Yamada SECONDMILITARYCONFLICT 2011

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND 'ḪATTI' IN THE REIGN OF
TUKULTI-NINURTA I
Author(s): Masamichi Yamada
Source: Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale , 2011, Vol. 105, MARI, ṬABATUM
ET EMAR: APPROCHES GÉOGRAPHIQUES, POLITIQUES ET CULTURELLES DU MOYEN-
EUPHRATE ET DU HABUR INFÉRIEUR (2011), pp. 199-220
Published by: Presses Universitaires de France
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42580250
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Presses Universitaires de France is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale
This content downloaded from

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[RA 105-2011] 199
THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 4 ASSYRIA' AND 'HATTP

IN THE REIGN OF TUKULTI-NINURTA I«
BY
Masamichi Y AM AD A
In memory of Prof. Anson F . Rainey
I. INTRODUCTION
The process of the territorial expansion of Middle Assyria, which reached its peak in the lat
century B.C.,1 began with Aššur-uballit I (1353-18 B.C.). In the West, when Mittani collapse
assassination of King Tušratta in the mid fourteenth century B.C., he actively involved hi
affairs in Hanigalbat, the heart land of Mittani centered on the Habur triangle, first by diplo
by military means. In the following century, Adad-nirari I (1295-64 B.C.) and his son
(1263-34 B.C.) continued the efforts to conquer and rule that region, fighting with H
kingdom which succeeded Mittani. In the early phase of his reign, Shalmaneser defeated Ša
last known king of this independent Hurrian state, and then finally annexed it to the Assyr
(Harrak 1987: 161f., 171-175).
Shalmaneser established an offshoot kingdom there, nominating Ibašši-ilí son of Ad
thus his brother, as the founder of the dynasty. Its capital was Dür-Katlimmu (Tell Šěh Ha
lower Habur river, and its rulers bore the titles 'grand vizier' (, sukkallu rabïu) and 'king o
Hanigalbat' ( sar mât řfanigalbať) ? Below we will refer to this state as 'Assyrian H
distinguish it from the previous Hurrian kingdom with the same name. Due to Shalmanese
conquests to the east, north and west, his son Tukulti-Ninurta I (1233-1 197 B.C.) inherited a v
when he ascended the throne of Assyria. Although he made military expeditions to the perip
especially when they revolted, there was no need of an expedition to this Assyrian Haniga
remained steadily under his control.
When we deal with the western expansion of Assyria, it is interesting to note that th
information is geographically biased, as the Assyrian royal inscriptions, our basic historica
* The chronological system adopted in this article is that of the Low Chronology (Boese and W
also Boese 1982). Abbreviations follow those of M. T. Roth (ed.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Ori
of the University of Chicago 20: U and W , Chicago, 2010, vii-xxix, and of the Cuneiform Digital Li
(http://cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/doku.php/abbreviations_for_assyriology), with the following exceptions
texts from Syria (Alalah, Dür-Katlimmu, Emar, Harbe, and Ugarit): ASJ 6-T = Tsukimoto 198
Tsukimoto 1988; ASJ 12-T = Tsukimoto 1990; ASJ 14-T = Tsukimoto 1992; AT = Wiseman 1953; AuOr 5-T =
Arnaud 1987; BATSH 4 = Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996; BATSH 9 = Röllig 2008; BLMJE = Westenholz 2000; Emar
VI = Arnaud 1985-86; Iraq 54-T = Dalley and Teissier 1992; RE = Beckman 1996; RSOu VII = Bordreuil et. al.
1991; SMEA 30-T = Arnaud 1992; TS = Arnaud 1991; VFMOS 2.III = Jakob 2009.
1 . The basic and comprehensive study for reconstructing this process is Harrak 1987.
2. For this dynasty see Cancik-Kirschbaum 1999: 214-222. The status of this Assyrian satellite state seems to
be similar to that of the Hittite one of Carchemish, whose king was regarded as viceroy of the empire in Syria. On
Salmanu-mušabši, who appears as the grand vizier between Aššur-iddin (son of Qibi-Aššur, grandson of Ibašši-ilí)
and his son Ilï-padâ in the Assyrian texts, see Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 21, 24; Wiggermann 2000: 171, 175; Jakob
2003b: 62-64; 2009: 5, 9; Bloch 2010: 4, 7-9.
Revue ďAssyriologie, volume CV (2011), p. 199-220

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
200 MAS AMICHI YAMADA [RA 105
mostly focus on the northern regions as Hanigalba

As for the Middle Euphrates (= ME) region in the
expedition to its lower part, "the lands of Mari,
I, A.0 .78.23: 69f.), no reference is made in the in
river between Carchemish and the confluence of t
probably because Assyria's primary interest was in
caused the formation of anti- Assyrian coalitions i
which in return spurred Assyria to conquer them.
However, did the Assyrians have no interest at
westward? In this respect, let us note MARV III 1
(11. 2 If.), in the late phase of the reign of Shalm
copper blocks taken from the land of Hatti (1. 18
15). Although the location of Hazaziru is unknow
those of Assyrian Hanigalbat, raided I/Emar (Mes
The present study deals with Assyrian involvem
Tukulti-Ninurta I on the basis of the available Ass
II. THE HITTITE PRESENCE ALONG THE MIDDLE EUPHRATES RIVER
1. The geo-political framework: The Šattiwaza treaty (CTH 51)
After conquering Mittani in the late fourteenth century B.C., Šuppiluliuma I made it a pu
appointing as its new king Šattiwaza, son of Tušratta, the former king. They concluded a
Akkadian version (KBo II),5 Šuppiluliuma defined the border with Mittani as the Euphrate
15'-16'a) and assigned the cities in the upper ME region to Piyaššili, his son and the
Carchemish (11. 16'b-21'), the Hittite satellite state in Syria. Those cities originally belong
lands are as follows:6
*[Land of Carchemish]: Murmurik, Šipri, Mazuwati, Šurun, <GN>7
*Land of Astata (left bank): Ikalt[e, GN8], Ahuna, Terqa
This text shows that there was a border between the land of Carchemish and the land of
political center of which was Emar on the right bank. This border was south of Mazuwati, i
(Tell Ahmar), and Šurun9 and north of I/Ekalte (Tell Munbãqa). The downstream border of
Astata was probably located at Ahuna and Terqa on the lower Balih. Ahuna is usually identif
es-Seman10 and, so here, it is difficult to assume Terqa is the well-known Tell el-'Asara, a
from Ahuna (cf. also KBo I 10+ below).11
There is no doubt that the cities of Astata on the right bank of the Euphrates also we
the control of the king of Carchemish, as seen in the texts from Emar, the vassal kingdom
3. It has been announced that the texts from Tell Fray (unpublished) are to be dated not to
Assyrian but to the Mittanian period (Faist 2001: 215 n. 73 with previous literature).
4. Faist 2001: 90 and n. 39 with previous literature. But cf. Bloch 2008: 146, 169f.
5. See Weidner 1923: 2-37; Beckman 1999: 42-48 (no. 6A).
6. See Yamada 1994b: 261-263 with previous literature (p. 262 nn. 3f.); Astour 1996: 37f.;
2001: 89-95; Otto 2009: 171f.
I.A. Otto is of the opinion that another GN has been dropped here and suggests it is Basiru (Tell
left bank (2009: 172f. with a map on p. 169).
8. Although M. Luciani proposes to restore Emar here (1999-2001: 92f.), that is unlikely, since th
Astata must have been situated on the left bank of the Euphrates (see Yamada 1994b: 262f.).
9. Otto suggests identifying it with Tell Sirrin on the left bank (2009: 17 If.). See also Boese
previous literature.
10. See Astour 1996:37f. and n. 48; Otto 2009: 172 and n. 21 (both with previous literature).
11. Yamada 1994b: 263 n. 10; Astour 1996: 38; Luciani 1999-2001: 94f., 107; cf. Otto 2009: 172.

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
20 1 1 ] THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND ' H ATTI' 20 1
below). That the land of Astata was comprised of both banks probably reflects the situation that the
southern land between the Euphrates and the Balih, except for the areas along these rivers, was desert,
where no territorial rule was possible.
As for the upstream border of the land of Astata, the Assyrian royal inscriptions of Tiglath-
pileser 1(11 14-1076 B.C.) and of Aššur-běl-kala (1073-56 B.C.) give relevant information. In these texts,
we find references to royal hunting ina umAraziqi ša pãn KUR ff atte, "in Araziqu, which is before the
land of Hatti" (RIMA 2, A.0.87.1: vi 64f.; A.0.89.7: iv 4f.). It is most likely that in this period "the land
of Hatti" actually meant the land of Carchemish. These texts thus show that Araziqa was situated outside
Carchemish's territory and belonged to the land of Astata (Yamada 1994b: 263). This city of Araziqa is
usually identified with Tell el-Hãgg12 on the right bank of the Euphrates at its Great Bend, approximately
opposite Tell Munbãqa.
As for the downstream border of the land of Astata, the famous Akkadian letter from Hattušili
III, king of Hatti, to Kadašman-Enlil II, king of Babylonia (KBo 110 + KUB III 72)13 is important. This
text shows that the region along the Euphrates downstream as far as Tuttul (Tell Bia) near the confluence
of the Balih was well integrated into the Hittite territory in the mid thirteenth century B.C. (see obv. 36-
43; but cf. n. 35 below). Furthermore, ASJ 10-T E, an Emar text dated to the final phase of the history of
the city (Yamada in press), is also noteworthy. In this text, Dagan-ilï, wife (reading [D]AM in 1. 3) of Zü-
Eya, sold her son as a slave to Dagan-bânï and put him on board a ship so that Dagan-bânï (probably
himself too on board) might take him off the boat in Tuttul (11. 1-7). The assumption of smooth
navigation between Emar and Tuttul, though it does not automatically show that both were in the same
Hittite sphere of influence, indicates at least that the relation between the former (under Hittite control)
and the latter was peaceful in the early twelfth century B.C.14
2. The Great Bend area under Hittite control: The Emar texts
As the texts from Emar show, in the Great Bend area both banks were firmly under Hittite control in the
thirteenth century B.C. For example, let us look at TS 96. 15 In this (copy of a) letter, Šaggar-abu,
probably residing in Emar, reports to a Hittite dignitary titled LÚ.UGULA (KALAM.MA), "overseer (of
the land)," (staying in Carchemish?) as follows: Dagan-kabar, the ...16 of Ikalta (= Ekalte), met Lada in
Haza and then went to Azu (11. 15- 19a); although Dagan-kabar took some oil and gave it to Lada, he did
not come (to Emar) to give it to Šaggar-abu (11. 19b-22). Although the location of Haza is unknown, Azu
is identified with Tell Hadïdi. This text shows that both banks of the Euphrates at the Great Bend - Azu
and Emar on the right and Ekalte on the left -were well under Hittite jurisdiction.17
Another Emar text of interest is AuOr 5-T 13, in which Ahu-tãb nominates his daughter
Alnašuwa as his heir, making her "male and female (NITA ù MÍ)" (11. 1-6). As for the sons to whom she
gives birth, he declares, "they will be (recognized as) my [sons] and will perform my GIS .TUKUL-duty
[wit]h the citizens of Araziqa" (11. 11-14). In the Emar texts, the phrase GIŠ.TUKUL nasu , (lit.) "to
lift/carry a weapon," means to perform a (military) duty for the Hittite authority (of Carchemish).
Whereas in Emar only a part of the citizens (the 'Emaro-Hittites') performed this duty, this text suggests
12. See Belmonte Marín 2001: 31 with previous literature. Although Araziqa has long been identified with
the classical town Eragiza (Dussaud 1927: 452), its correct name is Eraziga without metathesis (Charpin 2001: 191
with previous literature).
13. See Hagenbuchner 1989: 281-300 (no. 204); Beckman 1999: 138-143 (no. 23).
14. Another reference to Tuttul in an Emar legal text is RE 65: 4, where a man of Tuttul appears as a creditor
of 13 shekels of silver.
15. Originally published in Arnaud 1984: 180-183 (no. 1). On this text see Yamada 1994b: 264-266.
16. L Ú.sa-[']-du (Arnaud 1991: 150 with note on 1. 15), not lusa'pi]tu (so Arnaud 1984: 182).
17. Note also that the jurisdiction of Emar reached "the city on the opposite bank (of the river, i.e., the
Euphrates)": URU.KI ša BAL.RI (Emar VI 44: 15); URU.KI BAL.KI ÍD (TS 9: 2). For further references to
(BAL .RI =) ebertu in the Emar texts, see Beckman 1996: 41 (note on RE 24: 1). On Emar VI 15: 36 see § V.3 below.

