We have omitted till the last a response to three anticipated objections to our identification of the Hittites and the neo-Hittites.  The first relates to the kings of Carchemish and a second to the supposed achilles heel of all revisionist endeavors, the assumed synchronism between the Assyrian king Ashuruballit I and the Hittite king Supilluliumas I.  The third, lest some observant reader should raise the issue, concerns the Mitanni.   We begin with the Carchemish kings.

Kings and rulers of Carchemish.

        Resulting from the archaeological survey conducted at Carchemish (see above), and augmented by Hittite and Assyrian records which name some of the rulers at Carchemish, scholars have pieced together the following chronology of the "kings" of this city.
 

                                                     Table 3: Kings of Carchemish (Traditional History)
 

        A problem clearly emerges when we lower the dates for the Hittite Empire by approximately 450 years, placing it in the time frame 900-760 B.C.  The revised location of the Empire period compels us to revised downward the dates for the "kings" Piyasili, Ini-Teshub and Talmi Teshub by the identical 450 years, placing them in the 9th and 8th centuries, in the same time frame occupied by previously identified rulers of the city.    As a result there emerge two distinct series of "kings of Carchemish" for the time span encompassing the reigns of Mursilis II through Supilluliuma II, and for perhaps as much as twenty years beyond, thus roughly from 856-750 B.C. (see chart below)
 

                                      Table 4: Hittite Governors and Native Kings of Carchemish (Revised History)
  

 
       It is assumed by some critics, in comments addressed toward other revisionist works, that this dual line of Carchemish "kings" constitutes a major problem for the revisionist..  In fact, the situation is precisely what is expected from our knowledge of the political landscape during the ascendancy of the Hittite Empire, while it struggled to maintain its hold on the Hatti lands of north Syria and stave off the growing power of Assyria. Concerning our table 4 we make the following comments:

        1)  It goes without saying that our table differs considerably from that which arises in other revisionist endeavors, since we have lowered the dates for the Hittite Empire by a substantially larger period of time.   Thus the details of our explanation differ somewhat from those provided by other authors.    There remains, however, a degree of commonality.

        2) When the authors of "Century of Darkness" were criticized for assuming the existence of two contemporaneous lines of kings of Carchemish, they pointed out, quite correctly, that the archaeological record supports such a situation. According to Peter James:

The Lion Gate sculptures find their closest parallels in those produced by the 'Suhis dynasty' at Carchemish, dated to the late 10th century B.C. Suhis and his descendants clearly commissioned and inscribed these sculptures, yet their role as rulers of Carchemish remains mysterious. The titles they gave themselves were restricted to the relatively modest tag: 'Lord of the country of Carchemish'. Hovering alongside them, a presence which Hawkins has increasingly noted during his collation of all available Neo-Hittite inscriptions, is another line of kings who seem to claim greater titles. CD 135

        3) While we are not surprised at the existence of a plurality of kings centered at Carchemish we do question whether the preserved names reflect this situation. We have already suggested that Sangara may have been an alternate name of Sarri-Kusuh. A similar proposal could be made regarding the three other supposed local rulers whose terms in office coincided with those of Hittite appointees. We wonder if Astiruwas, Kamanis, and/or Sasturas are simply alternative names of Ini-Teshub, Talmi-Teshub, and Kuzi-Teshub. The former epithets are perhaps their native names, the latter are clearly Hurrian.  If these are Hittite appointees they may also have had Hittite names and possibly variants in the multiple language groups which existed within the Empire. And the dates assigned all of these individuals are merely approximations. Thus the respective pairs of named "kings" may have ruled at precisely the same time.   If so the probability that they are one and the same person increases.

        4) We notice that the line of rulers of Carchemish in the revised chronology of table 2 extends backward only to the 10^th century, agreeing precisely with the archaeological record at the site, which suggests that all of the monumental remains date from the neo-Assyrian period. The traditional 12th century dates for the earliest Hittite "kings of Carchemish" stands in stark contrast to the archaeology of the city.  We note, additionally, that the traditional history is compelled to assume a gap of several hundred years, artificially created, in the line of kings of Carchemish.   This "dark age at Carchemish" mirrors that which occurs elsewhere in the near east.   We know its source.
 

Ashuruballit

        Without doubt the argument most frequently used by the traditional history in defense of its 14th-13th century date for the Hittites is the assumed synchronism between Ashuruballit I of Assyria, the Hittite king Suppiluliumas I, and the Amarna period of Egypt.

        We earlier began our listing of the Assyrian kings with Adad Nirari II (909-889), this for two reasons. On the one hand Adad-Nirari is about the earliest of the Assyrian kings whose dates are relatively certain, confirmed by the Assyrian Eponym Canon.  On the other hand, our interest at the moment was focused on the Amarna period and later, and the Amarna letters in our estimation dated from the time of Adad-Nirari (or at most a decade of two earlier). But scholars have created an extended list of Assyrian kings going back hundreds of years from the late 10th century, based on a number of "king lists". And according to those lists a king Ashuruballit, the first of that name, ruled Assyria roughly in the time frame 1365-1330 B.C., his reign overlapping that of the Hittite king Suppiluliumas I (1375-1335 B.C.)

        In the Amarna archives there exists two letters, EA15 and EA16, supposedly originating from this king Ashuruballit, thus identifying him as a contemporary of Suppiluliumas I who also authored an Amarna letter, thus confirming the placement of the Hittite Empire in the 14th/13th centuries. Clearly one of three responses to this situation must prevail: 1) the association of the Ashuruballit in the Amarna letters with the first Assyrian king bearing this name must be incorrect, or 2) the dating of Ashuruballit I is incorrect, or 3) our revision is discredited and should be rejected.

        Clearly we reject the third possibility. We have established our chronology carefully and in dependence on solid evidence. It is the "facts" in this instance which must be challenged. And while we agree with critics of the extended Assyrian king list that the list is flawed and in need of serious revision, we do not believe that the solution to the problem lies in re-dating Ashuruballit I. Which leaves us with a single possibility. The Ashuruballit in the Amarna letters cannot be the Ashuruballit I of the king lists. And clearly, since we have dated the Amarna letters to the last three decades of the 10th century, this Ashuruballit must be a contemporary of either Ashur-dan II (931-909) or Adad-nirari II (909-889). If he was an Assyrian king then he must have ruled over some branch of the Assyrian empire or over a rival kingdom. The matter needs looking into.

        We begin our discussion by quoting an extensive summary of the problem from Peter James and the authors of Centuries of Darkness, fellow revisionists faced with the same dilemna. In an appendix to their compendium they discuss the issue, discounting the identification with Ashuruballit I, and raising the possibility that the name should be identified with some otherwise unattested ruler, essentially the same solution we propose.

    The only synchronism between named kings of Egypt and Assyria during the Late Bronze Age is provided by two letters from the El-Amarna collection (EA 15, 16). These were written by Assuruballit, King of Assyria, one (EA 16) being addressed to Pharaoh Naphuria, the cuneiform version of Neferkheprure, prenomen of Akhenaten. Their author is assumed to be the Assuruballit known from the Assyrian King List and dated by its chronology to the 14th century BC. Although universally accepted, the identification is not without problems.In EA 16 Assuruballit mentions that his father Assur-nadin-ahhe corresponded with Egypt; yet the King List and the available monuments agree in describing Assuruballit as the son of Eriba-Adad. In his introduction to the inscriptions of Assuruballit I, Luckenbill reviewed a possible explanation:
    The word 'father' may here have the meaning 'ancestor', as often in the Assyrian texts, but even so our difficulties are not all cleared up. In the texts given below Assur-uballit does not include Assur-nadin-ahe among his ancestors, although he carries his line back six generations.
    While the El-Amarna letter may well reflect some other relationship (e.g. adoptive) other than direct filiation between Assuruballit I and an Assur-nadin-ahhe, this is merely hypothetical, and the possibility remains that the El-Amarna correspondent was not the Assuruballit son of Eriba-Adad known from the monuments, but another, as yet unattested ruler. Thus the much vaunted synchronism between Akhenaten and Assuruballit I, the main linch-pin between Egyptian and Assyrian Late Bronze Age chronologies, is flawed and must be treated with caution. CD 341

        The reader needs to be mindful of one fact as we proceed. The map of the near east at the time of the Amarna letters is seriously flawed. Those letters are assumed to originate from the 14th/13th century, and the map of the Euphrates region at the time is based largely on multiple inscriptions purporting to originate from 18th dynasty kings such as Thutmose III. And we have previously argued that many of the key documents supposedly originating from the 18th dynasty kings actually belong to the 7th century. Furthermore, the 18th dynasty itself, along with the Hittites, the Mitanni, and multiple contemporary cultures, has been shown to belong to a time over 400 years removed from the 14th century. Much of ancient near eastern history will have to be rewritten and the accompanying geography drastically altered, once it is accepted that the 18th dynasty and the Amarna letters belong to the 10th century, and that the peoples and events represented therein followed on the heels of the Aramean migration into the Euphrates region and Syria. This migration supposedly began in the 11th century or earlier, completely revamping the political landscape.

