Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 June 2015
In a recent article Dr Nadav Na'aman suggested that two rulers called Yarimlim and two called Ammitakumma succeeded each other in alternation during the period of the Level VII archive at Alalakh. This reconstruction of the chronology fails, as do all previous reconstructions, to take into account the seal impressions on the tablet envelopes. These seal impressions have now been published and the chronology which they enabled me to reconstruct is substantially that established by Rowton and Kupper. A close study of Dr Na'aman's article has not led me to alter my views and I should like to make the following points.
Dr Na'aman questions the generally accepted chronology for Alalakh on the grounds that YḪammurapi I (grandfather),AYarimlim (father) and AAmmitakumma (son) “reigned over a period of at least 125 years” and that “six kings reigned in Yamḫad concurrently with two Kings at Alalakh”. He accepts a date “circa the twenties of the 18th century B.C. (or slightly earlier)” for the beginning of the archive and therefore, presumably, for the beginning of the reign of AYarimlim.
1 AS XXVI (1976), pp. 129–143Google Scholar.
2 Collon, D.: The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 27), Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975Google Scholar. The abbreviation SITA has been used in the present article for convenience. I have adopted Dr Na'aman's method of identifying the various ruling houses by initials.
3 Rowton, M.B. in CAH I/1, p. 212 ffGoogle Scholar. and Kupper, J.-R. in CAH II/1, p. 31 ffGoogle Scholar. Note that the family-tree in SITA, p. 145, has been wrongly drawn and seems to indicate that Yarimlim of Alalakh is the son and not the brother of Abban of Yamḫad!
4 The abbreviation AT is used to identify texts published by Wiseman, D.J. in The Alalakh Tablets, London 1953Google Scholar and others subsequently published in JCS 8, 12 and 13. Professor Gurney has drawn my attention to the fact that Niqmi-addu of Airraše would have been excessively long-lived had he been active from the reign of YAbban to that of YYarimlim III. We must, I think, postulate an elder son of Eḫli-addu or Ammi-addu, also called Niqmi-addu, to account for the later references.
5 Dr Na'aman dates AT 55 early in the reign ofYNiqmepuḫ – see his Table 3 on p. 136. Professor Gurney has informed me that on p. 131 of Dr Na'aman's article, AT 56, 16 should read AT55, 16.
6 See SITA, No. 153 for Talmammu's sealing.
7 SITA, No. 10 and Pl. LXI.
8 There seems to be a mistake in the last line of p. 133; it should read “ …sued Irpadu's son Sapsieda” both according to note 19, line 9 and to AT7, seal C (= SITA, No.141).
9 My reasons for placing YḪammurapi II after YYarimlim III are given in SITA, pp. 148–9. One of them is based on the fact that during this reign, for the first time, we have seal impressions on the actual tablet and not on envelopes. Whether AT 39 was discovered in Level VI or not is uncertain but it is likely that it was found in a post-destruction level since it was excavated two years before the rest of the Level VII archive. Werimuza's seal is SITA, No. 126 (see also p. 68, note 1).
10 The seal of YYarimlim II does not, in fact, occur on a tablet but on several envelope fragments – see SITA, No. 5, p. 154 and Pl. LXI.
11 As regards the various points Dr Na'aman raises on p. 137 of his article, in connection with his Table 3, I should like to make the following comments, (a) I do not believe that it is likely that the witnesses of AT 7 all had their seals recut every time there was a new governor at Alalakh. The Yarimlim mentioned on the seal inscriptions was probably, in my view, YNiqmepuḫ's predecessor on the throne of Yamḫad. If this were not so, we should have to explain why no seal inscriptions ever describe their owners as “servant of Ammitakumma”. The rapid rate of succession of rulers of Yamḫad may perhaps have been responsible for the decrease in inscribed seals. ForAAmmitakumma, see SITA, pp. 151–2. (b) In describing AT 98f (Antakya Museum, unnumbered), Wiseman states that it “may relate to the same case” as AT 9 (and, by extension, AT 10 – BM 131451) but he makes no claims that AT 10 and 98f are “actually from the same tablet” and in fact they are not. I wish to thank Mr Christopher Walker for allowing me to check the British Museum tablet, (c) The evidence of KUB XXXI, 5Google Scholar is not quite as straightforward as Dr Na'aman quotes it. A Yarimlim and a Ḫammurapi, son of?, are mentioned in two successive lines and from the context it is deduced that one or both are the rulers of Yamḫad. Which was actually on the throne at the time is not stated. My reasons for a late dating of YḪammurapi II and AT 39 are given in note 9 above.
12 See under III, p. 139 f., in his article.
13 See note 12 above.
14 Dada also appears on AT 455 and this could be added to Table 4. His seal and that of Eḫli-Išḫara/Ištar are SITA, Nos. 76 and 147 respectively. Eḫli-Išḫara/Ištar could be added to Table 1 since he occurs as a witness on AT 32. The sissiktu of Ammi-addu is preserved on the envelope of AT 18 – see SITA, p. 143e. See also genealogies 1 and 2 listed above on pp. 127–128.
15 See SITA, p. 20, note 2.
16 The seals used by Ḫalpanubar, Werikiba, Niqmepa and Talmammu are SITA, Nos. 81, either 80, 81 or 174, 79 and 153 respectively.
