The article is devoted to the interaction of the Hittite kingdom, South Anatolian Kittsuwadna, North Syrian Alalah (Mukish) and Mitanni during the reign of Kittsuwadna Pillia (1st half of the 15th century BC) on the basis of a new synchronization of data from the autobiography of Alalah Idrimi with the texts of treaties concluded by Pillia. Special attention is paid to the provision of the agreement between Pillia and Idrimi within the scribal traditions of Kizzuvadna and Alalakh.

Key words: international treaty, "Syrian" poshib, Alalah, Idrimi, Kitsuwadna, Mitanni, Parrattarna, Pillia, Hittite Kingdom, Tsidanta.

By the 15th century BC, the state of Kitsuwadna, which was formed in southeastern Anatolia, became one of the leading factors in the Hittite kingdom's foreign policy activity, and relations with this state were fixed in treaties between their kings: Hittite Telepinu and Kitsuwadna Spudahsu (STN 21)1, Hittite Tahurvaili and Kitsuwadna Ehei (STN 29) and others. Among these treaties, the agreement between the Hittite Zidanta II and the Kitsuwadna Pillia (STN 25) stands out, which has come down in the original only in Hittite 2, while the previous Hittite-Kitsuwadna agreements have come down to us mainly in later copies, only in Akkadian or both. This agreement is also distinguished by its terminology - if for STN 21 in the Hittite version the key concept is the contract of oath (ishiul-KVo XIX 37.1; lingai-KUB XXXI 81 OS 6), then for STN 25 the designation of the contract of friendship (taksul - KUB XXXVI 108.2) 3 is characteristic. However, the very concept of a friendship contract [Otten, 1951, p.130] hardly implies a parity nature of relations, as is usually assumed [Otten, 1951, p. 130; Ardzinba, 1987, p. 97]. Introduction to LUGAL. GAL "great king "(whose title in the Hitto-Kitzuvadneh treaties was assumed only by the Hittite counterparty), as opposed to LUGAL" king", should imply a lack of genuine equality in relations between the counterparties of the contract.

The treaty between Pillia and Idrimi of Alalakh (AlT 3) is mainly devoted to the problem of the exchange of fugitives and is well preserved.4 It is interesting to compare the sequence

1 The following abbreviations are used in the article: AIT Wiseman, 1953; STN Catalog des textes hittiles (http://www.hcthport.uni-wucrzburg.de/CTH/); HZL-Ruster, Ncu, 1989; KBo-Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoy. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916-1923-V.: Mann, 1954ff.; KUB-Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoy. V.: Mann, 1921-1990; RS - Ras Samra (sigla of finds from Ugarit excavations); SI - Idrimi status; LS - front side of the plate; OS-reverse side of the plate.

2 Recent editions - [Wilhclm et al., 2008; Kitchen and Lawrence, 2012, p. 299-302]; for Russian translations, see: [Ardzinba, 1987, p. 97; Shslsstin, 2012, p.176].

3 See taksil as the prsvnshstt type of parity agreement and STN 25 as the last representative of this tradition [Otten, 1951, p. 130; del Monte, 1981, p. 208f.; Ardzinba, 1987, p. 96sl.; Zaccagnini, 1990, p. 63f.]. It is noteworthy that STN 21.11 was the last representative of this tradition. ishiul, not taksul, despite the fact that parity is assumed for both agreements.

4 See the edition of the text [Wiseman, 1953, p. 31f.], recent translations [Lang, 2010, p. 130f.; Kitchen and Lawrence, 2012, p. 303-306; Shslsstin, 2012, p. 178sl.].

page 19

references to the movement of contract objects between counterparties in this agreement and the Hitto-Kitsuwadneh agreements. The regulation on the exchange of runaway slaves is attested in STN 21, STN 26 and STN 29. The direction of movement coincides in STN 21 with ALT 3: first from Kittsuwadna to another counterparty, and then vice versa 5. Hatti is the starting point in STN 21 in the provision of military assistance - it was the era of establishing diplomatic relations and setting their accents. Al-3 says nothing about military aid, but the provision for masters who capture their fugitives - the Kizzuvadni one in Idrimi territory, and then the Alalachian one in Pillia land-shows the same order of movement as the previous provision for the fugitives themselves. Thus, Pillia's position at the time of the conclusion of ALT 3 should have been stronger than that of his counterparty Idrimi and compared to Pillia himself at the time of the conclusion of CTN 25.

There may be an objection to this interpretation, since a copy written in the Hittite style has come down to us from STN 25 (with the secondary position of the Pillia in the text of the document) (whereas the copies of STN 26 and 29 originating from Kitsuwadna were written in the Kitsuwadnekim style), and from ALT 3 (with the primary position of the Pillia in the text of the document) - a copy, certified by the Pillia (it bears the impression of a seal, traces of which are indistinguishable, but its place in the structure of the tablet indicates its attribution to the Pillia [Wiseman, 1953, p. 32; Marquez Rowe, 1998, p. 64, note 2]). But the Hittite style is not in itself a clear indication of the Hittite origin of STN 25, since the so-called "Syriac" style was singled out for texts in Akkadian, not Hittite. STN 25 was discovered in the same room 5 of the Buyukkale A 6 archive as STN 26 (which is assumed to be of Kitsuvadnek origin), and its exact location coincides with that of letters from Egypt and chronicles compiled by Mursili II, but not for Hittite drafts of international documents (however, the location of many such drafts is unknown). not known) [Kosak, 2002].

