Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History: Papers in Memory of Hans G. Guterbock 9781575065267

Citation preview

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN HITTITE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY

Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock

Edited by

K. Aslihan Yener and Harry A. Hoffner Jr. with the assistance of

Simrit Dhesi

Eisenbrauns Winona Lake, Indiana 2002

ç Copyright 2002 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Recent developments in Hittite archaeology and history : papers in memory of Hans G. Güterbock / edited by K. Aslihan Yener and Harry A. Hoffner Jr. with the assistance of Simrit Dhesi. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-57506-053-1 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Hittites—Congresses. 2. Turkey—Antiquities—Congresses. 3. Excavations (Archaeology)—Turkey—Congresses. I. Güterbock, Hans Gustav, 1908– II. Yener, K. Aslihan. III. Hoffner, Harry A. IV. Dhesi, Simrit. DS66.R34 2001 939.8—dc21 2001033203

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †‘

Contents Excavations in Hittite Heartlands: Recent Investigations in Late Bronze Age Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. Aslıhan Yener

1

The Storm-God at ºAin Dara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Robert L. Alexander† Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon: The Case of Ishara . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Alfonso Archi Babyloniaca Hethitica: The “babilili-Ritual” from Bogazköy (CTH 718) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Gary Beckman Bearded or Beardless? Some Speculations on the Function of the Beard among the Hittites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Hripsime Haroutunian Hittite Seals and Sealings from the Ni§antepe Archive, Bogazköy: A Prosopographical Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Suzanne Herbordt The Treatment and Long-Term Use of Persons Captured in Battle according to the Ma§at Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Harry A. Hoffner Jr. Tombs and Memorials: The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Theo van den Hout Palaces and Local Communities in Some Hittite Provincial Seats . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Fiorella Imparati† Problems in Hittite History, Solved and Unsolved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Horst Klengel Gavurkalesi: Investigations at a Hittite Sacred Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Stephen Lumsden Comparative Observations on Hittite Rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Gregory McMahon

v

Contents

vi

Tarhuntassa in the SÜDBURG Hieroglyphic Inscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 H. Craig Melchert Ku§aklı-Sarissa: A Hittite Town in the “Upper Land” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Andreas Müller-Karpe Ortaköy-Sapinuwa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Aygül Süel Homer and Hittite Revisited II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Calvert Watkins The “Hittites” at ºAin Dara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Paul Zimansky New Directions in the Study of Early Anatolian Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Harry A. Hoffner Jr. Indexes Index of Hittite and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Index of Modern Place-Names and Ancient Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Excavations in Hittite Heartlands: Recent Investigations in Late Bronze Age Anatolia K. Aslıhan Yener University of Chicago

While planning the program for the American Oriental Society Meetings held in Miami, Florida in 1997, Martha Roth, director of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, suggested that I organize an Anatolian archaeology session. Contributions in archaeology at this conference venue had dwindled over the years, prompting a special effort to reintroduce these data at this forum rich with research papers on texts. This was the perfect opportunity to integrate epigraphic documents and archaeology, two complementary sets of data with fundamental, underlying relationships. Since literacy began in Anatolia quite late (Assyrian Trading Colony period, ca. 20–18th century b.c.), fewer choices were possible in selecting a time frame for the session. Not only would the period selected have to be vibrant with respect to textual research but also with respect to recent approaches in archaeological initiatives. In looking for previous models for this more holistic approach, Hans Güterbock and his multifaceted corpus of research in the Hittite period immediately came to mind. Over the decades, his important contributions to Hittite philology and history have been equaled by his elegant handling of archaeological information. His keen observations on Hittite narrative art, seals, reliefs, rhyta, and other material culture have provided interpretive insights into imagery and symbolic meaning that have inspired several generations of archaeologists (see most recently Güterbock and Kendall 1995, Hoffner and Diamond 1997). Recently, an honorary doctorate was conferred on Hans Güterbock by the Dil Tarih ve Ceografya Fakültesi of Ankara University in Turkey, spearheaded by the archaeological community. It is to the scholarship embodied by his approach to Hittitology that this book is dedicated. Thematically, the archaeological and philological papers at the AOS Hittite session were staggered in succession to encourage attendance by specialists in both disciplines. The papers by Archi, Beckman, Imparati, Klengel, McMahon, Melchert, van den Hout, and Watkins focus on philological and historical topics, while Süel, Lumsden, and Müller-Karpe highlight the results of their excavations in Turkey. Importantly, these new sites have recently yielded Hittite archives tying Anatolia to Egypt, Syria, Cyprus, and Mesopotamia during this most international of periods, the Late Bronze Age (ca.1600–1200 b.c.). Comments by Hoffner on these epigraphic 1

2

K. Aslıhan Yener

papers appear in the afterword. The contributions by Zimansky, Herbordt, and Alexander bring fresh syntheses of Hittite material culture, that is, architecture, sculpture, and seals from new perspectives. Two additional and relevant Hittite studies by Hoffner and Haroutunian have been included, all of which indicates that Hittite studies are alive, well, and thriving due in large part to Hans Güterbock. This introduction will briefly survey archaeological research relevant to the Anatolian Late Bronze Age in general and Hittite sites in particular and comment briefly on some new methodological contributions that were not included in the session but are nevertheless quite crucial in the reconstructions offered here. From many perspectives, this is the right time to reexamine the relationships between the philological, historical, and archaeological evidence from the Hittite period. Excavations in hitherto less studied regions, such as coastal settlements in the Aegean (Panaztepe, Limantepe) and the Mediterranean (Sirkeli, Kinet Höyük, MersinYümüktepe), have begun to yield important Late Bronze Age information. In addition, increasing data from new surveys in the Hittite heartlands in central Anatolia by the Kaman-Kalehöyük team and others (Esin et al. 1998, Omura 1996, Özsait 1998) are being integrated into the growing databases for settlement histories all over Turkey. The Black Sea area, a relatively unexplored region often mentioned as the homeland of the Kaska, has also been the target of new surveys that have yielded Late Bronze Age and identifiably Hittite ceramics (Matthews 1998, Hiebert et al. 1997, A. Özdogan et al. 1998). The mapping of long-term landscape history has also been a priority for the new Oriental Institute Amuq Valley regional projects in southern Turkey, an area often contested and subsequently incorporated under Hittite hegemony. Settlements in the Amuq (Plain of Antioch) have been delineated within a regional demographic, environmental, and economic context. Consequently, this will help place such events in a comparative framework in order to recognize significant population decline, or an immigration of people, events rarely documented in Hittite historical texts (Braidwood 1937, Wilkinson in Yener et al. 1996, Yener and Wilkinson 1997). During the last two decades, the continual discovery of new sites has edged us ever closer to a fuller identification of the relationship of diverse Anatolian cities to the imperial Hittite center, Hattusa. New sites include Hatip near Konya, which yielded a Hittite inscription of Kurunta, who identifies himself as Great King, son of Muwatalli. Above the inscription is a massive site, 1000 m in diameter, atop a natural outcrop surrounded by a fortification wall with towers dated to the Late Bronze Age/ Iron Age. Surface survey in the vicinity as well as within the walls has identified late second millennium ceramics similar to the Late Bronze Age wares of MersinYümüktepe (Bahar 1998). The finds have important implications for the location of Tarhuntassa. Similarly, attention has also been riveted on the new find of a relief vessel at a site near Yörüklü Hüseyindede, Çorum (Lightfoot 1997, Ediz et al. 1999). Dated stylistically to the Old Hittite period and the reign of Hattusili I (1650–1620 b.c.), the relief depicts two acrobats somersaulting over a bull, a theme also reflected in a seal impression from Atchana, Alalakh level VII in the Amuq (Collon 1975), as

Excavations in Hittite Heartlands

3

well as the famous bull fresco at the Minoan Palace at Knossos in Crete. This provides further evidence for Anatolian influence on the cultures of the Aegean and may indicate the direction of transmission. Indeed, earlier influence is also documented by Middle Bronze Age lead disk weights at Kültepe, which are similar to Minoan lead weights (Castle 1995) as well as sealings at Karahöyük Konya whose motifs resemble Aegean spiral motifs (Aruz 1993). Further directional contact is also suggested by central Anatolian obsidian found in Vat room deposits at Knossos. Perhaps reflective of a new visibility in recent Late Bronze Age excavations in Turkey is the reinvestigation of major Hittite monuments. One notable example is the discovery of a relief of a god and goddess with an elaborate radial headdress and bull protomes on a sluice that directs the flow of water into the sacred pool at Eflatun Pınar near Bey§ehir (Özenir 1998). The new configurations greatly amplify the sacred nature of the waterworks at this important sacred site. Remains of Hittite dams were unearthed at Karakuyu in Kayseri (Emre 1993). Similarly, sacred pools/reservoirs with inscriptions of Suppiluliuma II are also a part of the most recent finds at the new Bogazköy excavations now headed by Seeher. Classification and interpretation of material finds, as well as description and restoration of architecture, have been comprehensive over the last 90 years since the excavations at Bogazköy-Hattusa began (Seeher 1995, Neve 1998) and are continuing under the new director. Other investigations utilizing modern technology in the form of instrumental analyses will be of interest to both geoarchaeologists and archaeologists. New GIS remote sensing and other gradient survey magnetometry techniques have increased the precision of mapping subsurface architecture (Stümpel 1995, 1997; Becker and Jansen 1994), and newly undertaken surveys around the hinterland of Bogazköy give contextuality to this extraordinary capital city, Hattusa (Seeher 1997). Relationships between Egyptian monumental architecture and the hauntingly pyramid-like Sphinx Gate sector have recently been explored as a result of the restoration project. Likewise, the superb engineering skills of the Hittites are again demonstrated with the findings of viaducts at Nı§antepe, as well as the massive granaries and metallurgical installations at Büyükkale (Seeher 1997). In numerous sites across Turkey, geophysical prospecting has not only delineated the locations of fortification walls and sub-surface structures but has also greatly enhanced the understanding of site sizes. Perhaps the best example of a radical change in areal site proportions is the reassessment of the Troy settlement, which was originally thought to be 2 hectares and now measures at least 30 hectares. The high mound and the outer town to the south are now recognized as similar to central Anatolian city-state systems with a high fortified mound and a lower fortified settlement, often at the level of the plain. This new understanding places Troy within the typology of Anatolian sites such as Hattusa, with its royal residence complex in Büyükkale and its outer town, as well as the high mound/lower town configuration at Kültepe during the Assyrian Trading Colony period. New excavations at Troy have also added to the increasingly tangible possibility of Troy-Hittite interaction during the Trojan war, with a bronze stamp seal with an Anatolian hieroglyphic inscription from Troy VIIb

4

K. Aslıhan Yener

dated to the second half of the 12th century b.c. (Hawkins and Easton 1996). Among the dozens of applications of instrumental analyses to material excavated from Troy (see full comprehensive reports in Studia Troica), the greatest contribution is the comprehensive work by Kayan (see most recently 1997 and footnotes) in understanding the changing shorelines, alluvial infilling, and their impact on Troy. This on-going work has become a model for understanding the effects of the environment on the socioeconomic and political structures of a powerful city-state that has set the stage for similar investigations in other coastal areas of Turkey. Changes in the scope of Late Bronze Age excavations in Turkey have shed light on how much of the historical enigmas of the Hittites may be disentangled. Results of environmental research, coupled with excavations, have bearing on second millennium historical interaction. This is most evident with the recent efforts at OrtaköySapinuwa (Süel 1992, 1995, 1998, this volume), Ku§aklı-Sarissa (Müller-Karpe et al. 1997, this volume), Gavurkalesi (Lumsden 1996, this volume), Kilisetepe near Antalya-Mut (Postgate 1995, 1996, 1998), Sirkeli near Adana (Hrouda et al. 1997), and Kinet Höyük near Iskenderun (Gates 1994). The new potentials derived from instrumental techniques and theoretical approaches is reflected in the activities of one arm of the new Oriental Institute Amuq Valley Regional Project (AVRP), which will target the vehicle of transmission behind the stylistic and iconographic similarities between Hittite Anatolia, the Aegean, and the eastern Mediterranean, with new investigations at Atchana, ancient Alalakh (see recently Cline and Cline 1998, Yener 1998, 2001). To that end, the Amuq project has elucidated the historical context, human landscape, and geoarchaeological changes in the Syro-Anatolian-Palestinian corner of the eastern Mediterranean to identify more clearly the dynamics into which stylistic similarities were entwined (Yener 1995). Sylistic similarities in jewelery and metal hoards that were previously difficult to understand can now be seen as part of an Aegean-Mediterranean maritime commercial interaction and the expression of a rapidly rising elite accumulating and consuming prestige goods for power (see Helms 1993). The excavations at Limantepe, Baklatepe-Izmir (H. Erkanal and Özkan 1997), and Panaztepe-Izmir (A. Erkanal 1997, Ersoy 1988, Jaeger and Krauss 1990) have added to the increasing instance of imported or emulated metals of inter-Aegean inspiration. Similarities of metallurgical assemblages are given additional variety by the amount and direction of imported and foreign-influenced wares such as the relationship of the Mycenean wares to local wares at these sites. Increasingly relevant are frescoes found at Miletus and the recent reconstruction of the Alalakh painting, which now depicts the wing-tips of a griffin much like the style of Crete (Niemeier and Niemeier 1998). These sites with Aegeanrelated paintings on the Turkish coast and within reach of the Mediterranean by the Orontes River have amplified the inter-Aegean–Mediterranean sharing of stylistic iconography. Into this contextual substratum, ample interaction seaward and a possible mechanism for these shared artistic traditions is indicated by the parallels between the Amuq/Alalakh and the Cape Gelidonya and Uluburun-Ka§ shipwrecks (Bass 1967, 1991, Bass et al. 1989, Sayre et al. 1995). The distribution of Tell el-Yahudiyah and

Excavations in Hittite Heartlands

5

Cypriot wares from Egypt, Cyprus, and the Levantine coast north to Ras Shamra, as well as copper-tin and other preciosities by the early to mid-second millennium b.c. suggests the existence of a developing or thriving exchange network in the eastern Mediterranean. Important inroads have also been made in palaeozoological research focusing on Late Bronze Age subsistence economies (Hongo 1998). Subtle differences in consumption patterns between lower town occupants and elites in temple quarters have been the focus of the Ku§aklı team (Driesch and Vagedas 1997), while Zeder and Arter (1994) have concluded from their nuanced study of zoological remains at Gordion, at a slightly later date, that changes in diet through time may be relevant to the arrival of different ethnicities and consumption practices. Instrumental analysis of excavated ceramics, metals, and organic and inorganic materials have given more secure dates and measurements of excavated artifacts (Knapp and Cherry 1994). These data are compiled yearly in the Arkeometri Sonuçları Sempozyum reports. Recent efforts in calibrating radiocarbon dates with dendrochronological methods (Manning 1995, Kuniholm 1993, Renfrew 1996, Renfrew and Bahn 1996) have refined the precision of dates but have added new concerns about the interpretation of the results. Arguments revolve around the exactitude of wiggle-matching of calibration curves derived from dendrochronology as well as the reuse of older trees in the construction of buildings. Nevertheless, a valuable tree-ring sequence now exists for central Anatolia that covers the end of the third millennium through the beginning of the first, a total of 1503 years (Kuniholm et al. 1996). In an exquisitely detailed reanalysis of the Mesopotamian sequences of pottery, texts, and astronomical data, Gasche et al. (1998) have come to support a conclusion that a chronology shorter than the High Chronology is preferable. The implications for the Hittites is quite important and needs futher study and elaboration. Moreover, the repercussions of dating Mursili I’s sack of Babylon to 1495 b.c. would greatly shorten the gap between the end of the Kültepe Ib sequence and the start of the Old Hittite Kingdom, which makes a great deal of archaeological sense. Throughout Anatolian studies, a new generation of archaeologists with a better understanding of survey techniques, philological insights, computer-aided research, and other data handling methods have enhanced the interpretive aspects of this massive outpouring of analytical data. This session has successfully demonstrated that when epigraphic records are juxtaposed against archaeological finds, a more nuanced understanding emerges of long-term regional historical, environmental, and cultural frameworks. Furthermore, increasing analytic data has enhanced the now tentative links between the Hittite heartlands and regions such as western Anatolia and Troy, the coastal Mediterranean settlements, and Cyprus, as well as the interactions of Hittites in southeastern Anatolia and Syria. It is our hope that this interregional and interdisciplinary approach will add to our ability to find the special characteristics of this powerful people living in the eastern Mediterranean during the mid-second millennium b.c.

6

K. Aslıhan Yener Bibliography

Aruz, J. 1993

“Crete and Anatolia in the Middle Bronze Age: Sealings from Phaistos and Karahöyük.” Pp. 35–54 in Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç. Edited by Machteld J. Mellink, Edith Porada, and Tahsin Özgüç. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Bahar, Hasan 1998 “Hatip-Kurunta Anıtı ve Çevresi Yüzey Ara§tırmaları.” Pp. 105–20 in XV. Ara§tırma Sonuçları Toplantısı. Ankara: Ministry of Culture. Bass, George F. 1967 Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series vol 57 part 8. 1991 “Evidence of Trade from Bronze Age Shipwrecks.” Pp. 69–82 in Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: Papers Presented at the Conference Held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989. Edited by Noël H. Gale. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90. Jonsered: Paul Åström’s Förlag. Bass, G. F., C. Pulak, D. Collon, and J. Weinstein 1989 “The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 Campaign.” American Journal of Archaeology 93: 1–29. Becker, Helmut, and Hans Günter Jansen 1994 “Magnetische Prospektion 1993 der Unterstadt von Troia und Ilion.” Studia Troica 4: 105–14. Braidwood, R. J. 1937 Mounds in the Plain of Antioch: An Archaeological Survey. Oriental Institute Publications 48. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Castle, Edward W. 1995 “Kani§ and Beyond.” NABU 78–80. Cline, E. H., and D. Harris-Cline (ed.) 1998 The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Cincinnati 18–20 April 1997. Aegaem 18. Liège: Université de Liège. Collon, D. 1975 The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh. AOAT 27. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Driesch, A. von den, and K. Vagedes 1997 “Archäozoologische Untersuchungen in Ku§aklı,” in A. Müller-Karpe, “Untersuchungen in Ku§aklı 1996.” Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 129: 122–34. Ediz, Ismet, et al. 1997 “Yörüklü/Hüseyindede Kazısı.” IX. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri. Ankara: Directorate General of Monuments and Museums. Emre, Kutlu 1993 “The Hittite Dam of Karakuyu.” Pp. 1–42 in Essays on Anatolian Archaeology. Edited by H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa. Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Erkanal, A. 1997 “1995 Panaztepe Kazıları Sonuçları.” Pp. 281–90 in XVIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı. Ankara: Ministry of Culture. Erkanal, H., and T. Özkan 1997 “1995 Bakla Tepe Kazıları.” Pp. 261–80 in XVIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı. Ankara: Ministry of Culture.

Spread is 6 points long

Excavations in Hittite Heartlands

7

Ersoy, Y. E. 1988 “Finds from Menemen/Panaztepe in the Manisa Museum.” Annual of the British School at Athens 83: 55–82 Esin, Ufuk, S. Gülçur, and H. Kurar 1998 “Aksaray, Nev§ehir, Nigde Illeri 1996 Ortak Yüzey Ara§tırması.” Pp. 247–54 in XV. Ara§tırma Sonuçları Toplantısı. Ankara: Ministry of Culture. Gasche, H., J. A. Armstrong, S. W. Cole, and V. G. Gurzadyan 1998 Dating the Fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology. Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series II, Memoirs IV. Ghent and Chicago: Oriental Institute. Gates, M.-H. 1994 “1992 Excavations at Kinet Höyük (Dörtyol/Hatay).” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XV, 193–200. Ankara: Directorate General of Monuments and Museums. Güterbock, Hans G. 1986 “Troy in Hittite Texts? Wilusa, Ahhiyawa, and Hittite History.” Pp. 33–44 in Troy and the Trojan War: A Symposium Held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984. Edited by Machteld Mellink. Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr College. Güterbock, H. G., and T. Kendall 1995 “A Hittite Silver Vessel in the Form of a Fist.” Pp. 45–60 in The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule. Edited by J. B. Carter and S. P. Morris. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hawkins, J. D., and D. F. Easton 1996 “A Hieroglyphic Seal from Troia.” Studia Troiaca 6. Helms, Mary 1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade and Power. Austin: University of Texas. Hiebert, Fred J., et al. 1997 “From Mountaintop to Ocean Bottom: A Holistic Approach to Archaeological Survey along the Turkish Black Sea Coast.” Pp. 93–108 in Ocean Pulse. Edited by J. Tancredi. New York: Plenum. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr., and Irving L. Diamond (eds.) 1997 Perspectives on Hittite Civilization: Selected Writings of Hans Gustav Güterbock. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Hongo, H. 1998 “Patterns of Animal Husbandry in Central Anatolia in the Second and First Millennia bc: Faunal Remains from Kaman-Kalehoyuk, Turkey.” Pp. 255–75 in Archaeozoology of the Near East, Volume III. Edited by H. Buitenhuis, L. Bartosiewicz, and A. M. Choyke. ARC—Publication 18. Groningen, The Netherlands: Centre for Archaeological Research and Consultancy, Rijksuniversiteit. Hrouda, B., et al. 1998 “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungsergebnisse auf dem Sirkelihöyük/ Südtürkei von 1992–1996.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47: 91–150. Jaeger, B., and R. Krauss 1990 “Zwei Skarabäen aus der mykenischen Fundstelle Panaztepe.” Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 112: 153–56. Kayan, Ilhan 1997 “Bronze Age Regression and Change of Sedimentation on the Aegean Coastal Plains of Anatolia (Turkey).” Pp. 431–50 in Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse. Edited by H. Nüzhet Dalfes et al. Berlin-HeidelbergNew York: Springer.

8

K. Aslıhan Yener

Knapp, A. B., and J. F. Cherry 1994 Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus: Production, Exchange, and Politico-Economic Change. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Kuniholm, P. I., et al. 1996 “Anatolian Tree Rings and the Absolute Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean, 2220–718 b.c.” Nature 381: 780–83. Lightfoot, C. S. 1997 “Hittite Vases with Minoan Links Excite Archaeologists.” Minerva 9/1: 3–4. Lumsden, Stephen 1996 “Gavurkalesi, 1994.” Pp. 181–84 in XIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı. Ankara: Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums. Manning, Sturt W. 1995 The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon, and History. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Matthews, Roger 1998 “Project Paphlagonia.” Anatolian Archaeology 4: 21–22. Müller-Karpe, Andreas et al. 1997 “Untersuchungen in Ku§aklı 1996.” Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 129: 103–42. Neve, P. 1998 “Restaurierungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa.” Pp. 515–30 in Light on Top of the Black Hill: Studies Presented to Halet Çambel. Edited by Güven Arsebük et al. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich, and Barbara Niemeier 1998 “Minoan Frescoes in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Pp. 69–100 in The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Cincinnati 18–20 April 1997. Edited by E. H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline. Aegaem 18. Liège: Université de Liège. Omura, Sachihiro 1996 “A Preliminary Report of the General Survey in Central Anatolia (1994).” Pp. 135–92 in Essays on Ancient Anatolia and Syria in the Second and Third Millennium b.c. Edited by H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa. Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 9. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Özdogan, A., C. Marro, A. Tibet, and C. Kuzucuoglu 1998 “Kastamonu Yüzey Ara§tırması 1996 Yılı Çalı§maları.” Pp. 63–104 in XV. Ara§tırma Sonuçları Toplantısı. Ankara: Ministry of Culture. Özenir, Sırrı A. 1998 “Eflatunpınar Hitit Anıtı 1996 Yılı Temizlik ve Kazı Çalı§maları.” Pp. 135–57 in VIII. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri. Ankara: Ministry of Culture. Özsait, Mehmet 1998 “1995 ve 1996 Yıllarında Amasya-Merzifon ve Gümü§hacıköy Yüzey Ara§tırmaları.” Pp. 143–61 in XV. Ara§tırma Sonuçları Toplantısı. Ankara: Ministry of Culture. Postgate, Nicholas 1995 “Excavations at Kilise Tepe.” Anatolian Archaeology Research Reports 1: 78. 1996 “Kilise Tepe.” Anatolian Archaeology Research Reports 2: 10–11. 1998 “Kilise Tepe.” Anatolian Archaeology Research Reports 4: 13–14. Renfrew, C. 1996 “Kings, Tree Rings and the Old World.” Nature 381: 733–34.

Excavations in Hittite Heartlands

9

Renfrew, C., and P. Bahn 1996 Archaeology: Theory, Methods and Practice. 2d edition. Thames and Hudson. Sayre, E. V., K. A. Yener, and E. C. Joel 1995 “Comments on ‘Oxhide Ingots, Recycling and the Mediterranean Metals Trade.’ ” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8: 45–53. Seeher, Jürgen 1995 “Forty Years in the Capital of the Hittites.” Biblical Archaeologist 58/2 (A Tribute to Peter Neve): 63–67 1997 “Die Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1996.” Archäologischer Anzeiger 317– 41. Stümpel, H. 1995 “Geophysikalische Prospektion.” Pp. 30–36 in A. Müller-Karpe, “Untersuchungen in Ku§aklı 1992–94,” Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 127. 1997 “Geophysikalische Prospektion 1996.” Pp. 134–40 in A. Müller-Karpe, “Untersuchungen in Ku§aklı 1996,” Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 129. Süel, Aygül 1992 “Ortaköy: Eine hethitische Stadt mit hethitischen und hurritischen Tontafelentdeckungen.” Pp. 487–92 in Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp. Edited by Heinrich Otten, Hayri Ertem, Ekrem Akurgal, and Aygül Süel. Anadolu Medeniyetlerini Ara§tırma ve Tanıtma Vakfı Yayınları, Sayı 1. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. 1995 “Ortaköy’ ün Hitit Çagındaki Adı.” Belleten 59: 271–83. 1998 “Ortaköy-Sapinuwa: Bir Hitit Merkezi [Ortaköy-Sapinuwa: A Hittite Center].” Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi (TÜBA-AR) 1: 37–61 (with English summary). Wilkinson, T. J. 1998 “The History of the Lake of Antioch: A Preliminary Note.” Pp. 557–76 in Festschrift for Michael Astour. Edited by R. E. Averbeck. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL. Yener, K. A. 1995 “Swords, Armor, and Figurines: a Metalliferous View from the Central Taurus.” Biblical Archaeologist 58/2 (A Tribute to Peter Neve): 41–7. 1998 “A View from the Amuq in South-Central Turkey: Societies in Transformation in the Second Millennium bc.” Pp. 366–74 in The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Cincinnati 18–20 April 1997. Edited by E. H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline. Aegaem 18. Liège: Université de Liège. 2001 “Alalakh: A Late Bronze Age Capital in the Amuq Valley, Southern Turkey.” The Oriental Institute News and Notes 169: 1–6. Yener, K. A., and T. J. Wilkinson 1997 “Amuq Valley Regional Project.” Pp. 11–21 in The Oriental Institute 1996–1997 Annual Report. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 1998 “Amuq Valley Regional Project.” Pp. 9–15 in The Oriental Institute 1997–1998 Annual Report. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Yener, K. A., et al. 1996 “The 1995 Oriental Institute Amuq Regional Projects.”Anatolica 22: 49–84. Zeder, M. A., and S. R. Arter 1994 “Changing Patterns of Animal Utilization at Ancient Gordion.” Paleorient 20/2: 105–18.

10

K. Aslıhan Yener

The Storm-God at ºAin Dara Robert L. Alexander† University of Iowa

After the fall of Hattusas around 1200 b.c., the imperial Hittite culture survived in southeastern Anatolia and northern Syria. From the twelfth to eighth centuries b.c. (the early Iron Age), continuing imperial Hittite elements included language and hieroglyphs, religious and political systems, and art. All, of course, experienced alteration and development over the course of five hundred years, during which they were employed by different peoples and in changing economic and political circumstances. Yet, the marks of this heritage are so strong that modern scholars have applied the term “Neo-Hittite” to the culture of different peoples, for example, the Aramaeans. These traditions survived at the small city-state near modern ºAin Dara, about forty kilometers northwest of Aleppo. Beginning more than forty years ago, excavations reached the Neo-Hittite level, which had a large temple. In 1976, annual campaigns began in order to salvage as much as possible before the site became flooded behind a new dam. Of major importance are several reliefs with motifs closely related to imperial sculpture. Carved of black basalt, some parts of the sculpture have survived remarkably well, but all, perhaps smashed intentionally, have deteriorated badly from fire and weathering. 1 Despite the fragmentary condition, enough of the lower part of one relief survives to show a composition of two figures (fig. 1). There are two legs of human form, the feet clad in Hittite footgear with the toes turned upward, remnants of a figure that originally was very large in comparison with the other parts shown. These are the body of a bull, one foreleg, and part of the hind legs. Older photographs show the head and both forelegs. In its early publication, the relief was entitled “Giant Mastering a Bull,” and the recent excavator has called it “Man with Bull Offering.” Some aspects of this composition suggest a more specific identification of the subject matter. Despite the loss of the upper part of the relief, the unusual spatial 1. Faisal Seirafi, “Les fouilles de Ayin-Dara: 1ère campagne 1956,” Annales Archéologiques de Syrie 10 (1960) 87–102 (in Arabic); Faisal Seirafi and Agob Kirichian with the assistance of Maurice Dunand, “Recherches archéologiques à Ayin-Dara au n.-o. d’Alep,” Annales Archéologiques de Syrie 15 (1965) 3–20; Ali Abu Assaf, Der Tempel von ºAin Dara (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1990), where the ºAin Dara reliefs discussed in this paper are analyzed and illustrated. Abu Assaf ’s datings are employed in this paper.

11

12

Robert L. Alexander

Fig. 1. ºAin Dara, Storm-god and bull. Photo courtesy of Prof. Dr. T. Ulbert, German Archaeological Institute.

relationship of the two figures is clear. The legs and feet of the “giant” show that he is in the front plane and the bull farther back. Such overlapping in space is extremely rare in figural compositions of the ancient Near East, and in this case it points to the source of the composition. 2 In imperial Hittite art, this overlapping appears in the group that leads the procession of male deities in the reliefs at Yazılıkaya (fig. 2). Known as Figure 42, it actually incorporates four figures. Largest is the Storm-god of Heaven, who steps on the shoulders of two mountain-gods, and beyond him runs the divine calf symbolizing his son Sarruma. Not only does this group show the only imperial representation of figures overlapping in space, it also has a combination of sources that makes it unique and reinforces its identification as the model for copies and variants. For the present, however, it is sufficient to focus on the overlapping Storm-god and bull. 3

2. Catalogued as F3 in Abu Assaf, ºAin Dara, 58–9, pl. 46b; I thank Prof. Dr. Tilo Ulbert of the German Archaeological Institute, who graciously supplied this photograph. For early photos, see Seirafi and Kirichian, “Recherches archéologiques,” pl. VIIIc, and Winfried Orthmann, Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1971) pl. 2c. 3. On the sources and overlapping in Yazılıkaya 42, see Robert L. Alexander, The Sculpture and Sculptors of Yazilikaya (Newark: University of Delaware Press / London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1986) 124–25.

The Storm-God at ºAin Dara

13

Fig. 2. Yazılıkaya, figure 42, Stormgod of Heaven.

In both reliefs, the deity is huge in comparison to the animal, which scarcely rises to his waist. And he is huge in absolute terms; the surviving fragment at ºAin Dara measures 1.23 meters high, so that the figure is well over life-size, as is the Stormgod at Yazılıkaya. The underline of the animal’s belly appears between the legs of the deity at Yazılıkaya and again in the later one, emphasizing the spatial relationship, the rarest aspect of both reliefs. The two figures move at a rapid pace in both examples, not in a formal ceremonial stiffness. There are differences between the two, especially in the positions of the animal’s legs and its light or heavy proportions. Nevertheless, the similarities between the two reliefs are more telling than the differences. There can be little question that the later relief derives from the composition on the walls of the imperial sanctuary. Less certain is whether the later relief retains the meaning of the imperial group in which the animal, a calf, is a symbolic substitute for Sarruma, son of the Stormgod. In a number of late imperial variants of this composition, largely seals from Carchemish, the animal seems to have lost its special relationship with Sarruma and been converted into a bull, the attribute of the Storm-god. Without other evidence, this

14

Robert L. Alexander

Fig. 3. ºAin Dara, Sausga; Aleppo Museum.

changed meaning has to be seen in the ºAin Dara relief as well, although the question is not settled definitively. 4 Specific references to Yazılıkaya occur in other reliefs from ºAin Dara. In the cella of the temple were found seven orthostats with fantastic beings. Each one bears a mountain-god flanked by bull-men or other figures, all with their arms raised high. The bull-men have close parallels at Yazılıkaya where they stand on the hieroglyph for “earth” and carry the hieroglyph for “heaven.” The form of those at ºAin Dara is not far from that of the earlier bull-men. The mountain-god is related to those of the imperial sanctuary by the projections marking the edges of the robe, a device originating at Yazılıkaya. With their arms raised, they also show the late imperial tendency toward frontality and Atlantid formations, as at Eflatun Pınar and on the Megiddo ivory. These parallels with work of the empire give a context that helps to explain the 4. On variants of Yazılıkaya 42 and the change in the meaning of the animal, see Robert L. Alexander, “The Storm-God at Yazılıkaya: Sources and Influences,” in Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors (ed. Machteld J. Mellink, Edith Porada, and Tahsin Özgüç; Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1993) 1–13.

The Storm-God at ºAin Dara

15

Fig. 4. Yazılıkaya, figure 38, Sausga.

reappearance of the group of Storm-god and bull in a form so clearly related to the relief at Yazılıkaya. 5 Excavated at ºAin Dara in 1980, the representation of Sausga goes beyond her image at Yazılıkaya (figs. 3–4). With enriched garments it clarifies the costume that reveals the lower torso and one leg, which with the enlarged pubic triangle declares her feminine nature as goddess of fertility. Her masculine, warlike nature appears in the weapons, which are not shown in the sanctuary. Owing to the presence of this figure with the numerous mountain-gods, lions, and sphinxes, the excavator considers the building to have been dedicated to the cult of Istar, although here the name Sausga is employed. 6 5. Kurt Bittel, Das hethitische Felsheiligtum Yazılıkaya (Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1975) pls. 19 (bullmen) and 23.2 (Sausga); for Eflatun Pınar, see Kurt Bittel, Les Hittites (Paris: Gallimard, 1976) fig. 257; for Megiddo Ivory, see Robert L. Alexander, “Sausga and the Hittite Ivory from Megiddo,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50 (1991) 163, fig. 2. 6. Abu Assaf, ºAin Dara, 42–43; see also Ali Abu Assaf, “Ein Relief der kriegerischen Göttin Ischtar,” Damaszener Mitteilungen 1 (1983) 7–8, pl. 1; and Winfried Orthmann, “Zur Datierung des Istar-Reliefs aus Tell ºAin Dara,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43 (1993) 245–51.

16

Robert L. Alexander

Fig. 5. ºAin Dara, plan of temple. From A. Abu Assaf, Der Tempel von ºAin Dara, fig. 18.

The Storm-God at ºAin Dara

17

Fig. 6. ºAin Dara, seated goddess(?). From A. Abu Assaf, Der Tempel von ºAin Dara, pl. 47b.

These reliefs are located in the temple complex of ºAin Dara, a building with at least three stages of construction (fig. 5). Now in the Aleppo Museum, the mountaingod slabs (E1–7) stood in the cella. They are considered remnants of an earlier first temple, the shape of which is not clear. Both the structure and the reliefs are dated to the 12th-11th century, immediately after the fall of the Hittite empire. With a 10th-9th century dating, the second temple is the large interior rectangle defined by its continuous stone walls, with an impressive entrance, and which contains both fore-cella and cella. The relief block of Sausga was found in the fill between the west corner of the fore-cella and the south corner of the cella. The excavator believes it stood nearby in the fore-cella amidst a relief of a mountain-god and protomes of lions and sphinxes. Of the third stage, the later 9th and 8th centuries, the Storm-god and bull relief stands in a terrace walk added along the two sides and back of the temple. About six meters wide, this terrace had piers in pairs, bearing reliefs F1–30. Damage has been severe, and parts of only seven reliefs have survived. Three are of palm trees (F15, F25, and F28). Four have remnants of figural compositions, of which the Storm-god and bull (F3) is the best preserved. F7 bears only a foot in a Hittite shoe, F29 the lower part of a walking male, and F13 the lower part of an enthroned figure identified by the excavator as perhaps a king (fig. 6). Only the lowest part of the seated figure survives, from below the knees to the feet in Hittite shoes with toes turned up. Stylistically, it resembles both male and female Neo-Hittite figures from Carchemish, Marash, and other sites. Nothing serves to identify the sex of the figure, but high status is suggested by the rich border of the dress, the support under the feet, and the leonine paws of the throne. These elements in conjunction with the palm tree, perhaps an invocation for fertility of fields and

Robert L. Alexander

18

Fig. 7. Alaca Hüyük, seated goddess; Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara.

flocks, may identify the seated figure as a goddess, as at Alaca Hüyük and on later reliefs and ivories (fig. 7). 7 The excavator suggested that this seated figure was an enthroned king. Further, he saw no common theme in the terrace reliefs or any relationship with the religious function of the temple. An art gallery is scarcely to be anticipated in an ancient Near Eastern temple. Rather the Storm-god and bull, the putative seated goddess, and the numerous palms may be understood as recognition of the powers thought to grant agricultural success and wealth over the long period of the temple’s construction and decoration. Furthermore, other terrace reliefs probably represented more deities. 8 Identification of the deities is relevant to the function of the terrace. A Syrian rather than Anatolian addition to a temple, the terrace seems to provide spaces for cultic activities, for example, the chamber behind the Storm-god and bull. Between the seated figure and the palm is a bench or shelf that might serve for offerings, as at 7. For the seated goddess at Alaca Hüyük, see Bittel, Hittites, fig. 216. 8. On the meaning and function of the terrace reliefs see Abu Assaf, ºAin Dara, 44.

The Storm-God at ºAin Dara

19

Yazılıkaya, and similar benches appear throughout the terrace. Indeed, one may suggest that the terrace was built in order to provide cult spaces for several deities. The large number of spaces recalls the numerous rooms in imperial temples, probably housing cults for a number of deities. 9 This temple and its sculpture, then, exemplify an apparent continuity of Anatolian religious ideas, practices, and iconography during the five centuries of the NeoHittite period. One can scarcely posit a direct resort to Anatolian sources during the later stages of this work. Scholars have shown at ºAin Dara the formal and stylistic marks common to Carchemish and other sculptural centers. Variation occurred frequently in Neo-Hittite works, for it was a growing and developing art. Nevertheless, the image of the Storm-god at ºAin Dara is very close to the archetype at Yazılıkaya. Alternative explanations can be offered for this relationship: first, the relief may be a reused piece from the earliest phase of the temple; second, it may represent a deliberate attempt to retain much of the imperial Hittite heritage, perhaps even a revival. 10

9. Paul Zimansky, in his contribution to this volume, shows the Syrian practice that lay behind the terrace. For the benches or shelves, see Bittel, Yazılıkaya, pls. 20.1 and 24.1. 10. For stylistic studies, see Orthmann, Späthethitische Kunst, 136–38; Heinz Genge, Nordsyrisch-südanatolische Reliefs (Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 1979) 184–85; Abu Assaf, ºAin Dara, 30–31 and 33–41.

20

Robert L. Alexander

Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon: The Case of Ishara Alfonso Archi Rome

The Hurrians knew of the Sumerian-Akkadian pantheon already during the late Akkadian period, when they settled in Upper Mesopotamia. The scribes who wrote the short inscriptions of Tis-atal and Atal-sen of Urkis during the last decades of the third millennium b.c. (according to the Middle Chronology), at the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, used Sumerograms for the names of their gods. These deities are Nergal, Lugalbanda, An, Utu, Im, Inanna, as well as the Lady (dnin) of Nagar, the major goddess of their region. For the Sun-god, the Weather-god, and Inanna, they meant, respectively, Simegi, Tessub, and Sauska; a Hurrian god also lies behind Nergal. Relating, if only in name (according to the scribal tradition of the cuneiform writing schools), their own gods to Sumerian-Akkadian gods meant setting in motion a process of partial amalgamation. 1 The Hurrian peoples who came to northern Syria during the following centuries reorganized their pantheon, taking as a model the Akkadian canon. 2 The results of Author’s note: To the usual abbreviations add: ARET III = A. Archi and M. G. Biga, Testi amministrativi di vario contenuto (Archivi Reali di Ebla Testi III; Roma: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1982); ARET IV = M. G. Biga and L. Milano, Testi amministrativi: assegnazioni di tessuti (Archivi Reali di Ebla Testi IV; Roma: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1984); ARET V = D. O. Edzard, Hymnen, Beschwörungen und Verwandtes (Archivi Reali di Ebla Testi V; Roma: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1984); ARET VII = A. Archi, Testi amministrativi: registrazioni di metalli e tessuti (Archivi Reali di Ebla Testi VII; Roma: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1988); ARET IX = L. Milano, Testi amministrativi: assegnazioni di prodotti alimentari (Archivi Reali di Ebla Testi IX; Roma: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1990); ARET XI = P. Fronzaroli, Testi rituali della regalità (Archivi Reali di Ebla Testi XI; Roma: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1993); MEE II = G. Pettinato, Testi amministrativi della biblioteca L. 2769 (Materiali Epigrafici di Ebla 2; Napoli, 1980). 1. For the interpretation of dutu-ga-an as simega+n in the Tis-atal inscription (line 19) see M. Krebernik, ZA 81 (1991) 139. Later, the thematic formation of this DN is Simeg+ ai, Simeg+ i ; compare also the secondary form Sa-u-us-ga-a-e for Sauska (see E. Neu, Das hurritische Epos der Freilassung I [Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 32; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 1996] 499). 2. See E. Laroche, “Tessub, Hebat et leur cour,” JCS 2 (1948) 113–36; idem, “Documents hourrites de Ras Shamra,” in Ugaritica V (ed. J. Nougayrol, E. Laroche, C. Virolleaud, and C. F. A. Schaeffer; Paris: Geuthner, 1968) 518–27; idem, “Panthéon national et panthéons locaux chez les Hourrites,” Or 45 (1976) 94–99.

