The grateful thanks of the writer are due to Professor Sidney Smith for permission to consult the notes of a seminar given by him in 1954–55 and to use his translations of certain of the Mari texts.

^{page 68 note 1} Modern T. Hariri on the Euphrates. Its excavation by a French expedition under the direction of Professor André Parrot has been in progress since 1933. For the reading “Mari,” in preference to “Ma’er” see Dossin, G., Syria XXXII, 25Google Scholar. The following volumes of the Archives Royales de Mari (A.R.M.T.) have been published in transliteration and translation:—

I. G. Dossin. Correspondence de Šam ši-Addu.

II. C. F. Jean, Lettres diverses.

III. J. R. Kupper, Correspondence dt Kibri-Dagan.

IV. G. Dossin, Correspondence de Šam ši-Addu.

V. G. Dossin, Correspondence de Iasmaḫ-Addu.

VI. J. R. Kupper, Correspondence de Baḫdi-Lim.

XV. J. Bottero & A. Finet, Répertoire analytique det Tomes I à V.

^{page 68 note 2} The chronology adopted in this article is that proposed by Professor Sidney Smith in Alalakh and Chronology.

^{page 68 note 3} For a study of the Hittite treaties see V. Korošec, Hethitische Staatsverträge.

^{page 68 note 4} Modern T. Atshana, near Antioch. Texts published by D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets (A.T.)

^{page 68 note 5} When the palace was destroyed, the tablets were being packed into baskets for dispatch. Since two labels bore the date formula of the 32nd year of Ḫammurabi of Babylon, the packing was done after his capture of the city in that year, cf. Symbolae P. Koschaker dedicatae, 119–20.

^{page 68 note 1} Syria, XXXII, 1 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 69 note 1} K.A.H., I, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 69 note 2} 17 eponyms and four year names are known for the period of Assyrian rule, cf. Parrot, A., ed., Studia Mariana, 53–4Google Scholar.

^{page 69 note 3} G. Dossin has proposed the identification of Qatanum with Qatna, modern Mishrifeh, in the Orontes valley, R.A., XXXVI, 50 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 69 note 4} Yamḫad was a north Syrian kingdom of which Aleppo was the capital and Alalaḫ a vassal state. An account of the relations between Zimri-Lim and its rulers is given by Dossin, G., Bull. de l'acad. roy. de Belgique, Cl. des Lettres, 5^e série, XXXVIII, 229 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 69 note 5} T. Asmar on the Diyala.

^{page 69 note 6} The alliance with Ešnunna concluded by Šamši-Adad (infra p. 87) was still in existence on the accession of Išme-Dagan since he informed Yasmaḫ-Adad that he held the man of Ešnunna in his “strings,” A.R.M.T. IV 20.15–6Google Scholar. It may be inferred from a case of extradition that Šamši-Adad was also in treaty relations with Babylon, IV 5. For a time both Ešnunna and Babylon supported Assyria against the attacks of Zimri-Lim and his allies. Forces of both states were with Išme-Dagan in Razamâ, II 39.32–4, II 43. 4–5. According to a report sent to Zimri-Lim, Išme-Dagan had gone to this city to assist a revolt against the king of Kurda, II 50. Karanâ was besieged by a combined Babylonian and Assyrian force, II 39. Both Kurda and Karanâ were home provinces of Assyria and it is clear from the Mari documents that their rulers were operating with Zimri-Lim to drive out Išme-Dagan. The report of an envoy of Zimri-Lim at the Babylonian court must have been written after Ešnunna and Babylon had broken their alliances with Išme-Dagan since it refers to the procedure of the man of Ešnunna in the Upper Country and to an advance of Zimri-Lim, with troops of Yamḫad and Zalmâqum, towards Idamaraz, II 21. The capture of Rapiqu by Ibâl-pî-El of Ešnunna in his 9th year, recorded in a date formula, must be connected with his campaign against Assyria. A report to Yasmaḫ-Adad that Ḫammurabi of Babylon would not “act lightly” i.e. commit a breach of treaty, may have been sent at a time when Išme-Dagan suspected the good faith of his ally, V 56. That he made a desperate attempt to preserve the Babylonian alliance may be inferred from the statement that he continually sent Ḫam-murabi “service,” II 49.6–7.

^{page 70 note 1} Elam, Ešnunna and Andariq attacked Razamâ and Zimri-Lim, assisted by a Babylonian force, marched to its relief, A.R.M.T. II 135Google Scholar; VI 51; 52; 54. The date formula of Zimri-Lim, “year that be slew the ‘champion’ (dâwidûm) of Elam,” must refer to this campaign, as may the formula “year that he went to the help of Babylon”, Parrot, A., ed. Studia Mariana, 55–6, nos. 8, 11Google Scholar. It was probably in this war that Zimri-Lim sent troops of Yamḫad to Babylon, , A.R.M.T. II 68Google Scholar; 71.

^{page 70 note 2} The formation of this coalition, the defeat of which is recorded in the date formula of the 30th year of Ḫammurabi of Babylon, is referred to in A.R.M.T. VI 27Google Scholar, An army of Ešnunna was marching to Šitullum and the king of Ešnunna had delivered grain to the Elamite troops. The Babylonians were raiding the Elamite flocks and Ḫammurabi was at Sippar, probably preparing to meet an attack. Messengers of Ešnunna had been sent to Assyria, Kurda and Mari to request their rulers not to give assistance to Babylon.

^{page 71 note 1} Dossin, G., Mélanges Syriens offerts à M. Dussaud, II, 993Google Scholar. Parallel statements are frequent in earlier texts. Cf. Stela of the Vultures, VI 10: the ruler of Umma attacked Lagash “at the command of his god,” S.A.K.I. 13. Describing the sack of Lagash by Lugal-zaggisi, the scribe declared, “May his goddess Nisaba bear his sin on her head,” The Fall of Lagash, VIII, 11, S.A.K.I. I, 59Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 2} Gadd, C J., Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East, 62Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 3} A.R.M.T. III 15. 5–8Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 4} A.R.M.T. II 24.9Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 5} A.R.M.T. II 130.26Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 6} A.R.M.T. V 2.5′–7′; cf. also the foundation inscription of Yaḫdun-Lim referring to his Mediterranean expedition: “When Šamaš had granted his prayer and had heard his word, Šamaš hastened to march at the side of Yaḫdun-Lim,” col. I, 28–33, Syria, XXXII, 12–3Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 7} A.N.E.T. 179–80.

^{page 71 note 8} A.R.M.T. IV 68. 17–20Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 9} Infra, p. 73.

^{page 71 note 10} R.A. XLII, 129–31Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 1} Hittite version translated by A. Goetze, A.N.E.T. 102. Cf. also the letter of Ramses to the king of Mira referring to the treaty: “In good brotherhood, in good peace are Šamaš (Re) and [Tdšub] for ever.” J.E.A. VI, 204Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 2} Jacobsen, T., J.N.E.S. II, 171Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 3} S.A.K.I. 155.

^{page 72 note 4} A.N.E.T. 267.

^{page 73 note 1} Ibid., 178.

^{page 73 note 2} Date formulae 31, 35, 38, 39; Ibid., 270.

^{page 73 note 3} Studies in Old Testament Prophecy presented to T. H. Robinson, 103 f. It may be inferred from this oracle that Adad, state god of Kallasu, had given Niḫlatum to Zimri-Lim at the time he needed a point de ressort against the Assyrians. Later in the letter his official reported that the officer of the oracular response (apilum) of Adad of Kallasu was guarding the depot of Alaḫtum against Niḫlatum. This suggests that Zimri-Lim was suspected of claiming Niḫlatum and the depot as his own and that the officer apilum had seized the depot. I am indebted to Professor Sidney Smith for this interpretation of the text and also for the suggestion that Kallasu is to be connected with Galašu, mentioned in E. F. Weidner, Der Zug Sargons von Akkad nach Kleinasien, rev. 17, and to be located in the hill country of Zalmalnim, in the Balikh area. Although the address of the letter is lost, G. Dossin has identified the writer with Nûr-Sin, envoy of Mari at the court of Aleppo, since he wrote another letter on the same subject, not yet published. The text here quoted also gave an oracle of Adad of Aleppo. G. Dossin, who suggests that Kallasu was near, or actually part of Aleppo, assumes that the return of Niḫlatum was demanded by the king of Yamḫad. Bull de l'acad. roy. de Belgique, Cl. det Lettres XXXVIII, 234–5Google Scholar. The two oracles are, however, given separately and although the message of Adad of Aleppo is not completely preserved the god appears to be promising unqualified support to Zimri-Lim: “[The country from the east] to the west [it is I] who will give it to you”.

^{page 73 note 4} Syria XIX, 126Google Scholar.

^{page 74 note 1} Driver, G. R. and Miles, J. C., The Babylonian Laws, II, 11Google Scholar.

^{page 74 note 2} U.E.T. I, no. 275.

^{page 74 note 3} C. J. Gadd, ibid, 77–8.

^{page 74 note 4} Goetze, A., Die Annalen det Mursilis, M.V.A.G. XXXVIII, 47Google Scholar.

^{page 74 note 5} Weidner, E. F., Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, I, obv. 48–50, pp. 15–6Google Scholar.

^{page 74 note 6} Syria, XIX, 117–8Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 1} Cf. Smith, S., Alalakh and Chronology, 11–2Google ScholarPubMed.

^{page 75 note 2} A.R.M.T. II 41.1′–7′Google Scholar; cf. also the foundation inscription of Yaḫdun-Lim. “He conquered the country of the borders of the ocean. He brought it under his command, he made it march behind him,” col. II 22–6, Syria XXXII, 14Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 3} Cf. the treaty of Muwatallis and Šunaššura rev. IV 28–31. Šunaššura was forbidden to exchange messengers with the Ḫurrians, E. F. Weidner, op. cit.

