Zamua Inner Zamua and Mazamua

Sonderdruck aus: Alter Orient und Altes Testament Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments Herausgeber: Manfried Dietrich • Oswald Loretz Band 272 Va r ia t io De l e c t a t Iran und der Westen Gedenkschrift für Peter Ca l m e y e r Herausgegeben von Reinhard D i t t m a n n - Barthel H r o u d a Ulrike L öw - Paolo M a t t h i a e Ruth M a y e r -O p i f i c i u s - Sabine T h ü r w 2000 Ugarit-Verlag Münster ä c h t er Zamua, Inner Zamua and Mazamua Inna Medvedskaya The land Zamua was situated in a comparative proximity to the ancient centres of Eastern Assyria, and when the latter started in the 9th century B.C. its rapid move outward, it was the first victim of the conquerors. Zamua is described in some detail in the marching reports of the Assyrian kings, and is hence especial­ ly important for the understanding of the system of the relative localization of the countries lying father to the East in Iran. However, there exists a certain difficulty. The Assyrian text uses either the term Lullumu, or the term Zamua, but the latter can also be defined by a specification: one finds either simply Zamua, or Mazamua, or Zamua sa bitäni (i. e. , "Inner Zamua"). This usage has been explained in two different ways: either all the three terms refer to one and the same territory, or they are designations for three different territories, these, however, may also be subsumed under one and the same designation. It was the latter point of view which was originally adopted by A. H. Sayce, M. Streck and other authorities. Actually, however, they thought that at least Zamua and Inner Zamua designated, for Assyrians, two different regions. However, already E. Forrer identified all three toponyms, and this point of view L. D. Levine has attempted to prove in some detail \ Levine admitted, first of all, that Inner Zamua and Mazamua may have been identical. This opinion is based on a juxtaposition of the variant descriptions of Shalmaneser Ill’s route in 855 B.C.: the inscription on the Monolith mentions Mazamua whereas the Black Obelisk says "Inner Zamua" (Chart 1). This identi­ ty had already been noted by Streck 12. But Levine makes a next step, trying to prove that also Zamua is identical with Inner Zamua; according to the author, a single road led to both countries. He bases his opinion on the identification of the ancient Babitu Pass, through which Ashumasirpal entered Zamua, with the modem Bazian Pass, over the same mountain ridge. The identification of Babitu with Bazian had already been proposed by a number of scholars 3. Levine, pointing out that Bazian=Babitu is the only way leading into the mountain country to the east of Assyria and southward over the Lower Zab, concludes 1 E.Forrer, Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches (Leipzig 1921) 43— 44, 48, 88— 89; L.D.Levine, Geographical Studies in the Neo-Assyrian Zagros, Iran 11, 1973, 16— 22. 2 Levine1 17. 3 Forrer1 43; E. A. Speiser, Southern Kurdistan in Annals of Ashumasirpal and Today, AASOR 8, 1926— 27, 3. 430 Inna Medvedskaya that Babitu must have necessary also lead over Mount Kullar. Down from this mountain, Shalmaneser III could enter Inner Zamua and Mazamua, and Sar­ gon II (according to Levine) could reach Zamua. If Kullar is the place over which the Babitu pass led eastward, Zamua should be equivalent to Inner Zamua 4. The identity of Zamua and Inner Zamua is also thought to be proved by two toponyms which, according to Levine, are mentioned in Assyrian sour­ ces both in Zamua, and in Inner Zamua: Birutu = Birtu, and Bunasi = Bunais 5. Let us now examine the validity of both proofs. Birutu/Birtu In 881 B.C., Ashumasirpal, passing through Babitu, conquered, among other Zamuan towns, also Birutu6. Shalmaneser III, according to Levine, conquered Birtu in Inner Zamua in 843 7. At the same time Levine justly points out, that Akkadian birtu is used to denote the generic term "fortress". However, also birutu is actually used in Akkadian as a term for a foundation p it8. Hence, even from a formal point of view their identification is not properly valid. Note the context where both toponyms are mentioned in texts quoted by Levine. In 881 B.C., Birutu is mentioned among several conquered townships of the locality Dagara of the land Zamua, not far from the Babitu pass; also TukultiNinurta I mentions Birite/Birete (in Lullumu), together with Arrapha and some other townships and territories 9. In both cases, being mentioned along with other toponyms, Birutu and Birite have to be regarded as place names on a par with other local toponyms of Lullumu/Zamua. Only the sound is similar to that of certain Akkadian common nouns. The Akkadian word birtu "fortress" is sometimes used in a general way, without mentioning its proper name. Note, for instance, that even the spelling URU.birtu applied to a certain town, means simply "town", and not a proper name, at least when it does not stand in a enumeration of obvious city name. Thus, in the texts of the time of Shalmaneser III, both E. Michel and G. G. Ca­ meron translate it simply as "fortress" 10. Also in the letter ABL 311 from the time of Sargon II, where Levine read URU .birtu as a proper name, it is trans- 4 Levine1 18. 5 Levine1 18. 6 ARAB I, § 448; ARI 2, §§ 554, 559. 7 Levine1 18. 8 CAD 2, B, 261, 213. 9 ARI 2, §§ 554, 559; E.Weidner, Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I und seiner Nachfol­ ger, AfO 12, 1959, 27, line 27; ARI 1, § 775; Levine1 18. 10 G.G.Cameron, The Annals of Shalmaneser III, King of Assyria, Sumer 6, 1950, 24, III, line 60; E.Michel, Ein neuentdeckter Annalen-Text Salmanassars III, WO 1, 1952, 470— 71, line 60. Zamua, Inner Zamua and Mazamua 431 lated now as "fortress" n. We may conclude with certainty, that, referring to Inner Zamua, Shalmaneser mentions just an unnamed "fortress", Akk. fern, birtu (gen. biné). Thus, this term is not valid as an argument in favour of identifica­ tion of Zamua and Inner Zamua. Bunasi/Bunais/Bunisa During the reign of Ashumasirpal II, Bunasi was a fortress in Zamua. In 881 it was a part of the territory belonging to Musasina, a kinglet of Zamua. This territory included the land near Mount Nissir "which the men Lullu call Mount Kinipa" 12. Near to the territory of Musasina and Mount Kinipa, was situated the domain of another Zamuan kinglet, Kirtiara, with its centre in Larbusa. These both domains were, according to the Assyrian king, "in the plain of Mount Nisir no one had ever seen" 13. This latter specification shows that, inside Zamua these domains were peripheral, and this is confirmed by the description of the maximum extent of Ashumasirpal’s conquests in the East. They are limited to the area from the Kirruri pass to Gilzan, "from the opposite bank of the Lower Zab to the city Til-Bari which is upstream from the land Zaban 14 ...from the pass of Mount Babitu to Mount Hashmar" 15. The fort­ ress Bari (also called Til-Bari, Bit-Bari, Abari) marks - as can easily be seen the easternmost point of conquests in Zamua. The texts stress the fact that the land Zamua was conquered in its entirety, to its farthest limits 16. The fortress Bari belonged to the same domain of Kirtiara 17. This means that Musasina’s domain, of course including Bunais, adjoining the domain of Kirtiara in the outskirts of Zamua, might have equally adjoined Zamua proper and Inner Zamua. That the city Bunasi lay at the outskirts of the region is in accord with what we know about Shalmaneser route in 855. And although Ashumasirpal insists that he included all Zamua into Assyria, it is quite possible that a frontier stripe either was left outside the conquered territory, or had seceded from it at a later date. Shalmaneser actually does not mention Zamua -it had already become Assyrian territory; his worry was now another land: Inner Zamua, or Mazamua. But note the contexts, in which Bunais is mentioned in 855 B.C. 11 SAA V, 199. 12 ARI 2, § 556. 13 ARI 2, § 557. 14 The land Zaban is located on the Lower Zab: I.M.D’yakonov, Istoria Midii (Mosk­ va— Leningrad 1956) 157. 15 ARI 2, §§ 651, 676, 704, 716, 729, 762, 766. 16 ARI 2, §§ 677, 729, 762, 766. 17 ARI 2, § 560. 432 Inna Medvedskaya CHART 1 The account of the campaign of the fourth regnal year, 855 B.C. ...I marched against the land of Mazanina. The pass into the land of Bunais I entered. The cities of Nikdimc (and) Nikdiera I drew near... a great battle on the sea... (Monolith, ARAB, § 609). ...I crossed Mount Rullar (and) descended against Zamua, which lies inside. The cities of Nikdiara of the city of Ida (and) Nikdima, I captured. (Black Obelisk, ARAB I, § 561). ...I departed from Ashur, crossed Mt. Rullar, went down to the land Zamua, which lies inside, (and) conquered the cities of Nikdira, the man of the land Ida,... a sea battle... (Cameron 10 21, lines 10— 15)I came out above Arbcla... Anarc of the land of Bunisa (and) Nikdiara of he land of Ida went up a mountain to save their lives. ...a sea battle. (P.Ilulin, The Inscription of the Carved Throne base of Shalmaneser III, Iraq 25, 1963, lines 42^44). The final point of the 855 campaign was a sea, and the last event of the cam­ paign was a battle on the sea. The participants were Nikdiara, the ruler of the land Ida, Anare, the ruler of Bunisa, and a third participant in the resistance was Nikdime. Shalmaneser moved towards Mazamua/Inner Zamua; leaving Ashur he either traversed Mount Kullar or crossed the pass into the land Bunais, and started ravaging the towns of Nikdiara and Nikdime. Do we actually know that Bunais is to be placed in Inner Zamua/Mazamua, as Levine is suggesting? Once Bunais is mentioned as a point on the route leading to the conquest of a new country; another time its ruler is named as one of Shalmaneser’s enemies; and that is all. It seems more probable that Bunais was a district of Zamua bordering on Inner Zamua, which in the time of Ashumasirpal had not finally been incor­ porated into the Assyrian Empire; hence the ruler of Bunais was an enemy of Shalmaneser, and he had attempted to join the rulers of neighbouring Inner Zamua when the latter was threatened by the Assyrian king; therefore Bunais is mentioned as enemy territory being traversed by the Assyrian army, and hence was an object of Assyrian aggression. But we must bear in mind the fact, that by this time Zamua as such was already an Assyrian province, and remained so. Shalmaneser III had no need to conquer Zamuan territory, as would follow from the hypothesis of Levine who identifies Zamua with Mazamua/Inner Zamua. Shalmaneser was conquering a new country; note that the route he took in 855 was certainly different from that of Ashumasirpal during the latter’s Zamua wars. This is the way by which Ashumasirpal arrived in Zamua: starting from