Who is Nibhururiya?

    The Hittite text, The Deeds of Suppiluliuma, contains a famous passage recording a letter from an Egyptian king’s widow asking to marry a son of the Hittite king and make him ruler of Egypt. Even though the text gives the Egyptian king’s name Nibhururiya, this has been of little help to scholars seeking to identify him. Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun, and Akhenaten have all been slated as possibilities.

    Based on his translation of a reconstructed Hittite text (KUB 19.15+KBo 50.24) dated to the 7th-9th year of the reign of Suppiluliuma’s son Mursili, Jared Miller has argued for Akhenaten. The text recounts Tette of Nuhhasse’s flight to Egypt and Egypt’s interference in Amurru (Miller 2007: 252). Mursili discusses his correspondence with an Egyptian battle commander named Armaya, who Miller identifies as Horemheb (Miller 2007: 253), who became king of Egypt after Ay (who took over after the death of Akhenaten’s son Tutankhamun). In his article, “Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of Nibhururiya in the Light of a Newly Reconstructed Hittite Text” and “The Rebellion of Hatti’s Syrian Vassals and Egypt’s Meddling in Amurru,” he explains how he identified Armaya as Horemheb and claims that since he lacks any royal title, the text must date to before his ascension to the throne. If Horemheb was not yet king in Mursili’s 7th-9th year, then Suppiluliuma’s death must have been in the first half of Tutankhamun’s reign and the Egyptian royal widow must have been Akhenaten’s wife (Miller 2007: 253-6; Miller 2008: 551). 

    Miller’s theory does contrast with some other pieces of evidence, which he does not fail to address, though he offers no reconciliation. In the letter, the widow wrote that there was no son of the king to ascend the throne, yet Akhenaten had at least one son, likely two (Miller 2007: 257-263). Additionally, the writing of Tutankhamun’s throne name is more similar to the name Nibhururiya than Akhenaten’s (Miller 2007: 263-7). Miller however explains that there is also evidence against other candidates like Tutankhamun, who is known to have died in the spring while Nibhururiya died in the late summer or early autumn based on the letter (Miller 2007: 271-2). 

    Roman Stempel agrees with Miller’s claim. He confirms that Armaya is Horemheb based on how Horemheb’s name is given in later texts like Manetho and that if he was king the Hittites would have called him the king of Egypt and not by his personal name (Stempel 2007: 99). Like Miller, he rejects the idea that Armaya could be another man who held a similar position as chief commander of the Egyptian army (Stempel 2007: 100). Miller firmly believes this text predates Horemheb’s reign and thus two men would not have had the same title, acting as “a kind of governor in charge of the Syrian realm” (Miller 2008: 546). However, he does not consider that the text may date to the reign of Horemheb, meaning that Armaya may have been the man who occupied a position in Horemheb’s reign that Horemheb held earlier in his life. 

    Miller’s timeline places the Mursili text between 1323-1319 BCE (during Ay’s reign, in Mursili’s 7th-9th years). Yet, there is reason to believe that his reign did not begin until 1321/20 BCE. We know from another text, KUB 14.4 a prayer written by Mursili, that in his 9th or 10th year there was some kind of solar event, likely an eclipse (Huber 2001: 640). Thanks to NASA, the date of an eclipse visible over Anatolia can be accurately established. There are several possibilities depending on the type of eclipse, the time of year and the location of visibility. There were six solar eclipses around this time which took place over Anatolia, in the years 1339, 1334, 1327, 1314, 1311 and 1307 BCE (Huber 2001: 644). If we assume it was a total eclipse it must have taken place on either January 8, 1339 or June 24, 1311 BCE (Goedegebuure 2020: Slide 12). In his prayer, Mursili mentions that he saw it while on campaign, excluding the January date and making 1311 BCE his 9th or 10th regnal year (Goedegebuure 2020: Slide 12). This places his 7th-9th year, and Miller’s text, between 1314-1311 BCE, firmly during Horemheb’s reign, and year of the Egyptian letter at about 1328/1327 BCE, at the beginning of Tutankhamun’s (Goedegebuure 2020: Slide 12). 

    Based on the dating of the solar eclipse, the fact that Armaya may not being referring to Horemheb, and the existence of Akhenaten’s son(s), Nibhururiya is likely not Akhenaten, but perhaps Tutankhamun or even Smenkhkare. This is further supported by Zsolt Simon’s article “Kann Armā mit Haremhab gleichgesetzt werden?” which shows that Hittites would have written Horemheb’s name as Ḫarmaḫa or Ḫarmaya (Simon 2009: 346-7). Additional radiocarbon and dendrochronological evidence examined by Manning et al. also secures Mursili’s first regnal year at ca. 1321 BCE (Manning et al. 2016). Thus, it appears Miller’s conclusions are incorrect; Armaya is not Horemheb and Nibhururiya is not Akhenaten. 

Works Cited 

• Goedegebuure, Petra (2020). Chronology in 2nd Millennium Anatolia. , Lecture 
• Huber, Peter J. (2001). “The Solar Omen of Muršili II”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 121(4): 640-644. 
• Manning SW, Griggs CB, Lorentzen B, Barjamovic G, Ramsey CB, Kromer B, et al. (2016). "Integrated Tree-Ring-Radiocarbon High-Resolution Timeframe to Resolve Earlier Second Millennium BCE Mesopotamian Chronology." PLoS ONE 11(7): e0157144. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157144 
• Miller, Jared (2007). “Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of Nibhururiya in the Light of a Newly Reconstructed Hittite Text”. AoF 34, pp. 252-275, 289-290. 
• Miller, Jared (2008). “The Rebellion of Ḫatti’s Syrian Vassals and Egypt’s Meddling in Amurru,”. 6HitCongr2, 533-554. 
• Simon, Zsolt (2009). “Kann Armā mit Haremhab gleichgesetzt werden?,” in: AoF 36, 340-348. 
• Stempel, R. (2007). “Identification of Nibhururiya and the synchronism in the Egyptian and Hittite chronology in the light of newly reconstructed Hittite text,”. GM 213, 97-101