21

22

Alfonso Archi

this syncretism are known to us from the god lists of Kizzuwatna (copied for the archives of Hattusa from the end of the 15th century on) and of Ugarit (14th and 13th century). Some ancient Hurrian gods are equated with Sumerian, Akkadian, or Syrian gods, such as Kumarbi/Enlil/Dagan, Tessub/Iskur/Hadda, Sawuska/Inanna/Istar, Simegi/Utu/Samas, Kusuh/Nanna/Suen. Other gods are unknown from the Hurrian sources of the Eastern regions; only a few of these are assimilated into Mesopotamian deities (Astabi, for example, is equated with Ninurta). This fact suggests a local (that is, Syrian) origin for these deities. The discovery of the archives of Ebla (24th century b.c.) reveals a stage in the cultural development of the Syrian area that goes back about 1,000 years earlier than previously known documentation. If gods like Adamma and Astabi(l), who appear later in the West Hurrian pantheon, are already mentioned in the Ebla documents, this does not mean that the Hurrians were already present in the Aleppo region at that time. These gods, instead, go back to a pre-Hurrian substratum. 3 During the Ebla period, the Hurrians had not yet even settled in the Habur triangle, as is proved by a few dozen personal names of the city of Nagar (Tell Brak) attested in the Ebla tablets and, more recently, by the personal names mentioned in the tablets of Tell Beydar (50 km west of Tell Brak) of about the same period; not one of these names is Hurrian. 4

The Epic of Freeing The Hurrian Epic of Freeing, which also had a Hittite translation (KBo XXXII 11–113), shows how an ancient Syrian deity could become a major god in the Hurrian pantheon. The acting gods are, on one side, two Hurrian deities, Tessub and Allani, the Sun-goddess of the Earth (referred to as Allatum in the Akkadian sources), 5 whose functions were similar to those of Ereskigal, and, on the other, Ishara, who was the main goddess of Ebla during the third millennium. 6 Her important role in this Epic is determined by the fact that the action concerns Ebla. The proem, no. 11, opens with these words: “I will tell of Tessub, the g[reat] lord of Kummi, I will exalt the you[ng lady] Allani (who stays) at the bolt (that is, the gate) of the Earth. And (together) with them I will tell of the young lady Ishara, skill3. This fact was already stated by E. Laroche in a discussion at the 24th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 1977). 4. See A. Archi, “The Regional State of Nagar according to the Texts of Ebla,” Subartu 4/2 (1998) 1–39; A. Catagnoti, “The 3rd Millennium Personal Names of the Habur Triangle in the Ebla, Brak and Mozan Texts,” Subartu 4/2 (1998) 41–66; F. Ismail, W. Sallaberger, P. Talon, and K. Van Lerberghe, Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995) (Turnhout: Brepols, 1996). 5. During the Empire period the Hittites used ALLATUM as an Akkadogram for Lelwani, while the Hurrian Allani was considered a different goddess. 6. See A. Archi, “Divinités sémitiques et divinités de substrat: Le cas d’Ishara et d’Istar à Ebla,” MARI 7 (1993) 71–78.

Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon

23

ful in speaking, a goddess renowned for (her) wisdom” (no. 11 I 1–6). 7 The subject of the tale is defined in the following lines: “I will tell of Pizikarra, who will bring [ ] to (?) Ebla. Pizikarra destroy [ ] Nuhasse and Ebla [ ]” (I 7–9). 8 A dialogue between Tessub and Ishara is found already in the reverse of the first tablet, badly damaged and lacking the Hittite translation, where Tessub comes to threaten the destruction of Ebla (IV 17: uruE-eb-la-an pa-ªaº[-). 9 It seems that Tessub first sends his brother, the ‘right’ (handanza) Suwalijaz, to Ebla with a message, while Ishara is already there (no. 37, 13–14): liliwahhuanzi [uruEblai] gißßú.a-as uru-ri it dIsharas-mak[an . . . u]it? ‘Go rapidly [to Ebla,] the city of the throne. Ishara [w]ent? [already there]’. 10 Then Tessub himself goes to Ebla and asks Megi (i Me-e-ki ), the king (who is referred to by the flowery phrase “star of Ebla,” no. 16 II 13), to free some prisoners (Hurr. kirenzi, Hitt. para tarnumar). If not, he will destroy Ebla. The final part of the text is missing. It seems, however, that the Epic represents the etiologic tale of the destruction of Ebla. The palaeography and some linguistic elements of the Hittite version show that the version from Hattusa is to be dated to the Middle Hittite period (between the 15th and 14th century), while the grammar of the Hurrian text points to an older date. 11 The narrative appears to have been inspired by events that occurred in the 17th century, a turbulent period for northern Syria, when Jamhad was weakened by the pressure of the Hurrians and by the Hittite incursions led by Hattusili I. 12 7. Here Ishara is qualified as ‘goddess renowned for her wisdom’ ma-a-ti a-mu-tu-u-pa-ti e-ne, while in the text from Hattusa ‘Wise (is) Sausga’ dMa-(a-)tu-(us-)sa-us-ga (see Neu, Epos, 40). Sometimes, Istar and Ishara share in part the same attributes (see p. 29 below). 8. Ibid., 30. A parallel passage mentioning Pizikarra is no. 32 (see ibid., 41–43). 9. Ibid., 49–50. This dialogue recalls that of Wotan and Erda in the fourth scene of the Rheingold, with their roles inverted. 10. Ibid., 505, 507–8. The expression in Hurrian is: “in Ebla at the throne” (ibid., 349); see also no. 19 I 7, 12, 21 (ibid., 379, 380). The Hittite version has always “in Ebla, the city of the throne”; see nos. 19 II 7, 12, 21; 24+216 II 7 and 35, 2 (see ibid., 379, 381, 489, 503). This is a circumlocution for “royal city.” 11. Ibid., 3–7. 12. We may have an idea of the situation in Syria in this period from the Deeds of Hattusili I, composed under Mursili I. For the fragments relating to Jarim-Lim of Aleppo, see A. Kempinski, Syrien und Palästina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze IIB-Zeit (1650–1570 v. Chr.) (Ägypten und Altes Testament 4; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983) 46–49. Ebla is mentioned in KUB XL 4, 6 (see C. Kühne, ZA 62 [1973] 244). H. Otten, basing himself on the mention of Megi and of the city of Ikinkalis (see below), writes: “Die historische Wertung der geschilderten Ereignisse und der mit diesen verbundenen Eigennamen führt zwangsläufig auf die anderthalb Jahrhunderte, die zwischen dem Ende der Archive von Mari und dem Ausgreifen Hattusilis I. nach Nordsyrien liegen”; he adds in n. 17: “mit Meki . . . könnten zumindest Einzelzüge des ‘historischen’ Hintergrundes auf die Zeit SamsiAdads I. datiert werden” (“Ebla in der hurritisch-hethitischen Bilingue aus Bogazköy,” in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla [ed. H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann; Heidelberg Studien zum Alten Orient 2; Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1988] 292).

24

Alfonso Archi

We know that the city of Ikinkalis, which in the Epic (uruI-ki-in-kal-li-(i-)is) is the antagonist of Ebla, was conquered by Hattusili I during the campaign in which he also seized Alalah. 13 Even in the 24th century I/Aka(n)kalis (A-ga-ga-li-is ki), 14 although belonging to Ebla (it was led by an overseer, u g u l a), was a town of note, since its territory included some minor centers. 15 An unpublished text (TM.75.G.2560+ rev. V 7–11) mentions jars of wine from Akakalis and Karkemis, and a geographical location to the north of Ebla, in the modern Syro-Turkish border area, is suggested also by the Annals of Hattusili. The mention of Nuhasse alongside Ebla in the proem (no. 11 I 9) would appear to be a later addition, possibly introduced in the recension from which the Hittite translation was made (it seems that the region of Ebla was known by this name only from the 15th century on). 16 Ebla was by that time a small center, and it was useful to locate it geographically. 17 The destruction threatened at the beginning of the Hurrian text would, therefore, be that which brought an end to Middle Bronze Age Ebla (in the last decades of the 17th century, according to the Middle Chronology). 18 The Epic, however, preserves some earlier elements. 13. Ebla keeps prisoner “the sons of Ikinkalis” together with a certain Purra. The council of elders of Ebla, led by Zazalla, does not want to free these people because “if we set them free, who will serve us our food? They are (our) cupbearers, servants, cooks and scullery boys” (no. 15 I 22– 28//II 22–29). Megi is forced to admit to Tessub that, despite his own wishes, Ebla will not free the prisoners (no. 15 IV 12–19//III 12–20), thus sealing its own fate. See M. C. Astour, “The Geographical and Political Structure of the Ebla Empire,” in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla (ed. H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann; Heidelberg Studien zum Alten Orient 2; Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1988) 142 n. 25. Astour has recognized that Ikinkalis/Ikakalis is to be identified with Akakalis of the Ebla texts of the 24th century. The Annals of Hattusili I (KBo X 1 obv. 6–9; 2 I 15–19) say: “In the following year I marched against Alalah and destroyed it. Subsequently I marched against Warsuwa(/Ursu); from Warsuwa I marched against Ikakalis (Akk. I-gaka-li-is; Hitt. I-ka-ka-li); from Ikakalis I marched against Tashinija; and I destroyed these lands (the Akk. version has instead: “and coming back I destroyed Ursu).” 14. A-ga-ga-li9(ne)-is ki seems to be the writing in use during the last period of the archives. 15. See A. Archi, P. Piacentini, and F. Pomponio, I nomi di luogo dei testi di Ebla (Archivi Reali di Ebla Studi 2; Roma: Herder, 1993) 100. ARET III 430 II mentions ‘oil of the centers of Akakalis’ ì -g i s u r u - u r u A. The names of some of those centers are given in TM.75.G.1698. 16. H. Klengel, Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1969) 18–21. 17. Ebla occurs also in the Hurrian fragment KUB XLV 84 Vs. 15 (Middle Hittite writing), together with Halpa. 18. For the archaological data concerning Ebla in the second millennium b.c., see P. Matthiae, “Tell Mardikh, 1977–1996: vingt ans de fouilles et de découvertes: La renaissance d’Ebla amorrheenne,” Akkadica 101 (1997) 1–29. In no. 19 I 24–30//II 24–31 Tessub declares: “I will destroy the city of Ebla; I will reduce it to a state as though it had never been inhabited. I will smash the walls of the lower city like a cup; the walls of the upper city I will trample like a pile of rubbish.” Tessub’s threat foretells the fate of Ebla, and the description of an acropolis and lower city is fitting. Such a description, however, would fit most of the cities of the Middle Bronze Age. This is a literary device, as is the threat by Tessub to extinguish the homefires in the river (I 38–39//II 38–39). Ebla, in fact, did not lie on a river.

Spread is 6 points long

Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon

25

Mekum Documents from Ebla show that mekum/mekum was the title of the dynasty between the 21st and 20th centuries. The legend of a seal in Syrian style reused by an Assyrian merchant, Assur-nada, impressed on two documents from Kültepe karum level 2, reads: kißib Ib-Damu mekim Ebla[ jim]. 19 Ib-Damu is a name that belongs to the onomastic tradition of the Ebla of the 24th century, 20 and the seal must originally have belonged to a ruler of Ebla, probably of the first half of the 20th century or even earlier. Another reused seal in Syrian style impressed on an Assyrian tablet (karum level 2) has ªPN1º d u[m u](?) ªPN2º sa me-ku-um i-ra-mu-su. 21 The same expression as on the first seal is used also in the inscription on the votive statue of Jibbi†-Lim of Ebla: I-bi-i†-li-im / dumu Ig-ri-is-hi-ib lugal / me-ki-im Eb-la-i-im. A translation of “Jibbi†-Lim, son of Jigris-Heb, the king, of the Eblaite royal/dynastic lineage” is dictated by both texts. 22 The inscription of the second seal should mean: “. . . , whom the (Eblaite) dynast has favored.” 23

19. The first document is TC 3, 247 a, b, seal impression at Pl. CCXXXI 14: kißib Ib-da-mu me-ki-im Eb-la[-im?]. The second document has been published by M. T. Larsen and E. Møller (“Five Old Assyrian Texts,” in Marchands, diplomates et empereurs: Études offertes à P. Garelli [ed. D. Charpin and F. Joannès; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991] 237, 248, F.T. 2A, seal C): kißib Ib!-da[-mu] me-ki-ªimº [Eb-la-im?]; compare B. Teissier, Sealing and Seals on Texts from Kültepe karum Level 2 (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1994) 177, nos. 529a and 529b; the drawing of the seal is on p. 233. 20. See M. Krebernik, Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 7; Berlin: Reimer, 1988) 212; for the personal names with the element -damu, see ibid., 159–61. 21. S. Dalley, A Catalogue of the Akkadian Cuneiform Tablets in the Collections of the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, with Copies of the Texts (Royal Scottish Museum, Art & Archaeology 2; Edinburgh, 1979) 1 (envelope 7A, seal 2); compare B. Tessier, Sealing and Seals, 177 no. 527. 22. For this interpretation of the passage of the votive inscription, see G. Pettinato, who translates “of Eblaite ‘stock’ ” (The Archives of Ebla: An Empire Inscribed in Clay [New York: Doubleday, 1981] 24–25). For the whole inscription, see M. Heltzer, “The Inscription from Tell-Mardih and the City of Ebla,” AION 35 (1975) 289–317; W. G. Lambert, RA 75 (1981) 95–96, I. J. Gelb, “The Inscription of Jibbi†-Lîm, King of Ebla,” Studia Orientalia 55.8 (1984) 1–19, I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v.Chr. (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 7; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990) 369–71. M. Heltzer and I. J. Gelb interpreted me-ki-im as a causative participle from *qwm ‘to rise’: “who raises (the Ebleans)” (Heltzer, “The Inscription from Tell-Mardih,” 292–95; Gelb, “The Inscription of Jibbi†-Lîm,” 8–9). The two seal inscriptions show now that me/ekum is a dynastic (and not personal) title; the explanation of M.-V. Tonietti, who derives me/ekum from *mlk, therefore ‘king’, seems to fit much better (quoted by D. Charpin and N. Ziegler, “Mekum, roi d’Apisal,” MARI 8 [1997] 243–47; the study by Tonietti, “Le cas de Mekum,” is now published: ibid., 225– 42). See also C. Kühne, “Meki, Megum und Mekum/Mekim,” Israel Oriental Studies 18 (1998) 311–22. 23. On the use of the pronoun suffix in relative sentences, see W. von Soden, Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik. (Analecta Orientalia 33; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1952) 217, §165.2.

26

Alfonso Archi

The title of me/ekum was used for the Eblaite ruler at least from the end of the Ur III Dynasty. In a document from Drehem of the 7th year of Amar-Suena, this term appears as the name of an e n s i of Ebla (lines 14–15): Z[u?-ri?-im?] l ú - k i n g i4-a me-gu-um é n s i Eb-laki ‘Zurim(?), the ambassador of Mekum, governor of Ebla’. 24 The legends of the reused seals in the Old Assyrian period show that the Sumerian scribe mistook a title for a personal name. The torso of the statue of Jibbi†-Lim (the only preserved part) was found reused in the levels relating to the Persian period in area G, on the southwest slope of the Acropolis. 25 The inscription, with which Jibbi†-Lim dedicates his own image to Istar in order that the goddess protect him and his sons, says that he placed the statue (together with a cult basin, ap-sà-am) “before Istar, his Lady,” therefore inside a temple of the goddess. Such a sacred building could be identified in an early phase of Temple D, on the western edge of the Acropolis, which was used throughout the Middle Bronze Age. The closest stylistic comparison is given by the statue of a sakkanakku of Mari, Jis†up-Il, which A. Moortgat, with insight, dated to the period of Gudea. 26 The name of the father of Jibbi†-Lim, Jigris-Heb, follows a tradition which dates back to the archives of the 24th century: Jigris-Halab was the third from last king of the old dynasty. 27 Epigraphic dates (the form of signs, layout of the lines, and the formula), however, lead us to date the inscription of Jibbi†-Lim to a period after the Third Dynasty of Ur, to the beginning of the second millennium. 28 It is at that time that the so-called Archaic Palace (P5, northern sector of the lower city), built in the Early Bronze IVB (which corresponds to the period of Gudea and the Third Dynasty of Ur), was restored and readapted for the first time. 29 The Neo-Sumerian documentation shows that Ebla continued to be the principal state of northern Syria at least until the beginning of the 20th century, with minor centers at Byblos, Ursu, and Ja˙mad(i)um. 30 Such was the prestige of the city 24. D. I. Owen and R. Veenker, “Megum, the first Ur III ensi of Ebla,” in Ebla 1975–1985: Dieci anni di studi linguistici e filologici (ed. L. Cagni; Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale) 263– 91; the transcription of the text is at p. 267. On Zurim, l ú - k i n - g i4-a of Ebla, see also D. I. Owen “Syrians in Sumer,” in New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria (ed. M. W. Chavalas and J. L. Hayes; Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25; Malibu: Undena, 1992) 121. 25. See A. Archi and P. Matthiae, in Ebla: Alle origini della civiltà urbana (ed. P. Matthiae; Milano: Electra, 1995) 408. 26. “This statue represents the style of the phase of Ur-Baba and Gudea in the series of the statues from Mari” (A. Moortgat, The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia [London & New York: Phaidon, 1967] 64). This dating has been confirmed by the list of sakkanakkus of Mari, according to which, calculating the duration of the reign of each ruler of Mari, Is†up-Il is a contemporary of Gudea (see J.-M. Durand, “La situation historique des sakkanakku: Nouvelle approche,” MARI 4 [1985] 155–56). 27. For other PNs with the element Ig-rí-is-, see M. Krebernik, Personennamen, 217–18. 28. See I. J. Gelb, “The Inscription of Ibbi†-Lim,” 5. 29. P. Matthiae, “Tell Mardikh, 1977–1996,” 4; idem, “Fouilles à Ébla en 1993–1994: Les palais de la ville basse nord,” CRAIBL (1995) 654, 659–74. 30. Owen “Syrians in Sumer,” 107–82. According to I. J. Gelb (see sub MªD), Ja˙mad(i)um represents a metathesis of Old Babylonian Jam˙adum (Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite

Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon

27

during the 20th century, that the dynastic title used there was known even in Egypt as the name of a ruler of a Syrian region. In the Story of Sinuhe, to be dated to the 12th dynasty, perhaps towards the end of the reign of Sesostri I (the last decades of the 20th century), a certain Meki (Mkªi) from Qedem is one of the Syrian princes on good terms with Egypt. 31 More than a century later, when the king of Mari was Jasmah-Haddu, me-kum/ me-ki-im appears in letter A.877 as the name of a king of A-pí-sa-al ki, with whom Aplahanda of Karkemis was in contact. 32 There existed, therefore, an Apisal in Syria, probably the Abarsal of the Ebla texts of the 24th century, as well as one near Umma, in southern Mesopotamia. 33 The Syrian Apisal would, therefore, be located east of Karkemis. What at Ebla had been a dynastic title from at least the 21st century on was preserved in a more northern region as a proper name.

The Goddess Ishara The gods, it is well known, take part in the affairs of men. If, in the Epic concerning the freeing of some persons held at Ebla, Tessub turns to Ishara, this is because she was considered the most important deity of Ebla. This fact reflects in part the situation of the 24th century, when Kura (known to us only from the documents of Ebla) was the god of the city, while the main goddess was Ishara. Istar, a Common Semitic goddess, was already well known at that time (there was even an ‘Istar of the Palace’ dAs-dar sa.zaxki). However, the cult of Ishara was more widely spread. In the monthly offering lists attesting the official cult at the palace (twenty tablets concerning the last months of the city), Ishara is mentioned 40 times, while Istar is named only 5 times. 34 [Assyriological Studies 21; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1980] 24; see also C. Wilcke, N.A.B.U. [1990/33] 26). 31. ANET 3, 21, §219. This Meki has been related to the Syrian evidence discussed above by G. Scandone Matthiae (“Méki/Mekim d’Ebla dans l’‘Histore de Sinouhé’?” MARI 8 [1997] 249– 50). For the dating of the Sinuhe text, see J. Baines, “Interpreting Sinuhe,” JEA 68 (1982) 38. 32. Sections of this tablet have been already quoted by G. Dossin (“Aplahanda, roi de Carkémis,” RA 35 [1938] 119 = Recueil G. Dossin: Mélanges d’Assyriologie (1934–1959) [Leuven: Peeters, 1983] 297). The letter has now been published and studied by D. Charpin and N. Ziegler, “Mekum, roi d’Apisal,” MARI 8 (1997) 243–47. 33. On Abarsal, see A. Archi, “La ville d’Abarsal,” in Reflets des deux fleuves: Mélanges A. Finet (ed. M. Lebeau and P. Talon; Leuven: Peeters, 1989) 15–19. On the two Apisals, see B. R. Foster, “Naram-Sin in Martu and Magan,” ARRIM 8 (1990) 40–43. Another certain mention of the Syrian Apisal is found in AlT 409, 45 (Alalah VII, a list of wedding gifts for a princess of Alalah who marries the king of Apisal; see J.-J. Glassner, “NaramSîn poliorcète: Les avatars d’une sentence divinatoire,” RA [1983] 10). 34. The data concerning Ishara were already given in A. Archi, “Divinités sémitiques et divinités de substrat: Le cas d’Ishara et Istar à Ebla,” MARI 7 (1993) 71–78. The older and rarely attested writing of the name is dsig7.ama, as is proven by ARET XI 1 (see the index in ARET XI, 132), the ritual performed for the marriage of the king when Arrukum was the vizier; this writing is used also in the incantation ARET V 16 I 5 (see M. Krebernik,

28

Alfonso Archi

If among human beings the king and queen were seen as the projection of Kura and Barama (the consort of Kura), 35 the tutelary goddess of the dynasty, or at least the personal goddess of some sovereigns, was Ishara. A link such as ‘Ishara of the king’ (dßára![bara10]-is/ra e n; referring both to the king Irkab-Damu and to his successor, Isar-Damu) is not found for any other divinity. The cult of “Ishara of the king” took place in the temple of Kura and in the secondary residence of the king at (L)arugatu; 36 Ishara of Kun-Damu, the fourth from last king of the dynasty, was still venerated at least thirty years after his death. 37 The goddess had a temple at Ebla (TM.75.G.10176 obv. I 4–5; 10251 obv. VIII 17–18) and her cult was well rooted in the Eblaite territory, since we have the following hypostases: Ishara of Má-neki, 38 U9-gú-a-ás/suki, Zi-da-ra/la ki (= Zi-ti-lu ki?), Zu/Zú-ra-am6/muki, Zú-za-ga-bù ki (also attested once each are Ishara of A-ru12-ga-du ki, Ba-na-i-um ki, and Wa-ne-du ki). In the incantation ARET V 16 addressed to the Earth and the two rivers Balih (én-é-nu-ru ki én-é-nu-ru dBa-li-ha-a), Ishara appears together with Hadda, Kamis, and local divinities such as Ammarik and Adarwan. 39 Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla [Hildesheim: Olms, 1984] 130, 134). The parallel text of the marriage ritual, ARET XI 2 (celebrated when the vizier was Ibrium), has the usual writing: dgáxsig (bara )-is. dsig .ama occurs also in the administrative text TM.75.G.1418 rev. VIII 8, 7 10 7 to be dated to Arrukum, while other documents of the time of Arrukum have dßára(bara7 = lagabxsig7 )(-is ) (see ARET IV 17 obv. XIV 20; MEE II 33 rev. IX 16). This last writing was preferred for its phonetic value corresponding to part of the goddess’s name but, because of a misunderstanding, the scribes of the last thirty years of the archives used the form dgáxsig7-is/ra, which should be rendered as dßára!-is/ra. The lexical lists have dgáxsig7 = dIs-ha-ra/la. In TM.75.G.2078 rev. I 3, dgáxsig7-ra-is presents both the phonetic complements. It is difficult to accept that the name of the III month, dama-ra, stands for Ishara, as was suggested by F. Pomponio (“I nomi divini di Ebla,” UF 15 [1983] 144 n. 16). In this case, dama-ra could be a simplified form of the older writing dsig7.ama used for the month name. dama appears, however, as the divine element also in theophorous personal names, such as I-ti-dama (in A. Archi, “I rapporti tra Ebla e Mari,” SEb 4 (1981) 155 [TM.75.G.1559 obv. II 4; in ARET IX 53 rev. VI 3, read: Puzur4-ra-dªKuº-ra]). In the “local calendar,” in addition to dama-ra, the following months are named with a god name: i t i dA-dam-ma (I), dGa-mi-is (IV), Be-li (V), dAs-da-bíl (VI), dªÀ-da (VIII). 35. See the marriage ritual ARET XI 1 (65) and 2 (68). In this ritual, a statue of Ishara and a statue of [dLa-bù]-du//dsi.gar ‘the Lioness’ are offered by the king (ARET XI 1 [101–2], 2 [111– 12]). P. Fronzaroli identifies this “lioness” with Istar (ARET XI, 52). 36. For dßára!-is/ra e n, see ARET IV 4 (25) (vizier Ibbi-Zikir), 7 (39) (Ibbi-Zikir), TM.75.G.1349 rev. IX 16–19 (é dKu-ra; Ibbi-Zikir), 1356 obv. II 3–4 (Ibbi-Zikir), 1362 = MEE II 40 rev. V 3–4 (vizier Ibrium), 1418 rev. VIII 8–11 (é dKu-ra; vizier Arrukum), 1442 obv. IV 10–11 (Ibbi-Zikir ?), 2368 obv. VII 11 13 (lú A-ru12–ga-duki; Ibrium), 2440 obv. IV 13–14 (IbbiZikir). 37. ARET III 334 III 5–6, TM.75.G.2455 obv. X 9–10 (Ibrium). For Kun-Damu see ARET VII 150. In this offering list for the dead kings, dßára!-ra lú da-da en ‘Ishara, the favorite of the king’ appears after Rasap, the god of Underworld, and his consort Adamma. 38. The town of Má-neki has to be located in the Euphrates area, probably not far from Emar (see A. Archi, “Les rapports politiques et économiques entre Ebla et Mari,” MARI 4 [1985] 65; compare ARET III 323 rev. IV 8–11: in Má-neki lú Ì-mar ki su-ba4-ti). 39. M. Krebernik, Beschwörungen, 130–31.

Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon

29

The total destruction suffered by Ebla a little after halfway through the 24th century and the political and social changes that hit Syria between the 3d and 2d millennium provoked a radical break. The area of the Royal Palace G was abandoned and the power center was transferred to the northern sector of the lower city (Archaic Palace P5). A few elements of the ancient tradition survived, however, such as the names of the kings Jigris-Heb and Ib-Damu. The cult of Ishara spread from the region of Ebla as far as the Babylonia of the Akkadian period. Some Sargonic personal names are formed with the name of the goddess; dÁs-ha-ra is one of the few non-Elamite gods in the Elamite version of a treaty between a ruler from Elam and Naram-Sîn found at Susa. 40 An Old Akkadian love incantation (MAD V 8) is addressed to both Istar and Ishara. 41 Perhaps the two goddesses also originally had similar functions, at least in part. It is a fact, however, that in the Epic of Gilgames and in Atra-Hasis, there is a situation where Ishara plays the role of Istar. 42 During the reign of Sulgi, the cult of Ishara was introduced at Ur, where a temple was dedicated to the goddess together with Belat-Nagar. 43 This information defines the area of origin of the two divinities. Ishara was the great goddess of northern Syria (in the proper sense), Belat-Nagar that of the area of the Habur, where Nagar (Tell Brak) was the principal center. 44 Starting from the 8th year of Amar-Suena, the cult of Dagan is attested at Nippur, where the god had a temple together with Ishara. The two gods receive offerings in ‘the Palace’ é - g a l and in ‘the garden’ gisk i r i6. 45 In MVN V 125, Haburitum appears together with Dagan, Ishara, Inanna, Nin-nigin-gar, and another god whose name is not preserved; she does not, however, receive animal offerings in “the garden,” like

40. J. J. M. Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1972) 37; W. Hinz, “Elams Vertrag mit Naram-Sîn von Akkade,” ZA 58 (1967) 91, II 7. See also W. G. Lambert, “The Akkadianization of Susiana under the Sukkalmahs,” in Mesopotamie et Elam (36 CRRAI; Ghent: University of Ghent, 1991) 54. 41. Lines 33–34: “By Istar and Ishara I conjure you. . .” (see J. and A. Westenholz, Or 46 [1977] 198–219). 42. D. Prechel, Die Göttin Ishara (Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996) 58–60. 43. M. Hilgert, “erubbatum im Tempel des Dagan: Eine Ur III-zeitliche Urkunde aus Dre˙im,” JCS 46 (1994) 29–39; D. Prechel, Die Göttin Ishara, 26–32. 44. See D. Matthews and J. Eidem, “Tell Brak and Nagar,” Iraq 55 (1993) 201–7. ‘The Lady of Nagar’ dnin Na-gàr ki is already mentioned in a pre-Sargonic document from Mari (D. Charpin, “Tablettes présargoniques de Mari,” MARI 5 [1987] 79, no. 20 II 4), and in the inscription of Tis-atal of Urkis (see I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften, 382, line 18). For this goddess during the period of the Mari archives, see M. Guichard, “Au pays de la dame de Nagar,” in Florilegium marianum 2 (Mémoires de N.A.B.U 3; Paris: SEPOA, 1994) 235–72; idem, “La visite d’un prêtre de Dame-Nagar à Mari,” N.A.B.U. (1995/51) 43–45. 45. M. Hilgert, JCS 46 (1994) 29–39; H. Waetzold, “Dagan in Mesopotamien,” Or 54 (1985) 245–56.

30

Alfonso Archi

the other gods. Haburitum ‘the Lady of the Habur’ is probably to be identified with Belat-Nagar. 46 Dagan and Ishara were linked insofar as they were the principal divinities of the northwestern regions. Their cult was probably introduced at Nippur through Mari. 47 Sources from the 24th century enable us, however, to determine the areas from which they had originated. Dagan, whose consort was Salas, was the great god of the Middle Euphrates and had his main sanctuary at Tuttul on the Balih. 48 For the kings of Akkad, Dagan controlled the access to “the Upper Country.” 49 Ishara was the goddess of the region of Ebla. Mari was dedicated instead to Istar (and “the Lady of Nagar” had arrived there from the north). 50 The old Eblaite pantheon dissolved, together with the social structures of which it was an expression. Kura, the god of the city, is not mentioned in any sources from the second millennium. Istar became the tutelary deity of the dynasty and the great goddess of the city as well. Jibbi†-Lim (as noted above) dedicated his statue to “Istar, his Lady” (bé-el-ti-su) invoking the protection of the goddess on himself and his own sons. Archaeological finds leave no doubt: the great goddess of Ebla (dEb-la-i-tu in the takultu ritual) 51 for the entire Middle Bronze Age was Istar. In the vestibule of Shrine G3, in front of Temple D, a large stele, on which the goddess is shown standing on a bull, framed by a winged canopy, was reused, sculpted on four sides, and dedicated to Istar; the sculpted scenes are rich in symbolism relating to the goddess. 52 It is more than likely that Temple D, on the western slope of the citadel, close to Royal Palace E, 46. In T. Fish (Catalogue of Sumerian Tablets in the John Rylands Library [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1932] 440), Haburitum appears after Dagan. For this reason, W. G. Lambert had suggested that she should be identified with Ishara (RlA 5, 176); this is excluded by MVN V 125, where the two goddesses are listed one after the other. 47. Among the few personal names from Mari known for the Ur III period, three are composed with Dagan ( Jisme-dDagan, Su-dDagan, and Turam-dDagan) and one with Ishara (SudIshara; see Owen “Syrians in Sumer,” 123–32). At Mari of the sakkanakku period, there was a temple of Dagan (see H. Limet, Textes administratifs de l’époque des sakkanakku [ARM XIX; Paris: Geuthner, 1976] nos. 185, 188–90, 192, 193). The cult of Ishara was particularly widespread in Mari during the Old Babylonian period, as is proved by 34 personal names with Ishara as the divine element (see Prechel, Die Göttin Ishara, 50–53). 48. A. Archi, “Salas Consort of Dagan and Kumarbi,” in Studio Historiae Ardens: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate (ed. T. P. J. van den Hout and J. de Roos; Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1995) 1–6; A. Archi, “Tuttulsur-Balih à l’âge d’Ebla,” in De la Babylonie à la Syrie, en passant par Mari: Mélanges offerts à J.-R. Kupper (ed. Ö. Tunca; Liège: Université de Liège, 1990) 197–207. 49. See Gelb and Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften, 164, Sargon C 2, lines 17–34, Naramsîn C 5, lines 29–39. 50. See D. Charpin, “Tablettes présargoniques de Mari,” MARI 5 (1987) 99–100; D. O. Edzard, “Pantheon und Kult in Mari,” in La civilisation de Mari (15 CRRAI; ed. J.-R. Kupper; Liège: Université de Liège, 1967) 69. 51. R. Frankena, Takultu: De sacrale Maaltijd in het assyrische Ritueel (Leiden: Brill, 1954) 96 no. 76. 52. P. Matthiae, “Una stele paleosiriana arcaica da Ebla e la cultura figurativa della Siria attorno al 1800 a.C.,” Scienze dell’Antichità 1 (1987) 447–95; idem, “Le temple ailé et le taureau:

spread is 6 points long

Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon

31

was destined for the dynastic cult of the goddess. The greatest temple building of Ebla, Temple P2, in the northern sector of the lower city, was also dedicated to Istar (as shown by the fragments of a basin), and perhaps also to Hadda. 53 Immediately to the south a square opened, dominated by a large cult platform, 52.5 x 42 m, built with white stone blocks. 54 On a cylinder seal found in a favissa opened in the square, a priestess is represented worshipping a standard topped by a bird and composed of a female and a male head; another seal with this same standard was found in Fortress V, on the western side of the city walls. 55 This standard has been identified as the golden symbol semeion, which, according to Lucian of Samosata, was standing between the statues of Zeus and Hera (Hadda and Atargatis). 56 Kura and Ishara, originally the two ancient divinities of Ebla, had completely different destinies. Kura disappeared; Ishara was instead included in the pantheon of various cultures in Syria, in Eastern Anatolia, and in Mesopotamia. This limited rooting in a precise Semitic culture would suggest that the two gods belonged to the pre-Semitic substratum. The Amorites venerated the Common Semitic Istar and, as their main male god, the Weather-god of Halab (whose cult, already in the third millennium, was as important at Ebla as at Mari). 57 This change from the Eblaite to the Amorite period suggests the following paradigm. When, due to radical political-social change, a pantheon dissolves, those gods who are not included in the dominant pantheon of the new society come to belong to a weak system. At that point they can be absorbed into the pantheon of another society. When the Hurrians, moving from the Habur region, reached northern Syria they found gods such as Adamma and Astabi(l), who had once been part of the official pantheon of Ebla and had then become local deities. The scarce cultural identity of these gods enabled the Hurrians to include them in their pantheon. 58 Other gods were received through syncretism. Tessub was assimilated with Hadda of Halab, and Kumarbi Origine et continuité de l’iconographie de la grande déesse à Ebla,” in Reflets des deux fleuves (ed. M. Lebeau and P. Talon; Leuven: Peeters, 1989) 127–35. 53. P. Matthiae, “Due frammenti di un nuovo bacino scolpito dal tempio P2 di Ebla,” Studi Miscellanei 30 (1997) 3–12. 54. P. Matthiae, “L’aire sacrée d’Ishtar à Ebla: Résultats des fouilles de 1990–1992,” CRAIBL (1993) 638–62. 55. P. Matthiae, “The Lions of the Great Goddess of Ebla: a Hypothesis about some Archaic Old Syrian Cylinders,” in Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien offertes en hommages à L. de Meyer (ed. H. Gasche, M. Tanret, C. Janssen, and A. Degraeve; Leuven: Peters, 1994) 329– 38; idem, “Tell Mardikh, 1977–1996: Vingt ans de fouilles et de découvertes. La renaissance d’Ebla amorrheenne,” Akkadica 101 (1997) 9–11. 56. Lucianus, De dea syria, 33. See H. Seyrig, “Antiqités syriennes: Les dieux de Hiérapolis,” Syria 37 (1960) 233–52. 57. For Hadda of Halab at Mari, see D. Charpin, MARI 5 (1987) 81, no. 22 III 6: dHalabx(lam); 99: dIl Ha-labx. 58. A. Archi, “Substrate: Some Remarks on the Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon,” in Hittite and Other Anatolian Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp (ed. H. Otten, E. Akurgal, H. Ertem, and A. Süel; Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1992) 7–14.

Alfonso Archi

32

with Dagan; consequently dHa-(l)a-ba-du ‘She of Halab’, that is Hebat (respectively the form attested in Ebla and that of the later periods), became the spouse of Tessub, while Kumarbi received Salas as his consort. 59 Notwithstanding these changes, the clear memory persisted in Syria of Ishara as the goddess of Ebla. The Hurrian Epic of Freeing shows this. Moreover, the Hurrians had assimilated Istar, the new goddess of Ebla, into a goddess of their pantheon: Sawuska. Why then should they have depicted Sawuska(/Istar) as the tutelary divinity of Ebla and as quarrelling with Tessub? It is perhaps precisely due to this superimposition of Ishara and Istar at Ebla that they were sometimes considered similar. At Alalah (of both periods VII and IV) the sign ißtar (es8+dar), in certain cases at least, referred to Ishara. 60 The Hurrians preserved the tradition by which Ishara was originally connected with Ebla until the 13th century: a Hurrian document from Emar (an oracle text) still mentions Ishara of Ebla, Eb-la-be dIs-ha-ªraº[. 61 Emar was one of the Semitic centers (with a Hurrian presence) where Ishara, with Dagan and nin.urta, was one of the principal local gods. 62 The Hittites, who from roughly halfway through the 14th century directly controlled the territory of Astata (where Emar was located), learned of the Syrian rites of Ishara precisely from Emar. In the dispute with his father’s third wife, Tawananna, Mursili II accused Suppiluliuma’s widow (daughter of a king of Babylon) of having made the silver of the temple of Astata disappear. Tawananna, directly involved in the administration of this sanctuary, rejected the accusation: “[To Ish]ara of Astata she spoke thus again and again: ‘Goddess, that [silver] I have [no]t. Who holds the silver of you, O Goddess?’ ” (KUB XIV 4 IV 17–18). 63 In the oracle text dedicated to clarifying the reasons for the anger of the ‘god of Astata’ dingirLUM SA uruAs-ta-ta (evidently Ishara, who is mentioned by name in II 7 and 9), the divinity is asked: ‘Have you (O god) rejected the prescribed (ritual) procedure in the manner of Mizzulla (a lady who acted in accord with Tawananna) and preferred the procedure of Astata?’ ishiull-aza SA salMizzulla iwar markijat nu ishiul SA uruAstata sanahta (KUB V 6+ I 8–9).

59. A. Archi, “Studies in the Pantheon of Ebla,” Or 63 (1994) 249–51; idem, “Salas Consort of Dagan and Kumarbi.” 60. In personal names like Eh-li-dißtar-ra / Eh-li-dIs-ha-ra, Um-mi-ißtar-ra / Um-mi-Is-ha-ra (see D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets [London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953] 9 n. 2; E. Laroche, RHR 148 [1955] 11; I. Wegner, Gestalt und Kult der Istar-Sawuska in Kleinasien [Alter Orient und Altes Testament 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981] 176). In a letter from Kanes, a woman with an Anatolian name offers a pair of bull figurines (rimu) to Istar and Ishara (see Prechel, Die Göttin Ishara, 46, with previous literature). 61. Msk. 74.224, 10; see Laroche, Méskéne—Emar: Dix ans de travaux 1972–1982 (ed. D. Beyer; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1982) 60. 62. See Prechel, Die Göttin Ishara, 74–90. 63. See S. R. Bin-Nun, The Tawananna in the Hittite Kingdom (Texte der Hethiter 5; Heidelberg: Winter, 1975) 183–84.

Line short

Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon

33

Ishara was the tutelary goddess of oath taking. 64 In the Song of Kumarpi, she appears alongside Enlil, the father of the gods, evidently because she was considered an “ancient deity.” After the invocation of the Primeval Gods, we read: “[Enlil and Abad]u, the father (and) mother of Ishara, listen!” This interpretation of Ishara, which passed into the rituals of Kizzuwatna, 65 is perhaps the reason why she is often connected with Allani, the goddess of the Underworld, where the Primeval Gods lived. This was the Ishara the Hittites knew, whom they received from the Kizzuwatna and Mukis (Alalah) tradition. 66 64. For Ishara el(a)mi-we-ni, see M. Salvini and I. Wegner, Die Rituale des AZU-Priesters (Corpus der Hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler I.2; Roma: Multigrafica, 1986) 453 lk. Kol. 7, 456 IV 10. 65. KBo XVII 94; see E. Laroche, “Dénominations des diex ‘antiques’ dans les textes hittites,” in Anatolian Studies Presented to H. G. Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed. K. Bittel, P. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, and E. Reiner; Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1974) 180. 66. In Kizzuwatna, Ishara had important cultic centers (see in particular KUB XL 2, studied by A. Goetze, Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography [YOSR 22; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940] 61–71, and in general Prechel, Die Göttin Ishara, 119–29).

34

Alfonso Archi

Chapter Title dropped 1 pica

Babyloniaca Hethitica: The “ babilili-Ritual” from Bogazköy (CTH 718) Gary Beckman University of Michigan

I am presently preparing an edition of CTH 718, the textual group known to Hittitologists as the “babilili-ritual” after the adverb which here introduces Akkadian incantations within the larger Hittite-language context. This composition comprises: 1 1. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. J. 2. A. B. 3. A. B. C.

KUB 39.71 KUB 39.70 + KUB 32.1 + KUB 39.81 + KBo 39.169 2 + KBo 39.173 3 KUB 32.2 + FHG 3 + KBo 39.228 KUB 39.85 KUB 39.73 HT 5 KUB 39.72 KUB 39.74 Bo 92/102 KUB 39.78 KUB 39.80 KBo 7.29 KUB 39.90 KUB 39.75

Author’s note: Abbreviations for Hittite text publications and Hittitological works are those given in The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Volume L–N, Fascicle 4 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1989) xv–xxviii. All other abbreviations are those of The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Volume 17 (S), Part III (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1992) v–xxii. 1. I am grateful to Professor Heinrich Otten for permission to utilize the unpublished fragments listed here, as well as for sending me copies of the relevant pieces in KBo 39 before the appearance of that volume. 2. See CHD L–N, 74, where this fragment is cited as 1885/u. 3. See D. Groddek, “KUB 32.1 + KBo 39.173 (++),” NABU (1996) 115.

35

Gary Beckman

36 unplaced fragments: 1. KUB 39.94 + KBo 17.97 2. KUB 32.3 3. KUB 39.69 4. KUB 39.76 5. KUB 39.77 6. KUB 39.79 7. KUB 39.82

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

KUB KUB KUB KUB KUB KUB KUB KUB

39.83 39.84 39.86 39.88 39.89 39.92 39.93 39.95

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

KUB 39.96 KBo 39.172 645/z KUB 39.68 99/f Bo 5664 KBo 32.206

While it is by no means unusual for a Hittite religious composition to feature speech in a foreign tongue—for example in Hattic, Palaic, Luwian, or Hurrian— only one other known rite (the so-called “Ritual against Insomnia,” CTH 432 4) contains more than a sentence or two of Akkadian. Given the general dependence of Hatti upon Mesopotamian culture in such matters as writing system, literary genre, and forms of religious expression, 5 a consideration of the character of the Akkadian incantations in the babilili-ritual promises to shed light beyond the limited area of Hittite ritual studies. The best-preserved portion of CTH 718 is a tablet (1.A above) detailing the activities beginning just before dawn on the second day of the ritual regimen. From at least four different manuscripts, I have reconstructed 200 of the approximately 220 lines originally present on this tablet. 6 In addition there are two damaged parallel texts for these same ceremonies, each preserved in multiple copies, as well as some twenty fragments of varying length of whose placement I am not yet certain. From the diverse content of these latter pieces, it seems unlikely that they give the text of only one or two original tablets, but there is within them no clear indication of division into days to aid reconstruction. One of these fragments may possibly be assigned paleographically to the Middle Hittite period (Fragment 4), 7 and several to the fourteenth century (1.C, 2.A, Fragment 11), but most of the material displays late—that is, thirteenth-century—script. While E. Laroche presumably assigned tablets and fragments to this text group solely on the basis of the presence of the word babilili—it does not occur in any other ritual—these texts also display a number of other common features. Chief among these are the use of the sahu-drinking vessel 8 (invariably written with the Sumerogram ZA.HUM), and the frequent denotation of the sa(n)kunni-priest by the writing LÚ SANGA-nís (GIS), a spelling unattested elsewhere. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

I plan to publish an edition of this text in the near future. See my “Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian Learning at Hattusa,” JCS 35 (1983) 97–114. Two of the exemplars (B and F) continue beyond the material presented in Text A. Note the da-sign in line 11. This piece should be collated in order to date it securely. CAD S/1, 105–6.

