With this book Stefano de Martino offers a concise, informative, and up-to-date profile of Hittite political history. The bulk of the book is presented in the first four chapters, corresponding to the four periods by which the author frames the Hittite “parabola”: the Old Assyrian Colony period, the Old Kingdom, the New Kingdom, and the transition to the Iron Age. Indeed, the author embraces a pure bipartite framing of the Hittite Kingdom, and opposes the use of the label “Empire” for any period of Hittite history. Kinglists, regional maps and carefully compiled indices complete the book.
The strength of de Martino's publication lies in the fortunate combination of three qualities: clarity, precision and balance. Concise yet informative writing succeeds in conveying a remarkably detailed exposition of the political history of the kingdom of Hatti in just 105 pages. The intricate questions of historical interpretation and dating are never simplified, but concisely sketched out, with the crucial bibliographic references provided. The richness and mastery of de Martino's bibliography make this book a useful reference tool not only for the targetted student audience, but also for specialists. The secondary literature referred to throughout is coherently restricted to the most recent editions or treatments; unfortunately, the excellent digital editions of the Hethitologie Portal Mainz are not taken into account. Other assets lie in the book's sensitivity to issues of archaeological dating and in the balanced attitude to contested topics: de Martino presents the main arguments favouring the analysis he supports, with alternative interpretations equally referred to. He sides with A. Archi in assuming that the chancery of Ḫattuša started to write in Hittite already with Ḫattušili I, takes Tanuḫeba as the wife of Muwattalli II, and considers unlikely the hypothesis of a coup d’état by Kuruntiya. Occasionally, arguments are discussed in greater detail, as is the case against the existence of a Ḫattušili II in the Early New Kingdom (p. 38).
In an audacious move, homonymous rulers are numbered according to their actual place in the sequence established by current research, rather than by traditional conventions. Thus, Ḫuzziya ‘0’ becomes Ḫuzziya I, Ḫattušili III (the contemporary of Ramesses II) becomes Ḫattušili II, and so on: readers who are unfamiliar with the field are warned. Also, names written in cuneiform with signs of the Š-series are rendered by means of simple ‘s’ if Hittite (since we know that the corresponding fricative was not palatal), whereas ‘sh’ is used in all other cases (the reader should keep in mind, however, that Š is thought to be non-palatal in Hurrian as well as in various phases of Akkadian). The book is well edited and very few misprints were noticed (unfortunate is KBo 12.38 instead of KBo 12.39 on p. 105). A general overview on the material conditions of Bronze Age Anatolia and on social and political institutions, as well as a schema of the Hittite royal dynasty and more accurate geographical maps, would constitute desirable additions for a new edition of the book. All in all, the author confirms his reputation as one of the leading scholars for Hittite political history and provides the Italian-reading audience with a most useful reference tool.
Selected remarks: (i) Old Hittite royal family. There is no assurance either that Ḫuzziya I was the grandfather of Ḫattušili I, or that Pawaḫtelmaḫ was a son of Ḫuzziya I, as stated on p. 21 (cf. R. Beal, Studies Hoffner, 16 fn. 16, note also that Otten did not actually see the tail of BU on the photo, but rather “thought to see” it). Further, de Martino does not mention Pimpira, who likely acted as regent to the young Mursili I (R. Beal, ibid., p. 15 fn. 14). The crucial passage for the determination of Pimpira's position within the royal family is to be found in the so-called Palace Chronicle, recently revisited by A. Gilan in his excellent Formen und Inhalte althethitischer historischer Literatur, Heidelberg, 2015 (pp. 125, 130). But Gilan does not discuss the expression “son of the heart”, which shows that Pimpira (and Ammuna) were biological sons of the “father of the king” (i.e. of Ḫattušili I): see for this M. Cammarosano, Il decreto antico-ittita di Pimpira, Firenze, 2006, 48–58, and cf. Hieroglyphic Luwian za + ra/i-ta-si-na “(child) of the heart” > “own (child)” in the KÖRKÜN inscription (see J.D. Hawkins, CHLI I/1, 173, 175). I also disagree with Gilan's arguments against the traditional restoration P[ANI ABI L]UGAL in KBo 3.34 iii 15’ (p. 130): ABI LUGAL is written as a single element throughout the tablet and the word spacing is entirely compatible with that reading. (ii) Queen Tanuḫeba. De Martino is right in considering Tanuheba the spouse of Muwattalli II, but he comes to this conclusion by the wrong argument (p. 72). The final publication of the royal seal impressions from the Nişantepe archive (S. Herbordt et al., Die Siegel der Grosskönige und Grossköniginnen auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa, Darmstadt/Mainz 2011) made it clear that the only support for the attribution of the impressions of a dextroverse Muršili with Tanuḫeba to Muršili II is the presence – as tutelary deity – of the “Mighty Storm god”, whom we know to have been patron god of this king. The direction of the “dagger” plays no role in this question. Since nothing prevents Muršili III from sharing a tutelary god with his homonymous grandfather, and as the textual evidence continues to point to Tanuḫeba being the spouse of Muwattalli II (as admitted by Hawkins apud Herbordt et al., cited, p. 93), it is unfortunate that many colleagues persist in embracing “an altogether more complicated picture” (Hawkins, ibid.; see e.g. J. Miller, BSOAS 77/1, 198). For details on the Tanuḫeba question see M. Cammarosano, Mesopotamia 45, 50–55 and I. Singer, Bibliotheca Orientalis 70, 11 with literature.
