Yamada M , The second military conflict between ‘Assyria' and ‘Hatti' in the reign of Tukulti Ninurta I

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA' AND
‘?ATTI' IN THE REIGN OF TUKULTI-NINURTA I

Masamichi Yamada

Presses Universitaires de France |

« Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale »

2011/1 Vol. 105 | pages 199 à 220

ISSN 0373-6032
ISBN 9782130587378

Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cairn.info/revue-d-assyriologie-2011-1-page-199.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pour citer cet article :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Masamichi Yamada, « The second military conflict between ‘Assyria' and ‘?atti' in the reign of
Tukulti-Ninurta I », Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 2011/1 (Vol. 105),
p. 199-220.
DOI 10.3917/assy.105.0199

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour Presses Universitaires de France.

La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des
conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre
établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière
que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en
France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

[RA 105-2011]

Revue d’Assyriologie, volume CV (2011), p. 199-220

199

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA’ AND ‘ḪATTI’

IN THE REIGN OF TUKULTI-NINURTA I*

Masamichi Y

AMADA

In memory of Prof. Anson F. Rainey

I. INTRODUCTION

The process of the territorial expansion of Middle Assyria, which reached its peak in the late thirteenth
century B.C.,

began with Aššur-uballiṭ I (1353-18 B.C.). In the West, when Mittani collapsed with the

assassination of King Tušratta in the mid fourteenth century B.C., he actively involved himself in the
affairs in Ḫanigalbat, the heart land of Mittani centered on the Ḫabur triangle, first by diplomacy and then
by military means. In the following century, Adad-nirari I (1295-64 B.C.) and his son Shalmaneser I
(1263-34 B.C.) continued the efforts to conquer and rule that region, fighting with Ḫanigalbat, the
kingdom which succeeded Mittani. In the early phase of his reign, Shalmaneser defeated Šattuara II, the
last known king of this independent Ḫurrian state, and then finally annexed it to the Assyrian territory
(Harrak 1987: 161f., 171-175).

Shalmaneser established an offshoot kingdom there, nominating Ibašši-ilī son of Adad-nirari I,

thus his brother, as the founder of the dynasty. Its capital was Dūr-Katlimmu (Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad) on the
lower Ḫabur river, and its rulers bore the titles ‘grand vizier’ (sukkallu rabiʾu) and ‘king of the land of
Ḫanigalbat’ (šar māt Ḫanigalbat).

Below we will refer to this state as ‘Assyrian Ḫanigalbat’ to

distinguish it from the previous Ḫurrian kingdom with the same name. Due to Shalmaneser’s energetic
conquests to the east, north and west, his son Tukulti-Ninurta I (1233-1197 B.C.) inherited a vast territory
when he ascended the throne of Assyria. Although he made military expeditions to the peripheral regions,
especially when they revolted, there was no need of an expedition to this Assyrian Ḫanigalbat, which
remained steadily under his control.

When we deal with the western expansion of Assyria, it is interesting to note that the available

information is geographically biased, as the Assyrian royal inscriptions, our basic historical sources,

* The chronological system adopted in this article is that of the Low Chronology (Boese and Wilhelm 1979;

also Boese 1982). Abbreviations follow those of M. T. Roth (ed.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute
of the University of Chicago 20: U and W, Chicago, 2010, vii-xxix, and of the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative
(http://cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/doku.php/abbreviations_for_assyriology), with the following exceptions in reference to
texts from Syria (Alalaḫ, Dūr-Katlimmu, Emar, Ḫarbe, and Ugarit): ASJ 6-T = Tsukimoto 1984; ASJ 10-T =
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
Salmānu-mušabši, who appears as the grand vizier between Aššur-iddin (son of Qibi-Aššur, grandson of Ibašši-ilī)
and his son Ilī-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.

assyriologie_105.indd 199

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

MASAMICHI YAMADA

[RA 105

200

mostly focus on the northern regions as Ḫanigalbat, the Ḫurrian lands along the upper Tigris, and Išuwa.
As for the Middle Euphrates (= ME) region in the south, although we find Tukulti-Ninurta once made an
expedition to its lower part, “the lands of Mari, Ḫana, Rapiqu and the mountains of the Aḫlamu” (RIMA
1, A.0.78.23: 69f.), no reference is made in the inscriptions to its upper part, i.e., the region along the
river between Carchemish and the confluence of the Baliḫ river.

This concentration on northern lands is

probably because Assyria’s primary interest was in the fertile Ḫabur triangle; the Assyrian advance there
caused the formation of anti-Assyrian coalitions in the surrounding countries with the backing of Ḫatti,
which in return spurred Assyria to conquer them.

However, did the Assyrians have no interest at all in the upper ME region, when they expanded

westward? In this respect, let us note MARV III 19 (see Faist 2001: 89f.), dated to the līmu of Ilī-qarrād
(ll. 21f.), in the late phase of the reign of Shalmaneser I.

This text is a list of the distribution of the

copper blocks taken from the land of Ḫatti (l. 18), or more precisely, from Ḫazaziru (l. 6) and Imar (l.
15). Although the location of Ḫazaziru is unknown, this text shows that the Assyrians, most probably
those of Assyrian Ḫanigalbat, raided I/Emar (Meskene Qadime) in this period.

The present study deals with Assyrian involvement in the upper ME region during the reign of

Tukulti-Ninurta I on the basis of the available Assyrian and Hittite sources, as well as the Emar texts.

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 puppet state,
appointing as its new king Šattiwaza, son of Tušratta, the former king. They concluded a treaty. In its
Akkadian version (KBo I 1),

Šuppiluliuma defined the border with Mittani as the Euphrates river (rev.

15’-16’a) and assigned the cities in the upper ME region to Piyaššili, his son and the new king of
Carchemish (ll. 16’b-21’), the Hittite satellite state in Syria. Those cities originally belonging to the two
lands are as follows:

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

∗Land of Aštata (left bank): Ikalt[e, GN

], Aḫuna, Terqa

This text shows that there was a border between the land of Carchemish and the land of Aštata, the
political center of which was Emar on the right bank. This border was south of Mazuwati, i.e., Masuwari
(Tell Aḥmar), and Šurun

and north of I/Ekalte (Tell Munbāqa). The downstream border of the land of

Aštata was probably located at Aḫuna and Terqa on the lower Baliḫ. Aḫuna is usually identified with Tell
es-Seman

and, so here, it is difficult to assume Terqa is the well-known Tell el-ʿAšāra, as it is too far

from Aḥuna (cf. also KBo I 10+ below).

There is no doubt that the cities of Aštata on the right bank of the Euphrates also were put under

the control of the king of Carchemish, as seen in the texts from Emar, the vassal kingdom of Ḫatti (see

3. It has been announced that the texts from Tell Fray (unpublished) are to be dated not to the Middle

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.; Luciani 1999-

2001: 89-95; Otto 2009: 171f.

7. A. Otto is of the opinion that another GN has been dropped here and suggests it is Baṣīru (Tell Bazi) on the

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 these cities of

Aštata must have been situated on the left bank of the Euphrates (see Yamada 1994b: 262f.).

9. Otto suggests identifying it with Tell Sirrīn on the left bank (2009: 171f.). See also Boese 2009: 66 with

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.

assyriologie_105.indd 200

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

2011]

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA’ AND ‘ḪATTI’

201

below). That the land of Aštata was comprised of both banks probably reflects the situation that the
southern land between the Euphrates and the Baliḫ, except for the areas along these rivers, was desert,
where no territorial rule was possible.

As for the upstream border of the land of Aštata, the Assyrian royal inscriptions of Tiglath-

pileser I (1114-1076 B.C.) and of Aššur-bēl-kala (1073-56 B.C.) give relevant information. In these texts,
we find references to royal hunting ina

uru

Araziqi ša pān KUR Ḫatte, “in Araziqu, which is before the

land of Ḫatti” (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 Ḫatti” actually meant the land of Carchemish. These texts thus show that Araziqa was situated outside
Carchemish’s territory and belonged to the land of Aštata (Yamada 1994b: 263). This city of Araziqa is
usually identified with Tell el-Ḥāǧǧ

on the right bank of the Euphrates at its Great Bend, approximately

opposite Tell Munbāqa.

As for the downstream border of the land of Aštata, the famous Akkadian letter from Ḫattušili

III, king of Ḫatti, to Kadašman-Enlil II, king of Babylonia (KBo I 10 + KUB III 72)

is important. This

text shows that the region along the Euphrates downstream as far as Tuttul (Tell Biʿa) near the confluence
of the Baliḫ 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-ilī, wife (reading [D]AM in l. 3) of Zū-
Eya, sold her son as a slave to Dagan-bānī and put him on board a ship so that Dagan-bānī (probably
himself too on board) might take him off the boat in Tuttul (ll. 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.

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.

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 …

of Ikalta (= Ekalte), met Laʾda in

Ḫaza and then went to Azu (ll. 15-19a); although Dagan-kabar took some oil and gave it to Laʾda, he did
not come (to Emar) to give it to Šaggar-abu (ll. 19b-22). Although the location of Ḫaza is unknown, Azu
is identified with Tell Ḥadīdi. 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.

Another Emar text of interest is AuOr 5-T 13, in which Aḫu-ṭāb nominates his daughter

Alnašuwa as his heir, making her “male and female (NITA ù MÍ)” (ll. 1-6). As for the sons to whom she
gives birth, he declares, “they will be (recognized as) my [sons] and will perform my GIŠ.TUKUL-duty
[wit]h the citizens of Araziqa” (ll. 11-14). In the Emar texts, the phrase GIŠ.TUKUL našû, (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. LÚ.ša-[x]-du (Arnaud 1991: 150 with note on l. 15), not

lú

šā[pi]ṭu (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.

assyriologie_105.indd 201

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

MASAMICHI YAMADA

[RA 105

202

that in Araziqa it was a duty of all the citizens (Yamada 2006a: 229-232). The full control of Araziqa by
the Hittites is evident.

