Collana di studi sulle civiltà dell’Oriente antico

fondata da Fiorella Imparati e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli

diretta da Stefano de Martino

NEW RESULTS AND NEW QUESTIONS

ON THE REIGN OF SUPPILULIUMA I

edited by

Stefano de Martino - Jared L. Miller

LoGisma editore

3
Stefano de Martino – Jared L. Miller (eds.), New Results and New Questions on the
Reign of Suppiluliuma I

Copyright © 2013 LoGisma editore

www.logisma.it - logisma@tin.it

ISBN 978-88-97530-10-7

Printed in June 2013

4
 THE LAST YEARS OF THE REIGN OF TUTḪALIYA III
RECONSIDERED*

Boaz Stavi

1. Introduction

The reign of Tutḫaliya III is very poorly attested in the Hittite sources. Alp
(1991, 52) suggested that the archive of Maşat-Höyük (ancient Tapikka), one
of the most important Hittite archives outside of Ḫattusa, should be dated to
Tutḫaliya’s reign, though it seems that this date should be partly revised.1
Many texts of the itkalzi-ritual series have also been dated to Tutḫaliya III’s
reign, since they mention his Hurrian name, Tašmi-šarri, but the historical
data in these texts is meager. One historical text that does refer to the reign
of Tutḫaliya III is Ḫattusili’s Decree concerning Exemptions for the ḫekur of
Pirwa (CTH 88). Following is a translation of the relevant paragraphs at the
beginning of this text (KBo 6.28 obv.):2
6-9: In earlier days the Ḫatti lands were sacked [b]y the enemy.
From this side [...], the Kaskean enemy came and sacked the Ḫatti
lands and he made Nenassa his frontier. From the other side,
fro[m] the Lower [Lan]d, came the Arzawean enemy, and he too
sacked the Ḫatti lands, and he made [T]uwanuwa and Uda his
frontier.

* This paper constitutes an elaboration of the lecture presented in Munich. It is based

upon two chapters of my PhD dissertation (Stavi 2011) that deal with two phases of Tutḫaliya
III’s reign: the “concentric attack” and the Hittite counterattack that followed. This
contribution does not deal with all the sources examined in these chapters, and as a result, the
conclusions will also be less detailed (e.g. the exact scope of the “concentric attack” and the
extent of Ḫatti’s expansion will not be discussed here). I would like to thank Prof. G.
Wilhelm, Dr. M. Marizza and the editors, Prof. J.L. Miller and Prof. S. de Martino, for their
comments. All errors are my own responsibility.
1
The archive seems to have been active during the reign of Arnuwanda I, too (as
demonstrated by Marizza 2007a). For a more detailed discussion concerning the date and
time-span of the archive of Maşat-Höyük, see Klinger 1995, 85, 103; van den Hout 2007;
Stavi, in press.
2
The translation is based upon: Goetze 1940, 22; Heinhold-Krahmer 1977, 40-41; Bryce
2005, 146.

133
 10: From this side, the Arawann[ean] enemy [cam]e and sacked the
whole of the Land of Kassiya.
11-12: From this side, the Azzian enemy ca[me and] s[ac]ked all
the Upper [Land]s, and he mad[e] Samuḫa his frontier. The
Isuwean [enemy] came [and] sacked the [Land] of Tegarama.
13-15: From this side, the Armatanean enemy [came], and he too
sacked the Ḫatti lands. And he [mad]e Kizzuwatna, the city, his
[frontier]. And [Ḫatt]usa, the city, was burned down. And (only)
[...] and the ḫesti- house of [...]-ta-aš escaped.
16-18: [W]hen my grandfather, Su[ppiluliuma], [gr]eat [king],
hero, ša-ra-a iš-pár-za-aš-ta, he ascen[ded] the throne of kingship,
[and he dro]ve out [the enemies?] from the lands of Ḫatti. And the
Land of Ḫatti, the bla[ck earth...] he settled [aga]in.

According to this text, at some point before Suppiluliuma’s reign, Ḫatti

was attacked by enemies, drastically reducing its territory and leaving
Ḫattusa, the Hittite capital, devastated. Though the text does not refer to any
specific date for the events, they are most commonly dated to Tutḫaliya III’s
reign, undoubtedly based on line 16, in which Suppiluliuma’s accession is
mentioned as the turning point.3 With reference to this text, this most
significant event of Tutḫaliya III’s reign has been defined as the so-called
“concentric attack”. This text, however, presents several problems:

1. It was written during the reign of Ḫattusili III, long after the events
themselves.
2. The author of the text seems to have wanted to give the impression that:
a) all the attacks took place at the same time, eventually leading to the
destruction of Ḫattusa; b) the troubles ended when Suppiluliuma took
control of matters. However, the text omits some important details, such
as concrete dates and Mittani’s part in the events, and further, it seems to
have clear political agenda.4

3
For discussion of this paragraph, see Heinhold-Krahmer 1977, 40-48; Klengel 1999,
130, 134; Bryce 2005, 145-148.
4
Liverani 1990, 115-116. It seems that the same picture emerges from CTH 83.1.A,
another text written during Ḫattusili III’s reign; see Kitchen 1962, 3; Parker 2002, 53-54.

134
 CTH 88 has therefore been treated with suspicion, some scholars
believing that the late authors of the text exaggerated and that in fact Ḫatti’s
situation would not have been so acute,5 others claiming that the distorted
image of this period is a consequence of improper analysis of the text by
modern scholars.6 A third group of scholars believes that the “concentric
attack” would indeed have been a very dramatic event that would have
destabilized the Land of Ḫatti.7
The objectives of this paper are therefore to shed some light on the
following matters:

1. Since the information in CTH 88, due to its late date and its political
nature, must be treated with caution, the first objective is to determine
whether there are other sources that can offer supportive evidence for the
difficult situation in this period as reflected in CTH 88.
2. Based on the answers to this question the paper will try to ascertain when
Ḫatti managed to recover from this dark era.8

2. The “concentric attack”

EA 31 and 32
It seems that none of the letters from Ḫattusa in the Amarna archive can be
dated to the reign of Tutḫaliya III. There are, however, letters of other
dossiers that provide some information regarding this period. It is possible,
e.g., that EA 31 and 32, known as the “Arzawa letters”, two of the earliest
letters in the archive, belong to this group.

5
E.g. Kempinski 1993, 82; de Martino 1996, 83-84; Klinger 2002, 450-451; Marizza
2007a, 4-5.
6
Most prominently Liverani (e.g. 1990, 115-117).
7
E.g. Goetze 1940, 21-24; Heinhold-Krahmer 1977, 40-48; Gurney 2003, 122-123.
8
The author of CTH 88 certainly suggests that Ḫatti’s recovery was closely dependent
on Suppiluliuma’s rise to prominence. Of note, however, are the two terms the author used
when depicting the beginning of Suppiluliuma’s activity. In ll. 16-18 he wrote, “[w]hen my
grandfather, Su[ppiluliuma], [gr]eat [king], hero, ša-ra-a iš-pár-za-aš-ta, he ascen[ded] the
throne of the kingship, [and he dro]ve out [the enemies?] from the lands of Ḫatti. And the
Land of Ḫatti ... he settled [aga]in.” In this regard, the exact meaning of sarā isparzasta
(“became of age”?, “became king”?; see discussions in Goetze 1940, 23-24; Heinhold-
Krahmer 1977, 41 n. 28, 43-44; HED I-II, 447) is less important than the fact that the author
chose to include two temporal markers.

135
 The correspondence with Arzawa was conducted between pharaoh
Amenhotep III and Tarḫundaradu, king of Arzawa. Despite certain
differences, the greeting formula at the beginning of EA 319 (l. 1-10)
resembles that usually appearing in the correspondence between the Great
Kings. Consequently, it seems that Amenhotep III acknowledged the
importance, if not the equality, of the Arzawean king.10 The subject of the
correspondence, the planned wedding of the pharaoh and Tarḫundaradu’s
daughter, also indicates the growing importance of Arzawa and its becoming
a major force in Anatolia.11 The fact that the letters were written in Hittite
rather than Akkadian (which served during this period as the lingua franca)
suggests that these were Arzawa’s first steps in the international arena.12
Following are a transliteration and translation of the passage of EA 31 in
which Ḫatti is mentioned:13

22 nu-ut-ta ú-wa-an-zi ú-da-an-zi ku-ša-ta DUMU.MUNUS-TI

23 LÚḫa-lu-ga-tal-<la->aš-mi-iš LÚḫa-lu-ga-tal-la-<aš->ša
24 ku-iš tu-el ú-it na-aš ag-ga-aš
25 nu-mu an-tu-uḫ-šu-uš Ga-aš-ga-aš KUR-ia-aš up-pí
iš-ta-ma-aš-šu-un
26 zi-in-nu-uk ḫu-u-ma-an-da
27 nu Ḫa-ad-du-ša-aš-ša KUR-e i-ga-it
28 nu-ut-ta ka-a-aš-ma pí-ip-pé-eš-šar up-pa-ḫu-un aš-šu-l[i]
29 ki-iš-ša-ri-iš-ši mIr-ša!(TA)-ap-pa LÚḫa-lu-g[a-tal-li-mi]

