Hittite King Research Articles

The Orontes Valley in texts from Alalaḫ and Ugarit during the Late Bronze Age, ca 1500-1200 bc

The data available in the Late Bronze Age texts from Ugarit and Alalaḫ are not very helpful with regard to the river Orontes, because they do not mention its name and they give no specific information on whether it was navigable or not. Especially in the case of Alalaḫ this is surprising. However, the archives of both cities have provided us with data that help us to reconstruct the borders of these two city-states and in this the Orontes played an important role. Treaties between the Hittite kings and their vassals at Ugarit ensured that the border with Alalaḫ was carefully delineated by listing all toponyms belonging to Ugarit to the south of the border, including those that come close to the river. In administrative texts from Alalaḫ, the city-state was divided in several provinces, one of which seemed to have included a large part of the Ghab.

The introduction of Hurrian religion into the Hittite empire

AbstractThe early Hittite New Kingdom was a period of great change. It was during this period that both a remarkable amount of Hurrian textual material entered into the Hittite capital and Hittite kings began having both Hittite and Hurrian names. In this paper I argue that the importation of Hurrian cultural material accompanied the dynastic marriage between the Hittite king and the king of Kizzuwatna. The reception of the material and its lasting effects within the ruling family are to be attributed to the education of the princes within a royal household headed by Hurrian queens.

MÖ 2. BİN YIL BAZI GELENEK VE HALK MOTİFLERİNİN GÜNÜMÜZE YANSIYAN ÖRNEKLERİ

We come face to face with the traces of Anatolia’s thousands years old rich past in many public lores which are still used in today’s life. Anatolia that holds a lot of ethnic and folkloristic elements in its structure became a geography of combining and interlocking of various cultures with its inclusive nature rather than dismissive and discriminating geography and enabled the development of the core of the cultures which it inhabits without losing them. With the help of kings’ grave tombs which belong to Hattians who created a great civilization with in the upper Halys bend in 3rd Millennium BC, we learn about the period’s ore technology and social life. These graves provide us with detailed information about the religous life of the period at the same time. The Hittites who were Hindo – European clan started to settle slowly to the Hattian geography from the beginning of 2nd Millennium BC and established the first central government in Anatolia by dominating the area. But the name of the geography they settled did not change. Even till the end of Hittite kingdom, Hittite kings continued to call themselves Hatti kings and their country as Hatti country. Great Hatti civilization affected a great deal of the religous life of Hittite country. In this study we try to comparatively study some public beliefs which reach to today’s Anatolian life through Hittites from Hattioans who were an asiatic tribe with the similiar applications in Turkish world.

Politeness in Hittite state correspondence: Address and self-presentation

AbstractIn this paper deferential and strategic or face-based politeness are distinguished (Jucker 2010). The distinction seems to be crucial for a proper understanding of the use of address and self-presentation terms and the address formula in Hittite state correspondence. Namely, the corpus of 80 letters written between c. 1450 and 1190 B.C. shows that the appropriate use of politeness largely reflects the writer’s awareness of his place in society, as well as his desire to behave in conformity with culturally expected forms of behavior. Examples of deferential politeness are thus influenced by the relative and absolute social status of communication participants as well as general and socially expected concern for the addressee’s face. Examples of real strategic politeness may be observed in symmetric relations where the writer is trying to minimalize a potentially face-threatening act and in some letters to the Hittite king.

Kuruntas: A Recollection of the Relevant Data

Abstract As a son of the Hittite great king Muwatallis II Kuruntas had rights to the Hittite throne superior to those of the usurper Ḫattusilis III and his son and successor Tud ḫaliyas IV. Because of this, scholars are inclined to the view that he exercised his rightful claim to the throne by means of a “coupe d’etat”, which seems to be underlined by sealings and a rock-relief staging Kuruntas as a great king. In the following paper the evidence on this topic will be reviewed and the validity of more peaceful scenarios will be investigated.

“Like an iron peg I have struck the words to the gods …”. A Hittite Invocation for Overturning Slander

Abstract:This article offers a full edition of a Middle Hittite invocation, CTH 389.2, addressed by the king to the Sun-god and the Storm-god especially, and known from four duplicate tablets in New Script. A recently identified adjoining fragment as well as numerous improved readings from the collation of photos and 3D scans of the tablets allow for significant advances in understanding this text, of which a central theme is the reversal of false accusations against the Hittite king.