III. TUKULTI-NINURTA I AND THE WEST

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

RSOu VII 46 (RS 34.165)

is an Assyrian royal letter to Ibirānu, king of Ugarit,

which reports how

the king of Assyria was led to fight with Tudḫaliya IV (ll. 12’, 21’), king of Ḫatti, near Niḫriya and
achieved victory. The first preserved line reads: [

Šulmāna]-

⸢ SAG ⸣ LUGAL ⸢ KUR

⸣ [Aššur

“[Shalman]eser, king of the land of [Aššur].” The problem is whether this is the name of the addresser or
that of his father (i.e., that it was written by Tukulti-Ninurta I, but his own name was wholly broken off
leaving only the patronymic); both kings are known to be contemporaries of Tudḫaliya IV. I. Singer opts
for Tukulti-Ninurta I as the addresser. Equating Niḫriya with Nairi, the region around Lake Van, he
points out that a military expedition to the Nairi lands was only attested at the beginning of his reign
(1985: 105-108, 119). However, as A. Harrak correctly notes (1987: 244f.), Niḫriya is not the same as
Nairi.

He opts for Shalmaneser I, since the addresser of a letter normally does not state his patronymic

(ibid.: 185). No decisive conclusion has been reached on this issue so far.

A key to solving this problem seems to be found in KBo IV 14 (see Stefanini 1965), which

refers to the battle of Niḫriya. This text is a Hittite treaty or protocol between Tudḫaliya IV and Eḫli-
šarri, as Singer convincingly demonstrates (1985: 109-114).

In this text, Tudḫaliya accuses Eḫli-šarri

of past betrayal, saying that when the situation got worse, he was somewhere apart and not beside him

(ii 7f.); at that time Tudḫaliya fled alone from Niḫriya, and when “the enemy took away the Ḫurri lands”
(LÚ.KÚR KUR.KUR ḫur-ri ar-ḫa ME-aš) from him, he was in Alatarma

alone (ll. 9-11). Who is “the

enemy,” i.e., the Assyrian king who sent RSOu VII 46? In this respect, it is worth noting that when KBo
IV 14 was drawn up — “many years” (ii 67) after the battle of Niḫriya — the Assyrian king of that battle
was still alive (see § IV.1 below). Considering Tudḫaliya IV’s synchronisms with the Assyrian kings, if
the battle of Niḫriya took place in the period of Shalmaneser I, it is to be dated to the late phase of his
reign. In this case, it would be very unlikely that he was still alive when Tudḫaliya and Eḫli-šarri made

18. Another reference to this city is found in the Emar text RE 76: 4. Cf. also the PN Araziqī

ʾu (for refs. see

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

i-bi-ra]-na LUGAL KUR

⸢ú⸣-[ga-ri-it.KI qí-bi-ma] (l. 2’). Although J. Freu suggests as

an alternative [a]-na LUGAL …with an anonymous addressee (2003: 107; 2007: 273), this is improbable in view of

the fact that the NA-sign is written approximately in the middle of the line.

21. Nowadays Niḫriya is thought to be Kazane Höyük, situated in the uppermost area of the Baliḫ river

(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 2003: 104f.;

2007 for Tukulti-Ninurta I.

23. Although Singer (1985: 114-118) identifies this Eḫli-šarri(LUGAL) (KBo IV 14: iv 71; also [

]

⸢eḫ-li-

LUGAL

⸣-ri in RSOu VII 46: 13 [see Dietrich 2003: 110, 112]) as the Eḫli-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 Ḫurrian state) of Ḫanigalbat in l. 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 Eḫli-šarri was a king of
Išuwa after Eḫli-Šarruma (cf. Freu, ibid.).

24. According to M. Dietrich’s edition of RSOu VII 46 (2003: 112f. with 2004: 41 on l. 14), the Assyrian

king approached Eḫli-šarri, the ally of Tudḫaliya, and took him (to the Assyrian side), which aroused the hostility of
Tudḫaliya against the Assyrian king (ll. 12-16). The betrayal by Eḫli-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 Paḫuwa (del Monte and Tischler 1978: 6f.). See also Forlanini

2004: 415f.

assyriologie_105.indd 202

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

2011]

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA’ AND ‘ḪATTI’

203

the document of KBo IV 14. This indicates that the probable candidate for the above “enemy” is Tukulti-
Ninurta I.

This identification is well supported by other historical sources. Firstly, (a draft of) a Hittite

royal letter addressed to Bāba-aḫu-iddina at the Assyrian court

shows Hittite concern about the

aggressiveness of the new Assyrian king (Tukulti-Ninurta I). Tudḫaliya IV tries to persuade Bāba-aḫu-
iddina not to let Tukulti-Ninurta make an expedition to mountainous regions as “the land of Papanḫi”
(KUB XXIII 103: rev. 20’). In the Assyrian sources, this GN is known as Papḫû,

one of the Šubarû

(i.e., Ḫurri) lands in the upper Tigris region, which were eventually conquered by Tukulti-Ninurta. This
reminds us of the Assyrian conquest of the Ḫurri lands at the time of the battle of Niḫriya (KBo IV 14: ii
10). Secondly, it is interesting to note that Assyrian ḫurādu-(troops) were in Niḫriya in the līmu of Qibi-
Aššur (TR 3005: 4f., 10f.),

i.e., the second year of Tukulti-Ninurta I (= TN2). This is a terminus ad

quem for the battle of Niḫriya (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, ll. 24-26).

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
Niḫriya.

After the battle Ḫatti 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
Ḫatti for three years was released and had returned to Assyria with a messenger of Ḫatti (ll. 14-17).
According to VAT 19633 = MARV III 12 (see Freydank 1994), a Hittite interpreter was in Aššur in the
līmu of Lībur-zānin-Aššur (= TN6). These texts suggest that bilateral diplomacy was restored soon after
the battle of Niḫriya (Freu 2003: 110f.; 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 Tudḫaliya

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 Bāba-aḫu-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 Diyarbakır (del Monte and Tischler 1978: 301). For references to Papḫû 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 (l. 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 Tudḫaliya 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 Tudḫaliya 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
(ll. 19-22). Scholars commonly regard this embargo as a counterplot against Assyria around the time of the battle of
Niḫriya (e.g., Singer 1985: 108; Klengel 1999: 292; Bryce 2005: 314-318, esp. 315f.). However, they differ
concerning to which phase of Tudḫaliya’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
Tudḫaliya complained to his mother Pudu-Ḫepa of betrayal by the king of Išuwa (according to him Eḫli-Šarruma) at
the time of that battle (ibid.: 116-118). If so, if this king is the same as the above Eḫli-šarri, since his mother is still
alive, one may assume that the battle of Niḫriya and then the Amorite embargo are dated to the earlier, though not to
the earliest, phase of Tudḫaliya’s reign. This conclusion would fit well with our dating of the battle to the beginning
of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s reign.

assyriologie_105.indd 203

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

MASAMICHI YAMADA

[RA 105

204

2. The Assyrian presence along the Baliḫ river: BATSH 4 2

The texts from Dūr-Katlimmu (Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad) provide us with valuable information on the geo-
political situation in the region west of the Ḫabur river in the thirteenth century B.C. BATSH 4 2 is
particularly important for our present concern. This is a letter of Sîn-mudammiq, the vizier of Aššukanni
(probably Tell Feḫerīyeh), to Aššur-iddin, the grand vizier residing in Dūr-Katlimmu. The līmu of this
text is Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat (ll. 67f.), which was during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I. The first part of
the main text is concerned with the pursuit of fugitives from Aššukanni:

(4) ur-ki ÉRIN.MEŠ ša URU.kar-ga-mis ša in-na-bi-du-ni (5) a-

⸢na⸣ URU.du-un-ni-

a-šur at-[t]a-[l]ak

(6) ÉRIN.MEŠ ša URU.du-ni-

a-šur

⸢du

-un

⸣-ni UR

LÁL

iš-tu (7) ši-id-di ÍD ul-ta-aṣ-bi-it ša URU.du-

ni-

da-gal (8) mi-šil-šu-nu URU

.si-ir-da mi-šil-šu-nu-ma (9) a-na er-re-te ša URU.tu-tu-ul iš

-tu URU

.gi-il-

ma (10) a-di URU.du-ni-

⸢

⸣da-gal ul-ta-aṣ-bi-it

(Pursuing) after the people

of Carchemish who had escaped, I w[e]nt to Dunni-Aššur. I disposed the troops

of Dunni-Aššur, the fortress of …, (in) the reed (beds) along (lit. from) the bank of the (Baliḫ) river. (As for
the troops) of Dunni-Dagal — one half of them had been (in) Sirda (and) the other half of them at the barrage
of Tuttul

— I disposed (them) from Gilma to Dunni-Dagal.

This text shows that the Baliḫ region was firmly under Assyrian control in this period.

We see that Sîn-

mudammiq disposed the Assyrian troops at several points along the middle-upper Baliḫ

in order to

capture the fugitives, bringing in some of the troops from the lower Baliḫ. Although he set a guard line
for two days, he failed to catch anyone (ll. 11-12a). But he found the footprints of the 150 men

Gilma and, tracing them for a full day, he went over to the (other) land

(ll. 12b-14). Then he

approached the city of Carchemish (ll. 28bff.).