Kilizi (a township between Kalhu and Arba’il) he moved southward crossing the Lower Zab, probably near modem Altin Köprü, and then, instead of continuing his march directly towards Arrapha, he turned to the east and found himself on the road from Kirkuk to Sulaimaniya probably near Chemchemal. From there, over the Babitu/Bazian pass his army could enter Zamua. E. A. Speiser’s ex­ planation for this route is, that the region of Arrapha was still under Babylonian Zamua, Inner Zamua and Mazamua 433 government 18. Note that Ashumasirpal has no information about a mountain called Kullar. In 855 Shalmaneser used another route. This can be seen from the fact that he chose not the eastern direction, from Ashur towards the Kirkuk -Sulaimaniya road (in spite of the probability, that during his reign the Babylonians no longer controlled Arrapha 19), but a route north—east towards Arba’il. By the way, his campaign against Inner Zamua in 843 also started in Arba’il. It was from Arba’il that a road led up into the mountains of Zagros: modem Erbil - Rania Sardasht. It is very important to note that Shalmaneser, different from his predecessor, did nowhere cross the Lower Zab. Following the road Erbil Rania, keeping to the right bank of the Lower Zab, Shalmaneser could, without wading over the river, reach the chaîne magistrale of the Zagros, which here is called Kandil Dag. Here there are at least five passes over the range, the best known being Kanirash pass, being the main pass to Sardasht; and it is from here that it is most easy to approach the Lake Urmia basin. North of these passes all the way to the Gowre Shinke pass, the range forms an impassable barrier. In other words, after going through one of these passes, Shalmaneser could enter a country which, lying behind a high mountain ridges could qualify for the designation "Zamua, which lies inside". The land Bunais may have occupied one of these five passes. Being a territory adjoining both Zamua and Inner Zamua (or Mazamua), it might have been mentioned both by Ashumasirpal who had reached the extreme limits of Zamua, and Shalmaneser who, after passing through the northern outskirts of Zamua which already was Assyrian territory, went out to the Bunais pass, after which, or beginning with which, the conquest of a new country, namely of Inner Zamua, began. Thus the fact that both kings mention Bunais/Bunasi in the reports of their marches, is no proof that Zamua, Inner Zamua and Mazamua were one and the same country, according to Levi­ ne’s belief. Babitu, Kullar and Bunais According to his Annals, Shalmaneser had ascended Mount Kullar before he entered Inner Zamua or descended there. Kullar is Levine’s main trump, when, based on Sargon’s information, he tries to prove the identity of Zamua and Inner Zamua. In 714 B.C. Sargon, leaving Kalhu, crossed Upper Zab; then his troops "jumped" across the Lower Zab. Then Sargon entered "into the passes of Mount Kullar, a high mountain range of the land of the Lullumu,- which they (also) 18 Speiser3 17. 19 Forrer1 45— 46. But Forrer’s opinion could be questioned if actually already in 834 Shalmaneser III went over the Lower Zab and Hashmar, to reach Ñamar, i.e. evading Arrapha (ARAB I, § 581). 434 Inna Medvedskaya call the land of Zamua" 20. Here Levine argues as follows: since both Sargon and Ashumasirpal crossed the Lower Zab, and Mount Kullar lay in Zamua, hence Kullar is the same as Babitu, which both kings passed on their way to Zamua. However, how do we know that Kullar, like Babitu, was an opening into Zamua? Sargon only states that Mount Kullar is in Zamua, and that it is a mountain ridge. For the identification and localization of Kullar we must again return to Shalmaneser’s route in 855. Before he entered Inner Zamua and approached the towns of Nikdime and Nikdiara, he either crossed Mount Kullar (thus according to some texts), or, to judge from other sources, he went through the Bunais passage. Thus, the identification of Kullar with Bunais goes back to Shalmane­ ser’s relations; hence the identification of Kullar with Babitu is no longer valid. According to Sargon, Kullar lay in Zamua, but also Bunais was still a Zamuan domain, although lying on the outskirts of that country. Like Shalmaneser, Sargon passed through the northern frontier regions of Zamua, after which he also entered the passes of Kullar, but from there Sargon turned to the district Sumbu, while Shalmaneser had chosen the way to Inner Zamua. Thus, an identification of Zamua with Inner Zamua/Mazamua cannot be based on Sar­ gon’s information. It is consistent with the data on the route of Shalmaneser, and do not contradict a localization of Kullar in the north-northeastern part of Zamua, bordering on Inner Zamua, or Mazamua. The campaigns of Shamahi-Adad V in 821-820 help us to define more precisely the suggested localization of Kullar and Inner Zamua. These cam­ paigns were directed against Nairi. Note that during the reigns of Tukulti-Ninurta II and Ashumasirpal II, Lullumu/Zamua was perceived as a district outside N airi21. In 820, the Assyrians crossed Mount Kullar and entered Nairi which did not include Zamua, and where in the preceding year they had conquered the domains of Sharsina, son of Mektiara (Nikdiara, lord of the district of Ida in Inner Zamua). In other words, going up the mountain of Kullar, the Assyrians left Zamua and entered Nairi, which at that time included also Inner Zamua. Could not "Kullar" be the ancient name of that part of the main ridge of Zagros, which is bypassed by the Lower Zab, and is now called Kandil-Dag? 22 20 ARAB II, § 142. 21 ARI 2, §§ 498, 575, 589, 650, 716, 729, 766. 22 A certain vagueness is connected with the passage of Sargon and Shamshi-Adad V (in 820) over the Lower Zab before the passing Kullar; Shalmaneser could occupy Kullar without crossing that river. Zamua, Inner Zamua and Mazamua 435 Inner Zamua Since Babitu and Kullar are to be localized at different sites and since a territo­ rial identity between Zamua and Inner Zamua cannot be inferred from the toponyms Bunais, Birtu/Birutu, we have a good reason to conform to the Assyri­ an sources, which keep Inner Zamua apart from Zamua as such: the two terms do not refer to one and the same territory. In order to localize Inner Zamua behind chaîne magistrale, and to find out its actual extent, we must identify the "sea of Inner Zamua". Two versions are current: according to one, this was Lake Zeribor east of Sulaimaniya, behind the Avroman Dagh; according to the other, it was Lake Urmia. There are no other big expanses of water in this region: it must actually have been one of these two; Levine insists on the first version. Only in this case he is able to place Zamua = Inner Zamua between Sulaimaniya and Zeribor. The reasoning that the word "sea" implies a big expanse of water, like the one which witnessed the battle of 855 B.C., while Zeribor is a minor lake, may not seem convincing, as is rejected by Levine 23. However, just because water expanses, big and small, are rare in this region, it is strange that no "sea" is mentioned in the annals of Ashumasirpal II. A man who assures us that he had conquered the land Zamua in its entirety, and was the first of Assyrian kings to traverse it to its farthest limits, would surely find an excuse to mention such a remarkable feature in his annals, if this "sea" was actually situated in Zamua, and if Ashumasirpal had seen its shores. A "sea of Inner Zamua" first appears, however, only in the reign of Shalmaneser, together with the name of this new country itself. Levine’s reasoning that Urmia already have the name "the lower sea of Nairi", and hence "the sea of Inner Zamua" must refer to some other expanse of water—namely, to lake Zeribor 24, can be shown to be wrong if we analyse the titles of Shal­ maneser III. Shalmaneser calls himself conqueror of the lands "from the upper sea and lower sea of Nairi and the great sea of the setting sun" 25. Sometimes "the great sea of the setting sun" is specified as "the great sea of Ammurru,- the Hittite -land" 2627. Sometimes "the sea of Nairi" is supplanted by another term "the sea Zamua, which (lies) inside" 21. Note that in one variant of the annals, which describes the first 16 years of Shalmaneser Ill’s reign more fully, there is a description of the battle in his 4th regnal year; this took place at a "sea" without further specification. However, in the last lines of this fragment of the 23 Levine1 20. 24 Levine1 20— 21. 25 ARAB I, § 641; Cameron10 24, IV, lines 26— 36. 26 ARAB I, §§ 617, 703. 27 ARAB I, § 617. 436 Inna Medvedskaya annals, Shalmaneser calls himself "conqueror from the upper and lower sea of Nairi land" 28. This sea-battle happened in Inner Zamua (see Chart 1), so what is meant is certainly the sea of Inner Zamua. Thus it appears that Shalmaneser could use two different epithets to characterize one and the same sea, which has to be Urmia. Moreover we have another corroboration for the identification of the sea of Zamua Sa bltäni with Urmia. What is meant is the stone bowl from Hasanlu IV, to the south-west of Urmia. There is a cuneiform inscription on the bowl, mentioning the country Ida 29. This find allows us to state, that the land of Ida, whose ruler Nikdiara was in 855 saving his life on a sea, is so be sought near the site where the bowl was found, i.e. near Urmia. Levine does not think this find has any great value: the bowl might have been made anywhere, its inscription might refer to some other place, and it might have been brought to Hasanlu at a later date. He argues that also other variously datable objects, which surely have been fabrica­ ted elsewhere, were found together with the bowl in question 30. And actually, together with this bowl there also was found a fragment of a stone vessel with a partly preserved inscription mentioning the Babylonian king Kadashman-Enlil (I, beginning of the 14th century B.C., or II, about 1275 B.C.). There were also found 15 stone maceheads, three of which were inscribed: two with the name of Tan-ruhurater, who reigned in Susa, the capital of Elam, at some date between 2036 and 1850 B.C.; a third macehead preserved a part of a name: Sin... . All these objects were kept together on the second floor of Burned Building II, which is supposed to have been a temple 31. According to R. Dyson, the As­ syrians valued and took care of such curiosities, regarding them as symbols of the continuity of their power being consecrated by the gods. "Such old objects, given to the Hasanlu temple by the Assyrians, would have reflected a high regard for their provincial friends or allies". As an illustration of this idea, Dyson points out the images on a relief from the palace of Tiglath-pileser III at Nimrud, showing the Assyrian troops carrying cult statues 32. This explana­ tion, however, does not hold water. For one thing, there are no Assyrian curiosi­ ties among the objects found here; on the other hand, the Assyrians’ acquaintan­ ce with Ida was of a very short duration. It was Shalmaneser III who first reached Ida in 855, and neither the description of the war in Inner Zamua, nor of the battle on the sea itself, leave any illusion of a special friendship between Shalmaneser and Nikdiara which could involve presents; and the same can be said of the campaign of 843 B.C. Note Dyson’s commentary to the relief in 28 Cameron10 24, IV, lines 26— 28. 