The Court and Administration of Karkemish in the Late Bronze Age

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to update the study and analysis of the administration of Karkemish during the final phase of the Hittite kingdom. The first introductory part outlines previous contributions and results. The second part presents the updated lists of princes and officials belonging to the court of Karkemish. The third part attempts to place princes and officials in chronological order (according to the different periods of reigns). Lastly, the fourth part provides an in-depth prosopographic analysis regarding some important or interesting officials.

This paper aims to continue and deepen the study of the administration of Karkemish in the Late Bronze Age,1 that is, in the period in which the kings of Karkemish performed the function of ‘viceroy’ in Syria on behalf of the Hittite kings. As we know, the administrative seat of the kingdom of Karkemish in the 13th century BC was not found during the first excavations on the site in the 1900s:2 this made it very hard both to identify the names of the princes and officials of this decentralised seat of the Hittite kingdom, and to define the functioning and the different levels of the court, which probably included a large number of officials, as well as numerous members of the royal family.3

Recently, the Turkish-Italian mission, which has been conducting excavations and research activities in Karkemish since 2011, found over 500 cretulae in the LB IIB stratum in Area C of the site. On 301 of these clay sealings numerous seals were found attributable to c. 35 officials.4 So far, we only know a little about this material preliminary to publication (in this regard see also below). Furthermore, considering that in recent years important studies and updates have been published both on the history of Karkemish and on the Hittite administration (above all the valuable book by T. Bilgin), we believe that it is appropriate to take stock of what we know and have processed up to now, so that at a later date it will be possible to compare this current data with any new data on the same issue.

In the final period of Hittite history, the kingdom of Karkemish played a fundamental political, military (and perhaps economic) role in supporting the Hittite kingdom. After the conquest of the city and its surroundings by the Great King Šuppiluliuma I in the second half of the 14th century BC, a dynasty descending directly from the Hittite ruling house reigned on the North-Syrian throne: the first king of the new dynasty, Piyaššili/Šarri-Kušuḫ, was son of the Hittite Great King Šuppiluliuma I. The kings of Karkemish, who were substantially loyal to the Hittite royal house, played the role of viceroy with competence and political ability for the difficult and politically complex Syrian region.5 The historical events related to this kingdom, its politics and military activities in support of the Hittite Great Kings are quite well known on the basis of the Hittite sources6 and some documents from Syria.7

In Syria, the regional area of their competence, the kings of Karkemish were also very engaged in political and judicial activities:8 numerous documents that show the involvement of Karkemish kings in these kinds of matters were found in Ugarit; the documents from Emar also give us information about a series of particular cases, of a judicial or administrative nature, which involved not only the king of Karkemish, but also princes and officials belonging to the same court. Some documents from other Syrian archives also inform us about important diplomatic and economic activities carried out by the court of Karkemish (Mora 2008).

Considering the fact that none of these documents come from the site itself, it is not simple to reconstruct the administrative apparatus of Karkemish; furthermore, there is often no distinction in the original texts between members of the Hittite court and members of the court of Karkemish.9 A few years ago, I therefore started a study that aimed to reconstruct the organisation and functioning of the court of Karkemish as far as possible, identifying names and roles of princes and officials who belonged to it. For this purpose, I reviewed the information provided by the texts from Ugarit and Emar (and more rarely from Ḫattuša) in which high-ranking individuals are mentioned; obviously the opinions of other scholars who previously dealt with the topic were also taken into account (cf. note 9). Unfortunately, useful information is rarely obtained from the inscriptions on the seals, because in the case of princes or officials these inscriptions do not indicate the court to which they belonged (this kind of information is instead found on the seals of the kings of Karkemish). Sometimes this information can be obtained from the cuneiform caption which is often placed next to the impression of the seal on the tablet, but even in this case the indication relating to the court is not constant.10

However, considering the importance of the seal as the main tool used by officials for marking documents or for controlling incoming or outgoing goods, an analysis of the seals was also conducted.11 This aspect of the research revealed some characteristics of the seals of the members of the Karkemish court, which made it possible to assume or determine the membership of officials in the North-Syrian court (cf. the following section). These additional elements were particularly useful in the absence of other data.

When analysing the seals from Karkemish, it is necessary to begin with the royal seals because there is no doubt that they belong to the North-Syrian court: as indicated above, the royal seals from Karkemish indicate the name of the country, while the seals of princes and officials do not carry this information. A schematic illustration of the most important features of the royal seals from Karkemish is provided here:12 the kings of Karkemish in the 13th-12th centuries BC used both cylinder seals and stamp seals (with a circular base); the presence of a figure with a long dress and a solar winged disk over its head was frequent on these seals; the representation of complex scenes (mostly on cylinder seals), with figures of deities, animals and composite beings (among which, the so-called sphinx) was also frequent.

If we take into consideration some seals of princes or high officials who very likely (in some cases certainly) belonged to the court of Karkemish or who were dependent on kings or princes of Karkemish (based on information obtained from the texts),13 it can be noted that the same characteristics also seem to connote the seals of some princes or officials. Based on the analysis of this documentation, the following observations can also be added:

· the ring seal (with an ‘elliptical’ bezel) was also used quite frequently by princes or officials from Karkemish;

· even princes and high-level officials frequently had digraph seals, unlike in Ḫattuša, where double writing was reserved almost exclusively for royal seals;

· there were many similarities between royal seals and seals of princes and officials, unlike in Anatolia.14

Starting from these premises, the following parts of this paper will be devoted to:

· checking and updating the lists of princes and officials of the court of Karkemish that had previously been drawn up during the studies mentioned above, in the light of new data and publications and through new prosopographic investigations (section 2);

· placing princes and officials of the court of Karkemish in a better-defined chronological grid, at least according to the reign periods (section 3);

· conducting an in-depth prosopographic examination of some of the most eminent figures (section 4).

As mentioned above, the recent excavations on the Karkemish site have led to the discovery of a large number of sealed cretulae. In our opinion, the data presented here could also be a useful basis for comparison when all the data – names and titles – provided by the recently discovered material become available, also for a more in-depth study of the functioning of the main Syrian court during the Hittite era.15

As mentioned above, in this section, the lists of princes and officials of the court of Karkemish that had previously been drawn up are checked and updated by means of further prosopographic investigations and in light of new data and publications (especially d’Alfonso 2005; Herbordt 2005; Hawkins 2005; Mora 2008 and 2010; Cohen 2009; Lebrun 2014; Bilgin 2018). As for the transcriptions of names in different contexts, we refer in particular (here and in section 3), in addition to the text editions, to NH and NH-S, Pruzsinsky 2003, Lebrun 2014.

These updated lists are divided into two sections: the first includes princes and officials who most likely belong to the court of Karkemish, while the second includes princes and other officials whose membership in the North-Syrian court is very doubtful. The information provided below mainly focuses on the updating of previous lists (for more details, refer to Mora 2004 and other mentioned contributions).

2.1. Princes and officials who almost certainly belong to the court of Karkemish

From the earliest period of Hittite history, kings could entrust the administration of the conquered areas to their sons, princes of the court of Ḫattuša – as shown, for example, by the historical preamble of the Edict of Telipinu (CTH 19)16 or the Chronicle of Ammuna (CTH 18.C).17 During the so-called Empire period, ‘princes’ appear in various occurrences in the act of carrying out important tasks in provincial areas. The title of these high dignitaries, ‘son of the king’ (cun. DUMU.LUGAL, hier. REX.FILIUS),18 however, would not only refer to the princes born of the king, but to all members of the royal family, including the brothers, uncles, and nephews of the ruler in charge, as well as some other individuals who could show blood or adoption ties with the king (or marriage bond with a princess). It therefore seems that this title could not be acquired as a result of a cursus honorum. This situation most likely also applied to the royal court of Karkemish in the 13th century BC and to its members; below, the list of princes connected to this royal court is provided.

The hypothesis of A. belonging to the court of Karkemish is especially supported by van den Hout (1995: 233) and Singer (1999: 654), on the basis of the letter RS 15.77 (PRU III: 6-7), sent by an A. to the king of Ugarit: A. may be the son of king Ini-Teššub and brother of Upparamuwa and Mizra/imuwa (and of Tili-Šarruma according to Singer); A. of Karkemish may however be a different person from the one mentioned in the decree for Šaḫurunuwa. Bilgin (2018: 54) is sceptical of the royal lineage of Upparamuwa, Mizra/imuwa and Tili-Šarruma. According to Lebrun (2014: 90), Aliḫešni, Upparamuwa, Mizra/imuwa and Tili-Šarruma were children of Ḫešmi-Teššub.

There are several attestations of the name, which are most likely not all attributable to the same person. In our opinion, the A. quoted in the letter Msk 74.734 (published by Salvini, Trémouille 2003), who seems to have received orders from the king of Karkemish, can be identified with the A. mentioned as judge in Emar VI 33. A. impressed his seal, bearing the title REX.FILIUS, on this tablet (Emar IV A 104). He was most probably a prince of Karkemish (cf. also Bilgin 2018: 133). Among the seals with the name A. found in the Nişantepe archive, No. 31 is the most likely candidate for an attribution to this prince of the court of Karkemish (cf. also Mora 2010).

Cf. Mora (2004) for documents and references from Ugarit and Emar, where he is generally referred to as a ‘son of a king,’ but in one document also as ‘brother of the king of Karkemish’ (certainly Ini-Teššub). Cf. d’Alfonso (2005: 67); Lebrun (2014: 90 ff.).

There are several individuals with this name; almost certainly one of these was prince of Karkemish (cf. in particular Singer 2003: 343; Mora 2004; de Martino 2012, with references to previous studies). Cf. an in-depth analysis here in section 4.3.

L. bears the title REX.FILIUS on the cylinder seal Emar IV A 17 from Emar; the caption on the same tablet indicates him as the son of Mutri-Teššub (on the same seal there is a typically Syrian figure with the winged sun above its head, for which see above). In some documents from Emar (cf. Mora 2004; Lebrun 2014: 206-209) L. has the title LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA: due to the same patronymic, he is almost certainly the same person, most likely linked to the court of Karkemish (maybe after marriage?). For the name in the texts from Boğazköy cf. d’Alfonso (2005: 65, 73 f.) and Lebrun (2014: 208-209).

In our opinion, the hypothesis, also supported by van den Hout (1995) and Singer (1997), that M. was connected to the court of Karkemish along with his brother Upparamuwa and the latter’s son Piḫa-Tarḫunta, still seems to be valid, albeit uncertain (cf. Mora 2004; 2008; 2010); on the doubts concerning this hypothesis, see also above (Aliḫešni). Bilgin (2018: 213) supports the traditional hypothesis that M. belongs to the court of Ḫattuša (‘there is not enough evidence to believe that Upparamuwa and therefore Piḫa-Tarḫunta as well as the aforementioned brother Mizramuwa were princes of the court of Karkemish’). See also Bilgin (2018: 284 ff.) for a survey on the different seals bearing this name.19 According to Lebrun (2014: 103-112), to whom reference should be made for the different attestations of the name, M. could be the son of Ḫešmi-Teššub and not of Ini-Teššub. However, in this case the connection with Karkemish would still be valid. For other references, see also Mora (2008) about Mizra/imuwa and Upparamuwa, and in particular about the hypothesis, put forward by Singer (1997), concerning the integration of the toponym Kar-ga-m]iš instead of Ḫat]-ti in Emar VI 211, line 24 (but consider also Bilgin’s doubts about Singer’s hypothesis). See finally Mora (2004) for the possibility that at least some of the seals found in Ḫattuša bearing this name are attributable to this individual (also due to the presence of a cuneiform inscription, more common on seals of a Syrian origin). For a more detailed analysis, refer to section 4.2 of this contribution. Cf. also the ‘prosopographische Untersuchung’ in Herbordt 2005: 81.

In Emar VI 212 P. is attested together with other individuals linked to the court of Karkemish (Piḫa-Tarḫunta, Zulanna). At least two additional elements seem to support an association to Karkemish: on the one hand, the fact that the tablet is believed to have been written in Karkemish; on the other hand, the fact that the cylinder seal owned by this P. seems to retain traces of the title REX.FILIUS (see Emar IV A 109). This P. should probably be kept distinct from other individuals of the same name attested in Hittite documents (and the seals of Nişantepe, where the name is juxtaposed with different titles). According to Lebrun (2014: 217-222), the link with the Syrian court of Karkemish is uncertain.

The following elements may suggest that P.-T. was a prince of Karkemish: the fact that he is described in RS 17.148 as the son of Upparamuwa (see Mora 2004; 2008; 2010), the presence of the winged sun-disk on his seal impression from Emar (Emar IV A 75) and the mention of his name, together with other high-status dignitaries linked to Karkemish, in Emar VI 212, a tablet that was probably written in Karkemish itself (see our observations concerning Piḫamuwa). As already mentioned (see our observations concerning Mizra/imuwa), Bilgin (2018) does not link P.-T. to the court of Karkemish. On the possibility that the P.-T. LÚ.SAG of the Hittite documents was a different person from the P.-T. prince, cf. Mora (2008 and 2010, with references).

According to two sources from Ugarit (see Mora 2004; Bilgin 2018: 54), T.-Š. was the son of the king of Karkemish. According to Bilgin (2018: 54), Singer (1999: 654 f.) and d’Alfonso (2000), he was the son of Ini-Teššub; on the contrary, according to Adamthwaite T.-Š. was the son of Šaḫurunuwa (in our opinion the first hypothesis is preferable). See Hawkins (apud Herbordt 2005) and Mora (2010) on the assumption that T.-Š., owner of the seals found at Nişantepe, should be identified with that of the other documents.

