# Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria

Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022

Edited by Livio Warbinek and Federico Giusfredi

#### STUDIA ASIANA

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

– 14 –

### 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

# Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria

Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022

edited by Livio Warbinek and Federico Giusfredi

> FIRENZE UNIVERSITY PRESS 2023

Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria : proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022 / edited by Livio Warbinek and Federico Giusfredi. – Firenze : Firenze University Press, 2023. (Studia Asiana ; 14)

https://books.fupress.com/isbn/9791221501094

ISSN 1974-7837 (print) ISSN 2612-808X (online) ISBN 979-12-215-0108-7 (Print) ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4 (PDF) ISBN 979-12-215-0110-0 (XML) DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

Graphic design: Alberto Pizarro Fernández, Lettera Meccanica SRLs Front cover image: *Çağdın stele of the Storm-god*, Museo di Adana © Alvise Domenico Matessi

This volume is published as part of the TeAI project *Teonimi e pantheon nell'Anatolia Ittita*, supported and funded by the Italian Ministry of University, F.A.R.E. programme, spin-off of the PALaC project *Pre-Classical Anatolian Languages in Contact*, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (Grant Agreement n° 757299). Both the projects are carried out at the University of Verona.

### *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*

"May the Thousand Gods give you life!" HKM 81: 5

### Table of contents


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

Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, © 2023 Author(s), CC BY 4.0, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4


### Preface

Federico Giusfredi

This collection of essays is the result of the workshop that was held at the University of Verona in the framework of the TeAI project *Teonimi e pantheon nell'Anatolia Ittita*, funded by the Italian Ministry of University's F.A.R.E. programme. The workshop, entitled *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria*, took place in Verona on 25th and 26th March 2022. Colleagues with different areas of expertise pertaining to the topic of Anatolian religions and theonomy contributed to an extremely successful event.

In this phase of the history of science which is strongly characterized by interdisciplinary approaches and team-based research, dealing with complex issues such as the description of the religions and panthea of pre-Classical Anatolia necessarily requires, we believe, the consideration of several different perspectives, methodologies, and traditional scientific disciplines.

If the analysis of the features of divine figures traditionally belongs to the historian of religions, it necessarily requires the combined study of archaeological records and textual materials. The latter, in turn, provide a wealth of contextual information which does not immediately pertain to the characterization of gods and goddesses, yet should not be neglected. Thus, historical geography comes into play when it comes to identifying the areas or regions in which a cult existed. Philology is involved when textual traditions mingled – a case not uncommon in Hittite Anatolia. Linguistics plays an important role for the identification of the original language in which divine names should be etymologized.

Nonetheless, if each of these disciplines acted with complete autonomy, the analytical results would be rich, but methodological issues would occur when the data were combined. The best example of these issues is probably represented by the tendency of fallaciously equating the concepts of linguistic identity, cultural identity and ethnicity, and the attempt to anchor them to specific geographical areas, which, in turn, tend to be defined differently depending on the prevailing approach. This type of mistake is quite common in the study of the ancient world, and not absent from the field of Anatolian religious history. Even though several decades have passed since the es-

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

Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, © 2023 Author(s), CC BY 4.0, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

tablishment of the impossibility of defining culture and geography based on languages, when attempts are made to identify, for example, a "Luwian pantheon", the selection of the divine figures that would belong to it is inevitably made by looking for Luwian morphemes in their names. The identification of a putative area of origin generally depends on the idea that the geographical term *Luwiya* of the Hittite Laws corresponded to a specific Luwian-speaking polity west of the Kızılırmak. Both associations would, however, be misleading, both for methodological reasons and because it only takes a glance at the textual materials to realize that Anatolia was actually a melting pot of different cultural and linguistic components, and had been so for centuries before the advent of written documents.

In light of these considerations, and trying to keep a balanced and methodologically-aware approach in our original research, we realized that a multi-authored work such as the present volume, with papers written by some of the major experts of Anatolian religious history, would represent an invaluable contribution to the advancement of a complex and vast field.

I will conclude this preface with some acknowledgments. We wish to thank all the members of the two research projects I currently coordinate, PALaC and TeAI, for the fantastic scientific synergy that is leading to several important results, and also for the help with the organization of the workshop from which this volume derives. We are also grateful to the editors of the *Studia Asiana* collection for including our title in their outstanding catalogue and to the peer-reviewers of the present volume for their precious feedback. Finally, our warmest thank goes to the authors of the articles collected here: without their expert contributions, this book would not exist.

### Introduction

Livio Warbinek

Anatolian religions of the second millennium BC never constituted an isolated system which could be attributed to specific ethnic group. From the very beginning we are confronted with different religious traditions in a multiethnic society, which resulted in equations or translatability of deities from different cultural milieus.

With this statement Taracha (2010, 858) concisely underlined the state of the Hittite religion as a peculiar melting pot derived from several cultural traditions. From the Middle Bronze Age onwards, Hattian, Hittite, Palaean, and Luwian gods have been worshiped in the Kingdom of Ḫatti, while Hurro-Syrian influence was already present in East Anatolia. At the same time, local beliefs continued to exist in the peripheries where a solid traditionalism was being kept alive within the local religious practice. In this context, I will first of all outline the state of art of the researches.

The first fundamental separation to take into account depends on chronology. From a methodological point of view, this is an essential aspect, but it is still limited to various reconstructions for specific different periods. This issue is very clear when we consider Popko's and Taracha's reconstructions of the Hittite Anatolian religious system. Popko (1995) provided a chronological classification based on: Old Assyrian period; Old Hittite period (when there were apparently only Hattian beliefs); Middle Hittite period (when an official pantheon emerged in which Hurrian, Luwian and Hittite beliefs co-existed)1 ; and Empire period (when a state religion was finally established). The basis for such a partition is represented by the divine witnesses in the Hittite State treaties. According to Popko (1995, 90), in those treaties the divine witnesses are listed in an order determined by certain set principles in relation to the official pantheon of the Middle Hittite period2 . According to his analysis, around the reign of King Arnuwanda I and Queen Ašmunikal the canon of the state pantheon was similar to the one that appears in the later treaties.

Conversely, Taracha identified two macro religious periods: an Old Hittite period, when Hattian influence was dominant around the cities of Ḫattuša and Arinna (then con-

<sup>1</sup> See also Beckman 2004, 309b-311b.

<sup>2</sup> See also Gurney 1977, 6; 15; Beckman 2004, 311b; Taracha 2009, 82-3; Steitler 2017, 19.

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

Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, © 2023 Author(s), CC BY 4.0, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

solidated in the Kizılırmak basin: cities of Ankuwa, Katapa, Zippalanda); and an Empire period, when different beliefs (Hattian, Hittite, Luwian, Palaean, Hurrian) contributed to create the so-called "State pantheon/religion"3 . For Gurney (1977, 4) this «pantheon developed from simple beginnings into a highly complex system through and increasing tendency to gather in the local cults»4 . Moreover, Taracha (2009, 84-95) posits the existence of two panthea during the Empire Period: the State pantheon and the so-called Dynastic (Hurrian) pantheon of the kingship, where for instance: «The efforts of the court theologians to find reference between the state and dynastic pantheons led to attempts to equate the Sun-goddess of Arinna and Teššub's consort Ḫebat» (Taracha 2009, 91)5 .

For both Popko and Taracha the state religion and the dynastic pantheon increasingly overlapped ever since the time of the introduction of the Hurrian influence in the Hittite capital6 from the first Tudḫaliya, through the time of Puduḫepa's interventions, until the so-called "re-organisation" of the cults by Tudḫaliya IV7 . This kind of evolution is more common in the polytheistic religions because polytheism «precludes religious dogma and orthodoxy, and the religion promoted by and for the Hittite ruling elite reflects the expansiveness inherent in such a system even as it accommodated reforms initiated by individual kings to promote favored cults» (Collins 2007, 158). Collins's statement is not only valid with respect to Tudḫaliya's re-organisation, but also in order to clarify that we cannot photograph the pantheon as a fixed structure throughout the entire Hittite history, but it should be contextualized in its various periods and locations8 . For this reason, the reference to the "Hittite pantheon" is highly significant to better understand both the limits within which we are working, and the geographical and cultural contextualization.

A second important classification concerns the arrangements by divine typology, which ware crucial in Haas's (1994) approach to the Anatolian religion. Deities can be divided into Storm-gods (du), Sun-deities (dutu, both male and female), Mother-goddesses, Tutelary gods (dlamma), Moon-gods (d30), Underworld gods, or other lesser


<sup>3</sup> Gurney 1977, 1; 4 *passim*; Beckman 2004, 313a-b; Taracha 2009, 38; 42; 80 *passim*.

<sup>8</sup> See Cammarosano 2018, 51.

### INTRODUCTION 13

deities according to their typology9 . This subdivision enabled analysis of Hittite gods in a more comprehensive way, but even it shows methodological limitations. First, behind a single logogram (e.g., du, dutu) we can recognize several divine entities10 with different features and sometimes even different genders11. Second, the differentiation between typological and geographical groups is often quite confusing. Third, this typological categorization heavily implies a fluctuation among the values of the single god, which changed over the historical evolution of the Hittite periods.

Another possible categorization of the Hittite religious system is based on geography. Gods or cultural influences can be distinguished by geographical areas within Anatolia (e.g., West, Central-core, East, South-East)12. For instance, Hutter (2003, 213-14) pointed out how there were three different "Luwian zones": the proper Luwian religion in the West (Arzawa); the "Hittite" Luwian area in the Lower Land; and the "Kizzuwatnean" Luwian area, where the cultural interactions (with Syrio-Hurrian contacts) were more marked13. However, it should never be forgotten that any geographical categorization should be contextualized: what we know about the Luwians derives from Hittite scribal practice and this does not always allow us to connect the Luwian language to a territory during a specific phase, because, when dealing with Pre-Classical Anatolia, we are dealing with a multi-ethnic society since a very early stage14.

Within macro-subdivision, we must then distinguish smaller regions, such as those interested by the so-called "Local Cults"15, whose analysis owes much to the Cammarosano's recent works (2018, 2021). Particularly, according to Rutherford (2020, 185-86) «While the Hittite state pantheon was huge, local pantheons are different. […] (in a) Hittite town, you tend to find a simpler structure, with a top-tier, comprising a storm god and either a sun deity or a mother goddess; a "tutelary deity" or deities, […] sometimes a god of war, and various local deities associated with mountains, rivers, and/or springs».

However, this local structure was only apparently simpler because local cults were often not culturally homogeneous regarding both the cult practice and the worshiped deities. Therefore, a question arises: how do we deal with theonomies with different etymologies within the same local cult?16 We have to be careful in our definitions concerning socio-linguistic dynamics, as Cammarosano (2021, 76-94) recently points out, categorizing local panthea both according to their "milieu" (Hattian, Luwian, Palaean, Hurrian), and according to their "geographical sectors" (northern, central and southern districts). Furthermore, the analysis of Local Cults must be based on sources, the cult inventories, which «deal with certain deities in relation to one or more specific towns» that is, they

<sup>9</sup> Haas (1994, 315-466): from "Die überregionale Gottheiten" to the "Gottheiten der Vegetation", "die Schutzgottheiten" and "weitere Naturgottheiten". See also Hutter 2003, 220-32; Steitler 2017, 18- 20; Cammarosano 2018, 53.

<sup>10</sup> Popko (1995, 68) «It should be made clear that we are dealing here with a name [i.e. d U] of a singular god, but with a general term used to refer to the chief deity of the country as well as to the local storm-gods who could easily have had another name or epithet in addition».

<sup>11</sup> The emblematic case is the Sun-goddess of Arinna as mother goddess and the Sun-god of Heaven, both hidden under the logogram Dutu. See Beckman 2004, 310b; Steitler 2017, 5.

<sup>12</sup> See Cammarosano 2018, 53.

<sup>13</sup> See also Gurney 1977, 16; and Yakubovich 2010, 86-117; 239-45; 272-85.

<sup>14</sup> See Hutter 2003, 212; 215; Taracha 2009, 39; Yakubovich 2010, 86-96; Giusfredi 2020, 14-15.

<sup>15</sup> Gurney 1977, 1; 4. Also "Stadtpanthea" (Haas 1994, 539) or "Local pantheons" (Beckman 2004, 313b).

<sup>16</sup> For instance, the several deities worshiped at Kummani during the (*ḫ*)*išuwa* festival includes Maliya and Kubaba. See Hutter 2021, 169-70; and Warbinek and Giusfredi (forthcoming).

«are arranged by town(s) and not by festival(s)» (Cammarosano 2021, 5)17. The type of evidence at our disposal affects the picture we reconstruct. According to Bryce (1986, 172-73), «our knowledge of the roles and functions of the various deities is confined largely to the information provided by the [(evidence)] in which gods and/or goddesses are commonly assigned a role», but still we can «identify with reasonable certainty the deities who appear to have been most prominent [(in a place)], on the basis of the frequency with which their names occur in the [(texts)], the extent of the distribution of their cult centres throughout the country», however, «a particular deity may have been worshipped in several different centres, but in each centre he or she was regarded as belonging specifically to that centre or to the district in which the centre was located».

Another important limitation concerns the very presence of different religious centres and traditions in Bronze Age Anatolia, whereas our knowledge of the Hittite religion comes primarily from the capital. In this regard, Cammarosano (2021, 33) underlines a proper methodological perspective: «it follows that recognizing a given text as a cult inventory does not automatically mean that all information contained in the text pertains to a well-defined, limited territory», and above all:

The local panthea as reflected in the corpus of the cult inventories are the result of complex processes of religious convergence, evolution, and adaptation, also involving dynamics of centre-periphery interaction, scholarly reception, and scribal systematization. […] Whether a god is 'Hittite', 'Hattian' or 'Luwian' is of course a matter of interpretation. Such a classification often relies solely on a linguistic analysis of the theonym, and further, the available textual evidence is necessarily filtered through the lens of the Hittite scribal bureaucracy. […] The resulting picture is one of interplay between evolving local traditions and religious influences both 'from below' (e.g., through religious habits of incoming population groups) and 'from above' (e.g., through the action of the king or as an effect of theological systematizations). Mutual influences between different sectors of the society and population groups work at multiple levels. (Cammarosano 2021, 63)

Hence, we have to bear in mind that the gods worshiped in Hittite Anatolia should be considered «from different perspectives, depending on whether the focus is on their typology, geographical areas of attestation, or cultural milieu» (Cammarosano 2021, 94). However, despite these limitations, the subdivision into Local Cults offers the objective advantage of being faithful to the sources, which are mainly descriptions of religious festivals and lists of witnessing gods in the Hittite state treaties. In both these types of documents, the sequence of offerings and the sequence of gods were never arbitrary or fortuitous; rather they reflected a divine hierarchy18. However, «it should be kept in mind that the texts refer to particular festivals celebrated in the capital or another religious center. Therefore, if a deity is missing from a list […] it may indicate only that this deity was not taking part in this ceremony because the center of her cult was situated far from the capital» (Taracha 2010, 863). This scenario clearly shows how careful we must be with the nature of the sources, the gods' features, and the reconstruction of the festivals based on these texts, because they are never a protocol of specific events, but rather a set of instructions for the organizers.

<sup>17</sup> See also Gurney 1977, 25; and Cammarosano in the present volume § 1.1.

<sup>18</sup> Gurney 1977, 4-5; Archi 1993, 7; Popko 1995, 90; Schwemer 2008, 139; Taracha 2009, 39; 82-3; Taracha 2010, 861. See also Warbinek § 2 in the present volume.

Therefore, the Hittite kingdom collected deities and panthea of different origins in a unique – and quite peculiar – melting pot. The historical process connected with the Hittite religion makes all attempts to define this religious system quite challenging. This leads to some general questions: what does "pantheon" really mean in the context of the Hittite kingdom?19 Can we deal with a pantheon, or is it better to recognize different panthea, or cults? How can we define them? Which were their boundaries? Were syncretistic processes a bridge among those groups? Is it correct to speak of a "State Pantheon" or is it better to only discuss the "State Cult"20?

Concerning the TeAI project, we decided to remain faithful to the texts by avoiding any not-shared definition like "State Pantheon". The Hittites named their religious system: the "Thousand gods of Ḫatti"21. According to Collins (2007, 173) «Their expansive pantheon was a point of pride for the Hittites, and they invoked them collectively in blessings and as witnesses in their treaties. The actual number of deities attested in the surviving Hittite documents has not yet reached the canonical one thousand, but the number was hardly an exaggeration». Within this congregation of the "Thousand Gods of Ḫatti" the different ethnic groups of the Hittite kingdom coexisted: Hattian, Hittite, Palaean, Luwian, and Hurrian. The allocation of each deity to her proper cultural milieu is a difficult task. Sometimes the classification does not raise any major doubts (e.g., Hurrian Teššub, Hattian Taru), whereas some cases are harder to unravel (e.g., Kamrušepa22).

Lastly and more importantly, we can hardly speak of "Hittite pantheon" because this definition does not identify the pure Hittite system, but rather the religion of the Hittite kingdom in all of its cultural and ethnic components in which several deities have come into contact with different modes of interaction23: from the confluence of some divine elements, to the divine identification of gods or even the syncretic creation of a new composite god. This is because the «tendency of Hittite religion was […] to accommodate deities from other cultures» (Rutherford 2020, 28). Indeed, when different religious traditions came into contact, several possibilities of interaction between divine figures may occur. According to Assmann (1996, 33-6) these interactions are:

	- a) "syncretic translation" into a different linguistic and cultural system;
	- b) "assimilatory translation" into a more prestigious linguistic and cultural system;
	- c) "mutual translation" in a network of mutual cultural interactions.


<sup>23</sup> Here we are not dealing with godnapping, *evocatio*, and military expansion, which are, according to Schwemer 2008, the three possible historical situations for a foreign god to became part of the Hittite religious system.

<sup>19</sup> See for a discussion Beckman 2004.

<sup>22</sup> Warbinek 2022, 6; 9-10.

Differently, Rutherford (2020, 77) identifies:


The difference between these models depends both on the theological approaches and to which cultures they apply24. Generally speaking, for Hittite Anatolia, a «deity could become common in a new cultural milieu where she had no counterpart and it was common then for her to be venerated in this new ethnic environment under her old name» (Taracha 2010, 861). Nonetheless, it is possible to explores the question further by separating the theological and linguistic issues as follows (Table 1).


Tab. 1: The equation question between cultures according to different perspectives.

In the previous literature, the different phenomena of borrowing, assimilation, and syncretism of deities are mostly dealt with from a theological perspective. However, our projects are mostly focused on the linguistic aspects of cultural interaction, so we decided to address this issue from a linguistic point of view, by referring to the technical distinctions between different phenomena of lexical interference, such as loanwords and loan translations (or calques). Of course, the purely linguistic point of view cannot be the only one employed, because we are not merely dealing with linguistic signs, but also their referents – i.e., the extra-linguistic reality – should also be taken into account.

Once these points are established, we can separate the contacts of two correlated cultures (e.g., Hattian and Hittite) and of two different cultures (e.g., Hittite and Hurrian): the first case leads to *convergence* (A), where the equation of deities involves the mutual contamination between overlapping cultures (e.g., Tarḫunt-Taru, Ḫalki-Kait)25; whereas when the convergence involves two completely different cultures, a foreign deity could be linguistically absorbed and theologically translated (Classic *interpretatio*)26

<sup>24</sup> See Cammarosano 2018, 51.

<sup>25</sup> See Cammarosano 2018, 52.

<sup>26</sup> See for instance the case of Inar(a)-Ḫabantali in Archi 2004, 13-4 with references.

and transferred on a new realm (B). Moreover, the deities of two different cultures can be equated as follows:

	- a) When the foreign god partly corresponds to the native one, the typical linguistic strategy could be a calque, or loan translation, or a periphrasis. Typically, the result is the creation of a hypostasis of the native deity (see, for instance, the different Ištars in Barsacchi's paper in this volume);
	- b) When the adoption includes all of the functions of the original deity, we are faced with *syncretism*. The linguistic process is, in general, a proper *borrowing* of the theonym, although sometimes the scenarios may be more complex and involved overlapping that preserve some degree of distinction (think of the superposition of Ḫebat and the Sun-goddes of Arinna as Queen of the gods).

Therefore, in order to accommodate new gods into the world of the Thousand Gods of Ḫatti the religious tendency in Ḫattuša was not syncretic; rather, it was assimilatory27:

The pantheon in its final form evolved through a process of territorial expansion and assimilation, over time absorbing the gods of the Hattians, Palaians, and the Luwians. Eventually the expansion of the Hittite state resulted in the introduction of gods not only from other parts of Anatolia but also from Hurrian Syria and Mesopotamia. The size of the Hittite pantheon may be attributed to a resistance to syncretism, since in general the Hittites tended not to identify their own gods with either foreign or native deities of a similar type, in the way, for example, that members of the Greek pantheon were identified with those of the Roman. Scribes brought a certain order to the system by grouping together local deities who showed a common character (Collins 2007, 173).

However, a new question arises: «can we distinguish any religious elements distinctive of the Hittite elite before they arrived in Kanesh? […] Thus, the religion of Anatolia in the 14th-13th century is a patchwork made up of several major traditions and many subtraditions, corresponding to micro-traditions and important towns. At the same time, these cultures had been in contact for many centuries, and there had been a degree of internal diffusion. […] there was a degree of "Pan-hittite" standardization, as we see from the local cult inventories» (Rutherford 2020, 28). This patchwork prevents us from being able to «provide any sort of comprehensive view of the religious cults […], due to the nature of the evidence that is available», however, «this does not mean that one should necessarily view [(Hittite)] religion as in any way organized or systematized on a country-wide basis. Though there was a degree of cultural and political unity […], one must not assume that this means the same deities would be honoured throughout the land» (Keen 1998, 193-94).

This leads to a final consideration. Whatever the correct solution to the methodological issue of Anatolian panthea and cults, all those gods can be described as belonging to the cultural milieu of Hittite Anatolia, and their names do not all stem from

<sup>27</sup> Archi 1993, 3; 6; Hutter 2003, 217; Archi 2004, 13; Cammarosano 2018, 51; Rutherford 2020, 28. *Contra* the very syncretistic perspective of Gurney 1977, 18; Popko 1995, 117; Beckman 2004, 308b; 309b.

a single language. This makes it possible to track some changes and some elements of continuity, but also to identify some spheres of interference as well as a certain degree local differentiation. There are, as we have seen, many questions to answer and several views to combine in order to achieve a general agreement on the proper definition of an Anatolian religious system. What we can agree upon, is that the "Thousand Gods of Ḫatti" were in all likelihood an inclusive religious system, that defined itself through the principle of territoriality rather than that of a cultural or linguistic (pre)dominance over the kingdom.

### Bibliography


### Bibliographical Abbreviations


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

Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, © 2023 Author(s), CC BY 4.0, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4



### General Abbreviations


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

Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, © 2023 Author(s), CC BY 4.0, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

### Symbols


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

Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, © 2023 Author(s), CC BY 4.0, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

### Shaping Gods: from Göbekli Tepe to Kaneš, Ḫattuša, and Beyond

### Alfonso Archi

**Abstract**: The spectacular finds at Göbekli Tepe and Nevali Çorı: monolithic pillars representing stylized humans decorated with a large variety of animals, are the representation of an animist cosmos, in which animals and plants being may appear as persons, capable of will. Çatal Höyük represents a stage in which gods started to be shaped: the bull represented the Storm-god (a concept which reached the Classical period), the stag the god of the wild fauna, and female figurines symbolized the Mother-goddess. In Egypt, where gods where usually represented by animals, zoomorphism presents a continuity which ended only with the introduction of Christianity. The archaeological finds from Kaneš and the Hittite texts document an extraordinary continuity: each deity was represented by an animal, portraited in the vessel with which the celebrant (the royal couple or also a priest) reached a kind of communion with the god in drinking of the same wine and eating of the same bread.

### 1. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and B periods: cosmic animism at Göbekli Tepe and Nevalı Çori

The discovery of cult buildings at Nevalı Çori (8600-7900 BC), on the east bank of the Euphrates, and of the spectacular settlement of Göbekli Tepe (about 15 km northeast of Urfa, and 40 km south-east of Nevalı Çori), to be dated to 9600-8000 BC, have prompted a re-examination of our understanding of the ritual practices of communities of sedentary hunter-gatherers in Southeastern Anatolia. In recent years, another eleven minor settlements belonging to the Göbekli Tepe culture have been identified on a 100 km line around this site.

Standing out at Nevalı Çori is a cult building in stone that presents thirteen monolithic pillars with T shaped capitals set into a wide bench running along the interior walls (Hauptmann 1993; 2012, 13-8). The excavations at Göbekli Tepe, directed by Klaus Schmidt from 1995 until 2014 (the year of his untimely death) have brought to light buildings consisting in several rectangular rooms with floors, which show the beginning of the process which led to the formation of sedentary communities of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and B periods. Animal husbandry was not yet practiced there, according to the results of osteological investigations. Megalithic circular enclosures (with even three rings of walls), enclosing several T-shaped monolithic pillars, can be described as centres for communal purposes such as cult rites and ceremonial festivals. These enclosures (not all excavated) number at least twelve, for a period of perhaps ca 200-250 years (Dietrich *et al*., 2016). On some of these pillars a pair of human arms and hands are depicted, the horizontal part on the top representing the head. These are three dimensional sculptures of stylized humans which rise around 3.5 m from the floor. Two pillars portray beings wearing a belt and a loincloth made of animal skin. The anthropomorphic figures of pillars 18 and 31 bear necklaces representing respectively a crescent with a disc with another element, and a bucranium (Otto 2015, 190- 93). Several animals are depicted on the pillars, such as foxes, gazelles, wild donkeys,

Alfonso Archi, University of Rome, Italy, alfonso.archi@gmail.com, 0000-0002-7194-7272

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

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

Alfonso Archi, *Shaping Gods: from Göbekli Tepe to Kaneš, Ḫattuša, and Beyond*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4.07, in Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, pp. 29-56, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12- 215-0109-4

snakes, cranes, ducks, vultures, spiders, scorpions, and insects (Schmidt 2008, 2011a; 2011b; 2013; Dietrich and Schmidt 2016; cf. Sagona, Zimanski 2009, 57-64). Schmidt has suggested the following analysis:

Because it can be safely assumed that the pillars represent anthropomorphic beings, one of the most relevant questions concerns the meaning of the combination of the anthropomorphic carvings and the various motifs depicted on the pillars. Preliminary it can be concluded that animals played an important role in the spiritual world of the PPN (Pre-Pottery Neolithic) community of Göbekli Tepe. Since the site's inhabitants relied on hunting for their protein supply, one possible explanation for these figurations might be the performance of hunting rituals; however, a comparison between the faunal assemblage attested at the site and the iconography does not support that idea. […] Mammalian bone fragments form the bulk of the material, but remains by ungulates predominate, constituting over 90 percent of the total sample. This is also the case in other PPN archaeofaunas collected in the Upper Euphrates basin. […] Although each enclosure features animal figures that look threatening, we doubt whether the role of animals within the symbolic world of the PPN can be reduced to this simple level of apotropaica. It is important to note that not only are animals depicted on pillars, but also a complex system of symbols. In addition to the animals and symbols depicted in bas-relief, there is the group of three-dimensional sculptures and high reliefs, which seems to offer somewhat different symbolism. There are two main species depicted, a wild boar and a predator. The sculptures and high reliefs seem to be mainly apotropaic in their functions. The animals and symbols depicted in bas-relief are meant to transmit mythic narrations. (Schmidt 2011a, 925-26)1

This interpretative analysis was also presented in an article intended for a wider audience entitled "First came the temple, later the city", where Göbekli Tepe, was, however, correctly defined as "a Stone Age ritual center" (Dietrich *et al*., 2012). In a subsequent study, Dietrich and Notroff (2015) reasserted the validity of their use of terms such as "special buildings" (*Sondergebäude*), "sanctuaries", or "temples" contrary to criticism by Banning (2011), who had argued that «archaeologists tend to impose western ethnocentric distinctions of sacred and profane on prehistory, while anthropology in most cases shows these two spheres to be inseparably interwoven». While conscious of the limits imposed by the lack of written sources, they cite several studies by archaeologists, which «speak out in favour of the possibility of archaeological insights into beliefs even for non-literate times and societies, however restricted by the limits of archaeological evidence» (Dietrich and Notroff 2015, 76). The circular buildings of Göbekli Tepe present benches and the pillars are richly decorated with zoomorphic as well as anthropomorphic figures, some of them attached to the pillars, like a high-relief of a predator, and a bear. Several limestone heads, a larger-than-life mask, and miniature masks have also been found (Dietrich, Notroff, and Dietrich 2018). Clay figurines seem to be completely absent2 , while a figurine representing a mother with child has been found in (the later) Nevalı Çori settlement (Hauptmann 2012, 22 Fig. 14)3 .

<sup>1</sup> A comprehensive presentation of Schmidt's excavations is Schmidt 2010.

<sup>2</sup> The ithyphallic figurine with legs dragged towards his body, published by Dietrich, and Schmidt (2016), was found close to the surface, therefore impossible to attribute to any sure horizon of Göbekli Tepe.

<sup>3</sup> Female iconography is absent. The graffito representing an open-legged woman, perforated by a phallus (Hauptmann 2012, 20 Fig. 12), in a strange style, has to be regarded as a later work.

An anthropomorphic stele (80 cm high) was found in Kilisik (in the region of Adıyaman), a male statue in Göbekli Tepe, and another (193 cm high) in Yeni Mahalle (in the region of Urfa; Hauptmann 2012, 18-22 Figs. 10, 11, 13).

A relief on a long rocky wall to be dated approximately to the period of the reliefs of Göbekli has been recently found at Sayburç, also in the region of Şanlıurfa, and it reports a naked male figure in a frontal position with two lions at each side, followed on the left by a man hunting a wild bull (see: https://arkeofili.com/sanliurfa-sayburcta-leoparli-insan-sahnesi-bulundu/, last visited 02/08/2023).

Cauvin has highlighted how symbolic material (from the beginning of the 10th millennium BC) preceded the emergence of an agricultural economy in the Near East in the 9th millennium BC, proposing that a cognitive change anticipated the economic change, so that the natural world surrounding humans was made intelligible through symbolism. He referred in particular to the woman and bull symbolism, through which the Divine became personified (1994, 44-52; 98-101; 2001).

In his concluding remarks of a detailed survey of evidence of ritual practice and ceremonies in Early Neolithic societies, Watkins asserts that «if concepts of supernatural agents are, as Boyer has characterized them, a combination of recognizably human-style agency with a counterintuitive component that distinguishes them as supernatural and makes them memorable, the only candidates are the inscrutable anthropomorphic monoliths of Göbekli Tepe (including the smaller, later aceramic Neolithic examples from that site), and the similar monoliths from Nevalı Çori, which also date the later aceramic Neolithic» (2015, 158)4 .

### 2. The cosmic system in the interpretation of Marshall Sahlins

The phases of the Göbekli Tepe settlement, however, conceptually precede «the birth of the gods» as described by Cauvin (above) and this is the reason why Watkins is uneasy in applying Cauvin's model to those exceptional finds. It is Sahlins (2017) who offers the interpretative key of this world in following «H.M. Hocart's and other anthropologists' who lead in freeing (him)self from anthropological conventions by adhering to indigenous traditions (23)». The common social science tradition considers cosmology as the reflex of sociology, but «human societies were engaged in cosmic systems of governmentality even before they instituted anything like a political state of their own» (23-24). «[These] were set within and dependent upon a greater animistic universe comprised of the persons of animals, plants, and natural features, complemented by a great variety of demonic figures, and presided over by several inclusive deities» (25). «While the Chewongs (of the Malaysan interior) profess to abhor cannibalism, like animist hunters generally, they nevertheless subsist on "people like us," their animal prey» (26). For them «the human social world is intrinsically part of a wider world in which boundaries between society and cosmos are non-existent» (29). «The recent theoretical interest in the animist concepts of indigenous peoples of lowland South America, northern North America, Siberia, and Southeast Asia has provided broad documentation of this monist ontology of a personalized universe. Kai Århem offers a succinct summary: "In the animist cosmos, animals and plants being and things may all appear as intentional subjects and persons, capable of will, intention, and agency."» (36).

<sup>4</sup> Some interpretations of the figurative representations from Göbekli Tepe have been suggested by Becker *et al*. 2012, 30-8.

Anthropologists used to name these forces which permeated the universe and opposed such earlier societies, preceding the birth of the gods, as "mana", a term used by the Polynesians. The pillars of Göbekli Tepe, on which so many kinds of animals are depicted, offer an extraordinary and unexpected representation of such an animist cosmos from about 10000 BC, while the stylized humans may represent the "inclusive deities" who presided over them! Sahlins (62-64) further remarks that Jacobsen had already «formulated the concept of a "cosmic state" in reference to Mesopotamian polities of the third millennium B.C.». Jacobsen in fact wrote:

Human society was to the Mesopotamian merely a part of the larger society of the universe. The Mesopotamian universe – because it did not consist of dead matter, because every stone, every tree, every conceivable thing in it was a being with a will and character of its own – was likewise founded on authority […] The whole universe showed the influence of the essence peculiar to Anu [Sky, king and father of the gods] (Jacobsen 1946, 152)

One can add the Sumerian poem *Lugale* to the evidence mentioned by Jacobsen, in which the god Ninurta defeats the monstrous demon Agsag (Asakku), and his army of stone warriors, whose corpses will form the mountains (van Dijk 1983; Heimpel and Salgues 2015). A recent analysis of the animistic representation of rivers, springs, and plants according to the Mesopotamian sources is given by Perdibon (2019, 41-198).

### 3. The Early Pottery Neolithic Site of Çatal Höyük

Several rooms decorated with elements of symbolic content have been found at Çatal Höyük, the famous Early Pottery centre that stretches from about 7400 BC to the end of the seventh millennium BC. They are the same size as domestic houses and share some of the same features (houses may also present manifestations of the sacred). Wall paintings represent the hunting of a stag (Mellaart 1967, Pl. 46-47; 54-57; 61-63) and of a bull rendered in a larger size, surrounded by men, some dressed in leopard skins (Pl. 64). There are other complete images of leopards, and many pairs of bulls' horns are set in the walls. Wild boar jaw bones, animal skulls, and vulture beaks are encased in clay supports in the walls5 .

Çatal Höyük represents a stage in which a community elaborated the shaping of gods starting from an indistinct animistic cosmos. The stag epitomizes the realm of the wild fauna, and the bull the masculine force. These animals were also the ones that provided meat to the humans. Receiving something from the spirits, one had to give them something in exchange (as Marcel-Mauss has written), and that was done through rites celebrated in those shrines. Raptors also played an important role in symbolism. At Göbekli Tepe a fragmented sculpture depicts a bird grasping a human head (Notroff *et al*. 2017, 61), and a pole is decorated with two human figures with a bird (the engraved wings and the tail feathers are preserved) sitting on top of the two heads; another stone pole with a human head topped by a bird was found at Nevalı Çori (Otto 2015, 193-97). The symbolism of raptors is also attested at Mureybet (Cauvin 1994, 46), and a wall painting from Çatal Höyük depicts vultures (necrophagous animals)

<sup>5</sup> For Çatal Höyük, see Mellaart 1967; Düring 2001; Sagona and Zimansky 2009, 85-97 (where several tables are reproduced). For a recent presentation of the settlement of Çatal Höyük, see Barański *et al*. 2021; Mazzucato *et al*. 2021.

attacking small headless human figures (Mellaart 1967, Pl. 48-49), perhaps symbolizing the function of defleshing the corpses: a rite for the Netherworld.

Some female figurines from the Khiamian period document the birth of the symbolism of the woman in the tenth millennium (Cauvin 1994, 44-8). The striking elements connected to the bull and the numerous figurines from Çatal Höyük, two thousand years later, confirm the progression in these symbolisms. In the first case there is a consolidation of a supreme male deity in the figure of a bull, which will remain common to most of the cultures of the ancient Near East with the animal of the Storm-god, and also of Zeus in the classical world. In the second case there is the emergence of a divinity in human form. Two figurines of steatopygous women sitting on a throne flanked by two leopards can only be representations of the Mother-goddess (Mellaart 1967, 182-84, Fig. 49-53). The two human figures in relief, shown with outstretched arms and legs in Shrine E VI B. 31 have been correctly thought to represent women, perhaps giving birth (Mellaart 1964, 47-9, Fig. 6-7, Pl. III, IV)6 .

4. The representation of animals in the seals from Kültepe/Kaneš and in vessels shaped like animals

The scenes depicted on the seals of the Anatolian group from Kültepe/Kaneš (19th and 18th centuries BC) represent gods, and the spaces between their figures are filled with animals or parts of animals turned every which way. These seals present the same symbolism of the Hittite period: the Storm-god rides a bull, and Innara/kal, the Tutelary god of wild animals, is on a stag; dkal.líl, the Tutelary god of the Countryside has a hare, an eagle, and a crook as attributes; and the War-god rides a lion (Özgüç 2006, 24-5; see CS 255, CS 256, CS 257, CS 258, CS 265). A god is portrayed on a small, thin, gold folio standing on a lion. He holds a shaft-hole axe in his right hand, while in his left he holds a smaller lion figure from its hind legs (Kulakoğlu 2008). Vessels in the form of animals (including birds), usually in red, but also with brown or yellowish polished slip, were quite common (Özgüç 2003, 196-213; Kulakoğlu and Selmin 2010, Pl. 191-223)7 .

There are not many examples of this kind of vessels in Ḫattuša, however, because the Hittites used cult vessels in silver or gold, which were melted down in later periods8 ; only a silver rhyton in the form of a protome of a stag (the Schimmel rhyton), and a silver vessel in the form of a fist have survived9 .

The symbolism of the bull and the stag is attested much earlier (Early Bronze Age III) in the core of the land of Ḫatti, by the famous "standards" of Alaca-Höyük (Arinna), decorated with figurines of stags, bulls, and in one case an onager, which accompanied the members of the royal family to the Netherworld.

<sup>6</sup> The photo from the time of the excavation is also published in Sagona and Zimanski 2009, 90 Fig. 1, who suggest that an animal could be represented there instead. See, however, the graffito representing an open-legged woman from Göbekli Tepe (cited in note 2, above) to be dated to a period later than the pillars. The so-called squatting-woman is attested from Luristan to Northern Syria in later period as symbol of fertility and eroticism, also being portrayed in relation with men and in scenes of sexual intercourse, see Mazzoni 2002.


<sup>7</sup> *bibru* vessels at Kültepe/Kaneš have been found in houses (Özgüç 1991, 54-5).

### 5. Zoomorphism in Egypt

The Hittites associated some animals to particular gods: the bull to the Storm-god, the stag to the God of nature, the lion to the War-god, the winged-lion to Ištar, and other gods were represented by a large variety of animals.

In Egypt each animal represented a single god, with a remarkable continuity until the introduction of Christianity: Horus could be portrayed as a falcon, Hathor as a woman with a cow's head; the union of the two brothers Re (the Sun) and Osiris could be represented by a ram-headed mummy with the sun-disk on it. The cult of sacred animals or of divine powers in animal form is proven by the care with which these animals were buried from the earliest part of the Early Dynastic period, such as the Apis bull10. Objects were carried on poles; evidence of the worship of sacred objects. There is no evidence for the worship of anthropomorphic deities in pre-dynastic Egypt. The earliest kings of a unified Egypt still have animal names: Scorpion, Cobra, etc. The "anthropomorphization of powers" (*Vermenschlichung der Mächte*) took place between 3000 and 2800 BC. "This process may be related to the fact that the powers that were worshiped as deities came more and more to show a human face, and their original animal or inanimate form changed in a human one" (Hornung 1982, 105)11. The "mixed form" of gods, combining human and animal elements, which is so characteristic of Egypt, developed later, and «the animal, vegetable, or inanimate attribute serves to define the figure more precisely» (Hornung 1982, 123)12.

### 6. The representations of gods according to the "cult inventories" and the *bibru* vessels in the form of animals

Divine representations based on a very large selection of cult inventories (Hazenbos 2003, 175-90; Cammarosano 2018, 87-102) show that in most of the minor cult centers the gods were represented by "stelae", na₄*ḫuwaši*-. Stelae could be refurbished, KUB 17.35 II 6'-7': na₄zi.kin *an*-*na-al-la-an* 1 na₄zi.kin kù.babbar ugu-*kán kal*-[*mara*] dutu*ši* dù-*at* dutu *me-e* uru*Gur*-*ša-ma-aš-ša* "1 stele (in place) since of old. His Majesty (commissioned to) make 1 stele of silver (with sun) r[ays] on the top (for) the Sun-goddess of the Water of Guršamašša" (Cammarosano 2018, 170-71). Only one passage mentions that the stele was engraved with the image of a "Noursing Mother", *an-ni-iš* :*ti-ta-i-me-iš*, KBo 2.1 I 33. A stele was rather rarely substituted by a statuette13.

<sup>10</sup> For a detailed analysis of animal worship and animal embalming in Egypt, see Colonna 2021. 11 Morenz (1960) named these powers as "mana" according to his time (chapter 2: "The Gods"); Thoth could be represented as a bird, with the head of an ibis, and also as a baboon, because the divine had

multiple incarnations. 12 «No thinking Egyptian would have imagined that the true form of Amun was a man of a ram's head. Amun is the divine power that may be seen in the image of a ram, among many others, as Horus shows himself in the image of the hawk whose wings span the sky, and Anubis in the image of the black canine ("jackal") who busies himself around tombs in the desert» (Hornung 1982, 124). «A most unusual group statue brings together in a curious fashion cow, lion-headed goddess, uraeus, and goddess with sistrum on her head, showing four forms of Hathor next to one other. We should not assume that the Egyptians imagined Hathor as a woman with a cow's head. It is more plausible to see the cow as one possible manifestation of Hathor, and the cow's head and cow's horns as attributes that allude to a manifestation of the goddess or a part of her nature. In Hathor there is the maternal tenderness of the cow, but, among many other characteristics, also the wildness of the lioness and the unpredictability of the snake. Any iconography can be no more than an attempt to indicate something of her complex nature» (Hornung 1982, 113).

<sup>13</sup> This is the case of spring Sinarašši, whose stele was substituted by a statuette representing a woman in sitting position, of iron, 1 span height, KBo 2.1 II 10-11, 15; see Cammarosano 2018, 194-95.

Representations in the form of small-sized statues, mostly of goddesses, often decorated with silver, were also frequent; these statuettes could either be on an animal or have a symbol attributed to that particular god14. Šeri and Ḫurri, the two bulls which pulled the chariot of the Syrian Storm-god, whose cult was introduced in Ḫattuša at the beginning of the Empire period, were also made in pottery, in a smaller dimension, like the two bulls from Kușaklı (now in the Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi of Ankara), KBo 39.86 II 8'-9': gišgidruḫi.a 1-*šu* gišmar.gíd.da 1-*šu* gud*Še-ri* 1-*šu* gud*Ḫur-ri* 1-*šu* "the staffs: 1 (libation); the chariot: 1 (libation); the bull Šeri: 1 (libation); the bull Ḫurri: 1 (libation)". Šeri and Ḫurri were "drunk from a horn", si-*az e-ku-zi*, KUB 11.22 V 14'-16'. Male gods could also be represented by an object, such as "staffs", gišgidru, "daggers", gír15, and sun disks (for the Sun deities). Zit<sup>ḫ</sup>ariya was represented by a hunting bag, kuš*kurša-.* Male gods were often also represented by vessels in form of animals, such as rhyta (*bibru*), bowls (gal), protomes of animals (gú), or horns (si), that is by the media itself through which one reached a communion with the god performing the rite of "drinking a god" (below § 8). One drank the god through his image.

Aniconism, zoomorphism (including vessels in the form of animals), or objects pertaining to a god, are all archaic ways in representing a god. Furthermore, the autumn and spring festivals, which are extensively documented for central Anatolia so as to form the basic pattern of the seasonal celebrations in this region (below § 11), must go back to time immemorial. Not only many of the deities of the countryside, but also those of the capital, Ḫattuša, whose festivals were celebrated by the king and queen, had been received from the Hattians, as is demonstrated – among other cases – by the pantheon of the ki.lam festival16. The people who diffused Indo-European languages did not share a common pantheon. The Hittites adopted the Hattian Eštan, that is dutu = *Ištanu*- for the Sun-goddess of Earth (besides Wurunšemu), but also for the Hattian supreme Goddess of heaven, differently from the Luwians, who had Tiwad, (the Palaic Tiyaz). The male solar deity of the Hittite pantheon acquired a personality when the Hittites came in contact with the Syrian milieu17.

It was Güterbock (1983) who explained the symbolism through which the Hittites experienced the world that surrounded them, in his fundamental essay in the *Festschrift Bittel*. He classified the representations of the gods according to three groups: anthropomorphic images, zoomorphic, or as objects, basing himself on the "cult inventories" concerning the provincial cities and villages of Ḫatti18. According to him, the term dingir*lim*-*tar* (*šiuniyatar*, from *šiu*(*n*)- "god") should be interpreted as "Götterdarstellung", so that "(God NN) dingir*lim*-*tar* 1 *wakšur*" would mean: "God NN: (his) image (is) a

<sup>15</sup> See KBo 2.1 I 32: ḫur.sag*Šu-wa-ra-aš* 5 urudugír; KUB 31.1+ I 4'–8': uru*Ta*! -*ra-am-ka*<sup>4</sup> dza.ba4.ba4 dingir*lim*-*tar* 1 géšpu kù.babbar ki.lá.bi 20 gín.gín 2 urudu*a-ri-tum* gal 1 urudu*i-mi-it-tum* 3 urudugìr 1 urudu.giššukur 1 gištukul zabar 1 urudu*ḫa-aṢ-Ṣí-in-nu ú-nu-tú ša* dza.ba4.ba4 *ta-ru-up-ta* "Town Taramm(e)ka. The War-god: (his) image is 1 silver fist, its weight 20 shekels, 2 large shields, 1 lance, 3 daggers, 1 spear, 1 mace, 1 axe: the equipment of the War-god is complete".


<sup>14</sup> See Cammarosano 2018, 63-74.

<sup>16</sup> See the Old Hittite manuscripts of the ki.lam in Burgin 2019.

*wakšur* vessel"19. This image was the tangible aspect of a deity, so that *šiuniyatar* should be understood more exactly as "spirit holder; divinity" (CHD Š, 507)20. The following passage, d *Iyayaš* dingir*lim*-*tar* alam giš kù.babbar gar.ra munus*ti* tuš-*an*, should therefore mean: "Goddess Iyaya: (her) spirit holder is a statue of a woman sitting, (made of) wood, inlaid with silver".

The basic rite of the spring festival (attested for the main deities of all the cities and villages, below, § 11) consisted in a procession in which the divine image was brought to an open-air place by a stele representing that deity, more exactly it was brought to the deity itself: a male god to a mountain, a goddess to a spring. The only possible interpretation of this rite is that in spring, with the rebirth of Nature, the image had to be re-loaded, so-to-speak, with divine power through this contact.

### 7. Gods and their vessels (*bibru*) in the form of animals21

Güterbock (1983= Hoffner 1997, 120-23) has already shown how often animals are associated to gods in the descriptions of images of gods in the cult inventories, as in KUB 38.2 I 7'-15': "The vi[gorous] Ištar: [a statuette …] seated, from her shoulders [wings protrude], in her right hand [she holds] a cup of gold, [in her left hand] she holds a gold (hieroglyphic sign for) 'Good(ness).' Beneath her there is a base, plat[ed] with silver. [Beneath] the b[ase] lies a sphinx (*a-ú-i-ti-ya-aš*), plated with silver. And to the right [and left] of the wings of the sphinx stand Ninatta and Kulitta, their eyes of silver plated with [gol]d"22.

*awauwa*- "spider" KUB 54.10 II 8': *bi-ib-ra* guškin;

*auiti* "sphinx, winged lion," KBo 30.175, 4'‒5': *a*-]*ú-i-ti-ya-aš bi-i*[*b-ri*; KBo 48.262.a II: 2 *bi-ib-ru a-ú-i-ti* [… na₄z]a.gìn; KUB 2.10 V 39: *a-ú-i-ti* guškin; KUB 16.83 obv.

49: d*Pitenḫi* (*bibru*); Ištar

*šāiu*- "?" KUB 12.1 IV 23': 1 *ša-a-i-u-uš* guškin;

*šašā*- (a bird) KUB 44.6 I 4'-5': [*bi-i*]*b-ru ša-ša-a-na* zab[ar];

*zinzapu*- (a bird) KUB 5.10 I 3: *z*. *bi-ib-ru* guškin; KUB 12.15 V 21: *z*. *bi-ib-ru* [; without *bibru*: KBo 33.167 III 4; KUB 10.91 III 13;

*a-ja-li "*stag*"* Bo 5036 III 13-1423;

*lu-lim* "stag" KBo 48.262.a+ II 12-14: 4 *bi-ib-ru lu-lim* guškin na4 šà 1*en* 4 gìrmeš gub-*za* 2 igi-*zi* gub-*za* 1*en* 4 gìrmeš *ša-ša-an-za*;

gudamar "calf " d Tūḫašail KUB 59.37, 18'-19';

anše.kur.ra "horse" dIyarri (KUB 15.5 II 33'‒36': de Roos 2007, 74);

dàra.maš "billy wild goat" du of the thunder: (KBo 19.128 V 5': Otten 1971, 12)

gud "ox/bull" KBo 48.262.a+: II 9-11: 4 *bi-ib-ru* gu4 šà 1*en* 4 gìrmeš [gub-*z*]*a* guškin na4 1*en* 4 gìrmeš *ša-ša-an-za* gušk[in] na4 2 igi-*zi* gìrmeš *ša-ša-an-za* gušk[in] na4

2 igi-*zi* gìrmeš gub-*te-eš* guškin na4 24; KUB 12.1 IV 20'-21': 6 *bi-ib-ru* guškin

<sup>19</sup> Cf. KBo 2.1 II 33: 1 *wa-ak-šur* zabar pú*Ḫa-pu-ri-ya-ta-aš*; KUB 31.1+ I 1'–2': uru*Ta*! -*ra-am-me-ka*<sup>4</sup> d u karaš d amar.utu-*a*[*š*] dingir*lim*-*tar* 2 *wa-ak-šur* kù.babbar ki.lá.bi 2 ma.na kù.babbar "Town Tarammeka. Storm-god of the army, Šanta: (their) images are 2 silver *wakšur*-vessel, their weight is 2 minas of silver".

<sup>20</sup> A betyl was a "stone imbued with psyche" according to the definition of Philo of Byblos. For (lú) *šiuniyant*- "imbued with the god, ecstatic", see Francia 2022.

<sup>21</sup> See Carruba 1967; Soysal 2014/15, who list the materials used for these vessels: metals, different kinds of stones, wood

<sup>22</sup> Last translation of the text: Cammarosano 2018, 294-99.

<sup>23</sup> See Carruba 1967, 90, note 6.

