Thursday, November 19, 2015

japhet and tina mountains




On Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:53 PM, sirreynaldo maestro <sirreynaldo@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p046a.html

Sons of Japheth:
Part I
 
(Edition 1.0  20071020-20071020)
 
The location of the sons of Japheth is an important task of identifying the nations of the world and the blessings given to Japheth by God through Noah.
 
 
 
 
 
Christian Churches of God

PO Box 369,  WODEN  ACT 2606,  AUSTRALIA

 
E-mail: secretary@ccg.org
 
 
 
(Copyright ã  2007 Wade Cox)
 
 
This paper may be freely copied and distributed provided it is copied in total with no alterations or deletions. The publisher’s name and address and the copyright notice must be included.  No charge may be levied on recipients of distributed copies.  Brief quotations may be embodied in critical articles and reviews without breaching copyright.
 
This paper is available from the World Wide Web page:
http://www.logon.org and http://www.ccg.org
 
 

 
 
Sons of Japheth
 

From the settlement by the sons of Noah after the Flood, Canaan the youngest son of Ham was already alive when they settled the land and before Noah had planted vines and was drunk on the wine (Heb. yayin; see the paper Wine in the Bible (No. 188)).
 
The term younger son in Genesis 9:24 actually refers to Noah’s grandson Canaan, as it is Canaan that is cursed and not Ham. Canaan was the last of Ham’s four sons, while Ham was the second son of Noah.
 
The Bible gives no indication of how long it was till Noah “began to be a vine dresser”. However, the vines either had to have regenerated after the Flood or planted virtually immediately after the Flood to preserve them. They could not remain indefinitely in pots.
 
The Bible indicates Canaan, and hence all the sons of Ham, was included in the immediate family grouping on the Ark. However, the Bible does not elaborate on the issue.
 
In this act against Noah (of which the Bible hints, but is not clear), Canaan is made a servant of both Shem and Japheth (cf. Gen. 9:18-27). In Genesis 9:27 the important blessing on Japheth is given where Noah says: “God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem and Canaan shall be his servant”.
 
Thus Japheth, the eldest of the three sons of Noah, was to be made very large and was to dwell in the tents of Shem, and be served by Canaan. In other words, the birthright promises of Shem were to be enjoyed by an enlarged Japheth, who would benefit from Shem’s promises but be larger than Shem in the process.
 
Japheth (jā'feth), son of Noah and ancestor of those who were to occupy the isles of the Gentiles. This is purported to mean the Mediterranean lands of Europe and Asia Minor. The meaning of his name is:
 
Japheth (SHD 3315) Yapheth from 6601 – expansion; 6601: a prim. root: to open i.e. be (make) roomy.
 
Japheth was the father of the Indo-European peoples, those stretching from India to the shores of Western Europe. They are each linked by linguistic similarities that may seem invisible to the layman but are more obvious to the linguist. He was also the ancestor of much of Asia and the Americas including some of the Pacific.
 
The break-up after Babel saw a number of linguistic groups develop.
 
Genesis 10:1-5 tells us who the sons of Japheth were.
1 These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth; sons were born to them after the flood. 2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. 3 The sons of Gomer: Ash'kenaz, Riphath, and Togar'mah. 4 The sons of Javan: Eli'shah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Do'danim. 5 From these the coastland peoples spread. These are the sons of Japheth in their lands, each with his own language, by their families, in their nations.
 
Note that the text says that each had his own language in their lands by families and by nations.
 
The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.
 
The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.
 
The sons of Javan were Eli’shah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
 
The text tells us that from these people the coastland peoples spread.
 
We have a number of histories from which to trace these people.
 
Josephus gives us valuable information regarding the sons of Japheth. In Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter Six, section 1 he says:
 
HOW EVERY NATION WAS DENOMINATED FROM THEIR FIRST INHABITANTS.
Now they were the grandchildren of Noah, in honor of whom names were imposed on the nations by those that first seized upon them. Japhet, the son of Noah, had seven sons: they inhabited so, that, beginning at the mountains Taurus and Amanus, they proceeded along Asia, as far as the river Tanais, and along Europe to Cadiz; and settling themselves on the lands which they light upon, which none had inhabited before, they called the nations by their own names. For Gomer founded those whom the Greeks now call Galatians, [Galls,] but were then called Gomerites. Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians.
 
Here we identify two of the sons of Japheth: Gomer and Magog.
 
Much is known of the people identified by Josephus. We see Gomer extend from the Taurus and Amanus Mountains in Asia Minor to the river Tanais and right across Europe to Cadiz in Spain.
 
The Book of Jubilees includes Cadiz as the border of the inheritance of Ham and Japheth. Cadiz was first established at the south-west of the Iberian Peninsula, as a colony of Tyre, and it is a Semitic word Gadir meaning walled or fortified.
 
We have dealt with the inheritance of Ham in the series Sons of Ham (No. 45A to 45E).
 
The inheritance of Japheth was thus all of Europe and the Asian mainland north of the mouth of the River Don, as we will see below. It extended also into the Americas, as we will see, where it was combined with the tents of Shem.
 
The Tanais River appears in ancient Greek sources as the name of a river and the city on it situated in the Maeotian Marshes. It was anciently viewed as the border between the inheritance of the sons of Japheth to the North, North-east and West and the sons of Shem to the South.
 
The Scythian (and Iranian) word for river was Danu, and is the equivalent to the modern Ossetic word for river, don, and hence it is now called the Don River. It was a Khazar stronghold in medieval times dominated by the fortress of Sarkel, and its later 16th- and 17th-century inhabitants are called Don Cossacks. These are sons of Japheth but they are not sons of Gomer who were the original inhabitants.
 
The Book of Jubilees terms the river (Tina) the border between Japheth and Shem beginning at its westernmost point to its mouth. The mouth discharges into the Sea of Azov.
 
In Jubilees 8:10-9:15 we see the divisions of the people of the sons of Noah and the distribution, and the curses for breaking boundaries.
 
The text is not inspired, but it and the text in Josephus represents the understanding of Judah in the Temple period of the placement of the tribes.
 
The first portion was given to Gomer and the area to the north (termed inner north) of that was given to the sons of Magog who were the Scythians. Herodotus also places the Scythians in this area (Hist. 4).
 
The sons of Gomer also included the sons of Togarmah and these were described as inhabiting the uttermost parts, or the recesses, of the north (Ezek. 38:6). We shall identify these and the root division of the people and see just how numerous and widespread these people really are in Asia. By the time of Ezekiel they had spread over the entire north and that extended into Asia.
 

Magog

 
We know where these people were in Central Asia in what became the Steppes and into Persia. We know from the Irish and Scottish histories that these people founded the Scoto-Milesians that occupied Ireland and Scotland as the last conquerors of those areas before the Normans came into them. The Welsh also entered Britain and later some entered Ireland, however, these are not Scythians but rather Riphathian Celts of the kingdom of Wilusia whose capital was at Troy until 1054 BCE when it was overthrown by the alliance of the Greeks and Thracians called Phrygians. They merged with some Javanites in Britain where there were sons of Elisha and Tarshish, and hence we get the K2 YDNA in Britain as well as the Hamitic A and B and E Haplogroups from various sources that we will discuss in the relevant papers.
 
The genealogy of the Milesians is explained in the genealogy of the Geoghegan clan, which takes the Magogites from Adam to the Milesian clans in Ireland of recent centuries. Appendix 1 of this series is extremely helpful in understanding their history.
 
We know for a fact that the Scythians were as far east as the Uigur Autonomous Region of China at Urumqi in the second millennium BCE, as we have found their mummified bodies there in the middle of the twentieth century. Their physiology is Celt and the clothes and kilts they possessed resemble ancient Scottish hunting tartans and plaids. A textile expert, Elizabeth Wayland Barber, has written on the subject (The Mummies of Urümchi, London, 1999).
 
The Bible says clearly that in the Last Days the land of Magog is in fact occupied by the tribes of Meshech and Tubal under their leader, who is termed Gog. This name is used of the enemies of the sons of Israel, and extended from Agag of Amalek to Haman the Agagite or descendant of Agag the Amalekite, and on to the leader of the Last Days in the area of ancient Magog. This leader is not of Magog but of Meshech and Tubal ruling the area we now describe as central Russia and the countries that made up what was the Soviet Union. There is a letter Y immediately before Gog in the Hebrew and thus it should read Ygog or the old Agag.
 
In Ezekiel 1:2-3 God says to Ezekiel:
2 Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, (or Chief Prince of depending on how “Rosh” is translated.), Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, 3 And you shall say; So says the Lord God: Behold I am against you, Gog, the prince the head of Meshech and Tubal
 
Magog by this text no longer lives in its ancient lands in Scythia but has moved. As we trace it, we shall see that the tribe of Magog has moved all over the world. The leader that God is against is of the houses of Mesech and Tubal that now have occupied the lands of Magog in what was Scythia. We have examined this war in the paper War of Hamon-Gog (No. 294). It refers to the war of the Last Days and the alliance that comes against Israel.
 
At the end of the Millennium, Gog is conjoined with Magog and marches against Christ at Jerusalem (Rev. 20:7-8) under the influence of the newly-released Satan. This is another war altogether under another leader who embodies the spirit of the adversary, as what we would term the Antichrist. In this case, Gog is used rather that Antichrist, as the person carrying this label is already dead. The false prophet and this entity, Antichrist, are killed by Christ at his return. Gog and Magog in the end sequence are considered to be two beings of the fallen Host that influence all the lands of the Earth in the end of the Millennium rebellion.
 
The early Churchmen identified the Goths as the Getae of Thrace, rather than the Goths being the Magog as identified by Ambrose in De Fide (378) when the emperor Gratian was going to fight the Goths in the Gothic War of 376-382. Ambrose wrote Gog iste Gothus este meaning that Gog is the Goth. Gog has taken on the name of whoever is against you at the time. Note, however, that the Goths were identified with the Getae in Thrace by Jerome in his comment on Genesis 10:2. Augustine in his City of God identifies Gog and Magog as not being a particular people in a particular place, but says that they exist all over the world. The location of the Getae in Thrace ca. 390 by Jerome means that they had moved into Thrace and replaced the Tirasians from the horde of the Massagetae further east. They may have been part-Tirasian in Parthia as well, as were the Svear or Swedes who also claim descent from Magog among its leaders.
 
The Qur’an in Surah 21:96-97 refers to this letting loose as a sign of the end before the judgment.
But when Gog and Magog are let loose and they rush headlong down every height (or advantage). Then will the True Promise draw near.
 
The text is thus a paraphrase of Revelation 20.
 
The sons of Magog were the Scythians, whose own historians numbered themselves among them. The Spanish Visigoths claimed descent from Magog as we see from the writings of Isidore of Seville, who said that all the Goths were descended from Magog. The Swedes also claim descent from the Scythian Magogites. The Swede Johannes Magnus (1488-1544) held that Magog’s sons were Sven and Gethar (who is asserted to be also named Gog). They allegedly became the ancestors of the Swedes (Sven) and Goths (Gethar). Queen Christina of Sweden reportedly held she was number 249 in a list of kings going back to Magog. The line thus must have been simply the successive kings of the sub-tribe since the line from Magog in the Irish lineages only numbers between 122-130 from Magog to the present time (see the Genealogy of the Geoghegans at the Appendix).
 
We now look at the next of the sons according to Josephus.
 

Madai

 
Regarding Madai and the Medes, Josephus states:
Now as to Javan and Madai, the sons of Japhet; from Madai came the Madeans, who are called Medes, by the Greeks; (Ant. Jews, op. cit.)
 
The Medes were situated in the hill country north-west of the Elamites, who comprised the Persians in what was Persia and is now Iran.
 
These Medes formed the core of what became the Kurds in what is now Kurdistan. Their female mtDNA groups entered the Parthians and also the Riphathian Celts. That is why the I mtDNA Haplogroup is significant among Kurds, Italians and the English.
 
The error in Josephus concerns Javan. Jubilees ascribes the Greeks as deriving from Javan, however, the Spartan Greeks we know to be Semites of the sons of Keturah. The Greeks derived from Javan are in the islands and extend west on the Mediterranean to Spain. Some half of modern Greeks are E3b North Africans and are not sons of Japheth. Almost all modern Greeks are either Hamitic or Semitic at a ratio of approximately 55% to 45%. Josephus claims:
... but from Javan, Ionia, and all the Grecians, are derived.
 
As we now know this is incorrect in that the modern mainland Greeks are not all sons of Japheth.
 
These Ionian Greeks inhabited the islands and not mainland Greece.
 
