Abnormal Interests

« More Special Pleading Against "Insults to Religion"
Main
On the Need to Learn From Egyptian Scribes »

June 20, 2007

Notes on the Taanach Letters

Some time ago, I posted a series of translations of the Taanach letters. At that time, I promised that I would post a few comments and my translation notes at some later time. Well, I forgot my promise. But yesterday I remembered and thought I'd better get it posted before I forget it again. If you want to read my notes, you can download a PDF file that contains them. I offer them to those of you who might be interested. Because of their tentative and incomplete nature, I would prefer that you not cite them. But feel free to interact with them here if you like. Anything else in this post is fair game. Also, my notes are not really things of great beauty. Among other things, I changed some of the fonts in the middle of the project. I discuss some words, lines and phrases in much more detail than others and the way I cite secondary material is not as consistent as one might like. Please remember, this PDF file contains a series of notes that I did not intend to be a finished work.

There are three issues that are touched on in the notes that I want to discuss here: 1) the nature of the language of these letters, 2) their place or places of origin and 3) a few of the weird names in them. Before I do that, let me remind you that the four, more or less, complete letters that I translated and, likely, the several additional fragments of letters were written in the fifteenth century BCE to one Talwashur who had some leadership responsibility at Taanach. Mayor? Governor? Prince? We are not told. At best, he is a petty king. But he is not so petty that he was able to avoid the attention of his Egyptian overlord.

I hinted at the nature of the language of these letters in my fist post.

The letters show elements of the "Canaano-Akkadian" that is so prevalent in the Amarna letters from Canaan.

My notes indicate several examples. Regarding Canaanite intrusions, Taanach letters 1 and 2 are somewhat different from Taanach letters 5 and 6. However, both sets of letters share Old Babylonian characteristics like the Amarna letters from Canaan (Rainey, 1996, II, 31; 1999, 154*).

The closest linguistic parallels to Taanach letters 1 and 2 are Amarna letters 63 and 64 both from Abdi-Aširta of Amurru (but these Amarna letters may have been written in southern Canaan) and Amarna letters 235 from Acco and 228 from Hazor. On this, see Rainey, 1996, II, 31. Each of these two Taanach letters has a different Hurrian word or derivative. Taanach 1:21 has a Hurrian word for a tree, bark or some other kind of wooden thing. Taanach 2:9 has a Hurrian word for something to do with a chariot, perhaps a leather harness. While one sees traces of Canaanite influence at several places in these to letters, they are not as obvious as in Taanach 5 and 6.

Taanach 5 and 6 have many Canaanite intrusions into their Akkadian. As Rainey, 1996, II, 31, says, they compare in language and ductus with the Amarna letters from Megiddo. The Taanach two letters express most of these Canaanite elements in their grammar, but Taanach 5:14 and 6:28(?) have the Canaanite word for "tomorrow." See my post on this word. The enclitic "-mi" is also seen in both of these letters. Taanach 6:8 uses an Egyptian loanword(?) for some kind of guard or soldiers.

The most important point is this discussion is that the Canaanite intrusions, seen in these four 15th century BCE letters, become even more frequent and pronounced in the Amarna letters from Canaan. The strange hybrid language of the Amarna letters from Canaan is part of a fairly long scribal tradition rather than a short-lived phenomenon. It is this continuity of scribal tradition in Canaan that first interested me to the Taanach letters.

Turning to the place of origin of the letters, Let me start with start with Taanach 5, a letter from one Amanhatpa to Talwashur. This letter ends, "Send them to me tomorrow to Megiddo." I see no reason to think this letter comes from anywhere other than Megiddo. In this judgment, I am in agreement Horowitz and Oshima, 140, and presumably with Rainey, 2005, 76. But Rainey 1996, II, 31, indicates that this letter, as well as Taanach 6, is from Gaza.

The problem comes when we turn to Taanach 6, also from Amanhatpa to Talwashur. While Amanhatpa gives Talwahur directions for the delivery of booty and tribute in lines 25-30, where it is to be delivered is now unreadable. The focus of the problem with Taanach 6 is apparent in lines 12-14 which I translate (in general agreement with Horowitz and Oshima, 140), "In addition, (when) I was in Gaza you did not come to me." But Rainey, 2005, 76, translates these words, "Furthermore, I am in Gaza and you do not come before me." If Rainey's translation is correct, than he is likely correct in thinking the letter came from Gaza. But I believe there are two issues that argue against this interpretation. The first involves the usage of a modified West Semitic verbal form in line 13. On this, see my notes. The second involves a somewhat larger issue. The common ductus and language of Taanach 5 and 6 (see Rainey, 1996, II 31), would favor the same scribe or scribal tradition. As noted above, their ductus is also very similar to the ductus of the Amarna letters from Megiddo. In addition, they both share the use of the North-west Semitic enclitic -mi and other Canaanitisms. It is hard to believe that Amanhatpa would have a scribe from Megiddo come down to Gaza to work for him. Rather, I, like Horowitz and Oshima, 140, think in more likely that both letters originated at Megiddo.

