Misplaced Pages

#797202

60-403: The Tawagalawa letter was written by a Hittite king to a king of Ahhiyawa around 1250 BC . The author is generally identified as Hattusili III , though some scholars have argued that it was written by Muwatalli II . Since the surviving text is fragmentary, the identities of the author and addressee are not known for certain, and nothing can be inferred about the identity of its addressee. In

120-493: A 16-day period during the reign of a king, believed to be Ammisaduqa of the First Babylonian Dynasty, has been preserved on a tablet called Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa ( Enuma Anu Enlil 63). Twenty copies and fragments have been recovered, all Neo-Assyrian and later. An example entry is "In month XI, 15th day, Venus in the west disappeared, 3 days in the sky it stayed away, and in month XI, 18th day, Venus in

180-571: A Sumerian King List type beginning, involves Babylonian kings from Simbar-Šipak ( c. 1021–1004 BC) to Erība-Marduk ( c. 769 – 761 BC). The Chronicle of Early Kings , after an early preamble, involves kings of the First Babylonian Empire ending with the First Sealand Dynasty. The Tummal Inscription relates events from king Ishbi-Erra of Isin at the beginning of the second millennium BC. The Chronicle of

240-623: A blockade of the Assyrians. The eruption of the Thera volcano provides a possible time marker for the region. A large eruption, it would have sent a plume of ash directly over Anatolia and filled the sea in the area with floating pumice. This pumice appeared in Egypt, apparently via trade. Current excavations in the Levant may also add to the timeline. The exact date of the volcanic eruption has been

300-523: A brief mention of the Ahhiyawan king's brother Tawagalawa ( Hittite : 𒋫𒉿𒂵𒆷𒉿 Tawagalawa , 𒋫𒉿𒅗𒆷𒉿 Tawakalawa ), a form that has been suggested to correspond to the Greek name Eteocles ( Etewoklewes ). Early studies erroneously assumed that the beginning of the letter concerned the activities of Tawagalawa. After reconsideration by Itamar Singer and Suzanne Heinhold-Krahmer in 1983, that part of

360-452: A full-on war, or anything in between. Hittite king The dating and sequence of Hittite kings is compiled by scholars from fragmentary records, supplemented by the finds in Ḫattuša and other administrative centers of cuneiform tablets and more than 3,500 seal impressions providing the names, titles, and sometimes ancestry of Hittite kings and officials. Given the nature of the source evidence, reconstructions vary among scholars, and

420-485: A king's reign. Many copies of these lists have been found, with certain ambiguities. There are sometimes too many or few royal officials for the length of a king's reign, and sometimes the different versions of the eponym list disagree on a royal official, for example in the Mari Eponym Chronicle . The eponym list is considered accurate within 1 year back to 1133 BC. Before that uncertainty creeps in. There

480-548: A longstanding traditional, often difficult to detect. Key documents like the Sumerian King List were repeatedly copied and redacted over generations to suit current political needs. For this and other reasons, the Sumerian King List, once regarded as an important historical source, is now only used with caution, if at all, for the period under discussion here. The translation of cuneiform documents

540-420: A point of reference, or rather three points, for the conjunction is a periodic occurrence. Identifying a conjunction during the reign of king Ammisaduqa with one of these calculated conjunctions will therefore fix, for example, the accession of Hammurabi as either 1848, 1792, or 1736 BC, known as the "high" ("long"), " middle ", and "short (or low) chronology" . A record of the movements of Venus over roughly

600-451: Is an important piece of information for archaeologists, which can be compromised by two factors. First, in ancient times old materials were often reused as building material or fill, sometimes at a great distance from the original location. Secondly, looting has disturbed archaeological sites at least back to Roman times, making the provenance of looted objects difficult or impossible to determine. Lastly, counterfeit versions of these object are

660-569: Is believed to have overthrown Samsu-ditāna , the last king of the Amorite dynasty of Babylon , but the dating of this event varies widely across chronological schemes based on interpretations of the records of observation of Venus during the reign of Samsu-ditāna's predecessor. These have resulted in several chronologies for Mesopotamia. In reference to the capture of Babylon by Muršili I, these are High (1651 BC), Middle (1595 BC), Low (1531 BC), and Ultra-Low (1499 BC), with additional variants such as

SECTION 10

#1732764778798

720-405: Is founded on a floating or relative chronology. There have been attempts to anchor the chronology using records of eclipses and other methods such as dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating , but none of those dates is widely supported. Currently the major schools of thought on the absolute dating of this period are separated by 56 or 64 years. This is because the key source for this analysis are

