We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The ritual text published by H. Otten as K.U.B. XXXVI 89 + 88 is of great interest both for its linguistic and lexicographical difficulties and for the religious importance of the myth which it contains. This myth is concerned with the Weather-god of Nerik, and although the state of the tablet is too poor for a complete reconstruction to be made, the mutilated fragment that remains bears a striking resemblance to the well-known Telipinus-myth. It begins (obv. 12) with the withdrawal of the Weather-god in anger.
Abbreviations are as on page iii of the cover, or in Larochc, Recueil d'Onomastiqtu Hittite (1951), pp. 9-12. Other abbreviations are as follows:—
Chrestomathy E. H. Sturtevant and George Bechtel, A Hittite Chrestomathy (1935).
Gr2E. H. Sturtevant and E. A. Hahn, A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language, Revised Edition (1951).
HG C. G. von Brandenstein, “Hethitische Götter nach Bildbeschreibungen in Keilschrifttexten”, MVAeG. XLVI (2) (1943).
Hitt. Holger Pedersen, Hittitisch und die anderen indo-europäischen Sprachen (1938).
HuH F. Sommer, Hethiter und Hethitisch (1947).
HW J. Friedrich, Hethitisches Wörterbuch (1952).
RH G. Furlani, La Religione degli Hittiti (1936).
1 Cf. Otten, , KUB. XXXVI, p. iiiGoogle Scholar. Text KUB. XVII, 10, etc.Google Scholar, cf. Otten, : Die Ueberlieferungen des Telipinu-mythus (MVAG. 46.1), 1942Google Scholar.
1a Sign GÍŠ+U, taken by Forrer, (1BoTU. 20Google Scholar, note on sign 202) as “Ner” (600), but by Alp, Sedat (Beamtennamen, 25 n. 6Google Scholar) and Riemschncider, K. (Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung VI, 355, n. 129Google Scholar) as 60 + 10, i.e. 70. The title LÚ.GÍŠ + U is evidently a variant of UGULA. GÍŠ + U, which occurs in KBo V, 7 rev. 54Google Scholar.
2 Forrer in Kretschmer, , KlF. I, p. 3102Google Scholar: Friedrich in Porzig, , KlF. I, p. 3823Google Scholar.
3 a-ku-ṷa-ku-ṷa-aš, giving Bo. 2738 as reference. Friedrich (HW. sub. voc.) cannot trace the example.
4 HAB. 99.
5 Sturtevant, , Gr2 § 96Google Scholar.
6 XVII 5, i, 6.
7 Laroche, , RHA. 46, p. 26Google Scholar.
8 Cf. Tenner, , ZA. NF. 4, pp. 186–90Google Scholar. For this deity as a goddess cf. Otten, , ZA. NF. 12 p. 220Google Scholar, n. 1: JCS. 4, p. 120Google Scholar, n. 7, i.e. ták-na-aš DUTU-uš GAŠAN-
.
9 HW. sub voc. Cf. Forrer, : Glotta Bd. 26 (1938), pp. 178–202Google Scholar.
10 “On Lykaion, the mountain of Zeus in Arcadia, there was a well called Hagno. When there was a drought, the priest of Zeus went to the well, dipped a twig into its waters, and stirred them up. At once a mist was seen to rise from the well; it thickened into a cloud, and there was rain all over Arcadia. The rite is the simplest possible example of ordinary rain-magic; but it is performed by the priest of Zeus, and is accompanied by a sacrifice; religion has taken it in hand.” (Nilsson, : History of Greek Religion (1925), p. 90Google Scholar.)
11 Most recently by Rutten, in Histoire Generale des Religions 4, p. 93Google Scholar: Moscati, in Il Profilo dell'Oriente Mediterraneo, p. 173Google Scholar; Gaster, in Thespis (1950), p. 357Google Scholar; Cavaignac, in Les Hittites (1950), p. 22Google Scholar; Contenau, in La Civilisation des Hittites (1948), p. 122Google Scholar. It is interesting to note how Gaster's interpretation has led him astray. “The trees,” he says on page 353, “are denuded of leaves, and the springs are frozen over (lit. dried up)”. It is clear that the text means exactly what it says; there is no question of “freezing over”.
12 The idea that gods of the Attis-Adonis type are in fact gods of vegetation is deep rooted and, for the historical period at least, almost certainly correct. But there are indications that in origin they too have close connections with underground waters. I hope in a later article to discuss the Sumerian Dumuzi. It is surprising, to say the least, that he is in Sumerian times a shepherd-god and the implacable opponent of the farmer-god. This seems scarcely to indicate a god of vegetation. The myth of his Syrian counterpart Adonis is associated with a river of the same name, which “rushes from a cavern at the foot of a mighty amphitheatre of towering cliffs”. (Frazer: The Golden Bough, chapter XXX.) Again we may quote from Frazer (chapter XXXVI) the story of Marsyas. “He was said to be a Phrygian satyr of Silenus, according to others a shepherd or herdsman, who played sweetly on the flute. A friend of Cybele, he roamed the country with the disconsolate goddess to soothe her grief for the death of Attis. The composition of the Mother's Air, a tune played on the flute in honour of the Great Mother Goddess, was attributed to him by the people of Celaenae in Phrygia. Vain of his skill, he challenged Apollo to a musical contest, he to play on the flute and Apollo on the lyre. Being vanquished, Marsyas was tied up to a pine tree and flayed or cut limb from limb either by the victorious Apollo or by a Scythian slave. His skin was shown at Celaenae in historical times. It hung at the foot of the citadel in a cave from which the River Marsyas rushed with an inpetuous and noisy tide to join the Maeander. So the Adonis bursts full-born from the precipices of the Lebanon; so the blue river of Ibreez leaps in a crystal jet from the red rocks of the Taurus; so the stream which now rumbles deep underground, used to gleam for a moment on its passage from darkness to darkness in the dim light of the Corycian cave. In all these copious fountains, with their glad promise of fertility and life, men of old saw the hand of god and worshipped him beside the rushing river with the music of its tumbling waters in their ears.” Or rather one would say that they worshipped the water itself as the symbol of the abundance and fecundity which was the partner and offspring of the earth.
Again we find the intimate connection with underground waters. And here too the skin of Marsyas bears a striking resemblace to that hung before Telipinus in his ritual. Another link between that deity and the waters of the earth? Frazer would have denied this. But in his interpretation of these deities as tree and corn spirits he constantly minimises their connection with water, any reference to it being arbitrarily dismissed as a “charm to promote rain”. One must ask how the casting of the body of a deity into a river, or the hanging of his skin beside an underground source, can be regarded as a rain charm.
13 Already stressed by Gurney, , The Hittites (1954), pp. 188–9Google Scholar.
14 An equation with the Weather-god of Heaven has already been suggested by Von Brandenstein, (HG., PP. 72–3Google Scholar). This is rejected by Laroche, (RHA. 46, pp. 34, 109)Google Scholar on the grounds that an obviously chthonic deity like Telipinus cannot be a “Weather-god”. On the contrary it is, as shown above, perfectly possible and natural that this should be so.
15 These Hattian water deities, although in Hittie times they bore the Sumerian ideogram IM, in reality have a striking resemblance to an entirely different Sumerian god, Enki, lord of the sweet waters. He is well described by Jacobsen, Thorkild in Before Philosophy (1949), p. 159Google Scholar, where due stress is placed on the active role of water. “The earth…was immobile; here is the passive productivity, fertility. Water, on the other hand,… typifies active productivity, conscious thought creativity”. This is exactly the distinction in Hattian times between goddesses like Wurusemu and gods like Telipinus, and raises again the much discussed question of “Asianic” religion. Is there, for instance, any connection between EN.KI “Lord of the Earth” and Wurunkatte, whose name is ususally translated “King of the Land”, but may well be “King of the Earth”? He is equated with Zababa and thus presumably has warlike functions, but he is associated with the Weather-god of Nerik, and this with his name suggests that he too may be connected with the creative power of water. An interesting Cappadocian seal discussed by Dussaud, (La Lydie et ses Voisins (1930), p. 118Google Scholar) shows a water-producing ceremony in which the central figure is Enki, flanked by Adad and a god, presumably local, who clutches a spear. From the arrangement of the seal it may be inferred that this deity is a storm-god like Adad, but the central position of Enki suggests that the water is conceived as coming from the earth rather than from the sky. Have we here a contemporary example of the syncretism which united the Hattian water-god and the Hittite storm-god into a single figure?
It must be noted that the local god's spear is for sacrifice, and that the seal also shows the slaying of a hanging animal. Is this water-sacrifice like that which obviously lies behind the hanging skin of Marsyas? And are the human victims examples of Frazer's “divine king”?
16 Otten, : Tel.M., pp. 63–4Google Scholar.
17 The sign wu u is used exclusively in texts in the Hattian and Hurrain languages.
18 e.g. ṷaranu and uranu (Fr. Heth.El., § 17a): cf. na-a-ṷi and na-a-ú-i (Pedersen, , Hitt., p. 7Google Scholar): cf. also Wašḫaniya and Ušḫaniya in Cappadocian texts (Finkelstein, , JCS. X 3 (1956), p. 104Google Scholar).
19 Laroche, op. cit., p. 39.
20 ibid.
21 Fr. Heth.El., § 24.
22 Laroche, p. 23.
23 M.Spr. 35, n. 1.
24 HW. sub voc.
25 RA. XLI (1947), p. 73Google Scholar.
26 XXVIII, 6, obv. 12. Forrer, , ZDMG. NF.1 (1922), p. 239Google Scholar. Friedrich, : Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler (1932), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 cf. Otten, , JCS. 4 (1950), p. 135Google Scholar.
28 JCS. 4 (1950), pp. 119–136Google Scholar
29 Otten, op. cit., p. 135.
30 A difficulty in this explanation is that here (obv. 3) Ereshkigal and Wurusemu seem to be expressly distinguished. The Sun-goddess of Arinna appears in the text as mother of the Weather-god of Nerik and in view of KUB. XXXVI, 90, 11 sqq.Google Scholar, so obviously parallel to this passage, it can be assumed that Ereshkigal and the Sun-goddess of Arinna are here identical. But as shown above, each of these names refers to a Hattian earth-goddess, either equal or equivalent to Wurusemu. The answer to this problem must, I think, be that by the time of this text the original identity of the Sun-goddess of Arinna had been forgotten. She had by this time gained so many solar characteristics (Güterbock, in Ferm: Forgotten Religions (1949), p. 90Google Scholar) that although her name could still be represented by the ideogram EREŠ.KI.GAL, her identity with Wurusemu was no longer recognised. The Hittite priests of Nerik, finding in the present myth both Wurusemu and Ereshkigal ( = the Sun-goddess of Arinna) failed to see that they were variants for the same goddess and in their offerings (this is the only place in the texts where the names are expressly distinguished) made sacrifice to both.
31 Her very name may again be connected with Hattian wur “earth”.
32 RH., p. 29: cf. Delaporte, in Histoire Generale des Religions I, p. 352Google Scholar.
33 cf. note 8.
34 In Ferm: Forgotten Religions, p. 90.
35 LAAA. XXVII (1940), pp. 9 sqqGoogle Scholar. Furlani, , RH, p. 31Google Scholar.
36 Zuntz, : Un Testo Ittito di Scongiuri (1937Google Scholar).
37 ZA. NF. 4, p. 189Google Scholar.
38 Bibl. Or. X (1953), p. 81Google Scholar.
39 AS. VI, pp. 53–4Google Scholar.
40 ibid.
41 References ibid., p. 54, n. 3.
42 ibid. p. 54, n. 4.
