TRACES OF A TREATY IN AN URARTIAN TEXT?

Full text

361
TRACES OF A TREATY IN AN URARTIAN TEXT?
Levan GORDEZIANI*
The Urartian text CTU A 5-3 is a rock inscription of Yazılıtaş in the region of
Erzurum. It
was
found and published in the 19th century and discussed many
times in special literature since
then.
The inscription describes the military
campaign of King Minua (ca. 810-785/780 BC)
against
Uṭupuršini of Diaueḫi.
Diau(e)ḫi is to be located from modern Erzurum and the upper reaches
of
the Euphrates and far to the north, including the vally of the Çoroh. It is
identied with
Greek
Tάοχοι, Georgian Tao, Armenian Tayk, also with Daiaeni
of the Assyrian texts.1 An
assumption
has also been made about the identity
of Assyrian Daiaeni with Hittite Azzi-Hayasa.2 As
recently
proposed by Shota
Asatiani, Uṭupuršini might have been the prototype of the Colchian
king
Aietes from
Argonautica.
3
CTU A 5-3 (УКН 36, КУКН
53)
4
1 Dḫal-di-ni uš-ta-bi ma-si-ni
GIŠ
šú-ri-e
* Tbilisi
1 Г.А. Меликишвили, Урартские клинообразные надписи (УКН), Наука, Москва 1960: 424; I.M.
Diakonoff,
S.M. Kashkai, Geographical Names according to Urartian texts, Wiesbaden 1981: 26; M.
Salvini,
Geschichte
und Kultur der Urartäer. Darmstadt 1995: 55; Н. В. Арутюнян, Корпус урартских
клинообразных
надписей
(КУКН), Гитутюн, Ереван 2001:
503.
2 И.М. Дьяконов, Предистория армянского народа, Ереван 1968: 209 слл.; T. Kemertelidze, The
Ethnic
Identity of the South-West Trans-Caucasian Population in the Late Bronze Age, The Essays of
Academician
Shalva Amiranashvili State Museum of Art, Tbilisi 2001: 13 (in Georgian); G. Kavtaradze,
The Issues of
the
Developement of Georgian Statehood, Tbilisi 2006: 39 (in
Georgian).
3 Sh. Asatiani, The Kingdom of Aietes, Acts of the International Kartvelological Conference, Tbilisi 2011:
130ff.
(in
Georgian).
4 Transliteration of Salvini (M. Salvini, Corpus dei testi urartei (CTU), CNR, Istituto di studi sulle
civilità
dell’Egeo e del Vicino Oriente, Roma 2008:
190).

362
Levan GORDEZIANI
2 mdi-a-ú-e-ḫi-ni-e-di
KUR
tar-a-i-ú-e-di
3 Dḫal-di-i ku-ru-ni Dḫal-di-ni
GIŠ
šú-ri-i
4 ku-ru-ni Dḫal-di-ni-ni
uš-ma-a-ši-ni
5 uš-ta-bi mmì-nu-a-ni
m
iš-pu-ú-i-ni-e-ḫi
6 ú-lu-uš-ta-bi Dḫal-di-ni
m
mì-nu-a-še
7 a-li-e ḫa-ú-bi mdi-a-ú-e-ḫi
KUR-ni-i-e
8 URUšá-ši-lu-ni URU MAN-si ḫa-ú-bi
gu-nu-šá-a
9 KURe-ba-ni a-ma-áš-tú-bi
É.GAL
MEŠ
-ši-li
10 ku-ṭu-ú-bi pa-a-ri-e
KUR
še-še-ti-i-na-a
11 URUzu-a-i-na-a URUu-ṭu-ḫa-a-i
a-su-ni
Went forth (to battle) (the god) Ḫaldi with his weapon against (the tribe
of) Diaueḫi, against
(the
land) Taraiu.5 Ḫaldi is powerful, Ḫaldi’s weapon
is powerful. Went forth (to battle) with
power
of Ḫaldi Minua, the son of
Išpuini, Ḫaldi leaded him. Minua says: I conquered the land of
(the
tribe)
Diaueḫi. I took the royal city Šašiluni6 with battle, I burned the land,
(destroyed)
the
castles, I reached (the land) Šešetina, (the city) Zuaina
and/in the region of (the city)
Utuḫa.
12 mmì-nu-a-še a-li-e mú-ṭu-bu-ur-ši-ni
MAN
13 mdi-i-a-ú-e-ḫi nu-na-bi
ka-a-i-ú-ki
14 šá-tú-a-li ku-ri-e-li
su-lu-uš-ti-i-bi
15 si-lu-a-di ma-ku-ri ’a-al-du-bi me-ši-ni
pi-i
16 a-ru-ú-ni GUŠKIN KÙ.BABBARMEŠ a-ru-ú-ni
me-e-še
17 a-li LÚta-áš-mu-še be-di ma-a-nu
bi-du-ni
18 i-bi-i-ra-a-ni mmì-nu-ú-a-še
a-li-e
5 Melikishvili and Harouthiounyan translate KUR tar-a-i-ú-e-di as “против ... могущественной
страны”
(Меликишвили 1960: 158; Арутюнян 2001: 78). Both interpretations are possible, but the qualication
“a
great
power” for the enemy would be a unique case in Urartian texts. In the text CTU A 8-7 KURtar-a-
i-ú-ni KUR
is
attested in the context of a campaign of Argišti I against Diauehi. KURtar-i-ú-ni is mentioned
in CTU A 8-3, I 8
in
the same context. We may assume that the land Taraiu/ Tariu of all the three texts was
the same land, a
neighbour
or even a part of Diauehi (L. Gordeziani, Urartian Inscription from Hanak
(Georgian translation and
comments),
Oriental Studies 3, Tbilisi 2014:
332f.).
6 Kavtaradze (2006: 36ff.) identies it with Georgian Sasiro.

363
TRACES OF A TREATY IN AN URARTIAN TEXT?
Minua says: Uṭupuršini, the king of Diaueḫi came to me, embraced
my feet, fell down
(before
me). I treated him mercifully, pardoned him
under the condition of paying tribute.7 He gave
me
gold and silver, he
gave me tribute. All prisoners/ captives/ refugees who returned (to him),
he
gave me back.8 Minua
says:
19 ka-am-na-a-ḫi a-li
m
di-a-ú-e-ḫi-ni-i
20 ANŠE.KUR.RAMEŠ-ú-ú LÚA.SIMEŠ
’a-a-ḫa-a-ú
21 LÚA.SIMEŠ-áš-te ú-i ú-ni
a-šá-a-zi-e
22 ḫi-i-ni-e ši-ú-bi
LÚ
ḫu-ú-ra-d[i-n]a-a
23 ma-a-si-ni-e-i-a-ni a-šá-a-zi-e
[ú-ú]-še
Salvini translates only partially: kamnaḫi il quale di Diaueḫi cavalli e truppe
’aḫau alle
truppe
neppure (?) ašazie ora (?) portai via (fra i) soldati dal
suo ašazie;9 Melikishvili
and
Harouthiounyan do not translate the passage
at all and only mention in comments that it
deals
with the obligation of the
king of Diaueḫi to give horses and troops to Urartians.10
Diakonoff
translates
as: раньше вот что (говорили) диавейскому (правителю): “твоих лошадей
войнам
ты соберешь!” для войнов было это назначено в долю, теперь я
приказал, (чтобы) у
войнов
из своей собственной доли (было)
ú-ú-še.
11
24 2 MANMEŠ-li-li e-di-ni
su-ṭu-qu-[ú]-bi
25 mba-al-tú-ú-ul-ḫi-e
KUR
e-ba-a-ni-i-e
26 URUḫa-al-di-ri-ul-ḫi
KUR
e-ba-a-ni-i-e
27 É.GALMEŠ-a-ši-li
a-gu-ú-nu-ni-e-li
28 KURe-ba-ni-a-ṣi e-di-ni
su-ṭu-qu-bi
7 Меликишвили 1960: 158. Salvini does not translate the rst part – siluadi makuri, and translates the
second
literally: “lo sottoposi a tributo – put him under tribute” (Salvini 2008: 191). The interpretation
of
Melikishvili seems me logical.
8 Меликишвили 1960: 158. Salvini does not translate this sentence (Salvini 2008:
191).
9 Salvini 2008:
191.
10 Меликишвили 1960: 159; Арутюнян 2001:
79.
11 И.М. Дьяконов, Урартские письма и документы (УПД), М.-Л. 1963:
70.

364
Levan GORDEZIANI
2 kings12 I removed from there: the (king) of the land of the tribe Baltu and the
(king) of the
land
of the city Ḫaldiri. The fortications (/fortied castles) that
were in the region I removed
from there.
29 mmì-nu-a-še a-li-e a-lu-še i-ni
DUB-te
30 tú-li-i-e a-lu-še
pi-tú-li-i-e
31 a-lu-še a-i-ni-[i] i-ni-li
du-li-e
32 a-lu-še ú-li-še ti-ú-li-e i-e-še
za-du-bi
33 tú-ri-ni-ni Dḫal-di-še DIM-še
D
UTU-ni-[še]
34 DINGIRMEŠ-še ma-a-ni DUTU-ni pi-i-ni mì-i
ar-ḫi
35 ú-ru-li-a-ni mì-i
i-na-i-ni
36 mì-i na-ra-a a-ú-li-e
ú-lu-li-e
Minua says: (he) who will destroy this inscription, who will break
it, who will make
someone
else do (this), who will say: “I have done
(this)”, may he be annihilated by Ḫaldi, the
Weather
Deity, the Sun
Deity, all gods under the Sun,
...
The nal part of the formula is rather obscure. None of the corpora offers its
translation
although
the meaning of its words, taken separately, has
recently been specied. The
passage
approximately translates as follows:
“Neither shall (he have) a way out, nor shall the god
or
people lead (him)
anywhere”.
13
As already mentioned, the text describes the Urartian military campaign
against Diaueḫi.
Apart
from the traditional description of victory expressed
by the terms “conquered”,
“destroyed”,
“burned”, we can see the real results
12 MAN is usually translated as “king”, but in case of “others”, i.e. enemies/ opponents of Urartians,
it
may
designate rulers of very different entities – from the Assyrian king to the local chiefs of valleys or
settlements.
13 Although none of the numerous curse formulas found in the Ancient East shows any apparent parallels
with
the
cited passage, the latter, anyway, clearly reects the primitive ideas about the universe order.
The space
“under
the sun” is regarded as the territory under the authority of the Urartian deities and the
deities of the
peoples
conquered by the Urartians. Beyond this area there was chaos, and other territories
subject to the power of
other
deities and peoples. Presumably, the curse formula must refer to the restriction
in offering a shelter to a sinner
by
other, foreign peoples and gods (L. Gordeziani, To the Interpretation
of an Urartian Formula, Caucasian
and
Near Eastern Studies 13, Tbilisi 2009:
59-62).

365
TRACES OF A TREATY IN AN URARTIAN TEXT?
of the war, which are quite different from the
standard
outcome of a victorious
campaign of Urartians. Urartian kings mostly report about the trophy
–
thousands of men and women, cattle, etc.14 They are counted in the texts;
even if the
numbers
may not always seem realistic. The defeated lands
were either destroyed or became part of
the
Urartian kingdom.15 Sometimes
the losers had to pay annual tribute,16 which may be regarded
as
a sign of
subordination.
In this case we
see:
• one-time undened
contribution,
• exchange of refugees or captives
(?),
• delivery of horses and troops
(?),
• delimitation of
borders,
• destruction of boarder
fortications.
This could be the result of a war between two more or less equal rivals, one
of them, Minua,
won
and Uṭupuršini was forced to pay contribution, return
refugees or/and captives, agree with
the
obligation to give horses and troops (or
horses for troops). The formula of this obligation
appears
again only once – in
the annals of Argišti I, the son and successor of Minua, in the context of
the
new campaign against the same Uṭupuršini of
Diaueḫi.
17
The outcome of the ght is quite similar to the conditions of Hittite treaties.18
14 E.g.: CTU A 3-4, 5-2, 8-2 Vo, 8-3, 8-7,
etc.
15 E.g.: CTU A 8-2 Vo, 9-3, 9-4, 10-1,
etc.
16 E.g.: CTU A 8-2 Vo, 9-1, 9-3, 9-4, 10-2, etc. The formula ’aaldubi mešini pii – “put him under trib-
ute”
or
“pardoned him under the condition of paying tribute” appeared rst in texts of Minua. In CTU
A 5-1, 5-2
we
can’t be sure if it denotes one-time contribution or stable periodical obligation. In the texts
of Sarduri II (CTU
A
9-1 Vo 31, 9-3 I 17-18, II 39, IV 54, VI 20-21, 9-4 26) the word “annual” is not
present, but the context lets
us
think that the conquered lands were obliged to pay tribute for years. The
“annual tribute” is attested only in
CTU
A 8-2 Vo 23 (terubi MU.MU-ni ardilani) and CTU 10-2 14 (mešini
šáali), only in A 8-2 Vo both
one-time
contribution (l. 18-21) and annual tribute (l. 23-25) are listed in
detail.
17 CTU A 8-2 Vo 26. LÚA.SIMEŠ-na-a ú-ú-še ma-a-si-ni-i-a-ni
áš-zi-e.
18 See G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Atlanta 1996. For different types of ancient Near Eastern trea-
ties
see
e.g., A. Altman, How Many Treaty Traditions Existed in the Ancient Near East? Pax Hethitica.
Studies on
the
Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer. Ed. by Yoram Cohen, Amir Gilan
and Jared L.
Miller,
Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2010: 16-36. One might expect that the Urartian
practice was inuenced
mostly
by the Assyrian diplomatic tradition; however, it seems that we can nd
more similarities with Hittite texts.
This
fact could be explained by the supposition that the Urartian
concept of empire (cf. P. Zimansky, Urartu
as
Empire. Cultural Integration in the Kingdom of Van.
Biainili-Urartu. Proceedings of the Symposium held
in
Munich 12-14 October 2007. Edited by S.
Kroll, C. Gruber, U. Hellwag, M. Roaf& P. Zimansky,
Peeters,
Louvain 2012: 101-110) was closer to
the Hittite rather than to the Assyrian
model.

366
Levan GORDEZIANI
Most of
them
mention one-time contribution or annual tribute, return of
refugees and captives, obligation
to
give troops, etc. But the discussed text is
“historiographical” and I prefer to compare it
with
Hittite “historiographical”
texts, to check how they reect the conditions of
treaties.
It was a great surprise for me that Hittite annals mention treaties only in very
few
cases:
Deeds of Suppiluliuma (Tablet Seven, Fragment 28, KBo 5.6 and duplicates):
Then my
father
asked for the tablet of the treaty again, (in which there was
told) how formerly the Storm
God
took the people of Kurustama, sons of Hatti,
carried them to Egyptian territory, and made
them
Egyptian subjects, how the
Storm God (30) concluded a treaty between the lands of Egypt
and
Hatti,
and how they remained on friendly terms with each other. And when they
had read
aloud
the tablet before them, my father addressed them: (35) “Hatti
and Egypt have been friends a
long
time. Now this too on our behalf has taken
place between t[hem]. Thus Hatti and Egypt will
keep
on being
friends”.
19
“Friendship” is mentioned as the only condition of the treaty between two
superpowers.
DS (fragment 51) ... and made it again (part) of Hattiland. Consequently
... took (his place)
with
my father. ... made a treaty, and began to give him
troops...
20
Here is attested the obligation to give
troops.
No treaty is mentioned in The Ten Year Annals of Mursili II.21 But in some
places there
are
traces of conditions of treaties – again the obligation of
giving troops and returning
refugees
or/and captives. Sometimes the local
lord became a vassal of Mursili and kept his
position:
(year I) I defeated the levies of the Kaska and killed them. The Kaska
19 Translation of H. Hoffner, Context of Scripture, Canonical Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions, and
Archival
Documents from the Biblical World (COS). General Editor William W. Hallo, Associate
Editor K.
Lawson
Younger, Jr., Project Editor David E. Orton, Brill, Leiden-Boston 2003, vol. I:
191.
20 H.G. Gütterbock, The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son, Mursili II. JCS 10 (1956):
118.
21 Translation of R. Beal, COS II:
82ff.

367
TRACES OF A TREATY IN AN URARTIAN TEXT?
of the land of
Durmitta
resubmitted and they began to give [me troops].
[Then] I, [My Majesty,] returned. Because
the
Kaska of the land of Ishupitta
had become hostile and ceased giving me troops, I, My
Majesty,
went to the
land of Ishupitta. I attacked the town of [...]humissena. I looted it including
its
transplantees, cattle and sheep and brought them away to Hattusa, while
the town I burned
down. I
resubjugated the Kaska of the land of Ishupitta.
They began to give me troops. All this I did
in
one
year.
(year IV) [When] I came back [to the Se]ha-[River Land,] I would
have fought
[Manapa-
Tarhunta who] was [lord] in Seha-River Land.
However, when [Manapa-Tarhunta] heard
about
me: “The Hittite king is
coming,” [he became] afraid and so [he did not] then [come] against
me.
He
sent [to] me his mother and old men and old women. They came and [fell
down] at my
feet.
Because the women fell down at my feet, I had mercy on
the women and so I did [not] enter
the
Seha-River Land. They handed over
to me the Hittite transplantees who were in
Seha-River
Land. There were
4,000 transplantees whom they handed over. I sent them back to Hattusa
and
they led them away. Manapa-Tarhunta and Seha-River Land I made into
my subjects. Then
I
went to Mira. I gave Mira to Mashuiluwa; I gave
Seha-River Land to Manapa-Tarhunta; and
I
gave Hapalla to Targasnalli.
I made these lands into my subjects where they were. I
imposed
military
obligations on them and they began to give me troops … Some (of
Arzawa) I
brought
away to Hattusa and some I made into my subjects
where they were. I imposed
military
obligations on them and they began
to give me troops. The transplantees whom I, My
Majesty,
brought back
for the royal estates, because I overcame all of Arzawa, numbered all
together
66,000. Those whom the Hittite lords, infantry and horse-troops
brought back were
innumerable.
(year VII) When I had overcome Tipiya, I sent a messenger to Anniya, king
of Azzi. I wrote
to
him: “[Return to me] my subjects who came to you while
my father was in
Mitanni.”
It is obvious that the description of the outcome of a single campaign, especially
the list
of
conditions of the truce in the abovementioned Hittite annals is no

368
Levan GORDEZIANI
more detailed than that of
the
Urartian text CTU A 5-3. On the contrary – the
Urartian text records in lines 15-28 almost
all
points of the hypothetical treaty
between Minua and
Uṭupuršini.