Divine Authority

In “The Hitite-Egyptian Treaty,” the king of Egypt is constantly referred to as “Ramses, the Beloved of Amon, Great King, King of Egypt” while the king of the Hitites is called “Hattusili, Great King, King of Hatti.” At first, this difference may seem unimportant, and Amon may be assumed to be some family member or something of Ramses. However, Amon is noticeably absent from the family histories of the two kings presented at the very start of the text.

To those familiar with Near Eastern Studies, it is known that Amon is the chief god in the Egyptian mythology. Thus Ramses is meant to be seen as having fallen into some kind of supernatural favor, most likely declaring a divine source of his power, making it absolute. One then wonders why Hattusili is not shown to have this same absolute power. One explanation might be that Ramses and Egypt in general are meant to be shown as having more power, but this is a non-parity treaty. It is unlikely that in trying to establish a peace, Hattusili would allow himself to be seen as weak. This is especially true considering the fact that the Hittites are very likely keeping hold of the lands they took from Egypt during their conflict.

Another explanation may that is has to do with different levels of religiosity in the two nations. Perhaps religion and the gods were not as important in Hittite society so Hattusili felt no need to give himself this type of authority. However, it is made clear in the treaty that it is to be sanctioned by the gods, and that the very reason this peace need exist is because it is the natural state the gods intended. Politics and religion are very clearly intertwined for these two societies, and if Hattusili wanted the gods to sanction his treaty then he would most likely want them sanctioning his rule as well.

The most likely answer is given by the translator in one of his notes. Apparently, Hattusili had a very controversial rise to power, and thus even if religions was important, he was likely simply not referred to as having divine authority, nor did he try to claim it. What is odd is that religion at this point in time served a very utilitarian function, and because of its association with politics was very often manipulated by rulers for their own benefit. If there was a god from whom Hattusili could claim authority, which there most likely was, why would he not choose to claim this authority, especially in such an important treaty?