Spread is 12 points short

The “ babilili-Ritual” from Bogazköy (CTH 718)

37

Externally, this text group shows strong affinities in specialized vocabulary, personnel, and deities worshiped with CTH 481, 9 which describes the resettlement of DINGIR.GE6 from Kizzuwatna to Samuha in the latter part of the fifteenth or the early fourteenth century, and CTH 482, the record of the reformation of this same cult by Mursili II about fifty years later. Indeed, H.-M. Kümmel suggested that this latter text constitutes the missing initial portion of the babilili-ritual. 10 However, since little of CTH 482 is preserved beyond the list of ritual materials, I remain uncertain on this question. The deity addressed by the babilili-incantations is the ISTAR-type Pirinkir, equated in the An = Anum list from Meskene/Emar with Nin.si4.an.na. 11 In turn, standard An = Anum defines dNin.si4.an.na as dISTAR MUL. 12 That is, Pirinkir is a star, probably our Venus or morning star. 13 This harmonizes well with her occasional representation in Hittite sources as a disc (AS.ME) 14 of precious metal and with the ornamentation of her image in CTH 481 by several wannupastalla- ‘stars’. 15 Note also that rites performed on behalf of Pirinkir, in our text and elsewhere, often involve activities at night and upon the roof, “under the stars.” 16 Already in 1929, F. W. König proposed the identification of this goddess with the Elamite deity dPini(n)kir. 17 This suggestion now finds welcome confirmation in one of the babilili-incantations: O ISTAR! [Let] Sin, your father, eat! Ningal, your mother, well! Let Samas, your twin, e[a]t! Let Ellabrat, your vizier, eat! Let Ea, the king, your creator, eat!

9. Edited by H. Kronasser, Schw.Gotth. 10. Review of KUB 38, ZA 59 (1969) 323. 11. See E. Laroche, GLH, 201. According to the entry for Pirinkir, no. 185 of the reconstructed series from the Middle Euphrates joins Sumerian nin.si4.an.na to Hurrian dWu-re-en-giru-un. Unfortunately, the text as presented by D. Arnaud does not include the Hurrian portion (Recherches au pays d’Astata [Emar 6/4; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987] 34–36). 12. R. L. Lidtke, A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God Lists, An : dA-nu-um and Anu sa ameli (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1958) 180, iv 172: dNin.si4.an.na : dEs4-tár MUL. 13. See W. Heimpel, “A Catalogue of Near Eastern Venus Deities,” Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4 (1982) 72. 14. KUB 29.4 i 13: 1 AS-ME KÙ.SIG17 SA 1 GÍN SUM-SU dPí-ri-in-kir. 15. KUB 29.4 i 11—see n. 23 below. 16. For example, KUB 39.71 i 22: . . . ku-it-ma-an [dUTU-u]s nu-u-wa se-er . . . ; see KUB 29.4 i 62–63: (They take the ritual materials) na-at-sa-an su-uh-hi ti-an-zi na-at SA-PAL MUL. HI.A / se-es-zi. 17. “Pinikir,” AfO 5 (1928–29) 101–3.

Gary Beckman

38

Indeed, let all the gods lift up . . . (unintelligible) (to you), O Elamite goddess. 18 In CTH 481 worship is directed to both “the deity” within the temple of DINGIR.GE6 and Pirinkir. I have not yet decided whether Pirinkir is to be identified with DINGIR.GE6, or if she is rather only a satellite of this latter variety of ISTAR. In any case, O. Carruba’s interpretation of DINGIR.GE6 as ‘Deity of the Night’ 19— although recently questioned by A. Ünal 20—is certainly correct. In another context the second heterogram of the expression DINGIR-LUM GE6-SI 21 must be interpreted as musi ‘of the night’. The new image of DINGIR.GE6 prepared in CTH 481 is also easily recognizable as a rendering of the firmament above and its lights: 22 The smiths fashion the deity from gold. . . . Stuck on her back like beads are discs of gold, lapis, carnelian, “Babylon-stone,” chalcedony(?), dusû-stone, and marble, as well as life-symbols and stars of silver and gold. 23

In light of what we have just seen of the origins of Pirinkir, it is significant that CTH 481 summons the Deity of the Night “. . . from Agade, Babylon, Susa, Elam, (and) Hursagkalamma (that is, Kish) 24—the city which you love.” 25 (The final clause

18. KUB 39.94 + KBo 17.97 ii 2u–8u: 2u. 3u. 4u. 5u. 6u. 7u.

. . . dISTAR dXXX A-BU-KI [LI-KU-UL] d?NIN!.[GAL U]M-MA-A-KI ˇÁ-A-BI-IS [d]UTU-AS TU-U-AN-KI L[I-KU-]UL dEL-LA-AP-RA-AT SU-UK-KAL-LI-KI L[I-K]U-UL dA-A LUGAL BÁ-A-NU-KI LI-KÚL LU-Ú ? DINGIR.MES GÁB-BÁ E-LI-IS-SU-PÍ-MA x [ o ] x E-LA-MI-TI-YA

19. O. Carruba, “dGi6,” RlA 3 (1957–1971) 355. 20. A. Ünal, “The Nature and Iconographical Traits of ‘Goddess of Darkness,’ ” in Aspects of Art and Iconography—Anatolia and Its Neighbors: Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç (ed. M. Mellink, E. Porada, and T. Özgüç; Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1993) 639–44. 21. KBo 2.8 i 17. 22. See Emar 6.43, line 12: 1 As-tar-MUL KÙ.BABBAR qa-du 3 ru-us-ti KÙ.BABBAR 9 KI.LAL.BI. 23. KUB 29.4 i 6, 8–11: 6. LÚ.MESSIMUG.A-ma DINGIR-LAM KÙ.SIG17 i-en-zi A-NA DINGIR-LIM-ma 8. . . . EGIR-an is-ga-ra-an-ta-ya-as-si 9. NA4ku-un-na-na-as ma-ah-ha-an SA KÙ.SIG17 NA4ZA.GÌN 10. NA4GUG NA4.KÁ.DINGIR.RA NA4NÍR NA4DU8.SÚ.A NA4AS.NU11.GAL 11. AS-ME HI.A ZI-TUM MULwa-an-nu-up-pa-as-tal-li-is-sa SA KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.SIG17 24. For Kish, see A. George, House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia (Mesopotamian Civilizations 5; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993) 101, no. 482. 25. KUB 29.4 iii 43–45: 43. . . . URUA-ag-ga-ta-az URUKÁ.DINGIR.RA-az 44. URUSu-u-sa-az URUE-lam-ta-az URUHUR.SAG.KALAM.MA-az 45. I-NA URU-LIM SA TA-RA-AM-MI . . .

The “babilili-Ritual” from Bogazköy (CTH 718)

39

quoted here is the only Akkadian-language passage in this text.) Thus CTH 481, 482, and 718 are each concerned with the night sky and its stellar bodies, several of which are conceived as forms of the Mesopotamian/Elamite ISTAR. The ritual action of the well-preserved second day of CTH 718 centers upon a meal offered to Pirinkir, interrupted at frequent intervals by incantations explicating the activities and requesting favors in return. Initially a katra-woman goes to draw ‘water of purification’ (sehelliyas watar), making suitable offerings to the spring. This water is then employed throughout the ceremonies by the sankunni-priest and the offerant (EN.SISKUR), who might be any member of the royal family. An aromatic (luessar) is burned before the goddess, and she receives libations of beer. A sheep is sacrificed, butchered, cooked, and served, accompanied by baked goods. The sankunnipriest performs a waving ceremony with fish and a rite of analogic magic featuring a model boat. Near the end of the tablet, the scene shifts to a river bank, where two additional sheep—one for the deity and one for the offerant—are introduced as substitutes (nakkusses). Unfortunately, the ultimate disposition of these animals is obscured by a break in the text. The Akkadian incantations of CTH 718 are on the whole simple. The most frequently-attested calls upon the goddess: “Wash your hands, My Lady, Great Queen! Let your fingers feed you morsels for your lips!” 26 Many others urge acceptance of an offering. Thus: “Receive (or eat, or drink), O Lady of Gods and Kings!” 27 and “ISTAR, Lady of the Lands, may my bread(-offering) be pleasant (to you)!” 28 The longer incantation quoted earlier is a summons to feasting directed to the family and entourage of the goddess. Another type of Akkadian incantation here seeks to remove sin. For example, “O Lady [of the Lands(?) re]lease [my offense]! Queen of Heaven, release my sin!” 29 And again: “I have purified the man. [ . . . ] I have purifi[ed] (him from) his errors. 26. For example, KUB 39.71 iii 9–10: 9. MI-I-SI SU.HI.A-KI BE-EL-TI4 MUNUS.LUGAL.GAL SU.SI.HI.A-KI BU-UH-HA-R[(I-KI)] 10. SA SAP-TI-KI SU-UK-KI-IL5 27. For example, KUB 39.71 iii 16–17: 16. MU-UH-RI BE-EL-TI4 DINGIR.MES-[N]I 17. LUGAL.MES-[NI] 28. KUB 39.70++ iv 14u–15u (= KUB 32.1 iv 13u–14u): 14u. dISTAR BE-EL-TI4 SA KUR.KUR.HI.A 15u. AK-LI LU-Ú ˇA-AB 29. KUB 39.70++ i 24u (= KUB 39.70 i 8u): 24u. [GASAN ? MA-TA-TI HI-ˇÌ PU-U]ˇ-RI MUNUS.LUGAL SA-ME-E AR-NI ! PU-Uˇ-RI For the uncertain restoration at the beginning of the line, compare [. . .] x BE-EL-AT x [. . .] in KUB 39.71 ii 48u, for which writing there is certainly insufficient space here.

Gary Beckman

40

Turn (your) breast (to him) [today]! The fish to [the sea] (and) the bird to the sky I have ma[de go up]!” 30 The Akkadian of these speeches, to which we shall devote more attention in a moment, is not the dialect familiar from the treaties and diplomatic correspondence of the Hittite Empire. This much is certain from the rather consistent employment of the correct forms of the verb and pronouns of the second person singular feminine in addresses to the goddess. 31 Therefore it is unlikely that these incantations were created ad hoc by the Hittite scribes who produced our texts, although the frequent garbling of the more complex passages is certainly to be laid to their account. However, a search based thus far largely on Chicago Assyrian Dictionary entries for relevant lexemes has turned up only one clear correspondence between our material and an incantation in a fully Akkadian context: the wish that fish and fowl might carry off one’s transgressions appears in a first-millennium namburbi found at Küyünjik, 32 in a similar Sultantepe text, 33 also of course late in date, and in one of the compositions which E. Reiner has called the “lipsur-litanies.” 34 On the basis of several older orthographic features, Reiner postulates that an Old Babylonian tradition lies behind her “litanies.” Thus we have very indirect evidence for the existence already in the early second millennium of a native Akkadian tradition from which the fish and bird incantation in CTH 718 might have derived. Returning to the Akkadian language of CTH 718, two features in particular show that it should be categorized as what J. Huehnergard terms “West Peripheral Akkadian.” 35 These characteristics are a general indifference to the inherent voiced or voiceless value of a syllabic sign and a tendency to write—and probably pronounce—samekhs with syllabograms indicating sin. The parade example of the second feature in this composition is the frequent—and consistent 36—writing MI-I-SI ‘you (fem. sg.) wash!’ It is interesting that the only examples cited by the CAD of mesû written with sin are from Alalah and Ugarit. 37 30. KUB 39.78 i 22u–25u: 22u. 23u. 24u. 25u.

A-MI !-LA Ú-UL-LI-IL5 [. . .] HI-Iˇ-ˇÁ-TI-SU Ú-UL-L[I-IL5 I-NA UD.KAM AN-NI-I] GAB-TA SU-UK-NA KU6 I-NA [A.AB.BA] MUSEN I-NA SA-ME-E Ú-S[E ?-EL-LI]

31. But note SU-UK-NA for correct sukni(m) in KUB 39.78 i 24u in the previous note. 32. R. Caplice, “Namburbi Texts in the British Museum I,” Or 34 (1965) 116, line 13 (K 3365): u EME.SID an-ni-i KU6 ana ZU+AB MUSEN ana AN-e li-se-[li]. 33. STT 75, line 9: ar-ni MUSEN ana AN-e [l]i-se-li ar-ni KU6 ana ZU[+AB] lu-se-rid. 34. “LIPSUR Litanies,” JNES 15 (1956) 140, line 22: ar-ni MUSEN ana AN-e li-se-li ar-ni KU6 ina ZU[+AB li-se-rid]. See also W. G. Lambert, “An Incantation of the Maqlû Type,” AfO 18 (1957–58) 292, line 25: (images of me) [UR.GI7 l]u-u ú-sá-ki-lu SAH MIN MUSEN AN-e KU6 ZU+AB MIN. 35. “Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar,” RA 77 (1983) 11, 35–43. 36. Note only KUB 39.71 iii 44: MI-E-SI. 37. CAD M/II, 31; Alalah: AT 126, line 38 (Old Babylonian); Ugarit: RS 15.92 (PRU 3, pl. XXI) line 13.

Spread is 3 points long

The “babilili-Ritual” from Bogazköy (CTH 718)

41

The final feature of the Akkadian of these incantations that I wish to consider is an unusual feminine plural nominative manifestation of the determinative pronoun SÂTU, written SA-A-TÙ. This declined form of sa is found in the query: “Where are those who (go) before you? Whe[re are those who (go) after you], your attendants, your courtesans?”, 38 a reference to the minor figures who accompany the Hurrian ISTAR/Sausga. 39 W. von Soden 40 records only one attestation of satu, in an Old Babylonian hymn to Nanaya. 41 Unless it is a back-formation, 42 this grammatical element belongs to a period earlier than the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to which almost all of the manuscripts of CTH 718 are to be dated. Thus there are a number of indications that the Akkadian of our incantations goes back in time, probably to the Old Babylonian period, and that it was imported to Hattusa from a peripheral area. Since many of the ceremonies, ritual practices, and implements found in CTH 481, 482, and 718 are of Hurrian background, it is obvious to which segment of the periphery we must turn. I should also point out that the god Ea appears in the Akkadian material of CTH 718 under the Hurrian spelling dA-a. 43 Of course, it was from the southern Anatolian region of Kizzuwatna, home in the Hittite period of a hybrid Hurrian/Luwian culture, that the Deity of the Night was brought to Hatti. I would suggest, however, that we must look beyond fifteenthcentury Cilicia to earlier northern Syria and even as far afield as the trans-Tigridian area in search of forerunners to our incantations. Such antecedents are surely to be sought, along with those of Kumarbi and the karuiles siunes ‘former gods’, 44 in the poorlydocumented Sumero-Hurrian culture of the late third and early second millennia. Given the paucity of direct textual evidence of this pivotal cultural constellation, the task I have set for myself is not an easy one, but I hope that the eagerly-awaited publication of Hurrian material from Emar and Ortaköy, as well as continuing research into Bogazköy Hurrian, will help me to advance my inquiry.

38. KUB 39.93 obv.? 4–5: 4. A-LI SA-A-TÙ SA PA-NI-I-KI A-L[I SA-A-TÙ SA AR-KI-KI] 5. MUNUS.MESSUHUR.LÁL-KI MUNUS.MESKAR.KID-KI . . . 39. See H. G. Güterbock, “A Hurro-Hittite Hymn to Ishtar,” JAOS 103 (1984) 159. 40. W. von Soden, “Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen, Teil I,” ZA 40 (1932) 196; see also his GAG, §46 and AHw, 1199a. 41. VS 10, 215, line 3 (Samsuiluna): sa-tu ki-ma ar-hi-im a na-†a-li-im. 42. Note that satu in VS 10, 215 is singular, whereas in our context it is plural and must therefore be transcribed sâtu. 43. E. Laroche, GLH, 39. 44. For Kumarbi, see V. Haas, Geschichte der hethitischen Religion (Handbuch der Orientalistik I.15; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 82–83; for karuiles siunes, see A. Archi, “The Names of the Primeval Gods,” Or 59 (1990) 114–29.

42

Gary Beckman

Bearded or Beardless? Some Speculations on the Function of the Beard among the Hittites Hripsime Haroutunian University of Chicago

This paper presents a first attempt in Hittitology to study the beard among the Hittites and to evaluate its function, if any, in the Hittite culture, by combining both textual references and iconographic evidence. The Hittite word for beard is zamangur/zamakur (nom.-acc. sg. n.), which has just a few attestations in Hittite texts. 1 The word was first discussed by E. Laroche alongside enira- ‘eyebrow’ and laplipa- ‘eyelash’ (see below, p. 44). 2 He interprets zamankur, mentioned in a solar hymn (CTH 372), as ‘pupil’, ‘apple (of the eye)’, or ‘glance, gaze’ (French regard ) of the solar deity: 3 Thy zamankur is of lapis lazuli. 4 But eventually Laroche corrected himself, translating the word as ‘beard’ on the basis of comparison of the cited passage to similar Akkadian texts, as well as study of the epithets and attributes of the Mesopotamian sun-god Samas. 5 In a parallel text, Kantuzzili’s prayer, for instance, the sun-god plays the role of mediator between the king and his personal deity, as the sun-god is requested to transmit the king’s prayer to his patron god, when he descends to earth: “when thou Author’s note : Abbreviations are those of The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Volume P (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1997) vii–xxix. 1. See Kronasser, EHS I, 93, 266–67, 277, 286, 298; HW, 259. 2. E. Laroche, “Etudes de Vocabulaire,” RHA IX/49 (1948–49) 17–18. 3. KUB 31.127+; see H. Güterbock, “The Composition of Hittite Prayers to the Sun,” JAOS 78 (1958) 237ff.; R. Lebrun, Hymnes et Prières Hittites (Homo Reliogiosus 4; Louvain la Neuve, 1980) 92–111; M. Marazzi and H. Nowicki, “Vorarbeiten zu den Hethitischen Gebeten (CTH 372, 373, 374),” OA 17 (1978) 257ff. 4. KUB 31.127+ i 11: za-ma-kur-te-et SA NA4ZA.GÌN-as. 5. E. Laroche, “Etudes de Vocabulaire III,” RHA XI/52 (1950) 40–41: (Samas ) sa . . . ziq-na elletu zaq-nu ‘(Samas) who has a pure (Sum. lapis lazuli) beard’, and musahmit ziq-nat urri ‘(Samas) who makes glow the rays of light (lit., the beard of light)’; see CAD Z, 61, 126.

43

44

Hripsime Haroutunian

goes down to the nether world. . . .” 6 As H. Güterbock has mentioned, 7 these solar prayers contain many Sumero-Babylonian elements and in their composition have been obviously influenced by the hymns to the Babylonian Samas (Hittite Istanu; see below the representations of the sun-god in Hittite iconography, without zamankur). The word zamankur is also attested in four similar passages of a magical ritual dedicated to the Sun-god of Earth (CTH 448), in conjunction with enera- (enira-, inera-, inira) ‘eyebrow’ and laplipa- (laplapa-, laplapi-) ‘eyelash’ (as mentioned above): For Tudhaliya, his heroic/youthful statue, . . . eyebrow(s), eyelash(es), beard . . . is . . . 8 . . . (you) let the vigor, the power of resistance, . . . , the black? eyebrow(s), eyelash(es), beard of the hero/youth come over to me, Tudhaliya . . . 9 . . . (you) give the vigor, . . . the black? eyebrow(s), eyelash(es), beard of the protective deity’s statue back to me, the offerant . . . 10 In the cited passages, on the one hand, the beard along with other types of facial hair of the king or the statue functions as a part for the whole, that is, as a substitute for the king. The motif of substituting facial hair, as well as fingernails or urine, for a person can be traced in a number of other Hittite rituals. As V. Haas and H. Thiel have suggested, this motif was introduced into Asia Minor by the Hurrians from Mesopotamia through North Syria. 11 On the other hand, the black beard, eyebrows, and eyelashes are perhaps to be seen here as symbolic markers of vigor, youthfulness, and heroism. As Irene Winter colorfully states: “Vitality is conflated with manliness (for men), and is articulated visually by facial hair, with breadth of chest and virile stance.” 12

6. KUB 30.10 (CTH 373), ed. Lebrun, Hymnes, 111–20; see ANET, 400–401; RTAT, 188–91; NERT, 167–69; Marazzi and Nowicki, “Vorarbeiten,” 257ff., J. de Roos, “Hittite Prayers,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (ed. J. Sasson et al.; New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1995) 2001. 7. See Güterbock, “Hittite Prayers,” 237ff. 8. KUB 24.12 ii 20–22: ]x-wa-kán A-NA mTu-ud-ha-li-ya ALAM LÚGURUS [i-]in!-ni-ri la! ap-la -pí za-ma-an-gur [. . .]{e}-es-ta; see HED 2, 272, HW 2 2, fasc. 9–10, 38. 9. ii 30–33: . . . SA dTu-ud-ha-li-ya-ma-mu SA LÚGURUS ha-as-ta-ri-ya-tar ha-as-ta !-a-i[. . . h]a-an-za-na-an ! i-in !-na-ri-en la-ap-la-ap-[pí]-pa-an z[a !-ma-an-]gur sa-ra-a tar-ni-es-t[én]. 10. iii 5–7: . . . EN.SISKUR-ma-wa-mu ALAM dLAMMA ha-as-ta-a-i [. . .]x [h]a?-an !-zana-an in-ni-ri-i la-ap-li-pí-in-na ! za-ma-an-gur ha-as-sa-az EGIR-pa pé-es-tén; see 33–34: -a]n-wa-kán A-NA EN.SISKUR x[. . .] [in-ni-ri-i ? l]a-ap-la!-pí za-ma-an-gur. 11. V. Haas and H. J. Thiel, Die Beschwörungsrituale der Allaiturah(h)i und verwandte Texte (AOAT 31; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978) 43–44, 48–49. 12. I. J. Winter, “Sex, Rhetoric, and the Public Monument,” in Sexuality in Ancient Art (ed. N. B. Kampen; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 13; see Akk. sa ziqni ‘bearded’ as a designation of male personnel at the Assyrian court who are not eunuchs, subsequently LÚ SA SU6 meaning ‘a non-eunuch’ (CAD Z, 126–7).

Some Speculations on the Function of the Beard among the Hittites

45

Another occurrence of zamankur is found in the Ritual of Suwamma (NH) for treatment of an unknown disease: The fat, pankur (and) beard-hair of billy-goat (and) nanny-goat, the urine of a human being, [. . . ch]eese, and flint/obsidian(?), all this she removes. 13 As pointed out by R. Beal and B. J. Collins, the word zamankur is not otherwise attested referring to goats, however, it would not be surprising if the Hittites referred to this type of hair in the same manner as many other languages. 14 It is noteworthy that in the CAD there is a reference to Sumerian ú su6 ùz, designating a plant name (lit. ‘goat-beard’). 15 The Hittite word for ‘bearded’ is samankurwant-. This is a -want- suffix adjective derived from the noun zamankur, 16 with a change of the initial consonant, which is usual for Hattian and Palaic, but is also observed in some Hittite words (compare sakkar and zakkar ‘excrement’; zashi- and zazhi- ‘dream’). 17 The word samankurwant is attested referring to snakes twice in the Ritual of Ayatarsa, Wattiti, and Susumanniga against spells and bonds that caused a complete paralysis of the entire Universe and, consequently, of all the body parts of a patient. 18 In the first passage, the so-called “bearded snakes,” along with the high mountains, deep valleys, meadows, fish of the river, and wild animals, are being “bound up:” 19 He bound the high mountains. He bound the deep valleys. . . . He bound the [b]earded snakes in the c[oil] . . . 20 In the second passage all of these are released through the mediation of the gods: 21 13. KBo 21.20 (CTH 461) i 25–26: [S]A MÁS.GAL UZ6! Ì.UDU pa-an-kur za-ma-an-kur UKÙ-as se-e-hu-u[r ] [G]A.KIN.AG-pát NA4ZÚ nu ki-i da-pí-an sa-mi-nu-zi, ed. C. Burde, StBoT 19: 44; the translation is after R. Beal and B. J. Collins, “Hittite pankur,” AoF 23 (1996) 310; see also A. M. Polvani, Minerali, 142, CHD P, 92. 14. See Beal and Collins, “Hittite pankur,” 310 n. 18; Russian, for instance, provides evidence to the contrary, when referring to a small pointed and tufted beard on a man’s chin as kazlínnaya baródka ‘goat’s beard’, compare English ‘goatee’. 15. CAD Z, 126. 16. HE I, §49d; Kronasser, EHS I (1966) 266–67. 17. Laroche, “Etudes de Vocabulaire III,” 41; HE I, §27c (with literature); Kronasser, EHS I (1966) 50. 18. KUB 7.1 + KBo 3.8 (CTH 390, NH), ed. H. Kronasser, “Fünf hethitische Rituale,” Die Sprache 7 (1961) 157ff.; see also E. Laroche, “Mythologie anatolienne,” RHA XXXIII/77 (1965) 169ff.; R. Stefanini, “Note Ittitte,” AGI 54 (1969) 148ff.; H. Otten and C. Rüster, “Textanschlüsse und Duplikate von Bogazköy-Tafeln (41–50),” ZA 67 (1977) 57ff.; I. Wegner, “Eine hethitische Zauberpraktik,” MDOG 113 (1981) 112–13; E. Masson, Le Combat pour l’immortalité (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1991) 193ff. 19. Rev. iii 7–8: [sa-m]a-an-ku-úr-wa-du-us-kán MUS.HI.A-us an-da hu-u-la-[li-is-ni] ha-miik-ta. 20. For the latter expression, see Masson, Le Combat, 294 n. 18 (with literature). 21. Lines 25–26: sa-ma-an-ku-úr-wa-an-te-es MUS.HI.A [hu-u-la-li-is-]ni la-a-at-ta-at.

Hripsime Haroutunian

46

The high mountains were released. The deep valleys were released. . . . The bearded snakes were released in the [coi]l . . . As proposed by H. Kronasser, the function of the beard was to emphasize the demonic nature of the serpents or their fertility or both. 22 The notion of “bearded snakes” is widespread in Greek mythology and art. Bearded snakes are also depicted on the friezes of Mesopotamian cylinder seals and are attested in Assyrian texts. 23 The Akkadian word for beard is ziqnu. The Sumerogram is su6 = kax sa, which is perhaps to be read in the Hittite Ritual of Samuha as referring to women: 24 On the 12th/13th day the virgin, with her beard cut, appears at the gate of the temple. 25 The mentioned ritual is performed against slander and curses. It comprises various purification ceremonies involving sympathetic magic. Here the mention of a virgin with her beard-hair cut might perhaps emphasize her purity or, rather, her young age, in contrast to women of elderly age, who gradually acquire some mustache- or beard-hair on their chins. I assume that the expression “with her beard cut” does not necessarily suggest that the woman had beard-hair earlier and that, before entering the temple, she had it removed. 26 It might well mean “a woman who is absolutely without facial hair,” that is, a young woman, a virgin. However, a reverse interpretation is also possible, that is, she was an old virgin (a kind of priestess or nun, Hitt. pár-ku-is MUNUS-za, lit. ‘clean/pure woman’) and might already have had some facial hair (“beard” need not imply a full beard) growing on her chin. So she was required to remove that facial hair every time she was to enter the temple, as were the other temple officials, who were instructed to remove all their body hair and cut their fingernails before entering into the presence of god. 27 22. Kronasser, “Fünf hethitische Rituale,” 161. 23. Ibid., 169 (with literature on bearded snakes in Mesopotamian culture); see for instance CAD Z, 126b: if a snake (has?) a beard. 24. KUB 29.7 + KBo 21.41 (CTH 480); see J. Friedrich, “Zum hethitischen Lexicon,” JCS 1 (1947) 298–99; A. Goetze, “Contributions to Hittite Lexicography,” JCS 1 (1947) 315–16; ANET, 346. For reference to “bearded” women in Assyrian texts, see, for instance: summa ina ali sinnisati su6 zaq-na ‘if in a city there are women with beards’, or sinnistu ziq-na zaq-na-at ‘a woman had a beard’, etc. (CAD Z, 126a). 25. KUB 29.7 + KBo 21.41 obv. i 38: I-NA UD.12.KAM-ma KAxSA!-SU ha-a[t-ta-an-za?] pár-ku-is MUNUS-za A-NA PA-NI KÁ É.DINGIR-LIM ti-i-[e-zi]; or obv. i 48: I-NA UD.13. KAM-ma KAxSA!-SU ha-at-ta-an-za pár-ku-is MUNUS-za A-NA PA-NI KÁ É.DINGIR-LIM ti-i-e-zi; see also ibid. 1: EGIR-SU-ma KAxSA! ha-at-ta-an-za A-NA PA-NI KÁ É.DINGIR-LIM ti-i-e-zi, or 13: nam-ma KAxSA!-SU ha-at-ta-an-za ga-an-ga-ti SAR IS-T [U . . . ] pa-ra-a a-pé-e-ni-issa-an e-ep-zi. 26. The Hittite verb hattai- ‘to cut (off )’ seems to be a cognate to the Armenian stem hat‘to cut’, ‘to reduce’. It is of interest that the latter also has a derivative form, a noun-forming suffix hat/at with the meaning ‘without’, ‘deprived of ’ (not necessarily meaning ‘with something cut off ’), see for instance, gun-at ‘colorless, pale’, tev-at ‘a penguin’ (lit. ‘without wings’), etc. 27. See Hittite instructions for priests and temple officials (CTH 264).

spread is 1 pica long

Some Speculations on the Function of the Beard among the Hittites

47

Of interest is the compound GADA.SU6 ‘napkin’ (lit. ‘cloth for beard’) attested in a broken fragment of Hittite inventory lists: 28 . . . one beard cloth of the king, ti[e]d up. 29 The second part of this paper is dedicated to a survey of various art monuments and a comparison of the evidence that they offer with the evidence of the textual material. Here, first and foremost, it should be pointed out that almost all of the representations of the Hittites are of divinities, sovereigns, or persons of high rank. There is little evidence of what an average Hittite man looked like. In any event, Hittites are usually depicted dressed in tunics of varied length with sleeves, sometimes with ornamental belts, and shoes with upturned toes. Men and women alike wore earrings, necklaces, or bracelets. 30 Hittite men were generally beardless and clean-shaven. Their hair fell either to the shoulders or below the shoulders and ended in a curl or braid at the back, as is seen, for instance, in the elaborate depiction of a wedding procession that decorates the relief pithos from Inandik (fig. 1), or on the colorful drawings of the Bitik vase. 31 Another example is the frieze on the rim of the silver stag-shaped rhyton from the Norbert Schimmel collection (fig. 2). 32 It represents two gods and their worshipers. They are all beardless. The gods can be identified on the basis of Hittite texts as the Divine Protectors of the Wild Fields. 33 Hittites are depicted without any facial hair not only by themselves but also by the Egyptians. It is worth mentioning, for instance, the depiction of slain Hittite soldiers in the Egyptian relief of the Battle of Kades excavated at Luxor, or that of the 28. For GADA.SU6, see KZL, no. 173; KUB 42.75 (CTH 250), ed. H. Güterbock, “Ivory in Hittite Texts,” Anadolu 15 (1971) 5–6; S. Kosak, THeth 10: 188ff.; J. Siegelová, Hethitische Vervaltungspraxis im Lichte der Wirtschafts- und Inventardokumente (Prague: Národní Museum, 1986) 63ff. (2.1.9). 29. Obv. i: 1 GADA.SU6 LUGAL KES[D]A; see Güterbock, “Ivory,” 5–6, followed by Kosak, THeth 10: 188–89: 1 GADA.KAxSA LUGAL EZ[EN?] ‘one lip-cloth of the king (for a) fes[tival] (?)’. According to Siegelová’s interpretation, a lip-cloth would be more appropriate than a beard-cloth (Vervaltungspraxis, 65 n. 2). However, the cuneiform definitely reads KAxSA=SU6 ‘beard’, but not KAxNUN=NUNDUM ‘lip’. As for the last broken sign, it might well be read either way: EZ[EN?] or KES[D]A. In the latter case, apparently it refers to a special technique of tying or binding of threads (like knotting or stitching, etc.) (Siegelová, Vervaltungspraxis, 64 n. 1). 30. E. Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites (London: Thames and Hudson, 1962) 110, 112; D. Collon, “Clothing and Grooming in Ancient Western Asia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 510–11; F. Imparati, “Private Life Among the Hittites,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 572. 31. T. Özgüç, Inandiktepe (Ankara: TTK Basimevı, 1988) fig. 64; idem, “The Bitik Vase,” Anadolu 2 (1957) 57–78, pl. 1–6. 32. S. Alp, Beiträge zur Erforschung des hethitischen Tempels (Ankara: TTKYayın, 1982) 93ff., fig. 6h; idem, “Einige weitere Bemerkungen zum Hirschrhyton der Norbert Schimmel-Sammlung,” in Fs G. P. Carratelli (Eothen 1; Florence: Elite, 1988) 17–23, fig. 2. 33. H. Güterbock, “Hethitische Götterbilder und Kultgeräte,” in FsBittel, 207–8; R. MayerOpificius, “Hethitische Kunstdenkmäler des 13. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.,” in Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Festschrift Tahsin Özgüç (ed. K. Emre et al.; Ankara, 1989) 359–60.

48

Hripsime Haroutunian

Fig. 1. Drawings of the pithos from Inandiktepe. Courtesy of T. Özgüç.

seven nearly identical Hittite figures, carved in a 13th century bas-relief. 34 The latter have shaven faces and flat, sloping foreheads that continue in the same line into prominent and slightly aquiline noses and receding chins. A. Götze lists them as Type a in his discussion of four anthropological types of Hittites represented on contemporary monuments. 35 Also beardless is the Hittite prisoner, tied together with four other prisoners, on the Egyptian stone relief from the great temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu. 36 A depiction of another beardless Hittite prisoner is found on the right wall of the entrance to the great temple at Abu Simbel. 37 He has a long and prominent nose, but his forehead is not as sloping as that of the above-mentioned seven figures. This is Götze’s Type b. 38 34. C. Kuentz, La Bataille de Qadesh (Mémoires IFAO 55/1–2; Cairo, 1928–1934) pl. 51; H. T. Bossert, Altanatolien: Kunst und Handwerk in Kleinasien von den Anfängen bis zum völligen Aufgehen in der Griechischen Kultur (Die Ältester Kulturen des Mittelmeerkreises 2; Berlin: Wasmuth, 1942) fig. 759; J. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (2d ed. with suppl.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) 253, fig. 31. 35. A. Götze, Kleinasien (2d ed.; Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients 3/1; München: Beck, 1957) 10–12. 36. The Epigraphic Survey, Later Historical Records of Ramses III, Medinet Habu, Volume 2 (OIP 9; Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1932) pl. 125A; Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures, 250, fig. 7. 37. Bossert, Altanatolien, 731; Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures, 253, fig. 32. 38. For the Egyptian ideal of Hittites, see W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962) 342ff.; see also K. Bittel, “Bemerkungen zum Löwenbecken in Bogazköy und zum Felsrelief bei Sirkeli,” in FsGüterbock, 71.

Some Speculations on the Function of the Beard among the Hittites

49

Fig. 2. Frieze decorating the stag-shaped rhyton from N. Schimmel Collection, New York. Drawing by Neriman Tezcan. Courtesy of Sedat Alp.

However, it is always hard to make a clear differentiation among all these and to identify a true representation of a Hittite. True, a perfect specimen of Hittite male imagery seems to be the life-sized figure of the warrior (or the war god) carved on the King’s gate at Bogazköy-Hattusa or the relief of King Tudhaliya IV from House A of Temple 5 at Hattusa, which shows amazing similarities with the former. 39 Both figures are without facial hair, wearing a high, pointed helmet and a short kilt. Another relief is similar to this, that of King Suppiluliyama II from chamber 2 on the Südburg at Bogazköy, discovered by Peter Neve. 40 Furthermore, Hittite kings depicted in religious ceremonies are also cleanshaven. They are usually clothed in full-length, draped robes with a train wrapped around the shoulders like a cape, shoes with up-turned toes, and round, tight-fitting caps. Iconographically such a representation of the king resembles that of the Sungod of Heaven. They both wear the same priestly garments and carry the lituus. 41 As H. Güterbock has postulated, “one could say that the god is shown in the image of the king or that the king is wearing garments of the god,” representing the deceased 39. For King’s gate see O. Puchstein, Boghasköi, die Bauwerke (WVDOG 19; Leipzig, 1912; repr. Osnabrück: Zeller, 1984) 67–72, fig. 48, pls. 17–19; K. Bittel, Bogazköy, die Kleinfunde der Grabungen 1906–1912 (WVDOG 60; Leipzig, 1937; repr. Osnabrück: Zeller, 1967) 5–7, frontispiece, pls. 2–3; for House A, see P. Neve, “Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1985,” AA (1986) 395ff., figs. 29–30; idem, “Bogazköy-Hattusa, Ausgrabungen in der Oberstadt,” Anatolica 14 (1987) 67–68, 87, figs. 16–18; idem, Hattusa—Stadt der Götter und Tempel: Neue Ausgrabungen in der Hauptstadt der Hethiter (Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie 8; Mainz am Rhein: Zabern, 1993) 35, figs. 100–101. 40. P. Neve, “Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1988,” AA (1989) 316ff., figs. 40, 42, 58; idem, “Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1989,” AA (1990) 279ff., fig. 10; idem, Hattusa, 71ff., figs. 204a, 213, 214. 41. See A. Götze, “The Priestly Dress of the Hittite King,” JCS 1 (1947) 178ff.; O. R. Gurney, “Hittite Kingship,” in Myth, Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel (ed. S. H. Hooke; Oxford 1958) 117; T. van den Hout, “Tuthalija IV. und die Ikonographie hethitischer Großkönige des 13. Jhs,” BiOr 52 (1995) 551–52.

50

Hripsime Haroutunian

Hittite king, who was called “My Sun” after he “became god.” 42 In any event, “the distinction between the god and the king is made by the presence or the absence of the winged sun disk.” For instance, figure no. 34 at Yazılıkaya 43 has such a winged disk, placed above his head, and is carrying the hieroglyph of his name “Sun-god of the Sky” in his outstretched hand. The same is true for the relief, discovered by Neve, on the back wall of chamber 2 on the Südburg. 44 The kings are usually depicted without the sun disk, like, for instance, figure no. 64 at Yazılıkaya, Tudhaliya IV, or no. 81, Tudhaliya IV in the embrace of his protective deity Sarrumma, as well as King Muwatalli on the rock relief at Sirkeli. 45 Also shown without the sun disk is Muwatalli II on his seals, in the embrace of his protective deity, Pihassasi. 46 Moreover, there are almost identical representations of the Hittite king and the priests in adoration on the orthostat reliefs from the city walls of Alaca Hüyük. 47 They all are clean-shaven and wear priestly garments similar to the sun-god. Interestingly enough, the Hittite King is not always dressed in the same manner when performing offerings to the gods. On the rock relief of Fraktin near Kayseri, King Hattusili III is represented as beardless, wearing the usual Hittite tunic with a pointed hat, while pouring a libation to a god, supposedly the weather god. 48 The latter has not yet been clearly identified. According to E. Laroche, there is clearly a hieroglyphic sign for the weather god under the determinative for god. 49 M. van Loon and R. Mayer-Opificius, on the other hand, suggest that this might rather be the king’s patron deity (dlamma), like a hunting god or a kind of protective deity of the wild fields. 50 It is noteworthy that the god is shown clothed in garments similar 42. H. Güterbock, “Sungod or King,” in Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors: Fs N. Özgüç (ed. M. J. Mellink et al.; Ankara: TTK Basimevı, 1993) 225–26. 43. K. Bittel et al., Das hethitische Felsheiligtum Yazilikaya (Berlin: Mann, 1975) pl. 57. 44. P. Neve, “Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1988,” AA (1989) 318ff., figs. 47–48, 52, 55–57; idem, “Bogazköy-Hattusa: New Results of the Excavations in the Upper City,” Anatolica 16 (1989–1990) 13, 19, fig. 5; idem, Hattusa, 71ff., figs. 201, 205b, 211. According to Oguz Soysal (personal communication), the sun-god is depicted without a beard because of its characteristic of dual genders: the sun-god (Hittite tradition: Istanu) and the sun-goddess (Hattian tradition: Estan). 45. For fig. no. 64, see Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, pl. XIX; Bittel et al., Yazilikaya, frontispiece, pl. 39/2, 60; for fig. no. 81 see ibid., pls. IV, 48, 49, 62; for Sirkeli see Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, pls. XX, 98; Bittel, “Bemerkungen zum Löwenbecken,” 69ff.; idem, Die Hethiter: Die Kunst Anatoliens vom Ende des 3. bis zum Anfang des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus (Munich: Beck, 1976) figs. 195, 197. 46. SBo I 38–40; Neve, Hattusa, 57, fig. 149. 47. Vieyra, Hittite Art (2300–750 b.c.) (London: Alec Trinanti, 1955) 33, fig. 28; M. Mellink, “Observations on the Sculptures of Alaca Hüyük,” Anadolu 14 (1970) 20, fig. 2/6, pl. IV–V; idem, “Hittite Friezes and Gate Sculptures,” in FsGüterbock, 203ff.; Bittel, Die Hethiter, 197ff., figs. 212, 214. 48. Bittel, Die Hethiter, 187–88, figs. 194, 196, 198. 49. E. Laroche, “Les Reliefs de Fraktin,” in FsTÖzgüç, 301. 50. M. van Loon, “Anatolia in the Second Millennium b.c.,” Iconography of Religions 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1985) 15; Mayer-Opificius, “Hethitische Kunstdenkmäler,” 361.

