Mesopotamia

When Khammurabi's fifth successor witnessed the downfall of the Amorite dynasty in consequence of an inroad of "Hit tites," these may have been Mesopotamian Shubaru-Mitanni ; but they may, as Ungnad suggests, represent rather ancestors of the Hittites of later times. It is difficult in any case not to con nect with this catastrophe the carrying away to Khana of the Marduk statue afterwards recovered by Agum, one of the earlier kings of the Kassite dynasty. Whether Hittites were still resident at Khana we do not know. The earlier Kassite kings of Babylon still maintained the Amorite claim to "the four quarters"; but it is improbable that there was much force behind the claim, although we have a document from Khana dated under Kashtiliash. It is just as uncertain how long Asshur remained under the Babylonian suzerainty of which there is evidence in the time of Khammurabi, and what the relation of Asshur to western Mesopotamia was under the early kings whose names have lately been recovered. All these matters will no doubt be cleared up when more of the many tells of Mesopotamia are excavated. Only two have been touched ; `Aryan on the Khabur, where remains of a palace of uncertain date, among other things an XVIII. dynasty scarab, were found by Layard in 1851, and Tell Khalaf, where the con fluents join, and remains of the palace of a certain Kapar, son of Hanpan of "Hittite" affinities but uncertain date, were found by 'Ungnad, Beitr. z. Assyr. VI. v. 13.

von Oppenheim in 1899. A long inscription of a Shamshi-Adad I., contemporary with the first Kassite kings, 17th century, exists in which his claims extend over the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and he says that he erected memorials of himself on the shore of the Great Sea.

The first mention of Mitanni, as we saw, is under Tethmosis III., who clearly crossed the Euphrates. It is at least possible that com mon enmity to Mitanni led to a treaty with Assyria (under Ashur nadin-akhe)'. Victorious expeditions into Naharin are claimed for Amenophis II., Tethmosis IV. and Amenophis III. The Egyptian references are too contemptuous to name the rulers; but Shausha tar may have begun his reign during the lifetime of Tethmosis III., and from cuneiform sources we know the names of six other Mitanni rulers. As they all bear Aryan names, and in some of their treaties appear Aryan deities (Indra, Varuna, Mithra, etc.), it is clear that Mesopotamia had now a further new element in its population, bearing apparently the name Many of the dynasts in North Syria and Palestine in the time of Tushratta bear names of the same type. The most natural explanation is that Aryans had made their way into the highlands east of Assyria, and thence bands had penetrated into Mesopotamia, peacefully or otherwise, and then, like the Turks in the days of the Cali phate, founded dynasties. The language of the Mitanni state, how ever, was neither Aryan nor Semitic, and may very well be that of the mysterious "Hittite" hieroglyphic inscriptions (see HIT TITES). Mitanni was one of the great Powers, alongside of Egypt

and Babylonia, able to send to Egypt the Ninevite 'Ishtar.

Assyria was now free, and Ashur-uballit knew how to make use of his opportunities, and, in the words of his great grand son, "broke up the forces of the widespread Shubari" (AKA, p. 7, I. 32 seq.). Knowing what we know of the colonizing power of the Assyrians, we may assume that among the "Mitanni" and other elements in the Mesopotamian population there would now be an increase of people of "Assyrian" origin. On the tangled politics of this period, especially Mesopotamia's relations with the north-west, the Boghaz-Keui documents throw a great deal of light. We know already a little more of the chequered history of the Amorites in the Naharin district, beset by great Powers on three sides. When Mitanni fell, Babylon no doubt adhered to its older claims on Mesopotamia ; but the Kassite kings could do little to contest the advance of Assyria, although several rectifica tions of the boundary between their spheres are reported.

Aramaeans.

Mitanni's fall, however, opened the way for others also. Hence when Ashur-uballit's grandson. Arik-den-ili (written PU.DI.ili), carried on the work of enforcing Assyria's claim to the heirship of Mitanni, he is described as conquering the warriors' (?) of the Akhlame and the Suti. The references to these people, who practically make their first appearance in the Amarna correspondence', show that they were unsettled bands who took advantage of the loosening of authority to introduce themselves into various parts of the country, in this case Mesopo tamia. Gradually settlements were made, the names of many of which are given by the various Assyrian kings who had at one time or another to assert or reassert supremacy over them—such as Chindanu, Laqe, Suhi along the South Euphrates boundary of Mesopotamia, and various districts bearing names compounded with Bit=settlement (see above), such as Bit-Adini (nearly equal to the later Osroene; see EDESSA), or Bit-Zamani in the north near Diarbekr. The specific name Aramaean first appears in the annals of Tiglath-pileser I., unless we identify the Arimi of Shal maneser I. in Tur tAbdin with the but the name may probably with fitness be applied to a very large number of the communities mentioned from time to time. Their position in Mesopotamia must have been very like that of the Shammar at the present time (see ad fin.). As they gradually adopted settled life in various parts of the country the use of Aramaic spread 'See e.g. P. Schnabel, Stud. z. bab.-ass. Chron. p. 25 (1908). has identified the Kharri with the Aryans, to whom he assigns a state in Armenia (Or. Lit.-Zeit., July 191o).

'See M. Streck, Zeit. Assyr., 18, 157.

'On a wrongly supposed much earlier occurrence of the name Achlamu, see Klio, vi. 193 n. 3.

for example A. Sanda, Die Aramiier, 5 (1902).