071_080.qxd 13.02.2004 11:54 Seite 71
G E N E R A T I O N C O U N T I N H I T T I T E C H R O N O L O G Y
Gernot Wilhelm*
In studies on Ancient Near Eastern chronology of three participants who voted for the high Hittite history has often been considered a corner- chronology without hesitation (ÅSTRÖM 1989: 76). stone of a long chronology. In his grandiose but – At a colloquium organized by advocates of an as we now see – futile attempt to denounce the ultra-low chronology at Ghent, another hittitolo- Assyrian Kinglist as a historically unreliable source gist, B ECKMAN 2000: 25, deviated from the main- for the Assyrian history of the first half of the 2nd stream by declaring that from his viewpoint, “the millennium B.C., L ANDSBERGER 1954: 50 only Middle Chronology best fits the evidence, although briefly commented on Hittite history. 1 A. Goetze, the High Chronology would also be possible”. however, who at that time had already repeatedly Those hittitologists who adhered to the low defended a long chronology against the claims of chronology (which means, sack of Babylon by the followers of the short chronology (GOETZE Mursili I: 1531) had to solve the problem of 1951, 1952), filled the gap and supported Lands- squeezing all the kings attested between Mursili I berger’s plea for a long chronology, though not as and Suppiluliuma I into appr. 150 years, provided excessively long as Landsberger considered to be that there was agreement on Suppiluliuma’s likely. 2 Thirty years later, when in a strongly low- accession to the throne around 1380 B.C. None of chronology-minded atmosphere at the “High, Mid- the solutions proposed have stood the test of dle or Low?” meeting at Gothenburg the audience time. 3 The scholars who suggested the (moderate) was invited to take a vote, Oliver Gurney was one ultra-short chronology (which means, sack of
* University of Würzburg during the 40ies and 50ies cf. K AMMENHUBER 1968: 1 No longer valid is Landsberger’s argument that the 34–40, Z EEB 2001: 75–87. Zeeb pronounces himself in “author” of the Puzur-Sîn inscription is omitted by the favor of the ultra-short chronology (p. 123), but since he king-list (see R EADE 2001). The correctness of the tradi- – unfortunately – follows M AYER 1995, 2001:15f., in link- tion on the Old Assyrian dynasty is proven by the Külte- ing Tud ∆ aliya I to the “evil” ( mašiktu) which led to pe eponym list published by V EENHOF 2003 (for a prelim- Idrimis flight from Ô alab (ZEEB 2001: 106f., 112, 122; see, inary overview cf. already V EENHOF 2000). The figures however, W ILCKE 1992: 124f.), he is forced to concede given there for the reigns from Ir• šum I to Šamš• -Adad I only 24±5 years for the span of time between Mursili I’s match well the Distanzangaben of Shalmaneser I’s and sack of Babylon and Tud ∆ aliya I’s conquest of Aleppo, Esarhaddon’s inscriptions. The Distanzangabe was cer- which is impossible. For an excellent résumé of the data tainly computed by using the king-list or an eponym list and problems with rich literature cf. DE M ARTINO 1993. of the Kültepe type with summary figures of reigns. 3 Before the discovery of middle-Hittite Landschenkungs- Down to the Middle and Neo-Assyrian period the Assyri- urkunden in the late 80ies and early 90ies which proved an archival data were evidently not altered because of ide- beyond doubt that there was a double sequence of Hit- ological purposes. In their tradition they were, however, at tite kings with identical names (old Kingdom: Ô antili I, times subject to mistakes. The early portion of the list had Zidanta I, Ô uzziya I; middle Kingdom: Ô antili II, Zidan- been compiled by using Assyrian archival data supple- ta II, Ô uzziya II), some scholars had suggested that the mented by Amorite tribal traditions (ancestors list) and duplication had to be omitted (LAROCHE 1955: 5, C OR- Urzeit constructions (kings in tents), as has been shown NELIUS 1958: 103, VON S CHULER 1965: 16f. with n. 168; for convincingly by L ANDSBERGER 1954, K RAUS 1965 and older literature cf. G OETZE 1957b: 54 n. 13). O TTEN 1951: Y AMADA 1994, but, as is clear now, even for the old Assyr- 60, while accepting the middle-Hittite kings, nevertheless ian history prior to Šamš• -Adad, the available sources remained a supporter of the low chronology by hypoth- were carefully reproduced: The division line between Ilu- esizing two parallel lines of kings. H ELCK 1979: 244, š ¥ ma and his son and successor Ir• šum can be explained by another advocate of the low chronology, suggested a the fact that only from Ir• šum onwards was information family tree in which Suppiluliuma I was a grandson of on the length of reigns available, as is now shown by the Tud ∆ aliya I, the conqueror of Aleppo and husband of Kültepe eponym list and the Mari eponym canon. Nikkalmati, and a cousin of Tud ∆ aliya “III” (who was 2 For a detailed summary and bibliography of the discus- Suppiluliuma’s father as we know today). A STOUR 1989 sion on the Ancient Near Eastern chronology especially was the last author who tried to reconcile an early date 071_080.qxd 13.02.2004 11:54 Seite 72
72 Gernot Wilhelm
Babylon by Mursili I: 1499) more or less dismissed ly based chronological systems cannot be proven or Hittitedata.4 challenged in detail. What can be expected is that The exact figures for the different Ancient the Hittite data might exclude one of the extreme Mesopotamian chronologies from the sack of Baby- positions (high, ultra-low). This is to be examined lon onwards still rest on the venus data of Enuma on the following pages. Anu Enlil tablet 63, though astronomical criticism In 1987, the present writer in cooperation with has lead to questioning its usefulness. Do the astro- J. Boese submitted a reassessment of the chronol- nomical data belong to a continuous series of obser- ogy of Suppiluliuma’s reign (WILHELM and vations or is the tablet the result of compilation?5 B OESE 1987). They questioned the traditional It has been argued that only the first 10 omens view 8 – best expressed and reasoned by K ITCHEN (recording 5 synodic periods, i.e. one 8-years-cycle) 1962 – that Suppiluliuma I ruled for approxi- belong to the reign of king Ammiß aduqa whose 8 th mately 40 years after ascending the throne year is mentioned in the 10 th omen instead of the between 1386 and 1372 (KITCHEN 1962: 39). apodosis. 6 If this is correct, EAE 63 does not pro- Lowering the chronology of the Hittite Empire vide enough data for identifying a venus period of period had become urgent after most Egyptolo- 64 or 56 years. Some scholars dismiss any chrono- gists agreed upon a low chronology for the Egypt- logical value of the venus dates. 7 Two Ur III lunar ian New Kingdom with the key-date 1279 for eclipses mentioned in EAE 20 and 21 have been Ramses II’s accession to the throne, 9 while older used in support of the long as well as of the (mod- calculations depended on higher accession dates erate) ultra-short chronology (GASCHE et al. 1998: (1304, 1290, with wide-spread preference for the 74ff.), but they have also been dismissed for chrono- last date). Lowering Ramses II’s accession date logical purposes by H UNGER 2000. For our discus- from 1290 to 1279 would have “automatically” sion of the Hittite chronology of the pre-Amarna lowered Suppiluliuma’s accession from 1372 to period, the exact figures provided by astronomical- 1361, still maintaining a 40 years reign.10
for Suppiluliuma’s accession (1386) with the low chronol- mun’s accession; cf. B OESE 1982 for the Middle Babylon- ogy, by eliminating Ô antili II, Zidanta II and Ô uzziya II ian chronology (Burnaburiaš 1354–1328[+2/–3]) and as kings of Ô atti and making them local kings or princes B OESE and W ILHELM 1979, F REYDANK 1991 for the Mid- (p. 34–37; for a critique cf. W ILHELM 1991: 471). dle Assyrian chronology. G ASCHE et al. 1998: 66 follow 4 G ASCHE et al. 1998: 6f. seem to imply that the Telipinu Boese (without quoting him) for the Middle Babylonian edict – “perhaps as much as a century after the event” – chronology. They do not, however, follow B OESE and is not sufficient evidence of Mursili’s sack of Babylon. W ILHELM 1979 in reducing the Middle Assyrian dates They duly quote, however, H OFFNER 1975, who edited prior to 1169 by 10 years (p. 51); for the 14th century and discussed the fragment KBo 3.45, in which a con- they nevertheless reach figures that come close to the temporary critic of Mursili’s sack of Babylon decrees the reduced Middle Assyrian chronology, because they cal- damnatio memoriae of this king. The combined evidence culate shorter year lengths prior to Tiglathpileser (that is of the Hittite and Babylonian sources – which are inde- prior to the adoption of the Babylonian solar calendar in pendent of each other – leaves no doubt that the duration Assyria) based on a lunar calendar without intercalation. of Hittite history between the two synchronisms pro- W ILHELM 1994: 551 had already tested this theory, but duced by Mursili’s sack of Babylon (by plausibility left the question open. V EENHOF 2000: 141f., quoting including the end of Samsuditana’s reign) and Suppiluli- K OCH 1989, argues in favor of a special kind of interca- uma’s appearance on the Syrian theatre has to be com- lation: According to this hypothesis a month was added patible with the dates provided by any chronology of the after the last month of the year and given the same mid-second millennium B.C. name as the previous one, but was counted as the first 5 R EINER and P INGREE 1975: 21ff.; H UBER 1982: 19; month of the new year. This would speak against the K UDLEK 1985: 114f. assumption that Assyrian regnal years followed the 6 G ASCHE et al. 1998: 72. lunar year of 354 days instead of the solar year. 7 10 K ÜHNE 1999: 203 n. 1; M ICHEL 1997–2000. W ENTE and V AN S ICLEN III 1976: 250 had already 8 Cf., e.g., G OETZE 1933: 79 (“etwa 1395–55”). (implicitly) noticed this consequence (cf. also B OESE 9 For recent overviews cf. VON B ECKERATH 1997 and and W ILHELM 1979: 37 n. 67). However, it has not K ITCHEN 2000; Kitchen, however, does not take into always been observed since, especially not in general account that the Middle Babylonian chronology depends books on Ancient Near Eastern history. N ISSEN 1998: on the Middle Assyrian one and that there is wide agree- 246f. follows the Egyptian low chronology (Ramses’ ment now that the latter one has to be reduced; thus the accession year 1279), while giving 1375 as Suppiluliu- reign of the Babylonian king Burnaburiaš is not an argu- ma’s accession year, a date that is not only based on a ment for 1334 as a terminus ante quem for Amenophis reign of 40 years, but also on a higher Egyptian IV’s death, nor is 1332 a terminus ante quem for Tutan∆ a- chronology (Ramses’ accession year 1290). 071_080.qxd 13.02.2004 11:54 Seite 73
Generation Count in Hittite Chronology 73
What established the assumption of a 40-year- another tablet is numbered “tablet 7”. Its hand- reign is a late source from the time of Ô attusili III writing is “extremely large”. The columns of this saying that Suppiluliuma campaigned for 20 tablet amount to only 62 lines, whereas the “tablet years in Anatolia, and that he needed 6 years to 2” has 78 lines per column. The content of this subdue the Hurri lands. Conventionally, Sup- “tablet 7” must have been recorded at the end of piluliuma’s conquest of Syria and the struggle tablet 5 and the beginning of tablet 6 of the ver- with Egypt had been estimated to have lasted sion with the small handwriting. from 12 to 14 years. This span of time had been In the copy of the version with small script, the combined in one way or the other with the 20 tablets no. 1 and no. 2 (until col. iii inclusively) years of Anatolian fightings and the 6 years of record events which took place while Suppiluliuma the Hurrian war, thus adding up to 40 years for was still serving as a general during his father’s the whole of Suppiluliuma’s reign. reign. The death of Suppiluliuma’s father and the Our analysis of the very fragmentary text of events leading to Suppiluliuma’s accession to the the “Deeds of Suppiluliuma, as told by his Son throne may have been told at the beginning of Mursili II” leads us to the conclusion that it is tablet 2 col. iv (which is not preserved) or even virtually impossible that Suppiluliuma cam- later. “Tablet 7” of a series with “short columns” paigned for 20 years before entering Syria. The reports the so-called da∆ amunzu episode, the story details of our analysis cannot be repeated here, of an Egyptian queen who after the death of her but since the results saw highly controversial husband Nip∆ ururiya asked for a son of Suppiluli- judgements,11 the basic lines12 of the argument uma’s to become her husband and king of Egypt. are summarized here. The beginning of this report in column iii of The Deeds of Suppiluliuma are preserved in “tablet 7” (tablet with “short columns”, large several copies which differ in the length of handwriting) would correspond to the first col- columns (caused by differences in the size of the umn of tablet 6 (tablet with “long columns”, handwriting and/or the tablet). One copy (e.g. small script). Our calculation proved that the KBo 14.3) with very small handwriting is num- space between the (lost) report on Suppiluliuma’s bered “tablet 2” within the series of 7 to 12 tablets seizure of the throne and the da∆ amunzu episode which contained the whole res gestae of Suppiluli- is not larger than three tablets of the largest size. uma. Another copy (KUB 19.18) is labeled “tablet To judge from the preserved parts of the “Deeds 3”, but its first column corresponds to the last col- of Suppiluliuma” we calculated appr. 10 years.13 umn of “tablet 2” due to its larger script. Still It is evident that the da∆ amunzu affair provides
11 K ITCHEN 1989: 157 („W. & B. indulge in very specula- being solved; a long co-regency can be excluded, a short tive reconstructions of broken Hittite tablets“; in his one of one or two years is possible, but cannot be further critical remarks the author is mistaken in keep- proven and is chronologically irrelevant). - B RYCE 1989 ing up his former argument [KITCHEN 1962: 1f., espe- accepts the method of textual analysis employed by us, cially p. 2 n. 2] that all of Suppiluliuma’s “three suggesting some changes in the course of events and queens” [p. 156] were his successive wives, though gives 1344–1322 as the dates of Suppiluliuma’s reign, today there is no doubt that Tadu ∆ epa is the [second?] i.e. 22 years. O.R. Gurney (who, according to an oral wife of Suppiluliuma’s father Tud ∆ aliya II. [cf. K AM- communication Gothenburg 1987, had carefully cross- MENHUBER 1976: 166–171, 176, corrected by G URNEY checked our analysis of the Deeds of Suppiluliuma), 1979; cf. also B RYCE 1989: 26]. Kitchen also misses the follows Bryce in his 4 th edition of his standard work on point when reproaching us to “rely in highly uncritical the Hittites and attributed the same dates – 1344–1322 fashion upon the diktat of Krauss and Fecht” [p. 156] – – to Suppiluliuma’s reign (GURNEY 1990: 22, 181); in actually we had quoted their theory in indirect speech the latest general histories of the Hittites, B RYCE 1998 [German Konjunktiv ] and tried to put forward a repeats his views of 1989, whereas K LENGEL 1999 counter-argument against the linguistic identification refers to the length of Suppiluliuma’s reign only vague- of Nip∆ ururiya with Nfr-xpr.w-ra, cf. W ILHELM and ly and avoids giving absolute dates. 12 B OESE 1987: 100f.). F REU 1992: 87–90 (critical review, A more extensive English summary was provided by accepting a moderate reduction of Suppiluliuma’s B RYCE 1989: 21. 13 reign to 31 years; Freu bases his reconstruction of B RYCE 1989 basically follows these calculations, though events on a co-regency of Amenophis III and Echnaton he is forced to extend the span of time to 17 years, of appr. 11 years and dates Suppiluliuma’s accession to because he – as most scholars – dates the da∆ amunzu the throne to 1353; cf., however, VON B ECKERATH 1997: episode to the time following Tutan∆ amun’s death. 110, who states that the question can be regarded as According to his reconstruction of the sequence of 071_080.qxd 13.02.2004 11:54 Seite 74
74 Gernot Wilhelm
an important synchronism between Hittite and defined by synchronisms with Egyptian history: Egyptian history. If it were possible to fix this June 24, 1312 14 or April 13, 1308.15 event exactly within the Egyptian history of the The generation count is necessarily rather inac- late 18th dynasty and within Suppiluliuma’s career curate and only applicable for long periods in and subsequently calculate the time between this which irregularly long or short generation inter- date and Mursili’s sack of Babylon, the central rid- vals are evened out. 16 How is a generation interval dle of the Ancient Near Eastern chronology would defined? The most regular result would be a count be solved, and the “floating block” of ca. 700 years based on regular natural 17 conditions: The dis- of Late Early Bronze and Middle Bronze Age tance between the birth of a man’s eldest surviv- Mesopotamian history would be tightly knotted to ing son and the birth of this son’s eldest surviving the chronologically well-established younger histo- son. But even here culture mixes with biology: It ry of the Ancient Near East. makes a big difference whether any son, regardless In the context of this colloquium it is not nec- of what rank within the harem his mother enjoys, essary to discuss the many details which are still is eligible for office (as the princes in the Ottoman more or less controversial. For our purposes it suf- house) or whether the role the mother plays is mir- fices to state that Suppiluliuma I ascended the rored in the rank of the king’s sons (as in Hatti). throne in the 40ies of the 14th century. Even more so, if the eldest son is not automatical- The difficulties of Hittite chronology are obvi- ly heir apparent (also, as in Hatti), then in the case ous: There are no year-names, no eponyms, no of the death of or divorce from the first queen, the counting of regnal years, no era, no kinglist. second queen will be likely to scheme against the There is, however, institutional continuity, despite king’s elder sons in favor of one of her own sons. the many political disruptions apparent in regi- Apart from that, the culturally defined marriage cides, dethronements and usurpations, and this age of the crown prince is unknown. continuity is embodied in the royal clan that Various calculations of the lengths of genera- seems to have ruled the country from the earliest tion intervals have led to very different results. old Hittite period to the end of the empire period This is not astonishing because the variables men- (and in some regions beyond). Thus generation tioned above are mostly unknown or differ from count is the best Hittitology can offer to help one another. R OWTON 1958: 100–102 checked var- solve the problems of Ancient Near Eastern ious Ancient Near Eastern dynasties for a seven chronology. In addition to this, there is a much- years’ generation sequence and calculated a gen- debated solar omen that took place in Mursili II’s eration interval between 21.1 and 31.7 years. 10 th regnal year on a campaign to the land of Azzi Comparing the British royal family, G URNEY in northeast Anatolia. It is likely to be an eclipse, 1974: 108f. established a generation interval of but the possibility of a different phenomenon 29/30 years. W ILHELM 1990: 523 n. 97 used the cannot be excluded. If indeed it is an eclipse, two Ottoman dynasty for the same purpose and cal- dates can be calculated that belong to the period culated 21.5 years. More extreme positions have
events, the „one year’s war“ (“First Syrian war”) took the Nip∆ ururiya of the “Deeds” with Tutan∆ amun place four years before A ∆ enaten’s death. This, however, (KRAUSS 1978 passim, M URNANE 2 1990: 131–136) it seems to be excluded by EA 75, which clearly refers to seems still to be a preferable option to think of the “one year’s war” (“May the king be informed that Smen∆ kare-An∆∆eperure, survived by his powerful wife the king of Ô atti has seized all the countries that were Meritaten, who made herself reigning queen under the vassals of the king of Mitta
Generation Count in Hittite Chronology 75
been expressed by S TEINER 1989, who suggested a information on their family relationship. generation interval of 40 years, and H AGENBUCH- (a) sons of their predecessors: (8) Ammuna, (13) NER 1992: 116, who quotes the middle-Assyrian Ô antili II, (18) Tud ∆ aliya I,19 (20)Tud ∆ aliya II, laws for a marriageable age minimum of 10 years. (21–22)(Tud ∆ aliya III20)/Suppiluliuma. In the case of the Hittite royal house, there are so (b) sons-in-law: (7) Zidanta I, (12) Alluwamna, many open questions and irregularities that the (19) Arnuwanda I. lack of agreement among scholars is not aston- (c) brothers-in-law: (6) Ô antili I, (10) Telipinu ishing. Nevertheless, the available data have to be (d) “usurpers”: (9) Ô uzziya I, (11) Ta∆ urwaili, (16) examined again by using the method of defining Muwattalli I maxima and minima of possible dates as far as (e) adopted sons: (19) Arnuwanda I (?) possible. In a generation count this has to be done (f) unclear: (14) Zidanta II, (15) Ô uzziya II, (17) on two levels: the number of generations and the Kantuzzili average lengths of generation intervals. In a radical minimal calculation of attested gen- In the line of Hittite kings between Mursili I 18 eration intervals we get the following sequence: and Suppiluliuma I there are several kings who Mursili I – Ammuna – Telipinu (?) – Ô antili II – are (a) the sons of their respective predecessors, Tud ∆ aliya I – Tud ∆ aliya II – Suppiluliuma I. several others who are (b) sons-in-law or (c) In an equally radical maximal calculation we brothers-in-law of their predecessors. The rela- attribute half a generation interval (symbol: - ½ - ) tion of some kings (usually called (d) “usurpers” to every son-in-law and a full generation interval by modern hittitologists) with the royal clan is (symbol: – 1 – ) to adopted sons and to the kings unknown. At least in one case it is likely that a (14) and (15). Though the family relationship of king is an (e) adopted son. kings (14) and (15) is unclear, they seem to have A minimal count would only ascribe the full had a legitimate claim to the throne (at least this length of a generation interval to case (a). Taking is suggested by the offering-lists). Only brothers- into consideration the relationship between in-law and the “usurpers” are not counted: Tušratta and his “son-in-law”, the much older Mursili I – ½ – Zidanta I – 1 – Ammuna – 1 – Telip- Amenophis III, one could even speculate about a inu – ½ – Alluwamna – 1 – Ô antili I – 1 – Zidanta II “negative generation interval”. One should not – 1 – Ô uzziya II – 1 – Kantuzzili – 1 – Tud ∆ aliya I – 1 – argue that this is typical of political marriages, Arnuwanda I – 1 – Tud ∆ aliya II – 1 – Suppiluliuma. and that it does not apply to marriages of all In the first count the addition results in 6, in the members of the royal clan; within a political elite second case in 11 generation intervals. every marriage is likely to be “political”. The In the following diagram we combine these fig- same, of course, is even more true of brothers-in- ures with the lengths of generation intervals law. Here a “negative generation interval” is even according to the aforementioned suggestions more probable. On the other hand, it can reason- (leaving aside the two most radical and less than ably be excluded that an adopted son is older than likely ones, 10 and 40) and in a parallel column we his adoptive father. Fig. 1 lists all the attested add them to Suppiluliuma’s rounded accession Hittite great kings together with the available year 1350:
A u t h o r g e n e r a t i o n i n t e r v a l M a x i m u m ( 1 1 ) M i n i m u m ( 6 )
R OWTON (low) 21.1 232.1 1582 126.6 1477
R OWTON (high) 31.7 348.7 1699 190.2 1540
British Royal Family (G URNEY) 29/30 319–330 1669–1680 174–180 1524–1530
Ottoman Imperial Family (WILHELM) 21.5 236.5 1587 129 1479
18 It is not known whether Mursili was murdered upon his annals (CARRUBA 1977; DEL M ONTE 1993: 143ff.; for the return from his Babylonian campaign or whether he Middle Hittite origin of the annals cf. N EU 1986) refer had a couple of years to enjoy his unheard-of achieve- to his father’s death (“father” restored), Kantuzzili ment. The question is irrelevant for the following count should be included in the king-list. of generations. 20 Tud ∆ aliya was killed to be succeeded by his (half)broth- 19 Tud ∆ aliya I is a son of Kantuzzili (OTTEN 1987, 2000), er Suppiluliuma I. It is unknown whether Tud ∆ aliya who is not attested independently as a king, but who had already been formally established as a king, though took part in killing (16) Muwattalli I. Since Tud ∆ aliya’s this is likely. In a generation count he is negligible. Wilhelm Tabelle.qxd 29.02.04 22:54 Seite 76
76 Gernot Wilhelm
Hittite Kings Family Relationship Dates 1 Ô uzzia1 2 Papa∆ dilma∆ 3 Labarna 4 Ô attusili I nephew of (3) (?) 5 Mursili I† grandson2 (?) of (4) high:1659 middle: 1595 sack of Babylon low: 1531 ultra-low (a): 3 1499 ultra-low (b):4 1467 6 Ô antili I brother-in-law of (5) 7 Zidanta I† son-in-law of (6) 8 Ammuna son of (7) 9 Ô uzziya I# son of (8) (?) 10 Telipinu brother-in-law of (9) 11 Ta∆ urwaili ¶ 12 Alluwamna son-in-law of (10) 13 Ô antili II son of (12) 14 Zidanta II 15 Ô uzziya II†5 16 Muwattalli I†5 17 Kantuzzili (?)*6 18 Tud∆ aliya I (= “II”) son of (17) (adopted) son, 19 Arnuwanda I son-in-law of (18) 20 Tud∆ aliya II (= “III”) son of (19) 21 Tud∆ aliya III (?)*† son of (20) 22 Suppiluliuma I son of (20) after death of Amenophis IV:7 1341/1333 da∆ amunzu episode after death of Smen∆ kare:7 1340/1332 after death of Tutan∆ amun:7 1330/1322 23 Arnuwanda II son of (22) 24 Mursili II son of (22)
th June 24, 1312 or omen of the sun in Mursili’s 10 year (if eclipse) April 13, 1308 25 Muwattalli II son of (24) Battle of Qadeš12748 Mursili III 26 (Ur ∆ i-teššub)# son of (25) 27 Ô attusili “III” son of (24)1265±2 – 1236±29 Treaty with Egypt 12599 28 Tud∆ aliya IV son of (27) 29 Arnuwanda III son of (28) 30 Suppiluliuma II son of (28)
* no proof for kingship; † assassinated; # deposed; ¶ position not clear
Fig. 1 1) According to D INÇOL et al. 1992. 2) According to the Aleppo treaty; S TEINER 1996: son. 3) G ASCHE et al. 1998. 4) Å STRÖM, 1992. 5) O TTEN 1987. 6) O TTEN 2000. 7) Dates according to von B ECKERATH 1997: 119 (the low versus high dates are based on 11/15 regnal years for Sethos I, 26/31 regnal years for Haremhab and 3/4 regnal years for Aya. 8) In Ram- ses II’s 5 th regnal year (1275/74); Ramses ascended the throne “ab 31. Mai 1279” ( VON B ECKERATH 1997: 118), Ramses left his residence for the campaign on day 9 of 2 nd šmw, i.e. in the middle of April 1274. (According to VON B ECKERATH 1997: 10, during the New Kingdom the regnal year was counted from the day of the accession to the throne until the same date in the following calendrical year.) 9) B OESE and W ILHELM 1979: 36 n. 65. In the chronological system sug- gested by GASCHE et al. 1998 Ô attusili’s last year would be 1243. 071_080.qxd 13.02.2004 11:54 Seite 77
Generation Count in Hittite Chronology 77
The extreme dates, 1477 and 1699, are cer- chronology which dates the sack of Babylon tainly highly unlikely. In theory one could nar- to1467. row the probability by mathematical proce- Though the present writer himself used lengths dures, but this would leave aside the different of generation intervals in the past when arguing aspects of each individual case, which are sub- about Hittite history, 21 he would like to suggest ject to ongoing philological and historical that one should rather neglect the Hittite data in debates. The only chronology which can be con- the discussion of Ancient Near Eastern chronolo- fidently excluded is the variant of the ultra-low gy, as long as we do not have more information.
B i b l i o g r a p h y
A STOUR, M.C. C ARRUBA , O. 1989 Hittite History and Absolute Chronology ofthe 1977 Beiträge zur mittelhethitischen Geschichte I, Bronze Age (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeolo- SMEA 18, 137–174. gy and Literature, Pocket-book 73), Partille. C ORNELIUS, F. Å STRÖM, P. 1958 Chronology. Eine Erwiderung, JCS 12, 101–104. 1987a, 1987b, 1989 High, Middle or Low? Acts of an Inter- DEL M ONTE, G.F. national Colloquium on Absolute Chronology held at 1993 L’annalistica ittita (TVOA 4/2), Brescia. the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part 1–3 (Studies in Mediterranean Archae- F REU, J. ology and Literature, Pocket-book 56, 57, 80), 1992Les guerres syriennes de Suppiluliuma et le fin de Gothenburg. l’ère amarnienne, Hethitica 11, 39–101.
