“We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King”

“We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” The Aleppo Treaty Reconsidered Elena Devecchi Summary The article discusses the formal features of the Aleppo Treaty (CTH 75) and its position in the diversified corpus of documents issued by the Hittite kings for the rulers of subjugated territories, especially for those who were members of the Hittite royal family. A renewed analysis of the text as well as comparison with the Tarhuntašša treaties allows to hypothesize ˘ that its peculiarities do not depend on its being an official copy of an older document, but may well belong to the original document issued by Muršili II and reflect the very nature of CTH 75, which in many ways bears more similarity to a land grant than to a subjugation treaty. An appendix is dedicated to the prosopographical analysis of the human witnesses who are listed at the end of the Treaty. 1. Preliminary remarks1 The text catalogued by Laroche as CTH 75 and commonly known as the Aleppo Treaty is an official copy, authorized by the Hittite king Muwattalli II, of a document originally issued by his father and predecessor Muršili II for TalmiŠarruma, Muršili’s nephew and king of Aleppo. CTH 75 has drawn scholars’ attention mainly because of its long historical excursus that constitutes the first part of the text and reports on the relations among Hatti, Mittani and ˘ I, and possibly Aleppo from the time of Hattušili I until that of Šuppiluliuma ˘ even later, until the reign of Muršili II. Many of the historical issues raised by this prologue are still debated,2 but this article will concentrate on the formal features of the text and its position in the diversified corpus of documents issued by the Hittite kings for the rulers of subjugated territories, especially for those who were members of the Hittite royal family. 1 This article, which is based on a chapter of my PhD dissertation “Editti e trattati nel mondo ittita: tipologia, struttura e modalità di redazione” (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia 2008), is a revised and expanded version of a paper presented at the 55eme Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris 6–9 July 2009). I wish to thank Stefano de Martino, Theo van den Hout, Shai Gordin, Marco Marizza and Jared L. Miller for having read this paper and offered me a number of useful remarks. I owe important improvements on the reading of some witnesses’ names to the kind suggestions of Jared L. Miller and Daniel Schwemer. 2 See the studies by Goetze 1928–1929, Na’aman 1980, Steiner 1999, Archi 1999, Altman 2004, 354ff. Die Welt des Orients, 40. Jahrgang, S. 1–27, ISSN 0043-2547 © 2010 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2 Elena Devecchi 2. The manuscripts The Aleppo Treaty was written in Akkadian and handed down only by archival copies recovered at the site of the Hittite capital, Hattuša. The best preserved ˘ to the collection of the copy, published as KBo 1.6 (CTH 75.A), now belongs British Museum, which kindly allowed me to collate the tablet (BM 140856).3 Four other manuscripts have been identified as exemplars of the Aleppo Treaty,4 but only one of them (CTH 75.B) can be ascribed to it with certainty, since it also preserves the part added by Muwattalli to his father’s document. The other three fragments preserve only a few lines of the historical prologue (CTH 75.D) and the normative section (CTH 75.C and E) and could theoretically be ascribed to either Muršili’s original text or Muwattalli’s later copy. It should also be noted that manuscripts A, B, C and E run quite parallel, while the text of D often diverges from the other copies in both wording and content.5 Copies A and B share some orthographic features that distinguish them from the rest of the Akkadian corpus of Boǧazköy. Peculiar is for instance the form a-bu-ú-a, “my father” (CTH 75.A obv. 3, 7, 33; CTH 75.B obv. 3),6 which witnesses a typical Middle Babylonian phonetic phenomenon attested especially in the forms of abu and ahu.7 Also noteworthy are the Assyrian forms ˘ obv. 5 ad-dan-na-aš-šu; CTH 75.B obv. 5’ of the present of nadānu (CTH 75.A 8 ad-dá-an-na-a[š-šu]), which occur in Akkadian texts from Hattuša only here ˘ (CTH 92 obv. and in the treaty between Hattušili III and Bentešina of Amurru ˘ 9 14, 15, 30). 3. Dating of the text Two different dates have been proposed for the drafting of CTH 75. On the one hand it has been suggested that Muwattalli II issued it during his military campaign in Syria, usually dated to the end of his reign, in order to stabilize and strengthen Hittite power in the region.10 According to the testimony of the document itself, however, the Hittite king issued it because the original 3 Of great help were also the three-dimensional, high-resolution images taken by Hendrik Hameeuw in July 2009 with the “mini-dome” of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/assyriologie/cuneiform.htm). 4 CTH 75.B = KUB 3.6; CTH 75.C = KUB 3.5; CTH 75.D = KBo 28.120; CTH 75.E = KUB 48.72. 5 See also Klengel 1964, 213. 6 Labat 1932, 88–89. 7 Aro 1955, 33 and 67. 8 According to a typical Middle Babylonian habit (GAG §78e h and Aro 1955, 80), the present is used here to indicate an action that took place in the past. 9 Labat 1932, 171 and CAD N I, nadānu 1a 6’, 44. 10 Klengel 1999, 216–218; Ünal 1993–1997, 526. “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 3 had been stolen, and it therefore must be considered very unlikely that the main reason for issuing it was strategic or political. On the other hand, it has been noted that the presence of CTH 75 in the archives of Hattuša could ˘ the capital indicate that it might have been issued before Muwattalli moved to Tarhuntašša,11 an event which is tentatively dated to the early years of his reign.12˘ This hypothesis might find further support in the absence of the epithet “beloved of the Storm God of Lightning” among the titles of Muwattalli in the text’s preamble, a detail that might indicate that at the time he issued the text he had not yet adopted the Storm God of Lightning as his personal deity.13 4. Classification of the text The Aleppo Treaty shows a number of formal and structural peculiarities that distinguish it from what one might call the “standard” subjugation treaties, like those ratified by the Hittite kings with their Syrian (CTH 49, 53, 62, 66, 92, 105) and Anatolian vassals (CTH 67, 68, 69, 76). These “standard” subjugation treaties are characterized by two basic elements, namely the bond, which represents the sovereign’s will, and the oath, which is sworn by the vassal in acceptance of the bond. These two elements are represented in a subjugation treaty by a number of features of the terminology and structure of the text.14 If one compares CTH 75 with a standard subjugation treaty, however, one notices the absence of all the typical elements that represent the oath, i.e.: (a) the words for oath (māmı̄tu, nı̄š ili/ilāni); (b) the hypothetical formulation in the normative section, where the usual apodosis is “you will have transgressed the oath” (i.e. “if you do/do not … , you will have transgressed the oath”); (c) a paragraph with the conferral of kingship and the fidelity request; (d) a proper list of divine witnesses with curses and blessings. Furthermore, the text shows another peculiar feature, a list of human witnesses, which is never found in the standard subjugation treaties. The exceptionality of the Aleppo Treaty was of course noticed already long ago,15 and scholars have focused mainly on two of its anomalies, namely the absence of a proper list of divine witnesses and the presence of human witnesses, which they have explained with reference to its being an official copy 11 Pecchioli Daddi 2002, 154. 12 Singer 1996, 187; Singer 1998a, 535–541. 13 See however Singer 1996, 187 who is sceptical about using the presence/absence of this epithet as a dating element for Muwattalli’s texts. 14 See Devecchi forthcoming. 15 Von Schuler 1965, 457ff. 4 Elena Devecchi of an older document.16 However, renewed analysis of the text as well as comparison with the Tarhuntašša treaties (CTH 106.A and 106.B) seem to point in ˘ another direction, suggesting that the peculiarities of the Aleppo Treaty may well belong to the original document issued by Muršili II and reflect the very nature of the text. Before turning to the analysis of CTH 75, it may be instructive to recall two passages of Muršili’s Extensive Annals, which clearly show that the Hittite king made a distinction between the status of Talmi-Šarruma and that of a proper subject: (12) [n]am[ma=za m …-lu]gal-ma (13) dumu m lugal-d 30-uh ina kur uru Kargamiš lugal-[un iya]nun (14) nu=šši kur uru Kargamiš šer linganunun ˘(15)m Talmi-lugal-man=ma dumu m Telipinu ina kur uru Halpa (16) lugal-un iyanun nu=šši kur uru Halpa šer linga- nunun ˘ ˘ Then [I ma]de […-Ša]rruma, son of Šarri-Kušuh, kin[g] in the land of Karkamiš and made ˘ I made Talmi-Šarruma, son of Telipinu, the land of Karkamiš swear loyalty to him, while king in the land of Aleppo and made the land of Aleppo swear loyalty to him. CTH 61.II, KBo 4.4 III 12–16 nu=za m Manapa-d 10-an kur ı́d Šeha=ya ı̀r-anni dahhun ˘ ˘˘ Then I took into servitude Manapa-Tarhunta and the Land of the Šeha River.17 ˘ ˘ CTH 61.II, KUB 14.15 IV 33 In the first passage the appointments of Talmi-Šarruma as king of Aleppo and of […-Ša]rruma as king of Karkamiš are described with the expression “to make king” (lugal-un iya-), while in the second, where the subjugation of Manapa-Tarhunta of the Land of the Šeha River in the fourth year of his reign ˘ ˘ take into servitude” (ı̀r-anni da-). is recorded, Muršili uses the expression “to Also of interest is the different terminology used with regard to the territory ruled by a member of the Hittite royal family and that ruled by a proper vassal: in the first case, it is said that Muršili made the land of Karkamiš and the land of Aleppo swear loyalty to […-Ša]rruma and Talmi-Šarruma, respectively, probably a necessary procedure since they did not belong to a local dynasty that could claim hereditary rights to their thrones;18 in the case of ManapaTarhunta, on the contrary, the Anatolian ruler together with his own kingdom ˘ into servitude of the Hittite king. enters 16 See e.g. McCarthy 1978, 70, who lists CTH 75 among “the treaties which are special not from their different purposes and circumstances, but simply because, whatever kind they were, they have come to us as copies of an original which they quote” (McCarthy’s cursive). 17 Described in the same way in Muršili’s Ten Years Annals (KBo 3.4 III 21–22). 18 Interestingly enough, this procedure was considered necessary even though the fathers of both […-Ša]rruma and Talmi-Šarruma had held the kingship of Karkamiš and Aleppo before them. “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 5 5. Structure of the text 5.1. The first paragraph (CTH 75.A obv. 1–2) simply relates the identity of the Hittite king issuing the document, Muwattalli II. The second paragraph (CTH 75.A obv. 3–8) explains how Muwattalli issued, sealed and presented the document to Talmi-Šarruma because the original .tuppa rikilti, “tablet of the binding agreement”, prepared by Muršili had been stolen. This explanation is followed by a formula that is very peculiar for a treaty: (5) urram šēram amâtu ša pı̂ [tuppi] (6) annı̂ mamma lā ušpāh awāt Tabarna lugal gal ša l[ā] . ˘ nadê [ ] (7) ša lā šebēri ša ušpahhu ba.úš ˘˘ In the future nobody will alter the words of the content of this [tablet]. The word of Tabarna, Great King, is not to be cast away or to be broken. Whoever will alter (them), must die! CTH 75.A obv. 5–7 This wording, of course, is borrowed from the formulary of the royal Hittite land grants, or Landschenkungsurkunden: (a) The expression urram šēram, “in the future”, typical of Syrian juridical documents,19 was adopted as an Akkadogram already in the time of Telipinu and used to introduce the vindication formula of the royal land grants.20 In the treaties it is attested only in the agreement between Muwattalli and Alakšandu of Wiluša (CTH 76.B II 29), in a passage too fragmentary to establish its function. (b) The expression “the word of Tabarna, Great King, is not to be cast away or to be broken” (awāt Tabarna lugal gal ša l[ā] nadê [ ] ša lā šebēri) is a short version of a formula used in the land grants, where one finds “the word of Tabarna, Great King, is of iron, is not to be cast away or to be broken” (awāt tabarna lugal gal ša an.bar ša lā nadiam ša lā šebērim).21 The writing awāt is typical of the Akkadian texts predating the reign of Šuppiluliuma22 and is probably to be explained as residue of the fixed formulary used in the land grants, especially in view of the typical Empire period forms amâtu (CTH 75.A obv. 5) and amāti (CTH 75.A obv. 18, rev. 9’) in the rest of the text. The formula is also attested in the edict issued by Muršili II to acknowledge the status of Piyaššili of Karkamiš (CTH 57), in the edict of Hattušili III for the hekur of Pirwa (CTH 88) and in Tuthaliya IV’s edict for˘ Šahurunuwa’s ˘ ˘ ˘ descendants (CTH 225). 19 The majority of the attestations is found in juridical documents from Mari, Alalah and Ugarit ˘ (CAD Š II, šēru A 3, 334; AHw III, urra(m) 3, 1432–1433). 20 Riemschneider 1958, 332–334. 21 Riemschneider 1958, 334–335 and Güterbock 1967, 49. 22 Durham 1976, 430. 6 Elena Devecchi (c) The curse “whoever will alter it, must die” (ša ušpahhu ba.úš) occurs also in ˘ ˘ ‘Tabarna seals’ used the legends of some royal seals, especially in the so-called for the royal land grants.23 The Š form of puhhu (ušpāh, ušpahhu) is attested ˘ ˘ land grants ˘ ˘ ˘ P, puhhu 3, only in this text and in some of the Hittite royal (CAD 483; AHw II, puhhu Š, 876). The Hittite parallel to this curse is attested ˘in˘ the ˘˘ edict issued by Šuppiluliuma I for Piyaššili of Karkamiš (CTH 50).24 How should one interpret Muwattalli’s choice to use in the explanatory preamble a formulary that so explicitly recalls textual typologies like the royal land grants and the edicts? Since form corresponds to substance in politics and law, it may be seriously doubted that it is a matter of simple coincidence. The choice was likely conditioned by the very nature of the text, which Muwattalli and his scribes considered more comparable to the documentary typologies of the royal grants and/or edicts than a subjugation treaty. The absence of elements relating to the swearing of an oath and the presence of human witnesses would also fall in line with this explanation. The introduction to the text ends with the following statement: (7) u (8)m Muršili ēpušaššu akanna šater .tuppa rikilti ša abū[a] . The tablet of the binding agreement that [my] father Muršili made for him was written as follows. CTH 75.A obv. 7–8 This statement, set off by a paragraph line, clearly indicates that from this point on the text literally quotes the original document issued by Muršili II, and indeed the rest of the text is formulated as a dictate of Muršili. Thus, barring evidence to the contrary, one can safely assume that only the first two paragraphs of CTH 75 should be ascribed to Muwattalli, while the rest of the text should correspond to Muršili’s original. In other words, the peculiarities found in the rest of the text would date back to Muršili and should be explained with this in mind. 5.2. Muršili’s original document, as preserved in Muwattalli’s copy, began with a paragraph with his name and titles (CTH 75.A obv. 9–10), which poses no interpretative difficulties. It is followed by the historical prologue (CTH 75.A obv. 11 ff.), which is a goldmine of information on the relations among Hatti, ˘ Mittani and Aleppo, and has thus been the object of many studies, but provides no data relevant for the issue at hand. The last preserved lines of the prologue deal with the time of Šuppiluliuma I, and it is very likely that in the missing part the narration continued with events that took place during the reign of 23 See Güterbock 1967, 45 (seal n. 80) and 51–53 (seals nn. 85–91). In the formulary of the royal land grants one finds instead ša ušpahhu sag.du-su inakkisū (Riemschneider 1958, 335ff.). ˘ 24 KUB 19.27 edge: ma-]a-an-kán wa-ah˘-nu-zi nu-kán ba.ú[š] (d’Alfonso 2006, 321). ˘ “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 7 Muršili II. None of the extant copies of CTH 75 preserves this final part of the historical prologue, but considering that only a few lines are missing at the end of the obverse and the beginning of the reverse of the best-preserved copy, one can safely assume that the prologue continued until the end of the obverse and maybe also for a few lines of the reverse.25 5.3. The text resumes with the normative section, of which seemingly only a few lines are missing. The extant part of the normative section (CTH 75.A rev. 1’–16’) is composed of only two clauses, each consisting of one paragraph. The first clause (CTH 75.A rev. 1’–10’) is formulated in terms of absolute parity, stating that Muršili II, Talmi-Šarruma and their offspring should help (rês.u) and protect (nas.āru) each other, since “we are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King”. In the second paragraph of the normative section (CTH 75.A rev. 11’–16’) it is stated that the kingship of Aleppo shall not prevail over the kingship of Hatti, the clause on reciprocal protection is repeated, and the rights of accession ˘to the throne of Aleppo for the descendants of Talmi-Šarruma are guaranteed. An oft debated element of the normative section is the statement found at the end of the first paragraph: ina amāti annı̄ti dingirmeš ša kur uru Hatti u dingirmeš ša kur uru Halap lū šı̄būtu ˘ ˘ May the gods of Hatti and the gods of Aleppo be witnesses to this matter! ˘ CTH 75.A rev. 9’–10’ This invocation reminds one of the incipit of the lists of divine witnesses of the subjugation treaties, and indeed von Schuler proposed that it should be seen as a remnant of the list of divine witnesses that would have been contained in Muršili’s original text.26 The absence of a complete list of divine witnesses and of the curses and blessings that usually accompany it has been or could be explained in at least three ways, whereby a lack of comparable cases makes it difficult to definitively argue for one against the others. First, it has been assumed that the oath sworn by Talmi-Šarruma at the time of Muršili would still have been valid when Muwattalli issued his copy of the document, and that it was therefore not necessary to recopy the section with divine witnesses, curses and blessings, a section closely linked to the swearing 25 Cf. the inaccurate statement by Altman 2004, 60: “almost the entire stipulatory section is missing, and only the first part of its historical prologue is preserved”. 26 Von Schuler 1965, 458. Cf. McCarthy 1978, 71 n. 67: “the allusion in r. 9–10 is merely part of a rhetorical exhortation to mutual fidelity in the treaty and not its god list”. It should also be noted that the invocation of the gods of Hatti and Aleppo at the end of the first paragraph ˘ of the normative section does not end Muršili’s original document (pace McCarthy 1978, 70), because the wording of the second paragraph clearly shows that Muršili remains the speaker. 8 Elena Devecchi of an oath.27 Alternatively, one could ascribe the absence of these elements to the fact that the text is an archival copy, which is not without precedent. The Hittite manuscript of the subjugation treaty imposed by Šuppiluliuma on Aziru of Amurru (CTH 49.II), for instance, does not contain the section with divine witnesses, curses and blessings,28 which is present in at least one of the copies of the Akkadian version (CTH 49.I A rev. 1’ ff.). Thus, if only the Hittite version of Aziru’s treaty had been recovered, one might well have come to the conclusion that this was an exception among the standard subjugation treaties, while comparison with the Akkadian version shows that this section was simply not copied by the scribe. Third, the absence of these sections might suggest that the original text issued by Muršili contained nothing explicitly requiring Talmi-Šarruma to take an oath before the Hittite king, i.e. one might doubt whether Talmi-Šarruma actually had to swear an oath to the Great King at all. This would of course represent a striking anomaly in the normal procedure followed by the Hittite kings for ensuring the loyalty of their subjects. Still, the perfectly symmetrical formulation of the first paragraph of the normative section would seem to require an oath to be sworn by both parties, as they are equally bound by its provisions, while the second paragraph prescribes measures quite favourable to Talmi-Šarruma, whose interest lay in respecting them whether he was bound by a loyalty oath or not. 5.4. The Aleppo Treaty ends with a list of human witnesses (CTH 75.A rev. 17’–22’) introduced by the formula .tuppa annâ ina uru Hatti ana [pāni], a ˘ Both the list of section that never occurs in the standard subjugation treaties. human witnesses and this specific introductory formula are, however, typical of the Hittite royal land grants.29 The common interpretation of this section goes back to del Monte and his prosopographical study of this list of dignitaries, where he showed that at least four of them (Šahurunuwa lugal kur ˘ ur [u Karkamiš], Aranhapilizzi gal [u]ku.[u]š [ša zag], Lupakki gal dumumeš ˘ meš é.gal and Mittannamuwa gal dub.sar ) were surely in office during the reign of Muršili II while only two of them (Šahurunuwa and Mittannamuwa) ˘ II. He concludes that Muwatwere certainly still active at the time of Muwattalli talli summoned as witnesses individuals who were present when Muršili issued his document in order to guarantee that his copy of the Aleppo Treaty was faith27 Von Schuler 1965, 463; del Monte 1975, 2: “il giuramento era già stato pronunciato decenni prima, né erano intervenuti fatti nuovi che imponessero la sanzione di nuovi patti diversi dai precedenti, e quindi la pronuncia di un nuovo giuramento e l’annullamento dell’antico”; McCarthy 1978, 70–71 n. 67; Balza 2008, 410–411. 28 The text ends with the invocation of the divine witnesses (CTH 49.II IV 31’–33’), followed by an unwritten space of ca. 6 lines, after which the tablet breaks off. For reasons of space, it can be excluded that a list of divine witnesses, curses and blessings could have been contained in the break. 29 See already Riemschneider 1958, 337 and von Schuler 1965, 459–460. “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 9 ful to Muršili’s original.30 In other words, it is usually assumed that all these dignitaries were contemporaries of both Muršili II and Muwattalli II and were present at the issuing of both documents, but that the list with their names was added to the text only at the time of Muwattalli’s intervention. It may be argued, though, that the results of del Monte’s prosopographical study far more convincingly support precisely the opposite scenario, namely that it was Muršili II who summoned these officials as witnesses to the treaty, and that this list was contained already in the first version of the document, not added to the text at the time of Muwattalli II. Such an interpretation of the list of human witnesses is supported not only by the – at times admittedly uncertain – prosopographical data, but also and especially by comparison of the Aleppo Treaty with other documents that show similar features and/or were drafted in similar situations. The Tarhuntašša treaties (CTH 106.A and 106.B) are especially suitable for ˘ because Tarhuntašša, like Aleppo, was ruled by a branch of the comparison, ˘ include a double list of witnesses (a complete list Hittite royal family.31 Both of divine witnesses, followed by curses and blessings, and a list of human witnesses), thus showing that one type of witness list does not necessarily exclude the other. According to the explanation traditionally used to justify the absence of a proper list of divine witnesses with curses and blessings in the Aleppo Treaty, the presence of the complete list of divine witnesses in the Tarhuntašša treaties would be justified by the fact that both versions change the ˘terms of previous agreements, thus requiring the vassal to swear a new oath. If this were the case, however, why would the human witnesses also be summoned if, as assumed by del Monte with regard to the Aleppo Treaty, their function was to guarantee that the new document was faithful to the old one? Furthermore, assuming this to be the case, one would expect to find both divine and human witnesses also in the subjugation treaties of the second and third generations, which partially confirm previous agreements and partially introduce new stipulations. Further evidence that official copies of earlier documents did not need to be drafted in front of witnesses in order to guarantee their validity is provided by RS 17.334 (CTH 77), a copy produced by Ini-Teššub, king of Karkamiš, of a document originally issued by his grandfather, Šarri-Kušuh/Piyaššili, for ˘ engagement Niqmaddu, king of Ugarit, in order to regulate the latter’s military against Tette of Nuhašše. As stated in the colophon, the tablet originally sealed ˘ by Šarri-Kušuh/Piyaššili had been destroyed, so Ini-Teššub sealed a new copy ˘ and sent it to Ugarit. The situation is thus very similar to that which required the issuing of a new copy of the Aleppo Treaty, and no human witnesses were 30 Del Monte 1975, 1, followed by Balza 2008, 411. 31 On the human witnesses of the Tarhuntašša treaties see Imparati 1992, 305–322; Imparati 2004, 443–478 and van den Hout 1995. ˘ 10 Elena Devecchi summoned in order to confirm that Ini-Teššub’s new document was faithful to the original. In light of these considerations it seems quite unlikely that issuing the Aleppo and the Tarhuntašša treaties in the presence of human witnesses was neces˘ being later versions of previous agreements. Their peculiarity sitated by their should rather be traced back to the very nature of these documents,32 which in many ways bear more similarities to the land grants than to the subjugation treaties, and to the status of the treaty partners, who were all members of the Hittite royal family.33 A further element of the Aleppo and Tarhuntašša treaties that supports this ˘ interpretation is a paragraph in all three documents dealing with the right of ownership of the territory granted by the Hittite king to the addressee and the right of succession to the throne. These passages are embedded in the documents as follows: CTH 75 – Aleppo Treaty (1) Normative section (2) Divine witnesses (short list) (3) “[…] No one shall take anything from the possession of Talmi-Šarruma or the possession of his son and grandson. The son and grandson of TalmiŠarruma, king of Aleppo, shall hold the kingship of Aleppo” (CTH 75.A rev. 14’-16’). (4) Human witnesses CTH 106.A – Kurunta of Tarhuntašša ˘ (1) Normative section (2) Divine witnesses (complete list with curses and blessings) (3) “[…] In the future no one shall take away from the progeny of Kurunta that which I have given to Kurunta, king of the land of Tarhuntašša, or ˘ only the the frontiers which I have established for him. […] In the future progeny of Kurunta shall hold the kingship of the land of Tarhuntašša. ˘ […]” (CTH 106.A IV 21–27). (4) Human witnesses CTH 106.B – Ulmi-Teššup of Tarhuntašša ˘ (1) Normative section (2) Divine witnesses (complete list with curses and blessings) 32 Imparati 2004, 447 considered both explanations as possible. 33 In this regard it should be stressed once again that human witnesses are an institution of private law (see already von Schuler 1965, 461; van den Hout 1995, 7). Altman 2004, 61 and 355 further connects the presence of human witnesses to the rank of the counterpart; similarly Balza 2008, 414, but only with reference to the Tarhuntašša treaties. ˘ “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 11 (3) “[…] In the future no one shall take them (i.e. the frontiers) away from the descendant of Ulmi-Teššup, nor contest them with him at law. […] In the future only a descendant of Ulmi-Teššup shall hold the kingship of the land of Tarhuntašša. […]” (CTH 106.B rev. 22–25). ˘ (4) Human witnesses The wording of this paragraph differs somewhat in each of the three documents; especially in the treaties with Tarhuntašša it is more extensively artic˘ ulated than in that with Aleppo. But it always occupies the same position in the text, namely between the invocation of the divine witnesses and the list of human witnesses, and it clearly delivers the same core message, i.e. that nobody shall raise claims on the possessions of Talmi-Šarruma, Ulmi-Teššub and Kurunta, and that no one but their descendants will have the right to retain the kingships of Aleppo and Tarhuntašša. In light of this paragraph, it may ˘ be suggested that the human witnesses were summoned to acknowledge and guarantee that nobody would be able to threaten the rightful succession to the thrones of Aleppo and Tarhuntašša. ˘ the list of human witnesses to Muršili’s original Finally, the attribution of document is also supported by comparison with a much earlier, though in many ways similar, Syrian text, the treaty issued by Abba-an, king of Yamhad,34 ˘ the for his brother Yarim-Lim when granting him Alalah (AlT 456).35 Like ˘ Aleppo and Tarhuntašša treaties, this document includes a clause about the loyalty owed one˘another by the two counterparts, describes the rights retained by Yarim-Lim and his successors to the territory granted by Abba-an, and ends by listing the names of the persons who witnessed Yarim-Lim swearing an oath in acknowledgement of the treaty stipulations. The affinity between this text and those issued by the Hittite kings for Aleppo and Tarhuntašša is striking and ˘ is very likely to be traced back to the fact that all these treaties were concluded 36 among members of royal families. 6. Conclusions The list of human witnesses of CTH 75 likely belonged to the original document issued by Muršili II for Talmi-Šarruma of Aleppo. This list, as well as the other peculiarities of the Aleppo Treaty, need not be attributed to Muwattalli’s presumed intervention in the text, but rather to the very nature of the original 34 It is not clear whether the name should be read Abban or Abba‘el (Klengel 1992, 60). 35 The text was published by Wiseman 1958, but see also Draffkorn 1959 for important improvements of Wiseman’s readings. 36 See also Altman 2010, 23–24, for the discussion of further similarities between Abba-an’s text and the Hittite treaties. 12 Elena Devecchi document, which in many ways bears more similarity to a land grant than to a subjugation treaty.37 In lieu of a proper conclusion, I would like to close by pointing out what may be seen as a question for further research. It is interesting to compare the group just discussed with the documents issued by the Hittite sovereigns for the kings of Karkamiš, the other kingdom ruled by a branch of the Hittite royal family. These texts are extant in rather poorly preserved copies, which often disallow a full understanding of their structure and content, but it seems that in general they share very few traits with the documents issued for Aleppo and Tarhuntašša. Should one explain these differences with the special, more influ˘ role played by the king of Karkamiš in the administration of the Hittite ential empire? Possibly, but at the same time one should remember that officially the kings of Karkamiš and Tarhuntašša retained the same status, as they were both ˘ second only to the tuh(u)kanti, the Hittite crown prince.38 Or should one in˘ voke the haphazard nature of the archaeological finds and assume that similar documents must have existed for Karkamiš as well but that they have not yet been recovered? While no satisfactory answer to these questions can be offered here, it is hoped that these remarks on the Aleppo Treaty demonstrate that it is still possible to improve our understanding and classification of the political and normative tools developed by the Hittite kings for the administration of their empire. Appendix: The human witnesses of CTH 75 Since the publication of del Monte’s prosopographical study in 1975 the information available on these dignitaries has been increased by the publication of further cuneiform and Luwian hieroglyphic sources, which have only occasionally been discussed with regard to their relevance for dating CTH 75. Further, del Monte did not discuss the sources pertaining to the witness Kaššu. And finally, after his study the reading of four personal names was improved,39 necessitating a renewed prosopographical analysis. At the outset it should be noted that, because of the difficulty in determining whether the list of human witnesses of CTH 75 should be dated to Muršili II 37 Indeed, the similarity with the land grants is even more striking in the case of the Tarhuntašša ˘ treaties, in which a significant portion of the text is devoted to the description of the frontiers of the territory owned by Ulmi-Teššup/Kurunta. Considering the topic of CTH 75’s historical prologue, then, one could easily imagine that also the lost part of its normative section might have dealt with some territorial issues and the definition of Aleppo’s borders. 38 Mora 1993, 67–70. 39 D. Schwemer proposed reading dumu m nu.giš kiri6 in rev. 22’, and J. Miller pointed out the reading m lú for the immediately preceding signs; the latter also suggested the reading of the name Tuthaliya in rev. 18’. “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 13 or to Muwattalli II, the Aleppo Treaty alone should not be cited as conclusive evidence for the contemporaneity of any of the witnesses with either of the two kings. The names of only nine of the twelve dignitaries40 who acted as witnesses are sufficiently preserved to allow a confident reading (CTH 75.A rev. 17’–22’): 17’ .tup-pa an-na-a i-na uru Ha-at-ti a-na [pa-ni m.ur ]u Hal-pa-aš-šu-lu! -pı́ gal lú kuš7 ˘ a-li-ya gal lú kuš 18’ m Ša-hu-ru-nu-wa lugal˘ kur ur [u Kargamiš] m Tù-ut-h 7 ˘ 19’ m Ga-aš-šu-ú gal sanga m Du/Uš-ša/ta-[x x x x x x˘ x]-li lú u-ri-ia-an-ni 20’ m A-ra-an-ha-pı́-li-iz-zi gal [u]ku.[u]š [ša zag x x x x] gal uku.uš ša gùb ˘ gal dumumeš é.gal m Mi-it-ta-an-na-mu-u-wa gal dub.sarmeš x41 21’ m Lu-pa-ak-ki md kal-sum 22’ lú an-[t]u-wa-šal-li m lú dub.sar dumu m nu.giš kiri6  dub.sar iš-.tur  The witnesses are listed here according to their order of appearance. 1. Halpašulupi gal lú kuš7 42 (CTH 75.A rev. 17’) ˘ Del Monte and Beckman retain the reading ]-lı̀b-bi gal lú kuš7 , which goes back to Weidner’s edition of the text.43 The suggestion of reading the traces of the PN as [m.ur ]u Hal-pa-aš-šu-lu! -pı́ was initially put forward by Beal.44 ˘ The same spelling is attested in one manuscript of Hattušili III’s Apology (CTH ˘ one of Muršili II’s sons, m 81.B I 9 Hal-pa-aš-šu-lu-pı́-in), which reveals that ˘ 45 probably the eldest, bore the name. The PN Halpašulupi ([m Hal]-pa? -šu˘ ˘ however, lu-pı́) appears also in the inventory fragment HFAC 10 l. 9’, which, provides no further relevant information. Beside these cuneiform sources,46 40 This figure is based on the assumption that in the gap between m Du/Uš-ša/ta-[ and ]-li lú u-ri-ia-an-ni (CTH 75.A rev. 19’) one should integrate the end of the name of m Du/Ušša/ta-[, his title and the beginning of the uriyanni’s name. The hypothesis that m Du/Ušša/ta-[…]-li would be the name of the uriyanni (Pecchioli Daddi 1982, 268 and Beal 1992, 361) is highly unlikely, because the space in the gap is too large for only one personal name. Another possibility would be that m Du/Uš-ša/ta-[ bore two titles, but this also seems unlikely, since all the other witnesses of CTH 75 have only one title. 41 A sign that looks like me and might be the beginning of a repeated meš. 42 Since the title gal lú kuš7 could be followed by the specification “of the Right” or “of the Left”, and since in rev. 18’ there is another gal lú kuš7 , it is generally assumed that one must have been the gal lú kuš7 of the Right and the other the gal lú kuš7 of the Left (del Monte 1975, 5; Beal 1992, 374). 43 Weidner 1923, 86; Del Monte 1975, 5; Beckman 1999, 95. 44 Beal 1992, 374 and n. 1420; see also Ünal 1993–1997a, 440. 45 This assumption (cf. Ünal 1993–1997a, 440 and Klengel 1999, 207) is based on the order followed by Hattušili III in listing Muršili’s sons: Halpašulupi, Muwattalli, Hattušili (CTH 81.A ˘ ˘ ˘ I 9–10). 46 KUB 31.23 rev. 6’ is listed in the card catalogue in the Akademie der Wissenschaften in Mainz among the sources for Halpašulupi (I should thank Gabriella Stivala for having informed me of ˘ picture, however, one can see only m Hal-pa-x[, whereby x represents this attestation). From the what seems to be the beginning of a horizontal, which is usually˘read m Hal-pa-l[ú] (Ünal 1974, 133 and van den Hout 1998, 58). Halpa-x[ is mentioned here together˘ with Urhi-Teššup. ˘ ˘ 14 Elena Devecchi the only other attestation of this PN comes from the Nişantepe archive, where a cretula bearing the seal of a certain Halpasulupi (tonitrus.halpa-avis) was ˘ ˘ is only partially preserved recovered. Because of the title, which but can be restored as rex.[filius], and due to the noteworthy size and quality of the seal, it has been proposed to identify its owner with Muršili’s son.47 Despite the lack of any conclusive evidence indicating that these two individuals were one and the same person, the rarity of this PN makes the identification of the witness of the Aleppo Treaty with Muršili’s son quite likely. This assumption is supported also by the fact that Halpašulupi is the first dignitary to be mentioned in the list, thus presumably the˘ most important in the hierarchy; and since the title gal lú kuš is certainly not the highest in the Hittite administration, Halapašulupi’s 7 position at the head of the list should presumably be explained˘ by assuming that he was a prince. Because of the paucity of information on this prince it is impossible to establish for certain the reason(s) why he did not become king after his father, but precisely the fact that he is so rarely and vaguely mentioned in the documents touching on the end of Muršili’s reign and the beginning of Muwattalli’s suggests that an early death might have prevented him from ascending the throne.48 If Halpašulupi indeed died during Muršili’s reign,49 ˘ his presence among the witnesses of the Aleppo Treaty would be a strong indication in favour of dating this section to Muršili’s original document.50 2. Šahurunuwa lugal kur uru [Karkamiš] (CTH 75.A rev. 18’) ˘ Beside the Aleppo Treaty there is no other source explicitly recording the contemporaneity of this witness with either Muršili II or Muwattalli II, but the approximate extent of Šahurunuwa’s reign can be inferred from other sources. ˘ reign, the main problem is whether he should be As for the beginning of his identified with […-Ša]rruma, son of Piyaššili/Šarri-Kušuh, who was appointed king of Karkamiš by Muršili II in his ninth year. Based on˘ the genealogy ŠarriKušuh – Šahurunuwa – Ini-Teššub – Talmi-Teššub recorded by texts found ˘ at Ugarit, it˘ is usually assumed that Šahurunuwa and […-Ša]rruma would ˘ be the Anatolian and Hurrian names, respectively, of the same person.51 This scenario would present no difficulties for the hypothesis argued in this paper, 47 Herbordt 2005, 132 (cat. n. 111) and Hawkins 2005, 254. 48 Ünal 1974, 147; Klengel 1999, 208. 49 One should recall the seemingly exceptional case of Muršili II, who became king of Hatti as a ˘ young boy even though (at least) two older brothers of his (Piyaššili/Šarri-Kušuh and Telipinu) ˘ were still alive and competent. 50 Contra Ünal 1993–1997b, 524–525. 51 This hypothesis, which goes back to Klengel 1965, 77, has been widely accepted (see e.g. Hawkins 1976–1980, 430; d’Alfonso 1999, 317; Skaist 2005, 609; Klengel 2006–2008, 542). It was also suggested that […-Ša]rruma could be equated with the Tuthaliya mentioned in KBo 3.3++ IV ˘ 58 fn. 164), but see Miller 2007, 3’ and 6’ next to the title “king of Karkamiš” (d’Alfonso 2005, 134 for counterarguments. “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 15 as it would enable an identification of Šahurunuwa of the list of witnesses with the newly installed king of Karkamiš, Šah˘ urunuwa = […-Ša]rruma. However, ˘ Liverani, and then more thoroughly Heinhold-Krahmer, pointed out that this 52 identification is far from certain. One must consider the possibility that the genealogy recorded by the Ugarit texts might be limited to the direct line of descent (grandfather – father – son – grandson), thereby omitting any brother or cousin who might have reigned in between. Heinhold-Krahmer also notes that, assuming Piyaššili/Šarri-Kušuh would be the father of both […-Ša]rruma ˘ indicate that the kings of Karkamiš used and Šahurunuwa, this would seem to ˘ an Anatolian name before their ascent to the throne, while a Hurrian one was adopted only afterwards; and this, in turn, would clash with the hypothesis that […-Ša]rruma would have adopted the Anatolian name Šahurunuwa. In ˘ light of Liverani’s and Heinhold-Krahmer’s considerations, one cannot exclude the possibility that a son of Piyaššili/Šarri-Kušuh named […-Ša]rruma may have reigned over Karkamiš before Šahurunuwa.˘53 Of course, this possibility ˘ not have become king of Karkamiš does not mean that Šahurunuwa could ˘ following […-Ša]rruma but still during the reign of Muršili II; but rejecting the identification of […-Ša]rruma with Šahurunuwa is problematic if one ˘ Treaty was issued by Muršili assumes that the original version of the Aleppo th II in his 9 year when he installed Talmi-Šarruma and […-Ša]rruma on their thrones.54 For the end of Šahurunuwa’s reign, the most important source is the text Emar 201, an act issued˘in the presence of Ini-Teššup during the very first years of his reign and mentioning previous decisions made by Muršili, likely to be identified with Muršili III/Urhi-Teššup55 and executed on his behalf by ˘ Šahurunuwa. Thus, Šahurunuwa’s contemporaneity with both Muršili II and ˘ ˘ Muwattalli II can be regarded at least as very likely, if not completely certain. 3. Tuthaliya gal lú kuš7 (CTH 75.A rev. 18’, see figs. 1–3) ˘ Among the several documents that record individuals named Tuthaliya,56 one ˘ can isolate a group that is likely related to the witness of the Aleppo Treaty. The most important source is a relief recovered at Alalah showing a man and ˘ a woman in attitude of adoration. The male figure is identified by a Luwian 52 Liverani 1966, 321; Heinhold-Krahmer 2002, 372–375. 53 Miller 2007, 149 n. 70 proposed a possible alternative, suggesting that […-Ša]rruma might be “nothing more than an anticipatory scribal error conditioned by the occurrence of m Tal-milugal-ma-an-ma just two lines later”. 54 It should be noted that this would represent a problem for those who argue that the list of human witnesses was added by Muwattalli II, too, because they assume that he summoned dignitaries who were present at the time when Muršili issued the original version of the treaty. 55 See lately Skaist 2006, 614 and Cohen – d’Alfonso 2008, 12–14 with a discussion of indices that might support an identification with Muršili II. 56 Cf. Laroche 1966, 191–192; Laroche 1981, 46; as well as Trémouille’s onomastic list at http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/hetonom/. 16 Elena Devecchi hieroglyphic inscription as “Tuthaliya magnus.auriga rex.filius”.57 It was ˘ individual with Tuthaliya IV, but it is now originally proposed to equate this ˘ commonly accepted that he should be identified with a Hittite prince in charge of governing Alalah. Considering that the hieroglyphic title magnus.auriga is equivalent to the˘ cuneiform gal lú kuš7 ,58 it is very tempting to assume that the witness of the Aleppo Treaty is the same official portrayed on the Alalah relief. The latter has often been regarded as a contemporary of Muršili II on ˘the basis of his identification with the Tuthaliya mentioned in Muršili II’s dictate CTH 63, but in his recent treatment ˘of this text Miller excludes that the Tuthaliya mentioned there could have been stationed in Alalah and ˘ that he might have been a governor or mayor at Aštata.59˘Even suggests instead if the identification of Tuthaliya from Alalah with the Tuthaliya mentioned ˘ ˘ ˘ in CTH 63 cannot be maintained, there are other sources suggesting that the magnus.auriga of the Alalah relief might have been active during the early ˘ despite the poor state of preservation, is a Empire. Of central importance, letter recovered at Alalah (AlT 35) sent by “His Majesty” to Tuthaliya.60 The ˘ ˘ preserved, text, of which only the heading and part of the greeting formula are shows palaeographical features pointing towards a date during the reigns of Šuppiluliuma I/Muršili II. Another document that can be roughly dated to this period and linked to Tuthaliya from Alalah is the letter KBo 9.83 sent by ˘ Tuthaliya to the Hittite king.61˘The sender mentions some matter related to the ˘ town of Gaduma, probably located south-east of Aleppo, thus in an area that could have belonged to Alalah’s jurisdiction. In sum, the identical title and the time span to which Tuthaliya˘of the Alalah relief can be dated make him a very ˘ A further element that might lend likely candidate for the ˘witness of CTH 75. support to this assumption is the fact that the kingdoms of Alalah and Aleppo ˘ to serve as were neighbours, which makes the summoning of Alalah’s governor ˘ a witness to a treaty with Aleppo quite reasonable. Even if the identification of the witness with the Tuthaliya from Alalah seems the most convincing solution, ˘ it is worth mentioning ˘the existence of another official named Tuthaliya and active during the reign of Muršili II. In his subjugation treaty with˘KupantaKurunta of Mira-Kuwaliya, Muršili warns his vassal that “in the direction of Maddunašša, the fortified camp of Tuthaliya shall be your frontier” (CTH ˘ 68.C I 29–30). Considering the military context, one cannot exclude that this 57 A picture of this relief can be found in Bittel 1976, 202 fig. 231. See de Martino 2010, 94, for a recent overview of and literature on this relief. 58 Hawkins 2005, 301–302. 59 Miller 2007, 137 fn. 40. It should be noted that these two Tuthaliyas might still be the same ˘ Alalah and later in Aštata, or person at different stages of his career, i.e. previously stationed in ˘ the other way around. 60 The text was published by Niedorf 2002, who also discussed its dating. See also Marizza 2009, 156 and Hoffner 2009, 374. 61 Latest treatment in Marizza 2009, 157–158. “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 17 Tuthaliya was a gal lú kuš7 , but the evidence in his favour is clearly much ˘ than for Tuthaliya magnus.auriga from Alalah. Among the other weaker ˘ attestations of individuals named Tuthaliya none can be ˘unequivocally dated to the time of Muwattalli II, but it is˘ of course possible that the previously discussed officials were still active during his reign. Figs. 1–3. KBo 1.6 obv. 18’: texture, shaded and line drawing screen shots from the “minidome” images 4. Kaššu gal sanga (CTH 75.A rev. 19’) In his thorough analysis of the several sources mentioning individuals named Kaššu, van den Hout proposed reading the title in CTH 75 as gal nimgir,62 instead of gal sanga as usually assumed,63 but collation of the tablet seems to confirm the reading gal sanga. It should also be recalled that according to Beal it is impossible to demonstrate that the title gal nimgir was still in use after the reign of Hattušili I.64 The summoning of a gal sanga as a witness represents ˘ an exception in comparison with the other known list of witnesses,65 but it can perhaps be explained by the importance of Aleppo as a religious centre, whose first ruler of Hittite origin was Telipinu, “the sanga-priest”. In view of the attestations that mention Hittite kings and princes bearing the title of lú sanga,66 one could hypothesize that this gal sanga might be identical with the Kasu rex.filius known from a seal impression found at Boǧazköy.67 62 Van den Hout 1995, 226–232. See previously also Ünal 1976–1980, 473–474. Presumably Taggar-Cohen (2006, 142ff. and 167ff.) agrees with van den Hout’s hypothesis, since she does not mention Kaššu gal sanga in her book on Hittite priesthood. 63 Weidner 1923, 88; Laroche 1966, 89; Beckman 1999, 95; Balza 2008, 409. 64 Beal 1992, 360. 65 No gal sanga or more generally members of the priestly class appear as witnesses in the Tarhuntašša treaties or in the Landschenkungsurkunden. ˘ 66 Taggar-Cohen 2006, 369ff. 67 SBo II n. 32. It should be noted, however, that only the title lú sanga is attested in association with kings and princes, not the title gal sanga. 18 Elena Devecchi This possibility, even if it would prove to be correct, does not seem to be helpful for dating purposes, because presently it is not known which Hittite king was the father of prince Kaššu. After van den Hout’s study only one new source mentioning a Kaššu has been published, namely a bulla from Nişantepe sealed by a certain Kasu rex x x x regio, whose identification with any of the previously known Kaššu is open to debate.68 5. Aranhapilizzi gal uku.uš [ša zag]69 (CTH 75.A rev. 20’) ˘ The name Aranhapilizzi70 occurs in sources covering a time period from the reign of Muršili˘ II to at least that of Urhi-Teššup, or even later if one ac˘ cepts Singer’s hypothesis that the events described in HT 7 should be dated to Hattušili III.71 Del Monte attributes all the occurrences of the name to the same ˘ individual, i.e. the witness of the Aleppo Treaty,72 but the only attestations that can be safely regarded as referring to the Aranhapilizzi summoned as witness ˘ Annals (CTH 61.II). Here a in CTH 75 are found in Muršili II’s Complete homonymous individual bearing the titles ga[l uku.u]š dumu.lugal is mentioned as leading a military campaign into Western Anatolia during the king’s 15th year, and the Aranhapilizzi mentioned in similar context, but without ˘ is very likely again the same person. An individual title, in Muršili’s 18th year named Aranhapilizzi is the author of the letters KBo 18.45 (to His Majesty) ˘ (to his lord) as well as the addressee of KBo 18.46, but the very and KBo 18.47 fragmentary state of the texts and the lack of the name of his correspondents hamper any more precise reconstruction. Another Aranhapilizzi is mentioned without title in connection with the transfer of the gods˘ from Tarhuntašša to ˘ Hattuša in the oracle KUB 16.66 I 14’, which has to be dated to or immediately ˘ 73 after the reign of Urhi-Teššup, and this would be the only indirect evidence ˘ named Aranhapilizzi to Muwattalli II. Thus, it is sure linking a high dignitary ˘ serving as gal uku.uš under Muršili that an official named Aranhapilizzi was ˘ II and it is likely that an Aranhapilizzi was active during the reign of Muwattalli ˘ they were one and the same person. II, but it cannot be proven that 68 Herbordt 2005, 141 (cat. n. 158) and Hawkins 2005, 258. 69 The integration [ša zag] is based on the assumed symmetry with the title of the following witness, who was gal uku.uš ša gùb and whose name is lost. 70 All the sources referring to Aranhapilizzi are collected by Hagenbuchner 1989, 17; Trémouille’s ˘ list at http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/hetonom/ books no new entries, and no seals belonging to individuals named Aranhapilizzi are mentioned by either Herbordt 2005 or Dinçol – Dinçol 2008. The list of persons in˘ KUB 26.54, where a certain Aranhap[i- is mentioned at ˘ l. 8’, is dated in the Konkordanz to the late Hittite empire but does not provide any information allowing a more precise date. 71 Singer 1991, 168 fn. 50. 72 Del Monte 1991–1992, 144. 73 See del Monte 1991–1992, 144 fn. 39 and Houwink ten Cate 1994, 234 fn. 5. “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 19 6. Lupakki gal dumumeš é.gal (CTH 75.A rev. 21’) Also in this case the Aleppo Treaty is the only source linking the witness with either Muršili II or Muwattalli II. Individuals named Lupakki are attested from the time of Šuppiluliuma I to the time of Tuthaliya IV, but in no other case ˘ one can only suggest some does one bear the title gal dumumeš é.gal. Thus, possible identifications, without reaching any certain conclusion. A possibility, proposed by del Monte but rejected by Marizza, is to identify the witness of the Aleppo Treaty with the Lupakki ugula 10 ša karaš known from CTH 40 as a contemporary of Šuppiluliuma.74 After the time of Šuppiluliuma the PN Lupakki appears again during Hattušili III’s reign associated with the title kar˘ identification with the witness of the Aleppo tappu (KUB 31.68 l. 39’), whose Treaty was discarded by del Monte because the office of kartappu is much lower than that of gal dumumeš é.gal held by Lupakki in CTH 75.75 For chronological reasons it can be excluded that the witness of the Aleppo Treaty should be identified with the priest Lupakki mentioned in a cult inventory dated to Tuthaliya IV’s reign (KUB 42.100 III 30’ and 39’). A number of other cuneiform ˘ mostly datable to the reigns of Hattušili III and Tuthaliya IV, record intexts, ˘ title, thus making˘ any identification dividuals named Lupakki, but with no 76 highly speculative. As for the hieroglyphic sources, several seals belonging to a Lupakki scriba are dated by Herbordt to the time of Šuppiluliuma I.77 Potentially this Lupakki could be the same person of the Aleppo Treaty, since it is known that the office of scribe could be coupled with that of gal dumumeš é.gal,78 but the identity of these dignitaries cannot be demonstrated for certain. Another Lupakki, who bears the title exercitus.scriba, is attested in the TAŞÇI inscription, and according to the interpretation offered by Hawkins he was the first cousin of Muršili II and first cousin once removed of Muwattalli II and Hattušili III,79 and could thus on the merely chronological level also come ˘ into question as a contemporary of both kings. Finally, a bulla bearing the seal 74 Del Monte 1975, 6–7 and Marizza 2006, 162. 75 Del Monte 1975, 6–7. It was also hypothesized that Lupakki bore the higher title of gal kartappu and was the addressee of the letter KBo 18.4, sent by the king of Išuwa to his father, an anonymous Chief of the Charioteers (Marizza 2009, 158–159 with previous literature), but see Hoffner 2009, 331 for a different opinion on the identity of the recipient. 76 These are (a) KBo 9.81 obv. 3, a letter sent by Lupakki to the king of Karkamiš and probably dating to Hattušili III (Klengel 1999, 246, but cf. Marizza 2009, 138 who proposes dating the ˘ letter to Šuppiluliuma I or Muršili II); (b) the Bronzetafel (Bo 86/299 IV 43), where Lupakki appears as the father of the scribe Halwaziti, who drafted the tablet; (c) KBo 18.1 rev. 2’ ff., a letter sent by Lupakki to the queen ˘probably to be dated to Tuthaliya IV (Hagenbuchner 1989, ˘ text datable to Hattušili III or 4 and 84–85); (d) KUB 31.28, 2’ and 6’, a fragment of an historical ˘ 192–193); Tuthaliya IV due to the presence of Lupakki together with Tattamaru (Mauer 1986, ˘ (e) KUB 31.52 obv. 11’, Puduhepa’s vow to the goddess Lelwani (Otten – Souček 1965, 18–19);( f) KUB 23.45 39’, a fragment˘of a letter. 77 See Herbordt 2005, 77 and 150 (cat. n. 207), and Hawkins 2005, 262. 78 On Hittite scribes see lately van den Hout 2009, 273ff. (esp. 276–277) with previous literature. 79 Hawkins 2005, 293. 20 Elena Devecchi of a Lupakki urceus was recovered in the Nişantepe archive.80 His equation with the witness of the Aleppo Treaty would be possible only if one assumes that he bore the title of urceus before becoming gal dumumeš é.gal, but since Herbordt proposes no date for this sealing, this hypothesis can for the moment not be demonstrated. 7. Mittannamuwa gal dub.sarmeš (CTH 75.A rev. 21’) The career of this dignitary is documented first and foremost by an edict issued by Hattušili III for Mittannamuwa’s successors (CTH 87).81 From this ˘ that Mittannamuwa was chief of the scribes during the reign of text one learns Muršili II, and that Muwattalli II“gave him Hattuša”(nu=šši uru Hattušan pešta, ˘ scribes. The expression ˘ CTH 87 obv. 17) and made his son chief of the “he gave him Hattuša” is usually interpreted as the appointment of Mittannamuwa as ˘ “mayor, governor”, of the Hittite capital, and it is generally assumed hazannu, ˘that this event took place when Muwattalli moved the capital to Tarhuntašša.82 However, Hattušili’s edict does not provide any specific hint in that˘ direction, but simply˘ states that Muwattalli “gave Hattuša” to Mittannamuwa after he ˘ became king. Moreover, texts like Arnuwanda I’s instructions for the hazannu (CTH 257.1 A) suggest that this position was regularly occupied,83˘ so that the appointment of Mittannamuwa is not necessarily to be seen as a special measure taken by Muwattalli on the occasion of the transfer of the capital. In short, Mittannamuwa was chief of the scribes during Muršili’s reign and at the beginning of Muwattalli’s reign, then, probably soon after the latter’s ascension to the throne, became governor of the city of Hattuša. In case the ˘ II, the presence of list of human witnesses was added to the text by Muwattalli Mittannamuwa as chief of the scribes would be another element in favour of dating the issuing of CTH 75 to Muwattalli’s first years of reign. 8. Kuruntapiya lú antuwašalli (CTH 75.A rev. 21’–22’) Apart from the Aleppo Treaty there is no explicit evidence linking this dignitary with either Muršili II or Muwattalli II. Kuruntapiya’s title was previously read lú antuwašalli lugal dub.sar “antuwašalli of the king, scribe”, which induced many scholars to equate him with a homonymous scribe,84 but since it has become clear that lugal dub.sar should be read m lú dub.sar, this identification must be reconsidered. A Kuruntapiya explicitly attested as scribe 80 Herbordt 2005, 151 (cat. n. 208). 81 The recently published tiny fragment KBo 50.180 provides a further attestation of this PN (l. 4’ [m M]i-it-tan-na-m[u-wa]), but no new substantial information on his career. 82 Del Monte 1975, 6; Hoffman 1993–1997, 286; Singer 2001, 395–396; Doǧan-Alparslan 2007, 251. 83 See Singer 1998b. 84 See e.g. Pecchioli Daddi 1982, 501–502; Torri 2008, 775–776. “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 21 is known only from the hieroglyphic sources,85 and he is probably the same individual as that attested in scribal context by the cuneiform sources, but no text certainly signed by him has been recovered.86 Considering the lack of any precisely datable information on this Kuruntapiya as well as the different title, his equation with the witness of the Aleppo Treaty cannot be proven. Similarly, it seems impossible to prove with certainty the identity of the Kuruntapiya of the Aleppo Treaty with the homonymous person(s) in the oracle fragment KBo 41.218 and the cult inventory fragment 473/z, because in both cases he bears no title. 9. Ziti dub.sar dumu m nu.giš kiri6 (CTH 75.A rev. 22’, figs. 4–6)87 Until now the only known Ziti, son of a m nu.giš kiri6 , was a scribe whose activity can be dated to the reigns of Hattušili III and/or Tuthaliya IV, since ˘ ˘ “restored” by he worked under the supervision of Anuwanza and copied texts 88 Šipaziti. If the last paragraph of CTH 75, in which Ziti’s name appears, were a standard colophon, one could hypothesize that the author of the tablet might be the Ziti active at the time of Hattušili III-Tuthaliya IV and that he produced ˘ during the reign of one of an archival copy of the Aleppo˘ Treaty some time these two kings. However, the last paragraph of CTH 75 is not a colophon, but a list of witnesses which can be ascribed only to Muršili II’s original version or to Muwattalli II’s official copy, as there is no reason why such a section should have been added to the document by a later king who did not issue it. Therefore, it may be excluded that this Ziti can be identified with the Ziti of CTH 75. There is, moreover, another scribe named Ziti whose identification with the author and witness of the Aleppo Treaty is chronologically much more likely. He was the father of a nu.giš kiri6 and very likely the grandfather of the Ziti just discussed. The kinship relation between Ziti (I) and Ziti (II) is nowhere explicitly attested and can only be inferred on the basis of the genealogy of Hanikkuili, another son of nu.giš kiri6 and thus presumably a ˘ 85 Cf. the bulla Bo 82/134, sealed by Kuruntapiya (cervus2 -ta/ti-pi-ia) bonus2 scriba (Dinçol – Dinçol 2008, 46 n. 192), the bulla Tarsus 3, sealed by Kuruntapi(ya) (cervus2 -ta/ti-pi) bonus2 scriba (Mora 1987, 304 with previous literature) and maybe also a bulla from Nişantepe (cervus2 -ti-i(a)? scriba, Herbordt 2005, 147 cat. n. 191 and Hawkins 2005, 261). 86 The colophon of KBo 13.240 reads m.d kal-sum išt.ur, but one should note that m.d kalsum išt.ur comes immediately after a fracture, thus it is impossible to demonstrate whether the text was written by Kuruntapiya himself or by one of his descendants/pupils; Kuruntapiya is also known as grandfather of Ašhapala, who signed a copy of Kumarbi’s myth (KUB 33.120+). ˘ who was so kind to share with me a number of useful 87 I am thankful to Marco Marizza, observations on this scribal family and his material for a future work on papponymy among the Hittites. 88 He signed the texts KUB 29.4++ IV 45, KUB 35.41 IV 5’, KBo 14.86++ IV 29’, and likely also KBo 45.168++ left edge 1–2, even though in this last case his genealogy is not mentioned. See Miller 2004, 37–38 fn. 66 and 297; Gordin forthcoming. 22 Elena Devecchi brother of Ziti (II).89 The main source for this link is the colophon of KBo 6.4 (CTH 291.III), which records Hanikkuili’s most complete genealogy (edge ˘ 1–4):90 1 2 3 4 m Hanikku-dingir-lim-iš dub.sar dumu m nu.giš [kiri ] 6 ˘ dumu.dumu-šu ša m lú gal dub.sarmeš u dumu.dumumeš -[šu] ša m Karunuwa lú hālipi ša kur u[gu] ˘ u dumu.dumumeš -šu-ma ša m Hanikku-dingir-lim gal na.gad ˘ Since Ziti (I) was the grandfather of scribes who worked at the time of Hattušili III/Tuthaliya IV, his activity can be roughly dated to the reigns of ˘ ˘ Muršili II/Muwattalli II, which would make him a plausible candidate for the scribe and witness of the Aleppo Treaty. The texts record also that Ziti (I) bore the title of gal dub.sarmeš at some stage of his career, and it has been proposed that he might have been made Chief of the Scribes by Urhi-Teššup, ˘ Ziti (I) who allegedly removed Mittannamuwa’s son from this function.91 That became Chief of the Scribes after Mittannamuwa would be confirmed if indeed it was he who signed the Aleppo Treaty with the simple title dub.sar, while Mittannamuwa is mentioned as gal dub.sarmeš . One objection to the identification of Ziti (I) with the scribe of the Aleppo Treaty might be the fact that in CTH 75 he is the son of nu.giš kiri6 , but in Hanikkuili’s genealogy there ˘ (I). This objection, howis no mention of a nu.giš kiri6 as the father of Ziti ever, can be countered by recalling Beckman’s remarks on some peculiarities of the colophon containing Hanikkuili’s genealogy: according to Beckman the ˘ may well have been used here, instead of the Sumerogram dumu.dumumeš more common šà.bal, to indicate an indefinite remote ancestry. Thus, “while we may be certain that the earlier Hanikkuili was an ancestor of Karunuwa, ˘ we do not know how many generations and the latter in turn a forebear of Ziti, might have intervened in either of these cases”.92 This leaves open the identification of the father of Ziti (I). Among the relatively few individuals bearing the name nu.giš kiri6 in the Hittite sources, the most likely candidate for the father of Ziti (I) seems to be the nu.giš kiri6 active as scribe and augur at the time of Tuthaliya III.93 The identification of this nu.giš kiri6 with the father of Ziti (I) ˘ 89 Three 13th -century scribes, Ziti (II), Hanikkuili and Šaušgaziti, indicate NU.giŠ KIRI6 as their father and are therefore assumed to be˘ sons of the same person. 90 Cf. also VBoT 24 IV 38–39: m Hanikku-dingir-lim dumu m nu.giš kiri6 dumu.dumu-šu ša ˘ m lú gal dub.sarmeš . 91 Gordin forthcoming; Marizza forthcoming. 92 Beckman 1983, 106. See also Miller 2004, 37 fn. 63. 93 He is known as augur from the double letter KBo 15.28 obv. 2 and rev. 5 and as supervisor of the scribe Hubiti in the colophon of KUB 32.19+ IV 50 (for the dating of the letter and the hypothesis˘ that the augur and the scribe may be the same person see de Martino 2005, 295, followed by Hoffner 2009, 85 and Marizza 2009, 113). Other homonymous individuals are: (1) a nu.giš kiri6 mentioned without title but with a seemingly military function in KUB 31.66 IV 13 (and parallel HT 7 III 1); the events narrated in this text have been dated either to 23 “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” is not only possible on the chronological level, it may also find support in the fact that the practice of naming a son after his grandfather is already attested in the case of Ziti (I) and Ziti (II), so that it would not come as a surprise to have also a nu.giš kiri6 (I) and nu.giš kiri6 (II).94 Therefore the genealogical tree of this scribal family can be tentatively drawn as follows:95 Anu-šar-ilāni96 .. . Hanikkuili (I) ˘ .. . Karunuwa .. . nu.giš kiri6 (I) Ziti (I) scribe and witness of the Aleppo Treaty nu.giš kiri6 (II) Hanikkuili (II) Ziti (II) ˘ Šaušgaziti the end of Muwattalli’s /beginning of Urhi-Teššup’s reign (Houwink ten Cate 1974, 147) or to ˘ fn. 50), so it seems more likely that the nu.giš kiri the reign of Hattušili III (Singer 1991, 168 ˘ was the son rather than the father of Ziti (I); (2) the scribe m nu.giš kiri 6, mentioned here 6 son of m sag gal dub.sarmeš and student of Hulanabi, known from the colophon of KUB ˘ 44.61: his career can accordingly be dated to between the reigns of Hattušili III and Tuthaliya ˘ ˘ the IV (Gordin forthcoming), and he therefore does not come into question as father of m giš m.giš nu.kiri6 and author of the Aleppo Treaty. Note that this PN can be written nu. kiri6 , m.giš kiri .nu. 6 94 This practice is attested also among other Hittite scribal families, as for instance in the case of Pikku (I), father of Tatta and grandfather of Pikku (II) (see the remarks on KBo 48.133 in Otten – Rüster – Wilhelm 2007, VI–VII). 95 Cf. Beckman 1983, 105; van den Hout 1995, 148; Gordin forthcoming fig. 2. In the graphic, a solid line indicates attested filiation, a dotted line conjectural filiation. 96 For the hypothesis that Anu-šar-ilāni might have been the founder of this scribal family see Beckman 1983, 103–106. 24 Elena Devecchi Figs. 4–6. KBo 1.6 obv. 22’: texture, shaded and line drawing screen shots from the “minidome” images. Bibliography Altman, A. 2004. The Historical Prologue of the Hittite Vassal Treaties. An Inquiry into the Concepts of Hittite Interstate Law, Ramat-Gan. Altman, A. 2010. How Many Treaty Traditions Existed in the Ancient Near East?, in: Pax Hethitica. Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honor of Itamar Singer (StBoT 51), ed. Y. Cohen – A. Gilan – J.L. Miller, Wiesbaden, 17–36. Alp, S. 1991. Hethitische Briefe aus Maşat-Höyük, Ankara. Archi, A. 1999. Hattušili I and the Treaty with Talmi-Šarruma of Aleppo again, NABU ˘ 1999/40. Aro, J. 1955. Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Grammatik (StOr 20), Helsinki. Balza, M.E. 2008. I trattati ittiti. Sigillatura, testimoni, collocazione, in: I diritti del mondo cuneiforme (Mesopotamia e regioni adiacenti, ca. 2500–500 a.C.), ed. M. Liverani – C. Mora, Pavia, 387–418. Beal, R.H. 1992. The Organization of the Hittite Military (THeth 20), Heidelberg. Beckman, G. 1983. Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian Learning at Hattuša, JCS 35, ˘ 97–114. nd Beckman, G. 1999. Hittite Diplomatic Texts, Atlanta (2 edition). Bittel, K. 1976. Die Hethiter. Die Kunst Anatoliens vom Ende des 3. bis zum Anfang des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus, München. Cohen, Y. – L. D’Alfonso 2008. The Duration of the Emar Archives and the Relative and Absolute Chronology of the City, in: The City of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires. History, Landscape, and Society (AOAT 349), ed. L. d’Alfonso – Y. Cohen – D. Sürenhagen, Münster, 3–25. d’Alfonso, L. 1999. Tarhuntašša in einem Text aus Emar, AoF 26, 314–321. d’Alfonso, L. 2005. Le ˘procedure giudiziarie ittite in Siria (XIII sec. a.C.) (StMed 17), Pavia. d’Alfonso, L. 2006. Die hethitische Vertragstradition in Syrien (14.–12. Jh. v. Chr.), in: Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 25 Perspektiven zur „Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, ed. M. Witte et al., Berlin – New York, 309–336. del Monte, G.F. 1991–1992. Ulmitešub re di Tarhuntaša, EVO 14–15, 123–148. del Monte, G.F. 1975. I testimoni del trattato con˘ Aleppo (KBo I 6), RSO 49, 1–10. de Martino, S. 2005. Hittite Letters from the Time of Tuthaliya I/II, Arnuwanda I und ˘ Tuthaliya III, AoF 32, 291–321. ˘ de Martino, S. 2010. Symbols of Power in the Late Hittite Kingdom, in: Pax Hethitica. Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honor of Itamar Singer (StBoT 51), ed. Y. Cohen – A. Gilan – J.L. Miller, Wiesbaden, 87–98. Devecchi, E. forthcoming. Treaties and Edicts in the Hittite World, in: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. G. Wilhelm, Winona Lake. Dinçol, A. – B. Dinçol 2008. Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel aus der Oberstadt von Boǧazköy-Hattuša vom 16. Jahrhundert bis zum Ende der Grossreichszeit (BoHa 22), ˘ Mainz am ˘Rhein. Doǧan-Alparslan, M. 2007. Drei Schreiber, Zwei Könige, SMEA 49, 247–257. Draffkorn, A. 1959. Was King Abba-AN of Yamhad a Vizier for the King of Hattuša?, ˘ ˘ JCS 13, 94–97. Durham, J.W. 1976. Studies in Bogazkoy Akkadian. A thesis presented to the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Subject of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Cambridge. Goetze, A. 1928–1929. Die historische Einleitung des Aleppo-Vertrages (KBo 1.6), MAOG 4, 59–66. Gordin, S. forthcoming. A Scriptorium of Mahhu(z)zi MAGNUS.SCRIBA in the Reign of Tudhaliya IV, in: Proceedings of the 7th Hittitological Congress, ed. A. Süel. ˘ H.G. 1967. Siegel aus Boǧazköy. Erster Teil. Die Königssiegel der Grabungen Güterbock, bis 1938 (AfO Beiheft 5), Osnabrück. Hagenbuchner, A. 1989. Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter. 2. Teil (THeth 16), Heidelberg. Hawkins, J.D. 1976–1980. Karkamiš, RlA 5, 426–446. Hawkins, J.D. 2005. Commentaries on the Readings, in: S. Herbordt, Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Großreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa – mit Kommentaren zu den Siegelinschriften und Hieroglyphen von J. David Hawkins (BoHa 19), Mainz, 248–313. ˘ S. 2002. Zur Erwähnung Šahurunuwas im „Tawagalawa-Brief“, in: Heinhold-Krahmer, ˘ Anatolia antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati (Eothen 11), ed. S. de Martino – F. Pecchioli Daddi, Firenze, 359–375. Herbordt, S. 2005. Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Großreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa – mit Kommentaren zu den Siegelinschriften und Hieroglyphen von J. David Hawkins (BoHa 19), Mainz. Hoffman, I. 1993–1997. Mittannamuwa, RlA 8, 286–287.˘ Hoffner, H.A. Jr. 2009. Letters from the Hittite Kingdom, Atlanta. Houwink ten Cate, Ph.H.J. 1974. The Early and Late Phases of Urhi-Tesub’s Career, in: Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (PIHANS 35), ed. K. Bittel – Ph.H.J. Houwink ten Cate – E. Reiner, Istanbul, 123–150. Houwink ten Cate, Ph.H.J. 1994. Urhi-Tessub revisited, BiOr 51, 233–259. van den Hout, T. 1995. Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung (StBoT 38), Wiesbaden. 26 Elena Devecchi van den Hout, T. 2009. Schreiber. D. Bei den Hethitern, RlA 12, 273–280. Imparati, F. 1992. A propos des témoins du traité avec Kurunta de Tarhuntassa, in: Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of S. Alp, ed. H. Otten et al., Ankara, 305–322. Imparati, F. 2004. Significato politico della successione dei testimoni nel trattato di Tuthaliya IV con Kurunta, in: F. Imparati, Studi sulla società e la religione degli Ittiti (Eothen 12), Firenze, 443–478. Klengel, H. 1964. Ein neues Fragment zur historischen Einleitung des TalmišarrumaVertrages, ZA 56, 213–217. Klengel, H. 1965. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z., Teil 1: Nordsyrien, Berlin. Klengel, H. 1992. Syria 3000 to 300 B.C., Berlin. Klengel, H. 1999. Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches (HdO I/34), Leiden – Boston – Köln. Labat, R. 1932. L’Akkadien de Boghaz-Köi. Étude sur la Langue des Lettres, Traités et Vocabulaires Akkadiens trouvés à Boghaz-Köi, Bordeaux. Laroche, E. 1966. Les Noms des Hittites, Paris. Laroche, E. 1981. Les noms des Hittites: Supplément, Hethitica 4, 3–58. Liverani, M. 1966. Review of H. Klengel, Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z., Teil 1: Nordsyrien, Berlin 1965, OrNS 35, 318–322. McCarthy, D.J. 1978. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (Analecta Biblica 21), Roma (2nd edition). Marizza, M. 2006. La carica di GAL DUMUmeš É.GAL nel regno ittita, SMEA 48, 151– 175. Marizza, M. 2007. Dignitari ittiti del tempo di Tuthaliya I/II, Arnuwanda I, Tuthaliya III (Eothen 15), Firenze. Marizza, M. 2009. Lettere ittite di re e dignitari, Brescia. Marizza, M. forthcoming: Le cariche di GAL DUB.SARmeŠ e GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ nel Regno ittita, Mesopotamia 45. Mauer, G. 1986. Die Karriere des Schreibers Tattamaru, Sohn des Šahurunuwa, in: Cuneiform Archives and Libraries. Papers read at the 30e Rencontre ˘Assyriologique Internationale Leiden, 4–8 July 1983 (PIHANS 57), ed. K. Veenhof, Leiden, 191–195. Miller, J.L. 2004. Studies in the Origins, Developments and Interpretation of the Kizzuwatnean Rituals (StBoT 46), Wiesbaden. Miller, J.L. 2007. Mursili II’s Dictate to Tuppi-Teššub’s Syrian Antagonists, KASKAL 4, 121–152. Mora, C. 1987. La glittica anatolica del II millennio a.C.: classificazione tipologica. Vol 1: I sigilli a iscrizione geroglifica (StMed 6), Pavia. Mora, C. 1993. Lo “status” del re di Kargamiš, OrNS 62, 67–70. Na’aman, N. 1980. The Historical Introduction of the Aleppo Treaty Reconsidered, JCS 32, 34–42. Niedorf, C.F. 2002. Ein hethitisches Brieffragment aus Alalah., in: Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfred Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AOAT 281), ed. O. Loretz – K.A. Metzler – H. Schaudig, Münster. Otten, H. – C. Rüster – G. Wilhelm 2007. Texte aus der Unterstadt, Texte ohne Herkunftsangabe und Texte aus der Oberstadt (KBo 48), Berlin. Otten, H. – V. Souček 1965. Das Gelübde der Königin Puduhepa an die Göttin Lelwani ˘ (StBoT 1), Wiesbaden. “We are all descendants of Šuppiluliuma, Great King” 27 Pecchioli Daddi, F. 1982. Mestieri, professioni e dignità nell’Anatolia ittita (Incunabula Graeca 79), Roma. Pecchioli Daddi, F. 2002. Muwattalli II, in: La battaglia di Qadesh. Ramesse II contro gli Ittiti per la conquista della Siria, ed. M.C. Guidotti – F. Pecchioli Daddi, Firenze, 154–163. Riemschneider, K.K. 1958. Die hethitischen Landschenkungsurkunden, MIO 6, 321– 381. von Schuler, E. 1965. Sonderformen hethitischer Staatsverträge, AnAr 2, 445–464. Singer, I. 1991. Appendix III. A Concise History of Amurru, in: S. Izre’el, Amurru Akkadian: a Linguistic Study, vol. 2 (HSS 41), Atlanta, 135–195. Singer, I. 1996. Muwattalli’s Prayer to the Assembly of the Gods Through the Storm-God of Lightning (CTH 381), Atlanta. Singer, I. 1998a. From Hattuša to Tarhuntašša: Some Thoughts on Muwattalli’s Reign, ˘ ˘ in: Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology. Çorum, September 16–22, 1996, ed. S. Alp – A. Süel, Ankara, 535–541. Singer, I. 1998b. The Mayor of Hattuša and His Duties, in: Capital Cities: Urban Planning and Spiritual Dimensions (BLMJP 2), ed. J. Goodnick Westenholz, Jerusalem, 169– 176. Singer, I. 2001. The Fate of Hattusa during the Period of Tarhuntassa’s Supremacy, in: Kulturgeschichten. Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. T. Richter – D. Prechel – J. Klinger, Saarbrücken, 395–403. Skaist, A. 2005. When Did Ini-Tešub Succeed to the Throne of Carchemish?, UF 37, 609–619. Steiner, G. 1999. Was bedeutet LUGAL-zu-nu … um-tal-li im Aleppo-Vertrag?, AoF 26, 13–25. Taggar-Cohen, A. 2006. Hittite Priesthood (THeth 26), Heidelberg. Torri, G. 2008. The Scribes of the House on the Slope, SMEA 50, 771–782. Ünal, A. 1974. Hattušili III. Teil 1: Hattušili bis zu seiner Thronbesteigung (THeth 3), ˘ Heidelberg. ˘ Ünal, A. 1976–1980. Kaššu, RlA 5, 473–474. Ünal, A. 1993–1997a. Muršili II, RlA 8, 435–440. Ünal, A. 1993–1997b. Muwattalli II, RlA 8, 524–527. Weidner, E.F. 1923. Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, Leipzig. Wiseman, D.J. 1958. Abban and Alalah, JCS 12, 124–129. ˘