amurru between Äatti, assyria, and aääiyawa (2010)

8/12/2019 Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa (2010)

1/15

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 thematerial culture of the Syrian site of Tell Kazel, located in the region cor-responding to the ancient kingdom of Amurru, should be interpreted as a

consequence of the trade policy imposed by the Hittite king Tutaliya IVon Sausgamuwa of Amurru by means of a subjugation treaty ratified be-tween the two. Evaluating this hypothesis, which might have important re-

percussions for the chronological setting of the tell and consequently ofthe 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 3.5km from the present-day seashore and a few kilometers north of the

border between Syria and Lebanon. The identification of the tell with theancient town of Sumur/Simyra, stronghold of the kingdom of Amurruduring the Late Bronze Age (LBA), has not yet been confirmed by any in-scription found on the site, but is generally accepted on the basis of itsstrategic position on the main passage between the Mediterranean coastand inland Syria, its very rich Late Bronze and Iron Age levels, and be-cause it is the only urban site with monumental buildings on the plain.2Afurther 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 withthe king of Karkemis) to an individual named Palla, announcing the arrival

1 This research was funded by the Onderzoeksfonds K.U. Leuven and is part of anIDO-project on Climate related social and economic chaos in the Northern and South-ern Levant (1200800 B.C.E.) coordinated by Karel Van Lerberghe. I am very gratefulto Stefano de Martino, H. Craig Melchert, Jared L. Miller, Itamar Singer, and KlaasVansteenhuyse for a number of useful remarks on earlier drafts of this article. I would

also like to thank Silvin Kosak and the Academy of Sciences and Literature in Mainz forproviding me with photographs of KUB 23.1++ (CTH 105 A).

2 Badre (2006, 6567) with previous literature.3 The text, which is a surface find, is edited and discussed by Roche (2003, 123128).

Zeitschr. f. Assyriologie Bd. 100, S. 242256 DOI 1515/ZA.2010.012 Walter de Gruyter 2010ISSN 0084-5299 Brought to you by | provisional accountUnauthenticated | 119 175 197 63Download Date | 2/13/14 7:12 AM


2/15

Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis 243

of Upparmuwa, a high Hittite official known from other sources as a con-temporary of the Hittite king attusili III, of Ini-Tessup of Karkemis, andof 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 foundin the royal archives of the kingdom of Ugarit and thus supports the hy-pothesis that Tell Kazel was a major administrative center of Amurru atthe time when the Syrian kingdom was controlled by the Hittites.

Recent studies devoted to the description and analysis of the architec-tural and material remains dated to the Late Bronze and Iron Age have at-tempted to place them within the framework of the historical events ofthose 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 histori-cal period corresponding to the Amarna Age and to the beginning ofthe Hittite occupation (second half of the 14 th century; Badre/Gubel19992000, 197; Badre 2006, 77). Of particular importance for the datingof these levels is the imported Mycenaean pottery,4which has been provento be of Argive production (Badre et al. 2005, 17) and can be dated interms of Aegean chronology to a period that stretches from the LH IIIA

Late to the LH IIIB Middle (Jung 2006, 151; Jung 2007, 553554). Thematerial culture of this phase is represented by a large and varied assort-ment of items, such as locally made and imported pottery, metal and stoneobjects and cylinder seals (Badre/Gubel 19992000, 139169), suggestingthe picture of a rich and flourishing city.

The following phase (Phase 3) has been investigated in both the areaof the temple complex (Area IV, lower floor of Level 5) and that of the resi-dential/official complex (Area II, lower floor of Level 6) and is character-ized by monumental and luxurious architectural achievements (Badre/

Gubel 19992000, 198; Badre 2006, 92). Only a rather small quantity ofmaterial 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, thetown had been abandoned.5However, among the few pottery remains re-

4 Tell Kazel yielded also a rich assemblage of imported Cypriote pottery, but, while a thor-ough 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, 67ff.).5 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 prelimi-nary report on Area II, Capet (2003, 66) simply mentions that the LB II floor was emp-

Brought to you by | provisional accountUnauthenticated | 119 175 197 63Download Date | 2/13/14 7:12 AM


3/15

244 Elena Devecchi

covered in these layers it was possible to identify some examples of im-ported Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery, which allow one to date this phasebetween the LH IIIB Middle and IIIB Developed (second half of the 13th

century; Jung 2006, 151; Jung 2007, 566). As a further chronological indi-cator it is useful to note also the presence of simple style Bgelkannen,which are attestedinter aliaat Ugarit in the last occupation layers (Jung2006, 167168).

After a short period of abandonment, the city was reoccupied (Phase4), 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 LateBronze to the Iron Age, is characterized by drastic changes in the materialculture. Particularly important is the almost complete absence of imported

Cypriote and Mycenaean pottery, replaced by local imitations of Westernvessels. Such a situation has been interpreted in the light of a passage ofthe subjugation treaty between Tutaliya IV and Sausgamuwa of Amurru(CTH 105), or rather in the light of its most commonly accepted restora-tion and translation (Khne/Otten 1971, 1617):

CTH 105 A col. iv 23[sakurA-]i-ia-u-wa-as-sigismpa-a-u-an-zi l[e-e]Ke[in] Schiff des Landes Aiyawa soll zu ihm fahren!

According to the majority of scholars, with this clause Tutaliya IV in-tended to forbid Sausgamuwa to allow any ship, i. e. any merchant/mer-chandise of Aiyawa to reach Assyria via Amurru,6and, according to thearchaeologist who excavates the site, this trade embargo is clearly re-flected in the field (Badre 2006, 82).7

Another important feature of the material culture of this phase, in ad-dition to the lack of imported Western pottery, is the first appearance ofthe Handmade Burnished Ware, which has been linked to the arrival of

a group of newcomers, identified with a first peaceful wave (of the SeaPeoples?), who pitched their camps in this region sometime before theeighth year of the reign of Ramses III (Badre 2006, 93).

tied before the structure was rebuilt. This phase of abandonment is not taken into ac-count by Jung (2006 and 2007) in his treatment of the Mycenaean pottery.

6 See e. g. Singer (1991, 173; id. 2009, 97) and Klengel (1999, 170171). For a different in-

terpretation, see 3 below.7 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 thetrade embargo, the archaeological results [] are the best evidence for it.



4/15


The end of these occupational levels is marked in both areas by a thicklayer of ashes, the result of a heavy fire, likely to be dated to the beginningof LH IIIC Early (beginning of the 12thcentury), 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 doesnot allow one to exclude that the destruction could be dated to the LH IIIBFinal, i.e. toward the end of the 13thcentury (Jung 2006, 196; Jung 2007,563 and 567; Badre 2006, 82). This destruction may be attributed to asecond, larger wave of Sea People, who vanquished both the populationand 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).

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 withthe archaeological remains found at Tell Kazel in Phase 4 seems rather

problematic. As a first methodological consideration, it has to be stressed

Area IIResidentialcomplex

Area IVTemple complex

Material culture Jung

Amarna

Age

Not yetexcavated

Level 6lower floor

Imported Cypriote andMycenaean (LHIIIALateIIIB Early) pottery.

Phase 1

Hittite

occupation

Not yetexcavated

Level 6upper floor

Imported Cypriote andMycenaean (LH IIIBEarlyIIIB Middle) pottery.

Monumental architecturalfeatures.

Phase 2

Level 6lower floor

Level 5lower floor

Few Cypriote andMycenaean (LH IIIBMiddleIIIB Developed)sherds. Monumentalarchitectural features.

Phase 3

Abandonment

Transition

LBA-IA

Level 6

upper floor

Level 5

upper floor

Local imitation of

Mycenaean pottery (LH IIICEarly); HandmadeBurnished (or Barbarian)Ware. Squatting.

Phase 4

Destruction by fire



5/15

246 Elena Devecchi

that the text passage is very badly preserved, thus a cautious approach isneeded 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-liya IV orders Sausgamuwa to disallow any merchant from Amurru to goto 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 ofthe Assyrians. On the other hand, Faist (2001, 220224) recently pro-

posed that this trade policy might have had a political, rather than an econ-omic, purpose and that the main goal of the Great King was to hamper anykind 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 notrefer to the relations with Assyria anymore, thus the crucial passage men-tioning the alleged ships of Aiyawa would not be linked to trade withAssyria.

However, even if one accepts the integration [A]iyawa at the begin-ning of iv 23 and the hypothesis that these lines establish that Amurru wasto block maritime trade between Aiyawa and Assyria, there are other

considerations that in my view prevent an association of the lack of impor-ted Mycenaean pottery at Tell Kazel with any political measure underta-ken by the Hittites with regard to the relations among Amurru, Aiyawaand Assyria.

First, if ones clings to the common interpretation of these lines, it wasAssyria not Amurru that was not to have any contact with Aiyawa,therefore this situation cannot be directly linked with the change in ma-terial culture at Tell Kazel. Of course, one could imagine that Amurru

became an indirect victim of this trade policy meant to damage the Assy-

rians, having lost its role as exchange market for the Mycenaean mer-chants, who would have sought more favorable trading conditions else-

where, probably to the south, in Egyptian territory, far from the restrictiverules of the Hittite embargo. However, even if this would have been thecase, there are written sources indicating that the anti-Assyrian trade pol-icy did not last more than few years and that both atti and Amurrustarted cultivating friendly relations again with Assyria relatively soonafter the treaty between Tutaliya IV and Sausgamuwa,8which in all like-

8 For recent overviews on Assyro-Hittite relations at the end of the LBA see Freu (2003),Mora/Giorgieri (2004, 1122) and Cancik-Kirschbaum (2008).



6/15


lihood was ratified before the battle of Niriya, at the very beginning ofTukulti-Ninurtas reign.9

In a letter from Dur-Katlimmu (modern Tell Seh Hamad, Syria), dat-

able to between the 11th

and 16th

years of Tukulti-Ninurta I, there is men-tion of a stock of linen garments/fabrics sent by the king of KarkemisintoAssyrian territory and of a robbery suffered by a group of merchants ofthe king of Karkemisand of the Hittitesakin matiTaki-Sarruma10in thearea ofarbe as they travelled toward the east (Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996,117122 text n. 6).11Precisely atarbe (modern Tell Chuera, Syria) otherAkkadian letters were recovered, witnessing the exchange of messagesand diplomatic presents betweenatti and Assyria on one hand, and be-tween Amurru and Assyria on the other, during the second half of Tukulti-

Ninurtas reign (Jakob 2009, 5967 texts n. 2226).12All these documentspost-date the treaty with Sausgamuwa, and thus also the embargo pre-scribed in it, and prove that these measures were rapidly dismissed infavor of more profitable, friendly relations with the Assyrians. It is reason-able 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 ofthe trade embargo against Assyria, there are data clearly suggesting that

this situation did not last more than few years, and it is highly unlikely thatin this very limited span of time the material culture of Tell Kazel mighthave changed in such a drastic way.

Second, the assumption that the lack of imported Mycenaean potteryis the result of the trade embargo imposed by the Hittite king implies thatthe treaty between Tutaliya IV and Sausgamuwa, which was most likelyissued sometime in the thirties of the 13thcentury, when the latter ascendedto the throne of Amurru (Singer 1991, 172; van den Hout 1995, 114), be-comes theterminus post quemfor the beginning of the phase identified with

the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age at Tell Kazel (Phase 4).

9 Singer (1985, 108; id. 1991, 172; id. 1999, 689) and Faist (2001, 221 fn. 100) for further lit-erature.

10 This individual was identified by Singer (2003, 342 ff.) with a homonymous high officialknown from some documents of the Ugarit archives dated to the end of the 13thcenturyBCE, where he bears the title of Chief Scribe.

11 Another letter from Dur-Katlimmu (Cancik-Kirschbaum [1996, 123128 text n. 7])mentions the king of Karkemisin connection with the shipment of linen fabrics, but the

text is too badly preserved to allow a complete understanding of the context.12 To the letters, dated to thelimuNinu


7/15

248 Elena Devecchi

Since this phase follows a period of abandonment, the implicit conclusionwould be that the reign of Sausgamuwa started after a dramatic event thatforced 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 pres-ent, however, the historical sources do not provide any indication suppor-ting this possibility, so that it might rather be suggested that the evacuationof Tell Kazel took place at the end of Sausgamuwas reign and that it co-incided 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 atmos-

phere of impending danger that characterized the end of the 13thand thebeginning of the 12th centuries, and which is very well reflected in the

documentation from Ugarit. The last years of Amurru are very meagerlydocumented, and one is tempted to link this event to the only text thatmight 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 toshare with the king of Amurru any information on the alien enemy (RS

20.162).14The document was recovered in the archive of Rap


8/15


turn fits into the picture of a crisis that would have troubled the easternMediterranean for a longer period than what has been previouslythought.17If this turns out to be the case, one could hypothesize that the

population of Tell Kazel, decided to abandon the town before the enemyarrived. A strategy similar to that adopted at Tell Kazel was followedfurther north along the Syrian coast at the site Ras el-Bassit, whose build-ings were carefully emptied by the inhabitants before being abandoned. Inthis case the decision proved to be justified, as immediately afterward, atthe beginning of the 12thcentury, a fire destroyed the town (Venturi 2007,59). Tell Kazel did not experience a similar tragic fate and was rapidlyreoccupied (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 wouldbe rather short, and one cannot exclude that it might be further reducedby a reassessment of the chronology of the Mycenaean pottery, as well asby future studies on the material from Tell Kazel and Ugarit.

If the embargo is ruled out as the explanation for the lack of importedMycenaean pottery in the phase of transition from the Late Bronze to theIron Age, the reasons behind this change in material culture should be

sought in other factors. To this purpose, it is useful to recall Jungs con-siderations on the quantity and quality of imported Mycenaean potteryfound at Tell Kazel in the occupational levels dated to the LBA. He ob-serves that the imported Mycenaean pottery, which corresponds to onlyabout 10% of the total ceramic corpus recovered at the site, is representedalmost exclusively by a selection of painted vessels that reveals an eliteuse. Distinctive items are for instance the craters decorated with war char-iot scenes, which, as Jung suggests, must have met the taste and reflectedthe ideology of the elite dominating in Amurru.18If one accepts the hy-

pothesis that the collapse of the kingdom of Amurru corresponds with theabandonment of Tell Kazel at the end of the LBA, the lack of importedMycenaean pottery in the following period could be seen as a conse-quence of the disappearance of this elite, which represented the most im-

portant local clientele of the Mycenaean workshops. The change in social

17 Beside the evidence provided by Tell Kazel itself, which experienced different phases ofabandonment and destruction between the end of the 13th and the beginning of the

12thcenturies, see also the observations made by Malbran-Labat (1999, 123 and fn. 13)and Yon (1999, 114 with previous literature).

18 Jung (2006, 170175). Similar conclusions have been reached by Yon/Karageorghis/Hirschfeld (2000, 18) for the Mycenaean pottery assemblage found at Ugarit.



9/15

250 Elena Devecchi

structure and composition of the population that occupied Tell Kazel afterthe 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 forthis period, without the need to invoke doubtful measures of internationaltrade policy undertaken by the Hittite kings.

Appendix:Again on ships of Aiyawa or warships

The passage of the treaty between Tutaliya IV and Sausgamuwa (CTH

105) on which the embargo theory is based is handed down by only one ofthe two duplicates of the text19and is very badly preserved. We owe itsmost commonly accepted reading to Sommer (1932, 325f.), who proposedto restore and translate it as follows:20

CTH 105 A col. iv23 [sakurA-]i-ia-u-wa-as!-sigismpa!-a-u-an-zi l[e-e]

Vom Lande Aijavadarf 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 kingof Aiyawa (lugal kurAiyawa, CTH 105 A iv 3) among the kingsattributed a status equal to that of the Hittite king. The hypothesis that the3rdsing. pronoun-ssiat the end of [A-]i-ia-u-wa-as-sirefers to Assyria orto the Assyrian king depends on the fact that, in a previous paragraph, Tut-aliya IV orders Sausgamuwa to prohibit any merchant of Amurru fromgoing to Assyria and likewise to forbid any Assyrian merchant from en-tering Amurru (CTH 105 iv 1418).21The integration of the negationleat

the end of iv 23 has also met with general agreement, even though onlytraces of the initial wedges ofl[e-are visible.

19 Copy A: KUB 23.1++; Copy B: KUB 8.82.20 Sommers edition has been followed so trustingly, that the passage is often quoted with-

out indicating with squared brackets that Aiyawa is to great extent integrated: seeKhne/Otten (1971, 1617: Ke[in] Schiff des Landes Aijawa soll zu ihm fahren!),Lehmann (1991, 111: Kein Schiff des Landes Aijavasoll zu ihm fahren!) and Beck-man (1999, 106: No ship [of] Ahhiyawa may go to him (the King of Assyria?)). Dif-

ferently Singer (2000, 100: [Do not let] a ship of [A]iyawa go to him).21 Also for syntactical reasons-ssivery likely refers to the topic of the previous paragraph.

This general rule has some exceptions (e.g. Sideltsev forthcoming), but this sentencedoes not fall among the cases where one would expect a proleptic pronoun.



10/15


Sommers restoration is restricted to iv 23 and thus leaves open theproblem of how iv 23 might relate to the following line(s). Being mainlyconcerned with demonstrating the existence of another occurrence of

Aiyawa in the Hittite sources, Sommer did not focus on solving thisproblem and offered no solution to it. He only took into considerationthe possibility of integrating the verb [tar-na-at-t]iin the gap at the begin-ning of iv 24, eventually excluding it because the traces at the beginningof the line clearly do not correspond to the end of ati(Sommer 1932,326).

As a matter of fact, however, it is necessary to integrate something atthe beginning of iv 24. Considering the sequence of enclitic particles at-tached 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 seemsvery likely that the word in the fracture would belong to the previousclause. An alternative reading and a tentative solution for this problem

were proposed by Steiner (1989, 401), who suggested the following:

CTH 105 A col. iv23 [la-a-]i-ia-u-wa-as-sigismpa-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 einesaussend[et ]

Steiners restoration confers to this passage a meaning completely dif-ferent than the one usually accepted. He suggests that Sauskamuwa solldem Knig vonatti zwar Futruppen und Wagenkmpfer fr den Krieg

gegen Assyrien stellen, mu oder soll aber kein Schiff fr die Krieg-fhrung zu ihm aussenden. Demnach braucht dieser Paragraph garnicht einmal speziell die Situation des Feldzugs gegen Assyrien vorauszu-

setzen, sondern kann eine selbstndige, ganz allgemein geltende Bestim-mung enthalten (Steiner 1989, 402). However, as he himself admits, it isdifficult to understand warum Sauskamuwa ein Schiff fr die Krieg-fhrung 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 Assyrienwiederum 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 anopenly negative (Singer 1991, 171; Lehmann 1991, 111) attitude toward it.Lehmann (1991, 111 fn. 11), for instance, has pointed out that the inte-

gration [la-a-]i-ia-u-wa-as-siat the beginning of iv 23 would be anhapax



11/15

252 Elena Devecchi

legomenon, but Steiners hypothesis is problematic with regard to other as-pects as well: The integration [tarna]uat the beginning of iv 24 is unlikely because

it is not nearly long enough to fill the gap. Furthermore, the traces vis-ible between the fracture andpa-ra-a-ma-as-kndo not fit with the endof 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[etarna]uis problematic becauseleoccurs

only rarely with imperative forms and only in new Hittite copies of OldHittite 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 expecta 2ndsingular verbal form, not a 3rdsingular as restored by Steiner. Infact, in the rest of the treaty Tutaliya IV always addresses Sausga-muwa with the 2ndperson.22For similar reasons it is difficult to acceptthat the personal pronoun suffix 3rdsingular dative-ssiin iv 23 mightrefer to the Hittite king, because in the rest of the text Tutaliya alwaysspeaks in the 1stperson.

On the basis of these observation, one can safely discard Steiners in-terpretation in favor of the Aiyawa solution, but this does not solve theproblem of how to restore the beginning of iv 24. Collation of the pictureseems 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 signlikete, and the comparison with othertesigns in the text (i 44, ii 11, ii 35)

would support this hypothesis, since in all cases the oblique wedges do notcross the final vertical. Syntactically, for the reasons mentioned above, one

would expect a 2ndsingular present verbal form.-teinstead of-tias ending

of a verbal form is rare, but not impossible (GrHL 1.61), and indeed anoccurrence of such a rarity is attested in this text at ii 35, where one findsthe 2nd singular present wa-ar-is-sa-at-te (< warissa- to come to help).Integrating [wa-ar-is-sa-at-t]eat the beginning of iv 24 would be impos-sible, because it is too long for the fracture and becausewarissa-does not

22 Shifts from the 2ndto the 3rdperson when referring to the vassal are attested in othertreaties (see e.g. CTH 66, treaty Mursili II Niqmepa of Ugarit, ll. 6769summamNiq-mepa laiss[abassunu ana sar matatti la]inaddin istu mamiti tet[etiq] If Niqmepa doesnot sei[ze them and does not] deliver [to the king ofatti], you will have trans[gressed]the oath), but this would be the only occurrence of this feature in CTH 105, and ittherefore seems rather unlikely.



12/15


govern an infinitive. A more feasible possibility is [tar-na-at-t]e, which hasthe advantage of perfectly fitting the space of the break at the beginningof iv 24 and being amenable to the grammatical requirements of the sen-

tence, but the rarity of this form together with the occurrence of a regular2ndsingular present formtarnatti23at iv 16 demand that this hypothesis betaken rather cautiously. Finally, it should be noted that, depending on thesemantics 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 shallnot allowhim to go vs. you shall not hinderhim from going.

Some observations with regard to the following sentence,pa-ra-a-ma-as-kn ku-wa-p na-a-[, are also in order. The verb is only partially pre-served, but it is very likely a form ofnai-to send. The enclitic pronoun-asinpara=ma=as=kanhas been often interpreted as a 3rdsingular nomi-native,24 but 3rd person subject enclitics never occur in sentences withtransitive verbs (GrHL 18.13; Garret 1990, 233) such asnai-, thus-ascanonly be an accusative plural animate them.25This enclitic pronoun mustrefer to something mentioned previously in the text, and the only elementof the previous sentence that might function as the logical antecedent of-asis gism, but this is grammatically problematic, since it is singular. Theimmediately preceding paragraph deals with the military engagement of

Amurru in the war between atti and Assyria (iv 1922), and it is in turnpreceded by a paragraph that ends with the regulation of the trade be-tween Amurru and Assyria and forbids Sausgamuwa to send merchants ofAmurru to Assyria (iv 1418). Already long ago Sommer (1932, 323) pro-

posed that the paragraph with the military clauses, which is written in avery small script and contextually is a sort of intruder between the twoparagraphs dealing with trade, might be regarded as a misplaced clause. Ifthis is indeed the case,-asin iv 24 could refer to something mentioned iniv 1418. A logical antecedent to-asin those lines might be the merchants

of Amurru and Assyria, though it should be noted that the text always em-ploys ldam.gr in the singular, while-asrequires a plural.

In any case, once the interpretation of-asinpara=ma=as=kanas a 3rd

singular nominative is ruled out, it becomes possible to restore the verbalform not only as a 3rdsingular presentna-a-[i], as usually suggested, butalso as a 2ndsingular presentna-a-[it-ti]. This would fit with the proposedinterpretation of the previous sentence as well as with the mention of

23 For the forms oftarna-see Oettinger (2003, 58 and 155) and Tischler (1993, 192ff).24 Khne/Otten (1971, 17 Sollte er? doch einmal aussen[den] and 54) and Steiner (1989,

401: Sobald er aber eines aussend[et ]).25 See Beckman (1999, 106) and Singer (2000, 100: When he dispatches them).



13/15

254 Elena Devecchi

dingir-lu4 sakur-ti-ka in the following line (iv 25),26where the text be-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

23 [sakurA-]i-ia-u-wa-as-sigismpa-a-u-an-zi l[e-e]24 [tar-na-at-t]e pa-ra-a-ma-as-kn ku-wa-p na-a-[iorna-a-[it-ti

Do n[ot allo]w any ship [of A]iyawa to go to him! Whenhe/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 inthe Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age, BASOR 343, 6595.

(20072008): Tell Arqa and Tell Kazel, deux sites complmentaires de la plaine deAkkar 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 TellKazel (Syria), gypten und Levante 15, 1547.

Beckman, G. (1999): Hittite Diplomatic Texts2. Atlanta.Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. (1996): Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall Se Hamad. BATSH

4. Berlin. (2008): Assur und Hatti zwischen Allianz und Konflikt, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.),attusa

Boyazky. Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients. 6. Internationales

26 This is the only occurrence in the text wheredingir andkur are written with phoneticcomplements.



14/15


Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. 22.24. Mrz 2006, Wrzburg. Wies-baden, 205222.

Capet, E. (2003): Tell Kazel (Syrie), rapport prliminaire sur les 9e17ecampagnes de fouil-les (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 ugariti-

schen Texten, in : S. Isre


15/15

256 Elena Devecchi

(2000): The Treaties betweenatti 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.

(2003): The Great Scribe Taki-Sarruma, in: G. Beckman et al. (eds.), Hittite Studies in

Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Winona Lake,341348.

(2009): Sausgamuwa, RlA 12, 9698.- (forthcoming): Maaza, King of Amurru, in: J. Klinger/E. Rieken (eds.), Investiga-

tiones Anatolicae. Gedenkschrift fr Erich Neu.Sommer, F. (1932): Die Aijava-Urkunden. Mnchen.Steiner, G. (1989): Schiffe von Aiyawa oder Kriegsschiffe von Amurru im Sauska-

muwa-Vertrag?, UF 21, 393411.Tischler, J. (1993): Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Lieferung 9: T-D/2. Innsbruck.

van den Hout, Th. P. J . (1995): Der Ulmitesub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersu-

chung. StBoT 38. Wiesbaden.Venturi, F. (2007): La Siria nellet delle trasformazioni (XIIIX sec. a. C.): nuovi contributidallo scavo di Tell Afis. Bologna.

Yon, M. (1999): Chypre et Ougarit la fin du Bronze Rcent, Report of the Department ofAntiquities of Cyprus 1999, 113119.

Yon, M./V. Karageorghis/N. Hirschfeld (2000): Cramiques Mycniennes dOugarit. RSO13. Paris.

Brought to you by | provisional account

amurru between Äatti, assyria, and aääiyawa (2010)

Documents