Commonly referred to as the Old Kingdom

Boğazkale - Old Hittite Period Hatched area = occupied area Lines = max. occupied space Neve, Peter, Ḫattuša; Stadt der Götter und Tempel, Verlag Philipp von Zabern (1993) p. 9

Ḫattuša: Due to later construction, not much remains of the Old Kingdom city (Bittel (1970)).

(The following begins the exploration of a hypothesis by the author that many Old Hittite rituals incorporated aspects of the early formation of the Hittite Old Kingdom and the rise of its dynasty. The dynasty's principle means of apology and justification was the subjugation of the ritual for secular purposes. I do not think that the Hittite dynasty was operating outside of a Ḫattian milieu when they did this. The first version of the myth/ritual concerning the Storm God and the Serpent I believe was a pre-Hittite dynastic founding myth which the Hittites incorporated into their own founding mythology. The whole thing is, obviously, highly speculative at this time.)

The origins of Hittite kingship are still obscured by a lack of documentation and the sad state of preservation of our earliest documents dealing with this topic. We therefore stretch the limits of our resources in an attempt to form a least a shady picture of the historical development. Our three most important texts here are The Anitta Text - dealt with earlier, The Queen of Kaniš and the Tale of Zalpa, and A Ritual for the Construction of a New Palace. The last of these, the ritual, is preserved in several copies. The main copy dates from the Empire period and is almost undamaged. Clues in the language point to an Old Hittite origin for this text, and one Old Hittite fragment has also been discovered, confirming the early composition of this text. The connection between the ritual text and the Queen of Kaniš text is tantalizing but admittedly highly speculative. In the significant line, the king addresses his throne dias, which was also a goddess known as Ḫalmašuitt, to whom this ritual was dedicated;

"Oh Ḫalmašuitt, you brought the light carriage to the king - to me - from the sea as (a symbol of) dominion. {The gods} opened the land of my mother. They called me, the king, 'Labarna!'" (KUB 29.1 i 23-25.)

It's possible that the 'me' referred to here originally may have been Ḫattušili I (i.e. Labarna II), although in practice it would refer to whatever king was conducting the ritual. The "light carriage" was some sort of vehicle in which the king would ride when he was in the city of Ḫattuša, as opposed to whenever he left the city, when he rode in a chariot. Other than the king, only gods are attested riding in a light carriage, with perhaps a priest of the god who served to steady the god's idol. Clearly then, the "light carriage" was a potent symbol of power.

But it is the line about the sea which is of greatest interest here. It could mean that the Hittite king perceived his power as truly originating from the sea, but Ḫalmašuitt is in no other way connected with water. In fact, in this ritual she is considered the proprieter of the trees in the mountains! This line is, however, reminiscent of lines from the other two Old Hittite compositions under consideration here, The Anitta Text and The Queen of Kaniš and the Tale of Zalpa. In The Anitta Text we read of "the sea of Zalpuwa" and of "Zalpuwa by the sea". The Queen of Kaniš and the Tale of Zalpa begins with the thirty sons of the queen of Kaniš being floated down a river which "carried them down to the sea, to the land of Zalpuwa," where, "the gods recovered the children from the sea and raised them." The text then goes on to relate how the sons returned to Kaniš and how the cities of Kaniš and Zalpa entered in to a sinful compact (through incestuous marriages). Just as the youngest son begins to denounce the sin, the text breaks. When the text resumes again, an unnamed Hittite king (Ḫattušili I?) is describing a conflict with Zalpa which continued through three generations of Hittite rulers. The text ends with the Hittite destruction of Zalpa.

The temptation to connect a long term conflict between Ḫatti and Zalpuwa by the sea - which ultimately favored the Hittites - with the ritual's reference to a symbol of dominion being brought to the Hittite king from the sea is obvious. Perhaps we can recreate a scenerio in which the Hittites recognized some sort of Zalpuwan hegemeny in northern Anatolia which they struggled against. Then when they ultimately emerged victorious, they perceived it as a change from a Zalpuwan hegemeny to a Hittite hegemeny. So they incorporated a Zalpuwan symbol of power, the light carriage, as a symbol of their own power.

It is frustrating to note once again a definite but completely opaque connection between Kaniš and the Hittite dynasty. The text begins with a description of relations between Zalpa and Kaniš, but ends with a description of relations between Zalpa and Ḫatti. The nature of the preserved segments makes it clear that the original, full text would have had to make the connection, but it is lost to us today!

Having presented this hypothesis, we can go no further at this time. The evidence is simply not there. We shall have to set aside this speculative history for now, and turn our attention to the earliest Hittite rulers actually attested, who may go back fully three generations before the official beginning of the Old Kingdom under Labarna I.

Developments elsewhere in the Mediterraenean:

Crete (Castleden (1993) 79f.): Around 1700 BC, the era of the first temples on Crete came to an end when the temples and the towns around them were destroyed, possibly as a result of earthquakes. The destructions, while surely traumatic, was not fatal to the civilization, and both temples and towns were quickly rebuilt. During this New Temple Period, the rebuilt temples were enlarged, presumably indicating the continuation or even aggrandizement of their importance in Minoan communities. The towns themselves followed the settlement patterns of the previous period, but were themselves expanded as well. Most towns were located on or near the Cretan coast.

In similar fashion to settlements elsewhere in the Near East, Minoan towns consisted of irregular blocks of houses separated by cobbled streets. The ground floors were used for storage, cooking, and other work activities while stairways led up to living and sleeping quarters.

The towns of Knossos, Mallia and Zakro continued to grow in prominence. In addition to the major temple-palaces which dominated their towns, additional buildings - either houses or other sanctuaries - were built around them. These additional buildings are absent in other towns with temple-palaces such as Phaistos, Gournia, and Myrtos Pyrgos. The temple-palace of Knossos of the New Temple Period is the version seen at the ruins today, and, in its completed form of ca. 1400 BC, is probably the most ambitious building project ever undertaken by the Minoans.

The famous Phaistos Disc appears to date from approximately 1700 BC.

Tudḫaliya I

It's not certain if Tudḫaliya ever ruled as a king.

Ḫattuša was perhaps the Hittite capital again by or during the reign of Tudḫaliya I.

A Tudḫaliya appears in the court of Zuzzu as the rab šaqē "Chief Cupbearer" (Hitt. GAL ^LÚSAGI), a high, non-military position probably held by members of the royal family (Beal, diss.). Chronologically, this could be the Tudḫaliya listed as the father of PU-Šarruma. If so, then we have a vital link between the Colony Period and the Hittite Period. (See Forlanini (1995))

Ḫuzziya 0

A Ḫuzziya is mentioned on the Cruciform seal of Muršili II (See Muršili II) before Labarna I, and is given the title "Great King". He might also be mentioned in the offering texts in a similar position. He is otherwise unknown. See Dinçol et al. 1993.

The inclusion of Ḫuzziya on the Cruciform seal is very difficult to explain. The most likely scenerio is that this is a previously unknown ruler in Ḫattuša. However, one can perhaps think of Huzziya, king of Zalpuwa, defeated by Anitta. If so, then we find in the Cruciform Seal a direct connection between kingship in Zalpa and kingship in Ḫatti. While this must be considered rank speculation, it is not patently absurd. The Assyrian King List begins with a list of "kings dwelling in tents" and "kings who are the fathers". This may be the result of the Assyrians trying to insert their own dynasty into a list of recognized rulers in order to gain legitimacy. Perhaps at some point the Hittite rulers did the same, incorporating the Zalpan dynasty within their own. If Muršili came across such a document, it may have led to what we see in the Cruciform seal.

PU-Šarruma, Son of Tudḫaliya I

Virtually nothing is known of PU-Šarruma's life. Nevertheless, our continuous history of the Hittite dynasty begins with this shadowy figure. PU-Šarruma's sons were said to have turned against their father, so that, while he was in the city Šanaḫwitta, he named his son-in-law, Labarna, as his successor. However, this boded ill for the future, since one of his true sons, Papaḫdilmaḫ, still had support among the king's servants and chief officers. That the succession to the throne should be disputed between the two younger men, while perhaps not inevitable, is certainly not surprising.

Papaḫdilmaḫ, Son of PU-Šarruma

Name: Hattic

Civil War against Labarna I.

Labarna I (~1680~1650), Son-in-Law(?) of PU-Šarruma

PU-Šarruma's intentions for the succession to his throne were temporarily frustrated by the actions of his servants and chief officers, who chose to recognize the rights of his son Papaḫdilmaḫ instead, and therefore placed him on the throne instead of Labarna. Labarna, however, did not concede the point, and a struggle for the throne ensued between the party of Papaḫdilmaḫ and that of Labarna. Nothing is known of the course of the conflict other than that Labarna emerged victorious and took the throne willed to him by his father-in-law. Papaḫdilmaḫ's supporters were to pay a heavy price, so that years later, when Labarna's successor was himself proclaiming a new successor to the throne, he recalled Labarna's foes, and asked about them,

"But how many years went by? How many escaped? Where are the houses of the Chiefs? Did they not die?" (Succession Proclamation of Ḫattušili I §20)

What sort of a reign Papaḫdilmaḫ might have had can only be speculated upon. But we know clearly how future generations of Hittites felt about the reign of Labarna. His name (If indeed it was his name and not his title) became synonomous with Hittite kingship. Just as later the Roman emperors called themselves "Caesar" after the name of their first emperor, so future Hittite Great Kings called themselves "Labarna". They certainly had just cause to do so. Under Labarna's rule, the Hittite state would emerge from being a small but powerful competing city state to the unquestioned master of much of central, northern, and southern Anatolia. The lands that Labarna would conquer would become the core lands from which future Hittite Great Kings would expand their growing state. His reign came to represent the beginning of a golden era that, during the troubled period that would follow the murder of his second successor Great King Muršili I, would come to represent the ideal of Hittite rule. This ideal would be expressed by a future Great King in the following words,

"Formerly Labarna was Great King. His [son]s, his [brother]s, as well as his in-laws, his relatives, and his troops were united.

"The land was small, but on whatever campaign he went, he held the enemy land in subjugation by (his) might.

"He destroyed each of the lands - he overwhelmed the lands and made them borders of the sea." (The Proclamation of Telipinu, §§1-3)

"The sea" mentioned here probably means at least the Black Sea, and probably the Mediterraenean as well, since later evidence would seem to indicate that, by the time of Labarna's successor, the Hittites already controlled the land of Adaniya (modern Cilicia). If this is true, then Labarna must already have begun what would become a well established pattern in Hittite rule of distinguishing the lands closer to the capital from those further away. For Labarna is further stated to have sent out his sons to rule in the lands of Ḫupišna (Cl. Cybistra, T. Ereğli), Tuwanuwa (Cl. Tyana, T. Bor), Nenašša, Landa, Zallara, Paršuḫanta (Purušḫanda), and Lušna (Cl. Lystra) (For discussion of place identifications see Garstang & Gurney (1959) pg. 63f.). None of these places are believed to have been on a coast, and can all probably be localized to what would soon be considered the land of Ḫatti proper and the Lower Land. Under Labarna's rule, the great cities of these lands were said to have prospered. The more distant coastal lands, not mentioned as being given over to his sons, must therefore have been controlled by some other means.

The empire after the conquests of Labarna I. The extent of Arzawa, and therefore the western reach of the empire, is unknown. Similar difficulties exist on trying to determine the other borders with any level of confidence.

As well as Labarna's conquest of the core territory of Ḫatti, the Lower Land, and the northern and southern coastal regions, it also seems that Labarna was able to expand his reach westward, into the land of Arzawa, part of which he was able to exert control over, as revealed incidentally in an anecdote stemming from his reign. It is unknown how far east Arzawa extended at this time. This rather sudden and vast expansion of Hittite power in Anatolia can only be wondered at until further information comes into our hands. It also raises the question whether or not the Hittite expansion interrupted, or inspired, similar centralizing tendencies elsewhere in Anatolia. Throughout the remainder of the history of the unified Hittite state, no state rose up to rival the might of Ḫatti in the central Anatolian lands. Only when one reaches the coastal regions of Anatolia, excluding the northern Black Sea coast, does one begin to see the development of states capable of rivalling that of Ḫatti. In the south, the land of Adaniya would briefly rise to the status of an equal of Ḫatti, although subsequent historical developments there soon destroyed that land's independence.

A closer watch must be kept on the western coastal region. For it is only here that a true, long standing rival kingdom rose up to challenge Hittite supremecy. The early history of the west remains obscure, but what very little evidence we have suggests that, like central Anatolia, the history of the west begins with a variety of fragmented, competing polities. Very little can be said about them, though. In the southwest, there were multiple polities that the Hittites came to group together as the Lukka Lands. In the north, there seemed to be a large number of similarly small polities with shifting coalitions or loyalties. The central region is not as clear. The early Hittites seemed to refer to all of the west in general as the land of Luwiya. But, even from the very beginning of the Old Kingdom, we find references to this same area as Arzawa. The importance of Arzawa in relation to the other western kingdoms cannot be properly ascertained at this time, but we must take note of this kingdom as soon as possible, since it would be the only western kingdom to emerge capable of competing with the Hittites for prominence in Anatolia.

The future history of this kingdom must be hinted at in order to try to understand its development, and its ultimate failure in the face of the Hittite threat. Its failure is almost certainly related to its inability to centralize its authority to the same extent that the Hittites achieved. Although the Lukka lands seem to have been early on subsumed under its authority, they never lost their identity, and when the kingdom of Arzawa disappeared several centuries later, they were able to reassert their former identity. More troublesome were the northern coastal regions, which Arzawa was never able to effectively control for an extended period of time. Our evidence for the nature of rule in all of these regions is, unfortunately, largely nonexistant until the Hittites moved in en force much later on. We have somewhat earlier evidence from those lands which lay in the zone of competition between Arzawa and Ḫatti. Here, we will see evidence for a great deal of independent spirit among the local rulers, which must have caused the Arzawans as many difficulties as it did for the Hittites, and probably more so.

Culture and Society

Death in Hittite Anatolia

Burials dating as early as the 17th century have been discovered in a series of rock outcroppings located to the north of the city, deposited in niches, shelters, and crevices in the rocks (Bittel (1970) pg. 94). Burials would continue here into the 13th century.

Foreign Relations

Adaniya: (= Kizzuwatna = Cilicia) The Proclamation of Telipinu does not indicate that Labarna I controlled as far south as Adaniya, but The Annals of Ḫattušili I seem to make Hittite possession of this region under Labarna I likely. The better known name for this territory of "Kizzuwatna" is not attested to before the reign of Telipinu. Adaniya appears to have been the name for this Hittite province in Cilicia. An important city of Kizzuwatna later on was Lawazantiya, located in northern Kizzuwatna. It is unclear whether this city was initially considered a part of Adaniya's territory, and Beal (1986) 427 has argued that, at least during the first part of the reign of Telipinu, it was not. An important pass between Anatolia and Syria exists in Adaniya, making possession of this territory strategically important for ambitious Hittite kings. The eastern (Syrian) end of this pass (the Beilan Pass) was guarded by the city of Alalaḫ. A good treatment of the history of Kizzuwatna can be found in Beal (1986).

Ḫattušili I (Labarna II) (~1650~1620), Son of Papaḫdilmaḫ?

Seal: IK 174-66: Ḫattušili's seal is of the anonymous Tabarna type. Since the center is broken away, it is impossible to say whether or not there were heiroglyphics there. See Easton (1981) 41.

If Labarna I set an auspicious precedent for the fledgling Hittite dynasty, Ḫattušili I did not fail to carry the torch. While Labarna I remains a shadowy figure in the annals of history, Ḫattušili I did not go quietly into oblivion. The armies he led into battle would slash their way into the histories of foreign empires, and Ḫattušili himself left his mark in the archives and memories of the Hittites and, thereby, us. All of this in spite of the fact that he was not even Labarna's son.

In his own Annals he a describes himself as “son of the brother of Tawannanna”. Obviously, this means that Ḫattušili was not a son of Labarna I, but rather a nephew of the queen. But the Hittite succession depended upon the male lineage, not the female. So why did Ḫattušili declare for the ages that he was related to the queen rather than to the king? The best answer comes from the one known condition whereupon the right to the throne came from the female side of the family:

“Let a prince - a son - of the first rank only be installed as king! If a prince of the first rank does not exist, (then) let he who is a son of second rank become king. But if there is no prince, no male issue, (then) let them take an antiyant-husband for she who is a first rank daughter, and let him become king.” (The Proclamation of Telipinu §28)

Admittedly, this rule was only formally recorded several generations later, but all the evidence available to us indicates that at that time it was merely an official proclamation of an already prevailing custom. When we combine the evidence available to us from here and a few other sources, it seems likely that Ḫattušili's predecesor, Labarna I, was a son-in-law of PU-Šarruma who was married to “a daughter of the first rank”. He became the heir because the rebellion by the king's sons made them unacceptable for the kingship. This meant that it was Tawannanna who carried on the blood line of the Great King rather than Labarna. When Ḫattušili came to the throne, he wished to emphasize that he was truly of the royal line, a son of one of the disinherited princes, whom Labarna took as his own son by way of marriage - a custom known among the Hittites as antiyant-husbandship - and made the heir to the throne. The question then becomes, whose son was he? It has been suggested that he was the son of Papaḫdilmaḫ, the rival who Labarna had to defeat in order to sit upon the Hittite throne. This is not necessary but at least has the advantage of historical precedent in another culture at another time (England). Whichever prince he was the son of, he was a true member of the Great Family and thereby brought its blood back to the throne of Ḫatti. Ironically, though, it means that Labarna I, the man who future Hittite kings considered the founder of their dynasty, was not actually of their genetic lineage!

But what became of the sons of Labarna and Tawannanna? It is extremely unlikely that they would passively sit and watch their father's throne pass over to a cousin. After Ḫattušili came to the throne, his relation to Tawannanna, which had proven so useful for his succession, proved an impediment to his reign. For when he came to the throne, Tawannanna retained her position as Great Queen, and her aspirations for her own sons came into conflict with Ḫattušili's interests. In the end, no compromise proved possible, and he declared,

“In the future may no one speak [the name] of Tawannanna! May no one speak the names of her sons [and daughters]!” KBo 3.27

Ḫattušili thereby decreed the elimination of the lineage of the dowager queen from consideration for the throne. The way was now clear for his own sons.

Rich Beal believes that the king referred to in the Zalpa Text (CTH #3.1) is Ḫattušili I. If so then Ḫattušili was responsible for the destruction of Zalpa. The Zalpa text outlines the course of conflict between the Hittite palace and Zalpa over three generations. The text is normally ascribed to Muršili I.

His reign was similar to Labarna I's in that he was supposedly a successful leader who expanded Hittite territory and sent forth his sons to rule conquered lands. He expanded the Hittite borders to the sea. See the The Proclamation of Telipinu §§5-6. He seems to have expanded the state so that it encompassed Cappadocia as far as the Black Sea in the north and Kizzuwatna in the south.

The Military Campaigns of Ḫattušili I, According to His Annals

(From The Annals of Ḫattušili I)

Year 1

The campaigns of his first year seem to have all taken place within Anatolia, although the Zalpa mentioned in his text was probably located in southeastern Anatolia, rather than the more famous Zalpa to the north. He began by campaigning against the city of Šanawitta/Šaḫwitta. (The “Šanaḫwitta” in which PU-Šarruma declared Labarna I to be his successor.) He didn't capture the city, so instead he destroyed its lands and garrisoned troops in its vicinity. Then he moved on and attacked Zalpa/Zalbar and destroyed it. Afterwards three MADNANU-chariots (A type of chariot which apparently had four wheels and a flat bed, see CAD sub madnanu and majāltu) which he had captured he dedicated to the Sun Goddess of Arinna. It's questionable how useful these four wheeled chariots would have been in warfare. The two wheeled light chariot began rapidly supplanting it as far back as the karum Kaniš period. By now it must have been relegated to the position of a hallowed prestige item. Even in this capacity it would not last much longer. In addition to these chariots, he gave one silver ox and one silver fist to the temple of the Storm God. The rest, referred to in the Akkadian copy as “its (i.e Zalbar's) nine deities”, he gave to the temple of the goddess Mezulla.

Year 2 (Syrian campaign)

This year Ḫattušili moved into Syria. His first target was Alalaḫ, an important city that guarded the eastern end of a strategic mountain pass. At this time Alalaḫ was ruled by Ammitaqu, who was himself in vassalage to Ḫammurapi of Ḫalap. Ḫattušili destroyed this city (Archaeologically this destruction marks the end of Level VII), burning down both the palace and the city. After this destruction, Ḫattušili moved on against Waršuwa/Uršu.

The Seige of Uršu

Ḫattušili's seige of the city of Uršu inspired a rather interestng text named by scholars today, appropriately enough, The Seige of Uršu. The Hittite original is lost to us, but a fragmentary version translated into the Akkadian language (see Beckman (1995) 27) has been discovered. The document is clearly of a literary nature, so we would have difficulties trying to separate the facts from the fiction, but it is worth discussing this text for what it reveals about Hittite literature. Unfortunately, both the beginning and the end of the text have been lost, so we must open the story in its middle and close it before its conclusion.

Where the text begins, the Hittite king, who is situated in the city of Lawazantiya, is giving certain orders to two of his military officials, named Šanda and Menaniya. These officers appear to have previously failed their king in battle, and they were being instructed on how to eliminate their offense. Although his specific commands are difficult to comprehend (Beckman suggests that they were meant to be humorous), the bottom line was clear;

“If you are heedful (of my commands), [the offense] will disappear.” (KBo 1.11 obv. 6'f.)

His commanders dutifully replied,

“We will be heedful, and we will make the offense disappear!” (KBo 1.11 obv. 9')

Unfortunately, his officers did not meet his expectations,

“They broke the battering ram. The king was furious, (his) face was not pleasant. 'They are always bringing me bad news! May the Storm God wash you away!'” (KBo 1.11 obv. 13'f.)

But there was nothing for it but to carry on, and try a new approach. So the king commanded,

“Construct a battering-ram of the Hurrian type. Let it be put in place! Make seige-works and set them up! Cut a great battering-ram from the mountains of the city Ḫaššu and let it be put in place! Set about piling up earth! When you are finished, let each take his place! Let them (the enemy) give battle, but their strategy will be foiled!” (Beckman (1995) 26 (minor changes))

The seige works were to be constructed over the course of the winter. Šanda was summoned to the king's presence in Lawazantiya to inform the king of conditions in the enemy's territory. The king is informed that "the servant" (i.e. the king of Uršu?) will fall into Hittite hands if Uršu came to ruin, but that for the moment the king of Kargamiš was posting watches in the mountains. The strong position of the king of Kargamiš is blamed on a “foul deed” done by two men, Nunnu and Kuliat. These two men were probably Hittite, and their “deed” was probably the failure to act appropriately in some way in an earlier part of the text which is lost to us. This is unfortunate, since a man named Nunnu, who may be the same man mentioned in this text, also appears in the so-called Palace Chronicles, where he is punished for corruption.

There follows a long, obscure section in which the king seems to lecture his officers about how he sees through the deceptions of his enemies. The Hurrian lands were divided, and the Hurrians, referred to as the “sons of the Son of the Storm God” (i.e. servants of a ruler, who is himself the servant of the Storm God?), were fighting with each other over kingship. The Hittite officers failed to take advantage of the situation, and the king berated them,

“Why have you not given battle? Do you stand [as] on chariots of water, or have you perhaps (yourself) turned to water? Have you taken revenge? If you had (even) fallen on your knees before him, you would certainly have killed him, or at least frightened him! (But) now you have engaged (only) in hesitation!” (Beckman (1995) 26)

Instead of fighting, the Hittite officers only sang war songs and hesitated, just as a man named Tudḫaliya had the previous year. Exasperated, the king makes them promise to go and burn down the city gates and engage in battle. The officers happily replied,

“Eightfold we will give battle! We will scare them out of their wits, and we will destroy the city!”

They did nothing. Instead, the enemy attacked them, and many were killed. Angered yet again, this time the king instructed them,

“Guard the roads! Keep watch on those who would enter the city and those who would go out of the city! Let no one go over to the (other) enemies - to the city Zaruar, the city Ḫalap, to the Hurrian army, or to Zuppa!”

Even this could not be done properly by the officers. A fugitive came out from the city and revealed to the king that a servant of the ruler of Ḫalap had entered the city five times, that the servant of Zuppa was in the city, that the men of Zaruar went in and out, and that the servant of the “Son of the Storm God” (the ruler of Uršu?) also went to and fro, bringing precious goods to the Hurrians to entice them to come to the city's aid. Just as the king begins to lecture his officers again, the text breaks.

What can be made of this text? In its broken state, and without much of the cultural baggage that would make this text clearer, we may take it as a simple effort to extol the virtues of the king. But this text is probably a much more sophisticated work. The text deals with a subject that would be important to a military aristocracy - the beseiging of a city. But this knowledge is not instinctive, it must be learned - and this text seems to reveal the proper way to successfully lay seige to a city. It does extol the king in the sense that only a wise man would know the proper way to do this, and the king has been cast in this role. This is reminiscent of the later instruction texts for officials, which were said to be the words of the Great King himself. More than that, it reveals the proper way to respond to setbacks (always the fault of the officers, never the wise king). The only real difference between this text and the later Hittite instruction texts is that here the knowledge is made more entertaining by wrapping it up in an epic tale. The story, in turn, which was based on a real event, reminds us of another Old Hittite text, namely the Palace Chronicles, a series of lessons that were taught by way of anecdotes.

The seige process revealed in this text is clear. When the text (as we have it) begins, we may be looking at the end of an attempt to capture the city by destroying its army in open battle. This having failed, it became neccessary to make an open attack on the city. But this failed when the battering ram broke. So the Hittite king gives instructions on how to lay seige to the city. Judging by the text, this decision would have been made when winter approached and the campaigning season drew to a close. This is itself interesting because later annals of Hittite kings do indeed seem to follow this pattern. In the central section, if we try to understand the lessons of the obscure anecdotes rather than fit them into the story, reveals that the enemy could be expected to post scouts, that the Hittites had to gather their own intelligence as well, that in the case of betrayal, local resources could be depended upon, and that the divided state of the enemy should be taken advantage of. Moving out of this otherwise obscure section, it then becomes clear that, according to Hittite military wisdom, he who hesitates is lost. A bit of advise which continues to hold true even today. Finally, just before the text breaks, the importance of completely cutting off the city is revealed, and the consequences of failing to do so.

In short, this text seems to be a bit of wisdom literature. Not in the philosophical sense, but in a way that would have had immediate significance to a caste of men who were in a perpetual state of war. It outlines the combined wisdom of the Hittites on how to successfully capture a city. All of it was wrapped up in an interesting (and probably popular) story which further extolled the wisdom of the king. This is a literary expression of the architectural principle common today, namely “form follows function”.

The real reason for the Seige of Uršu text must, unfortunately, remain speculative. Returning to our narrative, the capture of Uršu remained simply an episode presented in Ḫattušili's annals. After Uršu he moved on and attacked Ikakali and finally Tašḫiniya/Tišḫiniya. A just published letter from Ḫattušili I (“Labarna”) to a vassal king in Syria was written during this year's campaign (Salvini, Mirjo, SMEA 34 (1994) 61-80 + pics).

Year 3 (Arzawa campaign)

This year he marched against Arzawa, a land or kingdom in western Anatolia. This must have been a disastrous expedition, since he didn't capture any cities, and had to be satisfied with plundering cattle and sheep. This in turn must have resulted in a profound loss of faith in the king, since Ḫattušili's kingdom virtually disappeared behind his back. The Hurrians (referred to as "the enemy from Ḫanigalbat" in the Akkadian version) invaded his lands and all other lands revolted, leaving him only Ḫattuša. With the help of the Sun Goddess of Arinna, he began to reconquer the lands. First he went against Nenašša (= Turkish Aksaray), whose men opened its gates to him when they saw him coming. Then he had to fight two battles against Ulma/Ullumma (located to the south), which he destroyed and scattered cress over (i.e. left it abandoned). He then returned to the north, bringing booty with him. He carried off seven deities, one silver ox, and the goddess Katiti of Mt. Ḫapilanni, which he gave to the Sun Goddess of Arinna. The booty from the rest of the temples he gave to the temple of the goddess Mezulla. He then went to Šallaḫšuwa (to the south or southeast). Some sort of internal revolt must have taken place within the city, since the city set itself on fire and the citizens made themselves into Ḫattušili's subjects. After this, Ḫattušili returned to Ḫattuša.

Year 4 (2nd Northern Campaign)

This year began with a six month return campaign against Šanaḫuitta/Šanaḫut, located to the north or northeast of Ḫattuša. In the sixth month, Ḫattušili successfully destroyed it. He dedicated booty from the campaign to the Sun Goddess of Arinna. He then defeated the chariotry of the land of Abbaya. He then marched against the city of Parmanna, which was the leader of an anti-Hittite coalition. Parmanna did not offer resistence and opened its gates to Ḫattušili. Finally, he marched against and destroyed Alaḫḫa (location unknown).

Year 5 (2nd Syrian Campaign & the Crossing of the Euphrates)

Ḫattušili began this year by destroying the city of Zaruna. He then fought against the armies of Ḫaššu (Mama? See under Waršama), a Hurrian city located to the east of the Euphrates. Ḫammurapi II, son of Yarim-Lim III and king of Yamḫad (Hitt. Ḫalap), sent Zukraši, the “Commander of the Regular Troops”, and Zaludi, the Chief of the Umman-manda troops, to Ḫaššu's defense with troops and chariots. Ḫattušili's army defeated the combined troops of Ḫalap and Ḫaššu in the Adalur Mountain (in the Amanus range), crossed the Euphrates (The first Hittite king to do so), destroyed the city of Ḫaššu(wa) itself, and brought its booty back to Ḫattuša. He gave booty to the temple of the Storm God. He then went on to destroy Tawanaga and cut off its king's head. Then on to destroy Zippašna. He brought its gods to the Sun Goddess of Arinna. He then went against Ḫaḫḫu. It took him three battles outside of the city gates before he was finally victorious. He brought back booty and gave it to the Sun Goddess of Arinna. He compared his crossing the Euphrates to the achievements of Sargon, and points out that even Sargon couldn't destroy Ḫaḫḫu, but he did.

At this point, the text ends.

The empire after the conquests of Hattusili I. The conquest of Arzawa, including Wiluša, is historically attested. The Lukka Lands and Pamphylia have been left off due to uncertainty rather than definite knowledge. The extent of territory controlled to the north, east, and south is uncertain.

At some point in his reign, perhaps during the campaign of Year 3 (Although this seems unlikely), Ḫattušili successfully subjugated Arzawa, including Wiluša. At some later, unspecified point in time, Arzawa and Wiluša freed themselves. Arzawa became hostile to the Hittites, but Wiluša remained friendly. See the Treaty with Alakšandu of Wiluša.

Land Transactions

The most important source of wealth in Ḫatti was land. This made the transfer of land from one party to the other a significant transaction, particularly when it involved high ranking members of Hittite society. It is during the reign of Ḫattušili which we find the appearance of documents, sealed by the king, which record the transfer of land from one individual to another. Typical of the evolving Hittite document style, we even receive a bit of the history involved in the transfer of the land.

The tablet, believed to have been written during Ḫattušili's reign, was discovered not at Ḫattuša but rather at the site of İnandik. This in spite of the fact that the document itself claims to have been issued in Ḫattuša. However, İnandik is not very far from Ḫattuša and thus possibly within its administrative district (so Easton (1981)). It records that Tuttulla, the governor of Ḫanḫana, took a man named Zidi as his son by making him the antiyant-husband of his daughter Zizzatta. He then gave him something, not entirely clear, but given the nature of the document it was probably a portion of land. This, however, seems to have caused some problems with his natural son, a man named Pappa. At this point, the Great King became involved. Probably in an attempt to resolve the dispute, he handed Pappa over to the Queen of Katapa, a goddess. We learn from the Palace Anecdotes that Pappa became an uriyani-temple official. The dedication of Pappa to the service of the goddess no doubt included the transfer of temple land to his authority, presumably thereby ending the conflict. The king emphasized the finality of his decision by forbidding either Pappa or his descendents to dispute the case with either Zidi or his descendents.

It's interesting to note that several names which appear in this land grant document also appear in the Palace Anecdotes. Both Zidi and Pappa are subjects of anecdotes. Among the witness list to the land grant document appears prince Ašgaliya, and Ašgaliya, Lord of Ḫurma, appears among the anecdotes. Of course, the mere reoccurence of a name does not guarantee that they are the same people. In fact, in the land grant document, as well as having Ašgaliya the prince, the scribe who wrote the tablet also bore the name Ašgaliya. Nevertheless, the overlap of more than one name, the fact that Pappa appears in a temple setting in both documents, and the fact that we are dealing with the upper reaches of Hittite society in both documents is certainly strongly suggestive that we are indeed dealing with the same people.

The Palace Chronicles

The king's justice in the Old Kingdom could be harsh. The Great King had arbitrary power of life and death over his subjects, and his justice could be fierce. One of the Old Kingdom anecdotes, which probably speaks of Ḫattušili when it speaks of "the father of the king", tells the case of Nunnu, the Man of Ḫurma (the title of an official) in Arzawa. Nunnu had been taking for himself silver and gold which was owed to the king. The Man of Ḫuntara informed on him, and so Nunnu was removed from his post and brought up to the king for punishment. Nunnu was to be replaced by another man named Šarmaššu. The king rendered Nunnu's punishment and administered a potent warning to Šarmaššu at one and the same time. The Gold Spearmen brought the two to Mt. Taḫaya, where,

"They hitched them together like oxen, and they seized an in-law of Nunnu. They killed him (in front of) Šarmaššu and Nunnu - before their eyes."

Such was the fierce and arbitrary nature of the Great King's power. To ensure that his justice had been properly administered, the king wanted to know that the blood of the victim had spattered both men - and he expected to see this evidence for himself:

"When it dawned, the father of the king called out, 'Who led these (men) forth? Why are their garments and bands not bloodied?' Thusly the Royal Bodyguards, 'Their tunics are turned inward.' So they turned the garments out, and the king saw the blood. Thusly Šarmaššu, 'My Sun, I have not yet gone (to Arzawa), I have not yet seen (Arzawa)!' Thusly the king, 'Go, for this was a lesson for you!'"

While an unpleasent story, this anecdote reveals to us two fundamental princples of Hittite justice. The first is that the entire family could be held accountable for the sins of one of its members. In this case, it was not Nunnu himself who was killed for his crime, but rather a member of his family. Some three and a half centuries later this principle can still be seen to be in full force, when Great King Muršili II would warn the son of a rebel vassal, "Are you... not aware that if in Ḫatti someone commits the offense of revolt, the son of whatever father commits the offense is an offender too?" The second principle seen here is that an in-law was considered to be a true member of the family. It is this principle that made the antiyant-husband possible. This principle was enshrined in a myth in which a man who's father-in-law was about to be killed by his true father pleaded with his father to kill him as well, and his father complied.

"I Have Now Become Ill"

Ḫattušili's war against Ḫalap would forever reduce the status of that once mighty city, but this energetic ruler would not live to see the Hittites' ultimate victory there. He received a mortal - if not immediately fatal - wound in a battle against that city. Back in Ḫatti he seems to have concluded that his nephew and adopted son Labarna, his chosen successor, did not show a proper concern for his welfare and so was no longer fit to replace him on the throne,

"(Previously) I declared Labarna to you as (my) son, (saying) 'May he sit upon the throne!' I, the king, called him my son. I continually instructed him, and I kept running behind him. But he showed himself to be a son not worth seeing! He did not shed tears, he did not show mercy. He is cold! He is not merciful!" (Succession Proc. ¤1 2-7)

In spite of Ḫattušili's attempts to properly instruct him, Labarna would only listen to the words of his brothers, sisters, and especially his mother, who Ḫattušili repeatedly refers to as "the snake". Eventually Ḫattušili could take this disobedience no longer, declaring,

"Enough of that! He is not my son!"

So he was exiled to an estate and given a position as a priest.

Ḫattušili's problem with his sister's son Labarna was not the first time he had had such difficulties. In his Succession Proclamation (Extant copy is NH, the original was OH, perhaps copied by Ḫattušili III?), the mortally wounded Ḫattušili outlined all the problems he faced when establishing his successor. His own son Ḫuzziya had been incited to revolt by the great houses of Tappaššanda, who desired tax exemptions. Ḫattušili successfully suppressed his son's uprising, but he was clearly no longer a fit candidate for the succession.

Subsequently in Ḫattuša a daughter of his was incited to conspire against him so that her son could take the throne. As a result Ḫattušili exiled her to an estate. Then came Labarna, who, as we have seen, also proved himself unmerciful and unworthy, and followed his mother's, brothers', and sisters' advise rather than Ḫattušili's. Finally, an apparently quite young Muršili (he was not to be permitted to go on campaign for three years), who was one of Ḫattušili's grandsons, was selected as the new successor. See The Succession Proclamation of Ḫattušili I.

Culture and Society

Ḫattušili liked to compare himself with a lion. Later Hittite kings didn't pick up this habit.

Ḫattušili's concept of kingship was closely tied to just behavior. He was not alone in this, but he emphasized it more than any other Hittite king, and he did not tie this morality to the gods when he wrote about proper behavior.

The Queen of Kaniš and the Tale of Zalpa (CTH #3.1)

It is difficult for us to determine why the Hittite court wrote and preserved this work, since as it has come down to us it is badly broken. The text is written in two parts, the first part preserving an Anatolian legend concerning the city of Zalpa and the second part recording the relations between the city of Zalpa and the Hittite kings over the course of three generations. How the two parts fit together is not entirely clear. The problem is deepened by the fact that the names of the kings involved are never used, so who is being referred to is speculative (See above).

The legend relates the tale of a queen of the city of Kaniš who gave birth to thirty sons in one year. She placed them in a basket and then put them in the river. The basket was carried downstream to Zalpa, located at the mouth of the Kızıl Irmak. The gods recovered the children there and raised them. After several years had passed, the queen of Kaniš again gave birth to thirty children, only this time they were daughters. These children she raised herself. When the sons grew up, they went to Zalpa driving a donkey before them. When they reached the city of Tamarmara, they proposed to do something remarkable wherein their donkey would mount a she-donkey. The men of Tamarmara were not to be outdone, and then revealed something even more remarkable concerning the mounting of a donkey. The sons escalated the situation by revealing that where they came from a woman gave birth to thirty sons at once. The Tamarmarans replied that their queen of Kaniš gave birth to thirty daughters at once. The sons realized that they had found their mother and determined to visit her in Kaniš. However, when they arrived at Kaniš, the gods made them forget their relation to the queen of Kaniš and her daughters, and also prevented the queen of Kaniš from recognizing them, and so she gave her daughters in marriage to her sons. Only the youngest son recognized their sisters, and just as he begins to denounce the marriage, the text breaks.

Where the text picks up again, the Sun God is feeding the Earth Goddess. Then the text begins its historical portion, wherein the strained relations between Zalpa and the Hittite kings over the course of three generations are related. The text ends with the Hittite king (Probably Ḫattušili I) destroying the city of Zalpa.

The second part of the text strongly resembles a tradition which lasted throughout the Hittite period wherein the Hittite kings would outline the past relations between the Hittites and a foreign power in order to justify whatever actions they were planning on taking, such as waging war or securing a treaty. None of the later texts, however, include such an extrordinary legendary beginning, and this text seems to be an after-the-fact justification. They seem to have been justifying the destruction of Zalpa by outlining the offenses Zalpa committed against the Hittites which required the destruction of the city. The original offense may perhaps have been seen as the incestuous marriages between the queen of Kaniš's children. On the other hand, the story of the sons of the Queen of Kaniš may also serve to aggrandize the Hittites even though it also serves to justify the destruction of Zalpa. The Hittites may have been attempting to connect their own ethnicity, or perhaps even their royal lineage, to the land of Zalpa. Surely, it was more comforting to think that the only reason the Zalpans had ever held hegemony was because, at heart, they were Hittite.

The legend seems to be an Anatolian composition, but it bears a resemblence to the Mesopotamian legend about Sargon of Akkad, who as a child was also placed in a basket, sailed downriver, and raised outside of his homeland. Such a Mesopotamian influence on Hittite culture would not be out of place in this period.

Mesopotamian Legends

Mesopotamia had more than just an indirect impact on Hittite literature in this period. In this period, the Hittites appear to have focussed their literary energies on the concept of the ideal king. In this vein, a handful of legends about Mesopotamian kings were copied and preserved by Hittite scribes. "The King of Battle" epic relates the tale of a campaign of Sargon of Akkad, the pinnacle of great kingship, into Anatolia. It is filled with kingly and military valour. The legend of Naram-Sin of Akkad, Sargon's son, also made its way into Hittite archives. The most famous epic of all the ancient world, the Gilgamesh epic, was brought into Anatolia, as did the lesser known legend of Gurparanzaḫu. In addition to speaking of kingly virtue, these texts share another feature with native Hittite compositions such as the Zalpa tale and the Siege of Uršu text in that they are legendary compositions about historical figures. This genre would not outlive the Hittite early empire period in popularity with Hittite scribes. The annalistic tendencies of Hittite composition, prevalent from the beginning of Hittite literature, would come to supplant this form of writing once the Hittite dynasty felt sufficiently secure in their position of rule, and their own recorded history was long enough to provide them with models of contemporary, native exploits of valour. The semi-legendary texts of this early period of Hittite composition would give way to the rigorous annals of Great Kings of empire.

Ritual for the Construction of a Palace

The construction of a building was a monumental undertaking, and it should therefore be no surprise that rituals came to be associated with the activity. One such ritual seems to have taken shape sometime after Ḫattušili's destruction of the city of Zalpa, but still within his reign. It is a ritual associated with the construction of a new palace. While the general principles of the ritual are undoubtedly borrowed from earlier rituals, this ritual has incorporated, or even invented, elements of the mythos associated with the origins of Hittite kingship, elements that would have been reconfirmed each time the ritual was performed at the construction of a new palace in some town. Indeed, this ritual became so strongly connected with palaces and conceptions of Hittite kingship that it continued to be recopied down into the Empire period of Hittite history.

The ritual seems to have been performed near the completion of construction, but it retroactively refers back to before it was even begun. The ritual begins when it was time to roof over the palace with timber. This involved pulling over wooden beams (seemingly, but not certainly, suggestive of a flat roof). Hittite monumental buildings would be set on stone foundations, upon which would be built mudbrick walls reinforced with timber. Upper level floors would be founded upon wooden beams, and the walls and roof, inside and out, would be plastered. The plastered walls and roof would prevent leaks and also give the building its final shape. The plastered walls would be painted to add beauty to the overall structure. A few such painted plaster fragments have been discovered, and they consist of geometric patterns done in red, blue, black, and white. As the finishing touch, the Hittites attempted to put 'luck' into the building at this phase,

"[When] you finish [building a new palace, when] you plaster the inside, plaster on long years, plaster on [wellbeing]! When you plaster on the outside, plaster on fearful reverence, plaster on [lordli]ness!"

After this the ritual jumps back in time to before the construction began. The king addresses his deified throne dias, the goddess Ḫalmašuitt, in hopes of securing from her permission to cut down timbers from the mountains, which were the goddess's domain. But, while he wanted the wood, he also wanted the goddess to remain the mistress of the mountains rather than his home. So he implores that both he and the goddess keep to their own spheres' of influence,

"[Then the king] says to Ḫalmašuitt: 'Come! Let us go! May you look after the mountains! May you not become my man! May you not become my in-law! Be my [ally^?], be my friend!

"'Come! Let us go to a mountain! I, the king, will give glazed-ware to you. We will eat using the glazed-ware. May you protect your mountain!

"'The gods, the Sun God, and the Storm God entrusted my land and my house to the king, to me. So also as king I will protect my land and my house. "May you not come into my house, and I will not come into your house!"'"

In the first paragraph the king's injunction that Ḫalmašuitt not become his "man" or his "in-law" simply means that there should be a certain distance between the relationship between the two of them. The proper relationship was that of a friend - equal and on good terms but not connected. The second paragraph must in some way reflect the same thought. It is possible that glazed-ware was seen as one of the fine products of civilization. The king would make offerings to the goddess of the finer aspects of civilization as long as she would stay in her proper place and protect the wild mountains. And finally, the king abandons subtlety and, by using a stock phrase, insists that the spheres of the king and the goddess remain separate. The land and his house belongs to the king, the mountain to the goddess, and they should not interfere with each other. The king wanted the wood, but that was as far as it went.

It may seem somewhat odd that the king wanted to keep out the influence of the very deity upon whom he rested his throne. Indeed, where else would Ḫalmašuitt reside except in a palace?

After this the ritual's attention turns to the king himself and his right to claim the wood from the mountain. He was favored by the gods

"The gods alloted many years to me, as king. The limit of the years does not exist!"

Then follows the cryptic but important passage concerning Ḫalmašuitt's granting of the light-carriage to the Hittite king. We have already explored the meaning of this passage and its connection with Hittite kingship.

The king then turns toward his justification for wanting the wood,

"Since then, I have continually praised the Storm God, my father. The king wants wood for the Storm God, (wood) which the rains made strong and (which) they raised up.

He then declares the sheltering aspect of the trees, and thereby the wood which they provide,

"Under the heavens you (trees) brought yourselves to maturity. The lion slept beneath (you), the leopard slept beneath (you), the bear climbed up into (you). The Storm God, my father, kept evil away from you.

"Cattle pastured beneath you. Sheep pastured beneath you."

Finally, he makes his request,

"Now I, the king, Labarna, have united with you. I called Ḫalmašuitt, 'My friend!

"'Are you not the friend of me, the king? Allot those trees to me, and I will cut them down!'"

Ḫalmašuitt, naturally, has been successfully wooed by the king and grants her permission,

"Cut them! Cut! The Sun God and the Storm God have allotted them to you!"

The ritual's practitioner then turns his attention to the trees themselves,

"Now may you (i.e. the trees) go up from this land! The Storm God has allotted you to the king! They will place works upon you! He will tear you up, and they will conjure over you.

"Reveal that which is in your heart! If (it) is a flaw, then bring it (forth)! If (it) is an evil [...], then reveal it! If (it) is a curse, then reveal it!

"If weakness(?) is in your heart, or the illness of the sun is in your heart, then sweep it up! The king, the Labarna, will establish tin and iron in your heart!"

The ritual then suddenly jumps forward to the nearly completed palace to return to the subject of benedictions for the king. In the process we learn of the Hittite version of the Fate goddesses. It begins by using the theme of the sharp-eyed eagle being used by the gods to search through the land,

"When the king comes into the house, Ḫalmašuitt will call, 'Eagle! Come and I will send you to the sea! When you go, look in field and wood - who sits (there)?'

"That one replies, 'I looked! Išduštaya and Papaya, (who are) primeaval netherworld deities, are crouched there.'

"Ḫalmašuitt replies, 'What are they doing?' That one replies to her, 'She holds the distaff. They hold full spindles.

"'They are spinning the years of the king. The shortness (and) fewness of the years are not prescribed!'"

While the general purpose of the next segment of this ritual is clear, its specific imagery is not. For some reason, Ḫalmašuitt then implores the king to bring his grandchildren to the palace, and the male and female weavers to a window. Glazed ware is set before the grandchildren and figs are scattered. Regular pottery is set before the weavers and grapes and ḫašikka-fruit is scattered for them. The practioner calls out, "Soothe the king!"

"Soothe his eyes! Take away his illnesses! Take away his wetman! Take away his ḫurnapišta! Take away the illness of the head! Take away the evil matters of men! Take away revenge! Take away the illness of the knees! Take away internal illness!"

Clearly this is a ritual protection for the king's health. But why his grandchildren and (especially) the weavers are considered the appropriate people to announce these incantations to is unclear. These do not actually seem to be the people who take these illnesses away, for we then return to the subject of mountains,

"Stand, great star! Stop the mountains in their place! Mt. Pentaya, stay in your place! May you not lift the great one! Mt. Ḫarga, stay in your place! Mt. Tudḫaliya, stay in your place! May you not lift the great one!"

And similarly for Mt. Ḫapidweni and Mt. Piškurunu. These phrases seem to stand out in stark contrast to anything else seen previously in the ritual. Is Ḫalmašuitt the "great star"? Is she the "great one"? Earlier she was given dominion in the mountains. Did she have the power to keep the mountains in their places? Then there is the question of what it means to keep the mountains in their places. The imagination may speculate that this is a prohibition against earthquakes, but it would probably be safer to tread on more solid ground. Ḫalmašuitt, a goddess associated with mountains, was implored to stay in her own dominion. We might take note of the fact that the Storm God was often depicted standing upon the shoulders of mountain gods - could this be what it means for a mountain to "lift" the great one? Could it be that the mountains are being implored not to carry Ḫalmašuitt (or perhaps some other deity, symbolized by "the great star"?) into the dominion of the king? The Hittite king would go to the mountains and make offerings, but the mountain gods themselves were implored not to come to the king, bearing Ḫalmašuitt(?) on their shoulders. Since much of Hittite cultic practice seemed to take place in the wilderness, the domain of various gods, such a conclusion would fit with the general pattern of Hittite religion.

Moving on from those difficult and vexing passages, the text then returns to the subject of illnesses,

"Next, the king will lift the great sun in a mountain. He repeatedly conjures - he repeatedly chants(?) [...] 'Such-and-such took away the illness.

"(Namely,) it took away the matter. It took away vengence. It took away frightfullness. It took away fear. It took away illness. It took his illness. It took old age. It gave military prowess back to him. It gave strength back to him."

If "the great star" of the earlier passages represented a deity, then in these paragraphs the king was probably lifting an idol of a sun deity.

It may be correct (or may not!) to compare this with other Hittite rituals which take place in the wilderness. Rituals often took place in the wilderness when an impurity was to be removed and a vigorous state restored (e.g. impotency, sterility, and infertility removed) It seems that to perform such rituals in a town would contaminate the town with impurity. This may be the fundamental reason that the king wanted the deities associated with mountains to remain in their own domain. Only they were vast enough to accept the impurities of man (along with the underworld), but should they come into the realm of men, they would contaminate it. So here, with the assistance of Ḫalmašuitt and the mountains, the king has removed all the impurities affecting him and dispersed them in the mountains, and he wants those impurities to stay out there. His pure state, and therefore his efficacy, has been restored to him.

The ritual then turns to other matters concerned with the king's wellbeing. As we will see shortly, these poorly connected benedictions for the king actually yield clues about how this ritual was composed. The next benediction for the king can demonstratably be seen to have been inserted into the ritual since we have another document which contains a very similar ritual in a list of short benedictions for the king. In other words, originally this benediction for the king was independent of the palace ritual. But because the palace and the king were intimately bound to one another, the Hittite scribe took a short invocation on behalf of the king and wrote it into the ritual he was composing. Although it is not completely interpretable yet, it is worth repeating for later comparison. The ritual's practitioner turns his attention to the sharp eyed eagle, for whom he has a task,

"Come! You go, oh eagle. One of my words is unfulfilled! Got to the ukturi-fire places! Bring pottery.

"Šumumaḫḫ the pottery at the šišai-flesh of a lion and the šišai-flesh of a panther, and hold them!

"Unite them and make them one. Carry them to the heart of the man (i.e. the king). May the soul of the king and his heart be united!"

The ukturi-fire places were places where the dead were cremated and where ritual remains were disposed of. Why pottery from such a place is appropriate is not clear. It might have been clearer if we understood the meaning of the verb šumumaḫḫ- and what part of an animal was meant by šišai-flesh. The ultimate goal, at least, remains clear. The soul and heart of the king should be united just as the šišai-flesh of the lion and panther had been united. But the ritual does not end the analogy here. As the soul and heart of the king are united, so should the king be united with the principle deities of the land. The image of the king as the divinely appointed servant of the Storm God and Sun God is strengthened in this ritual,

"May the Sun God and the Storm God accept the terms of the king. May their words become one. The Sun God and Storm God handed over the land to the king. They renewed the years for him, they renewed fearful reverence.

"They made his image of tin. They made his head of iron. They made eyes of an eagle for him. They made teeth of a lion for him."

The imagery of the king is one of strength. Tin may not immediately be thought of as such an image, but when copper was combined with only a small amount of tin, it was considerably strengthened into bronze. The sharp eyes of an eagle and the ferocious teeth of a lion were often associated with the image of the king.

The king is next closely related to the Storm God, and indeed the gods in general, in the following paragraphs. It is interesting that here we find out which Storm God we are dealing with, and perhaps some idea of where at least some of this ritual's components originated,

“May Telipinu come! May he open [.....]! May he bring wine - (namely) 9 šaptamenzu's. May he carry (it) to the mountain, (for) all the gods will be assembled on the mountain. He will rejoice in the king. They will applaud(?) him.

“The Sun God and the Storm God cared for the king. They made him young again. They did not make a limit of his years.”

The image of a Storm God himself throwing a celebration in the king's honor is clearly a potent image. Again and again, the gods are depicted as personally interceding on the king's behalf. A Hittite king clearly believed that he ruled by divinely ordained right, and that the land had been given to him by divine hands.

Of course, the gods were also expected to protect the king from evildoers. And, equally obvious, a little analogic magic could help guarantee the matter,

“They scattered^! šeppit-cereal and ewa-barley. They crush (it), (saying,) ‘He who seeks evil for the king, may the gods cast that one into evil! May they crush that one!&rsquo”

There follows a somewhat unexpected list of cult provisions to be brought by woodcrafters who go up into the mountains to cut beams(?), who go to cut ridgepoles, and when the foundations are laid (lit. "scattered"). Among the cult provisions for the laying of foundations, it is specified that a bull is to be offered to the Storm God and a cow to the Sun Goddess of Arinna. Sheep are offered to other, unnamed, deities.

A major division in the ritual is then encountered, and a completely new aspect of the ritual begins. At the beginning of the ritual, we began at the completion of the roof and the plastering of the building and then jumped back in time. Now we begin again at the plastering, now specified as being done by "cleaners", and proceed forward.

The central feature of any house was its hearth. It is fundamentally associated with domesticity. This second half of the ritual is centered upon the hearth, and it is therefore appropriate that the members of the royal family play the central roles in the ritual. It is now that they occupy the palace, a new home for them to live in when visiting the town in which it was constructed. The "cleaners" set up the hearth, but declare the following,

“The gods placed this hearth! They adorned(?) it with copper ore^?. They wiped it(?) with iron. The gods sit down with it. The owners of the house - (namely) the king and the queen, the women, and the secondary wives - sit down. They kunk like a šaša-animal.”

This transposition - saying that a god has done what was actually done by a human - is not uncommon in Hittite society. Clearly, experience would show that to sit around and wait for a divine being to come from over the horizon and actually commit a deed would hamper things from getting done in a timely manner. So divine influence was secured by means of simply giving credit to the deity. It showed that the god(s) approved of the act, thereby making it propitious. Similarly, the fact that the gods sat down at the hearth also showed favor, especially so since they sat with the residents of the house.

Then the rest of the happy family is incrementally introduced to the house along with various goods representing the domestic plentitude granted to a happy house. All of this is approved of by a personfied hearth,

“Then the daughters of the house sit down. Taḫan's are placed. A šaḫuwan is placed next to them. Groats are placed. The Hearth says, 'To me, that is good!'

“Then the paternal brothers sit down. They play^? (like) eagles. The Hearth says, 'to me, that is good!'

(small break. The king is mentioned)

“Then they fawn^? over the hearth. 'May the sons, daughters, and grandchildren in the second generation become numerous!' The Hearth says, 'To me, that is good!'

“They take these things from (the goods of) the palace: 1 wakšur-measure of pig lard, 1 wakšur-measure of honey, one cheese, one piece of rennet, white wool, black wool, 1 SUTU-measure of beer bread, 1 SUTU-measure of malt, šammamma-fruit, raisons, leti-nuts, šuwaitar-plant, ox-hide, salt. All of it is arranged on the hearth.”

Then, since too much of a good thing is never enough, more analogic magic on behalf of the king is inserted,

“They arrange walla-body parts and speak thusly: 'Just as these walla-body parts stand arlipa, just so may the words of^! the king stand arlipa!'

“They set a branch of grapevine. Ditto: 'Just as the grapevine sends down roots and sends up branches, so may the king and queen send down roots and send up^! branches!'

“They set up an eyan-evergreen. Ditto: 'Just as the eyan-evergreen is permanently flourishing, and it does not scatter leaves, so may the king and queen likewise be flourishing! May their words be likewise permanent!'

“They set up a artarti-plant and a maršiqqa-plant and speak thusly: 'Just as they cultivate these (plants), so may the grandchildren of the second generation likewise cultivate (i.e. care for) the king and queen!'

“All these things are placed at the base of the hearth.

“They take 3 sheep, 100 loaves of bread, 3 vessels of wine, and 5 vessels of marnuwan-beer from the palace for the hearth. They make offerings to the hearth.”

This, apparently, was finally considered sufficient to guarantee the happy prosperity of the king, and the ritual draws to an uncerimonious end. The text adds only that it was written by Mr. Pikku under the supervision of Mr. Anuwanza.

Benedictions for the King

It has already been mentioned that the palace ritual incorporated elements of other rituals into its own composition. One of these rituals has been recovered on an unfortunately fragmentary tablet which contained several short rituals which were benedictions for the king. The similarities between the ritual in the palace ritual and this benediction are striking,

“Come! You go, oh eagle! [You go to the ukturi-fire place,] and go to the pottery! Bring the pottery!

“Pour [. . . . .]! Take [šišai-flesh(?)] of kurdenna! Take that of a lion! Take that of a panther! Move [. . . .]! What the Labarna, the king, desires in his soul (and) [in his heart], may it be achieved for him! What the Tawananna, the queen, desires in her soul and in her heart, may it be achieved for her!

“I am now taking the scales and weighing the long years of the Labarna! I am now taking the scales and weighing the long years of the Tawananna! The word of the outside scales is finished.”

While not identical, the rituals are clearly related. This parallelism is reminiscent of the many versions of the missing Storm God myth. Clearly, there was a sort of broadly accepted practice involving the flesh of a lion and panther being united in some way including pottery resulting in a similar union of the king's or queen's soul and heart. The use of scales to weigh out the long years of the Labarna and the Tawananna is similar to the mythological tale involving the two deities Išduštaya and Papaya spinning endless years for the king. And in both, the eagle plays a similar role.

But the text containing benedictions for the king is not part of a larger ritual. Instead it is part of a collection of benedictions concerned with preserving the youthful vigor of the king by means of purifying him. Only a few of these have been preserved, and they are all damaged to a greater or lesser extant. They continue along lines similar to those seen in the palace construction ritual, and provide further evidence of the ritualistic background from which Hittite scribes drew,

“Washing powder! From where do you come? 'I come from a sacred (place). From which sacred place? From the zaḫanittenna-place. From which zaḫanittenna-place? From the House of the Sun. From which Sun? His form is new, his chest is new, his [head] is new, his manhood is new, his hair is new.

“'His [teeth] are (those) of a lion. [His] eyes are (those) of an eagle. He sees like an eagle.'

“[. . . .] further, forth [. . . .] the word [of the washing powder, finished.]”

It should be noted that the image of the Sun in this benediction is the same image used to describe the Great King in the palace ritual. And this benediction is just one in a collection of such benedictions aimed not at the Sun God, but at the king. It seems that even this early in Hittite history the lines between the Sun God and the Great King had become blurred and vague, probably intentionally. We will see this even more explicitly shortly.

The next benediction for the king at first seems to deal with protection, but is actually another benediction for purification. Like the last benediction, it gives the impression that it has been lifted from another larger, more complete ritual of which we no longer have record,

“The pool of the Sun came. How is it [made]? Below and above it is built of stone. The pond is covered [with^? . . .]. It is protected by panthers. Its water [. . .] flows from the pond. May the pebbles protect him, the Labarna, the king! May he become the iron of the Sun!

“They make the pool of the Storm God. How is the pool made? It is built of copper, it is plastered with arzil, it is plated(?) with iron. The mother of the Storm God went below(?) a second time. She sat down. She is mother to the Storm God, but she is a rope to the Labarna. Word of the pebble, finished.”

Pebbles were a part of the earth. The earth could absorb impurities into itself to remove them from men. So in this ritual the pebbles at the bottom of the pool are used to absorb evils and keep them away from the king, so that he might remain vigorous, the “iron” of the Sun. In short, the pebbles were used to purify the water of the pool. Another, later, Hittite ritual indicates that the impurities might actually be turned into pebbles. Speaking of various evils, it reads,

“May the Sun Goddess of the Netherworld turn them into pebbles!” (KBo 17.61 rev. 5 - birth ritual)

Other examples along the same line can be found. One ritual reads,

“[The king] holds pebbles with his left hand”

He then passes them with the left hand to a palace attendent. In modern society the word “right” meaning the opposite of “left” also means “correct”. This is a carry over from ancient Near Eastern societies, and the Hittites clearly shared the same value, only it was much more meaningful to them. In Hittite, “left” and “wrong” can be the same word. When the king must hold the pebbles in his left hand, it is clearly because it would be unpropitious to do so with his right. In other rituals the client will bathe in order to wash away impurities. Priests had to bathe in order not to bring impurities to the gods. These impurities had to be deposited somewhere. Pebbles made good recepticals,

“The king washes his hands over the pebbles.”

In an evocation in which pebbles are used, when the practitioners are done with pebbles, they are removed. As they are removed, the gods had to avert their eyes. To even look upon the pebbles would be to risk becoming impure. There are even more direct parallels to the benediction given above. If the pebbles in the pond could purify the water there, then why not in other containers as well?

“He (i.e. the practioner) takes [two times] seven pebbles from the river. (He throws seven pebbles into one jug of water, and seven pebbles into another jug of water.)” (CHD paššila-)

The “panthers” were probably actually carved stone statues of the animals rather than the real things. As for the “mother of the Storm God” sitting down “below” (at the bottom of the pond?), we do not know why she would be appropriate for this. She seems to fulfill the role that the pebbles played in the pool of the Sun God. As for her being the “rope” of the Labarna, that might be more comprehensible. Ropes, of course, hold things together. The word for “rope” could also be used to describe anchor lines. So she is yet another symbol of strength supporting the king.

The last preserved benediction, the matter of the akuka, is fragmented in such a way as to make it difficult to understand. Like those before it, it deals with the purification of the king. The throne goddess Ḫalmašuitt is implored to “Break open the pottery!” and release unknown objects. We earlier noted the difficulty of distinguishing between the Sun God and the king. That this was intentional on the part of the Hittite scribes is made clear in this fragmentary benediction were it says, “the Labarna as the Sun.” This ritual then ends and another begins, but little of this benediction is preserved. Again, it deals with “the Labarna, the king”. It implores him to “become young again!” Here the goal of returning youthful vigor to the king is expressed. This is the same goal sought by the other benedictions by means of purifying the king, washing out the crippling impurities.

Foreign Relations

Aleppo: (Ḫalap, Kingdom of Yamḫad) Bagged Alalaḫ, a vassal city of Yamḫad which protected the eastern end of a strategic pass between Anatolia and Syria. He did not, however, capture Aleppo. By inflicting a heavy defeat on Yamḫad's army and taking some of its territory, he ended the Great Kingship of Ḫalap (Yamḫad) (i.e. reduced its status to that of a minor kingdom). Ḫattušili may have died as a result of a campaign against Ḫalap.

Arzawa: Arzawa was the general Hittite term for western Anatolia. It could also be a specific kingdom. The Arzawa lands consisted of five major kingdoms, which sometimes were and sometimes were not united, depending on the time. These were the lands of Arzawa, Mira, Ḫapalla, Šeḫa River Land, and sometimes Wiluša. The lands of Kuwaliya and Appawiya are also named in The Treaty with Alakšandu of Wiluša. Wiluša (Homeric (W)ilios) was probably located in the extreme northwest of Anatolia and perhaps included Homeric Troy (Hittite ‘Taruiša’), although Troy might have been a land in its own right. Arzawa had a capital at a city named Apaša, which was probably Ephesos, and thus Arzawa was centered on the middle of the western coast of Anatolia. As far as our evidence allows us, all of these lands appear to have spoken Luwian (See Calvert Watkins (1986)).

Ḫattušili raided Arzawa (Copy A says Šaḫuitta) in Year 3, taking cattle and sheep. The fact that he does not mention the destruction of any cities would seem to indicate that this campaign was a disaster. But at some point, he probably gained at least temporary dominion over the Arzawa lands, including the land of Wiluša.

Wiluša: Probably Greek (W)ilios. The Greeks believed that Ilios was a city and Troy the land around it. How this fits the Hittite description of both Wiluša (Ilios) and Taruiša (Troy) as lands (KUR URU's, lit. "land of the city of...") is unclear (See Güterbock (1986) 40f.). Muwattalli II said, in The Treaty with Alakšandu of Wiluša, that "Labarna" had conquered Wiluša (Located in northwestern Anatolia). This was probably Ḫattušili I, since he is known to have campaigned in Arzawa. Wiluša later freed itself, but remained friendly with Ḫatti, demonstrated by the regular sending of envoys to the Hittite king, whereas the rest of the Arzawa lands became hostile to the Hittites. See The Treaty with Alakšandu of Wiluša.

Kizzuwatna: Already possessed by the Hittites: Beal (1986) 425, says that the fact that Ḫattušili's first attack in Syria was against Alalaḫ, which controlled the eastern (Syrian) end of the Beilan Pass between Anatolia and Syria, can be taken as evidence that Kizzuwatna, at this time known as Adaniya, was already a Hittite possession.

Zalpa: Located at the mouth of the Kızıl Irmak. Currently may be drowned under the waters of the Black Sea. Probably sacked by Ḫattušili.

Muršili I (~1620~1590), Grandson of Ḫattušili I

Seal: SBo I.87 (See Easton (1981) 41.) Muršili's seal is of the anonymous Tabarna type. The central field consists of Luwian heiroglyphics instead of the rosette pattern favored by later kings. If Easton is correct in attributing this seal to Muršili I, then this is the earliest attestation of Luwian heiroglyphics proper. (As opposed to their precursors found in the karum Kaniš seals.)

(Contemporary with Samsuditana of Babylon (1625-1595)

After the disloyalty of the chosen heirs of Ḫattušili I, Ḫattušili finally selected Muršili I as his successor. See The Succession Proclamation of Ḫattušili I. Since Muršili ascended to the throne as a minor, a regent was appointed for him by the name of Pimpira. This Pimpira wrote an instruction text to Muršili (see Hoffner (1992) 299).

The Proclamation of Telipinu claims that Muršili I was also a successful leader who expanded the realm and established borders at the sea. It says that he destroyed Ḫalap, i.e. the kingdom of Yamḫad. He then moved on to Babylon and sacked it. The Babylonian Chronicle records this event as ending the First Dynasty of Babylon (that of Ḫammurabi) with the words:

"In the time of Samsuditana the men of Ḫatti marched against the land of Akkad."

The date is ca. 1595 BC. On his return, he was forced to defend his plundered goods, including the idol of Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, against Hurrian forces that attacked him.

Statue of a god (or deified king?) from North Syria, 17th century BC. (Cleveland Museum of Art, 1971.45)

Some time after returning to Ḫattuša, Muršili I was killed by Ḫantili I, his brother-in-law. See The Proclamation of Telipinu.

Text fragments relating to Muršili's campaign against Babylon, Ḫalap, Hurrians, and Syria (naming Yarim-Lim, Atradu, and Ḫammurabi) have been found. One of these fragments stated that Muršili had to campaign against Ḫalap in order to avenge his father's blood.

Kizzuwatna: Still a Hittite possession.

Culture and Society

As seen, Hittite justice at this time could be harsh and arbitrary. As long as a crime escaped the eyes of the king, which was probably fairly easy, a corrupt individual could do quite well for himself. But if he chose his crimes poorly, he could face quick, brutal, and fatal punishment at the king's hands,

"Mr. Zidi was cellarmaster(?). The father of the king (i.e. Ḫattušili) allotted a ḫarḫara-vessel of wine for Ḫaštayar and Maratti. He offered good wine to the king, but they gave other wine to them. One of them came to say to the king, 'They did not give that wine which the king saw!' The other one came to speak likewise. They led (Zidi) away, they tortured(?) him, and he died."

(Placement extremely, extremely, extremely tenative. The following text is an OH text, and so was written before Tudḫaliya II. The king who wrote speaks of the command of "my father", so we might expect a real or adopted son of a previous king who would be willing to invoke his father's earlier proclamations. Further, there is a great concern for justice - "You are about to go to the land, and the blood of the poor man you are not seeking!" - which seems to fit well with Ḫattušili I's beliefs as reflected in his Succession Proclamation. Nonetheless, there are any number of OH era kings that this document could belong to. Particularly troubling is that this might be the proclamation of a prince rather than of the king, since the father might still be active in this text. Even this could still fit with Muršili, since his "father" Ḫattušili might have survived his Succession Proclamation by some time. In that case, Muršili might have acted on his behalf. Against this is the fact that, at the time that he was named to the throne, he was still three years away from being old enough to go on campaign. Would he have performed administrative duties either?)

Ceremonial rhytons in the shape of the Storm God's bulls, Seri and Ḫurri. From Boğazkale, dated to the 16th century B.C. Height 90cm. Source: The Anatolian Museum Web Site

The expression of justice seen in the Palace Chronicles (i.e. justice by example) is perhaps continued in a proclamation concerning the crimes of certain military officers (the ^LÚDUGUD Proclamation). In this text the king was accusing some of his military officers of oppressing the ^GIŠTUKUL-men, who therefore subsequently began to oppress others, too. Their behavior must have clearly exceeded the limits imposed upon them in a previous reign, as the clearly irritated king makes clear,

"Is this the way that you obey my father's command? If you do not know (my father's command), are there no old men where you are, so that one (of them) can speak the word of my father to you?" (KBo 22.1 vs 4'-6')

The specific crime isn't particularly clear, but seemed to involve the travelling provisions granted to a Mr. Taya of the city of Kuluppa, including five porters, versus items which had been given to him as a gift. As such we are probably dealing with corruption, in which a man's belongings have been illegally taken by the military officials. The exact crime would have been clearer to us, but we are missing the first quarter and the last quarter of this text. The author states the crime as such,

"You are oppressing the porters! So you are giving anger to the king!" (KBo 22.1 rev. 19'-20')

The military officers were also responsible for the administration of justice in the land, and in this capacity they were expected to to perform in an unbiased fashion, which they were not doing,

"'You are about to go to the land, and the blood of the poor man you are not seeking!'

"His porters you do not question. You perform (the wish) of the rich man. You go to his house - you eat, you drink, and he rewards it to you. You take the poor man's šiēt, (but) you do not investigate his case! Is it thusly that you hold the command of my father?" (KBo 22.1 rev. 34'-31')

This difficult text was probably written in the form of a letter to the military officers and seems to have been an invective for the local DUGUD officials to obey the previously written commands of the father of the author. The portion of this text preserved was probably the history of the crime up to that time. The author of the text is problematical to identify. It has been widely assumed that the author is the king, but there seems to be good reason to suspect that the author was actually a prince. To begin with, it seems clear that in this letter "my father" is identical with "the king", so that the author's father was either an earlier king or the current king. But if the author was the current king, then we would expect him to refer to his predecessor as "the father of the king", as is seen in such texts as the Palace Anecdotes.

If this text, in its original state, finished with a command of the king, then we can make two rather interesting comments about the evolution of Hittite document genres. The basic means of legislation remained the command of the king, which could be formalized into an instruction tablet - "Just as (the king) keeps on writing to you, has he not inscribed a tablet for you military officers?" (ll. 22'f.), and the author's belief that the officers should have the king's previous commands in storage for retrieval. Undoubtedly the Palace Anecdotes were compiled from such case studies. Likewise, the inscribed tablet, whatever its format may have been, was a precursor to the highly developed instruction texts of the Middle Kingdom.

Much clearer than this is the history of the crime followed by the now missing king's judgement. This textual style would later make its way into Hittite treaties, which consisted of a historical introduction of relations between the Hittite king and his treaty partner which justified the treaty, and then the terms of the treaty itself. If this is true, then it seems that we can say that Hittite treaties, although inspired by earlier Mesopotamian inter-state agreements, were truly Hittite in form.

Ḫantili I (~1590~1560), Brother-in-Law of Muršili I

Ḫantili I was a cupbearer during Muršili's reign and he married Muršili's sister, Ḫarapšili. He conspired with Zidanta (I) and assassinated Muršili I, thereafter taking the throne. Once again the royal blood was preserved in the female line.

Having seized the throne through force, Ḫantili began to exhibit the paranoia of a guilty conscience. After all, if he could kill his predecessor, who was waiting to kill him? He began to fear for his life, saying, "Will I be protected? The gods protected him (i.e. Muršili), [. . .]" (The Proclamation of Telipinu §12)

In spite of his initial paranoia, he seems to have had a long reign, since he actually seems to have managed to die of old age. Of his achievements during his reign, his most notable is that he claimed to be the first king to put a wall around Ḫattuša. This is hardly supportable in light of the archaeological evidence. To play his advocate, we might suggest that he probably meant either that he was the first to do so since the city's destruction by Anitta, or that he simply expanded the city walls to encompass a larger area than they previously had.

The Return of Marduk

"When Marduk, lord of Esagila and Babylon, (and) the great gods ordered with their holy command his [ret]urn to Babylon, (and?) Marduk had set his face towards Babylon, [I prayed to?] Marduk, [...] my prayers. I carefully planned to fetch Marduk, and towards Babylon did I set his face. I went to the assistance of Marduk, who loves my reign.

"I asked of king Šamaš by divination(?), I sent to a far-off land, to the land of the Haneans, and Marduk and Sarpanitum, who love my reign, did I return to (the temple) Esagila and Babylon." (Foster (1996) 275)

In this way a first millennium B.C. document records that a man who called himself Agum-kakrime, "King of the Kassites and Akkadians" (among many other epithets) claimed to have brought back the idol of Marduk and his consort Sarpanitum to Babylon after their captivity among the Hittites. This ruler is not otherwise known, and his existence cannot be proven or disproven at this time. His reference to the land of the "Haneans" has been alternately interpreted as being a literary term for Ḫatti or that the idol had been left in Ḫana by the Hittites. Since Hittite control in Syria seems to have been unlikely, we may perhaps favor the prior.

With so much uncertainty - a document written long after the fact, in the name of a mysterious ruler, and the question of what is meant by "Hanaeans", it is difficult to know how much this document can be relied upon. There is only one other document which refers to the return of Marduk's idol. In the second document, presented as the words of Marduk himself, the god's embarrassing captivity in foreign lands is explained by describing Marduk as the one "who inspects, who goes back and forth through the mountains, the lofty one, inspector, who smites(?) lands, he who goes constantly back and forth in the lands from sunrise to sunset" (Foster (1996) 275). In other words, the deity's several absences from Babylon were apologized for as being the god's will. His sojourn in Ḫatti was no different;

"I gave the command that I go to Ḫatti, I put Ḫatti to the test, there I set up the throne of my supreme godhead. For twenty four years I dwelt there. I made it possible for Babylonians to send (commercial) expeditions there, and they {i.e. the Hittites?} marketed(?) its {i.e. Ḫatti's} [...] goods and property [in] Sippar, Nippur, [and Babylo]n.

"A king of Babylon arose [and] led [me in procession to] ... Babylon..." (Foster (1996) 302f.)

The two documents taken together portray a situation wherein an early Kassite king of Babylon - without evidence to the contrary we may call him Agum-kakrime - established commercial relations with his distant neighbors to his northwest. As a result of these friendly relations - perhaps even as a precondition of them - he was able to arrange for the return of his city's patron deity after a painful twenty four year absence. Given that Muršili's Babylonian campaign could easily have taken place early in his reign, and that Ḫantili's reign seems to have been stable and long, we may very tentatively suggest that Agum-kakrime retrieved Marduk's idol from Ḫantili.

Commercial relations between these two lands had been important since long before either the Kassites or the Hittites, and a break in such ties must have been awkward for both economies. The obscure ruler of a fledgling Kassite dynasty who recovered the city's patron deity and reestablished commercial relations with metal-rich Anatolia would have greatly strengthed his own position, and the restoration of commercial and cultural ties with the prestigious international power of Babylon would have likewise strengthened the position of an usurping ruler of Ḫatti. United by weakness, both powers would have become stronger. The fact that the kinglets of Ḫurri remained disunited, while not exactly a boon, would at least have made easier the passing of goods between Ḫatti and Babylon even though some of these rulers may have remained at war with the Hittites. A united and hostile Hurri would have presented grave difficulties.

Hostile Hurrians, as it turned out, were exactly what Ḫantili had to deal with anyway. It appears that Hurrian warriors began invading Ḫatti. This may have been what sent Ḫantili eastwards to the town of Tegarama, where his conscience continued to plague him, so that he declared,

"What is this that I have done? [Why] did I listen to [the words of] Zidanta, my(?) [son-in-law]?" (The Proclamation of Telipinu §13)

Indeed, Ḫantili's difficulties with the Hurrians was presented by the later king Telipinu as the gods' revenge for the murder of Muršili. For some time, it seems, the Hurrians were able to freely roam about Ḫatti, undoubtedly causing much havoc. It seems as if, however, ultimately Ḫantili was in fact able to push back the Hurrians from his borders.

The northern barbarians known as the Kaškans first appear (According to a text of Tudḫaliya IV (1239-1209)). They destroyed the holy city of Nerik, located in northern Anatolia. This city would not be resettled for another 300 years (The U.S.A. is only 200 some years old) when finally Ḫattušili III did so.

Ḫattuša: The fortification walls are of the case-mate variety on top of an artificial glacis (Necessary to defend against battering rams and siege towers).

Foreign Relations

Kaškans: According to a text of Tudḫaliya IV, these northern barbarians first appear at this time.

Kizzuwatna: Still a Hittite possession.

Zidanta I (~1560~1550), Son-in-Law of Ḫantili I

Zidanta encouraged and helped Ḫantili I kill Muršili I and become king. At the end of Ḫantili I's life, Zidanta, who was Ḫantili I's son-in-law, killed Pišeni, the legitimate heir, together with Pišeni's children and foremost servants, and so made it possible for himself to become king. Since he had married a daughter of Ḫantili, the royal blood was once again preserved through the female line.

Zidanta in turn was killed by his very own son, Ammuna, who then succeeded him. See The Proclamation of Telipinu §19.

Ammuna (~1550~1530), Son of Zidanta I

The Ammuna Axe (Salvini, M., SMEA 32 (1993) 85-90, Tav. 1) Inscription: “The Tabarna, Ammuna, Great King. He who changes the truth of the word will die.”

Ammuna killed his father, Zidanta I, and became king. For the first time in two generations the royal blood was passed on through the father, even though under less than ideal circumstances. The land seems to have suffered badly during his reign, and he lost a considerable amount of territory. His death is explicitly mentioned, but it is not specified how. He had a large family, so he, like Ḫantili I before him, might have died of old age. This idea is further supported by the fact that his son, Ḫuzziya, was capable of devising and executing a series of assassinations at the time of Ammuna's impending death which secured his accession to the throne (i.e. Ammuna did not die suddenly). See The Proclamation of Telipinu

The empire during the reign of Ammuna. In addition to the loss of much territory, Ammuna still had to wage campaigns against places such as Zalpa, the Ḫulanna River Land, and even Kaniš.

A fragmentary chronicle of Ammuna's reign is known (CTH #18). The annals seem to indicate that Ammuna successfully plundered Neša, but was fighting it again soon after. He also seems to have fought against the city of Šattiwara, the River Ḫulanna Land, and the city of Šuluki. Zalpa is also mentioned, as is Purušḫanda, which might have been on Ammuna's side. These are all presumably located in the Hittite core lands, which lends credence to Telipinu's portrayal of the weakness of the kingdom during the reign of this king.

Foreign Relations

Arzawa: He lost Arzawa (= Luwia) & Pala. We don't know who first captured Arzawa.

Kizzuwatna: He lost Kizzuwatna (= Adaniya = Cilicia). The first independent king of Kizzuwatna may have been Pariyawatri, father of Išputaḫsu. There is the slight possibility that Pariyawatri might have had a predecessor by the name of Pilliya, but the evidence is very very slim. See Beal (1986) n. 11.

Ḫuzziya I (~1530~1525), Son of Ammuna

Seal: SBo I.88 (See Easton (1981) 41)

Although royal by means of his father, Huzziya I was apparently not first in line to the succession, since his cohort Zuru, the Chief of the Palace Guards, had a man named Tittiya and his family killed by Taḫurwaili, a Gold Spearman who was a member of Zuru's family. Ḫuzziya also had a man named Ḫantili and his family killed by Taruḫšu, a courier. Tittiya and Ḫantili were probably Ḫuzziya's brothers, and by having them killed Ḫuzziya cleared the way for his own succession.

Ḫuzziya was deposed, but not killed, by Telipinu, his brother-in-law. See The Proclamation of Telipinu

The Storm God and the Serpent

(Read the whole text here.)

We have seen how when the Hittites entered Anatolia they quickly assimilated to the native culture, including its religion. The strong urge towards traditionalism would preserve Ḫattian mythos and ritual well towards the end of Hittite history. But, having become ‘Ḫattian’ themselves, the Hittites felt no misgivings about adapting the cult to fit their own needs and even their own non-Ḫattian traditions. The greatest examples of this by far are the two Hittite versions of the conflict between a great serpent and the Storm God of Nerik as told by Kella, the GUDU-priest of the Storm God of Nerik. These two versions of the same story, recorded on one and the same tablet, were originally composed during the period of the Old Hittite language, and would continue to be recopied by scribes down into the Empire period of Hittite history. Many scholars refer to this myth today as the Illuyanka Myth, after the Hittite word for the great serpent in the tale.

The myth is usually seen as typically Ḫattian, but this may be overly simplistic. The ritual seems to be directed very much to a contemporary audience, and the myth as a whole bears resemblence to other Indo-European myths. The main character is the Storm God of Nerik, son of the Storm God of Heaven. His opponent, the serpent, is closely associated with the sea, reminiscent of the early conflict between Ḫatti and Zalpa “by the sea”. This story probably entered Hittite culture at roughly the same period, although it may have much older roots. The story may also borrow elements from myths that the Indo-European ancestors of the Hittites brought with them into Ḫatti. But the moral dilemnas presented and resolved in the myth seem to stem from contemporary issues faced by the Hittite aristocracy. Also Ḫattian is the connection between myth and ritual and the basic fertility aspects of the ritual. The text is perfectly clear about this in its introductory lines,

“(This is) the word of the purulli-festival, when they speak in this way:

“'May the land grow and thrive! May the land be protected! When it grows and thrives, they perform the festival of the purulli.'”

Clearly, the purulli-festival is a Spring festival celebrating the return of life to the land after the death of Winter. This makes it an important festival, as texts from the end of the Hittite era make it clear that the two most important festivals in Hittite society were the annual Spring (planting) and Autumn (harvesr) festivals. It seems as if every town celebrated at least these two festivals in their own way. Further, the coming of Spring meant the beginning of a new year, so that it is not always easy (or even possible) to distinguish Hittite Spring festivals from Hittite new year festivals.

There is some reason to connect this myth with the so called ‘Dying God’ myths wherein a deity dies, bringing on the death of the land, i.e. Winter, and then returns to life, bringing life back with him, i.e. Spring. In these myths a mythical event is re-enacted, or in this case retold, by the ritual's participants. By reliving the event, a mystical union is established which ensures a repetition of the original outcome. If we accept that the Illuyanka myth belongs to this genre, then in this case, instead of the death of a god, it is the defeat of a god by an enemy which represents the onset of Winter, and the god's ultimate victory which represents the coming of Spring. The god in question is a Storm God. This would be an appropriate deity for such a myth, since Storm Gods were responsible for the life giving rains which brought the fields to fruition. In the first version of the myth, the fertility motif is strengthened by the inclusion of Inara, a fertility goddess of the countryside, as the Storm God's principle assistant in regaining his position. In both myths, the important part played by mortals, although very different in each myth, establishes the essential connection between the divine world and the human which justifies the accompanying ritual. But it would be short sighted to stop at the basic fertility theme of the myth. The myth is clearly connected with the Hittite royal house and the problems it had to deal with. The Illuyanka myth is essentially a royal myth which has taken elements from the kaleidascope of Hittite cultural contributions and composed a new, timely, and as it turned out, popular myth which is truly Hittite.

The two versions must be presented separately, since they are quite different. But both involve a conflict between the Storm God and a serpent. The serpent initially emerges victorious, but through cunning and with mortal assistance the Storm God in turn defeats the serpent. In the second version, the half-mortal offspring of the Storm God meets with destruction due to the requirements of the contemporary moral code. The Hittites took this theme and turned it into a lesson which will ring loud and clear with the reader when we look at it below. It is widely believed that the mortal in the first version also met with disaster, but this cannot be demonstrated and might actually be just the opposite of the truth. Both versions end with the ritual which inevitably accompanies Anatolian myths.

In the first version of the myth, the Storm God and the serpent fought against each other in the city of Kiškilušša, and the serpent overcame the Storm God. The defeated but still recalcitrant deity then summoned all the gods to him in order to trick the serpent. His daughter, the goddess Inara, prepared a great feast for the occassion, with liberal amounts of wine, marnuwanda-beer, and walḫi-beverage.

Having done this, she then went out to the city of Ziggaratta where she found the mortal man Ḫupašiya. Once she found him, she ordered him to join with her to help her. Ḫupašiya's response to the goddess was... well, bold,

"If I sleep with you, then I will come (and) I will do that (wish) of your heart."

Inara was apparently not put off by this, and she did indeed sleep with Ḫupašiya.

Having paid for his assistance with her own divine flesh, she then led Ḫupašiya away and concealed him. After that, Inara turned to the task of luring the serpent to its demise. She dressed herself up and summoned the serpent up from its lair, saying,

"I am about to make a feast! Come - eat and drink!"

So the serpent came up, along with his sons, and they ate and drank at the feast prepared by Inara and attended by the gods. They drank every vessel so that they then became drunk. In their inebriated state, they did not want to go back down into their hole again. Ḫupašiya took advantage of the opportunity and tied the serpent up with rope. Bound and helpless, the Storm God then came forth and slew the serpent. The Storm God thereby took his rightful place once again.

All that was left was to deal with this mortal who trafficed with the gods. Now, in a striking parallel with the much later Roman myth of Cupid and Psyche told by Apuleius (Translation available here. Please note that this translation is wholely unconnected with Hittites.info.), the goddess chose to keep her mortal lover with her and away from the world of men. To this end she built a house atop a rock outcropping in the land of Tarukka and placed Ḫupašiya in it. She then repeatedly commanded him,

“When I go into the countryside, you must not look out from the window! If you look out, then you will see your wife and your children!”

If he saw his wife and children, Ḫupašiya would long to return to his former life, which was now forbidden to him.

For twenty days Ḫupašiya obeyed the goddess's command, but then he looked out the window, and he saw his wife and his children. When Inara returned from the countryside, he began to weep, begging her, “Let me go back home!”

Now, at this crucial juncture, the text becomes badly broken and we can only speculate about what happened next. Inara began to interrogate her lover, asking, “Why did you look out?” Something is done “by means of a crime”, and a meadow is mentioned alongside with the Storm God. The most common assumption is that Ḫupašiya was killed for his disobeying the goddess, but in fact this may be far off the mark.

When the text picks up again after this, we find Inara returning to Kiškilušša, the site of the Storm God's original discomfiture. Once there, she entrusts her house and an underground spring to the king. The "house" of a deity is, of course, a temple. The underground spring is a source of life-giving water and therefore another aspect of fertility. The king is being entrusted with a temple of Inara, a fertility goddess, and a spring, which is a source of fertility. The connection between Ḫupašiya and the king is unfortunately lost. The first purulli-festival is in some way connected with Inara's act, and in commemoration of the first purulli-festival the festival was annually celebrated ever after. We can at least conclude that by her act Inara has integrally bound the fertility of the land to the person of the king. This is a powerful connection to draw and is a step towards the elevation of the king to a sacred state of being, apart from and above his subjects.

The ritual that is then recorded is equally unclear. The deified Mt. Zaliyanu, a mountain somewhere near Nerik which must have overlooked the city, is ranked as first among the gods for the purpose of the ritual. It is this mountain, rather than the Storm God, who is responsible for assigning rain in Nerik. At such times that rain is needed, the staff-bearer in Nerik brings forth the thick bread from Nerik up to the mountain. He offers the bread to Mt. Zaliyanu, and asks the god for rain in return. Mt. Zaliyanu was expected to provide the rain on account of the bread. The remainder of the ritual is, unfortunately, lost. It is interesting to note that there is nothing which explicitly connects the ritual solely with the onset of the Spring season, and it is only the introductory paragraph which makes this text seem like a Spring festival text.

It is also worth noting that a mountain is responsible for assigning the rain for Nerik. This would seem to supplant the place of the Storm God who is the normal patron deity of the rains. It is possible that this represents the clash of two religious concepts, but there is not enough evidence to say for certain. The fact that Mt. Zaliyanu “assigns” the rains rather than “brings” them as a Storm God normally does may indicate that the role of the mountain and the role of the Storm God are complimentary. The connection between mountains and Storm Gods is further strengthened by the fact that Storm Gods are sometimes described as coming over the mountains, and are also sometimes depicted as standing on top of mountain gods. This close connection between these two types of deities seems to have led to an occassional mingling of their functions. The most famous example of this will be seen at the beginning of the Empire period when a deity from Kizzuwatna named Šarrumma will have characteristics of both.

Kella, the GUDU-priest who told the first version of this myth, is also the man who tells us the second version. How the Hittites reconciled two very different versions of the same myth remains a mystery to us, but there it is.

The second version begins much as did the first. The serpent vanquished the Storm God when they did battle at the sea. But in this version the serpent took the Storm God's heart and eyes. In order to restore his power, he had to regain them. So he took the daughter of a poor man as his wife. She bore a son unto the Storm God, and the boy grew to manhood. When he had grown up, he took the daughter of the serpent to be his own wife. Apparently, the serpent was unaware of his son-in-law's ancestry. But this was not a normal marriage. The son, like his grandfather, grew up as a poor man. This meant that he could not afford to offer his father-in-law a proper bride-price. So, instead of bringing the serpent's daughter into his own household, he became a member of the serpent's family. This is the institution known as antiyant-husbandship which we have seen exercised so frequently in the Hittite Old Kingdom.

When a man entered the household of his father-in-law, he was permitted to request gifts for this act. This is where the Storm God's plans came into play. He would use the gifts his son was entitled to to win back his lost organs,

“When you enter the house of your wife, request from them the heart and the eyes!”

So the Storm God's son entered the serpent's household and requested his father's heart from them. They gave him the heart. Later, he requested the eyes from them, too, and they gave them to him as well. He then brought the heart and eyes back to his father, and his father took them back.

Restored back to his former state, the Storm God returned to the sea to do battle with the serpent once again. This time, the Storm God got the upper hand, and began to vanquish the serpent. But the Storm God's son, now a member of the serpent's family, was with the serpent. His duty was clear. So he called up to his father in heaven,

“Take me together with them! Do not spare me!”

His father the Storm God must have recognized the way of things, and so he slew both the serpent and his own blood son.

It's unfortunate that the next paragraphs are so badly preserved. Kella began a new mythological narrative involving the city of Nerik, the goddess Zašḫapuna who was Mt. Zaliyanu's wife, the Storm God of Nerik, the divine Mt. Zaliyanu again, and perhaps even the serpent. We saw how Mt. Zaliyanu was made the first among the gods in the first version of the ritual, and here again,

“And for the GUDU-priest the first gods they made into the last, and they made the last gods into the first gods.

“The cult revenues of Zaliyanu are great. Zašḫapuna, wife of Zaliyanu is greater than the Storm god of Nerik.”

Thereupon follows a ritual in which the gods are to gather in Nerik. But it is up to mortal man to provide for their needs,

“Thusly the gods to the GUDU-priest Mr. Taḫpurili: 'When we go the the Storm God of Nerik, where will we sit?'

“Thusly the GUDU-priest Mr. Taḫpurili: 'When you sit on a basalt stool, and when a GUDU-priest casts the lots, what GUDU-priest holds (the idol of) Zaliyanu, a basalt throne will be set above the spring and he will sit there.

“'All the gods will arrive, and they will cast the lot, and of all the gods of Kaštama, the goddess Zašḫapuna will be greatest. And because she is the wife of Zaliyanu, (and) Tazzuwaši is a concubine, these three men will remain in the city of Tanipiya.

“'And again field and fallow in Tanipiya is handed over to the aforementioned (men) from (the estate of) the king:

“'6 kapanu-measures of field, 1 kapanu-measure of garden, a house and threshing place - three (such) houses and (their) servants. It is (recorded) on a tablet. I am fearful of the matter. I saw these (things).'”

The end of this version of the myth deals with a land grant from the king. The suddenly introduced three men throws us off balance, since they are not previously identified, nor is the city of Tanipiya. It seems likely that the three men were to be priests for Mt. Zaliyanu, his wife Zašḫapuna, and his concubine Tazzuwaši respectively. Therefore we seem to be witnessing the establishement and subsequent renewal of temple estates for these three deities in the city of Tanipiya, although we still do not know why Tanipiya in particular had been chosen. The three men may actually have been present as the GUDU-priest Taḫpurili read the document aloud before them. Taḫpurili concludes the ritual by bearing witness to the legitimacy of the donation.

It is interesting to note that the myth of a conflict between a Storm God and a serpent is not unique to the Hittites. This theme was widespread over the Old World. Compare the following lines from the Rigveda;

“I will proclaim the deeds of Indra,
The first that he performed, the lightning-wielder.
He slew the serpent, then discharged the waters,
And cleft the caverns of the lofty mountains.

He slew the serpent lying on the mountain:
For him the whizzing bolt has Tvastar fashioned.
Like lowing cows, with rapid current flowing,
The waters to the ocean down have glided.

Impetuous like a bull he chose the Soma,
And drank in threefold vessels of its juices.
The bounteous god grasped lightning for his missile;
He struck down dead that first-born of the serpents.

When thou hadst slain the first-born of the serpents,
And thwarted all the wiles of crafty schemers,
Anon disclosing sun, and dawn, and heaven,
Thou truly foundest not a foe, O Indra.”
(Masterpieces of the Orient, 139f.)