ARAMEANS. - A people dwelling in Aram. In a letter from el-Amarna (14th century B.C.) the term aḫlamē occurs, which was understood as designating the A. But since in the prism of Teglatphalasar I (1000 B.C.), and in the monolith of Assurnasirpal II (11th century B.C.) aḫlamē occurs with the qualification armāja (“Arameans”), aḫlamē cannot mean A., but perhaps means “associates, confederates.” Others saw the A. in Homer’s Eremboi and Arimoi; but this identification is unproven.
In the 11th century B.C. the Assyrian documents, accounts of warlike deeds, provide information concerning the A. and some of their states. They present them as dwelling in three major directions: one centred upon and based at the outlet of the river Ḥābūr into the Euphrates, one facing the territories of Babylonia, and one moving through northern Mesopotamia and northern Syria. Whereas the tribes that turned toward Babylonia crossed its borders peacefully, adapted themselves to the life of the population, and were often absorbed, although clashes were not lacking with the Babylonians, who intended to keep the turbulent or overzealous newcomers in order, the A. of the other two centres had to sustain harsh and prolonged struggles against the Assyrians. The principal ones follow.
Toward the end of the 12th century B.C., the A. on the right bank of the Euphrates crossed the river at the confluence of the Ḥābūr and at other points farther south, infiltrating Assyrian territory. Teglatphalasar I marched against them in 1112 and drove them back beyond the river, where he occupied six of their centres, situated on the slopes of the Bišri mountains; but he achieved nothing definitive and indeed had to campaign against them another 27 times, succeeding in defeating them along the Euphrates, on the line running from the great bend made by the river upon entering the plain to the borders of Babylonia. But around the beginning of the 10th century B.C. the Aramaean tribes occupied the entire valley of the Talih and also that of the Ḥābūr. In this territory between the middle Tigris and the Euphrates various principalities arose, taking their names from the chiefs of the several tribes. The most important of these, Bīt Bahiani, called by the ancient Mitannian name Hanigalbal, on the middle and upper course of the Tigris, exercised over the others a kind of high patronage.
The western Aramaean tribes occupied a large part of the territory of Karkemīš (Gerablus), namely, from the river Sagura south of the city to the boundary of the territory of Ḥamāt, and thus a great part of northern Syria. Their kingdom is called in Assyrian documents Bīt Adini, with Til Barsip as its capital; among the Greeks it is named Syria. From there, in the 10th century B.C., they set about rounding out their territory, annexing to it Sam'al (Zenğirli) to the west, the territories on the left bank of the Euphrates as far as the Balih tributary to the east, and Kummuh to the north. Other small Aramaean states, also mentioned in the Bible, arose in the Anti-Lebanon; the most important of them was Damasco.
In contrast with the peoples akin to them, Assyrians or Babylonians, the A. did not succeed in founding a great unified State, nor in organizing it firmly; rather, they created a multitude of States, sometimes moderately extensive, sometimes tiny. The latter were not unified States, but rather like a constellation in which various satellites move around a principal nucleus, which serves as a pivot and gives its name to the State. The individual satellites possessed a certain independence, which enabled them to conclude treaties with the constituent members of the State and with the principal nucleus on terms of equality. Such a constitution was a cause of weakness in the face of powerful neighbours, to whom it gave every advantage in their attempt to break up its structure. It should be added that in the various Aramaean States the A. were far from
constituting the majority of the population; thus, for example, among the provinces into which Syria was divided after the Assyrian conquest, only Mansuate, Soba, and Damasco were predominantly Aramaean.
The Assyrian conquest was fatal to the A. Adadnirari II attacked the kingdom of Hanigalbat in 900 B.C., defeating several petty princes one after another; his work was continued by Assurnasirpal II and Salmanasar III, so that in 799 the last of the Mesopotamian small states ceased to exist. Then came the turn of the States of Syria from Tapsaco downward. These, without outside aid, bordered on the Assyrians, who, aspiring to reach the Mediterranean, wished to subjugate them. The citadels best suited for resistance were Hamât and Damasco; but they succumbed in struggles that lasted about a century and were conducted with alternating fortunes by Salmanasar III and Adadnirâri III, until Teglatphalasar III, after various clashes with Rasunnu (Rasin) of Damasco, conquered this last bulwark of the A. in 732 B.C.
The progressive Assyrian penetration into Syrian territory may be seen from the provinces that the Assyrians established there: in 740 Arpad and Unqi; in 738 Kullani (Calne), Hatarikka, Hamât; in 732 Mansuate, Supite (Soba), Damasco, Qarnini, Haurina.
On the relations and clashes between A. and Israelites, V. SIRIA.