In the text, Sîn-mudammiq inserts a part explaining why he did not use the troops of Aššukanni

to pursue the fugitives. Firstly, since Aššukanni was in the midst of a serious shortage of provisions (see
Streck 1997: 273 on l. 17), there were no people in the city to guard it (ll. 15-21); probably all of them
had gone out to seek food. Secondly, since he was in Amīmu at that time and then left for Terqa, the

32. A reading on the basis of the handcopy (Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: Taf. 2). Otherwise –ni A

GIŠ

LÁL

GI. Cf. du-un-ni-a GIŠ.GI (ibid.: 95).

33. I think they were soldiers held as hostages or captives in Aššukanni, as the 50 Kassite and the 50

Šubarian people (ÉRIN.MEŠ) were (ll. 18-20).

34. Sirda is attested in the OB itinerary text, ‘the Road to Emar’ (Hallo 1964), as Ṣerdi (l. 36), the station on

the Baliḫ immediately above Tultul (l. 37), i.e., Tuttul. Note that it would have been unnecessary to guard the lower
Baliḫ when they tried to block the fugitives moving from Aššukanni to Carchemish in the north.

35. Since the reference was not to the city of Tuttul but to its barrage (l. 9), Luciani argued that Tuttul was

still under Hittite control at that time (1999-2001: 96 n. 68). However, it is known that Aššur-šuma-uṣur was the
district governor (bēl pāḫete) of Tuttul in the līmu of Etel-pî-Aššur (see Jakob 2003b: 117 referring to T 97-3 from

Tell Sabi Abyad), i.e., TN13, dated before that of Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat (see below). It means that Tuttul was firmly
under Assyrian control, in other words that the Assyrians had conquered it, when BATSH 4 2 was written. This then
raises the question why the troops of Tuttul were not guarding the lower Baliḫ. This would be understandable if the

Assyrian conquest of Tuttul was only a recent event and so not enough troops were stationed there. However, a
recently published Dūr-Katlimmu text (BATSH 9 39) shows that Tuttul (l. 14) was within the Assyrian sphere of
influence already in the līmu of Nabium-bēla-uṣur (ll. 23f.), i.e., the 26th year of Shalmaneser I (= Shal.26) (see
Röllig 2004: 49; 2008: 4; Freydank 2005: 49; Bloch 2008: 147). Does this mean that the Assyrians had kept holding
Tuttul from Shal.26 to TN13, or that they abandoned it once but reoccupied it in the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta? In any
case, the fact that the troops of Dunni-Dagal were guarding the lower Baliḫ in BATSH 4 2 suggests that the conquest
of Tuttul was made downstream along the Baliḫ from Aššukanni, not upstream along the Euphrates from Dūr-
Katlimmu.

36. F. A. M. Wiggermann identifies Dunni-Aššur with Tell Abyad and Dunni-Dagal with Tell Ǧittal (2000:

e.g., 172, 177; cf. Luciani 2001). Gilma is to be located somewhere between them.

37. Reading

⸢KI

.UŠ

⸣ ša 1 ME 50 ÉRIN.MEŠ (l. 12; cf. l. 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?

assyriologie_105.indd 204

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

2011]

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA’ AND ‘ḪATTI’

205

report of their escape was first sent to Amīmu and then transmitted to Terqa (ll. 22-28a). So he received it
there late.

BATSH 4 2 is important also because it shows conditions in the region between the Baliḫ and

the Euphrates. We see that this was the space of the Suteans as the following text shows:

(40) ša EN-li iš-pu-ra-ni ma-a [ṭé-ma ša su-ti-e] (41) šu-up-ra su-ti-ú i+na KUR [x x x x (x)] (42) la-a ša-ak-
nu 1 LÚ su-ti-ú na-ar-[x x x x (x)] (43) i+na URU.saḫ-la-li ú-di-šu ša-kín a-n[a x x x (x)] (44) al-ta-pár-šu
ṭé-ma il-te-qe [x x x (x)] (45) ma-a na-aḫ-sa-nu iš-tu SAG URU.a-ra-zi-[qí ù] (46) URU.ku-ma-ḫi a-di

URU.eš-pi-ru-a ša-[ak-nu] (47) ma-a i+na URU.ma-ri-na ša KUR-e pu-ḫur-šu-nu ip-

⸢tu⸣-ḫu-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 Saḫlālu alone. I sent him t[o PN] (and) he received the report […]:
“The Naḫsaneans

w[ere] (in the area) from Rēš Arazi[qi and] Kumaḫu to Ešpirua. In Marīna of the desert

they assembled together. (omitted)”

Among these GNs, Saḫlālu (Tell Saḫlān) is situated on the middle Baliḫ. Kumaḫu 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.

Although Ešpirua is not attested elsewhere, it is probably located

inland somewhere to the east of the Euphrates. On the other hand, Marīna is certainly to be identified
with Tell Šiyūḫ Fawqāni 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 Burmarʾina (Luciani 2000). As for Rēš
Araziqi, we may safely assume that it was situated on a bank of the Euphrates, too. The element rēšu,
(lit.) “head,” most probably denotes a cape-like place on the river. This Rēš Araziqi was most likely
located on the left bank, opposite Araziqa on the right bank.

3. Araziqa under Assyrian Control: BATSH 10 2 (DeZ 2521)

This is a list of the destinations of the barley

which Ninuʾāyu imposed on the city Šaluša in the līmu of

Ellil-nādin-apli (ll. 19f.) dated to the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I. The barley is to be allocated to four PNs
(ll. 1f., 14f.) and eleven GNs (ll. 3-13) as follows:

Eṭir-[Marduk], Sîn-mudammiq, Pat[…], Dunni-Ašš[ur], Ḫuzirānu, Ḫarrānu, Ayya, Ḫabayātu, Araziqu,
Buššayu, Niḫriya, KUR Ḫānu AN.TA, Ḫumnaḫuṣa, Tukultī-Mēr, Aššur-kette-lēšir

39. Amīmu is to be located on the Baliḫ. 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 Baliḫ, it is

reasonable to regard this Terqa as the one on the lower Baliḫ 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 Baliḫ, 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 ‘Naḫsaneans’ are a tribe of the Suteans. We see

PN EME naḫsānayyītu, “

PN of the Naḫsanean

tongue,” as well as

PN DUMU naḫsānāye, “PN, ‘son’ of Naḫsanean,” in a text from Tell Taban (Tab T05A-191: 1-

4; see Shibata 2008: 74f.). The people of this tribe are known as ‘Niḫsaneans’ in the texts from Tell Sabi Abyad (see

Wiggermann 2010: 55f.). I wish to thank Daisuke Shibata for informing me that Naḫsānû 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 Kumaḫu with Tell Aḥmar 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: 71f.; cf. Forlanini 2004: 415).
However, if Kumaḫu is to be equated with the Kumaḫa 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 Kumaḫu in BATSH 4 2:
46 is to be understood as actually indicating the area on the bank opposite Kumaḫu. Cf. the controversy over whether
Kimuḫu 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.

assyriologie_105.indd 205

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

MASAMICHI YAMADA

[RA 105

206

All the residences of the PNs and the GNs are located within the western territory of Assyria, mainly
between the Ḫabur region and the Baliḫ region (see Röllig 1997: 284-291; Cancik-Kirschbaum 2009:
141f.). The only exception is Araziqu (l. 9), if it was indeed situated on the Euphrates. However, Röllig is
of the opinion that all of them, including Araziqu, are to be located in the region east of the Euphrates. He
proposed to locate Araziqu along the southern border of the Saruǧ plain in a place such as Tell Karus
(1997: 286f.). Although his proposal is sensible, it should be pointed out that the text of the same corpus
that we looked at above (BATSH 4 2: 45) mentions Rēš Araziqi, which appeared to be located on the
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 Yamḫad in the seventeenth century B.C. was MU RN
LUGAL(.E)

(uru)

Araziq

iṣbatu, “the year (when) Niqmepa the king seized Araziq” (AT 7: 48f.; 55: 39).

Secondly, the GN ì-r-ṯ-k-n (Simons 1937: 119 [List 1, no. 139]), one of the places conquered in
Thutmose III’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-Ḥāǧǧ is the closest point on the Euphrates to Aleppo, the
capital of Yamḫad.

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 Dūr-Katlimmu texts generally show peaceful relations between Assyria and Ḫatti 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 Tudḫaliya IV: KBo IV 14

As mentioned above, the portion of KBo IV 14 cited below shows that it was drawn up many years after
the battle of Niḫriya. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the relations between Tudḫaliya IV and
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.ḪÁ GÍD.DA ar-ḫa-
ma-kán iš-ta-an-ta-it (68) nu-mu ma-a-an GIŠ.TUKUL-za ḫa-aš-ta-le-e-eš-zi na-aš-ma-aš-mu-kán (69) [Š]À
KUR URU ú-iz-zi zi-ik-ma a-pé-e-né-eš-šu-u-wa-an-ti (70) [me]-e-ḫu-ni :al-la-la-a pa-a-u-ar 1-e-da ti-ia-u-
ar (71) [pé]-

⸢di⸣-kán wa-aš-du-mar le-e ša-na-aḫ-ti (72) [LUGAL]-⸢i⸣ GAM-an a-ak GAM MA-MIT GAR-ru

This man of the land of Aššur (Tukulti-Ninurta I), who is my enemy, has been lying hesitant for many (lit.
long) years. If he turns warlike by (his) weapon against me or comes [int]o my land (or) city,

you, at such a

[ti]me, shall not try to defect (to the enemy?), to tread (i.e., flee/march?) alone, (or) to commit a sin at (your)
[pla]ce.

(But) die beside the [king]! (This matter) shall be laid under the oath.

This text indicates that for some time after the battle of Niḫriya the relations between Ḫatti and Assyria
were not hostile. But now, after “many years,” Tudḫaliya IV anticipates a battle with Tukulti-Ninurta I
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 GIM-an an-

da ú-it)” (ii 13f.), referring to the situation which led to the battle of Niḫriya in the past.