22-26: Then they – my messenger and the messenger from you

who came and x-ed14 – will proceed to bring to you the bride price

9
Edition: Hoffner 2009, 273-277. EA 32 lacks the usual preamble, probably because it
is the second tablet of its letter (Rost 1956, 330). The order of EA 31 and 32 is controversial.
Many scholars do not accept the order suggested by Knudtzon (for a partial list, see Hoffner
2009, 270; see also Hawkins 2009, 78).
10
E.g. Hoffner 2009, 270-271, 273-274.
11
Heinhold-Krahmer 1977, 50-51; Klengel 1999, 131-132; Bryce 2005, 147-148.
12
Haas in Moran 1992, 102 n. 2. For Egyptian references to Arzawa in earlier periods,
see Klinger 2006, 193-194.
13
Taken from Hoffner 2009, 276. For an earlier edition, see Rost 1956, 334-336. For
further translations see Haas in Moran 1992, 101; Klinger 2006; Hawkins 2009 (including
pictures of the tablets).
14
The verb ag-ga-aš can be translated as “died” (from ak-, “to die”), but this is not the
regular conjugation of the verb (akkis). See also Haas in Moran 1992, 102 n. 7; HED I-II, 18;
Liverani 1999, 408 n. 7.

136
 for (your) daughter. And send me people of the Kaska land. I have
heard everything is finished ?/(you) have written?,

27-29: and that the Land of Ḫattusa is paralyzed ?. I have herewith

sent you a gift as a token of good will, in the charge of my
messenger Irsappa: ...

Amenhotep III’s request to send him people of the Kaska (l. 25) is quite
remarkable. This short sentence may hint at an irregular geopolitical
situation, since theoretically Ḫatti should lie between Arzawa and the Kaska,
separating these two entities. Therefore, the passage might indicate that Ḫatti
had lost its western and (at least some of its) central Anatolian territories,
enabling the establishment of some sort of cooperation or at least contact
between the Kaska tribes and Arzawa.15 For this reason, EA 31-32 can be
taken as evidence for the unsettled condition of Ḫatti, a situation which
could be identified with a/the peak of the “concentric attack”. Further, based
on these letters one might suggest a date for this phase (see below).
The second detail indicating difficulties in Ḫatti appears in ll. 25-27:

25 ... iš-ta-ma-aš-šu-un
26 zi-in-nu-uk ḫu-u-ma-an-da

27 nu Ḫa-ad-du-ša-aš-ša KUR-e i-ga-it

There are two difficulties in this passage. The first is the term zinnuk
(l. 26). Some scholars assume that it derives from zinna- (‘to end, finish, put
an end to’), and that the sentence iš-ta-ma-aš-šu-un zi-in-nu-uk ḫu-u-ma-an-
da should thus be translated, “I have heard that everything is finished”.16 In
consideration of the word’s unexplained form, the syntactic problems in the

15
See also Heinhold-Krahmer 1977, 53; Hagenbuchner 1989, 362-363; Beckman 1998,
592. Naturally, this request could stem from Egyptian unfamiliarity with the geography of
Anatolia. However, it is clear that at least in later periods this was not the case, as seen, e.g.,
in the list of Hittite allies who fought in the battle of Qadeš (e.g. Bryce 2005, 234-235). In
addition, proximity (and perhaps cooperation?) between the Kaska and Arzawa might be
concluded from several fragments of the DS (e.g. del Monte 2008, 27 and n. 26).
16
E.g. HW, 261-262; Haas in Moran 1992, 101; Klinger 2006, 195; Hoffner 2009, 274,
276. The additive and concessive senses of the conjunctive/additive -a/-ya (ḫaddusass=a)
might be seen to support this translation, i.e. “I have heard that everything is finished ?, and
that the Land of Ḫattusa is also/even paralyzed.”

137
sentence and the unclear context in which it appears,17 Starke (1981, 227-
231) suggested that it should be interpreted as an Egyptian phonetic
transcription of the Akkadian expression ša (attā) tašpura, which he
therefore translated as “Ich habe alles gehört was du gesagt hast”.18
The second problem is the meaning of the sentence in l. 27. It is now
clear that the verb e/iga- should be translated “to freeze; cool down; become
paralyzed”,19 and that the former translation of this sentence, “the country of
Ḫattusa is shattered ”,20 should be abandoned. However, the exact meaning
of this phrase is still controversial. According to Liverani (1999, 408-409) it
is meant to explain the difficulties of the journey to Egypt. He claims that
this sentence could be understood in one of two ways, either that the road
was blocked or difficult to travel because of the harsh weather,21 or as a
metaphor indicating that the land of Ḫatti was hostile. Puhvel and Starke, on
the other hand, saw in this sentence alternative political situations.
According to the former (HED I-II, 257), the phrase suggests that Ḫatti was
paralyzed.22 The latter asserts that it is a translation of an Egyptian idiom,
meaning that the Land of Ḫattusa was quiet/calm.23 According to both, the
passage deals with the roads leading from Egypt to Arzawa, but unlike
Liverani, they argue that Tarḫundaradu intended to relate good news to the
pharaoh, informing him that the route to Arzawa was safe for the passage of
the emissaries.
Starke’s analysis of this passage offers advantages over the other
suggestions contextually and grammatically, but his historical and political
interpretation, i.e. that Ḫatti would have been at peace (Starke 1981, 225,

17
Starke emphasized the sharp (and unexplained) transition between the request for the
Kaska people and the strange diagnosis of Ḫatti’s condition. With the traditional translation
this phrase seems out of context with regard to the former sentences and the remainder of the
text dealing with the dowry.
18
If one accepts Starke’s suggestion (as do Liverani 1999, 408 and Hawkins 2009, 78),
the connection between l. 26 and the preceding lines, as well as the existence of the dividing
line thereafter, becomes much clearer. Cf. Hoffner 2009, 274.
19
It shares the same root as eka-, “cold; frost, ice”. For the new interpretation see
Hoffner 1971-1972; HEG I, 103; HED I-II, 257; Hawkins 2009, 77.
20
I.e. based on the former interpretation of this verb, “to burst; break up”. For this
translation, see Haas in Moran 1992, 101. For discussion, see Starke 1981, 222; Klinger 2006,
195 n. 78; Hawkins 2009, 78 n. to l. 27.
21
“The Land of Ḫattusa has been frozen” (de Martino 1996, 83; Klinger 2006, 194-195).
22
“The Land of Ḫattusa is paralyzed” (Hawkins 2009, 78; Hoffner 2009, 276).
23
Starke 1981, 225. It should be noted that according to Starke (1981, 222) the verb
should be analyzed as igait<ta>, i.e. 3 sing. pres. m.p., “is cold, frozen” (“erkalten,
gefrieren”), whereby the omission of the last sign would be explained by the foreign (non-
Hittite) origin of the scribe. Cf. Hagenbuchner 1989, 362-363.

138
231), contradicts the geopolitical significance of the letter in general and the
conclusions from l. 25 in particular, and hence, should be re-evaluated.24 In
particular, the message that Tarḫundaradu sought to convey in these lines
needs to be clarified. It may be suggested that when Tarḫundaradu stated that
the Land of Ḫattusa was “quiet/calm” (as suggested by Starke), he was
thereby intimating that the battles in this region had ended and that the route
to Egypt was safe and under his authority. In other words, the region he
called the “Land of Ḫattusa” was now controlled by Arzawean forces.25 It
should be noted that the term “Land of Ḫattusa” does not necessarily include
the entire Land of Ḫatti, but no doubt did include its southern parts, i.e. the
regions through which the Egyptian and Arzawean emissaries would have
travelled, such as Cilicia.26
If so, it may be concluded that Tarḫundaradu managed to achieve the
goal of previous kings of Arzawa,27 i.e. the conquest of Hittite territories in
southern Anatolia. This Arzawean expansion would have introduced an
entirely new situation, as its control of the (southern parts of the) kingdom of
Ḫatti, the last obstacle in Arzawa’s path, would have paved the way for the
establishment of relations between Arzawa and Egypt for the first time. It
should be noted that the roads between Arzawa and Egypt passed through
Mittanian territory, but it seems that any political development that
weakened Ḫatti would have been encouraged by the king of Mittani.28
Of course, in addition to the overland routes discussed above, the
Arzawean emissaries could have reached Egypt through an alternative route,
i.e. over the Mediterranean Sea.29 The moment southern Anatolia and Ura,

24
Haas (in Moran 1992, 102 n. 8), e.g. writes that “This ingenious interpretation is
based on an Egyptian parallel(?), but if one takes into consideration the historical
implications, it falls short of conviction”; see also Hawkins 2009, 77-80.
25
Even if one accepts Liverani’s first alternative (i.e. “the Land of Ḫattusa has been
frozen”), one still must consider the possibility that the way to Egypt passed through Hittite
territory. Thus, even if this message is not explicit in the text (as I maintain), it is almost a
necessary conclusion from its reading (cf. Liverani 1999, 407). Puhvel’s interpretation,
mentioned above (“The Land of Ḫ. is paralyzed”), would seem amenable to this
understanding as well.
26
Thus, in CTH 88 (see above) Armatana attacked “the Ḫatti lands” and made
“Kizzuwatna” its border.
27
E.g. the activities of Ḫuḫazalma (CTH 28), who may have been Tarḫundaradu’s
predecessor; for Ḫuḫazalma, see de Martino 1996, 63-72, 94-95; Beckman 1998, 592.
28
For the roads from western Anatolia to Syria, see Yasur-Landau 2002, 193-197.
29
For the naval routes from western Anatolia to Egypt, determined largely by the
clockwise blowing/flowing winds and currents, see Lambrou-Phillipson 1991 (esp. p. 14);
Yasur-Landau 2002, 189-192.