780-465: Is mentioned three times. Neo-Babylonian kings are mentioned in 2 Kings 20, Hebrew : בְּרֹאדַךְ בַּלְאֲדָן , romanized :  Berodach Bal'adan , thought to be Marduk-apla-iddina II , in 2 Kings 24 Nebuchadnezzar II and in 2 Kings 25 Hebrew : אֱוִיל מְרֹדַךְ , romanized :  Evil Merodach , thought to be Amel-Marduk . In Isaiah 38 the neo-Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon are mentioned. Dendrochronology attempts to use

840-418: Is more accurate. In recent years some properly calibrated radiocarbon dates have begun to appear: Other emerging technical dating methods include rehydroxylation dating , luminescence dating , archaeomagnetic dating and the dating of lime plaster from structures. At least as far back as the reign of Thutmose I , Egypt took a strong interest in the ancient Near East. At times they occupied portions of

900-624: Is now an Assyrian Revised Eponym List which attempts to resolve some of these issues. As often in archaeology, everyday records give the best picture of a civilization. Cuneiform tablets were constantly moving around the ancient Near East, offering alliances (sometimes including daughters for marriage), threatening war, recording shipments of mundane supplies, or settling accounts receivable. Most were tossed away after use as one today would discard unwanted receipts, but fortunately for us, clay tablets are durable enough to survive even when used as material for wall filler in new construction. A key find

960-543: Is quite difficult, especially for damaged source material. Additionally, our knowledge of the underlying languages, like Akkadian and Sumerian, has evolved over time, so a translation done now may be quite different from one done in AD 1900: there can be honest disagreement over what a document says. Worse, the majority of archaeological finds have not yet been published, much less translated. Those held in private collections may never be. Many of our important source documents, such as

1020-460: The Battle of Megiddo , to 1490 BC or even 1505 BC versus the current 1470 BC. A number of attempts have been made to date Kassite Kudurru stone documents by mapping the symbols to astrononomical elements, using Babylonian star catalogues such as MUL.APIN with so far very limited results. Thousands of cuneiform tablets have been found in an area running from Anatolia to Egypt. While many are

1080-401: The 2nd year of Tutankhamun (c. 1341–1323 BC). Assuming that the correct foreign rulers have been identified, this provides and important point of synchronization. Identification can be difficult due to the propensity for states to re-use regnal names. We have some data sources from the classical period: Berossus, a Babylonian astronomer and historian born during the time of Alexander

1140-518: The Ahhiyawan king three proposals-- either extradite him to the Hittites, expel him from Ahhiyawa, or offer asylum on the condition that he not attempt any further rebellions. No surviving documents attest to the Ahhiyawan king's decision, though the subsequent decades saw an increase in Ahhiyawa control over Western Anatolia, suggesting that the appeal was rejected. The letter is notable in part for

1200-500: The Assyrian King List, are the products of government and religious establishments, with a natural bias in favor of the king or god in charge. A king may even take credit for a battle or construction project of an earlier ruler. The Assyrians in particular have a literary tradition of putting the best possible face on history, a fact the interpreter must constantly keep in mind. Historical lists of rulers were traditional in

1260-534: The Egyptian calendar for this period is not fully known, especially how intercalary months were handled. Since the Assyrian eponym list is accurate to one year only back to 1132 BC, ancient Near East chronology for the preceding century or so is anchored to Ramsesses II, based on synchronisms and the Egyptian lunar observations. It has been suggested that lunar dates place the accession of Thutmose III , pharaoh of

SECTION 20

#1732764778798

1320-597: The Great wrote a history of Babylon which is a lost book . Portions were preserved by other classical writers, mainly Josephus via Alexander Polyhistor . The surviving material is in chronicle form and covers the Neo-Babylonian Empire period from Nabopolassar (627–605 BC) to Nabonidus (556–539 BC). This book provides a list of kings starting with the Neo-Babylonian Empire and ending with

1380-682: The Levant and Anatolia depend significantly on the chronology of Ancient Egypt . To the extent that there are problems in the Egyptian chronology, these issues will be inherited in chronologies based on synchronisms with Ancient Egypt. There is much evidence that the Bronze Age civilization of the Indus Valley traded with the Near East, including clay seals found at Ur III and in the Persian Gulf. Seals and beads were also found at

1440-676: The Market Prices mentions various Babylonian rulers beginning from the period of Hammurabi. The Eclectic Chronicle relates events of the post-Kassite Babylonian kings. Other examples are the Religious Chronicle , and Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle , among others. The Synchronistic Chronicle, found in the library of Assurbanipal in Nineveh records the diplomacy of the Assyrian empire with the Babylonian empire. While useful,

