The solar omen of Mursili II.

• Author: Huber, Peter J.
• Position: Brief Communications

The fragmentary text KUB 14.4, a prayer of the Hittite king Mursili II, is reexamined with regard to chronological implications. The king recounts various misdeeds of the old queen, his stepmother. In particular, he tells how she tried to leverage a solar omen into an attempt to demote him. From the reconstructed sequence of events and actions of the queen and the king, I argue that this omen--presumably a noticeable, but not necessarily a total, solar eclipse--likely occurred shortly before, or in the early phase of, Mursili's campaign to Azzi in his tenth year. The most convincing candidates for such an eclipse are those of -1339 January 8 (probably total) or -1334 March 13 (possibly annular), while that of -1311 June 24 (possibly total) would seem to fall too late in the year.

In one of his prayers, the Hittite king Mursili II tells a story of intrigues by the queen (that is, by his step-mother, the Babylonian-born last wife and widow of Suppiluliuma, alternatively referred to as SAL.LUGAL or as "Tawannanna"). The story mentions the death of Mursili's wife, supposedly caused by the Tawannanna through voodoo, and an omen by the Sun-god. All this happened just before and during Mursili's second campaign to Azzi-Hayasa, that is, in his ninth and tenth year, and the omen clearly may be relevant for astronomical dating. Unfortunately, crucial passages of the tablet are badly damaged (see KUB 14.4 for the cuneiform text, and de Martino [1998] for a recent edition of entirety).

For someone concerned with astronomical dating, tantalizing questions are whether the omen refers to a solar eclipse, and if so, whether the eclipse was total. If it was an eclipse, we may ask where and when it was observed: prior to the campaign; during the campaign, in the capital Hattusa, or in Azzi? After perusing some of the earlier literature, in particular Emil Forrer's Forschungen (1926), and subsequent articles by Goetze and Forrer (1930), it seems to me that their interpretations were made cum ira et studio, and were influenced more by preconceptions and mutual animosities than by the actual textual evidence. Also the identifications of the omen by various authors with particular eclipses (-1339 Jan. 8, -1334 March 13, or -1311 June 24) seem rash and arbitrary.

First and foremost, I believe it is necessary to free oneself from preconditioning by previous analyses. I have therefore tried to ignore the existing literature and to check it only afterwards. What follows is my own analysis; it is presented with great hesitation, for I am not a Hittitologist.

The crucial passage occurs near the end of the text, in col. iv:

22. [x x x l]e-e e-ep-ti nu SAL.LUGAL am-mu-uk DAM-IA DUMU-IA A-NA [is.sup.d]-ha-ra

23. [pi-ra-an hur-za-a]k-ki-it (1) nu-un-na-as-kan an-da si-pa-an-za-ki-it nu-kan DAM-IA a-pe-el-la-az BA.US

24. [ma-a-an-ma (2) I-NA KUR [a.sup.URU]]z-zi ma i-ia-ah-ha-at nu [UTU.sup.d]-us sa-ki-ia-ah-ta SAL.LUGAL-ma

25. [x x x x x x x x] x me-mi-il-ki-it e-ni-wa ku-it [UTU.sup.d]-us sa-k[i-i]a-ah-ta

26. [x x x x x i-si-i]a-ah-ta U-UL-wa SA LUGAL-pat i-si-ia-ah-ta nu-wa ma-a-an

27. [x x x x x LU.MES GAL.]MES [ha.sup.URU]-at-ti-ma-wa-za AS-SUM BE-LU-UT-TI ta-ma-a-in

28. [x x x x x x x x]-wa-za [am.sup.f]-mi-in-na-ia [U.sup.l] SA [am.sup.f]-mi-in-na-ia-ia

29. [x x x x x x x x x] x-an-zi [UTU.sup.d]-SI-ma-za I-NA KUR [ha.sup.URU]-ia-sa

30. [x x x x x x x x x x] x tup-pf-az EGIR-an-da ha-at-ra-a-es

31. [x x x x x x x x x x] x wa-tar-na-ah-ta ma-a-an [ha.sup.URU]-ia-sa-az-ma

32. [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] hu-u-da-a-ak U-UL me-mi-is-ta

33. [x x x x x x x x x x x x ma-ah]-ha-an ku-u-un me-mi-an is-ta-ma-as-sa-an-zi

34. [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x p]u-nu-us-su-un ku-u-un-wa ku-in

35. [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] x-ia U-UL sa-an-ni-es-ta

36. [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x]-ma-ia [me]-mi-is-ta

37. [x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x me-m]i-is-ta

In this transliteration I have refrained from making speculative restorations, not only because of my insufficient knowledge of idiomatic Hittite, but also to give an unbiased view of the textual evidence. In the following translation, I have, however, felt free to present speculative restorations:

(22.) Now the queen repeatedly [curs]ed me, my wife (and) my son [in front of] the goddess Ishara,

(23.) and sacrificed against(?) us. Then my wife died because of this.

(24.) [When] I was marching [toward the land A]zzi-now the Sun-god (had?) made an omen-but the queen

(25.) [acted with malice and] repeatedly said: "That omen which the Sun-god made-

(26.) [did it con]cern [the king's wife?] Did it not rather concern the king himself? Now, if

(27.) [it is so,... the great] ones of Hatti. with regard to the lordship, [shall select] another

(28.) [man as king and shall gi]ve [him] Amminnaya or(?) of Amminnaya

(29.) [her daughter as his wife]." But My Sun (i.e., the king) in Hayasa

(30.) [sent PN (to investigate)]. He wrote back on a tablet,

(31.) [and] he informed [me of the whole matter]. If from Hayasa

(32.) [...] he (or she?) did not speak at once.

(33.) [... wh]en they hear of this matter,

(34.) [...] I asked...