Administrative Practices and Political Control in Anatolian and Syro-Anatolian Polities in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BCE

Edited by Clelia Mora and Giulia Torri

#### STUDIA ASIANA

ISSN 1974-7837 (PRINT) | ISSN 2612-808X (ONLINE)

– 13 –

#### STUDIA ASIANA

Collana fondata da Alfonso Archi, Onofrio Carruba e Franca Pecchioli Daddi

*Director*

Alfonso Archi, University of Rome La Sapienza, Italy

*co-Director*

Giulia Torri, University of Florence, Italy

#### *Scientific Board*

Amalia Catagnoti, University of Florence, Italy Anacleto D'Agostino, University of Pisa, Italy Rita Francia, University of Rome La Sapienza, Italy Gianni Marchesi, University of Bologna, Italy Stefania Mazzoni, University of Florence, Italy Valentina Orsi, University of Siena, Italy Marina Pucci, University of Florence, Italy Elena Rova, University of Venice Ca' Foscari, Italy

# Administrative Practices and Political Control in Anatolian and Syro-Anatolian Polities in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BCE

edited by Clelia Mora and Giulia Torri

> FIRENZE UNIVERSITY PRESS 2023

Administrative Practices and Political Control in Anatolian and Syro-Anatolian Polities in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BCE / edited by Clelia Mora and Giulia Torri. – Firenze : Firenze University Press, 2023. (Studia Asiana ; 13)

https://books.fupress.com/isbn/9791221500424

ISSN 1974-7837 (print) ISSN 2612-808X (online) ISBN 979-12-215-0041-7 (Print) ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4 (PDF) ISBN 979-12-215-0043-1 (XML) DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4

Graphic design: Alberto Pizarro Fernández, Lettera Meccanica SRLs Front cover: Iscrizione in geroglifico anatolico di Topada (Turchia). Foto C. Mora.

Questa pubblicazione è stata realizzata con finanziamento del progetto di ricerca PRIN 2017: Writing Uses: Transmission of Knowledge, Administrative Practices and Political Control in Anatolian and Syro-Anatolian Polities in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BCE (PI Prof. Stefano de Martino).

#### *Peer Review Policy*

Peer-review is the cornerstone of the scientific evaluation of a book. All FUP's publications undergo a peer-review process by external experts under the responsibility of the Editorial Board and the Scientific Boards of each series (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice.3).

#### *Referee List*

In order to strengthen the network of researchers supporting FUP's evaluation process, and to recognise the valuable contribution of referees, a Referee List is published and constantly updated on FUP's website (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list).

#### *Firenze University Press Editorial Board*

M. Garzaniti (Editor-in-Chief), M.E. Alberti, F. Vittorio Arrigoni, E. Castellani, F. Ciampi, D. D'Andrea, A. Dolfi, R. Ferrise, A. Lambertini, R. Lanfredini, D. Lippi, G. Mari, A. Mariani, P.M. Mariano, S. Marinai, R. Minuti, P. Nanni, A. Orlandi, I. Palchetti, A. Perulli, G. Pratesi, S. Scaramuzzi, I. Stolzi.

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

The online digital edition is published in Open Access on www.fupress.com.

Content license: except where otherwise noted, the present work is released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license allows you to share any part of the work by any means and format, modify it for any purpose, including commercial, as long as appropriate credit is given to the author, any changes made to the work are indicated and a URL link is provided to the license.

Metadata license: all the metadata are released under the Public Domain Dedication license (CC0 1.0 Universal: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode).

© 2023 Author(s)

Published by Firenze University Press Firenze University Press Università degli Studi di Firenze via Cittadella, 7, 50144 Firenze, Italy www.fupress.com

*This book is printed on acid-free paper Printed in Italy*

# Table of contents


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

Clelia Mora, Giulia Torri (edited by), *Administrative Practices and Political Control in Anatolian and Syro-Anatolian Polities in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BCE*, © 2023 Author(s), CC BY 4.0, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4

# Foreword

This volume originates from a research project that started a few years ago, which was funded within the PRIN program *Writing Uses: Transmission of Knowledge, Administrative Practices and Political Control in Anatolian and Syro-Anatolian Polities in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BCE.* The project involved 'research units' from different Italian universities (Torino, Pavia, Bologna, Firenze, Napoli - Suor Orsola Benincasa) and their work was designed in such a way that continuous interaction between the participants could be established, to exploit the different experiences and skills. The study of Hittite society from a social, administrative and economic point of view is especially difficult due to the lack of documentation relating to the private sphere, unlike other regions of the ancient Near East, where a large number of these type of documents is preserved. The complexity of the issues and the special documentary situation of ancient Anatolia therefore required frequent exchanges of ideas and proposals.

Given that since the beginning of 2020 it has been very difficult to implement this intense program of meetings and discussions, if not 'remotely' (but with less chance of externalization), we put forward the proposal of creating a collective volume which combines some of the results achieved by the different research units.

The title of this collective volume is taken from the second part of the title of the research project and it offers an updated picture of the different types of investigations – philological, historical and archaeological – about the Hittite and post-Hittite administration in Anatolia and Syria. Other publications related to this topic, the use of writings for administrative purposes, the problems connected with the disappearance of the cuneiform script in Anatolia at the end of the Bronze Age, or the revival of the Anatolian hieroglyphic script in south-central Anatolia during the Iron Age are published (or are in print) elsewhere by members of the different units.

Finally, we would like to thank Francesco Barsacchi and Marco De Pietri for their collaboration during the editing work.

> Pavia - Firenze, August 30, 2022 Clelia Mora and Giulia Torri

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

Clelia Mora, Giulia Torri (edited by), *Administrative Practices and Political Control in Anatolian and Syro-Anatolian Polities in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BCE*, © 2023 Author(s), CC BY 4.0, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4

# 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.


# The Hittite King as Administrator of the Land

Giulia Torri

**Abstract**: In recent years archaeological investigation has made an important contribution for ascertaining the possible relationship between the center of the kingdom, namely the king and his capital city, and the regions at the core of the kingdom in different periods of Hittite history. The empire was not a monolithic entity but a complex web of interactions. In this frame the Hittite king emerges in his several roles. In this study I have chosen to focus on the king's administrative role and the way in which he was present in the territory through a controlled system of land allocation.

The Hittite economy was based on three main elements: cultivation of the land; herding; export of metals. The dominant agrarian system comprised a farm-based economy, in which agriculture and herding were fundamental factors of the country's wealth.1

The king himself administered the country under the aegis of the gods. Of significance in this respect is the old Hittite ritual CTH 416 in which the king is represented as a farmer holding a sickle and the queen as a commoner woman seated by a threshing mill.2 Construction ritual CTH 414 states that the Sun-goddess and the Storm-god entrusted the land to the king.3 In fact, the documentation shows that the state provided for the functioning and management of the temple, so that one cannot speak of a division of powers, including economic powers, between state and religious power, at least on the economic level (Klinger 2022: 625-626).

The kings' religious journeys into central Anatolia represented, on an ideological level, a moment of union between the religious and governmental spheres.4 On the other hand, the territorial presence of the Hittite king (and his officials) seems to have been capillary, as, in fact, was the organization of the State, which used numerous decentralized structures to manage both the religious and economic organization throughout the realm.5 As Weeden outlined some years ago in his study of the Hittite scribal


Giulia Torri, University of Florence, Italy, giulia.torri@unifi.it, 0000-0001-9741-5963 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

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

Giulia Torri, *The Hittite King as Administrator of the Land*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042- 4.04, 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. 25-36, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4

<sup>1</sup> Klinger (2022: 605-647) has now published a general overview of the Hittite economy.

schools outside Ḫattuša, the increasing number of tablets found in excavations carried out in recent years outside the capital city has brought to light the evidence of a Hittite scribal culture, which was, at least in central Anatolia, evenly spread over the territory and similar in scriptural content, genres and external features in all the towns in which texts have been found (Weeden 2011: 116-134).6 Cuneiform texts have been found in the towns the Hittite king visited during the festivals because they were strategically important for the kingdom both militarily and economically.7 Weeden has observed that Hittite cuneiform writing appears mainly where royal seals have also been found. On the opposite, in places where seals offer no evidence of the royal family there is also more sporadic evidence of a cuneiform culture (Weeden 2011: 117-118).

Clearly a royal seal itself is not evidence of the king's presence, but it may also indicate that an official of the court was acting on his behalf, as a member of the aristocracy that ruled the country and controlled its administration, as Weeden has already suggested (2011: 118-119).8 Some sources, however, document the king's presence in certain Anatolian centers, in the course of carrying out his administrative duties. The present study analyses these texts in order to show how the king absolved his duties as territory-wide administrator of the kingdom.9

In the Land Donation documents from OH period, the royal seal indicates the king donating land or, in case of anonymous seals, the officiality of the royal act. Interestingly, these documents register where the act took place, which was not always Ḫattuša, and the list of the higher officials mentioned as witnesses of this procedure.10 It is also probable that the seals of the officials were appended to the tablet. Although among Hittite records, administrative and economic texts are scarce, the few extant documents are useful in reconstructing how certain procedures were carried out. Hittite Land Donations are a very particular text typology discovered in Ḫattuša, with the exception of a tablet (LSU 1) discovered in İnandık (Rüster, Wilhelm 2012: 33-39). The oldest sixteenth-century specimens feature a seal impression in the central part of the obverse that is still found in the fifteenth-century land donation of Arnuwanda and Ašmunikal


to the hierodule Kuwatalla (LSU 91).11 However, land donation documents also date from the imperial period, though they display different formal characteristics. Surely this category includes the decree issued by Ḫattušili III in favor of Ura-Tarḫunta and the one issued by Tutḫaliya IV in favor of Šaḫurunuwa, CTH 225,12 and the so-called vow of Queen Puduḫepa to the goddess Lelwani, CTH 585.13 As some scholars have remarked, treaties concluded with members of the royal family and with rulers of territories that were *de facto* equivalent to independent political entities may also have borrowed some formal features from land donations, as for example the two treaties with Tarḫuntašša.14 None of these documents is preserved on sealed tablets.

Several land donations, later brought to Ḫattuša, were written in other cities.

As Rüster and Wilhelm have reported, during the period of Telipinu four documents had been composed in Ḫanḫana (LSU 5 rev. 31-38, LSU 14 rev. 3'-10', LSU 22 rev. 68-61, and LSU 23 rev. 2'-6'), and one tablet in Kammama (LSU 6 rev. 8'-14').15

During the period of Ḫantili II two texts were written in Kammama (LSU 28 rev. 21'-27' and 36 rev. 3'-9'). And during the period of Ḫuzziya II, LSU 41 (rev. 8'-12') was written in Ḫanḫana and LSU 43 (rev. 1'-6') in Katapa (Rüster, Wilhelm 2012: 57-58).

The wording used in the texts to introduce the place of composition in the presence of the witnesses is always identical in the different texts, as Riemschneider first noted in his research on land donations (Riemschneider 1958: 337):16 *ṭup-pa-am an-ni-a-am i-na* URUGN *a-na pa-ni* PNs, PN DUB.SAR *iš-ṭú-ur* ("I, PN, the scribe, wrote this tablet in the town GN in front of the witnesses PNs).17

In all these instances we have reason to think that the place of composition depended on the presence of the king and his court in the cities mentioned in the last part of the texts. It seems possible that the king or his officers who were custodians of the royal seals, went where they were needed to perform this task.18 This is supported, for example, by comparing LSU 4, composed in Ḫattuša, with LSU 5, composed in Ḫanḫana. Both documents mention a certain Šandamei, who has the title of Chief of the Thousand Charioteers (UGULA 1-*LI* LÚ.MEŠKUŠ7 ),19 as former owner of some parcels of land in Waštišša, in the region of Amkuwa. He appears with the same title as witness in the so-called İnandik tablet (LSU 1),20 which was written in Ḫattuša by a scribe named Aškaliya (LSU 1 rev. 22-27). Wilhelm, following Easton (1981: 3), suggests that LSU 4 and 5 were written some years later than LSU 1 and LSU 2. In LSU 4 e 5, the land


<sup>14</sup> See about this Del Monte 1975: 1-10, Devecchi 2010: 1-27, Balza 2008: 387-418.


<sup>11</sup> Because of their specificity, these documents have been studied in detail. Besides the contribution of Rüster, Wilhelm 2012, see Riemschneider 1958, Balkan 1973, Easton 1981, Herbordt 2005.

has been expropriated because Šandamei had probably lost the king's favor or was now deceased (Rüster, Wilhelm 2012: 50).

Both tablets, LSU 4 and LSU 5, concern the donation of land to the House of Ḫattuša in Šarišša,21 an institution attested only in these Old Hittite charters22 in which, according to LSU 3 (obv. 25-27), a certain Inar was employed as DUB.SAR.GIŠ.23 Lastly, the officials mentioned as witnesses24 in the tablets (LSU 4 rev. 9'-14'; LSU 5 rev. 38-41) share the same titles (GAL.DUMUMEŠ.É.GAL 'Chief of the Palace Servants,'25 LÚ*urianni*, 26 GAL LÚ.MEŠ*MEŠEDI*27). The name of the Chief of the Palace Servants Ḫapuwaššu, partially preserved in LSU 4 rev. 10', can be restored also in LSU 5 rev. 39. Unfortunately, the names of the scribes of both texts have not been preserved, but, for example, LSU 30, composed in Ḫattuša during the reign of Ḫantili II, and LSU 28, issued under the same king in Kamamma, were both composed by the scribe Ḫanikkuili and both had the same board of witnesses: Šarpa, GAL.DUMUMEŠ.É.GAL, Ḫaššuili, GAL LÚ.MEŠ*MEŠEDI*, Ilaliuma, LÚ*urianni*, and Muššu, GAL LÚ.MEŠGEŠTIN (Rüster, Wilhelm 2012: 54).

The cities mentioned in the land donations are well attested in documents from the Old Hittite period onward and are part of the core of the Kingdom during its oldest history. About Ḫanḫana and Katapa we have several sources referring to the religious activity of the Hittite kings in these areas. Ḫanḫana was situated two days north of Ḫattuša towards the Kaškeans area. It is not included in the AN.TAḪ.ŠUM celebrations and in the *nuntarriyašḫa-*festival, but it was the locale of a celebration dedicated to the god Telipinu.28 Katapa too was located at a two-day trip from Ḫattuša. It was one of the cities where the king might spend the winter, as attested by the oracle text CTH 563, KUB 5.3+ III 3-12 (Beal 1997: 211) and the Annals of Muršili (CTH 61, KUB 19.37 II 35-38; (Goetze 1933: 170). During the late Hittite seasonal festivals, Katapa is mentioned as a leg of the royal journey: The *nuntarriyašḫa*-festival began in Katapa, and after several celebrations in the neighboring cities (including Taḫurpa) the king moved to Arinna on the fifth day and to Ḫattuša during the sixth day (Nakamura 2002: 19). Again, the city is mentioned in the 14th day of the same festival (Nakamura 2002: 22). As far as we know, during the spring season, after inaugurating the celebrations of the AN.TAḪ.ŠUM-festival, the king moved from Ḫattuša (or anywhere else) to Taḫurpa, 'but he does not go at all as far as Katapa: at Katapa there are no rites; and even if the king goes to Katapa he shall not celebrate in the city either the rites or the great assembly' (CTH 605, IBoT 3.40+ 2'-11').29

The existence of land grants is already mentioned in the Hittite Laws at §53: 'If a TUKUL-man and his partner have settled together and if they have a falling out and


<sup>21</sup> de Martino 2022: 222 suggests that King Telepinu was founding the town of Šarišša and he had endowed the city with economic independence through the transfer of important economic resources.

<sup>22</sup> For possible identifications with buildings in Šarišša see Rüster, Wilhelm 2012: 97.

<sup>23</sup> About this title and its possible meaning as 'clerk' see van den Hout 2010: 255-267.

<sup>24</sup> The sequence of witnessing officials close to the king in these texts is homogeneous, variations occurring in their titles are listed in Rüster, Wilhelm 2012: 49-57. The lists of witnesses are now collected and discussed in Bilgin 2018: 413-423. About the titles see also de Martino 2022: 228-229 and van den Hout 2022: 319-321.

divide their household, if there are 10 persons on their (?!) land, the TUKUL-man takes 7 persons and his partner takes 3 persons. They divide the cattle and sheep of the land in the same way. If someone holds a tablet with a royal grant, they divide the said land30 in the following manner: the TUKUL-man takes 2 parts also of (the land of ) the grant and his partner takes 1 part (of it)' (KBo 6.3 III 9-14 = KBo 6.6 I 12-18: (9) *ták-ku* LÚ GIŠTUKUL *Ù* LÚḪA.LA-*ŠU ták-ša-an a-ša-an-z*[(*i ma-a-né-za i-ta-la-u-e-eš-ša-an-zi*)] (10) *ta-az* É-*SÚ-NU šar-ra-an-zi ták-ku gi-im-ma-r*[(*a-aš-š*)]*a-*[(*aš* 10 SAG.DU 7 SAG. DU)] (11) LÚ GIŠTUKUL *da-a-ai Ù* 3 SAG.DU LÚḪA.LA-*ŠU da-a-i* GU4 <sup>Ḫ</sup>I.A UD[(U<sup>Ḫ</sup>I.A *gi-im-ma-ra-aš-ša-aš*)] (12) *QA-TAM-MA šar-a-an-zi ták-ku* NÍG.BA LUGAL *ṬUP-PÍ ku-iš-ki*! *ḫar-zi* [(*ma-a-an-za*)] (13) A.ŠÀ<sup>Ḫ</sup>I.A*-na ka-ru-ú-i-li-in šar-ra-an-zi Ù* NÍG.BA 2 *QA-TAM* [(LÚ GIŠTUKUL *da-a-i*)] (14) *Ù* 1 *QA-TAM* LÚḪA.LA-*ŠU da-a-i*)'.

It is interesting to note that the procedure concerning the granting of land by the king can be compared with a paragraph of the Instructions for the Temple staff (CTH 264) concerning gifts of the king to priests.31 The text mentions, among other rules, the fact that priests, as custodians of temple treasures, were not allowed to have private possessions.32 However, these instructions cover the instance in which a priest may have received a gift from the palace with the following words: 'If, however, they give to him as gift from the palace silver, gold, clothing or bronze utensils, let them be cited (in a document):'33 (KUB 13.4 II 32'': *ma-a-an-ma-aš-ši IŠ-TU* É.GAL*-LÌ AŠ-ŠUM* NÍG.BA-*ŠU* (33'') KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.SIG17 TÚG-*TU*<sup>4</sup> *Ú-NU-UT* ZABAR *pí-an-zi na-at lam-ni-ya-an e-eš-du*). The text explicitly reports how the gift must be registered: The documents must report the name of the king who assigned the goods: 'This king gave it to him' (II 34'': *ka-a-aš-wa-ra-at-ši* LUGAL-*uš pa-iš*); the weight of the object must be written on the document: 'How much it weighs must also be ascertained' (II 34'': KI.LÁ.BI-*ŠU*-*ya-*˹*at*˺ *ma-ši-wa-an* (35'') *na-at i-ya-an-pát e-eš-du*"; on what occasion the gift was made – in the case of this instruction text it is during a festival: 'They gave it to him for this festival' (II 36'': *ke-e-da-ni-wa-ra-at-ši A-NA* EZEN4 SUM-*er*); the witnesses who were present at this act: 'The witnesses shall be written afterwards: This and that person were present when they gave it to him' (II 36'': *ku-ut-ru-u-uš-ša* EGIR*-an* (37'') *i-ya-an-te-eš a-ša-an-du* SUM-*er-wa-at-ši ku-wapí nu-wa ka-a-aš* (38'') *ka-a-aš-ša a-ra-an-ta-at*).

The text also states that this gift cannot be kept inside the home of the priest but must be sold. It also describes how a priest should proceed with the sale of goods received from the crown. As we learn from a passage in KUB 13.4 II (40''-44''), a number of steps must be followed for the sale to be legitimate: 'When he sells it (i.e. the mentioned goods), he shall not sell it in secret. The Lords of Ḫatti shall be present and


<sup>30</sup> CHD Š, 233b, suggests that the adjective *karuili-* here means 'old because inherited.' However, it could simply indicate the land owned by them, which was already mentioned in the previous lines along with cattle, sheep, and workers, except for the land of the royal grant, which is similarly divided into different parts. For this passage see Hoffner 1997: 64-65. Strangely, neither Hoffner nor CHD translate NÍG.BA at l. 13'.

check. They shall make a (separate?) document of what he (the buyer) buys,34 and they shall seal it in front (of him?).35 When the king comes up to Ḫattuša, he (the buyer) shall bring it (this document) to the palace, and they shall seal it for him.'36 (KUB 13.4 II 40'': *uš-ša-ni-ya-zi-ma-at-za ku-wa-pí ḫar-wa-ši le-e uš-ni-ya-zi* (41'') ENMEŠ URU*ḪA-AT-TI a-ra-an-ta-ru nu uš-kán-du nu-za ku-it* (42'') *wa-ši-ya-zi na-at* GIŠ.ḪUR37 *i-ya-an-du na-an-kán pé-ra-an ši-ya-an-du* (43'') *ma-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma-kán* LUGAL-*uš* URU*Ḫa-at-tu-ši ša-ra-a ú-iz-zi* (44'') *na-at I-NA* É.GAL-*LÌ pa-ra-a e-ep-du na-at-ši ši-ya-an-du*).

The passages quoted above, as already stressed by van den Hout (2020: 190), describe the process of producing two official records concerning the same gift.

In the first case it describes how the king's gift should be immediately registered: This description can be compared with the possible preparation of a land donation tablet. First, the name of the king should be recorded in the text (*ka-a-aš-wa-ra-at-ši*  LUGAL-*uš pa-iš*); the witnesses' names shall be written afterwards (*ku-ut-ru-u-uš-ša*  EGIR*-an* (37'') *i-ya-an-te-eš a-ša-an-du*).38 This last expression refers to the physical location of the names on the tablet. In the donation documents, the name of the king appears in the opening lines of the text and his seal is placed on the obverse of the tablet; the witnesses are mentioned at the end of the tablet in the last lines, which mention the place of composition and the name of the scribe.

The second instance mentioned in the instruction text describes how the sale of this same gift should be registered.39 As already outlined above, the rule seems to have been to record royal grants on tablets, and perhaps more than one tablet was produced so that the beneficiary could also have a copy of it. Miller notes the strangeness of forcing a priest to sell a gift immediately after receiving it from the king (Miller 2013: 52).40 However, it seems to me that this peculiarity can be explained by the occasion for which the gift is made, which is a festival (II 36'': *A-NA* EZEN4 SUM-*er*). We can connect this detail to the fact that priests and several other groups of people had to provide the necessary goods for celebrating local festivals. Cammarosano lists a number of participants who are mentioned in texts as contributors of cult-offerings.41 These include a wide range of people, from the priests present in the area where the feast was held to


the local communities (Cammarosano 2018: 148-150; Cammarosano, Lorenz 2019: 23). In regard of the duties of the local priests, the cult inventory texts state that the priest must provide 'from his own estate.' Just to quote an example: '[Tot]al: the priest now supplies from his house 12 *PARĪSU*-measures of dried milled (grain) for the 12 monthly festivals [as well as for] the 2 festivals (of autumn and spring).' (KUB 42.100+ rev. III 20' [ŠU.NÍG]IN 12 *PAtar-*˹*ša*˺*-an* ˹*ma*˺*-al-la-anA-NA* 12 EZEN4 ITU.KAM (21') [*Ù A-NA*] ˹2˺ E[ZE]N4 [ME]Š LÚSANGA *IŠ-TU* É-*ŠÚ ki-nu-un* SUM-*zi*) (Cammarosano 2018: 348-349). The obligation to sell the royal gift may have been linked to the duty of supplying what was necessary for the feast (KUB 13.4 II 36'': *ke-e-da-ni-wa-ra-at-ši A-NA* EZEN4 SUM-*er*). Therefore, it seems obvious that the priest could not keep this gift inside his home or sell it in secret but had to sell it officially in the presence of the Lords of Ḫattuša (Miller 2013: 254-255). It seems to me that a chain of redistribution of goods can be outlined as follows: priests could not own private property (KUB 13.4 II 29': *nu A-NA* ˹LÚ˺ É.DINGIR-*LÌ* KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.SIG17 (30'') *le-e-pát e-eš-zi*); kings often gave gifts to local shrines and priests: the goods of the temples belonged exclusively to the deity (II 28'': *ku-it ku-it* DINGIR-*LÌ-ni-ma-at e-eš-zi-pát*);42 priests received gifts for the celebration festivals, as discussed above.43

A further reference to a royal grant written on a tablet is preserved in the oath imposition for the installation of Tutḫaliya III (CTH 271; Miller 2013: 154-167): 'The entire land of Ḫattuša x[ ], [Tut]ḫaliya, Great King, Hero, shall govern! His [ ], though, Pariwatra, Kantu[zzili, Mannini (?)] and Tulpi-Tešup our grandson, to [th]em households have been given, and it has been recorded for them on a tablet' (KUB 36.118+ obv. 6': [KUR UR]U*ḪA-AT-TI-wa ḫu-u-ma-an* Š[A ] x x [ ] (7') [m*Du*]*-ut-ḫa-li-ya-aš* LUGAL.GAL UR.S[AG *ma-n*]*i-ya-aḫ-ḫi-⸢iš-ke-ed-du⸣* [ ] / (8') [ M]EŠ-*ŠU-ma-wa-ašši ku-i-e-eš* [ <sup>m</sup>*Pa*]*-ri-ya-wa-at-ra-aš* <sup>m</sup>*Kán-tu-z*[*i-li-iš* …] (9') [m*Túl-pí*]-d U-*ub-aš-ša* DU-MU.DUMU*-NI nu-wa-*[*aš-m*]*a-aš* É<sup>Ḫ</sup>I.A *pí-ya-a-an* (10') [*nu-wa-aš-ma*]-˹*ša-at*˺ *tup-pí i-ya-*˹*an*˺*-ta* [ ] (Miller 2013: 164-165). In this instance no further reference to the location of these households appears in this very fragmentary text.

It is interesting to note that a land grant act is recorded in the final part of the second version of the myth of Illuyanka (CTH 321), where reference is also made to a written text: (IV 22-28) 'Thereafter in the town of Tanipiya a field is given by the king. Six *kapunu* measures of field, one *kapunu* of vineyard, a house and threshing floor, and three buildings for the servants. [ ] So it is on the tablet' (Hoffner 1990: 14) (KBo 3.7 rev. IV 22': *nu a-ap-pa pa-ra-a-pát I-NA* ˹ URU˺*Ta-ni-pí-ya* (23') A.ŠÀ*ku-e-ra-aš* LUGAL*-waaz* ˹*pí*˺*-ya-an-za* (24') 6 *ka-pu-nu* A.ŠÀ *ka-pu-nu* GIŠKIRI6.GE[ŠTIN] (25') ˹É˺-*TIM Ù*  KISLAḪ 3 É<sup>Ḫ</sup>I.A SAG.GÉME.AR[ADMEŠ (26') [ ] *ṬUP-PÍ-ma e-eš-zi*).44 The town of Tanipiya, mentioned only in this composition, was probably located in the vicinity on Kaštama, in the region of Nerik (Del Monte, Tischler 1978: 364).

During the 13th century, in the periods of reign of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV, other chancellery documents from later periods were issued in cities other than the capital. It seems, however, that these kings were most active in the southern region of Anatolia, where it is possible to identify the geographical area of their activity.

<sup>42</sup> Miller 2013: 252-253.

<sup>43</sup> When the instruction text says: 'What is in the temple simply does not exist' (Miller 2013: 253) we perhaps find a reference to the fact that even the celebration of feasts must be provided for in other ways than by drawing on this accumulation of wealth. On the system of religious administration through accumulation of gifts to the deities see Burgin 2016.

<sup>44</sup> See the recent edition in E. Rieken *et al.* (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 321 (INTR 2010-11-23).

The treaty stipulated between Ulmi-Tešub/Kurunta of Tarḫuntašša and Ḫattušili III45 had been composed in a town of southern Anatolia, Urikina (CTH 106: KBo 4.10+ rev. 28).46 In this treaty the list of witnesses (KBo 4.10+ rev. 28-32) is preceded by the usual sentence 'This tablet (was prepared) in the town Urikina' (KBo 4.10+ rev. (28) *ṬUP-PA AN-NI-A-AM I-NA* URU*U-ri-ki-na*. In the period of Ḫattušili III, the city of Urikina had a political significance resulting from a decree of this king and Queen Puduḫepa, which mentions the institution in this town of a cult for Ištar of Šamuḫa, as a consequence of the expropriation of land from Arma-Tarḫunta, former governor of the Upper Country, for the benefit of the goddess:47 'Then during the reign of my brother I split Ištar in Šamuḫa and for her I built temples in Urikina, and I gave to her this household of Arma-Tarḫunta. The deity spoke about the matter of the household of Arma-Tarḫunta in a dream and I certainly did not change it (her word)' (KUB 21.17 obv. II (5) *nam-ma-za-kán* <sup>d</sup>*IŠTAR* URU*Ša-mu-ḫi* (6) *A-NA PA-AN* ŠEŠ-*YA šar-ra-aḫḫu-un* (7) *nu-uš-ši* ÉMEŠ DINGIRMEŠ *I-NA* URU*Ú-ri-ki-na* (8) *i-ya-nu-un nu ki-i* É md30-d U *a-pé-e-da-ni AD-DIN* (9) *nu* INIM É md30-d U DINGIR-*LUMták-ša-an* Ù-*za IQ-BI* (10) *na-an-kán Ú-UL-pát* ⸢*wa*⸣*-aḫ-nu-nu-un*). This document, which deals mainly with the inauguration of a new cult for Ištar, also serves as a land donation to this deity, since the temple is given the household which was once property of the adversary of Ḫattušili.48 The city in the vicinity of Kummanni, is also mentioned in the votive texts of Puduḫepa (Del Monte, Tischler 1978: 460-461; Lebrun 2001: 326-27; de Roos 2007: 25).

During the imperial period, as mentioned in the instruction text of Tutḫaliya IV, KUB 26.1 (CTH 255), the courtiers were summoned to swear for the king in the city of Ušša, as we know from its colophon: 'Tablet one of the oath, in the city of Ušša for the courtiers'49 (rev. IV 54: DUB.1-*PU ŠA MA-ME-TI* (55) *I-NA* URU*U-uš-ša* (56) *ŠA* LÚ.MEŠSAG; Miller 2013: 63).50 As Miller remarks, the courtiers were required to swear an oath in this town, which was a center in the kingdom of Tarḫuntašša. A distinction is made between the officials who were promptly 'here' (i.e. in Ušša) and the ones 'that were not here' (Miller 2013: 296-297). The tablet itself was found in Ḫattuša.

It is not known why King Tutḫaliya was in Ušša but it is worth mentioning a NH purification ritual of Kizzuwatnean origin, KBo 11.5+ (CTH 703; Wegner 2002: 209- 214), performed in this town for several deities and hypostasis of the Storm-god and the goddess Ḫepat. The ritual lasted 6 days and its colophon says: 'Second tablet, words of Muwalanni of the burnt offering. When the king goes to Ušša. Not complete' (KBo 11.5+ rev. IV 30': DUB.2.KAM INIM m*Mu-wa-la-an-ni* (31') *ú-ra-na-u-wa-aš* <sup>d</sup> UTU-*ŠI*-*za* (32') GIM-*an I-NA* URU*U-uš-ša p*[*a-iz-zi*] (34') *Ú-UL Q*[*A-TI*]).51

Of course, there is nothing which would demonstrate a coincidence between the participation of the king in this ritual in Ušša and the episode of the courtiers' oath of Tutḫaliya (CTH 255). The city is mentioned along with its pantheon in the prayer of


<sup>45</sup> About the dating of this treaty to the period of Ḫattušili III see now de Martino 2022: 252 with references.

<sup>46</sup> About the geography of southern Anatolia and the region of Tarḫuntašša see Forlanini 2017: 239-252.

<sup>47</sup> Urikina is also a place of the cult of the deity Šarruma, see Laroche 1963: 294; van den Hout 1995: 73.

Muwatalli II, CTH 381 II 38-40: 'Storm-god of Ušša, Storm-god of Parašḫunta, Mount Ḫuwalanuwanda, River Ḫulaya, male gods, mountains (and) rivers of the Lower Land (Singer 1996: 37).'52

It is interesting to note another important document of the same king, which was prepared in a town of the kingdom that was not the capital and is not otherwise attested. It is the Bronze Tablet, the treaty stipulated between Tutḫaliya IV and his cousin Kurunta. The final lines of the reverse report that the tablet was written in Tawa by a scribe named Ḫalwaziti, son of Lupakki, of the town Ukkiya, before a number of witnesses (rev. IV 30-43). The sentence is formulated in the same way as that of the OH land donations:53 *ṬUP-PA AN-NI-YA-AM I-NA* URU*Ta-a-wa A-NA PA-NI* PNs m*Ḫalwa-zi-ti* LÚDUB.SAR DUMU m*Lu-pa-ak-ki* LÚ URU*Uk-ki-ya EL-ṬUR*.

In addition, the tablet's colophon states that seven copies of the original treaty had to be placed respectively before the Sun-goddess of Arinna, the Storm-god of Ḫatti, Lelwani, Ḫepat of Kizzuwatna, and the Storm-god *piḫaššašši.* The seventh copy was given to Kurunta (rev. IV 44-50; Otten 1988: 26-29).

The similarity of certain formal features between the treaties with Tarḫuntašša and the land donations had already been stressed by Del Monte and, later, Devecchi in their treatments of the treaty with Talmi-Šarruma of Aleppo (CTH 75), edited in the period of Muwatalli II in order to provide the ruler of Aleppo with a new version of the treaty, after the copy of the stipulation made at the time of Muršili had been stolen (Del Monte 1975: 1-2; Devecchi 2010: 5-6). This tablet also reports before the list of witnesses the sentence: 'Ziti, the scribe, son of mNU.GIŠKIRI6 wrote this tablet in Ḫattuša in front of PNs' (KBo 1.6 rev. 17: *ṭup-pa an-na-a i-na* URU*Ḫa-at-ti* ˹*a-na*˺ [*pa-ni*] PNs54 mLÚ DUB. SAR ˹DUMU mNU.GIŠKIRI6 ˺ DUB.SAR ˹*iš-ṭur*˺).55

It is not certain whether the scribe and the witnesses were already mentioned in the original version written during the reign of Muršili or this paragraph was added in the following version edited during the reign of Muwatalli. However, as Balza 2008, 414 has remarked, this treaty with Talmi-Šarruma from Aleppo and the two treaties with Tarḫuntašša have a different political nature than the other political treaties and, as shown also in the examples quoted above, share a number of features with the land donations. For the present study it is important that the sentence introducing the list of witnesses records the place of composition, which in this case was Ḫattuša.

The closest parallel to the phrase used in the treaty of Muwatalli is in the Arnuwanda's and Ašmunikal's land donation to the hierodule Kuwatalla (CTH 222): KBo 5.7 rev. 51-55: 'Inar, the scribe wrote this tablet in Ḫattuša in front of PNs" (*ṬUP-PA AN-NI-A-AM I-NA* URU*ḪA-AT-TI A-NA PA-NI* PNs / ˹ <sup>m</sup>˺*I-na-ar* LÚDUB.SAR *IŠ-ṬUR*; Rüster, Wilhelm 2012: 238-239).

In recent years archaeological investigation has made an important contribution for ascertaining the possible relationship between the center of the kingdom, namely the king and his capital city, and the regions at the core of the kingdom in different

<sup>52</sup> About Ušša and its religious as well as political role, see the summary in Barjamovic, Gander 2015: 507-508. There is one interesting votive text in which the queen has a dream in Ušša. This dream is related to the 13th century BC thanks to the name of the DUB.SAR Walwaziti mentioned in it (KUB 48.118 obv. 14).

<sup>53</sup> See the list of witnesses collected in Bilgin 2018: 460.

<sup>54</sup> List of witnesses, see Bilgin 2018: 459.

<sup>55</sup> About the witnesses in these documents and a comparison between their titles and those of the witness of the OH documents (mentioned above) see now van den Hout 2022: 322-333.

periods of Hittite history. Different sources, such as sherds, seals, cuneiform texts and landscape monuments, and their distribution over the territory, contribute to showing that the empire was not a monolithic entity but a complex web of interactions. In this frame the Hittite king emerges in his several roles. In this study I have chosen to focus on the king's administrative role and the way in which he was present in the territory through a controlled system of land allocation. The homogeneity of the formulations contained in the land donations shows how his role remained constant over time, despite the change in the noble titles of its aristocracy (van den Hout 2022: 313-340) and the shift in the axis of political interest from central and eastern Anatolia (as reflected in the oldest texts) to southern Anatolia (as in the texts of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV).

#### References


de Roos J. 2007. *Hittite Votive Texts*, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.


Easton D.F. 1981, Hittite Land Donations and Tabarna Seals, *Journal of Cuneiform Studies* 33: 3-43.


Imparati F. 1974, Una concessione di terre da parte di Tudhaliya IV, *Revue Hittite et Asianique* 32.


Marizza M. 2006, The Office of GAL GEŠTIN in the Hittite Kingdom, *KASKAL* 4: 153-180.


*Vergleich Akten eines Werkstattgesprächs an der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, 2.–3. Dezember 2010*, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 60, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 1-24.


# The King Tutḫaliya IV, the Eflatunpınar Monument, and the River of the Watery Abyss

# Maria Elena Balza

**Abstract**: In recent years, several studies have focused on the interpretation and possible function of the so-called Hittite landscape monuments. For many of these monuments, a connection with the sphere of religion and cultic celebration has been suggested, especially taking into account the possible sanctity of their location, often connected to mountains, rocky outcrops, and water. The landscape monuments would in this sense represent a form of appropriation of the landscape by the Hittite king, the elites, or, in some cases, local rulers, and would play a specific role in the transmission of messages aimed at consolidating identity and/or spreading consensus. This contribution aims to provide further elements of discussion on the subject, and particularly on the use of landscape monuments as the scene of public events, through a (re) examination of some characteristics of the so-called sacred pool of Eflatunpınar, its possible connection with cult celebrations, and the identity of the ruler that sponsored its construction.

# 1. Introduction

As for the internal dynamics and issues of the Hittite monarchy in the late 13th century BC, the period of the reign of Tutḫaliya IV presents multiple aspects of interest. The first element to take into account concerning this king is that his personality seems to have been deeply conditioned by the doubts surrounding the legitimacy of his position.1 His ascent to the throne is in fact one of the consequences of the coup perpetrated by Ḫattušili III at the expense of Urḫi Teššub/Muršili III. The usurpation of Ḫattušili is not an exceptional event in itself – the Hittite monarchy had already experienced comparable episodes – but rather because of the actors involved and, by extension, the consequences thereafter. The conflict between Ḫattušili and his brother Muwatalli's son, designated heir to the throne while his father was still alive,2 leads to a deep rift within the royal family and an inevitable clash between the partisans of the two opposing sides within the court.3


Maria Elena Balza, University of Pavia, Italy, mariaelena.balza@unipv.it, 0000-0002-8280-3653 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

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

Maria Elena Balza, *The King Tutḫaliya IV, the Eflatunpınar Monument, and the River of the Watery Abyss*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4.05, 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. 37-51, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4

In the end, Ḫattušili emerges victorious from his confrontation with his nephew. It is in the aftermath of this clash that the new king must build his kingdom and legitimise his position on the throne.

Lacking political legitimisation, Ḫattušili thus found himself in need of creating almost a transcendent, divine legitimacy, as would be demonstrated by a text such as CTH 81, the so-called 'Apology,' and its narrative.4 However, Ḫattušili also used two opposing strategies of repression to secure his position: the confiscation of property from his opponents and the search for consensus through the granting of special privileges to his partisans.5 But the fragile balance achieved by Ḫattušili also seemed to rest on the conclusion of an agreement with the remaining members of Muwatalli's family, in particular with Kurunt(y)a, one of Muwatalli's sons, to whom Ḫattušili assigns the throne of Tarḫuntašša, the capital of his late brother.6 According to a hypothesis by Philo Houwink ten Cate (1992), which has actually been under discussion for three decades now,7 Ḫattušili, at least initially, would have even established that Kurunt(y)a would have succeeded him on the throne of Ḫattuša. His cousin Tutḫaliya, on the other hand, does not seem to have been initially destined to rule. At first, Ḫattušili had in fact appointed one of his sons named Nerikkaili as heir to the throne (cf. CTH 106).

That being the case, at least on the face of it, Tutḫaliya's rise to the throne seems to be the result of a plot, or a power struggle, at court, orchestrated perhaps by the powerful queen, Puduḫepa. But this is difficult to establish in the absence of clear data. The fact remains that, starting from a certain moment in Ḫattušili's reign, Tutḫaliya prevails over the previous presumptive heir (*tuḫkanti*), and that, after his father's death, he is crowned king.8

Despite this, or, perhaps, precisely because of it, Tutḫaliya seems to have been haunted throughout his reign by a sense of insecurity which led him to multiply his efforts to secure the loyalty of his subjects and to protect his own descendants.9 To achieve his objective, it seems that he used two complementary instruments: the legal instrument of the oath of allegiance, to which he subjected the officials, the elites, and the people of Ḫatti;10 and the administrative and political instrument represented by the reorganisation of the cult institutions, with a supposed attempt to centralise the different cults


of the country.11 This centralisation would, in fact, have led the king to establish closer control over the various districts making up his kingdom.

During the reign of this ruler, it also seems that a great impetus was given to the creation of monumental works. The reign of Tutḫaliya IV coincides, in fact, with the creation of monumental works in various places in Anatolia.

