# The Edict Issued by the Hittite King Ḫattušili III Concerning the Priesthood of the Goddess Ištar/Šaušga

Stefano de Martino

**Abstract**: This essay presents an updated edition of the Hittite document KBo 6.29+. This text is a royal edict issued by Ḫattušili III and establishes that the sanctuary of the Goddess Šaušga will be exempted from any levies. The regulations concerning this sanctuary are preceded by a long introduction where the king relates his conflict with Urḫi-Teššob. This presentation can be compared with the narrative on this event that is documented in the 'Apology.'

# 1. Introduction

The edict issued by the Hittite king Ḫattušili III on the priesthood of Ištar/Šaušga is documented in two manuscripts, namely KBo 6.29 + and KUB 21.5+. Although the findspot of the tablets KBo 6.29 and KUB 21.15 is unknown, we argue that these documents were originally kept in Temple 1 because the fragments KBo 50.56 and KBo 50.59, which join respectively KBo 6.29 and KUB 21.15, come from the area of this temple. Incidentally, the collection of tablets stored in Temple 1 also includes some manuscripts of the other edict that deals with the priesthood of Šaušga, the so-called 'Apology,' or 'Autobiography' (CTH 81.A, B, D, F, and G).

The tablet KUB 21.15+ omits a line in the first paragraph of the third column1 that is preserved in KBo 6.29, which contains some scribal errors as well. Hence, we argue that both tablets were copied from the lost original recension of the decree. Overall, the two manuscripts do not differ much, in contrast with the manuscripts of the 'Apology,' which survives in several tablets that show significant linguistic and orthographic differences.2

The edict KBo 6.29 attracted the attention of Albrecht Götze, who published the first two columns in his book *Ḫattušiliš* (1925). After five years this scholar published a complete edition of the text in his book *Neue Bruchstücke zum grossen Text des Hattušiliš und den Paralleltexten* (1930), where he could restore some damaged passages by means of the duplicate KUB 21.15. Although we owe Albert Götze a debt of thanks for this exemplary philological work, the discovery of the new joining fragments KBo 50.56 and 59 (a, b, c) requires an updated edition of this text, which is of great historical value.

<sup>1</sup> See Groddek 2008: 50 n. 49.

<sup>2</sup> See Klinger 2022: 141.

Stefano de Martino, University of Turin, Italy, stefano.demartino@unito.it, 0000-0001-6886-636X Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Stefano de Martino, *The Edict Issued by the Hittite King Ḫattušili III Concerning the Priesthood of the Goddess Ištar/Šaušga*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4.03, in Clelia Mora, Giulia Torri (edited by), *Administrative Practices and Political Control in Anatolian and Syro-Anatolian Polities in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BCE*, pp. 9-23, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215- 0042-4

The resolutions taken by Ḫattušili III in KBo 6.29 concern the priesthood of Šaušga of Šamuḫa, whose name is written with the Akkadogram *IŠTAR*, and the economic support given by the Hittite royal house to the sanctuary of the deity.

We share Imparati's assumption (1995) that the issuing of the edict KBo 6.29+ preceded the composition of the 'Apology;'3 in fact, in the latter document the king appoints his son Tutḫaliya as priest of Šaušga of Šamuḫa and eventually elevates him to the dignity of *tuḫkanti*.Instead, in KBo 6.29+ Ḫattušili III only establishes that one of his sons shall be priest of the deity, without mentioning any of them by name (see also *ultra*). Thus, we argue that KBo 6.29 was written when the children of Ḫattušili and Pudu-Ḫeba were little, and hence the royal couple could not yet decide which of them would merit being chosen for the priesthood of the patron deity of the king.

As the *incipit* documents, the edict KBo 6.29 was issued by Ḫattušili III, whose name is followed by his genealogy. This Hittite sovereign only mentions his father Muršili II, his grandfather Šuppiluliuma I,4 and his homonymous predecessor Ḫattušili I of Kuššara. Hence, here as well as in the other official documents issued by Ḫattušili III, the king aimed to inscribe his own name as the direct heir of his father by cancelling the names of Muwatalli II and Muršili III. Furthermore, the reference to his ancestor Ḫattušili I was intended to prove his affiliation to an old royal dynasty. The name of Pudu-Ḫeba occurs after the titles and genealogy of her husband, but the queen's name is not present in other decrees issued by Ḫattušili III, such as KBo 6.28+ (de Martino in press b), KBo 4.12, KUB 26.58, and the 'Apology,' with the sole exception of KUB 21.17.5

## 2. The Content

#### 2.1. Ḫattušili III's Autobiography

A long introduction precedes the regulations on the priesthood of Šaušga and is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the youth of Ḫattušili, his marriage to Pudu-Ḫeba, and his appointment as ruler of Ḫakpiš during the reign of Muwatalli II, while the second one describes the reasons for his conflict with his nephew Muršili III.

Although the presentation of the events of Ḫattušili's life in KBo 6.29+ and in the 'Apology' differs, and the latter is also much more detailed, both texts emphasise the protection and support that Šaušga of Šamuḫa offered to Ḫattušili. As is well known, in the 'Apology' the Hittite king states that his brother Muwatalli appeared in a dream to Muršili II and said that the health problems of Ḫattušili might be resolved by handing him over to the cult of Šaušga. But the account in KBo 6.29+ (i 6-16) simply relates that the deity requested prince Ḫattušili from his father.

KBo 6.29+ does not make any mention of the lawsuit with Arma-Tarḫunta that was judged by Muwatalli II and is described in detail in the 'Apology,' and it presents Ḫattušili's wedding with Pudu-Ḫeba as the first significant event in his life (i 16-21). The 'Apology' explicitly states that Ḫattušili met with his future wife in Lawazantiya on his way back from Qadeš, where he had taken part in the struggle against the Egyptian army, while KBo 6.29 reports that Šaušga appeared in a dream to the Hittite prince and ordered him to marry Pudu-Ḫeba. Ḫattušili explicitly states that he did not marry

<sup>3</sup> Differently, see Beckman 2016: 72.