29 R.H.Dyson, The Iron Age Architecture at Hasanlu: An Essay, Expedition 31, 2-3, 1989, 123, fig. 21; I. N. Medvedskaya, Who Destroyed Hasanlu IV?, Iran 26, 1988, 1 note 3. 30 Levine1 19, Note 74. 31 Dyson29 116-123. 32 Dyson29 123, fig. 20. Zamua, Inner Zamua and Mazamua 437 Nimrud: "According to Mesopotamian custom, the gods of a defeated city were taken captive by the victors". Hence, one should think that the Assyrians would rather take away sacred objects, then make the offerings themselves. Probably, such curiosities were actually diplomatic presents of Babylonian and Elamite rulers, they could hardly have been military trophies commemora­ ting a victory of the rulers of Ida over those of Babylon or Elam. Actually, we know nothing at all about any relations of the latter countries with those situated in the Northern Zagros. However, the fact that such objects were actually found at Hasanlu, allows for a supposition that some relations must have existed, and the importance of the countries of the Urmia region might have been considera­ ble. The town corresponding to modem Hasanlu, which did exist already in the 2nd millennium B.C., was in the 9th century B.C. in a flourishing state. Monu­ mental buildings, the wide scope of their construction, of trade and outside cultural connections of Hasanlu indicate it. But we have no corresponding data from the region of Zeribor, where Levine localized Inner Zamua. As to the bowl itself, it is very possible that the person governing Ida could present it to the temple of the city with an appropriate inscription in connection with some event unknown to us. The political importance of Inner Zamua follows, as it appears, from the data of the annals of Shamshi-Adad V, the successor of Shalmaneser III. In the years 819, 818, 815 his campaigns were directed against the lands of Nairi. In 818, he was able to conquer a number of towns hitherto belonging to Ushpina (Ishpuini) and to Sharsina, son of Meqdiara. Their domains are not specified, but we known that the first one was king of Urartu. In 815 the Assyrians crossed Mount Kullar and went up to Nairi. Here the description of the route is interrupted; instead rulers and countries that paid tribute to the Assyrian king are enumerated. They are listed in a peculiar way. First comes Dadi, the ruler of Hubushkia. The latter was one of the few districts in this general region which did not lose its independence; it is to be located near modem Hakkari, on the right bank of the Upper Zab 33. Next comes Sharsina, son of Meqdiara. Then a number of districts are named without mentioning its miers: Sunbu, Mannaea, Parsua, Taurla 34. As can be seen, Shamshi-Adad does not mention the name of the region ruled by Sharsina, son of Meqdiara, just as three years before he did not name the country ruled by Ishpuini, namely Urartu. Patronymics are very rarely mentioned in Assyrian annals; when they are, this probably means that the person in question was important enough, so one had no need to men­ tion by name the country which he mied: it was supposed to be known. Under Shamshi-Adad V we can register three such important persons: they were 33 I.N.Medvedskaya, The localization of Hubuškia, Assyria 1995 (Helsinki 1997) 197206. 34 ARAB I, § 718. After this, a campaign to Gizilbunda and Media is described, and then the return of the Assyrians along the Great Khorasan Road: ARAB I, §§ 718— 721. It is not apparent from which point the enumerated countries do not longer belong to Nairi. Inna Medvedskaya 438 Ishpuini (king of Urartu), Dadi (king of Hubushkia), and Sharsina, son of Meqdiara. It has been suggested that the latter was a son of the ruler of Ida in Inner Zamua during the reign of Shalmaneser III. Inner Zamua consisted of several domains but was a unity which was strong enough to prevent Shalmaneser’s entering deeper in Iran. Only having conque­ red Inner Zamua, could he for the first time invade the country of the Mannaeans (in 843) 35. The further movement of the Assyrians from Inner Zamua into Manna was, in the 9th century B.C., only possible if Inner Zamua is to be localized behind the chaîne magistrale of the Zagros and up to the shores of Lake Urmia. If we should identify Inner Zamua with Zamua proper, and place it near Lake Zeribor, we would be compelled to place (for the 9th century B.C.) quite a number of "countries" between Zamua and Manna, such as Parsua, Sunbai (Sunbu), Karalla, Allabria, Abdadana etc. Zamua and Manna seem to have received a common frontier first under Sargon II, when Karalla, which bordered on Manna, was included into province of Lullumu 36. Meanwhile, Shalmaneser III did not manage to unite Inner Zamua with Assyria and under Shamshi-Adad V it still remained an independent unit. In the late 9th century, the