ORIENT Volume 51, 2016
The Hittite Noun išḫiul-: Law of Gods, Instruction and Treaty
Hajime YAMAMOTO
The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (NIPPON ORIENTO GAKKAI) The Hittite Noun išḫiul-: Law of Gods, Instruction and Treaty
Hajime Yamamoto*
The Hittite texts titled išḫiul- are translated into English as either the king’s “instructions” for his officials or “treaties” with foreign rulers. The verb išḫai-/išḫiya-, from which išḫiul- is derived, indicates that this noun represents a vertical relationship between the parties involved. In spite of that connotation, the Hittite king concluded some treaties with the Great Kings, his equals in rank. The purpose of this paper is to present the Hittite king’s employment of this term in imperial administration and diplomacy. A philological analysis of the usages of išḫiul- reveals that it has three meanings: “the law of the gods,” “instruction of the king” and “treaty.” Its original meaning might be “the law of the gods.” The Hittites thought that the gods determined how they should be worshipped. Based on the responses of oracles, the king established concrete procedures of rituals and festivals for the gods on their behalf. He exercised this right even in state administration by dictating what he wanted of his subjects. Therefore, išḫiul- can be described as “the instruction of the king.” When the noun išḫiul- is used for diplomatic purposes, it is translated as a “treaty.” In the so-called “subordination treaties,” the Hittite king issued the išḫiul-treaties, stipulating what he demanded of subjugated kings, just as he had concerning his subjects. However, when a Hittite king concluded a “parity treaty,” he had to moderate the connotation that accompanied the noun išḫiul-. The Hittite king explained that he and his partner had mutually imposed the išḫiul-treaty, or that the god had imposed it upon both parties. If the Hittite king wanted to express friendly and neutral relationships with a foreign ruler without connoting the hierarchical order, he might have used the alternative diplomatic term takšul-.
Keywords: Hittite, išḫiul-, law, instruction, treaty
I. Introduction In the Hittite corpus, the texts titled išḫiul-, meaning “bind; obligation,”1 are described as either “instructions” for state officials or “treaties” with foreign rulers. As išḫiul- is paired with the noun lingai- “oath” in their titles, those texts were issued to create the master-servant relationship between Hittite kings and their servants through the latters’ oaths guaranteeing their execution of the obligations.2 In the introduction of his work on the Hittite instructions, Miller mentions the characteristics of the Hittite texts of “išḫiul- and lingai-,” or “obligation and oath.” Because the Hittites regarded these words as the same textual category, it is only the modern scholars who labeled them as “instructions” and “treaties.”
* Adjunct Lecturer, Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University. 1 Puhvel (1984, 400–401) and also Kloekhorst (2008, 392) translate the noun išḫiul as “binding; obligation, injunction; statue; treaty.” 2 Taggar-Cohen 2011, 468.
Vol. 51 (2016) 143 Upon reflection the Hittites’ categorization of “instructions” and “treaties” together is more reasonable and coherent than it might seem at first glance, for the essence of all such “treaties,” “contracts,” and “instructions” was the sovereign’s imposition of the obligations (the išḫiul-) upon the subordinate party, that is, the defining of its role and responsibilities within the state administrative structure, and the subordinate’s requisite swearing of an oath to uphold those stipulations before the gods (the lingai-).3
In all those “obligation and oath” texts, the Hittite king dictated obligations for a person or group of people who would swear his or their observance of the obligations. Miller summarizes the previous studies of the correlation between the imposition of the obligation and the oath-taking in the instruction texts and concludes the following: “Hittite usage of the terms išḫiul- and lingai- when used to categorize a composition does not correspond to the categories that we would like to see as ‘instructions’ and ‘oaths.’ Hittite scribes use them almost interchangeably when apply- ing them to texts of the type at hand.”4 The two terms could, therefore, be interchangeable for the Hittites to describe the instruction texts. While oaths were a necessary component of those texts and the noun lingai- could mean an instruction text itself, it seldom appears in the Hittite treaties as their text title. Christiansen and Devecchi point out that the relationship of the treaty was guaranteed by divine power, which stemmed from the gods’ existence as the witnesses to the conclusion of the treaty.5 Because oaths were performed to let the gods know that the addressees of the text obeyed the obligation from the king, swearing an oath was regarded only as a part of the procedure of concluding a treaty, especially in the later period of Hittite history. Therefore, those nouns seem to be used differently in instructions and treaties. Additionally, although it has been said that the Hittite words išḫiul- and lingai- corresponded with Akkadian rikiltu/rikistu/riksu and māmītu, the Akkadian riksu and māmītu was not exactly the same as their Hittite language counterparts.”6 It seems that the Hittites used išḫiul- and lingai- to describe a textual genre in a way that differed from the Akkadian paired terms.7 While the noun lingai- describes the crucial act in creating a contractual commitment by the parties,”8 the noun išḫiul- always describes a legal document itself, which we translate as “instruction” or “treaty.” The Hittite noun išḫiul- itself connotes a top-down obligation. The verb išḫai-/išḫiya-, “to
3 Miller 2013, 2–3. Beckman (1999, 2) also points out that the Hittites made no fundamental distinction between inter- nal and external obligations to their king. 4 Miller 2013, 6. 5 Christiansen and Devecchi 2013, 76. 6 As Miller (2013, 323, n. 4) points it out, “[i]n the Akkadian language treaties from Ḫattusa the terms išḫiul- and lingai- are replaced with rikiltu/rikistu/riksu and māmītu, respectively. These occur occasionally as Akkadograms in Hittite texts as well, though only the latter term is found in the instructions, and only in the compositions of the last Hittite kings, Tudḫaliya IV and Suppiluliu/ama II, or in late copies of earlier compositions.” 7 As for the Assyrian adê “treaty,” see Parpola and Watanabe (1988, XVI). Altman (2012, 192) clarifies the different characteristics of Assyrian treaties (adê) and Hittite ones as follows: “Whereas the common preamble of the Hittite subordination treaties presents the document as the treaty dictated by the Hittite king, who is presented alone, the Neo-Assyrian preamble presents the document as the adê (= ‘treaty’) concluded by the two identified parties.” 8 Altman 2012, 115. He continues, “The oath taken was only intended to put these relations under divine sanction, which would then turn the curse and the blessings into being potentially operative. Accordingly, the treaties of the Late Bronze Age are designated as ṭuppi rikši ‘tablet of treaty (“bond”)’, išhiul in Hittite.”
144 ORIENT The Hittite Noun išḫiul- bind,” from which the noun is derived, figuratively means, “to impose a burden on an inferior person by a superior.”9 The verb connotes a tight and forceful action to bind the burden on a per- son. Furthermore, the imposed person must have felt it impossible to escape from such a bond of his own will. Accordingly, we can assume the meaning of išḫiul- as “something that imposes a burden on a person,” which implies the vertical relationship between the imposer and the person(s) upon whom the burden is imposed. Given this implication, the noun can stand for the relationship between either gods and human beings or a king and his subjects as Taggar-Cohen concludes: “Its foundational concept therefore, is the legal relationship between kingship and the divine on the one hand and the king and his kingdom’s social political structure on the other.”10 While the noun išḫiul- connotes a vertical relationship, the Hittite king could create treaties with foreign rulers who would be considered his equals in rank, such as an Egyptian pharaoh. Here, a question can be raised: how did the Hittites use the concept of išḫiul- in their diplomacy? This question is worthy of detailed research. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to employ a philological analysis of the usage of išḫiul- to present how the Hittite king implemented this con- cept for administration and diplomacy. The following chapters will discuss the usage of išḫiul- in the Hittite texts themselves. Through religious, administrative and diplomatic texts, we can see different aspects of this concept. The analysis of the noun will be done both from grammatical and contextual points of view.11 I will start by discussing the primary meaning of išḫiul- in religious texts and continue with its employment in administration and diplomacy.
II. The Law of the Gods Although the evidence is rather rare, some uses of the noun išḫiul- seem to mean “the law of the god(s).” The series of prayers to the Sun-god that originated during the Middle Hittite period conveys this meaning. In the beginning of the Prayer of the King, the Hittite king invokes the Sun-god and asks to transfer his plea to his personal god.
KUB 31.130 obv. 1’–3’ (CTH 374.I) (1’) [dUTU-e šar-ku LUGAL-u-e] ┌DUMU dNIN.GAL┐[KUR-ya-aš(?)12] [iš-ḫ]i-┌ú-ul┐ š[a- ak-l]a-in (2’) [zi-ik-pát dUTU-uš ḫa-an-t]e-eš-ki-ši na-aš-ta KUR-┌ya┐ iš-tar-na (3’) [zi-ik- pát aš-ša-nu]-wa-an-za dUTU-uš <ḫa-an-da-an-za>(?) DINGIR-uš zi-ik “O [Sun-god], eminent king, son of Nikkal, [you alone, O Sun-g]od, [establi]shes [l]aw (and) c[us]tom [of the land(?)], and in the land [you alone] are [widely wor]shipped, you are the
9 As for the figurative connotations of išḫai-/išḫiya-, see Yamamoto 2015, 3–7, 13. 10 Taggar-Cohen 2011, 482. 11 This paper will not pay so much attention to the format of each text genre, which has been largely studied. Recent studies of these topics are discussed in Miller (2013) for the Hittite instruction texts and Beckman (1999) for the Hit- tite treaties. According to Beckman 1999, 2-3, typical subordination treaties contains six components. These are (1) preamble, (2) historical introduction/historical prologue, (3) provisions, (4) deposition, (5) list of divine witnesses and (6) curses and blessings. 12 I followed the transliteration and translation of Schwemer 2011, 16–17, 24. Although he did not fill in, there is clearly a space for 2 or 3 signs in the middle of line 1’. I filled in the gap based on the parallel text KUB 31.127+ i 16–17(utniyandaš šaklain išḫiul).
Vol. 51 (2016) 145 Here, the Hittite king described the Sun-god as the one who established išḫiul- and šaklai- “custom.”13 According to the following context, in which the offerings for the god are mentioned, we can assume the išḫiul- here is the rule that determines how human beings should treat the gods14. Its paired noun šaklai- seems to mean the custom for worshipping the god according to the law. The verb ḫanteškiši, an imperfective marked by the affix -ške- “iterative-durative,” in- dicates that the Hittites thought the god kept establishing the law and the custom or his constant execution of his power over humanity.15 In any case, the Hittites thought it was the god(s) who established išḫiul- in the first place. We can also find the idea that the gods established the law concerning their worship in a text from the New Hittite period. In her prayer, Puduḫepa promised the Sun-goddess of Arinna that she and her husband, Ḫattušili III, would observe the law of the gods.
KUB 21.27 ii 1–4 (CTH 384) (1) […a-pí?-y]a?-an-na-aš pár-ku-nu-um-me-ni (2) [nam-ma-aš-m]a-aš A-NA DINGIRMEŠ QA-TAM-MA pé-ra-an EGIR-pa (3) [ú-wa-u-e-]ni nu-un-na-aš šu-me-el ŠA DINGIRMEŠ iš- ḫi-ú-ul (4) [ḫa-az-z]i-wi QA-TAM-MA kat-ta a-ú-um-me-ni “[…] we will purify ourselves, [and then] we will carry out the cult for you, O gods, in the same way, and we will observe your law and [ritual] likewise.”16
Puduḫepa and her husband would observe (aummeni) the law (išḫiul) that the gods in Nerik established, and they would carry out the ritual (ḫazziwi) for them, which had been neglected since the time of Muwatalli, the former king.17 The meaning of išḫiul- here seems to be the law that regulated the procedure of the ritual, which probably was ascertained by oracle. Oracle inquiries were used to confirm such a divine law in local religious traditions. A liver oracle text below indicates this process. The oracles were performed to ascertain an appropriate way in which the celebration of the gods was done.
KUB 5.6 i 20’–26’ (CTH 570) (20’) A-NA DINGIRLIM ku-it iš-ḫi-ú-ul ŠA LÚ URUAš-ta-ta i-wa-ar SIxSÁ-at (21’) nu LÚ URU ┌ ┐ Aš-ta-ta ku-iš 1 EZEN4 har-pí-ya-aš 1 EZEN4 ŠA ITI.10. KAM IQ-BI (22’) na-at IŠ-TU ṬUP-PÍ ma-aḫ-ḫa-an a-ni-ya-an-te-eš na-aš QA-TAM-MA (23’) e-eš-šu-wa-an ti-i-ya-an-zi f ḪI.A ŠA Mi-iz-zu-ul-la-ya i-wa-ar ku-it (24’) iš-ḫi-ú-ul ke-e-da-aš A-NA EZEN4 an-da SIxSÁ-
13 See CHD-Š, 44–46. 14 Those offerings are mentioned, for example, in KUB 31.130 obv.40’–42’. 15 As for the affix -ške-, see Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 318, 24.5. 16 Transliteration of Sürenhagen 1981, 112 and translation of Singer 2002, 103. While Singer’s translation for the noun išḫiul- is “regulation,” I would like to give the coherent translation as “law” of the gods here. A similar usage occurs in Muwatalli’s prayer for the Storm-god of Kummanni. KBo 11.1 obv. 26–27: ku-it-ma-an-ma KUR-e a-še-ša-nu-uš- ki-mi ku-it-ma-na-at kur-ša-a-i Š[A DINGIRM]EŠ-ma iš-ḫi-ú-ul EGIR-an-da ku-it ú-e-mi-iš-ki-mi na-at e-eš-ša-aḫ-ḫi- pát “While I am resettling the land, and until it recovers (?), I shall indeed perform the law of the gods which I am re- discovering” (transliteration by Lebrun 1980, 294-308, translation by Singer 2002, 83). Here, Muwatalli proclaimed that he would perform the local cult based on the išḫiul- that he had rediscovered (wemiškimi). The affix -ške- seems to indicate that humanity was demanded to constantly check the gods’ will for their worship. I followed Singer’s translation but changed the translation of išḫiul- as “protocol” into “law.” 17 For auš- “to see,” HW2 (I: A, 589) cites this sentence translating the verb as “beobachten,” or “observe.” Given the fact that the verb auš- is frequently used in oracle texts (HW2 I: A, 581–582), it may mean to investigate or check by oracle.
146 ORIENT The Hittite Noun išḫiul-
LUM ḪI.A f at nu-kán ma-a-an DINGIR (25’) EZEN4 a-ya-a-ri ke-e-da-aš A-NA EZEN4 ŠA Mi-iz- zu-ul-la (26’) i-wa-ar an-da ša-an-aḫ-ta nu SIxSÁ-at “Because the law in the style of the man of Aštata was established and the man of Aštata mentioned one harvest festival (lit. ‘of the grain pile’) and one festival in the tenth month, they will begin to celebrate them (the festivals) as they are set down on the tablet. Because the law in the style of Mezzulla was (also) established for these festivals, whether you, O deity, among these festivals, desired an ayari-festival in the style of Mezzulla was estab- lished by oracle.”18
Through the oracular inquiries, the diviner tried to determine the anger of the gods, which was thought to be the cause of the illness suffered by the king. According to the text, išḫiul in the style of “man of Aštata” was established for the harvest festival and the festival in the tenth month. Additionally, another oracle investigated whether the god also demanded the išḫiul in the style of the female diviner Mezzulla, which probably means the procedure of the ayari-festival.19 As suggested in line 22’, those established išḫiul- were the procedures of the festivals that were inscribed on tablets. In this example, išḫiul- stands for a divine law that was confirmed in the form of an oracle. It instructed people concerning which festivals they should celebrate and how they should be performed. The gods informed human beings through oracles which local išḫiul- they really demanded. The validity of the divine law must have been verified by incessant pro- cesses that involved oracular inquiries. The noun išḫiul- that occurs in the quoted texts above means the law of the gods, in other words, “something that the gods impose on humanity.” The Hittites thought that the gods deter- mined how they wanted to be worshipped, and human beings were responsible to find, by means of oracle, the right way to keep the gods’ pleased. If disaster hit—a plague spreading across the country or the king becoming sick—the law would have been checked by oracle again to search for what triggered the gods’ anger.
III. Instruction of the King The noun išḫiul-, which occurs in some ritual and festival texts, can be translated as an “instruction of the king.” Probably based on the results of an oracle, the king proclaimed the concrete procedures of rituals and festivals for the gods. The following ritual text shows that a Hittite king established išḫiul-.
18 I followed the transliteration and translation of Beckman et al. 2011, 184–185. Their translation of išḫiul- as “regimen” is misleading because it only suggests a set of rules for improving the king’s health. I translated it as “law” in order
to indicate the god’s demand for the festivals. The sign in the end of line 20’ should be SIxSÁ-at instead of SIG5-at that appears in the transliteration of Beckman et al. This transliteration must be a simple typo because they translated
here correctly as “established (SIxSÁ-at),” not as “favorable (SIG5-at).” As for the interpretation of this paragraph, see Beal 2002, 23–24. 19 Akkadogram AYARI means the second month (CAD-A, 230; Puhvel 1991, 304 for ḫiyar(r)a-, ḫierra-). Puhvel men- tions, “ḫiyara- is a hittitized form of the month name ḫiyari in Hurrian territory (Alalah, Nuzi, Ugarit), which in turn matches Akk. ayari (second month, April–May).” Hutter (2002) argues that the hiyara-festival originated from North Syria and was the festival for the Storm-god in Aleppo. It was not only for worshipers of the god in Ḫattuša but also people from Aleppo living there. As one of the state festivals, it was celebrated as a royal prerogative (Taggar-Cohen 2006, 120).
Vol. 51 (2016) 147 KUB 32.133 i 2–6 (CTH 482) m (2) AB.BA-YA-za-kán ku-wa-pí Tù-ut-ḫa-li-ya-aš LUGAL.GAL DINGIR GE6 IŠ-TU É URU URU DINGIR GE6 (3) Ki-iz-zu-wa-at-ni ar-ḫa šar-ri-i-e-et na-an-za-an I-NA Ša-mu-ḫa LIM ḪI.A (4) É DINGIR ḫa-an-ti-i i-ya-at nu-za ḫa-az-zi-wi5-ta iš-ḫi-ú-li -ya ku-e (5) I-NA É LÚ.MEŠ MEŠ DINGIR GE6 kat-ta-an ḫa-ma-an-kat-ta ú-e-er-ma-at-kán DUB.SAR.GIŠ (6) LÚ É DINGIRLIM-ya wa-aḫ-nu-uš-ke-wa-an da-a-ir “When my forefather, Tutḫaliya, Great King, split the Deity of the Night from the temple of the Deity of the Night in Kizzuwatna and worshipped her separately in a temple in Šamuḫa, those rituals and obligations which he determined in the temple of the Deity of the Night – it came about, however, that the wooden tablet scribes and the temple personnel began to incessantly alter them.”20
In this passage, the Hittite king Muršili II explains why he had to reform the cult in Šamuḫa. He narrates that Tudḫaliya, his predecessor, had established the rituals (ḫawizzita) and the išḫiuliḪI.A, the plural form of the noun—meaning, “obligations” according to Miller’s translation—for the cult of the Goddess of Night. This shows that the king could establish išḫiul- of the rituals for the goddess as he addressed the priests in the temple. Here, we can describe the meaning of išḫiul- as “something that the king proclaims that the gods impose on humanity.” The text below also demonstrates this meaning well.
KBo 2.4 iv 27’–28’ (CTH 672.D) (27’) INIM Ta-ba-ar-na LUGAL.GAL ki-i-kán (28’) iš-ḫi-ú-ul le-e ku-iš-ki wa-aḫ-nu-zi “The word of the Tabarna, the great king, this išḫiul no one shall change!”21
As suggested in the example above, once the king established obligations of rituals or festivals, his words themselves were regarded as išḫiul- by priests. If the king’s words were written down on a tablet, the text became what we would call an instruction text. The king had to make sure that his words were not changed (lē waḫnuzi) so that they might not be contrary to the gods’ will. In administrative texts, išḫiul- can always be translated as “instruction.” In what we call instruction texts, the noun išḫiul- always indicates an official document issued by the king. This word frequently occurs in the genitive form that modifies the word for “tablet” (Sumerogram DUB or Akkadogram ṬUPPU). For example, the colophon of the so-called “Instructions for Priest and Temple Personnel” reads as follows:
KUB 13.4 iv 78–81 (CTH 264.A) MEŠ LIM MEŠ (78) DUB 1 KAM ŠA LÚ É.DlNGIR ḫu-u-ma-an-da-aš (79) ŠA EN TU7 MEŠ MEŠ MEŠ MEŠ LIM MEŠ DINGIR LÚ APIN.LÁ DINGIR (80) Ù ŠA LÚ SIPAD.GU4 DINGIR LÚ SIPAD.UDU DINGIRLIM (81) iš-ḫi-ú-la-aš QA-TI “First tablet of the išḫiul of all the Temple-Men, of the kitchen attendants of the gods, (and) farmers of the gods, of the cowherds of the god, (and) the shepherds of the god. Finished.”22
20 Transliteration and translation of Miller 2004, 312. 21 Transliteration and translation of Tagger-Cohen 2006, 227. 22 Transliteration and translation of Taggar-Cohen 2006, 69, 85.
148 ORIENT The Hittite Noun išḫiul-
The genitive form išḫiulaš in line 81 modifies DUB, “tablet” in line 78, which means that the king’s words were inscribed on a tablet. The king issued this document for his subjects listed in this colophon in order to determine their daily obligations concerning the management of the temple. The fact that the king himself could establish obligations to his subjects is emphasized in this category of text, which is also demonstrated in the “Instructions for the Dignitaries.”
KBo 16.24 + KBo 16.25 i 51’ (CTH 251.A) (51’) [nu-uš-m]a-aš ke-e dUT[UŠ]I ku-e iš-ḫi-ú-ul iš-ḫi-iš-ke-mi du-[ug-ga]-┌a-ru┐-[uš-ma-aš] “[And] these obligation(s) that I, My Maj[es]ty, am imposing on [yo]u, [let them be] im[portant to you]!”23
Here, the king is imposing (išḫiškemi) the instructions (išḫiul) on the dignitaries by using the verb išḫai-/išḫiya-, meaning “to bind,” in line 51’ in the first person, which metaphorically re- minds them of a physical and inescapable bond to their obligation.24 Additionally, the imperfec- tive form of the verb suggests the king’s permanent execution of power over his subjects in the same manner that the Sun-god executes his power over humanity as seen in the king’s prayer. In instruction texts, however, we find no mention of the obligations directly coming from the gods. Although the divine guarantee was needed through the addressees’ oaths sworn before the gods, it is the king who imposed the burden on his subjects. At this stage, the term išḫiul- describes a purely administrative document issued by the authority of the king. The king had the administra- tive power to impose his law upon his people on behalf of the gods. The king, as issuer of an administrative document, needed to stress the fact that those who were bound to the instruction were required to adhere to it as seen in the instruction text below.
KUB 26.9 + KBo 50.264 iv 9’–11’ (CTH 257.1.E) (9’) nu zi-ik LÚḪA-Z[A-A]N-NU ŠA URUḪa-at-ti (10’) iš-ḫi-ú-ul kiš-an pa-aḫ-ši nu-ut-ták-kán ud-da-na-a[z] (11’) le-e ku-iš-ki kar-ap-zi “So you, ma[y]or, fulfill (your) obligation(s) to Ḫattusa in this way, and let no one deter you from the(se) matters!”25
In this text, the king directly speaks to the ḫazannu, or mayor, ordering him to keep his instruction (išḫiul). Because his instruction was written on a tablet, the king had to prohibit the mayor from erasing or changing the words. To sum up, the noun išḫiul- means, “the instruction of the king” in “instruction” texts and those religious texts in which the king establishes procedures of rituals and festivals. Above all, the instruction texts were the documents dictated by the king to his servants for a purely administrative purpose of obliging them to execute what he demanded. The king had the administrative power to impose his own law upon his people on behalf of the gods. Unlike
23 Transliteration and translation of Miller 2013, 172–173. Here, išḫiul- should be plural as the relative pronoun kue indicates (see Hoffner and Melchert 2008, 149). Its plural form of the noun may indicate that the Hittite king issued different išḫiul-texts on each group of officials. 24 The verb išḫai-/išḫiya- figuratively connotes forceful bond. See introduction and n. 9. 25 Transliteration and translation of Miller 2013, 186–187.
Vol. 51 (2016) 149 the divine law, however, the king’s officials might consider changing his instruction. To avoid this, the king made them swear oaths before the gods and emphasized the invariableness of his instruction texts.
IV. Treaties with Foreign Rulers When the noun išḫiul- is used for diplomatic purposes, it is translated as a “treaty” made with a foreign ruler. Since the study by Koroseč in 1931, generally, the Hittite treaties have been divided into either parity treaties or subordination treaties.26 Even though the scholars after him have followed his categorization, we can still see different levels of power that the Hittite king could demonstrate according to the treaties.
1. Subordination Treaties Most of the subordination treaties are ones that the Hittite king imposed on a subordinate ruler who ruled a minor kingdom. According to Altman’s (2010, 28) definition, “subordination treaties were drafted in only one version by the suzerain as a dictated agreement, and a copy of it sealed by the suzerain was handed to the subordinate party.” The great king of Ḫatti produced those texts unilaterally, making only his own versions of treaty, the procedure for which was the same as that of issuing instruction texts. The noun išḫiul- in subordination treaties is used in a similar way as that in instruction texts in the following ways. First, išḫiul- in the genitive often modifies the word “tablet,” on which obligations were written down. Second, the fact that the king was the only issuer of the treaty is emphasized by using the verb iya-, meaning, “to make,” that frequently occurs in the king’s first person form. Those two points are well observed in the sentence of the treaty of a Hittite king with Ulmi-Tešub, the king of Tarḫuntašša.
KBo 4.10 obv. 50’ (CTH 106.B.2) (50’) nu-ut-ta ki-i ┌ku-it┐ ṬUP-PU iš-ḫi-ú-la-aš i-ya-u-un “Now this (is) the tablet of the treaty I made for you.”27
Here the Hittite king declared that he—in the first person—made the tablet of the treaty (ṬUPPU išḫiulaš) to Ulmi-Tešub, his vassal king. Third, in subordination treaties, the king stressed that the document was invariable. He must have paid much more attention to the possibility of whether or not his subordinate kings who ruled a kingdom outside the Hittite homeland violated the obligations. A sentence in the treaty of the Hittite king Tudḫaliya IV with Kurunta, the king of Tarḫuntašša, reads as follows:
Bo 86/299 iii 57–59 (CTH 106.A.1)
26 I would like to use the term “subordination treaty” following Altman 2012, 63, n. 56, in which he explains his avoid- ance of the use of the conventional term “vassal treaty.” 27 Transliteration and translation of van den Hout 1995, 38–39. I translated his German translation into English (“Dies (ist) nun die Tafel des Vertrages, den ich dier ausgestellt habe”). He supposes that i-ya-u-un was a misspelling for i- ya-nu-un (van den Hout 1995, 69). The use of iyanun, the first person singular form of the verb iya-, in the treaty of Muršili II to Šarri-Kušuḫ, his brother and the king of Carchemiš (KBo 1.28 obv. 9) also indicates that it was the Hit- tite king who established and stipulated the treaty (tablet).
150 ORIENT The Hittite Noun išḫiul-
(57) ki-i-ya ku-it A-BU-YA A-NA mdLAMMA pé-eš-ta dUTUŠI-ya-aš-ši ku-it (58) pé-eḫ-ḫu-un iš-ḫi-ú-ul-ši ku-it i-ya-u-en na-at-kán zi-la-ti-ya (59) le-e ku-iš-ki wa-aḫ-nu-zi “In the future no one shall alter that which my father gave to Kurunta, that which I, My Majesty, have given him, or the treaty which we have made for him.”28
As seen in this example, the king must have taken care to ensure his subordinate king’s correct execution of the obligations and that the document would be unchanged. Finally, the addressee’s oaths were demanded for receiving the divine guarantee as is suggested by the fact that the noun išḫiul- often occurs in parallel with a noun lingai-, “oath.” A quotation in the treaty made to the king of Amurru, a Syrian vassal king, shows that he admitted himself that he was bound to the treaty and the oath.
KBo 10.12 iii 24’ (CTH 49.II) (24’) [am-mu-u]k-wa-za iš-ḫi-ú-la-aš le-en-ki-ya-aš “Now, I (am) under treaty and oath.”29
Aziru, a vassal of the Hittite king, described himself as “a man under treaty and oath.” With the vassal’s oath before the gods, a treaty gains legal validity. The oath is a tool of binding the vassal with the treaty as if a rope were used to bind something onto another.30 The characteristics of Hittite subordination treaties are almost the same as instructions. While the king stipulated his obligations on tablets for his vassal kings, the latter swore oaths to observe the obligations before the gods. After issuing the document, the king stressed its validity and that it was not to be changed. Thus, the Hittite king could reveal his power over the whole imperial administration, even outside Ḫattuša. It should be noted, however, that there do exist some differences between instructions and subordination treaties in their formats. Most of the treaties start with the so-called historical pro- logue, which does not appear in instruction texts. Altman (2004, 41) assumes that a historical prologue was narrated to present the Hittites’ version of “history” for the assembly of the gods in case the treaty was infringed upon by the subordinate party. As Christiansen and Devecchi (2012, 76) point out, the validity of a treaty is guaranteed by divine power, which comes from the gods, who serve as witnesses and avengers. Therefore, the treaties gained validity from the oath of a subordinate party and approval by the gods of both countries. We should also pay attention to the contextual differences among subordination treaties. The
28 Transliteration of Otten 1988, 24–25 and translation of Beckman 1999, 120–121. Otten and Beckman translated this sentence as “das Abkommen, das wir mit ihm geschlossen haben” and “the treaty which we have made with him,” respectively. However, given that Kurunta is a subordinate king of the Hittite great king, I think it would be better to translate: “the treaty which we (= Tudḫaliya and his father) made for him.” 29 Transliteration and translation of Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, 434–434. 30 In the Hittite subordination treaties written in Akkadian, the term rikiltu/rikištu/riksu was used in the same way of those written in Hittite language. It was always the Hittite king who imposed the treaties on his subordinate king. The treaty of Šuppiluliuma I to Niqmaddu II of Ugarit is an example.: RS 17.369 obv. 3’–6’: (3’) anummama mŠu-ip-pí-lu- li-ma šarru rabû (4’) šàr mātḪa-at-ti ri-kí-il-ta (5’) a-na mNiqiq-ma-an-du šàr māt ālU-ga-ri-it (6’) a-kánan-na ir-ku-us “Thus, Suppiluliuma, Great King, King of Hatti, made a treaty for Niqmaddu, King of Ugarit as follows (translitera- tion and translation of Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, 462).” The noun rikiltu is the object of the verb irkus (in the third person singular of rakāsu ‘to bind’ = išḫai-/išhiya- in Hittite). This sentence suggests that the Hittite king imposed this kind of treaty (išḫiul in Hittite / rikiltu in Akkdian) upon his subject.
Vol. 51 (2016) 151 most significant difference can be seen in the stipulations of the treaties with appanage kings, the members of the royal family who ruled a country outside the homeland such as the kings of Aleppo, Carchemiš and Tarḫntašša.31 The stipulations in their treaties are not so much burdens as they are privileges, and their oaths are not mentioned.32 This might be explained from a political perspective, that they were important figures in the imperial administration, or from a religious perspective, that the king could also be punished by the gods as their relative if they broke their oath. In any case, the extent of the power the king can exercise in those treaties seems to be more limited than in other subordination treaties.
2. Parity Treaties Parity treaties, and even some of the subordination treaties, indicate a much smaller exercise of power by the Hittite king, which is apparently shown by the usages of išḫiul-. As for the format of parity treaties, Altman points out that these treaties were characterized by their reciprocity and an exchange of each parties’ versions of the document. He defines the procedure of creating parity treaties, illustrated through the conclusion of the treaty between Ḫattušili III and Ramses II: “each partner drew up his own version, sealed it, took an oath upon it and sent it to his partner to be placed in the latter’s main temple before the image of his principal deity.”33 According to his definition, he found nine parity treaties formed by the Hittite kings: the treaties between Telipinu of Ḫatti and Išputaḫšu of Kizzuwatna,34 Zidanta of Ḫatti and Pilliya of Kizzuwatna,35, a Hittite king and Paddatiššu of Kizzuwatna,36 Taḫurwaili of Ḫatti and Eḫeya of Kizzuwatna,37 three succeeding versions of a treaty between Tudḫaliya I/II with Šunašušura,38 Ḫattušili III of Ḫatti and Ramses II of Egypt.39 As Altman suggests, parity treaties are characterized by their reciprocity. The reciprocity of the parties and the procedure of concluding parity treaties are also verified by the usages of išḫiul-. If we look at the usage in those treaties, there is no expression that the great king of Hatti alone made an išḫiul-. Since the issuance of an išḫiul- text is conditioned on the vertical relation- ship between the parties, logically, parity treaties cannot be part of išḫiul- texts. When the Hittite king would like to conclude a treaty with another peer in rank, he had to offer special explana- tions. Hittite parity treaties are characterized not only by the mutual imposition of obligations
31 Those treaties are the treaty of Šuppiluliuma I to Šarri-Kušuḫ, his son and the king of Carchemiš (CTH 50), Treaty of Muršili II to Šarri-Kušuḫ, his brother and the king of Carchemiš (CTH 57), Treaty of Muwatalli II to Talmi- Šarrumma, his cousin and the king of Aleppo (CTH 75), Treaty of a Hittite king (Ḫattušili III or Tudḫaliya IV) to Ulmi-Tešub, his nephew or cousin and the king of Tarḫuntašša (CTH 106.A), Treaty of Tudḫaliya IV to Kurunta, his cousin and the king of Tarḫuntašša (CTH 106.B). 32 Altman 2012, 122 points out that, contrary to other subordination treaties, a warning against a breach of the oath is not included in those treaties. He explains “these warnings were intended rather to emphasize the provisions that the drafters deemed them (treaties) as vulnerable to wrong interpretation by the subordinate. These warnings reflect, thus, the drafters’ concern to forestall in advance any possible opening left to the subordinate party to repudiate his obliga- tions on the pretext that a certain situation is not under oath.” 33 Altman 2010, 27–28. 34 CTH 21. 35 CTH 25. 36 CTH 26. 37 CTH 29. 38 CTH 41.I and 41.II. 39 CTH 91.
152 ORIENT The Hittite Noun išḫiul- on both parties, but also by the imposition of the Storm-god of Ḫatti , which is only seen in the conclusion of a parity treaty with Egypt.
Mutual Imposition Some uses of išḫiul- indicate that the Hittite king and his partner imposed their obligations on each other. We can find this rhetoric in the catalogue text that lists the treaty between Telipinu and Išputaḫšu. The noun išḫiul- occurs as the object of the verb iya-, “to make” in the third person plural, which indicates that both kings made the treaty together.
KUB 30.42 rev. 21–24 (CTH 276.1) (21) DUB 1KAM iš-ḫi-ú-la<-aš> mIš-pu-da-aḫ-šu-uš-za (22) LUGAL KUR URUKi-iz-zu-wa-at- na (23) mTe-li-pí-nu-uš-ša LUGAL KUR
The occurrence of iēr, meaning, “they made the treaty,” is rarely found in the Hittite treaty texts. The verb in the plural form seems to be an attempt to show the mutual nature of the action of concluding the treaties, and it suggests that Telipinu and Išputaḫšu made their own versions. Al- though we have a similar expression in the decree of Ḫattušili III for the people of Tiliura, there again, the issuer was only the Hittite king as the subject of the sentence appearing in the third person singular: DUB.1.KAM QA-TI ŠA URUTiliura išḫiulaš mḪattušiliš LUGAL.GAL iyat “One tablet of treaty, finished, of the treaty of Tiliura that Ḫattusili, Great King made.”41 Accordingly, the occurrence of iēr seems to emphasize the mutual action by both kings to finalize the trea- ties.42 Mutual imposition marked by the use of the third person plural form of the verb also appears in the treaty between Tudḫaliya I/II and Šunaššura, written in Akkadian. The beginning of the treaty reads, ri-ik-ša-am an-ni-e-[am] i-na bi-ri-šu-nu ir-ku-šu “they concluded thi[s] treaty to- gether [lit. between them]”43 This sentence shows that Tudḫaliya and Šunaššura imposed –irkušū, in the third person plural—the treaty (rikšu) upon each other. Although no clear expression demonstrates that they made their treaty together, we can surely define the treaty between Ḫattusili III and Ramses II as a parity treaty from its reciproc- ity. First, most of the stipulations are reciprocal, which seems to have been agreed upon by each party after the negotiation. Second, we have the Hittite version of the treaty written in Akkadian (CTH 91) and the Egyptian hieroglyphic version preserved on the walls of the temple of Amon at Karnak and of the Ramesseum. This indicates that they exchanged each version of the treaty in Akkadian on metal tablets and copied the received documents respectively. Given the mutual- ity of the treaty and the equality of both parties in terms of international recognition during this
40 Transliteration and translation of Dardano 2006, 28. 41 KUB 21.29 iv 17–19 (transliteration and translation of Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, 1052–1054). 42 Although fragmentary, the treaty between Telipinu and Išputaḫšu itself indicates mutuality since išḫiul- occurs in plu- ral (išḫiuliḪI.A) that were made in front of both parties (KBo 19.37, 1–3). It seems that they made their own versions of treaties in exchange in order to make sure of their equality. 43 KBo 1.5 i 3–4 (transliteration and translation of Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, 322–323).
Vol. 51 (2016) 153 period, the procedure for finalizing their treaties indicates their mutuality, and thus it was indeed a parity treaty as Koroseč first pointed out.44 In addition to the so-called parity treaties that Altman lists, the examination of the usage of išḫiul- shows that some subordination treaties were mutually imposed on each party. One of them is the treaty between Šuppiluliuma II and Talmi-Tešub of Carchemiš. In the same way as in the examples above, they made these treaties together as the verb iya- occurs in iēr, the third person plural if we accept d’Alfonso’s edition.
KBo 12.41 i 7 (CTH 122.1.A) (7) iš-ḫi-ú-la-aš ṬUP-PU kiš-an i-┌e┐[-er] “They have ma[de] the tablet of the treaty as follows.”45
The verb indicates that both kings made the treaty with mutual agreement. Moreover, the noun išḫiul- in the plural form, which occurs in another paragraph, may suggest that each of the kings made their own version in exchange for the other’s.
KUB 26.33 iii 19’-24’ (CTH 122.1.A) (19’) ke-e-da-ni me-mi-ya-an-ni šal-la-a[n!-ni xxxx] (20’) DINGIRMEŠ-mu-uš iš-ḫi-ú-li PAB- nu-wa-a[n-du xxx] (21’) tu-uk mŠu-up-pí-lu-li-ya-ma-an LUG[AL.GAL xxxx] (22’) DUMU mTu-ud-ḫa-li-ya EN-an-ni PAB-aḫ-
However, Talmi-Tešub was still a subject of the king of Ḫattuša, which can be inferred from the expression that he would be loyal to Šuppiluliuma II, which I referred to in the above paragraph. The fact that he describes himself as loyal to Šuppiluliuma II means that he accepted the stipulations that the great king in Ḫattuša dictated with total consent. The mutual imposition of išḫiul- is also expressed in order to demonstrate that the subordinate king is of high importance to the Hittite king, though the agreement was indeed a subordination treaty, and probably one that had only one version made by the sovereign. Out of consideration for his partners’ politically important status in the imperial administration, the Hittite king tried to moderate the nuance of vertical bond that tends to come with the word išḫiul-. 44 We have only one paragraph in which the noun rikiltu explicitly occurs in the Akkadian version of this treaty. KBo 1.7 i 14-16: (14) mRi[-a-ma-še-š]a ma-a-i-da-ma-┌ na┐ LUGAL.GAL LUGAL KUR [Mi-iṣ-ri-i] i-te-pu-uš i-na ri-ki- il-ti UGU-ḫi ṭup-pí ša KÙ.BABBAR (15) qa-du [mḪa-at-tu-ši-]li LUGAL.GAL LUGAL KUR Ḫa-at-ti ŠEŠ[-šu a-di ┌ ┐ UD-]mi an-ni-i a-na na-da-ni su-lum-ma-a SIG5 ŠEŠ-ḫu-ta SIG5 (16) i-na b[e-ri-ni a-di] da -ri-ti “And Ramses, Beloved of Amon, Great King, King [of Egypt], has indeed created
154 ORIENT The Hittite Noun išḫiul-
Another type of subordination treaty respects the partner’s former international recognition as a great king. We have two versions of the treaties between Šuppiluliuma I and Šattiwaza of Mitanni. One version (CTH 51) was written from the viewpoint of the Hittite court, and the other (CTH 52) was from Šattiwaza’s side. Beckman (1999, 41) explains that the latter was written as an act of Šattiwaza by the Hittite chancellery in order to preserve the fiction of Mittannian inde- pendence. He describes the king of Mitanni as having “protectorate status” and calls the treaty a “kuirwana/kuriwana treaty.”47 When composing the treaties of both sides, the Hittite king would present fictitious parity to satisfy his partner’s self-respect as a former great king.48 Therefore, these were also subordination treaties, but such that they tried to demonstrate the vassal’s high importance to the Hittite king. The Hittite king used the rhetoric of mutual imposition of išḫiul- to purposefully distinguish important vassal kings from other humble ones. For this reason, these kinds of treaties—those that were mutually imposed, if I may be allowed to title them such—are not only present among the parity treaties but also among some special subordination treaties. Because the term išḫiul- cannot connote parity, the Hittite king employed the rhetoric of a mutual imposition of treaties to present the parity with his partner. The rhetoric was also used to distinguish important vassal kings from other minor kings. As we have seen, however, the mutual imposition is not utterly expressed in the treaties between the Hittites and Egypt.49
Imposition by the Storm-god Another rhetorical device was available to the Hittite king to describe total parity. Muršili II ex- plained in his annals and prayers that the Storm-god of Ḫatti imposed the so-called Kuruštama treaty upon the Hittites and the Egyptians, which was made during the time of Šuppiluliuma I, Muršili’s father.
KBo 14.12 iv 26–31 (CTH 40.IV.1.E3) (26) nu A-BU-YA iš-ḫi-ú-la-aš nam-ma TUP-PÍ (27) ú-e-ek-ta an-na-az ma-aḫ-ḫa-an LÚ URUKu-ru-uš-ta-ma (28) DUMU URUḪa-at-ti dU-aš da-a-aš na-an KUR URUMi-iz-ri (29) pé-e- da-aš na-aš LÚ.MEŠ URUMi-iz-ri i-ya-at nu-kán dU-aš (30) [A-NA] KUR URUMi-iz-ri Ù A-NA KUR URUḪa-at-ti ma-aḫ-ḫa-an (31) [iš-ḫ]i-ú-ul iš-tar-ni-šum-mi iš-ḫi-ya-at “So then my father concerned himself on their behalf with the matter of a son. Then my father asked for the tablet of the treaty again, (in which there was told) how formerly the Storm God took the people of Kuruštama, sons of Ḫatti, and carried them to Egypt and made them Egyptians; and how the Storm God concluded a treaty between the countries of
47 Beckman 1999, 4; 2003, 763. Puhvel (1997, 265) defines this word as follows: “adjective describing a foreign per- son, people or country in relation to a superior potentate or power.” 48 Contrast to Beckman’s theory, Altman (2013, 319) explains that the Hittites composed the treaty of CTH 52 because they mistrusted in Šattiwaza not because of respecting his fictitious independence. I think that his argument is true if we regard its historical prologue as the narrative only for divine witnesses. However, I would like to adhere to Beck- man’s theory focusing on the perspective of the foreign partners. 49 In the draft of a letter from Hittite queen Puduḫepa to Ramses, she mentions that the latter would make an išḫiul-. KUB 21.38 rev.14–15: (14) ma-a-an-ma A-NA KUR URUMi-iz-ri[-i?...] Ú-UL iš-ḫi-ú-ul nu MUNUS.LUGAL a-pád- da-ya I-DI (15) GIM-at am-me-el DUGUD-ni ḫa-an-da-aš i-y[a-ši] “Even if for the land of Egypt…is not a treaty, the Queen knows thereby how you will conclude it out of consideration for my dignity (transliteration and translation of Hoffner 2009, 289).” Although her expression may indicate that, for the both kings, the treaty between Ḫatti and Egypt were also regarded as a mutually imposed one, we cannot be sure only from this passage.
Vol. 51 (2016) 155 Egypt and Ḫatti.”50
KUB 14.8 obv. 13’–15’ (CTH 378.II.A) (13’) [(ŠA)-NU(-Ú ṬUP-P)]U-ma ŠA URUKu-ru-uš-ta-am-ma LÚMEŠ URUKu-ru-uš-ta-am-ma ma-aḫ-ḫa-an (14’)[( dU URUḪa-a)]t-ti I-NA KUR URUMi-iz-ri pé-e-da-aš nu-uš-ma-aš dIM URUḪa-at-ti ma-aḫ-ḫa-an (15’) [(iš-ḫi-ú-u)]l A-NA LÚMEŠ URUḪa-at-ti me-na-aḫ-ḫa-an-da i- ya-at “The second tablet dealt with the town of Kurustamma: how the Storm-god of Ḫatti carried the men of Kurustamma to Egyptian territory and how the Storm-god of Ḫatti made a treaty between them and the men of Ḫatti, so that they were put under oath by the Storm-god of Ḫatti.”51
This treaty could be described as the law of the gods, which reminds us of the original and fun- damental meaning of the noun. The original source of išḫiul- is the gods, and the king could issue an išḫiul- text only in those cases in which he is apparently superior over his partner. In concluding a treaty with the Egyptian pharaoh, the Hittite king needed to return to the god the right to establish išḫiul-.52
V. Other Diplomatic Terms for Equal Relations with Foreigners Because the noun išḫiul- represents the vertical imposition of what a superior demands, it can sometimes be unsuitable as a diplomatic term to describe totally equal and friendly relations with foreign rulers. Another abstract Hittite noun, takšul-, might have meant, at least, a neutral and friendly relationship, which išḫiul- cannot indicate. The noun takšul- itself is used only for referring to relationships with foreign people, and its usage mainly occurs in the Old and Middle Hittite period texts. While Kloekhorst’s translations, “agreement, settlement, peace(-treaty)”53 indicate that takšul- could mean an official document like išḫiul-, it is usually used to describe a peace or allied state with a foreigner as it often modifies a city and country in the genitive and is substantivized as a person. In the pre-New Hittite period, takšul- is often used for the Hittites’ re- lationship with Kaskaeans, tribal communities in northern Anatolia, as we can see in a letter from a Hittite king to his subject.
HKM 10: 23–32 (CTH 186) (23) ki-iš-š[a-a]n-ma-mu ku-it ḫa-at-ra-a-eš (24) ku-it-ma-an-wa-mu dUTUŠI (25) ki-i ŠA LÚMEŠ URUGa-aš-ga ták-šu-la-aš (26) ut-tar ḫa-at-ra-a-ši am-mu-ga-wa (27) me-mi-an I-NA KUR URUIš-ḫu-pí-it-t[a] (28) ḫu-uš-ke-mi nu ka-ru-ú (29) ku-it DINGIRMEŠ [i]m?-ma-an- x[…] (30) zi-ga-mu-uš-ša-an [p]a-r[a]-a? (31) za-ap-pa-nu-uš-ke-ši nu-mu [Q]A-TAM-M[A] (32) ḫa-at-re-eš-ke-ši
50 Transliteration and translation of Güterbock 1956, 98. 51 Transliteration of Lebrun 1980, 205 and transliteration of Singer 2002, 58. 52 Altman (2012, 198) suggests that the treaty between Ḫattušili III and Ramses II also has such a connotation. “It may be noted that in the Hittite-Egyptian treaty of the 13th century, the closest example we have to such a presentation, the Egyptian Sun-god and the Hittite Storm-god are only mentioned as having collaborated in bringing about that treaty, but not as the real parties to it.” 53 Kloekhorst 2008, 815–816.
156 ORIENT The Hittite Noun išḫiul-
“(The king writes to an official in Tapikka:) Concerning what you wrote me: ‘Until you, Your Majesty write me about this matter of Kaškaean men coming to make peace I will be awaiting word in the land of Išḫupitta.’ Just because the gods already […], should you keep wearing me out with queries, and keep writing to me the same thing?”54
Because Kaskaeans were tribal communities, the peace of takšul- indicates a state in which foreign people were not hostile to the Hittites. Derived from this meaning, takšul- could connote a peace agreement (a document), which is seen in a paragraph of the treaty between Zidanta and Pilliya.
KUB 36.108 obv.1–3 (CTH 25) (1) dUTUŠI LUGAL.GAL mZi-da-an-za LUGAL KUR URUḪa-[at-ti Ù mPi-li-ya] (2) LUGAL KUR URUKi-iz-zu-wa-at-na ták-šu-ul i-e-e[r…] (3) ki-iš-ša-an ták-še-er “The Sun-king, the Great King Zidanta, king of the land of Ḫa[tti, the hero, and Pilliya], King of the land of Kizzuwatna, have mad[e] a peace (treaty), [………]. They have agreed as follows.”55
The Hittite king and the king of Kizzuwatna made a peace treaty (takšul-) together, which can be inferred from the usage of takšer, the third person plural of the verb takš-, “to devise, to unify, undertake, to mingle,” from which the abstract noun is derived.56 As discussed in the previous chapter, the treaty between Telipinu and Išputaḫšu was a mutually imposed parity treaty. Even after the reign of Telipinu, until the beginning of the New Hittite period at the latest, the king of Kizzuwatna had enough power to be regarded as an equal with the Hittite king in rank.57 Therefore, the treaty between Zidanta II, the king of the Middle Hittite period, and Pilliya of Kizzuwatna should have also been a parity treaty. This takšul- here, then, might mean the docu- ment of the parity treaty, or at least a neutral peace agreement, in which a vertical relationship is not assumed. In the New Hittite period, however, takšul- is still usually used as an abstract noun that expresses neutral relationships with foreign kings.
KUB 19.49 i 59–62 (CTH 69.A) (59) [nu-du]-za ÌR-an-ni da-aḫ-ḫi (60) nu-mu-za ták-šu-ul e-eš [nu-ut-ta] zi-la-ti-ya ki-i (61) iš-ḫi-ú-ul e-eš-d[u na-at-za pa-aḫ-ši n]e-it-ta li-in-ga-i (62) kat-ta-an ki-it-ta-ru “[Then] I (Muršili II) will take [you (Manapa-Tarḫunta)] as a vassal. Be my ally. In the fu-
54 Transliteration and translation done by Hoffner 2009, 11. 55 Transliteration and translation of Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, 300–301. 56 As for the verb takš-, see Kloekhorst 2008, 813–814. 57 Altman (2004, 69–70) explains the “parity” of the treaties between the Hittite king and the king of Kizzuwatna before the time of Telipinu: “Telipinu concluded a treaty, evidently parity one, with Išputaḫšu, king of Kizzuwatna (CTH 21), who entitled himself “The Great King”. If we may give credit to Išputaḫšu’s claim to the above title—a title of a suzerain who has subordinate kings under his jurisdiction—it would indicate that Kizzuwatna had already gained some power by that time. This treaty is the first or the second of a series of treaties, all of them seemingly parity trea- ties, to be concluded between Hittite and Kizzuwatnean kings; the treaty between Zidanta and Pilliya (CTH 25); the treaty between an unknown Hittite king and Paddatiššu (CTH 26); the treaty between Taḫurwaili and Eḫeya; and a treaty between an unknown Hittite king and Šunaššura (CTH 131).”
Vol. 51 (2016) 157 ture this shall be [your] treaty. [Observe it]. It shall be placed under oath for you.”58
KUB 23.1 iii 42–44 (CTH 105.A) (42) ma-a-an L[UGAL KUR URUMi-iz-]za-ri-i (43) A-NA dUTUŠI ták[-šu-ul] ┌tu┐-uq-qa-aš ták-šu-┌ul┐ (44) e-eš-du “If [the King] of Egypt is My Majesty’s al[ly], he shall be your ally.”59
In the first example, Muršili II ordered Manapa-Tarḫunta, his vassal king, to be, on the one hand, his ally (takšul-). On the other hand, the noun išḫiul- within the same paragraph reflects the vertical relationship between them, which was created through the išḫiul- treaty imposed upon Manapa-Tarḫunta by the Hittite king. If a vassal king was not hostile to and allied with the Hittite king, the state could be described as in peace of takšul-, even though he was apparently inferior to the Hittite king. In the second example, the treaty of Tudḫaliya IV to Šaušgamuwa, the former described his friendship with the Egyptian king as well as the friendship between his subordinate king and the Egyptian king using takšul-. The fact that he used the term for both the relationships of the great kings and that of his vassal king and the other great king clearly shows it connotes neutral friendship not equal relationship. The noun takšul- means a state of peace with foreigners, but it seldom describes a document. This noun does not assume the vertical relationships between the parties in contrast to išḫiul-. The term takšul- might have been used to describe the relationship with foreign rulers when the term išḫiul- could not adequately reflect the relationship.
VI. Conclusion Originally, išḫiul- meant the divine law that ruled the way people were to worship the gods. Once the divine obligation for humanity was ascertained by oracle, the king established the concrete procedures of the rituals and festivals for the gods on their behalf. The king exercised this right for state administration by dictating what he demands of his subjects. At this stage, išḫiul- can be described as “the law of the king.” The right of establishing išḫiul- may be derived from the king’s status as a representative of the gods. The king metaphorically applied his relationship with the gods to the relationship with his subjects so that he could show his absolute power over the state. The Hittite king issued the treaties, stipulating what he demanded of subjugated kings, just as he did to his own subjects. Even in relations with foreign rulers, he could show his absolute, superior power. The king could take advantage of this power when his “treaty partner” was a subordinate king who subjugated himself and whose status was apparently lower than the Hittite king. Although the Hittite king could use the concept of išḫiul- to demonstrate his absolute power over his empire, it was an inappropriate concept for managing relations with other great kings. The concept of išḫiul- can, in a limited fashion, be applied in diplomacy as long as it connotes 58 Transliteration of Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, 531 and translation by Beckman 1999, 83. The latter’s translation for išḫiul- here is “regulation,” but I would prefer to translate it as “treaty.” 59 Transliteration of Kühne and Otten 1971, 28 and translation of Beckman 1999, 106. The text also mentions the friendship with Babylonian king in the same way as that with Egyptian king (KUB 23.1 iv 9–10).
158 ORIENT The Hittite Noun išḫiul- a vertical relationship between the parties. When a Hittite king made a “parity treaty,” he had to use some rhetoric to moderate or remove this connotation. The power of the Hittite king was greatly reduced when he had to treat his partner as his equal in rank. In those cases, the Hittite king explained that he and his partner mutually imposed the treaty together in order to satisfy the latter’s self-respect. This fiction, however, could not be accepted when a Hittite king concluded a treaty with an Egyptian king. All he could do was explain its issuer was the Storm-god of Hatti, the principal god in the Hittite pantheon. This rhetoric demonstrates that the Hittite king tried not to exaggerate his power in diplomacy. When the Hittite king had to express friendly relationships or a neutral peace agreement without connoting hierarchical order, he might have used an alter- native term, takšul-. In this paper, I focused on the Hittite term išḫiul-. In summary, the Hittites might have re- garded the concepts of the Akkadian terms (rikiltu/rikistu/riksu and māmītu) differently from the terms of their own language (išḫiul- and lingai-). The result, as shown in this paper on the Hittite diplomatic terms, should be compared with the Akkadian counterparts so that we can bet- ter understand the different attitudes to diplomacy held by the Hittites and others in ancient Near Eastern countries.
Abbreviations CHD = The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, 1980–. CAD = The Akkadian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, 1975–. CTH = E. Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites, Paris, 1971. HKM = S. Alp, Hethitische Keilschrifttafeln aus Maşat, Ankara, 1991. 2 nd HW = J. Friedrich and A. Kammenhuber, Hethitisches Wörterbuch, 2 ed., Heidelberg, 1975–. KBo = Keilschriftttexte aus Boghazköi, Berlin. KUB = Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköy, Berlin. RS = Tablets from Ras Shamra
Bibliography Altman A. 2004: The Historical Prologue of the Hittite Vassals Treaties. An Inquiry into the Concepts of Hittite Inter- state Law, Ramat-Gan. Altman A. 2010: “How Many Treaty traditions Existed in the Ancient Near East?,” in Y. Cohen, A. Gilan and J.L. Miller (eds.), Pax Hethitica – Studies on the Hittites and Their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 51, Wiesbaden, 17–36. Altman A. 2012: Tracing the Earliest Recorded Concepts of International Law: The Ancient Near East (2500-330 BCE), Leiden and Boston. Beal R.H. 2002: “Gleanings from Hittite Oracle Questions on Religion, Society, Psychology and Decision Making,” in P. Taracha (ed.), Silva Anatolica, Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Warsaw, 11–37. Beckman, G. 1999: Hittite Diplomatic Texts, Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 7, Atlanta. Beckman, G., Bryce, T.R and Cline, E.H. 2011: The Ahhiyawa Texts, Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 28, Atlanta. Christiansen, B. and Devecchi, E. 2013: “Die hethitischen Vasallenverträge und die biblische Bundeskonzeption,” Bib- lische Notizen 156, 65–87. Dardano, P. 2006: Die hethitischen Tontafelkataloge aus Hattuša (CTH 276-282), Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 47, Wiesbaden. d’Alfonso, L. 2007: “The Treaty Between Talmi-Teššub King of Karkemiš and Šuppiluliiama Great King of Ḫatti,” in Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65 Geburtstag, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 25, 2007, 203–220.
Vol. 51 (2016) 159 Edel, E. 1997: Die Vertrag zwishen Ramses II. von Ägypt und Hattusili III. von Ḫatti, Berlin. Güterbock, H.G. 1956: “The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son, Mursili II,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 10, 1956, 41–68, 75–98, 101–130. Haas, V. 1970: Der Kult von Nerik. Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religionsgeschichte, Studia Pohl 4, Rome. Hoffner, H.A. 2009: Letters from the Hittite Kingdom, Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 15, Atlanta. Hoffner, H.A. and H.C. Melchert 2008: A Grammar of the Hittite Language, Part 1, Reference Grammar, Indiana. Hout, T. J. P. van den 1995: Der Ulmitesub-Vertrag, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 38, Wiesbaden. Hutter, M. 2002: “Das hijara-Fest in Hattuša. Transformation und Funktion eines syrischen Festes,” in P. Taracha (ed.), th Silva Anatolica, Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of his 65 Birthday, Warsaw, 187– 196. Kitchen, K.A. and Lawrence, P.J.N. 2012: Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East, pt. 1, Wiesbaden. Kloekhorst, A. 2008: Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, Leiden. Kühne, C. and Otten, H. 1971: Der Šaušgamuwa-Vertrag, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 16, Wiesbaden. Koroseč, V. 1931: Hethitische Staatsverträge. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung, Leipziger rechtswissenschaft- liche Studien 60, Leipzig. Lebrun, R. 1980: Hymnes et prières hittites, Homo Religiosus 4, Louvain-la-Neuve. Miller, J.L. 2004: Studies in the Origins, Development and Interpretation of the Kizzuwatna Rituals, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 46, Wiesbaden. Miller, J.L. 2013: Royal Hittite Instructions and Related Administrative Texts, Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 31, Atlanta. Otten, H. 1988: Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten Beiheft 1, Wiesbaden. Parpola, S. and Watanabe, K. 1988: Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, State Archives of Assyria 2, Helsinki. Pecchioli Daddi, F. 2002: “A ‘New’ Instruction from Arnuwanda I,” in P. Taracha (ed.), Silva Anatolica, Anatolian Stud- th ies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65 Birthday, Warsaw, 261–268. Puhvel, J. 1984: Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 1, Words Beginning with A, Vol. 2, Words Beginning with E and I, Trends in Linguistics Documentation 1, Berlin, New York and Amsterdam. Puhvel, J. 1991: Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 3, Words Beginning with H, Trends in Linguistics Documentation 5, Berlin and New York. Puhvel, J. 1997: Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 4, Words Beginning with K, Trends in Linguistics Documentation 14, Berlin and New York. Schwemer, D. 2011: “Hittite Prayers to the Sun-god for Appeasing an Angry Personal God: A Critical Edition of CTH 372-74,” in M. Jaques (ed.), “Mon dieu, qu’ai-je donc fait?” Les prières pénitentielles (dingir-šà-dab-ba) et l’expres- sion de la piété privée en Mésopotamie, Zürich 2011, 1–48. Singer, I. 2002: Hittite Prayers, Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 11, Atlanta. Sürenhagen, D. 1981: “Zwei Gebete Ḫattušilis und der Puduḫepa. Textliche und literaturhistorische Untersuchungen,” Altorientalische Forschungen 8, 83–168. Tagger-Cohen, A. 2006: Hittite Priesthood, Texte der Hethiter 26, Heidelberg. Tagger-Cohen, A. 2011: “Biblical Covenant and Hittite išḫiul Reexamined,” Vetus Testamentum 61, 2011, 461–488. Yamamoto, H. 2015: “The Hittites’ Concept of ‘Treaty’ and ‘Engagement’: A Study of išḫiya- ‘to Bind’ and ḫamenk- ‘to Tie,’” Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 57/2, 2-15 (in Japanese with an English abstract).
160 ORIENT