45. Cf. “Do not try to commit treason, to be independent (of me), (or) to commit evil deeds in (your present)

position” (CHD Š, 166b [s.v. šanḫ-, šaḫ- B, mng. 4e]). In this case, I wonder how practically different the second and
the third options are.

assyriologie_105.indd 206

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

2011]

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA’ AND ‘ḪATTI’

207

2. Return of the cities by Tukulti-Ninurta I to the king of Carchemish: KBo XVIII 25(+)

The Hittite letter KBo XVIII 25 (+) XXXI 69

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

GIŠ.TUKUL-ti-

IB-u[š] (3’) [… A-NA LUGAL KUR kar-q]a-miš 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 A-

⸢BU⸣-KA GIM-an (6’)

[…

U]RU.DIDLI.ḪÁ A-NA LUGAL KUR kar-ga-maš SUM-ta (7’) […] x-aḫ-ḫu-un na-at ŠEŠ-

⸢IA⸣ [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,” (l. 5’) refers to Tukulti-Ninurta I, who was
mentioned before (l. 2’), the addressee is to be his son and successor Aššur-nādin-apli (1196-94 B.C.), or
perhaps his son who succeeded later, Enlil-kudurri-uṣur (1187-83 B.C.).

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’) […]

⸢URU.a⸣-tar-x-pa-an QA-DU ⸢KUR⸣ URU.k[ar-ga-maš …] (5’) [… UR]U.šu-ru-wa-an-na

URU.en-du-wa-na […] (6’) […] x ar-ḫa ḫar-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 (l. 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).

In this case, it is legitimate to restore the

land of Carchemish in l. 4’ (cf. Mora and Giorgieri 2004: 103 n. 24) and to assume Enduwana (l. 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 (l. 4’),

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 Tudḫaliya IV: KBo XVIII 28+

KBo XVIII 28 + L 73 + Bo. 3626 is (a draft of) a Hittite royal letter

addressed to a king of Assyria. In

view of the quite antagonistic atmosphere between the correspondents, B. E. Alexandrov and A. V.
Sideltsev regard the addressee as Shalmaneser I, not Tukulti-Ninurta I, since during the latter’s reign the
relations with Ḫatti 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 (l. 9’).

48. Pointing out several analogies between KBo XVIII 25(+) and the Hittite letter KBo XVIII 48 from a king

of Ḫatti to Ḫešni, 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-

⸢ú⸣-ni (i.e., Šurun), instead of

]

-ru-

⸢ú⸣-ni

(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

UTU-ŠI (3.sg.) as well as in 1.sg. (ibid.: 121 n. 27).

assyriologie_105.indd 207

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

MASAMICHI YAMADA

[RA 105

208

open the question whether he was Ḫattušili III or Tudḫaliya IV (ibid.: 74). But let us look at the matter of
the correspondents again.

Let us read, for example, the following message of the Assyrian king cited in Hittite translation

to see the ugly atmosphere between the correspondents:

(i 8’) Why do you say in this same way: “If (only) we made the oath treaty in a friendly manner!? (9’) What
insult/slander is he hu[rlin]g? Why (10’) are you drawing the [b]ow for/to the p., and grabbing (it)? (10’-12’)
That first [tr]eaty tablet that we made in Kummaḫa,

put that very (-pat) [tablet] down [i]n front of yourself

and examine [i]t! Haven’[t] you sinned [in any w]ay against them (clauses

/words

of the tablet)?”

Although the tense relationship is evident enough, what to be noted here is the reference to “that first (or
former) [tr]eaty (lit. oath) tablet” (a-pa-a-at- … ṬUP-PU [MA]-MIT IGI-zi) in ll. 10'f. As far as I can tell,
Shalmaneser I never concluded a treaty with a king of Ḫatti, particularly with Ḫattušili III, whereas this
text presupposes the existence of a treaty-based relation of some duration between Ḫatti and Assyria.

is therefore probable that Shalmaneser is not the addressee. The following lines are suggestive when we
try to determine who the correspondents were:

(i 23’) [am-m]u-uk-ma-at-ta Ú-[UL … URU.a-ra-ši-ga-an] (24’) [UR]U.na-at-ki-na-an up-[x x x] x [x]
⸢KAR

⸣ x […] (25’) [n]u Ú-UL ú-wa-te-et n[u

U]TU-ŠI kiš-an nam-ma

⸢KA⸣ x [… Ú-UL] (26’) [t]a-la

-aḫ-ḫi

nu-ut-ta U[RU.a]-ra-ši-ga-an URU.na-at-ki-n[a-an(-na)] (27’) [SIL]IM-li pa-ra-a [Ú-UL] pí-iḫ-ḫu-[un]

I [do/did] n[ot …] (to) you(.) [… Arašiga] (and) Natkina … […]. You/He did not bring (here). His [Ma]jesty
(i.e., I) will no longer leave [the situation] as it is. (For) I did [not] han[d] over [A]rašiga (and) Natkin[a] to
you in peace.

These lines in all probability show that the Assyrian king deprived the Hittite king of his cities by force.
Arašiga

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, Tudḫaliya 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,

which is to be located on the left bank of the Euphrates near Til Barsip = Tell

Aḥmar.

Furthermore, the following lines refer to the building activities of the Assyrians, no doubt made

in the same area:

(iv 13’) ṬUP-PU MA-MIT-ma-mu ku-it TÀŠ-

⸢PUR⸣ ṬUP-PU MA-MIT-wa-mu ar-ḫa [da-a-aš]

(14’) nu zi-ik

wa-aš-ta-aš nu-kán A-NA ṬUP-PÍ MA-MIT ku-it DÙ-an [e-eš-ti]

(15’) nu URU.DIDLI.ḪÁ [z]i-ik ú-e-

⸢da⸣-

aš ki-nu-na >na< ú-e-tum-ma-a[n-zi nam

-ma

] (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-uk-

⸢ma ú-i-tum-ma-an⸣-[z]i ⸢EGIR⸣-an zi-ik-⸢ki⸣-š[i URU.DIDLI.ḪÁ] (18’) [ṬU]P-⸢PU

⸣-M[IT ku-it DÙ-an I-NA] ⸢É⸣ DINGIR-LIM ⸢GAR⸣-r[i]

(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., Kumaḫu in BATSH 4 2: 46. When one looks at maps (e.g., Bryce 2005: 22, Map 1), modern Samsat

situated on the route from Ḫarran to Ḫattušša 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 Niḫriya, chose it as the place for
concluding the treaty, Kumaḫu, 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)” (ll. 9’b-10’a) indicating the threatening behavior of the king of Ḫatti, see ibid.: 67f.

53. Although a text from Tell Taban suggests a reconciliation of Shalmaneser I with Tudḫaliya 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 (l. 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.; Lipiński 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.

assyriologie_105.indd 208

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

2011]

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA’ AND ‘ḪATTI’

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]emple.

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-Ninurta I: KUB III 73

Although the opening part of this Akkadian letter

is broken, the addresser is thought to be Tukulti-

Ninurta I (cf. ll. 10’f.), which would mean the addressee is Tudḫaliya IV.

Here, the former is trying to

conciliate the latter as follows:

(3’) [x x (x) i-na u

-m]i.MEŠ šar-ru-ut-ti-⸢ia⸣ ḫi-ṭu mi-nu-⸢um-mé-e⸣ [ø] (4’) [x x x (x)]

⸢a⸣-na KUR ša ŠEŠ-ia

iḫ-ṭí-ú-ni (5’) [x x (x)] x-AN ša ŠEŠ-ia EN ṭa-ab-ti-ka šu-ut (6’) [x x x x (x)] x-ma KUR-ka iḫ-ta-tab-bu-tu
(7’) [x x x x x (x)] KUR-ka-ma iḫ-ta-tab-bu-tu (8’) [x x x (x) a-na] KUR-ka ma-am-ma la-a iḫ-ṭí (9’) [x (x)
ḫa-a-ma ù] ḫu-ṣa-ba i-na qa-an-ni KUR-ka ma-am-ma la-a iš-ši [ø] /

(10’) [ŠEŠ-ia ṭé-e-ma]

⸢e⸣-pu-ša-an-ni a-bu-ia EN KÚR-ka 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)] x

ŠÀ-ka tu-ša-áš-ni (13’) [x x x x x (x) ṭ]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.
[…]-ilī 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.

[…] Did you change your mind? […] Why did you sen[d me] a

[m]essage like that? /

Most probably having been remonstrated with by Tudḫaliya 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 Ḫatti, 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 Ḫattušili III (1987: 144f.), the somewhat appeasing tone
of the addresser (see ll. 3’f., 6’f.) would not fit him. On the other hand, Freu maintains that this is a letter from
Tudḫaliya 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: 271f., 275f.). Furthermore, although he thinks that Tudḫaliya took Ḫurrian lands in the east of the Euphrates
from Assyria toward the end of Shalmaneser’s reign (ibid.: 275), this is improbable since Tudḫaliya 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 ll. 10’b-11’ are those of the

addresser, not citations of the message from “my brother.”

assyriologie_105.indd 209

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

MASAMICHI YAMADA

[RA 105

210

V. THE ‘ḪURRIAN’ 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, we would
expect it to be recorded in the contemporary Emar texts. In these texts, there are many references to the
years of “war” (nukurtu) and/or “famine” (dannatu) at least some of which were a result of a siege of the
city. As far as the datable cases are concerned, they are attested in the reigns of the last three kings known
to us: Zū-Aštarti son of Baʿlu-kabar (Emar VI 256: 10), Pilsu-Dagan son of Baʿlu-kabar (ASJ 12-T 16: 14;
TS 9: 21f. [see below]; cf. Emar VI 138: 11, 24, 41; 158: 14), and possibly also Elli son of Pilsu-Dagan
(cf. Iraq 54-T 4: 19!).

