1

Introduction: Carchemish in the Late Bronze Age

Suddenly emerging from his power base at Hattusa, King Suppiluliuma I (c.1380-
1336 BC) became the first Hittite monarch to assert power over the political states of
northern Syria. The influence he and his successors had over these states not only shaped the
area for the rest of the Late Bronze Age, but would also continue into the Early Iron Age all
the way up to northern Syrias incorporation into the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The epicentre of
this influence came from the city of Carchemish. It was here where Suppiluliuma I made his
son Piyashili (also known as Sharri-Kushuh) king of Carchemish and the Hittite Empires
viceroy to the rest of northern Syria. This meant King Piyashili and his successors were
expected to keep all of the other vassals in the region under Hittite control when the king was
away. The viceroys control was especially important for kingdoms like Nuhashe, Qatna,
Qadesh and Amurru, all of which shared a border with expansion minded New Kingdom
Egypt (Klengel 1992, 112-115). These vassals were not allowed to conduct independent
foreign policy and swore allegiance to the Hittite king for life. After the strategically
inconclusive Battle of Qadesh and the associated peace treaty between the Egyptian and
Hittite Empires which followed in the early 13
th
century, it looked as if the Hittites were
going to be able to keep their network of north Syrian vassals intact for years to come. This
was not to be the case. These states were first challenged by the Assyrians, who had
successfully emerged from their previous status as a vassal of the Mitanni Empire to become
the rulers of northern Mesopotamia (Roux 1966, 262-263). Their success extended all the
way to Carchemish, where Assyrian King Tukulti-Ninurta I (1233-1197) claims to have
removed 28,800 people from the land of Hatti (Klengel 1992, 127). While Tukulti-Ninurta
I was expanding his sphere of influence, the Hittite Empire outside of northern Syria
suddenly vanished as part of the events of relating to the Bronze Age collapse around 1200
BC. This collapse also claimed all Late Bronze Age Syrian kingdoms with the notable
2

exception of Carchemish (Sader 2000, 61). Egypt went into a period of decline which saw
their presence disappear from Syria entirely and even Assyrias power waned after the
murder of Tiglath-Pileser I (c.1077 BC).
Syria in the 11
th
-10
th
Centuries BC: Neo-Hittites and Aramaeans
The meagre evidence available from the 11
th
and 10
th
centuries shows the Kingdom of
Carchemish continuing on as the most powerful state in northern Syria. Beyond their
borders, the rest of Syria suffered from the absence of political control on both local and
regional levels (Sader 2000, 63). There were two main cultural groups present trying to fill
this political vacuum, the Neo-Hittites and the Aramaeans.
The title Neo-Hittite (as well as alternate names Syro-Hittite or Luwian-Aramaean)
is a modern term scholars use to describe a number of the formerly Hittite ruled or influenced
states that were present in north Syria starting in the 10
th
century. These states showed
similarities with each other and the old Hittite Empire in sculpture, inscriptions and language
(Kuhrt 1997, 410). J.D. Hawkins concluded that Hittite influence on the area was so great
there must have been a large scale migration from Anatolia following the sack of Hattusa
(Hawkins 1982, 372). Georges Roux warned this evidence was highly conjectural, especially
since Syria had been rife with Hittite influence since the mid-14
th
century (1966, 272). A
more likely picture is presented by Amelie Kuhrt, who assumed each kingdom of north Syria
was inhabited by a mix of Canaanites, Aramaeans, Hurrians, Hittites, and Luwians (1997,
411). Despite the modern term which implies some form of unity, there is little evidence to
suggest the Neo-Hittite states considered themselves as a separate cultural group from anyone
else in the Levant or South Anatolia. The only references to the area as a unified cultural
group come from the Assyrians, who would occasionally refer to the kings of northern Syria
as the kings of Hatti (Yamada 2000, 117-118). The lack of cultural unity among these
3

states would become a severe stumbling block to resisting the Assyrians when the latter
started regularly invading the region in the mid-9
th
century BC.
The other major cultural group who were able to assert themselves in northern Syria
were the Aramaeans. Another modern term used to delineate a diverse cultural group, the
Aramaean cultures in no way acted as a unified force (Kuhrt 1997, 393). Debate rages as to
where exactly the Aramaeans came from and when they are first mentioned in literary
sources, but there is no doubt they had become a powerful force by the time Tiglath-Pileser I
of Assyria marched to fight the Akhlamu-Aramaeans in 1112 BC (Dupont-Sommer 1949,
17-19). The power of the Aramaean groups only increased in the 10
th
century when they
moved into Syria en masse and started integrating with the Luwian, Hurrian and Hittite
cultures already present. According to Helen Sader, the process of Aramaean integration into
northern Syria likely involved a three step process of establishment, military expansion and
centralization (2000, 68). Originally pastoral nomads who depended on domesticated
livestock and semi-sedentary farming, archaeological evidence indicates by the end of the
10
th
century they had begun the process of becoming completely sedentary (Lipinski 2000,
491; Sader 2000, 74). Sader insisted the first phase of settlement was largely peaceful, citing
the Kingdom of Damascus in southern Syria as the only Aramaean kingdom which owed its
foundation to military conquest. However, Kuhrts hypothesis of the Aramaeans integrating
into northern Syria and Mesopotamia by using peaceful and warlike methods seems more
reasonable, especially since Aramaean tribes were responsible for conquering sites such as
Pitru and Mutqinnu as early as the first half of the 10
th
century (Kuhrt 1997, 400-401; Sader
2000, 71). Once they had managed to establish political control, by the late 10
th
century the
Aramaean kingdoms, in stark contrast to the assertion by Roux that the Aramaeans
contributed nothing to the civilizations of the Near East, would play a pivotal role in
shaping the history of Syria for the next millennium (Roux 1966, 275).
4

The Rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire through Ashurnasirpal II
While the peoples associated with the Luwians, Aramaeans, Hurrians and others were
busy forming into centralized kingdoms in northern Syria, an empire was once again forming
just to the east. Assyrias fortunes had been greatly curtailed by Aramaeans, foreign wars,
civil wars, floods and famine since the death of Tigleth-Pilesar I in the early 11
th
century
(Roux 1966, 280). Even as late as the reign of Ashur-Dan II (934-912 BC) Assyria was still
suffering at the hands of the Aramaeans. It was this king of Assyria who reported that many
cities of his land were captured by the Aramaeans (Sader 2000, 71). By the end of the 10
th

century Aramaean kingdoms were firmly established across the entirety of Upper
Mesopotamia and just to the west of Assyria proper, severely restricting Assyrias vital trade
routes to the west (Kuhrt 1997, 395-396). Despite these setbacks, Assyria remained a
powerful, unconquered enemy with the potential to wreak havoc over the entirety of
Mesopotamia and beyond. This potential started to be realized by the aforementioned Ashur-
Dan II and his son, Adad-Nirari II (911-891 BC). It was the latter who began to expand the
empires territory once again.
Assyrias kings did not regard their campaigns as invasions of foreign territory; rather
these attacks were to retake lands that had rightfully belonged to Ashur and his followers
since the Late Bronze Age, but had been seized by foreign powers in the previous centuries
(Kuhrt 1997, 480; Yamada 2000, 68). This rather unrealistic geo-political vision of northern
Mesopotamia and Syria allowed the Assyrians to invade their former areas of control
without the shadow of a pretext and to treat the rulers of these polities as rebels, even
though many of these kings had never succumbed to the rule of Assyria at any point (Roux
1966, 288). It was with this spirit in mind Assyrian soldiers swept forward under Adad-
Nirari II, with eight of his eighteen recorded campaign years marching against Aramaean
cultures like the Sukhu and Temannites. The king was able to capture the cities of Husirina,
5

Guzana, and Nasibina which had all been under Aramaean rule (Kuhrt 1997, 481). Adad-
Nirari II was even able to penetrate into northern Syria by making contact with the Bit-Adini,
who gave him a gift of two apes (Hawkins 1982, 250-251). Adad-Niraris expansion had set
the stage for the arrival of Ashurnasirpal II.
Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) is generally regarded as the first great king of the Neo-
Assyrian Era (Hawkins 1982, 253; Roux 1966, 288). In fourteen campaigns his soldiers were
able to pacify and extend the borders of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in all directions, but it was
in the west where Ashurnasirpal II extended Assyrias sphere of influence the most. The
ringleader of the anti-Assyrian coalitions to the west by this time had become the
aforementioned Bit-Adini, an Aramaean kingdom in north-eastern Syria which was based
upon the city of Til-Barsip (modern Tell Ahmar; Liverani 1992, 71). In 883 BC the Bit-
Adini, likely in a strategically defensive manoeuvre against Assyrian expansion, supported
the rebellious Assyrian vassal state of Bit-Halupe by allowing Bit-Adini native Ahi-Yababa
to become governor of the rebels capital city Suru (Hawkins 1982, 257; Yamada 2000, 71).
If the Bit-Adini had underestimated the power of Ashurnasirpal IIs forces before this
moment, they now witnessed the full wrath of Ashurs warriors as they raced down c. 3,000
kilometres in the middle of summer from the Upper Tigris valley to Suru. Upon the kings
arrival the nobles of Suru were so frightened they handed Ahi-Yababa and the rest of the
rebels over to Ashurnasirpal, who subsequently tortured them to death (Roux 1966, 288-290).
Relations between Assyria and the Bit-Adini remained hostile when around six years later
Ashurnasirpal II invaded Bit-Adini territory to destroy the cities of Dummetu and Azmu. In
the following campaign the Assyrians invaded again and conquered the fortified city of
Kaprabu (Yamada 2000, 70-71). Even though these campaigns did not involve a direct attack
upon the centre of Bit-Adini territory, they were successful enough to convince King Ahuni
6