I agree with Rainey, 2005, 76 that when Amanhatpa arrived in Gaza from Egypt he expected that the various leaders in Canaan would come there to greet him and deliver tribute and that Talwashur was a no show. Amanhatpa was not at all happy about this fact. For this reason, I think, again with Rainey, that Amanhatpa sent Taanach 6 before Taanach 5. I just think he sent it after he arrived at Megiddo. By the time of Taanach 5, conditions had changed some and Amanhatpa was now following up again from Megiddo with a still terser note to Talwashur. But even so, the order of these letters is not certain. Amanhatpa could have easily marched the less than five miles to Taanach and stepped on Talwashur but a couple of official letters before such action was even easier. I think they worked.

[If you see squares, rectangles or something else doesn't look right, please install the Charis SIL font.]

The place of origin of Taanach 1 and 2 is even more uncertain. It is conceivable, based on Taanach 2:22 that the sender of this letter, Ahiami, was in a place called Raḫabu. This is what Rainey, 2005, 76 thinks. The site may be Rehob/Rehov (Tell eṣ-Ṣârem in the Beth-shean valley) (Rainey, 2005, 75). To be sure, Ahiami wants Talwahur to allow one Ilurpî to "enter into" (go to) Raḫabu. But does this mean that Ahiami is himself there? One thing is very obvious, Ahiami is Talwashur's superior. "I am responsible for everything that is produced in the villages (Taanach 2:15-16)" including Talwahur's villages. Rehov is nearly 17 miles (27.2 km) east of Taanach as the crow flies and even further by foot because of the intervening hills including Mount Gilboa. To be sure, Taanach may have been in an administrative district with headquarters at Rehov but I think it more likely that the local administrative center was Megiddo just 7.7 km (4.8 miles) north by northwest. Both are on the southwesternly edge of the Jezreel valley. Again, one cannot be sure of place of origin.

Taanach 1 is still another matter. Ehli-Tešub, the sender, seems to be Talwahur's equal rather than his superior. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he was from a town of equal size or importance. They may have just held the same administrative position. The town of Rubuti is mentioned in line 26. Rainey thinks this town is the source of this letter. But to me it does not appear that Ehli-Tešub is there. He seems to be speaking of a third party in Rubuti. He is asking for word concerning someone who does not appear to be wherever he is. As important, this letter has a similar ductus to Taanach 1 although both are different from that seen in Taanach 5 and 6. In my view, the same scribe likely wrote Taanach 1 and 2. As discussed above, the scribe who crafted Taanach 1 and 2 tended to use fewer and somewhat different Canaanitisms than the scribe of Taanach 5 and 6. If the same scribe did indeed write both Taanach 1 and 2, the probability that they came from the same place is enhanced considerably.

My own speculation, and it is nothing more than that, is that Ahiami was appointed regional administrator at Megiddo when Amanhatpa left for Egypt leaving behind "an empty house." And Ehli-Tešub was appointed in turn as something like mayor of Megiddo making him comparable in rank with Talwahur at Taanach. Like all speculations, there are more than a few problems with mine. It does not account for the obvious differences in language and ductus between Taanach 1 and 2 on the one hand and Taanach 5 and 6 on the other. Part of this difference is explainable by claiming that different scribes wrote them and this is without doubt true. It is even conceivable that there were more than two scribes involved in these four letters but I doubt it. There is a lot of commonality within each of the two sets of letters. The larger problem is that Taanach 1 and 2 do not appear to be in the "Megiddo" scribal tradition. Differences in linguistic details between the two sets of letters are also problematic and I have already indicated that both Taanach 1 and Taanach 2 do mention geographical names other than Megiddo and do not mention Megiddo at all. However, any attempt to reconstruct the history and origin of these letters has its own set of problems.

Turning to the strange names: Let's start with Talwashur to whom all four letters are addressed. As far as I know, all scholars see Talwashur as a Hurrian name. There is a minor dispute on how to pronounce the last vowel but this dispute as no impact on the Hurrian nature of the name. Ehli-Teshub of Taanach 1 has a name that clearly contains a Hurrian theophoric element. On the other hand, Ahiami of Taanach 2 seems to have a Semitic name. Does it mean "Brother of Yamm" or the like? It is of interests that these two letters each contain a different Hurrian word. On the issue of the Hurrain population in Caanan at this time, see Na'anman, 1994.

And then we have Amanhatpa the correspondent of Taanach 5 and 6. This name is clearly Egyptian. It is also clear that he is not a local! While one might speculate that he is a Pharaoh or future Pharaoh, it is likely best to follow Rainey, 2006, 76 who says, "Today it seems more likely that the Amenhatep was an Egyptian officer on a military mission, including the collecting of tribute."

These are indeed fascinating letters and there is much more to say about them. But for now, I can rest comfortably knowing that at last I have fulfilled one of my promises. What other promises have I forgotten? Perhaps I should ask Shirley. Perhaps not!

References:

Posted by Duane Smith at June 20, 2007 7:59 PM | Read more on Akkadian |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2150

Tags: