and Iranian branches. For a good discussion of the relationship between Vedic Sanskrit
and the Indo-Iranian terms familiar in Mittani see Witzel’s “Telling absences: lack of
Indian characteristics west of India” (section 11.16 in Witzel 2005). Witzel there
concludes that “the Mitanni documents do not show any typical South Asianinfluence.
These remnants of IA in Mit. belong to an early, pre-R
̇gveda stage of IA.”
11 Reviv 1972, p. 219. The Aryan origin of the term maryannuwas early emphasized by
William Albright (Albright 1930). For mild objections see Raulwing 2000, pp. 117–118,
continuing Littauer’s and Crouwel’s attempts to minimize the Indo-European
connection with chariots.
12 Raulwing 2009, p. 3.
13 See, for example, Richter 2004, p. 507, in his survey of all cuneiform sources on
chariotries, or Vita 2008, p. 57, with special reference to the Alalakh, Amarna and
Ugarit archives. All of the armor and armament mentioned in the Nuzi tablets seem
to have been meant for chariot forces.
See Maidman 2010, pp. 37–38, on a costly battle in which one wing of a Nuzi chariot
contingent seems to have lost thirty-four of its fifty-eight chariots.
14 Not all historians are yet on board with this description. Spalinger 2005 assumes
that New Kingdom warfare was primarily an infantry encounter, and that the por -
trayal of the pharaoh in battle reliefs (here the pharaoh dispenses both skill positions,
using his hands to draw the bow while driving the chariot with the reins tied round
his waist) is not flattery of His Majesty but rather a realistic portrayal of a typical
Egyptian charioteer. Recognizing how difficult it was for one man to perform
both skills simultaneously, Spalinger suggests that chariot battles were to some degree
games, with rules of engagement accepted by both sides. See Spalinger 2005, p. 30,
fn. 31:
I still feel that the use of reins tied behind the back by the chariot driver would
have led to major problems. Instead, can we propose that chariot attacks, outside
of surprises such as happened under Ramesses II at Kadesh in Dynasty XIX, were
more of a “set piece” in which the two opposing chariot divisions were permitted
to attack each other? If so, each would have avoided the almost suicidal results
of such a measure. This speculation is not too far-fetched insofar as other epochs
of human history have allowed their elite warriors a high degree of formal, or
“ludic,” behavior in war.
15 Lion 2008, p. 75, agreeing with Timothy Kendall’s excellent 1974 dissertation on the
military tablets from Nuzi, states that helmet and corselet (sariam) together were covered
by more than 1000 bronze scales, weighing as much as 18 kilos.
16 On the fragments see Houwink ten Cate 1984, p. 59. On the date for Anum-herwa’s
accession see Forlanini 2004, pp. 369–370.
17 See Neu 1974, pp. 1–2. Neu concluded that Anitta reigned “nach der Kurzchronologie
in die zweite Hälfte des 18. und Beginn des 17. Jh.s v. Chr.” In the middle chronology
these dates are raised by 64 years.
18 Beckman 2006.
19 For Erich Neu’s translation see Neu 1974, p. 15 (his italics indicate that the reading
is not entirely certain): “Die Einschliessungder Stadt (bestand in) 1400 Fusstruppen
und 40 Pferdegespanne.” Neu regarded the forty chariot teams as part of “die vom
Fürsten von Šalatiwara in seiner Stadt zurückgelassenen Schutztruppen” (Neu 1974,
p. 34).
20 Houwink ten Cate 1984, pp. 59 and 80–81, n. 66.
21 A synchronism between Hattushili and the first military chariots in the Near East seemed
correct 25 years ago (Drews 1993a, p. 106, notes 5 and 6), and although now doubtful
still has some support. In his survey Thomas Richter 2004, p. 510, noted that chariots
are mentioned several times in texts pre-dating Hattushili’s reign.
126 Chariot warfare and militarism