Some Speculations on the Function of the Beard among the Hittites

51

to the king’s and without any facial hair, while elsewhere the beard seems to be one of the most distinctive attributes of the weather god (see below). This might be additional confirmation that the male deity represented on the Fraktin relief is not the weather god. More striking still is the horned peaked cap of Hattusili III, as the horns attached to the cap are usually the insignia that indicate the rank of the Hittite gods. 51 Nevertheless, the most elaborate sculptural evidence for Hittite male deities comes from the rock sanctuary at Yazılıkaya. There, in the central panel, the main figure of the weathergod, Tesub (no. 42), is found. To his left, a second, lesser weather-god (no. 41) is depicted. Both are bearded and are standing on mountains, with the difference that the mountains supporting Tesub are anthropomorphic. Their names are Nanni and Hazzi. The beardless figure (no. 44) standing in the row of the female deities, following Hepat, is Sarrumma. The representation of the son of the weather-god without a beard might be related to his younger age. The images of mountain gods are always bearded. There are nine depictions of these gods (no. 13–15, 16a, 17, 83) at Yazılıkaya, including the two mentioned above, standing below Tesub’s figure (no. 42), and the one on the cartouche of Tudhaliya IV (figure no. 64). According to my calculations, there are altogether 60 sculptures of male deities carved in the rock sanctuary of Yazılıkaya. Among them, 44 are beardless, including Sausga-Istar (no. 38) who shows a mixed gender. Indeed, only 16 figures at Yazılıkaya are represented as bearded. It should be mentioned though that among the bearded deities, 2 (nos. 41 and 42) are weather gods and 9 are various mountain gods. The remainder of the bearded figures represent the moon-god Kusuh (no. 35), the water-god Ea (no. 39), the vegetation-god Kumarbi (no. 40), and two unknown deities (nos. 23 and 24). Summing up my observations, it is possible to conclude that the Hittites and, consequently, the images of their deities were beardless, except for those who either originated in Mesopotamia or were strongly affected by the Mesopotamian civilization. This may be the case with, for instance, the moon-god or the Hurrian god of harvest, Kumarbi. On the other hand, the beard, as a marker of manliness, fertility, and power, was apparently the distinctive feature of the supreme god of the Hittite religious pantheon, the weather-god, while all the other bearded deities, the vegetation-god, the mountain-gods, and the water-god, by their nature seem to be attributive to the former. Interestingly, in the religious iconography and sculptures of the later, NeoHittite period, men and gods are mostly bearded. This was apparently due to strong Syrian and Mesopotamian influence. Nonetheless, as D. Hawkins has observed, there is some distinction between the religion of the Anatolian provinces and that of the Neo-Hittite city-states in Syria. While the former suggests close continuity with the 51. See the discussion in T. van den Hout, “Tuthalija IV,” 555–56, nn. 45–46 (with literature); Akurgal, The Art of the Hittites, 110ff.

52

Hripsime Haroutunian

cult of Hattusa, the latter shows more Syrian influence and is perceptibly the religion of the city of Karkamis. 52 52. J. D. Hawkins, “Karkamish and Karatepe: Neo-Hittite City-States in North Syria,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 1305ff. (with literature).

Hittite Seals and Sealings from the Ni§antepe Archive, Bogazköy: A Prosopographical Study Suzanne Herbordt Altorientalisches Institut, Universität Leipzig

In the 1990 and 1991 excavation seasons at Bogazköy, a deposit of over 3000 sealed bullae was found in three basement rooms and the collapse of a badly eroded building, the so-called “Westbau” on Ni§antepe. 1 As the excavator, Peter Neve, has reported, this discovery came as a complete surprise because of the location on the steep southwest slope. 2 Whereas sealed bullae have been found before at other locations within the Hittite capital, 3 the significance of the material from Ni§antepe lies in its great number. The closest parallels from Bogazköy are offered by the so-called “Siegel Depot” in Building D on Büyükkale, excavated in 1936 and published by Hans Gustav Güterbock. 4 Author’s note : This paper is a modified version of the one read at the 207th Meeting of the American Oriental Society held in Miami in March, 1997. For the conventions in the transcription of hieroglyphic Luwian, see J. D. Hawkins, A. Morpurgo Davies, and G. Neumann, “Hittite Hieroglyphs and Luwian: New Evidence for the Connection,” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen I. Philologisch-Historische Klasse No. 6 (1974) 145–97; J. D. Hawkins, “The Negatives in Hieroglyphic Luwian,” Anatolian Studies 25 (1975) 119ff.; M. Marazzi et al. (eds.), Il Geroglifico Anatolico: Atti del Colloquio e della tavola rotonda Napoli-Procida, giugno 1995 (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor LVII; Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1998) 3–124. In the following, the hieroglyphic sign numbers prefaced by “L.” are those established by E. Laroche (Les Hiéroglyphes Hittites [Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1960]). I would like to thank Dr. Joost Hazenbos, Altorientalisches Institut Leipzig, for reading the manuscript and providing several valuable references. 1. See P. Neve, “Die Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1990,” Archäologischer Anzeiger (1991) 323ff., idem, “Die Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1991,” Archäologischer Anzeiger (1992) 307ff., idem, Hattusa—Stadt der Götter und Tempel (Antike Welt Sondernummer; Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1992) 52ff. 2. P. Neve, Archäologischer Anzeiger (1991) 323 3. For example, in Temple I and the temples of the Upper City. See H. G. Güterbock, “Hieroglyphensiegel aus dem Tempelbezirk,” in Bogazköy V: Funde aus den Grabungen 1970 und 1971 (ed. K. Bittel et al.; Berlin: Mann, 1975) 47–75; P. Neve, “Die Ausgrabungen in BogazköyHattusa 1983,” Archäologischer Anzeiger (1984) 360; idem, “Die Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1985,” Archäologischer Anzeiger (1986) 377ff., 383; idem, “Die Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1986,” Archäologischer Anzeiger (1987) 400ff. 4. H. G. Güterbock, Siegel aus Bogazköy I (AfO Beiheft 5; repr., Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967); idem, Siegel aus Bogazköy II (AfO Beiheft 7; repr., Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967).

53

54

Suzanne Herbordt

The official nature of the deposit is reflected by the combined presence of royal bullae and bullae bearing the seal impressions of officials. Of the 3535 different seal impressions included in the corpus, 60% can be identified as various royal seal types. 5 Seals of princes (that is, persons with the title REX.FILIUS) and officials are represented with 38.5%. Only 1.5% of the seal impressions are unclassified. The bullae deposit can be dated to the Hittite Empire period (14th-13th centuries b.c.), from the immediate predecessors of Suppiluliuma I to Suppiluliuma II, by means of the royal bullae. 6 Although a number of royal land grants of the (16th and) 15th century b.c. are included in the material from the Westbau, there are almost no sealed bullae dating prior to the Empire period. The focus of this paper will be on the nonroyal sealings. Included here are the seal impressions of Hittite princes (title: REX.FILIUS) and officials as well as those of vassal kings. All seals of these categories bear inscriptions in hieroglyphic Luwian identifying the seal owner and his/her title and/or profession. The hieroglyphic inscription also plays a prominent role in the designs of the seals, since figured scenes are relatively rare in Empire period glyptics. This is well-illustrated, for example, by the assemblage of seal impressions in figure 1, in which with one exception (no. 1) the seal designs consist exclusively of the hieroglyphic inscription. Having discussed the different professional groups included in the corpus elsewhere, 7 I would like to deal here with the individuals who are represented in the seal material with the following question in mind: who is represented on the seals of the Ni§antepe corpus, and to what extent are they persons whom we know from other written sources? Of the approximately 280 different personal names that are recognizable (not all necessarily readable) on the seals, only a relatively small number are attested in written documents. This is due primarily to the paucity of economic and administrative texts as well as the lack of private documents preserved in the written record. 8 Thus, the personal names of the seal corpus from Ni§antepe provide a new and valuable source for names of Hittite officials of the Empire period and will add significantly to the fundamental onomastic works of Emmanuel Laroche. 9 5. Seals of great kings amount to 50.3%, so-called “tabarna” seals (impressed on royal land grants) to 0.8%, and so-called “anonymous royal seals” to 8.9%. The royal seal impressions will be published by Prof. H. Otten. On the “anonymous royal seal” type, see T. Beran, Die hethitische Glyptik von Bogazköy (Berlin: Mann, 1967) 78. 6. See H. Otten, “Zu einigen Neufunden hethitischer Königssiegel,” Abhandlungen der Geistesund Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz 13 (1993) 7ff. 7. S. Herbordt, “Sigilli di funzionari e dignitari hittiti: Le cretule dell’archivio di Ni§antepe a Bogazköy/Hattusa,” in Il Geroglifico Anatolico: Atti del Colloquio e della tavola rotonda Napoli-Procida, giugno 1995 (ed. M. Marazzi et al.; Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor LVII; Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1998) 175–78; idem, “Seals and Sealings of Hittite Officials from the Ni§antepe Archive, Bogazköy,” in Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology in Çorum (ed. S. Alp and A. Süel; Ankara: Hizmet Ciltevi, 1998) 311–13. 8. See J. Siegelová, Hethitische Verwaltungspraxis im Lichte der Wirtschafts- und Inventardokumente (Prague: Národní Muzeum, 1986) 11–13. 9. E. Laroche, Les noms des Hittites (Études Linguistiques 4; Paris: Klincksieck, 1966); idem, “Les noms des Hittites: Supplément,” Hethitica IV (1981) 3–58.

Spread is 1 pica long

Hittite Seals and Sealings from the Ni§antepe Archive, Bogazköy

2 1

4

3

5

6

7

8

9 Fig. 1. Seal impressions from Bogazköy. Drawings of nos. 1–2, 4–6, 8–9 by U. Schede; nos. 3 and 7 by C. Haase. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Bo Bo Bo Bo Bo

90/342; diam. 35 mm 91/116; diam. 24 mm 90/735; dimen. 18 x 22 mm 90/534; dimen. 14 x 18 mm 91/2261; diam. 20 mm

6. 7. 8. 9.

Bo Bo Bo Bo

90/749; diam. 21 mm 91/1133; diam. 19 mm 91/1724c; diam. 20 mm 90/560; dimen. 27 x 9 mm

55

56

Suzanne Herbordt

In his recent study on Hittite prosopography of the 13th century b.c., Theo van den Hout has pointed out that, in contrast to Mesopotamian sources, Hittite scribes rarely provide patronyms, titles, or geographic information for personal names mentioned in the texts. 10 The only exceptions are kings and scribes, for whom genealogies or patronyms are routinely given. As is the case in the texts, the seal inscriptions rarely provide the patronym of the seal owner. Consistently named, however, is the title or profession. Van den Hout has attributed this cursory identification of persons to the relatively small circle of court and temple officials, in which case the persons named could be identified from the context of the text. 11 The modern scholar, however, is confronted with difficulties when trying to identify persons by their office alone, since one person can hold different offices at different times of his career and/ or hold several offices at the same time. 12 For illustrative purposes, it is instructive to compare the list of witnesses on the so-called Bronze Tablet, the treaty between Tuthaliya IV and Kurunta of Tarhuntassa, 13 with the names of seal-owners on bullae from the “Westbau.” Of the 28 names appearing in the witness list of this treaty, 10 also occur on the bullae. In the case of GAL-dU, 14 however, the name appears to be homophonous. On the seals (name written MAGNUS.TONITRUS) the profession given is always that of a scribe and not chief charioteer, as on the Bronze Tablet. In his prosopographical study, van den Hout has been able to distinguish the person who is likely to be our seal owner from the charioteer with the same name. 15 The scribe GAL-dU (MAGNUS.TONITRUS), to be read Talmitessub, is the son of UR.MAH-LÚ, himself a witness on the Bronze Tablet (see below). In figure 1, the seals of the nine remaining officials are assembled. Following the order of the witnesses on the Bronze Tablet, the first name to be found among the seal owners is that of Huzziya (no. 9). The inscription on this signet ring (Fig. 1.9) reads HWI-zi/a-i(a) REX.FILIUS. 16 On the Bronze Tablet, Huzziya holds the highranking office of GAL MESEDI. 17 Although MAGNUS.HASTARIUS, the hieroglyphic writing for GAL MESEDI, does not appear on the seal, we know Huzziya to 10. T. van den Hout, Der Ulmitesub-Vertrag: Eine prosopographische Untersuchung (StBoT 38; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995) 2–4. 11. Van den Hout, Ulmitesub-Vertrag, 3. 12. See F. Pecchioli Daddi, Review of T. van den Hout, Der Ulmitesub-Vertrag: Eine prosopographische Untersuchung (StBoT 38; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995) in BiOr 92 (1997) 169; H. Klengel, “Handwerker im hethitischen Anatolien,” AoF 23 (1996) 291; Siegelová, Hethitische Verwaltungspraxis, 121. 13. H. Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazköy: Ein Staatsvertrag Tuthaliyas IV (StBoT Beih. 1; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988) 26–27. 14. Otten, Bronzetafel, 28–29 col. IV line 38. 15. See van den Hout, Ulmitesub-Vertrag, 158 (6). 16. On the use of the sign CURRERE (*508 = HWI) as a syllabogram, see J. D. Hawkins and A. Morpurgo Davies, “Running and Relatives in Luwian,” Kadmos 32 (1993) 55 with n. 16. 17. Otten, Bronzetafel, 26–27 col. IV line 31.

spread is 1 pica short

Hittite Seals and Sealings from the Ni§antepe Archive, Bogazköy

57

be a son of Hattusili III and, therefore, a prince. 18 Just as on the seal, Huzziya appears in the witness list of the Ulmi-tessub Treaty with only the title DUMU.LUGAL. 19 The second name from the witness list that is represented at Ni§antepe is Ini-Tessub, King of Karkemis (fig. 2.1; fig. 1.1). 20 Impressions of the seal illustrated here are not yet attested elsewhere. A second stamp seal belonging to Ini-Tessub, well-known from impressions on tablets from Ugarit, is also present on bullae from Ni§antepe. 21 The next name on the witness list for which we have a seal is that of Sauskamuwa (fig. 2.2; fig. 1.3). He is given the title “brother-in-law of the king” on the Bronze Tablet. 22 Similar to what we have observed in the case of Ini-Tessub, the Sauskamuwa seal impression from Ni§antepe is almost identical to a seal impression on a tablet from Ras Samra. 23 There, the comparable seal bears the title prince (REX.FILIUS), as is likely to be restored on our impression here (fig. 2.2; fig. 1.3). The Bronze Tablet witness Ehli-Sarruma with the title DUMU.LUGAL is generally considered to be the son of Ari-Sarruma, King of Isuwa. 24 Before ascending the throne of Isuwa, Ehli-Sarruma is a high-ranking administrative official in Hattusa. 25 The seal shown here (fig. 2.3; fig. 1.4) bears an inscription reading Ehli-Sarruma, written i(a)-HALA-SARMA down the middle, with the titles MAGNUS.DOMUS. FILIUS and REX.FILIUS presented antithetically left and right. In this case, there is perfect correspondence between the two attestations. Another seal owner whom we can easily equate with a witness on the Bronze Tablet is Taki-Sarruma, prince and chief scribe. 26 One of his numerous seals is illustrated here (fig. 2.4; fig. 1.5) and bears the corresponding title and office REX. FILIUS and MAGNUS.SCRIBA. As in the case with the seals of Ini-Tessub and Sauskamuwa, an almost identical seal of Taki-Sarruma is impressed on a tablet from Ugarit. 27

18. See van den Hout, StBoT 38, 105ff. The correlation of MAGNUS.HASTARIUS (L. 363–L. 173) with GAL MESEDI is now proven by a seal of Tuthaliya IV as GAL MESEDI from the Ni§antepe archive; see S. Herbordt, “Sigilli di funzionari e dignitari hittiti,” 313. 19. Van den Hout, Ulmitesub-Vertrag, 106. 20. Otten, Bronzetafel, 26–27 col. IV line 31. 21. See C. F. A. Schaeffer, Ugaritica III (Paris: Geuthner, 1956) 22–23, figs. 27–29; Otten, “Zu einigen Neufunden hethitischer Königssiegel,” 41–42. 22. Otten, Bronzetafel, 26–27 col. IV line 32. 23. Schaeffer, Ugaritica III, 31–32, figs. 38–40. 24. Otten, Bronzetafel, 26–27 col. IV line 34; see H. Klengel, “Zum Brief eines Königs von Hanigalbat,” Or n.s. 32 (1963) 289; S. Heinhold-Krahmer, “Zur Bronzetafel aus Bogazköy und ihrem historischen Inhalt,” AfO 38–39 (1991–92) 157–58; Van den Hout, Ulmitesub-Vertrag, 125 with n. 189. 25. The title given in the “Ausgabentext” is DUMU.LUGAL; see Siegelová, Hethitische Verwaltungspraxis, 276; Van den Hout, Ulmitesub-Vertrag, 125. 26. Otten, Bronzetafel, 26–27 col. IV line 35. 27. Schaeffer, Ugaritica III, 43 figs. 58–60.

58

Suzanne Herbordt

3

1

2

4

Fig. 2. Seal impressions from Bogazköy. Photographs by Dr. G. Krien-Kummrow. 1. Bo 90/342; scale 2:1 3. Bo 90/534; scale 2.5:1 2. Bo 90/735; scale ca. 2:1 4. Bo 91/2261; scale ca. 2:1

spreadmay be 6 points long

Hittite Seals and Sealings from the Ni§antepe Archive, Bogazköy

59

The next name to which we turn on the Bronze Tablet is Alalimi, ‘overseer of one thousand’ (GAL UGULA LI-IM MES). 28 In his prosopographical study, van den Hout equates him with Alalimi, the chief cupbearer, witness on the Ulmi-Tessub Treaty (KBo IV 10+). 29 The seal shown here (fig. 1.6) could well belong to the Alalimi in question. The inscription is written TA5-TA4-mi, to be read Alalimi on the basis of a digraphic seal from Ni§antepe bearing both hieroglyphic and cuneiform inscriptions. This reading has been discussed by Hawkins in his publication of the Südburg inscription at Bogazköy. 30 The profession indicated on the seal is written with the hieroglyph URCEUS (L. 354) which, although not confirmed, could well be read ‘cupbearer’. 31 In the case of Sahurunuwa, there is no contradiction between the profession of chief scribe on wood given on the Bronze Tablet 32 and the title REX.FILIUS occurring on the seal impressions from Ni§antepe. The seal in question is shown here in drawing (fig. 1.2). As discussed by van den Hout and others, the chief scribe on wood with the name Sahurunuwa was a prince in a collateral line of the royal family. 33 It is also interesting to note in this context that his daughter, Tarhuntamanawa, is also present as a seal-owner in the Ni§antepe corpus. 34 A further correspondence is likely between the witness Zuzuhha, ‘chief groom’ (GAL KUS7 ), 35 and the owner of a seal illustrated here (fig. 1.8). The seal inscription, zu-zu-ha, is only the second attestation of this name. 36 28. Otten, Bronzetafel, 26–27 col. IV line 35. 29. Van den Hout, Ulmitesub-Vertrag, 138. Not convinced that these two attestations refer to the same individual are Gurney and Pecchioli Daddi (O. R. Gurney, “The Treaty with UlmiTesub,” Anatolian Studies 43 [1993] 24; F. Pecchioli Daddi, Review of van den Hout, 178). 30. J. D. Hawkins, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (SÜDBURG) (StBoT Beih. 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995) 114. 31. The reading for the hieroglyph URCEUS is as yet undetermined. Both the offices of GAL GESTIN and GAL SÌLA.SU.DU8.A have been suggested as possible cuneiform correlations of this sign (see G. Beckman, “A Hittite Cylinder Seal in the Yale Babylonian Collection,” Anatolian Studies 31 [1981] 133–34). Now, seal impressions from the Ni§antepe corpus with the previously unattested title MAGNUS.(BONUS2.)VITIS (L. 363–L. 370, L. 160), corresponding directly with the cuneiform GAL GESTIN, make a correlation of URCEUS with GAL GESTIN unlikely (see S. Herbordt, “Sigilli di funzionari e dignitari hittiti,” 176. The correlation of MAGNUS.(BONUS2.)VITIS with GAL GESTIN was originally suggested to me by J. D. Hawkins, whom I wish to thank on this occasion. 32. Otten, Bronzetafel, 26–27 col. IV line 37. 33. See van den Hout, Ulmitesub-Vertrag, 151–52; F. Imparati, “Una concessione di terre da parte di Tudhaliya IV,” RHA 32 (1974) 11ff.; H. Klengel, Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z., Teil 1 (Berlin: Akademie, 1965) 93 n. 46. 34. The inscription on the seal of Tarhuntamanawa reads TONITRUS-OVIS-na-[wa/i] BONUS2.FEMINA (see S. Herbordt, “Sigilli di funzionari e dignitari hittiti,” 192, fig. 10,1). On Tarhuntamanawa, see Imparati, RHA 32, 47–48; and M. Poetto, “Una rivisitazione del frammento in luvio geroglifico Alaca Höyük IV,” Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 25 (1995) 101–4. 35. Otten, Bronzetafel, 28–9 col. IV line 38. 36. See van den Hout, Ulmitesub-Vertrag, 166–67. The name Zuzuhha, however, is no longer hapax.

60

Suzanne Herbordt

The last Bronze Tablet witness whom I will discuss is the well-attested chief scribe UR.MAH-LÚ. 37 UR.MAH-LÚ, or Walwaziti in Luwian, is one of the bestknown officials of the Empire period and was chief scribe not only of Tuthaliya IV, but also of Hattusili III. 38 The Ni§antepe seal presented here (fig. 1.7) bears a hieroglyphic inscription with the name Walwaziti (written LEO-VIR.ZI/A) and the title BONUS2.VIR2. Whether or not we accept BONUS2.VIR2 in hieroglyphs to be the equivalent of cuneiform LÚ.SIG5, 39 it does not seem likely that such a prominent individual as the chief scribe, Walwaziti, would have such a modest title on his seal. A possible explanation, however, could be that the seal dates to the reign of Mursili III/ Urhitessub when the Mittanamuwa scribal clan, that is, the family of UR.MAH-LÚ/ Walwaziti, was temporarily out of favor with the crown. Mittanamuwa, 40 father of UR.MAH-LÚ/Walwaziti, was chief scribe under King Mursili II, and his son, Purandamuwa, held the same office under Muwatalli II. Van den Hout has pointed out that during the reign of Mursili III persons not associated with the Mittanamuwa clan held the office of chief scribe and has proposed that this family, who regained office in the person of UR.MAH-LÚ/Walwaziti under Hattusili III, was closely connected with the downfall of Mursili III. 41 Although in this last instance we have not been able to identify with certainty the seal owner Walwaziti (LEO-VIR.ZI/A) as the chief scribe UR.MAH-LÚ/Walwaziti, it has been possible to identify eight other witnesses of the 28 listed on the Bronze Tablet in the seal material from the Ni§antepe archive. The presence of vassal kings and prominent officials of the Empire period as seal owners is to be anticipated, given the official character of the deposit. Instead, it is surprising that a number of wellknown officials are missing, such as, for example, Prince Nerikkaili, 42 whom we would expect to be included at Ni§antepe. The reasons for this remain elusive at the moment but will perhaps become clearer in the course of further analysis of the corpus as a whole.

37. Otten, Bronzetafel, 28–9 col. IV line 40. 38. See van den Hout, Ulmitesub-Vertrag, 172ff. 39. In favor of such a correspondence is J. D. Hawkins (“A Bowl Epigraph of the Official Taprammi,” in Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors—Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç [ed. M. J. Mellink et al.; Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1993] 716). Against this correlation is H. G. Güterbock (personal communication). 40. See G. del Monte, “I testimoni del trattato con Aleppo (KBo I 6),” RSO 49 (1975) 6. 41. Van den Hout, Ulmitesub-Vertrag, 175. See also Del Monte, “I testimoni del trattato con Aleppo,” 6. 42. Otten, Bronzetafel, 26–27 col. IV line 30.

The Treatment and Long-Term Use of Persons Captured in Battle according to the Ma§at Texts Harry A. Hoffner Jr. The University of Chicago

When the Hittite armies defeated foes, they took captives in the process. Some of these captured persons were combatants and others non-combatants. 1 The noncombatants at the time of capture were referred to under the term arnuwala- (Sumerian NAM.RA, which in Mesopotamian texts means ‘booty, plunder’, Akkadian sallatu). 2 In the texts recording these captures, we find the following large numbers of NAM.RA, listed in order of magnitude: Number

Text Reference

Reign of Hittite King

66,000

AM 76

Mursili II

15,500

AM 56

Mursili II

7,000

Taw. = KUB 14.3 iii 10

Hattusili III

4,000

AM 70

Mursili II

3,330

DS frag. 28 iii 42–43

Suppiluliuma I

3,000

AM 136

Mursili II

1,000

AM 140

Mursili II

Terms for Persons Captured in the Course of Battles The term for a captured person, who at the time of capture was a combatant, was the passive participle of the verb ‘to seize’ (appant-). This word could be written syllabically or with one of two logograms, the Sumerian LÚSU.DAB or the Akkadian

Author’s note : Abbreviations follow the Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (CHD). 1. The long discussion in Goetze 1933 (217–20) of persons seized in battle already laid down the main lines of evidence from Hittite texts. 2. For the NAM.RA in Hatti see Goetze 1933: 217–20, Alp 1950–1951, Friedrich 1952: 287, and Klinger 1992. The Sumerian word is actually nam-ri from the verb ri.

61

62

Harry A. Hoffner Jr.

ÍABTU. After captives had been in Hittite hands for a short time, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants became blurred, and the whole group could be termed arnuwala-. At least, I can see no evidence that the Hittites continued to draw a distinction in terminology. Captives, whether appantes or arnuwalas, occupied a higher position in society than ordinary slaves. 3 Goetze (1933) called them “semifree” (German halbfrei ). The Old Hittite laws reflect this social stratification in the disposition of cases involving sexual offences. Law 200 indicates that, if a Hittite man slept with an arnuwala-woman and her mother, this was not considered to be the offence of incest (hurkel ), as it was if the woman was a Hittite. 4 I shall avoid using the term prisoner of war, because modern conceptions associated with that term would present a false picture. So far as we know, Hittite captives were not put in camps, at least not for any extended period of time.

Textual Genres in Which Captured Persons Figure Captives are mentioned in a wide variety of text types: military annals, letters, laws, treaties, depositions, cult inventories, royal prayers, rituals, and festival descriptions. Captive Kings and Ex-Kings The earliest Hittite historical narrative in which reference is made to persons captured in battle is the so-called Anitta text. At the very end of this text King Anitta describes how he brought back from battle the captured king of the city-state Purushanda and made him sit in front of himself on his right side, perhaps as a sign of submission. 5 In a later battle narrative, attributed to the Old Hittite monarch Hattusili I, we read how the king humiliated a defeated king by harnessing him up to a wagon like a draft animal. 6 During the New Hittite period, kings of small states conquered by the Hittites were either allowed to remain in their lands as sworn vassals of the Hittite emperor or, if they seemed unreliable, were replaced by more tractable members of the native dynasty and carried back to Hatti to be interned there. Such “captive” ex-kings were doubtless treated well. We know of one, Bentesina of Amurru, who was assigned to 3. Studies of Hittite social stratification are Soucek 1956; Goetze 1957: 106–7; Goetze 1964; Güterbock 1972; Giorgadze 1974; and Soucek 1988. A special study of marginal groups within Hittite society is Klinger 1992. 4. Edited in Hoffner 1997b: 157–58; recent English translation in Hoffner 1997a. On hurkel see Hoffner 1973; 1995; and 1997b: 224–25. 5. CTH 1 (KBo 3.22 76–79, OS): man appa—ma URUNesa [uwan(un)] nu LÚ URUPurushanda katti—mmi [(pehutenun)] man tunnakisna—ma paizzi ap[(as—a)] perammit kunnaz esari ‘But when I [cam]e back to Nesa, I led with me the ruler (literally, ‘man’) of Purushanda. And when he goes into the inner chamber, he sits down before me’; see the edition of the text in Neu 1974, and discussion of its historiography in Hoffner 1980: 291–93. 6. CTH 4A (KBo 10.2 iii 41–42, OH/NS): nu URUHassuwa LUGAL URUHa[hha] ANA GISMAR.GÍD.DA turi [yanun] ‘And [I] hitched Hassuwa and the king of Hahha to a wagon’.

The Treatment and Long-Term Use of Persons Captured in Battle

63

the king’s brother, Hattusili, and the two men became friends and allies. When Hattusili later usurped the Hittite throne, he put his friend Bentesina back on the throne in Amurru as his own vassal. 7 Allocation of Captives In annalistic narratives from the New Kingdom, it was routine after the description of a victory for the text to mention the large numbers of the enemy that were killed or taken captive. 8 Usually, if a destination is given, it is that they were brought “to Hattusa,” but occasionally it is to the king’s “house,” that is, to his personal estate. 9 On some occasions, the king relinquished his right to the captives and allowed his troops to take them as semi-free servants. For example, in the Middle Hittite joint annals of King Tudhaliya and his son Arnuwanda (CTH 143), after the enemy’s defeat is recorded, we are told that “the troops took the captives and livestock as plunder.” 10 A passage from a Middle Hittite treaty with the people of Ismerika (CTH 133) illustrates the allocation of the plunder: the king instructs his servants that, if any city in their area rebels (the term used is wastai ‘sins’), they must attack the city, kill all its fighting men, send the remaining captives (NAM.RA) to the king, and keep for themselves the captured livestock. In the Hittite cult, dramatization had an important role. 11 In one such cult drama, players representing Hittite and enemy 12 troops fought a mock battle, which the Hittites naturally won. The Hittite soldiers took captives and presented them to their deity. 13 This probably reflects the practice in real life of donating some prisoners of war to the temple estates of Hittite deities, as we know for certain that booty was donated in such a manner. 14 Semi-free Captives Used as Servants Although the NAM.RA (Hittite arnuwala-) in Hittite texts seem to have been above the level of common slaves, when they surrendered to the victorious king, 7. On this incident, see Goetze 1975: 254, 259; Singer 1991: 168; and Bryce 1998: 278 with n. 31. 8. For example, Deeds of Suppiluliuma fragm. 10D (KUB 19.11) i 8–10: nu LÚ.[KÚR] pangarit BA.ÚS LÚ.MESSU.DAB-an—a me[kkin IÍBAT ] n—an EGIR-pa INA URUSamuha uwate[t]; AM 122 (KBo 4.4 ii 75): nu—wa kunanzas—a mekki LÚappanzas—a—wa m[ekki]; and AM 122 (KBo 3.4 iv 20–21): [nu—ss]an appanti kunanti—ya [mekki esta]. 9. DS frag. 28 iii 42–43. 10. Carruba 1977: 168–69. 11. See the discussions by Ehelolf 1925; Carter 1988; Van den Hout 1991; and de Martino 1995. 12. Identified in the text as “men fom Masa” (KUB 17.35 iii 12). 13. The text is KUB 17.35 iii 12–15 (CTH 525.2): nu MÈ-iskanzi nu—smas—as LÚ.MES URUHatti tarhanzi nu SU.DIB.BU appanzi n—an ANA DINGIR-LIM hinkanzi ‘They do battle, and the men of Hatti defeat them, and take a captive and devote him to the god’. 14. See mentions in Hattusili I’s annals edited by Imparati and Saporetti 1965.

64

Harry A. Hoffner Jr.

they are described as falling at his feet, saying: “Do not destroy us! Rather, O lord, take us as your bond-slaves (literally, into your servitude)!” (KUB 14.15 iii 47–48, AM 56). Therefore, although the word “servitude” here probably means political subordination or vassalship, the use of many of the captives for labor is foreshadowed by the words of surrender placed in their mouths by the author of the annals. As servants, these NAM.RA could be given away as part of a royal personage’s dowry. In a formal letter from Queen Puduhepa to Ramesses II of Egypt, the queen claims that due to circumstances beyond her control she was unable to make up the usual dowry for the Hittite princess she is giving in marriage to Ramesses. Ordinarily, she says, such a dowry would consist of NAM.RA, cattle, and sheep. 15 Where Captives Were Kept In a poorly preserved section of the annals of Mursili II, 16 the Hittite king scolds a subordinate (perhaps a vassal king) for having released a Nuhassean captive and allowing him to return to his wife and children instead of sending him to Hattusa. Occasionally the king mentions the city where he left the booty and the captives. 17 Duties, Rights, and Privileges of the NAM.RA Although none of the terms for ‘combatant captives’ (appantes or LÚ.MESSU.DAB) occur in the laws, the term arnuwala- (NAM.RA) does. 18 Law 40 shows that the king assigned fields to such persons for cultivation, and they assumed obligations in connection with that land-holding. Law 112 indicates that under certain circumstances the arnuwala- was exempt from the new obligations for the first three years of his holding the land. In the MH instructions to the provincial governors, the governor is instructed to provide plots of land, food supply, firewood, livestock, and wool for making clothes for the NAM.RA that are settled in his district. 19 In a decree/edict of Hattusili III regarding the city of Tiliura, he tells how, during the reign of his father Mursili II, that king had occupied the site of Tiliura, which had been abandoned for centuries, rebuilt it, and proceeded to settle it. At first he did not completely settle it, but settled it with its(?) NAM.RA that had been conquered with weapons. 20 15. KUB 21.38 obv. 17u-20u, ed. Helck 1963; Stefanini 1964; English translation Beckman 1996: 127 (NAM.RA is translated by Beckman as ‘civilian captives’). 16. Goetze 1933: 82–85. 17. AM 158 (KBo 5.8 iii 37–39): mahhan—ma EGIR-pa uwanun nu saru kuit NAM.RA GUD UDU AKSUD LÚ.MESSU.DAB—ya kuin eppir n—an INA URUAltanna arha dalahhun ‘But when I came back, I left in the city Altanna the booty, NAM.RA, cattle, sheep, and captives that I had seized’. 18. The passages cited in what follows are edited in Hoffner 1997b and English translations may be found in Hoffner 1997a. 19. KUB 13.2 iii 36–41, ed. von Schuler 1957: 48–49 (arnuwala- translated ‘deportee’, German ‘ein Deportierter’). 20. KUB 21.19 i 11–15 (CTH 89). There is a German translation of this text by von Schuler (1957: 145ff.).

The Treatment and Long-Term Use of Persons Captured in Battle

65

Under the Control of Regional Officials and Temples In testimony for the trial of a fellow official, a man tells how his colleagues killed some NAM.RA and carried off others and sold them or used them as personal servants. He admits to having sold ten himself. 21 In administrative texts where temples are inventoried, the record includes the NAM.RA that belong to the temple labor force. 22 Prisoners of War Brought a Plague into Hatti In a royal prayer, King Mursili II mentions that the plague that ravaged Hatti for a period of twenty years, starting during the reign of his father and continuing into his own reign, was brought into Hatti in the midst of the prisoners-of-war captured in battle in Syria. 23 A Captive Was Used as the Substitute King Like the Assyrians, the Hittites practiced a special substitute king ritual whenever an omen portended the Hittite king’s death. 24 The stand-in for the king was always a prisoner-of-war. Escape Attempts of the NAM.RA Understandably, groups of captives often attempted to escape and find refuge in neighboring countries not allied with the Hittites. In the royal annals the king is portrayed as demanding from such neighboring countries the return of his NAM.RA, or a submissive neighbor is portrayed as promising their return. 25

The Importance of the Newly Published Ma§at Archives A serious limitation of our textual evidence for Hittite life has always been that the vast majority of texts come from the capital. We had no picture of life outside that city and even within that city no picture of private life. It was always hoped that some day we would recover a large group of texts from another Hittite site. This wish was realized in the mid-1970s when a Turkish excavation at Ma§at-Höyük uncovered about 200 tablets in cuneiform Hittite, most of them letters from the Hittite king to his officials. 26 This discovery has since been eclipsed by the recovery of an even larger archive of thousands of such texts at a site near the Turkish village of 21. KUB 26.69 v 1–24, edited by Werner 1967: 44–45. 22. For example, KUB 38.12 ii 15–18, edited by Jakob-Rost 1963: 200–201. 23. CTH 378.PP2.A obv. 26–30: nu LÚ.[(MESappa)ntan] kuin eppir n—an mahhan INA KUR URUHat[(ti)] EGIR-pa uwate[(r)] nu—kan INA SÀ.BI LÚ.MESSU.DAB.BI.HI.A (var. ÍABTUTI) hinkan kisat n—as akkiskiwan d[ais] mahhan—ma—kan LÚ.MESSU.DAB.BI.HI.A INA SÀ.BI KUR URUHatti arnuer nu—kan hinkan INA KUR URUHat[(ti)] LÚ.MESÍABTUTUM uter (var. weter) 24. The definitive treatment of this ritual is Kümmel 1967. 25. See for example KUB 14.17 iii 10–13, edited in AM, 96; see also AM, 104. 26. For a description of the excavations, see Özgüç 1978.

66

Harry A. Hoffner Jr.

Ortaköy in the province of Çorum. 27 The epigrapher for the Ortaköy dig has found evidence in these unpublished tablets that this city’s ancient name was Sapinuwa, a city mentioned in the texts from Ma§at. 28 But the Ortaköy tablets have yet to be published, whereas the Ma§at tablets are now accessible in a useful edition by the Turkish Hittitologist Sedat Alp. 29 First-hand Glimpse of a Provincial Center The texts from Ma§at give us a vivid, if partial, view of life in a medium-sized Hittite city on the northwestern frontier. We learn that the city’s name in the Hittite era was Tapikka. 30 Although these letters represent only the incoming mail, the writers (usually the king) regularly refer to the content of letters sent out from Tapikka to persons elsewhere, and thus we learn what is going on in the area. Location on the Kaska “Front” Much of the correspondence concerns matters of security. A recurring sentence in the letters is “Keep yourself safe against the enemy!” 31 Tapikka and its neighbor cities were under constant threat from the Kaska tribes, who harassed the Hittite possessions in the north from the beginning of the Middle Kingdom down through the reign of the New Kingdom king Hattusili III. The Tapikka texts date from the early Middle Kingdom and mention persons known from Bogazköy texts of this period. 32 The king’s letters regularly urge caution and alertness toward the enemy, and sometimes suggest particular protective measures to be taken. Real Procedures to Check the “Theoretical” Prescriptions The Tapikka texts give a very important glimpse of the actual procedures followed in threatened frontier areas. Texts known from Bogazköy of a general prescriptive nature called “Instructions Texts” outline the measures to be followed by military commanders, governors, and officials in such frontier areas. 33 But there has always been a question as to how realistic these texts were, whether they actually reflected life as it was lived or only a propagandistic ideal. The Tapikka texts show the practice of what these “Instructions Texts” prescribed. The Tapikkan commanders send out scouts to do reconnaissance in enemy-threatened areas. The king advises Tapikkan officials what to do with fugitives and defectors from the enemy.

27. For a general report on the Ortaköy findings, see Süel 1992. 28. Süel 1995; 1998. 29. See Alp 1980; 1991a; 1991b. 30. For further evidence from Hittite texts about the city of Tapikka, see del Monte and Tischler 1978; 1992. 31. nu—za PANI LÚ.KÚR pahhasnuanza es, which occurs with minor variations inter alia in HKM 22:6–7; 6:15–16; 6:25 and left edge 1; 8:17–18; 30:5–6. 32. See most recently Klinger 1995. 33. The best preserved of these were edited by E. von Schuler 1957.

The Treatment and Long-Term Use of Persons Captured in Battle

67

Captives Mentioned in the Letters and in the Lists In a letter to the king, a Hittite military commander boasts that in a skirmish with the enemy Kaska he “bagged” (and here he uses a hunting term 34) a total of 16 men, of whom some were killed and others taken prisoner. 35 In another letter, a relatively high-ranking official named Pulli writes to a subordinate named Adad-beli (HKM 65 36) that he should tie up hand and foot the two named men of the city Malazziya whom Adad-beli had captured in battle at the city Kasipura, put them on horseback, and send them to the king. Since the two men’s names ([mP]isissihli, [mN]aistuwarri) are neither Hittite, Hurrian, nor Luwian, it is quite possible that they were Kaskaean leaders. In another letter, to an official named Piseni, the king quotes Piseni as promising to tell the king how many persons captured from the cities of Kalzana and Marista he will give to the king (HKM 24). Presumably this means they would be transferred out of Piseni’s district and moved by the king to wherever their services were needed. From these letters and the small number of administrative records found at Ma§at we learn the various ways in which captives were used.

Who Are These “Blind Men”? A particularly interesting matter concerns persons who after their capture are described as “blind(ed).” 37 The tablet that Alp published as HKM 102 is a list of persons captured in battle who are made available to be ransomed by their peoples. 38 Several in the list are said to be “blind” and of others it is said that “they see.” The persons are listed by name. After most of the names in the list a ransom price is set. For example: the ransom of Mr. Tamiti of Taggasta, who has not been blinded, is “two boy hostages and one man” (line 3). The ransom of Mr. Sunaili of Kastaharuka, who has been blinded, is “one man, one woman, one child, eight oxen, and three goats” (lines 4–5). The ransom of Mr. Pihina of Kutuptassa, who has been blinded, is “two men, and three oxen” (lines 6–7). The ransom of Mr. Himuili of Kamamma, who has not been blinded, is “two hostage girls and one man.” In addition to the notations of captives available for ransom, the text mentions a few captives who have already been given back, with or without indication of what 34. pessiyanun (line 39). On this term in hunting vocabulary, see Neu 1996. 35. HKM 10:33–41; see especially lines 39–41: SA LÚ.KÚR—ya—wa—kan appantet kunantit 16 LÚ.MES pessiyanun n—at ASME ‘I received your report saying “I bagged 16 men of the enemy, including both captured and killed” ’; edited in Alp 1991a: 134–37. Alp misunderstood the use of pessiya- ‘to bag, capture’ here, translating it ‘(zurück-)werfen’. 36. Edited in Alp 1991a: 242–45. 37. The Hittite word for ‘blind(ed)’ is tasuwant- or tasuwahhant-. Its logogram is IGI.NU. GÁL, the Akkadian equivalents of which are la na†ilu and huppudu. 38. Published in hand-copy in Alp 1991b: pl. 100. This text was transliterated and discussed in detail by del Monte 1995: 103–11. His comments on the blinded prisoners are on pages 109ff.

68

Harry A. Hoffner Jr.

the enemy gave for their return (Mr. Tuttu of Zanipura and Tamari of Iskila, both blinded; lines 10–12; Kasaluwa of Malazziya, blinded, for one girl hostage; lines 15– 17). In at least one instance no names are given: the ransom price for a group of nine Kaskaean men was “20 oxen, 13 goats, 6 men, 3 women” (lines 19–20). The mention of blinded and sighted captives raises the question of how the blinded ones lost their sight. Were they blinded more or less incidentally in the course of battle before they were captured, or afterward? If afterward, what was the purpose? Why were some captives blinded and others not? It would seem that a rather large proportion of the persons listed on HKM 102 were “blinded” for this to be the accident of battle. Therefore, although this question cannot be unequivocally answered, it appears that the persons were probably blinded after capture, either in order to render them more controllable, as a punishment for the havoc they had wreaked on Hittite personnel, or to humiliate the enemy. From the Hebrew Bible we know that the Babylonians blinded the captured King Zedekiah of Judah (2 Kings 25:7; Jeremiah 39:7) because he had violated his vassal oath by rebelling (2 Kings 24:20; 2 Chron. 36:13). Blinded captives in the list from Ma§at might therefore represent leaders of rebel groups. Blinding is not mentioned in the Hittite laws as a punishment for any offence. But a royal decree dating to the Middle Hittite period concerning theft allows that a thief who is a slave may be blinded. 39 Ma§at officials are threatened with blinding if they fail to perform the duties imposed upon them by the king. 40 And other Middle Hittite treaty texts from Bogazköy indicate that failure to blind rebels and send them to the king was itself treasonous behavior. 41 In the ritual known as the “Soldiers’ Oath,” military personnel were warned that treasonous behavior such as the violation of their oaths of loyalty to the king would result in being blinded by the gods. 42 The Parallel with Samson But in addition to the blinding of King Zedekiah of Judah by his Babylonian captors, a parallel with the biblical story of the Israelite hero and “judge” Samson springs to mind, which is further strengthened by two letters in the Ma§at archives. In letter 56, the writer Kikarsa replies to his colleague Mr. Tahazzili, who has inquired about a certain blind (or blinded) man: “I hope all is well with my dear brother and that the gods are lovingly protecting you. Concerning the matter of the blind men that you wrote me about: they have conducted all of the blind men up to the city Sapinuwa. They have left behind here ten blind men (to work) in the mill houses. I have inquired about them, and there is no one here by the name you 39. CTH 258.1 (KUB 40.62 + KUB 13.9) ii 12–19, iv 6–8; edited by von Schuler 1959. 40. HKM 14:10–14: man UL—ma nu—smas—san uwanzi apiya pedi tasuwahhanzi ‘If not, they will come and blind you in that place’. See also HKM 16:11–15. 41. KUB 31.44 ii 11–12 (CTH 260); edited by von Schuler 1956: 223–24. 42. KBo 6.34 i 17–28 (CTH 427); edited by Oettinger 1976; English translation by Goetze 1969.

The Treatment and Long-Term Use of Persons Captured in Battle

69

wrote me. You should write to Mr. Sarpa in Sapinuwa. All the (other) blind men are there.” 43 We have already noted above that Sapinuwa has now been discovered near Ortaköy and that the numerous Sapinuwa texts are in the process of publication. That Mr. Sarpa was in fact the man in charge of the Sapinuwa blind men is shown by a letter from him, and therefore from Sapinuwa-Ortaköy, found at Ma§at and edited by Alp as no. 59, which states the following: “ Thus says Sarpa: Speak to (Himuili?), the provincial governor, and to Mr. Tarhuni as follows: Blind men have fled from the mill house in Sapinuwa and have come (to you) there. As soon as this tablet reaches you, [seize the blind men] provisionally [and conduct them back here] safely.” 44 I assume that this letter from Sarpa preceded letter 56 from Kikarsa quoted above. In response to Sarpa’s letter, all but ten of the fugitive blind men were returned to Sapinuwa. The ten retained in Tapikka were also employed in a mill house. If it be inquired how blind men could flee anywhere, we must assume either that they had sighted accomplices or were blind in only one eye. It is interesting that blinded captives were employed in milling. It does not require sight to operate a mill, 45 and such work was demeaning, since it was usually not performed by men, but by women. The Old Hittite king Hattusili I, in his claim to have liberated subjects of North Syrian cities which he defeated in battle, says: “I freed the hands of the men from the sickle and those of the women from the millstone.” 46 In the Samson story ( Judges 16:21–25), it is abundantly clear that the Philistines sought to humiliate and mock him. This is indicated by the verbs sa˙˙eq and ßa˙˙eq translated ‘perform’ or ‘entertain’ in verse 25. Since in ancient Palestine, as in Hittite Anatolia, milling was usually women’s work, 47 their forcing him to work at the mill was also a form of humiliation. Since Ma§at is east of Ortaköy-Sapinuwa, the fugitives from the Sapinuwa mills were headed away from Hattusa and in the direction of their original homelands in the east. It is not necessary to assume that Tapikka was their intended permanent destination. Sarpa learned that they had headed for Tapikka and wrote there to head them off.

43. HKM 58:1–14: UMMA mKikarsa ANA mTahazzi-DINGIR-LIM SES DÙG.GA—YA QIBI—MA // MAHAR SES.DÙG.GA—YA human SIG5–in esdu nu—tta DINGIR.MES assuli pahsandaru // SA LÚ.MES IGI.NU.GÁL—mu kuit uttar hatraes nu—kan LÚ.MES IGI.NU.GÁL.HI.A humantes URUSapinuwa sara pehuter ka—ma 10 LÚ.MES IGI.NU.GÁL.HI.A INA É.HI.A NA4ARA5R[U] arha talier n—as kasa punussun nu—mu zik kuies lamnit hatraes n—asta NU.GÁL kuiski anda nu man hatrasi nu INA URUSapinuwa ANA mSarpa hatrai LÚ.MES IGI.NU.GÁL humandus apiya. 44. Alp 1991a: 232–33. 45. Blind laborers are mentioned in a clay cone of Uruinimgina, ruler of Lagash, translated by Kramer 1963: 318. 46. KBo 10.2 iii 16–17: SA GÉME.MES—SU SU.MES-us ISTU NA4 ARA5 SA ÌR.MES—ya SU.MES—SUNU ISTU KIN dahhun. 47. See Matthew 24:41 and Blaiklock and Harrison 1983: 314–16 sub “Mill, Millstone.”

70

Harry A. Hoffner Jr.

From the Ma§at letters it is clear that persons captured in battle were employed in various forms of public labor until such time as some might be reclaimed by their own people through ransom. One form of such public labor was mill work. And it was performed chiefly, if not exclusively, by captives who had been blinded. Bibliographic References Alp, Sedat 1950–51 “Die Soziale Klasse der NAM.RA-Leute und ihre hethitische Bezeichnung.” JKF 1: 113–35. 1980 “Die hethitischen Tontafelentdeckungen auf dem Ma§at-Höyük: Vorläufiger Bericht.” Belleten 44/173: 25–59, pl. 1–4. 1991a Hethitische Briefe aus Ma§at-Höyük. Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, VI. Dizi-Sa. 35. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. 1991b Hethitische Keilschrifttafeln aus Ma§at-Höyük. Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, VI. Dizi-Sa. 34. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1991. Beckman, Gary M. 1996 Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Writings from the Ancient World 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Blaiklock, Edward M., and R. K. Harrison (eds.) 1983 The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan. Bryce, Trevor R. 1998 The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Clarendon. Carruba, Onofrio 1977 “Beiträge zur mittelhethitischen Geschichte I: Die Tuthalijas und die Arnuwandas.” SMEA 18: 137–74. Carter, Charles W. 1988 “Athletic Contests in Hittite Religious Festivals.” JNES 47: 185–87. Ehelolf, Hans 1925 “Wettlauf und szenisches Spiel im hethitischen Ritual.” SPAW 267–72. Friedrich, Johannes 1952 Hethitisches Wörterbuch: Kurzgefaßte kritische Sammlung der Deutungen hethitischer Wörter. 1st ed. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Giorgadze, G. 1974 “Die Begriffe ‘Freie’ und ‘Unfreie’ bei den Hethitern.” Acta Antiqua 22: 299–308. Goetze, Albrecht 1933 Die Annalen des Mursilis. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 38. Edited by F. Sommer. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Goetze, Albrecht 1957 Kleinasien. 2d rev. ed. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft: Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients. Munich: Beck. 1964 “State and Society of the Hittites.” Pp. 23–33 in Neuere Hethiterforschung. Edited by G. Walser. Wiesbaden: Steiner. 1969 “Hittite Rituals, Incantations, and Description of Festivals.” Pp. 346–61 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

The Treatment and Long-Term Use of Persons Captured in Battle

71

“The Hittites and Syria (1300–1200 b.c.).” Pp. 252–73 in The Cambridge Ancient History. 3d ed. Edited by I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, N. G. L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Güterbock, Hans Gustav 1972 “Bemerkungen zu den Ausdrücken ellum, wardum und asirum in hethitischen Texten.” Pp. 93–97 in Gesellschaftsklassen im Alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten—XVIII. Rencontre assyriologique internationale, München, 29. Juni bis 3. Juli 1970. Edited by D. O. Edzard. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Helck, Wolfgang 1963 “Urhi-Tesup in Ägypten.” JCS 17: 87–97. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. 1973 “Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East.” Pp. 81–90 in Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday. Edited by H. A. Hoffner, Jr. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1980 “Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: The Hittites.” Orientalia n.s. 49 (1980) 283–332. 1995 “Legal and Social Institutions of Hittite Anatolia.” Pp. 555–70 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. M. Sasson, K. Rubinson, J. Baines, and G. M. Beckman. New York: Scribner’s. 1997a “The Hittite Laws.” Pp. 211–47 in Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2d ed. Edited by M. T. Roth. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1997b The Laws of the Hittites: A Critical Edition. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 23. Leiden: Brill. Hout, Theo P. J. van den 1991 “A Tale of Tissaruli(ya): A Dramatic Interlude in the Hittite KI.LAM Festival?” JNES 50: 193–202. Imparati, Fiorella, and Claudio Saporetti 1965 “L’autobiografia di Hattusili I.” SCO 14: 40–85. Jakob-Rost, Liane 1963 “Zu den hethitischen Bildbeschreibungen, I.” MIO 8: 161–217. Klinger, Jörg 1992 “Fremde und Aussenseiter in Hatti.” Pp. 187–212 in Aussenseiter und Randgruppen. Edited by V. Haas. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz. 1995 “Das Corpus der Ma§at-Briefe und seine Beziehungen zu den Texten aus Hattusa.” ZA 85: 74–108. Kramer, Samuel Noah 1963 The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Kümmel, Hans Martin 1967 Ersatzrituale für den hethitischen König. Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten Heft 3. Edited by H. Otten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Martino, Stefano de 1995 “Music, Dance, and Processions in Hittite Anatolia.” Pp. 2661–70 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. M. Sasson. New York: Scribner’s. Monte, Giuseppe F. del 1992 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte, Supplement. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes Band 6/2; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B. Nr. 7/6. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 1995 “I testi amministrativi da Ma§at Höyük/Tapika.” OAM 2: 89–138. 1975

72

Harry A. Hoffner Jr.

Monte, Giuseppe F. del, and Johann Tischler 1978 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes Band 6; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B. Nr. 7. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1978. Neu, Erich 1974 Der Anitta-Text. Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 18. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1996 Das hurritische Epos der Freilassung I: Untersuchungen zu einem hurritisch-hethitischen Textensemble aus Hattusa. Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Oettinger, Norbert 1976 Die Militärischen Eide der Hethiter. Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 22. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Özgüç, Tahsin 1978 Excavations at Ma§at Höyük and Investigations in its Vicinity. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Schuler, Einar von 1956 “Die Würdenträgereide des Arnuwanda.” Orientalia 25: 209–40. 1957 Hethitische Dienstanweisungen für höhere Hof- und Staatsbeamte. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 10. Graz: Ernst Weidner. 1959 “Hethitische Königserlaße als Quellen der Rechtsfindung und ihr Verhältnis zum kodifizierten Recht.” Pp. 435–72 in Festschrift J. Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet. Heidelberg: Winter. Singer, Itamar 1991 “Appendix III: A Concise History of Amurru.” Pp. 135–96 in Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study. Edited by S. Izre'el. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Soucek, Vladimir 1956 “Einige Bemerkungen über status libertatus und status servitutis im hethitischen Recht.” Pp. 316–20 in Charisteria Orientalia praecipue ad Persiam pertinentia. Edited by F. Tauer, Kubícková, and I. Hrbek. Prague: Nakladatelstvi Ceskoslovenske Akademie Ved. 1988 “Zur Struktur der hethitischen Gesellschaft.” Pp. 329–36 in Sulmu: Papers on the Ancient Near East Presented at International Conference of Socialist Countries (Prague, Sept. 30–Oct. 3, 1986). Edited by P. Vavrousek and V. Soucek. Prague: Universzita Karlova. Stefanini, Ruggero 1964 “Una lettera della regina Puduhepa al re di Alasija (KUB XXI 38).” AttiAccTosc 29: 3–69. Süel, Aygül 1992 “Ortaköy: Eine hethitische Stadt mit hethitischen und hurritischen Tontafelentdeckungen.” Pp. 487–92 in Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp. Edited by H. Otten, E. Akurgal, H. Ertem, and A. Süel. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. 1995 “Ortaköy’ün Hitit çagındaki adı.” Belleten 59: 271–83. 1998 “Ortaköy-Sapinuwa Bir Hitit Merkezi.” In TÜBA-AR. Werner, Rudolph 1967 Hethitische Gerichtsprotokolle. Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 4. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Tombs and Memorials: The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered Theo van den Hout The University of Chicago

1. Introduction One of the most surprising and intriguing aspects of Hittite archaeology is the apparently complete absence of obvious royal tombs. Next to the splendor of the late third millennium Alaca Höyük graves or the impressive riches of the tumuli at Gordion from the first millennium there seems to be nothing comparable in the secondmillennium Hittite capital Hattusa or the territory of its empire in general. On the one hand, perhaps we should not expect that much: the king or queen’s body was cremated on the first day and the relatively well preserved Hittite Royal Death Ritual makes it clear that fire played a generally very important role. It seems that everything that was supposed to be important for the royal afterlife was “transmitted” by way of fire to the deceased whose body had already crossed that border. What remained were the objects’ ashes, which were poured out on “the place where the heads of horses and oxen have been burned.” On the other hand, we know that after the cremation the bodily remains were initially put into a silver huppar vase and ended up laid down on a bed in the so-called “Stone House.” Likewise, all the gold, silver, and other precious materials used during the rites were deposited there. Whether the remains were ever deposited back into the urn at the end of the fourteen-day ritual and transferred, for instance, with the valuables, to a more lasting place or were left there, we do not know. The description of the final day of the ritual has not yet been found or recognized. Judging by our texts, the Hittites did not, on the whole, seem to attach much Author’s note : The abbreviations used in this paper follow the conventions adopted in H. G. Güterbock and H. A. Hoffner, The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago L–N (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1989) xv–xxviii; CHD P (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1997) vii–xxvi. The siglum KUB is left out. Additional abbreviations: R. Alexander, Sculpture = The Sculpture and Sculptors of Yazılıkaya (Newark: University of Delaware Press / London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1986); V. Haas, GhR = Geschichte der hethitischen Religion (Leiden, 1994); M. Nakamura, Diss. = Das hethitische nuntarriïasha-Fest (Ph.D. Diss., Würzburg, 1993); P. Neve, Büyükkale = Büyükkale: Die Bauwerke (Berlin, 1982); M. Popko, Religions = Religions of Asia Minor (Warsaw, 1995); Hidden Futures = J. M. Bremer, T. P. J. van den Hout, and R. Peters (ed.), Hidden Futures: Death and Immortality in Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the Classical, Biblical and ArabicIslamic World (Amsterdam, 1994).

73

74

Theo van den Hout

importance to the physical remains and were more interested in an ancestor cult that made use of statues or various kinds of icons. 1 What we do have in and near Hattusa are several places for which a funerary character has been claimed, the two most important being the rock sanctuary Yazılıkaya, especially its so-called Room B, and the rocky outcrop of Ni§antepe in the Upper City. 2 In the texts, two terms, which have been taken to refer to funerary structures, stand out: the na4hegur and the É.NA4 (DINGIR-LIM ) or ‘(Divine) Stone House’. Many suggestions have been brought forward trying to equate the two structures with these designations. Since both sites are linked to the same Great King, Tuthaliya IV (ca. 1240– 1210 b.c.), it seemed logical to assume that one of the two was posthumously erected and meant for the cult of the deified ruler while the other was the actual tomb. However, if this was the case with every Hittite king, our inability to detect even a single tomb or mausoleum with certainty becomes even more embarrassing. In view of new material, both textual and non-textual, which has come to light, it is justified to have a new look at these two terms and their possible architectural counterparts. 3 In this paper I will argue that the (Divine) Stone House and the hegur-monument could in cases be identical: every (Divine) Stone House was a tomb, and sometimes a tomb took on the form of a hegur-monument.

2. The NA4hegur The discussion of the function and character of the (É) na4hegur-structure, especially the one further characterized by the attribute SAG.US ‘eternal’, has been revived since the publication in 1988 of the Bronze Tablet and since the 1991 excavations in the Ni§antepe area in the Upper City of Hattusa. The attestations in the Bronze Tablet are certainly the most important new evidence since the thorough treatment of the term by Fiorella Imparati. 4 Her overall conclusions still stand today: na4hegur designated a rocky outcrop, a mountain peak, profane in origin that often, 1. See M. Popko, Religions, 153. That Muwatalli, when transferring the “Gods of Hatti and the Spirits of the Dead” to Tarhuntassa (Apology ii 1 and 52), also took the bones (“Gebeine”), as V. Haas supposes, is not supported by the texts (V. Haas, GhR, 243 n. 37). 2. In the past, other candidates have been mentioned, such as Building C on Büyükkale with its central “shrine” or “Kammer 2” near the Südburg. K. Bittel and H. G. Güterbock mentioned also the stony outcrops Yenicekale and Sarıkale in the Upper City as well as the monument at Gâvurkalesi, for which see at the end of this contribution (Bittel, Die Hethiter, 114; Güterbock, JNES 26 [1967] 81 and XX. CRRAI [Leiden, 1975] 126). On Yenicekale, see most recently P. Neve, IM 46 (1996) 51–52. 3. The exact relation of the hesta-house to both the hegur and Stone House remains a problem. Although it seems to have functioned as a temple for chthonic deities and there might be links with the ancestor-cult, clear evidence for a funerary purpose is lacking. Whether the é.gidim ‘House of the (Spirits of the) Dead’ is identical to the Stone House, as is sometimes suggested, is possible but uncertain (see V. Haas, GhR, 220 n. 221; V. Haas and M. Wäfler, UF 9 [1977] 119). 4. SMEA 18 (1977) 19–64; see, since then, G. Beckman, StBoT 29, 38–39; and J. Puhvel, HED 3, 287–89.

The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered

75

however, acquired divine proportions and could become a sanctuary. 5 What is important to stress here is the fact that, practically without exception, all known attestations refer to specific hegur-monuments. In all but a few cases, the word na4hegur is accompanied by one or more attributes that further specify this kind of structure. 6 Only in KBo XVII 62+63 (CTH 478) iv 2u (na4hé-kur), 4u (na4hé-kur-us ), 7 7u (na4hékur [(-)), KBo XVII 105+ (CTH 433) iii 9 (na4hegur hi.a-as ), and LIV 1 (CTH 297) iv 24u (É.]ªMESº na4hé-kur hi.a) does it appear unmodified; on the other hand, these passages contain the only instances of the word hegur with a plural ending, referring to such peaks in a more general way. In at least two instances, it is accompanied by the epithet ‘divine’ (DINGIR-LIM). 8 Occasionally, such sanctuaries may have been dedicated to the cult of deceased members of the royal house: most explicit in this respect is a passage in XIV 4 (CTH 70), a text we will return to, where the word hegur is immediately followed by É.NA4 DINGIR-LIM ‘Divine Stone House’. Such an interpretation also fits the relevant passages in KBo XII 38 (CTH 121) and in the Bronze Tablet (for which see below), as well as the one fragment where a personal name is added (KBo XII 140 rev. 12u [n]a4ªhé-kurº Pí-ir-ûa ªmTu-utº[-). In many cases, a hegur consisted of institutions rather than simple buildings, with extensive personnel and properties enjoying some sort of exemption from duties toward the state. 9 The attestations not known to Imparati at the time confirm this general picture: KBo VII 24 (CTH 242) v? 4u (na4hé-kur x[) 10 KBo XIII 101 (CTH 435) rev. 18 (na4hé-kur) 11 5. See her conclusions: SMEA 18 (1977) 57–58. On the possible etymologies of hegur, see most recently J. Puhvel, HED 3, 289, with literature; the parallel with Sumerian é.gal ‘palace’, which was borrowed into Akkadian and Hurrian as ekallu and haikal(ini), respectively, (for the latter, see E. Neu, StBoT 32, 228–30) is, although in certain respects attractive, incomplete and therefore somewhat misleading. On the one hand the Sumerian term was not borrowed into Hittite, which kept its own designation (halent(i)u-), while on the other, in the case of hegur, the necessary Hurrian link (compare with haikal) would still be missing. 6. This is also true for XII 63+ obv. 35u, listed as appearing on its own by Imparati (SMEA 18 [1977] 64; see also ibid., 20), where it is modified by the preceding adjective ( /u-)ûa-at-taan-ti-is ‘having a spring/source’ (see H. C. Melchert, CLL, 267). Also, the following essari—ssit ‘his statue’ points to a specific monument. 7. G. Beckman emends this to NA4hegur US, but the lack of word space between the signs kur and uß seems to plead against this (StBoT 29, 34 [and see the commentary ibid., 38– 39]). For hegur as a word of common gender with the -us as the acc. pl. ending, see most recently H. Otten, StBoT Beih. 1, 42 n. 69, with literature. 8. X 81, 5 and KBo XIII 176, 9. 9. Compare with KBo XII 38 iv 9u–11u, ed. H. G. Güterbock, JNES 26 (1967) 77; and the instances where personnel are mentioned (see the listing in F. Imparati, SMEA 18 (1977) 64). In XXI 33, 26u, R. Stefanini read “. . . ªx-xº ªNA4º[h]ªeº-[k]ªurº . . .” ( JAOS 84 [1964] 23); in my opinion, the traces favor an extended reading LÚ.ªMES É NA4º[h]é-ªkurº[SA]G[.US. This would be the first attestation of (LÚ.MES) É in combination with NA4hegur SAG.US. 10. Ed. S. Kosak, THeth. 10, 86; J. Siegelová, Verw., 174. 11. See HW 2 A 55b; and H. C. Melchert, Phon., 142 n. 113.

76

Theo van den Hout KBo XVII 62+63 (CTH 478) iv 2u, 4u, 7u (all three quoted above) 12 XLII 60 (CTH 250), 9u (hé-kur[) 13 XLII 83 (CTH 242) vi 2u (]ªÉº?.GAL hé-kur dLAMMA) 14 LIV 1 (CTH 297) iv 24u (É.]ªMESº na4hé-kur ˘i.a) 15 LV 1 (CTH 582) ii 9u (É.GAL hé-kur pí-ir-ûa) LVI 37 (CTH 530) i? 7u (2 na4hé-gur dKa-a[m-ma-ma-as]/ dPis-ku-ru-ûa-as-sa), iv? 5 (na4hé[-). 16 VS NF XII 128 rev. 11 (É hé-kur ! pí-ir-ûa)

New, however, is the twice-occurring combination with É.GAL: it probably refers to buildings with a palatial function on such rocky outcrops. To what extent it is relevant that in the two pertinent passages the determinative na4 is lacking is difficult to assess. In some other attestations, the determinative has also been left out. 17 According to Jaan Puhvel, the term hegur does not occur in Old Hittite, and he quotes a theory of Domenico Silvestri that it was introduced by the Babylonian princess who was King Suppiluliuma’s last wife. 18 Although Puhvel’s observation is stricto sensu right, some of the attestations prove Silvestri’s theory improbable. First of all, the text XII 63 (CTH 412) is a late copy, but its language betrays an older date of composition that may go back to Old Hittite. 19 Second, the ritual fragment KBo XVII 105 (CTH 433) shows middle script. 20 What can be said is that the earliest example of a hegur-building in connection with the cult of a deceased king or queen stems from the reign of Mursili II (XIV 4) when he accuses his stepmother, the Babylonian queen, of squandering his father’s entire estate on “the hekur-institution of the Tutelary Deity, the Divine Stone House.” 21 The na4hegur SAG.US of the Bronze Tablet is generally assumed to have been a hegur-building of the latter—that is, memorial—type. This document contains the treaty between Tuthaliya IV, Great King of Hatti, and his vassal in Tarhuntassa and brother-by-adoption, Kurunta. One of the stipulations in the treaty concerns a na4hegur SAG.US. In spite of the problems of interpretation of the relevant passage, 22 12. Ed. G. Beckman, StBoT 29, 32–41. 13. Ed. S. Kosak, THeth. 10, 186; J. Siegelová, Verw., 525. 14. Ed. S. Kosak, THeth. 10, 100 (quoted as col. iv); J. Siegelová, Verw., 158. 15. Ed. A. Archi and H. Klengel, AfO 12 (1985) 57. 16. See S. Kosak, ZA 78 (1988) 147. 17. See the overview in F. Imparati, SMEA 18 (1977) 63–64, XLII 60, 9u, and VS NF XII 128 rev. 11. 18. J. Puhvel, HED 3, 289. 19. See E. Neu, FsNeumann, 207 (“junge Niederschrift . . . aber unverkennbar Indizien für alte Sprache”); this text was dealt with by Imparati, SMEA 18 (1977) 20. 20. See S. Kosak, StBoT 39, 71 (785/b). The text KBo XVI 62+63 also seems to be older (see G. Beckman, StBoT 29, 36; and E. Neu, Hethitica 6 [1985] 157). 21. XIV 4 (CTH 70) ii 5u, see CHD L–N, 361b. 22. Bronze Tablet i 91–ii 3 and ii 64–66; see the different interpretations of H. Otten, StBoT Beih. 1, 15 and 43; P. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, ZA 82 (1992) 245–47; D. Sürenhagen, OLZ 87

The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered

77

it seems safe to conclude that initially Kurunta was denied access to the monument but that it was nevertheless granted later on. Although this text does not contain any specific information on what exactly such a na4hegur SAG.US or ‘Eternal Peak’ was and what it looked like, the identification of this structure as some sort of a memorial, mainly on the basis of KBo XII 38, fits well the historical picture thus far drawn for Kurunta: he was originally a son of King Muwatalli (II) and was at an early stage of his life adopted by his uncle Hattusili, who raised him to the important position of King of Tarhuntassa. After his brother Urhitesub had been ousted by Hattusili III, Kurunta may have aspired to the position of Great King himself. If we take, as does everyone since Heinrich Otten’s edition of the Bronze Tablet, the memorial to have been for his biological father Muwatalli, his right of access to it may have served propagandistic purposes that were feared at first by the reigning branch of the royal family. The text KBo XII 38 (CTH 121 23) is still our best source on the na4hegur SAG. US. It contains, according to the convincing interpretation of Hans Güterbock, the cuneiform version of two hieroglyphic inscriptions: one with Tuthaliya’s account of his victory over Alasiya with a postscript by his son Suppiluliuma II, also known as Suppiluliyama; and one with an account by Suppiluliyama of his victory over Alasiya. In the postscript to the first inscription by Tuthaliya, Suppiluliyama tells us that he had the hieroglyphic text inscribed on a statue of his father which he subsequently brought into a na4hegur SAG.US that he himself built. Before Güterbock’s recognition of this text as the cuneiform version of two texts originally composed as hieroglyphic inscriptions, Otten had pointed to Yazılıkaya Room B as a possible candidate for the na4hegur SAG.US mentioned in KBo XII 38. 24 For its location in or near the capital, he referred to the fragment of a treaty with Alasiya ascribed to that same Suppiluliyama (KBo XII 39; CTH 141), of which he interpreted the fragmentary obv. 16u as follows: 25 uru]Ha-at-ti mTu-ut-ha-li-ïa

...

in?

ku-is ú[-e-da-as ] Hatti (of ) Tuthaliya who b[uilt?

The obvious funerary character of Room B and its dedication to Tuthaliya IV as well as the remains of a pedestal for a colossal statue at the northern end of the room, the feet of which were probably found in the nearby village of Yekbaz, 26 lent considerable support to this hypothesis. It was repeated by Otten some years later and was (1992) 345–46 n. 14; R. Stefanini, AGI 67 (1992) 133–52; R. H. Beal, AnSt 43 (1993) 29–39 (the latter two followed by the CHD P 157a). 23. Ed. H. G. Güterbock, JNES 26 (1967) 73–81. 24. MDOG 94 (1963) 22–23 and StBoT Beih. 1, 32–34. 25. For the translation see ibid., 12 (“]Hatti (des) Tuthalija, wer ba[ute?”); for Hatti as an indication of place, see ibid., 22. For other interpretations of this passage, see the reference quoted below in n. 38. 26. On the statue, see P. Neve, FsTÖzgüç, 350–51, with fig. 3 and literature.

78

Theo van den Hout

initially followed by Peter Neve in his reevaluation of several aspects of Yazılıkaya Room B. 27 This position is still maintained by, for instance, Volkert Haas and, it seems, David Hawkins in his edition of the Südburg inscription. 28 However, after Franz Steinherr and Emmanuel Laroche had observed that the beginning of the inscription in the cuneiform version exactly matched the beginning of the badly weathered Ni§anta§ inscription in the Upper City of Hattusa, Güterbock proposed Ni§antepe as a possible candidate for the “Eternal Peak” of KBo XII 38, and he was followed in this by F. Imparati, R. Lebrun, M. Popko, and the present author, among others. 29 Neve, referring to the latter text in his report on the 1991 excavations at Ni§antepe, now reckons cautiously with this possibility as well. 30 These excavations have not in themselves brought any decisive support for this view. The once impressive gate flanked by two sphinxes and the lion statue from within the building are not necessarily part of a funerary structure, and the ground plan of the building does not show the particular features of a Hittite temple. 31 The identification of Ni§antepe as the “Eternal Peak” rests on the assumption that the Ni§anta§ inscription and KBo XII 38 are indeed identical. Whereas Güterbock very cautiously formulated this possibility, Hawkins now, “from a more recent perspective,” considers Laroche’s equation of the two a “virtual certainty.” 32 If this is indeed the case and we assume that the remains of column iv of KBo XII 38 was also an integral part of the second inscription, then the conclusion seems inescapable that Ni§antepe was the na4hekur SAG.US ‘Eternal Peak’ said to have been built for Tuthaliya IV by his son Suppiluliyama. In this part of the text, the author refers again to kun na4hekur SAG.US ‘this Eternal Peak’ (iv 3u) and to the statue that he erected and “dedicated” (vel sim.) in it, and concludes with a protective curse. The reference to 27. Heinrich Otten, ZA 58 (1967) 234–40; Peter Neve, FsTÖzgüç, 345–55; see further, among others, K. Bittel, Yaz.2, 256; R. Opfermann, “War Yazilikaya für die Hethiter ein ‘na4hékur sag.uß’?” (Vortrag XXXIVème RAI, Istanbul 1987, im Selbstverlag). 28. V. Haas, GhR, 246 (“vielleicht”) and 639; D. Hawkins, StBoT Beih. 3, 59. 29. Franz Steinherr apud H. G. Güterbock, JNES 26 (1967) 81; and H. Otten, ZA 58 (1967) 231; Emmanuel Laroche apud H. G. Güterbock, JNES 26 (1967) 81 and Anatolica 3 (1969–1970) 93–98 with figs. 1–2; Fiorella Imparati, SMEA 18 (1977) 63; René Lebrun, Fs Naster, 146; M. Popko, Religions, 141; T. van den Hout, Hidden Futures, 50–52. 30. P. Neve, AA (1992), 323–33; see also idem, Hattusa, 58–63. 31. As a third candidate for the tomb of Tuthaliya IV, the so-called “Schrein” in building C on Büyükkale has been mentioned in older literature (see K. Bittel, MDOG 75 [1937] 18–26; ibid., 78 [1940] 24–25; K. Bittel and R. Naumann, BoHa 1, 59–61; H. G. Güterbock, MDOG 86 [1953] 75; H. Otten, ZA 58 [1967] 235–36). P. Neve later interpreted this building as functioning within a Hittite rain cult (Regenkult-Anlagen in Bogazköy-Hattusa [IM Beih. 5; Tübingen 1971], Büyükkale, 113–15). Recently, J.-W. Meyer advocated an adjusted interpretation of the entire complex of the buildings BCH as a hesta-house as previously put forward by V. Haas and M. Wäfler (Meyer, AoF 22 [1995] 125–36; Haas and Wäfler, UF 9 [1977] 119–21). 32. H. G. Güterbock, JNES 26 (1967) 81 (“What can be stated is that our tablet contains Hittite versions of . . . a hieroglyphic inscription of Suppiluliuma II comparable to Ni§anta§ and dealing with a building on a mountain peak comparable to Ni§antepe” [Güterbock’s italics]); D. Hawkins, StBoT Beih. 3, 59 with n. 226.

The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered

79

the “Eternal Peak” excludes the possibility of a third inscription, and the curse is an altogether appropriate ending for the second text. The use of the demonstrative pronoun ka- (acc.sg. kun) can only be understood as pointing to the structure on top of the rock on which the inscription is carved, just as Suppiluliyama in his postscript to the inscription on the statue speaks of ki(-) ALAM ‘this statue’ (ii 4u). Before we further consider the relation of Ni§antepe to Yazılıkaya Room B, something needs to be said about the dating of the two monuments. The general dating of Yazılıkaya in its present form to the reign of Tuthaliya IV is widely accepted for both Rooms A and B. Room B, however, underwent a restructuring that Neve ascribes to Suppiluliyama: the change of entrance from the south to the west can be dated by the use of spolia from the period marked as OSt. 3, the remodeling itself thus having taken place in the period OSt. 2. 33 The same is convincingly argued by Neve concerning the moment of erecting the statue. 34 The latter is dated, in accordance with Robert Alexander’s dating of relief no. 83—usually understood as the “caption” to the statue—to the reign of Suppiluliyama. 35 This implies that Tuthaliya himself planned and executed Room B with all the reliefs except for no. 83 and, as a consequence, also the statue. The latter two formed part of Suppiluliyama’s changes. As for Ni§antepe, two phases can be discerned in this complex as well, at least as far as the long ramp leading up to the sphinx-gate is concerned. The second stage is securely dated by the Ni§anta§ inscription and thus can be attributed to Suppiluliyama. 36 Although Neve does not explicitly mention Tuthaliya’s name in connection with the first stage, it seems likely to date from the period of this king. That Tuthaliya, who was responsible for the planning and most of the building of the Upper City, would not have included Ni§antepe in his schemes is highly unlikely. The more so, since in Neve’s convincing reconstruction of the layout of this part of the capital, it constituted the very nucleus: at this point, the axes of the three major city gates converged. 37 That Tuthaliya already envisaged it as his “Eternal Peak” would not be surprising in view of what we know of his grand ideas on the ideology of kingship. If indeed the Upper City was “Hattusa-Tuthaliya-City,” 38 he must have had a special designation in mind for this particular spot. On the other hand, we have to take Suppiluliyama’s words seriously when he says that he “built” this place. We may understand this as referring to the building of a monument planned but never realized during the reign of his father or to the rebuilding of Ni§antepe. 39 33. P. Neve, FsTÖzgüç, 349–50. 34. Ibid., 350–51. 35. R. Alexander, Sculpture, 99–100, 115. 36. On top of Ni§antepe, just above the inscription, P. Neve has now detected a “cup mark” (IM 46 [1996] 44); on these, see §5 below. 37. See P. Neve, AA (1992) 323, Hattusa, 21–23 with Abb. 44; and see also already idem, Hattuscha Information (Istanbul, 1987 [1985]) in the passage on Ni§antepe. 38. See T. van den Hout, BiOr 52 (1995) 572–73, with further references. 39. According to F. Imparati, Tuthaliya may have himself referred to this monument as the NA4hekur Pirûa mTut[haliïa in KBo XII 140 (CTH 521) rev. 12u (SMEA 18 [1977] 60–61).

Theo van den Hout

80

Whatever the case may have been, the identification of Nisantepe as the na4hegur SAG.US ‘Eternal Peak’ seems assured. This prompts the question of the role of Yazılıkaya Room B. That the niches in the walls there could not have been columbaria or ossuaria because a na4hegur SAG.US was a memorial place rather than a tomb, as Neve has said, 40 is no longer a valid argument, since he too now recognizes the possibility of Ni§antepe having been a na4hegur SAG.US. Moreover, the presence of allusions to the Netherworld in reliefs 69–80 (the twelve running gods) and 82 (the Sword God) may support the interpretation of Room B as an É.NA4, that is, the place where the remains of the bones were deposited after the burning of the body of the deceased. Otten rightly has drawn attention to the fact that these reliefs are appropriate for a Beschwörungsstätte, a place where the Netherworld deities are somehow invoked. 41 For him, at the time this seemed incompatible with the ultimately divine and celestial fate of the Hittite Great King, but it has in the meantime become clear that the role of the Netherworld in the Royal Death Ritual is important. Its deities had to be appeased, and immediately after his death the ruler may even, at first, have temporarily descended into the Netherworld. 42 Therefore, assuming the equation Ni§antepe = na4hegur SAG.US, Yazılıkaya Room B may have been an É.NA4; the relationship between these two has been viewed as that between a memorial monument meant for the cult of the deceased and deified monarch and his tomb where— at least initially—his bodily remains rested. 43

3. The Stone House With this we have entered the discussion of the É.NA4, a term that we will now look at in more detail. 44 The following attestations are known to me: —É.NA4 (when no CTH number is given the text belongs to CTH 450) É.NA4

KBo V 2 (CTH 471) i 7; KBo VI 2+ (CTH 291—OS) iii 5; KBo XVII 74+ (CTH 631) ii 40; KBo XXV 184 i 6u

40. Neve, FsTÖzgüç, 352. 41. H. Otten, ZA 58 (1967) 240. 42. For this, see T. van den Hout, Hidden Futures, 42–44, 46–48. H. Gonnet goes even further and claims that the ultimately divine fate of Hittite royalty was with the deities of the Netherworld (Anatolica 21 [1995] 189–95). This, however, seems to be contradicted by the passage of the substitution ritual KBo XV 2 (with duplicates) rev. 18u–19u, where the temporarily dethroned king begs the Sun-deity of Heaven to admit him to his divine fate with the gods of heaven (ed. H. M. Kümmel, StBoT 3, 62–63). 43. This double option was first formulated, it seems, by F. Imparati, SMEA 18 (1977) 62– 63; later by T. van den Hout, Hidden Futures, 52. 44. On the É.NA4 see J. Börker-Klähn, SMEA 35 (1995) 69–92; I. M. Diakonoff, MIO 13 (1967) 318–20; H. G. Güterbock, MDOG 86 (1953) 75–76; idem, Oriens 10 (1957) 360; V. Haas, GhR, 618; V. Haas and M. Wäfler, UF 9 (1977) 118–19; G. del Monte, AION 35 (1975) 319– 46; H. Otten, ZA 46 (1940) 220–21 and 223–24; idem, OLZ 50 (1955) 391–92; idem, HTR, 132–33; M. Popko, Religions, 154; I. Singer, StBoT 27, 117–18.

Spreadis 6 points long

The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered

81

(.n]a4?); KBo XXX 56 (CTH 669) v 22u; KBo XXXIV 55, 2u, 4u, 5u (-SU); XI 34 (CTH 626; MS? 45) i 46; XIII 8 (CTH 252.A) obv. 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16; XVI 39 (CTH 573) ii 43; XXV 1 (CTH 612) iii 12 (.na4[); XXX 19+ i 49, ii 32, 38; XXXIX 6 obv. 4u (.n[a4?); XXXIX 11+ obv. 47u (-SU), 47u; XXXIX 12 rev.? 5u (-SU), 7u (id.), 8u (id.), 10u (id.), 13u; XXXIX 14 iii 9u 46; LVII 46 47 (CTH 252.B) obv.? 3u (2x?), 7u, rev.? 9u(?), 17u(?); IBoT I 13 v? 9u; 41/g i 19u 48 É.NA4-as XIII 8 (CTH 252.A) obv. 1 NA4-an pár-na-as KBo XVII 15 (CTH 645.6—OS) rev.! 12u (parnas is gen.sg.) XIII 8 (CTH 252.A) obv. 2; LVII 46 (CTH 252.B) É.NA4-NI obv.? 6u 49 (é.[n]a4?-) KBo XX 33+ (CTH 627—OS/MS) obv. 5; 310/d obv. 4 50 É.HI.A NA4 É.MES NA4.HI.A IBoT I 13 (CTH 627) v? 6 — É.NA4 DINGIR-LIM É.NA4 DINGIR-LIM KBo XXV 176 (CTH 627) obv. 6; II 5 (CTH 612) i 39; XII 48 obv. 4u; XIV 4 (CTH 70) ii 5u; XVI 27 (CTH 582), 5; XVI 34 (CTH 569) i 6; XVI 39 (CTH 573) ii 3 (mTuthaliïa), 6 (id.), 11, 20 (adda), 24 (é.], addas ), 29 (addas ), 30 (id.), 33 (n]a4); XVIII 21 (CTH 572) ii 1, 4; XVIII 32 (CTH 582), 6u (mArnuûan[da), 13u (mDuthaliïa); XXII 18 (CTH 582), 4u É.MES NA4 DINGIR-LIM KBo X 25 (CTH 627) ii 38uu (din[gir); KBo XII 140 (CTH 521.7) rev. 13u(?) 51 — personnel (already included in the above attestations) ARAD É.NA4 LÚ É.NA4 LÚ.MES É.NA4

KBo VI 2 iii 5 XIII 8 obv. 16//LVII 46 obv.? 7 KBo X 25 ii 41uu (LÚ.M[ES 52); XIII 8 obv. 13//LVII 46 obv.? 3u(?); IBoT I 13 v? 9u; 41/g i 19u

45. See M. Nakamura, Diss., 84 n. 46. 46. Followed by an erased sign, for which H. Otten tentatively suggests a reading KISIB (É NA4KISIB) (HTR, 80 note d.). 47. For remarks on this seriously burned tablet, which therefore can only be read with great difficulty, see T. van den Hout, BiOr 47 (1990) 426. 48. Apud H. Otten, StBoT 15, 40 (followed by x[). E. Neu mentions also unp. 572/s, 3f., but without quoting the text (StBoT 12, 69). 49. I now abandon my erroneous reading É a-ni-ïa-az-za, published in BiOr 47 (1990) 426. 50. Apud H. Otten, HTR, 133. 51. F. Imparati reads ªHUR.SAGº.MES, but in view of the HUR.SAG.MES ibid., 7u, 8u, 10u, and 11u, there may not be enough room (F. Imparati, SMEA 18 [1977] 50 n. 113). Moreover, a sequence HUR.SAG.MES NA4 DINGIR-LIM does not seem to make much sense. Note the [n]a4hekur pirûa mTut[- in the preceding line. 52. Restoration secured by its duplicate IBoT I 13 v? 9u.