<sup>24</sup> See Otten 1989, 366-67.

```
[šàb
       ]a
          4 gud igi-zi gub-an-te-eššà 3 guškin na4 1en guškin pu-u-ri-in (Siegelová 
   1986, 448); KUB 42.42 IV11': [x bi-ib-r]u gud 2 aš-ra guškin gar.r[a; KUB 
   42.100+: III 27': du ane
                           : 3 gú gud kú.babbar; KBo 25.173 I 7': bi-ib-ru guškin; dim: KBo 27.67+ I 4', II 1, 35 and 44, 55 (Klinger 1996, 302, 306, 310, 312); du ga5-aš-ru KUB 38.1+ 29'-30': bi-ib-ru gu4 giš kú.babbar gar.ra 4 ki.gub
      pár-ka4-aš-ti 1 sig.kuš; du šamē VSNF 12.28 II 13'-14': Klinger 1996, 610; dim ètim gal KBo 19.128 VI 10'-11': Otten 1971, 16; dim uruḪi-iš-ša-aš-ḫa-pa: ABoT 33+ IV 5'-6': bi-ib-ru gud kú.babbar; du uruLi-iḫ-zi-na, KUB 38.3 I 1-3: bi-ib-ru gud giš 4 ki.gub kú.babbar gar.
      ra sag.du-šú gabaḫi.aguškin gar.ra pár-ka4-aš-ti 1 sig.kuš; dim/u and dim/u uruZi-ip-pa-la-an-da KBo 14.33 I 12': (StBoT 37: 426, 458, 
      482); KBo 19.128 IV 34'-35', 42'-43': Otten 1971, 10, 12; KUB 1.17 II 31-33.
gud.am "Auerochse" KUB 12.3, 10.
gud.amar "calf " Bo 6514 IV 3; KUB 59.37, 7'.
gud.maḫ "bull" KUB 42.100+: III 27'-28'. púḪa-pu-ri-ya-ta-aš KBo 2.1 II 34: an.bar 1 še-kan; du mZi-ya-zi-ya KBo 2.13 obv. 1: an.bar; du uruA-aš-ša-ra-ad-da (KBo 2.1 II 40-41, 34-35): an.bar 1 še-kan; du uruMa-al-li-it-ta-aš KUB 38.6 + 57.106 IV 16': giš nagga gar.ra 4 gub-za; du uruMa-ra-a-aš KBo 2.1 I 28-29, 34-35: an-na-ki gar.ra 4 gub-za; changed 
      in: kú.babbar 4 gub -za 1 še-kan; du uruPa-re-en-ta-aš KBo 2.1 III 7-8: an.bar 1 še-kan; du uruŠa-na-an-ti-ya KBo 2.1 IV 1-3: an.bar 4 gub-aš 2 še-kan; du uruŠa-ru-wa-la-aš-ši KBo 2.1 III 1-3: an.bar 1 še-kan; du uruWa-at-tar-wa KBo 2.1 II 24-25: an.bar 1 še-kan;
mušen "bird" KUB 7.38 obv. 12.
pìrig.tur "leopard" KUB 48.262.a+ II 21-23: 3 bi-ib-ru pìrig.tur šà 1en 4 gìrmeš
   gub-za 2 GÚ pìrig.tur guškin na₄za.gìn mušnuwa[nza] parzašša.
simmušen "dove" KUB 16.83 I 50: guškin simmušen. 
šaḫ "pig" KBo 31.54, 5'.
      bi-ib-ru šaḫ zabar (KUB 44.6 I 3', 4').
ti8
   mušen "eagle" bi-]ib-ri ḫi.aKBo 18.178 rev. 2'-3: kú.babbar …[1en] gú ti8
                                                                            mušen; KBo 
   48.262.a+ II 15: 4 bi-ib-ru ti8
                                   mušen guškin na₄za.gìn; KUB 12.1 IV 11': 1en gú 
   ti8
      mušen.
      ḫur.sag Lūla (KUB 40.110 rev. 4‒5). dKammamma d
                      Ḫašgallā (KUB 55.18 II 8'‒9': iš-tu bi-ib-ri gu[škin] ti8
                                                                                 mušen) dkal uruḪatti (KUB 55.18 III 2'‒3').
      [ḫumanteš] dingirmeš (KBo 54.143 obv. 3'‒4).
udu.kur.ra "mountain sheep" KUB 12.1 IV 10'-11' (Siegelová 1986, 446): [x bi-]ib-
   ru guškin šàba2 udu.kur.ra igi-zi gub-an-te-eš [x gub-a]n-te-eš egir-pa pár-za 
   uš-kán-e- eš; KUB 42.100+: III 28': du ane
                                              : 1 bi-ib-ru udu.kur.ra kú.babbar.
udu.šir "ram" bi-ib-ru kú.babbar 4 gìrmeš a-ra-an-za. d
       Ḫilašši (VSNF 12.21 + KBo 13.217 II 1'). dŠawašḫila (VSNF 12.21+ II 14'-15'). dKataḫziwūri (VSNF 12.21+ III 18'', 22''). dZiparwā (VSNF 12.21+ III 7'', 10'').
ur.maḫ "lion" bi-ib-ri kú.babbar 1 gú ur.maḫ (KBo 9.91 obv. 15-17); 3 bi-ib-ru 
   ur.maḫ šà 1en4 gìrmešgub-za sag.du-súgabaguškin an.bar ge6 1engúur.maḫ
   guškin na₄za.gìn na₄mu-u[š-nu-wa-an-za] ḫe-eš-ḫi-ši-kán sag.du ur.maḫ na4 1en
```
gušk[in] *pu-u-ri-iš ti-it-ta-li-ta-i-me-eš* (KBo 48.262.a+ II 16-20)25; 1*en* gú ur.ma<sup>ḫ</sup> [guški]nna4 (KUB 12.1 IV 22'-23'); KUB 48.119 rev.? 9; *bi-ib-ru* ur.ma<sup>ḫ</sup> guškin <sup>ḫ</sup>ur.sag*Aškašepa* (on a gold *B*.: KUB 1.17 V 28': Klinger 1996, 436; gold). dIyarri (in a dream stood on a lion – his form however was like that of the Stormgod – 'This statue they will make exactly so"; 46'-51': "in a dream one said to His Majesty: 'make Iyarri (represented as) a veiled woman', Iyarri (represented as) a veiled woman they shall make": KUB 15.5 II 39'-44'; de Roos 2007, 75). d gal.zu (KBo 19.128 V 39'-40': Otten 1971, 14). za.ba4.ba4 (KUB 10.89 I 20: Klinger 1996, 506).

### 8. The Hittite ceremony of "drinking a god" and the ritual meal

The Akkadian term *bibru* is translated "rhyton", although it had just one opening, and not a second one through which the liquid could get out, which explains the Greek name (Tuchelt 1962). This type of vessel was used in religious festivals, and the form of the rhyton was that of the animal which represented the worshiped deity. KUB 10.89 I 20'-29' (Klinger 1996, 506-07) concerns a monthly festival: "King (and) queen drink (*akuwanzi*) sitting (the War-god) Zababa with a rhyton in the form of a lion staying on his four (legs), (*ištu bibri* ur.maḫ IV *arantet*). The cup-bearer brings one large mouthful of bread made of mash from outside. He gives (it) to the king. The king breaks (*paršiya*) (it), and bites (*wāki*) (it). (One plays) the lyre; one sings; the entertainer speaks; the *palwatallaš palwaizzi*; drum (and) castanets. The dancers dance. One brings a bowl (*ḫuppar*) of wine to the entertainer. (The cup-bearer) who has to come bowing (comes)". The same rite was then performed for other deities, without specifying every time what kind of vessel was used (in some cases it was a "bowl", gal). A shortened (and more usual) formulation of the same rite is given in the parallel text KUB 10.24 VI 11'-16' (Klinger 1996, 478-79): "[King (and) que]en drink sitting Zababa [with] a gold rhyton. (The cup-bearer) receives (then the wine) in an empty [*išk*]*aruḫ*-vessel".

One must also consider that the "bowl / cup", *zeri* / gal could have been shaped like an animal (which is very seldom expressed), see VSNF 12.28, 9': "The king drinks standing the Goddess of Arinna and the (other) gods from a bowl in the form of a stag (*iš-tu* gal *lu-la-ya-ma-az*)" (Klinger 1996, 610)26.

Considering that the verb *eku*- "to drink" takes the accusative of the name of the deity, and that this act was followed by the king biting the bread for the deity, one has to deduce that the climax of the rite consisted in the act performed by the king (and the queen) in drinking of the same wine (or beer) and eating of the same bread as the god:

Der Höhepunkt im Verlauf der Feste in der hattisch-heth. Tradition bestand in Trinken, *eku*-, die Gottheit. Diese Handlung, die nicht als "GN tränken" aufgefasst werden darf, wurde ürsprunglich nur vom König und von der Königin vollzogen. Der Zelebrant gelangte zu einer mystischen Komunikation mit der Gottheit, indem er aus einem besonderen für die Gottheit bestimmten Gefäss das für die Gottheiht bestimmte Getränk trank, das dann für sie "libiert", *sipant*-, wurde, das heisst ihr zu trinken gegeben wurde. Nach dem Opfertrank fand ein Nahrungsopfer statt: der König brach ein Brot, das dann fortgetragen wurde. (Archi 1979, 200-01).

<sup>25</sup> See Otten 1989, 366-67.

<sup>26</sup> For *lulayama*-, to be related to *lulim*(*m*)*i*-, an epithet of dkal, the Stag-god, see Alp 1983, 125 note 158. Such *zeri-* vessels could be rhyta like those of nos. 212-216 in Kulakoğlu and Selmin 2010, Pl. 213-216.

The officiant had to break the bread for the god and eat a bite before presenting it to him on the altar; then he had to swallow a sip of the wine (in some cases beer) which he had to then "libate", in pouring it from the rhyton, or "bowl", *zeri*- / gal, or a pitcher, *kukkub*, into the *ḫuppar* vessel (*ḫuppari sipanti*): as the bread was placed on the altar, the wine had to be offered by pouring it at the base of the altar, and the cup-bearer had to receive this liquid in an empty vessel: lúsagi*-aš išgaruḫit* guškin *riquti šer epzi* (see Kammenhuber 1971, 147-50; Singer 1984, 47; II 15-21). Other vessels used for "drinking a god" were *aššuzeri*-, and gešpu "fist". The Boston silver bowl in the form of a fist represents king Tudḫaliya IV, dressed with a long "ritual dress", holding the "lituus" (*aniyatta*/kinḫi.a-*ta*, giš*kalmuš*) while he is performing a libation in front of an altar (*ištanana*-, zag.gar.ra) on which bread and meat offerings are placed. He is pouring wine from a pitcher at the foot of an altar; behind him is a bowed cup-bearer holding a kantharos, followed by a man playing a small drum, two musicians playing lyres, a man beating some castanets, and a last person holding a kind of "alphorn" in both hands, probably the "man who plays the *palwa*" (lú*palwatallaš palwaizzi*). At the other side of the altar, in front of the king is the Storm-god, standing and grasping the reins to which two horses are hitched (Güterbock and Kendall 1995, 52-3).

In the Schimmel stag vessel a king is portrayed making an offering to the Stag-god kal (together with his *paredra* Ala). Behind the god there is a hunting spear, hunting bag, quiver and a dismembered stag. The king, being a devotee of this god27, is portrayed wearing a short dress suitable for a hunter, pouring a libation to the god from a pitcher; he is followed by a drum-player and the bowed cup-bearer who holds a kantharos (Güterbock and Kendall 1995, 54).

Friedrich (1952, 40) explained the construction of the verb *eku*- / *aku*- "to drink" followed by a divine name in the accusative as "to drink a deity", refusing the causative meaning "tränken", "give to drink", adducing the Eucharist for comparison: "an unserer Abendmahl erinnerend". Already Forrer had published a paper entitled "Das Abendmahl im Ḫatti-Reiche" in the year 1938 (Forrer 1940), as Güterbock (1998, 121) has remarked. The Hattian-Hittite rite was in fact a meal shared between the deity and the royal couple.

It was Kammenhuber's (1971 = 1993, 475-91) merit to have defined this basic rite which the Hittites had received from the Hattians, and had preserved in the festivals of the Hattian-Hittite tradition, one of the largest corpora of the Hittite documents. According to her, «wenn der heth. König eine oder mehrere Gottheiten "trinkt", handelt es sich um eine Libation: er libiert in einer Schale (*ḫuppar*). […] Eine Handlung, der sicher tiefere magische Vorstellungen zugrunde liegen» (1971, 147-48; 153). In the later period (particularly in the 13th century BC), however, the verb *eku*- also assumed the meaning "to give to drink, to toast to DN" because of a contamination with cults from the south-eastern regions (of Hurrian origin)28.

<sup>27</sup> This king – not dressed in the usual cloak, but with a shorter one – could be Tudḫaliya "the hunter" (see Hawkins 2006). For a different interpretation of the hieroglyphic signs in the captions, see van den Hout 2018.

<sup>28</sup> A good example is the *Ritual of Wišuriyanza*, KBo 15.25 rev. 14–17: gal〈.dumu〉.é.gal *š*[*ipa*] *nzakizzi nu ḫantezz*[*i pa*]*lši* dgal *ša-me-e e-ku-z*[*i*] egir-*šu ma a-n*[*a* di]m *e-ku-zi* egir-*šu-ma a*[-*na* dka]l *e-ku-zi ak-ku-uš-ki-u-wa-ni-ma* tuš-*aš* "The chief of the palace servant makes a libation: he drinks first 〈to〉 the Sun-god of Heaven; then he drinks to the Storm-god; and then he drinks to the Tutelary-god. We then drink sitting", see Carruba 1966, 4-7. The passages concerning the verb *eku*in the cult and ritual documents have been collected in Kammenhuber and Archi 1975/77.

Reactions to her thesis were negative, preferring the meaning "to drink (to the honour of) DN; to toast to DN"29. Kammenhuber's incontrovertible answer (1991, 225) was: «Die Hethiter hätten die schönere, aber interpretierende Übersetzung des neuenglischen Ausdrucks "to toast somebody" bezeichnen können, wenn sie es gewollt hätten»30!

Güterbock (1998) accepted in a second time the thesis that the literal understanding of the phrase *eku*- + DN in the accusative, "to drink god NN", is correct. He then remarked that according to a passage (his § 8) of the Old Hittite festival text KBo 17.74+, the king "drinks the bowl (gal) of the Sun-goddess" and her daughter Mezzulla (see below); in several passages from a later manuscript of this festival, instead, the king drinks a deity (in the accusative) "from a bowl (or) a rhyton": DN *ištu* gal / *ištu bibri ekuzi*. One should, therefore, deduce that "drinking the cup of a god" means to drink part of the wine offered to a god, which in a later manuscript is expressed as: "to drink a god (in drinking some wine) from his cup"! He then (Güterbock 1998, 127- 29) quoted two passages from KUB 55.18 (a later fragmentary text with poor syntax) concerning a local festival celebrated by a "priest", lúsanga, with the participation of a local community)31:

### KUB 55.18 II 6'-11':


"Then they sweep. 〈To〉 the priest they give 〈to drink〉 standing the deity Kammamma (and) Ḫašgalā, and the Name of the king from a s[ilver] rhyton in the form of an eagle: he pours it (i.e.: the wine) in the earthenware cup clay, and he (i.e., the priest) drinks it / him (the deities Kammamma and Ḫašgalā)"

The second passage, KUB 55.18 III 2'-5', is:


<sup>29</sup> For criticism expresses about Kammenhuber's thesis, see the bibliography in *HW*<sup>2</sup> , 30. Soysal 2008 – followed by Goedegebuure 2008 – suggested, moreover, that the ending -*n* was a development of the Hattian dative ending -*n*, so that such an ungrammatical construction would have remained in use for ca 400 years!

<sup>30</sup> Kammenhuber refers, as an example, to the expression: *waršuli eku*- "zur Befriedigung / Besänftigung trinken"; better: "to drink (in honour)", which does not belong to any Hattian-Hittite festival, but which occurs several times in the *ḫišuwas* Festival from the Hurrian milieu of Kizzuwatna, as in the passage KBo 15.37 V 18–23: "*te-pu* (geštin) *šuppiyaḫḫanzi na-aš-ta* lúsanga *nam-ma iš-tu bi-ib-ri* dingir*lim ḫa-a-ni nu-uš-ša-an a-na* gal lugal *la-ḫu-u-wa-i nu* lugal *pa-a-i* … lugal-*uš wa-ar-šuli e-ku-zi* "One consecrates part (of the wine). The priest draws again wine from the rhyton of the god, and pours it in the bowl of the king, then he gives (it) to the king". Music and songs. "The king drinks: 'Health'". In this particular case the *bibru* is filled with the wine which is then distributed to individual bowls. This expression also refers to other participants, KUB 25.32+ IV 13: lúmeš *ḫumanteš wa*[*ršuli*] nag-*zi* "(they place] the thigh on the altar,) and they drink three times the rhyta in honour in staying". KUB 45.44 II 6:]*ape-ya waršuli akuanzi*; IBoT 1.1 III 22–23: 2 *be-lu-ši* [*menaḫḫanda*] *wars*[*uli akuwanzi*] "2 lords drink in honour of him (i.e. the king)". 31 See the transcription in Groddek 2002, 32-3.


"They give to the assembly 〈to drink〉, standing, the god gal.zu from the silver rhyton in the form of an eagle of the Tutelary-god (i.e. the Stag-god) of Ḫatti: they pour **it** down into [earthenware] cups, and drink **it** out".32

Güterbock was right in noting that gal.zu (without the divine determinative in the following passage) has to be read: gal*-sú* = Akk*. kāsu*: KBo 15.59 III 9'-10': lugal*-uš* gal.zu *ekuzi ḫuman*[*ti-ya*] *akuwanna piyanazi* "the king drinks the bowl; they give everybody / the assembly to drink"33. This text belongs to the *ḫišuwaš* festival, of the Hurrian tradition from Kizzuwatna. This interpretation makes it very probable that dgal.zu of the Hattian-Hittite festivals was the deified bowl, because – as Güterbock (1998, 127) writes – «once the bowl was deified it could well have been treated like other deities»34.

The text does not present a correct wording, which makes it ambiguous; moreover, the singular accusative enclitic of the common pronoun -*an* in the first passage should refer to the wine (!), while the nominative-accusative neuter singular in the second passage can only refer to the wine.

Güterbock's final deduction (1998, 129) is formulated as follows: «it seems to me that the passage (above) shows that the liquid is the deity, or the deity is the liquid, since here the deity is poured from a *bibru* into a cup from which the celebrant then drinks». Taracha, who has recently revived this interpretation, writes:

The idea of the wine symbolizing a god in Hittite liturgy implies a kind of mystical thinking comparable to the idea of consecration of the sacramental wine into the Redeemer's blood in celebration of the Eucharist. Like in the Eucharist, at the hearth of Hittite cult ceremonies are the breaking of bread and drinking of the wine of a god from the cup. (Taracha 2019, 716)

Indeed, the wine poured into such a cup, and offered as a drink to a deity, became imbued with the spirit of the god, and could be fateful for anyone unfaithful to him, as a passage from the Instruction for the Priests and Temple Personnel shows:

(In order to detect who has taken away something of the gods' property,) then you will drink empty the rhyton of the deity himself. If you are innocent, (then it is due to) your patron deity (*šumel*dkal-*ku-nu*). But if you are guilty, then you will be destroyed along with your wives and your sons. (Miller 2013, 262-64, ll. 52-55).

<sup>32</sup> According to KBo 19.128 V 39'–40', one drinks d gal.zu with a *bibru* in form of a lion (Otten 1971, 14). <sup>33</sup> On (DUG)gal = *kāsu* = *zeri*, see Güterbock 1964, 97-8. The whole passage KBo 15.59 III 3'–10' is: egir-*šú-ma* lugal-*i a-ku-wa-an-na pí-an-z*[*i*] lúsagi *ta-pí-ša-ni-it* kù.[babbar] *pa-ni* dingir*lim šipa-an-ti* (music) íd*Al-da ka-lu-ut-ta* lugal[-*uš*] 1 ninda.gur4.ra *pár-ši-ya na-an pa-ni* dim [*da-a-i* (?)] lugal-*uš* gal.zu(/-*sú*) *e-ku-zi ḫu-ma-an-ti-ya a-ku-wa-an-na pí-an*[-*zi*] "And then one gives to drink to the king; the cup-bearer libates with a *t.*-vessel of silver to the god (i.e. dim). (Music.) The king breaks a loaf 〈to〉 the circle of the river Alda, and [places] it in front of the Storm-god. The king drinks the bowl (gal.zu/-*sú*). One gives to everybody to drink". The parallel passage in IV 13'-14' has: *nu* íd*Al-da ka-lu-ut-ta e-ku-zi* lú[sagi.a] *ta-pí-ša-na-za* kù.babbar *pa-ni* dingir*lim ši-pa-a*[*n-ti*] "He drinks the river Alda. The [cup-bearer] libates with a *t*.-vessel in front of the god". The Hittite translation of the *ḫišuwaš* festival uses the wording of the Hattian-Hittite festival, so that the celebrant "drinks", *ekuzi*, gods (in the accusative), and even objects (named in Hurrian) belonging to

Teššup(!); see KUB 32.84 IV 2, 4, 6, 8 *passim* (Wegner 2002, 28-9; 36). 34 Heffron (2014, 167-72) follows Güterbock's interpretation.

dgal.zu appears among the gods of the ki.lam festival already in the Old Hittite manuscripts KBo 20.33+ obv. 25, and KBo 38.12+ II 3935, until a very late period (see KBo 19.128 V 39', Otten 1971, 14).

That the king drank wine from the bowl presented for the libation to a god is proven by the Old Hittite ritual performed "when the Storm-god thunders" (Neu 1970; 1980, 62-9), also preserved in a later faithful manuscript (KBo 17.74+; Neu 1970), which presents the following passages, I 21: lú*ki-i*]-*ta-aš ḫal-za-i* gal dim〈lugal munus.lugal〉 *a-ku-an-zi* "the repeater cries (the name of the god). King (and) queen drink the bowl of the Storm-god"; every time music follows. Similar passages are: II 6: gal dutu d*Mezzulla akuanzi*; II 42: gal dim <sup>d</sup> *Wašezzil akuanzi*; 46: gal d*Inar akua*[*nzi*]; IV 6: gal dud ge6 *akuanzi*; IV 15': gal d *Tuḫašail akuanzi*; IV 8' gal du *Wašezzili akuwanzi*. In some other cases, on the other hand, the king and queen "sipped the wine (from) the bowl of god NN with a (gold or silver) spoon: gal dim *šuppištuwarit akuwanzi*: III 12', 25', 27', 32', 42', 47', 52'; gal dutu: III 20'36.

A later text also mentions that the celebrants drank directly from the *bibru*, KBo 39.154 + KUB 25.32+ III 43'-44': "They put (the breads) back on the stele for the Sun-goddess of the Earth. One drinks nine times from the rhyton, standing (*iš-tu biib-ri* gub-*aš* 9-*šu a-ku-wa-an-zi* (McMahon 1991, 72-3). Note that not only the *bibru* but also the gal.zu could have been in the form of an animal, more precisely the protome of an animal, in this way representing the deity who "was drunk".

The "festival", ezen, celebrated by the king and queen therefore consisted in a ritual meal together with the gods, through which the king reached a mystic union with the deity in sharing the drink and the bread offered to him. This act was renewed in every monthly and seasonal festival, also extending the benefit to members of the court who took part in this common meal. KBo 19.128 VI 10'-16': «The king drinks in standing the Storm-god of the Palace from a rhyton in the form of a bull37. One plays the lyre. The cup-bearer gives to the king a large bread. The king breaks it and places it on the altar. The king gives to drink to the lords in (their) hand» (Otten 1971, 16-7); KUB 10.88 I 5-10: «One places the tables of the gods; one places the tables of the king, of the queen, of the king's sons, of the dignitaries: eighteen tables. One fans the fire. One places 43 tables of the Countries, (but) one does not fan the fire» (Archi 1979, 204).

This text shows how the king (and the queen) first created a mystic union with the god in drinking (*eku*-) of the same wine and eating (*wek*-) of the same bread offered to him. This bread was then offered to the god in placing it on the "altar" (zag.gar.ra), while the wine was poured as a libation (*sipant*-) in the *ḫuppar* vessel at the foot of the altar. Additional wine (or beer) and bread were distributed to the assembly (*ašeššar*) of the Palace personnel, or to the local communities, creating an inclusive union through

<sup>35</sup> These texts are transcribed in Burgin 2019, 32; 84. In the first text dgal.zu appears in a long list of deities whom the king "drinks". Although all the gods whom he "drank" were not necessarily represented by an image in front of him, in this particular case the deified bowl could be that used in celebration. For other passages concerning this god in later manuscripts of the ki.lam festival, see

Singer 1984, 240. 36 The CHD (Š, 641) lists some passages according to which large amounts of *šuppištuwareš* are in gold or silver. It is peculiar that the dug*kattakaranta*- vessel, identified with the arm-shaped vessel, was so rarely used for libation. For a "libation", *šipant*-, with this vessel by the king, see e.g., in KUB 11.35 II 26'-68'. Mielke (2007, 164-65) has proposed that this vessel was not used for libations; see, further, Fantoni 2021, 101-02.

<sup>37</sup> Some words may have been recited over the rhyton in this moment, KUB 36.89 obv. 8: "one breaks a bread, they full the rhyta", inim-*an* III-*šú an-da me-ma-i*.

a common meal. Only the officiant, however, drank from the wine of the gods. Even so, the shared ritual meal extended its mystical significance to all the members who took part in the rite38.

### 9. Drinking in the Royal Funerary Rite

The Funerary Ritual celebrated for "a great loss", *šalliš waštaiš*, that is for the death of the king or the queen, when "they become a god", dingir*lim*-*iš kišari*, is a document represented by late manuscripts in some different versions. The first edition, by Otten (1958), has been superseded by the one by Kassian *et al*. (2002; here: FR), which includes more texts.

Day I. "The cup-bearer pours a beer libation from the libation vessel (dug*išpanduwaza*). One gives then to eat to the decased (*akkanti*), and one gives him three times to drink (-*ši akuwanna pianzi*" (FR, 56-7).

Day II. "The palace attendants give [to drink] to the deceased (*akkanti*) from the *ḫuppar*- vessel"; they put a vessel and bread in front of the bed of the deceased. Ritual meal of the assembly. They give 〈to the decease〉 to drink", *akuanna pianzi*; 〈the celebrant〉 "drinks", *ekuzi*, Taurit, the Sun-gddess, Mezzulla; … "he drinks" the Storm-god and the Storm-god of Zippalanda – the Tutelary-god kal – the Favourable Day (dud. sig5 ) – Izzistanu – the Sun-goddess of the Earth – his Soul three times; at the third time he breaks the bowl and put it in the hearth (FR, 88-99, dupl.164-75).

Day III. The corpse is burnt on a pyre. "They give to drink three times (to the participants) and they drink three times his Soul" *nu akuwanna* 3-*šu pianzi nu* 3-*šu-pát apel* zi-*šu akuwanzi* (FR, 264-65).

Day VII. "Great meal", *naptanu* gal. He drinks the Sun-goddess of Arinna – the Storm-god and the Storm-god of Zippalanda – the Tutelary-god kal – the Favourable Day (dud.sig5 ) – the Sun-goddess of the Earth – his Soul and the Favourable Day three times, at the third time he breaks the bowl and put it in the hearth (FR, 324-33, dupl. 344-49).

Day VIII-IX. "They give to drink", *akūanna pianzi*, to the statue of the deceased on the sitting-chariot. Great meal: bread is given, the cup-bearer gives (them) to drink. "He drinks the Sun-goddess, the Storm-god, the Tutelary-god kal, the Sun-goddess of the Earth, each one separately once. They break loaves … He drinks the grandfathers (and) the grandmothers (of the deceased)", *ḫuḫḫiš ḫanniš ekuzi*. "He drinks three times his Soul. When he drinks his Soul for the third time and says the name of Favourable Day, he does not break the bread. The cup-bearer smashes the *iškaruḫ*-vessel against the ground (FR, 386-89, dupl. 422-25).

Day X. "They give to drink", *akūanna pianzi*, to the statue of the deceased in the house" (FR, 432-33, dupl. 440-41).

Day XII. Great meal. "He drinks the Sun-goddess, the Storm-god, the Tutelary-god kal, the Sun-goddess of the Earth, each one separately once. …They give to drink to (!)39 the grandmothers (and) the grandfathers. … He drinks three times his Soul. When they give to his Soul to drink (*akūanna pianzi*) …" (FR, 486-87).

Day XIII. "They lift the statue. … They give (roasted liver and hearth) to the Soul of the deceased to bite. … They offer wine and fine oil. They give to the deceased to

<sup>39</sup> See here below.

<sup>38</sup> Several passages concerning the ritual meal of the "assembly", *ašeššar*, are quoted in Archi 1979.

drink; and he drinks his soul" (*akkanti akuwanna pianzi nu apel* zi-*an ekuzi*) (FR, 500- 05). "They pour fine oil from above on the wine" (FR, 506-07 l. 26).

Day XIV. "He drinks the Sun-goddess of the Earth … he drinks the grandfathers (and) the grand mothers. … They pour fine oil into the hearth. … While they drink the soul of the deceased, one cup-bearer stands down, by one side of the hearth and one cup-bearer stands by the other side. They hold pitchers of wine. When he drinks the Soul of the deceased, the cup-bearers pours as libation (*sipanzakanzi*) (the wine) into the hearth from one side and from the other side" (FR, 510-13).

On the first two days "one gives to drink to the deceased"; a ritual meal follows. The celebrant drinks the three major deities of the pantheon, and then the Sun-goddess of the Netherworld and the Soul of the deceased together with the Favourable god: a tutelary god who has to accompany the deceased in his difficult journey to the Netherworld40. The divine names have no case termination, but the soul is always in the accusative: zi-*an.* The celebrant drinks from a "bowl", gal, which he smashes afterwards against the ground (FR, 174-76 ll. 32; 39-40). The vessels used to drink the Soul on the following days were also broken. On the third day the corpse was burnt on a pyre.

Over the following days one also drinks the gods and Soul (in the accusative), while "one gives to drink" to the statue of the deceased (*akkanti akuwanna pianzi nu apel* zi*an ekuzi*), because the statue represents the deceased in this world, while the Soul is the entity of the deceased which will reach the meadows of the Netherworld (ú.sal*wa paiši*, FR, 516 l.13). One also "drinks" the grandfathers (and) the grandmothers (in the accusative) of the deceased (*ḫuḫḫiš ḫanniš ekuzi*), who will receive him there. The passage for Day XIV describes this sequence: first the celebrant "drinks" the deceased (by drinking from the bowl); then two cup-bearers pour the wine in a libation into the hearth so that it dissolves.

Manuscript KUB 30.19+ (Day XII) is the only one which writes inaccurately: "They gave to drink to the grandmothers (and) the grandfathers. … He drinks three times his Soul. When they give to his Soul to drink (*akūanna pianzi*) …".

10. The basic pattern of the local cults according to the "cult inventories"

Muwattalli II was principally focused on maintaining control of northern Syria and the confrontation with Egypt. It is quite uncertain if this and his policy concerning the Arzawa states were his motivation for moving his capital to the south, to Tarḫuntašša. The core region of Ḫatti was first entrusted to Arma-Tarḫunta, Šuppiluliuma I's nephew, and later to Ḫattušili III, according to the custom of entrusting governmental charges to close relatives, an action which provoked tensions in an area which also suffered incursions by the Kaška people.

It was the explicit duty of the king to ensure the correct celebration of the rites in the core regions of the state, and – when necessary – to restore them. The attacks from the Kaška, who for a certain period of time even succeeded in gaining control of the area of the Upper and Middle Kızılırmak, where Nerik was located, along with the transfer of the capital, and the civil war, had all contributed to reduced central control.

The rites were moreover registered in "tablets", giš.ḫur/*tuppa*ḫi.a *gulzattar*; giš. <sup>ḫ</sup>ur *šiyanza*, and they could have been damaged or lost.

<sup>40</sup> For the difficult journey of the Soul to the Netherworld, see Archi 2008.

Muwattalli (KUB 42.100 I 17', III 32', IV 38), Ḫattušili III, "the father of his Majesty (IV 15')41, and even Muršili II, "the grandfather of His Majesty" (i.e., of Tutdḫaliya IV: I 20', III 22', IV 10') had already begun to restore festivals in the recovered area of Nerik, so that the cult obligations could be celebrated there correctly. One document also mentions Urḫi-Teššub42. It was however Tudḫaliya IV who actively engaged in a systematic control of these obligations43. As Hazenbos (2003, 11-4) has recalled, this king complained in a prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna that cults were neglected, and he vowed to restore them:

I shall [confess] my sin [before you] and never again shall [I] omit the festivals, not again shall I interchange [the festivals] of the spring and of [the autumn], and [the festivals of the sprin]g I shall perform punctually in spring, [the festival of the a]utumn I shall perform punctually in autumn, [and to you] in the temple I shall never leave out[ the festivals]! (KBo 12.58 + 13.162 obv. 6-10; Hazenbos 2003, 12).

Tudḫaliya's documents prove that they proceeded rather systematically, region after region in registering the cults of each city and village, in order to verify that the rites were celebrated at the right date and in the right form. It was essentially «une œuvre de restauration des cultes» (Archi 1973, 8)44.

There is evidence that Tud<sup>ḫ</sup>aliya personally supervised this cult reorganization: m*Tudḫaliyaš* lugal.gal / dutu*ši dāiš* / me-*iš* "instituted": KBo 12.56 I 8', and KUB 25.23 IV 48': "One temple will be built"; VS 28.111 obv. 16': alamḫi.a é.dingir*lim* dutu*šiaš-ku*[-*un*] "His Majesty has established statues and a temple"; KUB 25.23 IV 63'- 64': *pa-ni* dutu*ši* <sup>m</sup>*Tudḫaliya* [….] kin? -*ti* "Before His Majesty Tudḫaliyas [X] wrote it" (Hazenbos 2003, 35).

Tudḫaliya introduced several gods according to the religious feeling and political situation of his time, as exemplified in KBo 70.109 + KUB 57.106+, and its dupl. KUB 38.6 + 57.56. The text has to be dated to the period in which Nerik and the cult of its Storm-god and that of Kaštama were restored (these gods are mentioned in practically all of the preserved section concerning twenty-eight settlements), but it is not possible to determine the region to which this inventory refers. The cult of the two major deities of Aššur was introduced in several peripheral cities or villages: the Storm-god of Aššur (§§ 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 22, 25); Ištar (dliš) of Nineveh (§§ 6, 7, 9. 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26), and even Ištar of Babylon: (dliš of Karduniya, § 25). The river Baliḫ (in the Luwian form Baluḫašša), and Milku (§ 6, and § 6, 7, 12, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27 re-


<sup>41</sup> See further KBo 12.53+; Cammarosano 2018, 271-75.

spectively) were Syrian gods, while Piḫami and Piḫaim(m)i, are Luwian epithets of the Storm-god (§§ 3 4, 6, 8, 9, 12).

Another text, KBo 12.53 + KUB 48.105, which may concern the region between Kirikkale and the Tuz Gölu (the cities of Durmitta and Nenašša are mentioned in obv. 19' and 29') lists in obv. 42' the goddess Nanaya (Archi and Klengel 1980, 144-45), whom the Hittite knew also from the Appu story.

Several deities mentioned in KBo 70.109+ (and KUB 57.106+) were also introduced in Syria, in the so-called *Rituel Anatolien* (Emar VI.3 472-490);45 they have been listed by Prechel (2008, 244):46

dim kur*Nerikka* & dimin.bi; [dim] *piḫaimmi* & dimin.bi; dim *putalim*(*m*)*i* & [dimin. bi]; dim of *Nerikki*; dim *ša šamê*; d*Ḫandas*/*šima* (cf. d*Ḫantašepa*); d*ištar* uru*Šamuḫa*, d *Tašmišu*, dimin.bi, ḫur.sag*Ḫarḫia* & ḫur.sag*Daliyani* (cf. the mountains Ḫaḫarwa and Zaliyanu); d *Taḫag*u & d *Taḫagunanu* (see the *daḫanga* of the Storm-god of Nerik: probably to identify with the cave of the spring at Oymaağaç); dim *piḫaimmi*; dim *putalimmu*; dim *ḫapaimm*i; d30 and dim *ša šamê*; dim *ša šamê,* <sup>d</sup>*Allanu,* <sup>d</sup>*Ḫurraš,* <sup>d</sup>*Šeliš,* <sup>d</sup>*Ḫazi,* <sup>d</sup>*Nani,* <sup>d</sup>*Mušitu*; <sup>d</sup>*Madi,* <sup>d</sup>*Nergal*, d imin.bi; d*Milku*; d*Put*[*alimmu*]; dNergal; dŠanda; d Tenu.

That some Kizzuwatnean and Syrian deities were included in some cult inventories, together with Luwian gods, has to be explained with the political situation at the time of Tudḫaliya (Archi 2002)47. Prechel (2008), in examining the list of the gods in the *Rituel Anatolien* from Emar, has more precisely suggested that the Emar text could be compared with a cult inventory of the Hittite archives. In particular, she has noted that in a fragment published by Goodnik Westenholz (2000, 76-8), an autumn rite by the stele (*sikkānu*) of the Storm-god *piḫaimu* is mentioned in line 3; this recalls the rite by the stele from the Hittite cult-inventories. The text could therefore concern cults to be performed on behalf of a Hittite "colony" at Emar, who brought some cults with them, just as some legionaries of Imperial Rome did.

The areas involved in the preserved inventories include the whole Hittite heartland, from the north: Nerik (Oymaağaç) and Ḫakmiš (near Amasia), to the central area (with Durmitta towards the west), Ḫattuša, Zippalanda (Ușaklı Höyük, east of Yozgat), and to the eastern valley of the Kızılirmak: Sarissa (Kușaklı Höyük), Karaḫna, Šamuḫa (Kayalıpınar), (Hazenbos 2003, 191-99; Kryszeń in Cammarosano and Kryszeń 2021, 39-62).

Each town or village could have had some different festivals, but the texts present the same basic pattern for them: a rite initiated in the autumn festival, which found its accomplishment in the spring festival, and was strongly concerned with the survival of each of those communities, a rite, therefore, which was celebrated from time immemorial. This rite was the festival of the "filling", *šuḫḫa*-, of the storage vessel or "pithos",

<sup>45</sup> See Arnaud 1986, 458-76.

<sup>46</sup> One cannot, therefore, accept Cammarosano's statement (2015, 207), that «the most likely explanation for the exceptional occurrence of Assyrian and Syro-Mesopotamian deities in Anatolia would be that these settlements were located along ancient roads of the Old Assyrian trade network, more precisely in the area west of Kaneš/Neša»; (repeated in Cammarosano 2018, 436).

<sup>47</sup> Cammarosano (2015, 205-09; 2018, 436), follows Forlanini (1992, 178) who, having remarked that the city of Mallitta in KBo 70.109+ // KUB 38.6+ (*CTH* 527.40) is mentioned in an Old Assyrian itinerary, just *suggested* that these gods, including the Baliḫ River (luwianized *Baluḫaššaš*!), the goddess Nanaya, and even the Storm-god of Assur, were introduced in that area by Assyrian merchants. The *Rituel Anatolien* shows instead clearly that the introduction of such deities in central Anatolia has to be attributed to Tudḫaliya IV as a consequence of his religious feeling determined by his policy towards the eastern regions of the Empire. For the city of Mallitta see now also Barjamovic (2011, 320-01; 340).

*ḫarši*(*yalli*)*-* 48, with grain, which was celebrated in "autumn", *zenant*-, while in "spring", *ḫamešḫant*-, the "opening", *kinu*-, of the vessel was celebrated. "Avec cette cérémonie, durant laquelle on transformait en pain la céréale de l'année précédente, le nouveau produit, à peine gérme, était lié à l'ancien unissant ainsi le cycle agricole d'une année à l'autre, et favorissant ainsi la croissance de la nouvelle récolte» (Archi 1973, 15-8).

These seasonal rites prescribed that in spring the images of the god were brought in a procession led by the local priest (to which the representatives of each community took part) to the deity itself, who was identified with a mountain in the case of a male deity, or a spring in the case of a female deity, according to an animistic conception49. The exact point was marked by a "stele", na₄*ḫuwaši*- / na₄zi.kin, which represented the deity. The image (a statue, a vessel, or even a stele) which represented the deity in the shrine of the city or village was placed beside that stele in order to be – so-to-speak – reloaded with the essence of that particular deity (Archi 1973, 18-24). See, for example, KBo 2.7 obv. 6'-17'50:


<sup>48</sup> See NINDA*ḫarši*- (HW2 III, 358-69): a type of bread.

<sup>49</sup> For a description of these festivals, see Cammarosano 2018, 11-30.

<sup>50</sup> See Cammarosano 2018, 210-3.


Problems in performing such kind of processions because of a not safe political situation are presented in KUB 25.23 I 8'-16'51:


An animistic perspective may have needed to represent the elements of Nature in a tangible form. In reorganizing the cults in the region of Nerik, Tudḫaliya IV decided to represent a mountain, which previously had no image at all, in the form of a male statuette; this was deposited in the shrine of another mountain god, while he represented this deity as a stele, placing it on an elevation in a neighbouring village: an aniconic tangible representation of this god. KUB 7.24 + 58.28 obv.52:


<sup>52</sup> Hazenbos 2003, 27-9.

<sup>51</sup> Hazenbos 2003, 31; 36; Cammarosano 2018, 362-63.


Similarly, a female deity, the Great Spring, represented as an iron statue of a sitting woman, was placed in the temple of the Storm-god during the time of Tudḫaliya IV. In spring this statue was brought to the Spring from which she was named, and deposited by the stele which made the Spring more tangible, thereby accomplishing then the prescribed rites, KUB 17.35 III 23-3853:

1 alam munus tuš-*za* an.bar pú.gal dutu*ši* dù-*at*šà é dingir*lim* du *pé-dan*x-*zi* 


Cammarosano 2018, 174-77.


The excavations of the city of Šarišša (Kușaklı) have allowed us to identify one of these sanctuaries: the ruins of a simple building on top of a hill, 2.5 km outside the city, near a pond (Müller-Karpe 2017, 121-24). Documents from Ḫattuša mention that the king reached the "stele", na₄*ḫuwaši*-, of the spring Šuppitaššu of Šarišša by chariot, and texts nos. 1-3 from Šarišša concern the spring festival which the king celebrated by the na₄*ḫuwaši*- of the Storm-god (Wilhelm 1997, 9-20).

Some more detailed texts of these cult-inventories clearly show that it was distinguished from the offerings of bread, meat and drinking vessels placed on the altar, which the celebrant had to taste in order to accomplish the mystical union with the deity ("they break the loaves of bread and fill the rhyta", line 30 here above) from one side, and the provisions of bread and beer for the representatives of the community who took part in the feast, from the other side.

Next morning, they take up the deity (dingir*lum*) from the altar, and they carry the deity (outside) to the stele. They present loaves of breads (made of the barley) of the pithos (dug*ḫar-ši*) before the deity … They wash and anoint the stele. They place the deity in front of the stele, and the priest offers 1 bull and 1 sheep to the Sun-goddess of the Water. They slaughter (them) at the stele, place the meat (there, and) break the loaves of bread of the pithos. (They place dishes, vessels of beer) at the altar. They break the loaves of bread and fill the *bibru*-rhyton 〈*for the deity*〉. 1 *parīsu*-measure (and) 2 bán-measures of flour, 4 vessels of beer (are) the provisions 〈*for the community*〉. They eat, they drink. They provide the cups. The *ḫazikara*-women bring fruit. They put a wreath on the deity. They rejoice over the deity (dingir*lum*-*ma-aš-kan duškanzi*). They step into a wrestling fight; they throw the stone. When evening comes, they take up the deity. (KUB 17.35 II 18'-26: Cammarosano 2018, 170-72).

While there is here a very clear distinction between the offerings for the god and the provisions for the participants of the rite, in other passages the wording is rather terse, as in KUB 56.39 III 15-18: 1 udu … ninda.gur4.rameš [(..)] *pár-ši-ya-an-zi biib-ri*ḫi.a-*kán šu-un-n*[*a-a*]*n-zi* galḫi.a-*kán* [*aš-š*]*a-nu-wa-an-zi* "1 sheep … They break the loaves of bread [(..)]. They fill the rhyta (and) provide the cups". That these rhyta were for the god while the cups for the community is made clear by the passage which follows:

Next morning they make a *šiyami*-dish out of the meat. [½ bán-measure of flo]ur, 1 jug (of beer) at the altar. ½ bán -measure of flour, 1 bowl of beer [(are) the provi]sions (for the community). The *ḫazkara*-women go (for providing) fruit; they put a wreath on the deity. [When darkness] seizes the leafy branches, the *ḫazkara*-women carry the deity away [to the temple;] they place (the deity) in front of the altar. The break [3?] loaves of bread, fill the rhyta, carry the [la]mps out, (and) close the temple. (KUB 56.39 IV 23-29: Cammarosano 2018, 252-55).

Both the autumn and spring festivals were concluded with a ritual meal: the gods were provided with food and wine or beer, and the celebrant drank from the rhyton (*bibru*) or the cup which would then be left on the altar, and broke the bread for it; then the assembly of participants ate and drank as well. Spring festivals, moreover, required entertainment for the gods: dingir*lum* / dingirmeš-*ma-aš-kán dusk*(*išk*)*anzi* "they rejoice the god(s)", so that the *ḫazikara*-women provided flowers and fruit, and men competed in athletic games, such as wrestling and boxing, a tradition which has survived in some countries, such as in Turkey and Scotland, even today (Cammarosano 2018, 43-4; 127-29)54.

### 11. The cosmic animism of the Hittites

Humans have produced authorities such as chiefs and kings in order to protect and govern their societies, but before instituting anything like a political state, they recognized that they could not govern weather, the seasonal cycle, or even their own lives, so that the world which surrounded humankind was made intelligible through symbolism. Humans believed they lived in an animistic cosmos which comprised animals, natural features, and elements of the landscape like mountains and rivers, so that boundaries between society and the cosmos were non-existent. The society that lived in the "Land of Ḫatti" in the 2nd millennium BC still maintained this belief: myths demonstrate that the process of anthropomorfization of the gods was accomplished, but the forces which they represented could still be expressed by animals, and (as is known) by mountains, rivers, and springs as part of an animated network of forces, so extensively documented by myths and rituals, and diffused in every settlement as is recorded so well in the cult-inventories55. The Assembly of the gods convened as witnesses in the political treaties is always followed by cosmic forces such as "the Gods of Heaven, the Gods of Earth, Mountains, Rivers, Springs, Clouds, Heaven, Earth, and the Great Sea". The Muwattalli's Prayer organizes the list of the gods geographically, according to cult centres, and those of the main gods of each centre is concluded by: «Male Gods, Female Gods, Mountains, Rivers of GN» (Singer 1996, 32-9).

### Bibliography


<sup>54</sup> This interpretation of the rites of the autumn and spring festivals has already been proposed in Archi 1973, 14-27.

<sup>55</sup> For the cult of mountains, see Haas 1982, and for that of rivers and spring the study by Gerçek 2019.


Mellaart, James. 1967. *Çatal Höyük*: *A Neolithic Town in Anatolia.* London: Thames and Hudson.


Morenz, Siegfried. 1960. *Ägyptische Religion*. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Müller-Karpe, Andreas. 2017. *Sarissa. Die Wiederentdeckung einer hethitischen Königsstadt*. Darmstadt: von Zabern.

Neu, Erich. 1970. *Ein althethitisches Gewitterritual*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 12).

Neu, Erich. 1980. *Althethitische Ritualtexte in Umschriftl*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 25).

Notroff, Jens, *et al*. 2017. "More than a Vulture: A Response to Sweatman and Tsikritsis." *Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry* 17/2: 57-74.

Otten, Heinrich. 1958. *Hethitische Totenrituale*. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.


## Between Adoption and Assimilation: The Case of Ištar of Ḫattarina

### Francesco G. Barsacchi

**Abstract**: In his investigation of the expansion of the cult of the "deity of the night" in Anatolia and her relationship with Ištar (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 46, 259-439), J. Miller exposed the complexity of a diachronical analysis of the religious phenomenon represented by the diffusion of local "forms" or "aspects" of Ištar during the late Hittite period. However, many relevant issues concerning the role of the goddess in the Hittite dynastic pantheon, heavily influenced by Hurrian beliefs, and her presence in local pantheons, are still to be dealt with. As a case study, the present contribution will focus in particular on the goddess Ištar of Ḫattarina, attested together with the "Kanešite gods" Pirwa and Aškašepa in Muwatalli II's prayer CTH 381. This unusual association may be derived from the interpretation of a local female deity traditionally defined as MUNUS. LUGAL, "queen" in Hittite local pantheons, as a form of Ištar.

### 1. Introduction

As is known, the complex construction that we define as "Hittite pantheon" was organized into divine groups, whose individual members could have multiple aspects, with different attributes and manifestations emerging over time as a consequence of political, social and cultural influences1 . Devotion to the goddess Ištar in Hittite Anatolia represents one of the best examples of a complex phenomenon of religious convergence by means of which an originally foreign cult was introduced and gradually adapted to Hittite religious thought2 . In this respect Beckman (1998), in a paper on the cult of Ištar of Nineveh in Anatolia, commented on the diffusion of different "forms" or "aspects" of the Mesopotamian goddess in the Hittite system of belief as follows:

I believe that we are dealing with hypostases of a single divine archetype, a situation similar to that surrounding the various Zeus figures of classical antiquity […] In some respects these Ištar-figures partake of a common essence, while in others they are distinct, as demonstrated by the individual offerings made on occasion to large numbers of such Ištars. (Beckman 1998, 4)

This contribution intends to reconsider the penetration and diffusion of the cult of different aspects of Ištar in the Hittite system of belief in a diachronic perspective, trying to determine if, and to what extent, some local manifestations of the goddess venerated in the Hittite pantheon develop their own characteristics based on the context in which they were located, and the relationships of these deities with the official cult of the Hittite court. As a case study, in this paper attention will be given in particular to Ištar of Ḫattarina.


Francesco Barsacchi, Università di Torino, Italy, francescogiuseppe.barsacchi@unito.it, 0000-0001-6750-1051 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

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

Francesco G. Barsacchi, *Between Adoption and Assimilation: The Case of Ištar of Ḫattarina*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4.08, in Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, pp. 57-68, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979- 12-215-0109-4

### 2. A brief background

Ištar is well attested among the deities of the old Assyrian *karum* of Kaneš, as proved by both glyptic and onomastics3 . The extent of the penetration of this cult in the Anatolian religious system at this time, however, is very hard to ascertain. Only from the early Empire period did the cult of the goddess take on a particular significance, following the Hittite expansion in northern Syria, and the final subjugation of the state of Kizzuwatna during the latter part of the 15th century BC.

In Old Hittite times, indeed, a cult of Ištar as such is not attested. A certain tendency towards the assimilation with Ištar of some local deities perceived as functionally analogous to the Mesopotamian goddess, however, seems to present itself already in the Old Hittite tablets of the so called "invocations to the Hattian deities" *CTH* 7334 , and in particular in KUB 8.41(+). The text is a *unicum* in many ways, and is difficult to assign to a particular genre. It is organized in several paragraphs, in which a series of gods and goddesses are evocated with the names they are called by among the mortals and with their heavenly title. Although quite obscure and difficult to understand, the document represents a fundamental source for our comprehension of particular dynamics of Hittite religious speculation. In the second column of the obverse, in particular, the text describes how the crown prince conjures the goddess Tašimmet, whose name "among the gods" is Ištar "the queen":

### KUB 8.41obv. II


When the crown prince (?) conjures the Storm-god's concubine the [singer says]: "To mankind (you are) Tašimmit, but among the gods you (are) 'Ištar the Queen'…

I agree with Güterbock (1961, 16; 17 note 9), according to whom Tašimmet should not be identified with the Hurrian Tašmišu5 , since this divine figure is clearly Anatolian. It belongs to that category of minor female deities related to agriculture and vegetation, often found in the local Hittite pantheons, where they can be linked to the cult of a spring, or associated with a deity of higher rank6 . What is important here is that a local Anatolian goddess is typologically assimilated with the divine figure of Ištar. In the third column of tablet KUB 8.41(+), on the reverse, in ll. 11-12, another obscure deity named *taḫakšaziyatiš* (hapax legomenon) is called among the deities by the name Ištar *arauwas*, perhaps Ištar "of the arising":

rev. III 10 (…) *d*[*a*? -*an-du-ki-iš-ni*] 11 <sup>d</sup>*ta-aḫ-ak-ša-zi-ia-ti-iš* dingirmeš[-*na-aš iš-tar-na*] 12 *a-ra-u-wa-aš* <sup>d</sup>*ištar zi-ik* (…)

For m[ankind] Taḫakšaziati, [but among] the gods you (are) 'Ištar *arauwas*'.

Unfortunately, these are so far the only attestations of Ištar in Old Hittite documentation. If a proper cult of this goddess continued to be practiced in Anatolia after the

<sup>3</sup> Hirsch 1961, 17-20; Wegner 1981, 13-4.

<sup>4</sup> First studied by Laroche 1947. See also Neu 1980, 183-203; Corti 2010, 139-51.

<sup>5</sup> *Contra* Laroche 1947, 210-12.

<sup>6</sup> See, on this category of deities, Haas 1994, 446-48.

period of old-Assyrian trade colonies, it must have pertained to the sphere of personal belief, and does not appear in official documents.

It is not until the early Empire period that Ištar appears once again in Hittite sources. By this time, the growing Hurrian influence on the Hittite religion has brought with it the spread of numerous local hypostases of the great Mesopotamian goddess. In particular, the city of Šamuḫa, whose importance in the Hittite political history of this time does not need to be underlined here7 , begins to be attested as a fulcrum of the cult devoted to Ištar8 . A very peculiar tablet, KUB 32.130, probably written during the reign of Tudḫaliya I/II, states that the king had a statue of the goddess brought to Ḫattuša. The relevant text passage, in the translation by Beckman, runs as follows:

§1 (1-5) Šaušga of the (Battle)field of the city of Šamuḫa was established by oracle to be angry, so I, My Majesty, performed an oracular inquiry as follows: I, My Majesty, will dispatch a person to Samuḫa.

§2 (6-9) He will perform an evocation ritual for Šaušga of the (Battle)field on the spot in Šamuḫa and carry out a festival for her, speaking words pleasantly before the deity. §3 (10-14) But when the campaigns against the cities of Išḫupitta and Tasmanḫa have been taken care of, I, My Majesty. will send and have Šaušga of the (Battle)field brought to me. On the return journey (from Šamuḫa) they will perform offerings for her daily. §4 (15-19) When they bring her before My Majesty, then for eight days they will invoke her here in the same manner as they customarily invoke her in Šamuḫa. Furthermore, I, My Majesty, will worship her.

(translation by Beckman, 2010, 4)

The dating of the text is still uncertain. It has often been dated to the time of Muršili II, but both ductus and sign shape seem to point towards an earlier composition. Indeed, in the online Konkordanz the tablet is labelled MH9 . If the attribution to Tudḫaliya I/II is correct, it would represent the earliest mention of Ištar of the field of Šamuḫa, but the question is still far from ascertained. It is also at this time that we can date the instauration of the cult of Ištar of Tameninga in Šamuḫa, if we accept the attribution of the Middle Hittite ritual KUB 12.5 (*CTH* 713) to the time of Tudḫaliya III, convincingly proposed by Miller (2004, 384 note 600). The *incipit* of the text mentions how the rites for Ištar of Tameninga are celebrated by the queen in the "house of the grandfather" of the king10:

(obv. I 1-3) When in the course of the year the Queen celebrates Ištar of Tameninga in Šamuḫa in the House of the grandfather (of the ancestors?) of the Majesty in the upper building: this (is) her ritual.

In the lists of divine witnesses in the treaties of Šuppiluliuma I, the goddess appears in the "forms" of Ištar of Nineveh, Ištar of Ḫattarina and Ištar LÍL or Ištar *ṣēri*, the two epithets, Sumerian and Akkadian, by which "Ištar of the field" is indicated. At the latest from this time the name of the goddess, when attested in documents that can be seen as reflecting a state pantheon, such as the treaties, was most likely read with the corresponding Hurrian name Ša(w)ušga11.

<sup>7</sup> Suffice it to mention the excellent synthesis of the question provided in de Martino 2008, with further references. 8 See Wegner 1981, 159-61.

<sup>9</sup> «mh. Schrift, also vor Mursili II., Tafel in Querformat», Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (2.0).

<sup>10</sup> See Wegner 1995, 83-7. See also Cammarosano 2019, 99.

<sup>11</sup> On this problem, see Wegner 1981, 23-4.

That during the early empire period Ištar was the object of a growing cult is further confirmed by the temple probably dedicated to the local aspect of this goddess in Šarissa. It is the temple 1 on the northern terrace of the city, dating to the city's foundation phase (around 1500 BC) and, as proposed by Müller-Karpe (2013, 343; 2015, 85), very likely dedicated to the cult of Anzili, the Anatolian deity identified by Wilhelm (2002, 342-51; 2010) as the goddess whose name is attested in the sources with the logographic writing d *ištar-li*.

### 3. The cult of Ištar of Ḫattarina

On this background, I would like to focus my attention on the particular figure of Ištar connected with the city of Ḫattarina, which still has to be geographically identified. A localisation in northern Syria, in the area of Kizzuwatna, has been proposed12, but is far from being certain. The importance of the local Ištar in the Hittite pantheon is confirmed by her constant presence in the divine lists of the treaties from an early time in the reign of Šuppiluliuma I until the reign of Tudḫaliya IV13.

In particular, she is attested in the treaty with Ḫuqqana of Ḫayaša (*CTH* 42), in a group of several "forms" of Ištar composed of: Ištar of the field, Ištar of Ḫattarina, Ištar "queen of Heaven", together with her two divine hierodulae Ninatta and Kulitta. In the treaty with Tette of Nuḫašše (*CTH* 53), Ištar of Ḫattarina is attested as part of the same divine group:


With Muršili II and his successors, the two main hyposthases of the goddess, Ištar of Ninive and Ištar of Ḫattarina, continue to play a primary role in the Hittite state pantheon and, as such, they are mentioned in the treaties with Manapa-Tarḫunta (*CTH* 69), with Niqmepa of Ugarit (*CTH* 66), in the treaty of Muwatalli with Alakšandu of Wiluša (*CTH* 76), as well as in the bronze tablet (*CTH* 106.1.A):


<sup>12</sup> See Danmanville 1962, 56 note 2, referring to a personal communication by Cavaignac.

<sup>13</sup> On the "political theology" reflected in this type of sources, see in particular Schwemer 2008; Taracha 2005.

Besides being attested in the group of figures of Ištar in the lists of divine witnesses, Ištar of Ḫattarina is famously documented in Muwatalli II's prayer to the Assembly of the gods KUB 6.45+ (*CTH* 381, Singer 1996). Here, the deity is included in a divine group formed by Pirwa, Aškašepa and the mountain Puškurunuwa.

obv. I

54 <sup>d</sup>*ištar* uru*Ḫa-ad-da-ri-na* <sup>d</sup>*Pí-ir-wa-aš* <sup>d</sup>*Aš-ga-ši-pa-aš* ḫur.sag*Piš-ku-ru-nu-wa* 55 dingir.lúmeš dingir.munusmeš <sup>ḫ</sup>ur.sagmeš ídmeš *ša* uru⸢kù.babbar-*ti*⸣ 56 <sup>d</sup>*Ḫa-pa-an-da-li-ia-aš* <sup>ḫ</sup>ur.sag*Ta-at-*⸢*ta*⸣ <sup>ḫ</sup>ur.sag⸢*Šum-mi*⸣-*ia-ra*

Ištar of Ḫattarina, Pirwa, Aškašipa, mount Puškurunuwa, male gods, female gods, mountains (and) rivers of Ḫatti, Karzi, Ḫapantaliya, mount Tatta, Mount Šummiyara.

The association of Ištar with this particular divine group is in my opinion particularly significant. Pirwa, long thought to be a double-gender deity, much like Ištar herself, is today identified with a warrior-god, with a close association with horses and horse-breeding. The cult of this deity is attested in Anatolia already from old-Assyrian time14. Pirwa, Aškašepa, a protective deity who is not attested in Old Assyrian sources15, and an obscure local goddess referred to by the sumerogram munus.lugal, "the queen"16, make up a divine group which receives offerings in many ritual texts dating at least from the Middle Hittite period17. Among other deities, in particular, this divine group appears to be at the core of religious ceremonies during which it is celebrated by the "singers of Neša/Kaneš"18, as evident in the following examples:




```
dPirwa dmunus.lugal dAškašepa, dimin.imin.bi dŠuwaliyat dmunusmeš-ya, dŠiwat dḪašammeli dingirmeš uruKaneš dḪilašši du.gur dZuliya
```

As noted by Archi (2004, 18), Pirwa, Aškašepa and dmunus.lugal represent a specific group within the larger category of the so called "gods of Kaneš", as they are referred to in the texts19. The interpretation of this particular group of deities, and the *ratio* behind the association of the gods that form it, however, are not clear.

While Aškašepa and Pirwa are actual theonyms, the sumerographic writing dmunus.lugal denotes a "type" of goddess at the head of local pantheons (Taracha 2017, 104). As such, as recently written by Cammarosano (2021, 82), this deity "may

<sup>14</sup> See Otten 1953; Haas 1994, 412-15 and, more recently Ünal 2019. 15 Attested also with the determinative ḫur.sag. On this deity, see Warbinek 2022, 3; Mouton 2014, 23. 16 The idea, proposed by Laroche (1945/46, 4), that munus.lugal would represent an epithet of Aškašepa, is not accepted anymore. See Mouton 2014, 23 note 38.

<sup>17</sup> Or earlier, if we accept the dating *ah* currently proposed in the online Konkordanz for KBo 7.38+. See Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (2.0), with further references.

<sup>18</sup> On this group of deities see Otten 1953; Archi 2004; Warbinek 2022, 12-3.

<sup>19</sup> See the attestations in Archi 2010, 32-3. On the problems concerning the exact nature and definition of this divine group, see now Warbinek 2022, 12-3.

denote any one of several goddesses who enjoyed a prominent status in local panthea of north-central Anatolia". As this paper will try to demonstrate, this divine figure, much like Anzili, could have been assimilated in some cases with some particular aspects or local manifestations of Ištar.

The association between Pirwa and Ištar can be traced back to the time of the *karum* of Kaneš, to the point that some scholars, like Gurney (1977, 13) and Güterbock (1964, 56) have gone as far as to postulate an equivalence between the two deities, an equivalence, based essentially on the supposed dual nature of Pirwa, that is not supported by the sources.

It is worthwhile to dwell in particular on the relationship between Ištar and Askašepa. Goetze, observing how in a "Kanešite lists" contained in the ritual text KBo 3.8 III 14-1620, the logogram *ištar* is apparently used instead of Aškašepa, interpreted this deity as female and "an Ištar-like figure" (Goetze 1953, 264). Indeed, Aškašepa, sometimes together with Pirwa, is mentioned immediately before the group of deities "of the Ištar-type" in several treaties. In the Akkadian treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Šattiwaza *CTH* 51.I21, in particular, Aškašepa is mentioned immediately after Ištar "the proud" (akk. *multarrihu*):

KBo 1.1 rev.


Telipinu of Tawiniya, Tel[ipinu of] Durmitta, Telipinu of Ḫanḫana, Ištar "the proud", Askašepa, nisaba, Moon-god, lord of the oath, Išḫ[ara, quee]n of the oath, Ḫepat, lady of Heaven, Ḫepat of Ḫalpa, Ḫepat of [Uda].

The same association can be found, albeit in a very broken context, in the divine list at the end of the treaty between Tudḫaliya IV and Šaušgamuwa of Amurru *CTH* 10522. Here, in KUB 8.82+ rev. 13'-14', Aškašepa is mentioned before Ištar of Ḫattarina and probably other forms of of Ištar, whose names, however, are lost in the break23. Given the fragmentary condition of this part of the tablet, not much more can be said about this particular section of the divine list.

The close relationship between the two deities is further confirmed by a particular series of cults performed during the an.taḫ.šum festival. According to the outline tablet A, preserved in KBo 10.20, rites for Ištar of Hattarina are performed by the royal couple from the 22nd to the 27th day of the festival, immediately after the ceremonies for the storm-god of Aleppo24. This section of the festival begins with rites performed by the king and the queen at Ḫattuša, in the temple of Aškašepa, where the cult functionaries defined as lú.mešḫal conjure Ištar of Ḫattarina. Starting from the following day (the 23rd of the festival), the ceremony moves first to the temple of the goddess and then to the temple of Ninurta (on day 24), when a new invocation to Ištar of Ḫattarina is performed.


<sup>20</sup> See the text edition by Fuscagni (ed.), hethiter.net/: *CTH* 390 (TRde 20-03-2017).

rev. III

```
23' lu-uk-kat-ti-ma lugal munus.lugal i-na ⸢é⸣ dAš-ka-ši-pa 
24' pa-a-an-zi lú.mešḫal-ma dištar u[
                                    ruḪ]a-at-ta-ri-na
25' [mu-u-ga-an]-zi ud.22.kam
```
26' [*lu-uk-kat-ti-ma* lu]gal munus.lugal [*i-na* éd*ištar* uru*Ḫ*]*a-*[*at-ta-r*]*i-*⸢*na*⸣

27' [*pa-a-an-zi* lú.mešḫal-*ma*] ⸢*a*⸣*-na* <sup>d</sup>*i*[*štar* uru*Ḫa-at-t*]*a-ri-na* 

28' [*mu-u-ga-an-z*]*i* 

The following day the king (and) the queen go to the temple of Aškašepa. The lú.mešḫal functionaries [conju]re Ištar of Ḫattarina*.* Day 22. [The following day the ki]ng (and) the queen [go to the temple of Ištar] of Ḫattarina. [The lú.mešḫal functionaries conjur]e Iš[tar of Ḫatt]arina.

The outline version G, preserved in tablet VSNF 12.1, datable to the time of Tudḫaliya IV (Galmarini 2013, 31), presents a much shorter version of the ceremony, which seems to last for one day only. During the 24th day of the an.taḫ.šum festival, according to this version, the king celebrates Ištar of Nineveh in the "large building", while the following day rites are performed in a peculiar place, described as a "garden of secrecy", in honor of the gods. Here a festival for Ištar of Ḫattarina is celebrated, and the text mentions the deities kal of Tauriša, Ea and another god whose name is lost in a break.

rev.

```
2' [lu-uk-kat-ti-ma lugal]-uš i-na étim gal ezen4 [an.taḫ.šumsar a-na d…]
```

```
3' [ù a-na dištar ur]uNe-nu-wa ezen4 an.taḫ.šumsar x[ ]
```

[The following day the king…] in the large building the [an.taḫ.šum] festival [for…and] the an.taḫ.šum festival [for Ištar of] Ninive […*kulumur*]*šiya* [offerings… Day 24]. [The fol]lowing day for the god kal of Tauriša, for […] and for ea in the garden of secrecy he celebrates the [an.taḫ.šum fest]ival [of?] Ištar of Ḫattarina. Day 25.

Aškašepa is not attested here, but the performance of the an.taḫ.šum festival in the garden of Aškašepa is mentioned in outline G among the rites of the 31st day25. On account of the close relationship between Ištar of Ḫattarina and Aškašepa that emerges both from outline version A and the prayer of Muwatalli II, I think that the "garden of secrecy" mentioned in outline G should be identified with the garden of Askašepa26.

The rites performed during the an.taḫ.šum festival in honor of Ištar of Ḫattarina are described also in several daily tablets, the oldest of which are datable to the Middle Hittite period, until the time of Šuppiluliuma I (Galmarini 2015, 51-2). It is at this time that Ištar of Šamuḫa, Ištar of Tameninga and several other hypostases of the goddess,

<sup>25</sup> I have found only one other attestation of the "garden of Aškašepa", in another fragment belonging to the an.taḫ.šum festival, KUB 34.69+, currently attributed to the 11th day of the ceremony (*CTH* 609). The text, in l. obv. 22', runs as follows: "The horses and the couriers come, [they (?). . . in] the *garden of Ašgašepa*".

<sup>26</sup> Galmarini (2015, 52) suggests to identify it with the 'forest of Tauriša' attested in KUB 45.34+ and in some LNS daily tablets classified under *CTH* 617 (an.taḫ.šum festival for kal of Tauriša).

such as the much debated "deity of the night"27, begin to appear in Hittite documentation, reflecting the growing Hurrian influence on Hittite official religion.

As in the case of the other hypostases of the goddess, the cult devoted to Ištar of Ḫattarina does not seem to have an autonomous and original dimension. It is not possible to trace the origins of the goddess's veneration, nor does this cult seem to be particularly widespread at the level of local cults, considering that only one clear occurrence of Ištar of Ḫattarina can be found in the cult inventories, in KBo 49.20628, where she is treated together with Ištar of Nineveh29. The veneration for this particular figure of Ištar appears, in other words, already as a part of the official state cult, as a direct result of the Hurrian influence on the Hittite religion (Galmarini 2013, 116-18). If we consider this, the close association between a "foreign" deity like Ištar of Ḫattarina and Anatolian deities of older tradition like Pirwa and Aškašepa, mentioned as parts of the same divine group in the prayer of Muwatalli II, is striking.

It is my belief that the relationship between Pirwa, Aškašepa and Ištar, and in particular with Ištar of Ḫattarina, could be explained by the gradual identification of the local female deity defined with the logogram munus.lugal, celebrated by the singer of Kaneš on many occasions together with Pirwa and Aškašepa, with a goddess of the "Ištar type". That would explain, for instance, the very unusual presence of Aškašepa and Pirwa in the long *kaluti* list of deities attested in KUB 10.92 (*CTH* 706), a festival for Teššub and Ḫepat, where these gods are mentioned, together with other Anatolian deities like Telipinu, in an otherwise clearly Hurrian religious context30.

Already from the Old Hittite ritual *CTH* 733, as we have seen, Ištar is associated with the goddess Tešimi and defined as munus.lugal among the gods. While in the lists of divine witnesses of the state treaties only one occurrence of Ištar "queen of Heaven" can be found, in the treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Ḫuqqana of Ḫayaša, it is noteworthy that in the Hurrian religious tradition reflected in mythological compositions, Ištar of Nineveh often takes the appellative "queen"31. Also, in the Mesopotamian cult tradition introduced in Anatolia by the mediation of Kizzuwatna and reflected in the Babilili rituals, Ištar Pirinkir is often attested with the Sumero-Akkadian epithet munus.lugal *šamē*32.

As Ištar is called "queen" in Hurrian religious tradition, then, so she tends to assume this role also in the local pantheons of central Anatolia. Starting from the early Empire period, at a time of increasing devotion tributed to this goddess, in many different forms, the Hittites could have re-interpreted some local female deities at the head of local pantheons defined as munus.lugal, as local forms of Ištar.

A similar phenomenon of assimilation of a local munus.lugal deity with Ištar has been postulated with regard to the main female deity of the city of Katapa. A cult

<sup>27</sup> On which see in particular Miller 2004, 259-439; 2008, 67-71.

<sup>28</sup> See the very useful online database provided by M. Cammarosano: https://www.hethport. uni-wuerzburg.de/HLC/tags/taglist.php, last visited 02/08/2023.

<sup>29</sup> The close association among these two deities emerges also from the liver omen report KBo 16.97, rev. 12-32 (*CTH* 572). In this text passage, as rightly observed by Beckman (1998, 5 note 50), the epithet Ištar of Nineveh seems to be used as a cover term for a variety of different Ištars, such as: the "deity of the night" of Šamuḫa, the "deity of the night" ofLaḫurra, Ištar of Šamuḫa, Ištar of Ḫattarina, Ištar "of his mother", Ištar "of his father" and "some other Ištar" (*tamaiš=ma kuiški* <sup>d</sup>*ištar*). See also Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011, 220-29.

<sup>30</sup> See Wegner 2002, 228-31.

<sup>31</sup> Beckman 1998, 4 with note 43.

<sup>32</sup> See the attestations in Beckman 2014, 97. See also van Gessel 1998, 937.

of the "queen" of Katapa is well attested from the Old Hittite period33. The deity is attested for instance in the Old Hittite ritual for the royal couple *CTH* 41634, and a deity defined "queen" is well documented both in the divine lists of the state treaties and in the prayer of Muwatalli II. This goddess has been tentatively identified with the goddess Ištar of Katapa mentioned in the inventory text KBo 16.83+ III 4 (*CTH* 242)35:

### rev. III


Ištar of Lawazantiya. Ištar 'of the house'. Piḫa-Tarḫunta, 'lord of the inventory' […]: A small kitchen knife. Dunwa-lugal, when 'Ištar of the house' was installed: a kitchen knife. Šippaziti, [wh]en the *ša(n)kunni-*priest brought the offer. Kurakura has [dona]ted a silver cup to Ištar of Katapa.

The text, very fragmentarily preserved, records expenditures of metallic objects or implements from the central administration for the cult of Ištar. The assumption that Ištar of Katapa should be identified with the widely attested d munus.lugal of the same city, however, is based on this text passage only and remains therefore hypothetical at best36.

In conclusion, the assimilation between Ištar of Ḫattarina and d munus.lugal that seems to emerge from Muwatalli's prayer reflects in my opinion a late Hittite theological concept according to which the female deity traditionally associated with Pirwa and Aškašepa at least from the Middle Hittite Period, in the divine group of the "singer of Kaneš, is interpreted as a local form of Ištar. In particular, as the form of the divine figure connected with the city of Ḫattarina, that starts to be revered from the early empire period along with other hyposthases of the goddess and becomes particularly relevant in the official cult of the state as reflected in the divine listes of the treaties. At what level such a phenomenon tool place and whether it reflects a real cult or just a theological speculation with no real implication on the actual cult practice, currently remains an open question.

It is probably the tradition of the an.taḫ.šum festival and the close relationship between Ištar of Ḫattarina and Askašepa that have influenced the theological construction that lies behind the redaction of this particular section of Muwatalli's prayer. Ištar of Ḫattarina is at the center of the imperial reworking of the an.taḫ.šum festival, and it is at this stage that its association with Anatolian deities such as Askašepa is given, probably due to the reinterpretation of the deity munus.lugal, traditionally associated with Pirwa and Askašepa, as a figure of Ištar.

### 4. Conclusions

There is a dual current that feeds the cult of Ištar during the Empire period. One, the one that appears most significantly in the documentation at our disposal, is the ever-increasing emergence of rites of Hurrian derivation imported from Kizzuwatna

<sup>33</sup> See Haas 1994, 594; Taracha 2017, 104.

<sup>34</sup> See, for a recent text edition, Montuori (ed.), hethiter.net/: *CTH* 416 (INTR. 2015-03-03).

<sup>35</sup> See Otten and Souček 1969, 105.

<sup>36</sup> An equation of the divine "queen" of Katapa with the local manifestation of Ḫepat, attested in KUB 11.27, obv. I 20 (*CTH* 620), is equally possible, as suggested also by Otten and Souček 1969, 105.

and promoted by Hittite official religious politics. This is the reason for the success of the cult of Ištar of Šamuḫa and of divine figures assimilated with her, which radiates in the Hittite cult starting from this religious center and becomes with Ḫattušili III a central element of the state religion. Parallel to this, in my opinion, traces of a second, more underground current remain in the documentation, which respond to the fundamentally assimilatory nature of Hittite religiosity and are present already in the Old Hittite ritual *CTH* 733, the tendency to assimilate divine figures evidently perceived as typologically similar. In a phase in which the official cult of Ištar becomes predominant, female deities of ancient Anatolian tradition are more and more easily assimilated with this figure, as Wilhelm convincingly demonstrated with regard to the goddess Anzili of Šarišša and as the present contribution has tried to do with regard to the relationship between Ištar of Ḫattarina and the gods Pirwa, Aškašepa and munus.lugal.

The path towards a full understanding of the mechanisms of diffusion of the cult of Ištar in imperial age is still long. As rightly underlined by Beckman, this research can only be conducted through a detailed analysis of the devotion accorded to individual manifestations of Ištar through time:

While I am inclined to follow the common opinion that the other Ištar types of the later Boğazköy texts, and in particular Ištar of Šamuḫa, are basically "avatars" or hypostases of the Ninivite goddess, any special features of the varieties will become apparent only if each is initially studied in isolation. (Beckman 1998, 4-5).

The present contribution aims to represent a small step in this direction.

### Bibliography


Beckman, Gary M. 2014. *The babilili-Ritual from Hattusa (CTH 718)*. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns (Mesopotamian civilizations 19).


## A Quantitative Analysis of Theonyms and Panthea in the Hittite Cult Inventories

### Michele Cammarosano

**Abstract**: The riches of the Hittite tablet collections are justly famous for the great mass of information they provide about deities, cult, and religious beliefs all over the Kingdom of Ḫattuša. The sheer amount of available texts and the fragmented state of many of them pose nontrivial problems for any systematic study of the Hittite religion. Expanding on the digital edition of the so-called cult inventories (CTH 526-530, ca. 450 fragments) and exploiting the potential of the related database, this paper provides for the first time a quantitative analysis of the panthea of local towns in the core area of the kingdom in the Late Empire period. The study is organized in two parts. Part One sets out the methodological basis for the analysis by examining the target corpus in terms of internal consistency, discussing the appropriateness of a distinction between "state" vs. "nonstate" cults both within the perspective of the current discourse on Hittite religion and specifically with regard to its consequences for the proposed analysis, and laying out the analytical principles used in the extraction of the relevant information. Part Two presents selected sets of data, explores ways to interpret and combine them, and investigates their significance for the study of local panthea in the Late Empire. The results are twofold. On the one hand, an innovative picture of the panthea under discussion is obtained, with substantial implications for our understanding of a number of deities, their relationship to each other, and their role within the religious life of provincial communities. On the other hand, the critical scrutiny of the nature and specific traits of the data sample highlights methodological pitfalls in a purely quantitative analysis of Hittite religious texts, and proposes correctives for mitigating their impact, thereby providing a significant case study for future research.

*In memory of Silvin Košak*

### 1. Scope and methods

The paper aims to present and discuss quantitative data on local panthea gained from a systematic analysis of the corpus of the so-called Hittite cult inventories1 . The first section sets out the basis for the subsequent presentation and discussion of the data through a critical appraisal of the justification criteria for the selection of the target textual material and a short presentation of the analytical principles applied.

<sup>1</sup> It is a great pleasure to thank Federico Giusfredi and Livio Warbinek for the invitation to a most stimulating conference and for their wonderful hospitality in Verona. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Silvin Košak: for his vast knowledge, immensely productive work, and tireless dedication, but also and most of all for his unique human qualities of modesty, dignity, generosity, and incredible and contagious joyfulness until the very last day. This paper expands on research that was carried out within the DFG funded project "Critical edition, digital publication, and systematic analysis of the Hittite cult-inventories" (German Research Foundation project no. 298302760), and is deeply intertwined with my previous work on the cult inventory texts: I beg the reader's pardon for the horrendous number of self-citations contained in the following pages.

Michele Cammarosano, University of Naples L'Orientale, Italy, mcammarosano@unior.it, 0000-0003-3571-9544 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

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

Michele Cammarosano, *A Quantitative Analysis of Theonyms and Panthea in the Hittite Cult Inventories*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4.09, in Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, pp. 69-88, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

#### 1.1 The cult inventories as a coherent corpus

The so-called cult inventories are texts that report on the state of religious festivals, rites, cult objects, and cult supplies in a number of provincial towns and villages under Hittite control, thereby documenting the interaction between central administration and local settlements in the core area of the Empire in northern and central Anatolia. As I have argued elsewhere, they do not concern the official "State cults", but rather a variety of rites and customs, which in part preserve local traditions. The corpus presently counts ca. 500 tablet fragments, all of which are palaeographically datable to the Late Empire (13th century BCE)2 .

Previous research on this corpus is connected first and foremost with two groups of scholars. The first one consists of Carl von Brandenstein, Charles Carter, Liane Jakob-Rost, and Joost Hazenbos, who published critical editions of substantial chunks of the corpus and fundamental studies on the related research questions3 . The second one consists of three scholars who specifically addressed the question of whether these texts should be interpreted or not as the result of a major operation of reform or reorganization of local cults promoted by king Tudḫaliya IV: they are Albrecht Goetze, Emmanuel Laroche, and Philo Houwink ten Cate. The appraisal of this question followed a somewhat parabolic trajectory, starting with Goetze's (1933, 160 note 1; 1957, 169 with note 13) hypothesis of an operation of cultic "reorganization", then touching a climax with the assumption, by Laroche (1975), of a comprehensive and in part even revolutionary "reform" of local cults by Tudḫaliya IV4 , and finally redescending towards a more nuanced standpoint in Houwink ten Cate's study (1992), which stressed how the king's measures mentioned in these texts consisted of restorations and expansions rather than innovation of cults, and that their innovative character may perhaps have laid in the geographical scope and fervor of the operation. In a general reappraisal based on these and other studies, I argued for an even more minimalistic interpretation, according to which it is well possible that the bulk and in principle even all cult inventories go back to Tudḫaliya IV, but there still is no convincing evidence to support this claim, and so it remains possible that some texts date back to Ḫattušili III (and/or, in principle, Šuppiluliuma II). Furthermore, I argued that the texts do not hint at a reform or a reorganization either, but rather at an inventorying process – a sort of census – with purposes of "quality control" and occasional measures aimed at reinforcement and restoration, a kind of practice which was arguably in use well before the Late Empire (Cammarosano 2012; 2018, 20-3).

Two basic methodological questions are of crucial importance for the purposes of a quantitative analysis of the corpus. One is whether the group of texts presently classified as cult inventories indeed constitutes a coherent corpus–meaning one that is de-

<sup>2</sup> Cammarosano 2018; 2021. The tablets are presently classified under entries 526-30 of the *Catalogue des Textes Hittites* (*CTH*, see www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/CTH/, last visited 02/08/2023).

<sup>3</sup> Cammarosano 2013; 2018, 19.

<sup>4</sup> Hatice Gonnet's "note additionelle" (*apud* Neve 1987) provides a telling example of the dangers of a hastily juxtaposition of archaeological and philological evidence: «Les récentes découvertes de la mission allemande à Boğazkale, que dirige Peter Neve, mettent au premier plan l'activité religieuse de Tudḫaliya IV: vingt et un temples dans la ville haute, dans le triangle situé entre la Porte dite du Roi, celle des Sphinx et Sarıkale, et le temple 5, situé plus à l'Est [ … ] sont en effet attribués par Peter Neve à ce roi. M. E. Laroche avait, d'après les textes, étudié la réforme religieuse de Tudḫaliya IV et sa signification politique […] L'archéologie vient ici confirmer de façon spectaculaire ce que nous apprennent les textes, qui, à leur tour, permettent d'interpréter ces découvertes». Subsequent work carried out by Jürgen Seeher and others, however, disproved this thesis, showing that the temples of the Upper Town are much older than Neve thought.

fined by nontrivial, specific features such as to characterize it uniquely with respect to other textual genres. The other is whether the corpus can be considered to be in some way representative of the Hittite local panthea of the provincial towns and villages in the core area of the Empire. The more positive the answer to these questions, the more meaningful a quantitative analysis of the corpus will be.

In order to address these issues, it is conducive to distinguish between two levels, namely form and content, or more specifically, text genre and types of cults involved. On the formal level, there is no doubt that we can define the corpus by using specific features, and that by doing this we reflect an emic distinction. Table 1, based on Cammarosano 2013; 2021, 3-29, presents the formal features that characterize cult inventories in respect to the corpus that is closest to them in nature and content, namely the so-called festival texts5 .


Tab. 1: Formal features that are characteristic of festival texts vs. cult inventories.

The most fundamental difference between the two genres in terms of formal organization of the texts is that cult inventories are arranged by town(s) and not by festival(s) or other components of the cult, and tend towards a comprehensive treatment of the relevant components of the cult, while festival texts are arranged by festival(s), i.e., aim to treat one or more specific festival ceremonies, never the cults of an entire town. This difference is not only apparent from the content of the tablets, but also correlates with the diverging patterns of their colophons, showing that the distinction of the two genres is emic and must correspond to different functions within the cult management practices of the royal chancery.

On the level of content instead, matters are much more complicated. Expanding on work by, among others, Manfred Hutter and Piotr Taracha, I proposed a basic dichotomy between two classes of cults, which are conventionally labeled state cults and local (nonstate) cults:

A festival text provides detailed information about the performance of specific festival(s). Whether performed in the capital, in local towns, or in more than one location, these rites normally pertain to the so-called 'state cults'. In short, this basically means that the king takes part in the ceremonies. […] In contrast, the purpose of a cult inventory

<sup>5</sup> For the festival texts, see Schwemer 2016, Rieken and Schwemer 2022.

is not to pass on information for the correct execution of specific festivals, but rather to provide informative or prescriptive reports on the cults of a given town at a specific time. […] Indeed, almost half of the inventories do contain festival descriptions. But the festival description is never autonomous: on the contrary, it is embedded in the higher-level section of the text pertaining to the relevant town. Furthermore, the cult inventories are never concerned with the so-called state cults; they treat festivals which do not involve the king. […] The dichotomy lies between 'state' vs. 'nonstate' cults, not between 'cults performed in the capital' vs. 'local cults': as already noted, those local cults where the king takes part are treated in festival texts and not in cult inventories. It is also worth observing that while the cult inventories never treat state cults, the converse is not true: i.e., a festival text may treat either a 'state' or a 'nonstate' cult. (Cammarosano 2013, 68-9 with note 22; similarly, Cammarosano 2018, 14; for an

updated estimate of the proportion of texts containing festival descriptions, see below).

Now, if cult inventories tend to treat the cults of a town comprehensively, and they never treat "state cults", what about the towns where both state and nonstate cults were celebrated? Should we conclude that cult inventories did not treat any of them? Of course not, as also shown by texts which can be safely classified as cult inventories based on the above formal features, and still pertain to towns such as Nerik, Karaḫna, and Zippalanda, where several state cults (with the participation of the king) also took place, which are treated in festival texts. The point is that cult inventories by their nature *tend* towards completeness: but they never contain "descriptions" (or "protocols") of those cults which the Hittite ruling dynasty considered of such importance to request the direct participation of the king, queen, or princes. These were the cults which we may consider as the official cults of the state, the "state cults", which are the object of festival texts. Obviously, in most cases there was not even the need to "exclude" the state cults from the inventory, since the bulk of the settlements treated in the cult inventories are villages and small towns, which are not attested in any other text, and where Hittite royals certainly did not have to take part in recurring festivals, if anyone of them ever passed there.

This view has been recently questioned by Alice Mouton, who does not consider the participation of royals in the celebrations as a valid criterion for a distinction between different kinds of festivals:

[L]'absence physique du Grand Roi hittite lors d'une cérémonie religieuse n'est pas un critère suffisant pour ne pas rattacher cette cérémonie au culte étatique: de nombreux personnages officiels, en particulier des membres de la famille royale (princes et princesses royaux, principalement) ou des gouverneurs locaux, sont habilités à représenter le pouvoir royal hittite lors de cet événement. Cela est d'autant plus vrai que les textes d'inventaires cultuels qui constituent la documentation de référence de l'auteur pour analyser les cultes locaux n'ont pas pour but principal de décrire en détail les cérémonies religieuses ayant lieu dans les différentes localités de «province», mais bien plutôt de faire la liste des besoins matériels relatifs à ces célébrations. L'absence du Grand Roi hittite ou de l'un de ses représentants ad hoc dans les quelques courtes descriptions de fêtes cultuelles qui apparaissent incidemment ici et là n'est donc pas significatif. (Mouton 2021, § 4).

Alice Mouton concludes that both the cults treated in festival texts and in cult inventories share one and the same nature. She acknowledges that the two groups of texts represent two distinct genres, but considers that they treat basically the same kind of cults from two distinct perspectives of management:

[ J]e ne suis pas convaincue que «culte étatique» versus «culte non-étatique» (on préférera l'expression «culte local» aussi employée par l'auteur) soit le bon critère pour distinguer les fêtes cultuelles qui sont décrites par les textes de fêtes cultuelles de celles qui se retrouvent sur les textes d'inventaires (voir p. 14). Les deux types de textes ont, comme l'indique l'auteur (p. 14), des fonctions différentes, mais ce n'est pas pour autant forcément le cas des fêtes cultuelles qu'ils décrivent. À mon sens, ce n'est pas la présence éventuelle du Grand Roi hittite qui tient lieu de critère pour décrire une fête cultuelle sur un type de texte plutôt que sur l'autre, mais bien seulement la fonction même de ce texte: dans un cas, il s'agit d'aide-mémoire pour les officiants (dans le cas des textes de fêtes cultuelles), dans l'autre, de documents s'adressant plutôt aux administrateurs des temples (dans le cas des inventaires). La porosité même de ces deux genres – une liste d'offrandes apparaît souvent dans un texte de fête cultuelle et une description de fête est fréquemment insérée dans un texte d'inventaire – montre que les fêtes qu'ils décrivent sont, en réalité, considérées comme relevant toutes d'une même nature. (Mouton 2021, §5, see also §§ 2-4).

While the call for a reappraisal of the alleged dichotomy between state and nonstate cults is absolutely appropriate, some objections may be raised against this line of reasoning and especially against its conclusions. First, it is true that for the sake of completeness one should mention the queen and princes besides the king as the actors who can be used as a diagnostic criterion for the definition of the "state cults" (although this does not solve the question, since they as well are absent in the festivals treated in cult inventories). But the king is not simply a top-ranking priest who can be substituted by "governors" or even by a prince for the fulfillment of his religious duties if need be. His person took an absolutely special place between gods and humans in the cosmic order, and his personal attendance – where required by the cultic protocols – was of foremost importance for the correct performance of the rite6 . Consequently, it is perfectly plausible to suspect that his presence (or absence) in a specific cult ceremony could make a qualitative difference.

Second, to state that festival descriptions appear in cult inventories only "incidentally here and there", representing a rather accessory element in the corpus, and their concise character may obscure the possible (even if only occasional) participation of the king or other royals is very questionable. Festival descriptions are present in the majority of the texts for which a typological classification is possible, and represent one of the most prominent and indeed precious features of the corpus despite their concise and in some respects stereotyped character; the kind of offerings foreseen, as well as the use of the 3rd plur. (impersonal) and the frequent explicit reference to a *sanga*-priest make it clear that no royal person is involved7 . Even if it were true that festival descriptions occur only occasionally among cult inventories, the fact that lists of offerings as well as festival protocols are found in both (and other) genres would not hint at the festivals treated in the two genres having the same nature.

<sup>6</sup> I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Schwemer (2022, 361) notes that «Conflicts between the king's numerous cultic obligations and other duties of his office probably occurred fairly regularly, but they did not always result in the cancellation of a religious festival. The Hittite administrators were able to find practical solutions. The king could compensate for a missed festival by including additional offerings in the following year». For the special position of the king in the cosmos, see most recently Schwemer 2022, 356-59 with literature.

<sup>7</sup> Cammarosano 2021, 9 (figures); 2018, 103-38 (discussion).

Third, if the two genres were to treat the same class of festivals from different perspectives, why not a single example of a festival treated in both genres has come to light? What we observe is rather the opposite: when available, cult inventories and festival texts concerning the same town tend to complement each other as far as the treated festivals are concerned8 .

Fourth and most important, a differentiation between the cults treated in the two groups of texts derives precisely from their content, since an intriguing complementarity is observable across the two genres in specific features of the rites and offerings described therein (Tab. 2, based on Cammarosano 2013; 2021, 3-8).


Tab. 2: Content features that are characteristic of cults treated in festival texts vs. cult inventories.

Alice Mouton (2021, §3) is absolutely right in stressing the interest in the provincial cults by part of the central administration as the fundamental motivation for the very existence of the cult inventories, and in pointing out that both the cults treated in festival texts and in cult inventories were part of the «vaste nébuleuse que représente le 'culte étatique', c'est-à-dire le culte dans son expression centralisée autour de la capitale Hattuša»9 . And certainly several festive ceremonies exist, which resist a classification in either group: the basic dichotomy of state cults vs. nonstate cults is not meant to explain the full variety of Hittite cults10. But this does not mean that we should boil them all together into the same soup. On the contrary, the above listed contrasts, especially the presence (vs. absence) of royals, the different partition of offerings11, and


a complementary distribution of specific kinds of athletic contests12 speak for a substantial difference in the nature of the two groups of festivals.

One important point where Alice Mouton's criticism hits the mark is the problematic character of the label "state" vs. "nonstate" cults. Admittedly, this terminology misleadingly suggests that the state had no interest or grasp on the latter, while rather the contrary is true, as has been repeatedly observed. It may be therefore better to speak of "local cults not involving royals" (or similar). Also, much more work is required to differentiate between the many festivals included in the festival texts and to explore along which lines they can be grouped together. Most importantly, it is necessary to better understand how the participation of the king (and more generally of royals) can be used as a defining criterion for the (emic and/or ethic) characterization of festivals, and in which terms this makes a difference in their organization, performance, perception, and categorization13.

This brings us to the question of representativeness. As has been recalled above, cult inventories never contain descriptions of festivals that involve royals, but the converse is not true: while the bulk of the festivals treated in festival texts involves royals, some do not. This asymmetry has implications for assessing the representativeness of the cult inventories in respect to local cults not involving royals. Certainly, we cannot claim that they are the only evidence for this kind of cults: some festival texts, as well as other texts from other genres (like edicts, oracle reports, letters), provide information on them. All should be ideally considered in a study that claims comprehensiveness. Nevertheless, the genre of the cult inventories clearly constitutes the principal body of evidence for their study. The size of the corpus, its scope, and its above-discussed internal consistency allow one to consider the results of a quantitative analysis as a meaningful insight not only of the genre itself, but also of the panthea and festivals of the core area of the kingdom in the Late Empire14.

### 1.2 Principles of analysis of the texts

The evidence discussed in the following sections originate from the comprehensive edition of the corpus produced between 2016 and 2020 at Würzburg University within the DFG funded project "Critical edition, digital publication, and systematic analysis of the Hittite cult-inventories"15. In particular, the quantitative analysis draws on data from the relational database *Hittite Local Cults* (www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/ HLC/, last visited 02/08/2023), which aims to collect selected information contained

<sup>12</sup> See Cammarosano 2018, 127-29. Corti 2017, 8-9 (followed by Gilan 2021, 34-5) claims that a "cheese fighting" contest takes places in the (state cult) festival for mount Hazzi (*CTH* 785) as well, but in fact this is a rite involving cheeses which has nothing in common with the contest attested in the cult inventories, see already Cammarosano 2014, 161 apropos KUB 45.49.

<sup>13</sup> The concept of "state cult" is frequently used in Hittitological literature, and is regularly connected to the participation of the king in the rites, see e.g., Schwemer 2016, 23; it is also explicitly used in opposition to cults considered have a "local" character without being embedded in the "state cult", see most recently Hutter 2021, 96-7; 232-33, and *passim*, who stresses that it is sometimes difficult to attribute a festival to one or the other class (p. 97). Goetze (1957, 161) observed that «Die hethitischen Texte sind offizielle Dokumente, nicht private. Was sie zur Kenntnis des Kultes beitragen, betrifft darum fast ausschließlich den Staatskultus, den der König als oberster Priester der Landesgötter leitet»; p. 165: «Die Opfer sind die Alltagsform des Kultes. Seine Höhepunkte erreicht er in den Festen. […] Am prunkvollsten waren die Feste, die der König als oberster Priester selbst vollzog».

<sup>14</sup> Distortions arising from the overrepresentation of specific towns are discussed below.

<sup>15</sup> www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/txhet\_kultinv/, last visited 02/08/2023.

in the cult inventories corpus in a structured form, in order to allow specific, flexible queries and optimize data retrieval16.

The fundamental principle for the analysis of the information contained in the texts consists of the distinction between "texts" and "textparts" (TPs). Whenever it was deemed possible and appropriate, a text has been subdivided into textparts, which are to be considered as meaningful sections of it. Most typically, the various textparts of a text correspond to the inventory of different towns. This distinction has implications for the usage of the database, insofar as the material can be analyzed both "per texts", that is, grouping together the data contained in a single text, and "per textparts", that is, considering each textpart as a separate entity.

Divine names have been recorded on two levels. In the first place, deities have been recorded under their various manifestations as attested in the texts using a standardized orthography. Additionally, divine names that can be considered as distinct manifestations of an overarching deity or as distinct writings of one single deity have been tagged as "Deity-Types" on a separate level (again, a certain degree of arbitrariness and uncertainty applies). For example, all manifestations of Storm-gods have been tagged as "Deity-Type: Storm-god"; likewise, the spellings "d liš", "Šawuška", and "gašan uruŠamuḫa" have been tagged as "Deity-Type: Šawuška", and so on. Obviously, the statistical evaluation of the worshiped deity changes depending on whether they are grouped into "types" or not. In conclusion, the consideration of the quantitative figures presented in the following sections will always have to bear in mind three principal caveats: the degree of arbitrariness that is inherent in the selection and grouping of elements of the textual material, the overall very fragmentary character of the extant tablets, and corpus-internal factors that may distort the general picture by overrepresentation of certain traits.

### 2. Local panthea

Having discussed the significance of the target corpus and the adopted analytical principles, we can now dive into the examination of the data. This section will first present the basic figures related to the deities attested in the corpus, then explore the connection between deities and towns where they are worshiped, and finally discuss relevance and implications of the presented evidence.

### 2.1 Deities worshiped

Cult inventories contain a great number of divine names, many of which are hapax legomena. In order to investigate the local panthea, it is conducive to single out those divine names which correspond to deities worshiped and link them to specific settlements whenever possible. A first breakdown of the deities worshiped reveals a pool of 571 deities attested across 416 texts and 1122 textparts17. Most of them are treated in one text only: a tangible manifestation of the extreme variety and idiosyncrasy of the local

<sup>16</sup> The following paragraphs explain the basic principles applied in the selection and grouping of the textual material, presented in more detail in Cammarosano 2021, 10-11 as well as in the guide to the database at www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/HLC/, last visited 02/08/2023. The database has been realized by Christoph Forster in the frame of the project thanks to funding provided by the Chair of Ancient Near Eastern Studies of Würzburg University. In the spirit of FAIR data and Open Data, all data can be freely exported in CSV format. Together with the hyperlinks to the digital text editions, this is meant to encourage data reuse as well as independent verification of the evidence.

<sup>17</sup> See Cammarosano 2021, 64-73.

panthea (Fig 1)18. A relevant portion of them, namely one-third, consists of divine natural manifestations: mountains, springs, and rivers (Fig 2). Of the gods, one in four is a Storm-god (d 10, d iškur). Only 31 out of 128 Storm-gods are attested in more than one text and only 4 in at least 10 texts, namely the Storm-god without further specifications, the Storm-god of Nerik and of Zippalanda, and the Storm-god of the Thunderstorm (Fig 3). 20 manifestations of Solar deities and 19 of Stag-gods are attested, whose names are invariably written by means of the Sumerograms utu and kal respectively.

Fig. 1. Breakdown of deities worshiped.

Fig. 2. Breakdown of deities worshiped, grouped typologically.

<sup>18</sup> In this and the following figures, the conventional semantic markers employed in the database are used: uru- and kur- for geographical names (corresponding to the determinatives uru "town" and kur "district" respectively); d-, dm-, ds-, dr- for divine names (corresponding to the determinatives dingir "deity", ḫur.sag/kur "(divine) mountain", pú"(divine) spring", and íd "(divine) river" respectively); mr- and ms- for personal names (of men and women respectively).

Fig. 3. Storm-gods worshiped.

Table 3 lists the most frequently attested gods, sorted by rate of attestation across textparts as "deity types", that is, grouping together distinct manifestations of the same archetypal god, when this is applicable.

Tab. 3: Deities worshiped, attested in ≥ 15 textparts, sorted by rate of attestation across textparts as "deity types" (if applicable).


Already at a first glance one notes the absence of many deities who are otherwise known to have a prominent position in the Hittite religion, and conversely, the presence here of deities who play a rather minor role in major festivals and divine lists in treaties, like the Heptad, Zababa, Ḫuwattassi, Pirwa, and the Storm-god of the Thunderstorm.

### 2.2 Deities and Towns

While the identity, typology, and frequency of occurrence of the various deities attested in the corpus provides an immediate picture of the "actors" involved, the rate of attestation of a deity per se is no guarantee of either reflecting its relevance within a local pantheon or of giving a measure of its "weight" vis-à-vis the other ones. To obtain more significant data of the role of a deity within the corpus, it is conducive to consider additionally the number of towns where he or she is worshiped.

As a result of various possible combinations of features to be considered, we get different rankings. Table 4 presents numbers with which six such rankings can be obtained, dependent on whether deities are counted across textparts or texts, hypostases are considered separately ("not grouped") or grouped together into deity types, and on the number of towns where a deity (considered either separately or grouped into deity types) is worshiped.


Tab. 4: Deities worshiped, attested in ≥ 15 textparts, sorted by rate of attestation across textparts as deity types.

By comparing the position of a deity across rankings obtained by using different criteria, one immediately gets an idea of the corresponding shifts in rank: note, for example, the difference in the placement of Šawuška/Ištar depending on whether her manifestations are grouped together or not. One element of stability here is represented by the dominance of the Storm-god, Sun-goddess, and Stag-god at the top of the ranking (for some discussion see further below, § 2.4).

Most conducive for a quantitative exploration of the local panthea of the corpus is in my opinion the consideration of the number of towns where the gods are attested, while taking deities as "deity types" (when applicable). Fig. 4 shows a scatterplot of the most attested gods, considered as deity types and sorted primarily by rate of attestation in texparts, secondarily by number of towns where they are worshiped.

Fig. 4. Breakdown of deities worshiped (scatterplot of columns 4 and 7 in Tab. 4): frequency as deity type (calculated across textparts), and number of towns in which a deity (type) is worshiped.

The scatterplot reveals a roughly three-tiered structure: the Storm-gods dominate by far the ranking, followed at due distance by solar deities and Stag-gods, then by the rest, with Šawuška, Storm-god of Nerik, and the Heptad coming first in the sequence. The preeminence of the Storm-god is perhaps not surprising, but certainly noteworthy in its extent. One is reminded of a passage from the *Instructions for Military Officers and Frontier Post Governors* where, stating their duty to care for the restoration of local cult images and shrines, the king stresses that "reverence for the deities shall be maintained; for the Storm-god, though, reverence shall be firmly established", thus insisting on the special place due to the Storm-god in the pantheon19. This is perhaps the only passage to witness something that comes close to a policy of generalized influence from the Hittite king into the local cults, in this case aimed at reinforcing the position of the local Storm-gods within the respective panthea.

<sup>19</sup> *Instructions for Military Officers and Frontier Post Governors*, *CTH* 261.I §§ 33', translation after Miller 2013, 229, see also 382 note 408.

### 2.3 A geographical perspective

A look to the towns inventoried reveals a picture of extreme fragmentation analogous to the one already seen for the deities. Of the 180 "towns" (URU) that are attested across 95 texts, only 21 are treated in more than one text, and only two in more than two texts (Šamuḫa and Nerik). For our purposes, it is conducive to include in the count attestations that can be assigned with reasonable certainty to a specific town or its immediate vicinity (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Breakdown of towns inventoried, counted by frequency in textparts, including attestations that can be assigned with reasonable certainty to a specific town or its immediate vicinity (label "KUR+…").

The best documented towns are Šamuḫa and Šarišša, because of the presence of cult inventories in the locally discovered tablet archives, as well as Nerik, doubtless because of the cult restorations promoted by Ḫattušili III and Tudḫaliya IV, and Zippalanda, which we know to have been an important cult center down into the Late Empire period. However, the peculiar value of the cult inventories lies precisely in the richness of the dozens of attested villages attested in just one or two texts. Despite their being often hapax legomena, Adam Kryszeń was able to trace many back to a specific geographical sector, whereby we conventionally distinguish between a northern sector, including Nerik (with Kaštama), Ḫakmiš (with Ištaḫara), and Ḫattena; a central sector, including Ḫanḫana, Katapa, Durmitta, Wašḫaniya, Ḫattuša, and Zippalanda; a western sector, including Kaššiya, Tapikka, Karaḫna, Šamuḫa, and Šarišša; finally a southern, "Cappadocian" sector, to which 12 texts mostly treating what seem to be small settlements may be attributed, although the localization is admittedly uncertain (Tab. 5)20.

An interesting breakdown of the geographical data is to count how many gods are worshiped in each town. The scatterplot presented in Fig. 6 (see the numbers in Tab. 6 thereafter) includes towns with six or more deities worshiped, sorted by number of deities worshiped. The blue and red dots correspond to the rate of attestation of each town in textparts and texts respectively. By far on top of the ranking both for rate of attestation and for number of gods worshiped comes Šamuḫa, a reflection of the cluster of tablets recovered there, followed by some obscure villages, arguably in the Cappadocian area of the middle Kızılırmak, for which the available texts meticulously list a number of cult stelae and the corresponding deities. Noteworthy is the position of a few "outliers", especially Ḫanḫana and Katapa, which happen to be treated in several texts, but with a comparatively smaller number of gods attested

<sup>20</sup> For a detailed appraisal of the geographical sectors, see Kryszeń 2021, 31-62 and Cammarosano 2021, 91-3.

as deities worshiped. Thus, the ranking of towns varies greatly depending on whether one considers the rate of attestation or the number of gods worshiped. It is important to stress that in neither case the ranking is representative of geographical-religious structures, rather it is dependent on the nature and character of the corpus as a whole.


Tab. 5: Geographical sectors and principal towns.

Fig. 6. Towns inventoried, with ≥ 6 deities worshiped, sorted by number of deities worshiped. Numbers include attestations that can be assigned with reasonable certainty to a specific town or its immediate vicinity (label "KUR+…").

Tab. 6: Data for Fig. 6, sorted by number of deities worshiped. The varying font size aims to give a measure of the very different ranking that is obtained by sorting towns by rate of attestation in textparts. Numbers include attestations that can be assigned with reasonable certainty to a specific town or its immediate vicinity (label "KUR+…").



