Epic and History

Epic and History Edited by David Konstan and Kurt A. Raaflaub A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication 4 Epic and History in Hittite Anatolia: In Search of a Local Hero Amir Gilan In memory of Julia Orlamünde, a true hero1 In his recent discussion of epic as genre, Richard Martin (2005) suggests a com- municative, relational approach to epic instead of a formal definition based on features of content or style. Discussing contemporary epic traditions, Martin argues that epic cannot be pinned down to a specific textual or performance style, or to a specific setting or occasion of performance. Epic can be performed in almost every situation and is intricately interwoven with myths, folktales, wisdom-proverbs and praise-poetry. Epic can interact with and incorporate all these forms, yet it surpasses them by its ambition. It is very aspiring in scope, “undertaking to arti- culate the most essential aspects of a culture, from its origin stories to its idea of social behavior, social structure, and relationship to the natural world and to the supernatural” (18). Moreover, the definition of what exactly qualifies a narrative to be epic is essentially emic and determined by historical and cultural contexts. “Community self-identification, caste ambitions, and local religious cult all deter- mine whether a people views the epic as its own defining narrative” (17). When dealing with Hittite or Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) material, Martin’s relational, dynamic approach to epic may help to avoid the pitfalls of tautology and circular reasoning. This occurs when Hittite or ANE narratives are identified as epics on account of formal, generic definitions of the term that were not originally developed on the basis of the Hittite or the ANE material (Sasson 2005: 225). As Piotr Michalowski notes (1992: 228; this vol.), applications of modern generic definitions of the term epic to ANE texts “subconsciously bring to bear upon these texts very specific anachronistic expectations and interpretative strategies.” Martin’s normative approach also illustrates a paradox underlying the study of “Hittite epic.” Various texts found in the libraries and archives of Hattuia, the Hittite capital – most notably the elaborate mythological cycle of poems concerning the competition between Kumarbi and Teiiub over heavenly kingship, and the “Song of Release” – are often studied as exponents of an “Eastern Mediterranean epic tradition” in the context of possible ANE influences on Greek cultural production (West 1997: 101–6; Bachvarova 2005: 131–53; see also Bachvarova, this volume). Other narratives are regarded as manifestations of an Indo-European epic lore (Watkins 1995; Katz 2005). Comparative studies of these compositions have indeed shown that they share 52 Amir Gilan common forms, themes, motifs, or phraseology with other epic traditions. From a hittitological perspective, however, precisely these compositions are usually considered to be foreign, translated literature (Beckman 2005: 255; Klinger 2007: 73), mostly confined to erudite circles. Were these compositions ever considered “epic” by a Hittite audience as well? Were they ever performed at all in Hattuia or did they merely circulate in the libraries of scholars and scribes? One way to approach the question of what the Hittites themselves considered being of “epic” (greater than life) dimension – embodying their history, identity and aspirations – is to search for a Hittite hero. “The return of Odysseus,” writes Irad Malkin in the introduction of his book on this topic (1998: 1), “must have been on the minds of historical Greeks when they were sailing beyond Ithaca.” In Mesopotamia, large parts of the populace must have been acquainted with the figure of Gilgamei and venerated him as king in the Netherworld (Sallaberger 2008: 59, 119). What heroes did the Hittites have in their heads? A look at the dictionaries under haItali shows that both gods and men could be denoted either with an adjective: “sturdy, stout, brave, heroic,” or with a noun: “warrior, champion, hero” (Puhvel 1991: 235–6; Friedrich et al. 2004: 430–1). In Hittite literature, the epithet was mostly reserved to denote the Storm-God in his different aspects or other male heads of pantheons as well as characters in “heroic” literature in translation such as Gilgamei and Enkidu or the warriors in the Sargon and Naram-Sin narratives. In the Middle Hittite period (fifteenth century bce) the Hittite kings began to attribute to themselves the epithet “warrior, hero” (summerogram UR.SAG, Hittite haItali or tarhuili), an epithet that henceforth was an integral part of their titles. As we shall see, however, although characterized as “heroes,” the Hittite kings do not seem to have sponsored “heroic” poetry about themselves or their ancestors. In fact, the search for a genuine Hittite “hero,” who was celebrated and immortalized in song and poetry, will become almost “epic” in itself. We encounter our first hero at the dawn of Hittite history. In the concluding paragraphs of the composition known as the Manly Deeds (Hittite peInatar; often called Annals in modern scholarship) of Hattuiili I, a Hittite King who ruled towards the end of the seventeenth century bce, the king boasts of the following achievements (trans. Beckman 2006 with bibliography): No one had crossed the Euphrates River, but I, the Great King, the Tabarna, crossed it on foot, and my army crossed it on foot behind me. Sargon (also) crossed it. [He] fought the troops of Hahha, but [he] did not do anything to Hahha. He did not burn it down; smoke was not visible to the storm-god of Heaven. But I, the Great King, the Tabarna, destroyed Haiiu(wa) and Hahha and [burned] them down with fire. I [showed] smoke to the sun-god of Heaven and the storm-god. I hitched the king of Haiiu(wa) and the king of Hahha to a wagon. These two paragraphs summarize the destruction of Hahhum and Haiiu(wa), both major Syrian cities, described in detail earlier in the composition. Both conquests, Epic and History in Hittite Anatolia 53 which took place in the final year covered in the Manly Deeds, form the peak of Hattuiili’s achievements as described in this composition. For our purposes, it is especially Hattuiili’s flattering comparison with the Akkadian king Sargon – a king who lived more than half a millennium earlier – which deserves special attention. It is reasonable to assume that the author of the Manly Deeds learned about Sargon through the rich “Stream of tradition” concerning the Akkadian kings (Güterbock 1983: 27). The city of Hahhum is featured in other compositions concerning these kings (van de Mieroop 2000: 153). More importantly, Hattuiili did not only compare himself to Sargon, he apparently engaged in direct dialogue with him, responding to the famous challenge taken from one of the Old Babylonian compositions about this ruler (J. Westenholz 1997: 77): “Lo, the king who wants to equal me, where I have gone, let him also go!” As already suggested by several scholars, the traditions concerning the Akkadian kings may have inspired their Old Hittite colleagues to conduct daring military campaigns of their own (Haas 1993). This enterprise was crowned by Hattuiili’s successor, Muriili I, with the conquest of Aleppo, the royal capital of the kingdom of Yamhad. Moreover, the conquest of Aleppo was promptly followed by an amaz- ing military expedition down the Euphrates River to Babylon, situated some 800 kilometers away from Aleppo. This expedition brought about the fall of Babylon and the demise of the dynasty of Hammurabi. The Old Hittite kings, so it seems, may have had Sargon in their heads. Several compositions concerning the Akkadian kings were indeed found, in Hittite translation or adaptation, in the archives and libraries of Hattuia, even if of a later date (for an overview see Beckman 2001). One composition in Hittite translation concerns Naram-Sin’s victory over a coalition of rebellious kings (KBo 3.13, edited by Güterbock 1938: 66–80). The composition, the so called Great Revolt against Naram-Sin, is known in different versions (J. Westenholz 1997: 221–61, text 17). Several of these are Old Babylonian recensions which have been shown to be adaptations of an original Old Akkadian inscription (Michalowski 1980: 233–46). All these versions contain a detailed catalogue of enemy kings but in each this list of adversaries differs somewhat and seems to be representing a different geographical horizon (Jonker 1995: 122–32). The Hittite text is unfortunately quite fragmentary, but its best preserved part (obv. 8′–15′) contains a detailed list of 17 kings, who rose against Naram-Sin, only to be defeated by him. A parallel catalogue of these kings is found in one of the Old Babylonian manuscripts, prob- ably originating from Sippar (edited by J. Westenholz 1997: 246–57 as Gula-An and the Seventeen Kings against Naram-Sin). A close comparison of the two lists reveals that the Hittite version features more Anatolian rulers than its parallel from Sippar (van de Mieroop 2000: 138–40). An otherwise unknown king of Hattuia, Pamba, is featured exclusively in the Hittite version and is missing from the Old Babylonian parallel. Another exclusive feature of the Hittite list is the appearance of the name mNu-u[r-, which should very likely be restored as Ner-Dagan, king of Puruihanda, featured in yet another work of literature about the Akkadian kings – likewise freely translated into Hittite – The King of Battle (Iar tamhAri). 54 Amir Gilan The King of Battle narrates Sargon’s conquest of the Anatolian city of Puruihanda (Güterbock 1969; Gilan 2000; Rieken 2001). The uniqueness and boldness of this venture are a central theme of the composition. Several fragments, representing slightly different versions of the story (in Hittite transformation) were found in Hattuia.

Load more