Abstract
Recent research on the chronology of the Emar (legal) texts has greatly modified the old framework, arguing for, e.g., the presence of another local dynasty, partial changes in the succession order of the kings, and a chronological discrepancy between the Syrian- and Syro-Hittite-type texts. The present study examines these arguments critically and discusses also other basic issues. It concludes that these arguments should be rejected and instead presents a more reasonable chronological framework (for the period of ca. 1270s-1175 B.C.), with one local dynasty and no discrepancy between the two types of texts, as in the old framework.
