Tel Aviv 13(1986)
Nevo, E., Beiles, A., Gutterman, Y., Storch, N. and Kaplan, D. 1984. Genetic Resources
of Wild Cereals in Israel and Vicinity. I, II. Euphytica 33:717-735, 737-756. Ory, J. 1942. A Bronze Age Tomb near Yazur. QDAP 10:59-61. Ory, J. 1946. A Chalcolithic Necropolis at Benei Beraq. QDAP 12:43-57. Owen, J.B. 1976. Sheep Production. London.
Perrot, J. 1961. Une tombe ä ossuaires du IV milldnaire ä Azor pres de Tel Aviv. 'Atiqot
3:1 83 (English scries). Perrot, J. 1968. La pr6hisloirc paleslinicnnc. \n.Supplement au Dictionaire de la Bible
XIII. Paris: 286-486.
Perrot, J. and Ladiray, D. 1980. Tombes ä ossuaires de la region cdtierepalestinienne au
IV millenaire avant I'ere Chretienne. Paris. Qasile I. Mazar, A. 1980. Excavations at Tell Qasile. Part One; The Philistine Sanctuary:
Architecture and Cult Objects. (Qedem 12). Jerusalem. Rabinovitch-Vin, A. 1986. Parent Rock, Soil and Vegetation in the Galilee. (Nature
Reserve Authority). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Rickman, G. 1980. 77ie Corn Supply of Ancient Rome. Oxford. Rowley-Conewy, P. 1981. Slash and Burn in the Temperate European Neolithic. In:
Mercer, R. ed. Farming Practice in British Prehistory. Edinburgh: 85-96. Samoch, Y., Litav, M., Fein, P. and Waisel, Y. 1980. Expansion Rates of Maquis in the
Judean Mountains. La-Yaaran 30:6-15, 28 (Hebrew with English summary). Seligman, N. 1980. In: The Carrying Capacity of the Coastal Plain of Israel before Domestication. (Mimeographed Report of Symposium at Haifa University (Hebrew).
Stanhill, G. 1978. The Fellah's Farm: An Autoarkic Agro System. Agro-Ecosystems 4:433-448.
Sussman, V. and Ben-Arieh, S. 1966. Ancient Burials in Givatayim. 'Atiqot 3:27-39
(Hebrew; English summary 4*). Wood, T.S. and Baldwin, S. 1985. Fuelwood and Charcoal Use in Developing Countries.
Annual Review of Energy 10:407-429. Zohary, D. 1983. Wild Genetic Resources of Crops in Israel. Israel Journal of Botany
32:97-127.
Zohary, M. 1959. Geobotany. (2nd. ed.). Merhavia, Israel. Zohary, M. 1983. Man and Vegetation in the Middle East. In: Holzner, W., Werger, .A. and Ikusima, I. eds. Man's Impact on Vegetation. The Hague.
THE BOUNDARIES OF HATTI AND HITTITE BORDER POLICY
Trevor, R. Bryce
During the Late Bronze Age, Anatolia was dominated by the kingdom of the Hittitcs, whose capital IlattuSa was the local point of the region encompassed by the Halys (modern Kizil Irmak) river — the MaraSSantiya of Hittite times. This region is designated in maps as the Land of Hatti, and commonly referred to as the Hittite homeland, to distinguish it from other parts of Anatolia where Hittite influence was exercised more indirectly through a network of vassal rulers.
But while the Hittite homeland may be thought of essentially as the region lying within the Halys basin, the extent of the territory over which the Hittite king actually exercised direct authority varied quite markedly from one reign to another. This was due in large measure to problems of defence. The whole region is landlocked, has few naturally defensible positions, and the boundary formed by the easily fordable Halys river is some hundreds of kilometres in extent.
The vulnerability of the region is further made clear by a consideration of the hostile and potentially hostile forces which were in striking distance of it. The Pontic zone to the north was inhabited by the Kaska tribes, a loose confederation of mountain kingdoms which posed a constant threat to Hittite territory,1 invading it several times and on occasions causing widespread devastation throughout the land.2 To the southeast lay the Hurrians, who invaded the eastern frontiers of Hatti at least as early as the reign of HaltuSili I (ca. 1650-20 B.C.E.),3 and continued to threaten Hittite interests both in Anatolia and Syria until the conquests of Suppiluliuma in the I4th century. To the southwest lay the Arzawa lands — a group of countries which in the New Kingdom became vassal states of the Hittites, but were unreliable and frequently rebellious, ready to exploit any period of Hittite weakness to break their allegiance, establish alliances with foreign powers, and march against the Hittite homeland.
In view of such constant threats, we can readily understand that one of the most pressing problems confronting the Hittite kings was the security of the Land of Hatti itself and the protection of its frontiers. This they attempted to achieve by defining in a number of their treaties with vassal and protectorate rulers the borders of the homeland, by binding the focal rulers to respect and in some cases to help defend homeland terri-
1 For a detailed treatment of the KaSka people and their relations and conflicts with the Hittites, see von Schuler 1965.
2 In particular, during the critical period prior to the accession of Suppiluliuma, as recorded in the historical preamble of a decree of HattuSili III (CTH 88, Obv. 6-9; see Goetze 1940:21-22).
3 As recorded in HattuSili's Annals (CTH 4; see Imparati and Saporetti 1965; Melchert 1978; Bryce 1982:49-98), within the context of a general uprising of subject states against HattuSa (I 22-23). ^
85
84
Tel Aviv 13 (1986)
tory, by garrisoning the frontier regions which were most liable to attack, by imposing limitations on traffic across the frontiers, and by re-stocking the population in under-inhabitated areas near the frontiers.
During the Old Kingdom there were several major changes in the size of the territory over which the reigning king exercised authority, either directly or through the rule of local governors.4 Under HattuSili I, Hittite territory extended from Zalpa in the north5 through the Halys basin and probably as far as the Mediterranean,6 encompassing the Lower Land and perhaps also the territory later to become the state of Kizzuwadna. However in the unstable period which followed the assassination of HattuSili's successor MurSili I (ca. 1590 B.C.E.), the Hittite kingdom suffered substantial territorial losses. The encroachments of the KaSka people on Hittite territory from the north resulted in the loss of the holy city of Nerik, allegedly during Hantili's reign,7 and subsequently the Hittites lost most of the territory they controlled both inside and beyond the Halys basin. And it was very likely during the reign of Ammuna (ca. 1550-30 B.C.E.) that Kizzuwadna was established as an independent state under Hurrian influence.8 The accession of Telipinu (ca. 1525 B.C.E.) led to a partial recovery of Hittite influence in eastern Anatolia and the repossession of some of the territories lost during the reigns of his predecessors, from Hantili on. However Kizzuwadna remained an independent state, as indicated by the treaty which Telipinu drew up with the Kizzuwadnan ruler I3putah§u (CT//21).
In the New Kindgom, the geo-political structure of the Hittite world becomes, for the modern scholar, a little more clearly defined. Basically it was nuclear in structure, and consisted of the following elements: (a)  Hattusa as the focal point.
4 The extent of Hittite territory in the Old Kingdom is discussed by von Schüler within the context of his consideration of whether or not the KaSkans were involved in Hittite affairs during the Old Kingdom (1965:19-27).
5 HattuSili's conquest is recorded in his Annals, 19-11. For the location of Zalpa in or near the Pontic zone, see in particular Often 1973:58 ff.
6 An assumption based on sec. 3 (and similarly sec. 6) of the Telipinu Proclamation (CTH f9). The literal translation of the relevant words are: "He made them (i.e. the conquered countries) the boundaries of the sea," which Gurney interprets "he made the sea their frontier" (1973:235). See also Heinhold-Krahmer 1977:13-14. The suggestion that the sea in question is the Mediterranean seems the most logical proposal, although we cannot completely rule out the possibility that it is the Black Sea (see von Schüler 1965:20).
7 This claim is made by Hattufiili 111 in the so-called Apology (CTH 81, most recently edited by Otten, 1981) sec. 10b, III 46'-49', and also in a document of Tudhaliya IV — CTH 524 (=KUB XXV 21) III 2. Von Schüler, however, raises the possibility that the loss of Nerik did not in fact occur until after the reign of Telipinu (1965:24-27).
8 The state of Kizzuwadna was perhaps created under Hurrian influence during the uprisings against Hittite authority in the reign of Ammuna (Telipinu Procl. sees. 20-21); see Gurney 1973:665.
86
Bryce: The Boundaries of Hatti and Hittite Border Policy
(b) Around this, Hatti territory proper, extending north of Hattuša to the Kaška zone, eastwards to the upper course of the Halys (and perhaps beyond), and southwards to the Lower Land in the southwest and the frontiers of Kizzuwadna and Tarhun-tašša in the southeast.
(c) The complex of vassal and protectorate states extending throughout Anatolia and southeastwards into Syria.
Within this structure, we can define several regions which served in effect as buffer zones between the heartland of the Hittite kingdom and the countries or states which posed a major threat to it. The buffer zones included both outlying areas within the Land of Hatti as well as countries which lay adjacent or relatively close to it and were allied by treaty with the Hittite king.
These zones played a crucial role in the security of the homeland. They included (1) to the north and northeast: a zone serving as a buffer against the Kaška peoples; (2) to the east and southeast: Išuwa and Kizzuwadna as buffer zones between Hittite and Hurrian territory; (3) to the southwest: the Lower Land as a buffer zone against the countries of western and southwestern Anatolia. We shall consider each of these in some detail.
(1) The northeastern zone
This can be broadly defined as a region extending across the Halys basin north and northeast of Hattuša, from the lower course of the Halys in the west towards the Euphrates in the southeast. The main basis for this conclusion is the statement made by HattuSili (III) in his so-called Apology (CTH 81)' regarding the "empty countries" (KUR.KURMES dannatta) assigned to him by the reigning Hittite king Muwatalli when the latter established his royal residence in Tarhuntašša. As listed in the Apology of Hattušili III, the countries in question are Išhupitta, Marišta, Hiššašhapa, Katapa, Han-hana, Darahna, Hattena, Durmitta, Pala, Tumanna, Gaššiya, Šappa, the Hulaná River Land (Otten 1981: sec. 8, II 56-60). We are unable to determine the precise location of any of these countries. Nevertheless, in line with the general consensus of opinion, they can be very roughly located within a broad geographical band extending across the northern half of the Halys basin from the region of present-day Merzifon in the northwest to Siwa or beyond in the southeast.10
From information provided elsewhere in the Apology, as well as in other sources, we can make a number of additions to the list of countries (and towns) which lay within the northeastern zone and belonged to HattuSili's sphere of responsibility. We shall be referring to some of these in the discussion which follows. And from the Apology we also learn that Hattušili was accorded the status of king (LUGAL) in the Land of Hakpišša, today generally located at Amasya." Hakpišša may have served as an important admi-
9 Otten's edition of this text (1981) now supersedes that of Sturtevant and Bechtel (1935:65-83).
10 For proposals regarding the individual locations of the countries in question, see del Monte and Tischler 1978, under the appropriate entries.
11 See the references cited by del Monte and Tischler 1978:66. But note the arguments against this
87
Tel Aviv 13 (1986)
nistrative centre for HattuSili, perhaps in effect a royal capital from which he exercised authority over the northeastern zone as a whole.
In what condition were the countries in this zone at the time they were assigned to HattuSili, and what was the purpose of his appointment? A partial answer to the first part of the question may be found by examining references to a number of countries lying within the zone in texts predating, or referring to events which predate, the events recorded in the Apology. This examination provides us with three provisional categories:
(a) Ruined, abandoned cities, e.g. Nerik and Tiliura.
(i) We have referred above to the destruction and abandonment of Nerik during the Old Kingdom. The cult of the Weather God was subsequently transferred to HakpisSa,12 and the city was not rebuilt until the reign of Urhi-TeSub; the rebuilding was undertaken by Hattusili (Otten 1981: sec. 10, III 46' -48').
(ii) Similarly the city of Tiliura, on the Hittite-KaSkan border, had been abandoned from the time of Hantili (according to Hattugili), and remained deserted until the campaigns by MurSili II against the KaSka people. MurSili was responsible for rebuilding the city and partly resettling it, but it was only fully re-established by HattuSili.'3
(b) Countries which had been occupied by KaSka forces who were subsequently expelled by Suppiluliuma or his successors, e.g. Tumanna, IStahara, the Upper Land, MariSta, Saddupa, Karahna.
(i) Tumanna had been lost to the Hittites some time prior to Suppiluliuma's campaigns in the north, but as MurSili reports, Suppiluliuma had reconquered Tumanna "and re-established it and made it again part of the Hittite country" (Giiterbock 1956: frag. 28, 37-39). Subsequently Tumanna and Pala were placed under the authority of a local governor, Hutupiyanza, a nephew of Suppiluliuma (Goetze 1967:192-193). It may be, however, that full resettlement in Tumanna did not occur until the northern zone was assigned to HattuSili, since HattuSili lists Tumanna among the "empty countries" which he repopulated.
(ii) IStahara. In the Deeds of Suppiluliuma MurSili indicates that IStahara was Hittite territory, but at the time of Suppiluliuma's campaigns against the KaS-kans was under KaSkan occupation. Suppiluliuma drove the KaSkans from the land, rebuilt a number of towns there, and once more incorporated IStahara within the Hittite kingdom (Giiterbock 1956: frag. 28, 40-50).
location recently put forward by Kempinski and KoSak, who suggest that the city lay in the area of the modern Corum (1982:109).
12 As indicated in the Prayer of Arnuwanda (I) and ASmunikal (CTH 375, IV 6-10; see von Schuler 1965:152 ff.).
13 This information occurs in the preamble to HattuSili Ill's treaty with the town of Tiliura(C77/ 89), discussed below. For Tiliura's location on the Hittite-KaSkan border, see the references cited by del Monte and Tischler 1978:421-422.
Bryce: The Boundaries of Hatti and Hittite Border Policy (iii) The Upper Land was an eastward extension of the land of Hatti, covering much of the territory between the upper course of the Halys in the west and the Euphrates in the east. To the north it bordered on the KaSka zone, and to the northeast the region of Azzi-HayaSa (cf. del Monte and Tischler 1978:293); and on a number of occasions it was invaded by enemy forces from both these regions. The earliest recorded invasion took place during the general onslaught on Hittite territory prior to the reign of Suppiluliuma when the country was sacked by the enemy from Azzi who established their frontier at Samuha (CTH 88, obv. lines 11-12). In later times (at least) Samuha seems to have served as the administrative centre of the Upper Land (see Garstang and Gurney 1959:33).
From the deeds of Suppiluliuma it is clear that the Hittites had regained control of the Upper Land while Suppiluliuma's father still occupied the Hittite throne. According to the Deeds, the king resided at Samuha during his period of illness while his son Suppiluliuma conducted military operations from the Upper Land against Azzi-HayaSa, Kaska, and other enemy countries (Giiterbock 1956: frags. 10-13). Nevertheless, it seems that some of the territory of the Upper Land in the border zone with Azzi-HayaSa remained under the latter's control until the time of Suppiluliuma's treaty with Hukkana and the people of Haya§a(C77/43; Friedrich 1930:103-163). In accordance with the terms of this treaty, the HayaSans were obliged to return to Suppiluliuma all NAM.RAMES belonging to Hatti who had come across to HayaSa, and also to hand back the border territory which Suppiluliuma claimed belonged to the Land of Hatti (sec. 33).
The problems of attempting to secure the Upper Land against occupation by neighbouring enemy countries continued into the reign of MurSili when the KaSkans were active in the area. Prior to MurSili's campaigns against.KaSka we note that Pihhuniya, a KaSka man from Tipiya, had captured the Upper Land and incorporated it into KaSka territory (Goetze 1967:88-89). Subsequently MurSili defeated Pihhuniya in battle, ravaged his land, took him prisoner, brought him to HattuSa, and presumably restored Hittite authority over the Upper Land (ibid.: 92-95). But the restoration was short lived. Two years later (MurSili's 9th year), the Upper Land was again invaded, this time by troops from HayaSa. The task of expelling the HayaSan enemy fell to the military commander Nuwanza, who after some delay (caused by Nuwanza's insistence on consulting the augurs and soothsayers) inflicted a resounding defeat on the occupation forces and re-established Hittite authority in the Upper Land (ibid.: 114-123).
As far as we can determine, the Upper Land remained firmly in Hittite hands for the rest of MurSili's reign, under the immediate authority of a local governor appointed by the king. This in fact was one of the first appointments conferred upon HattuSili (in place of the previous governor Arma-Tarhunda)
88
89
Tel Aviv 13 (1986)
by his brother Muwatalli shortly after the latter's accession to the Hittite throne (Otten 1981: sec. 4).
(iv) MariSta, Saddupa, Karahna. From MurSili's Annals we learn that these lands had been occupied by KaSka troops from the Land of TaggaSta. In response to KaSkan aggression, MurSili conducted a military expedition into TaggaSta, and his conquests there presumably led to the restoration of Hittite authority in the occupied lands and the expulsion of the KaSkan occupation forces (Goetze 1967: 146 151). MariSta and Karahna were again occupied by enemy forces during Muwatalli's reign (Otten 1981: sec. 7, II 31-32), but were liberated by HattuSili in the course of his campaigns in the northeastern zone.
(c)  Countries in which there was a permanent KaSka presence, for example, Turmitta and IShupitta.
(i) Turmitta. The Annals of MurSili indicate a substantial KaSka presence in the Land of Turmitta, of sufficient strength to make war upon MurSili early in his reign and to attack other parts of the territory of Turmitta. In response, MurSili led a military expedition into Turmitta, where he destroyed the chief KaSka cities Halila and DudduSka. Although the defeated KaSka forces subsequently received additional military support from their fellow-countrymen in the Land of KaSka, MurSili succeeded in defeating them a second time, forcing them to capitulate and to undertake to provide troops on a regular basis to the Hittite army (Goetze 1967: 22-25). They nevertheless remained a constant threat to Hittite interests in the area, and were very likely the enemy responsible for the attack on Tuhupiya during Muwatalli's reign (Otten 1981: sec. 6, II 10-11).
(ii) IShupitta. Following his campaign in Turmitta, MurSili records a similar campaign which he conducted against the KaSkans in the Land of IShupitta (Goetze 1967: 24-27). Again the KaSkans were defeated and placed under a similar obligation to make available a regular supply of troops for the Hittite army. However the KaSkans of IShupitta seem to have remained far from reconciled to the imposition of Hittite authority in the area, and in the reign of Muwatalli were very likely responsible for IShupitta's participation in the widespread revolt against the Hittite king during his absence in the Lower Land (Otten 1981: sec. 6, II 2-5).
As the above references indicate, the KaSkans had entrenched themselves in a number of the areas belonging to what we have broadly defined as the northeastern zone up to and including the time the region was assigned to HattuSili. Indeed the major incursions into Hittite territory prior to the reign of Suppiluliuma may have led temporarily to the loss of almost the entire zone to enemy control — although much of this zone may already have been in foreign hands even prior to this. And very likely foreign invasion or encroachment led to a large proportion of the Hittite subject population within the region dispersing or migrating to areas which still remained under the authority or protection of the Hittite king.
Bryce: The Boundaries of Hatti and Hittite Border Policy The campaigns of Suppiluliuma against the KaSkans succeeded in reducing in some measure enemy occupation of the northeastern zone, leading to the evacuation of some of the settlements which the enemy had occupied in their progression into Hittite territory. In the wake of their retreat, Suppiluliuma instituted a policy of repopulating the settlements in the northeastern zone with their original inhabitants after fortifying these settlements against future enemy attack (see Güterbock 1956: frag. 13. 12-16).
It seems, however, that Suppiluliuma did not embark on a full-scale repopulation programme, or (hat his preoccupation with the southeast in the latter part of his reign and the upheavals which followed his death and occupied the early years of MurSili's reign led to fresh encroachments by the KaSka people, and perhaps fresh evacuation of the northern settlements by the Hittite population.
Like his father, MurSili followed up his military successes with some attempt to repop-ulate settlements abandoned or partly abandoned as a result of the KaSka incursions, as indicated in the preamble of HattuSili Ill's treaty with the town of Tiliura (CTH 89; Garstang and Gurney 1959:119-120; von Schüler 1965:145-151), discussed below. However, the military conquests and the sporadic repopulation programmes carried out by Suppiluliuma and MurSili failed to provide a long-term solution to the KaSka problem, and in the reign of MurSili's son and successor Muwatalli the Hittites were again faced with KaSka revolts and invasions in the territories to the north and northeast of HattuSa (cf. von Schüler 1965:53).
For Muwatalli the KaSka problem had even more serious proportions, particularly in view of the relocation of the Hittite royal seat at TarhuntaSSa. Whatever the reasons may have been for this southward shift in the administrative centre of gravity (see von Schüler 1965:55), the concentration of Hittite resources in the southeast must have raised serious questions about the security of the homeland and the Hittites' ability to provide it with adequate protection against repeated incursions by the KaSka people from the north. Above all, in the attempt to find a more effective and more lasting solution to the KaSka problem, it was essential to establish and maintain a substantial Hittite presence in the region immediately to the north and northeast of HattuSa.
It was within this context, I believe, that Muwatalli assigned the northern zone to his brother HattuSili. HattuSili became in effect the ruler or administrator of a buffer kingdom, with the particular brief of repopulating abandoned or sparsely populated settlements, or establishing a Hittite population in areas where there may already have been substantial KaSka settlement. In attempting to carry out this brief, HattuSili clearly had to come to terms with the Kaska population who lived in or near the areas where he sought to implement his repopulation programme.
His policy towards the KaSka people in these areas is illustrated by the terms of the treaty which he drew up with the frontier town of Tiliura and other towns lying within the Hittite-KaSkan frontier zone (CTH 89, referred to above). In the preamble to the treaty, HattuSili refers to his programme of resettlement in Tiliura. Originally abandoned in the reign of Hantili, Tiliura was eventually rebuilt by MurSili II. Yet according to
90
91
Tel Aviv 13(1986)
HattuSili, Mursili engaged in only partial resettlement, using NAM.RAMES "booty-people" from conquered territories, for the purpose. HattuSili claimed for himself the credit for full-scale resettlement, allegedly transferring to the town the remnants of its original population.
Most importantly, however, HattuSili was concerned to ensure that the resettled town had a substantially Hittite population, which was clearly distinguishable from the NAM. RAMES whom MurSili had earlier settled in the town, and also, more particularly, from the KaSka people, who were explicitly banned from settling in or even entering the town. The following provisions in the treaty make this clear.
(i) No soldiers or grooms of the KaSka people arc to enter the city.
(ii) No Kaka groom shall enter the city even in the company of the governor of the city.
(hi) Any Kaska man who spends the night in the city is to be arrested and punished.
(iv) No slave purchased from the Ka§ka country is to be allowed into the city; he must remain outside the city limits, or else be "put in a stable."
(v) Anyone who does purchase a slave from KaSka and allows him/ her to enter the city will be arrested.
While these terms make explicit HattuSili's intention of keeping Tiliura a purely Hittite town, they also indicate by implication the probability of a substantial KaSka presence in the region outside the town limits, and the likelihood of relatively close political, commercial and social dealings between Hittites and KaSkans in the region as a whole. But the acceptance of a local Kaska presence and some intermingling between Hittite and KaSka elements was accompanied by a total ban on Ka§ka activities, or even a KaSka presence, within the town limits.
The treaty seems in fact to be a reflection of a more general Hittite policy of allowing, or at least accepting, some degree of peaceful intercourse between Hittite subjects and KaSkans in the Hittite-KaSkan border area while strictly excluding KaSka elements from the newly settled or resettled Hittite frontier towns. However, this policy apparently applied only to Kaska groups who were formally recognised as Hittite "allies," as distinct from other Kaska groups who belonged to the "enemy" category. The "allied" group were bound by a number of regulations stipulated in several treaties which gave them controlled access into Hittite territory and sometimes grazing rights in this territory, but generally barred them from settling in or otherwise occupying Hittite urban settlements.
This information is provided by two treaties in particular, namely CTH 137 (von Schuler 1965:130-134) and 138 (ibid.: 117-130). The treaties are of uncertain date and attribution, but they can probably be regarded as a reflection of Hittite policy towards "allied" KaSka groups during periods of relative stability in the northeastern zone in the second half of the New Kingdom. Both treaties contain clauses explicitly banning settlements by the "allies" in towns belonging to the Land of Hatti (CTH 137, sec. 5", 13-15; CTH 138, sec. 31', 75-76; see von Schuler's comment, 1965:131, n. 3), although it does seem from CTH 138 that Kaskan merchants were occasionally allowed access to certain
Bryce: The Boundaries of Hatti and Hittite Border Policy
Hittite towns for trading purposes. Clearly, however, such trading concessions were strictly controlled and very limited in their application (sec. 35', 87-88).
The above treaties also contain a number of provisions relating to the grazing of livestock (CTH 137, sees. 6"-9"; CTH 138, sees. 39'-42'). Three categories of livestock are referred to: those of the Hittites, those of the allies, those of the enemy (perhaps essentially hostile KaSka states). The allies are forbidden to allow livestock of the enemy to graze amongst their own; if this happens the Hittites will seize and confiscate both lots of livestock. From sec. 7" of CTH 137 it seems that Hittite livestock and livestock of the allies graze together, and that the allies are responsible for making good any losses suffered through enemy raids. Threefold compensation is to be made for stock and personnel losses.
From the texts referred to above, we can draw several conclusions:
(a) While people from KaSka are prohibited from entering the border towns of Hatti territory, they seem to have had some freedom of movement outside the towns and to have grazed their flocks and herds in the same areas as Hittite flocks and herds.
(b) This concession however draws a clear distinction between "allied" KaSkan states and enemy states.
(c) The allies are responsible for ensuring that the enemy states do not use the same grazing areas, and are liable to make threefold compensation for losses of Hittite livestock and personnel due to enemy action.
These provisions are almost certainly to be seen as a means of maintaining some degree of control over ill-defined border regions which could not be permanently or effectively policed by Hittite garrisons. Grazing concessions within the border zone were granted to the allies on the strict understanding that they remain aloof from those states or peoples not covered by the treaty. In this way the Hittites could exercise some control over possible encroachment into their territory, by holding the allies responsible for ensuring that unauthorised encroachment did not occur. In a sense then these allies served as a buffer against non-allied states in the region. Encroachment by non-allied peoples into Hatti territory, even if only for grazing purposes, might well be regarded as the thin end of the wedge, likely to pave the way for more serious encroachments if they were not held strictly in check.
(2) The Eastern and Southeastern Zone A. Isuwa
The country of Isuwa can be located with reasonable certainty between the easternmost states of the Hittite homeland and the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni. More precisely, according to Klengel, it encompassed the region around Elazig and was bounded in the north by the Arsania river (Murad su) and in the east and southeast by the Euphrates (Klengel 1968:63; cf. Goetze, 1940:40). Clearly, then, it occupied a position of considerable strategic importance in relation to both Hatti and Mitanni, and during the New Kingdom it was attached first to one and then to the other of the two super-powers.
92
93
Tel Aviv 13 (1986)
The Annals of Tudhaliya (I) (CTH 142; see Garstang and Gurney 1959:121-123), where the earliest Hittite reference to ISuwa occurs, record a campaign by Tudhaliya against ISuwa, which had rebelled against Hittite rule early in the New Kingdom, probably with Mitannian support (rev. 27-34).
Although on this occasion the Hittite king regained control of the country, it again defected to the Hurrians during the reign of Suppiluliuma's grandfather (HattuSili II?), as indicated by Suppiluliuma's treaty with SunaSSura of Kizzuwadna (CTH 41; Weidner 1923:88-111, Goetze 1940:36-59 (Akkadian version); particular reference, I 14-16). We learn too from Suppiluliuma's treaty with Mattiwaza (Kurtiwaza) of Mitanni (CTH 51; Weidner 1923:2-37) that in the time of Suppiluliuma's father people from Hatti went over to ISuwa and "dwelt amongst the enemy" of the Land of ISuwa (obv. 10-16). Further, the ISuwans joined the general onslaught on Hatti prior to Suppiluliuma's reign and sacked the country of Tegarama (CTH 88, obv. 12; Goetze 1940:22).
The Hittites thus had a threefold problem with ISuwa:
(a) The country could act as an aggressive, anti-Hittite power in its own right.
(b) It provided a place of refuge for the populations of defecting Hittite states.
(c) When allied with the Hurrians it provided a buffer for Mitanni against the Hittites, as well as a means of access for Mitanni into Hittite territory.
It was perhaps for the thiru reason in particular that Suppiluliuma was anxious to regain ISuwa prior to his southeastern campaigns in Syria — to provide the Hittite homeland with a buffer against Mitanni during his absence from the homeland. His campaign against Isuwa led to the re-establishment of Hittite control over the country and the recovery of those of his subjects who had defected from their Hittite allegiance and sought refuge there.14 It is noteworthy that Suppiluliuma did not take back to HattuSa transportees (NAM.RAMES) from amongst the ISuwans themselves in the aftermath of his campaign. ISuwa's past record of rebellion against Hittite rule indicates that the country was decidedly pro-Mitannian in its loyalties, and in view of this it may seem surprising that Suppiluliuma took no further measures to ensure that henceforth it would remain submissive to Hittite authority. Supiluliuma was apparently satisfied that the measures he did take were sufficient to secure ISuwa as a buffer region against further Hurrian encroachment on Hittite preserves from that direction. And as far as we can determine, ISuwa posed no further serious threat to Hittite security in the years preceding the final collapse of the Mitannian kingdom.
B. Kizzuwadna
Kizzuwadna occupied an important strategic location in southeast Anatolia, encompassing as it did one or more of the routes of communication between Hatti and Syria.
14 Suppiluliuma's campaigns of conquest in ISuwa are recorded in the preambles of several treaties; e.g. CTH 41 (Suppiluliuma-SunaSSura treaty) I, 8-10, CTH 51 (Suppiluliuma-Mattiwaza) obv. 10-24 (passim), CTH 53 (Suppiluliuma-Tette of Nuhaäse) 1 12-22. The references to Isuwa in the Deeds of Suppiluliuma (Güterbock 1956: frag. 25. 27 ff.) probably also belong to the same context.
94
Bryce: The Boundaries of Hatti and Hittite Border Policy Control of Kizzuwadna, or at least a guarantee of benevolent neutrality from it, was essential to the success of Suppiluliuma's campaigns against Mitanni in the southeast — to ensure safe passage through Kizzuwadna, or even more importantly freedom from the risk of Hittite expeditionary forces being cut off in the rear or attacked from the rear by a pro-Mitannian state in southeast Anatolia.
Perhaps initially established under Hurrian influence during the reign of the Old Kingdom king Ammuna (cf. Gurney, 1973:665), Kizzuwadna, like ISuwa, fluctuated in its loyalties between Hatti and Mitanni, as reflected in the following treaties:
(a) CTH 21: treaty between Telipinu and ISputahSu, which indicates Kizzuwadna's status as a separate political entity, but also the existence of some form of alliance between Hatti and Kizzuwadna at this time (cf. Gurney 1979:155). The treaty is unfortunately too fragmentary to enable us to draw more precise conclusions.
(b) CTH 25: treaty between Zidanza (II) and Pelliya (see Otten 1951), which contains clauses of "mutual agreements to restore certain towns captured in the preceding war and not to rebuild others which had been destroyed" (Gurney 1973:671). These clauses are the only part of the treaty that has survived, and the reason for the agreement not to rebuild the towns which had been destroyed is unclear, However, there can be little doubt that these towns lay in the border zone between Hatti and Kizzuwadna, and very likely they served as military stations during hostilities between the two countries. If so, the agreement not to rebuild them may have been part of a general policy of demilitarising the region, as a reflection of the peaceful relations which the treaty now formalised between Hatti and Kizzuwadna.
(c) CTH 26: treaty between a Hittite king (HattuSili II?) and PaddatiSSu (see Meyer 1953:112-124, and 122-123 on the suggested attribution to HattuSili II). This treaty contains several provisions relating to the inhabitants of settlements apparently situated in the Hatti-Kizzuwadna border zone. The persons in question seem for the most part to have been pastoralists or herdsmen, who perhaps lived a semi-nomadic existence with their flocks and herds, although in some cases at least they appear to have been in the employ of Hittite overlords (if lines 30 ff. can be assigned to this context). In the clauses dealing with these people, the Hittite king's chief concern is to try to ensure that they do not leave their home territory, with the livestock in their charge, and resettle across the border. Note in particular the following clauses:
(i) If a settlement15 belonging to the Hittite king departs (from Hittite territory) with wives, possessions, and livestock, and appears in Kizzuwadna, PaddatiSSu must seize them and give them back to the Hittite king, who undertakes a similar obligation with regard to "illegal" immigrants from Kizzuwadna (lines 17-20).
15 Perhaps no more than an encampment or "tent village" (Zeltdorf) as Meyer suggests (1953:1 17; n. 23).
95
Tel Aviv 13(1986)
(ii)  If anyone from Hatti says falsely that a whole settlement has gone to Kizzu-wadna, but in fact the settlement with its wives is not entirely broken up — some do in fact continue to tend flocks/herds etc. — then the wives are to be returned. The obligation is again reciprocal (lines 21-29). These extradition clauses are obviously intended to minimize, if not to prevent absolutely, uncontrolled passage between Hatti and Kizzuwadna. Yet the very fact that the king indicates the possibility of entire settlements along with their livestock decamping across the border is in itself a clear reflection of the difficulty of effectively controlling the activities and movements of the local populations in parts of the rugged frontier region which the two countries shared, (d) CTH 41: treaty between Suppiluliuma and SunaiSsura. Col. I lines 5-7 (Akkadian version) indicate that in the days of Suppiluliuma's grandfather Kizzuwadna was part of Hatti territory; but some time after this and prior to the treaty with SunaSs-ura it was lost to the Hittites and reverted to an alliance with Mitanni. Perhaps this occurred during the upheavals referred to in C77/88; note in particular lines 13-15: "From afar the Armatanean enemy [came], and he too sacked the Hatti countries, and he [made] Kizzuwadna, the city his [frontier] (translated by Goetze 1940:22). The object of the treaty is to induce Kizzuwadna to return to the Hittite fold (with kuirana status), prior to Suppiluliuma's campaigns in Syria. Note the inducements held out by Suppiluliuma to SunaSSura, especially the possibility of incorporating part of Hurrian territory within the domain of Kizzuwadna. Col. Ill 43 ff. states that if any Hurrian towns attack any towns of SunasSura, the Hittite king and the Kizzuwadnan king will do battle jointly against the Hurrians. Any towns of the Hurrian land that are conquered will be apportioned between the territory of Hatti and the territory of Kizzuwadna. And further, in Col. IV 5 ff., no territory of the Hurrian land which is relinquished to SunaSsura will be returned by Suppiluliuma to the Hurrians.
The treaty also contains a detailed delineation of territorial limits of both Hatti and Kizzuwadna. Features of the delineation include:
(i) A statement of the towns and the river which lie on the border between Hatti and Kizzuwadna; e.g. (a) Col. IV 55-57: "Towards Luwana Durpina is the boundary of SunaSsura. Whatever (is) on the side of the Hatti country, let the Great King keep; whatever (is) on the side of the country of Ataniya let Suna&S-ura keep." (translated by Goetze 1940:51). (b) Col. IV 58-66: "Serigga belongs to the Sun; Luwana belongs to SunaSSura, the river Samri is his boundary. The Great King will not cross the river Samri to the side of the country of Ataniya; SunaSSura must not cross the Samri river to the side of the Hatti country." (ibid.)
(ii) In some areas where there is no clear dividing line between Hittite and Kizzuwadnan territory the boundary is determined by measuring the distance between a specified Hittite town and a specified Kizzuwadnan town and appor-
96
Bryce: The Boundaries of Hatti and Hittite Border Policy tioning the intervening territory equally between the two countries; e.g. Col. IV 40-41: "Towards the sea Lamiya belongs to the Sun and Pitura belongs to SunaSSura; they will measure out the territory together and divide it." (ibid.). The above terms would give a precise boundary between the two countries, a boundary formed partly by a river and skirting a number of border towns, and also through open country where it was to be equidistant from the Hitttite and Kizzuwadnan towns specified in the treaty. The areas where the border was essentially a theoretical one probably included tracts of grazing land, and no doubt in these areas there was some degree of cross-border movement by the local populations as reflected in the treaty with PaddatiSSu (referred to above), (iii) The treaty stipulates that in the border zone the Hittite king may fortify certain towns, but must not fortify others; e.g. Col. IV 42: "The Sun will not fortify Lamiya."; IV 45: "The Sun must not fortify Aruna"; IV 48: "The Sun may fortify Saliya"; IV 51: "The Sun may fortify Anamu5ta."(j7;jc/.). No such stipulations seem to be imposed on SunaSSura.
We cannot determine the rationale behind the distinction drawn between the towns in question. This would probably become clear if these towns could be precisely located.
(3) The Southwestern Zone
In this region the Lower Land provided a buffer zone between the Hittite homeland and the western and southwestern countries of Anatolia, notably the Arzawa lands. The Lower Land is one of the few areas of Bronze Age Anatolia that can be located with a relatively high degree of certainty. Garstang and Gurney identify it as "the low-lying plain of Konya, with an extension northwards to include the Salt Lake and Hittite ParSuhanda, and extending for an uncertain distance to the southwest" (1959:95; see Fig. 1). While there is some difference of opinion amongst scholars on the precise limits of the Lower Land, there is general agreement that it lay within the general area of the Konya plain (see del Monte and Tischler 1978:455; cf. map in Goetze 1957). I have suggested elsewhere that one of the main routes of communication between western and central Anatolia passed through the Lower Land (Bryce 1974:107; map 108). And very likely this was the region through which the Arzawan forces marched in their onslaught on Hittite territory prior to Suppiluliuma's reign. We note that in this campaign the Arzawans established a frontier at Tuwanuwa and Uda. Tuwanuwa can be positively identified with the Classical Tyana (see references in del Monte and Tischler 1978:448) and was thus situated in an area which in the Late Bronze Age probably lay close to the eastern periphery of the Lower Land. In such a location it would have provided the Arzawans with a convenient base for conducting operations against the Hittite homeland itself.
During the reign of Suppiluliuma, the Lower Land was assigned to the military commander Hannutti during or shortly after Suppiluliuma's campaigns against the KaSkans. Hannutti suceeded in re-establishing Hittite authority over the Lower Land, which may then have served as his base for conducting military operations against other hostile
97
Tel Aviv 13 (1986)
98
Bryce: The Boundaries of Hatti and Hittite Border Policy countries in the region, notably the (Arzawan) state of Hapalla.'6 Hannutti was still governor of the Lower Land on the accession of MurSili, but died shortly after, during the course of a campaign in the Land of IShupitta (Goetze 1967:18-19). In the second year of Mursili's reign, a Hittite army was stationed in the Lower Land, in expectation of an outbreak of hostilities with the enemy of Arzawa (Goetze 1967:28-29).
In my opinion, MurSili must have passed through the Lower Land on his campaign against the Arzawa lands in the 3rd and 4th years of his reign (Bryce 1974:107), and subsequently, I believe, HattuSili III also marched through the Lower Land towards Lukka in the campaign recorded in the so-called Tawagalawa letter (CTH 181).17
The Lower Land, then, served as an important frontier defence region for the Hittites, lying to the southwest of the homeland and helping to buffer it against threats of military aggression by the countries of western and southwestern Anatolia. It enabled the Hittites to establish military bases close to the eastern limits of the complex of western Anatolian states, no doubt in the hope that a significant military presence in the region would help ensure the maintenance of Hittite authority amongst the western subject states.
Definition of the Boundaries of Vassal Stales
As the Hittite New Kingdom progressed, there seems to have been an increasing concern on the part of the Hittite kings with defining precisely the borders of vassal states. This was no doubt due in large measure to the political fragmentation of Anatolian and (from the time of Suppiluliuma) Syrian territory into relatively small manageable political units whose rulers were subject to the king at Hattusa. There was a great concern, reflected in many of the treaties, to keep these units as politically and militarily isolated from each other as possible — largely no doubt in order to prevent the formation of anti-Hittite confederacies of the kind that almost brought about the annihilation of the Hittite kingdom in the late 15th century.
In order to keep these units manageable, it was essential to define their territorial limits, and to stipulate that movement beyond these limits would be regarded as an act of aggression liable to military retribution. The concern was not only to protect the territorial integrity of the various vassal states from an aggressive or hostile neighbour, but also to reduce as far as possible the risk of two or more neighbouring states combining their resources against the Hittites.
While the treaties are obviously the place to look for descriptions of boundaries, there are in fact relatively few treaties that provide such descriptions. For the most part boundaries are dealt with only when there was likely to be some dispute or uncertainty over territorial limits. This could arise in the following cases:
16 As recorded in an additional fragment of the Deeds of Suppiluliuma, restored and discussed by Houwink ten Cate 1966.
17 See Bryce, 1979. For the attribution of this document to Hattuäili III (in place of Muräili II or Muwatalli), see Singer 1983:209-210.
99
Tel Aviv 13 (1986)
(a) the country in question lacked clear-cut natural boundaries along at least part of its frontier zone.
(b) its territory was being extended or reduced or modified in some other way as part of the terms of the treaty.
(c) its rulers had in the past defied or ignored territorial limits and had been guilty of aggression against or anti-Hittite collaboration with a neighbouring country.
(d) it shared frontiers with one or more other countries, and a clear determination was needed on the apportionment of the towns, farmlands etc. in the border zone.
Examples of countries whose boundaries are clearly defined in the treaties include the following (these are in addition to the SunaSSura treaty whose boundary provisions have been dealt with above):
(a) CTH 68. Treaty between MurSili II and Kupanta-Inara of Mira-Kuwaliya (Fried-rich 1926:95-179), sees. 9-10. The country has a history of political unrest, and its previous ruler, MaShuiluwa, has been deposed because of his anti-Hittite activities which include subversion amongst the people of the neighbouring state of PitaSSa. The boundary as newly defined by Mursili is formed in part by fortified military posts and in part by two rivers, the AsTarpa and the Siyanti.
(b) CTH 106. Treaty between Tudhaliya IV and Ulmi-Te3ub of TarhuntaiSSa (partly translated in Garstang and Gurney 1959:66-69). TarhuntaSSa shares frontiers with PitaSs'a, U5Sa, the Hulaya River Land, Hatti, and perhaps also Kizzuwadna. The border zone contains a number of towns, military posts etc., and the treaty clearly delineates the boundary, which is made up of the border towns, military posts, mountain ranges etc., and stipulates in which countries the various border settlements lie; e.g. sec. 4: "Towards the frontier of PitaSSa the military posts of Arim-matta are the boundary, but Arimmatta belongs to PitaSSa." (translated by Gurney).
(c) CTH 50. Treaty between Suppiluliuma and Sarri-KuSuh of Carchemish (see Forrer 1926:48-50). The treaty reflects the political reconstruction which occurred in Syria following the destruction of Mitanni as an independent military and political power. In this reconstruction Suppiluliuma took the unprecedented step of appointing his sons as viceroys in Carchemish and Aleppo. It is within the context of this reconstruction that the territorial limits of Sarri-KuSuh's kingdom are defined. The boundary line is established by a series of mountains, towns, and a river.
It is clear from the discussion above that the Hittites' task in securing the boundaries of their homeland and ensuring an adequate measure of protection for the homeland's frontier regions was a difficult and highly complex one. As we have noted, the frontiers were often ill-defined and were subject to constant incursions and encroachments by the peoples of the countries which surrounded the homeland and the outlying districts attached to it. Each of the frontier regions presented its own particular set of problems, and the policies which the various Hittite kings followed in attempting to find lasting
100
Bryce: The Boundaries of Haiti and Hittite Border Policy solutions to these problems varied widely from one region to another. In the north, Suppiluliuma and his successors attempted to buffer the homeland against the constant threat of KaSkan incursions by repopulation programmes in areas which had been laid waste and in some cases occupied by the KaSkan intruders. In the east and southeast, the Hittites attempted to offset the threat of Human encroachment on Hittite territory by both military conquest and diplomatic operations in the states which occupied important strategic locations between the Hittite and the Hurrian spheres of influence. And in the southwest the Hittites sought to buffer the homeland against the constant dangers posed by the Arzawan complex and associated western Anatolian states by the establishment of the Lower Land as a military frontier zone, for both offensive and defensive purposes, in the attempt to maintain Hittite influence in the west and to forestall any attack from the west on Hittite territory proper.
REFERENCES
Bryce, T.R. 1974. Some Geographical and Political Aspects of Mursilis' Arzawan Campaign. AnSt 24:103-116.
Bryce, T.R. 1979. Some Reflections on the Historical Significance of the Tawagalawas Letter. Or 48:91-96.
Bryce, T.R. 1982. The Major Historical Texts of Early Hittite History. Queensland. CTH. Laroche, E. 1971. Catalogue des textes hittites. Paris. Forrer, E. 1926. Forschungen. 2 Band I Heft. Berlin.
Friedrich, J. 1926; 1930. Staatsverträge des Hatti Reiches in hethitischer Sprache. MVAG1\, 34.
Garstang, J. and Gurney, O.R. 1959. 77re Geography of the Hittite Empire. London. Goetze, A. 1940. Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography. (Yale Oriental
Series 22). New Haven. Goetze, A. 1957. Kleinasien.1 Munich.
Goetze, A. 1967. Die Annalen des MurSiliS. Darmstadt (repr. from Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft 38, 1933. Leipzig). Gurney, O.R. 1973. The Old Hittite Kingdom. CAH II. V. 659-685. Gurney, O.R. 1979. The Hittite Empire. In: Larsen, M.T. Power and Propaganda. A
Symposium on Ancient Empires. Copenhagen:151-I65. Güterbock H.G. 1956. The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son Mursili II. JCS
10:41-68, 75-98, 107-130. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 1977. Arzawa: Untersuchungen zu seiner Geschichte nach den
helhitischen Quellen. (Texte der Hethiter 8). Heidelberg. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H. J. 1966. A New Fragment of the "Deeds of Suppiluliuma as
Told by his Son Mursili II." JNES 25:27 31. Imparati, F. and Saporetti, C. 1965. L'Autobiografia di Hattusili I. Studi Classici e
Orientali 14:45-85.
101
Tel Aviv 13 (1986)
Kempinski, A. and Kosak, S. 1982. CTH"12: The Extensive Annals of Hattuäili I (?). Tel Aviv 9:87-116.
Klengel, H. 1968. Die Hethiter und Isuwa. Oriens Antiquus 7:63-76. KUB. Keilschrifturkunden aus BoghazkoT. 1912-Berlin. Melchert, H.C. 1978. The Acts of Hattuäili I. JNES 31:1-22.
Meyer, G.K. 1953. Zwei neue Kizzuwatna-Verträge. Mitteilungen des Instituts für
Orientforschung 1:108-124. del Monte, G.F. and Tischler, J. 1978. Repertoire geographique des textes cuneiformes
Band 6: Die Orts — und Gewassernamen der hetihitischen Texte. Wiesbaden. Often, H. 1951. Ein althethitischer Vertrag mit Kizzuvatna. JCS 5:129-132. Oten, H. 1973. Eine althethitische Erzählung um die Stadt Zalpa. (Studien zu den
Bogazköy-Texten 17). Wiesbaden. Otten, H. 1981. Die Apologie Hattusilis III. (Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 24).
Wiesbaden, von Schuler, E. 1965. Die Kaskäer. Berlin.
Singer, I. 1983. Western Anatolia in the Thirteenth Century B.C. according to the Hittite
Sources. AnSt 33:205-217. Sturtevant, E.H. and Bechtel C. 1935. A Hittite Chrestomathy. Philadelphia. Weidner, E.F. 1923. Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Leipzig.
102