Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships (JSOT Supplement Series)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

407

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University and Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board

Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick, Andrew D. H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

This page intentionally left blank

Admonition and Curse The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships

Noel Weeks

T8.T CLARK INTERNATIONAL A Continuum imprint L O N D O N

•

NEW

Y O R K

Copyright © 2004 T&T Clark International A Continuum imprint Published by T&T Clark International The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX

15 East 26th Street, Suite 1703, New York NY 10010

www.tandtclark.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 0567081567 (hardback)

Typeset by Tradespools, Frome, Somerset Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wiltshire

CONTENTS Acknowledgments Abbreviations Introduction

vi vii 1

1.

13

Mesopotamia

2. The Hittites

55

3.

Egypt

99

4.

Syria

113

5. Israel

134

6. The Significance Of It All

174

Bibliography

183

Index of Bible References

210

Index of Authors

212

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work had an unusually long gestation period. I am thankful to the many people who during that period expressed interest in it and urged its completion. I owe a particular debt to those who read the manuscript and made critical and helpful comments: in particular Professors Robert Westbrook, Tremper Longman, III and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Without implying that they endorse all - or any - of this work, I thank them for the comments which allowed me to correct and focus it. Much of the research was done using the libraries of the University of Pennsylvania and I thank Professor Barry Eichler and the Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies for making that possible. I thank the Editorial Board of the JSOT Supplement Series for accepting this work in the series. I found the editorial team of Sylvia Marson, Rebecca Mulhearn and Katherine Savage most efficient and courteous; always speedy and helpful in their responses to queries. Finally and especially I must thank my colleagues within the Ancient History Department at the University of Sydney. This work, which contrasts societies who rely on centralized political power for control with those who believed that history had valuable lessons for human relationships, provides a curious parallel to processes in the contemporary world. Centralization of power in the modern Australian university seems to be going along with attempts to restrict the range of history that may be taught. Therefore I owe a debt to my colleagues who, though historians of the Classical world, strongly encouraged this work and fought to retain the right of students to study the history of the Ancient Near East. Noel Weeks University of Sydney

ABBREVIATIONS AAA Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology. AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Abhand.d.Bayer.Akad d Wiss. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung. Neue Folge Abhand. d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse ABL Assyrian and Babylonian Letters AfO Archiv fur Orientforschung A.J. of Philology American Journal of Philology AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures An St. Anatolian Studies AO Der Alte Orient ARM Archives royales de Mari Ar.Or. Archiv Orientalni ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquites de 1'Egypte AT Alalakh Text BA Biblical Archaeologist BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bi. Or. Bibliotheca Orientalis BzA Beitrage zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft BZ Biblische Zeitschrift CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CRRAI Compte rendu, Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale EA El Amarna tablet no. HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual 1EJ Israel Exploration Journal JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University

Vlll

JAOS JARCE JBL JEA JNES JSS JSSEA 1/11 MANE MAOG MDOG MIO MRS MSS MVAG OA OLP OLZ OTS PRU RA RB RHA RHR R1A SAA SAAB SAK SANE UF VT VTS WO WZKM ZA ZAS ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZTK

Abbreviations Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities line/lines Monographs on the Ancient Near East Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Orientforschung Mission de Ras Shamra Miinchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft Oriens Antiquus Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Orientalische Literaturzeitung Oudtestamentische Studien Palais royal d'Ugarit Revue d'assyriologie et d'archeologie orientale Revue Biblique Revue hittite et asianique Revue d'histoire des religions Reallexikon der Assyriologie State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Bulletin. Studien zur altagyptischen Kultur Sources from the Ancient Near East Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Welt des Orients Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie Zeitschrift fur agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentische Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche

INTRODUCTION In the history of scholarship focus changes from decade to decade. Topics become popular; topics fade from popularity. The reasons for such changes are complex and outside of the main interests of this work. What is significant is that they may fade from view before there has been a definitive resolution, or the resolution reached may be faulty. Yet who wants to return to an old, tired and exhausted topic? A number of arguments can be raised in defence of revisiting the nolonger-fashionable. Often it is only in retrospect that the unexamined assumptions which prevented resolution become clear. While the topic may have been dropped those very assumptions may linger on to influence other debates which may also end without proper resolution. It may even be that the old topic needs to be revisited, not so much for the original topic's sake, but so that the lurking assumptions might become the focus. As the bibliography of this work illustrates, the topic of treaty and covenant was a major concern of Ancient Near Eastern scholarship in the 1950s-l960s. After that it virtually disappears. While some primary texts continue to emerge and to undermine older claims, the topic is sufficiently dead that corrected versions of older theses fail to appear. The reasons for the changing fashions are complex. Two may be mentioned here but many more might be conjectured. First, the increasing specialization of the field discourages explorations which of their very nature are comparative. Second, as will emerge clearly, much of the interest stemmed from attempts to resolve certain issues in the biblical field. When these issues appeared to be resolved in other ways, the topic lost its immediate relevance. The focus of the older investigation was not just on treaties as such; it was on treaties of a definite and fixed form. For it is not hard to argue that treaty making could well arise independently in different cultures. If there was independent origin, then similarities are more psychologically significant than historically significant. They point to the tendency of the human mind to create similar solutions to similar problems. Only towards the end of the period of discussion did the suggestion of independent origin arise. The failure to investigate this possibility initially

2

Admonition and Curse

was probably connected to the history of the discussion. It began with the observation of significant similarities between biblical covenants and Hittite treaties on the one side and Assyrian treaties on the other. These similarities were seen as sufficient in each case to postulate a real historical link. From there it was a short step to the belief that there was a common treaty/covenant pattern throughout the Ancient Near East. That the links were real and historical did not need to be argued because the discovery of commonness was the starting point of the whole investigation. However there was a question which might have been posed at the beginning. Is not the commonness with respect to treaty form in itself surprising? What is the historical explanation for it? In many other respects the cultures of the area show diverse forms. Why is this element common over such an expanse of space and time? One may suggest various reasons for the non-asking of the obvious question but the most likely reasons are that answers already existed or were perceived to exist in commonly accepted positions. There was a general tendency to suggest Mesopotamia as the origin of culture in the region.1 If the treaty form was common and if some of our earliest attested examples came from Mesopotamia, then the obvious solution was that it had originated in Mesopotamia and spread from there. That treaties from different areas showed differences was not an obstacle to this explanation because those differences could be ascribed to development over time. The fact that the large collections of relatively securely dated treaties came from two distinct locations in time and space made such an explanation plausible. They were the second-millennium Hittite treaties and the firstmillennium Assyrian treaties. Similarities between these two groups and between each group and biblical covenants could be ascribed to the common origin of the treaty form. Differences were seen as a consequence of development over time so that one would expect second-millennium treaties to differ from first-millennium ones. Such differences could then be used to date the biblical covenants whose dating was controversial. Thus the similarities of treaties became not a problem to be investigated in its own right but a given which was assumed to be uncontroversial. The controversial aspect of the debate became the way in which arguments from treaties were inserted into controversies regarding the dating of portions of the biblical text.

1. For a history of the Pan-Babylonian controversy see K. Johanning, Der Bibel-Babel Streit (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988); M.T. Larsen, The "Babel/Bible" Controversy and Its Aftermath' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, East, (Vol. I; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 95-106.

Introduction

3

Asking New Questions Returning to the topic after a hiatus, what are the questions which must be posed? The obvious one is whether the similarity of form is of such a nature that a common origin, of some sort, must be postulated - that is, a historical common origin as opposed to similarities which might be ascribed to similar situations. Immediately we confront the problem that there is no objective answer to such questions. Does X look similar enough to Y to exclude accidental resemblance and prove historical connection? Whether we ask the question for a literary form or an artistic style we confront the same difficulty. Convincing similarity is in the eye of the beholder. It is my conviction that there is enough similarity between treaty/ covenant forms from different cultures that one is justified in asking historical questions about that similarity. The attempts to argue to the contrary will be dealt with in the appropriate place later. Taking the similarity as real, two questions follow. One concerns the original source. Yet asking the question in that simple form might lead to a misleading answer. It is tempting to find the earliest attested reference to a treaty and to make that the source. Given the origin and dating of extant written texts, that narrows the options to a few civilizations. This problem interconnects with another. While the similarities in treaty forms are real, there are also differences. How are the differences to be explained? Obvious models spring to mind: transformations imposed by the different cultures which took over the treaty form/concept; the process of change through time; the invention of forms unrelated to the original form. When these possibilities are combined with the question of the ultimate origin of treaties they generate a further set of quandaries. Are our oldest extant treaties close to the original source or are they already significant transformations of the original? Our oldest treaties or references to treaties are in written form. Was there an earlier oral stage? What balances similarity and difference? It will be argued below that there are styles of treaty which are characteristic for a particular civilization and that these styles change over time. And yet the underlying similarity is not destroyed. Something is operating to keep changes within limits.

Why Bother? While all these questions may be of interest in themselves, does their investigation hold out any prospect of significant answers? For the moment let us leave aside more philosophical scepticism over whether historical questions can have meaningful answers. Rather the issue is

4

Admonition and Curse

whether there is any contribution to the discipline of Ancient Near Eastern history at this stage in reopening the treaty question. In the treaty form we have something which shows both an underlying fixity and an ability to receive the impress of particular civilizations. I will argue that certain approaches tend to characterize treaties from particular areas and yet they are still recognizable as belonging to the common genus of Ancient Near Eastern treaty. By comparison of variations therefore we are able to discern tendencies of different cultures. That provides a way to bring cultures into comparison. It also generates intriguing suggestions as to the distinctives of some of the main cultures we encounter. I will further suggest that styles of historical writing and even governmental form correlate with differences in treaties. We thus have an implement for detecting and probing differences between societies.2 This is not to argue that there is in each society an 'ideal' form which will persist no matter what. In the particular case of Assyria, for example, one may trace changes which lead to a form of treaty similar to the Hittite treaty of hundreds of years before. Indeed if we take Mesopotamia as a whole there is a wide variety with respect to treaties which may well be an index of the complexity of that culture. And yet certain elements still tend to recur. Let us take this cultural element which exhibits both striking regularity over considerable distance and time and yet the ability to reflect the peculiar tendencies of individual cultures. In effect it spans the metaphysical divide in recent philosophies of history. Are there universals in human experience which make possible the writing of a universal history? Or is every history necessarily the reflection of a particular culture and a particular point in time because everything human is both geographically and temporally very parochial? It is not my contention that the recognition of this variety in the ancient treaty solves the problems of the philosophy of history. I merely observe that this variety adds an interest to the study of the treaty. Furthermore it is clear that the underlying unity of the ancient treaty is not really universal. Outside of the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean world in a particular time span we do not find this unity. Yet that just adds a further dimension to the investigation. Why was there such unity in that area?

2. There has been a certain amount of work on the general question of similarities and differences between Ancient Near Eastern cultures. H. Frankfort's Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1948) has been influential and stimulating. A new line of investigation has been launched by J. Baines and N. Yoffee, 'Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia' in G.M. Feinman and J. Marcus (eds), Archaic States (Santa Fe: School of American Research, 1998), pp. 199-260. See also the consequent volume, J. Richards and M. Van Buren (eds), Order, Legitimacy and Wealth in Ancient States (Cambridge: CUP, 2000.) Yet little more than preliminary work has been done.

Introduction

5

There is a further reason for not inflating the philosophical significance of this investigation. The response to that would be to assert that this perception of the treaty is merely in the mind of the modern researcher. My defence against such a charge is not philosophical. It is to lay out the situation as best I can and to invite the reader to judge.

The Rise and Fall of the Treaty in Scholarship The detailed history of the scholarly discussion will come later. At this point I want to sketch the outlines of the changing fashion. The beginnings lay in discovery of the Hittite archives and the realization that they contained copies of treaty documents. The result was two significant source publications: the treaties in Akkadian by Weidner3 and those in Hittite by Friedrich.4 On the basis of these texts Korosec5 did a systematic study of the Hittite treaty form. In particular this brought out the regularity in form of the treaties of the Empire period, and the distinction between treaties between equal powers (parity treaties) and those between the Hittite suzerain and vassals. While Assyrian treaties were poorly attested in contrast to Hittite ones, enough was known for differences to be recognized. The similarity of some biblical covenants to the form of the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty struck Mendenhall6 and stimulated the comparative study of treaties. That study was further stimulated by the discovery of the treaties between the Assyrian king Esarhaddon and various Medes.7 Mendenhall noticed the similarity in the use of history in Hittite treaties and biblical covenants, and the contrast between that and the known Assyrian treaties of the first millennium. Since the Hittite treaties were second millennium this distinction provided a criterion for dating: secondmillennium treaties used history and first millennium ones did not. That then implied that some biblical covenants must belong to the second millennium. There is a crucial assumption in this argument which did not receive attention: the treaty form must be constant across the Near East at any particular time for different countries to be using the same form. The 3. E.F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien (Hildesheim: Olms, 1923, repr. 1970). 4. J. Friedrich, Staatsvertrage des Hatti-Reiches (2 vols; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1926, 1930). 5. V. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage. Ein Beitrag :u Hirer juristischen Wertung (Leipzig: T. Weicher, 1931). 6. G.E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Pres. Board of Colportage of W. Penn, 1955). 7. D.J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon', Iraq 20(1958), pp. 1-99, pi. 1.

6

Admonition and Curse

investigations which arose tended to explore the similarities between biblical covenants and treaties. Thus they usually confirmed Mendenhall's starting point. The undermining of Mendenhall's thesis came from a combination of new discoveries and what might be described as a stretching of an unstated premise of Mendenhall to the breaking point. The crucial discovery was a first-millennium Assyrian treaty which used history: that between Ashurbanipal and Qedar.8 Mendenhall's position had used assumptions of form criticism; assumptions which seemed self-evident enough not to need statement and defence. It seemed unobjectionable that treaties would tend to have a definite and repeated form, and form criticism has had a long history in biblical studies.9 The result was that Mendenhall's theory was vulnerable to an attack which questioned, on form-critical grounds, the relationship between his crucial biblical covenants and the extrabiblical treaties. If it could be shown, on formal grounds, that covenants had a distinct origin to treaties, then the whole argument was overthrown. That is in effect what Perlitt did.10 Scholarship shifted to other interests and crucial questions remained unanswered. Why did both Hittites and Assyrians use treaties with similar features? And why, Perlitt notwithstanding, do these treaties show similarities to biblical covenants? Mendenhall's thesis that at any one time a uniform treaty form was in use had been destroyed by the Qedar treaty: but was Mendenhall completely wrong?

Overview of the Data The subsequent chapters will treat the data for treaties and their development in more detail. For the moment my concern is to give a panoramic view of the evidence and the problems. If we take the three cultural units of Mesopotamia, the Hittites and Israel, we find in each extensive evidence of treaties. Nevertheless each presents distinctive problems and puzzles. In Mesopotamia we have attestation of the use of treaties from the Sumerian Early Dynastic Period to the Neo-Babylonian Period. Yet the attestation is sporadic with tendencies to the clumping of evidence in 8. K. Deller and S. Parpola, 'Ein Vertrag Assurbanipals mit dem arabischen Stamm Qedar', Orientalia 37(1968), pp. 464-6; A.F. Campbell, 'An Historical Prologue in a SeventhCentury Treaty', Biblica 50(1969), pp. 534-5. 9. See for example W. Klatt, Hermann Gunkel: zu einer Theologie der Religionsgeschichte und zur Entstehung der formgeschichtlichen Methode (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969). 10. L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969).

Introduction

1

certain periods. In the early period it clusters around Lagash. From then it is sporadic until the late Old Babylonian/Assyrian Periods. Due to the larger amount of documentation from Assyria, in subsequent periods we can follow the development better in Assyria than in Babylonia. If we take the evidence at face value, treaties go in and out of fashion in Assyria. Outside of Mesopotamia, treaties seem closely connected to a use of history to persuade - that is, the attempt to use the previous history of relationship as an argument for preserving the relationship being formalized in the treaty. This use of history appears periodically in Mesopotamia. Yet it is not as pervasive there as it is in other places. After a gap in attestation that follows the end of the Old Babylonian/ Assyrian Periods, treaties appear to re-emerge in Mesopotamia in the Kassite Period. The royal land grant or kudurru appears at the same time. Formally and conceptually there are resemblances between treaties and grants. For example, both treaties and grants make use of divine sanctions. This similarity raises two separate issues. Should we see royal grants as a sub-variety of treaties? The second question concerns the interrelationship between national internal and external policies. Generally speaking, land grants belong to internal policies and treaties to external. If grants and treaties are formally and conceptually linked, is it because there are connections between what a state does internally and what it does externally? Is that likely to be the case anyway, irrespective of whether treaties come into the picture? This question will arise repeatedly because there are many other cases where a study of treaties and related forms forces us to consider the relationship of internal and external government policies. There is clear but sporadic attestation of treaties throughout the history of imperial Assyria. Towards the end of that history we encounter, both in the annals and the treaties, a shift of emphasis. The 'good' that Assyria has done for others becomes, for the first time in Assyria, the motive for vassal obedience. Along with that goes an appeal to history. The persuasive use of history that has already been mentioned is pervasive in Hittite history. We can attest it for Old, Middle and New Kingdoms. Yet concrete evidence of treaties comes from the Middle and New Kingdoms. Common, but not universal, in those treaties was the use of history. It is in the Middle Kingdom or very late Old Kingdom that we have our first good evidence of Hittite treaties. It is also in the Middle Kingdom that we have evidence of royal land grants and of instructions to, or oaths by, Hittite subjects which show strong resemblance to treaties. Once again the relation of internal and external arises. The material so far presented raises questions about the relationship of Mesopotamia and the Hittites. If the persuasive use of history is less prominent in Mesopotamia than amongst the Hittites, what replaces it in Mesopotamia? That is, what induces loyalty to the relationship? The

8

Admonition and Curse

simple answer is found in the far greater emphasis on the curse in Mesopotamia. Nevertheless a simplistic contrast between Hittite use of history and Mesopotamian curse does not do justice to the complexity of the material. In certain circumstances Mesopotamians appeal to history and Hittites bring the curse into prominence. Already, then, questions arise about the interrelationship of Mesopotamia and the Hittites. Did each develop in a distinctive way a common tradition? Or did the Hittites add their distinctive interest in history to a Mesopotamian cultural item? Or do we see appealing to history and cursing transgressors as so 'natural' that it could have arisen independently in the two centres? Such questions cannot be answered in abstraction from detailed consideration of the history of treaties within each culture, and the relation of internal and external policies. When we turn to Israel we confront questions arising not just from the history of Israel but also from the history of biblical studies. While the Bible attests many treaties between men, the most distinctive use of a treaty in the Bible is the covenant between God and man. In that covenant, history and curse both play a role. Further, biblical monotheism is frequently expressed in treaty concepts; biblical law is encompassed within a covenant. Thus any history of the treaty in Israel becomes a history of concepts basic to Israelite religion, namely covenant, monotheism and law. Every theological school tends to develop and to depend upon its own history of Israelite religion. Thus the history of the debate about treaties in biblical studies parallels the history of theology this century. Generally overlooked in these theologically-coloured debates are some peculiarities in the biblical data about treaties. We have biblical evidence for unwritten covenants. In some biblical covenants the 'sign' of the covenant plays a role for which analogies are hard to find outside of Israel. A sacrifice sometimes accompanies covenant making. That is not without analogies but the good analogies do not come from Mesopotamia or the Hittites. They come from Syria and Greece. The biblical data complicates immensely the tracing of cultural interrelationships. Some scholars have emphasized the historical element of biblical covenants to relate them chronologically to second-millennium Hittites treaties. Others have emphasized the curse element to relate them to first-millennium Assyrian treaties. Others again have denied all relationship in order to preserve their particular theological version of the history of Israel. The tradition, in critical biblical scholarship, of dividing and re-dating portions of texts facilitates the arrangement of evidence to prove these quite contradictory positions. Yet any comprehensive theory of cultural interrelationships has to take into account the ways in which biblical covenants at least appear similar to treaties from different areas while maintaining some peculiarities of their

Introduction

9

own. The simple borrowing models that have been used, whenever they fix the time of borrowing, do not do justice to the complexity of the data." The Bible names as 'covenants' arrangements which deviate from what is normal in treaties in one significant aspect. Normally the weaker party, or vassal, has obligations imposed upon him. In some biblical covenants, however, there are no obligations imposed upon men but God, the suzerain, takes obligations upon himself. God takes an obligation on himself by promising to do something and, in traditional theological terms, divine promises are closely related to divine grace. On the other hand obligations upon men constitute what is commonly called 'law'. Thus the perennial theological question of the relation of grace and law is involved in these different sorts of covenants. This then in turn colours the debate in biblical studies about the relationship of these two covenant emphases. For our purpose there is another interesting fact about such covenants of promise. They have their closest analogies outside of Israel in royal land grants. Once again the relationship of treaty and grant arises. So far Egypt has not been drawn into the discussion. That is because Egypt presents its own set of problems. An argument can be constructed that Egypt did not normally use treaties, and certainly not with its vassals. The well-known treaty between Ramesses II and Hattusilis III shows strong evidence of a Hittite origin. One therefore wonders whether the other treaties with the great powers referred to in the Amarna letters are Asian in form and inspiration. Despite the frequent claim that Egypt, during the New Kingdom, bound its Palestinian and Syrian vassals by treaty, the evidence is very weak. Before dismissing Egypt from consideration we must ask whether there is any evidence for the concepts and practices which typically accompany a treaty. For, given the state of the evidence, we might not have a reference to a treaty but evidence of the accompanying phenomena might alert us to the existence of one. One of the associated phenomena is the persuasive use of history. Generally we do not see a tendency in Egypt to argue a course of action from history. Yet there are some significant cases. The intriguing fact is that the best examples come from the First Intermediate Period. That is a period of pharaonic weakness. The compositions in which we have appeal to history belong to the instructions genre. Instructions seems to arise from the scribal class. We may add this to a little bit of New Kingdom evidence,

11. For a treatment of problems involved in claims of borrowing see J.H. Tigay, 'On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing' in M.E. Cohen, D.C. Snell and D.B. Weisberg (eds), The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda: CDL, 1993). pp. 250-5.

10

Admonition and Curse

to be detailed below, which again connects officials rather than pharaoh with treaty terms. This admittedly tenuous line of inference raises the question of whether a pharaonic style of rule has tended to suppress treaties and associated concepts. However, the tenuousness of the argument must also be considered. That leads to the question of the 'naturalness' of arguments from history. Is it possible that such argument arose in Egypt quite independently? So far the Syrian evidence has not been considered. Do we attach this sparse evidence to one of the major areas so far considered or do we see Syria as a cultural centre in its own right? There is a peculiarity about the Mari data. We have a number of references to treaties with no reference to a written text of the treaty. Were these treaties unwritten? That certainly does not fit our picture of Mesopotamian procedure. Yet once again the argument is from silence. In order not to prejudge the question I have chosen to treat some of the evidence from Mari separately from Mesopotamia. The treaties from Alalakh show affinities with both Hittite and biblical material. Premature attachment to either body of material would be unwise. They attest the use of history outside of Hittite territory. There is also a possible reference to sacrifice in connection to a treaty. The Sefire material from the eighth century seems easier to relate. It has clear parallels to Assyrian material and to biblical material in its use of curses. Some writers have pursued the treaty trail to Greece and Rome.12 This study does not do that, although it attempts to take into account the results of such investigations.

Problems of Silence When one takes the total data of attestation of treaties, whether we have copies of these treaties or merely references to them in other texts, then a certain pattern emerges. Treaties are much better attested in certain civilizations than others. Even within a civilization there are gaps in the attestation. Are these gaps significant or are they merely the result of the incompleteness of our evidence? The way we answer that question will have a significant impact on our conclusions. The assumption that the treaty form was uniform across cultures in a particular epoch is treating 12. For examples of similarities between the terminology of treaties in the Near East and further west see M. Weinfeld, 'The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World' in L. Canfora, M. Liverani and C. Zaccagnini (eds), / trattati nel mondo antico. Forma, ideologia, funzione (Rome, "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1990), pp. 175-191.

Introduction

11

the gaps in evidence as purely due to the accidents of discovery. The problem is that the gaps could be due to a failure to use the treaty form in a particular culture or era. The only way to deal with this problem is to argue the case for the various possibilities in each instance. Does the other evidence we possess lead us to assuming a lack of use of treaties or to assuming that the evidence has simply been lost? A similar problem confronts us with the first manifestations of treaty concepts in individual states. Since the forms from different civilizations look sufficiently similar to have a common origin, there must have been links, direct or indirect, between the different manifestations of treaties. We lack the concrete proof of those links. That means that there are crucial issues for which there is no direct evidence. Do all national treaty traditions come from a common source which is unattested? Do they derive from a known culture, specifically Mesopotamia? When and why do the changes occur which are characteristic for the individual national treaty traditions? Once again the only possible route is that of consideration of the possibilities. This necessity to argue possibilities at so many different points results in a total impression of tentativeness, but better that tentativeness than the definiteness that results from ignoring valid possibilities.

Preview of Results Subsequent chapters will work through the data and problems from the main cultural centres. Tendencies and patterns emerge so that we might speak of typical approaches to treaties in respective cultures. Yet each national tradition relates to the others in complex ways. The obvious distinction between traditions consists in whether history, especially the history of beneficence, is seen as an important motivating factor. Those who do not argue in this way are probably seeing fear, whether of the suzerain or of the oath-observing gods or of both, as a more significant motivational factor. Where fear of the suzerain is important, a consequence is that the suzerain needs sufficient control of power to induce such fear. One can therefore postulate a rough correlation between centralization of political power and seeing fear as motivation versus the resort to appeals to history to motivate when there is not such centralization. In terms of the treaty form this difference manifests itself in the difference between placing a historical argument for loyalty before the stipulations in order to motivate obedience to those stipulations or placing a god list and consequent threat of divine punishment in that position.

12

Admonition and Curse

Both approaches will commonly place a god list and curses at the end but the difference might be conceptualized as being between the gods punishing those who are so hard-hearted as to lack gratitude, and the gods punishing those who are so foolish as not to feel fear. While this distinction is a useful conceptual device it is not a rigid rule. Both devices exist in different measure in each culture. Specific historical circumstances may produce an approach which is not the common one for that culture. The differences are thus differences of tendency, but they are still marked. The investigation raises the question of whether some societies may dispense with the treaty notion or whether there are periods in which it falls out of fashion. The argument in these cases is flimsy because it is an argument from silence. Nevertheless it raises a significant issue. Parties which enter into treaties, even the meanest vassals, are seen as having some freedom of movement and subsequent responsibility. Freedom of movement of the vassal is contrary to absolute power on the part of the suzerain. Might centralization of power, or at least the desire to project an image of total power, prove hostile to the establishment of treaty relationships? Alternatively there might be a situation in which treaties are pragmatically useful but the reporting of them would not suit the projected royal image. Should we seek a reason for the unevenness of our evidence of treaties in an explanation of this sort? It is a tempting hypothesis. Translations used throughout this work, except when otherwise indicated, are my own.

Chapter 1 MESOPOTAMIA

Defining the Area and the Culture In the study of ancient history, 'Mesopotamia' covers a culture that extended over a considerable area - roughly equivalent to modern Iraq and a time span of thousands of years. It makes sense to treat this area as an entity because, in the period that concerns this study, there was considerable cultural continuity. That continuity was encapsulated in a tradition of cuneiform texts. Though the language of those texts changed from Sumerian to Akkadian there was still strong continuity. Naturally over the time involved there were also major changes but a literary culture, and the scribal instruction that went with it, tended to maintain traditions. Cultural continuity in the form of a written tradition may obscure the influence of other traditions which are less likely to be expressed in written form. Mesopotamia was a recipient of many outside influences and groups. We often observe changes to expression in our sources but are poorly placed for ascribing these changes to a specific cause. This problem is heightened when it is a matter of the peripheral areas of Mesopotamia. For the purposes of this study Mari on the middle Euphrates is such an area. Its connections to Mesopotamia were very strong, and yet so were its connections to Syria. That creates the dilemma of knowing whether evidence from Mari can be used for reconstructing typical Mesopotamian practices or whether they point to practices which would have been unknown or uncommon in Mesopotamia.

Outline of the History1 On conventional dating the written texts from Mesopotamia begin in the fourth millennium but it is around the middle of the third millennium 1. For summaries of the history see D. Charpin The History of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Overview' in J. Sasson et a/, (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY:

14

Admonition and Curse

before we have texts which we can read as connected prose. These texts, in Sumerian, come from the city states of southern Mesopotamia. It is in connection to one of these city states, Lagash, in what we call the Sumerian Early Dynastic Period, that we have our first extant references to treaties. Around 2334 control in southern Mesopotamia passed into the hands of a dynasty using the Semitic language Akkadian, which derives its name from the dynastic capital at Akkad. This dynasty was responsible for imperial penetration into areas such as Syria and southern Iran (Elam). In connection to the fourth ruler of this dynasty, Naram-Sin, we have our next evidence of a treaty, made with Elam. After a hiatus, southern Mesopotamia was next unified under a dynasty based at Ur, the Third in our count. This dynasty created a centralized empire extending into northern Mesopotamia and some parts of Iran. When it collapsed, the south of Mesopotamia reverted to competing city states from which Babylon, under Hammurabi, emerged to temporary ascendancy. Northern Mesopotamia was dominated by the city state of Assur, whose activities are best known to us through the records of Assyrian merchants engaged in trade with central Anatolia. Assur (or, as we commonly term it, Assyria) likewise produced a temporary empire with Shamshi-Adad I. His empire stretched across the Jazirah and included Mari. After Shamshi-Adad's death, Mari came under the control of ZimriLim until its defeat and destruction by Hammurabi. One of the puzzles confronting this investigation is the appearance of 'dark' periods from which we have no references to treaties. Those 'dark' periods do not coincide with 'dark ages' in more normal scholarly parlance, because the evidence in other respects may be copious. Between the treaty of Naram-Sin with Elam and the time of Hammurabi lies one such gap in evidence. In some ways the Third Dynasty of Ur is abundantly documented but not in the respect that interests us. Similarly the early Old Babylonian Period gives us data on other things but not treaties. Our evidence of kings such as Hammurabi and Shamshi-Adad concluding treaties comes largely from letters and other documents preserved at Mari. After the end of the Old Babylonian Period the south of Mesopotamia came under the control of people from outside called Kassites. Assyrian rule continued in the north but Assyria was overshadowed by a kingdom in north-western Syria called Mitanni. Our primary source for treaties in this period is a text which covers the history of contact and conflict between Assyria and Babylonia, the Synchronistic History.

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 807-29; G. Roux, Ancient Iraq (London: Penguin, 3rd edn, 1992); W.W. Hallo and W.K. Simpson, The Ancient Near East (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971).

Mesopotamia

15

There is a text form which seems to be a Kassite innovation: the kudurru. The purpose of the kudurru was to guarantee a royal grant of some sort, generally of land. In other times and places, treaties made with vassals shade into or combine with royal grants. Hence this particular form of grant has been drawn into the debate on treaties. The collapse of Mitanni released Assyria to fill the vacuum left by the removal of the great power of northern Syria, and to extend the empire which resulted throughout the Ancient Near East. This Assyrian expansion took place in various phases. The first lasted from the collapse of Mitanni to the reduction of the Assyrian empire in a period of chaos and crisis around the end of the second millennium. We know Assyria was using oaths and treaties in this period but reference to them is infrequent. Most references are to the treaties with Babylonia. One such treaty and its 'violation' by the Babylonian king Kashtiliash is the subject of the literary text The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic. As a literary text it has emphases which we do not find in other contemporary texts. The second period of the Assyrian empire, from the resurgence of imperial Assyria in the early first millennium to another check in the speed of expansion in the mid eighth century, once again shows us that the Assyrians were making use of treaties with vassals but the texts we have do not emphasize that fact. Lack of copies of the treaties themselves leaves us with very little to say about treaties in this period. The period for which we have most evidence in regard to Assyrian treaties is from the resurgence of vigorous conquest with Tiglath-pileser III to the end of the Assyrian empire. This is also the period in which the empire encompassed the whole of the 'Fertile Crescent' and Egypt, with extensions into Arabia and Iran. There is a tendency in this period for the depiction of the kings to shift more and more to including a moral justification of their conquests and control. A culmination was reached with the last major king, Ashurbanipal, who boasts of his benevolence to conquered peoples. This shift to a justification of rule in goodness and not just in power comes to expression in treaties as well as other texts. The Neo-Babylonian empire which succeeded the Assyrian also made use of vassal oaths but our evidence for their form is sparse. There are various chronological schemes for Mesopotamian history which differ by more that 100 years in respect to the early second millennium period.2 There is general agreement (within a year or two) for

2. Sec P.J. Huber, 'Astronomical Evidence for the Long against the Middle and Short Chronologies' in P. Astrom (ed.), High, Middle or Low (Vol. I; Gothenburg: Paul Astroms, 1987), pp. 5-17 (discussed in part 3, 1989); F.H. Cryer, "Chronology: Issues and Problems' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 651-64.

16

Admonition and Curse

first millennium dates. Using basically the scheme of Charpin,3 supplemented by Roux,4 results in the following dates: Sumerian Early Dynastic Period Eannatum Entemena Uru'inimgina

c.2450 c.2400 c.2350

Dynasty of Akkad Naram-Sin

2254-2218

Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian Periods Sumu-la-el (Babylon) 1880-1845 Shamshi-Adad I (Assyria) 1808-1776 Hammurabi (Babylon) 1792-1750 Zimri-Lim (Mari) 1776-1761 Middle Babylonian (Kassite) and Middle Assyrian Periods Burnaburiash I (Babylon) c.1520 Puzur-Ashur III (Assyria) 1521-1498 Ashur-bel-nisheshu (Assyria) c.1430 Karaindash (Babylon) c.1430 Assur-uballit I (Assyria) 1366-1330 Adad-narari I (Assyria) 1307-1275 Shalmaneser I (Assyria) 1274-1245 Tukulti-Ninurta I (Assyria) 1244-1208 Kashtiliash IV (Babylon) 1242-1235 Tiglath-pileser I (Assyria) 1115-1077 Second Dynasty of Isin Nebuchadnezzar I (Babylon)

1126-1105

Assyria in the First Millennium Tukulti-Ninurta II Ashur-nasir-apli II Shalmaneser III Shamshi-Adad V Marduk-zakir-shumi (Babylon) Ashur-narari V Tiglath-pileser III

890-884 883-859 858-823 823-811 854-819 754-745 744 727

3. Charpin, The History of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Overview.' 4. Roux, Ancient Iraq, pp. 503-13.

Mesopotamiaa Sargon II Sennacherib Esarhaddon Ashurbanipal

721 705 704-681 680-669 669-627

Neo-Babylonian Period Nebuchadnezzar II

604-562

Persian Empire Cyrus

538-530

17

The Lagash Treaties The Stela of the Vultures'" is not the text of a treaty. It is a reference to a treaty in the context of a historical narrative. Since the varied uses of history in treaties form a significant part of the total problem, the nature of the history in this account could be significant. It presents the city of Umma as the one who has transgressed. Eanatum of Lagash is the military hero raised up by the deity to deal with the situation. The account of the military engagement fits well within standard Mesopotamian battle description. There is no reference to Eanatum's benevolence to Umma. The actions of Umma are presented as illegal but not as ingratitude. This way of representing the actions of errant treaty partners recurs in later Mesopotamian history. As we shall see, benevolence and its reciprocal, ingratitude, is a more common theme in some other cultures. The treaty itself is presented as an oath sworn by the ruler of Umma;6 Eannatum gave the battlenet of Enlil to the man [king] of Umma. He took an oath by it . . . ' . . . By the life of Enlil, lord of heaven and earth, . . . I will not transgress the border of Ningirsu' . . . If he transgresses this word, may the battlenet of Enlil, by which he swore the oath, fall upon Umma from above.7

5. For translations see E. Sollberger and J.-R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1971), pp. 47-58, and J.S. Cooper, Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: the Lagash-Umma Border Conflict t (SANE 2/1; Malibu: Undena, 1983), pp. 45-8. For a discussion of the oaths in this text in the general context of Sumerian oaths see D.O. Edzard, 'Zum sumerischen Eid' in Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1975), pp. 63-98 (64-8). 6. Whether Eanatum also swore an oath is uncertain. If he did the terms of his oath are not specified. See Edzard, 'Zum sumerischen Eid', p. 80. 7. H. Steible, Die Altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (Vol. I, Wiesbaden: Frank Steiner, 1982), pp. 310-11.

18

Admonition and Curse

There is here evidence of a symbolic action accompanying the oath. Eanatum gave the net of various deities to the ruler of Umma. He swore by it that if he was unfaithful the net would envelop Umma.8 Thus the oath was accompanied by a symbolized curse. The oath for each deity was sworn separately, even though the texts of some oaths are virtually identical. Following each oath Eanatum did something with two doves. This action was accompanied by a curse against a transgressor of the oath pronounced by Eanatum. The significance of this act is uncertain. There is variation of the description in the case of Utu, the sun god, and it has been conjectured that there is in this case a reference to sacrifice. However the translation here is highly conjectural.9 Hence it would not be warranted to conclude that a sacrifice was involved. Since in most cases the birds are released to the sanctuary of the deity to whom the oath has been made, we may have another symbolic action: the birds depict the carrying of the message about the curse to the deity in question.10 The treaty and associated oaths referred to one subject only: the utilization of a piece of border territory between Lagash and Umma and associated matters of water rights. The later Lagash ruler, Entemena, in a resume of the border dispute," says that Eanatum placed inscribed monuments and chapels of the gods in the boundary zone. Since the ruler of Umma is later reported to have destroyed these, we may suppose that they supported Lagash's view of the boundary arrangement. There is no explicit statement that the treaty between Eanatum and Enakale of Umma was preserved in written form. Perhaps the written monuments were a text of the treaty, but we cannot be certain. Building inscriptions from Badtibira record that 'Entemena ensi of Lagash made brotherhood with Lugalkiginedudu, ensi of Uruk'.12 Since in later texts 'brotherhood' refers to a parity treaty, the natural inference is that these texts document a treaty between Entemena and Lugalkiginedudu.

8. In the case of the chthonic deity Ninki the curse was varied to snakes from the ground biting the feet. 9. Sollberger and Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes, p. 56, note h. 10. For the significance of the release of doves in later texts see A. Livingstone, 'On the Organized Release of Doves to Secure Compliance of a Higher Authority' in A.R. George and I.L. Finkel (eds), Wisdom, Gods and Literature. Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W.G. Lambert (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000) pp. 375-87. 11. Sollberger and Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes, p. 73; Cooper, Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions, p. 50. 12. Sollberger and Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes, pp. 70-1; C.J. Gadd, 'Entemena: A New Incident', RA 27(1930), pp. 125-6 (126). For a discussion of the historical situation see Cooper, Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions, p. 31.

Mesopotamia

19

Also from Lagash is a passage which has been interpreted as an early attestation of a treaty between a ruler and a deity.13 It occurs in one of the versions of the 'reforms' of Uruinimgina. Uruinimgina's resolve not to abandon the orphan and the widow to the powerful is connected to his commitment to Ningirsu.14 The problem is to discern the exact nature of this commitment. The terminology is not the normal terminology for an oath or a treaty.15 Yet the use of a verbal root with a sense of 'bind' has analogies with later terms for treaties. Hence the various translations which have been proffered vary between seeing indication of a treaty or merely a solemn promise.16 It would seem safest to conclude that the terminology used does not prove the existence of a covenant between man and deity. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out the possibility that such a covenant did exist. Only further evidence can clarify the possibilities. That is the sum of our evidence of treaties for the Early Dynastic Period. The question of whether the silence, apart from Lagash, is significant, will be taken up again below.

The 'Treaty' of Naram-Sin with Elam The next possible evidence of a treaty is in an Elamite text involving the fourth ruler of the Akkadian dynasty, Naram-Sin. The problems of this text are very much connected with the problems of reading early Elamite.17 It seems to begin with an invocation of the gods, amongst which Elamite gods predominate. Later in the text comes what seem to be the stipulations of the 'treaty'. Critical amongst these is the sentence: 'The friend of Naram-Sin is my friend.' Since this is a frequent theme in treaties it has led to the seeing of the text as a treaty. The parallel statement has consequently been interpreted as 'The enemy of Naram-Sin is my enemy'. There is reference to something being received, which Hinz takes as being gifts from Naram-Sin to the Elamite ruler.18 Later in the text we meet again 13. K.A. Kitchen, 'Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna and Covenant', UF 11(1979), pp. 453-64 (462). 14. dNingirsu-da Uruinimgina-ke4 inim-bi ka e-da-kes. Perhaps a non-commital paraphrase would be: 'Uruinimgina bound himself by his word to Ningirsu.' 15. Edzard, 'Zum sumerischen Eid.' 16. Compare J.S. Cooper, Presargonic Inscriptions (New Haven: American Oriental Soc., 1986), p. 73; H. Steible, Die Altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, Vol. I, p. 311; E. Sollberger, Le systeme verbal dans les inscriptions presargoniques de Lagash, (Wiesbaden: Martin Sandig 1971), p. 98, #177; A. Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden (Vol. I; Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1956), p. 102n; M. Lambert, 'Les "reformes" d'Urukagina', RA 50(1956), pp. 169-84 (183). 17. Quite different assessments are made of our capacity to translate it in W. Koenig, Die elamischen Konigsinschriften (AfO Beiheft, 16; Graz: E. Weidner, 1965), pp. 29-34, and W. Hinz, 'Elams Vertrag mit Naram-Sin von Akkade', ZA N.F. 24(1967), pp. 66-96. 18. Hinz, 'Elams Vertrag mit Naram-Sin von Akkade', p. 95.

20

Admonition and Curse

the crucial statement: 'The enemy of Naram-Sin is my enemy. The friend of Naram-Sin is my friend.' The main gods also appear subsequently in the text. There is reference to a wife (a queen?) bearing a son. It is possible to see in the text references to the standard concerns of treaties such as repression of rebellion and extradition of fugitives. However, one wonders how much our interpretation is conditioned by regarding the text as a treaty and therefore seeking for what we would expect in a treaty. Perhaps part of our dilemma with this text springs from the difference between a treaty and an oath to uphold the treaty. What we have preserved are largely treaties: texts written in the name of a king, generally the suzerain, which outline the duties of the vassal, the gods who guarantee the treaty and the consequences for the vassal of his actions of obedience and especially disobedience. We have a few texts which are somewhat different. They represent the text spoken by the vassal as he formally took the oath. Obviously treaties and oaths are related. Yet there are significant differences in form. The significant thing about this text is that the speaker is obviously the Elamite ruler. If it is the text of the oath, the invocation of the gods at the beginning makes sense. It might also make sense to repeat the essential provision of the treaty and the names of gods in the text of the oath. Yet we seem to lack any reference to a curse or actions symbolic of the consequences of disobedience. Some definitions of a treaty make this the indispensable element. We have therefore several possibilities. One is that we do not have a treaty or anything related to a treaty before us. Another is that the peculiarities arise from the fact that this is the text of the oath and so deviates from what we might expect. The third is that here we have our only example of an Elamite way of framing a loyalty oath, following a pattern distinct from Mesopotamia.19 Alternatively it might have affinities to the treaties of the Old Babylonian period, considered below, which consist of the text of one party's declaration under oath. Given features such as the affirmation that The friend of Naram-Sin is my friend', and the invocation of the gods, one can tentatively conclude that this is an oath of the Elamite ruler to Naram-Sin. Its deviations, from what have been regarded as normal forms, urge a note of caution in our conclusions both about it and about other texts which diverge from more common patterns.

19. V. Korosec has suggested that the treaty has a family law background: 'Die Gotteranrufung in den keilschriftlichen Staatsvertragen', Orientalia 45(1976), pp. 120-9 (129).

Mesopotamia

21

Interpreting Silence As commented before, our evidence, from southern Mesopotamia, for treaties in the period up to Old Babylonian times is relatively sparse. The references in the texts of Eanatum and Entemena are the only references to treaties known to me in public historical texts of the period. The 'treaty' of Naram-Sin with Elam is the one actual treaty text we can claim before the time of Hammurabi.20 Yet it would be most precarious to claim that the treaty was not being used throughout this period. We have evidence that the form was known in the literary text Etana and the Eagle. The eagle and the serpent swear an oath of friendship. They take an oath before the sun god Shamash. The curses which will follow transgression are enumerated: 'May the mountain withhold from him its pass. May the restless weapon leave him. They swore to one another an oath.'21 The serpent appealed to Shamash for vengeance against the treacherous eagle.22 While this text is known in both Old Babylonian and later Assyrian versions, the oath section is attested in the Old Babylonian copies.23 Let us assume that treaties were used throughout this period. What would account for the paucity of reference to them in the historical inscriptions? In the Lagash historical texts there is an attempt to depict the men of Umma as the transgressors. That continued on into the time of Uruinimgina.24 There is a significant difference between this attempt to justify war in terms of the transgressions of the enemy and the references to

20. F.R. Kraus, 'Review of Baghdader Mitteilungen Band 2', Bi. Or. 22(1965), pp. 287-93 (289) has suggested that a fragmentary text (W19900,147) from Uruk may be a treaty or oath. Given the state of the text, dogmatism is excluded. It might alternatively be a letter, as the original publisher, A. Falkenstein, thought: 'Zu den Inschriftenfunden der Grabung in Uruk-Warka 1960-1961', Baghdader Mitteilungen 2(1963), pp. 1-82 (54-5). The closest link to treaties lies in the use of the root slm ('be on friendly terms') but as D.J. Wiseman '"Is it Peace?" - Covenant and Diplomacy', VT 32(1982), pp. 31126 pointed out, this refers to the state which may foreshadow or result from a treaty rather than to the treaty itself. 21. M. Haul, Das Etana-Epos. Ein Mythos von der Himmelfahrt des Kdnigs von Kis, (Gottingen: Seminar fur Keilschriftforschung, 2000), p. 108,11. 2-^1; S. Langdon, 'The Legend of Etana and the Eagle', Bahyloniaca 12(1931), pp. 12-14; J.V. Kinnier Wilson, The Legend of Etana (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1985), pp. 32-A 22. Haul, Das Etana-Epos, p. 110; J.V. Kinnier Wilson, The Legend of Etana, pp. 22^. 23. For a study of different versions of the story see Haul, Das Etana-Epos. Haul (Das Etana-Epos, pp. 35-44) considers the, as yet unproved, possibility that the story may have Sumerian roots. Even if that were the case, it would still be evidence that agreements by oath were known in the Old Babylonian period. 24. Sollberger and Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes, pp. 81-2; Cooper, Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions, p. 52.

22

Admonition and Curse

conquest which we find in other royal Sumerian texts.25 Normally all that is claimed in the latter is the fact of conquest. That raises the issue of whether there is a difference in historiographic approaches between Lagash and other contemporary cities. Also of possible significance is the exclusion of Lagash from the Sumerian King List tradition,26 in which conquest does not have a moral basis in the misdeeds of the previous power.27 It could therefore be that the exclusion of Lagash from the King List tradition is not to be explained solely on political grounds. It may also be that Lagash represented a different historiographic tradition. If there is any truth in this line of speculation, it may perhaps be extended further. States which conceptualize history and their external relations in moral terms are not only more likely to talk about treaties they may be more likely to enter into treaties. This is not to suggest that the states of the King List tradition or the many successor states of Mesopotamia never entered into treaties. It is to suggest that the propensity to do so may have been less. Thus there is a reason for the unequal distribution of the evidence for treaties in this period. As it stands this attempt to explain the paucity of evidence of treaties in early Mesopotamian history is weak. In its defence it may be said that other examples will arise which seem to show the same pattern: states which boast of conquest and project the image of the conquering king tend to talk less about treaties. Conversely attempts to depict the state's cause as just are more likely to be accompanied by references to treaties. Perhaps an alternative explanation for the lack of attested treaties might be built around a text from the Diyala valley site of Ishchali.28 Whether it is a treaty depends on definition. It is probably called a simdatum, a term more commonly used for regulations and the like. It might be seen as more akin to a law code except that it concerns two separate towns, Sadlas and Neribtim, each with its own ruler. It begins: 'Regulation] of [Sadlas] and Neri[bti]m. The son of a free man: 2/3 mina of si[lver] (is his value). The slave of a free man: 15 shekels of silver (is his value).'29

25. For translation see E. Sollberger and J.R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes, 81-2. 26. E. Sollberger, The Rulers of Lagash', JCS 21(1967), pp. 279-91 (291). 27. T. Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1939). 28. S. Greengus, Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity, (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1979), #326. For another study of the text see W. Yuhong, 'The Treaty between Shadlash (Sumu-Numhim) and Neribtum (Hammi-Dushur)', Journal of Ancient Civilizations 9(1994), pp. 124-36. 29. S. Greengus, Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity, pp. 74, 11.1-5.

Mesopotamia

23

While the circumstances regulated by subsequent rules are diverse, they largely cluster around problems of displaced people of the two towns. The section which is particularly reminiscent of a treaty, in being reciprocal, binds each ruler not to enlist a soldier of the other ruler. 'Ammi-dusur shall not acquire a soldier of Sumu-numhim. Sumunumhim shall not acquire a soldier of Ammi-dusur.'30 Contrary to normal treaty practice the text does not start with identification of the rulers; rather the respective towns are identified. There is no evidence that the text was sworn by gods, but Greengus has suggested that it could be a draft. 31 The text is dated. The kings involved in this text were contemporary with Sumu-la-El, the Babylonian king four reigns before Hammurabi.32 The text places before us several questions. Should we regard it as a treaty, especially considering that there are spaces on the tablet which seem to imply something could have been added later? It is conceivable that space was left for seals, but the addition of seals would not produce the standard form of a treaty. It is unlikely that space would have been left for the addition of the names of deities because earlier in the text the respective deities by which a citizen might swear with respect to stolen property are listed. It is not as though inquiries needed to be made to ascertain the name of the other town's god. If two neighbouring towns, in a period of uncertainty and refugee movements, needed to formulate uniform rules to deal with displaced persons, there could be various ways to do so. One would be a mutual agreement setting out the rules, and that describes this text. Another would be a treaty in which abiding by the stated rules is sworn before gods by both parties. It is the latter sort of text which interests this investigation but the use of another form is not without interest. Was there a tendency in the earlier Old Babylonian Period to avoid treaties sworn by gods? This text raises the question: but one text is not proof.

Hammurabi Most of our evidence for use of treaties in the Old Babylonian Period comes from the texts found at Mari. One of the problems in using this material is knowing whether it reflects institutions which were peculiar to Mari, or more widely used practices. The problem does not arise in exactly that form when it is a case of representatives of the king of Mari reporting back to their sovereign what is happening at Babylon and Hammurabi's 30. 31. 32.

Greengus, Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity, p. 75, 11. 47-50. Greengus, Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity, p. 77. Greengus, Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity, p. 20.

24

Admonition and Curse

relations with other powers. However there may still be uncertainty as to whether what is being described is general practice or not. An example of this problem is the letters describing the attempts of Hammurabi to make an alliance with the king of Eshnunna. The correspondent Yarim-Addu writes concerning 'the small tablet of touching the throat that Hammurabi formerly sent to Silli-Sin, king of Eshnunna'.33 Using this reference it is possible to restore an informative but broken reference to the same event in another letter by the same correspondent. Two Babylonian envoys have travelled to Eshnunna with the representatives of the king of Eshnunna: They took in their hands [a small tablet.] By [this] tablfet] they shall make [the man of Eshnunna] touch his throat. [ ] will come here. Hamm[urabi] will touch [his throat]. After they touch [their throats] by the s[mall] tablet, Hammurabi [will send] a large tablet, a tab[let of an arrangement] to the man of Eshn[unna and] he will make the man of Eshnunna swe[ar] an oath of the god. [The man of Eshnunna] shall sefnd] a large tablet, a tablet of arranfgement] to Hammurabi. They shall establish] a treaty between them.34

The procedure reflected in this letter seems to connect the ritual of touching the throat with the small tablet, perhaps a preliminary agreement. The more detailed treaty contained on the large tablet would then be sworn by the gods.35 While this is a refreshingly elaborate account of what is involved in the concluding of a treaty, the very use of such detail makes one wonder whether Yarim-Addu regarded it as an unusual arrangement which needed to be explained in detail to his sovereign.36 It is a reasonable assumption that 'touching the throat' is symbolic of the curse to come upon a treaty breaker, but our texts do not say so explicitly. An indication that things were not always done in the same way comes in a letter of two envoys from Mari charged with negotiating a treaty with Hammurabi.37 Hammurabi objected to the proposed treaty's incorporating the city of Hit in the Marian zone. Nevertheless he did take the oath of the gods.38 The envoys from Mari are very concerned that this not lead to the king of Mari touching his throat.39 Due to breaks and uncertainties at 33. D. Charpin et al., Archives epistolaires de Mari (1/2, ARM 26; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988), #373:43, 44. 34. Charpin, Archives epistolaires de Mari, 1/2, #372:10-20. 35. For discussion see Charpin, Archives epistolaires de Mari, 1/2, p. 144. 36. Charpin, Archives epistolaires de Mari, 1/2, p. 144, n.33. 37. Charpin, Archives epistolaires de Mari, 1/2, #469. 38. 'On the 28th day, at the command(?) of his palace, Hammurabi pronounced the oath of the gods for my lord.' (Charpin, Archives epistolaires de Mari, 1/2, #469:18-21) 39. 'My lord must not touch his throat.' (Charpin, Archives epistolaires de Mari, 1/2, #469:40)

Mesopotamia

25

crucial points, one cannot be dogmatic about the cause of the envoys' concern. It could be that Hammurabi had sworn a version of the treaty which removed Hit from the agreement and they were concerned lest their king make concessions without the crucial Babylonian concession in turn. Alternatively it could be that the oath of the gods is seen as a less binding commitment than touching the throat. That is, Hammurabi would have made only a preliminary agreement but the king of Mari would be fully committed. Whatever the source of concern, we do not seem to have in this case a distinction between a small tablet and a large tablet with touching the throat connected to one and swearing to the other. Mari is also the source of a text in the form of an oath to be sworn by Hammurabi. In this he would commit himself not to make a separate peace with Elam without consulting Zimri-Lim, king of Mari.40 The writing points to Mari as the source of the text. Durand suggests that it is a proposal for a sworn agreement between Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim.4' One could not then consider it the actual text of a treaty. Further information comes from a portion of a letter concerned with the same alliance against Elam.42 The envoy reports that Hammurabi had reservations about taking an oath, apparently because he was uncertain what Zimri-Lim had done. The messenger of Mari, corroborated by a Babylonian envoy, informed him that Zimri-Lim had already taken the oath. The oath ceremony is described as consisting of raising the hand to Shamash and touching the throat. Two sorts of flour also play a role in the ceremony.43 Charpin has commented on the peculiarities of this text in comparison with other cases of treaties from the same period.44 The oath was sworn before Shamash, whereas the former text listed Shamash and Adad. Neither were official state gods, such as we find prominent in other treaty texts. There is no clear separation of the act of touching the throat and swearing. It would seem that some of the arrangements are aimed at

40. J.-M. Durand, 'Fragments rejoints pour une histoire elamite' in L. de Meyer, H. Gasche and F. Vallat (eds), Fragmenta historiae elamicae. Melanges offerts a M.J. Steve (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1986), pp. 111-28. 41. Durand, 'Fragments rejoints pour une histoire elamite', p. 115. 42. D. Charpin, 'Une alliance contre 1'Elam et le ritual du lipit napistim" in F. Vallat (ed.), Contribution a I'histoire de I'lran. Melanges offerts a Jean Perrot (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1990), pp. 109-18. 43. The ritual may have been even more elaborate, with washing of hands and favourable days for different parts of it. See K. Reiter, 'Altbabylonische Vertrage unter Beachtung giinstiger Tage', Mari 7(1993), pp. 359-63. For a suggestion regarding the role of hand washing in the conclusion of treaties see M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1988), p. 120n. 44. Charpin, 'Une alliance contre 1'Elam et le ritual du lipit napistinf, especially pp. 11516.

26

Admonition and Curse

dealing with the problem of making a treaty when the two partners are geographically remote from each other. Other texts45 make arrangements for the gods of one party to be transported to the other for the actual swearing. That does not occur here. Is this a case of adding a clause to an existing treaty46 or are we in danger of looking for a uniform procedure where none existed? Another detail of procedure which is mentioned in one case but not others is that Hammurabi sent silver and barley to a ruler who then touched his throat for him.47 What is significant in all of the material relevant to Hammurabi's treaties is that there seems to be no appeal to history. A letter which appears to be quoting Hammurabi's justification of war with Larsa includes references to the good done by Hammurabi to Larsa and that city's breach of oath.48 Yet while these evidences of the enemy's guilt are mentioned,49 historical and moral arguments have not intruded into the treaty texts themselves. Thus the material from Mari tells us that Hammurabi was establishing alliances by means of oaths. We do not obtain the same information from other texts. For example, references to treaties do not occur in extant yearnames of Hammurabi or his dynasty.50 They are not mentioned in Old Babylonian royal inscriptions.51 Both year-names and royal inscriptions are texts which attempt to project the significant accomplishments of the king. It would seem that making alliances was not seen as enhancing the royal glory.

The Old Assyrian Evidence One letter52 of Shamshi-Adad describes the misdeeds of a vassal to the east, Yashub-Adad. It is significant that he is described as taking oaths not only to Shamshi-Adad but also to the various other rulers whom he, temporarily, followed. Shamshi-Adad also swore an oath to him. The 45. Charpin, 'Une alliance centre I'Elam et le ritual du lipit napistinf, , p. 115, n.30. 46. As Charpin suggests ('Une alliance centre I'Elam et le ritual du lipit napistim\ p. 116). 47. Charpin, Archives epistolaires de Mari, 1/2, #373:29-32. This could be a further point of contact between the treaty practices of this period and the 'treaty' of Naram-Sin with Elam. 48. Charpin, Archives epistolaires de Mari, 1/2, #385:9'-19'. 49. There is also an accusation of treaty breaking by Elam (Charpin, Archives epistolaires de Mari, 1/2, #370:15'). 50. M.J.A. Horsnell, The Year-Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon (Vol. II; Hamilton, Ont.: McMaster U.P., 1999). 51. D. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 BC) (Toronto: U. of Toronto, 1990). 52. J. Laesso/e, People of Ancient Assyria (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), p. 147-8; J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 3rd edn, 1969), p. 628.

Mesopotamiaa

27

requirements of Shamshi-Adad's oath are probably indicated by what he claims as evidence of his good faith: failure to raid Yashub-Adad's land. Here we have treaty obligations and beneficence brought together, even if the goodness is merely refraining from aggression. Another letter refers, lamentably only in passing, to a 'tablet of the oath of the gods'.53 From the context the likely reference is to a treaty concluded between, or under negotiation between, Shamshi-Adad and the king of Eshnunna. Unambiguous evidence of a treaty between Assyria and another city comes from the period after the fall of the dynasty of Shamshi-Adad. It is a treaty, found at Tell Leilan, between Till-Abnu, king of Apum,54 and the city and citizens of Assur.55 In the extant parts of the text it is clear that Till-Abnu is the addressee who swore an oath: You shall speak truth wholeheartedly with us, the city of Assur and the trade cooperative as long as you live. You shall keep what is in this tablet, [concerning] which you swore, to the city of Assur, to any Assyrian and to the trade cooperative'56

The stipulations are poorly preserved but there is reference to the kdrum in Apum and to donkeys. It is likely therefore that the stipulations focused upon the trading and passage rights of Assyrian merchants. As with other treaties of this period, the text begins with a list of deities by which the oath was sworn. Both clearly Assyrian deities and deities from Apum are included, with the Assyrian ones probably listed first, although dogmatism is precluded by the possibility that high and relatively universal gods lead the list. However, when it comes to gods who are given a specific geographical location, the Assyrian ones come first. If a list of curses was included, it has now been lost. The fragments of treaties and the references to treaties found at Mari pose a problem of classification. Should they be treated as typical of Mesopotamian treaties, or considered along with other treaties from Syria, or is such a distinction artificial and unhistorical? Any answer would be hard to prove, given the insufficient evidence. As will be explained later, when Mari is considered in the context of Syrian treaties, there may be

53. ARM I, 37:23: G. Dossin, Archives Royales de Mari (Vol. I; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1946). 54. In an earlier period this was called Shubat-Enlil. It is in the north-east corner of modern Syria. On Tell Leilan see H. Weiss, 'Tell Leilan and Shubat EnhT, Mari 4(1985), pp. 269-92. 55. J. Eidem, 'An Old Assyrian Treaty from Tell Leilan' in D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Etudes su la civilisation Mesopotamiene offertes a Paul Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), pp. 185-207. 56. Eidem, 'An Old Assyrian Treaty from Tell Leilan', pp. 197-9, III, 2-13.

28

Admonition and Curse

some approaches at Mari which are not found further east. However, there are other ways in which Mari was clearly part of what we conventionally see as 'Mesopotamia'. In order to be able to treat the material, I am discussing treaties involving Babylonian and Assyrian rulers under 'Mesopotamia' and treaties between Mari and other smaller states under 'Syria'. No conclusions are implied by this functional division of the material. It follows therefore that the treaty between Zimri-Lim of Mari and Ibalpi-El II of Eshnunna belongs to this section.57 Since the text itself probably came from Eshnunna58 and the king of that city is referred to as 'father',59 one presumes that it reflects the point of view of Eshnunna, even though the text is in the form of a speech of Zimri-Lim. Enough is preserved to show that a list of deities by which the treaty was sworn begins the tablet but too little is left to allow conclusions about their order and character. Since some other treaties of the period list relatively few deities, it may be significant that, like the treaty between Till-Abnu and the city and citizens of Assur, there are more than a dozen deities. The extant stipulations concern promises not to convey intelligence on military affairs of Eshnunna to anybody else, for example, after a description of military measures by Eshnanna. I will not write to any king or prince who is in the whole land, to a lord of an enemy or ally of Ibal-pi-El, son of Dadusha, king of Eshnunna; nor will I speak; I will not speak of that secret message to my servants.60

Enough is preserved to show that curses were present and that they conform to the pattern of giving each deity a particular malediction to inflict.

Summary of Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian Evidence By comparison with what we know of later treaties, one thing seems conspicuous by its absence: a treaty text which is the text of both parties to the treaty. Such a text sets out the obligations of each, even if the obligations of the superior party are relatively minor. Rather, what the 57. D. Charpin, 'Un traite entre Zimri-Lim de Mari et Ibal-pi-El II d'Eshnunna' in D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Etudes sur la civilisation mesopotamienne offertes a Paul Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), pp. 139-66. 58. Charpin, 'Un traite entre Zimri-Lim de Mari et Ibal-pi-El II d'Eshnunna', p. 141. 59. Charpin, 'Un traite entre Zimri-Lim de Mari et Ibal-pi-El II d'Eshnunna', p. 143, col. iii, 8'. 60. Charpin, 'Un traite entre Zimri-Lim de Mari et Ibal-pi-El II d'Eshnunna', p. 143, col. iii, 6'-9'.

Mesopotamia

29

evidence of this period provides is texts in which an individual party swears to his obligations. The correspondence tells us that such swearings might be entered into by both sides. With regard to the form of the text itself there seems to be both a form closer to the expected norm of later times and a form which deviates. The treaty which seems closest to the later pattern is that between Zimri-Lim of Mari and Ibal-pi-El II of Eshnunna. That is because there are more than a few gods at the beginning of the text and the curse section has maledictions to be inflicted by individual gods. The treaty between Apum and Assur also fits this pattern in the listing of the gods. However, the curse section, if it existed, has been lost. Where these two texts join the others in deviating from later treaties is that they appear to focus around a basic issue. There is no attempt to lay out more globally the relations between the parties. The second model that we possess seems to use few gods. An example of this is the sworn agreement between Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim. Several gods of oath occur but not the state gods, and curses do not occur. Yet there is an uncertainty created by the evidence that treaties were concluded in various stages. What stage of the process, if there were multiple stages in this particular case, does the extant material represent? It might be a natural conclusion to make this second model the more primitive one and to postulate that the treaty sworn by many gods with elaborate curses was a later development. However, the evidence from Lagash is against the assumption of a unilinear evolution of treaties towards complexity. The Stela of the Vultures seems to indicate that already in the Sumerian Early Dynastic Period a number of deities were given their own respective curse to administer. A more careful conclusion would be that in the one period there were different forms of treaties being concluded. A similar issue arises with the apparent lack of emphasis upon curses. Given that some tablets are broken and that we may have preliminary rather that final texts, we cannot be certain that this is another deviation. If the ritual of touching the throat was understood as a symbolized curse, might there have been felt no need for another statement of curse? If that conjecture is correct, then the occurrence of the more common Mesopotamian use of curses in the treaty between Zimri-Lim of Mari and Ibal-pi-El II warns against expecting the treaties of one period to show a single form. The ritual of treaty taking may have varied. One text describes two sorts of flour as necessary.61 A representative of Zimri-Lim, king of Mari, reports to his master what Hammurabi said: [Beforje I raise my hand to Shamash and touch the throat, you have not set [two types of flour]. Come, in my location, let me raise the hand to Shamash for him. You will make me take the oath by [the two types of 61.

Charpin 'Une alliance centre I'Elam et le ritual du lipit napistim\ p. I l l , 11. 5'-ll'.

30

Admonition and Curse flour] before Shamash. Let me write as soon as I pronounce [the oath]. May your lord pronounce [the oath].'

Use of these commodities is attested in other ritual contexts which are not connected to treaty making.62 There is no reason to exclude aspects of one sort of ceremony intruding into another. There is also no reason to expect that such transfers must happen every time an oath is sworn. Where the various bits of evidence largely coincide is in the lack of any appeal to history in the treaty texts. Letters which make moral cases based upon history may also contain references to treaties, but the two are not combined in the treaty texts. The evidence of this period is thus against the attempt to argue that appeal to history is a characteristic of secondmillennium treaties.

The Middle Babylonian Period and the Kudurru Our evidence for Babylonians entering into treaties in this period does not come from Babylonia itself. It comes from the Assyrian Synchronistic History^ and the references to the establishment of brotherhood relations and friendship in the Babylonian letters found at Amarna in Egypt.64 Thus we know that there were treaties, but knowledge of their form and content is conjectural. The Synchronistic History refers only to the fixing of boundaries between Assyria and Babylonia. We have little information from the period itself to use in evaluating the relationship of the treaties and the kudurru form. The kudurrus are monuments commemorating grants by the king of land and sometimes other privileges. Their most obvious overlap with treaties is in the curse formulae attached. However, other documents, for example, building inscriptions, also contain curses and therefore this is not strong evidence for a connection. The question of connecting treaty and kudurru arose from the biblical field. Weinfeld65 drew attention to the fact that some biblical covenants have affinities not with treaties but with royal grants. That is because the suzerain does not impose obligations upon the vassal but rather makes the vassal a free grant. Weinfeld claims that both treaties and grants share historical introduction, border delineations, stipulations, witnesses, bles62. Charpin 'Une alliance contre 1'Elam et le ritual du lipit napistim', p. 114. 63. A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, N.Y.: J.J. Augustin, 1975), pp. 157-70. 64. EA 1:64-66; 2:1; 4:15-17; 6:8-11; 8:8-12; 9:19-28; 11:22. 65. M. Weinfeld, 'The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East', JAOS 90 (1970), pp. 184-203.

Mesopotamia

31

sings and curses.66 However, they differ in that the treaty imposes obligations upon the vassal, whereas the kudurru has the reverse effect. The curse is directed in the grant against any third party who might seek to annul the grant. The grant is a reward for past service, while the treaty tries to bind the vassal to service in the future.67 One wonders whether this list of similarities does not exaggerate the relationship between the two forms. In some of the later examples of kudurru the meritorious action which led to the grant is mentioned.68 More commonly the history consists of the previous history of the piece of land as far as is necessary to establish the recipients' clear entitlement to the land.69 There are specifics of size and location such as are common in commercial texts regarding land. These do have analogies to specifications in some treaties of the territory the vassal is permitted to rule. Yet that commercial texts, grants and treaties all involve specification of the land concerned is not proof of a close relationship between these various forms. To avoid later conflict all need to be specific on the land involved. It is difficult to speak of 'stipulations' in a land grant having analogies to the provisions of a treaty. The regulations of a kudurru do not bind the receiver: they bind any third party who might seek to annul the grant. Consequently the curses and blessings, if present, are directed to third parties. It is common in kudurrus to have lists of human witnesses. If anything, that distinguishes the kudurru and the treaty: the cases, to be considered below, in which men witness a treaty are rare. In those cases the main issue is the authenticity of the particular text of the treaty. Men are not normally witnesses to treaties. This leaves the presence of curses as the strongest link between grants and treaties. As mentioned above, curses occur on other documents as well. The point can perhaps be made that curses on building inscriptions are predominantly aimed at preserving the inscription itself. While the

66. Weinfeld, The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East.' 67. Weinfeld, 'The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East.' 68. For example, the grant of Nebuchadnezzar I to Lakhti-Shikhu describes the services rendered by the recipient in the war with Elam: L.W. King (ed.), Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum (London: British Museum,h 1912), pp. 29-36. 69. For general treatments of the kudurruu form see E. Cuq, 'La propriete fonciere en Chaldee d'apres les pierres-limites (koudourrous) du Musee du Louvre', Nouvelle revue historique de droit francais et etranger 30(1906), pp. 701-38; F.X. Steinmetzer, Die babylonischen Kudurru (Grenzsteine) als Urkundenform, (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoeningh, 1922); W.J. Hinke, A New Boundary Stone of Nebuchadnezzar /, ( Philadelphia: U. of Pennsylvania, 1907). For a recent discussion of the kudurru see K.E. Slanski, 'Classification, Historiography and Monumental Authority: The Babylonian Narus (Kudurrus)\ JCS 52(2000), pp. 95-114.

32

Admonition and Curse

curses on kudurrus have that purpose, they are also aimed at safeguarding the grant that has been made. In all there is very little evidence for a connection of treaties and grants. It is doubtful whether the suggestion would have been put to the Mesopotamian evidence if the connection had not seemed more obvious elsewhere.

A Middle Babylonian Divine-Human Covenant? A Middle Babylonian literary text has been seen as evidence of a treaty relationship between a god and a king. The text is the one commonly known as the Marduk Prophecy Text. In describing the relationship of Marduk to the chosen king, presumably, Nebuchadnezzar I, the god says: Kl(itti)- su salmaku.70 Depending on whether we wanted to maximize the treaty associations71 or to minimize them,72 we could translate this either as 'I have a treaty with him' or 'I am on friendly terms/reconciled to him'. The question of a treaty between a god and a human will be treated more extensively below in connection to Israel. That will be the appropriate place to consider how the existence or non-existence of such treaties outside of Israel has been built into theories about Israel. In this particular Middle Babylonian instance, caution seems the wisest path. Treaties between humans and deities are very rare, if they exist at all in Mesopotamia. Nothing in this text points unambiguously to a treaty. Therefore the argument for a treaty reference here must be regarded as unproven.

The Middle Assyrian Evidence The evidence from Assyria in the second half of the second millennium is better than the evidence from Babylonia.73 The Synchronistic History74 70. R. Borger, 'Gott Marduk und Gott-Konig Sulgi als Propheten. Zwei prophetische Texte', Bi. Or. 28(1971), pp. 3-24 (11), Col. Ill, 19'. 71. For arguments and translations that see a reference to a treaty see T.J. Lewis, 'The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith' JBL 115(1996), pp. 401-23 (406); S.D. Sperling, 'An Arslan Tash Incantation: Interpretations and Implications', HUCA 53(1982), pp. 1-10 (10); S.D. Sperling, 'Israel's Religion in the Ancient Near East' in A. Green (ed.), Jewish Spirituality. From the Bible through the Middle Ages (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986), p. 25. 72. Lewis (The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith', p. 406) concedes on the basis of CADS p. 102 that the alternative translation is possible. 73. For a survey and discussion of Assyrian treaties see M. Liverani, 'Terminologia e ideologia del patto nelle iscrizioni reali assire' in L. Canfora, M. Liverani and C. Zaccagnini (eds), / trattati nel mondo antico (Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1990). pp. 113-147. 74. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, pp. 157-70.

Mesopotamia

33

mentions a number of treaties between Assyria and Babylonia.75 It also mentions the establishment of boundary without mention of a treaty. The way of describing the establishment of a treaty is variable.76 With respect to the Babylonian king Karaindash and the Assyrian Ashur-bel-nisheshu, the text says they made a treaty (riksu) and took an oath (mamitu) concerning the boundary.77 The Babylonian Burnaburiash I and the Assyrian PuzurAshur III took an oath (itmuma).1*8 Later kings who make an agreement are described as establishing good relations (tubta sulummd ... iskunu).19 Are the differences in terminology significant? The most extensive source for the Assyrian understanding of treaty relations with Babylonia is the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic.*0 This tells the story of the treaty violations of the Babylonian Kashtiliash and the victory over him that Tukulti-Ninurta I won. The Babylonian is represented as lamenting that confronting him was the treaty established by his fathers: ' . . . the unchangeable tablet (with) the seal of my fa[thers]... the unopposable treaty of my fathers'. 81 He had not reciprocated the friendliness of the Assyrian.82 Tukulti-Ninurta complained to Shamash, referring to their fathers' oath and accusing the Babylonian of treaty violation:83 When before your divinity [ . . . ] our fathers established a treaty, they pronounced an oath between them (by) your greatness. Why [ . . . ] has the king of the Kassites, for a long time, destroyed your design (and) work? He did of fe[ar] your oath.

75. A fragment of one of these treaties may exist: E.F. Weidner, 'Assyrische Itinerare', AfO 21(1966), pp. 42-56 (45-6). 76. For a general treatment of treaty terminology see H. Tadmor, Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East' in D.M. Tucker and D.A. Knight (eds), Humanizing America's Iconic Book (Chico: Scholars Pr., 1982), pp. 131-2. 77. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, p. 158, i:l'-4'. Note Grayson's discussion of the inversion of the chronological order at this point in the text. 78. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, p. 158, 11. 5'-6'. 79. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, p. 162, ii:l'; p. 165, ii:27, 28; p. 166, iii:18; p. 167, iii:24, 25. 80. E. Ebeling, Bruchstucke eines politischen Propagandagedichtes einer assyrischen Kanzlei (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1938); W.G. Lambert, Three Unpublished Fragments of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic', AfO 18(1967), pp. 38-51. For general discussion of the text see P. Machinist, 'Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible', CBQ 38(1976), pp. 455-82. For a more recent translation see B.R. Foster, Before the Muses (Vol. I; Bethesda, CDL, 1993), pp. 209-29. 81. Ebeling, Bruchstucke eines politischen Propagandagedichtes, p. 15, 'IV':30, 32. 82. Ebeling, Bruchstucke eines politischen Propagandagedichtes, ,. p. 15, '1V':26. 83. Ebeling, Bruchstucke eines politischen Propagandagedichtes, . p.. 19, 'V':15, 16, 19, 20.

34

Admonition and Curse

In the battle the gods, having deserted the Babylonian side, inflict judgement upon them.84 The ascription of a specific judgement to each deity is in accord with the common pattern in Mesopotamian curses. This text uses history to establish the rectitude of the Assyrian cause. It concentrates upon the king of Babylonia. There is a brief reference to the friendliness of Assyria,85 but the concentration is upon Assyrian military success rather than upon Assyrian diplomatic nicety. In this it agrees with the Synchronistic History which focuses upon Babylonian border violation and Assyrian military success. The obvious point of comparison to this use of history to establish the righteousness of one party is the Lagash texts considered earlier. It is not easy to argue any sort of direct relationship between Lagash and these sources for the Middle Assyrian Period. We might therefore resort to the explanation that such appeal to history is the 'natural' thing to do. That leaves us with the question of why so few rulers in Mesopotamia do what is 'natural'. We are thus faced with a version of the problem considered earlier: that treaties may not be an item of discourse, or at least not a prominent item, in royal inscriptions. When they are highlighted in this period it is in a different sort of text which may employ different concepts. The TukultiNinurta Epic is a literary text, as contrasted to a royal inscription, but that fact of itself does not explain why a treaty should be so much more prominent in this text than in other texts of the same period. Nor does it explain why the righteousness of the Assyrian course should be so specifically argued in this text but not be an issue to be proved in royal inscriptions. An emphasis on Assyrian military might and success links royal inscriptions, the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Synchronistic History. What distinguishes these last two from the first is a playing upon the transgressions of the enemy in the context of an emphasis upon treaty oaths. Once again we are confronted with different approaches within Mesopotamian culture itself. In the Sumerian Early Dynastic Period the contrast was between the texts of Lagash, with their emphasis on the enemy Umma as treaty breakers, and the texts of other cities which did not mention treaties but simply recorded conquest. In the Middle Assyrian Period the contrast is between literary texts and royal inscriptions. It is thus reasonable to argue that different ways of reporting history existed within the Mesopotamian tradition and that treaties were much more at home in one approach than the other.

84. Ebeling, Bruchstucke eines politischen Propagandagedichtes, pp. 7-8, 'IF 11. 25-40. 85. Ebeling, Bruchsucke eines politischen Propagandagedichtes, p. 15, 'IV':26.

Mesopotamia

35

The earlier Assyrian annals have very few references to treaties.86 Adadnarari I tells us that he made Shattuara, king of Hanigalbat, take an oath. There are no details given of the oath: 'I brought him to my city Assur. I made him take an oath. I sent him to his land.'87 In the description that follows of the repression of a revolt by Shattuara's son no reference is made to the treaty or the oath.88 Perhaps we are meant to see the gods who are listed as helping the Assyrian king as the gods of the oath. However, no explicit connection is made and such god lists occur regularly in the annals when there is no mention of a treaty. Liverani suggested that there may have been oaths imposed which were not necessarily preserved in a written form.89 This brings us back again to the problem of silence. Is the lack of extant examples of Middle Assyrian treaties due to a failure to write them down or a failure of preservation and discovery? Tukulti-Ninurta I made the princes of the eastern hills swear on oath.90 In the description in the annals of his conflict with Kashtiliash, there is no mention of a treaty or oath.91 Tiglath-pileser I says that he made the kings of the Nairi lands swear an oath before Shamash.92 There may be other mentions in the annals which I have overlooked. However, given the number of lands claimed as conquered and paying tribute, the paucity of references to treaties must be significant. That is especially the case when we compare the annals with the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic. The annals are dominated by an approach to history which is not greatly interested in treaties. Another text which needs to be compared with the annals is the letter to Ugarit from an Assyrian king, either Shalmaneser I or Tukulti-Ninurta I.93 86. See Liverani, 'Terminologia e ideologia del patto nelle iscrizioni reali assire', pp. 11920. 87. E.F. Weidner, 'Die Kampe Adadnararis I. gegen Hanigalbat', AfO 5 (1928-29), pp. 89-100 (90), 11. 13,14; A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (Vol. I; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972), p. 60. 88. Weidner, 'Die Kampe Adadnararis I. gegen Hanigalbat', pp. 90-1, 11. 18-Rev. 60; Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Vol. I, p. 60. 89. Liverani, 'Terminologia e ideologia del patto nelle iscrizioni reali assire', p. 120. 90. E.F. Weidner, Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I und seiner Nachfolger (AfO Beiheft, 12; Graz: E. Weidner, 1959), p. 2, 111:4; Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Vol. I, p. 103. 91. Weidner, Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I, p. 12, 11:48-111:69; Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Vol. I, p. 108. 92. 'I made them swear an oath of my great gods into the future and forever, for service': E.A.W Budge and L.W. King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria (London: British Museum, 1902), pp. 69-70, V: 12-16. 93. S. Lackenbacher, 'Nouveaux documents d'Ugarit', RA 76(1982), pp. 141-56; I. Singer, 'The Battle of Nihriya and the End of the Hittite Empire', ZA 75(1985), pp. 100-23. On the rhetoric of the interchange see M. Liverani, Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600-1100 (Padova: Sargon, 1990), pp. 169-71.

36

Admonition and Curse

The Assyrian king is describing the background to and results of a conflict with the Hittites. He quotes a peace treaty offered by the Hittite king: 'May Adad and Shamash know: [If I] with the king of Assyria, my brother, am hostile [...]! am at peace.'94 Later in the text, perhaps sarcastically, he compares the Hittite king's assurance and his deeds: 'In truth you are at peace w[ith me] and not hostile. Why did your soldiers fortify the city of Nihriya?'95 The insistence of the Assyrian king upon his own rectitude and his appeal, against the Hittite king, to the treaty tablet is similar to the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic. That the annals stress the power of the Assyrian king, rather than his righteousness, does not mean that appeals to righteousness were not being made. This case may also be relevant to the question of whether there were written copies of treaties made in this period. The letter referring to the tablet has been preserved, not the treaty itself. Assur-uballit I wrote to the pharaoh as a 'brother'.96 This probably indicates some sort of treaty relationship. We would not think to connect the court and harem decrees97 of the Middle Assyrian kings with treaties, if it were not for the relationship of the apparently equivalent forms among the Hittites. On examination of the Assyrian evidence there seems no relationship between the harem decrees and treaties. There is no mention of divine witnesses, so the connection of these decrees to treaties is even more tenuous than in the case of the kudurru. The colophon may have called for the regular reading of the decrees.98 However, the requirement that decrees and treaties be read publicly to remind people of their contents is a natural one and could easily arise independently. Perhaps the most interesting overlap is in a point of terminology. Riksu, the standard term in this period for a treaty, was also used for these decrees. Westbrook, in dealing with the analogous problem of the use of the related word rikiltu for both contracts and treaties, sees the explanation in the right of the head of the household to make agreements binding the

94. Lackenbacher, 'Nouveaux documents d'Ugarit', p. 143, 11. 31-3. 95. Lackenbacher, 'Nouveaux documents d'Ugarit', p. 144, rev. 11. 9, 10. 96. EA 16:4. Note also the reaction of the Babylonian king (EA 9:31-35). 97. E. Weidner, 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse assyrischer Konige aus dem 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.', AfO 17(1956), 257-93. For the dating of the relevant texts see the discussion in H. Freydank, Beitrage zur mittelassyrischen Chronologic und Geschichte (Berlin: Akadamie Verlag, 1991), p. 89. 98. Cf. the requirement that the similar decree from Nuzi be read every three or four years: R.H. Pfeiffer and E.A. Speiser, One Hundred New Selected Nuzi Texts (AASOR 16; New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1936), p. 37, no. 51.

Mesopotamia

37

members of the household and the conceptualization of the king as head of an extended household." This suggestion may well be correct but we are constantly faced with the problem of trying to understand the categories of a culture from outside without somebody within the culture offering explanation. We can point to the etymology of riksu, with a meaning of something like 'bond'.100 That fits very well for parity treaties and reasonably well for vassal treaties. Perhaps we have to remember that the meaning of words is determined as much by usage as by etymology. Gelb has suggested that riksu/'rikiltu has reference to the stipulations of a treaty.101 It would be conceivable for a focussing upon the stipulations to lead to the term embracing stipulations laid down by decree as well as by treaty. From there decisions made with respect to individuals102 as well as groups could be included. All this leads to the conclusion that the real point of commonality between treaties and decrees was the king who imposed binding obligations upon his underlings, whether they were domestic or foreign. We come back to the point made earlier that kings who act in a certain way domestically are likely to carry that style into foreign relations, and vice versa. In reviewing the Middle Assyrian evidence, several significant facts emerge. The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic in its use of the violation of treaties to demonstrate the evil of the enemy has thematic affinities with the Lagash texts. Its mention of an oath before Shamash reminds us of Etana and the Eagle. Whether or not these elements belong to a tradition that goes all the way back to Lagash, they are not the dominant tradition in other literature of the period. The theme of military might, which also occurs in the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic, rules the annals, leaving only an occasional place for the mentioning of treaties. A second factor of interest is the relationship of treaties and decrees, tenuous though it may be.

99. R. Westbrook, 'International Law in the Amarna Age' in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds), Amarna Diplomacy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2000), pp. 48-71 (36-7). 100. V. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertage, p. 23. 101. I.J. Gelb, 'Review of D.J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon\ Bi. Or. 19(1962), pp. 159-62 (162). 102. Tukulti-Ninurta I made a decree (riksu) for an official. The contents are largely destroyed: E. Weidner, 'Studien zur Zeitgeschichte Tukulti-Ninurtas F, AfO 13(1940), pp. 109-24 (114).

38

Admonition and Curse

Mesopotamia in the First Millennium In the earlier part of the first millennium103 the Assyrian annals continue their infrequent references to treaties. Tukulti-Ninurta II made Ammebaal, one of the kings of the Nairi lands, take an oath before Assur that he would not supply horses to the enemy.104 Ashur-nasir-apli II tells of avenging the assassination of Amme-baal but makes no mention of the treaty.105 The particularly voluminous writings of Ashur-nasir-apli II raise an interesting question. Did Ashur-nasir-apli make treaties and just not mention them? Or did Assyrian policy in this period106 exclude establishment of treaty relationship? Since the Assyrian king appointed another ruler in place of Amme-baal,107 treaty relationships would have been at least formally possible. We have incomplete copies of two treaties from the period of Assyrian weakness between Shalmaneser III and Tiglath-pileser III. Nothing much can be reconstructed of the treaty between Shamshi-Adad V of Assyria and Marduk-zakir-shumi of Babylonia108 except the god list. The text is probably the Babylonian version and gives precedence to the Babylonian gods.109 The gods are listed, with each given his own curse to enforce. Marduk comes first and Ashur is not mentioned in the extant list.

103. Compare Liverani, 'Terminologia e ideologia del patto nelle iscrizioni reali assire', pp. 120-4. 104. W. Schramm, 'Die Annalen des assyrischen Konigs Tukulti-Ninurta II. (890-884 v. Chr.)', Bi. Or. 27 (1970), pp. 147-60 (149) (pi. I, verso. 24,25); Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Vol. II, p. 100. 105. Budge and King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, pp. 237-8, Rev. 36-43; 34 Iff, II: 11825; Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Vol. II, pp. 135-6. 106. A.K. Grayson, 'Studies in Neo-Assyrian History in the Ninth Century B.C.', Bi. Or. 33 (1976), pp. 134-45. 107. Budge and King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, p. 239, Rev. 42; Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Vol. II, p. 162. 108. F.E. Peiser, 'Studien zur orientalischen Altertumskunde', MVAG HI/6 (1898), pp. 228^0 (240); E. Weidner, 'Der Staatsvertrag Assurniraris VI von Assyrien mit Mati'ilu von Bit-Agusi', AfO 8(1932), pp. 17-34 (27); S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (Helsinki: Helsinki U.P., 1988), pp. 4-5; J.A. Brinkman, 'Political Covenants, Treaties, and Loyalty Oaths in Babylonia and between Babylonia and Assyria' in L. Canfora, M. Liverani and C. Zaccagnini (eds), / trattati nel mondo antico. Forma ideologia furzione (Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1990), pp. 108-11. 109. Brinkman gives reasons for considering that the Babylonian king was the stronger: 'Political Covenants, Treaties, and Loyalty Oaths in Babylonia and between Babylonia and Assyria', pp. 96-7.

Mesopotamia

39

The treaty between Ashur-narari V of Assyria and Mati'ilu of Bit-Agusi (Arpad in Syria)110 is better preserved. The beginning is missing and the extant text begins with mention of symbolized curses. A spring lamb was produced and apparently dismembered and mutilated as a dramatic version of the fate of the treaty breakers, for example: This head is not the head of the spring lamb. [It is] the head of Mati'ilu; [it is] the head of his sons, his grandees, the people of [his] l[and. If] Mati'ilu [sins] against this oath, just as the head of this spring lamb is pl[ucked off], (and) its ank[le] put in its mouth [ . . . ] , the h[ea]d of Mati'ilu will certainly be plucked off ... '"

The next well-preserved section consists of specific obligations, each with its own curse section, for example: [If the Assyrian army], at the command of Adad-narari, goes against his enemy (and) Mati'ilu together with his grandees, his forces, [his] ch[ariots] does not go out (and) proceed wholeheartedly, then may Sin, the great lord, who dwells in Harran, cl[othe] Mati'ilu . . . with 'leprosy' like a cloak . . . "2

Various gods appear in these curses. There is a separate god list following this section. These gods are mainly Assyrian but some Syrian deities do appear towards the end of the list. An interesting sidelight on the paucity of our Mesopotamian evidence for treaties is the fact that these poor copies represent the first actual text we have of Mesopotamian treaties since the Old Assyrian period. As we shall see, the Hittite evidence is much fuller. In the treaty of Ashur-narari V and Mati'ilu the treaty itself is referred to as an adu. This is the typical designation for Assyrian treaties and loyalty oaths in the Neo-Assyrian period.113 In the annals of Tiglath-pileser III we once more have references to vassals taking oaths. Interestingly they do not record the swearing of the oath, as is common in the earlier annals' references to oaths. Rather they

110. Weidner, 'Der Staatsvertrag Assurniraris VI von Assyrien mit Mati'ilu von BitAgusi', pp. 17-22; Peiser, 'Studien zur orientalischen Altertumskunde', pp. 228^0; D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Vol. I; N.Y.: Greenwood, 1926), pp. 265-8; Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, pp. 8-13. 111. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 8, 11. 21'-27'. 112. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 11, 11. IV, 1-5. 113. Assyria probably did not have a monopoly on the use of adu. A text referring to the Babylonian king Nabu-shuma-ishkun mentions an adu: E. von Weiher, 'Marduk-apla-usur and Nabu-shum-ishkun in einem spatbabylonischen Fragment aus Uruk', Baghdader Mitteilungen 14(1984), pp. 197-224 (203); Brinkman, 'Political Covenants, Treaties, and Loyalty Oaths', pp. 95, 99-100. The context is too broken to conclude anything about the background to this particular case.

40

Admonition and Curse

record the violation of the treaty and the subsequent Assyrian punitive campaign: 'PN sinned against the oath of the great gods ... I siezed him . . . I threw him in iron fetters.'114 The same approach is found in Sargon's annals:115 PN forgot the oath of the great gods . . . I lifted up my hands to the gods my lords. I overthrew GN, his royal city, like a cloud. PN sinned against the oath of the great gods ... I lifted my hands to Assur my lord ... I brought him out along with his family as prisoners.

This trend goes along with the somewhat more moralistic tone of Sargon. He is anxious to portray himself as the one who acts righteously and piously.116 Sennacherib's annals mark something of a hiatus in this trend. He does refer to Padi the king of Ekron, who was deposed by his own people, as being bound by oath (both adu and mamltu are used) to Assyria.117 However, there is no explicit mention in the text of the Assyrian campaign being motivated by Assyria's commitment to Padi. Once again the theme of Assyrian might drives out any idea of Assyria's loyalty or obligation. The text VAT 11449 is very fragmentary. Ebeling118 recognized mentions of Sennacherib and the Akitu Chapel and a god list. Others have suggested that we interpret it as a treaty of Sennacherib guaranteeing the accession of Esarhaddon.119 The poor state of preservation of the text makes any

114. H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Acad. of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), p. 82,11. 19, 20. Note also 'PN who transgressed the oath of Shamash', p. 80, Ann. 23,1. 18'; Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vol. I, pp. 279, 280. 115. A.G. Lie, The Inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria (Vol. I; Paris: Paul Guethner, 1929), p. 10, 11. 68, 72;. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vol. II, p. 4. 116. E.g. F. Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la huitieme campagne de Sargon (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1912), p. 26, 1. 156. 117. 'Padi, their king, lord of oath and swearing of Assyria': D.D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1924), p. 31, 11:74, 75; Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, II, p. 119. Tadmor has pointed out that this loyalty oath would have been imposed by Sargon rather than Sennacherib: Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East', p. 146. For allusion, in the treatment of Ekron, to the oath in the story of Etana see K.L. Younger, Jr, 'Assyrian Involvement in the Southern Levant at the End of the Eighth Century BCE' in A. Killebrew and A. Vaughan (eds), Jerusalem. New Studies (forthcoming; my thanks to the author for an advance copy) and W.R. Gallagher, Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah. New Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1999), p. 120. 118. E. Ebeling, Stiftungen und Vorschriften fur assyrische Tempel (Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1954), p. 9. 119. S. Parpola, 'Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh' JCS 39(1987), pp. 161-89 (163, 164); Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 18; M.L. Barre, The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia: A Study in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Tradition (Baltimore: Johns

Mesopo tamia

41

interpretation uncertain. Perhaps it is a succession treaty and we should conclude that, towards the end of his life, Sennacherib did attempt to secure the succession just as Essarhaddon was later to do. Perhaps it is not a treaty. In this situation of uncertainty it is probably best to depend primarily on the picture we obtain from the annals. Esarhaddon marks something of a change which continues into the time of Ashurbanipal. References to oaths are more extensive, detailed and varied. He claims that the people of Assyria had taken an oath (zikru, adu and mamitu are used) to support him as crown prince and king. The oath is specified as being by water and oil.120 He (Sennacherib) made them pronounce a solemn oath before Assur, Sin, Shamash, Nabu, Marduk, the gods of Assyria, the gods dwelling in heaven and earth, to protect my position as crown prince. The people of the land of Assyria who had sworn a treaty (and) oath of the great gods by water and oil to protect my kingship . . .

The death of Nabu-zer-kitti-lishir is ascribed to divine punishment for his oath violation: 'Because of the oath of the great gods which he had transgressed, Assur, Sin, Shamash, Bel and Nabu placed on him a heavy punishment. They killed him with a weapon in the land of Elam."2' In the Letter to the God the enemy acknowledges his breaking of the oath: 'The oath of the great gods which I transgressed and your kingly word which I forgot, overcame me."22 Esarhaddon also boasts of returning Urartean fugitives in order to be faithful to his own treaty obligations: Tn order to keep the oath - the truth and justice which the great gods granted me - I asked, interrogated, examined and checked about those men. I did not withhold a single Urartean fugative.'123 This is a relatively new emphasis for an Assyrian king. Recalling the earlier approaches is the mention of an oath taken by the Elamites and Quti. The motive is said to be fear of Assyrian attack: 'Terror and fear poured upon them. They sent their messengers of goodwill and peace to

Hopkins U.P., 1983), p. xv; Tadmor Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East', p. 147; E. Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften (AfO Beiheft, 26; Vienna: Institut fur Orientalistik der Universitat Wien, 1997), pp. 242-3. 120. R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddom Konigs von Assyrien (AfO Beiheft, 9; Graz: E. Weidner, 1956), p. 40, 11. 17-19; p. 43, 11. 50,51; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, II, pp. 200-01. 121. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, p. 47, 11. 55 57; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, p. 204. 122. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, p. 103, 1. 23; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, p. 232. 123. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, p. 106, 11. 32 34; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, p. 236.

42

Admonition and Curse

Nineveh into my presence in order to prevent the violation of the border of their land. They pronounced the oath of the great gods.'124 Along with the greater interest in treaties we find mention of the enemy making a treaty among themselves: 'They pronounced the oath of the great gods among themselves. They trusted in their own strength. I trusted in Assur, Sin, Shamash, Bel and Nabu, the great gods, my lords.'125 This context gives an interesting sidelight on Assyrian attitudes to oaths sworn by foreign gods. Though the enemy are said to have sworn by their own gods they are also said to trust in their own strength, in pointed contrast to Esarhaddon's trust in the Assyrian gods. The interest in oaths we see with Esarhaddon is continued and extended with Ashurbanipal. Like Esarhaddon he mentions the oaths taken to support him as king: 'He made them take oaths for the protection of my (position as) crown prince and, afterwards, king of the land of Assyria."26 He mentions those who violate oaths. 'Who sinned against my oath."27 There is some tendency to mention together the taking of the oath and its violation: 'I had mercy on him. I made him take an oath of the great gods . . . He did not fear the oath of the great gods. He plundered the border of my land.'; 'I made him take the oath of the great gods . . . Afterwards he sinned against my oath.'128 There are several new emphases. It is very common for the annals to report voluntary submission (out of fear) to Assyria. New is the mention of the fact that the new vassal requests to take an oath: 'He kept beseeching my lordship for the establishment of an oath of peace.'129 Most significant is the mention, in the context of discussion of treaty violation, of the good the Assyrians had done to the disobedient vassal: 'They did not respect the oath of the great gods. They forgot the good I had done to them.'; ' . . . who did not respect the good I did for him.'130 Certainly earlier Assyrian kings had depicted themselves as merciful. However that is part of the general portrayal of the character of the king.

124. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, pp. 58-9,11. 26-33; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, p. 210. 125. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, p.50, 11. 26-29; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, p. 206. 126. R. Borger, Beitrage zum Inschriftenwerk Ashurbanipals (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), p. 5, A I 21-22; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, p. 291. 127. Borger, Beitrage zum Inschriftenwerk Ashurbanipals, p. 59, A VII 18; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, p. 312. 128. Borger, Beitrage zum Inschriftenwerk Ashurbanipals, p. 63, A VIII 11. 44-51; 113, B VII 97-99; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, pp. 315, 337. 129. Borger, Beitrage zum Inschriftenwerk Ashurbanipals, p. 116, B VIII 11. 59, 60, Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, p. 337. 130. Borger, Beitrage zum Inschriftenwerk Ashurbanipals, p. 21, A I 1. 119; p. 61, A VII 1. 86; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, pp. 294, 313.

Mesopotamia

43

It is not raised in descriptions of rebellion as proof of the ingratitude of the rebel and is not specifically connected to treaties. While that might seem a small shift it is a significant one, because it is a different conceptualization of the relationship between suzerain and vassal. Also striking is the specific mention that the woes suffered by the rebel are the enforcement of the treaty curses:131 The curse of Assur, the king of the gods, came upon those who sinned against the oath. Those who did not respect my oath . . . dErra, the warrior set famine among them. In their hunger they ate the flesh of their sons; the punishment, all which was written in their oaths.

It is reasonably easy to correlate these changes in the way the royal inscriptions refer to treaty oaths with some other trends within the period. We can suggest a plausible development. The earlier references to oaths are interested in the vassals' oath taking. It is an illustration of Assyrian success in bringing the world under their sway. The Assyrians are not interested in portraying themselves as treaty keepers or even as treaty avengers. Their attacks are not justified in these terms and may not be justified by any moral grounds at all. The change comes with Tiglathpileser III. He does make some attempt to picture the enemy as those who violate oaths. There are of course precedents for this in Mesopotamia. While Sargon continues this, Sennacherib, in line with his tendency to depict himself in less moral and theological terms, represents a reversion to the earlier minimal interest in oaths. In view of the religiosity which marked Esarhaddon, we are not surprised at his renewed emphasis on oaths. He also depicts the enemy, on occasion, as a treaty breaker. What is new is the attempt to portray himself as a treaty keeper. Ashurbanipal culminates this development by making mention of the good he has done to the oath breaker. Thus the rebel is guilty of ingratitude as well. However, the good supposedly done is not detailed. This new discovery of benevolence does not limit the severity of the oath. Indeed the curses receive explicit stress also. What remains of Assyrian treaties from the Sargonid period illustrate and confirm trends already seen in the annals, as well as adding their own peculiarities.132 The treaty of Esarhaddon with Baal

131. Borger, Beitrage zum Inschriftenwerk Ashurbanipals, p. 22, All. 132; p. 67 A IX 11. 54-60; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, pp. 294, 318-19. 132. For enumeration and discussion see A.K. Grayson, 'Akkadian Treaties of the Seventh Century B.C.', JCS 39(1987), pp. 127-160; Parpola, 'Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh', pp. 161-89; Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths.

44

Admonition and Curse

of Tyre133 is fragmentary. We can say that Baal seems mentioned in the introduction, though Esarhaddon naturally takes precedence. What remains of the stipulations concern matters such as the proper receiving of letters sent from Esarhaddon and the ports that are open to Tyrian ships. The god list gives each god or group of gods an appropriate curse to inflict.134 The gods listed are not exclusively Assyrian although, from what remains of the list, Assyrian gods take precedence. In contrast, the treaties which Esarhaddon made with various Median groups to secure the accession of Ashurbanipal can be reconstructed fairly completely:135 The treaty of Esarhaddon, (king of the world), king of Assyria, son of Sennacherib, (king of the world), king of Assyria with (a Median leader), his sons, his grandsons, with all (the people of the particular Median city), the men of his hands, young and old, as many as exist, from sunrise to sunset, all those over whom Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, exercises kingship and lordship; with you, your sons, your grandsons who after the treaty come into existence. Concerning Ashurbanipal, the great son of the king of the crown prince's palace, son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, concerning whom he has established the treaty with you. (God list with heavenly bodies first, followed by state gods of Assyria and 'the gods dwelling in heaven and earth, the gods of Assyria, the gods of Sumer and Akkad, the gods of the lands'.) You [swear by] Assur, father of the gods, lord of the lands. (And so on for the gods listed again with an emphasis on their cities) The treaty which Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, established with you before the great gods of heaven and earth, concerning Ashurbanipal, the great son of the king of the crown prince's palace, son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, your lord, whom he called by name and entrusted for the position of son of the king of the crown prince's palace. When Esarhaddon, king of Assyria goes to his fate, you shall install Ashurbanipal, the great son of the king of the crown prince's palace, on the throne of kingship.136

133. Weidner, 'Der Staatsvertrag Assurniraris VI von Assyrien mit Mati'ilu von BitAgusi' pp. 29-34; Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, pp. 107-9; Luckenbill, Ancient Records, Vol. II, pp. 229-31. 134. E.g. '[May] Gula, the [great] chief female physician, [put sickness and distress in your heart] and a persistent lesion in your body.' (Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 27, IV, 3'.) 135. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon'; see also I.J. Gelb, 'Review of D.J.Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon'. 136. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 28-58.

Mesopotamia

45

Voluminous stipulations relating to the protection of Ashurbanipal's position follow. After a number of apodictic commands the stipulations take the form of a long series of incomplete sentences beginning with 'if. The implied apodosis comes in the curse section: If anyone makes a rebellion (or) revolt against Esarhaddon, the king of Assyria, . . . (and) if ... you do not seize him (and) kill him . . . 137 May Ashur, king of the gods, who decrees [the fates], defcree for y]ou an evil (and) unsavory fate . . . 138

The following curse section names the gods and gives each an individual curse to enforce. Then comes a general curse section: May the gods of heaven and earth, those who inhabit the world, as many as are mentioned by name in this tablet smite you . . . 139

The parties to the treaty speak in their own name: 'May these gods observe if we make rebellion (or) revolt against Esarhaddon the king of Assyria, against Ashurbanipal, the great son of the king of the crown prince's palace ... I4° If you sin against the contents of this treaty which Esarhaddon has established with you concerning Ashurbanipal . . . May Assur, father of the gods bring you down with [his] fierce weapons.141

Some gods are repeated, with each enforcing an individual curse. That leads into a section of simile curses beginning 'Just as'. The most interesting of these indicates that they may have been dramatized: 'Just as this chariot is bathed in blood up to its floor boards, thus may your chariots be bathed with your own blood in the midst of your enemies.'142 In these treaties we have the official text, hence the seals occupy a prominent place. Otherwise the prominent features are the positioning of the god list early in the text, the apparent incorporation of the vassals' oath, the narrow concentration of the stipulation upon loyalty to the designated heirs and the elaborate curses. Some of these distinctive characteristics are explained by Liverani143 as due to the fact that these are not treaties with normal vassals but rather loyalty oaths with Medes who were bodyguards of the Assyrian king. That

137. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 41, 11. 302-6. 138. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 45, 11. 414-15. 139. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 49, 11. 472-4. 140. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 50, 11. 494-8. 141. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 50, 11. 513-18. 142. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 55, 11. 612-15. 143. M. Liveroni, The Medes at Esarhaddon's Court', JCS 47(1995), pp. 57-62.

46

Admonition and Curse

would explain the close relationship of these texts and the loyalty oaths, mentioned below, which were made with Assyrians. Some of the distinctive aspects of these treaties can be correlated with other developments. The appearance of a planet (or star) list at the beginning of the god list fits the religious directions of the period.144 The repetition of the god list is of some independent interest. That is because treaties have an occasional tendency to show repetitions, some explicable and some not as explicable. Here the repetition may be to stress the fact that the oath which seems to be referred to between the god lists has been made by these deities. The stress on loyalty to the designated heir reflects the dynastic problems of the Sargonids. The elaborated curses form a parallel to the explicit mention of the fulfilment of curses in the annals of Ashurbanipal. That does not mean that continuity has been lost with the past. The curses are traditional and probably include dramatized curses. The conclusion of the treaty by a list of gods, each with his particular curse to perform, is traditional Mesopotamian practice. The correspondence of the period145 confirms the interest in oaths. Care is needed in the use of this evidence as we do not have equivalent archives of letters to and from the king in earlier periods. We can say that treaties were a concern of the bureaucracy in this period and that supports the evidence of the historical inscriptions and the extant treaties. We cannot conclude that similar concern was not present amongst earlier officials. We know that loyalty oaths were imposed upon Assyrians, not just upon foreign vassals. The most significant evidence of this is the oath which Zakutu, mother of Esarhaddon, imposed on Shamash-shum-ukin (the brother of Ashurbanipal, who was made ruler of Babylon), other members of the royal family, various officials and all the people of Assyria:146 'The treaty of Zakutu, queen of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, mother of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, with Shamash-shum-ukin... with the people of Assyria whether light (i.e. insignificant) or strong.'147

144. A.L. Oppenheim, 'Divination and Celestial Observation in the Last Assyrian Empire', Centaurus 14(1969), pp. 97-135. 145. For the publication of the letters see R.F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kayunjik Collections of the British Museum (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 18921914) (ABL). An older translation was provided in L. Waterman, Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire (Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan, 1930). This is in process of being replaced by the transliterations and translations of the State Archives of Assyria project. 146. ABL 1239; Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, pp. 62ff. For another translation and a study of the role of Naqia/Zakutu see S.C. Melville, The Role of NaqiajZakutu in Sargonid Politics (SAA Studies, IX; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999), especially 79-90. 147. Parpola & Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 62, 11. 1-9.

Mesopotamia

47

Just as in the Median treaties, reporting plots was a requirement and planets or stars are mentioned but in a broken context. Other letters refer to oaths. In one case the oath was definitely taken by Assyrians (the scribes of Nineveh, Kakzi and Arbela),148 in other cases those taking the oath may have been Assyrians149 or Babylonians'50 Oaths are also mentioned on Babylonians151 and Elamites.152 A weapon as a symbol of the god could be used as the presence of the god for the purpose of swearing oaths.153 Several times correspondents describe their letter as a fulfilment of the oath to report what they see and hear to the king.154 One writer in reference to the tribe of Qedar refers to the infliction of the curse upon them.155 The quite fragmentary treaty between Ashurbanipal and the tribe of Qedar has some interesting features.156 It appears to have, early in the text, a list of the gods of Assyria and Qedar. There follows a reference to the misdeeds of Yauta, 157 a previous ruler of the tribe. This is contrasted with the good Ashurbanipal has done for them: '[...] Yauta not goo[d]. He delivered all [the Arabs] to destruction [at the mouth of] the iron sword and put you to [the mouth] of the iron sword. [Assurba]nipal king of Assyria, your lord put oil on you and set towards you a favourable face.158

What is left of the stipulations seems largely connected with loyalty to Ashurbanipal. There is a concluding god list. The significance of this text lies in the incorporation of historical material, dealing with the misdeed of the enemy and the goodness of the Assyrian overlord. While unique in Mesopotamian treaties it is quite in accord with the new notes found in Ashurbanipal's annals.

148. ABL 386; S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Helsinki: Helsinki U., 1993), #6. 149. ABL 129, 33, 384 (Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, #5, 7). 150. ABL 1105, Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. xxxii. 151. ABL 301, 202, 472, 521. 152. ABL 280, 328. 153. S.W. Holloway, 'TheSKKakki i Assur and the Neo-Assyrian Loyalty Oaths' in T. Abusch et al. (eds), Historiography in the Cuneiform World (RM, 45, Part 1; Bethesda: CDL, 2001), pp. 239-66. 154. ABL 656 (Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, #199), 472, 831. 155. ABL 350. 156. Deller and Parpola, 'Ein Vertrag Ashurbanipals mit dem arabischen Stamm Qedar' Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, pp. 68-9. 157. For the problem of the Arab rulers of this period see P. Gerardi, 'The Arab Campaigns of Ashurbanipal: Scribal Reconstruction of the Past', SAAB 6(1992), pp. 67-103. 158. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. 68, 11. 4'-ll'.

48

Admonition and Curse

There is a text which is commonly called The Sin of Sargon'.159 It seems to be using the death of Sargon II in battle as a way of making some point. Crucial parts of the text are broken but if the conjectured reconstruction is correct, Sargon is depicted as having transgressed an oath of the king of the gods.160 In the text Sargon is called 'my father', presumably making the speaker Sennacherib. We cannot be sure the text is actually from Sennacherib, as opposed to being a later polemic text using his name and his father's most inappropriate death.161 For our purposes here, the depiction of an Assyrian king as a treaty breaker, even in a fictitious text, would fit the end of the Assyrian empire and the picture we obtain of a willingness to take treaties more seriously. The text K. 2401 from Nineveh consists of various messages of Assyrian prophets conveying reassurance from deities to Esarhaddon.162 In one of the messages there is reference to the tablet of an oath which is brought before the king: 'This tablet of the treaty of Assur . . . enters before the king. They sprinkle pleasing oil. They make sacrifices . . . They read it before the king."63 This tablet has been interpreted as a treaty between Esarhaddon and the deity.164 Immediately preceding the mention of the tablet of the oath is an account of the destruction of the enemies of Esarhaddon by Assur. Now it could be that the tablet of the oath is mentioning because the enemy will be destroyed out of the god's faithfulness to a treaty the god concluded with the Assyrian king. It is just as conceivable that the reference is to a treaty or loyalty oath once sworn by the present enemy to Esarhaddon in the name of the god. That would equally explain the god's action to destroy the enemy. While one must always be careful of making too much of poetic

159. A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (Helsinki: Helsinki U.P., 1989), pp. 77-9. 160. ' . . . he did n[ot keep] the treaty of the king of the gods.' (Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, p. 77, 11. 18', 19'). 161. For discussion see E. Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften, pp. 227-9.; T. Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991), pp. 11718. 162. For the cuneiform text see S.A. Strong, 'On Some Oracles to Esarhaddon and Asurbanipal', BzA 2(1893), pp. 627^5 and J.A. Craig, Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1895), pp. 22-5. More recent translations based on collations of the text are given by K. Hecker, 'Zukunfsdeutungen in akkadischen Texten' in O. Kaiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alien Testaments (Band II, Lief. 1; Giitersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1986), p. 61 and S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (Helsinki: Helsinki U., 1997), pp. 22-7. 163. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, pp. 25, II, 27-32. 164. T.J. Lewis, 'The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith', pp. 406-7; N. Lohfink 'Gott im Buch Deuteronomium' in J. Coppens (ed.), La notion biblique de dieu de la Bible el le dieu des philosophes (Gembloux: Leuven University, 1976), pp. 101-26 (115 n. 52).

Mesopotamia

49

language, the description of Esarhaddon's peril and deliverance seems like a reference to his battle for the throne against his brothers. That would fit the interpretation that the reference is to an oath that was broken when his brothers murdered Sennacherib and opposed Esarhaddon. The reading of the tablet before the king would then be seen as a form of comfort: the god had judged the oath breakers. Later in the same text165 there is reference in a broken context to the drinking of water, apparently as part of a treaty ceremony, and the forgetting of an oath concerning Esarhaddon. This passage seems to be mentioning drinking water as an act forming part of a treaty ceremony or at least added to the ceremony as a device to foster later recall of the oath. The whole section begins with Istar of Arbela, after the address to Esarhaddon, summoning the gods. After a break in the text she is addressing a group who have drunk the water. What she says is crucial to the identification of those addressed: 'You say in your (pi.) heart (as follows) 'Istar is (?).?' You will go to your cities (and) districts. You will eat bread. You will forget this oath. (New declaration) You will drink from this water; You will remember me and keep this oath which I have made concerning Esarhaddon.166

To whom is the goddess speaking? Parpola takes it as being the gods what have been summoned in order to conclude a covenant among themselves for the protection of Esarhaddon.167 That then gives him a difficulty in translating what they think about Istar where he translates the problematic word as 'slight', taking it as a reference to her feminine stature rather than her divine power.168 However, even with this interpretation, the reference to the gods going to their cities and districts and forgetting is problematic. I think a simpler solution is to assume that another party is introduced in the break between the end of column II and the beginning of column III of the text,169 namely those who take an oath to Esarhaddon; an oath witnessed by the gods. Those people might be tempted to think that Istar is

165. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, p. 25, III 2-15. 166. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, p. 25, III, 7-15. My division into lines is part of my attempt to make sense of the text. It is not meant to reproduce the lines of the tablet. 167. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, p. xix. 168. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, p. 25n. 169. Note that Hecker ('Zukunfsdeutungen in akkadischen Texten' p. 61) suggests a longer break than Parpola does (Assyrian Prophecies, p. 25). See the photograph in the latter, pi. VI.

50

Admonition and Curse

of no account and forget their oath. The water drinking ritual would then be intended as a prompt, reminding them whenever they partook. Given the obscurity of this text and the frustrating break, certainty and dogmatism are excluded. We have abundant evidence in this period of oaths guaranteed by divine witnesses made to the Assyrian king, but no other examples of treaties between the king and a god or of treaties among the gods for the benefit and protection of the king. Hence a reference to the god's intervention to punish a vassal's transgression of an oath to the Assyrian king or a warning to remember that oath is the more likely interpretation of these passages. Even with this association of K 2401 with the more commonly attested oaths to Esarhaddon, the role of Istar of Arbela as a leading figure is significant new information. We have fragmentary evidence for the continuation of oath taking in Assyria after the time of Ashurbanipal.170 Loyalty oaths were also taken to Nebuchadnezzar II.171 The Bible attests Neo-Babylonian vassal oaths.172 An oath to Cyrus is attested.173 This information is not sufficient for us to determine whether we simply have a continuation of earlier practices or new developments. Further evidence of the interrelationship of treaties and grants is provided by some land grants given by Ashurbanipal and his son Ashuretil-ilani.174 They describe the loyalty of the recipient to the king and the good and favour the king is now showing to the recipient. Once again the overlap with treaties is not provided by any fixed formulae but by the fact that the theme of royal beneficence also appears in the annals and treaties of Ashurbanipal. A king who is attempting to project an image of largesse will do it in different transactions. The fundamental historical question posed by this first-millennium evidence is the prominence given to treaties towards the end of the Assyrian period. Involved in this question is the change in the use of history that accompanies the increased prominence of treaties. If we only had the extant treaties we could argue that their clustering towards the end of the Assyrian kingdom is pure accident of discovery. There may well be 170. E.F. Weidner, 'Ashurbanipal in Assur', AfO 13(1940), pp. 204-18 (215 n. 69); A.T. Clay, Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan (Part IV New Haven: Yale U.P., 1923), p. 47, No. 50; V. Scheil, 'Sin-shar-ishkun fils d'Ashurbanipal', ZA 11(1896), pp. 47-8.; R. Borger, 'Mesopotamien in der Jahren 629-621 v. Chr.', WZKM 55(1959), pp. 62-76 (74); M.L. Barre, 'A Note on the Sin-Shumu-Lishir Treaty', JCS 39(1987), pp. 81-3. 171. E.F. Weidner, 'Hochverrat gegen Nebukadnezar II', AfO 17(1954/5), pp. 1-9. 172. M. Tsevat, 'The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel', JBL 78(1959), 199-204. 173. D.B. Weisberg, Guild Structure and Political Allegiance in Early Achaemenid Mesopotamia (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1967), p. 6, 1. 30. 174. J.N. Postgate, Neo-Assyrian Royal Grants and Decrees (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), pp. 27-46.

Mesopotamia

51

an element of this, but the changes in the land grants and the annals encourage us to treat it as symptomatic of a real change. There are historical precedents in Mesopotamia for viewing the enemy as a treaty breaker. That form of moral justification from history is found in the Lagash texts and in the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic. The image of the king as the one who does good to his vassal does seem an innovation, though a dubious precedent exists in the historical background given in some Middle Babylonian kudurrus. Gelb175 has suggested a distinction between the treaty designated as riksujrikiltu and the loyalty oath designated as adu.116 In treaties, matters such as military support, fugitives and boundaries are the primary interest. In loyalty oaths, the focus is upon securing loyalty to a person. This distinction suits the texts we have. However, if the beginning of the treaty with Baal of Tyre has been correctly restored, it may have also been termed adu. Whatever the correctness of the restoration, there is a difference of tone between it and the Median treaties. It could be that the difference between the Baal text and the Median treaties is that the Baal text is a true 'treaty', written to set forth the terms of the relationship, while the Median treaties are an 'oath' which the vassal actually swore. If the Median treaties are basically loyalty oaths of the body guard, then the lack of Median gods may not be so significant. Presumably they are swearing a version of the oaths required of many others around the king. Yet there are other possible explanations for the difference between the Baal treaty and the Median treaties. The terms and tone of a treaty probably reflect the power balance between suzerain and vassal. The reduction of the Phoenician cities was a perennial military problem for the Assyrians. It follows that a milder treaty, giving acknowledgment to native gods, is not surprising in the case of Baal. Conversely lowly guards may not have been treated with such consideration. Alternatively, the Median treaties may reflect the paranoia of an empire that is already anticipating its own demise. Whatever the reason, the Baal treaty is more in the traditional treaty pattern while the Median treaty and the Qedar treaty are more representative of the changes illustrated by the annals. It is plausible

175. Gelb, 'Review of D.J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon\ p. 162. 176. H. Tadmor suggests that the use of ade for loyalty oath is of Aramaic origin: 'The Aramaization of Assyria: Aspects of Western Impact' in H.J. Nissen and J. Renger (eds), Mesopotamia und seine Nachbarn (2nd ed.; Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1987), p. 455). A. Lemaire and J.-M. Durand also discuss the meaning and derivation of ade. While arguing for an Aramaic origin and suggesting a meaning wider than loyalty oath, they draw attention to the paradox that, although linguistic considerations point to an Aramaic origin, the term is best attested in texts with a decidedly Neo-Assyrian imperial flavour: Les inscriptions arameennes de Sfire et I'Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu (Geneva: Droz, 1984), pp. 91-106.

52

Admonition and Curse

that a threatened empire will intensify its attempts to produce loyalty. The two logical ways to do this are to use history to promote loyalty, and to exaggerate the curse. Within the Mesopotamian tradition the stress on the curse is a natural development. The giving to each god of a particular curse and the use of dramatic illustrations of curses are attested earlier. There are examples of the repetition of curses from older inscriptions. Thus some of the curses in the treaty between Marduk-zakir-shumi and Shamshi-Adad V show verbal overlaps with the curses of the Code of Hammurabi.177 Other examples of the recurrence of the same or similar curses in a number of texts can be cited.178 It was argued earlier that there were two traditions in Mesopotamia. One was a depiction of history as the scene of the display of the king's might, with that might traced back to divine endowment. The other saw history as the place where the righteousness of one party and the evil of the other might be shown. Sometimes the two were combined, but it was possible for at least the stress on royal might to appear independently. Treaties could appear in both historiographies but were more prominent in depictions showing the evil of the enemy. Treaties in tales of royal power tended to be proof of the ability to impose treaties and were a largely Assyrian phenomenon. In terms of royal inscriptions or annals there is a striking gap between the Lagash texts and late Sargonid annals. In that gap, the enemy may be called evil but there is a failure to do what to us would seem obvious: to give an account of the morally evil acts of the enemy. Certainly the enemy is depicted as evil in his resisting the Assyrian right to conquer, but that is not the same as the accusations of faithlessness and betrayal that we find in the Lagash texts and the late Assyrian annals. This difference in the way of depicting the enemy is in turn a partial explanation for the relative lack of mention of treaties in royal inscriptions. We cannot tell whether it was simply a matter of failing to mention what existed, namely treaties with other states, or whether there was in certain periods a disinclination to use treaties. Literary texts: Etana and the Eagle, the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Synchronistic History, show us the other approach was still alive until it finally comes to expression in the annals of the late Assyrian kings. Yet even in the form of Mesopotamian treaties there are reflections of a distinct ethos. What comes between the introduction and the actual 177. R. Borger, 'Marduk-zakir-shumi I und der Kodex Hammurapi', Orientalia 34(1965), pp. 168-9. 178. K.R. Veenhof, 'An Aramaic Curse with a Sumero-Akkadian Prototype', Bi. Or. 20(1963), pp. 142-4; F.C. Fensham, 'Common Trends in the Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudunu-lnscriptions Compared with the Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah', ZAW 75(1963), pp. 155-75; J. Nougayrol, 'Sirrimu (non purimu) "ane sauvage"', JCS 2(1948), pp. 203-8 (205-6).

Mesopotamia

53

stipulations is one of the most significant parts of a treaty. Here we typically find the material which is expected to motivate the vassal to obedience. It is common to find god lists in this position in Mesopotamian treaties. That goes together with the detailed and specific curses that come at the end. Motivation is essentially fear of divine wrath. It is not implausible to suggest a correlation between this appeal to divine power and the depiction of the human king as one who dominates through power. The treaty of Ashurbanipal with Qedar apparently has a god list in this position, but it also adds a history both of misdeeds and Assyrian good deeds. If we compare this with the Median treaties of Esarhaddon we can see there not the incorporation of history, but the exaggeration of a traditional reliance on god list and curse. Thus the Mesopotamians were faced with a choice between exaggerating the traditional or being innovative in their attempts to find the formula which would ensure loyalty. Why does the theme of benevolence appear in late Assyrian annals and treaties? It is hard to find a good Mesopotamian precedent. In the next chapter the common occurrence of that theme in the historical introduction of Hittite treaties will be described. Yet there is no evidence of the survival of Hittite texts to transmit that concept to late Assyria. The biblical use of the idea of divine benevolence as motivation will also be considered later. The possibility of chronological overlap exists between Judah and Assyria, but it is hard to imagine a borrowing from biblical religious use being put to Assyrian political use. The Assyrian appeal to benevolence is most plausibly considered a case of independent invention. Let us suppose a state which has carved out a great empire largely on the basis of power and fear. Now it senses that its power is nearing exhaustion. One obvious path is to turn the conflict with threatening enemies into a moral crusade. That was happening with Sargon II. And if that is insufficient? Surely benevolence may appeal to a worried king as an argument to address to vassals, however strange and ironic that appeal may appear to us.

Summary The Mesopotamian treaty tradition is complex. There was change over time and there was also the complexity introduced by having several different approaches existing at the one time. Are there any constants in this changing complexity? Perhaps it would be more accurate to speak of tendencies rather than constants. One tendency is that history is infrequently connected to treaties. That is true both in the sense that the common royal history makes infrequent mention of treaties and in that the treaties seldom use history as a means of motivating obedience. Yet the

54

Admonition and Curse

historical connection did exist. There was a tendency to connect treaties and the enemy's record of treaty violation that existed prominently both at the beginning and end of the period which has been examined and that was kept alive by literary texts in the intervening period. Over against this was a tradition of appeal to might and fear which tended to push treaties out of royal historiography and to give the curse of the gods a major motivating role in the treaty form itself. While the relative predominance of these emphases changed over time, it is not possible to make one tendency the marker of a particular period. Having said that, we must acknowledge that there is data which does not fit simply into this picture. To what tradition does Hammurabi's 'touching the throat' belong? Another issue is whether there were differences between seeing the treaty as creating a total relationship with many responsibilities, as contrasted with regulating one or a few concerns by treaty. Once again it is not possible to see the distinction between these two possibilities as a matter of evolutionary change. The treaty dealing with restricted concerns occurs beside more comprehensive treaties in the early second millennium. To judge by the extant treaties, it may be eclipsed by more comprehensive treaties later, but returns in the late Assyrian combination of treaty with loyalty oaths to the heir. The best conclusion is that the treaty form was adaptable to what was felt to be the need of the occasion. A recurrent tendency in the curses is to give each deity a separate curse to inflict. The lack of this elsewhere in treaties points to something distinctive in Mesopotamian religion. In subsequent discussion an issue will arise which may be foreshadowed here. Did any of these treaty forms or ideas provide the basis for treaty forms or ideas in other cultures? In other words: was the treaty a Mesopotamian invention borrowed by others? Given the variety of Mesopotamian treaties, we have a number of possible prototypes for developments elsewhere. Borrowing theories are easier to prove when the thing in question goes through a clear and uniform development and exists in only one version at any one time. Mesopotamia does not present that simplicity. Borrowing theories are also easier to prove when the thing borrowed has distinctive features which can be recognized when it appears on foreign soil. Once again Mesopotamian complexity does not make things easy. Unless we were arguing very specifically for borrowing in an anomalous period such as the late Assyrian one, the things which would normally mark Mesopotamian treaties are lack of use of history and a giving of a specific curse to each deity. Yet it must be conceded that exceptions to these general characteristics exist in Mesopotamia itself.

Chapter 2 THE HITTITES

Overview Extant treaties from Hatti1 far outnumber our few Mesopotamian examples. The connection between internal use of treaty forms and concepts and external use is far more obvious and consistent than with Mesopotamia. Nevertheless most people who have commented upon the problem argue for a Mesopotamian origin of the Hittite treaty form. Appeal to history, especially to history as proving an obligation to remain loyal to a relationship, is sporadic in Mesopotamia. The argument for gratitude in particular is late. In contrast a persuasive or pedagogic use of history is pervasive in the Hittite sources. It is there from beginning to end. This does not mean that there was no appeal to divine sanction: on the contrary, we have clearer evidence for real belief in divine sanction than in Mesopotamia. Nevertheless the Hittites tended to see history as having crucial motivating force. The pervasiveness of treaty concepts creates a problem for formal classification. We can define a typical treaty form. However treaties, decrees, grants and instructions so blend into each other in the Hittite corpus that it is difficult to draw clear boundaries. Almost every formal definition of a treaty is contradicted by one or other Hittite text. That is, there are texts which show all the characteristics of a treaty except for the lack of an element that has been defined at some stage by modern scholarship as the essence of a treaty. Certainly we can exclude the troublesome texts from being treaties and thus preserve our definitions, but then we allow our definitions to determine the data and not vice versa. A curious result of this situation is that the full Hittite data threatens to destroy the foundation of the whole study of treaties. If there is no clear treaty form; if treaties grade into texts of other sorts; can we set up an ideal treaty form and make it the object of study? Yet to abolish the whole 1. For a listing and classification see G. Kestemont, Diplomatique et droit international en Asie occidental (1600-1200 av. J.C.) (Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1974), pp. 90-111.

56

Admonition and Curse

concept of a treaty does not do justice to the fact that the Hittites have left us a group of texts which have considerable commonality. Rather than abandon the study because a canon of form criticism seems imperilled, let us refine our understanding to fit the data. This clustering of similar concepts bears on the question raised in the introduction of what maintains the relative homogeneity of treaties. It is clearly not the rigid repetition of a traditional form. Therefore we are forced to look for other explanations. The pervasiveness of treaty concepts makes it difficult to write a history of use of treaties on the pattern of that used for Mesopotamia. There are significant gaps in the attestation of treaties in early Hittite history, and early treaties may not make use of history in the ways found in later ones. Other than that it is hard to trace changes over time. Perhaps the relative brevity of Hittite history is a factor. Controversy over the dating of crucial texts does not make the task easier.

Outline of the History As with Mesopotamian history, the chronology is uncertain.2 Bryce3 suggests the following as approximate dates for the kings treated in this chapter: Old Kingdom Hattusilis I Mursilis I Zidantas I Telepinus

1650-1620 1620-1590 c.1560 1525-1500

Middle Kingdom Tahurwailis Zidantas II Tuthaliyas II Arnuwandas I

15th century 15th century c. 1400-1360 c. 1400-1360

New Kingdom Suppiluliumas I Mursilis II

1344-1322 1321-1295

2. See G. Wilhelm and J. Boese, 'Absolute Chronologic und die hethitische Geschichte des 15. und 14. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.' in P. Astrom (ed.), High, Middle or Low (Vol. I; Gothenburg: Paul Astroms, 1987), pp. 74-117; T. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford: OUP, 1998), pp. 408-15. 3. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, p. xiii.

The Hittites Muwatallis II Urhi-Tesub Hattusilis III Tuthaliyas IV

57

11295-1272

11272-1267

1267-1237 11237-1209

The Hittite kingdom arose against the background of Assyrian commercial activity in central Anatolia.4 The earlier part of the Hittite Old Kingdom was contemporary with the later part of the Old Assyrian/ Old Babylonian Period. For the Hittites, the Old Kingdom was a period of expansion into Syria culminating in Mursilis I's raid on Babylon.5 There is evidence, detailed below, that treaties were in use among the Anatolian city states of the Assyrian colony period. There is no conclusive evidence for treaty use from the early period of Hittite history. Prominent, however, is something very much associated with later Hittite treaties: the appeal to history as giving lessons for conduct in the decrees of Hattusilis I and Telepinus. After Mursilis' raid on Babylon, the Hittites fell into internal conflict and weakness. The history of the period leading up to the reign of Telepinus was marked by coups and assassinations.6 The same is true of the period after Telepinus. Modern periodizations of Hittite history differ about the latter period. The older tendency was to see it as a period of unrelieved weakness and to call it the Middle Kingdom in contrast to the expansionry Old and New Kingdoms. The redating, from the thirteenth century to the early fourteenth century, 7 of texts relating to a king named Tuthaliyas and his successor named Arnuwandas has changed the estimation of the period after Telepinus. Hence a greater reluctance to refer to a 'Middle' Kingdom. For the concerns of this chapter, the term is retained not out of any judgment about relative strengths in the period but to designate a period which frustratingly combines a general paucity of sources and our earliest clear examples of Hittite treaties. Two particular threats to the Hittites form the background to the treaties of this period. The Gasga appear in the Hittite sources, settled in

4. For Assyrian trading activities and its commercial colonies see L.L. Orlin, Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia (The Hague: Mouton, 1970); M.T. Larsen, The Old Assyrian CityState and its Colonies (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1976); P. Garelli, Les Assyriens in Cappadoce (Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1963); K.R. Veenhof, 'Kanesh: An Assyrian Colony in Anatolia' in J. Sasson et al. (eds). Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 859-71. 5. For a survey of the history of this period see T. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, pp. 64-100; H. Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 33-59. 6. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, pp. 105-10.; H. Klengel, Geschichte des Hethitischen Reiches (Leider: Brill, 1999) pp. 67-77. 7. See briefly Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, pp. 414-15.

58

Admonition and Curse

the Black Sea coast region to the north of the capital Hattusas and in a position to threaten repeatedly the Hittite homeland.8 In Syria the kingdom of Mitanni became a major power. Little is known of its internal workings except that speakers of Hurrian played a major role.9 It tended to intrude into areas of Hittite influence in southern Anatolia,10 and consequently the kingdom of Kizzuwadna11 became an object of contention between the Hittites and Mitanni. The return of the Hittites to the role of a major factor in Syria was connected to Suppiluliumas I and his successful campaigns against Mitanni. As a result of this success, Mitanni ceased to exist as a major power and became divided between Hittite and Assyrian vassal states. A further consequence was that Hittite territory now bordered on the Egyptian empire in Syria, with consequent clashes and tension. As a consequence of this rise of Hittites to great power status, the older scholarly periodization began the New Kingdom or Empire with Suppiluliumas I. Both in Anatolia and in Syria the Hittites regularized relationships with their vassals with treaties, and these treaties have formed the model of what modern scholarship has termed the second-millennium vassal treaty. This use of treaties was continued by later kings of the empire: Mursilis II, Muwatallis II, Hattusilis III and Tuthaliyas IV. The Hittites found themselves in a conflict with enemies on several fronts. Besides conflict with other powers in Anatolia, there was trouble with the Assyrians and Egyptians in Syria. A further concern was conflict for the throne between Muwatallis II's son, Urhi-Tesub, and his uncle Hattusilis III, with the latter emerging victorious.12 Internal troubles and the conflict with Assyria were background to a peace treaty between the Hittites and Egypt. The text of this treaty has been used by scholarship as the model of a parity treaty between equals. The Hittite kingdom was destroyed in the period of turmoil around 1200 commonly referred to as the time of the Sea Peoples.13 There is no evidence

8. For a comprehensive survey see E. von Schuler, Die Kashkaer (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1965). 9. G. Wilhelm, The Hurrians (Warminster: Aris & Phillips 1989). 10. G. Wilhelm, 'The Kingdom of Mitanni in Second-Millennium Upper Mesopotamia' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), The Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 1243-54. 11. Approximately equivalent to later Cilicia: see A. Goetze, Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1940). 12. T.P.J. van den Hout, 'Khattushili III, King of the Hittites' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), The Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 1107-20. 13. H.A. Hoffner, 'The Last Days of Khattusha' in W.A. Ward and M.S. Joukowsky (eds), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. (Dubuque, Kendall/Hunt, 1992), pp. 46-52; Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, pp. 361-79.; Klengel, Geschichte des Hethitischen Reiches, pp. 309-19.

The Hittitess

59

that the Hittite approach to treaties survived in Anatolia or among the socalled Neo-Hittite states of north Syria14 which continued certain Hittite traditions.

The Early Evidence The letter of king Anum-Hirbi of Mama to Warshama of Kanish,15 from the period of the Old Assyrian trading colonies, mentions an oath between rulers16 and also kings who are vassals to other rulers.17 Furthermore the author of the letter uses the past goodness of the writer's country as a basis of argument.18 Here we have evidence of treaty relations and the use of history to guide action. While the correspondents cannot be regarded as Hittites, the letter attests to concepts in Anatolia around the time of the rise of the Hittite kingdom. The letter is written in Old Assyrian. Are the treaty and historical concepts also a borrowing from Assyria? That is hard to prove due to the lack of parallels in earlier Mesopotamian history. Balkan compares the colloquial and aberrant phraseology with the good script and spelling and wonders if it was dictated by the native ruler.19 This would tend to confirm the native origins of the ideas expressed. Possibly relevant to this question is the practice of oath taking between Anatolian rulers and representatives of the Assyrian trading colonies. What complicates the picture is uncertainty as to whether these oaths bound primarily the Anatolian rulers or the Assyrian traders. Our basic evidence comes from letters. In some it seems that the Anatolian rulers are taking the oath and being put under obligation. However in at least one

14. J.D. Hawkins, 'Karkamish and Karatepe: Neo-Hittite city-States in North Syria' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), The Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 1295-307. 15. K. Balkan, Letter of King Anum-Hirbi of Mama to King Warshama of Kanish (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1957). For discussion of the chronological relationship of the kings of Kanish to the early Hittite kings see M. Forlanini, The Kings of Kanis' in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittologia (Pavia: Gianni luculano Editore, 1995), pp. 123-32. 16. 'Thus you (said): "let us take an oath. The earlier oath is small.'" (Or "Is the earlier oath (too) small?") (Balkan, Letter of King Anum-Hirbi of Mama, p. 7, 11. 50, 51.) 17. For further evidence of oaths between Anatolian rulers (and involving a high official) see E. Bilgi9, 'Anatolisch-assyrische politische Beziehungen und Eidsprozedur bei einhemischer Verwaltung im Lichte der neuer Kultepe Texte' in XXXIV. Uluslararasi Assyrioloji Kongresi (RAI, 34; Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1998), pp. 473-8 (477-8). 18. 'When your father, Inar, beseiged for 9 years the ciy of Harsamna, did my land fall upon your land?' (Balkan, Letter of King Anum-Hirbi of Mama, p. 7, 11. 29-32.) 19. Balkan, Letter of King Anum-Hirbi of Mama, pp. 18-19.

60

Admonition and Curse

case the relation appears reversed.20 What can be inferred from the letters and a text which may be a treaty21 is that the obligations on both sides focus on the commercial relationship. In return for residence rights and protection, the Assyrians are bound not to smuggle goods and to pay the relevant taxes. The oath was taken before the sword of Ashur. That such treaties would exist is suggested by the treaty between Till-Abnu king of Apum and the city and citizens of Ashur considered earlier. In these cases the stipulations obviously pertain to the peculiar nature of the relationship between these local city states and the Assyrian merchants. However the very fact that the Anatolian states regulated their commercial relations with foreign traders by means of sworn treaties may derive from the Anatolian approach to dealing with foreigners. Thus, while this special case does not prove that Anatolian rulers in the early period regularly made use of sworn treaties, it is certainly consistent with that proposition. There may be a mention of a treaty in the tale about the city of Zalpa.22 The setting of this story seems to be the beginning of the Hittite Old Kingdom.23 Although the text which contains the relevant references has been dated to the fourteenth/thirteenth century there is another fragment of the same story dated on the grounds of script to the sixteenth/fifteenth century.24 While the historicity of the details in the story might be a matter of debate, it would probably count as a witness to practices, if not in the time the story is set, at least at the time of composition. However two factors militate against basing arguments for the early use of treaties among the Hittites on this text. There is the formal problem that the section containing the crucial reference is broken in the older text. The other weakness is that the text refers to making 'peace'. Certainly in the later period that would entail a treaty. Yet only by a circular argument could it be used to prove the early existence of treaties. Thus this reference is suggestive but not conclusive. We do possess an early Hittite text which makes much use of the appeal to history. It is the bilingual decree of Hattusilis I appointing Mursilis as

20. For translation and discussion of relevant texts see Orlin, Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia, pp. 114-29.; K. Balkan, Observations on the Chronological Problems of the Karum Kanish (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1955), pp. 73-7; Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies, pp. 243^46; Garelli, Les Assyriens in Cappadoce, pp. 329-36. 21. Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies, pp. 244-5; K.R. Veenhof, Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology (Leiden: Brill, 1972), p. 305n. 22. H. Otten, Eine althethitische Erzahlung um die Stadt Zalpa (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1973), p. 9, 11. 8', 19'. 23. For a conjectured historical connection to the first Hittite dynasty see W. Helck, 'Zur altesten Geschichte des Hatti-Reiches' in Beitrdge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift fur Kurt Bittel (Vol. I; Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1983), pp. 271-81. 24. Otten, Eine althethitische Erzahlung um die Stadt Zalpa, pp. 1, 36.

The Hittites

61

his successor.25 The misdeeds of other members of the royal family are held up as warnings. Thus while there is no mention of treaties, the approach to history that is frequent in Hittite treaties occurs in this early text. Hattusilis' benevolence is contrasted to the ingratitude of others. There are other texts from approximately the same period which are concerned with the misdeeds of certain officials or cities.26 One consists of a series of warning anecdotes.27 In contrast to such texts are those which tell of the exploits and victories of the ruler. Thus the Annals of Hattusilis T28 or the Anittas text29 would fit quite well into the tradition of Mesopotamian royal inscriptions. They do not make reference to treaties or deal with the misdeeds of enemies. The simplest thesis about early Hittite literature is that the use of history, in which the misdeeds of others is used to admonish, is a native Anatolian tradition. The Edict of Telepinus^ uses the past history of treachery and bloodshed to justify its decisions. It is clearly part of the same approach to history. The royal inscription, with its account of victories won by demonstrated power and superiority, is not so clearly a native tradition but may be borrowed.

25. F. Sommer and A. Falkenstein, 'Die hethitisch-akkadische Bilingue des Hattushili I (Labarna II)', Abhand.d.Bayer.Akad d Wiss. Phil-hist Abt. N.F. 16, 1938; see for translation T.R. Bryce, The Major Historical Texts of Early Hittite History (St. Lucia, Qld: U. of Queensland, n.d.), pp. 99-107; W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger, Jr (eds), The Context of Scripture Vol. II, pp. 79-81. 26. H.G. Giiterbock, 'Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern. Zweiter Teil: Hethiter', ZA 44(1938), pp. 45-149 (100-1). 27. E. Forrer, Geschichtliche Texte aus Boghazkoi (repr., Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung.der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 42, 1; Osnabriick: Otto Zeller, 1969) No. 12 (= KBo III 34 36). 28. H. Otten, 'Keilschrifttexte', MDOG 91(1958), pp. 73-84; Bryce, The Major Historical Texts, pp. 49-55. 29. E. Neu, Der Anitta-Text (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974); Bryce, The Major Historical Texts, pp. 21-7; H. Otten, 'Zu den Anfangen der hethitischen Geschichte', MDOG 83(1951), pp. 33-45 (40-2); Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, Vol. I, pp. 182-4. 30. I. Hoffmann, Der Erlas Telepinus (Heidelberg: Carl Winter 1984), especially the admonition addressed to a potential assassin: 'Say to him decisively: "See from the tablet this matter of blood(shed). Formerly blood(shed) became common in Hattusas and the gods put (the punishment) on the royal family."' (p. 34, II, 11. 47-49); Bryce, The Major Historical Texts, pp. 132-9.; Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, Vol. I, pp. 194-8.

62

Admonition and Curse

The Early Hittite Treaties A treaty between Telepinus and Isputahsu king of Kizzuwadna is mentioned in a Hittite catalogue.31 A treaty between a Hittite king Zidantas and Kizzuwadna exists.32 It is uncertain whether this Zidantas was a predecessor or successor of Telepinus.33 The treaty names the parties with the Hittite king coming first. Then without any discussion of previous history the text moves on to the provisions, which seem to largely concern the establishment of a zone in which cities were not to be built. There were other early treaties with Kizzuwadna. One was between the Hittite king Tahurwaili and Eheya of Kizzuwadna.34 In another the name of the Hittite king has been lost and all that remains is the name of the king of Kizzuwadna, Paddatissu.35 There are a number of fragments of a treaty or treaties with a king of Kizzuwadna named Sunassura.36 Various suggestions were made regarding the Hittite partner,37 which led to discussion of whether other fragments related to an earlier king of that name or were an earlier version of the treaty which Suppiluliumas concluded.38 Following Wilhelm's

31. H.G. Guterbock, 'Die Texte aus der Grabungen 1934 in Bogazkoy' MDOG 73(1935), pp. 29-39 (32). For suggested fragments of this treaty see H. Otten, 'Das Siegel des hethitischen Grosskonigs Tahurwaili', MDOG 103(1971), pp. 59-68 (65-7); D. Yoshida and A. Kammenhuber, 'Hurriter und Hethiter. Mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Beziehung zwischen Haiti und Kizzuwatna', Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 8(1995), pp. 201-12 (204). 32. H. Otten, 'Bin althethitischer Vertrag mit Kizzuvatna', JCS 5(1951), pp. 129-32. 33. Otten, 'Ein althethitischer Vertrag mit Kizzuvatna', p. 131. G.R. Meyer, 'Zwei neue Kizzuwatna-Vertrage', MIO 1(1953), pp. 108-24 (108) takes it as being Zidantas I. See also the discussion in G.F. Del Monte, 'Note sui trattati fra Hattusha e Kizuwatna', OA 20(1981), pp. 203-21. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, pp. 107-8, and Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, p. 94, ascribe it to Zidantas II. 34. Otten, 'Das Siegel des hethitischen Grosskonigs Tahurwaili', pp. 59-68. For discussion of the placement of Tahurwaili in Hittite history see also S.R. Bin-Nun, 'Who Was Tahurwaili, the Great Hittite King?', JCS 26(1974), pp. 112-20; O. Carruba 'Tahurwaili von Hatti und die hethitische Geschichte um 1500 v. Chr.G.' in Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Guterbock (Istanbul: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1974), pp. 73-93. 35. Meyer, 'Zwei neue Kizzuwatna-Vertrage', pp. 113-19. For discussion on the possible Hittite partner see Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, p. 98; Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, pp. 121-2. For translation see G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 11-13. 36. Meyer, 'Zwei neue Kizzuwatna-Vertrage', pp. 121-4; A. Goetze, 'Das hethitische Fragment des Sunassura-Vertrags', ZA 36(1925), pp. 11-19. 37. E.F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien (Hildesheim: Olms, repr., 1970), pp. 88-9. 38. R.H. Beal, 'The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Sunassura Treaty', Orientalia 55(1986), pp. 424-45, argued that one version came from the Middle Hittite king Tuthaliyas I. For an alternative explanation see G.F. Del Monte, 'Note sui trattati fra Hattusha e Kizuwatna', pp. 214-21.

The Hittites

63

detection of the name Tuthaliyas in the version formerly ascribed to Suppiluliumas,39 a consensus has developed that all versions and fragments relate to the Middle Kingdom king Tuthaliyas.40 The Sunassura treaty is hard to catalogue in terms of a sharp division between parity and vassal treaties. If the presence of a historical introduction is a mark of a vassal treaty, then note that this treaty displays one:41 Formerly, in the time of my grandfather, Kizzuwadna came to belong to Hatti. Afterwards Kizzuwadna broke loose from Hatti (and) turned to the Hurri land. When [then] the land of Isu[wa, servants] of My Majesty bec[ame ho]stile, I, My Majesty went to battle with them. I overpowered the land of [Is]uwa. They fled before My Majesty (and) went down to the Hurri land. I, My Majesty sent to the man (king) of Hurri: 'Return my servants'. The man of Hurri sent back to My Majesty: 'N[o] These cities came formerly in the time of my grandfather to the Hurri land and lived there. Indeed, afterwards, they went as fugatives to the Hatti land. Indeed, now, the cattle have recognized their stall and have come to my land.' The man of Hurri did not return my servants to My Majesty. The [man] of Hurri transgressed the oath of the gods. I, My Majesty thus sent to the man of Hurri: 'If any land belonging to you broke loose and turned to the Hatti land, how would that be?' The man of Hurri sent thus to My Majesty: 'It would really be just the same.' Now the land of Kizzuwadna are Hittite cattle and they have recognized their stall. They broke loose from the man of Hurri and turned to My Majesty. The man of Hurri sinned against the land of Hatti and against the land of Kizzuwadna he sinned greatly.42

The central purpose of this introduction is to solve a theological problem. Kizzuwadna had been bound to Mitanni (the Hurri land) earlier. How could it break that bond and become linked to the Hittites? The solution is that there had been an equivalent movement the other way which had been justified by the Hurrians. The Zidantas, Tahurwaili and Paddatissu treaties are agreed in that the clauses are reciprocal. What is imposed upon the Hittites is imposed upon Kizzuwadna. The Sunassura treaty shows interesting deviations from the strictly reciprocal earlier treaties. The majority of the stipulations are reciprocal43 but some, while appearing

39. G. Wilhelm, 'Zur ersten Zeile des Sunassura-Vertrages' in E. Neu and C. Riister (eds), Documentum Asiae Minoris Antiquae, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988), pp. 359-70. 40. See Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, p. 106 (who numbers this king Tuthaliyas I) and for translation Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 13-22. 41. Weidner, Politische Dokumente, p. 90. 42. Weidner, Politische Dokumente, pp. 90-2, 11. 5-33. 43. Eg 'I[f any]one, whether man or city, makes a rebellion and starts hostilities against My Majesty, Sunassura, when he hears will send (information?, troops?) to My Majesty. If

64

Admonition and Curse

reciprocal, give greater freedom of action to the Hittite side and move Kizzuwadna closer to the status of a vassal.44 The historical introduction is presented in such a way that Kizzuwadna, rather than being a truly equal partner, is made secondary to the conflict between the Hittites and Hurrians.45 However concessions are made to Sunassura. For example, he does not have to send tribute.46 One can call the Sunassura treaty an intermediate between vassal and parity treaties or call it a special form of the vassal treaty.47 It is hard to argue it is a parity treaty because of the lack of strictly reciprocal clauses.48 A number of treaties with the Gasga may come from the so-called Middle Hittite period between Telepinus and Suppiluliumas I.49 They have a number of peculiarities, not the least of which is the occurrence of lists of the men who entered into the treaties. One such text50 has what seems to be a mixture of clauses. The beginning is broken. Early in the extant text there is what appears to be a reference to military assistance and maybe a reference to a hostage. Then follow the god list and the curses. There is a reference to both Hittite and Gasga gods. Next comes a list of the names of the people taking the oath. Then come stipulations, followed by more names. A text which is similar to some Gasga treaties made with a group of men - in having no historical introduction and a god list relatively early in the

anyone, whether [man or city], makes a rebellion and starts hostilities against Sunassura, My Majesty, when he hears will send (information?, troops?) to Sunassura.' (Weidner, Politische Dokumente, p. 96, 11. 16-21.) 44. Note the mixture of apparent exaltation and yet effective demotion in the rule requiring Sunassura to appear before the Hittite king: 'The people of Hurri called Sunassura a servant. Now My Majesty has made him a true king. Sunassura will come before my majesty. He will see the face of My Majesty.' (Weidner, Politische Dokumente, p. 92, 11. 38-41.) Even then other measures are put in place to soften the blow for Sunassura. 45. M. Liverani, 'Storiographia politica hittita - I. Sunassura, ovvero: della reciprocita', OA 12(1973), pp. 267-97. 46. Liverani, 'Storiographia politica hittita', p. 294, 1. 48. 47. For suggestions on classification see A. Goetze, Kleinasien zur Hethitischerzeit: eine geographische Untersuchung (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1957), pp. 98-9. 48. Contra F. Schachermeyr, 'Zur staatsrechtlichen Wertung der hethitischen Vertrage', MAOG 4(1928), pp. 180-6 (180). 49. For the dating of these treaties see E. Neu, 'Uberlieferung und Datierung der Kashkaer-Vertrage' in Beitrage zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens Kleinasiens (Vol. I, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1983), pp. 391-9. 50. KBo VIII 35+; see E. von Schuler, 'Sonderformen hethitischer Staatsvertrage', Jahrbuch fur Kleinasiastische Forschung 2(1965), pp. 445-64 (446-7); E. von Schuler, Die Kashkaer; pp. 109-17. Von Schuler thinks the text dates from the Empire period. P.H.J. Houwink ten Gate, The Records of the Early Hittite Empire, c.1450-1380 B.C. (Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 1970), p. 81 says it is Middle Hittite.

The Hittites

65

text is the treaty of an Arnuwandas with some men of Ismeriga.51 The text begins with the identification of the Hittite king but, even though the text is fragmentary and thus certainty is excluded, there seems no initial mention of the other party:52 'Thus Arnu[wanda . . . ]under the oath of the gods[... to the king, queen, sons of the king] and land of Ha[tti . . . ]. See the thous[and gods . . . Jwitness.' The god list, including both Hittite and north Syrian gods, follows without any historical introduction. The stipulations begin with a general demand for loyalty.53 Later stipulations are more detailed, pertaining to security and military support of the Hittites. The conclusion to the stipulations stresses the oath as binding upon all and for the future: 'See, all you men of Ismerika are bound by oath t[o My Majesty]. In the future protect the king, queen, sons of the [king] and land of Hatti. Later will you[r sons wfjth the sons of the king be bound by oath.'54 A list of persons swearing the oath precedes a curse formula. One of the problems in the analysis of Hittite treaties is the possibility that we have drafts rather than the final form of the treaty. Von Schuler has suggested that the treaty KBoxxiii77a+ may be a draft. 55 The text lacks a title or an introduction. Once again the god list comes early. Within this list the information that the gods have been summoned is repeated. This repetition could be due to the unpolished nature of a draft or it could be for emphasis. After this come the stipulations, concerned largely with the normal matters of fugitives and military cooperation. With the exception of the Sunassura treaty, the treaties so far described lack any element of history. History is not seen as providing motivation for obedience and faithfulness. Otten has suggested that the lack of history in the treaty between Zidanta and Pilliya is due to the fact that it is a very early treaty. 56 If that is the case, then we must see history as a later addition to the Hittite treaty, since historical introductions play a prominent part in the treaties of the Empire period. There are alternative explanations for the lack of history. The earlier treaties with Kizzuwadna are clearly parity treaties in which neither party

51. A. Kcmpinski and S. Koshak, 'Der Ishmeriga-Vertrag', WO 5(1970), pp. 191-217; E. von Schuler, 'Sonderformen hcthitischer Staatsvertrage' pp. 448-9. The dating of this text has been debated. Goetze (Ki:zuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography, pp. 76-7.) regarded it as a Middle Hittite text, on historical grounds. So also Houwink ten Gate, Records of the Early Hittite Empire, p. 80, on largely philological grounds. 52. Kempinski and Koshak, 'Der Ishmeriga-Vertrag', p. 192, 11. 1-4. 53. To the king, queen, [sons of the king] be loyal[... ] Evil let no one [...].' (Kempinski and Koshak, 'Der Ishmeriga-Vertrag', p. 192, 11. 12-14). 54. Kempinski and Koshak, 'Der Ishmeriga-Vertrag', p. 196, 11. 7-8. 55. Von Schuler, Die Kashkaer, pp. 117-30. 56. H. Otten, 'Ein althethitischer Vertrag mit Kizzuvatna', p. 132.

66

Admonition and Curse

plays the role of overlord. Was it felt that two nations of equal standing were not in a position to preach lessons from history to each other? Alternatively or additionally, we may note the lack of history in treaties with the Gasga. Was it harder to create a history of relationships with a people without monarchic organization and dynastic succession? One of the earliest extant treaties to appeal to history has been dated to the late fifteenth or early fourteenth century.57 The text is unusual in several respects. The first surviving section is a description of Hittite victories:58 Formerly [Ura and also] Mut[amutasi] were mine[... ]. Huhazalma became hostile ... I defeated Huhazalma through a judgment. He gave [it] back [to me]. The troops of Ura and the troops of Mutamutasi go on campaign with me.

Later in the text there is a requirement for support in military action, which is followed by details of the oath:59 If you do not fight, you yourself break the oath of the gods. Hattusas (the Hittite capital) will be free from the oath. Thereto we killed a sheep. We have as follows laid under oath. As long as we have not yet received a judgment from an oracle, His Majesty will not attack your land and you shall not attack His Majesty's land.

There are other fragmentary sections dealing with matters such as fugitives. The text clearly indicates that both parties have been placed under the oath. It is unusual for the normal vassal treaty to do this. Hence one wonders if it is a parity treaty. Yet the text is not cast in the typical form for parity treaties, which have mirror clauses requiring equal responsibilities for each party. Perhaps it belongs to the category of treaties with states which do not fall clearly into the category of either vassal or another great power. If it is a parity treaty it has implications for the argument that one would not use history to persuade an equal. The question of the use of history in treaties during the Middle Hittite Period is complicated by two texts whose dating is disputed. Neither are treaties in the normal sense. They are rather indictments of treaty breakers. Goetze60 regarded the Madduwattas text61 as coming from towards the end of the Hittite empire, that is in the thirteenth century. More recently

57. H. Otten, 'Bin hethitischer Vertrag aus dem 15/14 Jahrhundert v. Chr.', Istanbuler Mitteilungen 17(1967), pp. 55-62. This dating is disputed by A. Kammenhuber, 'Die erste Computer-Analyse des Hethitischen', MSS 28(1970), pp. 51-69 (57). For tentative assignment to the time of Arnuwandas I see Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, p. 118. 58. Otten, 'Ein hethitischer Vertrag aus dem 15/14 Jahrhundert v. Chr', p. 56, 11. l'-6'. 59. Otten, 'Ein hethitischer Vertrag aus dem 15/14 Jahrhundert v. Chr.', p. 56, 11. 13'-18'. 60. A. Goetze, Madduwattash (MVAG 32/1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1927), p. 158. 61. See for translation Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 144-51.

The Hittites

67

others have dated the text to the generation before Suppiluliumas I (i.e. c.1400 B.C.)-62 This redating has not been universally accepted.63 If the Madduwattas text comes from before Suppiluliumas I, it puts the combination of treaty and history back at least that far, because the text's design is to use the record of events to prove the unfaithfulness and ingratitude of Madduwattas. It begins with a historical account stressing the dependence of Madduwattas on the Hittites for his life and his position: Attarissiyas, the man of A[hhiy]a, drove [yo]u, Madduwattas, from your country. [ . . . ] He followed you, [dr]ove you and sought for you an evil death ... The father of My Majesty saved you from death.64

A little later the text recounts Madduwattas being made a sworn vassal: Further the father of My Majesty came and made for you his oath; he made [you swear]. These things were laid under the oath for you. See, I, the father of My Majesty, saved [you], Madduwattas, [from the sword of] Attarisiyas. You belong to the father of My Majesty and to Hatti. I gave to you the land of Mount Zippasla [to live].65

The text goes on to recount the stipulations of Madduwattas' vassal relationship and his violation of his oath. As we have only the first tablet, we do not know what consequence was threatened or expected. Here is the argument from history used to enforce loyalty. If an indictment for lack of loyalty appealed to history, then there is every reason to expect that the Hittites would appeal to their history of benevolence to encourage loyalty in vassals. Hence we would expect to find appeal to history in vassal treaties of the same time. A similar text is the Mita text.66 Similarities with the Madduwattas text lead to the two being treated together for dating purposes. It also shares being an indictment of a rebellious vassal with the Madduwattas text. However it is clear that the history of the rebel is a prelude to an oath taking.67 A group of people from the rebel's land and neighbouring lands 62. H. Otten, Sprachliche Stellung und Datierung des Madduwatta-Textes (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1969); P.H.J. Houwink ten Gate, Records of the Early Hittite Empire, p. 81. 63. A. Kammenhuber, 'Die erste Computer-Analyse des Hethitischen.' For a review of the controversy see D.F. Easton, 'Hittite History and the Trojan War' in L. Foxhall and J.K. Davies (eds), The Trojan War: Its Historicity and Context: Papers of the First Greenbank Colloquium, Liverpool 1981 (Bristol: Bristol Classical, 1984), pp. 23-44 (30-4). 64. Goetze, Madduwattas, p. 2, 11. 1-4. 65. Goetze, Madduwattas, p. 4, 13-15. 66. O.R. Gurney, 'Mita of Pahhuwa', AAA 28(1948), pp. 32^17; H.A. Hoffner, 'A Join to the Hittite Mita Text', JCS 28(1976), pp. 60-2. 67. Since we do not have the continuation of the Madduwattas text, it could also have been an introduction to an oath.

68

Admonition and Curse

are assembled to swear to oppose Mita and other enemies. The text is the same as the Gasga treaties in having lists of names interspersed with stipulations. Here is history used as prelude to a treaty. There may have been another parity treaty from before the time of Suppiluliumas I which contained reference to historical events. Siirenhagen has drawn attention to later mentions of an early treaty between the Hittites and Egypt. These references seem to be citing the text of the old treaty itself. In the context of these references we are told that the treaty came about in connection with the historical circumstances that people from the town of Kurustama moved into Egyptian territory. The most likely supposition is that this background historical information was in the text of the old treaty.68 Thus we have evidence that by the late fifteenth or early fourteenth century the connection of treaties to an appeal to history had taken place. This evidence is obviously stronger if one accepts the early dating of disputed texts such as the Madduwattas text.

The Treaties of the Empire Period The classic studies of the Hittite treaty form have been based on the treaties of the Empire Period. My purpose is not to deny the standard form which appears in many of these treaties. It is rather to consider the many deviations from the standard and to see if these deviations help reconstruct the history of the Hittite treaty. For the early examples of Hittite treaties also deviate from the standard Empire form. As analysed by Korosec,69 the suzerain-vassal treaty consists of preamble, previous history, treaty clauses, instructions concerning deposition and reading (absent in many treaties), invocation of gods and god list, curses and blessings. One of the most interesting deviant treaties is that of Suppiluliumas I with Huqqanas and the people of Hayasa.70 The text does have an equivalent to the normal historical introduction. It is very brief and deals only with Suppiluliumas' patronage of Huqqanas and his making him a son-in-law:71 68. D. Siirenhogen, Paritatische Staatsvertrage aus hethitischer Sicht (Pavia: Gianni luculano, 1985), pp. 22-39. 69. V. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage, pp. 12-4. 70. J. Friedrich, Staatsvertrage des Hatti-Reiches, Vol. II, pp. 103-63.; E. von Schuler, 'Sonderformen hethitischer Staatsvertrage', pp. 449-50. For translation see Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 22-30. 71. Friedrich, Staatsvertrage des Haiti-Reiches, Vol. II, p. 106, II. 2-7.

The Hittites

69

[T]hus (speaks) My Majesty, Suppiluliumas, King of the land of Hatti: 'See, I promoted thee, an insignificant dog. I made thee successful. I made thee predominant in Hattusas among the men of the city of Hayasa and I gave thee my sister in marriage

There follows the demand that Huqqanas be loyal to Suppiluliumas and his son alone, to the exclusion of any other member of the Hittite royal family:72 'Now thou, Huqqanas, recognize My Majesty as lord. And my son, concerning whom I, My Majesty, say: "All recognize him" and I make him predominant over others; thou, Huqqanas, recognize that one.' This general demand for loyalty exists in a number of treaties. Baltzer73 made it a separate part of the form, coming between the historical introduction and the more detailed stipulations. However in this particular treaty it is followed by the god list. Only after the god list do we meet the detailed clauses. In the course of the clauses, there are repeated references to the fact that transgression will lead to the infliction of the curses.74 The simplest explanation for this deviation in form is that the curse of the gods was seen as having particular motivating force in this case. Hence the list of the gods was moved to a more prominent position. Yet appeal to history was not abandoned. It occurs in the reminder of Suppiluliumas' personal care for Huqqanas, which forms the prelude to the general demand for loyalty. It occurs later in the stipulations, where the case of a particular individual is used as a warning.75 There is another interesting feature to this text. While the first three columns of the four-column text is an address to Huqqanas, the last column has a different focus. It is addressed to the men of Hayasa, or to the men of Hayasa and an individual named Mariya. Carruba,76 drawing attention to indications that the text of this fourth column is an earlier composition than the rest of the text, suggests that it comes from a treaty several generations before Suppiluliumas I. Due to a break in the text we cannot tell how the transition was made from the treaty with Huqqanas to this other document. The same break prevents us knowing how it began. The extant portion consists of stipulations with accompanying threats of divine punishment for transgression. The colophon tells us that the text is complete. Thus, if the fourth column is a separate treaty, it was one

72. Friedrich, Staatsvertrage des Hatti-Reiches, Vol. II, pp. 106-10, Vol. 11. 8-33. 73. K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), p. 10. 74. Friedrich, Staatsvertrage des Hatti-Reiches, Vol. II, p. 114, 1. 4; p. 118, 11. 49-51; p. 132, 11. 32-33. 75. Friedrich, Staatsvertrage des Hatti-Reiches, Vol. II, p. 128, 11. 53-57. 76. O. Carruba, 'Die Hajasa-Vertrage Hattis', in E. Neu and C. Riister (eds), Documentum Asiae Minoris Antiquae (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988), pp. 59-75. For discussion of the relationship of the Mariya of the fourth column to two other individuals of the same name earlier in the text see Carruba, 'Die Hajasa-Vertrage Hattis', pp. 67-8.

70

Admonition and Curse

without final god list and recitation of curses. Of course it could also be an excerpt added to the Huqqanas text for some reason. The fourth column of the Huqqanas treaty resembles some of the Gasga treaties and the treaty with the men of Ismeriga. We would like an unambiguously late example of an oath sworn with a number of people. That would give some clue as to whether we see treaties with the god list placed early as being an early form (with the treaty between Suppiluliumas and Huqqanas the final example) or as being a form used with people without monarchic organization, no matter what the date.77 Hattusilis III made a treaty with the city of Tiliura in the Gasga region.78 This text has a historical introduction but no god list. That may be because, as the colophon tells us, it is only the first tablet. Or it may be because the city actually consisted of Hittites settled in Gasga territory, as could be inferred from the history. In any case, there is no list of people who swear the oath. These uncertainties make this text unsuitable as a late example of a treaty sworn with a group of people. Another text with interesting variations is one of the versions of the treaty between Suppiluliumas and Shattiwaza of Mitanni. He was the ruler of the Hittite vassal which emerged out of the collapse of Mitanni as a great power.79 One version is quite standard in form except for its lack of the normal introductory clause which identifies the suzerain.80 The other version81 begins normally, but Shattiwaza is the speaker and the historical introduction which follows is told from his point of view, stressing the misdeed of his rival Shuttarna who had sought Assyrian support: [Thus speaks] Shattiwaza, son of Tushratta, ki[ng of the land of] Mitanni: 'Before [Sh]uttarna, son of Artatama [king of the Hurri land] changed [ . . . ] of the land of Mitanni, Artatama, the king, his father, acted wrongly. The pa[lace ....of the kjings, together with its property he consumed to give to the land of Ashur and the land of Alse.'82

77. The text of the Huqqanas treaty does not call Huqqanas a king and implies that his position in the land is one of prominence rather than complete control. 78. Von Schuler, Die Kashkaer, pp. 145-8. For the relation of this treaty to earlier treaties with the Gasga see E. Neu, 'Uberlieferung und Datierung der Kashkaer-Vertrage', p. 399. 79. See for background and discussion G. Beckman, 'Some Observations on the Suppiluliuma - Sattiwaza Treaties' in M.E. Cohen, D.C. Snell and D.B. Weisberg (eds), The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hall (Bethesda: CDL, 1993), pp. 53-7. 80. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, p. 2. For translation see Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 38^4. 81. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, pp. 36-57. For translation see Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 44-50 82. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, p. 36, 11. 1-3.

The Hittites

71

Part of the tablet is broken83 and so the original text may have contained some form of stipulations, but it would seem that the text lacks any sort of detailed stipulations and perhaps any stipulations at all. There is quite a detailed god list.84 After the god list comes a section in which Shattiwaza and the people of Mitanni are addressed in the second person.85 This section corresponds to the normal curse formulae, for example: If t[hou, Shatti]waza and the people of the [Hurri] land do n[ot keep thejse words of this treaty, then may these gods of the oa[th destroy thee Shattiwaza and the people of [Hurri] along with y[our] land, your wives and [your sons] and everything of yours.86

The curses are extensive and often elaborated by means of similes. In accord with the double address to Shattiwaza and to his people, singular and plural forms interchange. After this comes another but abbreviated god list.87 The text switches back to the first person, singular and plural, as Shattiwaza and his people pronounce self-maledictory curses, using similes once more: If I Shattiwaza son of the king, and the people of Hurri do not keep the words of this treaty and of the oath; I Shattiwaza, along with other wives and we, people of Hurri, along with our wives, sons and land - as a pine tree when it is cut down has no shoots, like this pine tree, shall I, Shattiwaza, together with the other wives I take, and we, the people of Hurri, along with our lands, wives, and sons, like the pine tree, have no offspring.88

Other simile curses follow. The text concludes with blessings, spoken once more in the first person.89 These deviations from the normal form are quite explicable if we conclude that we have here the text of the oath which Shattiwaza swore. The other, more normal, text would then be the treaty which contains the requirements to which the vassal swears. There is thus no need to repeat the stipulations. The changes of person from first to second and from singular to plural also make sense. The greater development of the curses and the repetition of the god list to reinforce the curses all fit this explanation.90 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. in the

Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, p. 48. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, pp. 48-50, 11. 7-24. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, pp. 50-2, 11. 25-39. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, p, 50, 11. 25-27. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, pp. 52-4, 11. 40-43. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, p. 54, 11. 44-47. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, pp. 54-6, 11. 48-62. C. Zaccagnini gives an alternate explanation: 'The Forms of Alliance and Subjugation Near East of the Late Bronze Age' in L. Canfora, M. Liverani & C. Zaccagnini (eds), /

72

Admonition and Curse

This is the one case where we have an oath text to parallel a Hittite treaty text. Did such texts exist in other cases, or was there a particular reason in the case of Mitanni? When we come to 'internal treaties' we shall see that these include texts corresponding to both treaties and records of oaths. However we cannot prove that both forms were used with the one group of people. Nevertheless the existence of the two sorts with 'internal treaties' would make one anticipate that both would be used with external treaties as well. Another case where having two versions of a treaty raises questions is the treaty of Suppiluliumas with Aziru of Amurru. Unfortunately the Akkadian language text has lost the beginning.91 The copy in Hittite has an unusual beginning.92 While the text is extensively broken, enough remains to reconstruct, on the basis of parallels, general exhortations to be loyal and to pay tribute, preceding the historical section.93 After the historical account94 there are more detailed stipulations. It is quite common in Hittite treaties for the earlier stipulations to be more general and to be expressed apodictically. The later ones which are in greater detail are typically casuistic in style.95 The Hittite version of the Aziru treaty fits this pattern.

trattati nel mondo antico (Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1990), pp. 37-79 (73). He sees it as an attempt to give the impression that Shattiwaza was on a parity with the Hittite king, while the actual stipulations show that not to be the case. There may be truth in the suggestion in the sense that Shattiwaza would then be given a less humiliating formula to pronounce. Yet the question then arises as to the precedent for this arrangement of parallel treaty and oath texts, and there the 'internal treaties' (see below) are the obvious answer. 91. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, p. 70. See also H. Klengel, 'Neue Fragmente zur akkadischen Fassung des Aziru-Vertrages', OLZ 59(1964), pp. 438^5 for further fragments of the treaty. 92. H. Freydank, 'Eine hethitische Fassung des Vertrags zwischen dem Hethiterkonig Suppiluliuma und Aziru von Amurru', MIO 7(1959), pp. 356-81 (358-73). For transliteration and translation of both versions see G.F. Del Monte, // trattato fra Murshili II di Hattusha e Niqmepac di Ugarit (Rome: Centre per le Antichita e la Storia dell'Arte del Vicino Oriente, 1986), pp. 116-41. The translation of Beckman (Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 33-7) is based primarily upon the Hittite version, as is that in Hallo and Younger (The Context of Scripture, Vol. II, pp. 93-5). 93. 'As [you protect] the land of your city, [so protect the king's life], the king's body and the land of [Hatti]... In future days [you, Aziru] must protect . . . ' (Freydank, 'Eine hethitische Fassung des Vertrags zwischen dem Hethiterkonig Suppiluliuma und Aziru von Amurru', p. 359, 11. 6'-9'.) 94. It becomes a matter of definition whether this historical section is dealt with as though it were the normal historical introduction somewhat displaced, or if the text is regarded as being without an historical introduction. Probably the more significant thing is not the question of definition but the indication of variability in form. For further discussion see G.F. Del Monte, // trattato fra Murshili II di Hattusha e Niqmepac di Ugarit, p. 7. 95. E.g. Suppiluliuma-Mattiwaza (Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, pp. r 20-2); cf. 11. 68-73 with rev. 11. 3-13, Mursilis II-Duppi-Teshup (Friedrich, Staatsvertrage des

The Hittites

73

What is unusual is the placing of the general stipulations before the historical section.96 Korosec divided Hittite treaties into parity and vassal treaties.97 He has maintained this division in spite of disagreement from others.98 The classic example of the parity treaty is the treaty between Hattusilis III and Ramesses II. 99 The text written in Akkadian 100 found at Boghazkoi is actually the Egyptian version.101 Ramesses occupies the first position in the introduction. There is no historical introduction and the relationship is declared to be one determined from eternity by the gods:102 [The treaty of R]amses, [beloved] of Amon, the great king, king of the [land of Egypt, the hero] with Hattusilis, [the great king], the king of the land of Hatti, his brother, for the granting of [great] peace and great [brotherhood . . . ] between then fore[ver]. Behold now, I have granted [beautiful] brotherhood (and) beautiful peace between us forever to grant the beautiful peace and the beautiful brotherhood [according to the purpose for] the land of Egypt with the land of Hatti forever. Thus behold the purpose of the great king, king of the land of Egypt, [and] the great king, king of the land of Hatti. From eternity the god, [by a treaty fo]r eternity, did not grant the making of war between them. 103

Hatti-Reiches, Vol. I, pp. 12-23); cf. 1:23-34 with 11:14-111 33; Muwattallis-Alaksandus (Staatsvertrage des Hatti-Reiches, II, pp. 56-76.); cf. A69'-75' with 11. 58-111:72. Other examples probably exist but are made less clear by the breaks in the tablets. 96. A rather distant parallel is the placing of a command not to change the tablet in the midst of the historical section (C. Kiihne and H. Otten, Der Shaushgamuwa-Vertrag (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971), p. 6). 97. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage. 98. V. Korosec, 'Uber den nichtparitatischen Charakter des Sunassura-Vertrages (KBo 1,5)' in 28. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Wien 6.10. Juli 1981 (AfO Beiheft, 19; Horn: Ferdinand Berger & Sohne, 1982), pp. 168 72. 99. G. Kestemont, 'Accords international^ relatifs aux ligues hittites (1600-1200 av. J.C.). Dossier C: Le dossier egyptien', OLP 12(1981), pp. 15-78; A.R. Schulman, 'Aspects of Ramesside Diplomacy: The Treaty of Year 21', JSSEA 8(1978), pp. 112-130; A. Spalinger, 'Considerations on the Hittite Treaty between Egypt and Hatti', SA K 9(1981), pp. 299-358; I.E. Harari, "The Historical Meaning of the Legal Words Used in the Treaty Established between Ramesses II and Hattusilis III, in Year 21 of the Reign of Ramesses II' in S. IsraelitGroll (ed.), Studies in Egyptology. Presented to Miriam Lichtheim (I, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990), pp. 422-35. 100. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. pp. 112-23. This is the primary base of Beckman's translation (Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 91-5). 101. Schachermeyr, 'Zur staatsrechtlichen Wertung der hethitischen Vertrage', pp. 180-6 (183). 102. Weidner, Politische Dokumente, p. 114, 1. 12. 103. Weidner. Politische Dokumente, p. 112. 11. 1-3, 7 9 .

74

Admonition and Curse

The Egyptian language text which is a copy of the text sent from Hatti and hence the Hittite version has a little bit of history concerning the war between Muwatallis and Ramesses.104 Thus the Egyptian version105 places the text within Egypt's particular framework of a history fixed from eternity. The Hittite version106 has a greater interest in what actually happened, but still contains nothing like the historical introductions of the vassal treaties. We are left then with two possible explanations for the, lack of historical introduction. It could be because the treaty has been influenced by Egyptian ways of thinking. Or it could be because one does not preach from history to a fellow great power. The stipulations in both versions are almost completely reciprocal.107 Particular problems are raised by treaties with collateral branches of the Hittite royal family. One example is the treaty of Muwatallis II with TalmiSarruma of Aleppo.108 This treaty has a complicated history. It was written due to the theft of the original tablet. In consequence it incorporates extensive quotation of the original treaty of Mursilis II: My father Mursilis made a treaty [tablet] for Talmi-Sarruma, king of Aleppo but the tablet has been stolen. I, the great king, have writ[ten] another tablet. I sealed it with my seal. I have given it to him. In the future nobody may alter the words of this [tablet]. The word of Tabarna, the great king, cannot be cast off, cannot be broken. He who alters (it), will die. The treaty tablet of my father, Mursilis, was written as follows: (The former treaty is then quoted in full, with its extensive survey of previous relations between Aleppo and the Hittites.)109

The treaty has only the general stipulation of loyalty110 and lacks both more detailed stipulations, god list and curse and blessing formula. It concludes with a number of human witnesses before whom it was written. Similarities exist with several treaties between the main line of the Hittite royal family and a collateral line established at Tarhuntassa.111 Muwatallis

104. S. Langdon and A.H. Gardiner, The Treaty of Alliance between Hattushili, King of the Hittites and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt', JEA 6(1920), pp. 179-205 (187). 105. Preserved in Akkadian copy! 106. In an Egyptian translation. 107. For the exceptions see M. Liverani, Prestige and Interest, pp. 193-4. 108. Weidner, Politische Dokumente, pp. 80-9.; Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 88-90. For the background to the presence of Hittite rulers in Aleppo see T.R. Bryce, The Role of Telepinu, the Priest, in the Hittite Kingdom', Hethitica 11(1992), pp. 5-18. 109. Weidner, Politische Dokumente, p. 80, 11. 3-8. 110. E.g.; 'May the sons of Talmi-Sarruma protect the sons of My Majesty, Mufrsilis, king of H]atti and [may] the sons of My Majesty not remove the sons of Talmi-Sarruma.' (Weidner, Politische Dokumente, p. 86, rev. 11. 3-5.) 111. For the reading of the toponym see P.H.J. Houwink ten Gate, The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic Period (Leiden: Brill, 1961), p. 130

The Hittites

75

II had moved his capital into southern Anatolia to Tarhuntassa. When Hattusilis III took over the throne from Muwatallis' son, Urhi-Tesub, he installed another son of Muwatallis, Kurunta, as viceroy in Tarhuntassa."2 A number of treaties or treaty-like texts document the relationship. The two main ones are a treaty, preserved on a bronze tablet, between Tuthaliyas IV and Kurunta 10 and a treaty with Ulmi-Tesub.114 The name of the Hittite king concerned is lost from the latter. A difference of interpretation exists between those who see Ulmi-Tesub as the successor of Kurunta and hence believe his Hittite partner to be Tuthaliyas IV115 and those who believe that Ulmi-Tesub is another name of Kurunta and that the Hittite partner is consequentially Hattusilis III.116 Significantly, for the purposes of this work, these treaties show explicit evidence of the process of treaty change and adaptation. The Ulmi-Tesub treaty incorporates other treaties or decrees:117 These treaty tablets were already made and shall be placed in Arinna before the sungoddess of Arinna. As for the treaty concerning the army, that was not made on tablets. My Majesty subsequently made a treaty tablet concerning the army as follows:... 118

The incorporated treaty records how the military requirements placed on Ulmi-Tesub were reduced in consideration of his religious duties.

n.3; H. Otten, Die Bronzetafel am Boghazkoy (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1988), p. 3n. For a discussion of theories of the location of Tarhuntassa see S. Alp, 'Zur Lage der Stadt Tarhuntassa' in Atti del II Congresso Internationale di Hittologia (Pavia: Gianni luculano Editore, 1995), pp. 1-11. 112. Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, pp. 258-9; Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, pp. 295-9; P.H.J. Houwink ten Cate, 'The Bronze Tablet of Tudhaliyas IV and its Geographical and Historical Relations'. 113. Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazkoy. See for translation, Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 108-18; Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, Vol. II, pp. 100-6 and for discussion H. Otten, Die 1986 in Bogazkoy gefundene Bronzetafel (Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, 1989). 114. T. van den Hout, Der Ulmitesub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchungen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1995); E. Cavaignac, 'Dadasa - Dattassa', RHA 10(1933), pp. 6576; E. Laroche, 'Un point d'histoire: Ulmi-Tessub', RHA 8/48 (1947-8), pp. 40-8; D.F. Easton, 'Hittite History and the Trojan War', pp. 26-7. Translation: Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 104-8. 115. E.g. T.P.J. van den Hout, 'A Chronology of the Tarhuntassa-Treaties', pp. 100-14. 116. E.g. O.K. Gurney, The Treaty with Ulmi-Tes/up', Anatolian Studies 43(1993), pp. 13-28; D. Siirenhagen, 'Untersuchungen zur Bronzetafel und weiteren Vertragen mit der Sekundogenitur in Tarhuntassa', OLZ 87(1992), pp. 342-71. 117. Van den Hout, 'A Chronology of the Tarhuntassa-Treaties', p. 104. One of these other documents is translated by Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, p. 103. 118. Van den Hout, Der Ulmitesub-Vertrag, p. 34, 11. 38',39'.

76

Admonition and Curse

The bronze tablet of Tuthaliyas has mention of changes to the original borders and requirements. These changes are represented as a consequence of the Hittite king's recognition of the onerous nature of the original requirements.119 The beginning, where one would normally expect the historical prologue, of the Ulmi-Tesub treaty has been lost. What we have contains various detailed stipulations that include a careful demarcation of the borders of the land and military and religious obligations. There is a god list and a curses and blessings section. Then follows a guarantee of the land to Ulmi-Tesub and his descendants reinforced by a curse on anybody who takes the land from him or changes the wording of the tablet. 'Whoever gives him difficulty, or takes the land away from him or changes one word of this tablet, (the gods listed) will destroy that one and his offspring from the land of Hatti.'120 As in the Talmi-Sarruma treaty, it concludes with a list of human witnesses. The bronze tablet of Tuthaliyas and Kurunta has a historical introduction which blends into a detailed account of the borders of Tarhuntassa and the changes to those borders. That leads in turn to a religious problem. When Tarhuntassa had been a national capital under Muwatallis there had been appropriate provision for the important gods worshipped there. It was important that this continues in the new circumstances of Tarhuntassa. Having given the more distant background, Tuthaliyas then turned to the particularly close personal relationship of himself and Kurunta and the role of that friendship in Tuthaliyas' path to the throne. The next section is concerned with guarantees to Kurunta both of status within the empire and of the security of his dynasty. The stipulations are fairly brief. They amount to the general requirement of loyalty and military obligations, which give the impression of a minimal requirement. The treaty then returns to the religious duties of Kurunta and stresses that unalterable compensatory reductions have been made in other requirements for the sake of those duties. There is a god list and curses and blessings including warnings for Kurunta and for anybody who tries to take from Kurunta what he has been given or to alter the wording of the treaty. Once again we find a list of human witnesses. The final clause concerns distribution of official sealed copies of the text to six deities and to Kurunta himself. What links the above three treaties with collateral Hittite lines is the presence of a list of human witnesses to the text of the treaty. Is this a feature of treaties with collateral lines and if so, why? In the case of the Talmi-Sarruma treaty, which is a replacement of a lost copy, their purpose

119. E.g. Otten, Die Bronzetqfel aus Bogazkoy, p. 24, 11. Ill 57-77. 120. Van den Hout, Der Ulmitesub-Vertrag, p. 48, 11. 25-27.

The Hittites

77

could be to certify the genuineness of the replacement text. One notes that both the Ulmi-Tesub treaty and the bronze tablet of Tuthaliyas detail changes in original treaties. The curses include those against attempts to alter or revoke concessions which have been made, even when such a change would be for the benefit of the Hittite royal family.121 This understanding of the witnesses as guarantors of the correct text is not antithetical to seeing their presence as related to the fact that the treaty was being made within the 'family'. Collateral royal lines constitute a great danger to current holders of the throne or their descendants. One can read between the lines of the Tarhuntassa treaties a concern to give them no cause for dissatisfaction. Arrangements that are guaranteed both by divine curses on treaty-breaking Hittite kings and by humans could be designed to remove all excuse for rebellion.122 That does not explain the lack of god list and curse in the TalmiSarruma treaty. Schachermeyr suggested123 that a curse might be omitted in this case because the general provision that a curse rebound upon the offender's family could bring the curse upon the main Hittite royal line. Against this theory is the presence of curses in the Ulmi-Tesub treaty and the bronze tablet of Tuthaliyas.124 Perhaps the collateral line, established in Syria, was seen as having no other choice but to be loyal to the Hittite cause, whereas the dynasty of Kurunta was more in a position to challenge the reigning royal line.125 Whatever the explanation, the Talmi-Surruma 'treaty' provides problems for the formal definition of a treaty. Here is what the Hittites called a treaty (rikiltu), but it has no god list or curse and blessing. It has only a general demand for loyalty, and no detailed laws. There are other interesting peculiarities in these treaties. In some aspects of their form they show affinities with Hittite land grants.126 The Talmi-

121. Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazkdy, p. 26, 11. IV 23-9. 122. Hattusilis Ill's own rationale of rebellion, namely the taking away of cities from his control, was surely not irrelevant to him or his son Tuthaliyas. See E.H. Sturtevant and G. Bechtel, A Hittite Chrestomathy (Philadelphia: Linguisitic Soc. of America, 1935), pp. 42-83. 123. Schachermeyr, 'Zur staatsrechtlichen Wertung der hethitischen Vertrage', p. 182n. 124. Further evidence that the Hittites did not avoid the potential for a curse to fall on the royal family is the fact that members of the royal family were included amongst those who took an oath to Tuthaliyas, the rightful heir, whose death brought Suppiluliumas I to the throne: A. Goetze, 'Die Pestgebete des Murshilish', Kleinasiatische Forschungen 1(1927-30), pp. 161-251 (166). An oath of loyalty must imply the potential of curse for non-compliance. 125. For evidence that Kurunta did so challenge see Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazkoy, pp. 14-15; Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, pp. 354-5. 126. H.G. Guterbock, Siegel aus Bogazkoy, (AfOo Beiheft 5; 1. Teil; Berlin: E.Weidner, 1940), p. 51; E. von Schuler, 'Staatsvertrage und Dokumente hethitischen Rechts' in G. Walser (ed.), Neuere Hethiterforschung (Historia Einzelschriften, 7; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1964), p. 39.

78

Admonition and Curse

Sarruma treaty has a prohibition on any changes to the tablet and a threat of death to the one who changes it. The Ulmi-Teshup treaty guarantees permanent possession of the territory to Ulmi-Teshup's descendants even if any particular one warrants the death penalty.127 The curse includes a curse on anybody who takes the land from the descendants of UlmiTeshup.128 Thus treaty and grant are combined. The treaties between the Hittites and Ugarit are distinctive in that we have officially sealed copies from the city of the recipient.129 They also depart from the standard form of Hittite treaties. We can regard RS 17.132 as a letter rather than a treaty.130 It has a normal preamble introducing the Hittite king, historical introduction and commands to Niqmadu, the king of Ugarit: Thus (speaks) My Majesty, the great king to Niqmadu. 'When the lands of Nuhasse and Mukis made war with me, you, Niqmadu, did not fear them. You had confidence in yourself. As, formerly, your fathers were at peace and not hostile to the land of Hatti, now may you, Niqmadu, thus be enemy to my enemy and friend to my friend.'131

However, it finishes with the offer to Niqmadu of a sealed treaty tablet: 'Perhaps, in the future, the great king will overwhelm these kings and the great king will give you a sealed treaty tablet.'132 Given that a treaty is a future possibility and not a fact, this text in spite of historical introduction and stipulations would have to be called a letter. That solution is not useful with RS 17.227.133 The text has a normal preamble and a historical introduction referring to the same events as the previous text. Then comes the specific statement that Suppiluliumas had made a treaty (rikiltu): 'Now Suppiluliumas, the great king, the king of the land of Hatti, made a treaty for Niqmadu as follows.'134 These terms consist of the tribute Niqmadu must pay. After some more historical information concerning the faithfulness of Niqmadu we once again meet the information that the Hittite king had granted him a treaty. There is a very brief god list consisting only of Hittite gods. However, the mention of the gods is not aimed at the Ugaritic vassals. It is rather the basis of a threat against anybody who changes the words of the tablet: 127. Van den Hout, Der Ulmitesub-Vertrag, p. 25. 128. Van den Hout, Der Ulmitesub-Vertrag, pp. 45-9. 129. J. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud (MRS, 9; PRU, IV; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1956), p. 6. 130. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, pp. 35-7. See for translation Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 119-20. 131. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, pp. 35-6, 11. 1-13. 132. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, p. 37, 11. 49-52. 133. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, pp. 40-4. 134. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, p. 41, 11. 16-19.

The Hittites

79

'Concerning the words written on this tablet, verily the thousand gods know. (Four gods named) verily they will know the one who changes the words of this tablet.'135 Once again this is the wording one would expect in a grant. We are forced to conclude that the Hittites saw Niqmadu as being so well treated he would have no reason to repudiate the arrangement, though others might try to change the terms.136 RS 17.340 is a very similar text.137 The same history is told in different words and with somewhat different details. The significant difference is that a defined territory was promised to Niqmadu and his descendants in perpetuity. The god list this time includes Syrian deities but the divine threat is still aimed at any one who changes the tablet. When Mursilis II confirmed the territory his father had granted to Niqmadu, the divine threat was once again against change in the tablet.138 A change was later made in the territory of Ugarit. On these grounds Niqmepa, its king, petitioned for a reduction in tribute. The text in which Mursilis II granted this is once again called a treaty, but it lacks any god list.139 Yet there is a text of a treaty between Mursilis and Niqmepa in which the curse and blessing is directed to Niqmepa and his family in the usual fashion:140 'If Niq[mepa] does not ke[ep these words of the treaty] and of the oath, [may these gods destroy him himself] along with his wives, sons, grandsons [and everything of his].'141 There is no question that this last text shows the standard form of a Hittite treaty. The earlier texts show clear overlaps with it, except that the god list is lacking or used in a way more typical of a grant. Do we make a 135. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, p. 43, 11. 48-53. 136. This understanding differs from A. Altaian's reconstruction of the background of the treaties with Ugarit ('The "Deliverance Motif in the "Historical Prologues" of Suppiluliuma I's Vassal-Treaties' in P. Artzi (ed.), Confrontation and Coexistence (Bar-Han Studies in History II; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Han U.P., pp. 68-75) but he does not take into account the aim of the curses. 137. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, pp. 48-52. See for translation Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 30-2. 138. RSI7.237 (Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, pp. 63-5). 139. RSI7.382 + 380 (Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, pp. 80-3). 140. RSI7.338+ 17.349B (Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, pp. 85-8) plus additional fragments. Another exemplar is represented by RS 21.53 (J. Nougayrol, Textes en cuneiformes babyloniens des archives du grandpalais et du palais sud d'Ugarit (MRS 12; PRU 6: Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1970), pp. 127-9) and other fragments. For a list of fragments of the two tablets see G. Kestemont, 'Le traite entre Mursil II de Hatti et Niqmepa d'Ugarit', UF 6(1974), pp. 85-127 (85-6). For studies of the text see also G.F. Del Monte, // trattato fra Murshili II di Hattusha e Niqmepac di Ugarit; C. Kiihne, 'Zum neu gewonnenen Niqmepa'Vertrag', UF 7(1975), pp. 239-51. For translation see Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 59-64. 141. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, p. 87, 11. 7'-9'.

80

Admonition and Curse

distinction between these texts? Once again we are in danger of imposing our categories. The situation is complicated by the failure of the Hittites to distinguish between what we would call a 'treaty' and what we would term a 'decree'. Indeed given the way in which the overlord probably imposed the conditions on a vassal,142 the difference was probably largely theoretical. RS 17.130 is described in the text as a treaty between men of Ura and men of Ugarit made by the Hittite ruler Hattusilis III.143 It is in effect a decree regulating the dealings of the merchants of Ura in Ugarit: 'Thus His Majesty, the great king, made a treaty between the merchants, people of the city of Ura and the people of the city of Ugarit.'144 Similarly the decision(s) of Mursilis II in the text commonly called the Barga text145 are referred to in the colophon of one duplicate as ishiul, the 46 Yet here again what is involved are decisions of Hittite equivalent ofriksu.146 the suzerain on conflicts between vassals. None of these 'decree' texts contain god lists.147 The deviations from the standard form show that the Hittites were not bound by an idea of a fixed form. We might like to be able to reconstruct a history of the form in which there is either a growth towards a standard or an initial fixed form that was later subjected to breakdown and variation. The evidence does not support any such reconstruction. Rather it shows that the Hittites made frequent adaptations in the form to cope with differences in the power relations between the two parties, differences in the social structure of the treaty partner, differences in their perception of his need for motivation and of what would best motivate him.148 Another example of an adapted form is the fragmentary treaty with Sunassura, considered above with the early treaties. In this case subtle changes were made to the existing model of parity treaties with Kizzuwadna. The result

142. Korosec argues unconvincingly that Hittite treaties were true 'treaties' with some element of free decision on the vassal's part (Hethitische Staatsvertrage, pp. 18-20.) 143. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, p. 103. See for translation, Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 162-3. 144. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archives sud, p. 105, 11. 34-37. 145. E. Cavaignac, 'L'affaire de laruvatta', RHA 6(1932), pp. 189-206; H. Klengel, 'Der Schiedsspruch des Murshili II hinsichlich Barga und seine Ubereinkunft mit Duppi-Teshup von Amurru (KBo III 3)', Orientalia 32(1963), pp. 32-55. 146. Klengel, 'Der Schiedsspruch des Murshili II', p. 54. 147. On the general subject of Hittite decrees see E. von Schuler 'Hethitsche Konigserlasse als Quellen der Rechtsfindung und ihr Verhaltnis zum kodifizierten Recht' in Festschrift Johannes Friedrich (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1959), pp. 435-72. 148. For similar conclusions on the variability of the Hittite treaty see von Schuler, 'Sonderformen hethitischer Staatsvertrage', p. 455; M. Liverani, 'Review of G. Kestemont, Diplomatique et droit international en Asie occidental (1600-1200 av. J.C.)\ OA 16(1977), pp. 251-5 (254).

The Hittites

81

is that Kizzuwadna's change from an independent state to a vassal is made less humiliating and yet is clearly stated in the changed stipulations.149 The opinion that the purpose of history in the prologue was to motivate the vassal has been questioned by Altman. He sees its function as more legal: to provide justification for an appeal to the gods, should the vassal be disobedient.150 Altman thinks that Hittite experience of treachery, both their own and others, would not incline them to place any weight upon arguments from benevolence to motivate the vassal. He reinforces this theory by appeal to the prologue of the Sunassura treaty.151 This prologue seeks to deal with the problem that Kizzuwadna had once been aligned with the Hurrians. How could it shift alliance? The argument of the prologue is that, in a reverse situation, the Hurrian king had defended the flight of Hittite subjects from Ishuwa to the Hurri country and conceded the reciprocal right of Hurrian subjects to shift loyalty. Altman's argument152 is that this history places no moral pressure upon the king of Kizzuwadna and therefore is to be understood as an apology addressed to the assembly of the gods. His argument seems to ignore the possibility that a king of Kizzuwadna might later have theological reservations about his alliance with the Hittites. If there had been a previous treaty between Mitanni and Kizzuwadna, and our slim evidence about the practices of Mitanni would not exclude that possibility, then Kizzuwadna's treaty with the Hittites would be an infringement of the earlier treaty. Any indication of a shift of the balance of power to the Hurrians might revive memories whether genuine or convenient is immaterial - of the previous treaty with Mitanni and thus provide Kizzuwadna with an excuse to break the later treaty with the Hittites. The Hittites had to present a countervailing theological argument. In general, the Hittite use of history in non-treaty texts raises questions for Altman's understanding of the prologues. Telepinus obviously hoped that history would be taken seriously by those he addressed and one could cite many other examples. In the Apology of Hattusilis HI153 Urhi-Teshup's ingratitude for Hattusilis' restraint and good will is clearly presented as the reason the gods rejected Urhi-Teshup. It is not that we can see psychological motivation and legal justification before the gods as alternatives. The failure to heed what should motivate one makes one

149. M. Liverani. 'Storiographia politica hittita - I. Sunassura, ovvero: della reciprocita', pp. 267-97. 150. Altman, 'The "Deliverance Motif in the "Historical Prologues"', pp. 48-53. 151. Altman, 'On the Legal meaning of Some of the Assertions in the "Historical Prologue" of the Kizzuwatna Treaty (KBo I, 5)' in J. Klein and A. Skaist (eds), Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology, (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan U.P., 1990), pp. 177-82. 152. Altman, 'On the Legal meaning of Some of the Assertions', pp. 182-3. 153. Sturtevant and Bechtel, A Hittite Chrestomathy, pp. 42-83.

82

Admonition and Curse

guilty before the gods. If that applies in the non-treaty texts then there is no reason to dismiss the elements of personal appeal in the historical details of treaties. Altman presents another form of his argument on the basis of the historical prologue in the Sausgamuwa treaty.154 He points out that this prologue gives a new version of the history, according to which Aziru, the original Hittite vassal, had once been subservient to the Hurrians rather than to Egypt.155 This historical basis, he suggests, is more useful as a legal argument in the new international situation confronting the Hittites and Amurru. Since this falsification of history would have been obvious to Amurru, the prologue cannot be aimed at persuading them but must be aimed at the gods. One can grant that the reasons Altman gives for the change in the history seem plausible. Yet that does not make his argument persuasive. Aside from the problem of assuming that the gods would be misled should Amurru ever plead their case before the divine tribunal, just because the Hittites told the history another way, Altman seems to credit the Hittites with an ability to see things from the vassal's point of view. Let us accept that the Hittites have 'massaged' the history to make it more congenial to their view of the present international situation. They may take it for granted that the vassal should passively assume their way of seeing the history. Surely history, including present history, is full of political leaders who are mystified that the rest of the world does not see things their way. That is, I am prepared to accept that the Hittites might imagine that false history is persuasive, especially if the Hittite view of the past seemed plausible to them for some reason or other. In other words, I am unwilling to set aside the dominant impression one receives that the prologues are aimed to persuade just because that persuasion may seem less than convincing to us. If we assume once more that silence is significant we come to the conclusion that the Hittites did not make use of history in their treaties until the late fifteenth century. Yet the idea of benevolence inspiring loyalty and of history as a warning example goes back to the beginning of Hittite history. Oath and history occur together in the letter of AnumHirbi. If the Hittites failed to bring the two together for hundreds of years the most likely explanation lies in the nature of the peoples with whom 154. 'On Some Assertions in the "Historical Prologue" of the Sausgamuwa Vassal Treaty and their Assumed Legal Meaning, in XXXIV. Uluslararasi Assyrioloji Kongresi (RAI 34; Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1998), pp. 99-107. 155. 'The land of Amurru was not defeated by the wjeapon [of the land of HJatti. [When Aziru came to] the grandfather of My Majesty, [Suppiluliumas] in the land of Hatti, the Amurru lands were still [hostijle; servants of the king of the Hurrians.' (Kuhne and Otten, Der Shaushgamuwa-Vertrag, p. 6, 11. 13-18.)

The Hittites

83

they entered relationships. They were either other sovereign states such as Kizzuwadna or loose groups such as the Gasga. The appeal to remember good favours received in the past works most naturally when one can address the appeal to a stable dynasty in a vassal state. Thus the emphasis on history in treaties tends to coincide with the emergence of the Hittites to great power status. There was also a tendency to bind these states to the Hittites by means of diplomatic marriage.156 The whole emphasis on loyalty and intermarriage brings into question the claim that, unless there was specific contrary provision in the treaty, it ended with the death of the vassal.157 Would it be in the interests of the Hittites to establish a system that made the new dynast in the vassal country free? There is no specific statement anywhere that a new king was not or would not be bound by his father's oath. Whenever there is a specific statement it is to the effect that the descendants are also covered by the treaty.158 If there is such variation in treaties, what creates the obvious unity of the treaties - a unity that makes many of them conform to the standard form? The answer has to lie in a certain understanding of human relationships. An interesting comparison has been made between Hittite and Mesopotamian historiography. Whereas Assyrian annals are essentially war reports, the Hittite annals, as exemplified by those of Mursilis II, approach diplomatic history.159 There is an interest in diplomatic interchanges and the persons involved. Generals and allies, as well as opponents, are given a fuller portrayal than in Mesopotamia.160 Along with this goes an attempt to create dependency and loyalty relationships, preferably by producing a sense of obligation as beneficiaries of Hittite mercy or as sons-in-law of the king. If that cannot be employed then threat and divine curse become more prominent. Thus the Hittite kingdom sought to create a network of diplomatic and personal relationships. With something of a broad brush, we can create a picture of the archetypal foreigner in the Assyrian world as the terrified ruler paying tribute as the awe-inspiring might of the Assyrian army waits outside his city. The equivalent for the Hittites would be a figure such as Aziru, who was held up for later generations as a shining example of loyalty and devotion.

156. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage, , p. 43. 157. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage, p. 107. 158. E.g. Suppiluliumas-Sattiwaza (Weidner, Politische Dokumente, pp. 18-20, 11. 63-7). 159. H. Cancik, Grundzuge der hethitischen und alttestamentlichen Geschichtsschreibung (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976), pp. 34, 59-60; A. Goetze, Die Annalen des Murshilish (MVAG, 38; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1933); Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, Vol. II, pp. 82-90. 160. Cancik, Grundzuge der hethitischen und alttestamentlichen Geschichtsschreibung, p. 60.

84

Admonition and Curse

Hence the debt-producing history occurs early in a Hittite treaty. When it is occasionally displaced or paralleled it is by the alternative motivation used with less structured societies: the divine curse. Sometimes interrupting the history itself, but more often following it, is the basic command: loyalty. The detailed commands which follow are often made more vivid by warning examples. While this summary gives the broad features of the approach to motivation behind the treaties, there is a danger of over-simplification. Sometimes the historical introduction was concerned to close the door on obvious possibilities. For example, the historical introduction to the treaty with Talmi-Sarruma of Aleppo mentions the fact that Aleppo was once the great power of Syria. The point of the subsequent history is that it holds that position no more.161 While not in the introduction but in the stipulations, the case of Masturi in the treaty between Tuthaliyas IV and Sausgamuwa is similar:162 'Muwattalis made him (i.e. Masturi) his son-inlaw, yet he did not protect his (i.e. Muwatallis') son.'163 Masturi's failure to protect Urhi-Teshub and his support for the usurper Hattusilis, the father of Tuthaliyas IV, placed Tuthaliyas in a difficult position. It could be a precedent if his own rule was threatened. So he used his father's supporter as an example of what should not be done. Thus the point needs to be made that the Hittites had to discourage some possibilities as well as to encourage others. What is characteristic is the use of history to do both.

Instructions and Service Oaths The point has already been made that people tend to use the same approach in internal policy as in external affairs. The use of instructions and service oaths by the Hittites shows this very well.164 The instruction165 parallels the stipulations of a treaty and the service oaths parallel the oath 161. Weidner, Politische Dokumente, p. 82, 11. 11-14. This historical introduction begins further back in history than any of the others. No doubt it was easier to produce historical material for organized states with a long tradition than for some of the less organized societies. 162. Kiihne and Otten, Der Shaushgamuwa-Vertrag, p. 10. For background see H. Klengel, 'Historischer Kommentar zum Sausgamuwa-Vertrag' in T.P.J. van den Hout and J. de Roos (eds), Studio Historiae Ardens: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cute on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1995), pp. 16-67. 163. Kuhne and Otten, Der Shaushgamuwa-Vertrag, p. 10, 11. II, 25-7. 164. On general resemblances to treaties see A. Goetze, Kleinasien, p. 104; K. Watanabe, 'Mit Gottessiegeln versehene hethitische "Staatsvertrage"', Acta Sumerologica 11(1989), pp. 261-76 (268-9). 165. For examples see Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, Vol. I, 217ff.; H.G. Guterbock & T.P.J. van den Hout, The Hittite Instructions for the Royal Body Guard (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1991).

The Hittites

85

which the vassal took. Furthermore specific features of treaties are repeated in these 'internal treaties'. A number of bronze tablets of the oath taken by a class of troop commanders were placed before deities. One was a Hittite state deity. Another may have been a deity of the region in which they served.166 The service oath of Ashapala167 could well be the text of the oath that accompanied one of the Gasga treaties. Just as in the Gasga treaties, a group of men swear loyalty and military help to the Hittites. After listing various things they promise to do, forbidden actions are concluded with the formula: 'It must be placed under the oath for us.'168 One of the interesting things about these texts, generally referred to as Military Oaths, is that they have dramatized curses, for example:169 He lays sinew and salt on their hands and throws it in the flame. He speaks as follows: 'As sinew chars on the hearth, as salt breaks up on the hearth, so shall it be for the one who breaks the oath of the gods, who sets a trap (?) [for the king] of the Hittite land, and looks with hostility at the Hittite land. The oath of the gods shall seize him. As sinew he shall char and as salt he shall break up. As salt has no seed, so shall that man, his name, his seed, his house, his cattle, his sheep, be destroyed."70

Such curses are not common in Hittite treaties. About the closest the extant texts come is in the version of the Shattiwaza 'treaty' in which Shattiwaza is the speaker. There we have simile curses171 but we cannot be definite they were dramatized. In the Military Oaths the dramatized curses are many and elaborate. Our best analogies are in Mesopotamian treaties of the first millennium. This sporadic distribution of dramatized curses means that the explanation for the occurrence or non-occurrence of such curses does not lie in seeing them as particularly Assyrian or particularly late. There must be another factor involved. A possible explanation would be to see two factors at work. One is that more elaborate curses tend to occur particularly in texts which reflect the oath taken by the subordinate party. That is, texts which are strictly treaty texts will not have them to the same degree as texts which reflect the corresponding oath. The second factor is that the intensity and vividness of the curse will be proportional to what is seen to be appropriate and needed. Thus one would not impose

166. E. von Schuler, 'Die Wiirdertragereide des Arnuwanda', Orientalia 25(1956), pp. 209-40 (228). 167. H. Otten, 'Die Eidesleistung des Ashhapala', RHA 67(1960), pp. 121-7. 168. Otten, 'Die Eidesleistung des Ashhapala', p. 122, 11. 20, 21. 169. N. Oettinger, Die Militaerischen Eide der Hethiter (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976), pp. 8-11. 170. Oettinger, Die Militaerischen Eide der Hethiter, pp. 8-9, 11. II, 5-18. 171. I.e. "just like . . . so ... ".

86

Admonition and Curse

such dramatic curses upon the king and nobles of Mitanni as one would upon the Hittite army, which would be of a lower social station. Judging by the extant evidence, the curses invoked by non-Assyrians were more extensive than the curses invoked by Assyrians taking loyalty oaths in the same period. This explanation does not exclude the possibility that an empire or state whose situation was becoming more precarious might impose progressively more horrific curses upon potential rebels. We know that such oaths for military contingents go back to before the Empire period. There are extant texts of oaths taken by Hapiru and other army contingents in the earlier period.172 The texts we generally class as instructions have a complex relationship to service oaths. Sometimes it is clear from the text that the personnel of that particular group were assembled to swear to act according to the instruction. In other cases there is no mention of an oath.173 Perhaps the situation is similar to what we found in the case of the 'treaties' with Ugarit. That is, treaties sworn by oath merge with decrees which simply lay down rules without imposition of an oath. So instructions may have been imposed by oath or simply by decree. One wonders whether the difference may have been determined at least partly by the question of whether a transgressor would be accessible to normal judicial judgement. The terminology of instructions is very similar to that of treaties. They are called by the Hittite term for treaty: ishiul. Individual prescriptions, just as in treaties, are referred to by the various terms meaning 'word'.174 The formula of prohibition, that something 'is laid under the oath', is common to both treaties and instructions.175 Nevertheless, instructions lack historical introductions. They do occasionally contain warning anecdotes drawn from the past, just as the treaties include in their stipulations.176 While some instructions mention

172. H. Otten, 'Zwei althethitische Belege zu den Hapiru (SA.GAZ)', ZA 52(1957), pp. 216-23. 173. E. von Schuler, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen (AfO Beiheft, 10; Graz: E. Weidner, 1957), p. 2. 174. Von Schuler, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen, p. 3. 175. Von Schuler, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen, p. 2. 176. E.g. the incident of the palace functionary who was negligent and allowed a hair into the king's water: 'Formerly, I, the king, was in GN. I found a hair in the wash bowl.' The text describes the ensuing investigation and the death of the culprit (J. Friedrich, 'Reinheitsvorschriften fur den hethitischen Konig', MAOG 4(1928), pp. 46-58 (47-8, 11. Ill, 24-35); J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 207). Even in saying that instructions did not have historical introductions problems of classification arise. P. Meriggi ('Uber einige hethitische fragmente historischen Inhaltes', WZKM 58(1962), pp. 66-110 (66-7)) treats KUB xxi 37 as an instruction. This has an account of the conflict with Urhi-Teshup and aimed to prevent his re-enthronement. It also has a god list. Thus the line between it and a treaty is very fine.

The Hittites

87

swearing an oath,177 they do not contain god lists. Perhaps we may infer that there was a separate oath text. Stylistically the instructions seem even less concerned to maintain consistency than the treaties. Thus in the same text the king may speak in the first person and be referred to in the third person.178 The instructions regularly mix apodictic and casuistic forms.179 They show repetition.180 Further evidence for the suggestion made earlier - that it is particularly the texts of oaths that contain dramatized curses - occurs in the instruction for palace personnel where the monthly oath for the kitchen staff involves such a ritual in the presence of the sun god.181 Superficially one might say that the distinction between treaties and instructions and service oaths is that the former were used with foreigners and the latter with native Hittites. Given the presence of foreign contingents in the Hittite army that distinction may be hard to maintain. However, texts such as the oaths of Ashapala182 or with the people of Ura183 are hard to place in either category. Formally, instructions and service oaths seem distinguished from treaties by a separation of what we call the 'stipulation' part of the treaty from the curse part. Treaties typically combine both stipulations and curses in the one text. In the 'internal treaties' the stipulation occurs primarily in the genre of texts we call instructions and the curse in the texts we call service oaths. However, we have seen in the case of Suppiluliumas and Shattiwaza another example of separate treaty and oath texts. With groups within the Hittite state the instruction, equivalent to the treaty, may have been accompanied by a service oath, equivalent to the oath text of Shattiwaza.

177. E.g. SAG 1, I, 1-3: '[Th]us (speaks) Tudhaliyas, the great king, [king of the land of Hatti]: "They, the Heads, swear to My Majesty as follows . . . " ' (von Schuler, Hethitische Diestanweisungen, p. 8.). 178. E.g. SAG 2 cf. § 20 with § 24, also change within § 25 (von Schuler, Hethitische Diestanweisungen, pp. 27-8.). 179. E.g. SAG 1 (von Schuler, Hethitische Diestanweisungen, pp. 8-21.); SAG 2 (von Schuler, Hethitische Diestanweisungen, pp. 22-30); instruction for temple servants (E.H. Sturtevant, 'A Hittite Text on the Duties of Priests and Temple Servants', JAOS 54(1934), 363-406). 180. E.g. in SAG 1 the basic obligation to protect the king is repeated in §§ 1 and 2 (von Schuler, Hethitische Diestanweisungen, pp. 8-9). 181. J. Friedrich, 'Reinheitsvorschriften fur den hethitischen Konig', p. 47. I prefer the term 'dramatized curse' to 'sympathetic magic' because, as this text makes clear, the curse is not seen as operating of itself. It is carried out by the gods. 182. H. Otten, 'Die Eidesleistung des Ashapala', pp. 121-7. 183. H. Klengel, 'Die Rolle der "altesten"(LUMESSU.GI) im Kleinasien der Hethiterzeit', ZA N.F. 23 (1965), pp. 223-36 (226-7).

88

Admonition and Curse

Another way we could make a distinction, at least for the Empire period, would be to note the lack of historical introductions outside treaties. The historical introduction aims to create a sense of obligation. Perhaps this sense was assumed with people who were largely Hittite themselves. As an alternative, or subsidiary, explanation we may suggest that the instructions and service oaths take their rise before it was common to use historical introductions to treaties. Due to our lack of evidence and uncertainties of dating, it is hard to determine whether external or internal treaties came first. We could conjecture that treaties arose from a combining of instructions and service oaths. Or we could assume that treaties come first and conjecture the reverse process. More likely both theories are artificial and formal. All forms attest a concern to create networks of dependence and loyalty focussed on the king. History occurs as warning sporadically in the instructions but direct instruction and divine curse play a far more prominent role. With the Empire period treaties, the relationship is reversed and history is more prominent. The relative emphasis was adjusted to the particular circumstance but there was a similar conceptual basis.

Land Grants184 There are very few points in common between Hittite land grants and treaties. The Hittite grants do not invoke curses on transgressors. One similarity is in the placement of the seal185 but that could be simply a convention with official royal texts in general. Land grants are not attested outside the Middle Hittite Period. The closest equivalent in the later period is an exemption decree by Hattusilis III and Puduhepa, confirmed by Tuthaliyas IV and Puduhepa, for Sahurunuwas.186 This shows a closer relationship to treaties: violators are threatened with divine curse and copies were laid before deities. Nevertheless, this is no closer relationship than occurs between Mesopotamian treaties and kudurrus.

184. See for comprehensive discussion K.K. Riemschneider, 'Die hethitischen Landschenkungsurkunden', MIO 6(1958), pp. 321-81. 185. Giiterbock, Siege! aus Bogazkoy, I, p. 51; Langdon and Gardiner, 'The Treaty of Alliance', p. 198, § 19. 186. V. Korosec, 'Einige juristishe Bemerkungen zur Shahurunuva-Urkunde (KUB XXVI 43 = Bo 2048)', Munchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 35(1945), pp. 191-222.

The Hittites

89

A Ritual Text with an Oath A text in which an oath is sworn and a goat is killed has been linked with covenants involving a sacrifice in the biblical text.187 The text188 gives a ritual ascribed to a certain Zarpiya of Kizzuwadna. Appropriate to that origin, while the text is largely Hittite, there are some Luwian passages. The text is introduced as being for use when the land is afflicted and the death rate is high. Certain deities, including some described in gruesome ways, are summoned and provided with food through the slaughtered goat. Several times it is stated that the human participants swear an oath and once the gods are called as witnesses to the oath: He breaks 9 thick loaves of bread. They place on them the liver and the heart. He puts them back on the table. He speaks as follows: 'Sun of heaven above and below, keep eating. Father gods of the house, keep eating. Thousand gods, keep eating. Be witnesses of this oath."89

Various exemplars of the text date it to the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries.190 If we exclude the mention of the oath, the text looks like an attempt to appease bloodthirsty gods by providing them with food from a non-human source. The content of the oath is not given; there is no indication of a continuing relationship between the human and divine participants apart from this ritual context. Could the oath be some sort of exculpatory declaration that is meant to absolve the human participants from responsibility for any sin the gods may be punishing? While Gurney191 sees a clear connection between this text and treaties which include the death of an animal as part of the ceremony, this ritual seems to belong to another world. It is hard to imagine a treaty text in which there is no indication of the obligations to which one of the parties has committed himself by oath or any mention of the form of the ongoing relationship. Therefore I think this text can be excluded from discussion of treaties. Later, on the basis of other examples, I will speculate on whether there is another explanation of oaths in such a context.

187. O.R. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, (Oxford: OUP, 1977), p. 30; W.T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), pp. 141n, 401-2. 188. B. Schwartz, "The Hittite and Luwian Ritual of Zarpiya of Kizzuwatna', JAOS 58(1938), pp. 334-53; F. Starke, Die keilschrift-luwischen Texte in Umschrift (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985), pp. 46-55. 189. Starke, Die keilschrift-luwischen Texte, p. 52, 11. 52'-57'. 190. Starke, Die keilschrift-luwischen Texte, pp. 46-7. 191. Gurrey, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, p. 30.

90

Admonition and Curse

Accidents of Discovery and Archives As mentioned above, we have far more treaties or similar texts from the Hittites than from Mesopotamia. Our problem is knowing whether this is a significant fact or merely an accident of discovery. However, even if the number is an accident of discovery, the difference in approach between treaties from the different centres would still exist. The vast bulk of Hittite treaties come from the capital Hattusas. Is our impression of the importance of treaties with the Hittites merely a result of having stumbled upon the archive where such texts were kept, a fortunate circumstance that has not happened elsewhere? As with all such questions, an absolute answer is impossible. There are certain factors which incline us to think that more than an accident of discovery is involved. Hittite treaty texts are attested from Ugarit. The one treaty which the Egyptians left us was with the Hittites. The treaty texts from Hattusas are not just from one archive or one temple. Mari may be ruled out as a comparable site if, as suggested above, some relevant treaties were not preserved in written form but we surely have a reasonable range of Neo-Assyrian royal archives. Thus accidents of discovery may bias our view of the importance of treaties with the Hittites but collateral evidence tends to support taking the weight of evidence as significant. In the Empire period, Hittite texts which are not strictly treaties (such as annals and prayers) refer to treaties. In a neat world the frequency of mention of treaties in non-treaty texts would match the prevalence of treaties. The Mesopotamian evidence shows that the world was not neat in that sense; there were periods during which treaties were being concluded and yet not mentioned in other texts. Nevertheless there are several periods where the different forms of evidence coalesce. Examples are the end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the Hittite Empire. Interestingly, these are the periods in which the treaties from the respective areas show the greatest overlap. This leads to the thesis that absence of mention is not evidence of absence but a combination of different sorts of written evidence for treaties may be significant. It is the plethera of treaty texts and the existence of mention in other texts that makes the Hittite evidence interesting. That is in turn an argument against explaining the data in terms of the chance finding of a particular archive. There seem to be periods and perhaps societies in which treaties were sufficiently significant to impact on other forms of text.

Summary of the Evidence The discussion has not surveyed all the evidence for Hittite treaties because a full treatment of the treaties of the Empire (New Kingdom) period would

The Hittites

91

involve a fairly repetitious summary of treaties of a standard form. Yet, even without detailing every instance, the Hittite evidence conveys the impression of an extensive use of treaties and the penetration of treaties into many aspects of political relationships. One can construct, perhaps with a few small gaps, a continuum from the relationships with the army and royal servants to relationships with collateral royal lines, to relationships with vassals, to relationships with the other great powers. While we can attest the use of treaties in other societies, we do not find so thorough a penetration. Yet this thoroughness of penetration is a feature of the New Kingdom. It is not so obvious earlier and it does not seem to survive the main Hittite kingdom, even though we know that the collateral royal line survived in Syria for hundreds of years after the collapse of the Hittite Kingdom.192 Sparse though the evidence is, it definitely points to the use of treaties in the Middle Kingdom. That includes treaties which appeal to history as motivation for loyalty and those which do not. Significantly, service oaths also go back to before the New Kingdom. The crucial problem for the history of the treaty in Anatolia is the Old Kingdom. We know treaties were in use in the period of the Assyrian commercial colonies. We know that they were in use in the Middle Kingdom. Is our lack of attestation for the Old Kingdom purely a consequence of lost sources? There are periods of Mesopotamian history that show the same lack of treaties even though we know they exist both before and after. This study has highlighted the range of treaty forms and usages. I have done so because it contributes to defining the problem. What are we studying? What is passed down over hundreds of years? Is it a fixed literary form which maintains its usefulness over the centuries? Is it a concept, an understanding of relationships? Obviously one can suggest various intermediary possibilities between these two, but stating the problem in this bare form clarifies the choices. The flexibility of forms and the variety of usages move us away from any definition of the problem purely in terms of a standard literary form. Another prominent feature of the Hittite evidence is the pervasiveness of the argument from history. In that respect the Old Kingdom is not bare of significant evidence. In the letter of Anum-Hirbi the evidence for appeal to historically-attested benevolence goes back to before the Old Kingdom.

192. J.D. Hawkins, ' "Great Kings" and "Country Lords" at Malatya and Karkamis' in T.P.J. van den Hout and J. de Roos (eds), Studio Historiae Ardens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Gate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1995), pp. 73-85.

92

Admonition and Curse

Treaty Concepts and Hittite Society Compared with Mesopotamia, the Hittites show a far greater use of treaty forms and concepts. Appeal to obligation-inducing history runs through their political life for centuries. Correlated with this comparatively greater appeal to history is a greater willingness to describe the instability of the kingdom. Putting together the complaints of Hattusilis I about disloyalty in the family in his decree for Mursilis, the account of Telepinus of accession by murder and usurpation, the apology of Hattusilis III for his seizure of the throne and the admission of Tuthaliyas IV that his brother was originally designated crown prince,193 we obtain the impression of a kingdom subject to instability. Yet what we are probably seeing is not proof that the Hittite kingdom was more unstable than others but rather evidence that they were more willing to talk of this in public documents. It is hard to appeal to the lessons of history if one cannot be open about that history. Can we give a reason for this comparatively greater appeal to history among the Hittites? The answer must be a supposition, especially because no author in the society itself addresses the problem. There are, in theory, various ways in which the stability of a state may be guaranteed. Concentrating power in the centre and using that power to suppress dissent is one. Even if that is done, some degree of cooperation is necessary for success. In a state which uses only power to ensure stability, cooperation must be due to fear. Generally some other or additional means is used to ensure cooperation. Indeed the correlate of failure to concentrate and use power must be the need to find another means to ensure cooperation. Clearly the Hittites were using the appeal to history as such a device. One would expect that this points to a society which is not totally centralized: one where others have a significant ability to use power and thus to threaten stability. Proving this contention is difficult, but note the 'Greats' in the Old Kingdom decree of Hattusilis I and the leaders whom later kings attempted to bind through oaths.194 Of course, there may be differences between the way a people conceptualize and hence deal with their social order and the way it

193. Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazkoy, p,18, 11. II 43-4; see F. Imparati, 'Apology of Hattusilis III or Designation of his Successor?' in T.P.J. van den Hout and J. de Roos (eds), Studio Historiae Ardens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1995), p. 143-57 (156). 194. See F. Imparati 'Die organisation des hethitischen Staates' in H. Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 327-37; A. Goetze, 'State and Society of the Hittites' in G. Walser (ed.), Neuere Hethiterforschung (Historia Einzelschriften, 7; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1964), pp. 23-33.

The Hittites

93

objectively is. Nevertheless it seems reasonable to postulate that Hittite leadership saw their society as having a certain amount of distribution of power, and hence the necessity to bind those power-holders in such a way as to ensure stability. Their willingness to set up collateral royal lines as viceroys would be part of that perception since, in most monarchies, collateral royal lines are a great threat to the throne. We would expect that this perception of dispersed power, if we have discerned it correctly, has some relationship to the actual state of the society. It would follow that the use of a similar approach to vassals of the empire is merely the natural extension of internal policies. If one perceives relationships as those of a loyalty induced by history, then it is also natural to suspect that the gods will approve and sanction those relationships. Hence a curse was perceived as appropriate for those who showed ingratitude. On the other hand, several other relationships were seen as less suitable for appeals to history. Those in a strictly subordinate relationship to the king, such as his servants, would be expected to understand their position and be submissive, though the appeal to history still comes through in that relationship in the use of warning anecdotes. At the other end of the scale, other great powers are not likely to have benefited from the paternalistic benevolence of the Hittite king, and hence appeals to history are not a feature of parity treaties. In those cases divine curse was used to guarantee commitments which could not be induced by other means. Thus the appeal to the gods' punishment of oath-breakers may reinforce appeals to history or may stand by itself.

The Relationship to Mesopotamia A number of influential earlier treatments assumed or argued a dependence of the Hittite forms on Mesopotamia. How much was this determined by evidence and how much by a general 'pan-Babylonian' mentality? An illustration of this problem is Weidner's discussion of the similarity between rules for conduct with harem women in the edict of Tiglath-pileser I and the treaty of Suppiluliumas I with Huqqanas. His problem is that Suppiluliumas lived well before Tiglath-pileser I. Nevertheless, he postulates that there must have been earlier such Assyrian rules and that Hittites were dependent upon Semitic influence. Similarly he assumes that the Assyrian edicts must have depended upon Babylonian prototypes, though these have not been found. 195 195. Weidner, 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse assyrischer Konige aus dem 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.', p. 258.

94

Admonition and Curse

Korosec was on much firmer ground when he pointed to the temporal priority of treaties in Mesopotamia.196 However, temporal priority does not of itself prove Mesopotamian origin. Alternative explanations would be independent invention in similar circumstances or parallel development of a common inheritance. Even the similarities in terminology to which Korosec also refers197 do not decide the case. That there may be a semantic relationship between Akkadian riksu and Hittite ishiul,19* both meaning something like 'bond', is interesting.199 It is certainly possible that the Hittites sought for a word of equivalent etymology in order to translate the Akkadian term. Yet it is hardly what we would expect in an ancient translation. Such parallels, if not accidental, are more likely to point to a distant common background. In this case the common background would be the notion of people being 'bound' together by a sworn agreement. In one respect we may argue for similar development under similar circumstances. The use of history to prove obligation200 occurs very late in Assyrian history, with Ashurbanipal. It occurs much earlier amongst the Hittites and is particularly prominent during the Hittite Empire. In both the Assyrian and Hittite Empires the circumstances are similar. It is a case of a nation trying to secure loyalty in an extensive empire. The idea is much more extensively developed among the Hittites because they have a tradition going back to the Old Kingdom of such use of history, and judging from the letter of Anum-Hirbi Hittite use of history may be the revival of an earlier Anatolian practice. The use by Ashurbanipal is a change to normal practice, probably in a situation where traditional Assyrian reliance on force was felt to be imperilled. Though in this particular case we may present a reasonable argument for independent invention, the question still remains of whether the treaty as such was a Mesopotamian cultural item taken over by the Hittites. Answering this question involves two fundamental issues: what exactly was borrowed, and when was this done?

196. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage, p. 23. The particular example he used there would be invalidated by the discovery of earlier Hittite treaties but the Lagash treaties to which he refers elsewhere (Hethitische Staatsvertrage, p. 35) clearly predate the Anatolian material. 197. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage, pp. 21-2. 198. And perhaps also Hebrew bent? 199. G.F. Del Monte, 'Note sui trattati fra Hattusha e Kizuwatna', p. 206. 200. M. Weinfeld has a slightly different understanding of the role of history in treaties: 'Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia', JANES 22(1993), pp. 135-9 (136). He sees it as apologetic for empire. However, the Assyrians who put the emphasis on empire by divine right did not need such a justification of rule. Against understanding the primary role of the historical prologue as justification of imperial rule in general is its placement in Hittite treaties just before the stipulations and its very specific address to the particular vassal. Issues such as marriage to the king's daughter do not belong in a general apologetic for empire.

The Hittites

95

The argument of this chapter has been that Hittite treaties belong within a definite conceptual world and reflect an understanding of relationships. It cannot be that the whole package was borrowed because that package was different in Mesopotamia than with the Hittites. Hence what was borrowed, if anything, must have been a smaller core. The problem then is the scope of this smaller core and proving that it was definitely of Mesopotamian origin. In choosing a borrowing or diffusion model we are excluding two other models. One is that it was a matter of independent invention. The thing independently invented would then be the notion of oath-bound relationships. In turn that would mean that to conceptualize relationships in this way is something 'natural' for the human psyche. The difficulty with this premise is that, though divinely sanctioned treaties are present throughout western Asia and the Mediterranean, they are not a universal human phenomenon. The solution has to be, in some measure, historical rather than merely psychological. The second model that must be excluded is derivation from a common origin, or (differently expressed) the theory that both Mesopotamia and the Hittites were heirs to a more widespread idea. How can one distinguish between the model according to which the Hittites borrowed a specifically Mesopotamian custom and that in which both received from a more distant source? An obvious clue would be the fact that the item in question, when it first appears in the receiving culture, has a feature which clearly pertains to the originating culture.201 If that peculiarity can be dated in the originating culture it is evidence of the date of borrowing. Another indication would be that the borrowed item exists for a time in the receiving culture before it takes on the peculiarities of the receiving culture. If borrowing took place, it must have been before some point in the fifteenth century. Paradoxically our starting point is thus a time when the Hittites appear to have been restricted to Anatolia and not in clear communication with the outside world. Of course, borrowing is then still possible, but on the balance of the probabilities we would expect the borrowing to take place at a time of obvious contact. There were two such points: the Assyrian commercial colony period and the Hittite penetration into Syria and Mesopotamia during the Old Kingdom. Whichever point we choose, the significant material for comparison becomes the treaty material from the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian periods considered in the previous chapter.

201. For a wrestling with what constitutes proof of literary borrowing see J.H. Tigay, 'On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing' in M.E. Cohen, D.C. Snell and D.B. Weisberg (eds), The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda: CDL, 1993), pp. 250-5.

96

Admonition and Curse

This evidence is richer in references to treaties than in actual treaty texts. It does however allow us to recognize certain practices and approaches as connected to Mesopotamian treaties in the early second millennium. If these specific practices and approaches are part of early Hittite treaties, we then have strong evidence of a Mesopotamian source. As a matter of fact that specific evidence is lacking. There is no evidence whatsoever from Anatolia for the practices such as touching the throat mentioned in connection with Hammurabi. The examples we have of Mesopotamian treaties of that period do not use appeal to history. They contrast to what we find with Hittite treaties in sometimes seeming to involve few gods. They seem to be based around a couple of very specific stipulations rather than the more normal Hittite practice of using treaties to establish more comprehensive relationships. Sometimes each god is given a specific malediction to inflict, which was not Hittite practice. It could be that, by the time we have evidence of actual Hittite treaties, the treaty form has been transformed from its Mesopotamian original into a form strongly influenced by Hittite ideas and practices. That is why the Anum-Hirbi letter is important. It brings together the practice of binding vassals by oath and appeal to past benevolence. While not totally conclusive, it seems a reasonable deduction that a connection between binding by oath and arguments from history for loyalty had already occurred in Anatolia. Thus a distinctively Anatolian approach to treaties was already in place in the Assyrian commercial colony period. That could mean that the treaty form was borrowed from Assyria during the commercial colony period and quickly conformed to a native Anatolian approach. Yet this speedy adaptation, if it occurred, leaves us without proof that it was indeed of Assyrian origin. Alternatively it might have been borrowed and adapted before the Assyrian colony period. This means the borrowing is put back into the period when there is no written evidence from Anatolia. Certainly, contact between Mesopotamia and Anatolia existed in that period,202 but proof of contact is not proof of borrowing. Thus the comparison of Hittite and Mesopotamian treaty evidence does not establish the reason for their affinity. Both are using the device of creating lasting relationships through oaths witnessed by gods. It has been argued above that this is too specific a practice and too limited geographically and historically to be due to independent invention. We are left with the possibility of borrowing outside the period documented by

202. H.J. Nissen, 'Kulturelle und politische Vernetzungen im Vorder Orient des 4. und 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend' in U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann and H. Hauptmann (eds), Beitrage zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift fur Rainer Michael Boehmer (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995), pp. 473-90.

The Hittites

97

our sources or of derivation from a common source, once again outside the range of our sources.

Reconsidering the Old Kingdom If the treaty form was present in Anatolia prior to the Hittite Kingdom, as is implied by the Anum-Hirbi letter, why is there no clear evidence for treaties from the Hittite Old Kingdom? It could be simply accident of discovery: we have few sources from the early history. Yet equivalent problems of gaps in evidence occur in the other cultural centres considered. Perhaps there is some systematic or recurrent factor. Therefore the response that evidence was there but is not attested due to our poor documentation is too easy an answer. If we leave aside the more legendary or mythical material, the literary remains of the Old Kingdom seems to divide into two groups. There is the material which has already been considered that makes appeal to history to teach lessons, for example, the Edict of Hattusilis I and the Edict of Telepinus. On the other side are boastful texts of conquest by Anittas203 and Hattusilis I.204 Comparatively speaking, the texts appealing to history are more distinctively Hittite than the victory texts. The latter have good Mesopotamian analogues. This fact raises an interesting possibility. Was the real borrowing from Mesopotamia the victory inscription? It has been argued above that the alternative to binding people by appeal to history is binding them by power. The victory inscription fits ideologically with an image of dominating imperial power. Taking this line of thought we could then argue that the image of power dominated the Hittites' depiction of their external relations while at the same time the more traditional appeal to loyalty continued in their conceptualization of internal relationships. Naturally that is an unstable mix and it did not continue indefinitely. Nevertheless, while it prevailed, in the place where we might find reference to treaties, namely the descriptions of relations with other powers, we find instead the projection of the all-conquering hero. When the Hittites again become successfully imperialist and the records are sufficient for a judgement, the emphasis on power has been somewhat muted. The Deeds of Suppiluliumas /are not the Annals of Hattusilis I. The shift is more than just length. One cannot imagine the famous account of Suppiluliumas' perplexity when approached by the widowed Egyptian queen appearing in 203. E. Neu, Der Anitta-Text (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974); Bryce, Major Historical Texts, pp. 21-7. While Anittas was not strictly a Hittite ruler, the preservation of his text by the Hittites indicates some connection. 204. Bryce, Major Historical Texts, pp. 49-55.

98

Admonition and Curse

Hattusilis' text. Yet the titles used by late Hittite kings retain elements of the heroic all-conquering figure. In other words, maybe the Mesopotamian imperial image impacted upon Anatolia but was modified by a native historiographic tradition. The wider significance of this speculation is that there is a possible pattern: where the treaty tradition exists it tends to disappear from view in overtly imperial periods. The Hittite Empire period would be an exception to this rule because the Hittites attempted to rule their vassals through a model which had already been developed for internal relations, namely creation of loyalty relationships. The Old Kingdom conquests were not placed on that basis, or, if they were, it did not suit the image of the conquering hero to mention it.

Chapter 3 EGYPT

Overview Did Egyptians establish vassal treaties with countries under their control? It is very difficult to prove they did. The best evidence comes from the New Kingdom, and even then it is weak. We can establish they entered into parity treaties. The treaty between Hattusilis III and Ramesses II is a clear example. Yet even here a problem arises: was the form of the treaty native to Egypt or are we looking at a Hittite document slightly modified to suit Egyptian tastes? If we may take silence as significant, then the treaty was less prominent in Egypt than in Mesopotamia. Was that because the treaty has to be seen as an Asian invention which did not really penetrate Egypt, or was there something in Egyptian mores inimical to the treaty? It is hard to prove the non-existence of something, not just because one is arguing from silence, but because one may so easily overlook a piece of evidence. Therefore there is no conclusive proof that the treaty was not a common Egyptian practice. All one can do is note the sparsity and problems of the evidence.

Outline of the History The earliest periods of Egyptian history, down to the end of the Old Kingdom, are bereft of any evidence for treaties. The pedagogic use of history which, at least with the Hittites, is bound up with treaties is also rare. As mentioned below, there is a case of teaching from history in the period of confusion following the Old Kingdom, the First Intermediate Period. The succeeding Middle Kingdom also gives us no evidence for treaties. The New Kingdom was the great age of Egyptian imperial expansion and it is from this age that our evidence for treaties, such as it is, comes. Egypt established an empire in Palestine and south Syria and in consequence came in greater contact with the great powers of the time.

100

Admonition and Curse

We are very much dependent upon letters written to the pharaoh by both independent states and Egyptian vassals during the Amarna period for the little that we know. Apart from this we are dependent upon references in Egyptian texts and the fragments of correspondence with Egypt found in the Hittite land. Approximate dates1 for the kings and periods mentioned below are as follows: First Intermediate Period New Kingdom Tuthmosis III Amenophis II Amarna Period Amenophis IV (Akhenaten) Ramesses II Ramesses III

c.2130-1980 1479-1425 11426-1400

c.l360-13202 1353-1336 11279-1213 1187-1156

The Evidence for Parity Treaties. We know of an early treaty between Egypt and Hatti from two Hittite sources.3 The Amarna letters4 between the great powers and Egypt speak often of their relationship to Egypt. They speak of 'brotherhood',5 "friendship",6 of a 'thing/word being established between them'7 and 1. W.J. Murnane, 'The History of Ancient Egypt: An Overview' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 691717 (713). I have omitted, with New Kingdom dates, Murnane's appropriately cautious 'circa' which prefaces his dates, since all second-millennum dates have to be considered as uncertain and approximate. For discussion of Egyptian chronology see K.A. Kitchen, 'The Basics of Egyptian chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age' in P. Astrom (ed.) High, Middle or Low? (Vol. II; Gothenburg: Paul Astroms, 1987), pp. 37-55; and E. Hornung,' "Lang oder kurz?" das Mittlere und Neue Reich Agyptens als Prufstein' in P. Astrom (ed.), High, Middle or Low?, I, pp. 27-36. 2. Dating the period over which the Amarna Letters were written is complicated by problems such as the lack of personal names of the pharaoh to whom most of the letters were written and the possibility of co-regencies among the pharaohs of the time. I have chosen rather wide limits. 3. The Second Plague Prayer of Mursilix II (A. Goetze, 'Die Pestgebete des Murshilish', p. 208 § 4) and the Deeds of Suppiluliumas (H.G. Guterbock, The Deeds of Suppiluliumas as Told by his Son, Mursilis IF, JCS 10(1956), pp. 41-68, 75-98, 107-30 (98)). 4. For the Amarna letters see J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln (Aalen: Otto Zeller, 1915) and for translation see W.L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1992). 5. E.g. EA 1:64. 6. E.g. EA 4:15. 7. EA 7:39.

Egyptt

101

similar phrases.8 Tushratta, king of Mitanni, in particular uses the term 'love' to describe the relationship.9 'Brother' is the standard term of address of one to the other. All of these terms are found in other contexts referring to a treaty relationship.10 Yet the failure in the Amarna Letters to use the specific Akkadian terms for treaty and oath, namely riksu and mdmitu, when describing the relationship to Egypt, is at least interesting. Such terms occur elsewhere in the corpus but always in describing alliances outside Egypt.11 The description of such oaths also often use terms such as 'peace' and 'friendship'.12 While the sample is probably not statistically significant, there does seem some bias in the whole corpus of the Amarna Letters to the use of the various synonyms for treaty and oath which describe the consequences of the pact13 rather than make direct reference to the treaty. Hence the lack of specific terms in the correspondence between the great powers may be simply a reflection of a bias in the letters as a whole. Yet the question still remains as to the cause and significance of this bias. Is it a reflection of some difference in the way Egypt related to the outside world?14 Is it a reflection of a general tendency in letters? Dogmatism on this issue is excluded by the small number of letters we have between the great powers outside the Amarna collection. The superficial impression from a cursory look at these is that they also show something of a bias towards use of synonyms rather than the direct designations.15 Was there a

8. E.g. EA 11: Rev 22. 9. EA 17:24; 19:10, 11, 12, 14 etc. 10. W.L. Moran, 'A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefire Stelas', JNES 22(1963), pp. 173-6; idem, 'The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy', CBQ 25 (1963), pp. 77-87; D.R. Hillers, 'A Note on Some Treaty Terminology in the Old Testament', BASOR 176(1964), pp. 46-7; F.C. Fensham, 'Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant' in H. Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1971), pp. 121-35. 11. EA 67:13; 149:59, 60. 12. EA 67:16; 83:25; 125:39; 132:33, 34; 136:13, 28, 32; 162:22. 13. P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant. A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (Analecta Biblica, 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982), pp. 18-19. 14. The collection of terms made by D. Lorton seems to give no evidence of a preponderance of such terms in the Egyptian vocabulary of foreign relations. Rather the tendency is towards terms which stress Egyptian power and dominion: The Juridical Terminology of International Relations in Egyptian Texts through Dyn. xviii (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1974). 15. Muwatallis II to Adad-narari I uses 'brotherhood' (E.F. Weidner, 'Wasashatta, Konig von Hanigalbat', AfO 6(1930-31), pp. 21-2 (22)); Hattusilis III to Kadashman-Ellil refers to his treaty with Egypt in terms of 'friendly relations' (E. Edel, 'Die Abfassungszeit des Briefs KBo I 10 (Hattushil - Kadashman-Ellil) und seine Bedeutung fiir die Chronologie Ramses' IF, JCS 12(1958), pp. 130-3 (131)); Ramesses II to Hattusilis III uses 'peace' and

102

Admonition and Curse

tendency in discussions between the great powers to avoid mention of the (perhaps demeaning?) oath? It seems reasonable therefore to conclude that there may be something of a general tendency in letters to avoid referring directly to treaties and oaths. It could also be true that the Egyptians themselves tended to avoid referring in specific terms to treaties. The consequence of this situation is that all our concrete evidence of formal parity treaties is for treaties with the Hittites. That is not to exclude the possibility that other treaties existed. What it does mean is that we have to use the evidence from treaties with the Hittites as our sole determinant of whether such treaties were native and natural to Egypt. This further narrows down to the treaty between Ramesses II and Hattusilis III, because we know of the earlier treaty only by allusion. In the crucial treaty16 there are two features which are not distinctively Hittite. One is the playing on the 'beautiful brotherhood and beautiful friendship' which the treaty established.17 This echoes the phrases of the Amarna correspondence18 and the phrases in the correspondence of the Egyptian queen Nefertari to Puduhepa,19 her Hittite counterpart. The other distinctive element is the modification of the historical section in the version which came originally from Egypt.20 The rest of the text - the stipulations and god list - are in terms which are typical for Hittite treaties. The reference to the thousand gods is a characteristic Hittite expression.21

'brotherhood' (E. Edel, Die agyptisch-hethitische Korrespondens aus Boghazkoi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache, (Vol. I; Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994), p. 23, 11. 13', 14') so too the correspondence of the respective wives, Nefertari to Puduhepa (J. Friedrich, 'Aus dem hethitischen Schriftum', AO 24/3(1925), pp. 3-32 (23); Edel, Die agyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz, Vol. I, p. 40,1. 14.); note also the description of the treaty between Nabopolassar and Cyaxares as 'good relations' and 'friendship' (B. Landsberger and T. Bauer, 'Zu neuveroffentlichten Geschichtsquellen der Zeit von Asarhaddon bis Nabonid', ZA 37(1926-27), pp. 61-98) and Nabonidas' claim that hostile kings had written to him for 'friendship' and 'good relations' (C.J. Gadd, 'The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidas', An. St. 8(1958), pp. 35-92 (58)). In contrast, Ramesses II writing to the king of Mira does refer to his treaty with the Hittites as an oath and says it has been placed under the feet of the gods (B. Meissner, 'Die Beziehungen Agyptens zum Hattireiche nach hattischen Quellen' ZDMG 72(1918), pp. 32-64 (58)); Ramesses II to Hattusilis III refers to the oath (mamitu) which Hattusilis took (Edel, Die agyptisch-hethitische Korrespondens, Vol. I, p. 56, #23, 1. 5'). 16. G. Roeder, 'Aegypter und Hethiter', Die Alte Orient 20(1919), pp. 3-47 (36-47); Weidner, Politische Dokumente, pp. 112-23.; Langdon and Gardiner, The Treaty of Alliance between Hattushili, King of the Hittites and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt', pp. 181-201. 17. Weidner, Politische Dokumente, p. 112, 1. 8. 18. See notes 2, 3, 9. 19. Friedrich, 'Aus dem hethitischen Schriftum', p. 23. 20. Weidner, Politische Dokumente, p. 116, 11. 24, 25. 21. Meissner, 'Die Beziehungen Agyptens zum Hattireiche', p. 55.

Egyptt

103

Thus the possibility exists that the initiative22 and form for the treaty came from the Hittites and was slightly modified to suit Egyptian perceptions. The reference to 'beautiful brotherhood and beautiful friendship' would be an example of such Egyptian influence. Thus the mere fact that a parity treaty involving Egypt exists does not prove that it was the normal Egyptian way of conducting foreign relations, and even if Egypt made use of treaties the possibility exists that an Egyptian treaty without specific Hittite input might look different. Another way the problem could be phrased is to say that the parity treaty between Hattusilis III and Ramesses II looks 'right' to us because it is significantly Hittite in conception and form, and our perception of what to expect in a treaty has been coloured by the fact that the preponderance of extant treaties are Hittite.

Vassal Treaties The letters of the vassals to the pharaoh in the Amarna collection do not refer to their relationship as constituted by treaty, whether by using the specific terms or the synonyms. Once again we face the possibility of a significant silence. When they refer to alliances it is to those made by (allegedly) rebellious vassals in Syria-Palestine.23 Another interesting pattern is that the terminology of 'father' and 'son' is not used in the correspondence between vassal and pharaoh. The one case of a person who refers to pharaoh as 'my father' and designates himself as 'your son' is in the problematic letter No. 44. The person involved calls himself a 'son of the king'. He sends people as presents and requests gold. Hence he is certainly not a vassal. The references in the letter to Hatti make it likely that he was a Hittite.24 However, the father/son terminology does occur in letters between vassals and Egyptian officials.255The difference in reference to pharaoh and reference to an official raises the possibility that the vassals did not sustain to pharaoh the normal relationship of a vassal to a suzerain. That sort of relationship occurred more in their relationship to officials (see further below). 22. Perhaps our customary scepticism about Egyptian claims should be tempered and we should accept the claim that the negotiations were begun by an initiative from Hattusilis (Langdon and Gardiner, 'The Treaty of Alliance', p. 185). 23. See notes 8 and 9. 24. For discussion of the problem see J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, , Vol. II, pp. 1095-7. Klengel (Gexchichte des hethitischen Reiches, p. 139) equates him with Zida, the brother of Suppiluliumas I. 25. EA 73:1-3; 96:1-2; 158: 1-4; 164:1. Note also the address to an Egyptian official as 'brother' in EA 166:1-2.

104

Admonition and Curse

The difference between relationship to pharaoh and relationship to an official may be relevant to the problematic letter EA 164, from Aziru the ruler of Amurru in Syria to Tutu, an Egyptian official. Aziru wrote to Egypt protesting his loyalty, but we know from Hittite sources that at some stage he became a vassal to the Hittites.26 Thus he was a man living in the border territory where two empires met. Aziru addresses Tutu as both his lord and his father.27 The main subject of the letter is a summons that Aziru go to Egypt, a summons that he seems intent on evading. His excuse for not going is that the Hittite king was close by and he needed to stay to defend his territory. What is of concern to this investigation are the following lines, which I translate as literally as possible (27-40): May the king my lord listen to my words. My lord, I am afraid before/ because of the king my lord and before/because of Tutu. Now my gods and my messenger and let me put Tutu and the grandees of the king my lord under oath and I will verily come. 'Thus Tutu and the king my lord and the grandees: 'If we (?) anything not good against Aziru.' And thus thou art put under oath to my gods and to Amun.'

There are some things unclear in this text and some quite clear. The first reference to the placing under oath is poorly preserved but the traces remaining28 support the translation given. It would appear that Aziru was somehow making his gods available29 so that those in Egypt could swear an oath. The text of the oath is given in the form of a conditional sentence with a suppressed apodosis, leaving the consequences of perjury implied but not defined. The crucial verb in the protasis is of uncertain translation but its general import may be guessed from the total context. What is enigmatic is the swearers of the oath. In the first mention it is Tutu and the grandees of the Egyptian king. The cited text of the oath says 'we', and those depicted as speaking are Tutu, the king and the grandees. However, the second reference to people being placed under an oath uses a singular rather than a plural verb form,30 hence my translation with 'thou art'. From the overall context of the letter the 'thou' would be Tutu. Hence

26. For the career of Aziru see I. Singer, 'A Concise history of Amurru' in S. Izre'el, Amurru Akkadian (Vol. II; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), pp. 135-95 (148-58). 27. EA 164:1 cf. 158:1. 28. See the text copy in O. Schroeder, Die Tontafeln von El-Amarna (Osnabruck: Zeller, 1915), #88:32. 29. Perhaps the translation should be 'herewith my gods'. 30. For second person plurals in these letters see A. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan (Vol. II; Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 45-6; S. Izre'el, Amurru Akkadian : a Linguistic Study (Vol. I; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), p. 136.

Egypttt

105

of three references to the oath, the king appears as a participant only one out of three times. This mixed data may be interpreted in various ways. One is that Aziru was asking that the king, among others, grant him safe passage on oath. This is how Westbrook takes it, and he further argues that if the Egyptian king were willing so to swear, it is doubtful that he would have scruples against entering into treaty oaths with a vassal.31 That is a possible interpretation of the letter but it is not completely conclusive. Against it is the fact that two out of three times the king does not seem to be a participant in the oath. Alternatively, Aziru's proposition is to be explained in terms of his perception of a special relationship to Tutu. He thinks that an oath by Tutu would implicate other officials of the Egyptian government and even the king, but the one he imagines as taking the oath would be Tutu himself. This mixture of literal action and perceived implication would then explain the confusing wording. In support of this interpretation are two other letters giving the identical excuse of the Hittite king's proximity for Aziru's failure to go to Egypt: one to the king (EA 165) and the second to another Egyptian official (EA 166). Neither request an oath. If pharaoh is willing to take oaths to vassals, surely it would make sense to ask him directly. There is a third explanation: Aziru is being deliberately outrageous to test the waters. He is on the verge of going over to the Hittite side but would like to know how reluctant the Egyptians are to tolerate insolence. Given the uncertainties, it would be unsafe to use this text against the silence of the vassal letters regarding treaties with Egypt. Liverani has suggested that some aspects of the Amarna correspondence become explicable if we posit a difference between the way the vassal saw the relationship and the way pharaoh saw it. 32 Pharaoh treated his SyroPalestinian 'vassals' not as vassals in the sense that they would expect but as peripheral bureaucrats to be used or ignored according to pharaoh's wishes. This suggestion, which makes explicable much that is puzzling in the letters, throws further doubt on there being formal treaties between Egypt and the city states of Syria-Palestine.33

31. R. Westbrook, 'International Law in the Amarna Age', p. 41. 32. M. Liverani. Three Amarna Essays (MANE 1/5; Malibu: Undena, 1979), especially p. 5. 33. Liverani's suggestion has been further elaborated by Zaccagnini, The Forms of Alliance and Subjugation in the Near East of the Late Bronze Age', p. 51. For reservations to the thesis see W.L. Moran, 'Some Reflections on Amarna Polities' in Z. Zevit, S. Gitin and M. Sokoloff (eds), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp. 559-72; and ibid. 'RibHadda: Job at Byblos?' in A. Kort and S. Morschauser (eds). Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry (Winona Lake; Eisenbrauns, 1985), pp. 173-81. For cautious

106

Admonition and Curse

Lorton has collected the instances in Egyptian texts that can be constructed as references to treaties.34 The root °rk, 'swear', occurs with reference to foreigners in a text of Amenophis IV. We read 'They request life' and 'They swear upon/for the sake (of) their health'.35 Requesting life is a cliche for the relationship of foreigners to Egypt and does not give much specific information.36 The reference to swearing is more significant.37 Another term which Lorton takes as a reference to a treaty is nt-°. It is used for written prescriptions or regulations. Hence when the annals of Tuthmosis III say that the Lebanese ports were 'provided with everything, according to their income, according to their stipulation of every year' and that the trade goods of the Lebanon were 'according to their stipulation of every year', he sees a reference to a treaty. That is, there were treaties which defined the obligation of pharaoh to the ports and their obligations to supply goods.38 Of itself the argument is somewhat weak. Given that there was a written text, what makes it certain that it was a treaty and not a bureaucratic regulation? Lorton's further suggestions are even less persuasive. He draws attention to the frequent request for the 'breath of life'. He suggests that since the granting of this boon is pronounced by pharaoh, it can only be an agreement to enter into a treaty relationship. He further suggests that the frequent reference to °nh, 'life', is a pun on °nh, 'oath'. This in turn explains the very few references to oaths or treaties in Egyptian literature.39 This argument seems weak. I would prefer to take the paucity of references to treaties and to try to explain it rather than start from the assumption that Egyptians must have used treaties like everybody else.40 When the phrase 'the breath of life' occurs in the Amarna Letters,41 it is translated by the normal Akkadian word for 'life', which does not support seeing the phrase as alluding to a treaty.42

support see W.J. Murnane, 'Imperial Egypt and the Limits of Power' in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds), Amarna Diplomacy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2000), pp. 101-11 (104-5). 34. Lorton, The Juridical Terminology of International Relations. 35. Lorton, The Juridical Terminology of International Relations, p. 82. 36. For further discussion see Liverani, Prestige and Interest, pp. 144-9. 37. A.H. Gardiner's suggestion of a derivation from a root meaning of 'bind' is also interesting in the light of the connection of other terms for treaty with the idea of binding: Egyptian Grammar (London: OUP, 3rd edn 1973), p. 523, VII. 38. Lorton, The Juridical Terminology of International Relations, p. 114. 39. Lorton, The Juridical Terminology of International Relations, p. 143. 40. See also Zaccagnini, The Forms of Alliance and Subjugation', p. 53. 41. To which Lorton, (The Juridical Terminology of International Relations, p. 144) also refers. 42. For example it comes after 'my pantheon' in the epithets of pharaoh (EA 141:2; cf. EA 144:2)

Egyptt

107

Other references which have been construed as meaning treaties come from the Ramesside period. They involve the word bryt/brt. The most significant text comes from the inscriptions of Ramesses III and refers to Libyans: 'They all make a brt bearing [their] tribute [upon their backs . . . ].43 It has been suggested that this word is related to the Hebrew word for covenant b erit.44 Discussion of this term has been influenced by another suggested occurrence of the Hebrew word for covenant outside Israel. Ration texts from Qatna, south east of Hamath, contained the expression TAR beriti.45 Albright suggested that TAR be taken in the meaning of 'cut' and that beriti was the Akkadian cognate of Hebrew b erit. We would then have the phrase 'cut a covenant', a common way of describing the conclusion of a treaty. To explain its occurrence in a ration text, he suggested that the men listed had entered into a contract to do certain work and the rations were their payment.46 Albright then connected these extra-biblical instances of brt and suggested a basic meaning of contract labour in accord with a covenant.47 Kitchen48 has added to the picture a reference to el brt in a Hurrian hymn found at Ugarit.49 If correct, this would mean a significant overlap of treaty concepts with contracts. However, there is a real doubt that it is correct, especially as an explanation of the Qatna texts. Soggin50 has raised the possibility that beriti in the Qatna text is simply the normal Akkadian preposition meaning 'between'. Then the phrase would mean 'cut51 between . . . ' . One wonders whether 'cut' is to be taken in the sense of 'divide' and the reference is simply to the distribution of rations. This would make sense in the Qatna contexts and remove these texts from our discussion. Better parallels to the Egyptian term come in a number of Egyptian texts where the context seems to demand something like 'work gang' or

43. W.F. Edgerton and J.A. Wilson, Historical Records of Ramses III ( Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1936), p. 85, 1. 52. There is another reference in a broken context p. 82, 1. 38. 44. Edgerton and Wilson, Historical Records of Ramses ///, p. 82, n.38c. 45. J. Bottero, 'Autres Textes de Qatna1, RA 44(1950), pp. 105-18 (112-14). 46. W.F. Albright, 'The Hebrew Expression for "Making a Covenant" in Pre-Israelite Documents', BASOR 121(1951), pp. 21-22. 47. W.F. Albright, 'Recent Books on Archaeology and Ancient History', BASOR 139(1955), pp. 14-25 (20). 48. K.A. Kitchen, 'Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna and Covenant', UF 11(1979), pp. 453-64. 49. RS 24.278: E. Laroche, 'Documents en langue hourrite provenant de Ras Shamra', Ugaritica 5(1968), pp. 448-544 (510). 50. J.A. Soggin, 'Akkadisch TAR beriti und Hebraisch karat berit\ VT 18(1968), pp. 21015 (214). 51. 'Swear' is another possible meaning of TAR (Soggin, 'Akkadisch TAR beriti\ p. 214).

108

Admonition and Curse

'corvee'.52 This would fit the context in the text from the time of Ramesses III which refers to Libyans. Reading all the Egyptian and Qatna references as somehow connected to the Hebrew term for treaty means a combining of the spheres of administrative or commercial life with those of oath-bound relationships. It is striking that if, for the sake of the argument, we exclude this controversial case, there is a clear distinction between treaties and contracts throughout the Ancient Near East. It seems a considerable extension of meaning from Hebrew b erit, 'covenant', to 'work gang'. Is the relationship purely one of accidental phonetic similarity? One wonders whether any reference to a treaty would have been seen in the Ramesses III text without this phonetic resemblance. The context, which gives a standard picture of the submission of foreigners, does not demand a reference to a treaty. Hence this text is not convincing proof of Egyptian vassal treaties. The reference to el brt in the Hurrian text from Ugarit is a different question. The context is a list of deities. One cannot exclude the possibility that brt outside Israel referred to a covenant and the god in this text is being called 'El of the covenant'. Nevertheless, one cannot prove it either on the basis of this one mention. While on more indirect evidence for treaties, we should consider EA 51:6. We are told that Tuthmosis III had appointed a previous king in Nuhashshe and placed oil on his head. Does this anointing possibly have something to do with a treaty, since anointing is attested at the conclusion of certain contracts? The problems of interpreting anointing have been discussed by Veenhof.53 He points out that oil can be used in dramatized or simile curses in which the disappearance of oil into the skin can symbolize the passage of the curse into the person.54 It can also, along with a meal, establish a community between two people.55 Probably we should be wary of seeing such rites as having only one symbolism. Rites are capable of multiple interrelations. Only if a treaty connotation is firmly established within that culture can we argue directly from rite to treaty. 52. R.A. Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies (London: OUP, 1954), p. 51; F.L. Griffith, The Abydos Decree of Seti I at Nauri', JEA 13(1927), pp. 193-208 (200-01. 11. 32, 43, 46); A.H. Gardiner, 'Some Reflections on the Nauri Decree', JEA 38(1952), pp. 24-33 (28); W.F. Edgerton, The Nauri Decree of Seti I', JNES 6(1947), 219-30 (221). Kitchen ('Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna and Covenant', p. 456) objects that in these texts other terms cover corvee and other forms of forced service, leaving for brt only the field of labour according to a contract, which can in turn be related to biblical covenants. The obvious question is whether we can define so exactly the range of the various Egyptian terms for forced labour. 53. K.R. Veenhof, 'Review of E. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt irn Alien Testament und im Alien Orient', Bi.Or. 23(1966), pp. 308-13. 54. Veenhof, 'Review of E. Kutsch', pp. 312-13. 55. Veenhof, 'Review of E. Kutsch', p. 309.

Egyptt

109

Wilson has collected a number of instances of oaths from Egyptian texts.56 These show that Egyptians certainly used oaths in judicial contexts and as a way of affirming the truth of statements and promises. Therefore the lack of instances of vassals making oaths seems all the more significant. There are a couple of problematic cases which use the expression sdf=-tr. It occurs in the contexts of the surrendering of the people of Megiddo to Tuthmosis III and of the homage of the prince and people of Kadesh to Amenophis II.57 Wilson is uncertain of the meaning of the expression.58 Lorton59 questions whether it was a regular form of oath taken by vassals, since the specific undertaking mentioned in the case of the inhabitants of Megiddo was a promise not to do something, rather than a positive promise of fealty. Goedicke points out a case in a legal context where sdfl-tr appears as something separate from the oath. Hence he suggests that it is a way of confirming the veracity of a statement.60 Morschauser61 suggests that on the basis of etymology and usage the expression means 'expunging of sin', that is forgiveness. Hence it is highly doubtful whether this term indicates a treaty-making.62 Thus the evidence for Egyptian vassal treaties is rare and rather weak. The strongest evidence would be the reference in the text of Amenophis IV to foreigners swearing. Against the existence of Egyptian vassal treaties is the lack of mention in the Amarna Letters. If there is not absolute silence with reference to vassal treaties in the Egyptian texts, the mention of them is certainly infrequent and this paucity needs explanation.

Lessons from History In the case of Mesopotamia and the Hittites there is a recurrent connection between certain ways of viewing history and treaties. One may speak of a 56. J.A. Wilson, The Oath in Ancient Egypt', JNES 7(1948), pp. 129-56. 57. Both texts may be found in A. Badawi, 'Die neue historische Stele Amenophis' IF, ASAE 42(1943), pp. 1-23 (12, 13). 58. Wilson, 'The Oath in Ancient Egypt', p. 142. 59. Lorton, The Juridical Terminology of International Relations, p. 132. 60. H. Goedicke, 'Was Magic Used in the Harem Conspiracy against Ramesses III?', JEA 49(1963), pp. 71-92 (79). 61. S.N. Morschauser, 'The End of the Sdf(3)-Tr(yt) "Oath"', JARCE 25(1988), pp. 93103. J.K. Hoffmeier acknowledges the force of Morschauser's argument but still prefers to translate as 'oath of allegiance' ('Eighteenth Dynasty Inscriptions' in W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger, Jr. (eds), The Context of Scripture, Vol. II, pp. 16n, 2In. I thank K. Lawson Younger, Jr. for drawing this to my attention.) 62. On the ideological background to the use of the term see M. Liverani, Prestige and Interest, pp. 145-6. Murnane ('Imperial Egypt and the Limits of Power', p. 105) suggests that all foreigners who have not yet submitted to Egypt might have been regarded as in need of forgiveness. However, he concedes that an oath on that basis is not the same as a treaty.

110

Admonition and Curse

pedagogic use of history. If treaties seem hard to attest in Egypt, can we attest this use of history? We can find occasional instances of such use. The most striking is in the First Intermediate Period, in which pharaoh uses the past in instruction to his son.63 The specific incident was destruction of a region, possibly in the civil wars of the time.64 Yet this use of the instruction form, in which the king instructs his son from his own experience, is confined to this period of Egyptian weakness. It is not found amongst the kings of the Old Kingdom and disappears once the pharaonic position is re-established in the Middle Kingdom.65 The instruction form belongs by right and origin not to pharaohs but to Egyptian officials.66 We have already seen evidence that in the Amarna period the vassals maintained a different sort of relationship to the officials than to pharaoh. Is the solution to the problem of the lack of treaties connected to this difference between king and official? In connection with Mesopotamia it was suggested that the image of the all-conquering king did not fit well with the image of a king who rules by personal loyalties. If that is true for the Mesopotamian king in certain periods, how much more for pharaoh? Our impression of the Egyptian royal image is one of aloofness and power. The bureaucracy on the other hand conveyed a different image. It is one of loyalty and solidarity within their own particular class. Did they tend to create different sorts of relationships, with the consequence that vassals writing to Egypt might use terms such as 'father' from the field of family relationships for an official while feeling that this was quite inappropriate in addressing pharaoh? This bare possibility does not justify jumping from 63. W. Helck, Die Lehre fur Konig Merikar (Kleine agyptische Texte; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1977), pp. 74—6; M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (Vol. I; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), p. 102. 64. For background see A. Scharff, 'Der historische Abschnitt der Lehre fuer Koenig Merikare', Sitzungsberichte d. Beyer. Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Ab., 8 (1936) A.H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, (Oxford: OUP, 1961), pp. 115-16. 65. There has been a question as to the date of The Instructions for Merikare. Since our copies come from the New Kingdom (R.B. Parkinson, 'Teachings, Discourses and Tales from the Middle Kingdom' in S. Quirke (ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies (New Maiden: SIA, 1991), pp. 91-122 (107)), it is possible to argue that the text dates from later than the First Intermediate Period (cf. G. Bjorkman, 'Der historische Abschnitt der Lehre fuer Koenig Merikare', Orientalia Suecana 13(1964), pp. 9-33). Even if that is the case, it does not substantially affect the main argument here. The pedagogic use of history would still be rare and not attested in texts whose setting is later than the early Middle Kingdom. The strongest case for Egyptian vassal treaties concerns the New Kingdom and literary works with a New Kingdom setting do not show the sort of appeal to history to teach lessons that we find in The Instructions for Merikare. 66. M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. I, pp. 5-7; H. Brunner, Die Lehre des Cheti, Sohnes des Duauf (Aegyptologische Forschungen, 13; Glueckstadt: JJ. Augustin, 1944), pp. 67-70.

Egypt t

111

the use of 'father' in the Amarna letters to concluding that officials would have been responsible for concluding treaties with the vassals. As far as we can discern from the Amarna letters, the vassals saw pharaoh as making the decisions but were concerned that he be fully informed, especially from an official whom they perceived to be sympathetic to them. That does not entitle us to say that the officials would have made the actual treaties.

The Place of Egypt The virtual silence of the Egyptian texts with regard to vassal treaties leaves us with several possibilities. One is that the Egyptians did use vassal treaties but pharaoh found such relations with vassals below his dignity. The vassals knew enough of Egyptian ways to respect their lord's sensibilities when they wrote to him. The actual negotiation of treaties was left to officials to whose mentality it was far more congenial. An alternative is that the Egyptian did not enter into formal treaties with the conquered. The dynasts of Syria-Palestine may have sometimes operated according to their expectations and made oaths of allegiance, perhaps encouraged by officials. However, policy, as far as it was set by pharaoh, did not demand or encourage such practice, and certainly not a written text. This second possibility may have a slight edge in that it fits better with the evidence - or rather lack of evidence. Either possibility leaves open another question. Is the apparently sparse use of treaties by Egypt, if they were used at all, proof of the fact that the treaty was a form that came from outside and never really penetrated Egypt? Or does it indicate that factors operated in Egypt that were inimical to the use of treaties and hence treaties, though present, were little used? In trying to answer these questions the pedagogic use of history arises. As we have seen, it is rare in Egypt but common with the Hittites, who make frequent use of treaties. The explanation suggested above for the Hittite connection of history and treaty seems relevant to Egypt. Pharaoh projects the image of power: divine power. As such pharaoh will not be bound to a vassal even if the binding treaty places almost all the obligations upon the vassal. There is thus little room for admonitions from history. There is a danger of reacting too far against the facile assumption that everybody was using treaties of identical form. Perhaps a balanced position would be to allow some treaty use, but of a sporadic and low-key variety. This would be just to the admittedly slender evidence for treaties. If this was the case, it tips the balance slightly towards Egypt having some acquaintance with treaties. Some further evidence in this direction is the taking of oaths to pharaoh to report what is seen and heard. Such an oath is testified to by a

112

Admonition and Curse

necropolis worker in the reign of Ramesses III.67 If such oaths were used internally they may have been used on occasion externally. Still, it is interesting to contrast the frequency with which the correspondents of the Sargonid kings refer to this oath with the lack of mention by the Amarna correspondents. Perhaps the special function of the necropolis within the Egyptian religious system made those who worked there a special category. Hence the sparsity of the evidence from Egypt leaves us with many possibilities. Only in the light of the whole Near Eastern data can these be evaluated. Even then we have only a series of possibilities. The one certain conclusion that can be reached is that any assumption that every great power uniformly used the treaty form is suspect.

67. W.F. Edgerton, The Strikes in Ramses Ill's Twenty-Ninth Year', JNES 10(1951), pp. 137-45(141).

Chapter 4 SYRIA It is probably unhistorical to treat together all the material coming from the geographical area of Syria. Whereas we can trace a measure of cultural continuity in Mesopotamia, continuity is much more problematic in Syria. Hence the treaties considered here do not necessarily have any close relationship simply because they come from the same geographic area.

Historical Context Syria presents us with a series of cultures whose connection to each other and to other cultures is problematic. Third and second millennium sites which yield texts were using cuneiform as a medium for writing, and in that regard the connection to Mesopotamia is clear. What is less clear is the extent to which a local as opposed to a Mesopotamian culture comes to expression in those texts. First-millennium sites are using the West Semitic alphabet but that does not diminish the problem of determining whether the culture behind the texts considered here is local or imported. The dating of the Ebla texts has been somewhat controversial. The archives probably date to the twenty-fourth/twenty-third century.1 Thus they would be a little later than the earliest Mesopotamian texts which make reference to treaties. Texts from Alalakh range over many centuries. Abban, the ruler of Yamkhad (Aleppo) contemporary with Yarimlim of Alalakh, has been tentatively dated c. 1750-1720.2 At that time Alalakh was under the sway of Yamkhad, which was the dominant state of north Syria until its conquest 1. L. Milano, 'Ebla: A Third-Millennium City-State in Ancient Syria' in J.M. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 1219-30 (1221-2); P. Matthiae, Ebla: an Empire Rediscovered (tr. C. Holme; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1980), pp. 51-8. 2. D.J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets (London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953), pp. 2-5.; N.P. Lemche 'The History of Ancient Syria and Palestine: An Overview' in J.M. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 1195-218 (1202).

114

Admonition and Curse

by the Hittite Mursilis I. Idrimi and Niqmepa date to the 15th century3 when Alalakh was a vassal to Mitanni. The Mari texts overlap chronologically with the earlier Alalakh texts. The dates4 of the key figures are: m d Yasmah-Adad Zimri-Lim

1796-1776 1776-1761

Both the Sefire texts (eighth century) and the Arslan Tash texts (seventh century) fall in the period in which Syria was dominated by the Assyrian Empire.

Ebla The earliest text from Syria claimable as a treaty is both difficult and controversial. , Pettinato5 has argued that the two parties involved were Ebla and Ashur. That one of the parties is Ashur has been strongly denied by Sollberger.6 For our purposes a more serious question is whether the text is a treaty at all.7 It appears to begin without any introduction of the parties to the treaty. The first section is largely a list of cities. The second section might correspond to the stipulations section of a treaty. The third section mentions several gods and what could be interpreted as a curse, even if the exact form of the curse is uncertain. When we consider the 'stipulations' section we have a further difficulty. A section regulating the dispatch of messengers between the two parties is what one might expect to find in an international treaty, whatever the power balance between the two parties. There are other sections, expressed in similar casuistic style, which do not fit a treaty. Examples would be commands to report 'evil' (poisoned? polluted?) oil and water and laws dealing with adultery and seduction. 3. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, pp. 5-8; Lemche, The History of Ancient Syria and Palestine', p. 1202. 4. G. Roux, Ancient Iraq, p. 507. 5. G. Pettinato, The Royal Archives of Tell Mardikh-Ebla', BA 39(1976), pp. 44-52 (48); idem, Ebla. Nuovi orizzonti della storia (Milan: Rusconi, 1986), pp. 286-7. 6. E. Sollberger, The So-Called Treaty Between Ebla and "Ashur"', Studi Eblaiti 3(1980), pp. 129-55. 7. For translations see Sollberger, The So-Called Treaty'; Pettinato, Ebla, pp. 389-95. For a general discussion and some further suggestions about translation see W.G. Lambert, The Treaty of Ebla' in L. Cagni (ed.), Ebla 1975-1985 (Naples: Institute Universitario Orientale, 1987), pp. 353-64. See also P. Artzi, 'Ideas and Practices of International Coexistence in the Third Millennium B.C.E.' in P. Artzi (ed.), Confrontation and Coexistence, (Bar-Han Studies in History II; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan U.P., 1984), pp. 34-9.

Syria

115

They look more like the stipulations that one might find in a domestic law code. There are various ways out of our dilemma. We could ascribe the lack of features such as the expected introduction of parties to the fact that it is only a preliminary draft.8 That does not solve the problem of the clauses which appear inappropriate in an international treaty. Another way out is to suggest that this text follows a treaty form quite different to the other forms we have been considering. If that is the case then its early date is especially significant. Were it not for the danger of basing an argument on one example, we could then postulate a third-millennium treaty form over against the classic and better known form of the second millennium. The problem with this thesis is that the Lagash evidence points to thirdmillennium treaties with affinities to the later form. That leaves the Ebla text once more sui generis. There is another tentative possibility. This text could be more of a decree than a treaty. As has been argued above, decrees often overlap in some respects with treaties. The difficulty with the decree interpretation is that there do seem to be two parties: Ebla and A-bar-QAkl.9 To sustain such an interpretation one would then have to argue that there is one overlord of both Ebla and A-bar-QAkl. This text is a decree of the overlord regulating the territory and the relations of the two cities and setting laws which shall apply in both. Plucking an otherwise unattested overlord out of the air to explain a difficult text is highly dubious. Therefore a more likely situation is that both Ebla and A-bar-QAkl are provincial centres within the larger state. The decree sets their provincial territory and their mutual relations and establishes laws valid for both. Whatever interpretation we choose, this text gives little assistance in tracing the history of the treaty. If it is a treaty of a different kind, then one might consider possible affinities with the Ishchali 'treaty' considered earlier. Yet the formal similarities are not sufficient to postulate a separate treaty form. Perhaps there is an accidental overlap due to the fact that both are decrees involving two separate cities. The Lagash evidence pushes some elements of the classical treaty back to a time roughly contemporary with or maybe earlier than the Ebla 'treaty'. If this Ebla text is a domestic decree, rather than a treaty involving separate states, then its relevance to this investigation is even more marginal. 8. It has been regarded as a draft by H. Waetzoldt,' "Diplomaten", Boten, Kaufleute und Verwandtes in Ebla' in L. Cagni (ed.), // bilinguismo a Ebla (Naples: Institute Universitario Orientale, 1984), pp. 405-37 (405n.)) and by Pettinato, Ebla, p. 287. 9. To use Lambert's neutral designation ('The Treaty of Ebla', p. 354). For discussion of a possible location see G. Bunnens, 'Geographie historique de la region du barrage de Tishrin' in O. Rouault and M. Wafler (eds), La Djezire et I'Euphrate syriens de la protohistoire a la fin du If millenaire av. J. C. (Subartu, 7; Brepols: Turnhout, 2000), pp. 299-308 (301).

116

Admonition and Curse

Archi has posited a treaty between Ebla and the Mardu people.10 His basis is a mention of men he sees as 'representatives' (UGULA) of Mardu who brought oil offerings and took an oath in a temple. Certainly these offerings and the oath could have been connected to a treaty. However, this is not explicitly stated. Given that oaths were taken for purposes besides treaties, one cannot be certain that this is evidence for a treaty.

Alalakh The treaty between Abban of Yamkhad (Aleppo) and Yarimlim of Alalakh is a very interesting one. Both versions11 give a historical background. The city of Alalakh was given to Yarimlim in exchange for a city destroyed in the suppression of a rebellion. The suzerain, Abban,12 takes a curse upon himself if he takes Alalakh away from Yarimlim: 'Abban spoke the oath of the gods to Yarimlim and cut the neck of a sheep: "If I take from you what I gave".'13 The apodosis to this self-maledictory statement is not specified and is followed by other such statements. As it occurs in connection with the killing of a sheep, the natural inference is that the sheep's death is a dramatic apodosis illustrating the fate of Abban if he broke his promise. Yet Yarimlim is clearly the vassal who is threatened with loss of his towns if he is unfaithful, and he also takes an oath: 'If (Yarimlim) releases the horn of the garment of Abban and seizes the horn of the garment of another king, he shall fo[rfeit] cities and territory.'14 At the end of this text is a list of men and we are told: 'They caused Yarimlim to swear the oath of the gods.'15 As with other cases of uncommon features in treaties, it is hard to discern the role of these men. The names are not sufficiently preserved to allow guesses as to their role in the kingdom. Any coersion factor seems excluded by the fact that Abban was also making promises. Perhaps these men are connected to the problem that Abban and Yarimlim were not at the same place when the agreement was reached. On that supposition they would be representatives of the suzerain who made sure that the vassal also bound himself by oath. 10. A. Archi, 'Mardu in the Ebla Texts', Orientalia 54(1985), pp. 7-13 (9). 11. D.J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, (hereafter listed as AT 1) (for another translation see Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, Vol. II, p. 330); D.J. Wiseman, 'Abban and Alalah', JCS 12(1958), pp. 124-9. 12. Alternatively the name may be read as Abbael. 13. Wiseman, 'Abban and Alalah', p. 126, 11. 39-42. 14. Wiseman, 'Abban and Alalah', p. 126, 11. 47-50. 15. Wiseman, 'Abban and Alalah', p. 128, 11. 74-6.

Syria

117

The version ATI has a curse upon anybody who tries to change the arrangement or to oppose Yarimlim and his descendants: 'The one who changes what Abban did (and does) evil to Yarimlim and his descendants . . . '16 This is followed by a list of gods given individual curses to inflict upon the malefactor. The other version lacks a god list. This treaty presents as a mixture of grant and treaty. The grant is conditional on obedience but it is still a grant. In line with that is the fact that the suzerain swears an oath. As is typical of grants, the curse is turned against a third party. However, the vassal is also bound by oath and committed to loyalty. The best external parallels are probably God's covenants with Abraham (Genesis 15, 17) where God makes a promise and takes upon himself a curse (Genesis 15.7-21), but where Abraham was still required to be obedient (Genesis 17.1). Abban cutting of the neck of a sheep is recounted in the context of swearing an oath, not to rescind the grant, so the meaning of the rite was probably self-malediction. Suzerains seldom take explicit oaths in treaties, making the only clear parallel the rite of Genesis 15. To which treaty tradition does this text seem the closest? The simple answer is that it shows parallels to a number but no clear affinity to any. The history of the suzerain's goodness in giving the city may parallel the use of history in Hittite treaties but no Hittite suzerain takes an explicit oath in our extant texts. In that respect the Bible is closest but the parallels are general rather than specific. The one parallel to the Mesopotamian tradition is the gods with individual curses but they are aimed against a third party. Otherwise the treaty deviates from Mesopotamian models. This is significant in view of the fact that this text is one of the earliest treaty texts known outside of Mesopotamia (c. eighteenth century). If treaties passed to the Hittites by way of Syria, as some have suggested, then it underwent considerable changes in Syria. However, this treaty cannot be easily placed in any genealogical tree of the Hittite treaty. Rather we have here an independent development of certain themes paralleled amongst the Hittites and in the Bible. The fifteenth-century treaties from Alalakh are significantly different.17 The tablets are not sufficiently complete to be dogmatic, but a historical introduction seems lacking. AT 2 begins: 'Tablet of oath of the gods of Niqmepa king of Mukish[... and of Ir]-Addu king of 16. AT 1:13-15. 17. AT 3 is a treaty between Idrimi of Alalakh and Pilliya, possibly of Kizzuwatna since a king of Kizzuwatna of that name is known from Hittite sources (for another translation see see Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture. Vol. II, pp. 329-30.) AT 2 is a treaty of Idrimi's son Niqmepa with Ir-Addu of Tunip. (See also M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, 'Der Vertrag zwischen Ir-Addu von Tunip und Niqmepa von Mukis' in G.D. Young, M.W.

118

Admonition and Curse

[Tujnip.'18 This is followed by detailed stipulations. At the end there is a brief god list and curses aimed at anyone who contravenes the stipulations. AT 3 is similar, beginning with: '[Tabjlet of treaty when Pilliya and Idrimi pronounced the oath of the gods and made this treaty between them."9 The stipulations and curse formula are similar to AT 2. Both seem to be parity treaties regulating the relationship between two vassals of Mitanni. They would fall into the pattern we have already seen of not using history to preach to an equal. Thus it would be unsafe to use these texts as proof of a move away from historical prologues at Alalakh. The inscription on the statue of Idrimi20 mentions a treaty. The fact that this is mentioned within an autobiographical inscription does not necessarily imply it made appeal to history. Assyrians also refer to their treaties in their annals without necessarily using history in those treaties. The most interesting feature of the description of the treaty is the reference to a sacrifice, but the text does not indicate its purpose.

Mari It must be reiterated that my treatment of the Mari material involves a possibly erroneous separation. Evidence from Mari was treated earlier in Chapter Two, when it gave information about Mesopotamian practices. Here the references concerned with the area around Mari and relations to the west have been collected. The justification of the separation is twofold: the possibility of a difference between Syrian and Mesopotamian practice and a subjective impression that the Mari evidence links different cultural spheres. The reason for highlighting the 'arbitrary' division of the evidence is so that subjective impression may be assessed. A number of references to treaties occur in the Mari texts.21 In some

Chavalas and R.E. Averbeck (eds), Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons. Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on His 80th Birthday (Bethesda: CDL Press, 1997), pp. 211-42; and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, Vol. II, pp. 331-2.) 18. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, p. 26, 11. 1-3. 19. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, p. 31, 1-5. 20. S. Smith, The Statue of Idri-mi (London: British Inst. of Arch, in Ankara, 1949), pp. 14 21. For a discussion of the date of this text see J.M. Sasson, 'On Idrimi and Sharruwa, the Scribe' in M.A. Morrison and D.I. Owen (eds), Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and The Hurrians (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 301-24; T. Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, pp. 63-6. The latter two writers argue that the text is pseudepigraphic, which would possibly bring its date down to around 1200. 21. J.M. Munn-Rankin, 'Diplomacy in Western Asia', Iraq 18(1956), pp. 68-110 (84-95); F.C. Fensham, 'Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant', pp. 123-5; V. Korosec, 'Les relations internationales d'apres les lettres de Mari' in La civilisation de Mari (RAI15; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1967), pp. 139-50; J.-R. Kupper 'Zimri-Lim et ses vassaux'

Syria

119

cases there does not seem to have been a written text of the oath.22 In these the killing of a donkey seems to have been a prominent part of the oath ritual.23 One letter tells us that a donkey was killed in the temple of Sin of Harran.24 In another instance, the question arose of the animal to be used. The representative of the king of Mari rejected a puppy and a goat and chose a young donkey.25 The texts do not elaborate on the significance of killing the donkey. Dossin suggested it was a sacrifice which consecrated the oath of alliance.26 Mendenhall pointed out parallels to self-maledictory rites.27 We really cannot say what role this rite played in the treaties described. We cannot say whether appeals to history would have played any role in the treaties mentioned. We find such an argument from history in the letter found at Mari from Yarim-Lim to Yashub-Yahad, who were probably the kings of Aleppo and Der, respectively.28 Yarim-Lim appeals to Shamash to investigate and complains that his goodness as a father and brother to Der had not been reciprocated. He swears by Adad and Sin to destroy YashubYahad and his land. The appeals to Shamash and to a history of

in D. Charpin and F Joannes (eds), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Etudes sur la civilisation mesopotamienne offertes a Paul Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), pp. 179-84. 22. Korosec, 'Les relations Internationales', p. 147; H. Tadmor, Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East', pp. 138-9; B. Lafont, 'Sacrifices et rituels a Mari et dans la Bible', RA 93(1999), pp. 57-77 (74). 23. For the killing of a donkey as part of treaty ritual in Mari texts see A. Finet, 'Le sacrifice de 1'ane en Mesopotamia' in J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (Louvain: Peeters, 1993), pp. 135-142; B. Lafont, 'Sacrifices et rituels a Mari et dans la Bible', pp. 72-7. 24. G. Dossin, 'Benjamites dans les textes de Mari' in Melanges Syriens offerts a M. Rene Dussaud(Vol II; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1939), pp. 981-96 (986). 25. ARM II 37. See G.E. Mendenhall, 'Puppy and Lettuce in Northwest-Semitic Covenant Making', BASOR 133(1954), pp. 26-30; D. Charpin, 'Un souverain ephemere en Ida-Maras: Isme-Addu d'Asnakkum', Mari 7(1993), pp. 165-91 (169-70). For the translation 'goat' rather than 'lettuce' see W. von Soden, 'Zu den Amarnabriefen aus Babylon und Assur', Orientalia 21(1952), pp. 426-34 (197). For a similar text which seems to refer to calf rather than a puppy see A. Malamat, 'A Note on the Ritual of Treaty Making in Mari and the Bible', IEJ 45(1995), pp. 226-9 (227). 26. G. Dossin, 'Les archives epistolaires du palais de Mari', Syria 19(1938), pp. 105-26 (108). 27. Mendenhall, 'Puppy and Lettuce in Northwest-Semitic Covenant Making', pp. 26, 27. 28. G. Dossin, 'Une lettre de larim-Lim, roi d'Alep, a lashub-Iahad, roi de Dir', Syria 33(1956), pp. 63-9. This letter has been re-evaluated by J.M. Sasson, 'Yarim-Lim's War Declaration' in J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper (eds), Miscellanea Babylonica. Melanges offerts a Maurice Birot (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985), pp. 237-55 (237). He suggests that it is a fictional work. Even if this were the case, one would suspect that the text would reflect probable events within the world of the author.

120

Admonition and Curse

beneficence make us wonder if a treaty is in the background of this correspondence. Yet this is not explicit in the text. Besides the many references to treaties in the letters, a fragmentary treaty is extant between Zimri-Lim of Mari and Atumrum of Andarig, one of the states of the Jazirah:29 (By) Shamash off heaven] Atamrum, son of Warad-Sin, king of Andfarig} swore. From this day, as long as I live, I will [not] do evil to Zimri-Lim, son of Yahdunlim, [king of] the city of Mari and the country of [Hana] (or to) his [city], army and country . . . 30

One of the peculiarities of this text is that only one deity, Shamash o[f heaven], is listed as witness deity at the beginning of the text. Atamrum speaks and promises not to act evilly or deceitfully against Zimri-Lim. The declaration is short and general without the detail common in treaties. There appear to be no curses. The text does not make clear which of the two was the superior party, even though we might guess it was Zimri-Lim. This guess is confirmed by a letter describing Atamrum's protestations of loyalty to Zimri-Lim, his 'father' and 'elder brother'.31 Mentions in a number of letters32 attest to the practice of taking gods from one city to another for the purpose of swearing an oath. Presumably this is another device to overcome the problem of concluding a treaty between two rulers at a distance from each other.33 There is also an interesting description of practices which accompany an oath, if they are not part of it, in a description of an oath by Atamrum of Andarig and other vassals of the king of Mari.34 A property dispute was settled before the young donkey was killed and the oath taken.35 The drinking of a cup and giving presents followed the oath.36 The description

29. F. Joannes, 'Le traite de vassalite d'Atamrum d'Andarig envers Zimri-Lim de Mari' in D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Etudes sur la civilisation mesopotamienne offertes a Paul Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), pp. 167-77. 30. Joannes, 'Le traite de vassalite d'Atamrum', p. 167, 11. 1-9. 31. D. Charpin et al., Archives epistolaires de Mari, p. 404, 1. 17. 32. D. Charpin et al, Archives epistolaires de Mari, ##347:24-27; 389:24-26; 390:13'-! 5'; 391:3-5; 393:3-5; 526:6-8. A number of these passages are partly broken but the accumulation of similar passages supports the restorations. See also D. Charpin et al., Archives epistolaires de Mari, p. 210, n. 13. 33. For a letter mentioning the coming together of the human partners to swear an oath see J. Eidem, 'Northern Jezira in the 18th Century BC. Aspects of Geo-Political Patterns' in O. Rouault and M. Warier (eds), La Djezire et I'Euphrate syriens de la protohistoire a la fin du If millenaire av. J. C. (Subartu, 7; Brepols: Turnhout, 2000), pp. 255-64 (258). 34. Charpin et al., Archives epistolaires de Mari, #404. 35. LI. 38-49. 36. LI. 63, 4.

Syria

121

gives no indication of whether these acts were considered a crucial part of the oath-taking or merely reflected things likely to happen when several kings met together. Another ritual which accompanied oath-taking on some occasions seems to have been the bringing into contact of the blood of the two parties.37 Another report on the ever-active Atamrum describes the oath that followed his placing a governor over a village: On the day when the people of Shuhpad went out, they made Atamrum pronounce an oath of the gods as follows: 'You shall not entrap us. You shall not kill us. You shall not deport us to another country.' And Atamrum made them speak as follows: '(As for) my governor which I have placed over you, you shall not entrap him. You shall not kill him. You shall not restore your former king.'38 This is an interesting case of a suzerain taking almost identical commitments to those of the people.39 Fleming has suggested that a significantly different ritual of treatymaking is attested at Mari.40 A letter to Zimri-Lim, king of Mari, brings into association the giving of a zukrum to the god Adad and an affirmation before witnesses by a certain individual, Alpan. Zimri-Lim is quoted as being concerned that Alpan not rebel against him.41 This issue of rebellion is one which we might expect to arise at a treaty-swearing. Therefore Fleming suggests that the zukrum was 'a ritual component of treaty confirmation'. 42 The conjectured etymology of zukrum takes it from the Akkadian verb zakdrum 'to speak', a meaning which is appropriate both for treaty confirmations and for an address to a god in a ritual context. Further light on the zukrum comes from Emar, a city in Syria upstream from Mari. There the zukrum was a significant festival dedicated to the god Dagan.43 In the Emar texts there are no treaty associations.

37. J.-M. Durand, 'Unite et diversites au Proche-Orient a Tepoque amorrite' in D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds), La circulation des biens, des personnel et des idees dans le Proche-Orient ancien (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1992), pp. 97-128 (116-17). 38. Charpin et al., Archives epistolaires de Mari, #409:26-33. 39. The closest analogy would probably be the covenant between David and the people (2 Samuel 5.3) 40. D.E. Fleming, 'Emar: On the Road from Harran to Hebron' in M.W. Chavalas and K.L. Younger, Jr (eds), Mesopotamia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), pp. 222-50 (235-6). I thank K. Lawson Younger for drawing my attention to this article. 41. B. Lafont, 'Le roi de Mari et les prophetes du dieu Adad', RA 78(1984), pp. 7-18. 42. Fleming, 'Emar', p. 236. 43. D. E. Fleming, Time at Emar. The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner's House (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000). For the connection to Mari see esp. pp. 113-21.

122

Admonition and Curse

This data allows two interpretations of the crucial letter concerning Alpan. It could, as Fleming suggests, be a ritual confirmation of a treaty. The usage at Emar would then have to be interpreted as the establishment of a covenant between the people of the city and the god Dagan, analogous to biblical covenants between God and Israel.44 Alternatively, in the Mari letter it could be a purely religious festival with no treaty connotations. In that scenario Alpan, perhaps for internal political reasons, perhaps simply to exploit the strategic threat he might pose to Zimri-Lim, wanted the king of Mari to fund a significant festival for him, and Zimri-Lim, to placate a potential rebel, was willing to do so. In favour of the second proposition is the lack of treaty connotations to zukrum at Emar. Since the declaration before witnesses mentioned in the Mari letter was before human rather than divine witnesses, the crucial evidence needed to establish that a zukrum was part of a treaty ratification is lacking. Therefore Fleming's suggestion has to be seen as interesting but not proven. In previous chapters, cases of what one might call 'internal treaties' or 'internal oaths' have been discussed. Thus the practice of binding the internal servants of the kingdom by oaths is attested with the Hittites and in the late Assyrian kingdom. Similar practices were followed at Mari.45 There is a letter of Shamshi-Adad to Yasmah-Adad in which he commands him to make his personal attendants and various other categories of people including tribal leaders take an oath of the gods.46 There are a number of texts from the reign of Zimri-Lim which could be the text of such oaths of faithful service.47 By comparison with the Hittite and Neo-Assyrian examples, oaths and gods play a relatively small part in these texts. This of course could be due to the incomplete state of the tablets. However, it is possibly significant that when, at the end of his statement, Sumu-Hadu calls down malediction upon his descendants if he is disloyal, he does not mention the gods.48 Since other texts49 indicate that various segments of the population were summoned to make an oath of faithful service, it is most likely that the texts, in which various people outline the terms of service to which they will faithfully adhere, are what was said on such occasions.

44. Fleming, 'Emar', pp. 237-38. 45. J.-M. Durand, 'Precurseurs syriens aux protocoles neo-assyriens' in D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Etudes sur la civilisation mesopotamienne offertes a Paul Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), pp. 13-71. 46. Durand, 'Precurseurs syriens', pp. 16-17. 47. Durand, 'Precurseurs syriens', pp. 14-16. See also Durand, Archives epistolaires de Mari (ARM 26, I/I; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988), pp. 13-14. 48. Durand, 'Precurseurs syriens', p. 26. 49. Durand, 'Precurseurs syriens', pp. 36-45.

Syria

123

Thus we may say that there were service oaths at Mari but, by comparison with other examples, the role of the gods in enforcing broken oaths is not highlighted. With one possible exception, which is uncertain because of the state of the text,50 there is no appeal to historical warnings or to the benevolence of the overlord. Do we have any reason to regard the treaties and oaths attested at Mari as reflecting practices distinct from those of contemporary southern Mesopotamia? Given that our only evidence for treaties from this period in southern Mesopotamia comes also from Mari, this is not an easy question. Perhaps it can be better phrased by asking whether relations between Mari and adjacent regions show practices different to those between Mari and the powers of Mesopotamia proper. Even then it is hard to point to concrete differences. What may be of significance is the evidence of two distinct sets of practices. Charpin argued51, that there was a form of treatymaking which involved the slaying of a donkey. In this case the treaty was made by kings in a meeting52 and there was no mention of a written text or of the ritual of touching the throat. In contrast, touching the throat was used when two kings distant from each other were making an alliance and hence needed to communicate the terms of that alliance in a written form. While one cannot be dogmatic, killings of donkeys seem to take place more around Mari and in the territory to its north, while touching the throat and treaty texts occur more with the larger powers of Mesopotamia. This may not prove separate cultural spheres, because minor kings may have been more likely to meet each other for a ceremony. However, if this distinction is valid, it is significant in being another example of the fact that treaty practices reflect the political structure of the area. Where the evidence for the minor powers of the middle Euphrates and Jazirah largely agrees with the evidence from the greater Mesopotamian powers is in the lack of attention to detail in the treaties. Lists of gods, stipulations and curses are characterized by brevity. Yet not every text of this chronological period fits that description. To a greater or lesser degree the treaty between Till-Abnu, king of Apum, and the city and citizens of Ashur, as well as the treaty between Zimri-Lim of Mari and Ibal-pi-El II of Eshnunna, differ. This opens the possibility that there are two approaches represented in this period. The native Mesopotamian one inclined towards detail and specificity; the other did not. We cannot say definitely that this

50. Durand, 'Precurseurs syriens', p. 26, 11. 25-6. 51. D. Charpin, 'Une alliance centre 1'Elam et le ritual du lipit napisiim in F. Vallat (ed.), Contribution a I'histoire de I'Iran. Melanges offerts a Jean Perrot (Paris, Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1990), pp. 109-18 (116-18). 52. Charpin ('Une alliance contre 1'Elam', p. 117, n. 35) somewhat weakens his own case by conceding that an official could represent the king. See particularly D. Charpin et al., Archives epistolaires de Mari #428:2'-6'.

124

Admonition and Curse

other tradition was from the west, but given the likely western origins of the dynasties of both Hammurabi and Shamshi-Adad I, it is a possibility. The impression conveyed by the treaties between Mari and its vassals tends to strengthen the possibility of a less elaborate western approach. Hence it is precarious to use the Mari evidence as proof of a 'primitive' ritual treaty that stands in contrast to the later developed covenants which have elaborate historical summaries and arguments. While some of the treaties mentioned in the Mari correspondence were unwritten, other approaches existed at the same time. As at other points of this study, there is the danger that a difference will be seen as a chronological difference on the scale between 'primitive' and 'advanced' when it is really due to the fact that the two pieces of evidence we are comparing come from different cultures with different practices. The letter of Yarim-Lim has affinities with the letter of Anum-Hirbi of Mama. Both appeal to past benevolence, although only the latter makes explicit reference to treaties. Perhaps they are part of a general tendency in the states of the early second millennium, outside of Babylonia, to connect treaties and benevolence. It is hard to connect the Mari treaties with any specific treaty tradition because of the lack of detail. A connection has been suggested between an idiom found in several languages to 'cut' a treaty, and the killing rituals such as the killing of a donkey in the Mari treaties. McCarthy53 suggests that this reflects a general West Semitic practice of connecting treaties with the killing of an animal. This is certainly possible. It is interesting that a similar idiom to 'cut oaths' is attested in Greek.54 Weinfeld attributes this and other similarities between Greek and Near Eastern treaties to the influence of Near Eastern practices on the Greek and Roman world.55 As in all the other cases of connections already considered, it is difficult to distinguish between a more distant common inheritance and specific influence. Can we make some sort of comparison between treaties such as the Mari and Alalakh ones, where the killing of a single animal is part of treaty ratification, and the Assyrian ones with their long lists of dramatized curses perhaps involving animals? May be we can, but the Hittite Military Oath reminds us that the contrast is not just a chronological one. It may be that we encounter in the 'Great Power' cultures a tendency to rely more on writing and to be more elaborate and formal.

53. D.J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), p. 53. 54. M. Weinfeld, 'Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and its Influence on the West', JAOS 93(1973), pp. 190-9 (196). 55. Weinfeld, 'Covenant Terminology', p. 196. See also Weinfeld, The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World'.

Syria

125

The Treaty between Ugarit and Amurru The Ugaritic archives contained the text of an oath between Niqmadu II of Ugarit and Aziru of Amurru (RS 19.68).56 It is later than the Syrian treaties previously considered (c.1350) but as falling within the second millennium it is of some interest. Both were probably vassals of the Hittites at this stage. There is no historical introduction, but seeing that both would be on an equal basis as vassals this is not surprising. 'From this day Niqmadu, king of Ugarit, and Aziru, king of Amu[ru], have made an oath between them.'57 The main function seems to be to bring an end to former disputes between the two states and to conclude a mutual defence alliance. Unfortunately we possess only the beginning of the text so we are ignorant of what sort of god list the text contained. The agreement is described as an "oath1. If the oath and its form were not imposed by the Hittite overlord, it gives us evidence for Syrian treaties in the late second millennium. For lack of a full text or other examples we cannot conclude much more.

Covenants with Gods at Ugarit It has been claimed that the Ugaritic texts contain examples of oaths between a mortal and a god, analogous to the cases we encounter in the biblical text. Given the difficulties of some of the texts and the crucial contexts, one hesitates to be dogmatic in these cases. Both the older idea that treaty-making was a nigh universal phenomenon and a more recent interest in looking for precursors to biblical divine-human covenants have stimulated the search. This present investigation has questioned whether treaty-making was as universal as has been assumed, and has also raised the question of whether there may be factors within a particular culture which offer a disincentive to treaty-making. In addition, relationships may be established and maintained without the treaty form or something approximating to it. Therefore a relationship is not in itself sufficient evidence of a treaty.58 56. J. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archive sud (MRS, 9; PRU 4; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1956), pp. 284-6. 57. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archive sud, p. 284, 11. 1—5. 58. Failure to appreciate this point is the weakness of Fensham's attempt to find evidence of treaties in Ugaritic epics ('Notes on Treaty Terminology in Ugaritic Epics', UF 11(1979), pp. 265-74). Maybe the text is alluding to relationships that were established by treaty (or would have been in a non-fictional context) but the evidence adduced is insufficient to prove the point.

126

Admonition and Curse

We know that Ugarit was involved in treaties but all the ones we know about were connected to the city state's role as a vassal of the Hittites. We lack evidence that Ugarit, without outside influence, would have been likely to use history and oath as instruments of internal social order in the way the Hittites did. It would be an argument from silence to say that the lack of official texts using history as an instrument of policy proves that history was not used that way at Ugarit. Yet the reverse of that coin is that we lack a basis for assuming that oath-bound relationships were a characteristic of society at Ugarit. One very difficult text from Ugarit,59 which has been conjectured to have something to do with treatment of a deranged person, contains a line that has been translated as: 'Didn't I hasten to fulfil a sworn agreement? I have no sworn agreement to fulfil.'60 The problem is that the translation is most uncertain.61 Even if there is reference to a sworn agreement, there is no clear indication of the other party. It has been claimed that a god El Berith ('El of the covenant' or suchlike) occurs at Ugarit.62 However, the reading of this name has been questioned, and Ilabrat suggested.63 Another passage appealed to is RS 17.383:32^0.64 It is a letter in Akkadian to the king of Ugarit from Takuhlu, who was apparently a representative of the king at the Hittite court. The letter deals with some state matters and then at the end brings a personal concern: 'When I was very sick - I was within a finger (breadth) of being dead. Now I have recovered from my sickness and the god Apsukka of the city of Irhanda has come up and asked for his "alliance-man".'65 The text goes on to describe expensive gifts which had to be offered to the god. What is involved in the god's request is decidedly obscure. It involves a relationship described by the word tapputu, a word with broad senses of association and commonness. Both Koopmans66 and De Moor67

59. C. Virolleaud, Palais Royal d'Ugarit, (II; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale,. 1957), No.l. 60. J.C. de Moor, 'Contributions to the Ugaritic Lexicon', UF 11(1979), pp. 639-53 (650). See also J.C. de Moor and K. Spronk, 'More on Demons at Ugarit (KTU 1.82)' UF 16(1984), pp. 237-50. 61. For alternative translations see Virolleaud, Palais Royal d'Ugarit, II, p. 3; P.J. van Zijl, Translation and Discussion of Text 1001:1-2(RS 15.134:1-2)', Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 2(1972), pp. 74-85 (75). 62. RS 24.278: Laroche, 'Documents en langue hourrite provenant de Ras Shamra', p. 510; Kitchen, 'Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna and Covenant'; Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, p. 402. 63. J.C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, p. 273n. 64. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archive sud, pp. 222, 223. 65. Nougayrol, Textes accadiens des archive sud, p. 222, 11. 32-7. 66. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, p. 403. 67. De Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, p. 367.

Syria

127

translate it as 'alliance', which is not objectionable in itself. However, the word tapputuu is accompanied in both of its usages in this letter with a professional name determinative, so that a more accurate translation might be 'alliance-man'. It seems the deity wanted the writer as his alliance-man. The writer informs the king that being this person requires the presentation of many sacrifices and gifts to the deity. He asks the king to supply him with some of these. There is no question that some sort of relationship with the deity is involved: but is it a relationship analogous to the relationship constituted by a treaty? Tapputu is not used elsewhere to describe such a relationship. While these texts provide less than convincing evidence of divine-human treaties at Ugarit, they do raise some questions. Perhaps we should exclude them from our consideration totally. Or perhaps we should accept the challenge to examine some of the terms in which scholarship has framed the questions. Making compacts is part of human social life. That different societies enter into compacts is historically insignificant. It is only when these compacts show uniformity that a historical explanation is necessitated. It was that uniformity which generated the whole treaty/ covenant debate. This study is trying to discern the crucial aspects of that uniformity and to explain its appearance in different places. According to the well known tendency of languages and cultures to divide the plain of reality differently, we cannot start with the assumption that what one particular Ancient Near Eastern culture designates by a word will be just the phenomena that interest us and no other. Further, as was remarked earlier, elements of a ritual complex may take on different meanings in different rituals. The point of these observations is the question of an oath. Since treaties are sworn, appearance of an oath makes us suspect we have a treaty such as has interested this investigation. Yet perhaps reality is more complicated than our understanding of it. Several of these suggested Ugaritic covenants seem to involve demons or chthonic forces of some sort. One is then immediately reminded of the oath in the Hittite/Luwian ritual of Zarpiya of Kizzuwadna. Isaiah 28.18 and its 'covenant with death' might also come into the picture. Are we glimpsing the shadows of a religious phenomena focused on chthonic gods/demons? De Moor68 suggested that since the god mentioned in RS 17.383 'came up', he may be an underworld deity. Let us say that we have, in at least some of these texts, relations with chthonic deities. Suppose further that oaths were involved in some of these cases. Does even the use of an oath mean we are looking at the phenomena that have interested this investigation? Obviously there will be resemblance because the common role of oaths points to similarity. If there is a

68

De Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, p. 368.

128

Admonition and Curse

connection with what Isaiah describes as a 'covenant with death' then there is a further connection. The biblical text is describing relationships with chthonic deities with the same word used to describe alliances analogous to treaties. The word choice of the ancient culture says that somebody saw resemblance. Yet that does not justify the further step of importing what we know about the better attested treaties/covenants into our understanding of covenants with other gods. So maybe there were no divine-human covenants at Ugarit and we have made wrong inferences from difficult texts. Or maybe there was something there: but at the moment we cannot say if it was a somewhat different practice or a branch of what we have been considering.

The Sefire Treaties69 The Sefire treaties of the eighth century present many problems of relating together the three different texts of the treaty and even of relating the various parts of the one inscription. My concern is not with these details but with fitting the treaty into the various treaty traditions. The overwhelming impression is of contrast to the earlier Syrian treaties but similarity to the first-millennium Assyrian treaties. There is no historical introduction. While reconstructing the order of faces on the respective stelae is difficult,70 it would seem that the god list and an extensive list of curses, including dramatized curses, come early in the text. The text begins with an identification of the parties: 'The treaty of BarGayah, king of KTK, with Mati'el son of Attarsamak, the king of [Arpad].'71 The introduction goes on to make clear that the treaty extends to their respective descendants as well as to a wider geographical area. Then follows the god list. The first pair are probably Assyrian gods (see below). After that come Babylonian and then Syrian gods. Next are curses, some of which are clearly dramatized. For example: '[Just as] this calf is severed, so will Mati'el be severed and his grandees will be severed.'72 What is preserved of the stipulations concerns military aid by Mati'el to his suzerain. 69. J.A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2nd edn, 1995); Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, Vol. II, pp. 213-17. 70. H.F. van Rooy argues for an order which is close to first-millennium Assyrian treaties: The Structure of the Aramaic Treaties of Sefire', J.for Semitics 1(1989), pp. 133-9. 71. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 42, Face A, 1. 1. 72. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 47, 11. 39, 40.

Syria

129

There is a gap between the earlier Syrian texts, with a simple but unexplained animal killing and perhaps historical introduction, and the Sefire texts. It is this gap which has been part of theses which have set Hittite, early Syrian and some biblical texts over against Sefire, Assyrian and perhaps other biblical texts. The gap between Sefire and the earlier Syrian texts is real. The problem is explanation. Is it simply a matter of contrast between the first and second millennia? One of the problems of the Sefire treaties is in identifying the suzerain.73 Another is in the god list. The name of the first god has been lost. The second has been shown to be an Assyrian name for Ninlil.74 Her consort would have to be Ashur or Enlil. Given the date of the text, the former is more likely.75 This reinforces the other evidence, especially in the god list, that the suzerain's state was strongly under Mesopotamian cultural influence. Therefore Sefire may be a representative of the Assyrian treaty tradition:76 that is, it reflects the emphasis on curse and the ignoring of history that prevails before the Sargonids. Hence it cannot be used as an independent witness to a general first-millennium treaty tradition.

Arslan Tash The comments made above about oaths to deities at Ugarit are relevant to consideration of a much later text. An incantation text from Arslan Tash77 73. For a survey of views see P.M. Fales, 'Instituzioni a confronto tra mondo semitico occidentale e Assiria nel I millennio a. C.: il trattato di Sefire' in L. Canfora, M. Liverani and C. Zaccagnini (eds), / trattati nel mondo antico. Forma, ideologic!, funzione (Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1990), pp. 149-73 (151-4); Lemair and Durand, Lex inscriptions arameennes de Sfire, pp. 18-21. 74. S. Dallcy, "'NIN.LiL = mul(l)is(s)u,. the Treaty of Barga'yah and Herodotus' Mylitta', RA 73(1979), pp. 177-8. 75. M.L. Barre, The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia: A Study in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.P., 1983), p. 23; idem, The First Pair of Deities in the Sefire I God List', JNES 44(1985), pp. 205-10; J.C. Greenfield, 'Aspects of Aramean Religion' in P.D. Miller, Jr., P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride (eds), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 67-78 (p. 69). 76. This could either be because the suzerain is an Assyrian king under a pseudonym. (Parpola and Watanabe, , Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, p. XXVII), or a Syrian state under strong Assyrian cultural influence (Fales, 'Instituzioni a confronto tra mondo semitico occidentale e Assiria', pp. 149-73) or the Assyrian official Shamshi-ilu (Lemaire and Durand, Les inscriptions arameennes de Sfire, , pp. 18-21). 77. For the original publication see R. du Mesnil du Buisson, 'Une tablette magique de la region du moyen Euphrate', in Melanges syriens qff'erts a M. Rene Dussaud, (Vol. I: Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1939), pp. 421-34; another edition of the text is given in H. Donner and W. Rollig. Kanaanaische und aramaische Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2nd edn, 1966), no. 27; for discussion see F.M. Cross and R.J. Saley, 'Phoenician Incantations on a

130

Admonition and Curse

in upper Syria forces us to re-examine the question of treaties and oaths in general. This is an incantation against evil spirits written on a plaque. The script is Aramaic but the language Phoenician. Its significance for our study is that the idiom 'cut an oath' occurs in the text and it seems that a deity is the one who cuts this oath for the benefit of mortals. Thus there is a parallel to the covenants established between God and man in the biblical text. Both the text and the translation present a number of uncertainties.78 For our purposes, lines 8-11 are crucial. A commonly accepted reading is: krt. In. 'It clm 'sr. krt In. wkl bn 'lm. It is then suggested that 7? refers to an oath and that in conjunction with krt it is equivalent to the widespread idiom of 'cutting' an oath or a covenant. From this point the interpretations diverge. The divergence is linked to the interpretation of 'sr. Is it a reference to the main Assyrian god, Ashur, explicable in this text because the locality was under Assyrian control at the time it was written? Or is it a defectively written reference to the goddess Ashirah, well known from the biblical record? Neither possibility is without its problems. Ashur does not occur in Assyrian conjurations and it is rather surprising to find him taken up in a popular text in which the other deities are not Assyrian, especially in an area which might be under Assyrian control but which would not be ethnically Assyrian. The writing is against an interpretation as Ashirah. On those grounds a tentative translation would be: 'An eternal covenant has been cut for us. Ashur cut it for us and all the sons of the gods'. Hence it does seem to be a case of a covenant of a sort made between a deity and humans. If one accepts that interpretation of the text, the biblical divine-human covenants would no longer be unique. We could suggest that there was a more general practice of such covenants. Since this is the only extra-biblical instance, perhaps it was very much a folk tradition that came to public written expression quite rarely outside the biblical texts. We would be left with the question of how the exclusive claims of a suzerain, which do not create a problem in biblical monotheism, were reconciled with the polytheist environment which is quite obvious in this text.

Plaque of the Seventh Century B.C. from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria', BASOR 197(1970), pp. 42-9; Z. Zevit, 'A Phoenician Inscription and Biblical Covenant Terminology', IEJ 27(1977), pp. 110-18; Sperling, 'An Arslan Tash Incantation: Interpretations and Implications'; J. Day, 'Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature', JBL 105(1986), pp. 385-408 (395); J. Teixidor, Bulletin d'epigraphie semitique (1964-80) (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1986), pp. 168-70. 78. See the discussions listed in the previous note.

Syria

131

However, there are several complications to this interpretation. In place of krt. In. 'It Teixidor sees bl tdrkn ky.19 That would call into question reference to an oath between deity and worshipper. Further the whole text has been called into question. A number of scholars have subjected this amulet and the other, discovered at the same time but published later,80 to further examination. Their conclusion is that they are forgeries.81 The perplexing role of Ashur in the text seems to lend weight to this conclusion. Those doubts have in turn been questioned by Van Dijk.82 He directs his main discussion to the iconography of the figures on the plaques. Given the rarity of other examples of peripheral and popular art, any conclusions based upon iconography must be very tentative. Besides the iconography and the appropriateness of the divinities mentioned the actual form of the texts comes into question. Are they native rock or modern moulds? The appearance has given rise to some of the doubts. Teixidor inclines towards moulds.83 Van Dijk suggests84 that there may have been, at some stage of modern investigation, an accidental confusion of the original ancient plaques with casts made from them to facilitate scholarly study. Undoubtedly strange things happen in the history of scholarship, but a lack of obvious difference between the originals and casts, such as would lead to such a confusion, does not inspire confidence in the originals. The history of scholarship attests many examples of the unique, and therefore significant, being declared spurious. It is a brave person who is dogmatic in such cases. We are thus left with several possibilities. Linking the text with previous discussion about some sort of agreement with chthonic forces seems excluded because of the reference to Ashur and the great gods. It is also different in that the oath is being made by the deity and not by a human. Perhaps this text is genuine and we must postulate a significant difference between a folk religion which embodied oaths made by deities and the official religion where deities are much more free in their relationships to their devotees. Biblical religion would thus be 79. J. Texidor, 'Les tablettes d'Arslan Tash au Musee d'Alep', Aula Orientalis 1(1983), pp. 105-8 (106). 80. A. Caquot and R. du Mesnil du Boisson, 'La seconde tablette ou "petite amulette" d'Arslan Tash', Syria 48(1971), pp. 391-406; T.H. Caster, 'A Hang-up for Hang-ups. The Second Amuletic Plaque from Arslan Tash', BASOR 209(1973), pp. 18-26. 81. J. Teixidor, Bulletin d'epigraphie semitique (1964-1980), pp. 471-2; idem, 'Les tablettes d'Arslan Tash', pp. 105-8; P. Amiet, 'Observations sur les "Tabletter Magiques" d'Arslan Tash', Aula Orientalis 1(1983), p. 109. I must thank Dr Ian Young for drawing this discussion to my attention. 82. J. Van Dijk, 'The Authenticity of the Arslan Tash Amulets', Iraq 54(1992), pp. 65-8. 83. Texidor, 'Les tablettes d'Arslan Tash', p. 105. 84. Van Dijk, 'The Authenticity of the Arslan Tash Amulets', p. 68n.

132

Admonition and Curse

related to a folk religion which does not come to expression elsewhere except at Arslan Tash. We would need to postulate that the polytheistic character of the folk religion would produce some (hard to specify) differences from biblical incorporation of treaty concepts. The opportunities for scholarly speculation would then be very broad. An alternative is to conclude that the plaques are spurious. The lack of other attestation of oaths by deities to worshippers would lend weight to doubts about the text. Alternatively, the eventual answer may lie in the strange nature of the orthography, which has produced so many variant readings. Maybe, when correctly read, it has nothing to do with oaths. Given these doubts and given the isolated character of this text, any conclusions must be tentative.

Tentative Conclusion It would be unwise to postulate a distinct, coherent Syrian treaty tradition. Mari and Alalakh may be linked in the role played by the killing of an animal. We can postulate a development of the simple one animal rite into the later dramatized curses, but even if this postulate is correct it does not exclude the possibility that the original meaning of the rite has been reinterpreted during the development. The use of history connects Alalakh to the Hittite tradition. An animal rite occurs in one of the earlier Hittite treaties. Both the unwritten character and the animal rite might link Mari to biblical covenants but the animal rites in biblical covenants show no clear analogies of form to the use of the donkey in the Mari texts. We may be looking at relationships, but they are not necessarily close ones. The dominant impression created by the Mari and Alalakh evidence is simplicity. Yet we cannot say that it is simple because it is 'early' in an absolute chronological sense. More complex treaties exist at the same time. Further the impression one has is that the Lagash treaties in their curse formulae and the Elamite treaty of Naram-Sin in its god list are already more complex than the later Syrian treaties. Are the Sefire treaties evidence of an internal Syrian drive towards complexity and emphasis on curses, or are they a reflection of the Mesopotamian treaty tradition? The latter is most likely but we cannot be dogmatic. If Arslan Tash belongs in this discussion at all it would point to a distinct folk tradition. Only detailed further examination of the text or discovery of parallels can advance the discussion. If we exclude the evidence from Ebla and Arslan Tash as of doubtful relevance and assign the Sefire texts to the Assyrian sphere, what can we learn from Syrian evidence? It raises the clear possibility that elaboration

Syria

133

of the treaty form, for example with detailed stipulations, curses and long god lists may be a cultural rather than a chronological indicator. A state such as Mari might enter one sort of treaty with its own Syrian vassals, and a more elaborate form with the powers of Mesopotamia proper.

Chapter 5 ISRAEL It might have seemed logical to consider Israel after the Hittites, as the evidence for treaties is far more abundant for Israel than for Egypt. However, the evidence in the biblical text is also controversial. Part of the argument in that controversy has depended upon assumptions about the Egyptian use of treaties. Hence I considered Egypt first. The argument in the biblical field has also involved Syrian treaties; hence the present order of treatment.

The Methodological Problems In the previous chapters an attempt was made to follow a roughly chronological order, even though that was difficult for Egypt because of the concentration of evidence in the New Kingdom. In the case of Israel all our evidence comes from the biblical text. Further, though the Bible mentions covenants between men, the covenants with closest analogies to treaties are between God and men. This means that a chronology of covenants cannot be divorced from a history of Israelite religion. Such a chronology might be obtained by taking the indications of date given in the text: that is, the covenants of Genesis would come before that of Sinai and so on. Alternatively, such a chronology might be obtained by taking one of the many scholarly reconstructions of the history of Israelite religion. A very brief survey of those reconstructions shows that they tend to make key aspects of biblical religion to be later developments than the internal biblical dating would indicate. That is normally explained as a result of the earlier history of Israel being presented by late authors or editors in terms of the views of a later age. Scholarly views vary as to how late these retrojected views are but the general tendency is to date them in the first millennium, and increasingly in the late first millennium. This places them in marginal overlap with Assyrian treaties or even after the period in which we have treaties attested. The point which I shall defend below is that the similarities between some biblical covenants and treaties are real and that often there is more similarity with Hittite treaties than Assyrian ones. This is not to endorse

Israel

135

Mendenhall's position, which rested on a simple distinction between second-millennium treaties which used history and first-millennium ones which did not. Previous chapters have argued that the situation is not so simple. There is a related issue. Mendenhall's comparison of biblical covenants and treaties played a considerable role in biblical studies at one time. Now it is all but abandoned. If the evidence is so clear, why has his position lost favour? Particularly in the case of Israel, one has to follow the scholarly debate and place contributions in the context of that debate. We can distinguish three broad phases of the debate. The older position as represented by Wellhausen saw covenant as developing through the work of the prophets. Israel's relationship to God had first been a relationship to a tribal deity. It was the ethical concern of the prophets that inspired the idea that God's relationship to Israel was bounded by conditions.1 A significant challenge to this came with Mendenhall's argument that some parts of the biblical text showed the form of the Hittite vassal treaty. Since this treaty form, marked by its historical introduction, was confined to the second millennium, those sections of the biblical text must have second-millennium origin. He singled out in particular the Decalogue (Exodus 20) and the covenant at Shechem (Joshua 24) as reflecting the second-millennium treaty form.2 There is one other biblical text which obviously combines pedagogic use of history and covenant; Deuteronomy. Mendenhall did not move Deuteronomy from the late dating which the Wellhausen school had given it. However, he did see it as a revival of older ideas and not a complete innovation.3 To make Deuteronomy earlier would be to upset the generally accepted reconstruction of the history of Israelite religion. Yet the logic of Mendenhall's argument seemed to apply just as well to it, as some argued.4 Many followed the essential lines of Mendenhall's less radical position.5 However, that position has come under increasing attack. The attack 1. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885), pp. 417-18. For a more recent version of this position see E.W. Nicholson, "Covenant in a Century of Study since Wellhausen', OTS 24(1986), pp. 54-69; idem, God and his People (Oxford: OUP, 1986). 2. G.E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Pres. Board of Colportage of W. Penn., 1955), p. 36. 3. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant, pp. 47-48. 4. M. G. Kline, The Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), pp. 42-4; K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1966), p. 99. 5. Eg. W. Beyerlin, Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965); D.R. Hillers, Covenant: the History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969); H.B. Huffmon, The Exodus, Sinai and the Credo', CBQ 27(1965), pp. 10113; Moran, 'Review of G.E. Mendenhall.'

136

Admonition and Curse

represents a return to the position of Wellhausen and sometimes goes further to make covenant in Israel even later.6 One of the main thrusts of the attack has been to point out that Exodus 20 and Joshua 24 do not contain the complete Hittite treaty form. Along with this have been doubts as to whether there is any validity in the supposed relationship to Hittite treaties.7 Thus the history of discussion about biblical covenant can be briefly8 summarized as follows. There was an earlier stage in which the biblical picture of covenant history was seen as a most unreliable retrojection of covenant concepts from a later period. This was followed by a phase in which at least some biblical reports of covenants were seen as accurately placed early by the biblical text. However, this movement did not go as far as seeing all biblical dates (e.g. Deuteronomy) as reliable. Crucial in this second phase was appeal to external parallels. The third phase was a denial of the validity of the appeal to external evidence. With that came a return to the older position that covenant was late in the history of Israel and that 'earlier' covenants in the biblical text were retrojections from the first millennium. This threefold cycle should remind biblical scholars of another debate: the patriarchal narratives. In that debate there has been a similar history. The older phase saw the patriarchal narratives as unhistorical, later retrojections. The middle phase made much use of external evidence, especially from Mari and Nuzi, to argue the essential historicity of the patriarchal traditions. However, it did not argue their complete historicity. Once again there has been a third phase which has denied the validity of parallels.9 It has returned to the position that the patriarchal stories come from the first millennium and have no reliability as sources for the second millennium.10 It goes beyond the scope of this work to explore the cycles in biblical scholarship but certain comments may be made. One cannot ignore the more general intellectual and religious environment's impact upon biblical studies. The mid-twentieth century was somewhat theologically conserva-

6. E.g. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament', C.F. Whitley, 'Covenant and Commandment in Israel', JNES 22(1963), pp. 37-48. 7. E. Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des "Apodiktischen /?ec/zto"(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), p. 101; F. Notscher, 'Bundesformular und "Amtschimrnel" ', BZ N.F. 9(1965), pp. 181-214. 8. More extensive summaries will be found in the works of Nicholson cited in note 1. 9. T.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974); J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1975); N.K. Weeks, 'Mari, Nuzi and the Patriarchs', Abr-Nahrain 16(1975-76), pp. 73-82. 10. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives; Van Seters, Abraham in Historv and Tradition.

Israel

137

tive in comparison with the beginning and end of that century. One may note a tendency of some members of the so-called Albright School to align with a Neo-Orthodox theology.11 Yet the swings to a more conservative appraisal of the historical accuracy of the biblical text cannot be seen simply in those terms:12 that would ignore the role played by Jewish scholars and probably do injustice to the wider ramifications of the thought of Mendenhall himself.13 Rather I suspect that we must think in terms of a general conservatism which was connected to the impact of economic depression, world wars and the Cold War. Both the beginning and end of the century faced different situational factors. Yet both in the covenant/treaty debate and the patriarchal narratives debate there were other key factors behind the collapse of the mid-century position. There were major weaknesses in the argument from the external parallels. Those weaknesses were more publicized in the overthrow of the Albright understanding of the patriarchal narratives, but analogous weaknesses existed in Mendenhall's appeal to external treaty parallels and these have been mentioned in previous chapters. There is an additional factor to be considered. In some ways the positions which we associate with names such as Albright and Mendenhall were mediating positions. They were attempting to defend the essential reliability of portions of the biblical text and yet to concede the unreliability of other portions. Here the question of Deuteronomy is critical. To date Deuteronomy back in the second millennium was a much more radical break with the consensus of biblical scholarship than a defence of the Decalogue. Exodus 20 as second millennium could be tolerated because there was something of a tolerance in the older criticism for seeing Moses as the originator of some sort of distinctive impulse in Israel, so that the Decalogue, detached from the following legislation, could be seen as old. Joshua 24 was even more tolerable as it was part of an answer to the problem of the conquest of Canaan. The biblical view of a

11. E.g. G.E. Wright, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (London: SCM, 1952). 12. For a more detailed history of the treatment of covenant in biblical studies see R.A. Oden, Jr, "The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel' in P.D. Miller, Jr, P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride (eds), Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 429-^7. Odcn points out the influence of thinkers such as Weber and Durkheim on the understanding of the relationship between religion and society. I would not see that as contrary to my connection of the changing positions on covenant to theological trends. Both the Neo-Orthodox theologians and the more sociological thinkers were linked by a rejection of the evolutionism which characterized the older position. The various non-evolutionary positions tended to reinforce each other. However, Oden's reference to sociological thinkers does not explain the reversion to the older thesis that made covenant a late concept. 13. Obviously I am thinking particularly of his The Tenth Generation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1973).

138

Admonition and Curse

united conquest had been rejected in favour of an explanation in line with the preferred understanding of Israel's origins in tribal nomadism.14 If Israel entered Palestine as separate nomadic clans, and even incorporated Canaanite elements, how did they ever become a unity? The assembly of Shechem was the solution, as it was interpreted as diverse elements binding themselves to live in a common relationship to God.15 However, the whole construct developed to explain Israel's early history in this second phase of biblical studies has tended to collapse under the attacks which have probed its weaknesses and inconsistencies. This attack has itself been characterized by its own scepticism as to the historical reliability of the biblical text. The tendency within this sceptical direction has been to ascribe very late dates to the composition of the parts of the biblical text which are relevant for this investigation.16 Thus scepticism as to whether there is any useable second-millennium information in the text stands over against the mid-century tendency to look for external information that will confirm the text. The developing scepticism about the historicity of the biblical text has become the context for an even more radical scepticism that would not only place the composition of the text quite late but would question the very framework which it gives for the history of Israel.17 All of this then raises the methodological problem. Is it possible to escape these scholarly cycles and swings and look at the data of the text for itself? This is very difficult to do as long as there is no consensus as to how one dates the text. For example, we might have some way of testing whether covenant was a late outgrowth of the prophetic movement if we could test for mention of covenant in Hosea, one of the earlier writing prophets. However, references to covenant in Hosea are often dismissed as

14. See the way J. Bright (Early Israel in Recent History Writing (London: SCM, 1956), p. 2) refutes Y. Kaufmann by appeal to Israel's nomadic character. 15. Killers, Covenant, pp. 58-9. 16. For accounts of this swing in opinion see, for example, T.L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and the Archaeological Sources (Leiden: Brill, 1992); E.W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century. The Legacy of Julius Welhausen (Oxford: OUP, 1998). For an example of such thinking and the consequences for the understanding of biblical covenants see N.P. Lemche, Ancient Israel. A New History of Israelite Society (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), esp. pp. 235-7. 17. See, for example, Philip Davies' view that the text was generated to give an identity for a group which settled in Judah in the Persian Period: In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2nd edn, 1995). Other writers who place the composition of the text in the Persian Period or later include G. Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (London: SCM, 1988); J.W. Watts, Reading Law. The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); T.M. Bolin, 'When the End is the Beginning. The Persian Period and the Origins of the Biblical Tradition', SJOT 10(1996), pp. 3-15; N.P. Lemche 'The Old Testament - A Hellenistic Book', SJOT 7(1993), pp. 163-93.

Israel

139

late insertions.18 As long as there is no consensus on dates there is no uniformly acceptable method of determining the origin and development of covenant concepts in Israel. In turn that means it is practically impossible to judge whether covenants in Israel have any relationship to treaties in the world outside. It may be suggested that one should accept the generally accepted dates, such as of Deuteronomy, or text divisions such as for the Pentateuch. There are several problems with this approach. One is the simple lack of consensus on crucial passages such as Exodus 19-24.19 The other is the circularity of many of the crucial arguments. For instance, one of the common ways of arguing against a treaty parallel is to suggest that the text in question is a composite. If each piece is taken separately, there is no real parallel. For example, the argument for connecting the Decalogue of Exodus 20 with the second-millennium Hittite treaty rests very much upon the connection of a self-identification by the suzerain with a series of apodictic commands. Suppose, however, that one begins with the common methodology of source criticism. Then one might separate the first two commandments from the following ones on the ground that the first two employ, like the introduction, the first person for the suzerain. The remainder employ the third person:20 And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am YHWH, thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of servitude. 'Thou shalt not have other gods before me. Thou shalt not make for thyself an image, (namely) any likeness of what is in the heavens above or what is in the earth below or what is in the waters below the earth. Thou shalt not bow thyself down to them and thou shalt not serve them, because I YHWH, thy God, am a jealous God . . . 'Thou shall not lift up to vanity the name of YHWH thy God, because YHWH will not take as clean the one who lifts up his name to vanity.' (Exodus 20:1-7)

Employing the assumptions of form criticism one could then posit a cultic origin for the introduction and first two commandments as contrasted to

18. E.g. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 418; R.H. Pfeiffer, 'Facts and Faith in Biblical History', JBL 70(1951), pp. 1-14 (2n). 19. Cf. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament, pp. 89-96 with Beyerlin, Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions, pp. 9-10. 20. For a refutation of analogous arguments used to distinguish strata in biblical laws see R. Sonsino, Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law. Biblical Forms and Near Eastern Parallels (Chico: Scholars, 1980), pp. 195-8. (I thank K. Lawson Younger, Jr. for drawing this work to my attention.)

140

Admonition and Curse

an origin in a patriarchally structured tribal society for the remainder.21 On the ground of source criticism one would be left with an even more tenuous connection to the Hittite treaty; merely an introduction and a few commands. Form criticism in turn would find an origin for the various components far divorced from the world of treaty-making. If one begins by ignoring source criticism and assuming the possibility of a parallel to the Hittite form the results are quite different, because changes from first to third person are known in Hittite instructions.22 Thus if we assume that the Hittite treaties (internal and external) are somehow related to covenants, then many of the divisions commonly made in the treatment of the biblical text become unnecessary. Another example would be the division between apodictic and casuistic law.23 Both forms occur in Hittite instructions.24 We are left with two mutually exclusive arguments in a circle. In one we begin by making source divisions and ascribing the fragments to various hypothetical origins. The resultant fragments and origins have little relationship to treaties. Alternatively, we may begin by assuming a possibility of relationship to treaties and dealing with the whole text. Features of that text which are commonly used to make source divisions are explicable by analogy to treaties. It is not the evidence which determines the conclusion. It is the starting point. Even more radical examples of the same problem can be cited. Kline has connected the fact that there were two tablets of the Sinai covenant with procedures for the preservation of the copies of Hittite treaties.25 One copy was deposited in the sanctuary of the state god of the suzerain and one in the corresponding sanctuary of the vassal. Kline argues that the two tablets of Sinai are duplicates deposited together because Israel and their God shared a common sanctuary. The corollary of this suggestion must be that the instructions for the making and deposition of the copies of the covenant (Exodus 34:1; 25:16, 21; 40:20) belong together with the laws of the covenant.

21. Gerstenberger, Wesen undHerkunft des "Apodiktischen Rechts", pp. 57-8; J.J. Stamm and M.E. Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research (London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 46, 78. 22. Von Schuler, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen, pp. 27-8, SAG 2, §§. 20, 24, 25. 23. A. Alt, 'The Origins of Israelite Law' in Essays in Old Testament History and Religion (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), pp. 79-132 (89-113); Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des "Apodiktischen Rechts", pp. 17-20. 24. Von Schuler, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen, pp. 8-9; 22-30; Sturtevant, 'A Hittite Text on the Duties of Priests and Temple Servants'. 25. M. G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1972), pp. 113-30.

Israel

141

And YHWH said to Moses: 'Hew for thyself two stone tablets like the first ones and I will write on the tablets the words which were on the first tablets . . . ' (Exodus 34:1) 'Thou shalt place in the ark the "testimony" which I will give thee.' (Exodus 25:21b).

However, the passages about deposition are commonly ascribed to various sources, including P, which is even more divorced than the other Pentateuchal sources from the time of the Hittite treaty. Thus taking the Hittite parallel seriously undermines the traditional source division. Conversely anybody who begins with the traditional source division will see Kline's suggestion as implausible. This discussion of mutually exclusive starting points is related to the point made earlier of a swing away from Mendenhall's thesis. One wonders if Mendenhall's position had the weakness of a mediating position. Thus he sought to move segments of the biblical text back into the second millennium but did not question the methodology by which the text was commonly segmented. While the search for external parallels can be combined with certain forms of text division, other purported parallels can be argued only if the common source divisions are denied. A consistent application of Mendenhall's thesis would challenge even more radically the Wellhausen synthesis. Failure to challenge that whole methodology leads to an undermining of Mendenhall's position. What is left of the text after source criticism shows little affinity to the Hittite treaties. Does that mean that the question of affinity between biblical covenants and extra-biblical treaties must wait upon an exhaustive re-evaluation of source criticism? If this is the case, a resolution is indefinitely postponed. An alternative might be to try to find some sort of 'generally accepted' basic source analysis. Only texts in the form that remains from such analysis can then be considered to see if they parallel treaties. However, the problem of anachronism surrounds the exercise. We may see a change of person from first to third as a marker of a separate source. Yet is that merely because our stylistic conventions militate against such 'confusion'? How do we know other periods had the same conventions? The fear of anachronism is not lessened when we find that extra-biblical texts manifest similar 'confusion'. Ideally, we would like to use extra-biblical texts as controls to ensure that what we see as the combination of sources in a text is really combination. However, once we have broken a text into 'sources' it may seem to have no affinity with the texts which might be a control. Related to this problem is that of distinguishing editor and original author. It can be suggested that the affinity of larger sections of biblical material to treaties is a result of the redactor using the treaty model in composing his final composite text. Yet once more there is circularity in the

142

Admonition and Curse

argument at this point. Often, back in the history of source criticism, two sources were divided because they did not seem to belong together.26 If they are now found to belong together in the treaty form, the original basis for division is gone. If a late redactor could have made a unity out of them using the treaty form, an original early author could also have done so. One could run this sort of argument to the reverse conclusion. The occurrence of both apodictic and casuistic forms in Hittite treaties and instructions proves little as regards the absolute origin of those forms in the Ancient Near East, since it could be that one or more of the diverse hypothetical origins postulated for these various forms in the biblical text was also responsible for their origin in Hittite society. Yet such an argument is two-edged. If we postulate similar backgrounds for Hittites and Israel, then we increase the likelihood of similarity between them in treaties and covenants. There is one common assumption about early Israelite society which has repeatedly served to distance Israel from the culture of the 'Great Powers'. This is the assumption of a nomadic or semi-nomadic background for Israel. This has commonly been used to argue against a close relationship between Israelite and Hittite forms.27 What do we know of the form of early Israelite society? Is it correct methodology to exploit every reference to pastoralism in the patriarchal narratives at the same time as we doubt the historicity of the rest of the narrative, especially those parts which show contacts between the forefathers of Israel and other societies of the period? Thus there are both theological and methodological tendencies in the biblical field which severely complicate any discussion of treaty and covenant. The outcome is often strongly influenced by the original assumptions. I do not hope to resolve these problems to everybody's satisfaction. I cannot avoid criticism for failing to adopt the assumptions of a particular school. All I can aim to do is to consider the distinctive phenomena of Israelite covenant in the light of the comparative material.

26. An obvious example would be division between legal material and historical narrative (e.g. P and E.). Both are found in Hittite treaties. 27. E.g. Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des "Apodiktischen Rechts", p. 101. D.J. McCarthy ('Covenant in the Old Testament: the Present State of Inquiry', CBQ 27(1965), pp. 217-240 (223)) sees failure to acknowledge Israel's nomadic and semi-nomadic origins as a basic fault in Mendenhall's thesis. In fairness to Mendenhall it must be noted that he objected to using the model of the Arab nomad to preclude Israel having forms similar to the great monarchies of the region (Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, p. 28). The very significant undermining of the thesis of primal Semitic nomadism in the thesis by Mendenhall's student, J.T. Luke ('Pastoralism and Politics in the Mari Period', (unpublished doctoral dissertation, U. of Michigan, 1965)), has been often ignored in the biblical field.

Israel

143

A Historical Framework As already mentioned, there is no agreement on the dating of key biblical texts. There is a lack of consensus upon the division of books into sources and the dating of those sources. This means that the sort of argument used in trying to correlate early Hittite treaties with Mesopotamian ones would be drowned in a sea of controversy. The best that can be done is to establish some rough markers for the earlier periods and give more precise dates for later figures mentioned in this chapter. There would be general agreement that the internal biblical dating places the origin of monarchy in Israel around the beginning of the first millennium. Let us use that as a rough marker and say that the internal biblical chronology is placing pre-monarchy events back into the second millennium and the kings and prophetic movement in the first. Some possible dates28 of key figures and events in the first millennium would be: David Hosea Hezekiah Josiah

c. 1000-960 c.750 726-697 640-609

The Phenomena in General The basic historical texts of Israel not only embody covenants in which history is used to motivate. They are in themselves history written with a view to producing a motivation for obedience. The goodness of the Lord to his servants is the theme from creation on. The sorry consequences of disobedience are recounted again and again from the time of Adam. There runs through biblical, as through Hittite, historiography the pedagogic use of history. An explanation of the formal relationship, if any, of covenant and treaty cannot avoid consideration of the relationship of historiographies.29 The biblical text describes both written and unwritten covenants. It would be to go too far to say that the presence of this mixture is distinctive 28. Lemche. The History of Ancient Syria and Palestine: An Overview', p. 1212. 29. This is a major lack in previous treatments of the relationship of Hittite and Israelite treaties. J. Van Seters, In Search of History (New Haven, Yale U.P., 1983) seems too concerned with proving the lateness of Israelite historiography to realize that the phenomenon of pedagogic use of history needs an explanation. Proving that contact between Israel and the Hittites is improbable does not end the discussion. Other explanations such as independent invention in similar circumstances and development of a distant common heritage are also possible.

144

Admonition and Curse

of Israel. Once more we have the problem of arguing from silence. There is no hint that the oath between the eagle and the serpent in Etana and the Eagle was committed to writing. All we can say is that the vast preponderance of Mesopotamian and Hittite oaths seem to have involved a written text. Some treaties, mentioned in the Mari letters, in contrast, may not have had a written version.30 If the text is not written what ensures the covenant will not be forgotten? Involved in some biblical covenants and oaths are signs which serve as non-literary reminders of the transaction. We could list the rainbow (Genesis 9.12-15); circumcision (Genesis 17.10-14); seven ewe lambs (Genesis 21.30); a heap of stones and a pillar (Genesis 31.44-52); and a large stone (Joshua 24.26). It is interesting that these unwritten memorials are found primarily in Genesis. Unwritten covenants31 continue in the later period (e.g. 2 Samuel 7.5-16; 1 Samuel 18.3,4) but there is no mention of reminders. Unwritten memorials are not restricted to covenantal contexts. The altar of Joshua 22 is a similar memorial. It is quite plausible that a phase of earlier unwritten covenants should be succeeded by a period in which more formalized written covenants occur. The unwritten forms continue but there is less concern to devise memorials in a culture which is coming to rely more upon the written text. Yet we must also be aware of our tendency to make the data fit our expectations of evolutionary development. The strongest argument which can be mounted for seeing the postulated progression as real is that it emerges from the internal chronology of the biblical text and that text is more commonly accused of blurring evolutionary development by retrojection of late and developed forms than it is of creating artificial developmental sequences. Biblical covenants show examples that are morphologically grants. They also include examples in which law predominates. There have been attempts to see the oldest stage of covenant in Israel as the stage in which there is no responsibility placed upon Israel: that is, law is not part of the relationship.32 Given the theological background to much Old Testament scholarship, such claims need to be very carefully examined, since they amount to a claim for the priority of grace (promise) to law. Begrich fails to produce any convincing evidence for his postulated development. The occurrence of both treaties that are more like grants and treaties with a greater legal component in the Hittite Empire should be noted. One doubts if the Hittites saw the two tendencies as in conflict with each other.

30. Korosec, 'Les relations Internationales d'apres les lettres de Mari', p. 147. 31. By an 'unwritten covenant' I mean one in which there is no mention of an accompanying text. The terms may be recorded in the biblical historical narrative. 32. J. Begrich, 'Berit. Bin Beitrag zur Erfassung einer alttestamentlichen Denkform', ZAW 60(1944), pp. 1-11 (7).

Israel

145

The Problem of Development Another element that has been suggested as typical of biblical covenants is sacrifice. When we look carefully we see that sacrifice is a rather rare occurrence. Indeed, the Sinai covenant is the clearest example: And he (Moses) built an altar under the mountain and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent lads of the children of Israel and they offered oblations and sacrificed peace offerings, (that is) oxen to YHWH. And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins. And half of the blood he scattered on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said: 'All that YHWH has said, we will do and we will hearken.' And Moses took the blood and scattered it on the people and he said 'Behold the blood of the covenant which YHWY has cut with you concerning all these words.' (Exodus 24.4b-8) There is a less clear connection of sacrifice and covenant in Deuteronomy 27.5-8. In this latter case, the law is to be written on the altar. There is no explicit idea that sacrifice is necessary for the ratification of the covenant. McCarthy has made this mention of sacrifice a pivotal point in his treatment of biblical covenant. He attempts to see treaty and covenant as having a common foundation in a ritual act.31 The Sinai covenant is especially significant for him as it uses ritual acts such as sacrifice to ratify the covenant. The extra-biblical treaties place the emphasis on the oath and are therefore somewhat different. 34 He suggests a development from the older, basically ritual covenant (Sinai) to the later covenant form in which words predominate (Deuteronomy).35 Connected with this question is the mention of covenant meals (Genesis 31.54; Exodus 24.9-11). Are they an indication of a separate but still ritual tradition of covenant making? 'And Jacob offered sacrifice on the mountain and he called his brothers to eat bread and they ate bread . . . ' (Genesis 31.54a, describing what happened after the covenant between Jacob and Laban.) 'And Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu went up ... and they ate and drank.' (Exodus 24.9-11, describing a part of the covenant at Sinai.) With covenant meals we face a question very similar to the question of the role of anointing with oil in covenant-making. Eating together is an expression of unity. It is natural therefore that covenants should lead to table fellowship. It would not be surprising either if the result came to

33. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), p. 80; Old Testament Covenant. A Survey of Current Opinions (Richmond: John Knox, 1972), p. 16. 34. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, pp. 30-1. 35. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, p. 40.

146

Admonition and Curse

stand as a symbol for the whole transaction.36 However, we may not assume that the Ancient Near East was ruled by some principle of economy so that only one rite could be used in any one covenant-making. We cannot assume that the covenant meal in Genesis 31.54 is necessarily from a separate tradition to the swearing ceremony mentioned earlier (vv. 46-53) Similarly, there is no reason, except an anachronistic economy, for treating the sacrificial ritual in Exodus 24.5-8 as exclusive of the meal of vv. 9-11. In both these cases the meal comes second. It is a dramatic expression of the unity achieved by the previous rite. This leads us back to the sacrifice of Exodus 24.5-8. Do we have any reason to say that it is an expression of an earlier, more ritual stage of covenantmaking? Unfortunately, it is very hard to argue from a single occurrence. The text does not tell us the significance of the sprinkled blood. Some see it as a symbolized curse,37 but that hardly fits the other biblical occurrences of blood sprinkling. Blood could be a symbolized curse, but blood connected to sacrifice without any formula of explanation and curse is a different story. The safest line of investigation is to consider the significance of sprinkled blood elsewhere in the biblical text. The significance is generally one of cleansing and consecration (Leviticus 8.15,19; 16.14-16). Such a meaning could fit the context of Exodus 24.8. The people have entered into a new role and relationship as those pledged to keep the covenant. Now they are purified. Some may object to the use of comparisons from Leviticus to determine the meaning of a covenant rite in Exodus 24, on the grounds that Leviticus reflects the later 'Priestly' source. As pointed out earlier, the covenanttreaty analogy calls into question the traditional source criticism. However, for the sake of the argument, let us assume that Leviticus comes from a much later period than the Exodus 24 rite. What material do we have for comparison? Most treaty rites are either self-maledictory rites symbolizing the curse, or rites symbolizing the new unity. Exodus 24.8 lacks a curse formula. We have no warrant for saying it is a curse. Does it symbolize unity? One could suggest that the shared blood of the sacrifice symbolizes a union between God and Israel. One can make allusion to other rites of blood-mixing, but these are attested even later than the hypothetical 'Priestly' source and come from a culture outside Israel. A late comparison drawn from another culture has no priority over a late comparison drawn from the same culture.38 36. For a discussion of the various rites connected with biblical covenants see Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant; P.A. Kruger, 'Symbolic Acts Relating to Old Testament Treaties Relationships', J. for Semitics 2(1990), pp. 156-70. 37. E.g. Hillers, Covenant, p. 57. 38. I am not unaware of the long tradition in biblical studies of using analogies from Arab society. However, that tradition needs to be evaluated critically. When there was no other

Israel

14"

Ideally we would like to make a comparison with a case where a treat} was accompanied by a sacrifice. We have such a case: and yet it tells us very little. In connection with the taking of an oath, Idri-mi of Alalakh mentions a sacrifice.39 However, its significance is not explained. Priesl suggested that the Iliad, in picturing the oath-swearer as standing among the sacrificial animals, was indicating that the sacrifice, accompanying an oath, was self-imprecation.40 Is this relevant to the practice of Alalakh and Exodus 24? In both the cases of Alalakh and Exodus 24 we lack specific pointers to self-malediction. In reaching a conclusion on the significance of sacrifice in conjunction with covenant in Exodus 24, I am governed by certain methodological considerations. A rite can have many meanings. Even rites of the same form can have different meanings in different cultures. With rites, as with any institution, we must reckon with the possibility both of diverse treatments of an original common inheritance as well as with independent but parallel invention. Let us suppose that the connection of sacrifice with oaths in Exodus and the Iliad and at Alalakh points to some original connection. Does that tell us what the sacrifice means in each particular instance? It does not, for the possibility exists of each culture interpreting the sacrifice according to its original purpose or according to the role of sacrifice in that particular culture. We would then be left with one culture (Greece) where the contexl points to self-malediction and one (Israel) which points to purification and consecration. The third (Alalakh) provides insufficient evidence for a decision. If there is no original connection then we have even more reason to look to the meaning within the particular culture. We come back then to McCarthy's contention that sacrifice and meal indicate a primitive form of covenant-making, which is to be distinguished from later forms. Whether one can make such a distinction depends or

material available for comparison that practice was understandable. We are no longer restricted to Arabic material for comparisons. It has already been pointed out that the importance to be assigned to Israel's 'nomadic' origins is one of the issues in the debate between Mendenhall and his critics. In order not to prejudge the issues in this debate I will not automatically assume that all questions are settled by seeing Israel as nomads and making comparisons with pre-Islamic Arab nomads. The question of sprinkled blood is a good example of the choices we face. A comparison with Leviticus has on its side the fact that it is closer in time to the rite in Exodus 24 and taken from the same language and cultural area. In defence of Arab analogies one could claim that the sociological condition of Israel at the time of the Sinai covenant was closer to a nomadic tribe than to the later sedentary Israel. In such a case it is not easy to choose one's comparison. Choice may come down to which comparison seems closest to the rite in question. The sprinklings of Leviticus seem to fit quite well. 39. S. Smith, The Statue of Idri-mi, p. 16. 40. J.F. Priest, 'horkia in the Iliad and Consideration of a Recent Theory', JNES 23(1964), pp. 48-56 (55).

148

Admonition and Curse

several considerations. Are we to see these 'primitive' rites as rites of selfmalediction or rites symbolizing the union achieved? Or are there possibly other sorts of rites? Is it a particular sort of rite that is primitive or is it the use of any sort of rite that marks the earlier form? In none of these cases is it easy to make a clear chronological distinction. Rites which dramatize the curse occur all the way from the Hittite Military Oath to the Median Treaties of Esarhaddon. No chronological contrast can be made on that basis. It is harder to judge of rites which symbolize union. The international treaties tend to use exclusively dramatized curses. Our main source for rites of unity are the Bible and the list of forbidden compacts in the Median treaties of Esarhaddon.41 This is not clear evidence for making rites of union early. Part of what McCarthy was trying to do was to make a contrast between the Sinai covenant and Deuteronomy. The Sinai covenant could be seen as built around rites, while Deuteronomy reflected a verbal approach. Such a contrast is highly forced when we consider the role played by symbolized curses in the Median Treaties of Esarhaddon and the elaborate selfmaledictory ceremony recorded in Jeremiah 34.17-20. Conversely, it is quite easy to find early treaties in which rites are not mentioned: Hittite treaties and the treaties from Mari and Tell Leilan seldom mention then. There are similar problems with the distinction Weinfeld tries to make between second-millennium and first-millennium treaties. He maintains that second-millennium treaties were validated by sacrifice and firstmillennium treaties by oath.42 He assumes that the killing of an ass at Mari was a sacrifice. Unfortunately, the Mari texts do not explain the significance of the rite. We have only one reference to sacrifices in the Hittite treaties. Weinfeld finds sacrifices in the treaty of Naram-Sin with Elam and the Stela of the Vultures.^ These are most doubtful proofs of his basic thesis that sacrifice characterized early treaties. He argues that sacrifice become obsolete in Assyrian and Hittite treaties and was replaced by proclamation of the oath.44 Even if we accept all his instances of early treaties accompanied by sacrifice - and I would admit very few of them as clear cases - we would still have the treaties made by Hammurabi, the Tell Leilan treaty and the vast bulk of the Hittite treaties as early yet not being confirmed by a sacrifice. Thus the most we could say is that some early treaties were validated by sacrifices. However, the role of the oath in Hittite and other early treaties would indicate that some early treaties were validated by oaths. The case for making a distinction between early and 41. 42. p. 198; 43. 44.

Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon', pp. 39-41, 11. 11:153-56. Weinfeld, The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East', 'Deuteronomy - the Present State of Inquiry', JBL 86(1967), pp. 249-62 (255n). Weinfeld, 'Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia', p. 137. Weinfeld, 'Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia', p. 138.

Israel

149

late treaties on the basis of presence or absence of a sacrifice or oath breaks down. The attempts of McCarthy and Weinfeld to define general characteristics of early treaties and late treaties have a fundamental problem. They assume a uniform development for the whole Ancient Near East. Thus they share a problem with Mendenhall, from whom they deviate in other respects: a failure to consider each culture on its own merits. Cross-cultural comparisons and theories of uniform and unilinear development have problems enough. The problems are even greater when comparisons are made using only part of the data. At the conclusion of this long discussion of the sacrifice in Exodus 24 a few comments need to be made. A great deal has been made of this one clear connection between covenant and sacrifice. Has too much been made of it? As already pointed out, this use of sacrifice is quite explicable within the general practice of sacrifice and blood-sprinkling in Israel. Do we really need to resort to elaborate cross-cultural comparisons and dubious contrasts between early and late forms? After all, this is the one case in the biblical corpus! Hence I would conclude that a rite of consecration has been adjoined to the covenant-making. There is no reason to see this as the rite which establishes the covenant. In the preceding verse (Exodus 24.7) the people promise to adhere to the covenant. That promise has as much right to qualify as what establishes the covenant. There are, of course, many other ways in which the development of Israelite religion can be described. Each of these has potential corollaries for our understanding of biblical covenants. One in particular deserves mention. W.R. Smith saw the original relationship between Semitic worshippers and their deity as one of close fellowship and union. Sin, alienation and propitiation were late developments.45 Does it comport with that understanding if early biblical religion were marked by curses and selfmaledictory oaths? The differences of approach emerge clearly in Bickerman's attempt to argue that the ritual of Genesis 15, in which the symbols of the divinity pass between the parts of animals, does not have selfmaledictory significance and, in general, the biblical idiom to 'cut' a covenant does not have an origin in self-maledictory rites.46 Bickerman's work raises an additional significant issue: in seeking to argue that such rites are prophylactic or purificatory, he draws analogies from many different cultures. Obviously, one could place against his examples other instances of self-maledictory rites involved with treaties

45. W.R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1889). 46. E.J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (Vol. I; Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 1-32.

150

Admonition and Curse

where the text makes their significance entirely unambiguous. What analogies are we to use to explicate the biblical ceremonies? If one accepts the analogy of biblical covenant and extra-biblical treaty, then the pendulum is shifted towards taking analogies from treaty and kindred rituals. However, even accepting the analogy does not preclude other possibilities. It would be in the spirit of W.R. Smith47 to see biblical religion as reflecting a more primitive stage which, for civilizations such as Mesopotamia, was already past before the first extant texts were written. Certainly the early Mesopotamian treaties do have a degree of elaboration or complexity when compared with the covenants of Genesis.48 By pursuing this contrast one could exclude using parallels from the 'great civilizations' of the Ancient Near East and justify parallels from 'primitive' societies. Do we sometimes pursue our analogies and extra-biblical comparisons to relieve us of the task of having, as a last resort, to read the text? There are so many different analogies we can draw, each justifiable within a certain historiographic framework, that the outside comparisons end by giving possibilities not answers. What fits the text of Genesis 15? It is indubitable that God has made a promise. It was God, in some symbolic form, who passed between the pieces of the severed animals. One might think of all sorts of reasons, highly tenuously linked to the context, why God might need purification or protection, but is there any reason closely linked to the action? However, a self-maledictory oath to confirm a promise is entirely appropriate in the context. Furthermore, that interpretation fits with the curse that falls on the people of Judah who do not obey the covenant into which they entered in a similar rite in Jeremiah 34. Hence contextual indications as well as analogies point towards self-maledictory rites in Israel.

47. The influence of Smith on Bickerman is quite clear. See Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. For a consideration of the methodological questions raised by Smith's work see R.A. Jones, 'Robertson Smith, Durkheim and Sacrifice: An Historical Context for The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life', J. of the Hist of the Behavioral Sciences 17(1981), pp. 184-205; and 'Robertson Smith and James Frazer on Religion: Two Traditions in British Social Anthropology' in G.W. Stocking (ed.), Factionalism Historicized (Madison: U. of Wisconsin, 1984), pp. 31-58.1 thank Dr W. Eddleston for drawing my attention to the articles by Jones. 48. Of course such an argument cannot be used for chronological indications. For whatever reason, the treaties that Hammurabi entered into seem less complex than earlier Mesopotamian ones. Hence the apparent simplicity of the covenants of Genesis, in itself, is not a chronological indication.

Israel

151

Covenant and Treaty: a Relationship? As already mentioned, a number of authors have questioned the connection which Mendenhall made between covenant and treaty.49 The objections take two main forms. One is that the use of covenants for relationship to a deity has no analogy outside of Israel. The other is that biblical covenants do not show the full treaty form.50 Is the occurrence of religious covenants in Israel but not outside51 an insuperable problem? The Bible includes covenants between God and men as well as covenants restricted to human partners. Nobody denies some sort of connection between these various covenants. If a covenant in which God is a partner can be related to a covenant with only human partners in Israel, then there can be no insuperable objection to a relationship to human covenants (treaties) outside Israel.52 The formal problem demands more careful treatment. There has been argument as to how much of the classic covenant form occurs in the Sinai covenant and in the Shechem covenant (Joshua 24). If the Sinai covenant is analogous, as Mendenhall argued, to Hittite treaties, then the suzerain's self-identification and the historical prologue are minimal: 'And God spoke all these words, saying: "I am YHWH, thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of servitude.'" (Exodus 20.1, 2) Joshua 24 has a more developed historical section. 'Thus speaks YHWH, the God of Israel: 'Your fathers lived on the other side of the River, (namely) Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods. And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the River.

49. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament, pp. 4-5, 93; Notscher, 'Bundesformular und "Amtschimmer \ pp. 185-214; Whitley, 'Covenant and Commandment in Israel', pp. 37-48. 50. This is also the basis on which those who would accept some sort of analogy of covenant to treaty nevertheless reject Mendenhall's claim that some biblical covenants show the form of second-millennium Hittite treaties (e.g. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, pp. 5-8). 51. In earlier chapters I have considered texts which have been seen as extra-biblical examples of covenants between mortals and a deity. I will return to these later. Given the uncertainties in these cases, for the moment I consider the argument that there are no extrabiblical divine-human covenants. 52. Perlitt (Bundestheologie im Alien Testament, p. 5) overstates his case when he says that the Old Testament shows no political use of the treaty form. Perhaps he means that the various political treaties mentioned in the Old Testament are not described in detail so as to reveal the form used. Given the overlap in terminology and concept between man-to-man and God-to-man covenants, it would be a reasonable postulate that their forms were similar. The opposing position needs to be argued, not just stated as categorical fact.

152

Admonition and Curse 'And I gave you a land for which you did not toil, and cities which you did not build . . . 'And now fear YHWH and serve him in integrity and truth and remove the gods which your fathers served beyond the river and in Egypt and serve YHWH.' (vv. 2-14) And the people answered and said: 'An abomination to us is leaving YHWH to serve other gods. Because it is YHWH, our God, who brought us and our fathers up from Egypt, from the house of servitude.' (vv. 16, 17) After Joshua tests the resolve of the people they respond: 'No, because we will serve YHWH'. And Joshua said to the people 'You are witnesses against yourselves because you have chosen for yourselves YHWH to serve him.' And they said: '(We are) witnesses.' (vv. 21, 22)

All will concede that we cannot expect an invocation of the gods in a biblical covenant. Far more serious is the lack of an explicit curse and blessing formula in the Sinai and Shechem covenants. It is argued that this means they do not show the treaty form. Hence the argument for the covenant-treaty connection has been invalidated. One could engage in rather fruitless argument to determine how complete the treaty 'form' needs to be in order to be called a 'treaty form'. Rather we need to distance ourselves a little from the debate. Mendenhall based his argument upon Korosec's analysis of the Hittite treaty form, which in turn was based upon the selection of treaties then known from the Hittite Empire. As more treaties have come to light, the Hittite treaty is no longer as clearly formally defined. To take an obvious example, the 'treaties' with Ugarit may look more like decrees, lacking curses or turning them against a third party who might change the text. These 'treaties' deviate from the 'treaty form', yet it would be ridiculous to deny any relationship between them and the treaties which fit the classic pattern. Part of the problem is that the standard assumptions of form criticism do not fit a situation in which the Hittites are changing the document according to their perception of the relationship between them and the other treaty partner and in order to fit the matter being discussed in that particular text. Neither can we treat the deviant treaties as a late innovative use of the fixed form: the deviants are contemporary with the period in which the supposed classic form emerges. While these considerations may blunt Perlitt's criticisms, they also weaken Mendenhall's original case, the strength of which lay in being able to compare detailed forms. The more complex the forms being compared, the less the probability that the similarities were accidental. In the light of the data now available we should see the Hittite treaty not as one fixed form but as a spectrum in which certain tendencies and motives produce a clustering around recurrent themes. The biblical texts we are considering have some of those themes. How strong is the case for a relationship?

Israel

153

Joshua 24 has an identification of the suzerain (v. 2), and a historical prologue concerning the goodness of the suzerain to Israel (vv. 2-13); this motivates the demand for service and loyalty (vv. 14, 15, 23). The people promise obedience (vv. 16-18, 21). There is a warning of the consequences of disobedience (vv. 19, 20). A copy was written and a stone set up in the sanctuary as an unwritten memorial (vv. 25-27). Certainly some see Joshua 24 as a late and composite piece of theologizing.53 For the moment the dating is not the central question. What is crucial is whether there is sufficient material here to suggest some sort of relationship to extra-biblical treaties. We find the sovereign speaking and using the history of his goodness to motivate a personal allegiance to himself. There is a demand for loyalty and a threat of punishment. How does this deviate from examples of extrabiblical treaties? The deviations are in a failure to elaborate certain aspects. The stipulations are reduced to the basic demand for faithfulness. The warnings hint of what will follow and do not use detailed curses. It might be objected that there is no oath: but that would be hard to sustain. A solemn and repeated promise surely plays the equivalent role.54 Acknowledging relationship does not of itself determine the mode of relationship. It could be a case of independent invention under similar circumstances. The question for the moment is whether there is relationship. I judge that the parallels and similarities are sufficient to admit some sort of relationship. 55 Admitting relationship does not of itself support the idea that this assembly was the moment when Israel was first constituted as a political unity out of heterogeneous elements. Of that the text gives no hint. I am trying to be bound by what our sources say. It is one thing to try to fit into a historical picture the explicit indications of a text. It is another to create what is not even hinted in a text. In judging that Joshua 24 has affinities with the treaty tradition in spite of a lack of detailed stipulations, I am certainly influenced by my earlier conclusion on treaties - that I see them as devices aimed to secure a certain form of personal relationship. Hence the tendency to place the demand for loyalty first and then to move to detailed laws. Lack of detailed laws does not mean the essential thing is lost. A different conclusion might be reached by the person who sees the treaty form as a fixed grid in which every item is equally important. He will notice how many aspects of that 53. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament, pp. 239-51. For a history of the scholarly treatment of Joshua 24 see Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. (I thank K. Lawson Younger, Jr for bringing this work to my attention.) 54. Koopmans, Joshua 24, p. 406. 55. For a somewhat different argument for the relationship see Koopmans, Joshua 24, pp. 405-6.

154

Admonition and Curse

grid are lacking from Joshua 24. Yet I would point out in rejoinder that looking for only one static and fixed form would exclude many extrabiblical treaties. The case for the Sinai covenant is far more difficult and complex. This is partly because the material is spread over more chapters, with interruptions such as the incident of the golden calf. The greater amount of material and its greater range gives opportunity for more arguments about sources. I would simply maintain what I said earlier. The more the text is cut into individual pieces, the harder it is to see analogies to treaties. The more one argues from treaty parallels, the less convincing become the grounds on which different sources have been discovered. Perlitt is well aware of this relationship between confidence in source criticism and rejection of the covenant-treaty parallel.56 Perhaps the difference between us is partly that I lack his confidence that we, from this historical distance, can make such sharp and clear distinctions in sources, especially when other Ancient Near Eastern texts combine in one document what he sees as evidence for distinct sources. The spectre of anachronism does not seem to bother him. If one takes all the Sinai material one thing is obvious: history plays a far smaller role than in Joshua 24. There are brief references to God's deliverance of Israel from Egypt in Exodus 19.3-6 and 20.2. This history is meant to motivate (19.5), yet it is brief. This brevity has allowed McCarthy to built a contrast. He sees the theophanic presence of God as the crucial element motivating Israel to obedience.57 He points out that the recounting of the Sinai story in Deuteronomy 5 also stresses the presence of God. One wonders whether he has strengthened or weakened his case by his reference to Deuteronomy 5. Certainly this text puts the emphasis on God's presence, but it does so within a larger context which uses history to motivate obedience. This raises the question of whether there is a contrast to be made between using history to motivate and using the divine presence to motivate. Once more a principle of economy is being forced upon the text which may be quite foreign to the mentality of the writers. The equivalent problem is the role of history and curse in Hittite and Assyrian treaties. The Hittite treaties use both. We have in the Sargonid period the Median treaties of Esarhaddon, which take curse to extreme lengths. We have also the treaty of Ashurbanipal with Qedar, which uses history. Obviously we can see shifts of nuance and emphasis but we cannot set the use of history in contrast to the curse and make one early and one late. There is no reason why two means to the same end could not be employed in the same period.

56. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament, p. 163. 57. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, pp. 157-8.

Israel

155

Similarly there is no reason why the original version of the Sinai account could not have combined history and divine presence. The problem can be expressed in theological terms. Is it thankfulness for God's goodness or fear of his wrath that produces obedience in man? Post-biblical theologies may have opted for one side of that dilemma or the other, but it is very hard to find in the Bible a clear choice for one over or against the other. At most we can speak of differences in emphasis. In that regard history is a minor element in the Sinai story. Yet even in saying this we need to be cautious. The story is set within a larger context. In the preceding material the history of God's power and goodness is the main theme. Once more, by isolating blocks of textual material we can see contrasts between the detached texts and treaties. When we take the larger view, the contrasts become less obvious. The same point applies when we look at the legal material, for which various origins have been proposed. If we take the Decalogue of Exodus 20.3-17 by itself it has differences from treaty stipulations. It is uniformly apodictic and lacks the more detailed, often casuistic, stipulations of a treaty. When we combine the Decalogue with the laws of 20.22-23.19. these are supplied.58 Certainly the disjunction of the Decalogue from the following material has long been an accepted conclusion of source criticism. However, the placing of general apodictic commands first, especially the demand for loyalty, followed by more detailed casuistic commands is found in treaties. Once again we must ask whether we see differences where an ancient author might have seen logical and psychological order. This is a valid concern whether or not there is any connection between Sinai covenant and treaties. The Sinai material has several promises by the people to obey. It lacks a curse section. Those who support the connection to treaties argue that the curse and blessing has been incorporated within individual commands such as the second, third and fifth.59 A fair summary would be to say that there is no separate blessing and curse section but the idea of threat and promise is not totally lacking.60 58. It is in the following section that we find the casuistic laws, e.g.: 'If thou acquires! a Hebrew slave, six years he shall serve and in the seventh he shall go out freely for nothing (in payment)' (21.2). 59. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, p. 9. 60. This point could be evaded by making the threat or promise a later addition, on the premise that the original must be short (Gerstenberger has some tendencies to assume that the original is brief (Wesen und Herkunft des "Apodiktischen Rechts", pp. 36, 49): however, he does not clearly defend that assumption). However, if the rest of the Ancient Near East was producing complex laws long before the earliest possible dating of Exodus or its 'sources', how can we deny the possibility of complex laws in Israel at the time? (See Sonsino, Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law, pp. 194-5.) The role of motive clauses in biblical law has been studied by B. Gemser ('The Importance of the Motive Clause in Old Testament Law', VTS 1(1953),

156

Admonition and Curse

As with Joshua 24 one can argue whether there was an oath. Certainly there was a solemn promise in the presence of God. Denying that this is an oath is a little forced. In conclusion the case for connecting the Sinai covenant to the treaty tradition is fairly evenly balanced. In favour is a solemn undertaking by the people to obey laws, which progress from the general demand for exclusive loyalty to more specific and detailed commands. In contrast to treaties neither history or curse play a prominent role. The ceremonies of sacrifice and covenant meal do not connect Sinai to the normal form of Ancient Near Eastern treaty. Hence we cannot use Sinai as proof of a connection between covenant and treaty. To do that we would have to over-emphasize minor themes in the account. On the other hand, to contrast Sinai with the treaty tradition we have to deny the existence of those minor themes. Neither overemphasis or denial is doing justice to the text. If on other grounds we decide that there is a connection between biblical covenants and treaties, we would then re-evaluate Sinai in that light. We have no such problems with Deuteronomy. The pedagogic history and the curse are both developed fully. There are basic demands for loyalty and detailed stipulations. There are prescriptions for the writing of a copy of the covenant (Deuteronomy 27.1-8; 31.24-26): 'On the day when you pass over Jordan to the land which YHWH, thy God, gives thee, thou shalt take for thyself great stones and plaster them with lime plaster. And thou shalt write on them all the words of this law' (27.2, 3a). Further, these elements occur in the general order in which they are found in Hittite treaties. Denial of a relationship is therefore hard to defend. Deuteronomy does not stand alone. Similar patterns occur in later passages such as I Samuel 12.6-25.61 Thus while not every biblical covenant follows a Hittite or Mesopotamian form, there are some which show clear relationship to it. The larger the portions of text considered, the greater the relationship.

The Time and Nature of the Connection Those who have argued against Mendenhall have often been happy to see a connection between covenant and treaty provided that connection took pp. 50-66). He finds indications of development but no stage where motive clauses were absent. Sonsino (Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law, pp. 193-210) questions the attempt to see motive clauses as later additions. 61. Note that this passage uses both history (vv. 8-12) and theophany (vv.16-19) to secure obedience. For further on the treaty connections of this passage see J.R. Vannoy, Covenant Renewal at Gilgal (Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack, 1978).

Israel

157

place in the Assyrian period.62 A late connection does not disturb the basic Wellhausian contention that covenant develops as a result of the prophetic movement. Mendenhall's key argument was that the second-millennium treaties employed history and the first-millennium ones did not. This placed some Israelite covenants in the second millennium and thus clearly antecedent to the first-millennium prophetic movement. In the light of the Assyrian evidence presented above, that argument no longer stands. Before conceding victory to Mendenhall's critics we need to look at another part of his argument. He saw a parallel between the first commandment of the Decalogue and the demand in treaties for exclusive loyalty to the suzerain.63 Thus Mendenhall was able to tie together the recurrent covenant theme in the Bible and monotheism. Any alternate thesis must also explain the relationship. The connection between treaty (or covenant) and pedagogic use of history has been stressed in the earlier discussion. Alternative theses must also bring this into their synthesis. While Mendenhall's argument had crucial flaws he did show a plausible connection between some of the distinctive features of biblical religion: covenant, monotheism, arguments from history. His critics have tended to ignore the need to provide a plausible alternative connection. Let us assume that covenant comes to Israel through Assyrian influence.64 It would have to be fairly late Assyrian influence because Assyrians before Ashurbanipal do not appeal to their goodness to vassals. What prevailed in Israel previously? Did it make pedagogic use of history? Was it monotheistic? Mendenhall's critics do not give explicit consideration to such questions. I suspect they would acknowledge that such ideas were present in Israel earlier but argue that their expression was transformed with the spread of covenant ideas. If covenant did come into Israel from Assyria the window of opportunity was a very limited one. It cannot be before Ashurbanipal, but how late could it be? There is no evidence of the connection of appeal to the suzerain's beneficence and treaties in the Neo-Babylonian Period. We suspect that Assyrian control of Judah lapsed before the end of Ashurbanipal's reign. Hence the borrowing most likely would have been

62. E.g. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament, pp. 246-51. 63. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, p. 38; idem, 'Covenant', p. 719. 64. Terminology is a problem here. One can postulate an early 'covenant' between God and man which lacked pedagogic use of history, claim to exclusive loyalty or use of curse. In effect some authors remove parts of the Sinai account to produce such a 'covenant'. That merely transforms the question. It then becomes a matter of saying this early 'covenant' form changed to the later covenant form under Assyrian influence.

158

Admonition and Curse

some time in the reign of Ashurbanipal, and even then far enough into the reign for the theme of benevolence to come to expression but not before the removal of Assyria as a significant force in the west: i.e. c.660-30. We are faced with a problem analogous to the question of the relationship of Mesopotamian and Hittite treaties. If we say the Hittites borrowed treaties from Mesopotamia, then we must explain the permeation of Hittite treaties by distinctively Hittite themes and the special role of oath-bound loyalty in Hittite society. These problems tend to make us push the point of connection between Hittite and Mesopotamian treaties back in time. So making biblical covenant dependent upon Assyrian treaty raises similar problems. Was it only after Ashurbanipal (i.e. about the time of Josiah) that biblical monotheism became expressed as covenant monotheism?65 Did Israel use history as admonition and warning before Josiah? That use of history has recurrent connections to treaties. If the pedagogic use of history existed before Josiah then it is likely that covenants also preceded Josiah. A possible way out of this dilemma is to see if the recently popular dating of the biblical text to the Persian or later period provides a solution. Could not monotheism, covenant and the particular biblical use of history all have risen together in the late period? Such a theory would remove anomalies such as postulating a pedagogic use of history but not covenant in the earlier period; it keeps the elements of the complex together. The difficulty is that the best analogies for some parts of the complex, such as pedagogic use of history and covenant, come from the pre-exilic period, sometimes far into it. If we suggest that the composers of the Persian era biblical text have made use of sources from an earlier period and that this distinctive complex of elements derives from those sources, then we have the interesting situation of the main constitutive elements of biblical ideology existing in pre-exilic texts and waiting, as it were, for the Bible to come along. Surely a simpler thesis is that the Bible has an earlier origin. Suppose we postulate that monotheism and pedagogic use of history preceded Josiah. Once this is conceded then, because of the connection of monotheism and pedagogic history to covenant, surely covenant also preceded Josiah. The alternative is to say that something existed before Josiah but that we cannot say what it was because it has been thoroughly transformed by the arrival of the idea of treaty/covenant. Yet this latter position leads in turn to the paradoxical conclusion that what emerges out

65. It is striking that treatments of biblical monotheism continue to appear which ignore the whole problem of covenant history; e.g. F. Stolz, 'Monotheismus in Israel' in O. Keel (ed.), Monotheismus im Alien Israel undseiner Umwelt (Fribourg: Schweizer. Kath. Bibelwerk, 1980), pp. 143-84.

Israel

159

of the fusion between mysterious Israelite antecedents and Assyrian treaties bears strong resemblance to second-millennium Hittite treaties. Another way to decide the whole question is to see whether covenant was already present in the prophets before Josiah. If the text of the prophets is allowed to stand then the matter is simply decided. Hosea, c.750, makes clear reference to the covenant: 'And they like men (or 'Adam'?) have transgressed the covenant.' (6.7); 'Because they have transgressed my covenant and rebelled against my law.' (8.1b) However, the counter-argument is to assert that those portions of prophetic text which refer to covenants are late additions. The prophets, including those before Josiah, bring charges of disloyalty against Israel. It has been suggested that these charges and threats are covenant lawsuits reflecting the process against a disobedient vassal, such as we find in the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Hittite accusations against Madduwattas and Mita.66 The counter-argument has depended upon arguing that the background of the accusations is secular legal practice in Israel67 or that the prophetic threats could have originated in an oath tradition common both to treaties and other forms.68 The attempt to relate the prophetic lawsuit to civil lawsuits rather than to accusations of treaty-breaking is extremely weak. Appeal to God's previous benevolence characterizes the prophetic lawsuit:69 Hear heavens and give ear earth because YHWH has spoken: 'Sons I have raised and promoted but they have rebelled against me. The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master's feeding-trough. Israel does not know; my people do not understand............. 'Why will you continue to be stricken?' (Isaiah 1.2, 3, 5) Hear mountains the contention of YHWH . . . because YWWH contends with his people and argues with Israel. 'My people, what have I done to thee and how have I made thee impatient? Answer me! Because I brought thee up from the land of Egypt and ransomed thee from the house of servitude.' (Micah 6:2-4a)

Harvey points out that in employing a question, which is never answered; in making no clear distinction between plaintiff and judge and in 66. J. Harvey, Le plaidoyer prophetique contre Israel apres la rupture de I'alliance (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1967); D.R. Millers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Biblica et Orientalia, 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964); F.C. Fensham, 'Common Trends in the Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-lnscriptions Compared with the Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah', ZAW 75(1963), pp. 155-75; idem, 'Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament', ZA W 74(1962), pp. 1-9; H.B. Huffmon, 'The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets', JBL 78(1959), pp. 285-95. 67. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament, pp. 133-4. 68. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, p. 40. 69. Good examples are Isaiah 1.2-20; Micah 6.1-8.

160

Admonition and Curse

terminating not with a sentence but a threat or an appeal; and in pointing out the futility of ritual compensations, the prophetic lawsuit does not follow the form of a civil lawsuit. A king might conduct a court this way. Normal judges would not.70 In the debate much has been made of the appeal to heaven and earth which begins some lawsuits. This has been related to the appearance of heaven and earth as witnesses at the end of the god lists in Hittite treaties. However, the connection is dubious. The witnesses to treaties are normally approached to punish infraction. It is with this in mind that the serpent approaches Shamash in Etana and the Eagle and Tukulti-Ninurta appeals to Shamash. Heaven and earth do not play the role of avengers in covenant lawsuits. No specific role is assigned to them apart from hearing the speech of the covenant lord. Their function is thus closer to the other vassals who are summoned to hear of the misdeeds of the vassal in the Mita text. Even this analogy breaks down, because in the Mita text the other vassals have a role in opposing the rebellious vassal. Perhaps, they are no more than witnesses to the righteousness of God. Thus the case for comparing treaty lawsuit and prophetic lawsuit cannot depend upon the invocation of heaven and earth as witnesses. Nevertheless, we find that prophetic threats parallel treaty curses: prophetic lawsuits have features in common with accusations against errant vassals, especially in the appeal to the past benevolence of the suzerain. In the light of the plausible arguments for connecting covenants and treaties it seems special pleading to deny a connection between prophetic lawsuit and treaty lawsuit. It is certainly possible that prophetic threats go back to some tradition of oaths that is the common origin of both prophetic curses and treaty curses. However, why postulate the existence of a third entity when there is evidence for a connection between covenants and treaties? A much simpler thesis is to say that the prophets reflect the tradition of treaty curses because covenant concepts and terminology are the background to the prophets. These desperate arguments against a fairly obvious conclusion have one aim: to save Wellhausen's view of the role of the prophets as the creative force in biblical monotheism. Taken at face value the evidence of the prophets points to the presence of the covenant/treaty tradition in Israel before Josiah. A number of terms used by the prophets such as 'good', 'love', 'know' and 'son' have been seen as being technical covenant terminology because of a similar usage in treaties.71 The parallels are at least interesting. Of

70. Harvey, Le plaidoyer prophetique, pp. 22-5. 71. N. Lohfink, 'Hate and Love in Osee 9,15', CBQ 25(1963), p. 417; H.B. Huffmon, The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada c\ BASOR 181(1966), pp. 31-7; H.B. Huffmon and

Israel

161

themselves they might not be conclusive but they form part of the cumulative weight for recognizing that the prophets were familiar with treaty terminology and concepts. In defence of the lateness of the covenant idea, appeal has been made to the absence of the word 'covenant' in the early prophets. As already mentioned, this argument can be sustained only by assigning a late date to parts of Hosea.72 It is severely weakened by the evidence for covenant lawsuit and covenant terminology in the prophets. However, let us say for the sake of the argument that no trace of covenant terminology appears in the early prophets. Does that prove that the covenant idea postdates the prophetic movement? We face an analogous problem to that of the scarcity of treaties in early Mesopotamian sources. We know that treaties were used in the Sumerian Early Dynastic period. We know they were used in the Middle Babylonian period and later. We have every reason therefore to believe that the treaty idea existed throughout early Mesopotamian history, yet it rarely came to expression in the official sources available to us. The evidence for its existence is in a literary source, Etana and the Eagle, and in texts from the reign of Hammurabi. We can try to explain the lack of appearance but it is much harder to argue that this lack of appearance means absolute non-existence. The argument that the prophets would have expressed covenant ideas, had they known them, is severely weakened by the use of the covenant lawsuit. The problem reduces to one of the frequency of the use of the word 'covenant'. MendenhalP argued that the prophets avoided the word since, through association with the promises to Abraham and David, it had come to mean an absolute guarantee of security. The prophets wanted to stress that security depended on obedience. This argument is weak. I will defer for later consideration the relationship of promissory covenants and law covenants. If the prophets were concerned about a misinterpretation of promise why did they not address the issue directly? Actually the best evidence for such ideas of false security comes from the time of Jeremiah,74 and Jeremiah was not loath to talk about 'covenant'. We have to ask whether the debate over the lack of the use of the word 'covenant' in the earlier prophets has been conditioned by the order of development in the biblical field. Let us suppose that the relationship of prophetic lawsuit to treaty lawsuit and of prophetic threat to treaty curse

S.B. Parker, 'A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew Yad\ BASOR 184(1966), pp. 36-8; Moran, The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy'; Fensham, 'Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant'. 72. Isaiah 24.5; 33.8 etc. also come into the debate. 73. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, p. 46. 74. Note that the false security seems as much connected to the temple (Jeremiah 7.7) as to a misinterpretation of covenant promise (21.2)

162

Admonition and Curse

had been suggested before Wellhausen. Would the relatively minor fact that the word itself is comparatively infrequent in the early prophets have been taken that seriously? It still needs to be explained but it is offset by some instances of occurrence and by use of covenant concepts. However, once the rarity of the word had been integrated into a theologically appealing reconstruction of Israelite religion, it came to be disproportionately important. Denying it threatens a theological reconstruction. As I have no convincing reason to suggest for the relative infrequency of the word and as I think other arguments outweigh this relative infrequency, I am going to adopt for the following discussion the position that the prophets inherited the covenant idea rather than inventing it. Once the time of Ashurbanipal and later is excluded as too late for the adoption of the covenant idea into Israel, then an Assyrian source becomes implausible. Because the earlier Assyrian treaty idea lacks the connection of treaty and the suzerain's beneficence, this puts the point of contact between biblical covenant and extra-biblical treaty back before the Assyrian Empire. Can we specify when? We come therefore to Mendenhall's theory. He suggested that a group of escapees from Egypt took over the existing state institution of treaty and reshaped it with God rather than a king as the lord.75 Mendehall's thesis is ingenious. He has taken seriously the fact that biblical monotheism is covenant monotheism. He has drawn attention to little details such as the parallel between the requirement that Israelites make pilgrimage to the Lord's sanctuary and the requirement that Hittite vassals visit the Hittite court.76 How convincing is Mendenhall's thesis? The greatest objection is that it has no real support in the biblical text. Mendenhall has to argue that the biblical historians have made up a quite fictitious story of an ethnic continuity in Israel stretching back before the time of the exodus.77 It has been pointed out that one of the problems of the Wellhausian view is that it depends on arguing that references to covenant in early books are insertions of later views. Similarly, Mendenhall's view takes references to ethnic Israel to be late. One may prefer Wellhausen's view of the religion of Israel to Mendenhall's, or vice versa. However, in their historical argument they have similar weaknesses. Why should we prefer one to the other? There are other problems with Mendenhall's view. He assumed that Hittite treaty forms were used widely in the second millennium. It was just 75. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, p. 5. In The Tenth Generation there is something of a shift to emphasizing the role of Palestinian elements in the new confederation structured by the covenant. However, the basic thesis remains the same. 76. Mendenhall, 'Covenant', p. 720. 77. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, p. 5.

Israel

163

accident of discovery that this form was best attested with the Hittites.78 We have seen reason for questioning this notion of an identical covenant form covering the Ancient Near East. A particular problem for Mendenhall's thesis, which makes frequent reference to the Amarna letters, is the lack of evidence in that corpus for treaties between Egypt and Syria-Palestine. In Mendenhall's thesis Israel obtained knowledge of the treaty form from Egyptian overlords, as would be appropriate for an area that had known Egyptian imperialism but not the Hittite empire. However, we have seen that there is reason to doubt whether Egypt used vassal treaties, and even if they did, what we know of New Kingdom Egypt would not lead us to expect arguments from history. Thus we face a paradox. We have strong evidence that the Assyrians did use a treaty form emphasizing the suzerain's benevolence very late in their empire. To make that period the point of entrance of covenant thought into Israel must surmount not just the problem of deriving the form of Israelite religion from the national enemy, but also the evidence that covenant was present much earlier in Israel. However, if we make the late second millennium the formative period in Israelite history and try to find the entrance of covenant ideas at this point, in that period we find a lack of evidence for employment of treaty ideas in Canaan. An alternate route for covenant ideas has been suggested by Koopmans,79 who postulates that covenant ideas may have passed from the Hittites to their vassals, particularly Ugarit, and then on to Israel. A natural consequence of this thesis would be that covenant came relatively early to Israel. This thesis cannot be easily disproved but it exposes an interesting anomaly in our extant evidence. The biblical text and the Hittites are linked by the combination of covenants/treaties and pedagogic use of history in official texts. While we have evidence of international treaties at Ugarit and the claimed evidence of treaties between gods and mortals, we lack the pedagogic use of history in official texts. Indeed, texts aimed at the public and coming from royal sources are rare in the evidence from Ugarit. They may have existed and simply not been found, but their absence leaves a significant gap in our evidence.

Baal/El Berith at Shechem Two passages in Judges mention a god Baal Berith (8.33; 9.4). Later in the same story the god El Berith is mentioned (9.46). A simple and perhaps simplistic translation would be 'Lord/God of the Covenant'. The text tells us little about this god except that worship of him is contrasted to worship 78. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, pp. 27-8. 79. Koopmans, Joshua 24, p. 402.

164

Admonition and Curse

of YHWH (8.33) and that he has a temple (9.4). We cannot even be certain that the two designations refer to the one deity, although this is the simplest supposition. Lewis validly points out that the vast majority of connections of a deity and a treaty/covenant make the deity the witness to the covenant rather than a party to the compact.80 Yet inspired by the example of the various claimed divine-human covenants from outside of Israel which have been considered earlier, he considers this evidence of a divine-human covenant. In spite of my scepticism about many of these claimed other examples, I have to agree, especially in the light of the explicit statement that Israel worshipped this god. The text is not informative about the nature of the god or of the relationship. Earlier I played with the idea that there may have been a tendency to 'covenant' relationships with chthonic deities. The title 'Baal' might not incline us to think of a chthonic deity. If that suggestion has no merit, then this deity joins the list of unresolved issues in this whole investigation.

The 'Objectivity' of Extra-biblical Analogy Earlier I compared the arguments over biblical covenants and Ancient Near Eastern treaties to those over the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. The position which has generally become associated with the name of Albright had connotations as well as overt claims, including the inference that by appealing to extra-biblical evidence the scholar was introducing something far more objective than conjectural source and form critical arguments based upon the biblical text alone. Claims of being more objective in scholarly argument is likely to raise the temperature of one's opponents, even in a post-modern context. Not surprisingly, the many assumptions involved in making extra-biblical comparisons were then subjected to scrutiny. No matter how sophisticatedly we phrase the discussion, appeal to analogies ends by being a statement that 'X looks very much like Y to me'. I have argued that the use of history, the combination of elements such as historical prologue, stipulations and blessings and curses, the provision for depositing of the treaty text and so on are analogous to what we find in Hittite treaties. Further, the covenant lawsuit in the prophets has similarites to the inditement of rebellious vassals by the Hittites. Turning the argument another way, I have argued that appeal to distinction between first and third person in the Decalogue or between second person 80. Lewis, The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith', p. 404.

Israel

165

plural and singular in Deuteronomy ignores the fact that Hittite texts analogous to biblical treaties combine these within the one document. These comparisons are aimed against form critical or source critical arguments that find in these differences a basis for dividing the text and seeking different origins for the parts. Setting the two methodologies against each other, is the superiority of the approach I have taken 'objectively' obvious? It seems to me that the form critical wedges that Perlitt has attempted to insert into the biblical covenant texts are fairly artificial and arbitrary. Older source critical arguments have more surface plausibility because, to take a basic example, we would not combine the basic ethical principles of the Decalogue with detailed instructions on sanctuary building, including deposition rules for the covenant text. Our problem there is that what comes naturally to us and what came naturally to the biblical authors is not necessarily the same. Yet a simplistic appeal to Hittite texts to tell us how the ancients 'really' conceived things invites the objection that there are many respects in which we would not think of turning to Hittite texts to elucidate the Bible. Every explanation by analogy has elements of selectivity. I would insist that the similarity between the extra-biblical data, particularly as shown with the Hittites, and the biblical is too great to deny. I do not claim to raise this argument to a more sophisticated level than 'X looks very much like Y to me'. I do not know how one makes argument from analogy more convincing than that. However, I do not think it is less convincing than very tenuous and speculative source and form critical arguments. Ironically, confusion in the whole discussion has been generated by the attempt to first define the 'treaty form'. It is not just biblical covenents that fail to conform to the proposed models: so do many extra-biblical treaties. Surely that tells us that there is a problem in our conceptualization. My solution to that dilemma is to postulate that, although templates for a standard treaty existed, a set of concepts about relationships was more basic and modified formats came into being to secure the goal defined by those concepts about relationships. Another problem has been finding a pathway by which the treaty form could pass from the Hittites to Israel. My contention is that simplistic models of borrowing confuse rather than clarify the problem. If the similarities seem to us to be real then we have to look at the whole phenomena of treaties, not just search for one pathway.

Israelite Covenant: an Internal Development? We have already seen that it is hard to specify the point at which the Hittites 'borrowed' the Mesopotamian treaty form. We have to allow the

166

Admonition and Curse

possibility of independent development of a basic common inheritance. Could Israelite covenant be explained as an internal development? One of the distinctive aspects about the biblical examples of covenants is that they include covenants between individuals, such as David and Jonathan. We presume that behind the tradition of international state treaties there was a folk tradition. We meet this tradition in the biblical text because it is not concerned solely with interstate affairs. Elsewhere the only glimpse we have of that folk tradition is in Etana and the Eagle, and possibly in the Arslan Tash text. A second aspect of the reflection of the less official tradition is the frequency of unwritten covenants in the biblical text, which has already been mentioned. The presence in the Bible of covenants of promise81 as well as covenants of law82 may raise theological problems for those whose theology sees grace as in conflict with law. Does it also raise historical problems? The question has already been raised in connection with Mesopotamia and the Hittites as to whether there is an actual connection between treaties and grants. There are some similarities and some of the 'treaties' with Ugarit could just as well be called grants. There are no biblical passages which set the promises to Abraham or David in contrast to the covenants which make blessing conditional on obedience. Once again we are looking at a problem which may be a problem for us but not for antiquity. Just as with riksu or ishiul, the term berit (covenant) covered a variety of relationships. A more substantial historical question is the relationship between the Sinai covenant in which history and curse play subsidiary roles, and Deuteronomy where history and curse are both very prominent. Obviously if history and curse have become more prominent, it is because motivating obedience was seen as a greater need. In accord with the commonly accepted reconstruction of the history of Israel, many have made the time of Josiah the setting of Deuteronomy. The crucial argument for this is centralization of worship. However, once again we face the problem of having to explain away inconvenient texts: in this instance, the ascription of centralization to Hezekiah.83 This problem, and a conviction that Deuteronomy's pedagogic use of history represents a development, have caused others to see Deuteronomy as something that developed over a long period. There are various theses about the forum in which this development took place. One is that the hortatory style developed in an annual ceremony of covenant renewal.84 The biblical text gives no direct evidence of such a ceremony and the

81. 82. 83. 84.

To Abraham (Genesis 15) and to David (2 Samuel 7). E.g. Sinai and Deuteronomy. 2 Kings 18.4; Isaiah 36.7. H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Israel (Richmond: John Knox 1965), pp. 108-11.

Israel

167

theory of its existence derives from attempting to adapt a supposedly universal New Year festival and sacred marriage ritual to the circumstances of monotheistic Israel. The sacred marriage ritual is itself obscure and probably not universal.85 There is no evidence outside Israel of annual treaty renewal. Thus the whole theory of annual covenant renewal is a case of first deciding, on insufficient evidence, that a practice is universal and then trying to imagine an Israelite version. Far more deserving of consideration is Weinfeld's theory that Deuteronomy arose in scribal schools influenced by the Near Eastern wisdom tradition as well as the treaty tradition.86 A weakness in this theory is the necessity to invoke the wisdom tradition as well as the treaty tradition: as Weinfeld admits,87 it is difficult to distinguish the two. In considering Egyptian instructions, the parallels with the use of history in treaties were pointed out. Whatever the origin of the similarity between wisdom and treaties, it is precarious to ascribe the hortatory tone of Deuteronomy to the wisdom tradition when it clearly parallels the use of history in Hittite treaties. Weinfeld thinks that he has found concrete evidence of Assyrian influence on Deuteronomy in the similarity between some of the curses in the Median treaties of Esarhaddon (11. 419-30) and Deuteronomy 28.2635. The order of curses reflects the order of gods within the Assyrian pantheon and thus confirms that the origin must be Assyrian.88 Others have seen the parallels as reflecting a common background in a general treaty tradition, rather than a specific borrowing.89 In considering whether the parallel is specific enough to argue direct borrowing we must consider both the order and the content of the curses. The order of curses in the Median treaties is one of 'leprosy', darkness and corpses becoming food for animals. This corresponds to the order of the gods Sin, Shamash and Ninurta. In Deuteronomy, becoming food for animals heads the list. Weinfeld argues that the Ninurta curses are not fixed in position and occur elsewhere in variant texts of the treaties.90 This does weaken a little the argument from order. However, the argument for a 85. J.S. Cooper, 'Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia' in E. Matsushima (ed.), Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East (Heidelberg: Winter 1993), pp. 81-96. 86. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, (Oxford OUP, 1972). 87. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, p. 298. 88. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, pp. 117-29; idem, Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy', OTS 46(1965), pp. 417-427; similarly R. Frankena, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy', OTS 14(1965), pp. 122-54(145-53). 89. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, pp. 77-80; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, pp. 122-3; Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, p. 10. 90. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, p. 119.

168

Admonition and Curse

similar order is strengthened by the fact that in the Median treaties the curse following these is that an enemy will take their wives, their sons will not possess their house and an enemy will divide their goods. In the corresponding section of Deuteronomy 28 (v. 30) the threat is that the betrothed wife will be taken by another, the house they build, they will not occupy and they will not enjoy the fruit of the vineyard they plant. Thus there seems some similarity of themes. We cannot be sure the 'leprosy' threatened in the Assyrian text is the same disease as threatened in Deuteronomy 28:27. There are a lot of uncertainties in the translation of medical terms. If they are not the same disease the parallel becomes more general and less specific. The Assyrian curse includes being made to wander like a wild donkey, and this combination of disease and roaming has a long history in Mesopotamian curses.91 The roaming is lacking in the biblical text, which instead lists several different diseases. In other cases of supposedly parallel curses the biblical example is fuller. Thus we can say there are similarities of themes, perhaps partly in a common order. Given the long history of similar curses and the other overlaps between biblical and treaty curses,92 this is less than what is needed to prove definite borrowing. Tadmor has questioned whether the Assyrian adu loyalty oath would have been known in Judah.93 His reason for this scepticism is the recognition that the 'vassal treaties' of Esarhaddon represent an unusual measure rather than the normal Assyrian approach to vassals. Certainly those who want to make Deuteronomy a direct borrowing from Assyrian practice have tended to assume a uniform and widespread Assyrian practice, rather than investigating the specific history of the Assyrian treaty. They are thus doing the same as those who place biblical treaties early purely on the assumption that the usages found in Hittite treaties were widespread. Yet it is hard to prove that Esarhaddon's loyalty oath could not have been known in Judah, given that there would have been reasons for the Assyrians to have tried to commit as much as possible of the empire to loyalty to the throne succession. However, the specialized character of Esarhaddon's treaties raises a question: under what circumstances would Assyrian treaty concepts have been adopted in Judah? One conceivable scenario would be if such concepts came to permeate Judah through long usage. The history of Assyrian treatymaking does not lead us to believe that treaties would have been so

91. Nougayrol, 'Sirrimu (non purimu) "ane sauvage'". 92. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, pp. 18, 78; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, p. 120. 93. Tadmor, 'Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East', p. 151.

Israel

169

prominent in their relations with vassals. The biblical prophets agree with the Assyrian royal annals in referring to the prominence of force in Assyria's self-concept. Another possibility would be deliberate appropriation in order to turn an Assyrian form polemically against the Assyrians. Deuteronomy shows no evidence of such specifically anti-Assyrian polemic. In the prominence of history and the role given to love,94 Deuteronomy does not resemble Assyrian treaties. How plausible is it to derive the permeating biblical idea of covenant from something atypical within the practices of Assyria? Problems in placing the absolute origin of Israelite covenant in the late Assyrian period have already been pointed out. If the prophetic texts are allowed to stand, knowledge of covenant in Israel predates that period. Is it possible to produce a theory whereby Deuteronomy is seen as a composite, with certain sections being earlier and the curse section coming specifically from late Assyrian times? Kline has raised a basic objection to theories of the gradual growth of Deuteronomy. He objects that a treaty is an official public document. It commonly contains a prohibition against additions or changes (e.g. Deuteronomy 4.2). A treaty can be officially renewed. It cannot be unofficially amended and supplemented. Thus this model of development is contrary to the very nature of the form itself.95 It should also be pointed out that the repetitions which are often used as proof of growth and accretion are found in other treaties.96 Our canons of taste may see repetition as an inelegant form of emphasis, but we must not judge another age by our literary tastes. Thus, it is more plausible to see Deuteronomy as created in full than to see it as the result of a gradual development. To place that creation in the late Assyrian period and to see an influence from Assyrian treaties has in its favour the fact that history and curse were emphasized in late Assyrian treaties. However, the extent of the emphasis on history was nowhere near comparable to the emphasis in Deuteronomy. The simplest explanation for the difference is that the whole biblical text is proof of a tendency to appeal to history, a tendency that goes far beyond the few earlier Mesopotamian connections of history and oath. This being the case, there is no need to find the source of Deuteronomy's appeal to history in the Assyrian treaty tradition. It could come from a continuation and an intensification of the earlier biblical appeal to history.

94. Tadmor ('Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East', pp. 132-3) points out that the concept of love is not found in first-millennium treaties. 95. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, pp. 14, 27-9. 96. Hillers (Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, p. 32) makes this point specifically with reference to the curse list but it could be extended to other sections of the document.

170

Admonition and Curse

In the Sinai covenant the emphasis falls on the relationship established between the two partners. The motivation to maintain the relationship is provided by history, and curse is not prominent. It is the relationship and the laws which define it that are most important. Deuteronomy differs in placing far more emphasis on the motivating themes of benevolence and curse. This in turn indicates that Deuteronomy comes from a situation in which the need for motivation was greater. Thus Deuteronomy stands alongside the treaties of the Hittite Empire and the late Assyrian Empire as three parallel developments. The Hittite treaties show more emphasis on history than on curse. The Assyrians do not put the emphases on history and curse together in the one treaty - it is merely a matter of both approaches being present in the same historical period. Deuteronomy brings the two emphases together. One can postulate all sorts of hypothetical locations for Deuteronomy in biblical history. The comparisons with Empire-period Hittite treaties and late Neo-Assyrian treaties indicate that it probably came as the relationship constituted by the covenant was under threat and there was reason to fear a rupture. The location given by the text of Deuteronomy itself is quite plausible: it comes after the period of disobedience in the wilderness and as Israel is facing the tests of the conquest period and the following prosperity. One could find other periods in the history of Israel which were also times of threat. Strictly in those terms the common placement in the time of Josiah is not implausible. Arguments by comparison with external parallel developments create possibilities, not certainties.

The Place of Israel in Treaty History Can we clearly define a point at which treaty ideas entered Israel? The theories placing that entrance in the late second millennium or in the late Assyrian period have problems. We would have to postulate that what we see in the biblical text results from a complex process. First the developed treaty form was borrowed from another culture - if it was from Assyria, from a mortal enemy. Then those formal state treaties were transformed in Israel into informal, unwritten covenants. In addition this adopted body was made the central pillar of the national religion. It is more plausible that an original common tradition was developed in parallel but distinctive ways in various centres. This development is in some senses distinctive and in other senses comparable to developments elsewhere. It is distinctive that the claim for loyalty is made not by the king or emperor but by God. It has sometimes been claimed that Israel borrowed the treaty form from surrounding cultures because it fitted her monotheistic faith. However, this assumes that the claim of God to exclusive worship and service existed apart from

Israel

171

the covenant. This claim to loyalty must have been expressed in some formal terms or other. Hence one would be in the illogical position of saying that covenant forms of some sort existed before similar treaty forms were borrowed from outside. While it makes more sense of the data to see Mesopotamia, the Hittites and Israel as developing a common theme, partly independently and partly in parallel, a question remains. Were similar phenomena appearing at the same time in different states? If so it would point to a general cross-cultural tendency of a particular age. We could then speak of general influences in the late second millennium or at other periods. For example, is it legitimate to see the mid- to late second millennium as an age in which there was a general tendency to formalize treaties in writing? One could then argue that the emergence of the written treaty in Israel, in the time of Moses,97 reflects a general Near Eastern tendency. The evidence in support of this thesis would be the Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian treaties, the treaties of Alalakh, the Hittite Empire and the treaties between Egypt and the other great powers. This clustering of data looks significant: but what does it really prove? Is it rather the consequence of an age of great powers and imperial politics? By comparison the early first millennium gives us much less in the way of treaties but this could be because of a lack of major powers. Thus the manifestation of treaties in the mid- to late second millennium may not say anything about a tendency to write treaties but rather reveal something about imperialism. One could always say that Israel in this period sets the imperialism of God over against human imperialisms, but this is a general tendency in biblical religion and no more manifest in this period than in any other period. If there is a polemic in the Sinai and Deuteronomy covenants, it is against the claim of idols, not against the claim of human emperors. Can a better argument be made for the late Assyrian period? That is, was there a general tendency, manifested in Assyria by the Sargonids and in Israel by Josiah, to revive the written treaty tradition? The evidence this time is weaker as we have only two examples of this supposed general

97. Some may dismiss out of hand any possibility of written covenants going back to the time of Moses. I have already indicated my rejection of the arguments for making the covenant idea very late. If Israel shares with other states a common treaty inheritance, there is no a priori reason why Israel could not also have written covenants by the mid- to late second millennium. The position which makes covenant very late in Israel was trying to find a model to understand biblical religion. It did so in terms of assumptions about the form of a 'primitive' religion and a developed religion. We have to ask now whether such assumptions were far too anachronistic and philosophical. We need to investigate the actual phenomena as revealed by the text and the comparative material, not make the data fit an imposed grid of progression from simple to developed.

172

Admonition and Curse

tendency. The question also arises of whether these are both manifestations of another general tendency, namely archaizing. If this were the case then we could bring the Twenty-Sixth Egyptian Dynasty into the comparison. Certainly Assyria in the period shows some interest in reviving traditional forms. It is harder to argue that the use of the treaty by the Sargonids is an example of a revival. The use of the treaty itself and certain of the curse forms could be seen as such, but the appeal to imperial benevolence has to be seen as an innovation. The revival of the treaty and its elaboration by the Sargonids can be seen as part of a search for a successful way of maintaining the empire. This explains more of the data than does archaizing. Hence while influenced by the general tendency to archaize, perhaps particularly in the curse sections, archaizing does not itself explain the development of treaties by the Sargonids. Similarly, while archaizing might seem to explain Josiah, this ignores the earlier manifestations of similar movements in Judah. Asa (1 Kings 15.11-13), Jehoash (2 Kings 11.17, 18; 12.2-16) and Hezekiah (2 Kings 18.3-6, 22) made reforms which have a similar concern with the temple and at least in one case with the covenant (2 Kings 11.17). It has been traditional to see these as retrojections of Josiah's reform by later historians. If we reject the notion that covenant must be late, then we can examine such periodic reforms on their own merits. The Wellhausian theory took the biblical description of Josiah's reforms as being greater than any preceding and absolutized it. Thus Josiah is removed from the context of the recurrent pattern clearly attested by the text. The task of the historian should be to recognize patterns, not to absolutize one manifestation of a pattern. Actually, the repeated rebellions of Judah against the Babylonians, condemned by Jeremiah as proceeding from a spirit of rebellion against the covenant, have just as much claim to be seen as evidence of archaizing. That is, they seek to emulate past glories in detachment from the realities of the present. Hence in this case also it is hard to see Assyrian and Judean concern with treaties as evidence of a common tendency. That things happen at the same time does not necessarily connect them. Thus Israel forms a third case alongside Mesopotamia and the Hittites. All three use treaty forms and ideas but each does so in a distinctive way. A plausible argument for derivation from a single historical source cannot be constructed. There may be similarities between some biblical covenants and the treaties attested in the Mari texts in being unwritten. On the other hand, the use of history places biblical covenants closer to Hittite treaties. Conceptually the world of the Hittite texts with their use of positive and negative historical examples seems closer to Israel than Mesopotamia, where the texts are much more likely to parade a king as an example of sheer power. Yet Israel seems to have had more opportunity to borrow from Mesopotamia than from the Hittites.

Israel

173

It was argued above with respect to the Hittites that the pedagogic use of history to create loyalty reflected a society which was not completely centralized and which accordingly used history as political argument. Is the similarity between Israel and the Hittites connected to similar social structures? Note that I am not trying to explain everything as a result of similar social structures. Such an argument is immediately scuttled by the many other non-centralized societies world wide which do not develop the treaty we have been considering. Rather I am positing that the common inheritance was developed in a similar way in Israel and Hatti because of the lack of strong political and social centralization. This thesis recognizes the validity in Mendenhall's98 and Gottwald's" connection of the biblical covenant to a socio-political order, without necessarily accepting their particular theories about the origin and purpose of that order. What is proposed is not a theory that Israel developed its distinctive approach to covenant because of its socio-political structure. Rather it is a theory of congruence: pedagogic use of history is more congruent with some political-social orders than with others and hence the Bible and the Hittites use treaties in analogous ways.

98. 99.

Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation. N.K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh (London: SCM, 1980).

Chapter 6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT ALL The many points of tentativeness in the preceding discussion show how elusive are definite conclusions. What follows are some of the conclusions which seem reasonable.

The Problem of Definition There is no fixed treaty form, even within one society at one particular time. Rather there is a clustering around a typical pattern: but that clustering includes, if we take the Hittites as example, grants, decrees, instructions and other sorts of texts. The best explanation of this fluidity of form is that those who compose the texts have a concept of relationships, especially of the loyalty due to a suzerain and of the beneficence he bestows. A slight change in the relationship of two states will produce a decree rather than a treaty. Yet it is doubtful if the two forms would have been seen as exclusive of each other; rather as two points on a continuum. In extending this picture to cover Mesopotamia we have to make some significant changes in the metaphor. In Mesopotamia not as many points on the continuum were available for use. That is, in a culture which places more emphasis on power, there is not the variety of informal relations that one can sustain to a lord. One could be a craven vassal under the threat of curse or, less often, one could be a recipient of some sort of favour. That is, treaties and decrees or grants do not merge into each other in Mesopotamia but appear as more discontinuous forms. Hence it is easier to decide whether we call a text a treaty, decree or grant. Consequently, it is false to assume that the formal genre of texts available in one culture will correspond to that in another. If we realize this fact we avoid a lot of pointless arguments about classification.

The Origin Problem There is no conclusive evidence for locating the origin of the treaty form in one particular culture. That it is first attested in an extant text from Sumer

The Significance Of It All

175

proves nothing. Rather we face the question of whether the Mesopotamian tradition at first appearance is already a distinctive form. If we were to imagine an original form we might argue that it would involve an oath, accompanied by an appeal to a history of benevolence and, in some places, a simple animal killing rite. It would be unwritten. Yet even this postulated original form depends upon assumptions that the original will most likely be simpler and less elaborate. Such assumptions are unprovable. Mesopotamia, in the earliest examples known to us, has already developed a distinctive approach. History, when it appears, is the history of the enemy's unfaithfulness. Curse and god-list have a characteristic form with a tendency to give each deity a distinct curse to inflict. We can suggest some sort of connection between cultures that connect benevolence and oath. We could thus postulate an original connection of the Hittite, Syrian (as at Alalakh) and Israelite idea. However, caution is needed here, for we have seen that Assyria, in the late period, does come to connect benevolence and oath. It is possible that Assyria borrowed this from outside, but independent invention is more likely. Other cultures could also have independently invented the connection of treaty and benevolence. How 'natural' is it to appeal to gratitude as a motive for obedience? We cannot make it too natural as we would then have to explain why Mesopotamia and Egypt fail to act 'naturally' for much of their history. Yet it is a connection that might be made quite independently.

The Problem of Development We can attest, throughout Mesopotamian history from Lagash to the Late Assyrian period, a treaty form which makes elaborate use of curses in which each of a number of deities has his/her own curse to inflict. This does not seem to be connected to arguments from a history of the suzerain's benevolence. In the time of Hammurabi we find a less elaborate treaty form in use. In approximately the same period we find the more traditional elaborate form in use. Our tendency is to assume that history is one of growth in complexity and elaboration. This example shows that the issue is more complex. Maybe Hammurabi represents outside (Amorite?) approaches. Maybe socio-political changes in the Old Babylonian Period opened the possibility for inter-state relationships which focussed more on the basic issues and less on elaboration. Creating a history which assumes unidirectional change is simplistic. Yet there are instances where a reasonable case can be made for a clear development within a period. The Sargonid period, while not being simple (Sennacherib!), is an example. Fundamentally the historian cannot

176

Admonition and Curse

abandon the search for continuity or the possibility of a development, but he must eschew the allure of grand evolutionary theses. Similar things must be said with reference both to the history of biblical covenants and the broader history of biblical thought. There are mentions of covenants which do not seem elaborate and covenants which are much more elaborate. It is tempting to put those in some sort of sequence. Whatever one thinks about the process that led to Genesis being placed first in the Pentateuch and Deuteronomy being placed last, the present order results in biblical covenants fitting, roughly, some sort of development towards greater elaboration. It is when we try to transfer this from a relative chronology to an absolute chronology that the real problems arise. Suspecting a development is not the same as postulating the timescale of the development or asserting that the developmental path is always uniform.

Political Structure and Historiography We can make a rough division between treaties appealing primarily to curse over against treaties which make a pedagogic appeal to history. Though attempts have been made to see this as a chronological division it corresponds better to a geographical or cultural division which would put Mesopotamia on one side and the Hittites and Israel on the other. This bifurcation corresponds roughly to a related division in historiography which would contrast a history told in terms of power with a history which seeks to hold up positive and negative exemplars. It makes sense to suggest that we are seeing different answers to the basic issue of how socio-political order is to be maintained. Societies which are more centralized at home tend to tell a story of power and to project that into their foreign relations and imperial exploits. Less centralized societies, which employ different means to maintain cohesion, will reflect that in the way in which they write history and rule empires. The division with treaties is a reflection of much broader issues. Of course, we cannot make this a simplistic division. Within a given culture there are pressures and tendencies that lead to developments in different directions. The failure of one approach may lead to a move to another. Nevertheless the complexity of a culture should not blind us to general tendencies. Further any such explication must be distinguished from reductionism. I am not saying that historiography can be reduced to political form. I am saying that within a particular culture political form and historiography are likely to exist in a mutually influencing relationship. Deciding which came first may be a hopeless exercise, but recognizing their connection is a vital perspective.

The Significance Of It All

177

It follows that models, which assume that everybody used the same treaty form or that the treaties of one culture may be seen as a simple borrowing from another, ignore the interconnections within a culture. Technicalities which do not touch the central forms and concepts of a society are more likely to be borrowed with little change than ideas and forms with multiple ramifications.

A Basic Thesis Suppose we postulate an original inheritance, for the whole Near East, of relationships guaranteed by oaths. That might be enough to give rise to the later similarity of forms in different cultures by a process of parallel development. As mentioned earlier, gratitude and fear are the great motivating themes to which one might naturally appeal. Just because they are such obvious themes the possibility of independent origin has to be taken seriously. Could not the very idea of oath-bound relationships have arisen independently in different cultures? Is there any common inheritance? It comes down ultimately to a subjective judgment. Are the similarities sufficient to argue for some common connection? I judge that they are. There is a repeated association of history, oath and curse in different cultures. I cannot find clear evidence of borrowing at some specific point in time. Rather we find that treaties from each culture are influenced by the distinctive themes of that culture. We do not have the impression of a foreign body; rather of something already well-flavoured by the individual culture. Yet there are elements of commonness. Only a more distant common inheritance can explain that situation. While it is necessary to postulate separate developments in each culture, I do not mean to imply that the developments in each culture were out of contact with each other. For instance, the custom of writing treaties may have begun at a particular place. Knowledge of that innovation and perhaps the writing system used would have spread. However, when other cultures were stimulated to write down their treaties they wrote down treaties influenced by their own distinctive developments. A combination of original inheritance and stimulus diffusion can account for the data. Of course, evidence may subsequently be found of specific borrowings. All we can talk about is the evidence we now have.

Parallel Developments and Convergences There are several cases where we can attest parallel developments. The development of the treaty in the Hittite imperial period shows a resemblance to the development of the Sargonid treaty. History, especially

178

Admonition and Curse

the history of benevolence, comes to prominence in both cases. In the Hittite case this is a utilization of a theme already present in the culture. In Assyria it is partly utilization but also partly innovation. Biblical scholars have tended to ascribe the analogous development in Deuteronomy to a specific borrowing. Yet, as Deuteronomy is as distinctive, over against both Hittite and Assyrian treaties, as Assyrian is in comparison to Hittite, there is no need to invoke borrowing. In each case reasons had to be presented which would dispose the vassal to obedience. In Israel also the themes had been used earlier. Elaboration and development is not surprising. Did the very act of committing treaties to writing tend to encourage prolixity? We cannot prove that it did but it seems a reasonable suspicion.

The Special Case of Israel The earliest Mesopotamian texts which allow any sort of view of Mesopotamian native historiography, namely the Lagash texts, are already very Mesopotamian in their view of the wicked enemy overcome by the might of a divinely chosen ruler. Pharaoh was present in Egypt from at least the point where we can get any clear picture of Egyptian society. The earliest texts of the Old Kingdom Hittites are using arguments for loyalty from history. Thus in all of these cases a distinctive ethos is there from very early on. Should we expect Israel to be any different? Ingenious theses of how Israel changed from something unattested by the texts to the Israel of the texts remain ingenious theses. The biblical text sees monotheism and a distinctive view of history as going back to the beginning. Thus I will engage in no flights of the imagination as to how a borrowed treaty idea transformed polytheists into monotheists. The distinctive of the biblical text is its God and that distinctive is etched into the text as deeply as is power into Mesopotamia. However we may appreciate the brilliance of MendenhalFs original idea, the fact remains that it is deeply coloured by his theological musings on the role of law and the state, as will be obvious to all who read him. Similarly Wellhausen (and those who still attempt to uphold his late datings by deriving Israelite covenant from Assyrian treaty) was also deeply influenced by beliefs as to the connection of law and religion. The consequence is a reconstruction of biblical history in a quite speculative way. Of course, there are theological consequences to seeing covenant ideas present in Israel from early times. Those may not suit some theologies. The crucial question however is whether both the biblical text and the analogy of surrounding cultures points towards a common inheritance with the rest of the Near East. I think it does.

The Significance Of It All

179

The Special Case of Egypt Did Egypt lie outside of that original unity which I am postulating? It could well be that concepts, parallel to those which tended to overshadow treaty in Mesopotamia, obscured treaty concepts in Egypt almost completely. Consequently the idea that pharaoh could be bound in relationships by oath could not co-exist with the image of the divine pharaoh. Much later, through interaction in the second millennium with the Great Powers' or perhaps just with the Hittites, Egypt entered into parity treaties, but this did not penetrate deeply into Egyptian thinking. The difficulty is that the data presented to us would be the same if Egypt were never part of the common inheritance I am postulating or if it were once part but changed. The little evidence we have of oaths and appeal to history in Egypt tends to support the thesis that there was an original inheritance which has been obscured. Nevertheless the weakness of this conclusion is obvious.

Divine-Human Covenants There was a time in the history of the discussion of this question when it seemed simple to see Israel's use of the treaty form in religious contexts as an adaptation of a political instrument to a religious purpose. Yet the fact that only Israel seemed to do this sparked the search for other cases. Many of those suggestions have been investigated in this work. Once again the result is not neat and clear-cut. It is easy to prove that personal relationships between deity and worshipper existed in other cultures. It is much harder to prove that these have a shape analogous to the treaty model. Many of the claimed cases are unconvincing. Yet there seems to be something there - especially in oaths to deities. What is troubling is that, in spite of our voluminous religious material from Mesopotamia and Egypt, covenants with 'great gods' seem so rare as to be practically non-existent. Surely we would expect something more than an ambiguous allusion? We are further troubled when we encounter hints that some of the cases that might fit our criteria seem to be with underworld gods or demons. The fact that religious use comes predominantly from Israel has in turn been connected to monotheism and the argument for this connection seems very convincing. The suzerain demands exclusive loyalty! When we follow 1. M. Liverani, 'The Great Powers' Club' in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds), Amarna Diplomacy. The Beginnings of International Relations (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2000), pp. 15-27.

180

Admonition and Curse

that line of thought the connection to chthonic gods becomes more intriguing. Is there something about them which allows something more like a covenant? Or are these all false trails? When we add the Arslan Tash evidence, dissonance increases, for this seems to involve great gods and the gods making the oath. Is Arslan Tash the example which disproves any connection of treaty and monotheism? Or have we completely misinterpreted this evidence? One suspects that Arslan Tash will become an even more crucial part of the debate. Suppose we accept the model suggested here where treaty concepts are part of the inheritance of many cultures including Israel. This would mean there is the possibility of an early existence of the distinctive ideas we connect to biblical Israel. The alternative is various borrowing theories and they have definite problems. Can we build an alternative thesis using Arslan Tash, according to which divine-human covenants were a much more widespread phenomenon? Then we might postulate that in a very late period this became monotheistic in Israel. The problem is then that Arslan Tash seems so unusual and aberrant. It also fails to explain the connection of covenant and pedagogic use of history. If there is anything in my attempt to link relative political decentralization and appeal to history to secure loyalty, then that would seem to point to an early phase of the history of Israel for the coming together of these crucial elements.2 As with so many things discussed in this work, answers are elusive. However, we can try to recognize patterns of evidence. That Arslan Tash does not fit any pattern does not mean the pattern does not exist. It means that Arslan Yash is very hard to interpret.

The Resultant Model This investigation was originally begun to find a way of picturing what was common among the cultures of the Ancient Near East and what was distinctive. Concentrating upon one thing - treaties - leads to particular results. If the probe had been something else - say writing systems - the result would have been different. Nevertheless this investigation has led into understandings of relationships and political-social order. These are significant aspects in the life of a society, while certainly not the only things. 2. Once again I must guard myself against being read in a determinist way. I do not mean to imply that political decentralization caused the development of religious covenant and the pedagogic use of history. I mean rather to point to a congruence such that a theory of the development of religious covenant in a centralized environment is implausible.

The Significance Of It All

181

The original rediscoverers of the Ancient Near East were especially impressed by the bulk of the material and written remains from Egypt and Mesopotamia. They turned that into various theories which made these the centres from which civilization had diffused. The other cultures were then seen as derivative. At least as far as treaty is concerned, this model has problems. There is an alternative. Let us take the Near East as an area possessing a number of cultural practices in common. Within that common inheritance certain centres begin a rapid and individual development. That development partly elaborates shared concepts and partly introduces distinctive ones. To the extent that the original concepts and institutions are shared then this more elaborate form can be adopted by other cultures with the same common inheritance. To the extent that the concept is new it will not be adopted by others, or if adopted it will not last. In this last category I am thinking of cases such as the power concepts which come to expression in the Annals ofHattusilis I. Another example would be the Mesopotamian artistic motifs which appear in Early Dynastic Egypt. They similarly give way to more native styles. Even the great proof of Mesopotamian cultural influence, the cuneiform script, gives way, but more slowly, to native scripts. To complicate the model we must allow that similar circumstances and needs may produce convergent or parallel developments of that common inheritance, and also that new developments may eventually swamp the vestiges of the original inheritance. On this model Egypt and Mesopotamia are not the origin of Near Eastern civilization. They are rather centres which radically and fully develop their own distinctive form of that inheritance and bring that development to clear material expression. The centres which develop the inheritance more slowly or less obviously may be stimulated from outside and may for a time borrow, but the native tradition tends to be more enduring than borrowings. It is of course possible to conjecture that this common inheritance had a specific origin which has been obscured as the inheritance has become more widely diffused. Since, as mentioned already, the long-standing tradition has been to see Mesopotamia as the cultural cradle of the Ancient Near East, it is simplest to use Mesopotamia as the vehicle to discuss such a model. Mesopotamian cultural influence throughout the Near East preceeds the Sumerian Early Dynastic Period, which yields our earliest references to treaties. One could postulate that this very early Mesopotamian cultural radiation was what spread the treaty tradition. One would also have to postulate that the irradiation was before the Mesopotamian treaty tradition acquired those features which distinguish it from other traditions, such as giving each god a specific curse to inflict. This leads to the paradox that, should we most improbably discover a treaty outside of

182

Admonition and Curse

Mesopotamia which predated the Sumerian Early Dynastic Period, we would need additional information to alert us to its Mesopotamian origin: its form would not be sufficient. A way to move beyond this stalemate would be by designating certain treaties as closest to the original. How would we do that? One way would be to look for the simplest ones, but that introduces the conjecture of unilinear development from simple to complex which I have avoided as unprovable. Another way would be to opine that a form which could give rise to treaties in diverse local centres must be closest to the original. As mentioned above, we could do that by linking the Hittites, Alalakh and Israel. This takes us away from Mesopotamia. It might also lead to us mistaking convergent development for common origin. Hence I suspect that this line of speculation will not yield firm conclusions. Another path would be to explore the relationship of treaty and contract, both designated in Akkadian as riksu. If we knew for certain that Mesopotamia was the origin of the treaty form then this overlap of terminology would certainly be significant. It would fit nicely with the natural suspicion that early Mesopotamian expansion had a commercial object. Unfortunately we do not know that Mesopotamia was the ultimate origin of the treaty form. If other cultures used their term for treaty for contracts we would be on firmer ground, but they do not. This opens the possibility that the wide use of riksu was a specifically Mesopotamian phenomenon. Why are contracts not regularly strengthened by oaths, god lists and curses? One suspects that it is because contracts are seen as falling into the area which ordinary courts enforce. This does not exclude the fact that occasional contracts might be furnished with additional threatening power. Nevertheless evidence seems to attest that the equation between or interpenetration between treaties and commercial contracts did not occur, despite the partial commonness of terminology. The human mind has a capacity to distinguish and compartmentalize. While we may not know the rationale for distinctions, the phenomena may alert us to the fact that they existed. Hence we are left with the thesis of a common inheritance directed into particular forms in local centres. Some of these local traditions have tantalizing similarities but, as emphasized, similarity may have diverse causes. I leave to others whether this model is useful in other problems.

BIBLIOGRAPHYy Albright, W.F., 'The Hebrew Expression for "Making a Covenant" in Pre-Israelite Documents', BASOR 121(1951), pp. 21-22. , 'A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C.', BASOR 94(1944), pp. 12-27. , 'Recent Books on Archaeology and Ancient History', BASOR 139(1955), pp. 14-25. , The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography (New Haven: Amer. Oriental Soc., 1934). Alp, S., 'Military Instructions of the Hittite King Tuthaliya IV(?)', Belle ten 11(1947), pp. 403^14. , 'Zur Lage der Stadt Tarhuntassa' in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittologia (Pavia: Gianni luculano Editore, 1995), pp. 1-11. Alt, A., Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966). Altman, A., 'The "Deliverance Motif in the "Historical Prologues" of Suppiluliuma Fs Vassal-Treaties" in P. Artzi (ed.), Confrontation and Coexistence (Bar-Han Studies in History, II; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Han U.P., 1984), pp. 41-76. , 'On the Some Assertions in the 'Historical Prologue' of the Sausgamuwa Vassal treaty and their Assumed Legal Meaning', in XXXIV. Uluslararasi Assiriyoloji Kongresi (RAI, 34; Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1998), pp. 99-107. , 'On the Legal meaning of Some of the Assertions in the "Historical Prologue" of the Kizzuwatna Treaty (KBo I, 5)' in J. Klein & A. Skaist (eds), Bar-Han Studies in Assyriology (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Han U.P., 1990), pp. 177-206. Amiet, P., 'Observations sur les "Tabletter Magiques" d'Arslan Tash', Aula Orientalis 1(1983), p. 109. Archi, A., 'Mardu in the Ebla Texts', Orientalia 54(1985), pp. 7-13. Artzi, P., 'Ideas and Practices of International Coexistence in the Third Millennium B.C.E.' in P. Artzi (ed.), Confrontation and Coexistence (Bar-Han Studies in History II; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Han U.P., 1984), pp. 25-39. Badawi, A., 'Die neue historische Stele Amenophis' II', ASAE 42(1943), pp. 1-23. Baines, J. & N. Yoffee, 'Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia' in G.M. Feinman & J. Marcus (eds.), Archaic States (Santa Fe: School of American Research, 1998), pp. 199-260. Balkan, K., Letter of King Anum-Hirbi of Mama to King Warshama of Kanish (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1957).

184

Admonition and Curse

, Observations on the Chronological Problems of the Karum Kanish (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1955). Baltzer, K., The Covenant Formulary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971). Barre, M.L., 'The First Pair of Deities in the Sefire I God List', JNES 44(1985), pp. 205-10. , The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia: A Study in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.P., 1983). , 'A Note on the Sin-Shumu-Lishir Treaty', JCS 39(1987), pp. 81-3. Bauer, H., 'Ein aramaischer Staatsvertrag aus dem 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr.', AfO 8(1932), pp. 1-16. Beal, R.H., 'The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Sunassura Treaty', Orientalia 55(1986), pp. 424-^5. Beckman, G., The Hittite Assembly', JAOS 102(1982), pp. 435-^2. , Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Atlanta: Scholars, 1996). , 'Some Observations on the Suppiluliuma - Sattiwaza Treaties' in M.E. Cohen, D.C. Snell and D.B. Weisberg (eds) The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda: CDL, 1993), pp. 53-7. Begrich, J., 'Berit. Ein Beitrag zur Erfassung einer alttestamentlichen Denkform',

ZAW60(\944), pp. 1-11. Belser, C.W., 'Babylonische Kudurru-Inschriften', BzA 2(1894), pp. 111-203. Beyerlin, W., Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965). Bickerman, E.J., 'Hannibal's Covenant', A.J. of Philology 73(1952), pp. 1-23. , Studies in Jewish and Christian History, (Vol. I; Leiden: Brill, 1976). Bilgi£, E., 'Anatolisch-assyrische politische Beziehungen und Eidsprozedur bei einhemischer Verwaltung im Lichte der neuer Kiiltepe Texte' in x XXXIV. Uluslararasi Assiriyoloji Kongresi (RAI 34; Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu 1998), pp. 473-8. Bin-Nun, S.R., 'Who Was Tahurwaili, the Great Hittite King?', JCS 26(1974), pp. 112-20. Bittel, K. and H.G. Giiterbock, 'Bogazkoy', Abhand. d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. 1935, No. 1. Bjorkman, G., 'Der historische Abschnitt der Lehre fuer Koenig Merikare', Orientalia Suecana 13(1964), pp. 9-33. Blenkinsopp, J., 'Are There Traces of the Gibeonite Covenant in Deuteronomy?', CBQ 28(1966), pp. 207-19. Bolin, T.M., 'When the End is the Beginning. The Persian Period and the Origins of the Biblical Tradition', SJOT 10(1996), pp. 3-15. Borger, R., Beitrage zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996). , 'Gott Marduk und Gott-Konig Sulgi als Propheten. Zwei prophetische Texte', Bi. Or. 28(1971), pp. 3-24. , Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Konigs von Assyrien (AfO Beiheft, 9; Graz: E. Weidner, 1956). , 'Marduk-zakir-shumi I und der Kodex Hammurapi', Orientalia 34(1965), pp. 168-9.

Bibliography

185

, 'Mesopotamien in der Jahren 629-621 v. Chr.', WZKM 55(1959), pp. 62-76. Borger, R. and W.G. Lambert, 'Bin neuer Era-Text aus Nineveh (K9956 + 79,78,18)', Orientalia 27(1958), pp. 137-49. Boston, J.R., 'The Wisdom Influence upon the Song of Moses', JBL 87(1968), pp. 198-202. Bottero, J., 'Autres Textes de Qatna', RA 44(1950), pp. 105-18. Boyle, M.O., 'The Covenant Lawsuit of the Prophet Amos; III 1-IV 13', VT 21(1971), pp. 338-62. Brekelmans, C.H.W., 'Exodus XVIII and the Origins of Yahwism in Israel', OTS 10(1954), pp. 215-24. Bright, J., Early Israel in Recent History Writing (London: SCM, 1956). Brinkman, J.A., 'Political Covenants, Treaties, and Loyalty Oaths in Babylonia and between Babylonia and Assyria' in L. Canfora, M. Liverani and C. Zaccagnini (eds), I trattati nel mondo antico. Forma ideologia funzione (Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1990), pp. 81-111. Brunner, H., Die Lehre des Cheti, Sohnes des Duauf (Agyptologische Forschungen 13; Glueckstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1944). Bryce, T.R., The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford: OUP, 1998). , The Major Historical Texts of Early Hittite History (St Lucia, Qld: U. of Queensland, n.d). , 'The Role of Telepinu, the Priest, in the Hittite Kingdom', Hethitica 11(1992), pp. 5-18. Budge, E.A.W. and L.W. King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria (London: British Museum, 1902). Buis, P., 'Les formulaires d'alliance', VT 16(1966), pp. 396-411. Bunnens, G., 'Geographic historique de la region du barrage de Tishrin' in O. Rouault and M. Wafler (eds), La Djezire et I'Euphrate syriens de la protohistoire a la fin du IF millenaire av. J. C. (Subartu 7; Brepols: Turnhout, 2000), pp. 299-308. Buss, M.J., 'Review of L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament', JBL 90(1971), pp. 210-12. Calderone, P.J., Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty (Manila: Loyola House of Studies, 1966). Caminos, R.A., Late Egyptian Miscellanies (London: OUP, 1954). Campbell, A.F., 'An Historical Prologue in a Seventh-Century Treaty', Biblica 50(1969), pp. 534-5. Cancik, H., Grundzuge der hethitischen und alttestamentlichen Geschichtsschreibung (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976). Caquot, A. and R. du Mesnil du Boisson, 'La seconde tablette ou "petite amulette" d'Arslan Tash', Syria 48(1971), pp. 391-406. Carruba, O., 'Die Chronologic der heth. Texte und die heth. Geschichte der Grossreichszeit', XII Deut. Orientalistentag (ZDMG Sup. I), Teil I, 1969, pp. 227^9. , 'Die Hajasa-Vertrage Hattis' in E. Neu and C. Riister (eds), Documentum Asiae Minoris Antiquae (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988), pp. 59-75.

186

Admonition and Curse

, 'Tahurwaili von Hatti und die hethitische Geschichte um 1500 v.Chr.G.' in K. Bittel, Ph.H.J. Houwink ten Gate and E. Reiner (eds), Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Guterbock (Istanbul, Nederlands Instituut voor net Nabije Oosten, 1974), pp. 73-93. Cavaignac, E., 'L'affaire de laruvatta', RHA 6(1932), pp. 189-206. , 'Dadasa - Dattassa', RHA 10(1933), pp. 65-76. , 'La lettre Tavagalava', RHA 11(1933), pp. 100-4. Gazelles, H., 'L'alliance du Sinai' en Ex. 34,10-27' in A. Caquot, S. Legasse and M. Tardieu (eds), Melanges bibliques et orientaux en I'honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), pp. 57-68. , 'Passages in the Singular within Discourse in the Plural of Dt l-4\ CBQ 29(1967), pp. 207-19. Charpin, D., 'Une alliance centre 1'Elam et le ritual du lipit napistini" in F. Vallat (ed.), Contribution a I'histoire de I'lran. Melanges offerts a Jean Perrot (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1990), pp. 109-18. , 'The History of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Overview' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 807-29. , 'Un souverain ephemere en Ida-Maras: Isme-Addu d'Asnakkum', Mari 7(1993), pp. 165-91. , 'Un traite entre Zimri-Lim de Mari et Ibal-pi-El II d'Eshnunna' in D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Etudes sur la civilisation mesopotamienne offertes es a Paul Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), pp. 139-66. Charpin, D. et al., Archives epistolaires de Mari (1/2, ARM 26; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988). Clay, A.T., Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan (Part IV; New Haven: Yale U.P., 1923). Clements, R.E., 'Baal-Berith of Shechem', JSS 13(1968), pp. 21-32. Cooper, J.S., Presargonic Inscriptions (New Haven: American Oriental Soc., 1986). , Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: the Lagash-Umma Border Conflict (SANE 2/1; Malibu: Undena, 1983). , 'Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia' in E. Matsushima (ed.), Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East (Heidelberg: Winter, 1993). Craig, J.A., Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1895). Cross, F.M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1973). Cross, P.M. and R.J. Saley, 'Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the Seventh Century B.C. from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria', BASOR 197(1970), pp. 42-9. Grassland, M.R.A., 'Archaic Forms in the "Mattuwattas Text"', CRRAI3(1954), pp. 158-61. Cryer, F.H., 'Chronology: Issues and Problems' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 651-64.

Bib liography

187

Cuq, E., 'La propriete fonciere en Chaldee d'apres les pierres-limites (koudourrous) du Musee du Louvre', Nouvelle revue historique de droit franfais et etr anger 30(1906), pp. 701-38. Dalley, S., ldNIN.LiL = mul(l)is(s)u, the Treaty of Barga'yah and Herodotus' Mylitta', RA 73(1979), pp. 177-8. Davies, P.R., In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2nd edn, 1995). Day, J., 'Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature', JBL 105(1986), pp. 385^08. Delcor, M., 'Les attaches litteraires, 1'origine et la signification de 1'expression bibliques "prendre temoin le ciel et la terre"', VT 16(1966), pp. 8-25. Delitzsch, F., 'Der Berliner Merodachbaladan Stein', BzA 2(1894), pp. 258-73. Deller, K., 'smn bll (Hosea 12,2). Additional Evidence', Biblica 46(1965), pp. 349-52. Deller, K. and S. Parpola, 'Ein Vertrag Assurbanipals mit dem arabischen Stamm Qedar', Orientalia 37(1968), pp. 464-6. Del Monte, G.F., 'Note sui trattati fra Hattusha e Kizuwatna', OA 20(1981), pp. 203-21. , // trattato fra Murshili II di Hattusha e Niqmepac di Ugarit (Rome: Centre per le Antichita e la Storia dell'Arte del Vicino Oriente, 1986). Dietrich, M. and O. Loretz, 'Der Vertrag zwischen Ir-Addu von Tunip und Niqmepa von Mukis' in G.D. Young, M.W. Chavalas and R.E. Averbeck (eds), Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons. Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on his 80th Birthday (Bethesda: CDL Press, 1997), pp. 211-42. , 'Der Vertrag zwischen Suppiluliuma und Niqmandu. Eine philologische und kulturhistorische Studie', WO 3(1966), pp. 206-45. Donner, H. and W. Rollig, Kanaanaische und aramaische Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2nd edn, 1966). Dossin, G., 'Aplahanda, roi de Carchemish', RA 35(1938), pp. 115-21. , 'Les archives epistolaires du palais de Mari', Syria 19(1938), pp. 105-26. , Archives Royales de Mari (Vol. I; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1946). , 'Benjamites dans les textes de Mari' in Melanges Syriens offerts a Monsieur Rene Dussaud (Vol. II; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1939), pp. 981-96. , Correspondence de Shamshi-Addu (Archives royales de Mari Transcrites et traduites I; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1950). , 'lamhad et Qatanum', RA 36(1939), pp. 46-52. , 'L'inscription de fondation de lahdun-Lim, roi de Mari', Syria 32(1955), pp. 1-28. , 'Une lettre de larim-Lim, roi d'Alep, a lashub-Iahad, roi de Dir', Syria 33(1956), pp. 63-9. , Une mention de Hattusa dans une lettre de Mari', RHA 35(1939), pp. 70-6. , 'Une revelation du dieu Dagan a Terqa', RA 42(1948), pp. 125-34. , 'Le royaume d'Alep au XVIIIe siecle avant notre ere d'apres les "Archives de Mari" ', Academic royale de Belgique. Bulletin de la classe des lettres, 5e Serie, 38(1952), pp. 229-39. Draffkorn, A., 'Was King Abba-An of Yamhad a Vizier for the King of Hattusha?' JCS 13(1959), pp. 94-7.

188

Admonition and Curse

Du Mesnil du Buisson, R., 'Une tablette magique de la region du moyen Euphrate' in Melanges syriens offerts a Monsieur Rene Dussaud (Vol. I; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1939), pp. 421-34. Dupont-Sommer, A., 'Un papyrus arameen d'epoque sai'te decouvert a Saqqara", Semitica 1(1948), pp. 43-68. Durand, J.-M., Archives epistolaires de Mari (ARM 26, I/I; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988). , 'Fragments rejoints pour une histoire elamite' in L. de Meyer, H. Gasche and F. Vallat (eds), Fragmenta historiae elamicae. Melanges offerts a M.J. Steve (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1986), pp. 111-28. , 'Precurseurs syriens aux protocoles neo-assyriens' in D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Etudes sur la civilisation mesopotamienne offertes s a Paul Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), pp. 13-71. , 'Unite et diversites au Proche-Orient a 1'epoque amorrite' in D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds), La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idees dans le Proche-Orient ancien (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1992), pp. 97-128. Easton, D.F., 'Hittite History and the Trojan War' in L. Foxhall and J.K. Davies (eds), The Trojan War. Its Historicity and Context: Papers of the First Greenbank Colloquium, Liverpool 1981 (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1984), pp. 23^4. Ebeling, E., Bruchstucke eines politischen Propagandagedichtes einer assyrischen Kanzlei (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1938). , Stiftungen und Vorschriften fur assyrische Tempel (Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1954). Edel, E., 'Die Abfassungszeit des Briefs KBo I 10 (Hattushil - Kadashman-Ellil) und seine Bedeutung fur die Chronologic Ramses' IF, JCS 12(1958), pp. 130-3. , Die agyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazkdi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994). , 'Zur Schwurgotterliste des Hethitervertrags', ZAS 90(1963), pp. 31-5. Edgerton, W.F., The Nauri Decree of Seti I', JNES 6(1947), pp. 219-30. , The Strikes in Ramses Ill's Twenty-Ninth Year', JNES 10(1951), pp. 137-45. Edgerton, W.F. and J.A. Wilson, Historical Records of Ramses ///(Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1936). Edzard, D.O., 'Zum sumerischen Bid' in Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1975), pp. 63-98. Ehelolf, H., 'Vorlaufiger Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen in Bogazkoy 1936. B. Die Tontafeln', MDOG 75(1937), pp. 61-70. Eidem, J., 'Northern Jezira in the 18th Century BC. Aspects of Geo-Political Patterns' in O. Rouault and M. Wafler, La Djezire et I'Euphrate syriens de la protohistoire a la fin du If millenaire av. J. C. (Subartu 7; Brepols: Turnhout, 2000), pp. 255-64. , 'An Old Assyrian Treaty from Tell Leilan' in D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Etudes sur la civilisation mesopota-

Bibliography

189

mienne offertes a Paul Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), pp. 185-207. Fales, P.M., 'Instituzioni a confronto tra mondo semitico occidentale e Assiria nel I millennio a. C.: il trattato di Sefire' in L. Canfora, M. Liverani and C. Zaccagnini (eds), / trattati nel mondo antico. Forma, ideologia, funzione (Rome: "L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1990), pp. 149-73. Falkenstein, A., Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden (Vol. I; Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1956). , 'Review of Archives Roy ales de Man I-IIF, Bi.Or. 11(1954), pp. 112-17. , 'Zu den Inschriftenfunden der Grabung in Uruk-Warka 1960-1961', Baghdader Mitteilungen 2(1963), pp 1-82. Fensham, F.C., 'Clauses of Protection in Hittite Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament', VT 13(1963), pp. 133^13. , 'Common Trends in the Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and KudurruInscriptions Compared with the Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah', ZAW 75(1963), pp. 155-75. , 'Did a Treaty between Israel and the Kenites Exist?', BASOR 175(1964), pp. 51-4. , 'Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant' in H. Goedicke (ed,), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1971), pp. 121-35. , 'Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament', ZAW 74(1962), pp. 1-9. , 'Notes on Treaty Terminology in Ugaritic Epics', UF 11(1979), pp. 265-74. , 'Salt as Curse in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East', BA 25(1962), pp. 48-50. , 'The Treaty between Israel and the Gibeonites', BA 27(1964), pp. 96-100. , 'The Treaty between Solomon and Hiram and the Alalakh Tablets', JBL 79(1960), pp. 59, 60. Finet, A., 'Le sacrifice de 1'ane en Mesopotamie' in J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (Louvain: Peeters, 1993), pp. 135-42. Fitzmyer, J.A., The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2nd edn, 1995). Fleming, D.E., 'Emar: On the Road from Harran to Hebron' in M.W. Chavalas and K.L. Younger, Jr. (eds), Mesopotamia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), pp. 222-50. , Time at Emar. The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner's House (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000). Fohrer, G., 'Der Vertrag zwischen Konig und Volk in Israel', ZAW 71(1959), pp. 1-22. Forlanini, M., 'The Kings of Kanis' in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittologia (Pavia: Gianni luculano Editore, 1995), pp. 123-32. Forrer, E., Geschichtliche Texte aus Boghazhoi (Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 42, 1; Osnabriick: Otto Zeller, repr., 1969). Foster, B.R., Before the Muses (Vol. I; Bethesda: CDL, 1993). Fox, M., 'Tob as Covenant Terminology', BASOR 209(1973), pp. 41-2.

190

Admonition and Curse

Frahm, E., Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften (AfO Beiheft 26; Vienna: Institut fur Orientalistik der Universitat Wien, 1997). Frankena, R., Takultu (Leiden: Brill, 1954). , 'The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy', OTS 14(1965), pp. 122-54. Frankfort, H., Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1948). Frayne, D., Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 BC) (Toronto: U. of Toronto, 1990). Freedman, D.N., 'Divine Commitment and Human Obligation', Interpretation 18(1964), pp. 419-31. Freydank, H., Beitrage zur mittelassyrischen Chronologic und Geschichte (Berlin: Akadamie Verlag, 1991). , 'Eine hethitische Fassung des Vertrags zwischen dem Hethiterkonig Suppiluliuma und Aziru von Amurru', MIO 7(1959), pp. 356-81. Friedrich, J., 'Aus dem hethitischen Schriftum', AO 24/3(1925), pp. 3-32. , 'Der hethitische Soldateneid', ZA 35(1924), 161-91. , 'Review of Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi Heft XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, Bi. Or. 5(1948), pp. 48-52. , 'Reinheitsvorschriften fur den hethitischen Konig', MAOG 4(1928), pp. 4658. , Staatsvertrage des Hatti-Reiches (2 vols; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1926, 1930). Gadd, C.J., 'Entemena: A New Incident', RA 27(1930), pp. 125-6. , 'The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidas', An. St. 8(1958), pp. 35-92. Gallagher, W.R., Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah. New Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1999). Garbini, G., History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (London: SCM, 1988). Gardiner, A.H., Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford: OUP, 1961). , Egyptian Grammar, (London: OUP, 3rd edn, 1973). , 'Some Reflections on the Nauri Decree', JEA 38(1956), pp. 24-33. Garelli, P., Les Assyriens in Cappadoce (Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1963). Gaster, T.H., 'A Canaanite Magical Text', Orientalia 11(1942), pp. 41-79. , 'A Hang-up for Hang-ups. The Second Amuletic Plaque from Arslan Tash', BASOR 209(1973), pp. 18-26. Gelb, I.J., 'Review of D.J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon', Bi. Or. 19(1962), pp. 159-62. Gemser, B., 'The Importance of the Motive Clause in Old Testament Law', VTS 1(1953), pp. 50-66. , 'Review of W.Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der altesten Sinaitraditionen\ VT 12(1962), pp. 224-8. , 'The Rib - or Controversy - Pattern in Hebrew Mentality', VTS 3(1955), pp. 120-37. Gerardi, P., The Arab Campaigns of Assurbanipal: Scribal Reconstruction of the Past', SAAB 6(1992), pp. 67-103. Gerstenberger, E., 'Covenant and Commandment', JBL 84(1965), pp. 38-51. , 'Review of D.J.McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant', JBL 83(1964), pp. 198-9.

Bibliography

191

, Wesen und Herkunft des "Apodiktischen Rechts" (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965). Gevirtz, S., 'West-Semi tic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law', VT 11(1961), pp. 137-58. Gill, D., Thysia and selamim: Questions to R.Schmid's Das Bundesopfer in Israel', Biblica 47(1966), pp. 255-62. Goedicke, H., 'Was Magic Used in the Harem Conspiracy against Ramesses III?', JEA 49(1963), pp. 71-92. Goetze, A., Die Annalen des Murshilish (MVAG 38; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1933). , 'Arnuwandash', RlA I, pp. 152-53. , 'The Beginning of the Hittite Instructions for the Commander of the Border Guards', JCS 14(1960), pp. 69-73. , 'Critical Review of E. von Schuler, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen', JCS 13(1959), pp. 65-70. , 'Das hethitische Fragment des Sunassura-Vertrags', ZA 36(1925), pp. 11-9. , Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1940). , Kleinasien zur Hethitischerzeit: eine geographische Untersuchung (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1957). , Madduwattash (MVAG 32,1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1927). , 'A New Letter from Ramesses to Hattushilish', JCS 1(1947), pp. 241-51. , 'Die Pestgebete des Murshilish', Kleinasiatische Forschungen 1(1927-30), pp. 161-251. , 'State and Society of the Hittites' in G. Walser (ed.), Neuere Hethiterforschung (Historia Einzelschriften 7; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1964), pp. 23-33. Good, E.M., 'Hosea 5:8-6:6: An Alternative to Alt', JBL 85(1966), pp. 273-86. Gottwald, N.K., The Tribes of Yahweh (London: SCM, 1980). , Two Models for the Origins of Ancient Israel: Social Revolution or Frontier Development' in H.B. Huffmon et al. (eds), The Quest for the Kingdom of God. Studies in Honor ofG.E. Mendenhall (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 5-24. Grayson, A.K., 'Akkadian Treaties of the Seventh Century B.C.', JCS 39(1987), pp. 127-60. , Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975). , Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (2 vols; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972, 1976). , 'Studies in Neo-Assyrian History in the Ninth Century B.C.', Bi. Or. 33 (1976), pp. 134-45 , 'Chronicles and the Akitu Festival', CRRAI 17(1970), pp. 160-70. Greenfield, J.C., 'Aspects of Aramean Religion' in P.D. Miller, Jr., P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride (eds), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 67-78. Greengus, S., Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1979). Griffith, F.L., 'The Abydos Decree of Seti I at Nauri', JEA 13(1927), pp. 193-208.

192

Admonition and Curse

, 'The Millingen Papyrus (Teaching of Amenemhat)', ZAS 34(1896), pp. 35-51. Grintz, J.M., 'The Treaty of Joshua with the Gibeonites', JAOS 86(1966), pp. 113-26. Gurney, O.K., 'Mita of Pahhuwa', AAA 28(1948), pp. 32-47. , Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (Oxford: OUP, 1977). , 'The Treaty with Ulmi-Tesup', Anatolian Studies 43(1993), pp. 13-28 Giiterbock, H.G., The Deeds of Suppiluliumas as Told by his Son, Mursilis IF. JCS 10(1956), pp. 41-68, 75-98, 107-30. , 'Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern. Zweiter Teil: Hethiter', ZA 44(1938), pp. 45-149. , 'Review of J. Friedrich, Hethitisches Worterbuch, Oriens 10(1957), pp. 350-62. , Siegel aus Boghazkoy (AfO Beiheft 5; 1. Teil; Berlin: E. Weidner, 1940). , 'Das Siegeln bei den Hethitern' in Symbolae ad iura orientis antiqui pertinentes Paulo Koschaker dedicatae (Leiden: Brill, 1939), pp. 26-36. , 'Die Texte aus der Grabungen 1934 in Bogazkoy', MDOG 73(1935), pp. 29-39. , 'A View of Hittite Literature', JAOS 84(1964), pp. 107-15. , 'Vorlaufiger Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen in Bogazkoy. 7. Texte', MDOG 74(1936), pp. 65-75. , 'Vorlaufiger Bericht iiber die dritte Grabung in Bogazkoy. D. Die Texte', MDOG 72(1933), pp. 37-53. Giiterbock, H.G. and T.P.J. van den Hout, The Hittite Instructions for the Royal Body Guard (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1991). Haas, V., Der Knit von Nerik (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970). Hallo, W.W. and W.K. Simpson, The Ancient Near East (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971). Hallo, W.W. and K.L. Younger, Jr. (eds), The Context of Scripture (2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1997, 2000). Harari, I.E., 'The Historical Meaning of the Legal Words Used in the Treaty Established between Ramesses II and Hattusilis III, in Year 21 of the Reign of Ramesses II' in S. Israelit-Groll (ed.), Studies in Egyptology. Presented to Miriam Lichtheim (Vol. I; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990), pp. 422-35. Harner, P.B., 'Exodus, Sinai and Hittite Prologues', JBL 85(1966), pp. 233-6. Harper, R.F., Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1892-1914). Harvey, J., Le plaiydoyer prophetique contre Israel apres la rupture de I'allaince (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1967). , 'Review of D.R. Hillers, "Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets", JBL 84(1965), pp. 102-3. , 'Le "./?/&-pattern", requisitoire prophetique sur la rupture de 1'alliance', Biblica 43(1962), pp. 172-96. Haul, M., Das Etana-Epos. Ein Mythos von der Himmelfahrt des Konigs von Kis, (Gottingen: Seminar fur Keilschriftforschung, 2000). Hawkins, J.D., ' "Great Kings" and "Country Lords" at Malatya and Karkamis' in T.P.J. van den Hout and J. de Roos (eds), Studio Historiae Ardens. Ancient

Bib liography

193

Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1995), pp. 73-85. , "Karkamish and Karatepe: Neo-Hittite City-States in North Syria' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 1295-307. Hecker, K., 'Zukunfsdeutungen in akkadischen Texten' in O. Kaiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alien Testaments (Band II, Lief. 1; Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1986), pp. 56-82. Helck, W., Die Lehre fur Konig Merikar (Kleine agyptische Texte; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1977). , 'Zur altesten Geschichte des Hatti-Reiches' in Beitrage zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift fur Kurt Bittel (Vol. I; Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1983), pp. 271-81. Heltzer, M., 'Ein ugaritischer Genossenschaftsvertrag (PRU 5,116 = KTU 3.8)", UF 9(1977), pp. 346^7. Millers, D.R., Covenant: the History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969). , 'A Note on Some Treaty Terminology in the Old Testament', BASOR 176(1964), pp. 46-7. , Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Biblica et Orientalia 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964). Hinke, W.J., A New Boundary Stone of Nebuchadrezzar I (Philadelphia: U. of Pennsylvania, 1907). Hinz, W., 'Elams Vertrag mit Naram-Sin von Akkade', ZA N.F. 24(1967), pp. 66-96. Hoffmann, I., Der Erlass Telepinus (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1984). Hoffmeier. J.K., 'Eighteenth Dynasty Inscriptions' in W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger, Jr. (eds), The Context of Scripture (Vol. II; Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 5-23. Hoffner, H.A., 'A Join to the Hittite Mita Text', JCS 28(1976), pp. 60-2. . The Last Days of Khattusha' in W.A. Ward and M.S. Joukowsky (eds), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C., (Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt, 1992), pp. 46-52. Holloway, S.W., The &*Kakki Assur and the Neo-Assyrian Loyalty Oaths' in T. Abusch et al. (eds), Historiography in the Cuneiform World (RAI 45, Part 1; Bethesda: CDL, 2001), pp. 239-66. Hornung, E., ' "Lang oder kurz?" - das Mittlere und Neue Reich Agyptens als Prufstein' in P. Astrom (ed.), High, Middle or Low? (Vol. I; Gothenburg: Paul Astroms, 1987), pp. 27-36. Horsnell, M.J.A., The Year-Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon (Vol. II; Hamilton, Ont.: McMaster U.P., 1999). Hout, T.P.J. van den, L A Chronology of the Tarhuntassa-Treaties', JCS 41(1989), pp. 100-14. , 'Khattushili III, King of the Hittites' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 1107-20.

194

Admonition and Curse

, Der Ulmitesub- Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchungen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995). Houwink ten Gate, Ph.J., 'The Bronze Tablet of Tuthaliyas IV and its Geographical and Historical relations', ZA 82(1992), pp. 233-70. , The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic Period (Leiden: Brill, 1961). , The Records of the Early Hittite Empire, c. 1450-1380 B.C. (Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 1970). Huber, P.J., 'Astronomical Evidence for the Long against the Middle and Short Chronologies' in P. Astrom (ed.), High, Middle or Low? (Vol. I; Gothenburg: Paul Astroms, 1987), pp. 5-17 (discussed in Vol. Ill, 1989). Huffmon, H.B., The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets', JBL 78(1959), pp. 285-95. , 'The Exodus, Sinai and the Credo', CBQ 27(1965), pp. 101-13. , The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada c>, BASOR 181(1966), pp. 31-7. Huffmon, H.B. and S.B. Parker, 'A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew Yad c\ BASOR 184(1966), pp. 36-8. Hulin, P., 'Another Esarhaddon Cylinder from Nimrud', Iraq 24(1962), pp. 116-18 Imparati, F., 'Apology of Hattusilis III or Designation of his Successor?' in T.P.J. van den Hout and J. de Roos (eds), Studio Historiae Ardens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1995), pp. 143-57. , 'Die organisation des hethitischen Staates' in H. Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 320-87. Izre'el, S., Amurru Akkadian: a Linguistic Study (2 vols; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991). Jacobsen, T., 'Early Political Development in Mesopotamia', ZA 52(1957), pp. 91-140. , The Sumerian King List (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1939). Jaritz, K., 'Quellen zur Geschichte der Kassu-Dynastie', MIO 6(1958), pp. 186-265. Jean, C.-F., Archives Royales de Mari (II; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1941). , Lettres diverses (Archives royales de Mari. Transcrites et traduites II ; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1950). Jepsen, A., 'Review of G.E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East', OLZ 54(1959), pp. 36-7. Joannes, F., 'Le traite de vassalite d'Atamrum d'Andarig envers Zimri-Lim de Mari' in D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Etudes sur la civilisation mesopotamienne offertes a Paul Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), pp. 167-77. Johanning, K., Der Bibel-Babel-Streit (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988). Jones, R.A., 'Robertson Smith and James Frazer on Religion: Two Traditions in British Social Anthropology' in G.W. Stocking (ed.), Functionalism Historicized (Madison: U. of Wisconsin, 1984), pp. 31-58.

Bibliography

195

, 'Robertson Smith, Durkheim and Sacrifice: An Historical Context for The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life', J. of the Hist, of the Behavioural Sciences 17(1981), pp. 184-205. Kalluveettil, P., Declaration and Covenant. A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (Analecta Biblica 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982). Kammenhuber, A., 'Die erste Computer-Analyse des Hethitischen', MSS 28(1970), pp. 51-69. , 'Das Verbaltnis von Schriftduktus zu Sprachstufe im Hethitischen', MSS 29(1971), pp. 75-109. , 'Die Vorganger Shuppiluliumas I. Untersuchungen zu einer neueren Geschichtsdarstellung H.Ottens', Orientalia 39(1970), pp. 278-301. Kassis, H.E., 'Gath and the Structure of "Philistine" Society', JBL 84(1965), pp. 259-71. Kempinski, A. and S. Koshak, 'Der Ishmeriga-Vertrag', WO 5(1970), pp. 191-217. Kestemont, G., 'Accords internationaux relatifs aux ligues hittites (1600-1200 av. J.C.). Dossier C: Le dossier egyptien', OLP 12(1981), pp. 15-78. , Diplomatique et droit international en Asie occidentale (1600-1200 av. J.C.) (Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1974). , 'Le traite entre Mursil II de Haiti et Niqmepa d'Ugarit', UF 6(1974), pp. 85-127. Kilmer, A.D., 'How was Queen Ereshkigal Tricked? A New Interpretation of the Descent of Ishtar', UF 3(1971), pp. 299-309. King, L.W. (ed.), Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1912). Kinnier Wilson, J.V., The Legend of Etana (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1985). Kitchen, K.A., Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1966). , 'The Basics of Egyptian chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age' in P. Astrom (ed.), High, Middle or Low? (Vol. I; Gothenburg: Paul Astroms, 1987), pp. 37-56. , 'Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna and Covenant', UF 11(1979), pp. 453-64. Klatt, W., Hermann Gunkel: zu einer Theologie der Religionsgeschichte und zur Entstehung der formgeschichtlichen Methode (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969). Klengel, H., Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches (Leiden: Brill, 1999). , 'Historischer Kommentar zum Sausgamuwa-Vertrag' in T.P.J. van den Hout and J. de Roos (eds), Studio Historiae Ardens: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Gate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1995), pp. 159-72. , 'Neue Fragmente zur akkadischen Fassung des Aziru-Vertrages', OLZ 59(1964), pp. 438-45. , 'Ein neues Fragment zur historischen Einleitung der TalmisharrumaVertrages', ZA 56(1964), pp. 213-17. , 'Die Rolle der "altesten" (LUMESSU.GI) im Kleinasien der Hethiterzeit', ZA N.F. 23(1965), pp. 223-36.

196

Admonition and Curse

, 'Der Schiedsspruch des Murshili II hinsichlich Barga und seine Ubereinkunft mit Duppi-Teshup von Amurru (KBo III 3)', Orientalia 32(1963), pp. 32-55. , Zu einiger Problemen des altvorderasiatischen Nomadentums', Ar.Or. 30(1962), pp. 585-96. 'Zur Geschichte von Ugarit', OLZ 57(1962), pp. 453-62. Kline, M.G., The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1972). , The Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). Knudtzon, J.A., Die El-Amarna-Tafeln (Aalen: Otto Zeller, 1915). Koehler, L., 'Problems in the Study of the Language of the Old Testament', JSS 1(1956), pp. 3-24. Konig, W., Die elamischen Kdnigsinschriften (AfO Beiheft 16; Graz: E. Weidner, 1965). Koopmans, W.T., Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). Korosec, V., 'Einige juristishe Bemerkungen zur Shahurunuva-Urkunde (KUB XXVI 43 = Bo 2048)', Munchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 35(1945), pp. 191-222. , 'Die Gotteranrufung in den keilschriftlichen Staatsvertragen', Orientalia 45(1976), pp. 120-9. , Hethitische Staatsvertr'dge. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung (Leipzig: T. Weicher, 1931). , 'Les Hittites et leurs vassaux syriens a lumiere des nouveaux textes d'Ugarit (PRU IV)', RHA 66(1960) pp. 65-79. , 'Keilschriftrecht' in Orientalisches Recht (Leiden: Brill, 1964), pp. 49-219. 'Les relations internationales d'apres les lettres de Mari' in La civilisation de Mari (RAI 15; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1967), pp. 139-50. 'Quelques remarques juridiques sur deux traites internationaux d'Alalah' in Droits de I'antiquite et sociologique juridique. Melange Henri Levy-Bruhl (Paris: Institut de Droit Remain de 1'Universite de Paris, 1959), pp. 172-8. , 'Uber den nichtparitatischen Charakter des Sunassura-Vertrages (KBo 1,5)' in 28. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Wien 6.10. Juli 1981 (AfO Beiheft 19; Horn: Ferdinand Berger & Sohne, 1982), pp. 168-72. , 'Uber die Entwicklung von volkerrechtlichen Beziehungen in der ElAmarna Zeit', Revue Internationale des droits de I'antiquite 22(1975), pp. 47-70. Koschaker, P., 'Keilschriftrecht', ZDMG 89(1935), pp. 1-39. Kramer, S.N., 'Sumerian Historiography', IEJ 3(1953), pp. 217-32. Kraus, F.R., 'Review of Baghdader Mitteilungen Band 2', Bi. Or. 22(1965), pp. 287-93. Kraus, H.-J., Worship in Israel (Richmond: John Knox 1965). Kruger, P.A., 'Symbolic Acts Relating to Old Testament Treaties and Relationships', J.for Semitics 2(1990), pp. 156-70. Kiihne, C., 'Zum neu gewonnenen Niqmepa'-Vertrag', UF 7(1975), pp. 239-51. Kiihne, C. and H. Otten, Der Shaushgamuwa-Vertrag (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971).

Bibliography

197

Kuentz, C.,'La "Stele du Mariage" de Ramses IF, ASAE 25(1925), pp. 181-238. Kupper, J.-R., 'Zimri-Lim et ses vassaux' in D. Charpin and F. Joannes (eds), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Etudes sur la civilisation mesopotamienne offertes a Paul Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), pp. 179-84. Kutsch, E., 'Der Begiff b ertt in vordeuteronomischer Zeit' in Das Feme und Nahe Wort. Festschrift Leonhard Rost (Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1967), pp. 133-43. , 'Berith. Bin Beitrag zur Theologie der Exilszeit' in Verbannung und Heimkehr. Festschrift fur Wilhelm Rudolph (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1961), pp. 161-79. , 'Gesetz und Gnade. Probleme des alttestamentlichen Bundesbegriffs', ZAW 79(1967), pp. 18-35. , 'Das sog. "Bundesblut" in Ex. XXIV 8 und Sach. IX 11', VT 23(1973), pp. 25-30. Lackenbacher, S., 'Nouveaux documents d'Ugarit', RA 76(1982), pp. 141-56. Laess0e, J., People of Ancient Assyria (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1953). , The Shemshara Tablets. A Preliminary Report', Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Vol. 4, No.3, 1959. Lafont, B., 'Le roi de Mari et les prophetes du dieu Adad', RA 78(1984), pp. 7-18. , 'Sacrifices et rituels a Mari et dans la Bible', RA 93(1999), pp. 57-77. Lambert, M., 'Les "reformes" d'Urukagina', RA 50(1956), pp. 169-84. Lambert, W.G., The Fifth Tablet of the Era Epic', Iraq 24(1962), pp. 119-25. , Three Unpublished Fragments of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic', AfO 18(1967), pp. 38-51. , The Treaty of Ebla' in L. Cagni (ed.), Ebla 1975-1985 (Naples: Institute Universitario Orientale, 1987), pp. 353-64. Landsberger, B., 'Studien zu den Urkunden aus der Zeit des Ninurta-tukul-Assur', AfO 10(1935-6), pp. 140-59. Landsberger, B. and T. Bauer, 'Zu neuveroffentlichten Geschichtsquellen der Zeit von Asarhaddon bis Nabonid', ZA 37(1926-27), pp. 61-98. Langdon, S., The Legend of Etana and the Eagle', Babyloniaca 12(1931). Langdon, S. and A.H. Gardiner, The Treaty of Alliance between Hattushili, King of the Hittites and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt', JEA 6(1920), pp. 179-205. Laroche, E., 'Le dieu anatolien Sarrumma', Syria 40(1963), pp. 277-302. , 'Documents en langue hourrite provenant de Ras Shamra', Ugaritica 5(1968), pp. 448-544. , 'Fragments hittites du traite Mitannien de Suppiluliuma Ier', Ugaritica 6(1969), pp. 369-73. , 'Un point d'histoire: Ulmi-Tessub', RHA 48(1947-48), pp. 40-8. , 'Shuppiluliuma IF, RA 47(1953), pp. 70-8. , Textes mythologiques hittites en transcription', RHA 23(1965), pp. 3-176. Larsen, M.T., The "Babel/Bible" Controversy and Its Aftermath' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. I; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 95-106.

198

Admonition and Curse

, The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1976). Lemaire, A. and J.-M. Durand, Les inscriptions arameennes de Sfire et I'Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu (Geneva: Droz, 1984). Lemche, N.P., Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988). , 'The History of Ancient Syria and Palestine: An Overview' in J.M. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 1195-218. , 'The Old Testament - A Hellenistic Book', SJOT 7(1993), pp. 163-93. Levonson, J.D., 'The Davidic Covenant and its Modern Interpreters', CBQ 41(1979), pp. 205-19. Lewis, T.J., 'The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith', JBL 115(1996), pp. 401-23. L'Hour, J., 'L'alliance de Sichem', RB 69(1962), pp. 5-36, 161-84, 350-68. Lichtheim, M., Ancient Egyptian Literature (Vol. I; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973). Lie, A.G., The Inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria (Vol. I; Paris: Paul Guethner, 1929). Liverani, M., The Great Powers' Club' in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds), Amarna Diplomacy. The Beginnings of International Relations (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2000), pp. 15-27. , The Medes at Esarhaddon's Court', JCS 47(1995), pp. 57-62. , Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600-1100 B.C. (Padova: Sargon, 1990). ,'Review of G. Kestemont, Diplomatique et droit international en Asie occidentale (1600-1200 av. J.C.)\ OA 16(1977), pp. 251-5. , 'Storiographia politica hittita - I. Sunassura, ovvero: della reciprocita', OA 12(1973), pp. 267-97. , Terminologia e ideologia del patto nelle iscrizioni reali assire', in L. Canfora, M. Liverani and C. Zaccagnini (eds), / trattati nel mondo antico. Forma, ideologia, funzione (Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1990), pp. 113-47. , Three Amarna Essays (MANE 1/5; Malibu: Undena, 1979). Livingstone, A., Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (Helsinki: Helsinki U.P., 1989). , 'On the Organized Release of Doves to Secure Compliance of a Higher Authority' in A.R. George and I.L. Finkel (eds), Wisdom, Gods and Literature. Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W.G. Lambert (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), pp. 375-87. Lohfink, N., 'Die Bundesurkunde des Konig Josias', Biblica 44(1963), pp. 261-88, 461-98. , 'Gott im Buch Deuteronomium' in J. Coppens (ed.), La notion biblique de dieu de la Bible et le dieu des philosophes (Gembloux: Leuven University, 1976), pp. 101-26. , 'Hate and Love in Osee 9,15', CBQ 25(1963), p. 417. , Die Landverheissung als Eid (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967).

Bibliography

199

Longman, T., Ill, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991). Loretz, O., b erit - Band-Bund', VT 16(1966), pp. 239-41. Lorton, D., The Juridical Terminology of International Relations in Egyptian Texts through Dyn. XVIII (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1974). Luckenbill, D.D., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (2 vols; NY: Greenwood, repr., 1926/27). , The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1924). , 'Hittite Treaties and Letters', AJSL 37(1921), pp. 161-211. Luke, J.T., 'Pastoralism amd Politics in the Mari Period' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, U. of Michigan, 1965). McCarthy, D.J., 'berit and Covenant in the Deuteronomic History', VTS 23(1972), pp. 65-85. , 'berit in Old Testament History and Theology', Biblica 53(1972), pp. 110-21. , 'Compact and Kingship: Stimuli for Hebrew Covenant Thinking' in T. Ishida, (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and other Essays (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1982), pp. 75-92. , 'Covenant and Law in Chronicles-Nehemiah', CBQ 44(1982), pp. 25-44. , 'Covenant "Good" and an Egyptian Text', BASOR 245(1982), pp. 63-4. , 'Covenant in Narratives from Late O.T. Times' in H.B.Huffmon et al. (ed), The Quest for the Kingdom of God. Studies in Honor ofG.E.Mendenhall (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 77-94. , 'Covenant in the Old Testament: the Present State of Inquiry', CBQ 27(1965), pp. 217-40. , 'Ebla, horkia temnein, tb, slm. Addenda to Treaty and Covenanf, Biblica 60(1979), pp. 247-53. , 'Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice', JBL 92 (1973), pp. 205-10. , 'Hosea XII 2: Covenant by Oil', VT 14(1964), pp. 215-21. , 'Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship Between Yahweh and Israel', CBQ 27(1965), 144-7. , Old Testament Covenant. A Survey of Current Opinions (Richmond: John Knox, 1972). , 'The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice', JBL 88(1969), pp. 166-76. , Three Covenants in Genesis', CBQ 26(1964), pp. 179-89. , Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963). Machinist, P., 'Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible', CBQ 38(1976), pp. 455-82. Malamat, A., 'A Note on the Ritual of Treaty Making in Mari and the Bible', IEJ 45(1995), pp. 226-9. , 'Organs of Statecraft in the Israelite Monarchy', BA 28(1965), pp. 34-65. Malfroy, J., 'Sagesse et loi dans le Deuteronome', VT 15(1965), pp. 49-65. Malul, M., Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1988). Masson, O., 'A propos d'un rituel hittite pour la lustration d'une armee', RHR 137(1950), pp. 5-25.

200

Admonition and Curse

Matthiae, P., Ebla: an Empire Rediscovered (tr. C. Holme; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1980). Meissner, B., 'Assyrische Freibriefe', BzA 2(1894), pp. 565-72. , Babylonien und Assyrien (Vol. I; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1920). , 'Die Beziehungen Agyptens zum Hattireiche nach hattischen Quellen', ZDMG 72(1918), pp. 32-64. Melville, S.C., The Role of NaqiajZakutu in Sargonid Politics (SAA Studies IX; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999). Mendenhall, G.E., 'Covenant', The Interpreters' Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. I; NY: Abingdon, 1962), pp. 714-23. , Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Pres. Board of Colportage of W. Penn., 1955). , 'Puppy and Lettuce in Northwest-Semitic Covenant Making', BASOR 133(1954), pp. 26-30. , 'Samuel's "Broken Rib"; Deuteronomy 32' in J.W. Flanagan and A.W.Robinson (eds). No Famine in the Land. Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie (Missoula: Scholars, 1975), pp. 63-74. , The Tenth Generation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1973). Mercer, S.A.B., The Oath in Babylonian and Assyrian Literature (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1912). (ed.), The Tell-el-Amarna Tablets (2 vols; Toronto: Macmillan, 1939). Meriggi, P., 'Uber einige hethitische fragmente historischen Inhaltes', WZKM 58(1962), pp. 66-110. Meyer, G.R., 'Zwei neue Kizzuwatna-Vertrage', MIO 1(1953), pp. 108-24. Milano, L., 'Ebla: A Third-Millennium City-State in Ancient Syria' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 1219-30. Moor, J.C. de, 'Contributions to the Ugaritic Lexicon', UF 11(1979), pp. 639-53. , The Rise of Yahwism. The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (Louvain: Leuven University, rev. edn, 1997). Moor, J.C. de and K. Spronk, 'More on Demons at Ugarit (KTU 1.82)', UF 16(1984), pp. 237-50. Moran, W.L., The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1992). , 'The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy', CBQ 25(1963), pp. 77-87. , 'Rib-Hadda: Job at Byblos?' in A. Kort and S. Morschauser (eds), Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985), pp. 173-81. , 'A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sef ire Stelas', JNES 22(1963), pp. 173-6 , 'Review of G.E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near Easf, Biblica 41(1960), pp. 297-9. , 'Some Reflections on Amarna Polities' in Z. Zevit, S. Gitin and M. Sokoloff (eds), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp. 559-72. , 'Some Remarks on the Song of Moses', Biblica 43(1962), pp. 317-27.

Bibliography

201

Morschauser, S.N., 'The End of the Sdf(3)-Tr(yt) "Oath"', JARCE 25(1988), pp. 93-103. Muilenberg, J., 'The Form and Structure of the Covenant Formulations', VT 9(1959), pp. 347-65. Munn-Rankin, J.M., 'Diplomacy in Western Asia', Iraq 18(1956), pp. 68-110. Murnane, W.J., 'The History of Ancient Egypt: An Overview' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 691-717. , 'Imperial Egypt and the Limits of Power' in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds), Amarna Diplomacy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2000), pp. 101-11. Na'aman, N., 'The Historical Introduction of the Aleppo Treaty Reconsidered', JCS 32(1980), pp. 34-42. Neu, E., Der Anitta-Text (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974). , 'Uberlieferung und Datierung der Kashkaer-Vertrage' in Beitrage zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift fur Kurt Bind (Vol. I; Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1983), pp. 391-9. Nicholson, E.W., 'Covenant in a Century of Study since Wellhausen', OTS 24(1986), pp. 54-69. , God and his People (Oxford: OUP, 1986). , The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century. The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: OUP, 1998). Nissen, H.J., 'Kulturelle und politische Vernetzungen im Vorder Orient des 4. und 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends' in U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann and H. Hauptmann (eds), Beitrage zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift fur Rainer Michael Boehmer (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995), pp. 473-90. North, R., 'Angel-Prophet or Satan-Prophet?', ZAW 82(1970), pp. 31-67. Notscher, F., 'Bundesformular und "Amtschimmel"', BZ N.F. 9(1956), pp. 181-214. Noth, M., 'Das altestamentliche Bundschliessen im Lichte eines Mari-Textes', in Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1966), pp. 142-54. , Developing Lines of Theological Thought in Germany (Richmond: Union Theol. Sem. in Va., 1963). , 'Der historische Hintergrund der Inschriften von Sefire', ZDPV 77(1961), pp. 118-72. Nougayrol, J., 'Guerre et Paix a Ugarit', Iraq 25(1963), pp. 110-23. , "Sirrimu (non purimu) "ane sauvage"', JCS 2(1948), pp. 203-8. , Textes accadiens des archive sud (MRS 9; PRU 4; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1956). , Textes accadiens et hourrites des archives est, ouest et centrales (MRS 5; PRU 3; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1955). , Textes en cuneiformes babyloniens des archives du grand palais et du palais sud d'Ugarit (MRS 12; PRU 6; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1970). , 'Textes sumero-accadiens des Archives et Bibliotheques privees d'Ugarit', Ugaritica 5(1968), pp. 1-446.

202

Admonition and Curse

Oden, R.A., Jr, 'The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel' in P.D. Miller, Jr., P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride (eds), Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 429^7. Oettinger, N., Die Militaerischen Eide der Hethiter (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976). Oppenheim, A.L., 'Divination and Celestial Observation in the Last Assyrian Empire', Centaurus 14(1969), pp. 97-135. Orlin, L.L., Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia (The Hague: Mouton, 1970). Otten, H., Eine althethitische Erzahlung um die Stadt Zalpa (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1973). , 'Bin althethitischer Vertrag mil Kizzuvatna', JCS 5(1951), pp. 129-32. , 'Der Anfang der HAZANNU -Instruction', Orientalia 52(1983), pp. 133^2. , 'Beitrage zum hethitischen Lexikon', ZA N.F. 16(1952), pp. 230-6. , 'Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen in Bogazkoy im Jahre 1954. Die inschriftliche Funde', MDOG 88(1955), pp. 33-6. , 'Eine Beschworung der Unteriridischen aus Bogazkoy', ZA 54(1961), pp. 114-57. , 'Bin Brief aus Hattusha an Babu-ahu-iddina', AfO 19(1959-60), pp. 39^6. , Die Bronzetafel aus Boghazhoy (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988). , 'Die Eidesleistung des Ashapala', RHA 67(1960), pp. 121-7. , 'Hethitishe Schreiber in ihren Briefen', MIO 4(1956), pp. 179-89. , 'Bin hethitischer Vertrag aus dem 15/14 Jahrhundert v. Chr.', Istanbuler Mitteilungen 17(1967), pp. 55-62. , 'Keilschrifttexte', MDOG 91(1958), pp. 73-84. , 'Neue Quellen zum Ausklang des Hethitischen Reiches', MDOG 94(1963), pp. 1-23. , Die 1986 in Bogazkoy gefundene Bronzetafel (Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, 1989). , 'Das Siegel des hethitischen Grosskonigs Tahurwaili', MDOG 103(1971), pp. 59-68. , Sprachliche Stellung und Datierung des Madduwatta-Textes (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1969). , 'Die Uberlieferungen des Telepinu-Mythus', MVAG 46(1942), 1. Heft. , 'Vorlaufiger Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen in Bogazkoy im Jahre 1952. Die inschriftlichen Funde', MDOG 86(1953), pp. 59-64. , 'Zu den Anfangen der hethitischen Geschichte', MDOG 83(1951), pp. 33-45. , 'Zusatzliche Lesungen zum Alakshandu-Vertrag', MIO 5(1957), pp. 26-30. , 'Zwei althethitische Belege zu den Hapiru (SA.GAZ)', ZA 52(1957), pp. 216-23. Parkinson, R.B., 'Teachings, Discourses and Tales from the Middle Kingdom' in S. Quirke (ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies (New Maiden: SIA, 1991), pp. 91-122. Parpola, S., Assyrian Prophecies (Helsinki: Helsinki U., 1997). , Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Helsinki: Helsinki U., 1993).

Bibliography

203

, 'Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh', JCS 39(1987), pp. 161-89. Parpola, S. and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (Helsinki: Helsinki U.P., 1988). Parrot, A., 'Les Fouilles de Mari. Troisieme Campagne (Hiver 1935-36)', Syria 18(1937), pp. 54-84. Peiser, F.E., 'Studien zur orientalischen Altertumskunde', MVAG III/6 (1898), pp. 228^0. Perlitt, L., Bundestheologie im Alien Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969). Petschow, H., 'Zur Noxalhaftung im hethitischen Recht', 7^A N.F. 21(1963), pp. 237-50. Pettinato, G., Ebla. Nuovi orizzonti della storia (Milan: Rusconi, 1986). , 'The Royal Archives of Tell Mardikh-Ebla', BA 39(1976), pp. 44-52. Pfeiffer, R.H., 'Facts and Faith in Biblical History', JBL 70(1951), pp. 1-14. Pfeiffer, R.H. and E.A. Speiser, One Hundred New Selected Nuzi Texts (AASOR 16; New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1936). Pirenne, J., 'La politique d'expansion Hittite, envisagee a travers les traites de vassalite et de protectorat', Ar. Or. 18(1950), pp. 373-82. Postgate, J.N., Neo-Assyrian Royal Grants and Decree (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969). Priest, J.F., 'The Covenant of Brothers', JBL 84(1965), pp. 400-6. , "horkia in the Iliad and Consideration of a Recent Theory', JNES 23(1964), pp. 48-56. Pritchard, J.B. (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 3rd edn, 1969). Rainey, A., Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets. A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan (4 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1999). Reiner, E., 'Elamite hawir sukkir', JCS 7(1953), pp. 33-5. , Shurpu (AfO Beiheft 11; Graz: E. Weidner, 1958). Reiter, K., 'Altbabylonische Vertrage unter Beachtung giinstiger Tage', Mari 7(1993), pp. 359-63. Reventlow, H.G., 'Kultisches Recht im Alten Testament', ZTK 60(1963), pp. 267-304. Richards, J. and M. Van Buren (eds), Order, Legitimacy and Wealth in Ancient States (Cambridge: CUP, 2000). Riemschneider, K.K., 'Die hethitischen Landschenkungsurkunden', MIO 6(1958), pp. 321-81. , 'Zum Lehnswesen bei den Hethitern', Ar. Or. 33(1965), pp. 333-40. Roeder, G., 'Aegypter und Hethiter', Die Alte Orient 20(1919), pp. 3-47. Rooy, H.F. van, 'The Structure of the Aramaic Treaties of Sefire', J. for Semitics 1(1989), pp. 133-9. Roux, G., Ancient Iraq (London: Penguin, 3rd edn, 1992). Sasson, J.M., 'On Mari Historiography and the Yakhdun-Lim Disk Inscription' in T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller. (eds), Lingering over Words (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), pp. 439-49.

204

Admonition and Curse

, 'On Idrimi and Sharruwa, the Scribe' in M.A. Morrison and D.I. Owen (eds), Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and The Hurrians (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 301-24. , 'Yarim-Lim's War Declaration' in J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper (eds), Miscellanea Babylonica. Melanges offerts a Maurice Birot (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985), pp. 237-55. Schachermeyr, F., 'Zur staatsrechtlichen Wertung der hethitischen Vertrage', MAOG 4(1928), pp. 180-6. Schaeffer, C.A., 'Recueil des sceaux et cylindres hittites imprime sur les tablettes des Archives Sud du palais de Ras Shamra', Ugaritica 3(1956), pp. 1-86. , 'Ugarit und die Hethiter', AfO 17(1954-6), pp. 93-9. Scharff, A., 'Der historische Abschnitt der Lehre fuer Koenig Merikare', Sitzungsberichte d. Beyer. Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Ab., 8 (1936). Scharff, A. and A. Moortgat, Agypten und Vorderasien im Altertum (Munich: F. Buckmann, 1950). Scheil, V., 'Sin-shar-ishkun fils d'Assurbanipal', ZA 11(1896), pp. 47-9. Schramm, W., 'Die Annalen des assyrischen Konigs Tukulti-Ninurta II. (890-884 v. Chr.)', Bi. Or. 27(1970), pp. 147-60. Schroeder, O., Die Tontafeln von El-Amarna (Osnabruck: Zeller, 1915). Schuler, E. von, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen (AfOO Beiheft 10; Graz: E. Weidner, 1957). , 'Hethitsche Konigserlasse als Quellen der Rechtsfindung und ihr Verhaltnis zum kodifizierten Recht' in Festschift Johannes Friedrich (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1959), pp. 435-72. , Die Kashkaer (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1965). , 'Sonderformen hethitischer Staatsvertrage', Jahrbuch fur Kleinasiatische Forschung 2(1965), pp. 445-64. , 'Staatsvertrage und Dokumente hethitischen Rechts' in G. Walser (ed.), Neuere Hethiterforschung (Historia Einzelschriften 7; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1964), pp. 34-53. , 'Die Wurdertragereide des Arnuwanda', Orientalia 25(1956), pp. 209-40. Schulman, A.R., 'Aspects of Ramesside Diplomacy: The Treaty of Year 21', JSSEA 8(1978), pp. 112-30. Schwartz, B., The Hittite and Luwian Ritual of Zarpiya of Kizzuwatna', JAOS 58(1938), pp. 334-53. Seidl, U., Babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs (Freiburg: Universitatsverlag, 1989). Sekine, M., 'Davidsbund und Sinaibund bei Jeremia', FT19(1959), pp. 47-57. Sethe, K., 'Die hchtung feindlicher Fiirsten, Volker und Dinge auf altagyptischen Tongefasscherben des Mittleren Reiches', Abhand. d. Preuss, Akad d. Wiss. Philhist. Kl. No.5, 1926. Singer, I., 'The Battle of Nihriya and the End of the Hittite Empire', ZA 75(1985), pp. 100-23. , 'A Concise history of Amurru', in S. Izre'el, Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study (Vol. II; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), pp. 135-95. Slanski, K.E., 'Classification, Historiography and Monumental Authority: The Babylonian Narus (Kudunus)\ JCS 52(2000), pp. 95-114. Smith, S., The Statue of Idri-mi (London: British Inst. of Arch, in Ankara, 1949).

Bibliography

205

Smith, W.R., Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1889). Soden, W. von, 'Zu den Amarnabriefen aus Babylon und Assur', Orientalia 21(1952), pp. 426-34. Soggin, J.A., 'Akkadisch TAR beriti und Hebraisch karat b erit\ VT 18(1968), pp. 210-15. Sollberger, E., The Rulers of Lagash', JCS 21(1967), pp. 279-91. , The So-Called Treaty Between Ebla and "Ashur"', Studi Eblaiti 3(1980), pp. 129-55. , Le systeme verbal dans les inscriptions presargoniques de Lagash (Wiesbaden: Martin Sandig, 1971). Sollberger, E. and J.-R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1971). Sommer, F., 'Die Ahhijava-Urkunden', Abhand Bayer Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Abteilung, N.F. 6, 1932. Sommer, F. and A. Falkenstein, 'Die hethitisch-akkadische Bilingue des Hattushili I (Labarna II)', Abhand.d.Bayer.Akad d Wiss. Phil-hist Abt. N.F. 16, 1938. Sonsino, R., Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law. Biblical Forms and Near Eastern Parallels (Chico: Scholars, 1980). Spalinger, A., 'Considerations on the Hittite Treaty between Egypt and Hatti', S^A 9(1981), pp. 299-358. Speiser, E.A., 'Akkadian Documents from Ras Shamra', JAOS 75(1955), pp. 154-65. Sperling, D.S., 'An Arslan Tash Incantation: Interpretations and Implications', HUCA 53(1982), pp. 1-10. , 'Israel's Religion in the Ancient Near East' in A. Green (ed.), Jewish Spirituality. From the Bible through the Middle Ages (London: Routledge and KeganPaul, 1986), pp. 5-31. Stamm, J.J. and M.E. Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research (London: SCM Press, 1967). Starke, F., Die keilschrift-luwischen Texte in Umschrift (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985). Steible, H., Die Altsumerischen Ban- und Weihinschriften (Vol. I; Wiesbaden: Frank Steiner, 1982). Steinmetzer, F.X., Die babylonischen Kudurru (Grenzsteine) als Urkundenform (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoeningh, 1922). , 'Die Bastallungsurkunde Konigs Shamash-shum-ukin von Babylon', Ar. Or. 7(1935), pp. 314-18. Stolz, F., 'Monotheismus in Israel' in O. Keel (ed.), Monotheismus im Alien Israel und seiner Umwel (Fribourg: Schweizer. Kath. Bibelwerk, 1980), pp. 143-84. Streck, M., Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Konige bis zum Untergange Niniveh's (3 vols; Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR, repr., 1916). Strong, S.A., 'On Some Oracles to Esarhaddon and Asurbanipal', BzA 2(1893), pp. 627-45. Sturtevant, E.H., 'A Hittite Text on the Duties of Priests and Temple Servants', JAOS 54(1934), pp. 363-406.

206

Admonition and Curse

Sturtevant, E.H. and G. Bechtel, A Hittite Chrestomathy (Philadelphia: Linguisitic Soc. of America, 1935). Siirenhagen, D., Paritatische Staatsvertrage aus hethitischer Sicht (Pavia: Gianni luculano, 1985). , 'Untersuchungen zur Bronzetafel und weiteren Vertragen mit der Sekundogenitur in Tarhuntassa', OLZ 87(1992), pp. 342-71. Tadmor, H., 'The Aramaization of Assyria: Aspects of Western Impact' in H.J. Nissen and J. Renger (eds), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn, (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 2nd edn, 1987), pp. 449-70. , The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Acad. of Sciences and Humanities, 1994). , Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East' in D.M. Tucker and D.A. Knight (eds), Humanizing America's Iconic Book (Chico: Scholars, 1982), pp. 127-52. Teixidor, J., Bulletin d'epigraphie semitique (1964-1980). (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1986). , 'Les tablettes d'Arslan Tash au Musee d'Alep', Aula Orientalis 1(1983), pp. 105-8. Thompson, J.A., The Near Eastern Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the Religion of Israel', /. of Religious Hist. 3(1964), pp. 1-19. Thompson, T.L., Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and the Archaeological Sources (Leiden: Brill, 1992). , The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974). Thureau-Dangin, F., 'Un acte de donation de Marduk-zakir-shumi', RA 16(1919), pp. 117-56. , 'Le cone historique d'Entemena', RA 4(1897), pp. 37-50. , 'lasmah-Adad', RA 34(1937), pp. 135-39. , Une relation de la huitieme campagne de Sargon (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1912). -, Die sumerischen und akkadischen Konigsinschriften (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1907). Thureau-Dangin, F. and P. Dhorme, 'Cinq jours de fouilles a °Asharah', Syria 5(1924), pp. 265-93. Tigay, J.H., 'On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing' in M.E. Cohen, D.C. Snell and D.B. Weisberg (eds), The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda: CDL, 1993),. pp. 250-5. Tsevat, M., The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel', JBL 78(1959), pp. 199-204. Tucker, G.M., 'Covenant Forms and Contract Forms', VT 15(1965), pp. 487-503. Ungnad, A., 'Zur Geschichte der Nachbarstaaten Babyloniens zur Zeit der Hammurapi-Dynastie', BzA 6/5(1909), pp. 1-32. Van Dijk, J., The Authenticity of the Arslan Tash Amulets', Iraq 54(1992), pp. 65-8. Van Seters, J., Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1975). , In Search of History (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1983). Vannoy, J.R., Covenant Renewal at Gilgal (Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack, 1978). Vaux, R. De, 'Le roi d'lsrael, vassal de Yahve' in Melanges Eugene Tisserant (Vol. I; Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964), pp. 119-33.

Bibliography

207

Veenhof, K.R., 'An Aramaic Curse with a Sumero-Akkadian Prototype', Bi. Or. 20(1963), pp. 142-4. , Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology (Leiden: Brill, 1972). , 'Kanesh: An Assyrian Colony in Anatolia' in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 859-71. 'Review of E. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alien Testament und im Alten Orient\ Bi. Or. 23(1966), pp. 308-13. Virolleaud, C., 'Cinq tablettes accadiennes de Ras-Shamra', RA 38(1941), pp. 1-12. , Palais Royal d'Ugarit (Vol. II; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1957). , Palais Royal d'Ugarit (Vol. V; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1965). Waetzoldt, H., ' "Diplomaten", Boten, Kaufleute und Verwandtes in Ebla' in L. Cagni (ed.), // bilinguismo a Ebla (Naples: Institute Universitario Orientale, 1984), pp. 405-37. Watanabe, K., 'Mit Gottessiegeln versehene hethitische "Staatsvertrage"', Acta Sumerologica 11(1989), pp. 261-76. Waterman, L., Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire (2 vols; Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan, 1930). Watts, J.W., Reading Law. The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). Weeks, N.K., 'Mari, Nuzi and the Patriarchs', Abr-Nahrain 16(1975-76), pp. 73-82. Weidner, E.F., 'Assurbanipal in Assur', AfO 13(1940), pp. 204-18. , 'Assyrien und Hanigalbat', Ugaritica 6(1969), pp. 519-31. , 'Assyrische Itinerare', AfO 21(1966), pp. 42-56. , 'Die Bibliothek Tiglatpilesers I', AfO 16(1953), pp. 197-215. , 'Hochverrat gegen Nebukadnezar IF, AfO 17(1954/5), pp. 1-9. , 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse assyrischer Konige aus dem 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.', AfO 17(1956), pp. 257-93. , Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I und seiner Nachfolger (AfO Beiheft 12; Graz: E. Weidner, 1959). , 'Die Kampe Adadnararis I. gegen Hanigalbat', AfO 5(1928-29), pp. 89-100. , Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien (Hildesheim: Olms, repr., 1970). , 'Der Staatsvertrag Assurniraris VI von Assyrien mit Mati'ilu von BitAgusi', AfO 8(1932), pp. 17-34. , 'Studien zur Zeitgeschichte Tukulti-Ninurtas F, AfO 13(1940), pp. 109-24. , 'Wasashatta, Konig von Hanigalbat', AfO 6(1930-31), pp. 21-2. Weiher, E. von, 'Marduk-apla-usur and Nabu-shum-ishkun in einem spatbabylonischen Fragment aus Uruk', Baghdader Mitteilungen 14(1984), pp. 197-224. Weinfeld, M., 1B erit\ Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament (Vol. I; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973), pp. 781-808. , 'Berit - Covenant vs. Obligation', Biblica 56(1975), pp. 120-8. , 'The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World' in L. Canfora, M. Liverani and C. Zaccagnini (eds), / trattati nel mondo antico. Forma, ideologia, funzione (Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1990), pp. 175-91.

208

Admonition and Curse

, 'Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia', JANES 22(1993), pp. 135-9. , 'The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East', 7,4OS 90(1970), pp. 184-203. , 'Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and its Influence on the West', JAOS 93(1973), pp. 190-9. , Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: OUP, 1972). , 'Deuteronomy - the Present State of Inquiry', JBL 86(1967), pp. 249-62. 'The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East', UF 8(1976), pp. 379^14. , 'The Origin of the Apodictic Law. An Overlooked Source', Fr23 (1973), pp. 63-75. , Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy', Biblica 46(1965), pp. 417-27. Weisberg, D.B., Guild Structure and Political Allegiance in Early Achaemenid Mesopotamia (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1967). Weiss, H., Tell Leilan and Shubat Enlil', Mari 4(1985), pp. 269-92. Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885). Westbrook, R., 'International Law in the Amarna Age' in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds), Amarna Diplomacy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2000), pp. 28-41. Whitley, C.F., 'Covenant and Commandment in Israel', JNES 22(1963), pp. 37^8. Widengren, G., 'King and Covenant', JSS 2(1957), pp. 1-32. Wilhelm, G., The Hurrians (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1989). , The Kingdom of Mitanni in Second-Millennium Upper Mesopotamia', in J. Sasson et al. (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. II; NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995), pp. 1243-54. , 'Zur ersten Zeile des Sunassura-Vertrages' in E. Neu and C. Ruster (eds), Documentum Asiae Minoris Antiquae: Festschrift fur Heinrich Often zum 75. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1988), pp. 359-70. Wilhelm, G. and J. Boese, 'Absolute Chronologic und die hethitische Geschichte des 15. und 14. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.' in P. Astrom (ed.), High, Middle or Low! (Vol. I; Gothenburg: Paul Astroms, 1987), pp. 74-117. Wilson, J.A., The Oath in Ancient Egypt', JNES 7(1948), pp. 129-56. Wilson, R.L., 'Enforcing the Covenant: The Mechanisms of Judicial Authority in Early Israel' in H.B. Huffmon et al. (eds), The Quest for the Kingdom of God. Studies in Honor of G.E.Mendenhall (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 59-75. Wiseman, D.J., 'Abban and Alalah', JCS 12(1958), pp. 124-9. , The Alalakh Tablets (London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953). , '"Is it Peace?" - Covenant and Diplomacy', VT 32(1982), pp. 311-26. , The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon', Iraq 20(1958), pp. 1-99, pi. 1-53. Wolff, H.W., 'Jahwe als Bundesvermittler', VT 6(1956), pp. 316-20. Wright, G.E., God Who Acts. Biblical Theology as Recital (London: SCM, 1952).

Bibliography

209

, 'The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32' in B.W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds), Israel's Prophetic Heritage. Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg, (NY: Harper & Bros., 1962), pp. 26-67. Yoshida, D. and A. Kammenhuber, 'Hurriter und Hethiter. Mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Beziehung zwischen Hatti und Kizzuwatna', Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 8(1995), pp. 201-12. Younger, K.L., Jr, 'Assyrian Involvement in the Southern Levant at the End of the Eighth century BCE' in A. Killebrew and A. Vaughan (eds), Jerusalem. New Studies (forthcoming). Yuhong, W., 'The Treaty between Shadlash (Sumu-Numhim) and Neribtum (Hammi-Dushur)', Journal of Ancient Civilizations 9(1994), pp. 124—36. Zaccagnini, C., 'The Forms of Alliance and Subjugation in the Near East of the Late Bronze Age' in L. Canfora, M. Liverani and C. Zaccagnini (eds), I trattati nelmondo antico. Forma, ideologia, funzione (Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1990), pp. 37-79. Zevit, Z., 'A Phoenician Inscription and Biblical Covenant Terminology', IEJ 27(1977), pp. 110-18. Zijl, P.J. van, 'Translation and Discussion of Text 1001:1-2(RS 15.134:1-2)', Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 2(1972), pp. 74-85.

INDEX OF BIBLE REFERENCES Genesis 9:12-15 144 15 117, 149-50, 166n 15:7-21 117 17 117 17:1 117 17:10-14 144 21:30 144 31:54 145 31:44-52 144 31:46-54 146 Exodus 19-24 139 19:3-6 154 19:5 154 20 135-7, 139 20:1-7 139 20:1-2 151 20:2 154 20:3-17 155 20:22-23:19 155 24:4-8 145 24:5-11 146 24:7 149 24:9-11 145 25:16, 21 140 25:21 141 34:1 140-1 40:20 141 Leviticus 8:15, 19 146 16:14-16 146 Deuteronomy 4:2 169 5 154 27:1-8 156

27:5-8 145 28:26-35 167 28:27 168 28:30 168 31:24-6 156 Joshua 22 144 24 135-7, 151^4, 156 24:26 144 Judges 8:33 163-4 9:4 163^ 9:46 163 1 Samuel 12:6-25 156 18:3, 4 144 2 Samuel 5:3 121n 7 166n 7:5-16 144 1 Kings 15:11-13 ,3 172 2 Kings 11:17-18 172 12:2-16 172 18:3-6, 22 172 18:4 166n Isaiah 1:2-20 159n 24:5 161n 28:18 127 33:8 161n 36:7 166n

Index of Bible ReferencesS Jeremiah 7:7 161n 21:2 161n 34 150 34:17-20 148

Hosea 6:7 159 8:1 159 Micah 6:1-8 159n

211

INDEX OF AUTHORS Albright, W.F. 107, 164 Altaian, A. 81, 82 Archi, A. 116 Baltzer, K. 69 Begrich, J. 144 Bickerman, E.J. 149

McCarthy, D.J. 124, 145, 147-9, 154 Mendenhall, G.E. 5, 6, 119, 135, 137, 141, 149, 151-2, 156-7, 161-3, 178 Morschauser, S.N. 109 Otten, H. 65

Carruba, O. 69 Charpin, D. 16, 25, 123 De Moor, J.C. 126-7 Dossin, G. 119 Durand, J.-M. 25

Parpola, S. 49 Perlitt, L. 6, 152, 154, 165 Pettinato, G. 114 Priest, J.F. 147 Roux, G.

16

Ebeling, E. 40 Fleming, D.E. 121-2 Friedrich, J. 5 Gelb, I.J. 51 Goedicke, H. 109 Goetze, A. 66 Harvey, J. 159 Hinz, W. 19 Kitchen, K.A. 107 Kline, M.G. 140-1, 169 Koopmans, W.T. 126, 163 Korosec, V. 5, 73, 94, 152 Lewis, T.J. 164 Liverani. M. 45, 105 Lorton, D. 106, 109

Schachermeyr, F. 77 Schuler, E. von 65 Smith, W.R. 149-50 Soggin, J.A. 107 Sollberger, E. 114 Tadmor, H. 168 Texidor, J. 131 Van Dijk, J. 131 Veenhof, K.R. 108 Weidner, E.F. 5, 93 Weinfeld, M. 30, 148-9, 167 Wellhausen, J. 135, 141, 160, 162, 172, 178 Westbrook, R. 36, 105 Wilhelm, G. 62 Wilson, J.A. 109