Members of the Royal Family and Mašrû-ḫ ami ṣ the Scribe : a Chronological Link between the Archives from Ekalte and Emar * Miembros de la familia real y el escriba Mašrû-ḫ ami ṣ : un posible enlace cronológico entre los archivos de Ekalte y Emar

One of the most debated questions –if not the most debated– regarding the Ekalte/Tall Munbāqa archive is that of chronology. The principal proposals have been made by Mayer (2001: 15-19) and Werner (2004: 23-24), who arrived at different conclusions in their respective studies. Nevertheless, it has been commonly accepted that the texts from Ekalte are older than those from nearby Emar/ Tall Meškene. This paper proposes some prosopographical links between the Syrian-type tablets from Ekalte and Emar, an attempt to establish a chronological relationship between both archives.

1 Abbreviations : ASJ 10=Tsukimoto 1988. AuOr5=Arnaud 1987. TSBR=Arnaud 1991. BLMJ=Westenholz 2000. CD-ROM=CD-ROM incorporated to Pruzsinszky 2003. E=Arnaud 1985-1987. Ek=Mayer 2001. FK=Sigrist 1993. Had=Tall Hadidi texts, according to the online edition by Whiting on http://www.helsinki.fi/~whiting/hadidcat.html(last visited August 2014).HCCT-E=Tsukimoto 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994. Iraq54=Dalley, Teissier 1992.KBo=Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi.Leipzig, Berlin, 1916.LBA=Late Bronze Age.MBQ III=Werner 2004. PN=Personal Name. RA 77=Huehnergard 1983. RE=Beckman 1996.SCCNH=Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians.SMEA=Arnaud 1992. 2 According to Cohen (2012: 33-38;2009: 28-31), Syrian-type texts are older, following the tradition of the Middle and Upper Euphrates area in the Middle Bronze Age: elongated and narrow shape, Post-Old Babylonian script, etcetera.On the other hand, Syro-Hittite-type tablets have the shape of a bar of soap and a script closer to Middle Babylonian running along its horizontal axis.Cohen remarks that both types also differ in sealing practices, dating systems, and legal formulae.Given the strong Hittite influence on the second type, the tablets must have been elaborated after the Hittite conquest of the territory.3 Mayer also took into account a scarab-like ornament from the New Kingdom period found at the 1974 Munbāqa campaign (Orthman, 1976: 42-43).4 Pruzsinszky (2004: 49) observes that this dating presents an unsolved problem: the layer where the tablets were found should be laying over another destruction layer caused by Muršili I's campaign on his way to Babylon during the 16th century.5 According to Yamada (1996: 299-300), each eponym year covered a period of two years.The eponym dates of Emar and Ekalte, with two-year terms, are unique all over the Middle Euphrates (Fleming, 2008: 37).For Emarite eponym years, see Fleming, 2000: 205.not exist6 .On the other hand, the PN Bada occurs at Emar (RE 88:22;TSBR 26:10,18; RA 77 3:1,25,25d; RA 77 5:1), as Beckman points out7 .Notwithstanding Wilcke's theory, Mayer persevered on his dating proposal when he published his remarkable study on the Ekalte tablets (Mayer, 2001: 15, n. 55).However, authors like Sallaberger, Pruzsinszky or Beckman remain skeptical and support Wilcke.Beckman, for instance, finds the use of the abbreviation for Tudḫaliya I "extremely unlikely", arguing that, even though Tu was a common abbreviation for the conqueror in Luwian sources from Boğazköy, it is doubtful that Ekaltians used it to mention a foreign king 8 .Pruzsinszky adds that there is no evidence that Tudḫaliya I ever crossed the Euphrates in his Syrian campaigns.Likewise, Ekalte is not mentioned on the 7th pylon in Karnak, where the Syrian sites conquered by Tuthmosis III are listed (Pruzsinszky, 2009: 175).
Given a reading MU Ba(/Ma ?)-da(/du ? ) 1 KAM.MA , a chronology ca.1530-1446 BC for the Ekalte tablets must be rejected, since no evidence of Tudḫaliya I or Tuthmosis III is supplied by the tablets.According to scholars' general opinion, the texts are to be located at a period closer in time to the Emar archive.

Eponym years
The few examples of eponym years in Ekalte (fig. 1) usually refer to local mayors, what does not help us establish a chronological match with the Emar system.The few Ekalte eponymous years usually employ the formula MU PN 1 (DUMU PN 2 LÚ ḫa-za-an-nu), what leads to believe that it was part of the local custom to name years after mayors in charge9 .On the other hand, it is interesting to find a namesake of the Emar royal house in Ek 79:6', as will be discussed below10 .Yamada observes that Emarite eponym years appear at the end of the documents following the witness list (Yamada, 1996: 300).In contrast, Ekalte eponym years appear either at the end of the text -even after the scribe's name-or immediately before the witness list.
These year attestations are used only in Syrian-type texts; the eponym dating system was not used by Syro-Hittite scribes 11 .Apart from the eponym years, an interesting kind of year names is present in both Syrian and Syro-Hittite-type tablets.Yamada catalogues them as nukurtu ("hostility, war") and/or dannatu ("hardship, distress, famine") years, depending on how they are termed at the tablet 12 .They are suspected to refer to the siege suffered by Emar sometime after the Hittite conquest of the Middle Euphrates (ca.1325).No attestations of these year names are recorded in Ekalte, but they give testimony of a series of violent events which could be the cause of the Ekalte destruction layer.

Ek Formula Year
28:16  Beyer, 2001: 208) -the oldest seal of Emar's second dynasty-as the same seal, Werner considered the following chronological alternatives (Werner, 2004: 24) for the Ekalte archive: (1) ca.1340-1265 BC, by which the destruction of Ekalte is placed by the time of the siege suffered by Emar (see below).Despite admitting it was tempting, Werner discarded this option due to the lack of Syro-Hittite-type tablets in Ekalte.
Considering all three options, Werner chose no. 2 (ca.1400-1325) as the most appropriate, although he warned that more tablets are needed to be certain about this chronological proposal.
The seal MBQ III 4585 = E2a is impressed on Ek 25, a poorly-preserved text 13 .E2a is the oldest among the Emar dynastic seals and has been ascribed to the so-called Generation 0 of the Emar second dynasty.Generation 0 belongs to the era of IŠKUR-kabar 14 , the father of king Yaṣi-Dagān (see fig. 3).However, the seals were used mainly by Generations I and II 15 .Werner suggests that Ek 25 should be linked to the time of IŠKUR-kabar, Yaṣi-Dagān's father, since he is supposed to have been the owner of the cylinder seal imprinted on the tablet 16 .
MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY AND MAŠRÛ-ḪAMIṢ THE SCRIBE... eDuarDo torrecilla 1265).However, Werner preferred the second option.Since further discussion is in order, we will now turn to consider whether a more recent chronology for the Ekalte corpus should be proposed.

IŠKUR-kabar
As Fleming remarks (2008: 32, n. 17), it is tempting to establish a link between the Ekaltian IŠKUR-kabar and the two or three Emarite kings from the second dynasty named IŠKUR-kabar, since all are written d IŠKUR-GAL/ka-bar.Fleming adds the possibility that the kings from Ekalte belonged to the previous dynasty but slightly earlier than the known monarchs, although no ruler named Yaḫṣi-Ba‛la is attested in Emar.The Emar kings would then have adopted traditional royal names such as d IŠKUR-kabar 18 .
One of the main indicators to determine whether these kings were Emarite or Ekaltian could be the actual role assumed by the king.The king of Emar is presumed to have been some kind of primus inter pares (Otto, 2008: 717;Démare-Lafont, 2008: 208;Van Exel, 2010: 67-68).However, the main authority in the city was apparently reserved for the council of Elders, representing the city itself, at least during the first dynasty.Thus, the "king" (LUGAL) would play an administrative-like role, rather than a ruling one.
Considering that these two kings could actually be part of any of the Emar dynasties, these ruling families must be examined in order to find a chronological link.The most ancient members of the first dynasty, i.e.Ir'ib-Ba‛la and his brother Igmil-Dagān (see fig. 2), are principal witnesses in FK 6, which depicts a tribute (arana) paid by the Emarite king Li'mišarra -son of Ir'ib-Ba‛la-presumably to the Hurrian king.If the first dynasty coincided with the time of Mitannian rule, the texts concerning its members must have been written before the arrival of Šuppiluliuma ca.1325, and even before the Ekalte tablets were written.
