It is available online at https://doi.org/10.36253/979-12-215-0109-4

Table of contents

Preface9

Federico Giusfredi

Introduction11

Livio Warbinek

Bibliographical Abbreviations21

General Abbreviations25

Symbols27

Shaping Gods: from Göbekli Tepe to Kaneš, Ḫattuša, and Beyond29

Alfonso Archi

Between Adoption and Assimilation: The Case of Ištar of Ḫattarina57

Francesco G. Barsacchi

A Quantitative Analysis of Theonyms and Panthea in the Hittite Cult Inventories69

Michele Cammarosano

Hurrian Theophoric Names in the Documents from the Hittite Kingdom89

Stefano de Martino

The Luwian Goddess Darawa99

Manfred Hutter

Kubaba and other Divine Ladies of the Syro-Anatolian Iron Age: Developmental Trajectories, Local Variations, and Interregional Interactions109

Nathan Lovejoy, Alvise D.G. Matessi

Solar Deities in the Kuwattalla Ritual Tradition: Epithets and Functions127

Alice Mouton

Išḫara: One Deity – Many Aspects?141

Doris Prechel

Solar and Chthonic Deities in Ancient Anatolia: The Evolution of the Chthonic Solar Deity in Hittite Religion149

Charles W. Steitler

Defining the Hittite “Pantheon”, its Hierarchy and Circles: Methodological Perspectives181

Livio Warbinek

Preface

Federico Giusfredi

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

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

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

Nonetheless, if each of these disciplines acted with complete autonomy, the analytical results would be rich, but methodological issues would occur when the data were combined. The best example of these issues is probably represented by the tendency of fallaciously equating the concepts of linguistic identity, cultural identity and ethnicity, and the attempt to anchor them to specific geographical areas, which, in turn, tend to be defined differently depending on the prevailing approach. This type of mistake is quite common in the study of the ancient world, and not absent from the field of Anatolian religious history. Even though several decades have passed since the establishment of the impossibility of defining culture and geography based on languages, when attempts are made to identify, for example, a “Luwian pantheon”, the selection of the divine figures that would belong to it is inevitably made by looking for Luwian morphemes in their names. The identification of a putative area of origin generally depends on the idea that the geographical term Luwiya of the Hittite Laws corresponded to a specific Luwian-speaking polity west of the Kızılırmak. Both associations would, however, be misleading, both for methodological reasons and because it only takes a glance at the textual materials to realize that Anatolia was actually a melting pot of different cultural and linguistic components, and had been so for centuries before the advent of written documents.

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

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

Introduction

Livio Warbinek

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

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

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

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

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

A second important classification concerns the arrangements by divine typology, which ware crucial in Haas’s (1994) approach to the Anatolian religion. Deities can be divided into Storm-gods (du), Sun-deities (dutu, both male and female), Mother-goddesses, Tutelary gods (dlamma), Moon-gods (d30), Underworld gods, or other lesser deities according to their typology9. This subdivision enabled analysis of Hittite gods in a more comprehensive way, but even it shows methodological limitations. First, behind a single logogram (e.g., du, dutu) we can recognize several divine entities10 with different features and sometimes even different genders11. Second, the differentiation between typological and geographical groups is often quite confusing. Third, this typological categorization heavily implies a fluctuation among the values of the single god, which changed over the historical evolution of the Hittite periods.

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

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

However, this local structure was only apparently simpler because local cults were often not culturally homogeneous regarding both the cult practice and the worshiped deities. Therefore, a question arises: how do we deal with theonomies with different etymologies within the same local cult?16 We have to be careful in our definitions concerning socio-linguistic dynamics, as Cammarosano (2021, 76-94) recently points out, categorizing local panthea both according to their “milieu” (Hattian, Luwian, Palaean, Hurrian), and according to their “geographical sectors” (northern, central and southern districts). Furthermore, the analysis of Local Cults must be based on sources, the cult inventories, which «deal with certain deities in relation to one or more specific towns» that is, they «are arranged by town(s) and not by festival(s)» (Cammarosano 2021, 5)17. The type of evidence at our disposal affects the picture we reconstruct. According to Bryce (1986, 172-73), «our knowledge of the roles and functions of the various deities is confined largely to the information provided by the [(evidence)] in which gods and/or goddesses are commonly assigned a role», but still we can «identify with reasonable certainty the deities who appear to have been most prominent [(in a place)], on the basis of the frequency with which their names occur in the [(texts)], the extent of the distribution of their cult centres throughout the country», however, «a particular deity may have been worshipped in several different centres, but in each centre he or she was regarded as belonging specifically to that centre or to the district in which the centre was located».

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. assimilation: the addition of a foreign god to a religious system;

2. syncretism: the creation of a new god within a common milieu;

3. translation:

a) “syncretic translation” into a different linguistic and cultural system;

b) “assimilatory translation” into a more prestigious linguistic and cultural system;

c) “mutual translation” in a network of mutual cultural interactions.

Differently, Rutherford (2020, 77) identifies:

1. No influence: when no interactions appear to have existed;

2. Borrowing: the “adoption by one group of one or more of the other group’s gods”;

3. Identification: the translation of “one or more of their deities with the deities of the other group”;

4. Syncretism: the “process of creating a composite deity”.

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

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

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

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

1. No native deity is involved, so no assimilation strategies are expected to occur. In this sense, a foreign deity is simply borrowed from a given culture and transferred on a native realm. Linguistically, this adoption of the foreign deity may occur through a theonym borrowing, calque or periphrasis.

2. The target culture already has a deity that can be equated with the adopted foreign deity:

a) When the foreign god partly corresponds to the native one, the typical linguistic strategy could be a calque, or loan translation, or a periphrasis. Typically, the result is the creation of a hypostasis of the native deity (see, for instance, the different Ištars in Barsacchi’s paper in this volume);

b) When the adoption includes all of the functions of the original deity, we are faced with syncretism. The linguistic process is, in general, a proper borrowing of the theonym, although sometimes the scenarios may be more complex and involved overlapping that preserve some degree of distinction (think of the superposition of Ḫebat and the Sun-goddes of Arinna as Queen of the gods).

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

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

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

This leads to a final consideration. Whatever the correct solution to the methodological issue of Anatolian panthea and cults, all those gods can be described as belonging to the cultural milieu of Hittite Anatolia, and their names do not all stem from a single language. This makes it possible to track some changes and some elements of continuity, but also to identify some spheres of interference as well as a certain degree local differentiation. There are, as we have seen, many questions to answer and several views to combine in order to achieve a general agreement on the proper definition of an Anatolian religious system. What we can agree upon, is that the “Thousand Gods of Ḫatti” were in all likelihood an inclusive religious system, that defined itself through the principle of territoriality rather than that of a cultural or linguistic (pre)dominance over the kingdom.

Bibliography

Archi, Alfonso. 1993. “How a Pantheon forms. The Case of Hattian-Hittite Anatolia and Ebla of the 3rd Millennium B.C.” In Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament, eds. Bernd Janowski, Klaus Koch, and Gernot Wilhelm, 1-18. Freiburg-Göttingen: Universitätsverlag.

Archi, Alfonso. 2004. “The Singer of Kaneš and his God.” In Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individuelle Religiosität, eds. Manfred Hutter, and Sylvia Hutter-Braunsar, 11-26. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag (AOAT 318).

Archi, Alfonso. 2006. “Hurrian Gods and the Festival of the Hattian-Hittite Layer.” In The Life and Times of Tudḫaliya IV. Proceeedings of a Symposium held in Honour of J. de Roos, 12-13 December 2003, Leiden, ed. Th. P. J. van den Hout: 147-63. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Assmann, Jan. 1996. “Translating Gods: Religion as a Factor of Cultural (Un)Translatability.” In Translatability of Cultures. Figurations of the Space Between, eds. Sanford Budick, and Wolfgang Iser, 25-36. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Beckman, Gary M. 2004. “Pantheon. A. II. Bei den Hethitern”. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10: 308-16.

Bryce, Trevor. 1986. The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic Sources. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Cammarosano, Michele. 2018. Hittite Local Cults. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press (WAW 40).

Cammarosano, Michele. 2021. At the Interface of Religion and Administration: The Hittite Cult Inventories. With a contribution by Adam Kryszeń. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 68).

Collins, Billie Jean. 2007. The Hittites and Their World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press.

Gilan, Amir. 2019. “Religious Convergence in Hittite Anatolia: The Case of Kizzuwatna.” In Religious Convergence in the Ancient Mediterranean, eds. Sandra Blakely, and Billie Jean Collins, 173-90. Atlanta: Lockwood Press.

Giusfredi, Federico. 2020. A Study in the Syntax of the Luwian Language. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter (THeth 30).

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

Gurney, Oliver. 1977. Some Aspects of Hittite Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haas, Volkert. 1994. Geschichte der Hethitischen Religion. Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill (HdO I/15).

Hazenbos, Joost. 2003. The Organization of the Anatolian Local Cults During the Thirteenth Century B.C.: An Appraisal of the Hittite Cult Inventories. Leiden: Brill (Cuneiform Monographs 21).

Hutter, Manfred. 2003. “Aspects of Luwian Religion.” In The Luwians, ed. Craig Melchert, 211-80. Leiden-Boston: Brill (HdO I/68).

Hutter, Manfred. 2013. “The Luwian Cult of the Goddess Huwassanna vs. Her Position in the ‘Hittite State Cult’.” In Luwian Identities, eds. Alice Mouton, Ian Rutherford, and Ilya Yakubovich, 177-90. Leiden-Boston: Brill (CHANE 64).

Hutter, Manfred. 2021. Religionsgeschichte Anatoliens. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Keen, G. Antony. 1998. Dynastic Lycia. A political history of the Lycians and their relations with the foreign powers. Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill (Mnemosyne Supplementum 178).

Klinger, Jörg. 1996. Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der hattischen Kultschicht. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag (StBoT 37).

Laroche, Emmanuel. 1975. “La réforme religiuse du roi Tudhaliya IV et sa signification politique.” In Les syncrétisme dans les religions de l’Antiquité, Colloque de Besançon (22-23 Octobre 1973), eds. Françoise Dunand, and Pierre Lévêque, 87-94. Leiden: Brill.

Popko, Maciej. 1995. Religions of Asia Minor. Warsaw: Academic Publications Dialog.

Rutherford, Ian. 2020. Hittite Texts and Greek Religion. Contact, Interaction, and Comparison. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rutherford, Ian. 2021. “Diplomatic Marriage as an Engine for Religious Change: The Case of Assuwa and Ahhiyawa.” In Linguistic and Cultural Interactions between Greece and Anatolia. In Search of the Golden Fleece, ed. Michele Bianconi, 167-81. Leiden-Boston: Brill (CHANE 122).

Schwemer, Daniel. 2008. “Fremde Götter in Ḫatti. Die hethitische Religion im Spannungsfeld von Synkretismus und Abgrenzung.” In Ḫattuša - Boğazköy - Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients. 6. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 22.-24. März 2006, Würzburg, ed. Gernot Wilhelm, 137-58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (CDOG 6).

Steitler, Charles W. 2017. The Solar Deities of Bronze Age Anatolia. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 62).

Taracha, Piotr. 2009. Religions of Second Millennium Anatolia. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (DBH 27).

Taracha, Piotr. 2010. “Studying Hittite Religion: Selected Issues.” In Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25-31, 2008, ed. Aygül Süel, 857-868. Ankara: Çorum Valilği (ICH 7).

van Gessel, Ben H.L. 1998. Onomasticon of the Hittite Pantheon 1-2. Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill (HdO I/33).

van den Hout, Theo P.J. 1995. Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 38).

Warbinek, Livio. 2022 “The -šepa Theonyms in the Hittite Pantheon.” Vicino Oriente 26: 1-19.

Warbinek, Livio, and Giusfredi, Federico. Forthcoming. “Maliya, Malja, Malis, Athena. From Kizzuwatna to the Aegean: Borrowings, Translations, or Syncretisms?” Asia Anteriore Antica 5.

White, Grace K.-S. 1993. The religious iconography of Cappadocian glyptic in the Assyrian Colony period and its significance in the Hittite New Kingdom. Chicago: University of Chicago (Diss.).

Yakubovich, Ilya. 2010. Sociolinguistic of the Luvian Language. Leiden-Boston: Brill.

1 See also Beckman 2004, 309b-311b.

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

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

4 Similarly, for Taracha (2009, 38) the State pantheon «included gods worshiped in Ḫattuša and divinities heading the local pantheons from the most important religious centers of the state». See also Cammarosano 2018, 51.

5 Taracha, as well as Cammarosano (2018, 51-2) and Rutherford (2021, 176), refers to the Puduḫepa’s prayer KUB 21.27 I 3-6: «Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady, you are the queen of all lands! In the land of Ḫatti you have assumed the name Sun-goddess of Arinna, but in respect to the land that you have made that of cedars, you have assumed the name Ḫebat» (translation by Beckman 2004, 209b). See also Gurney 1977, 18; Gilan 2019, 180; and Hutter 2021, 29; 192.

6 Popko 1995, 112; Taracha 2009, 53-4. See also White 1993, 362; 367-68; Archi 2004, 15; and Hutter 2021, 29; 192.

7 As well underlined in the present volume by Archi and Cammarosano, the Tudḫaliya IV’s textual evidence proves that Hittites «proceeded rather systematically, region after region in registering the cults of each city and village, in order to verify that the rites were celebrated at the right date and in the right form. It was essentially “une œuvre de restauration des cultes”.» (Archi, present volume § 10). For this reason, firstly Goetze (1933, 159-60 with note 1; 1957, 169 with note 13) suggested the idea of a “Kultreorganisation”, which has been reinterpreted as “réforme religiose” by Laroche (1975 = 2016, 455-58). Today, however, a «more nuanced standpoint in Houwink ten Cate’s study (1992), which stressed how the king’s measures mentioned in these texts consisted of restorations and expansions rather than innovation of cults, and that their innovative character may perhaps have laid in the geographical scope and fervor of the operation» (Cammarosano present volume § 1.1). See also Hazenbos 2003, 11-13; Archi 2006, 150-53; Collins 2007, 177; Taracha 2009, 133; Cammarosano 2018, 22-3; 26-7; Hutter 2021, 30-1; 193-94; 201; 236.

8 See Cammarosano 2018, 51.

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

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

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

12 See Cammarosano 2018, 53.

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

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

15 Gurney 1977, 1; 4. Also “Stadtpanthea” (Haas 1994, 539) or “Local pantheons” (Beckman 2004, 313b).

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

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

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

19 See for a discussion Beckman 2004.

20 See Beckman 2004, 308a; Taracha 2009, 38 passim; Hutter 2003, 230 passim; 2013, 177 passim; 2021, 186-89. In the present volume, Cammarosano § 1.1, note 13: «the concept of “state cult” is frequently used in Hittitological literature, and is regularly connected to the participation of the king in the rites […]; it is also explicitly used in opposition to cults considered have a “local” character without being embedded in the “state cult”, see most recently Hutter 2021, 96-7; 232-33, and passim, who stresses that it is sometimes difficult to attribute a festival to one or the other class».

21 Gurney 1977, 4; Taracha 2009, 38; Cammarosano 2018, 51. For the attestation of ““lim dingirmeš ša kur uruḪatti” see van Gessel 1998, 978-79 or, for instance, KBo 4.10++ I 48-49: van den Hout 1995, 38-9; and HKM 81, 5: Collins 2007, 173.

22 Warbinek 2022, 6; 9-10.

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

24 See Cammarosano 2018, 51.

25 See Cammarosano 2018, 52.

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

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

Bibliographical Abbreviations

ABoT K. Balkan, Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri, Istanbul 1948.

AfO Archiv für Orientforschung, Berlin-Graz 1926ff.

ANES Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Melbourne 1961ff.

AnSt Anatolian Studies - Journal oft he British Institute at Ankara, Ankara 1951ff.

AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament: Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments, Kavelaer-Neukirschen-Vluyn-Münster 1968ff.

AoF Altorientalische Forschungen, Berlin 1974ff.

AS Assyriological Studies, Chicago 1931ff.

AsiAnA Asia Anteriore Antica, Firenze 2019ff.

BMECCJ Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, Wiesbaden 1984ff.

Bo Inventory numbers of the Boğazköy tablets.

CDOG Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.

CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, Leiden-Boston-Köln.

CHD The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago 1980ff.

CHDS Chicago Hittite Dictionary. Supplements.

ChS Corpus der Hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler, Roma 1984ff.

CTH E. Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites, Paris 1971 [with supplements in RHA 30 (1972): 94-133 and RHA 33 (1973): 68-71; now extensively expanded and revised in the online Catalog der Texte der Hethiter of the Hethitologie-Portal Mainz: S. Košak, G. G.W. Müller, S. Görke, and C. W. Steitler (eds.). hethiter.net/CTH – last accessed 17.09.2022].

CLL C.H. Melchert, Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon, Chapel Hill 1993.

DAAM Documenta Antiqua Asia Minoris, Wiesbaden 2019ff.

DBH Dresden Beiträge zur Hethilogie, Dresden-Wiesbaden.

DMOA Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, Leiden.

EA J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, Leipzig 1907.

Eothen Collana di studi sulle civiltà dell’Oriente antico, Firenze 1988ff.

HbOr (see HdO).

HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden.

HED J. Puhvel, Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Berlin-New York-Amsterdam 1984ff.

HEG J. Tischler. Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar, Innsbruck 1977-2016.

Hethitica Hethitica, Louvain-la-Neuve 1972ff.

HFAC G.M. Beckman, H.A. Hoffner, Hittite Fragments in American Collections, JCS 37 (1985): 1-60.

HKM S. Alp, Hethitische Keilschrifttafeln aus Maşat (TTKY VI/34), Ankara 1991.

HW2 Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Zweite, völlig neubearbeitete Auflage auf der Grundlage der edierten hethitischen Texte. Indogermanische Bibliothek, zweite Reihe: Wörterbücher, Heidelberg 1975ff.

IBoT İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri(nden seçme metinler). İstanbul 1944, 1947, 1954; Ankara, 1988.

ICH Proceedings of the International Congress of Hittitology.

IEED Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series, Leiden.

IEED 5 A. Kloekhorst, Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, Leiden-Boston 2008.

JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions, Leiden 2001ff.

JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies, New Haven 1947ff.

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago 1842ff.

KAI Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. Wiesbaden 2002.

KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi, Leipzig 1916-1923; Berlin 1954ff.

KpT Keilschrifttafeln aus Kayalıpınar.

KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi, Berlin 1921ff.

LAOS Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien, Wiesbaden.

MC Mesopotamian Civilizations, Winona Lake 1989ff.

MVAeG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Agyptischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig 1896-1944.

NABU Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaries, Paris 1972ff.

NH E. Laroche, Les noms des Hittites, Paris 1966.

OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis,

Orientalia Orientalia - Pontifical Biblical Institute, Roma, 1933ff.

PIHANS Publication de l’Institut Historique et Archéologique Néerlandais de Stamboul, Leiden.

PIPOAC Publications de l’Institut du Proche-Orient ancien du College de France, Paris.

RGTC 6 G.F. del Monte, and J. Tischler, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte, Wiesbaden 1978.

RGTC 6/2 G.F. del Monte, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. Supplement, Wiesbaden 1992.

RHA Revue hittite et asianique, Paris 1930-1978.

RIMA 2 A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, vol. 1 (1114-859 BC). Toronto-Buffalo-London 1991 (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods 2).

RINAP 1 H. Tadmor, and S. Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 BC), and Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC), Kings of Assyria. Winona Lake 2011 (The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1).

RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Berlin.

RS Inventory numbers of the tablets from Ras Shamra (Ugarit).

SAA 2 S. Parpola, and W. Kazuko, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. University Park, 1988 (State Archives of Assyria 2).

SAMR Studies in Ancient Mediterranean Religions, Atlanta.

SBL Society of the Biblical Literature - Writings from the Ancient World, Atlanta.

SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Roma 1966ff.

StAs Studia Asiana, Roma.

StBoT Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten, Wiesbaden.

StMed Studia Mediterranea, Pavia 1980ff.

THeth Texte der Hethiter, Heidelberg.

TVOa Testi del Vicino Oriente antico, Brescia.

UF Ugarit-Forschungen, Kevelaer 1969ff.

VBoT A. Götze (ed.). Verstreute Boghazköi-Texte, Marburg 1930.

VO Vicino Oriente, Roma.

VSNF Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Neue Folge.

VSNF 12 L. Jakob-Rost, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköy im Vorderasiatische Museum, Neue Folge, Mainz 1997.

WAW (see SBL).

WO die Welt des Orienst, Göttingen 1947ff.

ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, Leipzig-Berlin 1887ff.

ZVS Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen.

General Abbreviations

Akk. Akkadian

col. column

Diss. PhD dissertation

DN (whatever) divine name

dupl. duplicate

e.g. exempli gratia

Fig. Figure

GN (whatever) geographical name

Hitt. Hittite (language)

HLuw Luwian Hieroglyphic

i.e. id est

l. line

ll. lines

l. col. left column

lo. edge lower edge

LNS Late New Script (Hittite)

MH Middle Hittite

MS Middle Script (Hittite)

NH New Hittite

no(s). number(s)

nom. nominative

NS New Script (Hittite)

obv. obverse

OH Old Hittite

OS Old Script (Hittite)

Pl. plate(s)

plur. plural

r. col. right column

rev. reverse

sing. singular

Tab. table

Symbols

? reading or restoration of sign (in translations: of word) uncertain

(?) reading or restoration of word (in translations: of phrase) uncertain

! abnormal or mistaken sign; designation of column or side of tablet varies from hand copy

sic marks a discrepancy with the hand copy

[ ] encloses lost text

[ x ] indicates space in break

[( )] integration

[Ø] indicates an empty break

⸢ ⸣ encloses damaged but legible signs

〈 〉 omitted by scribal error

〈〈 〉〉 sign to be omitted

x illegible sign (in transliteration)

+ fragments join directly

(+) fragments join indirectly

// duplicate text

: Glossenkeil

/…/ phonological analysis

* reconstructed form

*…* encloses signs over erasure

= separates morphological elements within words

§ section or paragraph

« » quoted text

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

Alfonso Archi

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

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

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

Standing out at Nevalı Çori is a cult building in stone that presents thirteen monolithic pillars with T shaped capitals set into a wide bench running along the interior walls (Hauptmann 1993; 2012, 13-8). The excavations at Göbekli Tepe, directed by Klaus Schmidt from 1995 until 2014 (the year of his untimely death) have brought to light buildings consisting in several rectangular rooms with floors, which show the beginning of the process which led to the formation of sedentary communities of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and B periods. Animal husbandry was not yet practiced there, according to the results of osteological investigations. Megalithic circular enclosures (with even three rings of walls), enclosing several T-shaped monolithic pillars, can be described as centres for communal purposes such as cult rites and ceremonial festivals. These enclosures (not all excavated) number at least twelve, for a period of perhaps ca 200-250 years (Dietrich et al., 2016). On some of these pillars a pair of human arms and hands are depicted, the horizontal part on the top representing the head. These are three dimensional sculptures of stylized humans which rise around 3.5 m from the floor. Two pillars portray beings wearing a belt and a loincloth made of animal skin. The anthropomorphic figures of pillars 18 and 31 bear necklaces representing respectively a crescent with a disc with another element, and a bucranium (Otto 2015, 190-93). Several animals are depicted on the pillars, such as foxes, gazelles, wild donkeys, snakes, cranes, ducks, vultures, spiders, scorpions, and insects (Schmidt 2008, 2011a; 2011b; 2013; Dietrich and Schmidt 2016; cf. Sagona, Zimanski 2009, 57-64).

Schmidt has suggested the following analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The cosmic system in the interpretation of Marshall Sahlins

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

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

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

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

3. The Early Pottery Neolithic Site of Çatal Höyük

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

Çatal Höyük represents a stage in which a community elaborated the shaping of gods starting from an indistinct animistic cosmos. The stag epitomizes the realm of the wild fauna, and the bull the masculine force. These animals were also the ones that provided meat to the humans. Receiving something from the spirits, one had to give them something in exchange (as Marcel-Mauss has written), and that was done through rites celebrated in those shrines. Raptors also played an important role in symbolism. At Göbekli Tepe a fragmented sculpture depicts a bird grasping a human head (Notroff et al. 2017, 61), and a pole is decorated with two human figures with a bird (the engraved wings and the tail feathers are preserved) sitting on top of the two heads; another stone pole with a human head topped by a bird was found at Nevalı Çori (Otto 2015, 193-97). The symbolism of raptors is also attested at Mureybet (Cauvin 1994, 46), and a wall painting from Çatal Höyük depicts vultures (necrophagous animals) attacking small headless human figures (Mellaart 1967, Pl. 48-49), perhaps symbolizing the function of defleshing the corpses: a rite for the Netherworld.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Zoomorphism in Egypt

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

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

6. The representations of gods according to the “cult inventories” and the bibru vessels in the form of animals

Divine representations based on a very large selection of cult inventories (Hazenbos 2003, 175-90; Cammarosano 2018, 87-102) show that in most of the minor cult centers the gods were represented by “stelae”, na₄ḫuwaši-. Stelae could be refurbished, KUB 17.35 II 6’-7’: na₄zi.kin an-na-al-la-an 1 na₄zi.kin kù.babbar ugu-kán kal-[ma-ra] dutuši dù-at dutu me-e uruGur-ša-ma-aš-ša “1 stele (in place) since of old. His Majesty (commissioned to) make 1 stele of silver (with sun) r[ays] on the top (for) the Sun-goddess of the Water of Guršamašša” (Cammarosano 2018, 170-71). Only one passage mentions that the stele was engraved with the image of a “Noursing Mother”, an-ni-iš :ti-ta-i-me-iš, KBo 2.1 I 33. A stele was rather rarely substituted by a statuette13.

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

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

It was Güterbock (1983) who explained the symbolism through which the Hittites experienced the world that surrounded them, in his fundamental essay in the Festschrift Bittel. He classified the representations of the gods according to three groups: anthropomorphic images, zoomorphic, or as objects, basing himself on the “cult inventories” concerning the provincial cities and villages of Ḫatti18. According to him, the term dingirlim-tar (šiuniyatar, from šiu(n)- “god”) should be interpreted as “Götterdarstellung”, so that “(God NN) dingirlim-tar 1 wakšur” would mean: “God NN: (his) image (is) a wakšur vessel”19. This image was the tangible aspect of a deity, so that šiuniyatar should be understood more exactly as “spirit holder; divinity” (CHD Š, 507)20. The following passage, dIyayaš dingirlim-tar alam giš kù.babbar gar.ra munusti tuš-an, should therefore mean: “Goddess Iyaya: (her) spirit holder is a statue of a woman sitting, (made of) wood, inlaid with silver”.