        When we examine the political situation in the Euphrates region in the 10th century B.C. we see a possible answer to two questions of interest to us. Why, if the Amarna letters originate from the time of Ashur-dan II and Adad-nirari II, did neither of these two individuals author a letter in the Amarna archives?; and Who is Ashuruballit and from what region did his letters originate?

        Aramean States:   We encounter several obstacles when we seek to establish the geo-political landscape at the bend of the Euphrates during the 10th century B.C. It is known that kings by the name Ashur-resh-ishi II (ca. 970) and Tiglath-pilezer II (ca 965-935) ruled Assyria prior to Ashur-dan II (931-909) and Adad-nirari II (909-889). Unfortunately any relevant inscriptions authored by the first three kings in this sequence have not survived. We are first informed of the state of affairs in the western provinces in a brief inscription of Adad-nirari. The situation improves considerably during the reigns of his successors Ashurnasirpal (889-858) and Shalmanezer III (858-824) where multiple lengthy inscriptions bring us into the full light of an Aramean world, with Aramean cities and Aramean peoples in full control, speaking their own language, even if from time to time they are compelled to pay tribute to Hittite or Assyrian overlords.

        From the inscription of Adad-nirari, informed by those of his successors, we can deduce the situation that prevailed under the three kings who preceded him. Hugo Winckler, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, summed it up briefly:

Each of these three kings bore the titles "king of the world, king of Ashur," which henceforth were constantly assumed. Harran and Ashur are the chief cities of the two parts of the land. But the one part is held entirely by an Aramean population who in the old cities caused the old population the same troubles that the Chaldeans prepared for the Babylonians, and it contained beside a number of Aramean cities whose princes seized every opportunity to strike for independence or even the reins of government. Near to Harran there stood an Aramean state, Bit-Adini, a counterpart to the dukedom Edessa during the Crusades, just as the Chaldean Bit-Dakuri existed near Babylon. Others still we shall have to note in the time of Ashur-natsir-pal. ⁽¹⁸⁾

        Of these Aramean states one in particular stands out from the others. When we documented the encounter between Sapalulme (Suppiluliumas) and Shalmanezer III in the year 858, we noted that Suppiluliumas was allied with Ahuni, "king" of Bit-Adini, a massive region extending from the Euphrates to the Habur east of the Euphrates, with added domains west of the great River. It may or may not have included the city of Harran. The historians Hallo and Simpson explain:

This area, lying between the river Balih and the westernmost part of the Euphrates, was ruled by the Armaeo-Hittite Ahuni from his fortress at Til Barsib (modern Tell-Ahmar) on the east bank of the Euphrates. In three successive campaigns (857-855), Shalmanezer chased Ahuni from his capital and renamed it after himself, annexed Bit Adini to Assyria, and captured Ahuni. ⁽¹⁹⁾

        Though we have suggested the possibility, it is not necessary that we credit Ashuruballit with political ambitions or view his state as a renegade from the Assyrian empire. That would be reading too much into his use of the title "king of Assyria" in a letter to an Egyptian pharaoh.   The employment of such titles was rather cavalier in the near eastern world of this time.  The situation in Egypt is a case in point. We have repeatedly argued that from time to time multiple kings ruled simultaneously in various regions of ancient Egypt, all claiming the title "king of upper and lower Egypt".   We even cited one instance where as far south as Meroe the kings Ankhare and Khnemibre employed the identical title, though they ruled hundreds of miles south of Egypt.   Clearly the designation "king of Egypt" was a formulaic and conventional epithet rather than a description of reality.   And we see in the annals of Ashurnasirpal and Shalmanezer III that multiple kings in north Syria are entitled "king of Hatti", all in the identical time frame, including Sangara who elsewhere is clearly associated only with the city of Carchemish.   Shalmanezer several times claimed to have crossed the Euphrates to collect tribute from these "kings of Hatti" (sharru ^matHatti).  In another context 12 "kings of Hatti" are said to have assisted Hazael of Damascus in his wars with Shalmanezer.  There is clearly no intention that the title "king of Hatti" be understood as an all encompassing term, as if the designate were the king of the Hittite Empire.  In one instance only, that of Sapalulme, did the title mean precisely that.   But in the other cases it implies only that the author was a Hittite or a Hittite representative and that he was a "king".within the Hittite Empire.   The use of the title "king of Assyria" by the Amarna king Ashuruballit should be interpreted similarly and not construed as if he ruled over the whole of the country. ⁽²⁰⁾

        We can assume therefore, barring evidence to the contrary, that the state of Bit-Adini in the 10th century was ruled by an Assyrian, whether or not a rival to either Ashurdan II or Adad-nirari II.   He was at least the second generation of a family that governed the area. ⁽²¹⁾ This assumption can neither be proved nor denied, but considering the state of affairs in the region early in the 9th century, it is perfectly reasonable.

        There is precedent for our suggestion that the rulers of this region self-styled themselves as kings, and thus as "kings of Assyria".    Less than seventy years after Shalmanezer retook the region for the Assyrians, in the days of Shalmanezer IV, its governors were acting like "kings" in their own right.

Even the central provinces maintained only a tenuous loyalty to Assyria, for the various governors ruled in virtual independence of the king at Kalah. One of them, Shamshi-ilu, inscribed his own monuments at Kar-Shalmaneser (Bit Adini) in quasi-royal style, and even after this fortress had to be abandoned he virtually ruled the empire as turtanu (commmander-in-chief) ⁽²²⁾.

        The Amarna letters themselves give some hint that the author of letters EA15and EA16 was not the head of the powerful state of Assyria (whether he lived in the 14^th century B.C. or later). The Amarna Ashuruballit sends as a greeting gift a single chariot, two horses and a lapiz lazuli seal.  He informs the Egyptian king that he is building a palace, and pleads for "gold, as much as its decoration and its requisites demand".  The second letter in particular, concerned entirely with gold, is more the groveling of a minor potentate than an entreaty to an Egyptian king from an equally powerful Assyrian ruler. The letters from Mitanni and Karduniash (Babylon?), supposedly lesser kingdoms than that ruled by Ashuruballit I, speak of the giving of daughters in marriage to cement their relationship with Egypt. Nothing of the kind is envisaged for the Amarna king Ashuruballit.

        We leave the matter there.  In our opinion Ashuruballit, of el-Amarna fame, was "a king of Assyria", but not "the king of Assyria".   Thus the omission of his name from the king lists.   His proximity to Syria explains why he, and not Ashur-dan II or Adad-nirari II (909-889) corresponded with the Egyptians.    The city of Ashur lay two hundred miles east of Harran, three hundred from the Euphrates and seven hundred from Egypt.  The state of Bit-Adini governed by Ashuruballit extended to within 350 miles of Egypt, half the distance to Ashur.

        We expect that excavations in the area of Harran will one day confirm our opinion that the Ashuruballit who authored EA15 & EA16 governed the trans-Euphrates region of the Assyrian empire in the last decades of the 10th century B.C.  Regardless, the mere fact that an Assyrian governor/local king has employed the title "king of Assyria" in a solicitous letter to an Egyptian pharaoh should not be considered a linchpin in any chronological scheme, especially one which anchors a sequence of Egyptian dynasties hundreds of years out of place.
 

The Mitanni

        The criticism will surely be raised that we have said very little about the Mitanni. Specifically it may be questioned why this national group, so prominent in the Amarna letters - thus in the time frame 930-900 B.C. in the revised history - and a constant source of concern for the Hittite Empire, is ignored by the Assyrian kings Ashurnasirpal and Shalmanezer III, whose lands supposedly bordered on Mitanni territory.

        The answer is not far off.  It is well known from Hittite inscriptions, as well as from several Amarna letters, that Suppiluliumas, early in his career, launched a series of attacks on the Mitanni, then the dominant power in much of north Syria. It is assumed, but not proven, that the Mitanni, from their capital Washuganni about 150 miles north-east of Assur, controlled much of the land mass east of the Euphrates toward the Tigris, their southern boundary running just north of Harran, clearly bringing them into conflict with the Assyrians both in the eastern and western fringes of the Assyrian empire. In the first phases of a prolonged war the Hittite king supplanted the Mitanni as the dominant power in North Syria; in the second he laid siege to and conquered Washuganni, driving Tushratta north of the upper reaches of the Euphrates, where the Mitanni, greatly reduced in land area and strength, remained a threat to the Hittites of future generations, but were far from the Assyrian center of influence. There Tushratta was killed in an insurrection led by his son Kurtiwaza, who was in turn quickly supplanted by Suttarna. The fact that Ashurnasirpal and Shalmanezer do not mention the Mitanni is explained from an analysis of their annals. Their battles took them primarily to the west, where they competed with the Arameans (in particular with Ahuni) and the Hittites for control of the lands formerly contested by themselves, the Arameans and the Mitanni. Elsewhere, to the north they engaged in frequent wars with the Nairi lands south of lake Van, and to the north-east less frequently with the inhabitants of the region around Lake Urmia. The Mitanni, living in the remote regions of the north-west, were avoided ⁽²³⁾

        The fact that the siege of Washuganni took place early, rather than late in the career of Suppiluliumas, thus probably in the first decade of the 9^th century, is clear from an incident well documented and much discussed by scholars. During the siege of Carchemish (the last holdout in the Hurrian war),  apparently dated several years after the fall of Washuganni, Suppiluliumas received an unusual request from Egypt. Goetze describes the event:

While Carchemish was under siege and this second army stood at Amqa, news reached Shuppiluliumash that a pharaoh, whom our source calls Piphururiyas, had died. His identity has been much discussed, the publication of a new fragment in which the name is given as Niphururiyash finally decides the issue in favour of Tutankhamun, Akhenaten's son-in-law. According to the chronology followed in this work his death occurred c. 1352. A remarkable message from the pharaoh's widow was conveyed to Shuppiluliumash. It deserves to be quoted here in full: "My husband has died, and I have no son. They say about you that you have many sons. You might give me one of your sons, and he might become my husband.. I would not want to take one of my servants. I am loath to make him my husband." This offer was so surprising to the Great King that he called together his noblemen into council and decided first to investigate whether the request was sincere. A high official, Khattusha-zitish was sent to Egypt. During his absence in Egypt, Carchemish was taken by storm more quickly than anyone expected. CAH II Part 2:18

        We have a better explanation. Carchemish fell around the year 885 B.C., at most five to ten years after the conquest of the balance of North Syria and even less following the siege of Washuganni. Scholars are almost certainly correct that the Egyptian queen is the widow of Tutankhamon, but Ankhesenamun is not recently widowed. Her husband died in his late teens perhaps as much as twenty years before, perhaps longer. She is now in her late thirties, desperate to marry, but not wanting to lend legitimacy to the rule of Horemheb.  Besides, Horemheb is by now an old man, now into the 43^nd year of his extended "reign".   Perhaps she anticipates his death.  Thus the letter, which promises more than Ankhesenamun can deliver. The son of Suppiluliumas who was eventually sent was murdered en route to Egypt, probably at the initiative of Horemheb.

        By 885 B.C. the Hittites are fully in control of North Syria. Only then, during the reign of Ashurnasirpal, do Assyrian inscriptions multiply and we become informed as to the state of affairs in Mesopotamia. We are not surprised that the Mitanni are no longer on the scene.

        We have omitted, by design, the bulk of the supportive argument for our thesis. The excavation of hundreds of sites in the region of Anatolia, north Syria, Greece and the Balkans, et al. reveal a gap of between four and five hundred years in the archaeological and cultural records of the local inhabitants, the Mycenaean late Bronze age of the 13^th century immediately followed by the 9th/8th century iron age without apparent interruption in all locations. We have perused the archaeological records at only two such sites, Gordion and Carchemish. For a more detailed examination of the extent of the problem the reader should read the massive research produced by the Centuries of Darkness authors on this subject. Virtually everything written by these scholars lends support to our thesis.

        Lest we be accused of circular reasoning we have not depended on the Egyptian synchronisms between Hattusilis and Ramses II in our argument (other than to fine tune our positioning of Hattusilis III).   But these synchronisms are in fact confirming aspects of our analysis.  All of the argument in our earlier two books and the beginning chapters in the present work, those which placed Ramses II in the years 840-774 B.C., must be understood as supportive of our dating of the Hittites. At no time in that developing argument did we rely on the revised dates for the Hittite Empire. And our placement of the Hittites in the identical time frame as the neo-Hittites depended primarily on Assyrian and Anatolian synchronisms, confirmed by the archaeology of the region.  We might well have ignored the Amarna letters (the only link with Egypt that we have used) and still determined that the Hittites belong in the same general time frame as we have placed them, the 9th/8th centuries.  Thus the 9th/8th century dating of Ramses II and the 9th/8th century dating of the Empire Hittites who were contemporary with Ramses II, as attested by multiple documents, were arrived at independently.   The reader can believe, if he/she so chooses, that this is merely coincidence. But there must come a time when coincidences multiply to the extent that we can no longer avoid the obvious conclusion. The archaeological records at hundreds of locations in the near and middle east are not in error; it is the historical assumptions which guide their interpretation that are wrong. The Egyptian 19th dynasty and the Hittite Empire are not coincidentally linked to the 9th/8th centuries, the one by a mass of evidence which lowered the dates of the 22nd through the 26th dynasties by 121 years, then the 20th and 21st dynasties by upwards of 450 years to overlap the 22nd; the other by Assyrian and Anatolian inscriptions which place the two kings called Suppiluliumas and those kings intermediate between them squarely in the midst of the neo-Hittite period.   They are linked to the 9th/8th centuries because that is where they belong.