<sup>4</sup> See Klinger 2017: 71.

<sup>5</sup> See de Martino in press a.

her in the heat of passion, but at the command of the goddess (i 19-20). This statement aimed to legitimise Pudu-Ḫeba as the Great Queen of Ḫatti who had been destined by the goddess for this dignity.

Another important moment in Ḫattušili's life was his appointment as priest of the Storm-god of Nerik in Ḫakpiš. It was Muwatalli II, his brother and king, who gave him the priesthood and the province of Ḫakpiš to rule. The territory under Ḫattušili's authority comprehended the lands of Ištaḫara, Taraḫna, Ḫattena, and Ḫanḫana (ii 25-28).6 The same four lands are also mentioned in KBo 22.73 (+) KUB 21.11, and they are part of the kingdom of Ḫakpiš. According to Corti (2006), this text is a decree issued by Ḫattušili when he still ruled only Ḫakpiš. This decree documents that prince Ḫattušili reconquered and resettled the whole territory, winning the resistance of the Kaškean tribes. KBo 6.29+ i 28 adds that the border of Ḫattušili's territory was the town of Kuruštama,7 a detail that does not occur in the 'Apology' (ii 57-60), even though it documents a much longer list of lands and towns belonging to the kingdom ruled by Ḫattušili.

Another passage in KBo 6.29+ (i 46) adds that the lands of Pala and Tummana were inside the kingdom of Ḫattušili, and they are also listed among his possessions in the 'Apology' (ii 59). The passage in KBo 6.29+ refers to the fact that Urḫi-Teššob took away from Ḫattušili all the regions that Muwatalli II had given him to rule. We argue that Pala and Tummana were not part of the territory assigned by Muwatalli II but were conquered by prince Ḫattušili himself in the years when he was king of Ḫakpiš.

The narrative in KBo 6.29+ briefly mentions Muwatalli II's transfer of the capital to Tarḫuntašša, where the deities of Ḫatti, of Arinna, and of Kizzuwatna were brought. It does not make any reference to the transfer of either the statues or the remains (GI-DIM) of the dead ancestors of the Hittite royal house, a detail that is mentioned in the 'Apology' (ii 52; Singer 2006).

## 2.2 The Conflict with Urḫi-Teššob

Ḫattušili III claims the merit of having supported Urḫi-Teššob and promoted him as the legitimate heir of Muwatalli II. This was not true; in fact, as is well known, Muwatalli II had already appointed Urḫi-Teššob to the position of *tuḫkanti*, as documented by the seal impressions discovered at Nişantepe.8

Ḫattušili III states in the 'Apology' (iii 41) as well as in KBo 6.29+ that he supported Urḫi-Teššub, who was the son of a secondary wife of Muwatalli II, because there was no other adult first-rank prince.9 The statement that Urḫi-Teššub was a prince of a lower rank (*paḫḫurši-*)10 is repeated in a passage of the treaty concluded by Tutḫaliya IV with Šaušga-muwa of Amurru (ii 28).11

<sup>6</sup> On these place names see Corti 2017: 220-224.

<sup>7</sup> Kryszeń (2016: 177) argued that Ḫanḫana was the westernmost region of Ḫattušili's reign, and that Kuruštama lay instead on its southern border.

<sup>8</sup> See Hawkins 2001; Herbordt 2005: 278. For a critical analysis of the narrative in KBo 6.29, see now Gilan 2022.

<sup>9</sup> See n. 53.

<sup>10</sup> See CHD P: 17.

<sup>11</sup> See Kühne, Otten 1971: 10-11; Beckman 1999: 105.

Ḫattušili III also relates in the 'Apology' that he consigned the whole country of Ḫatti to his nephew Urḫi-Teššob (iii 42'-44'), retaining for himself only the government of the land of Ḫakpiš. According to the narrative in KBo 6.29+, the first act of Urḫi-Teššob, which created a rift between him and his uncle, was his abandonment of Tarḫuntašša and transfer of the capital to Ḫattuša. This does not mean that Ḫattušili was the ruler of the former capital,12 but presumably implied that Urḫi-Teššub could more directly control the activities of his uncle.

The description of the struggle between Urḫi-Teššob and Ḫattušili is much more detailed in the 'Apology.' In this text, the king states that his nephew took away from him all the lands that Muwatalli II had placed under his authority. Even the city of Nerik was taken away from Ḫattušili, though he was the priest of the Storm-god of this city. This was perceived as a sacrilegious act committed by Urḫi-Teššob. Muršili II, for example, had acted more cautiously when establishing the borders of the land of Mira after the rebellion of Mašḫuiluwa. According to the treaty concluded by Muršili II with Kupanta-Kutuntiya, the latter was not allowed to expand his territory into the region near and beyond the Šiyanta river. This restriction notwithstanding, the Hittite Great King left in the hands of Kupanta-Kuruntiya a sacred centre that was situated on the Šiyanta and had originally belonged to his predecessor Mašḫuiluwa.13 In this way, Muršili II hoped to avoid the anger of the gods that were venerated by the ruling family of Mira in the sanctuary of this town.