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

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

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

awauwa- “spider” KUB 54.10 II 8’: bi-ib-ra guškin;

auiti “sphinx, winged lion,” KBo 30.175, 4’‒5’: a-]ú-i-ti-ya-aš bi-i[b-ri; KBo 48.262.a II: 2 bi-ib-ru a-ú-i-ti [… na₄z]a.gìn; KUB 2.10 V 39: a-ú-i-ti guškin; KUB 16.83 obv. 49: dPitenḫi (bibru); Ištar

šāiu- “?” KUB 12.1 IV 23’: 1 ša-a-i-u-uš guškin;

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

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

a-ja-li “stag” Bo 5036 III 13-1423;

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

gudamar “calf” dTūḫašail KUB 59.37, 18’-19’;

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

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

gud “ox/bull” KBo 48.262.a+: II 9-11: 4 bi-ib-ru gu4 šà 1en 4 gìrmeš [gub-z]a guškin na4 1en 4 gìrmeš ša-ša-an-za gušk[in] na4 2 igi-zi gìrmeš ša-ša-an-za gušk[in] na4 2 igi-zi gìrmeš gub-te-eš guškin na424; KUB 12.1 IV 20’-21’: 6 bi-ib-ru guškin [šàb]a 4 gud igi-zi gub-an-te-eš šà 3 guškin na4 1en guškin pu-u-ri-in (Siegelová 1986, 448); KUB 42.42 IV11’: [x bi-ib-r]u gud 2 aš-ra guškin gar.r[a; KUB 42.100+: III 27’: du ane: 3 gú gud kú.babbar; KBo 25.173 I 7’: bi-ib-ru guškin;

dim: KBo 27.67+ I 4’, II 1, 35 and 44, 55 (Klinger 1996, 302, 306, 310, 312);

du ga5-aš-ru KUB 38.1+ 29’-30’: bi-ib-ru gu4 giš kú.babbar gar.ra 4 ki.gub pár-ka4-aš-ti 1 sig.kuš;

du šamē VSNF 12.28 II 13’-14’: Klinger 1996, 610;

dim ètim gal KBo 19.128 VI 10’-11’: Otten 1971, 16;

dim uruḪi-iš-ša-aš-ḫa-pa: ABoT 33+ IV 5’-6’: bi-ib-ru gud kú.babbar;

du uruLi-iḫ-zi-na, KUB 38.3 I 1-3: bi-ib-ru gud giš 4 ki.gub kú.babbar gar.ra sag.du-šú gabaḫi.a guškin gar.ra pár-ka4-aš-ti 1 sig.kuš;

dim/u and dim/u uruZi-ip-pa-la-an-da KBo 14.33 I 12’: (StBoT 37: 426, 458, 482); KBo 19.128 IV 34’-35’, 42’-43’: Otten 1971, 10, 12; KUB 1.17 II 31-33.

gud.am “Auerochse” KUB 12.3, 10.

gud.amar “calf” Bo 6514 IV 3; KUB 59.37, 7’.

gud.maḫ “bull” KUB 42.100+: III 27’-28’.

púḪa-pu-ri-ya-ta-aš KBo 2.1 II 34: an.bar 1 še-kan;

du mZi-ya-zi-ya KBo 2.13 obv. 1: an.bar;

du uruA-aš-ša-ra-ad-da (KBo 2.1 II 40-41, 34-35): an.bar 1 še-kan;

du uruMa-al-li-it-ta-aš KUB 38.6 + 57.106 IV 16’: giš nagga gar.ra 4 gub-za;

du uruMa-ra-a-aš KBo 2.1 I 28-29, 34-35: an-na-ki gar.ra 4 gub-za; changed in: kú.babbar 4 gub -za 1 še-kan;

du uruPa-re-en-ta-aš KBo 2.1 III 7-8: an.bar 1 še-kan;

du uruŠa-na-an-ti-ya KBo 2.1 IV 1-3: an.bar 4 gub-aš 2 še-kan;

du uruŠa-ru-wa-la-aš-ši KBo 2.1 III 1-3: an.bar 1 še-kan;

du uruWa-at-tar-wa KBo 2.1 II 24-25: an.bar 1 še-kan;

mušen “bird” KUB 7.38 obv. 12.

pìrig.tur “leopard” KUB 48.262.a+ II 21-23: 3 bi-ib-ru pìrig.tur šà 1en 4 gìrmeš gub-za 2 GÚ pìrig.tur guškin na₄za.gìn mušnuwa[nza] parzašša.

simmušen “dove” KUB 16.83 I 50: guškin simmušen.

šaḫ “pig” KBo 31.54, 5’.

bi-ib-ru šaḫ zabar (KUB 44.6 I 3’, 4’).

ti8mušen “eagle” bi-]ib-ri ḫi.a KBo 18.178 rev. 2’-3: kú.babbar …[1en] gú ti8mušen; KBo 48.262.a+ II 15: 4 bi-ib-ru ti8mušen guškin na₄za.gìn; KUB 12.1 IV 11’: 1en gú ti8mušen.

ḫur.sag Lūla (KUB 40.110 rev. 4‒5).

dKammamma dḪašgallā (KUB 55.18 II 8’‒9’: iš-tu bi-ib-ri gu[škin] ti8mušen)

dkal uruḪatti (KUB 55.18 III 2’‒3’).

[ḫumanteš] dingirmeš (KBo 54.143 obv. 3’‒4).

udu.kur.ra “mountain sheep” KUB 12.1 IV 10’-11’ (Siegelová 1986, 446): [x bi-]ib-ru guškin šàba 2 udu.kur.ra igi-zi gub-an-te-eš [x gub-a]n-te-eš egir-pa pár-za uš-kán-e- eš; KUB 42.100+: III 28’: du ane: 1 bi-ib-ru udu.kur.ra kú.babbar.

udu.šir “ram” bi-ib-ru kú.babbar 4 gìrmeš a-ra-an-za.

dḪilašši (VSNF 12.21 + KBo 13.217 II 1’).

dŠawašḫila (VSNF 12.21+ II 14’-15’).

dKataḫziwūri (VSNF 12.21+ III 18’’, 22’’).

dZiparwā (VSNF 12.21+ III 7’’, 10’’).

ur.maḫ “lion” bi-ib-ri kú.babbar 1 gú ur.maḫ (KBo 9.91 obv. 15-17); 3 bi-ib-ru ur.maḫ šà 1en 4 gìrmeš gub-za sag.du-sú gaba guškin an.bar ge6 1en gú ur.maḫ guškin na₄za.gìn na₄mu-u[š-nu-wa-an-za] ḫe-eš-ḫi-ši-kán sag.du ur.maḫ na4 1en gušk[in] pu-u-ri-iš ti-it-ta-li-ta-i-me-eš (KBo 48.262.a+ II 16-20)25; 1en gú ur.maḫ [guški]n na4 (KUB 12.1 IV 22’-23’); KUB 48.119 rev.? 9; bi-ib-ru ur.maḫ guškin

ḫur.sagAškašepa (on a gold B.: KUB 1.17 V 28’: Klinger 1996, 436; gold).

dIyarri (in a dream stood on a lion – his form however was like that of the Storm-god – ‘This statue they will make exactly so”; 46’-51’: “in a dream one said to His Majesty: ‘make Iyarri (represented as) a veiled woman’, Iyarri (represented as) a veiled woman they shall make”: KUB 15.5 II 39’-44’; de Roos 2007, 75).

d gal.zu (KBo 19.128 V 39’-40’: Otten 1971, 14).

za.ba4.ba4 (KUB 10.89 I 20: Klinger 1996, 506).

8. The Hittite ceremony of “drinking a god” and the ritual meal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KUB 55.18 II 6’-11’:

6’ na-aš-ta ša-an-ḫa-an-zi nu lúsanga

7’ dKa-am-ma-am-ma dḪa-aš-ga-la-a

8’ ša lugal-ya šum-šu gub-aš iš-tu bi-ib-ri k[ù.babbar]

9’ ti8mušen pi-ya-an-zi na-an-za-kán kat-ta [Ø]

10’ a-na gal.gir4 la-ḫu-u-wa-i na-an-kán iš-t[u gal.gir4]

11’ e-ku-zi

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

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

2’ [nu?] ⸢d⸣gal.zu gub-aš iš-tu bi-ib-ri kù.babbar

3’ [ti8]mušen ša dkal uruḪa-at-ti pa-an-ga-u-i-y[a]

4’ [p]i-ya-an-zi na-at-za-kán kat-ta a-na galḫi.a [gir4]

5’ [l]a-a-ḫu-wa-an-zi na-at-kán ar-ḫa a-ku-wa-an-z[i]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This text shows how the king (and the queen) first created a mystic union with the god in drinking (eku-) of the same wine and eating (wek-) of the same bread offered to him. This bread was then offered to the god in placing it on the “altar” (zag.gar.ra), while the wine was poured as a libation (sipant-) in the ḫuppar vessel at the foot of the altar. Additional wine (or beer) and bread were distributed to the assembly (ašeššar) of the Palace personnel, or to the local communities, creating an inclusive union through a common meal. Only the officiant, however, drank from the wine of the gods. Even so, the shared ritual meal extended its mystical significance to all the members who took part in the rite38.

9. Drinking in the Royal Funerary Rite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Day XIII. “They lift the statue. … They give (roasted liver and hearth) to the Soul of the deceased to bite. … They offer wine and fine oil. They give to the deceased to drink; and he drinks his soul” (akkanti akuwanna pianzi nu apel zi-an ekuzi) (FR, 500-05). “They pour fine oil from above on the wine” (FR, 506-07 l. 26).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rites were moreover registered in “tablets”, giš.ḫur/tuppaḫi.a gulzattar; giš.ḫur šiyanza, and they could have been damaged or lost.

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

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

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

There is evidence that Tudḫaliya personally supervised this cult reorganization: mTudḫaliyaš lugal.gal / dutuši dāiš / me-iš “instituted”: KBo 12.56 I 8’, and KUB 25.23 IV 48’: “One temple will be built”; VS 28.111 obv. 16’: alamḫi.a é.dingirlim dutuši aš-ku[-un] “His Majesty has established statues and a temple”; KUB 25.23 IV 63’-64’: pa-ni dutuši mTudḫaliya [….] kin?-ti “Before His Majesty Tudḫaliyas [X] wrote it” (Hazenbos 2003, 35).

Tudḫaliya introduced several gods according to the religious feeling and political situation of his time, as exemplified in KBo 70.109 + KUB 57.106+, and its dupl. KUB 38.6 + 57.56. The text has to be dated to the period in which Nerik and the cult of its Storm-god and that of Kaštama were restored (these gods are mentioned in practically all of the preserved section concerning twenty-eight settlements), but it is not possible to determine the region to which this inventory refers. The cult of the two major deities of Aššur was introduced in several peripheral cities or villages: the Storm-god of Aššur (§§ 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 22, 25); Ištar (dliš) of Nineveh (§§ 6, 7, 9. 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26), and even Ištar of Babylon: (dliš of Karduniya, § 25). The river Baliḫ (in the Luwian form Baluḫašša), and Milku (§ 6, and § 6, 7, 12, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27 respectively) were Syrian gods, while Piḫami and Piḫaim(m)i, are Luwian epithets of the Storm-god (§§ 3 4, 6, 8, 9, 12).

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

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

dim kur Nerikka & dimin.bi; [dim] piḫaimmi & dimin.bi; dim putalim(m)i & [dimin.bi]; dim of Nerikki; dim ša šamê; dḪandas/šima (cf. dḪantašepa); dištar uruŠamuḫa, dTašmišu, dimin.bi, ḫur.sagḪarḫia & ḫur.sagDaliyani (cf. the mountains Ḫaḫarwa and Zaliyanu); dTaḫagu & dTaḫagunanu (see the daḫanga of the Storm-god of Nerik: probably to identify with the cave of the spring at Oymaağaç); dim piḫaimmi; dim putalimmu; dim ḫapaimmi; d30 and dim ša šamê; dim ša šamê, dAllanu, dḪurraš, dŠeliš, dḪazi, dNani, dMušitu; dMadi, dNergal, dimin.bi; dMilku; dPut[alimmu]; dNergal; dŠanda; dTenu.

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

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

Each town or village could have had some different festivals, but the texts present the same basic pattern for them: a rite initiated in the autumn festival, which found its accomplishment in the spring festival, and was strongly concerned with the survival of each of those communities, a rite, therefore, which was celebrated from time immemorial. This rite was the festival of the “filling”, šuḫḫa-, of the storage vessel or “pithos”, ḫarši(yalli)-48, with grain, which was celebrated in “autumn”, zenant-, while in “spring”, ḫamešḫant-, the “opening”, kinu-, of the vessel was celebrated. “Avec cette cérémonie, durant laquelle on transformait en pain la céréale de l’année précédente, le nouveau produit, à peine gérme, était lié à l’ancien unissant ainsi le cycle agricole d’une année à l’autre, et favorissant ainsi la croissance de la nouvelle récolte» (Archi 1973, 15-8).

These seasonal rites prescribed that in spring the images of the god were brought in a procession led by the local priest (to which the representatives of each community took part) to the deity itself, who was identified with a mountain in the case of a male deity, or a spring in the case of a female deity, according to an animistic conception49. The exact point was marked by a “stele”, na₄ḫuwaši- / na₄zi.kin, which represented the deity. The image (a statue, a vessel, or even a stele) which represented the deity in the shrine of the city or village was placed beside that stele in order to be – so-to-speak – reloaded with the essence of that particular deity (Archi 1973, 18-24). See, for example, KBo 2.7 obv. 6’-17’50:

6’ ma-a-an a-na ḫur.sagŠi-id-du-wa zé-e-ni dugḫar-ši šu-uḫ-ḫa-a-an-zi 1 nindadan-na-aš pár-ši-an[-zi]

7’ 1 udu an-na-al-li-in ḫur.sagŠi-id-du-wa bal-an-zi 12 bán zì.da 1 dugḫu-u-up-pár-aš kaš gišza[g.gar.ra]

8’ 4 pa 〈zì.da〉 4 dug kaš aš-nu-ma-aš ezen-šú tar-ra-a-wa-a-an-za

9’ gim-an-ma di12-ši dù-ri te-et-ḫa-i dugḫar-ši ge-e-nu-an-zi 1 udu bal!-an-zi ½ bán zì.da 1 dugḫa-n[é-eš-ša-aš kaš]

10’ gišzag.gar.ra 1 bán zì.da 1 dug ḫu-u-up-pár kaš aš-nu-ma-aš zíz ma-al-la-an-zi ḫar-ra-an-zi

11’ lu-kat-ma ḫur.sagŠi-id-du-wa-an ninda.gur4.ra dugḫar-ši-aš na₄zi.kinḫi.a pé-danx-zi 1 nindadan-na-aš pár-ši-an[-zi]

12’ 1 gud 1 udu ḫur.sagŠi-id-du-wa 1 udu du 1 udu dutu 1 udu dkal 1 máš.gal dimin.imin.bi

13’ 2 bán zíd.da 1 dug ka.gag ša 3 bán 1 dugḫu-u-up-pár-aš kaš gišzag.gar.ra 1 pa 4 bán zíd.da

14’ 2 dug kaš 1 dug ka.gag aš-nu-ma-aš dingirlum še-eš-zi

15’ lu-kat-ma utúlši-ya-am-mi dù-an-zi ½ bán zíd.da 1 dugḫa[-né-e]š-ša-aš kaš gišzag.gar.ra 3 bán zì.da 1 dug kaš aš-nu-ma-aš

16’ dingirlum kar-ap-pa-an-zi ina é.dingirlim-šú-an ar-ḫa pé[-da]nx-zi nindadan-na-aš pár-ši-an-zi

17’ dingirmeš na₄ZI.KIN-ma-aš-ma-aš pé-danx ḫar!-kán!-zi

6’ When, in autumn, they fill the pithos for Mount Šidduwa, they break 1 dannaš loaf;

7’ They offer 1 sheep, as of old, to Mount Šidduwa. 12 bán-measures of flour; 1 bowl of beer (for) the altar.

8’ 4 pārisu measures (of flour), 4 vessels of beer (are) at disposal (of the community). His festival is so provided.

9’ When spring comes (and) it thunders, they open the pithos. They offer 1 sheep. ½ bán-measure of flour 1 ju[g] of beer

10’ (for) the altar. 1 bán-measure of flour, 1 bowl of beer (are) at disposal (of the community). They grind (and) mill the barley.

11’ The following morning they bring (the image of) Mount Šidduwa (and) the loaves of bread of the pithos to the stelae. The break 1 dannaš loaf.

12’ (They offer) 1 ox (and) 1 sheep to mount Šidduwa, 1 sheep to the Storm-god, 1 sheep to the Sun-goddess, 1 sheep to the Stag-god, 1goat to the Heptad.

13’ 2 bán-measures of flour, 1 ka.gag-vessel (of) 3 bán-measures, 1 bowl of beer (for) the altar. 1 pārisu (and) 4 bán-measures of flour,

14’ 2 vessels of beer, 1 ka.gag-vessel (of beer are) at disposal (of the community). The god spends the night (there).

15’ The following morning they prepare a šiyami dish. ½ bán-measure of flour, 1 j[u]g of beer (for) the altar. 3 bán-measures of flour, 1 vessel of beer (are) at disposal (of) the community.

16’ They take up (the image of) the god, (and) bring him away (back) to his shrine. They break dannaš bread.

17’ (They have accomplished the rite) to bring the gods to their stele.

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

10’ lu-kat-ti-ma lú.mešsanga lú.mešgudu12 be-luḫi.a el-lu-tiḫi.a x[…

11’ an-da a-ra-an-zi nu ḫur.sagḪal-wa-an-na-an ḫur.sag-i ug[u p]é-danx-zi

12’ nu ma-a-an iš-tu lúkúr kat-ta ki-it-ta-ri na-[a]n ḫur.sag-i pé-danx-zi na-an [na₄zi.kin pé-ra-an ta-ni-nu-wa-an-zi]

13’ na₄zi.kin-ya gišḫa-a-ra-u-i kat-ta-an ar-ta-ri 3 ninda up-ni pár-ši-ya-an-zi

14’ kaš-ya ši-ip-pa-an-zi ma-a-an iš-tu lúkúr ú-ul kat-ta ki-it-ta

15’ na-an na₄zi.kin gišḫa-ra-u-i ka[t-t]a-an íd-an-kán ta-pu-ša

16’ ta-ni-nu-wa-an-zi

10’ The next morning the priests, the anointed priests, the lords, the free-men […]

11’ arrive. They carry Mount Ḫalwanna up to the mountain (of his name).

12’ If the land is in the hand of the enemy, they carry him to the mountain. [They place] him [in front of the stele,]

13’ and the stele stands under a poplar. They break 3 loaves of (1) handful (of flour),

14’ and they pour a libation of beer. If (the land) is not in the hand of the enemy,

15’ they place him at the stele under the poplar next to the river.

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

1 ḫur.sagMa-li-ma-li-ya-aš an-na-la-za dingirmeš-tar ú-ul e-eš-ta

2 dutuši-an mTu-ud-ḫa-li-ya-aš alam lú an.bar 1 še-kan ½ še-kán-na

3 igiḫi.a kù.gi a-na ur.maḫ an.bar-aš-kán ar-ta-ri šà é ḫur.sagKu-ku-mu-ša-an-kán

4 pé-danx-zi na₄zi.kin-ya-an-kán i-na uruTaḫ-ni-wa-ra pa-aš-šu-i še-er ti-ya-an-zi

5 1 pa zíz pa geštin dugḫar-ši šà é ḫur.sagKu-ku-mi-ša iš-ḫu-u-wa-an-zi

1 Mount Malimaliya. Formerly there was no divine representation.

2 His Majesty Tudḫaliya (made) him (in form of) an iron statue of a man 1½ šekan (high);

3 his eyes (are) of gold; he stands on a lion of iron. In the shrine of Mount Kukumuša

4 they carry him. And in form of a stele they place him in the village of Taḫniwara on a block.

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

23 1 alam munus tuš-za an.bar pú.gal dutuši dù-at šà é dingirlim du pé-danx-zi

24 ma-a-an a-na pú.gal ezen [d]i12-ši dù-an-zi še.nag〈-an〉-zi lúsanga[-za še.nag-zi]

25 dingirlum še.nag-zi pú-kan ša-ra-a ša-an-ḫa-an-zi

26 lúsanga-kán dingirlum ta gišzag.gar.ra me-i na-an-kán ta é [dingirlim]

27 pa-ra-a ú-da-i nu dingirlum ina pú pé-e-da-i dingirlum p[a-ni na₄zi.kin]

28 ta-ni-nu-wa-an-zi nu-kán lúsanga 1 udu a-na pú.gal ba[l-ti]

29 šà pú-an-kán ḫu-kán-zi šu-up-pa ti-an-zi 6 nindada[n-na-aš]

30 1 dugḫu-up-pár kaš ina gišzag.gar.ra ninda.gur4.ra pár-ši-an-zi b[i-ib-ru-kán]

31 šu-un-na-an-zi 2 bán zì.da 4 dug kaš aš-ša-nu-ma-aš gu7-zi [nag-zi]

32 galḫi.a-kán aš-ša-nu-wa-an-zi munus.mešḫa-zi-ka4-ra-za gurun ú-d[a-an-zi]

33 dingirlim gilim-an-zi unmeš-na-za gilim-iz-zi gud udu peš-ka4-[an-zi]

34 ga.kin.dù dam-ma-aš-ša-an-zi pa-ni dingirlim ti-an-zi unm[eš-ni-ya pí-an-zi]

35 dingirlum-ma-aš-kán du-uš-kn-zi dingirlum ina é dingirlim munus.meš[ḫa-zi-ka4-ra-za]

36 ar-ḫa pé-e-da-an-zi gišzag.gar.ra ta-ni-nu-wa-an-zi

37 2 ninda up-ni pár-ši-an-zi kaš bal-an-zi

38 [š] u.nígin 1 udu 2 bán zì.da 5 dug kaš ana ezen4 di12-ši uru-aš [pé-eš-ke-ez-zi]

23 1 statuette of a woman seated, of iron: the Great Spring. His Majesty (commissioned it to be) made. They bring (her) into the shrine of the Storm-god.

24 When they celebrate the spring festival for the Great Spring, they perform ablutions. The priest [washes himself];

25 they wash the goddess; they clean the spring out.

26 The priest takes the goddess from the altar and brings her out of the shrine,

27 and brings the goddess to the spring, They place the goddess in fr[ont of the spring.]

28 The priest sacri[fices] 1 sheep to the Great Spring.

29 They slaughter it (so that the blood flows] inside the spring. They place the meat, 6 dannaš loaves,

30 (and) 1 bowl of beer at the altar. They break the loaves of bread and fill the r[hyta].

31 2 bán -measures of flour, 4 vessels of beer (are) at disposal (of) the community. They eat, they drink.

32 They provide the bowls. The ḫazikara-women bri[ng] fruit.

33 They put a wreath on the goddess, the people put on wreaths. They sup[ply] cattle and sheep.

34 They press cheese (and) place it in front of the goddess, [and give (it) to] the people.

35 They entertain the goddess. (Then) the ḫazikara-women carry the goddess away (back) to the shrine,

36 (and) place (her) upon the altar.

37 They break two loaves of one handful of flour, they offer a libation of beer.

38 [T]otal: 1 sheep, 2 bán -measures of flour, 5 vessels of beer: the town [regularly supply] to the spring festival.

The excavations of the city of Šarišša (Kușaklı) have allowed us to identify one of these sanctuaries: the ruins of a simple building on top of a hill, 2.5 km outside the city, near a pond (Müller-Karpe 2017, 121-24). Documents from Ḫattuša mention that the king reached the “stele”, na₄ḫuwaši-, of the spring Šuppitaššu of Šarišša by chariot, and texts nos. 1-3 from Šarišša concern the spring festival which the king celebrated by the na₄ḫuwaši- of the Storm-god (Wilhelm 1997, 9-20).

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

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

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

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

(KUB 56.39 IV 23-29: Cammarosano 2018, 252-55).

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

11. The cosmic animism of the Hittites

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

Bibliography

Alp, Sedat. 1983. Beiträge zur Erforshung des hethitischen Tempels. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.

Archi, Alfonso. 1973. “Fêtes de printemps et d’automne et réintégration rituelle d’images de culte dans l’Anatolie Hittite.” Ugarit Forschungen 5: 7-27.

Archi, Alfonso. 1979. “Das Kultmahl bei den Hethitern.” In VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, 197-213. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu basımevi.

Archi, Alfonso. 2002. “Kizzuwatna Amid Anatolian and Syrian Cults.” In Anatolia Antica, Studi in Memoria di Fiorella Imparati I, eds. Stefano de Martino, and Franca Pecchioli Daddi, 47-53. Firenze: LoGisma (Eothen 11).

Archi, Alfonso. 2006. “Hurrian Gods and the Festival of the Hattian-Hittite Layer.” In The Life and Times of Tudḫaliya IV. Proceeedings of a Symposium held in Honour of J. de Roos, 12-13 December 2003, Leiden, ed. Th. P. J. van den Hout, 147-63. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Archi. Alfonso. 2008. “The Soul has to Leave the Land of the Living.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religion 7: 169-95.

Archi, Alfonso, and Klengel, Horst. 1980. “Ein hethitischer Text über die Reorganisation des Kultes.” Altorientalische Forschungen 7: 143-57.

Arnaud, Daniel 1986. Recherches au Pays d’Aštata. Emar VI.3. Textes sumériens et accadiens. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Banning, Edward B. 2011. “So Fair a House: Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of Temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Near East.” Current Anthropology 52/5: 619-60.

Barański, Marek Z., et al. 2021. “Integrating Records of Mellaart and Hodder research projects at Çatalhöyük: the GDN Area.” In Communities at Work. The Making of Çatalhöyük, eds. Ian Hodder, and Christina Tsoraki, 51-70. Ankara: British Institute of Archaeology (Çatalhöyük Research Project Series 15).

Barjamovic, Gojko. 2011. A historical Geography of Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Period. Copenhagen: The Carsten Niehbur Institute of Near Eastern Studies.

Brandenstein, von, Carl-Georg. 1943. Hethitische Götter nach Bildbeschreibungen in Keilschrittexten. Leipzig: Hinrichs (MVAeG 46/2).

Burgin, James M. 2019. Functional Differentiation in Hittite Festival Texts. An Analysis of the Old Hittite Manuscripts of the KI.LAM Great Assembly. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 65).

Cammarosano, Michele. 2012. “Hittite Cult Inventories. The Dating of the Texts and the Alleged Cult Reorganization of Tudḫaliya IV.” Altorientalischen Forschungeno 39: 3-37.

Cammarosano, Michele. 2015. “Foreign Gods in Ḫatti A New Edition of CTH 510,” KASKAL 12: 199-244.

Cammarosano, Michele. 2018. Hittite Local Cults. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press (WAW 40).

Cammarosano, Michele. 2021. At the Interface of Religion and Administration: The Hittite Cult Inventories. With a contribution by Adam Kryszeń. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 68).

Carruba, Onofrio. 1966. Das Beschwörungsritual für die Göttin Wišurijanza. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 2).

Carruba, Onofrio. 1967. “Rhyta in den hethitischen Texten.” Kadmos 6: 88-97.

Carter, Charles. 1962. Hittite Cult Inventories. Diss.: University of Chicago.

Cauvin, Jacques. 1994. Naissance des divinités Naissance de l’agriculture. Paris: CNRS Édition.

Cauvin, Jacques. 2001. “Ideology before Economy.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11: 106-7.

Colonna, Angelo. 2021. Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt from the Early Dynastic to the New Kingdom. Ritual Forms, Material Display, Historical Development. Oxford: Archeopress Publishing Ltd (Archeopress Egyptology 36).

De Roos, Johan. 2007. Hittite Votive Texts. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Dietrich, Oliver, et al. 2012. “Göbekli Tepe. First Came the Temple, Later the City,” Actual Archaeology 2: 1-13.

Dietrich, Oliver. 2016. “Göbekli Tepe, Anlage H. Ein Vorbericht beim Ausgrabungstand von 2014.” Der Anschnitt. Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau. Beiheft 31: Anatolian Metal VII: 53-69.

Dietrich, Olivier, and Notroff, Jens. 2015. “A Sanctuary, or so Fair a House? In Defense of an Archaeology of cult at Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe.” In Defining the Sacred. Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East, ed. by N. Laneri, 75-89. Oxford-Philadelphia: Oxbow Books.

Dietrich, Olivier, Notroff, Jens, and Dietrich, Laura. 2018. “Behind the Mask: Early Neolithic Miniature Masks (and one larger-than-life example from Göbekli Tepe (and beyond).” http.//www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/09/Behind-the-Mask, last visited 02/08/2023.