Urartians conquered the territories adjoining Lake Urmia from the west and south, among them also Hasanlu IV. A substantial part of Inner Zamua now belonged to them. This is, probably, why the terms Inner Zamua (and also Gilzan) now disappear from the sources. Becoming parts of Urartu, they may have acquired new names, which actually became known to Sargon II in 714 37. Lullumu, Zamua, Mazamua Lullumu, and its inhabitants, the Lullubians or Lullumians, became early known to the Akkadians, and are mentioned in their texts during more than a millenni­ um (Table I) 38. Zamua is first mentioned centuries later, under Adad-nerari II and it follows from the contexts that Lullumu and Zamua are two different countries 39. Even before Zamua appears in the sources, these mention the river Radanu and the land Birite, which we have mentioned above; and it is 35 ARAB I, § 637. 36 ARAB II, § 144; SAA V, 217. 37 I.N.Medvedskaya, K utochneniyu marshruta pohoda Sargona v 714 g. do n.e. (The Route of Sargon’s campaign of 714 B.C.), VDI 2, 1989, 105, Note 18; 108, Note 37. 38 The Lullubian tribes are first mentioned on the victory stela of Naram-Su’en in the 23rd century B.C.: H.Klengel, Lullubum. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der altvorder­ asiatischen Gebirgsvölker, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung, Bd. 11, 3, 1966, 349-371. 39 ARI 2, § 419. Zamua, Inner Zamua and Mazamua 439 clear that both belonged to Lullumu, although afterwards both belonged to Zamua 40. Tukulti-Ninurta IL, who does not mention Zamua and who dealt with Lullumians, mentions the mountain Babitu 41, which later opened the way to Zamua. But already Ashumasirpal, beginning a war in Zamua, uses the term ’’Lullumians", "the army of the Lullumians" but does not mention the country Lullumu (Table I). It seems that by that time Zamua had subdued Lullumu; otherwise, it may be that Zamua was one of the countries inhabited by Lullumians but the term had begun to be used for all Lullumian lands. Later the two terms became synonymous as stated by Sargon: "the land of the Lullumu, which they (also) call the land of Zamua". The term "Lullumu" (duplicating "Zamua") was used not later than the reign of Sargon II. Zamua is mentioned as a country and as an Assyrian province until the reign of Ashurbanipal (pehät KUR Zamua) (Table I). Mazamua, like Inner Zamua, is first mentioned by Shalmaneser III., but, unlike Inner Zamua, continues to be mentioned until the 7th century B.C. In the Eponym lists Mazamua is certainly mentioned under the years 810 and 733 42. On the reference to Mazamua in the well-known list of Assyrian domains apparently from the time of Ashurbanipal (K 4384) see below. Now whether Mazamua is to be correlated with Zamua remains a moot que­ stion. Under Shalmaneser III Mazamua was certainly identical with Inner Zamua (Cart 1). Is it also true for the later references to this country? H. Klengel, like Forrer before him, suggested that the ruler of Lullumu mentioned under Tiglathpileser III (in his annals under the year 738) is identical with Ashur-da’inanni, a ruler of Mazamua and eponym for the year 733, who was sent by the king to Media in 737 43. If we accept this hypothesis, this would mean that the pro­ vince of Mazamua founded by Shamshi-Adad and later partly occupied by the Urartians, had been merged with the province of Lullumu/Zamua. It is true that the 8th century witnesses process of enlargement and amalgamation of provin­ ces, but this does not seem to refer to our case. Actually, in 737 Tiglath-pileser states that in that year "Ashur-da’inanni, my [eunuch,] to (the land) of the mighty Medes of the east [I sent...]" 44. The events which happened in Media in 737 are more than once described by Tiglath-pileser, among others in connec­ 40 ARI 2, § 560. 41 ARI 2, § 498. 42 Under the years 783 and 768 the name "Zamua" (or "Mazamua") cannot be recon­ structed with any certainty: in all four tablets in question there is a lacuna or a damaged sign before za: A.Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire, SAAS II, 1994, 37, 40, pi. 11, BÍ; pl.12, BÍ; pi. 13, B2; pi.14, B2. However, A. Millard insists that the rests of the signs are consistent with the reading "Zamua". 43 Klengel38 368; Forrer1 88— 89. 44 H.Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria (Jerusalem 1994) 167, Summary Inscription 7, line 42 (cf. Annals 15, 16). 440 Inna Medvedskaya tion with Silhazi "which they call the Fortress of Babylonian(s)M45. The year 738 is memorable because of the conquest of Northern Syria. In that year the Assyrians’ interests were concentrated in a region diametrically opposite to Iran. But was it possible that a governor of the land of the Lullumaeans enters still independent Media as early as 738, i.e. a time when Tiglath-pileser was away in Syria? We know that Tiglath-pileser III invaded Media, after a prolonged interval, first in 737. In this context, the activities of an unnamed ruler of the province of Lullumu in 738, in connection with "the Fortress of Babylonian(s) together with the cities of their environs” 4546, are left unexplained; but this is the translation suggested for this passage in the annals by H. Tadmor, who is basing his opinion on that of Klengel and Forrer, who both regarded the unna­ med administrator of Lullumu identical with "my eunuch" Ashur-da’inanni. But this mean that the Assyrians had reached Silhazi in Media as early as 738, which does not tally with the Assyrian king’s statement that he invaded Media only in 737. It seems impossible to prove that the same person, namely Ashurda’inanni, is meant both times. Thus, the data of the annals for 738 and 737 do not be taken as a proof of the identity of Zamua and Mazamua. During the reign of Sargon II, Mazamua is mentioned three times, but only in letters and economic documents (Table I). In the letter ABL 408 the governor of Arzuhina (eponym of the year 708), trying to justify himself before the king (probably because of insufficiently providing for the mule-express service) reminds him about the establishment of two express-station, and inform him about the necessity of founding a station for a team of mules in Dur-Atanate. Since the stationing and maintenance of these mule-expresses were the duty of the governor of Arzuhina, it is natural to suppose that they all were situated within his province. By the way, then there emerges a natural question: where lay the eastern frontier of Arzuhina? This involves the question of the expressstation in Tagalagi. This town was situated to the east of the Babitu pass, i.e., in the main territory of Lullumu/Zamua 47. There is an opinion that the pro­ vince of Arzuhina stretched to the east until the river Radanu (modern Basirà or Adhhem) 48. May we suppose that it stretched even farther, all the way to the last point mentioned in the letter as lying on the royal road, namely Arrakdi? This place lay only one stage away from the river Radanu and the point called Az(a)ri49. The itinerary K.4675+, which seems to be an "attachment to the letter ABL 408" 50, lists, after Arrakdi, no less than 9 or 10 stages along the 45 Tadmor44 Annals 15, lines 9-12, Note 11; Annals 16, lines 2, 9; Summary Inscription 7, line 38. 46 Tadmor44 Annals 19, line 19, Note 18-19. 47 L.D.Levine, K.4675+ - The Zamua Itinerary, SAAB 3, 1989, 86, fig, 3. 48 Levine47 84; J.N.Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire, Studia Pohl; Series Maior 3 (Rome 1974) 58. 49 Levine47 fig. 3. 50 Levine47 90. Zamua, Inner Zamua and Mazamua 441 royal road. All of these were situated in Zamua, so that the governor of Arzuhina was not responsible for them, and they are not mentioned in the letter. But the letter does mention that the "Arbailayu", together with the royal bodyguard, had passed through Arzuhina to Arrapha, and from there "went on to Mazamua", "(going) to where the king... had sent him". From the text of the letter, it seems certain that the "Arbailayu" was furnished by mules only as far as Arrakdi, which lay in Arzuhina on his way towards Mazamua. There are no proofs that the territory of Mazamua began right after Arrakdi, and that the places enumerated in the itinerary K.4675+ belonged to that territory. The messenger may have been directed to a point beyond Zamua. The land Mazamua is also mentioned in the letter ABL 556 in a loose connection with Media and Manna, and without any connection with Zamua. But in a list of weavers (ADD 950), and in a list of Assyrian provinces (K 4384), the contexts are somewhat ambiguous with regard to the localization of Mazamua. In the first case, Mazamua is mentioned between Arzuhina and Arrapha, in the second, it is mentioned in connection with several eastern provinces of Assyria: Arrapha, Arzuhina, Parsua and Media. In the first case, the territories of Arzuhina and Arrapha certainly bordered between themselves, and Arzuhina bordered with Zamua: hence it is not impossible to regard Mazamua as identical with Zamua. In the second case, not all the eastern provinces are mentioned (or their names have not been preserved in the text in its present state), so we cannot be sure that Zamua was not mentioned separately. But in both cases the possibility of the identity of Zamua and Mazamua cannot be excluded. But if so, what about the identity of Lullumu and Zamua according to Sargon? In his time the existence also of Mazamua is actually implied - can that mean that the Lullumu/Zamua and Mazamua were different territories? Perhaps, this difference can be explained in the following way. During his reign the administrative distribution of the provinces continued to be changing. Thus, the province Lullumu/Zamua lost a part of its original lands in the west, which were passed into the jurisdiction of Arzuhina (see above), while in the east, Karalla was now included into Zamua 51. It is probably, that such changes occurred also in other places, then and afterwards 52. As to Mazamua, it bordered on Zamua, but lost a part of its territory as early as the end of the 9th century. It seems possible that in some rare cases (we seem to know of two, see above), a whole group of territories would be called Mazamua for brevity’s sake; such a substitution, however, cannot be traced in the annals or in official corresponden­ ce. But when - as, e.g., in the letter of Sharru-emuranni (governor of Zamua and eponym of the year 712), the topic discussed is the transferring of a definite 51 L.D.Levine, Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran, Royal Ontario Museum, Art and Archaeology, Occasional Paper 23 (Toronto 1972) 39, line 32. 52 Medvedskaya33 204. Inna Medvedskaya 442 official from Parsua and back again - it is hard to explain why the modem translator should use "Mazamua" for "Zamua" 53. However, the editors of SAA series have translated as "Mazamua" all mentions of Zamua in the offici­ als’ letters from the time of Sargon, without any comments (Table I). It seems that Levine’s conclusion that Zamua, Mazamua and Inner Zamua are identical, have been accepted unreservedly. But above we have shown that Levine’s arguments are not beyond doubt. It seems that the scholars in question were so sure of the identity of Zamua and Mazamua, at least in part, also because they adopted the philological reasoning of Forrer. He had noted that Zamua has always the determinative of "land", and never that of "town" 54. So Forrer seems to have supposed that the unique text ADD 942, where we find the writing URU.KUR.Za-mu-a should be treated as spelled phonetically: URUMad-za-mu-a. According to him, the name of Zamua in the Lullumian language was Dzamua, while its capital was Madzamua 55. Note that the use of two determinatives before a toponym do someti­ mes occur in Neo-Assyrian texts, thus KUR.URU.Ar-pad-dà, URU.KUR.BitAm-ma-na-aja,KUR.URU.Na-gi-i-ti 56. Thus also later: URU.KUR.A-ga-ma-tanu 57. The document ADD 942 lists exclusively towns from which some small offerings were expected; hence in this context URU.KUR.Zamua is spelled instead of simply KUR.Zamua. This may be explained by the fact that the scribe automatically put the determinative URU also here (i.e., before KUR) or he may have meant to say "a town of the land Zamua". In other words, the term Maza­ mua can by no means be identified as an spelling variant of KUR.Zamua=Mat Zamua. Thus, the philological solution suggested by Forrer is by no means obligatory and cannot be used for the identification of Zamua and Mazamua. To sum up, our most important results are the following: 1. Zamua and Inner Zamua were two different territories. This can be seen from the fact that the Assyrian kings used different roads to reach them. Mount Kullar is not identical with the Babitu pass. Kullar is identical with the Bunais pass; the sea of Inner Zamua is not identical with Lake Zeribor, actually, sea of Inner Zamua is identical with the Lower sea of Nairi (lake Urmia). 53 SAA V, 199. 54 In this connection, note the spelling sa URU [ ]-za-mu-a in the Eponym lists for 768. If, according to Millard (cf. note 42) we read Zamua, it would follow that the determina­ tive URU was actually used for Zamua. If we follow Forrer, we might read ’'Mazamua" in the Eponym lists for 768. 55 Forrer1 43. But the town Zamru is designated as the capital of Zamua (see ARI 2, § 561). 56 S.Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms, AOAT, Bd.6 (1970) 31, 76, 255. 57 J.N.Strassmaier, Inschriften von Cyrus, König von Babylon (Leipzig 1890) No. 60, 16. Zamua, Inner Zamua and Mazamua 443 2. Lullumu = Zamua are, territorially, not identical with Mazamua. When the Assyrians first became acquainted with the latter, it was probably identical with Inner Zamua. Beginning with the time of Sargon, the term Mazamua may, in unofficial documents, have been used as embracing several regions. But there is no reason to believe that this term was ever officially used for Zamua alone. 444 Lullumu Lullumu: ARI 1, § 520; the army of the Lullumu: ARI 1, § 381 Shalmaneser I 1274— 1245 Lullubu: ARI 1, § 556; Lullumu: ARI I, §594, 600 Tukulti-Ninurta I 1244— 1208 Lullumu: ARI 1. § 694 Ashur-resha-ishi I 1133-1116 Lullumu: ARI 1, § 950 Tiglath-pilescr I 1114— 1076 Ashur-bel-kala 1073— 1056 Lullumu: ARI 2, § 68, 94, 138 Zamua river Radanu: ARI 2, ? 98 Lullumu: ARI 2, § 248 Lullumu: ARI 2, § 419 Zamua: ARI 2, § 419 Tukulti-Ninurta 11 890— 884 the people of Lullu: ARI 2, § 468 Mt.Babitu: ARI 2, § 498 Ashur-nasir-apli II 863—859 the people of Lullu: ARI 2, 556. 565; Dur-Lullumcans: ARI 2, § 558; the troops of the Lullumu: ARI 2, § 589, 651 Zamua: ARI 2, § 554, 558, 560, 565, 566, 591, 653, 677, 729(7), 762, 766; Zamru— the royal city of the land Zamua: ARI 2,7 561 Tab. Ia Zamua ša bitani the land Biritc: ARI 1, ? 775 Adad-nerari II 911— 894 Shalmaneser III 858— 824 Maza mua Inna Medvedskaya Adad-narari I 1307— 1275 Mazamua: ARAB I, § 609 Zamua, which lies inside: ARAB I, § 561, 637,644; Cameron10, II, 10— 15, III, 59;the sea Zamua, which (lies) inside: ARAB I, § 617, 686, 690 Shamshi-Adad V 823— 810 810 — governor of Mazamua: Eponym lists 783— Zanni a (?): Eponym lists Ashur-daii III 768— Zamua (?): Eponym lists; Zamua: RLA 2 439 No. 34 771— 754 Tiglath-pilescr III 743— 728 the governor of the land of the Lullumaeans: ARAB I, § 771: Tadinor44, Ann. 19:18 Sargon H 719-^-705 the land of the Lullumu, which they call the land of Zamua: ARAB II, § 142; 733— Mazamua: Eponym lists; the province of Mazamua: ARAB I, § 764; Tadinor44, Ann. 9:10 KUR.ma-za-mu(-a): ABL 408 (SAA V,227); ADD 950 (SAA VII,23); ABL 556. Esarliaddon 680— 669 712— Zamua: Eponim lists; KUR-zamu-u(-a): ABL 582 (SAA V,234); ABL 311 (SAA V, 199), NL 89 (SAA V, 215); ADD 949 (SAA XI, 18); ADD 917 (SAA XI,16), ADD 886 (SAA XI, 135); ADD 1020 (SAA VII, 172) URU.KUR-za-mu-u: ADD 942 (SAA VII, 136) Zaniua: ABL 684; Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, pi. 11 43.4 Ashurbanipal 668— 627 province of Zamua: ABL 1244 (pe__t KUR Za-mu-u) URU ma-za-mu-u-a province of Lullumc: Levine51, 1.32; ARAB II, § 208, 209. K 4384 (SAA XI,1,11,4) 445 Tab. Ib Zamua, Inner Zamua and Mazamua Adad-nerari III 809— 782 Sharsina, son of Mcqdiara: ARAB I, § 717, 718