No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
In 1986 the world of Hittitology was excited on hearing of the discovery of a well preserved bronze tablet. Inscribed on this tablet was a treaty between Hittite Great-King Tudḫaliya IV and his cousin Kurunta, appanage king of Tarḫuntašša, son of Tudḫaliya's father Ḫattušili III's elder brother Muwattalli II. An editio princeps of this treaty was published promptly, thoroughly, and, as always, extremely competently by H. Otten.
The tenth paragraph of this treaty reads:
ANA AWATNA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ=ya=kan ABUYAmMaraššantaš KA×U-za karpta
m.dLAMMA-aš=wa ANANA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ lē manninkuwan
nu ABUYA ANAmMaraššanta ṬUPPU iyat
n=atmMaraššantas ḫarzi
eni=ma ABUYA UL šakta
AWATNA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ=kan maḫḫan ŠAd10 kuntarra andan gulšanza
NA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ=kan maḫḫan zilatiya ANAm.dLAMMA parkiyauwanzi UL kišari
uit=ma maḫḫan ABUYA memian IŠME nu memiyan ABUYA=pat ḫullaš
maḫḫann=a ūkmTutḫaliyaš LUGAL.GAL LUGAL-izziaḫḫat
nu antuḫšan uiyanun
nu=kan AWATNA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ maḫḫan ŠAd10 kuntarra andan gulšanza
n=an aušta
nu=kanNA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ zilatiya ANAm.dLAMMA parkiyauwanzi UL kišari
mMaraššantaš=ma kuit ṬUPPU ḫarzi n=at uizzi mān udai n=at lē dattari
2 Bo 86/299 i 91–ii 3, copy and ed. Otten, H., Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy: Ein Staatsvertrag Tuthalijas IV. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten, Beiheft 1), WiesbadenGoogle Scholar: O. Harrassowitz, 1988.
3 StBoT Beih. 1 pp. 14 f.
4 Bo 86/299 ii 64–6.
5 “Le relazioni politiche fra Hatti e Tarhuntassa all'epoca di Hattusili III e Tuthaliya IV,” Quattro Studi Ittiti, ed. Imparati, F., (Eothen 4, 1991, arrived Jan. 1993) 27–9Google Scholar.
6 Ibid. 27.
7 Ibid. 29.
8 ZA 82 (1992)—233–70 esp. 244–49Google Scholar.
9 For this last translation see further our §3 below.
10 Houwink ten Cate's solution, begins with completely different assumptions than mine. He believes that the bronze tablet (Bo 86/299) and KBo 4.10 are both treaties of Tudḫaliya IV, the first with Kurunta and the latter with his successor Ulmi-Tešub (for this view see most recently van den Hout, Th., JCS 41 [1989]: 100–14)Google Scholar. Before the appearance of the bronze tablet, I too argued for the idea that Kurunta and Ulmi-Tešub were different people (Beal, Diss. 1986 pp. 391–4 n. 1237). But after having read the arguments by Klengel, H., AOF 18 (1991): 231 f.Google Scholar, O. R. Gurney (above), and Sürenhagen, , OLZ 87 (1992): 341–71Google Scholar in favour of equating the two royal names and making KBo 4.10 a treaty of Ḫattušili III, I am now inclined to this latter opinion. Houwink ten Cate also believes that Kurunta was made tuḫkanti “heir presumptive” (or better with Gurney, , CAH 2/1 p. 672Google Scholar, “heir designate”) by Ḫattušili, only to be subsequently removed and replaced by Tudḫaliya. As evidence he cites KUB 14.3 (ed. Sommer, F., AU pp. 2–19Google Scholar), the so called Tawagalawa letter, which speaks on several occasions of the mission of the tuḫkanti/TARTENNU (for which title see Gurney, , AnSt 33 [1983]: 97–101Google Scholar) and once mentions that “but [previou]sly(?) Kurunta was there” (i 73) and §§13–14 of the bronze tablet which speak of the appointment of Tudḫaliya's elder brother as tuḫkanti and his later removal in Tudḫaliya's favour. However, since KUB 14.3 refers to the tuḫkanti/TARTENNU by title (i 7, 9, 11 (2x), 67, ii 4), why should it suddenly refer to the same person by name? It seems more likely that at least two different missions were sent, one led by the tuḫkanti and one by Kurunta. §§13–14 of the bronze tablet say that, before Tudḫaliya became king, the gods made Tudḫaliya and Kurunta friends and they swore to protect one another. When Ḫattušili appointed Tudḫaliya's elder brother as tuḫkanti, Kurunta remained loyal to Tudḫaliya. He even swore “If your father doesn't install you for kingship, wherever he does install you, I'll be loyal to you, I will be your servant/slave (nu=wa=za tuel ÌR-iš). Again, why jump from using a person's name to using his title then back to using his name. Since Tudḫaliya is not hiding the fact that he was once passed over for kingship, why should he hide the supposed fact that it was Kurunta who was placed ahead of him? Most compellingly, it is impossible to believe that someone just named heir to the empire would swear to be his passed-over cousin's servant/slave. Thus, §§13–14, in my opinion, clearly show that Kurunta was not the elder brother and tuḫkanti. A combination of the kingship of an appanage kingdom, which Kurunta seems to have received shortly after Ḫattušili seized the throne (Bo 86/299 i 14–15), with the imperial tuḫkanti-ship seems unlikely anyway. Finally, if we accept Klengel, Gurney and Silrenhagen's argument for KBo 4.10 being a Ḫattušili text, which I have argued on other grounds should be accepted (The Organization of the Hittite Military, THeth 20 [1992] p. 387 n. 1466), we will see that Klengel, , AOF 18: 228Google Scholar, was correct to suggest that the elder brother and tuḫkanti was Neriqqaili, who is listed in KBo 4.10 rev. 28 as the tuḫkanti. That he is also found with this title in KUB 26.43 rev. 28, a Tudḫaliya IV text (and in first place in Bo 86/299 though entitled only “royal-prince”), only means that he was reappointed as heir designate after his brother became king.