Dietrich, Olivier, and Schmidt, Klaus. 2016. “A Short Note on a New Figurine Type from Göbelki Tepe.” Neo-Lithics 1/17: 43-6.

Düring, Bleda S. 2001. Constructing Communities; Clustered Neighbourhood Settlements of the Central Anatolian Neolithic ca. 8500-5000 CAL BC. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Osten (PIHANS 105).

Fantoni, Caterina. 2021. “The Arm-shaped Vessels in Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age: A Morphological and Contextual Analysis.” Asia Anteriore Antica 3: 93-123.

Forlanini, Massimo. 1992. “Am mittlerem Kızılirmak.” In Hittite and other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Sedat Alp, eds. Heinrich Otten et al., 171-79. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

Forrer, Emil. 1940. “Das Abendmahl im Ḫatti-Reiche.” In Actes du XXe Congrès International des Orientalistes, Bruxelles 1938, 124-28. Louvain: Bureau du Muséon.

Francia, Rita, 2022 “The (LÚ)šiuniyant- in Hittite Texts: ‘prophet’, ‘ecstatic’?” Studia Hethitica, Hurritica et Urartica 1: 165-84.

Friedrich, Johannes. 1952. Hethitische Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag.

Gerçek, İlgi N. 2020. “Rivers and River Cults in Hittite Anatolia”. In Cult, Temple, Sacred Spaces. Cult Practices and Cult Spaces in Hittite Anatolia and Neighbouring Cultures. Proceedings of the First International HFR Symposium, Mainz, 3-5 June 2019, eds. Susanne Görke, and Charles W. Steitler, 253-78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 66).

Goedegebure, Petra M. 2008. “Appendix: Hattian Origins of Hittite Religious Concepts: The Syntax of “To Drink (to) a Deity’ (Again) and Other Phrases.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religion 8: 67-73.

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

Goodnick Westenholz, Joan, and Westenholz, Aage. 2000. Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem. The Emar Tablets. Groningen: Styx Publications (Cuneiform Monographs 13).

Groddek, Detlev. 2002. Hethitische Texte in Transkription. KUB 55. Dresden: Verlag der TU (DBH 4).

Güterbock, Hans G. 1964. “Lexicographical notes (II).” Revue Hittite et Asianique 22/74: 95-113.

Güterbock, Hans G. 1983. “Hethitische Götterbilder und Kultobjekte.” In Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, eds. Reiner Boehmer, and Harald Hauptmann, 203-17. Mainz: von Zabern.

Güterbock, Hans G. 1989. “Hittite kurša- “Hunting Bag”. In Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor, eds. Albert Leonard, and Bruce Williams, 113-19. Chicago: Oriental University Press.

Güterbock, Hans G. 1998. “To Drink a God.” In XXXIVème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, eds. Hayat Erkanal, Veysal Donbaz, and Altin Uguroglu, 121-29. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.

Güterbock, Gustav H., and Timoty Kendall. 1995. “A Hittite Silver Vessel in the Form of a Fist.” In The Age of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, eds. Jane Carter, and Sarah Morris, 45-60. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Haas, Volkert. 1982. Hethitische Berggötter und hurritische Steindämonen. Riten, Kulte und Mythen. Mainz: von Zabern.

Hauptmann, Harald. 1993. “Ein Kultgebäude in Nevalı Çori.” In Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains: Archaeologica, Anatolica et Mespotamica Alba Palmieri Dicata, eds. by Marcella Frangipane, Harald Hauptmann, Mario Liverani, Paolo Matthiae, and Matcheld Mellink, 37-69. Roma: Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’.

Hauptmann, Harald. 2012. “Frühneolitische Kultbilder in der Kommagene.” In Gottkönige am Euphrat: Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Kommagene, ed. Jörg Wagner, 12-22. Darmstadt-Mainz: von Zabern.

Hawkins, David J. 2006. “Tudḫaliya the Hunter.” In The Life and Times of Tudḫaliya IV. Proceeedings of a Symposium held in Honour of J. de Roos, 12-13 December 2003, Leiden, ed. Theo P. J. van den Hout, 49-76. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Hazenbos, Joost. 2003. The Organization of the Anatolian Local Cults During the Thirteenth Century B.C. Groningen: Styx Publications (Cuneiform Monographs 21).

Heffron, Yağmur. 2014. “The Material Culture of Hittite ‘God-drinking’.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religion 14: 164-85.

Heimpel, Wolfgang, and Emanuelle Salgues. 2015. “Lugal oder wie Ninurta dem Tigris mehr Wasser shuf.” In Erzählungen aud dem Land Sumer, ed. Konrad Volk, 33-67. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hoffner, Harry A. Jr. 1997. Perspectives on Hittite Civilization: Selected Writings of Hans Gustav Güterbock. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (AS 26).

Hornung, Erik. 1982. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt. The One and the Many, Ithaca. New York: Cornell University Press.

Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1946. “Mesopotamia.” In Before Philosophy, eds. Henri Frankfort, et al., 137-234. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Jakob-Rost, Liane. 1961. “Zu den hethitischen Bildbeschreibungen” (I. Teil). Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 8: 161-217.

Jakob-Rost, Liane. 1963. “Zu den hethitischen Bildbeschreibungen” (II. Teil). Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 9: 175-239.

Kammenhuber, Annelies. 1971. “Heth. ḫaššuš 2-e ekuzi ‘der König trinkt zwei’.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 14: 143-59.

Kammenhuber, Annelies. 1991. “Nochmals: der hethitische König trinkt Gott NN.” In Text, Methode und Grammatik. Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Walter Gross, Hubert Irsigler, and Theodor Seidel, 221-26. Erzabtei St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag.

Kammenhuber, Annelies. 1993. Kleine Schriften zum Altanatolischen und Indogermanischen 2. Teilband, 1969‒1990. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.

Kammenhuber, Annelies, and Archi, Alfonso. 1975/77. ‘eku-/aku-’. Materialien zu einem hethitische Thesaurus. Lief. 3-6. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.

Kassian, Alexei, Andrej Korolëv, and Andrej Sidelt’sev. 2002. Hittite Funerary Ritual šalliš waštaiš. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag (AOAT 288).

Klinger, Jörg. 1996. Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der hattischen Kultschicht. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 37).

Kulakoğlu, Fikri. 2008. “A Hittite God from Kültepe”. In Old Assyrian Studies in Memory of Paul Garelli, ed. Cecile Michel, 13-9. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten (PIHANS 112).

Kulakoğlu, Fikri, and Selmin Kangal. 2010. Anatolia’s Prologue. Kültepe Kanesh. Assyrians in Istanbul. Kayseri: Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality.

Laroche, Emmanuel. 1975. “La réforme religieuse du roi Tudhaliya IV et sa signification politique.” In Les syncrétisme dans les religions de l’Antiquité, Colloque de Besançon (22-23 Octobre 1973), eds. Françoise Dunand, and Pierre Lévêque, 87-94. Leiden: Brill.

Laroche, Emmanuel. 2016. Études Anatoliennes Recueilles par Alfonso Archi & Hatice Gonnet. Subartu 37. Turnhout: Brepols.

Mazzoni, Stefania. 2002. “The Squatting Woman: Between Fertility and Eroticism.” In Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Proceeding of the 4th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2-6, 2001, 2, eds. Simo Parpola, and Robert Whiting, 367-77. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Mazzucato, Camilla, et al. 2021. “An Integrated Approach to the Study of Socio-material Networks at Çatalhöyük.” In Communities at Work. The Making of Çatalhöyük, eds. Ian Hodder, Christina Tsoraki, 147-75. Ankara: British Institute of Archaeology (Çatalhöyük Research Project Series 15).

McMahon, Gregory. 1991. The Hittite State Cult of the Tutelary Deities. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (AS 25).

Melchert, Craig H. 2019. “Solar and Sky Deities in Anatolian.” In Qazzu warrai Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Kazuhiko Yoshida, eds. Adam Catt, Ronald Kim, and Brent Vine, 239-49. Anna Arbor-New York: Beech Stave Press.

Mellaart, James. 1964. “Excavation at Çatal Hüyük, 1963. Third Preliminary Report.” Anatolian Studies 14: 39-119.

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

Mielke, Dirk Paul. 2007. “Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware from Hittite Contexts”. In The Lustrous Ware of the Late Bronze Age Cyprus and The Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Irmgard Hein, 404-09. Wien: Austrian Academy of Science.

Miller, Jared. 2013. Royal Hittite Instructions and Related Administrative Texts. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Otten, Heinrich. 1971. Ein hethitisches Festritual (KBo XIX 128). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 13).

Otten, Heinrich. 1989. “Tiergefässe im Kult der späten hethitischen Grossreichszeit.” In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, eds. Kutlu Emre, Barthel Hrouda, Matchild Mellink, and Nimet Özgüc, 365-368. Ankara: Anadolu Medeniyetleri Arastirma ve Tanitma Vakfi Yayinlari.

Otto, Adelheid. 2015. “9,000 Years of Cultic Traditions in Northern Mesopotamia and Syria? Thoughts about the Crescent, the Bull and the Pole with Human Heads”. In From the Treasures of Syria. Essays on Art and Archaeology in Honour of Stefania Mazzoni, eds. Paola Ciafardoni, and Deborah Giannessi, 185-202. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Özgüç, Nimet. 2006. Kültepe-Kaniš / Nesa. Seal Impressions on the Clay Envelopes from the Archives of the Native Peruwa and Assyrian Trader Uṣur-ša-Ištar son of Aššur-imittī, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.

Özgüç, Tahsin. 1991. “The Newly Discovered Cult Objects from the Karum of Kanesh.” In Near Eastern Studies Dedicated to H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa, eds. Masao Mori, Hideo Ogawa, and Mamoru Joshikawa, 320-35. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (BMECCJ 5).

Özgüç, Tahsin. 2005. Kültepe Kaniš/Neša. Istanbul: Yapi Kredi Yayınları.

Perdibon, Anna. 2019. Mountains and Trees, Rivers and Springs. Animistic Beliefs and Practices in Ancient Mesopotamian Religion. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (LAOS 11).

Prechel, Doris. 2008. “Hethitische Rituale in Emar?” In The City of Emar Among the Late Bronze Age Empires. History, Landscape, and Society. Proceedings of the Konstanz Emar Conference, 25.‒26.04 2006, eds. Lorenzo d’Alfonso, Yoram Cohen, and Dieter Sürenhagen, 243-52. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag (AOAT 349).

Sagona, Antonio, and Paul Zimansky. 2009, Ancient Turkey. London-New York: Routledge.

Sahlins, Marshall. 2017. “The Original Political Society.” In On Kings, eds. David Graeber, and Marshall Sahlins, 23-64. Chicago: Hau Books.

Schachner, Andreas. 2018. “Tešubs Stiere - Zwei neu Darstellungen von Stieren aus Ḫattuša und Umgebung.” In Altorientalische Studien für Reinhard Dittmann anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstags, eds. Kai Kaniuth, Danile Lau, and Dirk Wicke, 257-66. Münster: Zaphon.

Schachner, Andreas. 2019. “‘Die Faust Gottes?’ - Ein Trinkgefäß der althethitischen Zeit aus der nördlichen Unterstadt von Ḫattuša.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 69: 345-49.

Schmidt, Klaus. 2008. “Die Steinzeitlichen Heligtümer am Göbekli Tepe.” Colloqium Anatolicum 7: 59-85.

Schmidt, Klaus. 2010. “Göbekli Tepe: -The Stone Age Sanctuaries. New Results of Ongoing Excavations with a Special focus on Sculptures and High Reliefs”, Documenta Praehistorica 37: 239-56.

Schmidt, Klaus. 2011a. “Göbekli Tepe: A Neolithic Site in Southeastern Anatolia.” In The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia 10,000-323 B.C.E., eds. Sharon Steadman, and Gregory McMahon, 917-33. Oxford: University Press.

Schmidt, Klaus. 2011b. Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. München: Beck.

Schmidt, Klaus. 2013. “Adler und Schlange: ‘Großbilder’ des Göbekli Tepe und ihre Rezeption.” In Der Anschnitt. Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau, ed. Ünsal Yalçın, 145-52. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum (Beiheft 25 - Anatolian Metal VI).

Siegelová, Jana. 1986. Hethitische Verwaltungspraxis im Lichte der Wirtschafts- und Inventardokumente. Praha: National Museum Praha.

Singer, Itamar. 1984. The Hittite KI.LAM Festival 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 28).

Singer, Itamar. 1996. Muwatalli’s Prayer to the Assembly of Gods Through the Storm-God of Lightning. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Soysal, Oğuz. 2008. “Philological Contributions to Hattian-Hittire Religion (I).” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religion 8: 45-66.

Soysal, Oğuz. 2014/15. “Tiergefäß.A.II Philologisch. Bei den Hethitern,” Reallexicon der Assyriologie 14: 2-4.

Steitler, Charles W. 2017. The Solar Deities of Bronze Age Anatolia. Studies on Term of the Early Hittite Kingdom. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 62).

Taracha, Piotr. 2019. “In search of the Holy Grail: Hittite DGAL.ZU reconsidered.” In: Stories Told Around the Fountain. Papers Offered to Piotr Bieliński on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, eds. Alina Pieńkowska, and Daniel Szelag, 713-19. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.

Tuchelt, Klaus. 1962. Tiergefäße. Berlin: Mann (Istanbuler Forschungen 22).

van den Hout, Theo P.J. 2018. “The Silver Stag Vessel: A royal Gift.” In: Metropolitan Musuem Journal 53: 114-128.

van Dijk, Jan J.A. 1983. Lugal ud me-lám-bi nir-ĝál. Le récit épique et didactique des Travaux de Ninurta, du Déluge et de la Nouvelle Création, Leiden: Brill.

Watkins, Trevor. 2015. “Ritual Performance and Religion in Early Neolithic Societies.” In Defining the Sacred. Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East, ed. Nicola Laneri, 153-60. Oxford-Philadelphia: Oxbow Books.

