in the tormented situation of Babylonian politics during the ninth and eighth centuries
BC, from an ideological and practical point of view. The Chaldeans, although nominally
subjects of the kings of Babylonia, who had ruled over the entire alluvium for a
thousand years, seem to have enjoyed de factoindependence virtually since the time
of their formation and first settlement (Brinkman 1968 : 261 ); and their status was
considered that of tribal troops allied (like the Arameans) to Babylonia by the Assyrian
scribes describing the defeat of the Babylonian ruler Marduk-balassu-iqbi at the hands
of Shamshi-Adad V in 814 BC. (Grayson 1996 : 188 ; IV 37 – 45 ). But during the
period of Assyrian political weakness, which began with the reign of Adad-nirari III
( 810 – 783 BC), the Chaldeans began their rise to power, seizing the dynastically
unstable throne of Babylon; first with Marduk-apla-us.ur, at an uncertain date, then
with Eriba-Marduk, around 769 , possibly followed by others. The extensive campaigns
of Tiglath-pileser III against both Arameans and Chaldeans did not prevent (Nabû)-
mukı ̄n-ze ̄ri of Bit-Amukkani from seizing the throne and staging a vast anti-Assyrian
revolt, which however ended in defeat, also due to the lack of a united military-
political front among the Chaldeans themselves.
With the rise of Merodach-baladan of Bit-Yakin, who seized the Babylonian throne
in 722 after two successive Assyrian kings had split their rulership between the
northern and southern parts of Mesopotamia, an entire new chapter opened. This
brilliant Chaldean chieftain managed to join all of his peers to the cause of a liberation
of the alluvium from Assyrian intrusion, and secured the friendship of the Elamites
by utilizing his vast wealth; claiming royal descent from Eriba-Marduk, he portrayed
himself as the ‘saviour’ of his country, with specific reference to repair works in the
cult places of the main cities of the alluvium (Brinkman 1964 ).
While this is not the place to go into an extensive analysis of Chaldean political
history, suffice it to say that Merodach-baladan, with his ten-year rule of Babylon,
opened decidedly the way to the notion that the overall political destiny of the
southern alluvium as a region independent from Assyrian interference and rule was
henceforth to be tied to the Chaldeans’ political choices, military power, and capacity
for inner and external alliances. While, on many an occasion during the next century,
the older ‘Akkadian’ populations of the main Babylonian cities wavered heavily in
their allegiances, and often gave a show of full subjection to their Assyrian overlords,
the Chaldeans retained a staunch ‘resistance-type’ approach towards the objective of
territorial and economic self-government, despite numerous military setbacks, vast
destructions of land and staples, and extensive deportations at the hands of the
Assyrians. Their capacity to muster armies and mobilize the economic resources within
their tribes proved to be a major asset during the various phases of revolt, and their
adroit use of the natural environment created many a difficulty for the Assyrians in
their repeated punitive campaigns (Frame 1992 : 43 ).
The Arameans – once again – present a less clear-cut profile to the historian. With
the onslaughts of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II against the Aramean tribes in the
lower Tigris area, and the ensuing mass deportations to other areas of the empire,
many of the smaller gentilic formations must have ceased to exist as such (cf. above
for the Utu’/Itu’), or possibly took on sedentary habits, thus blending silently into
the general population in or around the major cities. Only the major tribes of the
Gambulu and the Puqudu – both placed by now in specific enclaves of the marshy
region between south-eastern Babylonia and Elam – may be still clearly identified in
— Arameans and Chaldeans —