Amurru Between Äatti, Assyria, and Aääiyawa (2010)

242
Elena Devecchi
Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis

by Elena Devecchi Leuven/Mnchen 1. It has recently been suggested that significant changes attested in the material culture of the Syrian site of Tell Kazel, located in the region corresponding to the ancient kingdom of Amurru, should be interpreted as a consequence of the trade policy imposed by the Hittite king Tutaliya IV aus on S gamuwa of Amurru by means of a subjugation treaty ratified between the two. Evaluating this hypothesis, which might have important repercussions for the chronological setting of the tell and consequently of the whole region, is the aim of this article, in which the archaeological and historical sources relevant to the issue will be analyzed.1 2. Tell Kazel is one of the major sites of the Akkar Plain, situated 3.5 km from the present-day seashore and a few kilometers north of the border between Syria and Lebanon. The identification of the tell with the ancient town of Sumur/Simyra, stronghold of the kingdom of Amurru during the Late Bronze Age (LBA), has not yet been confirmed by any inscription found on the site, but is generally accepted on the basis of its strategic position on the main passage between the Mediterranean coast and inland Syria, its very rich Late Bronze and Iron Age levels, and because it is the only urban site with monumental buildings on the plain.2 A further confirmation of the importance of Tell Kazel during the LBA is now provided also by the only cuneiform text so far recovered at the site:3 it is an Akkadian letter sent by the King (most likely to be identified with the king of Karkemis ) to an individual named Palla, announcing the arrival
2 3
This research was funded by the Onderzoeksfonds K.U. Leuven and is part of an IDO-project on Climate related social and economic chaos in the Northern and Southern Levant (1200800 B.C.E.) coordinated by Karel Van Lerberghe. I am very grateful to Stefano de Martino, H. Craig Melchert, Jared L. Miller, Itamar Singer, and Klaas Vansteenhuyse for a number of useful remarks on earlier drafts of this article. I would also like to thank Silvin Kos ak and the Academy of Sciences and Literature in Mainz for providing me with photographs of KUB 23.1++ (CTH 105 A). Badre (2006, 6567) with previous literature. The text, which is a surface find, is edited and discussed by Roche (2003, 123128).
DOI 1515/ZA.2010.012
Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated | 119.175.197.63 Download Date | 2/13/14 7:12 AM
Zeitschr. f. Assyriologie Bd. 100, S. 242256 Walter de Gruyter 2010 ISSN 0084-5299
243
of Upparmuwa, a high Hittite official known from other sources as a contemporary of the Hittite king attus ili III, of Ini-Tes s up of Karkemis , and of Ibiranu of Ugarit. The document, which can therefore be dated to the second half of the 13th century BCE, is very similar to some letters found in the royal archives of the kingdom of Ugarit and thus supports the hypothesis that Tell Kazel was a major administrative center of Amurru at the time when the Syrian kingdom was controlled by the Hittites. Recent studies devoted to the description and analysis of the architectural and material remains dated to the Late Bronze and Iron Age have attempted to place them within the framework of the historical events of those centuries, as briefly summarized here (see Table 1). The earliest LBA levels (Phases 12) have been reached in the western area of the site, where a temple complex has been identified (Area IV, lower and upper floors of Level 6), and are tentatively dated to the historical period corresponding to the Amarna Age and to the beginning of the Hittite occupation (second half of the 14th century; Badre/Gubel 19992000, 197; Badre 2006, 77). Of particular importance for the dating of these levels is the imported Mycenaean pottery,4 which has been proven to be of Argive production (Badre et al. 2005, 17) and can be dated in terms of Aegean chronology to a period that stretches from the LH IIIA Late to the LH IIIB Middle (Jung 2006, 151; Jung 2007, 553554). The material culture of this phase is represented by a large and varied assortment of items, such as locally made and imported pottery, metal and stone objects and cylinder seals (Badre/Gubel 19992000, 139169), suggesting the picture of a rich and flourishing city. The following phase (Phase 3) has been investigated in both the area of the temple complex (Area IV, lower floor of Level 5) and that of the residential/official complex (Area II, lower floor of Level 6) and is characterized by monumental and luxurious architectural achievements (Badre/ Gubel 19992000, 198; Badre 2006, 92). Only a rather small quantity of material was recovered in these levels, which led the archaeologists to hypothesize that at the end of this phase, i. e. at the end of the LBA, the town had been abandoned.5 However, among the few pottery remains re-
Tell Kazel yielded also a rich assemblage of imported Cypriote pottery, but, while a thorough analysis of the Mycenaen corpus has already been published by Jung (2006 and 2007), a detailed study of the Cypriote one is still awaited. Preliminary remarks can be found in Badre (2006, 67 ff.). The abandonment of the town is clearly referred to by Badre/Gubel (19992000, 198) and Badre (2006, table 1, 69, 80, 82, 92; id. 20072008, table 1, 111). In her last preliminary report on Area II, Capet (2003, 66) simply mentions that the LB II floor was emp-
244
Elena Devecchi
covered in these layers it was possible to identify some examples of imported Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery, which allow one to date this phase between the LH IIIB Middle and IIIB Developed (second half of the 13th century; Jung 2006, 151; Jung 2007, 566). As a further chronological indicator it is useful to note also the presence of simple style Bgelkannen , which are attested inter alia at Ugarit in the last occupation layers (Jung 2006, 167168). After a short period of abandonment, the city was reoccupied (Phase 4), in part by the same population and in part by a group of newcomers (see below). This phase, which is identified as the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age, is characterized by drastic changes in the material culture. Particularly important is the almost complete absence of imported Cypriote and Mycenaean pottery, replaced by local imitations of Western vessels. Such a situation has been interpreted in the light of a passage of aus the subjugation treaty between Tutaliya IV and S gamuwa of Amurru (CTH 105), or rather in the light of its most commonly accepted restoration and translation (Khne/Otten 1971, 1617): CTH 105 A col. iv 23 a kur A-]i-ia-u-wa-as-si gism pa-a-u-an-zi l [e-e] [s Ke[in] Schiff des Landes Aiyawa soll zu ihm fahren! According to the majority of scholars, with this clause Tutaliya IV in aus tended to forbid S gamuwa to allow any ship, i. e. any merchant/merchandise of Aiyawa to reach Assyria via Amurru,6 and, according to the archaeologist who excavates the site, this trade embargo is clearly reflected in the field (Badre 2006, 82).7 Another important feature of the material culture of this phase, in addition to the lack of imported Western pottery, is the first appearance of the Handmade Burnished Ware, which has been linked to the arrival of a group of newcomers, identified with a first peaceful wave (of the Sea Peoples?), who pitched their camps in this region sometime before the eighth year of the reign of Ramses III (Badre 2006, 93).
tied before the structure was rebuilt. This phase of abandonment is not taken into account by Jung (2006 and 2007) in his treatment of the Mycenaean pottery. See e. g. Singer (1991, 173; id. 2009, 97) and Klengel (1999, 170171). For a different interpretation, see 3 below. See also Badre (2006, 87): although the textual documents pertaining to the reign of Shaushgamuwa do not provide any information as to whether the king abided by the trade embargo, the archaeological results [] are the best evidence for it.
245
The end of these occupational levels is marked in both areas by a thick layer of ashes, the result of a heavy fire, likely to be dated to the beginning of LH IIIC Early (beginning of the 12th century), thus shortly after the breakdown of the Mycenaean palace system. It has been observed, though, that the limited amount of datable pottery from this phase does not allow one to exclude that the destruction could be dated to the LH IIIB Final, i. e. toward the end of the 13th century (Jung 2006, 196; Jung 2007, 563 and 567; Badre 2006, 82). This destruction may be attributed to a second, larger wave of Sea People, who vanquished both the population and the country of Amurru and the inscription of year 8 of Ramses III (from Medinet Habu) could refer to this second wave (Badre 2006, 93).
Area II Residential complex Amarna Age Not yet excavated Not yet excavated Hittite occupation Area IV Temple complex Level 6 lower floor Level 6 upper floor Material culture Jung
Imported Cypriote and Mycenaean (LHIIIA LateIIIB Early) pottery. Imported Cypriote and Mycenaean (LH IIIB EarlyIIIB Middle) pottery. Monumental architectural features. Few Cypriote and Mycenaean (LH IIIB MiddleIIIB Developed) sherds. Monumental architectural features.
Phase 1
Phase 2
Level 6 lower floor
Level 5 lower floor
Phase 3
Abandonment Transition LBA-IA Level 6 upper floor Level 5 upper floor Local imitation of Mycenaean pottery (LH IIIC Early); Handmade Burnished (or Barbarian) Ware. Squatting. Phase 4
Destruction by fire Table 1. Elaboration of the tables published by Capet (2003, 117) and Badre (2006, 69), with the subdivision in phases used by Jung (2006 and 2007) in his studies of the Mycenaean pottery.
3. The proposal to link the above-mentioned clause of CTH 105 with the archaeological remains found at Tell Kazel in Phase 4 seems rather problematic. As a first methodological consideration, it has to be stressed
246
Elena Devecchi
that the text passage is very badly preserved, thus a cautious approach is needed when using it as the basis for further hypotheses. Furthermore, there is no complete agreement on the meaning of these lines. Most of the scholars interpret them in the light of a previous paragraph, where Tuta aus liya IV orders S gamuwa to disallow any merchant from Amurru to go to Assyria and likewise to forbid any Assyrian merchant to enter Amurru, and they see them as part of a strategy meant to block the trade contacts between Assyria and Aiyawa, thereby limiting the economic power of the Assyrians. On the other hand, Faist (2001, 220224) recently proposed that this trade policy might have had a political, rather than an economic, purpose and that the main goal of the Great King was to hamper any kind of contact between Amurru and Assyria out of fear that they could lead to a dangerous alliance of the two countries against the Hittites. Faist (2001, 223 fn. 106) also believes that after this paragraph the text does not refer to the relations with Assyria anymore, thus the crucial passage mentioning the alleged ships of Aiyawa would not be linked to trade with Assyria. However, even if one accepts the integration [A]iyawa at the beginning of iv 23 and the hypothesis that these lines establish that Amurru was to block maritime trade between Aiyawa and Assyria, there are other considerations that in my view prevent an association of the lack of imported Mycenaean pottery at Tell Kazel with any political measure undertaken by the Hittites with regard to the relations among Amurru, Aiyawa and Assyria. First, if ones clings to the common interpretation of these lines, it was Assyria not Amurru that was not to have any contact with Aiyawa, therefore this situation cannot be directly linked with the change in material culture at Tell Kazel. Of course, one could imagine that Amurru became an indirect victim of this trade policy meant to damage the Assyrians, having lost its role as exchange market for the Mycenaean merchants, who would have sought more favorable trading conditions elsewhere, probably to the south, in Egyptian territory, far from the restrictive rules of the Hittite embargo. However, even if this would have been the case, there are written sources indicating that the anti-Assyrian trade policy did not last more than few years and that both atti and Amurru started cultivating friendly relations again with Assyria relatively soon aus after the treaty between Tutaliya IV and S gamuwa,8 which in all like-
For recent overviews on Assyro-Hittite relations at the end of the LBA see Freu (2003), Mora/Giorgieri (2004, 1122) and Cancik-Kirschbaum (2008).
247
lihood was ratified before the battle of Niriya, at the very beginning of Tukulti-Ninurtas reign.9 eh Hamad, Syria), datIn a letter from Dur-Katlimmu (modern Tell S th th able to between the 11 and 16 years of Tukulti-Ninurta I, there is mention of a stock of linen garments/fabrics sent by the king of Karkemis into Assyrian territory and of a robbery suffered by a group of merchants of arruma10 in the the king of Karkemis and of the Hittite sakin mati Taki-S area of arbe as they travelled toward the east (Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996, 117122 text n. 6).11 Precisely at arbe (modern Tell Chuera, Syria) other Akkadian letters were recovered, witnessing the exchange of messages and diplomatic presents between atti and Assyria on one hand, and between Amurru and Assyria on the other, during the second half of TukultiNinurtas reign (Jakob 2009, 5967 texts n. 2226).12 All these documents aus post-date the treaty with S gamuwa, and thus also the embargo prescribed in it, and prove that these measures were rapidly dismissed in favor of more profitable, friendly relations with the Assyrians. It is reasonable to assume that, as a consequence of this new international situation, the prohibition of trading with Aiyawa ceased to function as well. Thus, even if contacts between Amurru and Aiyawa ever stopped because of the trade embargo against Assyria, there are data clearly suggesting that this situation did not last more than few years, and it is highly unlikely that in this very limited span of time the material culture of Tell Kazel might have changed in such a drastic way. Second, the assumption that the lack of imported Mycenaean pottery is the result of the trade embargo imposed by the Hittite king implies that aus the treaty between Tutaliya IV and S gamuwa, which was most likely issued sometime in the thirties of the 13th century, when the latter ascended to the throne of Amurru (Singer 1991, 172; van den Hout 1995, 114), becomes the terminus post quem for the beginning of the phase identified with the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age at Tell Kazel (Phase 4).
10
11
12
Singer (1985, 108; id. 1991, 172; id. 1999, 689) and Faist (2001, 221 fn. 100) for further literature. This individual was identified by Singer (2003, 342 ff.) with a homonymous high official known from some documents of the Ugarit archives dated to the end of the 13th century BCE, where he bears the title of Chief Scribe. Another letter from Dur-Katlimmu (Cancik-Kirschbaum [1996, 123128 text n. 7]) mentions the king of Karkemis in connection with the shipment of linen fabrics, but the text is too badly preserved to allow a complete understanding of the context. To the letters, dated to the limu Ninu<aju (for whose dating see Freydank 1991, 45), one should add also some administrative texts mentioning the delivery of rations to several Hittite messengers (Jakob 2009, 8487 texts n. 54 and 56).
248
Elena Devecchi
Since this phase follows a period of abandonment, the implicit conclusion aus would be that the reign of S gamuwa started after a dramatic event that forced the population of Tell Kazel to evacuate the town, which, it should be recalled, is likely to be identified with the capital of Amurru. At present, however, the historical sources do not provide any indication supporting this possibility, so that it might rather be suggested that the evacuation aus of Tell Kazel took place at the end of S gamuwas reign and that it coincided with the fall of Amurru (around 1200 BCE).13 The reasons that induced the local dynasty and a big part of, if not all, the population to abandon the town are likely to be sought in the atmosphere of impending danger that characterized the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 12th centuries, and which is very well reflected in the documentation from Ugarit. The last years of Amurru are very meagerly documented, and one is tempted to link this event to the only text that might hint at a menacing atmosphere in Amurru at this time, a letter in which a certain Parsu reminds the king of Ugarit of his commitment to share with the king of Amurru any information on the alien enemy (RS 20.162).14 The document was recovered in the archive of Rap<anu, which was in use during the last period of Ugarit, but the absence of any personal name known from other sources prevents one from proposing a more precise date for the events recalled in the text. A relative dating for the abandonment of the town, however, can be hypothesized on the basis of the features shown by the Mycenaean pottery found at Tell Kazel and Ugarit. The material found at Tell Kazel in the pre-abandonment level is dated to the LH IIIB Middle-Developed, while the pottery found at Ugarit in the destruction layers is dated to the end of the LH IIIB or even later, to the transition between LH IIIBC Early,15 thus suggesting that the kingdom of Amurru, as an organized political entity, ceased to exist some time earlier than Ugarit. The dearth of written sources datable to the final phase of Amurru could be an indirect confirmation of its early decline,16 which in
13
14 15
16
aus S gamuwa is usually regarded as the last king of Amurru, but it has recently been suggested that he might have been followed by another ruler, named Maaza (Singer forthcoming). If so, the abandonment of Tell Kazel might have taken place during the latters reign. For this interpretation of lkr drmes see Izre<el (1991, 100). Yon/Karageorghis/Hirschfeld (2000, 18). A similar date is now proposed by Mountjoy (2004, 198199) also for the pottery of the destruction layers of Miletos. Singer (1991, 176) suggested instead that this paucity of records, in contrast with the relative abundance of data from Ugarit, does not indicate that Amurru fell before Ugarit and should rather be regarded as a consequence of the gradual disruption of the communication systems between the members of the empire.
249
turn fits into the picture of a crisis that would have troubled the eastern Mediterranean for a longer period than what has been previously thought.17 If this turns out to be the case, one could hypothesize that the population of Tell Kazel, decided to abandon the town before the enemy arrived. A strategy similar to that adopted at Tell Kazel was followed further north along the Syrian coast at the site Ras el-Bassit, whose buildings were carefully emptied by the inhabitants before being abandoned. In this case the decision proved to be justified, as immediately afterward, at the beginning of the 12th century, a fire destroyed the town (Venturi 2007, 59). Tell Kazel did not experience a similar tragic fate and was rapidly reoccupied (although certainly not in the same form as in the previous phases), before being destroyed for the first time some 2030 years later. However, the gap between the destructions of Amurru and Ugarit would be rather short, and one cannot exclude that it might be further reduced by a reassessment of the chronology of the Mycenaean pottery, as well as by future studies on the material from Tell Kazel and Ugarit. If the embargo is ruled out as the explanation for the lack of imported Mycenaean pottery in the phase of transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age, the reasons behind this change in material culture should be sought in other factors. To this purpose, it is useful to recall Jungs considerations on the quantity and quality of imported Mycenaean pottery found at Tell Kazel in the occupational levels dated to the LBA. He observes that the imported Mycenaean pottery, which corresponds to only about 10 % of the total ceramic corpus recovered at the site, is represented almost exclusively by a selection of painted vessels that reveals an elite use. Distinctive items are for instance the craters decorated with war chariot scenes, which, as Jung suggests, must have met the taste and reflected the ideology of the elite dominating in Amurru.18 If one accepts the hypothesis that the collapse of the kingdom of Amurru corresponds with the abandonment of Tell Kazel at the end of the LBA, the lack of imported Mycenaean pottery in the following period could be seen as a consequence of the disappearance of this elite, which represented the most important local clientele of the Mycenaean workshops. The change in social
17
18
Beside the evidence provided by Tell Kazel itself, which experienced different phases of abandonment and destruction between the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 12th centuries, see also the observations made by Malbran-Labat (1999, 123 and fn. 13) and Yon (1999, 114 with previous literature). Jung (2006, 170175). Similar conclusions have been reached by Yon/Karageorghis/ Hirschfeld (2000, 18) for the Mycenaean pottery assemblage found at Ugarit.
250
Elena Devecchi
structure and composition of the population that occupied Tell Kazel after the abandonment at the end of the LBA, together with the contemporary general decline of Aegean export and maritime trade from the LH IIIB Middle on (Cline 1994, 50 and Jung 2007, 558 with previous literature), are enough to explain the change in material culture attested at the site for this period, without the need to invoke doubtful measures of international trade policy undertaken by the Hittite kings. Appendix: Again on ships of Aiyawa or warships aus The passage of the treaty between Tutaliya IV and S gamuwa (CTH 105) on which the embargo theory is based is handed down by only one of the two duplicates of the text19 and is very badly preserved. We owe its most commonly accepted reading to Sommer (1932, 325 f.), who proposed to restore and translate it as follows:20 CTH 105 A col. iv a kur A-]i-ia-u-wa-as !-si gism pa !-a-u-an-zi l [e-e] 23 [s Vom Lande Aijava darf kein Schiff zu ihm fahren! The integration of the name of the country Aiyawa at the beginning of iv 23 relies basically on the mention, subsequently erased, of the king of Aiyawa ( lugal kur Aiyawa , CTH 105 A iv 3) among the kings attributed a status equal to that of the Hittite king. The hypothesis that the 3rd sing. pronoun -ssi at the end of [A-]i-ia-u-wa-as-si refers to Assyria or to the Assyrian king depends on the fact that, in a previous paragraph, Tut aus aliya IV orders S gamuwa to prohibit any merchant of Amurru from going to Assyria and likewise to forbid any Assyrian merchant from entering Amurru (CTH 105 iv 1418).21 The integration of the negation le at the end of iv 23 has also met with general agreement, even though only traces of the initial wedges of l [e- are visible.
19 20
21
Copy A: KUB 23.1++; Copy B: KUB 8.82. Sommers edition has been followed so trustingly, that the passage is often quoted without indicating with squared brackets that Aiyawa is to great extent integrated: see Khne/Otten (1971, 1617: Ke[in] Schiff des Landes Aijawa soll zu ihm fahren!), Lehmann (1991, 111: Kein Schiff des Landes Aijava soll zu ihm fahren!) and Beckman (1999, 106: No ship [of] Ahhiyawa may go to him (the King of Assyria?)). Differently Singer (2000, 100: [Do not let] a ship of [A]iyawa go to him). Also for syntactical reasons -ssi very likely refers to the topic of the previous paragraph. This general rule has some exceptions (e. g. Sideltsev forthcoming), but this sentence does not fall among the cases where one would expect a proleptic pronoun.
251
Sommers restoration is restricted to iv 23 and thus leaves open the problem of how iv 23 might relate to the following line(s). Being mainly concerned with demonstrating the existence of another occurrence of Aiyawa in the Hittite sources, Sommer did not focus on solving this problem and offered no solution to it. He only took into consideration the possibility of integrating the verb [tar-na-at-t]i in the gap at the beginning of iv 24, eventually excluding it because the traces at the beginning of the line clearly do not correspond to the end of a ti (Sommer 1932, 326). As a matter of fact, however, it is necessary to integrate something at the beginning of iv 24. Considering the sequence of enclitic particles attached to the first fully preserved word of this line (para=ma=as=kan ), one can be sure that this is the first word of a new sentence, and it thus seems very likely that the word in the fracture would belong to the previous clause. An alternative reading and a tentative solution for this problem were proposed by Steiner (1989, 401), who suggested the following: CTH 105 A col. iv 23 [la-a-]i-ia-u-wa-as-si gism pa-a-u-wa-an-zi l [e-e] 24 [tar-na-] pa-ra-a-ma-as-kn ku-wa-p na-a-[i Ein Schiff des [Krieg(f]hrens) soll/mu er zu ihm (d. h. meiner Sonne) ni[cht] gehen [lassen!] Sobald er aber eines aussend[et ] Steiners restoration confers to this passage a meaning completely dif aus ferent than the one usually accepted. He suggests that S kamuwa soll dem Knig von atti zwar Futruppen und Wagenkmpfer fr den Krieg gegen Assyrien stellen, mu oder soll aber kein Schiff fr die Kriegfhrung zu ihm aussenden. Demnach braucht dieser Paragraph gar nicht einmal speziell die Situation des Feldzugs gegen Assyrien vorauszusetzen, sondern kann eine selbstndige, ganz allgemein geltende Bestimmung enthalten (Steiner 1989, 402). However, as he himself admits, it is aus difficult to understand warum S kamuwa ein Schiff fr die Kriegfhrung nicht zum Knig von atti gehen lassen musste oder sollte. Eine Mglichkeit wre, da er gegen finanzielle Leistungen davon befreit wurde, wie es in Bezug auf die Heerfolge in einem Krieg gegen Assyrien wiederum fr Ugarit belegt ist (Steiner 1989, 408). This proposal did not find much support among scholars, who showed either a cautious (Klengel 1995, 171; Dietrich/Loretz 1998, 340341) or an openly negative (Singer 1991, 171; Lehmann 1991, 111) attitude toward it. Lehmann (1991, 111 fn. 11), for instance, has pointed out that the integration [la-a-]i-ia-u-wa-as-si at the beginning of iv 23 would be an hapax
252
Elena Devecchi
legomenon , but Steiners hypothesis is problematic with regard to other aspects as well: The integration [tarna]u at the beginning of iv 24 is unlikely because it is not nearly long enough to fill the gap. Furthermore, the traces visible between the fracture and pa-ra-a-ma-as-kn do not fit with the end of an : one would expect to see some traces of the other vertical wedges, but collation of the photograph shows that this is not the case. Grammatically, pauwanzi l [e tarna]u is problematic because le occurs only rarely with imperative forms and only in new Hittite copies of Old Hittite documents, while it is commonly associated with present forms (GrHL 26.16), as is, in fact, the case of all the occurrences in this text (ii 6, ii 14, ii 15, iii 1617, iv 1415, iv 16, iv 17). If the subject of this passage is the king of Amurru, one would expect a 2nd singular verbal form, not a 3rd singular as restored by Steiner. In aus fact, in the rest of the treaty Tutaliya IV always addresses S gand 22 muwa with the 2 person. For similar reasons it is difficult to accept that the personal pronoun suffix 3rd singular dative -ssi in iv 23 might refer to the Hittite king, because in the rest of the text Tutaliya always speaks in the 1st person. On the basis of these observation, one can safely discard Steiners interpretation in favor of the Aiyawa solution, but this does not solve the problem of how to restore the beginning of iv 24. Collation of the picture seems to indicate that the vertical, clearly visible after the break, is preceded by the end of an oblique wedge, which suggests the integration of a sign like te , and the comparison with other te signs in the text (i 44, ii 11, ii 35) would support this hypothesis, since in all cases the oblique wedges do not cross the final vertical. Syntactically, for the reasons mentioned above, one would expect a 2nd singular present verbal form. -te instead of -ti as ending of a verbal form is rare, but not impossible (GrHL 1.61), and indeed an occurrence of such a rarity is attested in this text at ii 35, where one finds the 2nd singular present wa-ar-is-sa-at-te (< warissa- to come to help). Integrating [wa-ar-is-sa-at-t]e at the beginning of iv 24 would be impossible, because it is too long for the fracture and because warissa- does not
22
Shifts from the 2nd to the 3rd person when referring to the vassal are attested in other treaties (see e. g. CTH 66, treaty Murs ili II Niqmepa of Ugarit, ll. 6769 summa mNiqmepa la iss[abassunu ana sar mat atti la] inaddin istu mamiti tet [etiq] If Niqmepa does not sei[ze them and does not] deliver [to the king of atti], you will have trans[gressed] the oath), but this would be the only occurrence of this feature in CTH 105, and it therefore seems rather unlikely.
253
govern an infinitive. A more feasible possibility is [tar-na-at-t]e , which has the advantage of perfectly fitting the space of the break at the beginning of iv 24 and being amenable to the grammatical requirements of the sentence, but the rarity of this form together with the occurrence of a regular 2nd singular present form tarnatti23 at iv 16 demand that this hypothesis be taken rather cautiously. Finally, it should be noted that, depending on the semantics of the verb to be restored in the gap at the beginning of iv 24, one can get sentences with diametrically opposite meanings, i. e. you shall not allow him to go vs. you shall not hinder him from going. Some observations with regard to the following sentence, pa-ra-a-maas-kn ku-wa-p na-a-[, are also in order. The verb is only partially preserved, but it is very likely a form of nai- to send. The enclitic pronoun -as in para=ma=as=kan has been often interpreted as a 3rd singular nominative,24 but 3rd person subject enclitics never occur in sentences with transitive verbs (GrHL 18.13; Garret 1990, 233) such as nai-, thus -as can only be an accusative plural animate them.25 This enclitic pronoun must refer to something mentioned previously in the text, and the only element of the previous sentence that might function as the logical antecedent of -as is gism, but this is grammatically problematic, since it is singular. The immediately preceding paragraph deals with the military engagement of Amurru in the war between atti and Assyria (iv 1922), and it is in turn preceded by a paragraph that ends with the regulation of the trade be aus tween Amurru and Assyria and forbids S gamuwa to send merchants of Amurru to Assyria (iv 1418). Already long ago Sommer (1932, 323) proposed that the paragraph with the military clauses, which is written in a very small script and contextually is a sort of intruder between the two paragraphs dealing with trade, might be regarded as a misplaced clause. If this is indeed the case, -as in iv 24 could refer to something mentioned in iv 1418. A logical antecedent to -as in those lines might be the merchants of Amurru and Assyria, though it should be noted that the text always employs ldam.gr in the singular, while -as requires a plural. In any case, once the interpretation of -as in para=ma=as=kan as a 3rd singular nominative is ruled out, it becomes possible to restore the verbal form not only as a 3rd singular present na-a-[i], as usually suggested, but also as a 2nd singular present na-a-[it-ti]. This would fit with the proposed interpretation of the previous sentence as well as with the mention of
23 24
25
For the forms of tarna- see Oettinger (2003, 58 and 155) and Tischler (1993, 192 ff). Khne/Otten (1971, 17 Sollte er? doch einmal aussen[den] and 54) and Steiner (1989, 401: Sobald er aber eines aussend[et ]). See Beckman (1999, 106) and Singer (2000, 100: When he dispatches them).
254
Elena Devecchi
a kur-ti-ka in the following line (iv 25),26 where the text bedingir- lu4 s comes too fragmentary for a sensible restoration. On the basis of these considerations, the following tentative restoration of the relevant lines can be proposed:
CTH 105 A col. iv a kur A-]i-ia-u-wa-as-si gism pa-a-u-an-zi l [e-e] 23 [s 24 [tar-na-at-t]e pa-ra-a-ma-as-kn ku-wa-p na-a-[i or na-a-[it-ti Do n[ot allo]w any ship [of A]iyawa to go to him! When he/you sen[d] them []
Fig. 1
Photo and copy of CTH 105 A iv 2325
Bibliography
Badre, L. (2006): Tell Kazel-Simyra: A Contribution to a Relative Chronological History in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age, BASOR 343, 6595. (20072008): Tell Arqa and Tell Kazel, deux sites complmentaires de la plaine de Akkar lge du Bronze Rcent, Archaeology and History of Lebanon 2627, 110118. Badre, L./E. Gubel (19992000): Tell Kazel, Syria: Excavations of the AUB Museum, 19931998. Third Preliminary Report, Berytus 44, 123203. Badre, L. et al. (2005): The Provenance of Aegean- and Syrian-type Pottery found at Tell Kazel (Syria), gypten und Levante 15, 1547. Beckman, G. (1999): Hittite Diplomatic Texts2. Atlanta. e Hamad. BATSH Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. (1996): Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall S 4. Berlin. (2008): Assur und Hatti zwischen Allianz und Konflikt, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), attus a Boyazky. Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients. 6. Internationales
26
This is the only occurrence in the text where dingir and kur are written with phonetic complements.
255
Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. 22.24. Mrz 2006, Wrzburg. Wiesbaden, 205222. Capet, E. (2003): Tell Kazel (Syrie), rapport prliminaire sur les 9e17e campagnes de fouilles (19932001) du Muse de lUniversit Amricaine de Beyrouth, Chantier II, Berytus 47, 63121. Cline, E. H. (1994): Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Oxford. Dietrich, M./O. Loretz (1998): Amurru, Yaman und die gischen Inseln nach den ugaritischen Texten, in: S. Isre<el/I. Singer/R. Zadok, Past Links. Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. IOS 18. Winona Lake, 335363. Faist, B. (2001): Der Fernhandel des assyrischen Reiches zwischen dem 14. und 11. Jh. v. Chr. AOAT 265. Mnster. Freu, J. (2003): De la confrontation lentente cordiale. Les relations assyro-hittites la fin de lge du Bronze (ca. 12501180 av. J. C.), in: G. Beckman et al. (eds.), Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Winona Lake, 101118. Freydank, H. (1991): Beitrge zur Mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte, Berlin. Garrett, A. (1990): Hittite Enclitic Subjects and Transitive Verbs, JCS 42, 227242. Izre<el, S. (1991): Amurru Akkadian. A Linguistic Study. Atlanta. aus Klengel, H. (1995): Historischer Kommentar zum S gamuwa-Vertrag, in: Th. P. J. van den Hout/J. de Roos, Studio historiae ardens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. PIHANS 74. Leiden, 159172. aus Khne, C./H. Otten (1975): Der S gamuwa-Vertrag. StBoT 16. Wiesbaden. Jakob, S. (2009): Die mittelassyrischen Texte aus Tell Chuera in Nordost-Syrien, Wiesbaden. Jung, R. (2006): Die mykenische Keramik von Tell Kazel (Syrien), Damaszener Mitteilungen 15, 147218. (2007): Tell Kazel and the Mycenaean Contacts with Amurru (Syria), in: M. Bietak/ E. Czerny (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B. C. III. Wien, 551570. Lehmann, G. A. (1991): Die politisch-historischen Beziehungen der gis-Welt des 15.13. Jh.s v. Chr. zu Agypten und Vorderasien: einige Hinweise, in: J. Latacz (ed.), Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung. Stuttgart/Leipzig, 105126. Malbran-Labat, F. (1999): Nouvelles donnes pigraphiques sur Chypre et Ougarit, Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1999, 121123. Mora, C./M. Giorgieri (2004): Le lettere tra i re ittiti e i re assiri ritrovate a attus a. HANE/M VII. Padova. Mountjoy, P. A. (2004): Miletos: A Note, Annals of the British School at Athens 99, 189200. Oettinger, N. (2003): Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nachdruck mit einer kurzen Revision der hethitischen Verbalklassen. DBH 7. Dresden. Roche, C. (2003): La tablette TK 03.1, Berytus 47, 123128. Sideltsev, A. V. (forthcoming): Proleptic Pronouns in Middle Hittite, in: Babel und Bibel (Proceedings of the 53rd Rencontre Assyrologique Internationale). Winona Lake. Singer, I. (1985): The Battle of Niriya and the End of the Hittite Empire, ZA 95, 100123. (1991): A Concise History of Amurru, in: S. Izre<el (ed.), Amurru Akkadian. A Linguistic Study. Atlanta, 135195. (1999): A Political History of Ugarit, in: W. G. E. Watson/N. Wyatt (eds.), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. HdO 1/39. Leiden/Boston/Kln, 603733.
256
Elena Devecchi
(2000): The Treaties between atti and Amurru, in: W. W. Hallo/K. L. Younger (eds.), The Context of Scripture, vol. II: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Leiden/Boston/Kln, 93100. arruma, in: G. Beckman et al. (eds.), Hittite Studies in (2003): The Great Scribe Taki-S Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Winona Lake, 341348. aus (2009): S gamuwa, RlA 12, 9698. - (forthcoming): Maaza, King of Amurru, in: J. Klinger/E. Rieken (eds.), Investigationes Anatolicae. Gedenkschrift fr Erich Neu. Sommer, F. (1932): Die Aijava-Urkunden. Mnchen. aus Steiner, G. (1989): Schiffe von Aiyawa oder Kriegsschiffe von Amurru im S kamuwa-Vertrag?, UF 21, 393411. Tischler, J. (1993): Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Lieferung 9: T-D/2. Innsbruck. van den Hout, Th. P. J. (1995): Der Ulmites ub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung. StBoT 38. Wiesbaden. Venturi, F. (2007): La Siria nellet delle trasformazioni (XIIIX sec. a. C.): nuovi contributi dallo scavo di Tell Afis. Bologna. Yon, M. (1999): Chypre et Ougarit la fin du Bronze Rcent, Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1999, 113119. Yon, M./V. Karageorghis/N. Hirschfeld (2000): Cramiques Mycniennes dOugarit. RSO 13. Paris.

Amurru Between Äatti, Assyria, and Aääiyawa (2010)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Amurru Between Äatti, Assyria, and Aääiyawa (2010)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

242

Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis

Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis

Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis

Level 6 lower floor

Level 5 lower floor

Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis

Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis

Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis

Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis

Photo and copy of CTH 105 A iv 2325

Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis

Potrebbero piacerti anche