### 2.4 Discussion and outlook

One of the most salient features of the two datasets consisting of the gods worshiped and of the town inventoried is that in both of them most items are attested in one or two texts only, with a very small number attested broadly. While in the case of the towns the performance of the few "popular" centers is mostly dependent on tablet findspots and special relevance within the inventory process, the ranking of the few "popular" gods is likely to reflect their relevance among the local cults treated in the corpus. I have argued that the most appropriate way of forming a ranking is to sort them by the number of towns where they are attested. In this way an iceberg-structure emerges, with the main body made up by the mass of hundreds of highly localized gods who form the bulk of the dataset and witness to the bewildering variety of the local cults, and the tip made up by the few broadly attested gods. This in turn may be parsed into four tiers, with the Storm-god (or better, his local manifestations) as undisputed leader, followed at due distance by Sun-goddesses and Stag-gods; then the Storm-god of Nerik, the Heptad, Šawuška/Ištar, Ḫuwattašši, and the Storm-god of Kaštama; finally, but here the step from the previous tier is rather minimal, Zababa, Yarri, Ištar of Nineveh, the Storm-god of the Thunderstorm, Pirwa, the Storm-god of Zippalanda, the Sun-goddess of Arinna, and Telipinu (Table 7).

A closer look at the texts behind these data, however, reveals an important caveat. While the top-ranking position of Storm-god, solar deities, and Stag-god is firmly rooted in their ubiquitous presence across all geographical sectors, a number of the deities in the second and third tier to a significant extent owe their position to one single text, namely KBo 70.109+ // KUB 38.6+. The largest of the entire corpus, this cult inventory contains no less than 29 textparts that arguably concern small settlements of the

Cappadocian area of the middle Kızılırmak21. For each town, a great number of cult images, mostly cult stelae, are listed, and crucially, some of the listed deities occur in most settlements. As a consequence, this single tablet holds a very special place in the corpus and in some respects is able to "distort" the picture obtained by a purely quantitative appraisal of the frequency of attestation of these deities. This is true especially for Ḫuwattašši, the Storm-god of Kaštama, and Ištar of Nineveh, for all of whom the attestations in KBo 70.109+ // KUB 38.6+ make up a big proportion of their overall occurrences, and to a lesser extent also for the Heptad, Šawuška, Yarri, and the Stormgod of the Thunderstorm (see the figures in Table 7).

Tab. 7: The most "popular" deities in cult inventories, based on their rate of attestation in textparts ("Frequency") and the number of towns where they are worshiped ("Towns"), and sorted by the latter feature. Deities are grouped into deity types whenever applicable. In brackets are the numbers that derive from KBo 70.109+ // KUB 38.6+.


Thus, if on the one side it would be unjustified to arbitrarily exclude this text from the corpus, on the other it is important to be aware of its disproportionate weight in the ranking presented above (no other text has a comparable effect in the corpus). It is therefore appropriate to consider what the ranking would be if this particular text is left aside (Table 8). In respect to the previous one, the "winners" in the modified ranking are especially Zababa, Pirwa, and Yarri, while Ḫuwattašši, the Storm-god of Kaštama, and Ištar of Nineveh appear now at the bottom end of the rank. There is good reason to consider this "adjusted" list as a better, if imperfect, mirror of the deities who were most widely worshiped in the local panthea of the core area of the Hittite kingdom in the Late Empire. Overall, the ranking does not change significantly depending on whether the deities are sorted by number of towns where they are worshiped or by frequency of attestation in textparts, but it is worth noting that in the lat-

<sup>21</sup> Cammarosano 2015; 2018, 433-70, with previous literature and discussion.

ter case Šawuška, the Storm-god of Zippalanda, and Telipinu take a more prominent role, while especially Yarri and the Storm-god of the Thunderstorm shift towards the bottom end of the rank.

Tab. 8: Same of Tab. 7, excluding KBo 70.109+ // KUB 38.6+ from the count. Upwards and downwards arrows (plus italics) mark those deities whose rank is significantly dependent on the inclusion of KBo 70.109+ // KUB 38.6+ (see Tab. 7). The varying font size aims to give a measure of the partly different ranking that is obtained by sorting deities by "Frequency" instead of "Towns".


Let us try to draw some conclusions from the figures seen so far. A first basic feature emerging from a systematic analysis of the corpus is the variety and fragmentation of the local panthea. No two ones are identical, and the bulk of the attested deities are hapax legomena. Typologically, a great deal of them are the divinized natural elements: mountains, springs, water courses, and more. Within this variety, some deities stand out as "supralocal" ones, these have been characterized above as forming the tip of the iceberg.22 While the overwhelmingly preponderance of the Storm-god is little less than obvious in an ancient Near Eastern land based on rainfed agriculture and the presence of a solar deity who in most cases doubtless is his spouse as the second most widespread deity follows as an expected consequence, the fact that the popularity of the Stag-gods almost equals that of the solar deities represents an important takeaway. It shows that the favor he enjoyed in the late Empire was firmly rooted in the religious life of local communities. Importantly, the position of the three deities at the top of the ranking tells us that they are the most widespread gods attested in the local cults treated in the corpus as a whole, but does not necessarily imply either that they stand at the head of the respective individual panthea or that they constitute a triad: on the contrary, the available evidence speaks against the latter hypothesis (Cammarosano 2021, 73-5).

Another takeaway emerges when considering the remaining ones of the most attested deities, namely the difference in respect to the deities who are prominent in the state pantheon, as known from lists of deities in treaties and other official systematizations of the divine assembly (Singer 1994; Beckman 2004; Schwemer 2006; 2022, 368-69; Hutter 2021, 186-89). The above considerations fit well the picture gained through a more traditional look at the local panthea of the cult inventories, one that focuses on the deities who we know to be characteristic of distinct religious milieus, namely the Hattian, Hurrian, and Luwian ones, and highlights different patterns of distribution depending on the various religious-cultural milieus to which they can be attributed (Cammarosano 2021, 75-91; 96-7). Expanding, revising, and correcting this picture, also with consideration of further evidence – from within and outside the cult inventories corpus – remains among the much work that has to be done towards a better understanding of local panthea of Hittite Anatolia, and more in general of Hittite religion.

### Bibliography


Goetze, Albrecht. 1933/1957. *Kleinasien*. München: Beck (1st ed. 1933; 2nd ed. 1957).

Houwink ten Cate, Philo H. J. 1992. "The Hittite Storm-God: His Role and His Rule According to Hittite Cuneiform Sources." In *Natural Phenomena: Their Meaning, Depiction* 

<sup>22</sup> They actually consist of abstractions, since for each of them we group together a plethora of local hypostases: they certainly enjoyed at least to some extent a specific identity from place to place, in principle even from cult image to cult image (Cammarosano 2021, 95). The fact however that hypostases were grouped together into typologically distinct deities already in ancient times, and labeled accordingly, confirm that our abstraction is legitimate and meaningful.

*and Description in the Ancient Near East*, ed. Diederik J.W. Meijer, 83-148. Amsterdam: North-Holland.


### Hurrian Theophoric Names in the Documents from the Hittite Kingdom

### Stefano de Martino

**Abstract**: Hurrian personal names are documented among the members of the Hittite royal family starting from the time of King Tudḫaliya I and they become more and more popular in the 13th century BC. The rulers of polities subordinate to Ḫatti, such as Karkemiš and Amurru, bore Hurrian names. These names were also diffused among the inhabitants of Anatolia and Syria, as the Hittite texts and the tablets discovered at Alalah and Emar demonstrate. The greatest part of the Hurrian names is "Satznamen" in which one of the two components is a divine name. Thus, the name giving process can offer information on the spread of the Hurrian religious tradition in the regions under the Hittite political control.

### 1. Premise

Hurrian personal names only occur in Hittite texts from the end of the 15th century BC onward. Although their number increased in the following two centuries, they represent a minority in the Hittite onomasticon (de Martino 2011).

The Hurrian theophoric names that are attested in Ḫatti feature a limited number of deities, such as Teššub, Ḫebat, Šarruma, Nikkal, Kušuḫ, and Šaušga. Here I deal with the names that refer to Teššub, Ḫebat, and Šarruma. The aim of this work is to study the spread of these Hurrian names in the Hittite kingdom from social and diachronic perspectives. The scope of this inquiry is limited by the character of the Hittite textual corpus, which includes only a very few private documents. Hence, most of the people mentioned in the preserved tablets belong to the court and the state administration.

### 2. Names composed with Teššub

Personal names composed with Teššub are the most numerous in the texts from Ḫatti. They are not exclusive to Anatolia; in fact, they are already documented in texts from Middle Bronze Age archives in Syria, such as those of Mari, Tigunani, Tell Shemshara, and Tell Leilan (Richter 2016, 540). Names honouring Teššub were very common in Syria during the Late Bronze Age and are attested in the Amarna letters (Giorgieri 1999), the Emar texts (Pruzsinszky 2003, 227-37), and the Alalaḫ tablets (von Dassow 2008 *passim*).

The oldest Hurrian personal names composed with Teššub and occurring in Hittite texts are Eḫal-Teššub, Eḫalte, and perhaps Agiya. Eḫal-Teššub may be a different spelling for the more common name Eḫli-Teššub. Eḫal-Teššub was an expert in divination (lúḫal) from Aleppo who is mentioned in some catalogues of tablets (Dardano 2006, 130-31; 152-53; 212-13). The tablet that records the ritual attributed to Eḫal-

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, *Hurrian Theophoric Names in the Documents from the Hittite Kingdom*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4.10, in Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, pp. 89-98, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979- 12-215-0109-4

Teššub may have reached Ḫattuša either after the campaigns led by Šuppilulima I in western Syria, as Miller argued (2004, 506 n. 925), or via Kizzuwatna during the reign of Tudḫaliya I/II and his followers.

The hypocoristic form of this name, Eḫalte, is borne by a man from Išmirikka mentioned in the agreement concluded by Arnuwanda I with the people of this country (KUB 23.68+ rev. 13; Beckman 1999, 16-7). The name Agiya occurs in this same text and could be the short form of Agi-Teššub (rev. 19)1 . Hence, the people who bore these names in the pre-imperial period came either from Syria or from the regions close to Kizzuwatna.

In the 13th century BC, personal names composed with Teššub became more numerous and were also borne by members of the Hittite royal house. We recall that Šarri-Teššub is the Hurrian second name of Muwatalli II, and his two sons were named respectively Ulmi-Teššub and Urḫi-Teššub.

Names composed with Teššub were borne by high-ranking officials, such as the royal messengers Teḫi-Teššub and Teli-Teššub. Teḫi-Teššub's father was the scribe Ibizzi, who signed a manuscript of the Poem of Gilgameš that had presumably been translated from Hurrian (Gordin 2015, 228). Teḫi-Teššub also occurs in a sealing from Nişantepe where he bears the title "prince" (Hawkins 2005, 274) and in a letter from Šēh Hamad (Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996, 123-32).

Teli-Teššub is mentioned in the Karnak stele that preserves the Egyptian translation of the treaty concluded between Ramesses II and Ḫattušili III (Pernigotti 2010, 96-105). He was active in Syria, where the tablet RS 17.137 had been sealed by him and his colleague Teḫi-Teššub. On this sealing Teli-Teššub bears the title "messenger whom (the Hittite king) sent to Egypt", and this title demonstrates the importance that he attributed to his diplomatic activities at the pharaonic court (de Martino 2016, 368). The origin of both these officials from a centre in western Syria is likely, given their activity in this region.

Names with Teššub were very popular at Karkemiš. Three kings of Karkemiš in the Late Bronze Age bear names composed with this theonym, namely, Ini-Teššub, Talmi-Teššub, and Kuzi-Teššub. Some royal princes and high-ranking courtiers of this country also have names that refer to the Hurrian Storm-god, such as Ḫešmi-Teššub, Kunti-Teššub, Mutri-Teššub, Uri-Teššub, and Duppi-Teššub (van Soldt 2003; Mora 2004).

Even two kings of Amurru have a Hurrian name composed with Teššub: Ari-Teššub and Duppi-Teššub. The prestige gained by association with the Storm-god of Aleppo surely determined the adoption of personal names composed with this theonym by the ruling family of Karkemiš and Amurru, and by members of the *élites* of these countries. Muwatalli II's preference for Hurrian names composed with Teššub may be due to his devotion to the Storm-god, as well as his fondness for southern Anatolian cultural traditions.

### 3. Names composed with Ḫebat

The goddess Ḫebat, whose name means "the goddess of Aleppo", as Archi argued (1994), was already venerated at Ebla in the 3rd millennium BC, as well as at Mari in the 18th century BC. The cult of this deity eventually spread all over western Syria, al-

<sup>1</sup> Another personage by the name of Agiya is documented in the deposition text KUB 34.45+ obv. 12', which can be dated to the time before Šuppiluliuma I (de Martino 2011, 75).

though she was not listed in the pantheon of the royal house of Mittanni, nor does her name occur in the official documents issued by Mittanian kings (Archi 1992; 1994; Trémouille 1997). Offerings and celebrations in honour of Ḫebat are included in the program of the main Hittite state festivals, but the cult of this deity was mostly diffused in the region of Kizzuwatna (Trémouille 1997, 79-122).

Personal names composed with Ḫebat are rare in the texts from Mari (Durand 2008, 310) and Alalaḫ VII (Trémouille 1997, 235), but their number increases in the Late Bronze Age documents from western Syria. In addition, two Mittanian princesses bear a Hurrian name composed with Ḫebat, namely, Kelu-Ḫeba, sister of Tušratta, and Tadu-Ḫeba, Tušratta's daughter.

Hittite texts document some feminine names composed with Ḫebat (Zehnder 2010, 81-2). The oldest occurrence of these names presumably dates to the second half of the 15th century BC. A woman by the name of Ašmu-Ḫeba occurs in a fragmentary passage in the ritual KBo 15.10+ III 26'. This text records two different rituals for blessing the royal family and securing for them the protection of the gods. In this way the king could counteract the black magic of Ziplantawiya (Christansen 2007). The mention of this woman, who was the sister of Tudḫaliya I, as well as a reference to Tudḫaliya I herself, offers a chronological anchor. A woman by this same name, who bears the title of princess (REX.FILIA), is documented from a sealing from Nişantepe (Herbordt 2005, 116 note 11), but we cannot say whether we are dealing with one and the same person.

A woman named Mušu-Ḫeba is mentioned in the very fragmentary text KUB 34.58+ II 1', which Miller (2013, 154-67) considers to be a document issued on the enthronement of Tudḫaliya II/III. This text also mentions Pariyawatra and Tulbi-Teššub, who were members of the royal family at the time of Arnuwanda I (de Martino 2011, 10-1), and thus Mušu-Ḫeba may indeed have been a royal princess.

As is well known, each of Tudḫaliya II/III's two wives had a Hurrian name composed with Ḫebat: Šadandu-Ḫeba, the king's first wife, and Tadu-Ḫeba (de Martino 2017). We are in the dark about the family origin of these two women, but if we consider that Ḫebat was particularly venerated in Kizzuwatna, it is possible that both came from the "aristocracy" of this country. Feminine names composed with Ḫebat that emulated those of the Mittanian royal princesses may have been diffused among the members of the Kizzuwatnean élite when the region was under Mittanian control.

Documents from various sites mention a woman named Ašnu-Ḫeba. Her name occurs on an inscribed relief found at Alalaḫ that was re-used in the Level IB temple. The relief also portrays and mentions her husband Tudḫaliya, who bears the title "great priest" (von Dassow 2020, 209). In addition, a hieroglyphic sealing found at Alalaḫ (AT 20414) preserves the names of Tudḫaliya, prince, and Ašnu-Ḫebat, princess (Yener, Dinçol, and Peker 2014). Von Dassow (2020, 201) argued that Tudḫaliya might have been appointed by Muršili II to rule Alalaḫ.

Princess Ašnu-Ḫeba may have been the sender of the postscript written to the Hittite queen on the reverse side of the tablet KBo 18.12 (Marizza 2009, 146-47). Although the letter on the tablet's obverse is fragmentary, and neither the sender's name nor that of the receiver are preserved, it has been assumed that the letter was written by Tudḫaliya, the great priest, to the Hittite king (Yener, Dinçol, and Peker 2014). The Syrian greeting formula ("I have fallen at the feet [of my Lady] three times (and) nine times") addressed by Ašnu-Ḫeba to the Hittite queen agrees with the Syrian location where the former resided, but it could also support the assumption that her homeland was a centre such as Alalaḫ or Aleppo. In this case, the high-ranking Hittite official Tudḫaliya may have married a local woman who could have eased his integration into the society of Alalaḫ.

Another Hittite queen whose name incorporates that of Ḫebat is Tanu-Ḫeba. We argue that she was not the last wife of Muršili II (Hawkins 2011, 92-93), but Muwatalli II's spouse (Cammarosano 2010) and Kuruntiya's mother. Texts such as KBo 6.29+ I 36 and the "Apology" III 40' state that none of the first-rank royal princes was an adult (*ḫuiḫu(i) ššuwalli*) when Muwatalli II died (Singer 2002, 744-45; differently Cammarosano 2010, 48-9), and consequently the throne was left to Urḫi-Teššub, a second-rank prince. Hence, we assume that Muwatalli II married Tanu-Ḫeba in the latter part of his reign, presumably after he had transferred the capital to Tarḫuntašša, and if this indeed was the case, the king may have wanted to marry a woman from a southern Anatolian family.

Particularly interesting is the woman who bears the Hurro-Luwian name of Ḫeba-piya and is mentioned in the tablet KUB 15.5+. This document lists several dreams of the king and other members of the court, and Ḫeba-piya plays a significant role since she establishes what gifts should be given to the "Great God". According to Waal (2015, 391), Ḫeba-piya may have been a "dream advisor", while Mouton argued that she was a priestess (2007, 25). As for the date of this tablet, Mouton (2007, 26) suggested that it could have been written during the reign of Muršili III because it mentions the "Great God" to whom this king made the donations that are deplored by Pudu-Ḫeba in the well-known letter to Ramesses II KUB 21.38.

A woman by the name of Ḫeba-piya whose dream is mentioned in the oracle fragment KBo 41.208+ I 14' (Tischler 2019, 673-75) may be identified with the Ḫeba-piya of KUB 15.5+. In addition, a princess by the name of Ḫeba-piya occurs in two sealings from Tarsus (Zehnder 2010, 156).

The Kizzuwatnean origin of Queen Pudu-Ḫeba is well known, and she promoted the cult of Ḫebat all over Ḫatti. Several children born to Ḫattušili III and Pudu-Ḫeba received a Hurrian name, and one of their daughters was called Keloš-Ḫeba. As is well known, she married the king of Išuwa (de Martino 2010; Zehnder 2010, 188-89).

A woman named Aru-Ḫeba may have been a member of either the royal family or the court. She is mentioned in KBo 13.62, a "school tablet based upon a real letter" (Hoffner 2009, 335). The name of the sender is not preserved, and the addressee, who is called "My Lady", may be the Hittite queen Pudu-Ḫeba. A passage in this letter (ll. 7-8) refers to a previous message sent by Aru-Ḫeba that gave information on the addressee's illness. The tablet is signed by Šaušga-ziti, in cuneiform writing, and by Targašnatalana, in hieroglyphic characters (Gordin 2015, 34; Torri 2022, 212). Šaušga-ziti's signature indicates a date in the reign of Ḫattušili III (Marizza 2009, 174), but the two scribes presumably only produced a copy of the letter. Nevertheless, a date in the reign of Ḫattušili III is likely because Pudu-Ḫeba is the queen who is most frequently mentioned in the late Hittite texts. Aru-Ḫeba must have been very close to the queen if she was well informed about the latter's health.

In conclusion, personal names composed with Ḫebat are documented starting from the reign of Tudḫaliya I and were borne by four Hittite queens, as well as princesses and other women belonging to the court. As noted above, the deity Ḫebat was particularly venerated in Kizzuwatna, which was the homeland of Pudu-Ḫeba. We assume that Šadandu-Ḫeba, Tadu-Ḫeba, and Tanu-Ḫeba may also have come from this Anatolian region, though we do not have concrete evidence about their origin. They bore the typical Hurrian aristocratic "Satznamen" that the princesses of the royal Mittanian family had also borne.

### 4. Names composed with Šarruma

The divine name Šarruma occurs in several personal names found mostly in texts that date to the second half of the 13th century BC. As is well known, Šarruma is very often associated with Ḫebat (Trémouille 1997, 190) and is considered her son. The Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription Aleppo 1:1, which was issued by Talmi-Šarruma, ruler of Aleppo, states that he erected a temple in Aleppo that was dedicated to the dyad Ḫebat – Šarruma (Laroche 1956). It is not by chance that the ruler of this country and the patron of the inscription each bore a Hurrian name that contained the theonym Šarruma2 and exalted this deity3 . Talmi-Šarruma was the son and successor of Telipinu, whom Šuppiluliuma I had appointed as priest in Kizzuwatna according to the decree KUB 19.26.

Thus, the cult of Šarruma may have already been promoted by Telipinu during the early years of the reign of Šuppiluliuma I (Schwemer 2001, 485). After all, the cult of Šarruma was not new at Ḫatti; in fact, some Hurrian and Hurro-Hittite *kaluti*-lists of Teššub and Ḫebat (Schwemer 2001, 485 note 3967; Trémouille 2006, 195 note 5), which are written in a pre-imperial *ductus,* support the assumption that Šarruma had already been an object of devotion, together with Teššub and Ḫebat, in the decades before the reign of Šuppiluliuma I.

As for the etymology of the name Šarruma, and consequently its origin, scholars have often presumed that it is a Hurrian name (Richter 2012, 356). The logographic writing lugal-*ma* may indeed recall the Hurrian word *šarri* "king", which is a loan word from Akkadian, although this logographic writing may just be a «jeux graphique akkadisant», as Laroche argued (1963, 278).

Orthography aside, the assumption of a Hurrian etymology of the name Šarruma finds some support in the fact that the personal names composed with this theonym are all genuine Hurrian "Satznamen".

In addition, Šarruma is mentioned in several Hurrian texts, for example KBo 20.119 (ChS I 3/2 107), which preserves the *kaluti-*list for the Storm-god of Šapinuwa and refers to Šarruma as "the calf of Teššub" (du=*ve* amar-*ti* <sup>d</sup>*Šarruma*, I 14).

Finally, the Hittites themselves considered Šarruma to be a Hurrian god, as indicated by the Hittite text KUB 56.19 (Trémouille 2006, 194; de Martino 2021), which dates to the time of Ḫattušili III and deals with a complicated situation involving the Hittite king and his son, the heir to the throne (II 13-12). The king had installed one of his daughters as a *tabri-*woman and assigned her to the cult of the Storm-god (II 13- 14). A serious controversy arose between those who claimed that the princess should be assigned to the Storm-god and those who believed that she should serve Šarruma instead. To solve this problem, Ḫattušili III sent his son to the Ḫurri Land to consult the elders. Hence both Teššub and Šarruma were perceived as Hurrian deities. Despite this inquiry, the matter was not resolved, and when the king died, his son, who had in the meantime ascended to the throne, continued to investigate it. He prayed that the Storm-god give him a sign, in an attempt to avoid any further oracular investigations.

Notwithstanding, a Hurrian analysis of the name Šarruma is morphologically problematic and a Hurrian verb *šarr-* is not documented. Thus, Laroche (1963) had already denied the Hurrian origin of Šarruma and argued that this was a Kizzuwatnean divinity whose cult progressively expanded towards western Syria.

As is well known, the hieroglyphic sign sarma (in the two variants \*80 and \*81), which was used when writing the god's name, depicts the lower part of the human body. Hence, a genetic derivation of the theonym Šarruma from the Hittite word *šarra*- "half

<sup>2</sup> According to Miller (2007, 137 note 30), Talmi-Šarruma may also have had a second name: Ḫalba<sup>ḫ</sup>i. 3 The meaning of this personal name is "Šarruma (is) great".

part" was argued by Laroche (1963)4 . Nonetheless, no Luwian term can be connected to a root *šarra*, as far as I know. It is true that the Hieroglyphic script emerged in a mixed Hittite and Luwian environment, as Yakubovich (2010, 285-99) convincingly demonstrated, but if Šarruma indeed was a Luwio-Kizzuwatnean deity, we would expect that its name was either Hurrian or Luwian, and not Hittite. Thus, the shape of the hieroglyphic signs seems to derive from a folk etymology, as Tischler argued (2004, 937-39).

In conclusion, Šarruma may be the indigenous name of a Kizzuwatnean deity, possibly a mountain god, since its connection with the mountains is clearly demonstrated, for example, in the Hayneri relief (Ehringhaus 2005, 76-80). Tischler (2004, 939) assumed that it could be an appellative somehow related to the Akkadian word *šarrum*. Regardless of its etymology, the similarity of the divine name Šarruma with the Hurrian word *šarri-* may have facilitated the Hurrianization not only of the deity's cult, but also of its name.

The oldest occurrence of a personal name composed with Šarruma can be found in a passage in the Offering List KUB 11.7+ rev. 6 (Carruba 2007, 139-41). A personage by the name of Ašmi-Šarruma is labelled as one of Arnuwanda I's sons, together with Mannini.

Particularly interesting is the personal name Ilī-Šarruma, which is a *hybrid* name formed with the Akkadian word *ilu(m)*. The bearer of this name is documented in a Hurrian tablet discovered at Kayalıpınar / Šamuḫa (KpT 1.11; Wilhelm 2019, 197-200). He was an official entrusted with a military expedition into western Syria together with his colleague Eḫli-Tenu. The latter bears a Hurrian name composed with the name of the god Tenu, who was Teššub's vizier. This tablet is dated by G. Wilhelm (2018, 475 note iii) to the reign of Tudḫaliya II/III5 . We argue that the Hittite king may have chosen two Kizzuwatnean army officers to lead a military expedition into the region of Mukiš.

The prestige gained by Šarruma at the Hittite court is witnessed by the fact that the aforementioned Offering List KUB 11.7+ (Carruba 2008, 139-41) preserves the name of Tulbi-Šarruma, son of Arnuwanda (see the fragment KBo 13.42, 6'). This prince may be one of Arnuwanda II's sons, because the name of Šuppiluliuma also occurs in this text (van den Hout 1995, 134). Thus, even a grandson of Šuppiluliuma I bore a name derived from the theonym Šarruma.

Personal names composed with Šarruma gained great popularity at the Hittite court during the reign of Ḫattušili III. One of his sons bore the name of Ḫešmi-Šarruma (van den Hout, 127-32), and prince Ewri-Šarruma, who is listed among the witnesses of the treaty concluded by Tudḫaliya IV with Kuruntiya of Tarḫuntašša, may have been another son of Ḫattušili III (de Martino 2011, 38). In addition, Tašmi-Šarruma was the second name of Tudḫaliya IV (Hawkins 2011, 98-9). After all, this god was his protective deity.

Names composed with Šarruma were borne by high-ranking Hittite officials such as Pendi-Šarruma, the sender of the letter RS 94.2523. As is well known, this is the companion message to a letter (RS 94.2530) sent by Šuppiluliuma II to Ammurapi of Ugarit (Lackenbacher, and Malbran-Labat 2016, 24-31). A personage by the name of Pendi-Šarruma also occurs in sealings from Nişantepe, but perhaps he is a homonymous dignitary (Bilgin 2018, 168-70).

<sup>4</sup> See also Jasink 1991, 22.

<sup>5</sup> Differently von Dassow (2020, 203) dates this document to the reign of Tudḫaliya I.

Another official of high rank is Tagi-Šarruma, who is mentioned among the witnesses of the treaty concluded with Kuruntiya and whose name occurs in other documents, as well as in some sealings from Nişantepe. Again, it is not clear whether we are dealing with a single person, or whether there were at least two homonymous officials in the last decades of the 13th century BC (Bilgin 2018, 259-62).

Names composed with Šarruma were not restricted to the members of the *élite*; for example, the name of Ewri-Šarruma was borne by a child who belonged to one of the households given by Pudu-Ḫeba to Lelwani (Otten and Souçek 1965, 18-9).

With respect to the royal houses of the countries subordinated to Ḫatti, we have already said that the son of Telipinu who succeeded him as ruler of Aleppo had the name Talmi-Šarruma. Prince Teli-Šarruma was one of the sons of the king of Karkemiš, either Šaḫurunuwa or Ini-Teššub (Mora 2004, 438; 2008, 560). In addition, Niqmepa, king of Ugarit, and his wife Aḫat-Milku, who was a princess of Amurru, had at least three sons: Ammistamru, who ascended the throne after the death of his father, and his brothers Ḫešmi-Šarruma and ÌR-Šarruma. The latter two names are Hurrian. Ammistamru II married another princess of Amurru, who was the daughter of Bente-šena, and one of their children had the Hurrian name Utri-Šarruma. Liverani (1978, 152) argued that Hurrian names were given by Ugaritic rulers only to those princes who were not destined to become king. Nevertheless, the Hurrian name of the three aforementioned princes may be connected to the fact that they were all sons of a princess of Amurru (Singer 1999, 681 note 254), for the rulers of Amurru after Aziru all bore Hurrian names.

Three kings of the polity of Išuwa had Hurrian names composed with the theonym Šarruma. We argue that the first king of Išuwa was Ḫalbašulubi, who was one of Muršili II's sons (Glocker 2011), and his successors were Ari-Šarruma, Ali-Šarruma, and Eḫli-Šarruma, although it is uncertain whether Ari-Šarruma or Ali-Šarruma ruled first (de Martino 2010; Glocker 211). By choosing Hurrian names composed with Šarruma, the kings of Išuwa may have signalled that they shared the devotion of the Hittite royal house towards this god, although we cannot exclude that the cult of Šarruma may also have reached this eastern Anatolian country.

In other regions of Ḫatti, names composed with Šarruma are documented at Emar (Keli-Šarruma and Teli-Šarruma, see Pruzsinszky 2003, 228; 230), and at Alalaḫ, where the name of Eḫli-Šarruma is borne by a cartwright and a weaver (von Dassow 2008, 434-35).

Finally, theophoric names formed from Šarruma are also documented in Central Anatolia in the Iron Age (Adiego 2019; Simon 2020), as in the case of Wasu-Sarma, king of Tabal and contemporary of Tiglat-Pileser III (Bryce 2012, 143-44). There are no traces of the legacy of this god in western Anatolia (Melchert 2013).

To sum up, Šarruma may have been an indigenous Kizzuwatnean deity. Hurrian personal names composed with Šarruma are documented in Hittite texts from the time of Arnuwanda I, and their number increased during the reign of Ḫattušili III, when they were borne by kings, princes, members of the *élite*, and ordinary people in Anatolia and in the Syrian countries subordinated to Ḫatti.

### Bibliography

Adiego, Ignasi Xavier. 2019. "The Survival of the God Name Šarruma in Cilician Names in Greek Sources." *Altorientalische Forschungen* 46: 147-60.

Archi, Alfonso. 1992. "Substrate: Some Remarks on the Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon." In *Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp*, eds. Heinrich Otten, Ekrem Akurgal, Hayri Ertem, and Aygü Süel, 7-14, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

Archi, Alfonso. 1994. "Studies in the Pantheon of Ebla." *Orientalia* 63: 249-56.

Beckman, Gary M. 1999. *Hittite Diplomatic Texts.* Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Bilgin, Tayfun. 2018. *Officials and Administration in the Hittite World*. Berlin-Boston: de Gruyter.


Glocker, Jörg. 2011. "Ališarruma, König von Išuwa." *Altorientalische Forschungen* 38: 254-76. Gordin, Shai. 2015. *Hittite Scribal Circles*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 59).


Klengel, Horst. 1992. *Syria 3000 to 300 B.C.* Berlin: Akademie Verlag.


### The Luwian Goddess Darawa

### Manfred Hutter

**Abstract**: The PN Kammalia-Tarawa in an Old Assyrian tablet seems to be the earliest reference of the deity Darawa. The Luwian background this deity is also apparent, e.g., from the plural form <sup>D</sup>Da-ra-ú-wa-an-zi or from those texts mentioned in CTH 457 and the etymological interpretation of the divine name to the Luwian verb tarāwi(ya)-. Since the early Middle Hittite period Darawa also found her way into the Hattian milieu and as a goddess connected with the family life, she is mentioned several times in festivals for a queen (CTH 646), but also in the Hittite Prayer to the Sungoddess of the Netherworld (CTH 371) which is – in my opinion – the only Hittite texts mentioning Darawa within the "pantheon of the state". Texts from the Hurrian and Kizzuwatnaean milieu (e.g., CTH 351) also refer several times to Darawa, but this is clearly the result of a secondary and marginal dissemination of the goddess. In conclusion one might say that Darawa from her Luwian background also came into contact with various milieus of the "Hittite pantheon", functioning as a goddess providing good (and evil) to humans in everyday life.

Nearly two decades ago I mentioned Darawa as a Luwian deity, mainly on the basis that this divine name is attested several times within Luwian contexts and that some other scholars counted Darawa among the "gods of Kanesh" (Hutter 2003, 219- 20. See also Popko 1995, 88-9; Hutter 2021, 142). I still think that basically it is right to connect Darawa's origins with a Luwian milieu, but it would be too short-sighted to restrict her exclusively to the Luwian sphere. The matter is more complicated and therefore a new look at her can provide some new information. That Darawa is a female deity, is mainly based on common opinion due to those contexts when Darawa is mentioned together with female deities like dingir.maḫ(meš), the "mother goddesses", with the fate-goddess dGulša (sing. and plur.) or others. As Hittite does not make a distinction between masculine and feminine forms in grammar and inflection, and – in my knowledge – there is also no phrase with an Akkadographic pronominal suffix *-ša* "her" referring to Darawa, we have no definitive philological proof that Darawa was a goddess, though this is highly probable. Coming back to the question of the Luwian background and origin of the goddess, I first want to present some considerations about the name as a possible interpretation as Luwian and the earliest documentation of the name in the Kaneš period. The next sections will discuss the most important texts which mention the goddess's relation to other deities. This makes it – at least superficially – possible to reconstruct "clusters" of relations between Darawa and other deities. A further section focuses on her function(s) and dissemination in the religious world of the Hittite culture, to mark her position in the "official" pantheon of the state and in "everyday worship at home".

#### 1. Darawa's name from a Luwian background

The earliest reference to the divine name can be found in the onomasticon from the Old Assyrian period in Kaneš with the reference to a "seal of Kammalia-Tarawa"

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

Manfred Hutter, University of Bonn, Germany, mhutter@uni-bonn.de

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

Manfred Hutter, *The Luwian Goddess Darawa*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4.11, in Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, pp. 99-108, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

(kišib *Kam-ma-li-a-ta-ra-wa*, WAG 48 / 1464, obv. 4 = Hecker 2004/18; see Laroche 1966, no. 494). The first element of this name can be compared with the Hittite name mKammaliya. Kloekhorst (2019, 11; 74) does not give a detailed interpretation of Kanesite *kammalia*, and he also does not comment on the theophoric element of the name from the Old Assyrian colony.

Another theophoric name connected with the goddess is Piyama-Tarawa (KBo 2.1 II 19: m*pí*-*ia*-*ma*-*ta*-*ra*-*u*-*wa*-*a*-*aš*; see Cammarosano 2018, 194; Laroche 1966, no. 982). This person was in charge for silver and gold for the local cult of the Stormgod of Šuruwa (KBo 2.1 II 9-20; see also Zinko and Zinko 2019, 190-91). For the geographical setting one can mention that KBo 2.1 – like KUB 17.35 – refers to local cults of smaller settlements in the western area of the Hittite empire, maybe between Eskişehir and Afyon Karahisar. A more precise location of the cult for the Storm-god of Šuruwa is not possible at the moment (Cammarosano 2018, 165; 2021, 54-5). But at least it is not impossible to take this "western" localisation of Šuruwa also as a slight indication of Piyama-Tarawa's connection with the western regions of the Hittite empire.

There is one more personal name that refers to the central areas of the empire, a certain en-Tarawa (HKM 5.5, 7; HKM 79.1: men-*ta-ra-u-wa*; see Laroche 1966, nos. 291, 1740). He was the head of an (unknown) district where some auxiliary troops were brought to for a work project. Most probably en-Tarawa was a local administrator bearing this theophoric name, but we do not know more about him.

These names are important for two reasons: They cover the very long period from the Old Assyrian time of the trade colonies via the Middle Hittite period of the Maşat letters up to the (late) Empire period. Even if the personal names cannot be taken as a proof of the geographical origin of the theophoric element Darawa, two names can be taken as an indication of a maybe "western" origin of the divine name (and not of an origin in the Hattian-Hittite core lands within the Halys bent). With this in mind, one can look for a possible etymology of the name from Luwian.

Two words can be brought into discussion: the verb *tarāwi(ya)-* "hand over, deliver" (cf. also HLuw. *tarāwi*-) and the noun *:tarāwiya-*. Starting with the Cuneiform Luwian verb *tarāwiya*-, Melchert (1993, 211) has established the interpretation as "hand over, deliver; grant" which nicely fits to one occurrence in the ritual of Puriyanni. The ritual patron prepares silver, gold, all kind of seeds and other things (KUB 35.54 II 27- 32), then the text reads (II 35-37):

And he (the ritual patron) handed (*ta-ra-a-u-i-it-ta*) them over to the Storm-god of the open field. And he gave (*pí-ya-at-ta*) them to the Storm-god of the open field.

This semantic notion of the Luwian verb is also attested in a HLuw. passage in TELL AHMAR 6, §§ 12-13 (Hawkins 2006, 14-5):

For the gods I provided ((lituus)*tara/i-wa/i-ha*) a road and for them I established a full ritual.

Hawkins (2006, 24) comments on this passage with the following words: «Here 'providing a road for the gods' seems possible, suggesting as it does the Hitt. ritual practice of attracting ('drawing') the gods by means of 'paths' (kaskal) of various substances». This practice of preparing a "path" for the gods is also attested in KUB 35.84, as we will see later. To "hand over" or "deliver" something to someone is also – outside the ritual context – mentioned in İSKENDERUN § 1 (("69")*tara/i-wa/i-iha*). In Kuwatalla's ritual the verb occurs several times – but with a negative semantic, as the context refers to a kind of punishment. The Old Woman presents two figures of

the adversary made of dough to the Sun-god and then she says (KUB 35.45 II 18-27; Hutter 2019, 347; see also KUB 35.48 II 11-23; KBo 29.10 II 8-9):

Oh […], *tiwali*-lord, render them, the enemies, the opponents of law, the lords of spells, of (magic bonds), of imprecation, of curses and of oaths. … If he (the enemy) is living, Tiwad shall deliver (*da-ra-u-id-du*) him above; if he is dead, the Sun-goddess of the earth shall deliver (*da-ra-ú-id-du*) him, the man of curse and oath.

This invocation of the Sun-god for help again refers to the verb as an action to "deliver" or hand over something/somebody to someone else, here taken as some kind of punishment or bringing harm to one's enemy. Luwian *tarāwi(ya)-* thus can be employed both in a positive or negative way.

The noun *:tarāwiya-* (with a Glossenkeil) is attested three times in the prayer of Muwatalli to the Storm-god of Kummani in KBo 11.1 (Singer 2002, 83-4, slightly modified):

obv. 14-15: If some god of the land has angered the Storm-god, may the Annunake now reconcile the Storm-god to that deity. May the Storm-god regard the land with conciliatory eyes again, and may wealth, peace, well-being, growth, prosperity and *:tarawiya-* (*a-aš-šu ták-šu-ul aš!-šu-u[l mi-y]a-tar i-ya-tar :ta-ra-a-ú-i-y*[*a-aš*]) [come about] in the land. …

obv. 27-28: May the Storm-god, my lord, speak to the gods, and let the gods regard the land with conciliatory eyes, and let them bring wealth, *:tarāwiya*-, peace, well-being, and growth (*a-aš-šu :ta-ra-a-ui*5*-an ták-šu-ul aš-šu-ul mi-y*[*a-tar*]*-ra*) to the land. … obv. 43-44: May the Storm-god, my lord, [regard the land with conciliatory eyes again],

and may [wealth], peace, well-being, *tarāwiya*- and growth ([.. ]*-x ták-šu-ul aš-šu-ul ta-* [*ra*-*a-ui*5*-y*]*a-aš mi-ya-tar-ra*) [come about in the land].

Singer (2002, 83, 95 note 2) suggested (with a question mark) the translation "maturation" for *:tarāwiya-*, other suggestions had been e.g. endowment, silence or rest (cf. for details Tischler 1991, 155-56). From the context in this prayer, there is no doubt that *:tarāwiya-* denotes some positive situation which the gods shall provide or deliver to a person. Similar enumerations of such good things given by gods to humankind, are mentioned again and again.

Taking the semantics of the noun and the verb together we reach the conclusion that both words relate to an act of non-verbal communication, bestowing something good (or evil) from one part or the other in this exchange process. Gods are asked to provide something good (see Muwatalli's prayer) or bad (see Kuwatalla's ritual). With this in mind, I suggest that the name of the goddess Darawa should be connected with these words. That means, Darawa is a Luwian goddess who might hand over good or bad things to people. So, we have to prove if this aspect of the goddess is suitable to the textual documentation.

### 2. Darawa in texts of the Luwian milieu

The first text I like to refer to is the festival fragment KBo 7.36 (*CTH* 670.506) which mentions Darawa among a list of seven gods and goddesses. I attribute this Middle Hittite text to the Luwian milieu because of the Luwian divine name Gulza for the fate-goddess. The reverse of the fragment mentions a small hearth (gunni) and seven šu.gu7.gu7-vessels together with bread, oily loaves and maybe some pine cones (KBo 7.36 rev. 1-5). The seven vessels correspond with the number of seven deities who are mentioned by name (KBo 7.36 rev. 7-9; see also KBo 7.36 obv. 10-11 and the duplicate KBo 60.184, 6-7):

7 7 dingir-*lam lam-ni-it* [

The names of the two missing deities cannot be restored with certainty, but in the light of further texts we discuss later, it is tempting to insert in the two lacunas dingir. maḫ(meš) and d Ḫilašši. The five other gods are also mentioned in KUB 7.2 I 15-16, 29 with the Storm-god in first and the Sun-god in second position. KUB 7.2 (and parallel texts KUB 41.3 obv. 20; KBo 64.271 obv. 4-5; see Bawanypeck 2005, 276-78; 286) is a ritual of the woman Pupuwanni and an augur which is performed against bewitchment and perjury of a person.

The main symbolism in this ritual refers to the *šeknu*-garment (Prechel 2002, 278- 81; Bawanypeck 2005, 273). The cooperation between Pupuwanni and the augur can be taken as a slight hint for putting this ritual into a Luwian (or more generally speaking [South-]Western Anatolian) milieu. The two "god-lists" in both rituals (KBo 7.36; KUB 7.2) are not quite identical to each other, but the gods are not contradictory to a Luwian milieu. Both the leading position of the Sun-god (\*Tiwad) and the Storm-god (\*Tarhunt) match with Luwian traditions, and also various local forms of the Tutelary deity (dlamma) are known from Luwian contexts, even (as dlamma of Tauriša) as son to Tiwad (Hutter 2003, 225). But as these divine names are not written syllabically, the definitive proof is not possible.

The other difference between the two lists is a variation between Darawa and Gulza/Gulša in the singular or plural. Pupuwanni's ritual also mentions the Gulseš and the Daraweš side by side (KUB 41.3++ obv. 14) without the Storm-god, the Sun-god and Tutelary deity, when an offering table is prepared for them.

Two other texts from the Luwian milieu are interesting. The first one is KUB 35.84 (*CTH* 457.4). The beginning of the ritual is missing, then the "roads" or "paths" for the gods are prepared with oil, honey and other fine things to attract and invoke them (II 8-9, 12-14):

Call the mighty god(desse)s to the path (made) of *kušiši*-garment, the blessings bringing Gulša-goddesses, the mother goddesses (dingirmaḫmeš) and the Darawa-goddesses. You, blessings bringing goddesses, [xxx, xxx] and Darawa-goddesses, come for blessings.

The fragmentary text does not inform us about the purpose of the ritual, nor about ritual actions. But it makes the Luwian milieu obvious, as "blessings bringing" (*ušantaray*(*a*), cf. Starke 1990, 375; Melchert 1993, 246) is not only a Luwian word using Luwian morphology in the Hittite context, but also in II 13 (contrary to the Hittite form in ii 9) the Darawa-goddesses are mentioned in the Luwian case formation (d*Da-ra-ú-wa-an-zi*). For the missing divine names in the gap in II 12-13 one probably can insert dGulzanzi (Nom. plur. as Luwian form corresponding to Darawanzi) and dingir.maḫme[ š -*aš*] as in II 9. The other text is KBo 34.104 (*CTH* 457.4), mentioning in line 3 dgul-*ši-iš* <sup>d</sup>*Da-ra-*[*ú-wa-aš*] and the Luwian word *ušantali*- (Melchert 1993, 275) in line 1 as a variant of *ušantaray*(*a*) in KUB 35.84 II 13-14.

### 3. Darawa mentioned together with gods of the Hattian milieu

Among the festivals celebrated for a queen in *CTH* 646 there are several fragments which mention Darawa. Due to the fragmentary character, neither incipits nor colophons are available which might give a precise information on the purpose or occasion

<sup>8</sup> dutu diškur dlamma d[xxx? dGul-za-an]

<sup>9</sup> dDa-ra-a-wa-an [dxxx]

of the festival. We generally learn – as in many other festivals (see generally Hutter 2021, 92-3; 249) – about the drinking rites, about offerings of various kinds of bread and of music performed during the festival. In some of these texts, Darawa is mentioned in longer contexts together with other deities. The best-preserved description is KBo 39.137 + KBo 23.72 + KUB 32.87 + KBo 43.154 (*CTH* 646.1) from the Middle Hittite period. The text covers the first and the beginning of the second day of the festival. At the end of the first day, three offering rounds (cf. II 40-41: *ir-ḫa-iz-zi*) take place and one more at the beginning of the second day (cf. Trémouille 2004, 340-41), including many deities (day 1: III 1-5 fragmentary; III 21-25; III 31-35 with variants of local dingir.maḫ; day 2: III 42-45 very fragmentary). The second round (with restorations of the divine names in III 23 after KBo 19.128 VI 20) reads as follows (KBo 39.137 + KBo 23.72 + KUB 32.87 + KBo 43.154 III 21-28):


From a rhyton seven times [the queen drinks]: the Gulša-goddesses, Kuduili, Kudušahili, Darawa, Anzili, Zukki, the hearth, Zilipuri, the Moon-god, the star, the night, Ḫašammili, the Queen of the bedroom (= Kataḫḫi), Harištašši, Ḫilašši, the 'little place', the true speech, Annari, Tarpi, the propitious day – [she drinks]. For one cup she breaks four *takarmu*-breads. One *takarmu*-bread she puts on the table of the mother-goddess, one *takarmu*-bread to Gulša, one *takarmu*-bread to Šulinkatti, one *takarmu*-bread to Ḫašammili she puts.

After this ceremony the first day comes to its end when we read as follows (KBo 39.137++ III 37-39:

```
37 nu munus.lugal a-ra-a-i nu [ ]x é
                                       ḫa-li-en-t[u-aš an-da pa-iz-zi] 
38 i-na ud 2kam-ma ma-a-an [ p]a-ni dingir-lim ú-iz-zi[ 
39 [ ]x e-ša nu wa-ga-[an-na u-ek-zi
```
The queen washes (herself) and [ ] she goes into the *ḫalentu*-room. On the second day, when she comes in front of the deity, [ ] and she requires a mouthful (to eat).

Then the queen again drinks from a rhyton the gods mentioned above (KBo 39.137 III 41-47) while sitting. The list of gods (mentioned four times) closely corresponds to a similar god-list in KBo 19.128 and in KBo 4.13+ (Otten 1971, 46; Trémouille 2004, 341; Taracha 2000, 187-88), but with one very significant difference: Kuduili, Kudušaḫili, Darawa, Anzili and Zukki are only mentioned in the four offering rounds in KBo 39.139++. Kuduili and Kudušaḫili are two deities, whom we further encounter in a few more texts booked in *CTH* 646. In KBo 30.124 + KBo 22.206 III 10-13 (cf. also the parallel text KBo 34.154 + KBo 25.70 II 2-6) again Gulša and Darawa are recipients of a libation for three times, and music with a small lyre (giš dinanna tur) is performed during the ceremony (Groddek 2002, 176). Then – after a lacuna – the king and the queen first drink Ea and Damkina, then Darawa and the hearth (IV 8-16, see Groddek 2008, 202). The rituals are accompanied by singing and music performed with a harp (gištibula) and the big lyre (giš dinanna gal). Two different kinds of bread (*takarmu*- and warm bread) are put on the offering table (zag.gar.ra). Then we again see the enumeration of a long list of gods, whom the king and the queen celebrate (IV 17-20, Groddek 2008, 202): The Gulša-goddesses, Darawa, the hearth, Kuduili, Kudušaḫili, Ḫašammait[, x-ḫankunuit, Ḫašamili, Ḫilašši, [ … ], the true speech. Then the fragmentary text breaks off. A further text belonging to this festival is KBo 24.101 (*CTH* 670.112) with the same drinking rite to Ea and Damkina (rev. 4-5) and a list of gods (rev. 6-7): dingir.maḫ, Gulša-goddesses, Darawa, Kuduili, Kudušaḫili, which can be compared with KBo 22.206.

We can reach the following conclusion based on the occurrence of these divine names: The first and the second day of a festival for a queen is documented in KBo 39.137 + KBo 23.72 + KUB 32.87 + KBo 43.154; also KBo 30.124 + KBo 22.206 can be attributed to the same festival, maybe also to the second or to a later day. In this text, the king is also mentioned. As the festival has been transmitted for a long period (KBo 39.137++ is Middle Hittite and KBo 30.124+ is New Hittite) one can also suggest that KBo 32.129 (*CTH* 670.3248) – written by Tatiggana and the supervision of Anuwanza – also belongs to this festival, mentioning Darawa, Kudušaḫili, dingir. maḫ and the Gulša-goddesses.

Among the gods of the festival, both Kudašaḫili and Kuduili deserve a special comment. As mentioned above, only in *CTH* 646 they are included into the long god-list which is known from KBo 19.128 and KBo 4.13+. Both deities are from the Hattian milieu as their names are related to the Hattian word *ku-ú-ut* "soul" (Soysal 2004, 292), so we can suppose that they are gods connected to the fate a of person. One interesting and important reference is KUB 33.40 (*CTH* 335.7.2), a *mugawar* referring to the disappearance of a god. The preserved parts of the fragmentary tablet offer a series of ritual acts for the following gods. Despite the fragmentary texts, the structure is obvious and one can reconstruct the first paragraph as follows (KUB 33.40 I 1'-3'):

S/He breaks a thin bread.] S/He puts the liver and the heart upon it. Then [s/he puts] it at/to the [ … ] for the Gulša-goddesses and for Darawa.

The same action is repeated (I 4'-14') for the Storm-god of the temple of the mother-goddess (dingir.maḫ), for Kuduili and for Kudušaḫili. After a long break, col. IV tells that the Storm-god had come back to his temple so that the fume left the window and the smoke left the house. Looking closer to the treatment of Kuduili and Kudušaḫili, it is important to mention that the offering for Kuduili is put on the right side of the hearth (I 7') and on the left side for Kudušaḫili (I 9'). Taking the left side as "bad" or "unfavourable", one can interpret Kudušaḫili's name as related to the "bad" (*šaḫ-*) soul (*ku-ú-ut*) and Kuduili's name to the (good) soul, as already had been suggested by Schuster (2002, 603 note 1217). Thus, both gods can be understood as a corresponding pair of gods, providing a positive or negative fate for a person. Another *mugawar* text to bring back the Storm-god is KUB 60.33 (*CTH* 335.18). The preserved part of the obverse only mentions the Darawa-goddesses. The reverse refers to Telipinu who shall come back on his path that is sprinkled with sweet oil (cf. the so-called Telipinu myth, KUB 17.10 II 28). It is possible that KUB 60.33 and KUB 33.40 are part of one *mugawar*. The main difference to other *mugawar* texts which take up the motif of the disappearance (and the anger) of a god (cf. for an outline of the motif Hutter-Braunsar 2011) are the gods mentioned here, namely Kuduili and Kudušaḫili combined with the Gulša-goddesses and Darawa. This leads us to two conclusions:

(a) It seems possible that the *mugawar* KUB 33.40 was performed during the festival of the queen where the same gods are invoked and celebrated. Of course, we cannot tell with certainty at which stage of the festival this *mugawar* was recited to reconcile the angered Storm-god (probably of the temple of dingir.maḫ).

(b) The other conclusion goes one step further: Marie-Claude Trémouille (2004, 343; cf. Fuscagni 2002, 292) has observed that the queen Walanni in KUB 32.108 + KBo 39.78 iii 21 (*CTH* 646) might be the queen who is referred to in KBo 39.137 + KBo 23.72 + KUB 32.87 + KBo 43.154 obv. 22 when the "dingir.maḫ of the mother of the majesty" is mentioned. Accepting Trémouille's interpretation, we can not only connect the festival of the queen with Walanni, but I want to go one step further for the *mugawar* KUB 33.40 and suggest that the *mugawar's* topic was the disappearance of the angered Storm-god of Walanni. So, this *mugawar* could be put into a historical context similar to the cases of the disappearing of the Storm-god of Ašmunikal (*CTH* 326) and the Storm-god of Harapšili (*CTH* 327).

While Darawa, the Gulša-goddess(es) and dingir.maḫ occur several times together, only some texts of *CTH* 646 and two fragmentary *mugawar* (*CTH* 335.7.2; 335.18) bring Darawa, Kuduili and Kudušaḫili together. This should be taken as a strong argument for the interpretation of both the goddess Darawa and the festival for the queen.

### 4. Interpreting Darawa's function and character

Judging from the name of the goddess related to the verb *tarāwi*(*ya*)- "to deliver", Darawa can be understood as a goddess who bestows both good and bad things on people. This general character corresponds well with Gulša, who distributes the fate of people and who "writes down" their fate (Archi 2013, 6-12; Taracha 2000, 185-87). But also the connection between Darawa and Kuduili / Kudušaḫili fits to this context, if we take these two Hattian gods as gods related to the good or unfavourable fate of a person. In this way, of course, the "profile" of Darawa is not yet very detailed. But the contexts where we find her are clearly part of the "house(hold)" or "private" life. This assumption can be supported by Pupuwanni's ritual which is obviously not performed as part of the "state cult" but as a ritual which is performed in the house(hold) to remove the negative consequences of the action with the *šeknu*-garment which harmed the ritual client (Prechel 2002, 287). Also, the festival for the queen (including the *mugawar*) can be taken as a ceremony whose central benefit was not for the well-being of the state, but for the "private" well-being of the queen (and her household). Adding the evidence from the texts treated here, Darawa is best characterised as a goddess who is responsible for daily life, providing good or bad things, venerated in the house, maybe close to the hearth (gunni), and in the *ḫalentu*-room dedicated to the family cult (Taracha 2017) and not in big temples.

Darawa is a Luwian goddess, but she is also mentioned side by side with Hattian gods. This interference or interaction suggests a cultural contact zone where Luwian and Hattian traditions could mix with each other. There are a few arguments which allow to define the geographical area of this exchange zone: KBo 7.36 mentions the fate-goddess with her Luwian name *Gulza*- and one might remember that also in the Palaic milieu the fate-goddesses Gulzanikeš are known. This common tradition of the Luwian and Palaic milieu can be a slight hint that we should look for Darawa more in northern Luwian areas than in the South or Southwest. Such a "northern" location can, at least, indirectly also be supported by the name Piyama-Tarawa, whose location in the town of Šuruwa is to be sought in a northern Luwian area. Such a geographical setting makes it quite easy that the Luwian goddess was also introduced to the Hattian milieu at the early Middle Hittite period. Some of the texts of *CTH* 646 are Middle Hittite, and also the queen Walanni can be identified as queen of the early pre-Empire period.

### 5. The later development in Hurrian / Kizzuwatnaean milieu

Already in the early Middle Hittite period Darawa came from northern Luwian areas via the Hattian milieu to the Hittites core-lands. This also leads to a secondary dissemination of the goddess. An important text which links this Luwian background with religious traditions in the central Hittite area and religions concepts at the Hittite court is the early Middle Hittite Prayer to the Sun-goddess of the earth against slander which has harmed the king (KBo 7.28+; *CTH* 371.1). The fragmentary first lines are the end of a ritual that might have "purified" the king, and then the prayer starts invoking several deities (Singer 2002, 22; Steitler 2017, 239-40; Hutter 2021, 116-17). All the sections start with invoking a deity to have mercy with the king and intercede for him. Generally speaking, all deities in the prayer are addressed in the same way, starting with the Sun-goddess of the earth, then the Tutelary deity, followed by the vizier of the Sun-goddess and the servants of the Sun-goddess. The next section addresses Darawa (KBo 7.28+ obv. 27-31, slightly adapted from Singer 2002, 23):

Mercy, o Darawa! May this be yours and you keep eating and drinking. Mention [the king favourably] before the Sun-goddess of the earth! Pronounce the king's name [favourably before] the Sun-goddess of the earth. [If] his father, his mother, his brother, his sister, [his in-law or his companion] defamed [him], do not let him do so.

The next sections address Paraya, the chief of the eunuchs, the chief of the barbers, and Ḫilašši. Then all the invoked deities are beseeched to come and bring well-being that the king may prosper. The setting of the prayer in the context of the royal court is evident, and in my impression, this might be the only text with Darawa in the "official religion" of the state for the benefit of the king. Darawa's integration in this prayer can be explained from her function as goddess connected with the household as mentioned above, therefore she might be a suitable goddess to be addressed in the case of slander on the part of the members of the family – father, mother, brother, sister, in-law. But it remains a single and isolated occurrence of the goddess in the context of a royal prayer.

Three other texts from the Hurrian or Kizzuwatnaean milieu should be mentioned at the end, but as far as I can see they show no connection with each other. The mythological text KUB 36.32 (*CTH* 351.1, Middle Hittite) about the god Ea mentions the Darawa-goddesses together with the mother-goddesses, the fate-goddesses and another deity, whose name can not be fully restored, as only d*I-li-*[ can be read two times due to the fragmentary tablet (KUB 36.32 III 14, [16]). The cultural setting of the myth is within the Hurrian sphere, as we can deduce from the god Ea and the river Aranzaḫ. Another passage mentioning Darawa is the ritual KUB 9.28 (*CTH* 442; late New Hittite) where Darawa appears in a list of gods as recipients of ritual treatment: d*ištar-iš*, Ninatta, Kulitta, Darawa, the Gulša-goddesses and Ḫilašši occur side by side (I 7-9; III 1-4; see also KBo 27.49, 6-7) combining Darawa with the Hurrian or Kizzuwatnaean sphere. The last example also comes from the Hurrian milieu. KBo 54.72 + KUB 60.153 (*CTH* 492, New Hittite) is a ritual which should incline the gods benevolently to the king on the occasion of the building of a new town. For the ritual treatment, many gods (most of them with Hurrian background) are seated and they receive offerings. Among these deities also Darawa is mentioned twice (KUB 60.153, 10; KBo 54.71 II 4), but we cannot learn about a special function of her in this ritual of the Hurrian sphere. Even if the topic of the ritual might be on the "royal focus" for building a new (capital) city,

it does not denote a high status of Darawa within the pantheon of the Hittite Empire. As in KBo 54.71 II 4 the name is misspelled d*Da-u-i-ya-aš* (instead of d*Da-ra-u-i-yaaš*), it further may be an indication that Darawa was also relatively unknown among the Hurrian milieu and one can even speculate if there might have been some mix-up with the Hurrian goddess Darru (e.g., KBo 20.113 III 12) who belongs to the entourage of Ḫebat or with Taruwi (KUB 24.7 I 23).

### 6. Conclusion

Drawing a history of the Luwian goddess Darawa, I suggest the following reconstruction of her background and development. Darawa, attested first in the Kaneš period, has her origin in the northern parts of the Luwian area which facilitates her contact with the Hattian milieu in the Hittite core lands since the early Middle Hittite period, as we learn from the reference to queen Walanni. As she is regularly mentioned in close connection with the fate-goddess(es) and judging from her name, we can say that her function is to provide good (and evil) to humans. Thus, she is similar to the fate-goddess(es) but she must be kept apart from Gulša. This function connects her with the household and "private" cult which allows – in Hattian milieu – her relation to Kuduili and Kudušaḫili. As a goddess of the "family" or the household she has relevance also for the queen as can be seen in a festival of a queen (*CTH* 646.1) and in the *mugawar* (*CTH* 335.7.2). Despite the queen celebrating her in the festival and also the integration of her among the gods addressed in the royal prayer to the Sun-goddess of the earth against slander, Darawa never was included in the state pantheon of the Hittites. But in the Empire period she is also mentioned in some texts from the Hurrian and Kizzuwatnaean milieu, as a result of a widely spread "syncretism" in the Hittite Empire.

### Bibliography


Rauchdruck.


## Kubaba and other Divine Ladies of the Syro-Anatolian Iron Age: Developmental Trajectories, Local Variations, and Interregional Interactions

Nathan Lovejoy, Alvise D.G. Matessi1

**Abstract**: Already by the Late Bronze Age, culturally distinct cults of Kubaba existed throughout the region controlled by the Hittite Empire. After the fall of the empire and the fragmentation of the political landscape of the Syro-Anatolian region, these cults persisted in local contexts, developing along their own trajectories, and thus producing hypostases of the goddess with unique roles, modes of expression, and perhaps aliases. However, these local variations did not evolve in a vacuum, but in many cases through a process of interregional and intercultural interactions. This paper will examine these processes along with the resultant expressions of local cults of Kubaba, demonstrating specific trajectories for interactions between neighboring groups, along with selective adaptations and rejections of foreign cultic concepts. Preliminary results suggest an interesting convergence between these cults and certain sociolinguistic boundaries within the region, perhaps connected to communities with shared group identities.

### 1. Introduction

Already by the Late Bronze Age, culturally distinct cults of Kubaba existed throughout the region controlled by the Hittite Empire. After the fall of the empire and the fragmentation of the political landscape of the Syro-Anatolian region, these cults persisted in local contexts, developing along their own trajectories, and thus producing hypostases of the goddess with unique roles, modes of expression, and perhaps aliases. However, these local variations did not evolve in a vacuum, but in many cases through a process of interregional and intercultural interactions. This paper will examine these processes along with the resultant expressions of local cults of Kubaba and other perhaps related goddesses, demonstrating specific trajectories for interactions between neighboring groups, along with selective adaptations and rejections of foreign cultic concepts. Preliminary results suggest an interesting convergence between these cults and certain sociolinguistic boundaries within the region2 , perhaps connected to communities with shared group identities3 .


Nathan Lovejoy, New York University, United States, ncl291@nyu.edu, 0000-0002-0124-5398 Alvise Matessi, University of Verona, Italy, alvisedomenicogiovanni.matessi@univr.it, 0000-0003-0848-070X

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

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

Nathan Lovejoy, Alvise D.G. Matessi, *Kubaba and other Divine Ladies of the Syro-Anatolian Iron Age: Developmental Trajectories, Local Variations, and Interregional Interactions*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215- 0109-4.12, in Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, pp. 109-126, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

Due to increasing agreement that Greek *Kybele* and Phrygian *Matar* (*Kubileya*) were not western derivatives of Kubaba based on historical and art historical analyses (Roller 1999; Hutter 2017; 2021, see esp. 315 note 114), and now a linguistic argument even for Kubaba's disassociation from Lydian *Kufaws/Kuwaws* and Greek *Kubebe* (Oreshko 2021)4 , we limit our investigation to the Syro-Anatolian region (Fig. 1), where Kubaba's identity is less questionable, and extend our search into the Levant more tentatively. From this corpus, it will become clear that the cults of Kubaba did not evolve in any linear fashion within the region, nor can the cults of any particular locale be ascribed to any single source. However, certain regional tendencies seem to illustrate boundaries that limit the interaction between local cults of Kubaba, such as the Taurus range, and specific avenues for the transmission of cultic concepts, for instance along the Upper Euphrates.

Fig. 1. General map of the study area with key Iron Age sites and regions. (Graphics: Alvise Matessi).

<sup>4</sup> *Contra* Laroche 1960 and Haas 1994.

### 2. Kubaba's many cults

The cult of Kubaba, best known for its connection with Iron Age Karkemiš, was active already in the Late Bronze Age Hurrian cultic landscape of Cilicia and northwest Syria. Onomastics with the theophoric element are known from Alalakh from as early as the 17th or 16th century BC, with increased popularity in the 15th century BC (Laroche 1960, 116). Several Hittite rituals provide evidence for Kubaba's role in the cults of Kizzuwatna, and a variety of other Hittite texts confirm her presence in Karkemiš, already paired in some cases with the tutelary deity Karḫuḫa (Hutter 2017, 114-15). Continued interactions between these regions almost certainly resulted in an amalgamation of Levantine, northern Syrian, and southern Anatolian influences in the Syro-Anatolian region in the post-Hittite period, and evidence for the prominence of one tradition or another, alongside specific innovations, can be found in the various local hypostases of the Iron Age.

During the Iron Age, these cults continued to spread throughout the Syro-Anatolian region, where Kubaba is invoked in various capacities, suggesting a number of local or regional cults. And while the cult of Kubaba is perhaps most explicitly dominant at Karkemiš, where it was central to the kingdom alongside those of Tarhunza and Karḫuḫa as a sort of divine triad (Hawkins 1981), it should not be imagined as the source of the cult in all Iron Age references to the deity. For instance, as Hutter has recently suggested, Tabalean texts appear to reflect a primarily Kizzuwatnean tradition, pairing Kubaba with other deities from that pantheon, and only secondarily reflecting the influence of Karkemišean traditions (2017, 116). With that in mind, the following sections aim to define the local hypostases of the goddess best known from Karkemiš with her many aliases and corresponding roles within the cults of the Syro-Anatolian regions.

In Karkemiš, by the beginning of the 10th century BC, the local cult of Kubaba was already thriving and the goddess herself was invoked alongside the Storm-god in support of Ura-Tarḫunza, the Great King of Karkemiš (KARKAMIŠ A4b; also on KH.11.O.400 Stele of Suhi I). Around the same time, Kubaba acted alongside her likely consort Karḫuḫa as litigator in curse formulae (KARKAMIŠ A14b+a). Later in the same century, a divine triad of Tarḫunza, Karḫuḫa, and Kubaba appears to formalize during the reign of Katuwa, together acting to sacralize his royal power, legitimate his rule, and provide consequences for those who oppose him, all spelled out upon the urban monuments of his domain (KARKAMIŠ A11a, A11b+c, A12). While these deities could also act in various pairs or individually with relatively equal status (KARKA-MIŠ A2+3, A13d), Kubaba's particular importance is demonstrated by references to her temple (KARKAMIŠ A23, A26a1+2), likely located atop the acropolis (Woolley 1952, 210), seemingly only matched by that of the Storm-god, and by her distinct title: Queen of Karkemiš (KARKAMIŠ A20a1+2, A25a).

While we lack certain evidence for the 9th century Karkemišean cult of Kubaba, the rich corpus of 8th century sources suggests a continuity of the institution with only minor innovations made by individual rulers. For instance, the inscriptions of Yariri include similar variable groupings of Tarḫunza, Kubaba, and/or Karḫuḫa, but interestingly with the addition of the Sun-god in an equal position, perhaps an expression of the ruler's personal beliefs; in each case, these gods are invoked in support of Yariri's position or for the benefit of the royal family, with Kubaba addressed individually on multiple occasions (KARKAMIŠ A6, A15b, KARKAMIŠ stone bowl).

Similarly, Kamani explicitly credits Karḫuḫa and Kubaba for legitimating his succession, building a temple and 'honored precinct' for Kubaba, Queen of Karkemiš, in much the same way as his ancestor; he even suggests a regional importance of Kubaba's cult, justifying his building project as a place for other kings and lords to come worship his tutelary goddess (Stele of Kubaba by Kamani: K A31+A30b1-3; Marchetti and Peker 2018). Likewise, Kamani frequently invokes the divine triad as litigators for his curse formulae, but at this time with a broader range of concerns: not only matters of royal power, but also administrative concerns, such as the sale of homes or estates, or a city charter (CEKKE, KARKAMIŠ A4a, A25b). The remaining references to Kubaba from Karkemiš, mostly dated between the 9th and 8th centuries BC, all attest to a similar role and position of the deity (KARKAMIŠ A21+A20b, A13a-c, A15e, A18e, A18i-j, ANKARA, KÖRKÜN)5 . In Karkemiš, Kubaba was a top-tier goddess, who was active in royal legitimation and power and as guarantor of royal proclamations and, in the 8th century, in matters of urban administration.

Fig. 2. Stele of Kubaba commissioned by Kamani and discovered at Karkemiš (Marchetti and Peker 2018, 91 Fig. 16)

<sup>5</sup> In one inscription upon a stone bowl, tentatively dated to the 9th century BC, Kubaba is found grouped between Karḫuḫa and Santa in the curse formula (BEIRUT stone bowl), and an inscribed stele base dated roughly to the 10th-9th centuries BC refers to the dedication of a granary to Kubaba (KARKAMIŠ A30b).

Visual representations of Kubaba from Karkemiš are limited (Fig. 2). From the late 10th century BC, a relief from the Processional Way depicting a seated goddess upon a recumbent lion, wearing a polos and veil, and holding a mirror and pomegranate, can be confidently ascribed as representing Kubaba, though no inscription names her as such (Orthmann 1971, F/7b). Another roughly contemporaneous relief depicts a goddess with a decorated horned polos and veil, and holding a pomegranate; while the other hand is missing, many have proposed that it may have held a mirror (Orthmann 1971, C/3). However, another goddess on a nearby relief is represented in much the same way, except with a pomegranate and a stalk of grain, suggesting that she may be a separate deity altogether, perhaps the Hittite Maliya or the unspecified local Grain-god(dess) (Orthmann 1971, C/1 with discussion on 276-77)6 . A last stele from around the 10th century BC depicts Kubaba with a prominent horned polos but no veil; she holds a mirror and pomegranate and stands below a winged sun disc (Orthmann 1971, Biricek 1)7 . From the later kings of Karkemiš, only Kamani's Stele of Kubaba, thus dated to the first half of the 8th century BC, assuredly depicts the goddess; there, she stands in a long robe and ornamental jewelry, crowned by a decorated polos with hair falling below, and she holds a decorative mirror in her left hand (Orthmann 1971, K/1; Marchetti and Peker 2018). A final relief from Karkemiš, probably dated to the 8th century, depicts a seated goddess holding a mirror and wearing a highly decorated robe and veil, perhaps also Kubaba (Orthmann 1971, K/6). In all, it appears that, at Karkemiš, Kubaba's defining features include her polos, long robe, and veil, as well as a mirror and, often, a pomegranate held in her hands. Her posture – standing or seated – may have some meaning, but none that the current evidence can suggest. Her relationship with the lion is likewise nondescript, except perhaps for its symbolism of royal power, as suggested by Lynn Roller (1999, 49).

In the Masuwarean tradition of nearby Tell Ahmar, at least for the period of king Ḫamiyata around end of the 10th century BC, Kubaba appears to have a much less prominent role. While she still acts as royal legitimator and litigator of curse formulae, the goddess so important at Karkemiš appears in the middle or end of long lists of deities, and never in a primary position. On the other hand, her proximity to Karḫuḫa in almost all Masuwarean inscriptions suggests that this local cult of Kubaba is still reflective of Karkemišean traditions, if not the hierarchy of the pantheon (TELL AH-MAR 1, 2, 6, ALEPPO 2).

Maraş provides little insight into the cult of Kubaba, with only a single explicit reference to the goddess. However, this undated and poorly preserved fragment of an inscribed block mentions Kubaba alongside Karḫuḫa, clearly in the Karkemišean tradition (MARAŞ 10). Additionally, the monuments of Maraş provide a robust corpus of examples of elite mortal women wearing the same polos and veil as Kubaba, and even holding a mirror in several cases, in their depictions on funerary stelae (Orthmann 1971, B/7 [MARAŞ 2], A/2 [MARAŞ 12], B/14, B/19, and MARAŞ 15). The attire of these women appears to reflect a standard style of dress for elite women, whether mortal or divine, and likely only serve as an indicator of gender and social status, not in any way

<sup>6</sup> See also Hutter (2021, 295), for a discussion of the possible persistence of Maliya in the region of Tabal; also, Lovejoy (forthcoming) and Matessi and Lovejoy (forthcoming) for the role of the Grain-god in the Syro-Anatolian region.

<sup>7</sup> The stele was later joined with a base inscribed with KARKAMIŠ A30h due to the proximity of find spots and the fit of the tenon and mortise hole.

connected to any specific personal identity (Fig. 3)8 . Together with the mirror, however, this iconographic assemblage seems to imply some connection with the goddess, perhaps suggesting that Kubaba had some chthonic role at least in the areas where her semiotic markers were attached to the deceased.

Fig. 3. Funerary stele from Maraš depicting two women with attributes common to Kubaba (Tayfun Bilgin, www.hittitemonuments.com, 1. 77, last visited 02/08/2023)

The situation in Malatya is even more epigraphically limited, but pictorial evidence provides some insight. Most informative is a late 10th century BC rough stone stele bearing an incised Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription and a depiction of two deities beneath a winged sun disc (Fig. 4). The two figures are identified as Karḫuḫa, depicted standing astride a lion and wielding a spear and what might be lighting or grain stalks, and Kubaba, who sits in a chair upon the back of a bull, wearing a polos and veil, and holding a mirror before her (Orthmann 1971, B/4). The pairing immediately connects the monument with the Karkemišean cultic milieu. The peculiar writing of Karḫuḫa's name, including the sign CERVUS2 before the syllabic spelling, however, has led Hawkins to suggest that this might be a Karkemišean form of the Stag-god Runtiya (MALATYA 13). This would indicate, then, that the Malatyan cult of Kubaba – if the conceptualization of her consort is any indicator – is reflective of a hybrid tradition that we may call "Luwo-Karkemišean" as it combines elements of Luwian religion of Anatolian origin with cults peculiar to Karkemiš. Perhaps this form of cult emerged in Malatya in response to the regional dominance of Karkemiš. While no other references to Kubaba are known from Malatya, it is worth noting that two other reliefs depict non-divine women wearing a polos and veil, appearing quite similar to Kubaba. One woman,

<sup>8</sup> The polos and veil might be a necessary semiotic component of representations of Kubaba (or even the Phrygian Matar or Greek Kybele), but they are in no way indicators of her exact identity. Other iconographs or epigraphs are needed for any certain attribution.

identified as Prince(ss) Tuwati, pours a libation for a goddess before her upon a relief orthostat (Orthmann 1971, A/7; MALATYA 6), while another woman is depicted in at a mortuary repast on a fragmentary monument, unfortunately any object she might have held is lost in a break (Orthmann 1971, B/3; MALATYA 2). These two examples further demonstrate the problem of identifying Kubaba or aspects of her cult: while the former is clearly labeled as a royal figure, the latter appears to have been labeled with a secondary inscription, confusing the matter even more, but perhaps connected to Kubaba through a chthonic role, as suggested in Maraş.

Fig. 4. Stele of Kubaba and Karḫuḫa from Arslantepe (Tayfun Bilgin, www.hittitemonuments. com, 1. 77, last visited 02/08/2023)

Kummuḫean Kubaba provides another example of a mixed local cult active around the end of the 9th century BC during the reign of Šuppliuliuma. While the goddess is found individually in some inscriptions (BOYBEYPINARI 1, 2), she is also commonly found alongside, among other local deities, Runtiya. This deity appears to fully replace Karḫuḫa in the more Luwo-dominant cultic milieu, albeit still recognizing the role of the tutelary consort of the Karkamisean Kubaba (ANCOZ 1, 5, 7, and probably KȂHTA 1). Her role remains that of litigator in most cases where context is preserved, though she is also the target of offerings and dedications by several royal figures. Even more striking is the title that accompanies her name in every attestation from the region; in Kummuḫ, she is known always as *Ala*-Kubaba or Lady Kubaba. While this is reminiscent, in some regard, of her title '*Queen* of Karkemiš', it may also provide a conceptual connection to several southern hypostases of the deity, namely the Divine *Queen* of the Land of Palastina and *Pahalat* of Hama, to which we will return later. Only one fragmentary relief depicting the goddess is known from the region, but it appears to depict her in standard garb, seated, and holding a pomegranate in the one preserved hand (Orthmann 1971, Ancuzköy 1).

The Tabalean Kubaba is known from sources dating to about the second half of the 8th century BC. In most cases, the inscriptions are reflective of a Hurro-Luwian cultic tradition, likely a product of the strong presence of the Late Bronze Age cults of Kizzuwatna just beyond the Taurus (Hutter 2017, 116). Kubaba is most often found alongside Tarḫunza, sometimes paired with Ea, and occasionally with other traditionally Hurrian gods like Ḫebat, Šarruma, and Alašuwa. She mostly functions as a litigator in curse formulae (KAYSERİ, KARABURUN), in one case through her agent "the ḪASAMI-dog of Kubaba" (KULULU 1), but is also found receiving dedications following a royal building project, perhaps including shrines(?) (ÇİFTLİK; perhaps something similar in KULULU 5), and in a late inscription providing favor to a local ruler (BULGARMADEN). While these examples are suggestive of a primarily Kizzuwatnean tradition behind the local cult of Kubaba, one Tabalean reference to Kubaba of Karkemiš in a curse formula of a subject of Wašušarma is indicative of cultural interaction in the cultic sphere (SULTANHAN), perhaps expressed through a Karkemišean elite transplant or an extension of the Karkemišean cult into the Tabalean population.

Fig. 5. Stele appearing to represent Kubaba from Domuztepe in Cilicia (Tayfun Bilgin, www. hittitemonuments.com, v. 1.77, last visited 02/08/2023)

While those regions from the Upper Euphrates to the South-Central Anatolia appear to represent a continuum of cultic traditions as they concern the goddess Kubaba, with Karkemišean and SC Anatolian poles, the territories south of the Taurus and along the Northern Levant are indicative of transformations beyond the Hurro-Anatolian realm. Firstly, Cilician Kubaba is known only from a single 9th century BC stele from the site of Domuztepe (Çambel and Özyar 2003, 149-56). The stele in not inscribed, but it depicts the goddess in her long robe and veil, probably with polos, though the head is damaged (Fig. 5). She holds a mirror out in front of her in her left hand, which, together with the winged sun disc positioned above her, clearly marks her as Kubaba, whether known by that name or another. The only other deity known from the site is the Storm-god, depicted on another slightly smaller stele. In this early stage, it is difficult to say much of the cult of Kubaba, but nothing suggests external influences, and one might hazard to guess that the local Kizzuwatnean cult persisted with little change well into the Iron Age. However, it appears that around the second half of the 8th century BC, Kubaba may have lost her local significance. With the new cosmopolitan cultic landscape best illustrated by the monuments at Karatepe and characterized by a mixture of Luwian and Phoenician cultural features, it would seem that the Hurro-Anatolian goddess had no place in the Ḫiyawan pantheon, as she was not included in any inscription, nor represented in any later sculptural monuments of the polity.

Across the Amanus, the Sam'alian inscription on the Ördekburnu stele, dated around the end of the 9th century BC, refers to a Kubaba of Aram, most probably reflecting a resilience of a local, northern Levantine tradition, which is supported by the goddess' pairing with Rakib-El, the dynastic god of Sam'al (Lemaire and Sass 2013). Younger has recently proposed that this manifestation of Kubaba should be identified with a cult centered at Arpad, the capital of Bit-Agusi (2020, 6), perhaps suggesting a regional prominence. The late 8th century BC funerary stele of KTMW from Zincirli appears to reflect the continued evolution of this cult in Sam'al; Kubaba is invoked at the end of a list of deities and immediately before the 'soul' of the deceased, all of whom are described partaking in a funerary feast to sacralize the space (Pardee 2009). From this limited evidence, it would seem that, within the Sam'alian context, Kubaba's role was largely concerned with the afterlife, perhaps imagined as a chthonic deity in a subordinate position to those connected with kingship and important cities. It would also seem, however, that Kubaba was visually defined by the same standards as in the north (Fig. 6); at Zincirli, she appears to be depicted twice on relief orthostats wearing a robe, veil, and horned polos, and holding a mirror and pomegranate in her hands (Orthmann 1971, B/13b). While dress alone would not be enough to suggest this identification, the horn upon her polos and Kubaba's divine implements leave little doubt of her identity.

Fig. 6. Orthostats from Zincirli possibly depicting Kubaba flanking a Storm-god (Tayfun Bilgin, www.hittitemonuments.com, v. 1.77, last visited 02/08/2023)

In Bit-Agusi, the cult of Kubaba appears in the Levantine cultic context as she stands alongside Reshef in the text of an 8th century BC inscribed stele fragment from Tell Sifr, in the vicinity of Aleppo, thus lending support to Younger's hypothesis of an Aramaic cult of Kubaba located nearby. Above the text are remnants of a relief preserving feet standing upon the hindquarters of a quadruped, perhaps a bull referring to the Storm-god, or even a stag referring directly to Reshef, named in the text (Tocci 1962, 21-2; Niehr 2014, 155; Bunnens 2006, 110). Without further evidence to distinguish more local hypostases, we might imagine the cults of Sam'al and Bit-Agusi being one and exhibiting expressly Levantine or Aramaic characteristics, quite separate from the traditions of Karkemiš or South-Central Anatolia9 .

As early as the 11th century BC, the northern Levantine kingdom of Palastina appears to have been interested in the cult of Karkemišean Kubaba, attested in a fragmentary inscription from the temple of the Storm-god at Aleppo (ALEPPO 7). Only one other reference to the deity comes from the Amuq Plain: a roughly 9th-8th centuries BC inscription on a building block found in secondary context, which invokes Kubaba and the Ḫarranean Moon-God as litigators in a curse formula, two deities often paired in the north Syrian tradition of Karkemiš, but not explicitly linking the traditions; the author of the inscription appears to be a Runti(ya)wari, or the like, providing an alternative connection through the theophoric element to the SC Anatolian traditions (TULEIL 2)10. In any case, these incredibly fragmentary inscriptions, separated by several centuries, can provide little insight into the development of the cult of Kubaba in this region.

This limited corpus of monuments may be expanded, however, if we accept a suggestion of Annick Payne: the Divine Queen of the Land may be a local manifestation of Kubaba, found within the northern Levant between the Amuq and the area just north of Ḫama. This is supported by the inclusion of the same theonym within the name of the author of the SHEIZAR inscription: Kupapiya, meaning "Kubaba gave (her)" or "the one of Kubaba" (Payne 2012, 47 not 40). Following the same line of thought, Younger has identified that the Kubaba of Aram on the Ördekburnu stele – another funerary stele for a woman named Piya, here lacking the theophoric element of the previous name – served in much the same way as the Divine Queen of the Land (Younger 2020, 6)11.


The Divine Queen of the Land is an apparently local deity whose cult was perhaps connected directly to the kingdom of Palastina. This particular goddess is only mentioned by this name in three Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions from the region: SHEIZAR and MEHARDE, both dated from the 10th to early 9th century BC12, and KIRÇOĞLU, dated to the second half of the 8th century BC. The earlier inscriptions both appear on funerary stelae for Palastinean royalty. SHEIZAR describes the mortuary affairs of Kupapiya, the wife of Taita, the Hero of Palastina, and invokes the Divine Queen of the Land as the litigator of the curse formula. The stele upon which it is inscribed is undecorated. The MEHARDE inscription begins by identifying the stele as the goddess, likely referring to the female figure depicted on its front (Fig. 7), standing upon a couchant lion and beneath what appears to be a winged sun in the form of the Anatolian Hieroglyph SOL (hieroglyphic sign \*191)13, and declaring that it was made for her by Taita, presumably the same as that in the previous inscription, and possibly represented by the smaller figure in the scene, standing upon the lion's head. The female figure's iconography parallels best the characteristics of the Levanto-Egyptian goddess Qudshu/Qedeš, associated with the region already in the Late Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon at Ugarit; her naked standing posture, her Hathor-headdress, the lion beneath her, and the objects (probably flowers) held in her raised hands are all in accordance with images of the goddess found throughout the eastern Mediterranean, perhaps suggesting that Qudshu/Qedeš was the visual inspiration for the depiction of this local goddess (Cornelius 2008, 94-9; Cornelius 2010). The Divine Queen of the Land also serves as litigator in the concluding curse formula (Hawkins 2000, 417). The KIRÇOĞLU inscription is challenging to interpret in its entirety, but clearly states that an unknown person commissioned the statue upon which the text is inscribed for the benefit of the Divine Queen of the Land, who then honored the commissioner and raised him above his brothers (Hawkins 2000, 384). The statue itself, missing its upper half, appears to be a representation of the goddess. A fourth monument might be added to these three; while uninscribed, the fragmentary Lady of Tayinat statue from the Palastinean capital may, in fact, depict this Divine Queen of the Land14. In any case, it is clear that this goddess was a chthonic deity, connected with the Palastinean royalty in the underworld15.

Additional support for this assertion may come from an 8th century BC inscribed funerary stele discovered at Karkemiš, which invokes a "Divine Lady of the Earth". While Hawkins has noted the distinction between Land and Earth as possibly signifiying that these are two different deities (2000, 184), they appear to serve the same role as chthonic deities; perhaps the Karkemišean example is an interpretation of the northern Levantine cult.


Fig. 7. Funerary stele of Taita (II) of Palastina depicting the Divine Queen of the Land (Hawkins 2000, Pl. 225)

With that, we have reached our last possible alias of Kubaba, which is Canaanite Ba'alat (or Pahalat in hieroglyphic Luwian). While Younger has pointed out the possibility that the Divine Queen of the Land may refer to the goddess Ba'alat, the principal deity of Early Iron Age Byblos and central to the 9th century BC cultic landscape of Ḫama (2020, 6 note 23; also Hutter 2021, 303), it may be more likely that both goddesses were individual hypostases of a similar conceptualization of divinity (Pongratz-Leisten 2021). In Ḫama, Pahalat serves in a preeminent role around the mid-9th century BC, in much the same way as Kubaba in Karkemiš. The king Urḫilina constructs a temple for this important goddess and aims to increase revenue for her (HAMA 4). He fills? / constructs? /dedicates? a granary to her (HAMA 8), and erects a stele for her upon the foundation of a city (RESTAN, QAL'AT EL MUDIQ , HINES). And from the available evidence, it appears that Pahalat was only matched in importance with Tarḫunza (HAMA frag. 1). While this Hamathite cult of Pahalat appears to closely parallel the Karkemišean cult of Kubaba, it is also relfective of a connection with Ba'alat of Byblos, both through their name and through their apparently tutelary role within their respective cities. A further connection might be drawn to Ba'alat in the northern Levantine cult of the Divine Queen of the Land; namely, the figure in the MEHARDE stele is depicted nude with what appears to be a "Hathor-headress", a feature characteristic of Ba'alat and a product of her longstanding translation with the Egyptian Hathor.

While many have sought an underlying deity beneath the title of Lady, e.g., Aštarte, Asherah, Hathor, Qudšu/Qedeš, Aphrodite, or Dione (Xella 1994, 196-7; Cross 1997, 28 note 90), it has also been suggested that Ba'alat is treated as a proper name in the Phoenician (Zernecke 2013). This would suggest that Ba'alat is not masking another "real" deity, but stands herself as a locally important goddess with independent traits. However, her adoption by other communities in connection with other deities may suggest certain shared characteristics that allowed for such broad translatability, in the same way that the Divine Queen of the Land, *Ala-* (or Lady) Kubaba, Kubaba of Aram, and Kubaba

of Karkemiš may all have stood as unique local or regional deities, easily interpreted by one community or another as their own version of a shared conceptualization of divinity.

Unfortunately, little else is known about Ba'alat and her cult, whether from Byblos or within the Canaanite mythological traditions more broadly. One might seek insight into Ba'alat's cult through her connection with Hathor. Since both Egyptians and Byblians synchretized the two goddesses as early as the second half of the 3rd millennium BC (Scandone Matthiae 1987, 401-03; Hart 2005, 65), it stands to reason that they shared fundamental characteristics beyond appearance (Cross 1997, 34 note 129), and likely similar cultic roles. Hathor's primary roles in Egypt were connected with the well-being of the ruler and with safe passage to the underworld (Scandone Matthiae 1987, 405; Xella 1994, 206; Hart 2005, 66; Smith 2017, 251-55, 384-89), paralleling in many ways the main functions of certain Kubabas south of the Taurus and perhaps also those of Ba'alat. If, in fact, Ba'alat was a goddess connected with both kingship and the underworld, then it is possible that a connection formed between these regional goddesses based on shared roles, providing a foundation for goddesses like the Divine Queen of the Land and Pahalat of Hama, invoked through a title that is also a name, to be conceived with duties to the deceased and to those in power, respectively. These divine Ladies might then have been interpreted through the mixed communities of the northern Levant, with the (re) emergence of a Kubaba of Aram, coopting the imagery and name of Kubaba, and the cultic role of the underworld deities to the south16. On the other hand, the primary role of Pahalat of Ḫama as tutelary deity and protector of kingship may indicate a stronger connection with the Karkemišean conceptualization of the premiere goddess of the Iron Age.

### 3. The cultural milieu

The dynamics informing the local persistence, regional circulation and (re)interpretation of Kubaba and her cults during the Iron Age were certainly manifold and complex, but in part they ought to play within broader trajectories of interaction which can be best evaluated against other cultural horizons. The political landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean emerging from historical sources of the Iron Age is largely the result of the disaggregation following the collapse of the Hittite empire, around the early 12th century BC. In particular, the Kubaba cults as analyzed above mostly circulated within Syro-Anatolian milieus, reproducing in a diverse array of local scenarios several inherited Hittite traits especially reflected in iconographic traditions and the continued use of the Luwian Hieroglyphic script and language17.

However, beyond this general continuum, major fault lines can be individuated within the Syro-Anatolian complex. The Taurus, in particular, represented during the Iron Age an imposing watershed, separating on either side different linguistic, artistic and material cultural horizons. While many avenues point in this direction, a most visible divide crossed the linguistic landscape: In fact, the admixture of Luwian and West Semitic languages characterizing southern environments did not spread to the north of the Taurus belt, where epichoric inscriptions up to the 6th century attest only Luwian and Phrygian18. Nonetheless, on the background of this general separation,

<sup>16</sup> See Lovejoy 2023 for an expanded evaluation of these developments in the cultic institutions and communities of the Iron Age northeast Mediterranean.

<sup>17</sup> On the definition of the "Syro-Anatolian cultural complex", see Osborne 2021.

<sup>18</sup> With the only exception being the Luwian-Phoenician bilingual of İVRİZ 2. For a more detailed treatment, see Matessi and Lovejoy (forthcoming).

some indirect contacts between north and south certainly occurred. A particularly productive channel of contacts can be especially individuated in the Euphrates area. Karkemiš yielded the only known Phrygian inscription – a single personal name – outside Central and West Anatolia19, in addition to a few specimens of Central Anatolian Iron Age ceramic wares of the Alişar IV type, otherwise absent south of the Taurus20. The monuments of Karasu and Malpınar, on the Euphrates valley close to the Atatürk Dam, are the sole representatives in the south of a Syro-Anatolian artistic tradition – the rock-cut reliefs – otherwise typical of Central Anatolia (Ehringhaus 2014, 95-105). More to the north, the Iron Age levels of Arslantepe, the site of Malatya, have yielded mixed ceramic assemblages with both southern and northern influences, including Urartian, Phrygian, Cypro-Phoenician and Syrian Red Slip wares (Manuelli 2013)21.

This range of archaeologically documented contacts finely resonates with historical information drawn from textual sources, that cumulatively depict a range of contacts between Mesopotamia, Syria and the Anatolian highlands passing through the Euphrates valley. On one hand, Assyrian military accounts from the 11th century on consistently mention Malatya or nearby areas as a regular stage en route to Tabal or Urartu. On the other hand, documented relationships between Malatya and the south were also strong. Tiglath-pileser I of Assyria (1114-1076 BC) asserts that he marched to Malatya in a northward movement, after sweeping the Levantine coast and Syria (RIMA 2 A.0.87.4, 24-33). A similar itinerary was perhaps followed some centuries later by Shalmaneser III (859-824 BC), who received tributes from the "lands of Ḫatti", i.e. Syria, and then Malatya on his way to Tabal (Yamada 2000, 209-10)22. Malatyan rulers of the 11th century attested on hieroglyphic inscriptions claimed dynastic ties with Karkemiš, and their successors in the 8th century participated in military coalitions including several Syro-Levantine principalities23.

Alongside the Taurus and its stark divide between north and south, the makeup of the Syro-Anatolian world was also shaped by a natural frontier separating east and west, represented by the Amanus mountains. Compared with the Taurus, this natural frontier is much less visible in the material cultural sphere. In fact, multiple interconnections crossed the Amanus range through the Iron Ages, on the foreground of a gradual change in local horizons from coastal areas to inner Syria (Lehmann 2008). However, stronger differences between eastern and western scenarios are encountered in the linguistic milieu. Epichoric Iron Age inscriptions from Cilicia include Luwian-Phoenician bilinguals as well as monolingual Phoenician inscriptions (Yakubovich 2015). By contrast, east of the Amanus, Luwian intermingled in many locales with Aramaic dialects, whereas Phoenician seems to have played only a minor role. The rulers of Sam'al, modern Zinçirli, on the eastern foothills of the Amanus range, used Aramaic and the related Sam'alian language for all their inscriptions, with the one exception of Kulamuwa's stele, bearing a Phoenician text (KAI 24)24.


### 4. Concluding remarks: the many cults of Kubaba in their areal contexts

These dynamics of areal interaction and frontier formation inspire some considerations on the possible trajectories of expansion of Kubaba in the Iron Age (Fig. 8). To begin with, the seemingly marginal role that Kubaba played in Iron Age Cilicia, with the possible sole exception of Domuztepe, stands in stark contrast with the importance that this deity had in Kizzuwatnean traditions of the 2nd millennium BC. Unless determined by the chance of findings, this pattern becomes significant if compared with the natural and cultural frontiers drawn by the Taurus and the Amanus. Therefore, we can tentatively suggest that the Luwo-Phoenician environment characterizing Cilicia was comparatively less receptive towards Kubaba than the Luwo-Aramaic milieus featured east of the Amanus. This conclusion would resonate well with observations mentioned above about the little currency of Kubaba cults in Phoenician religious traditions in general, which in turn might account for a Phoenician "negative" influence on the persistence of Kubaba cults in Cilicia as well.

Fig. 8. Resumptive map of the diffusion of the Kubaba cults in the Syro-Anatolian world, with main linguistic areas and cultural frontiers. (Graphics: Alvise Matessi).

A second observation, by contrast, regards the prominent status that Kubaba seems to have enjoyed in Tabal. As mentioned above, the characters of the Tabalean cult of Kubaba are suggestive of a local resilience or (re)emergence of Kizzuwatnean traditions from the 2nd millennium BC. It is possible, however, that interferences with the core area of Kubaba in Syria and the Euphrates area during the Iron Age further fostered its cult in Central Anatolia. Synchronic inputs from abroad might indeed be suggested by the mention of the Karkemišean Kubaba together with other Syrian cults in the curse formula of SULTANHANI. This possibility would tempt us to envisage a sort of "highway" of the Kubaba cults that, following the trajectories examined above, connected Tabal to Karkemiš and the Syrian Euphrates through Malatya. Religious imports deriving from these possible contacts might have hybridized with inherited characters, according to mechanisms of cultural formation that are a trademark of Iron Age interactions in the area.

### Bibliography


### Solar Deities in the Kuwattalla Ritual Tradition: Epithets and Functions

Alice Mouton

**Abstract**: Through the contextual analysis of the occurrences of solar deities in the Kuwattalla ritual texts, we will try to sketch a portrait of these deities, focusing on their functions in the ritual process. Special attention will be paid to the combination of ritual gestures with Luwian incantations, since the latter might help to define the specificities of each member of this divine group.

In the framework of the Luwili project, Ilya Yakubovich and myself have prepared the commented edition of the Hittite-Luwian ritual texts belonging to the Puriyanni tradition *CTH* 758 and to the Kuwattalla tradition *CTH* 759 to 763. The Puriyanni ritual texts are devoted to the purification of a house, while the rituals attributed to the female attendant Kuwattalla and/or the Old Woman Šilalluḫi address a person's defilement.

Since there are more than a hundred occurrences of solar deities in this corpus of texts, in the context of this paper, I have made a selection according to the following criteria:


Through this short inquiry, I hope to be able to partly supplement Steitler's investigation on solar deities1 , since the Luwili project has enabled us to better understand several aspects of the Puriyanni and Kuwattalla ritual traditions.

For the sake of caution, we chose to keep the very generic translation "Sun-deity" or, whenever relevant, "Sun-god" or "Sun-goddess" for the logogrammatic shapes of

<sup>1</sup> Steitler (2017, 386-87): "There are further occurrences of the DN Tiwad in other Luwian recitations within the rituals of Kuwattalla, but due to their poor state of preservation, these currently contribute little or nothing to our understanding of the Luwian Sun-god."

Alice Mouton, CNRS, French National Centre for Scientific Research, France, alice.mouton@cnrs.fr, 0000-0003- 4661-7762

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

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

Alice Mouton, *Solar Deities in the Kuwattalla Ritual Tradition: Epithets and Functions*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4.13, in Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, pp. 127-140, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12- 215-0109-4

the Sun-deities in our text edition, without providing a phonetic reading of them. In this paper, however, I will suggest phonetic readings whenever possible in order to try to delve further into this inquiry.

### 1. Names and epithets of the solar deities in CTH 758 and CTH 759-763

Let us briefly review the denominations of the solar deities in our corpus. Sometimes, the logogram of the solar deities, d utu, appears alone, without any phonetic complement or epithet which is the case in Excerpt 1 (KBo 22.137+ III 5''), for instance. In such cases, only its association with a more detailed designation and/or the context may help determine which solar deity hides behind it.

### 1.1 Luwian Tiwad

Since we are dealing with Luwian incantations, it is not surprising to find several phonetic traces of the Luwian reading Tiwad for the solar deities.

### 1.1.1 "Tiwad above"

We can, for instance, observe the designation "Tiwad above" ([*šarr*]*i Tiwata*) in Excerpt 8 (KUB 32.10+ obv. 12'), a MS2 text. This designation in the vocative is directly associated with another, namely "Tiwad below", which we will examine hereafter. "Tiwad above" also occurs in a NS3 tablet of our corpus, Excerpt 6 (KBo 29.3+ II 25: *šarri* <sup>d</sup> utu-*za*), with the Luwian phonetic complement -*za* marking the nominative for Tiwaz.

### 1.1.2 "Tiwad below"

A designation "Tiwad below" is closely associated with "Tiwad above" in the MS text Excerpt 8 (KUB 32.10+ obv. 12'; *īnta Tiwata*). An analogous Luwian epithet of Sun-deities is found in the MS fragment KUB 35.90 (r.col. 7'), which does not seem to belong to our corpus: *inda* dutu-*šanza*[*n*], where dutu-*šanza*[*n*] is to be read \*Tiwataššanzan: a possessive adjective of Tiwad in the dative with a plural possessor, so literally "of the Tiwad-s below".

The allusion to a solar deity "above" and to another below might be compared with the allusion made to the Sun-god (of heaven) as the deity responsible for the living vs. the Sun-goddess of the earth responsible for the dead in Excerpt 6 (KBo 29.3+ II 25-26).

Indeed, Excerpt 6 (KBo 29.3+ II 26) refers to "the Sun-goddess of the earth" (*tiyammaššiš* dutu-*za*)4 , where the phonetic complement -za of the Sun-goddess's name shows that she is called Tiwad in this context, just like the male Sun-deity. This phenomenon has already been noticed before and can be compared with Hittite Ištanu, also given to both male and female solar deities5 .

<sup>2</sup> MS means Middle Script (15th–first half of 14th century BC).

<sup>3</sup> NS means New Script (second half of 14th–13th century BC).

<sup>4</sup> On the Luwian Sun-goddess of the earth, see Steitler 2017, 230-32.

<sup>5</sup> Steitler 2017, 33 with prior bibliography.

### 1.1.3 "Father Tiwad"

The epithet "Father Tiwad" is attested twice in our corpus: first in the MS text Excerpt 12 (KBo 9.143 II! 10'; *tātin* dutu-*an*), where the divine name should probably be read \*Tiwatan. Secondly in the NS fragment Excerpt 13 (KUB 35.68, 16'; [*t*]*ātiš* <sup>D</sup>*Tiwaz*), this time in the nominative form. Both fragments describe a Kizzuwatnean ritual related to the Kuwattalla tradition (*CTH* 763). Note that the exact same expression is attested in Hittite in the Maštigga ritual text under the shape *addāš* dutu-*uš* "Father Ištanu"6 , and this is not the only relationship we observe between the Kuwattalla and the Maštigga ritual traditions7 . A "Father Ištanu" (*attaš* dutu-*uš*) is also among the divine witnesses of the MS treaty of Arnuwanda I with the Gašga, although this text might be a draft and is, therefore, difficult to further interpret8 . This epithet tends to show that Tiwad was primarily a male name, as already noted by Hutter9 , although it could also be given to female entities from time to time, as we have just seen. The incantation addressed to "Father Tiwad" in Excerpt 12 is addressed to the "Exalted Sungod" in the NS text Excerpt 5.

### 1.1.4. "Tiwad Divine Lord"

A male connotation of Tiwad is also present in the designation "Tiwad divine lord" (dutu-*ta* EN-*ya tiwāliya*) which occurs in Excerpt 6 (KBo 29.3+ II 18). In this context, the phonetic complement -ta shows that the divine name is to be read Tiwata, in the vocative form. This is also the case in the NS text KUB 35.48 (II 11'), in a passage which seems to duplicate exactly Excerpt 6 (KBo 29.3+). The translation "divine lord" for en-*ya tiwāliya* was suggested by Yakubovich in Steitler's 2017 monograph10 and it was followed by Melchert in his 2019 paper11.

#### 1.1.5. Šiwata

In the NS text Excerpt 1 (KBo 22.137+ III 8'') describing a ritual of Puriyanni, we find the name Šiwata. This is the only Puriyanni ritual text where we find a mention of a Sun-deity. Although van Gessel12 considers Šiwata to be a Luwian form of the deified Day Šiwatt, Hutter13 followed by Steitler14 interprets Šiwata as a Hittitized form of the Luwian Sun-deity Tiwad. We favor this second interpretation, since it has the advantage of echoing the mention of a Sun-deity in the Hittite description of the associated rite three lines before (III 5''). In this description, the Sun-deity is associated with the Storm-god of the Open Country, a god who is one of the main divine agents of the Puriyanni rituals15. The form Šiwata imitates the Luwian vocative form Tiwata which we have already seen above.


### 1.2 "Sun-god of the Oath"

Another designation of a solar deity which occurs several times in the Luwili corpus is the "Sun-god of the Oath" (Luwian *ḫīrutalli* dutu)16. All the attestations of this epithet are dated NS. Among all the cuneiform tablets of Ḫattuša, the texts of the *dupaduparša-*ritual (*CTH* 759) are generally the ones in which this epithet is attested. The only exception to this rule seems to be Excerpt 11 (KBo 22.254(+) III 7' and IV? 3'), which is classified under *CTH* 762. From this epithet, one can deduce the role of this divine entity as witness to an oath. Generally speaking, the role of Sun-gods as witnesses is quite widespread in ritual texts, as already emphasized by Hutter and Steitler17. Since the latter role is traditionally associated with the sun which, in the sky, watches over all living creatures, we suggest a male gender for this deity due to the context.

Closely related to the Sun-god of the Oath is the Luwian verb *tiwataniya*-, which we chose to translate as "to enrage the Sun-god"18, and which in its turn is sometimes associated with the Luwian verb *ḫīrutaniya*- "to perjure oneself ", a cognate of *ḫīrutalli*- (KUB 9.6+ I 23).

It is worth mentioning that neither this pair of verbs nor the discussed divine epithet appear in the texts we grouped under *CTH* 761, i.e., the Great Ritual alone (a group partly represented by MS fragments): these features could therefore represent an innovation in the development of the Kuwattalla tradition.

A similar but not identical pair of verbs is present in texts of the Tauriša tradition, with the Luwian verb *arraḫḫani*- "to swear" and *tiwadaniya*- (KBo 12.89 II! 9' and 19'); see Rieken's 2017 paper19 on these verbs.

### 1.2.1 "Tiwad of the Oath"

Among the occurrences of the epithet "Sun-god of the Oath", some can be safely read "Tiwad of the Oath". These occurrences are only in Luwian incantations. The phonetic complement -*waza* of d utu warrants a reading Tiwaz in Excerpt 4 (KUB 35.78(+) IV 9', 11'-13'), in the nominative. We also find dutu with the phonetic complement -*ti* for the dative in the NS fragment Excerpt 11 (KBo 22.254(+) III 7'). This implies the reading Tiwati.

### 1.2.2 "Ištanu of the Oath"

In Excerpt 4 (KUB 35.78(+) IV 5'), [*ḫīrutalli*]*n* dutu-*un* is most probably to be interpreted as "Ištanu of the Oath" in the accusative form, since the expected accusative of Tiwad is \*Tiwatan, as attested in the MS text Excerpt 12 (KBo 9.143 II! 10'). Note that this Hittitized form is used in an incantation. Since the vast majority of the incantations of our corpus is in Luwian, one wonders whether the presence of this Hittitized form is a scribal error.

<sup>16</sup> Van Gessel 1998, 880.

<sup>17</sup> Hutter 2003, 226; and Steitler 2017, 341.

<sup>18</sup> A different approach is offered by Giorgieri (2002, 303-04 with note 15), according to whom the verb *tiwataniya*- is to be translated as "to take the Sun-deity as witness" and may also imply negative consequences for someone who perjured himself or was cursed before the Sun-god.

<sup>19</sup> Rieken 2017.

As for *ḫīrutalli* dutu-*i* in Excerpt 3 (KUB 9.6+ IV 21'), it might be a second occurrence of "Ištanu of the Oath", since the dative of Tiwad is usually written dutu-*ti* in our corpus, as is the case in Excerpt 9 (KUB 35.13+ r. col. 16'), for instance. Therefore, I suggest that we have here the Hittite reading \*Ištanui which hides behind the logogram and its phonetic complement. This time, the denomination occurs in the Hittite description of a rite and can, therefore, be considered to be a Hittite translation of a Luwian divine concept.

#### 1.3 "Exalted Sun-god" (šarlamiš <sup>d</sup> utu? )

There is a mention of the "Exalted Sun-god" (*šarlami*[*š* dutu? ]) in Excerpt 5 (KUB 32.8(+) IV 31'). The epithet *šarlam*(*m*)*iš* "exalted" is a participle from the Luwian verb *šarla*(*i*)- "to praise, to exalt", which is also attested in the 1st plur. optative *šarlāūndu* in Excerpt 7 (KUB 35.16+ I 22''). The verb *šarla*(*i*)- in turn represents a factitive derived from the adjective *šarla*-/*šarli*- "supreme", also attested as an epithet of the Sun-god together with verb *šarla*(*i*)-. The choice to give a male connotation to the divine epithet "Exalted Sun-god" is due to the context in which this epithet occurs, I will return to this point below. Once more, note the Hittite calque *šarlānza* dutu-*uš* "Exalted Ištanu" in a MS text of the Maštigga ritual tradition20.

#### 1.4 "Supreme Sun-god" (šarliš <sup>d</sup> utu? )

Finally, Excerpt 7 (KUB 35.16(+) I 22'') also attests the denomination "Supreme Sun-god" (*šarl*[*in* dutu? ]). As mentioned above, it is closely associated with the Luwian verb *šarla*(*i*)- "to praise, to exalt".

### 2. Functions of the Solar Deities in CTH 758 and CTH 759-763

In the Hittite ritual descriptions, the solar deities receive various offerings: bread (Excerpt 1 KBo 22.137+ III 5'', Excerpt 4 KUB 35.78(+) IV 12'), sacrificial animals (see below for the detail), libations (often together with the dedication of the sacrificial animals: see Excerpt 3, KUB 9.6+ IV 20'-21').

More specifically, a Sun-deity receives a sheep for the *ikkunawar* or *ikkunatt-*sacrifice in Excerpt 3 (KUB 9.6+ IV 13') and Excerpt 4 (KUB 35.78(+) IV 8'). In both cases, we are dealing with the *dupaduparša-*ritual, during which the divine recipient of this sacrifice is the Sun-god of the Oath. In Excerpt 3 (KUB 9.6+ IV 20'-21'), the sheep is dedicated together with a libation of wine. Both *ikkunawar* and *ikkunatt*- were first translated as "anointing(?)"21 before being interpreted as a cognate of Luwian \*ikkun- meaning "liver"22. Indeed, Excerpt 4 (KUB 35.78(+)) mentions the liver being sacrificed to a Sun-deity, together with the heart, in the context of an *ikkunatt*-sacrifice. According to Excerpt 3 of the *dupaduparša-*ritual, during the *ikkunawar* or *ikkunatt-*sacrifice both the ritual patron and the Old Woman are involved in the procedure: first the Old Woman associates the wine with the ritual patron and the bread with the sheep's head and only after that could the ritual patron dedicate the sheep to the god, together with the wine. In Excerpt 7 (KUB 35.16(+) I 6'), which describes a

<sup>20</sup> KBo 39.8 III 53: Miller 2004, 96 and Steitler 2017, 344 note 1112. 21 CLL, 86-7; HW2

I, 36a.

<sup>22</sup> Sasseville 2020, 191-93.

mixed version of the Great Ritual with the *dupaduparša-*ritual, it is beer which is libated at the same time as the dedication of the *ikkunatt-*sacrificial sheep. Here too, the ritual patron is responsible for this dedication.

Another sheep is sacrificed to a Sun-deity for the *šarlatt-*sacrifice in Excerpt 5 (KUB 32.8(+) IV 28'-29') and in the MS text Excerpt 12 (KBo 9.143 II! 5'). In the latter context, the *šarlatt-*sacrificial victim is raised up by the ritual patron and probably shown to the sun. The accompanying Luwian incantation asks "Father Tiwad" to witness the patient's recovery. In Excerpt 5 (KUB 32.8(+) IV 29'), not only is the same ritual sequence described but it is also accompanied by an analogous incantation, this time addressed to the "exalted Sun-god".

Sometimes, sacrificial meat cuts are presented to the sun, as is the case in Excerpt 4 (KUB 35.78(+) IV 28'-29'). This gesture is closely associated with the dedication of a sheep in this same passage, thus showing that in the context of the Luwili corpus, dedicating an offering to a solar deity partly implies showing it to the sun.

### 2.1 Solar deities as divine witnesses of a ritual act

In exchange for these sacrifices, the Sun-deities are asked to perform particular acts. One of them is to witness the ritual action being performed in their presence.

In Excerpt 9 (KUB 35.13+ r. col. 16'), a Sun-deity is asked to witness the nailing down of the "evil dead" also called *nakkiu-*spirits in the text. The Luwian incantation specifically states: "[May] the forme[r (spirits) be separated …] before the Sun-deity!" (*pūwāt*[*ilinzi* …-*t*]*īya*-[…] dutu-*ti p*[*arran*).

In Excerpt 10 (KUB 35.74, 1'-9'), the reference to sheep fat probably suggests that a figurine of white sheep made of tallow is presented to the sun, i.e., probably dedicated to the Sun-god. The beginning of the associated incantation seems to consider the Sun-god to be a witness of the whole event.

In a particular Luwian conjuration, a Sun-deity is simply asked to look at a sacrificial victim dedicated to him, but this act is compared with the wish that the ritual patron be able to look at himself and see his own recovery: see for instance Excerpt 7 (KUB 35.16(+) I 7'-15'). The sentence immediately following the conjuration shows that this whole sequence corresponds to the dedication to a Sun-deity of an animal for the *ikkunatt-*sacrifice.

In Excerpt 11 (KBo 22.254(+) III 7'), "Tiwad of the Oath" is asked to witness the rite, together with Heaven and Earth. The continuation of this incantation employs the verbs "to perjure oneself " and "to enrage the Sun-god" that I have already mentioned above. This shows a close connection between the pair of verbs and the concept of Sungod of the Oath as divine witness of perjury.

The MS text Excerpt 12 (KBo 9.143 II! 5'-15') in its turn closely associates a *šarlatt*-sacrifice to "Father Tiwad" with the wish for the ritual patron's recovery. The sacrificial victim of the *šarlatt-*rite is raised up by the ritual patron while the incantation is uttered which suggests that the animal is thus being dedicated to the Sun-deity who is supposed to witness the whole event, just like in Excerpt 7 (KUB 35.16(+) I 7'-15').

Finally, the MS text Excerpt 8 (KUB 32.10+ obv. 11'-15') also seems to ask a Sun-deity – or rather two Sun-deities – to witness the recovery of the ritual patron. This goes together with the untying of dough figurine which probably symbolize the patient's miasma in this context.

#### 2.2 Solar deities as purifying agents

Only in the Puriyanni ritual tradition does the Sun-god operate as a purifying agent, as is shown in Excerpt 1 (KBo 22.137+ III 9''), with the phrase "you treated the bewitched matter". This phrase uses the Luwian verb *zappa-* whose exact meaning is quite problematic. Since this verb is used several times in our corpus, we can see that it refers both to giving offerings and to getting rid of impurity, hence our suggestion to translate it as "to treat (ritually)". To "treat (ritually) the bewitched matter" with a deity as the subject of the action echoes the following passage of a MS text of the Puriyanni ritual, namely Excerpt 2 (KUB 35.54 II 38'-40') which states: "He gave them (i.e., the seeds and the precious metal mentioned before) to the Storm-god of the Open C[o]untry, so that he (i.e., the Storm-god) treated the e[v]il matter (and) [defile]ment. May they no[t] come b[ac]k into the presence of the deities of the ritual patron!".

### 2.3 Solar deities as facilitators of the ritual patron's domination over his rival(s)

Finally, one of the key roles of solar deities in the Luwili corpus is to facilitate the ritual patron's domination over his rival or rivals. In Excerpt 6 (KBo 29.3+ II 15-27), the Old Woman's conjuration addressed to the "Sun-god, divine lord" asks this god and other(?) solar entities to deliver the ritual patron's adversaries to him, be they alive or dead. This conjuration goes hand in hand with the presentation of two figurines to the sun, and those figurines clearly represent the aforementioned adversaries. Note that right after this conjuration is uttered, the Old Woman places the figurines at the feet of the ritual patron, a clear symbol of his domination over his enemies. The presentation of the figurines to the sun is accompanied by a libation, just as a sacrificial victim would be. Although it is not explicit in this context, the figurines might be anthropomorphic, since they visibly represent the patient's adversaries. Since the identity of these evildoers might be unknown to the ritual patron, it is probable that one figurine represents a man, and the other a woman, so that they cover both possibilities in the context of this ritual sequence. This procedure is quite widespread throughout Hittite Anatolia23.

In Excerpt 13 (KUB 35.68, 15') the sentence "Now, you will take (and) kill" (*nānum=pa lalātti uwaliya*[*tti* …]) addressed to Tiwad also seems to refer to overcoming the ritual patron's adversaries. The pair of clauses at the beginning of this incantation, if correctly restored, appears to introduce the enemies of the ritual patron, man or woman, whom the Sun-god is expected to destroy(?). In this incantation, the phrase "you *zašta-*ed the *abar*" whose meaning is unknown to us, can also be found in the MS fragment KUB 35.65 (III 11') belonging to the same *CTH* number. The ritual context is also missing in the latter fragment.

Finally, in the MS text Excerpt 8 (KUB 32.10+ obv. 13'), the clause "Afterward, take him [b]ack" may refer to the ritual patron's adversary in view of the contrast with the following clause concerning the ritual patron himself. If this is the case, this part of the incantation can be considered equivalent to the one examined just before in Excerpt 13. It should be noted that this incantation in Excerpt 8 accompanies the untying of dough figurines by the Old Woman. These figurines might be tongue figurines that were tied to the patient's fingers, as an earlier echo of what is attested in KBo 29.3+ (II 33), namely the untying of tongue and hand figurines.

#### 3. Conclusions

Here is a chart summarizing the data (Tab. 1).

### Tab.1


Several features are noteworthy in this chart: concerning the denominations of the solar deities, the epithet "Sun-god of the Oath" is mainly attested in the *dupaduparša-*ritual (*CTH* 759), with one notable exception. This Luwian denomination is sometimes translated into Hittite in this corpus. As for "Tiwad above" and "Tiwad below", the later versions of which are "Tiwad above" and "Tiwad of the earth", they seem characteristic of the Great Ritual (*CTH* 761 and its mixed version *CTH* 760). Finally, within our corpus, "Father Tiwad" appears only in *CTH* 763, a Kizzuwatna ritual related to the Kuwattalla tradition, but already in the MS version of it.

Concerning the roles of the solar deities in the Hittite descriptions of the rites, one of the most widespread roles is the one where the Sun-deities receive an *ikkunawar* or *ikkunatt-*sacrifice, often in combination with a libation of wine or beer. The *šarlatt-*sacrifice often follows, which is also addressed to a Sun-deity. These two types of sacrifice occur in the *CTH* 759, 760 and 763. Whenever specified, they seem to be associated with incantations which attribute the role of witness to the solar deity addressed.

As for the roles of the solar deities in the Luwian incantations, only the Puriyanni ritual tradition clearly attributes a purifying role to a solar deity. Besides the role of divine witness which is traditionally associated with the male Sun-deity of heaven, whatever his denomination may be – "Tiwad of the Oath", "Exalted Tiwad", "Supreme Tiwad" or else "Father Tiwad" –, another important function of the solar deities in *CTH* 760, 761 and 763 is facilitating the ritual patron's domination over his rivals. This type of incantation sometimes accompanies the presentation of figurines to the sun, a rite which can also be accompanied by another category of incantations, according to Excerpt 10. Both roles of a solar deity as divine witness and as facilitator of the patient's supremacy are already attested in MS texts. Thanks to this inquiry, the following point could be suggested: since all the well-preserved passages attest a correlation between the *ikkunawar/ikkunatt-*sacrifice and an incantation with the Sun-god as witness, this type of incantation is probably to be restored also in Excerpts 3 and 4. Since Excerpt 3 represents the end of tablet six of the *dupaduparša-*ritual according to its colophon, this means that tablet seven of the ensemble probably started with an incantation such as this, asking the Sun-god to be the divine witness of this sacrifice. As for Excerpt 4, the abridged version of the incantation does not seem incompatible with this hypothesis.

### 4. Appendix: excerpts of texts

**Designations of solar deities** Role(s) of solar deities in rites Role(s) of solar deities in incantations

Excerpt 1: KBo 22.137+ III 5''-9'' (*CTH* 758: Ritual of Puriyanni, NS) *nu* 1*-en ana* **dutu** *paršiyami* 1-[*en=ma*] *ana gimraš* du-*ni paršiyami* […] *ḫaššī parā peššiyami nu m*[*emaḫḫi*] **dŠiwata** ḫuwaiunati āš-[…] zappatta zammanza utarša […] "I crumble one (bread loaf) to the **Sun-deity** [and] I crumble on[e] to the Storm-god of the Open Country. [Then] I cast […] into the hearth and [I] s[ay]: '**Sun-god**! Through running […], you treated (ritually) the bewitched matter […].'"

Excerpt 2: KUB 35.54 II 32'-40' (*CTH* 758: Ritual of Puriyanni, MS) zāui ziyar numunḫ<sup>á</sup> *-*na [p]ūnāta inzagān wašḫa a=ta *[b]ēl* sískur gišḫattarāti ḫatta[r] itta gištūrāti=pa=ta tūr[ā]tta a=ta imrašša〈n〉 dim*-*u[nt]i pari tarāuītta a=ta piyatta imma[r]aššan dim*-*ti [a]=ta zappatta attu[w]alza utarša [ḫall]išša a=ta ā[pp]a dingirmešanza *ša* en sískur parran ni[š]

"Here lie [a]ll (kinds of) seeds (and) underground treasures. The ritual [p]atron has han[d]led them with the *hattara*-tool. He has han[d]led them with the *turi*-tool. He handed them over to the Storm-g[o]d of the Open Country. § He gave them to the Storm-god of the Open C[o]untry, so that he (i.e., the Storm-god) treated (ritually) the e[v]il matter (and) [defile]ment. May they no[t] come b[ac]k into the presence of the deities of the ritual patron!"

### Excerpt 3: KUB 9.6+ IV 13'-24' (*CTH* 759: *dupaduparša-*ritual, NS)

egir-*anda=ma=kan* ī[kkūn]aunaššin 1 udu*and*[*a*] *ūnniyanzi* [*nu* munusšu.g]i 1 dug*kukūb* geštin gišbanšu[r]-*az d*[*āi n=a*]*t ana* en siskur *parā pāi* munusš[u.g]i=*ma=kan* [ninda.ku7 ] *ša* 1/2 *upni* gišbanšur-*az arḫa d*[*ā*]*i* ninda.ku7 ḫ [á *ku*]*iēš ša* 1/2 *upni* *ana* gišban[š]ur ad.kid [*kiantar*]*i n=aš=šan ana* udu *ana* sag.d[u]=*šu katt*[*a*] *ēpzi §* egir-*anda=ma=kan* en siskur udu *ištu dugkukūb* geštin **ḫīrutalli dutu***-i šipanti §* īkkūnaunaššiš=*ma* 1 udu=*pat mān meqqāuš=(š)a anniškanzi* īkkūnauna[šš]in=*ma* 1 udu=*pat danz*[*i*]

"Afterward, they lead insi[de] one sheep of the *i*[*kkun*]*awar*-sacrifice. [The Old Wom]an t[akes] one jug of wine from the tabl[e and] she hands [i]t over to the ritual patron. The Ol[d Wom]an t[ak]es [sweet breads] of half a handful from the table—the sweet breads of half a handful [w]hich [li]e on the wickerwork tab[l]e—, and she holds them ove[r] the sheep's hea[d]. § Afterward, the ritual patron dedicates the sheep to the **Sun-god of the Oath** with the jug of wine. § Only one sheep (is) for the *ikkunawar*-sacrifice. (Even) if they treat many, they tak[e] only one sheep of the *ikkunawar*-sacrifice."

### Excerpt 4: KUB 35.78(+) IV 3'-13' (*CTH* 759: *dupaduparša-*ritual, NS)

[*n=ašta* uzuníg.gi]g uzušà *<sup>ḫ</sup>ūi*[*šu* dutu-*<sup>i</sup> menaḫḫa*]*nda ēpzi nu memai* [… **ḫīrutalli**]**n dutu-un** *nu=(š)šan* munusš[u.gi uzuníg.gig uzušà] *katta tarmāizzi nu mem*[*ai* kuiš=tar mal]ḫaššaššanzanza en-anz[a nu īkkun]attaš 1 udu *šipanti nu mema*[*<sup>i</sup>* **<sup>ḫ</sup>īrutall**]**iš dutu-waza** *n=ašta* munusšu.[gi uzuníg.gig uz]ušà *<sup>ḫ</sup>ūišu* dutu-*i menaḫḫa*[*nda ēpzi*? *<sup>n</sup>*]*<sup>u</sup> memai* **ḫīrūtalliš** [**dutu-waza**] § […]x *paršiya nu memai* **ḫīrutalli[š dutu-waza** … ninda.gu]r4.ra *dāi nu memai* **ḫīrutalli[š dutu-waza**]

"She holds [the liv]er, heart (and) raw mea[t in front o]f [the Sun-god] and says: '[…] **Sun-god** [**of the Oat**]**h** (acc.).' The Ol[d Woman] nails down [the liver (and) heart] and sa[ys: 'Whoever (causes evil)] to the [ri]tual patron[s]…' He consecrates one sheep of the [*ikkun*]*att-*sacrifice and [she] say[s]: '**Sun-god o**[**f the Oath**]!' The Old [Woman *holds* the liver], heart (and) raw meat in fron[t] of the Sun-god [a]nd says: '[**Sun-god**] **of the Oath**!' § She crumbles […-bread] and says: '[**Sun-god**] **of the Oath**!' She takes a [thick br]ead […] and says: '[**Sun-god**] **of the Oath**!'"

### Excerpt 5: KUB 32.8(+) IV 7'-35' (*CTH* 759: *dupaduparša-*ritual, NS)

[*…*]*-yanzi* [*…*] *n=at=šan* [*…*]*=kan anda udanzi* [*n=an=kan* en sískur *ištu* dug*kukūb* kaš bal]*-ti nu* munusšu*.*gi [*lūili kiššan ḫūkkiške*]*zzi §* [**dutu-wata** uzušà*=*tar uzuníg*.* gig zāšt]i mammanna [malḫaššaššiš=pa=tar en*-*aš ap]āššanzanza [waššinanza mammanna]ddu ḫuitwalaḫi〈ta〉ti [annarummaḫitati ārrayatimuḫ<sup>á</sup> *-*ti] āprandati [arāti dingirMEŠ-aššazati waššaraḫitati ḫ]ū〈i〉tumnaḫitati *§* [*n=ašta* munusšu*.*giikkunattaššin *ina ašr*]*i=šu parā* [*pennai nu* ninda*.*gur4*.*ra *šipanti namma=at ka*]*tta dāi* [*ana* ninda]*.*gur4*.*ra*=*[*šan katta*?  *tarmaizzi*? uzuníg]*.*gig uzušà [*k*]*iššan* [*ḫūkki*]*škezzi=ma §* [kui]š=dur ā〈d〉duwa[nza ānnī]ti a=du=(t)ta [ta]niminzi dingirmeš*-*z[i uzuníg*.*gig uzu]šà šarra zātī [p]ūwandu a=ta=tar za[nta …] tarmaindu urudu*-*yati [tar]mati urudu*=*pa=tar zila p[arī n]āwa iti lúsimug*=*pa=an [t]apankin*-*an nāwa ati [zašti=(t)t]a tapāru [t]atariamman āššiwant[attar] ḫērun zila apatin niš [au]iti *§* [*n*]*u* uzuníg*.*gig uzušà *qadu* ninda*.*[gur4*.*ra*=šu par*]*ā dāi n=at=kan parā* [*p*]*ēdai n=ašta* šarlat[taššin *and*]*a ūnnianzi* [*n=aš*]*ta apūn=(n)a* en sísku[r *arāizzi*] *nu* munusšu*.*gi *tezzi §* [*…*] **šarlami**[**š dutu?**  *…* uw]attarša [*…*] *x* [*…* manād]u itwanitianza [dumumeš*-*ti ḫamšati ḫamšukkalati ārr]ayati[muḫ<sup>á</sup> *-*ti āprandati arāti dingirmeš*-*aššazati waššaraḫitati ḫūitumnaḫitati] "They […]. They bring in [… The ritual patron dedica]tes [it with a jug of beer]. The Old Woman [conjur]es [thus in Luwian: § '**Sun-god**], look [at the liver (and) heart of this o] ne! May [the ritual patron loo]k at his own [body] with life, [virility, long years, f]uture time, [favor (and) e]nlivenment [of the deities!' § The Old Woman drives the (animal) of the *ikkunatt*-(sacrifice)] out into its [place. She sacrifices a thick bread and then] puts [it do]wn. [She *nails down* li]ver (and) heart [on top of] the thick [bread] and [conju]res [t]hus: § '[Whoe]ver [cause]s him evil, may [a]ll the gods [sn]atch up his [liver] (and) heart in this way! May they nail them down […] with a copper nail! In the future, (this nail of) copper will [n]ot go aw[ay]. The smith will not process it as *taba*-[work]. In the future, may judgment, curse, miser[y], perjury not [co]me (back) [to this one] in the same way!' § She takes the liver (and) heart together with [their thick] bread and [c] arries them out. They lead [i]n the (animal) [of] the *šarlatt*-sacrifice. The ritual patro[n lifts] that one, too, and the Old Woman says: § '[…] **exalte**[**d Sun-god** … v]iew. [Ma]y he [see …] fertility, [with children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren, long years, future time, favor (and) enlivenment of the deities]!'"

Excerpt 6: KBo 29.3+ II 15-30 (*CTH* 760: Great Ritual and *dupaduparša-*ritual, NS) *nu=za* munusšu*.*giegir*-anda išnaš 2 šienuš dāi n=aš=kan* **dutu-***i menaḫḫanda ēp*[*z*]*i namma šipanti ḫukkiškezzi=ma* [*k*]*iššan §* **dutu-ta en-ya tiwāliya** piya=aš lúkúrmeš-inzi kattawatnallinza ūtnaššinza ḫišḫišašši[n]za taparuwaššinza tātariyammanaššinza ḫīrut[aš]šinza enmeš*-*anza kuiš=an šaḫḫaniššatta kuiš=an ippatarri〈š〉šatta en sískur*-*aššin alam*-*ša mīšanzav ḫašša ḫalḫalzanin uwarannaḫiša iunaḫiša lalpin kuwannanin maššanallin kaskal*-*an *§* mān=aš ḫuiduwališ **šarri***=*(y)an **dutu-za** darauiddu mān=aš ulantiš a=an **tiyammaššiš dutu-za** darauiddu tatariyammanaššin ḫirutaššin en-an *§* [*nu* munusšu*.*gi] *2* [*šienu*]*š išnaš ana* en sískur [*šapal* gìrmeš*=š*]*u dāi* dug*kukūb* kaš*=ma ana* gišbanšur ad*.*kid [*peran katta d*]*āi*

"Afterward, the Old Woman takes two figurines of dough and she hol[d]s them before the **Sun-god**. Then, she makes a libation and she conjures [t]hus: § '**Sun-god, divine lord**, give (him) the enemies, the lords of vengeful words, traps, judgments, curse, perjury. Whoever restrained it, whoever distrained it, (namely) the ritual patron's shape, flesh, bone(s), joint(s), speech, mobility, eyelash, eyebrow(-hair), divine path! § If he (is) a living being, may the **Sun-god above** deliver him (to the ritual patron)! If he (is) a dead spirit, may the **Sun-goddess of the earth** deliver him (to the ritual patron), (namely) the lord of curses (or) perjuries!' § [The Old Woman] places the two [figurin] es of dough [at the fee]t of the ritual patron, but she [p]laces the jug of beer [in front of] the wickerwork table."

Excerpt 7: KUB 35.16(+) I 1''-3''; 18''-27'' (*CTH* 760: Great Ritual and *dupaduparša*ritual, NS)

[*n=ašta ana* en sisku]r dug*kukūb* kaš [*udanzi n=an=kan* e]n siskur [*ištu* dug*kukūb* kaš] bal*-ti* [munusšu*.*gi*=ma lūili ki*]*ššan hukzi §* [arin warmāunt]a ḫāratarša waškuwallimanza [… n]ānūn=pa īkkunāūnta [**šarliš dutu? -waz** zā]rza=tar zāšti [mammanna uzuníg*.*gig*=*tar] zāšti mammanna *§* [malḫaššaššiš=pa]=tar en*-*aš apāššānza [waššinanza ānnunn]anza māmmannaddu [ḫuitwalaḫitati annar]ummaḫiti ā〈r〉rayāti [uššāti apparantati] arāti maššanaššanzati [waššaraḫitati] § [*n=ašta apūn* īkk] ūnattaššin [egir*-pa ina ašri=šu parā peḫud*]*anzi (one line possibly missing)* [*… n=a*] *t=kan* en sis[kur *šipanti nam*]*ma=at katta* [*dāi*] *(…)* [šarl]ātt[aššin *anda ūnniyanzi …*] *§* [ar]in wārmāū[nta … nānūn=pa n]akkuššāūnt[a … šarl]āūndu **šarl**[**in dutu? -an** *…*  mal]ḫaššaššiš e[n*-*aš …] § […] zīla […]-anza a-[…]

"[They bring] a jug of beer [to the ritua]l [patron and] the ritual [pa]tron dedicates [it with the jug of beer. The Old Woman] conjures [th]us [in Luwian]: § '[For a while we] have been [performing conjurations] (on account of) offense (and) fault. [… N]ow, we have performed the *ikkunatt*-sacrifice. [**Supreme Sun-god**, look at the hea]rt of this one, look at [the liver] of this one! § May the [ritual] patron look at his own [body (and) sou] l [with life, vir]ility, long [years, future] time, [favor] of the deities!' [They le]ad [that] (animal) of [the *ikk*]*unatt*-sacrifice [back to its place]. (one line possibly missing) […] The rit[ual] patron [dedicates i]t. [Th]en he [puts] it down. (…) [They lead in (the animal of) the *šar*]*latt*-sacrifice. […] § '[For a whi]le, [we have been] performing conjurations […]. [Now, we pe]rformed the scapegoat rite […] Let us [pr]aise the **Sup**[**reme Sungod** …]! [May the ri]tual pa[tron …]! § In the future, […].'"

### Excerpt 8: KUB 32.10+ obv. 11'-15' (*CTH* 761: Great Ritual, MS)

[*nu* emeḫá?] *īšnāš* munusšu*.*gi *arḫa lāiz*[*zi nu tezzi …* **šarr]i Tiwata īnta***=*ḫa **Tiwata** [*…* ā]ppan zīla lāla mal[ḫaššaššiš=pa en-aš *…* dumumeš*-*ti ḫamšat]i ḫamšu〈k〉kallāti ārra[yatimuḫ<sup>á</sup> *-*ti apparantati ārati dingirmeš*-*ašš]anzati wa[šša]raḫit[ati ḫuitumnāḫitati] "The Old Woman untie[s the *tongues*] of dough [and says]: '[…] Oh, **Tiwad** [**abov**]**e**, and **Tiwad below** […], in the future, take him [b]ack! [May] the ri[tual patron …] with [children, des]cendants, lon[g years, future time], fa[v]or (and) [enlivenment of the deiti]es!"

Excerpt 9: KUB 35.13+ r.col. 6'-21' (*CTH* 762: Great Ritual and *halliyattanza-*ritual, NS) [egi]r*-anda* 20 gišgag <sup>ḫ</sup> <sup>á</sup> zabar 20 giš[gag <sup>ḫ</sup> <sup>á</sup> *…*] 30 gišgag <sup>ḫ</sup> <sup>á</sup> giš*-ruwaš dāi nu=šmaš idalāmuš nakki*[*uš*] *katta tarmāizzi* munusšu*.*gi *lūi*[*li anda*] *kiššan 〈me〉mai §*  tarmāīmm[inzi=(y)at]a ašandu āddu[walinzi w]ālantinz[i] *nu=kan* munus[šu*.*gi *nakk*]*iuš šumma*[*te=šunu*] *ḫalzāi* ā[ḫḫašamm]inzi=[(y)ata ašandu] pūwāt[ilinzi …-t]īya-[*…*] **dutu-ti** p[arran pā i]ššari[n …] ari[n-…] nīš […] iššaraz[a … al]alātt[aza …] zašīn [*… …*-inz[i *…*]

"[Afte]rward, she takes twenty nails of bronze, twenty [nails of …] (and) thirty pegs of wood. She nails down the evil *nakki*[*u*-spirits]. [At the same time], the Old Woman speaks thus in Luwian: § 'May the evi[l d]ead be naile[d] (down)—the [Old] Woman calls the [*nakk*]*iu-*spirits by [their] names—! [May] the forme[r (spirits) be separated …] before the **Sun-deity**! [Then] may […] not […] hand [… to their] hands [… to their] *alalatt*- […] of this […]!'"

Excerpt 10: KUB 35.74: 1'-9' (*CTH* 762: Great Ritual and *halliyattanza-*ritual, NS) [*…*]*-uš=pat* munusšu*.*g[i *… …*]*-ya* uzuì*.*udu*an*[*a … n=at=kan* **<sup>d</sup> ]utu-i** *menaḫḫa*[*nda ēpzi memai=ma*] *kiš*[*šan*] *§* [zauin=aš] uišita udu babbar [*…* šaḫuita]ntalliš u[itantalliš …-t]a šaḫuit[antan …-t]a uita[ttan *…*] **dutu-za** [*…*]

"The Old Woma[n …] and also sheep fat to [… She holds it] in fron[t] of the **Sun-god** [and says] th[us: § 'Here] (has) appeared the white sheep […], one for [binding, one for] s[miting]. [It …]-ed the bo[nd]. [It …]-ed the bl[ow. …] the **Sun-deity** […].'"

Excerpt 11: KBo 22.254(+) III 1'-IV? 3' (*CTH* 762: Great Ritual and *halliyattanza*ritual, NS)

[*…*]*=šan*?  *kue-*[*… unū*]*t* kù*.*babbar *unūt* k[ù*.*gi *…*] *kuit ana* dugdílim*.*gal ì [*…*] *anda* šu*-it anda* e[me*-it …* munusšu*.*g]i*=ma=kan anda memiškiu*[*wan dāi*] *§* [*…*]*-*unta [pa]rnaššanzanza dingir MEŠ-anz[a **ḫirutall]i***=*pa=t[a] **dutu-ti** tappašī tiya[mmi parran] ānd[a] dunni § [kuiš ḫir]ut[ani]yatta kuiš tiwatani[yatta mān=aš] lú*-*i[š m]ān=aš munus-iš tappašaššin[zi tiyamm]ašši[nz]i kuinzi dingirmeš-inz[i a=ta nāuwa t]ūmantinta *(end of col. III) §* […]-tarta-[… …-d]u munus-š=ata […] § […-t] a? **ḫirutall[i***-…* **dutu** *…*]

"[…] which […] the silver [item]s (and) g[olden] items […] which […] in the bowl (filled with) oil […]. At the same time, […] with the hand (and) [with] the to[ngue]. At the same time, [the Old Woma]n [starts] speaking: § 'We […] to the deities of the [h]ouse. We are putting it inside [in front of] the **Sun-god of** [**the Oa**]**th**, Heaven, (and) Earth. § [Whoever per]jured [himself], (whoever) enra[ged] the Sun-god, [may it] (be) a man [o]r woman, the gods who are in Heaven (and) [Ear]th, they did [not l]isten [to him].' (end of col. iii) § '[…] woman [… **Sun-god**] **of the Oath** […].'"

Excerpt 12: KBo 9.143 II! 5'-15' (*CTH* 763: a Kizzuwatna ritual related to the Kuwattalla tradition, MS)

[*namma=at katta dāi n=ašta*]šarlattašši[n *anda ūnnianzi n=ašta apūn=(n)a* ensísk]ur *arāizzi* [*nu* munusšu*.*gi *kiššan tez*]*zi §* [aritta=ta ensískurḫāra]tarša waškuwallimma[nza *…* ārin wārm]āunta nānum=pa [… šarlāundu]**tātin dutu-an** [*…*] auwattarša *§* [*…*] en sískur ītwanitiyanza [mammannaddu dumumeš-ti ḫ]amšāti ḫamšukkallāti [ārrayāti uššāti appar]antati ārati ḫattūlāḫitati [annarumaḫitatidingirmeš*-*anza]ti waššarāḫitati ḫuitumnāḫitati

"[They lead in] (the animal) of the *šarlatt*-sacrifice. [The rit]ual [patron] lifts [that one as well and the Old Woman say]s [thus: § 'The ritual patron has lifted off]ense (and) faul[t]. Previously, we [perfor]med [conjurations]. Now, [… Let us praise] **Father Sun-god**! […] eyesight. § [… may] the ritual patron [see] fertility, [with children, g]randchildren, great-grandchildren, [long years, fut]ure time, health, [virility], favor (and) enlivenment of the deities.'"

Excerpt 13: KUB 35.68, 12'-17' (*CTH* 763: a Kizzuwatna ritual related to the Kuwattalla tradition, NS)

[mān=aš zitiš z]auin=aš mān wanattiš [zauin=aš *…* **DTi]waza** apar=ḫa zāštātta na-[… *…-*ā]r ūpnalla māntalla […] nānum=pa lalātti uwaliya[tti *…* **t]ātiš DTiwaz** zammantat*-*[*… …*] *x x x x* [*…*]*-*ruwa dušduš*-*[*…*]

"[Whether it is a man, h]ere he is. Whether (it is) a woman, [here she is. … **Ti**]**wad**, you have also *zašta*-ed the *abar-*. [You have …] the *upnalla-* (and) slanderous […]. Now, you will take (and) kill […! … **F**]**ather Tiwad**, […] the bewitched […] (v. to place around) […]."

### Bibliography


### Išḫara: One Deity – Many Aspects?

Doris Prechel

**Abstract**: The goddess Išḫara is attested early in cuneiform sources, and her cult can be traced back in all regions of the Ancient Near East over a period of more than 2000 years. From this point of view, it is worthwhile to look at her integration into the Hittite pantheon and try to identify changes and continuities in her figure and present some ideas about the circumstances under which the process of integration took place.

### 1. The beginnings

As Archi noted in 2020, there are good reasons to suspect the origin of the goddess Išḫara in the northern Syrian region. Archi was able to demonstrate that the main goddess of early Syrian Ebla was undoubtedly Išḫara. In pre-Sargonic Ebla, she had her own temple and was also worshipped in the temple of the god Kura (Archi 2020, 2-5). Her great importance to the kingship can be seen in numerous offerings made to her by the royal family (Archi 2020, 9-11). Išḫara is explicitly referred to as the king's Išḫara (dšára :*iš* en) and has been revered as such for generations. The proximity to royalty then also prompted Matthiae (2010) to interpret the motif of a cylinder seal from Ebla as an early representation of Išḫara. He argued that the figure of the god on a seal from Ebla facing forward and with two unattached horns on his head could be Išḫara because of her symbol – the scorpion – and the depiction of the king and queen on the seal. However, since the doubtless identification of the scorpion with Išḫara is possible only from the Late Bronze Age onward, this correlation must be a hypothesis.

Given the brilliant work already presented by Archi, it is not necessary to go into further detail here. It should only be mentioned that Išḫara was also worshipped in an impressive number of other towns and villages in the Ebla region, of which *má-ne*ki, located on the upper Euphrates, may have been the most significant (Archi, 2020, 5-8).

The evidence for Ebla as the main cult site and possible origin of Išḫara is strong. But the syllabic spelling of Išḫara or Išḫala in Ebla is limited to the genre of lexical lists where she is equated with šara8 1 .

Doris Prechel, University of Mainz Johannes Gutenberg, Germany, prechel@uni-mainz.de Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

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

<sup>1</sup> dšara8 = *iš-ḫa-ra* / *iš-ḫa-la*, Pettinato 1982, 291; in addition also outside the lexical lists the variants dšára(:*iš*) as well as dsig7:ama seem to refer to Išḫara, see most recently Archi 2020, 1.

Doris Prechel, *Išḫara: One Deity – Many Aspects?*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4.14, in Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, pp. 141-148, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

In Mesopotamia, the cult of Išḫara acquires greater importance during the reign of Šulgi of Ur at the end of the 21st century BC2 . Even during the Akkad dynasty Išḫara is mentioned in personal names and some documents. Of particular interest is a treaty between Narām-Sîn and an Elamite king, which contains a list of at least 32 deities, most of them Elamite, but also some Mesopotamian, such as Ilaba, Ninurta, Išhara, and Ninkarak, as well as Mazziat3 . This evidence is difficult to explain. It is hardly probable that the cult of Išhara was adapted by the conquerors of the city shortly after the conquest of Ebla and used significantly to represent the Akkadian dynasty in matters of state.

Even in early Mesopotamia, a syllabic spelling of the name Išḫara is rare. To this day, it is entirely uncertain whether the logogram gá/lagab×sig7, attested in various places, denotes the deity Šara or Išhara4 . The logogram lagab×sig7 is attested more than 300 times in the ED period and probably means Šara in most cases. But in the case of Tell Agrab, the existence of a Šara cult belonging to Umma, would be surprising, and it is possible that Išḫara was already meant here. As Sallaberger noted, the situation is somewhat clearer at Tell Beydar, where the logogram was used with the phonetic indicator *eš*4. In Beydar, the divine name is also written lagab×igi-*gunû* as in Tell Agrab. Thus, the reading /ešḫara/ depends on the reading /šára/ of the same sign5 . Despite the unclear situation in Mesopotamia at this early stage in history, the region closest to Anatolia with a significant Išḫara cult was northern Syria during the 3rd millennium.

### 2. Towards Anatolia

### 2.1 Southern Mesopotamia

As noted above, clear evidence for Išḫara in southern Mesopotamia is rare and became popular only toward the end of the 3rd millennium, when the rulers of the 3rd dynasty of Ur since Šulgi worshipped the goddess cultically. A climax in this development can be seen under the wife of Amar-Sîn, Queen Abī-Simtī of Ur.6 In this case, we can explain infiltration as a personal matter. Juridical documents from the old Babylonian period show that Išḫara had a temple of her own in Larsa and Sippar (Prechel 1996, 36; 38).

Scholars of the Old Babylonian period constructed Išḫara as a hybrid of Ištar in ancient Babylonian classical literature. The Gilgameš version mentions a "bed of Išḫara", which obviously refers to Išḫara as a goddess of love and the bed is the place where marriage is to be consummated:

For Išḫara the bed was laid out, Gilgameš would meet with the young woman at night7


Išḫara was an Ištar figure. The difference between the two figures is that Išḫara is portrayed as a bride and her sexuality is solely for procreation. This is formulated in the epic of Atra-ḫasīs:

When, to institute marriage, they heed Ištar in the house of [the father-in-law], let there be rejoicing for nine days, let them call Ištar Išḫara8

As we shall see later on, the literarily explicitly formulated function as a goddess of love with a focus on fertility coincides perfectly with her symbol, the scorpion. Personal names confirm the image of a goddess of matrimonial love and birth.

### 2.2 Northern Mesopotamia

The great number of personal names in the royal archives of Mari attests not only to the goddess's popularity in Upper Syria and Upper Mesopotamia. We can also see that personal names compounded with the name Išḫara refer to the same aspects as in Babylonia: the maternal and protective nature of the goddess9 .

The popularity of the goddess as early as the beginning of the 2nd millennium in Central Anatolia deserves special attention. Išḫara possessed votive offerings (*ikribū*)10 and received silver and two bull figurines (together with Ištar)11. The goddess had a temple in Kaneš which can be reached by going upwards (*elium*)12. She also appears in some personal names, such as Šū-Išḫara "the one of Išḫara" or Ummī-Išḫara, "Išḫara is my mother"; but, she is not invoked as a personal deity according to the evidence so far13. New data from Kaneš was collected by Kuzuoǧlu, who lists small payments on special occasions14. The statement in a court order *itamma Talhatium ina Išhara* "the man of Talhat shall swear by Išhara"15, departs from the maternal aspect and points to the function of an oath goddess.

The documentation from Kaneš shows that Išhara was worshipped in a broader sense, but there were no invocations that indicate a personal goddess. It seems important to note that Išḫara was already known as an oath deity during the period of the Assyrian trading colonies in Anatolia; this is attested in the Treaty of Apûm with Assur. In the list of gods, she appears next to Ninkarrak by whom the city of Assur and the king of Apûm have to swear at the beginning of their treaty16.

In summary: during the first half of the 2nd millennium there was an active cult in Ebla, Mari, Assur, Kaneš, yet, the aspects are not always clear.

<sup>8</sup> Atra-ḫasīs II 301-04, quoted from Lambert, Millard 1969, 64-5.

<sup>9</sup> A collection of names including the theophoric element Išḫara is given by Prechel 1996, 51-3.


144 Doris Prechel

3. Infusion into the Hittite Pantheon

After the goddess Išḫara had been known and worshipped in Anatolia as a deity with a cult and a temple already in ancient Assyrian times, she appears very early in the Hittite Empire in the treaties with the Kaška-people.

"See, we have made an oath. All the gods, we have brought in assembly: The Sungod, the Stormgod, the Wargod, Tutelary Deity, M[oongod? ], Ištar, Išḫara, the Lord of the Oath, the gods of Heaven, the gods of the Earth, the primordial gods, the gods of the Ḫatti-land, the gods of the Kaškaland, the sky, the earth, the mountains, the rivers. They shall be witnesses to this oath!" (KBo 8.35 II 8'-10')

This early evidence is important, because the wording of this treaty is extraordinary in many respects. Although, it cannot be ruled out that the reason for Išḫara's choice was ignorance as to what the non-state treaty partners would accept, her pre-existing popularity in the role of oath-guarantor may have played a role. Whatever the case, Išḫara became very important as an oath deity. She is entitled as munus.lugal *ma-mi-ti* or niš dingir-*lim* or *linkiyant*-17. Išḫara was integrated into the state cult as early as the empire period, when Hurrian influences prevail. In lists of sacrifices, she received offerings in the circles of Ḫepat and Šawuška18, but Festivals on her own were located in Kizzuwatna where her cult seems to be very prominent19. As local avatars of Išḫara, in Hittite texts appeared to be those of Kummani, Aštata, Niriša and Ebla.

The memory of Išḫara as a great goddess of Ebla could have been known very early in Ḫattuša. One hint is given by "The Song of Release"20. The main divine figures are introduced at the beginning of the poem about Ebla, i.e., Teššub, Allani, as goddess of the underworld, and Išḫara. The poem was originally composed in Hurrian, a dialect much older than that known to have been in use in the fifteenth to fourteenth centuries. The preparation of a bilingual edition may be explained by training Hittite scribes. Von Dassow (2013, 130) argued that the appreciation and thus the memory of the divine protagonists does not seem to have lasted long. For the tablets of the epic left in the cellar of temple 16, have hardly been used further, according to the present findings. Therefore, it is not clear how popular the local variant of the Išḫara of Ebla was among the Hittites.

In summary, Išḫara appears in various roles and functions in Hittite Anatolia:


The question as to whether the scorpion was known as a symbol of the goddess in Hittite Anatolia remains open. As mentioned above, there is already evidence of the scorpion as a possible symbol from Ebla or the ancient Assyrian archives at Kaneš in the glyptic, suggesting a connection with the goddess21. Pictorial representations of

<sup>21</sup> For references see Kozonğlu 2017.

<sup>17</sup> For attestations see Prechel 1996, 91-7.

<sup>18</sup> For attestations see Prechel 1996, 105-16.

<sup>19</sup> For attestations see Prechel 1996, 120-29.

<sup>20</sup> *Editio princeps* by Neu 1996. For a discussion of Išḫara's role in the mythic-historical poem see de Martino 2019, 129-30.

the scorpion in the Hittite empire are not attested. In Hittite literature the scorpion does not play a significant role. However, in this context, attention should be paid to the fragment KBo 21.20. This is the translation of a ritual text from the Akkadian with a collection of Hittite healing recipes22. The ritual against witchcraft is performed before Scorpius. Schwemer (2013, 159) has pointed out that the extant text shares some similarities with a Neo-Babylonian prayer addressed to Išḫara, which had the same purpose and may represent an earlier version of the latter prayer. Regardless of the question about a direct predecessor to the Neo-Babylonian version, the text clearly indicates that the symbolic image of a deity represented as a scorpion reached Ḫattuša from Babylonia. This may also be illustrated by the fact that a Babylonian recitation with an invocation to Išḫara is preserved in KBo 32.206 relating to the Babilili rituals23. As in the case of the originally Elamite Pinengir, who is the central deity in the Babilili rituals24, Išḫara also seems to be considered as one of the various Ištar hypostases from Babylonia. This was also pointed out by Miller, who sees dingir.ge6's association with the moon god and the underworld as sharing a striking number of features with Išḫara, thus emphasizing a commonality between the goddesses dingir.ge6 and Ištar and Pirinkir in Ḫattuša25. It is true that the close association of Išḫara with the moon god is evident from the cursing and swearing formulas that often threaten the destruction of offspring, which may be due to the importance of both deities in connection with pregnancy and childbirth. In rituals of Hurrian origin, Išḫara is among the deities drawn from the earth.

In summary: at the end of the Hittite empire, Išḫara remained integrated into the central pantheon of the empire, as represented by the sacrificial series of festivals for Teššub and Ḫepat and by the selection of images in Yazılıkaya26.

### 4. Late Bronze Age evidence outside Ḫatti

During the time of the Hittite Empire, the strongest evidence for an Išḫara cult came from northern Syria and Kizzuwatna. Since Archi has already explained the facts in several articles27, I will limit myself here to a few words. In both Alalaḫ, Emar, and Ugarit, evidence can be found in many written documents of a cult in which great importance was attached to Išḫara, especially in Emar, as reflected in their epithets: Išḫara, mistress of the city, Išḫara of the king, Išḫara of the prophetesses. And without a doubt, Išḫara was an oath-guarantor *par excellence* in northern Syria of the Late Bronze Age.

While there is evidence for the worship of Išḫara in many places in Mesopotamia of the Old Babylonian period, the source material for Cassite Babylonia is limited. From the reign of Meli-šipak comes the first datable *kudurru*, on which, in addition to the symbols of the gods, there are inscriptions, including the scorpion with the addition <sup>d</sup>*iš-ḫa-ra*. It is important to that, for the first time, it is possible to assign the scorpion, which has been documented in representational art since prehistoric times, to a specific deity. The scorpion is portraied on almost all "boundary stones". Even where it is not (no longer) depicted, the great importance attributed to Išḫara, who is to be identified

<sup>26</sup> Prechel 1996, 105-16.

<sup>22</sup> For transliteration, translation and discussion see Schwemer 2013, 160-62.

<sup>23</sup> Beckman 2014, 58-9.

<sup>24</sup> Beckman 2014, 3-4.

<sup>25</sup> Miller 2004, 376-77.

<sup>27</sup> See the bibliography in Archi 2020, 30.

with it now, as the guarantor of an oath is evident: a *kudurru* exists from the time of Marduk-apla-iddina I, whose inscription together with the scorpion have been erased28.

In Late Bronze Age, the goddess had a sanctuary in the temple of Ištar of Assur and was offered sacrifices as part of the ritual of the reinstatement of the king. Therefore, we can safely assume that she continued to be part of the official pantheon, as the later surviving texts on the *tākultu* ritual make clear29. From Elam only a few personal names with the theophoric element can be proved (Richter, forthcoming).

### 5. Conclusions

Schwemer (2008) has suggested three different ways in which a deity can take its place in the Hittite pantheon. First, the god or goddess is the victim of a godnapping. As Schwemer demonstrated, this type of integration is attested only for the Old Hittite period, so there is no need to consider this possibility in case of Išḫara. Second, deities are incorporated into the pantheon through an *evocatio*. This can be noted for many deities with the exception of Išḫara. Thus, only the third of the listed possibilities remains: Išḫara found inclusion in the Hittite pantheon only through the expansion of the empire and the widening of the borders.

In general, regarding the relationship between textual sources and their meaningfulness for a reconstruction of the pantheon, it can be said that cult and ritual is attested by dedicatory inscriptions and sacrificial lists and ritual texts. From this aspect, Išḫara appears in Anatolia as a lower deity in the circles of Ḫepat and *ištar*. We infer the role of the pantheon for the country from official inscriptions with their *curse formulae*. It is abundantly clear that, from this aspect, Išḫara is a great deity for the land as the guardian of the oath. For the individual, we expect statements on "persönliche Frömmigkeit" from letters, seal inscriptions, and onomastics. In this regard, due to a lack of sources, no statements can be made for Hittite Anatolia. However, it can be assumed that her importance for the individual lay primarily in her function as mother goddess, as the personal names outside of Ḫatti show.

As an oath deity, Išḫara became a member of the state cult, and her importance for the Hittites seems to be closely related to the use of state treaties as an instrument of power. This could be emphasized by the fact that Išḫara was already an internationally known deity (Syrian, Assyrian, Babylonian) in this capacity when she was integrated into the Hittite pantheon. From this point of view, it does not matter whether the impulse came from the southeast or the southwest.

The great popularity that Išḫara enjoyed in Kizzuwatna seems to favor a southwestern origin, since the cult of Išḫara as an important goddess remained alive in the northern Syrian and Kizzuwatna regions during the 2nd millennium.

Nevertheless, I would like to leave open the question whether in Hittite Anatolia also a tradition was maintained which suggests a Mesopotamian origin of the goddess, as the few Akkadian incantation fragments may suggest. I also consider the assumption debatable that a deity would have spread from Ebla to Babylonia30. With a migration of deities, one will have to assume socially influential individuals, as it became evident during the Ur III period.

<sup>28</sup> Seidl 1968, 94.

<sup>29</sup> Prechel 1996, 70-1.

<sup>30</sup> Archi 2020, 17: «Išḫara reached Babylonia already at the end of the Old Akkadian period».

Even through an etymology of the name does not bring us closer to the origin of the goddess with certainty. In 2019, Bachvarova proposed an etymology based on the Hittite *išḫa*- "lord"31. She argued that all Hittite Mountain names are constructed masculinely and therefore ḫur.sagIšḫara in the Kizzuwatna ritual *CTH* 641 should be understood accordingly. In contrast, as far as I can see, a Semitic origin is usually preferred, referring to the verbal root *šêru* "to rise early" (\*šḥr)32. However, a definite clarification cannot be achieved at present.

Hittite scholars have left us no information about Išḫara's origin and family. All the more interesting is a middle Assyrian list of the an:Anum series, which presents us with both a consort and an otherwise unknown son, and overall shows a mixture of Northern Syrian and Mesopotamian religious imagination.


At present, there is nothing to suggest that Išḥara became popular as a follower of her spouses in Syria and Anatolia. Rather, the quality of a mother goddess as a complement to the type of Ištar could have been interesting for her position of various panthea.

### Bibliography


Krebernik, Manfred. 1984. *Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla*. Hildesheim-Zürich-New York.


