# Dossier C — The Hittite and cuneiform side: Dahamunzu, Nibhururiya, Zannanza, and the chronology ## 0. Conventions and source-status key - **(a)** = read in full (copy saved under `../sources/`); **(b)** = read part / abstract / preview / OCR extract; **(c)** = known only through citation by another author. Never (c) presented as (a). - Hittite/Akkadian transliteration follows the edition named at each quotation. OCR copies (archive.org microfilm scans of JCS) lose diacritics and brackets; where I quote from them I have normalised obvious OCR errors and marked uncertain readings with `(OCR?)`. Sign-by-sign readings of the king's name are quoted from Güterbock's footnotes, which are unambiguous even in OCR. - Tablet sigla: KBo = Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi; KUB = Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi; Bo = Boğazköy inventory numbers. CTH = Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites (Košak's online Konkordanz numbering, hethiter.net/:hetkonk, checked 2026-09-14). - Güterbock's manuscript sigla for the "Seventh Tablet" of the Deeds (Fragment 28), per JCS 10 (1956) 90 and Košak's Konkordanz (CTH 40.IV.1): **A** = KBo 5.6 (Bo 2003; Istanbul); **B** = 639/f (MDOG 75, 63f.); **C** = BoTU 42 (Bo 4687) + KUB 19.47 (Bo 9540); **D** = 378/f; **E1** = 700/b + 464/c = KBo 14.11; **E2** = KUB 34.25 (199/a); **E3** = 293/b (KUB 34.24) + 284/c + 301/c + 346/c + 555/c + 562/c + 568/c + 575/c + 2730/c (KUB 34.30) = KBo 14.12 (+ KBo 16.38 = 494/c, join later). Konkordanz siglum: KBo 5.6 = CTH 40.IV.1.A; KBo 14.11 = 40.IV.1.E1; KUB 34.25 = 40.IV.1.E2; KBo 14.12 = 40.IV.1.E3; KUB 31.25 = 40.IV.2. ## 1. Files saved under ../sources/ | file | what | status | |---|---|---| | Miller_2007_AoF34_Nibhururiya.pdf / .txt | Miller 2007, AoF 34: 252-293 (author's PDF, LMU site) | (a) — see §§5-6 | | DevecchiMiller_2011_Hittite-Egyptian_Synchronisms.txt (+ Miller_LMU_synchronisms_2010.pdf) | Devecchi & Miller 2011, in Mynářová (ed.), Egypt and the Near East – the Crossroads, 139-176 | (a) for the relevant sections | | Miller_2015_review_Stavi.txt (+pdf) | Miller, review of Stavi 2015, AfO 53 (2015) | (a) | | Miller_2010_conquest_Karkamis.txt (+pdf) | Miller, FS Wilhelm (2010), on the conquest of Karkamiš | (b) | | Miller_2017_Kardunias_political.txt (+pdf) | Miller 2017, Karduniaš vol. 1 (Kassite-Hittite-Egyptian political relations) | (b) | | JCS_1956_10_2/3/4_archive.org_djvu.txt | Güterbock 1956, "The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as told by his son Mursili II", JCS 10: 41-68, 75-98, 107-130 (archive.org microfilm OCR of the three issues) | (a) for Fragment 28 and the Egyptian fragments; OCR quality fair | | JCS_1960_14_1_archive.org_djvu.txt | Federn 1960, "Daḫamunzu (KBo V 6 iii 8)", JCS 14: 33 (archive.org OCR) | (a) | | Knudtzon_1915_El-Amarna-Tafeln_vol1_archive.org_djvu.txt | Knudtzon 1915, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln I (archive.org OCR) — used for the Akkadian of EA 9, 41, 170 etc. | (b) (consulted for specific letters) | | hethport_konkordanz_CTH40.html, _CTH154.html, _CTH378.html | Košak, Konkordanz der hethitischen Keilschrifttafeln (hethiter.net/:hetkonk), queries CTH 40, 154, 378 (joins, find-spots, dating of the manuscripts, literature) | (a) | | hethport_gebet_CTH378.2_intro/partitur_par4-8/translatio.html | Rieken et al. (ed.), hethiter.net/:CTH 378.2 (Second Plague Prayer): manuscript list, Hittite score (§§4-8) and German translation (TX 2017-09-07, TRde 2017-10-18) | (a) for §§1-9 | | hethport_konkordanz_CTH379.html, _CTH134.html | Konkordanz entries for KBo 50.24 (+KUB 19.15, CTH 72/379) and the Kurustama fragments (CTH 134) | (a) | Every file in `sources/` begins with a `SOURCE:` line (URL + retrieval date 2026-09-14). Checkable locators: JCS OCR = archive.org items `sim_journal-of-cuneiform-studies_1956_10_2`, `_1956_10_3`, `_1956_10_4`, `_1960_14_1` (`.../download//_djvu.txt`); Knudtzon 1915 vol. 1 = `dieelamarnatafel01knud`; Rieken et al. = `https://hethport.net/txhet_gebet/{intro,partitur,translatio}.php?xst=CTH%20378.2&lg=DE&ed=E.%20Rieken%20et%20al.` (score per paragraph: `partitur.php?...&prgr=%C2%A7%204`); Konkordanz = `https://hethport.net/hetkonk/hetkonk_abfrage.php?c=`. Note the host is `hethport.net` (the `www.` host presents a non-matching certificate). Not obtainable (all 403/paywalled): Bryce 1990 (JEA 76; Sage/JSTOR), van den Hout 1994 (ZA 84; De Gruyter), Stavi 2015 (THeth 31) and its JAOS review, Hoffner's translation in COS 1 (1997) 185-192, Dodson 2009/2018, Reeves 2001, Gabolde 1998/2015, Kitchen 1962, Krauss 1978, Wilhelm-Boese 1987, academia.edu items (van Cleve 2021; Freewalt; Belmonte 2022; Cordani 2011/2013; the anonymous "Der Brief der Königin Daḫamunzu ... im Lichte von Reisegeschwindigkeiten und Zeitabläufen"). Google Books API quota was exhausted; only the legacy "feeds" endpoint yielded a few snippets (noted where used). These are cited below as (c) or (b) accordingly, mostly through Miller 2007 and Devecchi-Miller 2011, which review them in detail. --- ## 2. The Deeds of Suppiluliuma (CTH 40), Fragment 28 = the "Seventh Tablet" (KBo 5.6 + duplicates) ### 2.1 Manuscripts, find-spots, date of the copies - Košak, Konkordanz (a): KBo 5.6 = Bo 2003, CTH 40.IV.1.A, Temple I area (Siegelová 2015: 68 — presumably from the Great Temple), script "sjh." (späthjunghethitisch, i.e. a late-13th-century copy, not a Mursili-period original); KBo 14.12 (293/b + 284/c + 301/c + 346/c + 555/c ... = E3), Büyükkale Building A rooms 4-5, "jh."; KBo 14.11 (700/b + 464/c = E1) and KUB 34.25 (199/a = E2), Büyükkale A room 4, "jh."; KUB 31.25 = CTH 40.IV.2 (its attribution to the Deeds questioned by Groddek, GM 218 (2008) 41 n. 27, defended by Miller, AfO 53 (2015) 172 n. 5). Editions listed: Güterbock, JCS 10 (1956) 90-98 (Fragment 28) and 107-108 (Fragments 29-34); Del Monte, L'opera storiografica di Mursili II re di Hattusa I: Le gesta di Suppiluliuma (Pisa 2008/2009) 86-90 (IV.1); Klinger, TUAT NF 2 (2005) 147-150; Theis, AOAT 390/1 (2011) 301-331. - All extant copies are therefore 13th-century library copies of a composition by Mursili II (the narrator says "my father" throughout; colophon E3 iv: "[x-th table]t of the Manly Deeds (LÚ-natar) of Suppiluliuma"). The colophon of A reads (Güterbock, JCS 10, 96 (a)): A iv 16-18 `DUB.7.KAM [NU] TIL / A-NA ṬUP-PÍ [U]D.KA.BAR / na-a-wi a-ni-ia-an` — "Seventh tablet, (text) not complete. Not yet made into a bronze tablet." Güterbock (1956: 47, 90) noted that the copies had tablets of different lengths, so "seventh" is the count of copy A only (a long-columned duplicate might be tablet 4 in its series; Wilhelm-Boese 1987 place the episode at about col. i of tablet 6 of the long-columned series — Miller 2007: 278 (a)). Large parts of cols. i-iii of A are left blank, which Güterbock took to mean that the Vorlage was broken (Miller 2007: 278). ### 2.2 Narrative position in the Deeds' own structure (Güterbock's translation (a), JCS 10, 90-98) - A i 1-50: Kaška campaigns of "my father" — building of towns (Athulissa, Tuhupurpuna, Almina), a plague breaks out in the army at Almina, Hittite victory, conquest of Kasula (1000 deportees) and Tumanna; "Thereafter he came back to Hattusa to spend the winter. But when he had celebrated the year festival, he went into the country of Istahara ... and when he reestablished Istahara, he came back to Hattusa to spend the winter" (i 40-50). So col. i alone contains two winters in Anatolia. - A ii 1-20: Hurrian front. Tribal troops attack "my brother" (Telipinu the Priest, Suppiluliuma's son, installed in Syria); Arziya and Carchemish make peace with him but the city of Carchemish itself does not; Telipinu leaves 600 men and chariots under Lupakki "commander of ten of the army" in Murmuriga and goes to Hattusa; "my father was in Uda performing festivals". The Hurrians (with Takuhli the amumikuni) surround Murmuriga. - A ii 21-25: "To the country of Kinza, which my father had conquered, troops and chariots of Egypt came and attacked the country of Kinza." Word reaches Suppiluliuma that Murmuriga is surrounded. - A ii 26-E2: Suppiluliuma mobilises, reviews troops at Talpa in Tegarama, sends his son Arnuwanda and Zita the chief of the bodyguard ahead; they defeat the enemy; Suppiluliuma comes down, does not find the Hurrian army, "went down to the town of Carchemish and surrounded it" (with boats on the river, E2). - A iii 1-17: the Amka raid, the death of the Egyptian king, the queen's first letter (text below). - A iii 18-25: council of the Great Ones; Hattusa-ziti the chamberlain sent to Egypt. - A iii 26-43: "until Hattusa-ziti came back from Egypt, my father finally conquered the city of Carchemish. He had besieged it for seven days, and on the eighth day he fought a battle against it for one day and [took] it in a terrific battle on the eighth day, in [one] day" (iii 26-31); piety towards the upper citadel (Kubaba and dKAL), plunder of the lower town, 3,330 deportees to the palace; installation of his son Sarri-Kusuh (= Piyassili) as king of Carchemish (E3 iii 15-20); "he [went] back into the land of Hatti and spe[nt] the winter in the land of Hatti" (E3 iii 21-23). - E3 iii 24 / A iii 44 - iv 15: "But when it became spring, Hattusa-ziti [came back] from Egypt, and the messenger of Egypt, Lord Hani, came with him"; the queen's second letter; "since my father was kindhearted, he complied with the word of the woman and concerned himself with the matter of a son" (iv 13-15). End of tablet A. - E3 iv 1-39 (after a gap of 6-12 lines): Suppiluliuma's