Tlos, Oinoanda and the Hittite Invasion of the Lukka lands. Some Thoughts on the History of North-Western Lycia in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages

Summary The present article contains observations on the invasion of Lycia by the Hittite king Tudhaliya IV as described in the Yalburt inscription. The author questions the commonly found identification of the land of vitis/Wiyanwanda with the city of Oinoanda on account of the problems raised by the reading of the sign vitis as well as of archaeological and strategical observations. With the aid of Lycian and Greek inscriptions the author argues that the original Wiyanawanda/Oinoanda was located further south than the city commonly known as Oinoanda situated above İncealiler. These insights lead to a reassessment of the Hittite-Luwian sources concerning the conquest of Lycia.

Hetiidi impeeriumi ja Assüüria suurriigi suhted u 1365-1180 eKr

Keywords: Ancient Near East, Hittite Empire, Assyria, Middle Assyrian kingdom, war, conflict. This article addresses the complicated issues of Hittite-Assyrian relations and military conflicts from the second half of Middle Assyrian period (ca. 1365–1180 BCE) until the fall of the Hittite Empire (ca. 1180 BCE). The article is based on the analysis of Akkadian and Hittite cuneiform texts. We have some historical records (cuneiform texts) like treaties, letters, legal documents, etc., which show quite clearly the relations between the kings of Hatti and Assyria. The key events of these relations are mentioned in Hittite-Assyrian international correspondence (diplomatic letters), royal inscriptions, and annals. The article aims to reconstruct possible Hittite-Assyrian relations at the end of the Late Bronze Age on the basis of remaining written sources from this period. This is of course only a hypothetical image or mosaic that was proposed by the author; other reconstructions and hypotheses are also possible. In this article, some issues related to the establishment of the power of the Middle Assyrian kingdom during the fourteenth to thirteenth centuries BCE, and at the beginning of Assyrian expansion into northern Mesopotamian and North Syrian regions. These events caused several Hittite-Assyrian diplomatic crises and military conflicts and even wars between these two superpowers of the Late Bronze Age, during the thirteenth century. It seems that Assyrian-Hittite wars and military conflicts had begun already at the beginning of the first decades of the thirteenth century BCE, when Assyrian kings, including Adadnarari I and Salmanassar I, conquered and destroyed the powerful kingdom of Khanigalbat, which belonged to the Hurrians and had been for several years a satellite state of the Hittites. Before this event Khanigalbat was partly conquered by the Hittite king Suppiluliuma I in the fourteenth century BCE. The aim of this state (it was turned into a vassal state) was to be a zone for protection of the Hittite empire’s territories from possible foreign invasions from southern and northern Mesopotamia. During the thirteenth century, Assyrians destroyed the remains of the kingdom of Khanigalbat (Mitanni), conquered it, and the Middle Assyrian kingdom got a border with the powerful Hittite empire, which controlled Anatolia and North Syria. This became the reason for many diplomatic and military conflicts between these two great powers during the thirteenth century BCE, until the Middle Assyrian kingdom weakened after the death of despotic Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta (1242–1206 BCE). At the same time, the weakened Hittite empire collapsed – it was conquered by invaders from the Aegean region, so-called “Sea Peoples”. This event took place in ca. 1190–1180 BCE. Struggles and conflicts between the Hittite empire and the Middle Assyrian kingdom during the thirteenth century BCE were partly documented (international correspondence, royal inscriptions, etc.), but there are not enough written sources from this period and this is a serious issue for reconstruction of Hittite-Assyrian relations. These relations were not strictly hostile, as we know from records that some of the period’s Assyrian and Hittite kings communicated as equal and probably friendly partners. There was also active trade and other relations (diplomatic, dynastic, etc.) between the Hittites and Assyrians. Vladimir Sazonov (b. 1979) is an Associate Professor at the Estonian National Defence College and a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Oriental Studies, University of Tartu.

Political Religion and Religious Policy: How the Hittite King Chose His Patron Gods

The manner in which Hittite kings chose the supreme deities of the state or the dynastic pantheon to be their divine patrons must be considered in terms of ‘political religion’. In the Old Hittite Period, the king was empowered to rule by contract with the Storm-god of Ḫatti and the Sun-goddess of Arinna, the supreme deities of the state pantheon. Furthermore, the War-god and the Throne-goddess were connected in particular with the ideology of kingship in the original Hattian tradition. Changes in Hittite ‘political religion’ during the Empire Period resulted in a change of royal ideology.This new ideology is to be attributed to Mesopotamian ideas relating to concepts of royal legitimacy based on the authority of the Sun-god as a guardian of the cosmic order.Yet, the Hurrianized dynasty of the Empire Period had the Storm-god Teššub as its divine protector. Hence, it was Teššub and not the Sun-god who was a natural choice for the patron god of Hittite kings. Mursili II and Muwattalli II conceived a number of hypostases of Teššub with various Luwian and Hurrian epithets as their divine protectors, perceived to be identical with the supreme god of the state and dynasty. In this connection, worthy of note is the political career of Ḫattusili III, who had chosen his patron deities, the Storm-god of Nerik and šauška of Samuḫ, long before his accession to the Great Kingship of Ḫatti.

Histories Twice Told: Deuteronomy 1-3 and the Hittite Treaty Prologue Tradition

The many discrepancies between the historical accounts in Deuteronomy 1-3 and the parallel accounts in Exodus and Numbers led classical scholarship to conclude that the author of Deuteronomy could not have intended his work to be read together with those alternative traditions. An ancient literary model for precisely such activity, however, was available to the author of Deuteronomy in the Hittite treaty prologue tradition. Reviewing successive treaties between the Hittite kingdom and the kings of Amurru, and between the Hittite kingdom and the kings of Ugarit, we see in each case history retold again and again and that the various retellings of the same event differ markedly one from another. Even as the Hittite kings redrafted their historical accounts in accord with the needs of the moment, both they and their vassals would read these accounts while retaining and recalling the earlier, conflicting versions of events. Studies of the El Amarna letters from the vantage point of international relations offer a social science perspective to explain why the Hittite kings composed such conflicting histories and how, in turn, these were read and interpreted by their vassals. This literary practice has implications for our understanding of the historical accounts of Deuteronomy 1-3 in the context of the Pentateuch, where other, conflicting versions of those same stories are found.

Histories Twice Told: Deuteronomy 1—3 and the Hittite Treaty Prologue Tradition

The many discrepancies between the historical accounts in Deuteronomy 1–3 and the parallel accounts in Exodus and Numbers led classical scholarship to conclude that the author of Deuteronomy could not have intended his work to be read together with those alternative traditions. An ancient literary model for precisely such activity, however, was available to the author of Deuteronomy in the Hittite treaty prologue tradition. Reviewing successive treaties between the Hittite kingdom and the kings of Amurru, and between the Hittite kingdom and the kings of Ugarit, we see in each case history retold again and again and that the various retellings of the same event differ markedly one from another. Even as the Hittite kings redrafted their historical accounts in accord with the needs of the moment, both they and their vassals would read these accounts while retaining and recalling the earlier, conflicting versions of events. Studies of the El Amarna letters from the vantage point of international relations offer a social-science perspective to explain why the Hittite kings composed such conflicting histories and how, in turn, these were read and interpreted by their vassals. This literary practice has implications for our understanding of the historical accounts of Deuteronomy 1—3 in the context of the Pentateuch, where other, conflicting versions of those same stories are found.

PA-NIDINGIR-LIMGIŠDAG-TI(sic)=tar-ša-an-zi-pí pé-ra-an? Randnotizen zu CTH 652

The present paper focusses on some details of a text group recently discussed in this journal by Š. Velhartická. First, her newly proposed equation of PA-NI DINGIR-LIMGIŠDAG-TI(sic) with taršanzipi peran is shown to be erroneous. Second, it is suggested that the small group of texts KBo 41.35 with duplicates KBo 41.36 and KBo 41.37 be added to CTH 652 due to the clearly identical and otherwise rarely used cultic paraphernalia in both groups. By doing so the person of the author is ascertained in the Hittite king Ḫattušili III, and it is argued that the use of Hattic recitations in the freshly composed text may stem from the background of the regained city of Nerik and its cult of Hattic origin.

