Missing Treaties of the Hittites

30 Pages·2016·0.23 MB·English

by  Devecchi E.

UNIVERSITÀ CA’ FOSCARI VENEZIA

KASKAL
Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico
Volume 12
2015

LoGisma editore
Firenze 2015
UNIVERSITÀ CA’ FOSCARI VENEZIA

KASKAL
Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico
Volume 12 _ 2015

Direzione _ Editorial Board
Stefano de Martino, Frederick Mario Fales, Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi, Lucio Milano,
Simonetta Ponchia
Consiglio scientifico _ Scientific Board
Yoram Cohen, Stefano de Martino, Frederick Mario Fales, Francis Joannès, Michael Jursa,
Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi, Cécile Michel, Lucio Milano, Simonetta Ponchia, Michael Roaf,
Jack M. Sasson
Segreteria Scientifica _ Scientific Secretary
Paola Corò
Composizione _ Typesetting
Stefania Ermidoro
Editore _ Publisher
LoGisma editore – Via Zufolana, 4 – I-50039 Vicchio (Firenze) www.logisma.it
Stampa _ Print
Press Service Srl – Via Curzio Malaparte, 23 – I-50145 Firenze
Distribuzione _ Distribution
Orders can be either addressed to the publisher, or to:
Casalini Libri s.p.a. _ Via B. da Maiano 3 _ I-50014 Fiesole (Firenze) http://www.casalini.it

All articles published in this journal were submitted to peer reviewed evaluation.

ISBN 978-88-97530-70-1
ISSN 1971-8608
Stampato nel marzo 2016
KASKAL
Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico
Volume 12 (2015)
MISSING TREATIES OF THE HITTITES*
Elena Devecchi
Introductory remarks and methodological issues
The archives of the Hittite capital provide one of the largest corpora of state treaties of the Ancient
Near East. The texts of at least 40 international agreements are known, many preserved in more
than one manuscript. These date from the first half of the 15th century until the end of the 13th
century BC.1
Although already quite large, this text group represents only a fraction of the treaties concluded
by the Hittite kings with their vassals and with other Great Kingdoms of the time.2 In fact, the
existence in antiquity of many more treaties can be inferred from a number of indications in the
Hittite sources, including:
− explicit references to the conclusion of treaties and/or to the imposition of loyalty oaths upon
vassals;
− references to treaty tablets that existed in antiquity but so far have not been recovered in the
Hittite archives;
− quotations of treaty passages;
− references to a broken oath, either by a vassal or by an independent ruler: since the swearing of
an oath was part of the standard procedure included in the stipulations of an international
agreement, this can be regarded as a rather sure indication that a treaty existed.

* I wish to thank Stefano de Martino and Jared L. Miller for discussing this paper with me and providing a
number of useful remarks.
1. See Devecchi 2013a and Devecchi 2015b, 20-28 for a discussion of the texts that can be ascribed to this
corpus.
2. Similarly, Parpola showed that several Neo-Assyrian treaties are missing (Parpola 1987, 184-185).
156 Elena Devecchi
This paper will present a number of such “missing treaties”. Before discussing individual cases,
though, I would like to address some methodological issues. First of all, is it correct to assume that
a written document was issued every time a new alliance was concluded?3 I believe that the Hittite
texts provide enough evidence to answer this question positively, since the importance attached to
the treaty tablet is often emphasized in the sources. We can mention, for instance, not only
Bentešina’s request for a “tablet of the treaty and of the oath” to @attusili III, when the latter
restored him to the throne of Amurru,4 but also the clauses stipulating that the treaty tablets had to
be stored in temples under divine protection, and the curses against anyone who would hide or
break the treaty tablet or modify its contents.5
That written documents were central in such procedures is also indirectly confirmed by the large
number not only of treaty tablets, but also of texts of instructions and of loyalty oaths addressed to
professional classes within the internal state administration (such as royal servants, military officers,
temple personnel, etc.) recovered in the Hittite archives.6 This group of texts shares with the
treaties the same two basic elements (obligation and oath) and the same basic function (i.e. they are,
in their most common form, issued by the Hittite king, who imposes obligations on a subordinate,
who in turn commits himself to these obligations by the swearing of an oath).
Another methodological issue is the following: when the relations between @atti and another
country were already regulated by a treaty, was it necessary to sign a new one every time a new king
ascended the throne, either in @atti or in the country of the treaty partner? This question is more
difficult to answer unequivocally. The surviving treaties are formulated as personal commitments
between two kings. Thus, we can assume that the death or dethronement of one of the partners
may have required the conclusion of a new agreement with the successor. At the same time,
though, the texts often contain a clause which establishes the Hittite king’s guarantee and his
counterpart’s reciprocal protection of the conditions for future generations: a new agreement was
thus not strictly necessary.7 Furthermore, we rarely have more than one document for each treaty