reproach to Hani; Hani's reply; the tablet of the Kurustama treaty is fetched and read aloud; Suppiluliuma's declaration of renewed friendship. End of tablet E3. - Fragments 29-31 (KUB 32.25?; KUB 23.7 = Bo 6519 [now assigned to the Kurustama treaty duplicates, CTH 134, per Konkordanz]; KUB 19.4 = Bo 4543 + 9181 (+ KUB 23.8 = Bo 6552, + Bo 7744; joins by Miller 2007/2008, ZA 98, 118f. no. 31)): treaty language "Hatti and Egypt shall be [friendly] with each other to the end of days"; then the killing of Zannanza (text below). Which war/year: the Deeds themselves give no year-count here. The episode belongs to the Syrian ("Hurrian") war that ends with the fall of Carchemish; the later summary by Hattusili III (KUB 19.9 i, CTH 83) that Suppiluliuma fought "20 years" in Anatolia and "6 years" in the Hurrian land is the source of the conventional "six-year Hurrian war", and the siege of Carchemish is generally placed in its last year (Güterbock 1956; Kitchen 1962: 3ff.; Bryce 1990: 98, 100 — all (c) via Miller 2007: 282-283 n. 131, (a); Miller and Parker 2002: 53ff. read the 20 + 6 as totals of years spent campaigning, not consecutive blocks, giving a total reign of c. 26 years). Within Fragment 28 the sequence is internally dated only by seasons: the raid on Amka and the Egyptian king's death fall in the same campaigning season as the siege (late summer/autumn), the first letter arrives during the siege, one winter passes, and Hani arrives in spring (Güterbock 1956: 120-121 (a): "a winter passed between the first letter of the Egyptian queen, which Suppiluliuma received during the siege of Carchemish, and the arrival in Hattusa of Hattusaziti and Hani. The reading of the Kurustama treaty, accordingly, takes place in the Hittite capital"). Zannanza was therefore sent in the following spring/summer at the earliest, i.e. some 6-9 months after the king's death. ### 2.3 The text: Güterbock's transliteration and translation (JCS 10, 1956, 94-97) — (a), from archive.org OCR, normalised Copy A = KBo 5.6. Diacritics restored from context; the OCR loses brackets in places, so bracketing follows Güterbock's translation. Sign readings of the royal names are secured by Güterbock's footnotes and glossary (JCS 10, 123). A iii 1-17 (Amka; death of the king; first letter): ``` 1 nu ku-it-ma-an A-BU-IA I-NA KUR URUKar-ga-miš kat-ta-an 2 e-eš-ta mLu-pa-ak-ki-in-ma-kán mdU-za-al-ma-an-na 3 I-NA KUR URUAm-ka pa-ra-a na-iš-ta nu pa-a-ir 4 KUR URUAm-ka GUL-aḫ-ḫi-ir nu NAM.RA.MEŠ GUD UDU EGIR-pa MA-ḪAR A-BU-IA 5 ú-te-er LÚ.MEŠ KUR URUMi-iz-ra-ma ma-aḫ-ḫa-an ŠA KUR URUAm-ka 6 GUL-aḫ-ḫu-wa-ar iš-ta-ma-aš-ša-an-zi na-at na-aḫ-ša-ri-ia-an-zi 7 nu-uš-ma-aš-kán EN-ŠU-NU ku-it mPí-ip-ḫu-ru-ri-ia-aš BA.BAD 8 nu SAL.LUGAL URUMi-iz-ra ku-iš SALDa-ḫa-mu-un-zu-uš(?) im-ma-ak-ku(?) 9 e-eš-ta nu A-NA A-BU-IA LÚṬE-MI u-i-ia-at 10 nu-uš-ši ki-iš-ša-an IŠ-PUR LÚ-aš-wa-mu-kán BA.BAD 11 DUMU-IA-ma-wa-mu NU.GÁL tu-uk-ma-wa DUMU.MEŠ-KA 12 me-eg-ga-uš me-mi-iš-kán-zi ma-a-an-wa-mu 13 1-an DUMU-KA pa-iš-ti ma-an-wa-ra-aš-mu LÚMU-TI-IA ki-ša-ri 14 ÌR-IA-ma-wa nu-u-wa-a-an pa-ra-a da-aḫ-ḫi 15 nu-wa-ra-an-za-kán LÚMU-TI-IA i-ia-mi te-ek-ri-wa na-aḫ-mi 16 nu ma-aḫ-ḫa-an A-BU-IA e-ni-iš-ša-an IŠ-ME 17 nu-za LÚ.MEŠ GAL-TI me-mi-ia-ni pa-ra-a ḫal-za-iš ``` Güterbock's translation: "(A iii 1) While my father was down in the country of Carchemish, he sent Lupakki and Tarhunta(?)-zalma forth into the country of Amka. So they went to attack Amka and brought deportees, cattle and sheep back before my father. (5) But when the people of Egypt heard of the attack on Amka, they were afraid. And since, in addition, their lord Nibhururiya had died, therefore the queen of Egypt, who was Dahamunzu(?), sent a messenger to my father (10) and wrote to him thus: 'My husband died. A son I have not. But to thee, they say, the sons are many. If thou wouldst give me one son of thine, he would become my husband. Never shall I pick out a servant of mine and make him my husband! ... I am afraid!' (16) When my father heard this, he called forth the Great Ones for council (saying): 'Such a thing has never happened to me in my whole life!'" Notes (Güterbock, ad loc.): note e: "That is Nb-ḫprw-Rʿ, Tut-ankh-Amon, cf. Edel, JNES VII (1948) 14f. Copy A (the only one where this passage is preserved) has the faulty form with pi-, but the correct form occurs below, E3 iv 18. The name of his widow, likewise in A only, may also be faulty." Note f: "Lit. 'my man' (LÚ-aš) here; below (A iv 5) the queen uses the normal word for 'husband' (LÚMUTI) in the same context." Note g: tekri- is a hapax ("very much"? or "contamination"?). Transliteration note 48: collation in Istanbul yielded -zu-uš as the most likely reading of the last two signs of the queen's designation (Forrer: -e-ka; others -ni-iš, "but ni is impossible"). A iii 18-25 (mission of Hattusa-ziti): "(20) So it happened that my father sent forth to Egypt Hattusa-ziti, the chamberlain (LÚSAG / GIŠPA-LÚ?), (with this order): 'Go and bring thou the true word back to me! Maybe they deceive me! Maybe (in fact) they do have a son of their lord! Bring thou the true word back to me!'" Hittite (A iii 22-25): `... I-N]A KUR URUMi-iz-ri mGIŠPA-LÚ-i[n LÚ.É.ŠÀ(?)] pa-ra-a na-iš-ta / i-it-w[a-m]u kar-ši-in me-mi-an EGIR-pa ú-da / ap[-pa-l]i-iš-kán-zi-wa-mu ku-wa-at-qa DUMU BE-LÍ-ŠU-NU-wa-aš-ma-aš / ku-w[a-a]t-qa e-eš-zi nu-wa-mu kar-ši-in me-mi-an zi-ik EGIR-pa ú-da`. A iii 26-31 (Carchemish): `nu ku-it-ma-an mGIŠPA-LÚ-iš IŠ-TU KUR URUMi-iz-ri EGIR-pa ú-it / EGIR-az-ma-za A-BU-IA URUKar-ga-mi-iš-ša-an URU-an tar-aḫ-ta / na-an-kán I-NA UD.7.KAM an-da wa-aḫ-nu-wa-an ḫar-ta / nu-uš-ši I-NA UD.8.KAM I-NA UD.1.KAM za-aḫ-ḫi-in pa-iš / na-an-kán ḫa-tu-ga-ia-az ME-az I-NA UD.8.KAM I-NA UD.[1].K[A]M ...` — "He had besieged it for seven days, and on the eighth day he fought a battle against it for one day and [took(?)] it in a terrific battle on the eighth day, in [one] day." (Miller, AfO 53 (2015) 174-175 (a), doubts Del Monte's/Güterbock's reading UD.[1.KA]M in iii 31 and notes that the numeral itself is uncertain.) E3 iii 21-25 / A iii 44-53 and A iv 1-15 (winter; return of Hattusa-ziti with Hani; the second letter): ``` E3 iii 21 ma-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma-za URUKar-ga-miš t[a-ni-nu-ut(?)] 22 na-aš I-NA KUR URUḪa-at-ti EGIR-pa [ú-it] 23 nu-kán ŠA KUR URUḪa-at-ti gi-im-ma[-an-ta-ri-ia-at] 24 ma-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma ḫa-me-eš-ḫa-an-za ki-š[a-at] 25 nu mGIŠPA-LÚ-iš IŠ-TU KUR URUMi-iz-ri [EGIR-pa ú-it] A iii 44 ŠA URUMi-iz-ri-ia-aš-ši LÚṬE-MU mḪa-a-ni-iš BE-LU 45 kat-ta-an ú-it nu A-BU-IA ku-wa-pí mGIŠPA-LÚ-un 46 I-NA KUR URUMi-iz-ri IŠ-PUR(!) na-an ki-iš-ša-an 47 ku-it wa-tar-na-aḫ-ta DUMU EN-ŠU-NU-wa-aš-ma-aš 48 ku-wa-at-qa e-eš-zi am-mu-uk-ma-wa 49 ap-pa-le-eš-kán-zi nu-wa-mu DUMU-IA LUGAL-u-e-ez-na-an-ni 50 Ú-UL ú-e-ki-iš-kán-zi nu A-NA A-BI-IA 51 SAL.LUGAL URUMi-iz-ri tup-pí-ia-az EGIR-pa ki-iš-ša-an 52 ḫa-at-ra-iz-zi ku-wa-at-wa a-pí-ni-iš-ša-an TAQ-BI 53 ap-pa-le-eš-kán-zi-wa-mu am-mu-uk-ma-an-wa 54 ku-wa-pí DUMU-IA e-eš-ta am-mu-uk-ma-an-wa am-me-el A iv 1 [R]A-MA-NI-IA am-me-el-la KUR-e-aš te-ep-nu-mar 2 ta-me-ta-ni KUR-e ḫa-at-ra-nu-un 3 nu-wa-mu-kán pa-ra-a Ú-UL i-ia-aš-ḫa-at-ta 4 nu-wa-mu e-ni-eš-ša-an im-ma TAQ-BI am-me-el-wa 5 LÚMU-DI-IA ku-iš e-eš-ta nu-wa-ra-aš-mu-kán BA.BAD 6 DUMU-IA-wa-mu NU.GÁL ÌR-IA-ma-wa nu-u-ma-an da-aḫ-ḫi 7 nu-wa-ra-an-za-an LÚMU-DI-IA i-ia-mi 8 nu-wa da-me-e-da-ni-ia KUR-e ku-e-da-ni-ik-ki Ú-UL 9 AŠ-PUR nu-wa tu-uk AŠ-PUR DUMU.MEŠ-KA-wa-at-ta 10 me-eq-qa-uš me-mi-iš-kán-zi nu-wa-mu 1-EN 11 DUMU-KA pa-a-i nu-wa-ra-aš am-mu-uk LÚMU-DI-IA 12 I-NA KUR URUMi-iz-ri-ma-wa-ra-aš LUGAL-uš 13 nu A-BU-IA ge-en-zu-wa-la-aš ku-it e-eš-ta 14 na-aš ŠA SAL-TI me-mi-ia-ni ka-a-ri ti-ia-at 15 nu ŠA DUMU-RI kat-ta-an IṢ-BAT ``` Güterbock: "(E3 iii 21) But when he had e[stablished] Carchemish, he [went] back into the land of Hatti and spe[nt] the winter in the land of Hatti. (24) But when it became spring, Hattusaziti [came back] from Egypt, (A iii 44) and the messenger of Egypt, Lord Hani, came with him. Now, since my father had, when he sent Hattusaziti to Egypt, given him orders as follows: 'Maybe they have a son of their lord! Maybe they deceive me and do not want my son for the kingship!' — therefore the queen of Egypt wrote back to my father in a letter thus: 'Why didst thou say "they deceive me" in that way? Had I a son, would I (iv 1) have written about my own and my country's shame to a foreign land? Thou didst not believe me and hast even spoken thus to me! He who was my husband has died. (6) A son I have not! Never shall I take a servant of mine and make him my husband! I have written to no other country, only to thee have I written! They say thy sons are many: so give me one son of thine! To me he will be husband, but in Egypt he will be king.' (13) So, since my father was kindhearted, he complied with the word of the woman and concerned himself with the matter of a son." E3 iv 1-39 (KBo 14.12 iv; Güterbock pp. 97-98): Suppiluliuma to Hani: "[I myself] was ... friendly, but you, you suddenly did me evil. You [came(?)] and attacked the man of Kinza whom I had [taken away(?)] from the king of Hurri-land. I, when I heard (this), became angry, and I sent forth my own troops and chariots and the lords. So they came and attacked your territory, the country of Amka (iv 8: `[i-ir-ḫ]a-an KUR URUAm-qa wa-al-aḫ-ḫi-ir`). And when they attacked Amka, which is your country, you probably were afraid; (10) and (therefore) you keep asking me for a son of mine (as if it were my) duty. [H]e will in some way become a hostage, but [king] you will not make him!" (13) Hani: "Oh my Lord! This [is] our country's shame! If we had [a son of the king] at all, would we have come to a foreign country and kept asking for a lord for ourselves? Nibhururiya, who was our lord, died; a son he has not. Our lord's wife is solitary (iv 21 `[DU]MU-aš-ma-wa-aš-ši NU.GÁL DAM BE-LÍ-NI-ma-wa-an-na-aš [w]a-an-nu-um-mi-ia-aš`). We are seeking a son of our Lord for the kingship in Egypt, and for the woman, our lady, we seek him as her husband! Furthermore, we went to no other country, only here did we come! Now, oh our Lord, (25) give us a son of thine!" — "So then my father concerned himself on their behalf with the matter of a son. Then my father asked for the tablet of the treaty again, (in which there was told) how formerly the Storm God took the people of Kurustama, sons of Hatti, and carried them to Egypt and made them Egyptians; and how the Storm God (30) concluded a treaty between the countries of Egypt and Hatti, and how they were continuously friendly with each other. And when they had read aloud the tablet before them, my father then addressed them thus: (35) 'Of old, Hattusa and Egypt were friendly with each other, and now this, too, on our behalf, has taken place between them! Thus Hatti and Egypt will continuously be friendly with each other!'" Line iv 18 (Hani's speech): `mNi-ip-ḫu-ru-ri-ia-aš-wa ku-iš an-zi-el BE-LÍ e-eš-ta nu-wa-ra-aš BA.BAD` ("Nibhururiya, who was our lord, died"). Miller, AfO 53 (2015) 175 (a), proposes for iv 15-16: "[DUMU BE-LÍ-N]I-ma-[an-wa-a]n-na-aš ... 'But had there been a [son of ou]r l[ord] anywhere, would we have come to [an]other land when we searched for a lord for ourselves?'" (conditional, not irrealis). Fragment 31 (KUB 19.4 = Bo 4543 + 9181; Güterbock JCS 10, 108 (a); now joined with KUB 23.8 (Bo 6552) etc. by Miller): lines 3'-11': "[Wh]en they did not send [...], then a tabl[et ...] they [...] one to another. (5) [When] they brought this tablet, they spoke thus: '[The people of Egypt(?)] killed [Zannanza] and brought word: "Zannanza [died(?)]"' (6' `[mZa-an-na-an-za-a]n ku-en-nir nu me-mi-an ú-te-er mZa-an-na-an-za[-aš-wa BA.BAD(?)]`). And when my father he[ard] of the slaying of Zannanza (7' `ŠA mZa-an-na-an-za ku-na-a-tar`), (8) he began to lament for [Zannan]za (8' `[na-aš mZa-an-na-a]n-za-an ú-e-eš-ki-u-an da-iš`), [and] to the god[s ...] he spoke [th]us: 'Oh gods! I did [no evil], [yet] the people of Egy[pt d]id [this to me], and they (also) [attacked] the frontier of my country!'" (10'-11' `[ku-it-ki i-d]a-la-u-wa-aḫ-ḫu-un LÚ.MEŠ URU[Mi-iz-ri ... a-pa-a-at i]-e-er nu-wa-mu ZAG KUR-IA [wa-al-aḫ-ḫi-ir]`). Fragments 29-30 preserve treaty formulae ("Hatti and Egypt shall be friendly with each other to the end of days"), Fragment 32 "[...] in the country of E[gypt(?)] ... treaty ... concluded ... evil"; Güterbock (p. 108 n. 11): the end of copy C of the Seventh Tablet "probably comes after the end of the Egyptian incident". The Egyptian retaliation itself is not preserved in the Deeds; it is known from the plague prayers (§3) and from Fragment 36 ("[Arnuwanda] went ahead [to] Egypt", BoTU 44 iii — Güterbock p. 111, (b)). ### 2.4 All attestations of the dead king's name in Hittite, with signs | text | line | reading | edition | |---|---|---|---| | KBo 5.6 (A) | iii 7 | `mPí-ip-ḫu-ru-ri-ia-aš` = Güterbock's "Pi-ip-"; Miller: `mBi!-ib-ḫu-ru-ri-ia-aš` (same signs BI-IB/IP; the initial sign is BI/PÍ, "faulty" for NI) | Güterbock JCS 10, 94 n. e and 123 (a); Miller 2007: 263 n. 50 (a) | | KBo 14.12 (E3) | iv 18 | `mNi-ip-ḫu-ru-ri-ia-aš` (Güterbock) = `mNi-ib-ḫu-ru-ri-ia-aš` (Miller) | Güterbock JCS 10, 97-98, 123 (a); Miller 2007: 263 (a) | | Groddek 2002: 273ff. explains Bi- as a misreading of a postulated NE(=bí) in the Egyptian letter; Miller 2007: 263 n. 50 calls this "wholly speculative"; Meyer 1992: 90f. takes Pip- as a phonetic variant; Klinger 2006: 318: a copyist faced with the alien sign NAP might have re-divided it as NI-IB (all (c) via Miller). | No other CTH 40 fragment names an Egyptian king. The "Nahhuriya" in Güterbock's index (Fragment 15, 23) is a town, URUNa-aḫ-ḫu-ri-ia (KUB 19.11 iv 23' = Del Monte II.3.F iv 23'), not a pharaoh (Miller, AfO 53 (2015) 172 n. 3 (a)). No "Huriya" occurs in the Deeds; Huriya is the addressee of EA 41 (§5). Horemheb appears in Mursili's own narrative KUB 19.15+KBo 50.24 (CTH 72/379) as mAr-ma-a (Miller 2007: 252-256 (a)), see §6. The queen's designation: KBo 5.6 iii 8 `SAL(=MUNUS)Da-ḫa-mu-un-zu-uš` (Güterbock; collated -zu-uš); Federn, JCS 14 (1960) 33 (a): "an exact rendering of the Egyptian title tꜣ ḥm(t) nsw, 'The King's Wife'", taken as an appellative (so already Ehelolf, ZA 35 (1924) 39 n. 8); cun. -unzu for Eg. nsw compared with in-si-ib-ia (KUB 3.66 obv. 1) and Assyrian Ḫi-ni-in-ši; Federn even suggested a Hurrian/Mitannian transmission (cf. Na-ra-am-zu-un for Naram-Sin). Federn wrote of "the widow of Tut-ankh-Amon ... when Ankhes-en-Amon wrote her ill-fated letter", i.e. he simply assumed Güterbock's identification. Miller 2007: 252 n. 4 writes taḫamunzu (= tꜣ-ḥm.t-nsw) with initial t-; Devecchi-Miller 2011: 146 n. 23 (a): Groddek's proposed reading MUNUStá-ḫa-mu-un-zu-r[a-a]š (KBo 5.6 iii 8) is not possible on the hethiter.net photographs; "-zu-uš remains the most likely, and indeed quite convincing, reading." Breyer 2010, "Egyptological remarks concerning Daḫamunzu" (Ägypten und Levante 20) — (c), title only (cited by Zapletniuk 2021). Hoffner's English translation (COS 1.74, 1997, pp. 185-192) could not be accessed (c); Güterbock's is given above in full. Bryce's rendering (Letters of the Great Kings 2003: 187-198) and Beckman's do not differ in substance (c). --- ## 3. The plague prayers of Mursili II (CTH 378), especially the "Second" Plague Prayer (CTH 378.2 = Singer 2002 no. 11) ### 3.1 Manuscripts and editions (hethiter.net/:CTH 378.2, intro (a); Konkordanz (a)) A = KUB 14.8 (Bo 2803); B = KBo 55.25 (650/u) + KUB 14.11 (Bo 2029 + Bo 3713 + Bo 4692) (+ Bo 7176 = DAAM 5.78, + Bo 7505; joins Lorenz 2021), script "sjh."; C = KUB 14.10 (Bo 2067) + ABoT 2.22 + KUB 26.86; D = KBo 57.21 (513/v). Editions: Goetze 1930 (KlF 1) 164-177; Lebrun 1980: 203-216; García Trabazo 2002: 305-329; Rieken et al. 2017 (online). Translations: Goetze ANET 394-396; Beckman 1997 (COS 1.60) 157-159; Singer 2002: 57-61 (no. 11); van den Hout 2006: 263-266; Klinger 2013 (TUAT NF 7) 117-120. ### 3.2 §1 (kola 1-14): the length of the plague; deaths of Suppiluliuma and Arnuwanda II — Rieken's German (a), my English "[Storm]god of Hatti, my lord, [and gods of Hatti,] my lords, Mur[sili the king,] your servant, sent me: Go and speak to the Stormgod of Hatti ... thus: This is what you have done: you let the plague into the interior of the land of Hatti, and the land of Hatti was very heavily oppressed by the plague. **There was dying under my father (and) my brother** (kolon 7: 'Es wurde unter meinem Vater (und) meinem Bruder gestorben'). And as for the fact that I became priest for the gods: there is dying under me too. **This is the 20th year that there is dying in the interior of the land of Hatti** (kola 10-11: 'Dies (ist) das 20. Jahr, dass im Inneren des Landes Ḫatti gestorben wird'). The plague is not removed from the land of Hatti ..." — Singer's rendering (as cited by Miller 2007: 283 n. 132 and by van den Hout 1994: 85ff., who takes the 20 years literally): "for twenty years now people have been dying in Hatti" (b). The prayer thus dates itself to roughly Mursili's 20th year and says the plague began under Suppiluliuma ("my father") and continued under Arnuwanda II ("my brother"), both of whom it carried off. The First Plague Prayer (CTH 378.1 = Singer no. 12, KBo 54.6+ etc.) adds that Suppiluliuma had murdered Tudhaliya the Younger and that "my father ... my brother Arnuwanda" died — (b), via the intro page and Singer/Miller citations; the Ten-Year Annals (CTH 61.I, KBo 3.4 i 1ff.) open with the statement that Arnuwanda died shortly after Suppiluliuma and Mursili came to the throne "still a child" (c, standard; Goetze 1933; Beckman COS 2.16). ### 3.3 §§4-6 (kola 39-70): the Kurustama tablet, the Amka attack, the son, the prisoners and the plague Hittite score of the key kola (Rieken et al., partitur §4 (a); A = KUB 14.8 obv. 13'-23'; B = KUB 14.11+ ii 1-17; C = KUB 14.10+ ii 1'-20'): ``` 39 [ŠA-NU-Ú ṬUPP]U=ma ŠA URUKuruštamma (A 13') "[The second table]t, however, (was) about Kurustama:" 40-43 (how the Stormgod of Hatti took the men of Kurustama to Egypt, made a treaty for them with the men of Hatti, and put Hatti and Egypt under oath) 44 nu ú-e-er LÚ.MEŠ URUḪa-at-ti pé-ra-an wa-aḫ-nu-e-er (A 17'-18'; B ii 3-4) "later the men of Hatti got the upper hand" (Rieken: 'Später gewannen die Leute von Ḫatti die Oberhand') 45 nu-kán NI-IŠ DINGIR-LIM LÚ.MEŠ URUḪa-at-ti ḫu-u-da-a-ak šar-ri-i-e-er (A 18'-19') "and the men of Hatti suddenly transgressed the oath of the god(s)" 46 nu A-BU-YA ÉRIN.MEŠ ANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ u-i-ya-at (A 19') "and my father sent infantry and chariotry" 47 nu ZAG KUR Mi-iz-ri KUR Am-ga wa-al-aḫ-ḫe-er (A 19'; B ii 8-9: ZAG KUR URUMi-iz-ri KUR URUA-am-ga) "and they attacked the border(land) of Egypt, the land of Amka" 48 nam-ma-ya u-i-ya-at (A 19' only; B and C omit) "and again he sent" 49 nu nam-ma (erasure) wa-al-aḫ-ḫe-er (A 20' only) "and again they attacked" 50 LÚ.MEŠ URU[M]i-iz-ri-i-ma ma-aḫ-ḫa-an na-aḫ-ša-ri-ya-an-ta-at (A 20') "but when the men of Egypt became afraid," 51 [n]am-ma u-i-e-er (B ii 11 only) "they sent