1500-645: The Milawata letter; and its governor Atpa, as does the Manapa-Tarhunta letter (although that letter does not state Atpa's fiefdom). In the letter, the Hittite king refers to former hostilities between the Hittites and the Ahhiyawans over Wilusa , which had now been resolved amicably: "Oh, my brother, write to him this one thing, if nothing else: '...the king of Hatti has persuaded me about the matter of

1560-602: The ancient Near East. Covers rulers of Mesopotamia from a time "before the flood " to the fall of the Isin Dynasty , depending on the version. Its use for pre-Akkadian rulers is limited to none. It continues to have value for the Akkadian period and later. The Sumerian King List omits any mention of Lagash , even though it was clearly a major power during the period covered by the list. The Royal Chronicle of Lagash appears to be an attempt to remedy that omission, listing

1620-580: The ancient equivalent of grocery receipts, these tablets, along with inscriptions on buildings and public monuments, provide the major source of chronological information for the ancient Middle East. While there are some relatively pristine display-quality objects, the vast majority of recovered tablets and inscriptions are damaged. They have been broken with only portions found, intentionally defaced, and damaged by weather or soil. Many tablets were not even baked and have to be carefully handled until they can be hardened by heating. The site of an item's recovery

1680-417: The calibration method. There have also been issues with dating for charcoal samples, which may reflect much older wood the charcoal was made from. There are also calibration issues with annual and regional C14 variations. A further problem is that earlier archaeological dates used traditional radiocarbon dating while newer results sometimes come from Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating which

1740-420: The chronological sequence of rulers, by Amélie Kuhrt (1995), Trevor Bryce (2005), and Jacques Freu (2007). All regnal dates remain approximations. Chronology of the ancient Near East The chronology of the ancient Near East is a framework of dates for various events, rulers and dynasties. Historical inscriptions and texts customarily record events in terms of a succession of officials or rulers: "in

1800-402: The chronology in that period by locking down the accession year of Ramsesses II to 1279 BC. There are a number of issues with this including a) the regnal lengths for Neferneferuaten , Seti I , and Horemheb are actually not known with accuracy, b) where the observations occurred (Memphis is usually assumed), c) what day the observations were taken (two are known to be the 1st lunar day), and d)

1860-589: The chronology. His research has recently been included in the Oxford History of the Ancient Near East and has been cited widely in the recent academic literature. A new method has been developed to combine dendrochronology with Miyake events to extend the range to other areas. As in Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean, radiocarbon dates run one or two centuries earlier than the dates proposed by archaeologists. Recently, radiocarbon dates from

Tawagalawa letter - Misplaced Pages Continue

1920-571: The consensus is that this chronicle should not be considered reliable. Chronicle P provides the same type of information as the Assyrian Synchronistic Chronicle, but from the Babylonian point of view. Rulers in the ancient Near East liked to take credit for public works. Temples, buildings and statues are likely to identify their royal patron. Kings also publicly recorded major deeds such as battles won, titles acquired, and gods appeased. These are very useful in tracking

1980-429: The data to be too noisy for any use in fixing the chronology. A number of lunar and solar eclipses have been suggested for use in dating the ancient Near East. Many suffer from the vagueness of the original tablets in showing that an actual eclipse occurred. At that point, it becomes a question of using computer models to show when a given eclipse would have been visible at a site, complicated by difficulties in modeling

2040-442: The dating or even existence, relationships and sequence of some kings is disputed at several point within Hittite history. The list below indicates instances of such debates, with references. All dates in the list below should be considered approximate. Hittite Chronology is almost completely dependent on synchronisms with other ancient Near Eastern countries . Such synchronisms are few and usually open to interpretation. Muršili I

2100-603: The early Roman Emperors. The entries relevant to the ancient Near East run from Nabonassar (747–734 BC) to the Macedonian king Alexander IV (323–309 BC). Though mostly accepted as accurate there are known issues with the Canon. Some rulers are omitted, there are times for which no ruler is listed, and the early dates have been converted from the lunar calendar used by the Babylonians to the Egyptian solar calendar. Not having

2160-420: The east became visible: springs will open, Adad his rain, Ea his floods will bring, king to king messages of reconciliation will send." Using it, various scholars have proposed dates for the fall of Babylon based on the 56/64-year cycle of Venus. It has been suggested that the fundamental 8-year cycle of Venus is a better metric, leading to the proposal of an "ultra-low" chronology. Other researchers have declared

2220-488: The eighth year of the reign of Ammisaduqa , king of Babylon. The most common Venus Tablet solutions ( sack of Babylon ) The following table gives an overview of the different proposals, listing some key dates and their deviation relative to the middle chronology, omitting the Supershort Chronology (sack of Babylon in 1466 BC): In the series, the conjunction of the rise of Venus with the new moon provides

2280-404: The final destruction of Ebla have been shown to definitely favour the middle chronology (with the fall of Babylon and Aleppo at c. 1595 BC), and seem to discount the ultra-low chronology (same event at c. 1499 BC), although it is emphasized that this is not presented as a decisive argument. Radiocarbon dates in literature should be discounted if they do not include the raw C14 date and

2340-718: The kings of Lagash in the form of a chronicle though some scholars believe the Lagash chronicle to be either a parody of the Sumerian King List or a complete fabrication. This list deals only with the rulers of Babylon. It has been found in two versions, denoted A and B both written in Neo-Babylonian times. The later dynasties in the list document the Kassite and Sealand periods though a number of Kassite rulers are damaged. Ruler names largely match other records but

2400-474: The land of Wilusa concerning which he and I were hostile to one another, and we have made peace.'" As most scholars identify Wilusa with Troy , this reference has been said to provide "a striking background for Homeric scholars researching the origin of the tradition of the Achaean attack on Ilios." However, the verb used ( ku-ru-ri-iḫ-ḫu-e-en ) could indicate an exchange of strongly worded cuneiform tablets,

2460-549: The letter, the Hittite king seeks cooperation from the Ahhiyawan king in suppressing anti-Hittite activity in Western Anatolia. His particular concern was the activity of a warlord named Piyamaradu who had recently fled to Ahhiyawa-controlled territory after leading an unsuccessful rebellion in Lukka . Given Piyamaradu's apparent propensity for anti-Hittite activity, the author was concerned about his next moves and offered

Tawagalawa letter - Misplaced Pages Continue

2520-455: The list was first constructed in the time of Ashur-uballit I (1365–1330 BC). The king list is considered to be roughly correct from that point on, less so for earlier entries which have numerous inconsistencies. Its purpose is to create a narrative of continuity and legitimacy for Assyrian kingship, blending in the kings of Amorite origin. The existing source consists of 3 mostly complete tables and 2 small fragments. There are differences between

2580-476: The lower Middle Chronology (1587 BC). The distinction between these Mesopotamian chronological models disappears in the Late Bronze Age. Egyptian chronology is also subject to variant interpretations, resulting in three leading options, High (1304 BC), Middle (1290 BC), and Low (1279 BC), for the accession of Ramesses II , the contemporary of the Hittite kings Muwatalli II and Ḫattušili III . Assuming

2640-508: The omen observations in the Venus tablet of King Ammisaduqa and these are multiples of the eight-year cycle of Venus visibility from Earth. More recent work by Vahe Gurzadyan has suggested that the fundamental eight-year cycle of Venus is a better metric. Some scholars discount the validity of the Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa entirely. The alternative major chronologies are defined by the date of

2700-451: The preferred Low Chronology for Egypt, Ramesses II fought Muwatalli II at Kadesh in 1274 BC (Year 5), concluded a peace treaty with Ḫattušili III in 1259 BC (Year 21), and married the latter's daughter Maathorneferure in 1246 BC (Year 34). On the Hittite side there are very few precise indicators. The "Apology" of Ḫattušili III indicates that his nephew and predecessor Muršili III reigned for 7 years. A text of Muršili II records an omen of

2760-599: The region, a favor returned later by the Assyrians. Some key synchronisms: There are problems with using Egyptian chronology. Besides some minor issues of regnal lengths and overlaps, there are three long periods of poorly documented chaos in the history of ancient Egypt, the First , Second , and Third Intermediate Periods , whose lengths are doubtful. This means the Egyptian Chronology actually comprises three floating chronologies. The chronologies of Mesopotamia,

2820-543: The regnal lengths are more problematic. There is also a Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period in later part of the 1st millennium. The Assyrian King List extends back to the reign of Shamshi Adad I (1809 – c. 1776 BC), an Amorite who conquered Assur while creating a new kingdom in Upper Mesopotamia. The list extends to the reign of Shalmaneser V (727–722 BC). It is believed that

2880-400: The reign of a ruler. Unlike current calendars, most ancient calendars were based on the accession of the current ruler, as in "the 5th year in the reign of Hammurabi". Each royal year was also given a title reflecting a deed of the ruler, like "the year Ur was defeated". The compilation of these years are called date lists. In Assyria, a royal official or limmū was selected in every year of

2940-692: The site of Esnunna . In addition, if the land of Meluhha does indeed refer to the Indus Valley, then there are extensive trade records ranging from the Akkadian Empire until the Babylonian Dynasty I. Goods from Greece made their way into the ancient Near East, directly in Anatolia and via the island of Cyprus in the rest of the region and Egypt. A Hittite king, Tudhaliya IV, even captured Cyprus as part of an attempt to enforce

3000-733: The slowing rotation of the earth ( ΔT ) and uncertainty about the lengths of months. Most calculations for dating using eclipses have assumed the Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa to be a legitimate source. The most notable omitted eclipses are the Mari Eponym Chronicle eclipse from the time of Shamshi-Adad I and the Sargon of Akkad eclipse (from the Legends of the Kings of Akkad and a liver omen). Some important examples: There are thirteen Egyptian New Kingdom lunar observations which are used to pin

3060-628: The stability of buried clay tablets, the records of the Hebrews have a great deal of ancient editorial work to sift through when used as a source for chronology. However, the Hebrew kingdoms lay at the crossroads of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt and the Hittites, making them spectators and often victims of actions in the area during the 1st millennium. Mostly concerned with regional events in the Levant, in 2 Kings 23 Hebrew : פַרְעֹה נְכֹה , romanized :  Phare'oh Necho , thought to be pharaoh Necho II ,

SECTION 50

#1732764778798

3120-541: The subject of strong debate, with dates ranging between 1628 and 1520 BC. These dates are based on radiocarbon samples, dendrochronology, ice cores, and archaeological remains. Archaeological remains date the eruption toward the end of the Late Minoan IA period (c. 1636–1527 BC) roughly comparable to the beginning of the New Kingdom in Egypt. Radiocarbon dating has placed it at between 1627 BC and 1600 BC with

3180-457: The sun at the beginning of the campaign season against Azzi-Ḫayaša , in Year 9 or 10 of the reign. It is often considered to have been a solar eclipse , with current scholarly opinion divided between one on 24 June 1312 BC (which was visible from central Anatolia but seemingly late in the year, apparently adopted in the chronologies of Amélie Kuhrt and Trevor Bryce) and one on 13 April 1308 BC (which

3240-502: The tablets involving regnal lengths, names, and in one case a king being left out entirely. Not surprising given that they are noted as being copies of earlier tablets. Many chronicles have been recovered in the ancient Near East, most fragmentary, with a political slant, and sometimes contradictory; but when combined with other sources, they provide a rich source of chronological data. Most available chronicles stem from later Babylonian and Assyrian sources. The Dynastic Chronicle , after

3300-670: The text was reinterpreted as referring to Piyamaradu and most scholars relegated Tawagalawa to a minor role in the letter. There are technical difficulties, however, with accepting Piyamaradu as the man who asked to become the Hittite king's vassal. Piyamaradu is also mentioned in the Manapa-Tarhunta letter (c. 1295 BC) and, in the past tense, in the Milawata letter (c. 1240 BC). The Tawagalawa letter further mentions Miletus (as Millawanda ) and its dependent city Atriya, as does

3360-438: The tone adopted by the Hittite king. Though he scolds his Ahhiyawan counterpart for previously supporting Piyamaradu, the letter is respectful and conciliatory, and uses terms of address such as "my brother" normally reserved for rulers of major empires such as Egypt and Babylonia . Thus, the letter has been taken as evidence that the Ahhiyawa were seen as a growing power in the region. The letter gets its conventional name from

3420-468: The variable growth pattern of trees, expressed in their rings, to build up a chronological timeline. At present there are no continuous chronologies for the Near East, and a floating chronology has been developed using trees in Anatolia for the Bronze and Iron Ages. Professor of archaeology at Cornell, Sturt Manning, has spearheaded efforts to use this floating chronology with radiocarbon wiggle-match to anchor

3480-571: The year X of king Y". Comparing many records pieces together a relative chronology relating dates in cities over a wide area. For the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, this correlation is less certain but the following periods can be distinguished: Due to the sparsity of sources throughout the "Dark Age", the history of the Near Eastern Middle Bronze Age down to the end of the First Babylonian Dynasty

3540-456: Was a number of cuneiform tablets from Amarna in Egypt, the city of the pharaoh Akhenaten . Mostly in Akkadian, the diplomatic language of the time, a number of them name foreign rulers including kings of Assyria and Babylon as well as Tushratta king of Mitanni and rulers of small states in the Levant. The letters date from the later stages of the reign of Amenhotep III (c. 1386–1349 BC) to

3600-494: Was earlier in the year but marginally visible, from eastern Anatolia, apparently adopted in the chronology of Jacques Freu). The lists below use variations of the Mesopotamian Middle Chronology , the most generally accepted chronology of the Ancient Near East and the chronology that accords best with Hittite evidence. The variants represented below derive from three comprehensive reconstructions of

#797202