What does the new fragment of the Treaty of Kadesh found at Hattusa say about the psychology of reconciliation? Read its lessons for family conflicts.
In September 2026, news from Çorum caught the attention even of people with little interest in archaeology: during excavations at Büyükkale in Hattusa, a fragment belonging to a new copy of the Treaty of Kadesh, written in Akkadian, was found. Turkey's Minister of Culture and Tourism, Mehmet Nuri Ersoy, announced the discovery on 21 September, the International Day of Peace. Two clauses stood out in the legible lines of the fragment: the mutual return of fugitives and the commitment that houses would not be destroyed. Known as the earliest recorded peace treaty in history, this text tells us something today not only about the history of diplomacy but also about how people can reach reconciliation with one another. In this article I will read the treaty from the perspective of interpersonal relationships and family conflict, keeping well away from politics.
What Do We Know About the Treaty of Kadesh?
The Treaty of Kadesh is a peace text signed between the Hittite state and Egypt after a long period of rivalry and war. The copy of the treaty found at Boğazköy in 1906 is now on display at the Istanbul Archaeology Museums. The new fragment announced in 2026 coincided with the 120th year of the excavations that have continued at Hattusa without interruption since 1906. That same year, 105 local workers were reported to be working on the excavation alongside 55 scientists; in other words, this discovery came to light with the help of hands from Çorum too.
The clauses legible on the new fragment are small but meaningful details:
- The mutual return of fugitives: The parties agree to send back people who have taken refuge in each other's territory. This is a clear example of the principle of reciprocity.
- Houses not being destroyed: The treaty contains a safeguard concerning the protection of ordinary people's living spaces.
The limits of this information should also be stated. The full text of the fragment and a comprehensive scientific publication have not yet been widely shared. The interpretations below are therefore not a new historical claim about the treaty's content, but a psychological reading based on the known clauses.
The inclusion of Hattusa on the UNESCO World Heritage List (1986) and of the Boğazköy tablet archive on the Memory of the World register reminds us that texts like this belong to the shared memory not only of Çorum but of humanity.
A Sociological Reading: Why Do Rivals Move to Agreement?
Why do two powerful parties stop fighting and choose to agree? Historians debate this question in their own field; here, let us focus on a more general human question: under what conditions do people and groups move from conflict to reconciliation?
Possible factors frequently emphasised in the social sciences include:
- Recognising the cost of conflict: Parties turn towards agreement when they see that the price of continuing to win is heavier than the gain.
- A shared threat or a shared interest: Rivals recognise the value of acting together when they face a common problem.
- Reciprocity: Arrangements in which both sides give something and receive something are more lasting than one-sided sacrifice.
- Assurance: Written, clear and verifiable rules increase trust more than verbal promises.
These factors apply as much to small-scale relationships as to large-scale ones. A parking dispute between neighbours in an apartment block, tension between siblings over the care of an elderly parent, or a couple's never-ending argument about housework all carry the same dynamics. The parties grow tired, see the cost and at some point say, "This can't go on." The real question is what kind of agreement is made from that point onwards.
In many families in Turkey, reconciliation has traditionally been brokered by elders. Seating two estranged relatives at the same table during a holiday visit, having a "respected" person step in, or symbolically closing a rift with a shared coffee or the kissing of a hand are part of these traditions. These routes are valuable for preserving community bonds. Sometimes, however, they produce only an outward peace without addressing the real problem. Two siblings who sit at the same table may carry on nursing the same resentment once they go home. For a lasting reconciliation, symbolic peace needs to be backed by an open conversation and a concrete agreement.
Another striking aspect of the treaty is its language. The fact that the copies found at Hattusa are in Akkadian suggests that the text was recorded in the shared diplomatic language of the time, one that both sides could understand. In other words, care was taken not only over the agreement itself but also over both parties being able to read the same text in the same way. Something similar happens in relationships: two people may describe the same agreement in different languages. When one says "Let's spend more time together", they may mean being cared about; when the other says "Let's keep the house tidy", they may mean being respected. Reconciliation also requires finding a common language.
Lessons From the Treaty of Kadesh for Reconciliation in the Family
The treaty's two known clauses offer surprisingly apt metaphors for family and couple relationships.
1. "Mutually returning fugitives": sharing responsibility. A common pattern in family conflicts is that the parties carry "fugitives" to others: one spouse complains to a sibling, mother or friend; children flee from one parent to the other; a teenager takes refuge with the grandmother whose rules are more relaxed. In the short term this "refuge" brings relief, but it does not resolve the conflict; it only spreads it around. A healthy reconciliation requires the problem to be discussed between the people actually involved. This resembles the pattern known in family therapy as "triangulation": tension between two people is managed by being drawn onto a third person.
2. "Not destroying houses": areas not to be touched even in a fight. Every conflict requires certain boundaries to be protected. For example, even when a couple argues, not using humiliating words in front of the children, not insulting each other's families, and not using their most sensitive secrets as weapons. These "houses that will not be destroyed" make it possible for the relationship to be rebuilt after the conflict. Research shows that how a conflict is conducted matters more for relationship satisfaction than the conflict itself.
3. Written and clear rules. The fact that the treaty was inscribed in stone or clay shows the parties' need to make their words concrete. In families too, clear agreements such as "From now on we'll alternate between the two families on holidays" or "Let's write the screen time rules together" reduce uncertainty and recurring arguments.
Peace is not the absence of conflict; it is being able to manage conflict without disregarding any of the parties.
A Psychological Reading: Why Is Reconciliation So Hard?
Although we know the value of reconciliation, we often struggle to achieve it. There are several psychological reasons for this:
- The need to be right: During conflict, the mind focuses on information that supports its own point of view. It becomes harder to see where the other side might be right.
- Fear of losing: For some people, reconciliation is perceived as "backing down" and therefore as losing worth. Particularly in family cultures where honour and reputation are strong concepts, the person who takes the first step may worry about being seen as "weak".
- Accumulated resentment: In long-running conflicts, every new argument reopens old wounds. The issue is no longer the dishes or money, but a settling of scores accumulated over years.
- Emotional flooding: When anger rises, the brain's capacity for calm thinking and empathy diminishes. Conversations held at such moments often produce new wounds instead of solutions.
Let us say two siblings have not spoken for years over how to run the shop they inherited from their father. Both want to make peace, but both are waiting, thinking "Let the other one call first." Beneath this waiting there is often the thought "If I call, I'll be admitting I was wrong." Yet taking the first step need not mean accepting an injustice; it can mean valuing the relationship more than the problem.
There are also small behaviours that make reconciliation easier. Repair attempts — a joke that lowers the tension in the middle of an argument, saying "You're right, I hadn't thought of that", bringing a glass of tea or lowering one's voice — can stop a fight from escalating. Whether these attempts are noticed and accepted by the other person is an important sign of a relationship's resilience. In couples who have been in conflict for a long time, however, these attempts often go unseen or are mocked; this may suggest that support is needed.
At this point, it is also worth remembering the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation. Forgiveness concerns a person letting go of the burden of resentment within themselves; reconciliation is about two parties building a new arrangement together. Sometimes forgiveness is possible but the conditions for reconciliation have not yet formed; sometimes a practical agreement is needed before forgiveness.
From Conflict to Reconciliation: Practical Steps
The following steps can guide you in making reconciliation easier in families and relationships:
- Choose a calm moment. Instead of trying to reach agreement when anger is at its peak, wait until both sides have calmed down. Saying "If we talk now we'll hurt each other, let's talk this evening" is not an escape but a protective measure.
- Narrow the topic. Instead of "You're always like this", focus on a concrete issue such as "What was said at dinner last night hurt me." Sweeping generalisations increase defensiveness.
- Listen first, then explain. Repeating in your own words what the other person feels ("So you felt you were left on your own") makes them feel understood and lowers the tension.
- Agree on off-limits areas. At a calm moment, decide together on rules such as not arguing in front of the children, not insulting each other, and not using past events as weapons.
- Take reciprocal steps. For reconciliation to last, both sides need to give something. One-sided sacrifice leads to a build-up of anger over time.
- Make the agreement concrete. State the decisions you have reached clearly, write them down if necessary, and after a while review them together by asking "How is it going?"
- Choose the mediator carefully. Mediation by family elders sometimes works; but someone close to one of the parties stepping in can upset the balance. Impartial support may be needed.
I discussed how family arguments can be made more constructive in more detail in my article on family conflicts and ways to resolve them.
When Should You Seek Professional Support?
Disagreements happen in every family and every relationship; they are part of a healthy relationship too. However, it may be helpful to see a professional in the following situations:
- if arguments about the same issues have been recurring for months without any resolution,
- if arguments involve insults, humiliation or threats,
- if long-term estrangements are occurring between family members and wearing everyone down,
- if children are caught in the middle of the conflict, forced to take sides, or showing changes in their behaviour,
- if conflicts are having a marked effect on sleep, appetite, work performance or general mood.
If there is physical violence or a situation that threatens someone's safety, safety comes first; in an emergency, call 112 (emergency services).
How Are Conflict and Reconciliation Addressed in Therapy?
In couples therapy, the aim is not for the couple never to argue, but for them to be able to conduct arguments without harming each other. In therapy, recurring cycles of conflict are identified: for example, one partner's criticism, the other's defensiveness, followed by withdrawal or escalating anger. Seeing this cycle is the couple's first step towards breaking it.
In the cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) approach, automatic thoughts such as "If I make the first move, I'll be crushed" or "They'll never understand me" are identified and evaluated together with realistic alternatives. Skills such as active listening, using "I" statements, taking a break when angry, and problem solving are also practised through concrete exercises.
In family conflicts, it is sometimes necessary to meet with more than one family member. In these sessions it is important to create an environment in which everyone's voice is heard and no one is declared guilty. The aim is to support the family in writing its own "peace treaty".
Sometimes reconciliation requires one of the parties first to resolve their own inner conflict. For people who do not know how to manage their anger, who struggle to set boundaries or who cannot let go of an old hurt, individual sessions can pave the way towards reconciliation in the relationship. Which path to take in therapy is decided together, according to the needs of the person and the family.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the Treaty of Kadesh known as the first peace treaty in history?
The Treaty of Kadesh, signed between the Hittites and Egypt, is regarded as one of the oldest peace treaties whose text has survived to the present day. The copy found at Boğazköy in 1906 is in the Istanbul Archaeology Museums; in 2026, a fragment of a new Akkadian copy was found at Hattusa.
Is taking the first step in an argument a sign of weakness?
No. Taking the first step does not mean accepting an injustice; it shows that you value the relationship more than the problem. However, for reconciliation to last, the other side also needs to take steps; one-sided sacrifice can be draining in the long run.
How can I make peace with a family member I have fallen out with?
It helps first to choose a calm moment and to open the subject by talking about your own feelings rather than assigning blame. Keep your expectations realistic; the first conversation may not resolve everything. If the estrangement has lasted a long time, impartial support can make the process easier.
Does arguing in front of children harm them?
Respectful arguments that end in a resolution can also show children that disagreements can be managed. However, arguments involving insults, shouting or pressure on the child to take sides can create anxiety and insecurity in them. When you reach a resolution, it is important that your children see that too.
Bu yazı genel bilgilendirme amaçlıdır; tanı veya tedavi yerine geçmez. Yaşadığınız güçlükler için bir ruh sağlığı uzmanına başvurmanız önerilir. Acil bir durumda lütfen 112'yi arayın.
Eda Erkan Alapala
Klinik Psikolog. İstanbul Kent Üniversitesi Klinik Psikoloji Tezli Yüksek Lisans mezunu; bilişsel davranışçı terapi, çocuk merkezli oyun terapisi ve çocuk-ergen psikoterapisi alanlarında eğitimlerini tamamlamıştır.
Eğitimler