again" 52 na-at ú-e-er (A 21') "they came," 53 nu A-NA A-BI-YA DUMU-ŠÚ [LUGAL]-u-iz-na-an-ni an-ku ú-e-ke-er (A 21') "and they asked my father outright for his son for kingship" 54 nu-uš-ma-aš ma-aḫ-ḫa-an A-BU-YA a-pé-e-el [DUMU-Š]Ú pé-e-eš-ta (A 22') "and when my father gave them his son," 55 na-an ma-aḫ-ḫa-an pé-e-ḫu-te-er (A 22') "when they led him off," 56 na-an-kán ku-e-en-né-er (A 23') "they killed him." 57 A-BU-YA-ma :kap-pí-la-az-za-at-ta (A 23') "My father became hostile/was appalled (Glossenkeil-word kappilazza-)" 58-60 "he went to Egypt and attacked Egypt; he killed the infantry and chariotry of Egypt as well." §5 61-67 "The Stormgod of Hatti, my lord, again let my father win by (divine) judgement: he defeated the infantry and chariotry of the land of Egypt and killed them. The prisoners (LÚ.MEŠ ŠU.DAB.BI / ṢA-AB-TU4-TI) they took, as they brought them back to the land of Hatti, a plague broke out among the prisoners (on the way); since then they kept dying." §6 68-70 "When they brought the prisoners into the land of Hatti, the prisoners brought the plague into the interior of the land of Hatti. From that day on there is dying in the interior of the land of Hatti." §6-7 71-78: Mursili found "that tablet about Egypt", and asked by oracle whether the transgression by the men of Hatti of the oath sworn before the Stormgod (the damnaššara-deities are in the temple) was the cause of the god's anger — "it was established (by oracle)". ``` Singer's translation of A i 16-23 (quoted verbatim by Miller 2007: 268 (a)): "Since the men of Hatti and the men of Egypt were bound by the oath of the storm-god of Hatti, and the men of Hatti proceeded to get the upper hand, the men of Hatti thereby suddenly transgressed the oath of the gods. My father sent infantry and chariotry, and they attacked the borderland of Egypt, the land of Amqu. And again he sent, and again they attacked. When the men of Egypt became afraid they came and asked my father outright for his son for kingship. But when my father gave them his son, as they led him off, they murdered him. My father was appalled and he went to Egyptian territory, attacked the Egyptians, and destroyed the Egyptian infantry and chariotry." Miller 2007: 268 n. 72 (a): the "and again he sent, and again they attacked" clause is found only in A; in A the first part is written on the edge and the second over an erasure — possibly a scribal slip or an abandoned attempt to detail a multi-pronged attack. Bearing: (i) the prayer treats the Amka attack(s), the request for a son, the murder, and the Egyptian counter-campaign as one continuous chain; the plague enters Hatti with the prisoners of the counter-campaign, which the Deeds (Fragment 36, Arnuwanda "went ahead to Egypt") and CTH 154 place immediately after Zannanza's death. (ii) It presents the attack on Amka as a breach of a sworn Hittite-Egyptian treaty (the Kurustama tablet; CTH 134 = KBo 8.37 + KBo 53.250, dupl. KUB 23.7, KUB 40.28, Bo 6943; ed. Singer 2004, GsForrer 591-607; dated by Klinger-Neu 1990 and Simon 2007 to the Middle Hittite period, i.e. before Suppiluliuma — Konkordanz (a), Singer/Sürenhagen (c)); the Deeds (E3 iv 26-34) likewise have Suppiluliuma read out the same tablet. Krauss 1978: 36-40 (c, via Miller 2007: 270) used this to argue that the Amka attack of the Deeds/prayer must be the first breach of peace and therefore precede the Amka attack attested in the Amarna letters — hence Nibhururiya cannot be Tutankhamun; Murnane 1983: 279 objected; Miller 2007: 270-271 finds the point "suggestive and not to be discounted" but not watertight, adding that the Amarna letters show Hittite-Egyptian relations already at "DEFCON 2" for years before Akhenaten's death, whichever king Nibhururiya is. (iii) The "20 years" plus the prayer's own date (Mursili's later years) and the prisoners' arrival (the year after Nibhururiya's death) give a rough arithmetic: Nibhururiya's death ≈ 20 years before the Second Prayer; if the prayer is c. Mursili year 18-20, then Nibhururiya died c. Mursili year -2 to 0, i.e. about the last years of Suppiluliuma — consistent with both Suppiluliuma's death "shortly after" (Bryce; van den Hout 1994 literal) and with Miller's ca. 4-6 years (Miller 2007: 273, 284). The number cannot discriminate between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun by itself. Lupakki appears in the Deeds (A ii 11, iii 2) and in the so-called "Fifth" Plague Prayer / KUB 31.121+121a (CTH 379; Singer 2002 no. 13-14) as well as in EA 170: 14-15 (Lu-pa-ak-ku); Hani in the Deeds (A iii 44 etc.) and in EA 161, 162, 369 (Moran 1992: 381) — coincidences used by Parker 2002 and Miller 2007: 269 for a single Amqu episode (a/b). Note on CTH 379/72: Košak's Konkordanz (a) now files Miller's KUB 19.15 + KBo 50.24 (+ Bo 2442, 359/v, 707/v; joins Miller 2004-2015, following Singer 2013: 198 n. 122) under CTH 72 "Report on the dispute with Egypt in Syria" (Miller, hethiter.net/:CTH 72, online edition in English) with the remark "also CTH 379", i.e. Singer's no. 14 is (part of) the same document. Literature list there: Sürenhagen 1985; Singer 2002: 66-69; Groddek GM 215 (2007) 95-107; Miller AoF 34 (2007); 6. IKH (2008) 533-554; Simon AoF 36 (2009) 340-348; Wilhelm WO 39 (2009) 108-116; Lebrun-Degrève RANT 5 (2008) 127-129. --- ## 4. CTH 154: KUB 19.20 (+) KBo 12.23 — the letter exchange after Zannanza's death - Konkordanz (a): KUB 19.20 = VAT 7476 (Berlin; find-spot "Haus am Hang" by join), (+) KBo 12.23 = 591/s (Haus am Hang, L/18, Makridi debris), (+)? KBo 49.13 = 154/s (Torri's join proposal "sehr unsicher"); script "jh." Edition: van den Hout, "Der Falke und das Kücken: der neue Pharao und der hethitische Prinz?", ZA 84 (1994) 60-88 (without 154/s) — (c), paywalled. Further literature listed: Murnane, Road to Kadesh (1985) 26-32; Bryce JEA 76 (1990) 97-105; Haider BiOr 47 (1990) 75, 79f.; Klengel 1999: 141 [A13]; Hoffner JAOS 120 (2000) 70; Liverani 2001: 193; Cohen THeth 24 (2002) 123f. (text 32); Freu 2002, 2004: 86f., 2007: 285; Parker AoF 29 (2002) 61 n. 108; Goedegebuure 2002/3, 2003, StBoT 55 (2014) 125, 445, 516f.; Bryce 2003: 197; Klinger FsHoffner (2003) 239 n. 10; Goren et al. 2004: 32 and JAS 38 (2011) 686, 692f. (provenance analyses of tablets; reportedly the clay is local, i.e. the tablet is a Hittite draft/copy rather than an Egyptian original — (c), not verified); Devecchi 2012: 144; Stavi 2015: 166; Chrzanowska 2017; Torri-Barsacchi DBH 50 (2018) 24f. - Content as far as I could establish (all via Miller 2007: 275 n. 103 (a), who cites van den Hout's edition): the text is "(a draft or copy of) the letter sent by Suppiluliuma to Egypt upon being informed of the death of his son". Suppiluliuma quotes the pharaoh's letter, which spoke of "brotherhood" (ŠEŠ-tar, rev. 31', 33'); van den Hout inferred from ŠEŠ-tar that the addressee was a man, i.e. a new (male) king already on the throne — Miller objects that it is the pharaoh's own words being quoted and that "brotherhood" is the standard diplomatic term regardless of gender. Van den Hout restored obv. 22'f. "[Daß du (aber)] / [auf dem Thron s]aßest, das eben [wußte ich] nich[t]" ("that you had ascended the throne I did not know") — Miller: "wildly speculative"; the letter "offers no hint concerning whether Zannanza was killed before arriving in Egypt or in Egypt itself, and no evidence regarding whether there was already a pharaoh reigning in Egypt upon his (assumed) arrival", nor anything that decides between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. Miller 2017: 100 (a): the Egyptians denied the accusation of murder ("an accusation denied by the Egyptians") — i.e. the pharaoh's quoted letter contained a denial. The title's "falcon" (the pharaoh, Horus) and "chick" (the prince) refer to imagery in the letter — (c), I could not verify the Hittite wording. - Who the new king is: in every Tutankhamun-scheme he is Ay (Sturm 1933; Bryce 1990: 104f.; Murnane 1985; Freu 2004; van den Hout 1994 — all (c) via Miller/Konkordanz); in the Akhenaten-schemes he is Smenkhkare (Krauss 1978; Wilhelm-Boese 1987 for the Smenkhkare = Nibhururiya variant have Tutankhamun/Ay; Gabolde 1998 has Zannanza himself become Smenkhkare, so the "new king" answering Suppiluliuma would be — on his view — a later ruler); Miller 2007: 273-275 leaves it open (Smenkhkare, or Ankhetkheprure/Meritaten). Redford 1973 even proposed Nibhururiya = Ay by emending the texts (Miller 2007: 288 (a)). - Bryce 1990 (c, via Miller 2007: 271-272, 280-281 and the Konkordanz): Nibhururiya = Tutankhamun ("a precise rendering in cuneiform of Tutankhamun's prenomen, Nebkheperure", p. 97, after Edel 1948: 14); Dahamunzu = Ankhesenamun (p. 103); the delay between Tutankhamun's autumn death and his April burial is explained by the interregnum during which the queen negotiated with Hatti, and Ay took the throne and performed the burial after the scheme failed (pp. 104-105); EA 41 addressed to Smenkhkare, "father" = predecessor (pp. 100-103, n. 29); KUB 19.9's 20 + 6 years taken literally (pp. 98, 100). --- ## 5. The Amarna letters ### 5.1 EA 9 (Burna-Buriaš II of Babylon to "Nipḫurrireya") Knudtzon 1915: 88 (a, archive.org OCR; letter 9 = BM 29785 = BB 2, W 7), lines 1-4: ``` 1 a-na ni-ip-ḫu-ur-ri-ri-ia šàr māt mi-iṣ-ri-i[ki] 2 ki-bí-m[a] 3 um-ma bur-ra-bu-ri-ia-aš šàr māt ka-ra-d[u-n]i-ia-aš 4 aḫu-ka-ma a-na ia-a-ši šu-ul-mu ``` "To Nipḫurrireya, king of Egypt, say: thus Burra-Buriyaš, king of Karaduniaš, your brother: for me all is well ..." (Moran 1992: 18 "Nibhurrereya"; Rainey 2015 — (c)). The letter warns the