R: Balaams Kittim ships
Banyai at t-online.de
Tue Dec 17 19:05:00 EST 2002
this is obviously not the way to handle the problems. You can not present your personal opinion as a position to start from:
> You are claiming that TP1's Musri/u etc is
> something that it is not. You threw in the
> red herring about Egypt and ducked out of it.
> You work on the assumption that the Musr of
> Sefire is the same as that of the Assyrian
> texts, which it isn't.
Should you personally hold a different opinion, than prove it, without emmending the Assyrian text, when speaking of a singular Musri - spliting it into two differents, when speaking of a Musri and a Mehru making one and the same.
On the other hand, Ian, I fought my way with Graysons translations too to disentangle the Kumanis and Uqmenus or else. Don´t think, I stay for the first time before any of thse texts. My proposition has, for me, the advantage not to require any emending of the Assyrian texts.
> >To put it plain. Musri is an identically named regional Levantine
> >coalition, which mainly filled the Syrian desert from the south of Bit-
> >Agusi and Bit-Adini till to the Egyptian border.
> This may be the case from the Sefire stele, but
> not the Assyrian case. I have made it "plain"
> that you are in the wrong area.
I made you plain that you were wrong. The presents from Musri are of the same type the presents from Musri on the black obelisk. Furthermore the text states a campaign leading TP 1 till to the Mediteranean (and Kanish) shore already in his first 5 years, before the conquest of Amurru. This promotes Kumani and indirectly Musri into the Levante.
> >The Musri coalition coined its name on Egypt following its long
> >domination thereof, known as the Hyksos period.
> The first part is possible in the context of the
> Sefire texts. I don't understand how the sentence
> is connected.
Please read my lengthy paper on the web. It deals with all these problems at a certain length, which I considered necessary not to loose the overview over the problematic because of too many details, as certainly happens with some works, like for example Thieles "mysterious numbers", where because of the endless details, one is not able to recognise that he generally failed with his chronologic study.
> If you notice, I haven't shown any problem with
> the identification of Qumanu with Kumani the holy
> city of Kizzuwatna. I am at loss to understand
> why you relate it to Syria. The city was halfway
> between Carchemish and Hattusa -- and Kanesh
> halfway between it and Hattusa --, so we are
> dealing with the north-eastern part of the land.
> This as I have said is consistent with a northern
> Musru, between Alzi & Paphu on the east and
> Qumanu on the west.
Kumani was the northern part of the kingdom of Kizzuwadna, invicinating on Mitanni, later on Urartu. But by the Sunassura treaty there was a whole corridor, which the hethites took away from Kizzuwadna, leading in the west till to the Mediteranean: Tarhuntassa. Since TP I alludes to a campaign bringing him to controll territories till to the mediteranean, I suppose that Kommana reassembled all former Kizzuwadnan territories (including Tarhuntassa). Seen from a legalistic point of view, was post-hethite Kumani, the corridor rounding up Kizzuwadna which fell appart by the Sunassura treaty. Later states tend to hold to old, traditional borders.
I don´t suppose thus, Kumani as far reaching into the north as required to contact Mehru.
On the other hand there exists a real Musri (different from Egypt)beginning on the line south of Arne/Arinu (that is more or less the southern border of later Bit-Agusi). It is an "Arabic" coalition pushing its head out of the desert, a couple of miles into the fertile regions.
> As to your suggestion that Tala was Atallura,
> you seem to fall back on vague linguistic
> appearances yet again. If TP1's Musri was where
> you want to put it, from Kumanni to Aleppo one
> would pass not through the Syrian Gates, as one
> following the coast would do.
> TP1 arrived at Musri via Mounts Elamuni, Tala
> and Harusa, would you care to hazard a guess at
> his trajectory to do so, seeing as you assume
> Musri is in Syria? If going east he would have
> ended up not in Syria but Asia Minor, if west,
> what an extraordinarily strange trajectory for
> an Assyrian to arrive in Syria!
He came from the region of mount Bishri/Karkemish, where he passed the Euphrates, met on practicaly no resistance in the desert. On his march to the Mediteranean, probably at the invitation of Amurru (which opposes no resistance later, but receives him with open arms) he makes his way on the shortest way to the south-west, endangering Musri. Before the Sunassuras treaty did Kizzuwadna apparently touched in the south to Ugarit (Armatenna - according to Friedr. Cornelius pertaining to Ugarit). Probably the entire later state of Bit-Agusi was built on rests of Musri dominion (whose main city in the region, Arinu/Arne, became first Bit-Agusi capital).
Thus, should have Kumani by the time of TP 1 filled the ancient boundaries anew, than mount Atallur/ Tilliura / Tala might have more or the less separated Musri from Kumani. However from map to map does this mountain change position. Cum granum salis.
> On the subject of anachronism, why are you
> insisting that TP1's Musri is the Musr
> mentioned in a text written 350 years after
> his time, based merely on that late text?
> Do you need TP1's campaign?
> You need to deal with the Assyrian data, if
> you want to claim that TP1's Musri is
> Sefire's Musr. Please do so. I wait until
> you do.
Please do read my paper. You have not to accept any of my statements, an dyou may come with your own answers, but there is enormously much new material displayed there, which could make you understand at least how seriously geo-political still unsolved questions might endanger our view of the history.
All the best,
More information about the b-hebrew