Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:07:32.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ḫattušili I and the Problems of the Royal Succession in the Hittite Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

T. R. Bryce
T. R. Bryce
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While the problems surrounding the events which preceded and followed the accession of Ḫattušili I have long been debated with few conclusive results, the basic facts underlying these events seem, on the surface at least, reasonably straightforward. For the most part these facts are contained in (a) Ḫattušili's “Annals”, in which the king identifies himself as ŠAfTawannanna DUMU ŠEŠ-ŠU (“son of the brother of Tawannanna”), and (b) Ḫattušili's “Testament”, a speech delivered by the king during a period of illness in Kuššara, announcing to the assembled dignitaries and fighting men of Ḫatti the appointment of his grandson Muršili as heir to the throne.

The Testament in particular provides much information pertinent to the royal succession early in the Old Kingdom. Amongst other things, the document records what is commonly regarded as the first historically authentic event in Hittite history – the attempt by Ḫattušili's grandfather to appoint Labarna as ruler(?) in the town of Šanaḫuitta; this appointment was overturned by high ranking subjects of the king (probably with the support of the king's own children) who set up a “rebel regime” under the leadership of Papaḫdilmaḫ. Ḫattušili subsequently became king in Ḫattuša — perhaps the first of the Hittite kings to resettle the site after its destruction by Anitta.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 31 , December 1981 , pp. 9 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 KBo X 1 and 2Google Scholar – Laroche CTH (Catalogue des Textes Hittites) No. 4. A recent edition of the Annals appears in Imparati, F. and Saporetti, C., “L'Autobiografia di Ḫattušili I”, Studi Classici e Orientali 14, 1965, pp. 40–85Google Scholar; see also Melchert, H. C., “The Acts of Ḫattušili I”, JNES 37, 1978, pp. 111–128Google Scholar.

2 KUB I 16Google Scholar (= BoTU 8) + KUB XL 65Google Scholar — Laroche CTH No. 6. See Sommer, F. and Falkenstein, A., Die hethitisch-akkadische Bilingue des Ḫattušili I (Labarna II) Abh. der Philosophisch-historischen Abteilung Neue Folge Heft 16, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, 1938Google Scholar; cited hereafter as HAB.

3 The view that Muršili was the grandson of Ḫattušili is based on a passage in the treaty between Muwatalli and Talmišarruma of Aleppo, (KBo I 6)Google Scholar; see Goetze, A., “Die historische Einleitung des Aleppo Vertrages”, MAOG 4, 1928–1929, pp. 59–66Google Scholar. Line 13 of this document identifies Muršili as the grandson of Ḫattušili. But note Goetze's comments p. 64, and see also K. K. Riemschneider, Die Thronfolgeordnung im althethitischen Reich (in Klengel, H., Beiträge zur Sozialen Struktur des Alten Vorderasien, Deutsche Ak. der Wiss. zu Berlin, 1971, p. 82Google Scholar). Like Goetze, Riemschneider claims on the basis of the Testament and the fragmentary Old Hittite text 2 BoTU 20 (= KBo III 57Google Scholar) that Muršili was the actual son and not the grandson of Ḫattušili. For a contrary view, see Bin-Nun, S. R., The Tawananna in the Hittite Kingdom, Texte der Hethiter, Heft 5, Carl Winter, Heidelberg, 1975 (hereafter cited as The Tawananna), pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

4 HAB III 41–44Google Scholar (sec. 20). For the suggested restoration of the grandfather's name as Pu-lugal-ma, see Sommer, and Falkenstein, , HAB pp. 162–163Google Scholar. Note also the comments of Gurney, O. R., CAH II. 1, p. 237Google Scholar.

5 It is not clear here (nor in several other Old Kingdom documents) whether T/Labarna is to be regarded as a personal name or a title. While Balkan claims quite categorically that it must be the former (Eine Schenkungsurkunde aus der althethitischen Zeit, gefunden in Inandik, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara, 1973, p. 74Google Scholar), it is perhaps significant that the word never appears with a determinative in the Testament, whereas all other personal names in this document are invariably preceded by determinatives. The possible implications of this may warrant further consideration.

6 An accurate interpretation of the sentence in question depends largely on the meaning of the verb iškunnaḫḫiš, which is a hapax legomenon and cannot be precisely translated. See the discussion below.

7 MEŠ-ŠU LÚ.MEŠGAL.GAL — “his servants (and ?) the great men”.

8 The status and family relationships of Papaḫdilmaḫ are not known. He may well have been one of the disloyal sons of Hattušili's grandfather, and Bin-Nun in fact suggests that he was Ḫattušili's father (on the basis of a restoration she proposes in HAB III 44Google Scholar); see her comments in The Tawananna, pp. 8–9, 55, and cf. Sommer, and Falkenstein, , HAB, p. 209Google Scholar.

9 For speculations concerning the resettlement of Ḫattuša, see e.g. Gurney, , CAH II. 1, pp. 238–239Google Scholar; see also Orlin, L. L., Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia, Mouton, The Hague–Paris, 1971, p. 246Google Scholar.

10 HAB II 63 ff.Google Scholar (secs. 12 ff.).

11 HAB I/II 2–4Google Scholar. We can infer with reasonable confidence from HAB I/II 8–9Google Scholar (sec. 2) that the young Labarna was Ḫattušili's nephew, son of his sister: “I, the King, took hold of him and brought him to my couch: ‘Well, then. No-one will henceforth rear his sister's child’.” This statement seems clearly to reflect Ḫattušili's disillusionment with the conduct of his nephew.

12 HAB I/II 37–39Google Scholar (sec. 7).

13 For a discussion of the role and status of the Tawananna, see Bin-Nun, , “The Anatolian Background of the Tawananna's Position”, RHA 30, 1972, pp. 54–80Google Scholar, and more recently, The Tawananna, especially Chapter IV.

14 The Tawananna, pp. 75–85, p. 102.

15 CTH No. 375. See also n. 20 below.

16 Sommer and Falkenstein, translation of HAB III 42Google Scholar.

17 Gurney, , CAH II. 1, p. 237Google Scholar. Cf. also Macqueen, J., “Hattian Mythology and Hittite Monarchy”, AS 19, 1959, p. 184Google Scholar, who translates: “My grandfather had proclaimed his ‘successor’ in Šanaḫuitta” interpreting labarnan DUMU-šan as “successor to the throne”; but note the comments of Gurney, , CAH II 1, p. 237Google Scholar, n. 1.

18 Laroche, CTH No. 19.

19 The document merely states: “Afterwards Ḫattušili became king”. Cf. the comments of Gurney, , CAH II 1, p. 236Google Scholar.

20 This is made quite explicit, for example, in the Ḫuqqana treaty (KBo V 3 III 59 ff.Google Scholar, Friedrich, J., Staatsverträge des Ḫatti Reiches, MVAG 34, 1, 1930, p. 128)Google Scholar. However, Otten, (RLA III p. 1231Google Scholar) and Cornelius, (Geschichte der Hethiter, Darmstadt 1973, p. 129)Google Scholar still accept the possibility of a brother—sister marriage.

21 CAH II 1, p. 237Google Scholar.

22 Note in particular the series of rhetorical questions in HAB I/II 16–19 (sec. 3) where Hattušili stresses his fair dealings with his nephew.

23 See the discussion of Sommer, and Falkenstein, , HAB p. 164Google Scholar.

24 Cf. the comments of Bin-Nun, , The Tawananna, pp. 67–68Google Scholar.

25 HAB I/II 3–4Google Scholar (sec. 1) and 37 (sec. 7).

26 Sec. 28(II 36–39).

27 It is clear from the Telipinu Proclamation (secs. 18–19) that Zidanta succeeded his father-in-law Hantili by usurpation; and whether or not Telipinu was the son-in-law of Ammuna (see Goetze, , JCS 11, 1957, p. 56Google Scholar, Gurney, , CAH II. 1, p. 663Google Scholar), his accession was also due to usurpation (Telipinu Proclamation secs. 22–24). On the other hand, Goetze maintains that Telipinu was the father-in-law of Alluwamna, (JCS 11, p. 57Google Scholar; cf. Gurney, , CAH II. 1, p. 669Google Scholar). If so, this is the only likely instance, apart from the suggestion I have made above, of a Hittite king actually appointing his son-in-law as his successor.

28 See e.g. Bin-Nun, , The Tawananna, pp. 18–19 and 228–230Google Scholar.

29 Note Haas' comments on Bin-Nun's attempt to reconcile the nomenclatures “son of Tawananna's brother” and “sister's son”, WZKM 69, 1977, pp. 154–155Google Scholar.

30 See e.g. Sommer, and Falkenstein, , HAB pp. 188–189Google Scholar.

31 The Tawananna, pp. 21–22.

32 The Tawananna, p. 25.

33 The Tawananna, p. 25.

34 Note in particular the series of present tense verbs in HAB I/II 18–29Google Scholar (secs. 3–5). See also the comments of Archi, , Or. ns 46, 1977, pp. 483–484Google Scholar.

35 From another source we learn of a rebellion in Zalpa involving another son Ḫakkarpili who likewise had been appointed as a local governor (see Forrer, , WVDOG 41, 42, 1922 26, no. 13Google Scholar). The outcome of this rebellion is not known, but presumably Ḫattušili was again successful in restoring order and deposing his son.

36 HAB II 68–74 (sec. 13)Google Scholar.

37 Bin-Nun interprets in this context as “slave”. She suggests that Ḫuzziya was a paḫḫurzi son of Ḫattušili and could therefore be called a slave, and that the “sons of Ḫatti” approached the king's daughter for fear that another paḫḫurzi might attempt to ascend the throne (The Tawananna, pp. 23–24). This speculation has virtually no evidence to support it. Furthermore certainly need not indicate a slave; it could be used of any subject of the king, including a person of high status within the king's government. Cf. the use of the term in HAB II 41Google Scholar (sec. 7) and III 39 and 43 (sec. 20).

38 See again n. 8.

39 Riemschneider suggests that the reference to the appointment of Labarna in Šanaḫuitta may simply indicate the appointment of a local governor, in the same way as Ḫattušili's son Ḫuzziya was installed as “governor” of Tappaššanda (Die Thronfolgeordnung p. 99). Ḫattuša seems also to have exercised some form of authority over Šanaḫuitta in the Assyrian colony period; for an OA letter of this period, prior to the conquests of Pitḫana and Anitta, refers to hostilities, probably a revolt, against Ḫattuša by several central Anatolian rulers, including the prince of Šinaḫuttum, almost certainly to be identified with Šanaḫuitta (see Larsen, M. T., “A revolt against Ḫattuša”, JCS 24, 1972, 100–1Google Scholar). On chronological grounds, as pointed out by Larsen, there can be no direct connexion between this “revolt” and the rebellion against Ḫattušili's grandfather.

40 As recorded in Ḫattušili's Annals for his first and fourth years. In the Akkadian version of the text, the name appears in the variant forms Šaḫuitta and Šanaḫut.

41 HAB III 44–45Google Scholar (sec. 20).

42 See HAB pp. 56, 212–213, and, von Schuler, E., Hethitische Königserlasse als Quellen der Rechtsfindung und ihr Verhältnis zum kodifizierten Recht in Festschrift Johannes Friedrich, Carl Winter, Heidelberg, 1959, pp. 441–442Google Scholar, Bin-Nun, , The Tawananna, pp. 7, 9, 112–113Google Scholar.

43 The Tawananna, pp. 112–113.

44 Note also the comments of Archi, , Or. 46, 1977, pp. 482–483Google Scholar.

45 HAB I/II 20–36Google Scholar (secs. 4–6).

46 See e.g. Riemschneider, , Die Thronfolgeordnung, pp. 83 ff.Google Scholar, and especially pp. 93–94 and the references contained therein to the proposals of the Russian scholars Dovgjalo and Ivanov. See also the comments of Gurney, , CAH II 1 pp. 667–668Google Scholar, and note the discussion of Bin-Nun, The Tawananna, Chapter I.

47 Cf. Bin-Nun, , The Tawananna, p. 17Google Scholar.

48 Cf. the comments of Archi, , Or. 46, p. 481Google Scholar.