Jubilees 8:25-26 identifies the inheritance of Japheth as being north of the Tina or Don River to the north-east of all the “region of Gog”. Thus the term Gog was originally applied to the Steppes in what was termed the former Central Soviet Republics and “everything east of it”.
 
That takes us into Asia proper, and East Asia. We will see the significance of this in later papers as we examine the distribution of the Japhethite tribes.
 
Jubilees identifies the origin of the term Celt in 8:26, where it says that the inheritance went “towards the mountains of Qelt toward the north, toward the Ma’uk Sea”; in other words, to the Caucasus. The term Ma’uk Sea means “the world ocean known to the Greeks as Okeanos” (cf. Jubilees to James H Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, p. 73, fn. s).  In other words, the boundary for Japheth was the world sea that surrounds Europe and Asia from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Jubilees makes this clearer by saying that the border was also to the east of Cadiz, where it is at the edge of the water of the sea (i.e. the Atlantic).
 

Javan

 
The Book of Jubilees also identifies the five great islands of the Mediterranean as being the inheritance of Japheth and seemingly of Javan.
 
Now, there are six great islands of the Mediterranean. The text reads:
And to Javan the fourth portion was assigned, every island and the islands which are towards the side of Lud.” Lud was the son of Shem that was assigned the portion from Mt Asshur to the Mediterranean Sea and thus Javan held the islands off the Anatolian Coast.
 
The five great islands are mentioned in 1 Enoch 77:8 and these islands would be Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Cyprus and Crete, but Jubilees assigns four of these to Japheth, and the fifth (island) belongs to Arphaxad or Arphachsad, son of Shem. That is Crete (Caphtor) (cf. Jub. 8:21). In Jubilees 9:13 we see this island referred to as Kamaturi, which is understood to be a corruption of Caphtor (involving the substitution of a labial m for a labial p). The five islands of Japheth would thus be Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Cyprus, and Malta.
 
Some have linked Cyprus to Dan, as mention is made of the Danaan in the Mediterranean as well as in Ireland. These are a Semitic group associated with Javan and were in Ireland before the Milesian Magogites came there.
 
We have seen from the detail of the Sons of Ham Part III: Mizraim that Crete or Capthor ended up as part of the Libyan possessions of the sons of Egypt and not that of Arphaxad.
 
In the excavations of Crete and the palace at Knossos and from detail in the National Museum, however, we can see plainly that there were two types of people there. One was the dark-skinned Cretans and the other type was Semite ruling priestesses with dresses cut to reveal their breasts. They were deliberately painted with lighter skins. In the museum also there are earrings of the Golden Calf of the Semites in Shinar. In my discussions with the museum staff they appeared not to fully realise the importance or significance of what they had there, or they resisted the concepts for nationalist reasons. These were probably the early Assyrian Arphaxadites referred to by Josephus.
 
The distribution of the sons of Javan in the islands is also supported by the K2 YDNA groups in Malta and in Spain. We will discuss this aspect later in the paper on Javan.
 
However, every island was given to Javan and that in the first instance involved the settlement beyond the Mediterranean. The first settler of Ireland was one of these early Greeks called Parthelon, as we will see later. The islands that went to Javan were indeed extensive and extended to the island groups in Asia and the Pacific, as we will also see later from an examination of the distribution of the YDNA K Haplogroup and its Hg M derivative.
 
Of the three sons of Javan also, the son of Japhet, Elisa gave name to the Eliseans, who were his subjects; they are now the Aeolians. Tharsus to the Tharsians, for so was Cilicia of old called; the sign of which is this, that the noblest city they have, and a metropolis also, is Tarsus, the tau being by change put for the theta. Cethimus possessed the island Cethima: it is now called Cyprus; and from that it is that all islands, and the greatest part of the sea-coasts, are named Cethim by the Hebrews: and one city there is in Cyprus that has been able to preserve its denomination; it has been called Citius by those who use the language of the Greeks, and has not, by the use of that dialect, escaped the name of Cethim. And so many nations have the children and grandchildren of Japhet possessed. Now when I have premised somewhat, which perhaps the Greeks do not know, I will return and explain what I have omitted; for such names are pronounced here after the manner of the Greeks, to please my readers; for our own country language does not so pronounce them: but the names in all cases are of one and the same ending; for the name we here pronounce Noeas, is there Noah, and in every case retains the same termination. (Josephus, Ant. Jews, ibid.)
 

The King of Javan

The Bible identifies Alexander of Macedonia as the King of Javan, which is rendered as the King of Greece in the KJV (Dan. 8:21; 10:20; cf. 11:2; and Zech. 9:13). It is thus assumed that we are speaking of the sons of Javan, son of Japheth here.
 
The problem is that we are dealing with two Javans. One is the son of Japheth and the progenitor of the Ionian or island and coastal Anatolian Greeks, and the other is a descendant of Joktan (cf. Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary 3120). Javan, son of Joktan, was Haplogroup I from Shem, and a great many I and J are found in mainland Greece that were the early inhabitants of the sons of Joktan and Keturah, and the later Hg J sons of Abraham. Haplogroup J is a split from Haplogroup I which was the original Hebrew group, and both contain S2 and S22. The other half are the E3b North Africans that entered Greece at a later date. The Island and Anatolian Greeks seem to be Hg K2 (from the Dodanim) as are the Maltese and some Spaniards and some in Britain. The mainland Greeks are sons of Shem and Ham. Javan is also a place in Arabia, perhaps related also to Joktan. The YDNA simply does not support the contention that the Dodanim of Rhodes were mainland Greeks,  mixed up with the Tirasians, as some suppose. If they were, they certainly moved with the Tirasians away from there with the fall of Parthia. There are certainly K2 Javanite bloodlines in Wales, as we know from the family of President Thomas Jefferson and others.
 

Tubal

 
Tubal, son of Japheth, is connected with the Tabali, an Anatolian tribe, and both the Iberians of the Caucasus and those of the Iberian peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal), as well as Illyrians and Italics. In the Book of Jubilees he was bequeathed the three 'tongues' of Europe.
 
The Tabali (Tibarenoi in Greek) were Luwian tribes of Asia Minor of the 3rd-1st millennias BCE. They and other related tribes, the Chalybes (Khalib/Khaldi) and the Mossynoeci (Mossynoikoi in Greek), are sometimes considered the founders of metallurgy.
 
According to the Scriptures and secular history, Tubal's descendants, along with those of Magog, Gomer, Meshech and others form a great north and central Asiatic confederation that includes parts of Russia, Mongolia and China. Although mentioned in Bible history, most of what the Scriptures have to say about Tubal is yet-to-occur prophecy.
 

Iberia

The common view in antiquity was that the settlers of Iberes were the Thobelites. Iberes was originally in the area later occupied by Parthia near the Black Sea. The groups there also moved into the western Mediterranean and named the land there Iberia, now called Spain.
 
Thobel founded the Thobelites, who are now called Iberes; (Ant. Jews, ibid.)
 
The Iberes of the Caucasus were relatives of modern-day Georgians, founders of the city of Tobolsk.
 
The origins of the name Iberian has many theories of which the most accepted for scholars is the tribe of Tiberani (from the annals of the Assyrian Kings) or Tubal-kain from which name allegedly Iberian has derived. The name itself is used by ancient Greek authors who identify these early Georgian (Kartvelian) tribes as Iberoi and also in the Roman annals of Plutarch. The Iberians called their kingdom Kartli and their nation Kartlians. There are many theories among the scholars which claim that there are common ethnic and linguistic origins of Caucasian Iberians with pre-Indo European Iberians of the Iberian Peninsula in Spain (mainly Basques).
 
A Georgian historian, Ivane Javakhishvili, considered Tabal, Tubal, Jabal and Jubal to be ancient Georgian tribal designations.
 
However, the Welsh historian Nennius stated that Tubal was ancestor to the Iberians, 'Italians' [i.e., Italic tribes] and 'Spanish' [who were also called Iberians]. Tubal is also said to be the founder of the Portuguese city of Setubal.
 
Basque intellectuals like Poza have named Tubal as the ancestor of Basques and, by extension, the Iberians. The French Basque author Augustin Chaho published The Legend of Aitor, asserting that the common patriarch of the Basques was Aitor, a descendant of Tubal.
 
Thus Thobel is in two places. One is in what is now Russia and the surrounding territories and the other is in Spain.
 
What is important is that most Georgian and Armenians are of Semitic bloodlines of Assyrian and Israelite origin from G, H, I and J. Approximately 40% only are Japhethitic.
 

Meshech

 
The next reference is to Mosoch or the Japhethite Meshech who inhabited Cappadocia in what was Anatolia.
 
… and the Mosocheni were founded by Mosoch; now they are Cappadocians. There is also a mark of their ancient denomination still to be shown; for there is even now among them a city called Mazaca, which may inform those that are able to understand, that so was the entire nation once called. (Ant. Jews, op. cit.)
 
These people were displaced northwards with the sons of Tubal and were north of the Parthian and Scythian horde at a later date.

 

Probably Tubal was in Pontus, and Meshech was in the Moschian Mountains. Their movement was from eastern Asia Minor north to the Black Sea.

 
Meshech is named with Tubal as a principality of the prince of Gog in the land of Magog in Ezekiel 38:2 and 39:1, and was considered a Japhetite tribe identified by Flavius Josephus with the Cappadocian Moschoi and their capital Mazaca.
 
The extent of Magog may also indicate they are also in Mesech and Tubal.
 
The Mushki (Muški) were an Iron Age people of Anatolia, known from Assyrian sources. They do not appear in Hittite records. Several authors have connected them with the Moschoi (Μόσχοι) of Greek sources and the Georgian tribe of the Meskhi. Josephus identified the Moschoi with the Biblical Meshech (cf. Wikipedia article on Mushki).
 
These people can only be definitively identified by reference to the DNA.
 

Meshech (Easton’s Bible Dictionary)

They were in all probability the Moschi, a people inhabiting the Moschian Mountains, between the Black and the Caspian Seas. In Ps. 120:5 the name occurs as simply a synonym for foreigners or barbarians. "During the ascendency of the Babylonians and Persians in Western Asia, the Moschi were subdued; but it seems probable that a large number of them crossed the Caucasus range and spread over the northern steppes, mingling with the Scythians. There they became known as Muscovs, and gave that name to the Russian nation and its ancient capital by which they are still generally known throughout the East".
 

Tiras

 
The next group are the Tirasians or Thirasians, called Thracians.
 
Thiras also called those whom he ruled over Thirasians; but the Greeks changed the name into Thracians (Ant. Jews, ibid.).
 
These people encompassed a great horde of the Parthians, and also from them sprang the Phrygians who invaded Anatolia from Thrace after the fall of Troy.
 
They too will provide a great surprise for the student of Bible history.
 
The Tirasians were the first fair-haired people known to antiquity and they allegedly later became known as part of the Getae. We will test this hypothesis in the paper on Tiras.
 
They are sometimnes identifed as the Pereset (Peleset) or Sea Peoples know to the Egyptians also as Tursha and the Greeks as Tyrsenoi (cf. article ‘Tiras’, Wikipedia stub).
 
These people were of various origins and they attacked Egypt as a confederation in the reign of Rameses III. They are mentioned in a  number of inscriptions.
 
In Year 8 of his reign the alliance of the  “Nine Bows” appear again as a "conspiracy in their isles."  In this record they are revealed unquestionably as sea peoples: the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen and Weshesh, which are classified as "foreign countries" in the inscription. They camped in Amor and sent a fleet to the Nile. (cf. Wikipedia article ‘Sea Peoples’). For the first time in history the Israelites are identified as one of the peoples that the 19th dynasty fought against in the union of the Nine Bows. There were land armies and the Peoples of the Sea (also “Great Green”) who lived in ships and behaved like the later Vikings.
 
Some of these may have been Island Greeks and also Thracian groups coming out of the Black Sea.
 
The Book of Jubilees states that the inheritance of Tiras consisted of “four large islands in the midst of the sea which approaches the portion of Ham” (Jub. 9:13; cf. 8:29). This cannot be the islands of the Mediterranean as five of those islands were given to Javan and Crete was given to Arphaxad. They could not be the islands of the Aegean either as that does not approach the portion of Ham. They may have been occupied by the Tirasians in the beginning but their inheritance could appear to be in the Atlantic beyond the Pillars of Hercules.
 
Wikipedia says some have suggested that Tiras was worshipped by his descendants as Thuras, or Thor, the god of thunder. The earliest Norse sagas name Thor as an ancestral chieftain, and trace his origins to Thrace.
 
The Germanic peoples also worshipped a god called Tiwaz (which some scholars consider to originally have been Odin), whose name was rendered Tyr/Tir in Scandinavian languages, and Tiw in Old English.
 
The sagas hold Thor was the son of Odin and Jörd. Jörd means earth. Her rival is Frigg, the other wife of Odin (hence Friday).
 
Thus Tiw’s day or Tuesday, Woden’s day or Wednesday, Thir’s day or Thursday and Frigg’s day or Friday in the Norse and Saxon calendars. The separation of Tiwaz and Wotan or Woden make Tiwaz and Odin unlikely to be the same ancestor.
 
The medieval rabbinic Book of Jasher records the sons of Tiras as Rushash, Cushni, and Ongolis. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiras)
 
However, we note another reference to the sons of Tiras as being:
Jasher: Chapter 7.9 And the sons of Tiras were Benib, Gera, Lupirion and Gilak;
 
The connections with the Angles and English seems obvious for Ongolis. Even if the text is a medieval work it indicates that the authors understood the English as Tirasians or attempted to make them so.
 

Parthia

 
Parthia at its greatest extent in the First Century BCE was an aggregation of Tirasians, Gomerites, Scythians, Medes, Afghan and North Persian tribes. In the First Century BCE Parthia extended into Asia Minor and included all Judaea and Galilee under the Parthian appointed rule of the Jewish Antigonis. The Romans deposed him and placed Herod on the throne. The break-up of the Parthian Empire occurred at the beginning of the Third Century CE.
 
The city of Tarsus of which Paul was born was in Cilicia on the south-east coast of Asia Minor on the right bank of the Tarsus River (ancient Cydnus) ten miles from the present coastline. It has never changed location since its founding and has a better claim than Damascus to be the most ancient city in the world. Called Gozlu Kule, the most ancient section is the prehistoric mound on the SW side of the city. It was in the country of Kizzuwatna in the ancient Hittite records and its name Tarsa is preclassical and probably its original name. Hittite objects are found there dating to the period 1400-1200 BCE This was the time of the commencement of the hostilities towards Troy (cf. Acts 9:11,30; 11:25; 21:39; 22:3; cf. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Art. ‘Tarsus’, Vol. 4, p. 518).
 
The city of Tarsus should not be confused with the Tarshish of the sons of Japheth on the Black Sea in what was called Iberes (and associated by some with the term Parthenia allegedly changed by the sons of Tarshish). There was a Jewish population there in both Tarsus and in Parthia as there were Israelites throughout Parthia. They seemed to have moved to Tarshish in Spain, and named the area Iberia also. Some may have perhaps moved then to Ireland, but the Milesian Irish and the Scots are Scythians Magogites and not sons of Javan. However, there were sons of Javan there. The Scythians were sons of Magog and adjoined the Parthians, who were sons of Gomer and Tiras. At its greatest extent Parthia included Scythian Magog; and Parthian and Scythian burial customs were similar.
 
The Taurus mountains were a chief source of gems and metal for the ships of Tarshish as was Britain the source of tin and other metals for them for centuries, and from the time of David (see the paper Rule of the Kings Part II: David No. 282B)).
 
In 224 CE Persia revolted under Ardashir I who defeated the last Parthian king. During his reign, eastern Iran, the former Kushan Empire, was also conquered. In 226 CE the Parthian Empire ended and Ardashir I took Mesopotamia, which was a major portion of Parthia as an empire.

In 227 CE the Sasanian Empire was formed by Ardashir I. The Empire lasted until 651 CE.
 
The sons of Madai who were the Medes remained, more or less, in situ in what became Kurdistan, which spreads from eastern Turkey across northern Iraq to north-west Iran. Originally it was further north, but later the Medes were pushed into the south by the Khazar, and subsequent, northern hordes.
 
The north-western Parthians left Parthia in the area between what is now Albania and Bulgaria and the Caspian Sea for Europe, where they completed their occupation.
 
We will study these movements in greater detail in each of the papers dealing with the sons of Japheth and their place in prophecy.
 
q


 

Appendix 1: DNA links in Europe and Asia

 
Both Shem and Japheth possessed the same YDNA key at Haplogroup F. This Haplogroup was carried by all sons of Shem and Japheth, whereas the sons of Ham did not possess this link. The link for Hg F is P14, M89, M213. All Haplogroups from G to R possess this lineage.
 
From what we see, the lineages of Shem and the tribes Shem from F produced the Haplogroups G, H, I and J.
 
Japheth produced Haplogroup K and all the groups coming from K are sons of the sons of Japheth.
 
The sons of Japheth can be identified from the YDNA chart, but the mutations are not as early as the break-up of the sons and thus some of the sons have descendants of differing Haplogroups. For example, the sons of Gomer possess both R1a and R1b combinations, as well as other Haplogroups. Some of the sons of Gomer as listed by the Bible have developed the same Haplogroups as other sons of Japheth.
 
A puzzle that is posed by modern science is that of the origin of the sons of HN, who split into the N and O Haplogroups. They came from Hg K and they were one line at M214, and from that ancestor they split into N (LLY22) and O (M175). These sons of HN produced a massive number of people.
 
HN was the ancestor of the Huns and the sons of Han, being the Han Chinese. The dissimilarity is only in a vowel between the two consonants, being Hun and Han. They both had the same ancestor HN at M214. What makes this most fascinating is that the Finns, another Magyar people, of N Hg as are the Huns, speak Uralic-Altaic languages. Hungarian is part of this group as is Turkic, Mongolian, Manchurian, Manchu-Tungus, Old Korean and Japanese. The Mongols and related peoples are Hamitic Group C and the Japanese are Group D with some Group C, but fifty percent of the Japanese are also Hg O coming from the same group, as are the Tibetans. The Tibetans, who are sons of Cush, also are Hamitic Hg D, but they also have fifty percent O. The Southern Han of South China are Hg O with some C and D. The Sumatrans have more than 50% O and less D (say 5-10%). The Malays have less, but some Hg C also. The Hgs C and D are discussed in the paper Sons of Ham Part II: Cush (No. 45B). The Lapps/Sami are also Hg N, as are some Lithuanian Ashkenazim. Most Ashkenazim are Hg R1a. Ashkenaz is a tribe of Gomer. Riphath is the second son of Gomer and most of Riphath YDNA is R1b.
 
The only son of Gomer that could qualify is Togarmah, which occupies the uttermost parts of the North, which is what we see with the Lapps/Sami and Finns and the tribes in northern Russia/Siberia. The problem that is posed by this YDNA link is that China also has K, and the K, M and O Haplogroups extend into South-East Asia in the Malays at O with some C and D, and Borneo and Sumatra at O with some C and K. The Papuans are mostly Hg K, and the West Papuans or Irian Jayans are Hg M with a significant amount of Hamitic C. The Philippinos and the North Polynesians also have significant Hg O. The Philippinos have some 15% KC and D mix, whilst the Maori are predominantly are C3, which is Hamitic. Some 20% of Australian Aborigines and Torres Straight Islanders are also Hg K. They are thus not a homogenous group of one origin but are of three distinct tribal origins from Ham at C4 and two from Japheth at Hgs K and RxR1basic. These are later mutations.
 
 
 
 
YDNA chart from Hg F:
 
                        G 18% Georgia Armenia (Assyrian) 12% Turkey,
 
 
F                                             
H
                       
 
 
I           7% Georgia Armenia, 15% Turkey
 
 
                       
J           20% Georgia Armenia, 22% Turkey
                       
 
 
K         L
                                   
 
 
M
                                   
 
 
N         Huns, Finns, Lapps/Sami, Nenets, 15-20% of the Russians, Kazan Tartars, Evenks, Buryats, Koryaks and 50% of Siberian Eskimos and 85% of Siberian Yakuts.
                                   
O Han Chinese, Malays, Philippinos, 60% Western Samoans, 30% French Polynesia (majority Hg C).
                                   
P                      Q Major part of all Amerindians (Q and Q3) 70% of Selkups and 15% of Altai, 10% of Yakuts, 15% of Koryaks, 45% of Siberian Eskimos.
                                               
 
 
R          RxR1 basic 10% of Australian Aborigines and North Indians, 15% of Dravidians, 45% of Cameroon,
 
 
R1                    R1A                 R1B

instintina mountains



On Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:17 PM, sirreynaldo maestro <sirreynaldo@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Hayasa-Azzi

Wiki: Hayasa-Azzi
Free messaging, invite your friends (Ad)

Contents:


1. Before Tudhaliya III (1500-1340s
BC)


2. Tudhaliya III and Suppiluliuma I
(1340s-1320s BC)


3. Mursili II (1320s-1290s BC)


4. Decline of Hayasa


5. See also


6. References


7. External links



This article is part of the series on:

History of
Armenia




Prehistoric
Armenia


Hayasa-Azzi


Armens


Urartu


Kingdom of
Armenia


Orontid Armenia


Kingdom of Sophene


Artaxiad Dynasty


Kingdom of Commagene


Arsacid Dynasty


Medieval
History


Marzpanate Period


Byzantine Armenia


Arab conquest of Armenia


Bagratuni Armenia


Kingdom of Vaspurakan


Armenian Kingdom of
Cilicia


Zakarid Armenia


Foreign Rule


Persian Domination


Ottoman
Domination


Russian Domination


Hamidian Massacres


Armenian Genocide


Contemporary Armenia


Democratic Republic of
Armenia


Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic


Republic
of Armenia


Topical


Military history of
Armenia


Timeline of Armenian
history

This box: view • talk • edit




Location of Hayasa-Azzi.

 Location of Hayasa-Azzi.

Hayasa-Azzi or Azzi-Hayasa,
Haisa was a confederation formed between the
Kingdoms of Hayasa located South of Trabzon and Azzi, located North
of the Euphrates and to the South of
Hayasa. The territory of Hayasa is thought to have been involved in
the formation of the Armenian
nation (Hayk) and ancient Armenian language. The union of tribes
ruled by Hayes (Armenian: Հայ,
a name still used by modern Armenians) was formed there and moved
to Shupria in 12th century BC. [1] [2]

1. Before Tudhaliya III (1500-1340s BC)

Hittite inscriptions deciphered in
the 1920s by the Swiss scholar Emil Forrer testify to the existence
of a mountain country, the Hayasa and/or the Azzi, lying around
Lake Van. Several prominent authorities
agree in placing Azzi to the north of Ishuwa. Others see Hayasa and Azzi as
identical.

Records of the time between Telipinu
and Tudhaliya III are sketchy. The
Hittites seem to have abandoned their capital at Hattusa and moved to Sapinuwa under one of the earlier Tudhaliya kings. In the early 14th cenutury BC
Sapinuwa was burned as well. Hattusili
III recorded of this time that the Azzi had "made Samuha its frontier". It should be born in
mind that people who view themselves as great civilizations are not
always too particular about which group of so-called
"Barbarians" they are fighting. Also at times multiple
atrocities are blamed on one group as a rallying cry for a current
war.

2. Tudhaliya III and Suppiluliuma I (1340s-1320s
BC)

Tudhaliya III chose to make Samuha his capital. He sent
his general Suppiliuma, who would later serve as king under the
title Suppiluliuma I, against
Hayasa. The Hayasans refused to fight, and Suppiluliuma was
confronted instead by Kaska marauders; but
Suppiluliuma defeated them.

During their reigns, the cuneiform tablets of Boğazköy begin to mention the names of
three successive kings who ruled over a state of Hayasa and/or
Azzi. They were Karanni, Mariya, and Hukkana.

Karanni made incursions into the Hittite empire, which were
stopped by Tudhaliya together with Suppiluliuma. Mariya, the next
king of Hayasa, who had married a Hittite princess, was punished
with death because of his breach of matrimonial contract.

Hukkana, the third in the line, also married a Hittite princess;
by now, Suppiluliuma had become king himself and Hukkana had
married Suppiluliuma's sister.

In a treaty signed with Hukkana, Suppiluliuma I mentions a
series of obligations of civil right:


    "My sister, whom I gave you in marriage has sisters;
    through your marriage, they now become your relatives. Well, there
    is a law in the land of the Hatti. Do not approach sisters, your
    sisters-in law or your cousins; that is not permitted. In Hatti
    Land, whosoever commits such an act does not live; he dies. In your
    country, you do not hesitate to marry your own sister, sister-in
    law or cousin, because you are not civilized. Such an act cannot be
    permitted in Hatti."


