242 Elena Devecchi

Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa.

Discussing a recent hypothesis
by Elena Devecchi Leuven/Mnchen
1. It has recently been suggested that significant changes attested in the
material culture of the Syrian site of Tell Kazel, located in the region cor-
responding to the ancient kingdom of Amurru, should be interpreted as a
consequence of the trade policy imposed by the Hittite king Tutaliya IV
on S

ausgamuwa of Amurru by means of a subjugation treaty ratified be-

tween the two. Evaluating this hypothesis, which might have important re-
percussions for the chronological setting of the tell and consequently of
the whole region, is the aim of this article, in which the archaeological and
historical sources relevant to the issue will be analyzed.
1
2. Tell Kazel is one of the major sites of the Akkar Plain, situated 3.5
km from the present-day seashore and a few kilometers north of the
border between Syria and Lebanon. The identification of the tell with the
ancient town of Sumur/Simyra, stronghold of the kingdom of Amurru
during the Late Bronze Age (LBA), has not yet been confirmed by any in-
scription found on the site, but is generally accepted on the basis of its
strategic position on the main passage between the Mediterranean coast
and inland Syria, its very rich Late Bronze and Iron Age levels, and be-
cause it is the only urban site with monumental buildings on the plain.
2
A
further confirmation of the importance of Tell Kazel during the LBA is
now provided also by the only cuneiform text so far recovered at the site:
3
it is an Akkadian letter sent by the King (most likely to be identified with
the king of Karkemis) to an individual named Palla, announcing the arrival
1
This research was funded by the Onderzoeksfonds K.U. Leuven and is part of an
IDO-project on Climate related social and economic chaos in the Northern and South-
ern Levant (1200800 B.C.E.) coordinated by Karel Van Lerberghe. I am very grateful
to Stefano de Martino, H. Craig Melchert, Jared L. Miller, Itamar Singer, and Klaas
Vansteenhuyse for a number of useful remarks on earlier drafts of this article. I would
also like to thank Silvin Kosak and the Academy of Sciences and Literature in Mainz for
providing me with photographs of KUB 23.1++ (CTH 105 A).
2
Badre (2006, 6567) with previous literature.
3
The text, which is a surface find, is edited and discussed by Roche (2003, 123128).
Zeitschr. f. Assyriologie Bd. 100, S. 242256 DOI 1515/ZA.2010.012
Walter de Gruyter 2010
ISSN 0084-5299
Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis 243
of Upparmuwa, a high Hittite official known from other sources as a con-
temporary of the Hittite king attusili III, of Ini-Tessup of Karkemis, and
of Ibiranu of Ugarit. The document, which can therefore be dated to the
second half of the 13
th
century BCE, is very similar to some letters found
in the royal archives of the kingdom of Ugarit and thus supports the hy-
pothesis that Tell Kazel was a major administrative center of Amurru at
the time when the Syrian kingdom was controlled by the Hittites.
Recent studies devoted to the description and analysis of the architec-
tural and material remains dated to the Late Bronze and Iron Age have at-
tempted to place them within the framework of the historical events of
those centuries, as briefly summarized here (see Table 1).
The earliest LBA levels (Phases 12) have been reached in the western
area of the site, where a temple complex has been identified (Area IV,
lower and upper floors of Level 6), and are tentatively dated to the histori-
cal period corresponding to the Amarna Age and to the beginning of
the Hittite occupation (second half of the 14
th
century; Badre/Gubel
19992000, 197; Badre 2006, 77). Of particular importance for the dating
of these levels is the imported Mycenaean pottery,
4
which has been proven
to be of Argive production (Badre et al. 2005, 17) and can be dated in
terms of Aegean chronology to a period that stretches from the LH IIIA
Late to the LH IIIB Middle (Jung 2006, 151; Jung 2007, 553554). The
material culture of this phase is represented by a large and varied assort-
ment of items, such as locally made and imported pottery, metal and stone
objects and cylinder seals (Badre/Gubel 19992000, 139169), suggesting
the picture of a rich and flourishing city.
The following phase (Phase 3) has been investigated in both the area
of the temple complex (Area IV, lower floor of Level 5) and that of the resi-
dential/official complex (Area II, lower floor of Level 6) and is character-
ized by monumental and luxurious architectural achievements (Badre/
Gubel 19992000, 198; Badre 2006, 92). Only a rather small quantity of
material was recovered in these levels, which led the archaeologists to
hypothesize that at the end of this phase, i. e. at the end of the LBA, the
town had been abandoned.
5
However, among the few pottery remains re-
4
Tell Kazel yielded also a rich assemblage of imported Cypriote pottery, but, while a thor-
ough analysis of the Mycenaen corpus has already been published by Jung (2006 and
2007), a detailed study of the Cypriote one is still awaited. Preliminary remarks can be
found in Badre (2006, 67ff.).
5
The abandonment of the town is clearly referred to by Badre/Gubel (19992000, 198)
and Badre (2006, table 1, 69, 80, 82, 92; id. 20072008, table 1, 111). In her last prelimi-
nary report on Area II, Capet (2003, 66) simply mentions that the LB II floor was emp-
244 Elena Devecchi
covered in these layers it was possible to identify some examples of im-
ported Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery, which allow one to date this phase
between the LH IIIB Middle and IIIB Developed (second half of the 13
th
century; Jung 2006, 151; Jung 2007, 566). As a further chronological indi-
cator it is useful to note also the presence of simple style Bgelkannen,
which are attested inter alia at Ugarit in the last occupation layers (Jung
2006, 167168).
After a short period of abandonment, the city was reoccupied (Phase
4), in part by the same population and in part by a group of newcomers
(see below). This phase, which is identified as the transition from the Late
Bronze to the Iron Age, is characterized by drastic changes in the material
culture. Particularly important is the almost complete absence of imported
Cypriote and Mycenaean pottery, replaced by local imitations of Western
vessels. Such a situation has been interpreted in the light of a passage of
the subjugation treaty between Tutaliya IV and S

ausgamuwa of Amurru
(CTH 105), or rather in the light of its most commonly accepted restora-
tion and translation (Khne/Otten 1971, 1617):
CTH 105 A col. iv 23
[sa kur A-]i-ia-u-wa-as-si
gis
m pa-a-u-an-zi l [e-e]
Ke[in] Schiff des Landes Aiyawa soll zu ihm fahren!
According to the majority of scholars, with this clause Tutaliya IV in-
tended to forbid S

ausgamuwa to allow any ship, i. e. any merchant/mer-

chandise of Aiyawa to reach Assyria via Amurru,
6
and, according to the
archaeologist who excavates the site, this trade embargo is clearly re-
flected in the field (Badre 2006, 82).
7
Another important feature of the material culture of this phase, in ad-
dition to the lack of imported Western pottery, is the first appearance of
the Handmade Burnished Ware, which has been linked to the arrival of
a group of newcomers, identified with a first peaceful wave (of the Sea
Peoples?), who pitched their camps in this region sometime before the
eighth year of the reign of Ramses III (Badre 2006, 93).
tied before the structure was rebuilt. This phase of abandonment is not taken into ac-
count by Jung (2006 and 2007) in his treatment of the Mycenaean pottery.
6
See e. g. Singer (1991, 173; id. 2009, 97) and Klengel (1999, 170171). For a different in-
terpretation, see 3 below.
7
See also Badre (2006, 87): although the textual documents pertaining to the reign of
Shaushgamuwa do not provide any information as to whether the king abided by the
trade embargo, the archaeological results [] are the best evidence for it.
Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis 245
The end of these occupational levels is marked in both areas by a thick
layer of ashes, the result of a heavy fire, likely to be dated to the beginning
of LH IIIC Early (beginning of the 12
th
century), thus shortly after the
breakdown of the Mycenaean palace system. It has been observed,
though, that the limited amount of datable pottery from this phase does
not allow one to exclude that the destruction could be dated to the LH IIIB
Final, i. e. toward the end of the 13
th
century (Jung 2006, 196; Jung 2007,
563 and 567; Badre 2006, 82). This destruction may be attributed to a
second, larger wave of Sea People, who vanquished both the population
and the country of Amurru and the inscription of year 8 of Ramses III
(from Medinet Habu) could refer to this second wave (Badre 2006, 93).
Table 1. Elaboration of the tables published by Capet (2003, 117) and Badre (2006, 69),
with the subdivision in phases used by Jung (2006 and 2007) in his studies of the
Mycenaean pottery.
3. The proposal to link the above-mentioned clause of CTH 105 with
the archaeological remains found at Tell Kazel in Phase 4 seems rather
problematic. As a first methodological consideration, it has to be stressed
Area II
Residential
complex
Area IV
Temple complex
Material culture Jung
A
m
a
r
n
a
A
g
e
Not yet
excavated
Level 6
lower floor
Imported Cypriote and
Mycenaean (LHIIIA
LateIIIB Early) pottery.
Phase 1
H
i
t
t
i
t
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Not yet
excavated
Level 6
upper floor
Imported Cypriote and
Mycenaean (LH IIIB
EarlyIIIB Middle) pottery.
Monumental architectural
features.
Phase 2
Level 6
lower floor
Level 5
lower floor
Few Cypriote and
Mycenaean (LH IIIB
MiddleIIIB Developed)
sherds. Monumental
architectural features.
Phase 3
Abandonment
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
L
B
A
-
I
A
Level 6
upper floor
Level 5
upper floor
Local imitation of
Mycenaean pottery (LH IIIC
Early); Handmade
Burnished (or Barbarian)
Ware. Squatting.
Phase 4
Destruction by fire
246 Elena Devecchi
that the text passage is very badly preserved, thus a cautious approach is
needed when using it as the basis for further hypotheses. Furthermore,
there is no complete agreement on the meaning of these lines. Most of the
scholars interpret them in the light of a previous paragraph, where Tuta-
liya IV orders S

ausgamuwa to disallow any merchant from Amurru to go

to Assyria and likewise to forbid any Assyrian merchant to enter Amurru,
and they see them as part of a strategy meant to block the trade contacts
between Assyria and Aiyawa, thereby limiting the economic power of
the Assyrians. On the other hand, Faist (2001, 220224) recently pro-
posed that this trade policy might have had a political, rather than an econ-
omic, purpose and that the main goal of the Great King was to hamper any
kind of contact between Amurru and Assyria out of fear that they could
lead to a dangerous alliance of the two countries against the Hittites. Faist
(2001, 223 fn. 106) also believes that after this paragraph the text does not
refer to the relations with Assyria anymore, thus the crucial passage men-
tioning the alleged ships of Aiyawa would not be linked to trade with
Assyria.
However, even if one accepts the integration [A]iyawa at the begin-
ning of iv 23 and the hypothesis that these lines establish that Amurru was
to block maritime trade between Aiyawa and Assyria, there are other
considerations that in my view prevent an association of the lack of impor-
ted Mycenaean pottery at Tell Kazel with any political measure underta-
ken by the Hittites with regard to the relations among Amurru, Aiyawa
and Assyria.
First, if ones clings to the common interpretation of these lines, it was
Assyria not Amurru that was not to have any contact with Aiyawa,
therefore this situation cannot be directly linked with the change in ma-
terial culture at Tell Kazel. Of course, one could imagine that Amurru
became an indirect victim of this trade policy meant to damage the Assy-
rians, having lost its role as exchange market for the Mycenaean mer-
chants, who would have sought more favorable trading conditions else-
where, probably to the south, in Egyptian territory, far from the restrictive
rules of the Hittite embargo. However, even if this would have been the
case, there are written sources indicating that the anti-Assyrian trade pol-
icy did not last more than few years and that both atti and Amurru
started cultivating friendly relations again with Assyria relatively soon
after the treaty between Tutaliya IV and S

ausgamuwa,
8
which in all like-
8
For recent overviews on Assyro-Hittite relations at the end of the LBA see Freu (2003),
Mora/Giorgieri (2004, 1122) and Cancik-Kirschbaum (2008).
Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis 247
lihood was ratified before the battle of Niriya, at the very beginning of
Tukulti-Ninurtas reign.
9
In a letter from Dur-Katlimmu (modern Tell S

eh Hamad, Syria), dat-

able to between the 11
th
and 16
th
years of Tukulti-Ninurta I, there is men-
tion of a stock of linen garments/fabrics sent by the king of Karkemis into
Assyrian territory and of a robbery suffered by a group of merchants of
the king of Karkemis and of the Hittite sakin mati Taki-S

arruma
10
in the
area of arbe as they travelled toward the east (Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996,
117122 text n. 6).
11
Precisely at arbe (modern Tell Chuera, Syria) other
Akkadian letters were recovered, witnessing the exchange of messages
and diplomatic presents between atti and Assyria on one hand, and be-
tween Amurru and Assyria on the other, during the second half of Tukulti-
Ninurtas reign (Jakob 2009, 5967 texts n. 2226).
12
All these documents
post-date the treaty with S

ausgamuwa, and thus also the embargo pre-

scribed in it, and prove that these measures were rapidly dismissed in
favor of more profitable, friendly relations with the Assyrians. It is reason-
able to assume that, as a consequence of this new international situation,
the prohibition of trading with Aiyawa ceased to function as well. Thus,
even if contacts between Amurru and Aiyawa ever stopped because of
the trade embargo against Assyria, there are data clearly suggesting that
this situation did not last more than few years, and it is highly unlikely that
in this very limited span of time the material culture of Tell Kazel might
have changed in such a drastic way.
Second, the assumption that the lack of imported Mycenaean pottery
is the result of the trade embargo imposed by the Hittite king implies that
the treaty between Tutaliya IV and S

ausgamuwa, which was most likely

issued sometime in the thirties of the 13
th
century, when the latter ascended
to the throne of Amurru (Singer 1991, 172; van den Hout 1995, 114), be-
comes the terminus post quem for the beginning of the phase identified with
the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age at Tell Kazel (Phase 4).
9
Singer (1985, 108; id. 1991, 172; id. 1999, 689) and Faist (2001, 221 fn. 100) for further lit-
erature.
10
This individual was identified by Singer (2003, 342ff.) with a homonymous high official
known from some documents of the Ugarit archives dated to the end of the 13
th
century
BCE, where he bears the title of Chief Scribe.
11
Another letter from Dur-Katlimmu (Cancik-Kirschbaum [1996, 123128 text n. 7])
mentions the king of Karkemis in connection with the shipment of linen fabrics, but the
text is too badly preserved to allow a complete understanding of the context.
12
To the letters, dated to the limu Ninu<aju (for whose dating see Freydank 1991, 45), one
should add also some administrative texts mentioning the delivery of rations to several
Hittite messengers (Jakob 2009, 8487 texts n. 54 and 56).
248 Elena Devecchi
Since this phase follows a period of abandonment, the implicit conclusion
would be that the reign of S

ausgamuwa started after a dramatic event that

forced the population of Tell Kazel to evacuate the town, which, it should
be recalled, is likely to be identified with the capital of Amurru. At pres-
ent, however, the historical sources do not provide any indication suppor-
ting this possibility, so that it might rather be suggested that the evacuation
of Tell Kazel took place at the end of S

ausgamuwas reign and that it co-

incided with the fall of Amurru (around 1200 BCE).
13
The reasons that induced the local dynasty and a big part of, if not all,
the population to abandon the town are likely to be sought in the atmos-
phere of impending danger that characterized the end of the 13
th
and the
beginning of the 12
th
centuries, and which is very well reflected in the
documentation from Ugarit. The last years of Amurru are very meagerly
documented, and one is tempted to link this event to the only text that
might hint at a menacing atmosphere in Amurru at this time, a letter in
which a certain Parsu reminds the king of Ugarit of his commitment to
share with the king of Amurru any information on the alien enemy (RS
20.162).
14
The document was recovered in the archive of Rap<anu, which
was in use during the last period of Ugarit, but the absence of any personal
name known from other sources prevents one from proposing a more pre-
cise date for the events recalled in the text. A relative dating for the aban-
donment of the town, however, can be hypothesized on the basis of the
features shown by the Mycenaean pottery found at Tell Kazel and Ugarit.
The material found at Tell Kazel in the pre-abandonment level is dated to
the LH IIIB Middle-Developed, while the pottery found at Ugarit in the
destruction layers is dated to the end of the LH IIIB or even later, to the
transition between LH IIIBC Early,
15
thus suggesting that the kingdom of
Amurru, as an organized political entity, ceased to exist some time earlier
than Ugarit. The dearth of written sources datable to the final phase of
Amurru could be an indirect confirmation of its early decline,
16
which in
13
S

ausgamuwa is usually regarded as the last king of Amurru, but it has recently been sug-
gested that he might have been followed by another ruler, named Maaza (Singer
forthcoming). If so, the abandonment of Tell Kazel might have taken place during the
latters reign.
14
For this interpretation of
l
kr dr
mes
see Izre<el (1991, 100).
15
Yon/Karageorghis/Hirschfeld (2000, 18). A similar date is now proposed by Mountjoy
(2004, 198199) also for the pottery of the destruction layers of Miletos.
16
Singer (1991, 176) suggested instead that this paucity of records, in contrast with the
relative abundance of data from Ugarit, does not indicate that Amurru fell before Uga-
rit and should rather be regarded as a consequence of the gradual disruption of the
communication systems between the members of the empire.
Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis 249
turn fits into the picture of a crisis that would have troubled the eastern
Mediterranean for a longer period than what has been previously
thought.
17
If this turns out to be the case, one could hypothesize that the
population of Tell Kazel, decided to abandon the town before the enemy
arrived. A strategy similar to that adopted at Tell Kazel was followed
further north along the Syrian coast at the site Ras el-Bassit, whose build-
ings were carefully emptied by the inhabitants before being abandoned. In
this case the decision proved to be justified, as immediately afterward, at
the beginning of the 12
th
century, a fire destroyed the town (Venturi 2007,
59). Tell Kazel did not experience a similar tragic fate and was rapidly
reoccupied (although certainly not in the same form as in the previous
phases), before being destroyed for the first time some 2030 years later.
However, the gap between the destructions of Amurru and Ugarit would
be rather short, and one cannot exclude that it might be further reduced
by a reassessment of the chronology of the Mycenaean pottery, as well as
by future studies on the material from Tell Kazel and Ugarit.
If the embargo is ruled out as the explanation for the lack of imported
Mycenaean pottery in the phase of transition from the Late Bronze to the
Iron Age, the reasons behind this change in material culture should be
sought in other factors. To this purpose, it is useful to recall Jungs con-
siderations on the quantity and quality of imported Mycenaean pottery
found at Tell Kazel in the occupational levels dated to the LBA. He ob-
serves that the imported Mycenaean pottery, which corresponds to only
about 10% of the total ceramic corpus recovered at the site, is represented
almost exclusively by a selection of painted vessels that reveals an elite
use. Distinctive items are for instance the craters decorated with war char-
iot scenes, which, as Jung suggests, must have met the taste and reflected
the ideology of the elite dominating in Amurru.
18
If one accepts the hy-
pothesis that the collapse of the kingdom of Amurru corresponds with the
abandonment of Tell Kazel at the end of the LBA, the lack of imported
Mycenaean pottery in the following period could be seen as a conse-
quence of the disappearance of this elite, which represented the most im-
portant local clientele of the Mycenaean workshops. The change in social
17
Beside the evidence provided by Tell Kazel itself, which experienced different phases of
abandonment and destruction between the end of the 13
th
and the beginning of the
12
th
centuries, see also the observations made by Malbran-Labat (1999, 123 and fn. 13)
and Yon (1999, 114 with previous literature).
18
Jung (2006, 170175). Similar conclusions have been reached by Yon/Karageorghis/
Hirschfeld (2000, 18) for the Mycenaean pottery assemblage found at Ugarit.
250 Elena Devecchi
structure and composition of the population that occupied Tell Kazel after
the abandonment at the end of the LBA, together with the contemporary
general decline of Aegean export and maritime trade from the LH IIIB
Middle on (Cline 1994, 50 and Jung 2007, 558 with previous literature),
are enough to explain the change in material culture attested at the site for
this period, without the need to invoke doubtful measures of international
trade policy undertaken by the Hittite kings.
Appendix: Again on ships of Aiyawa or warships
The passage of the treaty between Tutaliya IV and S

ausgamuwa (CTH
105) on which the embargo theory is based is handed down by only one of
the two duplicates of the text
19
and is very badly preserved. We owe its
most commonly accepted reading to Sommer (1932, 325f.), who proposed
to restore and translate it as follows:
20
CTH 105 A col. iv
23 [sa kur A-]i-ia-u-wa-as
!
-si
gis
m pa
!
-a-u-an-zi l [e-e]
Vom Lande Aijava darf kein Schiff zu ihm fahren!
The integration of the name of the country Aiyawa at the beginning
of iv 23 relies basically on the mention, subsequently erased, of the king
of Aiyawa (lugal kur Aiyawa, CTH 105 A iv 3) among the kings
attributed a status equal to that of the Hittite king. The hypothesis that the
3
rd
sing. pronoun -ssi at the end of [A-]i-ia-u-wa-as-si refers to Assyria or
to the Assyrian king depends on the fact that, in a previous paragraph, Tut-
aliya IV orders S

ausgamuwa to prohibit any merchant of Amurru from

going to Assyria and likewise to forbid any Assyrian merchant from en-
tering Amurru (CTH 105 iv 1418).
21
The integration of the negation le at
the end of iv 23 has also met with general agreement, even though only
traces of the initial wedges of l [e- are visible.
19
Copy A: KUB 23.1++; Copy B: KUB 8.82.
20
Sommers edition has been followed so trustingly, that the passage is often quoted with-
out indicating with squared brackets that Aiyawa is to great extent integrated: see
Khne/Otten (1971, 1617: Ke[in] Schiff des Landes Aijawa soll zu ihm fahren!),
Lehmann (1991, 111: Kein Schiff des Landes Aijava soll zu ihm fahren!) and Beck-
man (1999, 106: No ship [of] Ahhiyawa may go to him (the King of Assyria?)). Dif-
ferently Singer (2000, 100: [Do not let] a ship of [A]iyawa go to him).
21
Also for syntactical reasons -ssi very likely refers to the topic of the previous paragraph.
This general rule has some exceptions (e. g. Sideltsev forthcoming), but this sentence
does not fall among the cases where one would expect a proleptic pronoun.
Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis 251
Sommers restoration is restricted to iv 23 and thus leaves open the
problem of how iv 23 might relate to the following line(s). Being mainly
concerned with demonstrating the existence of another occurrence of
Aiyawa in the Hittite sources, Sommer did not focus on solving this
problem and offered no solution to it. He only took into consideration
the possibility of integrating the verb [tar-na-at-t]i in the gap at the begin-
ning of iv 24, eventually excluding it because the traces at the beginning
of the line clearly do not correspond to the end of a ti (Sommer 1932,
326).
As a matter of fact, however, it is necessary to integrate something at
the beginning of iv 24. Considering the sequence of enclitic particles at-
tached to the first fully preserved word of this line (para=ma=as=kan), one
can be sure that this is the first word of a new sentence, and it thus seems
very likely that the word in the fracture would belong to the previous
clause. An alternative reading and a tentative solution for this problem
were proposed by Steiner (1989, 401), who suggested the following:
CTH 105 A col. iv
23 [la-a-]i-ia-u-wa-as-si
gis
m pa-a-u-wa-an-zi l [e-e]
24 [tar-na-] pa-ra-a-ma-as-kn ku-wa-p na-a-[i
Ein Schiff des [Krieg(f]hrens) soll/mu er zu ihm (d. h.
meiner Sonne) ni[cht] gehen [lassen!] Sobald er aber eines
aussend[et ]
Steiners restoration confers to this passage a meaning completely dif-
ferent than the one usually accepted. He suggests that S

auskamuwa soll
dem Knig von atti zwar Futruppen und Wagenkmpfer fr den Krieg
gegen Assyrien stellen, mu oder soll aber kein Schiff fr die Krieg-
fhrung zu ihm aussenden. Demnach braucht dieser Paragraph gar
nicht einmal speziell die Situation des Feldzugs gegen Assyrien vorauszu-
setzen, sondern kann eine selbstndige, ganz allgemein geltende Bestim-
mung enthalten (Steiner 1989, 402). However, as he himself admits, it is
difficult to understand warum S

auskamuwa ein Schiff fr die Krieg-

fhrung nicht zum Knig von atti gehen lassen musste oder sollte.
Eine Mglichkeit wre, da er gegen finanzielle Leistungen davon befreit
wurde, wie es in Bezug auf die Heerfolge in einem Krieg gegen Assyrien
wiederum fr Ugarit belegt ist (Steiner 1989, 408).
This proposal did not find much support among scholars, who showed
either a cautious (Klengel 1995, 171; Dietrich/Loretz 1998, 340341) or an
openly negative (Singer 1991, 171; Lehmann 1991, 111) attitude toward it.
Lehmann (1991, 111 fn. 11), for instance, has pointed out that the inte-
gration [la-a-]i-ia-u-wa-as-si at the beginning of iv 23 would be an hapax
252 Elena Devecchi
legomenon, but Steiners hypothesis is problematic with regard to other as-
pects as well:
The integration [tarna]u at the beginning of iv 24 is unlikely because
it is not nearly long enough to fill the gap. Furthermore, the traces vis-
ible between the fracture and pa-ra-a-ma-as-kn do not fit with the end
of an : one would expect to see some traces of the other vertical
wedges, but collation of the photograph shows that this is not the case.
Grammatically, pauwanzi l [e tarna]u is problematic because le occurs
only rarely with imperative forms and only in new Hittite copies of Old
Hittite documents, while it is commonly associated with present forms
(GrHL 26.16), as is, in fact, the case of all the occurrences in this text
(ii 6, ii 14, ii 15, iii 1617, iv 1415, iv 16, iv 17).
If the subject of this passage is the king of Amurru, one would expect
a 2
nd
singular verbal form, not a 3
rd
singular as restored by Steiner. In
fact, in the rest of the treaty Tutaliya IV always addresses S

ausga-
muwa with the 2
nd
person.
22
For similar reasons it is difficult to accept
that the personal pronoun suffix 3
rd
singular dative -ssi in iv 23 might
refer to the Hittite king, because in the rest of the text Tutaliya always
speaks in the 1
st
person.
On the basis of these observation, one can safely discard Steiners in-
terpretation in favor of the Aiyawa solution, but this does not solve the
problem of how to restore the beginning of iv 24. Collation of the picture
seems to indicate that the vertical, clearly visible after the break, is preceded
by the end of an oblique wedge, which suggests the integration of a sign
like te, and the comparison with other te signs in the text (i 44, ii 11, ii 35)
would support this hypothesis, since in all cases the oblique wedges do not
cross the final vertical. Syntactically, for the reasons mentioned above, one
would expect a 2
nd
singular present verbal form. -te instead of -ti as ending
of a verbal form is rare, but not impossible (GrHL 1.61), and indeed an
occurrence of such a rarity is attested in this text at ii 35, where one finds
the 2
nd
singular present wa-ar-is-sa-at-te (< warissa- to come to help).
Integrating [wa-ar-is-sa-at-t]e at the beginning of iv 24 would be impos-
sible, because it is too long for the fracture and because warissa- does not
22
Shifts from the 2
nd
to the 3
rd
person when referring to the vassal are attested in other
treaties (see e. g. CTH 66, treaty Mursili II Niqmepa of Ugarit, ll. 6769 summa
m
Niq-
mepa la iss[abassunu ana sar mat atti la] inaddin istu mamiti tet [etiq] If Niqmepa does
not sei[ze them and does not] deliver [to the king of atti], you will have trans[gressed]
the oath), but this would be the only occurrence of this feature in CTH 105, and it
therefore seems rather unlikely.
Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis 253
govern an infinitive. A more feasible possibility is [tar-na-at-t]e, which has
the advantage of perfectly fitting the space of the break at the beginning
of iv 24 and being amenable to the grammatical requirements of the sen-
tence, but the rarity of this form together with the occurrence of a regular
2
nd
singular present form tarnatti
23
at iv 16 demand that this hypothesis be
taken rather cautiously. Finally, it should be noted that, depending on the
semantics of the verb to be restored in the gap at the beginning of iv 24,
one can get sentences with diametrically opposite meanings, i. e. you shall
not allow him to go vs. you shall not hinder him from going.
Some observations with regard to the following sentence, pa-ra-a-ma-
as-kn ku-wa-p na-a-[, are also in order. The verb is only partially pre-
served, but it is very likely a form of nai- to send. The enclitic pronoun
-as in para=ma=as=kan has been often interpreted as a 3
rd
singular nomi-
native,
24
but 3
rd
person subject enclitics never occur in sentences with
transitive verbs (GrHL 18.13; Garret 1990, 233) such as nai-, thus -as can
only be an accusative plural animate them.
25
This enclitic pronoun must
refer to something mentioned previously in the text, and the only element
of the previous sentence that might function as the logical antecedent of
-as is
gis
m, but this is grammatically problematic, since it is singular. The
immediately preceding paragraph deals with the military engagement of
Amurru in the war between atti and Assyria (iv 1922), and it is in turn
preceded by a paragraph that ends with the regulation of the trade be-
tween Amurru and Assyria and forbids S

ausgamuwa to send merchants of

Amurru to Assyria (iv 1418). Already long ago Sommer (1932, 323) pro-
posed that the paragraph with the military clauses, which is written in a
very small script and contextually is a sort of intruder between the two
paragraphs dealing with trade, might be regarded as a misplaced clause. If
this is indeed the case, -as in iv 24 could refer to something mentioned in
iv 1418. A logical antecedent to -as in those lines might be the merchants
of Amurru and Assyria, though it should be noted that the text always em-
ploys
l
dam.gr in the singular, while -as requires a plural.
In any case, once the interpretation of -as in para=ma=as=kan as a 3
rd
singular nominative is ruled out, it becomes possible to restore the verbal
form not only as a 3
rd
singular present na-a-[i], as usually suggested, but
also as a 2
nd
singular present na-a-[it-ti]. This would fit with the proposed
interpretation of the previous sentence as well as with the mention of
23
For the forms of tarna- see Oettinger (2003, 58 and 155) and Tischler (1993, 192ff).
24
Khne/Otten (1971, 17 Sollte er? doch einmal aussen[den] and 54) and Steiner (1989,
401: Sobald er aber eines aussend[et ]).
25
See Beckman (1999, 106) and Singer (2000, 100: When he dispatches them).
254 Elena Devecchi
dingir-lu
4
sa kur-ti-ka in the following line (iv 25),
26
where the text be-
comes too fragmentary for a sensible restoration.
On the basis of these considerations, the following tentative restoration
of the relevant lines can be proposed:
CTH 105 A col. iv
23 [sa kur A-]i-ia-u-wa-as-si
gis
m pa-a-u-an-zi l [e-e]
24 [tar-na-at-t]e pa-ra-a-ma-as-kn ku-wa-p na-a-[i or na-a-[it-ti
Do n[ot allo]w any ship [of A]iyawa to go to him! When
he/you sen[d] them []
Fig. 1 Photo and copy of CTH 105 A iv 2325
Bibliography
Badre, L. (2006): Tell Kazel-Simyra: A Contribution to a Relative Chronological History in
the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age, BASOR 343, 6595.
(20072008): Tell Arqa and Tell Kazel, deux sites complmentaires de la plaine de
Akkar lge du Bronze Rcent, Archaeology and History of Lebanon 2627, 110118.
Badre, L./E. Gubel (19992000): Tell Kazel, Syria: Excavations of the AUB Museum,
19931998. Third Preliminary Report, Berytus 44, 123203.
Badre, L. et al. (2005): The Provenance of Aegean- and Syrian-type Pottery found at Tell
Kazel (Syria), gypten und Levante 15, 1547.
Beckman, G. (1999): Hittite Diplomatic Texts
2
. Atlanta.
Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. (1996): Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall S

e Hamad. BATSH
4. Berlin.
(2008): Assur und Hatti zwischen Allianz und Konflikt, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), attusa
Boyazky. Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients. 6. Internationales
26
This is the only occurrence in the text where dingir and kur are written with phonetic
complements.
Amurru between atti, Assyria, and Aiyawa. Discussing a recent hypothesis 255
Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. 22.24. Mrz 2006, Wrzburg. Wies-
baden, 205222.
Capet, E. (2003): Tell Kazel (Syrie), rapport prliminaire sur les 9
e
17
e
campagnes de fouil-
les (19932001) du Muse de lUniversit Amricaine de Beyrouth, Chantier II, Berytus
47, 63121.
Cline, E. H. (1994): Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze
Age Aegean. Oxford.
Dietrich, M./O. Loretz (1998): Amurru, Yaman und die gischen Inseln nach den ugariti-
schen Texten, in: S. Isre<el/I. Singer/R. Zadok, Past Links. Studies in the Languages and
Cultures of the Ancient Near East. IOS 18. Winona Lake, 335363.
Faist, B. (2001): Der Fernhandel des assyrischen Reiches zwischen dem 14. und 11. Jh.
v. Chr. AOAT 265. Mnster.
Freu, J. (2003): De la confrontation lentente cordiale. Les relations assyro-hittites la fin
de lge du Bronze (ca. 12501180 av. J. C.), in: G. Beckman et al. (eds.), Hittite Studies
in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Winona Lake,
101118.
Freydank, H. (1991): Beitrge zur Mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte, Berlin.
Garrett, A. (1990): Hittite Enclitic Subjects and Transitive Verbs, JCS 42, 227242.
Izre<el, S. (1991): Amurru Akkadian. A Linguistic Study. Atlanta.
Klengel, H. (1995): Historischer Kommentar zum S

ausgamuwa-Vertrag, in: Th. P. J. van

den Hout/J. de Roos, Studio historiae ardens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented
to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. PIHANS 74.
Leiden, 159172.
Khne, C./H. Otten (1975): Der S

ausgamuwa-Vertrag. StBoT 16. Wiesbaden.

Jakob, S. (2009): Die mittelassyrischen Texte aus Tell Chuera in Nordost-Syrien, Wiesbaden.
Jung, R. (2006): Die mykenische Keramik von Tell Kazel (Syrien), Damaszener Mittei-
lungen 15, 147218.
(2007): Tell Kazel and the Mycenaean Contacts with Amurru (Syria), in: M. Bietak/
E. Czerny (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in
the Second Millennium B. C. III. Wien, 551570.
Lehmann, G. A. (1991): Die politisch-historischen Beziehungen der gis-Welt des
15.13. Jh.s v. Chr. zu Agypten und Vorderasien: einige Hinweise, in: J. Latacz (ed.),
Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung. Stuttgart/Leipzig, 105126.
Malbran-Labat, F. (1999): Nouvelles donnes pigraphiques sur Chypre et Ougarit, Report
of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1999, 121123.
Mora, C./M. Giorgieri (2004): Le lettere tra i re ittiti e i re assiri ritrovate a attusa.
HANE/M VII. Padova.
Mountjoy, P. A. (2004): Miletos: A Note, Annals of the British School at Athens 99,
189200.
Oettinger, N. (2003): Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nachdruck mit einer
kurzen Revision der hethitischen Verbalklassen. DBH 7. Dresden.
Roche, C. (2003): La tablette TK 03.1, Berytus 47, 123128.
Sideltsev, A. V. (forthcoming): Proleptic Pronouns in Middle Hittite, in: Babel und Bibel
(Proceedings of the 53
rd
Rencontre Assyrologique Internationale). Winona Lake.
Singer, I. (1985): The Battle of Niriya and the End of the Hittite Empire, ZA 95, 100123.
(1991): A Concise History of Amurru, in: S. Izre<el (ed.), Amurru Akkadian. A Lin-
guistic Study. Atlanta, 135195.
(1999): A Political History of Ugarit, in: W. G. E. Watson/N. Wyatt (eds.), Handbook of
Ugaritic Studies. HdO 1/39. Leiden/Boston/Kln, 603733.
256 Elena Devecchi
(2000): The Treaties between atti and Amurru, in: W. W. Hallo/K. L. Younger (eds.),
The Context of Scripture, vol. II: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World.
Leiden/Boston/Kln, 93100.
(2003): The Great Scribe Taki-S

arruma, in: G. Beckman et al. (eds.), Hittite Studies in

Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Winona Lake,
341348.
(2009): S

ausgamuwa, RlA 12, 9698.

- (forthcoming): Maaza, King of Amurru, in: J. Klinger/E. Rieken (eds.), Investiga-
tiones Anatolicae. Gedenkschrift fr Erich Neu.
Sommer, F. (1932): Die Aijava-Urkunden. Mnchen.
Steiner, G. (1989): Schiffe von Aiyawa oder Kriegsschiffe von Amurru im S

auska-
muwa-Vertrag?, UF 21, 393411.
Tischler, J. (1993): Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Lieferung 9: T-D/2. Innsbruck.
van den Hout, Th. P. J. (1995): Der Ulmitesub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersu-
chung. StBoT 38. Wiesbaden.
Venturi, F. (2007): La Siria nellet delle trasformazioni (XIIIX sec. a. C.): nuovi contributi
dallo scavo di Tell Afis. Bologna.
Yon, M. (1999): Chypre et Ougarit la fin du Bronze Rcent, Report of the Department of
Antiquities of Cyprus 1999, 113119.
Yon, M./V. Karageorghis/N. Hirschfeld (2000): Cramiques Mycniennes dOugarit. RSO
13. Paris.