Zū-Aštarti probably died young, so that his brother Pilsu-Dagan succeeded the throne. Since

many texts belong to the reigns of Pilsu-Dagan and Elli, we may assign a full reign (20-30 years) for each
of them (as a trial, we here assign 25 years, the average). If the fall of Emar is dated to ca. 1175, the
chronological framework

would be as follows:

Kings of Assyria

Kings of Emar

Shalmaneser I

1263-34

Zū-Aštarti 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-uṣur 1187-83

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 ‘Ḫurrian’ attack on Emar

Although most of the Emar texts that refer to enemies do not identify them, there are references to two
groups as peoples who attacked Emar: the ‘Ḫurrians’ and the ‘TAR-PI people/troops.’ As for the latter,
we do not know what TAR-PI denotes,

and on the basis of a prosopographical analysis, their attack,

which caused hyper-inflation in Emar (for textual refs. see Yamada 1995: 98f.), is to be dated to the last
phase of its history (Yamada in press; cf. also 1995: 101). They are therefore out of our present concern.
As for the former, a ‘Ḫurrian’ attack in the reign of Pilsu-Dagan is known. The relevant part of Emar VI
42 reads:

61. See Yamada 1995: 108-110, 112 n. h. Although Elli had a son named

Baʿlu-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

Baʿlu-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
līmu of Bēr-nāṣir (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 Tukultī to his lord Yaṣi-
Dagan (without title), in which a Kaštil[iyaš] is referred to in l. 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 Yaṣi-Dagan, who was mentioned together with Tukultī, as the king
of Emar and son of

Baʿlu-malik, i.e., grandfather of both Zū-Aštarti 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 Yaṣi-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.

assyriologie_105.indd 210

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

2011]

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA’ AND ‘ḪATTI’

211

(9) LUGAL ÉRIN.MEŠ KUR ḫur

-ri (10) URU.e-mar i-la-mi-in (11) ù

pí-sú-

KUR IGI.2-šu (12) a-na

iš-ši-ma ù

U (13) eg-re-ti MUŠEN GI ša ŠÀ-šu (14) i-dì-na-šu ù ÉRIN.MEŠ ḫu-ra-du (15) ša ŠÀ-šu u

BÀD-šu TÉŠ.BA

nak

(or <na>-ak

)-ra-šu (16) im-ḫa-aṣ ù URU.e-mar ú-ba-li-iṭ

(When) the king of the people of the land of Ḫurri harmed Emar, Pissu(=Pilsu)-Dagan lifted up his eyes to
Baʿlu (for help). Then Baʿlu gave him auspices (indicating) peace on its inside, defeated the ḫurādu-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 Ḫurrian 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 ḫur-[ri] (35) URU.e-mar.K[I i-la-mi-in]
The year (when) the king of the people of Ḫur[ri harmed] Emar

ASJ 12-T 7: (29) i-nu-ma ÉRIN.MEŠ ḫur-ri (30) BÀD URU.e-mar.KI il-mi

When the people of Ḫurri besieged the city wall of Emar

TS 9: (21) i-na KÚR.KÚR KALA-ti ša

ḫur-ri (22) :BÀD il-mi-ma

In the (year of) war (and) famine when Ḫurri besieged the city wall (of Emar)

Who is the LUGAL ÉRIN.MEŠ KUR Ḫurri (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 Ḫurri-land,”
proposed that he was “the Assyrian grand vizier and commander-in-chief who, in addition, carried the
title ‘king of Ḫanigalbat’ and was called at Emar by the familiar Syrian version of the title,”

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 Ḫanigalbat.

However, Astour’s thesis has not been accepted by other scholars, who prefer to take the above

title simply as “king of the Ḫurrians.” Although M. R. Adamthwaite failed to make this Ḫurrian 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 Ḫurrian king as a chief of the band of the
Ḫurrian mountaineers in the north (2003: 113). According to E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, recruitment of
Ḫurrian contingents in the Assyrian military service is hardly conceivable (2008b: 95). She suggests the
possibility of Eḫli-Tešub, king of Alzi, who fled before the army of Tukulti-Ninurta I (RIMA 1, A.0.78.1:
iv 6-11), 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) Ḫurri” (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 šu

-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 Ḫurrian 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 Alalaḫ: LUGAL

ÉRIN.MEŠ ḫur-ri.KI (Idrimi inscription: 44; cf. also ll. 46, 49) and LUGAL ÉRIN.MEŠ ḫur-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 Ḫurrian 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 Ḫanigalbat, the land in their
minds was the Ḫurrian vassal kingdom of Assyria in ca. 1268-65 B.C. (Skaist 1998: 64-67) or the Ḫurrian
protectorate of Ḫatti at the beginning of the thirteenth century B.C. (Cohen and d’Alfonso 2008: 22).

assyriologie_105.indd 211

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

MASAMICHI YAMADA

[RA 105

212

of ḫurādu

(Emar VI 42: 14). Based on these points alone, it seems to me natural that the first candidate

for that entity is Assyrian Ḫanigalbat. In fact, we have no other appropriate candidate. Obviously the
Suteans between the Euphrates and the Baliḫ or elsewhere do not meet these conditions, and the Ḫurrians
living in Assyrian Ḫanigalbat, of course, did not have their own king. Although the Ḫurrians in the
mountainous regions to the further north are known to have raided the Assyrian territory (e.g., BATSH 4
8: 54’-57’; cf. also 7: 1”-16”), it is quite difficult to assume that they moved the long distance across
Assyrian Ḫanigalbat to attack Emar (and then went back to their homeland). As for the king of Alzi, he
fled “to the (very) border of Nairi, to an unknown land,” as A. K. Grayson understood in apposition
(1987: 236), thus not to the south.

3. The ‘Ḫurrian’ (re)building of Šumu

Our interpretation may further be supported by the following texts reporting that those ‘Ḫurrians’ carried
out a building activity, no doubt after conquest, in the Great Bend area:

Emar VI 15: MU-tu (36) LUGAL

ÉRIN.[MEŠ] ḫur

-ri URU.šu-ma i-pu-uš

The year (when) the king of the peopl[e] of Ḫurri (re)built Šumu

RE 70: (28) i-nu-ma LUGAL ÉRIN.ME<Š> ḫur-ri (29) URU.šu-ma.KI i-pu-uš
When the king of the people of Ḫurri (re)built Šumu

We know that Šumu was a city situated in the vicinity of Emar, since the sons of Zū-Baʿla appeared with
the elders of Šumu in court for a lawsuit on the ownership of a field in Šumu but finally agreed that it
belonged to Iṣṣur-Dagan son of Baʿlu-kabar, i.e., a prince of Emar (ASJ 14-T 43: 1-17). It is worth noting
also that the NIN.DINGIR of Šumu was involved in the festival of the installation of the NIN.DINGIR of
Baʿlu in Emar (Emar VI 369; see Fleming 1992). On the consecration day, the day before the festival
proper starts, she sits at one of five prepared tables, together with the (spirit of the dead) previous
NIN.DINGIR, the mašʾartu-priestess, the king of the land of Emar, and the king of Šatappu (Text A: 15-
17; on l. 16 see Text C).

Since it is impossible to build an already existent city anew, the verb epēšu (Emar VI 15: 36; RE

70: 29) is to be understood as denoting rebuilding one that has been destroyed (cf. M. Yamada 2000: 129
n. 6) or as fortifying the city (Durand and Marti 2003: 151f.). In any case, these texts immediately remind
us of building cities in the upper ME region after the Assyrian conquest (KBo XVIII 28: iv 15’f.).
Although neither Emar VI 15 nor RE 70 provides any chronological clue for dating them to the reign of
Pilsu-Dagan, it can be accepted that there is no more suitable time for them than that of the above heavy
attack on Emar by the ‘Ḫurrians.’ In view of this similarity in area and period, it seems likely to regard
the ‘Ḫurrian’ (re)building of Šumu as a part of the Assyrian building activities in the reign of Tukulti-
Ninurta I.

Based on the above considerations, we may conclude that “(the land of) Ḫurri” in the Emar texts

treated in this section denotes Assyrian Ḫanigalbat and that its “king” must be the grand vizier when
BATSH 10 2 was drawn up.

The reason why the entity of the enemy attacking Emar was not called

Assyria is clear: the Emarite scribes intended to show the king who attacked them was not the king of
Assyria proper, but that of its satellite state, which ruled the Ḫurrian population in Ḫanigalbat.

In this

70. For ḫurādu see Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 133 (note on BATSH 4 8: 25’) and nn. 71-73 (for previous

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!) ‘Ḫurrian’ king other than the ruler of Assyrian Ḫanigalbat. 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 Ḫurrian kingdom of Ḫanigalbat. In this meaning, ‘the king of the people

(ÉRIN.MEŠ) of (the land of) Ḫurri’ can be understood as a general appellation used by those outside Ḫanigalbat in

assyriologie_105.indd 212

17/12/12 15:20

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 109.243.68.227 - 30/05/2015 15h13. © Presses Universitaires de France

2011]

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA’ AND ‘ḪATTI’

213

case, since the cities that Assyrian Ḫanigalbat 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 Ḫatti, 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.

