고대 오리엔트 마리(Mari)의 조약문서에 나타난 맹세

Abstract

In the Near East of the second millennium, it reached the acme of the practice of exchanging letters between kings and/or officials and that of stipulating international treaties in the entire Near Eastern history. There were many centers of political power in that period, and, for the survival, they should have mutual connections rather than isolation with others in the various forms of relationships. Mari was one of them situated middle Euphrates region, which offers vast text materials showing international relations of that time. The cuneiform documents found in ancient Mari consist of letters which had been received and sent by the kings and the officials of Mari from their contemporaries. “Oath”, mainly expressed by nīšum, appears in some of Mari documents in various situations and in various forms. The central act in the ratification of treaty was the oath sworn before the gods as witnesses, and that the oath has to be sworn in treaty, which we can find similar one in Hittite vassal treaty, shows its importance in the international relations. The typical content of the oath is related to vassal’s loyalty, such as not committing sins until his death, not doing evil things, not doing fraud or with evil intention, having sincerity, etc. Even more the oath could be extended beyond his life to his scions. Through its fully developed conditions of obligation, which can be found in the so-called vassal treaty of Esarhaddon of the seventh century BCE, we can notice that the oath mostly contains political contents and the pledge of loyalty. In the vassal treaty, the oath was sworn by the suzerain at his residence or at some place under his jurisdiction, and it was not done in the immediate territory of the inferior. If the person concerned with the oath could not present him to the oath, he should send his servant, that is his envoy and his substitute for that oath. Also the oath-making in Mari was accompanied with a ritual or rituals. In ARM 28, 81, there is alternative expression of the oath, literally meaning “touching of the throat,” napištam lap󰐀tu. This expression can be considered a symbolic action which indicates the importance of the oath and the result caused by the breach. In ARM 28, 66, “killing a donkey,” hay󰐀ram qaṭalu, followed by ni-iš dingir-meš, shows that this ceremony was accompanied by the oath. We can find other animals such as a puppy and a goat in other Mari texts. Another symbolic action is “seizing the hem (of the garment),” sissiktam ṣab󰐀tu, sissiktam kâlu, qarnam ṣab󰐀tu, or qannu rak󰐀su, expressing submission. Holding the hem suggests that it was a menial action and a symbolic action performed by a vassal acknowledging the authority of his suzerain. In summary, the oath was sworn in mainly treaty-making situations. Main contents of the oath were relating to political and loyal pledge, and it was accompanied some rituals, which indicates the formal importance of the oath in the internal and international politics.