its last kings suffered through the invasion, first perhaps of Nabopolassar, who in 609 B.C. claims to be lord of Shubarū, and then of the Medes, would be a matter of comparative indifference; tribute paid to Babylon was just as hard to find as if it were going to Nineveh. Necho did not succeed, like his great XVIIIth dynasty predecessor, in crossing the Euphrates. He was defeated by Nebuchadrezzar at Carchemish (605 B.C.), and Mesopotamia was confirmed to Babylon. Its troubles began again shortly after Nebuchadrezzar’s death; the Medes seized Mesopotamia and besieged Ḥarrān. Before long, however, the overthrow of Astyages by Cyrus cleared Mesopotamia, and Nabonidus (Nabu-naid) was able, drawing on the resources of the whole of Syria for the purpose, to restore the famous temple of Sin at Ḥarrān, where a few years later he erected in memory of his mother, who seems to have been a priestess there, the stele published in 1907 by Pognon.

The fragmentary nature of the records does not enable us to follow the steps by which Cyrus became master of Mesopotamia, in which he probably met with little or no resistance. How much of Mesopotamia was involved in the revolt of what the Persian inscription calls Assyria (Athur) is not clear. Nor does it appear with certainty to which of the Persians. twenty satrapies into which, according to Herodotus, the Persian empire was divided, Mesopotamia belonged; probably it was included in ’Abar nahărā. The fact is, we have no information from native sources.^[6] The probability is that conditions remained very much what they had been; except that the policy of transportation was not continued. The satraps and other high officials would naturally be of Persian extraction; but local affairs were probably managed in the old way, and there was no important shift of population. The large Aramaic infusion had by this time been merged in the general body of the people. These settlers doubtless influenced the “Assyrian” language;^[7] but gradually, especially in the west, their own language more

1. See M. Streck, Zeit. Assyr., 18, 157.
2. On a wrongly supposed much earlier occurrence of the name Achlamu, see Klio, vi. 193 n. 3.
3. So for example A. Šanda, Die Ararmäer, 5 (1902).
4. S. Schiffer, Keilschriftliche Spuren der in der zweiten Hälfte des 8. Jahrhunderts von den Assyrern nach Mesopotamien deportierten Samarier (10 Stämme) (1907); (C. H. W. Johns in Proc. Soc. Bib. Arch. (March, May, 1908).
5. C. H. W. Johns, An Assyrian Doomsday Book (1901).
6. For the history from the time of Herodotus onwards, see Ritter, Erdkunde, x. 6–284.
7. M. Streck, Klio, vi. 222 seq.