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
that in Araziqa it was a duty of all the citizens (

the Hittites is evident.18
III. TUKULTI-NINURTA I AND THE WEST
1. The battle ofNifyriya: RSOu VII 46 and KBo IV 14
RSOu VII 46 (RS 34.165)19 is an Assyrian royal letter to Ibirãnu, king of Ugarit,20 which repo
the king of Assyria was led to fight with Tudhaliya IV (11. 12', 21'), king of Hatti, near Nihri
achieved victory. The first preserved line reads: 'mdÈulmãna'- r SAG 1 LUGAL rKUR d
"[Shalman]eser, king of the land of [Aššur]." The problem is whether this is the name of the ad
that of his father (i.e., that it was written by Tukulti-Ninurta I, but his own name was wholly b
leaving only the patronymic); both kings are known to be contemporaries of Tudhaliya IV. I. Sin
for Tukulti-Ninurta I as the addresser. Equating Nihriya with Nairi, the region around Lake V
points out that a military expedition to the Nairi lands was only attested at the beginning of
(1985: 105-108, 119). However, as A. Harrak correctly notes (1987: 244f.), Nihriya is not th
Nairi.21 He opts for Shalmaneser I, since the addresser of a letter normally does not state his pa
(ibid.: 185). No decisive conclusion has been reached on this issue so far.22
A key to solving this problem seems to be found in KBo IV 14 (see Stefanini 1965)
refers to the battle of Nihriya. This text is a Hittite treaty or protocol between Tudhaliya IV
šarri, as Singer convincingly demonstrates (1985: 109-1 14).23 In this text, Tudhaliya accuses E
of past betrayal, saying that when the situation got worse, he was somewhere apart and not bes
(ii 7f.); at that time Tudhaliya fled alone from Nihriya, and when "the enemy took away the Hu
(LÚ.KÚR KUR .KUR frur-ri ar-fja ME -as) from him, he was in Alatarma25 alone (11. 9-1 1). W
enemy," i.e., the Assyrian king who sent RSOu VII 46? In this respect, it is worth noting that w
IV 14 was drawn up - "many years" (ii 67) after the battle of Nihriya - the Assyrian king of
was still alive (see § IV. 1 below). Considering Tudhaliya IV's synchronisms with the Assyrian k
the battle of Nihriya took place in the period of Shalmaneser I, it is to be dated to the late ph
reign. In this case, it would be very unlikely that he was still alive when Tudhaliya and Ehli-š
18. Another reference to this city is found in the Emar text RE 76: 4. Cf. also the PN Araziqïu (for
Beckman 1996: 95 [note on RE 73: 28]).
19. The first edition of this text was published in Lackenbacher 1982. See also Dietrich 2003, 2004.
20. Reading [a-na mi-bi-ra]-na LUGAL KUR xiP-[ga-ri-it. KI qi-bi-ma ] (1. 2'). Although J. Freu su
an alternative [a]-na LUGAL ...with an anonymous addressee (2003: 107; 2007: 273), this is improbable
the fact that the NA-sign is written approximately in the middle of the line.
21. Nowadays Nihriya is thought to be Kazane Höyük, situated in the uppermost area of the Bal
(Cancik-Kirschbaum 2009: 141 and n. 107 with previous literature and now Miller 2012).
22. See, e.g., Dietrich 2003: 105-109 (for previous literature), 118f. for Shalmaneser I; Freu 20
2007 for Tukulti-Ninurta I.
23. Although Singer (1985: 114-118) identifies this Ehli-šarri(LUGAL) (KBo IV 14: iv 71; also [m]
LUGALV/ in RSOu VII 46: 13 [see Dietrich 2003: 110, 112]) as the Ehli-Šarruma(LUGAL-ma), king of Išuwa, in
IBoT I 34: 9, 16, this is chronologically difficult (Freu 2007: 280f.; cf. also below). In view of the addresser, a king
(of the Hurrian state) of Hanigalbat in 1. 2 (probably its last king Šattuara II), this letter is to be dated at the latest to
the early phase of Shalmaneser I's reign. However, I would not exclude the possibility that Ehli-šarri was a king of
Išuwa after Ehli-Šarruma (cf. Freu, ibid.).
24. According to M. Dietrich's edition ol RSOu VII 46 (2UU3: 1121. with 2UU4: 41 on 1. 14), the Assyrian
king approached Ehli-šarri, the ally of Tudhaliya, and took him (to the Assyrian side), which aroused the hostility of
Tudhaliya against the Assyrian king (11. 12-16). The betrayal by Ehli-šarri vaguely described in KBo IV 14: ii 7f.
would refer to this shift of alliance.
25. To be located in the vicinity of Išuwa and Pahuwa (del Monte and Tischler 1978: 6f.). See also Forlanini
2004: 415f.

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
20 1 1 ] THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND ' H ATTI' 203
the document of KBo IV 14. This indicates that the probable candidate for the above "enemy" is Tukulti-
Ninurta I.26
This identification is well supported by other historical sources. Firstly, (a draft of) a Hittite
royal letter addressed to Bãba-ahu-iddina at the Assyrian court27 shows Hittite concern about the
aggressiveness of the new Assyrian king (Tukulti-Ninurta I). Tudhaliya IV tries to persuade Bãba-ahu-
iddina not to let Tukulti-Ninurta make an expedition to mountainous regions as "the land of Papanhi"
(KUB XXIII 103: rev. 20'). In the Assyrian sources, this GN is known as Paphû,28 one of the Subarû
(i.e., Hurri) lands in the upper Tigris region, which were eventually conquered by Tukulti-Ninurta. This
reminds us of the Assyrian conquest of the Hurri lands at the time of the battle of Nihriya (KBo IV 14: ii
10). Secondly, it is interesting to note that Assyrian Jjurãdu-{ troops) were in Nihriya in the limu of Qibi-
Aššur (TR 3005: 4f., lOf.),29 i.e., the second year of Tukulti-Ninurta I (= TN2). This is a terminus ad
quem for the battle of Nihriya (Cancik-Kirschbaum 2008a: 213 n. 31). In fact, thirdly, we find references
to the deportation of "28,800 Hittite people from beyond the Euphrates" to Assyria at the very beginning
of Tukulti-Ninurta' s reign (RIMA 1, A.0.78.23: 27-30; A.0 .78.24: 23-25; IM 76787: 24-26; Talon 2005:
126, 11. 24-26). 30 Although the number of the deportees may be exaggerated (de Odorico 1995: 150f.),
this must have been a result of the Assyrian victory in the massive military clash with the Hittites near
Nihriya.31
After the battle Hatti severed diplomatic relations with Assyria. However, in IM 51928 (see
Gurney 1949: 139-141, 148, pl. XL [no. 10]), Zikil-ilišu, a Babylonian diplomat staying in Aššur, reports
to a king of Babylonia (probably Šagarakti-Šuriaš) that a messenger of Assyria who had been detained in
Hatti for three years was released and had returned to Assyria with a messenger of Hatti (11. 14-17).
According to VAT 19633 = MARV III 12 (see Freydank 1994), a Hittite interpreter was in Aššur in the
limu of Lïbur-zânin- Aššur (= TN6). These texts suggest that bilateral diplomacy was restored soon after
the battle of Nihriya (Freu 2003: 1 lOf.; also 2007: 290).
26. In this case, the reason for the addition of the unnecessary patronymic may be that RSOu VII 46 was the
first letter which Tukulti-Ninurta sent to the king of Ugarit (Freu 2003: 107).
27. CTH 178 (KUB XXIII 92 // XXIII 103 // XL 77) is a Sammeltafel of the three Hittite letters (of Tudhaliya
IV) to the new Assyrian king and two Assyrian dignitaries, respectively (see Hagenbuchner 1989: 249-260 [no. 191];
Mora and Giorgieri 2004: 155-174 [no. 17]), in which his generally amicable attitude to the Assyrian king is visible.
For the part of the letter to Bãba-ahu-iddina (KUB XXIII 103: rev. 8'-28' and also 92: rev. 9'-21'), see also Beckman
1999: 149f. (no. 24C); Hoffner 2009: 324-327 (no. 105) with previous literature.
28. To be located to the east of Diyarbakir (del Monte and Tischler 1978: 301). For references to Paphû as a
conquered place in the inscriptions of Tukulti-Ninurta, see Wilhelm 2003-05; also Deller et al. 1994: 460 (IM 57821:
20), 464 (IM 76787: 29); Talon 2005: 126 (1. 29).
29. See Wiseman 1968: 179, pl. LVIII, with the remark in Postgate 1971: 498 n. 9.
30. IM 76787 was published in Deller et al. 1994: 464-468, 471f., Taf. 15-17. As has been pointed out, this
reference is found only in these later inscriptions of Tukulti-Ninurta written in the new style (Grayson 1987: 271; cf.
p. 231). According to E. Weidner, although the event took place at the beginning of his reign, it was ignored while he
was trying to establish good relations with Tudhaliya IV; only later when relations failed, was the reference to this
event made in his inscriptions (1959: 26 [note on no. 16: 27-30]). But cf. Galter 1988.
31 . It is worth noting here that the treaty between Tudhaliya IV and his vassal Šaušgamuwa, king of Amurru
(CTH 105; see Kühne and Otten 1971; Beckman 1999: 103-107 [no. 17]), obliges the latter to an embargo on trade
with Assyria, whose king is "the enemy" (KUB XXIII 1: iv 12-18), and to furnish military aid in time of war with it
(11. 19-22). Scholars commonly regard this embargo as a counterplot against Assyria around the time of the battle of
Nihriya (e.g., Singer 1985: 108; Klengel 1999: 292; Bryce 2005: 314-318, esp. 315f.). However, they differ
concerning to which phase of Tudhaliya' s reign it is dated: early (Bryce, ibid, with p. xv!), not early (Klengel, ibid.;
cf. Bo 86/299: iv 32, 36), or later (Singer 1985: 118). With regard to this issue, Singer poses that in KBo VIII 23
Tudhaliya complained to his mother Pudu-Hepa of betrayal by the king of Išuwa (according to him Ehli-Šarruma) at
the time of that battle (ibid.: 1 16-1 18). If so, if this king is the same as the above Ehli-šarri, since his mother is still
alive, one may assume that the battle of Nihriya and then the Amorite embargo are dated to the earlier, though not to
the earliest, phase of Tudhaliya' s reign. This conclusion would fit well with our dating of the battle to the beginning
of Tukulti-Ninurta I's reign.

