When early historians mistakenly placed the 18th and 19th dynasties of Egypt in the 15th-13th centuries B.C. the ripple effects on the histories of multiple Aegean and Near Eastern civilizations were profound. The Empire kings of Hatti, the Minoan and Mycenean Greeks, multiple north Syrian confederacies including the north Syrian city states of Carchemish and Aleppo, as well as Ugarit and the cities of Amurru on the eastern Mediterranean coast, were all thrust back in time to a period four to five hundred years before they actually flourished, all because their histories were enmeshed with the reigns of the 18^th and 19^th dynasty Egyptian kings. And the error did not stop there. The Balkans and a host of European countries north and east of the Black Sea suffered the identical distortion of their ancient history. A gap of around 450 years was artificially created in the archaeological and cultural historical records at literally hundreds of sites in these and other contiguous locations throughout the near and middle east. So-called dark ages, lasting hundreds of years, appear mysteriously in cultures throughout much of this vast geographical area. Israel and Assyria alone (at least as far back as the 10^th century) - and to a lesser degree southern Syria - escaped this gross historical distortion, saved by the meticulous and continuous annals maintained by the two key nations, whose histories are linked by the occasional synchronism in the public records.

        This distortion of history has not gone unnoticed. On an ad hoc basis archaeologists and social historians have been dealing with it for over a hundred years. Revisionist historians have documented the error exhaustively and have repeatedly identified a faulty Egyptian chronology as its cause.

        Nowhere is the error more obvious than in northern Syria, which acts as a buffer state between the Hatti land and Assyria, and was at various times in the classical Hittite period part of the extended Hittite empire. The armies of multiple neo-Assyrian kings of the 9^th and 8^th centuries frequently visited the area with varying degrees of success, inevitably encountering city states allied with the Hittites, ruled by kings bearing names familiar from the Empire period of the nation.

        According to O.R.Gurney, the British scholar who first popularized the Hittite situation to the English speaking world,

in the sourth-eastern provinces of the Hittite Empire Hittite culture had a strange afterglow which lasted for no less than five centuries. Assyrian records continue to refer to Syria and the Taurus area as the 'Land of Hatti' and speak of kings bearing names like Sapalulme, Mutallu, Katuzili, and Lubarna (cf. Suppliluliumas, Muwatallis, Hattusilis or Kantuzzilis, Labarna) The Hittites p 39

        An explanation for the presence of these 9th/8th century "neo-Hittites" has been avidly sought by scholars. The prevailing theory traces their origins to southeastern Anatolia, where it is assumed that a remnant of Hittite culture was preserved following the 1200 B.C. destruction of the Hittite homeland further north. It is further assumed that after a lapse of several hundred years this hypothetical group extended its influence south and east into North Syria where over time it came to dominate the Aramean peoples then living in those regions, leaving for posterity a distinctive art form and multiple inscriptions in hieroglyphic Luwian, a branch of the Hittite language preserved from the Empire days. Again, according to Gurney ...

the language and the religion of these "Neo-Hittite" inscriptions are not those of the Hittites of Hattusas, nor are they those of the common people who had inhabited Syria under the Hittite Empire (for they were Hurrians). It seems that Syria must have been overrun by another people coming from one of the Hittite provinces, who had adopted the Hittite civilization. The Hittites p. 40

Paradoxically, remains of both cultures, supposedly separated in time by several centuries, have actually been found together at one site. This is Gordion, a Hittite settlement before it became the seat of the Midas dynasty. The final publication of the excavations is still awaited, but preliminary reports, together with extensive published analyses of the pottery, tell an intriguing story.
Gordion is generally agreed to have been sacked by the Cimmerians in the early 7th century B.C. From before the destruction three phases of painted Phrygian ware were discerned by the excavators, representing 100 years or so, and covering the period of the great Phrygian kingdom. Soundings taken from the underlying strata of earlier phases produced completely unsuspected results. Most Hittite settlements are sealed with a clear destruction level, separating them from any traces of subsequent occupation. No archaeological relationship between the Hittites and Phrygians had therefore been envisaged. At Gordion, however, there was no such break. Instead, the two cultures appear to have co-existed for a considerable time (Centuries of Darkness 139-140).

        Absolutely no archaeological record of the existence of the hypothetical neo-Hittite peoples exists anywhere in central Anatolia where it is most expected. And this is only the beginning of the problem. In the north Syrian homeland of the neo-Hittites the reverse situation holds. It is the Hittites that are missing from the archaeological record, at least in the time frame where the traditional history would place them. The matter requires a closer examination.
 

        According to Gurney the neo-Hitties cities, mentioned frequently in Assyrian records of the 9th/8th centuries, were in most instances founded only after the demise of the Hittite empire at the end of the 13th century. Thus scholars explain the absence of Hittite artifacts at multiple sites. Only a few cities are cited as exceptions.

The only common factors between the two epochs are Carchemish and the three cities of the Tyanitis (Hittite Tuwanuwa, Tunna, and Hupisna). Aleppo, one of the key-positions of imperial Hatti, appears as Halman and is of less importance than the upstart Arpad, its near neighbour to the north. All the other names are new, and many of them were probably new foundations. The Hittites p. 41

        It is well known that Carchemish was conquered (or reconquered) by Suppiluliumas sometime during his reign ⁽¹⁰⁾, and that one of his sons named Piyasili (Sarri-Kusuh in Hurrian) was installed as king of the city. The Hittites continued to hold the city, and maintain their domination over its assumed Hurrian population, through the balance of the Empire period, for upwards of 150 years. Thereafter the city apparently returned to its roots until (by degrees over several centuries) it was overrun by the neo-Hittites. By the time of the Assyrian kings Ashurnasirpal II (883-859) and Shalmaneser III (858-824) the city is clearly identified as neo-Hittite. If that history is correct, the archaeological record at the site should reveal three separate strata (or groups of strata), a neo-Hittite layer overlying a Hurrian substratum overlying the remnants of a Hittite city. Minimally there should exist clear evidence of two cities, representing the Hittite and neo-Hittite phases of occupation.

        On the other hand, if the revised history is correct, and the neo-Hittite confederacies are merely vassal states on the outer fringes of the Hittite Empire, as they appear to be from the language of the Assyrian documents, we expect to find a neo-Hittite city with supposed bronze age artifacts embedded, overlying a layer devoid of any associations with the classical Hittites.

        Excavation at Carchemish commenced in earnest in the early decades of the 20th century under Hogarth, assisted by Leonard Woolley et al. The work was all but complete by the beginning of WW11.   The archaeologists concentrated on the larger monumental works (palace, city gates, etc.) and only marginally on the city proper. To their surprise they found that the entire corpus of monumental stone sculptures and reliefs remaining at the site, including the "Herald's Wall" and the "Water Gate", was dateable to the neo-Hittite era, showing clear signs of Assyrian influence. The pottery on the site bore unmistakable affinities with that found in the nearby Yunus cemetery, dateable to the 8th/7th century B.C. No trace of the Hittite city was found, even though the excavation in the city proper penetrated the late bronze age level. Either the Hittite city had been leveled and rebuilt, or it had not existed at all. According to Hogarth there existed no construction, no artwork, no inscription at Carchemish which could be dated before the 12th century B.C., and even that early date has been seriously questioned by subsequent generations of Hittite specialists and art-historians, who would argue that the 9th century is a more likely terminus post quem.

        We are therefore presented with two distinct archaeological anomalies.   In Anatolia proper the problem centers on the fact that the Hittite stratum is immediately followed by the Phrygian, with no evidence of neo-Hittite occupation.  On the other hand in Carchemish,  representative of what is found at Malatya and Aleppo and elsewhere, we are confronted with a neo-Hittite layer dateable to the 9th/8th centuries with no apparent Hittite substratum.   The only possible solution to both problems is to identify the Hittite and neo-Hittite peoples as contemporaries, precisely the view espoused by (in fact demanded by) the revised chronology.

        At Carchemish, this thesis is supported by one additional series of finds by the excavators of the city. Though there was no trace of a Hittite city below the neo-Hittite remains, there was evidence that the Hittites and neo-Hittites were contemporaries. We let Peter James summarize some of the evidence from his chapter on "Redating the Hittite Empire". According to James ...

many artefacts of much earlier date were discovered in the Neo-Hittite city. Near the Water Gate was found a stone mace-head bearing a Pharaoh's name, probably Ramesses II. On a pavement which he dated no earlier than the 9th century BC, Woolley identified 'several late Mycenaean sherds and a piece of Cypriot Iron Age ware . . . These must have come from the Temple Treasury where they had been preserved for many generations. Excavating the Temple of the Storm God, he discovered a basalt stela which, as well as mentioning a 'Great King', is surmounted by a winged disc, the symbol of imperial power - it was evidently a relic from the Empire ... In a tomb securely dated to the 7th century BC, Woolley found a series of small gold figures which bear a striking resemblance to the pantheon of the frieze at Yazilikaya, conventionally dated to the 13th century BC. Hans Guterbock noted that this discovery 'links the Late Hittite period with the time of the Empire ... There is no doubt that both in style and in subjects these figures ... are Hittite in the sense of the Hittite Empire at Boghazkoy.' Yet he wondered: 'How did carvings of the thirteenth century get into a tomb of the seventh? Woolley himself considered that the jewellery was manufactured during Neo-Hittite times, but in a style which had, somehow, been preserved for 500 years. Guterbock preferred to see them as heirlooms, brought to Carchemish by the Imperial Hittites and 'kept in the treasury in spite of the change in domination', or, alternatively, that they had been carried there by migrating Hieroglyphic Hittites who had joined in the looting of the Late Bronze Age centres when they were sacked by barbarian invaders around 1200 BC. CD 128-129 (emphasis added)

        Let the reader judge the merits of the case thus far presented. To extend our argument further we turn our attention to the Hittite Empire kings themselves, in hopes of fixing their reigns more firmly in the 9th/8th centuries where our revised history has positioned them
 

        Only two kings by the name Suppiluliumas are known to have ruled in the entire 500 plus year span of Hittite history, which according to the traditional history lasted from around 1750 B.C. through to the end of the 13^th century. Scholars are generally agreed these two kings began and ended the "Empire Period" of the nation, and have assigned them the dates 1375-1335 B.C. and ca 1200 B.C. respectively.  In the revised history they have been dated to the years 908-858 B.C. and 765-760 B.C.   We wonder if their existence was noted by the inhabitants of Anatolia and north Syria in the 9th and 8th centuries.
 

Suppiluliumas I

        The Beginning of his reign: It is widely known that Suppiluliumas I corresponded with an Egyptian king of the late 19th dynasty. At least one Amarna letter (EA 41) purports to originate from him, addressed to an Egyptian king named Huriya, generally understood to be the Hittite rendering of kheperure, one element in the prenomen of all the terminal kings of the 19th dynasty from Akhenaten through Horemheb. If so the name could, in theory, belong to any of these kings. The recipient, if our chronology is correct, could be Ay, Tutankhamon, Smenkare or Horemheb. ⁽¹¹⁾ Whoever he was, the letter informs us that Suppiluliumas had earlier communicated with his father and that his request at the time, presumably for gold, had been granted. We assume therefore that the recipient of the letter has just come into power and that Suppiluliumas was at least several years into his kingship. The present letter is a modest request for a few gold and silver statues, plus a piece of lapiz lazuli. The messenger who brought the letter was the bearer of a number of inconsequential greeting gifts for the Egyptian king.

        Because of the confused conditions of the time we are unable to definitively name the Egyptian king in question. It may have been Tutankhamon, though we suspect it was Horemheb.  Huriya is more likely an abbreviated form of Hera(-em-heb) than an attempt to approximate the sound of the Egyptian "kheperure".   Elsewhere we have conjectured that Horemheb's name was shortened to Zerah by Jewish historians.  It is conceivable that Hera, Zerah, and Huriya are all approximations of the sound of the Egyptian phoneme for the name of the god Hera. Though scholars have insisted that the Amarna letters all date from the reigns of the three kings Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and Tutankhamon, we repeat our earlier suggestion that the Amarna period may have lasted briefly into the reign of Horemheb, at least the use of Akhetaten/Amarna as a base for governmental correspondence.   In our estimation the destruction of the site awaited the reigns of Seti I and his son Ramses II, an opinion already expressed and one that is not without supporting argument.

        Though we may never know precisely to whom Suppiluliumas wrote the Amarna letter EA41 we can estimate approximately when it was written. We have previously conjectured that Ay, Tutankhamon and Horemheb may all have come to power during the last fifteen years of the tenth century. If we are correct in our theory that Tutankhamon followed Ay, and that he in turn was followed by Horemheb, with or without an interregnum, then Tutankhamon and Horemheb began their kingships somewhere in the time frame 910-897 B.C.. We date the letter of Suppiluliumas somewhere in this range of dates  (though we should point out that nothing precludes our lengthening his reign to sixty years and maintaining the chronology established in the last chapter).

        Though the traditional history suggests that the Suppiluliumas letter was written in the last years of this king's forty to fifty year rule, we believe otherwise.  It is hard to imagine that the writer of this document, begging for gold,  is a seventy or eighty year old man at the pinnacle of his illustrious reign, head of an empire which includes almost all of ancient Anatolia, extending beyond the Euphrates into the former domains of Mitanni, and including most of northern Syria.  If anything, the letter tells us that the reign of Suppiluliumas has just begun.  Ten to twenty years in the future he will establish his empire, capture Washuganni and Carchemish and extend his suzerainty over much of north Syria and the Mediterranean coast.  In our earlier table of Hittite kings we dated the beginning of the reign of Suppiluliumas to the year 908 B.C., admittedly only an educated guess.  The Amarna letter must date several years later.

        Fortunately we can be more precise regarding the end of his kingship.
 

        The End of his reign.    It is well known that the Assyrian king Shalmanezer III, in the first year of his kingship, thus in 858 B.C., determined to extend his inherited empire into North Syria. His annals give abundant detail of his trans-Euphrates campaign, beginning, while still east of the great River, with multiple attacks on the cities governed by Ahuni, the "king" of the state of Bit-Adini, a land mass which extended from the Euphrates to the Habur. He then crossed the Euphrates and fought a battle against a coalition of states including Ahuni's trans-Euphrates domains and against "neo-Hittite" forces from Carchemish and Hattina, ruled respectively by Sangara and Sapalulme. Successful in this battle he then swept across the Syrian highlands to the Mediterranean, boasting how he washed his weapons in the Sea.. The inscription which records his victorious march begins

I am) Shalmanezer, the legitimate king, the king of thej world, the king without rival, ... the son ofAshurnasirpal ... (grand) son of Tukulti-Ninurta ... a conqueror from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea (to wit) the countries  Hatti, Luhuti, Adri, Lebanon (Lab-na-na), Que, Tabali, Militene (Me-li-di)d; who has visited the sources of (both) the Tigris and the Euphrates. ANET 276

I swept over Hatti, in its full extent, (making it look) like ruin-hills (left) by the flood .... (thus) I spread the terror-inspiring glare of my rule over Hatti. ANET 277

        Confirmation that we are correct, and that Sapalulme is not a regional king from an area north of Carchemish is found elsewhere in Shalmanezer's first year inscription.   En route to the Mediterranean the Assyrian king crossed the Orontes and again encountered Sapalulme, who was now defending the fortress town of Alimush and is identified as its suzerain. There Sapalulme summoned aid from his dependencies, including assistance from Ahuni, chief of the land of Bit-Adini east of the Euphrates, the same man who had participated earlier in the defense of Carchemish.   The domains of Sapalulme clearly extend from Carchemish on the Euphrates to Alimush by the Mediterranean.

From the mountain of Amanus I departed, crossed the Orontes river (A-ra-an-tu) and approached Alimush, the fortress town of Sapalulme from Hattina. To save his life, Sapalulme from Hattina [called for] Ahuni, man of Adini, Sangara from Carchemish, Halanu from Sam'al, Kate from Que, Pihirim from Hilukka, Bur-Anate from Iasbuq, Ada [...] ... Assyria ...[their/his army] I scattered, I stormed and conquered the town ... I carried away as booty ..., his horses, broken to the yoke. I slew with the sword ... During this battle I personally captured Bur-Anate from [Izbuk]. I con[quered] the great cities (mahazu) of Hattina, I overthrew the ... of the Upper [Sea] of Amurru and of the Western Sea (so that they became like ruin-hills (left by) the flood. ANET 278

        1) In Shalmanezer's annals we note the prominence of "Sangara from Carchemish", apparently a close ally of Sapalulme. It is assumed by scholars that this individual is the "king" of Carchemish, though in the reign of Ashurnasirpal this same individual is identified as a "king of Hatti".   Shalmanezer fails to specify his titles. We know from Hittite documents that a brother of Supiluliuma named Piyasili (in Hurrian - Sarre Kusuh), was appointed "king of Carchemish", perhaps as early as 885 B.C., the date when we assume the Hittites captured Carchemish, and from that base he acted as the major domo of North Syria, in command of the army. His "reign" extended at least to the ninth year of Mursilis II (849 B.C.), when he died. Sangara disappears from the scene around the same time. It is possible, though by no means certain, that Sangara and Sarre Kusuh are one and the same person. In a later section we will have cause to discuss this situation.

        2) It is probable that the plague which ravaged the Hittite homeland toward the end of the reign of Suppiluliumas both precipitated Shalmanezer's tour of conquest and explains its success.  Suppiluliuma might already be ill.  Sickness has no doubt depleted the strength of the army.

        3) By Shalmanezer's third year (856 B.C.) Suppiluliumas has died and his son Arnuwandas has suffered the identical fate. The reign of Mursilis has begun. We note from Mursilis' annals that in his first year he was beset with revolt on all fronts of his empire. He confirmed the appointment of Sarre Kusuh in Carchemish, but concentrated his effort on recovering the province of Arzawa in south-western Anatolia. Meanwhile Shalmanezer continued to visit the Euphrates region in his second, third and fourth years, 857-855, concentrating his energy on defeating Ahuni, ruler of Bit-Adini, whose extensive domains between the Balih and Euphrates Rivers we have mentioned previously.  By 855 Ahuni is captured and his land annexed and re-populated by Assyrians.  Small wonder that Mursilis is concerned to reconfirm Sarre Kusuh and that in his annals he expresses anxiety concerning the "man of Assyria".

        4) While there is no mention of Mursilis in Shalmanezer's annals, there is mention in year one of a "Mutalli from Gurgame", a region in the vicinity of Tubal, about a third of the way from Carchemish toward Hattusas, the Hittite capital. Apparently some of Shalmanezer's troops journeyed slightly north of the direct route from Carchemish to the Sea, and received "the tribute of Mutalli from Gurgume (to wit): silver, gold, large and small cattle, wine (and) his daughter with her big dowry" (ANET 277)  If Mursilis was in his forties when he became king, his son Muwatallis could easily be the king in question, delegated the responsibility of guarding the route to the Hittite homeland. The resemblance of the name is striking. We have already argued that by Mursilis' forteenth or fifteenth year Muwatallis was likely elevated to kingship to assist his father.

        5) The critic might argue against our thesis by noting that Shalmanezer's father Ashurnasirpal (883-859 B.C.) refers to a "city of Kunulua, the royal residence of Lubarna from Hattina".  If Suppiluliuma ruled from 908-858 B.C. (or thereabouts), it might fairly be asked why a king Lubarna was ruling in that same time frame.  There are two possible answers to the objection. In the first place the text does not state, nor provide any hint, that this Hittite king was the "great king of Hatti" as opposed to a relative of the king ruling over the specified city.  Labarna was the name of the first great king of Hatti, borne by at least one other "great king", Hatusillis I, who used it as an alternative name, this long before the Empire period. Who knows how many Hittite princes bore the same name in generations following. On the other hand, the name may refer to Suppiluliumas himself, possibly as an alternative name, but more likely as a title.  It is well known that the title par excellence of the Hittite kings was Tabarna (meaning "great king") and that this name probably derives from the name of Labarna, the revered first great king of Hatti.   It is assumed by scholars that the original Hittite name had a sound intermediate between Tabarna and Labarna, leading to confusion as to how to pronounce it.  The initial letter varies in the inscriptions. We assume therefore that the Assyrians merely interpreted the title as a personal name, and that Labarna in the annals is nothing more than the title "great king", used in reference to Suppiluliumas I ⁽¹²⁾

        Having said that, we move on to the second Suppiluliumas. .
 

Suppiluliumas II

        In the traditional history Suppiluliumas II ruled for an unspecified number of years around 1200 B.C.. He was possibly, though not certainly, the son of Tudhaliyas IV and he apparently replaced his brother Arnuwandas IV on the Hittite throne when this king died. Thus the second of the namesake kings ruled about 135 years after the death of Suppiluliumas I (1375-1335 B.C.). In the revised history we have shortened the time span from the death of the first to the beginning of the reign of the second to approximately 90 years, most of the change resulting from our shortening of the reigns of Mursilis II and Muwatallis. We have dated the reign of Suppiluliumas II to the years 765-760 B.C. We could be in error by as much as three or four years. Regardless, his reign must lie in the middle decades of the 8th century. We should seek for information regarding him from those living around that time.  Fortunately, record of one of his military campaigns has recently come to light.

        The Incirli Stele.   In 1993, during an archaeological survey in the Karamanmarash region of southeastern Turkey, in the village of Incirli, Elizabeth Carter, working for the UCLA archaeological team, discovered an iron age stela very badly preserved. ⁽¹³⁾ Using sophisticated imaging techniques a preliminary transliteration and translation was produced several years later, with work still ongoing. A description of the stela and tentative description of its contents have been published.by the translators Bruce Zuckerman and Stephen Kaufman. ⁽¹⁴⁾

The Incirli Stela contains a lengthy text written on all four sides of the stone in standard Phoenician of the late 8th century BCE. It is a commemorative boundary inscription marking the successful end of a territorial struggle between the kings of Cilicia (Que) and Kummuh and the various allied powers, presumably over the territory where the monument was originally erected. Since it seems clear that the monument was reused much later as a boundary stone with a Greek inscription of the Byzantine period, we cannot necessarily assume that the earlier text should be associated with the specific locale where the stone was discovered in 1993. Still, considering its size and weight, it seems unlikely that it had been moved very far from where it was first erected.
In the first part of the inscription, the subject whose exploits are commemorated in first person narrative (apparently, King Awarikku of Que, known previously from the famous Karatepe bilingual inscription) recounts two successive battles - an earlier battle serving essentially as a prelude to the conflict that is the main concern of the text. This earlier battle was instigated by Suppiluliumas of Kummuh against Que and the Danunites. The inscription provides totally new information about the Luwian city states of this period. Apparently, Que was originally a part of a larger kingdom (of the Danunites) centered at Tabal, for the last known king of Tabal - Wasurmas - was the father of the writer of the Incirli Stele and is described here as king of the Danunites. Tabal was conquered by the infamous Warpalawas (ally of Midas), leaving Que itself as the sole domain of the Danunites. It appears that the first war described in our text involves a recounting of this setback for the Danunites. According to our text, the king commemorated on this stele then killed Warpalawas, prompting the subsequent war described in the second half of the text. (emphasis added)

        1) The inscription is most reasonably dated to late in the third quarter of the 8th century, thus around the year 735 B.C., based on several criteria. In the first place the translators have determined that the inscription is composed in the "standard Phoenician of the late 8th century, which could suggest a date as late as 700 B.C.. Secondly, the king Awarikku, son of Wasurmas, who authored the Incirli stele is known from the Karatepe inscriptions, which scholars have dated as early as the late 9th century to as late as the second half of the 8th century The two factors together suggest a date earlier rather than later in the second half of the 8th century.

        2) Wasurmas, the father of Awarikku (and thus a generation removed from the stele's author) was apparently the last king of the Danunites at a time when their kingdom extended northward into Tabal.   Involved in the downfall of the Tabal area of the kingdom was "the infamous Warpalawas" an ally of a Phrygian king named Midas. This cannot be the "Midas (Mi-ta-a) king of Musku" repelled by the Assyrian king Sargon (722-705 B.C.) during an invasion of the Kasku lands and the regions of Tabal and Cilicia sometime early in his reign. ⁽¹⁵⁾ It is claimed by scholars that this later Midas ruled approximately from 728-688 B.C. when he died in an invasion by the Cimmerians. This would necessitate dating Awarikku (and thus the Karatepe inscriptions which name him) in the middle of the 7th century, where they clearly do not belong. Besides, the Incirli stele knows nothing of an invasion of Tabal by Sargon; suggesting instead that Warpalawas (and Midas? and Suppiluliumas?) were the invaders. The Midas of the Incirli inscription must be two generations removed from the namesake who ruled in the time of Sargon. He was probably the grandfather of the latter. If we are correct regarding this earlier Midas we should date him around the years 770-750 B.C.

        3) Confirmation of our opinion concerning Midas can be found in the Hittite archives. In the correspondence belonging to the reign of Arnuwandas IV, the immediate predessesor of Suppiluliumas II, to whom we have assigned the dates 775-765 B.C., there is record of the activities of a king Mitas (Midas) in north-western Anatolia. We listen to Gurney describe the situation.

But the days of the Hittite Empire were already numbered. Under the next king, Arnuwandas IV, the situation in the west rapidly deteriorated. Madduwattas made common cause with Attarissiyas, and though the Hittite king in a lengthy rescript addresses him as nothing more than a disloyal vassal, we sense an entirely new situation in that area. In particular, we are told that Madduwattas took the whole land of Arzawa. "At the same time another adventurer names Mitas was active in the eastern hills where had formerly been the kingdom of Hayasa; the identity of his name with that of the king of the Mushki of the eighth century B.C. who is usually equated with the Phrygian Midas of Greek tradition, may be no more than coincidence, but it is possible that the Mushki (classical Moschi) were already in this region and that Mitas was a dynastic name. The Hittites p. 38-39

        With Arnuwandas moved to the years 775-765 B.C. the coincidence disappears entirely, yet another by-product of the errant Egyptian chronology which concerns us in this series. The end of the reign of Arnuwandas lies approximately where we have positioned Wasurmas, the father of Awarikku. It must therefore be the time of the king Midas referred to in the Injirli stele and of the Suppiluliumas who conducted one of the wars which ended the Tubal kingdom of the Danunans. And since, in the revised history, the Hittite king Suppiluliumas II followed Arnuwandas II, and ruled for several years, there should be no doubt that the neo-Hittite and Hittite kings by this name are in fact the same person.

        We let Gurney continue his discourse, describing the death of Arnuwandas and the end of the Hittite Empire.

Be that as it may, we know that great mass-movements of population were afoot which the brittle Hittite confederacy was utterly unable to withstand. The edicts of Arnuwandas contain no hint of the approaching doom, and he may not have lived to see the catastrophe. A single document suggests that he was succeeded by his brother, a second Suppiluliumas, but the reign of the latter must have been short. The records of Ramesses III tell how the isles were disturbed and the Hittites with other peoples fled into Syria in a great invasion which, in conjunction with the 'Peoples of the Sea', menaced Egypt ... In Asia Minor, to judge from Homeric legend, the Phrygians soon replaced the Hittites as the dominant power. The Hittites p. 39

        It is surely more than coincidence that the reigns of these two neo-Hittite kings by the name Suppiluliumas lie in the identical time frame that we have assigned to their Hittite counterparts in the revised chronology.  And how fortunate for our revision that a king Midas is conveniently present at the time of the second Suppiluliumas in both instances.
 

Other Parallels

        Having established that Suppiluliumas I and II lived at the beginning of the 9th and middle of the 8th centuries respectively, we wonder if parallels might be found for those kings intermediate between them. It is unfortunate that we cannot use the established synchronisms between Muwatallis, Hattusilis III and Ramses II to buttress our argument, since those were used to position the Hittite Empire in its revised setting. If we are to avoid a circular argument what is needed are links between the intermediate Hittite kings and the Assyrians. Fortunately there do exist documents which provide such cross references, though the evidence is mitigated somewhat by the fact that the Assyrian names used in the Hittite texts were used by more than one Assyrian king.  For the record, however, we cite the evidence. ⁽¹⁶⁾

        At least one document (KBo I 20) makes explicit reference to a king Adad-nirari, though unfortunately the Hittite king is not named. It is attributed to Hattusilis III by scholars, based exclusively on the traditionally accepted dates for Adad-nirari I and Hattusilis III. We assume it was written by Tudhaliyas IV (800-775), who was contemporary with Adad-nirari III (791-782).

        Fully three documents have been held to synchronize the Assyrian king Shalmaneser I with the Hittite kings Hattusilis III and Tudhaliyas IV, again based largely on the dates of these kings in the traditional history. Two of the documents in question (KUB XXIII 99; and RS 34.165) do contain the name of a king Tudhaliyas, but the name of Hattusilis is entirely absent from the third (KUB XXIII 88). We assume all three originate from Tudhaliyas IV (800-775) but that the recipient is Shalmanezer IV (781-772).

        A single document (KUB XXVI) was written by an unnamed Hittite official (king?) to a an Assyrian prince named Tukulti-Ninurta. In addressing Tukulti-Ninurta the sender makes reference to "the king of Assyria your father to whom Urhi-Teshub had (previously) written", a remark that establishes two things: a) that the sender is most likely Hattusilis III or Tudhaliyas IV, the two kings who followed immediately the reign of Urhi-Teshub, and b) that the recipient is the son of the former king, and apparently not the king in his own right.   We mention the document only because scholars have used it to establish a correspondence between Tudhaliyas IV and Tukulti-Ninurta I, something it definitely does not do. In the revised history the recipient, the prince Tukulti-Ninurta, must have been a son Shalmanezer III, assuming we understand the term "father" literally. The reign of Shalmanezer III (858-824) overlaps the reign of Urhi-Teshub (832-825) in the chronology outlined above.

        One Hittite document alone could be considered a problem for the revised history.  KUB III 74 is a letter sent from a king Tudhaliyas to a king Tukulti-Ninurta, absent any indication as to which Tudhaliyas wrote the letter or which country the recipient ruled over.  The traditional history considers this document as support for their contention that Tudhaliyas IV was a contemporary of the late 13th century Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I, a stretch considering the lack of specificity in the naming of the key players. The "Centuries of Darkness" authors consider the same document, in combination with KUB XXVI (see above), as support for their thesis that Tudhaliyas IV was a contemporary of the tenth century Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta II. Both groups consider that the Tukulti-Ninurta in both KUB III 74 and KUB XXVI are the same person. They may be correct, but the matter is certainly not well established.

        If we assume that the two references to Tukulti-Ninurta are to the same person and that this individual is an Assyrian prince/king (an assumption we are by no means obliged to make), there are two scenarios which might account for all the data.  Both assume that this dignitary Tukulti-Ninurta was the son of Shalmanezer III.

        The first possibility results from the chaotic state of affairs which prevailed at the end of the reign of Shalmanezer III.   It is well known that during the final ten years of his reign this Assyrian king faced increasing opposition at home from within his own family.  His ambition to extend his empire abruptly ceased.  “After a last attempt to conquer Damascus in 838 B.C. the Assyrian confessed his failure by leaving Syria alone for the rest of his reign” (Roux, Ancient Iraq, p. 276). [As a result, both Hatti and Egypt renewed their interest in the area, resulting in the ill fated but famous battle of Kadesh in 835 B.C. between Hattusilis and Ramses II]   In the final years of Shalmanezer’s reign there erupted a full blown civil war, which extended five years beyond his death.    According to the historian Georges Roux:

The end of Shalmanezer’s long reign was darkened by extremely serious internal disorders.  One of his sons, Ashur-danin-apli, revolted and with him twenty-seven cities, including Assur, Nineveh, Erbil and Arrapha (Kirkuk).  The old king, who by then hardly left his palace in Nimrud, entrusted another of his sons, Shamshi-Adad, with the task of repressing the revolt, and for four years Assyria was in the throes of civil war.   The war was still raging when Shalmanezer died and Shamshi-Adad V ascended the throne (824).  With the new king began a period of Assyrian stagnation which lasted nearly a century.  Ancient Iraq p. 277

        A second possibility takes us to the end of the reign of Shamshi Adad V(823-810)  When this son of Shalmanezer III died in 810 B.C. the kingship passed to his son Adad-Nirari, who was still an infant.   The Assyrian eponym canon assumes that Adad-Nirari began his kingship immediately.   But in fact others ruled in his stead during his infancy. There are conflicting theories as to what transpired over the first five to ten years of his childhood, until the young boy reached maturity.   According to some sources Assyria was ruled by the wife of Shamshi-Adad, a queen named Shammuramat.  Others claim that much of the governing of the country should be credited to an official named Bel-tartsi-ilu-ma, the dedicant of many inscriptions, whose authority extended over several provinces.   Some early scholars identify Shammuramat as the wife of this official.   We see no reason why under these circumstances an elderly son of Shalmanezer III named Tukulti-Ninurta, an uncle of the boy-king, might not have had a hand in governing a portion of the country.   If so, we understand why he is omitted from the Assyrian king-lists.  We also understand the ambivalence of the Hittite authors in addressing this dignitary.

        We admit that these are purely hypothetical constructs.   We have no proof that Shalmanezer had a son named Tukulti-Ninurta, nor that he acted in a quasi-regal capacity during the civil upheal which ended his father’s reign or during the infancy of his nephew.  But barring evidence to the contrary these remain  possibilities and they do explain the details of the Hittite correspondence.   And they are just two among many hypotheticals.   The matter needs to be investigated further.

        We have omitted one further important set of synchronisms, those between Tudhaliya IV and the Achaeans and the Trojans of Homeric legend. They deserve a chapter unto themselves.

        We have also omitted a detailed year by year comparison between the reigns of the Hittite kings, insofar as they are known, and the reigns of the Assyrian, Syrian and Israelite kings of the 9th and 8th centuries. While such an analysis might prove helpful it would detract at the moment from the broader picture we are attempting to create. Both in the comments above, and in those which immediately follow we are painting with a wide brush, fulfilling the role of the classical underpainter. Let others with more patience and skill add detail to the canvas.