EXCAVATIONS AT BOGHAZ-KEUI WINCKLER AND PUCHSTEIN. 683 



friendly feeling between them was mutual. The constantly growing 

 power of Assyria must have drawn them to one another. The 

 Babylonian King to whom Hattusil's letter is addressed is not named, 

 but must have been Katashman-buriash, son of Katashman-turgu, 

 who is known as an adversary of Shalmaneser I of Assyria. This 

 letter, which comprises upward of 160 long lines, while recalling the 

 Amarna letters, differs from them in its purely political contents. 

 There is no haggling about dowries, or presents promised and not 

 received, as in the long letters between Tushratta and Amenophis III 

 and IV. In Hattusil's letter to the Babylonian King weighty mat- 

 ters of state are discussed, and, especially, information concerning the 

 influence on the succession to the throne exhibits the politics of the 

 great states in their mutual relations: 



* * * When thy father died I mourned like a good brother * * * 

 and I sent my messenger and wrote to the notables of Karduniash (Babylonia) 

 as follows: "If yon do not recognize [the son] of my brother as King, I shall 

 be your enemy. [But otherwise] if any foe attacks you or is hostile against 

 you, I shall come to your aid." * * * Neither can the people of Chattl 

 command (coerce) those of Karduniash, nor those of Chatti. I wrote to them 

 (the people of Karduniash) with a friendly intent that they may recognize the 

 posterity of my brother Katashman-turgu. * * * As to what my brother 

 writes me that I have stopped diplomatic relations, I did it on account of the 

 Beduiu peril (Ki ah-lamu — the Aramean Beduins — Nakru). * * * 



In another passage of the letter Hauttsil informs the Babylonian 

 King about his alliance with the King of Egypt, while still another 

 paragraph treats of a complaint made by the Babylonian King on 

 account of the assassination of trading people (members of a caravan) 

 on their way to Amurri and Ugarit (northern Phenicia, etc.). The 

 writer refutes the possibility of any responsibility resting on the 

 Chatti territor}^ and points out that the murderers should be delivered 

 to the relatives of the murdered. 



An insight of wide range into the history of the time is afforded by 

 the following sentences : 



I will, furthermore, say to my brother that as regards Banti-shinni, of whom my 

 brother writes, he " disturbs the land." I asked Banti-shinni, and he answered, 

 " I have a claim of 30 talents of silver against the inhabitants of Akkad." But 

 now, since Banti-shinni has become my vassel, my brother may enter a suit 

 against hiai and he shall answer in the presence of thy ambassador, Adad-shar- 

 iiani, and before tlie gods [that is, in a formal court action] concerning the dis- 

 turbances of the country of my bx'other. And if my brother will not himself 

 prosecute the action, then let thy servant [official] who has heard that Banti- 

 shinni has molested the land of my brother come and carry on the action. Then 

 I shall call Banti-shinni to answei". He is my vassal. In molesting my brother 

 does he not molest myself? 



This Banti-shinni is known from other sources, and it will later be 

 seen that he, Prince of Amurri, the Amorite, is one of the successors 

 of Azirij known or notorious from the Tel el-Amarna letters. Thus 