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
2. The Assyrian presence along the Baity river: B
The texts from Dür-Katlimmu (Tell Šěh Hama

political situation in the region west of the Habu
particularly important for our present concern. T
(probably Tell Feherïyeh), to Aššur-iddin, the gra
text is Ina-Aššur-šumí-asbat (11. 67f.), which was d
the main text is concerned with the pursuit of fug
(4) ur-ki ÉRIN.MEŠ ša URU kar-ga-mis sa in-na-
(6) ÉRIN.MEŠ ša URU .du-ni-da-šur r du -un^-ni UR ?
ni-áda-gal (8) mi-šil-šu-nu URU 'si-ir-da mi-šil-šu-n
ma (10) a-di URU .du-nijáMa-gal ul-ta-a$-bi-it
(Pursuing) after the people33 of Carchemish who had

of Dunni-Aššur, the fortress of ..., (in) the reed {bed
the troops) of Dunni-Dagal - one half of them had be
of Tuttul34 - I disposed (them) from Gilma to Dun
This text shows that the Balih region was firmly u

mudammiq disposed the Assyrian troops at sever
capture the fugitives, bringing in some of the tro
for two days, he failed to catch anyone (11. 11- 1
Gilma and, tracing them for a full day, he we
approached the city of Carchemish (11. 28bff.).
In the text, Sîn-mudammiq inserts a part expla
to pursue the fugitives. Firstly, since Aššukanni w
Streck 1997: 273 on 1. 17), there were no people i
had gone out to seek food. Secondly, since he was
19 v|9 / 9
32. A reading on the basis of the handcopy (C

GI. Cf. du-un-ni-a GIŠ.GI (ibid.: 95).
33. 1 think they were soldiers held as hosta
Šubarian people (ÉRIN.MEŠ) were (11. 18-20).
34. Sirda is attested in the OB itinerary text,
the Balih immediately above Tultul (1. 37), i.e., Tut
Balih when they tried to block the fugitives movin
35. Since the reference was not to the city of T
still under Hittite control at that time (1999-200
district governor (bel pãfjete) of Tuttul in the iTm
Tell Sabi Abyad), i.e., TNI 3, dated before that of
under Assyrian control, in other words that the A
raises the question why the troops of Tuttul were
Assyrian conquest of Tuttul was only a recent e
recently published Dür-Katlimmu text (BATSH 9
influence already in the iTmu of Nabium-bëla-u
Röllig 2004: 49; 2008: 4; Freydank 2005: 49; Bloch
Tuttul from Shal.26 to TNI 3, or that they abandon
case, the fact that the troops of Dunni-Dagal were
of Tuttul was made downstream along the Bali{i
Katlimmu.
36. F. A. M. Wiggermann identifies Dunni-Aššur with Tell Abyad and Dunni-Dagal with Tell öittal (2000:
e.g., 172, 177; cf. Luciani 2001). Gilma is to be located somewhere between them.
37. Reading "Xť.UŠ1 ša 1 ME 50 ÉRIN.MEŠ (1. 12; cf. 1. 31). This "150" is presumably the total number of
fugitives, since even an extraordinary tracker could not distinguish the footprints of 150 people.
38. I.e., the land of Carchemish?

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
20 1 1 ] THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND ' H ATTI' 205
report of their escape was first sent to Amîmu and then transmitted to Terqa (11. 22-28a). So he received it
there late.39
BATSH 4 2 is important also because it shows conditions in the region between the Balih and
the Euphrates. We see that this was the space of the Suteans as the following text shows:
(40) ša EN-// is-pu-ra-ni ma-a [fé-ma ša su-ti-e] (41) šu-up-ra su-ti-ú i+na KUR [x x x x (x)] (42) la-a sa-ak-
nu 1 LÚ su-ti-ú na-ar-[x x x x (x)] (43) i+na URU .safr- la- li ú-di-su ša-kín a-n[a x x x (x)] (44) al-ta-pár-su
té-ma il-te-qe [x x x (x)] (45) ma-a na-ajj-sa-nu iš-tu SAG URU .a-ra-zi-[qí u] (46) URU .ku-ma-fyi a-di
URU .eš-pi-ru-a ša-[ak-nu' (47) ma-a i+na URU ma-ri-na ša KUR-č pu-fyur-šu-nu ipJtu^-fyu-u[r' (omitted)
(As for) what my lord wrote to me: "Send me [a report about the Suteans]!" - the Suteans were not in the
land [of ...]. One Sutean was in Sahlãlu alone. I sent him t[o PN] (and) he received the report [...]:
"The Nahsaneans40 w[ere] (in the area) from Res Arazi[qi and] Kumahu to Ešpirua. In Marina of the desert41
they assembled together, (omitted)"
Among these GNs, Sahlãlu (Tell Sahlãn) is situated on the middle Balih. Kumahu is known to be a place
on the Euphrates, upstream of the point where the caravan of Carchemish crossed the river (BATSH 4 6:
16'-18'). Since it is mentioned side by side with the land of Išuwa in BATSH 4 8: 60', it is probably
somewhere north of Carchemish.42 Although Ešpirua is not attested elsewhere, it is probably located
inland somewhere to the east of the Euphrates. On the other hand, Manna is certainly to be identified
with Tell Siyüh Fawqãni on the left bank of the Euphrates in the southern vicinity of Carchemish, on the
basis of an Aramaic inscription found there referring to the GN Burmarina (Luciani 2000). As for Rês
Araziqi, we may safely assume that it was situated on a bank of the Euphrates, too. The element rěšu,
(lit.) "head," most probably denotes a cape-like place on the river. This Rěš Araziqi was most likely
located on the left bank, opposite Araziqa on the right bank.
3. Araziqa under Assyrian Control: BATSH 102 (DeZ 2521 )

This is a list of the destinations of the barley43 which Ninu ayu imposed on the city Šaluša in the limu of
Ellil-nãdin-apli (11. 19f.) dated to the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I. The barley is to be allocated to four PNs
(11. If., 14f.) and eleven GNs (11. 3-13) as follows:
E¡ir-[Marduk' , Sîn-mudammiq, Pat[...], Dunni-Ašš[ur], Huzirãnu, Harrãnu, Ayya, Habayãtu, Araziqu,

Buššayu, Nihriya, KUR Hãnu AN .TA, Humnahusa, Tukultï-Mër , Aššur -kette-lësir
39. Amîmu is to be located on the Balih. Tell Sabi Abyad has been suggested as a candidate (Cancik-
Kirschbaum 1996: 102; Luciani 1999-2001: 97f.; but cf. Wiggermann 2000: 172). If it was on the middle Balih, it is
reasonable to regard this Terqa as the one on the lower Balih attested in the Šattiwaza treaty referred to above, as
Luciani thought (ibid.: 98; also Jakob 2009: 11 n. 84, 65f.); because Sîn-mudammiq was on the Balih, he decided to
block the fugitives along the river. Although some other scholars prefer the famous Terqa on the downstream
Euphrates (Cancik-Kirschbaum 2008a: 214f. and n. 36 with previous literature), that Terqa would have been much
too far away for him to do anything about the problem.
40. The 'Nahsaneans' are a tribe of the Suteans. We see fPN EME najjsânayyïtu, "fPN of the Nahsanean
tongue," as well as mPN DUMU nafysãnãye , "PN, 'son' of Nahsanean," in a text from Tell Taban (Tab T05A-191: 1-
4; see Shibata 2008: 74f.). The people of this tribe are known as 'Nihsaneans' in the texts from Tell Sabi Abyad (see
Wiggermann 2010: 55f.). I wish to thank Daisuke Shibata for informing me that NaJjsãnú is a variation of the well-
known Sutean tribal name and for kindly providing me with the above references.
41 . Or "of the mountain"; cf. BATSH 4 7: 8", 10".
42. On the other hand, W. Röllig identifies this Kumahu with Tell Ahmar on the left bank south of
Carchemish (1997: 286f.). Other scholars discuss whether it was situated north or south of Carchemish (Cancik-
Kirschbaum 1996: 104 [but cf. the map on p. 31]; Alexandrov and Sideltsev 2009: 7 If.; cf. Forlanini 2004: 415).
However, if Kumahu is to be equated with the Kumaha attested in the Hittite sources (see del Monte and Tischler
1978: 220f.; del Monte 1992: 83 with previous literature), the northern option would be definitely supported. Among
the four northern fords (at Birecik, Samsat, Malatya, and Kemah) which Röllig mentions (ibid.: 287), at most only
the first two can be regarded as possible candidates in terms of the distance from Carchemish: Birecik on the left
bank and Samsat on the right bank. If we accept the latter (cf. n. 51 below), the reference to Kumahu in BATSH 4 2:
46 is to be understood as actually indicating the area on the bank opposite Kumahu. Cf. the controversy over whether
Kimuhu on the right bank of the Euphrates, the place for which the Babylonian and the Egyptian armies scrambled in
the 19th-20th years of Nabopolassar (ABC 4: 13, 16), was south or north of Carchemish: south (Wiseman 1956: 83;
Grayson 1975: 258) vs. north, i.e., Samsat (Zadok 1985: 199).
43. See Cancik-Kirschbaum 2009: 140f. This text was first published as DeZ 3281 in Röllig 1997: 283f.

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
All the residences of the PNs and the GNs are lo

between the Habur region and the Balih regio
141f.). The only exception is Araziqu (1. 9), if it w
of the opinion that all of them, including Araziqu
proposed to locate Araziqu along the southern bo
(1997: 286f.). Although his proposal is sensible, it
that we looked at above (BATSH 4 2: 45) menti
Euphrates.
In fact, the location of Araziqa on the (right) bank of the Euphrates is supported by other
historical sources. Firstly, a year name of a king of Yamhad in the seventeenth century B.C. was MU RN
LUGAL(.E) {um)Araziqkl isbatu , "the year (when) Niqmepa the king seized Araziq" (AT 7: 48f.; 55: 39).
Secondly, the GN i-r-t-k-n (Simons 1937: 119 [List 1, no. 139]), one of the places conquered in
Thutmose Ill's expedition in his 33rd year (1447 B.C.), probably refers to Araziqa (Helck 1971: 141). In
these military expeditions, the goal was apparently the Euphrates river, particularly its right bank. It
should be noted that the vicinity of Tell el-Hãgg is the closest point on the Euphrates to Aleppo, the
capital of Yamhad.
In view of the above, locating Araziqa inland to the east of the Euphrates is unlikely. The
reference to Araziqu in BATSH 10 2: 9 is rather to be regarded as evidence that the Assyrians occupied
that city at the Great Bend. Although this event is not referred to in Tukulti-Ninurta I's inscriptions and
the Dür-Katlimmu texts generally show peaceful relations between Assyria and Hatti in his reign, we saw
above a reference to the escape of 150 people (soldiers) of Carchemish held in Aššukanni (cf. also the
existence of an Assyrian district governor in Tuttul). These tiny pieces of information suggest there was
still some military conflict between them in the upper ME region. To clarify this point, let us now turn to
the Hittite sources.
IV. THE MILITARY CONFLICT IN THE UPPER ME REGION
1. Anticipation of another battle by Tudhaliya IV: KBo IV 14
As mentioned above, the portion of KBo IV 14 cited below shows that it was drawn up many ye
the battle of Nihriya. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the relations between Tudhaliy
Tukulti-Ninurta I, who had once fought with each other at that battle, were deteriorating again:
(ii 66) ka-a-aš-ša-mu ku-iš LÚ.KÚR LÚ KUR aš-šur a-ra-a-an-za (67) IŠ-TU MU.KAM.HÁ GÍD.D
ma-kán iš-ta-an-ta-it (68) nu-mu ma-a-an GIŠ.TUKUL-za Jja-aš-ta-le-e-eš-zi na-aš-ma-aš-mu-kán
KUR URU ú-iz-zi zi-ik-ma a-pé-e-né-eš-šu-u-wa-an-ti (70) [me]-e-J}u-ni :al-la-la-a pa-a-u-ar l-e-d
ar (71) 'pé]JdP-kán wa-aš-du-mar le-e ša-na-ajj-ti (72) [LUGAL]-^'1 GAM -an a-ak GAM MA-MIT G
This man of the land of Aššur (Tukulti-Ninurta I), who is my enemy, has been lying hesitant for m
long) years. If he turns warlike by (his) weapon against me or comes [int]o my land (or) city,44 you,
[ti]me, shall not try to defect (to the enemy?), to tread (i.e., flee/march?) alone, (or) to commit a sin
[plajee.45 (But) die beside the [king]! (This matter) shall be laid under the oath.
This text indicates that for some time after the battle of Nihriya the relations between Hatti a
were not hostile. But now, after "many years," Tudhaliya IV anticipates a battle with Tukulti
again. This would be realized, though not as a direct clash between the two.
44. Cf. also "(If • • •) the enemy comes into my land (or) city, as he once came in ( ka-ru-ú-aš-kán GI
da ú-it )" (ii 13f.), referring to the situation which led to the battle of Nihriya in the past.
45. Cf. "Do not try to commit treason, to be independent (of me), (or) to commit evil deeds in (your
position" ( CHD Š, 166b [s.v. šanfy -, saj}- B, mng. 4e]). In this case, I wonder how practically different th
the third options are.

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
20 1 1 ] THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND 'HATIT 207
2. Return of the cities by T ukulti-N inurta I to the king of Carchenrish: KBo XVIII 25(+)
The Hittite letter KBo XVIII 25 (+) XXXI 6946 is composed of two fragments in indirect join (Mora and
Giorgieri 2004: 99 n. 1). Although the state of preservation of the text is not good, it provides us with the
following significant information. The relevant part of KBo XVIII 25 reads:
(obv.!) nu mGIŠ.TUKUL-ř/-dIB-w[í] (3') [... A-NA LUGAL KUR kar-q'a-mis EGIR-pa pé-eš-t[a] (4') [...
U]RU .wa-šu-qa-an-na ú-wa-an-za e-eš-ta (5') [. . .-a'n-da-at nu AJBIP-KA GIM -an (6')[...
UJRU.DIDLI.HÁ A-NA LUGAL KUR kar-ga-maš SUM-ta (7') [. . .] x-ab-fru-un na-at ŠEŠ- rW [ša-ak-du]
Tukulti-Ninurta gav[e] back [... to the king of the land of Carch]emish. [...] Waššukanni (...) had come.
[...].. When your father gave (back) [... the ci]ties to the king of the land of Carchemish, I [ did not ...].
[May] my brother [know] it.
Since it seems most likely that ABUKA , "your father," (1. 5') refers to Tukulti-Ninurta I, who was
mentioned before (1. 2'), the addressee is to be his son and successor Aššur-nadin-apli (1 196-94 B.C.), or
perhaps his son who succeeded later, Enlil-kudurri-usur (1187-83 B.C.).47 The addresser would then be
Šuppiluliuma II. He recalls here that Tukulti-Ninurta I once returned cities to the king of Carchemish,
which implies that Assyria had conquered them. Then, what cities were they? KBo XXXI 69 provides us
with the following data:
(obv.? 4')[...] rURU .a^-tar-x-pa-an QA-DU rKURn URU .k[ar-ga-maš ...] (5') [... UR]U .šu-ru-wa-an-na
URU .en-du-wa-na [...] (6 ')[...] x ar-jja Jjar-qa-nu-ir
[. . .] Atar. . .pan with the land of C[archemish . . .] Šuruwa(n)na, Enduwana [. . .] they destroyed.
Although the text is only poorly preserved, four GNs are mentioned. Particularly important is
Šuruwa(n)na (1. 5') which Singer, correctly I think, proposed to identify with the Šurun assigned to the
king of Carchemish in the Šattiwaza treaty (2008a: 719 n. 41). 48 In this case, it is legitimate to restore the
land of Carchemish in 1. 4' (cf. Mora and Giorgieri 2004: 103 n. 24) and to assume Enduwana (1. 5'), the
GN following Šuruwa(n)na, to have been in the same land, too. Perhaps this is to be equated with Ituwa
(KBo XIV 15: 7' [frg. 41 (no. 15) of DS]), which is probably situated in the southern vicinity of
Carchemish (del Monte and Tischler 1978: 157). Although there is no candidate for the identity of
Atar..pan (1. 4'), 49 this text suggests that in the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I the Assyrians invaded the
territory of Carchemish in the upper ME region. This point is supported by the following text, KBo XVIII
28+, which, in my opinion, is to be put in this historical context.
3 . The Assyrian territorial invasion as remonstrated by Tudfyaliya IV: KBo XVIII 28+
KBo XVIII 28 + L 73 + Bo. 3626 is (a draft of) a Hittite royal letter50 addressed to a king of Assyria. In
view of the quite antagonistic atmosphere between the correspondents, B. E. Alexandro v and A. V.
Sideltsev regard the addressee as Shalmaneser I, not Tukulti-Ninurta I, since during the latter's reign the
relations with Hatti are thought to have been peaceful (2009: 72-74). As for the addresser, they leave
46. See Mora and Giorgieri 2004: 99-106 (no. 5); also Hagenbuchner 1989: 245-247 (no. 189 = KBo XVIII
25).
47. Hagenbuchner 1989: 246f.; Freu 2003: 116f.; 2007: 286. The possibility of Tukulti-Ninurta I as the
addressee is mentioned in Mora and Giorgieri 2004: 101. Cf. other PNs mentioned in this text (KBo XXXI 69):
Shalmaneser (rev.? 8') and Taki-Šarruma (1.9').
48. Pointing out several analogies between KBo XVIII 25(+) and the Hittite letter KBo XVIII 48 from a king
of Hatti to Hešni, C. Mora and M. Giorgieri suggest their linkage on the same issue (2004: 99f.). If this is correct, can
we read the GN in KBo XVIII 48: rev. 6' as UR]U .šu -ru-* iP-ni (i.e., Šurun), instead of UR]u?UD?-rM-rMn-«/
(Hagenbuchner 1989: 8; cf. Hoffner 2009: 333)? But cf. Houwink ten Cate 2006 for a different line of interpretation
of this text.
49. It is difficult to equate it with Atarm/bapa in the land of Pala (cf. Mora and Giorgieri 2004: 103 n. 23;
also del Monte and Tischler 1978: 55f.).
50. See Miller 2008: 121-124 (no. 35); also Hagenbuchner 1989: 406-413 (no. 305 = KBo XVIII 28;
classified in § 5.3: "Beide Briefpartner unbekannt"). As pointed out by J. L. Miller, in this letter the addresser refers
to himself with the title dUTU-ŠI (3.sg.) as well as in 1 .sg. (ibid.: 121 n. 27).

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
208 MASAMICHI YAMADA [RA 105
open the question whether he was Hattušili III or

the correspondents again.
Let us read, for example, the following mess
to see the ugly atmosphere between the correspo
(i 8') Why do you say in this same way: "If (only)
insult/slander is he hu[rlin]g? Why (10') are you dr
That first [tr]eaty tablet that we made in Kummah
and examine [i]t! Haven' [t] you sinned [in any w]ay
Although the tense relationship is evident enough

former) [tr]eaty (lit. oath) tablet" (a-pa-a-at- ...
Shalmaneser I never concluded a treaty with a ki
text presupposes the existence of a treaty-based
is therefore probable that Shalmaneser is not th
try to determine who the correspondents were:
(i 23') [am-m]u-uk-ma-at-ta Ú-[UL ... URU .a-ra
rKAR ?1 x [...] (25') [n]u Ú-UL ú-wa-te-et n[u
dU]T
nu-ut-ta U[RU .a'-ra-ši-ga-an URU .na-at-ki-n[a-a
I [do/did] n[ot ...] (to) you(.) [... Arasiga] (and) Na

(i.e., I) will no longer leave [the situation ] as it is
you in peace.
These lines in all probability show that the Assyrian king deprived the Hittite king of his cities by force.
Arasiga54 is no doubt Araziqa (Forlanini 2004: 415 n. 63), which was under the Assyrian occupation in
the period of Tukulti-Ninurta I (BATSH 10 2: 9). Thus, it seems likely that this text refers to the Assyrian
conquest of that city in his reign and the addressee is Tukulti-Ninurta. If this dating is correct, the
addresser must be his contemporary, Tudhaliya IV. Another GN Natkina, i.e., n-t-k-n in the topographical
list of Thutmose III referred to above (Simons 1937: 121 [List 1, no. 285]), is identified with Mutkinu in
the Neo-Assyrian period,55 which is to be located on the left bank of the Euphrates near Til Barsip = Tell
Abmar.56
Furthermore, the following lines refer to the building activities of the Assyrians, no doubt made
in the same area:
(iv 13') TUP-PU MA-MIT-ma-mu ku-it TÁŠJPUW TUP-PU MA-MIT-wa-mu ar-fra [da-a-aš]1 (14') nu zi-ik
wa-aš-ta-aš nu-kán A-NA TUP-Pf MA-MIT ku-it DÌJ-an [< e-eš-ti ]? (15') «m URU.DIDLI.HÁ [z]i-ik ú-e-^dá^-
aš ki-nu-na >na< ú-e-tum-ma-a[n-zi nam1 -ma1] (16') i-ia-at-ta-[t]i nu wa-aš-t[a]-aš zi-ik MA-MIT-ia-kán z[i-
ik x x] (17') [a]m-mu-ukJma ú-i-tum-ma-an^-iz^i rEGIR ^-an zi-ikJkP-š[i URU.DIDLI.HÁ] (18') [TU]PJPU
MA^-M[IT ku-it DÌJ-an I-NA] DINGIR-L/M rGARV[/]
(As for) the oath tablet, on which you wrote to me: "[You took ] away the oath tablet from me" - (it is) you
(who) committed a sin and [are] against the oath tablet that was made (between us). You bu[i]lt cities and
51. I.e., Kumahu in BATSH 4 2: 46. When one looks at maps (e.g., Bryce 2005: 22, Map 1), modern Samsat
situated on the route from Harran to Hattušša seems to have been an ideal meeting point for the Assyrians and the
Hittites. Taking into consideration the fact that Assyria, the winner in the battle of Nihriya, chose it as the place for
concluding the treaty, Kumahu, the city which controlled the crossing of the Euphrates, may have been incorporated
into the Assyrian sphere of influence after the war.
52. The translation follows Alexandrov and Sideltsev 2009: 60f. For the phrase "to draw the bow for/ to the p.
(i.e., :palawiti) and to grab (it)" (11. 9'b-10'a) indicating the threatening behavior of the king of Hatti, see ibid.: 67f.
53. Although a text from Tell Taban suggests a reconciliation of Shalmaneser I with Tudhaliya IV, its date
was only three years before the former's death (see Alexandrov and Sideltsev 2009: 72 and n. 57).
54. Although partly broken, in view of the small space between URU and RA (1. 26'), the restoration of A in
the lacuna is most probable.
55. Forlanini 2004: 415 n. 63; Boese 2009: 72 and n. 49; cf. also Helck 1971: 146.
56. See, e.g., S. Yamada 2000: 127f.; Lipiñski 2000: 166-168; Forlanini, ibid.; Boese 2009: 74f. Note that
this is another piece of evidence that the Hittites controlled the left bank of the Euphrates in the thirteenth century
B.C.

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
20 1 1 ] THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND 'IJATTI' 209
now you are going to buil[d more]. You commi[tt]ed a sin and y[ou violated] the oath. But for [m]e, you
(have to) la[y] aside build[in]g [cities]. (For) the oat[h tab]let [that was made (between us)] is (still) la[id in]
the [t] empie.
Probably these activities refer not only to constructing new forts, but also to rebuilding the cities which
"they destroyed" (KBo XXXI 69: obv.? 6'). This combination of conquest and (re)building is to be
understood as an attempt to annex these cities to the Assyrian territory in earnest, not as a simple raid.
4. The latest ' Assyrian ' territorial invasion as denied by Tukulti-N inurta I: KUB HI 73
Although the opening part of this Akkadian letter57 is broken, the addresser is thought to be Tukulti-
Ninurta I (cf. 11. 10'f.), which would mean the addressee is Tudhaliya IV.58 Here, the former is trying to
conciliate the latter as follows:
(3') [x X (x) i-na «4-m]/.MES sar-ru-ut-tiJ ia 1 jji-tu mi-nuJ um-mé-e1 [0] (4') [x x x (x)] Tái-na KUR ša SES -ia
ify-tí-ú-ni (5') [x x (x)] x-AN ša ŠEŠ-ia EN fa-ab-ti-ka šu-ut (6') [x x x x (x)] x-ma KUR -ka ijj-ta-tab-bu-tu
(7') [x x x x x (x)] KUR -ka-ma ify-ta-tab-bu-tu (8') [x x x (x) a-na ] KUR-foz ma-am-ma la-a ify-ti (9') [x (x)
fya-a-ma ù ] Jju-sa-ba i-na qa-an-ni KUR-£a ma-am-ma la-a iš-ši [0] /
(10') [SE S-ia fé-e-ma] r e^-pu-sa-an-ni a-bu-ia EN KÚR-fo* šu-ut (11') [x x x x x (x)] a-na-ku EN su-lum-ma-
e ša ŠEŠ-ia (12') [x x x x (x)] x59 ŠA-ka tu-ša-áš-ni (13') [x x x x x (x) t]é-e-ma a-ki-šu-ma a-na i-ni te-p[u-
ša-am] /
[... during the da]ys of my kingship, they committed sin(s and) whatever [...] against the land of my brother.
[...]-//f was my brother's friend. [...] they repeatedly plundered your land. [...] they repeatedly plundered
(the same) your land. [But this time] no one committed a sin [against] your land. No one took away (even) [a
(piece of) straw or] a chip of wood from the border (region) of your land. /
[My brother s]ent (lit. did/made) me [the (above) message]. My father (Shalmaneser I) was your enemy [and
... But] I am my brother's friend.60 [...] Did you change your mind? [...] Why did you sen[d me] a
[m]essage like that? /
Most probably having been remonstrated with by Tudhaliya on the recent territorial invasion, Tukulti-
Ninurta first acknowledges the repeated misdeeds of the past against his land, while at the same time
suggesting that they were not his own (i.e., Assyria proper's) deeds, but those of some people under his
control. Although he then denies the latest plundering of "the border (region)" of Hatti, we can imagine
this would not convince his addressee. I am inclined to think this plundering points to the Assyrian
conquest of the cities in the upper ME region referred to in KBo XVIII 28+. In this case, we may assume
that in the end Tukulti-Ninurta was forced to acknowledge the latest attack, too, and then agreed to return
the cities to the king of Carchemish (cf. KBo XVIII 25(+): obv.! 2'-6').
If this interpretation is correct, though, one may wonder why he agreed to return the cities.
Before trying to answer this question, however, let us consider the identity of the people who seized the
cities. If not the men of Assyria proper, who were they?
57. See Hagenbuchner 1989: 275-277 (no. 202). The first edition of this text was published in Weidner 1959:
40 (no. 36).
58. Weidner 1959: 40 (note on no. 36: 1-17); Singer 1985: 101 n. 6, 103; Klengel 1999: 280; Bryce 2005:
315, 478 n. 97. A. Hagenbuchner leaves open the problem of who the correspondents are (1989: 276f.). Although
Harrak regards this as a letter of Shalmaneser I addressed to Hattušili III (1987: 144f.), the somewhat appeasing tone
of the addresser (see 11. 3'f., 6'f.) would not fit him. On the other hand, Freu maintains that this is a letter from
Tudhaliya IV to Shalmaneser I written by an Assyrophile scribe (2003: 104; 2007: 284; cf. Harrak 1987: 145 n. 28).
If so, Freu would have to accept that the Hittite army repeatedly invaded the Assyrian territory late in the reign of
Shalmaneser. However, this would contradict his interpretation that the relations between these kings were amicable
(2007: 27 If., 275f.). Furthermore, although he thinks that Tudhaliya took Human lands in the east of the Euphrates
from Assyria toward the end of Shalmaneser's reign (ibid.: 275), this is improbable since Tudhaliya and Tukulti-
Ninurta seem to have been at peace at the time of the latter' s accession (CTH 178).
59. Perhaps [ù a-na i-n]i , "[Wh]y did you ...?"
60. The absence of the direct speech marker -mi indicates that the statements in 11. 10'b-l 1 ' are those of the
addresser, not citations of the message from "my brother."