3. One finds in the secondary literature diverging opinions on this topic: cf., e.g., Korošec 1931, 15-16 (“Die
Vertragsurkunde ist nicht bloß ein Beweismittel für den etwa durch Übereinstimmung beider Parteien
zustande gekommenen Vertrag, sondern der Vertrag entsteht erst durch die Errichtung der Urkunde. […] Die
Vertragsurkunde gehört somit zu den Dispositivurkunden”, emphasis added) and Beckman 1999, 1 (“a
written treaty setting forth the rights and obligations of both parties was routinely concluded with each new
ally”, emphasis added) against McCarthy 1978, 65 (“it is not really clear that the existence of the tablet as
such was essential for the validity of the treaty”). The existence of a written document did not seem to be
a necessary premise for securing a political and military alliance during the first half of the 2nd millennium
(see Lafont 2001, 280, 283, 289).
4. “Let my lord make a tablet of the treaty and of the oath. Let him seal and write it, to the effect that
Bentešina is king of the land of Amurru” (CTH 92, KBo 1.8+ Obv. 24-25).
5. CTH 51.I.A, KBo 1.1 Vo. 35’-40’; CTH 52.I, KBo 1.3 Vo. 7’-9’; CTH 106.A.I, Bo 86/299 iv 16-20, 44-
51; CTH 141, KBo 12.39 Rev.! 19’-20’.
6. On this text group see most recently Miller 2013b.
7. See, e.g., the treaty between Mursili II and Niqmepa of Ugarit (“As you yourself, Niqmepa, your person,
your wives, your sons, and your land are dear to you, the body [of the king], the person of the king, the
sons of the king, and @atti shall forever be dear [to you]. In the future observe the peace treaty of the
king of @atti, of the sons of the king, of the grandsons [of the king], and of @atti”, CTH 66.A, RS
17.338++ Obv. 5-9) and the treaty between Muwattalli II and Alaksandu of Wilusa (“You, Alaksandu,
benevolently protect My Majesty. And later protect my son and my grandson, to the first and second
Missing Treaties of the Hittites 157
partner, thus hampering a comparison between first and second generation treaties which might
help to identify the motives behind each new document. The group of four preserved treaties with
Amurru is one of the few exceptions covering several generations, from the annexation of the
Syrian kingdom under Suppiluliuma I until the last known treaty issued by Tut~aliya IV. However,
if we assume that a new treaty was signed every time a new king ascended to the throne in @atti or
Amurru, the number of potential treaties between the two kingdoms would be considerably higher,
as shown by the following table:

King of Contemporary Existing treaty Missing treaty?
Amurru Hittite kings
Aziru Suppiluliuma I Aziru – Suppiluliuma I Aziru – Arnuwanda II
Arnuwanda II (CTH 49) Aziru – Mursili II
Mursili II
Ari-Teššub Mursili II Ari-Teššub – Mursili II
Tuppi-Teššub Mursili II Tuppi-Teššub – Mursili II
(CTH 62)
Bentešina Muwattalli II Bentešina – Muwattalli II
Šapili Muwattalli II Šapili – Muwattalli II
Mursili III Šapili – Mursili III
Bentešina Mursili III Bentešina – @attusili III Bentešina – Mursili III
@attusili III (CTH 92) Bentešina – Tut~aliya IV
Tut~aliya IV
Šaušgamuwa Tut~aliya IV Šaušgamuwa – Tut~aliya IV Arnuwanda III – Šaušgamuwa
Arnuwanda III8 (CTH 105)
Ma~~aza? Suppiluliuma II Ma~~aza? – Suppiluliuma II

None of the ten potentially missing treaties is mentioned in the ancient sources. Even if we
leave aside those of Arnuwanda II and Arnuwanda III, whose reigns would probably have been too
short to lead to any renewal of old alliances, and a treaty of Ma~~aza, whose identification with a
king of Amurru is still hypothetical,9 we would still have seven missing treaties. Of course, the
absence of these documents could always be purely accidental, as in general the extant Hittite

generation. And as I, My Majesty, protected you, Alaksandu, (...) later in the future my sons and my
grandsons will certainly protect your descendant for you, to the first and second generation”, CTH 76.A,
KBo 19.73++ i 69’-75’).
8. We do not know when the reign of Šaušgamuwa ended. The suggestion that he was also a contemporary
of Arnuwanda III thus remains purely speculative.
9. The existence of a king of Amurru named Ma~~aza, who would have reigned after Šaušgamuwa, has
been proposed by Singer 2010 on the basis of some documents from Ugarit. He would therefore have
been a contemporary of Suppiluliuma II, but nothing precludes dating the beginning of his reign already
towards the end of Tut~aliya IV’s and/or during Arnuwanda III’s reign.
158 Elena Devecchi
tablets represent only a very small portion of the original archives.10 Nonetheless, an analysis of
each case in which a treaty with Amurru may be suspected promises insights into the possible
underlying political or historical motivations.
The lack of treaties imposed by Mursili II on Aziru and Ari-Teššub could have many reasons.
The reigns of both vassals overlapped that of Mursili II11 by only a few years, and this span of time
was perhaps too short for new treaties.12 However, the reason for the absence could also be sought
in the nature of relations between @atti and Amurru during this period, as described by Mursili in
the historical prologue of the Tuppi-Teššub treaty: “[When] the kings of Nu~~ašše and the king of
Kinza [became hostile] to me in the same way, Azira, your grandfather, and Ari-Teššub, your father,
[fought?] against the kings [of Nu~~ašše and the king of Kinza]. (Just as) they protected the hand of
[my father], in the same way they protected my hand. [And when] Azi[ra] was old and was no
longer able to go against the enemy, [just as Azira] fought the enemy [with troops and chariots],
Ari-Teššub likewise fought the enemy [with the troops and the chariots of the land of] Amurru”
(CTH 62.I, KUB 3.14 Obv. 13-19).13 According to this passage, Aziru and Ari-Teššub had been
loyal vassals, acting according to the fidelity oath originally sworn by Aziru to Suppiluliuma,14 and
this might have made the issuing of new treaties unnecessary.
Why, then, did Mursili conclude a treaty for Tuppi-Teššub, Ari-Teššub’s son and successor?
What made a new treaty necessary in this case? I believe one explanation is provided again by the
Tuppi-Teššub treaty, where Mursili recalls: “When your father died, according [to the request of
your father] I did not reject you. Since your father during (his) lifetime? had often mentioned yo[ur
na]me before me, therefore I took care of you. You fell ill and became sick, but even though you
were sick, I, My Majesty, still installed you in the position of your father and for you I made your
brothers, and the land of Amurru swear an oath to you. § When I, My Majesty, took care of you
according to the word of your father, and installed you in the place of your father, behold, I made
you swear an oath to the king of @atti, to the land of @atti, and to my sons and my grandsons”
(CTH 62.II.A, KBo 5.9++ i 22’-34’). From these lines one gains the impression that, even though
Tuppi-Teššub might have been the designated heir to the throne, his illness could have hampered
his succession and Mursili needed to intervene in order to force his acceptance among his brothers.

10. See, e.g., Miller 2013a on the state of preservation of the Deeds of Suppiluliuma I: of the at least twelve
tablets on which this composition was originally recorded, five are entirely missing, while from two
others only tiny fragments are preserved.
11. If Mursili signed the treaty with Tuppi-Teššub, Ari-Teššub’s successor, around his 12th-13th regnal year
(Devecchi – Miller 2011, 141), the end of Aziru’s reign and the short reign of Ari-Teššub must have
fallen during Mursili’s first decade.
12. See Singer’s remarks concerning the absence of a treaty between Mursili and Ari-Teššub: “This could be
merely accidental, but perhaps because his rule was short he did not have sufficient time to present
himself before his master” (Singer 1991, 159).
13. The passage, preserved in the Akkadian version, can be restored based on the Hittite version (CTH
62.II.B, KUB 3.119++ Ro. 14-18).
14. Aziru’s loyalty towards Mursili is also recalled in the historical introduction of the Šaušgamuwa treaty:
“Aziru, your predecessor, protected Suppiluliuma as overlord, and he also protected the land of @atti.
Afterwards, he protected Mursili as overlord, and he also protected the land of @atti. In no way did he
commit an offense against @atti” (CTH 105.A, KUB 23.1++ 21-27). Ari-Teššub is not mentioned in this
treaty.
Missing Treaties of the Hittites 159
The Hittite king acted as the highest authority in order to ensure and guarantee Tuppi-Teššub’s
ascension to the throne: in this way the treaty was not only an instrument of subjugation, but also a
tool in defense of Tuppi-Teššub’s right to rule over Amurru. Another reason for issuing this
document could have been the need for a special clause absent from the other treaties with Syrian
vassals, which explicitly forbids Tuppi-Teššub from establishing secret contacts with Egypt or
deserting the Hittite camp for the Egyptian side.15
The next king of Amurru is Bentešina, who during the reign of Muwattalli II defected to Egypt
and was therefore deposed from the throne. Singer noted that no treaty of his with Muwattalli has
turned up, “which may perhaps be explained by the short interval between his coronation and his
desertion to the Egyptians”.16 However, if the line of reasoning suggested above with regard to the
lack of treaties between Mursili and Aziru and Ari-Teššub is correct, perhaps Muwattalli did not see
the need to issue a treaty with Bentešina, as long as he acted loyally and respected the agreement
signed by his predecessor with Mursili.
One would expect, instead, a treaty between Muwattalli and Šapili, who was appointed as king of
Amurru instead of the treacherous Bentešina. In fact, since Muwattalli intervened in the dynastic
succession in Amurru by replacing the current ruler, any previous agreement between the Hittite
suzerains and the local kings must have been regarded as outdated. A new treaty binding Šapili to
@atti was most likely needed. That no such treaty was ever found could be ascribed to the fact that
Muwattalli’s documents must have been kept in the still unidentified city of Tar~untašša, his new
capital.
Šapili was removed from the throne of Amurru and replaced with Bentešina, who was reinstated
as king either by Ur~i-Teššub/Mursili III17 or by @attusili III.18 The deposition of the ruling king
and the appointment of a new one should also have required a new treaty: an agreement between
@attusili III and Bentešina was actually discovered in the Hittite archives (CTH 92), while no treaty
between Ur~i-Teššub/Mursili III and this king of Amurru is known. Since from this moment
Bentešina remained a loyal vassal, we do not necessarily need to postulate the existence of a treaty
between him and Tut~aliya IV.
We do, instead, have a treaty of Tut~aliya IV with Šaušgamuwa, Bentešina’s son (CTH 105). As
far as we know, Šaušgamuwa’s accession to the throne was not troubled by issues of domestic or
foreign policy requiring Tut~aliya’s intervention. It is possible that the document was demanded by
the international situation of the time, with @atti and Assyria fighting for control over southeastern
Anatolia. In fact, the treaty includes an otherwise unusual provision forbidding any trade contact
between Amurru and Assyria, probably meant to damage @atti’s enemy.

15. This prohibition should be understood in light of the strained relations between @atti and Egypt at the
time when the treaty was concluded, in the years following the rebellion of @atti’s Syrian vassals
supported by Egypt (del Monte 1985; Devecchi – Miller 2011, 142).
16. Singer 1991, 164.
17. This is the reconstruction suggested by the text KUB 21.33 14’-17’ and favored most recently by
Cammarosano 2009 (with references to previous literature).
18. See, e.g., Singer 1991, 168 with fn. 50, who grants more reliability to the events narrated in the historical
introductions of the Bentešina treaty (CTH 92) and the Šaušgamuwa treaty (CTH 105).
160 Elena Devecchi
Summing up, the evidence presently available for the relations between @atti and Amurru
suggests the following pattern. A new treaty was issued when the Hittite kings intervened in the
dynastic succession of the vassal country (cf. the treaties with Tuppi-Teššub and Bentešina) and/or
when it was necessary to modify and update the stipulations contained in previous treaties (cf. the
treaties with Tuppi-Teššub and Šaušgamuwa). According to this pattern, only one treaty between
@atti and Amurru would actually be missing, i.e. the one imposed by Muwattalli II on Šapili when
he appointed him king of Amurru after Bentešina was deposed. Another treaty may have been
concluded if it could be proven that Bentešina was already reinstated on the throne of Amurru by
Ur~i-Teššub/Mursili III. For the other potentially missing treaties, the suggested scenario of
peaceful relations would not have required new treaties to be issued, since the kings of Amurru
were acting loyally in accordance with the agreements concluded by their predecessors with the
Hittite overlords.
Notably, this pattern could also explain the situation of the treaties with Ugarit.19 In this case, I
believe we are first of all missing the treaty ratifying Ugarit’s annexation to @atti at the time of
Suppiluliuma I’s conquest of Syria. In fact, contrary to common opinion, I do not identify CTH 46
(RS 17.340) as the subjugation treaty issued by Suppiluliuma for Niqmaddu, but rather as an edict,
the main purpose of which was to grant Ugarit territories on the border with Mukiš.20
There is no treaty with Ar-@alba, Niqmaddu’s successor. Little is known about his reign, which
was presumably very short.21 This or perhaps his loyal behavior might then explain the absence of
such treaties.
Niqmepa, the next king of Ugarit, concluded a treaty with Mursili II (CTH 66). The fragmentary
opening lines of this document might be interpreted as implying a forced change on the throne of
Ugarit.22 It may also provide an explanation for the very existence of this treaty. It remains open
whether this should be connected to Ar-@alba’s possible removal from the throne because of his
suggested participation in the rebellion of the Syrian vassals, which took place between Mursili’s 7th
and 9th years,23 or to other reasons not mentioned in the sources presently available.

19. Note, however, that the documentary situation at Ugarit is in many ways unique. In fact, the Syrian
kingdom is almost completely absent from the Hittite archives (Devecchi 2015a, 119 fn. 7). What we
know about the history of its relations with @atti and about its political and commercial role in Late
Bronze Age Syria is due almost exclusively to the discovery of the archives of Ugarit. This situation is
diametrically opposite to that of Amurru, where archives have so far not been discovered, while a fairly
large number of documents from @attusa and Ugarit allow us to reconstruct, often in great detail, its
relations with @atti and sometimes also with other kingdoms.
20. See Devecchi 2012 and Devecchi 2013b (both with references to previous literature) for a typological
analysis of CTH 46 and its chronological and historical implications.
21. Singer 1999, 637-638.
22. Singer 1999, 638.
23. Different hypotheses have been put forward about Ar-@alba’s fate: some scholars favor his involvement
in the rebellion and subsequent deposition (e.g., Liverani 1962, 58ff.; Klengel 1965a, 254), while others
noted that “Ar-~alba’s prompt disappearance could simply have been caused by non-political
circumstances, such as sudden illness and death” (Singer 1999, 638). As discussed elsewhere, the presence
at Ugarit of a travertine vase bearing the name of Horemheb should not necessarily be regarded as
evidence that Ar-@alba was plotting with Egypt against @atti (Devecchi – Miller 2011, 145-146 and
Devecchi 2015a, 120).
Missing Treaties of the Hittites 161
Niqmepa was also a contemporary of Muwattalli II, Mursili III, and @attusili III, but neither
treaties with these kings nor treaties with his successors (Ammistamru II, Ibiranu and Ammurapi)
have been recovered so far. Singer commented on this situation by suggesting that “this may be due
to the fortunes of excavation, but there is also a possibility that the standard comprehensive type of
treaty was partially replaced by a series of more specialized decrees”24 recovered in the Ugarit
archives. This hypothesis is plausible, but difficult to prove and to apply to the other Hittite vassals,
since Ugarit is the only dependent kingdom for which such documents are known. In this regard it
should also be noted that a number of such “specialized decrees” were already issued by
Suppiluliuma I to Niqmaddu and by Mursili II to Niqmepa. At least in the latter case we know for
sure that they did not replace a normal subjugation treaty. Another explanation for the absence of
later treaties between @atti and Ugarit could be sought in Ugarit’s loyalty until the end of the 13th
century.
This kind of analysis, which must rest on a number of conjectures even in well-documented
cases such as Amurru and Ugarit, would be even more speculative – if not impossible – when it
comes to other treaty partners whose history and relations with @atti are more poorly known.
Therefore, we will refrain here from trying to account for all the potentially missing treaties of the
Hittites based on such an approach. Unless concrete hints point to the existence of a treaty (see
above), we will not speculate whether such a document existed for each and every known Hittite
vassal.
Arzawa lands
There is indirect evidence that other agreements with rulers of this area existed in antiquity in
addition to the five preserved treaties between Hittite kings and rulers of the so-called Arzawa
lands.25
One of the earliest and most famous references to a “missing treaty” is contained in the text
known as the “Indictment of Madduwatta” (CTH 147). The author of this document (likely
Arnuwanda I) recalls that his father (i.e., Tut~aliya I) made Madduwatta, who presumably controlled
a region in western Anatolia, his sworn ally and placed him under oath with respect to a number of
provisions, extensively quoted in the text. These closely resemble typical treaty obligations26 and
regulate the extent of Madduwatta’s territory, his military engagements against enemies of the
Hittite king, his responsibility for reporting plots against @atti, and the prohibition of maintaining
diplomatic relations with Attarissiya, Tut~aliya’s opponent in western Anatolia.
The existence in antiquity of further treaties with rulers of this area can then be inferred from
two passages of the historical prologue of the treaty between Mursili II and Manapa-Tar~unta of
the Land of the Še~a River (CTH 69). As compared with other, similar and better preserved

24. Singer 1999, 682.
25. Arnuwanda I – @u~azalma of Arzawa (CTH 28), Mursili II – Targasnalli of @apalla (CTH 67), Mursili II
– Manapa-Tar~unta of the Land of the Še~a River (CTH 69), Mursili II – Kupanta-Kurunta of the Land
of Mira-Kuwaliya (CTH 68), Muwattalli II – Alaksandu of Wilusa (CTH 76).
26. de Martino 1996, 39; Bryce 2005, 131; Wilhelm 2011, 45.
162 Elena Devecchi
passages, the reference to the gods’ anger would in fact indicate that Ura-Tar~unta, Manapa-
Tar~unta’s brother, and U~~a-ziti, the king of Arzawa, transgressed an oath:

Your father left you, Manapa-Tar~unta, [behind ...] and you were a child. Your
brothers, [PN] and Ura-Tar~unta, plotted to kill [you] and would have [killed] you,
[but] you escaped. (...) Whe[n] Ura-Tar~unta proceeded to [transgress the] oath of the
go[ds, the go]ds [of the oath] seized [him] and the people [of the land of the Še~a
River] dro[ve] him [out]. (CTH 69.A, KUB 19.49++ i 2-6, 14-16)

[But when I wen]t [on campaign] against U~~a-ziti and agai[nst the people of Arzawa],
beca[use] U~~a-ziti [became hostile?] to me,27 the gods of the [o]ath seize[d him] and I,
[His Majesty, de]stroyed [him]. (CTH 69.A, KUB 19.49++ i 34-37)

It has been suggested that the oath broken by Ura-Tar~unta, who is known only from this
source, was a treaty between his father Muwa-walwi and Suppiluliuma I, which foresaw that
Manapa-Tar~unta should have ascended the throne after Muwa-walwi.28 There is no explicit
evidence supporting this hypothesis, which however could be indirectly confirmed by the passages
of the Manapa-Tar~unta treaty suggesting that both Suppiluliuma and Mursili acted according to
Muwa-walwi’s will when they backed Manapa-Tar~unta against his brothers.
U~~a-ziti of Arzawa is instead well-known from Mursili’s texts, which always present him as an
enemy of the Hittite king and leave no room for hypothesizing that the two ever signed a treaty.
More likely, U~~a-ziti’s broken oath goes back to Suppiluliuma I, since a fragmentary passage of
Mursili’s Extensive Annals describes a situation which might imply U~~a-ziti’s subordination to
Suppiluliuma.29 It has been suggested that a passage of Mursili’s prayer to the Sun goddess of
Arinna recalling that the kuriwana-lands of Mittani and Arzawa were hostile and transgressed the
oaths of the gods (CTH 376.A, KUB 24.3++ ii 33-36) could also be seen as evidence for this
interpretation.30 Since, however, this prayer is an almost verbatim adaptation from an earlier prayer
to the Sun-goddess, which also contains a similar passage (CTH 376.C, KUB 24.4+ Obv. 16’-18’),
one should be careful in using it as a historical source for the reign of Mursili II.
Suppiluliuma I certainly bound Mas~uiluwa, another individual coming from Arzawa, to himself
by oath. As recorded again in Mursili’s Extensive Annals:

27. Since neither –kan nor –asta, which are usually coupled with the verb sarra- in the meaning “to
transgress” (cf. GrHL §28.75, §28.113, §16.117; CHD Š, šarra- D 3), appear in the sequence of enclitic
particles at the beginning of the sentence, a restoration such as nu-mu mU~-~a-LÚ-iš {ku}[-it ku-ru-ri-ia-a~-
ta?] seems preferable to nu-mu mU~-~a-LÚ-iš {ku}[-it NĪŠ DINGIR-LIM šarrit], i.e. “Beca[use] U~~a-ziti
[transgressed the oath of the gods] with regard to me” (Friedrich 1930, 6-7; Wilhelm – Fuscagni 2012
Partitura § 4; Beckman 1999, 83; Klinger 2005, 126; Devecchi 2015b, 134).
28. Heinhold-Krahmer 2010, 351.
29. Cf. KUB 14.16 iii 25’-27’: “I wrote to the people of Puranda: ‘You were subjects of [my] father, and [my
father] took you and gave you in service to U~~a-ziti’”. See Heinhold-Krahmer 1977, 72; Klengel 1999,
151; Stavi 2015, 161, 168.
30. Heinhold-Krahmer 1977, 74.