Yaṣi-Dagān, son of IŠKUR-kabar, is believed to have been the first active king of the second dynasty.His son IŠKUR-kabar I succeeded him, followed in turn by Pilsu-Dagān (see fig. 3).The controversial Zū-Aštarti seems to have briefly succeeded the latter before the throne was recovered by Elli, son of Pilsu-Dagān.Finally, IŠKUR-kabar II, son of Elli, is the last documented king of Emar (Cohen, d'Alfonso, 2008: 9-11, 25; Table 7).
It is important to remember that the ownership of cylinder seal MBQ III 4585 = E2a, attested in Ek 25, is ascribed to IŠKUR-kabar, Yaṣi-Dagān's father (Werner, 2004: 23; see also Beyer, 2001: 208-209: seals E2a-E2d), who is not presumed to have reigned but is the head of the royal house.
Despite the presence of more Emar kings named IŠKUR-kabar, the identity of IŠKURkabar I, son of Yaṣi-Dagān and father of Pilsu-Dagān, is hereby proposed as the most appropriate to match the Ekaltian IŠKUR-kabar.This is due to the proximity in time with Pilsu-Dagān's reign, suspected to be contemporary with some Ekalte tablets, as discussed below (section 3) 19 .Hence, king d IŠKUR-kabar attested in Ek 1 and Ek 24 could have been Pilsu-Dagān's father.

Yaḫṣi-Ba‛la
There are some attestations of the PN Yaḫṣi-Ba‛la at Emar20 , none of which seems to correspond to the king documented in Ekalte.King Yaḫṣi-Ba‛la is attested in Ek 9 and Ek 70, two tablets which present some original features worth to mention.Both texts include some Hurrian PNs, scarcely attested in the rest of the Ekalte corpus.In addition, the tablets include a curse against any possible offender in which the gods are summoned to erect a standing stone (sikkānum) at the offender's house .This clause appears in only two more tablets from Tall Munbāqa (Ek 2:26-29; Ek 61:25-27).Thus, Ek 9 and Ek 70 could have been written as early as the time of Hurrian dominance over the land of Aštata and, hence, they could belong to the earliest tablets in the corpus.If this is correct, Yaḫṣi-Ba‛la could have belonged to the first dynasty of Emar.He could be either a descendant of the last king of this dynasty, named Zū-Ba‛la (see fig. 2), any of whose successors is not known to us, or even a predecessor of another first dynasty ruler of whom no information has prevailed.
Interestingly, a connection between Ek 70 and two of the oldest texts from Ekaltenamely Ek 62 and Ek 80-21 could be established, since Yaḫṣi-Ba‛la's royal seal is impressed on both Ek 62 and Ek 70 (Werner, 2004: 21-22).In addition, Yaḫṣi-Ba‛la had a son named polemic eponym in l. 32-and Ek 62 present several similarities uncommon to the rest of the Ekalte corpus.Solans (2011a: 260) notices how similar the witness lists of both texts are, whereas a vast majority of the individuals included in them are absent from the rest of the whole archive.She also states that the two tablets are the only public land sales in which the seal of Ba‛laka is not used.Furthermore, they bear up to five (Ek 62) and six (Ek 80) different cylinder seal impressions.Such concurrence of seals at the same tablet is extremely uncommon in Tall Munbāqa tablets.Likewise, some of the usual contract clauses present some original features in Ek 62 and Ek 80, as is the formula "as a total price" (a-na ŠÁM ga-am-ri, Ek 62:10; Ek 80:12), which occurs in only two other early Emar Syrian texts (E 153,RE 34).The usual formula is a-na ŠÁM TIL.LA at the rest of both archives.An interesting case occurs in Azû, where the scribe redundantly wrote [a+na ŠÁ]M TIL.LA ka-am-ri (Had 5:10).Zū-Ba‛la (Ek 9:35-36) 22 , the same PN as that of the last known king from the first dynasty, Zū-Ba‛la.This encourages linking this king to the Emar first dynasty as a ruler unknown up to date, although more information is needed to decide his position in the family tree23 .

Zū-Ba‛la in Ek 28: A King from Emar?
There is a possibility that the last known king of Emar's first dynasty, namely Zū-Ba‛la, could be also attested in the Ekalte texts.Ek 28:17 shows one Zū-Ba‛la, son of Išši-Dagān, as the first witness of a slave purchase24 .His heading position at the witness list, usually reserved for the king of Emar, together with some other clues which will now be detailed, leads to think that this could actually be an attestation of Zū-Ba‛la, son of Išbi-Dagān25 .This Zū-Ba‛la is not to be confused with the abovementioned Zū-Ba‛la, son of Yaḫṣi-Ba‛la.
Mayer's reading of the first sign in l. 18 [ LÚ ] is more likely to fill the existing gap than a hypothetical LUGAL, since the latter sign does not seem to fit neither the sign traces nor the narrow gap preceding the name of the city ( URU E-mar KI ).Besides, the first dynasty kings are seldom referred to as LUGAL.Therefore, LÚ would remark a high position held by Zū-Ba‛la in Emar, meaning "ruler" rather than "citizen"26 .
The Hurrian context in which Ek 28 appears to have been written supports this identification.The tablet is almost the only one of the corpus containing Hurrian PNs, including the scribe's name, Tulpi-šarri.This scribe, in turn, does not appear in any other Ekalte tablet.In addition, Ek 28:16 shows an eponym date which follows the abovementioned formula used by Emarite scribes27 .This, together with the lack of repetitions of the individuals depicted in Ek 28 in the rest of the Ekalte corpus, leads to propose that the tablet was written in Emar, where the agreement would have also taken place.In fact, this would explain why the individual Ḫinna-Addu, who is giving his son as a servant "to save him from hunger", is explicitly described as Ekaltian citizen in l. 2. If the tablet had been written in Ekalte, such specification would be pointless.
The Hurrian reminiscences of Ek 28 would make it one of the earliest tablets of the Ekalte corpus.They also support the theory that the Zū-Ba‛la mentioned in Ek 28:17 could be the last king of Emar's first dynasty, since his reign is supposed to have coincided with the last years of Hurrian domination and Šuppiluliuma's conquest.Thus, it would represent a terminus post quem indicator for the chronological span of the Ekalte tablets.In addition, the text contains some interesting spellings, like the word-ending mimation in several words (see Ek 28:1-5) or the spelling of inaddin (i-na-an-din), where the assimilation nd=dd does not occur.
Regardless, more evidence is needed to confirm with total certainty that the Zū-Ba‛la, son of Išši-Dagān mentioned in Ek 28:17 is actually the Emarite king Zū-Ba‛la, son of Išbi-Dagān.The hypothesis, however, would provide clear evidence for the chronology of the corpus.It would also supply new material for the study of the overlapping situation between the two dynasties of Emar, since the last king of the first dynasty (Zū-Ba‛la) and one king of the second (IŠKUR-kabar I) could be found in the Ekalte texts.

The mayor Ba‛la-malik
A last, quite interesting detail is to be found in Ek 48:37 and Ek 79:6-9, where a mayor named Ba‛la-malik, son of IŠKUR-kabar, is documented28 : Adamthwaite proposes that the sons of the Emarite kings could have been entitled mayors (ḫazannu) not only in Emar, but also in other towns in the vicinity.Adamthwaite found up to three ḫazannū whose names coincided with some members of the Emarite royal family, i.e.Abī-Rašap, Aḫī-malik, and Pilsu-Dagān (Adamthwaite, 2001: 29-30).Unfortunately, mayors attested in Emar are not many; besides, some of them are unattested elsewhere and cannot be linked to the royal family29 .Abī-Rašap and Aḫī-malik are the names of two brothers of king Pilsu-Dagān.One of them, namely Aḫī-malik, appears in conjunction with Pilsu-Dagān in E 253, what supports this theory; in contrast, the ḫazannu Abī-Rašap cannot be securely linked to his namesake in the royal family30 .
Therefore, one of the mayors from Ekalte, namely Ba‛la-malik, son of IŠKUR-kabar, could actually be the same person as the Emarite Ba‛la-malik, son of IŠKUR-kabar I and brother of Pilsu-Dagān, king of Emar.The latter would have reigned at the capital of Aštata while his brother Ba‛la-malik occupied the post of ḫazannu in the nearby town of Ekalte.This adds weight to Adamthwaite's theory, given that it would imply that some members of the royal family of Emar were awarded, either traditionally or occasionally, the role of ḫazannu all over the land of Aštata32 .
