^{page 35 note 1} If the identification was proposed by someone before Jensen I have failed to trace it.

^{page 35 note 2} This kind of criticism can find in a simple colophon, that for the document giving a recipe for lead glaze, a deliberate falsification of history, JCS., VIII, 68–9, Anm. 174 d.

^{page 35 note 3} Landsberger, B. in ZA. (NF), I, 236Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 4} The primary text was no. 18 in DrContenau, G., Tablettes cappadociennes, IGoogle Scholar.

^{page 35 note 5} Mélanges syriens offerts à M. R. Dussaud, I, 31Google Scholar, addendum. See further, p. 41 (note 4 and note 6).

^{page 35 note 6} Güterbock, H. G. in ZA. (NF), X, 136–7Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 1} JRAS., 1942, 64–6Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 2} That Pimpiras did act as regent, and that Mursilis was therefore a minor during his early years, follows from the texts concerning ritual cults of royal ancestors.

^{page 36 note 3} Alalakh and Chronology, 12.

^{page 36 note 4} Landsberger, B. in JCS., VIII, 53Google Scholar, Anm. 89, quoting the reference in note 6, translated “er setzte dem Königtum ein Ende”, pointing out the error of fact; but that is in the translation, not the text.

^{page 36 note 5} e.g. Nahum, I, 10: “stubble full dry” but not yet dead is compared to the haters of the Lord, about to be destroyed, but still in existence.

^{page 36 note 6} Exhaustive references in ARM., XV; use of this with regard to persons and places removes any necessity for more than indications here.

^{page 36 note 7} Jean's, C.-F. edition, ARM., II, no. 131Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 8} Listed in Iraq, VII, 41Google Scholar sub Sin-tiri.

^{page 36 note 9} A 921, 924, 945, 953, 956, 962, 972, 981.

^{page 36 note 10} Listed in Iraq, VII, 43cGoogle Scholar; rations for the household of Šubat-Enlil. References to Šubat-Enlil in the Ma'er letters show that skilled men, ploughs, etc., had to be sent to this palace, built in an uncultivated area. The new site cannot therefore be the city of Ashur.

^{page 36 note 11} Landsberger, B. in Belleten, II, 252Google Scholar, and again JCS., VIII, 56Google Scholar, Anm. 31.

^{page 36 note 12} ARM., XV, 184Google Scholar, “ce point de passage”, as if apposition; adverbial.

^{page 36 note 13} ḪI-mu-uš, possibly Tamuš for Talmuš?

^{page 37 note 1} ARM., IV, 5/5–9Google Scholar. A Turukku was to be withdrawn from the general levy to be sent to Babylon; he had been serving with Mašum, but the administration had sent Mašum's household away, bit Mašim, ekallum irdi, so Yašmaḫ-Ada(d) is to have the Turukku, found. ARM., V, 46Google Scholar, a plea for the release of the wife of Mašum from servitude.

^{page 37 note 2} Kupper, J.-R. in RA., XLIII, 80, 83Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 3} ARM., I, 24Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 4} qatam napaṣu; the nuance is to be understood from the use of the same root in the same idiom in Syriac, “to have nothing to do with someone or something.”

^{page 37 note 5} It was the police post for river traffic on the Euphrates at the border between Carchemish, and Ma'er, , ARM., V, 9Google Scholar. This precludes a location at the mouth of the Balikh, a marshy delta, unless on the south Euphrates bank. JCS., VII, 53Google Scholar, col. iii, 3–5 [pa-al-]gi ba-at-tum … Tultul … Ahuna conforms to other indications, see JRAS., 1928, 874Google Scholar. Battum is Abattum, Syria, XXXII, 7Google Scholar, iii, 8.

^{page 37 note 6} ARM., I, 43Google Scholar.

^{page 38 note 1} ARM., I, 91Google Scholar.

^{page 38 note 2} ARM., I, 1Google Scholar.

^{page 38 note 3} ina nikurti … ul iḫliqu, ina nikurti … iḫtalqu; the apposition is best rendered “in one war … in another war”; the I 2 form in the second clause has its usual force of an aspect, an action or state secondary to some previous action, or having a secondary effect.

^{page 38 note 4} D.J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, no. 1. At the beginning of line 4 read (al)Irridi KI GUB.BA-ma. The alignment of this tablet cannot be adequately represented in a copy and has not been described by Mr. Wiseman; his transliteration needs correction, for ṣa-ab-šu ik-šu-ud is an over-run, cf. over-runs in 6 and 9. I copied this tablet several times.

^{page 38 note 5} Kupper, J.-R. in RA., XLIII, 81–2Google Scholar.

^{page 38 note 6} Date formulae. The 32 formulae include five of the “year after” type. Zimri-Lim was not in Ma'er till the 16th year of Ḫammu-rabi of Babylon and ruled there at most 17 years. Ten date formulae belong to his kingship in exile. The chronology depends on the unquestionable evidence of a date formula, not a figure, which proves that an oath by Shamshi-Adad was sworn in the 10th year of Hammu-rabi. Otherwise Parrot, A., Archéologie mesopotamienne, II, 345Google Scholar, note 23.

^{page 39 note 1} Text edited by Jean, C.-F. in Semitica, I, p. 22Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 2} D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, no. 7.

^{page 39 note 3} Abba-il son of Ammu-rabi in this text cannot be Abba-il of Yamḫad son of Ḫammu-rabi and father of Yarim-Lim of Yamḫad, seal impressions 444 a and b. Abba-il the suzerain after a revolt of sub-kings called “brothers” gave Alalah to Yarim-Lim in exchange for Irrid, east of the Euphrates, no. 1, a charter like the land charters. His akil tamkare Irpa-Ada(d), at a time when Yarim-Lim was his “brother” at Alalaḫ, no. 56, was the father of Samšu-Ada(d) akil tamkare in the reign of Niqmi-epuḫ, who began his service in the reign of Yarim-Lim. Nos. 76 and 77 belong to the reign of the suzerain. Abba-il the mar šarri of no. 346 is probably the son of Ammi-taqu to whom a not unimportant town was assigned as an inheritance share, zittu, provided he made no further claim, no. 86; he is not the Abba-il of no. 7, and not the suzerain. For the name used for private persons cf. the bowman of no. 206 or the goldsmith of no. 348. The same name is written Ab-be-li-im-ma, which is to be compared with Abba-DINGIR.MEŠ; the crasis shows that the fashionable Abban is erroneous.

^{page 39 note 4} Seal impression e of no. 7. Ir-Kabtum mar šarri witnessed no. 96, dated “year Niqmi-epuh became king (the event of the previous year); year there was plague in the land,” not a proof that Ir-Kabtum was king at Alalaḫ in that reign, as stated on p. 3 of the publication. Text no. 52 is dated in the next or a subsequent year, “year of the plague; 2nd time,” not the same year, as stated p. 4. The witness on the envelope of no. 61, an act of Ammi-taqu, dated in the 1st year of Yarim-Lim, could, but need not, be the future king; the akil ride of no. 54 cannot be, any more than the man of Ippa, cited in the index under Niqmepa king of Yamḫad, no. 142 (a Level IV text), or the son of Ešbi-Ada(d) of no. 8, also listed as the king.

^{page 39 note 5} The father of Ammi-taqu, the king of Alalaḫ, was named Yarim-Lim, seal impression 443 b, and he assigned his kingdom and possessions to Ammi-taqu in his lifetime, as Ammi-taqu did to his son Ḫammu-rabi who died before him, no. 6/9–10. When this assignment was the subject of a claim Yarim-Lim the king renewed it; Ammi-taqu was king of Alalaḫ in the first year of Yarim-Lim of Yamhaḫ. A unique endowment for burial rites to be carried out by Nakkušše, no. 126, contains in the first lines a denial that Yarim-Lim committed sin against the “brother-man”, a direct reference to no. 1. All these references could be to the same person. Yarim-Lim the mar šarri in the time of Ammi-taqu, ration issues 247, 249, 255, 258, 272, who had in his service amele BA.ZI, nasiḫu (men called up with the general levy and then removed from their district for special employment), became king of Alalaḫ in the reign of Niqmi-epuḫ, no. 52, and Nakkušše made a claim against him based on his father's assignment, nos. 9, 10, probably an allusion to no. 126. He was still king of Alalaḫ in the first year of Ir-Kabtum, 38/8. As Ammi-taqu remained king till the reign of Ir-Kabtum, Yarim-Lim II of Alalaḫ was presumably co-regent with his father. The tables in the publication, p. 3, and JCS., VIII, 51–2Google Scholar, are not reliable.

^{page 39 note 6} Ammi-taqu was man or king of Alalaḫ in the reigns of (a) Yarim-Lim, nos. 61, 79 (which mentions the right of the suzerain to examine resale of a royal property); (b) of Ḫammu-rabi, nos. 21, 22; (c) of Niqmi-epuḫ, no. 55, and (d) of Ir-Kabtum, no. 54, where Ir-Kabtum the son of Ammi-taqu cannot be Ir-Kabtum of the date formula, the suzerain. The father of the suzerain was Niqmi-epuḫ, since Mr. Wiseman's restoration is surely correct, seal impression 443 a. Since Ammi-taqu was confirmed in his succession in the first year of Yarim-Lim of Yamḫad, there should be no question of Ḫammu-rabi the suzerain in the time of Ammi-taqu being the predecessor of Yarim-Lim, as in the table in the publication. But Niqmi-epuḫ and Ir-Kabtum must be later than Ḫammu-rabi.

^{page 40 note 1} In no. 1/8–9 the proposed restoration “Yarim-Lim son of Ḫammu-rabi” is based on the assumption that Yarim-Lim who was given Alalaḫ was the blood brother of Abba-il, and that the Ḫammu-rabi mentioned is Ḫammu-rabi the father of Abba-il of Yamḫad; it is supposed to be supported by the identification with Abba-il the son of Ammu-rabi of no. 7, in the reign of Niqmi-epuh, an impossibility. The use of “brother” in these texts for the relation of suzerain and sub-king is parallel to the use of “father” and “son” in the Ma'er texts for the relation of suzerain and client king; a different type of confederation is indicated. The restoration of KUB., XXXI, no. 5/2, is not historical evidence for the relationship of Ḫammu-rabi to Yarim-Lim, though the text almost certainly refers to the kings mentioned in the Ma'er archive. The Ammurabi of no. 7 is probably the Ḫammu-rabi who was assigned the whole inheritance of Ammi-taqu, and died before the reign of Niqmi-, when Yarim-Lim was co-regent.

^{page 40 note 2} Yarim-Lim took Arazik on the Euphrates, probably in the war against the Assyrians for Zimri-Lim; he defeated Ešnunna in battle, almost certainly in the war of Zimri-Lim and Ḫammu-rabi of Babylon against Ibal-pi-El II, the sukkallu of Elam and Atamrum of Andariq, after the 16th year of Ḫammu-rabi of Babylon; Niqmi- returned from Isin, and his visit there is to be connected with the greater favour shown to envoys from Yamḫad than to envoys from Zimri-Lim. The alliance of Babylon and Yamḫad would explain the otherwise inexplicable victories of Ḫammu-rabi over an alliance of powers individually as strong as he.

^{page 40 note 3} Text 35, an advance to Ir-Kabtum mar šarri, “in the year of Ammi-taqu the king (LUGAL.E) when he sued for the daughter of the man of Ibla KI for his son,” almost certainly giving the occasion for the advance. The theory that this is a date formula proving that Ammi-taqu assumed independence arises from the failure to distinguish the suzerain Ir-Kabtum from Ir-Kabtum son of Ammi-taqu, the šangu, text 55/15.

^{page 41 note 1} For example, Paratarna in Alalakh text no. 3, not called king, is a homonym of a king who died at Nuzi, when a piece of cloth issued for the burial was burnt. As Paratarna in no. 3 swore an oath with king Idri-mi, of Mukišḫe, he must be the envoy of the other party to the treaty, Pillia of Qizzuwadana(?); suzerains do not swear oaths to abide by treaties between sub-kings. But Zukraši (?) who has the same title as a Zukraši (?) in an unpublished text from Boğazköi, , JCS., VIII, 52Google Scholar, is much less likely to be a homonym; in which case the date of the Boğazköi text which is said to be connected with KUB., XXXI, 5Google Scholar, depends on the date of the Alalaḫ archive.

^{page 41 note 2} How misleading theories of this kind can be is illustrated by the classification of a set of names as East Canaanite, with the consequence that most of these East Canaanites are now found in the west.

^{page 41 note 3} Bilgiç, in AfO., XV, 24–5Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 4} Goetze, A. in JCS., VII, 69–70Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 5} Gurney, O. R., The Hittites, 22–3Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 6} Landsberger, B. in JCS., VIII, 64Google Scholar, col. ii. The location shows that the original argument from the Kültepe tablets was erroneous, see above (p. 35, note 5).

^{page 42 note 1} Friedrich, J., Hethitisches Elementarbuch, II, 59Google Scholar, lines 16–19. The text KUB., XXVI, no. 41, transliterated and translated in Goetze, A., Kizzuwatna, 64–6Google Scholar, is an adjuration of the Hittite king Arnuwandas to the men, that is the military nobles, of Ismirikka, allocating individuals to new posts in two provinces of the Hittite Empire. This hardly proves the thesis advanced by Goetze. Qizzuwadana ceased to exist as an independent state after the death of Suna-assura, the appointment of Telepinus the younger as priest of the state goddess meant that it was reduced to a province. The Hittite king should be Arnuwandas IV, as Sayce thought. This is the last occurrence of Urussa.