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
210 MAS AMICHI Y AM AD A [RA 105
V. THE 'HURRIAN' ATTACK ON EMAR IN THE REIGN OF PILSU-DAGAN
1. The chronological framework
If an Assyrian conquest was made in the upper ME region in the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I,
expect it to be recorded in the contemporary Emar texts. In these texts, there are many refer
years of "war" ( nukurtu ) and/or "famine" ( dannatu ) at least some of which were a result of a
city. As far as the datable cases are concerned, they are attested in the reigns of the last three
to us: Zü-Astarti son of Baìu-kabar ( Emar VI 256: 10), Pilsu-Dagan son of Balu-kabar ( ASJ 1
TS 9: 21f. [see below]; cf. Emar VI 138: 11, 24, 41; 158: 14), and possibly also Elli son of
(cf. Iraq 54-T 4: 19!).61
Za- Aštarti probably died young, so that his brother Pilsu-Dagan succeeded the throne
many texts belong to the reigns of Pilsu-Dagan and Elli, we may assign a full reign (20-30 yea
of them (as a trial, we here assign 25 years, the average). If the fall of Emar is dated to ca.
chronological framework62 would be as follows:
Kings of Assyria Kings of Emar
Shalmaneserl 1263-34 Zü-Astarti ca. 1230(?)-25
Tukulti-Ninurta I 1233-1197 Pilsu-Dagan ca. 1225-00
Aššur-nadin-apli 1196-94 Elli ca. 1200-1175
Aššur-nirari III 1193-88
Enlil-kudurri-usur 1 1 87-83
Ninurta-apil-Ekur 1182-80/70
As can be seen here, the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I approximately overlaps with that of Pilsu-Dagan.
2. The 'ffurrian' attack on Emar
Although most of the Emar texts that refer to enemies do not identify them, there are references to
groups as peoples who attacked Emar: the 'Hurrians' and the ' TAR-PI people/troops.' As for the lat
we do not know what TAR-PI denotes,64 and on the basis of a prosopographical analysis, their atta
which caused hyper-inflation in Emar (for textual refs. see Yamada 1995: 98f.), is to be dated to th
phase of its history (Yamada in press; cf. also 1995: 101). They are therefore out of our present con
As for the former, a 'Hurrian' attack in the reign of Pilsu-Dagan is known. The relevant part of Em
42 reads:65
61. See Yamada 1995: 108-110, 112 n. h. Although Elli had a son named Balu-kabar (e.g., TS 13: 29;
BLMJE 7: 31), he has not been attested with the title 'king.' So, I regard Elli as the last king, though admitting the
possibility that Balu-kabar had actually a short reign as king before the fall of Emar.
62. Cf. Yamada 1994a: 21-23, 34. The latest dates known for the existence of Emar are: (1) the second year
of Melišipak, king of Babylonia (Emar VI 26: 10-12), whose reign was 1181-67 B.C. (Boese 1982: 23); and (2) the
limu of Bêr-nãsir (RE 19: 35) dated to the reign of Ninurta-apil-Ekur, king of Assyria (see Beckman 1996: 33f.). For
a different framework, see Cohen and d'Alfonso 2008: esp. 25; cf. also Skaist 1998.
63. J.-M. Durand recently published a new edition of Emar VI 536 based on his collation (see Durand and
Marti 2003: 152-156; cf. also Cohen and d'Alfonso 2008: 23 n. 85). This is a letter from Tukultï to his lord Yasi-
Dagan (without title), in which a Kaštil[iyaš] is referred to in 1. 7. Durand identified this as Kaštiliyaš IV, king of
Babylonia (according to him 1242-35 B.C. [ibid.: 154, 156]; cf. 1227-20 B.C. in Boese 1982: 23), and dated this text
immediately prior to the confrontation between Babylonia and Assyria (of Tukulti-Ninurta I) in 1235 B.C. (ibid.:
156). On the other hand, he identified the above Yasi-Dagan, who was mentioned together with Tukultï, as the king
of Emar and son of Balu-malik, i.e., grandfather of both Zü-Astarti and Pilsu-Dagan (ibid.; cf. RE 2: 24f.; 34: 29f.).
However, since unfortunately he did not provide us with a new chronological framework fitting his interpretation, it
is difficult to accept it (cf. Cohen and d'Alfonso 2008: 23). At present, we cannot but regard this Yasi-Dagan as a
dignitary of non-royal blood in Emar, or perhaps a prince, son of Pilsu-Dagan (RE 28: 50; SMEA 30-T 2: 22).
64. See Zaccagnini 1995: 96f. n. 15. For various interpretations so far proposed, see Yamada 1995: 98, 105 n.
7; Astour 1996: 32 n. 28; Durand and Marti 2003: 158.
65. See Yamada 2006b with previous literature.

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
20 1 1 ] THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND 'HATTI' 2 1 1
(9) LUGAL ÉRIN.MEŠ KUR bur -ri (10) URU .e-mar i-la-mi-in (11) ù mpí-sú-á KUR IGI.2-Í« (12) a-na dU
iš-ši-ma ù dU (13 ) eg-re-ti MUŠEN Gì ša ŠA-šu (14) i-di-na-šu ù ÉRIN.MEŠ (fu-ra-du (15) ša ŠA-šu u
BAD-s« TÉS .BA nak (or <na>-ak)-ra-šu (16) im-fya-as ù URU .e-mar ú-ba-li-if
(When) the king of the people of the land of Hurri harmed Emar, Pissu(=Pilsu)-Dagan lifted up his eyes to
Baìu (for help). Then Ba'lu gave him auspices (indicating) peace on its inside, defeated the Jjurãdu- troops
who were on its inside and on its city wall alike, i.e., his/its enemy, and revived (i.e., saved) Emar.
As it is depicted here, Emar was almost conquered by the fierce attack of the Hurrian troops and only
miraculously avoided their occupation. The same event is most probably referred to in the following
texts, too:
RE 77: (34) MU.KAM LUGAL ÉRIN.MEŠ bur-[ri] (35) URU. e-mar. K[l i-la-mi-in'
The year (when) the king of the people of Hur[ri harmed] Emar
ASJ 12-T 7: (29) i-nu-ma ÉRIN.MEŠ frur-ri (30) BÀD URU .e-mar .KI il-mf6
When the people of Hurri besieged the city wall of Emar
TS 9: (21) i-na KÚR .KÚR KALA -ti ša frur-ri (22) :BÀD il-mi-ma
In the (year of) war (and) famine when Hurri besieged the city wall (of Emar)67
Who is the LUGAL ÉRIN.MEŠ KUR ffurri {Emar VI 42: 9; cf. also RE 77: 34)? Even though the enemy
are not referred to as Assyrians, M. C. Astour, rendering it as "the king of the troops of the Hurri-land "
proposed that he was "the Assyrian grand vizier and commander-in-chief who, in addition, carried the
title 'king of Hanigalbat' and was called at Emar by the familiar Syrian version of the title,"68 i.e., that he
was "Qibi-Aššur ... or else his successor in this high office," in the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I (1996: 31-
35, esp. 35). A similar opinion was held by D. Arnaud (2003: 13 and n. 20). Although taking the title as
the "roi des Hourrites," he also regarded those people as the Assyrians on the left bank of the Euphrates,
i.e., those of Assyrian Hanigalbat.69
However, Astour' s thesis has not been accepted by other scholars, who prefer to take the above
title simply as "king of the Hurrians." Although M. R. Adamthwaite failed to make this Hurrian attack
consistent with his understanding of the situation in the western Jezireh, where invading West Semitic
semi-nomads were active (2001: 268-270), J. Freu regarded this Hurrian king as a chief of the band of the
Hurrian mountaineers in the north (2003: 113). According to E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, recruitment of
Hurrian contingents in the Assyrian military service is hardly conceivable (2008b: 95). She suggests the
possibility of Ehli-Tešub, king of Alzi, who fled before the army of Tukulti-Ninurta I (RIMA 1 , A.0.78.1 :
iv 6-1 1), though leaves it an open question (2008a: 213f.).
Although it is difficult to prove that the Emarite scribes really used the traditional Syrian title for
the king of Mittani in Emar VI 42 and RE 77, it is undeniable that the attacking people or troops were
regarded as belonging to a geo-political entity called "(land of) Hurri" (esp. Emar VI 42: 9; TS 9: 21).
This land was united under a king, and his army was well enough organized to field a kind of elite troops
66. The verbal form shows that ÉRIN.MEŠ is taken as collective singular. This occurrence was unfortunately
overlooked in my previous study (Yamada 2006b: 134). Cf. also ÉRIN.MEŠ su -wa-ti ( Emar VI 17: 8).
67. Among these four texts, Emar VI 42, ASJ 12-T 7 and TS 9 are certainly dated to the reign of Pilsu-Dagan
"the king" (Emar VI 42: 8f.; ASJ 12-T 7: 28, 34; TS 9: 39). Although RE 77 lacks such a chronological clue, the text
seems to share the expression with Emar VI 42: 9f., and thus probably refers to the same event. It is interesting to
note also that Pilsu-Dagan the king and his son Elli appear as the first two witnesses in TS 9: 39f. This suggests that
the Hurrian attack on Emar took place in the second half of the former's reign (Yamada 1994a: 25), or at least not in
its early phase.
68. Astour pointed out that the same title was used for Parattarna, king of Mittani, in Alalah: LUGAL
ÉRIN.MEŠ bur-ri. KI (Idrimi inscription: 44; cf. also 11. 46, 49) and LUGAL ÉRIN.MEŠ frur-ri (AT 2: 73f.). As he
noted, Parattarna was the king of "a well-organized power with a very efficient army," thus could be neither "king of
the Hurrian tribes" nor "chief of armed bands" (1996: 33 and n. 31).
69. At the same time he noted that the adversaries whom the Syrian people living along the Euphrates
directly confronted were the Hurrian subjects of Assyria, "les 'Sutéens', les Syriens de langue hourrite et non
sémitique" (Arnaud 2003: 13 n. 20). Although several scholars too thought of a king of Hanigalbat, the land in their
minds was the Hurrian vassal kingdom of Assyria in ca. 1268-65 B.C. (Skaist 1998: 64-67) or the Hurrian
protectorate of Hatti at the beginning of the thirteenth century B.C. (Cohen and d'Alfonso 2008: 22).