On the doubts concerning the hypothesis that U. belongs to the court of Karkemish, see above (Aliḫešni, Mizra/imuwa). For a complete list of the attestations of the name, see also Lebrun (2014: 172 ff.).

2.1.2. Other officials (short summary and data update with respect to Mora 2004)

According to RS 17.28, A. was an attendant of Tili-Šarruma, prince of Karkemish (cf. also further on, section 4.1).

They are mentioned as envoys of the king of Karkemish in two documents from Ugarit (RS 17.292, RS 15.77).

K.-Š. was holder of some seals preserved on tablets from Emar (cf. in detail Cohen 2009: 114 f.); in the caption on a tablet, he is referred to as the son of Mutri-Teššub (see below).

A ring seal impression with the name of K. is found on a tablet from Ugarit (RS 18.20 + 17.371); on the same tablet there is a seal of Zuzulli, kartappu of the king of Karkemish (see below). It is not sure, but possible, that he belonged to the same court. The name is also found on two seals from Nişantepe, but there are no elements to establish the identity with the K. found in the Ugarit document.

He was a scribe in the service of Tili-Šarruma, prince, son of the king of Karkemish (cf. RS 17.28). Cf., recently, van den Hout 2020: 359.

Some individuals with this name are mentioned in Syrian texts (cf. d’Alfonso 2005; Bilgin 2018: 264). In TSBR 64 M.-D. is quoted as ‘Chief scribe;’ he could be identified with M.-D. to whom a letter from the king of Karkemish is addressed (other references in: Owen 1995; d’Alfonso 2000; Mora 2004; Cohen 2009: 191).

M. appears as a scribe in a tablet issued and sealed by the king of Karkemish Ini-Teššub (cf. Emar VI 201). In TSBR 37 and 38, an individual with the same name uses seals with signs that are difficult to read and do not seem to be connected to the name M. (see Balza 2012). See Mora 2004, Cohen 2009: 112 and Bilgin 2018: 265, also for bibliographical references.

M. appears as ‘Chief scribe’ in a document from the vicinity of Emar. According to Y. Cohen (2009: 111), this document was originally written in Karkemish and sealed by Ini-Teššub (for the text edition, see Owen 1995). Probably, along with Zulanna (see below), M. is a member of the court of Karkemish (Mora 2004; Bilgin 2018: 264). It is difficult to identify this M. with the Mašamuwa of the Hittite texts (cf. Mora 2004; Bilgin 2018: 264) and holder of some seals from the Nişantepe archive (Mora 2010).

High official of Karkemish according to RS 17.248, with cylinder seal (cf. Mora 2004; d’Alfonso 2005: 76). Other attestations of the name, on tablets and seals, cannot be traced back with certainty to the same individual.

Cf. RS 16.180, transaction between P., referred to as ḫuburtanuru of the king of Karkemish, and the king of Ugarit. Cf. also Bilgin (2018: 405).

Quoted as EN É abussi of the king of Karkemish in a text published by Owen 1995 (cf. d’Alfonso 2000; Mora 2004; Bilgin 2018: 317).

‘Chief scribe’ in a text from Emar (Msk 73.1019, Emar VI 212: 26; cf. Bilgin 2018: 264). He was active in a later period than Mašamuwa (see above), at the earliest during the reign of Tutḫaliya IV (cf. Bilgin 2018: 264, with reference to Gordin 2010). The tablet is considered to be among those probably written in Karkemish (cf. Mora 2004 for references and for the question concerning the seal A 29). Zulanna is likely the sender of a message sent to the prefect of Ugarit (RS 17.144). Singer (1999: 654) also believes that he was a high dignitary active at the court of Karkemish. Regarding the presence of the name in Emar VI 211, the interpretation of Westenholz (ETBLM: 5) is shared here, and therefore the title DUMU.LUGAL is not considered to be attributed to Z. (for details cf. also Cohen 2009, 111-112 and note 31). For the attestations of the name, see Lebrun (2014: 174 ff.). Cf., recently, van den Hout 2020: 349.

There are several attestations of individuals bearing this name (see Mora 2004; d’Alfonso 2005: 77 f.; Lebrun 2014: 178 ff.; Bilgin 2018: 144 ff.). Z. judge of the verdict RS 18.20 + 17.371 was certainly connected to the king of Karkemish (he also sealed the tablet with his personal seal) and is described as ‘Charioteer’ of the king of Karkemish (period of Niqmadu III; for the dating cf. also d’Alfonso 2005: 78). In RS 94.2352, Z. is referred to as LÚ.SAG of the king (most likely of the king of Karkemish). According to Bilgin (2018: 331-332) he could be the same person, also given the contemporaneity of the texts. The seal impression (bearing the name Zuzuli, AURIGA) found in Samsat (cf. Dinçol 1992) could also belong to the same individual (see Bilgin 2018: 332). For the possible geo-political implications of this discovery cf. d’Alfonso (2005: 78). The other individuals with the same name are probably just homonyms (see Bilgin 2018: 144).

To better define the status of the ‘Overseers of the Land’ within the Hittite hierarchy in Syria headed by the kings of Karkemish, the data provided by the Emar glyptic may be of some help. In fact, even though the title LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA does not seem to have been inscribed on seals,20 thanks to the presence of the seals’ captions on the tablets, it has been possible to attribute some of the seal impressions of the Emar corpus to the ‘Overseers of the Land’ documented in the sources.21 The available documentation from the Middle Euphrates area – combined with the fact that the title LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA does not appear in the Anatolian documentation – also seems to suggest that the officials bearing this title depended on the kings of Karkemish, at least until the very final stage of the city of Emar, c. 1180 BC.

A.-m. is the last ‘Overseer of the Land’ mentioned at Emar. Y. Cohen and L. d’Alfonso (2008) as well as Y. Cohen in a more recent paper (2012) suggested that his Semitic name, as well as the total lack of documents mentioning Aḫī-mālik in association with a king or an official of Karkemish, lead us to believe that, probably after he took office, he started acting independently from the Hittite administration; for complete references and literature, see Cohen (2012); Cohen, d’Alfonso (2008: 15); Mora (2008: 82).

L. was the son and successor of Mutri-Teššub (and brother of Kili-Šarruma). He was also a member of the royal family of Karkemish (see above, concerning Laḫeia as DUMU.LUGAL of Karkemish). L.’s cylinder seal with the title ‘Prince’ is very interesting and important (see Emar IV A 17): it has a complex iconography, with the presence of the well-known male figure in a long dress with the winged sun-disk at the top of the scene (cf. Mora 2004 and 2005).

M.-T. is attested as ‘Overseer of the Land’ in several documents from Emar and its vicinity; he is the father of Laḫeia and Kili-Šarruma (for complete references, cf. Balza 2006).

For this individual and especially for the possibility that he could be identified with Laḫeia, ‘Prince’ and ‘Overseer of the Land,’ see Yamada (1995: 303, with n. 24; Di Filippo 2004: 186).

This individual is mentioned as ‘Overseer of the Land’ in Emar VI 181 and PdA 66, and as ‘top scribe,’ DUB.SAR.MAḪ, in Emar VI 201 (see AuOr 2:182 ff.; d’Alfonso 2000: 279; Cohen 2009: 112). According to d’Alfonso (2000), he may first have been the ‘Overseer of the Land’ in the region of Aštata, and then scribe in Karkemish.

T. was probably also an official active in Emar. A certain T., who was a LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA, is mentioned as first witness in HIR 45 (name spelling: mTu-wa-ri-ša, cf. Pruzsinsky 2003: 794; for the dating of the text, see Skaist 1998: 56-57; Di Filippo 2004: 178, n. 19). It is possible that he was a short-lived predecessor of Aḫi-mālik, following Laḫeia, or perhaps he was stationed in Emar briefly before Laḫeia. Several seals with this name come from Ḫattuša, including one with the title ‘Prince,’ from Nişantepe (No. 484 in Herbordt 2005, but probably this T. is a namesake; name spelling: [Tu?]-wa/i+ra/i-sà); on the other seals he bears the title SCRIBA (see Herbordt 2005: nos 475-483, name spelling: Tu-wa/i+ra/i-sà). The name is otherwise not attested in the 2nd millennium documentation; cf. however a similar name in KARKAMIŠ A7j (Hawkins 2000, vol. 1: 129; cf. Hawkins 2005: 277; name spelling: mTú-wa/i+ra/i-sa-i-sá, with ‘i-mutation’).

2.2. Princes and other officials whose membership in the court of Karkemish in the 13th century BC is uncertain yet possible

Cf. Mora (2004, with reference to previous studies); Bilgin (2018: 228, 429); Lebrun (2014: 48-76); d’Alfonso (2005: 66-67). It is doubtful whether the Armaziti who was active in Syria was directly connected to the Hittite court or to that of Karkemish: the former is perhaps more likely, but the seal on the tablet RS 17.314 could be of North-Syrian production. For other interesting seals from Nişantepe cf. Mora (2010).

There are many individuals with this name in Emar. At Ugarit, the verdict RS 17.299 issued by a Baba perhaps attributable to the court of Karkemish is worthy of interest.

This name appears on some seals from the Emar area and from Ḫattuša. A cylinder seal from Emar has Syro-Hittite characteristics. It is uncertain whether Ḫ. belonged to the court of Karkemish, however there are some clues to support this hypothesis (cf. Mora 2004); about Ḫ., and Burāqu, who used several times his seal, see also Cohen 2009: 108, 113.

The available data does not seem sufficient to propose a link to the Karkemish court (cf. Mora 2004). The ring seal written in cuneiform seems to indicate a Syrian origin.

An individual named M.-D. is the recipient of a letter sent by the king of Karkemish (cf. AuOr 2). It is difficult to trace other attestations of the name to the same individual: cf. Mora 2004; d’Alfonso 2000: 282; Cohen 2009: 32 (note 113); Bilgin 2018: 264.

It is debated whether T.-Š. was dependent on the Hittite king or the king of Karkemish (cf. Mora 2004 for details and references). Singer (2003) proposed that he was a Hittite high official designated high commissioner for Syrian affairs (the hypothesis is also shared by Lebrun 2014). For comments on the presence of the title SCRIBA on the seal of T.-Š. cf. van den Hout (2020: 349).

It was debated whether T. was an official of the court of Karkemish or of Ugarit. Some clues, including the type of seal, seem to suggest the former: for a re-examination, which takes into account the accurate study by Singer (1983), cf. Mora (2004). Bilgin (2018: 231, 233 f.) seems to support the hypothesis of Singer 1983 (that is, that T. was an official of Ugarit), but he does not mention Roche (2001, for which see also Mora 2004), who supports the hypothesis of T. belonging to the court of Karkemish. As pointed out in Mora (2004), the Syro-Hittite seal seems to indicate a Syrian origin.

There are insufficient data (and different opinions) to propose a link between this individual and the court of Karkemish (see Mora 2004 for details and bibliographical references).

According to an attestation from Emar, T. may have been a prince of Karkemish: cf. Mora (2004 with other references), Bilgin (2018: 330), d’Alfonso (2005: 70 f.), Lebrun (2014: 214-215).

The previous section listed the individuals connected to the court of Karkemish in varying degrees. We will now attempt to place their period of activity chronologically. In this section, the members of the court of Karkemish that were listed in sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 are tentatively placed in the period of reign (or generation) of the local kings. For each official listed in the following tables, a short chronological commentary with synchronisms with other officials and/or the kings of Karkemish (and/or Ḫattuša) is provided.

Brother of the king of Karkemish, most probably Ini-Teššub, thus son of king Šaḫurunuwa. According to L. d’Alfonso (2005: 67), this prince was at the head of the Hittite administration of Emar for a certain period; in addition, he is mentioned in the documentation from Ugarit dating to the period of Ammistamru, the local king contemporary of Ini-Teššub and, partially, of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV (for the list of occurrences of the name, see Lebrun 2014: 90 ff.). Ḫešmi-Teššub is also mentioned in KUB 48.88 (CTH 190), a letter likely sent by queen Puduḫepa to her husband. Here, in Vo x+1, Ḫešmi-Teššub is probably to be recognised as the co-sender of the document (see Hagenbuchner 1989: 18). According to this evidence and to some additional attested synchronisms (cf. especially d’Alfonso 2000: 289-291), the period of activity of Ḫešmi-Teššub as an official of Karkemish is therefore to be placed between the reign of his father Šaḫurunuwa (old) and that of his brother Ini-Teššub (the first twenty years of his reign?).

Puḫi-šenni was a Hittite official from Karkemish, holder of the titles DUB.SAR.MAḪ, ‘top scribe’ (Emar VI 201) and LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA (Emar VI 181, PdA 66, TSBR 56). The available documentation on Puḫi-šenni demonstrates that he was contemporary of Ḫešmi-Teššub (both are mentioned in PdA 66; cf. d’Alfonso 2000: 279, 283-284). In addition, the individual named Tura-Dagān son of Daqani, who is mentioned in MFA 1977 (l. 25), a text dating to the very beginning of Ini-Teššub’s reign (see d’Alfonso 2000 and 2001 with references), is also listed as witness in TSBR 56 (l. 17), a text mentioning Puḫi-šenni. Based on this evidence, Puḫi-šenni seems to have been active between the reign of Šaḫurunuwa and the reign of Ini-Teššub.

