This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Research, No. 214 (Apr., 1974), pp. 25-39 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1356102 Accessed: 12/10/2010 08:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may 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 at http://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 printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact email@example.com.
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.
232f. Lorraine.3and republished H. by H.)24These data fall into two distinguishable centuryC. TCL III F. Paris. with the following exceptions: Borger. Rome. Smith in IIIR 9.two datable Islamiccoins 1342-45 and 1389-90). Borger. Assoc.4 The outstandingand characteristic featureof both fragmentsis the specific lit- ent that they comprisepartsof one and the samedocument. who read this article in manuscript and made numerous useful suggestions throughout. Sargon . Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons. Die Keilinschrifttexte Tiglat Pilesers III. Sargon. Winckler. Tadmor. Rost. 2.minted at Nancy early in his reign (1545-1608 C. Borger. III. The Annals of Sennacherib. 1898).P. 3.Duke of Calabria. Thureau-Dangin.its two fragments kings: having the reall style. describing. 18-20: 103-119. became appar- 25 .19. I must thank Prof. Chicago. 25. Tadmor. 148 and p. Rost.E.E. H. Tigl. Azriyau of Yaudi.C. five Roman coins of the early 4th century.-4th Whetherthis can be taken to indicateperiodsof habitationis quite another question. the ceramic evidence for MIII clearly places the Arabic occupation there in the 8th and 9th centuries C. Tadmorwho treated its by that it be ascribedto the days literaryand historicalaspects in detail..2The secondfragment(BM82-3-23.and (2) the Islamicperiod. SENNACHERIB'S "LETTER TO GOD" ON HIS CAMPAIGN TO JUDAH NADAV NA'AMAN Thedocument dealtwithin the present split paperlhashada somewhat perto beenascribed two different till sonality now. Winckler. 1974 GordianIII (238-44) or Elagabalus (218-22). Une relation de la buitieme campagne de Sargon. Altorientalische Forschungen II (Leipzig. it of of quently. 4. Tadmor. pp. 1889.Number214 April. The abbreviations used herein are according to R. Azriyau . suggesting of SargonII. 1912. 1893. R. Borger. in the days of Tiglath-pileser III.an examination photographs the two fragments.7.R. 131-156. Luckenbill. spansof time: (1) the 1st centuryB.E. D. So J.C. 2 and has since been associatedwith the episode of Azriauking of Yaudi. in transcriptiononly.Burgundyand Guelders. Leipzig. 24. Curator of Medieval Coins. who cites de Saulcy. 7. Winckler. II . Brady. I am also most grateful to Prof. Tadmor for his advice concerning the problems dealt with in this paper.as I shall attempt to demonstratebelow. Tigl. one Islamiccoin that appearsto be Mamluk. four otherwiseunidentifiableIslamiccoins and one coin of Charles. BAL . III . Sennacherib's campaignto Judahin 701 B. p. 570-574. Winckler. Babylonisch-assyrische Lesesti~cke. The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur JCS 12 (1958).unique erary among the documents concerning Syro-Palestinian the for stylewasthe pointof departure associating two fraggion.131) wasfirst edited. The American Numismatic Society. 22f.D. 80-84. 1963.H. 1. Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961). Recherches sur les monnaies des ducs hereditaires de Lorraine. D.H.E. OIP. Sargon H. As the excavators have already noted.25 The latest coins were very likely droppedby religiouspilgrimswho undoubtedly beganvisitingthis site in the MiddleAges. 1924. Leipzig. Througha comparisonof the transcriptions and. subse- One piece (K 6205) was first publishedin cuneiformby G. Rost.Thispeculiar ments as one document. Tadmor. H. Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur (Berlin. Tadmor. 1967).
Translation: (1) . marched.... the tribute of the ki[ngs of Philistia? I received . ] xxxxx [ ....... Anshar.. qe-reb-•..... ] mu-sa-[i ? dUTU-.A (18) [... Tadmor. (11) [URUGN URU] LUGAL-ti la KUR Pi-liw-ta-a-asa [m] [Ha] -[za-qi-j] a-a-u a e-ki-mu fi-dan-ni-nu-ufi-ma[... .it-qa-at ina e-t [u] -ti 'it-ku-nu-ma e-kil la na-pi-ih-ui (15) [ .[u-di lu al-lik ina] me-ti-iq KASKALII-ja man-da-at-tu LU[GALME KUR.. GU4MES u se] -e-ni ul-tu [Qi qer-bi-•is am-nu.....AN?. (7) [diiruanisu]dun!-nu-nu-ma vit-nu-nu KUR-e zaq-ru-ti a-na ni-[til] IGIII.B[AR?ME] S?la ni-bi ana. H.. The transcription given is based on photographs of the two fragments. .SI KUR-e a-kin GIM zi-qip GIR. (21) [ .............. (9) ANSE. my lord. AN. the British Museum....e-sa-am-ma] [. ] en E. (12) [ ]Iha? xxx [ .... (2) .. 5. (4) [.MES ki-i •i ul-tu AN-e [ .. Transcription (1) .• u] m-ma-na-at KUR MAR.. .al1 -[la-ti.i (16) [.SiR ti EN-ja na-gu-u mHa-za-qi-j] a-a-u KUR [sa.....um-ru-sa-at [. .RAMES-jae-mu-ru-ma ri-gim um-na(read ma)-nat [. (6) [ ] se-er SU. l (3) [. -[... (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 ........ ... . .[ba-si-un ..... made available to me by Prof.fril ?-i' GALMES GIM kar-pat (19) [ [ .. .. (2) [. (14) [. AN-e 'a-qu-uSUR [. (20) [..iu AMES-. In] the course of my campaign.. SID [.. I GIMGISgap-ni [ .KU] R. (5) [ .. I am indebted to Prof. 1] e-'-u-te ME u-'e-rib (17) [. d-ia-az-bil-'u-nu-ti-m [a .. Shaffer for kindly collating for me the original tablet which is in the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities... ina da-n] a?-ni ia AN.. 1). ...... A. ] x se-ru-us-si-un ina 7-~li x [ xx ]. A[N] .. 26 .....GAL GIM KUR-e pa-nu-u-sii-u [n] ed-let-ma .SA R gap-wsa-te (10) [URUA-za-qa-a al-me] KUR-ud is-lu-la sal-lat-su ap-pul aq-qur [ina dGira aqmu ..... Ja-u-da-a-a GIM [ ...TUki DU-sii-un SA[HARJ] I. -ma-a-ti GALMES u-tas!-bu!-u[r!-m] a di?] (13) [ [.5 fitted together (Fig.. ] URUA-za-qa-a E tuk-la-te-v ina bi-ri [t mi-i] s-ri-jau KUR .Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research The two fragments are presented here. pi -i-us ina qul-mi-i na-kis ha-ri-su i-te-[a?] -pil-ma ka-x[. GISTUKULMI E-ui ui-ra-kisa-n[a epes . encourag] ed me and against the land of Ju[dah I (3) [. along with a transcription and translation.. is-mu-ma ip-lih lib.i Ja-u-di [.SAR b-eliu-tak-kil-a] n-ni-ma a-na KUR Ja. .. .. ambur ..