One-year or Five-year War? A Reappraisal of Suppiluliuma’s First Syrian Campaign

This paper discusses the alleged one-year length of the campaign led by the Hittite king Suppiluliuma I against Tusratta of Mittani. Some structural similarities between the introduction of the Sattiwaza treaty (CTH 51) and Mursili's Annals, such as the mention of booty, suggest that the so-called One-year War lasted up to five years. A rearrangement of its events, as they can be reconstructed by comparing CTH 51 with other documents dating to the same period, over a time span longer than the traditional one seems to be best suited to the number and the importance of the deeds accomplished by Suppiluliuma.

Thinking Hattusha: Astronomy and Landscape in the Hittite Lands

It is of note that no special direction of the compass seems to have been preferred either for the orientation of the temples or for that of the cult chamber themselves.Jurgen SeeherAs a natural sequel to studies of temple orientation in the Mediterranean basin, and especially of the temples of ancient Egypt,1 the Hittite monuments of the Bronze Age offer an excellent laboratory to extend further the analysis of possible astronomical or topographical orientations, or both. This would be relevant not only for comparison with other neighbouring and contemporary cultures, but also to provide insights into such an important region of the Middle East as the Anatolian Peninsula.Contemporaneous with the Egyptian New Kingdom, the inhabitants of the Hittite Empire and their masters, the Kings of the Land of Hatti, produced a most sophisticated society, heir to a long Anatolian cultural tradition lasting several millennia.2 However, to our knowledge, cultural astronomy studies in this area and particular period have been practically nil.3 Preliminary analysis of some Hittite monuments and of the written sources had shown certain clues to a possible interest in the sky, but the judgement of Jurgen Seeher,4 the director of the team currently excavating at Hattusha, the Hittite capital, was so categorically negative regarding the question that apparently there was no hope of obtaining a positive result.However, it is the intention of this article to show that the analysis of a statistically significant sample of Hittite temples - and a handful of monumental gates - demonstrates that ancient Hittite monuments were not randomly orientated. On the contrary, there were well-defined patterns of orientation that could be interpreted within the context of Hittite culture and religion. The Hittite sample will be complemented with a preliminary set of data for Phrygian religious monuments. This will serve to analyse the transition of orientation customs from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. This sample from ancient Phrygia will be compared with data in the excellent work of Susanne Bernt-Ersoz.5The paper deals with different topics. In Section 1, we analyse the geographical, historical and anthropological context. Special care is devoted to analysing ancient Hittite religion within its Anatolian context, notably the solar cults and the festival calendar. Section 2 presents our data on the Hittite monuments and tries to offer clues to their interpretation. The Phrygian data are presented and analysed in Section 3, offering a basis for future research. Finally, Section 4 presents the conclusions, both definitive and preliminary, of our work.1. STATE OF THE QUESTION: INTRODUCTIONThe Hittite Empire was a multi-lingual, multi-cultural political entity that controlled the life of Anatolia and the Levant for more than three centuries. From their homeland in the Land of Hatti (see Figure 1), the Hittite kings dominated a vast territory of varying frontiers which at its maximum extent in the late thirteenth century b.c. included, thanks to a network of vassal states, most of Anatolia and the north of Syria. The nucleus of the kingdom was formed by the Land of Hatti proper, the Upper and Lower Lands, and the neighbouring territories of Kizuwatna and Tarhuntassa. This area was populated not only by Hittites, speaking Nesili, the language of Nesha, but also by Luwians and Palaians, speaking parentage languages of Indo-European lineage, Hurrians (notably in Kizuwatna) and, to an extent difficult to discern, ancient Hattians, the original inhabitants of the region. It has been argued that the latter group language, Hattic, was a dead language used only in religious rituals during most of Hittite history and that, at the end of the kingdom (c. 1200 b.c.), even Nesili was used only for state politics and religious purposes, while Luwian was the language spoken by the vast majority of the population.6As a consequence of this population mix, Hittite religion and social customs were a complicated blend of different traditions. …

Hittite Religious Rituals and the Ideology of Kingship

AbstractWhat did the victorious Hittite king do on his return home from battle? Surprisingly perhaps, the pertinent Hittite sources offer different, even contradictory answers to this question. For a study of the relations between ritual practices and political power in the Hittite Kingdom, however, the question is not without interest. The occasion of the victorious return of the king from battle lends itself splendidly to, even calls for, a conscious use of ritual activity for the manifestation of political power. It will be argued that the evidence concerning the ritual activities of the Hittite king on his return from war show no conscious attempt to mould ritual practices into political goals or to exploit the glory of battles just won for a demonstration of power. This fact may shed a new light on the relations between ritual activity and political power in the context of the Hittite empire and its characteristic textual inheritance.

An Egyptian rhyton from the Eighteenth Dynasty*

This article presents a previously unpublished vessel fragment of Egyptian clay, made in imitation of the Aegean rhyton vessel type. Fabric and stylistic comparisons date it to the late Eighteenth Dynasty. The decoration with an animal head, and the unusual solution of the spout, distinguishes this rhyton from other known Egyptian examples in clay and faience. The position of the animal head decoration is reminiscent of Hittite rhyta. The ‘Amarna letters' indicate that Hittite kings sent rhyta to other kings as gifts. An Egyptian potter therefore probably produced this vessel, which is an amalgam of an Aegean vessel type with Hittite inspired decoration.

Le Traité égypto-hittite de paix et d’alliance entre les rois Ramsès II et Khattouchili III (d’après l’inscription hiéroglyphique au temple de Karnak)*

AbstractWith the conquests of Tuthmosis III in Syria, Egypt entered into the international scene of the Near Eastern world. Thereafter, the Hittites were extending their frontiers across northern Mesopotamia and Syria. This led to conflict with Egypt, since each was aspiring to control the routes of international commerce. Inevitably, the two super-powers clashed at Qadesh, and the relationship between them remained full of hostility and distrust. True peace came only upon the conclusion of a treaty between Ramesses II and Khattouchili III, through which an extreme alliance was finally agreed. The treaty was an implicit recognition by both partners of a territorial status quo. Its conclusion was probably enhanced by the rising of the Assyrians and the infiltration of the Sea Peoples. Furthermore, the Hittite king was worried about his right to rule; his seizure of the throne left him concerned about the succession to his own family line. In this situation an accommodation with Ramesses II left Khattouchili in a more secure position. The treaty in the form of a pact between two powers of equal status is the oldest known one in history. Although previously translated and commented upon, this is the first such treatment in French.

Persuasion Strategies in Hittite, Babylonian and Israelite Prayers Overredingstrategieën in Hethitische, Babylonische en Israëlitische gebeden

Veel oude Hethitische, Babylonische en Israëlitische gebeden sporen goden aan om de situatie van degenen die het gebed uitspraken te verbeteren. Zo bad de Hethitische koning Mursili II (ca 1300 v.C.) om verlossing van een ernstige epidemie en van vijanden die zijn land veel schade toebrachten. Hij probeerde zijn goden er met argumenten van te overtuigen dat het in hun eigen belang was om te luisteren naar zijn wensen. De meeste van zijn argumenten komen ook al in oudere Hethitische en Babylonische gebeden voor. In Israëlitische smeekgebeden in het Oude Testament treffen we dezelfde overredingsstrategieën aan als in de oudere Hethitische en Babylonische gebeden. Een belangrijk verschil met deze oudere gebeden is echter dat de gebeden van het Oude Testament rekening houden met de macht van maar één god, namelijk Jhwh.

Tradition or Innovation? The Ugaritic-Egyptian Correspondence

Introduction underwent a significant development, which is reflected in sources preserved on both sides.4 Beginning of the victory of the King of Upper The nature of this process from partners to and Lower Egypt, Wesermaatre Setepenre, Son of enemies and back again can also be recognized Re, (Beloved of the Gods},2 Ramesse (II) Meriin the epistolary documents, which were sent amun, given life forever, which he reached from one royal office to the other. The conclu against the land of Hatti, Naharina, against the sion of the Silver Treaty in 1258 BCE provided land of Arzawa, against Pidassa, against the land Ugarit with the opportunity to revive, once again, of Dardanaya, against the land of Masa, against the ties with Egypt and it was presumably at that the land of Qarqisa and Lukka, against Cartime that the Ugaritic Egyptian correspon chemis, Qedy, the land of Qades, against the land dence began again as well. The preserved episto of Ugarit (and) Musnatu.3 lary documents were indeed written during peri These words represent the beginning of the ods which can be described, without exaggera Egyptian description of the military campaign in tion, as the real high water marks in the relation Syria that Ramesse II undertook in the 5th year of ship between the two centres, his reign. It is right here, in the records of the Following only sporadic references to Ugarit Battle of Qades, that we find the land of Ugarit in the Memphis5 and Karnak6 stelae of Amen identified as being on the side of the Hittite king hotep II (ca. 1427-1400 BCE),7 dated to the early and Egypt, its traditional business and political part of his sole reign, and also the mention of partner, is found to be on the opposing side. But Ugarit in the Nubian topographical list of Amen the Battle of Qades represents only a tiny nevhotep III (ca. 1388-1351/1350 BCE) in Soleb,8 ertheless a very important fragment in the the earliest testimony and indisputable evidence mosaic that is the evolving relationship between of the existing relationship is provided by means the two political entities. Over more than two of the correspondence between the two royal hundred years the political and economic relacourts, preserved in the Amarna archive of the tionship between Ugarit and the land on the Nile middle of the 14th century BCE.

CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy 13

For over forty years the dominant view in scholarship has been that Deuteronomy 13 is a composition of the seventh century B.C.E. Remarkable similarities of language and norms exist between the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 and the disloyalty provisions set out in section 10 of the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon of 672 B.C.E.1 The claim has proven especially attractive in light of the wealth of historical data in our possession for that period that would seem to support the claim. Assyrian cultic practices were present in the temple (2 Kgs 23:11); the kingdom of Judah was subjugated by Sennacherib in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:13-18); and the name of Manasseh, king of Judah, appears on the list of Levantine kings subjugated by Esarhaddon. Assyrian domination, it is suggested, engendered a gradual socioreligious acculturation in which Judean scribes assimilated and modified the structures of Assyrian ideology within the framework of their own tradition.2 In patterning the laws of apostasy in Deuteronomy after the Neo-Assyrian sedition stipulations, the scribes of Judea were engaging in polemics and essentially turning an Assyrian form against their oppressors, asserting the imperialism of Yhwh over the imperialism of the Assyrian king.3 So compelling are the parallels of phraseology, so clearly defined is the historical setting, that Richard D. Nelson speaks for the consensus when he writes in his Deuteronomy commentary, [Deuteronomy 13] breathes the atmosphere of Assyrian treaty documents, paralleling the requirements for loyalty found in them. . . . The similarities between this chapter and VTE are so close that a deliberate imitation of Assyrian forms is nearly certain.4 In turn, the claim of a Neo-Assyrian provenance for Deuteronomy 13 has played a major role in scholarship beyond that limited to this chapter. Because the claim enjoys the support of epigraphic evidence, many expositors have taken the connection as one sign that much of Deuteronomy as a whole was composed in the seventh century B.C.E.5 Indeed, one is hard-pressed to think of another cognate text from the first millennium whose language and norms are so close to those of a single passage of biblical law. In this study I propose that a more compelling backdrop for the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 can be located in the Late Bronze Hittite vassal treaty tradition. I will begin by drawing attention to the sedition stipulations of the Hittite treaties that closely match the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13-which, surprisingly, have been largely ignored by scholarship until now. My aim will be to demonstrate that in case after case we may see that the Hittite parallels are closer in content and in form to the laws of Deuteronomy 13 than are the parallels from the Neo- Assyrian tradition. Moreover, I will attempt to demonstrate that Deuteronomy 13 describes a relationship between Yhwh the sovereign and Israel the vassal that more closely resembles the relationship of a Hittite king and his vassal than that of a Neo-Assyrian king and his. The scholarship on this chapter has identified many phrases from the Neo-Assyrian treaty tradition that resonate with the language of Deuteronomy 13. In the second part of the study, I will show that few of these parallels are distinctively Neo-Assyrian, and that nearly all have precedents in Late Bronze Hittite treaty materials. In the final section, I will consider the implications of the evidence assessed for the question of the dating of Deuteronomy 13. Before proceeding to a review of the evidence, a methodological note is in order. As I seek to discern whether Deuteronomy 13 more closely resembles the Hittite literature or the Neo-Assyrian literature, I take the following to be axiomatic: the very fact that two bodies of material share a common element is insufficient to warrant claims of a hereditary connection between them or that they are the product of a shared milieu and a common period. …