of Rameses. An interesting light, however, is thrown on the
purport of the treaty by a tablet letter which has been discovered by
Professor Hugo Winckler at Boghaz Koei. It is a copy of a communication
addressed by Hattusil II to the King of Babylonia, who had made an
enquiry regarding it. "I will inform my brother," wrote the Hittite
monarch; "the King of Egypt and I have made an alliance, and made
ourselves brothers. Brothers we are and will [unite against] a common
foe, and with friends in common."[411] The common foe could have been
no other than Assyria, and the Hittite king's letter appears to convey
a hint to Kadashman-turgu of Babylon that he should make common cause
with Rameses II and Hattusil.

Shalmaneser I of Assyria was pursuing a determined policy of western
and northern expansion. He struck boldly at the eastern Hittite States
and conquered Malatia, where he secured great treasure for the god
Ashur. He even founded colonies within the Hittite sphere of influence
on the borders of Armenia. Shalmaneser's second campaign was conducted
against the portion of ancient Mitanni which was under Hittite
control. The vassal king, Sattuari, apparently a descendant of
Tushratta's, endeavoured to resist the Assyrians with the aid of
Hittites and Aramaeans, but his army of allies was put to flight. The
victorious Shalmaneser was afterwards able to penetrate as far
westward as Carchemish on the Euphrates.

Having thus secured the whole of Mitanni, the Assyrian conqueror
attacked the Aramaean hordes which were keeping the territory round
Haran in a continuous state of unrest, and forced them to recognize
him as their overlord.

Shalmaneser thus, it would appear, gained control of northern
Mesopotamia and consequently of the Babylonian caravan route to Haran.
As a result Hittite prestige must have suffered decline in Babylon.
For a generation the Hittites had had the Babylonian merchants at
their mercy, and apparently compelled them to pay heavy duties.
Winckler has found among the Boghaz Koei tablets several letters from
the king of Babylon, who made complaints regarding robberies committed
by Amoritic bandits, and requested that they should be punished and
kept in control. Such a communication is a clear indication that he
was entitled, in lieu of payment, to have an existing agreement
fulfilled.

Shalmaneser found that Asshur, the ancient capital, was unsuitable for
the administration of his extended empire, so he