pharaoh not to receive the Assyrians, "my vassals" (ll. 31-35), and complains about gifts (c, Moran). It is the only Amarna letter whose addressee's name begins with Nib-/Nip- + ḫurrireya, and since Edel 1948 and Kühne 1973: 73 it has usually been assigned to Tutankhamun (Nb-ḫprw-Rʿ), on the grounds that (a) nib- renders nb "lord/all" as in Nib-mu(w)areya = Nb-mꜣʿt-Rʿ (Amenhotep III), whereas every certain writing of Akhenaten's Nfr-ḫprw-Rʿ begins nap-/nab- (Naphururiya etc.); (b) Tutankhamun resided at Akhetaten in his first year, so one late letter could have been left there. Moran 1992: xxxiv-xxxix (c) accepted "no later than the first year or so of Tutankhamun". Miller 2007: 265-267 (a) argues the reverse: (1) Tutankhamun left Akhetaten within his first year (Krauss 1997a: 248: after the wine harvest of year 1); a Babylonian reply to a new king within that window is "rather speedy"; (2) EA 9 contains no congratulation on an accession; (3) no other Amarna letter can be confidently assigned to a successor of Akhenaten (the EA 27 docket must be read "year 2", not "12"; EA 16 cannot be to Ay; EA 210 probably not to a king); (4) a current letter would have moved to Memphis with the court; (5) Burna-Buriaš's attempt to block Egyptian-Assyrian relations fits the middle/late reign of Akhenaten (cf. EA 15-16 of Aššur-uballiṭ), not Tutankhamun's; (6) a letter to a c. 6-year-old king should show some sign of it. Miller 2017: 99 n. 9 (a) adds a Babylonian argument: Burna-Buriaš's own dynastic marriage with Assyria (grandfather of Kara-ḫardaš/Kara-KIN-daš) means EA 9 must precede about the midpoint of his 27-year reign, "if EA 9 had been intended for Tutankhamun it would have been written by Burna-Buriaš II in the waning days of his rule". If EA 9 is to Akhenaten, then "Nipḫurrireya" is a second cuneiform writing of Nfr-ḫprw-Rʿ with an /i/ vowel, and the Hittite Nibḫururiya loses its diagnostic force. Hess 1993: 116 (c) would add EA 210 (Ni-í]p-ḫu-ri-[ia) as a third. ### 5.2 EA 41 (Suppiluliuma to "Ḫuriya") Knudtzon 1915: 303 (a, OCR), letter 41 (Cairo 4747, WA 18, W 35), lines 1-3: `[um-m]a mšu-ub-bi-[l]u-li-u-ma šar[r]u r[abû] [šar māt Ḫa]tti a-na mḫu-u-ri-i-a [šar māt Mi-i]ṣ-ri-iki aḫi-ia ki-bí-[m]a` — "Thus Šuppiluliuma, Great King, [king of Ḫa]tti, to Ḫuriya, [king of Eg]ypt, my brother, say." The body refers to "the messengers I sent to your father", "what your father said/asked (about troops?) between us", "just as your father and I were friendly". Identification of Ḫuriya: (a) Akhenaten (Nauriya defectively written): Kühne 1973; Moran 1992: 114 n. 1; Miller 2007: 279-282 (a) — "father" in the body (not the formulaic address) means father; the friendly relations with the addressee's father fit the last years of Amenhotep III, not the end of Akhenaten's reign; no Amarna letter can be shown to be to a successor of Akhenaten. (b) Smenkhkare (Ḫuriya = ḫuriya, ʿnḫ-ḫprw-Rʿ): Wilhelm-Boese 1987: 97f. (c); Bryce 1990: 100-103 (c). (c) Tutankhamun: Freu (c, via D-M 2011: 147). The question matters only if one accepts Wilhelm-Boese's compression of Suppiluliuma's reign; on the Akhenaten reading of EA 41 Suppiluliuma was already king before Amenhotep III died (Miller: accession c. 1356, reign c. 26 years per KUB 19.9's 20 + 6). ### 5.3 The cuneiform spellings of the Amarna pharaohs' names (Knudtzon 1915 OCR (a) for the lines quoted; complete list Hess 1993: 115-120 (c), summarised by Miller 2007: 264 (a)) - Amenhotep III (Nb-mꜣʿt-Rʿ): Nibmuaria, Nibmuariya, Nimuwariya, Nibm]uwariya, Nimmuriya, Nimmuariya, Mimmuriya, Immuriya (EA 1-5, 17-24 etc.; Knudtzon's introduction p. 2419 of the OCR: "Nibmuaria, Nimutria, Nimmuria, Mimmuria oder dgl., andererseits Naphururia, Niphurririra ...") — first syllable always with /i/. - Akhenaten (Nfr-ḫprw-Rʿ): EA 8: 1 `[a-na na-ap-ḫu-]ru-ri-ia šarri rabî`; EA 10: 1 `[a-n]a na-ap-ḫu-'-ru-ri[-ia]`; EA 11: 1 `a-na Ina-ap-ḫu-ru-ri-a šàr māt mi-iṣ-ri-i`; EA 14: `[ša Ina-ap-ḫu-ru-]ri-a šarru rabû`; EA 27 (Tušratta): `Ina-ap-ḫur-ri-[i]a`, `Ina-ap-ḫur-ri-ia`; EA 28: `[a-na Inap-ḫur-i-ri-ia šàr māt mi-iṣ-ri[-i]`; EA 29: `[a-na Inap-ḫu-u-ri-ia šàr māt mi-iṣ-ri-i aḫi-i]a ḫa-ta-ni-ia`, `Inap-ḫu-u-ri-ia`; (EA 15-16 Aššur-uballiṭ; EA 41 Ḫuriya; EA 9 Nipḫurrireya as above). Variants thus: Napḫur(u)riya, Napḫururiya, Napḫuririya, Napḫuriya, Namḫurya — first syllable with /a/ in all certain cases. - Tutankhamun (Nb-ḫprw-Rʿ): only if EA 9 is his; no other candidate. The philological argument: nib-/nip- = nb (Edel 1948: 14: "eine absolut einwandfreie Umschreibung des Namens Tutanchamons"; Bryce 1990: 97; Murnane 1983: 277; Schulman 1978: 43; Kitchen 1985: 43f.; van den Hout 1984: 84f.; Freu 2004: 52f. — all (c) via Miller 2007: 264 n. 51) versus nap- = nfr; counter-arguments: (1) phonetic — Helck 1994: 19: "nap entspricht naf/nef- = nfr und nib/p einem niw/new- von nb ... Der hörbare Unterschied zwischen Nfr-ḫprw-Rʿ und Nb-ḫprw-Rʿ war minimal"; Redford 1973: 49: praenomina with ḫprw were abbreviated in speech by elision of the first element; Krauss 1978 (c) — Krauss's counter as reported by Miller is chiefly the historical one (§3.3 above: the Amka attack is the first breach of the Kurustama peace and cannot postdate the Amarna-period Amka attack) together with his acceptance that Nibḫururiya can stand for Akhenaten; a GM 2000 note (Google Books snippet, author not verified) states that "Nibhururija can be interpreted both as a transcription of" Nb- and Nfr-ḫprw-Rʿ and that "Nibhururija had died in the summer or in the autumn, after which the queen sent her" letter; (2) graphic — the very wide variation in the other spellings (Miller 2007: 264); (3) confusion — Meyer 1992: 91ff.: Mursili's scribe mixed up Nebkheprure and Neferkheprure, two kings 2-4 years apart (Miller: simpler than Wilhelm-Boese's confusion with ʿAnkhkheprure); (4) EA 9 (§5.1). Miller's verdict (2007: 265): Bryce's/Edel's "precise rendering" is "at best an oversimplification"; the spelling "is likely not the reliable indicator that it is often assumed to be". ### 5.4 EA 170, 174-176, 363: the Amqu attacks - EA 170 (Baaluya and Bet-ili to Aziru, then in Egypt), Knudtzon 1915: 675f. (a, OCR), ll. 14-27: `ša-ni-tú ṣābē māt ḫa-at-te / Ilu-pa-ak-ku el-te-qú-nim / ālāni māt am-ki ù iš-tu ālāni / Ia-ad-du-mi el-te-qú-nim-mi / ù be-lí-ni li-i-te / ša-ni-tú ki-a-am ni-eš-te-mi / Izi-ta-na / el-li-kám-mi / ù 9 līm(?) ṣābē šēpi / it-ti-šu ša el-li-kám / ù a-ma-ta la nu-tar-ri-iṣ / šum-ma i-na ki-it-ti i-pa-aš-šu-nim / ù i-ga-ša-du-nim / i-na māt nu-ḫa-aš-še / ù Ibat-ti-ilu / a-šap-par a-na pa-ni-šu` — Moran (as quoted by Miller 2007: 269 (a)): "Moreover, troops of Hatti under Lupakku have captured cities of Amqu, and with the cities they captured Aaddumi. May our lord know (this). Moreover, we have heard the following: Zitana has come and there are 90,000 infantrymen that have come with him. We have, however, not confirmed the report, whether they are really there and have arrived in Nuhašše, and so I am sending Bet-ili to him." - EA 173 (Knudtzon OCR l. 53899: "[ ... chariots against] the land of Amki ..."), EA 174 (Bieri of Hašabu), 175 (Ildayya of Hazi), 176 (anonymous), 363 (ʿAbdi-Riša of Enišasi): "we were in the cities of Amqu, cities of the king my lord, and Etakkama (Aitakkama) the man of Kinza went before the troops of Hatti and set the cities of the king on fire" (Knudtzon OCR ll. 53950-54098: `a-na māt am-ki ālāni šarri bēli-ia ù al-li-uk Ie-ta-ga-ma amēl māt ki-in-za a-[na pa-ni] ṣābē māt ḫa-at-ti ...` (b)). EA 140 (Byblos) and EA 197 (Biryawaza) mention Aitakkama's Hittite-backed aggression (c). - Placement relative to the Deeds: these letters date to Aziru's stay in Egypt, i.e. to the last year or so of Akhenaten's reign (Izre'el-Singer 1990; Singer 1990: 155ff.; Moran; Miller 2007: 287 (a)). The Deeds (A iii 1-4) name Lupakki and Tarhunta-zalma as the commanders sent to Amka while Suppiluliuma besieged Carchemish, and Zita (Zitana) as the GAL MEŠEDI sent ahead with Arnuwanda (A ii 29-31). Two readings: (i) one Amqu campaign, multi-pronged, at the end of Akhenaten's reign = the campaign of the Deeds and the prayer, hence Nibhururiya died at the end of Akhenaten's reign (Krauss 1978; Parker 2002; Miller 2007: 267-271, who calls two attacks a dozen years apart "a wholly ad hoc solution necessary solely for those who advocate the Nibhururiya = Tutankhamun identification"); (ii) two attacks — one c. Akhenaten's last year (Amarna) and one at Tutankhamun's death (Deeds/prayer, with the "again he sent, again they attacked" of KUB 14.8 i 19-20 as the second) — Houwink ten Cate 1963: 275; Schulman 1978; Kitchen 1985: 44; Barta 1983; Freu 2004: 38f.; Bryce 1990 (c); Wilhelm-Boese 1987: 101-104 also need two attacks, 3-4 years apart (Miller 2007: 268 n. 69). Note that the "namma" clause exists only in ms. A of the prayer. ### 5.5 EA 10 and 11: Mayati EA 10 (Burna-Buriaš to Napḫururiya) and EA 11 (same, with a Babylonian princess being sent) mention "Mayati" (Ma-ia-ti), universally taken as Meritaten: EA 10: 43-49 gifts "for Mayati" (Moran: "your daughter"?) and EA 11 rev. 25ff. (Moran: the gift "for the mistress of the house/ Mayati") — (c): I could not locate the lines in the Knudtzon OCR (the name is split by line breaks); Moran 1992: 19-22 and Krauss 1978: 61ff. (c). Bearing: Meritaten already held a prominent, quasi-queenly position in the international correspondence of Akhenaten's later reign (before Burna-Buriaš's mid-reign, per Miller 2017), which supports (not proves) the candidacy of Meritaten as the taḫamunzu if the widow is Akhenaten's (Krauss 1978; Gabolde 1998; Parker 2002), and it is the reason Krauss/Gabolde read the "Mayati" of the Babylonian letters as the later ʿAnkhetkheprure. --- ## 6. Chronology ### 6.1 The Hittite relative sequence (Deeds + prayers + annals) - Suppiluliuma's reign: c. 26 years if KUB 19.9's "20 years (Anatolia) + 6 (Syria)" are totals (Parker 2002: 53ff.; Miller 2007: 282-283 (a)); c. 20 years on Wilhelm-Boese's 1987 analysis of the Deeds' tablet-count (roughly half before the taḫamunzu episode, half after — Miller 2007: 276-279 (a); Wilhelm 2009: 113 (c): 14 before / 6 after if Smenkhkare); c. 40 years in the older literature (Güterbock; Kitchen 1962). Devecchi-Miller 2011: 158 (a): "Amenhotep III reigned from 1391/90 to 1353/2"; EA 41 (to Akhenaten) and the Rib-Adda/Mittanni correspondence put Suppiluliuma's activity in Syria already in the last years of Amenhotep III and the first years of Akhenaten, hence accession c. 1356 (Miller 2007: 283, Fig. 1). - Nibhururiya's death: late summer/autumn of the year of the Carchemish siege; Hani arrives the following spring; Zannanza sent that summer; Zannanza killed; the Egyptian counter-campaign (Arnuwanda "went ahead to Egypt") and the prisoners bring the plague to Hatti (year +1); Suppiluliuma dies of the plague some years later (Deeds and prayers give no number; Bryce/van den Hout: "shortly"; Klinger 2006: 319: 2-4 years; Miller: c. 4-6 years, Fig. 1: Suppiluliuma † c. 1330); Arnuwanda II reigns c. 1 year and dies of the plague (c. 1330-1329); Mursili II accedes c. 1329/8 (Miller Fig. 1) — Mursili's years 7 and 9 (Syrian revolts; KUB 19.15+ with Arma'a still viceroy) c. 1322 and 1320; Horemheb's accession therefore not before c. 1320/19 on Miller's reading. - The solar omen of Mursili's year 10 (KBo 4.4 ii 15-25, Extensive Annals; "the Sun-god gave a sign" as Mursili marched to Azzi): candidate eclipses per Devecchi-Miller 2011: 167 n. 71 (a) from the NASA Five Millennium Canon: 14 May 1338, 26 Aug 1315, 24 June 1312, 17 Aug 1306, 24 Apr 1290, 15 June 1284, 14 Apr 1281; marginal: 13 Mar 1335, 15 Aug 1333, 17 Oct 1328, 17 Oct 1309, 5 Aug 1305, 17 Sep 1279, 6 Jul 1275. Preferences: Wilhelm-Boese 1987: 105ff.: 13 Apr(?) 1308 [D-M: Wilhelm's "earlier preference for 17 Oct 1309"]; Wilhelm 2009: 115: 24 June 1312 (hence Mursili's accession 1321/1322 — the date behind "Mursili II 1321-1295" in Bryce 2005 and many handbooks); Huber 2001 (JAOS 121): preferred 1339 (= 14 May 1338), second 1334, third 1311/1312; Taracha 2008 (NABU 2008/14): 4 June 1321 (which D-M doubt was visible in central Anatolia); Miller: 26 Aug 1315 would fit his scheme best but he declines to "nail" year 10 to any eclipse (D-M 2011: 166-167). The 1312 eclipse gives Mursili year 1 = 1321/1322, Suppiluliuma † c. 1323/1322, and makes Tutankhamun's death (1324/1323 on HKW 2006, or 1327/1326 on the higher variants) coincide neatly with Nibhururiya's — this is the arithmetic that keeps the Tutankhamun identification alive in the handbooks (Bryce 2005; Freu; Stavi 2015 — (c)). The 1338/1335 eclipses would put Mursili year 10 at the end of Akhenaten's reign, impossible for everyone; the 1308/1306 options push Mursili's accession to 1318/1316 and Suppiluliuma's death to c. 1319/1317, which again favours Tutankhamun or even later. ### 6.2 Egyptian absolute dates (HKW 2006 as cited by Miller 2007: 255 n. 16 (a); Aston (in press 2010) via D-M 2011: 159 n. 55 (a)) - Hornung-Krauss-Warburton 2006: 492f.: Amenhotep III 1390-1353; Akhenaten 1353-1336; Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten ʿAnkhkheprure 1336-1334; Neferneferuaten ʿAnkhetkheprure 1334-?; Tutankhamun ?-1324; (Ay 1323-1319; Horemheb 1319-1292 by implication). Miller's Fig. 1 (Krauss 1978-based for this stretch, von Beckerath 1997 otherwise): Akhenaten † 1336/34; Smenkhkare 1336/34-1333/32; Tutankhamun 1333/32-1323; Ay 1323-1319; Horemheb 1319-. Aston: 17 years Akhenaten, 4 Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten, 1 ʿAnkhetkheprure, 9 Tutankhamun, 3 Ay, 14 Horemheb (i.e. Horemheb reduced from 27/28 to c. 14 years, which D-M show creates a c. 10-year deficit against the 96+ attested Babylonian regnal years between Burna-Buriaš II and Kadašman-Enlil II, unless Ramesses II's accession is raised from 1279 to c. 1295 or 1305 — D-M 2011: 158-168 (a)). Season: Tutankhamun was buried in (or around) March/April (floral collars; Krauss 1996: 248, SAK 23; Hornung 2006: 206ff.), so with the 70-day embalming he died in late January/February; Ay presided at the burial (Miller 2007: 271-272 (a)). Nibhururiya, by contrast, died in late summer/autumn (Deeds: same season as the Amka raid and the siege; the "winter" then passes before Hani's spring arrival). Hence the Tutankhamun identification requires either a c. 6-month exposure of the body during the negotiations (Bryce 1990: 104f.; Barta 1983) or a mistaken burial season; the Akhenaten identification requires nothing here (Akhenaten's own death/burial season is unknown). ### 6.3 Which identification survives under which chronology | scheme | Suppiluliuma | Nibhururiya's death | Egyptian fit | verdict | |---|---|---|---|---| | "High/long" Hittite (Güterbock; Kitchen 1962; Bryce 1990/2005): accession c. 1350s, reign c. 40 (Bryce: 1350-1322), Mursili 1321 (1312 eclipse) | † c. 1322 | c. 1327-1324 | Tutankhamun † 1324/3 (HKW) or 1327 (higher) | Tutankhamun; Dahamunzu = Ankhesenamun; new king Ay. Requires the second Amqu attack and the 6-month burial delay (Bryce) and a very long reign for Suppiluliuma; Miller: "at least ca. 40 years" if EA 41 is to Akhenaten. | | Wilhelm-Boese 1987 "short": reign c. 20 years, half/half; accession c. mid-Akhenaten; 1308/1309 eclipse | † c. 1320/1319 | c. 1330 | Smenkhkare † c. 1334/1332 | Smenkhkare; Dahamunzu = Meritaten as his widow; EA 41 to Smenkhkare; needs two Amqu attacks 3-4 years apart and a confusion Nib- for ʿAnkh-. Wilhelm 2009/2012 has since moved Suppiluliuma's accession up to the early years of Akhenaten (D-M 2011: 158 n. 48), which by D-M's reckoning undercuts the original arithmetic. | | Miller 2007 / Devecchi-Miller 2011 "middle" (Arma'a = Horemheb not yet king in Mursili 7-9): accession c. 1356; † c. 1330; Mursili c. 1329/8; no eclipse used (1315 nearest) | † c. 1330 | 1336/34 | Akhenaten † 1336 (HKW) | Akhenaten; Dahamunzu = Nefertiti (Miller's preference) or Meritaten; one Amqu campaign; EA 9 and EA 41 to Akhenaten; Nibḫururiya = an /i/-spelling of Nfr-ḫprw-Rʿ. Cost: Horemheb's accession pushed to ≥ Mursili 9 (c. 1320), i.e. Horemheb's reign shortened (which the wine-jar dockets now independently suggest, Aston; van Dijk) and the Deeds' tablet distribution becomes lopsided (c. 18-20 years in 3-4 tablets before the episode, c. 6 years in 5 tablets after: Miller 2007: 279 n. 117; AfO 53, 176). | | Low Egyptian (Krauss 1978 / Helck): Akhenaten † c. 1330s-late, Tutankhamun † c. 1320s-late | as above | | | On the low Egyptian numbers both Akhenaten (Krauss 1978) and Tutankhamun (Helck 1984 with 1308 eclipse) were defended; Krauss 1978 chose Akhenaten with Dahamunzu = Meritaten and Smenkhkare the "servant" who became king (c, via Miller 2007: 263, 270, 273 n. 89). | Summary: the identification is not decided by absolute dates, because the Hittite side has no independent absolute anchor other than the disputed eclipse; it is decided by (i) whether KUB 19.15+KBo 50.24's Arma'a is Horemheb before his accession (if yes, Tutankhamun is excluded: Miller, D-M; contested by Groddek 2007a, Simon 2009, Freu 2008; Wilhelm 2009 restores Arma'a as the man who "sat on the throne" in ii 2', i.e. Horemheb already king), (ii) whether one or two Amqu campaigns are admitted, (iii) the burial-season argument, and (iv) the spelling. Under the 1312 eclipse + HKW dates the Tutankhamun equation fits to within a year, which is why it remains the textbook view (Bryce 2005; Klengel 1999; Freu 2004; Stavi 2015 (c)); under Miller's synchronism it is impossible and Akhenaten becomes the only candidate, with Smenkhkare "for all practical purposes" excluded. --- ## 7. Positions table Status codes refer to how I know the position: (a) read the work itself; (b) read part/abstract/snippet; (c) via citation (mainly Miller 2007 and Devecchi-Miller 2011, both read in full). | scholar, work | Nibhururiya | Dahamunzu | new king (addressee of CTH 154 / the one who "made himself king") | Zannanza reached Egypt? | main argument | status | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Güterbock 1956, JCS 10 (edition) | Tutankhamun (n. e: "Nb-ḫprw-Rʿ, Tut-ankh-Amon, cf. Edel JNES 7") | unnamed; "Dahamunzu(?)" possibly faulty | not discussed | no (Zannanza killed; Egyptians "attacked my frontier") | Edel's phonetic equation; explicitly declines historical discussion (pp. 119-121) | (a) | | Edel 1948, JNES 7: 14f. | Tutankhamun | Ankhesenamun | — | — | Nib- = nb; "absolut einwandfreie Umschreibung" | (c) Miller 2007: 265 | | Sturm 1933 | Tutankhamun | Ankhesenamun | Ay | no | two Amqu attacks | (c) Miller n. 79, 89 | | Federn 1960, JCS 14: 33 | Tutankhamun (assumed) | = tꜣ ḥmt nsw "the king's wife" (title, not name); he calls her Ankhesenamun | — | — | philology of Dahamunzu; possible Hurrian/Mitannian transmission | (a) | | Kitchen 1962, Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs | Tutankhamun ("Nibhururiya, i.e. Tutankhamūn"); Suppiluliuma's First Syrian War c. Akhenaten year 12; long reign (c. 40 years) | Ankhesenamun | Ay | no | relative chronology of Amarna letters vs Deeds; KUB 19.9 20 + 6 literal | (b) Google Books snippet; (c) Miller 282 n. 131 | | Krauss 1978, Das Ende der Amarnazeit | Akhenaten | Meritaten (Akhenaten's widow) | Smenkhkare (the "servant" she scorned, who nonetheless became king) | no | the Amka raid of the Deeds/prayer is the first breach of the Kurustama peace, so it must be the Amarna-letter Amka raid (Akhenaten's last year); Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun sons of a secondary wife, hence "no son" (pp. 79-83); low Egyptian chronology | (c) Miller 2007: 263, 270, 273 n. 89 | | Krauss 1996 (SAK 23) and 2007 (AoF 34: 294-318, "Eine Regentin, ein König und eine Königin zwischen dem Tod von Achenaten und der Thronbesteigung von Tutanchamun") | Akhenaten | leaves a Nefertiti interregnum possible before Smenkhkare; Smenkhkare + Meritaten, then Meritaten alone as ʿAnkhetkheprure | Smenkhkare | no | burial of Tutankhamun in spring (so death Jan/Feb) vs autumn death of Nibhururiya | (c) Miller 2007: 271-272, 274-275; D-M 2011: 146 n. 24 | | Helck 1984/1994 | Akhenaten | Kiya | — | no | phonetic argument nap = nef, nib = new; no coregency Akhenaten/Smenkhkare; rejects Bryce's 6-month delay | (c) Miller 264, 272, 273 n. 89 | | Redford 1973 | Ay (!) by emendation; later dropped | — | — | — | Horemheb year 16 Syrian foray | (c) Miller 288 | | Schulman 1978; Murnane 1983, 1985; Barta 1983; von Beckerath 1994/1997 | Tutankhamun | Ankhesenamun | Ay | no | spelling; "no male heir only after Tutankhamun" | (c) Miller 260-261, 264 n. 51 | | Wilhelm-Boese 1987 (High, Middle or Low?) | Smenkhkare | Meritaten as widow of Smenkhkare | Tutankhamun (with Ay as power) | no | Deeds' tablet arithmetic: reign c. 20 years, half before/half after the episode, so neither Akhenaten (needs ≥20 before) nor Tutankhamun (needs accession only 10 years before his death, too late for the Amarna evidence); EA 41 to Smenkhkare (Ḫuriya = ḫuriya); eclipse 1308; Nib- a confusion for ʿAnkh- | (c) Miller 2007: 276-282; D-M 2011: 158 n. 48 | | Wilhelm 1991, 2009 (WO 39), 2012/in press | still Smenkhkare (2009: "14 before, 6 after"); eclipse now 24 June 1312; restores Arma'a as the one who "sat on the throne" in KUB 19.15+ ii 2' (Horemheb already king in Mursili 9) | Meritaten | Tutankhamun | no | as above; but now places Suppiluliuma's accession "a few years" before the Mittanni-Egypt break (Akhenaten yrs 5-6), which D-M say abandons the 1987 arithmetic de facto | (c) D-M 2011: 154, 158 n. 48, 167 | | Bryce 1989, 1990 (JEA 76), 1998/2005 (Kingdom of the Hittites), 2003 (Letters) | Tutankhamun | Ankhesenamun | Ay | no (killed en route) | spelling ("precise rendering"); interregnum explains the 6-month gap before burial; EA 41 to Smenkhkare ("father" = predecessor); 1312 eclipse; long reign (1350-1322); accepts W-B's shortening in words but not in substance | (c) Miller 2007: 260-261, 265, 271-272, 277 n. 109, 280-282; Konkordanz lit. | | van den Hout 1994 (ZA 84) | Tutankhamun (cf. van den Hout 1984 on the spelling) | Ankhesenamun | Ay — the "falcon"; the "chick" = Zannanza; new pharaoh already enthroned when the prince arrived/died; addressee male (ŠEŠ-tar) | possibly reached Egypt (restoration obv. 22'f.) | edition of KUB 19.20+; takes "20 years" literally | (c) Miller 2007: 275 n. 103, 283 n. 132; Konkordanz | | Klengel 1999; Klinger 2006 | Tutankhamun; Suppiluliuma lived only 2-4 years more (Klinger) | Ankhesenamun | Ay | no | eclipse-driven | (c) Miller 273 n. 90 | | Gabolde 1998 (D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, ch. 4 "Zannanza ou les affaires ..."; pp. 187-226), 2001, 2002; 2015 (Toutankhamon) | Akhenaten | Meritaten (Nefertiti having predeceased Akhenaten; Meritaten coregent, then ʿAnkhetkheprure) | Zannanza himself = Smenkhkare (pp. 213-226: the prince arrived, married Meritaten, reigned c. 1-3 years as ʿAnkhkheprure Smenkhkare, then died) | YES | the Hittite "murder" a later Hittite version; Smenkhkare's brief reign and foreign traits; Tutankhamun the son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, born year 13 | (c) Miller 2007: 258-259, 275 n. 103-104; Darnell-Manassa 2007 snippet ("Zannanza actually becomes pharaoh (under the name Smenkhkare) before dying, see Gabolde, D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, 221-224"); 2015 position not verified | | Reeves 2001, Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet, 176-177 (following J.R. Harris) | Akhenaten | Nefertiti | (Nefertiti then rules as Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten) | no | "Dakhamunzu" = "the king's wife"; Nefertiti as Akhenaten's successor | (b) Google Books snippets (Reeves 2001: 176 cited for the title; "for the identification of the Dakhamunzu of the Zannanza episode as Nefertiti see J.R. Harris, in Reeves, Akhenaten, 176-177") | | Parker 2002 (AoF 29) | Akhenaten | Meritaten (pp. 49-52) | Smenkhkare | no | one Amqu attack; KUB 19.9 20 + 6 as totals (reign c. 26); collects the sources | (c) Miller passim | | Groddek 2002 (in Cultus/?), 2007a (GM 215) | Tutankhamun | Ankhesenamun | Ay | no | Bi-ib- a misreading of NE; "bodily son of the king"; against Miller: Arma'a in KUB 19.15+ is already pharaoh (2007a: 96-99) | (c) Miller 263 n. 50; D-M 2011: 150-153 | | Freu 2000, 2002, 2004 (Suppiluliuma et la veuve du pharaon), 2007, 2008 | Tutankhamun | Ankhesenamun | Ay | no | rejects W-B; two Amqu attacks (2004: 38f.); rejects Arma'a = Horemheb (2008: 47f.) "without argumentation"; EA 16 to Smenkhkare | (c) Miller 264 n. 51, 268 n. 84; D-M 2011: 147 n. 25, 150 n. 32 | | Miller 2007 (AoF 34), 2008 (6. IKH; ZA 98 joins), 2010 (FS Wilhelm), 2017 (Karduniaš) | AKHENATEN (Tutankhamun excluded by KUB 19.15+KBo 50.24: Arma'a = Horemheb still viceroy in Mursili 7 and 9; Smenkhkare "for all practical purposes" excluded) | Nefertiti most likely, during an interregnum between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare; Meritaten possible | Smenkhkare (or ʿAnkhetkheprure) | no; CTH 154 silent | one multi-pronged Amqu campaign; EA 9 and EA 41 to Akhenaten; spelling not diagnostic; burial season; no coregency; no son of Akhenaten; W-B's tablet arithmetic methodologically unsafe; Suppiluliuma reign c. 26 years (c. 1356-1330) | (a) | | Taracha 2008 (NABU 2008/14) | supports Miller's scheme; eclipse 4 June 1321 | — | — | — | solar omen | (c) D-M 2011: 166-167 | | Simon 2009 (AoF 36: 340-348) | — (objects that *Ḥarmaḥa should be written with ḫ, so Ar-ma-a ≠ Horemheb) | — | — | — | Egyptian-cuneiform phonology | (c) D-M 2011: 148-150, 167 | | Stipich 2008, "Zur Identität von Niphururiya und Dahamunzu" (Cultus Deorum I, Pécs, 97-110) | ? | ? | ? | ? | — | (c) title only (D-M bibliography) | | Dodson 2009 (Amarna Sunset 89-94), 2018 (rev. ed.), 2020 (Nefertiti, Queen and Pharaoh) | discusses all options; secondary snippets show him weighing "Nefertiti or Meritaten" against Ankhesenamun (Stiebing-Helft 2023 citing Dodson 2009: 89-94); his own conclusion not verified here | ? | ? | ? | — | (b)/(c); NOT VERIFIED — see gaps | | Devecchi-Miller 2011 | Akhenaten (Tutankhamun "ruled out on chronological grounds", Smenkhkare "very unlikely"); admit two serious hurdles (tablet distribution; Simon's ḫ) | as Miller 2007 | as Miller 2007 | no | reassess Groddek, Simon, Wilhelm, Freu; Babylonian synchronisms; Horemheb's reign c. 14 years; Ramesses II accession c. 1295 (or 1305) rather than 1279; eclipse left undecided | (a) | | Cordani 2011 (KASKAL 8, "Dating the ascension to the throne of Šuppiluliuma I"), 2013 | ? (accession dating; Amarna non-evidence for Syria after the First Syrian War) | ? | ? | ? | — | (c) titles only | | Belmonte 2013 (Anthropological Notebooks 19: 419-441, "DNA, wine and eclipses: the Dakhamunzu affaire"), 2022 ("Nefertiti strikes back!", FS Kondo 53-86) | Akhenaten | Nefertiti ("her certain role as a Female King of Egypt as the Dakhamunzu") | (Nefertiti as pharaoh) | ? | astronomy (eclipse), wine dockets, 2010 DNA | (b) titles/abstract via search and Google Books citations; text not obtained | | Stavi 2015 (THeth 31) | ? — the book "offers a synchronization of the Egyptian and Hittite chronologies" (publisher's blurb); the Konkordanz cites Stavi 2015: 166 for KUB 19.20 and 153 for CTH 40 fragments | ? | ? | ? | — | (c) NOT VERIFIED; the JAOS review (Lockwood) and Gale abstract were 403 | | Miller 2015 (AfO 53 review of Del Monte) | still "be he Akhenaten or Tutankhamun" (p. 176-177), i.e. treats the question as open in print while maintaining that Del Monte's tablet placements would aggravate the lopsided distribution "if in fact Nibḫururiya = Akhenaton" | — | — | — | — | (a) | | Miller 2017 (Karduniaš 1) | "The identification of the deceased pharaoh is disputed (Akhenaton, Tutankhamun or Smenkhkare), as is the identity of the queen"; adds the Babylonian-Assyrian marriage argument that EA 9 is early in Burna-Buriaš II's reign | open | open | Zannanza "died before he was able to reach Egypt"; "if indeed he was murdered, as the Hittites claimed, an accusation denied by the Egyptians" | — | (a) | | Zapletniuk 2021 (Preislamic Near East 2021/2: 61-68) | Tutankhamun (implicitly: Ankhesenamun contested the throne with Ay and Horemheb) | Ankhesenamun | Ay | no | Egyptian evidence; cites Breyer 2010 | (b) abstract page read; PDF not fetched | | van Cleve 2021 (academia), Freewalt (academia, "Ay and the Dahamunzu affair") | Tutankhamun (van Cleve: "Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun are the most likely candidates") | Ankhesenamun | Ay | no | — | (b) search-engine abstracts only | Changes of mind: Wilhelm (1987 Smenkhkare with 10/10 split → 2009 still Smenkhkare but 14/6 and eclipse 1312 instead of 1308/9 → 2012 accession of Suppiluliuma early in Akhenaten's reign); von Beckerath (1994 no coregency → 1997 3-year coregency Akhenaten/Smenkhkare); Krauss (1978 Meritaten → 1997/2007 leaves room for Nefertiti's interregnum); Miller (2007 firm Akhenaten → 2015/2017 states the question as open in print); Redford (Ay → abandoned); Bryce (1989 accepted W-B's shortening nominally, retained Tutankhamun); Güterbock (1956 changed his mind about a king Arnuwanda between Tudhaliya and Suppiluliuma, p. 120 — not about Nibhururiya). --- ## 8. Assessment: what must be true for Nibhururiya to be Akhenaten, and what each assumption costs The question: Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare / Neferneferuaten between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun; was one of them Nefertiti? A. For Nibhururiya = Akhenaten (Miller/Krauss/Gabolde/Parker/Helck/Reeves): 1. The Hittite scribes wrote Nfr-ḫprw-Rʿ with an initial /i/ (Nib-/Bib-). Cost: against the otherwise consistent nap-/nab- of the Amarna letters — unless EA 9 (Nipḫurrireya) is Akhenaten's, which Miller argues on five independent grounds and Miller 2017 strengthens with Babylonian data. If EA 9 is Akhenaten's the cost is nil; if EA 9 is Tutankhamun's the cost is a unique scribal confusion (Meyer) or a phonetic elision (Helck/Redford). 2. Akhenaten left no (recognised) son. Cost: the KV55 = Akhenaten and KV35YL = mother results (2010) make Tutankhamun Akhenaten's son biologically (Dossier B); one must then accept that the widow (Nefertiti or Meritaten) and Hani lied to Suppiluliuma about "no son", that Hattusa-ziti was deceived or complicit, and that Mursili's narrative suppressed it — Miller 2007: 258-262 admits this "should not be taken lightly" but constructs a scenario (Suppiluliuma gambling on the queen + Ay against child claimants). Gabolde's version (Meritaten pushing aside her brother) has the same cost. Dodson's/Reeves's version (Nefertiti as the widow, ruling as Neferneferuaten) has it too, unless "son" is read as "adult son". 3. The single, multi-pronged Amqu campaign of the Amarna letters (Lupakku, Zitana, Aitakkama; Aziru in Egypt) is the Amka raid of the Deeds and the prayer. Cost: nil on the Hittite side (the "again he sent" clause is in one ms. only, and Hittitologists would not read a 12-year gap into namma); on the Egyptian side it requires Akhenaten to have died in the same campaigning season as EA 170 etc., i.e. late in his year 17 — which is what the Egyptian evidence (wine dockets to year 17) allows. 4. Horemheb (Arma'a) was not yet king in Mursili's year 9, so Horemheb's accession ≥ c. 1320 and Suppiluliuma † c. 1330, only 4-6 years after the episode. Cost: the Deeds devote c. 5 tablets to those few years (Wilhelm-Boese's objection; Miller concedes it is "disconcerting"); Simon's point that a contemporary *Ḥarmaḥa should surface with ḫ; Groddek's and Wilhelm's alternative readings of KUB 19.15+ (Arma'a already pharaoh) would collapse the synchronism and reopen Tutankhamun. Also the year-10 omen can then only be the 1315 (or 1321) eclipse, neither favoured by astronomers. 5. The taḫamunzu episode must fit between Akhenaten's death and Smenkhkare's accession (Miller) or after Smenkhkare's death with Meritaten referring back to Akhenaten (Miller n. 92 option 2), or Zannanza = Smenkhkare (Gabolde). Cost: an interregnum of c. 9-12 months (autumn to the following summer) with the widow holding power; the wine dockets of "year 1" attributed to Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten must be squeezed; the Egyptian queen's second letter says "in Egypt he will be king", which implies no king yet — i.e. Smenkhkare had not yet acceded when Hani left (spring), so Smenkhkare's year 1 would begin after the summer of Zannanza's death at the earliest, or he is Zannanza. B. For Nibhururiya = Tutankhamun (Güterbock/Edel/Kitchen/Bryce/Freu/Groddek/van den Hout/Stavi?): 1. Spelling: no cost (Nib- = nb) unless EA 9 is Akhenaten's. 2. "No son": no cost; Ankhesenamun's refusal of a "servant" (Ay) is natural. 3. Two Amqu campaigns c. 12 years apart with the same commander (Lupakki) and the same envoy (Hani) in both, and with the second attested only in Hittite sources and the first only in Egyptian ones. Cost: the coincidences and the "mutually exclusive datasets" (Miller); Krauss's Kurustama-breach argument. 4. Season: Tutankhamun buried March/April → died Jan/Feb; Nibhururiya died late summer/autumn → the body waited c. 6 months while the queen negotiated (Bryce). Cost: no Egyptian evidence for a delayed burial; but the embalming period could in principle be extended, and Ay's presence at the burial then follows the failure of the scheme. 5. Chronology: Suppiluliuma must have reigned c. 40 years (c. 1360/50-1322) if EA 41 is to Akhenaten (or EA 41 must be to Smenkhkare with "father" = predecessor), and Arma'a in KUB 19.15+ must be pharaoh Horemheb or someone else; the 1312 eclipse then fits Mursili year 10 and Tutankhamun † 1324/3 = Suppiluliuma's last year(s). Cost: the lopsided Deeds distribution is eased; the EA 41 "father" must be explained away; KUB 19.15+ must be read against Miller. C. For Nibhururiya = Smenkhkare (Wilhelm-Boese 1987): requires Nib- to stand for ʿnḫ-ḫprw-Rʿ (the weakest spelling case of the three), EA 41 to Smenkhkare, and a 20-year reign split evenly; Wilhelm's own later moves and Miller's critique leave this the least supported option. Bearing on the Nefertiti question: the Hittite dossier does not name the queen; it says only that she was "the wife of the king" (taḫamunzu), that her husband Nibhururiya had died, that she had no son, that she would not marry a "servant", and that Hani called her "our lady ... solitary". If Nibhururiya is Akhenaten, the candidates are Nefertiti (if alive: Miller's, Reeves's, Belmonte's, Dodson's(?) choice) or Meritaten (Krauss 1978, Gabolde, Parker) or Kiya (Helck). The Hittite side cannot distinguish them; what it does supply is (i) an interregnum of c. 9-12 months after Akhenaten's death in which a woman exercised royal authority without a king, which would be the natural slot for the female ʿAnkh(et)kheprure Neferneferuaten only if she had not yet taken kingly titles (her second letter presupposes that Egypt needs a king), and (ii) the statement that she would rather take a foreign husband than elevate one of her own subjects, which sits awkwardly with a queen who then reigned as king herself. If Nibhururiya is Tutankhamun, the Hittite texts say nothing at all about the Akhenaten-Tutankhamun interval and the identity of Neferneferuaten must be settled on Egyptian evidence alone. My weighting: the Tutankhamun identification remains the majority handbook view because it costs nothing philologically and nothing on the "no son" point, and because the 1312 eclipse arithmetic is seductive; but its two ad-hoc requirements (a second Amqu campaign invisible in Egyptian sources; a half-year delay of the royal burial) are real. Miller's synchronism is the strongest single new datum since 1956 and, if Arma'a = Horemheb-before-accession holds, it is decisive for Akhenaten; it is contested on the spelling (Simon) and on the reading of KUB 19.15+ ii 2' (Wilhelm, Groddek), and it produces the lopsided Deeds. The 2010 DNA results (Tutankhamun as Akhenaten's son) raise the cost of the Akhenaten identification on the "no son" point considerably, and this is where the succession models should carry the argument: the Hittite evidence is consistent with either identification, is inconsistent with Smenkhkare, and can be made to favour Akhenaten only by accepting KUB 19.15+ as Miller reads it. --- ## 9. Coverage and gaps Read in full (a): Güterbock 1956 (all three parts, via archive.org OCR — Fragment 28 checked line by line; index and general comment); Federn 1960; Miller 2007 (entire); Devecchi-Miller 2011 (the sections on KUB 19.15+, Nibhururiya, Wilhelm-Boese, Babylonian synchronisms, the solar omen, conclusions — c. 60% of the article); Miller 2015 (AfO 53 review of Del Monte); Miller 2017 (the Egypt-Hatti pages); Rieken et al., CTH 378.2 online edition (§§1-9, score of §4); Košak's Konkordanz entries for CTH 40, 134, 154, 378, 379/72; Knudtzon 1915 for EA 9, 41, 170, 173-176 (OCR). Read in part / snippets (b): Kitchen 1962; Reeves 2001; Darnell-Manassa 2007 (on Gabolde); Zapletniuk 2021 (abstract page); Belmonte 2013/2022 (titles, abstract phrases); van Cleve 2021 (abstract). Known only via citation (c): Bryce 1990; van den Hout 1994; Wilhelm-Boese 1987; Wilhelm 2009/2012; Krauss 1978/1996/2007; Gabolde 1998/2001/2002/2015; Hoffner 1997 (COS); Singer 2002 (except the passage quoted by Miller); Beckman 1997/1999; Freu 2004/2008; Groddek 2002/2007; Simon 2009; Taracha 2008; Huber 2001; Parker 2002; Helck 1984/1994; Meyer 1992; Stavi 2015; Cordani 2011/2013; Stipich 2008; Breyer 2010; Dodson 2009/2018/2020. Gaps that matter for the models: (1) Stavi 2015's conclusion on Nibhururiya and his absolute dates — not obtained (all access routes 403); (2) Dodson's stated identification (2009: 89-94; 2018; 2020) — not verified; (3) Belmonte 2013 (open-access journal, PDF not reachable through the proxy) and 2022 — argument not read; (4) van den Hout 1994's actual restorations and the "falcon/chick" imagery; (5) Krauss 2007's exact reconstruction; (6) any 2019-2026 "Hittite chronology revised" papers (academia.edu only; author not identified); (7) the exact lines of EA 10/11 mentioning Mayati; (8) Hoffner's English wording of the two letters. None of these gaps affects the primary-text data in §§2-5, which are secured from Güterbock's edition, the Rieken score and Knudtzon.