of the Bit-Adini to pay occasional tribute and allow Assyrian troops to cross his territory
(Liverani 1992, 114-115).
The ability to exert influence from the Tigris to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea
had always been an objective of Assyrian monarchs since Shamshi-Adad I (1809-1776 BC)
and with the pacification of the Bit-Adini, Ashurnasirpal II now had a direct route to northern
Syria (Roux 1966, 289). On his ninth campaign (which occurred between the years 875-867
BC) the Assyrians marched through the lands of the Bit-Adini to the gates of Carchemish,
where they met King Sangara of Hatti. Meeting no resistance and collecting tribute along the
way, Ashurnasirpal II proceeded through King Sangaras lands to the Kingdom of Patin,
another kingdom with significant Neo-Hittite influences who had established themselves in
the Antioch plain. In addition to these kingdoms, the Assyrian king reports the rulers of the
Bit-Agusi, Tyre, Sidon, Byblos and Arvad all submitted to him. As Mario Liverani noted,
these submissions probably just meant the beginning of long distance trade and nothing
more (Liverani 1992, 115). Shigeo Yamada, following the reasoning of J.A. Brinkman
before him, suggested the submissions of Patin and Carchemish were the result of several
unrecorded campaigns by the Assyrians against these kingdoms (2000, 73-76). Liverani and
Hawkins both cite lack of evidence as an argument against Brinkman and Yamadas
proposal, with Hawkins characterizing the campaign as a peaceful progress rather than a
massive feat of arms, and certainly its military and political effects cannot have been very
extensive (Hawkins 1982, 389). It is clear Ashurnasirpal IIs campaigns only had a limited
effect because by 858 BC the Bit-Adini, Carchemish, Patin and many other northern Syrian
states were taking up arms to defend their ways of life against the might of Ashurs warriors.
The North Syrian Kingdoms and their Geo-Political Situations, 858 BC
Given the late Assyrian kings achievements, it would have been reasonable for
northern Syrian political leaders to assume his successor, Shalmaneser III (858-824 BC),
7

could not hope to maintain and expand his fathers sphere of influence. But the new Assyrian
king had every intention of tightening his grip on the lands between Assyria proper and the
Mediterranean Sea, so in his first campaign Shalmaneser III departed Nineveh, crossed the
Balih River and marched directly towards the lands of Assyrias most steadfast enemy in the
west, the Bit-Adini (Yamada 2000, 87-88). The diversity of reactions to the Assyrian
invasion from the Kingdoms of Carchemish, Patin, Samal, Gurgum, Bit-Agusi and Kummuh
offers an interesting insight into the northern Syrian geo-political world in 858 BC.
Kingdom of Carchemish
If a kingdoms success is measured by the longevity of the ruling family, the
Kingdom of Carchemish was easily the most successful kingdom present in mid-9
th
century
BC northern Syria. As noted above, since the great Hittite king Suppiluliumas I installed his
son on the throne in the mid-14
th
century the Kingdom of Carchemish had continued under
Hittite administration despite the Late Bronze Age collapse and numerous Aramaean
invasions. Geographically, the heart and soul of the kingdom was and always had been the
city of Carchemish itself. Located on the western bank of the Euphrates River on the most
important crossing point from northern Mesopotamia into Syria, the city quickly became a
trading crossroads where merchants from the entire Near East gathered. This wealth was
well recorded by Ashurnasirpal II when he crossed the Euphrates and received a number of
gifts, including 20 talents of silver, a gold ring, a gold bracelet, gold daggers, 100 talents of
bronze, 250 talents of iron, bronze (tubs), bronze pails, bronze bathtubs, a bronze oven
elephants tusks, a chariot of polished (gold), [and] a gold couch with inlay (Kuhrt 1997,
484-485). Successful trading cities knew all too well that with wealth came the threat of war
and conquest from neighbours, so the city was also excellently equipped with fortifications to
deal with sieges. These fortifications included a citadel, an inner town wall and a newly built
outer town wall (Woolley 1921, 33-52). With the wealth of the entire region passing through
8

their streets, large fortifications to protect against outside invaders and nobility descended
from the glory days of Hittite Empire, it is no wonder Carchemish is considered the principal
representative of the Neo-Hittite states by modern scholars (Hawkins 1995b, 1295).
The power, wealth and prestige of the city under King Sangara (c.870-848 BC) was
apparent through both local and foreign sources, but the amount of land controlled directly by
the Kingdom of Carchemish seems to be markedly smaller in the 9
th
century BC than it was
in previous centuries. Carchemishs lands were restricted by the Bit-Adini to the east, who
not only had their capital just down the Euphrates at Til-Barsip, but also owned lands as far
north as Paqarruhbuni, which was on the western side of the Euphrates to the north of
Carchemish. Bit-Adini control under their King Ahuni also extended to the cities of Dabig
and Til-Basere according to Assyrian sources, which made Hawkins conclude the entire
western hinterland of Carchemish was in the hands of the Bit-Adini. Hawkins also argued
these lands must have been recently taken by King Ahunis people (1995a, 91). If this is true,
it would go a long ways toward explaining why envoys from Carchemish were so friendly to
Ashurnasirpal II when he crossed the Euphrates; perhaps King Sangara was seeking to
befriend a political power which could check the expansion of the upstart Kingdom of Bit-
Adini. Losing access to the territory of Paqarruhbuni would have been especially damaging
to the Kingdom of Carchemish because it would have cut overland trade routes to the
Kingdoms of Kummuh, Gurgum and Samal (Yamada 2000, 94).
While relations with the Bit-Adini were potentially hostile before the Assyrians
arrived, King Sagara still had a couple of friends in the region. The two most consistent
allies for Carchemish were the Kingdoms of Patin and Samal, who fought alongside King
Sangaras forces at the Battles of Lutibu and Alimush. The alliance with Patin was
unsurprising considering their Neo-Hittite connections, while the other alliance was probably
more beneficial to the Kingdom of Samal than it was to Carchemish because the former was
9