Why was there such a proliferation of monuments in this phase? Was this ruler multiplying his efforts to mobilise human and divine favour regarding his reign? And if so, why? Are these efforts related to the period of crisis, not only dynastic, but also – as it seems – economic that affected the Hittite monarchy during the second half of the 13th century BC?

Within this framework, the monumental complexes constructed in extra-urban areas and connected to streams or spring water seem to me particularly noteworthy for decoding Tutḫaliya's activity, as I will explain shortly.

#### 2. Landscape monuments between water and stone

Before dealing with monuments dating to Tutḫaliya's reign, it will be useful to return briefly to what has already been observed about the reliefs and the so-called landscape monuments of the Hittite period.

The first element to consider in relation to these monuments is that they are documented in Anatolia (within the Hittite state) only from the end of the 14th century BC, beginning with the reign of Muwatalli II; from this moment onwards, the Anatolian landscape began to be dotted by the presence of a series of figured, and often inscribed, monuments and rock reliefs.

Landscape rock reliefs and monumental works have been interpreted as boundary marks, even between different topographical areas within the Anatolian plateau; as propagandistic interventions into the landscape addressed to neighbouring countries; as symbols of the presence of the central power in the administered territory;12 and as places of power connected to one another to form a network in the context of the Anatolian landscape.13 In this sense, they would represent a form of appropriation of the landscape of a given territory, its traditions, and its cults by the Hittite king and the elites, or by local rulers.14

Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of the function of the Hittite landscape monuments, I would like to focus on a special characteristic of these works.

The monuments are often realised in places where two environmental features – the water and the stone – are present, often simultaneously. These natural elements are evidently able to provide these places with special attraction. The NA4*ḫekur*, NA4*ḫuwasi,* and É.NA4 are only a few of the stone structures mentioned in cuneiform texts, interpreted by many as monuments or architectural works with commemorative or funerary

<sup>11</sup> On the organization of Hittite local cults in the 13th century BC, see Hazenbos 2003; Cammarosano 2018. Several inventory texts that are attributed to Tutḫaliya have been interpreted as a clue that this king had promoted a large-scale cult reorganization. Consider, however, that cult inventories seem equally documented at the time of other rulers (cf. Cammarosano 2012).

<sup>12</sup> On these aspects, see Giorgieri, Mora 1996: 72, 76-77, 81; Payne 2008; Seeher 2009; de Martino 2010; Glatz 2009; Glatz, Plourde 2011; Simon 2012; de Martino 2020.

<sup>13</sup> On this topic, see Harmanşah 2014 and 2015; Ullmann 2010. Some interesting considerations can already be found in Gordon 1967.

<sup>14</sup> See also the considerations of Glatz 2009; Glatz, Plourde 2011; Osborne 2017.

nature.15 Additionally, flowing waters and springs were considered to be places of great importance. On the ground of this, as it has already been noted in several studies, 'the greater part of the landscape of Hittite Anatolia was in some sense sacred, in that the mountains, rivers and springs were so regarded (…).' (Hawkins 2015: 1).16

The veneration of water, in particular, may be explained by the fact that water, whether it comes from the sky or is drawn from a spring, always carries life force; the same life force that disappears when a god abandons the material world, causing drought, famine, and death for both animals and human beings.17 To mention just one example of the importance and sanctity of spring waters, consider the so-called *Quellgrotte*, the 'cave of the spring', discovered at Ḫattuša, in the vicinity of Temple I, most likely dedicated to a chthonic deity.18 Springs, and water in general, can indeed also be linked to cavities, to the subsoil. Among these natural features, there is the well-known DKASKAL.KUR.19 This term, which seems to indicate a sacral or divine opening in the earth, occurs in different contexts: as a landmark in boundary descriptions (treaties); within lists of deities or topographical features (treaties and prayers); and as a recipient of offerings (rituals).20 Taking into account the available evidence, the most common translation for this term is 'underground watercourse,'21 with possible reference to the seat of chthonic deities.22

Based on the above considerations, the fact that reliefs and other monumental works that seem to relate to power and its political discourse are often connected to mountains, rocky outcrops, and water is worthy of consideration.

According to some recent studies, Hittite elites would not have invested so many material and human resources in the realisation of these works if they could not have used


<sup>15</sup> For a recent examination of some of the stone structures mentioned in Hittite texts, see Mora *et al.* 2017; see, also, Mora, Balza 2010; Balza, Mora 2011 for some general considerations on the subject.

<sup>16</sup> On the sanctity of Hittite landscape see, among recent works, Erbil, Mouton 2012; Beckman 2013; Harmanşah 2014 and 2015, with references to previous literature; Archi 2015; Hawkins 2015; Payne 2018.

them in their political rhetoric.23 And, if they were used as an element of this rhetoric, monumental works (reliefs and other urban and extra-urban architectural complexes) could then be seen as the scene of public events, thereby playing a specific role in the transmission of messages aimed at consolidating identity and/or spreading consensus.

Although the hypothesis that the landscape monuments or structures were places of public performances has not yet been investigated in depth, some textual references might suggest such an interpretation.24

With these considerations in mind, among the landscape monuments realised during the 13th century BC, and especially at the time of Tutḫaliya IV, I will put forward some considerations on the celebrations that might have taken place at the Eflatunpınar 'sacred pool.' This monument consists of a quadrangular pool, on the north side of which a large façade of orthostates rises, that appears as a perfect setting for public celebrations related to power and its needs to build and spread a shared identity. Although the monument does not bear Tutḫaliya's signature, 'the execution and the style point to the later Hittite Empire, 13th century BC, and an attribution to Tutḫaliya IV is not improbable' (Hawkins 2015: 2).25 The following considerations may provide further support for the attribution of this monument to the reign of this king.

#### 3. Tutḫaliya, the water, and the Hittite kingship

In a study from 1998, Marie-Claude Trémouille examined the role of Hittite rulers as *curatores aquarum*. In analysing the actions of Hittite kings for the management and distribution of water resources, Trémouille (1998: 192) also takes into consideration the structures realised for the collection of water. Based on the observation of the fact that the works constructed outside of the capital were probably built during the 13th century BC, the author concludes that the last generations of rulers of Ḫattuša were likely more sensitive to the problem of water supply.

The reason for this attitude should perhaps be sought in a water shortage situation, which resulted in the famine that seems to have struck Anatolia during the second half of the 13th century BC. This situation seems to have been testified in some contemporary texts, which seem to document a dramatic situation.26

This difficult phase, characterised by a severe shortage of grain, would have taken place in the period between the reigns of Ḫattušili III and Šuppiluliuma II, so also during the time of Tutḫaliya IV. Although famine years were not rare in Anatolia, it seems that the situation during the reigns of these rulers was quite severe.27

<sup>23</sup> For an overview see, e.g., Balza 2020 with references to previous literature.

<sup>24</sup> Consider, e.g., the Bronze Tablet with the prohibition, addressed to Kurunt(y)a, to approach the NA4*ḫekur* of his father Muwatalli II; the texts that speak of the festivals that took place in the É.NA4 with the consequent accumulation of people and offerings; the description of the KI.LAM festival, with the procession to the NA4*ḫuwasi* of the Storm-god.

<sup>25</sup> As for an analysis and interpretation of the monument, see Kohlmeyer 1983: 34-43; Rossner 1988: 67-74, n. 6; Emre 2002: 222, 228, 230; Bachmann, Özenir 2004; Ehringhaus 2005: 50-57.

<sup>26</sup> See Klengel 1974; Otten 1977: 31; Emre 1993: 15 and n. 89-90; Divon 2008. See, however, de Martino 2018: 28-31, for a different interpretation of the available sources.

<sup>27</sup> Concerning the last phase of Hittite history, four texts coming from Ḫattuša seem in fact to suggest a situation of food shortage in Ḫatti: CTH 126, 163, 176, 294. It is interesting to note that especially in CTH 163 there is a reference to three men from the Egyptian 'administration of water-drawing' who would be sent in Anatolia. It could possibly be that they were experts sent to assist the Hittite personnel who were to oversee the water (for irrigation?). For a recent review of these texts see, however, de Martino 2018: 29-31; Miller 2020.

The occurrence of these specific environmental conditions in Anatolia could perhaps help to provide an explanation for the special relationship that seemed to exist between Tutḫaliya IV and water-related structures, a relationship that emerges from the available archaeological documentation. The remains of at least three facilities linked to stream water and dating to the reign of Tutḫaliya IV can, in fact, be interpreted as actual works aimed at regimenting waters. These are the man-made structures of Yalburt yaylası, a rectangular shaped pool, the large stone block of Karakuyu, belonging to a dam, and the rectangular stone block of Köylütolu yayla also originally belonging to a dam. In addition to these works, as mentioned just above, there are at least two other structures that can be attributed to the same chronological phase, the Alacahöyük/Gölpınar dam and Eflatunpınar pool.28

Among these structures, in what follows I would like to focus on the monument constructed at Eflatunpınar.

The spring Eflatunpınar lies in the Beyşehir district, west of Konya, 6 km north-east of Beyşehir Lake, wherein a series of springs gush forth and produce a stream flowing into Beyşehir Lake. This perennial water source is embedded in an artificial complex, composed of a stone monument or façade, on the edge of an artificial pool. This pool is made up of large stone blocks and was originally decorated with statues in the round and reliefs placed along its perimeter. But the most spectacular part of the whole architectural ensemble is represented by the façade – made of large stone blocks, and entirely covered with reliefs – which is located on the north side of the pool. In the centre of the scene, there are two seated figures (a male and a female), each of them surmounted by the representation of a winged sun. These two main figures are surrounded by hybrid beings whose function is to carry the wings of the two suns, as well as the wings of an even larger winged sun which covers, as in the Hittite royal *aedicula*, the entire representation. Above the larger upper winged sun, another one of presumably the same length is missing. At the bottom of the scene, under the feet of the two seated figures, there are – although they are only partially visible – five other figures, probably mountain-gods. Three of these figures are characterised by the presence of openings in their bodies, through which the water of the spring was supposed to flow, thus creating a rather spectacular theatrical effect.

With regard to the possible interpretation of this iconography, the two seated figures, placed in the centre of the scene, have been interpreted in different ways. Even though according to Jutta Börker-Klähn (1993) this iconography would have been a propaganda-motivated depiction of the Hittite royal couple (Ḫattušili and Puduḫepa), most interpretations see at the centre of the scene a pair of gods. In particular, in this couple, it has been proposed to recognise the proto-Hattian solar couple, the Stormgod and the Sun-goddess of Arinna, or the Sun-god of the Sky and the Sun-goddess of the Earth.29

The scene that unfolds before the eyes of the audience could be interpreted as a cosmological representation of the world, with the sun at the top, the earth with its mountains and springs at the bottom, and the gods in the middle that function as a link between the different elements that constitute the world.30 The representation of the winged sun, however, also recalls Hittite kingship. On the one hand, the winged sun represents one of the

<sup>28</sup> On these structures, see Ehringhaus 2005: 37 ff. 29 See respectively Bittel 1953: 4-5; Börker-Klähn, Börker 1975: 34 ff.; Kohlmeyer 1983: 42-43.

<sup>30</sup> For the possible interpretations of the monument, see Bittel 1953; Orthmann 1964; Kohlmeyer 1983; Ehringhaus 2005: 50 ff.; Erbil, Mouton 2012; Bachmann 2017.

symbols of Hittite royalty at least since the 14th century BC, when it became one of the recurrent elements of royal *aediculae*. On the other hand, a link between the Hittite king and the Sun is also suggested by cuneiform sources and, in particular, by the expression DUTU-*ŠI*, 'my sun,' used at least since the end of the 15th century BC.31

In addition to this interpretation, according to Ömür Harmanşah (2014, 2015), Eflatunpınar could be seen as an attempt to reproduce the appearance of a mountain spring, gushing out of the natural stone, at a place that is far from the mountains, in the middle of a valley. Eflatunpınar would therefore be a mimetic work that recreates a mountain spring with two of its essential characteristics. On the one hand, the building material of the blocks that make up the monument is the same volcanic stone of the mountains of the Anatolian plateau; on the other hand, the water from the spring is channelled to gush out of the holes dug in the statues that decorate the basin, just as it would have been in a real mountain spring.32

It seems quite clear, therefore, that the monument is most likely connected with the sanctity of the spring and might recall the divine openings on the earth capable of connecting the world of humans with the world beyond.

Now, based on what has been noted above concerning the possibility that monumental works constructed in proximity of stone and (underground) water were used by Hittite elites as elements of their political and identity rhetoric, one may wonder whether Eflatunpınar could be interpreted as a place of political or religious performances. And, if so, one may also wonder what kind of celebrations could have been held at this specific location. Regarding this possibility, it has been suggested that 'this sacred pool was an important station for the pilgrimage of the Great king during cultic festivals' (Erbil, Mouton 2012: 70). And this hypothesis may find some confirmation in the presence of a settlement dating back to the 2nd millennium BC in the vicinity of Eflatunpınar.33

Taking all of these clues into consideration, below, I will formulate a more precise hypothesis about the celebrations that might have taken place at the source of Eflatunpınar.

As a working hypothesis, considering (1) the presence and centrality of water, which seems to flow from underground through the monument itself, (2) the presence of the winged sun, also interpreted as a recurring symbol of power connected to Hittite kingship, (3) the divine seated figures, and (4) the situation of the Hittite monarchy in the 13th century BC, I would like to suggest a link between the monument and a feast related to the celebration of Hittite kingship and to its relation to water. In this context, the water would be fundamental not only for its cultic and purifying characteristics, but also for its reviving power for agriculture.

In particular, I am wondering if it could be possible to establish a connection between Eflatunpınar and a celebration like the one that is mentioned in, and thus linked to, the so-called Illuyanka myth (CTH 321).

The Illuyanka myth has been preserved in some copies dating to the empire period, but is probably based on an ancient model.34 The mythical tale itself is preceded by an

<sup>31</sup> See especially Erbil, Mouton 2012: 70 with references, who also suggested that, in addition to the fact that the winged sun is represented at least three times on the façade, 'the deities figuring on the monument seem to be the tutelary gods of the Hittite king himself.'

<sup>32</sup> See Harmanşah 2015: 79. On the possibility that the Eflatunpınar monument was connected to the Fasıllar monument, see lastly Varlik *et al.* 2016.

<sup>33</sup> See, e.g., Özenir 2001: 540.

<sup>34</sup> On the Illuyanka myth, see, among many studies, Beckman 1982; Pecchioli Daddi, Polvani 1990; Haas 2006: 97-103; Hoffner 1998 and 2007; Katz 1998; Rizza 2006; Gilan 2013; Rieken *et al.* (eds), hethiter.net/: CTH 321 (INTR 2010-11-23).

introduction, which mentions the name of the author of the text and the celebration to which the myth is linked, which is the feast of *purulli*. The myth follows this preamble, reported in two distinct versions, but that both narrate how the Storm-god of the Sky, after having been initially defeated by the Serpent (MUŠ*illuyanka*-, MUŠ*elliyanku*-), eventually manages to defeat him definitively with the help of the goddess Inara and of a man called Ḫupašiya (first version), or with the help of the son that he (the Stormgod) had generated with the daughter of a poor man (second version).

The reasons for the fight between the Storm-god and the Serpent are not made explicit. However, given the nature and characteristics of the protagonists of the tale, according to Franca Pecchioli Daddi, the fight between the two would seem related to the struggle for the control of water, as it is necessary for agriculture. According to the author, the Storm-god would control rainwater, while the Serpent would control the groundwater (Pecchioli Daddi, Polvani 1990: 41).35

The Illuyanka myth is very interesting from different points of view and, precisely for this reason, this text has rightly been the focus of several studies.36 However, for the purpose of this contribution, I would like to limit myself to some observations on the first version of the myth and on the assumption of the existence of a connection between the myth (first version) and the *purulli* festival.

As already mentioned, in the first version of the myth the Storm-god manages to defeat the Serpent after the intervention of Inara and the mortal Ḫupašiya. After that, the myth tells the story of Ḫupašiya, for whom Inara builds a house on the rock. Here, Ḫupašiya lives isolated from his wife and children, and is forbidden to look out the window. But Ḫupašiya does not respect the will of the goddess, and once he sees his wife and children again he begs Inara to let him go home. At this point, after a bad preserved passage, Inara entrusts the Hittite king with the custody of her home and the control of the underground waters. In commemoration of this event, the *purulli* festival is established (Pecchioli Daddi, Polvani 1990: 51-52).37

*Purulli* was probably a festival of Hattian origin, celebrated perhaps in the spring, when (or: so that)38 the land prospers and thrives.39 It also seems that *purulli* 'has a very special position in the cultic calendar of the Hittites and stands in close connection to the Hittite kingship' (Klinger 2009: 99).40 This connection seems to be grounded in the fact that, as mentioned above, the *purulli* festival seems to have been established as a result of the events narrated in the Illuyanka myth,41 and especially of the actions

<sup>35</sup> See also, e.g., Macqueen 1959: 174, according to whom the battle between the Storm-god and the Serpent would indeed be interpreted as a battle between the forces that provide water to humanity, embodied by the Storm-god, and the forces that want to deprive it of water, embodied by the Serpent. The struggle between the opposing forces would then be a struggle between life and death, between drought and abundance.

<sup>36</sup> See Gilan 2013 for an overview on the most important studies on this text.

<sup>37</sup> See the translation of Pecchioli Daddi (Pecchioli Daddi, Polvani 1990: 51-52): '(15') Inara [ritornò? ] nella città di Kiškil[ušša] per porre [nella] mano del re la sua casa [e il fiume] delle acque abissali – motivo per cui celebriamo la prima festa del *purulli* – e la mano [del re terrà la casa] (20') di Inara e il fi[ume] delle acque abissali.' 38 For this reading, see Pecchioli Daddi, Polvani 1990: 50.

<sup>39</sup> Cf. Taracha 2009: 136 n. 796 with references to the works of Haas 1970: 43 ff.; 1988; 1994: 696 ff.; Popko 1995; Hoffner 2007: 122, 130 ff.

<sup>40</sup> Consider, however, that these assumed ties have been questioned in some studies (cf. Gilan 2013).

<sup>41</sup> On the hypothesis that the Illuyanka myth was performed during the ceremony, see Taracha 2009: 137 n. 802 (with previous literature); see also Gilan 2013: 104-105 (with references).

of Inara for the benefit of the king.42 For this reason, according to Pecchioli Daddi, the mythical tale that opens with the choice of Ḫupašiya and closes with the attribution of the control of the river of the watery abyss – that is the underground water so necessary for agriculture – to the Hittite king could be considered as a symbolic representation of the establishment of the Hittite kingship.43

Now, taking into consideration both the archaeological evidence and the textual data available to us, is it possible to hypothesise that the *purulli* festival, or another festival related to the celebration of both the Hittite monarchy (a royal cult?) and its privileged relationship with water, was held at the source of Eflatunpinar?

Before trying to answer this question, there is, however, one aspect that seems inconsistent with this interpretation. Central-north Anatolia, far from the south-western location of Eflatunpınar, seems to be the setting of both of the mythological tales of Illuyanka and the *purulli* festival.

In more detail, geographical references contained in the myth does not refer to the area south of the Kızılırmak river. On the contrary, the author of the myth, Kella, is a LÚGUDU12 priest of the city of Nerik, and 'place-names like Kiškilušša, Ziggaratta, Nerik, Kastama, and Tanipiya tie the action to familiar terrain to the north of Hattusa' (Hoffner 1998: 10). Similarly, the *purulli* festival appears to have been celebrated in Arinna, Ḫakmiš, Ḫattuša, Nerik, Utrūna, and Zippalanda (CHD P: 392; Taracha 2009: 136 with n. 799 and 800). Thus, again, in locations lying in central-north Anatolia.

This notwithstanding, it cannot be excluded that the *purulli* festival could have taken place in other areas of Anatolia as well. In fact, in relation to the possible location of the *purulli* festival, Jörg Klinger advanced the idea (grounded especially on a passage of the Annals of Muršili II), that 'maybe the *purullyas*-festival is more a typical form of a ceremony or a special kind of sacrifice' (Klinger 2009: 99-100), that is a festival or rite for different gods, which can be executed in different locations. Sources mention indeed not only several sites hosting the performance of the *purulli* festival, but also several deities as recipients of the rites, such as Lelwani, Telipinu, and the Storm-gods of Ḫatti, of Zippalanda, and of Nerik (CHD P: 392).

Other important considerations on the subject were expressed by Amir Gilan in a paper focusing on the interpretation of CTH 321. In particular, Gilan (2013: 108) observed that 'the function of the first Illuyanka story is clearly given at the end of the narrative (…). It explains why the first ("foremost," "original") Purulli festival was celebrated in Kiškiluša or in Nerik. The audience of the text is not the congregation celebrating the festival but the recipients of the text in Ḫattuša, whom Kella seeks to inform about the meaning and history of a specific Purulli festival, originating in Kiškiluša and celebrated probably in Nerik. (…) With his etiology of the Purulli festival in Kiškiluša, Kella tries therefore, to "sell" the importance of this specific cult foundation to the authorities in Ḫattuša.' In other words, according to Gilan, the mythological tale of Illuyanka (first version) seeks to explain the foundation of a royal cult in Kiškiluša; the place in which, in the first version of the Illuyanka myth, the goddess Inara put 'her house [as

<sup>42</sup> Consider, in connection to this assumption, also the role of Inara as tutelary deity of Ḫattuša (see Hoffner 2007: 126-128; on Inara, see Taracha 2009: 42-43, with references).

<sup>43</sup> See Pecchioli Daddi, Polvani 1990: 43: 'La vicenda mitica che si apre con la scelta di Ḫupašiya e si chiude con l'attribuzione del controllo delle acque al sovrano ittita, può, a mio avviso, essere letta come la rappresentazione simbolica dell'istituzione della regalità ittita. Ḫupašiya (…) viene meno ai suoi compiti commettendo un peccato e diventando impuro (…). A questo punto Inara consegna la sua casa e il controllo delle acque sotterranee all'unico uomo legittimato alla regalità, il sovrano ittita appunto.' See however Gilan 2013: 107-108.

well as the river] of the watery abyss [into] the hand of the king.'44 And, in order to do so, the author of the text establishes a link between the Illuyanka myth, the royal cult institution he is describing, and the first *purulli* festival.

Grounded on the above considerations, one may put forward the hypothesis that the same narrative structure of the mythological tales contained in CTH 321 could be adapted to other geographical and local contexts.45 Based on this suggestion, it does not seem impossible to me to imagine that there was a version of the Illuyanka myth more related to the southwestern geographical environment, and thus closer to the audience of the ceremony that could have taken place at Eflatunpınar.

If this were the case, the complex iconography of the façade of Eflatunpınar, characterised by the presence of the two seated gods (the Storm-god of the Sky and the Sun-goddess of Arinna on their thrones?), the mountain-gods through which the fresh water of the underground spring gushes, and the winged sun, with its double connotation as a symbol of divinity and symbol of kingship, could indeed contribute to support this hypothesis.

The façade could represent, from an iconographic point of view, the situation following the defeat of the Serpent, with the Storm-god and the Sun-goddess at the centre of the scene as if they presided over the return of the correct order of things, and as if they supervised the flow of underground water so important for human, animal, and vegetal life. The role of kingship in this ideological construction – something that the intended audience would have known – would have been to protect and manage the river of the watery abyss for the wellbeing of the land of Ḫatti.

And, if this hypothesis turns out to be well-founded, then one might have an additional clue for attributing the monument of Eflatunpınar to Tuthaliya IV, a king who was deeply involved in strengthening and protecting kingship (and his dynastic line) and in building water facilities.46 Through the construction of works for the collection and control of groundwater, the Hittite king perhaps aimed, at the same time, to reaffirm the role of the sovereign as an intermediary between the divine and human spheres, and to alleviate the damage caused by drought and famine that gripped the country. In the king's mind, perhaps, this goal could be indeed achieved through a strategy based on divine aid and human skills.

Within this framework, water basins like that of Eflatunpınar, or even that of Yalburt yaylası, could have been places wherein the gods could be invoked to (re)occupy

<sup>44</sup> See the translation of the final section of the first version of the myth offered by Gilan 2013: 107: 'Inara [went] to Kiškil[ušša] and put her house [as well as the river] of the watery abyss [into] the hand of the king. Because of that (or since then) we are celebrating the **first** Purulli festival – May the hand of the [king . . . the house] of Inara as well as the river of the watery abyss.' Compare this translation with that proposed by Pecchioli Daddi 1990: 51-52 (see above n. 37).

<sup>45</sup> Consider also that in a contribution devoted to the analysis of some features of the mythological texts of Hattian origin, C. Mora (1979: 374-375), taking up and expanding on a suggestion of H.G. Güterbock (1978: 248), put forward the hypothesis that there could have been many versions of myths of Hattian origin, and that these versions could have been different from one to the other according to locations. In this sense, it is perhaps possible that there was a kind of canvas for these 'tales of the gods,' which were susceptible to variations, both in form and content. The frequent mention of different cities or rivers in these myths could be linked, according to Mora (1979: 375), to this aspect.

<sup>46</sup> Consider also that the geographical location of the monument, right in the area overlooking the region of Tarḫuntašša, could represent an additional clue for the attribution of this work to Tuthaliya IV, especially if one takes into account the conflicting relations between the two regions in the late 13th century BC (see the considerations by Erbil 2019).

their place and restore or guarantee the correct order of things.47 But, at the same time, Hittite water basins could serve as places where, through great works of engineering, humans tried to prevent underground springs from drying up definitively, drought and death from taking over the land, and the passage between the world of human beings and gods from being closed off. These basins were, in short, tangible proof that, in the end, water would return and revitalise nature and human beings, as in the eternal battle between the Storm-god and his enemy. By creating vast water basins, the kings of Ḫattuša were thus providing villagers, nomads, herds, and the gods with a reserve of pure, living water whose function was to help combat the drought and famine caused by the disappearance, and sometimes by the wrath, of the gods.

#### References


Green A.R.W. 2003, *The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East*, Winona Lake (Indiana), Eisenbrauns.

Güterbock H.G. 1978, Hethitische Literatur, in W. Röllig (ed.), *Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft*, Band 1, Wiesbaden, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion: 211-253.


Macqueen J.G. 1959, Hattian Mythology and Hittite Monarchy, *Anatolian Studies* 9: 171-188.

Miller J. 2013, *Royal Hittite Instructions and Related Administrative Texts*, Atlanta (GA), Society of Biblical Literature.


*in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20-25 July 2008*, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns: 687-698.


# New 'Excavations' in the Pergamon-Museum and in the *Gipsformerei* of Berlin and New Elements for the Study of the Decorative Programme of *Kammer* B in Yazılıkaya<sup>1</sup>

Massimiliano Marazzi

**Abstract**: Based on the work conducted during winter 2017 both on casts of the Hittite reliefs exhibited at the Pergamon-Museum and the original matrices of the Humann casts (1892) kept at the *Gipsformerei* in Berlin/Charlottenburg, a series of results are presented regarding the sculptural decoration programme present in the Yazılıkaya rock sanctuary. In addition, the exhibition and publication of a series of casts of Hittite reliefs on the occasion of the exhibition *Royaumes Oubliés*, held in Paris in 2019, made it possible to provide some insights into the history of the casts made by E. Chantre on the occasion of his *Mission en Cappadoce* in 1893-94.

# 1. The project and the challenges

A German-Italian project for the three-dimensional survey of the monumental complexes found in Ḫattuša has been underway since 2014. Among its objectives – besides that of developing innovative techniques for conducting surveys and for the development of models – is the development of new procedures for analysis and treatment protocols in a virtual environment specifically for monumental inscriptions in hieroglyphic writing.2 

As is well known, beginning with the reign of Tutḫaliya IV, a whole series of hieroglyphic inscriptions of a monumental nature appeared in the capital.3 Their appearance coincided with the new monumental layout of the northern area – the so-called Upper Town – and the transformations that brought the rock sanctuary of Yazılıkaya into the centre of a major initiative involving political-religious display.

Only two of the hieroglyphic inscriptions, the one on the wall of Kammer 2 in the Südburg area, and the one at Nişantaş, on the northeastern rocky wall of Nişantepe, are entirely preserved; they represent the consolidation of an innovation not only in terms of the use of the hieroglyphic writing system in Anatolia, but also from a 'literary' point of view.

<sup>3</sup> On this topic, see Marazzi 2019; more generally, on the urban structure of Ḫattuša in the second half of the 13th century, see the picture offered in Schachner 2020.

Massimiliano Marazzi, Suor Orsola Benincasa University, Italy, masmarazzi@yahoo.it

Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

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

<sup>1</sup> This contribution follows from, and complements, two previous works on the same topic: Marazzi *et al.* 2018 and Marazzi 2020. It also illustrates a set of additional data acquired during the research campaigns of the Ḫattuša Mission from 2018 to 2021.

<sup>2</sup> On the work carried out as part of the project, see the reports published in *Archäologischer Anzeiger* 2016: 24-42; 2018: 54-66; 2019: 97-107; 2020: 47-56. Cf. also Marazzi 2018, Marazzi *et al.* 2019; Marazzi *et al.* 2019-2020.

Massimiliano Marazzi, *New 'Excavations' in the Pergamon-Museum And In The* Gipsformerei *of Berlin and New Elements for the Study of the Decorative Programme of* Kammer *B in Yazilikaya*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4.06, 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. 53-76, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4

Both inscriptions, attributable to the last Hittite dynast, Suppiluliuma II, confirm the process of 'linearization' of the writing system for the representation of syntactically 'complex' monumental texts that was inaugurated with the inscriptions of Yalburt and Emirgazi during the reign of Tutḫaliya IV and which is now firmly tied to a precise Luwian linguistic variant. At the same time, they also affirm the kind of composition that celebrates kingship wrapped in a religious framework that is already evident in the cuneiform texts with the so-called 'Autobiography' of Ḫattusili III.4

Different, but no less interesting, are the hieroglyphic inscriptions that accompany the sculptural decorations in the two natural chambers of the Yazılıkaya rock sanctuary. Like the hieroglyphic-sculptural rock compositions that began to appear between the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 13th century throughout the kingdom (such as those at Hanyeri or İmamkulu), they do not form an autonomous textual unit, but are closely linked in a compositional unit of an iconographic nature to the sculptural element they accompany.

In the case of Yazılıkaya, however, as has already been explained elsewhere,5 they participate in a 'dynamic' representation, a storytelling marked by the two divine sequences that meet on the back wall, which acts as a focus. While the 'formal' compositional level of the sculptural-geroglyphic narrative is marked by the sequence of the male and female divinities towards the point of conjunction, the political-religious level is characterised by the representation of the so-called 'dynastisches Pantheon.'6

The interpretation of the narrative originally depicted in Kammer B of the sanctuary is more complex (on this see the discussion below, point 6).

### 2. The work carried out in 2017 in Berlin and the virtual restoration project

The purpose of the work carried out at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin and the *Gipsformerei* in Charlottenburg in December 2017 was twofold: first, to acquire three-dimensional models of both the casts exhibited in Room 1 of the *Vorderasiatische Sammlung* and the original matrices made by C. Humann in 1882 in Yazılıkaya and housed in the *Gipsformerei* (see Tab. 1 and Fig. 2);7 and second, to reconstruct the history of the casts and matrices from their first exhibition in the Neues Museum in 1883 to their final placement in Room 1 of the Pergamon Museum after the Second World War.8

The importance of the Humann matrices and casts lies in the fact that at the time they were made, many sculptures and their hieroglyphic inscriptions were still in a much better state of preservation than they are today. In fact, in the course of Texier's excavations in 1834 and Perrot's excavations in 1861, many sculptures and their inscriptions were being brought to light for the first time in centuries and thus had not yet undergone any serious deterioration.9 


<sup>4</sup> In this regard, we refer to what has already been discussed in Bolatti Guzzo, Marazzi 2004, Marazzi 2010, and, recently, Bolatti Guzzo, Marazzi 2022.

<sup>5</sup> See Marazzi 2010.

<sup>6</sup> On the meaning of 'dynastisches Pantheon' see the recent discussion in Hutter 2021: 189-192.

<sup>9</sup> On the Texier and Perrot missions to Yazılıkaya see Texier 1839: 209-233, Pls 72-81; Perrot 1872: 321-338, 352-359 (*Explication des planches*), Pls 34-52.

Fig. 1. Y. 46a: from the Texier drawing to the Bittel 1934 edition.


Tab 1. Diagram of all Humann casts made in Yazılıkaya in 1882 and published in Humann-Puchstein 1990.

1) S. Humann, Puchstein 1890, Crüsemann 2000; 2-3) Based on *Verzeichnis 1-4*, *Amtl. Berichte 1883,* Crüsemann 2000, Kat. 1962-1975, Kat. 2007, Kat. 2018.

Fig. 2. Humann casts from Yazılıkaya exhibited at the Pergamon-Museum and/or stored at the Gipsformerei in Berlin/Charlottenburg, with identification of their distribution in the rock sanctuary (H. = Humann cast number according to Humann-Puchstein 1890; G. = inventory number of the original matrix at the Gipsformerei).

Fig. 3. Top: 3D model (from scanning with structured light) of the wall with the remains of the inscriptions Y. 46a and Y. 47; bottom: 3D model of the wall with the remains of inscription Y. 46a and Y. 47 interpolated with the model of inscription Y. 46a from the scanning at the Gipsformerei in Berlin.

Already a decade later, as can be seen from the graphic and photographic documentation collected by Chantre during his excavation and research campaign in 1893,10 the first processes of degradation are visible, especially on the surfaces of the sculptures in Kammer B unearthed by Perrot.

Paradigmatic examples of the changes that took place in the decades before and after the execution of the casts in both Kammer A and B are represented by the sculptural complex Y. 46a (Kammer A, procession of female deities), and by the relief Y. 81 (Kammer B, eastern wall).

In the first case (see Fig. 1) both the sculpture and the corresponding inscription Y. 46a were still *in situ* (although already partially damaged) at the time of Ch. Texier's expedition in 1834, as evidenced by the drawing on Pl. 75 (although a little fanciful, but clear for the identification of the glyphs) of the wall immediately opposite the central scene, which houses sculptures 46a, 47 and 48 (here in Fig. 1, top left).

Already in the summer of 1861, when G. Perrot's mission reached Ḫattuša, the wall in question appeared to be severely degraded. According to the description and sketch (here Fig. 1 in the second line) given by the French scholar,11 the upper part of the headdress of the female figure 46a was still barely visible, while the inscription was still completely preserved.

Just three years later, in 1864, H.J. Van Lennep, on the occasion of his visit to the site,12 commissioned a sketch of the same wall (here Fig. 1, top right) from which it is clear that sculpture 46a had by then disappeared entirely, so much so that in the drawing in question the inscription accompanying the disappeared sculpture is erroneously represented as being very close to the subsequent sculpture Y. 47, almost as if it were an integral part of it. From the sketch – albeit imprecise – provided by the American scholar, one can also see that the same portion of the wall containing the inscription is beginning to show signs of cracking.

Eighteen years after Van Lennep's visit, C. Humann arrived at Yazılıkaya and executed 11 matrices of the reliefs found there (identified here in Tab. 1).13 Among these was the inscription of sculpture 46a, which has now definitively disappeared due to the subsidence of the rock face (see here Fig. 1 in the centre).

In the first systematic photographic survey carried out by K. Bittel and published in 1934, it can clearly be seen that in the decades following the Humann cast, a good half of the inscription was also definitively lost (see Fig. 1, below; the collapsed area of the inscription is marked by a black line).14

The cast Y. 46a, no longer exhibited at the beginning of the 1930s (cf. Fig. 2), when the Humann collection found its final home in the new Pergamon building, disappeared into oblivion.

Only E. Laroche, in his seminal contribution on the Yazılıkaya inscriptions, published in 1969, refers, not to the cast, but to the sketch presented by Humann in his 1890 publication, and to the drawing made by W. Ramsay (around the same time as Humann) and taken up and published by G. Perrot in 1887.15


<sup>10</sup> Chantre 1898: 13-64, Pls I-V.

<sup>11</sup> Pl. 48, top; see in particular the commentary to Pl. 48 on p. 358.

<sup>14</sup> Bittel 1934.

<sup>15</sup> Cf. Laroche 1969, in particular 89-91 and Fig. 29; Perrot 1887: 704 f., where, however, the French scholar refers directly to the existence of the cast.

H.G. Güterbock ignores the existence of the cast in the *Gipsformerei* in Berlin both in the 1975 edition of the inscriptions16 and in the 1982 revision,17 where he adds on p. 42, n. 35: 'In Humann-Puchstein, Reisen, p. 64 with n. 2 [i.e. Humann, Puchstein 1890!] Puchstein speaks of a cast of this inscription … Does this cast still exist?.'

However, in 1962, the *Gipsformerei* catalogue had just been reissued in an updated form with the cast in question and all the references to its history.18 After the 'rediscovery' of the original cast in the *Gipsformerei* in 2017, three-dimensional scanning made it possible, through an interpolation procedure between the model of the cast and that of the wall surveyed in situ, to carry out an 'electronic restoration' and exactly relocate the lost part of the inscription (Fig. 4).

In the case of Y. 81 in Kammer B, the relief was still partially buried when it was identified and drawn by Ch. Texier's expedition in 1834 (cf. here Fig. 4).19 In 1861 the mission headed by G. Perrot carried out a series of tests to lower the ground level of Kammer B and to expose the sculptures there.20 It was therefore possible for the first time to completely uncover Y. 81, as is clear from the photographic documentation of the time (here in Fig. 4).21

The sculpture was in excellent condition, with the faces and bodies of both King Tutḫaliya and the god Šarruma perfectly preserved. When C. Humann cast it two decades later, in 1882, it was possible to fix this state of preservation of the artefact (here, in Fig. 4, the 3D model of the cast on display at the *Pergamon*).22

In 1893-94, E. Chantre started excavating again in Kammer B in order to finally clear the soil that had accumulated along the walls, partly due to a partial covering for conservation purposes carried out by Perrot himself.23

This intervention led to a further exposure of the reliefs there to atmospheric agents, accelerating the process of degradation already indicated by Perrot.24 The sketch of Y. 81 published by Chantre (here in Fig. 4)25 and the slightly later photographic evidence of A. Boissier (here in Fig. 4)26 already show the beginning of the process of crumbling of the surface of the sculpture of both the incumbent leg of the god and the king's face. The process of degradation of these two parts of the sculpture is clear from the subsequent photographic documentation published by both J. Garstang in 1910 and K. Bittel in 1934.27

Here too, the 3D models of both the Humann matrices and the casts (cf. the particular the casts of the two points of Y. 81 rendered by the 3D model in Fig. 5) will make it possible, as in the case of Inscription Y. 46a, to undertake a virtual restoration process.


<sup>16</sup> *Yazılıkya 2*: 179 f.

<sup>17</sup> Güterbock 1982.

<sup>18</sup> Cf. Kat. 1962, with subsequent reprints Kat. 2007 and Kat. 2018; today the catalogue can be consulted in its electronic version at <https://www.gipsformerei-katalog.de>.

Fig. 4. Y. 81: from the Texier drawing to the edition in Bittel 1934.

Fig. 5. 3D models (from structured light scanning) of the two Humann forms relating to the arm of the god, the face of the king, and the right leg of the god.

#### 3. The twelfth Humann cast

Among the casts that were not exhibited in the *Pergamon* in 1939 is number 12.28 The history of its exhibition ends with the exhibition of the casts organised between 1883 and 1899 in the *Neues Museum*, in the so-called *Babylonische Saal* (*Amtl. Berichte 1883*):

H. 12 = VAG (6)67 = *Gipsformerei* 1194 (entry in 1893); in *Verzeichnis 1*: G.53; in *Verzeichnis 2*: Nr. 223; in *Verzeichnis 3*: no 234; in *Verzeichnis 4*: no 280.

Since then, as was the case with cast Y. 46a, it has remained 'buried' in the storerooms of the *Gipsformerei*, in whose last online catalogue it is inventoried as "Ädikula, bestehend aus Flügelsonne und Schriftzeichen; Standort: Kleinasien, wahrscheinlich Ḫattuša (heute Boğazkale), Yazılıkaya, Felsheiligtum."

Yet a careful reading of the catalogue published at the time by C. Humann29 would have been sufficient to know that the cast comes from the Nişantaş inscription, to which the scholar not only makes direct reference, but even cites the photograph (perhaps the first in the history of Hittitological research) published at the time by Perrot (and reproduced here in Fig. 6).30

Fig. 6. Original photo of the Nişantaş inscription taken by G. Perrot in 1861.


This tragic inaccuracy has moved from publication to publication, until the very recent essay, which is also very well documented with regard to Humann casts, by E. Rehm (2018), which reads: 'Yazılıkaya, Tempelchen,' with n. 694 "Was hier abgeklatscht wurde ist mir unklar. Das Motiv lässt sich nicht identifizeren" (Rehm 2018: 151).31

Placed in its original context, as already clearly indicated by C. Humann, it is clear that this is the right-hand beginning of the first line and the underlying end of the second line; the 'Tempelchen' is none other than the aedicula with the name of Suppiluliuma II (here Fig. 7).

Also in this case the cast was essential for the correct restitution in autograph of the end of the second line.

# 4. The exhibition of Humann casts in Room 1 of the *Vorderasiatisches Museum* at Pergamon: One more cast?

The exhibition of Hittite casts in Room 1 of the *Pergamon*'s *Vorderasiatisches Museum* thus includes 10 of the original 12 casts/matrices made by C. Humann in Ḫattuša: 11 in Yazılıkaya, 1 in Nişantaş. However, there are 11 casts on display, since on the long wall in front of the entrance, in the upper part there is a cast of a famous rock relief from the time of Ḫattušili III: that of Fıraktin (here, at Fig. 8 a photo of Room 1 during the 2017 survey work: highlighted with black border is the cast of Fıraktin).

In contrast to the Humann casts, no information can be found for this specific cast: in the *Gipsformerei* the matrix and its cast have never been recorded (nor are they even present, at least on the basis of a thorough survey of the ancient Near Eastern reproductions conducted by the writer in 2017). The registers, beginning with that of 1889 and the detailed one of 1902, up to the 2018 edition and the current electronic one, contain no trace of them.32 In the various guides to the Museum prior to the Second World War (the 1937 guide is the most reliable)33 there is no trace of this artefact.

It appears, without any indication of its provenance, for the first time in R.G. Meyer's guide of 1956, reprinted without particular updates in 1962; only in the last guide edited by S. Jakob-Rost in 1990 it is stated: 'Bereits im Jahre 1882 besuchte C. Humann die Ruinenstatte Boğazköy und nahm von den Felsreliefs von Yazılıkaya und dem in der Nahe liegenden Fıraktin Formen ab. Diese wurden später in Berlin in Gips ausgegossen und sind jetzt in Raum 1 des Vorderasiatischen Museums ausgestellt'.34

Humann's work at Boğazköy actually took place in 1882, while the Fıraktin inscription was first reported by W.G. Ramsay and D.G. Hogarth ten years later in 1893,35 based on a survey carried out in 1890. Three years later, in 1893, the site was visited by E. Chantre, who reported on it in his *Mission en Cappadoce*, 36 where he stated: 'Nous décidons à photographier en détail ces sculptures et surtout à les mouler, travail qui nous prit deux jours' (Chantre 1898: 126). Later, in 1907, the site was visited by H. Grothe, who claims to have conducted a series of 'sorgfältige Abklatschen' (i.e. not

<sup>31</sup> In Rehm 2020, thus subsequent to Marazzi *et al.* 2018, there is no further mention of the cast.

<sup>32</sup> Cf. *Verzeichnis* 1 and *Verzeichnis* 2.

<sup>33</sup> Cf. VAM 1937.

<sup>34</sup> Cf. VAM 1956/62, VAM 1990, in particular 59 f.

<sup>35</sup> Ramsay, Hogarth 1893: 82 with photo on Pl. VI.

<sup>36</sup> Chantre 1898: 125-129, with a photo in Fig. 92.

Fig. 7. 3D model of the Humann cast of Nişantaş (top right); the Humann sketch of the main part of the cast with the aedicula of Suppiluliuma II (top centre); identification of the part of the Nişantaş inscription reproduced in the Humann cast (bottom; on model of the inscription derived by orthophogrammetry).

Fig. 8. Room 1 of the *Vorderasiatisches Museum* at Pergamon; in evidence the cast of Fıraktin displayed on the long left wall.

Fig. 9. Top: the three Chantre casts of Fıraktin exhibited on the occasion of the exhibition *Royaumes Oubliés*, Paris 2019 (from the Catalogue, on p. 78-79). Middle: 3D model (from structured light scanning) of the Fıraktin cast exhibited at Pergamon. Bottom: two details of the same model.

*Gipsformen*), which he sent to Messerschmidt.37 In his CIH (1900) the latter takes up the story of the discovery, mentioning that the forms made by E. Chantre are supposed to be in the *Guimet Museum* in Paris.38

From what has been said so far, the cast of Fıraktin exhibited at the Pergamon is certainly not to be counted among the Humann casts (it is not even mentioned in Rehm's recent work 2018), nor is it mentioned in the 1937 exhibition. Its appearance and location in Room 1 can undoubtedly be traced back to the restoration and reorganisation of the Pergamon building immediately after the war. It is therefore possible that the cast in question (a copy from the matrix made by E. Chantre and kept in a Parisian museum) arrived in Berlin during the war years, was stored in the storerooms, and was found and exhibited together with the Humann casts in the 1950s.

An unexpected confirmation came in 2019, on the occasion of the exhibition *Royaumes oubliés. De l'empire hittite aux Araméens*, held in Paris at the *Musée du Louvre*. 39 On this occasion, Chantre's casts made at Alaca Höyük and Fıraktin during his mission in 1893 were exhibited.40 In Fig. 9 we present an image of the 3D model of the cast exhibited at Pergamon together with the photo of the cast exhibited in 2019 in Paris.

### 5. The Exhibition *Royaumes Oubliés*: a new Chantre cast?

With the publication of the exhibition catalogue, however, a second problem arises. On p. 78-79, next to the photo of the three parts that make up the Fıraktin cast (nos 30-32), a fourth cast is presented in no. 33, relating to the relief Y. 81, mentioned above. The photo does not appear to be that of a cast, but directly of the relief *in situ*; the catalogue comment reads: 'Ce moulage, exécuté par Ernest Chantre lors de ses missions archéologiques en Cappadoce en 1893 et 1894, provient d'un relief de la chambre B du sanctuaire de Yazılıkaya, situé à côté de la capitale hittite.' However, if one reads the text of Chantre 1898 carefully, one can see that the scholar, who always notes precisely the casts made, does not mention any casts made in Yazılıkaya at all. On the other hand, a careful analysis of the photo of the supposed cast shows that both the king's face and the elbow of the god's left arm (the photo is partial) show clear traces of strong deterioration (cf. here Fig. 10).

From the graphic documentation by Chantre and photographic documentation by Boissier (who accompanied Chantre during the Mission and took a number of interesting photos), we know with certainty that, at the time of the Chantre Mission, these two points of the sculpture were still in good condition (see comparison in Fig. 10).

Consequently, only two explanations are possible: either the image of the supposed moulage is wrong (in which case it should be checked whether indeed Louvre AOmg 42 corresponds to the cast in question, but in the photographic credits cat. no. 33 corresponds not to the Louvre, as is the case with the Alaca and Fıraktin casts, but to a London reference; cf. p. 449); or there is no Chantre cast of this Yazılıkaya relief and both the catalogue photo and the commentary are the result of a misunderstanding on the part of the editors.

<sup>37</sup> Grothe 1911: 266-268.

<sup>38</sup> CIH 25 f.

<sup>39</sup> *Royaumes* 2019.

<sup>40</sup> *Royaumes*: 76-79: Musée du Louvre AOmg 55: 66, 70; Chantre 1898: XII, 2-3 (casts of Alaca), 125- 129 (relief of Fıraktin).

Fig. 10. Top: Boissier photo and Chantre drawing of Y. 81. Bottom: Photo taken from the *Royaumes Oubliés* exhibition catalogue of the presumed Chantre cast with evidence of damaged points after 1894.

#### 6. Kammer B, problems and new developments

As is well known, the layout, sculptural programme and function of the so-called Kammer B are not completely clear, especially in relation to the diachronic development of the buildings in front of its possible entrances.41

The analysis conducted in the first organic edition of the sanctuary in 194142 was subject to a series of revisions in the second edition of 1975, especially regarding the hypothesis of an original entrance to Kammer B from the south.43

It was suggested by R. Naumann in *Yazılıkaya 1* that the entrance to Kammer B was originally represented by its southward extension, where there was an external entrance ramp. The shifting of a section of rock from the east wall would have obstructed this passage and led to the opening of the new passage from the west (still existing today) along the north wall of Kammer B. The existence of an original entrance from


<sup>41</sup> The subject was discussed by the author on the occasion of the 'XII Archaeology Conference of the Italian Cultural Institute of Istanbul,' November 2021, in the context of the communication 'Le sculture di Yazılıkaya: nuove "letture" delle volumetrie sulla base delle recenti rilevazioni.' A recent overview of the subject is offered in Seeher 2011: 117, 159-164.

Fig. 11. Diachronic reconstruction of the possible entrances into Kammer B and of the structures in front of it (elaboration on the planimetric basis in Seeher 2011); top: the phase of the entrance from the south; bottom: the later phase of the new entrance from the west.

the south was confirmed by the sculptural decoration of the walls: the figures represented there are oriented from south to north, thus, like those in Kammer A, from the hypothetical entrance to the north end wall; this change also justified the new orientation of the building in front of it (Building Phase IV), adapted in this final phase as principal access to the new western entrance to Kammer B (Fig. 11 shows the graphic representation of the two hypothetical phases).

This diachronic reconstruction was discarded in the 1975 edition on the basis of new stratigraphic observations of the soil underneath the rock occluding the supposed southern entrance. According to the new reconstruction, the rock occluding the presumed southern entrance would have been present there since the beginning of the use of Kammer B and the western entrance would have always been the only entrance to the chamber.

In 1989, however, P. Neve returned to the problem;44 he underlined the inconsistency of the stratigraphic evidence exposed in *Yazılıkaya 2*, and proposed again a diachronic sequence of the entrances in accordance with the changes characterising the external buildings.45

A second question concerns the function and significance of the quadrangular base in front of the north wall: whether it is the base of a statue (and if so, whether it is related to the statue base found in the nearby village of Yekbas), or whether it is the base of an altar. Many scholars have linked this base with a presumed statue of King Tutḫaliya IV attested in KBo 12.38, according to which Šuppiluliuma II, his son, erected the statue in a sanctuary in honour of the deceased dynast (na4*hé-gur* SAG.UŠ). According to this hypothesis, the function of Kammer B would have been, at least in its final phase, that of the funerary sanctuary in honour of Tutḫaliya IV.

Although this hypothesis remains valid (especially on the basis of the subjects represented by the sculptural decorations and the accompanying inscriptions),46 the hypothesis of the presence of a statue of the deceased king remains very doubtful, especially in view of a recent revision of the cuneiform text.47

In any case, an overall view of the sculptural programme remains difficult. The series of 12 chthonic deities (Y. 69-80) running from the south to the north along the western wall is interrupted where one or more decorated blocks were originally placed – whether or not one accepts the hypothesis of a single entrance from the west (cf. the plans in Fig. 11). The same problem arises for the eastern wall, where the 'window' now present between reliefs Y. 82 (the so-called 'Schwertgott') and Y. 83 (the *aedicula* of Tutḫaliya IV, strangely placed at 'relief height') was certainly covered by one or two decorated orthostats, with which the *aedicula* of Tutḫaliya IV (Y. 83), placed high up, must have been connected.

Already during the petrographic investigations conducted in 2018 on the Yazılıkaya reliefs, anomalies were noted along a section of the east wall of Chamber B. The wall between the representation of the 'sword god' and the window due to a crack in the rock, to the left of which follows the aedicule of Tutḫaliya IV, appears to have been carefully prepared by polishing already in the Hittite period. This preparation corresponds to that of the backgrounds of the surfaces with sculptural decoration.

<sup>45</sup> In his new monograph on Yazılıkaya Seeher (2011) opts for the reconstruction proposed in *Yazılıkaya* 2.

<sup>44</sup> Cf. Neve 1989.

<sup>46</sup> Cf. Neve 1989; an interesting planimetric comparison is now suggested by Schachner 2016: 3 with n. 10-13 (with further bibliographical references), on the basis of the very recent excavations of the Kesikkaya complex.

<sup>47</sup> In this regard see Bolatti Guzzo, Marazzi 2004 and 2022.

Fig. 12. The status of the east wall of Kammer B (based on a model from the orthophographic survey).

Fig. 13. The east wall of Kammer B (from Yazılıkaya 2).

This surface is connected to that of the 'sword god,' but its lower part is about 30 cm higher than that of the 'sword god' itself, thus forming a sort of step (cf. here in Fig. 12 the situation of the east wall on the basis of the model generated by orthophotogrammetry).

On it, thus to the left of the relief of the 'sword god,' a sort of slight bulge can still be seen with the naked eye under particularly favourable light conditions. This bulge covers the entire prepared surface in height and is approximately 40 cm wide. Since this part of the eastern wall of Kammer B was the last to be excavated and its surface can only be observed in detail under special light conditions, it was only in 1941 that K. Bittel noticed the above-mentioned anomaly and postulated the possibility of traces of an 'unfinished' sculpture, perhaps to be connected with the (probably sculptured) blocks that must have covered the 'gap/window' between the 'sword god' and the *aedicula* of Tutḫaliya IV.48

K. Bittel himself returned to the subject of the possible 'unfinished' sculpture in his 1975 publication and, while not excluding the possibility of a figure oriented towards the left, he confirmed, by observing the traces of work on the wall at the two edges of the 'window,' that it must originally have been covered by one or more decorated orthostats that have now been lost (here in Fig. 13 the photograph presented in *Yazılıkaya 2*, Pl. 47, 1, taken in particularly favourable lighting conditions).49

A different interpretation is given by P. Neve in his already mentioned 1989 contribution. According to Neve, who does not consider the problem of the closure of the 'window' and therefore does not examine the hypothesis that the sculptural decoration originally present there could be linked to the strange presence of the *aedicula* of Tutḫaliya IV at the left edge of the 'window,' the apparent 'unfinished' sculpture is nothing more than an initial outline of the sculpture of the 'sword god,' later abandoned and relocated further to the right (where it is today) due to the poor state of the rock surface at that point.

In order to clarify whether the traces of a possible (unfinished?) sculpture could be compatible with an initial carving of the 'Schwertgott,' as postulated by P. Neve, or whether they were, on the contrary, attributable to a different sculptural representation, as suggested by K. Bittel, it was decided, during the 2019 campaign, to carry out both an accurate photogrammetric survey and a dynamic structured light scan of the entire portion of the east wall. The models generated in this way clearly show that the rock surface retains actual traces of a further relief.50

Although it is not possible to exclude with certainty that the 'unfinished' state of the relief was intentional (or, as the location of the wall would lead one to believe, that the state of severe deterioration was due to a long period of erosion of the wall at this point), the contours offered by the surveys carried out appear to indicate a female figure oriented towards the left, i.e. in the direction of the 'window' where, at the time, the sculptural decoration was to continue on the orthostats placed to close it, now unfortunately lost (Fig. 14 shows a series of images of the structured light scanning model visualised in a virtual environment under different light conditions, orientation and according to different degrees of 'stretching'). This female figure, the traces of se *polos* appear to be discernible, shows, also on the basis of the shape of the dress, a close similarity to relief Y. 47 (comparison here in Fig. 15). Furthermore, the model of the wall shows, as already noted by K. Bittel, the points of insertion of the orthostat at the inner left and right margins of the 'window.'

Finally, in relation to the problems of Kammer B in Yazılıkaya, a geo-structural and geo-static research programme began in 2021 in collaboration with the Department of Earth

<sup>48</sup> *Yazılıkaya 1*: 103.

<sup>49</sup> *Yazılıkaya 2*: 164.

<sup>50</sup> See the report in Marazzi *et al.* 2020.

Fig. 14. The so-called "unfinished" relief: structured light scanning model, displayed in a virtual environment under different light conditions, orientation and "stretching" (200-300%).

Fig. 15. Comparison of the three-dimensional models of the so-called "unfinished relief " and Y. 47.

Sciences of the Federico II University in Naples. The project, which over time will involve two other sample areas, that of Nişantepe and that of the gorge between Ambarlıkaya and Büyükkaya, provides for the collection of data on the geomorphological and static peculiarities of the rock formations that will be mapped on special three-dimensional models generated by TOF laser scanner surveys conducted in parallel with the geological investigation.

This three-dimensional mapping will have a twofold purpose: on the one hand, to identify the critical situations that exist today (synchronic risk map); and on the other, to determine the changes that have characterised the degradation of the rock faces over time (diachronic map of variations). The latter, which is of particular interest to us here, will provide valuable information on the original appearance of the spaces and any natural or human-induced changes that may have altered their organisation – in the case of Yazılıkaya this applies also to the changes that appear to characterise the different phases of the built-up area in front of the entrance to the natural chambers (Fig. 16).

Fig. 16. Hattusa, 2022 campaign: start of geotechnical and geostructural surveys.

#### Abbrevations


VAM 1990 = see Jakob-Rost 1990.


#### References

Bittel K. 1934, *Die Felsbilder von Yazılıkaya. Neue Aufnahmen der Deutschen Boğazköy-Expedition 1931*, Istanbuler Forschungen 5, Bamberg, Abteilung Istanbul des Archäologischen Institutes des Deutschen Reiches*.*

Boissier A. 1897, *En Cappadoce. Notes de voyage*, Genéve, Rey et Malavallon.


Chantre E. 1898, *Mission en Cappadoce 1893-1894*, Paris, Ernest Lerou.

Crüsemann N. 2000, *Vom Zweistromland zum Kupfergraben. Vorgeschichte und Entstehungsjahre (1899-1918) der Vorderasiatischen Abteilung der Berliner Museen vor fach- und kulturpolitischen*

*Hintergründen*, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 22, Berlin, Gebr. Mann Verlag.

Garstang J. 1910, *The Land of the Hittites*, London, Constable.


Texier Ch. 1839, *Description de l'Asie Mineure. Premier Volume*, Paris, Librairie de Firmin Didot Frères. Van Lennep H.J. 1870, *Travels in Little-Known Parts of Asia Minor*, London, John Murray.

# The Administration of Sacred Time in Hittite Anatolia

Francesco G. Barsacchi

**Abstract:** The nature of the administration of sacred time in Hittite Anatolia represents a complex problem, which has received little attention until recent years. This paper provides an overview of the topic, reconsidering the Hittite religious calendar as a whole and analysing some of the main issues connected with the Hittite calendrical system, such as the problem of the beginning of the year, the lunar nature of the Hittite month and the alleged existence of a system of intercalation.

#### 1. Introduction

According to the well-known historian of religions A. Brelich, all calendrical studies seem to oscillate between two main interests: one that can be defined as historico-chronological, and one explicitly historico-religious (Brelich 2015: 35). Every calendrical system, indeed, displays two apparently independent aspects: a chronological aspect, since it represents essentially a form of time reckoning, and a religious one, since calendars are closely related to the celebration of festivals. The almost complete lack of administrative and economic documents from the Hittite archives (probably because this kind of sources were written on wooden writing boards) means that the only form of calendrical organisation that we can partially reconstruct for the Hittite society is the form that is reflected in the temporal setting of cult activities.1 

The cult calendar of a society can be defined, with Brelich, as 'a given ordering of public and periodic festivals in a chronological system'.2 When applied to ancient near eastern cultures, however, this very general definition demands some further explanations, since it contains a few problematic concepts, such as the use of the adjectives 'public' and 'periodic.' In the context of Hittite culture, all festivals that are documented in the sources available to us had a public character, not in the sense that they were open to everyone, but in the sense that their religious character was valid for the entire community.


Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

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

Francesco Giuseppe Barsacchi, University of Florence, Italy, francescogiuseppe.barsacchi@unifi.it , 0000-0001- 6750-1051

Francesco G. Barsacchi, *The Administration of Sacred Time in Hittite Anatolia*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4.07, 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. 77-91, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4

More problematic is the definition of periodic festivals. In the context of modern western culture, all religious festivals can be defined as periodical: Sundays, e.g., come every seven days, and even moveable fests, such as Easter, depend on the repetition of solar, lunar and weekly periodicities. In the context of Hittite cult, however, religious festivals could have also an occasional nature and even individual natural phenomena such as thunder, or rain, could receive a religious sanction in the form of a festival celebration.3 In this respect, I find a comparison with the ancient Roman religious-juridical distinction between *feriae stativae* and *feriae conceptivae* particularly fruitful. The public Roman festivals called *feriae stativae* had a fixed date within the calendar, recurring every year on the same day, while the *feriae conceptivae*, related to events not associated with a specific temporal setting, were celebrated every year at a variable date, which was determined each time by the proper authority. In the Hittite case, we observe that also occasional festivals, even if not exactly chronologically predictable, were perceived as periodical events and linked to specific times of the year, becoming part of the cyclical succession of religious activities that formed what we call the cult calendar.

# 2. A busy king: the Hittite festival organisation

The tendency towards a 'periodicity' in the performing of religious ceremonies represents one of the most peculiar elements of the Hittite calendar. It is not merely the reflex of a periodical occurrence of natural phenomena, it also responds to a particular religious need: the urge to include every official ceremony within an organised pattern, which guarantees the continuity of the cult and the perpetuation of the cosmic order sanctioned by the gods.

In this conceptual framework, the correct performance and the regularity of the cult represented a fundamental religious duty. Any negligence in the performance of the cult was perceived as a potential threat to the entire Land. In an important document preserved in copies dating to the Empire Period, the so-called 'Instructions for the temple personnel' (CTH 264),4 the priests of the Hittite temples are explicitly advised not to perform the spring festival in autumn and the autumn festival in spring:

Moreover, you who are the temple personnel: if you do not celebrate the festivals at festival time, (e.g.) you perform the spring festival [i]n autu[mn], bu[t] then you celebrate the autumn festival i[n] the spring […] (§9 in Miller 2013: 255)

The same concept is expressed in a prayer of the king Tutḫaliya IV directed to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, CTH 385. The text states, in the first preserved lines, that an oracular investigation has revealed that the goddess is angry because of the religious negligence of the king, who has neglected the correct performance of the festivals for the goddess. Specifically, he has inverted the festivals of the spring and of the autumn.

never again [shall I omit] the festivals. I will not again interchange the spring and [autumn festivals]. [The festivals of spring] I shall perform only in the spring, [and the festivals of] autumn I shall perform only in the autumn. I shall never leave out [the festivals(?)] in [your] temple. (§1 in Singer 2002: 108)

<sup>3</sup> See, e.g., the festivals of thunder included in CTH 631 (on which see Barsacchi 2017), or the festival of the rain performed during the 38th day of the AN.TAḪ.ŠUM festival in Ankuwa. Cf. Güterbock 1960: 86-89; Jacob-Rost 1990: 35-39.

<sup>4</sup> The text is published in Miller 2013: 244-266. See also Taggar-Cohen 2006: 133-139.

The omission or the incorrect performing of festivals could lead to terrible consequences. This is particularly evident in one of the so-called 'plague prayers' of the king Muršili II, where the cause of the plague that has been tormenting the land of Hatti since the time of his father Šuppiluliuma I is connected to the latter's religious misbehave.5 A particular attention is given to the fact that he has omitted to perform the ritual for the Mala river.6 Muršili promises to the Storm-god to make amend for the faults of his father and to make up for the neglected festival.

As for the [ritual] of the Mala River, which was established for me as a cause for the plague, since I am herewith on my way [to] the Mala River, forgive me, O Storm-god of Hatti, my lord, and O gods, my lords, for (neglecting) the ritual of the Mala River. I am going to perform the ritual of the Mala River, and I will carry it out. (§7 in Singer 2002: 59)

In the prologue of Muršili's ten-years Annals, the king Šuppiluliuma is also accused by his son of having neglected the festival for the Sun-goddess of Arinna.

Because my father was establishing garrisons in the Land of Mittani, he lingered in a garrison and the festivals of the Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady, were being neglected. When I, the Majesty, sat on the throne of my father, before I went to any of all the surrounding enemy lands who waged war against me, I went back to the regular festivals of the Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady, and I celebrated them.7

Muršili himself, in a passage of the so-called extensive Annals, mentions the fact that he has interrupted a military campaign in order to perform some rites related to the *purulli-* festival that he has not celebrated properly.

When it became spring, whereas I had celebrated the New Year Festival,8 the great festival, in honour of the Storm-god of Hatti and the Storm-god of Zippalanda, but I had not celebrated the New Year Festival, the great festival, in honour of Lelwani in the *ḫešta-*house, I therefore came up to Ḫattusa and celebrated the New Year Festival, the great festival, in honour of Lelwani in the *ḫešta-*house. (Archi 2015: 19, with reference to Götze 1933: 188-191)

That the ideal of a correct and regular performance of ritual activities did not always correspond to the reality of the Hittite cult is further confirmed by sources where the Hittites scribes show a rather pragmatic attitude towards the celebration of festivals. In the colophon of KUB 20.26, a tablet describing the autumn festival for Ištar of Šamuḫa, we found the indication that the festival as such must not be delated but, *if* for some reasons this has happened, the cult functionaries must not make up the entire festival, but only add some special offerings to those normally prescribed for the ceremony:9

If the festival is neglected for two or three years they will not make up the (entire) festival; but at the festival (they provide) for her 3 bulls (among them 1 fattened bull), 16 sheep (and) 6 large loaves (among them 2 loaves of one bushel, 4 loaves of 3 seah). (Schwemer 2016: 16)

<sup>5</sup> See most recently van den Hout 2020: 13-14.

<sup>6</sup> Probably to be identified with the middle or upper Euphrates or one of his tributaries. Cf. Del Monte, Tischler 1978: 537; Arıkan 2007: 39-48.

<sup>7</sup> KBo 3.4+ obv. i 19-22. Edited by Götze 1933: 20-21. The English translation provided here is by the author.

<sup>8</sup> EZEN4 *purulliyaš* in the text. 9 Cf. Schwemer 2016: 16.

Whatever the interpretation of such passages,10 it is safe to say that the cyclical repetition of festivals and their regular performance in the course of the year had a fundamental religious meaning. That explains why festival descriptions represent by far the most attested typology of documentation in Hittite archives, representing approximately the 40% of the total amount of documents in Hittite language (Lorenz 2014: 459). More than one hundred festivals are attested in Hittite sources,11 and some of them lasted for more than one month. The great spring festival of the AN.TAḪ.ŠUMSAR received its name from a plant that flourished in spring, probably a crocus, which was at the centre of ritual actions performed by the king and the queen during the ninth day of the ceremony (Güterbock 1960: 85). In its original form, dating probably to the time of Šuppiluliuma I, the festival lasted some 35 days,12 but it was expanded at the time of the king Tutḫaliya IV to a total amount of about 38 to 40 days. The great autumn festival called *nuntarriyašḫa-*, from a verb *nuntarriya-*, 'haste, hurry,' had a similar length and lasted about 40 days under the same king (Nakamura 2002: 11). Of the *purulli*festival, performed in the city of Nerik and in the capital Ḫattuša at the beginning of the spring, we know very little, but it must have been a long festival, considering that its description was contained in 32 tablets (Archi 2015: 11-12).

Even if we assume that not all festivals documented in Hittite archives were actually performed at the time of their written redaction, and that some of the tablets that contain their description were kept for archival purposes, the amount and variety of these ceremonies is certainly striking, to the point the it is legitimate to ask oneself, with J. Lorenz (2014: 460): did the Hittite king have any time at all for something else? Following the considerations by the same Lorenz, an answer to the question could possibly be found in the combination of three main factors: 1) Tablets of old festivals that were not celebrated anymore continued to be copied and kept in the Hittite archives for both religious and administrative purposes. 2) Older festivals were integrated within larger ceremonies during the late Hittite period; e.g., the KI.LAM festival or some sections of it seem to have become part of the *nuntarriyašḫa-* festival in the 13th century BC (Nakamura 2002:128-134). 3) Some festivals were not performed annually but in multi-year cycles. In particular, festivals performed every three years are well attested in local cult inventories (Cammarosano 2018: 109; 2019: 72-73), whereas 'festivals of the sixth year' are famously mentioned in Muršili II's Annals.13

#### 3. The Hittite year

But what were the main elements that determined the regular pattern of festivals and rites that shaped the Hittite calendar?

As is known, the Hittites did no develop, during their entire history, a theoretical calendar based on astronomical calculations like the ones in use from the third millennium in Mesopotamia14. The centuries-long duration of the Old Assyrian network

<sup>10</sup> On which see the useful discussion in Schwemer 2016: 15-16.

<sup>11</sup> See Hoffner 1967: 39-41; van Gessel 2001: 281-287.

<sup>12</sup> As confirmed by an overview tablet dating to the time of Muršili II, KUB 30.39+ (CTH 604). 13 e.g. in KBo 4.14, rev. iv 38-41. Cf. Götze 1933: 138-139.

<sup>14</sup> Recent attempts at identifying the reliefs of the main chamber of the rock santuary of Yazılıkaya as an open-air astronomical calendar (Zangger, Gautschy 2019), should be taken very cautiosly. According to this theory, the reliefs in Chamber A could have been arranged in groups that may keep track of days, synodic months and solar years. Intercalary months could also have been introduced in this calendar in order to keep the allignment of the Moon cycle with the solar year. Intriguing as

of trading colonies in the territory that would become the core of the Hittite kingdom seems not to have influenced the local inhabitants, who did not adopt the Assyrian calendar15 and used a different, observationally based, temporal organisation of their cults. Any attempt to reconstruct the Hittite cult calendar is made even more difficult by the fact that, while other Near Eastern cultures gave a name to their months, the Hittites seem to have just numbered them according to their order in the year, as can be seen in following examples:


The first example comes from paragraph 50 of the Hittite Laws (Hoffner 1997: 61), dealing with exemptions from the *luzzi-* services in the city of Arinna, while the second one is taken from a tablet containing *omina* based on lunar observations (Riemschneider 2004: 108). Both refer to a specific month of the year, identifying it only with its number.

The basic pattern of Hittite cult as it can be reconstructed from the sources was shaped in accordance with natural rhythms. The year was divided into twelve months (see below) and three main seasons: spring, autumn, and winter, of irregular length. The existence of a fourth season was postulated by Hoffner (1974: 24-41) on the basis of some instances where the Sumerogram BURU14, which literally means 'harvest,' seems to have the transferred meaning of 'season of the harvest, summer.'16

The Hittite seasons were not precisely defined chronological units, depending on the observation of natural phenomena rather than on astronomical calculations. The basic temporal settings of the Hittite cult are expressed in the often-quoted prayer of Arnuwanda and Ašmunikal CTH 375, where the royal couple deplores the looting of the temples by the Kaška enemies in the following terms:

No one in those lands invokes your names anymore, O gods. No one presents to you the daily, the monthly, and the annual seasonal rituals. No one celebrates your festivals and ceremonies.

(Singer 2002: 42)

The daily rituals mentioned in the prayer are certainly to be understood as the normal sequence of offerings of food and beverages to the deities, which were part of the regular cult activities performed on a daily basis in the temples. It is the basic cult operation often defined as 'daily bread-loaf,' NINDA.GUR4.RA *UMI*, in Hittite cult-inventories (Cammarosano 2018: 114-115).

The monthly and the annual rituals are related to the natural cycles of the moon and the seasons and were performed at regular intervals, or in connection with partic-

they may be, the produced arguments are not based, in my opinion, on sufficient archaeological and textual evidences. See, for a recent overview of Hittite astronomical knowledge, Rizza 2021, with further references.

<sup>15</sup> On which see Cohen 1993: 237-247 and, more recently, Cohen 2015: 305-314.

<sup>16</sup> On the topic, see now Cammarosano 2018: 106.

ular agricultural activities. In one of his 'plague prayers' to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, CTH 376, the Hittite king Muršili II reminds the gods that:

Only in Hatti they celebrate festivals for you—the festival of the month], festivals throughout the course of the year, [autumn, winter] and spring, and the festivals of the sacrificial rituals. In no other land do they perform anything for you. (Singer 2002: 51)17

The seasonal festivals of spring and autumn represent perhaps the most important ones in the Hittite cult calendar and are connected to agricultural activity (Archi 1973: 7-27; Hazenbos 2004: 241-248). Their core was represented by the ritual act of filling a large vessel called DUG*ḫarsi-* or DUG*ḫaršiyalli-* with the harvested wheat, during the autumn festival, and the re-opening of the vessel during the spring festival. The wheat was then used to prepare breads that were subsequently offered to the gods. In this way the ceremonies symbolised, in their essence, the perpetual renewal of the fertility of the fields. Besides this ritual action, the ritual program of both seasonal festivals envisaged long series of offerings and libations, and, generally in the case of the spring festival, a procession, during which the statues of the gods were brought from their temples to their open-air sanctuaries, where a great banquet took place.18 As has been noted, these ceremonies present several elements in common with other functionally analogous festivals performed in other near eastern cultures, such as for instance the Mesopotamian *akītu* festival (Hazenbos 2004: 242). In the Empire Period it is very probable that some of these local festivals were integrated into the major official festival of the AN.TAḪ.ŠUM plant, in spring, and the autumn *nuntarriyašḫaš* festival, whose ritual program included a series of rites performed by the royal couple in many local cult centres of the Hittite state (Hutter 2021: 242-247). Around the two major festivals of spring and autumn, a great number of seasonal ceremonies related to the agricultural cycle were performed in the course of the year, as largely documented in Hittite cult inventories (Cammarosano 2018: 129-137; Demirel 2017: 22-29).

Given their seasonal character, both the festival of the spring and the festival of the autumn did not take place at a fixed date within the calendar. In order to define better the chronological setting of these cults it is therefore necessary to establish when the Hittite year began. We do not have information about the older phases of the Hittite kingdom, but it seems certain that at least from the Empire Period, i.e. around the 14th-13th century, the Hittites followed the Babylonians in starting the annual cycle of festivals with the beginning of the spring. In his Annals, the king Muršili II mentions several times the celebration of the 'festival of the year' as the event that signals the reappraisal of the military operations after the winter period. In KBo 3.4 obv. ii 46-49, for instance, the king describes the end of his third-year campaign as follows:

When I had conquered mount Arinnanda, I came back to the river Aštarpa, I set up a fortified camp on the river Aštarpa, and there I celebrated the festival of the year. These things I accomplished in one year. (Götze 1933: 59-61)19

<sup>17</sup> The passage is duplicated in Muršili's prayer to Telipinu CTH 377, § 7. Cf. Singer 2002: 55.

<sup>18</sup> On the processions in Hittite cult, see Görke 2008: 49-72.

<sup>19</sup> With this author's own translation into English.

The exact meaning of the expression EZEN4 MUKAM, 'festival of the year,'is not entirely clear but, in such contexts, it probably refers to the particular ceremony, or ensemble of ceremonies, which marked the passage from the old to the new year, and was an important part both of the official cult calendar and of the local religious traditions.20 Some scholars (Haas 1994: 696 ff.) have proposed to identify this ceremony with the *purulli-* festival, which was celebrated at the beginning of the spring season. As recently suggested by Hutter (2021: 242-243), it is certainly possible that some rites connected with the passage of the year, such as the symbolic translation of the old year to the *ḫešta-* house during the 11th day of the AN.TAḪ.ŠUM festival,21 could have been connected to the *purulli-* festival. An outright equivalence between the ceremony defined in the sources as EZEN4 MUKAM and the *purulli-* festival, however, is not supported by the existing evidence.

Two oracular reports, KUB 5.4+ (CTH 563) and KUB 18.12+ (CTH 564), where omens concerning the place where the Hittite king will spend the winter period are collected, explicitly connect the festival of the year and the festival of thunder.


It is known from several sources that this festival, i.e. the festival of thunder, took place at the beginning of the spring. The celebration of the seasonal festival of the spring, indeed, was regulated in accordance with the first rainstorms of the season, that still today in central Anatolia take place between the months of March and April (Hoffner 1974: 18, 22). The introductory formula that usually opens the description of the Hittite spring festivals states: 'When the spring comes (and) it thunders, they open the *ḫarši-* vessel' (Cammarosano 2018: 39). The first thunders of the spring were an important marker of time. They signalled the renewal of the agricultural year and were connected with the celebration of several seasonal ceremonies (Barsacchi 2017: 18-24).

Considering the association of festivals of thunder and festival of the year, it seems very likely that the beginning of the Hittite year coincided with the beginning of the spring. This is further confirmed by the passage KUB 38.32 obv. 8 (CTH 508), that states: '(…) when it becomes autumn, in the eight month of the year.' Since the autumn festival probably depended on the time of seeding, and this could not take place later than the end of October /beginning of November, the beginning of the year would coincide approximately with the month of March, when both the spring festivals and other seasonal ceremonies, like the festivals of thunder were, in all likelihood, performed.

<sup>20</sup> As can be assumed for instance from text KUB 55.1, (CTH 581? ), an oracular report concerning negligences towards the cult of the Storm-god of Zippalanda and the mountain Daḫa. In line rev. iv 14, in particular, a festival defined as EZEN4 MU*TI*, 'festival of the year,' is mentioned among the ceremonies that are imposed to the city of Šantiwara. Cf. Barsacchi 2019b: 108. On the festival of the year, see also Gonzáles García, Belmonte 2011: 472.

<sup>21</sup> On which see Torri 1999: 124-127.

#### 4. The Hittite month

As for the other basic temporal setting of Hittite festivals, the month, it seems now ascertained that it was based on the lunar phases, as in Mesopotamian calendars. This is suggested by several elements, already underlined by Del Monte (1988: 54-55):

– the fact that Hittite sources calculate pregnancy in ten months clearly depends on a calendar based on lunar regularities, as can be seen for instance in paragraph 18 of the Laws:

If anyone causes a female slave to miscarry, if she is in her tenth month, he shall pay 5 shekels of silver. (Hoffner 1997: 29)


From the tablet KUB 42.100+, an inventory relating to the organisation of the cult in the city of Nerik, we receive the information that several monthly festivals could be performed in the same cult centre for different deities. The tablet mentions four monthly festivals, performed respectively for the Storm-god of the town of Zaḫalukka, the Storm-god of Heaven, the Stag-god and the god Telipinu:

(obv. i 1-2) [Fo]r the [Storm]-god of [Zaḫ]aluka the priest [regularly celebrates] 12 monthly festivals (and) 2 (more) fest[ivals], (namely) 1 autumn festival (and) 1 spring festival, fr[om his house]. (…)

(rev. iii 13'-14') For the Storm-god of Heaven the priest now regularly celebrates 12 monthly festivals, 1 spr[ing] festival, (and) [1 autumn festival] at the expense of his house. (…)

(rev. iii 49'-50') [For the Stag-god] the priest (now) regularly celebrates [12 monthly festivals, 1] autumn festival (and) 1 spring festival [from his house] (…)

(rev. iv 22'-24') And now, for him (scil. Telipinu), the priest celebrates 12 monthly festivals, 1 autumn festival (and one) spring festival, at the expense of his house. 2 BÁN-measures of flour, 1 vessel of beer, 1 pot of broad beans for each monthly festival. (Cammarosano 2018: 341-353)

Apart the mentions of the festival in relation to a particular town or a particular deity, however, very few indications can be found in these sources concerning the nature of these religious ceremonies and the details of their ritual program. Since the monthly festivals were connected to the cult of local deities, it is safe to say that there was not a standard version of this ceremony. In every religious centre, it had probably different forms, which depended on local religious traditions and the structure of the local pantheons. Being related to the month and therefore to the lunar phases, it is possible that such local monthly festivals were performed at new moon, during the transition from one month to the other (Cammarosano 2018: 115). Considering that several monthly festivals seem to have been performed in the same cult centre for different local deities, however, it is also possible to imagine that, in local cult calendars, such ceremonies were not necessarily related to the passage of the month. In such cases the expression EZEN4 ITU could more simply hint at the monthly frequency of their performance, as suggested by Houwink ten Cate.22 The monthly festival performed in Nerik for the local Storm-god, for instance, envisaged two major celebrations, each one of them lasting three days. The first one was celebrated at the beginning of the month, and therefore at new moon, and the other starting from the 13th day, in clear concomitance with the full moon. The festival is described in the text CTH 672, an edict issued by the king Tutḫaliya IV in order to regulate the cult of the Storm-god (Součkova 2010: 279-300). The *incipit* of the document is partially preserved in KUB 56.48:

```
obv. i
6 nu A-NA DU URUn[e-ri-ik …] 
7 EZEN4 ITUKAM x[…]
```
8 ⸢GIM⸣-*an* ITU [*ú-iz-zi* (?)23… EZEN4 ITU]KAM ⸢*ki-iš-ša*⸣*-an* 

```
9 i-ia-an-du x[
```
(6-9) For the Storm-god of N[erik…]. A festival of the month […]. When the month [comes? …] they perform [a festival of the month] in the following way (Součkova 2010: 288)24

The second ritual section of the festival is introduced as follows:

```
KBo 2.4, obv. i
23 GIM-an-ma A-NA ITUKAM UD.13KAM ti-ia-zi 
24 nu EGIR-pa wa-ar-pu-wa-ar ne-ku-uz-za me-hur 
(…)
```
27 *ma-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma lu-kat-ta nu A-NA* ITUKAM *ku-iš*  28 UD.14KAM (…)

(23-24) When the 13th day of the month begins, at nightfall, after the purification (…) (27-28) On the 14th day of the month, at dawn (…) (Součkova 2010: 288)25

<sup>22</sup> 'I am reckoning with the likelihood that Hittite EZEN ITU(.KAM) admits of two meanings: The first is "monthly festival", and in that case it many concern the cult of any one deity (…). The second meaning is "Festival of the Month" in the strict sense (…); in that case taking place during the final days of the preceding month up to and presumably including the first day of the new month (…)' (Houwink ten Cate 1992: 94).

<sup>23</sup> Cf. KUB 60.121, rev. 18: *nu ma-a-aḫ-ḫa-an* GE6-*an-za ki-ša-ri* ITU-*kán ú-iz-zi*: 'When it gets dark and the month comes.'

<sup>24</sup> With this author's own translation into English. 25 With this author's own translation into English.

Another example of a local monthly festival celebrated in connection with particular lunar phases is represented by the ceremony performed for the couple Stormgod–Ḫepat in the Land of Kizzuwatna, in south-eastern Anatolia, and described in the document CTH 706 (Trémouille 1996: 79-104). The ceremony represents a perfect model of a peripheral festival strongly influenced by local traditions, and it is very different from other monthly ceremonies described in Hittite sources, presenting elements that clearly indicate its southern provenance. What is interesting here is that the festival is celebrated in the last days of the month, during the obscuration that precedes the first appearance of the new moon. This is described in the beginning of the text, where it is written that 'the month culminates (finishes) and it ends' (KUB 54.36+, obv. i 2).

As in Mesopotamia,26 the Hittite month began at the first appearance of the new moon, as confirmed by passages such as KUB 60.121, rev. 18: *nu maḫḫan* GE6-*anza kišari* ITU=*kán uizzi*: 'When it gets dark and the month begins.' In the framework of the official state cult a great ceremony, which is also defined in the sources as EZEN4 ITU, was performed by the Hittite king, in order to consecrate the transition from one lunar cycle to another, a time perceived as particularly meaningful. The fragments belonging to this ceremony, which lasted three days, have been collected under the catalogue number CTH 591 and published by J. Klinger (1996: 286-614).

As I have suggested elsewhere (Barsacchi 2019a: 11-18), this festival probably included a series of purification rites performed by the king on the roof of the palace or the temple, at night, and clearly directed to the Moon-god, generally indicated by its astral number, as D30. This seems to be confirmed by a small group of fragments (partially collected under CTH 645), describing a ritual performed by the king during the new moon, a cleansing rite defined with the Hittite word *warpuwar*. External sources, such as the outline tablets of the great AN.TAḪ.ŠUM festival,27 also seem to refer to this rite when they state: [(LUGAL-*uš=ma=za*) *AN*(*A* EZEN4 ITU *war*)]*apz*[(*i*)], 'the Hittite king purifies himself for the festival of the month' (Güterbock 1960: 81).

These documents could shed light on a very peculiar Hittite ceremony, currently classified as CTH 630 and generally known as the 'festival of the moon and the thunder.' The festival described in the tablets associated to this corpus represents a rather unique form of religious ceremony, which is performed when a sudden thunder interrupts an ongoing festival called 'festival of the Moon-god,' EZEN4 DEN.ZU/D30. The *incipit* of the festival, preserved in fragment KUB 32.135 obv. i, runs as follows:

When the purifying for the festival of the Moon-god (takes place), the king purifies himself, but when the king comes from the washing-house and (it) thunders, then, if they have not called the man of the Storm-god yet, they leave the festival of the Moongod and they celebrate the festival of thunder.

The unique expression EZEN4 DEN.ZU/D30 is attested only in documents belonging to this festival, and its exact meaning has generally remained rather obscure. In consideration of the abovementioned group of fragments describing the rites performed by the king at new moon, it is very likely that the 'purifying' (Hitt. *warpuwanzi*) mentioned in the *incipit* of the text should be identified with this particular sequence of rites, aimed at assuring the kings condition of purity during this time. The *hapax* 'festival of the Moon-god' would be just another way of defining the great ceremony of

<sup>26</sup> Cf. Steele 2007: 133-143; 2011: 471-473.

<sup>27</sup> Preserved in copies A = KBo 10.20 // B = KUB 30.39+ // C = KUB 10.94 // D = KBo 45.16(+) // E = KUB 44.39 (CTH 604). Cf. Güterbock 1960: 80-89.

the month celebrated by the Hittite at new moon, probably referred specifically to the sequence of purification rites performed on that occasion.

KUB 55.39+ is an interesting colophon of a tablet, very likely belonging to the same corpus of texts, which reads as follows:

(rev. iv 27'-29') One tablet. Finished. When the moon appears. When the king goes up to the roof for the festi[val] of the month (…).

It clearly refers, once again, to the same cultic operation. As in Mesopotamia, the first appearance of the new moon signalled the beginning of the new month. This liminal moment had such a religious significance in Hittite thought that it was associated with the celebration of regular rites. These were an important part both of local cult calendars and of the official cult of the state, where the celebration of the great festival of the month by the Hittite king reaffirmed his condition of purity and ensured the continuity of the natural balance sanctioned by the gods.

# 4.1. A Hittite intercalary month?

As is known, a lunar calendar, based on the appearance of the new moon, does not correspond exactly to the solar year. Since the earth's cycle around the sun determines the turn of the seasons, this discrepancy produces a progressive shift of the months with respect to the solar year. In order to keep the system of the months synchronous with the succession of the seasons it is necessary, in a lunar calendar, to add an intercalary month to a year on a regular basis. This is the solution adopted in most of the ancient Near Eastern calendars (Steele 2011: 475-478; Britton 2007: 119-124), but the existence of such an intercalation in Hittite system of time-reckoning is still a debated issue. Some scholars (Haas 1994: 692, n. 134; Fleming 2000: 215, n. 53; Gonzáles García, Belmonte 2011: 472-473), focusing on the scarce references to the presence of a 13th month documented in some texts, believe that an intercalary month was actually added in order to keep the system of the months synchronous with the succession of the seasons. The text passage that is generally mentioned in this discussion as an evidence for the existence of a Hittite intercalary month comes from KBo 22.246 (CTH 698), a document dealing with the cults for Tešub and Ḫepat of Aleppo:28

```
KBo 22.246, rev. iii
```
21' 13 EZEN4 *ŠA* DU URU*ḫa-la-ab* ŠÀ.BA EZEN4*p*[*u-da-ḫa-aš*]

22' 1 EZEN4*ḫi-ya-ra-aš* EZEN4*ša-at-la-aš-ša-aš* EZEN4 x[

23' 1 EZEN4 GURUN EZEN4 TÚL*TI* EZEN4 <sup>Ḫ</sup>UR.SAG*ta-at-ta* [

24' EZEN4 *te-e-nu* 2 EZEN4 *šenaš a-še-ša-nu-ma-an-z*[*i*]

(21'-24') thirteen festivals of the Storm-god of Aleppo, among them: they set up the *p*[*udaḫa-*] festival, one *ḫiyara-* festival, one *šatlašša* festival, a festival […], one festival of the fruit, a festival of the spring, the festival of the mountain Tatta […] the festival of Tenu, two festivals of the *šena-* figurine.

The text lists the festivals in honour of the Storm-god of Aleppo that are to be performed in Ḫatti in the course of one year, but the assumption that the number of ceremonies mentioned would reflect the number of the months in the Hittite year is unfounded. No indication is given in the text concerning the timing of the festivals or

<sup>28</sup> Discussed in Souček, Siegelová 1974: 46-49.

the frequency of their celebration. Indeed, another passage of the same document records the offering of twelve sheep for the twelve months of the year, thus confirming the data concerning the total amount of twelve monthly festivals per year provided by the cult inventories:

KBo 22.246, obv. ii


(14-15) for twelve months in/for the *kulamurši-*29 as follow[s…] the shepherds provide 12 sheep, half a BÁ[N-measure of…].

Other attestations of a 13th month could be found in Hittite celestial *omina*: 30

KUB 8.5, obv. 10' [*ma-a-an I-NA* ITU.1]3KAM *I-NA* UD.15KAM D[30 *a-ki*] [if in the thirteen]th [month], on the fifteenth day [the Moon-god dies].

KUB 8.35, obv. i 10'

(…) *I-NA* ITU.13KAM DUMU-*aš mi-ia-ri* NU.GÁL *ku-it-ki*

(If) in the thirteenth month a child is born. Nothing (will happen).

These texts however, do not mirror a Hittite use because, as has been proved already by Riemschneider (1970: 44) and Fincke (2004: 238-239), they clearly represent Hittite translations of a Middle Babylonian original.31 Despite recent claims (Shelestin 2021: 101), I find it difficult to believe that the production of this kind of documents could be taken as evidence of a Hittite temporal structuring. Nothing, from the sources at our disposal, allows us to establish the existence of an intercalary month in the Hittite calendrical system. The beginning of the Hittite year was not determined by astronomical calculations but was established, very pragmatically, on the basis of the observation of weather and changes in climate, the flowering and fruiting of the plants and the alternation of the seasons. The same principle regulated the periodical celebration of seasonal and agrarian festivals. Such a religious calendar is subject to a certain degree of variation and does not allow exact predictions concerning the timing of some festivals. At the same time, however, it is marked by a great flexibility, which is certainly sufficient to guarantee the correlation between the succession of the seasons and the yearly cycle of the months, necessary for the correct performance of the cult of the gods.

#### 5. Conclusion

To sum up, the system of periodical festivals articulated in daily, monthly and seasonal rites that constitutes what we call the Hittite cult calendar can be reconstructed with a certain accuracy from extant sources. The absence of a written calendar based on astronomical calculations, like the ones in use in Mesopotamia, did not prevent, in other words, a rigid administration of sacred time in the form of a highly articulated

<sup>29</sup> For the obscure Hurrian term *kulamuršiya-* see Souček, Siegelová 1974: 46, n. 21. Cf. also HEG I-K:

<sup>621. 30</sup> Edited by Riemschneider 2004: 74-75, 103-106 (with this author's own translation into English).

<sup>31</sup> The original Akkadian version of the document is preserved in tablet KUB 37.118, rev. 6-18. Cf. Fincke 2004: 217.

system of cults based on a close observation of natural rhythms. This system mirrors the Hittite ideal of cosmic continuity as the identity of a periodically renewed time, guaranteed by a close observance of the religious duties demanded by the gods. The carrying out of the rites at the right time by the central administration was perceived as essential to the prosperity of the entire land and strengthened the position of the king as legitimate representative of the gods before the community.32 This relationship between cult calendar and political authority is critical, therefore, to our understanding of Hittite society and lies at the very basis of the Hittite ideology of kingship.

#### References


*Literatur. Mainz, 2.-3. Dezember 2010*, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 60, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 1-29.


van den Hout Th.P.J. 2021, Hittite Plague Prayers, *Oriental Institute News and Notes* 247: 8-17.


# The Court and Administration of Karkemish in the Late Bronze Age\*

Clelia Mora, Maria Elena Balza, Marco De Pietri

**Abstract**: The purpose of this paper is to update the study and analysis of the administration of Karkemish during the final phase of the Hittite kingdom. The first introductory part outlines previous contributions and results. The second part presents the updated lists of princes and officials belonging to the court of Karkemish. The third part attempts to place princes and officials in chronological order (according to the different periods of reigns). Lastly, the fourth part provides an in-depth prosopographic analysis regarding some important or interesting officials.

#### 1. Introduction

### 1.1. Topic

This paper aims to continue and deepen the study of the administration of Karkemish in the Late Bronze Age,1 that is, in the period in which the kings of Karkemish performed the function of 'viceroy' in Syria on behalf of the Hittite kings. As we know, the administrative seat of the kingdom of Karkemish in the 13th century BC was not found during the first excavations on the site in the 1900s:2 this made it very hard both to identify the names of the princes and officials of this decentralised seat of the Hittite kingdom, and to define the functioning and the different levels of the court, which probably included a large number of officials, as well as numerous members of the royal family.3

Recently, the Turkish-Italian mission, which has been conducting excavations and research activities in Karkemish since 2011, found over 500 *cretulae* in the LB IIB stratum in Area C of the site. On 301 of these clay sealings numerous seals were found attributable to *c.* 35 officials.4 So far, we only know a little about this material prelim-


Clelia Mora, University of Pavia, Italy, clelia.mora@unipv.it, 0000-0003-3838-2078 Maria Elena Balza, University of Pavia, Italy, mariaelena.balza@unipv.it, 0000-0002-8280-3653 Marco De Pietri, University of Pavia, Italy, depietri.marco@libero.it, 0000-0003-1330-2617 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

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

Clelia Mora, Maria Elena Balza, Marco De Pietri, *The Court and Administration of Karkemish in the Late Bronze Age*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4.08, 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. 93-126, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4

inary to publication (in this regard see also below). Furthermore, considering that in recent years important studies and updates have been published both on the history of Karkemish and on the Hittite administration (above all the valuable book by T. Bilgin), we believe that it is appropriate to take stock of what we know and have processed up to now, so that at a later date it will be possible to compare this current data with any new data on the same issue.

# 1.2. Historical overview

In the final period of Hittite history, the kingdom of Karkemish played a fundamental political, military (and perhaps economic) role in supporting the Hittite kingdom. After the conquest of the city and its surroundings by the Great King Šuppiluliuma I in the second half of the 14th century BC, a dynasty descending directly from the Hittite ruling house reigned on the North-Syrian throne: the first king of the new dynasty, Piyaššili/Šarri-Kušuḫ, was son of the Hittite Great King Šuppiluliuma I. The kings of Karkemish, who were substantially loyal to the Hittite royal house, played the role of viceroy with competence and political ability for the difficult and politically complex Syrian region.5 The historical events related to this kingdom, its politics and military activities in support of the Hittite Great Kings are quite well known on the basis of the Hittite sources6 and some documents from Syria.7

In Syria, the regional area of their competence, the kings of Karkemish were also very engaged in political and judicial activities:8 numerous documents that show the involvement of Karkemish kings in these kinds of matters were found in Ugarit; the documents from Emar also give us information about a series of particular cases, of a judicial or administrative nature, which involved not only the king of Karkemish, but also princes and officials belonging to the same court. Some documents from other Syrian archives also inform us about important diplomatic and economic activities carried out by the court of Karkemish (Mora 2008).

Considering the fact that none of these documents come from the site itself, it is not simple to reconstruct the administrative apparatus of Karkemish; furthermore, there is often no distinction in the original texts between members of the Hittite court and members of the court of Karkemish.9 A few years ago, I therefore started a study that aimed to reconstruct the organisation and functioning of the court of Karkemish as far as possible, identifying names and roles of princes and officials who belonged to


<sup>5</sup> For a summary of the role and activities carried out by the kingdom of Karkemish in this capacity, with reference to the main documents, cf. de Martino 2014 (who also points out some instances of friction between the Great Hittite king and the king of Karkemish, in particular during the reign of Muršili II).

<sup>6</sup> As we know, the king of Karkemish enjoyed a particular rank in the organisation chart of the Hittite empire, as documented in particular by the text KBo 1.28 (and by the 'Bronze tablet'): cf. Mora 1993; on the treaties between Karkemish and Ḫatti cf. Singer 2001; Giorgieri 2002; d'Alfonso 2007

it. For this purpose, I reviewed the information provided by the texts from Ugarit and Emar (and more rarely from Ḫattuša) in which high-ranking individuals are mentioned; obviously the opinions of other scholars who previously dealt with the topic were also taken into account (cf. note 9). Unfortunately, useful information is rarely obtained from the inscriptions on the seals, because in the case of princes or officials these inscriptions do not indicate the court to which they belonged (this kind of information is instead found on the seals of the kings of Karkemish). Sometimes this information can be obtained from the cuneiform caption which is often placed next to the impression of the seal on the tablet, but even in this case the indication relating to the court is not constant.10

However, considering the importance of the seal as the main tool used by officials for marking documents or for controlling incoming or outgoing goods, an analysis of the seals was also conducted.11 This aspect of the research revealed some characteristics of the seals of the members of the Karkemish court, which made it possible to assume or determine the membership of officials in the North-Syrian court (cf. the following section). These additional elements were particularly useful in the absence of other data.

#### 1.3. The characteristics of the seals from Karkemish

When analysing the seals from Karkemish, it is necessary to begin with the royal seals because there is no doubt that they belong to the North-Syrian court: as indicated above, the royal seals from Karkemish indicate the name of the country, while the seals of princes and officials do not carry this information. A schematic illustration of the most important features of the royal seals from Karkemish is provided here:12 the kings of Karkemish in the 13th-12th centuries BC used both cylinder seals and stamp seals (with a circular base); the presence of a figure with a long dress and a solar winged disk over its head was frequent on these seals; the representation of complex scenes (mostly on cylinder seals), with figures of deities, animals and composite beings (among which, the so-called sphinx) was also frequent.

If we take into consideration some seals of princes or high officials who very likely (in some cases certainly) belonged to the court of Karkemish or who were dependent on kings or princes of Karkemish (based on information obtained from the texts),13 it can be noted that the same characteristics also seem to connote the seals of some princes or officials. Based on the analysis of this documentation, the following observations can also be added:


<sup>10</sup> Cf., in more detail, Mora 2004: 432-433.

<sup>11</sup> Cf. Mora 2004; 2005; 2010; 2014b, to whose bibliography Ishida 2017-2018 is now to be added. 12 For a detailed analysis of the royal seals from Karkemish see also Mora 2004: 428-432; cf. Mora 2014a.

<sup>13</sup> Cf. Mora 2004 and 2010.

<sup>14</sup> It should be noted, however, that some of these features may be considered generically Syro-Hittite (cf. Beyer 1982), and therefore can also be found on seals of eminent individuals from other Syrian centres (e.g. Emar).

Starting from these premises, the following parts of this paper will be devoted to:


As mentioned above, the recent excavations on the Karkemish site have led to the discovery of a large number of sealed *cretulae*. In our opinion, the data presented here could also be a useful basis for comparison when all the data – names and titles – provided by the recently discovered material become available, also for a more in-depth study of the functioning of the main Syrian court during the Hittite era.15

### 2. Lists of Princes and Officials

As mentioned above, in this section, the lists of princes and officials of the court of Karkemish that had previously been drawn up are checked and updated by means of further prosopographic investigations and in light of new data and publications (especially d'Alfonso 2005; Herbordt 2005; Hawkins 2005; Mora 2008 and 2010; Cohen 2009; Lebrun 2014; Bilgin 2018). As for the transcriptions of names in different contexts, we refer in particular (here and in section 3), in addition to the text editions, to NH and NH-S, Pruzsinsky 2003, Lebrun 2014.

These updated lists are divided into two sections: the first includes princes and officials who most likely belong to the court of Karkemish, while the second includes princes and other officials whose membership in the North-Syrian court is very doubtful. The information provided below mainly focuses on the updating of previous lists (for more details, refer to Mora 2004 and other mentioned contributions).

#### 2.1. Princes and officials who almost certainly belong to the court of Karkemish

#### 2.1.1. Princes

From the earliest period of Hittite history, kings could entrust the administration of the conquered areas to their sons, princes of the court of Ḫattuša – as shown, for example, by the historical preamble of the Edict of Telipinu (CTH 19)16 or the Chronicle of Ammuna (CTH 18.C).17 During the so-called Empire period, 'princes' appear in various occurrences in the act of carrying out important tasks in provincial areas. The title of these high dignitaries, 'son of the king' (cun. DUMU.LUGAL, hier. REX. FILIUS),18 however, would not only refer to the princes born of the king, but to all


<sup>15</sup> So far (but Peker's contribution in this volume has yet to be carefully examined) very few names of officials found on newly discovered seal impressions (e.g. Paya/Pa'e, Taya/Ta'e, Zinni, Šunaili) have been disclosed, only one of which (Ewri-Teššub) matches a person documented by previously-known sources. To make matters even more intriguing, some of their titles are also unusual (cf. Peker 2017; Peker 2020; Marchetti, Peker, Zaina in Marchetti *et al.* 2019-2020).

members of the royal family, including the brothers, uncles, and nephews of the ruler in charge, as well as some other individuals who could show blood or adoption ties with the king (or marriage bond with a princess). It therefore seems that this title could not be acquired as a result of a *cursus honorum*. This situation most likely also applied to the royal court of Karkemish in the 13th century BC and to its members; below, the list of princes connected to this royal court is provided.

#### Aliḫešni

The hypothesis of A. belonging to the court of Karkemish is especially supported by van den Hout (1995: 233) and Singer (1999: 654), on the basis of the letter RS 15.77 (PRU III: 6-7), sent by an A. to the king of Ugarit: A. may be the son of king Ini-Teššub and brother of Upparamuwa and Mizra/imuwa (and of Tili-Šarruma according to Singer); A. of Karkemish may however be a different person from the one mentioned in the decree for Šaḫurunuwa. Bilgin (2018: 54) is sceptical of the royal lineage of Upparamuwa, Mizra/imuwa and Tili-Šarruma. According to Lebrun (2014: 90), Aliḫešni, Upparamuwa, Mizra/imuwa and Tili-Šarruma were children of Ḫešmi-Teššub.

#### Armanani

There are several attestations of the name, which are most likely not all attributable to the same person. In our opinion, the A. quoted in the letter Msk 74.734 (published by Salvini, Trémouille 2003), who seems to have received orders from the king of Karkemish, can be identified with the A. mentioned as judge in Emar VI 33. A. impressed his seal, bearing the title REX.FILIUS, on this tablet (Emar IV A 104). He was most probably a prince of Karkemish (cf. also Bilgin 2018: 133). Among the seals with the name A. found in the Nişantepe archive, No. 31 is the most likely candidate for an attribution to this prince of the court of Karkemish (cf. also Mora 2010).

#### Ḫešmi-Teššub

Cf. Mora (2004) for documents and references from Ugarit and Emar, where he is generally referred to as a 'son of a king,' but in one document also as 'brother of the king of Karkemish' (certainly Ini-Teššub). Cf. d'Alfonso (2005: 67); Lebrun (2014: 90 ff.).

#### Ḫešni

There are several individuals with this name; almost certainly one of these was prince of Karkemish (cf. in particular Singer 2003: 343; Mora 2004; de Martino 2012, with references to previous studies). Cf. an in-depth analysis here in section 4.3.

#### Kunti-Teššub

Son of Talmi-Teššub (for references cf. Mora 2004; d'Alfonso 2005: 68).

#### Laḫeia

L. bears the title REX.FILIUS on the cylinder seal Emar IV A 17 from Emar; the caption on the same tablet indicates him as the son of Mutri-Teššub (on the same seal there is a typically Syrian figure with the winged sun above its head, for which see above). In some documents from Emar (cf. Mora 2004; Lebrun 2014: 206-209) L. has the title LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA: due to the same patronymic, he is almost certainly the same person, most likely linked to the court of Karkemish (maybe after marriage?). For the name in the texts from Boğazköy cf. d'Alfonso (2005: 65, 73 f.) and Lebrun (2014: 208-209).

#### Mizra/imuwa

In our opinion, the hypothesis, also supported by van den Hout (1995) and Singer (1997), that M. was connected to the court of Karkemish along with his brother Upparamuwa and the latter's son Piḫa-Tarḫunta, still seems to be valid, albeit uncertain (cf. Mora 2004; 2008; 2010); on the doubts concerning this hypothesis, see also above (Aliḫešni). Bilgin (2018: 213) supports the traditional hypothesis that M. belongs to the court of Ḫattuša ('there is not enough evidence to believe that Upparamuwa and therefore Piḫa-Tarḫunta as well as the aforementioned brother Mizramuwa were princes of the court of Karkemish'). See also Bilgin (2018: 284 ff.) for a survey on the different seals bearing this name.19 According to Lebrun (2014: 103-112), to whom reference should be made for the different attestations of the name, M. could be the son of Ḫešmi-Teššub and not of Ini-Teššub. However, in this case the connection with Karkemish would still be valid. For other references, see also Mora (2008) about Mizra/imuwa and Upparamuwa, and in particular about the hypothesis, put forward by Singer (1997), concerning the integration of the toponym *Kar-ga-m*]*iš* instead of *Ḫat*]-*ti* in Emar VI 211, line 24 (but consider also Bilgin's doubts about Singer's hypothesis). See finally Mora (2004) for the possibility that at least some of the seals found in Ḫattuša bearing this name are attributable to this individual (also due to the presence of a cuneiform inscription, more common on seals of a Syrian origin). For a more detailed analysis, refer to section 4.2 of this contribution. Cf. also the 'prosopographische Untersuchung' in Herbordt 2005: 81.

# Piḫamuwa

In Emar VI 212 P. is attested together with other individuals linked to the court of Karkemish (Piḫa-Tarḫunta, Zulanna). At least two additional elements seem to support an association to Karkemish: on the one hand, the fact that the tablet is believed to have been written in Karkemish; on the other hand, the fact that the cylinder seal owned by this P. seems to retain traces of the title REX.FILIUS (see Emar IV A 109). This P. should probably be kept distinct from other individuals of the same name attested in Hittite documents (and the seals of Nişantepe, where the name is juxtaposed with different titles). According to Lebrun (2014: 217-222), the link with the Syrian court of Karkemish is uncertain.

### Piḫa-Tarḫunta

The following elements may suggest that P.-T. was a prince of Karkemish: the fact that he is described in RS 17.148 as the son of Upparamuwa (see Mora 2004; 2008; 2010), the presence of the winged sun-disk on his seal impression from Emar (Emar IV A 75) and the mention of his name, together with other high-status dignitaries linked to Karkemish, in Emar VI 212, a tablet that was probably written in Karkemish itself (see our observations concerning Piḫamuwa). As already mentioned (see our observations concerning Mizra/imuwa), Bilgin (2018) does not link P.-T. to the court of Karkemish. On the possibility that the P.-T. LÚ.SAG of the Hittite documents was a different person from the P.-T. prince, cf. Mora (2008 and 2010, with references).

#### Tili-Šarruma

According to two sources from Ugarit (see Mora 2004; Bilgin 2018: 54), T.-Š. was the son of the king of Karkemish. According to Bilgin (2018: 54), Singer (1999: 654

<sup>19</sup> See also below, section 4.2.1.b.

f.) and d'Alfonso (2000), he was the son of Ini-Teššub; on the contrary, according to Adamthwaite T.-Š. was the son of Šaḫurunuwa (in our opinion the first hypothesis is preferable). See Hawkins (*apud* Herbordt 2005) and Mora (2010) on the assumption that T.-Š., owner of the seals found at Nişantepe, should be identified with that of the other documents.

# Upparamuwa

On the doubts concerning the hypothesis that U. belongs to the court of Karkemish, see above (Aliḫešni, Mizra/imuwa). For a complete list of the attestations of the name, see also Lebrun (2014: 172 ff.).

2.1.2. Other officials (short summary and data update with respect to Mora 2004)

#### Amanmašu

According to RS 17.28, A. was an attendant of Tili-Šarruma, prince of Karkemish (cf. also further on, section 4.1).

#### Arwašši

A. is quoted as an envoy to Ugarit by the king of Karkemish in RS 16.03.

#### Ebina'e and Kurkalli

They are mentioned as envoys of the king of Karkemish in two documents from Ugarit (RS 17.292, RS 15.77).

#### Kili-Šarruma

K.-Š. was holder of some seals preserved on tablets from Emar (cf. in detail Cohen 2009: 114 f.); in the caption on a tablet, he is referred to as the son of Mutri-Teššub (see below).

#### Kummijaziti

A ring seal impression with the name of K. is found on a tablet from Ugarit (RS 18.20 + 17.371); on the same tablet there is a seal of Zuzulli, *kartappu* of the king of Karkemish (see below). It is not sure, but possible, that he belonged to the same court. The name is also found on two seals from Nişantepe, but there are no elements to establish the identity with the K. found in the Ugarit document.

#### Laat-Dagān

He was a scribe in the service of Tili-Šarruma, prince, son of the king of Karkemish (cf. RS 17.28). Cf., recently, van den Hout 2020: 359.

#### Madi-Dagān

Some individuals with this name are mentioned in Syrian texts (cf. d'Alfonso 2005; Bilgin 2018: 264). In TSBR 64 M.-D. is quoted as 'Chief scribe;' he could be identified with M.-D. to whom a letter from the king of Karkemish is addressed (other references in: Owen 1995; d'Alfonso 2000; Mora 2004; Cohen 2009: 191).

#### Marianni

M. appears as a scribe in a tablet issued and sealed by the king of Karkemish Ini-Teššub (cf. Emar VI 201). In TSBR 37 and 38, an individual with the same name uses seals with signs that are difficult to read and do not seem to be connected to the name M. (see Balza 2012). See Mora 2004, Cohen 2009: 112 and Bilgin 2018: 265, also for bibliographical references.

# Mašamuwa

M. appears as 'Chief scribe' in a document from the vicinity of Emar. According to Y. Cohen (2009: 111), this document was originally written in Karkemish and sealed by Ini-Teššub (for the text edition, see Owen 1995). Probably, along with Zulanna (see below), M. is a member of the court of Karkemish (Mora 2004; Bilgin 2018: 264). It is difficult to identify this M. with the Mašamuwa of the Hittite texts (cf. Mora 2004; Bilgin 2018: 264) and holder of some seals from the Nişantepe archive (Mora 2010).

#### Piḫaziti

High official of Karkemish according to RS 17.248, with cylinder seal (cf. Mora 2004; d'Alfonso 2005: 76). Other attestations of the name, on tablets and seals, cannot be traced back with certainty to the same individual.

#### Pillaza

Cf. RS 16.180, transaction between P., referred to as *ḫuburtanuru* of the king of Karkemish, and the king of Ugarit. Cf. also Bilgin (2018: 405).

#### Uri-Teššub

Quoted as EN É *abussi* of the king of Karkemish in a text published by Owen 1995 (cf. d'Alfonso 2000; Mora 2004; Bilgin 2018: 317).

#### Zulanna

'Chief scribe' in a text from Emar (Msk 73.1019, Emar VI 212: 26; cf. Bilgin 2018: 264). He was active in a later period than Mašamuwa (see above), at the earliest during the reign of Tutḫaliya IV (cf. Bilgin 2018: 264, with reference to Gordin 2010). The tablet is considered to be among those probably written in Karkemish (cf. Mora 2004 for references and for the question concerning the seal A 29). Zulanna is likely the sender of a message sent to the prefect of Ugarit (RS 17.144). Singer (1999: 654) also believes that he was a high dignitary active at the court of Karkemish. Regarding the presence of the name in Emar VI 211, the interpretation of Westenholz (ETBLM: 5) is shared here, and therefore the title DUMU.LUGAL is not considered to be attributed to Z. (for details cf. also Cohen 2009, 111-112 and note 31). For the attestations of the name, see Lebrun (2014: 174 ff.). Cf., recently, van den Hout 2020: 349.

#### Zuzulli

There are several attestations of individuals bearing this name (see Mora 2004; d'Alfonso 2005: 77 f.; Lebrun 2014: 178 ff.; Bilgin 2018: 144 ff.). Z. judge of the verdict RS 18.20 + 17.371 was certainly connected to the king of Karkemish (he also sealed the tablet with his personal seal) and is described as 'Charioteer' of the king of Karkemish (period of Niqmadu III; for the dating cf. also d'Alfonso 2005: 78). In RS 94.2352, Z. is referred to as LÚ.SAG of the king (most likely of the king of Karkemish). According to Bilgin (2018: 331-332) he could be the same person, also given the contemporaneity of the texts. The seal impression (bearing the name Zuzuli, AU-RIGA) found in Samsat (cf. Dinçol 1992) could also belong to the same individual (see Bilgin 2018: 332). For the possible geo-political implications of this discovery cf. d'Alfonso (2005: 78). The other individuals with the same name are probably just homonyms (see Bilgin 2018: 144).

#### 2.1.3. Overseers of the Land (LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA)

To better define the status of the 'Overseers of the Land' within the Hittite hierarchy in Syria headed by the kings of Karkemish, the data provided by the Emar glyptic may be of some help. In fact, even though the title LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA does not seem to have been inscribed on seals,20 thanks to the presence of the seals' captions on the tablets, it has been possible to attribute some of the seal impressions of the Emar *corpus* to the 'Overseers of the Land' documented in the sources.21 The available documentation from the Middle Euphrates area – combined with the fact that the title LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA does not appear in the Anatolian documentation – also seems to suggest that the officials bearing this title depended on the kings of Karkemish, at least until the very final stage of the city of Emar, *c.* 1180 BC.

# Aḫī-mālik

A.-m. is the last 'Overseer of the Land' mentioned at Emar. Y. Cohen and L. d'Alfonso (2008) as well as Y. Cohen in a more recent paper (2012) suggested that his Semitic name, as well as the total lack of documents mentioning Aḫī-mālik in association with a king or an official of Karkemish, lead us to believe that, probably after he took office, he started acting independently from the Hittite administration; for complete references and literature, see Cohen (2012); Cohen, d'Alfonso (2008: 15); Mora (2008: 82).

# Laḫeia

L. was the son and successor of Mutri-Teššub (and brother of Kili-Šarruma). He was also a member of the royal family of Karkemish (see above, concerning Laḫeia as DUMU.LUGAL of Karkemish). L.'s cylinder seal with the title 'Prince' is very interesting and important (see Emar IV A 17): it has a complex iconography, with the presence of the well-known male figure in a long dress with the winged sun-disk at the top of the scene (cf. Mora 2004 and 2005).

# Mutri-Teššub

M.-T. is attested as 'Overseer of the Land' in several documents from Emar and its vicinity; he is the father of Laḫeia and Kili-Šarruma (for complete references, cf. Balza 2006).

# Naḫeia

For this individual and especially for the possibility that he could be identified with Laḫeia, 'Prince' and 'Overseer of the Land,' see Yamada (1995: 303, with n. 24; Di Filippo 2004: 186).

# Puḫi-šenni:

This individual is mentioned as 'Overseer of the Land' in Emar VI 181 and PdA 66, and as 'top scribe,' DUB.SAR.MAḪ, in Emar VI 201 (see AuOr 2:182 ff.; d'Alfonso 2000: 279; Cohen 2009: 112). According to d'Alfonso (2000), he may first have been the 'Overseer of the Land' in the region of Aštata, and then scribe in Karkemish.

<sup>20</sup> This title could match the hieroglyphic title REGIO.DOMINUS attested in some contemporary sites: see Mora 2000; Singer 2000.

<sup>21</sup> For a list of the 'Overseers of the Land,' see Beckman 1992; 1995; Adamthwaite 2001: 49-53; Di Filippo 2004: 178 ff.; Cohen, d'Alfonso 2008: 15; cf. also Cohen 2012.

# Tuwariša?/Tuwarša

T. was probably also an official active in Emar. A certain T., who was a LÚ.UGULA. KALAM.MA, is mentioned as first witness in HIR 45 (name spelling: m*Tu-wa-ri-ša*, cf. Pruzsinsky 2003: 794; for the dating of the text, see Skaist 1998: 56-57; Di Filippo 2004: 178, n. 19). It is possible that he was a short-lived predecessor of Aḫi-mālik, following Laḫeia, or perhaps he was stationed in Emar briefly before Laḫeia. Several seals with this name come from Ḫattuša, including one with the title 'Prince,' from Nişantepe (No. 484 in Herbordt 2005, but probably this T. is a namesake; name spelling: [*Tu*? ]-*wa/i+ra/i-sà*); on the other seals he bears the title SCRIBA (see Herbordt 2005: nos 475-483, name spelling: *Tu*-*wa/i+ra/i-sà*). The name is otherwise not attested in the 2nd millennium documentation; cf. however a similar name in KARKAMIŠ A7j (Hawkins 2000, vol. 1: 129; cf. Hawkins 2005: 277; name spelling: m*Tú-wa/i+ra/i-sai-sá*, with '*i-*mutation').

2.2. Princes and other officials whose membership in the court of Karkemish in the 13th century BC is uncertain yet possible

# Armaziti

Cf. Mora (2004, with reference to previous studies); Bilgin (2018: 228, 429); Lebrun (2014: 48-76); d'Alfonso (2005: 66-67). It is doubtful whether the Armaziti who was active in Syria was directly connected to the Hittite court or to that of Karkemish: the former is perhaps more likely, but the seal on the tablet RS 17.314 could be of North-Syrian production. For other interesting seals from Nişantepe cf. Mora (2010).

# Baba

There are many individuals with this name in Emar. At Ugarit, the verdict RS 17.299 issued by a Baba perhaps attributable to the court of Karkemish is worthy of interest.

# Ḫilarizi

This name appears on some seals from the Emar area and from Ḫattuša. A cylinder seal from Emar has Syro-Hittite characteristics. It is uncertain whether Ḫ. belonged to the court of Karkemish, however there are some clues to support this hypothesis (cf. Mora 2004); about Ḫ., and Burāqu, who used several times his seal, see also Cohen 2009: 108, 113.

# Kummawalwi

The available data does not seem sufficient to propose a link to the Karkemish court (cf. Mora 2004). The ring seal written in cuneiform seems to indicate a Syrian origin.

# Madi-Dagān

An individual named M.-D. is the recipient of a letter sent by the king of Karkemish (cf. AuOr 2). It is difficult to trace other attestations of the name to the same individual: cf. Mora 2004; d'Alfonso 2000: 282; Cohen 2009: 32 (note 113); Bilgin 2018: 264.

# Taki-Šarruma

It is debated whether T.-Š. was dependent on the Hittite king or the king of Karkemish (cf. Mora 2004 for details and references). Singer (2003) proposed that he was a Hittite high official designated high commissioner for Syrian affairs (the hypothesis is also shared by Lebrun 2014). For comments on the presence of the title SCRIBA on the seal of T.-Š. cf. van den Hout (2020: 349).

# Takuḫlinu

It was debated whether T. was an official of the court of Karkemish or of Ugarit. Some clues, including the type of seal, seem to suggest the former: for a re-examination, which takes into account the accurate study by Singer (1983), cf. Mora (2004). Bilgin (2018: 231, 233 f.) seems to support the hypothesis of Singer 1983 (that is, that T. was an official of Ugarit), but he does not mention Roche (2001, for which see also Mora 2004), who supports the hypothesis of T. belonging to the court of Karkemish. As pointed out in Mora (2004), the Syro-Hittite seal seems to indicate a Syrian origin.

# Tuppi-Teššub

There are insufficient data (and different opinions) to propose a link between this individual and the court of Karkemish (see Mora 2004 for details and bibliographical references).

# Tuwataziti

According to an attestation from Emar, T. may have been a prince of Karkemish: cf. Mora (2004 with other references), Bilgin (2018: 330), d'Alfonso (2005: 70 f.), Lebrun (2014: 214-215).

# 3. Tentative Chronology: Generations of Kings and Officials at Karkemish

The previous section listed the individuals connected to the court of Karkemish in varying degrees. We will now attempt to place their period of activity chronologically. In this section, the members of the court of Karkemish that were listed in sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 are tentatively placed in the period of reign (or generation) of the local kings. For each official listed in the following tables, a short chronological commentary with synchronisms with other officials and/or the kings of Karkemish (and/ or Ḫattuša) is provided.

Table 1: The reign of Šaḫurunuwa


# 1. Ḫešmi-Teššub:

Brother of the king of Karkemish, most probably Ini-Teššub, thus son of king Šaḫurunuwa. According to L. d'Alfonso (2005: 67), this prince was at the head of the Hittite administration of Emar for a certain period; in addition, he is mentioned in the documentation from Ugarit dating to the period of Ammistamru, the local king contemporary of Ini-Teššub and, partially, of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV (for the list of occurrences of the name, see Lebrun 2014: 90 ff.). Ḫešmi-Teššub is also mentioned in KUB 48.88 (CTH 190), a letter likely sent by queen Puduḫepa to her husband. Here, in Vo x+1, Ḫešmi-Teššub is probably to be recognised as the co-sender of the document (see Hagenbuchner 1989: 18). According to this evidence and to some additional attested synchronisms (cf. especially d'Alfonso 2000: 289-291), the period of activity of Ḫešmi-Teššub as an official of Karkemish is therefore to be placed between the reign of his father Šaḫurunuwa (old) and that of his brother Ini-Teššub (the first twenty years of his reign?).

# 2. Puḫi-šenni:

Puḫi-šenni was a Hittite official from Karkemish, holder of the titles DUB.SAR. MAḪ, 'top scribe' (Emar VI 201) and LÚ.UGULA.KALAM.MA (Emar VI 181, PdA 66, TSBR 56). The available documentation on Puḫi-šenni demonstrates that he was contemporary of Ḫešmi-Teššub (both are mentioned in PdA 66; cf. d'Alfonso 2000: 279, 283-284). In addition, the individual named Tura-Dagān son of Daqani, who is mentioned in MFA 1977 (l. 25), a text dating to the very beginning of Ini-Teššub's reign (see d'Alfonso 2000 and 2001 with references), is also listed as witness in TSBR 56 (l. 17), a text mentioning Puḫi-šenni. Based on this evidence, Puḫi-šenni seems to have been active between the reign of Šaḫurunuwa and the reign of Ini-Teššub.

# 3. Madi-Dagān:

Several tablets from Emar and its vicinity mention the name Madi-Dagān. Amongst this evidence, there is an individual, Madi-Dagān LÚ.GAL.DUB.SAR, who is most likely linked to the court of Karkemish. This Madi-Dagān seems to be recognised as the individual mentioned in HIR 3, TSBR 30, 64 and 65, SMEA-30 9, and probably in TSBR 95 (= AuOr 2 2; see d'Alfonso 2000: 282; 2005: 47 for a survey on the available documentation; cf. also Cohen 2009: 189-194, with references). Since Madi-Dagān appears together with Ḫešmi-Teššub in some texts (HIR 3 and TSBR 30), it is possible to establish the contemporaneity between these two officials. Madi-Dagān would therefore have been active during the same period: between the reign of Šaḫurunuwa (old) and the reign of his son Ini-Teššub (the first part?).

# 4. Marianni:

Marianni is mentioned in some texts from the region of Emar (Emar VI 201, TSBR 37 and 38, HIR 13, ETBLM 8, and, perhaps, Emar VI 254). Among these occurrences, it is especially interesting that this individual, mentioned alongside Puḫi-šenni in Emar VI 201 (a tablet written in Karkemish) was also possibly a DUB.SAR.MAḪ, as the single title mentioned in connection to their names may have referred to both individuals (cf. Cohen 2009: 112). On the grounds of the available evidence discussed in a previous paper (see Balza 2012 with literature; cf. also d'Alfonso 2000: 283-284), Marianni, contemporary with both Šaḫurunuwa and Ini-Teššub, was part of the first generation of officials dispatched from Karkemish to Emar. His period of activity could therefore be placed between the end of the reign of Šaḫurunuwa and the beginning of that of Ini-Teššub. At that moment, the Hittite administration over Emar was still at its initial stage. Possibly for this reason, the role of Marianni as a Hittite official is not mentioned in the extant documentation. Subsequently, shortly after the accession of Ini-Teššub to the throne of Karkemish, the prince Ḫešmi-Teššub was sent to Emar and a proper administration was installed over the town.

# 5. Mašamuwa:

Mašamuwa GAL LÚ.MEŠ.DUB.SAR wrote the tablet MFA 1977, and perhaps RE 85, though here the scribe's name is completely broken off (cf. d'Alfonso 2001: 272). According to d'Alfonso (2000 and 2001), this tablet should be placed in the first part of Ini-Teššub's reign, and its drafting should be considered contemporary to Emar VI 201, a text also mentioning Marianni and Puḫi-šenni (cf. Table 1, s.v. Marianni and

Puḫi-šenni). Therefore, Mašamuwa's activity should also be placed between the reigns of Šaḫurunuwa and Ini-Teššub.

# 6. Uri-Teššub:

The tablet MFA 1977 ends with a colophon (ll. 37-41) naming the scribe who wrote the tablet, Mašamuwa (see above, s.v. Mašamuwa) in the presence of Uri-Teššub, 'Overseer of the Storehouse' of king Ini-Teššub. According to L. d'Alfonso (2001: 274), the available documentation on Uri-Teššub is 'enough to propose that next to the Queen mother the Overseer of the Storehouse, Uri-Teššub, was the individual closest to the young king at the beginning of his reign, and probably the most important figure at the court of Karkemish at that time.' Since Uri-Teššub played an important role at the beginning of Ini-Teššub's reign, it is reasonable to assume that he was also active in the period prior to Ini-Teššub's ascent to the throne.


Table 2: The reign of Ini-Teššub

# 1. Aliḫešni:

According to RS 15.077 (PRU III: 6-7), Aliḫešni was active at Ugarit after Armaziti had left the Syrian town. It therefore seems possible that Aliḫešni was active in the same generation of Armaziti or shortly after, thus most likely during the reign of Ibiranu of Ugarit, Ini-Teššub of Karkemish and, probably, Tutḫaliya IV. Armaziti is in fact wellknown from Hittite texts from the time of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV (cf. Imparati 1987: 197 ff.; Imparati 1988; see also Lebrun 2014: 48 ff. for a survey on the question of the dating of the texts mentioning Armaziti; Bilgin 2018: 228, 429).

# 2. Armanani:

Armanani is the judge of the verdict recorded in Emar VI 33. This tablet can be dated between the 2nd and the 3rd generation of the members of the Zū-Ba'la family, the powerful family of local diviners at Emar. This dating is grounded on the fact that Emar VI 33 mentions, among the people who sealed the tablet, Dagān-tāri' son of Matkali-Dagān. This Dagān-tāri' was contemporary of the 'Overseer of the Land' Mutri-Teššub (*via* TS-BR 36 and 76, and RE 56; cf. Balza 2006 and 2007). Mutri-Teššub, in turn, was active during the 2nd and, partially, the 3rd generation of the Zū-Ba'la family (see also below, in this Table, s.v. Mutri-Teššub). According to some other chronological considerations, this period may correspond to the reign of Ini-Teššub in his mature age and the beginning of the reign of Talmi-Teššub (see especially Balza 2006: 382-383; 2007).

3. Ḫešmi-Teššub: See Table 1, s.v. Ḫešmi-Teššub.

# 4. Ḫešni:

According to a letter from Tell Šēḥ Ḥamad, this prince, most likely a son of Ini-Teššub, was active during the reign of the Assyrian king Tukultī-Ninurta I, therefore between the reigns of Ini-Teššub and of his son Talmi-Teššub. For complete data see below, section 4.3.

# 5. Mizra/imuwa:

Mizra/imuwa, whose brother's name is also known (Upparamuwa, see below, in this Table, s.v. Upparamuwa), was active during the reign of Ibiranu of Ugarit. He was then contemporary of Ini-Teššub of Karkemish (see below, section 4.2, for a prosopographic analysis on this individual).

# 6. Piḫa-Tarḫunta:

Piḫa-Tarḫunta, most likely a son of the prince Upparamuwa (see below, in this Table, s.v. Upparamuwa), was probably active at Emar between the reign of Ini-Teššub (mature phase) and the reign of his successor Talmi-Teššub. This assumption is based on the analysis of some texts. On the one hand, Piḫa-Tarḫunta appears in Emar VI 211, which mentions the 'Overseer' Mutri-Teššub and dates to the generation of the local powerful diviner Ba'l-qarrād (of the Zū-Ba'la family), contemporary of Ini-Teššub; on the other hand, Piḫa-Tarḫunta is also active in Emar VI 212, a document in which Ba'l-qarrād's son, Ba'l-mālik (contemporary of Talmi-Teššub), is the plaintiff (the text also contains the news of the death of Ba'l-qarrād). This Ba'l-mālik was active during the reign of Talmi-Teššub (see Cohen, d'Alfonso 2008 with literature; for an examination of the chronological implications of Emar VI 211 and Emar VI 212, see especially d'Alfonso 2000: 277-278).

# 7. Tili-Šarruma:

For the dating of this prince, see especially RS 18.114 (PRU IV: 82), l. 5, where Tili-Šarruma is described as the son of the king of Karkemish (cf. l. 5: '… *ù* LUGAL KUR-*Ka*]*r*-*ga*-*mis a*-*na mTi*-*li*-LUGAL-*ma* DUMU-*šu*'). The latter, according to most scholars, could be identified with Ini-Teššub (see above section 2.1.1). Based on this hypothesis, Tili-Šarruma would most probably have been active during the long reign of his father.

# 8. Upparamuwa:

Upparamuwa appears in RS 17.423 (PRU IV: 193) as a brother of Mizra/imuwa and in RS 17.148 (PRU VI: 9-11, No. 7) as the father of Piḫa-Tarḫunta. This latter is most likely to be identified with the prince of the same name, who was also active at Emar (see above, in this Table, s.v. Piḫa-Tarḫunta), and contemporary of Ini-Teššub (mature phase, *via* his mention, together with the 'Overseer' Mutri-Teššub, in Emar VI 211) and Talmi-Teššub (*via* his mention, together with the 'Overseer' Mutri-Teššub, in Emar VI 212). This being the case, and taking into consideration the contemporaneity between Upparamuwa and his brother Mizra/imuwa (see above, in this Table, s.v. Mizra/imuwa), it seems quite likely that Upparamuwa was active during the reign of Ini-Teššub.

9. Puḫi-šenni:

See Table 1, s.v. Puḫi-šenni.

# 10. Mutri-Teššub:

Mutri-Teššub is one of the best-known 'Overseers of the Land' mentioned in the Emar written documentation. Not only was he contemporary of the diviner Ba'l-qarrād (of the Zū-Ba'la family), with whom he appears in Emar VI 211, but he was also

active after the death of Ba'l-qarrād. In fact, Mutri-Teššub took part as witness in the trial Emar VI 212, in which Ba'l-qarrād's son, Ba'l-mālik, was the plaintiff (the text also contains the news of the death of Ba'l-qarrād). Shortly after the drafting of the text, however, most likely Laḫeia succeeded his father in the position of 'Overseer' (see Emar VI 90). Based on the available documentation, Mutri-Teššub was contemporary of the king Ini-Teššub. For more details on this individual and his career, see Balza (2006).

# 11. Amanmašu:

The chronological arrangement of this official depends on his connections with Tili-Šarruma, son of Ini-Teššub (see above, in this Table, s.v. Tili-Šarruma; cf. also below, section 4.1).

# 12. Arwašši:

This individual is mentioned in a letter (RS 16.003 = PRU III: 4) sent by the King of Karkemish, most likely Ini-Teššub (see Singer 1999: 652), to Ammistamru of Ugarit. The document states that the king of Karkemish was about to send a person called Arwašši to Ugarit. After his arrival, Arwašši was to decide a juridical case concerning the '*ḫābiru*' (SA.GAZ).

# 13. Ebina'e and Kurkalli:

Some Ugarit tablets mention Ebina'e and Kurkalli: a letter sent by a king of Karkemish (probably Ini-Teššub) and addressed to Ibiranu (RS 17.292 = PRU IV: 188); a letter sent by prince Aliḫešni (RS 15.077 = PRU III: 6-7) and most likely also addressed to Ibiranu; a letter in which Ebina'e himself addressed the governor of Ugarit (RS 17.078 = PRU IV: 196-197). From this evidence, it follows that the period of activity of Ebina'e and Kurkalli overlapped the period of activity of prince Aliḫešni. As they were probably in charge of marking out the borders already fixed by Armaziti (at least according to the information contained in the Ugarit letters), these two officials, just like Aliḫešni, were active during the same phase as or shortly after Armaziti (see also above, in this Table, s.v. Aliḫešni).

# 14. Laat-Dagān:

The chronological arrangement of this official depends on his connections with Tili-Šarruma, son of Ini-Teššub (see above, section 2.1.1).

15. Madi-Dagān: See Table 1, s.v. Madi-Dagān.

16. Marianni: See Table 1, s.v. Marianni.

17. Mašamuwa: See Table 1, s.v. Mašamuwa.

# 18. Piḫaziti:

As for the dating of the activity of this high official (whose title is unfortunately lost), a survey on the few extant occurrences was carried out by L. d'Alfonso (2005: 76 with references); according to his examination, Piḫaziti may have been active between the end of the reign of Ini-Teššub and the beginning of the reign of Talmi-Teššub.

19. Uri-Teššub: See Table 1, s.v. Uri-Teššub.

20. Zulanna:

According to the Emar documentation, Zulanna was a GAL LÚ.MEŠ.DUB.SAR. He is mentioned in Emar VI 212, where he just acted as a witness and was probably not the scribe who wrote the tablet (cf. Cohen 2009: 111). The tablet, as already observed, is related to a business of Ba'l-mālik of the Zū-Ba'la family, who was contemporary of both king Ini-Teššub and Talmi-Teššub of Karkemish. Zulanna may have been active during the same chronological phase. His mention in RS 17.144 (PRU VI: 7) does not provide any clear clues to better define the period in which he was active as 'Chief scribe.'

Table 3: The reign of Talmi-Teššub22


# 1. Ḫešni:

See Table 2, s.v. Ḫešni (cf. below, section 4.3).

# 2. Ku(n)ti-Teššub:

According to HIR 46, Ku(n)ti-Teššub was a prince of Karkemish, likely a son of Talmi-Teššub, and was active between the city of Emar and Karkemish during the reign of his father (see d'Alfonso 2005: 68).

# 3. Laḫeia:

Laḫeia, prince and 'Overseer of the Land,' is the son of the 'Overseer' Mutri-Teššub (see Table 2, s.v. Mutri-Teššub) and, therefore, was active as an official during the 3rd generation of the Zū-Ba'la family, at the time of the diviner Ba'l-mālik, contemporary of Talmi-Teššub. He probably joined the royal family of Karkemish following his marriage to a woman (a princess) belonging to the court (for the attestation of Laḫeia in the documentation from Emar, see Balza 2009: 90-95; see also Lebrun 2014: 208-209 for the presence of the name at Ḫattuša).

<sup>22</sup> In a recent paper L. d'Alfonso and Y. Cohen (d'Alfonso, Cohen 2021) put forward the existence of an additional king of Karkemish, Mazi-Karḫuḫa/Maziya, whose reign could be placed between the reigns of Ini-Teššub and Talmi-Teššub. This suggestion, based on the analysis of two sources (a cuneiform text and a short inscription in Anatolian hieroglyphs) is very interesting and deserves attention. However, since no other source is known at the moment on this king, it is not possible to attribute the period of activity of some princes or court dignitaries to his (probably quite short) reign. It is also interesting to note that the cuneiform document that mentions the king Maziya, also mentions a Talmi-Šarruma 'Governor of the Land of Emar' (GAR KUR URU*I*-*mar*-*ra*, cf. d'Alfonso, Cohen 2021: 63-64). This official has not been taken into consideration in the present paper as there is insufficient data to link him to the Karkemish court (see above, section 2.2., for another official bearing the title 'Governor': Takuḫlinu).

# 4. Piḫamuwa:

Piḫamuwa is mentioned in a text from Emar, Emar VI 212, together with other important dignitaries linked to the court of Karkemish, Mutri-Teššub – contemporary of Ini-Teššub and likely also active at the time of Talmi-Teššub – and Piḫa-Tarḫunta. As for the dating of the tablet, consider also that Emar VI 212, ll. 4-5, states that the diviner Ba'l-qarrād (of the Zū-Ba'la family) was dead. Therefore, the text should be assigned to the period in which Ba'l-mālik son of Ba'l-qarrād was LÚ.ḪAL at Emar. This period can be dated between the final phase of Ini-Teššub's reign and Talmi-Teššub's reign.

# 5. Piḫa-Tarḫunta:

On the dating of Piḫa-Tarḫunta to the period bridging the reigns of Ini-Teššub and Talmi-Teššub, see above (Table 2, s.v. Piḫa-Tarḫunta).

#### 6. Tuwariša? /Tuwarša:

A certain Tuwariša, who was an 'Overseer of the Land' of Emar, is mentioned as first witness in HIR 45. This individual was probably active around the time of Ba'l-mālik of the Zū-Ba'la family (cf. Skaist 1998: 56-57; Di Filippo 2004: 178, n. 19). According to Cohen (2012: 18, n. 17), he could have been either a short-lived predecessor of Aḫi-mālik, following Laḫeia, or a predecessor of Laḫeia who briefly held the post of 'Overseer' after Mutri-Teššub. In this case, Tuwariša would also have been contemporary of Ini-Teššub. Whatever the case may be, it is nevertheless interesting to observe that both Laḫeia and Tuwariša appear to have carried the title LÚ.UGULA.KALAM. MA and the title DUMU.LUGAL (cf. HIR 45, where the by-script of his seal on the tablet refers to him as 'Tuwariša, the Overseer of the Land' and the hieroglyphic legend on the seal impression reads 'Tuwariša, prince;' cf. also above, 2.1.3).

7. Mutri-Teššub: See Table 2, s.v. Mutri-Teššub.

8. Laḫeia: See this Table, s.v. Laḫeia (DUMU.LUGAL).

9. Tuwariša? /Tuwarša: See this Table, s.v. Tuwariša? /Tuwarša (DUMU.LUGAL).

# 10. Kili-Šarruma:

Kili-Šarruma, son of Mutri-Teššub (see Table 2, s.v. Mutri-Teššub) was the cosignatory with Ba'l-mālik of the Zū-Ba'la family on one document, Emar VI 61, a docket of a sealed box of valuable stones from the Temple of Ba'al. Although designated as a scribe, he was the son of Mutri-Teššub and thus probably bore additional responsibilities (see Cohen 2009: 114-115). As for the dating of this individual, it is unclear whether he was active exclusively during the reign of Talmi-Teššub or whether he was active even earlier.

11. Piḫaziti: See Table 2, s.v. Piḫaziti.

12. Zulanna: See Table 2, s.v. Zulanna.

# 13. Zuzulli:

Based on some synchronisms with other known individuals, the period of activity of Zuzulli, *kartappu* of the king of Karkemish – who was also referred to as LÚ.SAG of the king (of Karkemish, cf. Bilgin 2018: 332-333) – was placed between the end of the 13th century BC and the beginning of the 12th century BC by d'Alfonso (2005: 78). Therefore, Zuzulli may have been active during the reign of Talmi-Teššub and possibly even later, during the reign of his successor.

#### 4. Amanmašu, Mizra/imuwa, Ḫešni: A Brief Prosopographical Insight

This section analyses three personal names of people who were allegedly related to Karkemish in order to provide a more in-depth prosopographical investigation: Amanmašu/Manamasu (section 4.1) and Mizra/imuwa (section 4.2) because they provide an insight into contacts between Syria and Egypt in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, and Ḫešni (section 4.3) because his belonging to Karkemish has been under debate.

Each entry is divided into three sections: the first offers basic onomastic data (NH, NH-S, RO) and sources, i.e. cuneiform texts (sub-section 'a') and glyptic (sub-section 'b'),23 the second adds references to main commentaries,24 and the third presents a short prosopographical discussion.

Although the prosopographical analysis is based on previous studies (mostly de Martino 2012; Hawkins 2005; Imparati 1974; Mora, various contributions; Stefanini 1962; Tani 2001; van den Hout 1995), it focuses on primary sources wherever possible (both cuneiform texts and glyptic) in order to better define the identity of the names under investigation and to distinguish between possible homonyms. For further data on some names quoted in this section, cf. above, sections 2 and 3.

# 4.1. Amanmašu/Manamasu

#### 4.1.1. Data

NH 45: '*Amanmasu*. Serviteur de Tili-Šarruma à Kargamis : akk. m*A-ma-an-ma-aš- -šu*/*ši.* RS 17.28, 4, 8, 16, 27 […]; m*A-ma-an-ma-ši*, *ibid.* sceau ; hiér. *Ma-n(a)-ma-su*, Ug. III 50, 142 sq. Nom égyptien.'

#### 4.1.1.a. Cuneiform sources

# A. RS 17.28 (76) = CTH 215

Content: Juridical act involving Tili-Šarruma,25 son of the king of Karkemish, the king of Ugarit (Niqmepa, *c.* 1313-1260 BC26), the servant Yapa'u, and his sons. Reign of Ḫattušili III. Amanmašu, witness, is mentioned here four times (Rs. 0, 4, 8; Vs. 27).


<sup>23</sup> Sources are prefixed by a Latin uppercase letter (A, B, C, etc.) used as reference in the last prosopographical section.

Relevant passage(s):27


#### 4.1.1.b. Glyptic

B. Mora 1987, IX 2.1 = SHS2 : UG 4 Type: cylindrical, digraphic sealing. Provenance: Ras Shamra/Ugarit. Dating: Mora 1990: 13th century BC. Name(s): cuneiform, m*A-ma-an-ma-š*[*u*]; hieroglyphic, *Ma-na-ma-su*.

#### 4.1.2. Commentaries

Albright 1946: 10, No. 3; De Pietri 2022; Mora 1987: 241; Mora 1990: 65; Mora 2004: 439; Ranke 1935: 29, No. 8; Ug. III: 142-143.

#### 4.1.3. Prosopographical discussion

The name Amanmašu is mentioned five times in the cuneiform and hieroglyphic documentation: first, there are three mentions in some Amarna letters sent by the king of Byblos Rib-Hadda to the Pharaoh (EA 105, EA 113, and EA 114);29 second, the name is quoted in one document from Ugarit/Ras Shamra accompanied by a digraphic sealing bearing this name both in cuneiform and Anatolian hieroglyphic writings (RS 17.28 + Mora 1987, IX 2.1).

Therefore, we can firstly ascertain the existence of two persons carrying this name: Amanmašu1 30 (lived in the Amarna Age, reign of Amenhotep III, *c.* 1390-1353 BC31) and Amanmašu2 (contemporary to Tili-Šarruma of Karkemish, probably son of Ini-Teššub). It is to be noted that Schaeffer (Ug. III: 142-143) considered Amanmašu1 = Amanmašu2, but this opinion does not fit the chronology.

We could even take into account the existence of a possible Amanmašu3 if we consider the person quoted in EA 114 (*al-lu* <sup>m</sup>*A-ma-an-ma-ša*) to be a different messenger, as also suggested by Albright (1946: 10, No. 3).

#### 4.2. Mizra/imuwa

The reading, etymology, and interpretation of this name have been discussed: while some scholars (e.g. Laroche, NH: 247) have advanced a stemming from the term 'Egypt,' KUR URU*Mizra*/*i* or KUR URU*Mizzari*, others, namely Carruba (1990), analysed the first compound of this name as deriving from a sheer Anatolian linguistic *milieu*.

<sup>m</sup>*A-ma-an-ma-ša*, 'the other A.'). 30 Numbers in subscript after the personal name are used to distinguish homonyms.

<sup>27</sup> PRU IV: 109-110 (IV E 6), pl. II.

<sup>28</sup> (…) = *omissis*.

<sup>29</sup> Schniedewind, Cochavi-Rainey 2015: 568-575 (EA 105; l. 34: m*A-*⸢*ma*⸣*-an-*[*ma-š*]*a*); 602-605 (EA 113; ll. 36, 43: m*A-ma-an-ma-ša* and m*A-*[*ma-an-ma-ša*], respectively); 606-609 (EA 114, l. 51: *al-lu*

<sup>31</sup> Chronology according to Hornung, Krauss, Warburton 2006.

#### 4.2.1. Data

NH 811: '*Mizramuwa*.


NH-S 811: '*Mizramuwa*.


Content: Land donation by Tutḫaliya IV to Šaḫurunuwa mentioning the king of Karkemish Ini-Teššub and his son Upparamuwa.

Relevant passage(s):33


# B. RS 17.423 = CTH 187

Content: Letter sent by a king of Karkemish34 to the king of Ugarit Ibiranu (*c.* 1235- 1225/1220 BC); the former king informs the latter about the arrival at Ugarit of one of his sons (i.e. Mizra/imuwa).

Relevant passage(s):35


C. KUB 6.18: document not relevant to the present enquiry (female name).

D. KBo 13.235, CTH 526.4 (jh.)

Content: Text reporting offerings made to gods and goddesses of the city of Taḫpetaš. Among the various offerors, a Mizra/imuwa is also included.

Relevant passage(s):36


Mizramuwa (they) ma[ke?

<sup>34</sup> Generally, but allegedly recognized with Ini-Teššub (see Imparati, RlA VIII: 317).

<sup>36</sup> Cf. Torri, Barsacchi 2018: 259.

<sup>32</sup> [KUB] (omitted by Laroche) is added here for clarity. Furthermore, KUB and KBo numbers are reported here with Arabic ciphers instead of the Roman numbers used by Laroche.

<sup>33</sup> Imparati 1974: 38-39.

<sup>35</sup> Cf. PRU IV: 193 (VI B 3), pl. LXXIII.

<sup>37</sup> Possible integration of this line based on the following l. 9: DÙ*-a*[*n-zi* (= *kišanzi*), 'they make' (HZL: 128, No. 75).

#### 4.2.1.b. Glyptic


#### 4.2.2. Commentaries

Bilgin 2018: 284-287; Hawkins 1995: 264-265; Herbordt 2005: 81; van den Hout 1995: 233-235; Imparati 1987; Lebrun 2014: 103-111; Mora 2004: 436; Mora 2007: 557-558; Mora 2008: 557-558; Mora 2010: 173-174; Singer 1997: 420.

#### 4.2.3. Prosopographical discussion

Etymology of the name: to ascertain if the first part of the name, as written in Anatolian hieroglyphs, can be interpreted as 'Egypt,' it could be helpful to compare the spelling of the toponym on two Iron Age inscriptions, KARKAMIŠ A6 (8th century BC)42 and ALEPPO 7 (reign of Taita).43 The former inscription reads '("*MÍ*.REGIO") *mi-za+ra*/*i*(URBS)' on line 4, while the latter quotes '*MÍ*.REGIO' on line 7. The spelling of the name 'Egypt' in the former document may support an interpretation (albeit not decisive) of the name Mizra/imuwa as deriving from the same toponym. Furthermore, the use of the same compound for a feminine name (NH 811, 3) would not fit the meaning of 'strong son' advanced by Carruba (1990), who proposed a pure Anatolian etymology (cf. de Martino 1986).

We can allegedly recognise the existence of at least six different 'entries' related to people named Mizra/imuwa; equivalences are suggested on the basis of spellings and titles:44


<sup>38</sup> SBo II: 69.

<sup>39</sup> Reading according to Carruba 1990: 243: '*mi-za/i+ra/i-mu*.'


Besides these data, we must keep in mind that some sealings may have belonged to the same person even though the titles are not exactly the same: e.g., a possible 'upgrade' in the personal *curriculum* of an official could be attested by the presence of a more complex or higher title (e.g. from a 'simple' SCRIBA to a more 'prestigious' MAG-NUS.SCRIBA or BONUS2.SCRIBA50). Hence, since Mizra/imuwa4-6 may actually be the same person and Mizra/imuwa3 (*casus absolutus*) may be the same as Mizra/imuwa1 (A) in nominative, we can conclude that there were actually three different Mizra/imuwa in existence.


Finally, according to data from source B and other documents, we can build up the following family tree for Mizra/imuwa2 of Karkemish:51

4.3. Ḫešni

4.3.1. Data

NH 373: '*Ḫešni*.


NH-S 373: '*Ḫešni*.


RO: '[NH 373, 69; NH-S 15]; ABoT 2.390, 6', KUB 60.102 9'.'

4.3.1.a. Cuneiform sources

A. KBo 4.10, CTH 106.II.2 (jh.)

Content: Text reporting a treaty stipulated by king Ḫattušili III and the king of Tarḫuntašša Ulmi-Teššub/Kurunt(iy)a.

Relevant passage(s):56



<sup>51</sup> '↓' means 'father of;' '=' should be read 'brother of.'

B. KUB 25.10, CTH 626.Tg03.I.1 (sjh.) Content: Text reporting instruction for the preparation of the *nuntarriyašḫaš*fest. Relevant passage(s):57



Content: Undefined juridical protocol, related to cultic activities involving the Sun-goddess of Arinna.


Content: Probably an undefined juridical protocol, referring to the so-called 'Ḫešni conspiracy.'60

Relevant passage(s):61 Passages are not reported here since no titles or further information that would be useful to the present analysis can be found therein.

# F. KBo 14.142, CTH 698.I.A (sjh.)

Content: Text regarding preparations for festivals involving the god Teššub and the goddess Ḫepat of Aleppo.

Relevant passage(s):


# G. KUB 40.96, CTH 242.5 (jh.)

Content: Inventory text involving a person named Ḫešni who is in charge of controlling some metal goods.

Relevant passage(s):62


H. KUB 46.22, CTH 526.28 (sjh.)

Content: Cultic inventory text involving a person named Ḫešni.


<sup>57</sup> Cf. Nakamura 2002: 141.

<sup>58</sup> HZL: 237, No. 294: 'LÚŠÀ.TAM' "Verwalter, Kämmerer";' cf. Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 130-132 ('tesoriere'), mentioning Ḫešni on p. 131.

Relevant passage(s):


Content: Inventory text mentioning Ḫešni checking a tube of silver brought by Kammaliya of Tūmanna.

Relevant passage(s):65


 (…) 1 tube (of) silver: Kammaliya / man of Tūmanna; Ḫešni has checked (…)

```
K. KBo 18.134, CTH 186 (jh.)
```
Content: Letter sent by Ḫattušili III or Tutḫaliya IV addressing his son Ḫešni (probably in charge of a diplomatic mission to Babylon).


L. KBo 18.48, CTH 186 (mh.67)

Content: Letter sent by the Hittite king (last years of Ḫattušili III or early reign of Tutḫaliya IV) addressing his son Ḫešni (probably in charge of a diplomatic mission to Karkemish68 and possibly also Babylon).

Relevant passage(s):69


#### 4.3.1.b. Glyptic

No glyptic material reporting this name has been uncovered thus far.

# 4.3.2. Commentaries

Bilgin 2018: 393-394; Giorgieri, Mora 2004: 99-100; van den Hout 1994: 120, 125; van den Hout 1995: 206-211; Klengel 1965: 94; Lebrun 2014: 99-102; de Martino 2011: 55-56; de Martino 2012; Mascheroni 1983; Mascheroni 1984: 104: 155-156; Mora 2004: 434-435; Mora, Balza 2010: 261.

#### 4.3.3. Prosopographical discussion

The aforementioned data can be summarised in tabular form, where titles and family relations forming precise patterns are distributed in 'entries:'75


<sup>71</sup> Cf. Akdoğan 2010: 174.

<sup>72</sup> Cf. Groddek 2006: 102.

<sup>73</sup> Original text *non vidi*. Integrated in Malbran-Labat 1995: 37-38 as 'LUGAL KUR URU *Kar*[*gamis*]'


<sup>76</sup> Maybe the same as source J, i.e. Ḫešni6?



<sup>82</sup> According to de Martino 2012: 105, the conspiracy may have been conducted against Tutḫaliya IV (cf. Freu 2009: 100-101); *contra* Houwink ten Cate 2006: 107-115 following Stefanini 1962: 36, who advanced the hypothesis that the conspiracy was against Kurunt(iy)a.

<sup>83</sup> Following Tani 2010: 163, considering other texts (KBo IV 10+ and Bo 68/299), we can add the following synchronisms: Ari-Šarruma (king of Išuwa) and Eḫli-Šarruma (DUMU.LUGAL).

To sum up, we can advance the hypothesis of a possible existence of six different 'entries'/individuals? carrying this name; I will briefly present hereafter some critical remarks and possible equations, grouping together some of the previous 'entries:'


In the end, considering all the possible equations, we can finally advance the conclusion of a possible existence of four/five different Ḫešni: unfortunately, the absence so far of any data from glyptic does not help us in the present reconstruction.

Lastly, taking into account the prosopographical investigation in de Martino 2012, we could even conclude that there existed only three people called Ḫešni (ḪešniA, ḪešniB, and ḪešniC 84), by establishing the following further equations:


#### Abbreviations


<sup>86</sup> Cf. de Martino 2012: 107, section 5.

MFA 1977 = label of the tablet published in Owen D. 1995.

<sup>84</sup> I use here Latin capital letters in subscript to further distinguish between the different Ḫešni(s).

<sup>85</sup> Living during the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta (according to a letter from Tell Šēḥ Ḥamad: de Martino 2012: 104 quoting Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 117-122, No. 6 and Singer 2003: 342-343).

NH = Laroche E. 1966, *Les noms des Hittites*, Paris, Klincksieck.


#### References


de Martino S. 1999, La cosiddetta 'cronaca di Ammuna', in S. de Martino, F. Imparati (eds), *Studi e testi 2*, Eothen 10, Firenze, LoGisma: 69-82.

de Martino S. 2011, *Hurrian Personal Names in the Kingdom of Ḫatti*, Eothen 18, Firenze, LoGisma.


Hoffmann I. 1984, *Der Erlass Telipinus*, Texte der Hethiter 11, Heidelberg, Winter.


Imparati F. 1974, Una concessione di terre da parte di Tudhaliya IV, *Revue Hittite et Asianique* 32. Imparati F. 1975, 'Signori' e 'figli del re', *Orientalia NOVA SERIES* 44: 89-95.


Mora C., 1993, Lo "status" del re di Kargamiš, *Orientalia NOVA SERIES* 62/1: 67-70.


# Philological Remarks on the Sealings from Empire Period of Karkemish

# Hasan Peker

**Abstract**: Over 500 clay sealings from the Hittite Empire Period were retrieved in a LB II stratum of Area C East in the Lower Palace area (excavations seasons 2017-2021). 301 clay sealings were sealed 493 times by over 50 different seals belonging to *c.* 35 officials. In this paper, philological comments will be made about the officials of the relevant archive whose names and/ or titles/professions are legible and a new interpretation of the sign L254 will be suggested as an *Addendum*.

During the 2017-2021 seasons of excavations at Karkemish, over 500 clay sealings from the Hittite Empire Period were retrieved in a LB II stratum of Area C East in the Lower Palace area. So far, 301 clay sealings were sealed 493 times by over 50 different seals belonging to *c.* 35 officials. In this paper, philological comments will be made about the officials of the relevant archive whose names and/or titles/professions are legible (see Table 1, list of names in alphabetical order).

# 1. A…

There is *a* (L450) sign in front of a sinistroverse crouching spinx, on the impression originating from an oval ring seal. The sign L450 is here, probably the first syllable of the name as an *initial-a-final*. The right half of the sealing is broken.

2. Abarikisa (Fig. 1)

The reconstruction made from the impressions obtained from a cylinder seal on 5 sealings is as follows:

*Storm-god*: *Mountain-gods* (s) ]*-pari-ki-sà* AULA *Great King*: *Eagle-man* (d) *Figure with bow* (d) *: Animal*?

1. N[A4KIŠIB]

2. m*A-ba-r*[*i-*… L]ÚD[UGUD? ]

LÚDUGUD, 'dignitary' in cuneiform legend, could be the profession of the seal holder in military context (Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 442-447; Beal 1992: 488-504), or it may be a title as 'honored, important (person)' (*CHD* LN: 367), equivalent of the hieroglyphic sign AULA (L254) (see *Addendum* below). The first part of the name must be Abari, a local Hurrian god. The name is comparable to Abari (*NPN*: 22), as well as to the Iron Age attestation Apari-Tiwata (TÜRKMEN-KARAHÖYÜK 1, Peker 2020: 250).

Hasan Peker, Istanbul University, Turkey, hasan.peker@istanbul.edu.tr, 0000-0002-4290-5858 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

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

Hasan Peker, *Philological Remarks on the Sealings from Empire Period of Karkemish*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4.09, 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. 127-159, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4

# 3. Anitta (Fig. 2)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed sinistroverse as follows: *á* (L19)-*ni* (L411) *tá* (L29), and they can be read as Anitta. The name Anitta is attested in cuneiform sources (*NH* 75).

# 4. Aza…? (Fig. 3)

In the preserved part of the third seal impression on sealing KH.20.O.99 it can be suggested that the name of the owner of this cylinder seal begins with the signs *a* and *za*. The cuneiform legend consists of three or four lines within the frame and the first sign of the third line looks like *HZL* 8/7, followed by a sign starting with a vertical wedge which could be *HZL* 206/4-8, *ku*. Perhaps the name of the goddess Kubaba is mentioned here. The last line of the cuneiform legend possibly starts with the sign LÚ.

# 5. Bentešina (Fig. 4)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed top to bottom and run sinistroverse as follows: *pa* (L334)-*ti* (L90)-*si* (L174)-*na* (L35), which can be read as Bentešina, on the preserved right-hand side of the flat impression, possibly originating from a metal tripod seal. The name Bentešina is attested in cuneiform sources (*NH* 1006) and on BOĞAZ-KÖY 8 (Poetto 1987; Gonnet 1992: 268).

# 6. Eḫli-Šarruma I and II? (Fig. 5)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed as follows: *i*(*a*) (L209)-*HALA* (L292)-*SA*[*R-MA*] (L80) on an impression (KH.17.O.480) possibly originating from a button seal and on another impression (KH.21.O.711): [*i(a)* (L209)-*HA*]*LA* (L292)-*S*[*ARMA*] (L80), which can be read as Ehli-Šarruma. Considering the possibility that two seal impressions belong to the same person, with the profession VIR2 URCEUS? , 'cupbearer,' Eḫli-Šarruma must be someone different from the attested namesakes outside of Karkemish. The name Eḫli-Šarruma is attested in both cuneiform and hieroglyphic sources (*NH* 229; *BoHa* 19: 252).

# 7. Ewri-Tešub I and II? (Figs 6a-b, 7)

Ewri-Tešub I is attested with Zinni I on the sealing KH.17.O.668 sealed with the same seal documented in Emar (Msk 73.1019, Arnaud 1986: 224 ff.; Beyer 2001: 56 ff.) and with Šunaili and Taya on another seal impression (KH.17.O.671). Ewri-Tešub, documented as AULA here (KH.20.O.115), is likely to be the same person as the MAG-NUS SACERDOS2, 'Great/Chief Priest.' The name Ewri-Tešub is attested in both cuneiform and hieroglyphic sources (*BoHa* 19: 256).

# 8. Kala (Fig. 8)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed as follows: a badly drawn *ka* (L434) or *sà* (L104)-*(a)la* (L172) run dextroverse and they can be read as Kal(l)a or Sal(l)a. This name is hitherto not attested but it can be compared with the names Kal(l)awiya (*NH* 487; *KUB* 52.46), *Šala-*DINGIR-LIM*-i* (*KUB* 57.1, van den Hout 1990: 424) and Šallalur (*NPN*: 123) in cuneiform sources.

# 9. Kana (Fig. 9)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed as follows: *ka* (L434)-*na* (L35) run dextroverse, which can be read as Kana, on the preserved left-hand side of the impression. The broken sign on the right of the name is possibly the profession of the seal owner. The names Kana and Kanaya are attested in cuneiform sources (*NPN*: 79; *NH* 498).

# 10. Kilaya (Fig. 10)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed as follows: *ki* (L446)-*la* (L176)-*i(a)* (L209) run dextroverse on two sealings and they can be read as Kilaya. Kilaya's title is indicated as AULA (L254) on the right of the sign *i(a)* (L209). The name is documented as Kila'e in cuneiform sources (Emar 257, Arnaud 1986: 254). This Kilaya can be equated with the author of the letter RS 32.204 (*RSO* VII: 50-51, Singer 1999: 687).

# 11. Kuzi-Tešub? (Fig. 11)

The hieroglyphs of the name on two sealings impressed with a cylinder seal are placed as follows: …-]*zi/a* (L376)-*TAS(U)*<sup>1</sup>  *-*(L318)-*pa* (L334). The profession of the seal owner is MAGNUS AURIGA2 ? , 'Chief of Charioteers.' As for the name of the seal owner, Kuzi-Tešub can be suggested.

# 12. Paya (Fig. 12)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed on a simple button seal2 as follows: *pa*  (L334)-*i(a)* (L209) and they can be read Paya*.* His profession is written by a convex form of the L216 FINES (the right section of the sign is thorny but not wavy; Peker 2017), combined with VIR2. The profession VIR2.FINES2 can be interpreted as the 'man of the border (area).' A more refined interpretation might be that he was a kind of controller/registrar/inspector of the goods received from *abroad*  (as gift/tribute or merchandise) through his office. The simplicity of his seal and high percentage on the total of his sealings – sealed only by him – could be a clue about his hard and simple activity, which may also indicate his position as a lowranked official.

LÚ.ZAG.ḪA/*mākisu* 'customs official/tax collector' can be considered as the equivalent of Paya's profession in cuneiform sources (see AlT \*387; cf. Lauinger 2008: 193, 209). *Mākisu*-officials are documented in Ugarit sources (Heltzer 1999: 444, n. 110) from the 14th century BCE onwards in the Middle Assyrian kingdom. The royal merchants (=*tamkar*s) were paying the custom duties (=*miksu*) to the *sākinu*-officers and/or *mākisu*-officers according to the result of the 'inspection' (=*amāru*) of the *mākisu*-officers on trade goods (cf. Westbrook 2003: 526). The name Paya can be equated with the names Pae or Paya attested in the cuneiform sources from Nuzi (*NPN*: 109, 242).

# 13. Pasu … (Fig. 13)

The hieroglyphs of the name attested in the one impression of four originating from a cylinder seal are placed as follows: *pa* (L334)-*su*? (L370). Considering the missing part, one more sign forming the name can be expected. The sign MAGUS/MEDICUS (L135.2) 'physician' stands for the owner's profession. The name can be compared with the name Paspasu (*NPN*: 112).

<sup>1</sup> See Weeden 2013: 80.

<sup>2</sup> 98 seal impressions on 68 sealings, for multiple seal impressions see Table 2.

# 14. Piradu (Fig. 14)

In four impressions, obtained from the same ring seal on a drop-shaped bulla, we have the name of the owner of the seal, written in cuneiform [*pi/pí*]*-ra-du* and in Anatolian hieroglyphs as sinistroverse as *pi* (L66)*+ra/i* (L383)-*tu* (L88), to be read Piradu. The sign AULA (L254) is written as a title on the left of the name written in Anatolian hieroglyphs, and MAGNUS? .X? is written as a profession on the right. The name Piradu/i, probably of Hurrian origin (Wilhelm 2005; Richter 2012: 313), is frequently mentioned in Middle Assyrian cuneiform sources of the 13th century BCE (Dur-Katlimmu, Salah 2014: nos 2, 7, 10-12, 18, 20, 23-26, 42, 44-46, 49-51, 53-56, 60, 74-77; Röllig 2002: nos 7, 8, 9, and 11; Röllig 2004: 38; Šibanibe, Finkelstein 1953: text 4; Tabete, Shibata 2007: 70; Aššur, Freydank 1994: 10, 12). However, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that one of these individuals is the same person as Piradu from the Karkemish archive. The name is also attested at Mari (Ziegler 2007: 268-269) and Emar (Msk 7441, Arnaud 1986: 261). If Mutri-Tešub in Emar 212 (=Msk 73.1019) and Msk 7441 are the same person, it is highly likely that the Piradi documented in Emar is the same person as the owner of this seal.

15. Sapirazi/a (Fig. 15)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed as follows: *sa*<sup>5</sup> (L325)-*pi* (L66)*+ra/i* (L383) *zi/a* (L376) and they can be read Sapirazi/a. This name is hitherto not attested elsewhere.

16. Sar(r)a/ikul(l)a (Fig. 16)

On two sealings3 with three impressions each, the hieroglyphs of the name are placed as follows: *sà* (L104 = CAPRA2 )*+ra/i* (L383) run sinistroverse and *la* (L175) runs dextroverse and they can be read Sar(r)a/ikul(l)a. The name may be analysed as a compound of *sarra* or *sarri* and *kula*/*kwalan* in Luwian. Similar names are attested as Kul(l)a (*NH* 608), Kulakula (*NH* 610), Sariya (*NH* 1117). Furthermore, the name can be compared with a female name *Šarra-*<sup>d</sup> U (*NH* 1116). The first lexeme of the name can also be interpreted as *šarri* in Hurrian (Richter 2012: 356-357).

17. Šaušga-Runtiya (Fig. 17)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed as follows: *sà* (L104 = CAPRA2)*+US*  (L421)-*ka* (L434)-CERVUS2 (L102.1)-*t*[*i* ? ] (L90) which can be read Šaušga-Runtiya. The impressions originating from a simple stamp seal are almost complete and no title or profession is denoted.

The name Šaušga-Runtiya is attested in both cuneiform and hieroglyphic sources (*NH* 1144; *BoHa* 19: 271). However, there is not enough evidence available to equate him with one of the individuals documented so far.

# 18. Šaušga-šena (Fig. 18)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed on the righthand of a figure in the centre as follows: (DEUS)! *sà+US*-*ka*-*si*-*na* which can be read Šaušga-šena. The signs REX.FI-LUS, 'prince' as his title stands on lefthand of the figure. Only the sign DEUS (L360) is visible on the left part of the sealing and the name must have been repeated there. This may be the only example where the DEUS sign used as determinative of a deity name while the writing of a proper name in Anatolian hieroglyphs. It can be compared with the name on TÜRKMEN-KARAHÖYÜK 1 in the Iron Age (Peker 2020: 250 *contra* Hawkins, Weeden 2021: 393). The name Šaušga-šena is attested (Peker 2018: 80).

# 19. Sunaili (Fig. 20)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed as follows: *su* (L370)-L392-*li* (L278) and the name written as m*Šu-na-*DINGIR-*LÌ* in cuneiform on his cylinder seal which can be read Sunaili. These spellings provide a further convincing proof about the reading of the strokes 5-94 (Dinçol, Peker 2017: 75). The name Sunaili is attested in cuneiform sources (*NH* 1177; *CHDS* 3.80; Trémouille 2014) and on a metal tripod seal from Oylum Höyük (Peker 2017: 179; Dinçol, Dinçol 2011: 88). The profession of Sunaili is written by the sign MAGUS/MEDICUS (L135.2), 'physician' and it has been suggested earlier that this sign is a depiction of a snake (*BoHa* 22: 68). If one examined the MAGUS/MEDICUS (L135.2) sign intently on this perfectly preserved seal, the depiction supports the idea that it looks more like a snake than a bird with its blunt nose and horn like protrusions.5 Sunaili also bears the title AULA (L254).

# 20. Taki-Šarruma (Fig. 20)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed on the vertical axis in the oval middle area surrounded by a ladder band as follows: *tá* (L29)-*ki* (L446)-*SARMA* (L80) which can be read Taki-Šarruma. On the lefthand there is the sign SCRIBA (L326) 'scribe' and on the righthand signs BONUS2 SCRIBA stands for owner's profession. It is possible that the person here is the same person as the prince Taki-Šarruma attested in Hattusa and Ugarit (*NH* 1209; *BoHa* 22.228 and 176; *BoHa* 19: 272), if we assume that this seal belongs to a phase of his career before he became the 'Chief Scribe.'

# 21. Ta(p)pi(ya)? (Fig. 21)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed in the middle area surrounded by a ladder band on two sealings as follows: *tá* (L29)-*pi* (L66)? which can be read Ta(p)pi(ya)? . This name is hitherto not attested elsewhere.

# 22. Taya (Fig. 22a-n)

Taya the prince is the high official possessing most seals in the archive. The reconstructions made from impressions6 originating from three cylinder seals (C), four button seals (B) and four ring seals (S) are as follows:

```
(B1)
tá-i(a) (DEUS)ku+AQUILA AURIGA2 (s) Storm-god: Mountain-gods (s)
tá-i(a) REX.FILIUS (s)
1. mTá7
      -aḫ8
          -e 2. LÚSUKKAL
(B2)
```

*Ruler* (d): *Hills tá-i*(*a*) (s) *Stag-god* (s): *Stag* AURIGA2 (DEUS)*ku*+AQUILA (s) (B3) [*tá*]*-i*(*a*) (s) REX.FILIUS (d) (B4) *tá-i*(*a*) (d) (DEUS)*ku*+AQUILA [AURIGA2 ] (s) (C1) *Storm-god*: <sup>9</sup> *lion* (s10) *tá-i*(*a*) (DEUS)*ku+*AQUILA AURIGA2 (s) REX.FILIUS (d11) *Ruler* (d):12 *Eagle-man* 1. NA4KIŠIB 2. m*Tá-'e-e* 3. LÚIŠ *ŠA* 4. d*Ku-ba-ba* (C2) *Storm-god* (s) *tá-i*(*a*) AURIGA2 (s) (DEUS)*ku+*AQUILA [AURIGA2 ? ] (d) *Kubaba* (d) *tá-i*(*a*) AURIGA2 (d) *Ruler* (d) 1. NA4KIŠIB 2. m*Tá-'e-e* 3. AŠ LUGAL (C3) *Storm-god* (s) *tá-i*(*a*) AURIGA2 (s) (DEUS)*ku*+AQUILA AURIGA2 (d) *Ruler* (d) REX.FILIUS (d) 1. NA4KIŠIB 2. m*Ta-'e-e* 3. LÚIŠ *ŠÁ* <sup>d</sup>*Ku-ba-ba* (S1) *tá-i*(*a*) REX.FILIUS (s) *tá-i*(*a*) REX.FILIUS (d) (S2) *tá-i*(*a*) (DEUS)*ku*+AQUILA AURIGA2 (s) [… (d)] (S3) AURIGA2 *Ruler tá-i*(*a*) (s) *tá-i*(*a*) […] (d) (S4) *Sphinx tá-i*(*a*) (s) AURIGA2 (DEUS)*ku*+AQUILA *Sphinx* (d)

The attestations of Taya's title, 'Kubaba's charioteer,' in cuneiform as LÚIŠ *ŠA/ŠÁ* d*Ku-ba-ba* and in Anatolian hieroglyphs as (DEUS)*ku*+AQUILA AURIGA2 or AU-RIGA2 (DEUS)*ku*+AQUILA proves that LÚIŠ is the equivalent of AURIGA2. Taya's relationship with the king (of Karkemish) is attested as AŠ (*apil*) LUGAL (*šarri*) instead of the usual DUMU.LUGAL on C2, suggesting the possibility that he was the 'king's (elder/firstborn) son' and it can be defined as the influence of Middle Assyrian cuneiform as well. A similar attestation can be observed on the seal of Tuthaliya IV (on *BoHa* 23.131 where the sign A is used instead of the sign DUMU). Taya is attested with the title of 'prince' in cuneiform and in Anatolian hieroglyphs, and with the title of 'Kubaba's charioteer,' as well as the professions of 'charioteer' (only in Anatolian hieroglyphs) and 'vizier' (only in cuneiform). Taya probably must have carried out also diplomatic/commercial missions as a 'charioteer' in addition to his profession/title as 'Kubaba's charioteer' in a cultic context. The name Taya can be equated with the names Taḫḫe/Tae/Tai/Taya (*NPN*: 141-143, 260), which are mentioned in the Nuzi sources and probably it means 'man' in Hurrian (Laroche 1980: 251; Richter 2012: 426-427). This name is also attested in Emar 215 (Arnaud 1986: 228-230; Beyer 2001: A102), Emar 5 (Arnaud 1986: 11-13), Emar ME 30 (Arnaud 1991: 122), Emar 336 (Arnaud 1986: 311), and Emar 276 (Arnaud 1986: 271). For other documents with this name,

<sup>9</sup> italic underline = figures.

<sup>10</sup> (*s*)=sinistroverse.

<sup>11</sup> (d)=dextroverse.

<sup>12</sup> x : y = x over y.

see Pruzsinszky 2003: 238, n. 133; Poetto 2020: 106; Marchetti, Peker 2018: 97. Taya must be someone different from the namesakes attested outside of Karkemish.

# 23. Tili-Šarruma (Fig. 23)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed in the middle area – surrounded by a frame with alternating stylised life symbols and triangles between two simple lines – as follows: *ti* (L90)-*li* (L278)-*SARMA* (L80) and they can be read Tili-Šarruma. This Tili-Šarruma, whose title or profession is not specified, must have been a different individual from those hitherto attested in cuneiform and hieroglyphic sources (*NH* 1326; *BoHa* 19: 275).

# 24. Tulpi(ya)? (Fig. 24)

The hieroglyphs of the name and the title are placed on two sealings as follows: *tu*? (L88)-[*la*]-DARE (L66), BONUS2 VIR2 and they can be read Tulpi(ya)? . The name Tulpi(ya) is attested in cuneiform sources (*NH* 1367; *NPN*: 157, 268).

# 25. Zi/a… (Fig. 25)

Only the sign *zi/a* (L376) is preserved as the first syllable of the name and the signs MAUSOLEUM.DOMINUS (L414.L390) as the profession of the seal owner in the impressions originating from two different button seals on five sealings.13 For the profession MAUSOLEUM.DOMINUS, 'Lord of the rock sanctuary/shrine,' see Dinçol 2001: 101 and Dinçol, Dinçol 2008: 70; cf. *BoHa* 19: 312.

# 26. Zinni I (Fig. 26a-f)

Zinni I only bears the title BONUS2 VIR2/VIR2 as impressed on sealings by two button seals and three ring seals probably early in his career (because they were found in the lowermost layer in area C East). In his later career (i.e. on specimens from a higher layer), Zinni's professions SIGILLUM.DOMINUS, 'Seal's Lord,' LÚ KIŠIB 'man of the seal' and AGRIG14 *ŠÁ* LUGAL 'Administrator of the king's storehouse' are written in addition to the title BONUS2 VIR2 on two cylinder seals impressed on sealings. The name Zinni, probably of Hurrian origin, is attested as Zenni/u and Zinni in cuneiform sources (*NPN*: 175, 277). The reconstructions made from 54 impressions on 35 sealings originating from seven seals are as follows:

```
(B1)
Figure with bow & spear (s) zi/a-ni (s): Eagle-man (d)
(B2?
    )
BONUS2 VIR2 (s) Figure with mace (s) [zi/a-ni]: Eagle-man (d)
(S1)
Sphinx (s) Man in adoration (s) zi/a-nì (s) Sphinx (d)
(S2)
Bird (s) VIR2 zi/a-ni (s) BONUS2 VIR2 (d) Bird (d)
(S3)
VIR2 (s) Man in adoration (s) zi/a-[…(s)
(S4?
    )
… zi]/a-nì
(C1)
```
<sup>13</sup> B1: KH.17.O.524 with Taya C2, KH.19.O.366 with Taya S2; B2: KH.17.O.442 with Zinni I B1, KH.17.O.461 (see Tables 3 and 4).

<sup>14</sup> See Singer 1984.

*Storm-god* (s): *Bull* BONUS2 VIR2 (s) *zi/a-nì* (s) SIGILLUM.DOMINUS *Ruler*: *Lion* (d) *Figure*: *Animal* (d)

1. NA4KIŠIB 2. m *Zi-in-ni* 3. LÚ KIŠIB AGRIG *ŠÁ* LUGAL

(C2)

…]*-nì* (s) SIGIL[LUM … *Figure* (d)

27. Zinni II (fig. 27)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed in the middle area, on the right of a figure in the center, surrounded by a frame with alternating circles and triangles between two simple lines, as follows: z*i/a* (L376) – *nì* (L55) and they can be read Zinni as his namesake above. The sign AULA (L254) just below the name, stands for the owner's title and the sign URCEUS (L354), 'cupbearer', behind the figure, stands for his profession. Besides this button seal, he probably has two other seals (see Table 1)

# 28. …mil/ti (Fig. 28)

The hieroglyphs of the name are placed in an impression possibly originating from a cylinder seal, after (a) broken sign(s), as follows: …]-*mi* (L391)-traces of the sign *li* (L278) or *ti* (L90). There is also the sign BONUS2 (L370) stands for the (part of the) title. The name here can be compared with the names Ḫuwamiti (*NH* 417), Asu/ amuwatti15 (*BoHa* 19.386), Muwattalli (*NH* 837 and PUGNUS*.MI-li*, see Peker 2014: 191, n. 4), and Ḫasamili (*NH* 319).

# 29. …patu (Fig. 29)

The hieroglyphs of the name and the profession are placed in an impression possibly originating from a cylinder seal, as follows: *x*-*pa* (L334)-*tu* (L88),16 AURIGA2 ? , 'charioteer.'

# 30. VITA+*RA/I* (Fig. 30)

The hieroglyphs of the name, behind a figure, and the title, below the name, are placed in an impression originating from a cylinder seal, as follows: VITA[*+RA/I*], (L369[+L383]) BONUS2 VIR2. The reading of the name is uncertain. The name is attested in hieroglyphic sources (*BoHa* 19: 287), but there is not enough evidence to equate him with one of the individuals documented so far.

# 31. An Office Seal?: DOMUS+SIGILLUM (Fig. 31)

The hieroglyphs of the office's name are placed on the sealing's preserved right part, in the middle area surrounded by a ladder band, as follows: DOMUS (L247)+SIGIL-LUM (L327). It is possible that there is a name on the broken left part of the sealing. The signs DOMUS+SIGILLLUM can be interpreted as 'house of seal' (as an office seal) or 'man of the seal-house' (as a seal of an official, cf. *BoHa* 19: 30917).

<sup>15</sup> = *su/sa*? *-*BRACCHIUM.*MI-ti-\*a.* About the *muwatta/i-* reading of the signs BRACCHIUM.*MI* see Peker 2014: 191, n. 4.

<sup>16</sup> This name is resembling …]-*pa* (L334)-*tu* (L89), URBS.LEPUS, 'City's administrator' which is attested on a vessel with painted hieroglyphs (KH.21.O.735) from Karkemish. URBS.LEPUS can be equated with MAŠKIM.URUKI attested in cuneiform sources (Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 447-449).

<sup>17</sup> The sign SIGILLUM alone and/or in combination with BONUS2 or BONUS2 VIR2 can be interpreted as 'seal(-cutter)' rather than '(man) of the seal (house)' (*BoHa* 22: 42).

# *Addendum***: L254 = AULA**

The titles MAGNUS.REGINA = MUNUS.LUGAL 'queen' acquired through marriage, and REX.FILUS/FILIA = DUMU.LUGAL/DUMU.MUNUS.LUGAL 'prince/princess' (a title of the birthright of the children of the royal family) are encountered to define the relations of individuals with the palace in Hittite society. Unlike princes, the professions of princesses, like other women in Hittite society, are not mentioned in Anatolian hieroglyphic sources.18 Another definition of the person-palace relationship is given by the LÚ SAG Sumerogram in cuneiform. LÚ SAG, which is traditionally translated as 'courtier, eunuch,' is accepted as corresponding to sign L254 in Anatolian hieroglyphic script.19 However, L254 = LÚ SAG should be a social status, not a profession. The title L254 = LÚ SAG is probably derived from loyalty20 to the palace,21 and the individuals who hold this title have a profession,22 although it is not always stated. The reason why \*GAL LÚ SAG (= Chief LÚ SAG) is not attested in cuneiform and Anatolian hieroglyphic sources can be explained by the fact that people with this title are the member of a heterogeneous class practicing various professions. So a LÚ SAG = L254 can be promoted to the GAL position only in his profession. Also, besides the arguments that persons holding the title LÚ SAG do not necessarily have to be eunuchs,23 the title LÚ SAG = L254 should denote the privilege of somebody's relationship with the palace, not a duty performed by somebody physically residing in the palace and these privileges are described in detail in the text group CTH 255 (Miller 2013: 294 ff.). At this point, it would thus be appropriate to use 'loyal man/loyal nobleman' based on the meanings '(he) of the head24 = loyal (noble)man (of the King)' = '(he) of the palace25 = [loyal (noble)man] of the palace' instead of 'courtier, eunuch' when translating LÚ SAG = L254. For these reasons, the term AULA (by extension and metonymic meanings) has been proposed instead of EUNUCHUS2 for L254.26



### Table 1. LB II names of the Archive

<sup>1</sup> CAPRA2



### Table 2. Sealings of Paya



#### Table 3. Sealings of Taya


Inv. no. NoSI Type & association Inv. no. NoSI Type & association Inv. no. NoSI Type & association KH.17.O.437 1 B1 KH.20.O.433 1 C1? KH.19.O.316 2 S1? KH.17.O.442 2b B1 & Zi/a… (B2) KH.21.O.728 1 C2 KH.17.O.433 5e S2 & Taya (B1) KH.19.O.241 1 B1 KH.19.O.386 1 C2? KH.17.O.668 3ab S2 & Ewri-Tešub I (C) KH.19.O.364 3 B1 KH.17.O.525 1 S1 KH.17.O.672 2a S2 & Taya (B2) KH.19.O.367 2 B1 KH.17.O.561 2b S1 & Taya (C1) KH.19.O.313 1 S2 KH.17.O.421 1 B2? KH.17.O.567 1 S1 KH.19.O.381 1 S2 KH.20.O.91 1 C1 KH.17.O.579 1 S1 KH.17.O.685 1 S3 KH.20.O.92 2 C1 KH.17.O.619 3 S1 KH.17.O.688 2 S3 KH.20.O.160 5 C1 KH.19.O.314 1 S1 KH.19.O.350 2 S3 KH.20.O.185 1 C1 KH.19.O.318 3 S1 KH.17.O.527 1 S3? KH.21.O.412 2 C1 KH.19.O.335 2 S1 KH.19.O.376 2a S3? & X27 (B) KH.21.O.694 1 C1 KH.21.O.701 1 S1 KH.19.O.325 4ab C2? & Taya (C3)

#### Table 4. Sealings of Zinni I

#### Abbreviations


#### References


Fig. 1. Hieroglyphic and cuneiform legends on KH.20.O.99 (top); KH.20.O.96 (bottom).

Fig. 2. KH.19.O.341.

Fig. 5. KH.17.O.480 (left); KH.21.O.711 (middle and right).

Fig. 7. KH.20.O.115. Fig. 8. KH.17.O.526. Fig. 9. KH.17.O.463.

146 HASAN PEKER

Fig. 10. KH.17.O.726 (left); KH.17.O.727A (middle), KH.17.O.727B (right).

Fig. 11. KH.21.O.700, KH.21.O.713.

Fig. 12. See Table 2.

Fig. 13. KH.19.O.356. Fig. 14. KH.21.O.460.

Fig. 15. KH.20.O.74.

Fig. 16. KH.21.O.410, KH.21.O.411. Fig. 17. KH.19.O.304.

Fig. 18. Hieroglyphic legend on KH.19.O.461. Fig. 19. Hieroglyphic and cuneiform legends on the modern impression of the seal KH.17.O.448.

Fig. 20. KH.20.O.98. Fig. 21. KH.21.O.414, KH.21.O.417.

Fig. 22a. Sealings with Taya B1 impression(s).

Fig. 22b. Cuneiform legend on the sealings with Taya B1 impression(s).

Fig. 22c. Sealings with Taya B2 impression(s).

Fig. 22d. Sealings with Taya B3 impression(s).

Fig. 22e. Taya B4 on KH.20.O.88.

Fig. 22f. Sealings with Taya C1 impression(s). Fig. 22g. Cuneiform legend on the sealings with Taya C1 impression(s).

Fig. 22h. Sealings with Taya C2 impression(s).

154 HASAN PEKER

Fig. 22k. Sealings with Taya S1 KH.17.O.616, KH.17.O.587, KH.17.O.581.

Fig. 22l. Taya S2 impressions on KH.17.O.531, KH.19.O.238.

Fig. 22m. Sealings with Taya S3.

Fig. 22n. Taya S4 impressions on KH.20.O.134.

Fig. 23. KH.20.O.90, KH.20.O.19.

Fig. 24. KH.17.O.731.

Fig. 25. KH.17.O.524, KH.19.O.366; KH.17.O.461, KH.17.O.442.

Fig. 26a. KH.17.O.442, KH.19.O.367, KH.19.O.364ab; KH.17.O.421.

Fig. 26c. KH.21.O.728.

Fig. 26d. KH.17.O.579; KH.17.O.561, KH.17.O.525.

Fig. 26e. KH.17.O.668, KH.17.O.672.

Fig. 26f. KH.17.O.685; KH.17.O.688, KH.19.O.376.

Fig. 27. KH.21.O.409, KH.21.O.695; KH.21.O.699ab.

Fig. 28. KH.21.O.693.

Fig. 29. KH.21.O.702.

Fig. 30. KH.19.O.507.

Fig. 31. KH.17.O.903.

# Storage and Food Control in the 'Amuq from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age: The Archaeological Evidence

# Marina Pucci

**Abstract**: Ongoing study of the pottery assemblage and its surrounding context in Area 4 at the site of Alalakh has again brought to light a phenomenon that is considered typical for the Iron Age I Levant: the construction of pits/silo installations in open areas. This phenomenon has been interpreted as a sign of ruralisation or insecure economic conditions, a possible marker for the political instability in the area during the 13th-12th centuries BCE. This article examines the similarities and differences between the examples from the Iron Age I in the 'Amuq and contemporary sites in the Levant, and also considers later similar installations from the Iron Age II. Keeping in mind the functions usually ascribed to these structures, this study also analyses the so-called 'Anatolian' tradition of grain storage in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in order to address the role of these installations in understanding possible food control strategies and their possible impact in the Levant.

#### 1. Pits, grain storage pits and silos

Pits are one of the most common features in the archaeological records and are very often viewed as a disturbance/destruction of previous archaeological deposits, rather than as the remnants of human activity. Terminology employed in pit and pitting activity varies; here the neutral term 'pit' refers to negative installations of any size that may represent the bottom of a standing installation, an underground feature that does not protrude from the surface level, or an open cavity used to carry out specific activities that may involve fire and water. Once dismissed from their original function and left empty, all pits become 'trash-pits,' the most commonly employed term for defining their function in excavation reports. This article concentrates on the pit complexes in the 'Amuq (Fig. 1) specific to the transitional period from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Since the focus of this article is food control, i.e. food storage, only installations/buildings created exclusively for storage, namely to host large quantities of food over a long period of time, will be taken into consideration; this study will not analyse storerooms inside other buildings, short- or medium-term storage, nor consequently the ceramic containers related to these spaces.

Underground grain storage pits will be described following the now well-known terminology established by Borowski and common in the Levant (Borowski 1987): 'grain pit' indicates any installation with a capacity of up to 3000 l, considered storage for the average household, while the term 'silo' describes larger features that may pertain to collective consumption (Alonso, Bouby 2017). Both grain pits and silos are underground structures that can reach a depth of 2-3 m and are sealed at the surface level to avoid protrusions, thereby making them inaccessible from the floor.1 These features are designed

<sup>1</sup> Ilan 2008: 96-97 also suggests that this is a way of hiding the grains from tax collectors and robbers.

Marina Pucci, University of Florence, Italy, marina.pucci@unifi.it, 0000-0001-6553-1679 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

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

Marina Pucci, *Storage and Food Control in the 'Amuq from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age: The Archaeological Evidence*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4.10, 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. 161-176, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12- 215-0042-4

Fig. 1. General map of the 'Amuq with sites mentioned in the text (courtesy of S. Batiuk, CRANE Project).

to house grains and cereals in a sealed space; here the grain continues to transpire until high CO2 levels prevent pests and the grain becomes dormant and stable (Whittaker *et al.* 2014: 198). Shallower pits, meanwhile, may represent the lower portion of containers that extended above ground, thus suggesting these installations were visible and possibly accessible from the surface. In this case, a mud brick lining visible at the top of the shallower pits indicates the presence of a mud brick structure built above ground level; the reduced width of the opening facilitated its closure. It is unclear how much higher the installation protruded from the ground level since all known examples in Syria are only partially preserved (e.g. the silo complex in Hama Phase H, Fugmann 1958: fig. 116,2 which extended a maximum of 40/50 cm above ground). Above ground storage installations such as granaries and storehouses are suited for hosting easily accessible grains and are well known in archaeological and epigraphic sources both in Anatolia and Mesopotamia.3 These specific installations were not, however, identified in the passage from Late Bronze Age to Iron Age.


When dealing with storage installations and archaeological remains it is important to consider a couple of *caveats*: as mentioned above, the state of preservation of the installations is poor, and the details of their construction and structural features provided in past publications can vary greatly. In fact, the focus on pits is a fairly recent phenomenon; just in the past twenty years attention has been drawn to the details of pit features in conjunction with analyses of their contents.

Identifying the function of a dismissed pit, i.e. a structure that was backfilled probably after its dismissal, is extremely difficult. Archaeologists have rarely collected samples from these installations (underground structures, silos, pits, fixed *pithoi*), particularly in older excavations; we can therefore only speculate about their specific contents even when their shape, position and lining clearly suggest a storage function, as they could have contained not only grains or other cereals but also fruit and vegetable products, or could have been used in salting meat and manufacturing silage (Reynolds 2011). Some scholars, such as Ilan, 'accept the grain-pit interpretation as the likely one for most, though perhaps not all pits, at all periods' (Ilan 2008: 88), whereas others prefer to rely on a specific analysis (phytoliths) or on the presence of insulating materials (chaff plaster, lime plaster) to infer the grain storage function. Makal (1954: 19-20) reports that in the villages of Anatolia in the 1940s and 1950s a house store 'consisted of wells dug in the ground. What remained over after grounding and selling the grains was put in these store for spring sowing; or if hard times come to be taken out and sold.' The reliability of these installations has also been proven in a recent experiment carried out in Lahav (Currid, Navon 1989), which has demonstrated that cylindrical stone-lined pits, simple pits and ash-lined bell-shaped pits were all excellent vehicles for storing grain.

#### 2. Archaeological evidence in the 'Amuq during the 13th-12th centuries BCE

Extensive excavations on Late Bronze Age and Iron Age levels were carried out at three sites in the 'Amuq valley: Alalakh, Chatal Höyük4 and Tell Tayinat5 . Whereas the village at Chatal Höyük was continuously inhabited from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age, Alalakh experienced a progressive and continuous decline during the 13th and 12th centuries BCE before its complete abandonment during Iron Age I. Tell Tayinat instead shows no evidence of occupation during the Late Bronze Age, but a 'new settlement' dating to the Iron Age I was built directly on top of the Early Bronze Age occupation (Harrison 2010). Alalakh and Tayinat, located approximately 3 km apart, both served as the main political centres in the region during the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age; Chatal H., meanwhile, was a large village conveniently located on the Afrin that lacked a political role in the region.6

Pits and extensive pitting activity have been identified at all three sites in Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transitional levels, with slightly different functions and contexts.

At Alalakh the best preserved evidence is located in Area 4, the elevated area in the southern portion of the mound where a saddle had formed in the central part of the elongated mound (Akar 2019: 48). The latest phase of occupation in this area (Level 1) con-

<sup>4</sup> In this article as well as in all previous publication by the same author the writing "Chatal Höyük" has been preferred to "Çatal Höyük" in order to keep the same writing as in the first publications by Robert

Braidwood and to distinguish this site from the prehistoric Çatal Höyük located in the Konya plain. 5 This article adapts to the way "Tayinat" has been recently written in Turkish and English academic

papers instead of "Ta'yinat", employed in the first publications on the site. 6 For the history of excavations at Tayinat and Chatal cf. Pucci 2019: Ch. 1; Harrison 2009; for Alalakh, see Yener 2010: 3-4.

sists of very few structural remains, an external floor and several pits (Fig. 2, top left); these were simple cuts dug into the surface and then filled with various kinds of deposits and materials. It is worth pointing out here that large containers were placed in two of the pits: container AT01474 into pit 64.82.22 and container AT01717 into pit 64.82.12 (Fig. 6-7). The large storage container (AT01474) is a high jar with an ovular body and narrow opening and was found partially sunken into the pit; it has a maximum capacity of 200 kg of wheat and is almost impossible to move even when empty.7 Upon rediscovery, the vessel was still closed with a stopper made of unbaked clay (Akar 2019: fig 2.52) and the opening of the vessel was slightly higher than the external surface from which the pit was dug, thereby confirming that the vessel was unmovable and accessible only from the top. The second vessel (AT01717), a large jug with a squat ovoid body and one handle, is a container more suitable for liquids than for cereals and has a capacity of 15 l. Both vessels (Fig. 6-7) found in this phase's primary contexts demonstrate a shape and typology that match vessels found *in situ* in Phase Vb at Tell Afis Area E (Venturi 2020),8 that is the last Late Bronze Age phase at the site, dating to 1250-1180 BCE (cf. Venturi 2020: 226). Upon rediscovery the other pits were still filled with ashes (64.94 L8 and L5), or with different groups of artifacts such as metal fragments (64.84 L11) or beads and astragali (64.94 L5). It is difficult to understand whether the objects were discarded in the pits after they were no longer being used for their original purpose, or if the pits were created to store these specific objects for future reuse. No plaster or technical finishing on the internal surface of the pits was observed, and their depth varies greatly: ranging from 1 m to 60 cm when calculating the preserved parts, or 1.40 to 2 m if calculating to the average elevation of the preserved plastered floor (Cx048). Their diameters range from 1.30 m for the smaller ones to 2.80 m for the larger ones. Here it is also difficult to be certain of their function as storage pits; however, the *pithos* inserted into the pit may have in part fulfilled this specific function.

At Chatal Höyük (Fig. 2, bottom left) archaeological evidence belonging to the transitional period from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age was identified in two areas (II and V) at opposite sides of the mound. In both areas circular pits were identified: Area II offers a broader excavation extent and a more comprehensive general context, while Area V contains the best-preserved pit. The structural elements of Level II-11 consist of several pebble floors and mud brick silos (Haines 1971: 13-14 and pl. 29c), an unclear mud brick curved wall, and patches of walls. The pebble floor was employed both for paving for the bottom of the silos and for covering their external surfaces. The curved wall, located in the southwest part of the excavated area in N-13, probably belonged to a larger round structure with a pebbled floor, visible above ground level. Haines states, 'whether the pits belonged to this level or originated in the level above is not certain' (1971: 13); however, at least two of the four pits were covered by the pebble paving of the following period, therefore it seems very likely that these pits/silos were used in this level. These pits are characterized by circular cuts into the archaeological deposit with a diameter ranging from 2.5 m to 3m, a mud brick lining, and a depth reaching 1.5 m.9 The mud brick superstructure protruded slightly from the floor level and tend-

<sup>7</sup> Capacity has been calculated with the software Pot Utility (Archane Project) for the vessels. Size and capacity of the pits has been calculated only for the sites where depth and diameter were provided.

<sup>8</sup> In particular for the jug AT1717.1, cf. Venturi 2020: pl. 43, nos 5 and 7; for jar AT1474, cf. Venturi 2020: pl. 46.

<sup>9</sup> This measure was calculated thanks to several notes retrieved in the excavation journal from the field and archived at the Oriental Institute Museum.

Fig. 2. Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transitional levels in the 'Amuq sites with evidence of grain storage pits. From top left to bottom right: a. Tell Atchana, Area 4 phase 1. Redrawn from Akar 2019: fig. 2.46; b. Tell Judeideh, J-9 from Haines 1971: pl. 65; c. Chatal Höyük Area II, from Pucci 2019; d. Tell Tayinat Field 1, from Welton *et al.* 2019: fig. 3. All scaled to the same dimension.

ed to narrow the opening of the pit, which is clearly visible in the left silo in Fig. 5. The bottom of the silo was occasionally paved with pebbles or, in other examples, with simple clay plaster (the presence of chaff could not be determined). The average volume of these structures ranges from 500 kg to just over one ton of wheat. The architectural use of this area during this level differs greatly from the previous one (II-12): a single large structure with massive walls and storerooms was subsequently replaced by an open pebbled area, again with storage facilities. This macroscopic change probably caused Haines to assign this structural phase to the Iron Age I (Phase N in the 'Amuq sequence): the change in architecture could correspond to a change in cultural phase (from Late Bronze Age to Iron Age), which was generally observed in the material culture already during the excavations. In analysing the material culture of the *loci* from this level, however, it has become clear that the typical marker for local Phase N, i.e. large quantities of painted decorated pottery, was absent in this assemblage. Thus, this level still belongs to the Late Bronze Age (Phase M in the 'Amuq sequence). The *loci* belonging to this period represent three different archaeological contexts; when analysed separately, each pottery assemblage (cf. Pucci 2019: 172-179) provides a general coherent horizon that has been ascribed to the Late Bronze Age II. The pits were mostly filled with debris when the whole area was levelled and rebuilt.

166 Marina Pucci

Fig. 3. Chatal Höyük Area V, plan and photo of level 5 with large silo.

A similar situation is evident in Area V of the same site (Fig. 3), where in the 5 by 5 m square the remains from Level V-5 include two walls and a well-preserved pit with a mud brick lining and lime plaster on its bottom. This installation is preserved to a depth of approximately 2.5 m for a top width of 1.60 m, and the brick lining protrudes approximately 40 cm from the surface. Similar to the examples from Area II, the edges of the pit are approximately 20 cm thick and its volume is approximately 400 kg of wheat. The mud bricks are not always easy to distinguish and the general context of this installation is unclear – even the two walls identified in the same level are fragmentary and their alignment is uncertain. The surface level to which the installation should belong has been identified only adjacent to the pit itself and does not guarantee coexistence with the two walls. The whole pottery assemblage from this level (Pucci 2019: pls 144-146) belongs to the latest phase of the Late Bronze Age (M-Late at Chatal H.), and it is sealed by a floor with an inventory (V-04) ascribed to the end of the 12th century BCE due to the complete vessels found on it. It is therefore contemporary with Level 11 in Area II.

No samples or specific analyses were carried out on the filling of the pits, however when reporting the excavations in Area II, Braidwood writes in the field notes that this area could be interpreted as a 'sort of a barnyard if these wells are taken to be grain storage pits' (19th March 1935, field notes). The size and depth of these mud brick-lined pits in both areas is similar and appears to point to a proper underground silo, complete with a mud brick lining to isolate its contents and possibly a mud brick lid. Shape, context, technical features and size all seem to confirm Braidwood's hypothesis that ascribes them to a grain storage function. Consequently, the ones identified in Area II would point to an open common area employed for storage and situated close to the domestic structures located to the north. Based on the size of the pits, they seem to be a domestic reserve rather than storage for collective use.

In Area Field 1 on the acropolis at Tell Tayinat (Fig. 2, bottom right) the Canadian team brought to light several phases (FP 6-5) characterized by pitting activities (Welton *et al.* 2019). Uncovered here is a series of large storage silos dug into the remains dating to the 3rd millennium BCE. During Field Phase 6 at least five large circular pits were identified, some of which were constructed with a lining of mud brick (e.g., G4.56:279, 288) almost identical to the ones identified at Chatal H.. Numerous smaller pits are interspersed between the large silos; a few of these contained concentrations of non-perforated, cylindrical clay loom weights and other artifacts associated with textile production, which is similar to the pits at Alalakh with specific groups of finds in them. Diameter sizes of these installations during Phase 6 range from 2 m to

1.5 m for those lined with mud brick (calculated from the plan in Welton *et al.* 2018: fig. 3), and during Phase FP5a they reach 2.6 m. Their depth reaches 1.5 m according to the mud brick layers visible in Welton *et al*. 2019: fig. 4. Sparse mud brick walls were also found in this level in connection to the installations, as if the group of installations were related to some ephemeral domestic structures. Pottery material collected in the silo and in the filling above the surface has led archaeologists to ascribe these phases to the 12th and 11th centuries BCE, (cf. Table 1 in Harrison 2021). Although like in Tayinat the contents of the installations were not preserved, palaeobotanical analyses on these phases (Welton *et al.* 2019: 318) has revealed a large presence of free-threshing wheat and barley, which could point to the type of food stored in the silo.

At both Tayinat and Chatal the silo phase on the mound disappears during the second half of Iron Age I and is replaced by either monumental architecture (Tayinat) or by a dense domestic neighbourhood (Chatal). At Alalakh the site was almost completely abandoned and the pitting activity probably did not last more than one gener-

Fig. 4. Chatal Höyük Area II with silos (compared to Tell Afis, phase IVa (from Venturi 2020: pl. 13); to Arslantepe III (plan from Manuelli *et al.* 2021: fig. 7).

Fig. 5. Mudbrick structure of grain storage pit in Chatal Höyük, Area II.

ation (see Montesanto, Pucci 2019-2020, for the Iron Age presence on the northern part of the acropolis).

The third site excavated by the Oriental Institute, i.e. Tell al Judeidah (Fig. 2, top right), contains little evidence for this specific period; the area is limited to a ten by ten surface, but it is possible to point out the evidence in one specific square of the mound: J-9. Here Level 4 yielded at least one occupation phase with six large pits lined with mud bricks and/or with stones connected to a few sporadic walls (Haines 1971: pl. 52a), a context very similar to the ones in Chatal and Tayinat. However, a precise dating for this level is still a work in progress. Haines ascribed them to Phase O, i.e. Iron Age II-III, however the pottery and materials from these contexts have not yet been analysed.

In general for the Iron Age I the 'Amuq provides a homogenous phenomenon of pitting activity that spans from the end of the Late Bronze Age (Alalakh and Chatal) to the very beginning of the Iron Age (Tell Tayinat), i.e. from the mid-13th to the end of the 12th century BCE or slightly later. Size, technique of the grain storage pits, location and contexts all appear to indicate a homogeneous phenomenon, which sees the use of pits to store grains on a long-term basis (at minimum for the winter season), possibly as a backup in case of drought, or for seeding and fodder. The capacity of the grain-storage pits, all well under 3 tons, points towards a domestic use of these installations and not to a centralised system of collecting food. At Chatal, Tayinat and Judeidah the mud brick lining appears to be a common feature along with its location in an open area inside the mound that was, at least in Chatal, still walled. In terms of chronology, the evidence at Alalakh seems to be the oldest example (second half of the 13th century BCE); this may represent the first phase of the site's decline, which goes hand in hand with the need to store grains inside the settlement rather than near the farms. The presence of a *pithos* (the typical container for medium-term storage) embedded inside a pit may indicate that the *pithos*, usually kept inside the buildings, was now inserted into the pit to hide

Fig. 6. Alalakh, storage jar (AT1474) found *in situ*, Area 4 (Horowitz 2019: 507, pl. 7.3).

Fig. 7. Alalakh, photo and drawing of *in situ* jug, Area 4, Alalakh AT1717.

or protect it, but it was not yet a proper grain-storage pit like the ones appearing in Tayinat and Chatal a few years later. It remains to be seen whether the other smaller pits containing specific artifacts were intended to be trash disposal pits or, more probably, smaller storage pits for specific artifacts that were used in the open area; in the case of the latter, the metal fragments could be recycled, and the loom weights were ready to be used in portable looms along with other tools for textile work.

According to this reconstruction, all settlements in the 'Amuq would become sparsely occupied with large open common areas employed to carry out domestic activities and the region would be interspersed with small villages based on an economy of subsistence.

When dealing with the passage from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age, I have suggested that the presence of grain storage pits inside the settlement already during the second half of the 13th century (Pucci 2020a: 136), together with the ruralisation of the settlement, is a clear indication that the region underwent a period of economic difficulty. The palaeobotanical analyses carried out on the Iron Age I levels at Tell Tayinat appear to support this hypothesis (Welton *et al.* 2019: 319); the comparison between the palaeobotanical samples belonging to Iron Age I in Tell Tayinat (12th-11th centuries BCE) with those from Alalakh Phase IV (14th century BCE) points to a reduction of the agricultural catchment area through the abandonment of arable fields, which were left uncultivated during the 13th-12th centuries BCE. This, together with the now well-known references to abandoned orchards around Alalakh in the letters from the Urtenu archive at Ugarit,10 confirm a period of agricultural instability in the 'Amuq, particularly in the southern 'Amuq plain. Assuming that the brick-lined pits were grain storage installations intended for long term storage, i.e. they were sealed in autumn and reopened only in spring,11 they cannot be interpreted as the typical 'winter storage' of a household but rather as a 'safety' deposit, a way to face possible difficulties arising from political or climatic instability or to ensure enough seeds were stored for the next season.

This phenomenon of pitting during the transition from Late Bronze Age to Iron Age is well known in the whole eastern Mediterranean area (see Ilan 2008 and Venturi 2015 for a general overview of this phenomenon). Fig. 4 provides a comparison of the examples from the 'Amuq with neighbouring contemporary sites located in different environments; the situation seems very similar both in inner Syria (Tell Afis Levels Va and IV c-a dating from the end of the 13th century to the mid-11th century BCE)12 and in Anatolia (Tille Höyük Pre-I level dating to the 12th century).13 At both sites grain storage pits – lined with mud brick, stone or chaff – were found to have replaced a densely built urban environment; size, location and depth of the features (where available) are very similar to the ones identified in the 'Amuq, mirroring a domestic use of grain pit storage in a sparsely populated settlement and, most likely, in a scarcely centrally administrated site. As demonstrated in the examples from Hama, the knowledge of using grain-storage pits with specific technical features was well rooted in inner Syria, and was a technique employed probably without interruption in the countryside and out-

<sup>10</sup> Letters I-7.2 (for the orchards) and I-7.6 (for plantations) in Lackenbacher *et al.* 2016. Cf. also Pucci 2020b.

<sup>11</sup> For grain storage pits to function, the contents must be sealed and not reopened for a long period in order to build the necessary vermin-free atmosphere inside. 12 Venturi 2020: 21, pl. 91.

<sup>13</sup> Blaylock 2016: 418 (for the dating) and Blaylock 2009: 121 and fig. 5.11.

side densely populated settlements.14 The intensification of these features during this period already strongly diminishes during Iron Age I and is replaced at some sites by a different 'communal' storage installation: the silo.

