The article is devoted to the interaction of the Middle Euphrates Khana, Babylonia and their northern neighbor, the Hurrian Hanigalbat in the XVI century BC. The author comes to the following conclusions: around 1600, the Khana was part of Babylonia, then, with the fall of the Hammurabi dynasty in 1595 and the seizure of the Babylonian throne by the Kassites, it separated and formed an independent Amorite kingdom, and around 1560 it was occupied by the Hurrian dynasties of Hanigalbat. After the capture of the Hanigalbat throne by the new, "Indo-Aryan" Mitannic dynasties (c. 1550), the old rulers of Hanigalbat remained for some time in Khan, which was annexed by the Mitannians only by the end of the XVI century. The fate of the famous statue of Marduk, taken by the Hittites from Babylon in 1595, is discussed anew in this connection and restored as follows: for about 25 years it was in Hatti, then it was captured by the Hurrians of Hanigalbat, and the new, "Mitannian" dynasty of the latter returned it to Babylon.

In this paper, we would like to demonstrate new possibilities for reconstructing the Mesopotamian history of the "dark" period of the 16th century BC. These possibilities are partly due to recent discoveries at Khan on the Middle Euphrates 1, and partly due to the reinterpretation of some important sources proposed below. By the 1970s, fairly detailed "political portraits" of Mesopotamia from around 1650 and 1500 BCE had been developed, and the difference between them was large enough to indicate a real geopolitical upheaval .2 In the mid-17th century, Lower Mesopotamia was dominated by the Babylonian kingdom of the Hammurabi dynasty, while Upper Mesopotamia was divided between two powers: the Amorite kingdom of Khan on the Middle Euphrates and the Hurrian union known as "Hurri" and "Hanigalbat", to the north of it. At the same time, it has long been established that it was in the Khan's kingdom that a group of Kassite aliens lived since the XVIII century, ruled by the gens of a certain Gandash-the same gens that seized the Babylonian throne in the XVI century. It is possible that in the 17th century, the Gandash family sometimes ascended to the throne of the Khana itself (at least in one such case, it is difficult to doubt 3 ), but mostly it was occupied by Amorite dynasties-natives of the Canaanite tribal community, after which the whole country was named.

By the end of the sixteenth century, the picture had changed radically. After the capture of Babylon by the Hittites in 1595 (the only significant and reliably known event in the political life of Mesopotamia in the XVI century), the Hammurabi dynasty in Babylonia was replaced by the house of Gandash, i.e. Kassita Khans. Similarly, by 1500, Hurri-Hanigalbat had been taken over by an Indo-Aryan dynasty, bearing the political name " Mitanni "(which became a new, additional name for Hanigalbat) .4

page 5

1-borders of the states of the Near East around 1600

2-Kassite Babylonia in the 16th century BC

3-Hurri-Hanigalbat on the eve of the rise to power of the Mitanni dynasty and Hurrian raids on Hittite possessions during the reign of Hantilis I (1570s)

page 6

The Middle Euphrates kingdom of the Khan seems to have ceased to exist by this time and is no longer mentioned in the sources.

The exact course of all these changes was anyone's guess. The most popular hypothesis was that the Kassite leaders of the Khans at some point replaced the Amorite dynasties in the Khana itself, and later, based on the Khana, took advantage of the Hittite victory over the house of Hammurabi in 1595 and captured Babylon (while apparently in alliance with the Hittites, who probably passed through their territory) 5 . This concept corresponded to the facts known to orientalism about half a century ago, but the further it went, the less consistent it became with the new data. In particular, the reign of Kashtiliash, the king of Khana, according to the materials of Khana itself , was much earlier than the time of the Kassite conquest of Babylon 6. Meanwhile, this Kashtiliash remains the only Kassite in the very densely filled with names of the Amorite dynasties of Khana, most of whom, according to paleographic and stratigraphic data, succeeded him. If we include these data in the reconstruction described above, it would appear that the Amorites again succeeded Kassit Kashtiliash on the Haneian throne for a long time, and hypothetically the later group of Kassite kings who finally succeeded them, allegedly seizing Babylon based on the Khan after 1595, is not reflected in the rather detailed Haneian sources at all.

Further, the highly detailed titulature of Agum II Kakrime , an early Kassite king of Babylon who ruled between 1595 and the end of the 16th century, lists individual ethnic groups and areas of his power: Kassites, Akkadians, Kutians, Land of Babylon, Ashnunnak, Padan, and Alman, but does not mention Khan. As far as we know, I. M. Diakonov was the first to point out that when all the other regions were listed, this means that Hanoi Agum did not own 7. Thus, three possibilities opened up: the Khan was taken away from Kassite Babylonia by the Upper Mesopotamian Hurrians of Hurri-Hanigalbat, who had grown stronger at that time ; the Khan was separated from it itself; the Khan did not belong to the Kassite leaders at all (with the sole exception of Kashtiliash) and after 1595 continued to remain an Amorite kingdom independent of Babylonia. The state of available sources did not allow us to resolve this issue.

Meanwhile, the recently discovered Hana 9 papers call for a radical revision of the above concepts. The texts from Terka, made in the usual specific style of tablets of the Haneian Kingdom of the XVIII-XVI centuries BC, contain dates:

(a) by previously known Khana kings (Kassit and Amorite dynasties);

(b) according to the old Babylonian Ammitsaduke (1646-1626) and Samsuditana (1625-1595), the last kings of the Hammurabi dynasty;

(c) several previously unknown kings with Hurrian names (note that the Hurrians could rule Hanoi only from the Upper Mesopotamian Hurri-Hanigalbat);

(d) according to Parrattarna and Saussadattar, famous Mitanni kings of the first half-middle of the 15th century .

The last two links can only correspond to the above sequence of two kingdoms in Upper Mesopotamia (a purely Hurrian Hanigalbat of the XVII century and the same Hurri-Hanigalbat occupied by a new Indo-Aryan dynasty associated with the name "Mitanni") and themselves definitively prove this sequence. These dates also confirm that by the end of the XVI century. Khana was indeed subject to the Upper Mesopotamian Hurrians. Even more fundamental are the dates from the reigns of Ammitsaduka and Samsuditana: they prove that under these kings, i.e. at the end of the XVII century, the Khan no longer existed as an independent state, being absorbed into Babylonia 11 ! Obviously, this one

page 7

the situation was caught by the fall of Samsuditana in 1595. Then the Kassites conquered Babylonia and replaced the Amorite dynasty, being not kings or residents of a special Canaanite kingdom, but subjects of Babylonia itself, and this is a completely ordinary internal coup in a defeated country, completely analogous to the coming to power of the Amorites themselves in the states that succeeded the third dynasty of Ur half a thousand years earlier. 12

However, in the context of such an internal upheaval, the Amorite Khan could easily have separated from Babylonia, which was affected by the turmoil and the struggle of the Kassites with the Primorye people, restoring the independence lost two generations ago. So, we are left with the following options for reconstructing the Babylonian-Canaanite interaction in the first half of the XVI century.:

A. Around 1600, Khana belongs to the Old Babylonian kingdom of Samsuditana. After his death in 1595, the Khan separated from Babylonia and by the time of Agum II remained out of Babylonian power, and the Kassites of the "Gandasha group", i.e., those who came from among the Haneian Kassites, seized power in the main part of Babylonia. Subsequently, the independent Khana fell under the rule of the Khurri Khanigalbat and by 1500 was in the hands of the Mitanni kings (Parattarna, etc.)who succeeded the Khurri dynasty.;

B. C. 1600, Khana, part of Babylonia. After 1595, this situation did not change, and the Haneian Kassites came to power in the Babylonian Kingdom, which includes Hana. Accordingly, Khana was then torn from Babylonia itself by Hurri - Hanigalbat; by the time of Agum II, it was already outside the sphere of Babylonian rule, and subsequently passed into the hands of the Mitanni conquerors of Hurri-Hanigalbat.

The choice between these two options is made possible by the discovery of A. H. Podani, who demonstrated that the Amorite kings Khans, starting with Isharlim (the seventh king in a long - established sequence of eleven or twelve independent Haneian dynasties known to us), should have ruled already in the Middle Babylonian period, i.e. after 1595, and not in the XVII century., as previously thought 13 . We are talking about five kings who belonged to two family groups, 14 and at least three to four generations15 . In general, such a series of kings could hardly have reigned for less than a few decades16, and then the earliest possible time for the replacement of the Amorite Khans by the Hurrian dynasties would be approximately 1560-1550. Thus, an independent Amorite Khan in the sixteenth century did indeed still exist after 1595, which clearly forces us to choose option A from the two options listed above.

The resulting series of events can be significantly supplemented by information about the movement of the statue of Marduk from Babylon to the Hittites and back, which was often involved in the study of this topic .17 Two major monuments speak of this event: the Prophecy of Marduk and the Aguma II inscription.

A later Babylonian religious text, the so-called "Prophecy of Marduk", represents any enforced absence of the statue of Marduk from Babylon (in reality caused, no doubt, by the capture of its enemies). as the good will of Marduk himself, and also for the benefit of the Babylonians. At the same time, on behalf of Marduk, it is said: "(I, 13-22) I went to the country of Hatti (mat Hat-ti), made proceedings against the Hittites (Hat-ti-i, without a determinative), set up the throne of my rule in the middle of it (this country). I spent 24 years in it, and arranged for caravans of Babylonians to come there. [Slaves?The wealth and goods of this country went to Sippar, Nippur, and Babylon. " 18 The following table, hypothetically made up of two pieces of wreckage, 19 reported the exodus of Marduk from Hatti back to Babylon. 20

Then, after a gap of indeterminate but hardly significant size, follows the story of similar" journeys " of Marduk, first to Assyria, and then to Elam (i.e., actually about the removal of the statue of Marduk by Tukultininurta I and the Elamites in the XIII century).?

page 8

the endings of the relevant passages are interesting: in both cases, after describing his sojourn in Assyria and Elam and the deeds he did there, Marduk continues: "(I, 10-16: describes Marduk's sojourn in Assyria). (...) I have blessed Assyria. I gave him (the patronizing person. - A. N.) Yes, I gave him the right promises. I turned home. Moving back (ahhisa) to Babylon, I said: "Bring, (O) countries, your tribute to Babylon!"; (I, 18. ff. + II, 1-18: describes Marduk's sojourn in Elam) (...) I've completed my days, I've completed my years. Then I set out (ubia) for Babylon, my city, Ekur and Esagila. I called all the goddesses together; I ordered, " Bring, O countries, your tribute to Babylon!" What follows (II 19ff.) is the prophecy itself, where Marduk speaks only of what will happen to him in the future .21

The Hittite "journey" of Marduk was naturally compared by all researchers with the capture of Babylon by the troops of Mursilis I - the only historical episode that could lead to the transfer of the main religious and state value of Babylon to Hatti and, moreover, completely analogous to the same forced removal of the statue of Marduk to Assyria and Elam, presented in the "Prophecy" as its second and the third "travel". Consequently, Hatti Marduk must have been located around 1595-1571. Let us emphasize, however, that " 24 "is from the Babylonian point of view a "round" (multiple of six) number, and in reality numbers from at least 21 to 27, if not wider, could be given to this type, so it would be more accurate to attribute the end of Marduk's stay with the Hittites to 1574-1568.

Further, we will note that our text is of late origin and its purpose is not to describe the history of Babylonia or the fate of the statue of Marduk in general, but only to extract individual episodes of the latter's departure from Babylon and interpret them in a way that is beneficial for Marduk and his city. In particular, as can be seen from the already destroyed context of I, 30-37 (see note. 20) and finally establish from the conclusions of the second and third "journeys" of Marduk, the very process of his return to Babylon does not interest the compiler of the text at all: In all cases, the narrative ends with Marduk's departure from the country of temporary residence, rather than his arrival in Babylon. The latter, apparently, was perceived as an automatic consequence of Marduk's decision to return to his hometown and thus did not attract attention as part of the "Prophecies"task.

Thus, the generally accepted assumption that Marduk immediately returned to Babylon after his 24-year stay in Hatti is no more than a conditional, if convenient, assumption. In fact, Marduk had just left Hatti at this point, and he could have gone from there to Babylonia through other countries, and stayed there for quite a long time; we should still not expect such a stay to be reflected in the text, since it would naturally be perceived only as an intermediate stage of Marduk's return to Babylon, but rather as an intermediate stage of Marduk's return to Babylon. the latter was not subject to any special description at all22 .

So, after leaving Hatti, Marduk did not necessarily go directly to Babylon; any intervening episode might not have been mentioned at all in the text, given its nature (or described by it in pp. 23-37, see note 22). The meaning of these remarks will become clear when we turn to the second most important source on our subject, the semi - apocryphal inscription of Agum II Kakrime, who reigned just around the time when Marduk "sojourned" in Hatti .23 An inscription written on behalf of Agum reads: "(I, 44 - II, 17) When Marduk (...) The great gods were persuaded to return to Babylon, and Marduk turned his face to Babylon. I turned to Marduk for help (...) And I sent to a far country, the land of the Hani (mat Ha-ni-i); the hands of Marduk and Tsarpanit they (the people of the Hani) embraced, and I brought back Marduk and Tsarpanit (...) to Esagila and Babylon " 24 .

page 9

Given the time of this event, experts unanimously consider this episode to be the end of the very journey of Marduk, which began with the removal of the statue to Hatti, reflected in the "Prophecy". However, the fact that this episode ends Marduk's 24-year stay in Hatti, as defined by the Prophecy, is again only a conditional assumption: as we have just seen, Marduk may have been in a third country for some time. And if, all other things being equal, such an assumption would be convenient, then in our case there are direct contraindications to it. After all, although according to the "Prophecy" Marduk, after leaving Babylon, was in the "land of Hatti", judging by the inscription, Agum returns him from the "land of Hani" - so with the natural perception of the sources, we can only assume that from Hatti the statue of Marduk somehow got to the third country, Hani, and what kind of place it was."it was hers at the time, and from there it was sent to Babylon at Agum's request. It would seem that this interpretation should have been considered preferable from the very beginning, since it satisfies the requirements of both sources and does not contradict anything 25 . Nevertheless, a significant number of researchers, tacitly accepting that the end of Marduk's 24-year stay in Hatti according to the "Prophecy" should coincide with his arrival in Babylon according to the Aguma inscription, i.e. with his return from Hani, found themselves faced with the need to eliminate the (actually false) contradiction seen here. At the same time , some arbitrarily corrected the "Hatti" of the "Prophecies of Marduk" to "Hani" and identified this country as the Middle Euphrates Khan, 26 while others also arbitrarily considered Hani Agum II to be the equivalent of Hatti .27 Both of these corrections are examples of completely arbitrary emendation of the text, and as long as we have the opportunity to consistently explain the presence of both horonyms in the sources (and as we saw above, we have such an opportunity, and it is quite natural and does not require any stretching), we will not have the right to appeal to "errors scribes."