Despite the fact that ALT 3 is often regarded as an example of the Syriac contractual tradition [del Monte, 1981, p. 213], I. Marquez Rove has argued in favor of its kitsuvadnek origin: the primary mention of Pillia; the seal of Pillia; LU. MES SIG 5 "nobles" are not attested in Alalakh, but are mentioned in Hitto- the Kizzuvadna treaties; the oathgods belonging to the Kizzuvadnekom, not the Alalachian pantheon; the oath with the Mitanni king Parrattarna is presented from the point of view of Pillia. His argument is supported by Sh. Izre'el and Singer [Izre'el, Singer, 1990, p. 93], who point to the kitsuvadnek, rather than Syriac, habit of writing rakasu(m) and its derivatives with S-rather than S-series characters.

5 Acts 3: 8-15, 23-35.

6 Buyukkale-citadel of the capital of the Hittite kingdom of Hattusa.

page 20
However, the S-series argument hardly suggests a specific connection between the Kitsuvadnei treaties and AlT 3, since the loss of the contrast of S - and S-series signs is observed in the scribal traditions of the entire Syro-Anatolian region [Goetze, 1950, p.227] and is assumed in Alalakh [Giacumakis, 1970, p. 27]. The pantheon's argument can also hardly be based on the kizzuvadnekom instead of Alalakh origin of the oath gods (thunder god, sun god, and Ishkhara). Thus, the thunderstorm god together with ISTAR (the reading of this logogram may be Ishkhara) are among the main Alalakh gods, and the sun god is attested among the gods of the ALT 2 oath (Wiseman, 1953, p. 17). Moreover, the gods of the oath ALT 2 and 3 hardly belong at all exclusively to any one local pantheon, since they were revered everywhere [Schwemer, 2001, p. 491, Aran. 4011].

The LU. MES SIG 5 argument "nobles" is also weak, and their functions in the context of contractual obligations differ: in the Hitto-Kitsuwadnei treaties, they swear an oath to avoid perjury about fugitives and their accomplices, while in ALT 3 they swear not about the testimony of fugitives and their accomplices, but about their city [Korosec, 1959, p. 175]. On the contrary, the functional similarity of the institution of witnesses in ALT 2 and AlT 3 confirms the Alalakh origin of this clause of the agreement: even the number of sworn representatives of local government structures coincides (AlT 3:38: 5 LU.MES SIG 5; AlT 2:27: 5 LU.MES si-bu MES-su), along with which the number of people who swear to this clause is swears by the mayor (LU hazannu(m)), who is not mentioned in any of the Hitto-Kitsuwadneki treaties [del Monte, 1981, p. 213]. Of course, if the seal really belongs to Pillia, this copy was certified by him for Idrimi. However, the text of the contract itself could only be drawn up in one place and could hardly be changed by the parties to the agreement between the completion of its approval and the exchange of certified copies.7
If ALT 3 were a product of the Kitsuvadneka tradition rather than the Alalakh tradition, then the language of the text would have to show a specific affinity to the Kitsuvadneka tradition rather than the Alalakh tradition. However, there are no lexemes present only in ALT 3 and Hitto-Kitsuwadnei treaties and absent in other texts from Alalakh, despite the fact that 15 lexemes are not attested in Alalakh, i.e. 15.5% of the vocabulary of Hitto-Kitsuwadnei treaties, while 16 lexemes present only in ALT 3 and Hitto-Kitsuwadnei treaties are absent in the texts of Hitto-Kitsuwadnei treaties. Alalakh texts, which makes up 35.5% of the vocabulary of ALT 3. There are 16 lexemes represented by the same spelling in ALT 3 and Hitto-kitsuwadnekih agreements (1 lexeme and 1 word form of which do not occur in earlier texts from Alalakh), of which 8 are official parts of speech and only 2 spellings and 1 word form They are unique for Alalakh, and 1 spelling is found in Alalakh texts for the first time. There are 35 lexemes common to ALT 3 and Hitto-Kitsuwadneki treaties, i.e. 78% of the vocabulary of AlT 3, and 41 lexemes common to ALT 3 and Alalakh texts, i.e. 91% of the ALT-3 vocabulary, which also indicates that the AlT-3 vocabulary is more closely related to the Alalakh tradition than to the Kitsuvadnek tradition.

It is worth noting such differences that relate to the basic vocabulary for the genre of contracts: different designation of the oath (in ALT 3-only characteristic of the Alalakh tradition nis ilani; in STN 26-in addition to nis ilani, mamitu(m) is used, attested in Alalakh by later texts), different expression of the parity nature of the contract (in ALT 3 - ina characteristic of the Alalakh tradition

7 Such was the case of the prisoners between the Hittite Suppiluliuma I and the Mitannian Sattivassa CTN 51 and 52, especially significant in view of the fact that Akkadian copies written by the noshib of the Hittite chancellery and the Mitannian one, compiled in Hattuss, have come down to us. but recorded in different capitals and then deposited in the same Hittite depository (Klingcr, 2003, p. 241; d'Alfonso, 2006, p.320). At the same time, STN 51 and 52 should not be considered as forming a single diplomatic agreement [Bcckman, 1996, p.37] due to the difference in their main elements [Nsmirovsky and Aleksandrov, 2007, p. 168-174]. Of course, STN 51 and 52 were not truly parity treaties, but in fact we have no more comparable parity treaties to study the process of their drafting in the Syro-Hittite world (STN 91, concluded between the Hittite Hattusili III and the Egyptian Ramesses II, is not quite suitable due to possible distortions in the translation of the official Akkadian-language version sent by the Hittites). In addition, STN 91 was confined at a distance-Hattusili never met Ramesses, while the Mitanni prince Sattivassa visited Supniluliuma, and Pillia could honor Idrimi with a visit).

page 21
biri=sunu; in CTH 21 — attested in the texts of Mari and Alalakh IV qatamma), a different expression of the process of swearing (in AlT 3, the utterance of the oath is transmitted by the G-breed forms of the verb zakdru(m); in the Hitto-Kitsuwadna treaties, the direct utterance of the oath is transmitted by the S-breed forms of the verb zakaru(m), and the missing in ALT 3 forms of the verb eresu (m) convey compulsion to swear).

At the same time, for the general word forms of ALT 3 and the Hitto-Kitsuwadna treaties, spelling differences were recorded in 10 word forms in 8 lexemes (23% of the total vocabulary), and for the general word forms of ALT 3 and Alalakh texts, spelling differences were recorded in 10 word forms in 9 lexemes (22% of the total vocabulary). Of the orthographic differences between ALT 3 and Hitto-Kitsuwadna treaties, 2 account for the presence or absence of phonetic complement in the logogram (in 1 case in ALT 3, in the other in STN 26, 29); 2 - for the absence in ALT 3 of the determinative present in STN 26, 298; 5-for full spellings 9 (ta-at-ta-a-ap, ta-ap-pi-it-te-e, i-na-an-din10, i-sa-bat=su, ut-ta-na-ar in AlT 3 at ta-at-ta-ap, ta- ap-pi-te-e, i-na-an-di-in11, i-sa-ab-bat=a12, ut-ta-na-a- [ar]13 in the Hitto-Kitsuwadna treaties); 1 - on differences in verb vocalization (3Sg. G Pres. i-ir-ra-ab in AlT 3 14 and i-ir-ru-ub in the Hitto-Kitsuwadneh Treaties).

Of the spelling differences between AlT 3 and Alalakh texts, 2 are due to the presence of a phonetic complement that is usually absent in AlT 315; 2 - to a different choice of sign by the scribe compared to the later Alalakh tradition; 1 - to a more complete spelling compared to the later Alalakh tradition 16; 2 - to the presence of mimicry 17 (in one case, a characteristic for the tradition, but absent in one spelling ALT 3 18, in another case presented in ALT 3, in contrast to later texts); 3-for a different vowel of the case ending (in 2 cases, the Assyrian version is presented in ALT 3, while the Babylonian version is typical for this word form in the previous and subsequent periods; in 1. The Babylonian version is presented in Alt 3, while the Assyrian version is presented in later texts).

Thus, the following features are unique for ALT 3: the presence or absence of phonetic complement, the absence of determinatives in some nouns, a special choice of signs, more complete spellings of pronominal forms with shorter verb forms, Assyrian or Babylonian vocalizations. Since the presence of the phonetic complement in LU-lum distinguishes ALT 3 within both the Alalachic and Kitsuwadna traditions, however, it has evidence of previous use in both traditions, and in the previous Hittite it is used only in the Syriac scribe STN 7 (KVo I 11 LS 35) in the meaning of "man", this element hardly indicates a person. kitsuvadna origin of the text.

8 In the position where the determinant is present in STN 29, it is absent not only in AIT 3, but also in STN 26.

9 Including writing rlpe, writing the signs SG-GS instead of GHS, and writing out the signs GS when the consonant of the next syllable is identical instead of dropping them.

10 Also in Kittsuwadns in STN 21, 26, and in Alalahs for the first time in ALT 3. ALT 3 also attested a more complete spelling of i-na-d[i] - in, characteristic of earlier Alalakh texts.

11 In Kittsuwadns only in STN 29.

12 In Kitsuvadns, the incomplete spelling i-sa-bat=ma is also found in STN 21, and the spelling sabatu(m) c-ab - in prszenes G-rock in Alalakhs is attested in earlier texts.

13 In Kitsuvadns only in STN 21, and in STN 26, 29 the spelling coincides with that in ALT 3.

14 is one of the Assyriisms in the Babylonian verb forms from Alalakh (Giacumakis, 1970, p. 55). It is worth taking revenge that this word form is no longer attested in Alalakhs, so the typicality for this particular spelling is unknown.

15 Moreover, in one case, the phonetic complement is attested for earlier spellings of another word form of the same lexeme.

16 And the corresponding options without plcnc are also presented in AIT 3.

17 Mimicry - final suffix-T.

18 Writing with mimicry in AlT 3 is also presented.

page 22
The absence of the determinative LU in AlT 3 for some words is also not an unambiguous sign of belonging to any tradition, since the word hazannu(m) is used in our text, and the word munnabtu(m) in the previous Alalakh tradition is not attested, despite the fact that in the tradition of Hitto-kitsuwadnekih treaties, the use of the determinative is unstable.. Among the differences in the choice of signs, the use of KA instead of KA 4 is not attested in the tradition of the Hitto-Kitsuwadneki treaties, although it is present in the Alalakh texts (AlT * 126: 15: i-ik-ka-al; AlT 337: 3: ka-wi-l [i-na] vs. AlT 390: 2: ka 4-wa-li-na), and the use of QU instead of QU in the Hitto-Kitsuwadnekih treaty tradition is attested (although the QU sign is not used in its framework), but it is also characteristic of the Alalakh tradition (AlT * 271: 6: il-qu-u; SI:93: li-il-qu-ut; AlT 361:4: ib-qu-ni). Therefore, the peculiarities of the use of these signs cannot testify in favor of the kitsuvadnego origin of ALT 3.

Fuller spellings of pronominal forms with shorter verbs contrast ALT 3 to both traditions implicitly. The ratio of complete to incomplete spellings is 12: 29 in our text, and 56: 63 in the Hitto-Kitsuwadneki tradition, which also does not indicate that these traditions are close. The criterion of the presence or absence of mimicry contrasts specific word forms of ALT 3 only within the Alalakh tradition, but sporadically, which rather characterizes the text not geographically, but chronologically, since it stands between the Old Babylonian tradition of Alalakh VII, which systematically wrote out mimicry, and the Middle Babylonian tradition of Alalakh IV, in which mimicry on the same tablet becomes irregular [Giacumakis, 1970, p. 44], which is also exemplified in ALT 3. I note that the ratio of forms with mimicry to forms without mimicry in ALT 3 is 6:14, and in the Hitto-Kitsuwadneki tradition it is 17:11, which hardly speaks in favor of their proximity according to the criterion of relation to mimicry. Finally, the Assyrian forms clearly contrast ALT 3 with the Hitto-Kitzuvadnekim treaties, while the contrast according to this criterion to other Alalakh texts is sporadic.

Thus, neither the vocabulary nor the spelling features of ALT 3 support its specific proximity to the Akkadian texts of the Hitto-Kitsuwadneki treaties, on the contrary, they indicate the proximity of this text to the Alalakh scribal tradition, within which it stands out due to its rare type of document for the Alalakh archives and its intermediate position between the texts of the Alalakh VII layer and the closest ones. His texts are called Alalakh IV 19, to the scribal tradition of which he generally refers for lexical and spelling reasons.

To determine whether ALT 3 belongs to the Kitsuwadneka or Alalakh palaeographic tradition, we compared the palaeography of this text with the Hitto-Kitsuwadneka treaties written in the "Syrian" style (KUB XXXIV 1, KVo XXVIII 105ab, KVo XXVIII 107), on the one hand, and the Alalakh texts that clearly date back to the Idrimi time (ALT 71, 99).,- on the other side. It is worth noting in advance that this comparison is not entirely correct, since the texts of the Hitto-Kitsuwadneki treaties were written down at least a generation earlier than ALT 3, and economic documents sealed with the Idrimi seal were not necessarily written down by the scribes of the Alalakh palace chancery. The differences between the Kitsuvadnek texts written in the "Syriac" style have not been previously studied. On the contrary, this group of texts stands out palaeographically in the mass of Middle Hittite documents on the basis of its proximity to the palaeography of the texts of Alalakh IV (Klinger, 2003, p. 238, Anm. 6).

The signs A, AB, AM, AN, BI, I, ID, KA, LU, MES, MI, NA, NI, RA, RI, SI, SU, TA, TU, U, UD, and I are common to all three inventory items. Within this group of characters, each pair of inventory items has different styles for the three characters. Among the characters common only to ALT 3 and kitsuvadnekih texts-AD, AR, BA, BE, DI, DIN, E, GIS, NA, IM, IN, IR, IS, KI, KU, KUR, LI, MA, ME, MU, MUNUS, NU, PA, PI, QA, RU, SIG 5, SA, SUM, TI, TUM, U, UL, UN, UR, URU , - different characters are written AR (with a single horizontal wedge in ALT 3 and a double one in kittsuvadnekih texts), DI (representing the usual U.PA at Alt 3: 23 and being simplified version of KI

19 It is often argued that Idrimi ruled during the period corresponding to the Alalah V stratum, whether VB or VA [Novak, 2007, p.3961.

page 23
Table 1

Differences in the design of signs common to AIT 3, the Kitsuwadna type, and the Idrimi Alalah type

in KVo 28.107: 2), NA (in ALT 3: 38, the left oblique wedge does not cross the right vertical ones, and the head of the right oblique wedge is at the level of the lower head of the vertical wedges, which is not typical for Kittsuwadna scripts), IM (in ALT 3, the horizontal wedge intersects both vertical ones, unlike Kittsuwadna scripts), IN (having in ALT 3:19 a group of 6 oblique wedges as its left element, and in KUB XXXIV 1:35 a group of 5), LI (having in ALT 3 a pair of oblique wedges between the vertical wedges, in contrast to the Kitsuvadna script), MUNUS (having in ALT 3 a vertical wedge at the beginning, in contrast to the Kittsuwadna script), RU (the caps of the vertical wedges of which in ALT 3 are located at the same level, in contrast to the Kittsuwadna scripts), SIG 5 (having an oblique wedge in the Kittsuwadna scripts below the horizontal one, in contrast to ALT 3), U (the writing of which in ALT 3 is most similar to HZL 265/27, and in the Kitzuvadna texts - HZL 265 / A (KUB XXXIV 1: 7), HZL 265/26 (KUB XXXIV 1: 5), HZL 265/30 (KVo 28.105: 40)).

Thus, there are 26 out of 36 characters common to these inventory items, i.e. 72%. Among the characters common only to ALT 3 and Idrimi texts-IA and 5-both have similar outlines, but this set is too small to be compared with the previous one. Among the signs common to the Kitsuwadna and Alalakh inventory-BU, DUMU, HU, LU, LUGAL, US, ZI-the characters BU (whose oblique wedges in the Kitsuwadna script are arranged in pairs on two levels, as is typical for Hittite cuneiform, in contrast to Alalakh), LU (which is typical for the Kitsuwadna script intersection in the center

page 24
the number of wedges in the center of the sign is greater in the Alalakh script), LUGAL (in the Kitsuvadna script, in contrast to the Alalakh script, the lower right wedge is crossed by two vertical ones), ZI (the same difference in the configuration of inclined wedges as in the case of BU, TU characters). There are 3 out of 7 characters common to these inventory items, i.e. 43%.

Consequently, the palaeography of the AlT 3 text does not show a greater affinity with the texts recorded at Kittsuwadna than with the texts recorded at Alalah under Idrimi. At the same time, it does not fully coincide with the palaeography of modern Alalakh texts, and in a number of parameters it is close to the Kitsuvadna one, which is explained by the fact that the compared Alalakh documents are not the product of Idrimi's palace office, which provided his international legal documentation. If the treaty were a product of the Kittsuwadna chancery, a greater degree of similarity in the palaeographic tradition would be expected. The high degree of proximity of the palaeography of both Alt-3 and Alalakh texts of the Idrimi era, Kitsuvadna palaeography is explained by the fact that the processes of scribal tradition development in Anatolia and Northern Syria were closely interrelated, which is particularly evident in the coincidence of the vector of changes from the Old Hittite to the Late Hittite style and from the style of texts of Alalakh VII to the style of texts of Alalakh IV, respectively [Weeden, 2008, p. 76]. Therefore, AlT 3 should be considered as composed in Alalakh.

The most detailed description of the political events of this era is Idrimi's "Autobiography "(Dietrich and Loretz, 1981), and the purpose of this article is to correlate these agreements with Idrimi's" Autobiography". Idrimi's Autobiography reports a certain misfortune (masiktu(m)), as a result of which members of the ruling Khalapa dynasty, including Idrimi, fled to Emar (lines 3-6). Unwilling to accept his secondary position in Emar, Idrimi went to Canaan to visit the Hapirs, among whom he spent seven years (lines 10-28). After that, Idrimi gathered an army and his followers and took possession of the country of Mukish with its center in Alalah (lines 32-39). The following is a feud between Idrimi and the Mitanni king Parrattarna, in the seventh year of which the oath bound the former opponents, putting Idrimi in fact in vassalage to Parrattarna (lines 42-58). The result of this agreement was the active military actions of Idrimi, among whose opponents the "Hatti country" is mentioned, which ended with the destruction of recalcitrant cities and sending their property to the construction of the Idrimi Palace in Alalah (lines 59-80). The autobiographical part of the inscription concludes with a glorification of Idrimi's activities aimed at the prosperity of the country under his control (lines 81-91).

There are three ways to link the AL-3 treaty to the relative chronology of Idrimi's Autobiography: moment A-context of lines 41-42 (ah-hi HA-ia it-ti-ia-ma in-na-hu-y ah-he HA-ia as-sur-su-nu "My brothers rallied with me"). me, and I protected my brothers"), moment B-context lines 70-71 (ma-at Ha-at-te KI y-ul ip-hur and a-pa UGU-ia u-ul il-li-ku " The country of Hatti has not gathered, and (its troops) they didn't meet me halfway") and the period after described in his autobiography 20.

Idrimi's position was weakest at time A, but the ALT 3 treaty mentions an agreement with Parrattarna, who took the Idrimi oath later on, according to the autobiography. This event occurred "in the seventh year" (line 45) of the autobiography, the starting point of these seven years was Idrimi's return to Alalah [Astour, 1989, p. 92, p. 132; von Dassow, 2008, p. 25]. Another approach is to use otoh-

20 Researchers also considered three possibilities, but did not specify the moment of the first and third: the first was assigned to an indefinite period before the conclusion of the Idrimi alliance with Parrattarna [Real, 1986, p. 429, p. 26; Mayer, 1995, p. 348], the third was placed at an indefinite moment after the establishment of this alliance [Klcngel, 1965, p. 228; Drower, 1973, p. 434; Astour. 1989, p. 92, n. 132], although these authors did not claim that this event took place after the period described in Idrimi's Autobiography.

page 25
the seven-year period described in lines 29-42 and 43-58 [Smith, 1949, p. 59; Klengel, 1965, S. 182, 228; Sasson, 1981, p. 314], but the arguments of the proponents of this approach are weak, because if we consider Parrattarna to be the culprit of masiktu(m)21 in Xalapa [Oiler, 1977,p. 314], p. 205f.; Klengel, 1981, p. 273], the enmity of the Mitannic king with Idrimi should cover not only the seven years of the latter's stay with Hapiru, but also the entire period between masiktu(m) and the treaty with Idrimi; the references to Alalah at both turning points are not directly related to Parrattarna: in the case of the first mention in the In line 38 of Idrimi's Autobiography, we have no reference to Parrattarna; moreover, the arripa adverb (which introduces the second seven-year period in line 42) has a sequence meaning in the Alalakh texts, indicating here specifically the other seven years (Giacumakis, 1970, p. 4). 58; cf.; Oiler, 1977, p. 44], the legendary nature of the number of years does not remove the question of the relative chronology of these seven years; a pair of seven years often forms the apposition "bad+good=neutral" [Redford, 2003, p. 208, p. 4] - could the exile's residence on the territory of the Russian Federation be a bad element? a foreign land with hapiru, and a good one-recognition as the ruler of Alalakh by all neighbors, with the exception of Mitanni?

The mention of Parrattarna in Genesis 3: 40-43 (22) does not indicate that Parrattarna's suzerainty over Idrimi is an established fact, not a potential one (Beal, 1986, p. 429, p. 26; Mayer, 1995, p. 348). Researchers who claim the opposite [Klengel, 1965, S. 228, 245 Anm. 58; Na'aman, 1974, p. 270; Oiler, 1977, p. 211; Bryce, 2005, p. 117; Freu, 2001, p. 20; von Dassow, 2008, p. 34] do not take The following circumstances are taken into account: the Parrattarna clause does not specify the time of ratification of the entire document; the king of Mitanni is mentioned in AlT 3 and ALT 14 in various parts of the form (ALT 14 clearly indicates Mitannic sovereignty over Alalah and Kizzuvadna, but ALT 3 does not show such clarity on this issue); the gods of the oath mentioned are not exclusively the gods of the Mitannian. However, some of the arguments of opponents of Parrattarna's suzerainty over Idrimi as reflected in ALT 3 are also weak: ALT 3 was hardly ordered by Parrattarna in the course of regulating the internal Mitanni legislation (as R. Beale believes), since it bears the imprint of the seal of Pillia and was found in Alalakh, which means that it hardly reached Mitanni and was studied there; Parrattarna was hardly a representative of Pillia (as S. S. had assumed). Smith (1956, p. 41, p. 1)), since we do not know of such a Kizzuvadna nobleman, as opposed to the king of Mitanni mentioned by Idrimi in his autobiography, and the kings hardly instructed their representatives to swear for them not in the royal name. For the same reasons, Parrattarna was not the suzerain of Pillia either, according to the text of Alt 3.

Additional arguments given in favor of such suzerainty by a number of researchers [Helck, 1971, p. 118; Drawer, 1973, p. 434; Kuhne, 1982, p. 212; Beal, 1986, p. 429, n. 26] can be rejected, since the ethnicity factor is exaggerated: the Hittite Hattusili 1 entered into a civil war. union with the Hurrian Tunia in the struggle against other Hurrian polities [de Martino, 2002, p. 84]; reciprocity in AlT 3 is of a different nature than in the late Old Babylonian Upper Mesopotamian traditions: in AlT 3 it is expressed by the symmetry of obligations of both counterparties written on the same tablet, whereas in Mari and Shehna 23 it was expressed by the symmetry of obligations of both counterparties written on the same tablet. symmetry of obligations that each counterparty wrote down on a separate plate; the text of AlT 3 does not indicate that it belongs to peace agreements (salamu(m)), it belongs to a different type -

21 The exact meaning of the word is unknown; perhaps some internal conflict, "evil/sin" or "misfortune/trouble" [Gromova. 2009, p. 119; Grccnstcin and Marcus, 1976, p. 70].

i-na a-i-im-me-e 22 UD-mi 1 Pa-ra-tar-na it-ti 1 Id-ri-mi ni-is DINGIR.MES [i]z-ku-[u]r u is-tu UD-mi su-wa- ti mu-im-na-ab-tum qa-bi a-na t[u-u]r-ri "On what day Parrattarna and Idrimi swear an oath to the gods [nr] oizn[e]s-then from this day the fugitive is determined to vo [zr] aschsniyu".

23 Shishna (under Shamshi-Adads I as the capital of his state-Shubat-Enlil; modern times). Tsll-Lxilan ) is the capital of the kingdom of Aum in Upper Mesopotamia; its archive, along with the archive of the Frat Mari, forms the basis of knowledge about Middle Eastern diplomacy of the XVIII century BC.

page 26
Zaccagnini, 1990, p. 62f.], so this is hardly a case of two vassals being reconciled by a common suzerain, despite the fact that this example has become so common that it is used to argue that RS 19.68 was concluded before Nikmaddu II of Ugarit was also involved., and Aziru of Amorea became vassals of Suppiluliuma I [Niehr and Schwemer, 2005, S. 163, Anm. 2]. However, we have no other examples explaining whether a suzerain should appear in an agreement concluded between his vassals or not, and the reconstruction of the political context of RS 19.68 is not clear [Singer, 1991, p. 156f.]. But the phrase ar-ri-pa MU. 7. KAM HA IBa-ra-at-ar-na LUGAL dan-pi LUGAL ERIN. MES Hur-riKI u-na-kir-an-ni " Then Parrattarna, the strong king, the king of the Hurrians troops, seven years at enmity with me "can be explained as an indication of a broader context: treaties with the"brothers" -allies were concluded during these seven years, but Idrimi even then planned to reconcile with Parrattarna, and this provision of the treaty with Pillia was implemented in the near future.

The problem of moment B is what Idrimi means by Hatti country. This might have been the Hittite kingdom of Zidanta, but the destroyed cities were located in Northern Syria, which was hardly under the control of Zidanta.24 Even if it were a Hittite enclave in Syria, it is strange why it was conquered by the more remote and weak Mukish rather than Mitanni. Therefore, it was rather a former Hittite territory that belonged to Kizzuvadna during the Idrimi period [Wilhelm, 1992, p. 56; von Dassow, 2008, p. 37f.].

If this is the case, then we can reconstruct the history of Pillia's foreign policy as follows: under his predecessor Ehei, Kitsuwadna was strengthened in the course of dynastic struggles within the Hittite kingdom due to Tah'urwaili's need for kitsuwadna support. Pillia, considering its northern border strong enough, decided to strengthen the southern one. This was a period of Idrimi's weakness, which was exploited by Pillia to conclude a parity treaty that consolidated the achievements of Pillia's diplomacy. The absence of a provision for military assistance in the treaty was dictated by the interests of Pillia, who was not going to start new wars of conquest after the unification of the former Hittite possessions in Northern Syria under his rule.

Judging by the Kizzuvadna tradition, Pillia paid attention to the development of the cult and was probably the strongest Kizzuvadna king, who pursued a fairly independent policy. But he ruled a small country in an era of Mitanni power, and the alliance between Mitanni and Mukish sealed his fate. When Idrimi reconciled with Parrattarna, he used the last clause of the treaty with Pillia and sent Hurrian fugitives to Parrattarna via Kittsuwadna territory: E hal-qu u-te-er-su (page 56 of Idrimi's Autobiography). This provoked Pillia's indignation, and war broke out. In the course of this war, Idrimi did not ravage the core of Kitsuwadna, but its surrounding area of Mukish. So could Parrattarna. After these attacks on Pillia's possessions from the east, Kizzuvadna's plight could be exploited by the Hittite Tzidanta II, who attacked her native region, extended the Hittite borders, and concluded a peace treaty.

24 Most researchers identify it with a part of the Hittite kingdom, the territory of the future Kizzuvadna, or the Hittite possessions in Syria [Smith. 1949, p. 82f., 86; Woolley, 1986, p. 112; Alt, 1964, S. 7; Klcngcl, 1965, S. 230; Gurney, 1966, p. 5f.; Kinal, 1967, s. 204; Drowcr. 1973, p. 434; Garelli, 1969, p. 135, 309; Cornelius, 1979, p. 115; Na'aman, 1974, p. 270; Kuhnc, 1982, p. 212; Astour, 1989, p. 20; Desidcri and Jasink, 1990, p. 72, n. 42; Mayer, 1995, p. 348; Brycc, 2005, p. 117; Frcu, 2001, p. 19f.]. Sometimes the CE is considered as a border area that is no longer under the control of Hattuss, but has not yet been captured by its neighbors [Oiler, 1977, p. 190; Avetisyan, 1988, p. 8; Bulbul, 2010, p. 22]. However, one of the reasons for such constructions is the weakness of Hatti in the crisis period in the light of the research of J. R. R. Tolkien. Fre [Frcu, 2007, p. 170f. it looks doubtful, judging by the ideas about the Hittite kingdom of Tsidanta II that are formed on the basis of the awarded letters. The area in question was located between Alalah and present-day Gaziantzp [Miller, 1999, p. 70f.]. Hittite influence in this region hardly persisted after the Takhurwaili dynastic crisis. But it is very likely that Kizzuvadna could not resist the temptation to take over this region.

page 27
a treaty that consolidated Hittite influence over Kittsuwadna Pillia, although it appeared to be parity in form 25.

This was the end of Kizzuvadna as an independent political player. Pillia was its most independent ruler, but it was he who was at the root of its decline. Later, Kitsuwadna became a bargaining chip in Hitto-Mitanni relations, but Hitto-Kitsuwadna relations were the touchstone of Hittite diplomacy.

list of literature

Avetisyan GM. From the political history of the State of Kitsuvatny // Ancient East. Issue 5, 1988.

Ardzinba V. G. Hittite Kingdom // Interstate relations and diplomacy in the ancient East. Moscow: Nauka, 1987.

Vilkhslm G. Drevnyj narod hurriti [The Ancient people of the Hurrians]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1992.

Vulli L. The Forgotten Kingdom, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1986.

Gromova D. N. The Battle with the Three-headed Dragon: a new revision of the dates of the capture of Babylon and Xalapa by Mursili I troops and issues of the PSRSDN Asian chronology of the second millennium BC. № 4 (271). 2009.

Nsmirovskiy A. A., Aleksandrov B. E. " On the Sun, my father, I rely ": IVoT I 34 and the history of Upper Mesopotamia in the XIII century BC Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Universal History. Center for Comparative Study of Ancient Civilizations, 2007.

Shslsstin V. Yu. Paritetnye podgody tsarei Kitsuvadny [Paritetnye podgody tsarei Kitsuvadny]. № 2 (17), 2012.

Alt A. Bcmcrkungcn zu den Vcrwaltungs- und Rcchtsurkundcn von Ugarit und Alalach // Die Welt des Orients. Bd. III. № 1-2, 1964.

Astour M.C. Hitlite History and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age. Partillc: P. Astrom, 1989.

Bcal R.H. The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Sunassura Treaty // Orientalia. Nova Series. Vol. LV. № 4, 1986.

Bcckman G.M. Hiltite Diplomatic Texts. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996.

Brycc T. The Kingdom of the Hittiles. 2nd cd. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Bulbul С. Idrimi Zamaninda Alalah Kralligi // History Studies. Vol. 11. № 2, 2010.

Cornelius F. Geschichte der Hethiter: mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der geographischen Verhaltnisse und der Rechlsgeschichte. 3. Aufl. Darmstadt: wisscnschaftlichc Buchgcscllschaft, 1979.

D'Alfonso L. Die hcthitischc Vcrtragstradition in Syricn (14.-12. Jh. v. Chr.)// Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur "Deuteronomismus" - Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Berlin-New York: Dc Gruytcr, 2006.

Del Monte G.F. Note sui trattati fra Hattusa с Kizuwatna // Oriens Antiquus. Vol. XX, 1981.

Dcsidcri P., Jasink A.M. Cilicia. Dall'eta di Kizzuwatna alla conquista macedone. Fircnzc: Lc Iettere, 1990.

Dietrich M., Lorctz O. "Die Inschrift der Statue des Konigs Idrimi von Alalah // Ugarit-Forschungen. Vol. XIII, 1981.

Drowcr M.S. Syria с. 1550-1400 B.C. // The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. II/1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Frcu J. Dc 1'indcpcndancc a 1'anncxion: lc Kizzuwatna ct lc Hatti aux XVIc ct XVc sicclcs avant notrc ere // La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millenaire av. J.-C. - 4e Steele ap. J.-C). Istanbul: Institut francais d'etudes anatolienncs Georges Dumczil, P.: Dc Boccard, 2001.

25 All researchers assume that CTH 25 was concluded earlier than ALT 3, but in fact there is no indication that this is the only possible reconstruction. It was based on the idea of Pillia as a younger contemporary of Cidanta and an older contemporary of Idrimi, illustrated by the synchronistic table of A. Goetzc [Goctzc, 1957, p.72]. A more up-to-date version is presented by R. Beal (Bcal, 1986, p. 443) (the question of whether to insert another generation between Huzzis and Tudhalis (Wilhclm, 2004, p.75) has not yet been resolved (dc Martino, 2010, p. 189)). However, it is unlikely that Cidanta died before the conclusion of AIT 3.Another support of previous reconstructions was the assumption that the Mitannian influence on Kizzuvadna was reflected in ALT 3, but not in CTN 25. In fact, this is not the case, since, as shown in the article, AIT 3 reflects only Idrimi's desire to become a vassal of Mitanni and does not draw any connection between Pillisi and Parrattarna (excluding the need for transit between Mukish and Mitanni through the territory that belonged to Kizzuvadns at that time). I am not discussing here whether STN 25 is reflected in the historical introduction of the treaty with another Kitsuvadna king, Sunassura STN 41, but if so, this is another argument for the changes that occurred in the Hatti-Kitsuvadna relationship between STN 29 (the order in which Hittites and Kitsuvadna are mentioned, which indicates concessions to the latter) and STN 25 (showing the strengthening of Hatti in relation to Kizzuvadns).

page 28
Frcu J. Tclipinu cl l' Ancicn royaumc dc Hatti // Des origins a la fin de l'ancien royaume Hitlite. P.: L'Harmattan, 2007.

Garclli P. Le Proche-Orient asiatique des origins aux invasions des peoples de la Mer. P.: Presses univcrsitaircs dc France, 1969.

Giacumakis G.Jr. The Akkadian of Alalah. The Hague-Paris: Mouton, 1970.

Goctzc A. Review of The Statue of Idri-mi by Sidney Smith // Journal of Cuneiform Studies. Vol. IV. No. 4, 1950.

Goetze A. On the Chronology of the Second Millennium B.C. (Concluded) // Journal of Cuneiform Studies. Vol. XI. No. 3, 1957.

Grccnstcin E.L., Marcus D. The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi // Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Vol. 8. 1976.

Gurncy O.R. Anatolia c. 1600-1380 B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Hclck W. Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971.

Izrc'cl S., Singer 1. The General's Letter from Ugarit. A Linguistic and Historical Reevaluation of RS 20.33 (Ugaritica V, No. 20). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, 1990.

Kinal F. Yamhad Kralligi // Ankara Universitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakultesi Tarih Arastirmalari Dergisi. Cilt. V. Sa. 8-9, 1967.

Kitchen K.A., Lawrence P.J.N. Treaty. Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East. Part 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.

Klcngcl H. Geschichle Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z., T. I: Nordsyrien. В.: Akadcmic-Vcrlag, 1965.

Klcngcl H. Historischcr Kommcntar zur Inschrift des Idrimi von Alalah // Ugarit-Forschungen. Vol. XIII, 1981.

Klingcr J. Zur Palaographic akkadischsprachigcr Texte aus Hattusa // Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr.: on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Winona Lake: Eiscnbrauns, 2003.

Koroscc V. Quclqucs remarques juridiques sur deux traites internationaux d'Alalah // Droits de l'antiquite et sociologie juridique. Melanges Henri Levy-Bruhl. P.: Sircy, 1959.

Kosak S. hethiter.net/: hetkonk (v. 1.84). 2002.

Kuhnc C. Politischc Szcneric und internationale Beziehungen Vordcrasicns um die Mittc des 2. Jahrtauscnds vor Chr. (zugleich cin Konzcpt dcr Kurzchronologic) // Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Politischc und kulterelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. his 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. XXV. Rencontre Assyriologique internationale, Berlin 3. his 7. Juli 1978. В.: D. Rcimcr, 1982.

Lang M. Bilatcralitat und Vcrtragstcchnik in der Amarna-Zeit // Staatsvertrdge, Volkerrecht und Diplomatic im Alten Orient und in der griechisch-romischen Antike. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010.

Marqucz Rowe I. Notes on the Hurro-Akkadian of Alalah in the Mid-Second Millennium B.C.E. // Israel Oriental Studies. Vol. XVIII, 1998.

dc Martino S. Some Questions on the Political History and Chronology of the Early Hittite Empire // Altorientalische Forschungen. Bd. XXXVII. Hbd. 2, 2010.

dc Martino S. The military exploits of the Hittite king Hattusili I in lands situated between the Upper Euphrates and the Upper Tigris // Silva Anatolica. Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Warsaw: Agadc, 2002.

Mayer W. Die historischc Einordnung der "Autobiographic" des Idrimi von Alalah // Ugarit-Forschungen. Vol. XXVII, 1995.

Miller J.L. The Expeditions of Hattusili I to the Eastern Frontiers: A Study in the Historical Geography and Internal Chronology of the Great King's Campaigns. M.A. Dissertation. Tel Aviv University, 1999.

Na'aman N. Syria at the Transition from the Old Babylonian Period to the Middle Babylonian Period // Ugarit-Forschungen. Vol. VI, 1974.

Nichr H., Schwcmcr D. Texte aus Ugarit // Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Neue Folge. Bd. 2. Gutersloh: Gutcrsloher Verlagshaus, 2005.

Novak M. Mittani Empire and the Question of Absolute Chronology: Some Archaeological Considerations // The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000-2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May-1st of June 2003. Wicn: Verlag der Ostcrrcichischen Akadcmic dcr Wissenschaften, 2007.

Oiler G.H. The Autobiography of Idrimi: a New Text Edition with Philological and Historical Commentary. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, 1977.

Otten H. Ein althethitiseher Vertrag mit Kizzuvatna // Journal of Cuneiform Studies. Vol. V. No. 4, 1951.

Redford D.B. The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Leiden Boston: Brill, 2003.

Ruster Chr., Ncu E. Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon: Inventar und Interpretation der Keilschriftzeichen aus den Bogazkoy-Texten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowiz, 1989.

Sasson J.M. On Idrimi and Sarruwa, the Scribe // Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 1: In Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday April 29. 1981. Winona Lake: Eiscnbrauns, 1981.

Schwemer D. Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001.

page 29
Singer I. A Concise History of Amurru // Amurru Akkadian: a Linguistic Study. Vol. 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

Smith S. The Statue of Idrimi. L.: the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, 1949.

Smith S. Ursu and Hassum // Anatolian Studies. Vol. VI, 1956.

von Dassow E. State and Society in the Late Bronze Age: Alalah under the Mittani Empire. Bcthcsda: CDL Press, 2008.

Weeden M. Hittite Logograms: Studies in Their Origin and Distribution. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of London, 2008.

Wilhclm G. Generation Count in Hittite Chronology // Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited. Wien: Verlag der Osterreichisehen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004.

Wilhelm G. et al. Vertrag Zidanzas II. (?) mit Pillija von Kizzuwatna (CTH25) // hethiter.net/: CTH 25 (INTR 2008-05-11).

Wiseman D.J. The Alalakh Tablets. L.: the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953.

Zaccagnini C. The Forms of Alliance and Subjugation in the Near East of the Late Bronze Age // I Trattati nel mondo antico: forma, ideologia, funzione. Roma: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1990.

page 30

Permanent link to this publication: