Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:26:29.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Treaty with Ulmi-Tešub

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

O. R. Gurney
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The treaty of a Hittite king, whose name is lost, with Ulmi-Tešub, king of Tarhuntassa (KBo. IV 10 + KUB XL 69 + 1548/u, CTH 106) is a complex and problematic document. Published as a hand-copy by Forrer in 1920, no modern edition of the text has yet appeared in print. It contains an unusually full description of the boundaries of Ulmi-Tešub's vassal kingdom, and in order to provide a sound basis for the reconstruction of Hittite political geography I contributed a translation of the boundary description and of most of the other clauses to John Garstang's book The Geography of the Hittite Empire in 1959. J. Lorenz, a student of Marburg University, prepared an edition in 1986 as a dissertation, but this has remained unpublished. The same is true of a similar edition prepared in 1989 for the University of Amsterdam by T. van den Hout, though this is understood to have gone to press. Dr. van den Hout, however, has published his views on this treaty in some detail in an article “A Chronology of the Tarhuntassa Treaties” in JCS 41 (1989), 100–14, where he introduces the text in his first sentence as “KBo 4 10 (CTH 106), the treaty between Tudhaliya IV and Ulmi-Tešub, king of Tarhuntassa”.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 43 , December 1993, pp. 13 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 The edition by V. Korošec in Slovenian, “Podelitev hetitske pokrajine Dattašše Ulmi-Tešupu (= KBo IV 10)”, Akademija Znanosti in Umnetnosti v Ljubljani, Pravni Razred, Razprave, Band 2, 53–112 (Ljubljana, 1943), is not available to me. Dattašše (in this title), Dattassa, Tattashsha, (e.g. in Garstang-Gurney, The Geography of the Hittite Empire, and in Goetze's chapters of the Cambridge Ancient History) etc., are old readings of textual dU-ta-aš-ša, now replaced by Tarhuntassa. See Otten, H., Die Bronzetafel von Boğazköy, 3 n. 1Google Scholar.

2 “Der Vertrag mit Ulmi-Tešub von dU-tašša (CTH 106)”, Hausarbeit vorgelegt am Fachbereich 11—aussereuropäische Sprachen und Kulturen—der Philipps-Universität, Marburg, von Jürgen Lorenz (1986). I owe my knowledge of this work to the kindness of Dr. Silvin Košak.

3 I owe my knowledge of this work to the kindness of Mr. David Hawkins.

4 For the reading of dLAMMA-a as Kurunta see Houwink ten Cate, P., The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic Period (Leiden, 1961), 130Google Scholar; Laroche, Les noms des Hittites, no. 652; and Gordon, E., JCS 21, 71 n. 6Google Scholar.

5 Dissertation § 6.3; JCS 41, 106. Here Güterbock's proposal is lumped together with Laroche's and Goetze's treatment of ll. 41′–42′ and dismissed on the ground that “all of these proposed explanations must allow for a scribal error”. This is an allusion to obv. 41′–42′, on which see below with n. 12.

6 JCS 41, 112 n. 30Google Scholar.

7 Ibid. 112.

8 III 47–56 and 64–70.

9 86/299 III 32 ff. See below, and cf. JCS 41, 107Google Scholar.

10 Ibid. III 32–34, 36, 42. I adopt Otten's translation rather than that of van den Hout, p. 112. The intervening lines refer to military contingents required for campaigns. Similar stipulations also follow in KBo IV 10 and ABoT 57, but they are different—not because the vassals are different people as alleged by van den Hout, but because the regulations were made by different kings at different times.

11 So apparently van den Hout, , JCS 41, 112Google Scholar, because of the change of person from “you” to “him” in the lines here quoted, which he would explain by the assumption that a document of Hattusili couched in the second person is quoted verbatim and the scribe forgot to make the redactional change to third person required by the context. KBo IV 10 differs not only in being in the third person at this point but also in transposing the words “in Hatti” and “of the Hulaya River Land”. However, this must be an error: the genitive should certainly follow its regens and the administration must have been “in Hatti”. The passages are otherwise identical except for the difference of person. Frequent changes of person are characteristic of these two documents, KBo IV 10 and the Bronze Tablet, and van den Hout seeks to explain them all as marks of juncture where an extract from an old treaty has been inserted, or in some other way (as in KBo IV 10 obv. 41′–42′, see below). He rejects the possibility of a simple mistake on principle as being “only permissible if textual problems cannot otherwise be solved” (cf. n. 6 above). This is indeed an admirable principle, but it has to be weighed not only against strictly textual problems but also against other anomalies such as are here discussed. Even he is unable to explain away one such error in KBo IV 10 rev. 12 (JCS 41 106 n. 20). If the scribes occasionally slipped into an unnecessary change of person in this way, the criterion cannot be used as an infallible rule. In any case for this simple statement of fact the scribe would not have needed to copy from the original text.

12 Götze, , NBr 56Google Scholar, assumed a scribal error (“his” for “your”) in the previous sentence. von Schuler, E., Anadolu Araştırmaları II (Bossert-Gedenkschrift), 456Google Scholar, passed it without comment. In The Geography of the Hittite Empire, p. 68, I did not consider it worth more than an exclamation mark. Cf. Otten's treatment of Bronze Tablet III 33, a similar case.

13 So also Hoffner, in Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç (Ankara, 1989), 201Google Scholar n. 36. But if this had been the intention, why did he immediately revert to the third person for the terms of the treaty itself? In fact this whole section, except the nu-ut-ta, is consistently in the third person.

14 JCS 41, 106Google Scholar.

15 Cf. Laroche, , RHA VIII/48, 46Google Scholar.

16 86/299 II 8–13. See van den Hout, ibid. 109.

17 Korošec, V., Hethitische Staatsverträge (1931), 67Google Scholar.

18 Op.cit. (n. 17), 100; Laroche, E., RHA VIII/48 (1947/1948), 47Google Scholar; Gordon, E. I., JCS 21 (1967), 71Google Scholar nn. 4, 6; von Schuler, E., Anadolu Araştırmaları II (Bossert-Gedenkschrift), 456Google Scholar; Imparati, F., RHA XXXII (1974), 158Google Scholar. J. Lorenz considered it to be a text of Hattusili but in favour of Ulmi-Tešub, Kurunta's successor (see above).

19 Op. cit.(n. 4).

20 Hurrian name of Suppiluliuma I, Güterbock, , JCS X 122Google Scholar; of Arnuwanda I, Bin-Nun, 5THeth. 263; Kammenhuber, , 7THeth. 162Google Scholar; of Mursili II, Laroche, OLZ 64, 147; of Tudhaliya III, Gurney, , Fs. Meriggi, I (1979), 219 ff.Google Scholar; Haas, , ChS I (1984), 7 ff.Google Scholar, AOF XII, 269 ff.Google Scholar

21 Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy, 32 n. 5.

22 See I. Singer, Appendix III apud Izre'el, S., Amurru Akkadian: a linguistic study (Harvard Semitic Studies 41, 1991), 185Google Scholar.

23 Van den Hout thinks that only §§ 13–14 were added (JCS 41, 108Google Scholar).

24 I have profited from van den Hout's remarks on the restoration of 1. 5 (the traces before the break are difficult to understand). That suggested for 1. 4 is my own.

25 The relative DAM-KA ku-in would here be of the type called “determinate” by Held, W. H., “The Hittite Relative Sentence” (Language 33 [1957])CrossRefGoogle Scholar, doubtless because the plan for him to take a particular wife was already formed. Similarly in Dupp. the conjunction is maḫḫan “when” as against mān introducing the hypothetical event of his begetting a son. The construction would be parallel to Held's example 5/6 (KUB VI 46 iv 31 ff.Google Scholar).

26 AOF XVIII, 230–1Google Scholar. See also Beal, p. 32 n. 10 below.

27 AnSt. XXXIII, 99Google Scholar. If this is correct, the Kurunta of the Tawagalawa letter I 73 cannot be the TARTĒNU who was sent to conduct Piyamaradu to the king, as suggested by P. Houwink ten Cate in JEOL 28, 38 n. 1, and by Güterbock, H. G. in Or. 59, 162Google Scholar, unless TARTĒNU after all is different from tuḫkanti. The argument for this identification given in AS XXXIII 97 ff.Google Scholar has not convinced everybody (e.g. Houwink ten Cate, loc. cit). But is it conceivable that Kurunta could ever have held the position of TARTĒNU “second-in-command” over the heads of Nerikkaili and Tudhaliya? If not, the reference to him in Taw. I 73 must be to a past event, as proposed by Singer and Heinhold-Krahmer, and the envoy would have been Nerikkaili or Tudhaliya. But it is not my purpose here to attempt to solve the problems of the letter.

28 EN É apuzzi: see Friedrich/Kammenhuber, HW 2 s.v.

29 Such military posts as GAL UKU.UŠ “infantry commander” ZAG and GÙB “of the right and left wing” is treated comprehensively in The Organisation of the Hittite Military (THeth, 20, 1992), by Richard Beal, to whom I am grateful for prompting this particular enquiry.

30 On DUMU.LUGAL as a hereditary title rather than an appointment, see Singer, I. in Tel Aviv, 4 (1977), 184CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 On the dating of these courts of inquiry to the end of the reign of Hattusili, see Werner, R., 4StBoT (1967), 79Google Scholar, and Kempinsky, A. and Košak, S., Tel Aviv 4 (1977), 91Google Scholar.

32 See Stefanini, R., Athenaeum 40 (1962), 22 ff.Google Scholar; Archi, A., SMEA XIV (1971), 214–15Google Scholar n. 84.

33 Košak, S., 10THeth, 88 ff.Google Scholar On the dating of the administrative texts to the same period see Kempinsky and Košak, loc. cit.

34 For XXXI 32 a reference to [Ishta]r(?) of Samuha in rev. 5 suggests this dating.

35 XLVIII 119 is a typical vow of the queen for the health of his Majesty, with references to Hakmis, Nerik and the daḫanga. This royal pair can hardly be anyone but Hattusili and Puduḫepa.

36 Kümmel, H. M., UF I (1969), 161Google Scholar.

37 For Huzziya, XXVI 18 (Otten, , Bronzetafel, 8Google Scholar) and the oracle text V 20; for Hannutti, XIX 23, a text reporting the death of Hattusili (see Singer, , AnSt. XXXIII 214Google Scholar); for Tašmi-Šarruma, XLVIII 123, a vow of Puduhepa, and V 20; for AMAR.MUšEN, similar vows and dreams, XV 5, XXXI 61, VBoT 71.

38 See Güterbock, , JNES 32, 140Google Scholar, deduced from seal no. 2 and KUB XV 1 and 3Google Scholar.

39 Forschungen I (1926), 32Google Scholar. His view was that in composing this document Hattusili had utilised an old treaty with Ulmi-Tešub of the Hulaya River Land, this kingdom having been incorporated in the Hittite state before the composition of the prayer of Muwatalli (CTH 381) which lists Ussa, Parshunta and the river Hulaya, but without Tarhuntassa, as comprised within the district called Lower Land. But Ulmi-Tešub is clearly the actual contracting party here, not an earlier king (cf. Sommer, , AU 34Google Scholar); it is he to whose progeny the rights of succession are guaranteed. These clauses could not have been taken over from an earlier treaty unless Kurunta had been his son, but we know that Kurunta was the son of Muwatalli. In fact there is no reason to suppose the existence of a kingdom of the Hulaya River Land before the foundation of Tarhuntassa. See below.

40 Kleinasien zur Hethiterzeit (1924), 17 n. 3Google Scholar.

41 In The Geography of the Hittite Empire pp. 66–7 we took over this idea, but with some reserve. Garstang's interpretation in JNES 3 18Google Scholar, however, is based on a mistranslation: “from the Hulaya River Land” belongs to the next sentence.

42 CHD I 40Google Scholar.

43 See his forthcoming edition of the “Südburg” inscription, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of Chamber 2 of the Sacred Pool Complex (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten, Beiheft 3)Google Scholar, section on Geography. For a similar use of ZAG cf. Kup. §§ 9, 10.

44 The use of a genitive after KUR is very unusual (see Götze, Hatt. 77 f.), but there is a parallel in KBo. V 8 I 40: lúKÚR KUR idKu-um-mi-iš-ma-ḫa-aš (another country named after a river).

45 I have thus changed my mind again since writing the postscript to Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in honour of Sedat Alp (Ankara, 1992), p. 221Google Scholar.