139
the chief harbour town in Cilicia, were in the hands of Arzawa, the way to
the Syrian coast, controlled by Egypt, would have been open.

The first tablets of the Deeds of Suppiluliuma

CTH 40, the Deeds of Suppiluliuma (henceforth DS), is of course the main
source of information regarding the reigns of Tutḫaliya III and
Suppiluliuma I. It is part of a comprehensive historiographical trilogy
composed during the reign of Mursili II. The DS, which details events
during the reigns of Tutḫaliya III and Suppiluliuma, comprises the first part,
while the Annals of Mursili (i.e. the Ten Year Annals and the Comprehensive
Annals) constitute its second and third parts. Due to the detailed descriptions
in the DS, it seems that this text was based upon earlier sources such as the
Annals of Suppiluliuma (Heinhold-Krahmer 1977, 33; Taracha 2007, 661;
Klinger 2008, 37).
The first fragments of the DS were published by Forrer in 1926, while a
more comprehensive edition containing the majority of fragments currently
known was published by Güterbock in 1956. Later, more fragments were
added, eventually leading to the publication of a revised edition by del
Monte in 2008.
The text of the DS was, and still is, an extensive and complicated
composition. From one of its colophons (KBo 19.48) it is clear that at least
one version of the text was written on at least 12 tablets,30 and even in its
present patchy state the text includes more than 50 fragments. Another
detail, evident from the colophon of the Seventh Tablet, is that the fragments
of the DS do not belong to the “original”, which would have been written on
a bronze tablet (or tablets), but rather to drafts and/or copies. None of the
copies is complete and in many cases there is no physical connection
between the fragments that are assumed to constitute any given copy.
Assigning the fragments to a given copy was based on their content (e.g.
identical names appearing in the fragments) and physical features (such as
palaeography, fragment colour, etc.). To the first part of the DS, dealing with
Tutḫaliya’s reign, have been attributed more than ten fragments, which,
however, only seldom duplicate one another, leaving one with a very
fragmentary text to work with.

30
This colophon is treated by J.L. Miller in this volume. For an estimation of the size of
the composition see Wilhelm – Boese 1987, 80-83, 91-94.

140
 Güterbock (1956, 42-43) delineated the part of the DS dealing with
Tutḫaliya III’s reign with fragments in which Tutḫaliya’s name or his
designation as “my grandfather” are mentioned, 14 fragments in all. He
placed Suppiluliuma’s accession in the 11-line gap between Fragments 14
and 15, which deal with campaigns against Arzawa and the Kaska. Wilhelm
and Boese (1987, 80, 83) agreed with Güterbock’s methodology, but argued
against the placement of Suppiluliuma’s accession. They claimed that while
this location is possible, the 11-line gap is too small to include the
description of the following events:

1. the end of the campaign against Arzawa in progress at the end of

Fragment 14;
2. the death of Tutḫaliya III;
3. the death of Tutḫaliya “the Younger”;31
4. Suppiluliuma’s accession to the throne;
5. the beginning of a new campaign already in progress at the
beginning of Fragment 15.

They therefore suggest placing Suppiluliuma’s accession somewhere at

the beginning of the Third Tablet, i.e., between Fragments 15 and 17. Based
on the disorder of the military campaigns in the Second and Third Tablets
resulting from Güterbock’s organisation of the fragments, del Monte (2008,
9-11) went one step further, placing Fragment 13, which he assumes belongs
to the Fourth Tablet, after Fragment 17. By doing so, he extends the
description of Tutḫaliya’s reign in the DS by one further tablet, thereby
widening the gap into which one might place Suppiluliuma’s accession to
between Fragments 13 and 18.
These two suggestions are accepted here, since the 11-line gap
suggested by Güterbock indeed seems too small; and although the exact
placement of Suppiluliuma’s accession is still very difficult to determine, at
this point it seems quite safe to suggest that Tutḫaliya III’s reign would have
been depicted in the first three or four tablets of the composition, and that his
death would have been mentioned somewhere between Fragments 15-18.32
31
Which may perhaps have been preceded by Tutḫaliya the Younger’s accession; cf.
Groddek 2009, 100; Freu 2002, 91, who places the murder of Tutḫaliya “the Younger” during
Tutḫaliya III's reign.
32
As mentioned by J.L. Miller in this volume, Tutḫaliya III’s death can at least
theoretically be placed anywhere between the Third (last reference to the “grandfather”) and
the Seventh Tablets. However, if one accepts that (1) Suppiluliuma’s reign would have lasted

141
 That being the case, in order to examine Tutḫaliya III’s reign one must
investigate the first 17 fragments of the DS. The order of Fragments 1-8,
which according to Güterbock belong to the First Tablet, is not entirely
clear. Güterbock suggested that Fragment 1 details the genealogy of
Mursili II and therefore placed it at the beginning of the text. Fragment 2
might describe ancient events, since it mentions Telipinu. In both Fragments
2 and 3 a certain Kantuzili is mentioned, and hence, they were placed next to
one another. Fragments 4-6, which mention Tuttu’s activity, were placed
after Fragment 3, while Fragment 5 was removed from the DS already in
Güterbock’s Addenda et Corrigenda (1956, 122). At this point was placed
the fragmentary Fragment 7, probably since it belongs to the same copy as
Fragment 2 (Copy A, col. i and ii). There are, however, good reasons to
believe that Fragments 2 and 7 do not belong to the DS, and they will
therefore not be examined here.33 Fragment 8, which deals with a joint attack
of the “father” and the “grandfather” near Mt. Nanni, belongs to the same
copy as Fragment 4 (Copy B, col. ii and iii), and it was therefore placed at
the end of the First Tablet. As can be seen, both the time range covered by
the First Tablet (e.g. the mention of the names of Telipinu and Kantuzili)34
and the order of the fragments are quite uncertain (Güterbock 1956, 119).
The order of Fragments 9-17, belonging to the Second and Third Tablets (or
Fourth if one accepts del Monte’s suggestion), is much clearer, yet also
presents some difficulties, to be discussed presently.
In order to evaluate Ḫatti’s situation as reflected in Fragments 1-17, one
should examine the place names mentioned in these fragments and track the
movements of the Hittite army and, more importantly, the Hittite borders
throughout this period. There is no need to detail each and every battle, since
a very interesting and significant picture can be drawn even if one scrutinises
only the main battlefields.

at least 20 years (Wilhelm – Boese 1987, 94-95, 117), and probably even longer (e.g. Parker
2002, 52), and (2) that the last six tablets of the DS cover his last six years or so, since they
begin with the Second Syrian War, then it appears that the first 15 years of Suppiluliuma’s
reign will have been covered by only three or four tablets (Third/Fourth to Sixth Tablets). For
that reason, it seems preferable to accept Güterbock’s suggestion of reading the number in
colophon of KUB 19.10 iv 1' as “3”.
33
Fragment 2 exhibits MH characteristics and the name “Tutḫaliya” instead of his
designation as “my grandfather”. The appearance of Telipinu’s name (in l. 3') is also
somewhat suspicious; cf. del Monte 2008, 2.
34
This Kantuzili could be identified with Tutḫaliya I’s father or Arnuwanda I’s son. See
discussion in Marizza 2007a, 18-20.

142
 The First Tablet relates two important events that can be traced on
Map 1. In Fragment 4 (KUB 19.12 obv. ii), Tutḫaliya III fought in Sallapa,
probably in order to secure Ḫatti’s western frontier.35 Close to the end of the
First Tablet, in Fragment 8 (KUB 19.12 rev. iii), Tutḫaliya and Suppiluliuma
arrive at the northern border of Ugarit (Mt. Nanni).36 From this point on, it
seems that Ḫatti’s situation deteriorates sharply. One of the first acts of the
Hittites in the Second and Third Tablets was the reconstruction of their
devastated land and perhaps even of their capital city (Fr. 10). In other
words, Tutḫaliya and Suppiluliuma were mostly busy with defending the
Land of Ḫatti and driving its enemies away during this phase. One finds
Tutḫaliya III and Suppiluliuma fighting against Ḫayasa in the Upper Land
and near the Ḫatti-Ḫayasa border (Fr. 13); against the Kaska tribes in the
Upper and Lower Lands as well as inside Ḫatti (Fr. 14, 15 and 17); and
against Arzawa in the Lower Land (Fr. 14 and 15). Throughout these
fragments one finds indications showing that even after the Land of Ḫatti
was re-conquered by the Hittites, Tutḫaliya III continued to reside in the
Upper Land, which might be explained by the continuing unstable security
situation in the region of Ḫattusa.37 At the end of this period, however, there
seem to be some indications of Ḫatti’s recovery. During the endless
defensive wars, for example, one occasionally finds Tutḫaliya fighting in the
northern part of west-central Anatolia (i.e. refs. to Masa and Kammala in Fr.
13), and later, one sees him battling the Kaska near the Ḫatti-Kaska border
instead of in the middle of Ḫatti (Fr. 17).
It thus seems that the first three tablets of the DS deal mostly with
Ḫatti’s weakening, i.e. with a significant reduction of its territory, and
therefore with the “concentric attack”, while only a small portion belonging
to the end of this section depicts Tutḫaliya III’s counterattack. Further, if this
portion of the composition represents the last stage of Tutḫaliya III’s reign, it
may be concluded that the initial stages of Ḫatti’s recovery took place during
his reign, while the most decisive part of its resurgence occurred during
Suppiluliuma’s reign.

35
Concerning its possible location, see Miller 2008.
36
Concerning the identification and location of Mt. Nanni, see van Soldt 2005; Healey
2007.
37
See, e.g., the discussion in Bryce 2005, 147.

143
 Sallapa

Map 1: The Hittite withdrawal. In the First Tablet Tutḫaliya III and his son fought in
Sallapa (Fr. 4) and near the northern border of Ugarit (Fr. 8). Later, the Hittite court
had to withdraw; it left Ḫattusa, moved to the Upper Land and fought in its vicinity
(Fr. 10, 11, 13 and 14).

There are, however, some difficulties with this scenario, among which
the following seem to be crucial:

A. Ḫatti’s situation at the end of the reign of Arnuwanda I, as reflected, e.g.,

in CTH 375 (§27), the episode of Ḫuḫazalma (CTH 28) and some letters
from Maşat-Höyük (e.g. HBM 74), was quite difficult.38 However, in the
First Tablet of the DS one sees Tutḫaliya III and Suppiluliuma fighting in
northern Syria near the border of Ugarit. The contrast between these two
situations is striking, but the DS, at least in its present state, provides no
indication that Tutḫaliya III would have mastered a crisis inherited from his
father.
B. The existing fragments of the DS mention no significant Hittite losses
during Tutḫaliya III’s reign; in fact they depict a series of victories.
Nevertheless, the extent of the empire was significantly reduced between the
beginning of the First Tablet and the end of the Third. Hence, there is no

38
For the difficult situation in Ḫatti at the end of Arnuwanda I’s reign, see Marizza
2007a, 4-5 (and more elaborately in Marizza 2007b, 7-9).

144
visible connection between the course of the events (sequence of victories)
and their outcomes (Ḫatti’s decline in the twilight of Tutḫaliya’s life).
C. The existence and nature of these difficulties are admittedly not self-
evident, since their detection rests upon an argumentum ex silentio, which
might be explained by the fragmentary state or the political nature of the
composition. The argument to be advanced presently, however, is much
more substantial. In order to examine the validity of the scenario mentioned
above, three basic questions need to be addressed:

1. What were the Hittites’ or Mursili’s objectives in writing the DS?

2. What was Güterbock’s reasoning in reconstructing the first tablets as he
did?
3. Are the objectives of the Hittite authors compatible with Güterbock’s?

The first question can be answered with reference to the Hittite name of
the composition, “the Manly Deeds of Suppiluliuma” (Suppiluliumas LÚ-
nannas). From this title it is apparent that the text was composed for the
purpose of glorifying Suppiluliuma’s deeds and immortalizing his heroism.
The problem is that the text as reconstructed by Güterbock fails to achieve
this goal. The first tablets of the DS, in which Suppiluliuma frequently
appears, depict one of the most infamous periods in Hittite history, yet
according to the text, Suppiluliuma, its main protagonist, was heavily
involved in Ḫatti’s demise right from its beginning, since he is mentioned
already in Fragment 8, which presents Tutḫaliya III at the peak of his
success. In fact, Suppiluliuma’s responsibility for the ensuing dreadful
situation is even enhanced by the author’s frequent emphasis of the fact that
the king was repeatedly sick and that Suppiluliuma therefore often replaced
him in the battlefield as the supreme commander of the Hittite army.39
It may therefore be suggested that the source of all these difficulties lies
in the commonly assumed reconstruction of the text. The first tablets of the
DS are arranged in such a way that the zenith of Tutḫaliya III’s reign arrives
too early in the plot,40 Suppiluliuma is consequently too active in the events

39
The relevant question in this context, of course, is not whether Tutḫaliya III was in
fact in poor health, but why the author chose to emphasize this detail; see discussion in
Klinger 2008, 37-38, who suggests that the author intended to create the impression that
Suppiluliuma held the office of king already during Tutḫaliya’s reign.
40
Del Monte (2008, 1-2), who noticed this problem as well, suggested attributing
Fragments 4 and 8 to another text, but I see no reason to do so.

145
leading to Ḫatti’s decline, so that instead of being depicted as Ḫatti’s
glorious saviour, he appears almost as the cause of all its troubles. The root
of the problem can be traced to Güterbock’s ordering of the first tablets.
Though Güterbock did not document the considerations that lead him to
order them as he did, it seems that he may well have used CTH 88 as the
model for his reconstruction.41 This reasoning is in fact quite understandable,
except for the fact that it leads to the said internal contradiction between the
text’s objectives and its presentation of events.
These difficulties are solved, however, if the climax of Tutḫaliya III’s
reign is relocated to a later stage of the plot, thus turning the story told by the
first tablets from a tragedy into a success. In order to do that, the location of
Fragments 4 and 8,42 which refer to Tutḫaliya’s wars in Sallapa and near
Ugarit, i.e. the peak of his achievements, should be reconsidered.43 The first
possible location for these fragments is alongside Fragments 15 and 16. In
this manner, the Hittite attack on Sallapa in Fragment 4 might serve as a
prelude (or dénouement) to the large-scale offensive against Arzawa, which
begins in Fragment 15; and the operation near Ugarit’s border in Fragment 8
could be connected to the reference to a “king” in Fragment 16.44 An
alternative location for Fragment 8 would be in the gap between Fragments
17 and 18. The problem with this latter placement is that the exact location
of Fragment 18 (and of Suppiluliuma's accession) in the text is unclear, and
it would result in the end of Tutḫaliya III’s reign disappearing into the “black
hole” between the two fragments.45
This suggested ordering of the fragments places the period covered by
the first tablets of the DS in a totally different light (summarized in Map 2).
The depiction of Tutḫaliya III’s reign would start with the Hittite re-conquest

41
Support for this can be found in the comparison Güterbock (1956, 119-120) made
between the enemies who appear in CTH 88 and those mentioned in the Second and Third
Tablets of the DS.
42
And possibly also Fragment 13, as suggested by del Monte (2008, 10-11).
43
Cordani (2011, 145-146) suggests that Suppiluliuma’s accession should be placed
somewhere around Fr. 16 (based on the phrase LÚGURUŠ in l. 5’). If so, my suggestion of
relocating Frags. 4 and 8 to a later place in the Deeds becomes less probable.
44
This connection is based upon the notion that the title “king” was used in the DS and
the Annals of Mursili to designate “Great Kings” and their major vassals (mostly in Syria).
45
Fragment 18 is floating within the composition. Güterbock titled the section in which
Fragment 18 is included “further fragments whose tablet numbers are unknown”. The
problem with these fragments is even greater than Güterbock's edition indicates; Güterbock
placed them between Fragments 17 (Third Tablet) and 28 (Seventh Tablet), but it is quite
possible that at least some of them should be located after the Seventh Tablet (i.e. during or
following the Second Syrian War).

146
of the land of Ḫatti and continue with the occupation of the important
surrounding provinces, i.e. the Lower Land, the Upper Land, eastern
Anatolia (as far as the border of Ḫayasa) and Sallapa. Following the securing
of the kingdom’s borders and the annexation of the Lower Land and
Kizzuwatna, the Hittite army crossed the borders of Anatolia for the first
time for many years and marched toward Syria. As a result, the arrival of
Tutḫaliya III in Syria, the climax of his reign, is now related to the end of his
tenure, or at least to the last surviving parts of the DS dealing with it.

Sallapa

Map 2: Ḫatti’s expansion following the reordering of the first 3/4 tablets of the DS.

Conclusions concerning the “concentric attack”

Given the relocation of Fragments 4 and 8 of the DS, it seems that the
surviving parts of the first tablets of the DS deal not with the “concentric
attack”, but with Tutḫaliya III’s counterattack. That said, they do hint at the
severe situation in Ḫatti prior to its recovery, referring, e.g., to the need to re-
conquer Ḫatti and restore Ḫattusa as well as to the royal court’s retreat to the
Upper Land. This information supports the picture emerging from CTH 88
and other texts as to the chaotic condition of the Hittite Empire during
Tutḫaliya III’s reign.

