The 9th Century BC in the Near East: Part I

Assyrian winged figure from wall relief in Nimrud

Palace of Ashurnasirpal,
Vice-regent of Aššur,
Chosen one of the gods …
Destructive weapon of the great gods,
Strong king,
King of the Universe,
King of Assyria …
Part of the Standard Inscription of Ashurnasirpal II from the palace at Nimrud/Calah

This is the first post in the series. For the second post, please click here. I took a brief break from my posts on the Near Eastern/Middle Eastern history to discuss Mesoamerican history, but I will now return to the region and discuss the 9th Century BC (or the 800’s BC if you prefer; basically anything between 900-800BC). I will take a slightly different approach from my last blog-post on the Middle East in the order in which I discuss the civilisations, as the expansion of the Assyrian Empire means that the history of some of the separate regions begins to intersect, particularly in the Assyrian expansion into what is today western Syria. We are fortunate however that there are many more sources for this period, at least from the Assyrian perspective. From about 850 onwards the Biblical narrative is broadly corroborated by Assyrian and other sources and so this can be used as a historical source with much more confidence for this period. As always we need to be careful with our sources. The Biblical accounts are written later and from the perspective of a particular religious group, while the Assyrian sources are propaganda. But at least we have more sources to be cautious about, so this is good.

Geometric 9th Century
Greek Pottery

In Greece, the Greek Dark Ages continued. However, there were settlements, such as Sparta, Athens and Lefkandi that showed signs of relative sophistication. There were ritual burial grounds and it is clear that they were trading with the wider Mediterranean world. Their pottery was influenced by Near Eastern styles and to an extent the Greek settlements can be viewed as a minor periphery to the Near Eastern cultures at this point. Traditions speak of kings and lawmakers from this period but the traditions are generally confused and semi-mythical, although they doubtless contain much important information. The Spartan lawmaker Lycurgus is supposed to have lived during this period, but Sparta at this time had a culture that enjoyed imported wealth. It is likely that the Spartan reforms, which Lycurgus is supposed to have introduced, actually happened in the next century.

Concerning Lycurgus the lawgiver, in general, nothing can be said which is not disputed, since indeed there are different accounts of his birth, his travels, his death, and above all, of his work as lawmaker and statesman; and there is least agreement among historians as to the times in which the man lived. Some say that he flourished at the same time with Iphitus, and in concert with him established the Olympic truce. Among these is Aristotle the philosopher, and he alleges as proof the discus at Olympia on which an inscription preserves the name of Lycurgus. But those who compute the time by the successions of kings at Sparta, like Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, prove that Lycurgus was many years earlier than the first Olympiad.
Plutarch: The Life of Lycurgus

9th Century Greek Grave goods

In Athens, the town was a small settlement surrounding the hill of the Acropolis, which did not even fully control its own hinterland. At this point the Athenians appear to have been ruled by kings, who were drawn from an aristocracy. The function of the kings gradually declined, but it survived in ceremonial form as the Archon Basileus (the “king” magistrate”) but in later times this was changed to a position that was changed every year by either election or lottery and the function was purely ceremonial. The aristocracy from which the kings derived remained throughout the classical history of the city, with the Alcmaeonids almost certainly being a scion of these families. All of what I have said about Greece at this period is conjecture, drawn from either archaeology or later tradition. In this era the Greeks had forgotten the writing system of the Mycenaeans, but had not yet borrowed the alphabet from the Phoenicians, so no writing from the time survives.

Now the ancient constitution, as it existed before the time of Draco, was organized as follows. The magistrates were elected according to qualifications of birth and wealth. At first they governed for life, but subsequently for terms of ten years. The first magistrates, both in date and in importance, were the King, the Polemarch, and the Archon. The earliest of these offices was that of the King, which existed from ancestral antiquity. To this was added, secondly, the office of Polemarch, on account of some of the kings proving feeble in war…
Aristotle: The Athenian Constitution

The ruins of the Phryian capital Gordion

In Anatolia the record for this period is scanty. The Phrygian kingdom was powerful at this point, however they have left no records. Apart from the fact that their capital, Gordium, may have been burned around 800BC it is hard to say much about Anatolia during this period. Like Greece, Anatolian history at this period may have suffered due to falling in between two very interesting period and is perhaps not heavily studied compared to the Hittites or later Lydian Empire. Further to the east, in the Armenian Highlands, the kingdom of Urartu grew in strength, but more on that later.

Osorkon I

In Egypt Osorkon I ruled uneventfully in Tanis for the first decade of the century before being succeeded by his son Shoshenq II who reigned for a few years. Takelot I, a son of Osorkon I, succeeded to the throne, but was unable to control Thebes, where a ruler called Harsiese (often referred to as Harsiese A, as there were a number of individuals bearing the name) challenged the Pharaoh and ruled on his own. Inscriptions from this period sometimes omit the name of the Pharaoh; as it was unclear who the true ruler of Egypt was. Harsiese founded the 23rd Dynasty of Egypt in Thebes, which ruled in parallel with the Libyan 22nd Dynasty based in Tanis in Lower Egypt.

Osorkon II was a son of Takelot I and had a long reign during the middle of the century. While Thebes was still not fully under control, there does not appear to have been open warfare between Upper and Lower Egypt. According to some sources he may have sent forces north to Syria to assist in warding off the Assyrian threat at the great battle of Qarqar, but I think that these sources may have been misinterpreted. If Osorkon II did indeed send forces, they were paltry ones compared to the other armies assembled for that battle.

Item inscribed with the name of Osorkon II

Osorkon II was succeeded by Shoshenq III around 837BC. During this period Pedubast I is considered to have been a ruler of the 23rd Dynasty in Thebes, however there does not appear to have been war between Pedubast and Osorkon. Instead Pedubast was involved in a series of civil wars in Upper Egypt with other members of the poorly named 23rd Dynasty (the 23rd Dynasty resembled a prolonged faction fight rather than a dynasty). Shoshenq III ruled in Tanis until the end of the century, while a confused and persistent conflict was carried on by various rulers in the south of Egypt around Thebes. Even Egyptologists are not entirely sure of the exact dates and rulers in the south, so I will not try to go into detail on this. It is sufficient to note that at this period Egypt was caught in a certain degree of internecine strife and was unable to project power northwards beyond its borders into Palestine and Syria.

9th century Iranian gold object

In present-day Iran, far to the west, the Iranian tribes were beginning to migrate to the region, but formed no coherent state entities. Elam was a power in the region, but the other civilisations do not interact with them much and Elamite sources from this time are very poor allowing us to know almost nothing of their civilisation at this time. Even the names of the kings are uncertain for much of this century. This does not mean that they were not a force to be reckoned with, but it does make it very difficult to say anything with certainty about them for this period except that they were there.

For Syro-Palestine, present day Iraq and present-day Armenia, I will discuss in a vaguely chronological fashion, as each of these regions leaves behind significant records for the time and each region interacts substantially with the other. To discuss them in a purely disjointed fashion would hide the interplay of the politics and war that began to link the greater Near East in a way that it had not since the late Bronze Age.

Assyrian wall relief from Nimrud with cuneiform writing overlay

Adad-Nirari,
Strong king,
King of [Assyria],
King of the four quarters,
The one who defeats his enemies,
The king capable in battle,
Destroyer of cities, …
 I scorch like the fire god,
I overwhelm like the deluge, …
I have no foe to equal me;
Opening lines of an inscription of Adad-Nirari II, probably written around 893.

Adad-Nirari II ruled in Assyria from 911 to 891. Assyrian records begin to become very detailed shortly after his reign and these dates are securely attested. The Assyrians would name years after high officials (called Eponym's or limmu's) and lists of these Eponyms and the main events of their years survive. Adad-Nirari expanded Assyrian power and was a formidable foe to the Arameans and Babylonians. The Assyrian kingdom is sometimes referred to as the Neo-Assyrian kingdom from this point onward, but this is a modern term and the Assyrians would not have seen any break in continuity.

Assyrian wall relief from Nimrud

The Assyrians had survived the Bronze Age Collapse and had always been a force to be reckoned with, but from Adad-Nirari’s reign onward, the Assyrian army began to become substantially stronger than any of their rivals. Assyria was becoming the largest kingdom in the world. Their militaristic expansion and perpetual cultivation of their military meant that they were creating not only the largest kingdom that had ever existed up till that time, but also the largest and most powerful army the world had ever seen (at this point the Zhou Dynasty of China, never particularly united, was entering its long decline). For the next centuries Assyria would dominate the Near East. Their empire was impressive for its longevity as well. Mesopotamian empires, such as Sargon’s Akkadian Empire or Hammurabi’s Babylonian Empire lost most of their influence after a few generations, but the Assyrian Empire fended off threats for centuries. This period sees their dominance in the region become very noticeable.

In the month Tishri, seventeenth day, I moved out from the Inner City (Aššur) (and) entered the passes of Mount Kirriuru. Moving on from the passes I entered into Mounts Urrubnu (and) Išrun, mighty mountains within which no one among the kings my forefathers had done battle … I marched over difficult terrain and through rough territory where no [one] among the kings my forefathers had passed, I glided (and) penetrated therein. I approached the cities of the land Ladänu which the Aramaeans and the Lullu held. I conquered 30 of their cities between the mountains.
Excerpt from the annals of Tukulti-Ninurta II c. 885 describing some of the campaigns of the king

In 891 Tukulti-Ninurta II succeeded Adad-Nirari as king of Assyria. He reigned for seven years and followed the pattern of strong Assyrian kings by attacking the surrounding countries in all directions. Every year the army would push against a particular target before returning to the heartlands and wintering near Asshur. The army would comprise tens of thousands of men and had a strong archer component. They were able to cover difficult terrain and great distances at speed and the kings were proud of their ability to cross rivers and mountains. Many Assyrian rulers boasted of attacking a territory that none of their ancestors had been able to reach. The infantry were able to cross rivers using inflated animal skins that acted as flotation devices and makeshift rafts and the cavalry were able to swim. Chariots were still used, but mainly as vehicles for the commanders rather than as battle units as in the Bronze Age.

Tukulti-Ninurta II fought a great deal against the Arameans and the Nairi tribes in the mountains to the north of Assyria, but seems to have made a peace treaty with the Babylonians that was to influence his successors. Upon his death he was succeeded by Ashurnasirpal II.

They gave their daughters to one another in marriage. Together they made a treaty of peace. The peoples of Assyria and Akkad were joined together.
They established a boundary to Til-ša-Abtani and Til-ša-Zabdani from Til-Bit-Bari, which is upstream on the Zab.
Detail from the Synchronistic Chronicle (a chronicle of Assyria and Babylon that is heavily biased towards Assyria) describing the marriage alliance between Tukulti-Ninurta II and Nabu-shuma-ukin I of Babylon.

Stele of Nabu-shuma-ukin of Babylon

In Babylon Nabu-Shuma-ukin I had fought with Adad-Nirari II, but had made peace with his son. The details of his reign are not well documented and his dynasty is simply referred to as the Dynasty of E. The Assyrians may have wanted to concentrate their military expeditions to their neighbours to the west and north and a peace treaty with Babylon, on good terms for both, must have been advantageous to them. The peace was to continue for some time even after the deaths of the rulers who had negotiated it. In the ancient world treaties were often between kings rather than nations. If a king died or a dynasty changed it was generally expected that a new treaty would be negotiated and emissaries would be sent to remind the other parties of the friendship that had existed between their forebears.

Since the mountain was exceptionally rugged I did not pursue them. The mountain was as jagged as the point of a dagger and therein no winged bird of the sky flew. They had placed their fortress like the nest of the udinu bird within the mountain, which none of the kings my fathers had ever approached. For three days the hero explored the mountain. His bold heart yearned for battle. He ascended on foot and overwhelmed the mountain. He smashed their nest and scattered their flock. I felled 200 of their fighting-men with the sword and carried off a multitude of captives like a flock of sheep. With their blood I dyed the mountain red like red wool, and the rest of them the ravines and torrents of the mountain swallowed. I razed, destroyed, and burned their cities.
Excerpt from one of the inscriptions of Ashurnasirpal II describing a campaign against a mountainous region

In 883 Ashurnasirpal II became king of Assyria. He has one of the best documented reigns of the ancient world, with much of the artwork and chronicles of his reign surviving in museums around the world. He has the modern reputation of being extraordinarily cruel, which he was; but most other Assyrian kings appear to have been just as violent and bloodthirsty (it is just that not all of them are as well documented). While the Assyrians were great builders and artists, their state was ultimately founded on persistent war and the atrocities that this involved.

Nimrud; since destroyed by Daesh (IS)

I flayed as many nobles as had rebelled against me and draped their skins over the pile; some I spread out within the pile, some I erected on stakes upon the pile, and some I placed on stakes around about the pile. I flayed many right through my land and draped their skins over the walls. I slashed the flesh of the eunuchs and of the royal eunuchs who were guilty. I brought Ahi-iababa to Nineveh, flayed him, and draped his skin over the wall of Nineveh. Thus I have constantly established my victory and strength. …
Excerpt of an inscription of Ashurnasirpal describing the fate of a city and its ruler (Ahi-iababa) that had rebelled. There are many such descriptions in the annals of the Assyrian kings.

Ashurnasirpal maintained a general peace with Babylon and was able to very firmly crush a number of rebellions early in his reign. He then campaigned far to the west, crossing the Euphrates and extracting tribute from the Neo-Hittite state of Carchemish. He pushed as far west as the Mediterranean before marching south along the coast into present day Lebanon. This campaign has more of the nature of a raid about it rather than a conquest. By following the route that Ashurnasirpal took it is clear that he had not clashed with the Aramean kingdom of Damascus, which was the strongest state in what is now the country of Syria. He failed to conquer any of the cities on the coasts (although a number of cities on his route were destroyed and deported) and apparently contented himself with tribute. Assyrian kings very seldom recorded any setbacks in their annals so there may have been a defeat in Phoenicia to cause Ashurnasirpal to retreat. The Phoenician and Aramean kingdoms had survived the attack of Ashurnasirpal, but it was a troubling sign of things to come.

Relief from Nimrud showing Assyrian soldiers using
inflatable devices to cross a river

I crossed the Euphrates, which was in flood, in rafts made of inflated goatskins and approached the land of Carchemish...
I took with me the chariots, cavalry, and infantry of the city Carchemish. All the kings of the lands came down and submitted to me. I took from them hostages and they were kept in my presence on the march to Mount Lebanon...
At that time I made my way to the slopes of Mount Lebanon and went up to the Great Sea of the land Amurru. I cleansed my weapons in the Great Sea and made sacrifices to the gods. I received tribute from the kings of the sea coast, from the lands of the people of Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, Mahallatu, Maizu, Kaizu, Amurru, and the city of Arvad which is on an island in the sea...
Excerpts from the inscriptions of Ashurnasirpal describing the western expeditions

While Ashurnasirpal must have seemed like a demonic curse to any of his neighbours who had to face his armies and his cruelty, he may nevertheless have been well liked in Assyria. The plunder of successful campaigns enriched the cities of Assyria and traders were able to flourish within the boundaries of the ever expanding empire. The king decided to create a new city at Calah/Nimrud that had a series of gardens and beautiful palaces and temples adorned with some of the finest and most impressive artwork of the ancient world. Upon the inauguration of great palace the king decided to throw a party for nearly seventy thousand people in what may have been the greatest feast the world had ever seen. While Assyrian kings certainly liked to exaggerate their achievements the logistics that had been developed for the army meant that this feast was certainly within the capacity of the Assyrian state. The description makes it sound like an interesting party.

A lamassu gate guardian of Nimrud

When Ashurnasirpal, king of Assyria, inaugurated the palace of Calah, a palace of joy and [erected with] great ingenuity, he invited into it Ashur, the great lord and the gods of his entire country, [he prepared a banquet of] 1000 fattened head of cattle, 1000 calves, 10000 stable sheep, 15000 lambs -- for my lady Ishtar [alone] 200 head of cattle [and] 1000 sihhu-sheep -- 1000 spring lambs, 500 stages, 500 gazelles, 1000 ducks, 500 geese, 500 kurku-geese, 1000 mesuku-birds, 1000 qaribu-birds, 10000 doves, 10000 sukanunu-doves, 10000 other [assorted] small birds, 10000 [assorted] fish, 10000 jerboa, 10000 [assorted] eggs,...10000 [jars of] beer, 10000 skins with wine, ...1000 wood crates with vegetables, 300 [containers with] oil, ...100 [containers with] fine mixed beer, ...100 pistachio cones, ....
When I inaugurated the palace at Calah I treated for ten days with food and drink 47074 persons, men and women, who were bid to come from across my entire country, [also] 5000 important persons, delegates from the country Suhu, from Hindana, Hattina, Hatti, Tyre, Sidon, Gurguma, Malida, Hubushka, Gilzana, Kuma [and] Musasir, [also] 16000 inhabitants of Calah from all ways of life, 1500 officials of all my palaces, altogether 69574 invited guests from all the [mentioned] countries including the people of Calah; I [furthermore] provided them with the means to clean and anoint themselves. I did them due honour and sent them back, healthy and happy, to their own countries.
Description of the great feast of Calah

While Ashurnasirpal II reigned in Assyria Nabu-apla-iddina was king of Babylon. There was some low-level warfare between the two kings, but the Assyrian focus was generally away from Babylon and the period of peace was put to good use by Nabu-apla-iddina. The scribes were diligent in copying old texts and creating new ones and temples such as the shrine of the sun god Shamash at Sippar were restored from their previously devastated state. After the death of Ashurnasirpal II, the Babylonian king was able to make a peace treaty with his son, Shalmaneser III, who was eager to push to the north and west.

In 859, in his first year as king of Assyria, Shalmaneser III, who was probably a seasoned veteran from accompanying his father on campaigns, attacked the newly founded kingdom of Urartu forcing the king Arame of Urartu to abandon his city. The state of Urartu (a newly formed kingdom of the Nairi tribes near what is present day Armenia) was later to become a threat to the Assyrians.

Assyrian troops using siege equipment against a city

Moving on from the city Hubuskia I approached the city Sugunia, the fortified city of Aramu the Urartian. I besieged the city, captured it, massacred many of its people, and carried off booty from them. I erected two towers of heads in front of his city. I burned fourteen cities in its environs.
Moving on from the city Sugunia, I went down to the sea of the land Nairi {Lake Van}. I washed my weapons in the sea and made sacrifices to my gods. At that time I made an image of myself and wrote thereon the praises of Assur, the great lord, and the prowess of my power.
Inscription of Shalmaneser III describing his attack on Urartu in his first year as king

After temporarily breaking the power of the newly founded Urartian kingdom to the north, Shalmaneser pushed west in the same year towards Que (Cilicia) in present day Turkey. There the states that had submitted to the swift advance of his father took the opportunity to resist and formed an alliance, including the Neo-Hittite states of Que and Carchemish as well as a host of other small cities in what is now northern Syria and southern Turkey. This alliance was unsuccessful, as even the combined strength of the neo-Hittite cities was insufficient to resist the Assyrian armies.

Shalmaneser III

Moving on from the city Gurgum I approached the city Lutibu, the fortified city of Haiianu, the Sam'alite. Haiianu, the Sam'alite, Sapalulme, the Patinean, Ahunu, the man of Bit-Adini, and Sangara, the Carchemishite, put their trust in each other and prepared for war.
Inscription of Shalmaneser III from the Kurkh Monolith describing the first alliance against him in Syria

The next years saw Shalmaneser push towards the Mediterranean and launch further punitive expeditions against Urartu, which had been bloodied, but not destroyed. However, the inveterate enemy of Assyria, the powerful Aramean kingdom of Damascus still stood strong and in the year 853 the Aramean rulers of Damascus formed a great coalition of the powers of the region against Assyria. When Shalmaneser approached the city of Qarqar the allies were waiting. I will pause the description of the battle to describe the state of Syro-Palestine during this time and to give a clear picture of the combatants.

While we have a good few sources to describe what happened in Syro-Palestine, we seldom have a clear idea of why these things happened. I will describe the places and events and try to provide a narrative for these. However bear in mind that much of this narrative is my own conjecture. I will try to call this out explicitly in my description. Around 850, in Damascus, Hadadezer (referred to as Ben-Hadad in the Old Testament) was king of the Aramean kingdom. Unfortunately all of the descriptions of this time are from the enemies of the Arameans, but it is clear that he reigned over the strongest state between Assyria and Egypt.

Israel was ruled by the house of Jeroboam for two generations before Baasha murdered the king and usurped the throne, killing all of the royal family. Baasha fought against the southern, weaker, kingdom of Judah and had an alliance with Damascus before the Arameans switched sides and attacked Israel instead. Baasha’s dynasty was short-lived, with his son Elah succeeding to the throne before being murdered by Zimri, a commander of the chariot corps. Zimri did not last long as king (the accounts give him a monumental rule of around seven days, during which he slew all of the family of Baasha) before another commander of the army called Omri attacked the capital and killed Zimri, before fighting a civil war against another usurper. Despite being stronger than Judah, Israel certainly seems to have suffered dynastic strife in this period.

Zimri, one of his officials, who had command of half his chariots, plotted against him. Elah was in Tirzah at the time, getting drunk in the home of Arza, the man in charge of the palace at Tirzah. Zimri came in, struck him down and killed him in the twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah. Then he succeeded him as king. As soon as he began to reign and was seated on the throne, he killed off Baasha's whole family. He did not spare a single male, whether relative or friend.
1 Kings 16:9-11 NIV translation
When the Israelites in the camp heard that Zimri had plotted against the king and murdered him, they proclaimed Omri, the commander of the army, king over Israel that very day there in the camp. Then Omri and all the Israelites with him withdrew from Gibbethon and laid siege to Tirzah. When Zimri saw that the city was taken, he went into the citadel of the royal palace and set the palace on fire around him. So he died,
1 Kings 16:16-19 NIV translation

Omri was a very strong king however. In proportion to other powers in the region, the reign of Omri was probably the strongest that the northern kingdom ever was. The capital of Israel, Tirzah, had been damaged during the civil war, with 1 Kings recording that Zimri burned the palace down around him, so Omri built a new and more defensible capital at Samaria, which would be the capital until the destruction of the northern kingdom. Omri then pacified the other kingdoms in the region, making peace with Damascus and allowing Judah to act as a junior partner in an alliance. The lesser kingdoms of Moab, Ammon and Edom were forced to pay tribute to Israel. Omri fostered good relations with the Phoenician cities to the north-west and his son Ahab was married to Ethbaal’s daughter Jezebel, which strengthened Israel’s position in the region. This seems to have caused some religious turmoil later in Israel and Judah as Jezebel promoted her gods in the new city of Samaria. The Biblical writers do not speak of Omri much, as he was not a follower of their god, but the Assyrians refer to all subsequent kings of Israel as being from “the house of Omri” suggesting that his legacy was remembered in the region.

In the thirty-first year of Asa king of Judah, Omri became king of Israel, and he reigned twelve years, six of them in Tirzah. He bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two talents of silver and built a city on the hill, calling it Samaria, after Shemer, the name of the former owner of the hill. But Omri did evil in the eyes of the LORD and sinned more than all those before him.
1 Kings 16:23-25

Baasha had fought a constant war against the kingdom of Judah and its king, Asa, but the war seems to have ceased after Omri’s accession and the sons of Asa and Omri, (Ahab and Jehoshaphat respectively) became allies. Ahab was a weaker king than Omri and Ben-Hadad of Damascus attacked Israel repeatedly with varying success. The religious policy of the dynasty, known sometimes as the Omrides, led to tension within the kingdom. It was at this point that belief in the national god appears to have been at its lowest ebb and the writers of the book of Kings spend a lot of time detailing the religious struggle between the prophets Elijah and Elisha, and the foreign queen Jezebel. Around this time Ashurnasirpal’s invasion of northern Syria and attacks on Phoenicia occurred and must have changed the political landscape.

…But he (Ahab) also married Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and began to serve Baal and worship him.
1 Kings 16:31

Phoenician ivory work discovered at Nimrud

The Phoenician cities were prosperous at this time. The Phoenicians were traders and even their name may possibly refer to a particularly expensive dye that was traded by the city of Tyre. Their alphabet had been adopted by the western Semitic speakers in the kingdoms surrounding them and now the Phoenicians were expanding across the sea by founding colonies. These were small groups of around a thousand citizens that would strike out and found a city at a strategic location along a maritime trade route. The cities would normally be founded on peninsulas that could be easily walled off and where docks could be built on the sheltered shore. These acted as bases for resupply of their ships and sometimes grew to the extent that they were able to found colonies of their own. The first colonies were probably on Cyprus but by around 850 they had already founded colonies in Tunisia before sending colonisers further on to southern Spain and Sardinia. The Phoenician ships were already beginning to venture out into the Atlantic.

... At Tarshish and he drove them out. Among the Sardinians he is [now] at peace, (and) his army is at peace: Milkaton son of Shubna (Shebna), general of (king) Pummay (Pygmalion?).
The Nora Stone, a Sardinian inscription in Phoenician possibly describing the foundation of a Phoenician colony. This is only one particular interpretation and some scholars translate this text very differently.

At this period Byblos was being eclipsed by Tyre and King Ittobaal I (or Ethbaal) of Tyre united most of Phoenicia, including Sidon, in the first half of the 9th century. It was his daughter who was married to Ahab of Israel. He was succeeded by Baal-Eser II in the 840’s, Mattan I in the 830’s and Pu’mayyaton (or Pygmalion in Greek) for the remainder of the century. The reign of Pu’mayyaton seems to be connected with the Nora Stone and is connected in myth to Dido, the Queen of Carthage in myth. Carthage was founded in Tunisia at the end of the 9th century. The name is Phoenician for Qart-Hadast, meaning “New Town”, in contradistinction to the older colony of Utica (which probably meant “Old Town”). The legends of Aeneas and Dido are from a much later date, but oddly there are classical sources that speak of this time. Menander of Ephesus wrote a history of the kings of Phoenicia describing this period. It does not survive, but is quoted to some extent by the Jewish historian Josephus. The other main Phoenician writer of the classical era (Sanchuniathon) does not survive, but is quoted by the church historian Eusebius. The lists given in Josephus can be used with caution, as they are backed up by some other sources (Ittobaal is mentioned in Assyrian texts) but great caution is still advised.

Pheles, who took the kingdom and reigned but eight months, though he lived fifty years: he was slain by Ithobalus, the priest of Astarte, who reigned thirty-two years, and lived sixty-eight years: he was succeeded by his son Badezorus, who lived forty-five years, and reigned six years: he was succeeded by Matgenus his son; he lived thirty-two years, and reigned nine years: Pygmalion succeeded him; he lived fifty-six years, and reigned forty-seven years. Now in the seventh year of his reign, his sister fled away from him, and built the city Carthage in Libya.
Excerpt from Josephus' book Against Apion, where he quotes Menander of Ephesus' history of the Phoenician kings

It was into this land that Shalmaneser marched into, attempting to crush all the kingdoms of the land between the Euphrates, the Sea and the mountains of Lebanon. However, a coalition had been formed, not only of the small cities that were in the immediate path of the Assyrians, but of the larger kingdoms to the south. The kings of Damascus and Samaria had put aside their traditional enmity and formed an alliance with Hamath. It is even possible that Egypt became afraid of the Assyrian threat and sent a small contingent of troops, but I think that it is more likely that the word used in the description of the battle is referring to another small city in the region of Cilicia. Not all of the kingdoms of Syro-Palestine were there. Judah, Moab and Tyre were absent (perhaps the armies of Judah were counted among those of Israel), but the combined armies of Damascus, Samaria and Hamath were able to put at least forty thousand troops in the field. Perhaps the chariot corps in Israel was politically important and it is interesting that the Israelites apparently fielded more chariots than all the other states put together, but no cavalry, at a time when cavalry was replacing chariotry on the battlefield. The alliance met the forces of Shalmaneser on the Orontes River near the city of Qarqar. Only Assyrian records of the battle survive so I shall let Shalmaneser describe it in his own words…

The Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III
describing the Battle of Qarqar

Moving on from Aleppo I approached cities of Irhulëni, the Hamathite. I captured the cities Adennu, Pargâ, (and) Arganâ, his royal cities. I brought forth his captives, property, and palace possessions, and burned his palaces. Moving on from the city Arganâ I approached the city Qarqar. I razed, destroyed, and burned the city Qarqar, his royal city. An alliance had been formed of these twelve kings:
1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry, and 20,000 troops of Hadad-ezer (Adadidri), the Damascene;
700 chariots, 700 cavalry, and 10,000 troops of Irhulëni, the Hamathite;
2,000 chariots and 10,000 troops of Ahab (Ahabbu) the Israelite;
500 troops of Byblos;
1,000 troops of Egypt? (Musri);
10 chariots (and) 10,000 troops of the land Irqanatu;
200 troops of Matinu-baal of the city Arvad;
200 troops of the land Usanätu;
30 chariots (and) [?],000 troops of Adunu-ba'al of the land Sianu;
1,000 camels of Gindibu of the Arabs;
[?] hundred troops of Baasa, the man of Bit-Ruhubi, the Ammonite.
They attacked to [wage] war and battle against me. With the supreme forces which Aššur, my lord, had given to me (and) with the mighty weapons which the divine standard, which goes before me, had granted me I fought with them. I defeated them from the city Qarqar as far as the city Gilzau. I felled with the sword 14,000 troops, their fighting men, (and) rained down upon them destruction as the flood god Adad would. I filled the plain with their spread out corpses and felled their extensive troops with the sword. I made their blood flow in the wadis. The plain was too small to lay their bodies out; the extensive area was not sufficient to accommodate burying all of them. I dammed up the Orontes River with their bodies like a bridge. In the midst of this battle I took away from them chariots, cavalry, and teams of horses.
An inscription from the Kurkh Monolith, describing the Assyrian perspective on the Battle of Qarqar in 853

Shalmaneser III

The Assyrian records, which are the only records of the battle, describe a great battle and a great victory. The Assyrian army probably numbered at least fifty thousand so assuming that the figures given for the opposing army are correct, around one hundred thousand troops were engaged at Qarqar. Some scholars believe it was the largest battle fought up to that date. The colossal victory described by Shalmaneser may not have been as spectacular as he reports and as far as I can tell there were three results from the battle; a tactical Assyrian victory, a short term strategic Assyrian defeat and a long term Assyrian victory. The battle was probably a tactical victory in that the Assyrians probably held the field of battle after the fighting.

However, it was probably a slender victory. None of the enemy kings are reported as dead and the casualty figures suggest that they were able to withdraw with at least sixty percent of their forces intact, a very bloody battle but far from a complete rout. The Assyrians have dead soldiers on their hands, but not large amounts of captives so there was no mass surrender after the battle. Ahab and Hadadezer (Ben-Hadad) escape to fight another day and the flayed bodies of these kings do not adorn the walls of Asshur. Also, there seems to have been no further campaigning that year. Shalmaneser seems to have withdrawn to Assyria to regroup his army (which may have taken very heavy casualties as well). The monument to the victory is written in a great hurry and with a number of spelling and other errors (for example, twelve kings are supposed to have fought against Shalmaneser but only eleven are listed, although this is probably just a formula in that “twelve kings” may have been literary shorthand for “a great alliance”) that usually do not occur. In the words of one scholar, “It had to be made clear to anyone who might have thought otherwise, that the king had achieved a splendid victory.” Despite the colossal victory described, the area sees repeated campaigning by Shalmaneser in the years to come.

For three years there was no war between Aram (Damascus) and Israel. But in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah went down to see the king of Israel. The king of Israel had said to his officials, "Don't you know that Ramoth Gilead belongs to us and yet we are doing nothing to retake it from the king of Aram?" So he asked Jehoshaphat, "Will you go with me to fight against Ramoth Gilead?" Jehoshaphat replied to the king of Israel, "I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses."
1 Kings 22:1-5
So they turned to attack him, but when Jehoshaphat cried out, the chariot commanders (of the Arameans of Damascus) saw that he was not the king of Israel and stopped pursuing him. But someone drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel between the sections of his armour. The king told his chariot driver, "Wheel around and get me out of the fighting. I've been wounded." All day long the battle raged, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran onto the floor of the chariot, and that evening he died.
1 Kings 22:32-35

Wall relief from Nimrud showing the god Asshur

However, in the longer term the battle probably was a success for the Assyrians. The battle must have been bloody enough that the kings of the region were not interested in forming another coalition. Israel and the kingdom of Damascus seem to have gone to war with each other a few years after the battle of Qarqar, probably because Ahab thought that the kingdom of Damascus was weakened (my interpretation of events). When Shalmaneser returned to the region the smaller kingdoms that had united against him slowly fell, one by one. Ahab was killed in battle a few years later, fighting alongside his ally Jehoshaphat of Judah against his former ally the kingdom of Damascus (again the passage refers to the importance of the chariot corps of Israel). Ahab was succeeded by his sons Ahaziah and then Joram after the death of Ahaziah.

I will end the post here, as it is already extremely long. The link for the second part of this post is here.

Related Blog Posts:
The 10th Century BC in the Middle East (1000-900BC)
The 9th Century BC in the Middle East I (900-850BC)
The 9th Century BC in the Middle East II (850-800BC)
The 8th Century BC in the Middle East (800-750BC)

The 10th Century BC

Carved relief from Carchemish

In two previous posts I have discussed the aftermath of the Bronze Age Collapse in Greece, Anatolia, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Elam and the Levant. In this post I will attempt to give a brief picture of the century that followed. We must remember that for this period, as for much of antiquity, we are dealing with an era that is scant in historical sources. Even the literate civilisations of antiquity leave few records for this period. Consequently our conceptions for this period are based upon a few remnants of records made at the time and scholarly reconstructions based upon archaeology and literary texts that have unknown transmission histories. In short, we can discuss this period of Near Eastern history with some confidence, but not much. New discoveries might radically change our conceptions and we must be careful not to speak too dogmatically.

For some translations I have used the excellent reshafim.org site and a site that deals with biblical history and archaeology (http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.ie). I have enjoyed reading both of these immensely so do check them out if you want further information. Translations of Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles are taken from Livius.org.

In Greece there is not much that can be said for this century. Small settlements such as the one at Lefkandi are in evidence, but there are no writings or significant archaeological finds that shed much light on the period. In Anatolia, the void caused by the collapse of the Hittite kingdom seems to have been partially filled by the Phrygians. This people was possibly originally from Europe and were situated further to the west than Hattusa (the old capital of the Hittite Empire). Later, the Assyrians would record a powerful kingdom in the region called Mushki; that might have been the same as the Phrygian kingdom, however, during the tenth century there is little evidence of this people.

(This is the) temple which Yehimilk king of Byblos rebuilt. He restored all the ruins of these temples. May Ba’al-shamem and Ba’alat of Byblos and the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos prolong the days of Yehimilk and his years over Byblos. For [he is] a legitimate king and a good king before the h[oly] gods of Byblos.
Yehimilk Inscription from the city of Byblos

Statue of Baal
with thunderbolt and mace,
treading on hills and sea.
Stele is from Ugarit
in an earlier period

Moving south through Syria and the Levant we see the Neo-Hittite states of Que and Carchemish surviving in Cilicia and on the banks of the Euphrates River. Further to the south, on the Abana River, the Arameans had taken the city of Damascus, which had been fairly unimportant up to this point. A strong kingdom was founded here and other Aramean states were founded in Hamath and a host of smaller cities in what is now Syria. In modern-day Lebanon, Phoenician cities flourished, most notably Byblos, Tyre and Sidon. These had always been coastal cities with a tradition of shipbuilding, but now that they were no longer part of imperial trade networks they became wealthy through trading in their own right. A resurgence of Egyptian power assisted in this. Egypt was no longer strong enough to  dominate the region, but wealthy enough to trade with.

History becomes a little problematic south of Phoenicia and Damascus at this period. We are in the possession of texts (the Tanakh/Old Testament of the Bible) that is said to have been written in, or at least to describe, the region in this period. As this section of the Bible is important (and canonical) to Judaism and Christianity and of interest to Islam, it is no surprise that this is a contentious and controversial source for historians. Discussions of the general historicity of the Old Testament are out of the scope of this blog. However, the broad picture given is not incompatible with the other sources for the period (even if only because these sources are largely lacking) so I will describe the picture given. The reader must bear in mind however that these texts have been transmitted rather than directly discovered like the cuneiform records of Hammurabi for example.

Reproduction of the Gezer Calendar

It’s (two) months of harvest.
It’s (two) months of sowing.
It’s (two) months of late growth.
It’s month of cutting flax
It’s month of barley harvest.
It’s month of harvest and measuring.
It’s (two) months of pruning.
It’s month of summer (fruit).
Abiyah

The Gezer Calendar; a Hebrew agricultural calendar, written using Phoenician script from the 10th Century. Abiyah is probably the name of the scribe who wrote the piece.

The Israelites around the time of the 1000’sBC were a series of loosely united tribes, sharing a common language and broadly similar religious conceptions, which at times at least, were quite similar to their neighbours. Like most tribes and cities in the region they fought intermittently, both with their neighbours and among themselves. There was probably a move towards appointing rulers around the late 1000’s. It is unclear just how much this actually amounted to. The preceding period had seen leaders arise who had been given military commands, but who had no lasting power. These were known as judges in the Old Testament sources.

The first king of Israel does not appear to have had a fixed capital and the armies that he commanded were lightly armed tribal levies at best. The first dynasty did not last and another leader united the tribes after some conflict before briefly establishing military hegemony in the region. This was followed by a period of relative peace before the military hegemony collapsed and the tribal kingdom split apart, with the tribe of Judah forming the core of a small southern kingdom and the tribe of Ephraim forming the core of a larger northern kingdom.

The northern kingdom might have conquered the southern kingdom, but around this time Egyptian power became strong enough to launch campaigns in Syro-Palestine again and around the time of the split we know that the Egyptians raided the territory of the northern kingdom. Many archaeologists question whether the united Israelite kingdom ever existed and point out that there is little evidence for much activity in the region in this period, particularly in the south. I think that the version of events described in the Old Testament sources is plausible. There are some circumstantial indications that the two kingdoms were once a single entity. Firstly, each kingdom of the region seems to have had its national god, even if the religious beliefs of the separate states were identical. Thus the Assyrians worshipped Ashur as their god while the Babylonians worshipped Marduk. However, there is no record of the phrase “God of Judah” in the Bible (the phrase “God of Israel” is used a lot), suggesting that the same state god might imply, at one point, that both kingdoms were part of the same state.

When all Israel saw that the king refused to listen to them, they answered the king:
“What share do we have in David, what part in Jesse’s son? To your tents, Israel! Look after your own house, David!”
So the Israelites went home. But as for the Israelites who were living in the towns of Judah, Rehoboam still ruled over them.
1 Kings 12:16-17 describing the breakup of the united Israelite Kingdom

Baal, a Canaanite god,
sometimes worshipped by the Israelites

The kinglists given for the northern kingdom of Israel show a high turnover of dynasties and kings, with two different capitals and nine dynasties out of nineteen kings (including one king who only ruled for nine days). In contrast the southern kingdom is portrayed as being rather more stable, with a single dynasty ruling from one capital with only one interruption. This would seem to indicate a greater legitimacy of kingship in the south (which would make sense if the north was a breakaway state). However, the records consistently favour the southern Kingdom of Judah so this point is of debatable merit. The main circumstantial evidence is that Jerusalem (the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah) is located very close to the border of the powerful northern kingdom. This choice of capitals makes little sense if the kingdom of Judah arose later in the shadow of the northern kingdom, but does make sense if the two kingdoms were once united (as the capital is close to both Judah and Israel).

All of this is of course speculation. Until more writings are discovered it is impossible to do more than speculate. The kingdom of Hamath is known to have had close dealings with the kings of this region so if this is ever properly excavated it may well shed light on this period (it is unlikely as the city is currently a major battleground in the Syrian Civil War). In short, the transmitted sources tell us that there was a united monarchy that subsequently broke into two kingdoms; Israel in the north and Judah in the south at this time. Other historical sources do not confirm or disconfirm this. In the 800’s BC we see other sources that shed light on this region.

The Old Testament also mentions kingdoms to the east and south of Israel and Judah (Ammon, Moab and Edom). These kingdoms are also not substantiated by significant archaeological evidence at this time, but later emerge in history in the next century and beyond. They are recorded as being slightly weaker than the two Israelite kingdoms and sometimes as tributary kingdoms, but they are also recorded as being able to inflict defeats upon the two Israelite kingdoms when the kingdoms of Israel and Judah became weaker.

Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plow points, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened.
1 Samuel 13:19-20 (referring to the time around 1050BC when the Philistines were much stronger than the Israelites)

Along the coast of the Mediterranean, to the west of Judah, five cities of the Philistines are recorded (Gath, Gaza, Askelon, Ekron and Ashdod). These cities were in a loose alliance and were powerful enemies of the Israelites. However, their hold on the Israelite kingdoms seems to have diminished during this period and whenever the Israelite kingdoms were strong, the Philistine cities may have paid tribute. They controlled the coastal routes from Egypt towards Phoenicia while the kingdom of Judah was confined to the hill country in the interior. The Philistines are often equated with the Peleset, a tribe of Sea Peoples mentioned by Ramesses III, and they may have been invaders to the region during the time of the Bronze Age Collapse.

Most of the information about the region in this period is taken from the Old Testament and this is a contentious source. While religious factors do determine what, if any, weight is to be given to this source, I also find that the various disciplines of history affect how people interpret this source. I have a background in classics, which has a substantial, but limited, corpus of written sources. The writings are treated with suspicion, but each document is treated as having some intrinsic merit unless there is a good reason to suspect otherwise. In other words, the records are treated as hypothetically innocent until proven guilty. Those who come from other disciplines, such as archaeology, may discount later writings about a period and focus entirely on the material evidence. These differing approaches explain a lot of the disagreements about the history of the region.

Detail from the sarcophagus of Ahiram, a ruler of Byblos

I found him sitting in his upper chamber, leaning his back against a window, while the waves of the great Syrian sea beat against the [] behind him.
 ...
Then I was silent in this great hour. He answered and said to me: "On what business hast thou come hither?"
I said to him: "I have come after the timber for the great and august barge of Amon-Re, king of gods. Thy father did it, thy grandfather did it, and thou wilt also do it." So spake I to him.
He said to me: "They did it, truly. If thou give me (something) for doing it, I will do it. Indeed, my agents transacted the business; the Pharaoh, [], sent six ships, laden with the products of Egypt, and they were unloaded into their storehouses. And thou also shall bring something for me."
...
(King of Byblos speaking)
"As for me, I am myself neither thy servant nor am I the servant of him that sent thee. If I cry out to the Lebanon, the heavens open, and the logs lie here on the shore of the sea."
Report of Wenamun: A fictionalised account of a journey by an Egyptian official to Byblos to buy timber, where the official is treated with disdain by the Phoenician king. Despite the fictionalised narrative it can be viewed as illustrative of the diminished power of Egypt.

In Egypt the Pharaohs of the 21st Dynasty continued their tenuous rule of the country. Libyan tribes continued to infiltrate the country causing instability. However, this migration may not have been an invasion in the strictest sense. Many of the tribal chieftains acknowledged the Pharaoh and at least some of them married into the royal family. Psusennes I was succeeded by Amenemope, who was succeeded by Osorkon the Elder (who is not accorded a regnal number), who was succeeded by Siamun. If the account of the alliance between Solomon of Israel and Egypt is true it is likely that Siamun was the Pharaoh who attacked Gezer as part of this alliance. There are no sources to confirm this however. Siamun was succeeded by Psusennes II who left very little evidence of his reign. After his death around 943 BC he was succeeded by Shoshenq I.

The Bubastite Portal of Shoshenq I in Karnak

... Said his majesty to the court: " ... the evil things which they have done." Said they: "... his horses after him, while they knew (it) not. Lo ... His majesty made a great slaughter among them ... he ... ed them upon the [dyke] of the shore of Kemwer.
Karnak inscription describing the campaigns of Shoshenq I in Palestine


Shoshenq was a Libyan but he was related by marriage to the previous dynasty. He limited the power of the High Priests of Amun by making the position dependent on the Pharaoh, appointing the High Priests instead of allowing hereditary dynasties of priests. With Egypt now stabilised both from internal power struggles and from Libyan pressure, Shoshenq was free to concentrate on external conquests. He attacked Palestine in the first definitively recorded Egyptian expedition in over a century. This campaign is recorded on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak. Many of the place names mentioned in the inscriptions would be familiar to readers of the Old Testament with a number of towns and cities between Ezion-Geber and Megiddo being mentioned.

In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem. He carried off the treasures of the temple of the LORD and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made.
I Kings 14:23-24

Detail from the Bubastite Portal
showing the defeated peoples of Canaan

This campaign is often connected with the account of the Shishak in 1 Kings 14, however many do not accept this identification. Ancient Hebrew only really recorded consonants so the names of the kings (Shoshenq/k=Shishak) match quite neatly, however the Bubastite Portal does not mention an attack on Jerusalem, or in fact mention Jerusalem or either of the Israelite kingdoms in the description of the campaign. It is hard to know how much to read into this, as the events in 1 Kings may recount Rehoboam’s subjection to Shoshenq and huge tribute may have been a way of buying off the Pharaoh (or asking him to attack the Northern Kingdom of Israel). The Bubastite Portal appears to be both incomplete and damaged as well so it is possible that references to these events simply do not survive. The information on it appears to have been given in formulas as well, with armies of the Mitanni being mentioned despite the fact that the Mitanni Empire had vanished centuries before. In any case, despite what the first Indiana Jones movie may have implied, there is no evidence that the Ark of the Covenant was captured and taken to the city of Tanis, so there may yet be redemption for Shoshenq.

Shoshenq I was succeeded by Osorkon I who left behind little evidence of his reign. There is no evidence that he campaigned extensively in Syro-Palestine. Egypt had recovered and was once again able to exert pressure outside its borders, but it was not to reach the Euphrates again until the 600’s BC.

At the time of Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, Šamaš-muddamiq, king of Karduniaš (Babylon), drew up a battle array at the foot of Mount Yalman and Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, brought about the defeat of Šamaš-muddamiq, king of Karduniaš, and conquered him.
His chariots, and teams of horses, he took away from him.
Šamaš-muddamiq, king of Karduniaš, passed away.
Nabû-šuma-iškun, son of [Šamaš-muddamiq, ascended his father's throne?]. Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, fought with Nabû-šuma-iškun king of Karduniaš, and defeated him.
Synchronistic Chronicle describing the wars between Adad-Nirari II of Assyria and Babylonian kings. The Synchronistic Chronicle is heavily biased towards the Assyrians.

In Assyria, Ashur-Rabi II held the throne. He was succeeded by Ashur-Resh-Ishi II, Tiglath-Pileser II and Ashur-Dan II. All of these monarchs are fairly unknown to history. There is little that can be said about these kings, however a high turnover of monarchs generally destabilises a state and if each of these monarchs had long (if uneventful reigns) it may have strengthened Assyria in comparison to its neighbours. Adad-Nirari II came to power around 911 BC and embarked on a period of expansion that would (even after setbacks) see Assyria become the most powerful empire in the region. The Neo-Assyrian period is often dated from his reign and he campaigned to the west and south against the Arameans and Babylonians.

A Babylonian kudurru from this period

In the month Nisannu, in the seventh year, the Aramaeans were belligerent, so that the king could not come up to Babylon. Neither did Nabu come nor Bel come out. In the month Nisannu, in the eighth year of Nabu-mukin-apli, the king, the Aramaeans were belligerent, and Bab-nibiri ("Gate of the Crossing") of Kar-bel-matati they captured. Thus the king could not cross, Nabu did not come, and Bel did not come out. The king did not offer the sacrifices of the Akitu festival in Esagil.
…
For nine years in succession Bel did not come out nor did Nabu come.
Religious Chronicle describing festivals and rituals being disrupted by Aramean incursions during this time.

In Babylon, the Bit-Bazi Dynasty ruled for the first few decades of the tenth century before being replaced by an Elamite called Mar-biti-apla-usur, who was treated as a legitimate king, but founded no dynasty. Babylonian kings followed each other but the records are very scanty (we know that they were attacked by Arameans from the west during this time). In the last decades of the tenth century Shamash-Mudammiq became king in Babylon and fought wars with Adad-Nirari II of Assyria, which the Assyrians record as great victories for Assyria (Assyrian records have a tendency to do this regardless of the results of combat). Records of Elam for this period are so scanty that even the names of the kings are barely known.

In conclusion, this has been a fairly tame post. There are no exciting trial narratives or murder mysteries. The sources are damaged, controversial and worst of all, non-existent. Not much can be said of this time. However, the broad picture shows a gradual re-stabilisation of the powers of the Middle East, with Assyria beginning to dominate Babylon and Egypt becoming formidable again. These trends would continue throughout the next centuries with the nascent kingdoms of the Levant beginning to feel the pressure of an expansionist Assyria. This will be discussed in further posts.

Related Blog Posts:
The Early Iron Age and the Death of Kings: I (c.1200-1000BC)
The Early Iron Age and the Death of Kings: II (c.1200-1000BC)
The 9th Century BC in the Near East: I (900-800BC)
The 9th Century BC in the Near East: II (900-800BC)