Finally, we are to notice that Ek 48, one of the tablets in which the ḫazannu Ba‛la-malik is attested, was written by the scribe Mašrû-ḫamiṣ, who could be present at the Emar archive at the time of king Pilsu-Dagān, representing the best evidence for a chronological match between the archives of Ekalte and Emar, as will be now considered.

THE SCRIBE MAŠRÛ-ḪAMIṢ
The PN Mašrû-ḫamiṣ occurs twice in Ekalte, both times as a scribe's name (Ek 45:31; Ek 48:36).Significantly, other scribe named Mašrû-ḫamiṣ is documented at a few Emar texts.It is my purpose to find out whether these namesakes were actually the same person or not, in order to establish a link between the Ekalte and Emar tablets.
Firstly, no special information is supplied by the Ekalte texts, apart from Mašrû-ḫamiṣ being explicitly mentioned as scribe in both Ek 45 and Ek 48.The latter, significantly, mentions the aforesaid mayor Ba‛la-malik.The situation becomes more interesting if we analyze the information from Emar at our disposal.The PN Mašrû-ḫamiṣ appears in three tablets: TSBR 47 and TSBR 50 -both of which he wrote-, and E 146, in which Mašrû-ḫamiṣ, son of Ba‛labārû, purchases a field from the Elders 33 .Arnaud claims that Mašrû-ḫamiṣ also wrote TSBR 48 and TSBR 51 and that this scribe followed different patterns than the scribal practice from Emar 34 .There is other scribe named Mašrû-ḫe (E 161:20') who is also stated not only as son of Ba‛la-bārû, but as diviner of the god Ba‛la of the king and the town, as well (HCCT-E 10:14,31-32).Cohen has merged both Mašrû-ḫamiṣ and Mašrû-ḫe into the same person, given that -ḫe is the shortened form for -ḫamiṣ 35 .
In HCCT-E 10:29-37, the king Pilsu-Dagān, thankful for the diviner Mašrû-ḫamiṣ's prediction that the town of Emar would repel an attack committed by Hurrian troops, gave him a field as a reward36 .TSBR 48:33 also mentions the "years of hardship", a reference to the Hurrian attack, as an event from the past37 .
Considering that they shared the same profession and that they are the only samples of the PN Mašrû-ḫamiṣ in each archive, both Mašrû-ḫamiṣ from Emar and Ekalte must have actually been the same person.It seems unlikely that all these similarities be simply coincidental 39 .Consequently, a comparison between the tablets written by both the Emarite Mašrû-ḫamiṣ (E 161,TSBR 47,TSBR 48,TSBR 50,and TSBR 51) and his Ekaltian namesake (Ek 45 and Ek 48) must be carried out.Regrettably, few aspects from them are remarkable and none seems to be definitive, although they will be listed as follows.
The rare spelling i-sa-am for the verbal form "he has purchased" is used by Mašrû-ḫamiṣ in Ek 45:21 and Ek 48:20 instead of the expected i-ša-am; this contrasts with TSBR 51:11, where the form i-ša-am-mu can be read.The other real estate sale tablet, E 161, is broken and the passage where the verb tense should be found (l.11) is lost.Nevertheless, the rare i-sa-am instead of i-ša-am occurs not only in Ekalte, but also in Emar (AuOrS1 5:43, E 11:28) and Azû (Had 1:18).Had 1 was written by Pazūrī-Dagān, a scribe also attested in Ekalte who used i-ša-am in Ek 74:19; Had 2:25; and Had 9:15.Therefore, some scribes such as Mašrû-ḫamiṣ and Pazūrī-Dagān did not consistently write /s/ for the expected /š/.According to Ikeda, the reason is that some specific scribes were unable to distinguish /s/ from /š/ (Ikeda, 1995: 40-41).In the same line, Whiting suggests that the local dialect could have had some inherent confusion of /s/ and /š/, resulting in the occasional use of graphic {s} for {š} in Akkadian words42 .
Remarkably, two scribes attested in different archives in Aštata (Mašrû-ḫamiṣ in Ekalte and Emar; Pazūrī-Dagān in Ekalte and Azû) and, hence, also the best evidence to establish a secure chronological link for the three corpora, shared the same graphic inconsistence 43 .
Finally, Ek 48:37 contains an eponym year, unfrequent at the Ekalte tablets.The same text mentions the ḫazannu Ba‛la-malik, suspected to be one of the sons of the Emarite king IŠKUR-kabar I, predecessor of Pilsu-Dagān (see above).This could confirm that both the Ekaltian and the Emarite Mašrû-ḫamiṣ were the same individual.
If both the Emarite and the Ekaltian Mašrû-ḫamiṣ are the same person, a chronological link between the Emar Syrian tablets and the Ekalte texts could be established.This could also help us determine more precisely the time when both groups of tablets were written, thanks to the frustrated Hurrian attack against the city of Emar.The attack could have implied the plundering of Ekalte, as the destruction layer covering the tablet-giving stratum at Tall Munbāqa seems to indicate.
This identification would connect the Ekalte texts with the reign of the Emarite king Pilsu-Dagān, who was in charge when the Hurrian siege took place.According to Cohen and d'Alfonso, Pilsu-Dagān reigned in Emar ca.1300-1280, being contemporary to the Hittite kings Muršili II and Muwatalli II, as well as to the Karkemiš viceroy Šaḫurunuwa (Cohen, d'Alfonso, 2008: 24-25).The Emar siege mentioned in HCCT-E 10 appears in three more texts, namely TSBR 9:21-22, E 42:9-10, and RE 77:34-35 46 .According to Skaist, a series of Hurrian raids on Hittite territory took place shortly before or after Ḫattušili III acceded to the throne.The said attacks would have been instigated by the Assyrian king Adad-nirārī I.The latter had gained Mitanni's vassalage and wanted to annoy the Hittites, albeit not in a 43 Furthermore, the interchangeability between /s/ and /š/ is also noticed in Ek 79:13 (sa-ṭe 4 -er instead of expected ša-ṭe 4 -er "it is written").Ek 79 includes the name of the abovementioned ḫazannu Ba'la-malik, who could be a member of the Emar royal family.The scribe of Ek 79 is unknown, but one is tempted to speculate and wonder whether Mašrû-ḫamiṣ could have also written this text.44 This PN is frequently found in Emar, written either A-ḫi-mì or A-ḫi-mi.However, the spelling used by Mašrû-ḫamiṣ is most commonly used (see CD-ROM: 97-99).There is no way to discern whether the two Aḫīmi attested in Ek 48:31 and TSBR 50:30 are actually the same person or not, since one of them is attested as father and the other is attested as son.45 Mašrû-ḫamiṣ used the symbol KUR for Dagān, a practice more typical of Syro-Hittite scribes (see Cohen, 2009: 96).This supports linking the Ekaltian and the Emarite Mašrû-ḫamiṣ, since the latter belongs to the generation where Syro-Hittite texts were introduced.The PN Še'i-Dagān is also frequently found in Emar, written in both ways, although Še-i-d KUR is majoritarily recorded in Syro-Hittite texts.See CD-ROM: 744-747.46 i-na KÚR-KÚR KAL-ti ša Ḫur-ri BÀD il-mi-ma "When there was serious enmity and the Hurrians surrounded the wall" (TSBR 9:21-22); LUGAL ÉRIN MEŠ KUR Ḫur-ri URU E-mar i-la-mi-in "The king of the Hurrian troops harmed Emar" (E 42:9-10); MU KAM LUGAL ERIM MEŠ Ḫur-[ri] URU E-mar K [ I i-la-mi-in ?] "The year when the king of the Hurrian troops harmed ?Emar" (RE 77:34-35).Vita, 2002: 117-119.
MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY AND MAŠRÛ-ḪAMIṢ THE SCRIBE... eDuarDo torrecilla direct manner 47 .Admittedly, the Emar siege must have taken place before the Assyrian king Salmanassar I put the Hurrian kingdom to an end 48 .
Following Cohen and d'Alfonso's chronology for Pilsu-Dagān's reign, Emar must have been sieged during the first two decades of the 13th century.If Ekalte was destroyed in the same attack, the Ekalte texts would be located between the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 13th centuries, what would fit the first proposal by Werner commented above (ca. 1340-1265 BC).