Despite these restrictions imposed upon Hukkana, he was no meek
and submissive brother-in law in political and military affairs. As
a condition for the release of the thousands of Hittite prisoners
held in his domain, he demanded first the return to home of the
Hayasan prisoners confined in Hatti.

3. Mursili II (1320s-1290s BC)

The kingdom of Hayasa-Azzi remained quiet for a time, perhaps
hit by the same plague which claimed Suppiluliuma and his son
Arnuwanda II. But in Mursili's
seventh year (three years before Mursili's eclipse - so, 1315 BC),
the "lord of Azzi" Anniya took advantage of
Pihhuniya's unification of the Kaskas
and raided the Hittite border town of Dankuwa.

Cavaignac wrote of that period that Anniya "had sacked
several districts and refused to release the prisoners taken. He
had created a political union of the tribes of Armenia, and
organized a kingdom which extended from the River Iris (Yeshil-Irmak) to the Lake of
Van."[citation needed]

Hayasa's good fortune did not continue long, however. The
Hittite King Mursili II, having
defeated Pihhuniya and consulted the oracles, invaded Hayasa in. In
the following spring he crossed the Euphrates and re-organized his
army at Ingalova ”Angegh, Angel” which, about ten centuries later,
was to become the treasure-house and burial-place of the Armenian kings of the Arshakuni Dynasty. One of the captured
fortresses lay on the west side of the Lake of Van.

The Annals of Mursili thus describe these campaigns (CTH 61, 43, 78[citation
needed]):


    The people of Nahasse arose and besieged" (name
    indecipherable). "Other enemies and the people of Hayasa
    likewise. They plundered Institina, blockaded Ganuvara with troops
    and chariots. And because I had left Nuvanzas, the chief
    cup-bearer, and all the heads of the camp and troops and chariots
    in the High Country, I wrote to Nuvanzas as follows; 'See the
    people of Hayasa have devastated Institina, and blockaded the city
    of Ganuvara.' And Nuvanza led troops and chariots for aid and
    marched to Ganuvara And then he sent to me a messenger and wrote to
    me; 'Will you not go to consult for me the augur and the
    foreteller? Could not a decision be made for me by the birds and
    the flesh of the expiatory victims?



    And I sent to Nuvanza this letter: 'See, I consulted
    for you birds and flesh, and they commanded, Go! because these
    people of Hayasa, the God U, has already delivered to you; strike
    them!



    And as I was returning from Astatan to Carchemish, the
    royal prince Nana-Lu came to meet me on the road and said, 'The
    Hayasan enemy having besieged Ganuvara, Nuvanza marched against him
    and met him under the walls of Ganuvara. Ten thousand men and seven
    hundred chariots were drawn up in battle against him, and Nuvanza
    defeated them. There are many dead and many prisoners.


(Here the tablets are defaced, and 15 lines lost.)


    And when I arrived in Tiggaramma, the chief cup-bearer
    Nuvanza and all the noblemen came to meet me at Tiggaramma. I
    should have marched to Hayasa still, but the chiefs said to me,
    'The season is now far advanced, Sire, Lord! Do not go to
    Hayasa.' And I did not go to Hayasa.


After Anniya's defeat, neither Azzi nor Hayasa re-emerge in
the Hittite (or Assyrian) record as a
unified nation.

4. Decline of Hayasa

Hayasa as a fighting power was practically eliminated by the
expedition of Mursil II in 1340 B.C. But after Mursil's
premature death in 1320 B.C., the Hatti empire suffered a series of
shocks. His elder brother Arnuwanda (Arvandas, or Erouand) had also
died young. The origin of the Hay element is still a mystery, but
the existence of the land and people of Hayasa as a factor in
relation to the Hatti covers a long period. [3]

5. See also


    * Ishuwa

    * Hurrians

    * Phrygians

    * History of the
      Hittites

    * Indo-European
      languages

    * Prehistoric Armenia

    * Lesser Armenia


6. References


    * Vahan M. Kurkjian, History
      of Armenia.

    * T. V. Gamkrelidze and
      V. V. Ivanov,
      The Early History of Indo-European (aka Aryan) Languages,
      Scientific American, March 1990

    * Armenia: Cradle of Civilization by David Marshall Lang (review) // The
      Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Autumn, 1980),
      pp. 312-314, by Sonia Ketchian




   1. Lesser Armenia article, Great Soviet
      Encyclopedia

   2. Armenians article, Great Soviet
      Encyclopedia

   3. Vahan Kurkjian - The Country
      of Hayasa-Khayasha



7. External links


    * http://un.cti.depaul.edu/Countries/Armenia/1133483520.pdf
      History of Armenia


Category: Semi-protected, All articles
with unsourced statements,
Articles with unsourced statements since October 2007, Articles
with unsourced statements since June 2007, Hittite Empire, History of Armenia, Ancient peoples, Hayasa, Ancient peoples of
Armenia

In other languages:
ca gl hy simple

The article "Hayasa-Azzi"
is part of the Wikipedia
encyclopedia. It is licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL.


    * "Hayasa-Azzi"
      on the wikipedia website

    * Page
      history

    * Discussion

    *


      Edit this page


modified: 2008-01-04 02:15:50

Home
Wapedia: For Wikipedia on mobile phones

hittites




On Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:14 AM, sirreynaldo maestro <sirreynaldo@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
 
Late Empire
Part 3

Ḫattušili III (~1274~1249), Son of Muršili II
Titles Tabarna, Great King, King of Ḫatti, My Sun (Ḫattušili's use of Tabarna is probably related to his attempts to connect himself with Ḫattušili I, who also used that title.)
Annals Fragmentary. (CTH #82)
Queen Pudu-Ḫepa, daughter of Pentib-šarri, Priest of Lawazantiya. He married her when he returned from the Kinza campaign of Muwattalli. Official documents frequently done in both the king's name and hers. She wrote to Egypt when Ḫattušili wrote to the pharaoh.
Other Wives Babylonian Princess: HDT #22E §9
Amorite Princess: HDT #22E §9
Family Nerikkaili, son. Married to a daughter of Bentešina of Amurru by a wife Bentešina had taken before he took Gaššulawiya. At the time of the Ulmi-Tešub treaty and the Šaḫurunuwa will Nerikkaili was the crown prince (tuḫukanti). See Singer (1991) p. 330-332.
Kiluš-Ḫepa, daughter of Ḫattušili III and Pudu-Ḫepa, married to Ari-Šarruma (var. Ali-Šarruma), king of Išuwa. Pudu-Ḫepa prays for Kiluš-Ḫepa's son's health in one text, and another text implies that the same woman served as the nurse for Pudu-Ḫepa, Kiluš-Ḫepa, and the son. The death of Kiluš-Ḫepa is mentioned in another text. See Singer (1991) 327f.
Gaššulawiya, daughter of Ḫattušili III and a wife of Ḫattušili's before Pudu-Ḫepa. There is a text which contains on its obverse a prayer to Gaššulawiya, wife of Muršili II, and on its reverse a prayer for Gaššulawiya, daughter of Ḫattušili, authored by Pudu-Ḫepa. The purpose for the prayer seems to be two incidents in which Gaššulawiya failed to fulfill her religious obligations. Married to Bentešina, king of Amurru, while he was in exile in Ḫatti. Ḫattušili re-installed Bentešina in Amurru and designated that a son of Gaššulawiya by Bentešina was to succeed to the kingship in Amurru after Bentešina. She was therefore probably the mother of Šaušgamuwa, crown prince of Amurru and Bentešina's successor. Further, she was probably the mother of an unamed wife of Ammištamru of Ugarit who had an adulterous affair and then fled to Amurru. Her extradition from Amurru was ratified by both her brother Šaušgamuwa and her uncle Tudḫaliya IV and she was probably killed. See Singer (1991) p. 329f.
Tašmi-Šarruma, son (Tudḫaliya?). See Singer (1991) p. 329.
Ḫuzziya, son. See Singer (1991) p. 329. Chief of the Royal Bodyguard in the reign of Tudḫaliya IV (HDT #18C).
Ḫannutti, son? See Singer (1991) p. 329.
Tudḫaliya, son. See Singer (1991) p. 329.
Ḫešni, son? (HDT 18B §15)
Tatamaru, son? (HDT #18B §15)
Upara-muwa, son?, Overseer of the Golden Grooms (HDT #18B §15)
Uḫḫa-ziti, son? (HDT #18B §15)
Tarḫunta-piya, son? (HDT #18B §15)
Daughter #3: A royal daughter was married to the king of Babylon. See Singer (1991) p. 331.
M3t-Ḥr-nfrw-Rʿ: A daughter of Ḫattušili and Pudu-Ḫepa was married to Rameses II, the pharaoh of Egypt, in the 34th year of his reign. Only her Egyptian name is known, which means "She who beholds Horus who is the beauty of Re". The marriage negotiations were conducted chiefly by Pudu-Ḫepa. The letters were concerned primarily with the dowry and the bride price. Detailed arrangements were made for the reception of the princess and her retinue at the border, and with guarentees for future visits to the princess by messengers and family members. The princess was expected to assume a leading position in Egypt. Her Egyptian title was (s3t) wrt, "Great Daughter", which appears to be a word-for-word rendering of DUMU.SAL GAL. Her full title was s3t p3 wr ʿ 3 m Ḫ3ty / s3t t3 wrt ʿ 3t n Ḫ3ty "the daughter of the Great (Lord) and the daughter of the Great (Lady) of Ḫatti". See Singer (1991) p. 331, 333f.
Daughter: A second daughter married to Rameses towards the end of Ḫattušili's reign.
Daughter: married to Šauška-muwa
Babylonian Princess: A Babylonian princess married to Tudḫaliya. See Singer (1991) p. 331.

Officers/Officials: Crown Prince Nerikkaili, later deposed, a son (HDT #18B)
Tašmi-Šarruma (Tudḫaliya), a son
Chief of the Royal Bodyguard Tudḫaliya, son. Led campaigns on the northeastern frontier. May have been only 12 years old when entrusted with the campaign, according to Del Monte's restorations (RGTC 6 (1978) 102f.)
uriyanni-official AMAR.MUŠEN (HDT #18B)
Commander of the Troops of the Right Ḫalpa-ziti (HDT #18B)
Commander of the Troops of the Left LUGAL.dLAMMA (HDT #18B)
Overseer of the Golden Grooms Uppara-muwa, a son? (HDT #18B)
Chief of the Wooden-Tablet Scribes Šaḫurunuwa (HDT #18B)
"General" Ḫattuša-Kurunta (HDT #18B)
Chief of the Palace Servants Ali-ziti (HDT #18B)
Chief of the Storehouse Tuttu (HDT #18B)
Lord of the city Ḫurma Palla (HDT #18B)
Chief of the Scribes Walwa-ziti, son of Mittanna-muwa (HDT #18B)
Chief of the Cupbearers Alalimi (HDT #18B)
Chief of the Cooks Kammaliya (HDT #18B)
Chief of the Offering Officials Maḫḫuzzi (HDT #18B)
ḫalipe-official Aliḫḫešni, son of Mittanna-muwa (KBo 4.12)

Others Mittanna-muwa, former Chief of the Scribes (KBo 4.12). Probably did not survive very long into Ḫattušili's reign.
Adduwa, son of Mittanna-muwa (KBo 4.12)
ŠEŠ-ZI, son of Mittanna-muwa (KBo 4.12)

Vassals Ini-Teššup, King of Kargamiš
Ari-Šarruma, King of Išuwa
Ulmi-Teššup (Kurunta), King of Tarḫuntašša
Bentišina, King of Amurru
Mašturi, King of Šeḫa River Land
Kupanta-Kurunta, King of Mira and Kuwaliya

Texts Apology (CTH #81), Fragments of his Annals (CTH #82), Text on the campaigns of Šuppiluliuma I (CTH #83), Text on the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma I and Muršili II (CTH #84), Document relating to the conflict with Urḫi-Tešub (CTH #85), Indictment of Arma-Tarḫunta (CTH #86), Royal Decree in Favor of the Sons of Mittannamuwa (CTH #87), Royal Decree Concerning the ḫegur of Pirwa (CTH #88), Royal Decree Concerning the people of Tiliura (CTH #89), Fragments relating to the restoration of Nerik (CTH #90), Treaty with Rameses II (CTH #91; Akkadian version), Treaty with Bentešina of Amurru (CTH #92; Akkadian version), Royal Edict for Niqmepa on the subject of the merchants of Ura (CTH #93; Akkadian version), Royal Edict on the subject of the fugitives of Ugarit (CTH #94; Akkadian version), Regulation by Pudu-Ḫepa of an affair concerning a sunken boat (CTH #95; Akkadian), Declaration for Kuruntiya, king of Tarḫuntašša (CTH #96), Treaty with Kuruntiya, king of Tarḫuntašša (CTH #97), Fragment naming Bentešina of Amurru and Egypt (CTH #98), Correspondence with Egypt (CTH #155-165, 167-169), Letter to Kadašman-Enlil II of Babylon (CTH #172), Letter to a king of Assyria (CTH #173), Letter from Kadašman-Turgu of Babylon (CTH #174), Letter of Šalmaneser to a Hittite king? (CTH #175), Letter of Pudu-Ḫepa to a king of Alašiya (CTH #176), Piyama-radu Letter (CTH #181), Manapa-Tarḫunta Letter (CTH #191), Royal Donation to Ura-Tarḫunta (CTH #224), Instructions of Ḫattušili III (CTH #254), Prayer of Ḫattušili III and Pudu-Ḫepa to the Sun Goddess of Arinna (CTH #383), Prayer of Pudu-Ḫepa to the Sun Goddess of Arinna (CTH #384), Pudu-Ḫepa's Vow (CTH #585)

Rock Carvings Firaktin
Seal of Ḫattušili III

(Contemporary with Adad-nirari I and Šalmaneser I of Assyria (See Peter Machinist (1987)))

(Ascends to throne Year 14 to Year 17 of reign of Rameses II of Egypt. See Rowton (1960) 18)
Ḫattušili's seizure of the throne sowed the seeds of the end of the Hittite Empire. But even in its slow demise the empire would remain a great power for a further two generations. In fact, it would see its greatest material splendour under the reign of Ḫattušili's son. How, then, can we speak of the the destruction of the empire at this early date? After all, Ḫattušili was hardly the first member of the Great Family to usurp the throne. What was so unique about his coup?
A comparison with the coups of earlier rulers will reveal an extremely important difference: armies. Without any known exceptions, previous usurpers came to the throne through assassination, not civil war. The reason for this was fairly straight forward. Until the empire, armies were led by generals who were appointed by the king on a campaign-by-campaign basis. Therefore a general had little opportunity to build up a power base against his sovreign.
The vassal treaty system would ultimately undermine this system. Šuppiluliuma I introduced the widespread use of the treaty to control vassal kings. His reasons were undoubtedly sound. He made treaties with kings of distant lands which he could not reasonably incorporate into the closely controlled provincial system. But, from the very beginning, this system demonstrated a dismal record for maintaining a vassal's loyalty. Even worse, as we have seen, this system was internalized by Muwattalli II when he created the kingdom of Ḫakpiš for Ḫattušili. This may have meant a reduction in imperial expenditure on this deeply troubled region, but it also meant that there was now an army whose loyalty was centered around the vassal king, rather than upon the Great King. Whether or not he realized it, Muršili III undoubtedly had the right idea when he tried to eliminate this threat to his authority. In the end, however, Muršili proved unable to undo the damage done by his father. Ḫattušili used the army of Ḫakpiš to defeat the imperial army and seize the imperial throne.
Ḫattušili, however, does not seem to have been aware of the threat that his own actions were evidence for. For, as will be seen, the internalization of the treaty system would continue under his reign. For the moment, however, all he sought was to return the empire to the old status quo as it was under his brother's reign.
In this vein, the family of Ḫattušili's old benefactor Mittanna-muwa was rewarded handsomely for its long-time support. Mittanna-muwa himself appears to have grown far too old to play any sort of active role in the government, but he had many sons whom Ḫattušili did not forget. Aliḫḫešni became a ḫalipe-functionary, the role of which is unclear. Walwa-ziti ("Lion-man") received his father's old position as Chief of the Scribes. Two other sons, Adduwa and ŠEŠ-ZI (reading uncertain) were also rewarded by Ḫattušili. All of these sons swore an oath of loyalty and support to Ḫattušili, Pudu-Ḫepa, and their descendents, in return for which Ḫattušili and Pudu-Ḫepa swore that the welfare and positions of the descendents of Mittanna-muwa would be perpetually maintained.
Another man to benefit was Ura-Tarḫunta who, as we saw, had sided with Ḫattušili against his own father, Kantuzzili. For this support, Ura-Tarḫunta's house was exempted from taxation for his own lifetime and down through the generations as well. It was further stipulated that, even if some descendant of his should commit a crime which should cause his estate to be seized, it could only be given to another of Ura-Tarḫunta's descendents.
An Official Version of History
While assassination may have once been common among the royal family, it seems to have gradually grown less and less acceptable. The last known assassination was that of Tudḫaliya the Younger, the designated heir of Tudḫaliya III. The last known Great King to fall at the hands of one of his subjects was Muwattalli I, who had been killed over one hundred and fifty years before Ḫattušili seized the throne. So there was no current tradition of regicide in Ḫatti, and moreover, the Great King seems to have taken on greater religious sanctity in the interim. This, along with his family ties and his obvious desire to appear magnanimous in victory, may have been what stayed Ḫattušili's hand in his treatment of his captive nephew. Instead of execution, Ḫattušili followed the long standing Hittite practice of banishment. Muršili was given fortified towns on the edge of the empire - in the land of Nuḫašše - to rule over.
Having removed his nephew far from the presence of the imperial city, Ḫattušili launched a vigorous propaganda campaign wherein he established the official justification for his revolt and for his usurpation of the throne. The first of the propaganda texts was probably the loyalty oath which the Men of Ḫatti were required to swear to the new Great King and, after his reign, to one of his descendents by Pudu-Ḫepa (KUB 21.37). In this oath they were specifically forbidden to seek after Muršili or his sons for kingship.
This text also introduces all the elements of Ḫattušili's version of events that would reappear in his other texts. Speaking to the men of Ḫatti, he accuses,
"Urḫi-Teššup attacked me, and [you] attacked me, and you humiliated me. So I was hostile towards you. He who sided with me, and he who sided with Urḫi-Teššup, [I conquered? them (all).] And I reunited the people - I did not harm anyone." (KUB 21.37, Archi (1971) 203ff.)
Other official elements appear: how Ḫattušili took up Muršili when Muwattalli died and made him Great King, how Ḫattušili was loyal to Muršili, but Muršili broke his word to Ḫattušili and did wrong against him, so that Ḫattušili revolted against this oppression. The judgment of the gods made Ḫattušili victorious. All of these elements would be elaborated upon in other documents.
Ḫattušili would never forgive Muršili, nor his old nemesis, Arma-Tarḫunta. In later years, his son Tudḫaliya reported that his father refused to take part in a ritual which would have healed the estrangement between Ḫattušili and the sons of those men.
Muršili's defeat was the final crushing blow to the house of Arma-Tarḫunta. Half of his estate had been dedicated to Šaušga of Šamuḫa during the reign of Muwattalli II when he had been found guilty of black magic and handed over to Ḫattušili. Now the plans of his son Šippa-ziti had come to ruin, and the remaining half of the family estate was seized and similarly dedicated to Šaušga of Šamuḫa. It is this occassion which inspired Ḫattušili to write his famous Apology, which has been the source of so much of our information about the reigns of Muwattalli II and Muršili III. The Apology is actually the text granting Arma-Tarḫunta's estate to the cult of Šaušga of Šamuḫa. Ḫattušili has simply used the historical introduction, similar to those of vassal treaties, to promote his own version of his life and his conflict with Muršili III. In fact, the historical section was so greatly expanded that the actual grant only covers the final three paragraphs of the document.
According to the Apology, stelas and grain storage facilities were set up in the houses and cities that previously belonged to Arma-Tarḫunta. Šaušga was to be sacrificed to as "Šaušga the Exalted". Ḫattušili further dedicated the Bone House (i.e mausoleum) which he had built. He also installed his son, Tudḫaliya, as the Priest of Šaušga. This may imply that Tudḫaliya became the King of Ḫakpiš in his father's stead. Future generations were forbidden to take away the descendants of Ḫattušili and Pudu-Ḫepa from the service of Šaušga or to covet the cult's possessions. He also freed those future Priests from goods and labor obligations. Finally, he permanently elevated Šaušga's position in the royal cult by requiring his descendants who would later sit on the Hittite throne to be reverent towards her.
A Palace Worthy of a Great King1
Plan of the 13th Century B.C. Hittite Citadel (T. Büyükkale) at Ḫattuša (Jürgen Seeher, Hattusha Guide; A Day in the Hittite Capital, 2. Revised Edition, 2002)
At least part of the palace on Büyükkale had been destroyed during Ḫattušili's struggle for the throne. Now that he was in possession of the capital as Great King, he took advantage of the opportunity and completely rebuilt the citadel plateau. On the east and west sides of the peak, which his grandfather Šuppiluliuma I had enlarged by means of man-made terraces, he built new terraces even further down the slopes of the hill (11). To the south, he did away with the last of the domestic buildings and now used the entire area for his palatial buildings.
The entrance to the citadel in the southwest corner of the plateau seems to have been the most important. There were three gateways at this corner. On the western edge of this corner, a gate and a long, narrow ramp led down through the citadel wall to the Lower City (17). There was a spring at the base of the hill near this gate, which probably served as the citadel's source of water, as there isn't any in the citadel itself. Where the citadel wall met with the city wall, there were two gates: One gate opened from the Lower City to the exterior of the city wall (18), and the other, immediately to its east, opened from the citadel to the exterior of the city wall (2). Ramps led down to the lower level of the plain (1).
This juncture seems to have served as the main entrence to the citadel , and when one entered into the citadel from this corner from either the Lower City or from outside the city walls one found himself in the Citadel Entrance Court (3), which had an irregularly trapezoidal shape. When you faced north, you faced a long, flat wall, which was actually the outside wall of the Southwest Hall. The hall was pierced by a main gate (4), which a walkway paved with red marble slabs led up to. If you went around this building's western corner, you would wind up in a sort of "service" area which ran all along the back side of the palatial buildings. To the east, a door blocked access to a long paved corridor which eventually opened up at a rather important looking water basin (16) which filled most of a courtyard surrounded by four buildings. Ritual objects have been discovered in this water basin, so at least one of the functions of this pool was religious.
If you passed through the main gate in the Southwest Hall, you would find yourself in a large courtyard known as the Lower Court (5). This was surrounded by about half a dozen buildings of varying size. On the east side, two of these buildings opened up on their opposite side to the water basin. The building in the northwestern corner of this courtyard seems to have been some sort of storage facility (H). Two buildings adjacent to this (B, C) may have been shrines. Building C had a deep (2.3m) pool in its center, in which various ceramic vessels , believed to be votive offerings, have been discovered. The pool may have been open to the sky. Since these buildings were accessed from either the western service area or the Lower Court, and since this was the furthest court from the royal apartments, the Lower Court was probably an area for lower level court functionaries. One possibility is that the royal guard ("Golden Spear Men") resided here as well. On the northern face of the Lower Court was a gate (8) which led to a corridor which in turn led to the storage building and the service area. Next to that jutted out the Gate Building. By passing through this building (7), you found yourself standing in the Central Court (9).
Hypothetical reconstruction of the Hittite royal Audience Hall, located on the upper floor of "Building D". (U. Berlin after R. Naumann, from Jürgen Seeher, Hattusha Guide; A Day in the Hittite Capital, 2. Revised Edition, 2002)
Here were the Audience Hall building on the west (Building D) and various other buildings whose remains are unfortunately very scanty. In addition to the Audience Hall, a significant cache of sealings were found in Building D. It seems that one of these (Building A) may have served as the royal archives, and at least some of these buildings served as stables. The courtyard with the water basin could be accessed from the southeastern corner of this court (14). Next to this was a large gate (15) with a broad ramp leading down and out of the city walls. An archive of tablets was discovered in Building K by this gate. It has been conjectured that chariots could have used this gate. All in all, the Middle Court gives the impression of being the place where the Great King could perform his royal duties.
By passing through another gate one entered the Upper Court (13), the private domain of the Great King. It is a smaller, rectangular courtyard with a colannade surrounded by a handful of buildings. Only those on the western side are at all preserved. Buildings E and F are believed to have been the private apartments of the Great King of Ḫatti, with views over the city and across the valley. Building E also contained an archive of tablets. Either grain silos or cisterns seem to have been constructed on part of the eastern side of the courtyard (12).
It is this version of the citadel which is best preserved and which can be seen when you visit the site today.
Trouble in the West
Ḫattušili's seizure of the Hittite throne left the Hittites' vassal kingdoms in an uncertain yet advantageous position. They were sworn to support the legitimate king, and to attack an usurper. If ever a vassal wished to throw off the yoke of Hittite rule, he was now presented with the perfect excuse to do so. But obviously, political realities and personal ambitions determined the actual position taken by each kingdom.
Aḫḫiyawa, Ḫatti's rival for control of western Anatolia, would benefit from the coup more than any other foreign power, as it now found an opportunity to increase its influence in western Anatolia. Its policy seems to have been supremely and rather coldly influenced by its own ambitions. During the civil war, it had officially sided with Muršili, but apparently had failed to actually support him. While Ḫatti's resources were squandered on the war, Aḫḫiyawa could simply watch and wait. Muršili's defeat released Aḫḫiyawa from any friendly obligations towards the Hittite dynasty, and in fact it would have been entirely proper for Aḫḫiyawa to declare war against Ḫatti once Ḫattušili seized the throne. For Aḫḫiyawa, the civil war was win-win, and their subsequent actions reveal that they were not slow to take advantage of the situation.
In the north the land of Wiluša seems to have slipped into the Aḫḫiyawan camp. In the far south the Lukka Lands seem to have fallen into general disorder. As in the north, it was the Aḫḫiyawans who benifitted. The Lukkans transferred their allegiance to a man named Tawagalawa, a brother of the King of Aḫḫiyawa.
Here we find another possible connection with the world of the Homeric epics. It has been proposed, if not proven, that the name Tawagalawa(s) can be transformed into the name Etewokléwēs, i.e. Eteocles, a figure from Homeric tales, the son of Andreus, King of Orchomenos. While trying to directly equate Tawagalawa(s) with Eteocles is probably too much for the evidence to bear, it would not be unreasonable to draw an etymological connection between the two. There are two strong reasons to do so. Where the Greek language has an e-grade in many words, in Luwian we would not be surprised to find it in an a-grade, an argument which could be used to transform Etewokléwēs into Atawoklawas. Further, in the Luwian language, initial a's are frequently dropped, thus further transforming the name into Tawoklawas. From here, only a few more readily available arguments are needed to fully transform the Greek name into the form found in the Hittite document, Tawagalawa(s). But it should be noted that we have no reason to believe that a Hittite scribe hearing Etewokléwēs would ponder the neccessary transformations and then write the name down as Tawagalawa(s). The implication is that the Greek name had undergone this transformation over time, which means that we find ourselves with a Greek prince bearing a Luwian, or at least Luwianized, name. Whether he bore this name as some sort of Lukkan throne name, or whether it was actually his given name, we cannot know at this time.
Under Tawagalawa's auspices, Lukkan warriors began attacking Hittite territory. In fact, Ḫattušili rapidly lost control of the situation, and Lukkan warriors burst into the Ḫulaya River Land. One of the Hittite border districts belonging to this land, that centered on the city of Ḫawaliya, rose in revolt along with the Lukkans at the frontier districts of Nataš, Parḫa (Cl. Perge in Pamphylia), Ḫarḫaššuwanta, and other lands whose names are only poorly preserved. Ḫattušili had now lost not only the Lukka lands, but his entire southern coast west of Kizzuwatna! These rebel lands invaded and conquered Hittite border territories such as Wašuwatta and Ḫarputtawana. It seems that at this time there was little that Ḫattušili could do to stop them.
This weakness, of course, opened the door for even further incursions. Either now or shortly in the future in connection with these raids, the Hittite's old enemy Piyama-radu reappeared and seems to have seen an opportunity to once again further his own interests at the Hittites' expense. Apparently based now out of the the city Millawanda, he began invading Hittite territory. Naturally Ḫattušili sent a messenger to Piyama-radu protesting his behavior. It doesn't seem to have accomplished very much, since someone, presumably Piyama-radu, went on to essentially conquer all of the Ḫulaya River Land, even managing to conquer at least part of the Lower Land and penetrate as far east as the land Naḫita. All of southwestern and south central Anatolia had been lost to Lukkan raiders operating under Aḫḫiyawan auspices. At no other time in history had the Aegean kingdom's influence been felt so far eastward. The Lukkan reach now extended eastward even farther than the Arzawans had penetrated at the beginning of the reign of Šuppiluliuma I!
Ḫattušili desperately needed to take control of the situation. Fortunately, Hittite might proved more formidable than the Aḫḫiyawans anticipated. Ḫattušili marched against the enemy and managed to push them back away from the Lower Land and at least regain control of a part of the Ḫulaya River, although he does not appear to have regained control of the coast. On the west, his borders at this time probably did not include the plain of Pamphylia. But it was a start, and Ḫattušili had other problems that he needed to concern himself with. Faced with the dilemma of how to reassert Hittite authority in the south and southwest while not devoting too much of his resources to the task, he apparently chose a solution that resembled the solution his brother Muwattalli had used to regain control of the northern Kaškan lands. Here in the south Ḫattušili created a vast new kingdom, that of Tarḫuntašša, whose king would have the responsibility of using his own resources in the reconquest of the lost territories. The natural choice for the king of this new kingdom was Ulmi-Teššup, the son of Muwattalli II whom Ḫattušili had raised in his own household since childhood. So Ḫattušili secured a treaty with his nephew which gave a detailed outline of Ulmi-Teššup's borders and responsibilities towards the Great King.
Ulmi-Teššup's borders with respect to the neighboring lands of Pitašša, Ušša, and Ḫatti were fairly well established, but his south and southwestern borders were more fluid, since Ḫattušili had not fully restored Hittite prominence in these regions. So Ulmi-Teššup was expected to expand his dominion in this direction, so that,
"In the direction of the city Šaranduwa, to whatever locality his armed force should reach - that belongs to the land of the Ḫulaya River." (HDT #18B)
Although the course of subsequent events in Tarḫuntašša remains somewhat vague, we do know the ultimate outcome. By the reign of Ḫattušili's successor, the borders of Tarḫuntašša would be pushed south to the Mediterraenean Sea and west to the Kaštaraya River (Cl. Kestros) across from the city of Parḫa (Cl. Perge), deep into the Pamphylian plain, which was itself expected to fall into Hittite hands. Ulmi-Teššup would soon take on a second, non-Hurrian name which he would come to be better known by. Under the name of Kurunta, this son of Muwattalli would acquire prominence in the west which Ḫattušili would seek to use to his own advantage in his dealings with the kingdom of Aḫḫiyawa.
Peace Among the Lands
Having taken the imperial throne, it was now Ḫattušili's task to secure his position in the eyes of Ḫatti's foreign neighbors. In the east Ḫattušili made an effort to normalize relations with the rising power of Assyria. Messengers and goods seem to have passed between the two lands since at least the days of Muwattalli II. But there was the occasional glitch. Muršili III seems to have maintained his father's general antipathy towards Assyria, so when Ḫattušili seized the throne, it's perhaps not surprising that the Assyrian king, probably Adad-nirari I, failed to properly handle Ḫattušili's accsession. Not to mention that Ḫattušili's accession wasn't exactly regular. Either genuinely or strategically insulted by this, Ḫattušili presumed to give the Assyrian an etiquette lesson;
"Did [my brother (Muwattalli)] not send you appropriate gifts of greeting (when you ascended the throne)? But when I assumed kingship, [then] you did not send a messenger to me. It is the custom that when kings assume kingship, the kings, his equals in rank, send him appropriate [gifts of greeting], clothing befitting kingship, and fine [oil] for his anointing. But you did not do this today!" (HDT #24B)
As a result of this social blunder, Ḫattušili detained the Hittite messenger to Assyria and his counterpart, the Assyrian messenger Bēl-qarrād.
Nevertheless, Ḫattušili sought recognition, not war, and so he was not prepared to let the insult endanger his hopes for good relations. In fact he was willing to make some extraordinary concessions. To begin with, he sent out the requests that the Assyrian had already made. He further tried to assuage any fears that the Assyrian ruler might have that his messenger was being ill treated during his detention, and at the same time he managed to put in a plug against Muršili III,
"The messengers whom you regularly sent here in the time of Urḫi-Teššup often experienced [...] aggrevation. Today, in [...], you should [not] say, 'He is certainly experiencing aggravation as at that time.' When he comes (back to Assyria), you shall not need to ask Bēl-qarrād whether I treated him well." (HDT #24B)
If the scholarly textual restorations are correct, then the type of trade highlighted in this letter is interesting. The Assyrian king sought only one thing from his Hittite companion: iron. He requested "good iron", which Ḫattušili claimed was not available from his storehouse in Kizzuwatna because it was "a bad time for making iron". This may imply that iron working, still in its infancy, was a seasonal affair. It has been suggested, on comparison with other cultures, that Hittite iron working was a sort of cottage industry at this time. The Assyrian king had also sent suits of armor to the Hittite emperor, in return for which he expected "blades [of iron]". Again, it was Hittite iron that the Assyrians desired.
More frustrating is the fact that we have no idea of the quantities of goods involved, which, in royal trade, could be either staggering large or just as surprisingly small. How many suits of armor did the Hittite king receive? How many iron blades did the Assyrian receive? Given the scarcity of iron, its value, and the fact that the technique of creating steel had not yet been discovered, we may hestitatingly suggest that this was the trade of prestige goods, to be distributed among the privileged classes, rather than basic equipment for war. After all, relations between the two lands were still in an awkward phase. Ḫattušili still carefully refrained from calling his correspondant "brother". But relations between the two lands were too important to him to disrupt.
This same letter contains other strong evidence of the warming relations between these two distant lands and also how rapidly the Assyrian empire had grown under Adad-nirari's care,
"[The people of] the city of Turira are constantly plundering my land! [They constantly plunder the land of] Kargamiš [on this side] and the land [of Aštata(?)] on that side. The king of Ḫanigalbat keeps writing to me: '[Turira] is mine!' And from there (i.e. Assyria) you(!) keep writing to me, 'Turira is mine, or Turira is yours. It does not belong to the King of Ḫanigalbat!' Do you not know about the matter of Turira? When Turira plunders the land, they keep taking the booty to Turira. My subjects who flee (from my land) also keep going up to Turira. If Turira is yours, smash? it! But you shall not claim the possessions of my subjects who are dwelling in the city. If Turira is not yours, write to me, so that I may smash? it. The possessions of your troops who are dwelling in the city shall not be claimed. Why do the people of Turira sniff at? the gift of me, the Lion?"
The Assryian empire had grown so rapidly that Adad-nirari wasn't even certain whether or not Turira was a part of it! As for Ḫattušili, he was willing to let the Assyrian handle the problem himself, even though Kargamiš, his most important Syrian possession, was being continually attacked!
Relations with Babylonia became even friendlier, although Ḫattušili initially had some problems in this area. Muršili, not content to remain passively on his estates in Nuḫašši, planned to flee to Babylonia. But Ḫattušili discovered his plans and banished him to "the seacoast" (i.e. Cyprus? Helck, JCS 17, 38). Soon after, Ḫattušili was able to establish a relationship of brotherhood and aid with Kadašman-Turgu. One wonders if perhaps it was the King of Babylonia himself who exposed Muršili's plans. The new found brotherhood between these two kings was dramatically confirmed when Ḫattušili's initial relations with Egypt broke down.
Someone who Ḫattušili refers to as "my enemy" escaped to another land and thence into Egypt. This "enemy" was almost certainly the deposed king Muršili III. Ḫattušili wrote to Rameses and demanded the extradition of his enemy, but Rameses refused. The result was inevitable: "[Because of this, I and the King] of Egypt became angry with one another." When Ḫattušili wrote to Kadašman-Turgu about these hostilities, he got a more enthusiastic response than he probably anticipated. The Babylonian king cut off the messenger of the King of Egypt and further promised,
"[If your troops] go against Egypt, then I will go with you. [If] you go [against Egypt, I will send you] such infantry and chariotry as I have available to go." HDT #23 §7
But Hattušili was not prepared for anything other than a cold war with Egypt, and he never called upon the Babylonian king's promised aid. In fact, relations between the two lands were to turn for the better. Eventually, these feelings would blossom into the most famous peace established in the ancient world, where the two mortal enemies, Ḫatti and Egypt, finally resolved their differences in a manner which would ring down the ages to our own day.
Peace in the West
Ḫattušili's efforts at war in the western half of his empire finally stabilized the situation there. Kurunta, as King of Tarḫuntašša, established himself as a ruler of some reputation in the west. The efforts of the Aḫḫiyawans to dominate there seem to have resulted in little success. Ultimately, they came to terms with Ḫattušili, and seem to have largely abandoned all their Anatolian aspirations. The dispute over Wiluša was resolved in Ḫattušili's favor, returning the land of the Trojans once more to the Hittite fold. In the south, Kurunta, acting on behalf of Ḫattušili, helped secure Hittite interests, and even met with the Aḫḫiyawan king in the city of Millawanda, one of the few Anatolian possessions which remained in Aḫḫiyawan hands. Little else did, however, and as the Aḫḫiyawans withdrew, the Lukka lands returned their allegiance to the Hittites. The withdrawal of the Aḫḫiyawans resulted in the scrambling of the local rulers to seek allegiance with the Hittites. Among these rulers was Piyama-radu, who had spent a good portion of his career waging war against the Hittites. Knowledge of his previous crimes against the Hittites seem to have stirred feelings of paranoia in him, and his actions became erratic. At first, like the other Lukkan leaders, he decided to swear allegiance to Ḫattušili. To this end, as Ḫattušili was riding to the Lukka lands in order to assert his authority in the region, he wrote to him in the city Šallapa,
"Take me in servitude! Send the Crown Prince to me. He will bring me to My Sun." (Piyama-radu Letter)
Ḫattušili was willing, and so he sent the Crown Prince to Piyama-radu in the city Millawanda, still under Aḫḫiyawan control under the leadership of Piyama-radu's in-law Atpa, ordering him to ride back with Piyama-radu on a chariot.
But by the time the Crown Prince arrived, Piyama-radu appears to have had second thoughts, and could not bring himself to trust his wellbeing to the Hittites. Further, it turned out that the Crown Prince was nothing more than a boy. Piyama-radu's confidence in Ḫattušili's sincerity evaporated. So, in spite of his earlier request, he now refused to ride into Ḫattušili's presence. It was a humiliation for the Crown Prince, and did little to endear Piyama-radu to Ḫattušili. But Piyama-radu was still willing to subject himself to the Hittites, as long as he could do so in friendly territory. So now he demanded,
"Give the kingship to me here in his (i.e. Atpa's) place! If (you do) not, then I will not come!"
Ḫattušili was still willing to continue negotiations with Piyama-radu, but his journey westward continued. He sought a sign of goodwill from Piyama-radu, and so when he reached the city Wiyanawanda, he wrote to him,
"If you seek my lordship, then because I am about to come to the city Yalanda, let me not find any of your people in the city Yalanda! You must not put anyone in (the city) again! May you not appear(?) in my juris[diction(?)]! I will seek my subjects [myself]."
Piyama-radu agreed, but his word proved untrustworthy. As Ḫattušili approached Yalanda, Piyama-radu's brother Laḫurzi ambushed him in three places. The terrain was difficult, and Ḫattušili had to approach it on foot, but even so he managed to secure victory for himself. Yalanda paid for Laḫurzi's betrayal, and Ḫattušili ravaged it and took control of the city itself. From here he moved on to the city Apawiya, from which he wrote to Piyama-radu in Millawanda, ordering him to come to him.
He also wrote to his new ally, the king of Aḫḫiyawa, protesting Piyama-radu's behavior and asking him whether or not he knew about it. The king's reply was not as friendly as Ḫattušili had wanted, as it included no greeting or gifts, but simply the bare statement by his messenger that,
"He wrote to Mr. Atpa, 'Put Pi[yama-radu] in the hand of the king of Ḫatti.'"
He further gave Ḫattušili permission to bring Piyama-radu into his prescence, on the condition that he would not take him away. Ḫattušili agreed. Having gained the Aḫḫiyawan ruler's permission, Ḫattušili began his journey to the city Millawanda. At each stop along the way, he wrote to Atpa in Millawanda,
"Come! Because my brother wrote to you, 'Go bring him there to the king in Ḫatti!', bring him here! Just as he formerly betrayed(?) my word, he will betray(?) your word! But if he says this, 'I am afraid!' Then I will send one lord, or I will send (my) brother, and that (man) will sit in his place."
But these assurances were still not enough for Piyama-radu. The spectacle of the Crown Prince's journey weighed heavily in his mind, and Atpa wrote to Ḫattušili on his behalf, "Does My Sun give (his) hand to a boy?" It was an added insult to injury, and Ḫattušili indignantly replied,
"[Because] my brother gave [(his) hand to that (man), and [I] later [heard his word,] even if he did very much, I would have left [that (man)] alone [everywhere(?)] in safe passage. I swore it to Mr. [Atpa]. I gave him (my) hand."
Still expecting to resolve the matter, he promised that, if he should come to him, he would resolve all issues, and keep the king of Aḫḫiyawa informed of his comings and goings. Yet it was not enough.
In spite of his growing annoyance, he was still anxious not to offend his new ally, and to keep his dealings with the Aegean king strictly on the up-and-up. So, he came to Millawanda to present his case against Piyama-radu, declaring,
"What words I will say to Piyama-radu, may the subjects and my brother hear them!"
One of these subjects was Tawagalawa, who came to Millawanda to meet with Ḫattušili on this occassion. Atpa also heard Ḫattušili's protests, as did another of Piyama-radu's relations, Awayana. But the presence of the Hittite Great King himself in the city of his refuge was too much for Piyama-radu to bear, and, declaring that he still feared for his life, he boarded a ship and sailed away.
It was all becoming a little too much for Ḫattušili to bear, and his protests to the Aḫḫiyawan king became more strenuous,
"When he says this, 'I feared [a wor]d of killing!', did I not send my son, the Crown Prince, into his prescence? Did I not give him this command, 'Go! Swear to him, take(?) him by the hand, bring him into my presence.' From what word of killing was he afraid? Is bloodshed permitted in the land of Ḫatti? It is not!"
Finally, Ḫattušili wrote directly to the king of Aḫḫiyawa about the matter. The letter took up fully three tablets outlining Piyama-radu's offenses and Ḫattušili's attempts to deal with him fairly. Only the last tablet has been discovered today.
In spite of his growing frustration, Ḫattušili was still anxious to resolve the situation peacefully. Piyama-radu certainly still retained the favor of Atpa, and presumably the king of Aḫḫiyawa still supported him as well. So, in spite of Piyama-radu's growing offenses, Ḫattušili still attempted to bring Piyama-radu to heel through diplomacy. In his letter to the king of Aḫḫiyawa, Ḫattušili highlights the warm relations that now existed between their two lands,
"Moreover, for the sake of my brother [I did nothing] at all. If perhaps he prevails upon my brother, "[I will go] to the King of Ḫatti - may he put me on the road!" then I will promptly send Mr. Dabala-Tarḫunta, the chariot driver. Is Dabala-Tarḫunta not a high ranking person? He, a child, rides with me on the chariot as a chariot driver! He used to ride [on the chariot] with your brother, Tawagalawa! I already [gave] safe passage to Piyama-radu. In Ḫatti, safe passage is (assured) thusly: If they send bread and a seal to someone, then they will not take part in evil (against) him. Beyond the safe passage, I further promised this, 'Come! Make a response! I will put you on the road! When I put you on the road, I will write it to my brother! If your wishes are satisfied, so be it! But if your wishes are not satisfied, then when you came, in that same way my person will bring you back into the land Aḫḫiyawa! If so, or if not, may this chariot driver sit in his place!' While he is coming, and while he is coming back there, because he will hold the chariot driver who is of the family of the queen - and in Ḫatti the family of the queen is very great - is he not actually a brother-in-law to me? May that (man) sit in his place while he is coming (and) while he is coming back!
"Support him, my brother! May your [person] bring him! Further, my brother, send to him (i.e. Piyama-radu) (a guarantee of) safe passage being as follows, 'May you not sin in some way against My Sun again!' I will not turn into [your land] again."
If Piyama-radu failed to make such a promise, then Ḫattušili asked that the king of Aḫḫiyawa at least return the 7,000 civilian captives that Piyama-radu had taken from Ḫatti. Ḫattušili even agreed to establish a sort of panel which, under Aḫḫiyawan auspices, would take testimony from these civilians. Those who claimed they had fled from Ḫatti as fugitives would remain in Aḫḫiyawan territory, while those who had been taken by force would be returned to Ḫatti.
Piyama-radu's activities could not be permitted to continue. Apparently, after he fled from Millawanda, he sought his fortune once again in the north, where he began raiding Hittite territory. This in spite of the peace established between Ḫatti and Aḫḫiyawa. Ḫattušili had difficulty believing that his brother would support such activity,
"He keeps saying this, 'I will go to the far side, into the land Maša and the land Karkiya. Here I will leave alone his (i.e. the king of Aḫḫiyawa) civilian captives, his wife, his children, [and] (his) house.' When he said these (words), wherever he leaves alone the wife, children, and house of my brother in the land, your land singled him out for special attention. But he kept attacking my land! If I hinder it for him, he will come back into your land. Do you, my brother, approve?"
Empire after Hattusili III. The extent and nature of Ahhiyawan settlement in Maša and Karkiša is unknown.
Obviously, Ḫattušili did not expect the king of Aḫḫiyawa to approve. Not shy about telling others what they should do, Ḫattušili suggested that, if Piyama-radu still wanted Ḫattušili as his lord, then his brother should write a letter to Piyama-radu with the following command,
"'Get up [along with your civilian capitives,] you wives, and your children. Sit down in the other place. Wherever hostilities are for the King of Ḫatti, be hostile (against that) other land! May you not be hostile (against) my land! If his desire is in the land of Karkiya (or) the land of Maša, then go there! In what matter of the city Wiluša we, I and the king of Ḫatti, were hostile (against) each other, he persuaded me in that matter. We made peace. [Now(?)] hostilities are not permitted (between) us!' [Write] that to him!"
The ultimate outcome of Ḫattušili's efforts is not, of course, preserved in his letter to the king of Aḫḫiyawa. However, we learn later, from Ḫattušili's son, that Piyama-radu apparently was extradited to Ḫatti. Whether his fate was for the better or the worse, his days of hostility against the Hittites seem to have finally ended.
Eternal Brotherhood
On the 21st day, of the 1st month of the winter season, in the 21st year of his reign (1259 B.C.), Rameses received in his capital city of Pi-Ramesse a distinguished party of visitors. Accompagning his own three Egyptian messengers came three Hittite messengers; the 1st and 2nd messengers of Ḫatti - named Tili-Teššup and Ramose, and the messenger of Kargamiš - named Yapušili. These messengers bore a silver tablet which was the Hittite version of a treaty of eternal brotherhood between the rulers of Ḫatti and the rulers of Egypt. It was the culmination of months of negotiation between the two rulers. Written in the Akkadian rather than the Hittite language, it presented the words of the treaty as if Ḫattušili were himself the speaker. Likewise, Ḫattušili received a version of the treaty written as if Rameses were the speaker.
While treaties were common within the Hittite empire, they were foreign novelties in Egypt. Rameses took a great interest in this strange document, later inscribing the version he received from Ḫattušili on the walls of Karnak and at the Ramesseum in Thebes. The historical section of the treaties are unfortunately meager, and instead the treaties quickly move on to the establishment of brotherhood between the two rulers,
"Behold, Ḫattušili, the Great Prince of Ḫatti, has set himself in a regulation with User-maat-Re Setep-en-Re, the Great Ruler of Egypt, beginning from this day, to cause that good peace and brotherhood occur between us forever, while he is in brotherhood with me and he is at peace with me, and I am in brotherhood with him and I am at peace with him forever." (ANET 199)
The treaty went on to cover topics by now familiar from other treaties. The two Great Kings agreed not to begin hostilities against each other or take anything which belonged to the other. A defensive alliance was set up in which either one of the Great Kings would himself come to the aid of the other, or that he would at least send troops. Interestingly, only Ḫattušili's sons were guaranteed support for when it was their time to come to the throne. Also of great interest are the provisions concerning the extradition of fugitives. In the cuneiform copies from Ḫattuša they appear as one long section of the treaty. But in the Egyptian version they seem to reveal their real significance. After the standard promise to return fugitives to each other's lands, the divine witnesses, curses, and blessings are recorded. These items normally indicate the end of the treaty. But after these items, another section pertaining to the return of fugitives is recorded. And the specifics of this section of the treaty are interesting. It begins with fugitives from Egypt, but the parallel and more historically significant passage from the Hittite perspective reads,
"If men flee from the land of Ḫatti - whether he be one or two or three - and they come to User-maat-Re Setep-en-Re, the Great Ruler of Egypt, let Rameses Meri-Amon, the [Great] Ruler [of Egypt] lay hold [of them and cause] that they be brought to the Great Prince of Ḫatti. The Great Prince of Ḫatti shall not raise their crime against them, and they shall not destroy his house or his wives or his children, and they shall not slay him, and they shall not do injury to his ears, to his eyes, to his mouth, or to his legs, and they shall not raise any crime against him." (ANET 201)
The fact that this was included after the normal conclusion to the treaty makes this seem like a special, last minute addition to the terms. It is generally suspected that there was one particular person in mind when this clause was written - Muršili III, currently residing in Egypt under Rameses' care. Since Muršili had fled to Egypt before the drawing up of the peace treaty, Rameses could hardly honorably agree to send Muršili back to Ḫatti only to be executed, which probably accounts for the extended description of how such a returned fugitive would be treated. Although Muršili might be seen to be excluded from the provisions of the treaty altogether, since his arrival in Egypt predated its formulation, Ḫattušili would nonetheless later use this clause in an effort to get Rameses to send the deposed ruler back to Ḫatti.
The novelty of the treaty also expresses itself in the attention the Egyptians gave to the seals found on the treaty, which they described in detail,
"What is in the middle of the silver tablet, on its obverse: Inlaid figure of the Storm God embracing the figure of the Great Prince of Ḫatti, surrounded by a border inscription as follows, 'Seal of the Storm God, Ruler of Heaven; seal of the treaty made by Ḫattušili (III), Great Prince of Ḫatti, Hero, son of Muršili (II), Great Ruler of Ḫatti, Hero.' What is within the surround of the outline-figure: 'Seal of the Storm God, Ruler of Heaven.'" (Kitchen (1982) 79
It is easy for us to imagine the general look of the treaty. Land donations bore the king's seal in their middle dating back to the Old Kingdom. We have seen seals where the king is embraced by the god beginning with Muwattalli II, although this is the only evidence we have that Ḫattušili continued this practice. This also reveals that seals could be commemorated for specific events, something that we have not known before.
From the Hittite point of view, there is also another extremely significant point. While the obverse contained a seal depicting Ḫattušili in the embrace of the Storm God, the reverse contained a seal depicting Great Queen Pudu-Ḫepa in the embrace of the Sun Goddess of Arinna. Here we see Pudu-Ḫepa prominently taking part in international relations of the highest order. Pudu-Ḫepa, although always officially subordinate to the Great King himself, would prove herself to be the real force behind the throne, as is revealed by the letters that passed between these two courts after the treaty had been made.
Seal of Great Queen Pudu-Ḫepa
Pudu-Ḫepa associated herself to all important documents of state. Even in the letters written to the Egyptian court, there were occasions when one letter was written by Ḫattušili and a matching letter was written by Pudu-Ḫepa. Likewise, both Ḫattušili and Pudu-Ḫepa could receive letters as well. But in truth, the families of both men became involved in this exhuberant good will. Egyptian and Hittite princes would write to their "fathers", Rameses' wife Nefertari wrote to Pudu-Ḫepa, and even the King of Mira wrote to Rameses. Each letter, of course, was accompagnied by sumptuous gifts - jewelry, gold cups, fine garments, linen clothes and bedspreads, and dyed cloaks and tunics. One of the Hittite princes to become involved in these exchanges was Tašmi-Šarruma, who may have been the future Great King Tudḫaliya IV.
But this newfound friendship wasn't quite everything that Ḫattušili seems to have desired. His nephew Muršili remained in Rameses' hands. Ḫattušili seems to have wanted him extradited under the terms of the treaty, but Rameses refused to budge on this point. Rumors about Rameses' intentions seem to have begun circulating. At some point, Kupanta-Kurunta, a true Methuselah who had been the King of Mira and Kuwaliya since the 12th year of Muršili II's reign, wrote to Rameses to confront him about these rumors. Rameses' reply seems to have been sent to the Hittite court, where his reply letter was found. Why a vassal king was corresponding with the pharaoh about affairs of state remains a mystery to us, although at his age Kupanta-Kurunta may have been held in the very highest of regard. There is no mystery, however, in Rameses' reply,
"No, concerning the affair of Urḫi-Teššup, I [have] not [done] that which you wrote me about. Now [...] The good relationship which I, the Great King, King of Egypt, established with the Great King, [King of Ḫatti], my brother, consists of good brotherhood and good peace. The Sun God and [the Storm God gave it] forever." (HDT #22D)
But it was not only Kupanta-Kurunta who had been pressuring Rameses,
"{Ḫattušili} writes to me repeatedly about him as follows: 'Let the Great King, the King of Egypt, have his infantry and [his chariotry] exert themselves, and let him expend his gold, his silver, his horses, his copper, [and his garments] in order to take [Urḫi-Teššup to Ḫatti. He shall not allow him to become strong] and to wage war [against Ḫatti...]" (HDT #22D)
To all of these rumors and demands, Rameses replied, "What have I done? Where would I recognize Urḫi-Teššup (as ruler)?", and offered the stern opinion that, "[The word] which men speak to you is worthless. Do not trust in it!" (HDT #22D). Both Ḫattušili and Kupanta-Kurunta seem to have viewed Rameses' reluctance to return Urḫi-Teššup as a violation of the terms of the treaty, which Rameses vigorously denied, reiterating that he had taken the oath of brotherhood and good relations and that he intended to stand by it.
There was also the issue of Rameses overbearing tone in his letters. The god-king was unaccustomed to having equals, and his haughty words ruffled Ḫattušili's feathers, "Why did you, my brother, write to me as if I were a subject of yours?" (Kitchen (1982) 82). Rameses protested to this as vigorously as he did to the other accusations,
"This word my brother wrote to me, I resent! [...] You have accomplished great things in all lands; you are indeed Great King in the Ḫatti lands; the Sun God and the Storm God have granted you to sit in Ḫatti in the place of your grandfather. Why should I write to you as though to a subject? You must remember that I am your brother! You should speak a gladdening word, 'May you feel good daily!' And instead, you utter these meaningless words, not fit to be a message!" (NBC 3934 rev 13-15. cf. Kitchen (1982) 82, Archi (1971) 209)
In spite of these sensitive subjects, relations between the two courts continued to warm over time. It was just as well for Ḫattušili, since the situation in Babylonia soon deteriorated upon the death of his ally Kadašman-Turgu. After an appropriate mourning period in which Ḫattušili "wept for him like a brother", Ḫattušili dried his tears and fulfilled his treaty obligation, writing to the Babylonians,
"If you do not protect the progeny of my brother in regard to rule, I will become hostile to you. I will come and conquer Babylonia. But if an enemy somehow arises against you, or some matter becomes troublesome for you, write to me so that I can come to your aid." (HDT #23)
But the new king, Kadašman-Enlil II, was only a minor. His vizier, Itti-Marduk-balatu, did not take kindly the Hittite king's interference, and leveled an accusation against Ḫattušili which probably sounded a lot better to Ḫattušili when he had been the one making it,
"You do not write to us like a brother. You pressure us as if we were your subjects."
So relations with Babylonia became strained. It's also around this time that relations with Assyria fell apart, although the particular causes are not known. In all likelihood the problem was caused by disputes over what was left of the once mighty Mitanni. Sometime shortly before the death of Adad-nirari I, Mitanni appears to have freed itself from its Assyrian overlord. Whether this was with Hittite aid is unknown, but this land clearly moved over into the Hittite camp. The bad relations that this caused between the two lands seems to have remained for the rest of Ḫattušili's reign.
Once Kadašman-Enlil of Babylon came of age, Ḫattušili tried to mend the breach between their two lands. He wrote to the Babylonian Great King telling him how he had tried to support him when he was first raised to the throne, and how his actions were misinterpreted by Itti-Marduk-balatu, an "evil man" whom "the gods have caused to live far too long."
He was also concerned about the interruption of messengers from Babylon - a sign of hostility - on account of the Aḫlamu, a people who would one day come to play an important role in Near Eastern history. Ḫattušili could not believe that they were the real reason that messengers no longer came to Ḫatti, "Is the might of your kingdom small, my brother? Or has perhaps Itti-Marduk-balatu spoken unfavorable words before my brother, so that my brother has cut off the messengers?" If the Aḫlamu weren't excuse enough, Kadašman-Enlil stalled further by bringing in the Assyrians, too, "The King of Assyria will not allow my messenger [to enter] his land". Ḫattušili wasn't any more willing to accept that excuse,
"In infantry and chariotry the King of Assyria does not measure up to [the forces] of your land. Indeed your messenger by force [...] What is the King of Assyria who holds back your messenger [while my messengers] cross repeatedly? Does the King of Assyria hold back your messengers so that you, [my brother], cannot cross [to] my [land]?" (HDT #23)
Ḫattušili took several steps in an effort to placate his reluctant ally. He assured him that he had no reason to object to messengers passing back and forth between Babylonia and Egypt. He made arrangements to deal with various legal disputes, one of which involved Bentišina, King of Amurru. He spoke of the death of a Babylonian physician who had come to live in Ḫatti and who had married one of Ḫattušili's own relations. Having heard that Kadašman-Enlil now regularly went out on hunt but not for war, he encouraged the young king to "go and plunder an enemy land in this manner so that I might hear about it." Hattušili never names a specific land against which he wanted the Babylonian to march, but when he encourages Kadašman-Enlil to "go against a land over which you enjoy a three- or fourfold numerical superiority," it sounds suspiciously as if Ḫattušili is hinting at Assyria. The remainder of the letter deals with requests for a sculptor, stallions which are taller than the ones sent by Kadašman-Turgu, particularly foals, since old horses could not survive the harsh winters in Ḫatti, and silver.
All these efforts seem to have eventually paid off. Relations between the two lands were fully normalized, and at some point Ḫattušili sent one of his daughters to Babylonia to marry the Babylonian Great King, and he himself married a Babylonian princess. And what better way to demonstrate friendship and brotherhood could there be? Such a marriage generated great esteem. And if it could work with Babylonia, what about an even more important neighbor?
š A Royal Wedding
Ḫattušili's relations with Egypt continued to become closer and closer. The correspondence between the two kings eventually turned to matters of a marriage between one of Ḫattušili's daughters and Rameses. It was to be a wedding beyond compare. So it was that in the 33rd year of Rameses' reign, Ḫattušili promised Rameses that "greater will be her dowry than that of the daughter of the King of Babylon, and that of the daughter of the King of B[arga(?)] ... This year, I will send my daughter, who will bring servants, cattle, sheep, and horses to the (Hittite border)land of Aya". At Aya Rameses arranged to have a man named Suta, the governor of Kumidi in Apa, receive "these Kaškan slaves, these droves of horses, these flocks and herds which she will bring". From there Suta would escort the bride to Egypt.
But after this, delays occured on the Hittite side. After having made such extravagent promises concerning the size of the princess's dowry, the Hittites had some trouble gathering everything together. This delay pulled out an irritated response from Rameses, to which Pudu-Ḫepa replied with an equally irritated defense. She claimed that a daughter could not be sent at this time because the storehouse of Ḫatti was "a burnt out structure", and that Urḫi-Teššup had given what remained to "the Great God". If Rameses did not believe her, then he could ask Urḫi-Teššup himself, since he was still there in Egypt. Rameses' blatant desire for the Hittite princess's goods did not sit well with Pudu-Ḫepa, either,
"Does my brother not possess anything at all? Only if the Son of the Sun God, the Son of the Storm God, and the Sea have nothing do you have nothing! But, my brother, you would enrich yourself somewhat at my expense! That is worthy neither of renown nor of lordliness!" (HDT #22E)
Bureaucratic snafus had also delayed things until winter came and put everything on hold. Nevertheless, Pudu-Ḫepa promised that the marriage party would move down as far as Kizzuwatna where they would pass the winter. Pudu-Ḫepa herself had plans to visit Amurru, from which she would write to Rameses.
We learn incidentally from another letter from Rameses to Pudu-Ḫepa that Tili-Teššup and Ramose, the 1st and 2nd messengers of Ḫatti who brought the silver treaty tablet to Rameses thirteen years earlier, were still the Hittite messengers to the Egyptian court, where they now carried on the correspondence dealing with the royal marriage and other matters. One of these involved the sons of a man named Mašniyalli, Hittite subjects who were currently residing with Rameses in Egypt. Tili-Teššup was told that these two sons were to return to Ḫatti, but Ramose was not given this message. In fact, no one but Tili-Teššup seems to have been aware of this order. While Rameses was still willing to send back the boys with Tili-Teššup, now it was Tili-Teššup who balked, saying, "No, I will not take them until the tablet of the Great King, the King of Ḫatti, together with the tablet of the Queen, arrives, saying 'Send them!'" So Rameses duly requested that