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 kings. 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 centuries 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 Anatolia 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 Millennium 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 century BC with the Kussar kings, followed by an obscure period which was interrupted by King Anitta´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, Pithana, monarchs of Kussara 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 Syria, including cities like Aleppo, Alalakh, 3 Tell Ahmar, and Karkamiš, among others. The apogee of this empire occurred 4 between c. 1344-1295 BC, during the reigns of Suppiluliuma I 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 Hittites underwent a complicated phase, during which they lost importance in the larger political scenario. This was due especially to some border pressures from Arzawa in the West, Kaska in the North, the Kizzuwatna 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 Bodyguard” 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.