82

Theo van den Hout LÚ.MES É.NA4 DINGIR-LIM XVI 27, 5; XVI 34 i 6; XVI 39 ii 3, 6, 20, 24 (LÚ.MES]), 33 (.N]A4); XVIII 21 ii 4; XXII 18, 4u

As indicated by the attestations in Old Script (Laws, and some of the festival texts) the institution of the (Divine) Stone House, including personnel, already existed in the Old Hittite period. 53 The interchange between the simple É.NA4 and the É.NA4 DINGIR-LIM in the texts of the KI.LAM-festival and the oracle text XVI 39 (ii 43 versus the other attestations in the same text) shows that the epithet “Divine” belongs to the building and not to the occasionally occurring personal name added to the combination in other texts. 54 As Güterbock pointed out, the epithet might be explained by the deification of the king. 55 The only other attributes found refer to persons, either by way of a possessive pronoun (“his Stone House”) or a personal name. The change between singular and plural (É.NA4, É.HI.A NA4, É.MES NA4, É.MES NA4.HI.A) in the KI.LAM texts, all referring to the same entity, show that the plural markers do not necessarily point to more than one (Divine) Stone House. Instead, the plural probably refers to the complex as a whole and may have collective value. It is, moreover, not certain that it also reflects a Hittite plural. In the partial Hittite reading na4-an parnas, the gen. pl. na4-an is dependent on the gen. sg. parnas. 56 The Akkadian phonetic complement -NI is likely to stem from abnu ‘stone’. 57 According to the texts, an É.NA4 could have a hilammar (KBo XVII 15 rev.! 12u na4-an pár-na-as hi-lam-ni ‘in the portico? of the Stone House’ 58) as well as an É.SÀ ‘inner chamber’ (XXXIX 12 rev.? 14u 59, and possibly XXXIX 11 obv. 47u 60). Interesting is a recurring phrase in several of the above different festival texts (AN.TAH. SUM, KI.LAM, festival of thunder, nuntariïasha) saying that tah(a)tumar is being brought from the (Divine) Stone House where this substance 61 was apparently specially kept. In most cases, the scene takes place in the palace (halentu-), but in the KI.LAM-festival it is in the huûasi of the Storm-god, so that no conclusion can be drawn from these texts about a possible location of the (Divine) Stone House. The famous instruction or exemption text of Queen Asmunikal (XIII 8//LVII 46 62) attests

53. V. Haas and M. Wäfler mention only KBo XVII 15 as Old Hittite (UF 9 [1977] 119). 54. Thus H. Otten, HTR, 133; and F. Imparati, SMEA 18 (1977) 61. 55. H. G. Güterbock, Oriens 10 (1957) 360. 56. See H. Otten, OLZ 50 (1955) 392; and E. Neu, StBoT 26, 260 with n. 45. 57. See H. G. Güterbock, Oriens 10 (1957) 360. 58. Dupl. KBo XVII 40 iv 6u, ed. V. Haas and M. Wäfler, UF 8 (1976) 88–89; see also E. Neu, StBoT 25, 73. 59. Ed. H. Otten, HTR, 70–71. 60. See H. Otten, HTR, 68–69 with note b. 61. See J. Tischler, HEG T, D 15–16 “Räucherwerk?” and, more sceptically, M. Nakamura, Diss., 34–35. 62. Ed. H. Otten, HTR, 105–7; for the duplicate, see S. Kosak, ZA 78 (1988) 312, and T. van den Hout, BiOr 47 (1990) 426.

The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered

83

to the convent-like character this institution could have. It was self-supporting and exempted from duties to the state. 63 A number of oracle inquiries deal with either cases of cultic negligence vis-à-vis the Stone House or cases of cultic impurity in connection with this institution. 64 A source of impurity could be the eating of products from a Stone House, which is one of the causes mentioned in the introduction to the cleansing ritual (CTH 471) of Ammihatna, priest of the goddess Ishara from Kizzuwatna. A similar problem may be cause for impurity in the oracle XVI 27 i 5–9. 65 It is these oracle texts that speak of a specific person’s Stone House. Some of these fragments probably belong together as parts of the same tablet and of the same inquiry; on the basis of the recurring, virtually identical wording of paragraphs, XVI 27 is likely to be the (beginning of the) first column of XVI 39, which preserves only the second column and parts of the third. The tiny fragment XXII 18 may either belong to the latter two or may have been part of the same tablet as XVIII 21. 66 The two resulting tablets probably formed one investigation inquiring into possible desecrations of the royal couple. In the course of the inquiry, the “personnel of the Divine Stone House” is interrogated: XVI 27 i 1 [A-N]A dUTU-SI ku-it MUNUS.LUGAL mar-sa-as-tar-ri-is a-ri-ï[a-sesnaza SIxSÁ-at] 2 [n]a-at ku-e-ez im-ma ku-e-ez mar-sa-nu-ûa-an[-tes esir] 3 ma-a-an-ma LÚ.MES É hé-kur Pí-ir-ûa dUTU-SI MUNUS.LUGAL [UL kuitki] 4 mar-sa-nu-an har-kán-zi nu SU.MES SIG5-ru IS [-TU ? 5 nu LÚ.MES É.NA4 DINGIR-LIM pu-nu-us-su-u-en n[u memir Concerning the fact that a desecration of His Majesty (and) the queen [has been ascertained through] ora[cle inquiry:] for whatever reason [they were] desecrat[ed], if the men of the hekur Pirwa-monument have [in no way] 63. See the extensive discussion by G. del Monte, AION 35 (1975) 319–46. His claim that there was no (re)distribution of its products to the outside world, seems to be without support in the texts (ibid., 323). Whether the domains as mentioned in XVI 32 (see his remarks, ibid., 327) can be considered (as parts of ) Stone Houses remains to be proven. XVI 32 and related texts use the designation é only, never é.na4 (CTH 569; for an edition, see my book The Purity of Kingship: An Edition of the CTH 569 and Related Hittite Oracle Inquiries of Tuthaliya IV [Leiden, 1998] 178– 81). This points at a more general status of these properties. Since CTH 569 deals with the affairs of members of the ruling house who for certain reasons were removed from court to domains where they were supposed to live without interfering with any state business, these domains are likely to be the territories granted to these individuals. That part of these were (turned into) Stone Houses is not inconceivable. 64. See G. del Monte, AION 35 (1975) 329–46. 65. See G. del Monte, AION 35 (1975) 334–35. 66. Collation, of course, is needed in both cases to substantiate these claims.

Theo van den Hout

84

desecrated His Majesty (and) the queen, then let the exta be favorable. Thro[ugh . . . ] We questioned the men of the Divine Stone House an[d they said: . . . In the second column preserved in XVI 39 67 “the men of the Divine Stone House of Tuthaliya” (ii 3 and 6) are being questioned and “Tuthaliya in the Divine Stone House” (ii 11) turns out to be angry because not altogether impeccable animals were offered to him. Then the “men of the Divine Stone House of the Forefatherly (Gods)” are questioned (ii 20 and compare the sumes DINGIR.MES SA É.NA4 DINGIR-LIM addas ii 29) and they too are ascertained as being angry. In XVIII 21 and XXII 18, the “men of the Divine Stone House” answer questions concerning similar inquiries about a Suppiluliuma (XVIII 21 ii 1) and the “father of His Majesty” (XXII 18, 1u). The apparently deceased Suppiluliuma of XVIII 21 can only be the first king of that name. If the inquiry were conducted by Suppiluliyama (II), the “father of His Majesty” would be Tuthaliya IV and, consequently, the Tuthaliya of XVI 39 would be one of the Tuthaliyas of the early empire. If the text were to be ascribed to Tuthaliya IV himself, the father would be Hattusili. The Arnuwanda whose Divine Stone House is mentioned in XVIII 32, 6u could have been any of the kings known by that name. 68 According to some texts a Stone House could be located outside the capital. Compare XII 48, 1–8: 69 x+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [

URU-r]i ak-kán-za -û]a-ar sa-ra-a da-an-zi (-)a]r-nu-ûa-an-za na-at-sa-an a-pé-e-da-ni -z]i nu-us-si É.NA4 DINGIR-LIM ku-e-da-ni URU-ri ku-]it-ma-an-ma ha-as-ta-i a-pé-e-da-ni URU-ri -]ªïaº-as ku-e-da-ni URU-ri UR]U-ªriº na-at a-pí-ïa-pát URU-ri vacat ]

[If a king] has died [in . . . tow]n, they pick up [the invocation materi]als?. 70 [If to/in . . . he is t]ransported/b]urned, 71 in that [they . . . ] it/them?72 [and 67. Ed. G. del Monte, AION 35 (1975) 330–34. 68. Thus, not necessarily Arnuwanda I, as believed by V. Haas (GhR, 244). 69. Ed. H. Otten, HTR, 72–73. Otten uses XXXIX 12 rev.? 2u–6u as a duplicate (ibid., 70– 71); the latter text is now duplicated by KBo XXXIV 55. The overlap between XII 48 and XXXIX 12//KBo XXXIV 55 is, however, slight and the difficulties in interpreting the resulting enlarged text (see the following footnotes) are considerable, so it may be preferable to treat them separately, as is done here. 70. Compare with mugauarr—a sara danzi (XXX 27 obv. 5u, ed. H. Otten, HTR, 98). 71. The latter translation applies in case û]arnuûanza is restored with H. Otten (HTR, 72). 72. If XXXIX 12 rev.? is used as a duplicate (as by H. Otten, HTR, 72), the following sara danzi of XXXIX 12 rev.? 2u is unlikely to be the verb of the sentence starting with n—at—san. The

The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered

85

. . . the]y [ . . . ]. In which town (there is) a Stone House for him, [ . . . . W]hile the bones in/to that town [ . . . ], in which town . . . [ . . . , if right in that to]wn [(there is) a Stone House for him, they deposit] them right there in the town. The same conclusion can be drawn from XXXIX 12 73(//KBo XXXIV 55): 5u [ 6u [

-z]i ªmaº-a-an-si É.NA4-SU 74-ma a-pé-e-ni-pát 75 URU-ri[ ] pé-e-da-as-sa-ah- ha- an[zi]

[ . . . th]ey [ . . . ]. If, however, he has his Stone House in that city there [ . . . ], they will deposit [his bones? there]. This may have been not so much a necessity whenever a member of the royal family died somewhere in the empire far from the capital city as a deliberate choice, 76 since what remained after cremation could easily have been transported to Hattusa. This is exactly what Mursili II tells us happened when his brother Sarrikusuh/Piyassili died in Kargamis. 77 That this was a possibility to be reckoned with is stated in one of the outline texts of the ritual, XXX 27 obv., 78 where a new entry starts with the remark: 7u ha-as-ta-i-ma tu-u-ûa-za ku-it KUR-az ú-da-an 8u nu ku-it-ma-an UD.KAM.HI.A mu-kis-na-as 9u nu-us-si UD.KAM-ti-li SISKUR kis-an pé-es-kán-z[i] As to the bones which are brought from a far-away country: as long as the days of invocation (last), they give to him the following offering daily: What follows is a program of at least five days of offerings “to the Sun deity and the Gods of Heaven” as well as to the Sungoddess of the Earth, Allani, the Gods of the Earth, Ara, and the Soul of the deceased. Apparently the remains were transported to the capital where upon arrival(?) a program differing from the usual one was followed. Was this because a ritual had already been performed at the place where the person had died? combination sara da- does not seem to occur with the sentence particle -san (see F. A. Tjerkstra, Principles, 111–14; with -kan and -(a)sta only with an indication of origin). The chain n—at—san can be found within the Hittite Royal Death Ritual in combination with the verb ases- and the object ALAM ‘effigy’ (see XXX 19+ i 7, 61–62 = HTR 32–35; XXX 24[//XXXIX 39(+)40] ii 36 = HTR, 62–63). 73. Ed. H. Otten, HTR, 70–71. 74. KBo XXXIV 55, 2u om. -SU. 75. KBo XXXIV 55, 2u has a-pí-ïa-pát. 76. The reasons for choosing a spot outside the capital may have been as manifold as they remain unknown to us, but the location of a structure like that of Gâvurkale away out in the country does not in itself plead against its interpretation as a hegur or (Divine) Stone House (see J. BörkerKlähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs [Mainz, 1982] 96–97). 77. KBo IV 4 i 5u–8u//XIV 29 i 28u–30u//KBo X 38, 2u–8u (CTH 61, ed. A. Götze, AM, 108–9). 78. Ed. H. Otten, HTR, 98–99.

Theo van den Hout

86

Finally, it is important to note that in the Hittite Royal Death Ritual there are at least three instances 79 where the valuables used during the rites are removed from the objects they adorn and transferred to the Stone House. The objects themselves, stripped of their precious inlays, are thrown into the fire. At the end of the ritual we may thus expect to find in the Stone House the throne (or stool in the case of a deceased queen) on which the bones had lain when they were brought in after the cremation, the bed on which the bones were laid down, and the gold, silver, and other precious materials that were gradually brought there during the days in which the ritual was conducted. Whether the silver huppar vase filled with oil, in which the bones were initially put, was also deposited there seems likely but is unfortunately not known. Besides the (Divine) Stone Houses of particular persons and the anonymous one of the Royal Death Ritual, the Divine Stone House mentioned in the festival texts in connection with the tah(a)tumar substance must have been a general one in a fixed spot in or near the city. The KI.LAM-text KBo XX 33+, in which the Stone House figures, goes back to either late Old Hittite or Middle Hittite times, 80 and the manuscript XI 34 of the nuntariïasha-festival is likewise older, probably Middle Hittite. Similarly, the Hittite Royal Death Ritual, although predominantly preserved in New Hittite copies, can be traced back to a Middle or even Old Hittite composition. 81 It is conceivable that there existed a general É.NA4 (DINGIR-LIM) where the urns of kings and queens were deposited but that later kings preferred their own (Divine) Stone Houses. Another possibility is that the central Stone House was the place where the bones were usually deposited during the days of the ritual and that they were then moved on to an individual Stone House afterward. As we shall see, this central Stone House institution may also have had the task of overseeing the individual Stone Houses elsewhere. Finally, as far as Yazılıkaya Room B as Tuthaliya’s tomb is concerned, none of the texts give any support for this location, but they do not contradict it, either.

4.

na4hegur

and (Divine) Stone House

The hegur-monument and the (Divine) Stone House have a number of important characteristics in common. Both are or can be institutions of a funerary or memorial character, possessing considerable property and personnel, and were or could be sacred places with special (economic) privileges. Both, finally, were, as indicated by the Sumerogram na4, probably housed on or in a rock. But there are also differences. In its function, the (Divine) Stone House is more clearly defined than the hegur-monument. The (Divine) Stone House is the last resting place of the bodily remains of members of the royal dynasty and can be properly translated “tomb.” Besides clear references to 79. XXXIX 14 iii 6–11 (H. Otten, HTR, 80–81), XXX 19+ i 48–49 (ibid., 34–35), ii 32 (ibid., 36–37) 80. KBo XX 33+; see E. Neu, StBoT 25, xviii and 52; and I. Singer, StBoT 27, 66–67 with n. 38 and 118. 81. See my remarks in Hidden Futures, 57.

The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered

87

the (Divine) Stone House as a general, central institution, there were several individual Stone Houses that served as the tomb of a specific person. The identification of the hegur-house as a memorial dedicated likewise to the cult of a deceased member of the royal house rests in fact solely on XIV 4 and XVI 27. Some other texts fit this characterization well (KBo XII 38, the Bronze Tablet) but others not necessarily. The memorial character is not inherent to a hegur-monument. In other words, whereas every Stone House can be considered a tomb and cult or memorial place alike, not every hegur was necessarily a memorial or funerary monument. A hegur was in origin a mountain peak which within Anatolian religion often acquired divine status and may in some cases have been thought to be an appropriate or even favorite place for a funerary shrine. 82 In these cases the two terms may have overlapped: the (Divine) Stone House took on the form of a hegur-monument. In spite of its constituting elements the former combination came to denote a function (“tomb”), the latter a form (“mountainous height/rocky outcrop”) that could have more than one function (mountain sanctuary, place of refuge, palatial building, but also tomb). Some support for this partial identity can be found in the two key texts just mentioned. The earliest example of a funerary connection is, as we saw, the monument Mursili II mentions in connection with his stepmother. Here he uses both terms in juxtaposition (XIV 4 ii): 3u . . . nu su-me-e-es DINGIR.MES 4u Ú-UL us-kit9-te-e-ni É A-BI-IA-kán ma-ah-ha-an hu-u-ma-an 5u I-NA É na4hé-kur 83 dLAMMA I-NA É.NA4 DINGIR-LIM ne-ïa-at Don’t you see, o gods, how she has turned over my father’s entire estate to the hekur-institution of the Tutelary Deity, to the Divine Stone House?

Did the queen donate all of Suppiluliuma’s possessions to two institutions or only to the rocky outcrop known as the “hekur-house of the Tutelary Deity,” which was used as a Divine Stone House? Initially, scholars seem to have considered the latter option. In a free rendering, Güterbock translated the two terms in the above quotation together as “graveyard.” 84 Otten, more literally but basically in the same way, took the two as being in apposition: “dem É na4hekur des Schutzgottes, dem Steinhaus der Gottheit.” 85 This translation is still maintained in the Chicago Hittite Dictionary. 86 Mostly, however, a translation in which the two words were taken to be in asyndeton 82. Interesting in this respect is the suggestion by H. G. Güterbock that the positioning of the Tuthaliya figure (relief no. 64) on two mountains could be taken “als Zeichen seiner Vergöttlichung nach dem Tode” (Yaz.2 , 187). Note that R. Alexander dates the relief late (Sculpture, 97). 83. The hand-copy seems to show a ße-sign with four Winkelhaken, instead of the expected three for kur, but the sign is written over an erasure or is itself partly erased. 84. See also his remark apud E. Laroche, Ug. 3 (1956) 103 n. 1: “the É.NA4 DINGIR-LIM is a ‘mausoleum’ and the ‘Rock-house of KAL’ may be something similar.” 85. H. Otten, HTR, 133; see also F. Cornelius, RIDA 22 (1975) 30. 86. CHD L–N 361b: “to the hekur-house of dLAMMA, to the Stone House of the Deity (royal mausoleum).”

88

Theo van den Hout

was preferred: “to the hekur-house of the Tutelary Deity (and) to the Divine Stone House.” 87 An argument against translating the two in apposition may have been the repetition of the Akkadian preposition, something which was for a long time considered ungrammatical (since F. Sommer, AU 130). However, in the meantime, this has been shown to be unjustified, 88 and I propose we return to the earlier translations. There is one other text in which the two terms occur in each other’s proximity: this is the oracle fragment XVI 27 quoted above, where the “men of the Divine Stone House” are called upon to give a statement about the “men of the hekur-house of Pirwa.” 89 If XVI 27 is indeed linked to XVI 39 as well as XVIII 21 and XXII 18, as was suggested above, texts in which the Stone Houses of a Tuthaliya, the forefatherly gods, Suppiluliuma, and a father of His Majesty are the topic of oracle inquiries, then this “hekur-house of Pirûa” is also likely to be such an institution. The “men of the Divine Stone House” may then represent the central (Divine) Stone House under whose authority other such funerary monuments may have existed. A partial identity of hegur and (Divine) Stone House explains why in all cases of a singular hegur it is somehow modified. When referring to a mountain peak by itself, one needs a further specification to make clear which particular peak is meant. In all likelihood, some of these—that is, especially the ones not modified by a geographical name 90—were in Hattusa: the na4hegur SAG.US of KBo XII 38 must have been located on Ni§antepe, as we saw. Likewise, the na4hegur dLAMMA of the Babylonian princess and the na4hegur Pirwa mTut[haliya may have to be looked for there. The latter could be an earlier or alternative designation for Ni§antepe or it might refer to Yazılıkaya Room (A and?) B. It also becomes clear why with É.NA4—in contrast to the hegur-monument—one finds only personal names attached: the most obvious piece of information one wants in the case of a tomb is whose tomb it is. The proposed partial identity explains on the other hand why in the entire Hittite Royal Death Ritual no mention is made of a na4hegur: in accordance with its general prescriptive character, this text uses the general term (Divine) Stone House = tomb only. Finally, it also means that we do not have to distinguish systematically between a tomb and a memorial for each king. With the evidence, moreover, for tombs having been outside the capital, it also partially relieves us of the necessity of looking for a tomb for every ruler there. We should now once again return to Yazılıkaya Room B and Ni§antepe. If Yazılıkaya Room B was Tuthaliya’s (Divine) Stone House/tomb, this arrangement was prepared by him during his own lifetime. Ni§antepe was posthumously, it seems, dedicated to him by his son, although it remains uncertain how much of it had al87. See for instance H. Otten, MDOG 94 (1963) 18 (“dem É NA4hé-kur-dLAMA (und) dem Mausoleum”), Fischer Weltgeschichte, Die Altorientalischen Reiche II, 151; H. A. Hoffner, JAOS 103 (1983) 191; and my own translation in Hidden Futures, 49. 88. See H. Otten, ZA 61(1971) 235–36; D. Sürenhagen, AoF 8 (1981) 104; and H. G. Güterbock, AJA 87 (1983) 136b. 89. See already H. Otten, MDOG 94 (1963) 18. 90. F. Imparati, SMEA 18 (1977) 63.

The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered

89

ready been built by Tuthaliya and for what purpose. If all this—admittedly speculative—reasoning is valid, this specific hegur SAG.US was not a tomb. To what extent the modifying SAG.US ‘eternal’ is essential in this respect remains to be seen. 91 Suppiluliyama, at any rate, may have dedicated and (re)built Ni§antepe to legitimize his own rule or his own place within the traditional ancestor cult. The difficulty, however, of bringing together nontextual archaeological remains and textual data is shown by attempting to relate the “chapel” or “shrine” of Haus A within the temenos-wall of Temple 5 near the “King’s Gate” with the relief Bogazköy 19, 92 which portrays a king Tuthaliya. Neve wants to recognize an older Tuthaliya here, while I have argued that it is Tuthaliya IV himself, 93 but we both agree on this king’s desire to be nearer to the gods than his predecessors, whether by implicitly showing himself with the horned crown through an older namesake or by explicitly portraying himself. This third place for what seems to be a cult of Tuthaliya shows how careful we must be in our judgments. Given all we know of Tuthaliya’s political ideology and his inclination toward grandeur, the presence of more monuments in his own honor and its continuation by his son is not surprising; he nevertheless can have had only one tomb.

5. Monuments outside Hattusa Finally, we should address the question of where similar structures for other kings might have been. Within the boundaries of Hattusa, the rocky outcrops of Yenicekale and Sarıkale have already been mentioned as candidates for hegur-monuments. 94 What about Hittite sites outside the capital? Above we mentioned the na4hegur SAG.US of the Bronze Tablet. Otten suggested that this might have been a memorial for Muwatalli II, Kurunta’s biological father. 95 Because of the problems apparently involved with Kurunta’s right of access to it, Otten assumed that the place had to be outside his own territory because otherwise this right would have been self-evident. As a possible location, he hinted at the longknown relief portraying Muwatalli at Sirkeli to the east of Tarhuntassa at the Ceyhan River. 96 Other scholars did not see the necessity of the monument being outside the boundaries of Kurunta’s territory: 97 just because his right of access may have been 91. If so, the monument referred to in the Bronze Tablet i 91–ii 3 and ii 64–66 would not be Muwatalli’s tomb but a memorial. 92. Numbering after J. D. Hawkins, StBoT Beih. 3, 121. 93. BiOr 52 (1995) 556–57 with literature. The fact that the name of Tuthaliya on the stele—just like the name of the Suppiluliuma-figure in Kammer 2—is not written with the usual aedicula cannot be used as an argument because of the bulla 726/z from Bogazköy with the name of Suppiluliyama (II) written without the aedicula (= R. M. Boehmer and H. G. Güterbock, BoHa XIV 83 no. 261). 94. See above, n. 2. 95. StBoT Beih. 1, 42–4 with n. 78. 96. See also the remarks of K. Bittel, FsTÖzgüç, 34. 97. See P. Houwink ten Cate, ZA 82 (1992) 245; D. Sürenhagen, OLZ 87 (1992) 346 n. 15.

90

Theo van den Hout

evident if the monument lay within the boundaries of his own territory, the explicit regulation in the treaty was necessary in view of the problems surrounding it. Because of the role that a certain Marassanta plays in this affair, the town of Puhanda was mentioned as the possible location of this na4hegur SAG.US. 98 A person named Marassanta is known as Priest of Puhanta, which according to the treaty lay within the confines of Tarhuntassa. This town has not been located yet, however. However this may be, since in recent years the relief at Sirkeli has received renewed interest, it seems expedient to discuss it here. The site is predominantly known for its relief with inscription portraying Muwatalli II. 99 This is now known as Sirkeli I, since in its immediate vicinity traces of a second relief (Sirkeli II) allegedly depicting the same king in the same way have been detected. 100 In spite of some controversy about the second figure’s orientation, there is no reason to doubt its existence. In the discussion, Neve drew attention again to the presence of two so-called “cup-marks” in the rock above the reliefs, that is, artificially made depressions in the rock usually understood as places where libations could be made. 101 In his article on cup-marks, David Ussishkin already hinted at possible netherworld associations and pointed at the existence of such hollows at Yazılıkaya and Osmankayası, whose funerary character is obvious. Neve now draws the conclusion that because of the cupmarks we may identify the relief as “Kultbild” and the spot itself as “Kultstätte.” Finally, he suggests that it may have been the na4hegur SAG.US mentioned in the Bronze Tablet. Cup-marks were also found on top of the rock on which the famous Fraktınrelief shows King Hattusili III with his wife Puduhepa each libating to a deity. 102 Similar reliefs ascribed to kings before Muwatalli are unknown, nor do any exist for Tuthaliya or Suppiluliyama outside Hattusa. 103 Both at Sirkeli 104 and Fraktın, remains of Hittite settlements have reportedly been found; at Fraktın, Bittel even observed 98. For Marassanta, see T. van den Hout, AoF 21 (1994) 321–27. 99. See I. J. Gelb, HHM, no. 48 with Pls. LXVIII–LXIX; and P. Meriggi, Manuale III, 324 with tavola XV. 100. See H. Ehringhaus, Antike Welt 26 (1995) 66; ibid., 118–19; and P. Neve, Antike Welt 27 (1996) 19–21. 101. For these cup-marks in general, see D. Ussishkin, AnSt 25 (1975) 85–103; for Sirkeli, see ibid., 86–89 with figs. 4–6. See further H. Gonnet, FsNaster, 122 (for Kızıldag); idem, Anatolica 21 (1995) 193; K. Bittel, FsTÖzgüç, 37; and P. Neve, IM 27–28 (1977–78) 61–72 and IM 46 (1996) 41–56. 102. See K. Bittel, AA (1939) 565–68 with Abb. 8, and D. Ussishkin, AnSt 25 (1975) 85–6 with figs. 1–3. On the male deity to whom Hattusili III is offering his libation see BiOr 52 (1995) 555 n. 44. 103. The Kurunta relief near Konya (Hatip) has now been published by A. Dinçol, TÜBAAR 1 (1998) 27–35. For the Kızıldag-Karadag-Burunkaya group with the inscriptions of Hartapu, see most recently J. D. Hawkins, StBoT Beih. 3, 103–7, with literature. 104. See J. Garstang, AAA 24 (1937) 64–66; H. Ehringhaus, Antike Welt 26 (1995) 66; ibid., 118–19; M.-H. Gates, AJA 100 (1996) 293; and B. Hrouda, IM 47 (1997) 91–150, and IM 49 (1999) 83–140.

The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered

91

traces of what might have been a sanctuary lying between the relief and the ancient settlement. 105 Such settlements would meet at least some of the requirements of both a hegur and a (Divine) Stone House, these being large self-supporting institutions employing cultic, administrative, and other personnel and mostly enjoying some form of tax exemption. As long as the reliefs do not—at least not in the immediate proximity—seem to have been accompanied by a tomb-like construction, an interpretation as a real grave or tomb is not very likely. In both cases the reliefs stand very much on their own, and in the alleged settlements nothing resembling such a construction has been reported as yet. So if anything, they are indeed more likely to have been memorial or cult places (“Kultstätten”) of some kind, but the example of Tuthaliya shows that they did not necessarily serve a funerary purpose. The only monument that by its architecture may have been a tomb and might therefore be a candidate for having been a (Divine) Stone House (under certain circumstances also possibly to be referred to as hegur, as we have seen) seems to be the site known as Gâvurkalesi. 106 This mound, situated about 60 km southwest of Ankara, was first reported in 1861 and for a short period was excavated by H. H. von der Osten in 1930, after a suggestion by Kemal Atatürk himself. 107 Immediately north of the famous relief with the seated goddess and the two male figures approaching her, von der Osten found a rectangular chamber, which he interpreted as a “cult place.” Later on, a possible funerary purpose was suggested. 108 This mound was surrounded by remains of additional architectural structures that, in part at least, seem to date from the Phrygian period. Recent surveys carried out by a joint team from the Bilkent University and the Carsten Niebuhr Institute at Copenhagen have, however, shown that the Hittite site was probably more extensive than previously assumed and may have been accompanied by some sort of a settlement. 109

105. AA (1939) 568. 106. Whether the so-called Kammer 2 of the Südburg in the Upper City of Hattusa should be regarded as a comparable structure is still unclear. The function of this room with the relief of a Suppiluliuma depends largely on the interpretation of the compound (deus)via.terra/dingir. kaskal.kur (see my article BiOr 52 [1995] 558–59; and J. D. Hawkins, StBoT Beih. 3, 44–45); P. Neve suspects a link with the netherworld (Hattusa, 75, 80). 107. See H. H. von der Osten, Discoveries in Anatolia 1930–1931 (OIC 14; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1933) 56–90; see further J. Börker-Klähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs (Mainz, 1982), 95–97. 108. See above, n. 2. 109. See S. Lumsden’s report apud M.-H. Gates, AJA 100 (1996) 298 with fig. 14 and his contribution to this volume.

92

Theo van den Hout

Palaces and Local Communities in Some Hittite Provincial Seats Fiorella Imparati† Department of History, University of Florence

The documents from the excavation of Ma§at (ancient Tapika) have given us interesting information about Hittite administration in the provinces of the kingdom and we expect that the documentation from the recent excavation of Sapinuwa (present-day Ortaköy) will supply to scholars other news or confirm hypotheses already presented about this important topic. 1 Some of the information contained in the letters of Ma§at concerning Hittite provincial administration is included in letter M§t 75/57 (HKM 52), which has already been analyzed in an article by S. Alp. 2 The document in question comprises a principal letter sent by Hattusili, most probably the noted scribe of the Hittite Middle Kingdom, 3 to Himuili, BEL MADGALTI, 4 in Ma§at, and a supplementary letter (or postscriptum) written by another well-known scribe, Tarhunmiya, again to Himuili. Author’s note : This paper forms part of a larger work—“Observations on a letter from Ma§atHöyük”—that will be published in the Gedenkschrift E. Bilgiç (ed. H. Ertem). For bibliographical abbreviations in the present article, I have followed The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1980–). 1. See in particular the important monograph by S. Alp, Hethitische Briefe aus Ma§at-Höyük (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1991); for copies of the documents from the excavations at Ma§at, see S. Alp, Hethitische Keilschrifttafeln aus Ma§at-Höyük (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1991); on the identification of Ma§at as Tapika, see S. Alp, HBM, 42–43; on the identification of Ortaköy as Hittite Sapinuwa, see A. Süel “Ortaköy’ün Hitit Çagındaki Adı,” Belleten 59.225 (1995) 271–83. 2. “Die Verpflichtungen sahhan and luzzi in einem Ma§at-Brief,” Orientalia 59.2 (Gedenkschrift Einar von Schuler; ed M. Marazzi and G. Wilhelm) (1990) 107–13; see also G. Beckman, “Hittite Provincial Administration in Anatolia and Syria: the View from Ma§at and Emar,” in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia (ed. O. Carruba, M. Giorgeri, and C. Mora; Pavia: Gianni Iuculano, 1995) 26; and S. de Martino and F. Imparati, “Aspects of Hittite Correspondence: Problems of Form and Content,” in Atti II C.I.H., 112. 3. See S. Alp, HBM, 58-59; J. Klinger, “Das Corpus der Ma§at-Briefe und seine Beziehung zu den Texten aus Hattusa,” ZA 85 (1995) 88ff. 4. Provincial governor: literally ‘lord of the watchplace’. On Himuili, see S. Alp, HBM, 59– 62; R. Beal, The Organization of the Hittite Military (THeth 20; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1992) pages cited in the Index of Personal Names, 567, s.v. Himuili BEL MADGALTI; J. Klinger, ZA 85 (1995) 86–87, 91.

93

94

Fiorella Imparati

From the formulary and the tone of the letter we may assume that Hattusili was a functionary of the same rank as Himuili; Tarhunmiya, on the other hand, must have been of inferior rank to Himuili. 5 Hattusili and, in the postscriptum, Tarhunmiya address Himuili once again concerning a matter they have already written about repeatedly, namely, damages brought to bear on the “house” of Tarhunmiya, located in the administrative district of Himuili by “men of the district” and “men of the town” and the imposition of the sahhan and luzzi obligations by “men of the town.” The fact that the matter in question has continued for some time is confirmed by references to it in other letters from Ma§at and by the use in this specific document of various significant verbs in the iterative. 6 Based on the letters concerning the affairs of Tarhunmiya, we can reasonably assume that at the time the letters were written he resided, or at least carried out his profession, in the city of Tapika, occasionally moving to other towns as requirements dictated. 7 It is unclear where Hattusili and Tarhunmiya were at the time the letter was written, although it was certainly a place where there was a palace. Indeed, in this letter (obv. 6–8 and 17–18) Hattusili notifies Himuili that the question of the damages being inflicted upon Tarhunmiya may or may not be taken to the palace (É.GAL); 8 in the supplementary letter (rev. 42–upper edge 46) Tarhunmiya assures Himuili that he will always carry out at the palace the matter concerning the horses and war chariots about which the latter has written to him. The term É.GAL often recurs in the letters from Ma§at, 9 where it appears to have had the function of a center responsible for the collection and distribution of goods (HKM 24) and for the organization of armaments (HKM 52 and 63). It also functioned as a higher authority whose task it was, for example, to investigate matters concerning the agricultural life of various districts (HKM 54); it was an establishment that was notified of important events and circumstances, evidently in the hope that decisive intervention could be obtained from it (HKM 52, 74, 10 and possibly 77); 5. See F. Imparati, GsBilgiç; on Tarhunmiya see S. Alp, HBM, 95–96. 6. Other letters: HKM 27 and 60. On this, see S. de Martino and F. Imparati, in Atti II C.I.H., 111–12. To these letters should probably be added also HKM 80 (see below). Iterative: obv. 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, rev. 27, 33. The scribal circle to which Tarhunmiya belonged, which probably also had administrative functions, must have been under the control of Hattusili (see F. Imparati, GsBilgiç). 7. Note that Tarhunmiya, who is mentioned several times in the documents, is not yet attested in the documentation from Hattusa, contrary to the situation for other individuals. 8. In lines 17–18, Hattusili ends his letter with the threat that if damage continues to be inflicted on the scribe (Tarhunmiya), he (Hattusili) will refer the matter to the palace. See S. Alp, HBM, 309 on the meaning of É.GAL in these letters. 9. See the passages indicated by S. Alp, HBM, 309 and Index, 424 s.v. The question of the location of these É.GALmes in the various situations considered in these letters has not yet been dealt with. 10. A letter from the “priest” of Kizzuwatna to Kassu, in which (obv. 8–11) the possibility is expressed that the sender will notify the palace of a matter that has arisen in connection with

Palaces and Local Communities in Some Hittite Provincial Seats

95

and it was also, presumably, with the aim of receiving its favors (HKM 10 and possibly 63). From such palaces orders were also sent out (HKM 75, 88, and 94; the initial part of these three letters is fragmentary). 11 Unfortunately, the texts mentioned here do not supply enough information for us to know for certain, for the cases being considered in them, whether or not different palaces were involved 12 and to postulate their precise location. Obviously, the recipient of each letter knew perfectly well to which palace the letter referred. This might explain why in these documents the term É.GAL is not usually accompanied by any geographical indication, with the exception of one palace (situated) in Hanh[ana] (see n. 12). This geographical indication and the fact that in letter HKM 33 (rev. 25u–27u), in an extremely fragmentary context, reference is made to the defence of “all the palaces” (line 25u: É.GAL human[tes]) 13 seem to suggest that different palaces were involved in the various letters; this, however, does not help in locating them. Moreover, the fact that two of these letters (HKM 10 and 24), which deal with two separate issues, were sent by the king is not, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to suggest that the palace they refer to was in Hattusa. We should remember, indeed, that in letter HKM 20 it emerges that the king, its sender, was in Sapinuwa at the time; it also specifies that the city was reachable in two days, evidently from Tapika. 14 At this point, it would seem plausible also to hypothesize that in most of the above-mentioned cases reference is made to the same palace, situated in an administrative district not far from that of Tapika, but having greater prominence. The administration of Tapika would presumably have consulted this palace on issues of greater importance; there would therefore have been no need for geographic specifications to Kassu’s refusal to return some of his subjects to the sender. From the tone of the letter, this priest appears to have held a government position in Kizzuwatna; this is not surprising, since the office of “priest” in Kizzuwatna appears to have been particularly important and involved more than religious functions. See F. Imparati, “Une reine de Hatti vénère la deesse NINGAL,” in Florilegium Anatolicum (Paris: De Boccard, 1979) 174 n. 40. In connection with Kantuzzili, possibly the son of Tuthaliya I/II and Nikalmati, appointed priest of Tessub and Hepat in Kizzuwatna, see ibid., 171ff. (esp. 172 n. 21; see also n. 22). This person is probably to be identified as the “priest” who sent letter HKM 74 (see J. Klinger, ZA 85 [1995] 93–99, who claims that Kantuzzili may have been the son of Arnuwanda I and Asmunikal; see also S. Alp, HBM, 111–12 and 342). 11. On the letters mentioned in this paragraph, see S. Alp, HBM, below, and my observations in GsBilgiç, nn. 14–25. 12. Only in HKM 81 (lower edge 19–rev. 20), sent by Tarhunmiya to two people whom he calls his lord and lady and also father and mother, therefore of a superior status to his own, is there mention of the palace of Hanh[ana], unfortunately in a highly fragmentary context. 13. And also of the defense of something else, of which no designation remains in the letter other than an indication of the plural. 14. In this letter, the king orders its recipients, Gassu and Pipappa, to mobilize the troops of Ishupitta hastily and (lower edge 10–12) take them “rapidly in two days before My Sun.” Compare, instead, letter HKM 15, where the king writes to Gassu and Zilapiya, telling them to lead (together with troops) warriors on chariots, which they have at their disposal, rapidly in three days before My Sun, something which may indicate that at this time the king was in a place that was not Sapinuwa.

96

Fiorella Imparati

indicate it. Occasionally, the king would stay in this palace for a period of time, for various reasons (military, religious, administrative) and see to several affairs involving neighboring outlying districts, to whose governors he must at times have sent letters. 15 It is interesting in this context to remember that in letter HKM 60, another in which there is mention of the “house” of Tarhunmiya (see n. 6), we learn that Tarhunmiya was in Sapinuwa at the time it was written. 16 I believe that this is confirmed by, among other things, the fact that its sender, Sarpa, a high dignitary who at the time occupied a political position of considerable importance in Sapinuwa, 17 in alluding to certain damages suffered by Tarhunmiya referred to what the latter had ‘said’ to him (memista, obv. 11 and 21), rather than what had been ‘written’ to him, as occurs instead in other cases. Now, given that we know that Sapinuwa was a more important district than Tapika, 18 whose administration appears in certain respects to have been under the jurisdiction, or at least within the sphere of influence, of Sapinuwa, it seems possible to me that in our letter HKM 52 (and perhaps also in others where the term É.GAL appears) reference is made to the palace situated in this center. 19 From many Hittite texts from the archives of Hattusa, we learn of the great importance that Sapinuwa had during the course of Hittite history—as a religious center, as a political and administrative seat, and as a military base. We know that various Hittite rulers resided there on various occasions. Moreover, there are several references to the palace of Sapinuwa in these documents, from which we get a sense of its prominence. The importance of this palace is also clear from the imposing structure of the building that has come to light in the course of the excavations of Ortaköy. 20 The hypothesis of identifying the palace of Sapinuwa as the palace mentioned in letter HKM 52 and in other letters from Ma§at would be consistent with the close ties that this center seems to have had with Hattusa and the royal family in the Hittite Middle Kingdom, 21 ties that continued to exist in later periods. In any case, whatever the location of the palace mentioned in our letter HKM 52, it seems clear from the context that the scribe Hattusili had a certain influence in 15. For their own part, these governors would take advantage of the fact that the king was in their area to inform him of several matters and consult him with a view to resolving various issues. 16. Presumably subsequent to the letter under examination (see S. de Martino and F. Imparati, Atti II C.I.H., 112 and n. 65; and S. Alp, HBM, 97 and 92 sub Sarpa). This does not mean that Tarhunmiya resided there, but simply that he was in Sapinuwa at that time. 17. See S. Alp, HBM, 92. 18. See S. Alp, HBM, 36–37; see also F. Imparati, GsBilgiç. 19. The existence of a palace here, which has been known for some time, is confirmed by excavations presently being carried out. 20. See F. Imparati, GsBilgiç, nn. 36 and 37. 21. V. Haas has seen a connection between the Hurrian-Hittite dynasty set up in Hatti by Tuthaliya I/II and the city of Sapinuwa (“Betrachtungen zur Dynastie von Hattusa im Mittleren Reich [ca.1450–1380],” AoF 12 [1985] 275; see also S. de Martino, “Himuili, Kantuzili e la presa di potere da parte di Tuthaliya,” in Quattro Studi Ittiti [EOTHEN 4; ed. F. Imparati; Florence: Elite, 1991] 20).

Palaces and Local Communities in Some Hittite Provincial Seats

97

this center. The phrase in obv. 15–18, particularly lines 17–18, almost sounds like a threat directed at Himuili in the event that the latter fails to protect the “house” of Tarhunmiya: “Now (you = Himuili) keep your eye on (this); they must not continue to oppress him (= Tarhunmiya); if not, I will come (and) say this/report this in the palace.” Moreover, the use in this letter also 22 of the verb mema- rather than hatrai- (obv. 8 and 18) seems to support the hypothesis that Hattusili was actually in the locality where the palace was situated and that he had the opportunity to talk directly with influential people about matters which concerned him, like this one regarding the “house” of Tarhunmiya. 23 While in the postscriptum of the letter under examination Tarhunmiya refers explicitly to his “house” (rev. 26, 30), in the “principal” letter written by Hattusili the latter talks of the “house of the scribe” (obv. 11) without further specification. Given that Tarhunmiya is in fact a scribe, it is reasonable to assume that in both cases reference is being made to the same “house.” For many reasons, I presume that the “house” in question was not specifically Tarhunmiya’s dwelling or his patrimonial and/or family complex, but possibly a scribal center with administrative functions, subject to the central authority, where Tarhunmiya worked; however, this does not exclude the possibility that when he was in Tapika he also resided there. But what seems to me to be of considerable interest in the present letter is that the initiative for the imposition on Tarhunmiya of the sahhan and luzzi obligations, as well as the responsibility for certain damages inflicted on the scribe, is attributed to the ‘men of the town’ (LÚmes URUlim ) and perhaps also to the ‘men of the district’ (LÚmes KURti ). 24 The letter in question has been compared by S. Alp with another letter from Emar (present-day Meskene). 25 In this letter, among other things, consideration is given to the case of the arbitrary imposition of sahhan and luzzi by a Hittite functionary, Alziyamuwa, who performed administrative functions in the area, on a diviner, 22. See my observation above (p. 7) for letter HKM 60 obv. 11 and 21[. 23. The damages inflicted on Tarhunmiya and his “house” are also mentioned in other letters from Ma§at, the context of which allows us to hypothesize the sequence of the events described in them (see again my observations in GsBilgiç, with nn. 40–47). 24. Rev. 32; see also rev. 36 and 38, where the two expressions are shown separately. From the context, however, it would appear that in the specific case this distinction did not allude to a difference in the competences of these two bodies, although this may have been possible in reality due both to their size—the men of the district were certainly more numerous than the men of the town—and, possibly, to a more diversified composition; see also below. 25. For HKM 52, see S. Alp, Gsv. Schuler, 108 and 112, and HBM, 334; for Msk. 73.1097, see most recently A. Hagenbuchner, Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter, 2 Teil (THeth 16; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1989) 40–44; see also F. Imparati, “Aspects de l’organisation de l’état hittite dans les documents juridiques et administratives,” JESHO 25 (1983) 264–67 (note here that the numbering of the lines of the tablet is in various places erroneous, since at the time I was able to use only a provisional transliteration, kindly supplied by E. Laroche) and G. Beckman, in Atti II C.I.H., 31.

98

Fiorella Imparati

who was “previously” exempt from them. 26 The Hittite king intervenes personally to restore the previous situation. This last letter, however, deals with an issue that is substantially different from the one described in the Ma§at letter. In the letter from Emar, the sovereign condemns an abuse committed by one of his functionaries in the area and annuls his decisions. In the Ma§at letter, on the other hand, the arbitrary imposition of obligations was effected not by a dignitary under the authority of the central government, but by members of the local community, that is, by the “men of the town,” possibly with the connivance—or at least without the vigorous opposition—of the palace dignitary Himuili, who appears to have done little to deal with and resolve the matter in favor of the other employee of the central administration, Tarhunmiya. 27 It is probable, indeed, that in our letter, as elsewhere in Hittite documents, the expressions “men of the district” and “men of the town” designate members of the community of free men in the various administrative centers who were not incorporated within the structure of the state bureaucracy. In fact, Hattusili’s statement (obv. 12) that others are responsible for causing damage to Tarhunmiya seems to me to indicate that the persons in question did not belong to the central administration. Thus, if we agree on this interpretation, we must wonder under what right or authority these members of the local community imposed obligations like the sahhan and luzzi on Tarhunmiya, who was a royal functionary. 28 An important question emerges, therefore, and that is whether the local community might in some instances have had the competence to impose duties, even on employees of the royal administration, or whether, in the case in question, it had done so unlawfully. 29 From our letter (rev. 36–37) it appears that the “men of the town” imposed the sahhan and luzzi duties on Tarhunmiya, rather than merely carrying out the task of providing for the fulfillment of these obligations. From the context of this letter, when there is mention of the imposition of these duties, it seems to me that we can infer that there was a request for the intervention of the royal dignitary, who administered the district of Tapika, against this action of the “men of the town” only because the scribe in question was not bound to fulfil such duties, and not because the local community had carried out an action that did not lie within its competence. In 26. See F. Imparati, GsBilgiç, nn. 47–49. 27. This can be gleaned from the fact that various letters and solicitations are sent to Himuili, requesting that he take it upon himself to resolve the case. 28. Indeed, if we accept the equation of the expression “house of the scribe” with the expression “house of Tarhunmiya,” and the hypothesis that this “house” was an administrative office subject to the authority of the central government, the action of the local community would have been directed against this authority. 29. Clearly an answer to this question would shed new light both on the competences of the local community in the sphere of Hittite provincial administration and on the relations of this element with central government.

Palaces and Local Communities in Some Hittite Provincial Seats

99

fact Hattusili (obv. 13–14) asks Himuili: “(Are there) sahhan and luzzi (obligations) for the scribes? Why does (he = Tarhunmiya) continue to perform there (= in Tapika) that (= these obligations)?” 30 And Tarhunmiya (rev. 34–39) writes to Himuili: “Moreover for me there there were no sahhan and luzzi obligations. Now the men of the town have subjected me to sahhan and to luzzi /(and) to luzzi. So, (my) lord, ask those aforementioned men of the district, [i]f I have (ever) performed sahhan and luzzi.” 31 Note that in this passage the “men of the town” are mentioned separately from the “men of the district,” something that does not happen in rev. 32, again with regard to the damages inflicted on Tarhunmiya and his “house.” However, there are no elements for attributing any particular significance to this distinction; moreover, the enclitic particle -pát, attached in rev. 38 to the expression “men of the district,” might suggest a link or connection with the expression “men of the town” previously mentioned in rev. 36, 32 especially on the basis of the comparison with line 32. With regard to a deeper knowledge of the competences of the local community in the sphere of the provincial districts and its relations with the central government, it may be useful to remember that according to various texts from the archives of Hattusa the local community appears in some cases to have been charged by the sovereign with exercising a form of control over royal employees in the administration and government of the various state provinces, the idea being to prevent the latter from committing abuses that would result in their own personal advantage. 33 It is interesting in this context to recall that, in an edict issued by Tuthaliya I/II 34 that establishes who has or does not have the right to open a royal granary, 35 the “men of the town” are charged with the task of seizing whoever has opened the said granary against the royal will and taking the guilty person to the “king’s gate,” that 30. G. Beckman, in Atti II C.I.H., 26. 31. The fact that in these passages the above-mentioned obligations appear to be linked to the scribal profession of Tarhunmiya and that Tarhunmiya insists on being exempt from them prevents us from formulating the hypothesis that he, although a royal employee, also had the usufruct of lands situated in Tapika and belonging to the local communities which, for this reason, imposed the duties on him. Note, in this regard, that in §§40 and 41 of the collection of Hittite laws we find palace employees and members of the local communities associated in the usufruct of lands, which were in fact subject to sahhan (see F. Imparati, JESHO 25 [1983] 229ff. and 262). However, no reference is made in the letters relative to the case of Tarhunmiya (see n. 6) to duties linked to the usufruct of lands. 32. See CHD P, 214. 33. See F. Imparati, “Interventi di politica economica dei sovrani ittiti e stabilità del potere,” in Stato Economia Lavoro nel Vicino Oriente antico (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1988) 232–34. 34. KBo XIII 9 + KUB XL 62 (CTH 258). For the transliteration and translation of this text, see E. von Schuler, “Hethitische Königserlässe als Quellen der Rechtsfindung und ihr Verhältnis zum kodifizierten Recht,” in FsFriedrich (Heidelberg, 1959) 446ff. and also R. Westbrook and R. Woodard, “The Edict of Tuthaliya IV,” JAOS 110 (1990) 641ff.; in both cases, however, the text is attributed to Tuthaliya IV. See also the duplicate KBo XXVII 16. 35. III 3u–11u.

100

Fiorella Imparati

is, the royal court; should they fail to do this, they themselves, the “men of the town,” are obliged to indemnify the damage caused by the opening of the granary. This is a demonstration of the involvement in some cases of the local community by royal authority, which attributes to it both the function of guarantor in respecting the sovereign’s will and joint responsibility in the misdeed and corresponding punishment in the event that this will fails to be respected. 36 The letter HKM 52, under examination here, as we have said, appears to show that in certain circumstances the local community may have had the power to impose duties on someone, even, in this specific case, a royal functionary. 37 In admitting that such a possibility existed, we have now another element to delineate the competences of the local community in the provincial seats.

36. I wonder whether this joint responsibility was not due to the fact that the people who were prohibited from opening the king’s granary—AGRIG administrator, doorkeepers, and farmer—might also form part of the local communities, or at least have some connection with them. 37. In the case in question, as has already been pointed out, the provincial governor, Himuili, royal functionary, does not appear to put himself out excessively to protect the functionary who has suffered damages, namely the scribe Tarhunmiya.

Problems in Hittite History, Solved and Unsolved Horst Klengel Berlin

The study of Hittite history started at the very end of the 19th century, when the Amarna tablets pointed to the existence of a Hittite kingdom in Anatolia already in the second millennium b.c. Two of the Amarna letters were written in a hitherto unknown language (EA 31 and 32). After 1906, during the German excavations at Bogazköy, thousands of tablets in this language were unearthed, along with texts written in Akkadian, a language already well known from sites outside Anatolia. The diaries and reports of Hugo Winckler, the philologist of the excavations at Bogazköy, show that he was able to identify the site as Hattusa, the Hittite capital, and that he had already discovered rulers and episodes of Hittite history mentioned in these Akkadian cuneiform tablets. 1 But most of the Bogazköy texts have come down to us in a language that is considered the official language used in Hatti, that is, Hittite. As was suspected already, this is an Indo-European language; Winckler himself was convinced that this was actually the case. 2 The decisive proof was given by Bedrich Hrozny in 1915, two years after the death of Winckler, on the occasion of a lecture he gave in Berlin. This could be considered the real birthday of Hittitology. 3 Many chapters of Hittite history have been written during the following decades, but at the same time new questions have appeared.

1. H. Klengel, “Hugo Wincklers Tagebücher,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43 (1993) 511–16. 2. A postcard, dated 26.12.1907 and addressed by H. Winckler to the German historian G. Kossinna, points to his problem dealing with Indo-European matters that were beyond his own scholarly experience (Archiv der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Kossinna-Nachlaß, Sign. 299). 3. See, for example, K. K. Riemschneider, “Fünfzig Jahre Hethitologie,” Das Altertum 12 (1966) 174–87; H. Klengel, “Das Berliner Bogazköy-Archiv: Geschichte und Textedition,” in Ägypten—Vorderasien—Turfan: Probleme der Edition und Bearbeitung altorientalischer Handschriften (ed. H. Klengel and W. Sundermann); H. G. Güterbock, “Hans Ehelolf and the Bogazköy Archive in Berlin,” in Perspectives on Hittite Civilization: Selected Writings of Hans Gustav Güterbock (AS 26; ed. H. A. Hoffner Jr.; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1997) 1–5. The fact that, according to an agreement made by O. Weber with the Turkish authorities, thousands of tablets were sent to Berlin during the years 1915–1917 made this city a center of what now is Hittitology. These texts were returned to Turkey either after having been published in hand-copies or in 1987, when all the Botablets, both published and unpublished, were sent to the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara.

101

102

Horst Klengel

Some general problems, affecting both philologists and historians, are caused by the Hittite textual tradition itself. First, the bulk of the cuneiform material is fragmentary. The tablets, discovered in various depots in the Hittite capital 4 and in some provincial centers, normally were of a larger size. When the archives were destroyed, the tablets for the most part broke into many pieces. Therefore, the joining of fragments became an important prerequisite for interpretation. Second, we must always be aware of the fact that besides clay tablets there existed tablets of perishable material, such as wood or wood covered with wax. We know from some clay tablets that wooden tablets were used to record economic or legal affairs. An extensive text corpus has obviously been lost either through climate or fire. Third, the contents of the historical texts are more or less official and were written down in the royal chanceries or copied in scribal offices. Therefore, an official view of events and history is dominant, sometimes with a clear propagandistic intention. 5 This sometimes makes it difficult to assess the real meaning of a document. Fourth, Anatolian history is only scarcely reflected in the contemporary written traditions of other kingdoms, and it is not mentioned at all in later records, including those of Greek and Roman historians. Only the biblical tradition refers to the Hittites, but alluding to a population of early 1st-millennium Syria, not the Hittites of 2d-millennium Anatolia. The Hittite empire had fully disappeared from historical memory until it was rediscovered about a century ago. These general problems have contributed to the large number of question marks we have to insert when dealing with Hittite history, even after the enormous influx of written and archaeological sources and successful scholarly work done over many years. This is also the case with chronology. 6 Synchronisms help to establish an at least relative chronology, and paleographic and linguistic methods have gained great importance for the relative dating of texts. Absolute dates, depending on the chronological system applied to Ancient Near Eastern history in general, are mostly insecure or approximate. Even the number and sequence of Hittite great kings is not yet established with certainty. During the last three decades several new kings—such as Tahurwaili or Muwattalli I—have appeared in the texts, whereas others—such as a 4. As has become more and more evident, there were no specialized cuneiform archives in Hattusa; tablets belonging to one and the same dossier were discovered at different locations within the walls of Hattusa; see O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1999). It seems that tablets were also moved from one depot to another and sometimes remained at their last destination. 5. This aspect of Hittite “historiography” was widely discussed and has contributed to a more cautious approach to diplomatic texts; see the entries in V. Soucek and J. Siegelová, Systematische Bibliographie der Hethitologie 1915–1995, Vol. III (Prague, 1996) 12–14. 6. See, most recently, the overview given by S. de Martino, “Problemi di cronologia ittita,” La Parola del Passato 48 (1993) 218–40; for political history and pertinent scholarly discussions, see the Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches (Leiden: Brill, 1999) prepared by the author together with V. Haas, F. Imparati, and T. van den Hout. The present contribution therefore desists from mentioning the enormous number of publications devoted to Hittite history during the last decades, but see now Soucek and Siegelová, Systematische Bibliographie, Vol. III.

Problems in Hittite History, Solved and Unsolved

103

Hattusili II—are still under discussion. Here homonymy often creates additional problems. Apart from chronology, there is the question of historical periodization. Normally, history is understood as a complex interchange of political, economic, social, religious, and cultural developments with progressive phases and setbacks. The “historical” records of the Hittite archives are mostly concerned with political events, and the periods are therefore conventionally defined according to political or dynastic history. There was an early or formative period, the period of the establishment of the Hittite kingdom in Anatolia (Old Kingdom), the period of the defense of this kingdom against Anatolian and foreign enemies (Middle Kingdom), and the period of a Hittite empire, when Hatti extended its territory far into Syria and defended it against other powers, such as Egypt and Assyria (New Kingdom, empire period). This periodization largely corresponds to changes in writing and language as they normally appear during the course of centuries. It seems that there was no decisive break in the long dynastic tradition, and the genealogies of later Hittite kings may indicate that the Hittite rulers identified themselves with a continuity lasting over centuries. The creation of the state that we call Hittite is still a problem because pertinent contemporary sources are missing. We know from Old Assyrian tablets that speakers of Indo-European languages were already living in central Anatolia at that time. But after a period of about one century, which left no written sources, 7 a Hittite state, ruled from Hattusa, came to exist. We owe this information to a second introduction of the cuneiform script, taken over from Syria during the rule of Hattusili I. Between these periods, the forefathers of Hattusili probably ruled a small principality in central Anatolia, perhaps with Kussar as residence. 8 The state of Hatti seems to have developed as the result not of integration but of subordination of neighboring countries. This fact remained a problem and forced Hatti to defend its supremacy for as long as it existed, although the Hittites created administrative centers such as those that have been discovered at Ma§athöyük, Ortaköy, and Ku§aklı. Moreover, Hattusa itself was not a real city, that is, not a central place within a productive economic area, but a fortified residence and a cult center that also incorporated the veneration of gods of submissive countries. 9 The campaigns of Hattusili I and Mursili I beyond the Taurus aimed not only at forcing the submission or gaining control of areas in Syria and northern Mesopotamia, but also at strengthening royal power in Anatolia itself. Acquisition of prestige and booty, control of trade routes, and also the introduction of 7. The glyptic evidence from Karahöyük Level I certainly belongs in this gap (see now R. M. Boehmer, “Nochmals zur Datierung der Glyptik von Karahöyük Schicht I,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 46 [1996] 17–22). 8. This because of a later tradition. G. Steiner thinks that Hattusili I descended from the kings of Sanahuitta (“Die Zerstörung von Hattusa durch ‘Anitta’ und seine Wiederbesiedlung durch Hattusili I,” in XI Türk Tarih Kongresi [Ankara, 1994] 128). 9. See already H. Klengel, “Hattusa: Residence and Cult-Centre,” in The Town as Regional Economic Centre in the Ancient Near East (10th International Economic History Congress; ed. E. Aerts and H. Klengel; Leuven, 1990) 45–50.

104

Horst Klengel

Babylonian cuneiform writing from Syria served this intention; there is still no evidence for an administrative integration of the areas beyond the Taurus into the state of Hatti. As worshipers of the mighty weather-god, the Hittite kings gained special prestige when conquering countries in northern Syria (Halab) and Mesopotamia (Mittani) where the veneration of this god already had a long tradition. This cultic aspect of Hittite power had a real bearing on political history, and the transfer of a statue of the weather-god of Halab to Hattusa was certainly more than just an act of piety. 10 The second period of the Old Kingdom, which began when Mursili I raided Babylon and was murdered a short time later, ends with King Telipinu, famous for his edict that aimed to stabilize the dynasty after a period of murder and unrest. The introduction to this edict, nearly the only source for reconstructing the dynastic history of this time, had a clear message that obviously was conveyed to a certain public: disagreement within the royal house and struggle in Hatti would result in misfortune as a divine punishment. The purpose of this text makes it difficult to follow the real course of events. It is again a methodological problem: we know that the “historical” information handed down by the cuneiform tradition is often didactic or even “propagandistic” and therefore not always correct, but, nevertheless, we have to accept it as a tool of historical investigation. The period conventionally called the Middle Kingdom is an historical construct that became necessary after the reassessment of texts based on paleographic, linguistic, and historical criteria. Some of the kings of this period are homonymous with those of the older or younger kingdoms, and there is still insecurity as to the sequence of the rulers, or in some cases even their existence. As far as foreign relations are concerned, three political problems seem to be dominant: the rivalry with HurriMittani in southeastern Anatolia, the contest with the Aegean power of Ahhijawa in the west, and a political agreement with the kings of Kizzuwatna in Cilicia, who were in control of the route to Syria. Furthermore, in northern Anatolia the Hittite kings had to defend their territory against the continuous attacks of the Kaskaeans, tribal groups from the mountains who were not easily subdued. Tuthaliya II—whom we should call the first because there is still no proof for the existence of an earlier royal bearer of this name—was able to establish temporary Hittite control of northern Syria, if we follow a textual tradition of the empire period. This text, a treaty with a priestly king of Halab, refers to a King Hattusili, who could have been the second of his name—in case he is really to be inserted into the sequence of rulers. It is now certain that there was no dynastic change in Hattusa with Tuthaliya II, although a strong Hurrian cultural influence is now reflected even in the personal 10. The statue of the weather-god of Halab was transferred to Hattusa from Hassuwa, located somewhere not too far from the Amanus, a region with a long-lasting tradition of the veneration of this Syrian god and his family; it was venerated and supplied with offerings during the entire period of the Hittite kingdom. The fact that reliefs discovered in earlier levels of Ain Dara in northern Syria (Afrin valley) are nearly identical with those known from Yazılıkaya/Bogazköy underlines this traditional cultic relation.

Spread is 12 points short

Problems in Hittite History, Solved and Unsolved

105

names of the royal family. During the rule of his successors, simultaneous action by his enemies brought about a temporary decay of Hittite power and Hatti was again reduced to its core area in central Anatolia. The last period of Hittite history, from the middle of the 14th century to the early 12th century, starts with Suppiluliuma I. 11 Already in the time of his father, Tuthaliya III, he proved very successful at fighting against the enemies in Anatolia, but obviously it took years before he was able to extend his power beyond the Taurus and make northern Syria part of a Hittite empire. This period is therefore also documented by texts from other countries—Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia—although the exact chronological arrangement of the recorded events sometimes remains unclear. Furthermore, royal “propaganda” and historical facts are not always easy to discern. The submission of northern Syria to Suppiluliuma made Hatti a great power but created problems as to the organization of its control in a territory not only far from Hattusa, but also split up into a series of rival principalities. Subordination by treaties concluded with the relevant rulers was a principle already practiced in Anatolia, and it was now extended to northern and central Syria. Compared with Egyptian rule in southern Syria, this system seems to have been a more additive one, subordinating but not integrating the Syrian principalities. No provinces were established under Hittite governors, but some control was exercised by sons of Suppiluliuma who were installed at Karkamis and at Halab, centers with no local dynasties at that time. Karkamis was a stronghold on the Euphrates, Halab a city with a special historical and religious tradition. It seems more than fortuitous that Suppiluliuma installed his son Telipinu, bearing the name of a divine son of the Anatolian weathergod and educated as a priest of the weather-god, as king of Halab, whereas his son Piyassili, whose Hurrian name Sarri-Kusuh was obviously in agreement with the ethnic situation in and around Karkamis, had the primary task of exercising political control in the area of the Euphrates. During the following two centuries, Karkamis developed into a vice-kingdom of Hatti with increasing autonomy. Two of the Syrian principalities subordinated to Hatti through treaties gained special Hittite attention: Ugarit, the harbor city with close contact also to Ura in Cilicia and obviously a mediator for the transfer of goods, especially grain, to Hittite Anatolia; and Amurru in central Syria, in control of the southern trade routes and bordering on the Egyptian territories. Hittite documents discovered in Ugarit clearly point to the efforts of the great kings to avoid trouble between these principalities, that is, unrest in Syria. We see that Karkamis often interfered in Syrian affairs, and that there was even a special office allowed to act in the name of the great king. Many decisions of the great

11. Some scholars prefer to begin this period already with Tuthaliya I/II, who also renewed Hittite military activities beyond the Taurus. He subdued Syrian territories, but we have no evidence so far that he also tried to establish Hittite administration in these areas. During the rule of his successors, Hittite power was reduced again to central Anatolia. Therefore an “empire period” is better begun with Suppiluliuma I.

Horst Klengel

106

king discovered at Ugarit made their way through the scribal offices of Karkamis, which are still waiting to be discovered. Obviously, peculiarities in style or writing could be explained by this fact. 12 As far as foreign relations of the Hittite empire are concerned, two kingdoms received special attention: Egypt and Assyria. The Hittite-Egyptian rivalry focused on the control of central Syria, Amurru, and started at least after a Hittite prince who was intended to become the husband of the Egyptian queen, obviously the widow of Tutankhamon, died in Egyptian territory. 13 This so-called “Zannanza” affair should be seen against the background of the internal situation in Egypt, and although it caused a latent enmity between Hatti and Egypt, both sides avoided a direct military confrontation. An epidemic in Hatti, introduced by Egyptian prisoners-ofwar at the time of Suppiluliuma I and still raging during the early years of Mursili II, should possibly also be considered in this context. Perhaps this can be connected with the so-called “Canaanite illness” mentioned in Egyptian medical texts. Later, Muwattalli II fought against Ramesses II at Qades, and Hittite tradition seems to be quite correct when pointing to Amurru as the real object of quarrel. The HittiteEgyptian correspondence at the time of Hattusili III and Ramesses II, now available in an up-to-date edition, 14 prepared for and accompanied both a treaty of peace and a dynastic marriage. Ramesses refers to Hattusili as having taken the first step toward a reconciliation with Egypt. This may be correct, given the internal and external situation of Hatti: Hattusili gained the throne by sending the great king Mursili III— or by his Hurrian name, Urhi-Tesub—into exile, a matter discussed in the HittiteEgyptian correspondence and one that obviously created problems with regard to the internal and international reputation of Hattusili. He defended his behavior in the socalled “Apology” later on, and he proudly remarks that foreign rulers nevertheless sent their messengers and greetings—but did so, it seems, after a period of hesitation. As has now become certain, the rule of Urhi-Tesub was not just a short episode and was more effective than the Apology admits. “Brotherhood” with the Egyptian pharaoh was also necessary for the Hittites because of the expansion of the Middle Assyrian kingdom to the Euphrates. The Hittites now had to focus their attention on relations with their neighbors in Upper Mesopotamia. The correspondence of Hat12. For the administrative role of Karkamis, see also E. Neu, “Hethiter und Hethitisch in Ugarit,” in Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient (ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995) 115–29. 13. Although Suppiluliuma accuses the pharaoh Ai/Eje of having murdered the Hittite prince, the Egyptian pharaoh washes his hands in innocence. Or was the prince a victim of the epidemic that broke out in Syria during the later years of Suppiluliuma and spread to both Anatolia and Egypt? See H. Klengel, “Epidemien im spätbronzezeitlichen Syrien-Palästina,” in Michael: Historical, Epigraphical, and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer (ed. Y. Avishur and R. Deutsch; Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center, 1999) 187–93. 14. E. Edel, Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache, I-II (Opladen, 1994).

sparead is 1 pica short

Problems in Hittite History, Solved and Unsolved

107

tusili and his successors with the kings of Assyria has come down to us but some questions of chronology are still under discussion. 15 Still problematic is the role played by the country of Tarhuntassa in southern Asia Minor during the later part of the Hittite empire period. The discussion started in 1988 when the full text of a bronze tablet with a treaty between Tuthaliya IV and Kurunta of Tarhuntassa was published. 16 It seems clear that Tarhuntassa had gained a position in southern Anatolia comparable to that of Karkamis in Syria. But whether there was really a coupe d’état by Kurunta in Hattusa is still under discussion. It is a matter of fact that his seal impression was discovered in Bogazköy designating him as both tabarna and great king. 17 The latter is not astonishing because of the half-autonomous position that both Tarhuntassa and Karkamis had gained by that time, but the traditional title tabarna is rather enigmatic. Up to now, it is the only evidence for the brief rule of the already elderly Kurunta in Hattusa. Recently it was proposed that his brief rule should be placed not during but after the reign of Tuthaliya IV. 18 If so, this could perhaps explain the military campaign of Suppiluliuma II against Tarhuntassa mentioned in the so-called Südburg inscription; 19 on the other hand, Kurunta, son of Muwattalli II, would have been rather old at that time. The last historical problem to be mentioned here is that of the breakdown, or rather disintegration, of the Hittite empire. There seems to have been more than one reason for the final collapse. We have, quite naturally, no Hittite textual evidence for this event, and the last decades of the empire are apparently not documented by cuneiform texts from Hattusa. There is only a brief note in an Egyptian inscription of Ramesses III that Hatti and all the countries of the eastern Levant were defeated by the so-called Sea-peoples. Hittite texts indicate a sea-battle near Cyprus against unnamed enemies, possibly groups of Sea-Peoples, but no text so far points to the advance of immigrating groups in central Anatolia. Texts from Ugarit mention smaller groups of these Sea-Peoples arriving in the Levant, and the archaeological evidence 15. Studies in the Middle Assyrian period of Upper Mesopotamia are now aided by the discovery of cuneiform archives, in addition to Ashur (Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta), at Dur-Katlimmu (Sheikh Hamad), Harbe (Tall Huera), and Tall Sabi Abyad (called Dunni Assur in the texts). But some help for establishing the chronology of this period is also to be expected from Ugarit and from the still unexcavated Late Bronze Age Karkamis. 16. H. Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazköy: Ein Staatsvertrag Tuthalijas IV (Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten Beiheft 1; Wiesbaden, 1988). For the discussion, still ongoing, see the literature mentioned in StBoT 38. 17. Otten, Die Bronzetafel, 4–5; idem, Die 1986 in Bogazköy gefundene Bronzetafel: Zwei Vorträge (Innsbruck, 1989). 18. M. Astour, “Who Was the King of the Hurrian Troops at the Siege of Emar?” in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age (ed. M. W. Chavalas; Bethesda, 1996) 51. 19. J. D. Hawkins, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (Südburg) (Wiesbaden, 1995); the discussion of the historical and topographical problems offered by this inscription is still in its beginnings.

108

Horst Klengel

for destructions at Ugarit and other settlements on the coast could perhaps be understood as the result of their raids. The date is now lowered because of texts from Ugarit that point to a rather long reign of Ammurapi, the last ruler of this city, a contemporary also of the pharaoh Siptah. 20 As far as Hattusa is concerned, some public buildings were destroyed and the administrative and cultic areas were obviously abandoned in a hurry and left to decay. Hattusa lost its function and thereby its role as a central place. There are no traces of a foreign attack visible so far, no foreign artifacts were excavated as is the case in Ugarit. But there are also no hints of a decay of royal power during the last decades of the empire; the so-called Südburg inscription, written in hieroglyphic Luwian, mentions a victory of Suppiluliuma II, obviously the last great king of Hatti, over Tarhuntassa. 21 And, moreover, Suppiluliuma had the time to honor the memory of his father Tuthaliya IV by devoting to him a chamber at Yazılıkaya. To understand better what was going on, we should look beyond the Taurus and connect the fate of Hatti with political events in other areas. It was quite correct to entitle a book on the changes that occurred in Western Asia during the time around and after 1200 not “Dark Ages,” but “Crisis years,” 22 and both H. G. Güterbock and H. A. Hoffner, Jr. have contributed to it, devoting their articles to two phenomena: the end of Hattusa and the survival of dynasties in Tarhuntassa and Karkamis. That there was practically a division of the empire into three parts—that is, Hatti, Tarhuntassa, and Karkamis—deserves special attention and is clearly demonstrated also by texts from Ugarit. 23 They indicate closer contact of its last king, Ammurapi, with the pharaoh; he was even eager to erect a statue of the new Egyptian king Merenptah in the temple of Baal. 24 Did he nevertheless send tribute to Hattusa? A formal Hittite treaty with Karkamis on terms of equality had been concluded by Suppiluliuma II. This points not only to the nearly autonomous status of Syria but also to a certain drifting away from Hatti, and the Südburg-inscription of this king indicates the same for Tarhuntassa. There was hunger and unrest in Hatti, mentioned in both Hittite and Egyptian sources; in Hattusa, on Büyükkaya, large silos, mainly for grain, were built and secured by fortifications. This food was 20. For the last period of Ugarit, see now M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil (ed.), Le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av.J.-C. (Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI; Paris, 1995); see especially the contributions of M. Liverani and R. Lebrun. 21. J. D. Hawkins, Hieroglyphic Inscription. One could speculate whether Suppiluliuma II left Hattusa and transferred the Hittite capital to another city, maybe Tarhuntassa. At present, there are no texts available that could support this assumption; should they be looked for at TarhuntassaCity? 22. W. A. Ward and M. Sharp Joukowsky (ed.), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century b.c. (Dubuque, Iowa, 1992). See now also the volume Yon, Sznycer, and Bordreuil (ed.), Le pays d’Ougarit, especially the contributions by M. Liverani and R. Lebrun. 23. See also M. Liverani, in Le pays d’Ougarit (RSOu XI; ed. Yon, Sznycer, and Bordreuil) 49. This tripartition was certainly not only a political one but had consequences also in the economic sphere. 24. See the preliminary publication of the contents of this letter of pharaoh Merenptah by S. Lackenbacher in Le pays d’Ougarit (RSOu XI; ed. Yon, Sznycer, and Bordreuil) 77–79.

Problems in Hittite History, Solved and Unsolved

109

needed, on the one hand, for the enormous cultic consumption but, on the other hand, there was obviously a crisis in the tributary system on which the Hittite state depended. This crisis of the palace economy can be assumed also for other areas of the Near East, and perhaps it was connected with a period of decrease in food production, especially smaller yields of grain, in all areas with rain-fed agriculture, obviously for both climatic and social reasons. The kingdoms of Assyria, Egypt, and Babylonia were able to survive this crisis; Hatti did not. Together with the Hittite administration, the cuneiform system of writing disappeared from Anatolia, and it was never revived because it was no longer needed. In contrast, hieroglyphic Luwian survived for several centuries; it did not depend on royal offices and was connected with a language that had never lost its importance. Thus we still have many questions concerning the end of the Hittite state in Anatolia, but it seems clear that the disintegration of the Hittite empire and the collapse of its economic system had already started years before Hattusa was abandoned by its inhabitants. During the 11th century, a small village existed at Büyükkaya, the area of the silos, and during the 9th century Phrygians settled in the area of the former city of the great kings and thousand gods.

110

Horst Klengel

Gavurkalesi: Investigations at a Hittite Sacred Place Stephen Lumsden The Carsten Niebuhr Institute, University of Copenhagen

Gavurkalesi is situated in the center of a narrow, 2 kilometer-long valley in rough, badlands country some 60 kilometers southwest of Ankara (fig. 1). The wellknown reliefs and structural remains at Gavurkalesi are located on a natural hill that rises 60 meters above the valley floor (fig. 2). The fairly level summit of the hill measures approximately 70 x 90 meters in extent (fig. 3). The surrounding landscape presents a mainly treeless aspect, broken by limestone outcrops. Plentiful springs provide water year-round. Hans Henning von der Osten undertook a single brief campaign at Gavurkalesi in 1930 (von der Osten 1933). He documented three periods of occupation at the site (fig. 4): the Hittite period was represented by the reliefs, a cyclopean structure on the summit of the hill, above the reliefs, and a series of walls and towers that extend around the hill from its eastern to its southern slope, below the reliefs; Phrygianperiod ceramics predominated, and he dated a wall that encircled the summit of the hill and a building on top of the rock outcrop that he called a “mansion” to this period; a less substantial occupation in the Roman period seemed to be represented by a few scattered potsherds. In 1993–94, two preliminary seasons of a new project at Gavurkalesi were undertaken under the auspices of Bilkent University, Ankara (Lumsden 1995; 1996). Work was mainly directed toward the initial stages of a topographical survey, an archaeological surface survey, and the documentation of surface architecture. This paper is based on the data collected during these initial seasons of what is hoped will be a long-term project. While von der Osten, who spent only 10 days on site, was mainly concerned with the summit of the Gavurkalesi hill, the new project has been able to investigate the valley system around the monument (fig. 5), and it has already added considerable new information about the history of settlement around Gavurkalesi (Lumsden 1995: 270–72). Preliminary indications are that the initial human use of the valley began perhaps as early as the Upper Palaeolithic at Gavurkalesi itself (Harmankaya and Tanindi 1996; but see Lumsden 1995: 270) and continued in the Early Bronze Age at Samutlu, at the eastern end of the valley. Less substantial settlement at Gavurkalesi and 111

112

Stephen Lumsden

Fig. 1. Location of Gavurkalesi.

Fig. 2. View of the summit of the Gavurkalesi hill from the south.

Gavurkalesi: Investigations at a Hittite Sacred Place

113

Fig. 3. Topographic plan of Gavurkalesi.

Samutlu was documented for the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Evidence for later occupation within the Gavurkalesi valley is extremely scarce, and possibly already in the Roman period it was abandoned by its human occupants and used solely for cultivation and the grazing of livestock, just as it is today. It is in the Hittite and Phrygian periods, however, that the most significant contributions have been made by the new project. Quite unexpectedly, Phrygian Gavurkalesi was a much more substantial place than the simple hillfort described by von der Osten. Ceramics of a mainly Middle Phrygian date in the 7th and 6th centuries b.c. predominated in all areas surveyed (including Samutlu at the eastern end of the valley), and at Gavurkalesi they cover an area of about 1000 meters east–west, along the valley floor, by about 500 meters north–south, at the Gavurkalesi hill (fig. 6). In addition, visible architecture, most of which probably dates to the Phrygian occupation, is not confined to the summit and upper slopes of the Gavurkalesi hill, but stretches from its summit to its base at the valley floor (Lumsden 1996) (fig. 7 here). The structures of the Phrygian settlement at Gavurkalesi, then, were constructed on the summit and slopes of the Gavurkalesi hill and on the surrounding valley slopes and terraces, sometimes, it seems, in association with rock outcrops.

114

Stephen Lumsden

Fig. 4. After von der Osten 1933: Fig. 56.

The new investigations also seem to indicate a settlement in the Hittite period quite different from that tentatively described by von der Osten. His suggested reconstruction of Hittite Gavurkalesi has, of course, formed the basis for all later discussions of its function. To recapitulate: the reliefs are carved on the sheer southern face of the limestone outcrop, which measures some 16 meters in height at its highest point. They depict standard representations of Hittite deities (fig. 8). Two male deities stand in poses of adoration before what is probably a seated female deity. The male deities measure 3.5 meters in height and are depicted with multi-horned crowns, short kilts, and upturned shoes. The forward figure, on the left, is clean-shaven, while the figure behind, on the right, is bearded. The seated figure is carved more than 3 meters above the present ground surface and measures approximately 2.5 meters in height.

Gavurkalesi: Investigations at a Hittite Sacred Place

115

Fig. 5. Sketch plan of the Gavurkalesi Valley.

To the left of the seated figure is a broad, smoothed-off area with a ledge, measuring 6 x 4 meters. Usually this feature is explained as an area prepared for a relief or inscription that was either never carved or has worn off, or as a place for portable representations of deities (Kohlmeyer 1983: 46–47). In von der Osten’s reconstruction, access to the reliefs would have been by means of a processional road that is represented by a series of retaining walls that extend around the eastern slope to just below the reliefs (von der Osten 1933: 77) (see fig. 3). Here two huge towers of roughly cut limestone boulders and an intervening wall would have supported a ramp that led to the reliefs. The cyclopean structure on the summit measures approximately 35 x 37 meters in von der Osten’s reconstruction and is built of large basalt or, more probably, andesite blocks fitted together in imperial Hittite fashion (fig. 9). A probable source for these stones are outcrops about 5 kilometers to the east, near the village of Oyaca. In an inset in the north face, directly in line with the relief of the seated deity, is a vaulted chamber. An offset doorway, 1.75 meters in height, leads to a room measuring 3 x 4.65 meters. Unlike the corbel vaulting in the postern gates and Chamber 2 at Bogazkale, the chamber at Gavurkalesi is capped by monolithic blocks (fig. 10), similar to the postern gates at Alaca Hüyük (von der Osten 1937: 7, figs. 26–27) and at Külhüyük (Mermerci 1994: 18, figs. 5–6), just 12 kilometers away from Gavurkalesi and currently being excavated by the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in

116

Stephen Lumsden

Fig. 6. Location of survey areas.

Ankara. Külhüyük and Gavurkalesi may have been joined as a single political or cultic entity in the Hittite period (Ertem 1995). Because he apparently did not find any Hittite period ceramics, von der Osten suggested that Gavurkalesi represented an isolated cultic monument. He proposed that the chamber actually provided access to the smoothed-off summit of the rock outcrop by means of a hole in the back wall and a stairway behind (von der Osten 1933: 73). Since then it has been argued that the chamber was originally a tomb and that its back wall was pierced later to give access to the building constructed in the Phrygian period atop the cyclopean structure. The funerary character of the monument at Gavurkalesi in the Hittite period has generally been accepted (Kohlmeyer 1983: 44; for another view, see Mellaart 1984: 71). It is certain that scrambling through the hole in the back wall would have been a difficult and undignified means of reaching the top of the rock outcrop above the reliefs. In view of what is now known about the scale of the Phrygian settlement at Gavurkalesi, it may be suggested that the chamber did not offer access on to the rock outcrop in that period either. In light of data gathered in recent seasons, von der Osten’s conception of the Hittite monument at Gavurkalesi must be modified. Hittite ceramics, for instance, are relatively abundant on the southern slopes below the reliefs and on a single ter-

Gavurkalesi: Investigations at a Hittite Sacred Place

117

Fig. 7. Location of surface architecture at Gavurkalesi.

race directly across the narrow valley floor from the reliefs (GKS1, 4, and 5, and SVS1 in fig. 6). And, although the structures now visible on the surface along the probably artificial terraces midway down the slope of the Gavurkalesi hill may date to the Phrygian period, it seems possible that buildings contemporary with the reliefs and cyclopean structure may have been constructed on the slopes and broad terrace below the reliefs and on the terrace directly across from them. While von der Osten’s suggestion of a ceremonial road and ramp leading to the reliefs makes perfect sense within the framework of his reconstruction of the site, the connection of these walls and towers to the other Hittite elements needs to be reconsidered. Although he seems to imply that the towers below the reliefs are constructed of andesite (von der Osten 1933: 77), only the cyclopean structure is constructed of this material, and it is pecked and fitted together in Hittite style. All other walls are constructed of locally quarried limestone. A huge tower on the southeastern slope and an extension of the wall from the tower below the reliefs up to the western corner of the rock outcrop may, then, represent later additions to the Hittite access route, or they more probably indicate that all of these features below the reliefs belong to the Phrygian period settlement (fig. 11).

118

Stephen Lumsden

Fig. 8. Reliefs.

A deviation from von der Osten’s plan of the cyclopean structure is an extension down-slope on its western side, which seems to indicate that a platform here followed the line of the rock outcrop to its western edge (fig. 12). Indeed, this feature had already been recognized by the first European visitors to Gavurkalesi (Perrot and Guillaume 1865). Clear evidence for this western extension is found in the laid wall that runs down-slope, and the niche cut in the end-stone of the western wall for the laying of a connecting stone in the transverse wall. If it is accepted that the chamber did not offer access on to the cyclopean structure, then there does not seem to have been any obvious way onto the smoothed-off summit of the outcrop. That the walls of the structure were much higher originally is demonstrated by the great number of displaced andesite blocks that strew the steep western slope and the summit adjacent to the eastern wall and below the reliefs (fig. 13). That it was a more complex edifice than a simple retaining structure may be indicated by the location of displaced architectural elements on the southeastern edge of the summit, such as a possible lintel stone (fig. 14) and what appears to have been a column or statue base, which was reused in one of the towers of the wall that encircles the summit (see fig. 13). Hittite Gavurkalesi, then, has been shown to be a more complex and a more extensive place than that tentatively reconstructed by von der Osten. If the three ele-

Gavurkalesi: Investigations at a Hittite Sacred Place

119

Fig. 9. Southeastern corner of the cyclopean structure.

ments of the site—the reliefs, the cyclopean structure with its chamber, and an occupation represented by the surface scatter of ceramics—are contemporary, then the new information may offer support for a proposal that Gavurkalesi was a NA4hekur ‘Stone House’ (Güterbock 1967: 81, Naumann 1955: 408–9). The evidence for an accompanying settlement, perhaps representing the auxiliary buildings, storage facilities, and domestic units of an administrative complex, may suggest a type of cultic institution, funerary or otherwise, that was bequeathed agricultural land and villages and that played a role in the organization and administration of the Hittite countryside (Imparati 1977). The unique quality of the site—it is the only site outside of the imperial capital to combine reliefs carved in the natural stone with cyclopean masonry—and the motivation for the tremendous outlay of energy, represented by the quarrying of the

120

Stephen Lumsden

Fig. 10. Chamber in the northern wall of the cyclopean structure.

andesite blocks, their transportation to Gavurkalesi, and their placement in the cyclopean structure atop the hill, and for a possible transformation of the natural shape of the hill itself, are riddles that cannot yet be solved. However, it seems beyond doubt that Gavurkalesi was an imperial establishment. Gavurkalesi, in fact, probably played an important role in many of the Hittite “Landscapes.” It was located on what may have been an important road that connected the west with the Hittite heartland (Börker-Klähn 1982: 257). The area directly west of the Kızılırmak, including Gavurkalesi, may also have constituted a frontier zone (Mellaart 1984: 71–72; Bryce 1986). It was surely located in a special place in the Hittite “Ritual Landscape.” Its connection with springs, a high place, and a sheer rock outcrop—all places of cultic significance for the Hittites (Popko 1995: 140–41)—is obvious. Less obvious, but possibly as important, is its location at the boundary between two very different landscapes. It has been suggested that elsewhere, but most especially in Western Europe, the construction of monuments at such places may have acted to “capture” a dangerous landscape (Bradley 1991; 1994, Roymans 1995). It is in this liminal zone at the boundary between an open landscape in the broad valley that leads from Ankara to Konya, and the closed—or enclosed— landscape of rough Haymana that Gavurkalesi is located (fig. 15). The construction

Gavurkalesi: Investigations at a Hittite Sacred Place

121

Fig. 11. Plan of the walls and towers below the reliefs.

of the monument at Gavurkalesi at this juncture may suggest that the Hittite capture of this, perhaps dangerous, landscape was both a military and a ritual endeavor. Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to the Directorate of Monuments and Museums, and its then Director General, Dr. Engin Özgen, for permission to work at Gavurkalesi, and to Mr. Ilhan Temizsoy, Director of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, in Ankara, for his kind assistance. Special thanks to the many Bilkent students who have taken part in the project for their hard work and contributions to the “new” Gavurkalesi. Both seasons were wholly funded by Bilkent University. All photographs are by the author. All the plans were made by Stevan Beverly, except for fig. 5, which was drawn by Mette Qvistorff.

122

Stephen Lumsden

Fig. 12. Plan of the western extension of the cyclopean structure.

Bibliography Börker-Klähn, J. 1982 Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und Vergleichbare Felsreliefs. Baghdader Forschungen 4. Mainz am Rhein. Bradley, R. 1991 “Monuments and Places.” Pp. 135–40 in Sacred and Profane. Edited by P. Garwood et al. Oxford. Bradley, R. 1994 “Symbols and Signposts—Understanding the Prehistoric Petroglyphs of the British Isles.” In The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Edited by C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow. Cambridge. Bryce, T. R. 1986 “The Boundaries of Hatti and Hittite Border Policy.” Tel Aviv 13: 85–102. Ertem, H. 1995 “Ein Versuch über den Namen Külhüyük in den Keilschrifttexten der assyrischen Handelskolonien und der Hethiter.” Archivum Anatolicum 1: 88–100. Güterbock, H. G. 1967 “The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26: 73–81.

Gavurkalesi: Investigations at a Hittite Sacred Place

123

Fig. 13. Location of the displaced andesite stones.

Harmankaya, S., and O. Tanindi 1996 Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerle§meleri, 1: Paleolitik/Epipaleolitik. Istanbul. Imparati, F. 1977 “Le Istituzione Cultuali del NA4hekur il Potere Centrale Ittita.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 16: 19–64. Kohlmeyer, K. 1983 “Felsbilder der hethitischen Grossreichzeit.” Acta praehistoricae et archaeologicae 15: 7–154. Lumsden, S. 1995 “Gavurkalesi, 1993.” Pp. 267–80 in XII Ara§tirma Sonuçlari Toplantısı. Ankara. Lumsden, S. 1996 “Gavurkalesi, 1994.” Pp. 181–84 in XIII Ara§tirma Sonuçlari Toplantısı. Ankara. Mellaart, J. 1984 “Troy VIIA in Anatolian Perspective.” Pp. 63–82 in The Trojan War: Its Historicity and Context. Edited by L. Foxhall and J. K. Davies. Bristol. Mermerci, D. 1994 “Oyaca Kasabası Külhüyük 1992 Kurtarma Kazısı.” Pp. 17–38 in IV. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri. Ankara. Naumann, R. 1955 Architektur Kleinasiens. Tübingen.

124

Stephen Lumsden

Fig. 14. Lintel stone.

Fig. 15. View of Gavurkalesi from the Oyaca-Haymana road.

Gavurkalesi: Investigations at a Hittite Sacred Place

125

Osten, H. H. von der 1933 “Gavurkalesi.” Oriental Institute Communications 14: 56–90. 1937 The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1930–32, Part II. Oriental Institute Publications XXIX. Chicago. Perrot, G., and E. Guillaume 1865 “Ghiaour-Kalé-si.” Revue Archéologique n.s. VI: 1–14. Popko, M. 1995 Religions of Asia Minor. Warsaw. Roymans, N. 1995 “The Cultural Biography of Urnfields and the Long-term History of a Mythical Landscape.” Archaeological Dialogues 2: 2–24.

126

Stephen Lumsden

Comparative Observations on Hittite Rituals Gregory McMahon University of New Hampshire

In a recent monograph on the creation of Ancient Near Eastern studies in America, which he titles Puritans in Babylon, the intellectual historian Bruce Kuklick has attempted to situate our field’s beginnings in the broader intellectual context of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His argument focuses on a confluence of intellectual developments including Darwinism, higher criticism in biblical studies, the beginnings of anthropology (including the identification and study of magic), and the rise in America of interest in the Near East. Understanding the origins of the disciplines that Kuklick examines bears on the discussion of defining magic, or how to approach it, which is dominating discussions of theory and in which Hittitologists must continue to participate. 1 A discipline growing up just as what Kuklick characterizes as the “European Christian” worldview was being challenged, even dismantled, might have been expected to discard the Christian castigation of magic and to approach it more as recent anthropological work has done. That might have happened had that worldview not been replaced, as a natural outworking of the way in which it was challenged, by a way of thinking that was initially, at least, as negative in its perception of magic as the Christian view had been. The West, the product most directly of Greek rationalism, Judaism, and Christianity, has a long tradition of self-analysis that developed strict categories of “science,” “medicine,” and “religion.” It was within this framework of rational inquiry that we turned our attention to cultures considered foreign without, however, sufficient caution in mitigating our culture’s natural tendency to judge by its own experience and standards. To a certain extent, the history of our field, or at least of the study of magic, is a history of developing that caution. Today, anthropologists attempt (and encourage other scholars also to attempt) to describe cultures with as little reference to the home culture as possible. Our tradition of scholarship has grown into an appreciation of the people we study such that we attempt to understand their approach to the cosmos, their divisions of human roles and activities. Such an approach for Ancient Near Eastern studies goes back at least to Landsberger, 1. See A. Ünal, “The Role of Magic in the Ancient Anatolian Religions,” in Essays on Anatolian Studies in the Second Millennium b.c. (ed. T. Mikasa; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1988) 52–60 for discussion of situating Hittite ritual within the broader study of magic.

127

128

Gregory McMahon

noted by Ünal, and is argued for passionately by Robert Ritner in his monograph on Egyptian magic. 2 Although the Hittites themselves distinguished between EZEN ‘festival’ and SISKUR ‘(magical) ritual,’ their categories do not necessarily fit ours. Terminology and categorizing always simplify reality, even when the categories are supplied by the ancients themselves. We often criticize previous scholars’ division of evidence or taxonomies of human actions. Yet we simultaneously find them useful, because they stem from people with whom we continue to share aspects of worldview or experience. We therefore must understand and use native terminology, which in our field is really mostly that of text genre, as well as recognize that we have categories such as “magic,” “science,” or “religion” embedded rather deeply in our psyche. Ünal, in his article on the role of magic in ancient Anatolia, notes the recent tendency to draw no distinction between magic and religion, but he also often finds it necessary to utilize the distinction for his discussion. If “magic” is ubiquitous, at least in Mediterranean antiquity, and simultaneously culturally specific, then what about it is universal and allows it to be recognized as such wherever we “find” it? If magic is the meeting of mythology and method, where theology, or worldview, moves into the realm of practical application, and if I may cautiously use this dual (magic and religion) system of terminology, then “magical” elements cut across many text genres. Legal procedures such as oath and ordeal, as well as the oaths that seal treaties, are magical. While we depend upon and utilize the Hittites’ division of their activities and experience, which for us is really a division either of records of experience (texts) or of architectural space, we must also use some of our own terminology in describing their world in a way that makes sense to us. Working with our own as well as Hittite categories will also facilitate our communication with scholars outside the field. An element of Kuklick’s argument concerning the rise of Ancient Near Eastern studies that I think he should have posited more strongly concerns novelty. The Ancient Near East was being “discovered” by Europeans and Americans in the nineteenth century as an object of inquiry. This was exciting partly because it was all new to us and older than Greece and Rome. It had the dual advantage of not having been worked over by generations of scholars and of being of greater antiquity. That has led to a strong tendency to separate study of the Ancient Near East from study of the so-called “classical” civilizations. Kuklick chronicles the creation of departments of Ancient Near Eastern studies separate from both History and Classics departments—this was natural since the other departments were already in place. “Ancient History” to Americans, even to historians, almost universally means the history of Greece and Rome. This separation of disciplines may have built in a sense that the Ancient Near East is supposed to be different from the “classical” cultures. We work comparatively within our self-defined field of the Ancient Near East—the nature of cross-cultural and international political contacts 2. Ünal, “Role of Magic,” 56–58; Robert Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice (SAOC 54; Chicago: Oriental Institute) 4ff.

Comparative Observations on Hittite Rituals

129

within that world requires it. However, if we believe that much of the culture of later Mediterranean antiquity in fact derives from an older Near Eastern tradition, and if we further believe that Anatolia is one of the prime contact zones, where Greeks had access to older Ancient Near Eastern traditions, then I hope we will continue to explore possible survivals of Hittite culture (in this case) in later traditions of the Mediterranean. I would like to take as an example one possible point of comparison between the Hittites and Greeks. We know the Greeks, among other things, as the creators of rational inquiry, of attempts to explain the universe without recourse to received traditions. Their intellectual history is in this way different from the Hittites, but the Greeks never stopped utilizing magic as well. The differences in available evidence for the two cultures pose certain problems for any attempt at comparison. Especially from the later Greek period, the record is rich in private magical handbooks and short spells, as well as charms and amulets. 3 In fact one of the features of Hittite magic that looks unusual to scholars working with other cultures is its apparent lack of reliance on amulets or phylacteries. This could be because, as Güterbock has argued, Hittite magical rituals are designed to cleanse of impurity or black magic already infecting the client. This contrasts with the worldview implicit in the evidence of Classical and Hellenistic Greek spells and rituals, which presuppose a world rife with demons actively malevolent and apparently lying in wait for the unprotected. The Hellenistic milieu is of course synthetic, and evidence therefrom represents a rich combination of Greek and Near Eastern traditions. Nevertheless, the Hellenistic Greek evidence indicates a rather different worldview from that derived from the extant Hittite documentary evidence. One is struck in comparing these traditions with the apparent difference in the aims of each. Hittite magical rituals are performed primarily to cure or heal, to purify, to undo illicit magic. Greek magic includes examples of transformational ability, such as Circe displays in the Odyssey, and the ability to summon the dead, in Odysseus’s famous trip to the underworld. 4 However, the majority of the evidence indicates emphasis either on cursing or on apotropaic magic. The latter aspect of Greek magic is not surprising given the former! The abundant evidence from the Greek world for magical cursing has prompted me to think more about Hittite cursing and to recognize its essential and public aspect in Hittite life as well, attested both in the rituals and in other areas of activity. The curses (and blessings) enforcing the treaty oaths are well known. They sometimes utilize explicit analogies to reinforce their effectiveness. These curses are perhaps the closest thing in the Hittite corpus to what scholars of Greek magic call spells. Hittite inscriptions from the late period, such as the Meharde stele, usually include a curse against any person who would remove or appropriate the 3. See for example H. D. Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986) and several articles in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). 4. Odyssey X:230ff; Odyssey XI.

130

Gregory McMahon

stele or inscription. 5 Cursing in the Hittite world is acceptable in the public sphere and is essential as a sanction for the functioning of certain institutions, if directed at those deserving cursing. However, at least as important as public cursing is the private, illicit cursing inferred from the laws and the rituals to counteract sorcery. A ritual for the Tutelary Deity of the Hunting Bag and the Heptad provides an example of pre-emptive magic to avert potential danger. 6 In this case, the potential curses of the king’s retinue are absorbed by an oily cake that swabs out the mouth. Secret cursing by those closest to the royal family and therefore best positioned to do harm is considered a sufficient threat that this ritual cleansing of the mouth is prescribed. We cannot expect descriptions of the procedures for secret cursing or black magic to be part of the rituals deposited in the state archives. The practice of illicit or private cursing must be inferred from other evidence. It is implicit in law 170, which prescribes serious penalties for killing a snake while naming a victim, an example of cursing by sorcery. Many of the “magical” rituals are designed to counteract the effects of sorcery; the methods employed give us some insight into how the sorcery must have been done, as the practitioner often undoes the hexing by performing the same manipulations of materia magica in reverse. Just undoing the sorcery against the client is insufficient in some cases; the practitioner may also curse the unknown sorcerer—which is allowable because he is an offender and deserves to be cursed. 7 Thus the Hittite use of curses as part of their social system shows both a public, legal manifestation and a private, illicit side. The public curses of treaties and inscriptions often call upon the sanction of deities, including most prominently the leading ouranian gods of the pantheon. By contrast, there are some indications that private cursing could invoke chthonic deities; the snake of law 170 is certainly associated with the earth. In a counter-sorcery ritual 8 the Old Woman makes an offering to the spirits of the clay pit and asks them to release the client, if it is they who are binding him. At least two corpora of evidence for the phenomenon of cursing in the Greek world provide possible points of comparison between Hittites and Greeks. Interestingly, these two types of evidence reflect this distinction between secret cursing, presumably against the “innocent,” and public cursing of those guilty of sacrilege or destruction of property. One of these two corpora is the large number of funerary inscriptions from Greek Anatolia that incorporate imprecations against future desecrators of the tomb in their formulae. Some of these have been published by Strubbe in the collection of 5. See J. D. Hawkins, “The Lower Part of the Meharde Stele,” AnSt 38 (1988) 190. Two other papers from the AOS Hittite session mention curses: a Ku§aklı text and the Südburg inscription. 6. Discussed in G. McMahon, “A Public Ritual for the Tutelary Deity of the Hunting Bag and the Heptad,” in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia (Studia Mediterranea 9; ed. O. Carruba et al.; Pavia: Gianni Iuculano Editore, 1995) 263–68. 7. Example in a counter-sorcery ritual, KUB 17.27, translated in ANET, 347. 8. KUB 17.27, ANET, 347.

Comparative Observations on Hittite Rituals

131

essays on Greek magic titled Magika Hiera. 9 I mention them as evidence of the public, legitimate side of cursing in early Greek culture and to note only Strubbe’s argument that in fact, with a few exceptions, such curses are found on Greek funerary inscriptions only in Anatolia. Some of these curses remind one strongly of those typical of neo-Hittite monuments. I will focus rather on the evidence for secret, illicit cursing among the Greeks. A great number of actual curse tablets called katadesmoi ‘bindings’, or in Latin defixiones, have been recovered in Greece; the earliest are from Athens of the 5th and 4th centuries, and they continue throughout the Roman world as well. These curse tablets, of which about a thousand are extant, vary in form and content. Most typically they take the form of lead tablets, with a binding curse written out and the names of the victims inserted in the formula. The tablets are then rolled up and transfixed with a nail. On some tablets only names were inscribed, and the tablets in one cache of forty, rolled and pierced, are all blank. Faraone interprets these examples as evidence that in some cases the names of victims, and/or the binding curse, were recited over the tablet as it was rolled up and nailed. The formula for the tablets changes over time; in the later period, the tablets are much more likely to include a complete curse formula, a development that Faraone attributes to an increase in literacy in the later Classical and Hellenistic periods. 10 In one example given by Faraone: “I register Isias, the daughter of A(u)toclea, before Hermes the Restrainer. Restrain her by your side! I bind Isias before Hermes the Restrainer; the hands, the feet of Isias, the entire body,” the curse incorporates the god Hermes as the agent of binding but does not reveal the purpose of the binding. 11 In an example that seems to be a sort of (negative) love potion, no deity is invoked: “[I bind(?)] Aristocydes and the women who will be seen about with him. Let him not marry another matron or maiden.” 12 The binding curses from the early Greek period, before contact with Rome and its syncretizing influence on this practice, are usually discovered either buried in a grave or in a chthonic sanctuary, usually of Demeter. 13 All of the curses apparently invoke the power of analogy; some also enlist the gods’ power. 14 Like most magical spells, the analogies are meant to work at several levels. The choice of material itself—the cold, gray, heavy, and malleable lead—is significant. Lead, because it was relatively cheap and easily inscribed, was a typical medium for writing ephemeral documents such as letters in the Classical Greek and later periods. In fact, a few of the katadesmoi take the form of letters to the gods being invoked. Probably lead was originally used because it was a perfect writing medium for this purpose: easily 9. J. H. M. Strubbe, “Cursed By He That Moves My Bones,” in Magika Hiera, 33–59. 10. C. A. Faraone, “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells,” in Magika Hiera, 4–5. 11. 12. 13. 14. on these

Faraone, “Agonistic Context,” 3. Faraone, “Agonistic Context,” 14. Later examples are often discovered in underground bodies of water. See Faraone, “Agonistic Context,” 5 for an analysis of the four basic types of curse used tablets.

132

Gregory McMahon

inscribed but permanent. However, its analogic properties were part of this, as seen in this example: “Just as this lead is useless, so too may the words and deeds of those listed be useless.” 15 Wünsch (noted by Faraone) also suggested that the color and coldness of lead was the perfect analogic material for curses. There are some references to wax as another material for such curse tablets, but none of them have survived from the Greek world. The piercing of the victim’s name by a nail and the rolling of the tablet to maximize the piercings is an analogy that must resonate in most cultures. The written curses also often explicitly utilize analogy: Just as the lead is in some place separate from the haunts of mankind (that is, a tomb), so too may Zoilos be separated from the body and the touch of Antheira, and the endearments and the embraces of Zoilos and Antheira. Just as this lead is buried. . . , so too may you (that is, the corpse) utterly bury the works, the household, the affections, and everything else of Zoilos. 16

Some of the katadesmoi enlist forces other than that of analogy, invoking the names of deities; others do not call upon any gods. Those that are invoked are not necessarily chthonic. In many of these curse tablets, the force being manipulated is that of the infernal spirits or the dead. The last example given above makes this quite clear, as the deceased in whose grave the spell is buried is called on to wreak havoc on the life of the spell’s victim. The evidence indicates that specifically graves of the aoroi, the untimely dead, were utilized, since their spirits were believed to linger on earth until their “proper” time of life was complete. 17 Does any of this shed light on the Hittite tradition of secret cursing? Both Hittites and Greeks, as well as other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, are known to have dug pits specifically for summoning chthonic deities and/or spirits of the dead. Hoffner’s article on antecedents to the Hebrew ºob documents the Hittite use of the a-a-pí pit as well as Odysseus’s digging of a pit as a receptacle for sacrifice to attract the shades of the dead. 18 Although the Greeks certainly sacrificed to chthonic deities, there is relatively little evidence for Greeks digging sacrificial pits other than the Odyssey episode. In that one example, the pit is quite specifically designed for sacrificing to entice the shades, not so much to invoke their power as to seek information from them. This resembles the famous Witch of En-Dor scene in 1 Samuel 28. The purpose of ritual or sacrificial pits, attested in several cultures of the Ancient Near East and at least once for the Greeks, was to summon, communicate with, or sacrifice to infernal deities or the spirits of the deceased. The evidence of the katadesmoi indicates that the Greeks also buried curses in the form of lead tablets with written curse formulae in an attempt to invoke the power of these same chthonic gods 15. Faraone, “Agonistic Context,” 7. 16. Translation by Faraone, “Agonistic Context,” 13. 17. Faraone, “Agonistic Context,” 3. 18. H. A. Hoffner, “Second Millennium Antecedents to the Hebrew ºob,” JBL 86 (1967) 385–401. Hoffner also cites examples of Hebrew, Sumerian, and Assyrian use of such pits.

Comparative Observations on Hittite Rituals

133

and the spirits of the dead. Can pits or curse tablets have anything to do with Hittite secret cursing? In Hittite practice, a-a-pí pits were dug as part of a larger ritual procedure, after which libations were poured in and offerings made; normally, the deities therein were addressed in supplication. The evidence cited by Hoffner clarifies the purpose of the pits for attracting or contacting the dead and the infernal deities—the ear of silver lowered in one ritual indicates the desire for communication. 19 The rituals that prescribe the digging of a pit do not always make clear the purpose for which the dead and infernal were summoned. In the Sumerian, Hebrew, and Greek examples, the reasons for desiring contact with the dead are specifically expressed. Do the Hittite use of ritual pits and the Greek tradition of burying katadesmoi betray any common elements? I considered the possibility, by analogy with the Greek curses, that the a-a-pí pits were dug in some cases for the purpose of ritual cursing. This seems possible for public, legitimate cursing, and very unlikely for private cursing; the context described is public, and the texts describing this ritual behavior come from an official archive. Perhaps, based on the evidence of the Hantitassu ritual, 20 in which a blessing is extracted from the gods involved, they sometimes constituted a technique for purifying victims of black magic. In the Ritual and Prayer for Istar of Nineveh, 21 in which the LÚHAL, after carefully getting the deities’ attention, ritually draws forth from the ground anything that may have been buried by anyone—a king, queen, (or) prince—the pit is part of a ritual to undo magic, perhaps a curse. The text implies that burying something was part of the secret magical procedure that the described ritual is meant to undo. This last text indicates clearly that black magic could be performed by burying something. The extant descriptions of a-a-pí pits describe their public application; there is no reason why they could not have been used secretly as well. Hoffner notes the importance in several examples of utilizing the pits at night, or at least in the dark. Pits opened up in the dark and used to invoke infernal deities would quite naturally lend themselves to black magic. The official descriptions of a-a-pí pits being dug in the context of publicly performed rituals need not preclude their secret use by practitioners of black magic as well. As Hoffner points out, such pits would be very unlikely to show up in the archaeological record. We cannot expect to find evidence, textual or nontextual, of such secret practices. Such sacrificial pits may eventually be found by chance in excavating a cemetery, since we could expect to find pits near graves where the dead can be called upon. They could have been part of the sorcerer’s technique. Whether or not a-a-pí pits were utilized for black as well as white magic, the evidence of the Istar of Nineveh text points up the practice of burying things to work sorcery, that is, curses. Two questions about such cursing can be addressed: what was 19. In the Ritual for drawing paths for DMAH.MES and DGulses, Hoffner’s text three, JBL 86 (1967) 390. 20. CTH 395, KBo 11.14, Hoffner’s text four. 21. KBo 2.9, Hoffner’s text seven.

134

Gregory McMahon

being buried? and who was doing this cursing? The analogous Greek example of the katadesmoi, also buried and designed to invoke the chthonic forces used also in Hittite magic, suggests the possibility of written curses. 22 This brings up the question of literacy: were Hittite magical practitioners able to write? A tablet with a curse on it would have been an effective method for attacking a victim, but sorcerers were probably unable to produce a tablet on their own. The many examples of tablets from the archives bearing the names of their magical practitioner authors on them were probably taken as dictation by court scribes and do not demonstrate literacy among magical practitioners. Perhaps, if some sorcerers used pits for their practices, they buried tongues instead of tablets, to continuously whisper a curse to the dead or infernal deities. 23 It is also of course possible, if pits were even used by sorcerers, that nothing was put in them. We infer from the Tunnawi ritual that one could attack someone, rendering them ritually impure, simply by invoking, among other things, the spirits of the dead or the curses of men. Another possible answer as to what was placed in the postulated sorcery pits is contaminated ritual materials. The laws label as black magic the practice of depositing contaminated materials from a ritual in someone’s field or house rather than burying them. The law was probably occasioned by actual cases of this practice. This brings up our second question: who was performing the black magic that had to be counteracted by rituals and addressed in the laws? Quite possibly it was the same practitioners employed by individuals or the state to remove ritual impurity. They would know the techniques. They would have access to contaminated ritual materials to place in a pit. And it would be a great way to drum up business! Again the Greek evidence provides a possible comparison. Faraone has posed the same question for the katadesmoi: do they represent a kind of self-help available to anyone, or were they prepared by professionals for clients desiring to hinder a rival? 24 As he points out, Greeks who could scratch a name on a potsherd as a ballot of ostracism were capable of inscribing a name on a flattened lead tablet. But material and textual (Plato) evidence, as well as the complicated nature of some of the spells, indicates that there were practitioners who did this sort of work for clients. 22. Many of the katadesmoi of the later (Roman) period were found in wells and cisterns instead of in graves or chthonic sanctuaries. As Faraone suggests, this is a logical development from the other reason for burying curses besides invoking the infernal, that is, simply to ensure that the curse was not discovered and defused (“Agonistic Context,” 17). The Ritual and Prayer for Istar of Nineveh, cited above, points up the same principle operating in the Hittite milieu, since the practitioner must ritually/symbolically draw forth whatever materials may have been buried for magical purposes. It must be done symbolically because the actual objects will not be discovered or admitted to. 23. Compare the analogy of the ear attached to the pectoral and lowered into the pit in Hoffner’s text three, KUB 15.31, which must indicate a willingness to listen. 24. Faraone, “Agonistic Context,” 4.

page is 1 pica short

Comparative Observations on Hittite Rituals

135

Faraone argues for the importance of recognizing the nonlethal nature of these Greek binding spells, which were in the main meant only to hinder an opponent. 25 They were often specifically directed at a competitor in a theatrical or athletic competition. He goes so far as to suggest that some defigens may have seen their use of such binding spells as defensive, not aggressive, evening odds that would otherwise be unfair. This Greek view of the process, if Faraone is correct, differs rather significantly from the Hittites’ attitude to cursing, which the laws indicate was taken quite seriously. Greek culture, with its strong emphasis on competition, would have provided more opportunities for such cursing for the purposes of leveling the playing field. Perhaps a stronger difference between the Hittite use of sacrificial pits and the Greek katadesmoi involves the location for accessing infernal power. The a-a-pí pits were meant both to provide a route for sacrifices to the infernal deities and to entice them up to be addressed by those living above ground. This could apparently be done safely because these spirits were understood to return automatically into the earth; they never had to be enticed back underground. By contrast, the katadesmoi were buried in a grave or underground sanctuary, where they could tap into the power of the spirits of the dead or infernal deities on their own ground. They were meant to stay and do their work within the ground, not to come to the surface. This examination of Hittite secret cursing is inspired by the similar phenomena of cursing for Hittites and Greeks and the material evidence for Greek binding curses, in the form of the katadesmoi. This type of Greek cursing utilized a ritual object placed to appeal to the same sorts of powers to which the a-a-pí pits gave access. The curses worked by analogy of material, which would have been available to the Hittites as well, by location, definitely a principle informing Hittite practice as discussed above, and by the power of the written word on a tablet. This last technique may not have been available to Hittite sorcerers. More widespread literacy in the Greek world probably accounts for this difference; I suspect that Hittite sorcerers would have used this same technique had they also had easy but private access to the power of the written word. 25. Faraone, “Agonistic Context,” 20.

136

Gregory McMahon

Tarhuntassa in the SÜDBURG Hieroglyphic Inscription H. Craig Melchert University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The Hieroglyphic Luvian inscription from the “Südburg” in Hattusa promises to be a significant new source of historical and linguistic information. However, as emphasized by Hawkins (1995) in his critical first edition, the text presents particularly formidable interpretive challenges. Like other HLuvian texts of the second millennium, it makes heavy use of logograms, including rare and unique signs, but is sparing with phonetic complements that mark nominal and verbal endings. It is unusual in using almost no sentence connectives, notably lacking entirely the quotative particle /wa/. We therefore face not only the usual ambiguities regarding subject and object and person, number, and tense of the verb, but also serious problems even in determining clause boundaries. Under these circumstances, it will surely take some time to achieve anything close to a consensus about the meaning of the text. I have only high praise for Hawkins’s first edition as a presentation of the text (see my review, to appear in BSOAS ). However, I cannot agree with some fundamental aspects of his overall interpretation. Hawkins (1995, esp. 54ff.) sees the text as an account of military conquests and building activities of Suppiluliuma II. There can be no doubt about the latter, but I see not an iota of evidence for military activity in the SÜDBURG text. Hawkins (1995: 28, 40) bases his interpretation in large part on an alleged parallel with the YALBURT inscription of Tuthaliya IV, which certainly does recount that king’s campaign in Lycia (see Hawkins 1995: 68ff. for translation and commentary, and Poetto 1993 for a full edition of this text). The YALBURT text predictably uses wellknown Luvian equivalents of the corresponding Hittite terms in the royal annals: /tub(a)i-/ ‘strike’ (= CLuvian tup(a )i-, Lycian tub(e)i-) matching Hittite walh-; /muwa(i)-/ + reflexive /-ti/ ‘conquer’ (= CLuvian) matching Hittite tarh- plus reflexive -za; and the logographically written DELERE ‘destroy’ (for which see Melchert 1988: 34ff.) matching Hittite harni (n)k-. If Suppiluliuma II in SÜDBURG is describing military actions, it is extremely peculiar—for me, simply not credible—that he uses not a single one of the established Luvian terms, all of which are used by his own father in his inscription scarcely 137

138

H. Craig Melchert

a generation earlier. Hawkins would have us believe that Suppiluliuma II uses instead one expression (putatively INFRA á-ka) which is attested nowhere else in Luvian and another (PUGNUS.PUGNUS) whose other attestations are without exception non-military in sense. As Hawkins himself ably summarizes in an appendix (1995: 118ff.), the HLuvian verb PUGNUS.PUGNUS is in several of its occurrences an intransitive verb, for which the contexts suggest a meaning ‘live, endure, stay’, a sense that also fits SÜDBURG, as we shall see below. I cite here only the greeting formula of the ASSUR letters (a/b/d, §2): |sa-na-wa/i+ra/i PUGNUS.PUGNUS-si ‘You shall stay well’. In the one example of a transitive PUGNUS.PUGNUS whose context is reasonably clear, there is no evidence at all for any military sense (SULTANHAN, §§43–44): |a-wa/i |REL-sá |REL-sa |za |LOCUS-ta5-za-i PUGNUS.PUGNUS-ta |wa/i-tà |NEG-’ |HWI/A-sa-ha |mu-wa/i-ta ‘Whoever P.P.-ed this place, no one muwa-ed it’. Hawkins attempts to make capital out of the presence of /muwa(i)-/ in the next sentence, but note the significant absence of the reflexive particle. In Hittite, tarh- only means ‘conquer’ when accompanied by -za (see Friedrich 1952: 213), and likewise /muwa(i)-/ is accompanied by reflexive /-mi/ in the meaning ‘overcome, conquer’ in all of its occurrences in YALBURT. Given that the verb /muwa(i)-/ is denominative from /muwa-/ ‘strength, might’, I suggest for the simplex verb a sense ‘strengthen, make strong’. In any case, Hawkins himself concedes that the context of SULTANHAN, which concerns the reestablishment of a vineyard for the god Tarhuntas, gives no support for a military sense in either /muwa(i)-/ or the transitive verb PUGNUS.PUGNUS. As to the alleged verb INFRA á-ka (that is, /katta aka-/) ‘subject’, there is first of all the question of whether this is the proper reading of the signs. This sign combination occurs seven times in SÜDBURG, always with a horizontally oriented INFRA and the signs Á + KA. Hawkins assumes that, as often, we should read the top sign (INFRA) first and then the other two, left-to-right or right-to-left according to the direction of reading for a given line. However, as his excellent photographs and drawing show, in every single instance the scribe has written the Á as a ligature with the INFRA. Indeed, in most cases these two signs are written as a single continuous sign without even a dividing line between them. The sign Á is not under the sign INFRA. If the intended reading was the INFRA and then the sequence á-ka, we would expect to find, at least once, simply INFRA above the other two signs. Because we are dealing with a unique sign combination, and because, furthermore, Hawkins’s reading produces a totally unattested Luvian word, I believe an unprejudiced analysis must begin with Á+INFRA-ka. Hawkins’s interpretation INFRA á-ka with preverb plus verb also leads to serious syntactic problems. In three of seven instances, this produces either asyndetically linked verbs or (assuming omission of a sentence connective) verbs with no expressed subject or object. While the latter is not totally impossible, it would be highly unusual in Hittite or Luvian phraseology. The awkwardness and artificiality of such an assumption is manifest in Hawkins’s own translation (clauses §§8, 12, and 15, p. 23).

Tarhuntassa in the SÜDBURG Hieroglyphic Inscription

139

Finally, while it is quite plausible in general linguistic terms to attribute a sense ‘sub-ject, sub-due’ to a combination with a preverb /katta/ ‘down’, sound method demands that we give most weight to the evidence immediately at hand, that of the languages of the author of the text: Hittite and Luvian. Suppiluliuma II is writing in a well-developed annalistic tradition, and all available evidence suggests that the use of Luvian instead of Hittite does not affect this tradition. In Tuthaliya IV’s YALBURT text, for example, we find the Luvian versions of the well-known topoi of the deity “running before” the king (12, §4) and of women and children of a city kneeling before the king (15, §1; cf. KUB XIV 15+ iii 46–47 and iv 28ff.; Götze 1932: 56–57, 70–71). We therefore have every right to expect that INFRA (that is, /katta/) /aka-/ would conform to known Hittite annalistic usage. To my knowledge, there simply is no Hittite expression for anything like ‘subdue, subject’ using the preverb katta. 1 I therefore conclude that Hawkins’s assertion that the SÜDBURG inscription refers to military conquests is without foundation. As always, it is far easier to argue against an interpretation than to provide a persuasive alternative, and I make no claim to a full understanding of the text. I do believe that the general thrust of the last half is reasonably clear. I cite this portion in full for reference, with my readings (to which one should compare Hawkins 1995: 22–23): §8 MONS.IUDEX?.QUINQUE *416-wa/i-ní Á+INFRA-ka PUGNUS.PUGNUS §9 PURUS.FONS-má MAGNUS.REX *416-wa/i-ní Á+INFRA-ka MONS.IUDEX?.QUINQUE X §10 CAPUT.VIR MONS.IUDEX?.QUINQUE zi/a-la-há PUGNUS.PUGNUS §11 TONITRUS(URBS) REGIO *416-wa/i-ní Á+INFRA-ka PUGNUS.PUGNUS §12 pu-wa/i-ti AVUS.*506-na NEG-wa/i-tá REL-ti-ha *507 §13 PURUS.FONS-má MAGNUS.REX *416-wa/i-ní Á+INFRA-ka CAPUT.VIR TONITRUS(URBS) REGIO Á+INFRA-ka ARHA CAPERE §14 ta-NEG(URBS) AEDIFICARE §15 TONITRUS(URBS) x+ra/i-sà-ma(URBS) INFRA.*122(URBS) *137-ha-sà DEUSi-zi/a DARE-ha §16 zi/a+a-ti DEUS.202 pa-ti-ª ANNUS i(a)-zi/a

For the last sentence “(I) in that year built here a Divine Earth-Road” (that is, a man-made entrance to the underworld), I merely refer to the

dKASKAL.KUR,

1. Nor, to my knowledge, is katta used in any other established Hittite expression for military activity or conquest. The single exception is in the Annals of Mursili (KBo III 4 iv 39–40): nu— kan URUAripsan URUDukkammann—a zahhiyaz katta dahhun ‘I took down Aripsa and Dukkamma in battle’ (//KBo IV 4 iv 12). The detailed description in the latter of the city as being in a high and mountainous locale (iv 5ff.) makes it likely that this unique expression reflects the special topography involved in the assault. Hittite does also have an expression katta damass- ‘oppress’, but in its use to describe military action from Old through Middle to Neo-Hittite, it occurs consistently without katta in the sense ‘press hard’.

140

H. Craig Melchert

convincing analysis of Hawkins (1995: 44–45). The sense of the immediately preceding sentence is also clear, thanks to the persuasive interpretation of *137-ha-sà as /malhassa-/ ‘offering, ritual’ (= CLuvian malhassa-) by van den Hout (1995: 562–63, following E. Masson): “I gave (the city) Tarhuntassa, (the city) X, and (the city) Y to the gods as an offering.” I wish to stress the full significance of this statement. By dedicating the capital Tarhuntassa and two other cities to the gods, Suppiluliuma thereby makes these cities taboo and off-limits to humans, in effect cursing them. Such a punishment is well-known from the Annals of Mursili: see KUB XIX 37 ii 15–19 on the fate of Timmuhala, where the motivation and ramifications of the act are spelled out quite explicitly. The significance was clear to Götze (1932: 234), who compares also KUB XIV 15 i 16 on the similar fate of Palhuissa and KUB VII 60 iii 17. 2 Hawkins (1995: 35–36) finds no convincing interpretation for CAPUT.VIR. I would follow Otten (1989: 335–36) in seeing merely the equivalent of Hittite LÚ. The logogram CAPUT is ambiguous in Luvian, standing for both /harmahi-/ ‘head’ and for /zidi-/ ‘person, man’. The function of VIR here is to mark clearly the latter reading (in lieu of a phonetic complement -ti-). However, since the use of the expression LÚ URUX ‘man of X’ as a title (‘prince/ruler of X’) is attested only for Old Hittite (Kempinski and Kosak 1982: 97; Neu 1974: 36), I believe we must take the phrase as a plural, the equivalent of the standard Hittite LÚ.MES URUX ‘men/people of X’ so frequent in the annals. 3 In the SÜDBURG text cited above, we have in parallel fashion the mention first of a mountain (§8) and then its inhabitants (§10), followed by mention of the land Tarhuntassa (§11) and then its inhabitants (§13). Whatever the meaning of (*416-wa/i-ní) Á+INFRA-ka turns out to be, the subject of §13 is surely Suppiluliuma, and the object is the people of Tarhuntassa: “(I) Suppiluliuma, the Great King, . . . took away the people of the land of Tarhuntassa.” Not only is deportation of people a well-attested practice of Hittite kings (during the Empire and thereafter), but such an action also makes a logical preliminary to the dedication of the capital Tarhuntassa and other cities to the gods in §15 (see again Götze 1932: 234, as cited above). The intervening sentence §14 seems to say “(I) built (up) (the city) Tana.” Hawkins (1995: 42) tentatively suggests identification with Adana (with non-writing or genuine aphaeresis of the initial A-), but expresses misgivings due to the fact that Adana was surely never a part of the land of Tarhuntassa. The mention of building (up) another city in the midst of discussion of Tarhuntassa seems a non sequitur in any 2. The double-edged sense of Hittite suppi- ‘pure; taboo’ was elaborated on by Watkins (1975), who recalled the classic treatment of Latin sacer by Benveniste (1969: 2.187). 3. Neu admits the exceptional occurrence of the older usage in Neo-Hittite compositions, citing LÚ URUTipiya as in KBo III 4 iii 71ff. The sense ‘ruler, prince’ does not seem strictly necessary for this passage, but LÚ KUR URUAssur in KUB XXI 1 iii 12 (= LUGAL in KUB XXI 5 iii 26) in the company of three other “kings” seems clear enough. Such a reading is excluded for SÜDBURG by the first occurrence in §5 not quoted above: CAPUT.VIR HATTI (REGIO) *430 ‘the people of all the lands of Hatti’. Suppiluliuma II would not have referred to himself as LÚ KUR.KUR.MES URUHATTI.

Tarhuntassa in the SÜDBURG Hieroglyphic Inscription

141

case. I venture as a solution to this that we should understand Adana as the place (or one of the places) to which Suppiluliuma transplanted the people of Tarhuntassa. Explicit expression of the resettlement was considered unnecessary in the context. We know that the Hittite kings used forced movement of peoples for multiple purposes. By deporting the people of Tarhuntassa and making the capital off-limits to human habitation, Suppiluliuma seriously weakened chances of a rebellion. At the same time, he used the transplantees to reinforce his control over another boundary area. The sense of clauses §§8–12 is obscured by the unidentifiable logogram for the verb in §9 4 and the quite legible but not yet interpretable sign *506, which appears to be the verb in §12 (on the latter, see Hawkins 1995: 42). I tentatively suggest, however, that these lines contain the stated pretext for Suppiluliuma’s very severe punishment of Tarhuntassa, which had, after all, enjoyed a very special status not that long before. In fact, I believe that the entire mention of the unidentified mountain in §§8–10 is merely to serve as a contrastive example to Tarhuntassa, the real topic of the second half of the text. Note that sentences §8 and §11 are entirely parallel. The mountain and Tarhuntassa start out on an equal footing. The introduction of name and title in §9 strongly suggest a change of subject. Since the name of the mountain is the only noun phrase in §8, and we have no reason to suppose some other third party, the verb PUGNUS.PUGNUS is likely to be intransitive. The meaning ‘live, abide, stay’ suggested by other occurrences would thus also fit here, whatever the sense of the mysterious *416-wa/i-ní Á+INFRA-ka. The crucial point is that the action of Suppiluliuma in §9 in regard to the mountain must have been benign, because in §10 “The people of Mt. X also thereafter stayed (there).” 5 For a parallel for such merciful treatment compare the Annals of Mursili KUB XIX 37 iii 40, 46, where the Hittite expression is n—at eser—pat ‘And they remained (there)’. Note the striking parallelism of the Hittite and Luvian, which feel no need for a local adverb, unlike modern English or German (compare Götze 1932: 177, who likewise supplies ‘dort’). The key to the drastically different treatment of Tarhuntassa must lie in the difficult sentence §12. I follow Hawkins (1995: 41) in taking the logogram *506 (which

4. Hawkins very tentatively reads the verb as DARE ‘give’, but the orientation of the sign is the opposite of the clear DARE in §15, and the shape is also different. There is also obviously no indirect object available. Based on the comparable Hittite passages, we would expect an equivalent of Hitt. huldala(i)- ‘spare, treat mercifully’ or arha dala- ‘leave alone’ (see Götze 1932: 176–77 and KUB XIX 37 iii 40, 46). The vague shape of the logogram in §9 in SÜDBURG makes this hypothesis unverifiable. 5. Contra Hawkins, I read sign 319 as syllabic -há ‘and, also’, not as HATTI. Hawkins concedes (1995: 25) that the latter reading causes problems of interpretation but argues against the phonetic value on the grounds that such a use is otherwise unattested in the Empire period. But he notes that phonetic -há does occur in the KARADAG/KIZILDAG inscriptions, which he himself has argued date to a period immediately following the end of the Empire. His objection thus carries no weight, since nothing precludes the innovation being a few decades earlier than previously thought. The sense ‘also, even’ for enclitic -ha fits well here and elsewhere in SÜDBURG.

142

H. Craig Melchert

looks like a ladle) as standing here for the value /han/ (compare with Hoffner apud Hawkins Hitt. han- ‘draw [liquid]’). The combination AVUS.*506-na is thus ‘grandfather(s) and grandmother(s)’. Unfortunately, we cannot determine with certainty whether this phrase is subject or object, much less the meaning of the verb behind *507. The expression NEG REL-ti-ha could also be either a case form (dative singular) or adverbial. Hawkins takes “grandfathers and grandmothers” as the subject, and I cannot exclude this. I find it more likely, however, that the land of Tarhuntassa is the subject, as in the preceding sentence, and that it is being charged with some crime or delict against the ancestors. Given the presence of the negation, I would look for the meaning of the verb in the realm of ‘honor, worship, sacrifice to’: “It (Tarhuntassa) did not formerly at all honor the grandfathers and grandmothers.” The seriousness of the crime may involve more than mere impiety. As is well-known, when King Muwatalli moved the Hittite capital to Tarhuntassa, he took with him the gods and the dead (Apology of Hattusili, ii 52, Otten 1981: 14). As Hawkins (1995: 42) points out, Urhi-Tesub is reported to have brought the gods back to Hattusa, but no mention is made of the dead (Götze 1930: 46, text B 11–12), who may thus have remained in Tarhuntassa. Impiety towards the dead would thus have involved Suppiluliuma’s own royal ancestors, making the crime a very serious offense indeed. The many textual uncertainties cited make this suggested interpretation of sentences §§8–12 provisional at best. What does seem reasonably clear to me is that the last portion of the SÜDBURG text describes the liquidation of Tarhuntassa by Suppiluliuma II. Contrary to the claim of Hawkins, there is no evidence for any mention of military conquest. Control of Tarhuntassa by Suppiluliuma is taken for granted, and he is free to dispose of it as he wishes.

Bibliography Benveniste, Émile 1969 Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Paris: Éditions de Minuit. Friedrich, Johannes 1952 Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter. Götze, Albrecht 1930 Neue Bruchstücke zum großen Text des Hattusilis un den Paralleltexten. MVAeG 34/2. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1932 Die Annalen des Mursilis. MVAeG 38. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Hawkins, J. David 1995 The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (SÜDBURG). Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten Beiheft 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hout, Theo van den 1995 “Tuthaliya IV. und die Ikonographie hethitischer Großkönige des 13. Jhs.” BiOr 52.516: 545–73. Kempinski, Aharon, and Silvin Kosak 1982 “CTH 13: the Extensive Annals of Hattus