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
2 1 2 MAS AMICHI Y AMADA [RA 1 05
of fyurãdu10 (Emar VI 42: 14). Based on these points a

for that entity is Assyrian Hanigalbat. In fact, we h
Suteans between the Euphrates and the Balih or elsewh
living in Assyrian Hanigalbat, of course, did not hav
mountainous regions to the further north are known
8: 54'-57'; cf. also 7: 1"-16"), it is quite difficult to
Assyrian Hanigalbat to attack Emar (and then went b
fled "to the (very) border of Nairi, to an unknown la
(1987: 236), thus not to the south.71
3. The ' Jfurrian ' (rebuilding of Šumu
Our interpretation may further be supported by the f

out a building activity, no doubt after conquest, in the
Emar VI 15: MU -tu (36) LUGAL1 ÉRIN.[MEŠ] bur -ri U
The year (when) the king of the peopl[e] of Hurri (re)bu
RE 70: (28) i-nu-ma LUGAL ÉRIN.ME<Š> bur-ri (29)

When the king of the people of Hurri (re)built Šumu
We know that Šumu was a city situated in the vicinity

the elders of Šumu in court for a lawsuit on the owne
belonged to Issur-Dagan son of Baìu-kabar, i.e., a prin
also that the NIN.DINGIR of Šumu was involved in th
Baìu in Emar (Emar VI 369; see Fleming 1992). On
proper starts, she sits at one of five prepared tables,
NIN.DINGIR, the masartu- priestess, the king of the
17; on 1. 16 see Text C).73
Since it is impossible to build an already existent
70: 29) is to be understood as denoting rebuilding one
n. 6) or as fortifying the city (Durand and Marti 2003:
us of building cities in the upper ME region after
Although neither Emar VI 15 nor RE 70 provides any
Pilsu-Dagan, it can be accepted that there is no more s
attack on Emar by the 'Hurrians.' In view of this sim
the 'Human' (re)building of Šumu as a part of the As
Ninurta I.
Based on the above considerations, we may conclud

treated in this section denotes Assyrian Hanigalbat a
BATSH 10 2 was drawn up.74 The reason why the ent
Assyria is clear: the Emarite scribes intended to show
Assyria proper, but that of its satellite state, which r
70. For #wradw see Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 133 (n

literature).
71. Although her candidate is unacceptable, I think Cancik-Kirschbaum was at least the most serious and
sincere among the scholars who tried to seek a (real!) 'Human' king other than the ruler of Assyrian Hanigalbat. Her
forced proposal conversely shows how difficult it is to come up with any other appropriate candidate.
72. See M. Yamada 2000: 119; cf. also Abrahami 2005. Cf. mu -tu (36) ká bal.ri uru -šu-ma i-pu-uš (Arnaud
1985-86.3: 24).
73. See Fleming 1992: 12f., 50f. For further references to Šumu in the Emar texts, see Belmonte Marín 2001:
276.
74. As we will see below (§ VI .2), Aššur-iddin, son of Qibi-Aššur.

75. As in the case of the Hurrian kingdom of Hanigalbat. In this meaning, 'the king of the people
(ÉRIN.MEŠ) of (the land of) Hurri' can be understood as a general appellation used by those outside Hanigalbat in

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
20 1 1 ] THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND ' H ATTI' 2 1 3
case, since the cities that Assyrian Hanigalbat conquered were in the territory of Carchemish, it is
reasonable to assume that this military conflict was actually carried out between these two satellite
kingdoms. This means that this originally local conflict was taken up as a diplomatic issue between
Assyria and Hatti, their ruling kingdoms, as we saw in KBo XVIII 28+ and KUB III 73.
If the Assyrians indeed took the cities such as Araziqa north of Emar under their control, we
would expect it to cause some interruption of communication between Carchemish and Emar. The Emar
texts, however, show that Hittite control remained stable in general until the fall of the city, or at least
during the reign of Pilsu-Dagan.76 With regard to the generations of the people attested in the Emar texts,
he was contemporary with dIM-qarräd of the family of Zu-Baìa, the diviner of the gods of Emar (see
Yamada 1994a: 34). In the latter' s term of office we see no gap in the sequence of the Hittite dignitaries
titled 'son of the king' (DUMU LUGAL) or 'overseer of the land' (LÚ.UGULA KAL AM .MA), who
were sent to Emar for administrative purposes (see Yamada 1998: 332). This suggests that the Assyrian
control of Araziqa and other cities in the area was a short-term event, in other words, that Tukulti-
Ninurta I returned the cities to the king of Carchemish soon after conquering them.
VI. THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT: A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
1. Reconstruction of the Assyro-Hittite relations
Based on the above, let us summarize the relations between Tukulti-Ninurta I and Tudhaliy
the end of the second military conflict. The process can be reconstructed as follows:
(1) Amicable relations between them (CTH 178) - at the accession of Tukulti-Ninurta
(2) The first military conflict: the battle of Nihriya resulting in the Assyrian victory (RS
cf. KBo IV 14) - at the beginning of the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta
(3) Conclusion of a peace treaty in Kumahu (cf. KBo XVIII 28+) - several years after
(4) Deterioration of the relations between them (KBo IV 14) - many years after (2)
(5) The second military conflict: conquest of the cities in the upper ME region by
Hanigalbat (KBo XVIII 28+; cf. BATSH 10 2; KBo XVIII 25(+)) with building activitie
28+; Emar VI 15; RE 70): e.g., Šumu, Araziqu/Arašiga, Šuruwa(n)na, Enduwana, and Na
Emar (esp. Emar VI 42)
(6) Diplomatic negotiations between them (KBo XVIII 28+; KUB III 73)
(7) Return of the cities by Tukulti-Ninurta to the king of Carchemish (KBo XVIII
after (5)?
At the time of (7), probably a new peace treaty was concluded or the former one was
reconfirmed between Tukulti-Ninurta and Tudhaliya.
In view of the facts that no GN known to be under Assyrian control is located between Emar and
Tuttul and that Emar itself avoided Assyrian conquest, it is difficult to assume that the Assyrians attacked
by going up along the Euphrates from Tuttul. Nor is it likely that they went down from Carchemish,
which kept independent. Therefore they must have attacked directly the area of the Great Bend and its
northern vicinity, crossing the steppe/desert from Aššukanni. In view of the fact that the conquered cities
are clustered in this area, Tuttul was probably not included in the returned cities.
Now let us ask, why did Tukulti-Ninurta generously return the cities that his satellite state took
such pains to acquire? What did he gain in exchange for them? When dealing with these issues, it is
Alalah and Emar, rather than as a well-established title. Cf. the 'land of Hurri' (KUR fyur-ri-ia ), the GN used by a
king of Hatti for referring to the Human state of Hanigalbat in KUB XXIII 102: i 2, ii 19' (see Hagenbuchner 1989:
260f.; Mora and Giorgieri 2004: 187, 189, 192 and n. 43; cf. also Beckman 1999: 147; Hoffner 2009: 323).
76. On the basis of the unpublished letter T 96-1 (cf. T 93-12) from Tell Sabi Abyad, Y. Cohen and L.
d'Alfonso state on Ahï-malik, "the last luUGULA, 'governor (of the land)'," as follows: "This governor, it can be
argued, was acting independently after the fall of Hatti, and perhaps was even in direct conflict with Karkemiš"
(2008: 14f. and nn. 54f., esp. 15). This issue will be treated when the Tell Sabi Abyad texts are published. At present,
however, in view of the fact that Ahï-malik used the seal of Laheya on BLMJE 2 (see Westenholz 2000: 7, 8 If., pl.
V), it seems to me better to regard him as the successor of Laheya, and Tuwariša as the last title bearer (Yamada in
press; cf. Cohen and d'Alfonso 2008: 15 n. 57).

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
214 MAS AMICHI Y AM AD A [RA 105
necessary to set the improvement of the relations with

in which another military-political process of signific
2. Correlation with the process of the conquest of B
The iTmu of Ina-Aššur-šumT-asbat is known as the y

finally conquered Babylonia.77 Concerning the relatio
the Dür-Katlimmu texts. For example, in BATSH 4 6
the merchants of the king of Carchemish and of
Assyrian Hanigalbat and carried out business at sever
caravan was raided on the way to Pendibe79 (11.
Assyrian Hanigalbat and Carchemish were peacef
VII.24 [1. 29]) too reports on the merchants of Emar v
The situation is similar in the limu of Ninu ayu,
The texts from Harbe (Tell Huwêra) show that envoys
way to or back from Aššur early in this year (V
probable reason for attracting those foreign delegat
the Assyrian conquest of Babylonia.80 Among those s
we find Hatti (nos. 24-26) and its vassal Amurru (no.
diplomat, but Teli-Šarruma (24: 14; 25: 14; 26: 15),
selection seems to reflect how significant for Hatti
104, 109).
However, the above amicable attitude of Hatti and its vassal states (Emar and Amurru) toward
Assyria in these years is quite unexpected in the light of the long-standing alliance based on the dynastic
marriages between Hatti and Babylonia.82 One may regard that Hatti changed sides because it was forced
to recognize the international power of Assyria, which had been remarkably fortified by the conquest of
Babylonia (Jakob 2003a: 109; also Faist 2001: 225). However, this interpretation seems to be a little
simplistic for a state ranked as great power. One may ask why Hatti did not dispatch auxiliaries to
Babylonia when it was about to be conquered by Assyria, even going through Assyrian Hanigalbat. In
this respect, I would suggest linking that shift with the above conquest of the upper ME cities by
Assyrian Hanigalbat and its aftermath. Could it be that Tukulti-Ninurta I returned them to the king of
Carchemish in exchange for the Hittite recognition of Assyria as its new ally, and so Tudhaliya IV did
not resist Assyria when it conquered Babylonia but accepted its victory?83 This bargain of territory and
77. Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 14-17, esp. 16; Yamada 2003: 170; see also Bloch 2010: 10-15.
78. On this Hittite dignitary see Singer 2003. Although he assumed that Šuppiluliuma II appointed him as
this high commissioner in Syria (šakin mãti) with the task of supervising the new king of Carchemish, Talmi-Tešub
(ibid.: 347), BATSH 4 6 seems to be dated still to the reign of Tudhaliya IV (see below). Note also that if Taki-
Šarruma was really assigned such a task, its direct reason may have been the ineptitude of the king of Carchemish
resulting in loss of the territory in the second military conflict.
79. For the reading of this GN, see Jakob 2009: 82 (note on VFMOS 2.III 50: 8).
80. Jakob 2003a: 104 and n. 8. Cf. Freu 2003: 1 14; 2007: 290.
81. For this Hittite dignitary, see Kühne 1995: 211. The same Tili-Šarruma is attested also in an Emar text
(AS J 6-T [= AS J 14-T 47 = SMEA 30-T 6]: 1 , 13f.).
82. For literature on this topic, see Singer 2008b: 231 n. 22.
83. As for Amurru sending a delegation to Aššur on its own (VFMOS 2. Ill 23), some scholars assume it was
an attempt to defect from the vassalage of Hatti (Faist 2001: 224f.; Jakob 2003a: 110). However, another
interpretation seems to me possible in the above historical context: with permission of Hatti, Amurru sent a
delegation to negotiate for opening (or perhaps resuming) trade with Assyria (cf. the Amorite embargo in n. 31
above). If so, it means that in exchange for returning the cities, Tukulti-Ninurta I got direct access to the
Mediterranean Sea, too. Such a commercial aspect may be deduced also in the case of Egypt, which sent a Sidonian
envoy on its behalf in VFMOS 2.III 22 (cf. no. 28). On this text, see Kühne 1995: 211; Faist 2001: 204-206; Jakob
2003a: 111; 2009: 9f.