### 3. Looking ahead: Iron Age II-III storage installations in South-east Anatolia and inner Syria

Castellano (Castellano 2018) clearly illustrates several sites during the Iron Age II and III in Anatolia with large underground silos, which have features in common with the grain-storage pits, such as their stone lining, mud brick lining and plaster, and their location inside the settlement; they greatly differ, however, in dimensions. At Kınık Höyük operation C two large stone-lined and chaff-plastered silos were identified inside the settlement next to the fortification wall of the city, and were in use in from the 10th to 8th centuries BCE before being dismissed for a long period of time. The structures with an elliptical shape, a diameter of approximately 8 m, and a depth of 2.5 m surely belong to the group of large storage installations, i.e. silos. According to Borowski, these structures are intended for use on a communal basis and are no longer related to a single household; they may suggest a centralized organization of agricultural production and field exploitation. The examples from Kınık, in particular, still bear traces of the wooden beams employed to support the roof and to anchor it to the sides, providing a reliable reference for the general dimensions of the silo itself. Similarly, far to the south-east at Tille Höyük large-scale mud brick-, stone- or chaff-lined silos were identified in Levels IV and V (Blaylock 2009: 121, figs 6.29 and 10) and date to the 9th century BCE. This tradition of large-scale storage installations continues up to Level VII (8th century BCE): here the silos are chaff-faced and show burnt traces and ash layers on their interiors (a technique employed to clean the pits of vermin and parasites). Remains of seeds confirm their use as grain storage. The same phenomenon appears at Kilise Tepe (Heffron *et al.* 2017), where in the topmost Iron Age levels several large storage installations, stone-lined with remains of phytoliths, were identified in the central strip (J-L 14) on three surfaces 3-1 dating to the 7th century BCE (Dee *et al.* 2017). P09/55 in particular is a rectangular pit 3.5 m long and 2.5 m deep (35 m3 ) dug into the surface and most probably employed as a large grain commodity (Heffron *et al.* 2017: plan 25). Aside from several other small silos (such as P07/15), no other architectural remains were found in the same area. Similar large-scale installations were identified at Tell Tayinat: still in Field I but during FP 4, a squared mud brick-lined installation was located in the same area where grain-storage pits had been previously identified; its dimensions are very similar to the Kilise Tepe examples (Welton *et al.* 2019: fig. 10) but it predates them (10th century BCE, cf. Harrison 2021).

The evidence from Arslantepe is less clear: the pits identified in Level IIIb and ascribed to the Iron Age I-II range from simple grain storage pits to a silo. In particular, some of the round and oval pits (such as K1574) that measure 4.5 m long and almost 2 m deep surpass the standard size for household activities. The pit dated to the 11th century BC (Manuelli *et al.* 2021), fig. 7 shows traces of chaff plaster and is connected to an open-air surface that reaches the mound wall; but when compared with the evidence from Late Bronze Age/Iron Age levels at Alalakh, Chatal Höyük and Tille Höyük, the dimensional differences are not striking (Fig. 4), while the absence of a clear lining makes them different from the Anatolian examples. If this evidence is confirmed

<sup>14</sup> Finkelstein relates the use of grain storage pits to the process of sedentarism and nomadism, which does not apply to the Iron Age in Northern Levant.

as a silo, the example from Arslantepe together with that of Kınık would represent the first Iron Age communal silos. Looking further south, a large-scale stone-lined grain silo was identified in the southern Levant at Megiddo Level III; dating to the end of the 8th century BCE, the structure reaches a capacity of 346 tons of grain (Lamon, Shipton 1939) with two internal staircases that reach the bottom. It is difficult to ascertain a direct connection between these large silos and a substantial change in the economic organization of the sites; however, we can postulate that when sites such as Tell Tayinat reached their peak in urban development and relevance, these installations were no longer located on the acropolis and, as Ilan (2008: 99) suggests, were probably replaced by other storage methods that were less arduous, less prone to spoilage, and could be used in more stable political circumstances.

# 4. Looking Back: the Anatolian tradition and state-controlled storages

The morphology of grain storage installations is said to be linked to cultural, technical and technological factors (Prats 2017), while methods of grain storage are clearly related to agricultural exploitation, as well as environmental and economic factors. The technique of grain pit storage has been known in the eastern Mediterranean since the Neolithic period: its use varies in intensity, but it was probably available and known without interruption. The shape of the pit (cylindrical in the aforementioned examples, or ellipsoidal, spherical, or bell-shaped in some other southern Levantine examples) does not play any role in the examples given above, as we find cylindrical pits during the Iron Age from Anatolia down to the southern Levant. The dimensions of the grain storage facilities, and consequently the food control system that these installations may refer to, is in fact a matter of debate that involves two geographical areas very different in terms of agricultural potential: Anatolia and the Levant (including north-western Syria). Castellano (2018) suggests that the tradition of building underground grain silos might be connected to the Anatolian or Hittite tradition of underground storehouses or silos, which is well documented in the archaeological evidence. As a matter of fact, according to the archaeological evidence in Anatolia, underground structures or silos were definitely in use both in the capital and at Kaman-Kalehöyük already in the Old Hittite period (16th century BC). In Boğazköy the well-known underground silo complex developed from an underground structure with rectangular spaces, which had completely burnt down at the end of the 16th century BCE (Seeher 2008; Seeher 2017: 57-69; Diffey *et al.* 2020), into a series of rounded stone-lined silos located on the Büyükkaya, over a period of time spanning from the 16th to the 14th centuries BCE. The palaeobotanical analyses carried out on the silo-complex have clearly shown that the quantity of stored materials was considerable (7087 tons), but the quality of the stored grains, in an advanced state of processing, was reduced because it included large quantities of weeds; each individual silo collected grains and cereals from a single area, suggesting that each silo was used for a specific group of fields. Their analysis also revealed an agricultural model based on a low input management and the use of traction in the fields, but there was low manuring and almost no hand-weeding. Thus the stored crops included large quantities of weeds and indicated minimal exploitation of the fields. Both the silo-complex and the later single silos in the Hittite capital are considered a necessary facility to overcome the low productivity of the fields, caused by low exploitation and natural environment (Schachner 2009: 11). Significantly in order to survive on the Anatolian plateau, the presence of a communal silo was the only way to guarantee the minimum seed supply for the next season. The appearance of these large silos in the main towns already during the Old Hittite period, such as the large storage silo RS at Kaman-Kalehöyük Level IIIb (cf. Fairbairn, Omura 2005), mirrors the need of a growing community to overcome its unstable geographic and climatic setting; in other words, just as small villages such as Demirci Höyük built several grain pit storage facilities in the village centre during the third millennium,15 the larger communities would build larger silos for the whole town during the second millennium BCE.

Staple products are therefore central in organising the political economy in a 'climatically and politically volatile scenario' (van den Hout 2007) and have been studied in relation to the taxation system that primarily aimed at granting sowing seeds (d'Alfonso, Matessi 2021: 136) and in part fulfilled the Hittite Empire's 3 year plan for cultivation. The retrieval of the goods would be carried out by an administrator (AGRIG), keeper of the royal storehouses, that was located not only in the capital but also dispersed in various towns under Hittite domain (Singer 1984; d'Alfonso, Matessi 2021: 136). The creation of new storehouses also in the newly established provinces might have been part of the Hittite imperial policy (Marchetti (ed.) 2020: 267-268) and consequently could be considered part of the more general economic policy of the Hittite Empire. Scholars tend to associate these 'seal houses' with the underground grain storage silos (Klinger 2021: 627-62816) that have been identified at Boğazköy and elsewhere. These seal houses were not centralised; a few urban centres or Ḫattuša alone would not have served as selected storage locations, but rather grains were collected in each region or subregion accordingly.17 Are the large grain silos then a marker for this kind of policy? From an archaeological point of view, only a few observations may be added in this regard. The available archaeological evidence points to the construction of large silos or underground structures inside settlements located in central Anatolia (cf. Castellano 2018: fig. 12) mainly in the 16th century BCE, i.e. well before the Imperial phase of the Hittite Empire. All silos known at this point seem to fall into disuse by the 14th century BC, leaving a gap of approximately three centuries before the first (possible) re-appearance of a silo at Arslantepe. Moreover, during the 14th and 13th centuries BCE silos were identified only in the capital on the Buyükkaya, and these were much smaller than the silo complex of the 16th century (Seeher 2017).18 Thus, it seems that when the empire was growing and consequently would have been able to collect more surplus, the facilities to host this surplus (if correctly identified as silos), were less numerous than a century earlier. Additionally, no traces of any kind of control or administration (tokens, sealings, stoppers) were ever found in the areas next to the silos (neither in the Late Bronze Age nor in the Iron Age), a practice that it is well known in other communal buildings in Syria from the neolithic period (e.g. Sabi Abyad). On the other hand, following Fairbarn and Omura, the storing technique of the silo is identical to that of the grain storage pit,19 which exists in the area from the Neo-


<sup>15</sup> Korfmann 1983.

lithic period and is strongly related to the dry farming and low agricultural productivity of Anatolia; these installations cannot be opened during the winter and may have only housed the seeds necessary to guarantee sowing or to face emergency situations. Their change in size, from grain storage pits to silo, took place already before the Old Hittite Period (e.g. Oymaağaç)20 and may be related to a growing community, new agricultural organisation, or to a communal based agricultural economy, rather than to an economically centralised reassessment. It is obvious that with the imperial organisation of the tax system these structures also became part of the new administration, but were apparently not implemented or developed.

Returning now to the evidence in the 'Amuq region, there are no archaeological remains to support the idea that the underground silo followed the Hittite political and military expansion as an imperial economic model. The geographical and environmental setting of the plain finds no comparison with the one on the highlands of Anatolia; the absence of silos would imply that there was no need to have 'stored grains' to compensate for volatile agricultural exploitation because the plain had and still has a strong, stable and highly productive agricultural output, and the traditional storage methods for cereals until that period (probably in non-centralised, above ground facilities, possibly also close to the fields) was maintained. It is however true that an AGRIG and a seal house is attested at Karkemish (cf. Marchetti (ed.) 2020: 267-268), demonstrating that this specific administrative system was also employed in conquered areas. The notion that this system is connected specifically to the construction of underground storage silos still needs to be clearly demonstrated.

The reappearance of the silo in Anatolia already during the 10th century BCE (Kınık Höyük, Arslantepe, and later at Kilise Tepe and Tille Höyük) confirms the existence of a local tradition aimed at compensating for local instability. By contrast, the grain storage pits common at the very end of the Late Bronze and Iron Age I and identified at all sites in the 'Amuq have been interpreted by many scholars (Gates 2013) as signs of ruralisation and political instability; they also belong to a tradition well known in Syria from the third millennium BCE (e.g. Hama). As soon as the settlements achieved economic stability and a well-defined urban layout by the end of the Iron Age I, these installations fell into disuse or, at the very least, were no longer built inside the towns.

### References


<sup>20</sup> Two large storage installations were identified at the site. The oldest one, a squared stone lined silo, is dated by Czichon and Yılmaz (2014: 340) to the Early Bronze Age. The second one, a silo with plastered walls, is ascribed by J. Richter (in Czichon *et al.* 2016: 38-39) to the passage from the Middle Bronze to the Late Bronze Age.


# Rulership and the Gods: The Role of Cultic Institutions in the Late Bronze to Iron Age Transition in Anatolia and Northern Syria1

Lorenzo d'Alfonso, Nathan Lovejoy

**Abstract**: This paper aims to demonstrate that cults and cultic institutions are a crucial element for understanding the processes producing different regional outcomes after the fall of the Hittite empire. In this paper, cults are understood as normative cosmic forces defining tempo and worldview of ancient societies. Cultic institutions can be identified as physical spaces defined by purity, charged with real and symbolic value, and led by specialists whose competence is recognised by the community. Instead of being a by-product of political complexity, they are a driving force behind the power dynamics because they are perceived as such in a bottomup perspective, but also often by main political actors in search of legitimation of their power. This paper examines the interconnections between cultic and political institutions in the territory under the Hittite empire and in the same space after the empire's demise. We aim to distinguish between processes of resilience, reorganisation, and transformation as they occurred in particular micro-regions previously controlled by the empire, including the Upper Euphrates, South-Central Anatolia, North-Central Anatolia, Cilicia, and the Northern Levant; this will demonstrate both the importance of such a micro-regionally defined study, as well as the shared coincidence of cultic and political institutional change. It will become evident that cultic continuity coincided with the resilience of political institutions, and changes in the cultic landscape corresponded to political reorganisations or transformations in post-Hittite Anatolia and north Syria.

1. Question of the source and nature of political control and political authority in territories of the former Hittite empire

In recent years, archaeology has contributed tremendously to a lively one hundred years long debate among text-based historians of ancient western Asia and Indo-European linguists on the sources and the nature of political control and of political authority in the Hittite empire (for the contribution of archaeology see e.g. Glatz 2009; 2020; Schachner 2011; 2009; d'Alfonso 2021; for text-based contributions see Beckman 1995; Cancik 1993; Gilan 2004; Archi 1979; Goetze 1957; 1964; Gurney 1980; Imparati 1988; Klengel 1988; 1999; Otten 1964; Starke 1996; Sürenhagen 2001; lastly de Martino 2022, with literature therein). The fragility characterising ancient polities (but the formula 'ancient polities' discounts the reality of modern polities we are living in) is even more evident in the case of the Hittite empire than any other western Asian polity. Textual sources as well as archaeological, geo-archaeological, and bio-archaeological evidence indicate the existence of geo-morphologically and environmentally challenging settings within the Anatolian Plateau, the high level of diversity in habitus between neighbouring communities living in the Plateau un-

<sup>1</sup> This work is the result of a continuous collaboration, however, LDA is responsible for parts 1, 2.2, and 2.3, while NL is responsible for parts 2.1, 2.4, and 2.5; the conclusions were drafted together.

Lorenzo d'Alfonso, University of Pavia, Italy, lda5@nyu.edu, 0000-0001-9163-3417 Nathan Lovejoy, New York University, United States, ncl291@nyu.edu, 0000-0002-0124-5398

Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list) FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Lorenzo d'Alfonso, Nathan Lovejoy, *Rulership and the Gods: the Role of Cultic Institutions in the Late Bronze to Iron Age Transition in Anatolia and Northern Syria*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4.11, 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. 177-214, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12- 215-0042-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4

der the Hittite *aegis*, and the endemic conflicts characterising the access to political power (lastly de Martino, Devecchi 2020; Schachner 2022). This challenging, divisive element notwithstanding, the royal dynasty of Hattusa succeeded in reaching and maintaining political authority over the entire Anatolian Plateau for *c.* 400 years. Archaeological evidence shows that the pillar which sustained the Hittite Great Power is the invention and construction of imposing infrastructure for the storage and usage of water and grains (Schachner 2011). Two other kinds of infrastructure characterise the Hittite empire, namely temples and fortifications (Zimmer-Vorhaus 2011; Mielke 2011; 2018). Remains of the four types of infrastructure have been excavated at most urban sites in the core region of the empire, north-central Anatolia, but also beyond it. While some water catchment infrastructures were also built in the countryside, granaries and other water storage facilities were erected within the perimeter of the fortification walls in urban centres. In a way, this infrastructure can be seen as a further means for storing essential products, not against conditions caused by natural instability, but against conditions produced by human instability, such as robbery and conflicts. A similar function could be attributed to temples. We are aware of cultic space in extra-urban contexts (Ökse 2011), but with few exceptions, most temples were located within the fortification walls perimeter in urban context. In an indigenous perspective, as seats of god's *simulacra* and house to the gods themselves, temples were instrumental for obtaining the gods' intervention regularly requested for protecting primary production and military activity, thus reinforcing the core pillars of the political power in the protection of primary means of life: grain and water (d'Alfonso 2021).

In this section we aim at summarising some relevant features on the cult during the Hittite empire. From early on, the study of the cuneiform texts had underscored an investment in establishing laws and administrative procedures. The normative effort is particularly evident in the cult, with ritual texts registering materials and procedures to be adopted in an array of specific circumstances, festival organization texts providing information on locations and schedules of cultic celebrations, and cultic inventories supporting the economic and administrative functioning of each cultic event (Cammarosano 2018). The relation between the cult and political authority is ubiquitous. In the Hittite empire one cannot be separated from the other. As to the Hittite royal dynasty, its legitimation to monarchic power was based on divine sanctioning. Equally, the territorial spread of this sacred kingship was reinforced on the one hand by the centripetal gathering of local and foreign gods, their *simulacra*, and their liturgic texts in the archive of the royal family in the Hittite capital, and on the other hand by the 'centrifugal' methodical organization of cultic journeys of the royal family to a number of cultic institutions outside of the Hittite capital, in north-central Anatolia and in other regions of the Plateau. The celebration of festivals at Hattusa and elsewhere in the Hittite territory emerges from the cuneiform texts as the main activity defining time and seasonality and political and collective activity in Hittite Anatolia. Besides their spiritual investment, it required an investment of resources that is not possible to quantify for the lack of economic texts, but that was far more expensive than any other activity that we are aware of except possibly for war (lastly Cammarosano 2018; d'Alfonso, Matessi 2021; Schwemer 2022: 387-92).

Cultic institutions such as temples and sanctuaries were essential in this process defining political authority in Hittite Anatolia, both in the case of festivals celebrating the gods at the capital Hattusa and those celebrating the gods in other urban centres, or non-urban sanctuaries (Archi 2015). Archaeologically, a number of these cultic institutions whose festivals are also mentioned in the texts have been excavated. A large number of temples have been exposed at the Hittite capital Hattusa; here, a topography of the cults has been attempted, but identifications are still very open (Zimmer-Vorhaus 2011; Schachner 2011; Wilhelm 2011). The same holds true for the *sancta sanctorum*

of Yazılıkaya, whose identification with a specific monument still escapes us (Seeher 2011). More promising are the identifications of temples and sanctuaries in other urban and extra-urban centres. The temple of the Storm-god of Nerik and the sacred spring mentioned in the cultic sources have been recognised as the temple and the megalithic, underground stairway excavated at Oymağaç Höyük (Ökse, Czichon, Yılmaz 2021: 241-243, with literature therein; Czichon *et al.* 2011). At Kuşaklı, Sarissa, like in Hattusa the urban topography of the cult is still vague, while a sanctuary of the Storm-god of the *ḫuwaši*- celebrated in a festival, has been associated with the poor architectural remains identified next to a pond 2.5 km away from the town in the countryside (Wilhelm 2015). The megalithic foundations of the monumental building on the northern terrace of Uşaklı Höyük has been identified with a Hittite temple, which seems secure, and its identification with the temple of the Storm-god at Zippalanda is likely (D'Agostino, Orsi, Torri 2019-2020, with previous literature). Even though characterised by a certain level of variation, the organisation of the space in the cultic buildings within the core of the Hittite empire presents characteristic features, such as the presence of a central rectangular court with one or two porticoed consecutive sides, a *cella* protruding out of the perimeter of the building, often in a prospicient position, at the opposite side of the gate or the gates giving access to the building, and one or more rows of small rooms running all around the central court and used as storerooms for different sorts of movable goods (Fig. 1). The spatial organisation implies the urban prominence of the building, with the external visibility of its most sacred space: the *cella*. Characteristic is also the presence of a ceremonial spaces internal to the building hosting a selected, but still representative, urban public for rituals and festivals. Functional analysis implies that temples also worked as collective repositories for ceremonial repast and other economic activities (Zimmer-Vorhaus 2011; Herbordt, von Wickede, Schachner 2021).

Despite limited archaeological evidence, there is no doubt regarding the centrality of the temple institutions all over the central Anatolian Plateau in the organisation of central power and local communities during the Hittite empire. The evidence for the celebration of festivals throughout the Plateau by the royal family in association with cultic personnel and representatives of local communities covers the whole history of the Hittite empire (Schwemer 2022, with previous literature). Similarly, the plans of the temples, while again subject to variation over time, maintain their basic elements and the two aspects of celebrative gathering and storage along the whole Hittite period. This is even more astonishing if one considers that the administration of the Hittite Great Power changed consistently through time, both in scale and in defining criteria (Matessi 2016). This once again may reinforce the idea of the cultic institutions as a steady actor in defining and negotiating political authority in Hittite Anatolia.

Starting with the late 14th century, the Hittite empire was able to win Cilicia and Syria under its hegemonic control. This vast region south of the Taurus was at the time fragmented in a number of small polities and the form of political control over them varied depending on the modalities of the positioning of each of them at the time of the Hittite Syrian campaigns, but also on the balance of power and the distance or proximity from other Great Powers. As a matter of fact lands such as Kizzuwadna, Aleppo, and Karkemiš were secundogeniture assigned to royal princes of the Hittite dynasty from Hattusa, and also in the land of Mukiš the local rulers were substituted by a member of the Hittite royal family (Klengel 1992, part III.2; 2001; d'Alfonso 2011; lastly Devecchi 2022: 277-278). At least for the first 40 years after the campaign, Aleppo and Kizzuwadna, the two most prominent religious centres south of the Taurus, were led by one and the same dynasty. Even if the new dynasty in Aleppo enjoyed the title of King (LUGAL), cuneiform and hieroglyphic sources show that they were more often

named with the title of priest, placing the cultic element of their authority in the foreground (d'Alfonso 2007). Around 1300 BCE, a similar situation seems to characterise the land of Aštata. Here, cultic paraphernalia with Hittite imagery and cultic inventories hinting at the celebration of Hittite gods in town implies the establishment of a direct contact of the core of the empire with this remote urban centre on the Middle Euphrates through the organisation of the cult. The diviner of Emar became the most relevant representative of Hittite interests in town, first directly for the Great Kings of Hattusa, and from the mid-13th century for the Syrian secundogeniture of Karkemiš (Fleming 2000; Cohen, d'Alfonso 2008; Cohen 2010; Archi 2014; Thames 2020; Strosahl 2022).

Now looking at the temples, it is worth noting that neither in the centres in which local rulers kept control of political authority, nor in centres in which members of the Hittite royal family had been installed as local rulers, the organisation of the architectural space resembles the one of the temples in Hittite Anatolia. The planimetry is markedly different and based on one of two local traditions of *in antis* temples, without an inner open court and rows of storerooms, but consistently associated with a court, a terrace, or any other type of open space for cultic performance (Wightman 2007: 22, 159-173; Otto 2013; Mazzoni 2015; Stroshal 2022: 233-235) (Fig. 2).

Thus, if the criteria defining the architectural space organisation of the central Anatolian Hittite temples are lacking in Hittite controlled centres south of the Taurus,2 some distinct Hittite elements exist in certain features. We refer to the monumental stone art in the form of figurative reliefs and/or inscriptions placed at or next to the main temples of the centres under the authority of new Hittite dynasties. At Sirkeli Höyük, identified with Kummanni/Lawazantiya, the rock relief of Great King Muwatalli, and possibly the one of Mursili III next to it, was carved on the rock outcrop in which the great temple building of the city has been identified (lastly Novák 2019-2020: 152-156, with reference

<sup>2</sup> With the exception of Tarsus.

therein). At Alalah, the orthostat with the figurative relief of the Prince and Priest Tuthaliya together with his wife has been found reused in a later phase of the temple in the citadel, but there is little doubt that the relief orthostat was originally placed at the gate providing access to the temple, which was reorganised after the Hittite takeover (Yener 2013). Of the LBA temple of the Storm-god in the citadel of Aleppo we know very little, but the dedicatory inscription in Anatolian Hieroglyphic by king Talmi-Šarruma for the construction of the temple of Hepat and Šarruma is proof of the adoption of the same monumental art associated with the Hittite power in the three sites. We might add that also at the temple of 'Ain-Dara there is evidence of Hittite inspired monumental reliefs, such as the LBA II figurative orthostat of Šauška, a slab with the lower portion of another figurative orthostat preserving the legs of a male figure and poor remains of a monumental Hieroglyphic inscription, and a relief fragment with a head interpreted as a Great King. These pieces support the existence of a LBA II construction phase of the temple before the two main IA phases extensively investigated by scholars, and the adoption of monumental art associated with the Hittite empire (Abu Assaf 1990; Kohlmeyer 2008; Novák 2012; Aro 2022: 563). Even at Karkemiš, N. Marchetti has recently suggested that the so-called Ḫilani temple, already existing during the LBA I before the Hittite conquest, was embellished with figurative orthostats during the LBA II, when the new Hittite dynasty was installed in the town. Of its program we know very little, as only two reliefs of bull-men facing in opposite directions have been assigned to this program, and the main figures are lacking (Marchetti 2019-2020: 271). While the use of figurative art and of hieroglyphic inscriptions is not unknown in the core of the Hittite world as the Tuthaliya stele from Temple 5 at Hattusa, of the reliefs from Örtaköy-Sapinuwa, and above all of

Fig. 2. Plan of temples at 'Ain Dara (from Novak 2012: 47 fig. 4 [drawing by G. Elsen-Novák after Abu Assaf 1990, Abb. 18]) and Emar (Margueron 1995: 132).

the rock sanctuary of Yazılıkaya, these are exceptions and most of the excavated Hittite temples and cultic building in the central Anatolian Plateau are not supported by a monumental iconographic and/or graphic apparatus on stone (Fig. 3).

By contrast, all temples belonging to major centres in which Hittite officials and a Hittite administration were installed as chief local authority kept the organisation of space and function preceding the Hittite takeover but added an iconographic apparatus on stone. In the cases of Alalah, Aleppo, 'Ain-Dara, and Sirkeli Höyük, together with a figurative component, there is also an epigraphic component written in Anatolian Hieroglyphic that serves almost exclusively to indicate the patronage of the new Hittite authority in town over the local cultic institution. On the Anatolian Plateau this is exclusively attested at the sanctuary of Yazılıkaya, but it is worth nothing that the figurative and epigraphic apparatus indicating the patronage by Great King Muwatalli (and Mursili III?) at Kummanni, Prince Tuthaliya at Alalah, and King and priest Talmi-Šarruma at Aleppo precede by some 50 years those of Great King Tuthaliya in Chamber A and B at Yazılıkaya, so that this may well have been a political strategy of emphasising patronage of a cultic institution originating in the political experience of the reorganisation of power in the Syrian and Levantine city states, rather than an Anatolian tradition. In Anatolia, similar patronage on stone is expressed on rock-carved, extra-urban landscape monuments, not in the urban cultic space. It is possible, even likely, that other supports, maybe perishable, and other strategies (such as offering for deceased, divinised kings) would make such patronage well present in the core of the empire, as well. This notwithstanding, monumental figurative and epigraphic compositions as decorations of urban buildings devoted to the main urban cults are a form of expression of the patronage of Hittite newcomers in the region south of the Taurus.

2. Processes of resilience, reorganization, and transformation in Iron Age cultic and political institutions

Back in 1983, in a paper devoted to the post-Hittite developments in Anatolia, E. Akurgal reported the reconstruction of the time inherent to the political situation after the fall of the Hittite empire:

Es scheint tatsachlich, dass Anatolien in der Zeitspanne zwischen 1180 und 750 v. Chr. von nomadischen Völkern besiedelt war, die keine festen Sitzplatze hatten. Die phrygischen Oberreste liegen zwar in Hattusa direkt auf der hethitischen Schicht des 12. Jh. Es ist jedoch kein Gegenstand ans Tageslicht getreten, der alter zu datieren wäre als um 750 v. Chr. Das ist eine wichtige Feststellung. Denn solange wir keine Kulturreste innerhalb des Halysbogens finden, die über das 8. Jahrhundert hinaufreichen, sind wir genötigt anzunehmen, dass dieses Gebiet 400 Jahre lang nur schwach besiedelt war oder überhaupt Besitz der Nomadenstamme wurde … Ob diese nur auf die kriegerischen Ereignisse der Volkerwanderung oder auch auf vernichtende Krankheiten wie die Pest, die im Elend der Nachkriegsjahre vielfach zu herrschen pflegte, oder auf Perioden der Trockenheit, die in diesem Gebiet nicht selten vorkommen, zurückzuführen ist, wissen wir nicht. Eines ist aber sicher, dass in dem Kerngebiet des Hethiterreiches bis zur Entstehung des Phrygischen Reiches um 750 v. Chr. Keine städtischen Siedlungen vorhanden waren, und mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit hat es als Weideland der Nomadenstamme gedient. (Akurgal 1983: 75)

In 2004, as H. Genz wrote his introduction on the EIA in Central Anatolia, this view was still prevalent in the archaeological literature: 'Langer Zeit galt es als allgemeine akzeptierte Tatsache, dass die eisenzeitlichen Befunde in Zentralanatolien nicht vor dem 8.

Fig. 3. Hittite royal reliefs from the temple of Alalah (Tudhaliya and Ašnu-hepa; photo by N. Lovejoy) and Yazılıkaya (Tudhaliya and Šarruma; Bilgin) and Sirkeli (Muwattalli; Bilgin).

Jh. v. Chr. einsetzen' (For a long time it was generally agreed that there are no evidence of Iron Age finds in central Anatolia dating before the 8th century BCE) (Genz 2004: 36). Evidence from the Upper Euphrates and from northern Syria supported the existence of complex political entities whose formation started in the immediate period after the demise of the Hittite empire. The contrast between the lack of evidence for the territory corresponding to the former core of the empire, opposed to the evidence for Syria and the Upper Euphrates, was at the basis of the thesis of a mass migration from north-central Anatolia to the region south of the Taurus. This thesis, despite some criticisms and with useful revisions, is still maintained in current scholarship (Osborne 2021: chapter 2, with reference therein). G. Summers' recent review of the post-Hittite developments north of the Taurus has thus developed the long accepted view in the following ways: 1) political complexity in central Anatolia starts only in the mid-9th century BCE; 2) political complexity is a consequence of the expansionism of the Assyrian empire; and 3) it is a kind of secondary state formation inspired by the model of Assyrian imperialism and the Syro-Hittite political culture of the northern Levantine and western Syrian region (Summers 2017).

Summers' picture may be adequate for some areas, but a micro-regionally based reconstruction is more productive in revealing a variety of modalities and outcomes characterising the transition from the Hittite empire to new forms of political organisation in the post-Hittite period. We suggest that after the fall of the Hittite empire, its former territory fragmented into micro-regional outcomes characterised by different processes of political resilience, reorganisation, and transformation (d'Alfonso 2020a). In this view, the micro-regions of north-central Anatolia and west-central Anatolia are characterised by intense political transformation, the Upper Euphrates area is characterised by political resilience, whereas in south-central Anatolia the EIA outcome has been associated with a process of reorganisation. Cilicia and the northern Levant, although at the core of intense attention by archaeologists, have not been investigated under this perspective, and this will be done in the context of the present paper. We will concentrate our analysis on the evidence of non-private, cultic, sacred spaces after the transition in each micro-region, with the goal of examining the role of cultic institutions in the processes of resilience, reorganisation, and transformation.

### 2.1. Resilience in the Upper Euphrates

The Early Iron Age kingdoms of the Upper Euphrates region demonstrate substantial resilience following the fragmentation of the Hittite empire, as seen through the continuity of cultic and political institutions in Karkemiš and Malatya. Archaeologically, this continuity is evident at Karkemiš in the persistence of Temples A and B (the so-called Ḫilani Temple), apparently dedicated to the Storm-god and perhaps Nikarawa during the Iron Age, and possibly also before, and Temple AA on the northwest acropolis, likely dedicated to Kubaba (Woolley-Barnett 1952: 169-182; Marchetti 2014: 315-317; Marchetti, Peker 2018; Marchetti, Peker, Zaina in Marchetti (ed.) 2019-2020: 269-272; Hutter 2021: 212-215), as well as in the renovations to the Lower Palace and other monumental administrative structures at the site (Marchetti, Peker, Zaina in Marchetti (ed.) 2019-2020: 270-271, 274-276), including what appears to be an Early Iron Age palace recently discovered beneath the later 10th century BCE palace of Katuwa (Fig. 4).3 This

<sup>3</sup> Notice of the new discovery was given at a conference presentation: Marchetti N. 2022, Recent archaeological discoveries on the Late Bronze and Iron ages at Karkemiš, at the PALaC (Pre-Classical Anatolian Languages in Contact) workshop, *Languages and Cultures in Contact in the Ancient Mediterranean. Verona, March 24-25, 2022.*

Fig. 4 Plan of Karkemiš highlighting temples and adjacent monumental space (Marchetti et al. 2019-2020: 332 fig. 1.3; 359 fig. 8.3).

evidence is supported by epigraphic finds that demonstrate the continued use of Late Bronze Age titulary along with the persistence of the Hittite dynastic line at least into the 12th century BCE with Kuzi-Teššub, (Great) King and Hero of Karkemiš, identified on his seal impression (Hawkins 1988, with references therein; Hawkins, Weeden 2016: 9-10), as well as in multiple Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions from the Upper Euphrates region (GÜRÜN; KÖTÜKALE). Exogenous Assyrian sources also reflect a continuity in foreign perceptions of the space, which Tiglath-Pileser I defines as 'the land of Hatti' (RIMA 2, A.0.87.1: v 49; A.0.87.2: 28; D'Orazio *et al.* in Marchetti (ed.) 2019- 2020: 274). While properly Early Iron Age reliefs and inscriptions are lacking from the evidence at Karkemiš, the rich corpus of 10th-9th century BCE texts and images from the site, with support from the 12th-11th century BCE evidence from Malatya, seems to suggest a continuous and perhaps simultaneous development of cultic and political institutions within the region all the way down to the 8th century BCE.

Architectural evidence is less abundant for Malatya, however, the recent excavations at Arslantepe have demonstrated a late 13th century BCE, post-Hittite phase of monumental building activity illustrating an immediate recovery and resilience by the local elites following a destruction process; this rapid recuperation was then followed by a period of decline around the early 12th century BCE (Frangipane *et al.* 2019-2020: 78; Manuelli *et al.* 2021: 888-889; Manuelli 2019: 163; Manuelli 2020: 603). The period from the 12th to 11th century BCE, however, reflects a legacy of Hittite traditions and a close association with Karkemiš and Aleppo through a shared continuity of cultic institutions (Frangipane *et al.* 2019-2020: 80). This is demonstrated in the iconographic repertoire concerning depictions of the Storm-god, in particular, along with a local emphasis on libation scenes characteristic of previous Hittite imagery and cult practices (Manuelli, Mori 2016: 211-213, 226-228). Divine iconography at Malatya demonstrates a persistence of Late Bronze Age Hittite traditions, but is also reflective of regional Early Iron Age trends. The local Storm-gods are still depicted in short belted-tunics, wearing a horned helm, and often standing in a smiting posture, but the style of the horned helms with ridged horns across the lower edge and with an internal element that resembles the Anatolian Hieroglyph SOL is a feature shared only with the Palastinean reliefs at Aleppo, and the Storm-god mounting a bull-drawn eagle-chariot is similarly directly paralleled in a 10th century BCE relief in the temple of the Storm-god at Aleppo (ALEPPO 4; Fig. 5).4 Specifically Karkemišean influence can be seen in the pairing of Kubaba and Karhuha on one relief (MALATYA 13), however, the spelling of the latter god's name, (DEUS.CERVUS2) *kar-hu-ha-sa*, is suggestive of a translation from the Luwian Stag-god, Runtiya (Hawkins 2000: 328-329), and the additional pairing of Hebat and Šarruma on several nearby monuments is indicative of a strong Hurro-Luwian tradition, and reflective of interactions with the regions formerly controlled by Kizzuwadna and Aleppo, that persists well into the Iron Age (DARENDE; GÜRÜN; Hutter 2017: 116; Hutter 2021: 290-299).5

These cultic institutions continue through the 10th century BCE, when monumental building XLVI was constructed with installations suggesting a cultic or ceremonial function and architectural *comparanda* in the southern Levant (Frangipane *et al.* 2019-2020: 81-84), and when the last phase of Early Iron Age sculptural reliefs was carved and set up

<sup>4</sup> Likewise, the image of the Sun-god(dess) on MALATYA 14 is topped by a winged-SOL sign, which may be the same iconograph that rests above the female figure on the Palastinean MEHARDE stele dated *c.* 900 BCE.

<sup>5</sup> This frequent pairing in Malatya may provide yet another link between the cultic institutions of the Upper Euphrates and Aleppo, where Talmi-Šarruma, a Late Bronze Age king and descendant of the Hittite king Suppiluliuma, built a joint temple for Hebat and Šarruma (ALEPPO 1).

Fig. 5 Storm-god of Aleppo and Taita I of Palastina (a: ALEPPO 5+6; Hawkins 2011: 39 fig. 3 [photo by K. Kohlmeyer]), compared with the Storm-god and PUGNUS-mili of Malatya (b: Orthmann 1971: Malatya A/5a; Bilgin); Storm-god mounting bulldrawn eagle chariot at Malatya (c: Orthmann 1971: Malatya A/11; Bilgin), and Aleppo (d: ALEPPO 4; Hawkins 2011: 39 fig. 2 [photo by K. Kohlmeyer]).

before a destruction around the end of the 10th century BCE (Manuelli, Mori 2016: 224- 226). This phase coincides also with an array of silos that suggest a revival of administrative practices characteristic of Hittite imperial traditions, a feature also seen elsewhere in the Syro-Anatolian region at this time (Frangipane *et al.* 2019-2020: 81-84; Castellano 2018; Heffron *et al.* 2017: 134-142; Blaylock 2009: 102). Reuse of Early Iron Age relief orthostats in the newly built Lion's Gate during the subsequent period, along with the construction of the so-called Pillared Hall (Frangipane *et al.* 2019-2020: 87-95), illustrates a resilience of cultic institutions into the 8th century BCE, only ending with Assyrian occupation that included the destruction of the Pillared Hall, the burial of a royal statue in front of the gate, and construction of new, monumental buildings (Frangipane *et al.* 2019-2020: 89-97).

Institutional continuity is likewise evident in the visual and textual assemblage of Karkemiš, but only confidently from the 10th century BCE onward, thus largely coinciding with the Middle Iron Age (Hawkins 2000: 73-223; Marchetti, Peker 2019-2020: 278). The earliest inscribed monuments yet known from post-Hittite Karkemiš are two non-figural stelae dedicated to Ura-Tarhunza, Great King and Hero of Karkemiš, dated to the early 10th century BCE and perhaps recounting events of the 11th century (Dinçol *et al.* 2014: KH.11.O.400; KARKEMIŠ A4b); the titulary mirrors those associated with the early 12th century BCE Kuzi-Teššub, especially in the Malatyan context (GÜRÜN; KÖTÜKALE), suggesting resilience of the political institutions of the kingdom, or at the very least an informed revival (Hawkins 1988). The same inscriptions illustrate the persistence of two major cults – those of the Storm-god, presumably Tarhunza as suggested by the theophoric element in the king's name, and Kubaba, whose priest commissioned the latter of the two monuments and erected it in the temple area – and the emergence and coexistence of a second set of political titles alongside Great King and Hero – those of the Country-Lord and, from the 10th century BCE, the *tarwani* or *tarrawanni*, translated as Ruler or 'the just one', respectively.6 While the latter titles (and associated dynasty) appear to have won out in the succeeding period, a similarly complex political dichotomy and transition can be recognized in the 8th century BCE with the relationship between King Kamani and his vizier Yariri, who acted as regent (*tarwani/ tarrawanni*) during the king's youth (e.g., KARKEMIŠ A6, A7, A15b), and whose descendants appear to have succeeded to the throne, rather than Kamani's own (ADANA 1).

This resilience at Karkemiš is supported by architectural continuity and the embellishment of the monumental space around the lower city Temples A and B, which evidently served as a theatre for public rituals during the 10th and 9th century BCE (Gilibert 2011: 97-131; Gilibert 2014; Marchetti, Peker in Marchetti (ed.) 2019-2020: 278-279). The reliefs from this period include typically Hittite mythological creatures, including bull-men with horned helms, as well as representations of deities that were central to the Late Bronze Age cults of Hittite Karkemiš, such as the Storm-god and Kubaba, and perhaps also Ištar-Šauška and Maliya (Orthmann 1971: 276-277; Hutter 2017: 114-115; Hutter 2021: 300-311). The iconography from these reliefs attests to the persistence of traditional Hittite features, still used, or co-opted, by later Iron Age rulers of Karkemiš as a legitimating force, especially in the connection between the two primary deities and Karkemišean kingship. The worship of the Storm-god of the Vineyard – mostly a micro-regional trend centred around the northeast Mediterranean and often in conjunction with definitions of local kingship – is evident also at Karkemiš,

<sup>6</sup> For a discussion of these titles, see Hawkins 1988; 1995; 2000: 73-79. For *tarwani*, in particular, see Giusfredi 2009. Most recently, Melchert (2019) has offered a convincing alternative, reading the latter term as a substantive adjective, *tarrawanni*. For more on the debate, see also Oreshko 2018: 111-112.

where the deity is represented on a stone stele (ADANA 1) and probably in a bronze figurine (Marchetti 2014: 310-315; KH.11.O.516),7 and may have provided a new means of defining Karkemišean kingship during the 8th century BCE (Lovejoy 2022; Lovejoy forthcoming; Matessi, Lovejoy forthcoming). These local cult structures and sculptures only fell out of use after the conquest of Sargon II in 717 BCE during the period of Assyrian occupation of the site, when both temples were abandoned and replaced, and a new Neo-Assyrian palace was built (Cavriani *et al.* in Marchetti (ed.) 2019-2020: 284). Until that time, it appears that the Upper Euphrates region developed continuously, demonstrating substantial resilience in both cultic and political institutions.

# 2.2. Reorganization in South-Central Anatolia

We have limited information on the LBA-IA transition in south-central Anatolia because we lack archaeological evidence, particularly for the LBA. LBA occupations have been excavated at Ovaören, Niğde-Kınık Höyük, and Porsuk-Zeyve Höyük. Only at Porsuk-Zeyve Höyük has an extensive exposure of LBA levels been produced, but also there it only included the western and eastern slopes of the mound. In none of the three sites have cultic buildings been so far uncovered for the LBA. Moreover, while continuity of occupation throughout the transition seems to characterise the mound of Kınık Höyük, and likely also of Ovaören (Şenyurt, Akçay 2018; d'Alfonso 2020a), a recent reassessment of the dating and stratigraphy of Porsuk-Zeyve Höyük indicates the presence of a significant hiatus in occupation, even though its length still remains unclear (Beyer 2010; 2015). By contrast, many fruitful hints derive from surveys, particularly those covering non-urban sites. Four landscape cultic places have been investigated in detail in relation to the question of the continuity of cults in the LBA-IA transition. These are the Yalburt pond, the Throne peak at Kızıldağ, the Ivriz spring, and the figurative stele with its base at the Tavşantepe pass in the Altunhisar valley.

The Yalburt pond close to the city of Ilgin in the Konya Plain has been at the centre of a micro-regional survey investigating the occupational and environmental change and the archaeological remains from prehistory to the often-problematic embedment in the contemporary landscape. One of the most relevant results is the evidence for continuity of occupation in the area around the pond of Yalburt before and after its monumentalisation. Harmanşah *et al.* have used this evidence in support of the agency of the local community in the definition of the cultic landscape and the stories animating it. They read the monumentalisation of the pond defined by squared and top-moulded limestone blocks bearing the inscriptions of the military deeds of the Hittite Great King Tuthaliya IV as the result of the appropriation of a cultic, collective space of a local, peripheral community by an external political authority (Harmanşah *et al.* 2022, with reference therein).

The case of the Throne and the other cultic installations at Kızıldag has some similarities with the one of Yalburt. In the recent scholarship, a dating of all monumental features at this site to the 8th century has been suggested (Goedegebuure *et al.* 2020; Massa, Osborne 2022, with previous literature). While this reconstruction is possible if one imagines the presence of copies of archaic monuments, we follow here the recon-

<sup>7</sup> While the bronze figurine appears to hold in one hand a bunch of grapes and stalk of grain – a motif especially common in the imagery of Gurgum and Sam'al – Marchetti prefers to interpret the object as a dagger, perhaps referring to grapes in its hilt, due to the absence of this deity elsewhere at Karkemiš (Marchetti 2014: 311, especially n. 7). It should be noted, however, that development of this deity likely involved Karkemiš, where its predecessor – the Storm-god with subordinate Grapeand Grain-gods – is well attested (Lovejoy forthcoming; Matessi, Lovejoy forthcoming).

struction maintaining that there are monumental Anatolian Hieroglyphic inscriptions, and figurative reliefs and altars with offering cups carved in the rock attesting cultic activities at the site at different times from the end of the LBA into the IA (d'Alfonso, Pedrinazzi 2021; Adiego 2021; Hawkins, Weeden 2021).8

It is unclear in both cases whether the cults continued uninterruptedly, or there was some hiatus, if not in the memory of the local populations, in cultic practice at these sacred places. Equally important is to define whether there is continuity in the worshipped gods, and therefore in the institutions they were associated with, or a transformation of the cults while maintaining the sacred places. There are no clear clues to suggest a continuity of cults at Yalburt, or more precisely no interest in claiming any continuity with the imperial patronage by the new authorities in the following periods. In this sense, Yalburt may be defined as a place for the reorganisation of the cults.

By contrast, following the traditional dating of the monuments, the production of new IA inscriptions and the engraved relief of the ruler on the throne at Kızıldağ suggest a desire of reinforcing the previous model of patronage of the LBA in the new period. The selection of archaic models of inscriptions otherwise not attested in the IA are indicative of a desire to enhance the legacy of a former imperial authority, and to use this legacy in support of the legitimation of the later one. Similarly, the reference to traditionally LBA deities with the prominence given to the Storm-god and the Storm-god of Heaven is indicative of the preservation of the hierarchy in the pantheon as known in Hittite Anatolia. Lastly, the model of an inscription topped by the winged sun-disc without association with other figurative reliefs representing a deity is to my knowledge only produced by Great King Tuthaliya IV in the late 13th century (Aro 2022: 568-570), and afterward by Great King Hartapus at Kızıldağ and Great King Ura-Tarhunzas at Karkemiš (Dınçol *et al.* 2014, with reference to the previously found KARKEMIS 4b inscription) (Fig. 6). In both latter cases, the use of the winged sun-disc specifically refers to the sacred dimension of Great Kingship as defined in the Hittite empire. As in Yalburt, we suggest that the sacred place was active during the LBA-IA transition, but in this case, there are strong clues for a continuity in the association between the sacred place, cultic institutions, and the legitimation of political authority.

The situation at the Ivriz spring and at the pass of Tavşantepe is still a different one. No LBA investment in the monumentalisation of these landscape cultic places has been found, even though there is evidence for frequentation and cultic activity for this period (Maner 2017). During the IA two distinct rock reliefs have been carved. They represent different cultic scenes, in different styles and likely dating to different periods within the IA. The well-known relief of king Warpalawa worshipping the Storm-god has been for a long time interpreted as a sign of continuity with the cult of the Storm-god in south Cappadocia attested during the Hittite empire. In particular, the cuneiform sources give due importance to the Storm-god of Tuwanuwa, and the Storm-god represented at the Ivriz spring is indeed associated with Warpalawa, the king of Tuwana, likely the first millennium form of the name Tuwanuwa (Mora 2010; Mora, Balatti 2012). In fact, the Storm-god of Ivriz is a Storm-god of the Vineyard, as evident in the association with the grapevine in iconography and the way he is explicitly named in the BOR 1 inscription (§4, (VITIS)*tuwarsasin* (DEUS)*Tarhunzan*, acc. s.). While the Ivriz 1 relief is only one of several reliefs of the Storm-god uncovered all around south Cappadocia, thus offering a glimpse of the spread of this cult in the region, it is worth noting that they are all

<sup>8</sup> The relevant presence of cultic activities also in the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods is not discussed, as it is not relevant to this paper.

a

Fig. 6 The KIZILDAĞ 3 rock-engraved inscription (a: Hawkins 2000: Pl. 237), compared with the stele of Tuthaliya IV from Boğazköy (b: BOĞAZKÖY 18; Bilgin).

contemporary, dating to the end of the 8th century BCE, all exclusively representing a Storm-god of the Vineyard, and directly associated with the two kings of Tuwana so far attested, namely Warpalawas and Muhawaranis. N. Lovejoy has recently suggested that the origin of this new aspect of the cult may be exogenous and may have been introduced in south Cappadocia from the northern Levant where it developed out of a tradition attested first at Ugarit and then in the kingdom of Palastina (Lovejoy forthcoming). So, in a way, the existence of more temple institutions of the Storm-god in the region during the Hittite period would make the new cult particularly easy to accept by local communities. At the same time, the cult has clear aspects of innovation for this region, possibly also associated with the transformation of the landscape, characterised by a more intensive production of grapes and bread wheat (Castellano 2021).

The stele of Tavşantepe shows the image of a female goddess seated on a throne over the back of a crouched lion. While this has often been interpreted as a representation of Kubaba, whose cult in the region is known thanks to the inscription of Bulgarmaden, A. Lanaro has suggested that she could in fact represent one of the southern Cappadocian goddesses associated with the agricultural productivity of the land well known from the cuneiform religious texts from Hattusa dealing with cultic activities and institutions of southern Cappadocia. In opposition to the many standardised representations of the Storm-god of the Vineyard, the Tavşantepe stele shows no direct or mediated Assyrian influence, and Lanaro suggested for it a dating in the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE (Lanaro 2015). In its crude style, the Tavşantepe stele is similar to the Ivriz 2 relief, representing an offering scene which has the best parallels in the Hittite and immediately post-Hittite period. D'Alfonso has recently suggested that Tavşantepe and Ivriz 2 represent a first reorganization of local cults in south Cappadocia after the fall of the Hittite empire, whereas the cult of the Storm-god of the Vineyard represents an innovation introduced from the northern Levant through Cilicia distinctly associated with the last two kings of Tuwana of the late 8th century (d'Alfonso 2020b).

### 2.3. Transformation in North-Central Anatolia

North-Central Anatolia is the region in which the transition from the LBA to the IA took the most evident and profound transformation in political organisation and social complexity. While the EIA and MIA occupation has traditionally received less attention than the earlier Hittite period, today excavations at a number of sites allow for a regional overview of the transition. The whole reconsideration of the transition in this period is very much indebted to the excavation led by Dr. Seeher at Büyükkaya-Boğazköy. The study of architecture and material culture, in particular ceramics, could identify a profound *caesura* between the late imperial occupation and the following EIA phases, characterised by an immediate change in architectural technique and space organisation at the site, as well as a progressive abandonment of the Hittite ceramic shapes and production technology, moving to new, simplified shapes, handmade production, and adoption of a few, well identifiable, red-painted decorative motifs under the rims of selected closed and open vessels (Genz 2004; Seeher 2018). None of these EIA architectural features (mostly one-room, squared pit-houses, as well as middle-sized pits) could be associated with cultic activities. Recent studies of the metallurgical and agropastoral activity at the site, and at the neighbouring site of Çadır Höyük, seem to imply that the transformation should not be understood as a complete abandonment or reduction of scale of the activities taking place in the region, or a complete isolation from former and new long-distance interaction. They rather show the reorganisation of economic activities within a profoundly transformed political and social scenario (Lehner 2017; Ross *et al.* 2019).

Fig. 7 The statue of 'Matar' from the main room in the Büyükkale I fortification gate at Boğazköy (Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Limestone\_statue\_of\_ Cybele,\_the\_Phrygian\_Mother\_Earth\_goddess,\_flanked\_by\_two\_male\_figures,\_discovered\_in\_Bo%C4%9Fazk%C3%B6y,\_6th\_century\_BC,\_Museum\_of\_Anatolian\_Civilizations,\_Ankara\_(29652460984).jpg).

The early first-millennium occupation at Büyükkaya equally did not entail any public building to be associated with cultic activity of the local community. This Büyükkaya occupation phase has been recognised as either slightly earlier, or even contemporary with the reoccupation of the citadel of the site of Boğazköy, namely the Büyükkale II occupation phase. Excavated at a very early stage, the stratigraphy of the IA occupation of Büyükkale is known to a much lower degree of depth than the one of the Hittite and pre-Hittite periods. This notwithstanding, after a hiatus of some 300 years, the citadel is characterised by single room, squared buildings of roughly the same dimensions, and the adoption of Dark Monochrome Geometric Painted (DMGP) ware, for the most part wheel-made. The adoption of the DMGP ware, and in particular of its Alişar-IV subset, for wine drinking is indicative of the participation in the dynamics of multi-centred, interrelated canton states whose earlier examples are emerging in south-central Anatolia during the 10th century BCE. Within this occupation phase, again, no evidence of cultic space or cultic activity could be singled out. The earliest evidence of non-private cult comes in fact from the Büyükkale I occupation phase, dated to the 7th century BCE. This consists of the niche with the cultic statue of Matar/ Kybele occupying a corner of a room of the gate providing access to the citadel (Neve 1982: 152-154; Summers 2021: 137-138), as well as a cultic deposit found in the lower town, out of the citadel (Bittel 1970: 139-141). Also in this case, materials are indicative of cultic activities related to the cult of Matar/Kybele (Fig. 7). It is worth underscoring that there is no trace indicative of the existence of the worshipping of the Storm-god 194 Lorenzo d'Alfonso, Nathan Lovejoy

Map 1. Sites with non-private cultic space discussed in the paper, divided between LBA, and IA sites: 1. Nerikka - Oymaağaç Höyük; 2. Yazılıkaya; 3. Hattusa - Boğazköy; 4. Zippalanda - Uşaklı Höyük; 5. Sarissa - Kuşaklı Höyük; 6. *huwasi* near Kuşaklı; 7. Altınyayla; 8. Yalburt; 9. Malatya - Arslantepe; 10. Fıraktın; 11. Imamkulu; 12. Tavşantepe; 13. Kınık Höyük; 14. Emirğazi; 15. Eflatun Pınar; 16. Kızıldağ; 17. Ivriz; 18. Domuztepe; 19. Azatiwataya - Karatepe; 20. Tatarlı Höyük; 21. Zincirli Höyük; 22. Sirkeli Höyük; 23. Adana; 24. Tarsa - Gözlükale; 25. Karkamiš; 26. Cağdın; 27. Kilise Tepe; 28. Tell 'ain Dara; 29. Arsuz; 30. Kinalua - Tell Tayınat; 31. Alalaḫ - Tell Atçana; 32. Halpa - Aleppo; 33. Karaburun/Hatay; 34. Emar - Tell Meskene; 35. Tell Afis; 36. Ugarit - Ras Shamra; 37. Tell Tweini; 38. Hama; (Prepared by L. d'Alfonso and L. Castellano with software ArcGIS).

or the Sun deities that had a prominent position in religious, institutional, economic, and political functioning of the Hittite empire. The evidence from the site hints at the complete lack of non-private cults from the early 12th century down to the 7th century BCE. Together with the lack of contexts associated with political authority, the lack of evidence for cultic institutions during the EIA and the MIA, and the emergence of cults in town showing no legacy of the former LBA religious institutions are the strongest evidence of the profound transformation of social and political complexity at the site of the former capital of the empire.

A brief overview of other sites excavated in the region provides clues for extending this reconstruction to the whole region of NCA. Besides Boğazköy, excavated sites with well-documented evidence of the LBA-IA transition are Çadır Höyük, Uşaklı Höyük, Maşat Höyük, and towards the Pontic region Akalan, İkiztepe, Oluz Höyük and Oymaağaç Höyük (see Yılmaz contribution to Ökse, Czichon, Yılmaz 2021). The monumental temple buildings at both Oymaağaç Höyük and Uşaklı Höyük were not reconstructed or reused during the Early or Middle Iron Ages. No evidence of non-private cultic space emerged from the investigations at Maşat, either (Özgüç 1978: 91- 94). In the whole region, there seems to be a profound shift in religion, with little to no evidence of continuity of cultic institutions and cults of the previous Hittite period.

#### 2.4. Reorganization and Transformation in Cilicia

With the end of the Late Bronze Age, the Cilician Plain suffered a widespread disruption to both cultic and political institutions. While the previous period featured several structures representative of Hittite cultic institutions – namely, the aforementioned shrine or open-air sanctuary at Sirkeli Höyük (van den Hout 2002: 89-91; Kozal, Novák 2013: 233), a monumental structure at Tarsus interpreted as a Hittite temple (Goldman 1956: 49-50; Trameri 2020: 440-441), the North-West Building/Stele Building sequence at Kilise Tepe (Bouthillier *et al.* 2014; Blakeney 2017: 46-47), and a possible Hittite temple atop the citadel mound of Tatarlı Höyük (Girginer 2011: 133-135; Girginer, Oyman-Girginer, Akıl 2012: 110-112) – the end of the second and early first millennium is devoid of any certain evidence of temples, sanctuaries, or shrines that might reflect the later cultic institutions of the region. They are clearly evident in the sculptural and inscriptional sources, albeit only from the Middle Iron Age. A number of monumental structures produced throughout the period may have served some cultic function, but they have not produced material or textual evidence to assign them a descriptor any more specific than 'special.'9 While the monumental building projects and extensive urban expansion of Sirkeli Höyük, which occurred without any substantial hiatus of occupation throughout the Iron Age, suggest a rapid re-emergence or continuity of some central authority at the site following the loss of Hittite control, any political institution at the site appears to be wholly local. This appears in stark contrast to the situation in the previous period, where the regional authority of the site was centred around its sacred relevance, especially to the Hittite empire, and a ruler with

<sup>9</sup> Monumental structures on the mound of Sirkeli Höyük dated as early as the mid-late 12th century BCE (Novák 2020: 215-220; Sollee *et al.* 2020: 221-224), the apsidal structure at Tarsus dated between the mid-12th and mid-10th century BCE (Goldman 1963: 3-6; Yalcın 2013: 200; Ünlü 2015: 519-520), the posthole ring or apse at Kilise Tepe dated to the beginning of the 12th century BCE (Postgate, Thomas 2007: 121; Blakeney 2017: 46-47; Heffron *et al.* 2017: 118-120), a 9th century BCE renovation of the Hittite temple at Tatarlı Höyük (Ünal, Girginer 2010: 275; Girginer, Oyman-Girginer 2020).

Fig. 8 Stele of the Storm-god from Domuztepe (Photo by N. Lovejoy).

the title of 'Priest.' This lack of institutional continuity is immediately suggestive of an intensive reorganisation at the Sirkeli Höyük and likely throughout Cilicia as a whole.

Sculptural and textual evidence provides more information pertaining to the cultic institutions of Cilicia, but only for the 9th to perhaps the early 7th century BCE. The earliest evidence, coming from the 9th-early 8th century BCE, includes the fragmentary sculptures of Domuztepe and a stele depicting the Storm-god of the Vineyard and commissioned by a Karkemišean official found near Adana. At Domuztepe, three broken stelae depicting gods, two identifiable as the Storm-god and Kubaba, while the third stands upon a sphinx with its identity unknown, and a stele illustrating a 'tree-of-life' motif beneath a winged sun disc provide the earliest indication for the continuation or resumption of local cultic institutions; from the imagery of Domuztepe alone, the cults could have recovered or evolved from the Aleppine/Kizzuwadnean traditions with little to no outside influence (Fig. 8). However, the Karkemišean stele provides evidence for the introduction of a new hypostasis of the Storm-god in the region. While the citadel of Domuztepe is likely indicative of a new political institution in Cilicia (with a Hurro-Anatolian background), abrupt institutional change is evident in the following century with the Luwo-Phoenician monuments of the later 8th century BCE rulers of Hiyawa (Bossert *et al*. 1950; Alkım 1952: 240-249; Ussishkin 1969; Winter 1979; Çambel, Özyar 2003: 153-156; Sicker-Akman *et al.* 2014).

Whether through some form of migration or persistent interaction, 8th century BCE Cilicia came to be characterised by the use of the Phoenician language and script and its impact in the previously Hurro-Luwian setting. The rest of the monuments from the region date to the second half of the century, or shortly thereafter, and are all products of two rulers, Awarika and Azatiwada. The inscriptions of these rulers all include Phoenician texts, and each ruler also produced a Luwian-Phoenician bilingual.10 In both instances, these texts are found on statues representing a local hypostasis of the Storm-god of the Vineyard, possibly inspired by the intrusive stele from Karkemiš, and the figures are identified as both the Luwian Tarhunza and the Phoenician Ba'al (Lovejoy 2022; Matessi, Lovejoy forthcoming). In the KARATEPE inscription, we also find the Luwian Stag-god Runza translated into the Phoenician Resheph of the Goats, and Ea translated into El. The imagery from Karatepe is also striking in comparison to the more traditional Neo-Hittite character seen at nearby, and only slightly earlier, Domuztepe. While the Levantine or eastern Mediterranean character of several elements from the relief orthostats of Karatepe has long been noted,11 the presence of the Egyptian god Bes apparently acting in his characteristic apotropaic role on two reliefs of the North Gate bears emphasis, as it is additional and explicit evidence of (perhaps Cypro-) Phoenician cultic influence at the site (Orthmann 1971: 267-271).12 It should also be noted that there seems to be no attempt by the stoneworkers of Karatepe to revive the traditional Luwian cultic imagery from Domuztepe, except perhaps in the double bull statue base of the Storm-god.

The Storm-god is no longer represented in the guise of a warrior, but stands placidly in a long robe. This is a major change in the representation of the Storm-god, definitively distant from the Hittite, second millennium figurative and symbolic representation. Similarly, the cult of Kubaba disappears entirely, as she is not mentioned in any of the Hiyawan inscriptions and none of the myriad images from Karatepe could be interpreted as hers. In sum, while the wholesale societal disruption that took place during the Early Iron Age caused the dramatic silence in archaeological, art historical, and epigraphic sources pertaining to cults and cultic institutions in the region, the reprise in the 9th century BCE and the introduction of new cults by foreign elites from the regions east of the Amanus and from the Levantine coast led to a complete institutional reform. This reform resulted in a new cosmopolitan conceptualisation of the divine in which the gods most closely tied to Hiyawan kingship bore multiple identities. And while each ruler sought to express their own political identity in unique ways that reflect the changing socio-political landscape of the later 8th century BCE (Lovejoy 2022), the institution of Hiyawan kingship was transformed already through its association with new sources of legitimation. While the Storm-god remained the foundation of sacral kingship, in Hiyawa, it was no longer the warrior god wielding axe and lightning, but a provider god bearing grape and grain.

<sup>10</sup> While the İNCİRLİ inscription is usually called a trilingual (Kaufman 2007), this classification is debatable. While the Phoenician text appears to be primary, the undecipherable Akkadian may be a secondary inscription, and the so-called Luwian inscription might simply be the EGO sign initiating 1st person speech.

<sup>11</sup> Egyptianising sphynxes, a breastfeeding woman, Phoenician ship, etc. (Orthmann 1986; Özyar 1998; Çambel, Özyar 2003: 131-140; Özyar 2003: 110-112; Özyar 2013: 128-131). For an argument towards Neo-Assyrian influence at Karatepe, see Aro 2014.

<sup>12</sup> For iconography associated with Bes in the eastern Mediterranean, see Culican 1968: 92-98; for a brief description of Bes' primary functions, see Hart 2005: 49-50.

#### 2.5. Resilience, Reorganisation, and Transformation in the Northern Levant

The Early Iron Age cultic institutions of the northern Levant demonstrate substantial continuity, unseen elsewhere in the Syro-Anatolian region outside of the Upper Euphrates. The temples of Aleppo and 'Ain Dara survived the Late Bronze Age fragmentation and subsequent vacuum of political powers in the region and even demonstrated the earliest signs of a return to prosperity and stability. The temple of the Storm-god at Aleppo was renovated by a king Taita I of Palastina during the 11th century BCE. These renovations included new relief orthostats, new portal figures, a relief carving of the king facing that of the Storm-god, and several inscriptions. The excavators have also interpreted a reorientation of the space, returning to a direct-axis approach to a new primary divine figure, however, the elaboration of the space around the Storm-god relief with the royal figure and monumental inscription suggests, instead, a continuity of the bent-axis plan (*contra* Kohlmeyer 2009: 197-200; Aro 2010: 5; Hawkins 2011; Kohlmeyer 2012: 64-65, 68-69). Likewise, the similarities in style between the figures of the king and deity suggest an attempt at imitation, albeit with certain choices reflecting new cultural norms, e.g., the lack of curled toes on the ruler. Note the v-neck tunic and pointed kilt, only simplified without decoration for the king; see also the pointed cap of Taita, lacking the horns and the internal SOL sign that mark the divine nature of the Storm-god, besides the short epigraph defining him as the Halabean hypostasis of the deity (ALEPPO 5).13 These differences suggest an awareness of the significance of certain iconography (i.e., the divine helm) and an explicit effort to distinguish the new ruler in a position lower than the god, despite the peculiar proportional relationship between the two figures. Additionally important, the king's inscription (ALEPPO 6) describes a set of ritual sacrifices that should be made to the Halabean Storm-god by men of various standing, from king to commoner, whenever they should come to the temple. This proclamation directly ties Taita's kingship to the cultic institution, providing a foundation for his power at a time when we know of no Palastinean palace or other governmental structure. Taita I's other inscription from the temple (ALEPPO 7) provides another important connection. While the text is incredibly fragmentary, a possible reference to Kubaba, seemingly in the context of an interaction with Karkemiš, indicates a continued or renewed relationship between northern Syria and the Upper Euphrates, providing a clear venue for cultural exchange in the cultic context (Singer 2012; Weeden 2013; 2015; Younger 2016: 123-134; Simon 2019: 136-138, esp. n. 55).

The temple at 'Ain Dara, dedicated either to the Storm-god or Ištar-Šauška, was similarly renovated with artistic comparison suggesting the work was also commissioned by Taita I (Abu Assaf 1990; Novák 2012: 48-49). At Tell Afis, a new, probably *in antis*, temple to the Storm-god was built during the 11th century BCE and renovated during the early 10th century BCE. Finds within the space include a cylinder seal depicting the Storm-god and several vessels and other objects associated with ritual behavior (Soldi 2009: 106-108; Mazzoni 2012: 24-26; Mazzoni 2014: 47-51; Mazzoni 2019: 311-312, 318-319; Fig. 9). In contrast to Cilicia, this Early Iron Age new construction and the renovations at each excavated temple of the region indicate that local cultic institutions not only survived the collapse of the Late Bronze Age political systems, but returned to prominence soon after – long before political institutions or infrastructures re-emerged in the region.

<sup>13</sup> See also Section 2.2 for arguments based on similarities between the Aleppo Storm-god relief and the Storm-god reliefs at Malatya.

RULERSHIP AND THE GODS 199

In the subsequent Middle Iron Age, the cultic landscape of the northern Levant changed considerably, no longer characterized by a small number of intra-regional cult centres, but rather reorganised around local temples within major urban spaces. The temples of the previous period each experienced phases of renovation and transformation before most were eventually destroyed, abandoned, or replaced. These processes are similarly paralleled in the political institutions of the region, with the apparent transplantation of the Palastinean monumental centre to Tell Tayinat and the subsequent or simultaneous rise of surrounding polities with new socio-political structures, such as those of Zincirli, Bit-Agusi, and Hamath and Luash.

The temple at Aleppo was renovated for a final time around 900 BCE with the addition of several new relief orthostats before its subsequent conflagration and abandonment. The temple at 'Ain Dara also appears to have been renovated in the 10th century

Fig. 9 Tell Afis temple of the Storm-god and Storm-god seal (Mazzoni 2014: 45 fig. 3, 46 fig. 4, 51 fig. 16, courtesy of the Tell Afis Archaeological Project).

and somewhere in the 9th-mid-8th century BCE, based on stylistic analysis of the relief orthostats. The temple of the Storm-god at Tell Afis likely remained in use until around the late 8th-early 7th century BCE; at this time, a series of two new temples were built over it, the last of which bears substantial Neo-Assyrian influences, and may be attributed to Assyrian occupation or administration of the site (Mazzoni 2012: 25-35; Mazzoni 2014: 45-47; Cecchini 2014: 58-61). There is also possibly a mid-10th to mid-9th century BCE temple located within the domestic space of Tell Afis, suggested by what Mazzoni has interpreted as an altar, however, this interpretation is doubted by Venturi on the basis of the poor preservation of the structure's plan and finds (Mazzoni 1998: 165-166; Venturi 2007: 187; Mazzoni 2012: 27-29; Venturi 2020: 37-40). A new temple district was also constructed at Tell Tweini between the 10th and mid-9th century BCE, including what is interpreted as an *in antis* temple structure along with a walled, cobblestone-paved courtyard and plastered ashlar platform with a carved hole suggestive of drainage for libations or sacrifices. The excavators interpret the sacred space as Phoenician based on architectural and material *comparanda* at Sarepta and Enkomi, though perhaps these connections would more precisely imply a Cypro-Phoenician cultural context; in any case, it is unclear to which deity or cult the space may have been dedicated (Bretschneider *et al.* 2000: 87-96; al-Maqdissi *et al.* 2007: 62-63; Bretschneider *et al.* 2008). During the 9th-8th century BCE, an Assyrian open-air sanctuary was created at Karabur, located about 25 km south of Antakya, thus not far from the Amuq Plain. This sanctuary comprises conical granite outcroppings spread over an area of about 100 m, including four such outcroppings with reliefs depicting divine figures and symbols, and at least one worshiper (Taşyürek 1975: 172-180). The eroded state of the reliefs and lack of inscriptions do not permit a more precise dating of the sacred space, and the variety of symbols and iconography suggest that it may have served a multitude of deities, perhaps including both those of Syro-Levantine and Assyrian pantheons.

Dating from the 10th to early 9th century BCE are also a set of important sculptural monuments from the northern Levant, all attributed to the kingdom of Palastina.14 It is also important to consider that this period represents the first monumentalisation and urbanisation of the Palastinean capital, Kunulua, at Tell Tayinat in the Amuq Plain. Two funerary stelae invoking a goddess known as the 'Divine Queen of the Land,' one apparently depicting the goddess standing on a lion, wearing a 'Hathor-headdress,' and surmounted by a winged sun seemingly represented by the stylised Anatolian Hieroglyph SOL in much the same way as on MALATYA 14, were erected by Taita (probably II) and his wife(?) Kupapiya; beside the deity, standing upon the lion's head, is a smaller figure appearing to represent the king, quite similar to the way the Ugaritic king is represented on the Late Bronze Age Ba'al with Thunderbolt stele (SHEIZAR; MEHARDE). Two stelae of Suppliliuma I of Palastina depict the Storm-god guiding a smaller royal figure by the hand and holding a lightning trident before him. The king in the relief carries a bunch of grapes and stalk of grain in his hands, seeming to represent the Grain- and Wine-gods invoked in the accompanying inscription (ARSUZ 1 and 2). This pair of deities appears to be an innovation of the period, appearing also at Karkemiš,

<sup>14</sup> While there are disagreements between the specific chronology of several of these monuments (Giusfredi 2018, with references therein), they will be irrelevant for the current argument. The monuments of SHEIZAR, MEHARDE, ARSUZ 1 and 2, and ALEPPO 4 with associated reliefs will here be considered as a group without an attempt at ordering them. Likewise, the disputed association of SHEIZAR and MEHARDE with the region of Hama will not be considered. Together, these monuments are examined as products of the Palastinean 'body politic' within the 10th to early 9th centuries BCE northern Levant.

and seemingly derived from the Ugaritic mythological context where the messengers of the Storm-god Ba'al are known as Gapn and Ugar, or Vine and Field (Smith, Pitard 2009: 222-223, especially n. 39; Lovejoy forthcoming). The last cultic monuments dated to this period come once again from the temple of the Storm-god at Aleppo, where the central chamber was renovated with several new orthostats depicting mythological and divine figures. Most prominent among these is a single long orthostat at the centre of the pedestal wall bearing the image of the Anatolian Stag-god Runtiya following a god driving a bull-drawn eagle-chariot and identified as the 'Divine Mace,' perhaps a hypostasis of the Storm-god (ALEPPO 4). Interestingly, these deities resemble the 11th century BCE image of the ruler Taita I more than the 13th century BCE image of the Storm-god from the same room; their toes are not curled, their beard is short and hair a single mass, their tunic and skirt are plain, and especially noteworthy is their pointed cap with ribbed external surface: though the caps bear a single set of small horns, they lack the internal SOL of the Storm-god. While this could be an intentional difference aimed at separating the deities in hierarchical position, it may also reflect a loss of understanding of the significant iconograph that represents the solarisation of the Storm-god.

At Tell Tayinat, two temples *in antis* were constructed between the mid-9th and mid-8th century BCE, possibly serving as the divine residences of the Storm-god and his consort, as suggested already by Harrison (2012: 19). Both of the Palastinean temples at Tell Tayinat were renovated during the period of Assyrian occupation in the late 8th to early 7th century BCE, and a large platform was built nearby, expanding what Harrison describes as a 'sacred precinct,' reflecting Assyrian practices (Harrison 2009: 184-186; Harrison 2011b: 35-36; Harrison 2012; Harrison, Osborne 2012; Fig. 10). These renovations came with a reorientation to Mesopotamian deities, at least for the smaller of the two temples, which became a temple of Nabu; the tablet collection kept in the *adyton* of the temple finds *comparanda* in the temple of Nabu at Nimrud, where eight copies of Esarhaddon's loyalty oath were found (Harrison 2012: 16). While new occupants have also been proposed for the larger temple, its greater size would have likely resulted in it remaining the primary cultic structure in the area, probably still housing the Storm-god as the head of the local pantheon (Petrovich 2016: 110-141). The intentional destruction and deposition of earlier monumental statuary, perhaps the focus of dynastic or ancestor cults, and the prominence of the Assyrian loyalty oath tablet within the new temple supports a dramatic reimagining of cult practice at Tell Tayinat (Harrison 2011a; Harrison 2011b: 34; Lauinger 2011; Harrison 2012: 16; Harrison *et al.* 2018; Denel, Harrison 2018: 369-370).15

Around Aleppo, while the major temple was no longer in use, the mid-9th to 8th century BCE was characterised by the emergence of Bit-Agusi, perhaps enabled by the fall of the supra-regional cultic institution. During this period, new cultic institutions are suggested by several stelae bearing Aramaic inscriptions: one depicts the striding figure of Melqart wielding an axe or cudgel, commissioned by Bir-Hadad, king of Aram (KAI

<sup>15</sup> Inscribed monuments from the Amuq Plain are limited during this period and mostly fragmentary. From Tell Tayinat itself is a fragmentary statue base whose inscription refers to several deities including Ea the King, the Grain- and Wine-gods, the Sun-god, Tarhunza, Runtiya, and Tamukina, perhaps the local form of the Mesopotamian goddess Damqina, the wife of Ea (TELL TAYINAT 2). A broken statue base from Jisr el Hadid describes offerings for Tarhunza (JISR EL HADID 4), and a building block from Tuleil refers to Kubaba and the Harranean Moon-god (TULEIL 2). The lower half of a small statue of a robed figure discovered near the village of Hatay describes offerings made to the Divine Queen of the Land, presumably the figure represented by the statue itself (KIRÇOĞLU).

201; *CoS* 2.33), while a set of three or four stelae recording a treaty between local kings includes a long list of divine witnesses, beginning with Mesopotamian deities followed by local Syro-Levantine deities and forces of nature (KAI 222-224; *CoS* 2.82).16 Similarly, the region around Tell Afis appears to have fallen under the control of Zakkur, king of Hamath and Luash, around the early 8th century BCE. An Aramaic inscribed stele discovered at the site is dedicated to the god El-Wer and credits Ba'al Shamem as the legitimating force behind Zakkur's rule of the city of Hazrach, likely Tell Afis (KAI 202; *CoS* 2.35).

It is clear that if the Early Iron Age was a period of continuity and resilience of cultic institutions from the Late Bronze Age, the Middle Iron Age was rather a period of reorganisation followed by substantial transformation and diversification of the cultic landscape in the northern Levant. At this later stage, the central position of the Stormgod in the cultic institutions of the region appears less clear from the evidence of sacred constructed space, with greater plurality of temples across the region. This is not evident in the textual sources, however, as the Storm-god persists as the head of most panthea; nevertheless, with the intrusion of several foreign influences during the 9th to 7th century BCE, an increased diversity of cultic institutions is reflected in the evidence taken together. The intensifying Assyrianization towards the end of the period likewise appears to have overshadowed local cultic institutions or at least reframed them within the Assyrian worldview.

In summary, for the northern Levant, the persistence in regional temples with their associated cults provided an anchor on which a new political structure could ground itself, thus perpetuating previous traditions associated with kingship and its connection to the divine. Palastina's initial political stability during the first two centuries of the first millennium is likely the result of this earlier cultic continuity, perhaps demonstrating a long process of political revival grounded upon the resilience of the major temples of the region. However, what is missed in this assessment is the absence of local institutions associated with the NW Semitic-speaking populations following the fall of Ugarit, immediately to the south, where several important temples were never rebuilt. This loss of built sacred spaces might have left communities needing a way to materialize their beliefs or participate in the now more ephemeral cults of the region, perhaps providing an impetus for cultic innovation, e.g., the proto-Storm-god of the Vineyard on the ARSUZ stelae (Lovejoy forthcoming) or the Divine Queen of the Land (Lovejoy, Matessi forthcoming), as institutions merged and produced new outcomes. So, while Palastina begins as a prime example of cultic resilience resulting in political revival and conservatism, the lack of regeneration of NW Semitic cults or the absence of an outlet for religious beliefs of NW Semitic populations may have applied pressure to the new Palastinean power, which had exclusively sponsored and based its legitimacy on cultic institutions previously patronized by the Hittite empire, eventually leading to transformation.

#### 3. Conclusions

This paper has aimed to demonstrate that cults and cultic institutions are a crucial element for the understanding of the processes producing different regional outcomes after the fall of the Hittite empire. In a structuralist or functionalistic perspective,

<sup>16</sup> '[Assur] and Mullesh…Marduk and Zarpani…Nabu and T[ashmet…Ir and Nus]k…Nergal and Las…Samas and Nur…S[in and Nikkal]…Nikkar and Kadi'ah…Rahbah and Adam(?)…[Hadad of A]leppo…Sibitti…El and 'Elyan…Hea[van and Earth…(the) A]byss and (the) Springs…Day and Night – all the god[s of KTK and the gods of Ar]pad (are) witnesses….'

cultic institutions can be seen as a result of specialisation and political complexity. In our emic, contextual, diachronic, and dynamic model, cults are normative cosmic forces defining tempo and worldview of ancient societies, and cultic institutions are a well-identified physical space defined by purity, charged with real and symbolic value, led by specialists whose competence is recognised by the community. Instead of being a by-product of political complexity, they are a driving force behind the power dynamics because they are perceived as such in a bottom-up perspective, but also often by main political actors in search of legitimation of their power.

The land of Hatti was defined by its temple institutions in urban contexts and sanctuaries in the landscape. Temple space and the organisation of cultic ceremonies within the temple and in urban and extra-urban processions were defined by precise norms preserved in the archives of the Hittite capital. When northern Syria became part of the Hittite empire, local cultic space, organisation, and ritual ceremonies – all expressions of local communities – persisted in spite of the impact of the new hegemonic power. In fact, there is growing evidence for the deliberate choice by the Hittites of maintaining the local cults and, in fact, patronising them as a strategy to gain the support of the local population. As for the built environment of the temples, this caused the continuity in the local organisation of architectural space, however, with the addition of Hittite monumental figurative or graphic art, often directly hinting at the Hittite personality acting as new sponsor of the institution.

In the model mentioned above, a resilient attitude of a large community in times of distress results in a form of continuity of the cults representing the normative, cosmic forces defining its group identity. In the Upper Euphrates, there appears to be a simultaneous resilience of cultic and political institutions, which resulted in a continuous process of development within the region. The two major centres seem to have facilitated this continuity in each other, both demonstrating resilience even after periods of decline, destruction, or abandonment.

While processes of resilience, reorganisation, or transformation do not often appear to occur simultaneously, the situation in the northern Levant suggests that new political institutions were, in fact, reliant upon traditional, local cultic institutions. Even when newcomers were able to come to power and brought in new rituals, for example in commensality (Pucci 2019), the legitimacy of their power was dependent on the legitimation provided by the persistence of local cultic institutions and the deliberate decision by this new elite to patronise them, and through them to enter in direct contact with the resilient polities in the Upper Euphrates. We suggest that in this way what James Osborne has defined the 'Syro-Anatolian Culture Complex' was obtained (Osborne 2021).

This was followed by a reorganisation of the cultic landscape and several notable transformations within local cults that coincided with a fragmentation and diversification of both cultic and political institutions with novel, local outcomes. While Palastina itself was reorganized around the Amuq valley, previously important to the Hittite empire, and where even Middle Iron Age kings bore dynastic names referring back to real or imagined ancestors from the great Anatolian power, its peripheral territories were transformed into new local kingdoms with distinct political institutions lacking, for the most part, any major connection with the Late Bronze Age past.

South-central Anatolia, on the other hand, was characterised by processes of reorganisation of both political and cultic institutions. The interruption of evidence for the cult of the Storm-god, so heavily present in the Hittite cuneiform sources describing this region, and instead the relevance of a cult of a female goddess may only be the result of limited investigations, and this may also be the case for the lack of evidence of temples in urban context. Otherwise, they might hint at a meaningful change in social organisation towards the cults and the related group identities in the region. By contrast, the relationship between institutions during the final late 8th century BCE phase of transformation, which resulted in new regional cults and local definitions of sacral kingship, has to be understood as a profound regional innovation based, however, on the revival of the legacy of local cults.

In north-central Anatolia, the core of the previous Hittite empire, an abrupt disappearance of both political and cultic institutions and a period of reduced socio-political complexity is followed only in the 7th century BCE by the emergence of new cults, apparently coinciding with the formations of new polities defined by elements of Phrygian identity – and possibly by direct migration.

Cilicia is a similarly challenging case study, as after the super-regional key role played in the Late Bronze Age, specific evidence of cultic institutions is missing until the 9th century BCE. However, this first evidence appears indicative of a reorganisation of the cultic landscape with some implied resilience in specific cults. This was followed by abrupt changes in the major cultic institutions and deities worshiped in the region, which coincided with striking transformations in political institutions, especially in the definition of Hiyawan kingship.

The unique and varied processes and outcomes of the summarised case studies demonstrate both the importance of such a micro-regionally defined study, as well as the shared coincidence of cultic and political institutional change. It seems evident that cultic continuity coincided with the resilience of political institutions, and changes in the cultic landscape corresponded to political reorganisations or transformations in post-Hittite Anatolia and north Syria.

#### Abbreviations


#### References


*Mill. BCE)*, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 3-21.


(eds), *Temple Building and Temple Cult. Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.-1. Mill. BCE)*, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 55-78.


#### STUDIA ASIANA

#### A SERIES ESTABLISHED IN 2001 BY ALFONSO ARCHI, ONOFRIO CARRUBA AND FRANCA PECCHIOLI DADDI


This volume originates from a research project, which was funded within the PRIN program *Writing Uses: Transmission of Knowledge, Administrative Practices and Political Control in Anatolian and Syro-Anatolian Polities in the 2nd and 1st Millennium BCE*. The project involved 'research units' from different Italian universities (Torino, Pavia, Bologna, Firenze, Napoli - Suor Orsola Benincasa). The papers presented here, seek to fill some gaps in our knowledge of the Hittite Empire and its epigones, and offer an updated picture of some aspects of the Hittite and post-Hittite administration in Anatolia and Syria through the analysis and interpretation of epigraphic and archaeological evidence.

**GIULIA TORRI** is Professor of Anatolian Studies at the University of Florence. She is Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung. Her main fields of interest concern Hittite religion, the scribal system, and the economy of the Hittite state.

**CLELIA MORA** was Professor of Anatolian Studies and is currently Adjunct Professor at the University of Pavia. She taught at Catholic University of Sacro Cuore of Milan and at 'EPHE', Paris. Her main research subjects are Hittite history, relations between Assyrians and Hittites, Anatolian hieroglyphic documents.

ISSN 1974-7837 (print) ISSN 2612-808X (online) ISBN 979-12-215-0041-7 (Print) ISBN 979-12-215-0042-4 (PDF) ISBN 979-12-215-0043-1 (XML) DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4 www.fupress.com