With regard to the generations of the people attested in the Emar texts,

he was contemporary with

IM-qarrād of the family of Zū-Baʿla, 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 KALAM.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 Tudḫaliya IV toward
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 Niḫriya resulting in the Assyrian victory (RSOu VII 46;

cf. KBo IV 14) — at the beginning of the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta

(3)

Conclusion of a peace treaty in Kumaḫu (cf. KBo XVIII 28+) — several years after (2)

(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 Assyrian

Ḫanigalbat (KBo XVIII 28+; cf. BATSH 10 2; KBo XVIII 25(+)) with building activities (KBo XVIII
28+; Emar VI 15; RE 70): e.g., Šumu, Araziqu/Arašiga, Šuruwa(n)na, Enduwana, and Natkina; cf. also
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 25(+)) — soon

after (5)?

At the time of (7), probably a new peace treaty was concluded or the former one was

reconfirmed between Tukulti-Ninurta and Tudḫaliya.

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

Alalaḫ and Emar, rather than as a well-established title. Cf. the ‘land of Ḫurri’ (KUR ḫur-ri-ia), the GN used by a
king of Ḫatti for referring to the Ḫurrian state of Ḫanigalbat 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 Aḫī-malik, “the last

LÚ

UGULA, ‘governor (of the land)’,” as follows: “This governor, it can be

argued, was acting independently after the fall of Ḫatti, 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 Aḫī-malik used the seal of Laḫeya on BLMJE 2 (see Westenholz 2000: 7, 81f., pl.
V), it seems to me better to regard him as the successor of Laḫeya, and Tuwariša as the last title bearer (Yamada in
press; cf. Cohen and d’Alfonso 2008: 15 n. 57).

assyriologie_105.indd 213

17/12/12 15:20

MASAMICHI YAMADA

[RA 105

214

necessary to set the improvement of the relations with Ḫatti in the Assyrian historical context at that time,
in which another military-political process of significance was ongoing.

2. Correlation with the process of the conquest of Babylonia

The līmu of Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat is known as the year Tukulti-Ninurta I captured Kaštiliyaš IV and
finally conquered Babylonia.

Concerning the relations between Assyria and Ḫatti in this year, let us see

the Dūr-Katlimmu texts. For example, in BATSH 4 6 (see also Faist 2001: 130-135; date: VI.27 [ll. 2”f.])
the merchants of the king of Carchemish and of Taki-Šarruma, the ‘prefect of the land,’

visited

Assyrian Ḫanigalbat and carried out business at several places (ll. 16’-24’a). Although in the end their
caravan was raided on the way to Pendibe

(ll. 24’b-32’), it is obvious that the relations between

Assyrian Ḫanigalbat and Carchemish were peaceful. BATSH 4 13 (see also Faist 2001: 135-138; date:
VII.24 [l. 29]) too reports on the merchants of Emar visiting Aššur (ll. 5-12).

The situation is similar in the līmu of Ninuʾāyu, most likely the next year (Bloch 2010: 22, 25).

The texts from Ḫarbe (Tell Ḫuwēra) show that envoys from various western countries passed there on the
way to or back from Aššur early in this year (VFMOS 2.III 22-28; cf. also nos. 56-57). The most
probable reason for attracting those foreign delegates within a period of only six weeks must have been
the Assyrian conquest of Babylonia.

Among those states that paid courtesy visits to Tukulti-Ninurta I,

we find Ḫatti (nos. 24-26) and its vassal Amurru (no. 23). In the former case, the envoy was no ordinary
diplomat, but Teli-Šarruma (24: 14; 25: 14; 26: 15), i.e., Tili-Šarruma, prince of Carchemish.

This

selection seems to reflect how significant for Ḫatti this mission was (Kühne 1995: 211; Jakob 2003a:
104, 109).

However, the above amicable attitude of Ḫatti 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 Ḫatti and Babylonia.

One may regard that Ḫatti 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 Ḫatti did not dispatch auxiliaries to
Babylonia when it was about to be conquered by Assyria, even going through Assyrian Ḫanigalbat. In
this respect, I would suggest linking that shift with the above conquest of the upper ME cities by
Assyrian Ḫanigalbat 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 Tudḫaliya IV did
not resist Assyria when it conquered Babylonia but accepted its victory?

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 māti) 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 Tudḫaliya 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: 114; 2007: 290.
81. For this Hittite dignitary, see Kühne 1995: 211. The same Tili-Šarruma is attested also in an Emar text

(ASJ 6-T [= ASJ 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.III 23), some scholars assume it was

an attempt to defect from the vassalage of Ḫatti (Faist 2001: 224f.; Jakob 2003a: 110). However, another
interpretation seems to me possible in the above historical context: with permission of Ḫatti, 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.

assyriologie_105.indd 214

17/12/12 15:20

2011]

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA’ AND ‘ḪATTI’

215

alliance must have been profitable for both of the kingdoms, although Ḫatti was obliged to abandon its
old ally to recover the lost territory.

Thanks to the texts from Dūr-Katlimmu, the sequence of līmus in the early and middle phases of

Tukulti-Ninurta I’s reign has more or less been firmly reconstructed; their sequence from at least TN1
(Tukulti-Ninurta) to TN16 (Aššur-zēra-iddina) has been agreed upon among scholars.

Although the

līmu of Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat, when Assyria conquered Babylonia, is after TN16, Aššur-iddin was the
grand vizier in that year, as in TN16, and in the līmu of Aššur-mušabši (Jakob 2003b: 56). As for līmus to
be dated between TN16 and the līmu of Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat, H. Freydank proposed Abī-ilī and
Salmānu-šuma-uṣur (2005: 50), Röllig had Abī-ilī, Bēr-nādin-apli(?), Salmānu-šuma-uṣur and Ellil-
nādin-apli(?) (2008: 4), and S. Jakob had Ellil-nādin-apli (2009: 3). However, as shown by Y. Bloch
(2010: 4, 25), since Abī-ilī and Salmānu-šuma-uṣur are sequential (see MARV II 17: 89f.) and belong to
the period of Salmānu-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 līmus, Bloch proposed the līmu of Aššur-mušabši (2010: 23-25; cf. also

Llop 2010: 114). This seems likely, especially if Salmānu-mušabši held the office of grand vizier in the
līmu of Ninuʾāyu (so Jakob 2003a: 107; 2009: 9). Furthermore, I would like to add the above līmu of
Ellil-nādin-apli, in view of the fact that Araziqa was under Assyrian control in this year (BATSH 10 2: 9;
date: III.10 [l. 19]). There is no doubt that as long as Tukulti-Ninurta I did not return the conquered cities,
no peace with Ḫatti could have been expected. At the same time, this dating explains well why the people
(soldiers) of Carchemish were held in Aššukanni in the līmu of Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat (cf. BATSH 4 2: 4;
date: IV.20 [l. 67]): simply because there had been a military conflict with Carchemish in a previous year,
although we do not know exactly in which year (līmu) it took place.

If no more līmu is assigned before Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat, on the basis of the suggestion that a

locust plague attested or implied in the texts from Dūr-Katlimmu (BATSH 4 2-4) and Ḫarbe (VFMOS
2.III 2, 9-10) continued from the līmu of Ellil-nādin-apli to that of Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat (de Ridder 2011:
126f.), I tentatively date the former to TN18 and the latter to TN19

(then the līmu of Aššur-mušabši to

TN17). This means that a drastic change in the Assyro-Hittite relations from hostile due to the second
military conflict to friendly occurred in TN18 or at the latest in the early TN19.

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 TN18, when Assyria was still hostile to Ḫatti, the process of Assyrian conquest of
Babylonia was ongoing (see Table 1).

In this situation, it seems quite likely that Tukulti-Ninurta I

84. See Freydank 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-pî-Aššur) to TN16 (Aššur-zēra-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 līmu of
Ellil-nādin-apli (VFMOS 2.III 2) is to be dated three or four years before that of Bēr-išmânni (no. 38). If this is
correct, since the former is TN18 and the līmus of Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat and

Ninuʾāyu are TN19-20, the latter must

be regarded as TN 21, and the sequential līmus of Abī-ilī and Salmānu-šuma-uṣur 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 (līmu of Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat in l. 43) and A.0.78.18 (līmu of Aššur-bēl-ilāni [= TN15] in l. 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 ll. 1-6; date:

IV.6 [l. 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 (ll. 14-17) is unrelated to the second military conflict in
the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I, since its līmu Sîn-[…] (l. 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.

assyriologie_105.indd 215

17/12/12 15:20

MASAMICHI YAMADA

[RA 105

216

wanted to avoid a second front forming in the West. Probably he hastened to return the cities in the upper
ME region, particularly when Tudḫaliya IV threatened to make war against him (as suggested in KBo
XVIII 28+: i 25’-27’). Furthermore, if the above reconstruction is correct, it would mean that “the king of
the people of the land of Ḫurri” who attacked Emar (Emar VI 42: 9) was the grand vizier Aššur-iddin.

Table 1: The Historical Setting for the Second Military Conflict

Abbreviations: AI = Aššur-iddin; (g)v = (grand) vizier; TN = (regnal year of) Tukulti-Ninurta I

līmu

Concerning Babylonia

Concerning the West

13 Etel-pî-Aššur

v Kassite captives in Kār-Tukulti-

Ninurta and an expedition to
Babylonia (MARV I 1); an
expedition to Suḫu (MARV IV
27, 30)

Assyrian district governor in
Tuttul (Tell Sabi Abyad T 97-3)

14 Uṣur-namkūr-šarri v

15 Aššur-bēl-ilāni

16 Aššur-zēra-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
cultic purpose (MARV VIII 7)

17 Aššur-mušabši gv

18 Ellil-nādin-apli

Araziqa under Assyrian control
(BATSH 10 2); visits by Hittite
envoys, one to Aššukanni and the
other to Aššur (VFMOS 2.III 54)

19 Ina-Aššur-šumī-

aṣbat

gv TN’s conquest of Babylonia

with capture of Kaštiliyaš IV
(BATSH 4 9-10; DeZ 4022;
RIMA 1, A.0.78.6); Kassite
captives in Aššukanni (BATSH
4 2); siege of Lubdu (BATSH 4
11-12)

Escape of the Carchemishean
captives from Aššukanni
(BATSH 4 2); trading by the
merchants of Carchemish in
Assyrian Ḫanigalbat (BATSH 4
6); visit to Aššur by the
merchants of Emar (BATSH 4
13)

20 Ninuʾāyu

–

Visits to Aššur by envoys from
various states including Ḫatti
(VFMOS 2.III 22-28)

Although he lost the new territory, Tukulti-Ninurta I succeeded in winning over Ḫatti to his side

in its stead, so that he could concentrate his power on the final defeat on Babylonia and putting it under
his rule. This alliance, however, does not seem to have been as solid as he expected. Although Tukulti-
Ninurta kept on good terms with Ḫatti, when he later met difficulties in connection with Babylonia,
probably Tudḫaliya IV and certainly his son Šuppiluliuma II reacted with silence, as he reproaches in
KBo XXVIII 61 (+) 62: obv. 12’f. (qālātunu), 15’f. (qālāta).

88. KBo XXVIII 61-64 (in indirect join) is an Akkadian letter from Tukulti-Ninurta I in the latest phase of

his reign (līmu of Ilī-padâ in 61: left edge 6) to Šuppiluliuma II, edited most recently in Mora and Giorgieri 2004:
113-127 (no. 8; with previous literature in p. 113). On this text see Singer 2008b: 223-227; cf. Freu 2007: 285f.

assyriologie_105.indd 216

17/12/12 15:20

2011]

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA’ AND ‘ḪATTI’

217

VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS

“Many years” after the battle of Niḫriya was fought between Tukulti-Ninurta I and Tudḫaliya IV in TN1
(or perhaps TN2), a second military conflict broke out between ‘Assyria’ and ‘Ḫatti’ on the upper ME in
the middle of the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta. It was actually a local conflict between Assyrian Ḫanigalbat
(of Aššur-iddin) and Carchemish (of Talmi-Tešub), in which the former invaded the latter’s territory and
conquered cities in the Great Bend area and its northern vicinity. However, this was immediately taken
up at the imperial level as a diplomatic issue between Assyria and Ḫatti. Through the negotiations with
Tudḫaliya, Tukulti-Ninurta, who was still engaged in conquering Babylonia, probably soon agreed to
return the cities to Carchemish and, in its exchange, Tudḫaliya took the side of Assyria. The peaceful
relations between the Assyrian and the Hittite empires discerned in the Assyrian texts in TN19-20 are to
be understood as a result.

The second military conflict is thus significant, firstly, because it caused Ḫatti 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 Ḫanigalbat 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 Tudḫaliya did not admit that he had handed over the cities, Tukulti-Ninurta was reproached
for their conquest by Assyrian Ḫanigalbat 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 Ḫanigalbat, Aššur-iddin, and the substantial synchronism of King Pilsu-Dagan with Tukulti-
Ninurta I and Tudḫaliya 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 Tudḫaliya 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 Ḫatti.

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 Ḫanigalbat, not to Assyria proper.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrahami, P. 2005: “À propos de

« la porte de la rive opposée » dans Emar VI.3, 15 = Msk 7360,” NABU 2005, 3f.

(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 āššweni,” 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.

––– 1985-86: Recherches au pays d'Aštata: Emar VI.1-3, Paris.
––– 1987: “La Syrie du moyen-Euphrate sous le protectorat hittite: contrats de droit privé,” AuOr 5, 211-241.
––– 1991: Textes syriens de l’âge du Bronze récent (AuOrS 1), Sabadell.
––– 1992: “Tablettes de genres divers du moyen-Euphrate,” SMEA 30, 195-245.

assyriologie_105.indd 217

17/12/12 15:20

MASAMICHI YAMADA

[RA 105

218

––– 2003: “Prolégomènes à la redaction d’une histoire d’Ougarit III: Ougarit et Tukulti-Ninurta,” SMEA 45, 7-20.
Astour, M. C. 1996: “Who Was the King of the Hurrian Troops at the Siege of Emar?” in: M. W. Chavalas (ed.),

Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age, Bethesda,
Md., 25-56.

Beckman, G. 1996: Texts from the Vicinity of Emar in the Collection of Jonathan Rosen (History of the Ancient Near

East / Monographs II), Padova.

––– 1999: Hittite Diplomatic Texts

(Writings from the Ancient World 7), Atlanta, Ga.

Beckman, G., et al. (eds.) 2003: Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th

Birthday, Winona Lake, Ind.

Belmonte Marín, J. A. 2001: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Texte aus Syrien im 2. Jt. v. Chr. (RGTC 12.2),

Wiesbaden.

Bloch, Y. 2008: “The Order of Eponyms in the Reign of Shalmaneser I,” UF 40, 143-178.
––– 2010: “The Order of Eponyms in the Reign of Tukultī-Ninurta I,” Or. 79, 1-35.
Boese, J. 1982: “Burnaburiaš II, Melišipak und die mittelbabylonische Chronologie,” UF 14, 15-26.
––– 2009: “Murmuriga und Nappigu: Zur historischen Topographie am nördlichen syrischen Euphrat vom 15. bis

zum 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr.,” MDOG 141, 65-84.

Boese, J., and G. Wilhelm 1979: “Aššur-dān I., Ninurta-apil-Ekur und die mittelassyrische Chronologie,” WZKM 71,

19-38.

Bordreuil, P., et. al. 1991: Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville (Ras Shamra-Ougarit VII), Paris.
Bryce, T. 2005: The Kingdom of the Hittites (new ed.), Oxford.
Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. (C.) 1996: Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall

Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr Katlimmu 4), Berlin.

––– 1999: “Nebenlinien des assyrischen Königshauses in der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jts. v. Chr.,” AoF 26, 210-222.
––– 2008a: “Assur und Hatti: Zwischen Allianz und Konflikt,” in: Wilhelm (ed.) 2008: 205-222.
––– 2008b: “Emar aus der Perspektive Assurs im 13. Jh. v. Chr.,” in: d’Alfonso et al. (eds.) 2008: 91-99.
––– 2009: “Ortsnamenreihungen als Quellen zur historischen Geographie: Der Westen des mittelassyrischen

Reiches unter Tukultī-Ninurta I,” in: Cancik-Kirschbaum and Ziegler (eds.) 2009:121-150.

Cancik-Kirschbaum, E., and N. Ziegler (eds.) 2009: Entre les fleuves - 1: Untersuchungen zur historischen

Geographie Obermesopotamiens im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (BBVO 20), Gladbeck.

Charpin, D. 2001: Review of Belmonte Marín 2001, RA 95, 190f.
Cohen, Y., and L. d’Alfonso 2008: “The Duration of the Emar Archives and the Relative and Absolute Chronology

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 Bronze Age Empires: History, Landscape, and

Society (AOAT 349), Münster.

Dalley, S., and B. Teissier 1992: “Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar and Elsewhere,” Iraq 54, 83-111, pls. X-XIV.
de Odorico, M. 1995: The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (SAAS 3),

Helsinki.

de Ridder, 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, Ibirānu (VI.) von Ugarit und Tudḫalija IV. von Ḫatti: RS 34.165

und die Schlacht von Niḫrija zwischen den Hethitern und Assyrern,” UF 35, 103-139.

–––

2004:

“Salmanassar I. von Assyrien, Ibirānu (VI.) von Ugarit und Tudḫalija IV. von Ḫatti: Ein

Korrekturnachtrag,” UF 36, 41f.

Durand, J.-M., and L. Marti 2003: “Chroniques du Moyen-Euphrate 2: Relecture de documents d’Ekalte, Émar et

Tuttul,” RA 97, 141-180.

Dussaud, R. 1927: Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale, Paris.
Faist, B. I. 2001: Der Fernhandel des assyrischen Reiches zwischen dem 14. und 11. Jh. v. Chr. (AOAT 265),

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 geografia 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.

––– 2007: “La bataille de Niḫriia, RS 34.165, KBo 4.14 et la correspondance assyro-hittite,” in: D. Groddek and M.

Zorman (eds.), Tabularia Hethaeorum: Hethitologische Beiträge (Fs. Košak), Wiesbaden.

assyriologie_105.indd 218

17/12/12 15:20

2011]

THE SECOND MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN ‘ASSYRIA’ AND ‘ḪATTI’

219

Freydank, H. 1979: “Eine mittelassyrische Urkunde (KAJ 249) über den Metallhandel,” AoF 6, 269-271.
––– 1994: “Gewänder für einen Dolmetscher,” AoF 21, 31-33.
––– 2005: “Zu den Eponymenfolgen des 13. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in Dūr-Katlimmu,” AoF 32, 45-56.
Galter, H. D. 1988: “28.800 Hethiter,” JCS 40, 217-235.
Grayson, A. K. 1975: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS 5), Locust Valley, NY.
––– 1987: Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115) (RIMA 1), Toronto.
Gurney, O. R. 1949: “Texts from Dur-Kurigalzu,” Iraq 11, 131-149, pls. XL-XLI.
Hagenbuchner, A. 1989: Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter 2 (THeth. 16), Heidelberg.
Hallo, W. W. 1964: “The Road to Emar,” JCS 18, 57-88.
Harrak, A. 1987: Assyria and Hanigalbat: A Historical Reconstruction of Bilateral Relations from the Middle of the

Fourteenth to the End of the Twelfth Centuries B. C. (TSO 4), Hildesheim.

Helck, W. 1971: Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.

, Wiesbaden.

Hoffner, H. A. 2009: Letters from the Hittite Kingdom (Writings from the Ancient World 15), Atlanta, Ga.
Houwink ten Cate, P. 2006: “The Apparently Delayed Homecoming of Tudḫaliyaš IV to His Capital Ḫattuša,” in: T.

P. J. van den Hout (ed.), The Life and Times of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV (PIHANS 103 = Fs.
de Roos), Leiden, 107-115.

Jakob, S. 2001: “Aus Kindern werden Leute - Überlegungen zum mA Eponymen Ellil-nādin-apli,” NABU 2001, 93-

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.

––– 2003b: Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur: Untersuchungen (CM 29), Leiden.
––– 2009: Die mittelassyrischen Texte aus Tell Chuēra in Nordost-Syrien (Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max

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 Keilschrifttexte,” in: W. Orthmann (ed.),

Ausgrabungen in Tell Chuēra in Nordost-Syrien 1: Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagnen
1986 bis 1992 (Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 2),
Saarbrücken, 203-225.

Kühne, C., and H. Otten 1971: Der Šaušgamuwa-Vertrag (StBoT 16), Wiesbaden.
Lackenbacher, S. 1982: “Nouveaux documents d’Ugarit 1: Une lettre royale,” RA 76, 141-156.
Lipiński, E. 2000: The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100), Leuven.
Llop, J. 2010: “Barley from Ālu-ša-Sîn-rabi: Chronological Reflections on an Expedition in the Time of Tukultī-

Ninurta I (1233-1197 BC),” in: J. Vidal (ed.), Studies on War in the Ancient Near East: Collected
Essays on Military History (AOAT 372), Münster, 105-116.

Luciani, M. 1999-2001: “On Assyrian Frontiers and the Middle Euphrates,” SAAB 13, 87-114.
––– 2000: “Burmarʾina = URU Marina ša šadê,” NABU 2000, 40f. (no. 37).
––– 2001: “Where was Dunni-Aššur? Some reflections on DeZ 3281 and Middle-Assyrian toponymy,” NABU 2001,

1-3 (no. 1).

Miller, J. L. 2008: “Joins and Duplicates among the Boğazköy Tablets (31-45),” ZA 98, 117-137.
––– 2012: “The Location of Niḫriya and its Disassociation from Na'iri,” in: H. Baker et al. (eds.), Stories of long

ago (AOAT 397 = FS. Roaf), Münster, 349-372.

Mora, C., and M. Giorgieri 2004: Le lettere tra i re ittiti e i re assiri ritrovate a Ḫattuša (History of the Ancient Near

East / Monographs VII), Padova.

Otto, A. 2009: “Historische Geographie im Gebiet des Mittleren Euphrats zwischen Karkemiš und Tuttul zur

Mittleren und Späten Bronzezeit,” in: Cancik-Kirschbaum and Ziegler (eds.) 2009: 167-179.

Postgate, J. N. 1971: “Land Tenure in the Middle Assyrian Period: A Reconstruction,” BSOAS 34, 496-520.
Röllig, W. 1997: “Aspects of the Historical Geography of Northeastern Syria from Middle Assyrian to Neo-Assyrian

Times,” in: S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995, Helsinki, 281-293.

––– 2004: “Eponymen in den mittelassyrischen Dokumenten aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu,” ZA 94, 18-51.
––– 2008: Land- und Viehwirtschaft am unteren Ḫābūr in mittelassyrischer Zeit (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ

Ḥamad / Dūr Katlimmu 9), Wiesbaden.

Shibata, D. 2008: “The City of Ṭābetu and the Kings of the Land of Mari: Middle Assyrian Texts from the 2005

Excavation at Tell Taban,” Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 51.1, 69-86
(in Japanese with English summary ; see https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jorient).

Simons, J. 1937: Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia, Leiden.
Singer, I. 1985: “The Battle of Niḫriya and the End of the Hittite Empire,” ZA 75, 100-123.
––– 2003: “The Great Scribe Taki-Šarruma,” in: Beckman et al. (eds.) 2003: 341-348.
––– 2008a: “A Hittite-Assyrian Diplomatic Exchange in the Late 13th Century BCE,” SMEA 50, 713-720.

assyriologie_105.indd 219

17/12/12 15:20

MASAMICHI YAMADA

[RA 105-2011]

220

––– 2008b: “KBo 28.61-64 and the Struggle over the Throne of Babylon at the Turn of the 13

Century BCE,” in:

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 (serie 8) 20, 39-79.
Streck, M. P. 1997: Review of Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996, ZA 87, 271-276.
Talon, P. 2005: “Une nouvelle inscription de Tukulti-Ninurta I,” in: P. Talon and V. Van der Stede (eds.), Si un

homme… (Subartu XVI = Fs. Finet), Turnhout, 125-133.

Tsukimoto, A. 1984: “Eine neue Urkunde des Tili-Šarruma, Sohn des Königs von Karkamiš,” ASJ 6, 65-74.
––– 1988: “Sieben spätbronzezeitliche Urkunden aus Syrien,” ASJ 10, 153-189.
––– 1990: “Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collection (I),” ASJ 12, 177-259.
––– 1992: “Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collection (III),” ASJ 14, 289-310.
Weidner, E. F. 1923: Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien: Die Staatsverträge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem

Archiv von Boghazköi, Leipzig.

––– 1959: Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I. und seiner Nachfolger (AfO Beih. 12), Graz.
Westenholz, J. G. 2000: Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem: The Emar

Tablets (CM 13), Groningen.

Wiggerman, F. A. M. 2000: “Agriculture in the Northern Balikh Valley: The Case of Middle Assyrian Tell Sabi

Abyad,” in: R. M. Jas (ed.), Rainfall and Agriculture in Northern Mesopotamia: Proceedings of
the Third MOS Symposium (Leiden 1999) (PIHANS 88), Leiden, 171-231.

––– 2010: “Wein, Weib und Gesang in een midden-assyrische Nederzeiting aan de Balikh,” Phœnix 56, 17-60.
Wilhelm, G. 2003-05: “Papḫû (Māt Papḫî),” RlA 10, 324f.
Wilhelm, G. (ed.) 2008: Ḫattuša — Boğazköy: Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients (Colloquien

der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 6), Wiesbaden.

Wiseman, D. J. 1953: The Alalakh Tablets, London.
––– 1956: Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, London.
––– 1968: “The Tell al Rimah Tablets, 1966,” Iraq 30, 175-205, pls. LVII-LXVI.
Yamada, M. 1994a: “An Introduction to the Chronology of the Emar Texts: Absolute Chronology and

Synchronisms,” Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 37.1, 17-34 (in
Japanese with English summary; see https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jorient).

––– 1994b: “The Northern Border of the Land of Aštata,” ASJ 16, 261-268.
––– 1995: “Year Dates in the Emar Texts: Data and Preliminary Remarks,” Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern

Studies in Japan 38.1, 96-112 (in Japanese with English summary; see https://www.
jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jorient).

––– 1998: “The Family of Zū-Baʿla the Diviner and the Hittites,” in: S. Izre’el et al. (eds.), Past Links: Studies in the

Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East (IOS 18 = Fs. Rainey), Winona Lake, Ind.,
323-334.

––– 2000: “Year Dates and Scribes in Emar,” Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 43.2, 117-

131 (in Japanese with English summary; see https://www. jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jorient).

––– 2006a: “The Hittite Administration in Emar: The Aspect of Direct Control,” ZA 96, 222-234.
––– 2006b: “Lift Up Your Eyes! Emar VI 42 in the Light of a Ugaritic Prayer,” Orient: Reports of the Society for

Near Eastern Studies in Japan 41, 127-143.

––– in press: “The ‘Chiefs of the Land’ in the Emar Texts,” ASJ 21 (1999).
Yamada, S. 2000: The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III

(859-824 B.C.) Relating to His Campaigns to the West (Culture and History of the Ancient Near
East 3), Leiden.

––– 2003: “Tukulti-Ninurta I’s Rule over Babylonia and Its Aftermath: A Historical Reconstruction,” Orient:

Reports of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 38, 153-177 (see https://www.
jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/orient1960).

Zaccagnini, C. 1995: “War and Famine at Emar,” Or. 64, 92-109.
Zadok, R. 1985: Geographical Names According to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts (RGTC 8), Wiesbaden.

Chuo University, Tokyo

masamuwa@gmail.com

assyriologie_105.indd 220

17/12/12 15:20

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
China the whys of the conflict between church and state Vatican Insider
Finland In The Second World War Between Germany and Russia
Exchange of Goods and Ideas between Cyprus and Crete in the ‚Dark Ages’
Ideals and action in the reign of Otto III
Miller William Ian Audun and the Polar Bear Luck, Law, and Largesse in a Medieval Tale of Risky Bus
LINKAGES BETWEEN CITIZENS AND POLITICIANS IN DEMOCRATIC POLITIES
The Reign of Terror
Dragonlance Tales II 01 The Reign of Istar # edited by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman
The Reign of Istar Richard A Knaak
The Reign of Law A Tale of the Kentucky Hemp Fields by James Lane Allen
kody do Warcraft 3 The reign of chaos
Dr Who Target 119 The Reign of Terror # Ian Marter
A Behavioral Genetic Study of the Overlap Between Personality and Parenting
Lumiste Tarski's system of Geometry and Betweenness Geometry with the Group of Movements
A Behavioral Genetic Study of the Overlap Between Personality and Parenting
Testing the Relations Between Impulsivity Related Traits, Suicidality, and Nonsuicidal Self Injury
Piotr Siuda Between Production Capitalism and Consumerism The Culture of Prosumption
Suke Wolton Lord Hailey, the Colonial Office and the Politics of Race and Empire in the Second Worl
Kruczkowska, Joanna Openness and Light in the Dialogue between the North and the South Selected Poe

więcej podobnych podstron