Just a Series of Misunderstandings? Assyria and B?t-Zam?ni, ?adi-/I?tadi-libbušu, and Aramaic in the early Neo-Assyrian State

Abstract

The region of the Upper Tigris serves as a key case study in understanding the early expansion of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Nevertheless, various aspects of its incorporation within the Neo-Assyrian pale remain obscure, particularly the date and nature of the establishment of the province of Am?du or Na’iri, previously the Aramean polity of B?t-Zam?ni. After a summary of prior arguments and an investigation of the polity’s Middle Assyrian past, two overlapping and complimentary histories are written, one of the political interactions between Assyria and B?t-Zam?ni, and another of Assyria’s provincialisation of the Upper Tigris. The former finds that B?t-Zam?ni was remarkably resilient in the face of Assyrian aggression, while the latter argues that an early Assyrian presence at Damdammusa was replaced in 879 BC by the provinces of Sin?bu/Na’iri and Tuš?an. These two histories are then supplemented by a prosopographical investigation of the Assyrian eponym of 849 BC, the first attested governor of Na’iri, one ?adi-libbušu or I?tadi-libbušu. It is demonstrated that the two contemporaneous variants of his name within the Assyrian textual corpus may be explained as an ambiguity in translating the Aramaic personal name *?dhlbbh into Akkadian for use as an eponym date. It is hence likely that ?adi-/I?tadi-libbušu was an indigenous potentate made governor, and thus that the polity of B?t-Zam?ni serves as a previously unrecognised example of the Postgatian ‘transitional case’ within the Early Neo-Assyrian Empire analogously to B?t-Ba?i?ni/G?z?na. Indeed, it is argued that a similar phenomenon of translating the transitional ruler/governor’s name into Akkadian for limmu dating may here be attested for G?z?na’s two initial governors. In light of these findings, their broader implications for the use of Aramaic in correspondence or record-keeping within 9^th century Assyria are considered, and it is suggested that ?adi-/I?tadi-libbušu’s correspondence was conducted in Aramaic, whence scribes must have had recourse in spelling this potentate’s name. This would mark the earliest use of Aramaic within the Neo-Assyrian bureaucracy presently known. It is then finally concluded that the threat of Urar?u in the last years of Aššur-n??ir-apli II’s reign may well have compelled him to enter in a manner of compact with B?t-Zam?ni, and that the indigenous rulers were thereafter made Assyrian governors, only to be unseated in favour of Ninurta-kibs?-u?ur, š?qiu rabiu to Salm?nu-ašar?d III just prior to Am?du’s rebellion in the succession war of 826-820 BC, after which it was conclusively incorporated. Some insufficiencies of present theories of Neo-Assyrian imperialism in explaining this complex historical scenario are finally highlighted.