It is available online at https://doi.org/10.36253/979-12-215-0042-4.03

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

Stefano de Martino

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Content

2.1. Ḫattušili III’s Autobiography

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

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

KBo 6.29+ does not make any mention of the lawsuit with Arma-Tarḫunta that was judged by Muwatalli II and is described in detail in the ‘Apology,’ and it presents Ḫattušili’s wedding with Pudu-Ḫeba as the first significant event in his life (i 16-21). The ‘Apology’ explicitly states that Ḫattušili met with his future wife in Lawazantiya on his way back from Qadeš, where he had taken part in the struggle against the Egyptian army, while KBo 6.29 reports that Šaušga appeared in a dream to the Hittite prince and ordered him to marry Pudu-Ḫeba. Ḫattušili explicitly states that he did not marry her in the heat of passion, but at the command of the goddess (i 19-20). This statement aimed to legitimise Pudu-Ḫeba as the Great Queen of Ḫatti who had been destined by the goddess for this dignity.

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

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

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

2.2 The Conflict with Urḫi-Teššob

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Liverani (1990: 153-55) wrote concerning the administration of divine justice, ‘once the legal challenge has been formulated, events run toward the correct outcome. At times the signs of divine decision may be perceived before the final encounter.’ This was indeed the case in the struggle between Muršili II and Uḫḫa-zidi of Arzawa, as well as in the conflict between Ḫattušili III and Urḫi-Teššub; in fact, Šaušga caused an eclipse and an earthquake. This spectacular manifestation of divine protection, which is mentioned only in KBo 6.29+, predicted the ruin of Urḫi-Teššub and led his allies to join the side of Ḫattušili III. The ‘Apology’ describes a different and less dramatic intervention by Šaušga; the goddess appeared in a dream to Pudu-Ḫeba and reassured her of the eventual victory of Ḫattušili. The deity also appeared to the generals who had been dismissed by Urḫi-Teššub and encouraged them to take the side of Ḫattušili (iv 1-23).

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

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

2.3 Exemptions, Curses and Blessings

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

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

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

3. The Text22

A) KBo 6.29 + KBo 50.56 + KUB 23.127 + KUB 21.12 + KUB 1.1 (=2026b)

B) KUB 21.15 + KBo 50.59a + KBo 50.59b + KBo 50.59c (Groddek 2008: 48-51)

Obv.

i

1. A i 1. UM-MA DUTU-ŠI mḪa-at-tu-ši-li LUGAL GAL LUG[AL KU]R23 URUḪA-AT-TI

2. A i 2. DUMU mMur-ši-DINGIR-LIM LUGAL GAL LUGAL KUR URUḪA-AT-TI

3. A i 3. DUMU.DUMU-ŠU ŠA mŠu-up-pí-lu-li-u-ma LUGAL GAL LUGAL KUR URUḪA-AT-TI

4. A i 4. NUMUN ŠA mḪa-at-tu-ši-li LUGAL URUKu-uš-šar

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

6. A i 6. A-NA A-BU-YA-za mMur-ši-li EGIR-iš ⸤DUMU-aš e-šu-⸥un

7. A i 7. nu-mu kap-pí-in-pát DUMU-an DIŠTAR URUŠa-m[u-ḫ]a

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

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

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

11. A i 11. pa-ra-a pa-ra-a SIG5-iš-kat-ta-ri nu-mu DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa

12. A i 12. GAŠAN-YA GIŠTUKUL pé-eš-ta ŠA A-BÉ-E-YA-mu24

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

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

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

16. A i 16. DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa ḫa-an-ti-ya-nu-un fPu-du-ḫé-pa-aš-ma

17. A i 17. ⸤ŠA⸥ DIŠTAR URULa-wa-za-an-ti-ya GÉME!-aš25 DUMU.MUNUS mPé-en-ti-ib-LUGAL

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

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

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

21. A i 21. ḫé-en-ek-ta

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

23. A i 23. mNIR.GÁL-iš A-NA GIŠGU.ZA A-BI-ŠÚ e-ša-at

24. A i 24. am-mu-uk-ma-aš-ši pé-ra-an KUR.KURMEŠ ma-ni-ya-aḫ-ḫe-eš-ki-nu-un

25. A i 25. nu-mu I-NA URUḪa-ak-piš-ša A-NA DU URUNe-ri-ik

26. A i 26. LÚSANGA i-ya-at nu-mu ⸤KUR URUḪa-⸥ak-piš-ša KUR URUIš-ta-ḫa-ra

27. A i 27. KUR URUTa-ra-aḫ-na KUR URUḪa-a[t-ti-n]a [KUR U]RUḪa-an-ḫa-na-ya

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

29. A i 29. nu-uš-ši ke-e KUR.KURMEŠ ḫu-u-ma-an[-da pí-r]a-an

30. A i 30. ma-ni-ya-aḫ-ḫe-eš-ki-nu-un26 ŠEŠ-YA-m[a (DINGIRMEŠ U)]RUḪat-ti DINGIRMEŠ URUTÚL-na

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

32. A i 32. pé-e-da-aš nu-za URU DU-ša-an27 šal-l[(i AŠ-R)]U i-ya-at

33. A i 33. nu DINGIRMEŠ a-pí-ya da-ni-nu-ut GI[(M-an-ma Š)]EŠ-YA BA.ÚŠ

34. A i 34. nu A-NA ŠEŠ-YA ku-it ŠA [(DAM-ŠU) ḫu-u-i-]ḫu-iš-šu-wa-li-iš

35. A i 35. DUMU-aš na-a-wí ku-iš-ki [(e-eš-ta A-N)]A ŠEŠ-YA

36. A i 36. na-ak-ki-ya-an-ni ḫ[(a-an-da-aš28 mU)r-ḫi-DU-ub-an š]a-ra-a

37. A i 37. da-aḫ-ḫu⸤-un⸥ na-a[(n A-NA) GIŠGU.ZA A-BI-ŠU (AŠ-ŠUM LUGAL-UT-TI)]

38. A i 38. te-eḫ-hu⸤-un⸥ [(mU)r-ḫi-DU-ub-aš-ma (DINGIRMEŠ URU DU-aš-ša-az ša-ra-a)]

39. A i 39. t[a-a(-aš na-aš EGIR-pa URUḪa-at-tu-ši ar-)nu-ut]29

40. B i 13’. ⸤am-mu-⸥uk-ma-aš me-na-aḫ-ḫa-an-da [ku-ru-ur e-eš-ta]30

41. B i 14’ ⸤nu-mu⸥ te-ep-nu-ma-an-zi ša-an-a[ḫ-ta]

42. B i 15’. nu-mu LÚ.MEŠMU-IR-TU4-TI ku-i-e-eš [ma-ni-ya-aḫ-ḫa-an-ni]31

43. B i 16’. ⸤pí-⸥ya-an-te-eš e-šer na-aš-mu-kán a[r-ḫa da-a-aš]

44. B i 17’. ⸤ÌR⸥an-ni-ya-mu ku-e KUR.KURMEŠ pí-ya-a[n e-šir]

45. B i 18’. nu-mu-kán a-pé-e-ya ar-ḫa da-at-ta/da-at-ta[-at]

46. B i 19’. ⸤nu-mu⸥ KUR URUPa-la-a KUR URUTu-ma-an-na d[a-at-ta(-at?)]

47. B i 20’. [nam-ma-(?)]mu ši-ya-it am-mu-u[k(-)

48. B i 21’. [ ] x x x [

…………………

49’. B ii 1’ a]r-ḫ[a

50’. B ii 2’ ]x-aš-ši k[u-

51’. B ii 3’ me-na-]aḫ⸤-ḫa-an-⸥[da] ku-ru-ri-ya-a[ḫ-ta

52’. B ii 4’ ]x ku⸤-ru-ri-⸥ya-aḫ-ḫu-un-wa-a[t-ta]

ii

1. A ii 1. nu-wa-za zi-ik LUGAL.GAL am-mu-uk-ma-wa-za LUGAL.TURRU

2. A ii. 2. nu-wa-an-na-aš e-ḫu A-NA DU EN-YA

3. A ii 3. Ù A-NA DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa GAŠAN-YA DI-eš-ni

4. A ii 4. ti-ya-u-e-ni nu-wa-za ma-a-an zi-ik DI-eš-na-za

5. A ii 5. ša-ra-az<-zi->iš nu-wa tu-uk ša-ra-az-zi-ya-aḫ-ḫa-an-du

6. A ii 6. ma-a-an-ma-wa-za am-mu-uk-ma DI-eš-na-za *ras*

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

8. A ii 8. ša-ra-az-zi-aḫ-ḫa-an-du

9. A ii 9 nu-wa A-NA DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa GAŠAN-YA ŠU-an

10. A ii 10. ša-ra-a e-ep-pu-un nu-mu DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa GAŠAN-YA

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

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

13. A ii 13. te-kán-na kat-kat-te-nu-ut nu-mu DIŠTAR URUŠa⸤-mu-ḫa⸥ [(GAŠAN-YA)]

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

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

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

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

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

19. A ii 19. na-aš-kán URUMa-ra-aš-ša-an-ti-ya-za ar-ḫa pár-aš-ta

20. A ii 20. na⸤-aš⸥ I-NA URUŠa-mu-ḫa an-da-an pa-it

21. A ii 21. am-mu-uk-ma-aš-ši EGIR-an-da pa-a-un GIM-an-ma

22. A ii 22. ⸤I-NA⸥ URUŠu-lu-up-pa ar-ḫu-un nu-uš-ši ENMEŠ ku-i-e-eš

23. A ii 23. EGIR-aš-ša UNMEŠ-uš kat-ta-an e-še-er

24. A ii 24. na-at-mu me-na-aḫ-ḫa-an-da ú-e-er nu-mu me-mi-er

25. A ii 25. pa-a-i-u-e-ni-wa-ra-an-kán ku-en-nu-um-mi32-e-ni

26. A ii 26. nu-wa-at-ta SAG.DU-an me-na-aḫ-ḫa-an-da

27. A ii 27. ú-tum-me-e-ni na-aš Ú-UL tar-na-aḫ-ḫu-un

28. A ii 28. na-an-kán Ú-UL ku-en-ner nu-uš-ši I-NA URUŠa-mu-ḫa

29. A ii 29. ú-ki-la kat-ta-an pa-a-un DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa-ma-za

30. A ii 30. GAŠAN-YA a-pí-ya-ya pa-ra-a ḫa-an-da-tar ti-ik-ku-u š-ša-nu-ut

31. A ii 31. nu-uš-ši kat-ta-an EGIR-an ku-e-da-ni me-e-ḫu-ni

32. A ii 32. ar-ḫu-un BÀD-eš-šar-ma ŠA IZ-ZI 4033 gi-pe-eš-šar

33. A ii 33. kat-ta ú-it a-pu-un-ma-kán DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa GAŠAN-YA

34. A ii 34. KU6-un GIM-an :ḫu-u-pa-la-za EGIR-pa iš-tap-ta

35. A ii 35. na-an iš-ḫi-ya-at na-an-mu pa-ra-a pé-eš-ta

36. A ii 36. na-an-kán kat-ta *eras.* ú-wa-te-nu-un

37. A ii 37. ⸤na-an-za-an-⸥kán a-pí-ya-ya ŠA ŠEŠ-YA

38. A ii. 38. [na-ak-ki-ya-]an-ni ḫa-an-da-aš da-aḫ-ḫu-un

39. A ii 39. [nu-uš-ši Ú-UL ku-i]t-ki i-ya-nu-un

40. A ii 40. [nu-mu DIŠTAR URUŠa-m]u-ḫa GAŠAN-YA ŠU-an e-ep-ta

41. A ii 41. [ šal-l]a-i34 pé-di

42. A ii 42. [ ] x

Rev.

iii

1’. A iii 1’. [ -an]⸤-na KUR URU⸥35[

2’. A iii 2’. KUR UR]UPa-la-a KUR URUTum[-ma-an-na]

3’. A iii 3’. [ku-e-da-n]i A-NA DUMU.NI[TA pé-]eḫ-ḫi ma-a-an A-NA L[Útuḫkanti (??)]36

4’. A iii 4’. ⸤ma-a-an⸥ da-me-e-da-ni ku-e-da-ni-ik-ki

5’. A iii 5’. ⸤A-⸥NA DUMU.NITA na-at A-NA DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa GAŠAN-Y[A]

6’. A iii 6’. :ar-kam-ma-na-al-la-a-ú-i nu-uš-ma-aš-kán ku-i[n]

7’. A iii 7’. ar-kam-ma-an ša-ra-a e-ep-mi

8’. A iii 8’. na-an A-NA DIŠTAR URUŠa[-m]u-ḫa GAŠAN-YA pé-e ḫar-⸤kán-zi⸥

9’. A iii 9’. nu ku-u-un ku-in DUMU-an AŠ-Š[UM LÚS(AN)]G A-UT-TIM

10’. A iii 10’. É-er-ra A-NA DIŠTAR [URUŠa-m]u-ḫa ÌR-an-ni [pé-eḫ-ḫu-]un37

11’. A iii 11’. na-at kat-ta DUMU-ŠÚ DUMU[.DU(MU-ŠU! ḫa-aš-)š]a ḫa-an-za-aš⸤-ša⸥ [ ]

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

13’. A iii 13’. A-NA DIŠTAR URUŠ[a-m]u-ḫa ⸤ḫar-du-pát ma-a-an [ ]x

14’. A iii 14’. [DUMU-Y]A DUMU.DUMU-YA ḫa-a[š-š]a ḫa-an⸤-za-⸥aš-ša-an an[-ze-el (?)]

15’. A iii 15’. [NUMUN Š]A ⸤DUMU.NITA Ú-UL⸥ [k]u-it-ki LÚSANGA-UT-TA [ ]

16’. A iii 16’. [A-N]A DIŠTAR URUŠ[a-m]u-ḫa ŠA DUMU.MUNUS-YA x!38 ḪA[-DA-NU ḫ]a-an-ti-iš (??)39

17’. A iii 17’. ḫar-du-pát da-a-ma-iš-ma-at NUMUN-an-za le-e e⸤-ep-zi⸥

18’. A iii 18’. DINGIRLUM da-me-el ⸤NUMUN-⸥aš pé-ra⸤-an⸥ EGIR-pa le-e

19’. A iii 19’. tar-na-a-i É-er-ra ku-it ⸤ŠA⸥ DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa

20’. A iii 20’. na-at-kán ⸤ša-aḫ-ḫa-⸥za [lu-u]z-zi⸤-ya-za⸥

21’. A iii 21’. ŠA EN KURTI E[L-KI] (?) ⸤ŠA⸥ (?) [ UD]U IGI.DU8.A UDUku-ut-ri

22’. A iii 22’. GIŠŠÀ.KAL-az GIŠB[U-BU-TI] GIŠwa-ar-ša-am-ma-za

23’. A iii 23’. IŠ-TU ŠE Ú IN.NU[.DA IŠ-TU IṢ-ṢI/ṢU40] ḫar-pa-al-li-ya-aš

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

25’. A iii 25’. IŠ-TU ÉRINMEŠ ⸤NA-⸥RA-R[I da-pí-a]n-da-za42 a-ra⸤-wa-aḫ-ḫa-an⸥

26’. A iii 26’. e-eš-du n[u-ká]n A-N[A DIŠTAR UR]UŠa-mu-⸤ḫa⸥

27’. A iii 27’. ⸤ša-aḫ-ḫa-ni⸥ lu-uz-z[i-ya l]e-e ku⸤-iš-⸥ki

28’. A iii 28’. ⸤ti-⸥ya-az-z[i ]

29’. A. iii 29’. UDU LÚMÁŠ.GAL ŠA DU[TU URUPÚ-na ku-i]š ar-kam-ma-aš

30’. A. iii 30’. na-an-kán A-NA DUTU URU[PÚ-na ar-ḫa-p]át pé-eš-ši-ya-nu-un

31’. A. iii. 31’. nu IŠ-TU 10 É ti[-it-ta-nu-wa-an-z]i

32’. A iii 32’. DUMU.NITA ku-in [A-NA] DIŠTAR URUŠa⸤-mu⸥<-ḫa>

33’. A iii 33’. AŠ-ŠUM LÚSANGA-UT[-TIM ] ti-it-ta<nu->mi43

34’. A iii 34’. nu-uš-ši ki-i ku⸤-it⸥ É-ir ka-ru-ú⸥ <ú->da-an

35’. A iii 35’. ma-a-an-na-aš-ši ⸤EGIR-⸥an-da DUTUŠI

36’. A iii 36’. IŠ-TU NAM.RAMEŠ pé-eḫ-ḫi na-aš-ma⸤-kán (?)⸥ IŠ-TU *eras.* EL-LI

37’. A iii 37’. pé-eḫ-ḫi na-aš-ma Ú-NU-TUM na-aš-ma TÚG-UŠ-TUM

38’. A iii 38’. pé-eḫ-ḫi nu⸤-uš-⸥ši ma-a-an L[Ú-aš ku-i]š-ki

39’. A iii 39’. ú-wa-a-i ⸤pé-e-da-⸥[i nu LÚSANGA-UT-TA (?)44] ar-ḫa da-an-na

40’. A iii 40’. ša-an-aḫ-zi

41’. A iii 41’. ku-iš-ma ŠA DUMU-YA [DUMU.DUMU-YA ḫa-aš-ša] ḫa-an-za-aš-ša

42’. A iii 42’. LÚSANGA-UT-TA ŠA D[IŠTAR] URUŠa-mu-ḫa

43’. A iii 43’. ⸤ḫu-ul-la-a-⸥i nu da-me-e[l] NUMUN-aš

iv.

1’. B iv 1’. kat-ta x[

2’. B iv 2’. mi-ya-tar [ ] x x [

3’. B iv 3’. :u-ša-an da-at-[ta(-)

4’. B. iv 4’. IGIḪI.A kat-ta i-ya-at/d-x[

5’. B. iv 5’. tar-ḫu-i-li-iš!45 DIŠTAR URUŠa-m[u-ḫa

6’. B. iv 6’. ku-iš-ma ke-e A-WA-TEMEŠ pa-aḫ-ša-ri [ ]

7’. B iv 7’. nu DUMU-YA DUMU.DUMU-YA ḫa-aš⸤-ša⸥ ḫa-an-za-aš-ša

8’. B iv 8’. [ka]t-ta NUMUN-YA46 IŠ-TU LÚSANGA-UT-TI

9’. B iv 9’. ⸤ŠA⸥ DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa Ú-UL ti-i[d-da-nu-zi]47

10’. B iv 10’. É-ir-ma ša-aḫ-ḫa-ni

11’. B iv 11’. lu-uz-zi Ú-UL ti-id-da-nu-zi

12’. B iv 12’. na-an-za-an DIŠTAR URUŠa-mu-ḫa GAŠAN-YA

13’. B iv 13’. pí-ra-an EGIR-pa tar-na-a-ú

14’. B iv 14’. nu-uš-ši-kán NINDA.KUR4.RA iš-pa-an-du-zi

15’. B iv 15’. ŠU-az ar-ḫa da-a-ú KUR.KURMEŠ⸤ -ma-aš-ši⸥

16’ B. iv 16’. IŠ-TU DUMU A-MI-LU-UT-TI-ya48 i[š-

17’. B. iv 17’. nu-za-kán ŠA LUGAL GIŠku-ra-k[i-iš (?)

18’. B iv 18’. aš-šu-li ḫa-aš-ši[-ik-du]

Obv.

i

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

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

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

4. descendant of Ḫattušili king of Kuššar,

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

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

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

8. from my father, and my father

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

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

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

12. my Lady, gave me the means,

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

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

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

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

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

18. the priest of Šaušga, and

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

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

21. assigned her to me in a dream.51

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

23. Muwatalli sat on the throne of his father,

24. but I started administering the lands for him,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

39’ and transfer[red] them to Hattuša.

40. And he [was hostile] towards me,

41. and tri[ed] to diminish me,

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

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

45. he took even them away from me,

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

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

48. [ ] . . . [

…………….

