Rethinking the Hittite system of subordinate countries from the legal point of view.
A. SOME BASIC OBSERVATIONS
On the basis of the available Hittite vassal treaties and related documents, (4) as well as on what is known about the circumstances of their subjugation, the Hittite vassal countries may preliminarily be sorted into two basic categories: (5) self-subjugated countries (6) and conquered countries. (7) Conquered countries may be further divided into three sub-groups: countries annexed and turned into provinces ruled by royal officials as part of the Hittite homeland, (8) appanage and granted countries, (9) and rebellious countries that had been re-subjugated by force. (10) Differences in the terms of subjugation of self-subjugated countries, and differences in the manner in which the circumstances of their subjugation are presented in the prologues of the treaties drawn up for them, also suggest a further differentiation within this group. The Hittites seem to have distinguished between countries that had been fully sovereign before subjugation, (11) and those that had previously been subject to another overlord. (12) Before discussing the legal differences among these groups, further elaboration substantiating these distinctions is needed.
1. Self-Subjugated versus Conquered
The fact that the Hittites indeed distinguished between these two categories of country comes out clearly in the prologue of the treaty drawn up by the Hittite king Tudhaliya IV for Sausgamuwa, king of Amurru (CTH 105). (13) The historical review of relations between Hatti and Amurru opens with the origins of Hittite suzerainty over Amurru, four generations earlier (A i 13-21): (14)
[Formerly] the land of Amurru had not been defeated by the arms of Hatti. Wh[en Aziru] came to the (great-)grandfather of the Sun, [(to) Suppilu]liuma, in Hatti, the lands of Amurru were still [hostile]. They [were] subordinates (IR.MES) of the king of Hurri and to him (the Hurrian king) (also) Aziru in the same manner was subject. (15) But he (Suppiluliuma) did [not def]eat him (Aziru) by arms. And Aziru, your (great-great-)grandfather, protected [Suppi]luliuma as overlord, (16) (and) he protected [the land of Ha]tti (as well), (and) afterward he protected also Mursili as overlord, and he protected the land of Hatti, and against the land of Hatti no offense did he commit.
The prologue starts with the emphatic declaration that Amurru before the rebellion of Bentesina, Sausgamuwa's father, had never been conquered by force. This is immediately followed by reference to the voluntary submission of Aziru, the great-great-grandfather of Sausgamuwa, to Suppiluliuma I, the great-grandfather of Tudhaliya IV ("Aziru came to ... Suppiluliuma in Hatti"). These statements are reinforced by the assertion that neither Amurru nor Aziru had been forced into subordination ("But by arms he did not defeat him"). The text then asserts that Amurru and Aziru had previously been subordinate to a Hurrian overlord.
Ignoring the question of the historical veracity of the last statement, (17) this means that when Aziru submitted himself to Suppiluliuma, Amurru had already become a subordinate country, and that Aziru was accordingly a "runaway slave" who defected from one overlord to another. The meaning of this assertion will be discussed below. But we must realize that this assertion, much like the other claims made in the prologue, should have had a legal bearing either on the status of Amurru or on the terms that Sausgamuwa was entitled to expect in this treaty.
Finally, the text asserts that following his submission to Suppiluliuma, Aziru remained loyal to him, to his son Mursili II, and to Hatti. The object of this assertion is to clarify that Aziru was for quite a long period content in his subordination to Hatti. This fact constituted "a lack of protest," which in turn deprived his descendants of the right to protest Hittite suzerainty and to repudiate their obligation to remain loyal to Hatti. (18) Having presented these claims, the next paragraph jumps to Aziru's great-grandson Bentesina, Sausgamuwa's father (A i 28-39):
But when (my uncle) Muwattalli, the brother of the father of the Sun, became king, the people of Amurru sinned (waster) against him, communicating to him as follows: "Out of love (= voluntarily) we became (Hatti's) subordinates, but now we are no longer your subordinates." And they went over to (lit. "after") the king of Egypt. Then the brother of the father of the Sun, Muwattalli, and the king of Egypt fought over the people of the land of Amurru, and Muwattalli defeated him. He (Muwattalli) destroyed the land of Amurru with arms and subjugated it, and in the land of Amurru he made Sapili king.
This is not the proper place to go into the details of this paragraph. (19) For our purposes it will be sufficient to note the very clear contrast presented here between the two phases in Amurru's relations with Hatti. Until the rebellion in the days of Bentesina, Amurru was regarded as a self-subjugated country; after it had been re-subjugated by force it was regarded as a conquered country. The statement concerning the replacement of the rebellious king by the unidentified Sapili (that is, not necessarily a member of the earlier dynasty) clearly indicates the free hand the conqueror had in Amurru following the conquest.
The role of the so-called "historical prologue" of the Hittite vassal treaties was not to present a literary-historiographic treatise, but rather to marshal legal arguments and facts in order to justify the terms of subordination set forth in the stipulatory section. (20) The reason for the presentation of the two phases in the history of Amurru was no doubt the same, and we must therefore assume that these two different manners of subjugation would have resulted in different legal status for Amurru. (21) The earlier phase was very likely presented in order to explain the more favorable terms that Amurru had enjoyed before the rebellion. The rebellion and the conquest of Amurru were discussed either to justify an actual worsening of the original terms of subordination, or to pave the way for drastic changes in the future, should Sausgamuwa or his offspring again violate the treaty with Hatti. (22) The characterization of Aziru as but a "runaway slave" was very likely intended to assert that from the very beginning Aziru was entitled to fewer privileges than a self-subjugated ruler was entitled to expect from his overlord. (23)
2. Absence of Correlation Between a Land's Status and its Terms of Subjugation
We would have expected that the higher status of a self-subjugated country would have been expressed through the terms of the treaty, particularly in the promises to the vassal king, the most important of which were to guard the vassal king on his throne (24) and to safeguard rule for his offspring. (25) Yet not only is it impossible to draw any decisive conclusions from the available treaties, of which practically none have preserved their stipulatory section intact, but it seems from the available material that differences in the obligations of various self-subjugated kings are sometimes greater than contrasts between the terms of self-subjugated countries and those of conquered ones.
A case in point is the treaties with Aziru and Duppi-Tessub, kings of Amurru, and the edicts issued to Abiradda of Barga and to Niqmaddu II of Ugarit. We may note that while Aziru had subjugated himself on his own initiative--and this fact was repeatedly mentioned in the treaties drawn up for him and his successors--in all probability he received no guarantee that the throne of Amurru would pass to his offspring. (26) Later, in the treaty drawn up for his grandson Duppi-Tessub, such a promise was given, but was restricted to his son. (27) Only in the next generation, in the treaty for Aziru's great-grandson Bentesina was the promise extended to the grandson (CTH 92 obv. 30-33). This seeming absence of a promise for the son in the Aziru treaty stands in contrast to the case of Niqmaddu II, also self-subjugated, whose throne was promised to his sons and grandsons (CTH 46.A rev. 10'-11'; B. obv. 15'-19'). The case of Aziru also seems contradicted by the experience of Abiradda, whose rebellious country of Barga was (re-)conquered. For Abiradda, its new king, was nonetheless promised that his son would follow him on the throne. (28)
Another seeming inconsistency appears in the terms of two treaties concluded with the sons of rebellious kings: Kupanta-Kurunta and Sausgamuwa. While neither treaty has survived intact, we are able to distinguish at least one significant difference between them. In the treaty of Kupanta-Kurunta there appears a claim that the Hittite king had granted the country to the vassal king, whereas in the Sausgamuwa treaty there is no such claim. The meaning of this difference, as will be immediately elaborated, is that the lands of Mira and Kuwaliya were regarded as fully belonging to Hatti and under the full control of the Hittite king. In contrast, Amurru, despite its rebellion and resubjugation, was not reduced to the status of a conquered country. Yet in neither case is a guarantee of the succession of the vassal king found, and in all probability in neither case was one given. (29) Contrary to both these cases is that of the Aleppo treaty (CTH 75). The prologue refers to repeated rebellions on the part of Aleppo against Hatti, yet Talmi-Sarrumma is promised that his "son (and) grandson ... shall hold the kingship of the land of Aleppo" (A rev. 14-16). The fact that Talmi-Sarrumma belonged to the Hittite royal family, having been the grandson of Suppiluliuma I, accounts for the difference.
These examples strongly suggest that no correlation necessarily existed between the status of the vassal country and the terms of subordination granted to its king. Moreover, there are solid grounds for assuming that political considerations at any given time may have had a decisive effect on both the legal status of a rebellious country and the terms of subordination imposed on its king. The cases of Mittani under Sattiwaza and of Amurru after its rebellion are very instructive for this question.
In the case of Mittani, we learn from the "Proclamation of Sattiwaza" (CTH 52) (30) that the part of Mittani later ruled by Sattiwaza had actually been taken by force by Hittite troops. While Sattiwaza was provided with the facade of leadership of the campaign to install him on the Mittanian throne, he had no troops of his own. Nevertheless, the Hittites did not take the opportunity to declare Mittani a conquered country, and the "grant argument"--a clear indication of the status of a "conquered country" (see below)--does not appear either in CTH 51 or 52.
Even more instructive is the case of Amurru. After its rebellion against Muwattalli II, the Great King removed Bentesina and quite possibly lowered the status of Amurru. However, Hattusili III for political reasons restored Bentesina to the throne of Amurru, and restored its status, if it had indeed been reduced. Moreover, he not only extended to Bentesina the original terms of subjugation granted to Aziru, Bentesina's great-grandfather, but also promised his throne to his sons and grandsons. In the next generation, Tudhaliya IV would have reduced the status of Amurru, as is quite clearly indicated in the prologue of the treaty for Sausgamuwa. But since Hattusili III had already given up the opportunity to reduce Amurru's status in the wake of its rebellion, and had granted Bentesina favorable terms, and since neither Bentesina nor Sausgamuwa had committed any further transgression, Tudhaliya was precluded from modifying the status of Amurru or its terms of subordination. All he could do was limit his own promises to Sausgamuwa. The status of Amurru remained that of a self-subjugated country, as may be deduced from the fact that no "grant assertion" appears in the intact prologue of the Sausgamuwa treaty (CTH 105).
3. The "Grant Argument": An Indication of a Conquered Country
In a quite limited number of treaties we find the claim that the Hittite king had granted the subordinate country to the vassal king. These include the following countries: Hapalla (CTH 67 [obv. 43], rev. 42; cf. CTH 68.B i 18-19), (31) Mira-Kuwaliya (CTH 68 [Mashuiluwa]. B i 19, C i 26-27, 32, A i 28, 39), (32) the Land of the Seha-River and Appawiya (CTH 69.A i 63-64; cf. CTH 68.B i 17-18), Wilusa (CTH 76.A iii 44), (33) and Tarhuntassa (CTH 106 obv. 15'-16'), and most probably Hayasa (CTH 42.B obv. 16'; cf. A ii 17-18). To this group we must add Barga (CTH 63a.[A.sub.1] ii 2-5), which was conquered in the wake of rebellion. (34) Since such an important claim should have appeared in the first place in the prologue and then have been repeated in the stipulatory section, (35) this reduces the chance that other treaties, now damaged, also contained it. (36)
It would seem, therefore, that we may confidently take the available treaties and edicts that contain this claim as representing all cases where such a claim was indeed made. The common denominator here involved is that these countries were conquered by Hatti or at least--in the case of Barga--resubjugated by force. The legal message of such a claim is that the Hittite Great King is the ultimate source of whatever rights the beneficiary has on the land bestowed on him. These grants, as will be substantiated below, were conditional acts; they were contingent on the observance by the grantee of the terms specified in the treaty, which constituted the deed for this grant. By inserting these arguments into the prologue, the drafters forestalled any possibility that the beneficiary could contest the rights of the Great King to the office or land. Since the beneficiary's rights were derived from the grant made by the Great King, such a contestation would subvert the very right of the beneficiary himself to continue to hold this office or land. Being restricted to cases of conquered countries, such a "grant assertion" may therefore serve us as an indicator of this status in a treaty where the prologue is missing or damaged and the circumstances behind its drafting are unknown.
With these observations in mind we may now try to define the status of the various Hittite subordinate countries.
B. THE LEGAL STATUS OF SELF-SUBJUGATED COUNTRIES
1. Self-Subjugated Country
A self-subjugated country was a country whose king, on his own initiative, appealed to a Great King to accept him into vassalage, usually in return for military assistance and protection. (37) The rights the suzerain acquired in this case should have been only rights in personam. That is, the suzerain's legal relations with the self-subjugated king were contractual relations, as between a creditor and debtor. The suzerain had the right to impose certain obligations on the subordinate, (38) including the payment of an annual tribute, (39) and to limit the latter's ability to act freely in foreign affairs. (40) But he had no claim on the territory of the subordinate nor any direct authority over his people. (41) The terms of subordination imposed on a self-subjugated king very likely followed accepted rules that the suzerain was quite restricted in changing. Moreover, on his part the suzerain also had obligations to his vassal. He had to protect the vassal and his country, and usually also secure the latter's throne for his designated heir. (42) The vassal's obligations, as well as the suzerain's undertakings, were backed by a ceremonial oath taken by both of them before the images of the gods. (43) The military protection and help the vassal king received from his overlord were regarded as a consideration for his subjugation, and once he had accepted this "payment" for his submission, he was not allowed to retract it. (44) This was all the more true after he had sworn an oath that put the transaction under divine sanction. (45)
As long as the vassal and his heirs remained loyal, not only were they entitled to enjoy the suzerain's protection and help, but also enjoyed a higher legal status than ordinary subordinate kings. In the first place this status was realized in the fact that the suzerain had hardly any freedom of action in the subjugated country. If the subordinate king passed away, the suzerain was entitled to intervene in the hereditary succession by either approving or denying the heir apparent, (46) but he could not remove the local dynasty from the throne, nor was he allowed to change the borders of the subjugated country at will. Rather, he was bound by solemn promises to protect the vassal king and his country from internal and external threats and to ensure that the throne passed to the legitimate heir, or at least to one of the vassal's offspring. In case the line of the subordinate king was exhausted, the subordinate country would not have been annexed by Hatti, but its throne would very likely have been granted to some local person.
Whatever the reasons that moved the would-be subordinate king to subjugate himself, once subjugated he usually no longer had the right to change overlords or to terminate his subordination to his overlord. (47) However, there were certain circumstances that may have allowed him to ignore his promises, to claim the treaty as discharged, and to terminate his subordination. This might have occurred when the suzerain had been removed from his throne, his family line had run out, or he had been defeated in battle and his country conquered by another king. (48) For in such situations the removed, defeated, or heirless dead suzerain could no longer fulfill his promises to provide protection to his subordinate. (49) This was particularly true in the case when the former suzerain and his dynasty had been supplanted by a usurper, for the Hittite treaties demand that the subordinate king should treat a usurper as an enemy. (50)
Another situation which entitled the subordinate king to consider himself released from his promissory oaths to his suzerain was when the suzerain had committed a sin against his vassal. That is, when the suzerain had either violated a particular treaty stipulation or had committed a transgression that cut to the core of the treaty relationship. An explicit statement to this effect is given in the prologue of the Sunassura treaty (CTH 41.I i 32-33, 35-36). We read that the "grave sin" committed by the Hurrian suzerain against the subordinate land of Kizzuwatna had released the latter from oaths sworn to the former. (51)
2. Former Sovereign Countries versus Former Subordinates
No explicit reference can be found in Hittite texts indicating that the Hittites made any further distinction among the self-subjugated countries. Nevertheless, the available Hittite vassal treaties and related documents suggest that the Hittites would also have distinguished between two kinds or levels of self-subjugated countries according to their former legal status before entering Hittite subordination: sovereign countries and subordinate countries. Such a distinction is suggested by the emphatic assertion in the prologue of the Sausgamuwa treaty discussed above that before Aziru had submitted to Suppiluliuma he had been subordinate to another overlord (CTH 105.A i 17-20). A similar reference to Aziru as a subordinate who had defected from his former overlord appears in the Aziru treaty and again in that of Bentesina (CTH 49.II i 14-26, CTH 92 obv. 4-6).
Such a presentation presumably had a legal bearing on the status of Amurru or on the terms to which these three kings were entitled. Yet this would be understandable only if we take it as reflecting a legal distinction between sovereign countries that had become subordinate and subordinate countries that had merely changed their overlord. That is, the kings of the latter countries were entitled to less favorable terms than were the kings of formerly sovereign countries. This accords well the case of Aziru, for he--save for the promise of military protection (CTH 49.II iii 1'-3')--did not receive any consideration for his submission to Suppiluliuma. This stands in contrast to what we find in other self-subjugation treaties like those of Sattiwaza or Niqmaddu. And even if Aziru was given some promises, they would have been quite limited, as may be inferred from the stipulatory section of his treaty, which, although very damaged, does not seem to have lost much material. (52) Such a conclusion would most probably also fit the case of Sausgamuwa. (53)
A further argument in favor of the above distinction is that it may well account for the differences in the terms of subordination imposed on Amurru under Aziru and perhaps also on Nuhasse under Tette (54) on the one hand, and those of Ugarit under Niqmaddu II and Mittani under Sattiwaza on the other. (55)
For countries that had been sovereign before having been subordinated to Hatti, the Hittite term kuirwana (or kuriwana) may be applied. As was suggested recently, although the kuirwana treaties "granted the partner a few special privileges, ... in all essential matters they place him under Hittite domination. The kuirwana treaty presents a facade allowing a previously powerful polity to retain a modicum of (self-)respect while surrendering most of its independence." (56) While I am not sure about the "facade" attributed to this kind of treaties, (57) such a pact might have granted some special privileges which do not appear in ordinary Hittite vassal treaties. (58)
C. THE LEGAL STATUS OF CONQUERED AND REBELLIOUS COUNTRIES
1. Conquered Country
A second major category is that of a country conquered in the course of war. In this case the conqueror acquired rights in rem on that country, which means full control of the conquered territory and a free hand in dealing with it. The conquered country became the property of the conqueror's country under the full authority of the conqueror king. (59) As far as Hittite practice is concerned, cities that rejected an offer of surrender were subjected to burning and destruction, their population to exile and their possessions to confiscation. (60) As for the conquered country, the conqueror could treat it and its royal family as he wished. He could remove the family from the throne and annex the country, turning it into a province ruled by a Hittite official, (61) or grant it to a member of his own family as appanage land (62) or to any other person whom he might install as subordinate king. (63) Alternatively, he could split it into separate units or detach parts and transfer them to the jurisdiction of other allied or subordinated kings. (64) All these measures reflect the fact that conquered territory came under the full authority of the conqueror by virtue of his conquest.
When a hostile city or country chose to surrender without giving battle, the local king might be allowed to remain in office after taking an oath as a subordinate, and his people and his country left intact. (65) In this case too, the territory itself was henceforth regarded as the property of the conqueror's country, property now handed back to the local subordinate king as a grant. (66) The lower status of the conquered country might also possibly have been expressed in the character of the suzerain's promises, but more cases are needed to verify this suggestion.
2. Rebellious Country
The status of conquered country could have come about in two situations in which the country had been subdued: either in the course of a war or in the wake of a rebellion. We may assume that a rebellious country was liable to be harshly punished, its legal status reduced to that of a conquered country, and the terms of its subordination made more harsh. If the rebellious country had already been regarded as conquered before its uprising, evidently no change could occur in its legal status. At least we have no evidence for a status lower than that of a conquered country. But in such a case harsher punitive measures were probably taken by the betrayed suzerain against this country and its population. If the rebellious king or his son retained the throne, no promise was likely to be made to them. (67)
Yet the available evidence for such measures is very scanty and quite vague. In most of the known cases of rebellion, we do not possess the new treaty drawn up for the new king installed by the Hittites. Where we do have the new treaty, its stipulatory section has very often not been preserved intact. (68) Where this section has survived, we lack previous treaties with the same country for comparison. (69) In the few available treaties and documents related to cases of rebellion we also find no explicit declaration as to whether there had been a reduction in legal status, and there is seldom an indication as to whether there had been any modification in the subordination terms. (70) We must infer the required information either from the terms of the new treaty or from steps taken by the Hittite king against the rebellious country.
The Kupanta-Kurunta treaty (CTH 68) provides us with the basic principle according to which the Hittite kings treated rebellious subordinate kings ([section]7 C i 13'-22'). The rebellious royal family might be removed and replaced by a non-affiliated person, its house and (private) land confiscated, and the borders of the country changed. The removal of a rebellious king from the throne may be viewed as self-evident punishment. (71) Such a rebel might have also faced a death sentence. (72) Moreover, the innocent offspring of the rebellious king was also liable to be punished and denied the throne. And yet the very next paragraph ([section]8) of the prologue reveals that in the case of Kupanta-Kurunta the Hittites deviated from standard practice and returned the country and kingship to the son of the rebellious king. We are not informed about the circumstances under which the Great King was free to install an outsider on the throne, and when he was compelled to replace the removed king only by another member of the local royal family. (73) The relevant sources (74) are not always informative about the precise relationship of the installed person to the rebellious family. (75) And in the few cases where we are informed that he did belong to the rebellious family, we do not know if he had been installed out of special consideration (76) or because of previous promises. (77)
The passages from the Kupanta-Kurunta treaty cited above do not indicate the fate of the local population, nor the legal consequences for the status of the country. As for the local people, with the exception of such troublesome communities as the Kaska in the north or peoples on the eastern border, (78) the population of a rebellious country was probably not affected and did not suffer any severe punishment. After all, it constituted a source of revenue and military manpower for the suzerain. Apart from deportation of useful artisans and warriors, particularly chariot-fighters, to Hattusa, the most the Hittite kings might be expected to do to the local population was to increase their burden of taxes and military duty. Nevertheless, destruction, even if not for the purpose of punishment, might be the lot of some rebellious countries. (79)
As for the legal status of the rebellious country, the Kupanta-Kurunta treaty provides no explicit discussion of this question. Yet it does give an indication that henceforth, the legal status of Mira and Kuwaliya was that of a conquered country, if it indeed had not previously had such a rank. Note the repeated statement that the Great King had granted these countries to Kupanta-Kurunta. Thus CTH 68.C i 26-27: "I have installed you in lordship for the land (and) I have given you the land of Mira and the land of Kuwaliya." C i 32: "This land shall be yours, protect it!" A i 28: "Protect for yourself this land which I, the Sun, have given you!" These statements were very likely intended to clarify the new lower status of these countries, that is, that they had become the property of the suzerain country under the full control of its king.
Another indicator of the status of a rebellious vassal country is the measures of punishment taken by the Great King. Most instructive among these are the deportation of the local population and the detachment of areas from the rebellious country and their transferal to the authority of neighboring kings. (80) Changing the borders of the rebellious country indicates that the Hittite king had unrestricted control over it, similar to his prerogatives with a conquered country.
Yet another sign of the reduction in status of a subordinate country is a worsening of its terms of subordination. As may be inferred from the case of Amurru mentioned above, a lack of commitment to protect the vassal king and guarantee his throne does not necessarily in itself indicate a reduction in the status of his country. But the actual modification for the worse of the subjugation terms, such as by the addition of new obligations not included in previous treaties, may indicate not only punishment inflicted on a rebellious king, but also a reduction of the status of his country.
A case in point is that of Ugarit under Niqmepa. According to the prologue of RS 17.340 (CTH 46), Niqmaddu II had subjugated himself and Ugarit to the Hittites on his own initiative. Almost nothing is known about the short reign of his son and heir, Arhalba. Yet, there are good reasons to believe that Arhalba had gravely sinned against his Hittite overlord and was consequently deposed from the throne and replaced by Niqmepa, (81) for whom Mursili II drew up a new treaty (CTH 66). Ugarit's terms of subjugation were changed for the worse in at least one important matter: a new obligation of military service was imposed on Niqmepa. (82) Even more significant is the fact that in the duplicates and fragments of this treaty we find no promise regarding Niqmepa's offspring, (83) whereas such a promise was given to his father Niqmaddu II. (84) Finally, the small kingdom of Siyannu was detached by Mursili II from the realm of the king of Ugarit and placed under the authority of the king of Carchemish. (85) All these measures point to a reduction in Ugarit's status, and to the free hand Mursili II hereafter enjoyed in his treatment of Ugarit.
3. Granted Country
If the conquered country was given over as a grant, either to a member of the Hittite royal family or to any local person, the granted country continued to belong legally to the conqueror's country. What the suzerain granted was rather the right to use it, namely the right to enjoy, hold, occupy, and profit from the fruits of that political entity. The rights the grantor had over the granted were rights in personam, based on the subordination treaty drawn up for the latter. In dictating the terms of the treaty, the grantor no doubt had much more liberty than in the case of a self-subjugated country. Yet, this very treaty, while stipulating services the grantee had to provide his suzerain, also limited the latter's ability to deal with the country arbitrarily. Usually, and particularly in the case of a grant of appanage land, the grant was accompanied by promises on the part of the suzerain to protect the grantee in his office and to safeguard his throne for his offspring. (86) Consequently, as long as the grantee kept to the terms of the treaty and fulfilled his obligations, the suzerain had no right to remove him from the throne, to make any changes for the worse in the borders of that country, or to tighten its terms of subordination. However, if no promises were made by the sovereign, or if those promises were very limited, (87) the grantor seems to have had the right to make changes. In such cases, the decision whether and under which circumstances to carry them out seems to have been based on political considerations alone.
An idea of the legal nature of the political grants we are dealing with here may be obtained from the so-called "Indictment of Madduwatta" (CTH 147). (88) In [section]5 obv. 22-23 we find the following argument:
[[.sup.m]M]a-a[d-du-wa-at-ta-as-ma] A-NA [.sup.D]UT[U.sup.SI] ki-is- sa-an me-mi-is-ta [zi-ik-wa-mu E[N.sup.?]-]YA KUR [.sup.HUR.SAG]Zi- i[p-pa-as-la] a-sa-an-na pa-it-ta [nu-wa-]za [ki-e-e]l [SA KUR.KU[R.sup.TI]][.sup.M] [.sup.LU]a-u-ri-ya-la-as [.sup.LU]us- ki-is-g[a-tal-la-as-sa u-uk] [And Madduwatta] said as follows to the father of the Sun: "You, my [lord], have given [me] the land of Mount Zipasla to settle, [so that I am in these lands] the border guard and the watchman ([.sup.LU]auriyala-, [.sup.LU]uskisgatalla-)."
In rev. 12 Madduwatta is said to have been placed as "a border guard and a scout" ([.sup.LU]auriyala-, [.sup.LU]sapasalli-) (89) against the foreign lands.
In the light of these statements, we may understand the demand of Mursili II on Kupanta-Kurunta to protect the lands of Mira and Kuwaliya: CTH 68.C i 32'-33' ([section]9): nu-ut-ta a-pa-a-at KU[R.sup.TAM] e-es-du na-at-za pa-ah-si "And this land shall be yours, protect it!" And again A i 28 ([section]10): tu-uk-ma [.sup.d]UT[U.sup.SI] ku-it KU[R.sup.TAM] AD-DIN nu-za a-pa-a-at KU[R.sup.TAM] pa-ah-si "This land which I, the Sun, have given you--this land protect!" Similar demands are made by Mursili II to Manapa-Tarhunta in regard to the lands of the Seha-River and Appawiya (CTH 69 A i 63-64 [[section]5], B iii [15-16] [[section]7]), and of Mashuiluwa and Targasnalli (CTH 69 B iii 17-19 [[section]7]), as well as by Tudhaliya IV(?) to Ulmi-Tessub (CTH 106 obv. [section]3' 15'-16'). Thus these grants are only deposits entrusted to the vassal king for the benefit of the Hittite ruler, and the grantee is only entitled to enjoy their fruits.
In case the line of the grantee's family was extinguished, the granted country would revert to the grantor's country. If the suzerain's dynasty died out or was removed in a coup d'etat, the granted country would revert to the new suzerain, contrary to the case of a self-subjugated country. Since the very rights of the grantee over his country were derived from the grantor, once that grantor or his heirs were no longer in power the grantee or his heirs very likely lost these rights, and the new suzerain had the right to remove them. His decision in this regard seems to have been subject only to political considerations. Accordingly, in a case where the suzerain country had been defeated by another country, the victor very likely had a claim over the granted countries of the defeated suzerain, again in contrast to the situation of a self-subjugated country.
The Hittite system of ranking their subordinate countries may be summed up as follows: (90)
Status of Country Terms of Subjugation Main Features self-subjugated previously favorable Suzerain does not have title sovereign over the land; his freedom of previously less favorable action in the land is very subordinate or ordinary limited. When his dynasty ends, the subjugated land may get back its full freedom. When the local dynasty ends, another local person is enthroned. conquered Land belongs to the conqueror's country. Suzerain has free hand in the land. annexed ? Suzerain's freedom of action may be limited by customary rules. appanage very favorable The freedom of the suzerain is granted to local ordinary limited only by his own--or person his predecessors'--promises to the local dynasty. When suzerain's dynasty ends, country reverts to the new suzerain. rebellious country least favorable When local dynasty ends, land reverts to suzerain.
1. The basic work is V. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung (Leipzig: Theodor Weicher, 1931). For an up-to-date list of the available treaties, see G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 6-8, and 197-211 (bibliography). For a previous treatment of the Hittite dependencies system, see A. Goetze, Kleinasien, 2nd ed. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1957), 96-103.
2. The terms "vassal" and "suzerain," used here interchangeably with the terms "subordinate" and "overlord," respectively, are far from satisfactory, since they are borrowed from a different cultural environment, and their legal definition corresponds only partially to those of the subordinate kings and their overlords in the ancient Near East. Nevertheless, I have employed them here, since they are commonly accepted in the literature, and avoiding them entirely might have led to some misunderstanding.
3. References to Hittite documents will be followed by their catalogue number according to E. Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites (Paris: Klincksieck, 1971; hereafter CTH, followed by the number of the entry). Abbreviations referring to Akkadian documents follow those of The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
4. By "related documents" I mean, in the first place, edicts issued by the suzerain to his subordinate kings and communities (tribal societies, not ruled by a king). In the second place I mean decrees, namely juridical decisions by the suzerain on a case under litigation, and such documents as the "Indictment of Mita of Pahhuwa" and the "Indictment of Madduwatta" (CTH 146 and 147, respectively).
5. Reference will be made only to those subordinate countries for which treaties or edicts have survived to allow us to define their status. The "treaties" with the Kaska people (CTH 138-40) and the "treaty" with the men of Ismerika (CTH 133) have not been taken into consideration, since I doubt that they may rightly be considered treaties. See A. Altman, The Historical Prologues of the Hittite Vassal Treaties (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, 2004), chapter XV, section A. The legal status of some of the countries mentioned in the following notes changed over the course of time and they accordingly belonged to more than one category. The documents given in parentheses in the following notes are those indicative of the specific legal status of a land at a particular time.
6. Ugarit (CTH 46), Amurru (CTH 49, 62, 92), Mittani (CTH 51, 52), and very probably Mira-Kuwaliya before the betrayal of Mashuiluwa (circumstances related in CTH 68).
7. Hayasa (CTH 42), Carchemish (CTH 50), Barga (CTH 63a), Hapalla (CTH 67), Mira-Kuwaliya (CTH 68), the Seha-River Land (CTH 69), Aleppo (CTH 75), Wilusa (CTH 76). To this category we should add in all probability Ugarit under Niqmepa (CTH 66), despite the fact that the country was not actually conquered, since there are good indications suggesting that its status was reduced to that of a rebellious country; see the discussion below. Nuhasse may also perhaps be added to this list, if we rely on CTH 51.I.A obv. 38-40. But see CTH 53.A i 3-11, iii 8-9 (for which see the restoration and rendering of Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 56), which suggests that this country might have been regarded by the Hittites either as a self-subjugated country or a rebellious country, if CTH 51.I.A obv. 38-40 together with CTH 53.A iii 57-58 are taken into account.
8. Such as the "Upper Land," the "Lower Land," or Hakpis.
9. Appanage countries: Carchemish (CTH 50), Aleppo (CTH 75), Tarhuntassa (CTH 106, StBoT Beiheft 1), and probably Kizzuwatna (CTH 44). Granted countries: Hayasa (CTH 42), Barga (CTH 63a), Hapalla (CTH 67), Mira-Kuwaliya (CTH 68), the Seha-River Land (CTH 69), Wilusa (CTH 76). Both these types had in fact been granted to members of the Hittite royal family or to local persons. For want of a better designation for the latter group, they have been designated here as "granted countries" in order to distinguish them from appanages.
10. Mira-Kuwaliya after the betrayal of Mashuiluwa (CTH 68), Amurru under the reign of Sausgamuwa following the betrayal of Bentesina (CTH 105).
11. I include here Mittani under Sattiwaza (CTH 51-52) and Ugarit under Niqmaddu II (RS 17.340 + RS 17.369A = CTH 46; see n. 55 below).
12. Amurru under Aziru.
13. Recent edition: C. Kuhne and H. Otten, Der Sausgamuwa-Vertrag (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1971); recent translations: I. Singer, "Aziru's Apostasy and the Historical Setting of the General's Letter," in Shlomo Izre'el and Itamar Singer, The General's Letter from Ugarit (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Univ. Press, 1990), 152ff.; Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 104ff.
14. For this translation and understanding of the text, which differ in certain points from those of Kuhne/Otten, Beckman, and Singer, see A. Altman, "The Mittanian Raid on Amurru (EA 85: 51-55) Reconsidered," Altorientalische Forschungen 30/2 (2003): 345-71, section IV.
15. nu-us-si [.sup.I][A-]-zi-ra-as QA-TAM-MA [(pa-ah-ha-as-t)]a-at. The restoration of pahhasta- is based on copy B obv. 7 (Kuhne/Otten, Sausgamuwa-Vertrag, 18). The basic meaning of pahs- is "to protect," and the middle pahhastat when combined with a dative means "to place oneself under the protection of someone" (cf. Kuhne/Otten, Sausgamuwa-Vertrag, 29 n. 31; CHD P, 71, sub pahs- 6: "to seek protection with").
16. ASSUM EN-UT-TA. I follow Beckman's rendering here.
17. Amurru and Aziru were at that time subjects of Egypt. See most recently the article mentioned in n. 14 above.
18. For the meaning and importance of this argument as an essential component in the claim of the right of possession in the Hittite vassal treaties see A. Altman, "Claim of Possession over Occupied or Conquered Territory in the Bible and in the Ancient Near East," Zeitschrift fur Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 7 (2001): 332-52.
19. See Altman, Historical Prologues, chapter XIV.
20. This assertion is based on the study of these prologues in Altman, Historical Prologues.
21. This difference is analogous to the difference in status of the self-sold habiru-people as attested in the Nuzi documents. In some of the Nuzi sale-documents we find that if such a person violates the agreement, he is liable to a severe punishment, such as plucking out his eyes and selling him "for a price" (ana simi inaddin): JEN V, 449, 452, 457. This indicates that as long as these persons remained loyal to their master they enjoyed a higher status than ordinary slaves and were not salable, but they were still bound to life-long servitude. Cf. I. Mendelsohn, Slavery in the Ancient Near East (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1949), 18.
22. The very damaged stipulatory section of the Sausgamuwa treaty does not permit comparison with the terms of the treaties drawn up for Amurru in the previous generations. Further discussion of the question whether Amurru's terms of subjugation were modified to its disadvantage will be given below.
23. I wonder if this is not aimed primarily at justifying the fact that no promise to safeguard the throne of Amurru for future generations is found either in the Aziru treaty (see n. 26 below) or in the Sausgamuwa treaty (see n. 29).
24. Sunassura (CTH 41.I.A i 49-52), Huqqana (CTH 42.A i 33, 36-38), Niqmaddu (CTH 46.A rev. 10'-11', B obv. 15'-19'), Aziru (CTH 49.I obv. 27'ff.; CTH 49.II iii 1'-3'[?]), Tette (CTH 53.A iii 1-7), Duppi-Tessub (CTH 62.II.A i 23'-24', ii 25'-29'), Abiradda (CTH 63a.A ii 10-18), Niqmepa (CTH 66, [section]5), Targasnalli (CTH 67 obv. 41'-rev. 1), Talmi-Sarrumma (CTH 75.A rev. 5, 13-15), Alaksandu (CTH 76.A i 77'-79', B ii 5-10), Bentesina (CTH 92 obv. 30, 32-33). In the case of Sattiwaza (CTH 51.I, [section][section]7-8) the promise was only implicit.
25. Sunassura (CTH 41.I.A i 52-54), Huqqana (CTH 42.A i 33-34, 36-37), Niqmaddu (CTH 46: A rev. 10'-11', B obv. 15'-19'), Duppi-Tessub (CTH 62.II.A i 24'-26'), Abiradda (CTH 63a.A ii 8-9), Talmi-Sarrumma (CTH 75.A. rev. 4-5, 7, 15-16), Alaksandu (CTH 76.A i 71'-75'), Bentesina (CTH 92 obv. 30-33), Kurunta (H. Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazkoy. Ein Staatsvertrag Tudhalijas IV. [Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1988], hereafter StBoT Beiheft 1, ii 95-iii 20), Ulmi-Tessub (CTH 106 obv. 7'-14', rev. 21-27). Note that in some cases the promise was limited to the sons and did not include grandsons (Sunassura, Huqqana, Duppi-Tessub, and Abiradda). In the case of Sattiwaza (CTH 51.I, [section]7 = A obv. 63-67) the promise was only implicit.
26. This treaty has admittedly reached us in both its Akkadian and Hittite versions in very damaged condition with many lacunae. Yet, as far as the Hittite version is concerned (H. Freydank, "Eine hethitische Fassung des Vertrages zwischen dem Hethiterkonig Suppiluliuma und Aziru von Amurru," MIO 7 : 356-81), these lacunae seriously affect only the prologue, while almost all of the stipulatory section can be restored. Cf. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 37ff. As for the promise regarding Aziru's offspring, we may have expected such a provision to appear either at the end of [section]5 or in [section]6 (iii 4'-16') of the Hittite version, or in [section]3 or [section]4, at the beginning of the stipulatory section, as later in the Duppi-Tessub and Bentesina treaties (CTH 62.II.A i 24'-27'; CTH 92 obv. 28-33). Cf. also the Alaksandu treaty (CTH 76.A i 62'-79', B ii 5-10), as well as the Kurunta treaty drawn up by Tudhaliya IV (StBoT Beiheft I iii 67-78), in both of which these promises are given close to the beginning of the stipulatory section.
27. CTH 62.II.A i 24'-26'. Actually, it promised only to "protect" that son.
28. CTH 63a.A ii 8-9. For a recent discussion of this document, see A. Altman, "Some Remarks on the So-called 'Arbitrage concerning Barga' (CTH 63a)," Ugarit-Forschungen 32 (2000): 1-10.
29. Although the stipulatory section of the Sausgamuwa treaty is very damaged with many lacunae, this assumption is based on the observation that in both the Duppi-Tessub treaty and the Bentesina treaty such promises are given immediately at the beginning of the stipulatory section, as is also the case in the Alaksandu and Kurunta treaties (see n. 26 above). Yet while the first paragraphs of the stipulatory section did survive in the Sausgamuwa treaty (A obv. ii 4-rev. iii 5), we find here only Sausgamuwa's obligation to guard the Hittite king and his offspring.
30. For this designation and a revaluation of this document, see A. Altman, "A Revaluation of the So-called 'Sattiwaza-Suppiluliuma Treaty' (CTH 52)," Acta Sumerologica 21 (in press).
31. The circumstances that led to the conclusion of this treaty are unknown to us.
32. Note that in CTH 68.B i 19-21 the "grant argument" is preceded in the prologue by the assertion that Mursili had conquered the entire land of Arzawa, that is, with all its subordinated territories, including the Seha-River Land, Hapalla, Mira-Kuwaliya, and that he had "fixed their borders."
33. This claim apparently goes back to the conquest of this country by Labarna II; see the opening of the prologue and the discussion in Altman, "Did Wilusa Ever Defect from Hatti? Some Notes on the Prologue of the Alaksandu Treaty (CTH 76)," Altorientalische Forschungen 31 (2004): 57-65.
34. We do not know the exact status of Barga before the rebellion, save that it was subordinated to Hatti. For a discussion of the case with references to further literature see the article mentioned in n. 28.
35. In prologue: CTH 63a.[A.sub.1] ii 2-5, CTH 68.B i 19-21, and C i 26'-27'. In stipulatory section: CTH 67 obv. 43', CTH 68.A i 28, CTH 69.A i 63-64, and B iii 15-16, CTH 76.A iii 44, CTH 106 obv. 15'-16'.
36. We may, however, suggest that the treaties of Sarri-Kusuh (CTH 50), Tette (CTH 53), and Talmi-Sarruma (CTH 75), possibly contained it. The country involved in each of these cases was a country conquered by Hatti.
37. As a matter of fact, such a move might have been initiated by the Hittite king in some cases, such as those of Sunassura of Kizzuwatna and Niqmaddu II of Ugarit, as suggested by RS 17.132 (CTH 45), a letter of Suppiluliuma I to Niqmaddu. But in the prologues of the treaties drawn up for such kings, the Hittite drafters were careful to present the move as initiated by the subordinate party.
38. Noteworthy among these are the obligation to send troops and chariotry on request of the Hittite king, the protection of the Hittite king and his legitimate heir from any enemy, and a yearly visit to the Hittite king to pay homage.
39. G. Beckman, "International Law in the Second Millennium: Late Bronze Age," in History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 762 with nn. 44-45, correctly notes that "[a]lthough mentioned explicitly in only a few treaties, there can be little doubt that yearly payments of silver, gold, and products of local industry were required of most vassals. Sometimes the amounts due are set down in a separate document." The treaties or edicts that contain such an explicit requirement are: CTH 49 (Aziru), CTH 62 (Duppi-Tessub), CTH 65 (= RS 17.382 + RS 17.380). In CTH 41.I.A I 47-48, Sunassura of Kizzuwatna is explicitly relieved of this obligation.
40. That is, Hatti's vassal kings were forbidden to have contact either with other Great Kings or with their vassals, if these Great Kings were not regarded by the Hittites as their "friends," that is, allies by treaty. They were, however, allowed to have contacts with Great Kings allied to Hatti by inviolate treaty. This rule may be deduced from the general obligation on the vassal king to "be at peace with my (= the Hittite king's) friend and hostile to my enemy" (see, e.g., the Tette treaty, CTH 53.A ii 6-7, and for further references Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage, 69). One cannot be "at peace" or "a friend" with someone without having any contact with him.
Note also that the Hittite drafters of the Sausgamuwa treaty found it necessary explicitly to prohibit commercial ties between Amurru and Assyria, which had recently become an enemy of Hatti; see CTH 105 [section]11. Obviously, before Assyria became an enemy, Amurru had been allowed to trade with it, much the same as Babylonia had commercial ties with Amurru in the days of Bentesina; see the letter of Hattusili III to Kadasman-Enlil II, CTH 172 [section][section]10-11 (Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 138-43).
The demand that Kizzuwatna sever its connections with Mittani (Sunassura treaty, CTH 41.I [section]58) does not contradict the above conclusion. This proviso refers to the oath of loyalty that Sunassura had previously sworn to the Hurrian king as a subordinate, and apart from this Mittani was regarded as a country that had become an enemy, a fact described in detail in the prologue to this treaty. This rule that limited the foreign connections of the vassal kings was apparently the same for all categories of Hittite dependencies.
41. Pace A. Goetze, Kleinasien, 100, who, without making any distinction between a self-subjugated country and a conquered country, maintained that the vassal king received his country back as a feud (lehen), which upon the death of the vassal would return to the Great King. We indeed have explicit references to such grants (see n. 35), but these references are limited to conquered countries (with the possible exception in the prologue to Niqmepa treaty, CTH 66, for which see below).
42. For the obligations and rights of the vassal king, see Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage, 65-92, and most recently G. Beckman, "International Law," 761-63.
43. For the suzerain also taking such an oath, see D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978), 80; A. Altman, "Who Took an Oath on a Vassal Treaty: Only the Vassal King or Also the Suzerain?--the Hittite Evidence," Zeitschrift fur Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9 (2003): 178-84. A different opinion was expressed most recently by Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2.
44. Although very rarely explicitly prohibited in the Hittite vassal treaties, there can be no doubt that such an act would have constituted a grave "sin" (as explicitly designated in the Aleppo treaty, CTH 75.A obv. 19-20, and the Sausgamuwa treaty, CTH 105.A i 30), contradicting all the obligations the vassal undertook in his treaty. The rare explicit prohibitions (CTH 41.I iii 48-49; see also iv 25-31 [Sunassura], and CTH 62.II.B ii 4'-9' [Duppi-Tessub]) can easily be explained by the fact that Kizzuwatna and Amurru had previously been subordinated to Mittani and Egypt, respectively. Less explicit are the stipulations in CTH 49.II iv 19"-26" (Aziru), CTH 66 [section]15, 81-86 (Niqmepa), CTH 68.A i 46 (Kupanta-Kurunta), CTH 92 obv. 41-42 (Bentesina). To these CTH 42.A i 31-33 (Huqqana) may also be added.
45. Let me make this point clear. The transaction was concluded and the obligations of the subordinate took effect the moment the suzerain accepted the submission of the inferior party and fulfilled his part in the transaction by extending protection or military assistance. The oath sworn by the subordinate party, whenever it took place, only put the transaction under divine sanction.
46. See, e.g., the prologue of the Duppi-Tessub treaty (CTH 62.II [section]4), which refers to the intervention of Mursili II in the succession.
47. Contrary to what might be inferred from the prologue of the Sausgamuwa treaty, CTH 105.A i 31-32. See n. 44.
48. For the sake of clarity, let me add that as long as the subordinate king had not been defeated personally on the battlefield, he had no obligation to the one who defeated his former suzerain. Victory over a suzerain by no means entitled the victor to claim suzerainty over the vassals of the defeated, nor over his self-subjugated countries. But it will be argued below that he might have had a claim over the conquered countries of the defeated.
49. Note that the promises made by the parties in the Hittite vassal treaties were primarily personal. However, this did not preclude the new Hittite king from claiming suzerainty over Hatti's previous subordinate countries, particularly when he undertook to honor the promises made by his predecessors. Hittite vassal treaties usually bound the subordinate king and his people not only to the Hittite royal house but also to "the land of Hatti"; see Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage, 41 and 66f.
50. See Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage, 66f. A clear statement supporting this conclusion is given in the prologue to the Sausgamuwa treaty, CTH 105 obv. 15-30. Here Tudhaliya IV refers to the behavior of Masturi, the king of the Seha-River Land, as an example of how a loyal subordinate should not behave. Muwattalli II had installed Masturi as king in the Seha-River Land and made him his brother-in-law. Yet when Urhi-Tessub, the son and legitimate heir of Muwattalli II, was removed from the throne by Hattusili III, Masturi did not support him, but instead acknowledged the usurper as his overlord.
51. I understand the qualification "grave" (ma-kal e-eh-ti-ma "he sinned greatly") as having been added in order to stress that Kizzuwatna no longer had any obligations toward the Hurrians. That it did not actually matter whether or not the sin was really "grave" may be inferred from the fact that in the same lines Hatti is also released from its oaths to the Hurrians because of a mere "sin" (line 32). In all probability, the Hittites did not distinguish between what is today called in English law "condition" and "warranty," that is, between the terms whose violation entitle the wronged party to terminate the contract, and terms whose violation do not justify this.
52. See n. 26.
53. See above with n. 29. As for the appearance of that characterization of Aziru in the Bentesina treaty, I understand this as indicating that as the offspring of a "runaway slave," Bentesina was not legally entitled to a favorable treaty. And the fact that he eventually did receive quite a favorable pact was due solely to the grace of his Hittite overlord. For a detailed discussion of the prologues of the treaties of Aziru, Bentesina, and Sausgamuwa, see The Historical Prologues, chapters XI, XII and XIV.
54. The status of Nuhasse under Tette is quite uncertain since only part of the prologue of his treaty has survived. See n. 7.
55. I reject the common allegation that before Niqmaddu had submitted to Suppiluliuma I Ugarit had been subordinate to Egypt. See my forthcoming paper "Ugarit's Political Standing at the Beginning of the 14th Century B.C.E. Reconsidered." Egypt never expressed a claim over Ugarit and never attempted to recover it from the Hittites. If some county did claim Ugarit, it was rather Hatti, based on the pretext of Ugarit's subordination to Hatti in the past, as may be inferred from RS 17.132 (PRU IV, 35-37). However, this claim had no solid legal basis, since Suppiluliuma was a usurper. And indeed, that claim was accordingly entirely ignored in the prologues of RS 17.227 and 17.340 (PRU IV, 40-43, 48-52). See my paper, "EA 59: 27-29 and the Efforts of Mukis, Nuhasse and Niya to Establish a Common Front against Suppiluliuma," Ugarit-Forschungen 33 (2001): 1-25, section III.
56. Beckman, "International Law," 763 with nn. 49 and 51, referring to G. Del Monte, Il trattato fra Mursili II di Hattusa e Niqmepa' di Ugarit (Rome: Instituto per l'Oriente C. A. Nallino, 1986), 59; Goetze, Kleinasien, 98-99; and G. Beckman, "Some Observations on the Suppiluliuma-Sattiwaza Treaties," in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. Cohen et al. (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press), 56 with n. 20.
57. My doubts arise because this judgment was based mainly on the Sunassura treaty. While Kizzuwatna certainly belonged to the group of previously sovereign countries, its treaty in the form which reached us in CTH 41.I may not represent a typical example of this group. I adhere in this point to the interpretation of this treaty by Korosec, who understood it as comprised of two layers or versions, entirely different in nature: an older version presenting almost a parity treaty, and a later ordinary vassal treaty. See V. Korosec, "Uber den nichtparitatischen Charakter des Sunasura-Vertrages (KBo I, 5)," in Vortrage gehalten auf der 28. Rencontre assyriologique internationale in Wien, 6-10. Juli 1981, ed. H. Hunger and H. Hirsch (Horn: F. Berger, 1982), 168-72. For the Sattiwaza treaty (CTH 51 and 52), see my paper, "A Revaluation of the So-called 'Sattiwaza-Suppiluliuma Treaty' (CTH 52)," where I interpret it as much less favorable than hitherto understood.
58. Thus there is good reason to assume that the treaty drawn up for Niqmaddu II of Ugarit by Suppiluliuma I, the full version of which has not reached us, did not include a military obligation. See n. 82.
59. In the Hittite documents there are many statements to the effect that conquered territory has been annexed to the conqueror's land (e.g., CTH 51.I.A obv. 4, 47: ana misriya uttir/uttirsunuti "I turned it/them into my territory"), or that it belonged to the conqueror (e.g., CTH 51.I.A rev. 21). Yet these statements do not enable us to decide whether the conquered territory had become a part of the conqueror's country or the private property of the conquering king. One may note in this regard that in sharp contrast to the free hand the conquering king had in dealing with conquered territories, he was quite restricted in handling his own country. Thus, for example, in order to impose new regulations on a local community he had to take into account its inherited rights, as the prologue of Hattusili III's edict for the people of Tiliura indicates (CTH 89; translation von Schuler, Die Kaskaer, 145f.). This suggests that conquered land did not become part of the conqueror's country, enjoying the same privileges, but rather was given a lower status, equivalent to that of a captured slave in comparison to other members of the household. The issue is, however, complicated and deserves further investigation.
60. V. Korosec, "Warfare of the Hittites--From the Legal Point of View," Iraq 25 (1963): 160-63; Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate, "The History of Warfare According to Hittite Sources: The Annals of Hattusilis I (Part II)," Anatolica 11 (1984): 69-72.
61. Especially when there was a geographical continuum between the core of the Hittite state and the conquered country. This very likely happened to Kizzuwatna sometime before the reign of Suppiluliuma or in his first regnal years, as well as to Isuwa immediately after he had conquered it.
62. See already for the Old Kingdom the "Telipinu Edict" (CTH 19, Inge Hoffmann, Der Erlass Telipinus [Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1984]) i 8-12, 18-20. Famous cases in the New Kingdom are those of Carchemish and Aleppo, granted by Suppiluliuma as appanage countries to his sons Sarri-Kusuh (Piyassili) and Telipinu.
63. Such was the fate of the Lands of Arzawa. See particularly CTH 68.B i 14-21. Note that in certain cases the Hittite king placed the son of the defeated king on the throne of the conquered country. Such was the experience of Aitaqamma of Qades, who was installed by Suppiluliuma I sometime after the conclusion of his "one-year campaign," during which the city was taken.
64. Suppiluliuma detached the district of Kutmar from Mittani and granted it as a gift to the king of Alse (CTH 51 obv. 25-26). He also cut territories from Mukis and transferred them to Ugarit (RS 17.237 = PRU IV, 63-65; cf. RS 17.340 = PRU IV, 48-52). Hattusili II removed territories from Aleppo and gave them to Astata and Nuhasse (CTH 75 obv. 28-32).
65. Cf. the case of the Kaskan city of Timuhala in the "Deeds of Suppiluliuma" fr. 34: 47-51 (H. G. Guterbock, "The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son, Mursili II," JCS 10 : 110) and that of Manapa-Tarhunta (CTH 69).
66. Thus we find in the Manapa-Tarhunta treaty (CTH 69.A i 63-64): "I have now given you the land of the Seha-River and the land of [Appawiya]. This shall be your land--protect [it]." B iii 15-16: "I, the Sun, [have given] to you, [Manapa-Tarhunta, the land of the Seha-River] and the land of Appawiya." Cf. CTH 68.B i 17-18: "The land of the Seha-River I gave to Manapa-Tarhunta."
67. Note the difference between the treaties drawn up in the wake of rebellion or treachery for Kupanta-Kurunta and Manapa-Tarhunta (CTH 68 and 69), where only very limited promises or none at all are made by the suzerain, and the treaty of Targasnalli, whose country is not known to have been rebellious, which does include quite favorable promises (CTH 67 obv. 41'-rev. 1).
68. As with the Sausgamuwa treaty (CTH 105).
69. As with the Kupanta-Kurunta treaty (CTH 68).
70. The Bentesina treaty (CTH 92 obv. 28-30) is an exception in asserting that the terms of this treaty had not been modified. But note that this treaty also ignores Bentesina's rebellion.
71. These were also the cases with EN-urta of Barga, whom Mursili II replaced with Abiradda; Bentesina of Amurru, who was replaced by Sapili; and very likely also Arhalba of Ugarit, whom Mursili II replaced with Niqmepa.
72. See following note.
73. Cf. the promises made to Kurunta (StBoT Beiheft I ii 95-iii 20) and Ulmi-Tessub (CTH 106 obv. 4'-14'). Kingship of Tarhuntassa was pledged to the son and grandson of each, and it was foreseen that if either of them committed an offense he would be subjected to a death sentence, but the kingship would still remain in his family.
74. Those concerning the cases of Niqmepa, Tette, Abiradda, Kupanta-Kurunta, Niqmaddu of Qades, Sapili, and perhaps Masturi (if indeed his father Manapa-Tarhunta was deposed).
75. Such is the case of Sapili who replaced Bentesina in Amurru.
76. According to CTH 63a.[A.sub.1] i 26-32 and [B.sub.1] ii 1-3, it seems that Tette was replaced by his brother, but this was due to an earlier promise given by Mursili II that any member of Tette's family who killed him would be installed on the throne. This indicates that Mursili had found it difficult to overcome Tette. From the same document we learn that the land of Barga was given to Abiradda, a member of the local royal family, in gratitude for his loyalty and help to Mursili.
77. This seems to have been the situation of Niqmepa, whose appointment was apparently due to a promise given to his father Niqmaddu II by Suppiluliuma; see RS 17.340 rev. 8'ff. This might also apply to Kupanta-Kurunta.
78. For the severe treatment of these communities by Suppiluliuma, see the "Deeds of Suppiluliuma," passim; for their treatment by Mursili II, see his Annals (CTH 61; A. Gotze, Die Annalen des Mursilis [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1933]), passim.
79. See the case of Barga in the Abiradda edict (CTH 63a.[A.sub.1] ii 1-2) and of Amurru in the Sausgamuwa treaty (CTH 105 obv. i 38).
80. The best example appears in the Aleppo treaty (CTH 75 obv. 19-32).
81. Arhalba's reign is known from very few documents (cf. J. Nougayrol, PRU IV, 58f.), reflecting the brevity of his reign. It is quite reasonable to assume that his reign was cut short by the Hittites, who replaced him with Niqmepa. For discussion, see M. Liverani, Storia di Ugarit nell'eta degli archivi politici (Rome: Centro di studi semitici, 1962), 62ff.; H. Klengel, Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z., vol. 2 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1969), 359-61; idem, Syria--3000 to 300 B.C. (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992), 134f.
82. See RS 17.349.B: 5'-12', RS 17.353: 13-24, RS 17.407; 12'-20', RS 17.357: 5'-10', RS 17.351.A: 1'-10' (= PRU IV, 87, 89, 91-92, 94). While we cannot definitely ascertain whether the treaty with Niqmaddu included such an obligation, RS 17.334 (PRU IV, 54f.), a proposal sent to Niqmaddu by Sarri-Kusuh, the king of Carchemish and the Hittite viceroy in Syria, indicates that Niqmaddu's treaty did not include it. In this proposal, Niqmaddu is asked to take an active (military) part in suppressing the revolt of Tette of Nuhasse against Mursili II. The document, which has reached us in a later copy made by Ini-Tessub, the grandson of Sarri-Kusuh, is clearly formulated as a proposal, not as an obligation. It also includes benefits for Niqmaddu should he agree. Lines 15-19, on the other hand, consider the possibility that Niqmaddu might reject the proposal, in which case the offer of the benefits is void. Nothing, however, is said about punishing Niqmaddu if he rejects the proposal.
83. Although the duplicates of Niqmepa's treaty have survived in a very fragmentary condition, it is still very likely that such a promise was not given to him. We would expect such a promise to appear in the Niqmepa treaty immediately following the undertaking to protect Niqmepa himself (lines 35-38), but the following lines (39ff.) are devoted to other issues.
84. RS 17.340 (CTH 46) rev. 8'ff.
85. Cf. the documents in PRU IV, 71-78, 230-31, as well as RS 16.170, PRU III, 91. Note also that the documents pertaining to this act offer no explanation or justification. Mursili thus appears as the absolute owner of Ugarit's territory, treating it according to his will.
86. Appanage lands: Aleppo (Talmi-Sarrumma, CTH 75.A rev. 4-5, 7, 13-16). Tarhuntassa (Kurunta, StBoT Beiheft 1 ii 95-iii 20; Ulmi-Tessub, CTH 106 obv. 7'-14', rev. 21-27). Other lands: Hayasa (Huqqana, CTH 42.A i 33-34, 36-38), Barga (Abiradda, CTH 63a.A ii 8-18), Hapalla (Targasnalli, CTH 67 obv. 41'-rev. 1), Wilusa (Alaksandu, CTH 76.A i 71'-75', 77'-79', B ii 5-10).
87. Such as the cases of Niqmepa of Ugarit (CTH 66; see n. 83), Kupanta-Kurunta (CTH 68 [section][section]23-24, where Mursili II only promises not to help any enemy of Kupanta- Kurunta), and Manapa-Tarhunta (CTH 69).
88. Edition: A. Gotze, Madduwattas (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1927); recent translation: Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 154-60.
89. For these expressions, see R. H. Beal, The Organisation of the Hittite Military (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1992), 264-68.
90. The present condition of most of the stipulatory sections in the available treaties does not enable us to expound further on differences in the terms of subjugation.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Journal of the American Oriental Society|
|Date:||Oct 1, 2003|
|Previous Article:||Arabic dialect history and historical linguistic mythology.|
|Next Article:||Myth, ritual, and order in "Enki and the world order".|