The main fault of Urḫi-Teššub was his progressive diminution of his uncle's prestige, authority, and power. This accusation, including the verb *tepnu-* 'to diminish,' occurs in the 'Apology' (iii 59) and in KBo 6.29+ I 41, as well as in the loyalty oath imposed by Ḫattušili III on the people of Ḫatti (KUB 21.37 l. 20').14 As we read in these three texts, Ḫattušili summoned the gods to judge his case ('Apology' iii 78-79; KUB 21.37 r. 35'), and hence the political contention between uncle and nephew became a legal contest to be assessed by the divine court of justice.15

The conflict between the two members of the royal family is presented by Ḫattušili III as an asymmetrical struggle because he was only the ruler of a small land, while Urḫi-Teššob was the Great King of Ḫatti. On the contrary, we argue that Ḫattušili had the advantage here, as he possessed corps of highly trained soldiers who had fought with him in northern Anatolia, while Urḫi-Teššub, who had no chance to lead the imperial army during his reign, did not have any military experience.

As Liverani (1990: 153-55) wrote concerning the administration of divine justice, 'once the legal challenge has been formulated, events run toward the correct outcome. At times the signs of divine decision may be perceived before the final encounter.' This was indeed the case in the struggle between Muršili II and Uḫḫa-zidi of Arzawa, as well as in the conflict between Ḫattušili III and Urḫi-Teššub; in fact, Šaušga caused an eclipse and an earthquake. This spectacular manifestation of divine protection, which is mentioned only in KBo 6.29+, predicted the ruin of Urḫi-Teššub and led his allies to join the side of Ḫattušili III. The 'Apology' describes a different and less dramatic intervention by Šaušga; the goddess appeared in a dream to Pudu-Ḫeba and reassured her of the eventual victory of Ḫattušili. The deity also appeared to the gen-

<sup>12</sup> See Singer 2001.

<sup>13</sup> See Beckman 1999: 76.

<sup>14</sup> See Archi 1971: 203-208; Giorgieri 2020: 159-160.

<sup>15</sup> See Liverani 1990: 155-156.

erals who had been dismissed by Urḫi-Teššub and encouraged them to take the side of Ḫattušili (iv 1-23).

The narrative differences between the 'Apology' and KBo 6.29+ are manifest as well in the account of the overthrow of Urḫi-Teššub. The former text states that Šaušga locked Urḫi-Teššub in the city of Šamuḫa like a pig in a sty (iv 25-26). Differently, in KBo 6.29+ we read that Urḫi-Teššub fled from Maraššantiya and went to Šamuḫa. Ḫattušili, on his way to Šamuḫa, welcomed the lords allied to Urḫi-Teššub, and his former followers offered to kill the king. But the Hittite prince refused and continued marching towards Šamuḫa. At this point, Šaušga again took action in support of his *protégé* and broke down the wooden wall of the city.16 Ḫattušili easily entered Šamuḫa and caught Urḫi-Teššub like a fish in a net.

This intervention of the deity, which is not mentioned in the 'Apology,' clearly is a fictitious element in the narrative. Nevertheless, we wonder whether the mention of wooden city walls guarding Šamuḫa may be accurate. The archaeological excavations at Kayalıpınar/Šamuḫa have discovered no monumental stone fortifications,17 and we cannot exclude that the city was indeed surrounded by a wooden palisade in some way similar to the one discovered at Hissarlık Höyük/Troy.18

### 2.3 Exemptions, Curses and Blessings

The upper portion of the reverse of KBo 6.29+ is not preserved, and this part of the text is also missing in the duplicate. As the first surviving lines in the third column state, the lands of Pala and Tummana, whoever among the royal princes might become their ruler, shall pay tribute to Šaušga. We infer from this provision that the son of Ḫattušili III, who would be appointed to the priesthood of Šaušga, also became the ruler of the northern region of Ḫatti and hence retraced the stages of his father's career. The following lines are fragmentary, but they state that the priesthood of Šaušga shall only be conferred on Ḫattušili III's male descendants, or, if the king has no living sons, on the husband of a royal princess.19

In addition, this decree establishes that the sanctuary of Šaušga shall be exempted from any levies and impositions.20 Thus, it shall be free from the *šaḫḫan* and *luzzi* levies and from the *ILKU* obligation to be given to the 'Lord of the land,' nor will it hand over any products of the estate belonging to the sanctuary, such as wood for the construction of chariots, firewood, cereals, grass, straw, and trained horses. This exemption implies that the estate of the goddess comprehended arable lands, pastures, and woodlands. Finally, the people working in the lands of the sanctuary of Šaušga were exempted from being recruited as auxiliary troops.21

The tablet ends with the curse formulas, which are fragmentary; only the first lines (iii 40'-43') are preserved. The surviving lines in the fourth column state that those who do not contravene the word of the king shall have free access to the sanctuary of Šaušga and shall receive whatever they desire.

<sup>16</sup> See Gilan 2019: 33.

<sup>17</sup> See Schachner 2022: 444.

<sup>18</sup> See Jablonka 2006: 172-174.

<sup>19</sup> See n. 39.

<sup>20</sup> See Imparati (1974: 148-170) for a comparison of the exemptions established in the decrees KBo 6.28+, KBo 6.29+ and KUB 26.50+.

<sup>21</sup> On the *NARĀRU-*troops see Beal 1992: 56-71.

