letter to god on his campaign to judah

Sennacherib's "Letter to God" on His Campaign to JudahAuthor(s): Nadav Na'amanSource: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 214 (Apr., 1974), pp. 25-39Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1356102Accessed: 12/10/2010 08:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

Number 214 April, 1974

Gordian III (238-44) or Elagabalus (218-22), five Roman coins of the early 4th century, one Islamic coin that appears to be Mamluk, two datable Islamic coins 1342-45 and 1389-90), four otherwise unidentifiable Islamic coins and one coin of Charles, Duke of Calabria, Lorraine, Burgundy and Guelders, minted at Nancy early in his reign (1545-1608 C.E.)24 These data fall into two distinguishable spans of time: (1) the 1st century B.C.E.-4th century C.E., and (2) the Islamic period. Whether this can be taken to indicate periods of habitation is quite another ques- tion.25 The latest coins were very likely dropped by religious pilgrims who un- doubtedly began visiting this site in the Middle Ages.

24. So J. D. Brady, Assoc. Curator of Medieval Coins, The American Numismatic Society, who cites de Saulcy, Recherches sur les monnaies des ducs hereditaires de Lorraine, pp. 131-156, p. 148 and p. 7.19.7.

25. As the excavators have already noted, the ceramic evidence for MIII clearly places the Arabic occupation there in the 8th and 9th centuries C.E.

SENNACHERIB'S "LETTER TO GOD" ON HIS CAMPAIGN TO JUDAH

NADAV NA'AMAN

The document dealt with in the present paperl has had a somewhat split per- sonality till now, its two fragments having been ascribed to two different kings: One piece (K 6205) was first published in cuneiform by G. Smith in IIIR 9, 2 and has since been associated with the episode of Azriau king of Yaudi, in the days of Tiglath-pileser III.2 The second fragment (BM 82-3-23,131) was first edited, in tran- scription only, by H. Winckler,3 and republished by H. Tadmor who treated its literary and historical aspects in detail, suggesting that it be ascribed to the days of Sargon II.4

The outstanding and characteristic feature of both fragments is the specific lit- erary style, unique among all the documents concerning the Syro-Palestinian re- gion. This peculiar style was the point of departure for associating the two frag- ments as one document. Through a comparison of the transcriptions and, subse- quently, an examination of photographs of the two fragments, it became appar- ent that they comprise parts of one and the same document, describing, as I shall attempt to demonstrate below, Sennacherib's campaign to Judah in 701 B.C.

1. I must thank Prof. H. Tadmor for his advice concerning the problems dealt with in this paper. I am also most grateful to Prof. R. Borger, who read this article in manuscript and made numerous useful suggestions throughout. The abbreviations used herein are ac- cording to R. Borger, Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur (Berlin, 1967), with the follow- ing exceptions: Borger, BAL - R. Borger, Babylonisch-assyrische Lesesti~cke, Rome, 1963; OIP. II - D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, Chicago, 1924; Rost, Tigl. III - P. Rost, Die Keilinschrifttexte Tiglat Pilesers III, Leipzig, 1893; Tadmor, Sargon - H. Tadmor, The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur JCS 12 (1958), 22f; Tadmor, Azriyau - H. Tadmor, Azriyau of Yaudi, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961), 232f; TCL III - F. Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la buitieme campagne de Sargon, Paris, 1912; Winckler, Sargon - H. Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, Leipzig, 1889.

2. Rost, Tigl. III, 18-20: 103-119. 3. H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen II (Leipzig, 1898). 570-574. 4. Tadmor, Sargon, 80-84.

25

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

The two fragments are presented here,5 fitted together (Fig. 1), along with a transcription and translation.

Transcription

(1) . .

(2) [... l SID [...

(3) [... AN.SAR b-eli u-tak-kil-a] n-ni-ma a-na KUR Ja- [u-di lu al-lik ina] me-ti-iq KASKALII-ja man-da-at-tu

ti LU[GALME KUR..

.... ambur .... (4) [... ina da-n] a?-ni ia AN.SiR EN-ja na-gu-u

[sa, mHa-za-qi-j] a-a-u KUR

Ja-u-da-a-a GIM [ .... (5) [ .... ] URUA-za-qa-a E tuk-la-te-v

,i ina bi-ri [t mi-i] s-ri-ja u KUR

Ja-u-di [. ... (6) [

.... ] se-er SU.SI KUR-e a-kin GIM zi-qip GIR.AN?.B[AR?ME] S?la ni-bi ana AN-e 'a-qu-u SUR [...

(7) [diiruanisu] dun!-nu-nu-ma vit-nu-nu KUR-e zaq-ru-ti a-na ni-[til] IGIII.MES ki-i •i ul-tu AN-e [ .....

(8) [ina ukbus a-r] a-am-me qur-ru-bu 'u-pe-e da-an-nim?? [i-n] a mit-hu-us zu-ki GIRII pi[1-~si ..... (9)

[.... ANSE.KU] R.RAMES-jae-mu-ru-ma ri-gim um-na(read ma)-nat

A[N] .SA R gap-wsa-te is-mu-ma ip-lih lib- [ba-si-un .... (10) [URUA-za-qa-a al-me] KUR-ud is-lu-la sal-lat-su ap-pul aq-qur [ina

dGira aqmu . . (11) [URUGN URU] LUGAL-ti la KUR Pi-liw-ta-a-asa a [m] [Ha] -[za-qi-j] a-a-u

e-ki-mu fi-dan-ni-nu-ufi-ma [. . (12) [

.... ]I ha? xxx [ ....

I GIMGISgap-ni [ .

(13) [ ....

di?] -ma-a-ti GALMES u-tas!-bu!-u[r!-m] a ,um-ru-sa-at

[... (14) [.... ] en E.GAL GIM KUR-e pa-nu-u-sii-u [n] ed-let-ma

,it-qa-at [...

(15) [ .... ] e-kil la na-pi-ih-ui dUTU-,iu AMES-,i

ina e-t [u] -ti 'it-ku-nu-ma mu-sa- [i ?

(16) [... . pi -i-us ina qul-mi-i na-kis ha-ri-su i-te-[a?] -pil-ma ka-x[... (17) [. . . 1] e-'-u-te ME u-'e-rib

qe-reb-•,• GISTUKULMI E-ui ui-ra-kis a-n[a

epes .... (18) [.... u] m-ma-na-at KUR MAR.TUki DU-sii-un SA[HARJ] I.A

d-ia-az-bil-'u-nu-ti-m [a .. (19) [

.... ] x se-ru-us-si-un ina 7-~li x [ xx ]- f ril ?-i' GALMES GIM kar-pat

[ ..

(20) [ .... GU4MES u se] -e-ni ul-tu qer-bi-•is

[Qi -[,e-sa-am-ma] [,al1 -[la-ti, am-nu...

(21) [ ...... ] xxxxx [ . Translation:

(1) .. (2) .. (3) [ .... Anshar, my lord, encourag] ed me and against the land of Ju[dah I

marched. In] the course of my campaign, the tribute of the ki[ngs of Philistia? I received .....

5. The transcription given is based on photographs of the two fragments, made available to me by Prof. H. Tadmor. I am indebted to Prof. A. Shaffer for kindly collating for me the original tablet which is in the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities, the British Museum.

26

Number 214 April, 1974

tit . . . . . . . ....

Af -A"A

44 Ap fir-44:1

4W ir

'?-- t -44 4r '.' .... . . . . . . . .

..... ..... 4

On A a,

4i

MS/PM/OBJ. No,

u s

[---,u m

(4) [.... . with the mig] ht? of Anshar, my lord, the province of [Hezek] iah of Judah like [ .....

(5) [..... ] the city of Azekah, his stronghold, which is between my [bo] rder and the land of Judah [ ...

(6) [like the nest of the eagle?] located on a mountain ridge, like pointed iron? daggers without number reaching high to heaven [. ...

(7) [its walls] were strong and rivaled the highest mountains, to the (mere) sight, as if from the sky [appears its head?

..... (8) [by means of beaten (earth) ra] mps, mighty? battering rams brought near, with the attack by foot soldiers (using) mi[nes, breeches .....

(9) [..... ] they had seen [the approach of my cav] alry and they had heard the roar of the mighty troops of the god Anshar and [their hea] rts became afraid [ .....

(10) [the city Azekah I besieged,] I captured, I carried off its spoil, I de- stroyed, I devastated, [I burned with fire

..... (11) [the city of Gath?] a royal [city] of the Philistines, which H [ezek] iah

had captured and strengthened for himself [ ..... (12) [ ... ] like a tree [standing out on a ridge? ..... (13) [ ... ] surrounded with great [to] wers and exceedingly difficult [its

ascent? .....

27

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

(14) [..... ] palace like a mountain was barred in front of them and high is [its top? ..... (15) [

.-... ] it was dark and the sun never shone on it, its waters were situ-

ated in darkness and [its?] overflow [ ... (16) [..... ] its [mou] th was cut with axes and a moat was dug around it [ .... (17) [ .... warriors] skillful in battle he caused to enter into it, their

weapons he bound (on them) to [offer battle .....

(18) [ ... ] I caused the warriors of Amurru, all of them, to carry earth

(19) [ ... ] against them. In the seventh time his [ ... ] the great like a pot [of clay? I smashed? .

(20) [ .... cattle and she] ep I carried out from its midst [and counted as]

spo[il ..... (21) .....

I

The inscription can be divided into two parts, both concerning a single epi- sode - the war against Hezekiah king of Judah. The first part 11. 3-10, describes the conquest of the town of Azekah, whereas the second part 11. 11-20, relates the conquest of a city in Philistia, which Hezekiah had previously annexed to his kingdom. At this point, the obverse is broken off, and the continuation on the reverse is not preserved.

Line 2: The restorations in this line are based on comparisons with Senna- cherib's inscriptions, where the same formulae appear. (OIP II, 26: 65-68; 39: 54- 55; 67: 7-8).

Lines 4 and 11: The spelling Ha-za-qi-ja-a-u appears also in the version of Sen- nacherib's Annals (OIP II, 76, n. 7).

Line 5: It was this line which led fragment K 6205 to be associated with the Azriau episode. Rost copied here [I] z-ri-ja-u mit Ja-u-di, in spite of the obvious difficulty that the spelling Jaudi wouldbe an incorrect form of the gentilic. The suggested reading for this line - ina birit misrija u mat Jaudi - of course removes this difficulty and removes Azriau altogether from the picture.

Line 6: At the start of the line we might possibly restore kima qinni ern, "like the nest of the eagle on 1he basis of the Annals of Sennacherib (OIP II, 36:77).

The spelling GIR (MES) AN.BAR, without the plural, appears in the Rassam Cylinder of Sennacherib. Cf. Borger: BAL II, 69.

Line 8: Before the break in the middle of the line appear the signs DA AN SI UD, the combination of which does not have a meaning. Our correction of the signs SI+UD as NIM is based on the expression ina alibi danni appearing in the Annals of Sargon (Lie, Sargon 8:63).

Lines 12-16 describe, rhetorically and exaggerating, the strength of a city in Philistia which had been annexed to Judah. The description is more detailed than that concerning Azekah, possibly because it was the more important of the two.

Line 12: At the end of the line, we might possibly restore "like a tree [stand- ing out on a ridge] " (on the basis of TCL 3, 239), for on the basis of the struc- ture of the document we have here the description of the city from afar (see also below).

Line 13: The restoration at the start of the line is based on similar spellings in the inscriptions of Sargon and Sennacherib (see CAD D, 144-145). At the end of the line, we might restore alaktu.

28

Number 214 April, 1974

Line 14: The scribe seems to depict the palace jutting out from the fortifica- tions on one flank of the city.

Line 15: An authentic description of a water tunnel - one of the most typical features of Palestinian archaeology in the period of the Israelite monarchies.6 The inclusion of the water-source within the fortifications enabled the besieged to hold out for a very lengthy time. A famous example of such an installation, con- temporaneous with the present document, is the tunnel hewn by Hezekiah in Jerusalem (2 Kings 20: 20), still extant today.7

Line 16: The subject of this sentence is not clear. Line 17: Among the preparations for the siege, Hezekiah brought troops

within the city, probably because he was not sure of the loyalties of the Philistine inhabitants of the city.

Lines 18-20 describe the siege and conquest of the city. Line 18: Auxiliary forces of the vassal kings take part in the siege operations. Line 20: In the cuneiform published by G. Smith (IIIR.9, 2), the sign 'al ap-

pears in its entirety, whereas today only the upper part is visible. This line is re- stored on the basis of many of Sennacherib's inscriptions in which this expression recurs (OIP II, 27:75-76; 28:21; 33:26; etc.).

II

On the basis of its style, H. Tadmor assigned the "Azekah inscription" to the type scholars refer to as "Letters to God."8 The external traits of such documents are the fine literary style, differing from the dry, monotonous style of the An- nals, and the developed literary structure. Such a structure is evident in the pres- ent text, upon comparison of its two parts. Firstly, each place is identified (11. 5, 11), then each is described from afar (11. 6, 12), after which details of the fortifi- cations and means of defence are given (11. 7, 13-17), followed, finally, by a de- scription of the fighting and conquest (11. 8-10, 18-20). Also noteworthy is the structure of line 9: .

. muru-ma

... ism zuma.. iplab libbasun, as well as several descriptions unparallelled in known Akkadian literature (11. 6-7, 14-15). All this points to fine, well-planned writing on a very high standard.

There is no doubt that, stylistically and in lexicon, this text is especially close to the "Letter to God" describing the campaign of Sargon II to Urartu in 714 B. C.9 But a considerable number of expressions would bring us down beyond the time of Sargon, to the days of Sennacherib his son.0lo These specific expressions are treated below in the same order as they appear in the text, together with their parallels in the version of Sennacherib's Annals:

Ai~ur beli utakkilannima ana ma•t

GN lu allik 11

6. Y. Yadin, Hazor (London, 1967), 161 f., 172 f.; J. B. Pritchard, The Water System of Gibeon (Philadelphia, 1961).

7. H. Vincent, Jerusalem sous Terre (London, 1911). 8. See Tadmor, Sargon, 82; T. Bauer, ZA 40 (1931), 250, n. 1; A. L. Oppenheim, JNES 19

(1960), 133 f., and bibliography there. 9. It should be noted that part of the descriptions do not at all suit the landscape of the

Shephelah in Palestine; these are clearly literary cliches transferred from mountainous regions.

10. Note that only little more than a decade separates Sargon's eighth campaign (714 B.C.) from that of Sennacherib to Palestine (701 B.C.), and thus it is not surprising that in the writing of such a standard as that of our text there should appear stylistic features and expressions close to those of Sargon cf. D. D. Luckenbill, AJSL 41 (1924/5), 219 f.

11. See the note to line 2 of our text.

29

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

ina meteq gerrija12 bit tuklhti13 ina ukbus aramme qurrubu/qitrub fup? mithus zik epe- pilgi. . .14 ummanat mdt Amurri kali'un15 alpi u seni ultu qirbisu ugsamma gallati amnu16 We must note that all these expressions (besides the first) appear specifically

in passages describing Sennacherib's campaign to Palestine in 701 B.C.17 - and in- deed this would seem to hint at the date of our text as well.

Several other factors strengthen our ascribing this tablet to Sennacherib rather than Sargon.

(a) In all of Sargon's inscriptions, no mention is ever made of a campaign against Judah. In contrast, such a campaign is quite prominent in all of Sennacher- ib's inscriptions. The central positioning of Judah here would suit a campaign by Sennacherib, but not one by Sargon.

(b) Sargon himself apparently did not participate in the campaign to Philistia in 712 B.C., his place at the head of the army being taken by "Tartan."18 We should remember that a "Letter to God" was a sort of personal report of the king to Ashur the god on his activities during campaigns carried out in the god's name, and such texts were composed for only the most outstanding of the campaigns conducted by the king. Thus, it would be difficult to assume that the king would write a report to his god on a campaign in which he did not even participate.

(c) Near the name of the city of Azekah there appears in this text (line 5) the statement "which is between my [bo] rder and the land of Judah." Azekah - Tell Zakariye in Judahl9 - is on the latitude of Ashdod, and it is clear that such a description would have been impossible prior to the annexation of Ashdod as an Assyrian province in 712 B.C. It is difficult to assume that this refers to the cam- paign in 712 B.C., at the start of which Ashdod was conquered and annexed, the invasion of Judah taking place only later, for it is surely doubtful that, in the de- scription of that very same campaign, such an annexation would appear as if long done. It is much simpler to assume that the text refers to Sennacherib's campaign of 701 B.C., at which time the king of Ashdod, whose territory had been an- nexed by the Assyrians already in the days of Sargon, was among the kings sum- 12. The expression ina meteq gerrija as an opening of a new paragraph, appears only at the

beginning of Sennacherib's reign and is common in his inscriptions (OIP II, 25: 54; 31: 68; 39: 58). There is one occurence where it seems to appear in the inscriptions of Sargon (C. J. Gadd, Iraq 16 [1954], 177: 54;AHw 649b, s.v. mitequ), but according to the cuneiform (ibid., pl. XLVI), we should read i-na me-ti-iq h[a!-ar-ra-ni-ja]. The appear- ance of the expression ina mjteq gerrija in Sennacherib's inscriptions stems, in my opin- ion, from the term gerru, "campaign of war," used in his inscriptions to denote his suc- cessive campaigns; this term came to replace the conventional palf^, "regnal year," used by the earlier kings. For the reasons behind the use of the term gerru in Sennacherib's inscriptions, see Tadmor, Sargon, 31 f. The expression ana meteq gerrija appears once in the Annals of Sargon, but in a different meaning. See Lie, Sargon 44: 275.

13. OIP II, 30: 45; Borger, BAL I, LI, s.v. bit tukldti. 14. OIP II, 32-33: 21-23; 63: 10-11. 15. In Sennacherib's inscriptions the expression sarrani mat Amurri kalilun (OIP II, 30: 58;

69: 19; 132: 68) is similar to the one occurring in our text, whereas in the inscriptions of Sargon, only the combination mait Amurri appears and always as a geographical name. 16. A common expression in Sennacherib's inscriptions. See the note to line 20. 17. Another similarity can be seen in adi 4-gu, "fourfold," appearing in Sennacherib's ac-

count of his campaign to Palestine (OIP II, 30: 59), as compared to ina 7-4u, "in the seventh time," in our text.

18. A. Alt, Kleine Schriften II (Munich, 1953), 236 f.; Tadmor, Sargon, 76 f. 19. F. M. Abel, Geographie de la Palestine II (Paris, 1938), 85.

30

Number 214 April, 1974

moned before Sennacherib near Tyre (OIP II, 30: 54). (d) The dating of the "Azekah inscription" to the days of Sargon is based prin-

cipally on the specific spelling of the name of the god Ashur, which appears as Aniar.20 According to this argument, the same spelling does occur in the docu- ments of Sennacherib, but only in two types of text: those originating in the city of Ashur (mostly building inscriptions) and in two inscriptions from Nineveh dealing with the bit akitu in the city of Ashur. Since the "Azekah inscription" is an historical text, so the argument runs, it could not be from the time of Senna- cherib, for in all the other historical texts only the usual spelling Ags'ur appears.

Against this we must note first the special character of our text, differing con- siderably from all other of Sennacherib's historical texts. We must further remem- ber that the "Letter to God" was meant to be read before the god Ashur, whose main temple was in the city of Ashur, and it is quite likely that our text was even originally written there and copied by the scribes of Ashurbanipal or simply trans- ferred from Ashur to Nineveh during the building up of the library there.21 In our opinion, the regular historical texts should not be applied to the problem of spell- ing in our text and, even if a certain difficulty does remain, it definitely is not so serious as to cancel out the cumulative weight of the other evidence for the dat- ing of the document to the time of Sennacherib.

(e) The portion of the campaign described in our text, and apparently also its continuation, which has not been preserved, are described more briefly in the ver- sion of Sennacherib's Annals, and - besides Jerusalem - no city in Judah is men- tioned there by name.22 The "Letter to God" may have served as the source for the shorter version in the Annals, or both of the documents may have been com- posed quite independently.23 It is clear that a redacted summary or brief report would emphasize specific facets of the campaign, and would omit other facets or describe them only in passing.24 Thus, we cannot accept the argument that the omission of Azekah from Sennacherib's inscriptions (even if composed shortly after his campaign to Judah) might indicate two different campaigns.

The conclusion arising from this can be summed up as follows: Our document is to be dated to the days of Sennacherib and is to be considered a "Letter to God" written close upon the termination of his campaign to Palestine in 701 B.C.25 We can perhaps also assume that it was composed in order to magnify and glorify the god Ashur, on the one hand, and on the other hand, to explain and give an excuse for the events of the campaign to Judah, which seems to have been a doubtful success as far as the Assyrians were concerned, as can be inferred from the version in the Annals. 20. Tadmor, Sargon, 82; and see Tadmor, Eretz-Israel 5 (1959), 159-160 (Hebrew). 21. Only Sargon's "Letter to God" was found at the city of Ashur (B. Meissner, ZA 34

[1922], 113 f.), whereas all the others were found at Kuyunjik, probably in Ashurbani- pal's library.

22. OIP II, 32-33: 18-23; ARAB II, 340; ANET, 288. 23. Several typical expressions are common to our text and to the Annals version of Senna-

cherib, thus possibly alluding to the interdependence of the two. Scholars have already noted that the Annals version is of an unusual literary quality, which might corroborate the assumption that our literary text served as the example.

24. Thus, for instance, from the Bible and from Sennacherib's reliefs (R. D. Barnett, IEJ 8 [1958], 161 f.), it is known that Lachish was conquered during Sennacherib's campaign to Judah. Lachish, however, in spite of its having been the second city of the realm, is not at all mentioned in the Annals version.

25. The fact that we have only a single "Letter to God" from several Assyrian kings (Shal- maneser IV, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal) does not neces- sarily point to the custom of a king writing only one such "Letter" during his reign. The survival of one example only for each king is most probably coincidental.

31

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

III

The transfer of the "Azekah inscription" to the days of Sennacherib some- what changes the balance of evidence on the relationship of Judah with Assyria in the days of Sargon. We shall try to review here briefly the known factors on those relations.26

In an inscription written around 717 B.C., Sargon is termed "the subduer of the land of Judah which lies far away."27 This appellation undoubtedly refers to the insurrection of 720 B.C., at which time Sargon prevailed over an alliance of states headed by Hamath, in which Gaza and Samaria also took part. Hezekiah may have supported this alliance as well,28 but the term "which lies far away" and the fact that Judah is not mentioned in any inscription relating the events of 720 B.C. show that Judah had at most a secondary role in this revolt. It would seem that Hezekiah was quick to surrender before the king of Assyria and to pay the demanded tribute so that his country would not be harmed during the As- syrian campaign along the Philistine coast.

Judah is mentioned a second time in one of Sargon's inscriptions, in connec- tion with the revolt of Ashdod which began in 713 B.C. Below is the passage men- tioning Judah in this connection:29 "Togeth [er with? the kings] 30 of Philistia, Judah, Ed [om and] Moab, who dwell by the sea, payers of tribute and gifts to Ashur my lord, they sent evil words and unseemly speeches31 (with) their pres- ents to Pharaoh king of Egypt, a prince who could not save them, to set (him) at enmity with me, and asked him for (military) aid."

Hezekiah appears in this description as one of the initiators of alliance with Egypt, in conspiracy with the several lands neighboring Judah. But according to all the Assyrian sources, the campaign of 712 B.C. was directed against Ashdod alone. I doubt whether the alliance mentioned above ever crystallized, in the light of the Egyptian hesitancy to take an active part in the conspiracy against Assyria.32 It can be assumed that all the rulers mentioned hastened to submit to Assyria im- mediately upon the appearance of Assyrian troops in Philistia, and the main suf- ferer in the campaign was Ashdod, whose principal towns were conquered; and the same fate befell nearby Ekron.33 Ashdod was annexed by Assyria (as possibly 26. For summary articles on Philistia in the days of Sargon, see A. Alt, Kleine Scbriften II

(Munich, 1953), 226 f.; Tadmor, Sargon, 82 f.; Tadmor, BAr 29 (1966), 86 f. 27. Winckler, Sargon I, 188: 28-36; Tadmor, Sargon, 38, n. 146. 28. I have adopted here the dates of 727-698 B.C. for the reign of Hezekiah. 29. Winckler, Sargon I, 188: "28-36"; ARAB II, 195;ANET, 287. The translation above is

based on a photograph of the prism, kindly made available to me by Prof. H. Tadmor. 30. According to the photograph, in line 25 some four signs are missing; in 11. 26-27, some

two signs; and the continuation is entirely complete. It is thus clear that the only verbs in this passage occur at its end, in the plural, and that the subject was also in the plural. Thus, it is impossible to translate the passage as if the ruler of Ashdod were the subject of the sentence. The main difficulty in the translation here stems from the opening with the preposition ana referring as if to the list of rulers at the start of line 26.

Considering the lacuna, I suggest restoring the line as follows: a-na tap!?-[pu?-ut? LUGALME S1] a KUR GN KUR

GN2....... with ana tappilt serving as an adverbial complement in the

sentence. The subject of this sentence, therefore, would be the ruler of Ashdod and the rulers of other lands mentioned in line 26.

31. According to the photograph, we should read in line 29: da-bab sa-ar-ra-a-ti at!-me-e nu-ul1-la-a-ti.

32. See n. 27, above. 33. We can follow H. Tadmor in assigning the conquest of Gibbethon and Ekron, appearing in the reliefs from Dur-Sharrukin, to 712 B.C. (Tadmor, Sargon, 83, n. 243). It is difficult to suppose that Sargon was able to do much in Philistia in 720 B.C., during which year he fought both

against Babylonia and in the west.

32

Number 214 April, 1974

was Ekron),34 though for unknown reasons the local dynasty was left in power.35 The border of the Assyrian Empire was thus moved twice in the days of

Sargon, once in 720 and again in 712 B.C., and it was tangent upon Judah on the north and on the west. The kingdom of Judah appears not to have suffered in the days of Sargon, and until his death it remained subservient to Assyria. But the bor- der with the Assyrian provinces and the proximity of Assyrian rule obviously pre- sented a continual pressure on Judah.

The opportunity to throw off the Assyrian yoke came upon the death of Sar- gon on the battlefield in 705 B.C., following which rebellion broke out simultane- ously in Babylonia, Anatolia36 and on the border of Egypt, and even Egypt took an active role in the impending struggle. This about-face in Egyptian policy to- wards Assyria seems to have occurred with the rise to power of the Twenty-fifth (Nubian) dynasty as the sole rulers of Egypt in 711/710 B.C.37 We should attempt to ascertain the reasons behind this change in policy. The key to this problem would seem to lie in the Assyrian policy in Philistia, which lies on the main route from the north to Egypt; thus, whoever rules Philistia rules the approaches to Egypt (from el-Arish, the southernmost borderpoint of Philistia, to the Pelusian branch of the Nile, the northern border of ancient Egypt, is about 150 kilometres!).

34. Only by annexing Ekron could Assyria gain territorial continuity between Gezer (the southernmost border-point of the kingdom of Israel, which had been annexed by As- syria in 720 B.C.) and the kingdom of Ashdod, now annexed. A. Alt (op. cit., 239 f.) explained the lack of territorial continuity between Ashdod and the nearby Assyrian provinces by assuming that there was a definite Assyrian plan according to which the annexation of Ashdod was only the first step, the final aim of which was the annexation of all Philistia; but Sargon, who initiated the plan, was killed before he could carry it out. His son Sennacherib had a different policy, and thus Ashdod remained an isolated province surrounded by vassal states. The weak point in this theory is that if such a plan had existed, why did the Assyrians rush to annex a somewhat removed territory as Ashdod prior to more adjacent areas such as Ekron, when they had been conquered at the very same time?

35. A. Alt, ibid., 240 f. 36. Sargon seems to have been killed during his campaign against Tabal (see most recently

Tadmor, Sargon, 97, nn. 311-313), and upon his death many of the Assyrian provinces in Anatolia rebelled. The extent of the rebellion is indicated by the fact that even such a central province as Que was among the rebels (ARAB II, pp. 286-289), and Landsberger went so far as to ascribe the destruction of the palace at Sam'al on the Syrian Anatolian border to this war (B. Landsberger, Sam'al [Ankara, 19481, 79 f.). Only in 696 B.C., some ten years after the outbreak, did Sennacherib conduct his first campaign into Anatolia, in an attempt to regain control over the Assyrian territories there. He succeeded in Que, but failed in Til-Garimmu (E. Forrer, Die Provinzeinteilung [Leipzig, 1920], 81 f.; ARAB II, (?? 286-292). All the western Anatolian provinces (Tabal, Hilakku and Til- Garimmu) were lost forever. Only after the quelling of the rebellion in Babylonia in 689 was Sennacherib free to deal with Anatolia without hindrance from behind, and in these years he consolidated his hold in the eastern provinces (Melid, Kummuh, Gurgum and Que). For a detailed discussion, see Landsberger, op. cit., 81 f., nn. 212-215; J. D. Bings, A History of Cilicia during the Assyrian Period, Ann Arbor, 1970 (Diss.), 87 f., and the bibliography there.

37. The data indicate that till 711/710 B.C. the rulers of the local dynasties still ruled in Egypt: (a) Hoshea the son of Elah wrote to Tephnakht ruler of the city of So/Sais after 727 B.C. (cf. H. Goedicke, BASOR 171 [Oct., 1963], 64 f.); (b) Osorkon IV, last of the rulers of the Twenty-third dynasty at Tanis, still ruled in 716 B.C. (cf. W. F. Albright, BASOR 141 [Feb., 1956], 23 f.); (c) In 712 B.C. Yamani the ruler of Ashdod fled to Egypt after failing in his rebellion. The rulers of the Delta refused him aid and he even wandered to Nubia in search of support; the ruler of Nubia, however, in his desire to preserve peaceful relations with Assyria, turned the rebellious vassal over to the Assyrians (Tadmor, Sargon, 83). Shortly afterward, about in 711/710 B.C., the Nubian dynasty gained control over all Egypt and subjugated the local princes (Albright, BASOR 130 [Apr., 1953], 4 f.; S. H. Horn, AUSS 4 [1966], 1 f.).

33

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

The Assyrian hold in Philistia gradually grew, reaching a peak with the annexa- tion of Ashdod by Sargon which was undoubtedly interpreted in Egypt as a threat to Egyptian territory. To this we may add the Egyptian attitude regarding Phil- istia as within her sphere of influence from earliest times. Fear of Philistia be- coming a springboard for an attack on Egypt, and the ambition of again seizing a bridgehead in Asia led to the crystallization of this new Egyptian policy, ex- pressed in the open support given by Egypt to the rebellious movement against Assyria.

The rebellion throughout the Assyrian Empire and the definite Egyptian sup- port are, in turn, the factors behind Hezekiah's revolt, and he now stood at the head of an alliance supported by Egypt.

This discussion leads us to conclude that only at the end of his reign did Hezekiah openly oppose Assyria, he previously having purposely avoided any di- rect conflict. At this point, Hezekiah abandoned the traditional Judean policy, which pursued a more cautious course in its dealings with Assyria.38

IV It remains to ascertain where our new document fits into the scheme of Senna-

cherib's campaign, for the campaign itself has been dealt with extensively in a long list of papers and books dealing specifically with it.39 Analysis of the Annals ver- sion reveals that Sennacherib's campaign to Palestine was conducted as follows: at first the king conquered the Ascalonite enclave at Jaffa, which had been sur- rounded by Assyrian territory ;40 from there he proceeded to Ekron, meeting an Egyptian force at Eltekeh on the way; at Ekron he took the city without a seige and at about the same time Ascalon surrendered to him. Thus, the conquest of Philistia resulted in the surrender of the rebellious cities and the placing of rulers loyal to Assyria on the local thrones - without the more important cities having been harmed in any actual manner.

After the fall of Philistia, Sennacherib turned toward Judah, and it is at this point in the campaign we can place our text. We do not know who the ruler or rulers paying tribute to Assyria at the beginning of the text were (line 3), and the kings of Philistia may be intended, in whose land Sennacherib had encamped on his way to Judah.41

In our document there is a quite detailed description of the conquest of two cities belonging to Hezekiah. The first to be mentioned is Azekah (modem Tell Zakariye),42 at the mouth of the Vale of Elah on the route connecting Lachish and Beth-shemesh. The second city is denoted "a royal [city] of the Philistines" which Hezekiah had taken and fortified for his own purposes. The detailed de- scription of the city is indicative of its importance.43 Among the eastern towns of Philistia, only two would suit the present case: Ekron and Gath of the Philistines.

38. See the discussion in the final section of this paper. 39. B. S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, London, 1967, and bibliography there. 40. We should note the detailed description devoted to this region, and it is possible that

Sennacherib conquered the Jaffa enclave, which was entirely surrounded by Assyrian provincial territory, by force, intending to annex it to one of the adjacent administra- tive units.

41. I do not think this refers to the tribute of "all the kings of the land of Amurru", men- tioned in the Annals (OIP II, 30: 50-60), for this tribute was paid when Sennacherib was still near Tyre, and it is difficult to conceive that such a detailed document as ours should skip over the entire first part of the campaign.

42. See n. 19, above. 43. See also the notes to 11. 12-16.

34

Number 214 April, 1974

We know that Ekron had not been annexed to Judah by Hezekiah, nor was Sen- nacherib forced to put it to a siege (according to the Annals) - and thus it does not suit the present case.44 In contrast, Gath (identified with Tell es-Safi)45 is located not far from Azekah, lying on a high hill (which would suit my restora- tion in line 12) and would thus have required a water installation (line 15); it un- doubtedly was a large and well-fortified city in this period.46 Thus, we can sug- gest regarding Gath of the Philistines as the city denoted in our text.47

This also serves to clarify the Assyrian plan of attack on Judah: penetration through the central region and conquest of two key cities in the Shephelah, thus opening the route into the heart of the land, between the two principal centers of Jerusalem and Lachish.

An additional interesting detail concerning the "warriors of Amurru" (line 18), who took part in the siege operations alongside the Assyrians, is also revealed: These troops are probably to be identified with the payers of tribute to Senna- cherib at the beginning of his campaign, as mentioned in the Annals (OIP II, 30: 50-56), and who apparently had been forced to send auxiliary units to accom- pany the Assyrian army.48

Both the descriptions in the royal Annals and the "Letter to God" indicate the strength of Judah under Hezekiah and the great degree of resistance encoun- tered by Sennacherib during his campaign there. At this time Judah was un-

doubtedly the strongest nation on the Assyrian-Egyptian frontier. It is on this

background that we are able to understand also the steps taken by Sennacherib during and after this campaign: He avoided destroying the rebellious cities of Philistia and was content to receive their surrender and place loyal rulers in power; in contrast, he fought tooth-and-nail in Judah. Sennacherib even annexed western border regions of Judah, transferring them to four Philistine cities, and thus cre- 44. Ekron is generally identified with Tell Muqanna', on a level plain, and thus it does not

at all suit the description in the document (cf. J. Naveh, IEJ 8 [1958], 87-100). 45. See the summary discussion and bibliography in A. F. Rainey, Christian News from

Israel 17 (1966), Nos. 2-3, 30-38; No. 4, 23-34. 46. Tell es-Safi was excavated early in modern archaeological research (F. J. Bliss & R. A. S.

Macalister, Excavations in Palestine, 1898-1900, London, 1902), and thus its stratigraphy and the dates of the city walls (ascribed by the excavators to Rehoboam) remain vague. The pottery evidence points to a considerable settlement there in the Iron Age (for a recent summary, see E. Stern, in The Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land [Jerusalem, 1970], 608-610 [Hebrew], with bibliography there). Among the finds (not in situ) were five fragments of a small Assyrian limestone relief (Bliss & Macalister, op. cit., 41, Fig. 17. W. F. Albright, AASOR 2-3 [1923] 15), indicating that there might have been an Assyrian palace there, which was built after the destruction of the city during Sennacherib's campaign of 701 B.C. We may also mention several lamelekh seal-impressions of the four-winged type (only) found at this same site (ibid., 107). If it is proper to ascribe these sealings to the reign of Hezekiah (cf. Y. Aharoni, The Land of The Bible [London, 1966], 431 f.), then this might be direct evidence that Gath of the Philistines had been taken into the administrative framework of Judah in that period.

47. The mention of Azekah before the Philistine city causes a difficulty, for Azekah is lo- cated east of Philistia. The sieges of these two cities may have begun at one and the same time, and Azekah fell first, leading to its being mentioned first in the description. It should be remembered that we are dealing with a literary text in which the author was not restricted by any desire for precision in his presentation of the course of events. A similar difficulty exists concerning the Annals version describing Sennacherib's cam- paign to Palestine.

48. In Ashurbanipal's campaign to Egypt, vassal kings from Syria and Palestine also parti- cipated (ARAB II, ?? 770, 876). The participation of vassal kings in Assyrian campaigns is also indicated in the stele inscription of Bar Rakib king of Sam'al, dedicated to Panammuwa his father (H. Donner & W. R6llig, Kanaaniische und Aramiiische Inschriften [Wiesbaden, 1967] , No. 214).

35

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

ated a new balance of power between Philistia and Judah. His purpose is thus re- vealed as an attempt to create a series of states of equal strength on the Assyrian- Egyptian border, headed by rulers loyal to Assyria and thus to prevent the pos- sibility of any one of them gaining sufficient power to lead the others against Assyria with Egyptian support. This step may have been interpreted in Egypt as an Assyrian retreat from the region, and thus a lessening of the threat of an As- syrian invasion into Egypt proper. (Or could there have been some agreement on the matter between the two rivals?) In any event, we hear little more of the con- flict between Assyria and Egypt till the days of Esarhaddon, and the long years of quiet on this border for the remainder of Sennacherib's reign are witness of the success of this policy.

V

Ascribing document K 6205 to Hezekiah rather than to Azariah considerably changes the balance of evidence concerning the "Azriau episode": Instead of two texts describing the events of the war in 738 B.C., we are left with only one. This latter text of the version of the Annals of Tiglath-pileser III was published in cuneiform by G. Smith (IIIR 9, 3) and was included in the Annals of this ruler published by P. Rost.49 Perusal of this text shows that it describes only the final phase of the events of 738 B.C. It gives details of the territorial arrangements made by the king of Assyria in northern Syria following his victory (annexation of Hatarikka, the biblical Hadrach, and the northern Mediterranean coast, Annals, 11. 125-132) and the resulting exile of the population (Annals, 11. 132-133). Thus, we have no source relating the background of the Assyrian campaign to Syria in 738 B.C. or on the actual war conducted in that same year between As- syria and the Syrian alliance, but only the end of the events.

The name Azriau appears in the fragment twice: in line 123, in the spelling Az-ri-a-[u], and in line 131, in the variant spelling Az-ri-ja-a-i. Nowhere in the text, however, does the name of the land of Azriau appear. Thus the question of the identity of this person cannot be solved directly, and the answer must be sought elsewhere. Hence, we should review briefly the background of the wars in Syria in 738 B.C. in the light of the known facts.

In 740 B.C., Tiglath-pileser III conquered the lands of Arpad and Unqi and an- nexed them to Assyria (Annals, 11. 82-101). In doing so, Tiglath-pileser III di- verged from the policy upheld since the days of Shalmaneser III, according to which the border of Assyria remained along the Euphrates (on both banks), while the Syrian states held the status of vassals. Upon the annexation of Arpad and Unqi, Tiglath-pileser moved the border of his kingdom to the Mediterranean sea- board and included parts of North Syria within the framework of Assyrian territory.

In 739 B.C., Tiglath-pileser III turned northward and conducted a campaign to Ulluba, southwest of Urartu. During this campaign, a rebellion broke out in Syria, in reaction to which there was an Assyrian campaign to Syria, in 738 B.C. According to the description of this episode in the Annals, as far as the passages are preserved, Hatarikka and the northern coastal cities took part in this rebel- lion; but it seems possible to identify further elements which joined in the rebellion.

49. Rost, Tigi. III, 20-24: 123-141; Tadmor, Azriyau, and bibliography there.

36

Number 214 April, 1974

In the Eponym Chronicle for 738 B.C., there appears the entry "Kullani was conquered."50 In our opinion, Kullania (biblical Calneh) is identical with the city of Kunalia/Kinalua, the capital of the land of Unqi, mentioned several times in the Annals of the Assyrian kings.51 The fact that Kullania appears as the most important destination during the campaign indicates that the rebellion against As- syria broke out in the areas conquered and annexed by her in 740 B.C. Further indirect evidence for the fact that Kullania was the central aim of the Assyrian campaign of 738 B.C. is found in the Bible, in Amos 6:2. There, the city of Calneh is mentioned together with "Hamath the great" as an example and warn- ing to Israel not to rely upon her strength against Assyria. In our opinion, Amos was alluding to Tiglath-pileser's campaign to Syria in 738 B.C., during which the

Assyrians conquered Kullania and Hatarikka (the northern part of the land of Hamath). It would seem that the conquest of these two cities echoed throughout the Syro-Palestinian region in this period, and thus the prophet chose it as an ex-

ample which would be familiar to all his audience.52 50. RLA II, 431, CB1, 36. 51. For the various citings and spellings of Kunalia and Kullania, see S. Parpola, Neo-As-

syrian Toponyms, AOAT 6 (1970), 206, 213. Forrer suggested regarding these two names as one city, the capital of Unqi; this has been rejected by Gelb (AJSL 51 [1935], 189 f.), who distinguishes between the two names, and regards them as two different places. Kullania is identified by Gelb as Kullan-k6y, a site north of Arpad, and this has been accepted by most scholars dealing with this period (an exception is M. C. Astour, JNES 22 [1963], 225). The reasons behind the identifications of the two above places have not been noted previously, and thus are presented here: (a) The spelling Kunalia appears only in the Annals versions of the Assyrian kings from Ashurnasirpal II to Tiglath-pileser III. In contrast, the spelling Kullania appears only in economic and administrative documents and in letters. It can be assumed that the for- mer is the formalistic-traditional spelling used by the scribes in the royal inscriptions, whereas the latter spelling reflects the pronunciation of the name during the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. (and also suits the biblical form "Calneh"), explaining the appearance of this form in the Assyrian administrative documents (for a phonetic comparison of the spellings, see Astour, ibid., 225). (b) It is known that Unqi was annexed to Assyria by Tiglath-pileser III (Annals, 11. 92- 101). But Unqi does not appear in any Assyrian document later than its annexation. Thus, we may assume that the new Assyrian province was not called by its old name, but rather by some other name which should be sought by indirect means (see [c], below). (c) Within the description of the annexation of Unqi in the Annals, there appears the formula "the city of Kinalia I reorganized;" this expression in the Assyrian inscriptions serves to denote the founding of a new provincial capital over the ruins of the former

capital. But the place-name Kunalia does not appear in any Assyrian document later than its annexation. In my opinion, the name does appear, but in a slightly different

spelling Kullania; and this denotes the capital of the province, and is extended to refer to the entire province, as is so often the case with such names (Kullania appears in the documents with the determinatives KUR and URU, as well). Kullania is thus the name of the Assyrian province, identical with the territory of the former kingdom of Unqi, and under this name it appears in the later Assyrian documents. (d) In the list of Syrian cities to which Tiglath-pileser sent exiles in 738 B.C., the cities of

Unqi appear. The Assyrian campaign in that same year is denoted in the Eponym Chron- icle as a campaign during which "Kullani was conquered," which would be quite fitting if we identify this land with Unqi (see below, n. 5 3). (e) All the citings of Kullania in the Assyrian documents, as far as they can be related to known places, suit admirably the region of Unqi: The name appears between Samaria and Arpad (ADD 951), and after Simirra (ibid.), between Megiddo and Sam'al (ADD 952), alongside Arpad (ABL 43) and in a list of cities sending horses to Assyria, after Qarne and Dani but before Arpad (ABL 372; are these places listed here in a geographi- cal order, from south to north?). We may thus assume that Kullania was the capital of Unqi, conquered by Tiglath-pileser III and rebuilt as the Assyrian provincial capital, giving its name to the entire Assyrian province.

52. The prophet Amos is generally placed in the days of Jeroboam II (784-748 B.C.),

37

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

The rebellion of the cities of Unqi can also be deduced from the fact that fol- lowing the Assyrian campaign of 738 B.C. exiles were brought to them on a large scale (Annals, 11. 143-145) whereas Unqi had been annexed to Assyria two years earlier. It would seem that this late exile was the direct result of the rebellion of the cities of Unqi in 739 B.C., following which Tiglath-pileser decided to break up the internal structure and the identity of this land by settling foreign populations in its cities, and thus forestall the possibility of further disturbances.53

From the data we have gathered here, it is apparent that in the war conducted in north Syria in 738 B.C., the states of Unqi and Hatarikka took a part, as did the northern coastal cities. In contrast, there is no evidence that even one of the south- ern Syrian or Palestinian states participated. We must agree with H. Tadmor that the list of payers of tribute to Assyria, appearing in the Annals following the exiles to Syria, includes a list of states which did not participate in the alliance and who preferred to pay tribute.54 This list includes such states as Hamath, Damascus, Byblos and Israel - all southern neighbors of the bloc of states which did rebel against Assyria in 738 B.C.

It is against this background that we must review the question of the identity of Azriau of the text with Azariah king of Judah. There is nothing to support such an identification, except for the essential identity of names; against this, however, there are several weighty factors which shed considerable doubt on this identity.

(a) The entire episode takes place in northern Syria and there is no evidence that southern kings took any part in the events. Even such states as Hamath and Damascus, much closer to the arena of the war, did not join the alliance.

(b) Judah is mentioned only once in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser, in a routine list of vassal states paying tribute to Assyria around 732 B.C.55 Indeed, Judah does not even appear in the list of payers of tribute in 738 B.C. Had Judah stood at the head of a rebellion against Assyria in this year, she surely would have been severely punished; and certainly Judah would not have avoided payment of a tribute demanded even of states which did not participate in the alliance at all. The fact that the king of Assyria mentions Judah only in a routine list from late in his reign, and never mentions or even hints that it was his great rival during the years of struggle over rule in Syria, in my opinion, clearly indicates that Assyria had no score to settle with Judah.

(c) Judah is mentioned early in Sargon's reign as a land "which lies far away" (see p. 32, above), and this is a further indication that it did not take any central role in the struggle against Assyria up to that time.

The cumulative effect of these factors brings us to the conclusion that the Azriau of the Annals of Tiglath-pileser III and Azariah of the Bible - the king of

though scholars are divided as to the exact position within this reign. In any event, 738 B.C. is later than Jeroboam, and thus presents a problem as far as Amos' period of ac- tivity is concerned. It is beyond our present scope to determine whether this late date points to the intrusive character of Amos 6:2 (or the passage 6:1-7), as some scholars have held, or whether the final date of Amos' prophetic activity is to be reconsidered. See most recently W. Rudolph, Amos (KAT) (Stuttgart, 1971), 95-96, 219, and bib- liography there.

53. The exiles to the cities of Unqi were part of the exiles by Tiglath-pileser to Syria in 738 B.C. The region to which the foreign population was sent (Annals, 11. 143-150) cor- responds with the territory of the allies who fought against Tiglath-pileser that same year, according to the reconstruction presented here.

54. Tadmor, Azriyau, 266-267. 55. Rost, Tigl. III, 72: 11.

38

Number 214 April, 1974

Judah - should be regarded as two separate individuals, and that the identity of names is incidental, a pitfall for the modern historian. The identity of the north- ern Azriau remains without solution, and will do so till new, relevant documents are found. Was he an Aramean of Hatarikka, like Yaubi'di, the usurper at Hamath who stood at the head of the rebellion against Assyria in 720 B.C.?56

This separation of Azriau from Azariah frees us of a stumbling block to the un- derstanding of the Judean policy towards Assyria in the second half of the eighth century B.C.: Ahaz kept to a steady line throughout his reign, including the years in which he was regent under his father Azariah/Uzziah; he accepted the yoke of Assyria and was most cautious in his dealings with her. This policy was also sup- ported unflinchingly by Isaiah the prophet.

As we have attempted to demonstrate above, Hezekiah continued the same line during most of his reign, and only in his final years did he change his policy and openly stand at the head of an alliance against Assyria.

Completed June, 1973. 56. The name Yaubi'di in northern Syria indicates that the element Yau was found in this

region in personal names and in a period quite close to that of our Azriau. On the other hand, the identification of Azriau as a Syrian ruler strengthens the assumption, upheld since the early days of Assyriology, that there is a connection between the element Yau appearing in Syria and the theophoric element Yahu commonly found in Judah. Cf. O. T. Olmstead, Western Asia in the Days of Sargon (New York, 1908), 48, n. 12, and bibliography there.

MAGNETOMETER/RESISTIVITY SURVEY AT PETRA, JORDAN - 1973

PHILIP C. HAMMOND

The most extensive electronically instrumented sub-surface site survey yet to be conducted at an archaeological site in the Middle East was successfully com- pleted during the period of June 4 to June 25, 1973, at the site of ancient Petra in Jordan.

The survey was conducted by the American Expedition to Petra,1 under the direction of Dr. Philip C. Hammond, with Dr. M. A. Bennett and Dr. W. H. C. Poe as co-directors, in cooperation with the Department of Antiquities, through the assistance of the Director-General of Antiquities, Mr. Yacoub Oweis.

The survey team employed four proton differential magnetometers and two soil resistivity instruments to locate and map the archaeological materials buried beneath the modern surface. Seventy-one 30 m. x 30 m. grids were surveyed with one or both instruments, with a total of 63,900 square meters (ca. 80% of the surveyable ancient city) completed.

Grids were laid out on the basis of the UTMG system by transit survey to an estimated accuracy error of distribution and triangulation of .03%. A permanent marker was established at the AEP baseline intersection (i.e. of UTMG 735,160 meters East and 3,358,000 meters North - see JORDAN 1:50,000, Edition 1, Sheet Petra, 3050 1, Series K 737, 36 R YU) for future survey reference on the site.

1. Consisting of the senior staff, Mr. Raffiq Sarraf and Mr. Yusuf Alamy representing the De- partment, and fourteen students from the University of Utah, California State College at Sonoma, the University of New Mexico, and Brigham Young University. The work of the Expedition was assisted by a grant from the Research Grants Committee of the University of Utah and by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan.

39