Other experts, following the direct meaning of both texts, admit that the statue of Marduk was taken from Babylon by the Hittites, but Agum returned it from the "land of Hani" 28 . This raises new questions for them: how did the statue get from the Hittites to the "land of the Hani", and what kind of country is it? Let us first consider the first problem that causes great controversy. Thus, some believe that at the time reflected in the Aguma inscription, the statue of Marduk belonged to the "country of Hani", and they conclude from this that the Hittites in 1595 took the statue out of Babylon through the" country of Hani " (hereinafter - decision A) and either transferred it there themselves 29, or it was delayed there for some reason, Mursilis also returned to Hattusa without her, and after his death the statue was appropriated by the rulers of Hani. 30 Others believe that by the time of Agum, the statue was located in Hatti, and the "country of Hani" was nothing more than an intermediate stage of its return to Babylon, carried out by the Hittites (hereinafter - decision B) 31 ; the fact that only "the land of Hani" is included in the text of the Agum (i.e., not the starting point, but only the intermediate point of the return journey) is hypothetically explained by the fact that it was in "Hani", halfway along the road, that the statue was allegedly met and accepted by the Babylonians .32 In both cases, Marduk's 24-year stay in Hatti is almost identical to his absence from Babylon 33 . When evaluating these versions, consider the following::

1) If the Hittites had left the statue at Hani without taking it to Hattusa, then the detailed description of Marduk's 24-year stay in the land of Hatti itself is "prophesied" ("went to the land of Hatti... and spent 24 years in it") instead of simply pointing out the export of it by the Hittites, about which the "Prophecy" just does not say anything, it would be completely meaningless. In turn, it would be strange that the " Prophecy "does not mention in detail "Hani", where Marduk, at the time of decision A, mostly stayed. Thus, it remains to postulate the notorious "scribe's error" 34 . Meanwhile, according to the direct and very significant descriptions of the "Prophecy", Marduk was brought

page 10

it is in Hatti. Besides, is it possible that the victorious Mursilis took away from Babylon the embodiment of the most vivid "kingship" of the entire Near East, only to immediately leave it to the petty rulers of the neighboring country? 35 . Thus, solution A seems unacceptable to us;

2) It would be much more natural to return the statue to Babylon to the rulers of a certain country adjacent to Babylonia and not particularly significant, and not to the powerful Ancient Hittite kingdom. What could the ancient Hittite kings of the sixteenth century, who had no connection with Babylon, be so interested in giving Agum such a rare treasure captured by their predecessor, of which, by the way, they were very proud? 36 Further, the fact that Agum sends for Marduk in "Hani" (and it is the inhabitants of "Hani" who embrace the hands of Marduk and Tsarpanit in return) proves that this country was not just a transit point through which Mar-duk returned to Babylon, but another country of his permanent residence, the undisputed owner of the city. his statues. Thus, solution B also disappears.

Obviously, we must look for some other explanation for the statue's move from Hatti to Hani and accept the general course of events as drawn by a direct comparison of our texts: the removal of the statue of Marduk to Hatti in 1595 (1) - its transfer to Hani (2) - its return to Babylon (3).

In the literal interpretation of the Marduk Prophecy, the interval between events (1) and (2) is 24 years, and the interval between events (2) and (3) is unknown (i.e., the scribe did not give it, or gave it in a destroyed passage, or did not know about it at all; recall that in the " Prophecy"we are dealing with late retrieval) 37 .

So, all we know about the moment of Marduk's return to Babylon is that it took place some time after 1574-1568. The connection of this event with the reign of Agum II is chronologically useless for us, because all that can be said about Agum II himself is that he began to reign after the establishment of the Kassite dynasty in Babylon, i.e. after 1595.38

Further, what kind of country can the term "Hani" mean? Most researchers identify it with the Kassite - Amorite Hana on the middle Euphrates 39 . However, the name of this country in all other known cases - from the XIX to the XIII centuries - is invariably written as non-declinable (mat) Hana, with the ending in-a 40 . As a result, these researchers are forced to assume that the text of the Agum again uses the descriptive construction "Land of the Haneis", where "hani" (with the base *hana + relative i -, "hanaisk -") will be the correct form of the relative "haney", formed from the non-declinable horonym Hana 41 . Other experts prefer to see the " country of Hani "as some other country, as yet unknown. 42

When evaluating the above opinions, we have:

1) In Akkadian sources, the term mat Hani can only be compared with two specific registered toponyms: Middle Euphrates Hana (only theoretically, see above) and Upper Mesopotamian Hanigalbat (with certainty, see below). Obviously, before resorting to other assumptions and adding new, unknown "Khans", it is necessary to check the possibility of choosing one of these toponyms;

2) Both countries satisfy the above-suggested criterion, according to which the" country of Hani", which ceded Marduk to Babylon, should have been in the sphere of its real influence. However, the epithet "far country" (ruqti II, 9), emphatically used by Agum in relation to his "country of Hani", as noted long ago, cannot refer to the Khan bordering on Babylonia and until recently part of it, which was also the long-term residence of the Agum dynasty itself. But this epithet is very well suited to Hanigalbat, cut off from Babylonia by Hana on the Euphrates and Assur on the Tigris;

page 11

3) As the name of the country, "Hana", we repeat, is always written as a non-declinable name with the ending in-a, including in the Middle Assyrian era. But in the same era, Shulmanuashared I, describing in his inscription "a campaign against the country of Hanigalbat "(mat Hanigalbat), in one of the variants in the title of Sattuara, king of Hanigalbat, instead of the usual mat Hanigalbat, writes mat Ha-ni - "the country of Hani". Thus, the term we are interested in (as an abbreviation or, rather, a rare synonym) was really used to refer to Hanigalbat. This is not surprising, since a real and philological connection can be easily demonstrated between these names. First, we bury the Hanigalbat, which is undoubtedly a composite one, and the first part of it is our Hani -. Therefore, it is possible to assume that the entire horonym is derived from this basis, and, accordingly, it is quite possible to use them synonymously 44 . Second, in the 18th century BC, the Haneis-the West Semitic tribe after which the "land of the Khan" was named - lived mainly in the Khabur Valley up to its source on the one hand (covering the geographical region of Idamarats) and to the point of its confluence with the Euphrates, on the other, this river the Prikhabur territory was the "country of the Khan", different from the" countries " of Tuttul and Mari in the titulature of the Mari kings .45 But it was on this territory-more precisely, in its northern half, on the upper Khabur - that the heart of the Hurrian Khanigalbat 46 was located in the following centuries, while the northern border of the Khana moved south to Sagaratum 47 ! The state of Hanigalbat thus originated on the territory of the Khans/Haneis (and, indeed, it is known only from the 17th century BC, i.e. from the era when the Hurriyans ousted the Amorites from Upper Mesopotamia); hence the similarity of the names of these two countries is not surprising. Third, the Hanik/Galbat composite is Akkadian-like, not Hurrian-like (ending in-at); recall that it was used exclusively in Akkadian-language texts .48 Then it is convenient to explain this term as a combination of Akkadian bases: the horonym Hani - and the common galb - "cut off, separate" - with the general meaning of " segment "(from the territory) "khan/hani-". But as we have just found out, the early Hanigalbat was just a "segment" from the territory of the Middle Euphrates Haneis.

