Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T02:04:04.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Look at the Chronology of Alalakh Level VII

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Nadav Na'aman
Nadav Na'aman
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Alalakh tablets were published by Wiseman in 1953, and in subsequent years the main chronological problems raised by them have been treated in numerous studies. Already in 1954, Landsberger, in a comprehensive paper on the chronology, determined that the Alalakh archive was later than the days of BḪammurapi and the destruction of Mari, and suggested identifying YḪammurapi (end of the period of the Mari archives) with YḪammurapi the father of YAbbael, the first ruler of Yamḫad mentioned in the Alalakh tablets. Landsberger thus was able to form a chronological continuity between the rulers known from the Mari archives (including BḪammurapi) and the rulers known from the Alalakh archives. This suggestion was generally accepted among scholars subsequently dealing with the Alalakh material.

In the same paper, Landsberger set out a full reconstruction of the dynasties ruling in Yamḫad and in Alalakh in the period of the archive from level VII. This scheme has been modified slightly by Smith, Goetze, and Kupper, in the years following, demonstrating that YIrkabtum, who appears in the year-names in several documents from the archive (AT 33, 38, 54, 58, 64 and 65) was the heir of YNiqmiepuḫ, and contemporary with AAmmitaqum. Thus, it was determined that, in the period of the Alalakh archive, the following six kings ruled in succession at Ḫaleb: YAbbael, YYarimlim II, YNiqmiepuḫ, YIrkabtum, YḪammurapi II, YYarimlim III (the latter two are often listed in reverse order). The first four kings of this list are noted in father-son relationships, while the relationships of the two latter are unknown.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 26 , December 1976 , pp. 129 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wiseman, D. J.: The Alalakh Tablets, London 1953Google Scholar. The abbreviations used here are according to Borger, R.: Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur II, Berlin 1975Google Scholar.

2 Landsberger, B., JCS 8 (1954), pp. 51 ff.Google Scholar; Albright, W. F., BASOR 144 (1956), pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar; idem, BASOR 146 (1957), pp. 26 ff.; Goetze, A., BASOR 146 (1957), pp. 20 ff.Google Scholar; idem, JCS 11 (1957), pp. 68 ff.; Smith, S., AnSt 6 (1956), pp. 39 ff.Google Scholar; idem, RSO 32 (1957), pp. 155 ff.; Nagel, W. and Strommenger, E., JCS 12 (1958), pp. 109 ff.Google Scholar; Draffkorn-Kilmer, Anne: Hurrians and Hurrian at Alalaḫ: An Ethno-Linguistic Analysis. Ann Arbor (Mich.) 1959, pp. 10 ff.Google Scholar; Cornelius, F., RHA 66 (1960), pp. 19 ff.Google Scholar; Kupper, J. R.: Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari, Paris 1957, p. 233, n. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, CAH II/1, pp. 31 ff.; Rowton, M. B., CAH I/1, pp. 212 ff.Google Scholar; Klengel, H.: Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. (henceforth GS) I–III, Berlin 1965, 1969–1970Google Scholar; Tadmor, H., in The World History of the Jewish People II (ed. Mazar, B.), Tel-Aviv 1970, pp. 76 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 Throughout the present study, we have prefixed superior letters (“determinatives”) to the names of certain rulers to ensure immediate recognition and distinction of homonyms of different kingdoms: Babylon, e.g. BḪammurapi; Yamḫad, e.g. YḪammurapi, YYarimlim; Alalakh, e.g AYarimlim. It is hoped that other scholars will find this device of sufficient merit to adopt it in similar contexts.

4 Landsberger, B., JCS 8 (1954), pp. 51 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 Smith, S., AnSt 6 (1956), p. 39, n. 4Google Scholar; idem, RSO 32 (1957), pp. 173 ff.

6 Goetze, A., BASOR 146 (1957), pp. 21, 24Google Scholar.

7 J. R. Kupper, op. cit. (above, n. 2), p. 233, n. 1.

8 Otten, H., MDOG 91 (1958), pp. 75 ff.Google Scholar; Gurney, O. R., CAH II/1, pp. 241 fGoogle Scholar.

9 Landsberger, B., JCS 8 (1954), p. 52Google Scholar; Otten, H., MDOG 86 (1953), pp. 60 ffGoogle Scholar.

10 Albright, W. F., BASOR 144 (1956), pp. 27 f.Google Scholar; Goetze, A., BASOR 146 (1957), p. 23Google Scholar; Rowton, M. B., CAH II/1, p. 213Google Scholar; H. Tadmor, op. cit. (above, n. 2), p. 78.

11 Note Rowton's, explicit statement (CAH I/1, p. 213Google Scholar) on this matter, as well as Kupper's, struggle (CAH II/1, pp. 31 fGoogle Scholar.) with the problem.

12 Kempinski, A., in his doctoral dissertation, Canaan [Syro-Palestine] during the Last Stage of the Middle Bronze Age IIB [1650–1550 B.C.] (Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1974, pp. 120 ff., 137 fGoogle Scholar. [Hebrew]) has suggested dating the campaigns mentioned in Ḫattušili I's Annals to late in his reign, fixing the destruction of Alalakh level VII some 15–20 years prior to the destruction of Ḫaleb by Muršili I. He has not, however, sought to apply this dating to the overall chronology of Alalakh level VII, and therefore is of no help in the problem at hand.

13 A. Draffkorn-Kilmer, op. cit. (above, n. 2), pp. 11 f.; Rowton, M. B., CAH I/1, p. 213, n. 2Google Scholar.

14 Goetze, A., BASOR 146 (1957), pp. 22, 24Google Scholar; cf. Nagel, W. and Strommenger, E., JCS 12 (1958), p. 109Google Scholar.

15 Smith, S. (AnSt 6 [1956], p. 39Google Scholar. n. 5) notes this difficulty, but his solution—that this AYarimlim was coregent with his father AAmmitaqum, and subsequently disappeared, while his father continued to rule—is, of course, pure speculation.

16 Smith, S., RSO 32 (1957), p. 178, n. 11Google Scholar; Klengel, H., GS I, p. 216Google Scholar, n. 25; Eichler, B. L.: Indenture at Nuzi, New Haven-London 1973, pp. 74 fGoogle Scholar.

17 Klengel, H., GS I, pp. 143 fGoogle Scholar.

18 The correct reading of lines 5–6 was pointed out by Oppenheim, A. L., JNES 14 (1955), 198Google Scholar; CAD I, p. 97aGoogle Scholar.

19 We offer a reinterpretation of AT 57:7–10, assuming that there is confusion at the ends of the lines in the facsimile (see pl. XVI there). The end of line 8 as given actually belongs to line 9, while the end of line 9 as given belongs to line 10. Thus, the lines should read, in transcription:

(7) A-[d]a!?-[bi-iš-šu-ra?]

(8) DUMU Sa-ap-[s]i-[e-da]

(9) KI Sa-ap-si-e-d [a DUM]U Ir-p[a]-dI[M!]

(10) [d]i-nam [i]g!?-[r]i!

Line 7: The name Adabiššura appears again in line 27 (and possibly also in line 33), as a party to the transaction. Thus, it is difficult to assume that this was the father of the Sapsieda appearing in line 2. This may be another indication of the frequent papponymy at Alalakh.

Line 9: The main difficulty in interpreting the entire document stems from the fact that it concerns two homonymous Sapsiedas. The first is of an earlier generation, and it was he who carried out the transaction with Irpadu which formed the bone of contention in the dispute recorded in our document (lines 1–4). The second Sapsieda was the son of Irpadu, “overseer of the merchants”, who appears on another tablet (AT 7, seal C)—written as Sa-am-su-dIM. This latter was the respondent in the litigation, and he is mentioned several times in the document (lines 15, 25, 28, 35), often with his father's name appended (lines 15, 25 and possibly 28), undoubtedly to avert confusion with the father of the claimant.

Line 10: Our reconstruction is based on parallel texts; cf. AT 7:3; 9:1; 11:28; 95: 6.

20 One Samsiadu son of Irpadu is noted in AT 60:6 as buying a house at the town of Ibla. The uncertainty as to the date of this tablet precludes our associating this Irpadu with his homonym in AT 57. We may note also that Mešarum, appearing as a witness before the judge in AT 57 (lines 19–20), was the brother of Sapsieda according to line 42 there. Therefore, might it be Sapsieda himself who appears as the last witness in the last line there, which should then read “Sapsieda, brother! of Mešarum”? For the appearance of one of the parties to a transaction as the final witness to a document, cf. AT 56:51.

21 For the expression ilu qerû, see n. 18, above, and AHw, p. 918b. For lines 7–8, cf. AT 7: 13–14; 455: 23–4.

22 This document was published by Wiseman, D. J., JCS 8 (1954), pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar, 30.

23 For previous discussions of AT 456, see Wiseman, D. J., JCS 12 (1958), pp. 124 ff.Google Scholar; Draffkorn-Kilmer, Anne, JCS 13 (1959), pp. 94 ff.Google Scholar; Klengel, H., GS I, pp. 137 ff.Google Scholar; Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O., UF 1 (1969), pp. 214 fGoogle Scholar. Draffkorn-Kilmer has noted the peculiar character of the formula mentioned in the document, suggesting a tripartite grouping of the towns mentioned at the opening: (a) AYarimlim gives the town of Uwiya and received in return eight towns (lines 1–9). (b) AYarimlim gives some territory and receives the town of Adrāte (lines 10–11). (c) A list of towns which rebelled against YAbbael, together with Irride (lines 13 ff.).

From the purely linguistic viewpoint, the towns of the last group could also be ascribed to the list of places given by AYarimlim in return for the town of Adrāte, for the formula GN ana pūḫāt GN2 could be extended at either extremity, if it was several places which were given or received. Thus, we must examine this document from another aspect: What was the location of the towns appearing in these lines? We must note that the list of towns in lines 1–8 is apparently confined to a specific geographical region (cf. Astour, M., UF 2 [1970]. pp. 3–6Google Scholar), and we can assume that this is so also of the other groups. Thus, we must ask whether these towns are situated in the vicinity of Irride (in which case they undoubtedly followed her in rebelling) or whether they were more distant. The only town of the list which has been identified is Murar, apparently located on the Ugarit-Alalakh border (cf. Klengel, H., GS I, p. 163, n. 20Google Scholar), and thus it was transferred to AYarimlim's ownership together with Alalakh proper. This leads us to assume that there is no connexion between the towns appearing in lines 13–17 and the town of Irride.

In this light, we may translate lines 10–17 alternatively: (a) “The town of Adrāte in exchange for territory located at [GN], (that is) GN2…,” where GN denotes a region in which the subsequent toponyms (GN2, etc.) were located or (b) “The town of Adrāte in exchange for territory located in [GN, as well as] the towns GN2…”, assuming that there was a conjunction at the end of line 12.

24 The existence of two kings named AAmmitaqum has been posited by Cornelius, F. (RHA 66 [1967], p. 22Google Scholar); this, however, is the only point of resemblance between his article and the present study.

25 For possible papponymy at Byblos, see Albright, W. F., BASOR 176 (1964), pp. 42 fGoogle Scholar. and n. 17; idem, BASOR 179 (1965), pp. 38 ff.; Kitchen, K. A., OrNS 36 (1967), pp. 36 ff.Google Scholar; Mazar, B., IEJ 18 (1968), p. 74, n. 20Google Scholar. The problem of papponymy amongst the West Semites is integral with inter alia the reconstruction of the genealogy of Šamši-Adad I. See Landsberger, B., JCS 8 (1954), p. 34 and n. 19Google Scholar; and cf. Lewy, J., HUCA 27 (1956), p. 10, n. 44Google Scholar.

26 For the year-names in the Alalakh tablets, see Nagel, W. and Strommenger, E., JCS 12 (1958), pp. 110 fGoogle Scholar.

27 Rowton, (JNES 17 [1958], pp. 100 fGoogle Scholar.) has considered that seven generations of dynastic rule in the Ancient Near East averaged some 185 years, yielding slightly over a century for four generations.

28 Landsberger, B., JCS 8 (1954), pp. 51 ff.Google Scholar, 115.

29 Otten, H., MDOG 91 (1958), pp. 75 ffGoogle Scholar.

30 A year before the publication of the Annals of Ḫattušili I, Albright (BASOR 146 [1957], pp. 30, 33Google Scholar) still held the opinion that “General” Zukraši was of the time prior to Labarna and the Old Hittite period. Basing on that argument, he shifted both YYarimlim III and YḪammurapi II (whom Landsberger had placed at the end of the list of kings of Yamḫad) to the middle of his table, also dropping YIrkabtum from his list (ibid., pp. 27, 33). But Hattušili I's Annals clearly prove that both these kings belong to the final phase of Alalakh; and YIrkabtum indeed must also be included. Thus, we need not consider Albright's chronological table.

It is remarkable that Albright did not review his chronology for Alalakh after the publication of Ḫattušili I's Annals, for in all his subsequent chronological treatments Alalakh is ignored. Only in a posthumous article (BASOR 209 [1973], p. 17Google Scholar) did he briefly mention the destruction of Alalakh (dated there to circa 1575 B.C.), but there was no attempt to reconcile this with the archaeological dates assigned by him in his earlier studies.

31 Woolley, L., Alalakh, Oxford, 1955, pp. 386 ff.Google Scholar; Albright, W. F., BASOR 144 (1956), p. 29Google Scholar; idem, BASOR 146 (1957), p. 30; Kantor, H., JNES 15 (1956), p. 158, n. 22Google Scholar; A. Kempinski, op. cit. (above, n. 12), pp. 44 ff.

32 Rowton, (JNES 17 [1958], p. 100Google Scholar) has suggested that the pottery data (solely from level VII!) was indecisive for either the “low” or the “middle chronology”. He made no attempt to re-examine the overall archaeological problems of Alalakh levels VII–IV, and allowed for some 50 years between the destruction of Alalakh level VII and the destruction of Ḫaleb by Muršili I—a lapse which, as we have tried to show, is much too long.

33 L. Woolley, op. cit. (above, n. 32), pp. 133 f., 143 f., 386; Na'aman, N., UF 6 (1974), p. 267, n. 10Google Scholar; A. Kempinski, op. cit. (above, n. 12), p. 44.

34 L. Woolley, op. cit. (above, n. 32), pp. 386 f. This conclusion was utilized already by Landsberger, (JCS 8 [1954], p. 53Google Scholar) to demonstrate a long interval between levels VII and IV at Alalakh.

35 Albright, (BASOR 118 [1950], p. 19Google Scholar) has dated Barattarna and Sauštatar to the time of Thutmes III. In later articles, however (see especially BASOR 144 [1957], p. 29Google Scholar), he abandoned so high a date.

36 Na'aman, N., UF 6 (1974), p. 267 n. 10Google Scholar; A. Kempinski, op. cit. (above, n. 12), p. 137.

37 L. Woolley, op. cit. (above, n. 32), 386; Albright, W. F., BASOR 144 (1956), p. 29Google Scholar; Kantor, H., JNES 15 (1956), p. 158, n. 22Google Scholar; Amiran, R., IEJ 1 (1957), pp. 93 ff.Google Scholar; Epstein, C., Palestinian Bichrome Ware, Leiden 1966, pp. 134 ffGoogle Scholar.

The pottery of levels VI–V at Alalakh has been treated extensively by Kempinski, op. cit. (above, n. 12).

38 Dietrich, M. & Loretz, O.UF 1 (1969), pp. 37 ff.Google Scholar; idem, WO 5 (1969), pp. 57 ff.; idem, ZA 60 (1970), pp. 88 ff.

39 Na'aman, N., UF 6 (1974), pp. 265 ffGoogle Scholar.