1992Implications of an Ultra Low Chronology, F REYDANK, H. Ägypten und Levante 3, 19–21. 1991 Beiträge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und VON B ECKERATH, J. Geschichte (SGKAO 21), Berlin. 1997 Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten (Münchner G ASCHE, H., A RMSTRONG, J.A., C OLE, S.W. and Ägyptologische Studien 46), Mainz. G URZADYA N , V.G. B ECKMAN, G. 1998 Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Sec- 2000 Hittite Chronology, Akkadica 119–120, 19–32. ond-Millennium Chronology (MHE 2, Memoirs 4), B IETAK, M. (ed.) Ghent - Chicago.
2000 The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern G OETZE, A. Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., Pro- 1933 Kleinasien, in: Kulturgeschichte des alten Orients ceedings of an International Symposium at Schloß (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft), München. Haindorf, 15th–17th of November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th–12th of May 1998, 1951 The Problem of Chronology and Early Hittite Wien. History, BASOR 122, 18–25. B OESE, J. 1952The Date of the Hittite Raid on Babylon, BASOR 1982Burnaburiaš II., Melišipak und die mittelbaby- 127, 21–26. lonische Chronologie, UF 14, 15–26. 1957aAlala∆ and Hittite Chronology, BASOR 146, B OESE, J. and W ILHELM, G. 20–26. 1979Aššur-då n I., Ninurta-apil-Ekur und die mittel- 1957bOn the Chronology of the Second Millennium assyrische Chronologie, WZKM 71, 19–38. B.C., JCS 11, 53–61, 63–73. B RYCE, T.R. G URNEY, O.R. 1989 Some Observations on the Chronology of Šup- 1974The Hittite Line of Kings and Chronology, in: piluliuma’s Reign, AnSt 39, 19–30. Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güter- 1990The Death of Niphururiya and its Aftermath, bock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (PIHANS JEA 76, 97–105. 35), Istanbul, 105–111.
21 W ILHELM and B OESE 1987: 109, W ILHELM 1989: 65f. 071_080.qxd 13.02.2004 11:54 Seite 78
78 Gernot Wilhelm
1979The Anointing of Tudhaliya, in: O. Carruba (ed.), M AYER, W. Studia Mediterranea Piero Meriggi dicata I , Pavia, 1995 Die historische Einordnung der “Autobiographie” 213–223. des Idrimi von Alalah, UF 27, 333–350. H AGENBUCHNER, A. 2001 Tall Munbå qa - Ekalte II: Die Texte (WVDOG 102), LÚ 1992War der tu∆ kanti Neriqqaili ein Sohn Ô attušilis Saarbrücken. III?, SMEA 29, 111–126. M ICHEL, C. H ELCK, W. 1997–2000 La chronologie du IIe millénaire revue à l’om- 1979Die Vorgänger König Šuppiluliumas I., in: bre d’une éclipse de soleil, JEOL 35–36, 111–126. Festschrift Elmar Edel (Ägypten und Altes Testa- ment 1), Bamberg, 238–246. M URNANE, W. J. H OFFNER, H.A. 1990 The Road to Kadesh. A Historical Interpretation of 1975Propaganda and Political Justification in Hittite the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak, Second Historiography, in: H. G OEDICKE and J.J.M. Edition Revised (SAOC 42), Chicago. R OBERTS, Unity and Diversity. Essays in the Histo- N EU, E. ry, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, 49–62. 1986Zum mittelhethitischen Alter der Tut∆ alia-Anna- len (CTH 142), in: W. M EID / H. T RENKWALDER, H UBER, P.J. Im Bannkreis des Alten Orients. Studien zur 1982 Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur III Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients und (OPNE 3, 4), Malibu. seines Ausstrahlungsraumes Karl Oberhuber zum H UNGER, H. 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (IBK 24), Innsbruck. ¥ 2000 Uses of En ma Anu Enlil for Chronology, Akka- N ISSEN, H.J. dica 119–120, 155–158. 1998 [1999] Geschichte Altvorderasiens (Oldenbourgs K AMMENHUBER, A. Grundriss der Geschichte 25), München. 1968 Die Arier im Vorderen Orient, Heidelberg. O TTEN, H. 1976 Orakelpraxis, Träume und Vorzeichenschau bei den Hethitern (Texte der Hethiter 7), Heidelberg. 1951 Die hethitischen “Königslisten” und die altorien- talische Chronologie, MDOG 83, 47–71. K ITCHEN, K. 1989 Supplementary Notes on “the Basics of Egyptian 1987Das hethitische Königshaus im 15. Jahrhundert v.Chr., AOAW 123, 21–34, Abb. 1–8. Chronology”, in: Å STRÖM 1989, 152–159. 2000 Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt 2000 Ein Siegelabdruck Dut∆ alijas I.(?), ArchAnz 2000, (Absolute Chronology I). The Historical Chronol- 375–376. ogy of Ancient Egypt, A Current Assessment, in: R EADE, J. B IETAK 2000, 39–52. 2000 Absolute Dates and Assyrian Calendars, Akkadica K RAUS, F.R. 119–120, 151–153. 1965 Könige, die in Zelten wohnten. Betrachtungen über 2001Assyrian King-Lists, the Royal Tombs of Ur, and den Kern der assyrischen Königsliste (Mededelingen Indus Origins, JNES 60, 1–29. der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschapen, Afd. Letterkunde N.R. 28 no. 2), R OWTON , M.B. Amsterdam. 1958 The Date of Hammurabi, JNES 17, 97–111. K RAUSS, R. R EINER, E. and P INGREE, D. 1994 Nur ein kurioser Irrtum oder ein Beleg für die 1975 The Venus Tablet of Ammiß aduqa (BM 2,1), Malibu. Jahre 26 und 27 von Haremhab?, Discussions in Egyptology 30, 73–85. VON S CHULER, E. K UDLEK, M. 1965 Die Kaškäer. Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des alten 1985 [Review of] H UBER 1982, AfO 32, 114–115. Kleinasien (UAVA 3), Berlin. K ÜHNE, C. S TEINER, G. 1999 Imperial Mittani: An Attempt at Historical 1989 Die Dauer einer Generation nach den Vorstellun- Reconstruction, SCCNH 10, 203–221. gen des Alten Orients, in: Å STRÖM 1989, 170–195. L ANDSBERGER, B. 1996Muršili I: Sohn oder Enkel Labarna-Ô attušilis I?, 1954 Assyrische Königsliste und “Dunkles Zeitalter”, UF 28, 561–618. JCS 8, 31–73, 106–133. V EENHOF, K.R. L AROCHE, E. 2000 Old Assyrian Chronology, Akkadica 119–120, 1955 Chronologie hittite: état de question, Anadolu 2, 137–150. 1–22. 2003 The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from DE M ARTINO, S. Karum Kanish and its Chronological Implications 1993Problemi di cronologia ittita, PP 270, 218–240. (TTKY VI/64), Ankara. 071_080.qxd 13.02.2004 11:54 Seite 79
Generation Count in Hittite Chronology 79
W ENTE, E.F. and V AN S ICLEN III, Ch.C. 1994 [Review of ] H. Freydank, Beiträge zur mittel- 1977 A Chronology of the New Kingdom, in: Studies in assyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte, OLZ 89, Honor of George R. Hughes (SAOC 39), Chicago 549–552. 1976, 217–261. W ILHELM, G. and B OESE, J. W ILCKE, C. 1987Absolute Chronologie und die hethitische 1992A Ô , die “Brüder” von Emar. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des 15. und 14. Jahrhunderts v.Chr., in: Schreibtradition am Euphratknie, AuOr 10, Å STRÖM 1987a, 74–117. 115–150. Y AMADA , S H . W ILHELM, G. 1994 The Editorial History of the Assyrian Kinglist, 1990Marginalien zu Herodot, Klio 199, in: T. A BUSCH, ZA 84, 11–37. J. H UEHNERGARD and P. S TEINKELLER, Lingering over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Litera- Z EEB, F. ture in Honor of William L. Moran (HSS 37), 2001 Die Palastwirtschaft in Altsyrien nach den spätalt- Atlanta. babylonischen Getreidelieferlisten aus Alala∆ 1991 Probleme der hethitischen Chronologie, OLZ 86, (Schicht VII) (AOAT 282), Münster. 469–476.
A b b r e v i a t i o n s
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung AnSt Anatolian Studies OPNE Occasional Papers on the Near East AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament PIHANS Publications de l’Institut historique et AOAW Anzeiger der phil-hist. Klasse der Österreichi- archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul schen Akademie der Wissenschaften PP La Parola del Passato ArchAnz Archäologischer Anzeiger SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations AuOr Aula Orientalis SCCNH Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental and the Hurrians Research SGKAOSchriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten BBVOBerliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient Orients BM Bibliotheca Mesopotamica TTKY Türk Tarih Kurumu Yay ¶ nlar¶ HSS Harvard Semitic Studies TVAO Testi del Vicino Oriente antico IBK Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft UAVAUntersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorder- asiatischen Archäologie JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies UF Ugarit-Forschungen JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der JEOL Jaarbericht “Ex oriente lux” Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlan- MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft des MHE Mesopotamian History and Environment ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 071_080.qxd 13.02.2004 11:54 Seite 80