All this, in our opinion, allows us to draw the following conclusion: in the XVIII century, Ak-Kada-language texts know the Middle Euphrates country of the Hana (mat Hana), inhabited by the Hanu people .49 When the Hurrians formed their own state in a large part of the Canaanite territory, pushing the Canaanites to the south, the rejected region received the Akkadian relative-genitive name mat Hani "the country of the Canaanites belonging to the Khan" (and not "Khan"!) or composite mat Hanigalbat - "The area cut off from the Canaanites". The latter name was adopted by the official Akkadian-speaking Hanigalbat Hurrians, spread and almost completely replaced the former.

If we accept this conclusion, then the" country of Hani " of Agum II should denote Hanigalbat; if we do not accept it, this possibility is still provided by the word usage of Shulmanuashared 1 (especially important against the background of the widespread spelling of the Middle Euphrates Khana through-a) .50 ;

4) It is not particularly convenient to assume that mat Hani in Agum means "the land of the Canaanites", because the actual country of the Canaanites has always been called simply "Hana" in Akkadian, and it is not clear why the compilers of the Agum inscription would invent a descriptive genitive construction for it instead of simply naming this country her name (especially since all other Akkadian texts do so);

5) How did the statue of Marduk get from Hatti to the land of Hani? If Khani is a Middle Euphrates Khana as a special Kassite-Amorite state, then this displacement will be very difficult to explain (cf. above, analysis of solution A). But if

page 12

Khani is a Khanigalbat or even a part of it (including the Middle Euphrates Khana itself, which by that time was part of it), continuing its state tradition, the possibilities for such a move will be quite obvious: As is well known, under Hantilis I (the Hittite king of the first third of the sixteenth century), the Hurrians devastated almost the entire Hittite kingdom, 51 and could easily have taken possession of any treasures there, including the statue of Marduk.

All these considerations are consistent with each other and lead us to believe that the "land of Hani" of Agum II was Hanigalbat.

What was happening in Hanoi at that time? The dating formulas of the Haneian documents suggest that the kings of Hurri-Hanigalbat took possession of Amorite Hanoi, and even before the Mitannic dynasty was established in the latter (or at least simultaneously with this event) .52

Putting together all our observations, we get the following series of events::

(A) 1600 The kingdom of Samsuditana extends from the borders of Primorye up to and including Khana. In Khana and in the area of the old Canaanite-Babylonian border, Kassites live, which can move to Babylon itself. ;

(B) 1595 and the coming years. The Hittite defeat of Babylon 54 . The departure of the Hittites, who took with them the statue of Marduk, the collapse and anarchy in the country, the separation of the Khans as an independent Amorite kingdom, the invasion of the troops of Gulkishar of the Seaside in Babylonia 55, the seizure of power by the leader of the Canaanite Kassites from the house of Gandash over most of the Old Babylonian Kingdom (without the Khans);

(C) The end of the Amorite rule in Khan, the capture of the Domitannian Hurri-Khanigalbat by the Hurrians-not earlier than 1560 (otherwise there is not enough chronological space for the Khana dynasties identified by A. Podani, who ruled after 1595). This event begins the period of the rule of kings with Hurrian names in Khan (at the earliest - the third quarter of the XVI century). B.);

(D) The reign of Hantilis I in Hatti (circa 1580s-1560s). The rulers of Hani-galbat capture a statue of Marduk there when they defeat Hatti (=end of Marduk's 24-year "Hittite journey" between 1574 and 1568?);

(E) After event (D), with an unknown interval. The rulers of Hanigalbat ("the Land of Hani") issue a statue of Marduk to Aguma II;

(F) The takeover of Hanigalbat by the Indo-Aryan "Mitanni" dynasty. It should be placed no earlier than the event (C), since otherwise there would be no place for kings with Hurrian names to appear in the Canaanite dating formulas;

(G) With an unknown (possibly zero) interval after events (C) and (F): transition from the "Hurrian" to the "Mitannian" Khana; circa 1500, the Khana is subject to the Mitannian kings. The exact nature of this transition is unknown to us; all other things being equal, it would be easiest to assume that the Mitanni inherited Khana as part of the previously absorbed Hurri - Khanigalbat when they were established in the latter 56 .

The key event of the period, on the placement of which one or another interpretation of the entire given series of events depends (first of all, the so-far unknown mutual ratio of segments [B-C], [D-E] and [F-G, with F after C or simultaneously with C]), is the event F-the statement of the "Mitannian formula"."the Indo-Aryan dynasty in Hanigalbat. Let us accept as a plausible hypothesis that this statement was an important coup that somehow changed the geopolitical situation in the region; let us now check whether there are any hints of such a coup in our sources.

As is known, during the reigns of the ancient Hittites Hattusilis, Mursilis and Hantilis, i.e. for four consecutive generations (c.1645-1565), Hurri-Hanigalbat was the worst enemy of the Hittites, twice subjecting the Hittite kingdom to a terrible defeat (under Hattusilis and Hantilis), despite the fact that this was the time of the highest power of the Ancient Hatti. However, after the repulse of the Hurrian invasion-

page 13

during the reign of Hantilis, the Hurrians and Hanigalbat completely disappear from the ranks of Hittite enemies and are not mentioned in this capacity either under Ammunas (mid-XVI century), when many neighboring countries began to be hostile to the Hittites, or under Telepinus (c. 1500), when he himself fought in south-eastern Asia Minor. As a result, Hanigalbat was eliminated from the ranks of the Hittite enemies for about a century .57 Thus, around the second quarter of the sixteenth century, Hanigalbat's foreign policy took a sharp turn that permanently excluded him from opposing the Hittites. Hatti itself, which was for the most part in an unmistakable decline at this time, could not, of course, have produced such a result (which, as we have seen, was not possible at the best of times). Then it remains to connect the latter with some sudden internal changes in Hanigalbat, which dramatically and permanently changed his foreign policy concept or simply forced him to abandon an active foreign policy.

Then, at about the same time, around the 1550s (if not later!), the "land of Hani", i.e. Hanigalbat, gives Agum, at his request, the statue of Marduk that it had held until then. That this was not an act of goodwill by the Hanigalbat rulers themselves is clear from the fact that Agum clearly emphasizes his initiative in returning the statue. Given the value of the latter, we must conclude that this is a very significant concession on the part of the Hanigalbat. Thus, we can assume some changes in the foreign policy situation of this country, which could give Agum hope for the success of the initiative to return Marduk to Babylon and really ensured such success.

As we can see, around the second quarter of the 16th century, the international position of Hanigalbat changed dramatically for the worse: from its previous rapid expansion, it moved to a prolonged passivity in the Hittite direction and significant concessions in the Babylonian one. Since we do not seem to know the external factors that can cause such a change in this era, it is advisable to consider it the fruit of some internal coup in Hanigalbat, which led to a weakening of foreign policy and, accordingly, an extreme peacefulness of this country.

Since the Mitanni dynasty's seizure of power in Hurri - Hanigalbat falls exactly at the time when the internal revolution reconstructed above was supposed to take place, it seems possible to relate these events to each other. Indeed, it is the rulers of a new dynasty, Indo-Aryan in origin, who are alien to the newly acquired country and have not managed to take root in it, who would be significantly limited in their ability to conduct an active foreign policy or effectively resist the claims of the traditional powers of the region.

If we accept the proposed considerations as a working hypothesis, we will also get the terminus ante quern for the accession of the Mitanni dynasty in Hanigalbat - the end of the second quarter of the XVI century (the time of the delivery of the statue of Marduk to Babylon58 and the end of the Hurrian onslaught on Hatti).

So, analyzing the subjects relevant to our topic, we came to the conclusion that the establishment of the Hurrians of Hanigalbat in Khan and the Mitanni-in Hanigalbat itself occurred approximately at the same time (1560-1550-ies), and the annexation of the Khans by the Mitanni took place by the end of the XVI century. If we do not sacrifice one of these presumptive dates for the sake of another, then they will assume the following refinement of our event series:

- Around 1570, the Hurrians of the Domitian Hanigalbat capture a statue of Marduk in Hatti. End of Marduk's" 24-year " stay in Hatti (Event D);

- not earlier than the end of the 1560s. (circa 1560?). Hanigalbat Hurrians capture Khana (event C);

page 14

"around 1550?" The Mitanni dynasty comes to power in Hanigalbat and gives the statue of Marduk to Babylon (events F and E); at the same time, the old Hurrian rulers of Hanigalbat are held in Khan, on the newly acquired outskirts of their state. Thus begins the period of coexistence of the Hurrian Khana (post-Korean rulers of Terka with Hurrian names) and the new, "Mitannian" Hurri-Hanigalbat;

- end of the XVI century. Capture of the Hurrian Khana by the Mitanni. Dating by Parrattar-ne Khan (c. 1500 and later).

The resulting scheme could be significantly simplified by combining the second and third of these events together and assuming that it was the Mitanni dynasty that seized power in Hanigalbat around 1560 and forced its former Hurrian rulers into Khana (which became their base for several decades, but by the turn of the XVI-XV centuries was absorbed by the same Mitanni dynasty)..

notes

Padany A. H. 1 A Middle Babylonia Date for the Hana Kingdom / / Journal of Cuneiform Studies (hereinafter - JCS). V. 43-45. 1991-1993. P. 53-62 (with bibliography).

2 См. Landsberger B. Assyrische Konigsliste und "Dunkles Zeitalter" // JCS. V. 8. 1954. S. 63-68; Carter Т.Н. Studies in Kassite History and Archaelogy. Bryn Mawr, 1962. P. 32, 53-64, 87; Buccellati G. The Kingdom and Period of Khana / / Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. V. 270. 1988. P. 43-61; Diakonov I. M. Istoriya Drevnego Vostoka. Ch. 1/1. M., 1983. pp. 386, 390-391, 416-419.

3 One of the Khana kings of the time we are interested in bears the Kassite name Kashtiliash, which is also found in the list of early rulers of the Kassite dynasty of Gandasha, in the part related to the XVII century. On the Chronology of the Second Millennium B.C. // JCS. V. 11. 1957. P. 64-65.

4 The Upper Mesopotamian state of Hurri-Hanigalbat is known by these names from sources dating back to the reign of Hattusilis I (the second half of the 17th century). Another name of this state, "Mitanni", appears in sources only from the end of the 16th century. Mitannian kings of the 15th-14th centuries are called "kings of the warriors of Hurri" and are single-power rulers with indo-Aryan names. Meanwhile, in the old Hittite text QUo III 60, dedicated to wars against the kingdom of Halpa (such wars were fought by the Old Hittites only under Hattusilis I and at the beginning of the reign of Mursilis), it is said about the joint "kings of warriors Hurri - Uvanti, Uruditti, Arga..., Uwagassani" (QUo III 60 iii 14-16). All these names are Hurrian, and the title certifies that we are talking about the rulers of Hanigalbat and the direct predecessors of the Mitanni kings. So, QUo III 60 reflected the time when Hanigalbat was still a confederation led by kings with Hurrian names. The autocratic kings of Mitanni with Indo-Aryan names could thus belong only to a different, later dynasty. P.: Giorgadze G. G. Hittites and Hurrians according to ancient Hittite texts // Bulletin of Ancient History (hereinafter-VDI). 1969, N 1. P. 78; Diakonov I. M. Aryans in the Middle East: the end of the Myth / / VDI. 1970, N 4. pp. 60-61.

5 See the bibliography in approx. 2; cf.: Kuhrt A. The Ancient Near East с. 3000-330 B.C. V. 1. L" 1995. P. 333.

Brinkman J. A. 6 Materials and Studies for Kassite History. V. 1. Chicago, 1976. P. 9-11, 30, 173-174; Buccellati G. Op. cit. P. 51; Podany A. H. Op. cit. P. 56, 59. Paleographically and stratigraphically, Kashtiliash Hanei is placed in the group of the first four-five In fact, for one of these kings, the probable predecessor of Kashtiliash, synchronism is recorded with the Babylonian Samsuiluna (1749-1712).

Dyakonov I. M. 7 Decree. soch. pp. 419-420. For the title itself, see: Schrader E. Keilinschriftlische Bibliothek. Bd. III. Hft. l.B., 1892. S. 134 ff.

8 I. M. Diakonov thinks so.

9 About 30 tablets found in the Grater and included in the discussion by A. H. Podany ( A. H. Op. cit. P. 59, not. 57) in a brief informative description.

10 Ibid. P. 59-60.

11 Ibid. P. 56, 59.

12 The question of Kassite rule in the Khan on the eve of 1595 is thus removed along with all the problems created by these problems.

page 15

Podany A. H. 13 Op. cit. P. 53-59 (for the sequence of the Khana dynasties, see Buccellati G. Op. cit. P. 50-56). First, palaeographically, the monuments of this final group of Canaanite kings belong precisely to the Middle, and not to the Old Babylonian period. It should be noted, however, that the Canaanite "Middle Babylonian" texts in any case turn out to be almost the oldest "Middle Babylonian" texts in general, since they belong to the XVI century. In other words, it turns out that the "Middle Babylonian" style was formed precisely in Khan, or, in any case, was already clearly expressed there immediately after the end of the "Old Babylonian" period in Babylon itself, after 1595. This should not surprise us: the "Middle Babylonian" script is that of the Kassite dynasty, which was supposed to develop its own writing style in the Khan of the XVII century, where it lived at that time. But then we, in turn, come to the conclusion that in the Khan the "Middle Babylonian" script could, if not should, have appeared and replaced the "Old Babylonian" one even before the fall of the Hammurabi dynasty in 1595, i.e. before the beginning of the "Middle Babylonian" period in Babylon itself. In this case, the "Middle Babylonian" palaeographic attribution of the relevant Haneian documents will in fact require for them, as a terminus post quern, no longer 1595, but at least the mid - third quarter of the XVII century. However, since the Babylonian kings Ammitsaduk and Samsuditana obviously ruled in the Khan for almost the entire last third of the 17th century, the place of the palaeographically "Middle Babylonian" Khana dynasties will still fall almost exclusively for the period after them. i.e., for the time after 1595.

Secondly, the paleographic similarity connects Shunukhra-Amma (the fifth dynasty of J. R. R. Tolkien). Buccellati-A. Podani) with Ammiditana (1683-1647), and his son and successor Ammimadar - with Ammitsaduka (1646-1626). At the same time, the letter of both couples is still old Babylonian. The consistent nature of this similarity and the fact that the Old Babylonian palaeography should have fallen out of use in the Khan, at least not later than in Babylon (i.e., not later than the beginning of the XVI century), make it necessary to attribute Shunukhra-Amma and Ammimadar to the XVII century and synchronize them with the above-mentioned Babylonian kings. So, Ammimadar was a contemporary of Ammitsaduki. And since Ammimaduka already ruled Hanoi directly, all the Amorite dynasties following Ammimadar in the Haneian line could rule only after the end of Babylonian rule, i.e. after 1595.

Third, Kashtiliash of Canaea - the fourth ruler in the sequence of Canaanite kings-can be identified at the earliest with Kashtiliash I of the Kassite royal list (reigned c. 1681-1660: Brinkman J. A. Op. cit. p. 30). Then, starting in 1660, at least seven Amorite kings ascended the Haneian throne - the successors of Kashtiliash (with unknown intervals!). Since the Khan already belonged to Babylon starting from Ammitsaduka, i.e. no later than 1630, most of these seven kings will not have a place in the short time period (1660-1630), and the reigns that do not fit here will automatically be transferred to the period after 1595.

14 For the diagram, see: Podany A. H. Op. cit. P. 56.

15 Moreover, to maintain this minimum number, it would be necessary to consider the second of these generational groups partially or completely synchronous with the first; meanwhile, the paleographic differences in the monuments of these groups gave A. Podani the opportunity to raise the question of a break separating them up to several decades (Pudany A. H. Op. cit. P. 61f.). these differences may have appeared in leaps and bounds, or even reflect the difference in the choice of a particular cuneiform style between different scribes and families of the same generation.

16 The total sum of the dating formulas of these kings, which have come down as part of a small number of random documents discovered by archaeologists, is five years, but no conclusions can be drawn from this, of course, given the extreme incompleteness of the extant sources. On the other hand, the change of government in Khan, which was liberated from Babylonian rule, could be no less turbulent than in Ashur, which was liberated from Babylonian rule a century and a half earlier (when about ten characters of the Assyrian royal list were supposed to change in about 60 years).

Landsberger В. 17 Op. cit. S. 65f., 116; Jurit: К. Ouellen zur Geschichte der Kassu-Dynastie // Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Orientsforschung. Bd. 6. V., 1958. S. 207-208; Goetze A. The Kassites and Near Eastern Chronology // JCS. V. 18. 1964. P. 98; Borger R. Gott Marduk und Gott- Konig Sulgi als Propheten. Zwei Prophetische Texte // Bibliotheca Orientalis. V. 28.1-2. 1971. S. 17, Komm. zu Zn. I, 13-38; Podany A. H. Op. cit. P. 58: Diakonov I. M. Edict. op. P. 418 el.

Borger R. 18 Op. cit. S. 16-17.

19 A significant part of the text is unrecoverable, and the ratio of lines of different fragments is also the subject of reconstruction.

20 In stk. 23-24, parts of the lines on the right fragment are preserved: ... I came out and took (?) ... Stk. 25-29 (a supposed correlation of the preserved beginnings of lines on the left fragment and endings on the right): (25)...

page 16

Babylon (26) ... were fine (?) (27)... the [city's] market ... it was good. (28) ... The crown of my dominion (29) and the statue ... Pages 30-37 (preserved parts of the lines on the left fragment; while pages 35-37 are restored without hesitation in comparison with the same type of preserved endings of other plots of the "Prophecy", including the same words that are preserved in our passage): (30-35) Water, rain... three days... The crown of my dominion... And the statue... For my life... (25-37) I turned home. [Moving back (ahhisa) to Babylon, I said]: "Bring, (O) countries, [your tribute to Babylon!] ". See Borger R. Op. cit. S. 17.

21 Ibid. Cf. Landsberger V. Op. cit., S 65f., 116.

22 On the other hand, such a stop could be perceived by the compiler of the text not as a stage of Marduk's return, but as an episode of his wanderings in foreign countries, a special "journey", and then we could wait for his mention in the text. "The Prophecy of Marduk" does not exclude this possibility, since the contents of the dilapidated passage I, 23-37 are unknown and could have been filled with just such a reference. Indeed, an account of Marduk's actions in the land of Hatti (I, 13-22), in stk. 23 is followed by a new story involving a third person; "the statue of Marduk" and "the crown of his dominion"are mentioned twice each. This story can equally be included in the framework of Marduk's 24-year stay in Hatti or placed outside it.

23 For the text, see: Schrader E. Op. cit. S. 134-153. For the nature of the text, see: Jaritz K. Op. cit. S. 228-229 and Brinkman J. A. Op. cit. p. 97, with bibliography. Let us emphasize that for our purposes it does not matter whether we are talking about an authentic inscription or its late reproduction.

E. Schrader 24 Op. cit. S. 138-141.

25 Let us recall that the absence of Hani in the surviving text of the Prophecy of Marduk is of no significance, since the Prophecy, on the one hand, did not have to take into account such an episode at all, and on the other, it could have mentioned it in the stk. I 23-35.

Goetze A. 26 The Kassites and Near Eastern Chronology ... P. 98. Note, however, that the country where Marduk stayed for 24 years according to the "Prophecy", even regardless of the name, can not be the Euphrates Hana, or any other of the countries adjacent to Babylon, since Marduk specifically (and in great detail) describes the organization of the caravan connection of this country with Babylonia. Meanwhile, Babylonian trade contacts with Upper Mesopotamia had been established centuries before Marduk's departure from Babylon, and they presented no difficulties and could not serve as an illustration of Marduk's power and new concern for the Babylonians. So the "land of Hatti" in the Prophecies of Marduk is a remote, non-regional country for the Two Rivers; but then we lose the last opportunity to detach it from the real Hatti.

27 At the same time, B. Landsberger accepted that the author of the inscription simply made a mistake, putting the name of one country instead of another ( Landsberger V. Op. cit. S. 65, Anm. 160), and K. Jaritz, following W. Albright, saw here the name of its inhabitants ignorantly, but naturally formed from "Hatti" (genti-licium); in their opinion, the Akkadian compilers of the Aguma inscription "restored" from the horonym "Hatti" the original basis of " Hunt -", which this word really could have had if it were Akkadian (!), then interpreted it as the Akkadian feminine gender in-t-from the basis * Nap -, and quite correctly formed from this *Han-t - relative *hani ("khan(t) iytsy"), after which they again formed the horonim mat Hani ("Country of Khan(t) iytsy, resp. Hittites"), adequate to the original "Land of Hatti" (Jaritz K. Op. cit. S. 208 and Anm. 78). However, it is quite improbable that the Akkadian scribes would have treated the foreign buronym Hani, so well known to them, in this way. In all Akkadian texts (particularly the Prophecy of Marduk), the relativistic gentilicium is from Hatti ("Hittites, Hattians"). this is how - hatti is written, which is to be expected (non-declining base Hatti+relative i -). Finally, why would they even need the descriptive construction "country of the Hani-han(t) iyans = people of the Hatti country", when they originally had the very name "country of the Hatti" (as the Hittite country is called in all other texts)? The linguistic incongruity of W. Albright's reconstruction was pointed out, in particular, by B. Landsberger and J. Kupper. Les nomades en Mesopotamie au temps des rois de Mari. P., 1957. P. 40).

Kupper J. 28 Ор. cit. P. 40-41; Gadd C.J. Hammurabi and the end of his Dynasty // Cambridge Ancient History. Ed. 3. V. 2/1. Cambridge, 1973. P. 226; Cornelius F. Geschichte der Hethither. Darmstadt, 1973. S. 112-113, 116; Podany A. H. Op. cit.; Diakonov I. M. Decree. op. p. 418.

Dyakonov I. M. 29 Edict. soch. P. 391.

Carter T. N. 30 Op. cit. p. 86; Cornelius F. Op. cit.; Kuhrt A. Op. cit.

Gadd C. J. 31 Op. cit.; Podany A. H. Op. cit.

Gadd C. J. 32 Op. cit.

page 17

33 According to decision A, this period, although specified by the removal of the statue to Hatti, actually covers mainly Marduk's stay in Hani, and its completion coincides with the return of Marduk to Babylon; according to decision B, the stay in Hani does not constitute a special period at all - through it the statue only goes to Babylonia in transit.

34 In this case, it is also particularly strange-the fantastic inclusion of Marduk's real stay in Hani in the mythical stay in Hatti, where in fact he did not go at all.

35 It is all the more unlikely that Mursilis would have come to Hattusa with all his Babylonian loot, and left the statue of Marduk "lingering" somewhere along the way. In any case, the Middle Euphrates Khan is not suitable for the role of a Hittite ally who receives a statue as a gift from Mursilis, since at the end of the XVII - beginning of the XVI century. it did not exist as a separate state at all, but was a province of Babylonia.

36 Cf. periodic references to Mursilis 'victory over Babylon in ancient Hittite texts, including the famous "Decree of Telepinus".

37 Theoretically, one could also assume that the 24 years of stay "in Hatti" is not a direct indication of the source, but a reconstruction of the scribe, who knew from Babylonian sources only the total period of Marduk's absence from Babylon and at once identified this period with his stay in Hatti, without taking into account the real vicissitudes of the statue's fate. In this case, the course of events (1-3) that we have suggested above will remain substantially the same, but chronologically within the same 24 years as in decisions A and B. However, apart from the fact that such reasoning uses unintentional emendation, we have no particular reason to think that the Babylonian scribe had no place to learn about the specific stages of his stay Marduk is beyond the borders of Babylonia. The Temple of Marduk in Babylon could and should have been interested in every movement of its God abroad, and it would not have been strange, at least, if information on this subject had been preserved along with information about the general absence of Marduk in Babylon.

38 Otherwise, his expanded titulature, which even mentions the construction of Eshnunna, would necessarily mention such an extraordinary act as his capture of Babylon, which is not the case.

Clay A.T. 39 Empire of the Amorites. New Haven, 1919. P. 116; Kupper ./., Goetze A., Gadd C. J., Cornelius F., Kuhrt A. Op. cit.; Carter T. N. Op. cit. P. 84; Diakonov I. M. Decree. op. P. 418; Podany A. H. Op. cit. P. 62; Klengel H. Halab-Man-Babylon / / De laBabylonie a la Syrieen passant par Mari. Liege, 1990. p. 184; how the term "country of Hani" equates to Hana and B. Landsberger.

Landsberger V. 40 Op. cit.; Kupper J. Op. cit. P. 40; Kupper J. Hana / / Reallexikon der Assyriologie (hereinafter-RLA). Bd. 4. V., 1972-1975. P. 76. Only after the determinative in the meaning of "mountain" can the spelling Hani appear (Ha-ni-i/e, see: Kupper J. Les nomades ... p. 41-42), and it is far from obvious that this mountain has any relation to the Middle Euphrates Khan, since we know for certain a certain "mountain of Khan" (this time again with the ending in-a) in the Lullubum region (Ibid. P. 42-43), and the Middle Euphrates Khan is just barely visible. li could be perceived as a mountainous country! Mount Hani is sometimes associated with Hana on the grounds that one dictionary list defines this" Hana Mountain "as" Kassite " (Ibid. pp. 41-42), and Hana seems to have been inhabited by Kassites. However, the Kassites also lived near Lullubum, and here they were long-term residents, not recent visitors, and could determine the name of the mountain more quickly than in Khan; again, the Lullubum region is really a mountainous region, and the Middle Euphrates valley is flat. Finally, since it received the Aguma embassy, embraced Marduk's hand, and returned his statue to Babylon, of course, the" country "and not the" mountain " of Nap-, ending the name of the latter with-i/e in any case does not make it easier for us to identify the place name from the Aguma inscription.

Kupper J. 41 Op. cit. P. 40; Landsherger V. Op. cit.

42 This is the opinion of E. Weidner, cit. by: Kupper J. Op. cit. p. 41, not. 1. Compare the assessment of B. A. Turaev, who compares our "Hani" with the name "Hanigalbat", which, however, he considers possible to associate, in turn, with the Middle Euphrates Hana ( Turaev B. A. Istoriya drevnego Vostoka. Ch. 1. Moscow-L., 1936. p. 163).

Ebeling E., Meissner V., Weidner E. 43 Die Inschriften der Altassyrischen Konige. Leipzig, 1926. S. 116. Anm. x,c-1; GraysonA.K. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. V. 1. Wiesbaden, 1972. P. 82, not. 174, cf. not. 173; Weiher E. von. Hanigalbat // RLA. Bd. 4. S. 107. In another version, the title of Sattuara is mat Hanigalbat, but when naming the goal of the campaign, it is simply KUR .ON! Are both cases abbreviations (abbreviations consisting of a single sign, such as SLJ = Subartu or GU - Kutium, are used in the New Assyrian era, but not in royal inscriptions, but only in scientific texts), or, more likely, in the first case a rare synonym is used, and in the second - an abbreviation, is irrelevant for our problems, since Ha-ni remains equally a variable Hanigalbat notation. It is hardly possible to think that in both cases the scribe did not finish the final characters due to simple negligence: in the 16 known copies of the article under consideration, 170-

page 18

the lowercase inscription of Shulmanuashared (see Ebeling E., Meissner B., Weidner E. Op. cit. S. 110-126) contains minor discrepancies in the turns and graphics, but a typo can only be assumed in one case (sa-gal lamdu instead of sa-gal-ta lamdu: "they know destruction", ibid. S. 118, stk. 9), where it can be explained either by the scribe's understanding of this passage as a subjunctive construction, or by an automatic gender change to masculine (similar to the alternation of esri-sunu / / esriti-sunu in copies of another inscription, see ibid. S. 128, stk. 19), i.e., grammatical variations. In texts written with such care, it is difficult to expect a gross double mistake in spelling the proper name of a hostile country, the conquest of which was the main achievement of Shulmanuashared! Finally, if such a shortened spelling of "Hanigalbat" as "Ha (ni)" still took place in error, what prevents us from assuming the same erroneous "abbreviation" in the scribes of Agum II, especially if we are talking about a late reproduction of his inscription?

The question of the actual sound and spelling of the term "Hanigalbat" requires a special comment, since this problem has not yet been subjected to a special analysis; thus, G. Wilhelm recently proposed to consider Habingalbat as the original form of this term. However, in the vast majority of cases (in particular, in all interstate documents and in all documents of Hanigalbat-Mitanni itself), our term is written Hanigalbat (Ha-ni-gal/kal-bat). In addition to this spelling, in isolated cases, the forms ha-bi-in-gal-bat are observed (the only time is in the nisba of the Old Babylonian period, on which the City of Babylon is based). Wilhelm; note that this is the only example of Hanigalbat mentioned in the Old Babylonian period in general, and all other examples belong to later epochs); Ha-ni-in-gal-bat (once in Arrapha), Ha-li-gal-bat (often in Arrapha, once in Middle Babylonian nisba; it is necessary to take into account the systematic alternation of 1/ / n in Hurrian, so that in fact this form is a purely phonological variant of the usual Ha-ni-gal-bat, which explains its prevalence in Hurrian Arrapha), ha-bi-gal-bat (several times in Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian Nisbah) and, finally, Hal-ni-gal-bat (once in the inscription of Esarhaddon; for a list of examples, see: Weiher E. van. Op. cit. S. 105-107; Groneherg G. Die En-und Gewassemamen der altbabylonischen Zeit. Wiesbaden, 1980. S. 90; Nashef K. Die Orts- und Gewasser-namen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit. Wiesbaden, 1982. S. 117-118). Against the background of the normative use of the spelling Ha-ni-gal-bat, these forms that are different in spelling and extremely rare in use indicate, of course, not a certain "original" sound of our horonym (which is especially clear from the variety of these forms themselves), but the possibility of a certain corruption of writing terms in the conditions of interaction between two languages (Hurrian and Akkadian, which are characterized by various real and graphic alternations of sonorous, nasal, and labial sounds (for example, 1/n in Hurrian, b//m in both, etc.) and several orthographic traditions developed by them for writing that is not equally adapted to the phonetics of both (here, in particular, we can note the periodic willingness to transmit an open syllable with signs for closed ones: Hal-instead of the usual Na -, - ni-in-instead of the usual-ni -, the only-bi-in-instead of the rare-bi-. Sometimes it is assumed that-ni-//-li - and-bi-can be interchanged graphically, see: Nashef K. Op. cit. p. 117). Let us add that it is the relative adjectives nisby that show a special tendency to variation: as derivatives, they are more prone to pronouncatory fluctuations than the horonym that serves as their basis. When we consider this buronim itself ,we encounter (with the exception of the single spelling Ha-ni-in - gal-bat in Arrapha, which is famous for its disregard for spelling) only the alternation Hanigalbat//Haligalbat, which, as we have said, does not add anything new to the appearance of our term.

In view of all this, it seems impossible to reconstruct the original sound of our horonim from rare variants of its spelling, especially from the single nisba ha-bi-in-gal-bat -, although it is the earliest (Old Babylonian) case of mentioning Hanigalbat known to us. The only correct, "original" form of this buronym for us remains the normative Ha-ni-gal-bat.

Finally, it is necessary to touch on the recent proposal of F. Cornelius reviving the popular reading of * Hanirabbat. According to F. Cornelius, the signs GAL and KAL, through which the term Ha-ni-KAL/GAL-bat is written, should be read, respectively, as rab and lap, and the entire name - as Hanir / labbat, i.e., Akkadian "Great Hani" in the Hurrian spelling, mixing-r-and -1 - (Cornelius F. Op. cit. S. 305-306, Anm. 44). However, if the sign KAL really has the standard meaning lap, then GAL gets the syllabic meaning rab exclusively in the first millennium BC ( Lahaf R. Manuel depigraphie akkadienne. P., 1976. P. 157); before that, it either had the syllabic meaning gal, or was used as a separate ideogram for the word rabu "great", and in this capacity, of course, was not included in the spelling of other words. Further, it would be very strange that out of the many ways to convey the combination rab-lab, our texts use only one in which the corresponding signs in their main meaning also turn out to be different.-

page 19

They are consonant (KAL-GAL), and do not use the usual RAB at all! In our opinion, these considerations force us to reject the hypothesis under consideration.

Kupper J. 45 Napa. P. 74; Podany A. H. Op. cit. P. 60. Hana and Mari appear as two distinct "countries" in the inscription of Tukulti-Ninurta I (Kausop A. K. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. V. I. Wiesbaden, 1972. P. 119).

46 And in the first millennium BC, the New Assyrian geographical term "Hanigalbat" specifically referred to the upper Khabur region.

Podany A.H. 47 Op. cit.

48 Thus, in the bilingual version of Hattusilis I, the Hittite version speaks of "Hurri" where the Akkadian version speaks of "Hanigalbag". We emphasize that the Akkadian language knows the word structure well, although it does not use it very often.

49 The genitive and plural form of this ethnonym should, according to general rules, be - and in fact was-hani: Kupper J. Les nomades... P. 1, not. 1. The basis of the relative adjective "Haneian, related to the Khan/Haneians, Haneian" should have looked the same in-ij-(*hani(j) -); probably, this adjective in the nominative case is our ethnonym hanu.

50 Furthermore, it should be recalled that the Aguma inscription may reflect the situation when the Khana was absorbed into the Hurrian Hanigalbat. Then Agum's "country of Hani", leading an independent policy, is obviously Hanigalbat; in turn, it would be all the easier for the Babylonians to call Hanigalbat by the term "Hani", since it has merged with Hanoi in reality.

51 See: Giorgadze G. G. Hittites and Hurrians ... pp. 80-83.

52 Otherwise, these formulas would have included dynasties with Indo - Aryan rather than Hurrian names immediately after the Amorites. Note that the first Mitannian ruler to date extant Haneian documents is Parrattarna (no earlier than 1500). On this basis, we cannot confidently date the transition of the Khana under Mitannian rule to the end of the XVI century, since the corpus of Haneian documents containing dates is very small, and the ex silentio argument here is not particularly relevant. forces (although it should be noted that these documents reflect the Canaanite governments of the previous two centuries quite closely). However, we have seen above that the end of Amorite rule in Khana occurred at the earliest at the end of the 1560s-1550s; then the reign of the Khana Hurrian dynasties will fall in the third quarter of the sixteenth century, and the subsequent transition of the Khana under the rule of the Mitanni kings will be limited to the period not earlier than the end of the sixteenth century., that is, it will be really close to the rule of Parrattarna.

53 For example, as part of combat detachments, or because of their connections with small Kassite groups that lived, as is known from documents, in Babylonia proper (for example, in the Sippar area).: See Brinkman J. A. Kassiten / / RLA. Bd. 5. 1980. P. 4651f.).

54 In alliance with the Canaanites and/or Kassites mentioned above? Let us emphasize that by rejecting the equality of the "land of Hani" with Hana and the hypothesis that the statue of Marduk was transferred there by the Hittites on the way back from Babylon, we lose the slightest reason to assume such an alliance. The Canaanites and Kassites were supposed to be ordinary subjects of Babylonia for the Hittites.

Jaritz K 55 . Op. cit. S. 201.

56 But it may also have been that the Indo-Aryan dynasties supplanted the Hurrian group that had ruled before them in Hanigalbat, and they took over the Khana, which passed into Mitanni hands only later.

57 The first known case of actual (not necessarily direct!) The Hatti - Ha-Nigalbat wars did not take place until the mid-15th century (the Hanigalbat control of Xalap was changed to Hittite control and back again under Tudhalias II and later, PDK 6); the first instance of Hanigalbat vassals raiding the Hatti domain dates back to the time of Pillia and Idrimi, c. 1475.

58 Note that if we attribute the delivery of the statue to the Mitanni, we should certainly consider the 24-year period to cover only the "Hittite" part of the total absence of Marduk from Babylon, since this period had already expired around 1570, even before the terminus post quern for the Mitanni dynasty - events with the (Hurrian annexation of the Khans; recall that such a period it could not have followed until the end of the 1560s, otherwise we would not have had the necessary chronological space for the Haneian dynasties of the sixteenth century).

Permanent link to this publication: