The Significance of State Records from the Hittite Empire

The Ten Year Annals of Mursili II reveal a great deal about life in the Hittite empire under Mursili II. This document shows that the Hittites were capable of a more advanced style of historiography than some of their Mesopotamian predecessors, who only left us with king lists. As is common in most historical texts from the ancient Near East, this document contains the name of the ruler that the text was composed under and references to the gods most sacred to that ruler. As is also typical of early historical documents from the ancient Near East, most of the text is concerned solely with relaying the exploits of the kings' military campaigns. This text was composed after the first ten years of Mursili II's reign.

The form of the annal is a more sophisticated way of recording history than some of the earliest Mesopotamian texts such as the king lists of other ancient Near-Eastern civilizations. The annal is by nature a reflective work of history, as one must wait until the end of the year before one can record everything that happened that year. In the case of Mursili II's Ten Year Annals, the history of the previous decade has been reflected upon, and Mursili II has chosen what he felt was most important to record. This shows another step forward in the historiography of the Western world, because an annal must by nature be a highly selective document. Although this document lacks the synthesis of viewpoints that modern historians regard as a critical element of historiography, the document is a product of selection, which is nearly as important to modern historians. These events were carefully chosen out of a decade's worth of history to showcase the achievements of Mursili II. While the document admittedly presents an incredibly limited weltaunschaung, it also presents modern readers of historiography with a very interesting and revealing document.

There are elements of apologia to these annals, because it seems that one of Mursili II's goals in recording these events is to justify his position of power by making sure that the glorious achievements of his reign are not forgotten. Although he is not a usurper (like the later Hattushili III), Mursili II still seems to feel the need to prove himself, to justify his position as King, and show that he is a capable and powerful ruler. It may be that Mursili II feels this urge to justify his kingship because he was most likely not the first in line to be king. After the death of his father, Shuppiluiluma, Mursili II's older brother Arnuwanda took the throne. It was only after Arnuwanda died from an illness that Mursili II was able to become king of the Hittite Empire.

Although the text as a whole is primarily concerned with military exploits, there are no references to the style of fighting, nor are there any explanations of how the battle was won. While later historians are preoccupied with strategy on the field of battle, the Hittites and most other cultures in ancient Mesopotamia did not see fit to record such information in detail. We know that the Hittites brought chariots into battle, but we do not know how they were used. Perhaps this is because the Hittites feared that if their city was captured, their enemies would have access to these documents, and could then steal Hittite military strategies.

All things considered, the Ten Year Annals of Mursili II are important documents to any historian, both because of their content, and for what they can teach us about the evolution of historiography.