HITTITE KINSHIP A~ID MARRIAGE. A STUDY BASED ON THE CUNEIFORf-t TEXTS FRm

366 Pages·2013·27.54 MB·English

1
HITTITE KINSHIP MARRIAGE. A STUDY
A~ID
BASED ON THE CUNEIFORf-t TEXTS FRm~ 2ND rULLEIDUUM BO(}AZKOy.
BY
JACQUELINE UARIE PRINGLE
SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES
A THESIS SUBMITTED
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
1993
·
~..'
PAGE
NUMBERING
\.
AS ORIGINAL
'r ,
--:--...
;
"
ABSTRACT OF THESIS 2
The Preface explains the background and attendant prob
lems to our study, which aims to examine the contextual
evidence from Bo~azkBy for the structure of Hittite kinship
in Second Hillennium Anatolia, and consequently to argue
that this was bilateral with a patrilineal bias. This coun
ters contentions that a matrilineal (even "matriarchal")
substructure explains certain facets of Hittite marriage
and inheritance and incidents in the dynastic succession.
The eight chapters are followed by three complementary
appendices. Chapter I examines the known consanguineal kin
ship terms, noting particularly that anninniyamis "cousin",
designated the matrilateral and patrilateral cousin, with
the exception, apparently, of the father's brother's child.
This indicates a joint family organised on a patrilineal
although bilateral basis. Such bilaterality is corroborat
ed by the examination in Chapter II of terms including
those for "family", "clan", and "kindred".
Chapter III provides a link with the ensuing study of
various facets of marriage by considering the concepts
regarding men and women, and their respective roles in
Hittite culture and society. We conclude that, despite an
obvious dominance by men in most aspects of Hittite life,
there was a notable cooperation of men and women not only
in their domestic economy, indicative of a bilateral kin
ship system, but also in the sphere of socio-religious
activity, which resembled marital cooperation.
Chapters IV and V introduce the subject of marriage by
examining betrothal, prohibitions against incest, then
terms for marriage and affines. Chapter VI discusses mainly
the evidence of the Hittite Laws for "Types of Marriage",
followed by an assessment in Chapters VII and VIII of exam
ples of marriages in the categories: "Interdynastic", "Eq
ual Status", and "Sacred and Priestly". Among other pOints
in Summary, we note: bilateral exogamy; preference for
marriages between same status families; the importance of
honour and prestige; concern for the descendant generations
resulting from affinity.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
VOLUME 1
TITLE-PAGE
1
ABSTRACT ••.•
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
ABBREVIATIONS 6
PREFACE • • • 7
CHAPTER I. CONSANGUINEAL KINSHIP TERMS · • 11
§1. INTRODUCTION •.•.
• • 11
§2. THE NUCLEAR FAMILY.
• • 13
i. FATHER · • 13
ii. rlfOTHER 20
iii. SON • 23
iv. DAUGHTER • • 33
v. BROTHER •••.•. • 36
vi. SISTER •••••••• • • 44
§3. ASCENDANTS AND DESCENDANTS 48
vii. GRANDFATHER •••.•••• • • • 48
viii. GRANDHOTHER ••.•••.••••••••••• 53
ix. GRANDSON(/CHILD), GREAT GRANDSON(/CHILD) •.•• 56
x. GRANDDAUGHTER • • 61
xi. GREAT GRANDSON/CHILD - SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS. 61
§ 4. COLIIATRRALS • . • • . . • . • . • • • • • . • • • 62
xii. COUSIN •..•• • 62
xiii. UNCLE AND AUNT ••• . 69
xiv. NEPHEW •..•.•• 71
xv. NIECR • • 73
CHAPTER II. FM1ILY, CLAN, KINDRED, AND DESCENDANTS. 74
'v
§1. MAS/hassatar "FAMILY" • •. • .•• • • • 74
§2. NUMUN "SEED; LINEAGE; CLAN" 84
§3. pankur "KINDRED" 100
v ...
§4. SA BAL.BAL ••• 115
§5. hart/dus "SUCCESSOR; GREAT GREAT-GRANDSON"? • 117
§6. SUMMARY A. KINSHIP TFHMS •••.••••••. 121
B. FAMILY STRUCTURE. • ••••• 122
CHAPTER III. "CATEGORIES OF MAllE AND FEMALE" I'TITH THE
HITTITES •• .•• . • . • •• 124
§1 INTRODUCTION . • • • • • • • • • . . • •• •• 124
§2. MAN AND RELATED TERMS. • • 121~
TABLF, OF CONTENTS 4
i. THE WORDS FOR "MAN" •••••.•••• 124
ii. OTHER MALE CHARACTERISTICS •••••• • 128
iii. THE FIGURATIVE USE OF H'EAPONS • • 133
~~ILITAR.Y
§3. "WOMAN" AND RELATED CONCEPTS AND TERMS .•••. 135
i. THE WORDS FOR "HOMAN" • • • . • . 135
ii. THE EARTH AS FEMALE . • • • • • • • • 141
iii. THE SUFFIX -sepa- . • • • • • • • • • 143
iv. THE LUWIAN SUFFIX -wiva- • • • • • • •• . 144
v. FEHININE CHARACTERISTICS . • • • • . •. . 145
S4. CLOTHING AS A SYMBOL OF GENDER • • • . . 150
§5. TEE SYMBOJ-lISM OF AGRICULTURF. . • • • • •• • 157
§6. THE "DIVISION OF LABOUR" BETHEEN MEN AND "TOMEN •• 159
§7. ANOMALIES •••••••••.••.•••.••• 175
58. CONCLUSION •••.••.•••.•••..••• 178
CHAPTER IV. BETROTHAL; PROHIBITIONS AGAINST INCEST • • 181
§ 1. INTRODTJCTION • •• .•••••.••• • 181
§ 2. BETROTHAL • • • • • • • • . . • • . . • •. • 182
§3. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST INCEST • 200
CHAPTER V. TERMS FOR MARRIAGE AND AFFINES 209
§1. TERMS FOR MARRIAGE •••..•• 209
§2. AFFINAL RELATIONSHIPS •••.•• 213
i. STEPFATHER . • • 213
STEP~~OTHER,
ii. FATHER-IN-IJAvT: Akk. emu • ,. ••.••.. 213
iii. BijOTHEij(/FATHER/SON)-IN-LAW: (LU)g/kai/erias . 214
iv. LU( .r~ES)HAD(A)NU IN BOGAZKOY TEXTS •.•••• 223
v. LlijGUISTIC SUMMARY OF THE AFFINE TERMS •••• 229
(LU) .....
vi. kusa- • . • • • • • • · 231
CHAPTER VI. TYPES OF MARRIAGE (Part I): COMMON LAy1 AND
LEGALISED MARRIAGES . · 237
§1. INTRODUCTION 237
§2. L~GALISED MARRIAGES ••. · 237
LU .
v~ 3. antiyanza •••••• 246
§4.A. BY CAPTURE. • • 259
~1ARRIAGE
B. "HE CONDUCTS HER (HIS BRIDE) TO HIS HOUSE" 262
C. ELOPEMENT ••••••.•.•••• 264
D. RAPE AND ADULTERY • • 268
§5.A. •••.•• 270
ku~ata
OH) ,
B. . E.GI .(A) •• 274
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS 5
§6. •.••••••••
iwa~u • • 280
57.A. THE LEVIRATE AND SORORATE · • 287
B. THE WIDOW; WIDOWER •••...•••.•••. 290
CHAPTER VII. TYPES OF MARRIAGE (Part II): INTERDYNASTIC
MARRIAGE .•••.••••••••••.• 296
§1. INTRODUCTION 296
§2. THE OLD AND "MIDDLE" KINGDor1S .•..•• • • 298
§3. THE NEW KINGDOM. SUPPILULIUMAS I ••.••. 300
i. ARZAWA • • • . . • • • . • • • • • • • 304
ii. AZZI-HAYASA • • • • 307
iii. BABYLONIA 311
iv. EGYPT • • 314
v. MITTANNI • • • 316
vi. ILLEGITIHATE SONS AND CONCUBINES ••••.•• 319
§4. AFTER SUPPILULIUMAS I TO THE END OF THE EMPIRE •• 324
i. WESTERN ANATOLIA . • • 324
ii. HITTANNI • • • 326
iii. BABYLONIA • • 329
iv. EGYPT •• • • 333
v. AHURRU • • • • 343
vi. UGARIT • • . 346
vii. ASSYRIA •.•••••.••.•...•••• 349
vii i. IS U"1 A . • • . • • • . • . • . • • • . • • • • 35 0
§5. FURTHER INDICATIONS OF INTERDYNASTIC MARRIAGES .• 354
CHAPTER VIII. TYPES OF MARRIAGE (Part III): EQUAL STATUS,
SACRED AND PRIESTLY HARRIAGE. SUMMARY •• 356
§1. EQUAL STATUS MARRIAGE ••.. 356
§2. DIVORCE ••.•••••.•••• 358
§3. SACRED AND PRIESTLY MARRIAGE •••.• 359
§ 4. SmmARY . • • . . • . • . • • • • 368
VOLUHE 2
NOTES AND REFERENCES TO CHAPTERS • • • • . 372
APPENDICES: I. DYNASTIC SUCCESSION IN THE OLD KINGDOH • 577
II. "fULA\'TATA LETTER" (CTH 182) •.• • 594
III. ASSYRIA •••.•••.•.•••• . • 596
NOTES AND REFERENCES TO APPENDICES 598
INDEX OF NUMBERED TEXT CITATIONS 610
BIBLIOGRAPHY 618
ABBREVIATIONS 6
The abbreviations used in the present study may be found in
CHD, CAD, ~12, HZ, RLA, Szemerenyi, 1977, and Buck, 1949,
with the exception of the following:
AR(I,II) = A.K. Grayson, 1991.
ALI Ancient Laws of Ireland. Vol.VI. Dublin. 1901.
CHS I. Band 5. 1988 I/II: Die Rituale der BescwBrer
innen salSU.GI. V. Haas, I. Wegner.
=
CLI CL (Laws of
Lipit-I~tar)
RED Hittite Etymological Dictionary. by J. Puhvel.
Vol.lff.; Trends in Linguistics. Documentation
1,5ff. Ed. W. Winter. New York. 1984ff.
H-DWz = J. Tischler, 1982b.
HZ Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon. E. Neu. C. RUster.
StBoT. Beiheft 2. Wiesbaden. 1989.
KOR = M.N. van Loon, 1980.
RAI = CRRA
SHV = N. Oettinger, 1979.
SHS = N. Boysan, et. al., 1983.
TUAT Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Ed. O.
Kaiser.
Generai
abstr. abstract l.c. in place cited
acc. according to m. male
approx. approximate(ly) r1K Hiddle Kingdom
AS Anglo Saxon NK New Kingdom
beg. beginning OK Old Kingdom
cit. citation pass. passage(s)
CL cuneiform Luwian prevo previous(ly)
derive deriv(e/es/ed P-A. Proto-Anatolian
/ative/ion(s) rec. recent(ly)
des. designat(es/d/ing) reg. regarding
Eng. English s.a. see above
est. establish(ed) Ug. Ugarit
f. female vb(s) verb(s)
foll. follow(s/ed/ing) vbl verbal
f.b. further below
Germ. German
HL Hieroglyphic Luwian
IA Indo-Aryan
interpr. interpret(s/ed
/ation(s))
L(L). line(s)
PREFACE 7
The study of kinship and marital patterns has proved to
be a subject of increasing fascination today not only to
social anthropologists, but also to students of ancient
history and linguistics. Anthropological research tends to
concentrate upon contemporary or near-contemporary peoples,
often tribal and primitive compared to modern civilisat
ions, where - in all cases - personal interviews and obser
vation of daily life may provide illuminating answers for
the student regarding present and recently-past patterns
and terminologies of kinship and marriage. By contrast, the
ancient historian and philologist can only examine the sur
viving records of a society and draw conclusions on the
basis of this inevitably limited source of information.
The evidence of the Hittite texts for the subject of
"kinship and marriage" provides a challenge from the vary
ing aspects of epigraphy, linguistics, historical data, and
social anthropology. Hittite studies have advanced consid
erably since the Czechoslovakian scholar Hrozny in 1917-
1918 recognised as a descendant branch of PIE the Hittite
language in which the greatest number of clay tablets disc
overed at Bogazk~y in Turkey had been written. The tablets
were all inscribed with a cuneiform script evidently borr
owed and introduced to Hattusas (modern Bogazk~y), from a
pre-Old Babylonian North Syrian cultural centre, at the
beginning of the Old Kingdom period. We venture an early
16th century BC dating for this process, which is however,
subject to revision since it depends upon concordance with
events in the broader Near Eastern historical spectrum.
Archaeologically the Old Kingdom period ended with Level
IVc I, while the New Kingdom period, Levels IVb to IlIa,
ended with the violent destruction of Hattusas (c. 1200 BC)
which silenced the cuneiform sources in the collapse of the
Hittite administration.
Although termed Hittite by modern scholars the scribes
of Hattusas called this language ne~(umri)ili-, that is, be
longing to the people of Kanesh/Nesa, modern Kllltepe, site
8
of the citadel of the ruling native princes and the prin
cipal karum of the Old Assyrian trading colonies operating
there. Such colonies existed also in the close vicinity of
other strategic Anatolian cities, early in the 2nd Millenn
ium BC. Clay tablets have been discovered, mainly at KUI
tepe, in great numbers, al though compara few have
~,ively
been published. They were written in the OA language and
script, which did not continue into the OK period. The
tablets record many names of native Anatolians who were in
volved in various OA dealings, and a few non-Assyrian Anat
olian terms, which witness the presence of Hittite speakers
in Anatolia long before the first texts of OK Hattusas were
inscribed. According to the analyses of some philologists
attempting to trace chronologically and geographically the
movement from the "parent" PIE body, of the Proto-Anatolian
language(s), the latter may have been present in Anatolia
as early as the 4th Millennium BC.
Hittite, with classical Lydian, represents only one of
the branches and descendant languages from P-A. The Luwian
branch may be traced through the CL of the Bogazk~y texts,
and related Palaic, the Luwian of the hieroglyphic script,
which is attested at BogazkBy and certain 2nd Millennium
sites, but principally in the 1st Millennium HL inscript
ions, and the Lycian languages. Apart from Hittite, Luwian,
and Palaic, the BogazkBy texts also record the linguistic
ally unrelated: Akkadian, lingua franca of the 2nd Millen
nium NE; Hattic - language of the indigenous(?) population
of North Central Anatolia; Hurrian - attested at BogazkBy
from the 15th century, and language of populations spread
ing west and south from the Lake Van region and Upper Meso
potamia from the 3rd Millennium, and as the medium of the
non-Akkadian Amarna correspondence of a 14th century Mitt
annian King. Two other languages may be added to this al
ready impressive list, namely Indo-Aryan, in traces repres
ented by terms used in ritual texts concerning horse-train
ing, and Sumerian, in bilinguals, and copies of Mesopotam
ian Vocabulary texts equating Akkadian to Sumerian words,
which are further translated by a Hittite word or phrase in
9
some Bogazk~y versions.
However, this apparent wealth of material is often pre
served only in a fragmentary state, imposing restrictions
upon the reading and interpretation of many texts. Hittite,
by far the best preserved of all these languages at Bo~az­
in which numerous contemporary letters, and various
k~y,
categories of texts were written, such as the historical,
legal, religious, and bilinguals with other languages noted
above, was clearly the official medium of communication for
the inhabitants of Hatti, although Luwian may have been the
popular tongue(?). Consequently we will restrict our study
mainly to the Hittite texts, while reference will be made
to the sister, and the linguistically unrelated languages,
when necessary for the purpose of interpretation.
While the possibility of identifying certain PIE deriv
atives among the kinship terms attested in Hittite and its
related languages has provided added interest to the philo
logical study of the P-A. descendants and their linguistic
relationship to the previously recognised IE languages, the
study of the Bogazk~y texts soon highlighted another inter
esting aspect of Hittite kinship. There appeared to be
reason to suspect that an indigenous matrilineal descent
system had been superseded by the Hittite patrilineal,
which resulted in generations of internecine rivalry in
the OK royal family, and between the opposed systems. The
supposed presence of matrilineality in Hatti seemed to
confirm that Herodotus had been describing such a system
when he related that the Lycians identified themselves by
their mother's name, rather than a patronymic as is usual
with patrilineal descent. This suggested further that anc
ient Anatolia might offer evidence to confirm early "evol
utionist" theories in social anthropology that all human
society had originated from matriarchal/matrilineal organ
isations, to evolve into patrilineality with the rise of
property ownership as an important social factor.
For some years now social anthopologists have question
ed and disproved the "evolutionist" theories, arguing that