11 KUB 13.7 i 1, 9–20Google Scholar (Tudḫ. II), ed. HW2 1: 220Google Scholar s.v. ara- 2 (i 9–13).
12 For this translation see Beal, THeth 20 (1992): 473–81.
13 KUB 26.9 + Bo 69/1256 iv 9–11 (MH/NS), ed. Otten, H., OrNS 52 (1983):136 f.Google Scholar
14 FsFriedrich, pp. 471 f. n. 88.
15 “den König von (der Durchführung eines ordentlichen) Prozeßverfahrens abbringen”.
16 “den König von der (Ausübung der ihm zustehenden) Gerichtsbarkeit abhalten”.
17 “den König von (den Ergebnissen) prozessualer Untersuchung fernhalten”.
18 OrNS 52 (1983): 136 f.Google Scholar
19 “Niemand soil dich von dieser Sache abhalten.”
20 IBoT 1.36 iii 11Google Scholar (instr. for MEŠEDI, MH/MS).
21 The Hittite Instruction for the Royal Bodyguard, OIAS 24, (1991) pp. 24 f.Google Scholar
22 A similar translation, “to apply to”, was employed by Josephson, F., Part. (1972) pp. 75, 126–8Google Scholar.
23 HW 2 1:567b s.v. atta- IV. In Akkadian abu takes possessive suffixes as follows nom. abūšu, acc. abāšu, dat. abīšu, and by analogy MB and NB in the first person use the suffix -(y)a attached to a fully declinable stem. (von Soden, W., GAG p. 86Google Scholar §65 h–i and p. 6*).
24 For other examples of Obj.-Subj.-Verb sentences in the bronze tablet Bo 86/299 see i 15, 87, 98, ii 8–13, 32, 87, 88.
25 Suggestion courtesy of H. G. Güterbock.
26 Beckman's, G. comment, WO 20/21 (1989–1990) 294Google Scholar that the placement of the enclitics at the end of the SAG.UŠ supports the contention that NA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ represents a single Hittite word is incorrect. If each Sumerogram represented a separate word the enclitics would still be placed on the SAG.UŠ: ukturiyaš=ya=kan ḫekuraš memiyani ammel attan Maraššantaš iššaz karpta. This comment is not intended to deny that NA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ could stand for a single Hittite word.
27 Sürenhagen, , OLZ 87 (1992) 345 f. n. 14Google Scholar, has already noted that Maraššanta could not have been just a messenger, but must have had some title to do with the mausoleum.
28 Bo 86/299 i 92.
29 Note how although Macedonian king Alexander III's body was intended by Perdiccas (Alexander's successor as supreme commander) to be buried at Aegai, the old Macedonian capital and burial place of all her kings, it was waylaid and taken to Egypt by Ptolemy I and eventually associated with the Ptolemies' own family dynastic cult. Strabo 17.1.8, cf. Austin, M., The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman conquest (Cambridge, 1981) p. 232 w. nn. 8–9Google Scholar; Diodoros XVIII 3.5; XVIII 26–8 (with some reading between the lines), cf. Loeb edition vol. 9 pp. 19 n. 4; 95 nn. 1–2; Pausanias 1.6.3, 1.7.1 and Arrian FGrH 156.9.25; 10.1. See Peters, F. E., The Harvest of Hellenism (New York, 1970) p. 73Google Scholar.
30 Bo 86/299 ii 64–6.
31 Bo 86/299 ii 1–2, cf. NA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ=kan maḫḫan zilatiya ANA m.dLAMMA parkiyauwanzi UL kišsari ibid, i 96–7.
32 IBoT 3.148 iii 13–14 (evocation rit., NS) coll. and ed. Otten, , StBoT Beih. 1:46Google Scholar w. n. 82a. Park(iya)- used transitively is only attested with a meaning “to lift, raise, elevate” and a derived meaning “to grow (a flower)” (said of a plant) (see below n. 43). It might be imagined, that park(iya)- “to go up”, like pai- “to go” would take an accusative of the road travelled. However this meaning is unattested and may never have existed due to the potential for confusion—*GIŠKUN5-n parkiyazzi would mean “he raises the ladder” and “he climbs the ladder”. Furthermore, even if such a meaning could be shown to exist, it seems unlikely that Kurunta was being denied/given permission to scale the mausoleum; rather he was being denied/given permission to go up to the mausoleum. Grammatically “mausoleum” should be equivalent to “roof” in the example from IBoT 3.148.
33 Ose, F., Supinum und Infinitiv im Hethitischen, MVAeG 47/1, pp. 47–8Google Scholar.
34 KBo 5.9 ii 19 (Dupp.), ed. Friedrich, J., SV 1:16 f.Google Scholar
35 KUB 8.53 iv 18–20 (Gilgameš), ed. Friedrich, , ZA 39 (1930):12 f.Google Scholar
36 KUB 14.16 iii 11–2Google Scholar, w. dupl. KUB 14.15 iii 42–3Google Scholar, ed. AM 54 f.
37 KUB 10.3 i 11, w. dupl. KBo 8.119 obv. 2 (ANTAḪŠUM- fest.).
38 KBo 5.4 i 38 (Targ.), ed. Friedrich, J., SV 1:58 f.Google Scholar
39 KBo 4.2 iii 50–1Google Scholar, w. dupl. KUB 43.50 obv. 11–2 + KUB 15.36 obv. 3–4, ed. Götze, and Pedersen, , MSpr 4 f.Google Scholar:11–2.
40 KBo 4.10 rev. 18, ed. Th. van den Hout, Diss. 38 f. Van den Hout argues in a note at the bottom of p. 39 that an equally possible translation: “If some city is not the will for Ulmi-Tešub to give,” i.e. “if Ulmi-Tešub doesn't want to give some city (to his Majesty),” can be ruled out by context.
41 For an example of a sentence containing a word in the allative and another in the dative see LUGAL-uš URUḪattuša DINGIR.DIDLI-aš aruwanzi net, KBo 22.2 rev. 13, quoted in Starke, F., StBoT 23 (1977) 69 §100Google Scholar.
42 CAD E 114–35.
43 “To ascend (to)” see above n. 32. “To rise up” e.g. KUB 36.89 obv. 26, ed. CHD nakki A la; (mid.): KUB 8.16:3–4 + KUB 8.24 rev. 4–5 (OH/NS), ed. Neu, E., StBoT 5:138Google Scholar. “To grow”: nu šankuš alil maḫḫan parkiyat tuell=a ŠA d10 dZI-KA alil parktaru “Just as the š.-plant grows (lit. lifts up) a flower, so may the soul/will of you O Stormgod grow (like) a flower” KUB 33.68 ii 1–2 (OH/MS), tr. courtesy of H. A., Hoffner and H. G. Güterbock. “To raise” (act.): e.g. KBo 23.12 rev 10–1 (MS); (mid.): KBo 11.10 iii 10–1 (MH?/NS), tr. courtesy of Hoffner, H. A. and Güterbock, H. G., ed. Neu, , StBoT 5:138Google Scholar (differently).
44 CAD E: 124 f. s.v. elû 3b2′.
45 CAD E: 126 f. s.v. elû 6.
46 Since the grammatical construction is somewhat different, we are not claiming that the Hittite is a caique on the Akkadian.
47 Witness the fact that Kurunta seems to have abandoned his brother Muršili and supported his uncle Ḫattušili's usurpation. (Bo 86/299 i 6–11.)
48 Eothen 4:28Google Scholar. The authors themselves present another suggestion, which, without rejecting this one, they prefer (see below n. 54).
49 Bo 86/299 ii 89.
50 Ibid. ii 84–9.
51 This point was also made by Ph. Houwink ten Cate in his review of the editio princeps.
52 KUB 26.92:9–16, w. dupl. KUB 8.79 rev. 25–6, ed. Hagenbuchner, A., THeth 16 (1989): 401–3Google Scholar, Laroche, E., Syria 31 (1954) 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Th. van den Hout, Diss. 132 f., tr. Singer, I., Tel Aviv 10 (1983) 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 So Singer; Neu (StBoT 5:160) and van den Hout, “(auf) genommen werden”; Laroche, “a été recueillie”; Hagenbuchner, literally “genommen werden”. See previous note.
54 Ph. Houwink ten Cate in his review of the editio princeps independently came to much the same conclusion: “let it not be put into practice (viz. let no (further) action be undertaken upon it)”. Imparati and Daddi, Pecchioli, Eothen 4:28Google Scholar, also suggested this solution, which they find most likely (“la tavoletta… non deve presa (in considerazione)”).