Finally, whatever was the true effect of the early Babylonian supremacy, both Palestine and Syria, when not controlled by Egypt, were influenced by the northern power of Mitanni and by the Hittites who preserve distinctive features {112} of their own. According to Professor Sayce most of the seals we have been noticing are Syrian modifications of the Babylonian type, and 'the more strictly archæological evidence of Babylonian influence upon Canaan is extraordinarily scanty.'[5] It is obvious that one must allow for the direct influence exerted upon the religious conditions from a quarter of which very little is known as yet. The fact that Babylonian was used in Palestine and among the Hittite peoples clearly does not allow sweeping inferences. Indeed, so far from the script or language having been imposed from without, the people of Mitanni apparently borrowed the cuneiform script and adapted it to their own language; while, in the Amarna Tablets, the native tongue of Palestine and Syria has left a distinct impress upon the Babylonian.[6] This individuality repeats itself in Palestinian pottery, which has neither originality of concept nor fertility of resource. But it has vigour and vitality, and has not developed into the superior art with which it came into contact. In general the archæological evidence shows very {113} clearly that Palestine was not absorbed by Babylonian culture, still less by that of Egypt.[7] [5] A. H. Sayce, _Archæology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions_ (London, 1907), _pp._ 151 _sq._ [6] For Mitanni, see Sayce, _op. cit._, p. 167; and for the dialect of the Amarna letters, Zimmern, _Keilinschr. u. d. Alte Test._, p. 651. [7] Cp. Vincent, _op. cit._, p. 341 (also p. 439 and note 1).