Werner rejected this option because of the lack of Syro-Hittite-type tablets in Ekalte.However, a vast majority of the high number of attestations of king Pilsu-Dagān are found in Syrian-type documents, even though Pilsu-Dagān's kingship took place when Emar was already under the influence of Ḫatti.Only two Syro-Hittite tablets (E 42 and Iraq54 5, both probably dating from Elli's reign) mention Pilsu-Dagān 49 .Therefore, in spite of being already under Hittite control, Ḫatti's cultural influx had not yet been imposed to the territories of Aštata during Pilsu-Dagān's reign.This would probably be due to the considerable autonomy allowed to the area, under the administrative control of Karkemiš.
Moreover, one of the two Syro-Hittite tablets which mention Pilsu-Dagān refer to the Hurrian siege of the town in the past.Thus, it would be due to the Hurrian attacks on the Euphrates borderline that the Hittites decided to strengthen their control and influence over the whole area.This would have caused an immediate, clearer, and deeper cultural influx on social life in Emar.The siege and subsequent control strengthening would have coincided with the last years of Pilsu-Dagān's reign, probably becoming more effective by the time of his successors 50 .

A CHRONOLOGICAL PROPOSAL: THE EMAR SIEGE AND THE END OF EKALTE
Firstly, it is important to confirm that the Ekalte tablets were written later than previously proposed.Not only the mention of king Tudḫaliya in Ek 80:32 is unlikely, but similarities to Emar Syrian tablets lead to conclude that both archives were much closer in time, even contemporary.Thus, it is necessary to contrast the clues from Ekalte analyzed above with the Emar chronological data.
Šuppiluliuma would be responsible for the change of dynasties in Emar, as he did with a number of kings of submitted territories.Zū-Ba‛la of the first dynasty would have been replaced by Yaṣi-Dagān of the second (see figs. 2 & 3).Assuming that Yaṣi-Dagān was appointed by Šuppiluliuma ca.1325, the earliest tablets of the Emar archive would have 47 A letter (KBo I 14) supposedly sent to the Assyrian king Adad-nirārī I by Ḫattušili III describes the attacks perpetrated by the "men of Turira" on Hittite soil.Turira, possibly located in the Ḫabur triangle, is supposed to be the capital of what remained of Ḫanigalbat.Skaist, 1998: 64-68.The Hurrian raids could also be part of the uprisings which Muršili II had to face in the borders of his inherited empire and which might have even caused him a temporary loss of control over Karkemiš.Kuhrt, 1995: 290;Pérez Largacha, 2006: 293. 48 Skaist, 1998: 64-68.On the other hand, authors like Vita (2002: 119-121) propose the Hurrians to be linked to the Tukulti-Ninurta epoch.Note, however, the chronological differences with Cohen, d'Alfonso, 2008: if Pilsu-Dagān's reign is to be dated around the beginning of the 13th century, it would not be possible to establish a chronological link with Tukulti-Ninurta's reign, which developed as late as the 2nd half of the century.To add to matters, Cancik-Kirschbaum (2008: 93-95) is reluctant to accept that Assyrians would have been the instigators of the Hurrian attack.49 See CD-ROM: 668-677.50 It is very interesting to note that Zū-Aštarti's short reign is attested almost exclusively in Syro-Hittite-type tablets, whereas his immediate successor Elli is mostly mentioned in Syrian-type texts.See CD-ROM: 311-317, 831-840.been written by 1400-1380 -four generations back from the Hittite campaign (Skaist, 1998: 64; see also Cohen, d'Alfonso, 2008: 20).Syro-Hittite tablets have been estimated to date from ca. 1270 until the fall of the town, ca.1175.Since no tablets from Tall Munbāqa belong to the Syro-Hittite-type, the Ekalte archive predates 1270.
In addition, given that a high number of tablets from the era of the Emar Second dynasty are of Syrian type, and that the second dynasty was installed by Šuppiluliuma himself, there is no reason why the Ekalte texts should not be contemporary with Šuppiluliuma, as wellsubsequently, also with the Emar Syrian tablets.
This could explain why the destruction layer that covers the tablet-giving stratum at Tall Munbāqa -and which allegedly caused the sudden abandon of the settlement-, seems to predate the definitive destruction of Emar, since no Syro-Hittite tablets have been found in Ekalte.The destruction layer at Tall Munbāqa is to be explained by means of the Hurrian military incursions which took place during Pilsu-Dagān's reign, years after Šuppiluliuma's campaigns, and which caused the ineffective siege of Emar.
After resisting the attack, the citizens of Emar resumed its existence in an apparently normal daily life, referring to the traumatic episode as the "years of war and hardship".A profound acculturation process with the Hittite authorities followed, perhaps due to a military and administrative reinforcement once Ḫattuša understood that new incursions had to be avoided by strengthening the Eastern frontier territories of the empire 51 .In contrast, Ekalte would have not resisted the Hurrian razzias; hence the lack of any Hittite influx or references to the "years of war and hardship" in the archive.
The main clue to confirm this chronological theory is based on the identity of the scribe Mašrû-ḫamiṣ, author of Ek 45 and Ek 48.He is strongly believed to be the same person as his namesake at Emar, also a scribe and afterwards diviner of the city who lived during Pilsu-Dagān's reign.Indeed, the Emarite Mašrû-ḫamiṣ was smothered with attentions by the king himself after predicting Emar's victory at the siege.
Obviously, it is possible that there was no relationship whatsoever between the Emarite and the Ekaltian Mašrû-ḫamiṣ.However, it seems difficult to admit that the two namesakes were not the same person, since a) they are the only examples of this rare PN in both archives; b) they shared the same profession; c) a son of the king IŠKUR-kabar I is presumably attested in Ek 48 as mayor of the town (a direct relation to Pilsu-Dagān, who knew the Emarite Mašrû-ḫamiṣ; d) Mašrû-ḫamiṣ presents a curious interchangeability between the sounds /s/ and /š/, a feature shared with Pāzūrī-Dagān, who is attested in Azû and Ekalte.These two scribes could have belonged to the same scribal school, and could have even been part of the Emar royal entourage.
Considering that the Ekaltian Mašrû-ḫamiṣ is attested exclusively as scribe and not as diviner, Ek 45 and Ek 48 would have been written prior to his appointment as diviner in Emar and shortly before the military attack in which Ekalte was destroyed.Therefore, the destruction of Ekalte would have occurred at a time close to the appearance of Syro-Hittite type tablets in the area.The possible presence of members of the Emar second dynasty in Ekalte, namely Ba‛la-malik (Ek 48) and the king IŠKUR-kabar I (Ek 1 and Ek 24) -brother and father of Pilsu-Dagān, respectively-, support this theory.Consequently, both Ek 45 and Ek 48 would belong to the latest documents of the Ekalte archive.
51 The previous lack of Hittite effective control agrees with the political vacuum after the fall of Mitanni described by Gromova (2007: 307) In sum, I propose the following chronological limits for the Ekalte corpus: -Terminus post quem: around 60-80 years before Pilsu-Dagān's reign and, perhaps, some years before Zū-Ba'la's, as well (ca. 1335-1330).The latter appears as witness in the arana documents and could also be present in Ek 28, a text full of Hurrian PNs.The king named Yaḫṣi-Ba'la could be a hitherto unknown member of the Emar first dynasty (see fig. 4).Yaḫṣi-Ba'la is either a predecessor or an immediate successor of Zū-Ba'la, to be ascribed to the politically convulsed period of a change of dynasties.
-Terminus ante quem: some time during Pilsu-Dagān's reign (ca.1300-1280), possibly before the scribe Mašrû-ḫamiṣ was appointed diviner.This dating explains the destruction layer over the Ekalte tablet-giving stratum by means of the Hurrian military attacks attested in Emar, which suffered and repelled a siege.Since Pilsu-Dagān is known to have overcome the siege, the end of the Ekalte archive is to be situated before the end of this king's rule.Since Cohen and d'Alfonso date the Emar siege back to 1300-1280, the destruction of Ekalte should be placed in that temporary span, as well.

Year
Emar Dynasties Events/Archives  Conclusively, the Ekalte archive should be located at a chronological span running from ca. 1350 to ca. 1280.Thus, the texts should be considered contemporary with the Syrian-type tablets from Emar.Likewise, the fifteen texts from Tall Hadidi/Azû, no doubt contemporary MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY AND MAŠRÛ-ḪAMIṢ THE SCRIBE... Vínculos de Historia, núm. 4 (2015) | 183 eDuarDo torrecilla , which would have been replaced by local rulers until the Hittites decided to exert an effective control of the territory from the viceroyalty of Karkemiš.MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY AND MAŠRÛ-ḪAMIṢ THE SCRIBE... Vínculos de Historia, núm. 4 (2015) | 191 eDuarDo torrecilla