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
20 1 1 ] THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND 'HATTI' 2 1 5
alliance must have been profitable for both of the kingdoms, although Hatti was obliged to abandon its
old ally to recover the lost territory.
Thanks to the texts from Dür-Katlimmu, the sequence of lïmus in the early and middle phases of
Tukulti-Ninurta I's reign has more or less been firmly reconstructed; their sequence from at least TNI
(Tukulti-Ninurta) to TN 16 (Aššur-zěra-iddina) has been agreed upon among scholars.84 Although the
lïmu of Ina-Aššur-šumí-asbat, when Assyria conquered Babylonia, is after TN16, Aššur-iddin was the
grand vizier in that year, as in TN16, and in the lïmu of Aššur-mušabši (Jakob 2003b: 56). As for lïmus to
be dated between TN16 and the lïmu of Ina-Aššur-šumí-asbat, H. Freydank proposed Abï-ilï and
Salmanu-šuma-usur (2005: 50), Röllig had Abï-ilT, Bêr-nãdin-apli(?), Salmanu-šuma-usur and Ellil-
nãdin-apli(?) (2008: 4), and S. Jakob had Ellil-nädin-apli (2009: 3). However, as shown by Y. Bloch
(2010: 4, 25), since Abï-ilï and Salmanu-šuma-usur are sequential (see MARV II 17: 89f.) and belong to
the period of Salmanu-mušabši, the grand vizier after Aššur-iddin, we may safely reject them. As for the
remaining two, unfortunately we have no grounds for dating them.
Instead of the above lïmus , Bloch proposed the lïmu of Aššur-mušabši (2010: 23-25; cf. also
Llop 2010: 114). This seems likely, especially if Salmanu-mušabši held the office of grand vizier in the
lïmu of Ninu ayu (so Jakob 2003a: 107; 2009: 9). Furthermore, I would like to add the above lïmu of
Ellil-nädin-apli, in view of the fact that Araziqa was under Assyrian control in this year (BATSH 10 2: 9;
date: III. 10 [1. 19]). There is no doubt that as long as Tukulti-Ninurta I did not return the conquered cities,
no peace with Hatti could have been expected. At the same time, this dating explains well why the people
(soldiers) of Carchemish were held in Aššukanni in the lïmu of Ina-Aššur-šumí-asbat (cf. BATSH 4 2: 4;
date: IV .20 [1. 67]): simply because there had been a military conflict with Carchemish in a previous year,
although we do not know exactly in which year (lïmu) it took place.
If no more lïmu is assigned before Ina-Aššur-šumí-asbat, on the basis of the suggestion that a
locust plague attested or implied in the texts from Dür-Katlimmu (BATSH 4 2-4) and Harbe (VFMOS
2. Ill 2,9-10) continued from the lïmu of Ellil-nädin-apli to that of Ina-Aššur-šumí-asbat (de Ridder 201 1 :
126f.), I tentatively date the former to TN 18 and the latter to TN1985 (then the lïmu of Aššur-mušabši to
TN 17). This means that a drastic change in the Assyro-Hittite relations from hostile due to the second
military conflict to friendly occurred in TN 18 or at the latest in the early TN 19. 86
Then how long did the reconciliation from this conflict take? As seen above, the Emar texts
suggest a short time, and I believe it was within a few years, even taking account of the Assyrian building
activities in the occupied area. Although one may wonder if such quick restoration of peace was really
possible, this seems rather reasonable when we consider the historical context at that time. It should be
noted that in TNI 8, when Assyria was still hostile to Hatti, the process of Assyrian conquest of
Babylonia was ongoing (see Table l).87 In this situation, it seems quite likely that Tukulti-Ninurta I
84. See Frey dank 2005; Röllig 2008: 4; Bloch 2010; cf. Röllig 2004. For convenience see the comparative
table in Bloch 2010: 31. Note also that the sequence from TN13 (Etel-pí-Aššur) to TN16 (Aššur-zěra-iddina) was
reconfirmed on the basis of BATSH 9 53, 80 (Bloch 2010: 5f.).
85. I.e., 1215 B.C. for the end of Kaštiliyaš IV 's reign. But cf. 1220 B.C. for that year in the current Low
Chronology (Boese 1982: 23; cf. p. 21). According to Jakob (2003a: 107; 2009: 3, 12; cf. Jakob 2001), the lïmu of
Ellil-nãdin-apli (VFMOS 2.III 2) is to be dated three or four years before that of Běr-išmánni (no. 38). If this is
correct, since the former is TN 18 and the lïmus of Ina-Aššur-šumí-asbat and Ninu ayu are TN 19-20, the latter must
be regarded as TN 21, and the sequential lïmus of Abï-ilï and Salmanu-šuma-usur are to be dated somewhere
thereafter, not before (cf. Llop 2010: 105f., 114). Note also that the two inscriptions of Tukulti-Ninurta I, RIMA 1,
A.0.78.6 (i lïmu of Ina-Aššur-šumí-asbat in 1. 43) and A.0.78.18 ( lïmu of Aššur-běl-ilani [= TN15] in 1. 44), are still
written in the old style (see Grayson 1987: 231) without reference to the 28,800 Hittite deportees. This suggests that
the occasion of that reference was not the second military conflict, but a still later deterioration of Assyro-Hittite
relations (cf. below).
86. Hence the Hittite envoy visiting Aššur in peace in TN18 (VFMOS 2.III 54: 7-15; cf. also 11. 1-6; date:
IV .6 [1. 24]) may actually have traveled for peace. Note also that KAJ 249 (see Faist 2001: 90-92; originally edited in
Freydank 1979) referring to the royal expedition to Araziqu (11. 14-17) is unrelated to the second military conflict in
the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I, since its lïmu Sîn-[...] (1. 21) does not appear in TN1-18. As Freydank proposed
(1979: 271), it should be dated to the reign of Tiglath-pileser I (cf. Bloch 2008: 172f.).
87. For the events in relation to Babylonia, see Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 16; Bloch 2010: 15-19; Llop 2010.
As for the title of Aššur-iddin, see Jakob 2003b: 56.

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
2 1 6 MAS AMICHI YAMADA [RA 105
wanted to avoid a second front forming in the West.

ME region, particularly when Tudhaliya IV threaten
XVIII 28+: i 25'-27'). Furthermore, if the above recon
the people of the land of Hurri" who attacked Emar
Table 1: The Historical Setting for the Second M

Abbreviations: AI = Aššur-iddin; (g)v = (grand) vizier
TN
13 Etel-pí- Aššur v Kassite captives in Kãr-Tukulti- Assyrian district governor in

Ninurta and an expedition to Tuttul (Tell Sabi Abyad T 97-3)
Babylonia (MARV I 1); an
expedition to Suhu (MARV IV
14 Usur-namkflr-šarri
15 Aššur-běl-ilani
16 Aššur-zera-iddina gv Kassite captives in Aššur and

TN' s bringing back of the
tribute-boats from the Sea (KAJ
106); Kassite captives from the
two expeditions in Aššur (KAJ
103); TN's visit to Babylon for
17 Aššur-mušabši
18 Ellil-nädin-apli Araziqa under Assyrian control

(BATSH 10 2); visits by Hit
envoys, one to Aššukanni and
19 Ina-Aššur-šumí- gv TN's conquest of Babylonia Escape of the Carchemishean

asbat with capture of Kaštiliyaš IV captives from Aššukanni
(BATSH 4 9-10; DeZ 4022; (BATSH 4 2); trading by the
RIMA 1, A.0.78.6); Kassite merchants of Carchemish in
captives in Aššukanni (BATSH Assyrian Hanigalbat (BATSH 4
4 2); siege of Lubdu (BATSH 4 6); visit to Aššur by the
11-12) merchants of Emar (BATSH 4
20 Ninu ayu - Visits to Aššur by envoys from

various states including H
__J
Although he lost
in its stead, so tha
his rule. This allian
Ninurta kept on g
probably Tudhaliy
KBo XXVIII 61 (+)
88. KBo XXVIII 61-

his reign (limu of Il
1 13-127 (no. 8; with

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
20 1 1 ] THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND 'HATO' 2 1 7
VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS
"Many years" after the battle of Nihriya was fought between Tukulti-Ninurta I and Tudhaliya
(or perhaps TN2), a second military conflict broke out between 'Assyria' and 'Hatti' on the u
the middle of the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta. It was actually a local conflict between Assyrian
(of Aššur-iddin) and Carchemish (of Talmi-Tešub), in which the former invaded the latter' s t
conquered cities in the Great Bend area and its northern vicinity. However, this was immed
up at the imperial level as a diplomatic issue between Assyria and Hatti. Through the negoti
Tudhaliya, Tukulti-Ninurta, who was still engaged in conquering Babylonia, probably so
return the cities to Carchemish and, in its exchange, Tudhaliya took the side of Assyria. Th
relations between the Assyrian and the Hittite empires discerned in the Assyrian texts in TN
be understood as a result.
The second military conflict is thus significant, firstly, because it caused Hatti to change its
traditional pro-Babylonian policy. Secondly, it provides us with a case where Assyria returned the
territory of an enemy state equal in rank in exchange for forming an alliance with it. Is this not unique in
the history of Assyria? Thirdly, we see here the centralized structures of both empires. Although both
Assyrian Hanigalbat and Carchemish were not vassal kingdoms but satellite states or even vice-
kingdoms, the issue was dealt with at the highest level. As seen in the royal correspondence between
them, while Tudhaliya did not admit that he had handed over the cities, Tukulti-Ninurta was reproached
for their conquest by Assyrian Hanigalbat as his own deed, and it was he who returned the cities to the
king of Carchemish, their actual ruler.
Besides the Assyrian and Hittite sources, the Emar texts treated above fit well with the historical
context of the second military conflict. They provide the key to identify the invading king as the ruler of
Assyrian Hanigalbat, Aššur-iddin, and the substantial synchronism of King Pilsu-Dagan with Tukulti-
Ninurta I and Tudhaliya IV. Particularly noteworthy is Emar VI 42, which reports that Emar avoided
Assyrian conquest. Despite the excuse of Tukulti-Ninurta discernible in KUB III 73, it is difficult to
believe that Aššur-iddin tried to expand his territory on his own initiative, without some kind of
instruction from his suzerain, the king of Assyria. Rather, it seems likely that by this Aššur-iddin
intended to deliver a pre-emptive attack in the upper ME region in order to prevent the Hittites from
dispatching auxiliaries to Babylonia. This military operation would have been successful if he had been
able to conquer the areas upstream of Tuttul one after another. In this case, there would have been no
necessity to return the cities they occupied, when Tudhaliya remonstrated. However, Aššur-iddin failed to
conquer Emar, preventing Assyrian territorial rule of this region. Probably it was judged impossible to
maintain the occupied cities sandwiched between Carchemish and Emar, and so Tukulti-Ninurta agreed
to return them to the Hittites. It may have been easy to make this decision. If this is correct, the narrow
defense of Emar is historically significant as affecting the foreign policies of Assyria and then of Hatti.
Although the territorial expansion of Middle Assyria in the upper ME region did exist, as seen
above, it was not recorded in the royal inscriptions. The reason now seems to be clear in the case of
Shalmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninurta I: it was because that task was assigned to the Assyrian satellite state
of Hanigalbat, not to Assyria proper.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrahami, P. 2005: "À propos de « la porte de la rive opposée » dans Emar VI.3, 15 = Msk 7360," NA
(no. 4).
Adamthwaite, M. R. 2001: Late Hittite Emar: The Chronology, Synchronisms , and Socio-Political Aspects of a Late
Bronze Age Fortress Town (ANESS 8), Louvain.
Alexandrov, B. E., and A. V. Sideltsev 2009: "Hittite ässweni" RA 103, 59-84.
Arnaud, D. 1984: "Le Syrie du moyen-Euphtrate sous le protectorat hittite: l'administration d'après trois lettres
inédites," AuOr 2, 179-188.

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
2 1 8 MASAMICHI YAMADA [RA 105
Astour, M. C. 1996: "Who Was the King of the Hurrian Troops at the
Emar : The History , Religion , and Culture of a Syrian Town in
Md., 25-56.
Beckman, G. 1996: Texts from the Vicinity of Emar in the Collection of J
East / Monographs II), Padova.
Beckman, G., et al. (eds.) 2003: Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the
Birthday , Winona Lake, Ind.
Belmonte Marín, J. A. 2001: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Texte aus Syrien im 2. J
Wiesbaden.
Bloch, Y. 2008: "The Order of Eponyms in the Reign of Shalmaneser I," UF 40, 143-178.
Boese, J. 1982: "Burnaburiaš II, Melišipak und die mittelbabylonische C
zum 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr.," MDOG 141, 65-84.

Boese, J., and G. Wilhelm 1979: "Aššur-dan I., Ninurta-apil-Ekur und die
19-38.
Bordreuil, P., et. al. 1991: Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville (Ras Shamra-
Bryce, T. 2005: The Kingdom of the Hittites (new ed.), Oxford.
Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. (C.) 1996: Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall Šéf
Šěh Hamad / Dür Katlimmu 4), Berlin.
Reiches unter Tukultï-Ninurta I," in: Cancik-Kirschbaum and

Cancik-Kirschbaum, E., and N. Ziegler (eds.) 2009: Entre les fleuv
Geographie Obermesopotamiens im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (
Charpin, D. 2001 : Review of Belmonte Marín 2001 , RA 95, 190f.
Cohen, Y., and L. d'Alfonso 2008: "The Duration of the Emar Archive
of the City," in: d'Alfonso et al. (eds.) 2008: 3-25.
d'Alfonso, L., et al. (eds.) 2008: The City of Emar among the Late Bro
Society (AO AT 349), Münster.
Dalley, S., and B. Teissier 1992: "Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar and E
de Odorico, M. 1995: The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in t
Helsinki.
deRidder, J. J. 2011: Review of Jakob 2009, BiOr 68, 123-127.
del Monte, G. F. 1992: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte: Supplement (RGTC 6.2), Wiesbaden.
del Monte, G. F., and J. Tischler 1978: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte (RGTC 6), Wiesbaden.
Deller, K., et al. 1994: "Two New Royal Inscriptions Dealing with Construction Work in Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta,"
BagM 25, 459-472, Taf. 13-17.
Dietrich, M. 2003: "Salmanassar I. von Assyrien, Ibirãnu (VI.) von Ugarit und Tudhalija IV. von Hatti: RS 34.165
und die Schlacht von Nihrija zwischen den Hethitern und Assyrern," UF 35, 103-139.
Korrekturnachtrag," UF 36, 41f.

Durand, J.-M., and L. Marti 2003: "Chroniques du Moyen-Euph
Tuttul," RA 97, 141-180.
Dussaud, R. 1927: Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et
Faist, B. I. 2001: Der Fernhandel des assyrischen Reiches zw
Münster.
Fleming, D. E. 1992: The Installation of Baal's High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion (HSS
42), Atlanta, Ga.
Forlanini, M. 2004: "Dall'Alto Habur alle montagne dell'Anatolia nel II millennio A.C.: Nota sulla geografìa storica
di una regione poco conosciuta." in: C. Nicolle (ed.), Nomades et sédentaires dans le Proche-
Orient ancien (Amurru 3 = RAI 46), Paris, 405-426.
Freu, J. 2003: "De la confrontation à l'entente cordiale: Les relations assyro-hittites à la fin de l'âge du Bronze (ca.
1250-1180 av. J.C.)," in: Beckman et al. (eds.) 2003: 101-118.
Zorman (eds.), Tabularia Hethaeorum: Hethitologische Beiträ

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
20 1 1 ] THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND 'HATO' 2 1 9
Freydank, H. 1979: "Eine mittelassyrische Urkunde (KAJ 249) über den Metallhandel," AoF 6, 269-271 .
Galter, H. D. 1988: "28.800 Hethiter," JCS 40, 217-235.

Grayson, A. K. 1975: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS 5), Locus
Gurney, O. R. 1949: "Texts from Dur-Kurigalzu," Iraq 1 1 , 131-149, pl

Hagenbuchner, A. 1989: Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter 2 (THeth. 16),
Hallo, W. W. 1964: "The Road to Emar," JCS 18, 57-88.
Harrak, A. 1987: Assyria and Hanigalbat: A Historical Reconstruction o
Fourteenth to the End of the Twelfth Centuries B. C. (TSO 4),
Helck, W. 1971: Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2.
Hoffner, H. A. 2009: Letters from the Hittite Kingdom (Writings from t
Houwink ten Cate, P. 2006: "The Apparently Delayed Homecoming of
P. J. van den Hout (ed.), The Life and Times of ffattušili III
de Roos), Leiden, 107-1 15.
Jakob, S. 2001: "Aus Kindern werden Leute - Überlegungen zum mA E
96 (no. 4).
- - 2003a: "Diplomaten in Assur: Alltag oder Anzeichen für eine internationale Krise?" in: P. A. Miglus and J. M.
Córdoba (eds.), Assur und sein Umland: Im Andenken an die ersten Ausgräber von Assur (ISIMU
6), 103-114.
Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 2. III), Wiesbaden.

Klengel, H. 1999: Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches (HdOr 34), Leiden
Kühne, C. 1995: "Ein mittelassyrisches Verwaltungsarchiv und andere
Ausgrabungen in Tell Chuëra in Nordost-Syrien 1: Vorberic
1986 bis 1992 (Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Frei
Saarbrücken, 203-225.
Kühne, C., and H. Otten 1971: Der Šaušgamuwa-Vertrag (StBoT 16), W
Lackenbacher, S. 1982: "Nouveaux documents d'Ugarit 1: Une lettre roy
Lipiñski, E. 2000: The Aramaeans : Their Ancient History , Culture , Relig
Llop, J. 2010: "Barley from Álu-ša-Sín-rabi: Chronological Reflections
Ninurta I (1233-1 197 BC)," in: J. Vidal (ed.), Studies on War
Essays on Military History (AOAT 372), Münster, 105-1 16.
Luciani, M. 1999-2001: "On Assyrian Frontiers and the Middle Euphrate
1-3 (no. 1).

Miller, J. L. 2008: "Joins and Duplicates among the Bogazköy Tablets (31-45)," ZA 98, 1 17-137.
ago (AOAT 397 = FS. Roaf), Münster, 349-372.

Mora, C., and M. Giorgien 2004: Le lettere tra i re ittiti e i re assiri ritrovate
East / Monographs VII), Padova.
Otto, A. 2009: "Historische Geographie im Gebiet des Mittleren Euphr
Mittleren und Späten Bronzezeit," in: Cancik-Kirschbaum and Z
Postgate, J. N. 1971: "Land Tenure in the Middle Assyrian Period: A Recon
Röllig, W. 1997: "Aspects of the Historical Geography of Northeastern Syria
Times," in: S. Parpóla and R. M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995 , H
Hamad / Dür Katlimmu 9), Wiesbaden.

Shibata, D. 2008: "The City of Tãbetu and the Kings of the Land of Mari: Middle As
Excavation at Tell Taban," Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studi
(in Japanese with English summary ; see https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/brow
Simons, J. 1937: Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to W
Singer, I. 1985: "The Battle of Nihriya and the End of the Hittite Empire," ZA 75, 100-1

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00
220 MASAMICHI YAMADA [RA 105-20 1 1 ]
Wilhelm (ed.) 2008: 223-245.

Skaist, A. 1998: "The Chronology of the Legal Texts from Emar," ZA 88, 45-71 .
Stefanini, R. 1965: "KBo IV 14 = VAT 13049," Atti della Academia Nazionale del Lincei (ser
Streck, M. P. 1997: Review of Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996, ZA 87, 271-276.
Talon, P. 2005: Une nouvelle inscription de Tukulti-Ninurta I, m: P. Talon and V. Van
homme... (Subartu XVI = Fs. Finet), Turnhout, 125-133.
Tsukimoto, A. 1984: "Eine neue Urkunde des Tili-Šarruma , Sohn des Königs von Karkamiš
Weidner, E. F. 1923: Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien: Die Staat

Archiv von Boghazköi , Leipzig.
Westenholz, J. G. 2000: Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the

Tablets (CM 13), Groningen.
Wiggerman, F. A. M. 2000: "Agriculture in the Northern Balikh Vall
Abyad," in: R. M. Jas (ed.), Rainfall and Agriculture in Nort
the Third MOS Symposium ( Leiden 1999) (PIHANS 88), Leide
Wilhelm, G. 2003-05: "Paphû (Mat Pap#)? RIA 10, 324f.

Wilhelm, G. (ed.) 2008: ffattuša - Bogazköy: Das Hethiterreich im Spa
der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 6), Wiesbaden.
Wiseman, D. J. 1953: The Alalakh Tablets , London.
Yamada, M. 1994a: "An Introduction to the Chronology of the Emar

Synchronisms," Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Stu
Japanese with English summary; see https://www.jstage.jst.
Studies in Japan 38.1, 96-112 (in Japanese with English s

j stage .j st .go .jp/bro wse/jorient) .
Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East (IOS 18 =

323-334.
131 (in Japanese with English summary; see https://www.jstag
Near Eastern Studies in Japan 41 , 127-143.
Yamada, S. 2000: The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical St

(859-824 B.C.) Relating to His Campaigns to the West (Culture
East 3), Leiden.
Reports of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Jap

jstage .jst.go .jp/browse/orient 1 960) .
Zaccagnini, C. 1995: "War and Famine at Emar," Or. 64, 92-109.
Zadok, R. 1985: Geographical Names According to New- and Late-B
Chuo University, Toky

masamuwa@gmail .co

77.137.77.7 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 20:09:10 +00:00

Yamada SECONDMILITARYCONFLICT 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yamada SECONDMILITARYCONFLICT 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 'ASSYRIA' AND 'ḪATTI' IN THE REIGN OF

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42580250

This content downloaded from

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN 4 ASSYRIA' AND 'HATTP

In memory of Prof. Anson F . Rainey

Revue ďAssyriologie, volume CV (2011), p. 199-220

This content downloaded from

mostly focus on the northern regions as Hanigalba

II. THE HITTITE PRESENCE ALONG THE MIDDLE EUPHRATES RIVER

1. The geo-political framework: The Šattiwaza treaty (CTH 51)

*[Land of Carchemish]: Murmurik, Šipri, Mazuwati, Šurun, <GN>7

*Land of Astata (left bank): Ikalt[e, GN8], Ahuna, Terqa

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

that in Araziqa it was a duty of all the citizens (

III. TUKULTI-NINURTA I AND THE WEST

1. The battle ofNifyriya: RSOu VII 46 and KBo IV 14

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

2. The Assyrian presence along the Baity river: B

The texts from Dür-Katlimmu (Tell Šěh Hama

(Pursuing) after the people33 of Carchemish who had

This text shows that the Balih region was firmly u

32. A reading on the basis of the handcopy (C

This content downloaded from

3. Araziqa under Assyrian Control: BATSH 102 (DeZ 2521 )

E¡ir-[Marduk' , Sîn-mudammiq, Pat[...], Dunni-Ašš[ur], Huzirãnu, Harrãnu, Ayya, Habayãtu, Araziqu,

This content downloaded from

All the residences of the PNs and the GNs are lo

IV. THE MILITARY CONFLICT IN THE UPPER ME REGION

1. Anticipation of another battle by Tudhaliya IV: KBo IV 14

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

open the question whether he was Hattušili III or

Although the tense relationship is evident enough

I [do/did] n[ot ...] (to) you(.) [... Arasiga] (and) Na

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

V. THE 'HURRIAN' ATTACK ON EMAR IN THE REIGN OF PILSU-DAGAN

1. The chronological framework

2. The 'ffurrian' attack on Emar

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

of fyurãdu10 (Emar VI 42: 14). Based on these points a

3. The ' Jfurrian ' (rebuilding of Šumu

Our interpretation may further be supported by the f

RE 70: (28) i-nu-ma LUGAL ÉRIN.ME<Š> bur-ri (29)

We know that Šumu was a city situated in the vicinity

Based on the above considerations, we may conclud

70. For #wradw see Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 133 (n

74. As we will see below (§ VI .2), Aššur-iddin, son of Qibi-Aššur.

This content downloaded from

VI. THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT: A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

1. Reconstruction of the Assyro-Hittite relations

This content downloaded from

necessary to set the improvement of the relations with

2. Correlation with the process of the conquest of B

The iTmu of Ina-Aššur-šumT-asbat is known as the y

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

wanted to avoid a second front forming in the West.

Table 1: The Historical Setting for the Second M

13 Etel-pí- Aššur v Kassite captives in Kãr-Tukulti- Assyrian district governor in