outlook: aramaeans outside of syria 345
this aramaean dynasty would have survived at least until 853 B.C., maybe
as a vassal of hamath27 or aram-damascus28—but the interpretation of
this passage is controversial.29
the earliest primary literary30 source about the situation in south(west)
syria and north palestine is the aramaic inscription from tell el-Qadi (tel
dan, second half of the 9th century B.C.).31 its fragmentary first lines
could refer to hadad-ezer/hadad-idri, king of aram-damascus, and to
Omri or ahab, king of israel, while the rest of the text (lines 5–13) men-
tions the battles of hazael of aram-damascus and his confrontations with
Joram of israel and ahazya of Judah, resulting in the killing of both.
the local conflicts between the syro-palestinian tribal (and tribal con-
federation) mini-states, and even the controversies between israel and
aram-damascus, only led to limited successes and losses for their protag-
onists (see below). But with the rise of the Neo-assyrian empire, starting
with the campaigns of adad-nirari ii (912–891 B.C.) and more systemati-
cally of shalmaneser iii (858–824 B.C.), the aramaean tribal chief-/king-
doms came (from east to west and north to south) successively and with
growing intensity into the focus of the assyrian western expansion. the
final result was an aramaean disaster. during the Neo-assyrian period
the majority of the aramaean states lost their political independence, and
with the fall of damascus in 732 B.C. israel lost one of its former major
enemies, but also one of its strongest allies.
- A Closer Look at the Aramaean Tribal Chief/Kingdoms
in North Palestine: Geshur and Bit Maacah
it is generally recognized that the 12th century B.C. (iron age ia) was
a time of egyptian retreat in palestine, generally marked—with local
variations—by progressive de-urbanization, recession, and impoverishment.
27 according to lipiński 2000a: 298, 313, 343f Ṣobah (= Bit rehov) had been a vassal
state of hamath since the mid- or late 9th century B.C., being absorbed by hamath in the
first half of the 8th century B.C.
28 dion 1997: 176.
29 rima 3, a.0.102.2 ii 95 (translates “the ammonite”). see the discussion in dion
1997: 176 and Bagg 2007: 53 and n. 15.
30 the dating of 1 kgs 20 is debated. the actual text 1 kgs 20: 34 refers to a treaty
between ahab and Bar-hadad i (supposed to be the predecessor of hadad-ezer) after
some previous military clashes. But scholars assume that the text originally referred to
Joash and was only secondarily connected with ahab. for the arguments, see kottsieper
2007a: 121–124.
31 kai 310; ahituv 2008: 467–473; Weippert 2010: C.3.116. the literature (until 2003)
is collected and summarized in Gass 2005: 395 n. 2837.