43 VBoT 58, i, 29–30Google Scholar.
44 Otten, op. cit. passim.
45 Op. cit. p. 135.
46 Op. cit. p. 127.
47 Op. cit. pp. 128–9.
48 KBo. II, 5, iii, 13 sqqGoogle Scholar. Götze, , AM. pp. 188 sqq.Google Scholar
49 Otten, op. cit. pp. 130–1.
50 This, of course, cannot be absolutely certain. The Weather-god of Heaven appears already in the Anittas text, which is generally taken to be pre-Indo-European. But this may be a different Hattian weather-god. My argument is not that the pre-Hittites had no Weather-god of Heaven, but that the Weather-god of Heaven was in the Hittite period a god whose qualities and attributes were remarkably Indo-European, and uncharacteristic of what is known of the earlier religion.
51 Gaster, : Thespis, pp. 334–5Google Scholar.
52 Laroche, p. 109, etc.
53 Güterbock, : Kum., p. 96, n. 22Google Scholar.
54 Friedrich, HW. sub voc. Pedersen, , Hitt., § 51Google Scholar.
55 The fact that the word for god is spelt siunis or siunas, but never siunnas, need not invalidate this suggestion, as neither the name nor the word is spelled out often enough to make its correct spelling more than speculative.
56 Before Philosophy, p. 148.
57 It may also be asked if any material relic of Hattian spring-cult remains. The Hittite spring-sanctuaries of Eflâtun Pınar and Mt. Sipylus have already (p. 178) been mentioned, but of Hattian cult-shrines very little is known. The most important archaeological documents for pre-Hittite religion are the graves at Alaca Hüyük, with their famous standards. These are commonly regarded, with complete lack of evidence and probability, as sun-symbols, because their general shape is round. The fact that the circle can enclose a bull or stag is obviously of much greater importance. The former animal is well known from the Imperial sculptures at Alaca as a symbol for the Weather-god, and if its occurrence also in the pre-Hittite layers indicates that in this period too it is the Weather-god's animal, then we may assume that it is the pre-Hittite “Weather-god”, i.e. the god of underground waters and vital creativity, who is represented by the bull-standards at Alaca. Bulls are a common river- or water-symbol (it is, for instance, in the form of a bull or bull-headed man that Greek rivers often appear) and if this is the case, it is at least possible that the bull enclosed by the circle symbolises the god emerging from his natural habitat, i.e. a hatteššar or spring. Such symbols of life and vitality would be entirely appropriate in these elaborate graves, which indicate an obvious belief in the after-life.
Burney, C. A. (AS. VIII, p. 218Google Scholar, and Pl. XXXIV) has recently published a rock relief, probably of the Early Iron Age, which depicts the well-known “god on the stag”. This relief is in an inaccessible position “high up on a cliff overlooking the winding gorge of the Karasu”, and in this is very similar to other Anatolian reliefs above and presumably connected with water. This connection between stags and water may link the stag-symbolism of the Alaca discs with the same religious conception as that which lies behind the bull-symbolism.
58 E.g. Götze, , Kleinasien (2nd ed.), p. 93Google Scholar; Gurney, , The Hittites, p. 66Google Scholar.
59 Kleinasien (1st ed.), p. 87.
60 For abundant evidence of this type of succession see Frazer, Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship, especially Lecture VIII.
61 Herodotus I, 173.
62 E.g. Bellerophon (Homer, , Iliad VI, 144–195Google Scholar).
63 KUB. XIV 7 + XXI 19Google Scholar.
64 HAB. 20–29.
65 For T/L variation cf. Sommer, pp. 21–26.
66 So in XXXVI 89, etc.
67 Ugaritica III (1956), pp. 100–101Google Scholar
68 Cf. Sommer, , HuH. 92Google Scholar. If this is true of tabarna it is presumably true also of the closely linked tawananna.
69 E.g. Sturtevant, , Chrestomathy 172, 194 sqq.Google Scholar
70 HAB., 26 n. 2.
71 ibid.
72 It can then be assumed that tapar- is a later verb-information from tabarna, with meaning based on the ruling functions of the “husband”.
73 Cf. Gurney, , The Hittites, p. 63Google Scholar.
74 HAB. III, 41–45Google Scholar.
75 Gurney, p. 31.
76 Sturtevant, , Chrestomathy, pp. 175–200Google Scholar.
77 Otten, , MDOG. 83, 47–71Google Scholar.
78 Friedrich, , SV., pp 51–2Google Scholar.
79 Güterbock, , SBo. I, pp. 47–55Google Scholar.
80 Sturtevant, , Chrestomathy, pp. 182–3Google Scholar.
81 Cf. Note 78.
82 Text “A”, line 2; Text “B”, line 4.
83 Cf. Forrer, 2BoTU. VI–VII; Gurney, , The Hittites, p. 216, etc.Google Scholar
84 HAB., pp. 13, 15.
85 Gurney, , The Hitties, p. 172Google Scholar.
86 HAB., 164.
87 HAB., 32.
88 Cf. Laroche, , JCS. I, 187 sqq.Google Scholar
89 Text “B”, 3–4.
90 Forschungen 11, i, p.1Google Scholar.
91 AU. 300.
92 RHA. 11, pp. 98–9Google Scholar
93 Ugaritica III (1956), 1–8, 98–103 and Pl. IGoogle Scholar.
94 KBO. IV, 8, ii, 13–15Google Scholar. For translation cf. Cavaignac, , RHA. 12, pp. 157–8Google Scholar, n. 12.
95 XIV 7 + XXI 19
96 XXI 19, i, 21.
97 XXI 19, i, 23.
98 Gurney, , The Hittites, p. 141Google Scholar, and ap. Hooke, S. H. (ed.), Myth, Ritual and Kingship, pp. 120–121Google Scholar
99 XIV 7, i, 16 sqq.
100 SBO I, p. 13Google Scholar.
101 AU., p. 130.
102 KBO. VI, 28, obv. 4Google Scholar.
103 XXV 14: see above, p. 185
104 So already Goetze, , Kleinasien (2nd ed.), p.95Google Scholar.
105 Although the queen was still tawanannas after the death of her husband.
106 Cf. n. 67.
107 Friedrich, HW. sub voc.
108 Laroche, , RA. 41, p. 78Google Scholar.
109 ZA. NF. 2, p. 318Google Scholar.
110 I am indebted to Dr. O. R. Gurney for this valuable suggestion.
111 Laroche, , RHA. 46, p. 41Google Scholar, JCS. I, p. 201Google Scholar.
112 p. 176 and notes 19–21, 23–25.
113 Ehelolf, , ZA. NF. 2, p. 318Google Scholar.
114 It must be understood that the terms “earlier” and “later” refer only to arrivals in the Hittite homeland area (roughly that inside the Halys bend), and not to invasions of Anatolia itself, where Mellaart has clearly shown that the Luwians, were first to arrive (AJA. 62 (1958), pp. 9–33Google Scholar).
115 A sidelight on the way in which the Hittite king took over the functions which were originally those of the queen can be observed in the passage of the Apology of Hattusilis (IV 14–15) where it is revealed to Queen Puduhepa in a dream by Ishtar of Samuha that “I will make your husband priest of the Sun-goddess of Arinna”. From the context this statement obviously means that she will make Hattusilis king. In other words, this office was an essential part of the kingship. From the evidence detailed above, it is likely that this was the office originally held by the queen of Hatti. After her marriage to the conquering invader (a marriage represented among the gods by the wedding of the Sun-goddess of Arinna to the Weather-god of Heaven), this office, by virtue of which she ruled Hatti, was transferred to the king. But the tradition of the queen as priestess—or possibly, to judge from her name, as incarnation of deity on earth (is salAMA.DINGIRIlim, despite the Accadian genitive ending, to be translated “mother-goddess”, rather than “mother of god”?)—lingered on in her title of tawanannas.
116 Mellaart, J. in AJA. 62 (1958), p. 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar, convincingly places the arrival of the Hittites at the end of the Kültepe II period c. 1900 B.C.
