Stefano De Martino* the Mittani State

Stefano de Martino* The Mittani State: The Formation of the Kingdom of Mittani During the 15th century BC and the first half of the 14th century BC Mittani was a powerful kingdom; the state ruled over a large area, from the Upper Khabur to the Middle Euphrates, from Eastern Anatolia to North-Western Syria. Unfortunately we have only very few Mitta- nian sources concerning the political organization of this kingdom and its relations to subordinate states and polities. We have even less information about the early history of Mit- tani, that is about the events that brought about its formation. This intriguing topic may be of some interest in this workshop, which deals specifi- cally with the transition from the Amorite to the Mittani period. Mittani is mentioned for the first time in an Egyptian source, the Thebes grave inscription of the state official Amen- emhet; he recalls having participated in a military expedition on Syrian territory and in this context the country of Mtn is mentioned. Even though Amenemhet served under three pharaohs (Ahmose I, Amenhopet I, Thutmose I), it is generally thought that this Syrian expedition coincides with the one led by Thutmose I1 (1493–1483 BC).2 There is still substantial disagreement regarding the time and the historical context in which the state of Mittani was formed. Two hypotheses have been put forth and continue to be upheld by scholars, although with varying motivations and reasoning: 1. Mittani was already a powerful kingdom at the end of the 17th century or in the first half of the 16th century BC, thus its beginnings date to well before the time of Thutmose I, dating instead to the time of the Hittite sovereigns Hattusili I and Mursili I. 2. Mittani emerged from a political vacuum in Syria, which had been created first through the destruction of the kingdom of Yamhad by the Hittites and then through the inability of Hatti to maintain control of the region during the period following Mursili’s I death. The inscription of Amenemhet would therefore be one of the earliest pieces of evidence that the Mittanian state had become a political entity of some importance. Clearly, the problem is even more complex because of our inability to establish an absolute chronology for the period in question, both for Hittite history as well as for the history of the entire ancient Near East.3 * Università degli Studi di Torino. 1 Wilhelm 1994, 287; de Martino 2004, 35. 2 So according Hornung et al. 2006, 492. 3 For the Egyptian chronology see Hornung et al. 2006; for the Anatolian chronology see Klinger 2006; for the absolute date of Mursili II’s expedition against Babylon see Boese 2008; for the chronology of Mittani, see de Mar- tino 2004. THE MITTANI STATE: THE FORMATION OF THE KINGDOM OF MITTANI 61 1. The first hypothesis has been supported by, among others, Wilhelm,4 Klinger,5 and, more recently, by Kühne6 and Novak.7 This hypothesis is based mainly, but not exclusively, upon the interpretation of certain Hittite documents. The treaty between Muwattalli II of Hatti and Talmi-Sˇarruma of Aleppo,8 dating to the 13th century BC, has been interpreted as proof that a Mittani state already existed during the 16th century BC. The most significant events that characterised the relationship between Hatti and Aleppo are presented very concisely in the historical introduction of this treaty. The text first mentions Hattusili I, then goes on to describe the conquest of Aleppo (?) first by Mursili I and then by Tuthaliya I/II. The latter event was brought about through an act of betrayal by Aleppo, which had entered into an alliance with Mittani. Thereafter, the treaty refers to an attack by Aleppo against Hattusili “King of Hatti”. In this context the text describes a problem related to the borders between Aleppo, Asˇtata, and Nuhasˇsˇe, a problem that would have been faced first by the king of Mittani9 and then by Hattusili. Lastly, the conquest of Aleppo by Suppilu- liuma I is mentioned. As is already known, this particular passage has long been the object of discussion10, but no satisfactory solution has been proposed. The interpretation dep- ends on how one reconstructs the sequence of Hittite sovereigns and, in particular, on whether one assumes the existence of a king Hattusili II, who might have reigned after Tuthaliya I and before Tuthaliya II. The existence of this supposed king Hattusili II is in- ferred exclusively from this particular passage in the treaty of Aleppo; there are no other sources that refer to him unambiguously. Therefore, many scholars believe that a king Hattusili II11 did not actually exist. If, on the other hand, the Hattusili, King of Hatti, that is mentioned in this treaty