Several tablets from Emar and its vicinity mention the name Madi-Dagān. Amongst this evidence, there is an individual, Madi-Dagān LÚ.GAL.DUB.SAR, who is most likely linked to the court of Karkemish. This Madi-Dagān seems to be recognised as the individual mentioned in HIR 3, TSBR 30, 64 and 65, SMEA-30 9, and probably in TSBR 95 (= AuOr 2 2; see d’Alfonso 2000: 282; 2005: 47 for a survey on the available documentation; cf. also Cohen 2009: 189-194, with references). Since Madi-Dagān appears together with Ḫešmi-Teššub in some texts (HIR 3 and TSBR 30), it is possible to establish the contemporaneity between these two officials. Madi-Dagān would therefore have been active during the same period: between the reign of Šaḫurunuwa (old) and the reign of his son Ini-Teššub (the first part?).

Marianni is mentioned in some texts from the region of Emar (Emar VI 201, TSBR 37 and 38, HIR 13, ETBLM 8, and, perhaps, Emar VI 254). Among these occurrences, it is especially interesting that this individual, mentioned alongside Puḫi-šenni in Emar VI 201 (a tablet written in Karkemish) was also possibly a DUB.SAR.MAḪ, as the single title mentioned in connection to their names may have referred to both individuals (cf. Cohen 2009: 112). On the grounds of the available evidence discussed in a previous paper (see Balza 2012 with literature; cf. also d’Alfonso 2000: 283-284), Marianni, contemporary with both Šaḫurunuwa and Ini-Teššub, was part of the first generation of officials dispatched from Karkemish to Emar. His period of activity could therefore be placed between the end of the reign of Šaḫurunuwa and the beginning of that of Ini-Teššub. At that moment, the Hittite administration over Emar was still at its initial stage. Possibly for this reason, the role of Marianni as a Hittite official is not mentioned in the extant documentation. Subsequently, shortly after the accession of Ini-Teššub to the throne of Karkemish, the prince Ḫešmi-Teššub was sent to Emar and a proper administration was installed over the town.

Mašamuwa GAL LÚ.MEŠ.DUB.SAR wrote the tablet MFA 1977, and perhaps RE 85, though here the scribe’s name is completely broken off (cf. d’Alfonso 2001: 272). According to d’Alfonso (2000 and 2001), this tablet should be placed in the first part of Ini-Teššub’s reign, and its drafting should be considered contemporary to Emar VI 201, a text also mentioning Marianni and Puḫi-šenni (cf. Table 1, s.v. Marianni and Puḫi-šenni). Therefore, Mašamuwa’s activity should also be placed between the reigns of Šaḫurunuwa and Ini-Teššub.

The tablet MFA 1977 ends with a colophon (ll. 37-41) naming the scribe who wrote the tablet, Mašamuwa (see above, s.v. Mašamuwa) in the presence of Uri-Teššub, ‘Overseer of the Storehouse’ of king Ini-Teššub. According to L. d’Alfonso (2001: 274), the available documentation on Uri-Teššub is ‘enough to propose that next to the Queen mother the Overseer of the Storehouse, Uri-Teššub, was the individual closest to the young king at the beginning of his reign, and probably the most important figure at the court of Karkemish at that time.’ Since Uri-Teššub played an important role at the beginning of Ini-Teššub’s reign, it is reasonable to assume that he was also active in the period prior to Ini-Teššub’s ascent to the throne.

According to RS 15.077 (PRU III: 6-7), Aliḫešni was active at Ugarit after Armaziti had left the Syrian town. It therefore seems possible that Aliḫešni was active in the same generation of Armaziti or shortly after, thus most likely during the reign of Ibiranu of Ugarit, Ini-Teššub of Karkemish and, probably, Tutḫaliya IV. Armaziti is in fact well-known from Hittite texts from the time of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV (cf. Imparati 1987: 197 ff.; Imparati 1988; see also Lebrun 2014: 48 ff. for a survey on the question of the dating of the texts mentioning Armaziti; Bilgin 2018: 228, 429).

Armanani is the judge of the verdict recorded in Emar VI 33. This tablet can be dated between the 2nd and the 3rd generation of the members of the Zū-Ba‛la family, the powerful family of local diviners at Emar. This dating is grounded on the fact that Emar VI 33 mentions, among the people who sealed the tablet, Dagān-tāri‛ son of Matkali-Dagān. This Dagān-tāri‛ was contemporary of the ‘Overseer of the Land’ Mutri-Teššub (via TSBR 36 and 76, and RE 56; cf. Balza 2006 and 2007). Mutri-Teššub, in turn, was active during the 2nd and, partially, the 3rd generation of the Zū-Ba‛la family (see also below, in this Table, s.v. Mutri-Teššub). According to some other chronological considerations, this period may correspond to the reign of Ini-Teššub in his mature age and the beginning of the reign of Talmi-Teššub (see especially Balza 2006: 382-383; 2007).

According to a letter from Tell Šēḥ Ḥamad, this prince, most likely a son of Ini-Teššub, was active during the reign of the Assyrian king Tukultī-Ninurta I, therefore between the reigns of Ini-Teššub and of his son Talmi-Teššub. For complete data see below, section 4.3.

Mizra/imuwa, whose brother’s name is also known (Upparamuwa, see below, in this Table, s.v. Upparamuwa), was active during the reign of Ibiranu of Ugarit. He was then contemporary of Ini-Teššub of Karkemish (see below, section 4.2, for a prosopographic analysis on this individual).

Piḫa-Tarḫunta, most likely a son of the prince Upparamuwa (see below, in this Table, s.v. Upparamuwa), was probably active at Emar between the reign of Ini-Teššub (mature phase) and the reign of his successor Talmi-Teššub. This assumption is based on the analysis of some texts. On the one hand, Piḫa-Tarḫunta appears in Emar VI 211, which mentions the ‘Overseer’ Mutri-Teššub and dates to the generation of the local powerful diviner Ba‛l-qarrād (of the Zū-Ba‛la family), contemporary of Ini-Teššub; on the other hand, Piḫa-Tarḫunta is also active in Emar VI 212, a document in which Ba‛l-qarrād’s son, Ba‛l-mālik (contemporary of Talmi-Teššub), is the plaintiff (the text also contains the news of the death of Ba‛l-qarrād). This Ba‛l-mālik was active during the reign of Talmi-Teššub (see Cohen, d’Alfonso 2008 with literature; for an examination of the chronological implications of Emar VI 211 and Emar VI 212, see especially d’Alfonso 2000: 277-278).

For the dating of this prince, see especially RS 18.114 (PRU IV: 82), l. 5, where Tili-Šarruma is described as the son of the king of Karkemish (cf. l. 5: ‘… ù LUGAL KURKa]r-ga-mis a-na mTi-li-LUGAL-ma DUMU-šu’). The latter, according to most scholars, could be identified with Ini-Teššub (see above section 2.1.1). Based on this hypothesis, Tili-Šarruma would most probably have been active during the long reign of his father.

Upparamuwa appears in RS 17.423 (PRU IV: 193) as a brother of Mizra/imuwa and in RS 17.148 (PRU VI: 9-11, No. 7) as the father of Piḫa-Tarḫunta. This latter is most likely to be identified with the prince of the same name, who was also active at Emar (see above, in this Table, s.v. Piḫa-Tarḫunta), and contemporary of Ini-Teššub (mature phase, via his mention, together with the ‘Overseer’ Mutri-Teššub, in Emar VI 211) and Talmi-Teššub (via his mention, together with the ‘Overseer’ Mutri-Teššub, in Emar VI 212). This being the case, and taking into consideration the contemporaneity between Upparamuwa and his brother Mizra/imuwa (see above, in this Table, s.v. Mizra/imuwa), it seems quite likely that Upparamuwa was active during the reign of Ini-Teššub.

Mutri-Teššub is one of the best-known ‘Overseers of the Land’ mentioned in the Emar written documentation. Not only was he contemporary of the diviner Ba‛l-qarrād (of the Zū-Ba‛la family), with whom he appears in Emar VI 211, but he was also active after the death of Ba‛l-qarrād. In fact, Mutri-Teššub took part as witness in the trial Emar VI 212, in which Ba‛l-qarrād’s son, Ba‛l-mālik, was the plaintiff (the text also contains the news of the death of Ba‛l-qarrād). Shortly after the drafting of the text, however, most likely Laḫeia succeeded his father in the position of ‘Overseer’ (see Emar VI 90). Based on the available documentation, Mutri-Teššub was contemporary of the king Ini-Teššub. For more details on this individual and his career, see Balza (2006).

The chronological arrangement of this official depends on his connections with Tili-Šarruma, son of Ini-Teššub (see above, in this Table, s.v. Tili-Šarruma; cf. also below, section 4.1).

This individual is mentioned in a letter (RS 16.003 = PRU III: 4) sent by the King of Karkemish, most likely Ini-Teššub (see Singer 1999: 652), to Ammistamru of Ugarit. The document states that the king of Karkemish was about to send a person called Arwašši to Ugarit. After his arrival, Arwašši was to decide a juridical case concerning the ‘ḫābiru’ (SA.GAZ).

Some Ugarit tablets mention Ebina‘e and Kurkalli: a letter sent by a king of Karkemish (probably Ini-Teššub) and addressed to Ibiranu (RS 17.292 = PRU IV: 188); a letter sent by prince Aliḫešni (RS 15.077 = PRU III: 6-7) and most likely also addressed to Ibiranu; a letter in which Ebina‘e himself addressed the governor of Ugarit (RS 17.078 = PRU IV: 196-197). From this evidence, it follows that the period of activity of Ebina‘e and Kurkalli overlapped the period of activity of prince Aliḫešni. As they were probably in charge of marking out the borders already fixed by Armaziti (at least according to the information contained in the Ugarit letters), these two officials, just like Aliḫešni, were active during the same phase as or shortly after Armaziti (see also above, in this Table, s.v. Aliḫešni).

The chronological arrangement of this official depends on his connections with Tili-Šarruma, son of Ini-Teššub (see above, section 2.1.1).

As for the dating of the activity of this high official (whose title is unfortunately lost), a survey on the few extant occurrences was carried out by L. d’Alfonso (2005: 76 with references); according to his examination, Piḫaziti may have been active between the end of the reign of Ini-Teššub and the beginning of the reign of Talmi-Teššub.

According to the Emar documentation, Zulanna was a GAL LÚ.MEŠ.DUB.SAR. He is mentioned in Emar VI 212, where he just acted as a witness and was probably not the scribe who wrote the tablet (cf. Cohen 2009: 111). The tablet, as already observed, is related to a business of Ba‛l-mālik of the Zū-Ba‛la family, who was contemporary of both king Ini-Teššub and Talmi-Teššub of Karkemish. Zulanna may have been active during the same chronological phase. His mention in RS 17.144 (PRU VI: 7) does not provide any clear clues to better define the period in which he was active as ‘Chief scribe.’

According to HIR 46, Ku(n)ti-Teššub was a prince of Karkemish, likely a son of Talmi-Teššub, and was active between the city of Emar and Karkemish during the reign of his father (see d’Alfonso 2005: 68).

Laḫeia, prince and ‘Overseer of the Land,’ is the son of the ‘Overseer’ Mutri-Teššub (see Table 2, s.v. Mutri-Teššub) and, therefore, was active as an official during the 3rd generation of the Zū-Ba‛la family, at the time of the diviner Ba‛l-mālik, contemporary of Talmi-Teššub. He probably joined the royal family of Karkemish following his marriage to a woman (a princess) belonging to the court (for the attestation of Laḫeia in the documentation from Emar, see Balza 2009: 90-95; see also Lebrun 2014: 208-209 for the presence of the name at Ḫattuša).

Piḫamuwa is mentioned in a text from Emar, Emar VI 212, together with other important dignitaries linked to the court of Karkemish, Mutri-Teššub – contemporary of Ini-Teššub and likely also active at the time of Talmi-Teššub – and Piḫa-Tarḫunta. As for the dating of the tablet, consider also that Emar VI 212, ll. 4-5, states that the diviner Ba‛l-qarrād (of the Zū-Ba‛la family) was dead. Therefore, the text should be assigned to the period in which Ba‛l-mālik son of Ba‛l-qarrād was LÚ.ḪAL at Emar. This period can be dated between the final phase of Ini-Teššub’s reign and Talmi-Teššub’s reign.

On the dating of Piḫa-Tarḫunta to the period bridging the reigns of Ini-Teššub and Talmi-Teššub, see above (Table 2, s.v. Piḫa-Tarḫunta).

A certain Tuwariša, who was an ‘Overseer of the Land’ of Emar, is mentioned as first witness in HIR 45. This individual was probably active around the time of Ba‛l-mālik of the Zū-Ba‛la family (cf. Skaist 1998: 56-57; Di Filippo 2004: 178, n. 19). According to Cohen (2012: 18, n. 17), he could have been either a short-lived predecessor of Aḫi-mālik, following Laḫeia, or a predecessor of Laḫeia who briefly held the post of ‘Overseer’ after Mutri-Teššub. In this case, Tuwariša would also have been contemporary of Ini-Teššub. Whatever the case may be, it is nevertheless interesting to observe that both Laḫeia and Tuwariša appear to have carried the title LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA and the title DUMU.LUGAL (cf. HIR 45, where the by-script of his seal on the tablet refers to him as ‘Tuwariša, the Overseer of the Land’ and the hieroglyphic legend on the seal impression reads ‘Tuwariša, prince;’ cf. also above, 2.1.3).

Kili-Šarruma, son of Mutri-Teššub (see Table 2, s.v. Mutri-Teššub) was the cosignatory with Ba‛l-mālik of the Zū-Ba‛la family on one document, Emar VI 61, a docket of a sealed box of valuable stones from the Temple of Ba‛al. Although designated as a scribe, he was the son of Mutri-Teššub and thus probably bore additional responsibilities (see Cohen 2009: 114-115). As for the dating of this individual, it is unclear whether he was active exclusively during the reign of Talmi-Teššub or whether he was active even earlier.

Based on some synchronisms with other known individuals, the period of activity of Zuzulli, kartappu of the king of Karkemish – who was also referred to as LÚ.SAG of the king (of Karkemish, cf. Bilgin 2018: 332-333) – was placed between the end of the 13th century BC and the beginning of the 12th century BC by d’Alfonso (2005: 78). Therefore, Zuzulli may have been active during the reign of Talmi-Teššub and possibly even later, during the reign of his successor.

This section analyses three personal names of people who were allegedly related to Karkemish in order to provide a more in-depth prosopographical investigation: Amanmašu/Manamasu (section 4.1) and Mizra/imuwa (section 4.2) because they provide an insight into contacts between Syria and Egypt in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, and Ḫešni (section 4.3) because his belonging to Karkemish has been under debate.

Each entry is divided into three sections: the first offers basic onomastic data (NH, NH-S, RO) and sources, i.e. cuneiform texts (sub-section ‘a’) and glyptic (sub-section ‘b’),23 the second adds references to main commentaries,24 and the third presents a short prosopographical discussion.

Although the prosopographical analysis is based on previous studies (mostly de Martino 2012; Hawkins 2005; Imparati 1974; Mora, various contributions; Stefanini 1962; Tani 2001; van den Hout 1995), it focuses on primary sources wherever possible (both cuneiform texts and glyptic) in order to better define the identity of the names under investigation and to distinguish between possible homonyms. For further data on some names quoted in this section, cf. above, sections 2 and 3.

NH 45: ‘Amanmasu. Serviteur de Tili-Šarruma à Kargamis : akk. mA-ma-an-ma-aš-šu/ši. RS 17.28, 4, 8, 16, 27 […]; mA-ma-an-ma-ši, ibid. sceau ; hiér. Ma-n(a)-ma-su, Ug. III 50, 142 sq. Nom égyptien.’

Content: Juridical act involving Tili-Šarruma,25 son of the king of Karkemish, the king of Ugarit (Niqmepa, c. 1313-1260 BC26), the servant Yapa‘u, and his sons. Reign of Ḫattušili III. Amanmašu, witness, is mentioned here four times (Rs. 0, 4, 8; Vs. 27).

Albright 1946: 10, No. 3; De Pietri 2022; Mora 1987: 241; Mora 1990: 65; Mora 2004: 439; Ranke 1935: 29, No. 8; Ug. III: 142-143.

The name Amanmašu is mentioned five times in the cuneiform and hieroglyphic documentation: first, there are three mentions in some Amarna letters sent by the king of Byblos Rib-Hadda to the Pharaoh (EA 105, EA 113, and EA 114);29 second, the name is quoted in one document from Ugarit/Ras Shamra accompanied by a digraphic sealing bearing this name both in cuneiform and Anatolian hieroglyphic writings (RS 17.28 + Mora 1987, IX 2.1).

Therefore, we can firstly ascertain the existence of two persons carrying this name: Amanmašu130 (lived in the Amarna Age, reign of Amenhotep III, c. 1390-1353 BC31) and Amanmašu2 (contemporary to Tili-Šarruma of Karkemish, probably son of Ini-Teššub). It is to be noted that Schaeffer (Ug. III: 142-143) considered Amanmašu1 = Amanmašu2, but this opinion does not fit the chronology.

We could even take into account the existence of a possible Amanmašu3 if we consider the person quoted in EA 114 (al-lu mA-ma-an-ma-ša) to be a different messenger, as also suggested by Albright (1946: 10, No. 3).

The reading, etymology, and interpretation of this name have been discussed: while some scholars (e.g. Laroche, NH: 247) have advanced a stemming from the term ‘Egypt,’ KUR URUMizra/i or KUR URUMizzari, others, namely Carruba (1990), analysed the first compound of this name as deriving from a sheer Anatolian linguistic milieu.

Content: Land donation by Tutḫaliya IV to Šaḫurunuwa mentioning the king of Karkemish Ini-Teššub and his son Upparamuwa.

Content: Letter sent by a king of Karkemish34 to the king of Ugarit Ibiranu (c. 1235-1225/1220 BC); the former king informs the latter about the arrival at Ugarit of one of his sons (i.e. Mizra/imuwa).

Content: Text reporting offerings made to gods and goddesses of the city of Taḫpetaš. Among the various offerors, a Mizra/imuwa is also included.

E. SBo II 80-81 (= SHS2: BO 400, BO 53-54):38 mi-zi/a+ra/i-BOS, MAGNUS.PASTOR, SCRIBA-la.39

G. Niş. 243 (= 90/331a, 90/1194, 90/1249b):41 Mizrimuwa; mi-zi/a+ra/i-BOS2.MI, BONUS2 SCRIBA.

J. Niş. 246 (= 91/1510b, 91/1544a, 91/1551b, 91/1648a): Mizrimuwa, ku-mi(?); mi-zi/a+ra/i-BOS2.MI SCRIBA-la ku-mi(?).

K. Niş. 247 (= 90/767): Mizrimuwa; mi-zi/a+ra/i-BOS SCRIBA ⸢zwei(?)⸣ MAGNUS.PASTOR.

L. Niş. 248 (= 90/611): Mizrimuwa; Hier. mi-zi/a+ra/i-BOS2.MI MAGNUS.PASTOR ⸢SCRIBA⸣-[la]; Cun. ⸢miš⸣-ri-[mu-wa] (Hawkins).

Bilgin 2018: 284-287; Hawkins 1995: 264-265; Herbordt 2005: 81; van den Hout 1995: 233-235; Imparati 1987; Lebrun 2014: 103-111; Mora 2004: 436; Mora 2007: 557-558; Mora 2008: 557-558; Mora 2010: 173-174; Singer 1997: 420.

Etymology of the name: to ascertain if the first part of the name, as written in Anatolian hieroglyphs, can be interpreted as ‘Egypt,’ it could be helpful to compare the spelling of the toponym on two Iron Age inscriptions, KARKAMIŠ A6 (8th century BC)42 and ALEPPO 7 (reign of Taita).43 The former inscription reads ‘(“MÍ.REGIO”)mi-za+ra/i(URBS)’ on line 4, while the latter quotes ‘MÍ.REGIO’ on line 7. The spelling of the name ‘Egypt’ in the former document may support an interpretation (albeit not decisive) of the name Mizra/imuwa as deriving from the same toponym. Furthermore, the use of the same compound for a feminine name (NH 811, 3) would not fit the meaning of ‘strong son’ advanced by Carruba (1990), who proposed a pure Anatolian etymology (cf. de Martino 1986).

We can allegedly recognise the existence of at least six different ‘entries’ related to people named Mizra/imuwa; equivalences are suggested on the basis of spellings and titles:44

Besides these data, we must keep in mind that some sealings may have belonged to the same person even though the titles are not exactly the same: e.g., a possible ‘upgrade’ in the personal curriculum of an official could be attested by the presence of a more complex or higher title (e.g. from a ‘simple’ SCRIBA to a more ‘prestigious’ MAGNUS.SCRIBA or BONUS2.SCRIBA50). Hence, since Mizra/imuwa4-6 may actually be the same person and Mizra/imuwa3 (casus absolutus) may be the same as Mizra/imuwa1 (A) in nominative, we can conclude that there were actually three different Mizra/imuwa in existence.

Finally, according to data from source B and other documents, we can build up the following family tree for Mizra/imuwa2 of Karkemish:51

5. Divers : mḪe-eš-ni-(i/iš/in), [KUB] 31.68, 2, 6, 12, 16, 17, 31, 32, 38, 47 […] – mḪi-iš-ni-i[š],

5. aj. KUB 24 VI 1254 ; [KUB] 46.22 I 14 ; [KUB] 68.123 I 19 ; KBo 16.83 II 9 ; [KBo] 18.134, 1 ; 4055 Ro. 1.’

Content: Text reporting a treaty stipulated by king Ḫattušili III and the king of Tarḫuntašša Ulmi-Teššub/Kurunt(iy)a.

Content: Text reporting instruction for the preparation of the nuntarriyašḫaš-fest.

- Rs. IV 6’-7’ (colophon): […] ⸢ŠU⸣ [… m]⸢Ḫe-eš⸣-ni / ⸢DUMU A-na⸣-ni-⸢ia⸣

Content: Undefined juridical protocol, related to cultic activities involving the Sun-goddess of Arinna.

Content: Probably an undefined juridical protocol, referring to the so-called ‘Ḫešni conspiracy.’60

Relevant passage(s):61 Passages are not reported here since no titles or further information that would be useful to the present analysis can be found therein.

Content: Text regarding preparations for festivals involving the god Teššub and the goddess Ḫepat of Aleppo.

Content: Inventory text involving a person named Ḫešni who is in charge of controlling some metal goods.

Content: Fragment of a dream and prayer text mentioning a ‘lion (sic)63 Ḫešni.’

Content: Inventory text mentioning Ḫešni checking a tube of silver brought by Kammaliya of Tūmanna.

Content: Letter sent by Ḫattušili III or Tutḫaliya IV addressing his son Ḫešni (probably in charge of a diplomatic mission to Babylon).

Content: Letter sent by the Hittite king (last years of Ḫattušili III or early reign of Tutḫaliya IV) addressing his son Ḫešni (probably in charge of a diplomatic mission to Karkemish68 and possibly also Babylon).

Content: Very fragmentary text quoting Ḫešni and Piḫamuwa probably (because of the context, i.e. the mention of DLAMMA) involved in cultic activities outside Ḫattuša.

Content: Unpublished text: little information can be grasped from Malbran-Labat 1995: 37-38.

Bilgin 2018: 393-394; Giorgieri, Mora 2004: 99-100; van den Hout 1994: 120, 125; van den Hout 1995: 206-211; Klengel 1965: 94; Lebrun 2014: 99-102; de Martino 2011: 55-56; de Martino 2012; Mascheroni 1983; Mascheroni 1984: 104: 155-156; Mora 2004: 434-435; Mora, Balza 2010: 261.

The aforementioned data can be summarised in tabular form, where titles and family relations forming precise patterns are distributed in ‘entries:’75

To sum up, we can advance the hypothesis of a possible existence of six different ‘entries’/individuals? carrying this name; I will briefly present hereafter some critical remarks and possible equations, grouping together some of the previous ‘entries:’

In the end, considering all the possible equations, we can finally advance the conclusion of a possible existence of four/five different Ḫešni: unfortunately, the absence so far of any data from glyptic does not help us in the present reconstruction.

Lastly, taking into account the prosopographical investigation in de Martino 2012, we could even conclude that there existed only three people called Ḫešni (ḪešniA, ḪešniB, and ḪešniC84), by establishing the following further equations:

· ḪešniA: Ḫešni1 = Ḫešni4 = Ḫešni5 = Ḫešni6; of Ḫattuša, prince (s. of Ḫattušili III?), priest and maybe scribe;

· ḪešniB: Ḫešni2; (king) of Karkemish, s. of Ini-Teššub?, contemporary to Taki-Šarruma;85

AuOr 2 = Arnaud D. 1984, La Syrie du Moyen Euphrate sous le protectorat hittite : l’administration d’après trois lettres inédites, Aula Orientalis 2: 179-188.

Emar IV = Beyer D. 2001, Emar IV. Les sceaux, Mission archéologique de Meskéné-Emar – Recherches au pays d’Aštata 4, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 20, Fribourg (Suisse), Éditions universitaires Fribourg Suisse – Göttingen, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

Emar VI = Arnaud D. 1985-1986, Textes sumériens et accadiens. Texte, Mission archéologique de Meskéné-Emar – Recherches au pays d’Aštata 6, Synthèse 18, Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

ETBLM = Westenholz J.G. 2000, Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Land Museum Jerusalem. The Emar Tablets, Cuneiform Monographs 13, Groningen, Styx Publications.

HIR = label of the tablets belonging to the Hirayama Collection and published by Tsukimoto A. 1990-1992, 1994, Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collection (I-IV), Acta Sumerologica Japonica Acta Sumerologica Japonica 12 (1990): 177-211 (texts 1-16); 13 (1991): 275-333 (texts 17-42); 14 (1992): 289-315 (texts 43-50); 16 (1994): 231-238 (text 51).

PdA = Fales F.M. 1989, Prima dell’alfabeto: la storia della scrittura attraverso testi cuneiformi inediti, Venezia, Erizzo.

PRU III = Nougayrol J. 1955, Le palais royal d’Ugarit III. Textes accadiens et hourrites des Archives Est, Ouest et Centrales, Paris, Imprimerie nationale – Klincksieck.

PRU IV = Nougayrol J. 1956, Le palais royal d’Ugarit IV. Textes accadiens des Archives Sud (Archives internationales), Paris, Imprimerie nationale – Klincksieck.

PRU VI = Nougayrol J. 1970, Le palais royal d’Ugarit VI. Textes en cunéiformes babyloniens des archives du Grand Palais et du Palais Sud d’Ugarit, Paris, Imprimerie nationale – Klincksieck.

RE = Beckman G. 1996, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar in the Collection of Jonathan Rosen, History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs, Padova, S.A.R.G.O.N.

RO = Trémouille M.-C., Répertoire onomastique. <https://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/hetonom/ONOMASTIdata.html> (01/09/2021).

SBo II = Güterbock H.G. 1942, Siegel aus Boğazköy, II. Die Königssiegel von 1939 und die übrigen Hieroglyphensiegel, Archiv für Orientforschung – Beiheft 7, Berlin, Weidner.

SHS2 = Boysan-Dietrich N., Marazzi M., Mora C., Nowicki H. 2009, Sammlung Hieroglyphischer Siegel, Band 1: Vorarbeiten (2. revidierte und ergänzte Auflage), Hethitologie Portal Mainz – Materialien 7, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. <http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/hpmm/anforder.php?band=hpmm7> (01/09/2021).

SMEA-30 = Arnaud D. 1992, Tablettes de genres divers du Moyen-Euphrate, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 30: 195-245.

TSBR = Arnaud D. 1991, Textes Syriens de l’âge du Bronze Récent, Aula Orientalis Supplementa 1, Barcelona, Editorial AUSA.

Ug. III = Schaeffer C.F.A. 1956, Ugaritica III. Sceaux et cylindres hittites, épée gravée du cartouche de Mineptah, tablettes chypro-minoennes et autres découvertes nouvelles de Ras-Shamra, Paris, Librairie Geuthner.

Adamthwaite M.R. 2001, Late Hittite Emar. The Chronology, Synchronisms, and Socio-Political Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town, Ancient Near Eastern Studies – Supplement Series 8, Louvain – Paris, Sterling – Peeters.

Akdoğan R. 2010, Hethitische Texte in Transkription: Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde Bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri II (ABoT 2), Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 32, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

Albright W.F. 1946, Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography 1500-1200 B.C., Journal of Near Eastern Studies 5/1: 7-25.

Alp S. 1968, Zylinder- und Stempelsiegel aus Karahöyük bei Konya, Türk Tarih Kurumu yayınları. 5 Seri, 26 Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.

Aro S. 2013, Carchemish Before and After 1200 BC, in A. Mouton, I. Rutherford, I. Yakubovich (eds), Luwian Identities – Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 64, Leiden – Boston, Brill: 233-276.

Balza M.E. 2006, Ai vertici dell’amministrazione ittita in Siria: il LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA Mutri-Tešub, in C. Mora, P. Piacentini (eds), L’ufficio e il documento. I luoghi, i modi, gli strumenti dell’amministrazione in Egitto e nel Vicino Oriente, Quaderni di Acme 83, Milano, Cisalpino: 373-383.

Balza M.E. 2007, Šaggar-abu: an official of Karkamiš at Emar?, Ugarit Forschungen 39: 19-36.

Balza M.E. 2009, Sigilli e modalità di sigillatura a Emar nel Tardo Bronzo (XIV-XIII sec. a.C.), Studia mediterranea. Series Hethaea 21, Pavia, Italian University Press.

Balza M.E. 2012, Between Anatolia and Syria: High Officials at Emar and Syro-Anatolian Cultural Contacts. The case of Marianni, scribe of Ini-Teššub, in P. Cotticelli-Kurras et al. (eds), Interferenze linguistiche e culturali in Anatolia tra II e I millennio a.C. Studi in onore di Onofrio Carruba in occasione del suo 80o compleanno, Studia Mediterranea 24, Pavia, Italian University Press: 27-41.

Beal R.H. 1992, The Organisation of the Hittite Military, Texte der Hethiter 20, Heidelberg, Winter.

Beckman G.M. 1992, Hittite Administration in Syria in the Light of the Texts from Ḫattuša, Ugarit and Emar, in M.W. Chavalas, J.L. Hayes (eds), New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25, Malibu, Undena: 41-49.

Beckman G.M. 1995, Hittite Provincial Administration in Anatolia and Syria. The View from Maşat and Emar, in O. Carruba, M. Giorgieri, C. Mora (eds), Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia. Pavia 28 giugno-2 Luglio 1993, Studia Mediterranea 9, Pavia, Gianni Iuculano Editore: 19-37.

Beran Th. 1967, Die hethitische Glyptik von Boğazköy I. Die Siegel und Siegelabdrücke der vor- und althethitischen Perioden und die Siegel der hethitischen Grosskönige, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 76 = Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 5, Berlin, Mann.

Beyer D. 1982, Le sceau-cylindre de Shahurunuwa, roi de Karkémish, in M. Yon (ed.), La Syrie au Bronze Récent. Recueil publiée à l’occasion du cinquantenaire de la découverte d’Ougarit-Ras Shamra (Extraits de la XXVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris, juillet 1980), Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations: 67-78.

Bilgin T. 2018, Officials and Administration in the Hittite World, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 21, Berlin – Boston, de Gruyter.

Boehmer R.M., Güterbock H.G. 1987, Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy. Grabungskampagnen 1931-1939, 1952-1978, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 14, Berlin, Mann.

Cancik-Kirschbaum E. 1996, Die Mittelassyrische Briefe aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad, Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Carruba O. 1990, The Name of the Scribe, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42/1: 243-251.

Cohen Y. 2009, The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age, Harvard Semitic Studies 59, Winona Lake (Indiana), Einsenbrauns.

Cohen Y. 2012, Aḫi-malik: The Last Overseer of the Land in the City of Emar, in K. Abraham, J. Fleishman (eds), Looking at the Ancient Near East and the Bible through the same Eyes. Minha LeAhron. A Tribute to Aaron Skaist, Bethesda (Maryland), CDL Press: 13-23.

Cohen Y., d’Alfonso L. 2008, The Duration of Emar Archives and the Relative and Absolute Chronology of the City, in L. d’Alfonso, Y. Cohen, D. Sürenhagen (eds), The City of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires. History, Landscape, Society. Proceedings of the Konstanz Emar Conference, 25-26.04.2006, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 349, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag: 3-25.

Collins B.J. 2004, The Politics of Hittite Religious Iconography, in M. Hutter, S. Hutter-Braunsar (eds), Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individuelle Religiosität. Akten des religionsgeschichtlichen Symposiums „Kleinasiens und angrenzende Gebiete vom Beginn des 2. bis zur Mitte des 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.“ (Bonn, 20.-22. Februar 2003), Alter Orient und Altes Testament 318, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag: 83-115.

d’Alfonso L. 2000, Syro-Hittite Administration at Emar: New Considerations on the Basis of a Prosopographic Study, Altorientalische Forschungen 27: 269-295.

d’Alfonso L. 2001, Further Studies on the Ini-Tešub Sealing. Part II: A Prosopographic Approach, Altorientalische Forschungen 28: 267-275.

d’Alfonso L. 2005, Le procedure giudiziarie ittite in Siria (XIII sec. a.C.), Studia Mediterranea 17, Pavia, Italian University Press.

d’Alfonso L. 2007, The Treaty between Talmi-Teššub King of Karkemiš and Šuppiluliyama Great King of Ḫatti, in D. Groddek, M. Zorman (eds), Tabularia Hethaeorum – Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 25, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 203-220.

d’Alfonso L. 2011, Seeking a Political Space: Thoughts on the Formative Stage of Hittite Administration in Syria, Altorientalische Forschungen 38: 163-176.

d’Alfonso L., Cohen Y. 2021, Mazi-Karḫuḫa, King of Karkemiš and Hittite Syria at the End of the 13th Century, Akkadica 142: 63-77.

de Martino S. 1986, Il concetto di bellezza per gli Ittiti. Nota sul termine mišriwant- ‘splendido’, Altorientalische Forschungen 13: 212-218.

de Martino S. 1999, La cosiddetta ‘cronaca di Ammuna’, in S. de Martino, F. Imparati (eds), Studi e testi 2, Eothen 10, Firenze, LoGisma: 69-82.

de Martino S. 2011, Hurrian Personal Names in the Kingdom of Ḫatti, Eothen 18, Firenze, LoGisma.

de Martino S. 2012, Ḫišni, Prince of Kargamiš, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 106/1: 103-108.

de Martino S. 2014, Il ruolo politico di Karkemish in Siria durante il periodo imperiale ittita, in N. Marchetti (ed.), Karkemish. An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates, OrientLab 2, Bologna, AnteQuem, 86-92.

De Pietri M. 2022, Messengers and Envoys within Egyptian-Hittite Relationships, in C. Coppini, G. Cyrus, H. Golestaneh (eds), Bridging the Gap: Disciplines, Times, and Spaces in Dialogue. Volume 3. Sessions 4 and 6 from the Conference Broadening Horizons 6 Held at the Freie Universität Berlin, 24-28 June 2019, Oxford, Archaeopress: 112-126.

Di Filippo F. 2004, Notes on the Chronology of Emar Legal Tablets, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 46: 175-214.

Faist B. 2002, Die Rechtsordnung in Syrien nach der hethitischen Eroberung: Wandel und Kontinuität, in A.-M. Wittke et al. (eds), Brückenland Anatolien? Ursachen, Extensität und Modi des Kulturaustausches zwischen Anatolien und seinen Nachbarn, Tübingen, Attempto: 129-146.

Francia R. 2020, EGIR-an tarnummaš and Related Formulas in Hittite Colophons, in S. de Martino, E. Devecchi (eds), Anatolia Between the 13th and the 12th Century BCE, Eothen 23, Firenze, LoGisma: 129-154.

Freu J. 2009, Le déclin et la chute du nouvel Empire Hittite, Paris, l’Harmattan.

Giorgieri M. 2002, Birra, acqua ed olio: paralleli siriani e neo-assiri ad un giuramento ittita, in S. de Martino, F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds), Anatolia antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati, Eothen 11/1, Firenze, LoGisma: 299-320.

Groddek D. 2006, Hethitische Texte in Transkription: KUB 60, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 20, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

Güterbock H.G. 1942, Siegel aus Boğazköy, II. Die Königssiegel von 1939 und die übrigen Hieroglyphensiegel, Archiv für Orientforschung – Beiheft 7, Berlin.

Hagenbuchner A. 1989, Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter, 2. Teil: Die Briefe mit Transkription, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Texte der Hethiter 16, Heidelberg, Winter.

Hawkins J.D. 1978, The Luwian Word for Daughter, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 92: 112-116.

Hawkins J.D. 2000, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age, 3 Vols, Berlin ‒ New York, de Gruyter.

Hawkins J.D. 2005, Commentaries on the Readings, in S. Herbordt, Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 19, Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern: 248-313.

Hawkins J.D. 2009, Cilicia, the Amuq and Aleppo: New Light in a Dark Age, Near Eastern Archaeology 72/4: 164-173.

Hawkins J.D. 2011, The inscriptions of the Aleppo temple, Anatolian Studies 61: 35-54.

Hawkins J.D., Weeden M. 2016, Sketch History of Karkamish in the Earlier Iron Age, in T.J. Wilkinson et al. (eds), Carchemish in Context. The Land of Carchemish Project, 2006-2010, Themes from the ancient Near East. BANEA Publication series 4, Oxford – Philadelphia, Oxbow Books: 9-21.

Herbordt S. 1998, Sigilli di funzionari e dignitari hittiti. Le cretule dell’archivio di Nişantepe a Boğazköy/Hattuša, in M. Marazzi (ed.), Il geroglifico anatolico. Sviluppi della ricerca a venti anni dalla sua “ridecifrazione”. Atti del Colloquio e della Tavola rotonda, Napoli-Procida 1995, Istituto Universitario Orientale. Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Series minor 57, Napoli, Istituto universitario orientale: 173-193.

Herbordt S. 2005, Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 19, Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern.

Hoffmann I. 1984, Der Erlass Telipinus, Texte der Hethiter 11, Heidelberg, Winter.

Hornung E., Krauss R., Warburton D.A. (eds) 2006, Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Handbuch der Orientalistik I/83, Leiden – Boston, Brill.

Houwink ten Cate Ph.H.J. 2006, The Apparently Delayed Home Coming of Tutḫaliyaš IV to his Capital Ḫattuša, in Th.P.J. van den Hout (ed.), The Life and Times of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV, Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 103, Leiden, Nederlands instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 107-115.

Imparati F. 1974, Una concessione di terre da parte di Tudhaliya IV, Revue Hittite et Asianique 32.

Imparati F. 1975, ‘Signori’ e ‘figli del re’, Orientalia NOVA SERIES 44: 89-95.

Imparati F. 1987, La politique extérieure des Hittites : tendances et problèmes, Hethitica 8: 187-207.

Imparati F. 1988, Armaziti: attività di un funzionario nel tardo impero ittita, in F. Imparati (ed.), Studi di storia e filologia dedicati a Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Eothen 1, Firenze, ELITE – Ediz. Librerie Italiane Estere: 79-94.

Ishida K. 2017-2018, Seal Impressions on the Cuneiform Tablets from the Middle Euphrates Region in the Hirayama Collection, Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 37: 13-86.

Klengel H. 1963, Zum Brief eines Königs von Ḫanigalbat (IBoT I 34), Orientalia NOVA SERIES 32/3: 280-291.

Klengel H. 1965, Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 1 – Nordsyrien, Berlin, Akademie Verlag.

Klengel H. 1992, Syria 3000 to 300 B.C. A Handbook of Political History, Berlin, Akademie Verlag.

Klengel H. 1999, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, Handbuch der Orientalistik 34, Leiden – Boston – Köln, Brill.

Košak S. 1982, Hittite Inventory Texts (CTH 241-250), Texte der Hethiter 10, Heidelberg, Winter.

Laroche E. 1960, Les hiéroglyphes hittites. 1 : L’écriture, Paris, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

Lebrun Ch. 2014, Présence et pouvoir hittites à Ougarit. Le cas des DUMU.LUGAL, Louvain-la-Neuve, Institut Orientaliste de l’Université catholique de Louvain and Peeters Press Leuven.

Lumsden S.P. 1990, Symbols of Power: Hittite Royal Iconography in Seals, California (Berkeley), University of California (Berkeley).

Malbran-Labat F. 1995, L’épigraphie akkadienne. Rétrospective et perspectives”, in M. Yon et al. (eds), Le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C., Ras Shamra-Ougarit 11, Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations: 33-40.

Marazzi M. 1990, Il geroglifico anatolico. Problemi di analisi e prospettive di ricerca. Con la collaborazione di N. Bolatti-Guzzo N. e un’appendice di C. Mora, Biblioteca di ricerche linguistiche e filologiche 24, Roma, Università La Sapienza. Dipartimento di studi glottoantropologici.

Marazzi M. 1998, Il geroglifico anatolico: problemi e scelte, in M. Marazzi (ed.), Il geroglifico anatolico. Sviluppi della ricerca a venti anni dalla sua “ridecifrazione”. Atti del Colloquio e della Tavola rotonda, Napoli-Procida 1995, Istituto Universitario Orientale. Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Series minor 57, Napoli, Istituto universitario orientale: VI-XVI.

Marchetti N. et al. 2019-2020, Recent archaeological discoveries at Karkemish. Anatomy and trajectories of a capital city on the middle Euphrates, News from the Lands of the Hittites 3-4: 251-400.

Mascheroni L.M. 1983, A propos d’un groupe de colophons problématiques, Hethitica 5: 95-109.

Mascheroni L.M. 1984, Scribi hurriti a Boğazköy: una verifica prosopografica, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 24: 151-173.

McMahon G. 1991, The Hittite State Cult of the Tutelary Deities, Assyriological Studies 25, Chicago, Oriental Institute.

Mora C. 1987, La glittica anatolica del II millennio a.C.: classificazione tipologica. 1. I sigilli a iscrizione geroglifica, Studia Mediterranea 6, Pavia, Gianni Iuculano Editore.

Mora C. 1990, La glittica anatolica del II millennio a.C.: classificazione tipologica. I. I sigilli a iscrizione geroglifica. Primo supplemento, Studia Mediterranea 6, Pavia, Gianni Iuculano Editore.

Mora C., 1993, Lo “status” del re di Kargamiš, Orientalia NOVA SERIES 62/1: 67-70.

Mora C. 2000, Archivi periferici nell’Anatolia ittita: l’evidenza delle cretule, in M. Perna (ed.), Administrative Documents in the Aegean and their Near Eastern Counterparts. Proceedings of the International Colloquium. Naples, February 29-March 2, 1996, Roma, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali: 63-78.

Mora C. 2004, Sigilli e sigillature di Karkemiš in età imperiale ittita I. I re, i dignitari, il (mio) Sole, Orientalia NOVA SERIES 73/4 (= Studi di Ittitologia in onore di Onofrio Carruba): 427-450.

Mora C. 2005, Sigilli e sigillature di Karkemiš in età imperiale ittita. II. I sigilli dei principi e dei funzionari: caratteristiche, uso, funzioni, in M. Perna (ed.), Studi in onore di Enrica Fiandra. Contributi di archeologia egea e vicinorientale, Studi Egei e Vicinorientali 1, Paris – Napoli, de Boccard – Skizzo: 229-244.

Mora C. 2008, Principi di Karkemiš a Ḫattuša: attività e rapporti con il potere ittita, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 50 (= 6th International Congress of Hittitology): 555-563.

Mora C. 2010, Seals and Sealings of Karkamiš, Part III: The Evidence from the Nişantepe-Archives, the Digraphic Seals and the Title EUNUCHUS2, in I. Singer (ed.), ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis. Luwian and Hittite Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Monograph Series 28, Tel-Aviv, Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology: 170-181.

Mora C. 2014a, Symbols of Power in the Kingdom of Karkamiš (13th-12th Centuries BC), in S. Gaspa et al. (eds), From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond. Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on June 23, 2014, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 412, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag: 433-440.

Mora C. 2014b, La corte di Karkemish durante il periodo imperiale ittita, in N. Marchetti (ed.), Karkemish. An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates, OrientLab 2, Bologna, AnteQuem: 93-98.

Mora C. 2021, Rev. of: D. Charpin, “Tu es de mon sang”. Les alliances dans le Proche-Orient ancien; E. Devecchi (ed.), Trattati internazionali ittiti, Athenaeum 109/1: 268-284.

Mora C., Balza M.E. 2010, Importanza politica ed economica di alcune istituzioni religiose e funerarie nell’impero ittita. Attualità degli studi di Fiorella Imparati, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 52: 253-264.

Mouton A. 2007, Rêves hittites. Contribution à une histoire et une anthropologie du rêve en Anatolie ancienne, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 28, Leiden – Boston – Köln, Brill.

Nakamura M. 2002, Das hethitische nuntarriyašḫa-Fest, Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 94, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Owen D. 1995, Pasūri-Dagān and Ini-Teššub’s Mother, in Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, M. Sokoloff (eds), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, Winona Lake (Indiana), Eisenbrauns: 573-584.

Payne A. 20102, Hieroglyphic Luwian. An Introduction with Original Texts, Studia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis 2, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

Pecchioli Daddi F. 1982, Mestieri, professioni e dignità nell’Anatolia ittita, Incunabula Graeca 79, Roma, Edizioni dell’Ateneo.

Peker H. 2017, Some Remarks on the Imperial Sealings from the 2017 Excavations at Karkemish, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2017/4: 178-179.

Peker H. 2020, New Evidence for the Late 13th Century BCE Administrative Structure at Karkemiš, in S. de Martino, E. Devecchi (eds), Anatolia Between the 13th and the 12th century BCE, Eothen 23, Firenze, LoGisma: 317-323.

Pruzsinszky R. 2003, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Emar, Studies on the Civilization and the Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 13, Bethesda (Maryland), CDL Press.

Ranke H. 1935, Die ägyptischen Personennamen. Band I: Verzeichnis der Namen, Glückstadt, J.J. Augustin.

Roche C. 2001, Recherches sur la prosopographie du royaume d’Ougarit de la fin du XIVe siècle au début du XIIe siècle av. J.-C. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Paris IV-Sorbonne).

Salvini M., Trémouille M.-C. 2003, Les textes hittites de Meskéné/Emar, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 45: 225-271.

Schniedewind W.M., Cochavi-Rainey Z. 2015, The El-Amarna Correspondence. A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-Amarna based on Collations of all Extant Tablets, Handbuch der Orientalistik I/110, Leiden – Boston, Brill.

Siegelová J. 1986, Hethitische Verwaltungspraxis im Lichte der Wirtschafts- und Inventardokumente, 3 Bände, Praha, Národní muzeum v Praze.

Singer I. 1983, Takuḫlinu and Ḫaya: Two Governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek, Tel Aviv 10: 3-25 (republished in: Singer I. 2011, The Calm before the Storm. Selected Writings of Itamar Singer on the End of the Late Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Levant, Society of Biblical Literature. Supplement 1, Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature: 147-172).

Singer I. 1997, Rev. of: van den Hout, Th.P.J. 1995, Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung, (Studien zu den Boğazköy Texten 38, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz), Bibliotheca Orientalis 54/3-4: 416-423.

Singer I. 1999, A Political History of Ugarit, in W.G.E. Watson, N. Wyatt (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik I/39, Leiden – Boston – Köln, Brill: 603-733.

Singer I. 2000, A New Hittite Letter from Emar, in L. Milano et al. (eds.), Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East. Papers presented to the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Venezia, 7-11 July 1997, Vol. 3, Padova, S.A.R.G.O.N.: 65-72.

Singer I. 2001, The Treaties with Karkamiš and Hatti, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.-8. Oktober 1999, Studien zu den Boğazköy Texten 45, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 635-641.

Singer I. 2003, The Great Scribe Taki-Šarruma, in G. Beckman, R. Beal, G. McMahon (eds), Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns: 341-348.

Skaist A. 1998, The Chronology of the Legal Texts from Emar, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 88: 45-71.

Starke F. 1996, Zur “Regierung” des hethitischen Staates, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 2: 140-182.

Tani N. 2001, More about the ‘Hešni Conspiracy’, Altorientalische Forschungen 28: 154-164.

Torri G., Barsacchi F.G. 2018, Hethitische Texte in Transkription: KBo 13, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 51, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

van den Hout Th.P.J. 1994, Rev. of: H. Klengel, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköy: Heft LX: Texte verschiedenen Inhalts, Bibliotheca Orientalis 51/1-2: 119-126.

van den Hout Th.P.J. 1995, Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung, Studien zu den Boğazköy Texten 38, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

van den Hout Th.P.J. 1997, Hittite Canonical Compositions – Biography and Autobiography: The Proclamation of Telipinu, in W.W. Hallo et al. (eds), The Context of Scripture. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden – New York – Köln, Brill: 194-198 (No. 1.76).

van den Hout Th.P.J. 2020, A History of Hittite Literacy. Writing and Reading in Late Bronze-Age Anatolia (1650-1200 BC), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Werner R. 1967, Hethitische Gerichtsprotokolle, Studien zu den Boğazköy Texten 4, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

Yamada M. 2020, The King of Carchemish and the Hittite Rule of Emar, Orient. Journal of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 55: 43-61.

1* The present paper is the result of a joint effort by the three authors: section 1 was drafted by C. Mora; section 2 by C. Mora, M.E. Balza, and M. De Pietri; section 3 by M.E. Balza; section 4 by M. De Pietri.

Cf. Mora 2004 and other subsequent studies, among which in particular Mora 2008 and 2014a.

2 For a discussion on the matter cf. recently Aro 2013: 249 ff. (on p. 151 Aro expresses the hope that ‘the Italian excavation team will enlighten us about it in the near future’).

3 Cf. for example Mora 2021: 283 regarding the presumably large number of princes and other members of the Hittite court in Ḫattuša.

4 See the contribution of H. Peker in this book. Cf. Peker 2017 and 2020; cf. also Marchetti, Peker, Zaina in Marchetti et al. 2019-2020.

5 For a summary of the role and activities carried out by the kingdom of Karkemish in this capacity, with reference to the main documents, cf. de Martino 2014 (who also points out some instances of friction between the Great Hittite king and the king of Karkemish, in particular during the reign of Muršili II).

6 As we know, the king of Karkemish enjoyed a particular rank in the organisation chart of the Hittite empire, as documented in particular by the text KBo 1.28 (and by the ‘Bronze tablet’): cf. Mora 1993; on the treaties between Karkemish and Ḫatti cf. Singer 2001; Giorgieri 2002; d’Alfonso 2007 and 2011; Devecchi 2015: 238 ff.

7 Cf. Klengel 2001; Faist 2002; Singer 1999 and 2001; Mora 2008; Aro 2013; de Martino 2014; Hawkins, Weeden 2016.

9 Cf. Mora 2004: it was also possible that a prince or high dignitary carried out part of his activity in Karkemish (or, on behalf of Karkemish, in other Syrian locations), partly in the Hittite court. Cf. Mora 2004: 433, for references to previous studies which have dealt with the topic: having generally different purposes and being mostly interested in investigations on the site where documents were found, e.g. Ugarit, they achieved only partial results regarding the court of Karkemish.

11 Cf. Mora 2004; 2005; 2010; 2014b, to whose bibliography Ishida 2017-2018 is now to be added.

12 For a detailed analysis of the royal seals from Karkemish see also Mora 2004: 428-432; cf. Mora 2014a.

14 It should be noted, however, that some of these features may be considered generically Syro-Hittite (cf. Beyer 1982), and therefore can also be found on seals of eminent individuals from other Syrian centres (e.g. Emar).

15 So far (but Peker’s contribution in this volume has yet to be carefully examined) very few names of officials found on newly discovered seal impressions (e.g. Paya/Pa’e, Taya/Ta’e, Zinni, Šunaili) have been disclosed, only one of which (Ewri-Teššub) matches a person documented by previously-known sources. To make matters even more intriguing, some of their titles are also unusual (cf. Peker 2017; Peker 2020; Marchetti, Peker, Zaina in Marchetti et al. 2019-2020).

18 Cf. Laroche 1960: 33-34 (No. 46); Hawkins 1978: 112; Marazzi 1990: 115-116; 1998. For a survey of the role and duties of the princes (DUMUMEŠ.LUGAL), see Imparati 1975; Güterbock in Boehmer, Güterbock 1987: 74; Starke 1996; Herbordt 1998: 179-180; Mora 2004.

20 This title could match the hieroglyphic title REGIO.DOMINUS attested in some contemporary sites: see Mora 2000; Singer 2000.

21 For a list of the ‘Overseers of the Land,’ see Beckman 1992; 1995; Adamthwaite 2001: 49-53; Di Filippo 2004: 178 ff.; Cohen, d’Alfonso 2008: 15; cf. also Cohen 2012.

22 In a recent paper L. d’Alfonso and Y. Cohen (d’Alfonso, Cohen 2021) put forward the existence of an additional king of Karkemish, Mazi-Karḫuḫa/Maziya, whose reign could be placed between the reigns of Ini-Teššub and Talmi-Teššub. This suggestion, based on the analysis of two sources (a cuneiform text and a short inscription in Anatolian hieroglyphs) is very interesting and deserves attention. However, since no other source is known at the moment on this king, it is not possible to attribute the period of activity of some princes or court dignitaries to his (probably quite short) reign. It is also interesting to note that the cuneiform document that mentions the king Maziya, also mentions a Talmi-Šarruma ‘Governor of the Land of Emar’ (GAR KUR URUI-mar-ra, cf. d’Alfonso, Cohen 2021: 63-64). This official has not been taken into consideration in the present paper as there is insufficient data to link him to the Karkemish court (see above, section 2.2., for another official bearing the title ‘Governor’: Takuḫlinu).

23 Sources are prefixed by a Latin uppercase letter (A, B, C, etc.) used as reference in the last prosopographical section.

24 Only main discussions are reported: complete bibliography in Mora 2004; 2005; 2008; 2010.

25 Datable to Ini-Teššub, father? of Tili-Šarruma. For the chronology of the kings of Karkemish, see Klengel 1965: 287; cf. also Klengel 1992 and Marchetti et al. 2019-2020: 273, 282.

26 Son of Niqmadu II (c. 1350-1315 BC). For the chronology of the kings of Ugarit see Klengel 1965: 287; cf. also Klengel 1992 and Singer 1999.

29 Schniedewind, Cochavi-Rainey 2015: 568-575 (EA 105; l. 34: mA-⸢ma⸣-an-[ma-š]a); 602-605 (EA 113; ll. 36, 43: mA-ma-an-ma-ša and mA-[ma-an-ma-ša], respectively); 606-609 (EA 114, l. 51: al-lu mA-ma-an-ma-ša, ‘the other A.’).

30 Numbers in subscript after the personal name are used to distinguish homonyms.

32 [KUB] (omitted by Laroche) is added here for clarity. Furthermore, KUB and KBo numbers are reported here with Arabic ciphers instead of the Roman numbers used by Laroche.

34 Generally, but allegedly recognized with Ini-Teššub (see Imparati, RlA VIII: 317).

37 Possible integration of this line based on the following l. 9: DÙ-a[n-zi (= kišanzi), ‘they make’ (HZL: 128, No. 75).

40 References for sources F-M: Herbordt 2005: 156-158, nos 242-249? (Mizrimuwa), pls 19-20.

41 Niş. 243 is a ring-sealing with elliptical base, a feature characteristic of North-Syrian glyptic (see Mora 2005); cf. above section 1.3.

44 ‘?’ = the belonging of the person to a source is not certain. Here and in section 3.3: ‘s.’ = ‘son;’ ‘b.’ = ‘brother;’ ‘f.’ = ‘father;’ ‘≈’ = ‘contemporary to;’ ‘→’ = ‘related to.’ Data from sources referring to Karkemish are in bold.

45 This separate entry is considered uncertain because of the use of the sign L.105b = BOS2 vs. L.105a = BOS (Payne 20102: 169): the person may be the same even though the names are spelled differently, since it may represent a mere graphic variation applying the principle totum pro parte (Marazzi 1998: XIV, pl. 1.a), as in the case of sealings from Nişantepe.

48 According to Singer 1997: 421-422, quoting a letter from Emar (Emar VI 211, l. 25), sent by Ba‛l-qarrād, son of Zū-Ba‛la, diviner.

49 Symbol not analysed in Lumsden 1990; comparisons can be found on seals/sealings from Ḫattuša (Beran 1967: pl. 4; Boehmer, Güterbock 1987: pl. XXXIV, No. 267; pl. XXXVIII, No. 308[r-s]) and Karahöyük-Konya (Alp 1968); cf. Collins 2004: 86-87, fig. 7.

52 For Aliḫešni, Ḫešmi-Teššub, and Tili-Šarruma see above, sections 2 and 3.

53 Mora 2004: 436, 438 and Mora 2007: 557-559, mentioning as evidence RS 17.148 (PRU VI: 9-11) and Emar VI 211, l. 24; cf. Singer 1997: 420.

54 This number does not correspond to any published Hittite document; it is probably a mistake by Laroche.

58 HZL: 237, No. 294: ‘LÚŠÀ.TAM‚ “Verwalter, Kämmerer”;’ cf. Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 130-132 (‘tesoriere’), mentioning Ḫešni on p. 131.

60 About this conspiracy: Stefanini 1962: 22-36; Tani 2001 (with further bibliography).

63 About the interpretation of the term UR.MAḪ, two possible explanations can be advanced: 1) to connect the term to the lost previous portion of the line (term not referred to Ḫešni); 2) to envisage in the term (if referred to Ḫešni, despite its unusual position before the name) the title <LÚ>UR.MAḪ, ‘Löwemann (im Kult),’ for which see HZL: 116, No. 51; cf. Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 375-376, ‘uomo leone.’

67 The mh. ductus does fit the dating of the text to the reign of Ḫattušili III or Tutḫaliya IV: the scribe probably used some archaising signs (cf. Hagenbuchner 1989: 12).

73 Original text non vidi. Integrated in Malbran-Labat 1995: 37-38 as ‘LUGAL KUR URU Kar[gamis]’ (Kargamis, sic).

74 Cf. Mascheroni 1983: 97; Mascheroni 1984: 155-156; McMahon 1991: 234; Francia 2020: 143.

75 For the explanation of symbols used in this table see above, section 2.3 (first note to table).

77 In the text, Ḫešni is addressed as DUMU-YA, where the 1st-person speaker is the Hittite king (Ḫattušili III or Tutḫaliya IV): therefore, he is a DUMU.LUGAL.

79 To be emended in DUMU.LUGAL KUR URU Ka[r-ga-miš]: see Giorgieri-Mora 2004: 99-100.

80 de Martino 2012: 106 notices that two sealings carrying the name ‘Naniya’ come from Nişantepe (Herbordt 2005, nos 278-279): the latter also attests the title of patili priest for this (A)naniya, maybe the same individual mentioned in sources B and P as father of Ḫešni3 (this interpretation could be supported by the Hurrian origin of both the names of father and son).

81 We know this Ḫešni was a scribe because he was the extensor of the colophons in sources B and P.

82 According to de Martino 2012: 105, the conspiracy may have been conducted against Tutḫaliya IV (cf. Freu 2009: 100-101); contra Houwink ten Cate 2006: 107-115 following Stefanini 1962: 36, who advanced the hypothesis that the conspiracy was against Kurunt(iy)a.

83 Following Tani 2010: 163, considering other texts (KBo IV 10+ and Bo 68/299), we can add the following synchronisms: Ari-Šarruma (king of Išuwa) and Eḫli-Šarruma (DUMU.LUGAL).

84 I use here Latin capital letters in subscript to further distinguish between the different Ḫešni(s).

85 Living during the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta (according to a letter from Tell Šēḥ Ḥamad: de Martino 2012: 104 quoting Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 117-122, No. 6 and Singer 2003: 342-343).

References Adamthwaite M.R. 2001, Late Hittite Emar. The Chronology, Synchronisms, and Socio-Political Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town, Ancient Near Eastern Studies – Supplement Series 8, Louvain – Paris, Sterling – Peeters. Akdoğan R. 2010, Hethitische Texte in Transkription: Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde Bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri II (ABoT 2), Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 32, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. Albright W.F. 1946, Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography 1500-1200 B.C., Journal of Near Eastern Studies 5/1: 7-25. Alp S. 1968, Zylinder- und Stempelsiegel aus Karahöyük bei Konya, Türk Tarih Kurumu yayınları. 5 Seri, 26 Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi. Aro S. 2013, Carchemish Before and After 1200 BC, in A. Mouton, I. Rutherford, I. Yakubovich (eds), Luwian Identities – Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 64, Leiden – Boston, Brill: 233-276. Balza M.E. 2006, Ai vertici dell’amministrazione ittita in Siria: il LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA Mutri-Tešub, in C. Mora, P. Piacentini (eds), L’ufficio e il documento. I luoghi, i modi, gli strumenti dell’amministrazione in Egitto e nel Vicino Oriente, Quaderni di Acme 83, Milano, Cisalpino: 373-383. Balza M.E. 2007, Šaggar-abu: an official of Karkamiš at Emar?, Ugarit Forschungen 39: 19-36. Balza M.E. 2009, Sigilli e modalità di sigillatura a Emar nel Tardo Bronzo (XIV-XIII sec. a.C.), Studia mediterranea. Series Hethaea 21, Pavia, Italian University Press. Balza M.E. 2012, Between Anatolia and Syria: High Officials at Emar and Syro-Anatolian Cultural Contacts. The case of Marianni, scribe of Ini-Teššub, in P. Cotticelli-Kurras et al. (eds), Interferenze linguistiche e culturali in Anatolia tra II e I millennio a.C. Studi in onore di Onofrio Carruba in occasione del suo 80o compleanno, Studia Mediterranea 24, Pavia, Italian University Press: 27-41. Beal R.H. 1992, The Organisation of the Hittite Military, Texte der Hethiter 20, Heidelberg, Winter. Beckman G.M. 1992, Hittite Administration in Syria in the Light of the Texts from Ḫattuša, Ugarit and Emar, in M.W. Chavalas, J.L. Hayes (eds), New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25, Malibu, Undena: 41-49. Beckman G.M. 1995, Hittite Provincial Administration in Anatolia and Syria. The View from Maşat and Emar, in O. Carruba, M. Giorgieri, C. Mora (eds), Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia. Pavia 28 giugno-2 Luglio 1993, Studia Mediterranea 9, Pavia, Gianni Iuculano Editore: 19-37. Beran Th. 1967, Die hethitische Glyptik von Boğazköy I. Die Siegel und Siegelabdrücke der vor- und althethitischen Perioden und die Siegel der hethitischen Grosskönige, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 76 = Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 5, Berlin, Mann. Beyer D. 1982, Le sceau-cylindre de Shahurunuwa, roi de Karkémish, in M. Yon (ed.), La Syrie au Bronze Récent. Recueil publiée à l’occasion du cinquantenaire de la découverte d’Ougarit-Ras Shamra (Extraits de la XXVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris, juillet 1980), Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations: 67-78. Bilgin T. 2018, Officials and Administration in the Hittite World, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 21, Berlin – Boston, de Gruyter. Boehmer R.M., Güterbock H.G. 1987, Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy. Grabungskampagnen 1931-1939, 1952-1978, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 14, Berlin, Mann. Cancik-Kirschbaum E. 1996, Die Mittelassyrische Briefe aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad, Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Carruba O. 1990, The Name of the Scribe, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42/1: 243-251. Cohen Y. 2009, The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age, Harvard Semitic Studies 59, Winona Lake (Indiana), Einsenbrauns. Cohen Y. 2012, Aḫi-malik: The Last Overseer of the Land in the City of Emar, in K. Abraham, J. Fleishman (eds), Looking at the Ancient Near East and the Bible through the same Eyes. Minha LeAhron. A Tribute to Aaron Skaist, Bethesda (Maryland), CDL Press: 13-23. Cohen Y., d’Alfonso L. 2008, The Duration of Emar Archives and the Relative and Absolute Chronology of the City, in L. d’Alfonso, Y. Cohen, D. Sürenhagen (eds), The City of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires. History, Landscape, Society. Proceedings of the Konstanz Emar Conference, 25-26.04.2006, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 349, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag: 3-25. Collins B.J. 2004, The Politics of Hittite Religious Iconography, in M. Hutter, S. Hutter-Braunsar (eds), Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individuelle Religiosität. Akten des religionsgeschichtlichen Symposiums „Kleinasiens und angrenzende Gebiete vom Beginn des 2. bis zur Mitte des 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.“ (Bonn, 20.-22. Februar 2003), Alter Orient und Altes Testament 318, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag: 83-115. d’Alfonso L. 2000, Syro-Hittite Administration at Emar: New Considerations on the Basis of a Prosopographic Study, Altorientalische Forschungen 27: 269-295. d’Alfonso L. 2001, Further Studies on the Ini-Tešub Sealing. Part II: A Prosopographic Approach, Altorientalische Forschungen 28: 267-275. d’Alfonso L. 2005, Le procedure giudiziarie ittite in Siria (XIII sec. a.C.), Studia Mediterranea 17, Pavia, Italian University Press. d’Alfonso L. 2007, The Treaty between Talmi-Teššub King of Karkemiš and Šuppiluliyama Great King of Ḫatti, in D. Groddek, M. Zorman (eds), Tabularia Hethaeorum – Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 25, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 203-220. d’Alfonso L. 2011, Seeking a Political Space: Thoughts on the Formative Stage of Hittite Administration in Syria, Altorientalische Forschungen 38: 163-176. d’Alfonso L., Cohen Y. 2021, Mazi-Karḫuḫa, King of Karkemiš and Hittite Syria at the End of the 13th Century, Akkadica 142: 63-77. de Martino S. 1986, Il concetto di bellezza per gli Ittiti. Nota sul termine mišriwant- ‘splendido’, Altorientalische Forschungen 13: 212-218. de Martino S. 1999, La cosiddetta ‘cronaca di Ammuna’, in S. de Martino, F. Imparati (eds), Studi e testi 2, Eothen 10, Firenze, LoGisma: 69-82. de Martino S. 2011, Hurrian Personal Names in the Kingdom of Ḫatti, Eothen 18, Firenze, LoGisma. de Martino S. 2012, Ḫišni, Prince of Kargamiš, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 106/1: 103-108. de Martino S. 2014, Il ruolo politico di Karkemish in Siria durante il periodo imperiale ittita, in N. Marchetti (ed.), Karkemish. An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates, OrientLab 2, Bologna, AnteQuem, 86-92. De Pietri M. forth., Messengers and Envoys within Egypto-Hittite Relationships: An Insight on Textual and Archaeological Documentation, in C. Coppini, G. Cyrus, H. Golestaneh (eds), Proceedings of “Broadening Horizons 6”, 24th-28th June 2019, Freie Universität (Berlin). Volume 3, Oxford, Archaeopress. Di Filippo F. 2004, Notes on the Chronology of Emar Legal Tablets, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 46: 175-214. Dinçol A. 1992, A Hieroglyphic Seal Impression from Samsat, Belleten 56: 3-6. Faist B. 2002, Die Rechtsordnung in Syrien nach der hethitischen Eroberung: Wandel und Kontinuität, in A.-M. Wittke et al. (eds), Brückenland Anatolien? Ursachen, Extensität und Modi des Kulturaustausches zwischen Anatolien und seinen Nachbarn, Tübingen, Attempto: 129-146. Francia R. 2020, EGIR-an tarnummaš and Related Formulas in Hittite Colophons, in S. de Martino, E. Devecchi (eds), Anatolia Between the 13th and the 12th Century BCE, Eothen 23, Firenze, LoGisma: 129-154. Freu J. 2009, Le déclin et la chute du nouvel Empire Hittite, Paris, l’Harmattan. Giorgieri M. 2002, Birra, acqua ed olio: paralleli siriani e neo-assiri ad un giuramento ittita, in S. de Martino, F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds), Anatolia antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati, Eothen 11/1, Firenze, LoGisma: 299-320. Groddek D. 2006, Hethitische Texte in Transkription: KUB 60, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 20, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. Güterbock H.G. 1942, Siegel aus Boğazköy, II. Die Königssiegel von 1939 und die übrigen Hieroglyphensiegel, Archiv für Orientforschung – Beiheft 7, Berlin, Weidner. Hagenbuchner A. 1989, Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter, 2. Teil: Die Briefe mit Transkription, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Texte der Hethiter 16, Heidelberg, Winter. Hawkins J.D. 1978, The Luwian Word for Daughter, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 92: 112-116. Hawkins J.D. 2000, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age, 3 Vols, Berlin ‒ New York, de Gruyter. Hawkins J.D. 2005, Commentaries on the Readings, in S. Herbordt, Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 19, Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern: 248-313. Hawkins J.D. 2009, Cilicia, the Amuq and Aleppo: New Light in a Dark Age, Near Eastern Archaeology 72/4: 164-173. Hawkins J.D. 2011, The inscriptions of the Aleppo temple, Anatolian Studies 61: 35-54. Hawkins J.D., Weeden M. 2016, Sketch History of Karkamish in the Earlier Iron Age, in T.J. Wilkinson et al. (eds), Carchemish in Context. The Land of Carchemish Project, 2006-2010, Themes from the ancient Near East. BANEA Publication series 4, Oxford – Philadelphia, Oxbow Books: 9-21 Herbordt S. 1998, Sigilli di funzionari e dignitari hittiti. Le cretule dell'archivio di Nişantepe a Boğazköy/Hattuša, in M. Marazzi (ed.), Il geroglifico anatolico. Sviluppi della ricerca a venti anni dalla sua “ridecifrazione”. Atti del Colloquio e della Tavola rotonda, Napoli-Procida 1995, Istituto Universitario Orientale. Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Series minor 57, Napoli, Istituto universitario orientale: 173-193. Herbordt S. 2005, Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 19, Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern. Hoffmann I. 1984, Der Erlass Telipinus, Texte der Hethiter 11, Heidelberg, Winter. Hornung E., Krauss R., Warburton D.A. (eds) 2006, Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Handbuch der Orientalistik I/83, Leiden – Boston, Brill. Houwink ten Cate Ph.H.J. 2006, The Apparently Delayed Home Coming of Tutḫaliyaš IV to his Capital Ḫattuša, in Th.P.J. van den Hout (ed.), The Life and Times of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV, Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 103, Leiden, Nederlands instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 107-115. Imparati F. 1974, Una concessione di terre da parte di Tudhaliya IV, Revue Hittite et Asianique 32. Imparati F. 1975, ‘Signori’ e ‘figli del re’, Orientalia NOVA SERIES 44: 89-95. Imparati F. 1988, Armaziti: attività di un funzionario nel tardo impero ittita, in F. Imparati (ed.), Studi di storia e filologia dedicati a Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Eothen 1, Firenze, ‎ELITE – Ediz. Librerie Italiane Estere: 79-94. Ishida K. 2017-2018, Seal Impressions on the Cuneiform Tablets from the Middle Euphrates Region in the Hirayama Collection, Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 37: 13-86. Klengel H. 1963, Zum Brief eines Königs von Ḫanigalbat (IBoT I 34), Orientalia NOVA SERIES 32/3: 280-291. Klengel H. 1965, Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 1 – Nordsyrien, Berlin, Akademie Verlag. Klengel H. 1992, Syria 3000 to 300 B.C. A Handbook of Political History, Berlin, Akademie Verlag. Klengel H. 1999, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, Handbuch der Orientalistik 34, Leiden – Boston – Köln, Brill. Košak S. 1982, Hittite Inventory Texts (CTH 241-250), Texte der Hethiter 10, Heidelberg, Winter. Laroche E. 1960, Les hiéroglyphes hittites. 1 : L’écriture, Paris, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Lebrun Ch. 2014, Présence et pouvoir hittites à Ougarit. Le cas des DUMU.LUGAL, Louvain-la-Neuve, Institut Orientaliste de l’Université catholique de Louvain and Peeters Press Leuven. Lumsden S.P. 1990, Symbols of Power: Hittite Royal Iconography in Seals, California (Berkeley), University of California (Berkeley). Malbran-Labat F. 1995, L’épigraphie akkadienne. Rétrospective et perspectives”, in M. Yon et al. (eds), Le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C., Ras Shamra-Ougarit 11, Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations: 33-40. Marazzi M. 1990, Il geroglifico anatolico. Problemi di analisi e prospettive di ricerca. Con la collaborazione di N. Bolatti-Guzzo N. e un’appendice di C. Mora, Biblioteca di ricerche linguistiche e filologiche 24, Roma, Università La Sapienza. Dipartimento di studi glottoantropologici. Marazzi M. 1998, Il geroglifico anatolico: problemi e scelte, in M. Marazzi (ed.), Il geroglifico anatolico. Sviluppi della ricerca a venti anni dalla sua “ridecifrazione”. Atti del Colloquio e della Tavola rotonda, Napoli-Procida 1995, Istituto Universitario Orientale. Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Series minor 57, Napoli, Istituto universitario orientale: VI-XVI. Marchetti N. et al. 2019-2020, Recent archaeological discoveries at Karkemish. Anatomy and trajectories of a capital city on the middle Euphrates, News from the Lands of the Hittites 3-4: 251-400. Mascheroni L.M. 1983, A propos d’un groupe de colophons problématiques, Hethitica 5: 95-109. Mascheroni L.M. 1984, Scribi hurriti a Boğazköy: una verifica prosopografica, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 24: 151-173. McMahon G. 1991, The Hittite State Cult of the Tutelary Deities, Assyriological Studies 25, Chicago, Oriental Institute. Mora C. 1987, La glittica anatolica del II millennio a.C.: classificazione tipologica. 1. I sigilli a iscrizione geroglifica, Studia Mediterranea 6, Pavia, Gianni Iuculano Editore. Mora C. 1990, La glittica anatolica del II millennio a.C.: classificazione tipologica. I. I sigilli a iscrizione geroglifica. Primo supplemento, Studia Mediterranea 6, Pavia, Gianni Iuculano Editore. Mora C., 1993, Lo “status” del re di Kargamiš, Orientalia NOVA SERIES 62/1: 67-70. Mora C. 2000, Archivi periferici nell’Anatolia ittita: l’evidenza delle cretule, in M. Perna (ed.), Administrative Documents in the Aegean and their Near Eastern Counterparts. Proceedings of the International Colloquium. Naples, February 29-March 2, 1996, Roma, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali: 63-78. Mora C. 2004, Sigilli e sigillature di Karkemiš in età imperiale ittita I. I re, i dignitari, il (mio) Sole, Orientalia NOVA SERIES 73/4 (= Studi di Ittitologia in onore di Onofrio Carruba): 427-450. Mora C. 2005, Sigilli e sigillature di Karkemiš in età imperiale ittita. II. I sigilli dei principi e dei funzionari: caratteristiche, uso, funzioni, in M. Perna (ed.), Studi in onore di Enrica Fiandra. Contributi di archeologia egea e vicinorientale, Studi Egei e Vicinorientali 1, Paris – Napoli, de Boccard – Skizzo: 229-244. Mora C. 2008, Principi di Karkemiš a Ḫattuša: attività e rapporti con il potere ittita, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 50 (= 6th International Congress of Hittitology): 555-563. Mora C. 2010, Seals and Sealings of Karkamiš, Part III: The Evidence from the Nişantepe-Archives, the Digraphic Seals and the Title EUNUCHUS2, in I. Singer (ed.), ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis. Luwian and Hittite Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Monograph Series 28, Tel-Aviv, Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology: 170-181. Mora C. 2014a, Symbols of Power in the Kingdom of Karkamiš (13th-12th Centuries BC), in S. Gaspa et al. (eds), From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond. Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on June 23, 2014, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 412, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag: 433-440. Mora C. 2014b, La corte di Karkemish durante il periodo imperiale ittita, in N. Marchetti (ed.), Karkemish. An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates, OrientLab 2, Bologna, AnteQuem: 93-98. Mora C. 2021, Rev. of: D. Charpin, “Tu es de mon sang”. Les alliances dans le Proche-Orient ancien; E. Devecchi (ed.), Trattati internazionali ittiti, Athenaeum 109/1: 268-284. Mora C., Balza M.E. 2010, Importanza politica ed economica di alcune istituzioni religiose e funerarie nell’impero ittita. Attualità degli studi di Fiorella Imparati, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 52: 253-264. Mouton A. 2007, Rêves hittites. Contribution à une histoire et une anthropologie du rêve en Anatolie ancienne, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 28, Leiden – Boston – Köln, Brill. Nakamura M. 2002, Das hethitische nuntarriyašḫa-Fest, Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 94, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Owen D. 1995, Pasūri-Dagān and Ini-Teššub’s Mother, in Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, M. Sokoloff (eds), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, Winona Lake (Indiana), Eisenbrauns: 573-584. Payne A. 20102, Hieroglyphic Luwian. An Introduction with Original Texts, Studia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis 2, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. Pecchioli Daddi F. 1982, Mestieri, professioni e dignità nell’Anatolia ittita, Incunabula Graeca 79, Roma, Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Peker H. 2017, Some Remarks on the Imperial Sealings from the 2017 Excavations at Karkemish, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2017/4: 178-179. Peker H. 2020, New Evidence for the Late 13th Century BCE Administrative Structure at Karkemiš, in S. de Martino, E. Devecchi (eds), Anatolia Between the 13th and the 12th century BCE, Eothen 23, Firenze, LoGisma: 317-323. Pruzsinszky R. 2003, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Emar, Studies on the Civilization and the Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 13, Bethesda (Maryland), CDL Press. Ranke H. 1935, Die ägyptischen Personennamen. Band I: Verzeichnis der Namen, Glückstadt, J.J. Augustin. Roche C. 2001, Recherches sur la prosopographie du royaume d’Ougarit de la fin du XIVe siècle au début du XIIe siècle av. J.-C. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Paris IV-Sorbonne). Salvini M., Trémouille M.-C. 2003, Les textes hittites de Meskéné/Emar, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 45: 225-271. Schniedewind W.M., Cochavi-Rainey Z. 2015, The El-Amarna Correspondence. A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-Amarna based on Collations of all Extant Tablets, Handbuch der Orientalistik I/110, Leiden – Boston, Brill. Siegelová J. 1986, Hethitische Verwaltungspraxis im Lichte der Wirtschafts- und Inventardokumente, 3 Bände, Praha, Národní muzeum v Praze. Singer I. 1983, Takuḫlinu and Ḫaya: Two Governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek, Tel Aviv 10: 3-25 (republished in: Singer I. 2011, The Calm before the Storm. Selected Writings of Itamar Singer on the End of the Late Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Levant, Society of Biblical Literature. Supplement 1, Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature: 147-172). Singer I. 1997, Rev. of: van den Hout, Th.P.J. 1995, Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung, (Studien zu den Boğazköy Texten 38, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz), Bibliotheca Orientalis 54/3-4: 416-423. Singer I. 1999, A Political History of Ugarit, in W.G.E. Watson, N. Wyatt (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik I/39, Leiden – Boston – Köln, Brill: 603-733. Singer I. 2000, A New Hittite Letter from Emar, in L. Milano et al. (eds.), Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East. Papers presented to the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Venezia, 7-11 July 1997, Vol. 3, Padova, S.A.R.G.O.N.: 65-72. Singer I. 2001, The Treaties with Karkamiš and Hatti, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.-8. Oktober 1999, Studien zu den Boğazköy Texten 45, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 635-641. Singer I. 2003, The Great Scribe Taki-Šarruma, in G. Beckman, R. Beal, G. McMahon (eds), Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns: 341-348. Skaist A. 1998, The Chronology of the Legal Texts from Emar, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 88: 45-71. Starke F. 1996, Zur “Regierung” des hethitischen Staates, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 2: 140-182. Stefanini R. 1962, Studi ittiti 1, Athenaeum 40/1-2: 3-36. Tani N. 2001, More about the ‘Hešni Conspiracy’, Altorientalische Forschungen 28: 154-164. Torri G., Barsacchi F.G. 2018, Hethitische Texte in Transkription: KBo 13, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 51, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. van den Hout Th.P.J. 1994, Rev. of: H. Klengel, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköy: Heft LX: Texte verschiedenen Inhalts, Bibliotheca Orientalis 51/1-2: 119-126. van den Hout Th.P.J. 1995, Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung, Studien zu den Boğazköy Texten 38, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. van den Hout Th.P.J. 1997, Hittite Canonical Compositions – Biography and Autobiography: The Proclamation of Telipinu, in W.W. Hallo et al. (eds), The Context of Scripture. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden – New York – Köln, Brill: 194-198 (No. 1.76). Werner R. 1967, Hethitische Gerichtsprotokolle, Studien zu den Boğazköy Texten 4, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. Yamada M. 2020, The King of Carchemish and the Hittite Rule of Emar, Orient. Journal of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 55: 43-61.