3. The Text22

A) KBo 6.29 + KBo 50.56 + KUB 23.127 + KUB 21.12 + KUB 1.1 (=2026b) B) KUB 21.15 + KBo 50.59a + KBo 50.59b + KBo 50.59c (Groddek 2008: 48-51) Obv.

i

1. A i 1. *UM-MA* DUTU-*ŠI*<sup>m</sup>*Ḫa-at-tu-ši-li* LUGAL GAL LUG[AL KU]R23 URU*ḪA-AT-TI*


```
5. A i 5. Ù A-MA-AT f
                  Pu-du-ḫé-pa MUNUS.LUGAL GAL-TI KUR URUḪA-AT-TI
```

```
6. A i 6. A-NA A-BU-YA-za mMur-ši-li EGIR-iš ⸤DUMU-aš e-šu-⸥un
```
7. A i 7. *nu-mu kap-pí-in-pát* DUMU-an D*IŠTAR* URU*Ša-m*[*u-ḫ*]*a*

8. A i 8. *A-NA A-BU-YA ú-e-ek-ta nu-mu A-BU-YA* [*A-N*]*A* DINGIR-*LIM*

9. A i 9. ÌR*-an-ni pa-ra-a pé-eš-ta* GIM-*an-ma-za-kán* ⸤*ŠA*⸥ DINGIR-*LIM*

10. A i 10. *aš-šu-la-an uš-ki-iš-ki-u-wa-an te-eḫ-ḫu-un IŠ-TU* DINGIR-*LIM*-*mu*

11. A i 11. *pa-ra-a pa-ra-a* SIG5-*iš-kat-ta-ri nu-mu* <sup>D</sup>*IŠTAR* URU*Ša-mu-ḫa*

12. A i 12. GAŠAN-*YA* GIŠTUKUL *pé-eš-ta ŠA A-BÉ-E-YA*-*mu*<sup>24</sup>

13. A i 13. *Ù ŠA* ŠEŠ-*YA ka-né-eš-šu-u-wa-ar pé-eš-ta*

14. A i 14. *am-mu-uk-ma-kán* DINGIR-*LUM* GAM*-an pít-ta-iš-ki-u-wa-an te-eḫ-ḫu-un*

15. A i 15. *nu-mu* É*-ir ku-it e-eš-ta nu-kán IŠ-TU* É-*YA*

16. A i 16. D*IŠTAR* URU*Ša-mu-ḫa ḫa-an-ti-ya-nu-un* <sup>f</sup> *Pu-du-ḫé-pa-aš-ma*

17. A i 17. ⸤*ŠA*⸥ <sup>D</sup>*IŠTAR* URU*La-wa-za-an-ti-ya* GÉME! -*aš* 25 DUMU.MUNUS m*Pé-en-ti-ib*-LUGAL

18. A i 18. LÚSANGA D*IŠTAR e-eš-ta nu-za a-pu-u-un-na*

19. A i 19. *AŠ*⸤*-ŠUM*⸥ DAM-*UT-TIMmar-ri Ú-UL da-aḫ-ḫu-un*

20. A i 20. *IŠ-TU* INIM DINGIR-*LIM* -*za-an da-aḫ-ḫu-un* DINGIR-*LIM-an-mu* ⸤Ù-*it*⸥

21. A i 21. *ḫé-en-ek-ta*

22. A 22. GIM*-an-ma A-BU-YA ku-wa-pí* BA.ÚŠ ŠEŠ-*YA-ma-za-kán*

```
23. A i 23. mNIR.GÁL-iš A-NA GIŠGU.ZA A-BI-ŠÚ e-ša-at
```
24. A i 24. *am-mu-uk-ma-aš-ši pé-ra-an* KUR.KURMEŠ *ma-ni-ya-aḫ-ḫe-eš-ki-nu-un*

25. A i 25. *nu-mu I-NA* URU*Ḫa-ak-piš-ša A-NA* DU URU*Ne-ri-ik*

26. A i 26. LÚSANGA *i-ya-at nu-mu* ⸤KUR URU*Ḫa*-⸥*ak-piš-ša* KUR URU*Iš-ta-ḫa-ra*

27. A i 27. KUR URU*Ta-ra-aḫ-na* KUR URU*Ḫa-a*[*t-ti-n*]*a* [KUR U]RU*Ḫa-an-ḫa-na-ya*

28. A i 28. *pé-eš-ta nu-mu* \*ras.\* URU*Ku-ru-uš*[*-ta-ma* Z]AG*-an i-ya-at*


31. A i 31. DINGIRMEŠ GIŠERIN-*aš ša-ra-a da-a-aš n*[(*a-aš I-N*)]*A*URU DU*-aš-ša*

32. A i 32. *pé-e-da-aš nu-za* URU DU-*ša-an*<sup>27</sup> *šal-l*[(*i AŠ-R*)]*U i-ya-at*

<sup>27</sup> B i 4': URU DU-*aš-ša-an.*

<sup>22</sup> I am grateful to H. Craig Melchert for his precious comments on some passages of this text.

<sup>23</sup> See Groddek 2008: 48.

<sup>24</sup> See Weeden 2011: 137 n. 595.

<sup>25</sup> Differently, Mouton 2007: 92: GÉME*LIM*!

<sup>. 26</sup> B i 1': [*ma-ni-y*]*a-aḫ-ḫi-iš*[-*ki-nu-un*.

33. A i 33. *nu* DINGIRMEŠ *a-pí-ya da-ni-nu-ut* GI[(M-*an-ma* Š)]EŠ-*YA* BA.ÚŠ 34. A i 34. *nu A-NA* ŠEŠ-*YA ku-it ŠA* [(DAM-*ŠU*) *ḫu-u-i-*]*ḫu-iš-šu-wa-li-iš* 35. A i 35. DUMU-*aš na-a-wí ku-iš-ki* [(*e-eš-ta A*-*N*)]*A* ŠEŠ-*YA* 36. A i 36. *na-ak-ki-ya-an-ni ḫ*[(*a-an-da-aš*<sup>28</sup> <sup>m</sup>*U*)*r-ḫi*-DU*-ub-an š*]*a-ra-a* 37. A i 37. *da-aḫ-ḫu*⸤*-un*⸥ *na-a*[(*nA-NA*) GIŠGU.ZA *A-BI-ŠU* (*AŠ-ŠUM* LUGAL-*UT-TI*)] 38. A i 38. *te-eḫ-hu*⸤-*un*⸥ [(m*U*)*r-ḫi*-DU*-ub-aš-ma* (DINGIRMEŠ URU DU-*aš-ša-az ša-ra-a*)] 39. A i 39. *t*[*a-a*(*-aš na-aš* EGIR-*pa* URU*Ḫa-at-tu-ši ar*-)*nu-ut*]29 40. B i 13'. ⸤*am-mu-*⸥*uk-ma-aš me-na-aḫ-ḫa-an-da* [*ku-ru-ur e-eš-ta*]30 41. B i 14' ⸤*nu-mu*⸥ *te-ep-nu-ma-an-zi ša-an-a*[*ḫ-ta*] 42. B i 15'. *nu-mu* LÚ.MEŠ*MU-IR-TU4-TI ku-i-e-eš* [*ma-ni-ya-aḫ-ḫa-an-ni*]31 43. B i 16'. ⸤*pí*-⸥*ya-an-te-eš e-šer na-aš-mu-kán a*[*r-ḫa da-a-aš*] 44. B i 17'. ⸤ÌR⸥*an-ni-ya-mu ku-e* KUR.KURMEŠ *pí-ya-a*[*n e-šir*] 45. B i 18'. *nu-mu-kán a-pé-e-ya ar-ḫa da-at-ta/da-at-ta*[*-at*] 46. B i 19'. ⸤*nu-mu*⸥ KUR URU*Pa-la-a* KUR URU*Tu-ma-an-na d*[*a-at-ta*(-*at*?)] 47. B i 20'. [*nam-ma*-(?)]*mu ši-ya-it am-mu-u*[*k*(-) 48. B i 21'. [ ] x x x [ ………………… 49'. B ii 1' *a*]*r-ḫ*[*a* 50'. B ii 2' ]x*-aš-ši k*[*u*-51'. B ii 3' *me-na*-]*aḫ*⸤*-ḫa-an*-⸥[*da*] *ku-ru-ri-ya-a*[*ḫ-ta* 52'. B ii 4' ]x *ku*⸤*-ru-ri*-⸥*ya-aḫ-ḫu-un-wa-a*[*t-ta*] ii 1. A ii 1. *nu-wa-za zi-ik* LUGAL.GAL *am-mu-uk-ma-wa-za* LUGAL.TUR*RU* 2. A ii. 2*. nu-wa-an-na-aš e-ḫu A-NA* DU EN-*YA* 3. A ii 3. *Ù A-NA* <sup>D</sup>*IŠTAR* URU*Ša-mu-ḫa* GAŠAN-*YA* DI*-eš-ni* 4. A ii 4. *ti-ya-u-e-ni nu-wa-za ma-a-an zi-ik* DI-*eš-na-za* 5. A ii 5. *ša-ra-az<-zi->iš nu-wa tu-uk ša-ra-az-zi-ya-aḫ-ḫa-an-du* 6. A ii 6. *ma-a-an-ma-wa-za am-mu-uk-ma* DI*-eš-na-za* \*ras\*

7. A ii 7. *ša-ra-az-zi-iš nu-wa am-mu-uk*

8. A ii 8. *ša-ra-az-zi-aḫ-ḫa-an-du*

9. A ii 9 *nu-wa A-NA* <sup>D</sup>*IŠTAR* URU*Ša-mu-ḫa* GAŠAN-*YA* ŠU*-an*

10. A ii 10. *ša-ra-a e-ep-pu-un nu-mu* <sup>D</sup>*IŠTAR* URU*Ša-mu-ḫa* GAŠAN-*YA*

11. A ii 11. *wa-ar-ri-iš-ši-iš-ta nu ša-ra-az-zi*

12. A ii 12. *kat-te-ir-ra-ya an-da :ma-ru-wa-a*⸤-*it*⸥ *nu ne*⸤*-pí-iš*⸥

13. A ii 13. *te-kán-na kat-kat-te-nu-ut nu-mu* <sup>D</sup>*IŠTAR* URU*Ša*⸤*-mu-ḫa*⸥ [(GAŠAN-*YA*)]

14. A ii 14. EGIR-*an ti-ya-at nu ḫa-at-ra-nu-un ku-e-da*[(*-aš* KUR-)]*e-aš*

15. A. ii 15. EGIR-*an-wa-mu ti-ya-at-tén na-at-mu* EGIR*-an ti*⸤*-i-e*-⸥*er*

16. A ii 16. *Ú-UL*-*ya ku-e-da-aš* KUR*-e-aš ḫa-at-ra-a-nu-un*

17. A ii 17. *nu ḫu-u-ma-an-pát am-me-e-ta-az ti-ya-at*

18. A ii 18. *a-pa-a-aš-ma* GIM-*an iš-ta-ma-aš-ta*

<sup>28</sup> B i 8': the gloss wedge comes before the word *ḫa-an-da-aš*.

<sup>29</sup> Götze (1930: 46) argued that the word *pé-e-da-aš* may be restored in the gap, but the sign AR is now readable in the fragment KBo 50.59a i 12' that joins KUB 21.15.

<sup>30</sup> See CHD L-N 3: 277.