^{page 75 note 4} See infra p. 91.

^{page 75 note 5} A.R.M.T. VI 33.34–5Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 6} A.R.M.T. II 68.4′5–5′Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 7} See infra p. 78 for a discussion of the status of Yamḫad.

^{page 76 note 1} Col. II, 26–III 1–2, Syria XXXIII, 14Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 2} K.A.H. I 2Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 3} A.R.M.T. II, 119, 10′–11′Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 4} A.R.M.T. VI 26.3′–7′Google Scholar Cf the message of Zimri-Lim to Ḫammurabi of Babylon: “If the nobles of the man of Ešnunna come to an agreement with you, exercise kingship over the land of Ešnunna,” Syria XIX, 120Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 5} Cf. Dossin, G. in Mélanges Syriens II 90Google Scholar, “Paternité (ab ûtum) c'est à dire de la superiorité et du commandement … fraternité (ati ûtum) c'est à dire de l'égalité”.

^{page 76 note 6} A.R.M.T. I 27.16, 20, 24, 30Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 7} A.R.M.T. I 24.10Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 8} A R.M.T. V 20Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 9} A.R.M.T. II 67Google Scholar; 68.

^{page 76 note 10} A.R.M.T. II 71.11Google Scholar; Syria XVIII 74, n. 1Google Scholar. Although in the second letter the writer does not name his country he is almost certainly Ḫammurabi of Yamḫad since he is conveying a message from the king of Ugarit.

^{page 77 note 1} A.R.M.T. II 49.8–11Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 2} A.R.M.T. I 37 and infra p. 87Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 3} The king of Ešnunna is not named in the letter but the fact that he held the princes of Qabarâ is probably to be connected with the date formula for the last year of Dadu-Ša, “year he took Qabarâ”, Sumer V, 58Google Scholar. Qabarâ lay north of the lower Zab and was therefore of direct interest to Assyria. A campaign of Šamši-Adad against this state is mentioned in A.R.M.T. I 92Google Scholar; 121; 135; IV 49.

^{page 77 note 4} The capture of Malgûm by Samši-Adad is referred to in A.R.M.T. I 129Google Scholar. The Assyrian troops withdrew on payment of 15 talents of silver by its ruler, one-third of which may have been given to Ešnunna, as a partner in this campaign, but, owing to a break in the text, this is conjectural.

^{page 77 note 5} A.R.M.T. I 42.40–1Google Scholar. Ešnunna sent 6,000 men to join an army of 26,000 men led by Yasmaḫ-Adad. The aim of the expedition is not stated but it may be that sent to Qatanum, A.R.M.T. I 85Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 6} Both Išḫi-Adad and Šamši-Adad opposed Sûmu-Ebuḫ, A.R.M.T. I 24Google Scholar; Yasmaḫ-Adad cooperated with Išhi-Adad in an attack on three towns, V 16; this may have been connected with his expedition to Qatanum, presumably for a joint campaign, mentioned in I 42; 69; 85; II 51; I 11; 13; 20; 115 refer to Assyrian troops in Qatanum. In V 19 Išḫi-Adad was asked to release Assyrian troops and a reference in a broken passage to “since four years” may perhaps refer to the length of time they had been stationed there.

^{page 77 note 7} A.R.M.T. V 20Google Scholar. ú-ul i-ta-pa-la-na-ti-i, apâlum GT, cf. A.R.M.T. XV p. 175, 275Google Scholar. Von Soden prefers tapâlum; “to slander,” Orientalia (NS) 22, 207Google Scholar.

^{page 78 note 1} R.A. XXXVI, 50Google Scholar.

^{page 78 note 2} Ibid, 51.

^{page 78 note 3} Syria XIX, 117–8Google Scholar.

^{page 78 note 4} Dossin, G., Bull. de l'aced, roy. de Belgique, Cl. des Lettres, XXXVIII, 235Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 1} A.R.M.T. II 65Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 2} Mélanges Syriens, II 991Google Scholar. Asked why he had concluded an alliance with Zimri-Lim, he replied that it was a preventive measure against attack by the Bîn-Yamîn. Šudâ lay near Nisibin, cf. Dossin, G. in Symbolae P. Koschaker dedicatae, 116–7Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 3} A.R.M.T. II 51Google Scholar; V 15–9.

^{page 79 note 4} A.R.M.T. IV 20,21–6Google Scholar.

^{page 80 note 1} A.T. I 1–4Google Scholar.

^{page 80 note 2} Mélanges Syriens, II 990Google Scholar.

^{page 80 note 3} Syria XIX 109Google Scholar.

^{page 80 note 4} A.R.M.T. II 37Google Scholar and infra p. 96. Cf. also the inscription of Idri-mi of Alalaḫ in which the relationship of vassal and suzerain was one of fraternity. S. Smith, The Statue of Idri-mi. On his return from exile, Idri-mi sent a messenger “with brotherly requests for peace” to the Ḫurrian king, ll. 46–7.

It is clear that the latter was his suzerain since it was not until Idri-mi had concluded peace with the yurrians that he “became king,” l. 58 and p. 75. His statement, “When my brothers had jointly been reconciled to me, verily I appointed them jointly as my brothers” obviously refers to the subordinate kings of his own confederation, ll. 41–2 and p. 75.

^{page 80 note 5} Semitica I, 19-21.

^{page 80 note 6} R.H.A. V, 72Google Scholar.

^{page 81 note 1} Arišen, Ili-Ištar and Asqur-Adad of Karanâ all seized the hem of the garment of Zimri-Lim, Semitica I, 19–20Google Scholar; R.H.A. V, 72Google Scholar; A.R.M.T. VI 26Google Scholar. Dadi-Ḫadun assured Zimri-Lim that all his towns belonged to him, A.R.M.T. II 61Google Scholar, as did Ḫalisûmu of Ilanšura, II 62–6; Arriwaz was ordered by Zimri-Lim to return booty seized in a raid on Karanâ, II 63.

^{page 81 note 2} A.R.M.T. V, p. 124Google Scholar.

^{page 81 note 3} A.R.M.T. V, 5.17Google Scholar.

^{page 81 note 4} K.A.H. I 2Google Scholar.

^{page 81 note 5} In the foundation inscription of Yaḫdun-Lim, Sûmu-Ebuḫ is described as “of the country of Yamḫad,” and is said to have supported a coalition of three kings against Mari. Since Sûmu-Ebuḫ is never given the title of “king” or “man”, G. Dossin suggests that he was a freebooting chieftain, hiring his services to neighbouring rulers, Syria, XXXII, 27Google Scholar.

^{page 81 note 6} A.R.M.T. I 24.5′–9′Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 1} R.A. XXXV, 120Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 2} Ibid, 122.

^{page 82 note 3} Probably the same person as Napsi-Adad, messenger of Carchemish, mentioned in A.R.M.T. II, 107.8Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 4} An important official, cf. Dossin, G. in Symbolae P. Koschaker, 117Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 5} Ibid, 112–8.

^{page 83 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 83 note 2} A.R.M.T. III 57Google Scholar.

^{page 83 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 83 note 4} Cf. the letter of Ḫattusilis to the Babylonian king, M.D.O.G. 35, 24Google Scholar. A complaint by the Babylonian ruler that his merchants had been murdered by the king of Amurru was dealt with by Ḫattusilis as overlord of Amurru, “He is my vassal; if he harms my brother, does he not harm me?”

^{page 83 note 5} See also supra p. 78 for a discussion of the use of the filial form of address by Zimri-Lim to Yarîm-Lim of Yamḫad.

^{page 84 note 1} R.A. XXXIII, 177Google Scholar.

^{page 84 note 2} A.R.M.T. I 37.24Google Scholar. Cf infra p. 88. The phase tuppu ša niš lim was used of the 15th century treaty between Niqmepa of Alalaḫ and Ir-IM of Tunip, A.T. 2.

^{page 84 note 3} E.g., treaty of Idri-mi of Alalaḫ and Pillia, A.T. 3.

^{page 84 note 4} R.A. XXXVI 51Google Scholar; cf. also the letter to Zimri-Lim referring to his attempt to make Ḫammurabi of Kurda and Qarni-Lim conclude a treaty: “Establish friendship between these men, a bond of these men”, Syria, XIX, 120–1Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 1} A.R.M.T. II 77.12Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 2} See infra, p. 89.

^{page 85 note 3} J.C.S. XI, 132Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 4} See infra p. 89 f.

^{page 85 note 5} A.R.M.T. I 37Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 6} Mélanges Syriens II 986Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 7} A.R.M.T. I 8.8–9Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 8} A.R.M.T. II 40.5–6Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 9} Cf. also A.R.M.T. I 103.16′Google Scholar, in which Zigildânum informed Šamši-Adad that he was friendly with Samû, Samû ittia salim; and II 16.16 “I will cause them to be friendly with Bêlânum”.

^{page 85 note 10} A.R.M.T. II 37.13Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 11} Syria XIX 120–1Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 1} Mélanges Syriens II 991Google Scholar. The use of the phrast salîmam epêum by Abi-Samar in his letter to Yaḫdun-Lim, A.R.M.T. II.1–4Google Scholar must also refer to the conclusion of a treaty, as was suggested by Falkenstein, A.Bi. Or. XI 113Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 2} A.R.M.T. II 42.8Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 3} A.R.M.T. IV 20. 11–2Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 4} A.R.M.T. II 55.26–32Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 5} A.R.M.T. VI 26.8′–9′Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 6} A.R.M.T. I 24.12′–4′Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 7} The idiom also occurs in a letter referring to Adûna-Adad of Idamaraz. “Because he struck the hand of the Bîn-Yamîn let my lord content the heart of Adûna-Adad”, Mélanges Syriens II, 990Google Scholar. In this case it is not clear whether the term refers to the rejection of an alliance or to the breaking off of relations.