## Solar and Chthonic Deities in Ancient Anatolia: The Evolution of the Chthonic Solar Deity in Hittite Religion

### Charles W. Steitler1

**Abstract**: The "Sun-goddess of the earth" and the less clearly defined category of "chthonic solar deities" of Hittite religion have been the objects of various studies in recent years. This paper aims to examine the significance of these categories of deities within the Hittite festival texts. Although the Sun-goddess of the earth achieves some prominence in local cult contexts, such as at Zippalanda and Nerik, she otherwise remains a marginal deity. This contrasts with her general significance in Hittite magical rituals. The chthonic solar deities represent a less tangible deity type that is associated with death and the netherworld, but that also does not attain overarching significance in the Hittite state pantheon. Finally, the paper addresses the question, to what cultural milieu can we trace the beginnings of the Sun-goddess of the earth? Efforts to identify her origins in the Hattian milieu of north-central Anatolia will be critiqued, favoring the Luwian milieu instead as the most likely from which the tradition of the Sun-goddess emerged, and later flourished in the magical traditions especially that became widespread in Hittite society of Late Bronze Age Anatolia.

### 1. Introduction

In the ancient Near Eastern cuneiform texts, it was common practice to write divine names with logograms. This in itself required a degree of categorization of deities into different types. For the Hittite texts, this process implies that the terminology for the panthea of Syria and Mesopotamia was adapted in order to describe Anatolian deities2 .

This of course has the potential to skew the nature of the deity being designated. As for the most significant deities in the Hittite texts, their names occur more frequently in logographic writings than in syllabographic. Though fewer, the syllabographic writings provide us with valuable evidence for the proper (often Anatolian) names of the deities so commonly concealed behind logograms. However, even if we know the Hittite, Luwian, Palaic or Hattic proper name of a deity, this alone does not necessarily allow us to identify the exact nature of that deity. For example, even though many of the logographic writings for the names of solar deities can be identified as *Ištanu-*, this name in itself does not necessarily specify a particular solar deity or type of solar


Charles Steitler, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz, Germany, charles.steitler@adwmainz.de, 0000-0003-2387-6833

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

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

Charles W. Steitler, *Solar and Chthonic Deities in Ancient Anatolia: The Evolution of the Chthonic Solar Deity in Hittite Religion*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4.15, in Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, pp. 149-179, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

deity3 . The name Ištanu – derived from Hattic *eštan* (Soysal 2004, 276) – may refer to a Hattian Sun-goddess. On the other hand, the prayer of Kantuzzili also employs Ištanu as the name of the solar deity. There, however, the solar deity in question can be identified with Sumerian Utu or Akkadian Šamaš, and refers to the type of the Mesopotamian Sun-god (see Metcalf 2011).

Epithets or bynames of a deity are particularly helpful in identifying a deity more specifically. Examples are the Sun-goddes of Arinna, the Sun-god of heaven, or the Sun-goddess of the earth. Yet, epithets can be employed inconsistently. Thus, any onomastic study (dealing with names, logograms and epithets) of a deity or deities must be systematically supplemented by broader cultural, linguistic and religious historical observations in order to identify a particular deity or deity type occurring in a text composition.

Despite recent studies, the chthonic solar deities – both the goddess explicitly identified by her epithet as the "Sun-goddess of the earth" as well as those solar deities whose chthonic nature can be surmised from the contexts in which they occur, but who lack an explicit epithet such as "earth" – remain in many respects enigmatic4 . In particular these implicitly chthonic solar deities have yet to be studied in-depth, due in part to the very limited relevant text sources available5 .

This paper will revisit the category of the "Sun-goddess of the earth" as well as the less tangible group of implicitly chthonic solar deities. The scope of this paper is largely limited to a discussion of the Sun-goddess of the earth in the festival rituals, including the Empire Period texts (which were not treated exhaustively in Steitler 2017). Attention will also be given to solar deities whose chthonic nature is less obvious than that of the Sun-goddess of the earth, but nevertheless implied by the contexts in which they occur. I will also respond to a recent identification of an explicitly chthonic solar deity in the Palaean pantheon. The Luwian solar deity of the earth will only be dealt with on the periphery of this article due to a very recent claim that this solar deity was originally male (Yakubovich 2022). Finally, the observations from the cited texts will be summarized, and implications will be drawn from these regarding the origin and nature of the Sun-goddess of the earth and other chthonic solar deities in Anatolia.

<sup>3</sup> See Steitler 2017, 13-7.

<sup>4</sup> Although included in the scope of my book, the two chapters devoted to the "Sun-goddess of the earth" (Steitler 2017, 229-45; 417-23) were comparatively short for various reasons. First, a dissertation had recently been written on the Sun-goddess of the earth, which has since been published electronically (Lorenz-Link 2016). Second, my own study focused on the Old and Middle Hittite text sources, covering text compositions whose origins could be reasonably pinpointed in the corresponding historical epochs. There were comparatively few texts referring to the Sun-goddess of the earth that met these qualifications.

<sup>5</sup> Steitler 2017, 247-53 gave attention to references to solar deities that lacked the epithet referring to the earth or netherworld (Hittite *taknaš* or Luwian *tiyammi- / tiyammašši-*), but that could nevertheless be characterized as pertinent to the chthonic realm. Because the type of the "Sun-goddess of the earth" seemed to be so consistently identified by the epithet *taknaš*, and because these solar deities occurred in texts describing local cults or contexts that strongly deviated from the "norms" of the Hittite state cult, I remain cautious about identifying these solar deities with the Sun-goddess of the earth, though I would not contest that they are chthonic deities. Note also that in later scribal traditions, the Sun-goddess of the earth was also referred to by a different logogram altogether: ereš. ki.gal. All of this suggests that the type of the "chthonic solar deity" was more heterogeneous than has been depicted to date in studies of Hittite religion.

### 2. The "Sun-goddess of the earth" in festival descriptions

### 2.1. The cult of Zippalanda

In the local pantheon of the city of Zippalanda, the three highest ranking deities were the Storm-god of Zippalanda, the Storm-god (of heaven) and the Sun-goddess of the earth; the latter two were considered the father and mother of the Storm-god of Zippalanda6 . This constellation is reflected both by offerings presented to the deities within the cult of Zippalanda as well as recitations addressing the Sun-goddess of the earth or the Storm-god of Zippalanda that also refer to their mother-son relationship. The following text describes offerings of bread to these three deities within a festival performed in Zippalanda7 :

KUB 28.91 + KUB 58.6 (*CTH* 744.6, LNS) obv. I8 9' lú*ḫa-mi-na-aš* 3 ninda*ḫar-za-z*[*u-u*]*n iš-ta-na-ni* 10' *a-na* <sup>d</sup> 10 uru*zi-ip-l*[*a-a*]*n-da da-*⸢*a-i*⸣

11' [*t*]*a-aš ú-e-eḫ-zi a-na p*[*a*]*-ni* <sup>d</sup> 10 *ša-me-e* 3*-šu da-a-i* 1'/12' *t*[*a*]*-aš ú-e-eḫ-zi ták-n*[*a-a*]*š* dutu*-i* 3*-šu da-a-i*

The *ḫamina-* man places three *ḫarzazu-* breads on the altar for the Storm-god of Zippalanda. He turns around (and) he places (bread) three times before the Storm-god of heaven. He turns around (and) he places (bread) three times for the Sun-goddess of the earth. (Popko 1994, 240-43)

Other texts from the cult of Zippalanda include invocations addressing the Stormgod of Zippalanda or the Sun-goddess of the earth and referring to their mother-son relationship.

KUB 20.66 obv. III 10'-15' (*CTH* 635.4.A, LNS; restored according to duplicate Bo 6679, *CTH* 635, LNS, r. col. 7'-10') obv. III:

```
10' [(1 udu-ma-kán lúḫa-mi-n)a-aš] ták-na-aš dutu-i ši-pa-an-ti
```

```
11' [(me-mi-ia-an)]⸢an⸣-da kiš-an me-ma-i
```

```
12' [(ták-na-aš dutu-uš gašan-i)]a ka-a-ša-wa d
                                                10 uruzi-[pa-la-an-da
```



But the *ḫamina-* man offers one sheep to the Sun-goddess of the earth. He speaks the invocation as follows: "Sun-goddess of the earth, my lady. Here, the Storm-god [of Zippalanda] your son [ … ] on Mt. Daḫa [ … ] … the Sun-goddess [ … ] be!" (Popko 1994, 228-31)

<sup>6</sup> On the chief deities of the pantheon in Zippalanda, see Haas 1994, 588-89; Popko 1994, 32-5; Torri 2019.

<sup>7</sup> Popko (1994, 240) suggests the text could describe the *nuntarriyašḫa-* festival; see also Nakamura (2002, 172 note 14), who does not positively identify KUB 28.91+ as part of *nuntarriyašḫa-*. Similar offerings of crumbled bread are also described in the context of a spring festival performed in Zippalanda in KBo 11.50 (*CTH* 592.2.I.A, NS) rev. VI 3'-11' (Popko 1994, 168-69).

<sup>8</sup> The transliterations of all Hittite festival texts cited in this article have been adapted from the online *Basiscorpus* of HFR (https://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/HFR/bascorp\_intro.php, last visited 02/08/2023).

In KUB 57.29, also pertaining to the cult of Zippalanda, "his mother" (obv. II 9') likely refers to the Sun-goddess of the earth as the mother of the Storm-god of Zippalanda, both of whom are mentioned in the text just a few lines later (12' and 11' respectively).

KUB 57.29 (*CTH* 635, NS) obv. II:


[ … ] "Here it to him/her [ … ] may this glowing?9 oven [ … ]. His mother [ … ] opened it again. [ … ] before the Storm-god of Zippalanda [and] the Sun-goddess [of the earth … ] may he be!" (Popko 1994, 280f.)

The Storm-god of Zippalanda and the Sun-goddess of earth also appear in the cult of Zippalanda in proximity to other deities pertaining to the chthonic realm, for example with Ḫašammili and Wašḫulili:

KUB 20.96 (*CTH* 635.2, NS) rev. IV:

```
15 am-ba-aš-ši a-ra-aḫ-za-an-da kaš.geštin š[i-pa-an-ti
```

19 [din]gir*-lum-kán* <sup>é</sup> *ḫi-lam-ni an-da* ⸢*a*⸣*-*[*ri*

20 ⸢4? ⸣ *ir-ḫa-a-ez-zi* <sup>d</sup> 10 uru*zi-pa-*[*la-an-da*


He p[erforms] an *ambašši* offering of beer-wine outside. The cupbearer of the Stormgod of Zippal[anda] carries out the round of offerings twice (for) the Storm-god of Zi[ppalanda] and Mt. Daḫa. The small Inanna instrument (plays, and) [they sing.] The deity a[rrives] in the gate house. He carries out the round of offerings four times (for) the Storm-god of Zippa[landa], the Sungoddess of the [ear]th, Ḫašamm[ili and Wa]šḫulili. The small [Inanna instrument (plays, and) they sing.] (Popko 1994, 194-5)

Ḫašammili is associated with Lelwani, a Hattian goddess of the netherworld (Torri 1999, 10-6). The deity Wašḫulili is poorly understood, but his name might be connected with a concept of the netherworld, a question to which I will return subsequently.

In the text cited earlier, KUB 28.91 + KUB 58.6 obv. I 2'/13'-5'/16', offerings to the three main deities of Zippalanda (the Storm-god of Zippalanda, the Storm-god of heaven and the Sun-goddess of the earth) are followed by offerings to the "window (of? ) the

<sup>9</sup> The meaning of *warrami-* as "glowing" is suggested by Popko 1994, 284; see also HEG W-Z, 314.

solar disc" (gišab *šittar*)10, then to Ḫašammili, the propitious day and other deities11. On the connection of the propitious day with the netherworld, see below.

The texts describing the cult of Zippalanda refer to a temple or sanctuary of the Sun-goddess of the earth. Occasionally, this temple is referred to elliptically as the "house of the deity" or "house of the solar deity", whereas the context requires us to understand dingir or d utu as the "Sun-goddess of the earth". For example, CHDS 3.2 obv. III 4'-6' refers to the king's entrance into the temple of a solar deity (d utu without epithet), while the queen steps in front of a *ḫuwaši-* cult stela. Then in rev. IV, the queen exits a *ḫuwaši*precinct, and the priest and *tazzelli-* functionary are positioned opposite the temple of the Sun-goddess of the earth. This is likely the same temple of the solar deity into which the king was said to enter in obv. III 1'-2', as already suggested by Popko (1994, 278).

CHDS 3.2 obv. III (*CTH* 635, NS)


```
6' pé-ra-an ti-ia-zi
```

rev. IV


[The king] goes [int]o the *ḫalentuwa-* building. But the [pr]iest and the *tazzelli-* man go into the temple of the Sun-goddess.

The queen, however, steps up in front of the *ḫuwaši-* cult stela. She ma[kes the round of offerings] for Ḫaratši. The small Inanna instrument (plays). The *ḫalliyar*[*i-*] men sing. The alam.zu₉ man recites. The *kita-* man cries out. But the man of the Storm-god and the woman of the Storm-god send out a message.

(Popko 1994, 278-9)

<sup>10</sup> Compare offerings to the "window (of? ) the solar disc" in VSNF 12.16 (*CTH* 635, NS) obv. r. col. 4' and KUB 20.92 (*CTH* 635.5, LNS) rev. VI(?) 5, both texts attributed to the cult of Zippalanda, thus further supporting the attribution of KUB 28.91+ to this local cult as well.

<sup>11</sup> See Popko 1994, 242f. A slightly divergent sequence of offerings, including the Sun-goddess of the earth, the propitious day, the window (of? ) the solar disc, the hearth, and Ḫašammili followed by other deities is also preserved in KUB 58.6 obv. II 3'-12' (see Popko 1994, 242-43).

[The que]en comes out of (the precinct of) the *ḫuwaši-* cult stela. The priest (and) the [*t*]*azzelli-* man (are) in front of the temple of the Sun-goddess of the earth. They [step] up opposite [the king].

Another text refers to the temple of the "deity", then subsequently to the temple of Ereškigal, whom we can identify as the Sun-goddess of the earth and who is the recipient of an offering alongside her son. Here too, it is possible that the temple of the deity and the temple of Ereškigal both refer to the same temple of the Sun-goddess of the earth in Zippalanda.

KUB 41.30+ (*CTH* 635.?, NS) obv. III: 10' *ma-a-an lu-uk-kat-ta*

11' lúsanga *ku-ru-ta-u-wa-an-za* 12' lú*ta-az-ze-el-li-*⸢*iš*⸣

13' lú*ḫa-me-na-aš* lúgudu₁₂ ⸢lúmeš é⸣ dingir*-lim-ia*

14' *ḫu-u-ma-an-te-eš ša-ra-a i-na* é dingir*-lim*

15' *ú-wa-an-zi* 

16' ⸢*nu*⸣*-kán* šà é dereš.⸢ki⸣.g[al]

17' []⸢*a-na*⸣ <sup>d</sup> 10 uru*zi-*[*ip-la-an-da* 

18' [*ták-na-aš-š*]*a* ⸢ dutu*-i*⸣ *x*[

When on the next day the 'helmeted' priest, the *tazzelli-* man, the *ḫamina-* man, the anointed priest and the 'men of the temple of the deity' all come up to the temple of the deity.

Then within the temple of Ereškig[al] for the Storm-god of Zi[ppalanda] and the Sungoddess [of the earth …] (Popko 1994, 270-71)

The reverse of this same tablet describes further rites, beginning with drinking rites for the Storm-god of Zippalanda and the Sun-goddess of the earth in KUB 41.30+ rev. IV, whereas rev. V is very fragmentary. Presumably, the setting remained the temple of the Sun-goddess of the earth, out of which the participants exited, as described in a fragment possibly belonging to the end of rev. VI of this tablet12:

IBoT 3.44+ (*CTH* 635.?, NS) rev.:


When […] they take care of the [cups …], the *tazze*[*lli-* man, the prie]st, the *ḫamina*man, the [anointed priest …] come out of the temple [of the Sun-goddess] of the earth, and […] they go. (Popko 1994, 274-75)

<sup>12</sup> The join between KUB 41.30 and IBoT 3.44 is indirect.

The text of KUB 11.30 describes how the Sun-goddess of the earth is brought out of the temple of the Storm-god, and then returned to her own temple, referred to as é dingir-*lim-šu*.

KUB 11.30+ (*CTH* 635.1, LNS; restored according to duplicate Bo 3496, *CTH* 635.1.E, NS) obv. III:


She/He g[oes] back. But they bring the Sun-goddess of the earth [out of the temple of the Storm-god]. (Popko 1994, 206-07)

Finally, I would like to note that in texts pertaining to the cult of Zippalanda, the Sun-goddess of the earth is occasionally replaced by the Sun-goddess of Arinna, as was recently pointed out by Torri (2019, 217-18). This seems to be the case in KUB 20.96, where the absence of the epithet *taknaš* combined with the presence of the goddesses Mezzulla and Zintuḫiya make it very likely that d utu in this sequence refers to the chief Sun-goddess (i.e. she of Arinna). One would instead have expected the Sun-goddess of the earth in this position between the Storm-god of Zippalanda and the Storm-god in the context of the cult of Zippalanda13.

KUB 20.96 (*CTH* 635.2, NS) obv. II:


When they arrive back from the [m]ountain, [the king] carries out the round of offerings six times (for) [the Storm-god of Z]ippalanda, the Sun-goddess, the Storm-god, [Me]zzulla, Zintuḫiya, and [Mt. D]aḫa. The small Inanna instrument (plays, and) they sing. [The alam].zu₉ man recites. The *palwatalla-* man [*palwae-*]s. The *kita-* man cries out. (Popko 1994, 190-91)

In contrast to the texts earlier that refer to the Sun-goddess of the earth as the mother of the Storm-god of Zippalanda, the following text adresses the Sun-goddess of Arinna as his mother:

KUB 41.29 (*CTH* 635.4.B, LNS) obv. III:


[The man] of the Storm-god speaks: "Arise, O Storm-god of Zippal[anda], from sweet [s]leep! Here, Tabarna, the king, the priest of your mother, the Sun-goddess of Arinna, brings you to your beloved Mt. Daḫa." (Popko 1994, 216-17)

This likely reflects an attempt to accommodate the structure of the official Hittite state pantheon, in which the Sun-goddess of Arinna was the wife of the Storm-god (Torri 2019, 218). This can also be seen in the prayer of Puduḫepa to the Sun-goddess of Arinna as well as a prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa, both of which refer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna as the mother of the Storm-god of Zippalanda:

```
KUB 21.27 + KBo 71.14 (CTH 384.1.A, NS) rev. IV:
27' [ … diškur uruzi-ip]-pa-la-an-da en-ia
28' [a-na diškur ù a-n]a dutu urupú-na a-aš-ši-ia-an-za dumu-aš 
29' [ku-it a-na diškur a-b]i-⸢ka⸣ ù a-na dutu urupú-na ama-ka
30' tar-kum-m[a-i-ši … diškur] a-bu-ka dutu urupú-na ama-ka
31' tu-el me-⸢mi⸣-[an … w]a-aḫ-nu-wa-an-zi iš-ta-ma-aš-ša-an-zi-ta
```
[ *…* You, Storm-god of Zip]palanda, my lord (are) a beloved son [t]o the Sun-goddess of Arinna. [What you] proclaim [to the Storm-god], your [father] and the Sun-goddess, your mother, [the Storm-god], your father, (and) the Sun-goddess, your mother, will not turn away your word, [ … ] they will listen to you.

(following Singer 2002, 105, Rieken *et al*. 2015ff.-c, TX 2017-10-29, TRde 17-10-29)

KUB 21.19 + KBo 52.17 (*CTH* 383.1, LNS) obv. I: 1 ⸢*a*⸣*-na* dutu uru*a-ri-*⸢*in*⸣*-na* gašan-*ia* gašan ⸢kur.kurḫ<sup>i</sup> ⸣ .a uru*ḫa-at-ti* …

11 *a-na* dingirmeš-*za me-na-aḫ-ḫa-an-da* kur.⸢kur <sup>ḫ</sup><sup>i</sup> ⸣ .a uru*Ḫa-at-ti* 

12 *šar-ra-az ša* <sup>d</sup> 10 uru*ne-ri-ik* <sup>d</sup> 10 uru*zi-ip-pa-la-an-da* 

13 dumu-*ka na-ak-ki-ia-an-ni ḫa-an-da-*[*a*]*š da-at-ta* 

To the Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady, lady of the lands of Ḫattuša … Contrary to the other gods, you took for yourself as your share the lands of Ḫattuša, out of esteem for the Storm-god of Nerik, the Storm-god of Zippalanda, your son. (following Singer 2002, 97, Rieken *et al*. 2015ff.-b, TX 2015-08-28, TRde 17-12-09)

A recent study by Torri (2019) explores the relationship of the Storm-god of Zippalanda not only to the Sun-goddess of the earth but also to Kataḫḫa—a goddess of the neighboring city of Ankuwa. Torri suggested that Kataḫḫa, like the Sun-goddess of the earth, should be understood as the mother of the local Storm-god (Torri 2019, 223). This raises the question of whether the name "Kataḫḫa" was actually an epithet that could refer to the same goddess also known as the "Sun-goddess of the earth" or to goddesses of the "mother goddess" type (see Torri 2019, 223)14.

The fact that the Sun-goddess of the earth only appears in Empire-period texts describing the cult of Zippalanda seems to imply that she did not play a role in the earli-

<sup>14</sup> In a personal communication to myself, Giulia Torri tentatively raised the question as to whether Kataḫḫa in earlier (i.e., Old or Middle Hittite) texts might in some cases refer to the Sun-goddess of the earth. I would extrapolate upon this idea by suggesting the possibility that in these instances Kataḫḫa refers to a chthonic goddess who was later given the epithet "Sun-goddess of the earth". Whether such a goddess was also understood in her original milieu as some kind of solar deity remains to be seen.

er epochs—especially since we have several pertinent OS and MS text fragments that never mention her. While Popko (1994, 36) recognized her absence in the older texts of the cult of Zipplanda, he nevertheless offered no explanation for her lack of attestations in the earlier cult traditions of the city. On the basis of a handful of other Old Hittite text compositions, Popko (1994, 36) claimed that the Sun-goddess of the earth did indeed belong to the Hattian religious milieu15. The attestations of the Sun-goddess of the earth in these texts will be addressed subsequently.

### 2.2. Cult of Nerik

The constellation of deities in the pantheon of Nerik, with the Storm-god of Nerik in the role of the son of the Sun-goddess of the earth, parallels that of Zippalanda. This is quite obvious in the Empire Period texts describing the cult of Nerik, but is not manifested in older text sources. The connection of the local Storm-god with the Sun-goddess of the earth seems to have originated in Zippalanda (see Torri 2019, 221-22)16. In the aforementioned prayer of Puduḫepa, the city of Nerik is even referred to as the beloved city of the Storm-god of Zippalanda in the portion of the prayer addressed to him. One would have expected this to be said of the Storm-god of Nerik, suggesting a certain interchangeability between these two local Storm-gods:

KUB 21.27+ (*CTH* 384.1.A, NS) rev. IV: 38' … m*ḫa-at-tu-ši-li-i*[*š-š*]*a* arad*-ka a-na* zi dingir*-lim* 39' *še-er* ⸢*da-ri*⸣*-ia-at nu-za a-pé-*⸢*e*⸣*-*[*el* sa]g.du*-an* zi*-šú-ia*  40' *uš-ša-ni-iš-ke-et ku-it-ma-an* [*ša* ding]ir*-*⸢*lim*⸣ en*-ia* 41' uru*ne-ri-iq-qa-an a-aš-ši-ia-an-t*[*a-an* ur]u*-an* egir*-pa*  42' *ú-e-te-et* 

Also Ḫattušili, your servant, took pains for the god's will, and he engaged his body and soul until he rebuilt Nerik, the beloved city [of the g]od, my lord (i.e. the Storm-god of Zippalanda). (following Singer 2002, 105, Rieken *et al*. 2015ff.-c, TX 2017-10-29, TRde 17-10-29)

An example of a late cultic tradition of Nerik is KUB 36.89 (*CTH* 671.1.A, NS), a hybrid composition combining elements of prayer or invocation as well as ritual, performed when the Storm-god of Nerik becomes angry and disappears and aimed at bringing about his return17. The Sun-goddess of the earth is referred to in the text by the Sumerian name Ereškigal. The text describes offerings to the Storm-god of Nerik, Ereškigal, Uru(n)zimu and the "eternal deities" that are offered down into a pit. After bread offerings, a Hattic incantation should be spoken:


<sup>15</sup> The texts cited are KBo 17.7+ (*CTH* 416.B, OS), KUB 31.143a (*CTH* 733.II.b.1, OS) and KUB 60.20 (*CTH* 733.II.c.1, NS/OH); see the discussion, especially of *CTH* 733, below.

KUB 36.89 (*CTH* 671.1.A, NS) obv.:

10 *nu-kán* lúgudu₁₂ *ḫa-at-te-eš-ni* gam*-an-da* 3*-šú* ú-i ú-i pu-ru-ša-el pu-ru-ša-el *ḫal-za-a-i*

The anointed priest calls down into the pit three times, "*ui ui purušael purušael*". (See Haas 1970, 142-43)

The recitations continue in Hittite and make reference to the mother of the Stormgod of Nerik, then shortly thereafter to Ereškigal:



Below to your mother […] The word of my lady […] Ereškigal […] Come, o Storm-god of Nerik, my lord, Uruntemu [… He himself/She herself] shall open up [the gates] of the dark earth!

(see Haas 1970, 146-47)

The deity name *Uruntemu* that occurrs repeatedly throughout this text and is variously spelled as *Uruzimu*, *Urušemu*, *Uruntemu* and *Uruntipu* can be loosely associated with the Hattic name *Wuru(n)šemu* that designates the Sun-goddess (i.e. of Arinna). This Hattic name can be analysed as follows: *wur=un=* "of the land (*wur* + gen. -*un*)" + ([\**še-*?] "\*her") "mother" (*mu* or *šemu*)" (Soysal 2004, 923, Steitler 2017, 59-64). The most common realization of this name in Hittite is *Uru(n)zimu-*. When translated into Hittite, Hattic *wur* is consistently rendered as *utne-* "land", not *tekan* "earth"18. For this reason, I am reticent to connect the name Wurunšemu with the "Sun-godess of the earth"19. Wurunšemu is consistently identifiable with the Sun-goddess of Arinna, who is also explicitly mentioned in KUB 36.89. The Sun-god of heaven is also mentioned in this text, but he is decidedly uncharacteristic of the ancient Hattian religion. I have elsewhere assessed KUB 36.89 as a late composition that combines older and younger traditions (Steitler 2017, 63-4; 126 notes 379-80; 128, 460-61).

The question arises to what degree the prominence of the Sun-goddess of the earth (or Ereškigal) in late texts such as KUB 36.89 or KUB 36.90+ might reflect older religious traditions of Northern Anatolia.20 When we consider those texts that are certainly or likely representative of an early cult tradition in Nerik, we discover several references to a solar deity who is possibly of a chthonic nature, but who is not specifically designated as the Sun-goddess of the earth (or Ereškigal), nor does this solar deity's profile (e.g. as spouse of the Storm-god or mother of the local Storm-god) allow for an identification with the Sun-goddess of the earth.

<sup>18</sup> See Soysal 2004, 324, who also suggests that Hittite *tekan-* corresponds to Hattic *šaḫḫu* (Soysal 2004, 306).

<sup>19</sup> *Contra* Taracha 2021, 228 note 33, who claims the name Wurunšemu is equivalent to ki-*aš* ama (without citation of any relevant texts) – apparently a reference to *annaš daganzipaš* in KBo 11.32 and KUB 43.30 (see footnote 33 below), or "mother of the earth" in the Zalpa Tale (see also Klinger 1996, 146-47).

<sup>20</sup> The process of copying, damage or even loss of older texts in later periods of the Hittite kingdom may have given rise to misunderstandings about the cult and pantheon of Nerik. That such gaps had arisen in the transmission of texts describing the cult of Nerik is demonstrated by KUB 28.80 rev. IV 1'–11' (see Dardano 2006, 204-05; my thanks to Giulia Torri for bring this text to my attention).

In KBo 20.10+, an OS or MS text that likely belongs to the cult of Nerik, the offering sequences normally include the Sun-goddess, Mezzulla, the Storm-god, the Stormgod of Zippalanda, Zaliya, Zuwaši and Inar (obv. I 14-17). In one instance, however, the sequence was extended to include an additional solar deity before the deified day:

KBo 20.10+ obv. II (OS?/MS?, *CTH* 669 or 678?):

11 dutu <sup>d</sup>*me-ez-zu-ul-la* giš. dinanna tur

12 <sup>d</sup> 10 <sup>d</sup> 10 uru*zi-ip-la-an-da* giš. dinanna tur igi.du₈.a

13 <sup>d</sup>*za-li-ú-un* <sup>d</sup>*zu-wa-ši-in* giš. dinanna tur

14 <sup>d</sup>*i-na-ar* lú.meš*ne-šu-me-né-eš* sìr*-ru*

14b níg.àr.ra

15 dutu tuš*-aš uš-ke-en wa-al-ḫa-an-zi* lú.mešgala sìr*-*⸢*ru*⸣

16 dud*-ma-am* tuš*-aš uš-ke-en* lú.mešgala ⸢sìr⸣*-r*[*u* ]

17 [ninda.gu]r₄.ra gal *pár-ši-ia* érinmeš*-az x*[]

18 [ dgal.zu tuš*-a*]*š uš-ke-en*

(They drink) the Sun-goddess (and) Mezzulla. The small Inanna instrument (plays). (They drink) the Storm-god (and) the Storm-god of Zippalanda. The small Inanna instrument (plays). A gift (is presented? ). (They drink) Zaliu and Zuwaši. The small Inanna instrument (plays). (They drink) Inar. The Nešite singers sing.

(Offering of) fine f lower(?). Sitting, they bow to the solar deity. They beat (an instrument). The cult singers sing. Sitting, they bow to the deified day. The cult singers sing. He breaks a large [loaf of br]ead. The troops […]

[Sitting] they bow [to the gal.zu deity].

(Neu 1980, 132)

This can also be compared to the text Bo 5690, 5'-6', likely in the context of an offering, where the Storm-god of Nerik is followed by a solar deity and the deified day. The deified day, later also known as the "propitious day" (dud sig₅), can bear chthonic connotations, perhaps designating the "day of death" (see Torri 1999, 13 with references to further literature). Another offering sequence in the cult of Nerik inserts the deity Izzištanu twice—once before and once after the propitious day:

IBoT 4.199 + KUB 2.15 (*CTH* 678.1.A, NS) rev. V-VI: [Tauri(t)? ], [dutu], [Mezzulla], d 10, d 10 uru*zipp*[*alanda*], dkal, Izzi[štanu], [dud (sig₅? )], Izzištanu, Telipinu, [Tuḫ]ašail, […]

No solar deity appears immediately adjacent to the deified day,21 but this sequence corresponds closely to the sequence of deities in the Hittite funerary ritual. The latter is extended to include the Sun-goddess of the earth and "his soul" (i.e. the soul of the deceased):

KUB 39.1+ (*CTH* 450.I.A.Tg02, LNS) obv. II-rev. III: [Tauri(t)? ], dutu, Mezzulla, d 10, d 10 uru*zippalanda*, dkal, [Izziš]tanu, dud sig₅, Izzištanu, *taknaš* dutu, *apēl* zi

<sup>21</sup> Attempts to identify Izzištanu either as a solar deity or as the propitious day are based solely on the hypothesis that this deity name contains Hattic *ištanu*. Such interpretations remain unconfirmed (see Steitler 2017, 34).

A closely related variation of these two sequences may be present in KUB 44.18, in which a solar deity immediately precedes Telipinu within a sequence of drinking rites:


A better preserved offering sequence in another fragmentary festival text of the cult of Nerik inserts the deity Tuḫašael before a solar deity toward the end of the sequence:

KBo 49.50 (*CTH* 678, NS): 7' ⸢ d ⸣10 <sup>d</sup> 10 uru*zi-ip-pa-la-an-da* [ 8' [ <sup>d</sup>*i*]*z-zi-iš-ta-nu* dud*-am* ⸢ d ⸣[ 9' [ <sup>d</sup>*i*]*z-zi-iš-ta-nu* <sup>d</sup>*te-li-*[*pí-nu* 10' [ <sup>d</sup>*t*]*u-*⸢*ḫa*⸣*-ša-e-el* gišban[šur 11' []⸢ dutu⸣ *x*[

The deity Tuḫašael appears in another sequence of deities attested in the local cult of Zikmar, which can be located in the region of Nerik. Corti has discussed the relevant tablet extensively, concluding that it represents a cultic journey of the king in the vicinity of Nerik, during which he stops at several towns to pay homage to the local pantheon (Corti 2018).

KBo 20.87 + Bo 5543 obv./rev.? :


The king is seated. 'The assembly' is called out. Sitting, (he offers? to) [T]auri. The large Inanna instrument (plays). Standing, (he offers? to) the Sun-goddess and Tappinu. Standing, (he offers? to) the Storm-god of Ḫapatḫa. Standing, (he offers? to) the Storm-god of Išdammutar. Sitting, (he offers? to) the Storm-god and the Storm-god of Zippalanda. Sitting, (he offers? to) Tuḫašail. He makes/presents? *zipulaš* bread. Standing, (he offers? to) the Storm-god of Nerik. A loaf of bread inside. Sitting, (he offers? to) Zaliyanu and Tazuwaši. He presents *zipulaš* bread. Sitting, (he offers? to) Mt. K[uk]umušša. Sitting, (he offers? to) the spring Weriyadu. Standing, (he offers? to) the Storm-god of Nerik. He sets up the tables. (following Corti 2018, 27-9)

Although this sequence in Zikmar lacks the Sun-goddess of the earth, it does include a spring-deity named Weriyadu. It is significant that Weriyadu is attested alongside a solar deity, referred to as Ištanu, at the end of a sequence of deities in several different festival decriptions associated with a local cult in the region of Nerik22. It thus seems

<sup>22</sup> The relevant text attestations are discussed in Steitler 2017, 253-59.

that the spring Weriyadu was not only significant in the region of Nerik, but may also have been somehow connected with a (possibly local) solar deity23. Since spring goddesses are typically chthonic in nature, it seems likely that the solar deity associated with the spring Weriyadu was a chthonic goddess24.

In sum, while we do find indications of a chthonic solar deity in Nerik and its vicinity in the earlier text traditions, this deity was not explicitly referred to as *taknaš Ištanu-*. We should also be reminded that in the city of Nerik, a spring-goddess played a very important role in the local pantheon (Haas 1994, 326-27; 603-04; and Czichon 2020). Perhaps she was originally the primary chthonic goddess in Nerik. Over time, however, the—apparently less significant—local chthonic solar deity may have been assimilated to the established type of the Sun-goddess of earth, including her profile as the mother of the local Storm-god of Nerik (analogous to the pantheon of Zippalanda). Thus, as was also the case in Zippalanda and since we also lack of evidence for her in Nerik from the older text sources, it appears that the Sun-goddess of the earth did not occupy a prominent role in Nerik until the later period. This contrasts with some reconstructions of the role of the Sun-goddess of the earth in the earliest known religious traditions of northern Anatolia, a matter which I will address below.

### 2.3. Palaean cult contexts

Until recently, the only known reference to the Sun-goddess of the earth that could be connected with the corpus of Palaic texts or the texts describing the Palaean cult (especially the festivals for Ziparwa) was the ritual or invocation said to have been performed for the Sun-goddess of the earth in her temple immediately following the festival for Ziparwa in both the an.daḫ.šum and *nuntarriyašḫa-* festivals25. Recently, however, David Sasseville has suggested that the solar deity in the Palaean cult can be identified as the Sun-goddess of the earth, as reflected in two relevant entries in the online eDiAna Dictionary (Sasseville 2022a; 2022b). Sasseville proposed that the frequently attested epithet or byname of the Palaean solar deity, *pašḫulla-* as well as its derivation *wašḫullati-* correspond semantically to Hittite *tekan-*. Thus, when applied to the Palaean solar deity, *pašḫulla-*/*wašḫullati-* would allegedly render this as the Sun-goddess of the earth/netherworld.

<sup>23</sup> Note also the cult inventory text, KBo 39.48+ (*CTH* 527.9, LNS), in which an entry concerning the spring Weriyadu is immediately followed by an entry for a local manifestation of Ereškigal, i.e. the Sun-goddess of the earth (dereš.ki.gal urux[…]; rev. IV 1'–4'; see Cammarosano 2016, TX 2016- 06-03 and Corti 2018, 55; 62).

<sup>24</sup> As a point of comparison to Weriyadu, a divine spring in the region of Nerik, we should keep in mind that a spring with particular religious significance existed directly in Nerik. KUB 36.89 obv. 27– 28 refers to this as the "deep cave" (*ḫalluwaza ḫunḫuešnaza*) from which the Storm-god is evoked. (*Contra* HW2 Ḫ III/2, 721, interpreting *ḫunḫu(n)eššar-* as "Wassermasse, Gewässer, Wasserflut, Welle, Woge", Willemijn Waal [in a paper given in Prague, November 2015], convincingly argued that *ḫunḫu(n)eššar-* means "depth, hollow, cave, cavity".) KUB 36.90 rev. 32, addressing the Stormgod of Nerik, refers to the "your beloved spring of Nerik" (see Haas 1994, 326-27; 603-04). In Oymaağaç, which is almost certainly to be identified with ancient Nerik, a spring has been excavated, located at the end of a staircase leading down into a cave where the water was collected in a pool (Czichon 2020). Czichon (2020, 160-61) proposes an identification of this grotto complex with the "deep cave" or "beloved spring" of Nerik.

<sup>25</sup> Thus the outline tablet of the an.daḫ.šum festival, KBo 10.20 obv. II 25–27 (Güterbock 1960, 82; 86; and Houwink ten Cate 1988, 184-85), and the outline tablet of the *nuntarriyašḫa-* festival, KBo 14.76 obv. I 12'-16' (Nakamura 2002, 62; 100-02).

In the sequence of deities of the Palaean cult, the solar deity usually occurs in the third position, immediately after Ziparwa and Kataḫzipuri, as is reflected in the following summary list:26


An example of the solar deity with the epithet *pašḫulla-* occurs in KUB 35.165 (*CTH* 751.1.A, MS). Following recitations addressed first to Ziparwa (obv. 1), then to Kataḫzipuri (obv. 16), a recitation addresses Tiyat, thus generally conforming to the aforementioned standard sequence. Here (obv. 21), the name Tiyat is preceded by the adjectival genitive of *pašḫulla-*:

KUB 35.165 obv.:

21 *pa-aš-ḫu-ul-la-ša-aš ti-*[*ia*]*-az*<sup>27</sup>

The standard sequence of Palaean deities is also recognizable in DBH 46/2.139 (*CTH* 643.2.B, NS) l. col. 20'-r. col. 23', where, however, following *pašḫulla-*, the name *Tiyaz*/dutu is either no longer preserved, or the epithet *pašḫulla-* simply stood alone in place of the usual name of the Palaean solar deity.

DBH 46/2.139 (*CTH* 643, NS) r. col.: 5' egir*-šu* <sup>d</sup>*wa*a*-aš-ḫu-la-aš-x*[

That *pašḫulla-* alone could designate the solar deity is suggested both by the divine determinative employed with it in the text just cited, as well as by a derivative of *pašḫulla-* that is also attested as standing alone: *wašḫullati-*. An example can be found in DBH 46/2.121, 9'-11', which describes a sequence of drinking rites for Ziparwa, Kataḫzipuri and [d*waš*]*ḫullatiš*.

DBH 46/2.121 (*CTH* 750, NS): 8'] *a-da-an-na e-ša-ri a-*⸢*ku-wa*⸣*-an-na ú-e-e*[*k-zi* 9']*x* <sup>d</sup>*zi-pár-wa*<sup>a</sup> ! *-a* ⸢gub⸣*-aš* ⸢2? *-šu*⸣ *e-ku-z*[*i*

11' d*wa-aš*]*-ḫu-ul-la-ti-iš* tuš-*aš* 2-*šu e-ku-zi x[*

[…] he sits down to eat. He as[ks] (for something) to drink. […] Standing, he drinks Ziparwa twice. […] …, he drinks Kataḫzipuri twice. … […] Sitting, he drinks [Waš] ḫullati twice […]


<sup>10&#</sup>x27; ] ⸢ d ⸣*ka-taḫ-zi-pu-ri-iš x-aš* 2*-šu e-ku-zi x*[

Further examples of *wašḫullati-* occur in KBo 19.154+ (*CTH* 751, MS? ) rev. 9' (in connection with the Ilaliyanteš deities) and in Bo 6431+ (*CTH* 750, LNS) 1' (followed by the standard sequence, as described above). Attestations of *wašḫullati-* also occur outside of the standard sequence of the Palaean pantheon (summarized above) in KBo 19.152 rev. IV 10' and KBo 19.153 rev. III 6'.

Sasseville's interpretation of *pašḫulla-* as "earth, underworld (?)" (Sasseville 2022a), and by implication of *wašḫullati-* as "Sun-god(dess) of the earth (?)" (Sasseville 2022b), is based ultimately on a single text containing offerings to a sequence of Palaean deities:

KBo 38.70 + KBo 30.137 (*CTH* 750, MS) obv. II:

8'/10' *ta* l[ugal*-u*]*š i-n*[*a da-a-i* 1 ninda.gur₄.ra *em-ṣa* 1 n]inda.gur₄.ra k[u₇] 9'/11' *a+n*[*a* ]*-pa* dutu *i*[*š* ? *- da-a-i* 1] ninda.gur₄.ra *e*[*m-ṣa*] 10'/12' 1 n[inda.gur₄.ra k]u₇ *a+na* <sup>d</sup> ⸢*i*⸣*-*[*la-li-an-da-aš*] *pár-ši-i*[*a*]

The king i[n … sets. One sour loaf of bread, one] sw[eet l]oaf of bread fo[r …] … the Sun-god … [ … he sets. One] s[our] loaf of bread, one [sw]eet l[oaf of bread] for the I[laliyanteš] deities he breaks.

While this text does not reflect the fuller sequence of deities of the Palaean pantheon in which the solar deity follows Ziparwa and Kataḫzipuri, as described above28, the connection of the solar deity with the Ilaliant(ik)eš deities is common in the Palaean pantheon29. The crux of Sasseville's interpretation is the word or sign restored in KBo 38.70 + KBo 30.137 obv. II 9'/11' between *a+n*[*a* and ]-*pa* dutu. The size of the break only allows for the restoration of one sign. Here, Sasseville would like to restore ki, and thus read the line as *a+n*[*a* ki]-*pa* dutu, where [ki]-*pa* is allegedly a logographic writing of *daganzipa*. Sasseville loosely equates the semantics of *daganzipa-* with that of *tekan-*. 30 This interpretation can be criticized for at least three reasons:



<sup>28</sup> The deities whose names are preserved in the immediately preceding context and who are also recipients of bread offerings include Ḫalki (obv. II 6'/8') and the Kuwanšeš deities (7'/9').

<sup>29</sup> This connection is also attested in Hittite mythological texts connected with the Luwian milieu (Steitler 2017, 345-63), where, however, there are no indications that the solar deity might be a chthonic Sun-goddess.

Even if the restoration as [ki]-*pa* = \**daganzipa* is incorrect, the semantic interpretation of *pašḫulla-* / *wašḫullati-* as a term for "earth, netherworld" is neither excluded nor confirmed. Support for this interpretation is found in the deity name Wašḫulili, which has been already been connected with Palaic *pašḫulla-* / *wašḫullati-* (Yakubovich 2008; Sasseville 2022a, 201) and likely designates a deity of a chthonic nature, as can be surmised from the various contexts in which Wašḫulili is attested. For example, VBoT 3, a text included in *CTH* 661 among other festival fragments with lists of kings possibly pertaining to a royal ancestral cult, describes a drinking rite for Wašḫulili, followed by a drinking rite for a solar deity (dutu) whose nature is unclear. That both Wašḫulili and the solar deity are chthonic deities is quite possible.

VBoT 3 (*CTH* 661, LNS) rev. VI?34:


…


Sitting, he drinks [W]ašḫulili. The large Inanna instrument (plays). They sing. The alam.zu₉ man recites. The cupbearer takes up (something) with the *zalḫai-* vessel. The cupbearer brings one loaf of sour bread from outside. The chief of the palace servants breaks (it).

Sitting, he drinks the solar deity. The large Inanna instrument (plays). They sing. The alam.zu₉ man recites. The cupbearer takes up (something) with the *zalḫai-* vessel. The cupbearer brings one loaf of sour bread from [out]side. The chief of the palace servants [brea]ks (it). (Yoshida 1996, 229-30)

Two other texts also grouped in *CTH* 661, KBo 48.46 and KBo 61.180, mention a *zalḫai-* vessel, the phraše *šēr ēpzi*, and the bringing of sour-dough loaves from outside. Thus, the rites described in all three texts seem to be closely associated with one another. KBo 48.46 r. col. 3'-6' includes a drinking rite to the deified day, whereas KBo 61.180 r. col. 3'-6' describes a drinking rite to Izzištanu. Both the deified day and Izzištanu can be considered chthonic deities who were worshiped in connection with rites or offerings pertaining to deceased Hittite kings. These texts, and the deities revered in the rites described in them, should thus be understood as part of a single cultic tradition.

paired with *annaš daganzipaš*, while the Sun-goddess is paired with Mezzulla. The pairing is in each case made explicit by the phrase *katti=šši* "together with him/her" in KUB 43.30 rev. 5'-11', rendered slightly different in KBo 11.32 obv. 31 as gam*=ši=ma=ši*, and thereafter (obv. 32–lo. edge 39) elliptically with ki.min; see Steitler 2017, 61-2; 76-8.

<sup>34</sup> The duplicate text is KBo 70.108 (*CTH* 661, NS).

KBo 48.46 (*CTH* 661, NS) r. col.:

```
3' dud-am tuš-⸢aš e⸣-ku-z[i
```
4' lú.mešalam.zu₉ *me-ma-*[*an-zi*

```
5' še-er e-ep-zi lús[agi?
```
6' *a-\*aš\*-ka-az ú-da-i* [

"Sitting, he drinks the deified day. […] The alam.zu₉ men re[cite. …] he takes up. The c[upbearer …] brings from outside. […]"

KBo 61.180 (*CTH* 661, NS) r. col.:


```
7' lúsagi.a 1 ⸢ninda⸣.gur₄.ra ⸢em⸣-[ṣa
```

```
8' ú-da-a-i x[]x x[
```
The king (and) the queen, sitting, drinkg Izz[ištanu]. The [large] Ina[nna]-instrument (plays). […] With the *zalḫai-* vessel he ta[kes] (something) up. […] The alam.zu₉ man recites. […]

The cupbearer brings one loaf of sour bread. … […]

In KBo 11.48 rev. 7-8, the proximity of Wašḫulili and dgal.zu in a list of deity names is reminiscent of the frequent collocation of the deified day and dgal.zu, frequently with Izzištanu as well, as for example in the Hittite funerary ritual. It is likely that the first deity in rev. 7 was the Sun-goddess, and the deity prior to Wašezzali in rev. 9 was the Storm-god (thus the restorations of Yoshida 1996, 156).

KBo 11.48 (*CTH* 663.5, LNS) rev.: 7 [dutu <sup>d</sup>*me-e*]*z-zu-ul-la* dkal <sup>d</sup> ⸢*wa*⸣*-aš-ḫu-l*[*i-li*(?) 8 []*x-ši* <sup>d</sup> 10 dgal.zu munusmeš ⸢sìr⸣*-ru* [

9 *x*[diškur<sup>d</sup>*w*]*a*a*-še-ez-za-li-in* ⸢gub⸣*-*[*aš* 

(Yoshida 1996, 156)

While these attestations of Wašḫulili are quite fragmentary, we should also again take note of the previously cited text that describes an offering to the Storm-god of Zippalanda, the Sun-goddess of the earth, Ḫašammili and Wašḫulili, suggesting the chthonic nature of the associated deity Wašḫulili:

KUB 20.96 (*CTH* 635.2, NS) rev. IV:


He makes the round of offerings four times (for) the Storm-god of Zippa[landa], the Sun-goddess of the [ea]rth, Ḫašamm[ili and Wa]šḫulili. The [small Inanna] instrument [(plays). They sing.] (Popko 1994, 194-95)

### 2.4. Cult of Lelwani

In the cult of Lelwani, which is usually associated with the *ḫešta-* house (Torri 1999, 5-37), a solar deity exists among the deities closely associated with Lelwani. These usually occur in the following sequence:


A typical example of this sequence of deities occurs in KBo 17.15, an OS text describing a festival celebrated in the *ḫešta-* house36. There, the chief of the cooks and the anointed priest offer the meat of five sheep for each of the following deities: Lelwani, Šiwatt, Tašammat, Tašimmet, the solar deity, Istuštaya, Papaya, Ḫašammili, and Zilipuri. Not only Lelwani, but also Šiwatt (the deified day), Ḫašammili, Ištuštaya and Papaya can all be associated with the netherworld on the basis of their occurences in other cultic contexts as well. By association, the solar deity appearing here also seems to have possessed some kind of chthonic nature.

In a fragmentary festival text, KBo 22.45, a solar deity – likely to be restored as the Sun-goddess of the earth – appears immediately before Lelwani and following a context referring to the gods of the father, the upper gods, as well as the ancient gods of the forefathers:

### KBo 22.45 (*CTH* 664, NS):


[… … mountain]s, rivers, gods of the father […] all the [upp]er gods […] the Sungoddess [of the earth? ], Le[lwani, … the anc]ient [gods of? ] the forefathers […] (Yoshida 1996, 48 note 30)

This restoration of [*ták-na-aš*] in KBo 22.45, 4' is supported by the sequences of the oath deities in treaties with Ḫukkana37, but now also by a cult inventory from Kay-

<sup>35</sup> Tašammat and Tašimmet are sometimes omitted from the sequence, as is the case in IBoT 3.1, where they are venerated separately and appear under the variant names of Ašammat and Tašammat (with abbreviated spelling of the latter as d *ta-ša*) in rev. 55'-56'; see the discussion of this text by Torri 2015, 293-96.

<sup>36</sup> KBo 17.15 (*CTH* 645.6.C, OS) obv. I! 8'–18'; see Haas and Wäfler 1976, 84-7; and Torri 1999, 10-1.

<sup>37</sup> The sequence of Lelwani/Allatum followed by the Sun-goddess of the earth is known from the treaty of Šuppiluliuma I with Ḫukkana of Ḫayaša (KBo 5.3 obv. I 50, *CTH* 42, NS; Beckman 1999, 26-34, Devecchi 2015, 100-09) as well as from a fragment of another treaty with Ḫukkana (KUB 26.39 rev. IV 18', *CTH* 78, MS; Devecchi 2015, 97-9). For a summary of the sequences of oath deities in these texts, see Yoshida 1996, 17; my thanks to Giulia Torri for bringing this sequence to my attention.

alıpınar (Šamuḫa) recently published as DAAM 1.30. In this text, a group of deities very similar to the sequence associated with Lelwani appears, but here the Sun-goddess of the earth is explicitly mentioned in obv. l. col. 10:

### DAAM 1.30 (*CTH* 528.91, LNS) obv. l. col.:


[…] ration of [n+] one loaf of bread for […, n+] one loaf of bread (for) the S[un-goddess] of the earth, [n+] one loaf of bread for the propi[tious] day, [n+ one] loaf of bread for the evil day, [n+ one loaf of bread] for Išdušt[aya], [n+ one] loaf of bread for Papaya, [n+ one loaf] of bread for … […, n+ one loaf] of bread for Pir[wa,38 … n+ one loaf] of bread for … […, n+ one loaf of bread] fo[r …] (Cammarosano 2019, 96-7)

Unusual aspects of this text passage are the divine determinative before the epithet *taknaš* (obv. l. col. 10) as well as the seemingly artificial inclusion of the (otherwise unattested) "evil day" as a counterpart to the "propitious day" (obv. l. col. 11-12). Despite peculiarities of this sequence, the presence of Išduštaya and Papaya, the Sun-goddess of the earth and the "propitious day" closely parallel the sequence of deities associated with Lelwani, thus further suggesting that the solar deity usually connected with Lelwani was indeed a chthonic Sun-goddess similar to the Sun-goddess of the earth39.