was indeed Hattusili I, there would therefore already have been a kingdom of Mittani at the end of the 17th century BC or at the beginning of the 16th century BC. Furthermore, the treaty with Talmi-Sˇarruma would also indicate that Aleppo had been subject to Mittani before the Hittite conquests during the times of Hattusili I and Mursili I. In fact, in the treaty we read that the people of Asˇtata and Nuhasˇsˇe had requested territories that belonged to Aleppo from the King of Mittani, who accepted their request. Later the people of Asˇtata and Nuhasˇsˇe turned to Hattusili, asking for these same territories. In addition, a passage from the Idrimi Inscription (ll. 45–51), in which Idrimi states that his ancestors were subordinate to the “kings of the Hurrian troops”, has been inter- 4 Wilhelm 1989, 20; Wilhelm 1994, 291. 5 Klinger 1988, 27–42. 6 Kühne 1999, 210. 7 Novak 2007, 389. 8 Beckman 1996, 88–90. 9 In this text both Hanigalbat and Mittani appear and they refer to the Mittanian Kingdom; see Wilhelm 1994, 289; Carruba 2008, 89 n. 11. 10 Na’aman 1980 and see de Martino 2010. 11 De Martino 2010, 190–191. 62 STEFANO DE MARTINO preted as further proof for the supposed alliance between Aleppo and the Mittani kings at this early point in time. As is already known, the name of Mittani never appears in the Hittite sources of the Old Kingdom. Only the Akkadian version of the Annals of Hattusili I (KBo X 1 Obv. 11)12 mentions the enemy of Hanigalbat, which in the Hittite version (A I 24)13 appears as “the Hurrian enemy”. The mention of Hanigalbat has been interpreted as an anachronistic insertion of a later time, since the tradition of Hattusili’s annals is very complex and the tab- let of the Akkadian version dates to the Hittite Imperial Age.14 However, van Koppen15 quotes two Old Babylonian texts, one from the time of Ammis·aduqa and the other from the time of Samsuditana (but in a Neo-Assyrian manuscript), that mention “Hanigalbatean troops”. That the geographical (or geo-political?) term Hanigalbat was already used in Old Babylonian times might explain its presence in the Akkadian Version of Hattusili’s annals, thus making it unnecessary to attribute it to a later copyist who would have updated the text.16 The mention of Hanigalbat in texts of this period might indicate the presence of a Hurrian state that could have been connected in some way to the kingdom of Mittani / Hanigalbat. Although it is indeed true that Hittite sources do not explicitly mention Mittani, it is also true that the expression “King of the Hurrian Troops” (LUGAL ÉRINMESˇ Hurri) is used ˘ on several occasions to describe Hurrian rulers. This phrase appears both in Hittite sources from the time of Hattusili I and Mursili I (KBo III 60 III 13’–16’;17 KBo III 46 + II 54’18), in the Idrimi Inscription as well as in subsequent sources related to Mittani kings. The con- tinuity in the usage of this royal title from the sixteenth to the fifteenth century BC has been considered as an argument in favour of hypothesizing that Mittani already existed during the age of the Old Hittite Kingdom.19 Another piece of evidence that would speak in favour of the existence of the Mittani state during the time of the Old Hittite Kingdom can be seen in the continuous and well or- ganised military resistance by the Hurrians against the Hittites. This is mentioned in Hit- tite sources dating to Hattusili I and Mursili I.20 Van Koppen has recently arrived at a similar conclusion – albeit by means of a com- pletely different route. In analysing Old Babylonian slave sale contracts van Koppen noted that the number of slaves imported from Northern Mesopotamia during the time of 12 Devecchi 2005, 38f. 13 De Martino 2003, 36f. 14 De Martino 2003, 24–28; de Martino 2004, 35. 15 Van Koppen 2004, 21 nn. 65f. 16 Van Koppen 2004, 21 n. 67; Devecchi 2005, 39, n. 90. 17 Bayun 1995, 23. 25. 18 De Martino 2003, 142–143. 19 Kühne 1999, 208f. 20 De Martino 1992, 19–37. THE MITTANI STATE: THE FORMATION OF THE KINGDOM OF MITTANI 63 21 Ammis·aduqa fell considerably; this might indicate, according to van Koppen, “the presence of a strong power in Northern Mesopotamia.” Van Koppen identifies this power as a “unified Hurrian polity, of unknown dimensions and known by the name of Hanigalbat”.22 2. We now move on to examine the evidence upon which the second hypothesis has been based, namely the hypothesis which dates the formation of the Mittani state to the end of the sixteenth century BC.23 The first, stronger, motivation in favour of this hypothesis is the fact that the historical narratives of the kings of the Old Hittite Kingdom24 frequently speak of the Hurrians, but they never mention Mittani, as we have already stated.

Load more