^{page 87 note 1} For a discussion of the Hittite procedure see V. Korošec, Hethitische Staatsverträge.

^{page 87 note 2} A.R.M.T. IV 20Google Scholar.

^{page 87 note 3} A.R.M.T. I 37.19–29Google Scholar.

^{page 87 note 4} Cf. supra p. 85.

^{page 87 note 5} A.R.M.T. II, 77Google Scholar.

^{page 87 note 6} Cf. R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, no. 354. Letter to Esarhaddon, “The 20th, 22nd and 25th are auspicious (days) for the taking of oaths”.

^{page 88 note 1} For the reading nîšu, “life” in preference to nišu, “uplifting” (of the hand) see Driver, G. R. and Miles, J. C., The Babylonian Laws II, 157Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 2} A.R.M.T. I 3.8–10Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 3} Cf. II Samuel ii, 27; Job xxvii, 2.

^{page 88 note 4} I am indebted to Professor Sidney Smith for this suggestion.

^{page 88 note 5} A.R.M.T. II 72.24Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 6} A.R.M.T. I 3.7Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 1} Driver, G. R. and Miles, J. C., The Babylonian Laws II, 11Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 2} A.R.M.T. II 77.2′–8′Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 3} The number varies considerably in the extant treaties. For the treaty between Eannatum of Lagash and Umma, the men of Umma swore by the life of six great gods. S.A.K.I. 11f. In the two fifteenth century treaties from Alalaḫ only three gods are named, the other deities of the pantheon being invoked collectively as “the great gods” or “all the gods”, A.T. 2, 3. In the Hittite treaties the list of gods was greatly extended, some 27 appearing in the treaty between Ḫattusilis and Ramses, in addition to the collective invocation of the thousand gods of Ḫatti and Egypt, the mountains, rivers, sky, earth, great sea, winds and clouds, A.N.E.T., 200 ff.

^{page 89 note 4} Mélanges Syriens, II, 986Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 5} Syria XIX, 117–8Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 6} A.R.M.T. I 3.3–14Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 1} Bi. Or. XI, 114Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 2} A.R.M.T. I 37.19–21; II 62.9′Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 3} A.R.M.T. VI 26Google Scholar. Cf. also II 39.50, Asqur-Adad reminded an envoy of Zimri-Lim that his “father” had sent him to establish the foundations of his throne.

^{page 90 note 4} Cf. the treaty of Idri-mi of Alalaḫ with the Hurrian king, his suzerain. The kings of the ḫurrian confederation took the oath first and then sent a copy of the treaty terms and the oath to Idri-mi for his ratification; Smith, S., The Statue of Idrimi, 17, 76Google Scholar. Although in the Hittite vassal treaties, sanctions were directed only against the vassal and he alone was said to take the oath, the Hittite king was certainly bound by the treaty, as has been pointed out by Korošec, V., Hethitische Staatsverträge, 99–100Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 5} A.R.M.T. II 37.6Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 6} Syria XIX, 109Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 7} Ibid, 108. Further references to killing the ass are given by Dossin, G. in Mélanges Syriens II, 981 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 90 note 8} A.R. I, 750–60Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 9} Ronzevalle, S., Mélanges de l'Université Sî. Joseph, XV, 237–60Google Scholar; Bauer, H., A.f.O. VIII, 1–16Google Scholar.

^{page 91 note 1} A.R.M.T. II 37.9–12Google Scholar. For the translation of ḫazzum as “goat”, see von Soden, W. in Orientalia, N.S. 21, 197Google Scholar.

^{page 91 note 2} Syria XIX, 108Google Scholar.

^{page 91 note 3} K.B. VI, 364Google Scholar.

^{page 91 note 4} Rituels Akkadiens, 57.

^{page 91 note 5} Actes du XX Congrès international des Orientalistes, 117–9.

^{page 91 note 6} Orientalia XI, 313Google Scholar.

^{page 91 note 7} A.R.M.T. II 71.10–5Google Scholar.

^{page 91 note 8} Cf. the inscription of a parent of Nabonidus, ll. 4–5, “I seized the sissiktu of Sin, king of the gods”, H. Pognon, Inscriptions sémitiques.

^{page 91 note 9} A.R.M.T. VI 33.31–2Google Scholar.

^{page 91 note 10} A.R.M.T. VI 26Google Scholar.

^{page 91 note 11} Semitica I, 19–20Google Scholar.

^{page 92 note 1} Cf. the Aramaic inscription of Bar-Rekub: “Panama …seized the hem (knp lit. “wing”) of his lord, the king of Assyria … [he ran] at the chariot wheel of his lord Tiglath-pileser”, G. A. Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions, no. 62.

^{page 92 note 2} Text quoted by Dossin, G. in R.H.A. V 72Google Scholar in a discussion on the meaning of the terms qaran ṣubat X ṣab âtum/ššurum.

^{page 92 note 3} Lewy, H., Orientalia XI, 313Google Scholar; Koschaker, P., A.S.A.W. XXXIX, 20Google Scholar.

^{page 92 note 4} R.A. XLII, 125Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 5} A.R.M.T. VI, 45Google Scholar. P. Koschaker suggested that the person who seized the garment of a god or a king placed himself under the garment, that is, in terms of personality, under the power of the wearer, Actes du XX Congrès international des Orientalistes, 118.

^{page 92 note 6} A.R.M.T. 72.13–6Google Scholar.

^{page 93 note 1} Mélanges Syriens II, 986Google Scholar.

^{page 93 note 2} Ibid, 991 and Syria XIX, 108.

^{page 93 note 3} Mélanges Syriens II, 990Google Scholar.

^{page 93 note 4} Scheil, V., Del. en Perse, Memoires XI, 1fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 93 note 5} A.T. 2;3.

^{page 93 note 6} Cf. the treaty of Suppiluliumas and Mattiuaza, rev. 9–11. “If a fugitive from Ḫatti [flee to the land of Mitanni, the sons of Mitanni shall seize him and] return him. If a fugitive from the land of M[itanni shall flee to the land of Ḫaiti] the king of Ḫatti shall not seize and return him.” Weidner, E. F., Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, 23Google Scholar. In the treaty between Mursilis II and Ḫapalla, the Hittite king refused to extradite important refugees from Ḫaplla but undertook to do so in the case of craftsmen or of anyone who had attempted the life of the ruler of Ḫapalla, obv. 35–43, Friedrich, J., Staatsverträge des Ḫatti Reiches, 59Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 1} A.R.M.T. IV 5Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 2} A.R.M.T. V 41Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 3} A.R.M.T. VI 35Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 4} A.R.M.T. II 72.19–27Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 5} See supra p. 88.

^{page 94 note 6} A.R.M.T. V 7Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 7} A.R.M.T. V 8Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 8} A.R.M.T. I 24Google Scholar; 46; 77.

^{page 94 note 9} Dossin, G, in Actis du XXI Congrès des Orientalistes, 142–3Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 10} A.T. 409.

^{page 94 note 11} A.T. 35.

^{page 94 note 12} A.R.M.T. VI 26.5–6Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 13} A.R.M.T. II 40Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 14} A.R.M.T. I 46; 77Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 15} This was in accordance with Babylonian custom. In the Assyrian laws the bridegroom's father gave the betrothal gift, biblum, but there is no mention of the teḫatum. The amount of the terḫatum given for a royal marriage was much greater than that of private citizens which normally ranged from one shekel of silver to 40 shekels and a slave, cf. Driver, G. R. and Miles, J. C., The Babylonian Laws, I, 249–50Google Scholar.

^{page 95 note 1} A.R.M.T. II 40, 9–11Google Scholar.

^{page 95 note 2} Cf. von Soden, W., Orientalia, N.S. 21, 80Google Scholar.

^{page 95 note 3} A.T. 409.

^{page 95 note 4} A.R.M.T. II 63Google Scholar.

^{page 95 note 5} Syria XIX, 120–1Google Scholar.

^{page 95 note 6} Qarni-Lim and Zimri-Lim cooperated in the capture of Šubat-Enlil, A.R.M.T. II, 130Google Scholar, and in an attack on Ekallâtum, Syria XIX, 121Google Scholar. When Išme-Dagan attempted to support a revolt in Kurda, the forces of Asqur-Adad of Karanâ, a vassal of Zimri-Lim, went to the aid of Kurda, A.R.M.T. II, 50Google Scholar. Ḫammurabi of Babylon, being informed that Zimri-Lim proposed to march to Idamaraz, promised him aid and advised him to demand troops from Kurda, II 21.15.′ References to the activities of Ešnunna and to troops of Yamḫad suggest that this letter is to be dated to the war against Išme-Dagan. There is evidence that in later years Ḫammurabi of Kurda freed himself from the control of Zimri-Lim; when Ešnunna and Elam were preparing to attack Babylon the king of Ešnunna sent messengers to Išme-Dagan and Ḫammurabi of Kurda requesting them not to give support to Babylon and to write to Zimri-Lim to the same effect, VI, 27. Since Ḫammurabi of Kurda was approached directly and was asked to secure the cooperation of Zimri-Lim, the inference is that he was then a fully independent monarch, although on friendly terms with Mari.

^{page 96 note 1} The neutrality pact between Bunu-Ištar and Qarni-Lim quoted on p. 93 shows that Qarni-Lim was then allied with the Bîn-Yamîn, enemies of Zimri-Lim. Even when he and Zimri-Lim were acting jointly against Išme-Dagan, his good faith seems to have been suspect. When traitors in Išme-Dagan's town of Ekallatum offered to deliver the place to him, an official of Zimri-Lim was afraid that he would attack independently and seize all the booty. He urged Zimri-Lim to send troops, “then we shall not miss the movable goods of that city”. Syria XIX, 121Google Scholar.

^{page 96 note 2} Studio Mariana, 56.

^{page 96 note 3} A.R.M.T., III 17Google Scholar.

^{page 96 note 4} Cf. Koschaker, P., Neue Keilschrifturkunden aus der El Amarna Zeit, 32 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 96 note 5} A.R.M.T. II 62Google Scholar.

^{page 96 note 6} Supra, p. 90.

^{page 96 note 7} See also supra p. 82 f for a discussion of the trial of men of Carchemish by Zimri-Lim.

^{page 96 note 8} Supra, p 78 f.

^{page 96 note 9} Cf. the letter of Ḫattusilis complaining that Kadašman-Enlil did not send him messengers and suggesting that this was due to the anti-Hittite policy of his chief minister, A.O. 24.

^{page 96 note 10} A.R.M.T. V 5.18–9Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 1} Semitica I, 21–3Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 97 note 3} Syria XX, 108Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 4} A.R.M.T. V 6Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 5} A.R.M.T. V 13Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 6} A.R.M.T. V 20Google Scholar. Cf. the letter of Burraburiaš to Amenophis IV: “Your messengers have come three times and you have sent no fine present, and I, too, have sent no fine present to you. I have nothing valuable (to send) if you have nothing valuable (to send), E.A. 10.

^{page 97 note 7} A.R.M.T. VI 51;53;54;52Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 8} A.R.M.T. II 23. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 1} A.R.M.T. V 14Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 2} A.R.M.T., I –3 1–2Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 3} Cf. Oppenheim, A. L., J.N.E.S. XI, 130Google Scholar, quoting B. Landsberger.

^{page 98 note 4} Zimri-Lim was addressed as “father” by Kabiâ, king of Kaḫat, A.R.M.T. II, 57–9Google Scholar, Yumruṣ-El, II 57; Dadiḫadun, II 61, and Arriwaz, II 63–4.

^{page 98 note 5} The only letter in which a king called himself “father” in the address, apart from those sent by Šamši-Adad to Yasmaḫ-Adad, who was certainly his son, is that from Zimri-Lim to Kabiâ of Kaḫat: “To Kabiâ, say, thus Zimri-Lim, your father”, A.R.M.T. II, 60Google Scholar. Zimri-Lim had captured Kaḫat and Kabiâ, who himself called him “father” certainly held the town as his vassal.

^{page 98 note 6} In the fourteenth century B.C. a vassal usually called himself the “servant” of his suzerain and addressed him as his “lord,” although the alternative terms “father” and “son” were also employed.

^{page 98 note 7} In his first letter to Amenophis TV, the purpose of which was clearly to establish relations with Egypt, Aššur-uballit wrote: “To the king of Egypt, say, thus Aššur-uballit, king of Assyria” E.A. 15. When the second letter was written the two rulers were exchanging gifts and Aššur-uballit used the fraternal style of address, E.A. 16.

^{page 98 note 8} The omission might be a mark of displeasure. The only letter in which Burraburiaš did not call Amenophis IV “brother” was one in which he complained of the quality of the gifts sent to him, E.A. 10.

^{page 98 note 9} A.R.M.T. I 2Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 10} A.R.M.T. V 14Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 1} Amût-pî-il of Qatanum to Aleppo fot the conclusion of a treaty, R.A. XXXVI, 51Google Scholar; Zimri-Lim to Aleppo, Studia Marianu, 59; Ammitaku of Alalaḫ to Ibla, A.T. 269; visits to Zimri-Lim byḪam-murabi of Kurda, A.R.M.T. II, 81Google Scholar; 82; Šarriâ of Razamâ, II, 78; Atamrum of Andariq, II, 120; Zimriyâ of Zurrâ, III, 44; Ḫali-sûmû of Ilanṣura, III, 48; Sûrâ-Ḫammû, II, 105; III, 58; Kabiâ of Kafrat, II, 57; Asqur-Adad of Karanâ, II, 39; the king of Ugarit, Syria, XVIII, 74, n. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 2} A.R.M.T. II 78.5–17Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 3} A.R.M.T. II 105Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 4} A.R.M.T. II 82.21–3Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 5} R.A. XXXIII, 171Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 6} A.R.M.T. XV p. 146Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 1} Ibâl-pî-El, A.R.M.T. II, 20–32Google Scholar; 73; in command of troops II, 30. Ibâl-El, II 33–8; in II 35 reported a revolt in Zalmâqum and in II, 37, acted as arbiter between the men of Ḫana and Idamaraz. Yarîm-Adad, II, 72–4, 76; in III, 35, ordered to seize a fugitive.

^{page 100 note 2} A.R.M.T. II 72.3Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 3} A.R.M.T. II 76.14, 22–3Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 4} A.R.M.T. II 21Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 5} A.R.M.T. VI 21.11; 24.5; 62.7Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 6} A.R.M.T. I 93Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 7} A.R.M.T. V 11.5Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 8} A.R.M.T. II 72. 8–9Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 9} A.R.M.T. II 41.5–7Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 10} A.R.M.T. VI 23.19–24Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 11} A.R.M.T. II 39.5–7Google Scholar.

^{page 101 note 1} R.A. XXXIII, 171Google Scholar.

^{page 101 note 2} A.R.M.T. V 11.5–6Google Scholar.

^{page 101 note 3} Cf. E.A. 30, the letter of a king of Syria (?) to the kings of Canaan, requesting that facilities be given to his messenger Akia. “Let no-one detain him. Let him come to Egypt quickly.”

^{page 101 note 4} A.R.M.T. II 24Google Scholar.

^{page 101 note 5} A.R.M.T. II 69.5–11Google Scholar.

^{page 102 note 1} A.R.M.T. VI 34.15–4Google Scholar.

^{page 102 note 2} A.R.M.T. VI 33Google Scholar.

^{page 102 note 3} A.R.M.T. II 73Google Scholar. Ibâl-pî-El left Babylon while Elamite messengers were still at the court, but Ḫammurabi was on the point of breaking off relations with Elam, cf. infra p. 106.

^{page 102 note 4} A.R.M.T. II 24Google Scholar.

^{page 102 note 5} R.A. XXXIII, 171Google Scholar; A.R.M.T. II 23Google Scholar.

^{page 102 note 6} A.R.M.T. II 72Google Scholar.

^{page 102 note 7} A.R.M.T. II 39Google Scholar.

^{page 102 note 8} A.R.M.T. II 39.70Google Scholar; 42; 43; 46; III, 59; VI, 29.

^{page 102 note 9} Cf. the treaty of Muwatalli and Šunaššura, rev. IV 32: “If I, the Sun, cause a message (lit. a tablet) to be brought to you on a tablet on which the word is set down, and the messenger answers you verbally, if the words of the messenger agree with the words of the tablet, Šunaššura, trust this messenger. But if the words from the mouth of the messenger do not agree with the words of the tablet you, Šunaššura, shall not trust him,” Weidner, E. F., Politische Dokuments aus Kleinasien, p. 109Google Scholar.

^{page 103 note 1} A.R.M.T. II 23Google Scholar.

^{page 103 note 2} Supra, p. 87.

^{page 104 note 1} A.R.M.T. II 22Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 2} A.R.M.T. II 31.5–10Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 3} A.R.M.T. II 72Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 4} A.R.M.T. VI 19.17–21Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 5} R.A. XXXV, 122Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 1} A.R.M.T. II 73.16Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 2} A.R.M.T. I 50.5–9Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 3} A.R.M.T. XV p. 229Google Scholar. Kupper suggests that it is the ideogram for naptanum, “meal,” and von Soden that it is kudurrum, “service”.

^{page 105 note 4} awîlu(meš) ša sí-ik-ki-im, a minor functionary; the meaning of the title is obscure.

^{page 105 note 5} A.R.M.T. II 76Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 6} A.R.M.T. I 17Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 7} A.R.M.T. II 5.15–8Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 1} A.R.M.T. II 123Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 2} A.R.M.T. II 197. 5–11Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 3} A.R.M.T. I 123. 13–7Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 4} A.R.M.T. I. 88 11–4Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 5} A.R.M.T. II. 5 15–29Google Scholar; Bi.Or. XI, 115Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 6} A.R.M.T. VI 15.7–9Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 7} A.R.M.T. II 73Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 8} A.R.M.T. VI 19Google Scholar; 23; 79.

^{page 106 note 9} A.R.M.T. VI 21Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 1} A.R.M.T. VI 15Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 2} e.g. A.R.M.T. VI 19Google Scholar; II, 123; II, 107; VI, 22.

^{page 107 note 3} This was certainly so in the case of the Elamite messenger and his companion mentioned in A.R.M.T. VI, 19; 22Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 4} A.R.M.T. VI 14Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 5} A.R.M.T. VI 23Google Scholar. The terms teḫitum and etiqtum, used in connection with groups of messengers, are translated by Oppenheim as “group of messengers travelling together with Mari as destination” and “same, passing through Mari to their destination”, J.C.S. III, 147Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 6} A.R.M.T. I 15Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 7} A.R.M.T. VI 27Google Scholar.

^{page 108 note 1} A.R.M.T. VI 19.4–11Google Scholar.

^{page 108 note 2} Semitica I, 21–3Google Scholar.

^{page 108 note 3} A.R.M.T. V 11Google Scholar.

^{page 108 note 4} A.R.M.T. I 21Google Scholar.