Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?

The Image of the Hittite ˘King in the Egyptian Sources

Jana Mynářová1

INTRODUCTION
As far as the world of the Late Bronze Age diplomacy is concerned, the Rames-
side period – or, more precisely, the reign of Ramesse II – undoubtedly represents,
together with the Amarna age, one of its undisputed pinnacles. In contrast to the
Amarna age, a diplomatic and political instrument is known from the Ramesside
period which is not attested physically for the Amarna world of the 14th century
B.C.E. It is a treaty concluded between two partners, the king of Hatti and the king
˘
of Egypt per contra.2 It has already been suggested (Mynářová 2009; id. 2010) that
some of the diplomatic instruments employed in the Akkadian language used in the
international relations of the Amarna age and in the Ramesside period differed sig-
nificantly from one another while other diplomatic traditions were being observed.
As an example it is possible to refer to the structure of the opening passages
and especially to the form of the address employed in the group of Akkadian let-
ters written in Egypt during the Ramesside era. While in the case of the Amarna
correspondence it has already been proved (Mynářová 2007: 115–122) that no di-
rect connection can be postulated between the social status of the correspondents
and particular types of headings in the group of letters originating in Egypt, for
the Ramesside era it holds that, regardless of the identity of either the sender or
the addressee and of their social status, the heading used by the Egyptian scribes
continues to use solely the type of address in which the identification of the
addressee precedes the identification of the sender, and the verbal form comes
only at the end (i.e. ana addressee[PN/TITLE/EXTENSION](-ma) – umma sender[PN/TITLE/EXTEN-
SION](-ma) – verbal form[m.sg. imperative]-ma). It might not be pure coincidence that exactly

this type of address can also be identified in EA 41 of the Amarna corpus, a letter
from Šuppiluliuma I to his Egyptian partner.
Can a certain Hittite epistolary tradition that survived well into the Ramesside
period and “replaced” the Amarna tradition completely therefore be recognised

1
This contribution has been completed within the research project “Centre or Periphery? History
and Culture of Syropalestine (3000–300 B.C.)” supported by the Czech Science Foundation,
Project No. 404/09/0162.
2
For a detailed overview and revision of chronology of relations between Egypt and H atti with
˘
references to further literature consult Devecchi – Miller, “Hittite-Egyptian Synchronisms and
their Consequences for Ancient Near Eastern Chronology” in the present volume, pp. 139–176.

235
Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

here? This would not be such a startling and unusual phenomenon. It follows
from the Akkadian epistolary tradition of the kings of Ugarit that certain episto-
lary practices attested during the 14th century B.C.E. could still be followed and
respected during the Ramesside period (Mynářová 2007: 108; id. 2010). While dis-
cussing the correspondence of the kings of Ugarit, it is important to emphasise
yet another tradition – in this case an “innovated” one – over a period of time. An
analysis of the vocabulary used to identify the Egyptian king in the letters of
Ugaritic origin and preserved both in the Amarna age and in the Ramesside pe-
riod suggests that while in the 14th century B.C.E. the repertoire employed in the
royal correspondence is rather limited and, in a way, “primitive”, the 13th century
B.C.E. texts, on the other hand, brim over with high-flown and even epical ex-
pressions identifying the king of Egypt. This expansion of terminology possibly
bears direct relation to a new political situation, spirit and practice in the interna-
tional relations restored after the conclusion of the Silver Treaty. It can therefore
be assumed that various dissimilarities preserved in the Amarna and Ramesside
traditions might correspond with a mutation of epistolary practices that under-
went significant changes related to the development in the relations between the
Great Powers of Egypt and Hatti between the 14th and 13th centuries B.C.E.
˘

THE BATTLE OF QADESH – THE KING OF HATTI

˘
It is beyond dispute that for the relations between Egypt and Hatti in the 13th
˘
century B.C.E. at least two historical occasions were crucial – the Battle of Qadesh
in the 5th regnal year of Ramesse II (cf. Fig. 1) and the conclusion of the Silver
Treaty in the 21st year of his reign. Especially the latter occasion provides us with
an outstanding and unique opportunity to study the language of diplomacy in-
cluding the manner and forms of royal titulary employed by the representatives
of the two Great Powers. A study of the development of Ramesse II’s royal titulary
in extenso is undoubtedly beyond the limits of the present paper; only certain as-
pects of the royal titulary, both Egyptian and Hittite, as attested both in the Egypt-
ian and Hittite sources including a flow of correspondence between the two
political partners, will therefore be discussed.
A study of the available textual corpora in chronological order must start with
the narrative account of the Battle of Qadesh. In this particular case the amount
of material available is substantial and consists of two primary forms, the Poem
(P) and the Bulletin (B), supplemented by accompanying reliefs (R).3 The nature
of the text, its aim and audience are only three of the elements determining the

3
See especially Kuentz (1928–1934), Hassan (1929), Gardiner (1935: I, 23–24; II, pls. 9–10);
Christophe – Donadoni – Edel (1973), and Kitchen (1979: II, 2–147, 927, 12–13). For the transla-
tions see especially Faulkner (1958); Gardiner (1960); Lichtheim (1976: II, 57–72); Fecht (1984);
von der Way (1984: 286–366); Kitchen (1996: 2–26), and Davies (1997: 55–96). For commentaries
(with references to further literature) see Kitchen (1999: 3–55).

236
 Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

Fig. 1
Northern external wall
of the Hypostyle Hall
(Great Amun Temple,
Karnak) containing mili-
tary scenes of Seti I and
Ramesse II including the
capture of Qadesh and
the campaigns against
Hittites and Libyans
(photo by M. Frouz,
Archive of the Czech
Institute of Egyptology)

form of Ramesse II’s titles and epithets employed in the account and the same
applies to the identification of the king of Hatti. With respect to further discussion,
˘
attention will now be paid to the means of Muwatalli II’s identification. The
following identifications of the Hittite king can be found in the corpus (Fig. 2)4.

Fig. 2
Identification
of Muwatalli II in the
Poem and the Bulletin
“wretched fallen one of Hatti” P 41 (pA xr Xsy n xt), P 54 (pA xrw Xsy n xt),
˘
B 76 (pA xrw Xsy n xt), B 97 (pA xrw Xsy n xt)
“wretched ruler of Hatti” P 65 (pA wr Xsi n xt), P 143 (pA wr Xsy n xt),
˘
P 325 (pA wr Xsy n xt), B 14 (pA wr Xsy n xt),
B 40 (pA wr Xsy n xt), B 57 (pA wr Xsy n xt)
“him of Hatti” P 152 (pn xt)
˘
“wretched fallen ruler of Hatti” P 295 (pA wr xr Xsy n xt)
˘
“fallen one of Hatti” B 9 (pA xrw n xt), B 15, B 19, B 20, B 21, B 34,
˘
B 53, B 61, B 70, B 83 (xrw n xt)
“ruler of Hatti” B 11 (pA wr n xt), B 36, B 38
˘

4
For the identification of the Hittite king in the reliefs see “despicable ruler of Hatti” in R 39(?)
and R 41; “fallen one of H atti” in R 19, R 20, R 23–25, R 27, R 29–32, R 34, R 36, ˘ R 43, R 45–48
˘
and R 61; “ruler of H atti” in R 51; “despicable fallen one of H atti” in R 8, R 8 and R 11; “Hittite
˘
(ruler)” in R 38; “despicable, fallen ruler of H atti” in R 42. ˘
˘

237
Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

Can any of these identifications be understood as an official title of the Hittite

king? The only candidate can be found in B 36, i.e. “ruler of Hatti” (pA wr n xt).
˘
The following three elements support this possibility: first – it is the only identi-
fication of the Hittite king free of propagandistic elements expressing a negative
attitude to its bearer; second – it comes from the Bulletin as a prosaic account of
the battle, and third – it originates in a direct speech of two scouts of the king of
Hatti: “We belong <to> the ruler of Hatti. It is he, who sent us to see where His
˘ ˘
Majesty is.” It might therefore represent a true picture of the scene. As the servants
of the Hittite king the scouts would surely use his real and official title.
Moreover, next to the identification of the Hittite king, the Poem also contains
a message said to be by the “the wretched fallen ruler of Hatti” and addressed to
˘
the pharaoh.5 There is absolutely no doubt that the particular passage represents
part of a letter which the Hittite king reportedly sent to the pharaoh. It is obvious
that what can be seen is an opening passage, or more precisely, an address con-
taining the identification of both partners – Ramesse II as the addressee and
Muwatalli II as the sender of the message. Taking into consideration the rules and
protocol employed and fully developed already in the diplomatic practice of the
Amarna age, this type of address cannot be described in any other way than that
it clearly introduces a communication between two correspondents of a consi
derably different social status. It is well reflected both in their position within the
structure of the address and in the manner of their identification. In this type of
address the addressee occupies a more prestigious and prominent position, while
the identification of the sender comes only as the second element within the struc-
ture. Moreover, while Ramesse II is identified in the letter by means of his royal
titulary, Muwatalli II is referred to merely as his “(humble) servant”. From the
perspective of the diplomatic language employed in epistolary documents of the
Amarna age, this message appears to be a typical vassal letter written by a subor-
dinate subject to his master. It is important to stress, however, that the most typical
feature of the vassal correspondence, i.e. a prostration formula, is missing com-
pletely! Since the text is Egyptian and written from the perspective of the Egyptian
propaganda, it is not surprising that while the Hittite king – “wretched fallen ruler
of Hatti” – is introduced solely as a “servant”, the Egyptian king is addressed both
˘
by means of his full royal titulary and by rich and eloquent epithets. It is plausible
that the “author” of the text might have been aware of the correct form of identi-
fying the king(s) to be included in the respective letter.

EGYPTIAN–HITTITE CORRESPONDENCE
The royal correspondence itself, preserved in the archives of the Hittite capital
of Hattuša, represents another large source of information on royal titulary in
˘

5
Consult especially P 300–307.

238
 Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

Egyptian–Hittite relations.6 The earliest documents cover a period of time shortly

before and after the conclusion of the Silver Treaty in the 21st regnal year of
Ramesse II. As far as the dating of the texts is concerned, there is also a corpus of
documents written during Ramesse II’s 34th year on the occasion of his first Hittite
marriage, and the so-called insibija-letters dated between his 42nd and 56th regnal
years. Based on the preserved material, the time frame estimate for the Egyptian–
Hittite correspondence is slightly over thirty years. A detailed study of the titulary
of both kings – Ramesse II and Hattušili III in this case – revealed that the time
˘
aspect played only a minor role (if any) and therefore it is possible to subsume
into the discussion all preserved letters from this corpus, as will be demonstrated
in the following discussion of the material. Here again the nature of the text, its
aim and audience are the three most important elements determining the form of
the identification7 of both the Egyptian (Fig. 3) and the Hittite king (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3
“king of Egypt” (LUGAL KUR mi-is.-ri-i) ÄHK 12: 10, 15;
Identification of
ÄHK 14: 2, 4; ÄHK 16: 4; ÄHK 17: 3; ÄHK
Ramesse II in the
20: 1; ÄHK 24: 20’, 21’; ÄHK 25: 3’; ÄHK
Egyptian–Hittite
correspondence 28: 7, 10, 15, Rs. 5’; ÄHK 32: Rs. 9’; ÄHK
37: 3’, 4’, 12’; ÄHK 42: 2; ÄHK 43: 1, 2, 4,
Rs. 46; ÄHK 44: 2, 3, 7; ÄHK 46: 26, 32;
ÄHK 51: 1, 16; ÄHK 57: 4’; ÄHK 60: 4’;
ÄHK 68: 4; ÄHK 75: 2, 3; ÄHK 76: 1, 2;
ÄHK 77: 1, 2; ÄHK 92: 2’, 6’; ÄHK 93: 6’;
ÄHK 99: 2; ÄHK 100: 2; ÄHK 112: 4 (Hitt.)
“Great king” (LUGAL.GAL) ÄHK 12: 9, 15; ÄHK 14: 2, 4; ÄHK 20: 1,
20’; ÄHK 24: 21’; ÄHK 25: 3’; ÄHK 27: Rs.
11’; ÄHK 28: 1, 7, 10, 15, Rs. 5’; ÄHK 29:
1; ÄHK 30: 15’; ÄHK 43: 1, 2, 4, Rs. 46;
ÄHK 44: 3; ÄHK 45: 2; ÄHK 46: 26; ÄHK
51: 1, 16; ÄHK 60: 4’; ÄHK 75: 3; ÄHK 76:
1, 2; ÄHK 77: 1, 2; ÄHK 82: 1; ÄHK 92: 6’;
ÄHK 99: 2; ÄHK 108: 3 (Hitt.)
“Ramesse Meriamun” ÄHK 14: 1–2; ÄHK 16: 1; ÄHK 17: 3;
(M.ri-a-ma-še-ša ma-a-i D.a-ma-na) ÄHK 19: 1; ÄHK 42: 4; ÄHK 43: 4; ÄHK
44: 6; ÄHK 45: 4; ÄHK 46: 4, 25; ÄHK 78:
15’–16’

6
See especially Edel (1994); but see also Singer (2006).
7
For the purpose of the paper, identifications of individual rulers employing the family meta-
phor as well as a general description (such as the “master”) have been left aside. The same
holds good in cases where the royal element (such as the “king”) represents a component part
of another title, such as “the royal messenger” (DUMU.KIN-ri ša LUGAL).

239
Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

“son of Re, Ramesse Meriamun”
(DUMU D.UTU M.ri-a-ma-še-ša
ma-a-i D.a-ma-na)
“Ramesse” (M.ri-a-ma-še-ša)
“Wesermaatre Setepenre”
(M.ua-aš-mu-ua-ri-a M.ša-ti-ip-na-ri-a) 29: 1; ÄHK 42: 1; ÄHK 43: 1; ÄHK 44: 1;
“king” (LUGAL)
“nsw-bity” (in-si-ib-ia ni-ib ta-a-ua)
“son of Re” (DUMU D.UTU)
ÄHK 20: 1; ÄHK 28: 2; ÄHK 42: 2; ÄHK
43: 2; ÄHK 44: 2; ÄHK 45: 2; ÄHK 46: 2;
ÄHK 49: 1–2; ÄHK 51: 1; ÄHK 69: 3;
ÄHK 70: 2; ÄHK 72: 2; ÄHK 75: 2–3;
ÄHK 76: 2; ÄHK 77: 2; ÄHK 82: 2
ÄHK 87: 5’; ÄHK 111: 1
ÄHK 17: 1; ÄHK 20: 1; ÄHK 28: 1; ÄHK
ÄHK 45: 1; ÄHK 46: 1; ÄHK 49: 1; ÄHK
51: 1; ÄHK 69: 2; ÄHK 70: 1; ÄHK 72: 1–
2; ÄHK 73: 1; ÄHK 75: 1; ÄHK 76: 1;
ÄHK 77: 1; ÄHK 78: 13’–14’ (temple do-
main); ÄHK 81: 1; ÄHK 82: 1
ÄHK 18: 6’, 10’; ÄHK 24: 11’, Rs. 27;
ÄHK 25: 14’; ÄHK 42: Rs. 5’, 12’, 14’;
ÄHK 43: 40, 43, Rs. 55, 63, 66, 71; ÄHK
47: Rs. 29’; ÄHK 61: 8’; ÄHK 72: 5; ÄHK
75: Rs. 9; ÄHK 88: 4’ (“king” or “Great
king”); ÄHK 94: Rs. 23, 26, 29
ÄHK 69: 1; ÄHK 72: 1
ÄHK 99: 2

It is obvious at first glance that the identification of Ramesse II in the Egypt-

ian–Ramesside correspondence is purely functional. The presented overview (cf.
Fig. 3) contains royal names and titulary very well known from the contemporary
Egyptian sources extended by the presence of the identification of the pharaoh as
the “Great king”, which is not surprising; it is a very well known fact that the title
of the “Great king” was used – among others – for the Egyptian pharaoh already
during the Amarna age.8 Moreover, the identification of the pharaoh as the “Great
king” can be found not only in the letters addressed to the king himself but also
in the letters originating at the royal court of Akhetaten. An attestation of this title
employed to identify Ramesse II therefore constitutes what we may regard as
a representative of a diplomatic and epistolary tradition that survived well into
the Ramesside era. It is also obvious from the number of attestations of this title
employed for the Egyptian king that the Ramesside scribes were familiar with the
title as well as its usage. It is important to stress that the identification of the king
is stripped of all the eloquent epithets which are absolutely necessary in the texts

8
For an overview consult Artzi – Malamat (1993), for the Amarna material see Mynářová (2007:
129, 134).

240
 Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

written for the purpose of royal propaganda but that would probably be consi-
dered inappropriate in the royal correspondence between two socially equal partners.

Fig. 4
“king of Hatti” (LUGAL KUR h a-at-ti) ÄHK 12: 11, 16;
Identification of Hattušili ˘ ˘
˘ ÄHK 17: 8; ÄHK 20: 1, 4; ÄHK 27: 3’, 8’,
III in the Egyptian–
Hittite correspondence Rs. 11’; ÄHK 28: 13, 20, 28, Rs. 3’, 6’, 7’,
11’, 12’, 15’; ÄHK 29: 2; ÄHK 33: Rs. 4;
ÄHK 35: 3’; ÄHK 40: 4’; ÄHK 43: 8, 17,
Rs. 46, 51, 54, 58, 64, 67, 70; ÄHK 45: 3;
ÄHK 46: 27, 32; ÄHK 56: 2’; ÄHK 59: 4’;
ÄHK 65: 7’; ÄHK 67: 5; ÄHK 69: 5, 10;
ÄHK 70: 4; ÄHK 73: 18; ÄHK 75: 4;
ÄHK 76: 3; ÄHK 77: 3; ÄHK 83: 4’; ÄHK
93: 6’, 9’; ÄHK 99: 1; ÄHK 100: 1; ÄHK
105: 55’ (Hitt.); ÄHK 111: 1 (Hitt.); ÄHK
112: 2 (Hitt.)
“Great king” (LUGAL.GAL) ÄHK 12: 11, 16; ÄHK 17: 8; ÄHK 20: 1, 4;
ÄHK 28: 10, 13, 20, 26, Rs. 2’, 6’, 7’, 11’,
12’, 15’, 17’, 23’; ÄHK 42: 3, 7; ÄHK 43: 8,
45, 51, 53, 58, 64, 67, 70; ÄHK 44: 11; ÄHK
46: 27, 32; ÄHK 51: 8, 14; ÄHK 59: Rs. 7’;
ÄHK 69: 10; ÄHK 70: 7; ÄHK 73: 18;
ÄHK 74: 6; ÄHK 75: 4; ÄHK 76: 3; ÄHK
83: 4’; ÄHK 105: 49’, 55’ (Hitt.); ÄHK 108:
1 (Hitt.)
“Hattušili” (M.ha-at-tu-ši-li) ÄHK 20: 1, 4; ÄHK 42: 3,
˘ ˘
7; ÄHK 43: 8, 45; ÄHK 45: 7; ÄHK 46: 27;
ÄHK 74: 3; ÄHK 75: 4; ÄHK 81: 2
“king” (LUGAL) ÄHK 14: 8, 10; ÄHK 22: Rs. 1;
ÄHK 25: Rs. 7’; ÄHK 63: 3’; ÄHK 72: 5’

The discussion of the titulary of Ramesse’s Hittite partner, identified as the

“king of Hatti”, the “Great king”, “Hattušili” and the “king”, brings us to conclu-
˘ ˘
sions identical to those we arrived at with regard to the manner of identifying
Ramesse II. In these cases (presented in Fig. 4), all attested means of identification
fit very well into the picture of Hittite royal titulary, including the traditional title
of the “Great King”.
The above overview implies a completely different picture. It is important to
stress that while the majority of these letters are of Egyptian provenance, there

241
Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

are also twenty documents written in Hatti and some of them even in Hittite.9
˘
Nevertheless, the manner of the identification of the correspondents is exactly the
same. There is absolutely no doubt that the royal letters represent communication
between two socially equal partners identified by their respective titles. We can
also observe that none of the eloquent epithets of Ramesse II found its way into
the language of these letters!

THE SILVER TREATY10

So far, texts that have a bearing on various aspects of the titulary of both the
Egyptian and the Hittite king have been discussed. In all these cases, either Egypt-
ian only or Akkadian/Hittite only material was available for analysis. Their pur-
pose was also distinct. The former group manifests Egyptian royal propaganda
par excellence, while a form of Egyptian and Hittite royal titulary preserved by
means of international correspondence governed by diplomatic rules and tradi-
tions can be observed in the latter group. It is therefore imperative to include yet
another aspect in the discussion – a document preserved in parallel versions
which represents a real crossroads of the two worlds, the Silver Treaty concluded
between the Hittite king Hattušili III and his Egyptian partner, Ramesse II. There
˘
is another important aspect to be highlighted. As far as the form is concerned, the
treaty represents a combination of both previously discussed cases; we have at
our disposal a monumental account which at the same time represents a great
diplomatic document! Does that mean that we shall find a combination of propa-
gandistic and diplomatic styles in the treaty (as could be expected)?11
The so-called “Egyptian introduction” represents an unusual, exceptional and
unparalleled element in the context of Hittite treaties. It is a kind of Egyptian “in-
vader” in this specific world. The Egyptian milieu of the passage is best empha-
sised by comparing the royal titulary included in it. While Ramesse II deserves
his full titulary extended by eloquent epithets, the Hittite king is simply intro-
duced by his official titulary: the “Great ruler of Hatti, Hattušili” (Fig. 5).
˘ ˘
Considering the text of the treaty itself, the situation is largely different. With
respect to the titulary of Ramesse II it can be observed that in the Egyptian ver-
sion of the treaty the pharaoh is identified as “Wesermaatre Setepenre”12,
“Ramesse Meriamun”13, the “Great ruler of Egypt”14 and its variants such as the

9
For the letters from H atti to Egypt see ÄHK 34, ÄHK 40, ÄHK 41, ÄHK 53, ÄHK 56, ÄHK 58,
ÄHK 59, ÄHK 66, ÄHK ˘ 67, ÄHK 99, ÄHK 100, ÄHK 101, ÄHK 102, ÄHK 103, ÄHK 105, ÄHK
108, ÄHK 109, ÄHK 110, ÄHK 111, ÄHK 112.
10
Consult especially Meissner (1917: 282–295), Weidner (1923: 112–123), Donbaz (1993), Edel
(1994), id. (1997) and Beckman (19962: 96–100).
11
It is essential to emphasise that, with respect to their structure, the two texts are not absolutely
identical and the so-called “Egyptian introduction” must be discussed separately.
12
For attestations see K: 6; K: 9; K: 13; K 15; K: 17; K: 21; K: 22; K: 23; K: 24; K: 25; K: 33; K: 34.

242
 Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

Fig. 5 Ramesse II Hattušili III

Identification ˘
“Majesty of the King of Upper and “Great ruler of Hatti, Hattušili“
of Ramesse II and ˘ ˘
Lower Egypt, Wesermaatre (K: 4; K: 4)
Hattušili III in the
˘ Setepenre” (K: 1; K: 4; K: 5)
“Egyptian introduction”
“son of Re, Ramesse Meriamun”
(K:5)
“son of Re, Ramesse Meriamun given
life forever and eternally” (K: 1)
“son of Re, Ramesse Meriamun given
life forever and eternally like
his father Re daily” (K: 4)
“beloved of Amun-Re, Horakhti,
Ptah South-of-his-Wall, lord
of Ankhtawy, Mut, lady of Asheru,
Khonsu Neferhotep” (K: 1)
“he having appeared upon
the Horus-throne of the living like
his father Re-Horakhti, forever
and ever eternally” (K: 1)
“his Majesty” (K: 2 )
“pharaoh, l.p.h.” (K: 4; K: 4)
“bull of rulers” (K: 5)

“Great ruler of Egypt living eternally”15 or the “Great ruler of Egypt, their master,
l.p.h.”16, the “hero”17, the “master”18, as well as the “son of Menmaatre, the Great
ruler of Egypt, the hero”19 and the “grandson of Menpehtyre, the Great ruler of
Egypt, the hero20”. In the cuneiform version the following manners of identifica-
tion can be encountered: “Ramesse Meriamun”21, the “Great king”22, the “king

13
Employed in K: 11; K: 12; K: 14; K: 16; K: 18; K: 18; K: 20; K: 22; K: 23; K: 24; K: 24; K: 25; K: 33; K: 35.
14
See K: 6; K: 7; K: 8; K: 9; K: 11; K: 12; K: 12; K: 13; K: 14; K: 15; K: 21; K: 22; K: 23; K: 23; K: 24;
K: 24; K: 24; K: 25; K: 25–26; K: 33; K: 33; K: 35; K: 35.
15
Consult K: 20.
16
Attested in K: 22
17
See K: 6.
18
See K: 21.
19
Attested in K: 6.
20
See K: 6–7.
21
For the attestations see A Vs. 1; B Vs. 1; A Vs. 4; B Vs. 4; A Vs. 11; A Vs. 14; B Vs. 14; A Vs. 19;
B Vs. 20; A Vs. 22; B Vs. 23; A Vs. 26; B Vs. 27; A Vs. 29; B Vs. 30–31; A Vs. 32; B Vs. 34; A Vs.
34; B Vs. 36; A Vs. 36; A Vs. 36; B Vs. 38; A Vs. 42; A Vs. 44; A Vs. 45; A Vs. 48; A Vs. 51; A Vs.
59; B Vs. 61’; B Vs. 63’; B Vs. 64’; A Rs. 3’.
22
Attested in A Vs. 1; A Vs. 4; A Vs. 9; B Vs. 9; A Vs. 11; B Vs. 12; A Vs. 14; B Vs. 14; A Vs. 18; B Vs.
19; B Vs. 23; B Vs. 27; A Vs. 29; B Vs. 31; A Vs. 32; B Vs. 34; A Vs. 45; A Vs. 51; B Vs. 64’; B Rs. 2.

243
Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

of Egypt”23, the “hero of all lands”24, the “son of Menmaatre, the Great king, the
king of Egypt, the hero”25 and the “grandson of Menpehtyre, the Great king, king
of Egypt, the hero”26. One can observe both direct parallels and differences in the
two versions of the treaty. The direct parallels include the identification of the
pharaoh as “Ramesse Meriamun” and the passage containing his filiation (i.e.
the “son of Menmaatre, the Great ruler of Egypt, the hero” and the “grandson of
Menpehtyre, the Great ruler of Egypt, the hero”). By contrast, the throne name
of Ramesse II – “Wesermaatre Setepenre” – is mentioned exclusively in the Egypt-
ian version of the treaty. It is unlikely that the Hittites were ignorant of the
pharaoh’s name since it was widely used in the Egyptian–Hittite correspondence
and employed alternately with “Ramesse Meriamun”. It is, therefore, difficult to
explain why only the name of “Ramesse Meriamun” appears in the cuneiform
version of the text. One possible explanation rests on the nature of the discussed
document. The treaty itself represents a type of text in which a certain balance is
required. Since the king of Hatti is identified only as “Hattušili”, including two
˘ ˘
names of the Egyptian king would have ruined the desired balance.
It is obvious from the comparison of the two language versions that the title “Great
ruler of Egypt” and its variants (i.e. the “Great ruler of Egypt living eternally”, the
“Great ruler of Egypt, their master, l.p.h.”) – which is the title not attested in the Egypt-
ian-Hittite correspondence – represent nothing more than a combination of two titles
employed in the cuneiform version – the “Great king” and the “king of Egypt”. While
in the Egyptian version of the treaty Ramesse II is also identified as the “hero”, or the
“mighty king”, in the cuneiform version of the text it is paralleled with a very rare
construction, “hero of all lands”, which – as Edel (1997: 89) already suggested – is noth-
ing more but a translation of the Egyptian epithet Tl Hr xAswt (nbt), i.e. “mighty
king/hero of (all) foreign lands”, attested only during the reign of Ramesse II. With
regard to the possible origin of this intriguing epithet, one must conclude that there
exist several similar epithets but no exact parallel has been identified yet.27
Concerning the titulary of Hattušili III, the Egyptian version of the treaty
˘
makes use of the following repertoire: the “Great ruler of Hatti, Hattušili”28, “Hat-
˘ ˘ ˘
tušili”29, the “Great ruler of Hatti”30, the “hero”31, the “son of Muršili, the Great
˘

23
See A Vs. 1; A Vs. 4; A Vs. 9; B Vs. 9; A Vs. 11; B Vs. 12; A Vs. 14; B Vs. 14; A Vs. 18; B Vs. 19; A
Vs. 19; A Vs. 22; B Vs. 23; A Vs. 26; B Vs. 27; A Vs. 29; B Vs. 31; A Vs. 32; B Vs. 34; A Vs. 34; A
Vs. 36; B Vs. 38–39; A Vs. 45; A Vs. 51; A Vs. 52; A Vs. 61; A Vs. 67; B Rs. 2.
24
Consult A Vs. 4.
25
Cf. A Vs. 4–5; B Vs. 4–5.
26
Attested in A Vs. 5–6; B Vs. 5–6.
27
For the Egyptian epithet “the lord of all foreign lands” (attested for Thutmose III, Amenhotep
II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep IV–Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun), as well as “the king of all lands”
and “the Sun of all lands” employed in the Amarna archive see most recently Mynářová (2010).
28
See K: 5.
30
Attested in K: 7; K: 8; K: 9; K: 11; K: 12; K: 13; K: 15; K: 15; K: 16; K: 16; K: 17; K: 17; K: 18; K:19; K:
19; K: 19; K: 21; K: 21; K: 22; K: 22; K: 22; K: 24; K: 25; K: 25; K: 33; K: 33; K: 35; K: 35; K: 36; K: 37.
31
See K: 5; K: 37.

244
 Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

ruler of Hatti, the hero”32 and the “grandson of Šuppiluliuma, the Great ruler of
˘
Hatti, the hero”33. The cuneiform version of the treaty contains the following iden-
˘
tifications: “Hattušili”34, the “Great king”35, the “king of Hatti”36, the “hero”37, the
˘ ˘
“son of Muršili, the Great king, the king of Hatti, the hero”38 and the “grandson
˘
of Šuppiluliuma, the Great king, the king of Hatti, the hero”.39 Similar to the case
˘
of Ramesse II, there are some identical identifications in the two versions, such as
the name of the king (“Hattušili”), his filiation (“son of Muršili, grandson of Šup-
˘
piluliuma”) and the “hero”. And much like in the case of Ramesse II, the titles of
the “Great king” and the “king of Hatti” are represented in the Egyptian text by
˘
a single composite title the “Great ruler of Hatti”. With respect to this title it is
˘
necessary to call attention to the fact that in its form the “Great ruler of Hatti, Hat-
˘ ˘
tušili”, it is the only identification of the Hittite king contained both in the “Egypt-
ian introduction” and in the text of the Silver Treaty itself.
What kind of picture emerges from a comparison of the manner of identifica-
tion of Ramesse II and Hattušili III in both language versions of the treaty? In
˘
order to describe the situation briefly and eloquently, one has to employ the ex-
pressions balance and parity. In this respect the Silver Treaty undoubtedly repre-
sents a real agreement under international law. Similar to modern diplomatic
practice, before the definite version of the document was approved by both par-
ties, a series of preliminary versions had probably undergone some step by step
changes. One of the crucial elements to be maintained and observed was the parity
between the two parties. This parity is therefore reflected choicely and conscien-
tiously in the relevant employment of the royal titulary.

CONCLUSIONS
Despite the fact that some means of identification of the kings of Egypt and
Hatti can be found in all types of the discussed documents, the rules for their
˘
employment were different. It is certainly crucial to keep in mind the type of text
that is being discussed. Based on the accounts of the Battle of Qadesh one may
conclude that the identification of the Hittite king is somewhat blurred and from

32
See K: 5–6; K: 37.
33
Cf. K: 6
34
For attestations see B Vs. 2; A Vs. 6; A Vs. 15; A Vs. 20; B Vs. 21; A Vs. 23; B Vs. 24; A Vs. 28; A
Vs. 31; B Vs. 32; A Vs. 34; A Vs. 35; B Vs. 37; A Vs. 38; A Vs. 38; B Vs. 40; B Vs. 40; A Vs. 40; A
Vs. 42; A Vs. 41; B Vs. 43; B Vs. 43; A Vs. 48; A Vs. 58; A Vs. 62; B Rs. 9.
35
Consult A Vs. 2; A Vs. 6; B Vs. 10; A Vs. 15; A Vs. 19; A Vs. 20; B Vs. 21; A Vs. 23; B Vs. 24; A Vs.
31; A Vs. 31; B Vs. 32; B Vs. 40; A Vs. 59.
36
See A Vs. 2; A Vs. 6; A Vs. 10; B Vs. 10; A Vs. 15; A Vs. 19; B Vs. 20; A Vs. 20; B Vs. 21; A Vs. 23; B
Vs. 24; A Vs. 28; A Vs. 31; B Vs. 32; A Vs. 35; A Vs. 35; B Vs. 37; A Vs. 38; B Vs. 40; B Vs. 41; A Vs.
40; A Vs. 40; B Vs. 42; B Vs. 42; A Vs. 41; B Vs. 46; A Vs. 48; A Vs. 50; A Vs. 55; A Vs. 66; B Vs. 69’.
37
Cf. A Vs. 6.
38
See A Vs. 6–7; B Vs. 6–7.
39
Attested in A Vs. 7.

245
Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

the perspective of the “letter” included in the text it could even appear that the
Hittite ruler was approaching the pharaoh as his humble servant. On the other
hand, a study of the phraseology of the real letters suggests that the language is
rather functional and that elements of propaganda – which represent the prime
factor in the first case study – are simply ignored as unsuitable and inappropriate
for the given occasion. The Silver Treaty is undoubtedly the most elaborate of the
examples: every single word probably played its role and had to be acceptable to
both parties. With regard to royal titulary, one can observe three different worlds
or spheres whose individual boundaries were crossed only rarely. The language
of these documents differs largely but their respective “authors” were very well
aware of the terminology that had to be used for the documents’ specific purposes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Artzi, Pinḥas – Malamat, Avraham
1993 “The Great King. A Preeminent Royal Title in Cuneiform Sources and the Bible.”
In The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, edited
by M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell and D. B. Weisberg, 28–38. Bethesda: CDL Press.

Beckman, Gary
19962 Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Writings from the Ancient World 7). Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Christophe, Louis A. – Donadoni, Sergio – Edel, Elmar

1973 Abou – Simbel. Bataille de Kadech. Texte et description archéologique. Le Caire: Centre
de documentation égyptologique.

Davies, Benedict G.
1997 Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Nineteenth Dynasty (Documenta Mundi. Ae-
gyptiaca 2). Jonsered: Åström Publishing.
Donbaz, Veysel
1993 “Some Observations on the Treaty Documents of Qadesh.” IM 43, 27–37.

Edel, Elmar
1994 Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer
Sprache, I–II (Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften 77). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
1997 Der Vertrag zwischen Ramses II. von Ägypten und Hattušili von Hatti (Wissenschaftliche
˘ ˘
Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 95). Berlin: Gebr. Mann.

Faulkner, Raymond O.
1958 “The Battle of Kadesh.” MDAIK 16, 93–111.
Fecht, Gerhard
1984 “Das ‘Poème’ über die Qadesh-Schlacht.” SAK 11 (= Festschrift Wolfgang Helck),
281–333.

Gardiner, Alan H.
1935 Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum. Third Series, Chester Beatty Gift, Vol. I. Text,
Vol. II. Plates. London: British Museum.
1960 The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II. Oxford: Griffith Institute.

246
 Wretched Fallen One of Hatti or Hero?
˘

Hassan, Sélim
1929 Le poème dit de Pentaour et le rapport officiel sur la bataille de Qadesh (Recueil de tra-
vaux publiés par la Faculté des lettres 2). Le Caire: Impr. nationale.

Kitchen, Kenneth A.
1979 Ramesside Inscriptions. Historical and Biographical. Vol. II. Oxford: B.H. Blackwell.
1996 Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated. Translations. Vol. II. Ramesses II,
Royal Inscriptions. Oxford – Cambridge: Blackwell.
1999 Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated. Notes and Comments. Vol. II. Ra-
messes II, Royal Inscriptions. Oxford – Cambridge: Blackwell.
Kuentz, Charles
1928–1934 La Bataille de Qadech I–III (Mémoires de l’Institut français d’archéologie ori-
entale du Caire 55). Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire.

Lichtheim, Miriam
1976 Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. Vol. 2, The New Kingdom. Berkeley
– Los Angeles – London: University of California Press.

Meissner, Bruno
1917 Der Staatsvertrag Ramses’ II. von Ägypten und Hattušils von Hatti in akkadischer Fas-
˘ ˘
sung (Sitzungsberichte der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Sonderabdruck 20). Berlin: Verlag der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
in Kommission bei G. Reimer 282–295.
Mynářová, Jana
2007 Language of Amarna – Language of Diplomacy. Perspectives on the Amarna Letters.
Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology.
2009 “From Amarna to Hattušaš: Epistolary Traditions in the Amarna and Ramesside
˘
Correspondence.” In My Things Changed Things. Social Development and Cultural Ex-
change in Prehistory, Antiquity, and the Middle Ages, edited by P. Maříková Vlčková –
J. Mynářová – M. Tomášek, 111–117. Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty
of Philosophy and Arts – Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of
the Czech Republic, Prague, v.v.i.
2010 “Tradition or Innovation? The Ugaritic-Egyptian Correspondence.” ÄuL 20,
363–372.

Singer, Itamar
2006 “The Urhi-Teššub affair in the Hittite-Egyptian Correspondence.” In The Life and
˘
Times of Hattušili III and Tuthaliya IV. Proceedings of a symposium held in honour of J. de
˘ ˘
Roos, 12-13 December 2003, Leiden (Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique
néerlandais de Stamboul CIII), edited by Th. P. J. van den Hout with assistance of
C. H. van Zoest, 27–38. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

von der Way, Thomas

1984 Textüberlieferung Ramses’ II. zur Qadeš-Schlacht: Analyse und Struktur (Hildesheimer
Ägyptologische Beiträge 22). Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.
Weidner, Ernst
1923 Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien: Die Staatsverträge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem
Archiv von Boghazköi (Boghazköi-Studien 8, 9). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

247
248