Jim, et al For quite some time now Jim Stinehart has proposed a link between the Amarna Letters and Genesis 14.Specifically he claims the Four Attacking Rulers of Genesis, He wrote: "So we see who are the four attacking rulers in the Great Syrian War in western Syria: (i) Hittite King Suppiluliuma [Biblical nickname “Tidal”, a Hittite name]; (ii) Ugaritic King Niqmaddu [Biblical nickname KDRL(MR (LM, a curse in Ugaritic]; (iii) Hurrian princeling Etakkama of Qadesh on the Orontes [Biblical nickname “Arioch”, a Hurrian name]; and (iv) the west Semitic-speaking Amorite ruler of Amurru, Aziru [Biblical nickname “Amrapel”, a west Semitic name]."
The problem here is Mr Stinehart has confused the chronology of the Great Syrian Campaign of Suppiluliumas l and neither Aziru nor Aitakama assisted in any way the King's initial conquest of northern Syria. These are the facts. Petrographic examination of the Amarna Tablets by Israel Finkelsten, Nadav Na'aman and Yuval Goren has been able to determinethe physical location of Aziru during the Great Syrian Campaign. The clays of the tablets can be pinpointed to specific regions, in some cases to within yards, of their origin. Locationscan then be synchronized with events mentioned in the tablets to give a better understanding of the chronology.Long story short, Aziru's letters originated from Sumur and other coastal cities in Amurru during Suppiluliumas conquest of Syria. Aziru was no where near the scene of the crime. In sum, Aziru was in the midst of conquering Amurru, taking back the cities lost by his father and making his name knownabove his brothers during the Syrian War. He was being closely watched by the Egyptians, with an official often present,and by his enemies such as Rib Addi and could't have possibly trundled off 100 miles to the north to participate in theattacks on Syrian Cities. The question here is of what possible use did the Hittite king and his seasoned, professional army have for Aziru's rag tagband of Habiru refugees, mountain men and runaway slaves? His band were primarily Thuggees who attacked caravans,starved cities by burning their grain at harvest time, blockaded ports and took hostages for ransoms. He had virtually no horses or chariotsnor means to manufacture, transport or repair them. Against the chariots of the northern city states his band would have beensliced to ribbons. Rib Addi only asked for 300 soldiers, a few archers and chariots to defeat them. The "iniquitous" Aziru turned traitor after his stay in Egypt, which ended, according to William Murnane and others, in year 17 ofAkhenaten. This act, long after the Syrian War, proved to be no threat whatsoever to Canaan proper. As for Aitakama, Suppiluliumas, in the Shattiwaza Treaty, makes it clear Aitakama was taken, with his father, when the twoattacked the King while he was on his way to Upe..the last stop of the Great Syrian Campaign. This makes it more thanobvious Aitakama was preparing for war against the Hitttites, not aiding them, during the war. Mr Stinehart has made it known he rejects the Shattiwaza Treaty as a record of the Great Syrian War and claims insteadthat Aitakama and Kadesh were taken on a "raid" by the Hittites a year before the Great Syrian War started. Year 13 of Akhenaten. Just why Suppiluliumas would send a party 300 miles south to deliberately raid Kadesh and provoke a war with Egypt beforehe had managed to conquer the Mitanni is to me, inexplicable. Even more unbelievable is that no mention of any suchraid is mentioned in the Amarna letters. After all, Tushratta's raid in to Sumur was duly noted as was the fact it failed due tolack of water. A band Hittites, somehow slipping 300 miles through Syria to raid Kadesh going completely unreported ismuch to fantastic to be believed. Finally, Mr Stinehart mentions the collaboration of Aziru and Aitakama mentioned in the Amarna letters, EA 197 in particularand the attacks on Biriawaza, as his proof of the Four Against Five Theory. The problem here is, as William Murnane points out in "The Road to Kadesh", Aitakama was returned to Kadesh from Hattino earlier than the spring after the end of the Great Syrian War, and the battles with Biriawaza were some months, perhaps years after the Great Syrian Campaign. The Amarna letters that mention Aitakama joining with Tiuwattit, along with the leaderof Ruhizzi and Aziru to attack cities in northern Syrian were, according to Murnane, "brush wars" made possible duethe instability created by the Great Syrian Campaign. Suppiluliumas had long since returned home to Hatti to prepare for war against Carchemish. The most telling factor that these events were post war is the fact Biriawaza is mentioned as ruling Upe. In the ShattiwazaTreaty, Suppiluliumas states he took Ariwana, the king of Upe to Hatti during the war. Historians such as Trevor Brycesay the Hittite King then ceded the land back to Egypt for political reasons and Biriawaza was subsequently installed as ruler.That this is long after the Syrian war is evident in EA 205 and others where Biriawaza is alerted to prepare for the arrival of Egyptianarchers in preparation for an attempt to retake Kadesh. According to main stream historians, that attempt failed, Suppiluliumas then retaliated by initiating an attack on Amki whilehe was battling Carchemish. Aitakama DOES participate in this raid...but Aziru, as mentioned in EA 170, is in Egypt. It isthis raid that prompts Pharaoh to release Aziru. Who then promptly turns traitor, likely based on the disarray and weaknesshe saw while in Egypt. As for Nimqaddu, Stinehart claims he initiated the Syrian War by inviting the king of Hatti into Syria and that he "bankrolled"the Hittite invasion. This is painful to read when the facts are known. The Hittite King had planned his conquest of the Mitanni and its satellitesfor years. The Mitanni were choking off Hittite access to trade, raiding their lands and inciting Anatolia to War. Suppiluliumasplanned carefully, he married a Kassite princess to cut off the Mitanni from the East. He made diplomatic overtures to thevassals and Ugarit before he began the conquest from the north. He had to take down Mukish, Nuhasse, etc to gain controlof vital trade routes. Ugarit was just a small piece of the puzzle. As for the "bankrolling", one has to ask...just why would the Hittite King, who had conquered all of rich kingdoms of Anatolia, the ultra rich Mitanni with tens of thousands of horses, chariots and tons of gold...need money from tiny Ugarit whose wealth was derivedfrom Trees and Fees? His treaty with Ugarit makes no request for military aide. Suppiluliumas seems primarialy concerned with obtaining the finepurple linens of Ugarit, silver and gold cups and other objects for his palace. Much of the booty from Ugarit went to hiswife and court. In fact, the missus also has her seal on the treaty. Stinehart explains the holes in his theory by claiming the Pre Hebrew Guest Worker in Egypt didn't have the wholepicture and in their holy terror of the Hittites "took license" and invented stories about Aziru and Aitakama. But just how or why the Hebrews would invent such a story as in Genesis 14 based on men who did not participatein the Great Syrian War as Stinehart proposes is beyond understanding. Aziru and Aitakama were certainly no angels, they were murderers and backstabbers, but neither were they the devils Stinehart makes them out to be. Rob [email protected] _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