which is between my [bo] rder and the land of Judah [ . (5) [... ] surrounded with great [to] wers and exceedingly difficult [its ascent? . I destroyed...' fir-44:1 ir '?-t -44 .. . with the attack by foot soldiers (using) mi[nes... On a.. breeches .Number 214 April...... as if from the sky [appears its head? ..... (7) [its walls] were strong and rivaled the highest mountains. (10) [the city Azekah I besieged. (9) [..... the province of [Hezek] iah of Judah like [. like pointed iron? daggers without number reaching high to heaven [. [I burned with fire . to the (mere) sight.. 27 . .] I captured.. .. (12) [ ] like a tree [standing out on a ridge? . tit Af -A" 44 Ap 4W 4r '.. which H [ezek] iah had captured and strengthened for himself [. 1974 .... 4i MS/PM/OBJ......... .. .. (6) [like the nest of the eagle?] located on a mountain ridge. his stronghold. my lord........ with the mig] ht? of Anshar... No... .. I carried off its spoil. I devastated... A u s m [. (8) [by means of beaten (earth) ra] mps. ] 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 [. mighty? battering rams brought near.. (11) [the city of Gath?] a royal [city] of the Philistines......u (4) [. ] the city of Azekah... 4 ....... . (13) [ ..
67: 7-8).11-20. relates the conquest of a city in Philistia.. 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. At this point.3-10.ina birit misrija u mat Jaudi .. appears in the Rassam Cylinder of Sennacherib.. Line 8: Before the break in the middle of the line appear the signs DA AN SI UD. 239). their warriors] (17) [. weapons he bound (on them) to [offer battle ... Borger: BAL II..Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research like a mountain was barred in front of them and high is (14) [. Line 6: At the start of the line we might possibly restore kima qinni ern... to carry earth (19) [ ] against them.. The first part 11. (21) .. Line 5: It was this line which led fragment K 6205 to be associated with the Azriau episode. (18) [ . Our correction of the signs SI+UD as NIM is based on the expression ina alibi danni appearing in the Annals of Sargon (Lie. 7)..the war against Hezekiah king of Judah..... pot [of clay? I smashed? . I The inscription can be divided into two parts. Line 12: At the end of the line...... in spite of the obvious difficulty that the spelling Jaudi wouldbe an incorrect form of the gentilic. (16) [. which Hezekiah had previously annexed to his kingdom. rhetorically and exaggerating.BAR. we might possibly restore "like a tree [standing out on a ridge] " (on the basis of TCL 3..... 144-145). Cf.. Rost copied here [I] z-ri-ja-u mit Ja-u-di. we might restore alaktu. possibly because it was the more important of the two. both concerning a single episode . The description is more detailed than that concerning Azekah. the combination of which does not have a meaning. its [mou] th was cut with axes and a moat was dug around it [ . its waters were situated in darkness and [its?] overflow [ .of course removes this difficulty and removes Azriau altogether from the picture.. and the continuation on the reverse is not preserved.. Lines 4 and 11: The spelling Ha-za-qi-ja-a-uappears also in the version of Sennacherib's Annals (OIP II.. At the end of the line.. ] I caused the warriors of Amurru. Sargon 8:63).. the strength of a city in Philistia which had been annexed to Judah. whereas the second part 11.. 69.. without the plural.. the obverse is broken off. ] palace [its top? . ] skillful in battle he caused to enter into it.. In the seventh time his [ . The spelling GIR (MES) AN. (15) [ ] it was dark and the sun never shone on it. Lines 12-16 describe.. for on the basis of the structure of the document we have here the description of the city from afar (see also below). all of them.. spo[il . "like the nest of the eagle on 1he basis of the Annals of Sennacherib (OIP II. (OIP II.. . Line 2: The restorations in this line are based on comparisons with Sennacherib's inscriptions.. The suggested reading for this line . 28 . n..-.. describes the conquest of the town of Azekah. 26: 65-68. 36:77). cattle and she] ep I carried out from its midst [and counted as] (20) [ . 76.. 39: 5455. ] the great like a . where the same formulae appear...
0lo These specific expressions are treated below in the same order as they appear in the text. Line 17: Among the preparations for the siege. Also noteworthy is the structure of line 9: .. J. 1961). to the days of Sennacherib his son. Line 15: An authentic description of a water tunnel . 13-17). Bauer. See Tadmor.. upon comparison of its two parts. C. 82.one of the most typical features of Palestinian archaeology in the period of the Israelite monarchies. JNES 19 (1960).. H.C. All this points to fine. Line 18: Auxiliary forces of the vassal kings take part in the siege operations. the sign 'al appears in its entirety. etc. 14-15). D. 11). 219 f.9. 7. muru-ma zuma. Lines 18-20 describe the siege and conquest of the city. and the developed literary structure.). still extant today.6. ZA 40 (1931). 6-7. 1. finally. Sargon. 11. Hezekiah brought troops within the city. 1911). 1967). 172 f. then each is described from afar (11. L. 12). 133 f. Such a structure is evident in the present text.) from that of Sennacherib to Palestine (701 B. together with their parallels in the version of Sennacherib's Annals: 11 Ai~ur beli utakkilannima ana ma•tGN lu allik 6. n. is the tunnel hewn by Hezekiah in Jerusalem (2 Kings 20: 20). 29 . Hazor (London. D.. 8. ism descriptions unparallelled in known Akkadian literature (11. B. A. 18-20). these are clearly literary cliches transferred from mountainous regions.7 Line 16: The subject of this sentence is not clear. differing from the dry. 28:21. each place is identified (11. Y. See the note to line 2 of our text. Yadin. The WaterSystem of Gibeon (Philadelphia. 33:26. Luckenbill. by a description of the fighting and conquest (11. after which details of the fortifications and means of defence are given (11.6 The inclusion of the water-source within the fortifications enabled the besieged to hold out for a very lengthy time. monotonous style of the Annals."8 The external traits of such documents are the fine literary style. T.5. II On the basis of its style. Note that only little more than a decade separates Sargon's eighth campaign (714 B. stylistically and in lexicon. Vincent. H. probably because he was not sure of the loyalties of the Philistine inhabitants of the city.C. 10. 27:75-76. 250. Oppenheim. well-planned writing on a very high standard.Number 214 April. 9. Pritchard. followed. as well as several . It should be noted that part of the descriptions do not at all suit the landscape of the Shephelah in Palestine.8-10.9 But a considerable number of expressions would bring us down beyond the time of Sargon. Line 20: In the cuneiform published by G. and bibliography there. There is no doubt that.7.. Firstly. A famous example of such an installation. 1974 Line 14: The scribe seems to depict the palace jutting out from the fortifications on one flank of the city. AJSL 41 (1924/5). . Jerusalem sous Terre (London. contemporaneous with the present document. 161 f. iplab libbasun. Tadmor assigned the "Azekah inscription" to the type scholars refer to as "Letters to God. whereas today only the upper part is visible. This line is restored on the basis of many of Sennacherib's inscriptions in which this expression recurs (OIP II. 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. this text is especially close to the "Letter to God" describing the campaign of Sargon II to Urartu in 714 B. Smith (IIIR.).. 2).
The expression ina meteq gerrija as an opening of a new paragraph."regnal year. ina meteq gerrija12 bit tuklhti13 ina ukbus aramme qurrubu/qitrub fup? mithus zik epe-pilgi. OIP II. 177: 54. It is difficult to assume that this refers to the campaign in 712 B. 63: 10-11. A common expression in Sennacherib's inscriptions. The central positioning of Judah here would suit a campaign by Sennacherib. Geographie de la Palestine II (Paris. OIP II. bit tukldti.. (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.v. . 19. such a campaign is quite prominent in all of Sennacherib's inscriptions. 236 f."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. Sargon 44: 275. mitequ).v. 132: 68) is similar to the one occurring in our text.. Alt. Borger. Thus. "campaign of war. but not one by Sargon. s. pl. M. "in the seventh time. Iraq 16 . 31: 68. 14. was among the kings sum- 30 . . There is one occurence where it seems to appear in the inscriptions of Sargon (C. this term came to replace the conventional palf^. J. 15. s. at which time the king of Ashdod. such an annexation would appear as if long done.and indeed this would seem to hint at the date of our text as well. Abel. the invasion of Judah taking place only later. XLVI). The appearance of the expression ina mjteq gerrija in Sennacherib's inscriptions stems. his place at the head of the army being taken by "Tartan. Kleine Schriften II (Munich.C. only the combination maitAmurri appears and always as a geographical name. (a) In all of Sargon's inscriptions.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. BAL I. 32-33: 21-23.C. Tadmor. at the start of which Ashdod was conquered and annexed. Sargon." Azekah .Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 12.C. It is much simpler to assume that the text refers to Sennacherib's campaign of 701 B. 18. whereas in the inscriptions of Sargon. for it is surely doubtful that..is on the latitude of Ashdod." appearing in Sennacherib's account of his campaign to Palestine (OIP II. Another similarity can be seen in adi 4-gu. See Lie. 1938)..C. 30: 59). 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. 39: 58). whose territory had been annexed by the Assyrians already in the days of Sargon. but in a different meaning. 69: 19. 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.AHw 649b. The expression ana meteq gerrija appears once in the Annals of Sargon." in our text. A. 31 f. 76 f. no mention is ever made of a campaign against Judah. in the description of that very same campaign. as compared to ina 7-4u. 1953).. but according to the cuneiform (ibid. For the reasons behind the use of the term gerru in Sennacherib's inscriptions. "fourfold. 30: 58. See the note to line 20. Several other factors strengthen our ascribing this tablet to Sennacherib rather than Sargon. Sargon. and such texts were composed for only the most outstanding of the campaigns conducted by the king. (b) Sargon himself apparently did not participate in the campaign to Philistia in 712 B. Gadd. see Tadmor.Tell Zakariye in Judahl9 . 85." used by the earlier kings. 25: 54. In contrast. 13.17 . 17. in my opinion. we should read i-na me-ti-iq h[a!-ar-ra-ni-ja]. 30: 45. from the term gerru. LI. F." used in his inscriptions to denote his successive campaigns.appears only at the beginning of Sennacherib's reign and is common in his inscriptions (OIP II. In Sennacherib's inscriptions the expression sarrani mat Amurri kalilun (OIP II. 16.C.
which has not been preserved.). Only Sargon's "Letter to God" was found at the city of Ashur (B. whereas all the others were found at Kuyunjik.25 We can perhaps also assume that it was composed in order to magnify and glorify the god Ashur. 25. and see Tadmor.24 Thus. and . 288. as can be inferred from the version in the Annals. Barnett. it could not be from the time of Sennacherib. which seems to have been a doubtful success as far as the Assyrians were concerned. and would omit other facets or describe them only in passing. or both of the documents may have been composed quite independently. which might corroborate the assumption that our literary text served as the example. 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. Meissner. Sennacherib. ZA 34 . for instance. Sargon. D.21 In our opinion. The fact that we have only a single "Letter to God" from several Assyrian kings (Shalmaneser IV. on the one hand. probably in Ashurbanipal's library. and apparently also its continuation. (e) The portion of the campaign described in our text.22 The "Letter to God" may have served as the source for the shorter version in the Annals. Tadmor. ANET. We must further remember that the "Letter to God" was meant to be read before the god Ashur. are described more briefly in the version of Sennacherib's Annals. 32-33: 18-23. OIP II. 22. 82. for in all the other historical texts only the usual spelling Ags'urappears. the regular historical texts should not be applied to the problem of spelling in our text and.Number214 April. ARAB II. and on the other hand. Several typical expressions are common to our text and to the Annals version of Sennacherib. 20. 24. Eretz-Israel 5 (1959). so the argument runs.C. is not at all mentioned in the Annals version. even if a certain difficulty does remain. (d) The dating of the "Azekah inscription" to the days of Sargon is based principally on the specific spelling of the name of the god Ashur. however. 340. thus possibly alluding to the interdependence of the two. 31 . Since the "Azekah inscription" is an historical text. 159-160 (Hebrew). which appears as Aniar. from the Bible and from Sennacherib's reliefs (R. to explain and give an excuse for the events of the campaign to Judah.20 According to this argument. 21.besides Jerusalem . 30: 54). 23. Thus. and it is quite likely that our text was even originally written there and copied by the scribes of Ashurbanipal or simply transferred from Ashur to Nineveh during the building up of the library there. 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. 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. Against this we must note first the special character of our text. The survival of one example only for each king is most probably coincidental. whose main temple was in the city of Ashur. Scholars have already noted that the Annals version is of an unusual literary quality. differing considerably from all other of Sennacherib's historical texts. 113 f. it definitely is not so serious as to cancel out the cumulative weight of the other evidence for the dating of the document to the time of Sennacherib. it is known that Lachish was conquered during Sennacherib's campaign to Judah. IEJ 8 . in spite of its having been the second city of the realm.). the same spelling does occur in the documents of Sennacherib. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal) does not necessarily point to the custom of a king writing only one such "Letter" during his reign.no city in Judah is mentioned there by name. 1974 moned before Sennacherib near Tyre (OIP II. Lachish. 161 f. Sargon II.23 It is clear that a redacted summary or brief report would emphasize specific facets of the campaign.
I suggest restoring the line as follows: a-na tap!?-[pu?-ut? LUGALME S1] a KUR GN KUR with ana tappilt serving as an adverbial complement in the GN2. The translation above is based on a photograph of the prism. therefore. Kleine Scbriften II (Munich. I have adopted here the dates of 727-698 B.33 Ashdod was annexed by Assyria (as possibly 32 . Tadmor. and the same fate befell nearby Ekron. 32. show that Judah had at most a secondary role in this revolt.26-27. Winckler. But according to all the Assyrian sources. 243). It is thus clear that the only verbs in this passage occur at its end. 27. above. 38. 83. this sentence.. We shall try to review here briefly the known factors on those relations.. in line 25 some four signs are missing. The subject of sentence. Considering the lacuna. n. 86 f. in 11. See n. 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 Assyrian campaign along the Philistine coast. 30. n. in connection with the revolt of Ashdod which began in 713 B." Hezekiah appears in this description as one of the initiators of alliance with Egypt. BAr 29 (1966). Tadmor. a prince who could not save them. Tadmor in assigning the conquest of Gibbethon and Ekron... 146. and that the subject was also in the plural. some two signs. 31. 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. ARAB II. whose principal towns were conquered. H.C. Ed [om and] Moab. Sargon is termed "the subduer of the land of Judah which lies far away.C.C. appearing in the reliefs from Dur-Sharrukin. Sargon I. and the continuation is entirely complete. 82 f. against Babylonia III The transfer of the "Azekah inscription" to the days of Sennacherib somewhat changes the balance of evidence on the relationship of Judah with Assyria in the days of Sargon. to set (him) at enmity with me."27 This appellation undoubtedly refers to the insurrection of 720 B.. Judah is mentioned a second time in one of Sargon's inscriptions.to 712 B.. It is difficult to suppose that Sargon was able to do much in Philistia in 720 B. who dwell by the sea. the campaign of 712 B. 226 f..C.ANET. they sent evil words and unseemly speeches31 (with) their presents to Pharaoh king of Egypt.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 26.C. and the main sufferer in the campaign was Ashdod. would be the ruler of Ashdod and the rulers of other lands mentioned in line 26. Hezekiah may have supported this alliance as well. for the reign of Hezekiah. 29.. Sargon. Sargon I. see A. Winckler. during which year he fought both and in the west. in conspiracy with the several lands neighboring Judah.C. Judah.26 In an inscription written around 717 B. we should read in line 29: da-bab sa-ar-ra-a-ti at!-me-e nu-ul1-la-a-ti. 287. it is impossible to translate the passage as if the ruler of Ashdod were the subject of the sentence. in the light of the Egyptian hesitancy to take an active part in the conspiracy against Assyria. Below is the passage mentioning Judah in this connection:29 "Togeth [er with? the kings] 30 of Philistia. 28. 188: 28-36. 1953).C.. We can follow H. Tadmor. and asked him for (military) aid. in which Gaza and Samaria also took part. Alt. at which time Sargon prevailed over an alliance of states headed by Hamath. 33. kindly made available to me by Prof. Sargon. 188: "28-36". 195.. According to the photograph. Tadmor. According to the photograph.C. 27. payers of tribute and gifts to Ashur my lord.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. I doubt whether the alliance mentioned above ever crystallized. Sargon. (Tadmor. in the plural. was directed against Ashdod alone.32 It can be assumed that all the rulers mentioned hastened to submit to Assyria immediately upon the appearance of Assyrian troops in Philistia.. For summary articles on Philistia in the days of Sargon. Thus.
The key to this problem would seem to lie in the Assyrian policy in Philistia. see Landsberger. The rulers of the Delta refused him aid and he even wandered to Nubia in search of support. who initiated the plan. 64 f. 1963]. op. 97. 23 f. 1956].34 though for unknown reasons the local dynasty was left in power. 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. Gurgum and Que). H. still ruled in 716 B. the southernmost borderpoint of Philistia. (cf.. (cf. 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. last of the rulers of the Twenty-third dynasty at Tanis. but failed in Til-Garimmu (E. 81 f. All the western Anatolianprovinces(Tabal.C. Only after the quelling of the rebellion in Babylonia in 689 was Sennacherib free to deal with Anatolia without hindrance from behind.. Bings. AUSS 4 . 286-289). BASOR 141 [Feb. whoever rules Philistia rules the approaches to Egypt (from el-Arish. ARAB II. however. following which rebellion broke out simultaneously in Babylonia. the ruler of Nubia. 87 f. S. (b) Osorkon IV.. 81 f. Albright. to the Pelusian branch of the Nile. 212-215. and until his death it remained subservient to Assyria. 1920]. Sargon. was killed before he could carry it out.C..).). The data indicate that till 711/710 B. Anatolia36 and on the border of Egypt. Alt. His son Sennacherib had a different policy. W. and it was tangent upon Judah on the north and on the west. A.C.Number214 April. cit. Sam'al [Ankara... BASOR 130 [Apr.). 239 f. 37. cit.C.C.37 We should attempt to ascertain the reasons behind this change in policy. in his desire to preserve peaceful relations with Assyria. and thus Ashdod remained an isolated province surrounded by vassal states. Only in 696 B. and in these years he consolidated his hold in the eastern provinces (Melid. Only by annexing Ekron could Assyria gain territorial continuity between Gezer (the southernmost border-point of the kingdom of Israel. some ten years after the outbreak. A. The weak point in this theory is that if such a plan had existed.35 The border of the Assyrian Empire was thus moved twice in the days of Sargon.C.) 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. Shortly afterward. but Sargon. Ann Arbor. Sargon seems to have been killed during his campaign against Tabal (see most recently Tadmor. in an attempt to regain control over the Assyrian territories there. He succeeded in Que.C. J. nn. Die Provinzeinteilung [Leipzig. why did the Assyrians rush to annex a somewhat removed territory as Ashdod prior to more adjacent areas such as Ekron. (?? 286-292). once in 720 and again in 712 B... H. For a detailed discussion. Yamani the ruler of Ashdod fled to Egypt after failing in his rebellion.. Kummuh. Goedicke. 1970 (Diss. 240 f. which had been annexed by Assyria in 720 B. 36..C.) and the kingdom of Ashdod. turned the rebellious vassal over to the Assyrians (Tadmor. nn. pp.).. the Nubian dynasty gained control over all Egypt and subjugated the local princes (Albright. and even Egypt took an active role in the impending struggle. which lies on the main route from the north to Egypt. 19481.Hilakkuand TilGarimmu) were lost forever. This about-face in Egyptian policy towards 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. The kingdom of Judah appears not to have suffered in the days of Sargon. 79 f. and upon his death many of the Assyrian provinces in Anatolia rebelled. 311-313). 1 f. 34. Forrer. when they had been conquered at the very same time? 35. F. thus. BASOR 171 [Oct.C. about in 711/710 B. The opportunity to throw off the Assyrian yoke came upon the death of Sargon on the battlefield in 705 B. A History of Cilicia during the Assyrian Period. 1974 was Ekron).. The extent of the rebellion is indicated by the fact that even such a central province as Que was among the rebels (ARAB II.. did Sennacherib conduct his first campaign into Anatolia. 33 . is about 150 kilometres!). Alt (op. and the bibliography there. (c) In 712 B..C. But the border with the Assyrian provinces and the proximity of Assyrian rule obviously presented a continual pressure on Judah. 1953].). D. now annexed. 83). Sargon. ibid. Landsberger. Horn. 4 f. the northern border of ancient Egypt.
40 from there he proceeded to Ekron. The first to be mentioned is Azekah (modem Tell Zakariye). expressed in the open support given by Egypt to the rebellious movement against Assyria. We do not know who the ruler or rulers paying tribute to Assyria at the beginning of the text were (line 3).Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research The Assyrian hold in Philistia gradually grew. for this tribute was paid when Sennacherib was still near Tyre. The second city is denoted "a royal [city] of the Philistines" which Hezekiah had taken and fortified for his own purposes. I do not think this refers to the tribute of "all the kings of the land of Amurru". 19. The detailed description of the city is indicative of its importance. and he now stood at the head of an alliance supported by Egypt. in whose land Sennacherib had encamped on his way to Judah. See the discussion in the final section of this paper.42 at the mouth of the Vale of Elah on the route connecting Lachish and Beth-shemesh. After the fall of Philistia. the factors behind Hezekiah's revolt. This discussion leads us to conclude that only at the end of his reign did Hezekiah openly oppose Assyria. London. 40. which pursued a more cautious course in its dealings with Assyria. 30: 50-60). meeting an Egyptian force at Eltekeh on the way. which was entirely surrounded by Assyrian provincial territory. only two would suit the present case: Ekron and Gath of the Philistines. Hezekiah abandoned the traditional Judean policy. To this we may add the Egyptian attitude regarding Philistia as within her sphere of influence from earliest times. Sennacherib turned toward Judah. See also the notes to 11. 34 .43 Among the eastern towns of Philistia. 41. above.41 In our document there is a quite detailed description of the conquest of two cities belonging to Hezekiah.39 Analysis of the Annals version reveals that Sennacherib's campaign to Palestine was conducted as follows: at first the king conquered the Ascalonite enclave at Jaffa. 42. he previously having purposely avoided any direct conflict. Fear of Philistia becoming a springboard for an attack on Egypt. 39. in turn. 1967.12-16. S. by force. which had been surrounded by Assyrian territory . Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis. See n. 43. and it is difficult to conceive that such a detailed document as ours should skip over the entire first part of the campaign. mentioned in the Annals (OIP II. 38. for the campaign itself has been dealt with extensively in a long list of papers and books dealing specifically with it. Thus. and it is at this point in the campaign we can place our text. We should note the detailed description devoted to this region. reaching a peak with the annexation of Ashdod by Sargon which was undoubtedly interpreted in Egypt as a threat to Egyptian territory. the conquest of Philistia resulted in the surrender of the rebellious cities and the placing of rulers loyal to Assyria on the local thrones . and it is possible that Sennacherib conquered the Jaffa enclave. and the kings of Philistia may be intended. Childs. at Ekron he took the city without a seige and at about the same time Ascalon surrendered to him.without the more important cities having been harmed in any actual manner. intending to annex it to one of the adjacent administrative units. and the ambition of again seizing a bridgehead in Asia led to the crystallization of this new Egyptian policy.38 IV It remains to ascertain where our new document fits into the scheme of Sennacherib's campaign. B. At this point. The rebellion throughout the Assyrian Empire and the definite Egyptian support are. and bibliography there.
If it is proper to ascribe these sealings to the reign of Hezekiah (cf. S. 47.48 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 encountered by Sennacherib during his campaign there.). Albright. Tell es-Safi was excavated early in modern archaeological research (F. dedicated to Panammuwa his father (H. A similar difficulty exists concerning the Annals version describing Sennacherib's campaign to Palestine. is also revealed: These troops are probably to be identified with the payers of tribute to Sennacherib at the beginning of his campaign. In Ashurbanipal's campaign to Egypt.. Aharoni. and Azekah fell first. Ekron is generally identified with Tell Muqanna'. A. Bliss & R. 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. vassal kings from Syria and Palestine also participated (ARAB II. then this might be direct evidence that Gath of the Philistines had been taken into the administrative framework of Judah in that period. Excavations in Palestine. Kanaaniische und Aramiiische Inschriften [Wiesbaden. Y. Rainey. 1970]. leading to its being mentioned first in the description. with bibliography there). We may also mention several lamelekh seal-impressions of the four-winged type (only) found at this same site (ibid. Sennacherib even annexed western border regions of Judah. The Land of The Bible [London. transferring them to four Philistine cities. Among the finds (not in situ) were five fragments of a small Assyrian limestone relief (Bliss & Macalister. Naveh. between the two principal centers of Jerusalem and Lachish. in contrast. An additional interesting detail concerning the "warriors of Amurru" (line 18).. 30: 50-56). lying on a high hill (which would suit my restoration in line 12) and would thus have required a water installation (line 15). 2-3. AASOR 2-3  15). 431 f. J. Donner & W.Number214 April. 876). J.46 Thus. 1898-1900. W. as mentioned in the Annals (OIP II. London. F. nor was Sennacherib forced to put it to a siege (according to the Annals) .and thus it does not suit the present case. Christian News from Israel 17 (1966).44 In contrast. The participationof vassalkings in Assyriancampaigns is also indicated in the stele inscription of Bar Rakib king of Sam'al.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. see E. 608-610 [Hebrew]. and thus its stratigraphy and the dates of the city walls (ascribed by the excavators to Rehoboam) remain vague. F. The pottery evidence points to a considerable settlement there in the Iron Age (for a recent summary. No. Fig. The sieges of these two cities may have begun at one and the same time. 45. Stern. No. Macalister. thus opening the route into the heart of the land. it undoubtedly was a large and well-fortified city in this period. 4. 107). 41. 46.C. 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. 214). indicating that there might have been an Assyrian palace there. R6llig. who took part in the siege operations alongside the Assyrians. 1967] . 1966]. 17. on a level plain. 23-34. 1902). 35 . The mention of Azekah before the Philistine city causes a difficulty. which was built after the destruction of the city during Sennacherib's campaign of 701 B. in The Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land [Jerusalem. we can suggest regarding Gath of the Philistines as the city denoted in our text. for Azekah is located east of Philistia. 48. Gath (identified with Tell es-Safi)45 is located not far from Azekah. ?? 770. At this time Judah was undoubtedly the strongest nation on the Assyrian-Egyptian frontier. 87-100). Nos. and thus it does not at all suit the description in the document (cf. 30-38. 1974 We know that Ekron had not been annexed to Judah by Hezekiah. he fought tooth-and-nail in Judah. op. IEJ 8 . and who apparently had been forced to send auxiliary units to accompany the Assyrian army. and thus cre44. cit. See the summary discussion and bibliography in A.
11. Thus.C. III. Tigi. and in line 131. 11. Tadmor. we have no source relating the background of the Assyrian campaign to Syria in 738 B.C.. in the light of the known facts. 11. Hatarikka and the northern coastal cities took part in this rebellion. In 740 B.82-101). 36 . (Or could there have been some agreement on the matter between the two rivals?) In any event. or on the actual war conducted in that same year between Assyria and the Syrian alliance. but it seems possible to identify further elements which joined in the rebellion. Smith (IIIR 9. as far as the passages are preserved. Azriyau. In doing so. According to the description of this episode in the Annals.C. we hear little more of the conflict between Assyria and Egypt till the days of Esarhaddon.132-133). does the name of the land of Azriau appear. In 739 B. 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. headed by rulers loyal to Assyria and thus to prevent the possibility of any one of them gaining sufficient power to lead the others against Assyria with Egyptian support.49 Perusal of this text shows that it describes only the final phase of the events of 738 B. in the variant spelling Az-ri-ja-a-i. according to which the border of Assyria remained along the Euphrates (on both banks). During this campaign. in reaction to which there was an Assyrian campaign to Syria. and the answer must be sought elsewhere.125-132) and the resulting exile of the population (Annals. and thus a lessening of the threat of an Assyrian invasion into Egypt proper. 20-24: 123-141. we are left with only one. but only the end of the events. Rost.C.. Tiglath-pileser III turned northward and conducted a campaign to Ulluba. in 738 B. It gives details of the territorial arrangements made by the king of Assyria in northern Syria following his victory (annexation of Hatarikka. This latter text of the version of the Annals of Tiglath-pileser III was published in cuneiform by G.C. Upon the annexation of Arpad and Unqi. Tiglath-pileser moved the border of his kingdom to the Mediterranean seaboard and included parts of North Syria within the framework of Assyrian territory. Thus the question of the identity of this person cannot be solved directly.C. and the long years of quiet on this border for the remainder of Sennacherib's reign are witness of the success of this policy. Tiglath-pileser III conquered the lands of Arpad and Unqi and annexed them to Assyria (Annals. Rost. and bibliography there.C. Tiglath-pileser III diverged from the policy upheld since the days of Shalmaneser III. This step may have been interpreted in Egypt as an Assyrian retreat from the region. The name Azriau appears in the fragment twice: in line 123. Nowhere in the text. 3) and was included in the Annals of this ruler published by P.. we should review briefly the background of the wars in Syria in 738 B. and the northern Mediterranean coast. the biblical Hadrach. a rebellion broke out in Syria. while the Syrian states held the status of vassals. His purpose is thus revealed as an attempt to create a series of states of equal strength on the AssyrianEgyptian border. Annals. Hence.Bulletinof the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch ated a new balance of power between Philistia and Judah. however. 49. in the spelling Az-ri-a-[u]. southwest of Urartu.
. during which the Assyrians conquered Kullania and Hatarikka (the northern part of the land of Hamath)..C. JNES 22 . is found in the Bible. as is so often the case with such names (Kullania appears in the documents with the determinatives KUR and URU. (d) In the list of Syrian cities to which Tiglath-pileser sent exiles in 738 B. The reasons behind the identifications of the two above places have not been noted previously. the capital of Unqi. see Astour. C. 51. n. Astour.92101). (c) Within the description of the annexation of Unqi in the Annals. there appears the entry "Kullani was conquered.Number214 April. as far as they can be related to known places. In contrast.52 37 . For the various citings and spellings of Kunalia and Kullania. ibid. this has been rejected by Gelb (AJSL 51 . Kullania (biblical Calneh) is identical with the city of Kunalia/Kinalua.. (and also suits the biblical form "Calneh"). after Qarne and Dani but before Arpad (ABL 372. 36. 206. explaining the appearance of this form in the Assyrian administrative documents (for a phonetic comparison of the spellings. 52. The prophet Amos is generally placed in the days of Jeroboam II (784-748 B. We may thus assume that Kullania was the capital of Unqi. 189 f. identical with the territory of the former kingdom of Unqi. 225). There.C. 11. and is extended to refer to the entire province. and after Simirra (ibid.). (b) It is known that Unqi was annexed to Assyria by Tiglath-pileser III (Annals.). and thus the prophet chose it as an example which would be familiar to all his audience. Parpola.C. giving its name to the entire Assyrian province. Neo-Assyrian Toponyms.C. CB1. there appears the formula "the city of Kinalia I reorganized. the city of Calneh is mentioned together with "Hamath the great" as an example and warning to Israel not to rely upon her strength against Assyria." which would be quite fitting if we identify this land with Unqi (see below. and this denotes the capital of the province. 213. we may assume that the new Assyrian province was not called by its old name. who distinguishes between the two names.."50 In our opinion. Amos was alluding to Tiglath-pileser's campaign to Syria in 738 B. and regards them as two different places. Forrer suggested regarding these two names as one city. It would seem that the conquest of these two cities echoed throughout the Syro-Palestinian region in this period. It can be assumed that the former is the formalistic-traditional spelling used by the scribes in the royal inscriptions. But Unqi does not appear in any Assyrian document later than its annexation. In our opinion. Kullania is thus the name of the Assyrian province. suit admirably the region of Unqi: The name appears between Samaria and Arpad (ADD 951). In the Eponym Chronicle for 738 B. the capital of the land of Unqi. see S. The Assyrian campaign in that same year is denoted in the Eponym icle as a campaign during which "Kullani was conquered. are these places listed here in a geographical order. Further indirect evidence for the fact that Kullania was the central aim of the Assyrian campaign of 738 B. In my opinion. below).C. RLA II. from south to north?). Thus. 225). (e) All the citings of Kullania in the Assyrian documents. 431. a site north of Arpad. in Amos 6:2.C.51 The fact that Kullania appears as the most important destination during the campaign indicates that the rebellion against Assyria broke out in the areas conquered and annexed by her in 740 B. 5 3). between Megiddo and Sam'al (ADD 952). the cities of ChronUnqi appear. alongside Arpad (ABL 43) and in a list of cities sending horses to Assyria. mentioned several times in the Annals of the Assyrian kings. and under this name it appears in the later Assyrian documents." this expression in the Assyrian inscriptions serves to denote the founding of a new provincial capital over the ruins of the former capital.C. 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. the name does appear. But the place-name Kunalia does not appear in any Assyrian document later than its annexation. the spelling Kullania appears only in economic and administrative documents and in letters. AOAT 6 (1970). but rather by some other name which should be sought by indirect means (see [c]. 1974 50. Kullania is identified by Gelb as Kullan-k6y. and this has been accepted by most scholars dealing with this period (an exception is M.). as well). whereas the latter spelling reflects the pronunciation of the name during the 8th and 7th centuries B. but in a slightly different spelling Kullania. conquered by Tiglath-pileser III and rebuilt as the Assyrian provincial capital.
143-150) corresponds with the territory of the allies who fought against Tiglath-pileser that same year. 54. 1971).55 Indeed. (b) Judah is mentioned only once in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser. Judah does not even appear in the list of payers of tribute in 738 B. it is apparent that in the war conducted in north Syria in 738 B. exiles were brought to them on a large scale (Annals. Amos (KAT) (Stuttgart. 95-96. In contrast. and never mentions or even hints that it was his great rival during the years of struggle over rule in Syria.53 From the data we have gathered here. Tadmor that the list of payers of tribute to Assyria.C. Had Judah stood at the head of a rebellion against Assyria in this year. 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 . Byblos and Israel .Bulletinof the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch The rebellion of the cities of Unqi can also be deduced from the fact that following the Assyrian campaign of 738 B.. It would seem that this late exile was the direct result of the rebellion of the cities of Unqi in 739 B. and certainly Judah would not have avoided payment of a tribute demanded even of states which did not participate in the alliance at all.all southern neighbors of the bloc of states which did rebel against Assyria in 738 B. We must agree with H. 266-267. appearing in the Annals following the exiles to Syria. clearly indicates that Assyria had no score to settle with Judah. The exiles to the cities of Unqi were part of the exiles by Tiglath-pileser to Syria in 738 B. 53. however. or whether the final date of Amos' prophetic activity is to be reconsidered. is later than Jeroboam.C. 219. against this. (c) Judah is mentioned early in Sargon's reign as a land "which lies far away" (see p. except for the essential identity of names. There is nothing to support such an identification. she surely would have been severely punished. The region to which the foreign population was sent (Annals. Rost.143-145) whereas Unqi had been annexed to Assyria two years earlier. according to the reconstruction presented here. following which Tiglath-pileser decided to break up the internal structure and the identity of this land by settling foreign populations in its cities. as did the northern coastal cities. (a) The entire episode takes place in northern Syria and there is no evidence that southern kings took any part in the events. Rudolph. and thus presents a problem as far as Amos' period of activity is concerned.54 This list includes such states as Hamath. did not join the alliance. much closer to the arena of the war. Tadmor.. 11. and bibliography there.the king of though scholars are divided as to the exact position within this reign. 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). Damascus. See most recently W. Even such states as Hamath and Damascus.C.C. there is no evidence that even one of the southern Syrian or Palestinian states participated. there are several weighty factors which shed considerable doubt on this identity.C. above). 55. 738 B. in a routine list of vassal states paying tribute to Assyria around 732 B.C. 11.C.C. and this is a further indication that it did not take any central role in the struggle against Assyria up to that time. Tigl. The fact that the king of Assyria mentions Judah only in a routine list from late in his reign. as some scholars have held. In any event. in my opinion. 32. 38 . It is against this background that we must review the question of the identity of Azriau of the text with Azariah king of Judah. 72: 11. III. the states of Unqi and Hatarikka took a part. and thus forestall the possibility of further disturbances. includes a list of states which did not participate in the alliance and who preferred to pay tribute. Azriyau.
at the site of ancient Petra The survey was conducted by the American Expedition to Petra. the University of New Mexico.e.000 meters North .1973 PHILIPC. including the years in which he was regent under his father Azariah/Uzziah. 1973. of UTMG 735. A permanent marker was established at the AEP baseline intersection (i. Olmstead.03%. T. 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. grids were surveyed with one or both instruments. W. like Yaubi'di. MAGNETOMETER/RESISTIVITY SURVEY AT PETRA. 3050 1. 36 R YU) for future survey reference on the site. he accepted the yoke of Assyria and was most cautious in his dealings with her. M. 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 . HAMMOND be conducted at an archaeological in the MiddleEast was successfullycomsite in Jordan. C. Completed June.900 square meters (ca. Consisting of the senior staff.C. This policy was also supported unflinchingly by Isaiah the prophet. Yacoub Oweis. a pitfall for the modern historian. Poe as co-directors. the identification of Azriau as a Syrian ruler strengthens the assumption. with Dr. WesternAsia in the Days of Sargon (New York. Grids were laid out on the basis of the UTMG system by transit survey to an estimated accuracy error of distribution and triangulation of .C. that there is a connection between the element Yau appearing in Syria and the theophoric element Yahu commonly found in Judah. Raffiq Sarraf and Mr. Seventy-one 30 m. Bennett and Dr. Yusuf Alamy representing the Department. O.: Ahaz kept to a steady line throughout his reign. and will do so till new. A. The identity of the northern Azriau remains without solution. The most extensive electronically instrumented sub-surface site survey yet to pleted during the period of June 4 to June 25. Mr. and Brigham Young University. As we have attempted to demonstrate above. and only in his final years did he change his policy and openly stand at the head of an alliance against Assyria. Philip C.358.?56 This separation of Azriau from Azariah frees us of a stumbling block to the understanding of the Judean policy towards Assyria in the second half of the eighth century B. n. Edition 1. 48.160 meters East and 3. x 30 m. and that the identity of names is incidental. JORDAN .Number214 April. the usurper at Hamath who stood at the head of the rebellion against Assyria in 720 B. 80% of the surveyable ancient city) completed. in with of the through assistance of the Director-General of Antiquities. H. California State College at Sonoma.should be regarded as two separate individuals. On the other hand. 1974 Judah .1 under the direction of Dr. Sheet Petra. and fourteen students from the University of Utah. cooperation the Department Antiquities.000. and bibliography there.see JORDAN 1:50. 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. Hezekiah continued the same line during most of his reign. 1908). with a total of 63. Cf. 56. Hammond. 12. upheld since the early days of Assyriology. 1973. Series K 737. relevant documents are found. Was he an Aramean of Hatarikka. Mr. 1.