Publications

This article discusses and attempts to contextualize a few references to the practice of god-napping in the Qaṭna letters TT2–5 and in the Amarna letter EA 55. The references to god-napping in said letters enrich the debate on why the New Hittite Kingdom historiography, as opposed to the Old Hittite one, does not mention this practice, since the texts were probably written during or in the wake of Šuppiluliuma’s First Syrian War (ca. 1340). It is posited that the god-napping actions reflected in the texts concerning the fall of Qaṭna obeyed not only religious but also political and strategic motivations. God-napping was used whenever the New Hittite empire considered that it benefitted its strategic and cultic interests, even though it was no longer recorded by the Hittite historiography.

This paper examines the term mānaḫ ātu in the letters from Hittite officials found at the House of Urtenu from Ugarit and recently published in the Ras Shamra-Ougarit 23 volume (RSO 23, Lackenbacher and Malbran-Labat 2016). This paper proposes that the exact meaning of mānaḫātu—in Ugaritic mnh(̣ t)—depends on the context, since it was both a vassal tribute due to the empire by the Ugarit palace (consisting of vast amounts of grain staples) and a form of taxation imposed by the Ugarit palace on merchants and citizens of the kingdom at a local level. In addition, the letters concerning mānaḫ ātu reveal that the Hittite pressure on its vassal to meet its requirements likely contributed much to exacerbate the food shortage suffered by the kingdom of Ugarit, not long before its fall in the early 12th century B.C.

The Qaṭna letters TT1-5 are hereby analysed from a geopolitical point of view. The aim is to contribute to sharpening our understanding of Šuppiluliuma's conquests in Syria and the Levant, which precipitated the fall of Mittani. The difficulty to interpret these texts lies in the fact that the chain of events following the socalled First Syrian War (ca. 1340)-i.e., incursions, rebellions, betrayals, and coups d'état in a number of city-states in the Orontes course-probably happened at full speed. Thus, we need to understand the geopolitical grounds that influenced the furtive policies and 'under the table' dealings that no doubt took place among the different actors.

This brief paper addresses the interpretation of the GN urua-la-at-ḫa, attested to in seven letters of the RSO 23 volume and allegedly referring to Alalaḫ. Hereby, the toponym is connected to Alatḫa, a settlement previously recorded a handful of times—mainly in the Alalaḫ IV archive—and, without a doubt, to be differentiated from Alalaḫ. The exact location of Alatḫa is unknown, but a general geographical frame for it is proposed

In the House of Urtenu letters discussed here, two main topics arise: a plantation project in Mukish and a battle near Tuttul between the Hittites and the Sutu tribes. Both events took place simultaneously and were seemingly given equal relevance by Hatti. In our view, the plantation project is perhaps related to the management of the cult, whereas the Tuttul battle testifies to the complicated management of the Middle Euphrates imperial borders. Indeed, several first-class actors and their own interests are involved--Hatti, Karkemish, Babylon, and Ugarit.

This paper argues that, according to the recently published tablets from the “Maison d’Ourtenu” there is no doubt that a severe hunger inflicted Ugarit and other cities of Syria, including the Middle Euphrates region. During the course of this hunger, population unrest was felt. In the east, it was the Sutu tribes, and in the west, it was newcomers from the Aegean, which we call nowadays the “Sea Peoples”.

. This paper concerns the implantation and practice of Hittite imperial cult on Syrian soil, and the interference of Hittite officials in the management of local non-Hittite cults. We ask whether the evidence permits us to state whether we are observing a case of religious imperialism or simply a case of religious pluralism. 

This article analyses the border descriptions of the land of Karkemiš according to CTH 51, the so-called Šattiwaza treaty. We argue that the toponyms establishing the boundaries of Ḫanigalbat and Karkemiš in CTH 51 were on the east bank of the Euphrates, contrary to what is usually proposed by scholarship. Thus, the limits of Karkemiš were significantly expanded beyond the Euphrates after the establishment of Ḫanigalbat, and the east bank was from then on controlled by Šuppiluliuma’s son, Piyaššili. Pushing the borders beyond the natural limits of the river was a groundbreaking success, albeit an eventually unfeasible enterprise. 

This article is part of an ongoing research about Hittite rule and administration of Northern Syria, which, following the conquests of Šuppiluliuma and his heirs, became part of the Hittite Empire. 1 Here we consider CTH 50, a diplomatic document that contains a description of the borders of the kingdom of Carchemish under Hittite rule. We will introduce the source, provide an edition, and conclude with a geo-political consideration of the toponyms it mentions. 

This paper offers an analysis of the border descriptions of the Land of Ashtata according to the Shattiwaza Treaty (CTH 51). It also considers sources from Hattusha, Emar, Ugarit, and elsewhere, relating to Ashtata. The purpose is to revisit the borders of the Land of Ashtata, try to establish its location and discuss its relationship with the city of Emar and the Hittite Empire in Syria.

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss cuenform writing as a reflection of literacy in Bronze Age Canaan. It will show what cuneiform inscribed artifacts (mainly tablets and seals) can tell us about the way cuneiform literacy was achieved, and how, once achieved, writing was involved in the politis, economy, and social life in Canaan. The conclusion of the chapter evaluates the spread of literacy and the scope of cuneiform writing in Canaan.

This paper discusses the chronological issues arising from several Emar Syrian tablets (ASJ 14 311, AuOr 5 15, E 180, RE 81 and TBR 13), given that several of the individuals in their witness lists — including the scribes — were probably deceased when the deeds were produced. Hence, an analysis of these ‘Problem Documents’ is carried out in order to understand the nature of their contradictory features. Parallels found in other ancient Near Eastern archives (Mari, Nippur, and Ugarit) are also considered.

This paper focuses on the individuals attested in the 15 texts from Azû in order to sketch the inner chronology of the corpus. The published studies on the Ekalte and Emar generations are also used to establish a chronological link between the three Syrian archives. In addition, data from the administrative apparatus of the city (institutions, professions, scribes) will be gathered for the sake of narrowing down the social and cultural contexts of the three Syrian archives from the Middle Euphrates not long before the Hittites assumed control of the area.

Had 8 (H76-T07) is a small and unassuming tablet from Azu (Tell Hadidi).2 It measures according to our estimate 4.5 x 4.5 cm. It holds on its obverse only eight lines, and on its reverse a cylinder seal was impressed. The tablet received a preliminary treatment, but since parts of it were not fully read, its implications regarding the history and chronology of Azu were not appreciated. We will argue that Had 8 is a Mittani letter order exchanged between two Hurrian officials. We bring an edition of the text followed by a short textual commentary. Then we will discuss the historical and chronological implications of this document.

The text LN-104, which the authors re-examine thanks to excellent photographs, is one of the key sources relating to the history and chronology of Emar. This text is an important witness for the existence of the so-called 'First Dynasty' in the city, allowing us to reconfigure the political state of things at Emar prior to Hittite rule. It is also one of the few documents from Emar that contains an historical narrative.

A study of the two different types of script found in the Emar documents, commonly known as 'Syrian' and 'Syro-Hittite' traditions. These two types cut across all textual genres and they are distinct enough to be rather effortlessly detected whether in documentary sources, ritual texts or schooling materials.