Wegner, Ilse. 2002. Hurritische Opferlisten aus hethitischen Festbeschreibungen. Teil II: Texte für Teššub, Ḫebat und weitere Gottheiten. Roma: CNR - Istituto di Studi sulle Civiltà dell’Egeo e del Vicino Oriente (ChS I/3-2).

Wilhelm, Gernot. 1997. Keilschrifttexte aus Gebäude A (Kușaklı-Sarissa 1.1). Rahden-Westf.: Marie Leidorf.

Wilhelm, Gernot. 2015. “The Sacred Landscape of Sarissa”. In Sacred Landscape of Hittites and Luwians, eds. Anacleto D’Agostino, Valentina Orsi, and Giulia Torri, 93-9. Firenze: University Press (StAs 9).

1 A comprehensive presentation of Schmidt’s excavations is Schmidt 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 On some rhyta from Boğazköy, see Schachner 2018, and for a vessel in the form of a fist, see Schachner 2019.

9 For the Schimmel rhyton, see Güterbock 1989; for the Boston fist, see Güterbock and Kensdall 1995. Another fist has been found in Ḫattuša (Schachner 2019). This kind of vessel (of five and three minas of silver) were sent to the king of Egypt as a gift (see EA 41, 39-43).

10 For a detailed analysis of animal worship and animal embalming in Egypt, see Colonna 2021.

11 Morenz (1960) named these powers as “mana” according to his time (chapter 2: “The Gods”); Thoth could be represented as a bird, with the head of an ibis, and also as a baboon, because the divine had multiple incarnations.

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

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

14 See Cammarosano 2018, 63-74.

15 See KBo 2.1 I 32: ḫur.sagŠu-wa-ra-aš 5 urudugír; KUB 31.1+ I 4’–8’: uruTa!-ra-am-ka4 dza.ba4.ba4 dingirlim-tar 1 géšpu kù.babbar ki.lá.bi 20 gín.gín 2 urudua-ri-tum gal 1 urudui-mi-it-tum 3 urudugìr 1 urudu.giššukur 1 gištukul zabar 1 uruduḫa-aṢ-Ṣí-in-nu ú-nu-tú ša dza.ba4.ba4 ta-ru-up-ta “Town Taramm(e)ka. The War-god: (his) image is 1 silver fist, its weight 20 shekels, 2 large shields, 1 lance, 3 daggers, 1 spear, 1 mace, 1 axe: the equipment of the War-god is complete”.

16 See the Old Hittite manuscripts of the ki.lam in Burgin 2019.

17 For the Sun-deities of the Early 2nd millennium BC, see Steitler 2017, 15-7 (on previous interpretations), and 179-96. For an insight discussion on Hittite šiwatt-, *djiwot-, and on “Solar and Sky deities in Anatolia”, see Melchert 2019. One should ascribe to a later syncretism the fact that a Luwian ritual mentions “a Tiwad above, and a Tiwad below”, šarr]i Tiwata inta-ḫa Tiwata, KUB 32.10+ I 12’ (restoration by Steitler).

18 Güterbock had at disposal the texts edited by von Brandenstein (1943), those by Jakob-Rost (1961, 1963), and also the dissertation by Carter (1962). This study has been included in Hoffner 1997, 115-25.

19 Cf. KBo 2.1 II 33: 1 wa-ak-šur zabar púḪa-pu-ri-ya-ta-aš; KUB 31.1+ I 1’–2’: uruTa!-ra-am-me-ka4 du karaš damar.utu-a[š] dingirlim-tar 2 wa-ak-šur kù.babbar ki.lá.bi 2 ma.na kù.babbar “Town Tarammeka. Storm-god of the army, Šanta: (their) images are 2 silver wakšur-vessel, their weight is 2 minas of silver”.

20 A betyl was a “stone imbued with psyche” according to the definition of Philo of Byblos. For (lú)šiuniyant- “imbued with the god, ecstatic”, see Francia 2022.

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

22 Last translation of the text: Cammarosano 2018, 294-99.

23 See Carruba 1967, 90, note 6.

24 See Otten 1989, 366-67.

25 See Otten 1989, 366-67.

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

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

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

29 For criticism expresses about Kammenhuber’s thesis, see the bibliography in HW2, 30. Soysal 2008 – followed by Goedegebuure 2008 – suggested, moreover, that the ending -n was a development of the Hattian dative ending -n, so that such an ungrammatical construction would have remained in use for ca 400 years!

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

31 See the transcription in Groddek 2002, 32-3.

32 According to KBo 19.128 V 39’–40’, one drinks dgal.zu with a bibru in form of a lion (Otten 1971, 14).

33 On (DUG)gal = kāsu = zeri, see Güterbock 1964, 97-8. The whole passage KBo 15.59 III 3’–10’ is: egir-šú-ma lugal-i a-ku-wa-an-na pí-an-z[i] lúsagi ta-pí-ša-ni-it kù.[babbar] pa-ni dingirlim ši-pa-an-ti (music) ídAl-da ka-lu-ut-ta lugal[-uš] 1 ninda.gur4.ra pár-ši-ya na-an pa-ni dim [da-a-i (?)] lugal-uš gal.zu(/-sú) e-ku-zi ḫu-ma-an-ti-ya a-ku-wa-an-na pí-an[-zi] “And then one gives to drink to the king; the cup-bearer libates with a t.-vessel of silver to the god (i.e. dim). (Music.) The king breaks a loaf 〈to〉 the circle of the river Alda, and [places] it in front of the Storm-god. The king drinks the bowl (gal.zu/-sú). One gives to everybody to drink”. The parallel passage in IV 13’-14’ has: nu ídAl-da ka-lu-ut-ta e-ku-zi lú[sagi.a] ta-pí-ša-na-za kù.babbar pa-ni dingirlim ši-pa-a[n-ti] “He drinks the river Alda. The [cup-bearer] libates with a t.-vessel in front of the god”. The Hittite translation of the ḫišuwaš festival uses the wording of the Hattian-Hittite festival, so that the celebrant “drinks”, ekuzi, gods (in the accusative), and even objects (named in Hurrian) belonging to Teššup(!); see KUB 32.84 IV 2, 4, 6, 8 passim (Wegner 2002, 28-9; 36).

34 Heffron (2014, 167-72) follows Güterbock’s interpretation.

35 These texts are transcribed in Burgin 2019, 32; 84. In the first text dgal.zu appears in a long list of deities whom the king “drinks”. Although all the gods whom he “drank” were not necessarily represented by an image in front of him, in this particular case the deified bowl could be that used in celebration. For other passages concerning this god in later manuscripts of the ki.lam festival, see Singer 1984, 240.

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

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

38 Several passages concerning the ritual meal of the “assembly”, ašeššar, are quoted in Archi 1979.

39 See here below.

40 For the difficult journey of the Soul to the Netherworld, see Archi 2008.

41 See further KBo 12.53+; Cammarosano 2018, 271-75.

42 IBoT 2.131 17’-19’: «When Urḫi-Teššup re-established (the cult of) Pirwa, he spoke (as follows): “while they rebuild the vineyards, let the wine be provided by the temple”», (Cammarosano 2018, 262-63).

43 For a list of the numerous cult inventories which mention Tudḫaliya IV, see Hazenbos 2003, 13-4, and Cammarosano 2018, 20-3, who also lists three documents from Šarišša, referring to “the father of the king”, i.e., Ḫattušili. Cammarosano (2012) has devoted an article to the problem of dating the so-called “cult inventories”, in which, aiming to support the thesis that Tudḫaliya IV did not innovate these cults, does not focus the role of this king in the cult restorations.

44 For these reasons Goetze (1933, 159-60) used the term “Kultreorganisation”; he is followed by Hazenbos (2003, 11-3). Laroche (1975 = 2016, 455-58) stressed the fact that in some cases new offerings and even festivals and other gods were introduced, temples were (re)built, images of gods were substituted, or even made for the first time. This, however, does not justify denoting this activity “réforme religiose”, as he did, see Archi 2006, 150-53, who defined it as a “restoration”. Cammarosano (2012) also stresses the fact that for these cult inventories “reorganization” cannot mean the action of giving a new order.

45 See Arnaud 1986, 458-76.

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

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

48 See NINDAḫarši- (HW2 III, 358-69): a type of bread.

49 For a description of these festivals, see Cammarosano 2018, 11-30.

50 See Cammarosano 2018, 210-3.

51 Hazenbos 2003, 31; 36; Cammarosano 2018, 362-63.

52 Hazenbos 2003, 27-9.

53 Cammarosano 2018, 174-77.

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

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

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

Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup_referee_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup_best_practice)

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

Between Adoption and Assimilation: The Case of Ištar of Ḫattarina

Francesco G. Barsacchi

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

2. A brief background

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

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

KUB 8.41obv. II

7 ma-a-an dumu-aš a-na diškur-na-aš ša-ša-an-ti-iš-ši ḫu-ik-zi lú[nar me-ma-i]

8 da-an-du-ki-iš-ni ta-ši-im-me-ti-iš dingirmeš-na-ša iš-tar-n[a]

9 dištar-iš munus.lugal-aš zi-ik (…)

When the crown prince (?) conjures the Storm-god’s concubine the [singer says]:

“To mankind (you are) Tašimmit, but among the gods you (are) ‘Ištar the Queen’…

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

rev. III

10 (…) d[a?-an-du-ki-iš-ni]

11 dta-aḫ-ak-ša-zi-ia-ti-iš dingirmeš[-na-aš iš-tar-na]

12 a-ra-u-wa-aš dištar zi-ik (…)

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

Unfortunately, these are so far the only attestations of Ištar in Old Hittite documentation. If a proper cult of this goddess continued to be practiced in Anatolia after the period of old-Assyrian trade colonies, it must have pertained to the sphere of personal belief, and does not appear in official documents.

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

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

§2 (6-9) He will perform an evocation ritual for Šaušga of the (Battle)field on the spot in Šamuḫa and carry out a festival for her, speaking words pleasantly before the deity.

§3 (10-14) But when the campaigns against the cities of Išḫupitta and Tasmanḫa have been taken care of, I, My Majesty. will send and have Šaušga of the (Battle)field brought to me. On the return journey (from Šamuḫa) they will perform offerings for her daily.

§4 (15-19) When they bring her before My Majesty, then for eight days they will invoke her here in the same manner as they customarily invoke her in Šamuḫa. Furthermore, I, My Majesty, will worship her.

(translation by Beckman, 2010, 4)

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

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

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

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

3. The cult of Ištar of Ḫattarina

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

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

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

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

obv. I

54 dištar uruḪa-ad-da-ri-na dPí-ir-wa-aš dAš-ga-ši-pa-aš ḫur.sagPiš-ku-ru-nu-wa

55 dingir.lúmeš dingir.munusmeš ḫur.sagmeš ídmeš ša uru⸢kù.babbar-ti⸣

56 dḪa-pa-an-da-li-ia-aš ḫur.sagTa-at-⸢ta⸣ ḫur.sag⸢Šum-mi⸣-ia-ra

Ištar of Ḫattarina, Pirwa, Aškašipa, mount Puškurunuwa, male gods, female gods,

mountains (and) rivers of Ḫatti, Karzi, Ḫapantaliya, mount Tatta, Mount Šummiyara.

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

- KBo 7.38+, r. col. 8-10 (CTH 670):

[dAškašepa] dmunus.lugal dPirwa […] lú.mešnešumeneš s[ìrru]

- KBo 3.56, IV 20-22 (CTH 669):

dAškašepa dmunus.lu[gal] dPirwa lú.mešnar uruKaneš s[ìrru]

- KUB 2.13, III 2-4 (CTH 591):

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

- KUB 4.13+, IV 9-12 (CTH 625):

dPirwa dAškašipa dmunus.lugal dMaliya

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

While Aškašepa and Pirwa are actual theonyms, the sumerographic writing dmunus.lugal denotes a “type” of goddess at the head of local pantheons (Taracha 2017, 104). As such, as recently written by Cammarosano (2021, 82), this deity “may denote any one of several goddesses who enjoyed a prominent status in local panthea of north-central Anatolia”. As this paper will try to demonstrate, this divine figure, much like Anzili, could have been assimilated in some cases with some particular aspects or local manifestations of Ištar.

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

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

KBo 1.1 rev.

45’ dTe-li-pí-nu ša uruTa-wi5-ni-ya dTe-l[i-pí-nu ša] uru⸢Dur⸣-mi-it-ta dTe-li-pí-nu ša uruḪa-an-ḫa-na d⸢ištar⸣ mul-tar-ri-⸢ḫu⸣

46’ dAš-ga-ši-pa dnisaba d30 en ma-mi-ti d⸢Iš⸣-ḫ[a-ra munus.l]ugal ma-mi-ti dḪé-pat nin ša-me-e dḪé-bat uruḪal-pa dḪé-pat [uruU-da]

Telipinu of Tawiniya, Tel[ipinu of] Durmitta, Telipinu of Ḫanḫana, Ištar “the proud”,

Askašepa, nisaba, Moon-god, lord of the oath, Išḫ[ara, quee]n of the oath, Ḫepat,

lady of Heaven, Ḫepat of Ḫalpa, Ḫepat of [Uda].

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

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

rev. III

23’ lu-uk-kat-ti-ma lugal munus.lugal i-na ⸢é⸣ dAš-ka-ši-pa

24’ pa-a-an-zi lú.mešḫal-ma dištar u[ruḪ]a-at-ta-ri-na

25’ [mu-u-ga-an]-zi ud.22.kam

26’ [lu-uk-kat-ti-ma lu]gal munus.lugal [i-na édištar uruḪ]a-[at-ta-r]i-⸢na⸣

27’ [pa-a-an-zi lú.mešḫal-ma] ⸢a⸣-na di[štar uruḪa-at-t]a-ri-na

28’ [mu-u-ga-an-z]i

The following day the king (and) the queen go to the temple of Aškašepa.

The lú.mešḫal functionaries [conju]re Ištar of Ḫattarina. Day 22.

[The following day the ki]ng (and) the queen [go to the temple of Ištar] of Ḫattarina.

[The lú.mešḫal functionaries conjur]e Iš[tar of Ḫatt]arina.

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

rev.

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

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

4’ [siskur ku-lu-mur]-ši-ya x [… ud.24.kam]

5’ [lu-uk]-kat-ti-ma a-na dkal uruTa-a-u-ri-iš-ša [d…]

6’ a-na dé.a-ya i-na giškiri6 ḫar-wa-ši-ya-aš ez[en4 an.taḫ.šumsar ša?]

7’ dištar uruḪa-at-ta-ri-na i-ya-zi ud.25?[.kam]

[The following day the king…] in the large building the [an.taḫ.šum] festival [for…and]

the an.taḫ.šum festival [for Ištar of] Ninive […kulumur]šiya [offerings… Day 24].

[The fol]lowing day for the god kal of Tauriša, for […] and for ea in the garden of secrecy

he celebrates the [an.taḫ.šum fest]ival [of?] Ištar of Ḫattarina. Day 25.

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

The rites performed during the an.taḫ.šum festival in honor of Ištar of Ḫattarina are described also in several daily tablets, the oldest of which are datable to the Middle Hittite period, until the time of Šuppiluliuma I (Galmarini 2015, 51-2). It is at this time that Ištar of Šamuḫa, Ištar of Tameninga and several other hypostases of the goddess, such as the much debated “deity of the night”27, begin to appear in Hittite documentation, reflecting the growing Hurrian influence on Hittite official religion.

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

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

Already from the Old Hittite ritual CTH 733, as we have seen, Ištar is associated with the goddess Tešimi and defined as munus.lugal among the gods. While in the lists of divine witnesses of the state treaties only one occurrence of Ištar “queen of Heaven” can be found, in the treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Ḫuqqana of Ḫayaša, it is noteworthy that in the Hurrian religious tradition reflected in mythological compositions, Ištar of Nineveh often takes the appellative “queen”31. Also, in the Mesopotamian cult tradition introduced in Anatolia by the mediation of Kizzuwatna and reflected in the Babilili rituals, Ištar Pirinkir is often attested with the Sumero-Akkadian epithet munus.lugal šamē32.

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

A similar phenomenon of assimilation of a local munus.lugal deity with Ištar has been postulated with regard to the main female deity of the city of Katapa. A cult of the “queen” of Katapa is well attested from the Old Hittite period33. The deity is attested for instance in the Old Hittite ritual for the royal couple CTH 41634, and a deity defined “queen” is well documented both in the divine lists of the state treaties and in the prayer of Muwatalli II. This goddess has been tentatively identified with the goddess Ištar of Katapa mentioned in the inventory text KBo 16.83+ III 4 (CTH 242)35:

rev. III

1 dištar uruLa-wa-za-an-ti-ya dištar é mPi-ḫa-du en u-nu-ti[

2 1 gír lúmuḫaldim tur mDu-un-wa-lugal-ma-kán ku-wa-pí dištar éti

3 [a]n-da dù-ir 1 gír lúmuḫaldim mŠi-ip-pa-lú siskur lúšak-ku-ni-an-za-az

4 [ku-w]a-pí bal!-aš 1 gal kù.babbar mKu-ra-ku-ra-aš a-na dištar uruKa-ta-pa

5 [ḫi]-in-ik-ta (…)

Ištar of Lawazantiya. Ištar ‘of the house’. Piḫa-Tarḫunta, ‘lord of the inventory’ […]:

A small kitchen knife. Dunwa-lugal, when ‘Ištar of the house’ was installed: a kitchen

knife. Šippaziti, [wh]en the ša(n)kunni-priest brought the offer. Kurakura has [dona]ted a

silver cup to Ištar of Katapa.

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

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

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

4. Conclusions

There is a dual current that feeds the cult of Ištar during the Empire period. One, the one that appears most significantly in the documentation at our disposal, is the ever-increasing emergence of rites of Hurrian derivation imported from Kizzuwatna and promoted by Hittite official religious politics. This is the reason for the success of the cult of Ištar of Šamuḫa and of divine figures assimilated with her, which radiates in the Hittite cult starting from this religious center and becomes with Ḫattušili III a central element of the state religion. Parallel to this, in my opinion, traces of a second, more underground current remain in the documentation, which respond to the fundamentally assimilatory nature of Hittite religiosity and are present already in the Old Hittite ritual CTH 733, the tendency to assimilate divine figures evidently perceived as typologically similar. In a phase in which the official cult of Ištar becomes predominant, female deities of ancient Anatolian tradition are more and more easily assimilated with this figure, as Wilhelm convincingly demonstrated with regard to the goddess Anzili of Šarišša and as the present contribution has tried to do with regard to the relationship between Ištar of Ḫattarina and the gods Pirwa, Aškašepa and munus.lugal.

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

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

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

Bibliography

Archi, Alfonso. 2004. “The Singer of Kaneš and his Gods.” In Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individuelle Religiosität. Akten des religionsgeschichtlichen Symposiums Kleinasiens und angrenzende Gebiete vom Beginn des 2. bis zur Mitte des 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr (Bonn, 20.-22. Februar 2003), eds. Manfred Hutter, and Sylvia Hutter Braunsar, 11-26. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag (AOAT 318).

Archi, Alfonso. 2010. “The Heptad in Anatolia.” Hethitica 16: 21-34.

Beckman, Gary M. 1998. “Ishtar of Nineveh reconsidered.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 50: 1-10.

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

Beckman, Gary, Bryce, Trevor, and Eric Cline. 2011. The Ahhiyawa Texts. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Cammarosano, Michele. 2019. “Kultinventare aus Kayalıpınar (Šamuḫa).” In Keilschrifttafeln aus Kayalıpınar l. Textfunde aus den Jahren 1999-2017, ed. Elisabeth Rieken, 47-109. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (DAAM 1).

Cammarosano, Michele. 2021. At the Interface of Religion and Administration: The Hittite Cult Inventories. With a contribution by Adam Kryszeń. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 68).

Corti, Carlo. 2010. “The Religious Traditions of the ‘Zalpa Kingdom’. New Edition of CTH 733 and Related Documents.” In 7 Hit Congr VII. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 25-31 Ağustos 2008 − Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25-31, 2008, ed. Aygül Süel, 139-56. Ankara: Çorum Valiligi.

de Martino, Stefano. 2008. “The Hittite City of Šamuḫa: Its Location and Its Religious and Political Role in the Middle Kingdom.” In New Perspectives on the Historical Geography and Topography of Anatolia in the II and I Millennium B.C. (Proceedings of the International Symposium, Udine 15th-16th December 2006), ed. Karl Strobel, 131-43. Firenze: LoGisma (Eothen 16).

Devecchi, Elena. 2015. Trattati internazionali ittiti. Brescia: Paideia (TVOa 4/4).

Galmarini, Niccolò. 2013. Uno studio sulla formazione e la tradizione del testo della festa ittita dell’ AN.TAḪ.ŠUMSAR: i casi di CTH 615, 616 e 618. Diss. Sapienza Università di Roma.

Galmarini, Niccolò. 2015. “The Veneration of Lamma of Taurisa and the Discrepancies between Versions of the AN.TAḪ.ŠUM Festival.” In Sacred Landscapes of Hittites and Luwians: Proceedings of the International Conference in Honour of Franca Pecchioli Daddi, Florence, February 6th-8th 2014, eds. Anacleto D’Agostino, Valentina Orsi, and Giulia Torri, 49-55. Firenze: Firenze University Press (StAs 9).

Gilan, Amir. 2019. “Religious Convergence in Hittite Anatolia: The Case of Kizzuwatna.” In Religious Convergence in the Ancient Mediterranean, eds. Sandra Blakely, and Billie Jean Collins, 173-90. Atlanta, Lockwood Press.

Goetze, Albrecht. 1953. “The Theophorous Elements of the Anatolian Proper Names from Cappadocia.” Language 29: 263-77.

Gurney, Oliver. 1977. Some Aspects of Hittite Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Güterbock, Hans G. 1961. “The god Šuwaliyat reconsidered.” Revue hittite et asianique 19/68: 1-18.

Güterbock, Hans G. 1964. “Religion und Kultus der Hethiter.” In Neuere Hethiterforschung, ed. Gerold Walser, 54-73. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.

Haas, Volkert. 1994. Geschichte der Hethitischen Religion. Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill (HdO I/15).

Hirsch, Hans. 1961. Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion. Graz: Selbstverlag des Herausgebers (Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 13/14).

Laroche, Emmanuel. 1945/46. “Hittite -nš-/-nz-.” Revue hittite et asianique 7/45: 3-11.

Laroche, Emmanuel. 1947. “Ḫattic Deities and Their Epithets.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 1: 187-216.

Miller, Jared L. 2004. Studies in the Origins, Development and Interpretation of the Kizzuwatna Rituals. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 46).

Miller, Jared L. 2008. “Setting Up the Goddess of the Night Separately.” In Anatolian Interfaces - Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours, eds. Billie Jean Collins, Mary R. Bachvarova, and Ian Rutherford, 67-72. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Mouton, Alice. 2014. “Terre divinisée et autres ‘génies’ de l’Anatolie Hittite.” Semitica et Classica 7: 19-29.

Müller-Karpe, Andreas. 2013. “Einige archäologische sowie archäoastronomische Aspekte hethitischer Sakralbauten.” In Tempel im Alten Orient., 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.-13. Oktober 2009, München, eds. Kai Kaniuth, Anne Löhnert, Jared L. Miller, Adelheid Otto, Michael Roaf, and Walther Sallaberger, 335-84. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Müller-Karpe, Andreas. 2015. “Planning a Sacred Landscape.Examples from Sarissa and Ḫattusa.” In Sacred Landscapes of Hittites and Luwians: Proceedings of the International Conference in Honour of Franca Pecchioli Daddi, Florence, February 6th-8th 2014, eds. Anacleto D’Agostino, Valentina Orsi, and Giulia Torri, 83-92. Firenze: Firenze University Press (StAs 9).

Neu, Erich. 1980. Althethitische Ritualtexte im Umschrift. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 25).

Otten, Heinrich. 1953. “Pirva, der Gott auf dem Pferde.” Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschung 2: 62-73.

Otten, Heinrich, and Souček, Vladimir. 1969. Ein althethitisches Ritual für das Königspaar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 8).

Schwemer, Daniel. 2006. “Das hethitische Reichspantheon. Überlegungen zu Struktur und Genese.” In Götterbilder, Gottesbilder, Weltbilder. Polytheismus und Monotheismus in der Welt der Antike, eds. Reinhard G. Kratz, and Hermann Spieckmann, 241-65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2, Reihe 17/18).

Schwemer, Daniel. 2008. “Fremde Götter in Ḫatti. Die hethitische Religion im Spannungsfeld von Synkretismus und Abgrenzung.” In Ḫattuša - Boğazköy - Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients. 6. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 22.-24. März 2006, Würzburg, ed. Gernot Wilhelm, 137-58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (CDOG 6).

Singer, Itamar. 1996. Muwatalli’s Prayer to the Assembly of Gods through the Storm-God of Lightning (CTH 381). Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Taracha, Piotr. 2005. “Zur Entwicklung des offiziellen Pantheons im staats- und dynastischen Kult der hethitischen Grossreichzeit.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 5: 89-106.

Taracha, Piotr. 2017. Two Festivals Celebrated by a Hittite Prince (CTH 647.I and II-III). New Light on Local Cults in North-Central Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 61).

Ünal, Ahmed. 2019. “New Insights into the Nature and Iconography of the Hittite Horse Deity Pirwa.” In ‘And I Knew Twelve Languages’. A Tribute to Massimo Poetto on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, eds. Natalia Bolatti Guzzo, and Piotr Taracha, 690-702. Warsaw: Agade.

van Gessel, Ben H.L. 1998. Onomasticon of the Hittite Pantheon 1-2. Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill (HdO I/33).

Warbinek, Livio. 2022. “The -šepa Theonyms in the Hittite Pantheon.” Vicino Oriente 26: 1-19.

Wegner, Ilse. 1981. Gestalt und Kult der Ištar-Šawuška in Kleinasien. Kevelaer - Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchener Verlag (AOAT 36, Hurritologische Studien 3).

Wegner, Ilse. 2002. Hurritische Opferlisten aus hethitischen Festbeschreibungen. Teil II: Texte für Teššub, Ḫebat und weitere Gottheiten. Roma: CNR - Istituto di Studi sulle Civiltà dell’Egeo e del Vicino Oriente (ChS I/3-2).

Wilhelm, Gernot. 2002. “Die Keilschritfunde der Kampagne 2001 in Kuşaklı” Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 134: 342-51.

Wilhelm, Gernot. 2010. “Die Lesung des Namens der Göttin IŠTAR-li.” In Investigationes Anatolicae - Gedenkschrift für Erich Neu, eds. Jörg Klinger, Elisabeth Rieken, and Christel Rüster, 337-44. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 52).

1 On the ratio behind the construction and organization of the Hittite official pantheon, see Schwemer 2006; Taracha 2005.

2 On this process, see in particular Miller 2004, 259-439; Miller 2008, 67-71; Gilan 2019, 175-79.

3 Hirsch 1961, 17-20; Wegner 1981, 13-4.

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

5 Contra Laroche 1947, 210-12.

6 See, on this category of deities, Haas 1994, 446-48.

7 Suffice it to mention the excellent synthesis of the question provided in de Martino 2008, with further references.

8 See Wegner 1981, 159-61.

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

10 See Wegner 1995, 83-7. See also Cammarosano 2019, 99.

11 On this problem, see Wegner 1981, 23-4.

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

13 On the “political theology” reflected in this type of sources, see in particular Schwemer 2008; Taracha 2005.

14 See Otten 1953; Haas 1994, 412-15 and, more recently Ünal 2019.

15 Attested also with the determinative ḫur.sag. On this deity, see Warbinek 2022, 3; Mouton 2014, 23.

16 The idea, proposed by Laroche (1945/46, 4), that munus.lugal would represent an epithet of Aškašepa, is not accepted anymore. See Mouton 2014, 23 note 38.

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

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

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

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

21 See the text edition by Wilhelm (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 51.I (INTR 2016-01-10).

22 See Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011, 50-68; Devecchi 2015, 225-32.

23 See Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011, 64.

24 The complex textual tradition of these days of the an.taḫ.šum festival has been extensively studied by Galmarini 2013, 21-118, on whose work I base my considerations. See also Galmarini 2015, 51-2.

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

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

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

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

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

30 See Wegner 2002, 228-31.

31 Beckman 1998, 4 with note 43.

32 See the attestations in Beckman 2014, 97. See also van Gessel 1998, 937.

33 See Haas 1994, 594; Taracha 2017, 104.

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

35 See Otten and Souček 1969, 105.

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

Francesco Barsacchi, Università di Torino, Italy, francescogiuseppe.barsacchi@unito.it, 0000-0001-6750-1051

Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup_referee_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup_best_practice)

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

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

Michele Cammarosano

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

In memory of Silvin Košak

1. Scope and methods

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

1.1 The cult inventories as a coherent corpus

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

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

Two basic methodological questions are of crucial importance for the purposes of a quantitative analysis of the corpus. One is whether the group of texts presently classified as cult inventories indeed constitutes a coherent corpus–meaning one that is defined by nontrivial, specific features such as to characterize it uniquely with respect to other textual genres. The other is whether the corpus can be considered to be in some way representative of the Hittite local panthea of the provincial towns and villages in the core area of the Empire. The more positive the answer to these questions, the more meaningful a quantitative analysis of the corpus will be.

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

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

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

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

A festival text provides detailed information about the performance of specific festival(s). Whether performed in the capital, in local towns, or in more than one location, these rites normally pertain to the so-called ‘state cults’. In short, this basically means that the king takes part in the ceremonies. […] In contrast, the purpose of a cult inventory is not to pass on information for the correct execution of specific festivals, but rather to provide informative or prescriptive reports on the cults of a given town at a specific time. […] Indeed, almost half of the inventories do contain festival descriptions. But the festival description is never autonomous: on the contrary, it is embedded in the higher-level section of the text pertaining to the relevant town. Furthermore, the cult inventories are never concerned with the so-called state cults; they treat festivals which do not involve the king. […] The dichotomy lies between ‘state’ vs. ‘nonstate’ cults, not between ‘cults performed in the capital’ vs. ‘local cults’: as already noted, those local cults where the king takes part are treated in festival texts and not in cult inventories. It is also worth observing that while the cult inventories never treat state cults, the converse is not true: i.e., a festival text may treat either a ‘state’ or a ‘nonstate’ cult.

(Cammarosano 2013, 68-9 with note 22; similarly, Cammarosano 2018, 14; for an updated estimate of the proportion of texts containing festival descriptions, see below).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alice Mouton (2021, §3) is absolutely right in stressing the interest in the provincial cults by part of the central administration as the fundamental motivation for the very existence of the cult inventories, and in pointing out that both the cults treated in festival texts and in cult inventories were part of the «vaste nébuleuse que représente le ‘culte étatique’, c’est-à-dire le culte dans son expression centralisée autour de la capitale Hattuša»9. And certainly several festive ceremonies exist, which resist a classification in either group: the basic dichotomy of state cults vs. nonstate cults is not meant to explain the full variety of Hittite cults10. But this does not mean that we should boil them all together into the same soup. On the contrary, the above listed contrasts, especially the presence (vs. absence) of royals, the different partition of offerings11, and a complementary distribution of specific kinds of athletic contests12 speak for a substantial difference in the nature of the two groups of festivals.

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

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

1.2 Principles of analysis of the texts

The evidence discussed in the following sections originate from the comprehensive edition of the corpus produced between 2016 and 2020 at Würzburg University within the DFG funded project “Critical edition, digital publication, and systematic analysis of the Hittite cult-inventories”15. In particular, the quantitative analysis draws on data from the relational database Hittite Local Cults (www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/HLC/, last visited 02/08/2023), which aims to collect selected information contained in the cult inventories corpus in a structured form, in order to allow specific, flexible queries and optimize data retrieval16.

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

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

2. Local panthea

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

2.1 Deities worshiped

Cult inventories contain a great number of divine names, many of which are hapax legomena. In order to investigate the local panthea, it is conducive to single out those divine names which correspond to deities worshiped and link them to specific settlements whenever possible. A first breakdown of the deities worshiped reveals a pool of 571 deities attested across 416 texts and 1122 textparts17. Most of them are treated in one text only: a tangible manifestation of the extreme variety and idiosyncrasy of the local panthea (Fig 1)18. A relevant portion of them, namely one-third, consists of divine natural manifestations: mountains, springs, and rivers (Fig 2). Of the gods, one in four is a Storm-god (d10, diškur). Only 31 out of 128 Storm-gods are attested in more than one text and only 4 in at least 10 texts, namely the Storm-god without further specifications, the Storm-god of Nerik and of Zippalanda, and the Storm-god of the Thunderstorm (Fig 3). 20 manifestations of Solar deities and 19 of Stag-gods are attested, whose names are invariably written by means of the Sumerograms utu and kal respectively.

Fig. 1. Breakdown of deities worshiped.

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

Fig. 3. Storm-gods worshiped.

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

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

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

2.2 Deities and Towns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.3 A geographical perspective

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

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

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

An interesting breakdown of the geographical data is to count how many gods are worshiped in each town. The scatterplot presented in Fig. 6 (see the numbers in Tab. 6 thereafter) includes towns with six or more deities worshiped, sorted by number of deities worshiped. The blue and red dots correspond to the rate of attestation of each town in textparts and texts respectively. By far on top of the ranking both for rate of attestation and for number of gods worshiped comes Šamuḫa, a reflection of the cluster of tablets recovered there, followed by some obscure villages, arguably in the Cappadocian area of the middle Kızılırmak, for which the available texts meticulously list a number of cult stelae and the corresponding deities. Noteworthy is the position of a few “outliers”, especially Ḫanḫana and Katapa, which happen to be treated in several texts, but with a comparatively smaller number of gods attested as deities worshiped. Thus, the ranking of towns varies greatly depending on whether one considers the rate of attestation or the number of gods worshiped. It is important to stress that in neither case the ranking is representative of geographical-religious structures, rather it is dependent on the nature and character of the corpus as a whole.

Tab. 5: Geographical sectors and principal towns.

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

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

2.4 Discussion and outlook

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

A closer look at the texts behind these data, however, reveals an important caveat. While the top-ranking position of Storm-god, solar deities, and Stag-god is firmly rooted in their ubiquitous presence across all geographical sectors, a number of the deities in the second and third tier to a significant extent owe their position to one single text, namely KBo 70.109+ // KUB 38.6+. The largest of the entire corpus, this cult inventory contains no less than 29 textparts that arguably concern small settlements of the Cappadocian area of the middle Kızılırmak21. For each town, a great number of cult images, mostly cult stelae, are listed, and crucially, some of the listed deities occur in most settlements. As a consequence, this single tablet holds a very special place in the corpus and in some respects is able to “distort” the picture obtained by a purely quantitative appraisal of the frequency of attestation of these deities. This is true especially for Ḫuwattašši, the Storm-god of Kaštama, and Ištar of Nineveh, for all of whom the attestations in KBo 70.109+ // KUB 38.6+ make up a big proportion of their overall occurrences, and to a lesser extent also for the Heptad, Šawuška, Yarri, and the Storm-god of the Thunderstorm (see the figures in Table 7).

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

Beckman, Gary M. 2004. “Pantheon. A. II. Bei den Hethitern”. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10: 308-16.

Cammarosano, Michele. 2012. “Hittite Cult Inventories - Part Two: The Dating of the Texts and the Alleged ‘Cult Reorganization’ of Tudhaliya IV”. Altorientalische Forschungen 39: 3-37.

Cammarosano, Michele. 2013. “Hittite Cult Inventories - Part One: The Hittite Cult Inventories as Textual Genre”. Welt des Orients 43: 63-105.

Cammarosano, Michele. 2018. Hittite Local Cults. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (WAW 40).

Cammarosano, Michele. 2021. At the Interface of Religion and Administration: The Hittite Cult Inventories. With a contribution by Adam Kryszeń. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 68).

Corti, Carlo. 2017. “From Mt. Hazzi to Šapinuwa. Cultural Traditions in Motion in the First Half of the 14th Century BC”. Mesopotamia 52: 3-20.

Gilan, Amir. 2021. “‘Let Those Important Primeval Deities Listen’: The Social Setting of the Hurro-Hittite Song of Emergence”. In Gods and Mortals in Early Greek and Near Eastern Mythology, eds. Adrian Kelly, and Christopher Metcalf, 19-36. Cambridge: CUP.

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

Houwink ten Cate, Philo H. J. 1992. “The Hittite Storm-God: His Role and His Rule According to Hittite Cuneiform Sources.” In Natural Phenomena: Their Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East, ed. Diederik J.W. Meijer, 83-148. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Hutter, Manfred. 2021. Religionsgeschichte Anatoliens: Vom Ende des dritten bis zum Beginn des ersten Jahrtausends. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Kryszeń, Adam. 2021. “The geography of the Hittite cult inventories”. In At the Interface of Religion and Administration: The Hittite Cult Inventories, ed. Michele Cammarosano, 31-62. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 68).

Laroche, Emmanuel. 1975. “La réforme religieuse du roi Tudhaliya IV et sa signification politique.” In Les syncrétismes dans les religions de l’Antiquité, Colloque de Besançon (22-23 Octobre 1973), eds. Françoise Dunand, and Pierre Lévêque, 87-94. Leiden: Brill.

McMahon, Gregory. 1991. The Hittite State Cult of the Tutelary Deities. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (AS 25).

Miller, Jared L. 2013. Royal Hittite Instructions and Related Administrative Texts. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (WAW 31).

Mouton, Alice. 2021. Review of Cammarosano 2018. Syria, doi.org/10.4000/syria.11322

Neve, Peter. 1987. “Boğzköy-Ḫattuša: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in der Oberstadt”. Anatolica 14: 41-71.

Rieken, Elisabeth, and Daniel Schwemer. 2022. “hethiter.net/: HFR Einleitung (2022-05-12)”. https://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/HFR/, last visited 02/08/2023.

Schwemer, Daniel. 2006. “Das hethitische Reichspantheon: Überlegungen zu Struktur und Genese”. In Götterbilder - Gottesbilder - Weltbilder. Polytheismus und Monotheismus in der Welt der Antike. Bd. I: Ägypten, Mesopotamien, Kleinasien, Syrien, Palästina, eds. Reinhard Kratz, and Hermann Spieckermann, 241-65. Tübingen: Siebeck & Mohr (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/17).

Schwemer, Daniel. 2016. “Quality Assurance Managers at Work: The Hittite Festival Tradition”. In Liturgie oder Literatur? Die Kultrituale der Hethiter im transkulturellen Vergleich: Akten eines Werkstattgesprächs an der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz, 2.-3. Dezember 2010, ed. Gerfrid G. W. Müller, 1-29. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (StBoT 60).

Schwemer, Daniel 2022. “Religion and Power”. In Handbook Hittite Empire: Power Structures, ed. Stefano de Martino, 355-419. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter (Empires through the Ages in Global Perspective 1).

Singer, Itamar. 1994. “The Thousand Gods of Hatti: The Limits of an Expanding Pantheon”. In Concepts of the Other in Near Eastern Religions, eds. Ilai Alon, Ithamar Gruenwald, and Itamar Singer, 81-102. Leiden: Brill.

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

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

3 Cammarosano 2013; 2018, 19.

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

5 For the festival texts, see Schwemer 2016, Rieken and Schwemer 2022.

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

7 Cammarosano 2021, 9 (figures); 2018, 103-38 (discussion).

8 A telling example is that of Karaḫna, for which both a cult inventory (KUB 38.12) and a festival text (KUB 25.32+) are available. Both tablets claim comprehensiveness (colophon of KUB 38.12: “One tablet, complete. Town of Karaḫna”; colophon of KUB 25.32+: “One tablet, complete, of the festivals of Karaḫna”), but their content shows that KUB 25.32+ treats only those rites to which the king takes part, while conversely KUB 38.12 may be described as a report on the ongoing reorganization of some of the cults of Karaḫna, and mentions a number of festival of local character that certainly could not be all attended by the king (see McMahon 1991, 53-82; Cammarosano 2018, 383; 416-32).

9 Already e.g., Goetze 1957, 161, lastly Schwemer 2022, 360: «the royal administration of the Hittite state is not only responsible for the timely and complete execution of the festivals whose performance is led by the king, the queen, or a prince, but also tries to control and preserve the standards of smaller, local cults whose rites did not involve royal participation», also 390.

10 Cammarosano 2021, 5-8 provides some preliminary notes on selected “hybrid and ambiguous cases”, but obviously much more awaits to be identified and discussed.

11 That this is not merely a formal feature is shown by the analysis of the quantities of offerings labeled “provisions” (aššanumaš) in cult inventories: they hint at the participation of a substantial portion of the local community in the cult meal (Cammarosano 2018, 154-57), and are unparalleled in the offering lists of festival involving the king.

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

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

14 Distortions arising from the overrepresentation of specific towns are discussed below.

15 www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/txhet_kultinv/, last visited 02/08/2023.

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

17 See Cammarosano 2021, 64-73.

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

19 Instructions for Military Officers and Frontier Post Governors, CTH 261.I §§ 33’, translation after Miller 2013, 229, see also 382 note 408.

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

21 Cammarosano 2015; 2018, 433-70, with previous literature and discussion.

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

Michele Cammarosano, University of Naples L’Orientale, Italy, mcammarosano@unior.it, 0000-0003-3571-9544

Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup_referee_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup_best_practice)

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

Hurrian Theophoric Names in the Documents from the Hittite Kingdom

Stefano de Martino

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