gods, in the same way as the seals of human witnesses were impressed
on contracts.9.2.4 Multilateral conventions are not attested; all extant treaties
are bilateral. Scholars generally classify them as parity or vassal
treaties. Parity treaties were strictly reciprocal agreements between
equals. Although the two parties each took an oath that in theory
bound them unilaterally, the treaty attained mutuality through the
exchange of oaths to identical terms. Vassal treaties were agreements
between an overlord and vassal, in which only the vassal swore an
oath, undertaking unilateral obligations. Although the terms were
dictated by the overlord and might have resulted from force or the
threat of force, in theory, a vassal treaty was a consensual agree-
ment freely entered into by the vassal.9.2.5 Some treaties fall between these two pure forms, as, for exam-
ple, the Hittite treaty with Sunassura of Kizzuwatna, which is styled
as a parity treaty but contains unequal terms marking its true nature
as a vassal treaty.^68 By the same token, an overlord might give under-
takings in a vassal treaty. Even if not under oath, such undertakings
would serve to make the vassal’s obligations conditional upon the
overlord respecting them. In any case, such conditionality might arise
from the general relationship of overlord and vassal. Thus a vassal
might deem himself freed from his loyalty oath (in the eyes of the
gods) by an egregious act of his overlord.^699.2.6 Treaties were personal contracts between monarchs that bound
their respective states as would a contract made by a head of house-
hold. Theoretically, the contracting king’s rights and obligations passed
to his successor under the normal rules of inheritance. In practice,
it was usual for treaties, especially vassals’ loyalty oaths, to be renewed
upon succession.(^68) Liverani, “Storiografia...”
(^69) Altman, “On the Legal Meaning.. .,” 203–5.
85
WESTBROOK_F2_1-90 8/27/03 1:39 PM Page 85