S 171 202 Cammarosano
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Altoriental. Forsch., Akademie Verlag, 36 (2009) 1, 171–202 Michele Cammarosano A Coregency for Mursˇili III? Abstract This paper offers a historical reconstruction of the period between the end of Muwatalli II’s reign and the beginning of his successor’s. Such a reconstruction is based on the hypothesis of a coregency between Muwatalli II and Mursˇili III/Urhi-Tesˇsˇub. This version of events, the paper argues, ˘ follows from a non-forced interpretation of the text KUB 21.33, a fragment mentioning a number of events of “political” nature independent of one another but are linked to a person called Mursˇili. This text has been widely discussed by previous scholarship and it is here re-edited and thoroughly examined. The hypothesis of a coregency seems to fit in with the evidence provided by another enigmatic text, KUB 31.66(+), and could also shed some light on the bullae characterized by the so-called Doppel- abdrücken from the Nis¸antepe archive. The main topics discussed are the removal of Sˇapili, king of Amurru, the lawsuit concerning queen Tanuhepa, the political relations with Manapa-Tarhunta, king of ˘ ˘ Seha River Land, and the marriage arrangement concerning Masˇsˇanauzzi. Remarks on the hittite kings’ ˘ “double name option” and on coregency in hittite history conclude the paper. Keywords: Coregency, Double Name, Urhi-Tesˇsˇub ˘ 1. Introduction This paper offers a historical reconstruction of the period between the end of Muwatalli II’s reign and the beginning of his successor’s, based on the hypothesis of a coregency between Muwatalli II and Mursˇili III/Urhi-Tesˇsˇub. This version of events, the paper argues, follows ˘ from the interpretation of the text KUB 21.33. This fragment mentions a number of events of “political” nature, independent of one another but all linked to a person called Mursˇili. According to different interpretations of the document, this person has been identified with Mursˇili III (P. Meriggi (1962)), with Mursˇili II (R. Stefanini (1964)), or with a person called Mursˇili who, howewer, would not be the same person as Urhi-Tesˇsˇub (C. Mora ˘ (1992)). As C. Mora observed, R. Stefanini’s interpretation can no longer be accepted, but also P. Meriggi’s interpretation is not completely satisfactory, because of some inconsisten- cies. On the other hand, as this paper will argue, also C. Mora’s interpretation doesn’t seem acceptable, especially since the seal impressions from the so-called Westbau in Nis¸antepe have proved that Mursˇili III and Urhi-Tesˇsˇub were in fact the same person (cf. H. Otten ˘ 172 Michele Cammarosano, A Coregency for Mursˇili III? (1993a)), a fact which has caused R. Beal to observe that “KUB 21.33 remains enigmatic despite Mora’s useful discussion” (R.H. Beal (2002), 68). The hypothesis developed by this paper allows a non-forced interpretation of the text, in agreement, moreover, with the evidence provided by other documents, in particular KUB 31.66(+) (with duplicates and parallel texts) and some sealed bullae from the Nis¸antepe “archive”. 2. KUB 21.33 and KUB 31.66(+) (with duplicates and parallel texts) 2.1 KUB 21.33.Text and translation Vo III? traces Vo IV ? 1′ ]x[ 2′ ]x[ a]sˇ?-ta[ 3′ ]x mdSÎN-[LUGAL-]ma-kán ?1 me-mi-asˇ mMur-sˇi- DINGIRLIM-isˇ-ma[ 4′ ]x-sˇa/sˇí?-ta DAM mdSÎN-LUGAL-ma-kán SˇÀ ÉMESˇ . DINGIRMESˇ [ 5′ [A-NA mNIR.GÁL-isˇ-]kán2 EN-YA ku-it UNMESˇ -an-za EGIR-an-da mar- [sˇe-esˇ-ta] 3 6′ [mMur-sˇi-DINGIRL]IM-isˇ-ma4 DUMU-KA a-pé-da-ni me-mi-ni sˇe-er [EN-YA(-an) 5] 7′ [kar-tim-mi-ya-n]u-ut 6 1 R. Stefanini (1964), 22: LUGAL k] u-[i] t me-mi-asˇ. 2 Thus restored by Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate (1994), 242. 3 Thus restored by Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate (1994), 242. R. Stefanini (1964), 25 suggests: mar-[li-e-sˇa- an-za. 4 Thus restored by P. Meriggi (1962), 70. This restoration has been accepted by all other editors. 5 My conjecture. Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate (1994), 242: [tu-ug], an expression which seems too con- fidential, in my opinion, to be used by an officer (cf. commentary). Another possible conjecture is [Ú-UL] / [PAP-ah-sˇa-n]u-ut. ˘ 6 Thus restored by P. Meriggi (1962), 70. C. Mora (1992), 144 argued that P. Meriggi’s conjecture was inconsistent with the lacuna, which has led Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate (1994), 242 to suggest: [TUKU.TUKU-n]u-ut. I disagree, however, with C. Mora’s view on this point. See footnote nr. 5 for another possible restoration. Altoriental. Forsch. 36 (2009) 1 173 8′ [mNIR.GÁL-isˇ-sˇ]a7 EN-YA mMa-na-pa-dU-an I-NA KUR-SˇU Ú-UL EGI[R- pa tar-ni-esˇ-ta] 8 9′ [mNIR.GÁL-isˇ-ká]n?9 LUGAL.GAL EN-YA A-NA mMur-sˇi-DINGIRLIM-ya EGIR-pa wa-[tar-na-ah-ta] 10 ˘ 10′ [mMa-na-pa-d]U-an-wa I-NA KUR-SˇU le-e EGIR-pa tar-na-at-ti 11′ [mMur-sˇi-DINGIRLIM -i]sˇ-ma-an I-NA KUR-SˇU EGIR-pa tar-ni-esˇ-ta ˇ 12′ [mNIR.GÁL-isˇ-kán]11 EN-YA fDINGIRMES-ARAD-in A-NA mMa-na-pa-dU 12 ASˇ-SˇUM É.G[I4(.A) ] 13′ [ Ú-UL ha-an-d]a-it 13 mMur-sˇi-DINGIRLIM -isˇ-ma-an-sˇi AD-DIN (read: IDDIN)14 ˘ 14′ [mNIR.GÁL-isˇ-sˇ]a15 EN-YA mZAG.SˇESˇ-an I-NA KUR URUA-mur-ri LUGAL- an-ni ar-ha ti[-it-ta-nu-ut] ˘ 15′ [Sˇa-pi-DINGIRLIM-in-n]a16 I-NA KUR URUA-mur-ri LUGAL-un i-ya-at 16′ [mMur-sˇi-DINGIRLIM -isˇ-ma17 mSˇ]a-pí-DINGIRLIM-in I-NA KUR URUA-mur-ri LUGAL-an-ni 17′ [ar-ha ti-it-ta-nu-u]t 18 nu mZAG.SˇESˇ-an LUGAL-an-ni EGIR-pa wa-tar-na- ˘ ah-ta19 ˘ ˇ 18′ [MUNUS.LUGAL-ma-za ku-w]a-pí 20 SISKURMES I-NA URU Pé-e -ra-na e-esˇ-sˇi-esˇ-ta 19′ [nu-za LUGAL.GAL EN-Y]A fTa-nu-hé-pa-asˇ-sˇa SISKURMESˇ ma-an-ta-al-li-ya ˘ 20′ [BAL-asˇ mMur-sˇi-DINGIRL]IM?-isˇ-ma in-na-ra-a<<-asˇ>> me-mi-an ISˇ -TU EME 7 My conjecture. Cf. l. 14′. 8 Thus restored by R. Stefanini (1964), 22. Cf. ll. 10′–11′. 9 P. Meriggi (1962), 70 (likewise V. Parker (1999), 282): [mMuwattallisˇ-ká]n, which, however, is in- consistent with the lacuna’s presumed width. The same is true for l. 14′. 10 Thus restored by R. Stefanini (1964), 22 (cf. also P. Meriggi (1962), 74). Cf. l. 17′. 11 My conjecture. 12 V. Parker (1999), 283 n. 46: Ú-UL AD-DIN (read: IDDIN) ]. 13 So R. Stefanini (1964), 26. 14 Cf. P. Meriggi (1962), 71–2 and V. Parker (1999), 283 n. 46; for a different text cf. R. Stefanini (1964), 23. 15 C. Mora (1992), 143: [mNIR.GÁL-isˇ-ká]n; P. Meriggi (1962), 70 (followed by V. Parker (1999), 282): [mMuwatallisˇ-k]án; the photograph seems to show, however, the presence of an open wedge on the top right side of the vertical one. Cf. l. 8′. 16 Or: [nu-kán mSˇa-pi-DINGIRL]IM(it is not clear from the photograph whether after the vertical wedge there is or isn’t a horizontal one). P. Meriggi (1962), 70: [nu-kán mSˇapilin] …x etc., R. Stefanini (1962), 23: [nu mSˇa-pi-DINGIRLIM-in] etc. (similarly V. Parker (1999), 282); C. Mora (1992), 143: [Sˇa-pi-DINGIRLIM-in] x etc. 17 So P. Meriggi (1962), 71, R. Stefanini (1964), 23 and V. Parker (1999), 283. C. Mora (1992), 143: [mHa- ˘ at-tu-sˇi-li-isˇ-ma etc.], following a suggestion by H. Klengel: cf. V. Parker (1999), 283 n. 46. 18 Thus restored by P. Meriggi (1962), 71. Cf. l. 14′. 19 wa-tar-na-ah-ta written on rasura. ˘ 20 For the reconstruction of the entire paragraph cf. Th. P. J. van den Hout (1998), 50–52. 174 Michele Cammarosano, A Coregency for Mursˇili III? 21′ [pár-ku-nu-ut nu LUGAL.GAL EN-]YA ISˇ -TU DI-NI (ras.) 22′ [kát-te-ra-ah-ta 21 ] (vacat) ˘ 23′ [mNIR.GÁL-isˇ-kán EN-YA (3 signs ca.)22 ISˇ -TU ]É 23 NA4he-kur SAG.USˇ ˘ da-a-asˇ 24′ ] EGIR-an ar-nu-wa-an har-ta ˘ 25′ G]UB?-ri mMur-sˇi-DINGIRLIM -isˇ-ma I-[NA? ˇ 26′ L]ÚMES É NA4 [h]é-kur [SA]G[.USˇ 24 ˘ Vo IV ? 1′–2′: very fragmentary 3′ ]. Ar[ma-Sˇarru]ma 25 said, but Mursˇili [ 4′ ]… Arma-Sˇarruma’s wife in the temples [ 5′ Since the population became dis[loyal towards Muwatalli], (who is) my Lord, however, 6′ [Mursˇ]ili, your son, with regard with this matter [to my Lord (acc.)] 7′ caused [wrath] 26. 8′ [(And) Muwatalli], my Lord, did not [allow] Manapa-Tarhunta [to come] ba[ck] ˘ to his country; 9′ [Muwatalli], Great King, my Lord, also gav[e this order] to Mursˇili: 10′ “Don’t allow [Manapa]-Tarhunta to come back to his country!” ˘ 11′ But [Mursˇili] allowed him to come back to his country. 12′ [Muwatalli], my Lord, [did not gi]ve27 Masˇsˇanauzzi to Manapa-Tarhunta as ˘ daughter-[in-law]28, 13′ but Mursˇili gave! her to him. 14′ [(And) Muwatalli], my Lord, remo[ved] Bentesˇina from the kingship in the Land of Amurru, 15′ and made [Sˇapili] king in the Land of Amurru, 21 Or: sˇa-ra-a-zi-ya-ah-ta (cf.