Gernot Wilhelm saw no ground for Richter's assumption concerning the identification of the Nuhaššite monarch with the Qaṭanean king. This identification rests on the theory that Qatna belonged geographically to the region of Nuhašše, but no solid evidence supports this assumption, and the Shattiwaza treaty between the Hittites and Mitannians clearly mentioned Qatna as a different realm from Nuhašše during the first Syrian war when the Nuhaššite king ruled. If Qatna was part of the Nuhaššite kingdom, its submission to the Hittites would not have been mentioned separately in the treaty. It is a fact that Qatna was ruled by Idanda during the first war and the Hittite documents do not mention a change of rulers in Qatna made by Šuppiluliuma, leaving no reason to suspect that Idanda ascended the throne as a result of the war. Jacques Freu likewise rejected Richter's hypothesis. Citing different arguments, he concluded that Adad-Nirari of Nuhašše was a contemporary of Idanda, the successor of the Qaṭanean Adad-Nirari.