<sup>31</sup> See Götze 1930: 46.

```
19. A ii 19. na-aš-kán URUMa-ra-aš-ša-an-ti-ya-za ar-ḫa pár-aš-ta
20. A ii 20. na⸤-aš⸥ I-NA URUŠa-mu-ḫa an-da-an pa-it
21. A ii 21. am-mu-uk-ma-aš-ši EGIR-an-da pa-a-un GIM-an-ma
22. A ii 22. ⸤I-NA⸥ URUŠu-lu-up-pa ar-ḫu-un nu-uš-ši ENMEŠ ku-i-e-eš
23. A ii 23. EGIR-aš-ša UNMEŠ-uš kat-ta-an e-še-er
24. A ii 24. na-at-mu me-na-aḫ-ḫa-an-da ú-e-er nu-mu me-mi-er
25. A ii 25. pa-a-i-u-e-ni-wa-ra-an-kán ku-en-nu-um-mi32-e-ni
26. A ii 26. nu-wa-at-ta SAG.DU-an me-na-aḫ-ḫa-an-da
27. A ii 27. ú-tum-me-e-ni na-aš Ú-UL tar-na-aḫ-ḫu-un
28. A ii 28. na-an-kán Ú-UL ku-en-ner nu-uš-ši I-NA URUŠa-mu-ḫa
29. A ii 29. ú-ki-la kat-ta-an pa-a-un DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa-ma-za
30. A ii 30. GAŠAN-YA a-pí-ya-ya pa-ra-a ḫa-an-da-tar ti-ik-ku-u š-ša-nu-ut
31. A ii 31. nu-uš-ši kat-ta-an EGIR-an ku-e-da-ni me-e-ḫu-ni
32. A ii 32. ar-ḫu-un BÀD-eš-šar-ma ŠA IZ-ZI 4033 gi-pe-eš-šar
33. A ii 33. kat-ta ú-it a-pu-un-ma-kán DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa GAŠAN-YA
34. A ii 34. KU6-un GIM-an :ḫu-u-pa-la-za EGIR-pa iš-tap-ta
35. A ii 35. na-an iš-ḫi-ya-at na-an-mu pa-ra-a pé-eš-ta
36. A ii 36. na-an-kán kat-ta *eras.* ú-wa-te-nu-un
37. A ii 37. ⸤na-an-za-an-⸥kán a-pí-ya-ya ŠA ŠEŠ-YA
38. A ii. 38. [na-ak-ki-ya-]an-ni ḫa-an-da-aš da-aḫ-ḫu-un
39. A ii 39. [nu-uš-ši Ú-UL ku-i]t-ki i-ya-nu-un
40. A ii 40. [nu-mu DIŠTAR URUŠa-m]u-ḫa GAŠAN-YA ŠU-an e-ep-ta
41. A ii 41. [ šal-l]a-i34 pé-di
42. A ii 42. [ ] x
Rev.
```
iii 1'. A iii 1'. [ -*an*]⸤-*na* KUR URU⸥35[ 2'. A iii 2'. KUR UR]U*Pa-la-a* KUR *URUTum*[*-ma-an-na*] 3'. A iii 3'. [*ku-e-da-n*]*iA-NA* DUMU.NI[TA *pé*-]*eḫ-ḫi ma-a-anA-NA* <sup>L</sup> [*Útuḫkanti* (??)]36 4'. A iii 4'. ⸤*ma-a-an*⸥ *da-me-e-da-ni ku-e-da-ni-ik-ki* 5'. A iii 5'. ⸤*A-*⸥*NA* DUMU.NITA *na-at A-NA* <sup>D</sup>*IŠTAR* URU*Ša-mu-ḫa* GAŠAN-*Y*[*A*] 6'. A iii 6'. :*ar-kam-ma-na-al-la-a-ú-i nu-uš-ma-aš-kán ku-i*[*n*] 7'. A iii 7'. *ar-kam-ma-an ša-ra-a e-ep-mi* 8'. A iii 8'. *na-an A-NA* <sup>D</sup>*IŠTAR* URU*Ša*[-*m*]*u-ḫa* GAŠAN-*YA pé-e ḫar-*⸤*kán-zi*⸥

9'. A iii 9'. *nu ku-u-un ku-in* DUMU-*an AŠ-Š*[*UM* LÚS(AN)]G A-*UT-TIM* 10'. A iii 10'. É-*er-ra A-NA* <sup>D</sup>*IŠTAR* [ URU*Ša-m*]*u-ḫa* ÌR-*an-ni* [*pé-eḫ-ḫu*-]*un*<sup>37</sup> 11'. A iii 11'. *na-at kat-ta* DUMU-*ŠÚ* DUMU[.DU(MU-*ŠU*! *ḫa-aš*-)*š*]*a ḫa-an-za-aš*⸤- *-ša*⸥ [ ]


<sup>32</sup> B ii 26': -*me*-.

<sup>33</sup> So Weeden 2011: 182.

<sup>34</sup> We may confront this passage with Ḫattušili III's 'Apology' iv 65, Otten 1981: 28.

12'. A iii 12'. *am-me-el* NUMUN-*an-za* \*eras.\* [LÚSAN(GA-U)]T-TA[ ]


23'. A iii 23'. *IŠ-TU* ŠE Ú IN.NU[.DA *IŠ-TU IṢ-ṢI/ṢU*40] *ḫar-pa-al-li-ya-aš*

24'. A iii 24'. ANŠE.KUR.RAMEŠ *wa-ḫa-an-na-a*[*š ú-e-t*]*um-ma-za*! 41

25'. A iii 25'. *IŠ-TU* ÉRINMEŠ ⸤*NA-*⸥*RA-R*[*I da-pí-a*]*n-da-za*<sup>42</sup> *a-ra*⸤*-wa-aḫ-ḫa-an*⸥


28'. A iii 28'. ⸤*ti*-⸥*ya-az-z*[*i* ]

29'. A. iii 29'. UDU LÚMÁŠ.GAL *ŠA* DU[TU URUPÚ-*na ku-i*]*š ar-kam-ma-aš* 30'. A. iii 30'. *na-an-kán A-NA* DUTU URU[PÚ-*na ar-ḫa-p*]*át pé-eš-ši-ya-nu-un* 31'. A. iii. 31'. *nu IŠ-TU* 10 É *ti*[*-it-ta-nu-wa-an-z*]*i*

```
32'. A iii 32'. DUMU.NITA ku-in [A-NA] DIŠTAR URUŠa⸤-mu⸥<-ḫa>
33'. A iii 33'. AŠ-ŠUM LÚSANGA-UT[-TIM] ti-it-ta<nu->mi43
34'. A iii 34'. nu-uš-ši ki-i ku⸤-it⸥ É-ir ka-ru-ú⸥ <ú->da-an
35'. A iii 35'. ma-a-an-na-aš-ši ⸤EGIR-⸥an-da DUTUŠI
36'. A iii 36'. IŠ-TU NAM.RAMEŠ pé-eḫ-ḫi na-aš-ma⸤-kán (?)⸥ IŠ-TU *eras.* EL-LI
37'. A iii 37'. pé-eḫ-ḫi na-aš-ma Ú-NU-TUM na-aš-ma TÚG-UŠ-TUM
38'. A iii 38'. pé-eḫ-ḫi nu⸤-uš-⸥ši ma-a-an L[Ú-aš ku-i]š-ki
39'. A iii 39'. ú-wa-a-i ⸤pé-e-da-⸥[i nu LÚSANGA-UT-TA(?)44] ar-ḫa da-an-na
40'. A iii 40'. ša-an-aḫ-zi
```
41'. A iii 41'. *ku-iš-ma ŠA* DUMU-*YA* [DUMU.DUMU-*YA ḫa-aš-ša*] *ḫa-an-za-aš-ša* 42'. A iii 42'. LÚSANGA-*UT-TAŠA* D[*IŠTAR*] URU*Ša-mu-ḫa* 43'. A iii 43'. ⸤*ḫu-ul-la-a-*⸥*i nu da-me-e*[*l*] NUMUN-*aš*


<sup>38</sup> A vertical wedge seems visible (see Götze 1930: 48), but the tablet is badly damaged here.

<sup>39</sup> A possible logical restoration might be *ḫa-a*[*n-te-ez-zi-ya-aš* LÚ*an-t*]*i-an-ti-iš*, but the space in the gap does not seem to contain the word *ḫantezziyaš.* Furthermore, there is no evidence that LÚ*antiyant*ever became an *i-*stem. We owe H. Craig Melchert for the restoration that we propose in this damaged passage.

iv. 1'. B iv 1'. *kat-ta* x[ 2'. B iv 2'. *mi-ya-tar* [ ] x x [ 3'. B iv 3'. :*u-ša-an da-at*-[*ta*(-) 4'. B. iv 4'. IGI<sup>Ḫ</sup>I.A *kat-ta i-ya-at/d*-x[ 5'. B. iv 5'. *tar-ḫu-i-li-iš*! <sup>45</sup> <sup>D</sup>*IŠTAR* URU*Ša-m*[*u-ḫa*

```
6'. B. iv 6'. ku-iš-ma ke-e A-WA-TEMEŠ pa-aḫ-ša-ri [ ]
7'. B iv 7'. nu DUMU-YA DUMU.DUMU-YA ḫa-aš⸤-ša⸥ ḫa-an-za-aš-ša
8'. B iv 8'. [ka]t-ta NUMUN-YA46 IŠ-TU LÚSANGA-UT-TI
9'. B iv 9'. ⸤ŠA⸥ DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa Ú-UL ti-i[d-da-nu-zi]47
10'. B iv 10'. É-ir-ma ša-aḫ-ḫa-ni
11'. B iv 11'. lu-uz-zi Ú-UL ti-id-da-nu-zi
12'. B iv 12'. na-an-za-an DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa GAŠAN-YA
13'. B iv 13'. pí-ra-an EGIR-pa tar-na-a-ú
14'. B iv 14'. nu-uš-ši-kán NINDA.KUR4.RA iš-pa-an-du-zi
15'. B iv 15'. ŠU-az ar-ḫa da-a-ú KUR.KURMEŠ⸤ -ma-aš-ši⸥
16' B. iv 16'. IŠ-TU DUMU A-MI-LU-UT-TI-ya48 i[š-
17'. B. iv 17'. nu-za-kán ŠA LUGAL GIŠku-ra-k[i-iš (?)
18'. B iv 18'. aš-šu-li ḫa-aš-ši[-ik-du]
```
Obv.

i

1.Thus, His Majesty Ḫattušili, Great King, ki[ng of] Ḫatti,

2. son of Muršili, Great King, king of Ḫatti,

3. grandson of Šuppiluliuma, Great King, king of Ḫatti,

4. descendant of Ḫattušili king of Kuššar,

5. and (this is the) word of Pudu-Ḫeba, Great Queen of Ḫatti.

6. I was the youngest son of my father Muršili,

7. and Šaušga of Šamu[ḫa] requested me, (while still) a little child,

9. handed me over to the service for the goddess, and as soon as

10. I began seeing the deity's favour, thanks to the goddess

11. my circumstances got better and better,49 and Šaušga of Šamuḫa,

12. my Lady, gave me the means,

13. and she also gave me the recognition of my father and my brother,

14. I began fleeing (for protection) to the goddess,

15. and the property that I had, with my property

16. I took care of Šaušga of Šamuḫa. Pudu-Ḫeba,

17. a servant of Ištar of Lawazantiya, was the daughter of Pendib-Šarri,

18. the priest of Šaušga, and

<sup>46</sup> Diversely Groddek (2008: 50) reads: ŠEŠ-*YA*.

<sup>47</sup> So Otten, Rüster 1973: 85.


<sup>8.</sup> from my father, and my father

<sup>45</sup> So according to the photo, in the copy: *-uš.*

19. I did not take precisely50 her in marriage in the heat of passion,

20. I took her at the command of the goddess. The goddess

21. assigned her to me in a dream.51

22. And as soon as my father died, my brother

23. Muwatalli sat on the throne of his father,

24. but I started administering the lands for him,

25. and he (= Muwatalli) made me priest for the Stormgod of Nerik in the city of Ḫakpiš,

26. and gave me the land of Ḫakpiš, the land of Ištaḫara,

27. the land of Taraḫna, the land of Ḫa[tten]a, and [the land of] Ḫanḫana,

28. and established the [bou]ndary for me at Kuruš[tama,

29. and I continued to administer all these land[s fo]r him.

30. And when my brother took up the deities of Ḫatti, the deities of Arinna,

31. (and) the deities of (the land of) the cedar (=Kizzuwatna),52 he carried them to Tarḫuntašša,

32. and made the city Tarḫuntašša his great place (= capital),

33. and set the deities there. But when my brother died,

34.-35. since my brother did not yet have any [ad]ult53 son of his wife,

36. I took up Ur[ḫi-Teššob] for the (sake of my) esteem for my brother54

37. and I placed him in kingship [on the throne of his father],

38. but Ur[ḫi-Teššob] took up the deities from Tarḫuntašša

39' and transfer[red] them to Hattuša.

40. And he [was hostile] towards me,

41. and tri[ed] to diminish me,

42.-43. and [he took] aw[ay from] me the subjects who had been given to me,

44. and the lands which [had been] given to me in subjection

45. he took even them away from me,

46. and he t[ook] the land of Pala, the land of Tummana from me,

47. [furthermore (?)] he pressed (?) me55 [

48. [ ] . . . [

…………….


ii

1. You (are) a great king while I (am) a small king,56

2.-3. and come, let us go to trial before the Storm-god, my Lord, and Šaušga of Šamuḫa, my Lady,

<sup>51</sup> See CHD P/2: 185.

<sup>52</sup> See Singer 2006: 42.

<sup>53</sup> See Singer 2002: 744-45; Cammarosano 2010: 48-49, who does not exclude a different translation for this word, such as 'apt for the succession;' Knapp 2015; see also HW III/2 Lief 19, 645-46 .

<sup>54</sup> See CHD L-N 4: 370.

<sup>55</sup> See CHD Š 1: 20

<sup>56</sup> See CHD Š 2: 249.

<sup>50</sup> This is a quite free translation of the enclitic expression *-a*/*-ya* that may also men 'even' in this passage. We would have expected -*pát* here.

4.-5 thus, if you (are) the winner in the litigation, let them declare you as the winner,

6. if, however, I (am) the winner in the litigation,

7.-8. let them declare me as the winner.

9. I held up my hand to Šaušga of Šamuḫa, my Lady,

10. and Šaušga of Šamuḫa, my Lady,

11. helped me and

12. she blackened57 (the sky) above and below,

13. she even shook heaven and earth and Šaušga of Šamuḫa, my Lady,

14. took my side, and all the lands to which I wrote:

15. 'Let you take my side!,' they took my side,

16. also the lands to which I did not write,

17. precisely all of them were on my side.

18. And as soon as he (= Urḫi-Teššob) heard it,

19. he fled from Maraššantiya

20. and went into Šamuḫa.

21. I pursued him, but as soon as

22. I came to Šuluppa, the lords

23. and the lower rank58 men who were with him

24. came in front of me and said:

25. 'We will go and kill him

26. and we will bring (his) head to you.'

27. I did not allow them (to do it),

28. thus they did not kill him, instead

29' I went myself to him in Šamuḫa, and Šaušga of Šamuḫa,

30' may Lady, also there shew (her) providence,

31'. and right at the time when

32. I reached him, the wooden wall (of the city)

33. came down over 40 *gipessar*, hence Šaušga of Šamuḫa, my Lady,

34. shut him up like a fish (caught) with a net,59

35. and she bound him and handed him over to me

36. and I brought him down (with me),

37.-38. and even on that occasion, for the (sake of my) [este]em for my brother, I captured him

39. but I did [not] do [an]ything [to him]

40. [And Šaušga of Šam]uḫa, my Lady, took [my] hand 41. [ in the gre]at(est) position

iii

1'. ] . the land of [ 2'.-3'. [ ] to any son to [whom] I'll [gi]ve the land of Pala (and) the land of Tummana, either the [*tuḫkanti* (??)],

4'. or any other

<sup>57</sup> On the possible meanings of the verb *maruwai-* see CHD L-N 2: 202; Kloekhorst 2008: 562-563.

<sup>58</sup> Differently Weeden 2011: 480, on the expression EGIR-*aš-ša*: 'last men.'

<sup>59</sup> See CHD L-N 2: 101.


9'. Thus, this son whom for the office of [priest],


32'.-33'. The son whom I appoint [to] the office of priest of Šaušga of Šamuḫa

34'. and this household that (has) already (be) furnished to him,

35'. if afterwards I, the Majesty, give him

36'. (some subjects taken either) from the deportees or from the free-men,

37'. or I give either equipment or clothing,

38'-39' if s[ome]one cause[s] difficulties to him [and] tries to take away the office of priest]

40'.-42'. whoever opposes (the claim) of my son, [grandson, my all] (my) [pro]geny, to the office of priest of Š[aušga] of Šamuḫa

43' and (someone) of another seed [to the office of priest of Šaušga …..]66


<sup>60</sup> Literally: 'and.'

iv 1'.-4'. *Fragmentary*

5' the power of Šaušga of Šam[uḫa

6'. But67 whoever keeps these words


16'. from (any) human being .[

17'. and a col[umn] (?) for the king [

18'. he [shall] be satisfied with (any possible) good

# References


<sup>67</sup> This sentence is contrastive to what the previous damaged passages presumably contained; in fact, the 'power if Ištar' should punish whoever did not keep the word of the tablet.

<sup>68</sup> See CHD L-N 1: 91.

<sup>69</sup> See CHD P 3: 306.

