No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
KUB XIX 9, a text dating to the reign of Hattušili III, has long been regarded as an important source of information on the chronology of the reign of Hattušili's grandfather Šuppiluliuma I. The text makes reference to the following events in Šuppiluliuma's career: (1) campaigns in Anatolia, allegedly covering a period of 20 years and devoted to the reconquest of territories lost to Hittite control prior to Šuppiluliuma's accession, (2) a First Syrian War, (3) the appointment of Šuppiluliuma's sons Telipinu and Piyaššili/Šarri-Kušuh as kings in the Lands of Aleppo and Carchemish (respectively), (4) a Second Syrian War, allegedly of 6 years' duration.
The information contained in this document, although not entirely free from problems of interpretation, is to a large extent confirmed and amplified in various other documents relating to Šuppiluliuma's reign. The most notable of these is the so-called Deeds of Šuppiluliuma, a biographical account of Šuppiluliuma's achievements composed by his son Muršili II. However, the usefulness of this document, within the context of a study of the chronology of Šuppiluliuma's reign, is limited by a number of factors.
1 For early discussions of the text, see Forrer, E., Forschungen 2. 1, Berlin, (1926), 10Google Scholar, Goetze, A., “Zur Chronologie der Hethiterkönige”, Kleinasiatische Forschungen 1 (1930), 115–119Google Scholar. For a more recent discussion, with translation, see Kitchen, K., Šuppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs, Liverpool (1962) (henceforth cited as SAP), 3–5Google Scholar.
2 The relevant passage appears in col. I, 6′–23′.
3 Cf. the pattern of events reported in KBo VI 28Google Scholar (also from Hattušili III's reign) obv. 16–25, translated in Kitchen, , SAP, 51Google Scholar.
4 Edited by Güterbock, H. G., “The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son Mursili II”, JCS 10, 1956, 41–68, 75–98, 107–130Google Scholar (henceforth cited as Deeds).
5 On Güterbock's identification of a “First Tablet” and “Second and Third Tablets”, see Deeds, 42–46. On the “Seventh Tablet” (so identified in the Colophon), see Deeds, 47–48. Fragments of a Ninth Tablet and Twelfth Tablet are provided by KBo XIX 50Google Scholar and KBo XIX 48Google Scholar respectively; see Wilhelm, G. and Boese, J., “Absolute Chronologie und die hethitische Geschichte des 15. und 14. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.” in High, Middle, or Low? (Acts of an International Colloquium, University of Gothenburg, 20th–22nd August, 1987), Gothenburg (1987), 74–116Google Scholar (henceforth cited as “Chronologie”).
6 The possibility that KBo XIX 48 and 50Google Scholar belonged to another series with even shorter columns is discussed below.
7 It is possible, though not certain, that frag. 26 (Deeds, 84–85) is to be assigned to the First Syrian War; cf. Wilhelm, and Boese, , “Chronologie”, 89Google Scholar.
8 KBo I 1Google Scholar (CTH 51); see Weidner, E. F., Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, Leipzig (1923)Google Scholar (henceforth cited as PD), no. 1. The historical preamble is translated by Goetze, in ANET, 318Google Scholar.
9 CTH 53; see Weidner, PD no. 3.
10 In contrast to the Annals of Muršili in which, as Güterbock points out, at least the beginning of each new year is marked.
11 The shortest known record for a particular year is that of the Ištahara campaign, reported in frag. 28, A i 1 41–50 (Deeds, 91–92).
12 See Kitchen, , SAP, 39Google Scholar.
13 See Güterbock, , Deeds, 120Google Scholar, and Houwink ten Cate, Ph., review of SAP, BiOr 20 (1963), 273Google Scholar.
14 Thus Wilhelm, and Boese, , “Chronologie”, 90–91Google Scholar.
15 E.g. the Anatolian campaigns conducted by Šuppiluliuma in the two years prior to the first year of the Second Syrian War, as well as the Anatolian campaigns conducted during the course of this war.
16 I.e. to the end of frag. 14 (Deeds, 59–68).
17 I.e. at the beginning of frag. 15 (Deeds, 75).
18 “Chronologie”, 83–84.
19 “Chronologie”, 94.
20 Thus Güterbock, , Deeds, 47Google Scholar.
21 The name simply means “the wife of the king”; see Federn, W., “Dahamunzu”, JCS 14 (1960), 33Google Scholar.
22 “Chronologie”, 82.
23 “Chronologie”, 83.
24 “Chronologie”, 81.
25 Krauss, R., Das Ende der Amamazeit, Hildesheim (1978), esp. 9–19Google Scholar.
26 “Chronologie”, 101–102.
27 In an article entitled “The Death of Niphururiya and its Aftermath”, to appear in JEA.
28 Sturm, J., “Wer ist Piphururiaš?”, RHA II/13 (1933), 161–176Google Scholar, Edel, E., “Neue keilschriftliche Umschreibungen ägyptischer Namen aus dem Boǧazköytexten”, JNES 7 (1948), 11–24Google Scholar, esp. 14–15, Kitchen, K., review of Krauss (n. 25), JEA 71 (1985), 44Google Scholar.
29 The fact that the war was of only one year's duration is indicated by the Šattiwaza treaty, obv. line 46.
30 Wilhelm, and Boese, , “Chronologie”, 85Google Scholar.
31 “Chronologie”, 87.
32 Campbell, E. F., The Chronology of the Amarna Letters, Baltimore, 1964, 83–89Google Scholar. The period in question includes 10–12 years for the Rib-Adda letters and subsequently 4–5 years for the letters to and from Aziru and the letters of Abi-milku of Tyre.
33 Murnane, W. J., The Road to Kadesh, Chicago (1985), 197Google Scholar.
34 Kadesh, 199.
35 Kadesh, 200.
36 See the comments of Kitchen, , SAP, 7Google Scholar, n. 1.
37 Kadesh, 197, n. 31.
38 “Chronologie”, 88.
39 See Goetze, , Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography, New Haven (1940), 12–16Google Scholar.
40 See Weidner, , PD, no. 7, 88–111Google Scholar, Goetze, , Kizzuwatna, 36–42Google Scholar. The relevant passage from the treaty is col. IV, lines 40–66.
41 Beal, R., “The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Šunaššura Treaty”, Orientalia 55/4 (1986), 424–445Google Scholar.
42 Cf. Wilhelm, and Boese, , “Chronologie”, 77Google Scholar.
43 See Güterbock, , Siegel aus Bogazköy I, AfO Beiheft 5 (1940), 5 ff.Google Scholar, Otten, H., “Königslisten und die altorientalische Chronologie”, MDOG 83 (1951), 57–58Google Scholar.
44 See Nougayrol, J., Le palais royal d'Ugarit IV (Mission de Ras Shamra IX), Paris (1956), 30, 32–34Google Scholar (with Dossier IIA 1–3), Kitchen, , SAP, 2Google Scholar.
45 CAH II 3, 13Google Scholar.
46 “The Anointing of Tudhaliya” in Carruba, O. (ed.), Studia Mediterranea Piero Meriggi dicata, Pavia (1979), 218–221Google Scholar.
47 See Gurney, op. cit., 217–219. R. H. Beal has argued, very plausibly, that Arnuwanda was the antiyant- husband of Ašmunikal as well as Tudhaliya's adopted son (“Studies in Hittite History”, JCS 35 (1983), 115–119Google Scholar).
48 Haas, V., Die Serie itkahi und itkalzi, Corpus der Hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler, Die Texte aus Boğazköy, Band I (1984), 7–8Google Scholar; Altorientalische Forschungen, XII (1985), 272Google Scholar.
49 See Bin-Nun, S. R. (who also cites Kammenhuber), The Tawananna in the Hittite Kingdom, Texte der Hethiter 5, Heidelberg (1975), 263Google Scholar.
50 Deeds, 122.
51 Neve, P., “Die Ausgrabungen in Boǧazköy-Hattusa 1986”, AA (1987), 400–401Google Scholar. Presumably the Tudhaliya of the Maşat seal published by Alp, S. (“Die Tontafelentdeckungen auf dem Maşat-Höyük”, Belleten 44 (1980), 56Google Scholar, with Abb. 3 and Taf. 4) was not his father but his grandfather (?).
52 See Laroche, E., Ugaritica III (Mission de Ras Shamra VIII), Paris (1956), 105Google Scholar.
53 SAP, 24–26, 40, 41.
54 ten Cate, Houwink, review of SAP, BiOr 20 (1963), 271–273Google Scholar.
55 Obv. line 4; cf. lines 17–19. Frag. 26 of the Deeds could conceivably be assigned to this episode rather than to the First Syrian War.
56 See ten Cate, Houwink, review of SAP, 273Google Scholar.
57 See Wilhelm, and Boese, , “Chronologie”, 85Google Scholar.
58 “Chronologie”, 81, 93.
59 I cannot see why Wilhelm and Boese believe that this fragment probably belongs to a series with even shorter columns than that of the short-column 7th tablet. The 1:1.25 ratio between the long- and short-column series referred to above would seem to me to accord well with at least a partial correlation between a 7th tablet of the former and a 9th tablet of the latter.
60 See Wilhelm, and Boese, , “Chronologie”, 82, 91–92Google Scholar.
61 Cf. chronology, Kitchen's, SAP, 48Google Scholar. Kitchen assigns frag. 35 of the Deeds to this context.
62 “Chronologie”, 94.
63 See Goetze, , Die Annalen des Muršiliš, MVAG 38, Leipzig (1933) (repr. Darmstadt 1967), 18–20Google Scholar.
64 The logogram used in reference to Muršili in this context may be read as either DUMU or TUR. Goetze adopts the former reading, and translates it as “ein Kind”. But cf. Hatt. I 73–4.
65 See in particular the so-called Testament of Hattušili I (CTH 6), secs. 7–8.
66 We should note the claim made by Muršili in one of his prayers that in the year of the pharaoh's (i.e. Tutankhamun's) death he was still a child, and was therefore too young to know whether the pharaoh had made any approach to his father over territorial matters (KUB XXXI 121a II 10′–15′Google Scholar). Muršili cannot have been older than his late teens—at the very oldest—at this time, i.e. approximately seven years before his accession.
67 Thus Kitchen, , SAP, 22, 32, n. 3Google Scholar.
68 The latter possibility was considered and discussed by ten Cate, Houwink, review of SAP in BiOr XX, 275–276Google Scholar.
69 “Chronologie”, 97.
70 I have discussed this in the article to appear in JEA (see n. 27 above).
71 Most recently in “The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in relation to the Bronze Age” in the Acts of the Gothenburg Colloquium (see n. 5 above); see Kitchen's table, 52.