Another text, KUB 60.121 (*CTH* 500.344, MS), which seems to stem from the Kizzuwatnean milieu, describes repeated offerings to a group of three deities, consisting of Ḫašammili, the "propitious day" and the solar deity of *dankuliya-* (obv. 10'-16'; see Popko 1991; and Steitler 2017, 250-51). Popko suggested that *dankuliya-* means "darkness" and is a derivative of *dankui-* "dark" (similarly HEG T, D/1, 111), and furthermore that *dankuli*- might be the Hittite word for "tin". This interpretation, however, should probably be ruled out based on the identification of Hittite *arzil-* as the word for "tin" by Soysal (2006), who, like Cohen (2010, 38), proposed that *dankuli-* is the translation of Akkadian *s/šemiru* "bracelet" on the basis of a trilingual text from Ugarit (Sumerian-Akkadian-Hittite). Based on this, I proposed that *dankuli-* may likely refer to the part of the body on which this item was worn (Steitler 2017, 251), i.e., the arm or

<sup>38</sup> Giulia Torri (personal communication) pointed out another text, a plague prayer of Muršili II, KUB 31.121 + KUB 31.121a + KUB 48.111 (obv. I-II, *CTH* 379, NS; see Singer 2002, 66-8; and Rieken *et al*. 2015ff.-a), where the Sun-goddess of the earth, Lelwani and Pirwa occur together (obv. I 16'/7'-8').

<sup>39</sup> Giulia Torri (personal communication) considers this text to be a late or local corruption of a sequence in which originally only dutu (without *taknaš*) would have stood, attested in numerous other texts pertaining to the cult of Lelwani. The assumption by Archi 2013, 2f. that the solar deity associated with Lelwani should be identified as the Sun-goddess of the earth (Archi lists this deity in the sequence as "(taknaš) utu") seems to be based on an equivocation of this epithet with Wurunšemu (Archi 2013, 3), which was rejected in the discussion above.

hand. As an epithet of a solar deity, this allows for a comparison with the "Sun-god of the hand" who occurs in the ritual of Alli of Arzawa (KBo 12.126+, *CTH* 402.A, NS, obv. I 12; see Mouton 2010ff., TX 10.11.2014, TRfr 27.02.13; and Steitler 2017, 333-34).

Other attestations of the Sun-goddess of the earth connected with the Kizzuwatnean milieu can be found in a list of the *kaluti* circle of female deities, KBo 33.212+ (*CTH* 664.1.B, MS? ; see Wegner 2002, 303-04), naming various manifestations of Ḫebat (obv. III 2'-3'), followed by the Sun-goddess of the earth of different locations (4'- 16'). Immediately after the Sun-goddesses of earth follow Lelwani and Dag[i-…] (rev. IV 1), and then the hypostases of Ištar, Ninatta, and Kulitta of different cities (3-6).

### 2.5. Associations with minor numina pertaining to death and the afterlife

Another interesting context in which the Sun-goddess of the earth appears is a constellation of peripheral deities, numina and/or abstract concepts, such as I/Annari, Tarpi, the "small place", the "righteous tongue", the "cut-off moment", "passing through the doorway", and the propitious day in the context of a festival for the protective deities. Several of these terms are explicitly or implicitly connected with the concept of death or the afterlife:


<sup>[…</sup> to] a[ll] … […] to the male gods of the protective deity […] to Innari, Tarpi, the [cut-off] mo[ment, … the s]mall place, the [righteous] tonge […] and the propitious day he places.

[…] a *kappi-* vessel on the place in the middle of the hearth for […]

<sup>[…]</sup> but [a]ll of the *ḫarnantašši-* (breads? ) […] the king for Zitḫariya. But one […] the queen places for Zitḫariya.

<sup>[…]</sup> the *kappi-* vessel in the same way. In the middle of the hearth […] before the [hearth he places down for the Sun-goddess of the earth.

<sup>[…]</sup> *kappi-* vessels in the same way. One […] on this side on the hearth but one on that side he p[laces] for the gul-š- deities.

Note that the offering is presented "down" to the Sun-goddess of the earth (obv.? 11'). Significant is also the presence here of the "propitious day" (noted above) as well as the gul-*š*deities, who are associated with fate (Waal 2014; 2019). Notably, a similar constellation of numina occurs in KUB 10.81 that also includes the na₄ *ḫekur-* precinct of the deity, an institution that has often been associated with the royal mortuary cult (Singer 2009, 169-70). This text describes the festival for the protective deity of Tauriša on the 32nd day of the an.daḫ.šum festival and provides a further indication for the collective chthonic nature of these numina:

```
KUB 10.81 (CTH 617, LNS):
```
4' gišká.gal*-aš* d[ingirmeš *ša-la-wa-ni-uš*]

? ]


… [the *šalawani-*] d[eities] of the gate, the *ḫekur* of the deity, the small place, the righteous tongue, Annari, Tarpi, passing through the doorway, the propitious day and the night he drinks.

### 2.6. Function typical of magical rituals in a festival context

*CTH* 655 is an unusual description of a ritual, as it shares numerous characteristics with Hittite festival descriptions, but at the same time it also has much in common with Hittite magical rituals. This text refers to events that occurred under the historical king Ḫantili I (or II) and that made the performance of this ritual necessary in the first place. The ambiguity of this text's genre (festival or magical ritual) requires us to relativize its significance for the role of the Sun-goddess of the earth in the festivals. The Sun-goddess of the earth is invoked to remove impurity brought upon the land:

HFAC 40 (*CTH* 655.1.A, NS) obv.? :

2' *lu*! *-kat-ta-pa* ⸢ uru⸣*x-x*[]


```
6' uruha-at-⸢tu⸣-ša-ma ták-na-aš dutu-aš pár-na [pa-iz-zi?
                                                           ]
```
On the next day (in?) the city of […] the anointed priests [and] the mother-of-the-deity priestesses [give] the Storm-god and the (other) gods (something) to eat (and) to dri[nk]. The singer of the large Inanna instrument [sings] (for) the Storm-god and the gods. But (in?) Ḫattuša [he goes] to the temple of the Sun-goddess of the earth. He invokes the Sun-goddess of the earth as follows: "Why has bloodshed become widespread? [Why] have tears become abundant? O Sun-goddess of the earth, my lady, […] may you treat … benevolently!" (Beckman 2001, 54; 56-7)

<sup>7&#</sup>x27; *ták-na-aš* dutu*-i kiš-an te-ez-zi*

<sup>8&#</sup>x27; *iš-ḫar-wa ku-it ma-ak-kiš-ta iš-ḫa-aḫ-ru-ma-wa* [*ku-it*]

<sup>9&#</sup>x27; ⸢*pa-an-ga*⸣*-ri-ia-ta-ti ták-na-aš* dutu*-uš* ⸢gašan*-ia*⸣

<sup>10&#</sup>x27; []*x-*⸢bu *zi*⸣*-ik a-*⸢*aš-šu i-ia*⸣[]

<sup>11&#</sup>x27; []*x*[]

Since the Sun-goddess of the earth is generally uncommon in festival texts, the overlap of *CTH* 655 with the magical rituals, where the Sun-goddess of the earth is quite common, seems to offer an explanation for the presence of this deity in this particular ritual. Thus *CTH* 655 should be given correspondingly little weight as an attestation of the Sun-goddess of the earth in a festival context.

### 2.7. The AN.DAḪ.ŠUM and nuntarriyašḫa- Festivals

Among the text fragments currently identified as descriptions of the an.daḫ.šum and *nuntarriyašḫa-* festivals, the Sun-goddess of the earth (explicitly designated as such) is only mentioned in connection with day 14 of the an.daḫ.šum and day 11 (or 12) of the *nuntarriyašḫa-* festival. According to the outline tablets as well as the colophons of day tablets of both itinerant festivals, in both of these contexts she is simply mentioned as the goddess for whom a ceremony was performed subsequent to the festival for the Palaean Storm-god Ziparwa (see above). However, detailed descriptions (i.e., daily tablets) of the festival for the Sun-goddess of the earth in these two festival contexts have yet to be recognized. Aside from this, in these itinerant festival traditions the solar deity associated with Lelwani is the only other apparently chthonic solar deity present in these festivals. Furthermore, it is especially surprising that in the portions of these festivals pertaining in part to the Hittite royal ancestral cult the Sun-goddess of the earth seems to play no role at all. For example, on the fifth day of the *nuntarriyašḫa-* festival the Hittite queen presents offerings to cult images of the Sun-goddess of Arinna, each of which was connected with a deceased Hittite queen, without any mention of the Sun-goddess of the earth. Nor do the texts describing days 16 and 18 of the an.daḫ.šum festival, when offerings were performed for statues of deceased Hittite kings40, make any reference to the Sun-goddess of the earth. This leads us to conclude that the Sun-goddess of the earth took on a very minor role in the cultic traditions amalgamated in the spring and fall festivals of the Hittite state.

### 2.8. The cult of Zalpa/Zalpuwa

Finally, we will examine attestations of the Sun-goddess of the earth in texts that are connected with the city or region of Zalpa. These are perhaps the most significant, as they could point to the existence of the Sun-goddess of the earth in northern Anatolia in some of the earliest Hittite text traditions and in the pre-existing Hattian milieu of the same region. It is precisely on this basis that Corti has argued for the presence of the "Sun-goddess of the earth" already in the Hattian religion and on the coast of the Black Sea:

*Taknaš* <sup>d</sup> utu (identified only later with ereš.ki.gal) is already attested in a prominent position in the Old Hittite 'Invocation for Hattian deities' (*CTH* 733) as well as in the Empire period 'Celebration in the Zalpuwa Land' (*CTH* 667; here with the double hypostasis of ereš.ki.gal and Ammamma) and in *CTH* 3.2. She was therefore one of the deities of the pantheon of Zalpuwa from the beginning to the end of the Hittite Empire. It is interesting to note that the Sun-goddess of the Earth is almost never found in original Old Hittite texts. Also her identification with ereš.ki.gal and the association with the ancient gods cannot be traced before the Middle Hittite period. Apart from KBo 17.7++ rev. IV? , 7'-8', the references in *CTH* 733 are the only direct testimony of her cult during the Old Hittite period. From early on the Sun-goddess of the Earth had a cult not only in

<sup>40</sup> See the preliminary study by Steitler forthcoming.

North-Central Anatolia, but also in the Central Black Sea Region, an area that certainly belonged to the Hattian milieu; in light of this information the conclusion that the 'Hittite' *taknaš* <sup>d</sup> utu was a deity of southern origin or of the Luwian tradition must be re-examined. (Corti 2018, 47-8)

Craig Melchert – referring to the same texts – strongly concurs with Corti's conclusions, adding that solar deity is "resolutely male in the Indo-European tradition and … strictly celestial" (Melchert 2019, 242 note 11). However, I contest that the texts cited by both Melchert and Corti as evidence for the role of the Sun-goddess of the earth in the early Hittite religious traditions of northern Anatolia are as clear as they claim them to be. The following discussion aims to demonstrate that these texts are at best inconclusive for the debate of the origin of the Sun-goddess of the earth.

We begin with *CTH* 733, in which we find one of the only attestations of the Sun-goddess of the earth in an Old Hittite text-composition, preserved in part in the Hittite section of a Hattic-Hittite bilingual text. KUB 60.20 is a NS text that duplicates VBoT 124+ (OS) and may loosely parallel KUB 8.41 (OS)41. For the sake of clarity, I present these three texts in separate transliterations, followed by a composite translation based on all three. Whereas the relationship between KUB 60.20 and VBoT 124+ as duplicate texts is straightforward, the only overlap of these texts with KUB 8.41 rev. III 1-4 is the toponym Ḫa[š]k[aḫaškiwat] partially preserved in rev. III 1. The subsequent text of KUB 8.41 rev. III 7'ff. diverges significantly from the other two texts, making it very uncertain to what degree KUB 8.41 rev. III corresponded to KUB 60.20 and VBoT 124+ at all. The reconstruction below largely follows that of Corti 2014. The portions of the translation based on KUB 8.41 are marked by dotted underlining in order to emphasize the uncertainty of this fragment's relevance to the reconstruction of these lines:

```
KUB 60.20 (CTH 733.II.c.1, NS/OH) rev.?
                                         :
```


KUB 8.41 (*CTH* 733.III.b.1.A, OS) rev. III43 (translation with dotted underlining): 1 ⸢ uru*ḫa*⸣*-*[*aš*]*-k*[*a-ḫa-aš-ki-wa-at*


```
4 na-an an-da-an kù(-)[
```
(In? ) the city of Ḫa[š]k[aḫaškiw]at […] c[onjure]s, but the singer [recites. "…] you have become […] among the [god]s, you are Kaštuwariti [… the qu]een (of? ) Ḫaškaḫaškiwa[t …] It/him/her […] do not look [ins]ide. The Sun-goddess of the earth will see you."


<sup>41</sup> The correspondence of KUB 8.41 with KUB 60.20 and VBoT 124+ was proposed by Corti 2014.

<sup>42</sup> Corti 2014 restores dut]u-*uš*.

The critical attestation of the Sun-goddess of the earth is preserved in the NS copy (KUB 60.20 rev.? 6'! ), presumably allowing for a corresponding restoration in VBoT 124+ (OS) obv.? 5'. Although this section conforms in general to the other invocations of the gods in *CTH* 733, which declare the deity's name among the gods and among men, it remains fragmentary. We know neither the specific identity of the god invoked (aside from "queen (of? ) Ḫaškaḫaškiwat"), nor the reason for the prohibition of "looking inside" combined with what sounds like the threat of an onlooking the Sun-goddess of the earth. This is only paralleled by the immediately following line in KUB 60.20 rev. 7', which also occurs in a very fragmentary context.

Corti's optimistic reconstruction of this passage has numerous weaknesses. His restoration of [*ták-na-aš* dut]u*-uš* in VBoT 124 obv.? 3', which would allow us to identify the Sun-goddess of the earth as the addressee of the invocation, is speculative. While the hand copy of VBoT 124 permits the reading of utu, a recent photo of the fragment shows the sign before UŠ to be damaged beyond recognition (at least on the fragment in its current state).

Fig. 1. Traces of signs at the beginning of VBoT 124 obv.? 3' according to the photo (left: YBC 16167, hethiter.net/: fotarch BF01915) and the hand copy (right: by Götze).

The restoration of *taknaš* in the gap just before alleged dut]u*-uš* is based on the fragment of a sign preserved at the end of KUB 8.41 rev. III 2. On both the hand copy as well as the photo, the remains of two horizontals and a broken vertical are visible. This would correspond to a very late form of the DAG sign, but KUB 8.41 is written in OS, so that if this were DAG, we should expect more than two horizontals, yet none are visible. Furthermore, there are traces of a sign before this and following what has been read as *ti*? , which may even be part of the final sign. Thus, it seems that the reading DAG must be excluded here.

Fig. 2. Traces of signs at the end of KUB 8.41 rev. III 2 according to the photo (left: Bo 865, hethiter.net/: fotarch BoFN00669b) and the hand copy (right: by Weidner).

A further problem is Corti's interpretation of kù as a logographic writing for *mišriwanda* in KUB 8.41 rev. III 4 (analogous to KUB 60.20 rev.? 9'! ), the end of which Corti identifies with the ]-*da* of KUB 60.20 rev.? 6'! . Although semantically, kù would seem to be an appropriate logogram for *mišriwant-*, no other attestations of this writing have been identified thus far.45 Finally, Corti inteprets the phrase *lē šuwayeši* as a transitive verb, with the enclitic pronoun -*an* of KUB 8.41 rev. III 4 as the accusative object ("do not look at her in her brilliance", seemingly referring to the Sun-goddess of the earth). Such a meaning would be unique, as *šuwaye-* is normally intransitive construed with the dative-locative, allative or ablative cases (CHD Š 540-41, s.v. *šuwaye-* 1.). When used transitively, *šuwaye-* means "to regard (favorably)" and is usually combined with the adverb *āššu* (CHD Š 541-42, s.v. *šuwaye-* 2.). Thus, the phrase here must be understood as "do not look in (a location)" or "do not look favorably upon (someone)".

I have explained the presence of the Sun-goddess of the earth in another OS text, a ritual performed for the Hittite royal couple (*CTH* 416), as the result of influence from the Luwian milieu (see Steitler 2017, 144-49; 233-34). Such an argument would be unconvincing for *CTH* 733, where the religious tradition seems to be genuinely Hattian and or north-central Anatolian, although one cannot completely rule out the possibility of very early mutual connections and influences between Hattian and Luwian religious traditions46. While this text passage does confirm the attestation of the Sun-goddess of the earth among the invocations described in *CTH* 733, the attestation remains nevertheless isolated – it only occurs in a NS copy – and we ultimately do not understand how to interpret the role of the Sun-goddess of the earth mentioned in this fragmentary context. This should prompt us to remain cautious about drawing too many conclusions from it.

Aside from *CTH* 733, the only other text that might reflect a connection between the Sun-goddess of the earth and the Hattian religious tradition is a magical ritual recorded on a NS *Sammeltafel*, KUB 17.28 (*CTH* 730) obv. I (see Collins 2006, 165- 66; Steitler 2017, 234-35; 244-45). The ritual was occasioned by a lunar omen that negatively affected the ritual patient. As a remedy, a piglet was placed in a hole in the ground. Later, nails of different kinds of metal were driven into the piglet, and some parts of the piglet were eaten by the ritual participants while other parts were offered to the Sun-goddess of the earth. Unlike *CTH* 733, this ritual cannot be securely dated as an OH text composition, but the incantations in the Hattic language do suggest archaic origins in the Hattian milieu. The cultic-religious significance of pigs in Hittite Anatolia was studied by Collins (2006), who noted numerous instances of piglets sacrificed in pits and dedicated to the Sun-goddess of the earth in rituals from the Kizzuwatnean or more generally Hurro-Luwian milieus (Collins 2006, 173-76). It is plausible that in this ritual Hattic recitations of ancient northern or central Anatolian origin were combined with a magical practice that did not itself originate in the Hattian milieu, but whose popularity and perceived efficacy led to its inclusion with ritual incantations that would otherwise be unexpected. Thus we should be cautious about assigning this entire ritual, and the Sun-goddess of the earth specifically, to a Hattian tradition of north-central Anatolia.

Another group of texts cited by Corti (2018) supporting the existence of the Sun-goddess of the earth in ancient (Hattian) north-central Anatolia is *CTH* 667, a group of cultic texts that are associated with Zalpa or Zalpuwa in which the Sun-goddess of the earth is mentioned. The texts of *CTH* 667, however, are all NS or LNS tablets. Furthermore, there is little evidence for their continuity with the religious tra-

<sup>45</sup> See CHD L-N, 297-99 and HEG L-M, 216-17. The attestations of the logogram kù in the files of the *Hethitologie-Archiv* are all writings of *šuppi-* or *šuppiyaḫḫ-*.

<sup>46</sup> See Goedegebuure 2008.

ditions described in *CTH* 733 or with what we otherwise know of the archaic traditions of Zalpa47. The references to the Sun-goddess of the earth in *CTH* 667 all employ the Sumerogram dereš.ki.gal, which is clearly a late scribal innovation. I do not consider this text group to be a reliable source for the archaic religion of northern Anatolian.

Finally, a reference to the Sun-goddess of the earth occurs in a fragmentary text attributed to the so-called Zalpa Tale: KBo 12.63. This NS fragment has been grouped with other fragmentary texts whose exact relationship to this text composition is unclear48. The fragment mentions the "sickness" of a solar deity and the Storm-god perhaps referring to an offence committed against them. Then the Sun-goddess of the earth is called upon as a witness in this matter:

KBo 12.63 (*CTH* 3.2.C, NS) rev. III:

?


The sick[ness] of the solar deity and the si[ckness] of the Storm-god […]. O Sun-goddess of the earth […] may you be […] witness! (Soysal 1989, 75-8, 108-10)

This corresponds to the general profile of the Sun-goddess of the earth—especially in the magical rituals, where she functions in the removal of evil, impurity, and sickness. As I have argued elsewhere, even if the Sun-goddess of the earth does play a role in the Zalpa Tale, this does not require us to conclude that she played a significant role in the Hattian religious milieu:

Given the central role of the city of Kaneš in the [Zalpa] narrative, we would expect to find deities reflecting the Hittite-Luwian milieu that was prevalent there during the O[ld] A[ssyrian] period and also predominant within the later Hittite concept of the "gods of Kaneš" (Steitler 2017, 221 note 718)

Thus, if she can be identified in the Old Hittite text composition of the Zalpa Tale, the Sun-goddess need not be attributed to the Hattian milieu, but could just as well belong to a Hittite-Luwian milieu existing in and around the city of Kaneš. In summary, the evidence for the Sun-goddess of the earth in the early Hattian or northern Anatolian religious milieus both scanty and debatable.

### 3. The Luwian and Palaean chthonic solar deities

A solar deity of the earth is clearly attested in texts in the Luwian language as well as in texts belonging to the Luwian milieu. Most recently, Ilya Yakubovich (2022) has suggested that, contrary to previous assumptions, this solar deity (*Tiwad tiyammaššiš*) should now be understood as a male Sun-god of the earth on the basis of the epithets assigned to him. Due to the constraints of space, I will offer neither a confirmation

<sup>47</sup> On *CTH* 667 in general, and the (dis)continuity with *CTH* 733 see Popko 2004; Corti 2010, 151-56; Steitler 2017, 270; 461.

<sup>48</sup> Corti 2002 identifies this text as part of a ritual ceremony that might be connected with the Zalpa Tale (similarly Soysal 2005, 130-31), but that is also comparable to the Annals of Ḫattušili and the rituals for Labarna/Ḫattušili; see also Holland and Zorman 2007, 6.

nor a rejection of this theory here. However, I would propose a hypothetical counterargument that the Luwian solar deity of the earth may have been, like Ištar, identified in some contexts as male, in others as female. In any case, this deity's female identity clearly becomes predominant at some point, whereas the male identity, if correct, can only be seen in a few isolated epithets.

The situation in the Palaean pantheon requires further examination. I interpreted the Palaean solar deity, Tiyat, as similar to the Luwian Sun-god, Tiwad49. This was based upon a degree of parallelism between the Luwian and Palaean religious traditions: in the Luwian pantheon, the Sun-god and Kamrušepa frequently act in tandem with one another, and we can posit a spousal relationship between them. In the Palaean pantheon, Kataḫzipuri – who can be approximated with Luwian Kamrušepa50 – is the spouse of the Storm-god, Ziparwa. However, a solar deity follows closely behind Ziparwa and Kataḫzipuri in offering sequences in Palaean cult contexts. Thus, even though the Palaean and Luwian panthea diverge one another, the proximity of the solar deity to Kataḫzipuri can be identified in both. One should also note the association of the solar deity and the Ilaliyanteš deities both he Palaean and the Luwian panthea.

Should the identification of the epithets *pašḫulla-* and *wašḫullati-* as Palaean terms for the netherworld be confirmed (see above), this would suggest the Palaean solar deity was a chthonic deity. One should, however, keep in mind that these epithets do not always accompany the name of the Palaean Sun-god. Furthermore, the interpretation of *pašḫulla-* / *wašḫullati-* as "earth, netherworld" ultimately remains uncertain. Even if Sasseville's hypothesis is correct, this deity's gender (Sun-god or Sun-goddess) would still remain an open question that would also have to be addressed in connection with an evaluation of the proposed male gender of the Luwian solar deity of the earth, thus Yakubovich, in contrast to the Sun-goddess of the earth in the Hittite pantheon.

### 4. Conclusions

In the festival rituals, most significant attestations of the Sun-goddess of the earth are found in the local cults of Zippalanda and Nerik. There is no clear evidence that the roles of the Sun-goddess of the earth and the Storm-god of heaven as parents of the local Storm-god in the cult of Zippalanda were already established in the period when the OS festival texts pertaining to Zippalanda were written down. However, this tradition was well-established by the Empire period at the latest. The pantheon of Zippalanda may have served as a model for re-interpreting the local pantheon of Nerik51. As in Zippalanda, the role of the Sun-goddess of the earth in Nerik does not seem to crystallize until the later period, when she seems to have been artificially installed in a divine family analogous to the pantheon of Zippalanda. In Nerik, this might represent the continued evolution of an already-established prominent chthonic goddess there, who was secondarily subsumed under the Sun-goddess of the earth.

Outside of Zippalanda and Nerik, the Sun-goddess of the earth is quite rare in festival descriptions. When she does occur, she is usually invoked in magical incantations, thus her role is similar to that in the magical rituals. In *CTH* 655, for example, a ritual pertaining to transgressions of Ḫantili, she is specifically called upon to remove evil

<sup>49</sup> See Steitler 2017, 221-26; 403-07.

<sup>50</sup> See Warbinek 5-6; 10.

<sup>51</sup> See Torri 2019, 218-23, who claims influence moving in the other direction, namely, from Nerik to Zippalanda.

incurred upon the land. In the sequences of offerings spanning the major deities of the Hittite state pantheon that are typical of the festival texts, the Sun-goddess of the earth does not occupy a fixed position. When she does appear in particular offering sequences, this is conditioned by specific cultic contexts, as in the aforementioned examples of the local cults of Zippalanda and Nerik or (possibly) in the Palaean cult. Not surprisingly, the exhaustive lists of deities including local hypostases, such as some of the *kaluti-*lists, did not overlook the multiple manifestations of the Sun-goddess of the earth. The solar deities whom we propose to identify as chthonic, but which lack the epithet "of the earth", appear in context together with other clearly chthonic deities (such as Lelwani) or in what could be described as "appendices" to the offering sequences. Many elements of these can be related to the netherworld (such as the propitious day or Ḫašammili), but, in general, they are peripheral to the Hittite state pantheon.

Some of the isolated attestations of the Sun-goddess of the earth in Old Hittite text compositions, such as the Zalpa Tale or the Old Hittite Ritual for the royal couple, can be generally attributed to southern or south-eastern Anatolian milieus in which Luwian and, later, Hurrian traditions were especially prominent. Although a very few attestations of the Sun-goddess of the earth exist in texts of the Hattian or northern Anatolian milieus, such as in *CTH* 733 or KUB 17.28, the weight of the overall evidence continues to tilt the scales in favor of a Luwian origin of the Sun-goddess of the earth. The role of the Sun-goddess of the earth is quite insignificant in the Hattian-Hittite religious traditions attested early on in the Hittite kingdom, and the later festival descriptions give no reason to indicate that she rose to great prominence in the pantheon of the state cult.

A chthonic solar deity who was distinct from the Sun-goddess of the earth seems to have existed in the Hattian milieu, as attested in the cult of Nerik and the cult of Lelwani. The profile of this chthonic solar deity still remains quite vague, and has only minimal overlap with the profile of the Sun-goddess of the earth. In my estimation, the available evidence does not allow us to speak of these solar deities as belonging to one and the same deity type. To do so would be premature and unduly universalizing. This case exemplifies the general danger of employing deity types in descriptions of deities for whom we have very little or ambiguous data. Whether chthonic, celestial, male, female, or otherwise, it still at least seems possible to claim with a fair degree of confidence that the deities whose names were written as dutu can at least be described as "solar".

### Bibliography


eds. Heather D. Baker, Eleanor Robson, and Gábor Zólyomi, 29-40. Exeter: British Insitute for the Study of Iraq.


Mouton, Alice, ed. 2010ff. *Rituel d'Allī d'Arzawa*. hethiter.net/: CTH 402.

Nakamura, Mitsuo. 2002. *Das hethitische nuntarriyašḫa-Fest*. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten (PIHANS 94).

Neu, Erich. 1980. *Althethitische Ritualtexte in Umschrift*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 25). Popko, Maciej. 1991. "Eine 'Schwarze Tafel' aus Boğazköy (KUB LX 121)." *Altorientalische Forschungen* 18: 239-45.


*Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Hittitology. Warsaw, 5-9 September 2011*, ed. Piotr Taracha, 1016-1033. Warsaw: AGADE.


### Defining the Hittite "Pantheon", its Hierarchy and Circles: Methodological Perspectives

Livio Warbinek1

**Abstract**: For the Hittite religion of the "Thousand Gods of Ḫatti" the scholarship has identified different ways of categorization: State pantheon, Local cults, "circle" and numeric group are the most widely used categories based on several criteria, such as linguistics, geography, and cultural milieu. The present paper aims to better define the state of the question about the hierarchy within the Hittite pantheon on the one hand, and to further investigate the notion of "circle" in the Hittite religion on the other, whose analysis has raised some questions and has led to different interpretations.

### 1. Hittite religion

In the field of Anatolian religion of the 2nd millennium BC, the Hittites created a peculiar religious structure: the "Thousand Gods of Ḫatti"2 . Indeed, scholarship provides different interpretations of the *religio hethitica* in Anatolia according to different criteria, as recently highlighted by Cammarosano (2021, 94) «The gods […] can be considered from different perspectives, depending on whether the focus is on their typology, geographical areas of attestation, or cultural milieu». Contextually, different ways to describe this religious system have emerged: the most common concepts3 employed in literature are those of State pantheon, Local Cults, numeric groups, and circles.

According to Gilan (2019, 179) «by 'Hittite religion' we mainly refer to the religious practices that are attested in the state archives of the Hittite capital, mostly relating to the king and the royal family or to 'state religion'. This is mostly due to the nature of the Hittite textual evidence. No private archives and very few administrative texts have been found so far in Hittite Anatolia», whereas for Taracha (2009, 86) it was a «peculiar product of political theology, an amalgam of Anatolian, Hurrian, Syrian and Mesopotamian religious traditions»4 . It should not be forgotten that this religious amalgam had been possible and successful thanks, above all, to the rich cultural contacts of the


<sup>3</sup> Taracha 2009, 38 *passim*; Hutter 2013, 183 "State Pantheon", 187 "state cult"; Rutherford 2020, 185; Hutter 2021, 29.

<sup>4</sup> See also Hutter 2003, 115; Taracha 2010, 858.

Livio Warbinek, University of Verona, Italy, livio.warbinek@univr.it, 0000-0002-5472-9177 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

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

Livio Warbinek, *Defining the Hittite "Pantheon", its Hierarchy and Circles: Methodological Perspectives*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4.16, in Livio Warbinek, Federico Giusfredi (edited by), *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria. Proceedings of the TeAI Workshop Held in Verona, March 25-26, 2022*, pp. 181-191, 2023, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4, DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

Hittite kingdom with other civilizations, from the Aegean Sea to the Euphrates and from the Black Sea to the Orontes, during several historical events.

Within this wider context, the creative process of the Thousand Gods seems to evolved according several possibilities for interaction among cultures5 developing a complex religious system which necessitates further consideration.

### 2. Divine hierarchy?

The epigraphic sources we have – as well as the iconographic ones, when available – clearly highlight a precise order of importance among deities6 . Particularly, I am referring to both the sequence of divine offerings in the cultural texts, which «was never accidental and it reflected the divine hierarchy» (Taracha 2009, 39), and the Hittite state treaties, which «list the witnessing gods in an order determined by certain set principles» (Popko 1995, 90). According to Popko's analysis, already at the time of the reign of King Arnuwanda I and Queen Ašmunikal, the canon of the pantheon was close to that which appears in the later treaties, thus pinpointing the creation of the official pantheon to the Middle Hittite period7 .

Stage by stage, all the gods were apparently organized according to their order of importance8 in a structure of the divine world which seems to have the fixed shape of a pyramid, with only minor variations: at the top were the main gods, from the Stormgod to his wife and their extended family; below, we encounter the second-rank gods, such as the Mother-goddesses, the Solar deities; then gradually all the others from the War-god to the god of vegetation, the spirits, the tutelary figures, and the evil gods; finally, at the bottom the ancient departed kings9 . Not less importantly, the «Hittites did not generally refer to 'kingship' among the gods» even though «the Storm-god is occasionally addressed as 'King (of Heaven)' and his spouse as 'Queen' (e.g. KUB 6, 45 i 10-12)» (Beckman 2004, 313b). This scheme can also be applied to the local panthea, where in a «Hittite town, you tend to find a simpler structure, with a top-tier, comprising a storm god and either a sun deity or a mother goddess; a 'tutelary deity' or deities, […] sometimes a god of war, and various local deities associated with mountains, rivers, and/or springs» (Rutherford 2020, 185-86). This hierarchical vision is apparently derived from the conception of the divine among the Hittites, because the «inhabitants of Anatolia imagined the world of the gods in likeness to the real world around them»10 and the «kinship and the hierarchy in the pantheon structure closely resembled actual social relations» (Taracha 2009, 80).

However, even if this representation could be valid in general, it portrays a palimpsest that returns a synchronic and flat picture of what was, in all likelihood, the result of a diachronic process of stratification. As is the case with the different features of Stormgods, tutelary deities, and so on, the gods should not – in my opinion – be grouped together axiomatically, because if the available evidence offers a sufficiently clear picture, this picture highlights as many differences as there are similarities. As correctly point-

<sup>5</sup> See Schwemer 2008, 147-48 and *Introduction* in the present volume.

<sup>6</sup> Haas 1994, 633; Taracha 2009, 39.

<sup>7</sup> Popko 1995, 90. See also Taracha 2009, 83-3; 86; Taracha 2010, 861; and Devecchi 2015, 48-9 for an outline of the *evocatio* of the divine witnesses.

<sup>8</sup> As already expressed by Gurney 1977, 4-5; Lebrun 1980, 50-1; Archi 1993, 7.

<sup>9</sup> See Popko 1995, 90-1; 112; Taracha 2009, 32; 38; Mouton 2014, 19; 27.

<sup>10</sup> Taracha (2009, 80) with reference to KUB 13.4 I 21-22.

ed out by Beckman (2004, 313a) «No single hierarchy prevailed among the gods in all circumstances». If it is true that the hierarchical order of the divine witnesses in the treaties of the Empire period was standardized11, this does not allow us to consider it valid everywhere during and throughout the history of the Hittite kingdom. At present, the division of Hittite history into different periods and several local cults does not allow us to conclusively establish a hierarchical vision of all aspects of the Hittite religion: it is perhaps better to accept the definition of convenience of "Thousand Gods of Ḫatti" without speculating further on, apparently, uneven paths.

### 3. Panthea and languages

When studying the *religio hethitica*, a linguistic subdivision within the Thousand Gods of Ḫatti may be attempted, according to the different putative "ethnic groups" of the Hittite kingdom: Hattians, Hittites, Palaeans, Luwians and Hurrians. What we want to stress is that classifications based on linguistic criteria have always existed in literature12, even among scholars who do not declare it directly. Klinger (1996), in his examination of the Hattian religious milieu, chose to focus, instead, on the socalled *Kultschichten* of the Hittite religion, thereby recognizing the inconsistency of the attempt to define "pantheon" as a list or group of theonyms only because those gods seem to bear names with a common origin. Not only is the cultural milieu too complex to be defined merely by a linguistic identity. Even when using language as a tool, there are several ways one can proceed, and «an important criterion for attributing a given deity to a specific ethnic tradition is the language of her cult» (Taracha 2010, 859), not of her name. Unfortunately, however, the language of cult is not always evident, because we cannot access all levels of religious practice within the Anatolian societies.

All in all, the use of languages and linguistic analysis for the study of religion and panthea is a powerful tool, but it requires some caveats:

a) Since "language is not ethnicity" (a statement already well-underlined by Hutter 2003, 211), it should not be used as the unique criterion to describe a culture or a group;

b) Linguistic analysis can be applied to one theonym, not to an entire ethnic group, and therefore to build up a whole divine group is quite a difficult operation to achieve;

c) It is quite difficult to assess linguistic diversity through the common Hittite sources at our disposal.

According to these points, we should not speak of a Hattian, Hurrian, Palaean, or Luwian pantheon for the Hittite kingdom because they were not panthea, but divine names in different languages gathered in a whole religious system whose name for Hittites was the Thousand Gods of Ḫatti. For instance, Taracha (2009, 107) convincingly argued that «there was no one pantheon shared by all the Luwians, only individual deities worshiped in all of the Luwian territory». A Hurrian pantheon probably existed in the Hurrian lands, but what was imported and adopted in Ḫattuša cannot be addressed as a pantheon. More controversial is in my opinion the case of the possible Palaean pantheon: the corpus of Palaic texts specifically describes the festival for Zi-

<sup>11</sup> See Gurney 1977, 4-6; Beckman 2004, 313a.

<sup>12</sup> Laroche's (1946/47) subdivision into gods of different origins hides linguistic criteria. See also Gurney 1977, 7-16; van Gessel 1998, (Part 1) X; Hutter 2003, 218-20; Beckman 2004, 311a-b; Taracha 2009, 107-08.

parwa and the Palaean cult, but this is not enough to identify it as "pantheon" until we outline the Palaean religious system with certainty13.

This methodological issue regards, more generally, the ways to identify a pantheon. As already argued, the definitions found in literature are "glottocentric" even when given by authors who call for caution in this regard. The glottic criterion is quite difficult to set aside. For example, even Hutter's highly authoritative attempt at listing Luwian gods (2003, 219-20) cannot avoid using language as at least one of the criteria: together with gods that have generically Anatolian or opaque names (Pirwa, Šanta) and gods whose names have a clearly different etymology (Zilipura, Kamrušepa), the list features virtually all deities whose name can be analyzed as Luwian, which makes the Luwian etymology a "sufficient condition" for the definition.

Far for claiming that any linguistic categorization should we avoided, it is important to stress that the limitations of this approach, as well as its inevitability, should be always kept in mind. Beside recognizing the linguistic origin of a name, any study of a pantheon should always be aware that these do not always help identifying the geographical areas in which a cult existed, and, where possible, include both the criteria of cult language in which a deity was addressed14, and the textual contexts and traditions in which the deities are grouped and worshiped.

### 4. Divine groups

Finally, gods can be collected by geographical criteria and source typology, as well as in homogeneous or heterogeneous sets.

The former type of approach is based on the analysis of the cult inventories, which help us recognize the so-called Local Cults15, regarding «certain deities in relation to one or more specific towns» (Cammarosano 2021, 5). Since the official Hittite religion was a huge melting pot of multi-ethnic beliefs, the concrete aspects of the cult were in all likelihood performed locally, and in the descriptions of local cults «you tend to find a simpler structure, with a top-tier, comprising a storm god and either a sun deity or a mother goddess; a 'tutelary deity' or deities, […] sometimes a god of war, and various local deities associated with mountains, rivers, and/or springs» (Rutherford 2020, 185-86).

The second type of approach consists in collecting deities in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. Homogeneous groups include deities with the same typology16, or gathered according to numeric groups17, even though these classifications do not match any Hittite structure18. Criteria for homogeneity vary and may include also the linguistic one19, but homogeneity itself may be more apparent than real, as local beliefs


<sup>13</sup> For an outline of the beliefs of the Palaeans see Archi 1993, 5-6; Taracha 2009, 58-9.

<sup>14</sup> Goetze 1953, 263; Archi 2004, 11; Taracha 2009, 36.

in Anatolia «must have been surely heterogeneous, reflecting the ethnic differentiation of the population of the land of Ḫatti» (Taracha 2009, 50). In the context of heterogeneous groups of gods, on the other hand, it is common to find the term "circle" in the scholarship, frequently used for a group of deities often linked to a town or a prominent god; often, the gods in these circles are quite different from each other and share only the presence in a given text or group of texts20.

### 4.1. "Circles"

In the religious system of the Hittite Kingdom, there are three main "circles" to deal with.

The first is that related to the god Ḫuwaššanna21. In the centre of Ḫupišna, identified as the classical Kybestra and modern Ereğli (East of Konya)22, the main deity Ḫuwaššanna/gaz.ba.a23 was surrounded by the following gods24: dutu, du, dlamma, <sup>ḫ</sup>ur.sagŠarlaimi, zababa, Lallariya, Awatta, Kupilla, Ašdutta, Ḫarduppi, Tunapi, Muli, Imralli, Lilaya, Waša(l)iya, <sup>ḫ</sup>ur.sagŠarpa, *hantezziuš* dingirmeš (i.e., the primeval gods Anna, Aruna, Zarnizza, ídŠarmamma).

The prominence of a god or a town is also a common element of the second "circle". This putative circle has been defined in several ways according to the prominence of the deity Pirwa25 or of the town Kaniš/Neša26, while the Hittite texts refer specifically to the "Gods of Kaniš" dingirmeš(-*aš*) uru*Kaniš*27. According to different Hittite texts, this group28 includes: Pirwa, dmunus.lugal (Ḫaššušara), Kamrušepa, Ašgašepa29, Maliya30, Šiwat, Šuwaliat, Ḫašammili, Išpant (Išpanzašepa), d 7.7.bi, Ḫalki, Ilaliya, Tarawa. However, the number of deities grows if we also take into account the gods from the lists and the theophoric names of the Cappadocian tablets in the Old Assyrian Colony period31.


Finally, "circle" can refer to the deities belonging to the *kaluti*-lists32 of the Hurrian Storm-god, his spouse, and their local *parhedroi.* In these Hurrian lists we can collect the following deities for Teššub: Tašmišu/Šuwaliyat (duraš), Kumarbi, Šauška, Sun-God (Šimige), Moon-god (Kušuḫ), dnin.gal, Ea, War-god (Aštabi), Ninatta-Kulitta, bulls, twelve gods of Netherworld; and for Ḫebat: Nabarbi, Šaluš-*Bitinḫi*, Damkina, Umbu-Nikkal, Ḫudena-Ḫudellara, Allatu (Lelwani), Aya, Išḫara, Ištar, Šauška, Šuwala, Ibrimuša, Tiyabenti, and her daughters Allanzu and Kunzišalli33. Apparently, the *kaluti* do not seem to have any proper geographical location, as the other so-called circles of Kaniš and Ḫupišna do. However, this is not really the case because the order of the processions in Yazılıkaya «corresponds to the order of a standard list of gods (socalled kaluti)» (Taracha 2009, 94)34. But the divine reliefs at Yazılıkaya did not represent the Hittite State cult; it rather follows the Hurrian dynastic pantheon35, which in turn is probably connected Hurrian deities of the *kaluti*-lists.

The definition of "circle" is obviously quite vague. The "circle of Pirwa" as well as the "circle of Ḫuwaššanna" put too much emphasis on the role of a single deity, based on limited and circumstantial evidence. The references to Kaniš or Ḫupišna are quite suitable, but positively generic even though they originated in local contexts 36. Furthermore, even if we assume that the gods of the putative circle did belong together on a functional level, most of them are also quoted in other texts outside those of the circle37, so it would be risky to presume that they always had an original connection with the geographical areas of interest (Warbinek 2022, 13).

Originally, the concept of "circle" was a definition of convenience – first used by Laroche (1946/47, 67: "cercle de Pirwa") and then gradually adopted by several scholars in different works38.

The circle of Kaneš is certainly the one that received most attention, but others labels have been employed to describe it, such as "Kanishite lists" (Goetze 1953, 264), "Kanesite pantheon/gods" (Popko 1995, 55; 88; Taracha 2010, 859-60); "Kreis der Götter von Kaniš" (Klinger 1996, 157); "Pantheon von Kanish" (Otten 1971, 32); "Gottheiten/Pantheon von Kaniš" (Haas 1994, 281; 412; 613). Perhaps, the gods of Kaneš formed a pantheon during the Old Assyrian Colony period when each Anato-


<sup>32</sup> Hurrian Teššub and Ḫebat, see Trémouille 1997, 201-10; Wegner 2002 and Taracha 2009, 102. See also Haas (1994, 347-49) "Der Götterkreis der Ša(w)oška von Ninive" and (1994, 402) "Kreis des Wettergottes (von) Manuz(z)i".

<sup>33</sup> Laroche 1948; Gurney 1977, 17-8; Haas 1994, 332-33; Trémouille 1997, 105-07; 202-03 with note 713; Taracha 2009, 118-19.

lian town had its own cult39, but they just became a Local Cult with the integration of Kaniš into the State religion of Ḫatti.40 Haas himself alternated the definition of "Pantheon von Kaniš" with that of "Gruppe der Gottheiten von Kaniš" (1994, 439, 613). In my opinion, the Hittite definition "Gods of Kaniš" dingirmeš (-*aš*) uru*Kaniš* should be preferred to any other label, which is also the choice made by Cammarosano (2021, 84).

The situation with other alleged circles is different. We don't know much about the origin of the one of Ḫuwaššanna, which can be more easily described as a local cult41. Hutter himself, who also used Ḫuwaššanna's circle definition (2003, 244), later placed (2013, 186) "Ḫuwaššanna's circle" in quotation marks and then *de facto* avoided its use in his most recent works42.

Finally, it is important to stress that «le *kaluti* ne signifie pas une liste abstraite et n'a rien à voir avec les litanies. Le *kaluti* était réellement, c'est-à-dir matériellement, l'ensemble des divinités, objets et lieux sacrés connexes à une divinité précise» (Trémouille 1997, 205); and this is justified by what looks like a sort of conclusion43 at the end of the libations:

KUB 32.92(+) (// KUB 32.85 + KBo 20.52 obv. III 6'/7' – *CTH* 664)44 rev. 5'-6':

5' [*ka-a-š*] *ša* dingirmeš lúmeš *ka-lu-*⸢*ti*⸣[-*iš*] 6' *qa-ti*

[Diese] *kaluti*-Liste der männlichen Götter ist zu Ende. (Wegner 1995, 100)

Admittedly, the technical term45 *kaluti* means "circle, closed group, cohort, community, round of offerings" (HEG K, 471-72; HED K, 33-5)46, with its denominal verb *kalutiya*- "to lump together (for worship), to celebrate as a group, to treat jointly (for cultic purposes), to make the rounds of " (HED K 471-72; HED K, 33-5; IEED 5, 130; CLL, 99)47.

KBo 15.59 (*CTH* 628) III? 7'-8': 7' íd*Al-da ka-lu-ut-ta* lugal [-*uš*]

8' 1 ninda.gur₄.ra *par-ši-ya* …

«The king breaks a loaf 〈to〉 the *circle* of the river Alda»48


However, it must be acknowledged that *kaluti* can also be translated as "line", "list", or "set" in accordance to the «principle of naming the gods (Teššub's circle) and goddesses (Ḫebat's circle) in the order of importance, from the greatest to the minor gods» (Taracha 2009, 118), as we can see from Wegner's translation of *kaluti* here:


und für die gesamte Reihe des Wettergottes, auch Bier libieren sie vor gesamten Reihe. (Wegner 2002, 273-75)

We hence seem to be back to the concept of divine hierarchy. According to Trémouille (1997, 201) «par *kaluti* on entend la liste de toutes les divinités et entités liées à une divinité plus importante» and it corresponds to Hittite *arḫa*-. However, the term *arḫa*- "Grenze, Gebiet" (HEG I, 55-6), "Line, Boundary" (IEED 5, 245), and its cognates *irḫatt(i)*- "row, series, circuit, in a row, by turns"; *arḫai*-/*irḫai*- "to go down the line, to make rounds, to list, to treat in succession" (HED I, 130-1; IEED 5, 245); and Luwian *irḫatta*- "circle" (CLL 99) are never used to state or portray a divine group (as for *kaluti*, above KUB 32.92(+)). In addition, *kaluti* and *arḫa*- are not equivalent according to HED (K, 34) and Kammenuber (1996, 47). However, *kaluti* appears once in relation with the infinitive *irḫawanzi*:

IBoT 1.2 (*CTH* 684)50 III 10-13:


The king 〈proceeds〉 to treat three with offerings in sequence: the Maraššanda River, the Tutelary Deity of the River, and (their) circle. (McMahon 1991, 193)

Already Goetze (1953, 274) translated the present *kaluti* as "circle", followed here by McMahon, but this is even more interesting given the presence of the rarely-attested infinitive *irḫawanzi*, which usually occurs in this textual evidence as lugal-*uš irḫawanzi tiyazi* "the king proceeds in order to treat with offerings" and for which the verb *tiyazi* «was certainly intended» (McMahon 1991, 196).

So, are we dealing with a line, a row, a procession, or rather a proper "circle"? In my opinion, this text can be a strong piece of evidence for equating *kaluti* and *arḫa*- as "circle" when we deal with textual evidence related to Hurrian gods. Therefore, at the present stage of research, the so-called *kaluti* divine groups are the only ones that may be safely defined as "circles"*.* However, Haas (1994, 389) with his definition of «Das Gefolge oder der Kreis der Ḫebat» attempted to render both possible concepts, which is yet another indication of the importance of terminological caution when dealing with a complex object of study such as the Hittite religion. Clarity on the criteria used for classification and on their limits, on the other hand, is and remains of paramount importance.

<sup>49</sup> Wegner 2002, 272-77.

<sup>50</sup> Goetze 1953, 274; McMahon 1991, 192-96.

### 5. Conclusions

In the Anatolian pantheon of the Thousand Gods of Ḫatti, theonyms with Hittite, Luwian, Hattian, and Hurrian etymology can be found. Different etymologies are often present in names that belong to alleged groups, and, for this reason, the classification of a deity as Hittite, Luwian, Hattian or Hurrian is quite complex, even ambiguous, and possibly misleading51. Similarly, we cannot speak of Hattian, Hurrian, or Luwian pantheon in terms of different panthea because they were not panthea in the classical way, but rather collections of divine names and figures gathered in a whole religious system whose name was the Thousand Gods of Ḫatti, or in specific subsets of said system.

Hierarchies existed, but a generalized hierarchical model would be simplistic and simplifying: even if a divine hierarchy could be recognized in the tradition of particular local centres (Taracha 2009, 38), we should avoid a single pyramidal reconstruction for the *religio hethitica* of the 2nd millennium BC.

As for other types of groupings, although circles have been described in literature, for both homogeneous and heterogeneous groups of deities, the definition should be used only for specific homogenous ones. Indeed, the gods belonging to the so-called circles of Kaneš or Ḫupišna cannot be regarded as such: they are also mentioned in other texts, taking part in different events, showing different features at different ages and in different locations.

### Bibliography


<sup>51</sup> A point already well stated by Cammarosano (2021, 63-4) «A god who was originally rooted e.g. in the Hattian culture underwent transformations along his life through the Hittite centuries […] both 'from below' and 'from above'».


Lebrun, René. 1980. *Hymnes et prières hittites*, Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre d'histoire des religions.

Lebrun, René. 1982. "Maliya, une divinité anatolienne mal connue." In *Studia P. Naster oblata II*, ed. Jan Quaegebeur, 123-30. Leauven: Peeters (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 13).


Popko, Maciej. 1995. *Religions of Asia Minor*. Warsaw: Academic Publications Dialog.


Trémouille, Marie-Claude. 2002. "Una cérémonie pour Huwaššanna à Kuliwišna." In *Silva Anatolica. Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday*, ed. Piotr Taracha, 351-69. Warsaw: Agade.

van Gessel, Ben H.L. 1998. *Onomasticon of the Hittite Pantheon 1-2*. Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill.

van den Hout, Theo P.J. 1995. *Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 38).

Warbinek, Livio. 2022. "The -*šepa* theonyms in the Hittite pantheon." *Vicino Oriente* 26: 1-19.

Warbinek, Livio, and Giusfredi, Federico. In press. "Maliya, Malja, Malis, Athena. From Kizzuwatna to the Aegean: Borrowings, Translations, or Syncretisms?" *Asia Anteriore Antica*.


Wegner, Ilse. 2004. *Hurritische Opferlisten aus hethitischen Festbeschreibungen, Teil III: Das Glossar*. Roma: Multigrafica editrice (ChS I/3-3).


### STUDIA ASIANA

#### A SERIES ESTABLISHED IN 2001 BY ALFONSO ARCHI, ONOFRIO CARRUBA AND FRANCA PECCHIOLI DADDI


The topic of the Anatolian panthea in the Bronze Age deals with Hattian, Hittite, Palaean, Luwian and Hurrian gods who have been worshiped in the Kingdom of Ḫatti. In such a context, along with trying to keep a balanced and methodologically-aware approach in our original research, we realized that a multi-authored work such as the present volume, with papers written by some of the major experts of Anatolian religious history, would represent an invaluable contribution to the advancement of a complex and vast field. This collection of essays is the result of the workshop *Theonyms, Panthea and Syncretisms in Hittite Anatolia and Northern Syria*, held at the University of Verona on 25th and 26th March 2022. Colleagues with different areas of expertise pertaining to the topic of Anatolian religions contributed to an extremely successful event.

**LIVIO WARBINEK** is a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Verona. After dealing mainly with Hittite oracles, he joined the TeAI project Te*onimi e pantheon nell'Anatolia Ittita* supported and funded by the Italian Ministry of University, F.A.R.E. programme, hosted by the University of Verona and related to the analysis and contextualization of the theonomastics of Bronze Age Anatolia.

**FEDERICO GIUSFREDI** is an orientalist specialising in the languages, cultures, and history of the Ancient Near East, with special focus on Syro-Anatolia. He is the Principal Investigator of the ERC Starting Grant project PALaC *Pre-Classical Anatolian Languages in Contact*, and of the F.A.R.E. project *TeAI Teonimi e pantheon nell'Anatolia Ittita* at the University of Verona.

ISSN 1974-7837 (print) ISSN 2612-808X (online) ISBN 979-12-215-0108-7 (Print) ISBN 979-12-215-0109-4 (PDF) ISBN 979-12-215-0110-0 (XML) DOI 10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

www.fupress.com