R: Balaams Kittim ships

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Mon Dec 16 01:42:45 EST 2002


I'm sorry, Michael, that you haven't got the 
idea yet that Ashur-Bel-Kala was a literary 
copy-cat. If TP1 could do it then ABK could 
repeat it. Yeah. Sure.

>> Musri is apparently given as Mehru, p21...
>
>Oh Ian, let not begin the discussion anew. It was discussed and decided

>beyond doubt on the ANE-List. 

Believe what you want. Don't read the text. 
I supplied the references. You didn't look.

>Ashur-Bel-Kala gets the gift of a "large female ape" from the same
Musri 
>(and else animals unfitting your northern location). If you wish to
develop 
>on this subject, than do it please alone.

Firstly, understand that this is ABK's scribes 
copy-catting TP1. Note ARI 2, TP1 doc 4, para 95, 
"I received tribute from the lands Byblos, Sidon, 
Arvad. I received a crocodile, a large female ape 
of the sea coast." Note the female ape? Note the 
context?

Don't be an expert on fauna when you don't know 
enough about it. Realise that the climate was 
different at the time. Tuthmoses III hunted 
elephants at Niya, TP1 (ARI 2, para44) did the 
same in Harran and killed lions in the following 
paragraph. The Phoenicians had the ape. How they 
got it is irrelevant. Your conclusions are 
unfounded.

The king of Egypt is said to have sent the ape 
to ABK. There is no indication of any conflict 
with or campaign against Egypt. The sending has 
the appearance of a gift. You invent the conflict 
with Egypt.

>Musri has nothing to with Mehru 

Famous last words. You haven't even looked at the 
data, being convinced of your argument from 
linguistic appearances in transliteration. You 
will note as you seem to be using Grayson's ARI, 
that he uses the name "Egypt" when talking about 
ABK's gift. He doesn't use it when talking about 
Musri. He doesn't think that it is Egypt. What 
extra knowledge have you got? None.

Please read the texts. Here is a synopsis:

Ass. Royal Inscr. 2
--------------------

TP1 Document 1
---------------
para34 deals with the axlamu Aramaeans.
Immediately following, paras 36-39, is the account of the 
conquest of Musri and Qumanu who comes to Musri's aid, the 
city of Hunusu, strewn with sipu-stones, 20000 Qumanu troops.
Then a summary of conquests from Lower Zab to...

TP1 Document 2
---------------
para 70 deals with the axlamu Aramaeans.
Immediately following, para 71, is the account of the 
conquest of Mehru and Qumanu who apparently comes to 
Mehri's aid, the city of Hunusu, strewn with sipu-stones, 
20000 Qumanu troops. Then a summary of conquests from Lower 
Zab to...

Document 2 has lacunae, but there is enough to show 
that the two passages deal with the same subject in the 
same context. This is sufficient to see that Musri and 
Mehru are the same place, but let's continue...

TP1 Document 4
---------------
para94 lists together Lullumu, Salua, Qummenu, Kadmuhu and 
Alzu -- all considered northern lands.

AN2 Document 2
---------------
para 419 lists amongst others Lullumu Qumanu, Mehru, Salua 
and Uratru in a span from the Lower Zab in an unspecified 
direction, though obviously north-westward.

Where is Qumanu and where is Mehru? Hopefully, you can see 
that Mehru is somewhere near Qumanu, which is consistent 
with the notion that Mehru and Musri are the same.

Ass. Royal Inscr. 1
--------------------

Shalmaneser I

Document 1
-----------
Para 529 says Shalmaneser subdued Uruatri (=Uratri), 
passing through Salua amongst others, para 528 that he 
reduced Arinu, para 529 that he subdued Musri and 
para 530 deals with Hanigalbat.

If context is meaningful, Musri is clearly north, 
especially when we think that Hatti was a major 
power at the time so there was no easy transit in 
the area, except through hostile Mitanni. Arinu is 
further north than you imagine, as shown by the 
movement southward in the above passage.

Document 13
-----------
Para 600 calls Shalmaneser the conqueror of Lullumu and 
Qutu and subduer of Musri.

Again, northern locations.

Did Shalmaneser conquer Egypt or some other bunch in 
southern Levant, when Assyria was still dealing with 
the realms around it, such as Mitanni?

Obviously the Musri mentioned by TP1 was not Egypt 
and nowhere near it. Nor was it Egyptian holdings in 
Syria. At the time of TP1, Egypt had none.

The most logical explanation is that Musri is much closer 
to old Assyrian territories. Hence Shalmaneser could 
conquer it.

Amongst Shalmaneser's conquests along with Musri was Qutu, 
a northern realm mentioned along with Mehru by Tukulti-
Ninurta. (TN1 Doc 1, para 691)

TN1 Document 2
--------------
para 701 has Qutu again with Mehru and now 
Uqumanu

This Uqumanu is near Paphu and is therefore a candidate 
for being at the north-east end of Kizzuwatna's land, ie 
the Qumanu of TP1's account.

Qumanu is near both Musri and Mehri. Musri and Mehri are 
closely parallelled in two TP1 documents. Musri is Mehru.

-------------

>(even if we assume a south-Mediteranean menagerie - crocodiles et al-
so 
>far north) since there is a Musri documented at the southern border of
Bit-
>Agusi. In a border reglementation act concerning TL´IM (probably
biblical 
>Telaim), to be identified by the rules known for the ANE with Sfire, it

>came to a contract between the coaltions of "whole Aram" and Musri.
Arne 
>(the by than destroyed chapital of Bit-Agusi) is 10 miles appart of
Sfire,
>thus 10 miles away of the border of contempt (in the 8th century)
between 
>Musri and "whole of Aram". Arinu was in the 11th century a main city of

>Musri (before the creation of Bit-agusi). The allegation of T-P I
having 
>conquered all of Musri is correct. He conquered all of Musri till to
the 
>desert fringe.

Working from the translation I have before me,
you have an unknown kingdom of KTK making a treaty 
with Matti'el of Arpad and with "all of Musr" and 
with his (Matti'el's) sons in all upper and lower 
Aram. I don't see what that has to do with your 
claims above.

>I don´t wish to further investigate the merits of the Mehru-Musri 
>identification.

I can understand why.

>The whole Kittim story contributes nothing to the problem. So much
said. A 
>dwelling hyatus in Jerusalem, Babylon, or Tyre, or even Kition don´t
has 
>any consequence concerning the name of these metropoles before their 
>destruction. I would like to purge any reference to the Kition
problematic 
>since it is irrelevant.
 
Whatever that means, thank you. As it was the 
Kittim which was my main interest in the 
original query, and you have abandoned your 
musing in that direction, the major basis of 
factual contention is over.


Ian





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list