<論説>帝国時代におけるヒッタイトの支配体制 : 副王制・属国支配・外交

Abstract

ヒッタイトでは王族が国家の中枢を占めていた。従来、この国家構造がヒッタイトの歴史上、変わらなかったとする説と中王国時代に改革されたとする説がある。しかし筆者は、変化したのは国家構造ではなく支配の方法であったと考える。古王国時代以来、王室内の権力争いを予防するために、傍系の王族に対して領土が分割されていた。これに加わる形で、中王国時代からは誓約文書によって王族に忠誠を誓わせるという支配方法が実施されたのである。帝国時代の副王制はこの二種類の支配方法が実行されていたことをよく表している。王位継承の見込みのない王子である副王は辺境の国を贈与されて懐柔された一方、王は彼らに誓約文書を作成し忠誠を誓わせていた。さらにヒッタイト王が属国あるいは諸大国の支配者に対しても誓約文書を作成し、王室間の結婚によって自身の姻族にしたことは、この支配方法が属国の支配や外交においても適用されたことを示している。

There have been two opposing theories concerning the structure of the Hittite state. While some scholars assert that the structure, in which the Hittite royalty played the central role, had not changed much since the Old Kingdom period, others argue that it had been reformed in the late Middle Kingdom period when the number of the king's subjects who did not have royal origin was increased through the issuing of ishiul texts, or oath texts. However, as a number of texts both from the Old Kingdom period and from the Empire period show that members of the royal family occupied the very core of the state administration, the structure itself remained basically unchanged. I think it was the Hittite methods of rule that had changed in order to solve latent problems in the state structure. The structure often caused struggles for power among the different branches of the royal family partly because the rules of succession to the throne were ambiguous, and thus to solve this problem the Hittite kings attempted to carry out two methods of rule. One of the methods was the granting of lands to the members of the collateral lines of the royal family. From the Old Kingdom period onwards, the kings gave newly conquered lands or peripheral city states to the collateral royal lineages in order to appease their claims to the throne. In addition, another method was adopted from the Middle Kingdom period onward. The king began to issue ishiul texts that created personal bonds between the king and his subjects so that he could distribute his own power to them. Indeed, the texts contributed to increasing the number of new and non-royal subjects and to centralizing power, but those texts were not necessarily used to exclude the influence of the royalty from the central government because many ishiul texts were issued to them as well. Therefore, it seems that this method of rule did not change the state structure itself. The ishiul texts for the members of the royal family played the role of creating legal bonds between the king and other royal family members and guaranteeing their loyalty. The system of rule by viceroys in peripheral areas during the imperial period represents these two methods very well. The viceroys ruled the peripheral lands on behalf of the king, and all of them were princes of high rank such as the king's sons, brothers and cousins who were not expected to inherit the Hittite throne. While the king appeased them with the cessions of the city states, he issued the ishiul texts to them and ensured their loyalty in order that they would not pose a threat to the central government Those two methods of rule were applied both to the control of vassal kingdoms where the local authorities ruled and to the diplomacy with Great Kings who were equal to the Hittite king in international status. All the vassal kings swore oaths of obedience to the Hittite king when they entered his vassalage. In addition, many of them married Hittite princesses, and thus their family lineages became collateral with the Hittite royal family. However the members of collateral houses could not succeed to the Hittite throne. In this way, the Hittite king made the vassal kings follow the domestic principles or rule. According to these principles, the collateral members of the royal family were given lands, and also they had to swear an oath of loyalty to the king. The Hittite kings also applied those two methods in their diplomacy. They concluded treaties with the Great Kings such as the kings of Egypt and Babylonia. The treaties were ishiul texts, which were also international recognition of the legitimacy of the Hittite throne. Moreover, the Hittite kings often gave their princesses to those Great Kings. This implies that the approach taken to Great Kings were almost the same as that applied to vassal kings. This means that they were also regarded, at least for the Hittites themselves, as obeying the principles of Hittite rule. Thus, the Hittite king could show his people political propaganda that all the kingdoms with which he had relationships were conceptually under Hittite control.