2021-4111-AJMS – 11 FEB 2021

1 The “Protocols” for the Hittite “Royal Guard” during 2 the Old Kingdom: Observations on Elite Military Units 3 and their Possible Warfare Applications 4 5 In this article, we intend to analyse the importance and modus operandi of a 6 military unit (generally known as “Royal Guard”) whose function was, 7 among other things, the protection of the Hattuša-based Hittite . For 8 this essay, we will be mainly using two Hittite textual sources known as 9 “instructions” or “protocols”. We aim to find a connection between these 10 guards and their function regarding the protection of the royal palace as 11 well as their military enlistment in that elite unit. The period to be covered in 12 this analysis comes directly from the choice of sources: the Hittite Old 13 Kingdom, confined between the chronological beacons of the 17th, 16th and 14 15th BC. With this analysis, we intend to provide some relevant 15 data that may contribute to a better understanding of these elite military 16 units, particularly in regards to their probable warfare functions. Were they 17 used in battle? How were they armed? What was their tactical importance in 18 combat? How was the recruitment done? How were the units formed? These 19 will be some questions that we will try to answer throughout this article. 20 21 Keywords: Guard; Palace; Command; Warfare; Infantry. 22 23 24 Introduction 25 26 The Hittites1 were an Indo-European people that arrived in through 27 the Caucasus from Eurasia between 2000 and 1900 BC2. On their Indo-European 28 journey to the west they also brought horses. The Hittite people had their capital in 29 Hattuša. For some centuries in the Second BC3, they were a

1The Hittite civilization is divided into two great periods: the Hittite Old Kingdom (c. 1650- 1400 BC) and the Hittite Empire (c. 1400-1207 BC); cf. Bryce 2007, 7. 2Haywood 2005, 36. Bryce 2005, 11. For more informations regarding the Indo-European population and their origins see Raulwing, Peter. 2000. Horses, Chariots and Indo-europeans. Foundations and Methods of Chariotry Research from the Viewpoint of Comparative Indo- european Linguistics. Budapest: Archaeolingua. Also Lévêque, Pierre. (1987) 2014. As Primeiras Civilizações da Idade da Pedra aos Povos Semitas. Lisboa: Edições 70. See also Klein, J., Joseph, B., et Fritz M. (eds.). 2017/2018. Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. About this theme see Renfrew, Colin. (1987) 1990. Arqueología y Lenguaje: La cuestión de los orígenes indoeuropeos. Barcelona: Crítica. Researchers like John Haywood argue that this population arrived firstly in the Western regions of Anatolia, by the Bosphorus; cf. Haywood 2005, 36. 3The earliest Hittite history in Anatolia began in the 18th BC with the Kussar kings, followed by an obscure period which was interrupted by ´s unification process. This leader is a central character in one of the earliest written records from Anatolia, the so- called “Anitta Text”. This source narrates the conquest and expansion made by both Anitta and his father, , monarchs of and rulers of other regions in Central Anatolia. Around 1650 BC, Hattušili I rose to power and made Hattuša the Hittite capital. He built his royal palace in the city and there he organised his administrative and military institutions. This monarch´s reign was marked by a centralisation of power and foreign expansion, with

1 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 hegemonic power that dominated most regions of Anatolia, a part of Northern 2 Mesopotamia (Mittani) and Northern , including cities like , Alalakh, 3 Tell Ahmar, and Karkamiš, among others. The apogee of this empire occurred 4 between c. 1344-1295 BC, during the reigns of and Muršili II4. 5 Both “Protocol for the Royal Body Guard”5 and the “Protocol for the Palace 6 Gatekeeper”6 are a succession of detailed practical procedures that military men 7 had within the Hittite King's palace in Hattuša. These texts are rich textual sources 8 regarding their descriptive scope, although the latter is rather fragmented. This 9 factor explains why the “palace gatekeepers” text is less used throughout the 10 study. Especially considering the textual examples used and that contributed to the 11 development of the approached problem, coming almost exclusively from the 12 “Protocol for the Royal Body Guard”. Although this reality, these texts provide us 13 with an insight into the procedures and the characteristics of the Hittite elite 14 military units. Regarding the study made by Hans G. Güterbock and Theo van der 15 Hout on the “Protocol for the Royal Guard”, we can assume that the first sections 16 report on how guards should proceed in the morning, from the moment they 17 appear in the “royal guard yard”, to the opening of the palace gates7, and the 18 worshipping of the unnamed protector god8. After these events, we are given 19 information about the king's safe departure and the procedures associated with 20 such an event, as well as the monarch´s inevitable return to the palace9. 21 These military personnel would be highly trained and essential for the 22 protection of all Hittite royal family members, with a special focus on the king and 23 his children. Their discipline would be a key aspect in a proper performance of the 24 required functions, a factor that is evident in the detail present in these soldiers’ 25 operating systems. Certainly, if a royal guard make any mistake, he should be 26 severely punished because of his responsibility. 27 As the article title suggests, our focus will mainly be on the possible warfare 28 duties that these elite units could have had. Therefore, the palace procedures that 29 were associated with these units, based on this source, will only be briefly 30 analysed. We should also mention that methodologically, it was used as the main

successive military campaigns in the north and central regions of Anatolia. After his death, he was succeeded by his adopted son, Muršili I (c. 1620-1590 BC), who continued his father's enterprise. This king carried out campaigns in the northern regions of Syria, but failed to attach any Syrian territories, like the greater power in the region, Yamhad. Until c. 1440 BC, the underwent a complicated phase, during which they lost importance in the larger political scenario. This was due especially to some border pressures from in the West, Kaska in the North, the population in the Southeast and the Mittani to the East; cf. Van de Mieroop 2016, 128; Carreira 1999, 23-24; Liverani [1991] 2012, 339; Carreira 1999, 24; Liverani [1991] 2012, 339-353; Bryce 2005, 47. 4Carreira 1999, 12-13. 5CTH 262/IBoT 1.36; Miller 2013, 103-121 6CTH 263.B/KUB 26.28; Miller 2013, 91-97. 7This written source is also very rich in descriptions of parts of the palace itself; cf. Hoffner Jr. 1997, 78. 8CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 1. 22-25; Miller 2013, 105. 9Güterbock et Van der Hout 1991, 1-2

2 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 translation10 of both Hittite sources, the work of Jared Miller, named Royal Hittite 2 Instructions and Related Administrative Texts11. As a complement to Jared Miller's 3 work, we will also consult and compare the translations of the “Protocol for the 4 Royal Guard” made by Hans G. Güterbock and Theo van der Hout in their work, 5 “The Hittite Instruction for the Royal ” in the Assyriological Studies 6 2412 and also with the translation of Gregory McMahon named “Instructions to the 7 Royal Guard (MEŠEDI Protocol)” in Context of Scripture, Vol. 1, Canonical 8 Compositions from the Biblical World edited by William Hallo e K. Younger, Jr13. 9 Specifically, from the Hittite source “Protocol for the Royal Body Guard”, 10 comparing the three text’s translations in question, we can observe the difficulties 11 associated with this same script. According to Gregory McMahon, today in 12 Istanbul this inscription is especially problematic as it has several textual overlaps 13 that have been added over time. Beyond this temporal problem, the source is full 14 of specific terms relating to the “royal guard” procedures that make the text even 15 more complicated to translate. Take has an example a passage from this source, 16 more specifically in column 3 on line 1 to 5: 17 18 “[...] The [bod]yguard who [brings] the petitioners [...], and he [takes his place] behind 19 the gold-spear man. [Then as soon as] the king request the law case, the bodygua[rd...] it 20 and p[laces] it in the chief of the bodyguard’s hand. [...] law case, and he tells it to the 21 chief of the bodyguard, but the chief of the bodyguard [...]. [...]” 22 23 Miller 2013, 113 24 25 “[...] [The gu]ard who [brings in] the defendants [takes his stand] behind the gold-spear- 26 man. [When] the king asks for a case (to be tried), the guard [picks] it [out] and p[uts] it 27 into the hand of the chief-of-guards and tells the chief-of-guards what] the case [is]; but 28 the chief of guards [tells the king]. [...]» 29 30 Güterbock et Van den Hout 1991, 23 31 32 “[...] [The gu]ard who [brings in] the defendants [takes his place] behind the man of the 33 golden spear. [But when] the king requests a case, the guard [picks] it [out] and pl[aces] it 34 in the hand of the chief of the guard. He tells the chief of the guard [what] the case (is), 35 but the chief of the guard [tells the king]. [...]” 36 37 McMahon 1997, 373 38

10Hittite writing system is an adaptation of the Mesopotamian cuneiform, so it presents syllables and forms straight from the Sumerian and the Akkadian. Thus, the Hittite scribes would have the hypothesis of choosing between the Akkadian or Sumerian systems, the Akkadograms and Sumerograms respectively; cf. Kudrinski et Yakubovich 2016, 53-54. 11Miller, J. L. 2013: Royal Hittite Instructions and Related Administrative Texts. Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature. 12Güterbock, H. et Van den Hout, T. P. J. 1991: “The Hittite Instruction for the Royal Bodyguard”. Assyriological Studies, 24. Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 1-99. 13McMahon, G. 1997. “Instructions to the Royal Guard (MEŠEDI Protocol)”. W. Hallo et K. Younger Jr. (eds.). Context of Scripture, Vol. 1, Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill. 369-376.

3 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 In the order presented first the translation of Miller, then the Güterbock in 2 conjunction with Van den Hout and finally McMahon’s version. From these 3 three examples we can see two groups, the first consisting only of Miller's 4 translation and the second the remaining two researchers. The first is more 5 reliable to the original Hittite text, because it does not intend to add to the 6 source gaps possible translations. We can see, firstly in the case of Güterbock 7 and Van den Hout and then in the adaptation of McMahon, which even refers 8 that as a basis for its translation, he used the work of these authors. Aspect 9 evident due to the similarity of the translations, with only a few concrete terms 10 to differ. These clear differences in translation effectively demonstrate the 11 difficulties inherent to this source. 12 Regarding source citations throughout the article, the differences between 13 Miller and Güterbock and Van den Hout/McMahon’s translations are evident, 14 always in the terminological and textual gap-filling aspects. It should be noted 15 that both translations have their value and neither appears to be incorrect. As 16 already mentioned, for the specific case of this article we chose to use the 17 translation of Jared Miller, because of his approach to the text on such a 18 specific theme, it seemed safer to use a translation that did not try to address 19 the shortcomings of the own text. This will avoid possible misleading conclusions. 20 21 22 The King´S Safeguard: The “Royal Guard” Composition and their 23 Command System 24 25 There is a close relationship between the “Royal Guard” (MEŠEDI)14, the 26 “guardian of the palace gate”, and the “men with golden spears”15 referred to in 27 several passages of both protocols, as we can observe in the following sentence 28 from the “Protocol for the Royal Body Guard”: “[...] they do not lift the door 29 bolt of the gate. And the [bodygua]rds, the gatekeepers (and) the forecourt- 30 cleaners come out [...]”16. This example suggests a strong organisational 31 interconnection between space and labour. Each military and civil personnel 32 had their plans and rules, and all must have been of extreme importance to 33 guarantee the security of the Hittite king. This scenario is present in the 34 following excerpt: 35 36 “[...] they do [...] they do [...]. The , [tho]ugh, [...] [u]p/ [for]th, and they [...] 37 before the gatekeepers (and) the forecourt-cleaners. [Then] they go in, and they stand at

14The “Royal Bodyguard” is a translation of the transliteration of a following term (of Akkadogram): MEŠEDI. The word MEŠEDI is thought to come from the old assyrian term MIŠITTU which means “depot” or “store”. If we accept this idea created by Landsberger, then MEŠEDI-men meant those who originally guarded the treasury. Other theories suggest that the term comes from another old assyrian word, MAGAZINRAUM that would attribute to these individuals the function of “storeroom officials”. Von Soden also connects the word MEŠEDI with the term MEŠËDI that arises in Mari and would be related to door functions, probably with the guarding of entrances; cf. Beal 1986, 266-267. 15Also, the “Golden-spear men” is a translation of the transliteration of a following term (of Akkadogram): LÚ.MEŠ (GIŠ)SUKUR KÚ.SIG17. 16CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 1.8; Miller 2013, 103.

4 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 the gate of the courtyard. Their [e]yes are tu[rn]ed forwards, so that they cover one 2 courtyard of the pa[la]ce, and [th]ey [keep] watch. [...]” 3 4 CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 1.1-6; Miller 2013, 103 5 6 There are several examples throughout the Hittite texts that describe the 7 procedures of these units. The concern regarding observation and being in a 8 constant state of vigilance is a recurring theme. There are some examples in 9 which some soldiers had to leave their positions and go to the toilet, for 10 example. According to the source, a soldier had to inform the guard next to 11 him, who would, in turn, inform his nearest guard, until finally the message 12 arrived to a third-degree officer, who in turn informed the military of second 13 degree. The line of communication then ends with the “commander of the 10 of 14 the bodyguard” or the “chief of the bodyguard”. They would then decide the 15 verdict regarding the need of the guard17. Naturally, this was essential for the 16 proper functioning of the palace security procedures. Focusing only on the 17 “Royal Guard”, it should be noted that this unit was not always located inside 18 the palace, as the following excerpt proves: 19 20 “[...] Then the bodyguards take (their) place in the courtyard of the bodyguard; and 12 21 bodyguards stand by the inside wall in the direction of the palace, and they hold spears. If, 22 however, 12 bodyguards are not available – either someone has been sent on a journey or 23 someone is at home on leave – and there are too many spears, then they carry away the 24 spears that are left, and they place them with the gatekeepers. [...]” 25 26 CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 1.9-15; Miller 2013, 103 27 28 Naturally, the monarch must have always been surrounded by these 29 guards, and the reference to the “journey” suggests that the lack of guards in 30 the palace was a consequence of the king´s departure. This movement could 31 mainly have two dimensions: one diplomatic and the other military. The latter, 32 more important for this analysis, may strengthen the possibility of these units 33 accompanying the king into a battle context. On the other hand, it is clear that, 34 if this was the case, the king did not carry the whole contingent. An 35 understandable fact because the palace also needed to be protected. 36 What amount of information can the “Protocol for the Royal Body Guard” 37 offer us regarding the making of this the unit? We find reference to two types 38 of spear men: the regular ones and those with a “golden spear”. What were the 39 differences between them? See the following example: 40 41 “[...] Gold-spear men, though, stand by the wall in the direction of the gate; [...], one 42 bodyguard stands to one side near the gate in the direction of the wall of the bodyguard, 43 whereas one gold-spear man stands to the (other) side near the gate in the direction of the 44 wall of the gold-spear men, and they keep watch by day. [...]” 45 46 CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 1.16-19; Miller 2013: 103-104 47

17CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 1.33-38; Miller 2013, 105.

5 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 In this small passage, we can observe the distinction between the guards 2 who used the “golden spear” and those who didn’t, the latter being referred to 3 by the generic term “guard”. The source does not provide us with precise clues 4 as to whether these military men were above the rest or if they were, in terms 5 of rank, equal to the others. Were they a separate division within the Hittite 6 “Royal Guard” itself? Were they better trained and armed? The amount of 7 references to these military personnel throughout the “protocol” indicates that 8 they were, in fact, a part of the “Royal Guard”18. However, the use of the term 9 “golden” seems to give these troops a higher status, even though in the texts 10 there are no quotes that could suggest any superiority of rank19. Perhaps the 11 only exception is the following expression: “[...] A gold-spear man [takes his 12 place bet]ween them, [...]”20. This example may not say much but it allows us 13 to suggest that the presence of this soldier between two guards is an indication 14 of “leadership” in relation to his peers. In fact, in another context described in 15 the source, in a military parade the soldiers with “golden spears” come before 16 the regular guards21. Admitting that these “men with the golden spears” were 17 superior in ability and status to the others, it is plausible to note that these could 18 be the military closest to the Hittite monarch. Issues related to these units are 19 still poorly understood, raising some questions that need to remain open. It is 20 also known from the source “Proclamation of Telepinu”, also known as 21 “Telepinu, Constitutional Edict” that these units would be used for other 22 purposes, since the text states that Zuru (“chief of the personal bodyguard”) 23 sent his son, , a “man with the golden spear” to assassinate Tittiya 24 and his family22. 25 26 “[...] The gold-spear man who stood next to them, though, takes his place; the palace 27 servant of the spear, however, gives the whip to the chief of the palace servants, the chief 28 of the palace servants, in turn, gives it to the king. […]” 29 30 CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 2. 20-23; Miller 2013, 109 31 32 In this excerpt, we can find another term that could be related to the 33 “Royal Guard”: the “palace servant of the spear”. Given the terminology and 34 the reference to their weaponry, it is possible that these were soldiers, like the 35 others, with the role of protecting the palace. They probably had the lowest 36 rank within the chain of command of the “Royal Guard”, and would be headed 37 by the “chief of the palace servants”. It is debatable whether this position 38 would be exclusively of a military nature, since it is necessary to take into 39 account the other workers who were also considered servants, like the cooks 40 for example. It should also be mentioned the “chief of the palace staff”. Among 41 the various officials referred to in the “Protocol for the Gatekeepers”, we must

18CTH 262/IBoT 1.36; Bryce 2007, 48. 19In fact, Richard Beal assumes that the MEŠEDI were more prestigious then the “Gold-spear men”; cf. Beal 1986, 278. 20CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 2.10. Miller 2013, 109. 21Miller 2013, 111. 22CTH 19.KBo 12.7: 2.II.1-7; Van den Hout 2003, 194-198; Carreira 1999, 56; Mõttus 2018, 113-118; Beckman 1986, 22.

6 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 highlight the following,: the “wine-cup bearer”, the “table server”, the “chef”, 2 the “entertainer”, the “cult singer”, the “priest of the god Zilipuri”, the “tent 3 man”, the “scepter-bearer”, the “tailor”, the “runner”, the “sentry-runner” and 4 the “duddushiyalla-[...]”23. 5 As far as we can tell, there were two high hierarchical positions in the 6 “Royal Guard” command system: the “Chief of the Royal Guard” and the 7 “Commander of 10 of the Bodyguard”24. What were their functions? What 8 were the differences between them? 9 10 “[...] And when the chief of the Bodyguard and the commander of 10 of the bodyguard 11 come up, since the chief of the bodyguard holds a staff, as soon as he prostrates himself to 12 the tutelary deity of the spear, then whatever bodyguard of rank (is there) takes the staff 13 from him, and he places it behind the altar. The staff that the commander of 10 of the 14 bodyguard holds however, he hands it [over] to a bodyguard, and the bodyguard holds it 15 for h[im]. [...]” 16 17 CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 1: 22-26; Miller 2013, 105 18 19 “[...] Then the chief of the Bodyguard goes, and two lor[ds walk] behind him; be it the 20 commander of charioteers or a commander of 10, they stand [behind] the chief of the 21 bodyguard. [...]” 22 23 CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 3. 6-8; Miller 2013, 113 24 25 Taken from the “Protocol for the Royal Bodyguard”, the above excerpts 26 show us that, in the first case, there does not seem to be a clear hierarchical 27 disparity, while in the second case, the “Commander of 10” could suggest that 28 this military position was perhaps more related to the regular army officer 29 rather than the “Royal Guard” itself (due to the lack of reference to this specific 30 unit). This military official emerges behind the “chief of the bodyguard”, a 31 procedure that could indicate a hierarchically inferior position. Can the same 32 apply to the “Commander of 10 of the Bodyguard”? We can assume that the 33 “Chief of the Bodyguard” was hierarchically superior to the “Commander of 34 10 of the Bodyguard”25, because the former had a more generalist title and 35 could cover a whole contingent, whereas the latter would command only a unit 36 of ten soldiers. Thus, there must have been a need for more officers with this 37 title, all of whom were to be commanded by the “Chief of the Bodyguard”. The 38 functions of each of these officials cannot be stated with certainty. The present 39 nomenclature refers to differences regarding their practical functions. The 40 “Chief” would have administrative functions, as well as being responsible for 41 the organisation of the site where these military operations would occur26. The 42 “Commander” would have functions pertaining more to the warlike spectrum, 43 and certainly in battle. It is necessary to reinforce the idea that these are 44 approaches to a problematic matter, since there is no data which allows for the 45 confirmation of the possible answers to the above questions. About the units

23CTH 263.B/KUB 26.28: 1-36; Miller 2013, 91-97. 24Miller 2013, 91-105. 25Miller 2013, 105-113. 26Bryce 2007, 8-9.

7 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 themselves, Richard Beal suggests the following hierarchical order: MEŠEDI, 2 “Gold-spear men”, “Heavy-spear men”, “Bronze-spear men” and “spearmen”27. 3 4 “[...] Then a palace servant goes up to the roof, but before him [a deaf man] leads. Then 5 the deaf man pulls the window shut, and the [palace] servant [...]” 6 7 CTH 263.B/KUB 26.28: 2. 13-14; Miller 2013, 95 8 9 “[...] If a Bodyguard does run off, though, and he carries a spear down out of the post, and 10 the gatekeepers catch him in (his) delinquency, then he “unfastens his shoe.” If, however, 11 the bodyguard tricks the gatekeeper, and he carries down a spear, but the gatekeeper does 12 not see him, then the bodyguard will catch the gatekeeper in (his) delinquency. [...]” 13 14 CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 1. 53-56; Miller 2013, 107 15 16 In both texts, we can detect other functions, like those of the “gatekeeper”, 17 which according to certain passages of the “protocol” had some preponderance, 18 including over some members of the “Royal Guard”. 19 20 21 The “Royal Guard” outside the palace: an elite unit in battle? 22 23 Although with almost three decades old, we should mention Richard Beal's 24 PhD dissertation, where he addresses, among various aspects of the Hittite 25 military machine, the Hittite kings’ “royal bodyguard”. The author states in his 26 conclusion that there is no indication that these military units escorted the 27 Hittite king into the warfare like contexts (“[...] there is no evidence as to 28 whether or not they also accompanied him on campaign and into battle. 29 [...]”)28. With the exception of the existence of another elite unit that we do not 30 know, it seems difficult to consider that these “guards” would not accompany 31 the king to the situations where he would be most endangered. Richard Beal, 32 between pages 272 and 274 states in great detail that these MEŠEDI units 33 accompanied the monarch on his travels, including standard procedures to 34 better ensure his safety. From the outset, Richard Beal’s view seems debatable. 35 Even the author in question mentions that some of these military men could 36 come from the regular soldiers’ units of the Hittite army (“[...] may well have 37 been regular army troops detached for this purpose. [...]”)29. For example, let us 38 take the case of the battle of Kadeš, where pharaoh Ramses II was 39 accompanied by his personal guard, the Shardans. Military unit which, 40 according to the descriptions in the written and iconographic sources, was 41 essential for the safety of the king during the Hittite charge against the 42 Egyptian military camp30. 43 Naturally, most of the responsibilities of the “Royal Guard” concerned the 44 monarch's own residence. In which other contexts could these units be used?

27Beal 1986, 278-285. 28Id., 288. 29Id., 285. 30Spalinger 2005, 216

8 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 We can highlight two situations31: when the king was moving to other places 2 during battle and when the king, or some member of the royal family, was 3 present. In this article, based on the analysis of the “Protocol for the Royal 4 Bodyguard” source, we will focus only on the second context. We will try to 5 identify the elements that can provide us with clues about which way could 6 these elite military units behave in battle. As previously shown, the Hittite 7 “Royal Guard” had as known officers the “Chief of the Bodyguard” and the 8 “Commander of 10 of the Bodyguard”. According to Trevor Bryce, the “Chief 9 of the Bodyguard” would be a position of extreme importance and prestige 10 within the Hittite military machine. In addition, the attribution of this position 11 falls often on members of the royal family, usually the brothers of the king, as 12 well as the heir son32. The following excerpt proves the relationship between 13 the royal house and this type of officer: “[...], wrote this tablet in the city of 14 Tawa in the presence of the Nerikkaili; Huzziya, chief of the royal 15 bodyguard; Prince Kurakura, [...]”33. While the former appears to be a very 16 specific post and clearly associated only with these units, the latter has 17 equivalents in the Hittite regular army command system, usually only referred 18 to as the “Commander of 10”34. Regarding the main function of these units, it 19 is safe to say that the “Royal Guard” was present in battle when the king 20 himself was as well. However, it is unlikely that the monarch would participate 21 in the actual melee35, because this would put him in a position of direct danger, 22 a completely undesirable situation36. Did these units only join combat when the 23 king was in danger? In a situation where the Hittite army was at a disadvantage 24 or to be defeated, this enabled the enemy to approach the rear of the army 25 formation, the most probable position for the king. On the other hand, the 26 aforementioned difference between the “regular royal guard” and soldiers with 27 “golden spears” may attribute some value to the possible use of the former 28 section in combat, even when there was no threat to the king. It is now 29 important to observe the characteristics of the soldiers who were part of these 30 units. See the following excerpt: 31 32 “[...] Two heavy-spear men, though, ta[ke] their places opposite the king to the right; they 33 do not hold [s]pears. A gold-spear man [takes his place bet]ween them, and he holds a 34 gold-plated [spe]ar. [...]” 35 36 CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 2. 9-11; Miller 2013, 109 37 38 The reference to the “heavy-spear men” leads us to think of a 39 categorisation roughly similar to a heavy infantry typology. A reality otherwise 40 predictable, given the main function of these units. Were these soldiers on foot 41 or riding chariots? Knowing the importance of this weapon in Hittite warfare37

31Bryce 2007, 48. 32Bryce 2011, 94; Lorenz et Schrakamp 2011, 135. 33CTH 169/KUB 3.70: 2.30-43; Beckman 1999, 122. 34Güterbock et Van der Hout 1991, 25. 35Burney 2004, 30; Lorenz et Schrakamp 2011, 135 36Bryce 2007, 8. 37Bryce 2007, 31.

9 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 and associating this factor to the potential that the war chariot achieved during 2 the Second Millennium BC38, it is plausible to suggest a relationship between 3 the “Royal Guard” and these mobile units. Still, there are many questions 4 regarding the various aspects of the typologies and the way of combat with the 5 Hittite chariots. This is mainly due to the lack of precise data, both textual and 6 iconographic39. Since this is not the subject of this article, we will just point out 7 that, as Mary Littauer and Joost Crouwel have shown, using the spear while on 8 a chariot as a shock weapon would be very problematic40. Therefore, given the 9 presence of spears in these military units, it seems plausible to admit that these 10 would be infantry forces. Would this imply that the monarch himself was not 11 on a chariot when in battle? This question leads us to the political side of the 12 war chariot, so often marked in other Bronze Age contexts, like or 13 (the latter in an imminently posterior chronology), where the monarch 14 was often depicted on his war chariot41. In Hatti, the connection between 15 royalty and this weapon is not as plentiful as in the above-mentioned contexts, 16 although references exist which prove that the king would use vehicles for his 17 movements in battle. In iconographic terms there are only the representations 18 in Egyptian murals about the battle of Kadeš42, as well as an image coming 19 from Zinjirli where two soldiers are observed on a war chariot43. 20 Unfortunately, it is not clear that one of these troops can be considered, 21 iconographically speaking, a king. See the following excerpt: 22 23 “[...] Then, when the king requests the chariot, guard brings the step-stool and sets it (up), 24 and the king takes the chariot. And the bodyguard who is the farrier holds a staff, and he 25 grasps the horse on the right by the bit with the right hand, while with the left he holds the 26 stave; [...]” 27 28 CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 3. 55-58; Miller 2013, 117 29 30 It is known to us that in other contexts, like the Mittani, the king's personal 31 guard was composed by soldiers riding chariots, about ten vehicles to be more 32 precise44. The exception was the presence of guards with “veterinary” 33 knowledge45 which, of course, had the task of treating the horses that pulled the 34 war chariots, including those from the monarch’s vehicle. There are sources 35 that help us prove that the Hittite king usually moved in a chariot, and probably 36 in military contexts that would be the same case. See the following example: 37 “[...] If, however, he (the king) goes into some place by chariot, then as soon as 38 the king step[s] down from the chariot [...]”46. Referring to the Hittite sources 39 only, there is no other evidence regarding the use of chariots by the “Royal

38Lorenz et Schrakamp 2011, 143. 39Archer 2010, 61-62; Lorenz et Schrakamp 2010, 140; Noble 2015, 94. 40Littauer et Crouwel 2002a, 53-58. 41Quesada Sanz 2005, 18; Hamblin 2006, 133-139. 42Collins 2007, 55. 43Lorenz et Schrakamp 2011, 140. 44Gabriel 2002: 88-89. 45Miller 2013, 117. 46CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 4.23; Miller 2013, 119.

10 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 Guard”, nor any part of that unit, to protect the king. Although, if the Hittite 2 monarch was, during battle, on a vehicle47 it would be necessary for these same 3 guards to be on some kind of mobile platform as well. Other data that seems to 4 link the “Royal Guard” to some war chariot units are the archaeological data 5 discovered in Pi-Ramesse (Egypt) inside a workshop. According to E. B. 6 Pusch, the armament discovered revealed a strong relation between the Hittite 7 chariot formations and the units that would have accompanied Princess 8 Maathorneferure. She was the daughter of Hattušili II, who married Ramses II 9 in the thirty-fourth year of his reign48. Taking into account the current 10 knowledge, together with the absence of information concerning the actual 11 Hittite war chariot units, especially when we compared it to other places like 12 the Mittani and the Neo-Assyria49, the “Royal Guard” of the Hittite king was 13 likely to be a well-trained, mixed military force, mostly made up by heavy 14 infantry forces and war chariot units. In fact, the term māru damqu ša qurub is 15 usually translated into “soldier of the guard with war chariots”, a suggestive 16 designation that connects these soldiers to the “Royal Guard” units that used 17 vehicles (GIŠ.GIGIR qurubte)50. 18 How were these soldiers recruited? What was their origin? Information 19 about the Hittite army recruitment process is sparse and the same is true of the 20 “Royal Guard”. According to Trevor Bryce, most contingents would be formed 21 by volunteers seeking a military career. There would also be foreign soldiers 22 and others from the recruitment process itself. This was done locally, with each 23 region or village having to provide a certain number of troops to the army51. 24 Later, the recruits would be sent to barracks, the biggest and most important 25 ones being located in Hattuša. Although it seems that there was already a pre- 26 selection of the most capable soldiers in their home regions52, we can assume 27 that the selection of the soldiers that would form the contingent of the “Royal 28 Guard” would take place in the barracks. Here, surely, the most capable would 29 be chosen to serve the king and assure his family’s protection. 30 How many troops were part of the Hittite “Royal Guard” during the Old 31 Kingdom? As we previously observed, this type of soldier was commanded by 32 the “Commander of 10”, a designation which immediately refers to a military 33 organization based on the number ten and its multiples, like we also find in 34 Mittani53, Egypt54 and Assyria55. Although the base number of soldiers in these 35 units is clear, their total number is unknown. Was it forty? Fifty? Sixty? Due to 36 the lack of additional information, it is impossible to refer to a specific number, 37 although a possible quantification between forty and sixty can be a reasonable

47Bryce 2007, 41. 48Lorenz et Schrakamp 2011, 139-140; Genz 2011, 320. 49Dezső 2006, 94. 50Dezső 2012, 100. 51Bryce 2002b, 111. 52Bryce 2007, 11-12. 53 Gabriel 2002, 89. 54 Schulman 1963, 83; Ferreira et Varandas 2016, 153. 55 De Backer 2014, 19-20.

11 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 probability in this context and can be extended up to one hundred56. Specially 2 during the BC, the Hittite armies would have about forty vehicles 3 in their ranks. Therefore, given the cost of this weapon, it is plausible to admit 4 that the personal guardianship of the Hittite kings during the Old Kingdom 5 could be slightly higher57. This theory can be amplified with the Jürgen Lorenz 6 and Ingo Schrakamp’s theory about the presence of regular soldiers in the 7 composition of the guard units, often referred to as “spear-men”58. Assuming 8 that this idea is correct, we may suggest an application of this section of the 9 “Royal Guard” in direct combat during a battle, even away from the king 10 himself. Just like in the occasions where the king was not leading the troops 11 into battle, he often assigned nominal command of the army to a member of the 12 royal family, one of his brothers for example59. Knowing that usually the title 13 of “Chief of the Royal Bodyguard” was given to someone inside the royal 14 family, it is probable that in some situations the same member could have both 15 functions inside the Hittite army60. This fact creates a close relationship 16 between the combat made by the regular soldiers and the elite units. Therefore, 17 this could mean that the “Royal Guard” officers must have had some skills 18 within the tactical command of the contingents in battle. In the following 19 excerpt, we can observe the reference to what appears to be a tactical 20 movement: 21 22 “[...] But if the king calls some foreign troops, either hostile Kaskean troops, or 23 Kummahean troops or whatever troops, then all the bodyguards walk behind. But i[f] 24 there are too few spears for them, then they take spe[ars] from the spear-men and they 25 walk behind. That´s called “encircling”. [...]” 26 27 CTH 262/IBoT 1.36: 3.35-40; Miller 2013, 115 28 29 In this example, taken from the “Protocol for the Royal Bodyguard”, we 30 notice what may be a procedure applicable in warlike context. “Encircling” can 31 have two interpretations beyond the context in which the excerpt is inserted (in 32 the palace), and both can be complementary in the sense that one does not 33 exclude the other, since they could occur in different situations: 34 35 1. King’s protection. 36 2. In combat during a battle. 37 38 In the first case, the “Royal Guards’” movements around the monarch 39 were linear so that he would be in the centre, behind the “shield wall”, and 40 protected. Taking into account the tactical limitations regarding this effort, this 41 type of movement would only be possible if the king was on foot. If he was on 42 a chariot, a movement like this would be of extreme difficulty, because his

56 Richard Beal mentioned that twelve would be on duty and that the total guard’s unit “must have been at least in the dozens”; cf. Beal 1986, 272. 57 Noble 2015, 96. 58 Lorenz et Schrakamp 2011, 136 59 Bryce 2002b, 111. 60 Bryce 2007, 8-9.

12 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 guards would need to be on vehicles as well. Also, the tactical positioning of 2 these soldiers, in order to protect the monarch, would be problematic, since the 3 vehicles had to be in constant motion in order to be effective. On the other 4 hand, if the elite units were on foot and the king was on a chariot, the 5 positioning would be possible but this would not effectively protect the 6 monarch due to his elevation relative to the others, making the king a perfect 7 target for enemy archers and slingers. The second context implies the use of 8 these soldiers in combat, whether it would be the entire contingent or only part 9 of it. Here, two other possibilities have to be taken into account, since these 10 soldiers could be fighting either on foot or riding chariots. Both options are 11 plausible when applied to the word “encircling”, since the term could be used 12 in a close combat or in a distant fight situation – the Hittite chariots, at least 13 from the Old Kingdom, were used as a platform for archers. A circumstance 14 supported by some iconographic sources and because of this reality, many 15 researchers refute the possibility of the Hittite chariots being used as a melee 16 weapon, arguing that it was instead used as a shooting platform with the bow 17 and arrow as the primary weapon61. 18 19 20 Conclusion 21

22 In conclusion, we believe that in their basis the Hittite “Royal Guard” had 23 as its main function the protection of the king and his family during the Old 24 Kingdom. On the other hand, and as demonstrated throughout the article, there 25 are indications regarding these elite units may actually have been used in 26 warlike contexts. These soldiers would have been a heterogeneous elite force in 27 the sense that, at its base, it would have two types of units: 28 29 1. Heavy infantry. 30 2. Chariot squadrons. 31 32 These unit’s warfare typology will, inevitably, always be relate to the 33 king's own situation in battle. That is, the way the king presented himself in 34 battle, for tactical reasons his “Royal Bodyguard” should also coincide with 35 that form. If the monarch was on foot, then his guard should also fight on the 36 ground in a heavy infantry typology. If the Hittite king were in a chariot, then it 37 would only make sense that the king's military protective unit would be 38 positioned on the battlefield over chariots as well. While we should keep both 39 possibilities open, the almost absence regarding mentions of war chariots in the 40 used sources, we should be compelled to believe that these elite units were 41 heavy infantry that would fight with spear and shield in a tight formation. 42 Although the presence of war chariots is a possibility, we still lack more data in 43 order to strengthen this idea. However, the existence of a weapon like the light

61Bryce 2007, 27-32; Id., 41-42; Lorenz et Schrakamp 2011, 139-140; Littauer et Crouwel 2002b, 78-82; Burney 2004a, 24-25.

13 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 war chariot during the Bronze Age, with the military and political importance it 2 had in this kind of elite units, allows us to see this hypothesis as a probable 3 fact. While the provenance of this military would be mostly Hittite, its actual 4 quantification is currently impossible to prove with certainty. This is mainly 5 due to the fact that the numbers previously offered are estimates, thus fallible 6 either by default or by excess. 7 The “Protocol for the Royal Bodyguard” contains very important data 8 concerning the troops operability inside the palace. However, for the scope of 9 this article, the possible information comes mainly from associations between 10 descriptions or features mentioned in the source in a palatial context, which can 11 be transposed into a battle context. It seems evident to us that the king’s 12 presence in battle was always sided with his «personal guards» and these 13 would also have to be in the same place to protect the monarch from possible 14 dangers that might arise. For example, mobile war chariot unit engagements 15 that could appear in an unexpected tactical position and within range of 16 attacking the Hittite king or formation-breaking moments where enemy 17 infantry units could approach the rear of the Hittite army. 18 It must be said that throughout the article and, in most cases, it was only 19 possible to provide some clues and possibilities for a better understanding of 20 the presence of these elite forces in battle. As in many other contexts related to 21 the military history of some Bronze Age societies, there are large gaps of data. 22 Because of this, we often do not possess a relatively complete set of 23 information that allows us to offer decisive answers on certain issues. 24 The object of study here proposed, the Hittite “Royal Guard” units during 25 the Old Kingdom, reflects these problems. Thus, we can only aim to create a 26 survey that will keep the scientific discussion about this topic alive and 27 ongoing. 28 In short, the presence of these forces in battle is very believable and the 29 presence of a hierarchy within the actual elite unit is evident. The existence of 30 regular soldiers (referred to as “spear-men”) suggests an effective presence on 31 the battlefield, as well as the distinction between the “Royal Bodyguards” 32 (MEŠEDI) and soldiers with “golden spears” in comparison with the regular 33 guards. It is plausible to admit that these “spear-men” could themselves be the 34 regular guards. Thus, the MEŠEDI and the “golden spears” would be the most 35 capable and the closest contingent to the king, whereas if necessary, the 36 remaining guard could go into combat, even if the monarch was not in danger. 37 This understandable hierarchy would be present in the warlike context and its 38 tactical positioning would reflect these same ranks within the elite unit itself. 39 We can assume that the lower ranks would be in the front lines and as they 40 approached the king, the ranks would be higher and higher. Based on the 41 source and interpretation of the data provided by it, we can outline the 42 following Hittite “royal guard” formation in battle: we can admit that the king 43 would be at the center of the formation, that is, in the safest position. The 44 closest soldiers to the monarch would be the MEŠEDI (highest hierarchical 45 position), then would be the “gold-spear men” followed by the “heavy-spear 46 men” and “bronze-spear men”, finally, in the first lines of defence would be the

14 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 regular soldiers, the “spearmen”. We must safeguard that this is only an 2 organization possibility and that it is issued with questionnaire and subject to 3 change. 4 5 6 References 7 8 Archer, R. 2010. “Development in Near-Eastern chariotry and chariot warfare in the 9 early first millennium BCE and their contribution to the rise of ”. Garrett 10 G. Fagan et Matthew Trundle (eds.), New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare. 11 Leiden: Brill Publishers. 57-79. 12 Beal, R. 1986. The Organization of the Hittite Military. Chicago: Chicago University. 13 Beckman, G. 1986. “Inheritance and Royal Succession among the Hittites”. Harry 14 Hoffner et Gary Beckman (eds.). Kaniššuwar. Hans G. Güterbock on his seventh 15 birthday. Assyriological Studies, 24. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the 16 University of Chicago. 13-32. 17 Beckman, G. 1999. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 18 Bryce, T. 2011. “Hittite State and Society”. Hermann Genz et Dirk Paul Mielke (eds.). 19 Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Paris: Peeters. 85-98. 20 . 2007. Hittite Warrior. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. 21 . 2002. Life and Society in the Hittite World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 22 . 2005. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 23 Burney, C. 2004a. “Archery”. Historical Dictionary of the Hittites. Oxford: The 24 Scarecrow Press. 29-31. 25 . 2004b. “Army”. Historical Dictionary of the Hittites. Oxford: The Scarecrow Press. 26 29-31. 27 Carreira, J. N. 1999. Historiografia Hitita. Lisboa: Edições Colibri. 28 Collins, B. J. 2007. The Hittites and their World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical 29 Literature. 30 De Backer, F. 2014. “The Smallest Neo-Assyrian Combat Unit”. Historiae, 11. 31 Barcelona: Grup d´Estudis Historiogràfics. 19-47. 32 Dezső, T. 2006. “A Reconstruction of the Army of Sargon II (721-705 BC) Based on 33 the Nimrud Horse Lists”. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin, XV. Padova: Sargon 34 Editrice e Libreria. 93-139. 35 . 2012. The Assyrian Army. Budapest: Eötvös University Press. 36 Ferreira, E. et Varandas, J. 2016. “Os Carros de Guerra na Antiguidade”. Telo Ferreira 37 Canhão (dir.). Hapi, 4. Lisboa: Sersilito. 139-174. 38 Gabriel, R. A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Westport: Praegar Publishers. 39 Genz, H. 2011. “Foreign Contacts of the Hittites”. Hermann Genz et Dirk Paul Mielke 40 (eds.). Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Paris: Peeters. 301-332. 41 Güterbock, H. et Van den Hout, T. P. J. 1991. “The Hittite Instruction for the Royal 42 Bodyguard”. Assyriological Studies, 24. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the 43 University of Chicago. 1-99. 44 Hamblin, W. J. 2006. Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC. Holy Warriors at 45 the Dawn of History. New York: Routledge. 46 Haywood, J. 2005. The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Civilizations. London: 47 Penguin Klein. 48 Hoffner Jr., H. A. (ed.). 1997. Perspective on Hittite Civilization: Selected Writings of 49 Hans Gustav Güterbock. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of 50 Chicago.

15 2021-4111-AJMS – 10 FEB 2021

1 Joseph, B. et Fritz, M. 2017/2018. Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo- 2 European Linguistics. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 3 Kudrinski, M. et Yakubovich, I. 2016. “Sumerograms and Akkadograms in Hittite: 4 Ideograms, Logograms, Allograms, or Heterograms?”. Altorientalische 5 Forschungen, 43, 1-2. Berlin: De Gruyter. 53-66. 6 Lévêque, P. (1987) 2014. As Primeiras Civilizações da Idade da Pedra aos Povos 7 Semitas. Trans. António José Pinto Ribeiro. Lisboa: Edições 70. 8 Liverani, M. (1991) 2012. El Antiguo Oriente. Historia, sociedad y economía. Trans. 9 Juan Vivanco. Barcelona: Crítica. 10 Littauer, M. A. et Crouwel, J. H. 2002a. “Chariots in Late Bronze Age ”. Peter 11 Raulwing (ed.). Selected Writings on Chariots and other Early Vehicles, Riding 12 and Harness. Leiden: Brill. 53-61. 13 . 2002b. “The Military Use of the Chariot in the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age”. 14 Peter Raulwing (ed.). Selected Writings on Chariots and other Early Vehicles, 15 Riding and Harness. Leiden: Brill. 75-99. 16 Lorenz, J. et Schrakamp, I. 2011. “Hittite Military and Warfare”. Hermann Genz et 17 Dirk Paul Mielke (eds.). Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Paris: 18 Peeters. 125-152. 19 McMahon, G. 1997. “Instructions to the Royal Guard (MEŠEDI Protocol)”. W. Hallo 20 et K. Younger Jr. (eds.). Context of Scripture, Vol. 1, Canonical Compositions 21 from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill. 369-376. 22 Miller, J. L. 2013. Royal Hittite Instructions and Related Administrative Texts. 23 Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 24 Mõttus, Siim. 2018. The Edict of Telepinu and Hittite Royal Sucession. Master’s thesis 25 present to the University of Tartu. 2018. 26 Noble, D. 2015. Dawn of the Horse Warriors. Chariot and Cavalry Warfare 3000-600 27 BC. Yorkshire: Pen and Sword Books. 28 Quesada Sanz, F. 2005. “Carro en el Antiguo Mediterráneo: De los Orígenes a Roma”. 29 E. Galán (ed.). Historia del Carruaje en España. Madrid: FCC. 16-71. 30 Raulwing, P. 2000. Horses, Chariots and Indo-europeans. Foundations and Methods 31 of Chariotry Research from the Viewpoint of Comparative Indo-european 32 Linguistics. Budapest: Archaeolingua. 33 Renfrew, C. (1987) 1990. Arqueología y Lenguaje: La cuestión de los orígenes 34 indoeuropeos. Barcelona: Crítica. 35 Schulman, A. R. 1963. “The Egyptian Charity: a Re-examination”. Journal of the 36 American Research Center in Egypt, 2. San Antonio: American Research Center 37 in Egypt. 75-98. 38 Spalinger, A. 2005. War in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing 39 Van de Mieroop, M. 2016. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 40 Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 41 Van den Hout, T. 2003. “The Proclamation of ”. Hallo et Younger (eds.). The 42 Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Vol. I. 43 Leiden: Brill. 194–198.

16