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 K AMMENHUBER 1968: 1 No longer valid is Landsberger’s argument that the 34–40, Z EEB 2001: 75–87.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.