Assyrian families, to whom he distributed lands and confided the
guardianship of the neighbouring strongholds.

* Hommel thinks that Sinabu is very probably the same as the
Kinabu mentioned above; but it appears from Assur-nazir-
pal's own account that this Kinabu was in the province of
Khalzidipkha (Khalzilukha) on the Kashiari, whereas Sinabu
was in Bît-Zamâni.

The results of this measure were not long in making themselves felt:
Shupria, Ulliba, and Nirbu, besides other districts, paid their dues
to the king, and Shura in Khamanu,* which had for some time held out
against the general movement, was at length constrained to submit (880
B.C.).

* Shur is mentioned on the return to Nairi, possibly on the
road leading from Amidi and Tushkhân to Nineveh. Hommel
believes that the country of Khamanu was the Amanos in
Cilicia, and he admits, but unwillingly, that Assur-nazir-
pal made a detour beyond the Euphrates. I should look for
Shura, and consequently for Khamanu, in the Tur-Abdin, and
should identify them with Saur, in spite of the difference
of the two initial articulations.

However high we may rate the value of this campaign, it was eclipsed by
the following one. The Aramæans on the Khabur and the middle Euphrates
had not witnessed without anxiety the revival of Ninevite activity,
and had begged for assistance against it from its rival. Two of their
principal tribes, the Sukhi and the Laqi, had addressed themselves to
the sovereign then reigning at Babylon. He was a restless, ambitious