a rather weak state which often had internal difficulties (Hawkins 2000, 361; Sader 1987,
177-178). Other allies in the region were harder to come by. The mountain kingdoms of
Gurgum and Kummukh to the north as well as the Kingdom of Bit-Agusi to the south-west
all remained friendly with Assyria during the Battle of Lutibu (Kuhrt 1997, 487). With these
factions deciding not to participate, the only other potential ally east of the Adana Mountains
was the Kingdom of Bit-Adini. However cordial or hostile relations were between the two
kingdoms before 858 BC, it is clear Kings Sagara and Ahuni were forced to seek an alliance
with each other because of the massive threat posed by Shalmaneser IIIs forces. Though
they forged an alliance, it is interesting to note forces under the control of Carchemish, Patin
and Samal did not confront the Assyrians until after Shalmanesers troops had ravaged their
way through most of Ahunis lands (Yamada 2000, 87-95).
Kingdom of Patin
Located on the west of the Orontes River on the plain of Antioch, the Kingdom of
Patin (also known as Pattin, Pattina, and by the Arabic name Unqi) was perfectly situated to
take advantage of trade routes passing from the Levant and northern Mesopotamia to the
shores of the Mediterranean Sea (Kuhrt 1997, 412). Since the land was conquered by
Suppiluliumas I in c.1340, the area had come under heavy Hittite influence and remained a
vassal state until the Hittite Empire dissolved. Literary sources do not start up again for the
area until c.870, when Ashurnasirpal II marched through much of the kingdom on his
campaign to Syria. The state was centred upon the city of Kinalua (modern Tell Tayiant),
but included territory stretching from the city of Hazazu (modern Azaz) in the northeast to
Ain Dara on the eastern frontier, though whether Ain Dara itself was under Patins control
has remained unclear (Hawkins 1995a, 95). Numerous other cities are also attributed to the
territory of Patin, but have been only speculatively located by modern scholars (Hawkins
10

2000, 362). The Kingdom of Patin had used these very fertile lands and prosperous trade
routes to become one of the most powerful Neo-Hittite states in the region by 858 BC.
One of the reasons why Patin became a powerful kingdom was because their rulers
had mastered the art of diplomacy; no kingdom in the region could call upon more allies in
858 BC than King Sapalulme of Patin. To the north was the Kingdom of Samal. Though
Samal was weak militarily, their strategic position along the only route into the plain of
Antioch from the north made them a worthwhile ally. Patins most reliable ally was the
Kingdom of Carchemish. Carchemishs relationship with the Kingdom of Patin stretched
back to the Late Bronze Age when the latter (at that time called the Kingdom of Mukis) was
incorporated into the territory which was administered by a Hittite viceroy from Carchemish
(Hawkins 2000, 361). Judging by the large amount of Luwian influences still present among
Patins culture in the 9
th
century BC (including the sculptures found at Ain Dara which show
very similar characteristics to the Carchemish Water Gate), the connection between these
two peoples did not fade during the Early Iron Age (Hawkins 1982, 384). Relations with
their two more immediate neighbours in the east, the Aramaean kingdoms of Bit-Adini and
Bit-Agusi, also seem to have remained cordial enough, though King Sapalulme could not
have been pleased with the Bit-Adini when they absorbed those territories connecting the
Kingdom of Carchemish to his own. King Sapalulmes successful foreign policy became
especially evident in 858 BC, when he is given credit for convincing the kings of
Carchemish, Bit-Adini, Samal, Yasbuq, Bit-Agusi, Que, and Hilukka to help defend his
fortified city of Alimush (Yamada 2000, 96). Clearly King Sapalulme was a man with many
friends who could piece together a more powerful coalition than any other state in northern
Syria.
Kingdom of Gurgum
11

Another powerful state in the region with strong Luwian cultural connections was the
Kingdom of Gurgum. The kingdom was strategically located in an angle formed by the
Amanus and Taurus mountain ranges (Kuhrt 1997, 413). The main city of the realm was
Maras, which was located near the eastern bank of the Ceyhan River. In addition to the trade
that could come by water, the citys economic potential was also boosted by the fertile
farming lands which surrounded Maras. With the Anti-Taurus range to the west and the
Amanus Mountains to the south, the kingdom was geographically isolated from its Anatolian
neighbours. The main avenue to the Kingdom of Gurgum from the south went through the
city of Samal and the associated kingdom. The plain of Elbistan was located to the north of
Maras and seems to have been controlled by the Kingdom of Melid during the mid-9
th

century BC (Hawkins 1995a, 93-94). With mountain ranges sealing it off from all other
directions, most of the Kingdom of Gurgums territorial disputes during the 9
th
and 8
th

centuries BC were with the Kingdom of Kummuh to the east (Hawkins 2000, 249-250). The
lack of regular excavations on any site in the Kingdom of Gurgums realm means foreign
sources must be relied upon to tell this cultures history more than usual. Exceptions to this
rule are the Early Neo-Hittite sculptures which have been found by irregular digging methods
in Maras. An inscription on one of these sculptures has allowed scholars to illuminate the
ruling line of Gurgum stretching from the c.mid-10
th
century to the beginning of the 8
th

century BC (Hawkins 1982, 382-383).
Largely due to the geography of the region, the Kingdom of Gurgum was mostly
isolated from their neighbours in the mid-9
th
century BC. Although their leaders featured
classic Hittite/Luwian names such as Muwanzas, Halparuntiyas and Mutalli, Gurgum failed
to ally itself with any other Neo-Hittite kingdom in the region (Hawkins 1982, 383). The
only recorded foreign relation the Kingdom of Gurgum had before 858 BC was with the
Assyrians, who noted the presence of King Mutallis envoy at Ashurnasirpal IIs inauguration
12

of his new palace at Kalhu (Hawkins 2000, 250). The circumstantial evidence points to a
kingdom which purposefully pursued a policy of isolationism during this period in an attempt
to avoid confrontation with other powers. This seems to have worked with Ashurnasirpal II,
who did not march into Gurgums lands during his Syrian campaign, but utterly backfired
when Shalmaneser III marched directly toward the city of Maras on his first campaign to
Syria. Either because he already was friendly to Assyria or realizing he had no chance
against the Assyrians by himself, King Mutalli gave Shalmaneser III silver, gold, oxen,
sheep, wine, and his daughter with her great amount of dowry, as well as his submission
(Yamada 2000, 94). King Mutalli died soon after this and was succeeded by King
Qalparunda, who submitted tribute once again in 853 BC. This loyalty to Assyria waned and
by 805 BC, if not before, the Kingdom of Gurgum had become a regular member of anti-
Assyrian coalitions (Hawkins 2000, 250).
Kingdom of Kummuh
To the east of Gurgum, on the west bank of the upper Euphrates River, was the
Kingdom of Kummuh. Just like their western neighbours, the geographical boundaries of
Kummuh were well defined. To the east, the Euphrates River served as a boundary and a
mountain range separated the Kingdom of Melid from Kummuhs lands in the north. Though
the border between the Kingdoms of Gurgum and Kummuh would come under dispute in the
late 9
th
century, it was generally fixed around the city of Pazarcik. Kummuhs southern
border is not as well defined by modern scholars. It certainly stretched down the western
bank of the Euphrates to the territory of Paqarruhbuni, possibly all the way to the Kenk
Gorge (Hawkins 1995a, 94). The strength of the territory was based upon the city of
Kummuh, which is the now underwater site of Samsat. Before the site was flooded by the
Ataturk Barrage, rescue excavations failed to reach Iron Age levels. The loss of this site is
even more damaging to modern scholars because the area was virtually unexcavated before
13

1977. Despite these obstacles, some evidence has come to light from the region to illuminate
the kingdoms role in north Syrian during the mid-9
th
century (Hawkins 2000, 330-331).
Evidence for the foreign policy conducted by King Qatazili of Kummuh is limited,
partially because he was overshadowed by the Assyrian Empire. While the Euphrates served
as a handy eastern boundary for the Kingdom of Kummuh and seems to have been too big of
an obstacle for any Aramaean kingdom to overcome in earlier centuries, the river was far less
effective against the Assyrians. In Ashurnasirpal IIs tenth campaign (866 BC) he was able
to collect a tribute of timber and metals from a number of northern kingdoms, with Kummuh
being one of them (Liverani 1992, 96). King Qatazili must have been content with his status
as an Assyrian vassal because he allowed Shalmaneser III to pass through the region without
a fight in 858 BC, a strategic coup for the Assyrian king which allowed him to outflank the
Kingdoms of Bit-Adini and Carchemish on his way to attacking the Kingdoms of Samal and
Patin (Hawkins 2000, 331). Even though the Kingdom of Kummuh was, just like Gurgum, a
polity with heavy Hittite/Luwian influences among their ruling class, they showed no desire
to ally with any of the other Neo-Hittite states in the area during the 9
th
and 8
th
centuries BC.
Kummuh would only join one anti-Assyrian alliance during the whole era and this
participation was forced upon them by Urartu (Hawkins 1982, 405-406). Other than this
episode, the people of Kummuh were Assyrias most trusted ally in north Syria until the
latters fall in 612 BC.
Kingdom of Bit-Adini
Located on the eastern bank of the Euphrates twenty kilometres south of Carchemish
was Til-Barsip, the main city of the Bit-Adini. The heartland of this territory was located
between the Balih and Euphrates Rivers by 858 BC. Despite being one of the most well
documented kingdoms in the region, revealing the cultures and territories controlled by this
state has proven to be a difficult task for modern scholars. One of the main problems with
14

studying the Bit-Adini has been the conflicting nature of Assyrian literary sources with the
archaeology conducted on the city of Til-Barsip since 1929. While the Assyrians clearly
refer to the Kingdom of Bit-Adini as an Aramaean state, the excavated remains of Til-Barsip
have yielded mostly Neo-Hittite cultural remains, including the records of a Kingdom of
Masuwari which was based upon the city (Lipinski 2000, 165). These conflicting strands of
evidence have led to several theories but most scholars agree with the proposal by Hawkins,
who concluded the occupation of the Kingdom of Masuwari by the Bit-Adini could not have
occurred before the late 10
th
century BC (1995a, 91). Since Til-Barsip was not where the Bit-
Adini originated from, scholars have also had difficulty determining where exactly their
homelands were located (Sader 1987, 93). The nature of control within this polity has also
come under scrutiny, with Guy Bunnes and Sader suggesting the cities of Kaprabu, Til-
Barsip, Dabigu, Sitamrat and several other Bit-Adini controlled cities did not answer to one
capital city (2000, 74). Though this would answer why the Bit-Adini didnt capitulate to
Shalmaneser III until their final fortified city of Sitamrat was taken in 855 BC, it would be
unrealistic to expect Ahuni of the Bit-Adini to rule such a large, sedentary kingdom with
many fortified cities and a well-equipped army in the decentralized manner suggested by
Bunnes and Sader (Yamada 2000, 142-143). After all, Ahuni would not have been the first
or last ruler in history to resist an enemy after losing his main city.
The Bit-Adinis remarkable rise to power in the first half of the 9
th
century must have
shaken the entire geo-political situation of northern Syria. As mentioned above, all of the
circumstantial evidence points to a tense relationship between Ahunis people and his
immediate western neighbour, the Kingdom of Carchemish. The close links between the
inscriptions and architecture of the Kingdom of Masuwari to Carchemish suggests the two
polities were allied in some way (Hawkins 2000, 225). Thus the decision by the Bit-Adini to
absorb Masuwaris territory could not have pleased the Kingdom of Carchemish. If, as
15

suggested by Hawkins, the acquisition of Bit-Adini territory to the west of the Euphrates was
a recent phenomenon, it is unlikely these lands were seized in a peaceful manner from their
previous rulers (1995a, 91). In addition to possible issues on the western frontier, by 858 BC
Ahuni had a much bigger problem on his eastern frontier in the form of the Assyrian Empire.
This problem was magnified by the lack of diplomatic skill exhibited by Ahuni himself who,
unlike any other ruler in the region, felt his people were powerful enough to confront the
Assyrians under Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III without allied support multiple times.
Even when Shalmaneser III invaded the heartland of the Bit-Adini and besieged Til-Barsip in
three successive years, not a single state in the area helped Ahunis people. It was only once
the invaders approached the Kingdom of Samal when some of the other north Syrian states
decided to join the Bit-Adini on the battlefield (Yamada 2000, 95). This is in sharp contrast
to the much more effective alliances that would develop against Shalmaneser III further
south, who collected to confront the Assyrians before they could march through any of the
alliances lands four times between 853 and 845 BC (Kuhrt 1997, 487-488). Though the
Kingdom of Bit-Adinis rise to power was impressive and they were able to tenaciously resist
Assyrian aggression far longer than any other state in the region, without consistent allied
support the fight to maintain their freedom was doomed to failure.
Kingdom of Bit-Agusi
Much like their Aramaean cousins the Bit-Adini, the Kingdom of Bit-Agusi (also
known as Yahan, later Arpad) was a latecomer to northern Syria. Edward Lipinski claims the
people of the Yahan were one of the Aramaean tribes pushed out of northern Mesopotamia
by Ashur-Rabi II (c.1013-972), but the first proven mention of the Bit-Agusi comes from the
annals of Ashurnasirpal II, who received tribute from Gusi the Yahanaean on his Syrian
campaign (2000, 195-196). The Assyrian annals make it very clear the ruler Gusi was
considered the founder of a state, thus dating the beginning of the Kingdom of Bit-Agusi to
16

the early 9
th
century BC (Klengel 1992, 215). Whether the state Gusi founded remained
united after his death has come under question from several scholars. In the annals of
Shalmaneser III there are two different rulers mentioned, one for the land of Yahan (Adanu)
and the other for the land of Bit-Agusi (Arame). This duality of rulers could have had a
number of explanations, but the fact Adanu is only mentioned once in 858 BC while Arame
is regularly mentioned for the next couple of decades suggests Adanu was either a viceroy of
the Bit-Agusi or a short-lived competitor to Arames power (Yamada 2000, 98). Considering
Arame did not fight Shalmaneser III during 858 BC and paid tribute, it seems more likely
Adanu was a competing ruler rather than a viceroy under Arame. Adanus presence at the
Battle of Alimush independent of Arame, who had already paid tribute to Assyria, would
seem to support this theory (Lipinski 2000, 212). The lack of political unity in this region
was also characterized by the lack of a capital. The centre of the kingdom would eventually
solidify around the city of Arpad (modern Tell Rifat) in the late 9
th
century, but as of 858 BC
the Bit-Agusi were still in the process of transitioning into a centralized state under one ruler
(Sader 2000, 75). As Sader notes, this process probably involved a heavy dose of warfare
before the Bit-Agusi were able to establish their hegemony over the area between the Quwaiq
and Dahab Rivers (1987, 274). The other major city in the area was Aleppo, located south of
Arpad on the Quwaiq River. The city might have remained independent from the Bit-Agusi
as of 858 BC, but it held little power above being an important place of worship for the
storm-god Hadad (Dion 1995, 1284; Lipinski 2000, 211-212).
Since the archaeology of the area is poorly known, any suppositions about how the
Bit-Agusi dealt with outside polities comes mostly from foreign sources (Hawkins 1995a,
96). In general terms, the state was in contact with the Kingdom of Patin to the west, the
Kingdom of Bit-Adini to the north as well as east and the Kingdom of Hamath-Lugath to the
south. Since Patin controlled the city of Azaz and the Bit-Adini controlled the city of
17

Dabigu, Arames territories to the north would have been severely restricted. The Bit-
Agusis sphere of influence probably stretched from the Dahab River in the east to Lake
Gabbul in the south, but none of these lands rested upon an international trade route,
something which would have put the Bit-Agusi at a severe economic disadvantage to the
other states in the region (Lipinski 2000, 199-211). Possibly because of economics, their
recent arrival to the region, or because of internal disputes, the Kingdom of Bit-Agusi seems
to have been a relatively weak kingdom in 858 BC. This weakness was compounded by their
inability to forge an alliance with any other state in the region (Kahn 2007, 66). Wisely
realizing his kingdom was not ready to fight the Assyrians, Arame paid tribute to
Shalmaneser III three times between 858-855 BC (Klengel 1992, 215). While he was paying
lip service to the demands of Shalmaneser III, Arame was also building the foundation of a
kingdom which would be able to resist Assyrias warriors for the next century.
Kingdom of Samal
Located on the eastern side of the main pass through the Amanus Mountains, the
Kingdom of Samal was perfectly situated to take advantage of trade contacts between Cilicia
and the rest of the Near East. Due to extensive excavations on the site of Samal (modern
Zinjirli), the history of this kingdom is comparatively well known. Gabbar, the first king of
Samal, founded a dynasty in the city during the late 10
th
century BC. The name of Gabbars
successor is uncertain, but there is no doubting the ruler as of 858 BC was King Hayanu.
Very little is known from Assyrian annals about the territorial extent of Hayanus realm, with
only the cities of Samal and Lutibu being mentioned as part of his kingdom. Fortunately
archaeology has stepped in and provided, via Aramaic and Luwian Hieroglyphic inscriptions,
a more detailed picture of the lands of Samal. The kingdom stretched for 35km from west to
east and 50km from north to south along the eastern part of the Amanus Mountains. This
territory included the towns of Samal, Gercin, Islahiyye, Karaburclu, Keller, Oerdek-Burnu,
18

Pancarli-Huyuk, Sakca Gozu, Tahlati-Pinar and Yesemek (Sader 1987, 174-181). The most
important town from this list beyond Samal was Sacka Gozu, which has been identified with
the fortified town of Lutibu in the past. Geographically the identification makes sense as
Sacka Gozu is on the main path between Gurgum and Samal, but archaeology has yet to
provide any proof for this theory (Lipinski 2000, 237). This supposition becomes even more
questionable when one considers Lutibu has also been identified with Yesemek (Yamada
2000, 95). In addition, Hawkins questioned Sacka Gozus identification as a city of Samal,
concluding the city was more likely to be part of either Gurgums or Kummuhs lands
(1995a, 95). Even if Sacka Gozu was part of King Hayanus realm, both literary and
archaeological sources reveal the Kingdom of Samal was a very small state territorially.
The location of Samal on the main trade route from Cilicia to the Levant ensured the
kingdoms wealth, but this also meant King Hayanus state was right on the path of any
invading force coming from Que to the west, Gurgum from the north, or Patin from the south
(Hawkins 1995a, 94-95). Samal was also vulnerable to internal disturbances because the
kingdom consisted of an Aramaean ruling elite combined with a largely Luwian-Hittite
population. Sader blamed most of the kingdoms problems on this one issue and also felt it
affected King Hayanus foreign policy. Per Sader, having an Aramaean elite isolated the
Kingdom of Samal from all of their Neo-Hittite neighbours and forced the kingdom to rely
upon Assyria as an ally (1987, 178-180). This may have been true during the reign of King
Kilamuwa (c.835-816; Yamada 2000, 199), but the evidence does not support this conclusion
as of 858 BC. In fact, the Luwian-Hittite ruling elites in the Kingdoms of Carchemish and
Patin felt it was more important to protect Lutibu from Shalmaneser III than it was to protect
Neo-Hittite kingdoms such as Kummuh or Gurgum. Furthermore, the most likely route for
the armies of Que and Hilakku to take on their way to the Battle of Alimush would have been
through King Hayanus realm. These incidents of Samal-Late Hittite co-operation were not
19

limited to 858 BC; the little kingdom also featured in the north Syrian alliance which fought
against Adad-Nirari III during the end of the 9
th
and early 8
th
centuries BC. Though Samal
was beset with internal conflicts which hurt the prosperity and political stability of the realm,
perhaps it was the shrewdness of rulers like King Hayanu which allowed the kingdom to
survive for two centuries (Klengel 1992, 214; Sader 1987, 180).
Synopsis of North Syrian Geo-Political Situation, 9
th
Century BC
The geo-political impression the states of northern Syria gave in 858 BC was one of
disunity. This was partially because of the cultural clash between the Aramaean and Luwian-
Hittite populations. This clash was still having geo-political effects on the Bit-Adini and Bit-
Agusi, both of whom struggled to attract allies. This was only one of many issues which
faced an attempted coalition by the northern Syrian states against Shalmaneser III. The Neo-
Hittite states showed no signs of unity at all, with the Kingdoms of Gurgum and Kummuh
failing to join in any coalition. Shalmaneser III took full advantage of this by marching his
army straight through Kummuh and Gurgum without a fight so he could descend directly
onto the Antioch plain. Carchemish seemed to lack much of the power it once had in the
Late Bronze Age, perhaps because of wars with Aramaean states such as the Bit-Adini.
Ahuni of the Bit-Adini likely controlled the largest army in the region, but when the
Assyrians attacked him repeatedly from 858-855 BC not a single king fought with him. The
only two times Ahuni fought with a coalition, at Lutibu and Alimush, were after the
Assyrians had wreaked havoc across all of his lands. The Kingdom of Patin was the only
polity in the region capable of organizing a large coalition. This ability to acquire allies made
Patin the clear ringleader of the area and not the Bit-Adini as stated by Kuhrt (1997, 487).
King Sapalulme of Patins efforts resulted in an eight kingdom coalition which met at the
Battle of Alimush, but even here one must wonder if the lack of continuity among the allied
armies contributed significantly to their crushing defeat by Shalmaneser III.
20


Bibliography

Akkermans, P. and Schwartz, G., 2003. The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-
Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000-300 BC). Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.

Barnett, R. and Woolley, L., 1952. Carchemish: Report on the Excavations at Jerablus on
Behalf of the British Museum: Part III, The Excavations in the Inner Town and The Hittite
Inscriptions. London, United Kingdom: Trustees of the British Museum.

Bunnes, G., 2000. Syria in the Iron Age: Problems of Definition, in Guy Bunnes (ed),
Essays on Syria in the Iron Age: 3-20. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters Press.

Dion, P., 1995. Aramaean Tribes and Nations of First-Millenium Western Asia, in Jack
Sasson (ed), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Volume II: 1,281-1,294. New York, New
York, United States: Charles Scribners Sons.

Dupont-Sommer, A., 1949. Les Arameens. Paris, France: LOrient Ancien Illustre.

Edzard, D., (ed) 1997. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archaeologie,
Band 8: Meek-Mythologie. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Edzard, D., (ed) 1989. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archaeologie,
Band 7: Libanuksabas-Masse und Gewichte. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Edzard, D., (ed) 1983. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archaeologie,
Band 5: Klagegesang-Libanon. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Edzard, D., (ed) 1980. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archaeologie,
Band 4: Ia...-Kizzuwatna. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Edzard, D., (ed) 1975. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archaeologie,
Vierter Band: Ha-a-a to Hystaspes. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Grayson, A., 1982. Assyria: Ashur-dan II to Ashur-Nirari V (934-745 B.C.), in John
Boardman et al., The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume III, Part I: The Prehistory of the
Balkans; and the Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries B.C: 238-
281. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Hogarth, D., 1914. Carchemish: Report on the Excavations at Djerabis on Behalf of the
British Museum: Part I, Introductory. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Hawkins, J., 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions: Volume I, Inscriptions of
the Iron Age. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.

Hawkins, J., 1995a. The Political Geography of North Syria and South-East Anatolia in the
Neo-Assyrian Period, in Mario Liverani (ed), Neo-Assyrian Geography: 87-101. Rome,
Italy: Universita di Roma, Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente.

21

Hawkins, J., 1995b. Karkamish and Karatepe: Neo-Hittite City-States in North Syria, in
Jack Sasson (ed), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Volume II: 1,295-1,308. New York,
New York, United States: Charles Scribners Sons.

Hawkins, J., 1982. The Neo-Hittite states in Syria and Anatolia, in John Boardman et al.,
The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume III, Part I: The Prehistory of the Balkans; and the
Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries B.C: 372-441. Cambridge,
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Kahn. D., 2007. The Kingdom of Arpad (Bit-Agusi) and All Aram: International Relations
in Northern Syria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries BCE, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 44:
66-89.

Klengel, H., 2000. The Crisis Years and the New Political System in Early Iron Age
Syria: Some Introductory Remarks, in Guy Bunnes (ed), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age:
21-30. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters Press.

Klengel, H. 1992. Syria 3000 to 300 B.C. Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag GmbH.

Kuhrt, A., 1997. The Ancient Near East c.3000-330 BC, Volume II. London, United
Kingdom: Routledge.

Lipinski, E., 2000. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. Leuven,
Belgium: Peeters Publishing.

Liverani, M., 1992. Studies on the Annals of Ashurnasirpal II 2: Topographical Analysis.
Rome, Italy: Universita di Roma, Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente.

Mazzoni, S., 2000. Syria and the Periodization of the Iron Age: A Cross-Cultural
Perspective, in Guy Bunnes (ed), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age: 31-60. Louvain, Belgium:
Peeters Press.

Oppenheim, M., 1966. Tell Halaf: A New Culture in Oldest Mesopotamia. London, United
Kingdom: G.P. Putnams Sons.

Roux, G., 1966. Ancient Iraq. London, United Kingdom: Penguin Books Ltd.

Sader, H., 2000. The Aramaean Kingdoms of Syria: Origin and Formation Processes, in
Guy Bunnes (ed), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age: 61-78. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters Press.

Sader, H., 1987. Les Etats Arameens De Syrie: Depuis Leur Fondation Jusqua Leur
Transformation En Provinces Assyriennes. Wiesbaden, Germany: In Kommission Bei Franz
Steiner Verlag.

Stone, E. and Zimansky, P., 1999. The Iron Age Settlement at Ain Dara, Syria: Survey and
Soundings. Oxford, United Kingdom: British Archaeological Reports.

Tropper, J., 1993. Die Inschriften Von Zincirli. Munster, Germany: Ugarit-Verlag.

22

Woolley, C., 1921. Carchemish: Report on the Excavations at Jerablus on Behalf of the
British Museum: Part II, The Town Defenses. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University
Press.

Yamada, S., 2000. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical Study of the
Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859-824 BC) Relating to His Campaigns to the West.
Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV.