vol. 40 iss. 1] Steven Grosby - Borders, Territory and Nationality (1997

Borders, Territory and Nationality in the Ancient Near East and Armenia Author(s): Steven Grosby

Source: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 40, No. 1 (1997), pp. 1- 29

Published by: BRILL

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3632306

Accessed: 18/05/2014 05:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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 [e-mail].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BORDERS, TERRITORYAND NATIONALITYIN THE ANCIENT

NEAR EAST AND ARMENIA

BY

STEVENGROSBY

(Villanova University)

Abstract

Examination of evidence from the ancient Near East spanning a period of more than a thousand years indicates the existence of conceptions of relatively precise boundaries,territories, and perhapsalso nations. Of course, the boundedterritorialrelation constitutiveof cer-

tain ancient collectivities was not based, in part,on a conception of citizenship derived from birth in the land as in many instances of the modern national state. Nonetheless, one is

justified in recognizing in antiquityinstances of a consciousness of a bounded, trans-localter- ritorial relation and, thus, perhapsnationality.The evidence for the existence of various con- ceptions of such relations constitutiveof respectivelyvarious collectivities in the ancient Near East is by no means limited to the complicatedexample of the nation of ancient Israel. There are a numberof other examples among which are Edom, ancientAram, and ancient Armenia. There is merit in considering the examples of Edom, Aram, and Armenia together, specifically in elucidating the problem of both the natureof our evidence and the categories, especially nationality, which we employ in examining that evidence.

Examination of evidence from the ancient Near East and Armenia, spanning a period of more than a thousandyears, indicatesthe existence of conceptions of relatively precise boundaries,territories,and perhapsalso nations.This evi- dence may not be sufficientenoughto put to rest the assumption,foundrepeat- edly throughoutthe social sciences, that in antiquitytherewere geographically imprecisefrontiersbut not boundedterritoriesand, further,thatnationalitywith its bounded,extendedterritoryis exclusively a modernphenomenon.It should,

be sufficient		to	a more nuanced	of
nevertheless,	enough		require	understanding

not only certain collectivities of antiquityand their respective territories,but modernnationalityas well.

The evidence for the existence of various conceptionsof boundedterritory constitutive of respectively various collectivities in antiquityis by no means limited to the well known, but complicatedexample of the nation of ancient Israel.')Thereare a numberof otherexamplesamongwhich are Edom,ancient

1) I gratefully acknowledge the comments of Klaas Veenhof in the preparationof this article, which is part of a series of articles examining conceptions of boundaries,territoryand nationality in antiquity.Regarding ancient Israel, see Grosby 1991; 1993a; 1993b.

? E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1997

JESHO40,1

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2 STEVEN GROSBY

Aram and ancientArmenia,the objects of our examinationhere. An examination of these threecollectivitiesposes pointblankboth the questionof whether

or not nationsexisted in the ancientNear East	the
	and, correspondingly,	prob-

lem of the applicationof the categoryof nationalityto these collectivities.An analysis of these three cases furtherremindsus that in reality the boundaries separatingthe categorieswhich we employ in our investigationsof variouscollectivities, both ancientand modem, are permeable.Rarely does a collectivity correspondwith exactitudeto a particularanalyticalcategory.This is true not only for the collectivitiesof antiquity,but for the modem nationalstate as well. A constitutivecharacteristicof nationality,ancientand modem, is the existence of a relativelyextensive,yet boundedand sociologicallyrelativelyhomo-

Thereare a numberof

constitutiveelementsto the

geneous territory.

apparently

existenceof such a

for

example,

as an indicationof its relativesocio-

territory,

a name commonto both the

and the

people

who

logical homogeneity,

territory

arerelated

the

for

example

"all

In

this

by inhabiting

territory,

Israel."2) addition,

conflationof the

image

of an

extensive,yet

boundedareaof land

terminological

andthe image of "its"peopleusuallyhas, as one of its elements,the fictionthat the people are relatedby blood-tie,the classic exampleof which is the putative lineage of Abraham-Isaac-Jacobfor ancientIsrael.

In contrastto the boundariesof a nation which are conceptuallyfixed or stable, those of an empire are in flux, being often a consequenceof the calculation as to whetheror not the increasedrevenuesgained from any further

territorialexpansion beyond the momentarilyestablished frontier would be

greater	than the	military	and administrative	for the	effort.3)
			expenses required

Such a flux underminesthe possibility for the consolidation over time of a stable, trans-localterritorialreferentin the mutualrecognition- that is, a ter-

ritorially	bounded,shared	which a	sociologically relatively
		tradition--through

homogeneous"people"is formed.To be sure, in antiquitysuch a territorially extensive, yet boundedmutualrecognitionor sharedtraditionwas not among legally equal citizens of the land as in the case of modernnationality;rather, insofar as it existed, it was more likely derivedfrom the commonworshipof the god of the landand subjectionto the king of the landwho, in turn,received the authorityto rule thatland andthe people of the God fromthatGod. In contrastto a nation,an empire'sabsenceof stableboundariesmeansthat its terri-

tory	and inhabitantsare	an	containswithin
		sociologicallyheterogeneous:	empire

it many differentpeoples and many differentterritories.

2)For an introductoryoverview of the terms "Israel"and "all Israel,"see Zobel 1977, pp. 397-420.

3)Lattimore 1979, p. 38. See also Tadmor 1975, pp. 37-8.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BORDERS,TERRITORYAND NATIONALITY

3

The territoriesof city-kingdoms,in contrastto those of nations,are of qualitatively delimitedarea: there is, for example, for city-kingdoms,no extended, boundedterritorialrelation of center to periphery,the latter consistingof any

numberof towns	which,	in the case of	are	relatedto
			nationality,	substantially

the territoriallyrelatively distant center. Thus, while there are numerousinstances in antiquityof the god of the royal house becominga god of the land, for the city-kingdom,the arealjurisdictionof the god of the land is thatof the city and its immediateenvirons,e.g. Pallas Athene of Athens. In contrastare

those instanceswhere the territorial	of the	god	is	decisively	trans-
jurisdiction

local, yet still bounded,for example,Horus-Seth(andlaterAmen-Re)of Egypt. How are we to understandthese latter,territoriallyextensive,yet boundedcollectivities?

The categorialnatureof our problemmay be furtherelucidatedby briefly contrastingthe apparentlydifferentterritorialconceptions found, on the one

hand,	in the	emergence	of the Greek	city-state	from	the ninth
						approximately

century B.C. with, on the other, those of the Assyrian empire of the eighth

century	B.C. It	may very	well be that the birthof the	based com-
				territorially

munity known as the polis was a consequenceof gatheringinto a single deci- sion-takingbody all the local basileis who had previouslybeen more or less independentof one another.4)This consolidationor territorialsolidaritymay

have been facilitatednot	but also	especially
	only throughmilitarysubjugation,

throughthe worshipof a commondeity,which, in turn,would have allowedthe emergenceof a boundedreligiousterritory.Indeed,for many of the Greekcitystates, the boundariesof theirrespectiveterritorieswere markedby nonurban sanctuaries.')In these instanceswe observea degreeof sociologicalhomogene- ity that Francoisde Polignac has suggestivelydescribedas a religious citizen-

such a	territorial		derived
ship. Nevertheless,	sociologicallyrelative,	homogeneity

from the comnmonworshipof the god of the land as distinctfrom the god of the royal house is not yet the problembeforeus; for in ancientGreece,the ter- ritorialjurisdictionof these gods were not trans-city-state,despitethe adumbration of complicating,quasi-nationaldevelopmentssuch as the existence of both

a	which		the otherwise				delimitedand hetero-
	pantheon	encompassed		territorially
geneous Greekcity-statesand the trans-city-statedesignationHellenes.
	In contrastto the delimitedterritorialdistinctivenessof the Greekcity-state
is the territorial			of an	empire,	for	example, Assyria during		the
	expansiveness
				with the			of	III.
eighth centuryB.C., especially beginning
							reign Tilgath-pileser

Nonetheless, despite Assyria's evident, opportunisticterritorialexpansion and

4)	For a recent treatmentof the problem, see de Polignac 1995, p. 58; 1994, pp. 3-18.
5)	de Polignac 1995, pp. 32-88.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4 STEVENGROSBY

contractionwhich is characteristicof an empire,there are here as well a number of complicationsfor our analysis;for example, there is evidence not only for the belief at variouspointsin Assyrianhistorythatthe land(of boththe city Ashurandthe empire)belongedto the god Ashur,but also for Assyrianconcep- tions of boundaries.Quite commonare such inscriptionsas "I [Tiglath-pileser

III]

him [Sarduriof Urartu]

to the

causeway

of the

the

pursued

up

Euphrates,

border

[misir]

of his

or "I

all of theirlands and

land,"6)

[SargonII] captured

brought

them within the bordersof

It is obvious

enough

that

many

Assyria."7

of the boundariesreferredto in such inscriptionsare those of a sociologically

heterogeneous,territoriallyexpandingand contractingempire.Nevertheless,one still wonders if there were a conceptionof a territoriallystable, hence socio-

logically relativelyhomogeneouscore to the empire.8)

Perhapsthese complicationsof both the Greek city-state and the Assyrian empire for our analysis only underscorethe permeabilityof our categories--

which, in turn,		a	and historical
complications	require		comparative	investigation

into those factorswhich facilitatethe existenceof therelativesociologicalhomogeneity of a bounded,trans-localterritorialrelationthatis suggestiveof nationality, for example, the ascendancyof the god of the land within a pantheon, or even monolatry.In any event, the intentionof the ensuing analysis is more

modest,being merelyto presentthe categorialproblemas representedby Edom, all Aram,and ancientArmenia.

Edomand Edomites

Our interestin Edom can not be a resultof an abundantamountof evidence which indicatesthe existenceof a nationof Edom,for the evidenceis muchtoo limited.9)Rather,our interestin a brief examinationof Edom is in laying the

groundworkfor certain approachesin evaluatingthe terminologicalevidence

to the determinationof the natureof othercollectivitiesof the ancient pertaining

Near East and antiquity,in particular"all Aram"and ancientArmenia.

6) CalahAnnal17,line11,Tadmor1994,p. 52. Fortheuseof misruas "border,""bor- derline," see CAD, vol. M, part II.

7) Luckenbillvol. II, 92. Note also the uses of tahtmu in both the Antakya Stele (Donbaz 1990, p. 7), lines 4-5, "the boundary [tahfimu] which Adad-nerari, king of Assyria, and Samsi-ilu, the commander in chief, established between Zakur of the land of Hamath and

Atarsumki, son of Adramu";and the Pazarcik Stele (Donbaz 1990, p. 9), "Boundarystone of Adad-nerari...," where a boundarystone was evidently used to settle a borderconflict.

8) So recently Machinist (1986, p. 186), "... one god, Ashur, remained the head of the

pantheon throughoutAssyrian history and that his name was identical with that of the state as a whole and the capital city as its core"; and similarly, Tadmor (1986, p. 205), "... in Assyria the unity of city, god and people was never broken..."

9) For an exhaustive analysis of this limited evidence, see Bartlett 1989.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BORDERS,TERRITORYAND NATIONALITY

5

From Egyptiansources and the HebrewBible, there can be little doubtthat

the term "Edom"	a trans-local		In the	AnastasiVI
designated		territory.		Papyrus

(end of the 13th century B.C.), there appearthe following lines, "We have finishedletting the Bedouin [shosu] tribesof Edom pass the Fortressof Mer- ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat...10)The term "Edom"here contains the determina-

tive		hill		thus			thatthe termrefersto a			geographical
	"foreign		country,"		indicating
	TheevidencefromtheHebrewBiblealso								thattheterm"Edom"
location.1")			for			in 1			suggests
	a						Kings	22:47 andJeremiah40:11 where
designated		territory,		example,

the locationalprepositionba, "in,"is prefixedto Edom.Moreover,such phrases as "on the edge of your [Edom's]border[territory,gebulkd]"(Numbers20:16)

and "at the border[gebul] of the land

of Edom"(Numbers20:23) indi-

cate

clearly

that Edomwas a territorial['er.s]

designation.

itself

to a

The existenceof a trans-localterritorial

points

problem

designation

in

the natureof the

particulardesignatedcollectivity.

The

category

determining

"tribe"or

are not

applicablecategoriesby

which such collec-

"city-kingdom"

ter-

tivities can be

for there

evidently

existed a

described,

trans-local/tribal/city

ritorialdesignation;nor obviously does the category "empire"suffice, for the

was delimited.	to this	of	classification,indeed,
territory	Corresponding	problem

confirmingit, are indicationsthattherewas a "people"who were designatedby the name of the territory.In the HebrewBible, we find numerousinstancesof the term "Edomite,"'d6mt (as distinct from "Edom,"'dam), for example, in

Deuteronomy23:7. Perhapsour classificatoryquandaryis best exemplifiedby 2 Samuel 8:14, "throughoutall Edom he [David] put garrisons,and all the

EdomitesbecameDavid's servants"	In	point	of	fact,	the Hebrew
(my emphasis).

termfor "all Edom"and "all the Edomites"is the same, kol-'d6m.In the first

instanceof "all	Edom,"	the	prepositionba,	"in"or	is	to
					"throughout," prefixed

Edom suggestinga geographicallocation.In the secondinstance,"all Edom"is modifiedby the masculinepluralof the word "servant,"thusjustifyingits translationnot as "all Edom"but as "Edomites."Justhow are we to understandthis

evident terminologicalconflationbetween a term designatinga territoryand a

term		a	The conflation		of	course,			characteristicof mod-
	designating "people"?			is,
em nationality;but what did it mean to be an Edomite?
Were the		of			the		god	of		Edom-Edomites?2)
		worshippers	Qaush--apparently

If the criterionfor being an Edomitewas the worshipof Qaush,was one also an Edomiteby a recognitionof the fact of birthand/orresidencein Edom?The evidence is lackingfor reachinga definitiveconclusion,althoughthe two crite- ria of worshippingQaushand residencein Edomwould convergeif Edomhad

10)ANET 1969, p. 259; Caminos 1954, pp. 293-94.

11)Bartlett 1989, p. 77.

12)See Vriezen 1965, pp. 330-53.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

6	STEVEN GROSBY
become a monolatrous	the late	eighth	and seventhcenturiesB.C.
society during

as had Judah(Israel)duringthe same period(if, in fact, that is what occurred in the period encompassingthe reigns of the Judaeankings Hezekiahand Josiah). We do know, however,from Assyriansourcesthatduringthis periodthe names of the kings of Edom containedthe divine name "Qaush,"for example, Qaushmalaka("Qaushhas become king,"from the reign of Tiglath-pileserIII, 744-27 B.C.,'3)Qaushgabri("Qaushis powerful,"fromthe reignof Esarhaddon, 680-69 B.C.14) Is this appearanceof Qaush as a prefix to the names of these

two Edomite	similarto the	of	of Yahweh
kings		increasingfrequency	appearance

as a prefix ("Ja,""Jo")to the names of the Judaeankings during the same period?")In any event, we have a graphicexampleof the developmentof monolatryin Herodotus'description(1.172) of the Cauniansof Asia Minor.Cer-

tainly	the	of	would have contributed		to an
		development	monolatry	decisively

increaseddegree of sociological uniformityof the territoryand its inhabitants such that we may speak of the existence of a nation. It would have done so

the creationof a		bounded			and	legal	code common
through	territorially		religion
to all who dwelledwithinthe			Are the	"newPassover"				Kings	23:21-
		territory.				(2

23), the regulationsconcerningsacrifice(Deuteronomy12:13-28),legal appeal

to the center	(Deuteronomy17:8-9),	and the evident territorial	of
		jurisdiction
Deuteronomy12-26 to be understoodas a lex terrae?

Let us turnto "all Aram"and ancientArmeniain orderto investigatefurther what this conflationbetween a term designatingboth a land and a people and

otherfactors	might	indicatefor our		of the natureof differentcol-
			understanding
lectivities of the ancientNear East and antiquity.
"AllAram":A nation of Aram?
The evidencefor the existenceof the				bounded		of "all
				territorially	collectivity

Aram,"the Sefire Stele, also does not permitus to drawdefinitiveconclusions about its precise nature. Nevertheless, the inconclusiveness of the evidence should not preventa furtherexaminationof it in the attemptto clarifythe ap- plicabilityof the categoryof nationality--as distinctfrom a city-kingdomwith villages or towns as its vassals, a tribalconfederacy,or an empire-to different societies of antiquity.

The Aramaicinscriptionof the SefireStele'6)begins by statingthatit is "the

of		of	KTK,	with	Mati'el,	the son of	the	king
treaty	Bir-Ga'yah,king						'Atarsumki,

13)Calah SummaryInscription7, reverse, line 11, Tadmor 1994, p. 170.

14)ANET 1969, pp. 291, 294.

15)For the latter, see Noth 1928.

16)Unless otherwise noted, the translationis Fitzmyer 1967.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BORDERS,	TERRITORY AND NATIONALITY			7
We do not know the locationof the		kingdom	of	butwe
[of Arpad]."17)				KTK,18)

do know that Arpadwas an Arameancity-kingdomto the northof Aleppo in northernSyria. Arpadappearsseveral times in Assyriandocumentsduringthe ninth and eighth centuriesB.C.19)As far as the date of the treatywith which the Sefire Stele begins, it had to have been before 740 B.C. for that is when

Tiglath-pileser III conquered Arpad and incorporated it into the Assyrian empire. Perhapsthe date of the treaty may be placed in the period between

754 B.C. when	Mati'el	madea	with Ashur-nerariV	(which
approximately			treaty

was presumablyrepudiatedby Matf'elpossibly at the death of Ashur-nerariV in 745 B.C.) and 740 B.C. We must now examine those sections of the treaty

which may indicatesomethingaboutthe natureof the collectivitydesignatedas "all Aram."

17)[ ] indicates editorial restorations of lacunae. The correct spelling of Atarsumki is from Assyrian inscriptions (Parpola and Watanabe 1988, pp. 8-13).

18)A detailed evaluation of the argumentsfor the determinationof the location of KTK

is beyond the scope of this investigation. For the different possibilities, see Fitzmyer 1967, pp. 127-35; and Gibson 175, p. 22. More recently, Parpola and Watanabe (1988, p. xxvii) have arguedthat Bar-ga'yah ("son of majesty")is a pseudonymfor Ashur-nerariV and, thus, KTK stands for Assyria. In favor of their argumentis the list of Mesopotamiangods of Bar- ga'yah from lines 8-10 of face A of Sefire Stele I, and especially "Ashur"at line 25. Thus, they think that the Sefire treaty is the Aramaic version of the treaty of approximately754 B.C. between Ashur-nerariV and Mati"ilof Arpad. But why the use of KTK as a pseudo- nym for Assyria? If, in fact, Dupont-Sommer's(1958) restorationof Urartuat line 4 of face A of Sefire Stele I is correct-and the anti-Assyrianalliance (see Tiglath-PileserIII's Stele IB from Iran and Calah SummaryInscription1, Tadmor 1994, pp. 100, 124) between Urartu

and Arpad in 743 B.C. favors this possibility--then Bar-ga'yah would be Sardur III of Urartu,and KTK possibly a vassal of Urartuto the north of Arpad. If so, this would clarify

the territorialjurisdiction of the Sefire treaty from lines 9-10 of face B of Sefire Stele I (see below). Na'aman (1978, pp. 220-239) has offered a third possibility that KTK might be a province of Hamath,based on the conclusion that the territoryoutlined by the borderpoints from lines 9-10 of face B was that of Aram-Damascus.However Na'aman's analysis is not without its own problems; for example, it is difficult to see how Jair ("Yauru":Na'aman's rejection, decisive for his analysis, of the reading of Ya'di at line 9, where he reads a resh, hence "Yauru,"instead of dalet, hence Ya'di) fits into the treaty. Furthermore,why would Hamath/Hadrachbe referredto as KTK and why, in a treatybetween Arpadand KTK, would there be a detailed description of the boundariesof Aram-Damascus?On the other hand, the apparentabsence of any explicit referenceto Hamathis one of the many puzzles of the Sefire

inscriptions.

19) For the ninth century, presumably "Arame, man of Gusi," mentioned in a text of ShalmaneserIII(ANET,p. 278), andthe"GusifromIshani,"mentionedin a textof Ashurnasirpal II (ANET, p. 276) may be understoodas referringto Arpad-so one concludes from the Bny [restored,possibly Byt] Gs from line 16, face A of Sefire Stele I and Bny Gs from line 3, face B of Sefire Stele I, and the descriptionof Mati'il as both of the Bit-Agusi in the Calah Summary Inscription 3, lines 16-7 (Tadmor 1994, p. 132) and King of Arpad at line 3 of face A of Sefire Stele I. In any event, Arpad is listed as the first city of the land of Bit-Agusi

in the Calah SummaryInscription5 (Tadmor 1994, p. 146). For the treaty of approximately 754 B.C. between Ashur-nerariV of Assyria and the same Mati'ilu of Arpad, see Papola and Watanabe 1988, pp. 8-13.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8	STEVEN GROSBY

The first point for our considerationoccurs in a furtherdescriptionof the jurisdictionof the treaty.On face A of Stele I, from lines threeto six we read

andthe			of KTKwith				andthe		of thelordsof KTK
	treaty				[thetreatyof] Arpad;			treaty		withall
withthe			of thelordsof			andthe	of the		un[ionof...]W
		treaty				Arpad;	treaty
Aramandwith<the						andwithhissonswhowillcomeafter
[withthe				kingof>20)Musr					[him],and
			kingsof]	all		andLower-Aramandwith all who enterthe					royal
					Upper-Aram
palace(my.emphasis)

Note that not only is the city-kingdomof Arpadincludedin the treaty,but so also is "all Aram," 'rm klh. What are we to make of the designation "all Aram"?

It would	fromthe terms	and "Lower-Aram"which fol-
	appear	"Upper-Aram"

low the referenceto "all Aram"that the term"all Aram"may designatea ter-

ritory	which included		and		it	is
		"Upper-Aram"		"Lower-Aram."21)Nevertheless,
still far from obvioushow that			was conceived.Weretheretwo		separate
			territory

regionsof "all Aram,"whateverthatlattertermmay signify;and,if so, in what way were they separate?We know that the terms"UpperEgypt"and "Lower

Egypt"designated to the flow of the Nile from its sourceto the (corresponding

MediterraneanSea) respectivelythe southernand northernregions of a single collectivitywith relativelystable boundaries.22)In a similarmanner,was there

a	unifiedunderthe	of the	of
	territory	leadership	city-kingdom	Arpadknownas

"all Aram"which encompassedUpper and Lower Aram? Most importantly, what kind of unity was it?

An examinationof Face B of Stele I may provide some answers to these questions;but the answersremaintentative.In the firstfive lines of Face B we read

[The treaty of Bir-Ga'yah, king of KTK, with Mati'el, son of 'Atarsumki,the king of

andthe treatyof the son of	withthe sonsof Mati'el;andthe		treaty
Ar]pad;	Bir-Ga'yah
of the [grandsonsof Bir]-Ga'yahwith the offspringof Matiel		and with the offspringof

any king who [will come up and rule] in his place, and with the Ben&-Gushand with

B&t-SLL23)and with [all] Ar[am; and the trea]ty of KTK with the treatyof Arpad;and the treaty of the lords of KTK with the trea[ty of the lords of Aripad and with its

people ...

20)< > indicates editorial additions.

21)For the Aramaic term "all," see Fitzmyer 1979, pp. 205-17.

22)For the terms Upper and Lower Egypt, the territory,and the boundariesof ancient Egypt, see Grosby 1991, note 25, pp. 246-47.

23)Unfortunately,the location and nature of B&t-SLLis uncertain.Ben&-Gush(Stele I, face B, line 3) = B&t-Gush(Stele II, face B, line 10) = Arpad (see also note 19). It is pre-

cisely this equation or terminologicalconflationwhich is indicative of our categorialproblem, namely, the attributionof presumed kinship, Benf-Gush, to a territorialcollectivity, Bet-

Gush/Arpad.This attributionis often obscured by the use of the term "tribe,"the latter implying a relation of blood, because for most collectivities the blood relation is a fiction.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

	BORDERS,TERRITORYAND NATIONALITY	9
Based on the	occurrenceof the terms"all Aram"and	in these
	parallel	"Arpad"

lines, JosephFitzmyerconcludedthat the title of Mati'elwas actually"kingof

Arpadand of all Aram."24)Such a conclusion,if warranted,might signify that "all Aram"was a relatively unified collectivity. This conclusion might have merit if, based on the restorationof Damascusat line 10 on face B of Stele I

(see below), one accepts that Damascus,or at least the area immediatelyto its north was part of "LowerAram" and presumably,as a part of "all Aram," underthe controlof Arpad;and one furtherassumesthatDamascuswas greatly

weakened	by	its defeat in	773 B.C. at the handsof Shalmaneser
			approximately

IV as describedin lines 6-10 on the reverse side of the PazarcikStele, "the

tributeof Hadiyani,the man of Damascus--silver,gold, copper,his royal bed, his royal couch, his daughterwith her extensive dowry, the propertyof his

palace without number-I received from him."25)Furthersupportfor under- standingDamascusas being greatlyweakenedat this time might also be found in 2 Kings 14:25,28where JeroboamII of Israel(782-48 B.C.) is describedas havingbroughtDamascusand perhapsa partof Hamath,the Arameankingdom situatedbetweenDamascusand Arpad,underthe controlof Israel,thusleaving

the rest of the area of "all Aram"open to the controlof Arpad.Still, even if this conclusionhas merit,we do not know what it meantfor Mattieland Arpad to be in controlof "all Aram,"especially given the widely acceptedrestoration of "thekings"at the end of line five of face A of SefireStele I, "[withthe kings of] all Upper Aram and Lower Aram."If this restorationis accurate,then its implicationmay run counter to Fitzmyer's conclusion; for it would seem to imply the continuedexistence of independentcity-kingdomsin an alliancewith Arpadas its head. This, in turn,would indicatethat"all Aram"shouldperhaps be understoodas resemblingmore a militaryconfederationthan a unifiedstate with Mattielas its king. The natureof "all Aram"still remainsuncertain:does

"all Aram"refer to a relativelyunifiedcollectivity;or does it more likely refer to not much more thanyet anotherexampleof the numerousmilitaryalliances

Examples of a territorialreferent as the basis for the fiction of blood relation would appear to be the "tribes"(Banu)yaminafrom Mari and Benjaminfrom Israel, "those from the south." This is precisely where the work of M.B. Rowton is most relevant, see below. Our problem is ascertaining the existence of territoriallymore extensive kinship structuresthan that of Ben&-Gush/Bet-GushPerhaps. the classic example of such a structureis Israel = House of Israel = sons of Israel (putative lineage of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob).The attributionof blood relation to a territorialcollectivity through reference to an eponymous ancestor is also evident in Armenian history, see below. Also indicative of this categorial problem are such terms as gayim from Mari and goy from Israel which Malamat(1989, pp. 38-9) describes as being "ethno-geographicterms." For the Hebrew goy as "nation,"see Speiser 1960; Cody 1964. "Nation"is also an ethno-geographicterm.

24)Fitzmyer 1967, p. 60.

25)Donbaz 1990, p. 9.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions