Chapter 29

[702]The later painted fabrics have a clear relation to those of Kara Eyuk (Chantre,Mission, Pls.III.,X.-XIII.), Boghaz-Keui, and the Kara Dagh. These, however, are not earlier than the first millenniumB.C.[703]Schuchhardt,Schliemann’s Excavations(London, 1891), p. 41, figs. 18, 20, 21.[704]Ashmolean Museum, the black, red-black, and red-brown wares, also thepointillé.[705]Les Premières Civilisations(Paris, 1909), p. 198,note 5.[706]R. Pumpelly,Explorations in Turkestan(Washington, 1908), Pls.XXIX.-XXXIII., specimens to be seen in the Völkerkunde Museum, Berlin.[707]Royal Tombs, ii. (1901), Pl.LIV., specimens to be seen in the Ashmolean Mus., Oxford.[708]E.g.Ashmolean Mus., Class Æ. 757 (various kinds), Æ. 753 (red on buff), and Æ. 758 (mottled red). After early MinoanII.the resemblance ceases.[709]Temp.AmenhetepIII.andIV., overlapped by Subbi-luliuma of the Hatti and Tushratta of Mitanni. We use the edition of Winckler (referred to in the notes as Winckler,T. A. Letters), with some amendments by Knudtzon.[710]In particular those of Karnak (temp.SetiI.and RamesesII.), the Ramesseum at Thebes, Abu Simbel and Abydos (temp.RamesesII., overlapping Mutallu and Hattusil of the Hatti), and Medinet Habu (temp.RamesesIII.).[711]For bibliography, etc., see the Appendices,pp. 392 ff.[712]See above,p. 208; also an article inLiv. Annals of Arch., i. pp. 41 ff.[713]Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Köi, 1907, by Hugo Winckler;Mitteil. der Deuts. Orient-Ges., 1907, No. 35. Also an article,Die in Sommer 1906 ... Ausgr., inOrient. Lit.-Zeitung, ix., No. 12, pp. 621 ff.[714]See above,p. 312.[715]See above,p. 313.[716]Pl.LXXXIII., from the north wall of the temple of RamesesII.at Abydos.[717]In this case the head is shaved. There is another form of pigtail which must be distinguished from this, being in fact only the hair so cut and drawn together behind the head that it ends in the same way. Cf. De G. Davies,Tell el AmarnaII. (temp.AmenhetepIV.Akhenaten), Pl.XL.(bottom row); also ‘the people of Dapur in the land of the Amorites,’ S. wall of the great hall in the Ramesseum (T in Murray’sHandbook for Egypt, 1907, p. 414), where also the square shield and triangular bow should be noted.[718]This type may be freely recognised,e.g.in the Ramesseum and at Abydos, Petrie,Racial Types, pp. 146-148, republished in hisHistory of Egypt, iii. p. 48, fig. 17. Cf. our ‘living Amorite,’ Pl.LXXXIV.and p. 12, n. 1.[719]Petrie,Racial Types, pp. 55, 143-145, in hisHistory, iii. p. 48, fig. 17 (i); Maspero,The Struggle of the Nations, p. 353; Sayce,The Hittites, 1903, p. 11.[720]Cf.Pl.LXIX.(ii), and compare the type with that from Sinjerli,Pl.LXXV.(ii).[721]Their language, which might have formed a clue, is equally problematical. There is strong temptation to regard both as Caucasian.[722]Cf. Pls.LXV.,LXXI.[723]Cf.p. 313.[724]Cf. the addresses of some case tablets from Asia Minor, published by Pinches,Liv. Annals of Arch.i. pp. 49 ff., assigned by that scholar to 2000B.C.; also a Cappadocian tablet of the same period, now in the Royal Scottish Museum of Art and Science. Horses and chariots were employed by Aitagama in the early fourteenth century; while Hittite cavalry are mentioned in the treaty with RamesesII., and are depicted on the north wall of Karnak.[725]Though we await some revision of Dr. Pumpelly’s chronology, we cannot doubt the antiquity of the deposits in question. See hisExplorations in Turkestan, i. p. 38.[726]Cf. Pls.XLVII.,LVII.,LXV.,LXXI.,LXXV.(ii), etc.[727]Cf. W. Max Müller,Asien und Europa, pp. 328, 372; Lenormant,Les Origines d’Histoire(who infers a northern origin), iii. p. 299.[728]Cf.p. 237, andPl.LXV.[729]Cf. pp.13,298.[730]We suspect tin from this direction. Cf. description by Belck (Verhandl. der Berl. Ges. für Anthropologie, 1893, pp. 61 ff.), of tombs at Kala-Kent near Kedabeg. For this reference we are indebted to Mr. H. Schliephack.[731]Cf. the bronze figure,Pl.XL.; the bronze axe and trappings of Boghaz-Keui, Winckler,op. cit., pp. 7 ff. and fig. 1.[732]King,Chronicles, i. pp. 168, 169.[733]Of the date of Khammu-rabi; for this reference we are indebted to Professor Sayce.[734]In the Book of Omens (Hommel,Die Semit. Völker und Sprache, pp. 176 ff.), cited by Maspero,Struggle of the Nations(1896), p. 19. The extract is supposed to date from the time of Sargon (of Akkad) and Naram-Sin, but more probably belongs, Professor Sayce tells us, to that of Khammu-rabi. (Cf. also Winckler,Alttestament. Forsch., p. 162, note 1; Hommel,Gesch. Bab. und Ass., p. 271, note 6.)[735]Stela, C. 1, Musée du Louvre. See above,p. 77, note 1 (b). There is, however, considerable difference of opinion among philologists as to this reading.[736]Cf. Genesis xxiii., xxv. 9, xxvi. 34, xlix. 29, 32.[737]Genesis xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1. (Also xxxvi. 2, but the text is subject to amendment.) Cf. also Meyer,Gesch. des Alterthums, i. pp. 213, 214.[738]Ezekiel xvi. 3, 45. Messerschmidt also points to the analogy of the name of a king of Jerusalem,Abd-khipa(T. A. Letters), with those ofPutu-khipa(wife of Hattusil the Hittite) andTadu-khipa(wife of Tushratta of Mitanni). Winckler (Mitteilungen D.O.G.1907, 35, pp. 47 ff.) attributes these early references and the appearance of the Hittites in these times in southern Syria and Babylonia, to the settlement of the Mitannians, whom he regards as a kindred but earlier stock. Among these he finds an Indo-Germanic element (op. cit., p. 51); but with the controversy on this point we are not concerned.[739]On the relation of Hyksos and Hittites, see Maspero,The Struggle of the Nations(1898), p. 57. For us, in the recent recognition of the Amorites as an Aramæan people, coupled with the Semitic names of the Hyksos leaders, and the vassalage of the Amorite to the Hittite in later centuries (see below,p. 336), the problem is nearing solution.[740]On this point Professor Sayce kindly supplies the following note:—‘In the fourteenth chapter of Genesis we are told that one of the vassal allies of Chedor-laomer in his campaign against his revolted subjects in the naphtha-bearing district of southern Canaan was Tidᶜal, king of the Goyyim or “Nations.” In the fragments of the Babylonian story of Chedor-laomer published by Dr. Pinches, the name of Tidᶜal is written Tudkhul, and he is described as king of the Umman Manda or Nations of the North, of which the Hebrew Goyyim is a literal translation. Now the name is Hittite. In the account of the campaign of Ramses II. against the Hittites it appears as Tidᶜal, and one of the Hittite kings of Boghaz-Keui bears the same name, which is written Dud-khaliya in cuneiform. The name is evidently a compound of Dud or Tud—with which we may compare Tadu-Khipa—and the territorial divinity Khaliya (Greek Halys; cp. the Lydian Alyattes).‘In the Bogche inscription [p. 155] the king who erected the monument is called Khaleis “the Khalian,” and we probably have the same name in Khulli, the father of the Cilician Amris.‘The important fact which results from this is that the Hittite king was already serving as an ally or vassal under the king of the Babylonian empire in the age of Abraham and Khammu-rabi, the Amraphel of the Old Testament.’—A. H. S., December 1, 1909.[741]We refer to these archives henceforward for brevity as theB. K. Tablets, with a reference to the page of Dr. Winckler’s preliminary publication of them inMitteilungen der Deut. Orient-Gesellschaft, Dec. 1907, No. 35, pp. 1-71. The most important documents of which translations are given are—1. Treaty with Mitanni,temp.Subbi-luliuma, with historical preamble describing previous relations with Tushratta, Isuwa, Alshe, Aleppo, and finally the terms of alliance with Mattiuaza. 2. A treaty fragment of the same reign referring to Nukhasse and Aitagama. 3. Treaty with Amorites,temp.Mursil. 4. Treaty with Amorites,temp.Hattusil, with historical preamble covering the reigns of Subbi-luliuma, Mursil and Mutallu. 5. Correspondence of Hattusil with Babyloniarethe succession, the Egyptian treaty, the Amorites and Assyria. 6. Edict of Dudkhalia, relating to internal affairs; and 7. A document of same king in Hittite relating to an Amorite revolt,temp.Mutallu. 8. Cadastral survey,temp.Arnuanta, signed by the royal ladies.[742]Treaty with Mitanni, Winckler,op. cit., pp. 32, 33, 34, 36.[743]And is once so named, Winckler,op. cit., p. 17.[744]That Arzawa was a vassal state would appear from the fact that its archives are found at Boghaz-Keui; but that it retained its own kings is seen from the letter addressed to Tarkundaraus by AmenhetepIII.(Winckler,op. cit., pp. 40, 41), as well as from the former to the latter (Proc. S.B.A., xi. p. 336). It seems, according to Sayce, to have been in N.E. Cilicia, corresponding therefore to the district of Quë in the Assyrian texts. Its tutelary deity is clearly Tarqu or Tarkhu, found also in the name of Tarkon-demos, the Tarku-dimme of the well-known silver boss (C.I.H., 1900; xlii. p. 9). Possibly Tarsus and Dastarkon, the latter identified by Ramsay with Fraktin (p. 149), embody the stem of this name: in this case a wider area of influence is indicated: that the state was wide and comprehensive appears from the fact that another king, Alakshandu, is mentioned as a vassal of Tarkundaraus; while a third king sent presents to the Pharaoh through the latter’s ambassadors.[745]This reading is due to Professor Sayce, being based on an inscription recently found by De Morgan at Susa. Its position was on the Tochma Su, for Schrader (Keilinschriften u. Geschichts-forschung., pp. 151 ff., 530) has shown that it included Malatia. The same writer gives the reading Khanigalbat; while W. Max Müller (Asien und Europa, p. 320) uses Khani-rabbat, and points out an analogy between Khani-the-Great and Kheta-the-Great of the Egyptian texts. Jensen (Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, v. p. 177, note 1) and Winckler (Gesch. Babs. und Assyrs., pp. 174, 259) support Schrader. That it was an important state appears from its name, and from its independent correspondence with Egypt (Winckler,T. A. Letters, Nos. 1, 15); and that it was allied to the Hatti must be inferred from the account of the campaigns of Subbi-luliuma which follows.[746]Annals of ThothmesIII., 33rd year.[747]Seethe Genealogical Table, p. 329.[748]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 21.[749]Winckler,Ausgrabungen, 1907, p. 35.[750]In what follows we attempt to reconstruct the campaigns of Subbi-luliuma from the new records read side by side with the Tell el-Amarna letters, basing the sequence of events, where no clue is provided, on the gradual movement of the scene from north to south.[751]Fragment of treaty, Winckler,B. K. Tablets, p. 35.[752]See below, and cf. Winckler,T. A. Letters, Nos. 132, 139.[753]Winckler,loc. cit.[754]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 125. The alternative reading Am in place of the more familiar Amki is proposed by Sayce (cf.The Hittites, p. 164), and corresponds closely with the Amma or Ammiya of the Tell el-Amarna texts. He points out that the reading Amki is inadmissible, askiis really the ordinary determinative.[755]Mitanni treaty preamble, Winckler,op. cit., p. 32. Cf. Maspero,Struggle of the Nations, pp. 358 ff.[756]Unless it be that which Tushratta claims in a letter to the Pharaoh to have successfully resisted. Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 16.[757]Winckler,B. K. Archives,op. cit., pp. 33, 34.[758]We may suspect that, as the fashion was, numbers of the conquered Mitanni people were drafted off to the Hatti-land and settled on the soil, where they appear in later times as the Matieni (Herodotus, i. 72; v. 49, 52). Cf. Th. Reinach,Un Peuple oublié, les Matiènes(Rev. des Études Grecques, ’94, pp. 217, 218).[759]The fact seems to transpire in theT. A. Letters: cf. the story of Akizzi which follows.[760]Winckler,B. K. Tablets,op. cit., p. 34.[761]An Assyrian king, Ashur-uballitII.(?c.1420B.C.), claims to have wrested Malatia from the Mitannians; cf. Johns, in Hastings’Dict.(1909).[762]Khalpain Hittite,Khalmanin Assyrian.[763]Katna lay on the Khabour, tributary of the Euphrates; Nî must have been somewhere N.W. of Aleppo.[764]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 132.[765]Ibid., No. 146.[766]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 139; Winckler,B. K. Tablets, p. 34. The parallelism between the archives of Tell el-Amarna and Boghaz-Keui is remarkable and instructive.[767]For he addressed a letter to the Egyptian court in the third year of the reign of AmenhetepIV., about 1373.[768]Further information about this chieftain also transpires in the letters (Winckler, No. 7; Knudtzon, No. 51) in reference to Nukhasse.[769]That his action followed closely on the events just described is clear fromLetter, Winckler, No. 119, where the defection of his son Aziru and his destruction of Sumur are reported to the Pharaoh at the same time as the annexation of Am(ma) by Aitakama.[770]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 27.[771]Ibid., No. 87.[772]Ibid., No. 50.[773]Ibid., No. 51.[774]All these events seem to have preceded the conversion of Akhenaten.[775]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 52.[776]Winckler,Ausgrabungen, etc., 1907, p. 42.[777]Preamble Amorite treaty,temp.Hattusil, Winckler,B. K. Tablets,op. cit., p. 43.[778]Preamble Amorite treaty,temp.Mursil;ibid., p. 44.[779]The treaty with Sapalulu mentioned in that with Khetasar (HattusilII.),temp.RamesesII.[780]With Maurasar (Mursil), who succeeded,ibid.[781]Hittite-Mitanni treaty; Winckler,B. K. Tablets, p. 36.[782]Ibid.[783]When he appears under the name of Abu-Tessub, Winckler,op. cit., p. 38.[784]Hittite-Mitanni treaty; Winckler,op. cit., p. 36.[785]Such evidence as there is on this point (pp.163,199) seems to link the monuments of the west, at Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel, with the reign of HattusilII., by analogy with the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui; but historically the opportunity for westward expansion was now open. Hattusil, like his Egyptian compeer, seems to have been mostly concerned with retaining what he had inherited.[786]See pp.159,205.[787]SeePl.XLIV., and pp.138, 139. Our date is based on the resemblance of the oblation vases (more clearly seen in Miss Bell’s photographs published by Hogarth inLiv. Annals of Arch., 1909) to those found in the hands of Hittite prisoners in Egypt, temp.Akhenaten; see De Garis Davies,El Amarna II.(London, 1905), pp. 41, 42, and Pl.XL.(bottom row). Such vases were common in Hittite Syria during the fifteenth centuryB.C.(cf. Maspero,Struggle of the Nations, fig. on p. 263), and the date of the sculptures is therefore liable to modification from various considerations, such as the range of time such types were in use, the probability of antique forms surviving in religious practices, and the possibility of special forms being sent as tribute to the Pharaoh.[788]P. 268.But see Puchstein,Pseudo-hethitische Kunst, who assigns it to the ninth centuryB.C.[789]P. 151,Pl.XLVII.[790]P. 249.[791]Though Akhenaten himself may have claimed the title, it was employed before his conversion.[792]Cf. the position of Hattusil and Putukhipa, in the seal of the treaty with RamesesII., below,p. 349.[793]On this point see below,p. 353.[794]See what is said above (p. 64) about the surviving elements of the Hittite constitution in the state of Lydia.[795]Winckler,B. K. Tablets,op. cit., p. 35.[796]We infer, from the synchronisms with Egypt and Mitanni, between 1360 and 1340B.C.; he and his successor overlap by their reigns those of AmenhetepIII.and SetyI.Mutallu and Hattusil were contemporary with RamesesII.[797]On this interesting expression, occurring in the preamble to the Amorite treaty,temp.Hattusil, see Winckler,Ausgrabungen, etc., 1907, p. 43, note. We have still to learn the nature of the Hittite burial rites, but this reference is significant.[798]E.g.Gasga(Assyrian Kaskâ),Tibia,Zikhria; cf. Winckler,op. cit., p. 18.[799]? Manapa-Sanda.[800]Winckler,op. cit., pp. 19, 44.[801]See above, pp.207,208; cf. Winckler,op. cit., p. 14.[802]Maspero,Struggle of the Nations, p. 608; Johns, in Hastings’Abridged Dictionary(1909). We adopt the latter’s chronology.[803]See the map,p. 375.Muzriis a term meaning ‘the frontier lands,’ and hence not fixed,videHommel,Gesch. Bab. und Assyr., p. 530, note 2; Tiele (Bab. Assyrische Gesch., p. 201) regarded this Muzri as referring to the border-lands of Cilicia, while Winckler (Alttestamentliche Untersuch., p. 172) thinks it applies at this time to the whole of North Syria.[804]The argument of Petrie,History, iii. (1905) p. 17, as to the reliability of the Egyptian sources in this matter seems to be supported historically by the new light upon the period.[805]Though Professor Sayce has detected at Karnak a scene which may refer to the northern districts.[806]We place this event about the time of the accession of RamesesII.,c.1292B.C.(following the chronology of Breasted, based on Meyer). The battle of Kadesh, which is reflected in the Hittite treaty of RamesesII.(cf. Winckler,op. cit., p. 45), links the two reigns, and would fall under this system of dates about 1288-1289B.C.Mutallu’s short reign (Winckler,op. cit., p. 20) would thus end shortly afterwards: he is the Mautenel or Mautal of the Egyptian texts.[807]For a summary of the Egyptian sources, see de Rougé,Revue Égyptologique, iii. p. 149; vii. p. 182. For discussion of the identity of the peoples, with the authorities, Maspero,Struggle of the Nations, pp. 390, 398. Time has brought respect for the latter’s common-sense principle of inquiry, and for the insight of Professor Sayce (The Hittites, 1903 ed., p. 26) in this matter. The argument of Professor Petrie, based on the improbability of troops, ‘three men in a car,’ being able to cross ‘so rough a country as Asia Minor’ (History, iii. p. 47), breaks down at the first name on the lists, and we may regard the main subject of this controversy practically closed. So, too, new evidence makes it unnecessary to discuss in detail the attitude of Hirschfeld,Die Felsenreliefs in Kleinasien und das Volk der Hittiter(Berlin, 1881), and O. Puchstein,Pseudo-hethitische Kunst(Berlin, 1890), though we notice special points of criticism. For a review of the whole situation down to 1896, see Reinach,Chroniques d’Orient, especially i. pp. 372 ff. and pp. 772 ff.[808]For an exhaustive study of the strategy of the Egyptian leader, and a critical examination of the authorities, see Breasted,The Battle of Kadesh(Chicago, 1903). Cf. also E. Meyer,Geschichte des Alterthums, pp. 288 f.; Maspero,Histoire(1875), pp. 220 ff., andStruggle of the Nations, pp. 392 ff.[809]Müller (Asien und Europa, p. 216, note 1) thinks this passage in the poem of Pentaur must refer to the overtures of HattusilII.sixteen years afterwards; but the preamble to the treaty with the latter, read in the light of the new synchronisms, leads us to accept the text as historical.[810]Winckler,B. K. Tablets,op. cit., p. 45.[811]Professor Sayce notes that this rendering of the name, which is written ideographically, must be considered doubtful. The same person appears as Banti-shinni in other texts.[812]The facts alone transpire (Winckler,op. cit., p. 19); this sequence is our interpretation of them.[813]Cf. Winckler,Ausgrabungen, etc., 1907, p. 27.[814]Winckler,B. K. Tablets,op. cit., p. 24.

[703]Schuchhardt,Schliemann’s Excavations(London, 1891), p. 41, figs. 18, 20, 21.

[704]Ashmolean Museum, the black, red-black, and red-brown wares, also thepointillé.

[705]Les Premières Civilisations(Paris, 1909), p. 198,note 5.

[706]R. Pumpelly,Explorations in Turkestan(Washington, 1908), Pls.XXIX.-XXXIII., specimens to be seen in the Völkerkunde Museum, Berlin.

[707]Royal Tombs, ii. (1901), Pl.LIV., specimens to be seen in the Ashmolean Mus., Oxford.

[708]E.g.Ashmolean Mus., Class Æ. 757 (various kinds), Æ. 753 (red on buff), and Æ. 758 (mottled red). After early MinoanII.the resemblance ceases.

[709]Temp.AmenhetepIII.andIV., overlapped by Subbi-luliuma of the Hatti and Tushratta of Mitanni. We use the edition of Winckler (referred to in the notes as Winckler,T. A. Letters), with some amendments by Knudtzon.

[710]In particular those of Karnak (temp.SetiI.and RamesesII.), the Ramesseum at Thebes, Abu Simbel and Abydos (temp.RamesesII., overlapping Mutallu and Hattusil of the Hatti), and Medinet Habu (temp.RamesesIII.).

[711]For bibliography, etc., see the Appendices,pp. 392 ff.

[712]See above,p. 208; also an article inLiv. Annals of Arch., i. pp. 41 ff.

[713]Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Köi, 1907, by Hugo Winckler;Mitteil. der Deuts. Orient-Ges., 1907, No. 35. Also an article,Die in Sommer 1906 ... Ausgr., inOrient. Lit.-Zeitung, ix., No. 12, pp. 621 ff.

[714]See above,p. 312.

[715]See above,p. 313.

[716]Pl.LXXXIII., from the north wall of the temple of RamesesII.at Abydos.

[717]In this case the head is shaved. There is another form of pigtail which must be distinguished from this, being in fact only the hair so cut and drawn together behind the head that it ends in the same way. Cf. De G. Davies,Tell el AmarnaII. (temp.AmenhetepIV.Akhenaten), Pl.XL.(bottom row); also ‘the people of Dapur in the land of the Amorites,’ S. wall of the great hall in the Ramesseum (T in Murray’sHandbook for Egypt, 1907, p. 414), where also the square shield and triangular bow should be noted.

[718]This type may be freely recognised,e.g.in the Ramesseum and at Abydos, Petrie,Racial Types, pp. 146-148, republished in hisHistory of Egypt, iii. p. 48, fig. 17. Cf. our ‘living Amorite,’ Pl.LXXXIV.and p. 12, n. 1.

[719]Petrie,Racial Types, pp. 55, 143-145, in hisHistory, iii. p. 48, fig. 17 (i); Maspero,The Struggle of the Nations, p. 353; Sayce,The Hittites, 1903, p. 11.

[720]Cf.Pl.LXIX.(ii), and compare the type with that from Sinjerli,Pl.LXXV.(ii).

[721]Their language, which might have formed a clue, is equally problematical. There is strong temptation to regard both as Caucasian.

[722]Cf. Pls.LXV.,LXXI.

[723]Cf.p. 313.

[724]Cf. the addresses of some case tablets from Asia Minor, published by Pinches,Liv. Annals of Arch.i. pp. 49 ff., assigned by that scholar to 2000B.C.; also a Cappadocian tablet of the same period, now in the Royal Scottish Museum of Art and Science. Horses and chariots were employed by Aitagama in the early fourteenth century; while Hittite cavalry are mentioned in the treaty with RamesesII., and are depicted on the north wall of Karnak.

[725]Though we await some revision of Dr. Pumpelly’s chronology, we cannot doubt the antiquity of the deposits in question. See hisExplorations in Turkestan, i. p. 38.

[726]Cf. Pls.XLVII.,LVII.,LXV.,LXXI.,LXXV.(ii), etc.

[727]Cf. W. Max Müller,Asien und Europa, pp. 328, 372; Lenormant,Les Origines d’Histoire(who infers a northern origin), iii. p. 299.

[728]Cf.p. 237, andPl.LXV.

[729]Cf. pp.13,298.

[730]We suspect tin from this direction. Cf. description by Belck (Verhandl. der Berl. Ges. für Anthropologie, 1893, pp. 61 ff.), of tombs at Kala-Kent near Kedabeg. For this reference we are indebted to Mr. H. Schliephack.

[731]Cf. the bronze figure,Pl.XL.; the bronze axe and trappings of Boghaz-Keui, Winckler,op. cit., pp. 7 ff. and fig. 1.

[732]King,Chronicles, i. pp. 168, 169.

[733]Of the date of Khammu-rabi; for this reference we are indebted to Professor Sayce.

[734]In the Book of Omens (Hommel,Die Semit. Völker und Sprache, pp. 176 ff.), cited by Maspero,Struggle of the Nations(1896), p. 19. The extract is supposed to date from the time of Sargon (of Akkad) and Naram-Sin, but more probably belongs, Professor Sayce tells us, to that of Khammu-rabi. (Cf. also Winckler,Alttestament. Forsch., p. 162, note 1; Hommel,Gesch. Bab. und Ass., p. 271, note 6.)

[735]Stela, C. 1, Musée du Louvre. See above,p. 77, note 1 (b). There is, however, considerable difference of opinion among philologists as to this reading.

[736]Cf. Genesis xxiii., xxv. 9, xxvi. 34, xlix. 29, 32.

[737]Genesis xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1. (Also xxxvi. 2, but the text is subject to amendment.) Cf. also Meyer,Gesch. des Alterthums, i. pp. 213, 214.

[738]Ezekiel xvi. 3, 45. Messerschmidt also points to the analogy of the name of a king of Jerusalem,Abd-khipa(T. A. Letters), with those ofPutu-khipa(wife of Hattusil the Hittite) andTadu-khipa(wife of Tushratta of Mitanni). Winckler (Mitteilungen D.O.G.1907, 35, pp. 47 ff.) attributes these early references and the appearance of the Hittites in these times in southern Syria and Babylonia, to the settlement of the Mitannians, whom he regards as a kindred but earlier stock. Among these he finds an Indo-Germanic element (op. cit., p. 51); but with the controversy on this point we are not concerned.

[739]On the relation of Hyksos and Hittites, see Maspero,The Struggle of the Nations(1898), p. 57. For us, in the recent recognition of the Amorites as an Aramæan people, coupled with the Semitic names of the Hyksos leaders, and the vassalage of the Amorite to the Hittite in later centuries (see below,p. 336), the problem is nearing solution.

[740]On this point Professor Sayce kindly supplies the following note:—‘In the fourteenth chapter of Genesis we are told that one of the vassal allies of Chedor-laomer in his campaign against his revolted subjects in the naphtha-bearing district of southern Canaan was Tidᶜal, king of the Goyyim or “Nations.” In the fragments of the Babylonian story of Chedor-laomer published by Dr. Pinches, the name of Tidᶜal is written Tudkhul, and he is described as king of the Umman Manda or Nations of the North, of which the Hebrew Goyyim is a literal translation. Now the name is Hittite. In the account of the campaign of Ramses II. against the Hittites it appears as Tidᶜal, and one of the Hittite kings of Boghaz-Keui bears the same name, which is written Dud-khaliya in cuneiform. The name is evidently a compound of Dud or Tud—with which we may compare Tadu-Khipa—and the territorial divinity Khaliya (Greek Halys; cp. the Lydian Alyattes).‘In the Bogche inscription [p. 155] the king who erected the monument is called Khaleis “the Khalian,” and we probably have the same name in Khulli, the father of the Cilician Amris.‘The important fact which results from this is that the Hittite king was already serving as an ally or vassal under the king of the Babylonian empire in the age of Abraham and Khammu-rabi, the Amraphel of the Old Testament.’—A. H. S., December 1, 1909.

‘In the Bogche inscription [p. 155] the king who erected the monument is called Khaleis “the Khalian,” and we probably have the same name in Khulli, the father of the Cilician Amris.

‘The important fact which results from this is that the Hittite king was already serving as an ally or vassal under the king of the Babylonian empire in the age of Abraham and Khammu-rabi, the Amraphel of the Old Testament.’—A. H. S., December 1, 1909.

[741]We refer to these archives henceforward for brevity as theB. K. Tablets, with a reference to the page of Dr. Winckler’s preliminary publication of them inMitteilungen der Deut. Orient-Gesellschaft, Dec. 1907, No. 35, pp. 1-71. The most important documents of which translations are given are—1. Treaty with Mitanni,temp.Subbi-luliuma, with historical preamble describing previous relations with Tushratta, Isuwa, Alshe, Aleppo, and finally the terms of alliance with Mattiuaza. 2. A treaty fragment of the same reign referring to Nukhasse and Aitagama. 3. Treaty with Amorites,temp.Mursil. 4. Treaty with Amorites,temp.Hattusil, with historical preamble covering the reigns of Subbi-luliuma, Mursil and Mutallu. 5. Correspondence of Hattusil with Babyloniarethe succession, the Egyptian treaty, the Amorites and Assyria. 6. Edict of Dudkhalia, relating to internal affairs; and 7. A document of same king in Hittite relating to an Amorite revolt,temp.Mutallu. 8. Cadastral survey,temp.Arnuanta, signed by the royal ladies.

[742]Treaty with Mitanni, Winckler,op. cit., pp. 32, 33, 34, 36.

[743]And is once so named, Winckler,op. cit., p. 17.

[744]That Arzawa was a vassal state would appear from the fact that its archives are found at Boghaz-Keui; but that it retained its own kings is seen from the letter addressed to Tarkundaraus by AmenhetepIII.(Winckler,op. cit., pp. 40, 41), as well as from the former to the latter (Proc. S.B.A., xi. p. 336). It seems, according to Sayce, to have been in N.E. Cilicia, corresponding therefore to the district of Quë in the Assyrian texts. Its tutelary deity is clearly Tarqu or Tarkhu, found also in the name of Tarkon-demos, the Tarku-dimme of the well-known silver boss (C.I.H., 1900; xlii. p. 9). Possibly Tarsus and Dastarkon, the latter identified by Ramsay with Fraktin (p. 149), embody the stem of this name: in this case a wider area of influence is indicated: that the state was wide and comprehensive appears from the fact that another king, Alakshandu, is mentioned as a vassal of Tarkundaraus; while a third king sent presents to the Pharaoh through the latter’s ambassadors.

[745]This reading is due to Professor Sayce, being based on an inscription recently found by De Morgan at Susa. Its position was on the Tochma Su, for Schrader (Keilinschriften u. Geschichts-forschung., pp. 151 ff., 530) has shown that it included Malatia. The same writer gives the reading Khanigalbat; while W. Max Müller (Asien und Europa, p. 320) uses Khani-rabbat, and points out an analogy between Khani-the-Great and Kheta-the-Great of the Egyptian texts. Jensen (Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, v. p. 177, note 1) and Winckler (Gesch. Babs. und Assyrs., pp. 174, 259) support Schrader. That it was an important state appears from its name, and from its independent correspondence with Egypt (Winckler,T. A. Letters, Nos. 1, 15); and that it was allied to the Hatti must be inferred from the account of the campaigns of Subbi-luliuma which follows.

[746]Annals of ThothmesIII., 33rd year.

[747]Seethe Genealogical Table, p. 329.

[748]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 21.

[749]Winckler,Ausgrabungen, 1907, p. 35.

[750]In what follows we attempt to reconstruct the campaigns of Subbi-luliuma from the new records read side by side with the Tell el-Amarna letters, basing the sequence of events, where no clue is provided, on the gradual movement of the scene from north to south.

[751]Fragment of treaty, Winckler,B. K. Tablets, p. 35.

[752]See below, and cf. Winckler,T. A. Letters, Nos. 132, 139.

[753]Winckler,loc. cit.

[754]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 125. The alternative reading Am in place of the more familiar Amki is proposed by Sayce (cf.The Hittites, p. 164), and corresponds closely with the Amma or Ammiya of the Tell el-Amarna texts. He points out that the reading Amki is inadmissible, askiis really the ordinary determinative.

[755]Mitanni treaty preamble, Winckler,op. cit., p. 32. Cf. Maspero,Struggle of the Nations, pp. 358 ff.

[756]Unless it be that which Tushratta claims in a letter to the Pharaoh to have successfully resisted. Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 16.

[757]Winckler,B. K. Archives,op. cit., pp. 33, 34.

[758]We may suspect that, as the fashion was, numbers of the conquered Mitanni people were drafted off to the Hatti-land and settled on the soil, where they appear in later times as the Matieni (Herodotus, i. 72; v. 49, 52). Cf. Th. Reinach,Un Peuple oublié, les Matiènes(Rev. des Études Grecques, ’94, pp. 217, 218).

[759]The fact seems to transpire in theT. A. Letters: cf. the story of Akizzi which follows.

[760]Winckler,B. K. Tablets,op. cit., p. 34.

[761]An Assyrian king, Ashur-uballitII.(?c.1420B.C.), claims to have wrested Malatia from the Mitannians; cf. Johns, in Hastings’Dict.(1909).

[762]Khalpain Hittite,Khalmanin Assyrian.

[763]Katna lay on the Khabour, tributary of the Euphrates; Nî must have been somewhere N.W. of Aleppo.

[764]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 132.

[765]Ibid., No. 146.

[766]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 139; Winckler,B. K. Tablets, p. 34. The parallelism between the archives of Tell el-Amarna and Boghaz-Keui is remarkable and instructive.

[767]For he addressed a letter to the Egyptian court in the third year of the reign of AmenhetepIV., about 1373.

[768]Further information about this chieftain also transpires in the letters (Winckler, No. 7; Knudtzon, No. 51) in reference to Nukhasse.

[769]That his action followed closely on the events just described is clear fromLetter, Winckler, No. 119, where the defection of his son Aziru and his destruction of Sumur are reported to the Pharaoh at the same time as the annexation of Am(ma) by Aitakama.

[770]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 27.

[771]Ibid., No. 87.

[772]Ibid., No. 50.

[773]Ibid., No. 51.

[774]All these events seem to have preceded the conversion of Akhenaten.

[775]Winckler,T. A. Letters, No. 52.

[776]Winckler,Ausgrabungen, etc., 1907, p. 42.

[777]Preamble Amorite treaty,temp.Hattusil, Winckler,B. K. Tablets,op. cit., p. 43.

[778]Preamble Amorite treaty,temp.Mursil;ibid., p. 44.

[779]The treaty with Sapalulu mentioned in that with Khetasar (HattusilII.),temp.RamesesII.

[780]With Maurasar (Mursil), who succeeded,ibid.

[781]Hittite-Mitanni treaty; Winckler,B. K. Tablets, p. 36.

[782]Ibid.

[783]When he appears under the name of Abu-Tessub, Winckler,op. cit., p. 38.

[784]Hittite-Mitanni treaty; Winckler,op. cit., p. 36.

[785]Such evidence as there is on this point (pp.163,199) seems to link the monuments of the west, at Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel, with the reign of HattusilII., by analogy with the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui; but historically the opportunity for westward expansion was now open. Hattusil, like his Egyptian compeer, seems to have been mostly concerned with retaining what he had inherited.

[786]See pp.159,205.

[787]SeePl.XLIV., and pp.138, 139. Our date is based on the resemblance of the oblation vases (more clearly seen in Miss Bell’s photographs published by Hogarth inLiv. Annals of Arch., 1909) to those found in the hands of Hittite prisoners in Egypt, temp.Akhenaten; see De Garis Davies,El Amarna II.(London, 1905), pp. 41, 42, and Pl.XL.(bottom row). Such vases were common in Hittite Syria during the fifteenth centuryB.C.(cf. Maspero,Struggle of the Nations, fig. on p. 263), and the date of the sculptures is therefore liable to modification from various considerations, such as the range of time such types were in use, the probability of antique forms surviving in religious practices, and the possibility of special forms being sent as tribute to the Pharaoh.

[788]P. 268.But see Puchstein,Pseudo-hethitische Kunst, who assigns it to the ninth centuryB.C.

[789]P. 151,Pl.XLVII.

[790]P. 249.

[791]Though Akhenaten himself may have claimed the title, it was employed before his conversion.

[792]Cf. the position of Hattusil and Putukhipa, in the seal of the treaty with RamesesII., below,p. 349.

[793]On this point see below,p. 353.

[794]See what is said above (p. 64) about the surviving elements of the Hittite constitution in the state of Lydia.

[795]Winckler,B. K. Tablets,op. cit., p. 35.

[796]We infer, from the synchronisms with Egypt and Mitanni, between 1360 and 1340B.C.; he and his successor overlap by their reigns those of AmenhetepIII.and SetyI.Mutallu and Hattusil were contemporary with RamesesII.

[797]On this interesting expression, occurring in the preamble to the Amorite treaty,temp.Hattusil, see Winckler,Ausgrabungen, etc., 1907, p. 43, note. We have still to learn the nature of the Hittite burial rites, but this reference is significant.

[798]E.g.Gasga(Assyrian Kaskâ),Tibia,Zikhria; cf. Winckler,op. cit., p. 18.

[799]? Manapa-Sanda.

[800]Winckler,op. cit., pp. 19, 44.

[801]See above, pp.207,208; cf. Winckler,op. cit., p. 14.

[802]Maspero,Struggle of the Nations, p. 608; Johns, in Hastings’Abridged Dictionary(1909). We adopt the latter’s chronology.

[803]See the map,p. 375.Muzriis a term meaning ‘the frontier lands,’ and hence not fixed,videHommel,Gesch. Bab. und Assyr., p. 530, note 2; Tiele (Bab. Assyrische Gesch., p. 201) regarded this Muzri as referring to the border-lands of Cilicia, while Winckler (Alttestamentliche Untersuch., p. 172) thinks it applies at this time to the whole of North Syria.

[804]The argument of Petrie,History, iii. (1905) p. 17, as to the reliability of the Egyptian sources in this matter seems to be supported historically by the new light upon the period.

[805]Though Professor Sayce has detected at Karnak a scene which may refer to the northern districts.

[806]We place this event about the time of the accession of RamesesII.,c.1292B.C.(following the chronology of Breasted, based on Meyer). The battle of Kadesh, which is reflected in the Hittite treaty of RamesesII.(cf. Winckler,op. cit., p. 45), links the two reigns, and would fall under this system of dates about 1288-1289B.C.Mutallu’s short reign (Winckler,op. cit., p. 20) would thus end shortly afterwards: he is the Mautenel or Mautal of the Egyptian texts.

[807]For a summary of the Egyptian sources, see de Rougé,Revue Égyptologique, iii. p. 149; vii. p. 182. For discussion of the identity of the peoples, with the authorities, Maspero,Struggle of the Nations, pp. 390, 398. Time has brought respect for the latter’s common-sense principle of inquiry, and for the insight of Professor Sayce (The Hittites, 1903 ed., p. 26) in this matter. The argument of Professor Petrie, based on the improbability of troops, ‘three men in a car,’ being able to cross ‘so rough a country as Asia Minor’ (History, iii. p. 47), breaks down at the first name on the lists, and we may regard the main subject of this controversy practically closed. So, too, new evidence makes it unnecessary to discuss in detail the attitude of Hirschfeld,Die Felsenreliefs in Kleinasien und das Volk der Hittiter(Berlin, 1881), and O. Puchstein,Pseudo-hethitische Kunst(Berlin, 1890), though we notice special points of criticism. For a review of the whole situation down to 1896, see Reinach,Chroniques d’Orient, especially i. pp. 372 ff. and pp. 772 ff.

[808]For an exhaustive study of the strategy of the Egyptian leader, and a critical examination of the authorities, see Breasted,The Battle of Kadesh(Chicago, 1903). Cf. also E. Meyer,Geschichte des Alterthums, pp. 288 f.; Maspero,Histoire(1875), pp. 220 ff., andStruggle of the Nations, pp. 392 ff.

[809]Müller (Asien und Europa, p. 216, note 1) thinks this passage in the poem of Pentaur must refer to the overtures of HattusilII.sixteen years afterwards; but the preamble to the treaty with the latter, read in the light of the new synchronisms, leads us to accept the text as historical.

[810]Winckler,B. K. Tablets,op. cit., p. 45.

[811]Professor Sayce notes that this rendering of the name, which is written ideographically, must be considered doubtful. The same person appears as Banti-shinni in other texts.

[812]The facts alone transpire (Winckler,op. cit., p. 19); this sequence is our interpretation of them.

[813]Cf. Winckler,Ausgrabungen, etc., 1907, p. 27.

[814]Winckler,B. K. Tablets,op. cit., p. 24.

Back to Index Next