no evil to Tawananna, nor in any way humiliated her. As she governed the house
of the king and the Land of Hatti in the lifetime of my father and of my brother,
likewise then she governed them. And the customs which in the lifetime of her
husband [were dear to her heart(?)] and the things which in the lifetime of her
husband were forbidden to her, [to these I made no changes?]^5In spite of his complaints and deeply held concerns, Mursili, far from taking action
against his stepmother, continued to recognise her status as reigning queen by
associating her name with his on royal seals. The final straw came when the young
king’s wife Gassulawiya fell ill and died. Mursili was grief-stricken. He held his
stepmother responsible for the tragedy, convinced that she had brought about
Gassulawiya’s death through black magic. Perhaps he was right. Tawananna may
have begun to suspect that her days as reigning queen were numbered. Gassulawiya’s
name had begun to appear alongside her husband’s in a number of seal impressions
- very likely an indication that Mursili was elevating her to the status of reigning
queen in place of his stepmother. This may well have been motive enough for
Tawananna to eliminate her. Oracular consultation by Mursili allegedly proved
Tawananna’s guilt, determined that her offence was a capital crime, and sanctioned
her execution. But Mursili shrank from inflicting the extreme penalty. Instead, he
stripped Tawananna of all her offices, and banished her from the capital, sentencing
her to permanent exile in a remote place, but in comfortable conditions.
Personal scruples may have led Mursili to decide not to execute the queen, despite
having allegedly received a go-ahead from the gods to do so. Even the justification
for her banishment was later questioned by Mursili’s son Hattusili. But the decision
not to inflict the death penalty may have been influenced primarily by political
considerations. Indeed, such considerations may well explain why Tawananna’s con-
duct was tolerated so long after her husband’s death. She was, after all, a princess
of Babylon. And while foreign kings had no hesitation in using their daughters as
chattels on the royal marriage market, they also showed concern on a number of
occasions about the welfare of their daughters in the courts of their husbands. Suspected
mistreatment of a princess was cause for serious complaint. The execution of a princess
would almost certainly have led to a major rift, or even a complete severing of relations,
between two kingdoms.
Mursili must have been anxious to maintain good relations with Babylon, especially
at this time. For he now faced major problems throughout his kingdom. Among the
most serious were the dangers posed to his territories in Syria by a hostile Egypt to
the south, and the looming menace, across the Euphrates, of the re-emerging kingdom
of Assyria – rapidly filling the power vacuum left by Suppiluliuma’s destruction of
the kingdom of Mitanni. Babylon, the other Great Kingdom in the region, needed
to be kept on side. The sacking and banishment of Tawananna would inevitably have
put a strain on Hittite–Babylonian relations. But at least the queen’s life had been
spared, and a diplomatic mission sent to the Babylonians with the intention of explain-
ing and justifying the action taken against their princess might help limit diplomatic
fallout over the affair. That would almost certainly have been impossible if Tawananna
had been put to death. If only to maintain a veneer of friendly relations with Babylon,
she had to be allowed to live.
— A view from Hattusa —