Previous studies of the Emar texts dealing with the Hittite administration in Emar have clarified that although there was a strong Hittite presence in Emar, the Hittites ruled it as a vassal kingdom, using the principle of indirect control. While admitting this point, this paper discusses an aspect of the rule which has been almost ignored, i. e., the aspect of direct control. In this regard, it is significant to note that there were Emariote citizens who performed the Hittite obligations (e.g., giš.tukul-duty) for the Hittite king (of Carchemish) in exchange for landed property. This indicates that the Hittites employed some of the Emariotes as local staff; in other words, they partly adopted the policy of direct control in the administration of Emar. The incident of the ‘oppression’ of Zū-Ba'la, an Emariote diviner of high rank, in which a certain Hittite official named Alziyamuwa tried to take away his landed property and to impose the šaḫḫan- and luzzi-duties on him (SMEA 45-T 1; BLMJE 32), should be understood in this context.
© Walter de Gruyter