PART II: THE GREAT POWERS. achievements. Thus Mursili was able to destroy Aleppo, the powerful kingdom which had dominated north Syria for centuries (see chapter 2d) and had supported neighbouring cities against Hattusili’s attacks. Another cam- paign was Mursili’s raid on Babylon, perhaps allied with Aleppo, and obviously still considered a powerful state despite its shrinking territory (cf. chapter 2e). The reasons for the sudden Hittite expansion, and how the kings had the resources to mount their frequent campaigns and raids, some of them far distant from Hatti and involving long sieges, are unclear. The acquisition of land, manpower, control of routes and access to valuable ore-deposits (copper and lead) must have been a motive. Conflict and rivalry with Zalpa on the Black Sea; protecting Hittite interests in the east against the newly emerging power of Mitanni; defending the north-eastern frontiers against the Gasga people, who figure prominently later as exceptionally troublesome neighbours in the Pontic Alps; concern about the development of important centres in the west forging links with the Aegean and beyond ~ all these are possible factors in understanding Hittite policy, but remain speculative. The Edict of Telepinu Sudden and rapid territorial expansion often creates internal problems: the prizes to be gained from wielding power are that much greater, the con- sequences of not sharing in the profits that much more devastating. This may be what lies at the heart of the recital of bloody murders and usurpations which dominate Hittite history for the next seventy years: from the assas sination of Mursili I (c. 1590) by his brother-in-law and cupbearer, Hantili, aided and abetted by Zidanta, until the accession of Telepinu (c. 1525). The long chronicle of dark deeds is contained in the ‘Edict’ of Telepinu, the king who stands at the end of this time of political chaos. He presents himself as resolving, once and for all, the terrible internal conflicts which brought Hatti’s fortunes to a very low ebb. The text (like the preceding ones, preserved in a Hittite and an Akkadian version) is also the chief source for the history of this period. It is one of the most important sources for Hittite politicial institutions, and, therefore, worth quoting in full: Thus (speaks) Tabarna Telepinu, the Great King: Once Labarna was Great King, and his sons, his brothers, his in-laws, the people of his clan/family and his soldiers were collected around him (in harmony). The land was small. Wherever he campaigned, he held the lands of the enemies conquered with (his strong) arm. He constantly destroyed the (enemy-)lands and conquered the lands in their entirety and made them into the frontiers of the sea (i.e. he extended his realm as far as the sea). When he came back from campaign, each of his sons went somewhere in a (particular) land: Hupisna (Kybistra, modern Eregli), Tuwanuwa (Tyana, modern Bor), Nenassa, 244THE HITTITES Landa, Zallara, Parsuhanda (Purushanda, probably modern Karahiiyiik- Konya), Lusna; and they administered the (individual) countries, and the individual big towns were added to it. After that Hattusili reigned as king and his sons, too, his brothers, his in-laws, the people of his family/clan and his soldiers were gathered (around him in harmony). Wherever he campaigned, he too held the lands of the enemy conquered with (his strong) arm. He constantly destroyed the (enemy-)lands and subjected the lands entirely, and he made them into the frontiers of the sea. As soon as he returned from campaigning, each of his sons went somewhere in a (particular) country, and in his (sc. Hattusili’s) hand the individual great cities were nourished. Butas finally the subjects of the royal sons became disloyal and began to consume their houses and to become powerful against their lords, they started to shed their blood. But, as Mursili reigned as king in Hattusa, his sons, his brothers, his in- laws, the people of his clan/family and his soldiers were gathered (around him in harmony), and he held the land of the enemy conquered with (his strong) arm. He conquered the lands in their entirety and made them into the frontiers of the sea. He went to Halpa (Aleppo) and destroyed Halpa, and the captive population of Halpa and their possessions he brought here to Hattusa. But after that he went (on) to Babylon and destroyed Babylon. He fought against the Hurrians and the captive population and their possessions he displayed in Hattusa. Hantili was cup-bearer (at that time) and had Har[apsili] the sister of Mursili as his wife. Zidanta led Hantili [. . .] on, and [they planned] an evil deed. They murdered Mursili and shed (lit. ‘made’) blood. And Hantili was afraid [. . .] [And] Hantili too reached Tegaramma (and began) to [spea]k (thus): ‘This (is), what I have done. I listened [. . . to the bad words of] Zidanta’. [As soon as] he [rulled [as king] (however), the gods sought the blood [of Mursili]. (Very damaged at this point; an invasion of the Hurrians is mentioned; then:) As soon as Hantili [wa]s old and about)to, become a god (i.e. die), Zidanta murdered [Piseni] the son of Hantili, together with his sons [and also] the nobl[est] of his servants he murdered. And Zidanta also ruled as king and the gods sought the blood of [Pijseni and made Ammuna, his own son, into his enemy and he murdered his father Zidanta. And Ammuna also ruled as king and the gods sought the blood of 245PART Il: THE GREAT POWERS his father Zidanta, and grain, wine, cattle, sheep to him, into his hand, they did not [. ..] But the land became hostile against him: Ha[rt]agga, [. . .]la, Galmiya, the land Adaniya (Adana region), the land Arzawiya (Western Asia Minor), Sallapa (Gordion?), Parduwata, Ahhulassa. Wherever (his) soldiers campaigned, they did not return victorious. As Ammuna became a god, Zuru, the commander of the body-guard, sent secretly at that time a son of his family, Tahurwaili, the golden lance man, and he murdered the family of Tittiya together with his sons. He (sc. Zuru) also sent Taruhsu, the courier, and he murdered Hantili together with [his] sons. Huzziya ruled as king. Telepinu had Istapariya, his (sc. Huzziya’s) first-rank sister (as wife). Huzziya would have killed them, (but) the matter became known (before its time), and Telepinu chased them away. To his five brothers he assigned houses (property) (saying): ‘May they go (and) stay (there)! May they eat (and) drink, but noone shall do evil to them! I say: These have done evil to me, but I [shall not do] evil to them.’ As soon as I, Telepinu, seated myself on the throne of my father, I campaigned in Hassuwa (on route to Commagene) and destroyed Hassuwa. My troops were also in Zizzilippa, and there was a battle in Zizzilippa. As soon as I, the king, came to Lawazzantiya (eastern Cilicia), Lahha [was hostile to me] and made Lawazzantiya rebellious to me. [The gods] gave him into my hand. The noblest was [...], the chief of the ‘inspectors over a thousand’, Karruwa, chief of the chamberlains, Inara, chief of the cupbearers, Kill. . ., chief of the . . .], Tarhumimma, chief of the heralds, Zinwaseli and Lelli, many, and they sent secretly to Tanuwa. I, the [kin]g, did not k[no]w (it). Huzziya and his brothers they killed there. As soon as I, the king, heard it, Tanuwa, Tahurwaili [and] Taruhsu were brought to me and the assembly (pankw) sentenced them to death. But I, the king, spoke: ‘Why should they die? One should hide them from (the public) eye(?)’ And I, the king, made them into clear peasants, took their weapons from their shoulders and gave them the yoke. The blood(-deeds within) the ‘Great Family (i.e. royal clan)’ became great: Istapariya, the queen, died. After that it happened (that) Ammuna, the crown-prince, died. Then ‘the men of the gods’ spoke also: ‘Behold, the blood(-deed) has waxed great in Hattusa.’ Then I, Telepinu, called the assembly (panku) together in Hattusa (and spoke to it thus:) ‘From now on no-one shall do evil to a son‘from the (royal) family in Hattusa and draw a knife on him. Only a king’s son of the first rank, a son, shall be king. If there should be no king’s son of the first rank, whosoever (is there) as a son of the 246THE HITTITES second rank, he shall (then) become king; if there is no male royal child, whatever daughter of the first rank (is there), a man who will marry into her house shall be taken for her and he shall become king. He who shall become king after me (about him) his brothers, his sons, his in-laws, the people of his clan and his soldiers shall gather (in harmony). And if you come and hold the land of the enemy conquered with (your strong) arm, you shall not say: ‘(With this act) I make it pure!’ You do not make it pure (in this way), (rather) you are really oppressing. Of the (royal) family kill no-one, it is not good! Further, he who becomes king and plans evil against (his) brother (or his) sister, you (are) the assembly (panku) for him. Simply say to him: “That matter is a blood-deed. Consult the tablet! Earlier the blood-deed was great in Hattusa, and the gods have imposed (it) on the “Great Family”.’ Whoever does evil among (his) brothers (or his) sisters and (in doing that) looks at the head of the king (i.e. maintains that it is the king’s responsibility), call together an assembly (panku, for him). If he is found guilty, then he shall be beheaded. But (he) shall not be killed secretly as with Zuru, Danuwa, Tahurwaili and Taruhsu. Evil shall not be done to his house, his wife (and) his children. If a royal son acts criminally, he shall also pay with his head, but no evil shall be done to his house and his children. For whatever reason royal sons may be executed, (it has) no (meaning) for their houses, their fields, their vineyards, their slaves, their slave-girls, their cattle (and) their sheep. Now, if any royal son commits a crime, he shall pay with his head, but you shall not harm his house and his son. It is not justice to give (away) a person or a tool of a royal son. But those who do these evil things, the [. . .], the house-administrators, the chief chamberlains, the chief of the body-guard and chief of the wine, [by] desiring to take the houses of the royal sons and speaking thus: ‘If only this town were mine!’, they are harming the lord of the town. Now, from this day on in Hattusa, remember in your own interest this matter, you chamberlains, body-guards, ‘gold-servants’, cup- bearers, table-attendants, cooks, heralds, stable-lads, (and) inspectors of a thfousand]. As for Tanuwa, Tahurwaili and Taruhsu they shall be a warning to you. Henceforth if someone does something evil, be it a house-administrator or a chief chamberlain, chief of wine, chief of bodyguard, chief of the inspectors of a thousand, whether (it be) the last (or) the first in rank, d{eal] with it as an assembly (panku) and consume him with your teeth. (Several very broken sections of text impossible to understand; they include a long list of ‘seal-houses’ in Anatolian towns (see p. 272). This is followed by:) 247PART II: THE GREAT POWERS. The matter of blood(-deeds is) as follows: He who sheds blood, what the ‘Lord of the blood(-deed)’ then says, if he says: ‘He shall die!” then he shall die. But if he says: ‘He shall pay the penalty!’ then he shall pay the penalty, but for the king (it is) nothing. (In the case) of witchcraft in Hattusa, purify the matter! Whoever knows the witchcraft within a family, take him out of the family and bring him up to the gate of the palace; [whoever does not bring him forward, it will come (to pass, that) that person will suffer evil in his (own) house. Colophon): Tablet 1 of Telepinu, completed. (CTH no. 19; Sturtevant and Bechtel 1935: 175-200; Hoffmann 1984; TUAT 1/5: 464-470) This is a fundamental text; partly, of course, because of the help it gives in reconstructing the history of this period, which would otherwise be practic- ally blank. But even more important is the information it provides for the structure of the Hittite state, especially the rules laid down to regulate the royal succession. Rather like the Hattusili I testament, it places the reader inside the Hittite court, with the king rehearsing this time the history of Hatti, in abbreviated form, from its beginning, in order to show how the country has declined from its former glory. This decline is directly attributable to the sin committed, beginning with Hantili, in trying to seize power through murder. Murder inevitably breeds murder and the country collapses ever more, suffering enemy invasions, defeats in battle, and falling prey to chronic court intrigues. The presentation of past history in the edict was intended to be a powerful indictment of Telepinu’s predecessors, which justified his own seizure of the throne, since he himself had no especial claim to it (see the absence of any genealogy at the beginning). The righteous conduct of the first three kings is set within a golden age of perfect harmony, with a note of discord creeping in during the transition to Mursili’s reign; but that disturbance was rapidly dealt with by the king, and success followed with the grand triumphs over Aleppo and Babylon. The complex pattern of murders, parricides and usurpations that then ensues is not always clear in detail, and the precise family relationships between the various actors are at times very obscure. But the overwhelming message is driven home by means of a significant contrast: Hantili, the brother-in-law of Mursili, to whom Mursili had done no wrong; put an end to the golden age by his foul murder of the king; conversely, Telepinu, the brother-in-law of Huzziya and threatened with murder by him, put an end to the years of horror by the bloodless deposition of Huzziya, whom he exiled together with his brothers, sparing their life, although he might easily have had them executed (‘I say: “These have done evil to me, but I shall not do evil to them!”’). Instantly, the campaigns of the Hittite king were once more blessed by success, underscoring the rightness of his act, which had restored political health to Hatti: the golden age had been ended 248THE HITTITES by unjustifiable bloodshed, bringing disaster at home in the form of crop- failures, and abroad in the form of defeats for the Hittite armies; but now, through the exercise of mercy, the golden age has been restored (Hoffner 1975). There follow legal regulations on which the newly restored state is to rest: auniversally recognised order of succession, which will eliminate ambiguities and the high-handed behaviour of kings. As a result, the king’s actions are circumscribed, and he becomes accountable to the gods and the assembly (panku), although the assembly’s power to punish is limited to the individual king or prince —their families are excluded from sentence. This royal ordering, whereby the king himself is placed under the legal power of an assembly, is remarkable. The term translated as ‘assembly’, panku, means in essence ‘all’, and it has been variously regarded as a council of all nobles or a council of fighting men. The edict itself suggests that it included all the high military commanders and court-officials, but no one else (Beckman 1982). Because of the powers devolved on it by the decree, it has been argued that the panku originally had the power to elect the king. But this is not supported by other evidence — if anything, the opposite seems to be true (see Hattusili’s testament, pp. 238-240): the king alone appointed his successor and presented him to the panku. There is, moreover, no subsequent evidence that the panku played asignficant political role —in fact, it seems to fade out of the picture altogether. ‘There is not a single attested instance of the panku ever exercising independ- ent power: all the indications are that it was assembled at the command of the king, and served to suggest possible action which the king could modify, perhaps even override (cf. the Telepinu Edict itself). Telepinu’s regulations appear to make this assembly of dignitaries (from which irregular attempts on the throne were most likely to come) itself responsible for upholding the royally ordered rules of succession: i.e. it may have been a way of setting the nobles to police themselves, report on each other to the king and so compete for political advantages vis-a-vis the monarch. As far as we can tell, the rules for succession enunciated by Telepinu were respected. This is not to say that irregular accession and usurpation were now at an end, but the appalling sequence of events described by Telepinu seems never to have recurred. When, much later, Hattusili [II (1275-1245/ 1264-1239) deposed his nephew, Urhi-Teshub, and took the kingship himself (see pp. 258-259), he was at pains to stress his initial, scrupulous action in ensuring that Urhi-Teshub acceded, despite not being the son of a wife of the first rank; Urhi-Teshub, maintains Hattusili, repaid his avuncular care by trying to undermine Hattusili’s own position and bringing unfounded charges of treason against him; only then, when his very life was at risk, did Hattusili act, with support from other nobles, to depose and exile Urhi- Teshub. Similarly, right at the very end of the Hittite empire, a situation arose when there were no royal offspring, and the only candidate for the throne 249PART I]: THE GREAT POWERS was the brother of the deceased monarch. The king carefully explained how this had come about: Because there was no progeny for him (i.e. the dead king), I asked about a pregnant woman: a pregnant woman did also not exist. (E. Laroche, RA 47 (1953): 70ff.) Although these texts do not refer to Telepinu’s Edict, it is likely that the decree did introduce some effective brakes on the arbitrary seizure of royal power. How much the territory under Hittite control shrank during the period of anarchy, and before the recovery began under the early Empire is hard to define. Telepinu presents a picture of total collapse until he personally reversed the process and regained a wider territory. This is probably an exaggeration, both with respect to the totality of loss and the scope of subsequent recovery. Land-donations and parity-treaties with Kizzuwadna (in the eastern Cilician plain; Beal 1986) suggest that, while control of the north Syrian and Cilician territory was gradually lost and recovered only slowly by the immediate predecessors of Suppiluliuma I (1370-1330 (1344-1322)), Hittite domination of central Anatolia was not too seriously shaken. The northern and eastern frontiers appear to have been successfully defended at least from Telepinu’s reign on, while the south-western territory, where Hattusili I had campaigned, remained beyond the Hittite realm until the reign of Tudhaliya I. 5d The Hittite Empire (c. 1430 (1420)-c. 1200) The early Empire The great period of expansion, which led to Hittite power at its height being acknowledged from points on the Aegean coast to the Khabur and down to Damascus, began in the reign of Tudhaliya I (1430-1410/1420-1400). He may have been the founder of a new royal line, since the kings’ names, apart from very old and glorious ones such as Hattusili and Mursili, are henceforth quite different. The obscurity that shrouds the period between c. 1500 and c. 1430 (1420) gives us no hint of how this change came about. His achievements are a little better known now, thanks to the re-dating of some texts to his reign and to that of his later successor, Arnuwanda I (1390-1380 (1370-1355), see table 18). The kings of this period made vigorous attempts, sporadically successful, to assert Hittite dominance over Kizzuwadna and north Syria, especially Aleppo, against the power of Mitanni (Talmi-Sharruma treaty, Weidner 1923: 80-89; chapter 6a). In this struggle, the early Empire rulers tried, as far as possible, to take advantage of setbacks suffered by Mitanni at the hands of the great Egyptian king, Tuthmosis III (see chapters 4b; 6d). But success was temporary, as Mitanni and Egypt drew together to exclude the 250