49’ a]wa[y

50’ ] . . . [

51’ agai]nst bec[ame] hostile [

52’ ] . : “I waged war against y[ou

ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. and Šaušga of Šamuḫa, my Lady,

11. helped me and

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

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

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

15. ‘Let you take my side!,’ they took my side,

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

17. precisely all of them were on my side.

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

19. he fled from Maraššantiya

20. and went into Šamuḫa.

21. I pursued him, but as soon as

22. I came to Šuluppa, the lords

23. and the lower rank58 men who were with him

24. came in front of me and said:

25. ‘We will go and kill him

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

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

28. thus they did not kill him, instead

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

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

31’. and right at the time when

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40. [And Šaušga of Šam]uḫa, my Lady, took [my] hand

41. [ in the gre]at(est) position

iii

1’. ] . the land of [

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

4’. or any other

5’.-6’. son, I’ll make them (= these lands) tribute-bearing to Šaušga of Šamuḫa, my Lady, and

7’. any tribute that I’ll take from them,

8’ it shall be given to Šaušga of Šamuḫa, my Lady.

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

10’. with60 the household (which) I [gav]e to serve Šaušga of Šamuḫa,

11’. his son, [his grand]son, [(all his) pr]ogeny,

12’.-13’. my seed, shall keep holding the office of [priest] of Šaušga of Š[am]uḫa, if [ ].

14’. there is no [son] of [mi]ne, grandson of mine, (any) progeny (who is)

15’. o[ur] seed in the male line,

16’. [his fore]most son in law (?)61 shall keep holding the office of priest of Šaušga of Š[am]uḫa,

17’. and let no other descendant take it,

18’. may the deity not allow (one) of another seed free access (to her),62

19’. and the household which (is) of Šaušga of Šamuḫa

20’. from the šaḫḫan and [lu]zzi levies

21’. from the ILKU-obligation (in favour of) the ‘Lord of the land,’ from (?) [ ] the provision of she]ep, kutri-sheep,

22’. wo[od] for chariots (?),63 from firewood,

23’. from cereals, grass, stra[w, from wood] for wooden piles,

24’. trained horses,64 from [construct]ion works,

25’. from auxiliary troops, from all (impositions) (shall be) freed,

26’-28’. and let no one appear befo[re Šaušga] of Šamuḫa for (any imposition of) šaḫḫan and luzzi.65

29’. The sheep, [wh]ich is the tribute of the goat-herd for the Sungod[des of Arinna],

30’. I have given it up for the Sungoddess of [Arinna],

31’. and it shall be t[aken] from ten households.

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

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

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

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

37’. or I give either equipment or clothing,

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

40’.-42’. whoever opposes (the claim) of my son, [grandson, my all] (my) [pro]geny,

to the office of priest of Š[aušga] of Šamuḫa

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

iv

1’.-4’. Fragmentary

5’ the power of Šaušga of Šam[uḫa

6’. But67 whoever keeps these words

7’.-9’. and does not re[move] my son, my grandson, all (my) progeny, my seed, from the office of priest of Šaušga of Šamuḫa,

10’.-11’. and does not make the household (of the goddess) stand (liable) for šaḫḫan and luzzi,68

12’. may Šaušga of Šamuḫa, my Lady,

13’. allow him free (cultic) access,

14’.-15’. and may she accept from (his) hand bread and libations,69 the lands to him

16’. from (any) human being .[

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

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

References

Archi A. 1971, The propaganda of Ḫattušili III, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 14: 185-213.

Beal R. 1992, The Organisation of the Hittite Military, Texte der Hethiter 20, Heidelberg, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Beckman G. 1999, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, SBL Writings from the Ancient World 7, Atlanta, Scholars Press.

Beckman G. 2016, Hattušili III Between Gods and Men, in S. Erkut, Ö. Sir Gavaz (eds), Studies in Honour of Ahmet Ünal, Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari: 69-74.

Cammarosano M. 2010, Tanuḫepa: a Hittite Queen in Troubled Times, Mesopotamia 45: 47-64.

Corti C. 2006, Ḫattušili III e la gestione del culto nella città santa di Nerik (I), in C. Mora, P. Piacentini (eds), L’ufficio e il documento, Milano, Cisalpino: 313-329.

Corti C. 2017, The North: Hanhana, Hattena, Ištahar, Hakpiš, Nerik, Zalpuwa, Tummana, Pala and Hulana River Land, in M. Weeden, L.Z. Ullmann (eds), Hittite Landscape and Geography, Handbook of Oriental Studies 1/121, Leiden – Boston, Brill: 219-238.

de Martino S. in press a, Some Observations on the Hittite Decree KBo 6.29+, in a Festschrift.

de Martino S. in press b, The Decree Issued by Hattusili III for the NA4ḫekur Pirwa (KBo 6.28 + KUB 26.48), in a Festschrift.

Gilan A. 2019, “Now See How the Mighty Storm-God my Lord is Running Before Me”: Revelation of Divine Power in Hittite Historiography, in St. Anthonioz, A. Mouton, D. Petit (eds.), When Gods Speak to Men, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 289, Leuven – Paris – Bristol, Peeters: 33-47.

Gilan A. 2022, “Šawoška of Šamuḫa, My Lady, caught him like a fish with a net”, in L. Portuese, M. Pallavidini (eds.), Ancient Near Eastern Weltanschauungen in Contact and in Contrast. Rethinking Ideology and Propaganda in the Ancient Near East, wEdge 2, Münster: Zaphon: 289-307.

Giorgieri M. 2020, The Dynastic Crisis of the Hittite Royal Family in the Late Empire Period: Evidence from the Loyalty Oaths, in S. de Martino, E. Devecchi (eds), Anatolia Between the 13th and the 12th Century BCE, Eothen 23, Firenze, LoGisma: 155-175.

Götze A. 1925, Ḫattusilis. Der Bericht über seine Thronbesteigung nebst den Paralleltexten, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft 29.3, Leipzig, Hinrichs.

Götze A. 1930, Neue Bruckstücke zum grossen Text des Hattušilis und den Parallelentexten, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft 34.2, Leipzig, Hinrichs.

Groddek D. 2008, Hethitische Texte in Transkription KBo 50, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 28, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

Hawkins J.D. 2001, Urḫi-Tešub, tuḫkanti, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongress für Hethitologie Würzburg, 4.-8. Oktober 1999, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 45, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 167-179.

Herbordt S. 2005, Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 19, Mainz, Philipp von Zabern.

Imparati F. 1974, Una concessione di terre da parte di Tuthaliya IV, Revue Hittite et Asianique 32: 1-209.

Imparati F. 1995, Apology of Ḫattušili III or Designation of his Successor?, in Th. van den Hout, J. de Roos (eds), Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Publications de l’Institut historique-archeologique neerlandais de Stamboul 74, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 143-157.

Jablonka P. 2006, Leben ausserhalb der Burg – der Unterstadt von Troia, in M.O. Korfmann (ed.), Troia, Mainz, Philipp von Zabern: 167-180.

Knapp A. 2015, The Meaning and Significance of Hittite ḫūiḫuššuwali-, Nouvelles Assyriologique Brèves et Utilitaires 2015/3: 117-120.

Klinger G. 2017, Die Entwicklung von Herrschergenealogien bei den hethitischen Grosskönigen, in A.-B. Renger, M. Witte (eds), Sukzession in Religionen, Berlin – Boston, De Gruyter: 55-84.

Klinger G. 2022, The Hittite Writing Traditions of Cuneiform Documents, in S. de Martino (ed.), Handbook Hittite Empire. Empires through the Ages in Global Perspective 1, Berlin – Boston, De Gruyter: 93-154.

Kloekhorst A. 2008, Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 5, Leiden – Boston, Brill.

Kryszeń A. 2016, A Historical Geography of the Hittite Heartland, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 437, Münster, Ugarit Verlag.

Kühne C., Otten H. 1971, Der Šaušgamuwa-Vertrag, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 16, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

Liverani M. 1990, Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600-1100 B.C., History of the Ancient Near East Studies 1, Padova, Sargon.

Mouton A. 2007, Rêves hittites, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 28, Leiden – Boston, Brill.

Oettinger N. 2006, Pronominaladjektive in frühen indogermanischen Sprachen, in R. Bombi, G. Cifoletti, F. Fusco, L. Innocente, V. Orioles (eds), Studi Linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani, Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso: 1327-1335.

Otten H. 1981, Die Apologie Hattusilis III, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 24, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

Otten H., Rüster Chr. 1973, Textanschlüsse von Boğazköy-Tafeln (21-30), Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 63: 83-91.

Schachner A. 2022, Building for king and Country: Architecture as a Symbol of the Hittite Empire, in S. de Martino (ed.), Handbook Hittite Empire, Empires through the Ages in Global Perspective 1, Berlin – Boston, De Gruyter: 421-466.

Singer I. 2001, The Fate of Hattusa during the Period of Tarhuntassa’s Supremacy, in Th. Richter, D. Prechel, J. Klinger (eds), Kulturgeschichten. Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, Saarbrücken, Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag: 395-403.

Singer I. 2002, Danuḫepa and Kurunta, in S. de Martino, F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds), Anatolia Antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati, Eothen 11, Firenze, LoGisma: 739-751.

Singer I. 2006, The failed reforms of Akhenaten and Muwatalli, British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 6: 37-58.

Weeden M. 2011, Hittite Logograms and Hittite Scholarship, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 54, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

1 See Groddek 2008: 50 n. 49.

2 See Klinger 2022: 141.

3 Differently, see Beckman 2016: 72.

4 See Klinger 2017: 71.

5 See de Martino in press a.

6 On these place names see Corti 2017: 220-224.

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

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

9 See n. 53.

10 See CHD P: 17.

11 See Kühne, Otten 1971: 10-11; Beckman 1999: 105.

12 See Singer 2001.

13 See Beckman 1999: 76.

14 See Archi 1971: 203-208; Giorgieri 2020: 159-160.

15 See Liverani 1990: 155-156.

16 See Gilan 2019: 33.

17 See Schachner 2022: 444.

18 See Jablonka 2006: 172-174.

19 See n. 39.

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

21 On the NARĀRU-troops see Beal 1992: 56-71.

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

23 See Groddek 2008: 48.

24 See Weeden 2011: 137 n. 595.

25 Differently, Mouton 2007: 92: GÉMELIM!.

26 B i 1’: [ma-ni-y]a-aḫ-ḫi-iš[-ki-nu-un.

27 B i 4’: URU DU-aš-ša-an.

28 B i 8’: the gloss wedge comes before the word ḫa-an-da-aš.

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

30 See CHD L-N 3: 277.

31 See Götze 1930: 46.

32 B ii 26’: -me-.

33 So Weeden 2011: 182.

34 We may confront this passage with Ḫattušili III’s ‘Apology’ iv 65, Otten 1981: 28.

35 See Götze 1930: 48

36 In the duplicate text a line seems to have been omitted here, see Groddek 2008: 50 n. 149.

37 The restoration follows the passage in the ‘Apology’ iv 76-76; instead Groddek (2008: 51) restores [te-eḫ-ḫ ]u-un in the duplicate text.

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

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

40 See KUB 26.58 obv. 11; see HW2 III Ḫ/15: 336.

41 The scribe has written: ú-e-t]um-mar.

42 On dapiant- see Oettinger 2006: 1331.

43 See CHD Š 1: 200.

44 See Götze 1930: 50.

45 So according to the photo, in the copy: -uš.

46 Diversely Groddek (2008: 50) reads: ŠEŠ-YA.

47 So Otten, Rüster 1973: 85.

48 See Weeden 2011: 469.

49 See CHD P/2: 123.

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

51 See CHD P/2: 185.

52 See Singer 2006: 42.

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

54 See CHD L-N 4: 370.

55 See CHD Š 1: 20

56 See CHD Š 2: 249.

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

58 Differently Weeden 2011: 480, on the expression EGIR-aš-ša: ‘last men.’

59 See CHD L-N 2: 101.

60 Literally: ‘and.’

61 For the Akkadian word ḫatanu in the Hittite texts see Weeden 2011: 507.

62 See CHD P 3: 306.

63 See Weeden 2011: 183-184.

64 Literally: ‘horses of turning.’

65 See CHD L-N 1: 91.

66 See CHD Š 1: 200.

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

68 See CHD L-N 1: 91.

69 See CHD P 3: 306.