147
 EA 31-32 likewise reflect a major nadir in Hittite history, which may
perhaps be equated with the “concentric attack”. These letters could thus be
used to date this phase, though their exact date is similarly uncertain. Moran
(1992, xxxiv-xxxv) assumed that the earliest letters of the Amarna archive
should be dated to around year 30 of Amenhotep III.46 He suggested that
EA 31 should be dated to this time slot as well, but that the events it refers to
might have occurred earlier. It seems, however, that EA 31-32 deal with
events that had occurred not long before the time of writing, since their focus
is on the on-going wedding negotiations. The details in the letters, including
the sending of the Kaska people and the situation in Ḫatti should be seen in
this light. There seems to be no reason to assume that the correspondents
mention events in the distant past, failing an explanation of how these
references might contribute to the advancement of the negotiations. This, as
well as an analysis of the Mittanian dossier from Amarna, suggests that EA
31-32 would have antedated year 30 of Amenhotep III by some few years
(Stavi 2011, 35; see chronological chart below).

3. Tutḫaliya III’s counterattack

The reordering of the first tablets of the DS would appear to suggest that a
major part of Ḫatti’s recovery was completed already during Tutḫaliya III’s
reign. The following pages will examine two more texts, CTH 51 and EA
17, which seem to deal with the same phase.

CTH 51 and the Early Syrian Foray

At the beginning of the historical prologue of CTH 51, before Suppiluliuma
details the events of his First Syrian Campaign, the following section
appears:

(§1, 1-6) When My Majesty, Suppiluliuma ... and Artatama, king of

the land of Ḫurri, made a treaty with one another, at that time
Tušratta, king of the land of Mittani, called for attention from the

46
The exact criteria according to which tablets were brought to and left in Amarna are
not entirely clear. In any case, it seems that EA 31-32 should perhaps be dated as close as
possible to the date of the other letters of the archive and to the transfer of the capital city to
Akhetaten (note that van den Hout [2005, 281] has estimated that documents were kept in
archives for no more than ca. 25 years); cf. Kühne’s (1973, 98-99, 126) suggestion of dating
them to (ca.) Amenhotep III’s 20th year; and Wilhelm – Boese 1987, 103-104.

148
 Great King. ... And I ... turned my attention to Tušratta ...; I
plundered the lands of the west bank of the river (Euphrates) and I
annexed Mount Lebanon. A second time Tušratta was presumptuous
to me and spoke as follows: “Why are you plundering on the west
bank of the Euphrates?” (Beckman 1999, 42)

Some scholars have suggested that this passage describes two separate
campaigns of Suppiluliuma, the first, an Early Syrian Foray,47 carried out
after Tušratta “called for attention” a first time; the second, after he was
“presumptuous” a second time, leading to Suppiluliuma’s overpowering of
Isuwa “for the second time” (par. §2) and to the First Syrian Campaign.
There are, however, at least three difficulties with this scenario.
First, it would remain unclear why Suppiluliuma, who would have
conquered the entirety of Syria as far as the Lebanon Mountains during this
early foray, had to re-conquer the same region.
Second, there is no other evidence for such an extensive foray by
Suppiluliuma before his First Syrian Campaign; none, that is, once the
Amarna letters that have been considered evidence of its occurrence (i.e. EA
17 and 75) are analysed differently.48
The third difficulty derives from an examination of the objectives of
CTH 51’s historical prologue. It should be borne in mind that historical
prologues were written in order to achieve specific political or legal
objectives (van Seters 1983, 117; Altman 1998; 2004; Haas 2006, 85-87).
They contain therefore not an objective description of events, but seek rather
to detail the development of events in a way that optimally suit the author’s
aims. The main goal of Šattiwaza’s historical prologue (CTH 51) is to
explain why the borders of Ḫanigalbat, the new Hittite vassal kingdom, had
been drawn as they were and why several territories that had formerly
belonged to Greater Mittani had been annexed by the Hittites.49

47
Many scholars have argued for the existence of this Early Syrian Foray, some
deducing its existence from the preamble of CTH 51, others from various Amarna letters, e.g.
Kitchen 1962, 40-41; Murnane 1990, 7-8, 11 n. 50; Altman 2001, 5-7; id. 2003, 345-346, and
in n. 3 (with current bibliography); Parker 2002, 61-62; Freu 2003, 98; Gromova 2007, 279-
280. For further discussion concerning the Early Syrian Foray see Wilhelm – Boese 1987, 84;
Harrak 1987, 15-16 and n. 18; Devecchi 2007, 213; Miller 2007, 283.
48
EA 17 is examined below. As in my view EA 75 deals with the events of the First
Syrian Campaign (Stavi 2011, 216-219; cf. Murnane 1990, 6-7; Altman 2001, 6; Gromova
2007, 278-280; Freu 2009, 13-14) it is beyond the scope of this paper.
49
In this context the differences between the historical prologues of the two Šattiwaza
treaties should be noted. In addition to their presentation of Šattiwaza’s arrival in Ḫatti and his

149
Suppiluliuma’s justification of the new situation appears to have been based
on the reasoning that the areas in dispute had been taken in response to an
unjustified act of Mittani (Tušratta’s “presumptuousness”), and that these
regions had been conquered while Tušratta’s still reigned (e.g. §10,
Beckman 1999, 45), i.e. before any agreement had been concluded between
Šattiwaza (or his father) and Suppiluliuma.50 If this was in fact the case, one
must ask: If it was thus possible to create a justification through reference to
an earlier campaign, i.e. the Early Syrian Foray – whose protagonists
(Suppiluliuma and Tušratta) and achievements (conquest of Syria) would be
identical to those of the First Syrian Campaign51 – why did the Hittite
authors not simply refere to this foray rather than the First Syrian Campaign?
After all, during this early foray the same Hittite king would have manifested
his sovereignty over the same area for the first time. What is seen in CTH
51, however, is the exact opposite; the alleged Early Syrian Foray is only
briefly mentioned, while the larger part of the historical preamble is devoted
to the later campaign, i.e. the First Syrian Campaign.
There are at least two possible solutions to these problems. First, it is
possible that this section of the prologue should be seen as a summary of the
events that are narrated in detail later in the text. In other words, the
beginning of the preamble would not detail an Early Syrian Foray but

submission to Suppiluliuma, the two preambles differ in the subjects they describe. CTH 52
begins with the misdeeds of Artatama II and Suttarna III (while suspiciously omitting
Tušratta’s murder), whereas the preamble of CTH 51 deals mostly with the conquest of Syria
during an earlier period, when Tušratta was still ruler of Mittani, i.e. during the First Syrian
Campaign. The reason for the differences between the two treaties, which were, after all,
ratified on the same occasion following the Second Syrian War, lies in their different
objectives. While CTH 52 might be understood as an “Apology of Šattiwaza”, as suggested
by Beckman (1993, 55), CTH 51 can be considered as an “Apology of Suppiluliuma”, since it
attempts to vindicate Hittite involvement in Mittani’s affairs, particularly Šattiwaza’s
appointment and the removal of Suttarna III, as well as the conquest of Mittanian territories
and their subjugation to the Hittite viceroy in Karkamiš. Since during the Second Syrian War
Šattiwaza was a Hittite vassal, and since the treaty with Artatama II (and his son) was still
valid, the Hittites had no choice but to turn to an earlier stage of their relationships with
Mittani, i.e. during Tušratta’s reign, in order to defend their conduct during the
reestablishment of their relationship with the new vassal kingdom of Hanigalbat/Mittani.
50
Suppiluliuma strengthened this argument by claiming that prior to the war he had
made a treaty with Artatama, the enemy of Šattiwaza.
51
The only important difference is the raid of the Land of Mittani, which is found only
in the First Syrian Campaign. However, this episode is less important for the delineation of
borders, since Ḫatti’s sovereignty over Mittani itself was not achieved by a military campaign,
but rather through Suppiluliuma’s agreements with Mittani’s “lawful” kings, first Artatama II
(during Tušratta’s reign, CTH 51, §1), and later Šattiwaza, whose surrender being expressed
by the conclusion of CTH 52 in general and §3 in particular (or §6 in CTH 51).

150
constitute rather a prelude to and summary of Suppiluliuma’s First Syrian
Campaign.52 The first paragraph of CTH 51 would thus deal with one Hittite
campaign only, i.e. with Suppiluliuma’s First Syrian Campaign.
The second possibility is that some crucial details regarding the date
and/or extent of this early raid are inaccurately portrayed in this description.
The possibility would thus remain that at some time prior to the First Syrian
Campaign a Hittite incursion was launched, during which a clash between
the Hittite and Mittanian (or Mittanian vassals’) forces occurred. Though the
narrator of CTH 51 gives the impression that this foray took place during
Suppiluliuma’s reign, e.g. by referencing Suppiluliuma’s treaty with
Artatama before the launching of the raid, it may have been launched during
the reign of Tutḫaliya III; and in light of the relocation of the first fragments
of the DS suggested above and the date of EA 17 suggested below, it may
even be the preferable solution.53 If so, the extent of the raid as described in
CTH 51 would also seem to be inaccurate. This foray probably would not
have reached deep into Syria, but would have been carried out much closer
to Ḫatti’s borders, in realms lying between them and Mittani, i.e. in eastern
Anatolia,54 Kizzuwatna and/or the northern fringes of Syria.55 This passage
would thus indeed deal with two campaigns, the first of which, however,
should not be identified as the Early Syrian Foray as described by other
scholars, but rather seen as a limited incursion (possibly under
Suppiluliuma’s command) as part of Tutḫaliya III’s counterattack.

EA 17
EA 17 is the first letter sent by Tušratta, and one of the first letters of the
Amarna archive.56 After the standard (though shortened) greetings formula,
Tušratta describes the events that had befallen Mittani following the murder
of his brother, its former king:

52
For this interpretation, see Wilhelm – Boese 1987, 84-85. It was raised again in G.
Wilhelm’s lecture in the Qatna conference in Stuttgart (Wilhelm, in press).
53
See also Torri 2005, 397.
54
E.g. the reference to the first Hittite victory over Isuwa (and other eastern localities) in
CTH 51 §1 (l. 10-14).
55
See in this context also Fr. 8 of the DS (which mentions Mt. Nanni) and perhaps also
kp 05/226 from Kayalipinar (Wilhelm in Müller-Karpe et al. 2006, 233-236).
56
For its dating, see Kühne 1973, 36-39; Moran 1992, xxxiv; see also the chronological
chart below.

151
 When I sat on the throne of my father, I was young, and UD-ḫi57
had done an unseemly thing to my country and had slain his lord.
For this reason he would not permit me friendship with anyone who
loved me. I, in turn, was not remiss about the unseemly things that
had been done in my land, and I slew the slayers of Artaš[š]umara,
my brother, and everyone belonging to them. (EA 17, 11-20; Moran
1992, 41)

It appears from this letter that Tušratta was still young (seḫru-) when his
brother, Artaššumara, was murdered.58 Following this event, a dignitary
named UD-ḫi, who was also responsible for the coup according to Tušratta,
ruled over Mittani, probably as a regent.59 Relations between Mittani and
Egypt, as evidenced by the existence of EA 17, were re-established only
after Tušratta had deposed UD-ḫi and stabilized his rule as sole king of
Mittani. It is quite possible that several years separated Artaššumara’s death,
when Tušratta seems to have still been quite young, and the writing of EA
17, when Tušratta is likely to have been more mature and was able to start
negotiations concerning the wedding of his daughter.
In the fragmentary lines 30-34 there is brief mention of a conflict
between Ḫatti and Mittani:

30 […]-?TI-ma ap-pu-na-ma ša ŠEŠ-i[a]

31 [...60] id-du-ú [...]-bi61 KUR Ḫa-at-ti62
32 gáp-pa-am-ma ki-i LÚKÚRMEŠ a-na KUR-ti-i[a]

57
In Nuzi there are many attestations of names based on the root utḫ-, and it is therefore
quite possible that also this name should be read Utḫi. (I thank Prof. G. Wilhelm for this
note.) See also Hess 1993, 123-124.
58
Tušratta mentions good relations between pharaoh and his father, but no such
relations between the pharaoh and his brother, and it thus seems that Artaššumara did not rule
for a long period (see also Wilhelm 1995, 1250; Kühne 1999, 218). For a tablet from Tell
Brak/Nagar (TB 6002) bearing the name of Artaššumara, see Oates – Oates – McDonald
1997, 150-151.
59
Since Tušratta occupies the throne at this point (l. 11).
60
Moran 1992, 42 n. 6 excludes åki-i¥.
61
I.e. [lib]-bi(?).
62
Knudtzon (1907-1915, 132-133) suggested restoring and translating ll. 30-32 as
follows: (30)[a-n]a-ti-ma ap-pu-na-ma ša ŠEŠ-i[a] (31)m[a]-x id-du-ú x x-bi KUR Ḫa-at-ti
(32)
gáp-pa-am-ma, “[ich l]ege noch mehr, was mein Bruder ... gelegt hat, ... das Ḫatti-Land,
das ganze”. Adler (1976, 122-123) opted for: (30)[nu-kùr]-ti-ma ap-pu-na-ma ša ŠEŠ-i[a]
(31)┌
ki-i┐ id-du-ú lìb-bi KUR Ḫa-at-ti (32)gáp-pa-am-ma, “als darüberhinaus Feindschaft gegen
meinen Bruder, die (Landes) angehörigen von Ḫatti allesamt herbeiführten, hat, ... ”. Based
upon collation, Moran (1992, 42 n. 5) rejected Adler’s restoration for l. 30.

152
 33 it-ta-al-ka dIŠKUR be-li a-na qa-ti-ia
34 id-din-šu-ma ù ad-du-uk-šu

Moran (1992, 41-42) suggested the following restorations and

translations of this passage:

[The ver]y next year,63 moreover, my brother’s [...] all the land of
Ḫatti. When the enemy advanced against [my] country, Tessup, my
lord, gave him into my hand and I defeated him.

Liverani (1999, 367) suggests:

Inoltre, l'anno dopo che mio fratello [morì], la terra di Ḫatti si gettò
[contro di me] tutta quanta. Quando il nemico venne nella mia terra,
il mio signore Teshub lo diede in mano mia, e io lo sconfissi.

Comparison of these two treatments reveals the following differences:

1. According to Liverani, the Hittite attack occurred in the year after
Artaššumara’s death, i.e., prior to UD-ḫi’s removal. Though possible, this
seems unlikely, since according to Tušratta, at that point he was still
“young” (l. 12).64
2. According to Moran, the confrontation would have begun “[The ver]y
next year”, i.e. following UD-ḫi’s removal (in §2) and the
commencement of Tušratta’s rule. If so, the Hittite campaign should be
dated approximately to Tušratta’s second regnal year as sole king.

Even if the first words in line 30 are left unrestored, it seems from the
phrasing of the letter that Ḫatti’s attack should be dated to Tušratta’s first
year/s, i.e. between UD-ḫi’s removal and the writing of EA 17 at the
beginning of Tušratta’s sole reign.

63 (30)
[i-n]a TI-ma ap-pu-na-ma ša ŠEŠ-i[a]. According to Moran (1992, 42 n. 5) the sign
TI stands for MU.TI (balātu).
64
Even if one accepts Liverani’s restoration, there would remain a contradiction in
Tušratta’s narrative, in that he was able to withstand the Hittites but unable to shrug off UD-
ḫi. It must also be noted that Tušratta cannot have been too young, since several years later
(EA 19 etc.) he was able to offer a daughter to Amenhotep III.

153
Conclusions concerning Tutḫaliya III’s counterattack

The first tablets of the DS seem to deal with Tutḫaliya III’s counterattack
rather than the “concentric attack”. With the reordering of Fragments 4 and
8, these tablets represent the peak of Tutḫaliya III’s success in west Anatolia
and Syria, respectively.
The first paragraph in the historical prologue of CTH 51 was examined
and its support for an alleged Early Syrian Foray of Suppiluliuma was
rejected. Two alternative analyses of the passage were offered instead. The
first possibility is that the passage summarizes the achievements of the First
Syrian Campaign detailed later in the preamble. Another possibility is that in
addition to the First Syrian Campaign, the passage would detail – no doubt
in an exaggerated manner – a campaign that would have been part of
Tutḫaliya III’s counterattack. If the latter proposal is accepted, it is quite
possible that this raid should be equated with Tutḫaliya III’s activity in Syria
as detailed in Fragment 8 of the DS (and possibly also in EA 45).
If the Hittite attack portrayed in EA 17 was indeed part of Tutḫaliya
III’s counterattack, the letter can be used in order to date this phase of his
activities and the estimated time gap between the peak (or final peak) of the
“concentric attack” (EA 31-32) and Ḫatti’s recovery. The suggested dates
are presented in the chronological chart below.
In summary, it seems that close to the end of the reign of Tutḫaliya III,
the situation in Ḫatti was much better than has traditionally been assumed.
This king managed to reduce the military threats faced by Ḫatti and to push
its borders back to the point they had reached during the reign of
Arnuwanda I, perhaps even beyond it. At the zenith of Tutḫaliya’s success,
his army was sent to northern Syria and fought against Mittani and/or its
vassals in this region and/or in east Anatolia. It appears from the surviving
parts of the DS and other texts that Tutḫaliya III bequeathed to his son a
strong and stable realm, and thus, that one might consider the last years of
Tutḫaliya III’s reign as the first step in the establishment of the New Empire.

154
 Chronological Table(a)
Stage Source Event Year Amen. III Mittani Ḫatti
(b)
1. EA 17 (First inner crisis in Mittani) 25 at the latest (Year x of
Artaššumara’s murder Artaššumara)
2. EA 17 A young Tušratta accedes to the 1st year of
throne; UD-ḫi ruling Mittani as Tušratta as
regent “coregent”
3. EA 31- Arzawa rules southern Anatolia No later than 30; x year of
32 (a/the peak of the “concentric probably before(c) Tušratta as
attack”) “coregent”
4. EA 17 (Second inner crisis in Mittani) ca. 30 1st year of Last years of
Tušratta avenges his brother’s Tušratta as sole Tutḫaliya III
murder and establishes his rule king
5. EA 17, Tutḫaliya III’s counterattack; 30/31 1/2
45?; confrontation with Mittani;
CTH 51? Hittite threats against Ugarit(?)
6. EA 17 Renewal of diplomatic relations 31/32(d) 2/3(e)
with Egypt; arrival of EA 17 and
the Hittite booty
7. EA 19 Beginning of negotiations 32 3
concerning the wedding
8. EA 22, Letters written prior to wedding 34 at the earliest 5 at the earliest
24, 25 of Amen. III and Taduḫepa (Kühne 1973, 38)
9. Wedding of Amen. III and 34/35 (Kitchen 5/6
Taduḫepa 1998, 259-260)
10. EA 23 Sending of Ištar of Nineveh 36 (date on letter) 7
11. EA 75; Outbreak of First Syrian War 36(f) 7 Early years
CTH 51 of
Suppiluliuma
12. EA 58, Tušratta re-conquers Syria 37/38(g) 8/9
85 etc.
13. EA 108, Egyptian task force sent to Sumur 38 9
117
etc.(h)

155
Notes to Chronological Table
(a) The last part of the chart (stages 11-13) deals with the early years of Suppiluliuma.
This part covers the last three years of Amenhotep III’s reign, during which
Suppiluliuma’s army was sent on the First Syrian Campaign and, shortly thereafter,
repelled from Syria. My views concerning these and other events in Suppiluliuma's reign
are not examined here, but were treated in detail in my PhD (Stavi 2011).
(b) As Tušratta was still young at this point (ca. 15?), the period between
Artaššumara’s murder and the marriage of Taduḫepa must have lasted at least some ten
years, during which Taduḫepa would have grown up. If one counts from around year 35
of Amenhotep III, a date at which Tušratta might have offered his daughter to the
pharaoh (based on the hieratic date on EA 23, which was written a short while after the
wedding), one reaches ca. year 25 of Amenhotep. If Tušratta was younger still and as yet
unmarried when his brother was murdered, this period would have lasted even longer,
unless of course Taduḫepa was only a baby or a small child when she was given to
Amenhotep III (see also Kühne 1973, 39 n. 188). If one accepts Liverani’s (1999, 367)
restoration (“l’anno dopo che mio fratello [morì]”), less than one year would have passed
between Artaššumara’s murder and Tutḫaliya III’s raid.
(c) If the Hittite raid mentioned in EA 17 is dated to Amenhotep III’s year 30, the
writing of EA 31-32, which reflect a low point in Tutḫaliya III’s reign, would probably
breach the upper limit of the Amarna archive set by Moran (1992, xxxiv) to the same
year and would have to be dated to year 28 or 29 of Amenhotep III or even earlier.
(d) According to Kühne (1973, 36–39) and Moran (1992, xxxiv), EA 17 would have
been written ca. 5 years before EA 23, which is dated to the 36th year of Amenhotep III.
(e) The dispatch of EA 17, which witnesses to the renewal of relationships, should be
dated to “anumma” (l. 36; “herewith”, “now”). The length of time between the Hittite
foray and the dispatch of the letter is not clear. They might have taken place in the same
year (Tušratta’s second regnal year as sole king) or EA 17 may have been written in the
following year (third year). If the letter was sent in his second year, Tušratta’s first year
would have been very eventful, including UD-ḫi’s removal, the establishment of
Tušratta’s rule in Mittani, the repelling of the Hittite attack and the restitution of relations
with Egypt. It is quite plausible, though, that the renewal of relations with Egypt would
have required at least some short period of calm and stability following the internal
mayhem in Mittani detailed in this letter, and in this case the dispatch of EA 17 should
be dated to Tušratta’s third year.
(f) Year 36 should be preferred, since it leaves enough time for the recovery of Mittani
prior to Tušratta’s re-conquest of Syria. For an identification of the First Syrian
Campaign with EA 75, see also Redford 1967, 653; Wilhelm – Boese 1987, 86-87.
(g) Tušratta’s attack was probably launched one or two years after the end of the First
Syrian Campaign.
(h) On this occasion Abdi-Aširta was captured. For this group of letters, see Moran
1969; Na'aman 1975, 207-208; 1996, 254-255; Altman 1977.

156
 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Adler 1976 H.-P. ADLER, Das Akkadische des Königs Tušratta

von Mitanni (AOAT 201), Kevelaer – Neukirchen-
Vluyn.

Altman 1977 A. ALTMAN, “The Fate of Abdi-Ashirta”, UF 9, 1-11.

Altman 1998 A. ALTMAN, “On Some Assertions in the ‘Historical
Prologue’ of the Šaušgamuwa Vassal Treaty and their
Assumed Legal Meaning”, in H. ERKANAL – V.
DONBAZ – A. OGUROGLU (eds.), XXXIVème
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Uluslararasi
Assirioloji Kongresi. 6-10/VII/1987 – Istanbul,
Ankara, 99-107.
Altman 2001 A. ALTMAN, “EA 59: 27-29 and the Efforts of Mukiš,
Nuḫašše and Niya to Establish a Common Front
against Šuppiluliuma I”, UF 33, 1-25.
Altman 2003 A. ALTMAN, “The Mittanian Raid of Amurru (EA 85:
51-55) Reconsidered”, AoF 30, 345-371.
Altman 2004 A. ALTMAN, The Historical Prologue of the Hittite
Vassal Treaties. An Inquiry into the Concepts of
Hittite Interstate Law, Ramat-Gan.
Beckman 1993 G.M. BECKMAN, “Some Observations on the
Šuppiluliuma – Šattiwaza Treaties”, in M.E. COHEN –
D.C. SNELL – D.B. WEISBERG (eds.), The Tablet and
the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William
W. Hallo, Bethesda, 53-57.
Beckman 1998 G.M. BECKMAN, Rev. of S. DE MARTINO 1996, JAOS
118, 592.
Beckman 1999 G.M. BECKMAN, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (2nd
Edition), Atlanta.
Bryce 2005 T.R. BRYCE, The Kingdom of the Hittites (New
Edition), Oxford.

Cochavi-Rainey 2005 Z. COCHAVI-RAINEY, To the King my Lord. Letters

from El-Amarna, Kumidi, Taanach and Other Letters

157
 from the Fourteenth Century BCE, Jerusalem (in
Hebrew).
Cordani 2011 V. CORDANI, “Dating the Ascension to the Throne of
Šuppiluliuma I”, KASKAL 8, 141-160.
del Monte 2008 G.F. DEL MONTE, L’opera storiografica di Mursili II
re di Hattusa, Vol. I. Le Gesta di Suppiluliuma, Pisa.
de Martino 1996 S. DE MARTINO, L’Anatolia occidentale nel medio
regno ittita (Eothen 5), Firenze.
Devecchi 2007 E. DEVECCHI, “A Fragment of a Treaty with Mukiš”,
SMEA 49, 207-216.
Forlanini 1988 M. FORLANINI, “La regione del Tauro nei testi hittiti”,
VO 7, 129-169.
Forrer 1926 E.O. FORRER, Die Boghazköi-Texte in Umschrift, 2.
Bd. Geschichtliche Texte aus dem alten und neuen
Chatti-Reich (WVDOG 42), Leipzig.

Freu 2002 J. FREU, “La chronologie du règne de Suppiluliuma:

Essai de mise au point”, in P. TARACHA (ed.), Silva
Anatolica: Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej
Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Warsaw:
87-107.
Freu 2003 J. FREU, Histoire du Mitanni, Paris.

Freu 2009 J. FREU, “Qatna et les Hittites”, Studia Orontica 6, 9-23.

Goetze 1940 A. GOETZE, Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite
Geography, New Haven.

Groddek 2009 D. GRODDEK, “Anfang und Ende des Ersten

Pestgebetes Mursili II.”, Res Antiquae 6: 93-110.
Gromova 2007 D. GROMOVA, “Hittite Role in Political History of Syria
in the Amarna Age Reconsidered”, UF 39, 277-310.
Gurney 2003 O.R. GURNEY, “The Upper Land, mātum elītum”, in
G.M. BECKMAN – R.H. BEAL – G. MCMAHON (eds.),
Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the
Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Winona Lake, 119-126.

158
Güterbock 1956 H.G. GÜTERBOCK, “The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as
Told by His Son, Mursili II”, JCS 10, 41-68, 75-83,
107-130.

Haas 2006 V. HAAS, Die hethitische Literatur. Texte, Stilistik,

Motive, Berlin – New York.
Hagenbuchner 1989 A. HAGENBUCHNER, Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter
(THeth 16), Heidelberg.
Harrak 1987 A. HARRAK, Assyria and Hanigalbat (TuSO 4),
Hildesheim – Zürich – New York.
Hawkins 2009 J.D. HAWKINS, “The Arzawa Letters in Recent
Perspectives”, BMSAES 14, 73-83.
Healey 2007 J.F. HEALEY, “From Sapanu/Sapunu to Kasion. The
Sacred History of a Mountain”, in W.G.E. WATSON
(ed.), “He Unfurrowed his Brow and Laughed”.
Essays in Honour of Professor Nicolas Wyatt (AOAT
299), Münster, 141-151.
Heinhold-Krahmer 1977 S. HEINHOLD-KRAHMER, Arzawa. Untersuchungen zu
seiner Geschichte nach den hethitischen Quellen
(Theth 8), Heidelberg.
Hess 1993 R. HESS, Amarna Personal Names, Winona Lake.
Hoffner 1971-1972 H.A. JR. HOFFNER, “Hittite ega- and egan-”, JCS 24,
31-36.
Hoffner 2009 H.A. JR. HOFFNER, Letters from the Hittite Kingdom,
Atlanta.

Kempinski 1993 A. KEMPINSKI, “Suppiluliuma I. The Early Years of

his Career”, in A.F. RAINEY (ed.), kinattūtu ša dārâti.
Raphael Kutcher Memorial Volume, Tel Aviv, 81-91.
Kitchen 1962 K.A. KITCHEN, Suppiluliuma and the Amarna
Pharaohs. A Study in Relative Chronology, Liverpool.
Kitchen 1998 K.A. KITCHEN, “The World Abroad. Amenhotep III
and Mesopotamia”, in D. O'CONNOR – E.H. CLINE
(eds.), Amenhotep III. Perspectives on his Reign, Ann
Arbor, 250-261.

159
Klengel 1999 H. KLENGEL, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches
(HdO I/34), Leiden – Boston – Köln.
Klinger 1995 J. KLINGER, “Das Corpus der Maşat-Briefe und seine
Beziehungen zu den Texten aus Ḫattuša”, ZA 85, 74-
108.
Klinger 2002 J. KLINGER, “Die hethitisch-kaškäische Geschichte bis
zum Beginn der Großreichszeit”, in S. DE MARTINO –
F. PECCHIOLI DADDI (eds.), Anatolia Antica. Studi in
memoria di Fiorella Imparati (Eothen 11.1), Firenze,
437-451.
Klinger 2006 J. KLINGER, “Die Korrespondenz mit Arzawa”, in B.
JANOWSKI – G. WILHELM (eds.), Texte der Umwelt
des Alten Testaments, Neue Folge. Band 3: Briefe
(TUAT-NF 3), Gütersloh, 191-195.
Klinger 2008 J. KLINGER, “Geschichte oder Geschichten – zum
literarischen Charakter der hethitischen Historio-
graphie”, in K.-P. ADAM (ed.), Historiographie in der
Antike, Berlin – New York, 27-48.

Knudtzon 1907-1915 J.A. KNUDTZON, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, Leipzig.

Kühne 1973 C. KÜHNE, Die Chronologie der internationalen
Korrespondenz von El-Amarna (AOAT 17), Kevelaer
– Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Kühne 1999 C. KÜHNE, “Imperial Mittanni. An Attempt at
Historical Reconstruction”, in D.I. OWEN – G.
WILHELM (eds.), Nuzi at Seventy-Five (SCCNH 10),
Bethesda, 203-221.
Lambrou-Phillipson 1991 C. LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON, “Seafaring in the Bronze
Age Mediterranean. The Parameter Involved in
Maritime Travel”, in R. LAFFINEUR – L. BASCH (eds.),
Thalassa, l’Egee prehistorique et la mer (Aegaeum 7),
Liège, 11-19.
Liverani 1990 M. LIVERANI, Prestige and Interest. International
Relations in the Near East ca. 1600-1100 B.C.
(HANE/S 1), Padova.

160
Liverani 1999 M. LIVERANI, Le lettere di el-Amarna. 2. Le lettere dei
«Grandi Re», Brescia.
Marizza 2007a M. MARIZZA, Dignitari ittiti del tempo di Tutḫaliya
I/II, Arnuwanda I, Tutḫaliya III (Eothen 15), Firenze.
Marizza 2007b M. MARIZZA, Dignitari ittiti del tempo di Tutḫaliya
I/II, Arnuwanda I, Tutḫaliya III (Ph.D. Dissertation),
Università di Trieste.
Miller 2007 J.L. MILLER, “Amarna Age Chronology and the
Identity of Nibḫururiya in the Light of a Newly
Reconstructed Hittite Text”, AoF 34, 252-293.
Miller 2008 J.L. MILLER, “Šallapa”, RlA 11, 577-578.
Moran 1969 W.L. MORAN, “The Death of ‘Abdi-Aširta”, Eretz
Israel 9, 94-99.
Moran 1992 W.L. MORAN, The Amarna Letters, London.
Müller-Karpe et al. 2006 A. MÜLLER-KARPE, V. MÜLLER-KARPE, E. RIEKEN,
W. SOMMERFELD, G. WILHELM, M. ZEILER,
“Untersuchungen in Kayalipinar 2005”, MDOG 138,
211-247.
Murnane 1990 W.J. MURNANE, The Road to Kadesh. A Historical
Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at
Karnak. 2nd ed. (SAOC 42), Chicago.
Na’aman 1975 N. NA’AMAN, The Political Disposition and Historical
Development of Eretz Israel according to the Amarna
Letters (Ph.D. Dissertation), Tel Aviv University.
Na’aman 1996 N. NA’AMAN, “Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten
(EA 45) and Hittite Chronology”, AuOr 14, 251-257.
Oates – Oates –
McDonald 1997 D. OATES – J. OATES – H. MCDONALD, Excavations
at Tell Brak. Vol. 1: The Mitanni and Old Babylonian
Periods, London.
Parker 2002 V. PARKER, “Zur Chronologie des Šuppiluliumaš I”,
AoF 29, 31-62.

161
Redford 1967 D.B. REDFORD, Rev. of E.F. CAMPBELL 1964, The
Chronology of the Amarna Letters, JAOS 87, 650-
653.

Rost 1956 L. ROST, “Die ausserhalb von Boğazköy gefundenen

hethitischen Briefe”, MIO 4, 328-350.
Starke 1981 F. STARKE, “Zur Deutung der Arzawa-Briefstelle
VBoT 1, 25-27”, ZA 71, 221-231.
Stavi 2011 B. STAVI, A Historical Reappraisal of the Reigns of
Tudhaliya II and Šuppiluliuma I. (Ph.D. Dissertation),
Tel Aviv University.
Stavi, in press B. STAVI, “HBM 74 from Maşat-Höyük, an
Implementation of a Hittite Law?” SMEA 53.
Taracha 2007 P. TARACHA, “More about Res Gestae in Hittite
Historiography”, in D. GRODDEK – M. ZORMAN
(eds.), Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische
Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag (DBH 25),
Wiesbaden, 659-664.
Torri 2005 G. TORRI, “Militärische Feldzüge nach Ostanatolien in
der mittelhethitischen Zeit”, AoF 32, 386-400.
van den Hout 2005 T. VAN DEN HOUT, “On the Nature of the Tablet
Collections of Ḫattuša”, SMEA 47, 277-289.

van den Hout 2007 TH. P.J. VAN DEN HOUT, “Some Observations on the
Tablet Collection from Maşat Höyük”, SMEA 49,
387-398.
van Seters 1983 J. VAN SETERS, In Search of History, New Haven –
London.
van Soldt 2005 W.H. VAN SOLDT, The Topography of the City-State of
Ugarit (AOAT 324), Münster.
von Dassow 2006 E. VON DASSOW, “EA 17. From Tushratta to
Amenhotep III”, in M.W. CHAVALAS (ed.), The
Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation,
Oxford, 198-199.

162
Wilhelm 1995 G. WILHELM, “The Kingdom of Mitanni in Second-
Millennium Upper Mesopotamia”, in J.C. SASSON
(ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 2,
New York, 1243-1254.
Wilhelm, in press G. WILHELM, “Suppiluliuma and the Decline of the
Mittanian Kingdom”, in Internationale Fachkonferenz,
„Qatna and the Networks of Bronze Age Gobalism“, 17 -
19 Oktober 2009, Landesmuseum Württemberg,
Stuttgart, in press.
Wilhelm – Boese 1987 G. WILHELM – J. BOESE, “Absolute Chronologie und
die hethitische Geschichte des 15. und 14.
Jahrhunderts v.Chr”, in P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), High,
Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium
on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of
Gothenburg 20th-22nd August 1987. Part I,
Gothenburg, 74-117.
Yasur-Landau 2002 A. YASUR-LANDAU, Social Aspects of Aegean
Settlement in the Southern Levant in the End of the
2nd Millennium BCE (Ph.D. Dissertation), Tel Aviv
University.

163